Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S.
Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

Based on Shear Wave Velocity
Revised 23 !" 2!!#
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
BASED ON SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY
Semih S. Tezcan
1
, Ali Keceli
2
, Zuhal Ozdemir
3
ABSTRACT
Firstly$ the historical bac%ground is presented for the deter&ination of ulti&ate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations' (he principles of plastic e)uilibriu& used in the classical
for&ulation of the ulti&ate bearing capacity are reviewed$ followed by a discussion about the
sources of appro*i&ations inherent in the classical theory'
Secondly$ based on a variety of case histories of site investigations$ including
e*tensive bore hole data$ laboratory testing and geophysical prospecting$ an e&pirical
for&ulation is proposed for the deter&ination of allowable bearing capacity of shallow
foundations' (he proposed e*pression corroborates consistently with the results of the
classical theory and is proven to be reliable and safe$ also fro& the view point of &a*i&u&
allowable settle&ents' +t consists of only two soil para&eters$ na&ely$ the insitu &easured
shear wave velocity$ and the unit weight' (he unit weight &ay be also deter&ined with
sufficient accuracy$ by &eans of another e&pirical e*pression$ using the ,-wave velocity' +t is
indicated that once the shear and ,-wave velocities are &easured insitu by an appropriate
geophysical survey$ the allowable bearing capacity is deter&ined reliably through a single
step operation' Such an approach$ is considerably cost and ti&e-saving$ in practice'
Key words : bearing capacity, shear wae, !"undati"n design, shall"w !""tings,
all"wable bearing pressure
1. Introduction
The ultimate bearing capacity of a particular soil, under a shallow footing, was
investigated theoretically by Prandtl (1921) #$% and Reissner (192) #&% using the concept of
plastic e!uilibrium as early as in 1921" The formulation however is slightly modified,
generalised, and updated later by Ter#aghi (192$) #12%, %eyerhof (19$&) #'%, 'ansen (19&()
#3%, )e *eer (19+,) #2%, and -ieffert et al" (2,,,) #(% "
The historical bearing capacity formulation, as will be discussed briefly in the ne.t
-ection, is still widely used in geotechnical engineering practice" 'owever, there are various
uncertainities in representing the real insitu soil conditions by means of a few laboratory
1
,rofessor of Civil .ngineering$ Boga/ici 0niversity$ Bebe%$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey
,hone1 23!' 242' 352 "5 536 Fa*1 23!' 242' 352 "5 576 8obile1 23!' 532' 92! 27 47
: tezokan @ superonline. com ;
2
,rofessor of <eophysics$ +stanbul 0niversity$ Beya/it$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey
/
Research .ngineer$ =igher .ducation Research Foundation$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey
varwwwappsconversiont&pscratch>"2333"!"53'doc !3!32!!#
4
Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir
tested shear strength parameters" The basic soil parameters are c
u
0 cohesion, undrained shear
strength and 0 angle of internal friction, which can only be determined by laboratory testing
of undisturbed soil samples" 1t is sometimes impossible to ta2e undisturbed soil samples
especially in sandy and gravelly soils"
The insitu measured shear wave velocity,
s , however as a single field inde. represents
the real soil conditions, much more effectively and reliably than the laboratory tested shear
strength parameters" 1n addition to geophysical refraction seismic survey, there are several
other techni!ues of measuring the shear wave velocity at the site as discussed by -to2oe et al"
(19+2) #11%, Te#can et al" (19+$) #1'%. *ecause, the insitu measured shear wave velocity,
s
,
reflects the true photograph of the soil, containing the contributions of the void ratio,
effective confining stresses, stress history, shear and compressive strengths, geologic age etc"
3s will be seen later in this study, the shear wave velocity,
s , enables the practicing engineer
to determine the allowable bearing capacity, )
a , in a most convenient, reliable and straight
forward manner"
. C!"##ic"! $or%u!"tion
4sing the principles of plastic e!uilibrium, the ultimate bearing capacity, )
!
, of a
shallow strip footing, with a depth of *, from the surface and with a width of + and length ,,
- .igure 1/ , is given by Ter#aghi (19&+) #13% as ,
q
f
= c N
c
s
c
+ D N
q
+ 0.5 B N
(1)
where,
a) +earing capacity !act"rs0
1
)
2 e3p - tan / tan
2
-'$
4
5 62/
1
c
2 -1
)
7 1/ c"t
1
2 1.8 -1
)
71/ tan by =ansen ?43"7@ #3%
or 1
2 -1
)
7 1/ tan -1.' / "by 8eyerhof ?435"@ [4]
b) Shape !act"rs9
s
c
2 1 5 4.24 + 6 , 55555555555"55555" - 0 conditions)
s
c
2 [1 5 4.24 + 6 ,] [1 5 4.3 -* 6 +/
4.2$
]5"" -= 4 c"nditi"ns, saturated clays/
s
2 1 7 4.2 -+ 6 ,/ 555555555" -+ 6 , 2 !""ting width t" length rati"/

s
2 4.& 555555555555555555555 -circular !""ting/

1t is customary to ta2e + 6 , 2 4 for a strip footing, and + 6 , 2 1 for a s!uare footing"
The formulation is applicable to :shall"w; foundations in which the depth * , is not greater
than the breadth +" The foundation shape factor e.pression of s
c
given above for saturated
clays under undrained conditions, where

2 4, is generated using the 1
c
curves supplied by
-2empton (19$1) #8%" 1f the soil is 6wea27, or in other words is not fairly dense or stiff,
i"e" *
r
8 ,"/$ , 1
&4
8 ( , c
u
8 1,, 2Pa , or
s
8 2,, m9sec, the reduced shear strength
parameters c
r
and
r
are used in <).1, instead of the laboratory determined c and , as
follows #13% :
c
r
2 4.&( c (2a)
tan
r
2 4.&( tan (2b)
2
&. Sourc'# o$ "((ro)i%"tion# in c!"##ic"! "((ro"c*
The appro.imations involved in the derivation and use of the ultimate bearing capacity,
)
!

, given by <).1, may be summari#ed as follows:
a@ (he soil &ass is assu&ed to be purely ho&ogeneous and isotropic$ while the soil in nature is
e*tre&ely heteregenous and ti*otropic$ further the classical theory is developed only for a
planar case$ while all footings are 3- di&ensional in real behaviour'
b@ (he first ter& of Eq.1 represents the shear strength$ the second ter& is the contribution of
the surcharge pressure due to the depth of foundation$ and the third ter& represents the
contribution of the self-weight' +t is only an appro*i&ation to superi&pose the contributions of
various load cases in an entirely nonlinear plastic stress-strain environ&ent'
c@ (he contribution of self-weight can be deter&ined only appro*i&ately$ by nu&erical or
graphical &eans$ for which no e*act for&ulation is available'
d@ (he shear strength of soil within a depth D $ fro& the surface is neglected'
e@ Aepending on the degree of$ co&pressibility of the soil$ there &ay be three types of failure
&odes6 (i) general shear$ (ii) local shear$ and (iii) unching shear$ as shown in !igure 1'
(he theoretical considerations behind Eq.1$ correspond only to the general shear mode$ which
is typical for soils of low co&pressibility$ such as dense sands and stiff clays' +n the local shear
"ailure$ only a partial state of plastic e)uilibriu& is developed with significant co&pression
under the footing' +n the unching shear mode, however$ direct planar shear failures occur
only along the vertical directions around the edges of the footing' (herefore$ Eq.1 is no longer
applicable for soils of high co&pressibility$ such as loose sand and soft clay$ which &ay
undergo$ either (ii) #he local shear or (iii) #he unching shear failures' Conse)uently$ the
results of Eq.1 will only be appro*i&ate for such soils' +n reality$ the e*cessive settle&ent and
not the shear failure is nor&ally the li&iting criterion in high co&pressibility soils'
f@ (he ulti&ate bearing capacity calculations are very sensitive to the values of shear strength
para&eters c $ and $ which are deter&ined in the laboratory using BundisturbedC soil sa&ples$
which &ay not necessarily represent the true conditions prevailing at the site' 0nrealistically$
high bearing capacity is calculated especially$ if the shear strength para&eter$ $ is
inappropriately deter&ined to be on the high side in the laboratory' All soil para&eters
including the real values of internal angle of friction$ water content$ void ratio$ confining
pressure$ presence of boulders or cavities$ etc are not necessarily the sa&e in the soil
sa&ples'
g@ Custo&arily$ after a due geotechnical survey$ a single value of allowable bearing capacity qa $
is assigned in practice$ to a particular construction site' =owever$ &inor variations in si/es$
shapes and depths of different foundations at a particular site are overloo%ed$ and the sa&e
qa value is used in foundation design$ through- out the construction site'
h@ A factor of safety of 3 is used nor&ally$ in order to obtain the allowable bearing capacity$ qa $
which contains a significant a&ount of reserve strength in it$ accounting for all the
inaccuracies and appro*i&ations cited herein' (his significantly large factor of safety
represents the degree of uncertainties and our BignoranceC in deter&ining the real soil
conditions'
i@ Dast$ but not the least$ although so&e )uantitative guidance is available as contained in
Sec#ion $$ there is )uite a bit of intuition in deter&ining whether the soil is on the %s#rong& or the
%'ea(& side$ for the purpose of using reduced )#'o #hirds* shear strength para&eters$ in
accordance with Eq $'
3
+. Pr"ctic"! r'co%%'nd"tion#
*ased on the practical e.periences of the writers, the ranges of allowable bearing
capacities for different categories of cohesive and granular soils are summari#ed in Table 1"
;or comparisons as well as for !uic2 reference purposes, the values of -PT counts 1
&4
, shear
strength parameters c
u , and , relative density *
r
, and also the shear wave velocity
s , for
each soil category are also given in Table 1" The ranges of allowable bearing pressures )
a , are
tested to be in conformity with the empirical recommendations of the =+>7?( -1??(/ #1&%,
the Tur2ish <arth!ua2e =ode T<>71??8 #1$%, and the +S 844' (19(&) #1%"
,. U#' o$ #*'"r -".' .'!ocit/
a ) For control of settlements
*ased on numerous case studies, as discussed in the subse!uent -ections, the
allowable bearing capacity, )
a , under a shallow foundation in units of @Aa, may be obtained
from the following empirical e.pressions:
q
a
= 0.024 v
s (/a)
q
a
= 2.4 !0
"4

) v
s
(/b)
where, 0 unit weight -@16m
3
/, 0 mass density -@g6m
3
/, and
s
0 shear wave velocity
-m6sec/" -ince, a proper foundation design must satisfy not only an assured degree of safety
against possible shear failures of the supporting soil, but also the settlements, and in particular
the differential settlements, should not e.ceed the tolerable limits as given by -2empton et al"
(19$&) #14% " 'ence, the coefficient of the empirical formula in <). 3 is so selected to be on
the low side, that no settlement problem will necessarily be encountered in relatively soft soil
conditions" This point has been rigorously tested and verified for all soft 6wea27 soil
conditions e.isting in the case histories given Table 2"
3lthough, the empirical e.pressions of <). 3, are proposed by the writers, on the basis
of e.tensive geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations at 1 different sites, they should
be used with caution" ;or relatively important buildings, and especially until a stage when the
validity of these simple empirical e.pressions are amply tested and calibrated over a sufficient
period of time, the allowable bearing pressure should be determined also by means of
conventional methods using Ter#aghi7s soil parameters"
The proposed empirical e.pressions are for estimating the allowable bearing pressure
only" The settlement calculations however, should be conducted, especially for soft soil
conditions and for important structures, using either the elastic theory #14% , or the -2empton>
*?errum method #?% " *ecause, settlements sometime may be the dominating factor"
# ) For sett$n% an &''er ce$l$n% for q
a
1n order to set a practical upper ceiling for the allowable bearing capacity, )
a ,
especially for the roc2y formations the empirical e.pression given in <). 3, is ad?usted to
yield gradually reduced values through a factor s
, for shear wave velocities greater than $44

m6sec, as follows:
#
q
a
= 0.024 v
s
s
v
( 34.& ()
s
v
= ! ) * + !0
",
v
s
" 500 )
!.,
($)
The variation of allowable bearing capacity )
a
, with shear wave velocity
s
, is
illustrated in .igure 2, where the reduction factor s
, sets an asymptotic upper limit of

)
a
0 34.& for shear wave velocities
s
B 2 444 m6sec.
c 0 For calc&lat$n% &n$t we$%-ts
There is a direct relationship between the average unit weight , and the P>wave
velocity of a soil layer" *ased on e.tensive case histories of laboratory testing, a convenient
empirical relationship in this regard, is proposed by the writers as follows:

'
=
o
+ 0.002 v
'

(&)
where,
p
0 the unit weight in @16m
3
based on P>wave velocity,
p
0 P>wave velocity in m6sec,
and
"
0 the reference unit weight values given as follows:
o + 1, "or loose sand-, sil#- and cla-e- soils
o + 1. "or dense sand and gra/el
o + 10 "or muds#one, limes#one, cla-s#one, conglomera#e, e#c.
o

+ $1 "or sands#one, #u"", gra-'ac(e, schis#, e#c.
3s seen in .igure 3, the unit weights calculated by the empirical e.pression given in
<).&, are in e.cellent agreement with those determined in the laboratory" 1n the absence of
any bore hole sampling and laboratory testing of soil samples, the above empirical e.pression
provides a reliable first appro.imation for the unit weights of various soils, once the insitu
measured P>wave velocities are available" 1n fact, the speedy evaluation of unit weights, prior
to any soil sampling, enables the practicing engineer to calculate the allowable bearing
capacity )
a , readily from <). 3"
1. C"#' *i#tori'#
a ) F$eld $nvest$%at$ons
1n order to establish a sound and reliable relationship between the allowable bearing
capacity )
a , and the shear wave velocity
s
, a series of case histories have been studied as
summari#ed in Table 2" ;or each case, in>depth geotechnical and geophysical site
investigations have been conducted and a comprehensive set of insitu and laboratory tested
soil parameters have been determined" %ost of the basic soil parameters, for each typical soil
layer, are shown in .igures ' through .igure &. 1f however, for any particular soil parameter
in any typical soil layer, multiple values were available, from various bore hole and seismic
survey measurements, only the average of these multiple values have been indicated"
# ) .llowa#le #ear$n% ca'ac$t$es #y t-e class$cal t-eory
5
The first column in these ;igures contain the insitu measured -PT data, 1
34
, the
laboratory tested values of c
u
0 undrained shear strength -@Aa/ , ; 0 effective internal angle
of friction,
n
0 unit weight -@16m
3
/, and also the )
!
0 ultimate bearing capacities -@Aa/, and )
a
0 allowable bearing capacities -@Aa/ calculated using the classical approach of <). 1" 1f, a
particular soil layer is considered to be :wea@; in accordance with Ter#aghi7s (19&+) #13%
recommendations, two thirds of shear strength parameters have been utili#ed in the bearing
pressure capacity calculations, as given in <). 2"
c ) .llowa#le #ear$n% ca'ac$ty #y v
s
The second column contains, the insitu measured
s
and
p
> velocities -m6sec/,
0 Poisson ratio,
p
0 unit weights -@16m
3
/ determined on the basis of P>wave velocities
given in <). &, )
a
0 allowable bearing capacities -@Aa/ based on shear wave velocities, in
accordance with <). 3" 1n all case histories, the shear wave velocity,
s
, and the P>wave
velocity,
p , have been measured insitu by means of seismic refraction method, using low
level e.plosives" The propagating waves have been recorded by means of a 12>channel Smart
Seis Ce"metrics instrument, which is capable of producing very high resolution of
signal6n"ise ratio, due to its instant analogue and9or digital signal analyses and automatic
filtering process"
1n practice, the geophysical e.plorations are not daily business in foundation
engineering, therefore, there is a necessity for e.perienced technical staff for such a purpose"
The shear wave velocities may be measured, through impact energy methods, during the bore
hole drilling, or using the cross>hole techni!ue #11% , #1'%"
Reali#ing that, the bearing capacity is correlated with large strains at failure, while the
shear wave velocity is associated with 6#ero strain7 levels, the proposed empirical e.pressions
are ad?usted effectively in order to accommodate the differences in strain levels"
;or each case history, the allowable bearing capacities obtained by the classical theory
have been compared in .igure (, with those determined by <). 3, using the shear wave
velocities" 1t is seen that there is a very good agreement between these two different sets of
values" The allowable bearing capacities )
a
, based on the shear wave velocities are more
uniform in distribution, e.hibiting no erratic variation and further, they provide an inherent
factor of safety against shear failure and intolerable settlements" The empirical allowable
bearing pressure e.pression given in <). 3, ensures for all foreseeable soft soil conditions,
including those of the case studies that, the ma.imum allowable settlement is not e.ceeded"
2. Conc!u#ion#
a) The determination of ade!uately safe allowable bearing capacity of a soil layer under a
shallow foundation is a problem of vital importance in geotechnical engineering" The classical
approach is not only costly and time consuming due to e.tensive insitu and laboratory testing
re!uired, but also involves significant appro.imations and intuitive ?udgements" )espite the
6e.act7 nature of the classical theory, a huge factor safety, on the order of /,, percent, is
recommended in order to account for the une.pected inaccuracies and our 6ignorance7 of the
real soil conditions"
b) The proposed empirical shear wave velocity approach however, is surprisingly cost effective,
and time saving" The insitu measured shear wave velocity, v
s
, as an indispensable single field
inde., is capable of representing the real soil conditions at the site, including the true
influence of a family of soil parameters li2e water content, confining pressure, relative density,
"
void ratio, nonuniformity, discontinuity, nonhomogeneity, shear and compressive strength, etc"
The complications and misrepresentations associated with soil sampling, sample disturbance,
accurate simulations in the laboratory testing, etc" are all avoided" -hear wave velocity
measurement at a site however, calls for additional cost and e.pert geophysical personnel"
c) The depth, width and length of a foundation plays a significant role especially in granular
soils, in the derivation of mathematical formulation when following the classical approach" 1n
cohesive soils, the geometry of foundation does not play a significant role anyhow"
@evertheless in classical theory, the soil is ideali#ed into an isotropic, homogeneous and
uniform elasto>plastic planar geometrical medium" 1n the shear wave velocity approach
however, there is absolutely no need to consider the foundation si#e and depth, even in
granular soils, since the influence of all these parameters are inherently incorporated in the
insitu measured
s
A values" The classical approach is further handicapped by the layered
conditions" 1n shear wave velocity approach however, the bearing capacity of a single layer,
immediately under the foundation, is directly determined, as a one step operation"
d) The empirical formulations proposed for calculating both the allowable bearing capacity )
a
,
and the unit weight , are proven to be safe and reliable as verified consistently by 1 different
laboratory tested case histories" The validity and reliability of the proposed scheme will be
better established however, as the proposed empirical method is constantly calibrated by
conventional method at more and more sites"
3. Ac4no-!'d5%'nt#
The authors gratefully ac2nowledge the assistance and cooperation e.tended by %r"
Tufan )urgunoglu, and %r" 3bdullah =alisir of the Beotechnics =o", 1stanbul, who conducted
the geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations of all the case studies discussed herein"
-incere than2s are also due to Professor Csman 4yani2, of -uleyman )emirel 4niversity,
1sparta, for his invaluable criticisms and corrections of the manuscript"
6. R'$'r'nc'#
718. *ritish -tandard (,, (19(&)" >"de "! Aractice !"r ."undati"ns, *ritish -tandards
1nstitution, Dondon"
78. )e*eer, <"<" (19+,)" E<3perimental determinati"n "! the shape !act"rs and the
bearing capacity !act"rs "! sandF, Beotechni!ue, Gol" 2,, pp" /(+>11"
7&8. 'ansen, H"*" (19&()" EA reised e3tended !"rmula !"r bearing capacityF, )anish
Beotechnical 1nstitute *ulletin, @o" 2("
7+8. %eyerhof, B"B" (19$&)" E Aenetrati"n tests and bearing capacity "! c"hesi"nless
s"ilsF, Proceedings 3-=<, Gol" (2, @o" -%1, Paper (&&, pp" 1>19"
7,8. Prandtl, D" (1921)" EDber die <indringungs!estig@eit -E2rte/ plastischer +aust"!!e und
die .estig@eit "n SchneidenF -On the penetrating strengths -hardness/ "! plastic
c"nstructi"n materials and the strength "! cutting edges/, Ieit" 3ngew" %ath" %ech",
1, @o"1, pp"1$>2,"
9
718. Reissner, '" (192)" EZum <rddruc@pr"blemF ->"ncerning the earth7pressure
pr"blem/, Proc" 1st 1nt" =ongress of 3pplied %echanics, )elft, pp" 29$>/11"
728. -ieffert, H"B", and =h" *ay>Bress (2,,,)" E>"mparis"n "! the <ur"pean bearing
capacity calculati"n meth"ds !"r shall"w !"undati"nsF, Beotechnical <ngineering,
1nstitution of =ivil <ngineers, Gol" 1/, pp" &$>+"
738. -2empton, 3" J" (19$1)" EThe bearing capacity "! clays;; , Ar"ceedings, +uilding
Gesearch >"ngress, 1, 1(,>9"
768. -2empton, 3" J" and *?errum, D" (19$+)" EA c"ntributi"n t" the settlement analysis "!
!"undati"n "n clayF, Beotechni!ue, Gol" +, pp" 1&(>1+("
7198. -2empton, 3" J" and %ac)onald, )" '" (19$&)" All"wable settlement "! buildings,
Ar"ceedings H><, $, Part /, pp" +2+>&("
7118. -to2oe, K" '", and Joods, R" )" (19+2)" EHnsitu Shear Iae Jel"city by >r"ss7E"le
Keth"dF, Hournal of the -oil %echanics and ;oundation )ivison, 3-=<, Gol" 9(, @o"
-%$, pp" />&,"
718. Ter#aghi, K" (192$)" EStructure and "lume "! "ids "! s"ilsF, Pages 1,, 11, 12, and
part of 1/ of <rdbaumechani@ au! +"denphysi@alisher Crundlage, translated by 3"
=asagrande in .r"m the"ry t" practice in s"il mechanics, @ew Lor2, Hohn Jiley and
-ons, 19&,, pp" 1&>1("
71&8. Ter#aghi, K", and Pec2, R" *" (19&+)" ES"il Kechanics in <ngineering AracticeF, 2nd
edn, Hohn Jiley and -ons, @ew Lor2"
71+8. Te#can, -" -", <rden, -" %", and )urgunoMlu, '" T" (19+$)" EHnsitu Keasurement "!
Shear Iae Jel"city at +"LaziMi =niersity >ampusF, Proceedings of 1nternational
=onference on -oil %echanics and ;oundation <ngineering, Gol" 2, 3pril 19+$, pp"
1$+>1&, 1stanbul Technical 4niversity, 3ya#aMa, 1stanbul, Tur2ey"
71,8. Tur2ish <arth!ua2e =ode (T<=), (199()" 8 www" 2oeri"boun"edu"tr N"
7118. 4niform *uilding =ode (4*=), (199+)" 1nternational =onference of *uilding
Cfficials, $/&, Jor2man %ill Road Jhittier, =alifornia, 4-3"
7
.igure 1. N F"i!ur' %'c*"ni#%# und'r " #tri( $ootin5
3
.igure 2. N A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("cit/ o$ #oi!# :"#'d on v
s

4!
--
.igure 3. N Unit -'i5*t# :"#'d on .
(
; .'!ociti'#
44
.igure '.7 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.1 t*rou5* No.+
(4nits areO g 0 2@9m
/
, c 0 2@9m
2
, !
a
0 2@9m
2
, v
s
, v
p
0 m9sec)
42
.igure $.7 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.,< 1< 2< "nd 6
/
, c 0 2@9m
2
, !
a
0 2@9m
2
, v
s
, v
p
0 m9sec)
43
.igure &.7 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.19 t*rou5* No.1+
/
, c 0 2@9m
2
, !
a
0 2@9m
2
, v
s
, v
p
0 m9sec)
4#
.igure (. N Co%("ri#on# o$ "!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'#
(@umerals beside the data points are the case study numbers)
45
Table 1.7 R'co%%'nd'd r"n5'# o$ "!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# =4P"0
4"

Table 2.7 Loc"tion# "nd t*' #co(' o$ in.'#ti5"tion# $or '"c* c"#' #tud/
No Bui!din5 Id'ntit/
Nu%:'r
O$
#ur.'/#
1umber m m a b -c/ -d/
1 3tatPr2 Primary -chool *uilding
*abaes2i, KQr2lareli , Jestern Tur2ey
2 1$"/, ",, 2 2 2(1 32
2 Residential 3partments
LeRilSay =ooperative, Tay, 3fyon
9"$, 2"$, / / 11, 1+2
/ Ie2i Urne2, 'ousing comple.,
BV2tPr2 Gillage, <yPp, 1stanbul
2 2,",, /",, 1 / 1$, 9&
C#tas 3partments, ;lorya
Wenli2, *a2Qr2oy, 1stanbul
2 2,",, /",, 1 / 1& 11+
$ Cil tan2Q
(X)
, 'aramidere, 1stanbul / (",, 2"$, / / 1&$ 11&
& Cil tan2s, -amsun, *lac2 -ea & 2$",, 2"$, / 2 21$ +
+ Cil tan2s, %udanya, *ursa 2,"+ 2"$, / / 1,, 1&&
( Cil tan2s, Tubu2lu, 1stanbul / 12",, 1",, / 11$ 199
9 Cil tan2s, 1s2enderun $ $"$, 1"$, / / $2, &2+
1, Cil tan2s, %ersin ( 2&"1, 2"$, / / 1(+ 13
11 Cil tan2s, )erince , Kocaeli + 21",, 1"$, / / 11, 31
12 Cil tan2s, )erince, Kocaeli + 21",, +",, / / 222 9,
1/ Cil tan2s, 3liaMa, 1#mir & 19"2, 2"$, / 2/1 &+
1 -uleyman )emirel 4niversity,
1sparta, -outhern Tur2ey
2 12",, ",, 2 2 12, 1+

a) seismic refraction surveys, #) geophysical soil layers,
c) the classical Ter#aghi approach (<). 1), d) the shear wave velocity approach (<). 3)"

(X)
Cil tan2s belong to the Tur2ish Petroleum Cffice =o", 3n2ara, Tur2ey
49
Nu%:'r
o$
:or' *o!'# "nd
".'r"5' d'(t*
Footin5
D'(t*
D
A!!o-":!'
:'"rin5 c"("cit/<
>
"
in @Aa
No

Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S.

Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

2 1 7 4.2 -+ 6 ,/ 555555555" -+ 6 , 2 !""ting width t" length rati"/

2 4.& 555555555555555555555 -circular !""ting/

, for shear wave velocities greater than $44

, sets an asymptotic upper limit of

You might also like