From Eq. (2.113) qall(shear)net = 761.5 q = 761.5 (0.6)(18)  750.

7 kN/m2 yy

2.13 INTERFERENCE OF CONTINUOUS FOUNDATIONS IN GRANULAR SOIL In earlier sections of this chapter, theories relating to the ultimate bearing capacity of single rough continuous foundations supported by a homogeneous soil medium extending to a great depth were discussed. However, if foundations are placed close to each other with similar soil conditions, the ultimate bearing capacity of each foundation may decrease due to the interference effect of the failure surface in the soil. This was theoretically investigated by Stuart [25] for granular soils. The results of this study are summarized in this section. Stuart [25] assumed the geometry of the rupture surface in the soil mass to be the same as that assumed by Terzaghi (Fig. 2.1). According to Stuart, the following conditions may arise (Fig. 2.38) 1. Case 1 (Fig. 2.38a): If the center-to-center spacing of the two foundations is x x1 , the rupture surface in the soil under each foundation will not overlap. So the ultimate bearing capacity of each continuous foundation can be given by Terzaghis equation [Eq. (2.31)]. For c = 0 1 qu = qNq + BN 2 2. (2.114)

3.

where Nq , N = Terzaghis bearing capacity factors (Table 2.1) Case 2 (Fig. 2.38b): If the center-to-center spacing of the two foundations (x = x2 < x1) are such that the Rankine passive zones just overlap, then the magnitude of qu will still be given by Eq. (2.114). However, the foundation settlement at ultimate load will change (compared to the case of an isolated foundation). Case 3 (Fig. 2.38c): This is the case where the center-to-center spacing of the two continuous foundations is x = x3 < x2 . Note that the triangular wedges in the soil under the foundation make angles of 180( 21 at points d1 and d2 . The area of the logarithmic spirals d1 g1 and d1 e are tangent to each other at point d1 . Similarly, the arcs of the logarithmic spirals d2 g2 and d2 e are tangent to each other at point d2 . For this case, the ultimate bearing capacity of each foundation can be given as (c = 0) 1 qu = qNq q + BN  (2.115) 2 where q ,  = efficiency ratios

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.38 Assumptions for the failure surface in granular soil under two closely spacedrough continuous foundations rough continuous foundations (Note: 1 = , 2 = 45 /2, 3 = 180 )

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.38 (Continued)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.39 Stuarts interference factor !q

FIGURE 2.40 Stuarts interference factor !

1999 by CRC Press LLC

The efficiency ratios are functions of x/B and soil friction angle 1. The theoretical variations of q and  are given in Figs. 2.39 and 2.40. 4. Case 4 (Fig. 2.38d): If the spacing of the foundation is further reduced such that x = x4 < x3 , blocking will occur, and the pair of foundations will act as a single foundation. The soil between the individual units will form an inverted arch which travels down with the foundation as the load is applied. When the two foundations touch, the zone of arching disappears and the system behaves as a single foundation with a width equal to 2B. The ultimate bearing capacity for this case can be given by Eq. (2.114), with B being replaced by 2B in the third term. Das and Larbi-Cherif [26] conducted laboratory model tests to determine the interference efficiency ratios (q and ) of two rough continuous foundations resting on sand extending to a great depth. The sand used in the model tests was highly angular, and the tests were conducted at a relative density of about 60%. The angle of friction 1 at this relative density of compaction was 39(. Load-displacement curves obtained from the model tests were of local shear type. The experimental variations of q and  obtained from these tests are given in Figs. 2.41 and 2.42. From these figures it may be seen that, although the general trend of the experimental efficiency ratio variations is

FIGURE 2.41 Comparison of experimental and theoretical !q

1999 by CRC Press LLC