ere! Keywords: PAL L270 Transmission Line Towers Project 1493-1 Foundations Final Report Soil Testing February 1983 Foundation Testing Foundation Movement Foundation Design Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression LoadingTransmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift‘Compression Loading EL-2870 Research Project 1493-1 Final Report, February 1983 Prepared by CORNELL UNIVERSITY Geotechnical Engineering Group Hollister Hall Ithaca, New York 14853 Principal investigator FH. Kulhawy Coauthors: ©. H, Trautmann J. F, Beech T.D. O'Rourke W. McGuire Subcontractor GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146 Coauthors W. A. Wood C. Capano Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 EPRI Project Manager P.G. Landers Overhead Transmission Lines Program Electrical Systems DivisionORDERING INFORMATION Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Research Reports Center (ARC), Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94903, (£15) 965-4081. There is no charge for reports requested by EPRI member utilities and affliates, U.S. utlty associations, U.S. government agencies (Iederal, state, and local), media, and foreign organizations with which EPRI has an information exchange agreement. On request, RAC will send a catalog of EPRI reports CCopyint © 1389 Electe Ramer Rasearch Iai, Ie. Al igh reserved NoTIGE “Ts ono wae prepared ty tn crgarzatons) amas balw as an account of wok sponsored bythe Elecite Power Reseach eu, Ic (EPA) Neha EPRI mamoars cl EPR. the organs) nama elow, no 37 person ating on Hera ofan of mer (a rakes any Warany xpress or plied, wih respec othe use ot Preparea by Comot UneasyABSTRACT This report is a state-of-the-art assessment of foundation engineering for trans~ mission line structures, with particular emphasis on uplift/compression foundation design loads. The scope of this report is broad and includes many aspects of geo- technical, foundation and structural engineering. After presenting the basic analysis/design philosophy, strategies for site characterization are described, Procedures for site reconnaissance, field exploration and laboratory testing fol- Tow. Detailed methodologies are given to evaluate the compression and uplift capa- cities of foundations in sofl, including procedures to predict foundation move- ments, Evaluation of foundations in rock and anchors follows. Load test proce- dures and methods to evaluate load test results are described, with illustrat fons that confirm the design methodologies, The response of transmission line struc- tures to differential foundation movements is presented with examples, and an i7- lustration is given of total structure response to foundation movenents. A summary section is given to provide an overview of the foundation analysis/design methodol- ogy, and the report is concluded with detailed research recomendations. Appen- dices provide further information on several of the topics. A supplemental vo‘ume has also been prepared which includes data on 804 foundation oad tests.EPRI PERSPECTIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lattice toners continue to be the backbone of the electric utility industry's over- head transmission line network. One of the greatest structural uncertaint ies resides with the foundation design, largely because of the wide variety of sof conditions encountered. Unlike other engineered structures, the mode of loading the foundations is unique: uplift loads typically control the design. Also, unlike the design of other types of structures, only limited soil exploration takes place before the design of lattice towers is fixed. This is due to the substantial number of foundations required, the large expanse of terrain traversed, and the widely- varying soil conditions encountered. Many different analytic models have been and are being used throughout the industry to design transmission line structure foundations for uplift-compression loads. Likewise, many different soil exploration techniques are being used, each with varying levels of accuracy and cost effectiveness. The state of the art in both foundation design and soi] exploration has changed so significantly since the development of these earlier techniques that an evaluation of the current state of the art was necessary before a meaningful research project on foundation design could be undertaken; hence, the present project (RP1493-1) was undertaken. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this project was to evaluate the state of the art in the design of uplift-compression transmission line structure foundations and to recon mend more cost-effective and accurate approaches to the industry. Evaluation of tower response to differential foundation movement was also investigated to provide engineers with a better insight into how this movenent affects the load-carrying capacity of typical transmission line towers. PROJECT RESULTS This project resulted in a detailed evaluation of transmission line structure foundation design procedures and soil exploration techniques. A unified model foranalyzing and evaluating foundation designs that is based on actual failure modes of the foundation and surrounding soils rather than on empirically derived relation ships has been developed. The method used to test soils is the single most influen- tial variable. Since emphasis was placed on design philosophy and optimum overall cost effective- ness, the results of this effort are directly applicable to the reliability-based design procedures being developed for transmission lines in other EPRI research projects. With the results of this project, a meaningful research project can now be undertaken to proceed with a full-scale foundation and soil test program to verify the model in a wide range of soil types across the country. Phil Landers, Project Manager Electrical Systens Division viACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the efforts of many people, all of whom the principal inves- tigator wishes to thank for their contributions. Key personnel and their involve- ment have included: Charles H. Trautmann, Cornell (Sections 3-6, Appendix B); John F. Beech, Cornel (Sections 7-12); Thomas 0, O'Rourke, Cornell (Sections 13, 14); William A. Wood, GAI (Section 15); Willian McGuire, Cornell (Section 16, Appendix 0); and Ciro Capano, GAI (Appendix A). The principal investigator has been responsible for the other report sections, all editing and the Final report content. The following consultants have been associated with this project and have served to focus the direction of this effort: John I. Adans, Ontario Hydro; Milton E. Harr, Purdue University; George F. Sovers, Law Engineering Testing Company and Georgia Institute of Technology; and Aleksandar S. Vesié, Duke University. Utility advisors who served in a similar role included: John C. Burton, San Diego Gas and Electric; Bing Chan, Rural Electrification Administration; Malden V. Frank, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporat ion; Donald B. Grime, Southern California Edison Company; Henry P, Holt, Alabama Power Company; Daniel €. Jackman, Omaha Public Power District; Willian R. Kline, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company; Edwin B. Lawless, III, Potomac Electric Power Company; Gerardo A. L6pez-Valadez, Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas; Thomas £. Rodgers, Jr., Virginia Electric and Power Company; and James W. Rustvold, Bonneville Power Administration. In addition, several people served as technical reviewers, critically evaluating drafts of the report. These have included: Anthony M. DiGioia, Jr. and J. Michael Silva, GA; Christina V. Stas, Cornell; John A, Focht, Jr. (Sections 7,8,9) and dames P. Stewart, McClelland Engineers, Inc.; and Janes L. Withiam, D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. A.M. DiGioia and J. M. Silva also supervised the GAI sub-contract. W. R. Sanbridge drafted the figures and Joanne English typed the text. The EPRI project manager was Phillip G. Landers. viiCONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION Ll Overview of Transmission Line Systems Le Structure Types and Functions 13 Loading 1.6 Foundation Types and Functions 1 Foundation Economics and Reliability 114 Sunmary and Scope of Report 1-16 References 1.17 2 ANALYSIS/DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR FOUNDATIONS a4 Node? Reliability a4 Material Property Reliability 22 Construct ion Effects 2-3 Verification of Analysis/Design Methodology 208 Foundation Usage Trends Kithin the Electric Utility Industry 24 Summary 25 References 2-6 3. STRATEGY FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION 3 Exploration Mode! 31 Decisions Based on Expected Costs 33 Amount of Field Exploration Required 365 Need for Flexibility, Communication and Inspection 36 General Procedure for Exploration Programs 349 Summary 3-11 References 311 4 SITE RECONNATSSANCE 4a Types of Regional Geologic Data 4el Uses of Regional Geologic Data 4-3 Topographic Maps 45 Remote Sensing 4-5 ixSection, Page Aerial Reconnaissance 4-8 Ground Geologic Surveys 4-9 Summary 4-10 References 4-10 5 FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS 5-1 General Planning Considerations 5-1 Drilling and Sampling 5-3 Preliminary Methods 5-3 Detailed Methods 5-5 Classification of Subsurface Materials 5-9 In-Situ Test Methods 5-13, Standard Penetration Test 5-18 Cone Penetration Test 5-23 Vane Shear Test 5-31 Pressureneter Test 5-35 Simple Hand Devices 5-41 Comparison of In-Situ Test Methods 5-44 Permeability Test 5-45 Geophysical Field Methods 5-48 Seismic Refraction 5-48 Electrical Resistivity 5-52 Other Geophysical Field Techniques 5-55 Summary 5-56 References 5-57 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6-1 Index Testing 6-2 Strength Testing 6-5 Compressibility Testing 6-8 Summary 6-9 References 6-9 7 BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL 71 Failure Modes ra General Shear Failure 7-4 Local and Punching Shear Failure 7-6 Rigidity Index 7-8 Other Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity 7-13Section Foundation Shape Inclined and Eccentric Loading Base Tilt and Ground Surface Slope Foundation Depth Influence of Ground Water Table Layered Soils Summary References 8 COMPRESSION CAPACITY OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS IN SOTL Failure Node Tip Resistance Undrained Loading Drained Loading Side Resistance Orained Loading Undrained Loading (« Method) Undrained Loading (8 and 2 Methods) Capacity from In-Situ Tests Influence of Ground Water Table Additional Considerations Summary References 9 UPLIFT CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL Failure Modes Tip Resistance Side Resistance for Shaft-Type Foundations Side Resistance for Spread-Type Foundations Other Methods for Computing Uplift Capacity Cone Method Shear Method Curved Surface Method Bearing Capacity or Cavity Expansion Method Capacity From In-Situ Tests Influence of Ground Water Table Additional Considerations Summary References xi Page, 7-14 7-14 7-16 7-7 7-18 7-19 7-22 7-22 el 81 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-9 8-10 8-14 8-18 8-20 8-23 8-26 8-26 8-26 9-1 9-1 9-5 9-6 9-9 9-11 9-1 9-12 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-14 9-14 9-15Section Page 10 PREDICTION OF FOUNDATION MOVEMENT IN SOIL 10-1 Settlement of Shallow, Spread-Type Foundations 10-3 Elastic Settlenent 10-3 Consolidation Settlement. 10-6 Secondary Settlement 10-11 Settlement from In-Situ Tests 10-12 Settlement of Deep, Shaft-Type Foundat ions 10-13 Uplift Movement of Foundations 10-16 Compression vs. Uplift Behavior 10-16 Uplift Movement of Deep, Shaft-Type Foundations 10-17 Uplift Movement of Shallow, Spread-Type Foundat ions 10-20 Influence of Ground Water Table 10-20 Interrelationship of Foundation Movement and Capacity 10-20 Summary 10-21 References 10-21 11 FOUNDATIONS IN ROCK il Geologic Considerations il Selection of Design Bearing Stress ie Settlement of Foundations on Rock 5 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Rock 11-6 Compression Capacity of Socketed Foundations Lge Uplift Capacity of Socketed Foundations lz Summary Alz References 11-13 12 ANCHORS: 12-1 Types of Anchors 12-1 Failure Modes 12-6 Pullout Capacity of Spread Anchors 12-8 Pullout Capacity of Helix Anchors 12-10 Pullout Capacity of Grouted Anchors in Soil 12-11 Pullout Capacity of Grouted Anchors in Rock 12-13 Prediction of Anchor Movement. 12-14 Additional Considerations 12-14 Summary 12-15 References 12-15 xiiSect ion Page 13. LOAD TEST EVALUATION 13-1 Basic Considerations 13-1 Load Test Procedures 13-3 Criteria for Load Test Selection 13-7 Load Test Summaries 13-9 Influence of Construction on Foundat ion Performance 13-9 Summary 13-16 References 13-18 14 INTERPRETATION OF UPLIFT LOAD TEST RESULTS 14-1 Determination of Uplift Capacity fron Field Load Tests 14-1 Total Stress Analysis for Drilled Shaft Uplift Capacity 14-5 Effective Stress Analysis for Drilled Shaft Uplift Capacity 7 Analysis of Grillage Uplift Capacity 14-8 Summary 14-10 References 14-12 15 RESPONSE OF TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES TO DIFFERENTIAL FOUNDATION MOVEMENT 15-1 General Movenent Criteria in Current Use 15-1 Survey of Transmission Line Structure Foundation Movements 15-3 Foundation Movement Load Cases 15-5 Structure Behavior in Response to Foundation Movement 15-7 Structure Analysis 15-10 Analysis Results 15-13 Summary 15-20 References 15-20 16 COLLAPSE RESISTANCE AND TOTAL STRUCTURE RESPONSE 16-1 Background 16-1 Literature Review 16-2 Sample Structure Calculations 16-5 Summary 16-11 References 16-11 17 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS/DESIGN METHODOLOGY Wl General Procedures 1-1 Factor of Safety and Limiting Movenents 4 18 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS 18-1 General 18-1 xiiiSection ‘APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX Evaluation of Ground Conditions Foundation Analysis/Design Structure Analysis/Design Construction Operations Total System Evaluation Summary A EVALUATION OF FOUNDATION TYPE USAGE EPRI Utility Questionnaire Evaluation of Results Single Pole and Two-Legged Structures Summary 8 SOURCES OF RECONNAISSANCE DATA Sources of Regional Geologic Data Topographic Maps Renote Sensing References © IN-SITU STRESSES Stress Path Variations Sample Computat fon Practical Implications References ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR PAPERS ON TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES AND FOR RESEARCH ON TRANSMISSION LINE STRUC- TURE STRENGTH xiv Page, 18-1 18-3 18-5 18-7 18-8 18-9 Al Al a3 All ALL Bl Bel Bla 8-20 8-23 cl cl C5 c-5 C6 DlILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1-1 Simplified Flow Chart for Transmission Line Design 1-2 Lattice Toner Structure and Foundation Loads 1-3 Single Pole Structure and Foundation Loads 1-4 Framed Structures and Foundation Loads 1-5 Guyed Structures 1-6 Illustrative Foundation 3-1 Cost vs. Level of Exploration 3+2 Cost Conponents for Field Exploration Techniques 343 Optimization of Exploration by Comparison with Penalty Costs 3:4 Penalty Costs for Underexplored or Overexplored Sites 3:5 Flow Diagran for Geotechnical Aspects of Transaission Line Engineering 5-1 Iwan Hand Auger 52 Dynamic Cone Penetroneter 5-3 Chopping Bits 5-4 Continuous Fltght Augers 5-5 Auger Cutter Heads and Nomenclature 5-6 Driven Sanplers 5-7 Thin Wall Samplers: 5-8 Core Barrels 5-9 Unified Soil Classification Chart 5-10 Field Identification Procedures for Fine-Grained Soils 5-11 Example Test Boring Log xv 5-6 5-7Figure 5-12 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 61 6-2 Tl 7-3 74 15 1-7 7-8 1-9 7-10 7A Driving Sampler for Standard Penetration Test Correlations of N Values with Sand Parameters Electric Friction Cone Penetroneter Tip Mechanical (Begemann) Friction Cone Penetroneter Tip Relationship Between Tip Bearing, Side Friction and Particle Size for Mechanical Friction Cone Penetrometers Comparison of Soil Profiles by CPT and Drilling and Sampling Comparison of Mechanical and Electric Cones Typical Shear Vanes Schematic of Pressuremeter Operation Section of PAF 72 Self Boring Pressureneter Typical Pressureneter Curve Simple Hand Devices Test Cost vs. Accuracy Seismic Refraction Exploration Electrical Resistivity Exploration Atterberg Limits of Soils Typical Relationships Between Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index General Description of Bearing Capacity Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundat ions Assumed Failure Mode for Bell Solution Critical Rigidity Index Rigidity Factors, cq, © Se Rigidity Factor, Co, Inclined and Eccentric Loading Tilted Foundation Base and Sloping Ground Surface Ideatized Two Layer Soil Profiles Modified Bearing Capacity Factor, Nm Page. 5-19 5-21 5-26 5-26 5-28 5-28 5-31 5-33 5-36 5-38 5-38 5-42 5-46 5-49 5-54 6-4Figure 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 87 8-9 8-10 8-11 8-12 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 General Description of Deep Foundat ion Illustrative Load Displacement Curves for Drilled Shaft Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Undrained Loading Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Drained Loading Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Drained Loading Approximate Tip Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Deep Foundations in Sand Example Illustrating Principles of Side Resistance in Sand Adhesion Factor vs. Undrained Shear Strength for Piles Adhesion Factor for Piles Driven into Clay Adhesion Factor vs. Plasticity Index Strength Representation of Clays A Coefficient for Driven Pipe Piles General Description of Shaft-Type Foundation in Uplift Development of Shear Surface Adjacent to Foundat ion Development of Cone Failure for Shafts in Uplift Idealized Uplift Failure of Deep Spread-Type Foundation Construction Variations with Spread-Type Foundations Illustration of Poisson Effect Common Uplift Capacity Models Foundation Settlement Response Elastic Settlement of Flexible Foundation on Soil of Infinite Depth Typical Consolidation Settlement Behavior Sample Soil Stress Computation Reduction Factor for Consolidation Settlement Terzaghi One-Dimensional Consolidation Solution Chart for Proportioning Footings on Sand for 1 inch Settlement Elastic Load Transfer to Foundation Tip xvii 8-9 8-12 8-16 8-16 8-17 8-19 8-21 9-2 9-3 9-3 9-5 9-7 9-12 10-1 10-4 10-7 10-7 10-10 10-11 10-13 10-15Figure 10-9 10-10 11-1 11-2 3 4 ues Compression vs. Uplift Behavior Uplift Movement Influence Factor Rock Foundation Contact Problems Allowable Contact Stress on Jointed Rock Bearing Capacity Failure Modes Wedge Bearing Capacity Factors Bearing Capacity Factor for Open Joints Correction Factor for Discontinuity Spacing Socketed Rock Foundation Bond Strength of Rock Sockets Frictional Load Transfer in Elastic Rock Typical Anchors Direct Embednent Spread Anchor Helix Anchors Grouted Anchors Anchored Spread Foundation General Description of Uplift Behavior Idealized Uplift Failure Modes Inclined Spread Anchor General Procedures for Applying Uplift Forces in Load Tests Load Test Sunmary Sheet Comparison of As-Built with AS-Designed Shaft Dimensions Comparison of Grillage Response with Tamped and Untanped Backfi11 Methods of Interpreting Uplift Load Test Data Computed vs. Measured Uplift Capacity for Total Stress Analysis of Drilled Shafts Computed vs. Measured Uplift Capacity for Effective Stress Analysis of Drilled Shafts Computed vs, Measured Uplift Capacity for Grillages xviii Page 10-17 10-18, 11-3 14 1-6 u-7 1-8 1-8 1-10 1-10 elt 12-2 12-3 12-3 12-5 12-5 12-7 12-7 12-9 13-6 13-10 13-15 13-15 14-3 14-6 1-9 14-11Figure 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 1545 5-6 15-7 5-8 16-1 16-2 16-3 6-4 Wa 17-1b Ae hee he het Aes a6 Ae? AB An9 A-10 cl c-2 Foundation Movenent Load Cases Structure Response to Foundation Movement, Representation of Movement Load Cases Structures Selected for Analysis Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 1 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 2 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 3 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 4 Load Cases Typical Menber Force-Displacement Relationships Nenber Force Levels Force Redistribution at 1.97 Inch Foundation Displacement Force Variation in Selected Compression Members Flow Chart for Foundation Preliminary Evaluation Flow Chart for Foundation Uplift/Compression Design EPRI Quest fonnaire Location of Utilities Responding to EPRI Questionnaire Location of Utilities Included in Test Data Evaluation Utility Mileage Distribution for Four-Legged Towers Foundation Types by Mileage for Four-Legged Towers Regional Divisions Regional Distribution of Foundation Types by Mileage for Four-Legged Towers, Telephone Survey Participants Foundation Types by Mileage for Single Poles Foundat ion Types by Mileage for Two-Legged Frames Index Map of Nuclear Power Reactors in the United States Soil Element In-Situ Stress Paths for Simple Stress Histories xix A-8 A-10 A-12 A-12 8-13 2 c-2Table La 12 2d 22 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 ra 7-2 1-3 8-1 8-2 8-3 TABLES Typical Line Cost Estimates Typical Line Cost by Components, Variability of Some Soil Properties Results of EPRI Questionnaire for Four-Legged Towers Check List of Test Boring Information Needed Information Needed for Soi] Description Information Needed for Rock Description Properties of Soils vs. SPT N Values Sources of Error in the Standard Penetration Test Sources of Error in the Cone Penetration Test Sources of Error in the Vane Shear Test Typical Values of Pressuremeter Modulus and Limit Pressure Assessment of In-Situ Tests Relative Permeability of Some Earth Materials Typical Seismic Velocities Typical Electrical Resistivities Borehole Geophysical Methods Bearing Capacity Factors Typical Values of Poisson's Ratio Typical Values of Rigidity Index Interface Friction Angles Horizontal Soil Stress Coefficients Stress Transfer Factors, x xxi Page 1-15 1-16 2-3 25 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-20 5-24 5-30 5-34 5-39 5-45 5-47 5-50 5-54 5-56 7-9 7-9 all 8-14 8-23Drilled Shaft Dianeters as Installed in Various Types of Ground Horizontal Soil Stress Coefficients Elastic Shape and Rigidity Factor Typical Values of Cy Typical Ranges of Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters Helix Anchor Coefficients Horizontal Stress Coefficient, K, for Grouted Anchors Sunmary of Information and Objectives of Load Tests Load Tests Summarized in the Supplemental Volume Sunmary of Construction Effects on Foundation Performance Comparative Summary of the Effects of Foundation Construction Naximum Permissible SettTenent Public Inquiry Offices of the U.S. Geological Survey Addresses of State Geological Survey Offices Status and Availability of State Geologic Maps Geological Societies in the U.S, Canada and Mexico Page, 8-25 9-10 10-4 10-16 10-19 12-11 12-13 13-8 13-11 13-13 13-17 15-3LIST OF SYMBOLS ENGLISH LETTERS ~ UPPER CASE A = foundation area ay = reduced effective area Acige 7 Surface area of the side of the foundation Arip ~ area of foundation tip 8 - foundation width or dianeter 8 = reduced foundation width or diameter c = menber compressive force CysCp = constants cy - correction factor Ce = compression index CesC, - empirical coefficients Cy, —~_-untoad-reload index Cy = coefficient of secondary settlenent D = foundation depth E - elastic modulus E = concrete modulus = elastic modulus of foundation material - pressuremeter modulus = rock modulus = rock mass modulus = elastic modulus of soil Ee = tangent modulus 6 = shear modulusrock slab thickness height of compressible soil height of drainage path current, rigidity index critical rigidity index reduced rigidity index influence coefficient bearing capacity correction factor coefficient of horizontal soil stress foundation stiffness factor Rankine minimum active stress coefficient in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress K, for normally consolidated sof during virgin loading K, for primary reloading Ky for primary unloading Rankine maximum passive stress coefficient foundation length reduced foundation Tength Vquidity index standard penetration test value; vertical component of inclined load bearing capacity factor for cohesion bearing capacity factor for jointed rock modified bearing capacity factor bearing capacity factor for overburden bearing capacity factor for friction overconsolidation ratio (3, /%,) max maximum OCR perimeter of foundat ion xxivPL ENGLISH = plasticity index = load = applied compressive load = side resistance in compression ~ side resistance in uplift = tip resistance in compression ~. tip resistance in uplift - applied uplift load = maximum uplift load = rock quality designation - failure ratio = stress level; column spacings joint spacing = horizontal component of inclined load; member tensile force = percent consolidation - voltage = weight of foundation and enclosed soi1 = weight of foundation - effective weight of foundation LETTERS - LOWER CASE - electrode spacing = cohesion - adhesion = coefficient of consolidation - void ratio - eccentricity in B direction - eccentricity in L direction = initial void ratio = unit side resistance xxvcompressive strength of concrete cone penetroneter side Friction coefficient of permeability menber length, distance constant modulus exponent atmospheric pressure pressureneter limit pressure surcharge yo) allowable contact stress cone penetrometer tip resistance net bearing capacity uniaxial compressive strength ultimate bearing capacity foundation radius suction stress tensile strength undrained shear strength mean undrained shear strength time; sean thickness radial thickness of structural material seismic velocity Liquid limit natural water content plastic limit shrinkage Timit depth xxviGREEK LETTERS - UPPER CASE a ae ae au ao a0 ‘a bcp t average volunetric strain; foundation movenent change in void ratio change in menber length excess pore water stress applied stress axial stress applied to foundation horizontal stress change in soil time factor GREEK LETTERS - LOWER CASE angle of base tilt; adhesion or reduction factor modulus reduction factor side resistance coefficient K tan 6 shape and rigidity factor unit weight effective unit weight moist unit weight submerged unit weight angle of friction for soil-concrete interface modification factor, doubly subscripted, for bearing capacity terms angle of load inclination angle of load eccentricity modulus number empirical coefficient reduction factor Poisson's ratio Poisson's ratio for concrete Poisson's ratio of foundation material xxvii