Loading...
Specifications City of Tigard, Oregon ® 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® Tigard, OR 97223 1` " "`" ` . i r 's 51 yr '�s"-- a f icy ` `#� ;..; June 3, 2008 y , x a ,� m ,� 7j� RE: WINCO COPY � n ' 9g SX'k -,. 1,r TY .1 Project Information Building Permit: BUP2008 -00169 Construction Type: IIB � ,v�� � n Address: 1 a nut St. � �� Occupancy Type: M /B /S1 Area: 93000 Sq. Ft. �S° s w ; ; "` F " Stories: 1 Name: Winco Sprinkled: Yes STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION / SPECIAL INSPECTION • See sheet G2.00 for structural observation and special inspection requirements under 1.03 Quality Control / Quality Assurance. All reports should be submitted to the City of Tigard attention: Hap Watkins. All final summary reports will be required prior to final inspection. NOTE: Structural observation and special inspection does not take the place of required City of Tigard inspections. EROSION • Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to excavation or grading. Approved Plans: 1 set of approved plans, bearing the City of Tigard approval stamp, shall be maintained on the jobsite. The plans shall be available to the Building Division inspectors throughout all phases of construction. 106.4.2 OSSC American with Disabilities Act (ADA): It shall be the responsibility of the Architect, Engineer, Designer, Contractor, Owner and Lessee to research the applicability of the ADA requirements for the structure. The City of Tigard reviews the plans and inspects the structure only for compliance with Chapter 11 of the OSSC which may not include all of the requirements of the ADA. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Respectf y, AAA u Mark VanDomelen, Plans Examination Supervisor (503)718 -2436 markv©tigard- or.gov Phone: 503.639.4171 o Fax: 503.684.7297 ® www.tigard or.gov © TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 6:7 ti 1 0 Y � p'rp , S _ r. O Alfa t ..:: Y Z . DESIGN CALCULATIONS WinCo Foods Store No. 23 Addition Tigard, Oregon CITY OF TIGARD Approved ! X ] May, 2008 rinditionaliy Approved ! ] For only the w rk as described . 2 r'l HMl7 N�. 9t See Lett r to Fo low ! Attt iCh ! Job A dress: -7 . U: S ., - r . ri 9 Included Calculations: E'',: -- .A,J. . --_ -< <.� ,::,, O,lte: . °1 .— Soil Model 0 Footing Settlement IJJ Footing Bearing Capacity Q Pier Compression Capacity 0 Pier Tension Capacity 0 Slab On -Grade Support 0 Slope Stabilization 0 Liquefaction 0 STRUCTURAL REVIEW CONS ; , I' OFFICE COPY PERMIT # 1 .j i r 2006 — 0 14 ° S �' 8 DATE m p s .w K S, . s ry. -. ,. r ,5�'.IMFF S/ MILLER �;ONSL`L�"T ^ -� . -- 1 ''� �k.:'t�J1 I -r 4:J 4.' a + 6 r N a . g4 9 *(4 f By a - s 5 lie, .i GEOPIER Found tion Co — West 3 'I ,� a c f} t 214 SE . a lnut gtiieet a c, `' y §' . ! .3 c ! Hillsbor , OR i/ L'23� � � _ 1- 7 ` � F ,, l �` • 1 i 8 7I7 P, t ' a g LI ! 1 f .. i ! 1 a c) Engineered Structures, Inc. (1) 011 12400 W. Overland Rd. Boise, 10 83709 (208) 362-3040 = 4 'fJ Revtewed as noted .• Rejected . o Not required for review Cr Resultadt Corrections or comments made on the shop drawings during this review do not .0 relieve subcontractor/supplier from compli- ance requirements of the drawings and specifications. Review is for the limited purposes of checking for conformance with the design concept expressed in the contract docu- ments. By a r a1 3 g) Oak) C 60 19 • - - ' SOIL MODEL GEOPIER DESIGN PARAMETERS (GFC -W) Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. has approved the following parameters for use in the design of the Geopier soil reinforcement and intermediate foundation system in their FAX LETTERS dated 8 May and 9 May 2007. These values are based on their interpretation of the project exploration logs and geotechnical report. Geopier Cell Capacity (Q kips) = 65 kips Allowable Footing Bearing Pressure (q ksf) = 4.5 ksf Geopier Stiffness Modulus (k pci) = 175 pci Matrix Soil Stiffness Modulus (k pci) = 12 pci Shaft length (H ft) = 14' to 17' (extend drilling to the shallower of a maximum drill depth of 20' below construction grade, or through the soft silt to tag the underlying firm silty clay identified at depths of 17' to 20' in the geotechnical explorations) Lower Zone Elastic Modulus Values (inferred from ZZA Borings, confirmed by ZZA): E = 50 ksf for the soft silt (to 24' below ground surface) ES2 = 65 ksf for the medium stiff to stiff clay and silt (below 24' bgs) Geotechnical Parameters: Unit Weight (y) = 110 pcf (inferred from ZZA Borings, confirmed by ZZA) Friction Angle (4) = 27 deg. (inferred from ZZA Borings, confirmed by ZZA) Cohesion (c) = n/a Undrained Strength (S = n/a Compression Index (C = n/a Depth to Groundwater = 7' (from ZZA Borings) Soil Resistivity = 6200 ohm -cm Structural Life Cycle (per Structural Engineer) = n/a . I B -1® l 1 PROPOSED. ADDITION I .............._ .... F/F =100' I 1 EXISTING I WINCO STORE F/F = 100' , I s B -2 - EXISTING • ( P ETS MA RT I F/F = 104' l 1 1 SHOPS TO BE I 1 i RENOVATED 1 LEGEND: ® 13-1 BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Project No. 82075007 Proposed WinCo Store Expansion 0 50 100 A Terracon Company 7500 SW Dartmouth Road Date: May. 2007 ■iiii_ ` APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 4000 SE international Way, Suite F102 Drawn by: J.Duncan Tigard, Oregon Portland, Oregon 97222 Scale: As Noted FIGURE 1: SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN Tele: (503) 659 -3251 Fax: (503) 659 -1287 LOG OF BORING NO. B -1 ' Page 1 of 1 ■ • LOG OF BORING NO. B -2 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT CLIENT WinCo Foods LLG F? C7 WinCo Foods LLC SITE 7500 SW Dartmouth Rd PROJECT 67--6-v, . E C7 SITE 7500 SW Dartmouth Rd PROJECT Tigard, Oregon WinCo Store Expansion FF Tigard, Oregon WinCo Store Expansion SAMPLES _ TESTS - - /00 C-0:'; _ SAMPLES TESTS Ca o • ❑a ' PPROX =S 0 9 DESCRIPTION . r rr a z F i- z1 EXi57 - .r. NJG 9 DESCRIPTION = . - i e .z. = rn w > zm o= w = zz G DE o! i - N w > zcn w w z a v a I-o ■ ■z r of , 7 0 y m 2 0 3 r- ❑ ow cr o 7 zz 25 r 3° o o S. in 198 T o A00 �hn�� w v 2 F w a° a o n a z . x - ` cyy9 ❑ z n v,m 3u o e • 3" Asphalt over - /� 1.>.,'„, '51"'" 3" Asphalt over ]'S:.�'-, 1 . 5 ,FILL• SANDY GRAVEL gray, moist -GM 1 SS 12 22 D - f z ' FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, gray to brown, - 1 SS 13 13 _'k 2.5 FILL: SILTY GRAVEL, WITH SAND / - r - very E Y moist / - brown, moist - ML 2 SS 12 8 r I ¢ CLAYYEY SILT, TRACE SAND AND - ML 2 SS 18 8 5 SANDY SILT /SILTY SAN D brown, stiff, 3 S GRAVEL brown stiff, moist _— �moist l--- 5 - ML 3 SS 18 4 34 200 =81% 74 k �. 5-- - ML 3 SS 18 11 SILT, WITH SAND brown, medium stiff - - - SILT, TRACE SAND AND GRAVEL, to soft, moist to wet 4 - - brown, stiff, moist 2 -. 7.5 = ML 4 SS 18 2 - - SANDY SILT, brown, stiff, wet - ML 4 SS 18 7 7 0 _ �s - 10 - SILT, TRACE SAND AND CLAY gray, 1e - ML 5 SS 18 3 34 '•- 200 =74 % SILT, WITH SANG brown, soft, wet 10 - ML 5 SS 18 2 soft to medium stiff, wet - LL =25 - 15 8 - PI =3 - - _ _ 7_o = t5 _ML 6 SS 18 4 ls — —' — " ! — ML 6 SS 18 2 30 P- 200 =76% '- - = PI =NP • 18.5 - _ 18.5 - SILLY CLAY, gray, stiff - CL 7 SS 18 11 35 SILT, TRACE SAND gray, soft, wet - ML 7 SS 18 2 20 r 20 7. Ilp II 23.5 _ 23.5 / FAT CLAY, TRACE GRAVEL brown and -CH 8 SS 18 11 51 LL =63 SILT, TRACE CLAY AND SAND gray, _- ML 8 SS 18 4 35 1� 2 2�gray mottled, stiff 25 - PI =35 medium stiff, wet 25 BOTTOM OF BORING - Borehole advanced using hollow stem - augers. — 18.5 - CL 9 SS 13 6 30 SILTY CLAY, TRACE SAND AND r ' GRAVEL, gray, medium stiff 30 a 32.5 - 5 //� s' 34 FA CLAY, TRACE GRAVEL brown and -CH 10 SS 18 15 48 gray monied, very stiff ' f -j OF BORING Borehole advanced using hollow stem ° augers. 5 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines i7 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between sot and rock types: in -situ, the Transition may be gradual. between soil and rock types: in -situ. the transition may be gradual, WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 4 -23 -07 ', WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 4 -23 -07 4 WL 7 1 hr AB i BORING COMPLETED 4 -23 -07 T - N WL Q 7 WD 9 AB 1hr ��� �� RIG BORING COMPLETED 53 DRILLER STI 4-23-07 Ti WL $ Y 1 e rr ac RIG 8 -53 DRILLER STI . 6 WL 1 Y m ` WL LOGGED MLE JOB 82075007, . " ` L LOGGED MLE JOB# 82075007 • SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (GFC -W) 1. Develop a Soil Model based on the available geotechnical data. 2. Divide the Soil Model into the Upper Zone (UZ), the depth influenced by the Geopier reinforcement, and the Lower Zone (LZ) below the depth of Geopier reinforcement. B I I I• Upper Zone c 2B L ( Lower Zone Geopier Elements 3. Estimate footing settlement by calculating the deformation within the UZ and the LZ, independently, and adding the two. Deformation within the UZ will occur essentially as loads are applied. Deformation within the LZ will occur at a rate dependent on the soil type. Upper Zone settlement analysis: Detailed upper zone calculations are described by Lawton and Fox (1994) and Lawton et al. (1994), and are summarized below. Assuming the footing is rigid relative to the foundation materials, stresses applied to the composite foundation materials depend on their relative stiffness (R and area coverage. For static equilibrium, the total downward force (Q) on the footing equals the resistance provided by the Geopier (Q and matrix soil (Q): Q =qA =Qg + Qs= ggAg +qsA ( Where: • q = footing design bearing pressure A = footing plan area q = stress applied at top of Geopier element q = stress applied to soil between the piers at bottom of footing A = total crossectional area of all Geopier elements in the pattern A, = total crossectional area of soil between Geopier elements beneath footing Settlement Analysis Methodology (Cont'd) • Because the settlement of the footing portion bearing on the pier will equal the settlement of the footing portion bearing on the matrix soil, the foundation settlement (s) can be estimated by applied stresses (qg and q) and stiffness modulus (k and k of Geopier and matrix soil: s= q /k =qs /ks ( • Rewrite equation 2 to express the matrix soil stress in terms of the Geopier stress and the ratio of the pier and matrix soil modulus values (R): qs =gg(ks / kg) =qg / (kg /ks) =qg /Rs ( • Combine Equations 1 and 3 and define area ratio (R as the ratio of A to A: q = {qg [R R + 1 - R / R } (4) • Rewrite q in terms of q: qg = {q Rs / [Ra Rs + 1 - R } (5) • Upper -zone settlements are then computed using Equations 2 and 5. Calculations are applied either to the entire Upper -zone as one layer, or the Upper -zone can be divided into sub - layers with a q value assigned to each layer based on the vertical stress distribution within the Upper -zone as established by field research and finite element analysis. Lower Zone settlement analysis alternative approaches: • Analyze using conventional elastic modulus theories, selecting appropriate modulus values based on sampler driving resistance and/or Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) data. Divide the LZ into three or four layers depending on soil stratigraphy. • Analyze using Schmertmann's strain influence diagram, dividing the LZ into 4 layers and selecting appropriate Soil Type Factors (STF) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values from the geotechnical information. • Analyze using conventional consolidation theory (Terzaghi and Peck), dividing the LZ into layers and applying appropriate compression index values, consolidation ratios, and /or effective stress relief from overburden removal (if any). The Westergaard stress distribution is typically applied beginning at the bottom of the footing, which is believed to yield greater settlement estimates for the LZ than actually occur [because the presence of the piers results in a more efficient stress transfer and stress dissipation with depth below the footing bottom than that which occurs for conventional spread footings (Lawton, 1999)]. 4. Combine UZ and LZ settlement estimates. Apply engineering judgement, considering the relative validity of each LZ analysis approach for the soil types and conditions modeled. 1 M ,qx. roP - OF - P__r_ - E72, ST2..<5 = 9. 42-r-- /4... Mi 7 _NDrv 2 D 4- G9L pi C72- 1- 0,917 = 1'3: 3;" k , GEOPIER Foundation Company RECTANGULAR FOOTINGS, ELASTIC 11 wO iT® Project: WInCo Foods Store No. 23 Addition (Tigard, Oregon) No.: 248W (P07 -GNO- 00197) Entnr: IIp Date: 5/12/2008 INPUT PARAMETER VALUES: FOOTING UZ SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS (Parameter 1 Symbi Val. E3' m1•11=1111111111IM1211:11•111KREIM I • M:�.,�i EI, IZEMESEM r r 1F2 /Q E, 10 F2 0 C.8, 10 F2 (5/ C.5, 10 F3 (dl 8.1, 10 • Geopier diameter (in) d 30 Column load (kips) P 30 218 60 307 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Depth to groundwater (6) dgw 7 Select footing width (ft) 13 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.67 10.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 10.00 Total unit weight of soil (pcf) y 110 Required footing length (ft) Lr (P /gali)/B 1.67 12.11 3.64 18.61 2.22 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 2.22 Soil frict. angle (degr) 4 27 Selected footing length (5) L 5.33 128.00 23.00 118.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 10.00 Max. her. pressure (psi) Amax 2500 Footing bearing pressure (ksf) 9 P /(B'L) 1.41 0.43 0.71 0.71 1.00 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 1.00 From Table 4.2: Required No. Geopier elems Nr P /Ocell 0.46 3.35 0.92 4.72 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 Geopier cell cap. (kips) Qcell 65 Selected No. Geopler elems N 1 13 4 12 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Footing bearing press. (ksf) gall 4.5 Area replacement ratio Ra N'Ag/(B'L) 23.01% 12.46% 23.28% 13.61% 19.63% 40.07% 40.07% . 40.07% 40.07% 40.07% 40.07% 19.63% Geopler stiffs. modulus (pci) kg 175 Stiffness ratio Rs kg/km 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 Soil stiffness modulus (psi) km 12 Stress at top of GP (ksf) qg q'Rs/(RS'Ra -Ra +1) 4.97 2.31 2.49 3.63 3.98 ' 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 3.98 Load at lop of GP (kips) Qg gg'Ag 24.40 11.32 12.24 17.83 19.52 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 19.52 Upper zone settlement (in) suz qg/kg 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 SHAFT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS AND LOWER ZONE SETTLEMENT Depth of Embedment DI 5.17 4.00 3.17 3.17 5.00 4.67 467 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 ' 5.00 Design shaft length (ft) Drill depth (ft) Hdrill Df +Hs 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Vertical effective stress at Df (psf) s'df D7g 568 440 348 348 550 513 513 513 513 513 513 550 Vertical effective stress at awl (psf a'gwt dgwt'g 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 Vertical effective stress at bot (psi' s'bot Hdril7q- (Hdrif- dgwt7( 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389 Rankine passive ep coeH Kp tan ^2(45 +phm /2) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Rankine passive press at Df (psi) p4) s'df'Kp 1513 1172 928 928 1465 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1465 Rankine passive press at gwt (psi) pgwt s'gwt•Kp 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050 Rankine passive press at bot (psf) pbot a'bot'Kp 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 3698 Maximum allow hor pressure (psf) platms platmax 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 Let earth pressure profile type ptype If statements Typo 8 Type 8 Type B Type B Type 8 Type B Type 8 Type 8 Type 8 Type 8 Type B Typo B Type A avg lateral pressure (psf) pavga weighted evg 2739 2637 2559 2559 2725 2697 2697 2697 2697 2697 2697 2725 Type 8 critical depth (ft) zcritb interpolation 11 11 11 11 11 (1 11 (1 i i 11 t 11 11 Type B avg lateral pressure (psf) pevgb weighted avg 2358 2284 2222 2222 2348 2328 2328 2328 2328 2328 2328 2348 Type C critical depth (ft) zcritc Interpolation 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Type C avg lateral pressure (psf) pavgc weighted avg 2388 2312 2249 2249 2378 2357 2357 2357 2357 2357 2357 2378 Type D avg lateral pressure (psi) pavgd weighted avg 2606 2435 2313 2313 2581 2533 2533 2533 2533 2533 2533 2581 Type E critical depth (ft) zcrite interpolation 12 12 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Type E avg lateral pressure (psf) pavge weighted avg 2277 2151 2054 2054 2260 2225 2225 2225 2225 2225 2225 2260 Design avg lateral pressure (psi) pavg Pavg for type 2358 2284 2222 2222 2348 2328 2328 2328 2328 2328 2328 2348 Avg drained unit friction (psi) fsd pavg'ten(phim) 1201 1164 1132 1132 1196 1186 1186 1186 1186 1186 1186 1196 Frictional resistance force (kips) Os fs'pi'd'Hs 140 146 150 150 141 143 143 143 143 143 143 141 Allowable tensile resistance (kips) Qsaf 00/2 70 73 75 75 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 70 Is shaft Ion. enough? Os >Pcdem7 ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok If footing is continuous (1 00 48), 613 Is entered hero --.. 58 58 58 FF Elevation ° 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Approx Original Grade Elev . 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Footing Bearing Pressure Minus Overburden (ksf) 1.41 0.43 0.71 0.71 1.00 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.08 1.00 Parameter I Symb I Equation I F 1 ( a l K, 10 ICONTI ( o ) K, 101CONT3 ( d ! K- CACONT2 ( d l K- C.t(F3 ( r D H, 10 1E2 W G, 1 0 F2 ( 0 F.5, 1 0 F2 ( d ) F , 10 1 2 0 . 6/ 10 IF2 (dl C.8, 10 1F2 a C.5, 10 IF3 a 8.1, 10 Depth Limit: 1 341 Opth to boom of 12 trom ftp (ft) H2b 2'sgrt(B'L) or 5B 9.3 20 18.4 18.4 20 9.9 9.9 9.9 9,9 9.9 9.9 20 Upper zone thickness (ft) Huz Hs +d 17.33333333 18.5 19.33313333 19.33333333 17.5 17.83333333 17.83333333 17.83333333 17.83333333 17.83333333 17.83333333 17.5 Depth below existing grade: Lower zone thickness (ft) Hlz H2b -Huz -8.1 1.5 -1 -1 2.5 -8 -8 -8 -0 -8 -8 2.5 Subiayers 1 / 2 boundary Depth 24 Thickness of 12 sublayer 1 (fl) HIz1 0.00 1.50 0.00 - 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 Subiayers 2 / 3 boundary Depth 25 Thickness of LZ sublayer 2 (ft) 1-11z2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Subiayers 3 / 4 boundary Depth 26 Thickness of 12 sublayer 3 (ft) H1z3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subiayers 4 / 5 boundary Depth 27 Thickness of LZ sublayer 4 (ft) H1z4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subiayers 5 / 6 boundary Depth 28 Thickness of LZ sublayer 5 (ft) H1z5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thickness of LZ sublayer 6 (ft) H1z6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total thickness ok? No (2 ok No LZ No LZ ok No LZ No 12 No 12 No LZ No LZ No LZ ok 50 E modulus of L2 sublyr 1 (ksf) EIz1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 65 E modulus of 12 subtyr 2 (ksf) EIz2 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 E modulus of LZ subtyr 3 (ksf) EIz3 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 E modulus of 12 subtyr 4 (ksf) EIz4 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 E modulus of LZ sublyr 5 (kst) E1z5 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 E modulus 0112 sublyr 6 (ks5 Elz6 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Settlement of LZ sublayer 1 (in) stzl q't•Hlz/Elz 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Sett. of L2 sublayer 2 (in) 6172 q'I'Hlz/Elz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Sett. of 12 sublayer 3 (In) slz3 q'I'Hlz/Elz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sett. of LZ sublayer 4 (In) siz4 q'I'HlzJElz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sett. of LZ sublayer 5 (in) siz5 q'I'Hiz/Elz 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sett. of LZ sublayer 6 (in) slz6 q'I•Hlz/Elz 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total lower zone sett. (In) slz slzt+slz2 +,,, +5176 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total UZ +12 settlement (in) 1 s 1 1 0.2 1 0,1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.2 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 JI 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.2 Design - Settlement - gpset7ELAS (2008- 01 -15) - WInCo 2008- 05- 12.01s 1 of 1 - 5/132008 FOOTING BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (GFC -W) The behavior of both single Geopier elements and groups of Geopier elements is complex because of the changes in the stress state of the matrix soil as a result of the ramming action during Geopier installation, and because of the complicated load transfer mechanisms that occur between the loaded footing, the relatively stiff Geopier reinforcing elements, and the less stiff matrix soil. Allowable footing bearing pressures are computed using limit equilibrium theories of classical soil mechanics. Limit equilibrium solutions are considered to be lower bound approximations compared with upper bound approximations derived from energy considerations. The solutions used in analyzing footings supported on Geopier- reinforced soils conservatively neglect the confining influence provided by the loaded footing and adjacent Geopier elements. The allowable bearing pressure for Geopier- supported footings is nearly always controlled by settlement considerations. It is theoretically possibly, however, to apply sufficient bearing pressure at the bottom of the footing so that the yield strength of the underlying Geopier- reinforced soil is reached. The bearing pressure associated with fully mobilized shear strength is defined as the limit equilibrium bearing capacity of the footing. The potential limit equilibrium failure modes for footings supported on Geopier- reinforced soil consist of the following: • Bulging failure of individual Geopier elements • Punching of individual Geopier element into the lower zone soils (i.e. local shear failure below the tip of individual pier) • Shearing within the Geopier- reinforced upper zone (i.e. classical general shear failure typically assumed for spread footings on un- reinforced soil) • Punching of the entire Geopier pattern into the lower zone soils (i.e. local shear failure beneath the Geopier- reinforced block of upper zone soil) These four potential failure modes are described in detail in "Technical Bulletin No. 2 ", along with the respective design equations. GEOPIER BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS 9�Pier" Run Date: 5/13/2008 9:57 PROJECT: WinCo Foods Store No;23 Addition F Tigard,`OR 2 Pierfooting, Reference: Technical Bulletin No. 2, "Bearing Capacity of Geopier- Reinforced Foundation Systems ", by Geopier Foundation Co., Inc. (1999) Footing Data: Design Bearing Pressure q = 4 (psf) Total Column Load (kips) = 100 Footing Length L = 700 (ft) Footing Area (sq. ft) = 24.50 Footing Width B = 3.50 (ft) Total Pier Area (sq. ft) = 9.81 Footing Depth Df = 4.67 (ft) Area Ratio = 0.401 Pier Diameter = 30. (in) Stress Applied to Piers (psf) = 9,239 Number of Piers = 2 Stress Applied to Matrix Soil (psf) = 634 Pier Modulus K3 ... .::: ... .......::. 17 (pci) Relative Stiffness Ratio = 15 Individual Pier Load (kips) = 45.33 Depth to GWL Below Finish Floor = •:;:::2.0 (ft) Matrix Soil Data: ........................ ............... .. .......................... UZ Soil Modulus K = : ::.: 2i (pci) Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) Lower Zone: Undrained Strength S (psf) a. (psp Cohesion c (psf) :`. (psi) Friction Angle O 27: (degrees) 27 :. (degrees) Unsubmerged Unit Weight: ..... .... . ........ . ...... . Above D1 y 1<10 (pcf) Below Df yi • 110 (pcf) Geopier Data: Pier Diameter d = 2.5 (ft) Effective diam. de = .. . .. .. . 3 (ft) "effective shaft diam. = nominal diam. + 6" .................. Shaft Drill Depth = i> . ___ .. _: :15' (ft.) Effective Shaft Heft = 17.5 (ft.) "effective pier length for soil bearing capacity Modulus k = 175 (pci) ................ . .. .. ............ .................. Friction Angle N :49> (degrees) Unit weight: ......................... . ................. ......................... Unsubmerged y •135' (pcf) Design Ygp 135 (pcf) Pier Area ND = 9.81 (sq. ft.) Area Ratio RA = 0.401 (Af /Agp) Stiffness Ratio R = 15 Top -of -pier Stress ag, = 9,239 (psf) Design - Bearing Capacity - Footings (Tech Bulletin No. 2 - 2007- 08 -17) - Winco 23 Addition 2008- 05- 12.xls • Bearing Capacity WinCo Foods Store No. 23 Addition Page 2 5/13/2008 pier A. Bulging Failure Of Individual Geopier Elements: (REFER TO "BULGING ANALYSIS" for individual pier) For Design Pier Stress = 9239 psf FS = B. Shearing Below the Tip of Individual Geopier Element: predominantly clayey soils where essentially u med conditions apply Ultimate Top-of -pier stress qun = 0 f psf q „ 4s„d + 9s„ (Eq.11.) _ _ _ For Design Per Stress = 9239 psf = - Ni / predominantly silty and/or sandy soils where essentially drained conditions apply Effective shaft diameter d = 3.0 ft (effective shaft diam. = nominal diam. + 6') Crossectional area of Geopier element Ag, = 4.9 ft2 Ag = F1d /4 Average unit shaft friction (drained) f = 867 psf f (dr+H.. /2)y tan(a) +cb (Eq.12) Effective area of Geopier element shaft Ashaft = 165 ft2 A..,e = IId Ultimate shaft frictional capacity (drained) %haft = 29,122 psf ghaaft = fsAsart/Ay Qshaft = 142,954 pounds osneft =fsAshae Effective overburden stess @ pier tip aw = 1180 psf Bearing Capacity Factors: rDs = 27 degrees (Use Meyerhof factors for bearing capacity below individual piers) cohesion N. = 0 friction N, = 29 embedment N. = 30 Ultimate bearing Capacity at pier tip (drained q = 40,188 psf q, = cN +(0.5)d +a (Eq.9) Ultimate tip capacity (drained): QM, = 197,271 pounds Q.. = q., A Ultimate Top -of -Pier Stress qun = 69,310 psf q„ft=(Qshaft+ Qb /A9 For Design Pier Stress = 9239 psi FS = 7.50 OK Design - Bearing Capacity - Footings (Tech Bulletin No. 2 - 2007 - 08-17) - Winco 23 Addition 2008 -05- 12.xls- Bearing Capacity WinCo Foods Store No. 23 Addition Page 3 5/13/2008 9e°p:er° C. Shearing Within The Geopier - Reinforced Soil Matrix: Composite Soil Strength Parameters: R. Reduction Factor = 0.4 Effective R. = 0.16 Soil Stress Concentration Factor = 2.8 (Reduced R to account for vert. stress decrease with depth) = 39 degrees Ccomp. = 0 psf (based on value entered for Su) 0 psf (based on value entered for C) gun. = k1(CcompNc) + k2(YfBN + Y2DfNq where: k1 = 1.3 k = 1.3 for square and rectangular footings; and 1.0 for continuous footings k2 = 0.5 k = 0.5 for sauare, rectangular and continuous footings N = 76 N = 91 ( Terzaghi General Shear Factors) N = 71 qcn. = k1(CcompNc) + k2(YiBN + 72DfNq guy_ = - 7,580 36,473 q = 44,053 psf For Design Footing Stress = 4080 psf FS = 10.8 D. Shearing Below The Bottom of The Geopier Reinforced Soil Matrix: Depth below FF to btm.of Geopier- reinforced zone H = 22.2 feet Effective stress at btm.of Geopier - reinf. zone 6v -uz/Iz = 1 180 psf Stress induced from footing @ UZ/LZ plane gbottom = 133 psf q m = q {BU[(B +H)(L +H)]} (Eq. 15) predominantly clayey soils where essentially un fined conditions apply Undrained strength of soil below UZ/LZ plane S„ = 0 psf Stress induced from footing @ UZ/LZ plane gbottom = 133 psf = q {BU[(B +H)(L +H)]} (Eq. 15) For Design Footing Stress = 4080 psf FS = Ni / /r predominantly silty and/or sandy soils where essentially drained conditions apply Bearing Capacity Factors: Is = 27 degrees (Use Terzaghi local shear factors for shearing below the reinforced zone) cohesion N, = 0 friction N, = 4 embedment N. = 6 Ultimate bearing capacity @ UZ/LZ (drained) q = 7,851 psf quit = cN, +(0.5)ByN +6 N (Eq.9) Stress induced from footing @ UZ/LZ plane gbottom = 133 psf q {BL/](B +H)(L +H)]} (Eq. 15) For Design Footing Stress = 4080 psf FS = 58.8 /=J FOR"' CS > 2-,O ✓ a/� Design - Bearing Capacity - Footings (Tech Bulletin No. 2 - 2007 - 08-17) - Winco 23 Addition 2008- 05- 12.xls GEOPIERTa Bulging Analysis 12 -May -08 Project: WinCo Foods Store No. 23 Addition Tigard, Oregon Note: All depths are below finish floor grade Pier Data: Depth to footing bottom (D,) = 4.67 feet shaft length above gird= 0 feet Shaft length (L) = 15 feet shaft length below gwl= 15 feet Shaft nominal diameter (D) = 30 inches Shall effective diameter (D, = 30 inches Unsubmerged unit wt. (7 ,,) = 135 Ibs/ft Distribution of Vertical Stress Down the Pier Shaft Geopier Friction Angle ((DJ = 49 degrees Measured (Lawton) = I Design Top of Pier Stress (q,) = 9,240 psf Boussinesq = 2 100% Full Depth = 3 Soil Data: Use For This Analysis 1 Depth to groundwater (Design Level) = 2 feet Limiting Radial Stress in Matrix Soil = 2500 psf (Note: 2500 psf maximum) divide pier shaft length into 8 layers = 1.88 feet each Soils With Internal Frictional Component Depth Below Soil Unsubmerged Predominantly SILTY and SANDY soils (SI CLAY (CI Ground Surface Type Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion UndrAr,ed Strength (or finish floor) (see NOTE) - Pd - Drained Undrained -psf- -psf- (01) S or C y is an m, c S,, 0.00 s 110 27 top of pier 4.67 s 110 27 6.55 5 110 27 8.42 5 110 27 10.30 s 110 27 12.17 5 110 27 14.05 5 110 27 15.92 s 110 27 17.80 S 110 27 19.67 NOTE if S : only an and C are required if C: (D„ and C, or S„ are required (if a value is input for S,,, it supercedes both m and C) Calculations: o',.., = limiting value of radial stress that can be provided by the matrix soils as they resist cavity expansion: Cohesive Soils - a',.,_= 2o',.+ 5.2 S, or 2 a', + 5.2 (c + o',. Tan (D,) Non - Cohesive Soils - - -- a',.,,, = a',., (where a',, is the total radial stress acting on the Geopier element after pier installation) d,., = available passive resistance for the matrix soil (up to a limiting value of 2500 psf) a',,, = o', [Ta445+4 /2)] up to a limiting value of 2500 psf q, . ultimate vertical stress capacity of the Geopier element to preclude bulging failure Cohesive Soils - -- q, = a',. [ Tan Non - Cohesive Soils - q„,,, = a',,, [ Tan /2)] Depth Below Average Effective Limiting Ultimate Vertical Vertical Depth Applied Vertical Factor of Ground Surface Depth Vertical Radial Stress Capacity Stress Below Top Stress within Safety (or finish floor) Stress Stress of Geopier Influence ' of Pier The Geopier Against (ft) (6) a', (Psf) a',.lim (psf) 9.4 (eel 1 -ft- ( (9F) Bulging 0.00 2.34 236 - - - - - top of pier 4.67 0.00 924 = of �� �, / 5.61 325 2500 17,884 0.818 0.94 7,558 2.4 6.55 7.48 414 2500 17,884 0.366 2.81 3,382 5.3 8.42 9.36 504 2500 17,884 0.120 4.69 1,109 16.1 / /G� 1030 I (/ 11.23 593 2500 17,884 0.110 6.56 1,016 17.6 12.17 13.11 682 2500 17,884 0.065 8.44 596 30.0 14.05 14.98 771 2500 17,884 0.045 1031 416 43.0 15.92 16.86 861 2500 17,884 0.020 12.19 185 96.8 17.80 18.73 950 2500 17,884 0.020 14.06 185 96.8 19.67 • Vertical Stress Within the Geopier Element (Lawton Field Observations in Geopier Elements) Design - Bearing Capacity - Bulging Analysis (2006- 09 -25) - Wmw 23 Addition 2008- 05- 12.xds Page I PIER COMPRESSION CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (GFC -W) 1. Geopier design methodology includes the assumption that vertical stresses imposed by the footing below the depth of Geopier reinforcement (i.e. in the Lower Zone) may be estimated using standard elastic solutions such as those developed by Westergaard. If a majority of the compressive load applied to the individual pier is resisted by cohesion and friction between the pier shaft and the surrounding soils, then high tip stresses are avoided and the assumption is generally valid. 2. In soft soils, a typical design criterion is to select a minimum shaft length sufficient to support at least 80% of the load to be imposed on the pier itself. 3. Pier shaft frictional capacity is calculated using the appropriate Soil Model and computing the cohesion and solid friction available between the pier stone and the adjacent soils. 4. To account for enlargement of the drill cavity due to multiple passes in and out of the hole with the drill during construction, an effective pier diameter up to 2" greater than the nominal drill diameter may be assumed. 5. In soft soils, where pier stone is likely to be driven laterally beyond the walls of the drill cavity, an effective pier diameter up to 4" greater than the nominal diameter of the drill may be assumed. 6. Pier "shaft length" is taken as the design drill depth below bottom of footing. Additional capacity is available due to construction of the stress bulb below the drill depth. 7. In computing frictional support on the side of the pier, lateral stress developed by the supporting soil is taken as the passive pressure, up to a limiting value of 2500 psf. (Ko Stepped Blade testing indicates that the amount of lateral stress buildup that occurs as a result of the Geopier installation technique is limited to about 2000 -3000 psf). 8. Bulging of the pier as structure loading from the footing occurs can significantly increase lateral confining stress on the pier with concomitant increase in frictional capacity. However, this increase is not included in the calculations. 9. In cases where the design results in significant stress transferred to the tip of the Geopier element, an end - bearing component may be added to the shaft frictional capacity. For end - bearing calculations, appropriate bearing capacity factors for local shear beneath a circular loaded area are applied. 10. Factors of safety are incorporated in Bearing Capacity calculations. • GEOPIERrm Shaft Frictional Capacity 12 -May -08 Project: WinCo Foods Store No 23 Addition Tigard, Oregon Note: All depths are below finish floor grade Pier Data: Depth to footing bottom (D,) = 4 feet shaft length above gwl = 3 feet Shaft length (L) = 8 feet shaft length below gwl = 3 feet Shaft nominal diameter (D) = 30 inches pier crossection area = 4.909 sq. rt. Shaft effective diameter (D = 32 inches Unsubmerged unit wt. = 135 Ibsfft Soil Data: Depth to groundwater Design level = 7 feet divide pier shaft length into 8 layers of equal thickness Soils With Internal Frictional Component Depth Below Soil Unsubmerged Predominantly SILTY and SANDY soils 151 CLAY ICI Ground Surface Tyne Unrt Weight Friction Angle Cohesion Undrained Strength (or finish floor) (see NOTE) - lad - Drained Undrained -psf- -psf- (ft) S or C y m (D, C S„ 0.00 s 110 27 top of pier 4.00 s 110 27 4.75 s 110 27 5.50 s 110 27 6.25 s 110 27 7.00 s 110 27 7.75 s 110 27 8.50 s 110 27 9.25 s 110 27 10.00 NOTE: it S : only an and C are required if C: m, and C, or S„ are required (if a value is input for S. it supercedes both 'D„ and C) Calculations: Layer thickness (8 layers) I, = 0.75 feet Passive pressure coefficient (KO = Tan`(45 +0/2) At -Rest pressure coeficient (K = 1-Sin m Depth Below Average Vertical Passive At -Rest Horizontal Shear Shear GEOPIER Ground Surface Depth Effective Pressure Pressure Stress (a„) Resistance Resistance Weight (or finish floor) Stress (o,) Coefficient Coefficient (see note) r =VI DM (c.o, Tanm) R = r I, (9) (ft) (psf) K, K. (psf) (Ibsrft) (Ibs) (lbs) 0.00 2.00 220.0 2.663 0.546 585.8 - - - top of pier 4.00 4.38 481.3 2.663 0.546 1281.5 5,470 4,103 283 4.75 5.13 563.8 2.663 0.546 1501.2 6,408 4.806 565 5.50 5.88 646.3 2.663 0.546 1720.9 7,346 5,509 565 6.25 6.63 728.8 2.663 0.546 1940.6 8,284 6,213 565 7.00 7.38 787.9 2.663 0.546 2098.0 8,956 6,717 435 7.75 8.13 823.6 2.663 0.546 2193.1 9,361 7,021 304 8.50 8.88 859.3 2.663 0.546 2288.1 9,767 7,325 304 9.25 9.63 895.0 2.663 0.546 2383.2 10,173 7,630 304 10.00 Note: 49,324 3,326 i9L 1_0 (v65ri.e C,9, CS % y 2 The results of Ko Stepped Blade tests suggest that the amount Total Downward Capacity of lateral stress buildup as a result of Geopier installation is From Shaft Friction Only = 49 kips GRE - Aft _ 7WA/v rk9 X S/yu limited to about 2500 psi'. Total Upward Friction ad Z =D�.l! Frrom m Shaft Friction annd , 94.- P.1 Weight of Pier Stone = 53 kips I" 014- of 1 1 -- 3 it k , dY---- Design - Pier Downward Capacity - Shaft Friction (2006 -09 -25) - Winco 23 Addition 2008 -05- 12.xls -- 4, GEOPIER Foundation Company — West 214 SE Walnut Street, Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503) 640 -1340 www.gfcwest.com (503) 648 -6706 fax March 5, 2001 Mr. Mark VanDomelen, Plans Examination Supervisor City of Tigard, Permit Center Building 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Structural Plan Review #2 GEOPIER Intermediate Foundation System Winco Store No. 23 Addition Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. VanDomelen, This letter is written in response to Item No. 31 of your Structural Plan Review #2. This letter, forwarded through the project Architect, transmits a professional publication by Geopier Foundation Company, Inc., entitled Technical Bulletin No. 4: Geopier Lateral Resistance, addressing in -depth methodology and university research. Please feel free to contact us regarding any further question or comment. Very truly yours, GEOPIER FOUNDATION COMPANY - WEST, INC. Jeremy J. Gray Project Manager Attachments: Technical Bulletin No. 4: Geopier Lateral Resistance (Geopier Foundation Company, Inc., 2001), (11 pages) RECE JUN STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMP,: . % C ITE: C;:• PERMIT # ? Wq BU[ X ,,, , DATE q1( MILLER CONSU ` State Licenses: AZ: 165389A- CA: 786540AHIC NM: 88710GB98 NV:0057706 OR: 146399 WA: GEOPIFC980BZ r.4 » geopier ti r' 1 i GF.OPILR FOUNDATION CO INC . T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N CEOPIER LATF.RAI. RFS!STANCE This Technical Bulletin discusses the behavior of Geopise- supported shallow foundation systems when subjected to Lateral loads. Lateral Toads are applied to foundation systems by wind or seismic events end by lateral earth pressures. C opier- supported shallow foundations provide resistance to lateral_Ioads using mechanisms identical to those applicable to conventional sha]low fircrtirj ,. These mechanisms include passive earth pressure adjacent to the .footings and sliding resistance along rite base of the footings. However, because of the high stress concentration to the Geopier elentenrs and the high friction angle of the Geopier aggregate, greater resistance i$ achieved in comparison to a footing supported by soil not reinforced by Geopier elements. This Technical Bulletin describes lateral toad demands on structures, methods used to design Ceopier- supporred footings ro resist lateral loads, and results of fu]I• scale footing lateral load tests. r . BACKGROUND: LATERAJ. I.OArd. DEMANDS Lateral Toad demands on structures, retaining walls, The combination of stress concentration to the stiff and buildings are generated by horizontal earth ores- Geopier elements and the high friction angle of the sure, wind, and earthquakes, Lateral Toads transmitted Geopier aggregate allows for the development of a through a structure are resisted by the foundation; system, significantly greater amount of lateral Toad resist - Geopier-supported shallow foundations resist lateral ante than developed by footings not supported by Toads with mechanisms identical to those applicable to Gear etetnents- conventional shallow footings {Figure 1]: • Passive earth pressures adjacent to the footing. • Base sliding resistance along the bottom of the tooting. geopier ' r i COMPRESSIVE LOAD Figure T. Lateral Load Resistance of Geopier - supported Footing. } Q � n a BASE SIII OdNtr RESISTANCE � �- �i LATERAL LOAD EARTH 010 P ASSIVE AO. a PRESSURE 48:11 10 COMPRESSIVE ® STRESSES OUP (MP GISEP VIM GEGPJER OMR ELEMENT 11111, 1111111P MEW GNP 2; 0E01 F: CO N STR.UCTTO N CeoDier construction is described in the Geopier construction results in a very dense aggregate column, Reference Manual (Fox and Cowell 1998). Geopier I wherein the aggregate tends to dilate when subject to elements are constructed by drilling out a volume of I shearing stresses. This construction process allows for compressible soil to create a cavity and then ramming a high level of confidence in the design friction angle select aggregate into the cavity in thin lifts. Geopier used for rammed Geopier aggregate. 3. GEOPIER SHEAR STRENGTH Full -scale direct Shear tests performed on 30 -inch Small - scale laboratory triaxial tests were performed diameter Geopier elements and small -scale Laboratory at Iowa State University on reconstituted samples of triaxial tests performed or reconstituted samples wel graded Geopier aggregate (White 2001) compacted demonstrate that the angle of internal friction for to densities consistent with those measured for installed Geopier aggregate ranges from 49 degrees to 52 Geopier elements.' Test results, illustrated in Figure 3, degrees, depending on gradation. Results obtained indicate an angle of internal friction of 51 degrees. The from the full -scale direct shear tests performed on high friction angles measured in The field and labora• Geopier elements (Fox and Cowell 1998) are Shown tory tests are attributed to the high density and the in Figure 2. Geopier elements constructed using both dilatent behavior of the aggregate produced during well- graded base course stone and open-graded ( #57) the high-energy ramming of the crushed stone used in stone were tested. Geopier elements. I J PAGE TWO I V figure t.. 1 Results of F :,rtl -scale Direct. Shear Testing Perforn1ed at the Tops of Geopier Elements% r r r f ,r 0 r r WII -9ra one c[ W r, opa o-V . 15CW M.060 Y - rr � r g a 2 a s e 10 NORMAL STRESS (kst) Figure 3. Results of Trinxial Tasting of Compacted Geopier Aggregate. =s' j aoa � • Ix I W I f C Ix 200 • a• 0 200 Moo 600 600 1000 IORMAL STRESS tkPah 4 . L A T E R A L L Q A ❑ R E I T A N E Lateral Toads transmitted to shallow foundations are elements outfitted with uplift anchors, this additional resisted by sliding resistance along the base of footings resistance is small in comparison with other resistances and by passive earth pressure that develops at the at small values of lateral deflection. Computations indi- front of the footing as it is pushed into he adjacent Cate that the component of tateral loading resistance soils (Figure 4). Although additional lateral load resist- ; provided by sliding resistance is typically much greater ance is offered by the bending of the vertical bars in than the component provided by passive earth pressure. P3. Cf TITRTF. 4. Z. SLIDING RESISTANCE AT TF{F. BASE OF 45 at a soft soil site in at Lake City, Utah- As a result G.EOPIL"R -SU 1'Pb RTED FOOTI 4GS Otte high normal stresses and the high internal angle As show,? in Figure 4, sliding resistance at the base of of friction exhibited by the rammed Geopier aggregate, Geopiersupported footings may be divided into two most of the lateral toad resistance offered by Geopier- components: 1) sliding resistance between the footing supported footings is attributed to the sliding resist - and the tops of the Geopier elements and 2} sliding ante at the tops of the Geopier elements. resistance between the footing and the matrix soil. 4.1•Z. SI.I,DING RESISTANCE. YRUVIl7ED BY MATRIX 5011_ 4.1 SLIDING RESISTANCE NHOVI DED IIY CECIYIER ELEMENTS The resistance to sliding provided by the matrix soil The resistance to sliding provided by the Geopier ele- (F depends on the product of the normal (downward) ments (F' is computed as the product of the normal stress an the matrix soil (q), the tangent of the angle (downward) stress on the element fo the tangent of of internal friction of the matrix soil (.'m ), and the the Geopier angle of internal friction (4' and the matrix soil area (A, „) and the cohesion intercept of the cross•sectional area of the Geopier elements (A&): matrix soil (c„): F = q tan �' A E ?, e. ,, qs tan if', A + G„Am. Eq.; - For footings constructed of concrete poured in place The matrix soil area is the difference between the direclly on top of Geopier elements. no reduction in fric- foundation footprint area and the sum of the Geopier lion angle (4 g) is required because of the rough inter- element crass - sectional areas. For footings constructed face between he concrete and the angular aggregate. of concrete poured in place directly on top of prepared excavations, no reduction in the friction angle (' is As described m the literature (Lawton and Fox 1994, required because of the rough interface between the Lawton et al. 1994, Fox and Cowell 1998, Wissmann et concrete and the soil. The stress on the matrix soil is al. 2000, Wiss+nann and Fox 20004, the normal stress computed as the stress on the Geopier elements diwid on he Geopier elements depends on the average foot ed by the stiffness ratio between the Geopier elements in bearing pressure (q). the stiffness ratio IR between and the matrix Soil (Fax and Cowell 1998): the Geopier elements and the matrix soil, and the ratio of he sum of the Geopier element cross - sectional 4 R 1 g areas to the footing bottom area (R 4.1.3. - TOTAL RESISTANCE q fq R fR,R + 1. - R p'a The total resistance to sliding along he base of the footing (F is computed by adding the resistance to The stress on the Geopier elements is significantly sliding at the tops of the Geopier elements (F and greater than the stress on the surrounding matrix soil the resistance to sliding at the foundation /matrix soil because the Geopier elements exhibit a greater stiff- interface (F ness than the matrix soils- The stiffness ratio (R was presented by Lawton {2000) to range between 30 and F = F g + F m . Fr1 5 PACE FOUR 4.T.4. COMPOSLrE UNIT 'table r: 'typical Composite FRICTION COE;I?FICIFN'I" trrrir Friction Coefficient Values The allowable composite unit friction coefficient (f is SOIL CLASSIFICATION nrplcau t,,,• often used by structural engineers to determine footing sand and gravel 28 - 0.52 - 0.55 resistance to lateral Toads. The allowable composite unit silt and clay 20° • 3Q9 ,A._ 0 -51 0 52 friction coefficient (f for any footing is simply computed "Values computed for R = 15, R., = 33%, and FS = 2 as the ratio of the allowable lateral sliding resistance (Fali) '• to the downward dead load applied to the footing (P): g 4.2. PASSIVE EARTH' PRESSURE Passive earth pressure develops within the matrix soil fall F� / F , F.q.S. at the front of footings as the footings push laterally into where F is computed as the quotient of the ultimate the adjacent soils. The passive force (F that resists lat- resistance to sliding (F and a factor of safety (FS): eral movement depends on the foundation width (8), unit weight of the soil (11, the footing embedment depth {Dr), F flI = F / FS. Eq. ;. the Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient (K and the cohesion intercept of the matrix soil (c as shown in A factor of safety of 1.5 to 2.0 is typically used in Equation 9 (Terzaghi and Peck 19671 conjunction with Equation 7. When dynamic loads are considered, the allowable load resistance is typically Fp = B Kp y D(/ + 2 c v'K B Dr. e•v increased by a factor of 1/3 or more. where the Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient The composite unit friction coefficient for 6eopfer- depends on the friction angle of the adjacent matrix supported footings may be expressed by combining soil (b'„): Equations 1 through 7: Q Fo = tan' (45 + Cr,12) i FS. Eq. r ID._ f� f(R 41' +(1 -Rd tan ilr,)/(R,R ET - x. A factor of safety (FS) of 2.0 is typically used in con - Table 1 presents typical values of f all for various junction with Equation 10 to avoid appreciable lateral soil types, deformations. When dynamic Toads are considered, the allowable Toad resistance is typically increased by e factor of 1/3 or more. Figure 4. Lateral Resistance Along Bottum i PASSIVE E Rrtt / of Footing. PRESSURE ""-- SLIDING RE IST .NcE SLIDING RESISTANCE OFFERED BY OFFERED BY eaRrERE.EMENT MATRIX SOIL oS CONCENTRATED STRESS Aie 'q ` ro ON GE#�rEA ELEMENT iii 414? }s 4 41,Pell - t le Mi 0:1, 1 eV! 1PAC; 1;L L • 5. EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS Example calculations for estimating the sliding resist- For the same vertical load, the Geopier- supported loot ante of two footings, one supported by unreinforced ing resists 505 kN (allowable), compared to only 200 matrix soil and one supported by Geopier elements 1 kN for the non - reinforced soils. The Ceopiersupported are shown in Figures 5a and 5b. Both footings are footing resists. more than two and a half times the Iat• subjected to a downward load of 200 kips. To maintain eral toad even thought the footprint area of the footing simplicity in the example calculations, it is assumed is only 40 percent of the footprint area of the footing that neither footings is embedded in the matrix soil not supported by Geopier element. (no passive resistance will be developed). Figure Sa. Binding Resistance Example CONVENT10NAI.9HhUJ W SPREAD FOOTING DEADLOao- s9oldg(209laps) fir Panting Supported by 4 UI1reinforced Soil. cur 96 Wm' 0 WI s mx3m(Ip'x10� ( r ¢' : 24' �l C = CALCULATIONS q- 890kNI(3rtx3i1 93 mar (,000par) Fp1= 393kNf2= 196KN1.44.519p8) Ion 4:„,- Litt 2A° = 0.445 I = 1911 kN 1980 kN = 022 m F 99 kN rre 0.4-05 3 m x 3 m (99 000 Its) Figure gb Sliding Resistance Example GEOP/ER•SUPPORTED SHALL 03V VII FAD FciOnt G Da99¢kN ��QOklpa) for f ; errprer- supported DEA6LOfi Fooritrg. i e lf (2mx2m)6sx6.s GIIP — !if ¢ 51° .0.es 24° A -4..91 IN ON gm NO ari CALCULATIONS .390 kN 1 (2 in x 2 in) = 233 Mari' 0,790 ps1) F = 37,9 *NAM Clan 24) ((2 m x 2 m)•(3 x 0.45 m')) r: 44.1 kN R 3(O.d8m')1(2mx2 in) =0.35 {9,5kips) = 15 I mo) F a 567 Wine Clan 51) (3 A 0.46 nA) = 966 kN {218 kips) R. ci = 223 kNhrr' 115 J (15 x 0,35 a• 1 •0.35) = 567 Wert (12 kit) F = 44_I kN +966 fdd a 1010 1:13 (219.1 laps) F = 1010kNJ2.0 =505kN(t14.1 q = 587 kNhn' J 15 = 37.8 Mtn' (800 pit) ar kips) f 5051kNf090kN =0.57 4 %, is grooler fd GegolaFsupported footings than 1ar ccnverifonal feelings because of Ina Increased shaving stteng;h afforded by the Gddpiar fl erSl9. Ir l PAGE SIX 6. FULL-SCALE FOOTINC LATERAL LOAD TESTS In 1998, researchers at the University of Utah under the footings were placed on the ground surface and riot the auspices of the Utah Department of Transportation embedded, passive earth pressure resistance could Utah DOT) tested a full-scale elevated bridge bent to not be developed and lateral resistance was developed evaluate the response of bridge beats to simulated exclusively by sliding at the base of the footing, seismic loads induced by a 1%,„. 7.5 earthquake (Lawton 20O0). The testing required the construction of a reac- 1 Each of the reaction frame footings measured 7.47 m dm frame subjected to large cyclic lateral loads, The 1 (24.5 feet) long by 2.54 m (8.25 feet) wide and 1.14 m reaction frame was supported by Geopier elements_ 0.75 feet) thick. Ten 0.91 m (38 -inch) diameter The testing program provided researchers with an Geopier elements drilled to 4.6 m t15 feet) and fitted opportunity to verify the load resistance mechanisms with uplift anchors were used to support each of the described in this Technical Bulletin. two reaction frame footings. The subsurface conditions underlying the footings consisted of Canyon outwash I 6.1. LATERAL LOAD TEST IZACKGROUND and Lake Bonneville deposits. comprised of soft to moderately stiff, low plasticity silt and clay soils with The large reaction frame, shown in Figure 6, was interbedded layers of sand. The groundwater table at required for the application of the cyclic loads to the the site varied between 1.2 in to 2.1 m (4 feet to 7 elevated bridge bent. The reaction frame incorporated feet) below grade. two footings supported by Geopier elements. Because Figure 6, Idealized Rea,:tian Frame. *— I I .+ — �: ----j ELEVATED tilk BetDOE BENT IssN F0014443 $ Fvanl 2 A 5k • " N . MN. *N. 'C y. - -_ ,tu A, Imi.• aSOPIE p Nil UPLIFT -ma. 41.411 • p • kia' "M ELEMENTS :vc! Val. PAt;k SE14EN 6. FOOTING LOADING CONDITIONS the total vertical Toad acting on each of the reaction footings at increasing applied horizontal loads. tNhen lateral loads were applied to the reaction frame, the inclined members transmitted both vertical and tat - eral farces to the footings. When the load was applied As the applied horizontal load increased, the campres to the bridge by the frame in the direction shown in sine Toad on Footing A also increased. At the some time, Figure 6, both footings were subject to lateral loads, Footing 3 was subjected ban increasing amount of uplift Footing A was also subject to downward compression load. When the uplift farce applied to Footing B was toads while Footing B was also subject to uplift loads. greater Ilan the dead load acting on the looting, the foot- The geometry of the frame resulted in a ratio of applied mg no longer applied compressive stress to the under- ° vertical load to applied horizontal load of 1.25. The lying soil and Geopier elements and no further lateral load resistance was offered ty this footing. However, dead weight from the reaction frame and the dead weight of each footing resulted in a nel dead load of lateral load resistance continued to be developed by 445 (100 kips) on each footing- Table 2 presents Footing A, the factor of safety against sliding, computed from equations 1 and 7, is also shown in Table 2. Table s: Factors of Safety Q l Corresponding to fncrcasing Lateral Loads COMPRESSIVE COMPRESSIVE to Iz0NTAL LOAD LOAD FOOTING A, LOAD FOOTING 8', FACTOR OF SAFETY kN [klDSl 6N (kips] kN [kips] AGAINST SLIDING' I ..a 0 [0] 445 [ L00] 445 [100] — 178 [40] 657 (150) 222 1501 4.17 356 [80] 890 [200] 0 [0] 2.78 534 11201 1112 (250] Cr' [01 2.32 890 (2001 1557 (3501 0- [01 1.95 1780 [4001 2669 16001 0' [01 1.67 'Indicates net uplift force on the footing. As result, no lateral resistance is offered by footing. "Neglects additional lateral load resistance provided by uplift bars installed in (copier elements. FA {;E LIGEE b.3 TEST RESULTS dei elgprnent lateral load resistance. Figure 7presents During the testing, a maximum horizontal Toad of 1,779 a plat of the development of system compressive load kN (400 kips) was applied to the bridge bent: At the as a result of applied lateral Igad. Figure 7 also illus- maximum value of lateral load, Footing Awes subjected traces envelopes of the theoretical ultimate lateral load to a downward vertical load of 2,659 kN (500 kips) resistance and the allowable lateral Toad resistance and Footing D was subjected to am uplift Toad of 1,779 (factor of safety of 2.0). The research results presented kN (400 kips) that was resisted by the uplift anchors. in Figure 7 indicate that the lateral resistance provided The combined footing system was subjected to a net by the Geopier- supported system is greater than the vertical load of 2,669 kN (600 kips) available for the factored design lateral Toad resistance. - :gore 7. Lateral Load Demand MI Reaction Frame. 600 - bC -- • • ThaoretIcel tlhireate Lateral Resistance — @tW81 LO 9C roar i a— - - Factored Design Lateral Resistance (FS = 2I • 30 • i W 206 - - IGO - X � • 4 eau tad 3 4 4 1 4 SW 600 COMBINED FOOTING COMPRESSIVE LOAD (klpal' 1 kip - 41-44$ kN Nolo: Fiou c neglects additional latmal toad resistance provided by sleet uplllt bars. 7. SUM MARY Geopier- supported shallow foundations provide resist- resistance to lateral loads by increasing he available ante to lateral loads using the mechanisms identical sliding resistance on the base of the footing, The sliding to those of conventional shallow footings. Lateral loads resistance is increased because of stress concentra• are resisted by passive pressures at the leading face ' Lion to the tops of the Geopier elements and the high of the footing and sliding resistance at the base of the shear strength thigh angle of internal friction) and the footing. The use of Geopier elements Increases the . dilatent behavior of the rammed Geopier aggregate. • { P A C E . N I N E REFERENCES Fox, N.S. and M.J. Cowell (1998). Geopiere' Soil Reinforcement Manual. Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. 8283 North Hayden Road, Suite 291, Scottsdale, AZ. Lawton, E.C. (2000 )''Performance of Geopier Foundations During Simulated Seisrrioc Tests at South Temple Bridge on (interstate 15, Salt Lake City, UT,` Final Report, No, UUCYEEN 00 .03, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Lawton, E.C. and N.S. Fax. (1994). "Settlement of structures supported on marginal or inadequate soils stiffened with short aggregate piers." Geotechnical Specialty Publication No. 40: Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, A.T. Yeung and G.Y. Feflo (Editors), American Society of Civil Engineers, 2, 962 -74. Lawton, E.C., Fox, N.S., and R.L. Handy. (1994). "Control of settlement and uplift of structures using short aggregate piers." In -Situ Deep Soil Improvement, K.M. Rollins (Editor). American Society of Civil Engineers, 121 -132. Terxaghi, K. and R.B. Peck. (1467), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. White, D.J. (2001), Personal communication. September 13, 2001. Wissmann, I.J. and N.S. Fox. (2000). °Design and analysis of Short Aggregate Piers to reinforce soils for foundation soils.' Proceedings, Geotechnical Colloquium, Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, March 25, 2000. Wissrnann, 0{.J., N:S, Fox and J.P, Martin. (2000). `Rammed Aggregate Piers defeat 75 -foot long driven piles." ASCE Proceedings, Performance Confirmation of Constructed Geotechnical Facilities, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA April 9 -12, 2000. AUTHORS Kord .J. Wissmann, Ph.D., P.E., Chief Engineer, Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. Brendan T. FitzPatrick, Staff Engineer, Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. Evert Lawton, Ph.D., PE, Associate Professor, University of Utah SYMBOLS USED A = Gross footing area. A = Footing area supported by Geopier elements. A = footing area supported by matrix .soil, B = Footing width. c = Cohesion intercept of matrix soil. D = Footing embedment depth. = Allowable resistance to sliding developed by Geopier etemen.ts. f = Allowable composite unit friction coefficient. F = Sliding resistance provided by Geopier elements. F = Sliding resistance provided by rnatrix soil. F = Passive lateral force. F = Total resistance to sliding along base of footing. FS = Factor of safety. 1' a Angle of internal friction of Geopier element. e' = Angle of internal friction of matrix soil. T = Unit weight of matrix soil adjacent to footing. K = Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient. P = Applied footing dead toad. = Average footing bearing pressure. q = Normal stress on the Geopier element. q = Normal stress on the matrix soil. R = Ratio of relative stiffness of Geopier element and matrix. soil. R = Ratio of cross - sectional area of Geopier elements to gross footing area. © 2001 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. • GEOPiLR TEAM The Pro Firm CORP(}RATE OFFICE Geopier Foundation Company - Northwest 1370 NW 141st Drive Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100 Clive, Iowa 50325 8283 North Hayden Road, Suite 291 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: (515) 223.9326 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Telephone: (425) 646.2995 Fax: t5) 5) 225.4483 Telephone: (480) 998.3522 Fax: {425}646.3118 e-mail: geapierl�ttsrb.com Fax: (480) 998.3542 8 rnail: jarrtesj@geopiercom Geopier Foundation Company - Houston a rraail jairresi@geopiercorn geopierfAaol.corri.com Geopier Foundation Company of Northern California 8314 Atascocita Lake Way Web: w+nvgeopiers,com 685 Placerville Drive, PMB 4382 Humble, Texas 77346 Placerville, California 95667 Telephone: (2811 852.5878 DESIGN O F F I C E Telephone: (530) 621,4867 l: : 1281) 852.5879 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc_ Fax: (530) 621,4837 e-mail tMr9.com 515 Sunrise (rive email: arreltinc.c un Geopier Foundation Company - fu(idSotrth, LLC Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Web: www.geoww.geoaiernca,com 9160 Ili Telephone' (540) 951.8076 Highway 64, Suite 1 No. 134 Lakeland, Tennessee 38002 Fax: (5401 951.8078 Geopier Foundation Company -West Telephone: (901) 3093363 wag: kordwegearihlink.net 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, Cal 92612 Fax: (9011309.3373 Geopier Global Corporation Telephone: (949) 253.5653 e-treail: GeopierVatt.net 3183 Liberty BaO Road Fax: (949) 752.9318 Geopier Foundation Company - Southeast Green Bay, Wisconsin 54313 1 e-mail, e w,ge pie c c rn 5665 Highnvay9, Suite 1!13178 Telephone: (920) 434.8847 Web: vwvw,geopiercon Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 Fax. (920) 434.8721 Teleloe: {770} 667.9864 e-mail: geopierglobaliDaoLcom Geopier Foundation Company - Northwest Fax: {77U} 343.9963 9385 SW Iieikes Drive Peterson Contractors, Irac. Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 e{nal: geopiersoutheasttmaii.can Box A. 104 Blackhawk Telephone: (503} 626.0341 GeaSinxhrres, Inc. and GeaConstructors, Inc. Reinbeck, Iowa 50669 Fax: (503) $28,8805 107 (.oudoun Street, SE Telephone: (319) 345.2713 e- mail: 'iahnrro a pier.com Leesburg, Virginia 20175 Fax: {319) 345.2991 Web' www,geapier.com Telephone: (703) 771.9844 e•mad; corkpciPstarorte,com Geopier Foundation Company - West Fax (703) 171.9847 Foundation Service Corp, 8283 North Hayden Road, Suite 291 e-mail: geostnrcduasre?erols•con� Box 23, 302 Blackhaork Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 GeoSteuetures, Inc. - Northeast Reinbeck. Iowa 50669 Telephone: (4811) 998.3522 2866 MAarrttmasburg Road Telephone: (319) 345.2277 • Fax: (480) 998,3542 Gettysburg Pennsylvania 17325 Fax: (319) 345 -2658 e-mail; geopier6 aoLcorh Telephone: (717) 677,4835 errrail: dlciarkegemuni.net Geopier Foundation Company -Great Lakes Fax: (7171677.6646 Geopier International Corporation P. Q. Box 421 e-man: wsmittageostructures.com Josef Leisterrschneider Str.23 1368 South Broken Arrow GeoStnactrrres, troc. - Southeast 63628 Bad Soden- Satmunster, Germany New Palestine, Indiana 46163 6548 Vintage Ridge Lane Telephone: 49(0)6056/912716 Telephone: {31711361.93(51 Fucivay farina, l Carolina 27526 Fax: Fax: 49(016056/912717 Fax: (3171) 861.9362 T lephane: (919) 557.9069 e?mad: geopier10@aol.corn e�ial: gfcgieearthlink.net Fax: (9191 557.9709 Geopier Foundation Conparry - Midwest e�rtail: nhothemegeostructure3.cooro 5818 Admiral Lane Minneapolis, MMtinnesata 55429 Telephone: (763) 592.5340 Fax: (763) 592.5339 e -mail: geopierrrrnwielgwest.net