Metso English Version Geo-Study

SOILS, PAVEMENTS AND
FOUNDATIONS REPORT
MX METSO PROJECT
“CIUDAD INDUSTRIAL” PARK
IRAPUATO, GUANAJUATO. MÉXICO
M. Eng. ELOY EDUARDO DORANTES BÁRCENAS
APRIL 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
General 2
Description of the project area 3
1
PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 5
General 5
Sampling 6
Data Summary 7
Laboratory Testing 8
DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11

Structure Foundations 11
Seismic analysis 19
Pavements proposals 22
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 24
General Considerations 24
Special note for the conformation of the backfill
25
(embankment)
DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE 26
APPENDICES 27
APPENDIX A – Figures
APPENDIX B – Trial pits report
APPENDIX C – Boring Logs
APPENDIX D – Laboratory and Field Testing Results
APPENDIX E – Quarry study report
SOILS, PAVEMENTS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

JFE SHOJI PROJECT
SEGUNDA FRACCIÓN DE BUSTAMANTE S/N, COL. FRACCIÓN BUSTAMANTE, C.P. 36128 SILAO, GTO.
TEL: 472 117 2429, CORREO: ivt.ingeniería@gmail.com
MX METSO PROJECT
“CIUDAD INDUSTRIAL” PARK
IRAPUATO, GUANAJUATO. MÉXICO
INTRODUCTION 2
General
This report provides the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory

testing, and geotechnical analysis and presents our evaluations and
recommendations for the construction of new warehouse. The project site
is located in the “CIUDAD INDUSTRIAL” Park, in Irapuato, Guanajuato,
México. The site location and vicinity map are presented in Figure 1.
The geotechnical study objectives are:
• Determine the soil profile description of the land at the site on which it
is intended to build the warehouse, by obtaining physical and
mechanical properties of soil.
• Based on the results obtained will be proposed the depth and bearing
capacity of soil to shallow foundation.
• Elastic settlements for different foundation conditions will also be
discussed.
• Paving alternatives are proposed for different conditions of service in
the warehouse.
• Constructive approach is proposed, and characteristics must meet the
material to be used in backfill.
Description of the project area
The project area (Figure 1) is located southeast of the county of Irapuato,

Guanajuato, México, to the left approximately at kilometer 105 of the
Federal Highway Querétaro-Chihuahua (No. 45), Salamanca-Irapuato
section. The site presented firm consistency soil from a depth of 1.30 m.
3
Its geographical coordinates are: 20°38'17.47" North Latitude,

101°17'2.03" West longitude, and elevation above mean sea level of 1720
m. The property is located on flat land terrain type. According to the
geological description (Figure 2), the soil is located in the "TplQAr- Cgp"
unit (Sandstone, Polymictic Conglomerate).
Site
location
Figure 1A. Site location and vicinity map
4
Site
location
Figure 1B. Site location and vicinity map
SYMBOLOGY
Site location
Alluvium
Limestone
Andesite - Basalt
Andesite
Sandstone,
Polymictic
Conglomerate
Figure 2. Geology description of the site.
The existence of geological failures on site is not detected (still in geological

chart). This is not entirely conclusive by the scope of the geotechnical study.
Water level was detected at a depth of 4.50 m.
PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
General
A subsurface exploration program was conducted by IVT subsurface

exploration team from march 20 to 22, 2019. A total of 3 borings were
5
drilled to depths ranging from 10.02 to 15.30 m below existing ground
level. No trial pit excavations (PCA) were made. Table 1 provides the depth
of borings drilled for this project. Figure 3 shows the distribution of
boreholes and trial pit excavations on site.
Table 1 – Drilled boring depth

Boring Depth
No. (m)
BH-1 10.02
BH-2 15.00
BH-3 15.30
Figure 3. Distribution of boreholes excavations on site.
Sampling
Soil borings were drilled using a Mobile Drilling Machine B61. Boreholes
were advanced using mixed type drilling in soil.
Soil samples were obtained using 2 ¼-in. (outside diameter) split-barrel

6
(split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration
Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. Due to the nature and consistency
of the soil, unaltered soil samples were obtained by Shelby tube.
Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were preserved in

plastic bags for laboratory testing. The drilling personnel visually
examined samples recovered from the sampler, recording field
description.
After examination by drilling personnel, all information was logged. Soil

representative samples collected in the field were delivered to IVT geo-
laboratory in Silao, Guanajuato. The log of boring for each boring are
presented in Appendix C. The stratification lines designating the interfaces
between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate
boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual.
Groundwater was encountered during the drilling operation at 4.50 m

depth. Because of the nature and firm soil consistency, obtaining
undisturbed samples was possible.
Data Summary
The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s
logs and appropriate data sheet in the field. These data sheets and logs
contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted
and recovered. They also contain interpretations of the subsurface
conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings
brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data
represents both factual and interpretative information. This information is
implicitly in this report.
The boring logs provided in Appendix C represent a compilation of field

and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical
engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on
7
driller’s logs and field data sheets but do include all information considered
relevant to the design and preparation of this report.
Laboratory Testing
A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil

samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in
classification and evaluation of engineering properties of soil present at the
site. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content, Atterberg limits,
Particle size analysis, Triaxial Compression Test, Free Expansion, Free
Expansion Pressure Soil test, PH of soil, Sulfate content of soil, Soil
classification.
Summary of the laboratory test results conducted on selected soil samples

are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The laboratory testing results are provided
in Appendix D.
Table 2a – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Depth
Boring No. USCS N-value Coordinates
(m)
0.03 – 0.63 SC 34
0.63 – 1.63 CL 50/25
1.80 – 2.75 ML 50
3.00 – 4.45 CL 50/23
20°38'17.01"N
BH-1 22 to
4.80 – 6.90 SC 101°16'59.86"O
50/20
39 to
7.20 – 8.74 CL
50/25
9.00 – 10.02 ML 50/27
0.08 – 0.68 SM 35
35 to
0.68 – 4.45 CL
50/23
20°38'17.52"N
BH-2 32 to
4.80 – 6.85 SP-S(C-M) 101°17'0.52"O
50/16
7.20 - 8.40 CL 30
8.40 – 10.51 SP-SM 50/15
32 to
10.80 – 14.40 CL
50/25
14.40 – 15.00 SP-SM 48
0.00 – 1.80 CL, MH 29
1.80 – 2.80 SC 50/25
3.00 – 3.90 CL -
20°38'16.54"N
BH-3 12 to
3.90 – 13.15 SC, SM, SP, GP 101°17'1.37"O
50/23
13.50 – 14.44 CL 50/25
14.70 – 15.30 SC 48 8
Nomenclature:
USCS=Unified Soil Classification System

N-value=Number of hammer blows in accordance with SPT.
SC=Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
SM=Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
SM-SC=Silty-clayey sand.
CL=Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
Table 3 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Reaction
Depth CBR Modulus “K”
Boring No. USCS Coordinates
(m) (%)
(kg/cm2/cm)
20°38'16.54"N
SPT-3 101°17'1.37"O
0.60 CL 2.10 1.98
Nomenclature:
USCS=Unified Soil Classification System
CBR=California Bearing Ratio
Note:
The natural soil K value (1.98 kg/cm2/cm) is estimated based on the design CBRdesign
parameter (2.10%). For design purposes, a reaction module equal to 5.50 kg/cm2/cm is
suggested
From 0 to about 7 cm vegetal layer it is presented.
DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Structure foundation
The use of pile foundations and surface foundations (footings) is feasible

9
for this project, the latter with certain limitations due to the presence of
groundwater level, and to the plastic nature of the soil and its expansive
nature. However, in this report according to the request from SHIMIZU
NORTH AMERICA LLC, both the footing and the piles foundation are
analyzed.
Our analysis was based on the soil conditions mainly reported on the
boring logs (Appendix C), and the results of the expansion pressure tests.
In this sense, the construction of a backfill layer (crushed stone bed
+embankment) of 2.20 m thickness is required. The top plastic layer
having to be removed in a minimum of thickness of 2.20 m.
Bearing capacity for shallow foundations was computed according to

Terzaghi´s Theory for in site soil. Table 4 presents computed soil mass
strength parameters, and Table 5 and 5.1 presents de bearing capacity in
soil and settlements consideration. For design purposes the soil will be
considered in general as cohesive-frictional.
Table 4 – Soil Mass Strength Parameters Summary

(Natural in Site Soil - Shallow foundation)
Cohesion Friction angle
Origin
(c) (Φ)
In Site Soil 0.89 kg/cm 2 15.90°
Note: Parameters determined by triaxial test
Table 5 – Process for Calculating Bearing Capacity in Soil Mass
10
Table 5.1 – Process for Calculating Bearing Capacity in Soil Mass
11
Table 5.2 – Summary of the Calculating Bearing Capacity in Soil Mass
Bearing Capacity
Size
in Site Natural Soil
Foundation
qadm
(m)
(kg/cm2)
2.0 x 2.0 2.89 12
2.5 x 2.5 2.89
For this computation were considered square foundation with construction depth of 1.80
meters. It is considered that the foundation is built on the bed of crushed stone, previously
formed.
Elastic settlement of soil (shallow foundation)
Although the groundwater level was found, the case analyzed

corresponds to CASE III, since the groundwater level is located so that d≥
B, the water will not affect the bearing capacity. For the case analyzed, b
is approximately equal to 2.70 m.
Elastic settlements calculation is made considering the parameters of the

in site natural soil. The settlements calculation is done with the Harr´s
method, estimating the following parameters for the case of a flexible
foundation.
13
Table 5.3 – Bearing Capacity for elastic settlement criteria

*Design Stress
Bearing Elastic Maximum Stress
Size
capacity settlement for Elastic Settlement
Foundation
qadm for qadm ≤ 2.54 cm
(m)
(kg/cm2) (cm) (kg/cm2)
2.0 x 2.0 1.18 2.89
2.89
2.5 x 2.5 1.48 2.89
For design purposes should be considered the maximum
stress to keep the elastic settlements below 2.54 cm, for
each particular case (Design Stress Column).
Table 5.4 – Process for Calculating Bearing Capacity in Soil Mass
(Deep foundation - Natural in Site Soil)
Data
Cu1= 18.70 ton/m2
Cu2= 14.46
ϕ= 36.5 °
N*q= 80
14
N*c = 9
γ= 1.35 ton/m3 (at the tip level)
L= 8 m (pile length)
F.S. = 3 security factor
q´= 10.8 ton/m2
Diameter of the pile

D1 = 0.80 m Ap1 = 0.50 m2
D2= 1.00 m Ap2= 0.79 m2
D3= 1.20 m Ap3= 1.13 m2
D4= 1.50 m Ap3= 1.77 m2
Ultimate load capacity in the base Qp= Apq´(N*q-1)
Qwp1 = 65950 kg 65.95 ton
Qwp2 = 103050 kg 103.05 ton
Qwp3 = 148400 kg 148.40 ton
Qwp4 = 231870 kg 231.87 ton
Friction resistance, Qs = pL1f
Qws1 = 115870.0 kg 115.87 ton

Qws2 = 144830.0 kg 144.83 ton
Qws3 = 173800.0 kg 173.80 ton
Qws4 = 217240.0 kg 217.24 ton
Total Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qp+Qs

Qu1 = 181820.00 kg 181.82 ton
Qu2 = 247880.00 kg 247.88 ton
Qu3 = 322200.00 kg 322.20 ton
Qu4 = 449110.00 kg 449.11 ton
Factor de seguridad FS= 3
Permissible load capacity Qadm = Qu/FS
Qadm1= 60606.67 kg 60.61 ton
Qadm2 = 82626.67 kg 82.63 ton
Qadm3 = 107400.00 kg 107.40 ton
Qadm4 = 149703.33 kg 149.70 ton
Settlement calculation 15
ξ= 0.67 Tabla
Ep= 2.10E+06 material de la pila ton/m2
Asentamiento elastico s1=(Qwp+ξQws)L/ApEp
s11= 1.093965 mm
s12= 0.964852 mm
s13= 0.892865 mm
s14= 0.812313 mm
Settlement caused by tip loading s2
𝑞𝑤𝑝 𝐷
𝑠2 = 1 − 𝜇𝑠2 𝑙𝑤𝑝
𝐸𝑠
𝑄𝑤𝑝
𝑞𝑤𝑝 =
𝐴𝑝
𝑙𝑤𝑝 = 0.85
qwp1= 131.900 Es= 6328 ton/m2

qwp2= 130.443 µs= 0.45
qwp3= 131.327
qwp4= 131.000
S21= 11.304 mm
S22= 13.973 mm
S23= 16.882 mm
S23= 21.050 mm
Settlement by the stem of the pile s3
16
lws1= 3.107 Es= 6328 ton/m2

lws2= 2.990 µs = 0.45
lws3= 2.904
lws4= 2.808
s31 = 1.805 mm
s32 = 2.171 mm
s33 = 2.531 mm
s34 = 3.059 mm
Total elastic settlement s = s1+s2+s3

S1(D=0.8) 14.20 mm
S2(D=1.0) 17.11 mm
S3 (D=1.2) 20.31 mm
S3 (D=1.5) 24.92 mm
Data
Cu1= 18.70 ton/m2
Cu2= 14.46
ϕ= 36.5 °
N*q= 75
N*c = 9
17
γ= 1.45 ton/m3 (at the tip level)
L= 9 m (pile length)
F.S. = 3 security factor
q´= 13.077 ton/m2
Diameter of the pile

D1 = 0.80 m Ap1 = 0.50 m2
D2= 1.00 m Ap2= 0.79 m2
D3= 1.20 m Ap3= 1.13 m2
D4= 1.50 m Ap3= 1.77 m2
Ultimate load capacity in the base Qp= Apq´(N*q-1)
Qwp1 = 110000 kg 110.00 ton
Qwp2 = 140000 kg 140.00 ton
Qwp3 = 170000 kg 170.00 ton
Qwp4 = 205000 kg 205.00 ton
Friction resistance, Qs = pL1f
Qws1 = 135280.0 kg 135.28 ton

Qws2 = 169110.0 kg 169.11 ton
Qws3 = 202930.0 kg 202.93 ton
Qws4 = 253660.0 kg 253.66 ton
Total Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qp+Qs

Qu1 = 245280.00 kg 245.28 ton
Qu2 = 309110.00 kg 309.11 ton
Qu3 = 372930.00 kg 372.93 ton
Qu4= 458660.00 kg 458.66 ton
Factor de seguridad FS= 3
Permissible load capacity Qadm = Qu/FS
Qadm1= 81760.00 kg 81.76 ton
Qadm2 = 103036.67 kg 103.04 ton
Qadm3 = 124310.00 kg 124.31 ton
Qadm4 = 152886.67 kg 152.89 ton
18
Settlement calculation
ξ= 0.67 Tabla
Ep= 2.10E+06 material de la pila ton/m2
Asentamiento elastico s1=(Qwp+ξQws)L/ApEp
s11= 1.719751 mm
s12= 1.374161 mm
s13= 1.160416 mm
s14= 0.907875 mm
Settlement caused by tip loading s2
𝑞𝑤𝑝 𝐷
𝑠2 = 1 − 𝜇𝑠2 𝑙𝑤𝑝
𝐸𝑠
𝑄𝑤𝑝
𝑞𝑤𝑝 =
𝐴𝑝
𝑙𝑤𝑝 = 0.85
qwp1= 220.000 Es= 5625 ton/m2

qwp2= 177.215 µs= 0.45
qwp3= 150.442
qwp4= 115.819
S21= 21.210 mm
S22= 21.356 mm
S23= 21.756 mm
S23= 20.936 mm
Settlement by the stem of the pile s3
19
lws1= 3.174 Es= 5625 ton/m2

lws2= 3.050 µs = 0.45
lws3= 2.959
lws4= 2.857
s31 = 2.153 mm
s32 = 2.586 mm
s33 = 3.010 mm
s34 = 3.634 mm
Total elastic settlement s = s1+s2+s3

S1(D=0.6) 25.083 mm
S2(D=0.8) 25.317 mm
S3 (D=1.0) 25.927 mm
S3 (D=1.2) 25.478 mm
Table 5.5 – Summary of the Calculating Bearing Capacity in Soil Mass
(Deep foundation)
Pile depth Pile diameter Qadm-final
(m) (m) (Ton)
0.80 60.61 20
1.00 82.63
9.0
1.20 107.40
1.50 149.70
0.80 81.76
1.00 103.04
9.0
1.20 124.31
1.50 152.89
Nomenclature:
Qp = load-carrying capacity of the pile point

QP = AP q' ( N *q − 1)
Qs = frictional resistance (skin friction) derived from the soil–pile interface
QS = pL1 f
Qu = ultimate load-carrying capacity (Qu = Qp+Qs)
Qadm = allowable load-carrying capacity for each pile (Qadm = Qu/3)
Qadm-final = final permissible load capacity for each pile (consider a total elastic settlement equal to
or less than 2.54 cm)
Seismic analysis with PRODISIS
The PRODISIS software was developed in the Manual Design of Civil
Works of CFE. Is a tool to simplify the construction design spectrum,
which ensures that the ordinate spectral response of each simulation
described seismic hazard defined by the design spectrum. Then the
computation process is shown in Figure 6, considering collapse limit
21
state.
(a) Seismic regionalization of the Mexican Republic
(b) Spectrum response of the study site
22
(c) Spectra of regional transparent design
(d) Database of maximum earthquakes
23
(d) Modified design spectrum
Figure 6. PRODISIS V4.1 computation process.
Table 5.6 – Values of the design spectrum for construction in Type II

land, in the city of Irapuato, which is a seismic zone B.
Type of ao c
Zone Ta (s) Tb (s) Tc (s) k r
terrain (cm/s2) (cm/s2)
Pavement proposals
Considering the nature of the project three cases are analyzed:
1) Pavement area light traffic (Figure 5)

2) Pavement area of heavy traffic (Figure 6)
24
3) Pavement floor area of the ship (Figure 7)
Option 1.- Transit zone Option 2.- Stop and turning vehicle zone
Figure 5. Section on heavy traffic zone
25
Figure 6. Section on light traffic zone Figure 7. Section in warehouse

zone
Note: For the design of floor slabs reaction module equal to 10 kg/cm3 is
proposed.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
General Considerations
Construction shall be performed following the standard Mexican

specifications for construction and materials of the SCT (Secretaría de
Comunicaciones y Transportes), or the particular specifications that arise 26
in this report.
The top soil should be removed using conventional earthmoving

equipment in proper working condition. It is recommended that the total
thickness of soil to be removed be 2.20 m. The total thickness of the
backfill (embankment) is 2.20 m, composed of 40 cm of bed of crushed
rock, and 1.80 m of material coming from quarry, with subgrade
(“subrasante”) quality, compacted to 95% of its maximum dry volumetric
weight, which should be at least 1600 kg/m3.
Scarify the exposed layer to a depth of 20 cm using graders or machinery

that permits, later to break up the lumps of soil. Apply the water and mix
the layer using a grader, to achieve even moisture content, throughout the
mixed layer. If necessary, should be added more water to a near optimal
content. Compact with the right equipment to reach 90% degree of
compaction.
For backfill and pavement structure, refer to the "Pavement proposals"

section. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to
exceed 25 centimeters.
Carry out the ground trace and leveling, avoiding supporting the
foundation in loose heterogenous fillings, or soils with organic matter or
highly deformable. In addition, it must be verified during the excavation
that the support floor does not have significant alterations (large stones,
angular gravel protruding or roots), which in any case must be treated to
give a horizontal surface of continuous and uniform support to the
foundation.
Special note for the conformation of the backfill (embankment)
Because the expansion pressure can reach a level of 0.25 kg/cm2 with
natural water content, it is necessary that the backfill material meets the
following requirements:
27
Characteristic Value
Maximum size; mm 76
Liquid limit; %, maximum 40
Plastic index; %, maximum 12
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)[1]; %, minimum 20
Maximum expansion; % 2
Max. Dry Volumetric Mass; kg/m3, minimum 1600
Degree of compaction [2]; % 95 a 100
[1] In specimens compacted dynamically to the percentage of compaction indicated in this Table.
[2] Regarding the maximum dry volumetric mass obtained by means of the AASHTO Standard test, of
the material compacted with the optimum water content of the test.
As previously indicated, the thickness of the backfill layer should have a

minimum thickness of 2.20 m, in order to counteract the expansion of the
soil.
On the other hand, because of the type of soil, it is necessary to form a 40
cm thick of crushed rock layer (bed of crushed rock), with mixed particle
size from 4 "to 8" maximum. In this way the layer with compactable
material would be 1.80 m, and together with both layers would have 2.20
m of specified thickness.
The conformation of the rock layer is highly favorable in this project. In
case it is decided to use, the treatment of the natural terrain will involve
generating an over-wetting to, on the one hand, induce the stone to embed
itself in the ground, and on the other, to induce a certain level of soil
expansion during the construction stage.
DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE
The subsurface explorations and test described in the section: Procedures

and Results, have been conducted in accordance with standard practices
and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these
exploration and test represent conditions at the specific locations and
28
dates indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary.
The Geotechnical Design Analysis and Recommendations Sections of this
report include interpretations and recommendations developed by
several authors and research in the process of preparing the design. These
interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal
investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the
Contractor.
________________________________________________
Prepared by:
M. Eng. Eloy Eduardo Dorantes Bárcenas
29
APPENDICES

Metso English Version Geo-Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Metso English Version Geo-Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metso English Version Geo-Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOILS, PAVEMENTS AND

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11

SOILS, PAVEMENTS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

This report provides the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory

The geotechnical study objectives are:

The project area (Figure 1) is located southeast of the county of Irapuato,

Its geographical coordinates are: 20°38'17.47" North Latitude,

Figure 1A. Site location and vicinity map

Figure 1B. Site location and vicinity map

Figure 2. Geology description of the site.

The existence of geological failures on site is not detected (still in geological

A subsurface exploration program was conducted by IVT subsurface

Table 1 – Drilled boring depth

Figure 3. Distribution of boreholes excavations on site.

Soil samples were obtained using 2 ¼-in. (outside diameter) split-barrel

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were preserved in

After examination by drilling personnel, all information was logged. Soil

Groundwater was encountered during the drilling operation at 4.50 m

The boring logs provided in Appendix C represent a compilation of field

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil

Summary of the laboratory test results conducted on selected soil samples

Table 2a – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

USCS=Unified Soil Classification System

Table 3 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

The use of pile foundations and surface foundations (footings) is feasible

Bearing capacity for shallow foundations was computed according to

Table 4 – Soil Mass Strength Parameters Summary

Elastic settlement of soil (shallow foundation)

Although the groundwater level was found, the case analyzed

Elastic settlements calculation is made considering the parameters of the

Table 5.3 – Bearing Capacity for elastic settlement criteria

q´= 10.8 ton/m2

Diameter of the pile

Friction resistance, Qs = pL1f

Qws1 = 115870.0 kg 115.87 ton

Total Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qp+Qs

Factor de seguridad FS= 3

Settlement caused by tip loading s2

qwp1= 131.900 Es= 6328 ton/m2

Settlement by the stem of the pile s3

lws1= 3.107 Es= 6328 ton/m2

Total elastic settlement s = s1+s2+s3

q´= 13.077 ton/m2

Diameter of the pile

Friction resistance, Qs = pL1f

Qws1 = 135280.0 kg 135.28 ton

Total Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qp+Qs

Factor de seguridad FS= 3

Settlement caused by tip loading s2

qwp1= 220.000 Es= 5625 ton/m2

Settlement by the stem of the pile s3

lws1= 3.174 Es= 5625 ton/m2

Total elastic settlement s = s1+s2+s3

Qp = load-carrying capacity of the pile point

Qadm = allowable load-carrying capacity for each pile (Qadm = Qu/3)

Seismic analysis with PRODISIS

(a) Seismic regionalization of the Mexican Republic