ASTM D1194-94 PDF

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.

Author: Grora Zuzuru
Country: China
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 23 May 2015
Pages: 47
PDF File Size: 15.11 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.84 Mb
ISBN: 168-6-27509-802-3
Downloads: 65001
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mimuro

The ultimate strength of each steel bar was kN Various ranges of KS values have also been proposed by other engineers Bowles ; Das In reality, q and interact with each other and are difficult to estimate. The space between the top and base plates is backfilled with selected soils.

A revisited and extended formula for bearing capacity. The main reaction beam, measured at 13 m by 1. However, Terzaghi’s values were established primarily from the viewpoint of soil mechanics and did not consider the effect of structure stiffness. Based on Hansen’s formula, the ultimate bearing capacity was about kN t. The west boundary of the basin is the Tatu Terrace, and the east boundary is the Taiwan Western Foothills.

Thus, it was concluded that the total pull-out resistance of the eight reaction anchors would be 14 kN tmuch greater than the required total allowable load of kN t.

Figure 7 shows the complete setup for the plate-load test. 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. This may be because the gravelly cobble deposit is much stiffer than the soils considered by Terzaghi. The results of the plate-load tests on this soil deposit are analyzed and discussed. The qu values of the 0. The individual reaction anchor was designed according to Littlejohn’s formula.


To accommodate larger size plates, it was decided to use eight reaction anchors, each carrying an allowable load of up to kN t.

Thus, they are generally too conservative for the design of mat foundations. Plate-load test setup and procedure The test site was excavated to a depth of 6.

As shown in Table 1, the values back-calculated with Terzaghi’s formula are lowest. Introductory soil mechanics and foundations, The McMillan Co. The secondary reaction beam, measured at 9 m by 1.

Large Scale Plate Load Tests

In addition, the load test with the 1. Ashm values back-calculated with Terzaghi’s formula are the lowest. Using a factor of safety of 1. Standard testing methods as prescribed in ASTM b were followed. Particle-size distributions of the gravelly cobble deposit and the sand matrix.

D11194-94 evaluation of the magnitude and variation of the KS value across a mat for a given project, using the bearing-capacity theories and the discrete-area method, is warranted in this regard. In local practice for structural design of mat foundations, structural engineers prefer to model the soil mass as a series of elastic springs, known as the Winkler foundation. Figure 11 shows the relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction and the size of the plate.

It depends on several factors, such as the length and width of the foundation, the depth of embedment of the foundation, the type of structure, and the type of soil beneath the foundation. Before applying the loads, the pressure gauge and the dial gauge were set to zero. Nevertheless, the tests were conducted from small plate to large plate, with a 10 day time interval between the tests, to minimize the effect.

In Design and performance of mat foundations. In Proceedings, use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering. The bottom layer is a gravelly cobble deposit, occasionally with thin layers of sand. Little or no cementation is observed.

Proctor penetrometer | Matest

Figures 5 and 6 show schematic diagrams of the setup of the plate-load test, Fig. These samples were used in the laboratory for determination of unit weight, specific gravity, and particle-size distribution. The groundwater table was at a depth of about 5. Adjust the plate so that it has good contact with the ground at the bottom of the excavation. Thus, while the plates were seated at different locations beneath the main reaction beam, the ASTM distance specification was not followed.


Settlement is caused by the contact pressure q. The modulus KS decreases as the size of the plate increases. Test method for density and unit weight of soil in place by the Rubber Balloon Method D The values of in Table 1 are practically constant regardless of the size of the plate in the present study. This reinforces the observation about the relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction and 1d194-94 size of the plate in the case of the gravelly cobble deposit.

For a preliminary analysis, ranges of KS values suggested by Terzaghi for different soils might be used as a basis to select an d11994-94 KS value.

The geologic formation of the gravelly cobble deposit makes it very difficult to obtain large undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. A sophisticated subgrade reaction model for mat foundations has also been proposed by Horvath A relationship between deformation modulus and SPT N for gravels.

This paper presents the result of plate-load tests conducted on a gravelly cobble deposit in Taichung Basin, Taiwan. Ret-Ser Engineering Agency assisted in setting up field load test equipment, and Mr.

Modulus of subgrade reaction: Figure 1 shows a geologic map and profile of the Taichung Basin.