28

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

3.1. Building Information

The proposed RCC reinforced concrete structure is Intermediate Moment-
Resisting Frame (Special Occupancy Structure). It is twelve-storeyed reinforced
concrete building. The typical floor and the elevation plan are shown in Figure 3.1
and 3.2.a to 3.2.i.

Figure 3.1 3D-View of Proposed Building

Type of structure : twelve-storeyed RCC building
Location : Seismic zone-2B, Yangon.
Type of occupancy : Residential
 29

1
Size of building : Length = 104ft -11 in
2
1
Width = 59ft - in
2
Height of building : Typical storey height = 12ft
1st to 2nd Floor = 14ft
8th to 9th Floor = 16ft
Roof-1 to Roof-2 = 9ft
Bottom storey height = 12ft
Total height = 147ft (above ground level)
Material properties used for proposed building are as follows;
Weight per unit volume of concrete = 150pcf
For Columns, Piles, Pile Caps & Walls,
Compressive strength of concrete, fc’ = 5.075ksi (Grade 35)
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 4060.635ksi
For Beams & Others,
Compressive strength of concrete, fc’ = 4.350ksi (Grade 30)
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 3759.41ksi
Yield strength of reinforcing steel, fy = 50ksi
Poisson’s ratio = 0.2
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 5.5x10-6 in/in per °F
 30

Figure 3.2.a. Typical Ground Floor Plan of Proposed Building

Figure 3.2.b. Typical Mezzanine Floor Plan of Proposed Building

 31

Figure 3.2.c. Typical Second Floor Plan of Proposed Building

Figure 3.2.d. Typical Third Floor Plan of Proposed Building

 32

Figure 3.2.e. Typical Fourth to Sixth Floor Plan of Proposed

Building

Figure 3.2.f. Typical Seventh Floor Plan of Proposed Building

 33

Figure 3.2.g. Typical Eighth Floor Plan of Proposed Building

Figure 3.2.h. Typical Ninth Floor Plan of Proposed Building

 34

Figure 3.2.i. Typical Roof Floor Plan of Proposed Building

3.2. Loading
For the proposed building, gravity loads, wind loads and earthquake loads are
considered according to the UBC-97, MNBC & ASCE 7-05 specifications. These
loads are shown in detail as follows:

3.2.1. Gravity Loads

Data for dead loads are as follows:
Unit weight of concrete = 150 pcf
1
4 2 inches thick brick wall weight = 50 psf
9 inches thick brick wall weight = 100 psf
Weight of glass area = 8 psf
Superimposed dead load = 30 psf
Weight of each elevator = 4.13 tons (P10)
For Swimming Pool,
Water weight = 281 psf (considered 4.5ft height)
Finishing load = 4.15 psf (water proofing 1.5psf)
Data for live loads are as follows:
Live load on residential area = 40 psf
Live load on stair-case = 100 psf
Public rooms and corridors = 100 psf
serving them
Live load for elevator machine room = 150 psf
Live load on Kitchen room = 150 psf
Stores,
First Floor = 100 psf
Upper Floor = 75 psf
Office use = 50 psf
Computer use = 100psf
Reading room = 60 psf
Live load on roof,
 35

Ordinary flat, pitched and cured roof = 20 psf

Roofs used for promenade purposes = 60 psf

3.2.2. Wind Loads

Data for wind load are as follows:

Exposure type = Type –B
Basic wind velocity = 100 mph
Effective height = 147 ft
Method used = Normal Force Method
Windward coefficient = 0.8
Leeward coefficient = 0.5
Importance factor = 1.0

3.2.3. Earthquake Loads

These processes involve the consideration of the following factors.
(a) Seismic zone factor, Z
(b) Seismic important factor, I
(c) Soil profile types
(d) Seismic source types
(e) Near source factor
(f) Seismic response coefficient
(g) Response modification factor
Data for seismic load are as follows;
Data for calculation of earthquake load are as follows:
Seismic zone = 2B
Soil Type = SD
Structure = Intermediate Moment-Resisting
Frame
with Shear Core Wall
Seismic zone factor = 0.2
Cv = 0.28 Na
Ca = 0.40 Nv
I = 1.0
 36

Ct = 0.039
R = 5.5
Na = 1.0
Nv = 1.0

3.3. Loading Combinations

Design Codes applied are ACI 318-99 and UBC -99.There are Twenty six
numbers of load combinations which are accepted CQHP-2017 for the analysis and
design of the frame. Notations of load combination used in this study are as follows;
Factor Load Combination Notation
(a) 1.4DL COMB 1
(b) 1.4DL + 1.7LL COMB 2
(c) 1.05DL + 1.275LL +1.275WX COMB 3
(d) 1.05 DL + 1.275 LL - 1.275 WX COMB 4
(e) 1.05 DL + 1.275 LL + 1.275 WY COMB 5
(f) 1.05 DL + 1.275 LL - 1.275 WY COMB 6
(g) 0.9 DL + 1.3 WX COMB 7
(h) 0.9 DL – 1.3 WX COMB 8
(i) 0.9 DL + 1.3WY COMB 9
(j) 0.9 DL - 1.3 WY COMB 10
(k) 1.05 DL + 1.28 LL+ EQX COMB 11
(l) 1.05 DL + 1.28 LL- EQX COMB 12
(m)1.05 DL + 1.28 LL+ EQY COMB 13
(n) 1.05 DL + 1.28 LL- EQY COMB 14
(o) 0.9 DL + 1.02 EQX COMB 15
(p) 0.9 DL - 1.02 EQX COMB 16
(q) 0.9 DL + 1.02 EQY COMB 17
(r) 0.9 DL - 1.02 EQY COMB 18
(s) 1.19 DL + 1.28 LL+ EQX COMB 19
(t) 1.19 DL + 1.28 LL- EQX COMB 20
(u) 1.19 DL + 1.28 LL+ EQY COMB 21
(v) 1.19 DL + 1.28 LL- EQY COMB 22
(w) 0.757 DL + 1.02 EQX COMB 23
(x) 0.757 DL - 1.02 EQX COMB 24
 37

(y) 0.757 DL + 1.02 EQY COMB 25

(z) 0.757 DL - 1.02 EQY COMB 26

Load combination for bearing pressure checking (design for deep foundation)

Un-factored Load Combination Notation

(a) DL COMB 1
(b) DL + LL COMB 2
(c) DL +WX COMB 3
(d) DL - WX COMB 4
(e) DL+ WY COMB 5
(f) DL - WY COMB 6
(g) DL+EQX/1.4 COMB 7
(h) DL-EQX/1.4 COMB 8
(i) DL+EQY/1.4 COMB 9
(j) DL-EQY/1.4 COMB 10
(k) 0.9DL+EQX/1.4 COMB 11
(l) 0.9DL-EQX/1.4 COMB 12
(m)0.9DL+EQY/1.4 COMB 13
(n) 0.9DL-EQY/1.4 COMB 14
(o) DL+0.75(LL+WX) COMB 15
(p) DL+0.75(LL-WX) COMB 16
(q) DL+0.75(LL+WY) COMB 17
(r) DL+0.75(LL-WY) COMB 18
(s) DL+0.75LL+0.54EQX COMB 19
(t) DL+0.75LL-0.54EQX COMB 20
(u) DL+0.75LL+0.54EQY COMB 21
(v) DL+0.75LL-0.54EQY COMB 22

Where, DL = dead load

LL = live load
WX = wind load (X-direction)
WY = wind load (Y-direction)
 38

EQX = earthquake load (X-direction)

EQY = earthquake load (Y-direction)

3.4. Design Procedures and Soil Reports for Substructure

The following design procedures are contained to design the proper structural
elements to transmit the structure loads into the soil. The soil reports are needed to
evaluate the bearing capacity of soil to support loads.

3.4.1. Design Procedures for Pile Foundation

These design procedures are contained to calculate
(a) Ultimate bearing capacity of pile
(b) Bearing capacity of a single pile
(c) Bearing capacity of pile group
(d) Settlement of a single pile and pile group

that are shown in following sections.

3.4.1.1. Piles subjected to axial compression loads

A pile under vertical load is shown in Figure (3.3). This load is shared
between the bearing at its tip and in shaft friction around its perimeter. If (Q u)ult is the
axial compressive ultimate load applied on the top of a pile, it is shared by the pile tip
(Qp) and by the frictional resistance (Q f) around the pile shaft. This can be represented
by the following relationship.
(Qu)ult = Qf + Qp (3.1)
where,
(Qu)ult = ultimate bearing capacity of pile
Qp = end- bearing capacity,
Qf = the frictional capacity along the pile perimeter.
The tip bearing capacity can be expressed as follows;
Qp = Ap [cNc + 1/2  BNr +  Df Nq] (3.2)
where,
Ap = pile end area,
c = cohesion of the underlying soil,
 39

 = unit weight of soil,

Nc, Nr and Nq = non dimensional bearing capacity parameters and are dependent on
the angle of internal friction of the soil,
B = the pile width or diameter and
Df = depth of pile tip below ground

The frictional capacity can be expressed as follows;

L= L
∑ f s ΔL
Qf = p L=O (3.3)
where,
p = pile perimeter
fs = the unit shaft friction over a length Δ L
L = the pile length
Δ L = a small pile element

Figure 3.3. Basic Concept of Load Support by Pile Foundations

3.4.1.2. Bearing capacity of a single pile

The ultimate axial compression load capacity is the sum of end - bearing
capacity and friction capacity.
Qu = Qp + Qf
 40

3.4.1.3. End - bearing capacity (Qp)

For cohesive soils, the bearing capacity of piles is critical on a short - term
basis because clay strength will increase due to consolidation or strength regain of

disturbed soils in the long term. Therefore for piles in clay φ = 0 concept applies

for bearing capacity evaluation. Thus, undrained strength c = cu and φ = 0 and

bearing capacity factors Nr = 0 and Nq = 1 Equation 3.2 becomes;
Qp = Ap [Cu Nc + Df Nq] (3.4
When adjustment for pile weight is made the Equation (3.4) can be
approximated to the following.
Qp = Ap [Cu Nc + Df Nq] -  Df Ap (3.5)
Since Nq = 1 for 0, then Equation (3.5) becomes:
Q p = A p Cu N c (3.6)

where,
Qp = end bearing capacity of a pile
Ap = area of pile base
Cu = undrained shear strength of clay
Nc = bearing capacity factor

As shown in Table (3.1), Nc values increase as the depth to pile diameter ratio
increases until it reaches a value of 9 for D f/ B ¿ 4. For most pile foundations, the
depth to diameter ratio (Df/ B) is greater than 4; Nc = 9 may therefore be used for such
cases. Table (3.2) provides recommendations for Nc values for various drilled pile
base diameters. Nc value provided in Table (3.1) and (3.2) can therefore be used for
design purposes as applicable.

Table 3.1. Values of Nc for Various Depth to Pile Diameter (Df/ B) Ratios.
Df / B Nc
0 6.2
1 7.8
2 8.5
¿4 9
Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)
 41

Table 3.2. Value of Nc for Various Pile Diameters

Drilled Pile Base Diameter Nc
Less than 0.5m ( ¿ 1.5 ft ) 9
Between 0.5 to 1m
( ¿ 1. 5 to 3 ft ) 7

Greater than 1m ( ¿ 3 ft ) 6
Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)

3.4.1.4. Friction capacity (Qf)

For cohesive soil, most of the resistance is derived from the skin friction. The
length of pile depends on the shear strength of the soil. For cohesive soils ( = 0) ,
unit friction fs can be written as follows.
fs = c +h tan  (3.7)
where,
c = ca = adhesion between soil and pile
 = 2/3 = 0
fs = ca
Then Equation (3. 3) becomes
L = Le
∑
Qf = p L=o ca ΔL (3.8)
Ultimate bearing capacity ( Qu )ult for a pile in cohesive soil can then be
expressed in the following form:
L = Le
∑
( Qu )ult = Ap cu Nc + p L=o ca ΔL (3.9)
where,
Ap = pile point area
ca = the minimum undrained shear strength of clay at pile point level
(i.e. cohesion of the bearing stratum (c = cu = su = qu/2))
Nc = the bearing capacity factor
p = pile parameter
 42

Le = effective pile length

ca = soil - pile adhesion (obtained from Table 3.3)
Effective pile length is the length that is assumed to contribute to frictional
capacity of the pile. This may be different from actual pile embedment length (L)
because, for most piles, the upper part of the pile may not be in the close contact with
soil due to such factors, as disturbances caused by humans and machines and
softening and cracking caused by seasonal variations. For most situations, this may
vary from about 3ft to 5ft.
For drilled piles, in addition to the above seasonal depths, soil around the
shaft-bell neck gets disturbed due to a tendency for the soil to move down in that area.
This disturbed length is about two times the shaft diameter. Therefore, soil-pile
adhesion along this length should be neglected and effective pile length (Le) should be
calculated. Table (3.4) can be used to estimate effective pile length (L e) when L is the
total pile length.
 43

Table 3.3. Design Parameters for Side Friction for Drilled Piers in Cohesive Soils
Limit on
Side Resistance Design Category ca/cu side Remarks
shear - tsf
A Straight- sided shafts in either
homogeneous or layered soil
with no soil of exceptional
stiffness below the base
1. Shafts installed dry or by 0.6 2.0 (a) ca/cu may be increased
the slurry displacement to 0.6 and shear
2. Shafts installed with 0.3(a) 0.5(a) increased to
drilling mud along some 2.0 tons per sq. ft. for
portion of the hole with segments drilled dry
possible mud entrapment
B Belled shafts in either homo-
generous or layered clays
with
no soil of exceptional
stiffness 0.3 0.5
below the base
1. Shafts installed dry or by
the slurry displacement 0.15(b) 0.3(b)
methods (b) ca/cu may be
2. Shafts installed with increased to 0.3 and side
drilling mud along some shear increased to 0.5
C portion of the hole with 0 0 tons per sq. ft. for
possible mud entrapment segments drilled dry
Straight-sided shafts with
D base 0 0
resting on soil significantly
stiffer than soil around stem
Belled shafts with base
 44

resting
on soil significantly stiffer
than
soil around stem
Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)
Table 3.4. Effective Pile Length of Driven and Drilled Piles
ypes of Piles Le
Driven and Straight shaft drilled L - (depth of seasonal variation)
Drilled and belled L- (depth of seasonal variation + 2 ¿

pile shaft diameter )

3.4.1.5. Bearing capacity of pile group

In general, the ultimate capacity of pile group in cohesive soil (QuG)ult is not
equal to the sum of the ultimate of single pile (Qu)ult.
For most practical purposes, the ultimate load of pile group (Q uG)ult, can be
estimated from the smaller of the values obtained by (a) group action and (b)
individual action.

3.4.1.6. Group action

Block failure of pile group by breaking into the ground along an imaginary
perimeter and bearing at the base as shown in Figure (3.4). The ultimate capacity for
the group failure can be estimated from the following relationship.
(QuG)ult = cu Nc ( b̄ 2) + 4 cu ( b̄ ) Le (3.10)
where, b̄ = width of pile group

3.4.1.7. Individual action

If there is no group action, the total load of pile group can take is (n) times the
load of the single pile.
(QuG)ult = n ¿ (Qu)ult (3.11)
If the piles are spaced closely enough, the load in group action is smaller than
that in individual action. The ratio of ultimate load capacity of the group to the total
individual capacity is defined as the pile group efficiency Ge.

Ge = (QuG)ult /[n ¿ (Qu)ult ] (3.12 a)

(QuG)ult = Ge ¿ n ¿ (Qu)ult (3.12 b)
 45

The group efficiency (Ge) as given in Table (3.5) can be used. For practical
design estimates of pile group capacities in cohesive soils. (Q uG)ult will be the lower of
the values estimated from (Equation 3.10 and 3.12 b).
Table 3.5. Group Efficiency Values for Various Pile Spacing
Pile spacing 3B 4B 5B 6B 8B
Group Efficiency (Ge) 0.7 0.75 0.85 0.9 1.0
Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)

n = number of pile
Le = L - depth of seasonal variation

Figure 3.4. Bearing Capacity of Pile Group in Cohesive Soil (a) plan (b) Section

3.4.1.8. Settlement of a single pile and pile group

The settlement of piles in cohesive soil primarily consists of the sum of the
following two components.
(a) Short term settlement occurring as the load is applied.
 46

(b) Long term consolidation settlement occurring gradually as the excess pore
pressures generated by loads are dissipated.
The following methods are recommended for estimating short term pile
settlement.
(a) Semiempirical method,
(b) Empirical method.

3.4.1.9. Semiempirical method

For design purposes, the settlement of a pile can be broken down into the
following three components (Vesic, 1997).
St = Ss + Sp + Sps (3.13)
where,
St = total pile top settlement for a single pile
Ss = settlement due to axial deformation of a pile shaft
Sp = settlement of pile base caused by load transmitted at the base
Sps = settlement of pile caused by transmitted along the pile shaft.

The three components are determined separately and then are added together.
Ss = (Qpa + sQfa) L / (Ap Ep) (3.14)
where,
Qpa = actual base or point load transmitted to the pile base in working stress
range (force units)
Qfa = actual shaft friction load transmitted by the pile in the working stress
range (force units)
L = pile length
Ap = pile cross- sectional area
Ep = modulus of elasticity of the pile
s = factor that depends on distribution of skin friction along the pile
shaft
Vesic (1997) recommended that s = 0.5 for the uniform skin friction
distribution along the pile shaft.
Sp = Cp Qpa / (B qp) (3.15)
Sps = Cs Qfa / (Df qp) (3.16)
 47

where,
Cp = empirical coefficient (typical values provided in Table 3.6)

Cs = [ 0.93 + 0.16 √ Df / B ] Cp (3.17)

Qpa = net point load under working conditions or allowable
Qfa = pile shaft load under working conditions or allowable
qp = ultimate end- bearing capacity (force per area)
B = pile diameter
Df = L = embedded pile length.

Table 3.6. Typical Values of Coefficient Cp (Vesic, 1997)

Soil Type Driven Piles Bored Piles
Sand (dense to loose) 0.02-0.04 0.09-0.18
Clay (stiff to soft) 0.02-0.03 0.03-0.06
Silt (dense to loose) 0.03-0.03 0.09-0.12
Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)

3.4.1.10. Empirical method

The settlement of a displacement pile for working loads may be estimated by the
following relationship (vesic, 1970).
St = B/100 + (Qua L) / (Ap Ep) (3.18)
where,
St = settlement of pile head, in
B = pile diameter, in
Qua = applied pile load, lb
Ap = area of cross- section of pile, in2
Ep = modulus of elasticity of pile material, lb/ in2

3.4.1.11. Settlement of pile group

The settlement of pile group (SG) is normally greater than the settlement of a
single pile (St) at equal load per pile because of the larger depth influence (De) of a
group as compared to that of a single pile (D'e) Shown in Figure (3.5).
 48

(b) Zone of Influence for

(a) Zone of Influence for
Settlement of a Single Pile.
Settlement of Pile Group
group
Figure 3.5 Zone of Influences for a Pile Group and Single Pile.

Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)

For design purposes, the simplest of these method is recommended as follows.

SG = St √( b̄/ B ) (3.19)

where,

SG = group settlement at load per pile equal to that of the single pile
St = settlement of a single pile estimated or determined from pile load test
b̄ = width of pile group (smaller dimension)
B = individual pile diameter.

The estimation of long-term consolidation settlement of a pile groups in cohesive

soil is complex. Figure (3.6) shows a simple method that can be used for settlement

estimation of pile groups in cohesive soils.

 49

Figure 3.6 b
Stress b
Distribution for
Piles of diameter B
Settlement
Estimation for
Friction Piles in l l
Clay Pile cap

Source: (a) Plan

Shamsher (QuG)all
Prakash, (Pile  'v  'v
Foundation in
Engineering 2/3 L
( 'v ) z  2 / 3 L
Practice) L
x x

The H z
approximate 1 Soil properties 1

 ' , e, C c
2
method is based 2 on
the following Rock or firm strata
y  ' H(  v ) z  H
'
y
assumptions:
(b) Section

(a) The allowable soil pressure = qall = (QuG)all / ( b̄× l̄ ) , where b̄ and l̄

are the base dimensions of pile group at the tip.

(b) The pressure qall is transferred to ( 2/3 ) ¿ L depth below ground surface.
The settlement of the soil above this depth is assumed to be small and
therefore is neglected.
(c) Then estimate the settlement as if a footing of dimensions b̄ ¿ l̄ with
pressure qall is placed at 2/3 L depth below ground surface. The presence of
pile below this depth is disregarded.
(d) Once the pressure qall is applied on top of a clay layer of thickness (H - 2/3 L ),
then consolidation settlement, Δ H, can be calculated form the following
relationship :
 50

Δ H = [ Cc / (1 + eo) ] [ H - 2/3L] ¿ log10 [

σ 'v + Δ
σ 'v )/
σ 'v  (3.20)
where,
Δ H = consolidation settlement

σ 'v present effective (vertical) overburden pressure at the middle of

the layer (H - 2/3 L), determined as shown in Figure (3.6)

σ 'v increased pressure from pile load at the

middle of the layer (H - 2/3L)
Cc = coefficient of consolidation
eo = initial void ratio of the soil.
Figure (3.6) explain these terms and the method of calculating consolidation
settlements. Figure (3.6) shows a pile group having b ¿ l size pile cap. There are 9

piles having b̄ x l̄ rectangular dimension at the base of the pile group. The piles
are of length L. The soil conditions assumed are clay to a depth H below ground
underline by rock.
If it is assumed that the load (QuG) all is transferred to 2/3 L depth below
ground. The increased stress at this depth is then:
'
( Δ
σ v ) z= 2/3L = (QuG)all / ( b̄ ¿ l̄ ) (3.21)
For stress distribution below level (xx), it is assumed that the pressure (or
stress) is distributed at 2v: 1H slope as shown in Figure (3.6). Based on this
assumption, the increased stress on plane yy at depth z = H can be obtained from the
following:
( Δ v' ) = (QuG)all / ( b̄ = + H - 2/3L ) ( l̄ + H - 2/3L) (3.22)
The increased stress at any intermediate level between xx and yy can then be
obtained by interpolation.
The consolidation settlement ( Δ of this pile group due to an applied load
of (QuG )a = (QuG )all can then be estimated by using Equation (3.20). In this Equation
v' is the present effective vertical pressure, Δ v' is obtained by using equations
(3.21) and (3.22), Cc and eo are laboratory - determined soil parameters and H is the
thickness of the clay stratum. Equation (3.20) is used when the clays are normally
consolidated. For over consolidated clays, the settlement calculation requires that the
settlement be divided into two components as follows:
 51

H = Δ H1 + Δ H2 (3.23)

where,
Δ H1 = settlement due to applied load in the
recompression zone
Δ H2 = settlement due to applied load in the
virgin curve zone

Thus, Δ H1 and Δ H2 can be estimated from the following :

Δ H1 = [ Cr / (1+eo) ] [ H - (2/3)L ] log10 [ Pc / v' ] (3.24)

σ v '+ Δσ v '
Δ H2 = [ Cc / 1+eo) ] [ H - (2/3)L ] log10 ( Pc ' ) (3.25)
where,
Cr = the recompression index
Cs = the compression index
Pc = pre-consolidation pressure
Pc' = effective pre-consolidations pressure
For highly over-consolidated clays, long terms consolidation settlement does
not occur. Therefore, only short term settlement is calculated. This is because their P c

is very high and additional pressure due to Δ v' will not result in consolidation.

When the soils are under consolidated, they settle due to their own weight and result
in imposing downward loads along the pile shaft.

The pre-consolidation pressure P̄c is the maximum effective stress to which

the material in situ has been consolidated by a previous loading. If the existing

effective overburden pressure, σ 'vo , is larger than P̄c then the soil is called under

consolidated, if σ 'vo = P̄c then the soil is called normally consolidated, and if
σ 'vo is less than P̄c then the soil is called over-consolidated. The ration ( P̄c /
σ 'vo ) is called the over consolidation ration (OCR). If OCR is between1 to 4, then
the soils are called lightly over-consolidated while if the ration is greater than 4, they
are called heavily over-consolidated. The pre-consolidation pressure can be obtained
from consolidation test or can be approximated from Figure (3.7).
52
 53

Liquidity index,LI = (w – P L)/ (LL – P L)

Preconsolidation pressure (TSF)

Figure 3.7 Preconsolidation Pressure Versus Liquidity Index

Source: Shamsher Prakash, (Pile Foundation in Engineering Practice)

3.4.2. Soil Reports

The soil reports are needed to evaluate the bearing capacity of soil to support
loads.

3.4.2.1. Study on soil reports

The proposed site is located in Zone2B, Yangon. Soil sample is taken from
three bore hole. The depth of bore hole is about 85 feet. The soil samples were
collected at the depth of 6,8,12,18,24,30,40,50,60,70,80,85 feet. The sample was
collected by performing SPT test. The recommended allowable bearing capacity of
the soil is 1.8 ton/ sq ft at 12 feet depth for the entire area of the whole site. (Appendix
A, Table A-12).
Soil parameters for deep foundation design are as described below.
 = density (lb/cu/ft)
qu = the unconfined compression strength
N = standard penetration number (blow per feet)

Table 3.7. Required Soil Parameters

 54

Depth(Ft) N Qu (lb/ft²) γ(lb/ft³)

0-6 9 2688 42.08
6-9 10 3106.88 47.65
9 - 12 14 4032 52.4
12 - 18 12 3696 48.2
18 - 24 16 4233.6 60.05
24 - 30 18 4502.4 59.2
30 - 40 24 5465.6 48.03
40 - 50 34 6520.64 58
50 - 60 27 5824 53.5
60 -70 39 6966.4 53.11
70 - 80 45 7212.8 48.3
80 - 85 30 6048 45.66

3.4.2.2. Calculation of the allowable bearing capacity of the soil

The allowable bearing capacity qa is the ultimate bearing capacity qu divided
by an appropriate factor of safety (FS). The soil must be capable of carrying the load
from any engineered structure placed upon it without a shear failure and with the
resulting settlements being tolerable for that structure. The allowable bearing capacity
is calculated by three methods;
(a) Meyerhof Method
(b) Hansen Method
(c) SPT

The allowable bearing capacity is finally selected by determining the average value of
these methods result.

3.4.2.3. Meyerhof 's method

The influence of the shear strength of soil above the base of the foundation is
considered in this solution. Meyerhof's bearing capacity equation (for vertical load) is
expressed as follows;
qult = cNcscdc + q Nqsqdq + 0.5 γBNγ sγ dγ (3.26)
(For Ø = 0 condition, Nc = 5.14, Nq = 1, Nr = 0)
where, c = cohesion of soil
q = effective stress at the bottom of the foundation = γ Df
γ = unit weight of soil
B = width of foundation
 55

Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factor

sc, sq, sγ = shape factor
dc, dq, dγ = depth factor
B
sc = 1 + 0.2 Kp L (for any Ø)
sq = sr = 1 (Ø >10˚)
sq = sr = 1 (Ø = 0)
D
√Kp B
dc = 1 + 0.2 (for any Ø)
D
√Kp B
dq = dr = 1 + 0.1 (Ø >10˚)
dγ = dr = 1 (Ø = 0)
Kp = tan2 (45 + Ø/2)

Depth,H = 0.5 B tan (45 + Ø/2)

H 1 c1 + H 2 c 2 +⋯+ H n cn
n
∑ Hi
cavg = i=1

3.4.2.4. Hansen's method

This method is also considered the shear strength of soil above the base of
the foundation. Hansen's bearing capacity equation (for vertical load) is express as
follows;
qult = cNcscdc + q Nqsqdq + 0.5 γBNγsγdγ (3.27)
When Ø = 0,
qult = 5.14 su(1 + sc + dc) + q (3.28)
where, Nc,Nq,Nr= bearing capacity factor
B
sc = 0.2 L (Ø = 0)
B
sq = 1+ L sin Ø (for all Ø)
B
≥
sγ = 1 – 0.4 L 0.6 (for all Ø)
dc = 0.4k (Ø = 0)
 56

D D
≤1
k = B (for B ; k in radian)
D D
≥1
k = tan-1 B (for B ; k in radian)

dq = 1 + 2 tan-1Ø (1 – sin Ø)2 K (for all Ø)

dγ = 1 (for all Ø)

3.4.2.5. Bearing capacity from SPT

The Equation of allowable bearing capacity (kip/ft2) from “Principle of
Foundation Engineering'' (5th Edition) by Braja M. Das is as follows;
( N 1 )60
qnet(all) = 4 (B<4 ft) (3.29)
2
( N 1 ) 60 ( B+1 )
qnet (all) = 4 [ ]
B (B>4.ft) (3.30)

Nη H η B η S η R
N60 = 60 (3.31)
where, (N1)60 = CNN60
CN = correction factor
= [1/ (σvo'/Pa)]0.5
N = penetration resistance
ηH = hammer efficiency (%) (0.45 for doughnut hammer)
ηB = correction for borehole diameter
= 0.75 (up to 4 m drill rod)
ηS = sample correction
= 0.8 (with liner: clay)
ηR = correction for rod length
= 1 (65-115 mm diameter)
σvo' = vertical effective stress in KN/m2 or lb/ft2
Pa = 100 KN/m2 or 2000 lb/ft2

By CQHP format, qa from SPT is needed to convert from net to gross pressure
as follows:
 57

Dγ
qa(gross) = qa(net) + SF
(3.32)

The results of allowable bearing capacity for (Ø = 15) condition by using

methods are expressed in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8. Results of Allowable Bearing Capacity for (Ø = 15) condition (ton/ ft2)

Methods Bearing capacity

Meyerhof 0.84
Hansen 1.1
SPT(Braja M Das) 0.76

The average Allowable Bearing Capacity = (0.84+1.1+0.76) / 3 = 0.9 ton/ft2

The average Allowable Bearing Capacity = 2.016 ksf
The total un-factored gravity loads from Table 3.12, 3.13. 3.14 = 25067.71
kips
Available foundation area of proposed building = 105 × 59.042 = 6199.41 ft2

25067 .71
=4 . 04 ksf > 2. 016 ksf
Bearing pressure = 6199 . 41 (Bearing Capacity)
Bearing pressure is greater than the allowable bearing capacity of mat
foundation. From the soil report’s recommendation, shallow footing is possible for
light load structure and pile foundation should be used for public buildings. Therefore,
mat foundation is not suitable for the proposed building. So, bored pile foundation is
used for proposed structure.

3.4.2.6. Evaluation of loading range of column loads for pile design from ETABS
software
The loading range of factored loads for pile cap and mat pile cap from ETABS
software are evaluated as shown in Table 3.9, 3.10, 3.11.
 58

Table 3.9. Loading Range of Factored Loads for Pile Cap Design from ETABS
Software

Points Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FZ(kips)

1 COMB2 3.1 2.77 1130
2 COMB2 -5.59 -1.01 1066.08
3 COMB2 0.14 1.71 1315.03
4 COMB2 3.02 0.91 1367.07
5 COMB22 -0.89 306.49 2733.23
6 COMB22 4.2 11.24 939.98
7 COMB2 -0.17 -3.19 1172.65
8 COMB2 5.13 6.9 1306.81
9 COMB22 0.65 211.91 2220.83
10 COMB22 -1.57 8.63 1168.83
11 COMB2 -0.43 -1.46 1429.62
12 COMB2 -2.28 -6.14 1037.71
13 COMB21 0.68 -2.18 733.57
14 COMB21 -16.66 -26.48 2187.4
15 COMB2 -5.82 2.6 1282.03
16 COMB2 3.64 2.15 1170.74
17 COMB2 1.44 -2.72 1344.65
18 COMB2 1.2 -0.44 1195
19 COMB22 -2.72 -0.44 2038.86
20 COMB2 5.24 -1.96 496.58
21 COMB2 1.54 -6.33 1084.59
22 COMB20 0.98 3.92 702.56
23 COMB19 3.26 2.23 1443.4
24 COMB19 -16.66 0.05 2085.15

Table 3.10. Loading Range of Factored Loads for Mat Pile Cap 1 Design from
ETABS Software
Point
Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FY(kips)
s
25 COMB20 2.76 29.22 1837.76
26 COMB19 -5.18 46.11 1399.53
27 COMB21 82.7 -84.24 2357.42
28 COMB21 90.88 56.52 2045.19
29 COMB19 -3.39 -15.11 406.09
30 COMB19 76.48 -67.09 488.46
 59

31 COMB20 66.08 -80.31 526.24

32 COMB22 60.28 84.69 583
Shear core wall and shear wall on Mat 1 2900
12543.7

Table 3.11. Loading Range of Factored Loads for Mat Pile Cap 2 Design from
ETABS Software
Point
Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FY(kips)
s
33 COMB22 62.34 -76.2 1052.26
34 COMB20 64.81 -52.98 966.82
35 COMB20 54.2 -66.46 784.12
36 COMB21 -6.06 13.54 377.18
Shear core wall and shear wall on Mat 2 802
Total 3982.38

The loading range of un-factored loads for foundation design from ETABS software
are determined as shown in Table 3.12, 3.13, 3.14.

Table 3.12. Loading Range of Un-factored Loads for Foundation Design from
ETABS Software

Points Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FZ(kips)

1 COMB2 2.22 1.96 777.74
2 COMB2 -4 -0.71 742.93
3 COMB2 0.11 1.2 907.58
4 COMB2 2.14 0.62 941.17
5 COMB2 -1.22 78.04 1129.14
6 COMB2 3.41 0.77 604.61
7 COMB2 -0.14 -2.34 806.44
8 COMB2 0.67 5.9 900.14
9 COMB2 2 43.43 812.41
10 COMB2 -0.93 -0.15 753.59
11 COMB2 -0.34 -0.97 988.51
12 COMB2 -1.65 -4.39 716.61
13 COMB2 -0.58 -2.36 507.7
14 COMB2 -42.82 -55.35 988.71
15 COMB2 -1.51 3.17 879.56
16 COMB2 0.38 1.42 806.14
17 COMB2 -1.75 -0.09 921.42
18 COMB2 1.25 -1.25 821.78
19 COMB2 -2.41 47.95 912.21
20 COMB2 -2.42 0.68 344.74
 60

21 COMB2 -1.9 1.43 744.63

22 COMB2 -0.04 2.17 422.24
23 COMB2 -4.76 -29.49 486.46
24 COMB2 -46.03 40.11 782.01

Table 3.13. Loading Range of Un-factored Loads for Mat Pile Cap 1 Design from
ETABS Software
Point Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FZ(kips)
25 COMB2 -2.42 -24.71 888.8
26 COMB2 0.24 -34.44 528.82
27 COMB2 57.26 -58.59 718.18
28 COMB2 -14.97 -42.24 443.24
29 COMB2 -26.78 -24.4 146.71
30 COMB2 -23.77 32.48 213.72
31 COMB2 30.43 -34.18 228.72
32 COMB2 28.62 35.74 284.89
Shear core wall and shear wall on Mat 1 1304
Total 4757.08

Table 3.14. Loading Range of Un-factored Loads for Mat Pile Cap 2 Design from
ETABS Software
Point Load FX(kips) FY(kips) FZ(kips)
33 COMB2 -6.15 34.56 434.59
34 COMB2 35.15 34.68 287.11
35 COMB2 21.66 -28.24 213.33
36 COMB2 -21.1 -24.71 183.53
Shear core wall and shear wall on Mat 2 493.6
Total 1612.16

3.4.2.7. Determination of pile group names

The pile group names for bored pile foundation design are determined as
shown in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15. Pile Group Names for Bored Pile Foundation Design
Critical
Unfactored
Cas Factored Pile Group
Load point Number Column
e Column Name
Loads(kips)
Loads(kips)
1 13,20,22 507.7 933 Pile Group(1)
2 1,2,6,7,10,12,15,16,18,21 879.56 1282.03 Pile Group(2)
3 3,4,8,11,17,23 988.51 1749.53 Pile Group(3)
 61

4 9,14,19,24 1051.8 2395.19 Pile Group(4)

5 5 1129.14 2733.23 Pile Group(5)
6 25,26,27,28,29,30,32 + walls 4757.08 12543.69 Mat Pile Cap (1)
7 33,34,35,36 + walls 1612.16 3982.38 Mat Pile Cap (2)