Designation: D – AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA Reprinted from the. Buy ASTM D TEST METHOD FOR BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL FOR STATIC LOAD AND SPREAD FOOTINGS from SAI Global. ASTM: D AASHTO: T Apparatus. Loading platform of sufficient size and strength to supply the estimated load. Hydraulic or mechanical.
|Country:||Antigua & Barbuda|
|Published (Last):||18 November 2018|
|PDF File Size:||4.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin The bottom layer is a gravelly cobble deposit, occasionally with thin layers of sand. Note that reseating of each plate before loading was necessary, as the three plates were placed at different locations.
Large Scale Plate Load Tests | Gulf Foundation FZE
The particle-size distribution of the composite gravelly cobble deposit with sand matrix is shown in Fig. Thus, they are generally too conservative for the design of mat foundations. Note also that in the characterization of gravels for important projects, a thorough assessment of the engineering geology is perhaps more important than one in situ test. The ultimate strength of each steel bar was kN Schematic diagram for determination of the modulus of subgrade reaction.
Large Scale Plate Load Tests
In Design and performance of mat foundations. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Application of the results to other geologic settings, however, must be exercised with caution. D11194-94 of field direct shear tests in terrace deposits and Toukoshan conglomerate formation. Use of qstm single parameter such as the modulus of subgrade reaction to characterize the response of a soil to an applied load is thus an oversimplified concept.
Plate-load test setup and procedure The test site was excavated to a depth of 6.
A relationship between deformation modulus and SPT N for gravels. The results of these plate-load tests are presented in this paper. The groundwater table was maintained below the plate at a depth of about 6. To interpret the results, the ultimate bearing capacity qu is defined herein as the load or most precisely, the pressure at the intersection of the tangent to the initial portion of the astn and the tangent to the last portion of the curve.
However, the decreasing trend is not as sharp as those suggested by Terzaghi eqs. Various aspects of the plate-load test, including design of reaction anchors and reaction beams, test setup, and test procedure, are described below. The second layer, from 0.
Obviously, the soil in the present study is a rather complicated, nonhomogeneous deposit. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade asm. Plate-load e1194-94 were the focus of the experimental program. This may be because the gravelly cobble deposit is much stiffer than the soils considered by Terzaghi. Test method for density and unit weight of soil in place by the Rubber Balloon Method D The test procedure and placement of other devices are summarized as follows: Modulus of subgrade reaction: The values back-calculated with Terzaghi’s formula are the lowest.
Hansen’s formula appears to be most accurate in the present study. Particle-size distributions of the gravelly cobble deposit and the sand matrix. Plate-load test results and d1914-94 Three different sizes of plates, 0.
Figure 10 shows a similar trend, although the relation is not exactly linear. Prototype load-bearing tests for foundations and pavements. Principles of foundation x1194-94.
The elastic constant of the assumed springs is referred to as the modulus d1194–94 subgrade reaction, also known as the coefficient of subgrade reaction.
The values of in Table 1 are practically constant regardless of the size of the plate in the present study. The unified soil classification of the gravelly cobble deposit is GP.
A sophisticated subgrade reaction model for mat foundations has also been proposed by Horvath This gave a total allowable load of kN t. Figure 7 shows the complete setup for the plate-load test. When in doubt, a parametric study should be conducted to evaluate the effect of the uncertainty of the KS values on the mat design.
Adjust the plate so that it has good contact with the ground at the bottom of the excavation. Little or no cementation is observed.
Based on Hansen’s formula, the ultimate bearing capacity was about kN t. A mat foundation usually consists of three parts: In the first stage, where the load is less than kN tthe load is measured by a load gauge which has a maximum capacity of only kN t but is more accurate. Standard testing methods as prescribed in ASTM b were followed. To accommodate larger size plates, it was decided to use eight reaction anchors, each carrying an allowable load of up to kN t. A length of 12 m was used.
Hansen’s bearing-capacity theory is the most accurate one based on the limited plate-load tests conducted in the present study. In the present study, the near-vertical slopes made by the excavation at the test site could stand by themselves without support.
This reinforces the observation about the relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction and the size of the plate in the case of the gravelly cobble deposit. The KS value may be determined by semiempirical methods such as that proposed by Vesic Soil samples taken from asstm test pit were sieved through a set of sieves ranging in size from