SE N~OR PROJECT

Handbook for Sllo Founda t i on I nvestigati on and Desi gn

to
Professor Mckyes

by
Mari e-Fra nce Perraton

Macdonald College, december 7th 1982.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Objective p. 1

1. Total Load~--------------~----------~--------------- . p. 1

2. Types of soils VS Shear strength _ _ _ - r " "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p. 2

3. Failures------~---------------------~----------~--- p. 4

3.1 Shear Failure and .B earing Capacity _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ p. 4

-Bearing Capacity Factors----------------~-------------- p. 5

- Bearing Capa.ci ty of Granular s o i l s - - - - - - - - - - - - p. 7

-Bearing Capacity of Cohesi ve soils _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ p. 9

3.2 Settlement ______________________________________________ p. 10

4. Soils I nvestigations __~------------------------ p. 12

4.1 Shear strength measurements ____________________________ p. 13

4.2 Consolidation test----~-------------------------------- p. 19

5. Design~----------------~------------------------- _____. p. 21

Example __________________________________~--------·-------- end

 HANDBOOK FOR SILO FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN

OBJECTIVE: This handbook has been realized to provide to engineers techniques

for silo foundation design.

1 . TOTAL LOAD

.Tower silos are farm structures of cylindrical form, which can be

made of concrete or steel. They can be fully automated exceeding 100 ft in
height and may have a storage capacity of more than 2000 tons. Figure 1 gives
for different silos dimensions the average capacity. (From ASAE D252)

JVj}'j)~~v;,~~/
20o aoo aoo 400 soo · Goo ano
200 100 soo 1000 1100 1200 1300
SILO CA?A<::ITY (TONS)

FIG. 1 AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF TOHER SILOS

Capacities sho\m in figure 1 allow one foot unused depth for set-
tling in silos up to 30 ft high, and one foot for each 10 feet beyond JO-ft
height.
The capacities apply to corn or grass silage in range of 68-72 %
moisture and assume normal treatment in harvesting and in filling silos.
Capacity will be affected by moisture content, material, and treat-
ment.

. .. /2
 Page -2-

To determine the total load on the soil underlying the future foun-
dation, we can determine from figure 1 the capacity, add to this the weight
of the concrete or steel walls, the weight of the operating equipment , the
weight of the foundation itself and of the soil over the foundation.

2. TYPES OF SOILS VS SHEAR STRENGTH

Shear strength is usually assumed to be made up of:

1) internal friction, or the resistance due to the interlocking of

the particles
where p= angle of internal friction

ii) cohesion, or the resistance due to the forces tending to hold

the particles together in a solid mass.
where c=cohesion

From these two characteristics, we can differentiate 3 type s of soils .

- coarse-grained, frictional or cohesionless "cl=O"
- fine-grained or cohesive "~ := 0''
- cohesive-frictional or "c-?"

Granular soils which have coarse grains such as sand , derive their
shear strength almost entirely from internal friction (c=O)

Clay soils have their voids smaller and more numerous. When those
soils are loaded under condi t i..ons of no change i n mo t sture ( the time a silo
takes to be erected and to be f i lled represents a such condition i.e . un-
drained condition) their shearing resistance is entirely derived from cohesion.
With time, the internal friction will start to develop which will cause the
shearing resistance to increase as a cohesive - frictional soil (c - ~), see fig. 2

... /J
 Page -3-

(a) "c-rJ'' s

5= shear strength
er·- normal pressure

(b) "c=O" 5

(c) "p:=Q" s

G~----------------------------

FIGURE 2

The shear strength of a granular sub-soil increases with the

loading applied but the increase of loadi ng on clay must be very slow to
achieve a similar effect because of the slow rate of egress of the pore
water.

. .. /4
 Page - 4-

Soil profiles can be un i form or may be errat ~ c. S ~nc e an errati c

soil profile requires particular attention which are not pr ov i ded in this
handbook, only foundat·ons on un i form so i l will be trea t ed.

)-\~d'v·""' · de."~ -~n.A .

: -· ...: ...' . . , - .. ..: .:- ·sec\nx:k..- .
~/'S<ij;>~/),~q,;\'9: ?/A~7~~~ .. -~ . . .- · .. ·, -
FIG. 3 .;))\§:h~~

In an erratic soil profile, the pressure distribut i on is quite d5_s -

torted.

3. FAILURES

In foundation design, the structure to be erected has to be safe

and stable. There are two kinds of failures which causes structural dama ge:
one is when the soil under an excess loading fails suddenly in shear f a ilure .
The second is when the structure settles due to the consolidation of the soil
under the footing. Both of these types of failures must be consi dered and
should be prevented as far as possible in an appropriate design.

To avoid failure, it is important to the engineer to know at wha t

pressure a shear failure would take place. The "Ultimate Bearing Ca pa ci ty"
(U.B.C. or ~lt) is the net loading intensity or the pressure applied by the
footing which causes the ground to fail suddenly in shear.

3.1 SHEAR FAILURE AND BEARING CAPACITY

When we consider "Bearing Capacity" we are interested in the strength

of the soil under where the load is applied. In any consi derat i on of ulti -
 Page -5-

mate bearing capacity, therefore, the type of foundation should be descri-

bed and the shear properties of the soil should be known.

Mechanism of shear failure

1o1 \ l o c\

FIG. 4

I; ~-redge under the footing which is re la ti vely undisturbed

II; zone under plastic failure by shear

slipping starts probably someHhere in that zone
the shear failure spreads until the whole zone is in state of plastic flow

III; mass of soil being pushed outward and upward , bY zone II

Theoretically this fa·lure ought to occur simultaneously on all

sides of the footing if the soil is of uniform properties and if the loa ding
is truly vertical.

Bearing Capacity Factors

The bearing capacity factors (Ne, NlSand N~ )are used to determine

the influence of various characteristics of soil and footing on the value of
the ultimate bearing capacity.

Terzaghi's bearing capacity factors are;

... / 6
 Page -6-

N, which controls the effect of cohesion in the final estimate of the U.B.C.

N1 which controls the effect of the density of the soil.

N, which controls the effect of overburden pressure at the level at which the
foundation is placed.

Terzaghi has developed an equation for the bearing capacity per u-

nit area "~lt" of a circular footing of diameter "B".

0 I Q

M<m«<lh<<>~f----!--~~"'"""','"'"'"'"'~ . ,;
FIG. 5

~lt=Q/A +· 0 • 6 ~ BN 75
1 • 3 eNc. + i DNc;- •••• , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• ( eq. 1 )

where qult= Ultimate bearing capacity (lb/ft~)

Q = Ultimate bearing capacity (lb)
A Area of the footing (ft~)
c = cohesion (lb/ft~)
moist unit weight of soil if above the water level
buoyant weight ( submerged unit weight) if below the water
level=~·= <5wd'- <:S~ ~d 'lSw~::. c,a.4 lb/bt3
D depth of foundation measuring from low side of the ground sur-
face to bottom of footing (~ )

.. ./?
 Page -7-

~"":·
... I
~~
-............ .... _
....
~~
I I I

NL
I I
T

T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I ,..
I I I
I I I c-'-;;-
l-J..-o':"'
...._.._ ......
.....
I r""""'
~·q
I ! I
""' N --~ -
IT~
I T I
......
..... .... .... .I A
~

..... """ ..... :"'- I .I I r I I

9- N ,
.....
., , I I I I
..... I
N~
ell
"0
tn
c 1'.
~
~
r-...•
' ·i'.1"\: 11
'I
'40P"I81.,3
Nq INe
95,7 130
L.
~
:J ,.
cu
~

c
,, ' \ 11
I I I I i I I I I I l f
I I I I I I I I 11 I
T
l
> ' ' IJ I I 11 I I I I 11 I
I I I t I I I I I I I
....__
1\.1
,, t\1
\

1\ :~8.~~-W:r~· ...._:-
_:_.

'-:-

'' ' ~0 --
I
~-
I

\
I
-- --
\
l
I '\ --
\ l
I
' I
lE 8 ~I --
....__
f; I
\ I I I I I 11 I
\ I flfllff
~ I I I I I I I I I
!\ I i I I I I I I I I

--
I\ I t

Vateurs de Ne et N_Q T1i

57\-, i
I

I
Vateurs
I
deN~ f-

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 2030 40 50 60 70 8090 100oo·

9- N.. N. N. 9- N .. N. N. 9 N. N. N,

0 0 1 5,14 2:? 6,68 7,83 16.9 36 .56,6 37,8 .50,6

s 0,2 1.56 6,47 23 7,73
8,97
8,66
"9,60
18,1
19,3
37
38
67,0
79,.5
42,9
43,9
.55,7
10 1,0 2,49 8,4.S 24 61,4
11 1,20 2,71 8,80 2.S 10,4 10,7 20.7 39 94,7 56,0 67,9
12 1,43 2,97 9,29 26 12.0 11,8 22.2 40 113.0 64,2 75,4
13 1,69 3,26 9,80 27 13,9 13.2 24,0 41 133,0 73.,9 83,9
I~ 1.,99 3~9 10,4 28 16,1 14,7 25.8 42 l~.o 85,4 93,7
15 2,33 3,94 11,0 29 18.8 16,4 27,9 43 199.0 99,0 105,0
16 2.72 4,33 11,6 30 21,1\ 18.4 30,1 44 244,0 11.5,0 11~.0
17 3,14 4,Tl 12,3 Jl 2.5..5 20,6 32,7 45 297,0 135,0 l3.S,O
18 3,69 .5,25 13,1 32 29,8 23,2 35..S 46 366,0 159,0 152,0
19 4,29 .5,80 13,9 33 3~.8 26,1 38.7 47 4.S5.0 187,0 174,0
20 4,97 6,40 14,8 . 34 40.9 29,4 42.2 48 370,0 213,0 199,0
21 S,76 7,70 IS,g 35 48,0 33.3 4&,1 49 718.0 265.0 230,0
.50 914,0 319,0 267,0

FIG. 6 BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FOR EQUATION 1

Bearing Capacity of Granular Soils

In conventional design, the allowable bearing capacity (A.B.C. or

qall) should be the smaller value calculated from those two equations;

~lt= 2N~R, + 6(100-rN;>) DR ••••••••••••••••••••••• (eq.2)

w w
where qall= qult/Safety Factor
 Page -8-

a
qall= 720(N - 3)((B + 1 ) / 2B) Rw. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ( eq . 3)
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1948)

N.B. equation 3 is based on a tolerable settlement of 1 inch, for settle-

ment different of 1 inch, qall of eq. 3 is proportional to settlement.
where qult= net ultimate bearing pressure (lb/ft 6 )
pressure at bottom in excess of the pressure at the
same level due to weight of the soil immediately sur-
rounding the footing.

N number of bloHs per foot, from standard penetration

test, see page/3.

D and B same as in equaton 1.

correction factors for position of water level, see

fig. 7

Rw 1.0 when the bottom of the footing is above the water

level.

R'
w
0.5 when the bottom of the footing is below the water
level.

a) depth of water level with

respect to dimensions of
the footing.

b) water level above base of

1.0
footing

c) water level above base c£

Q:.!.

E
u
0.9

0.8
""'
""
.E
c 0.7
footing .2
u:::1
~
<1.1 0.6
er
0.5

FIG. 7 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR POSITION OF \vATER LEVEL.

0

"
0.2 0.4
da!O
(b)
O.G 0.8 1.0
 Page -9-

Bearing Capacity of Cohesive Soils

qul t = CN c . . . • . • . . . ............ ( eq. 4)

(Skempton 1951)
C = cohesion; half of unconfined compression strength or direc-
tly from the shear vane test.

Ne = bearing capacity factor of clay which depends on the footir tg' s

shape, see fig. 8.

q =t;N
ull c: ~

n --
-- - "~":"':"~,~
·- rl-:-~
-~.,.-_-,-; ;u;-

J-e-!
s
0/8

FIG. 8 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF CLt\Y. After A. ~T. Skempton.

d J !Cohes ion =c 1
~~----------~,~~~-
! Cohesion =cz
;
Ultima te ~·Jp ocoty q ': c 1 N~

FIG. 9 ULTIHATE BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAY FOR A T1d0-LAYER SYSTEM

From S. J. Button.
 Page -10-

If the clay under the foundation consists of two layers of two dif-
ferents cohesions, then

c1 = cohesion of the upper layer (tons/ft~)

N~ bearing capacity factor of the two-layer system, see fig. 9.

3 . 2 SErTLEMENT

The calculation of the total settlement is important but, of

greater importance is the differential settlement. If two points of a struc-
ture settle by different amounts, the distortion which occurs may be serious
even if the amount of total settlement is not large. Since the differential
settlement is kept within a reasonable limit, the differential settlement
will be only a fraction of this amount.

The term consolidation denotes a slow process of compression due

to the extrusion of water of the voids in the fine-grains soils (cohesive-
soils).

If the soil is of a granular type, it is not highly compressible

and usually completes its change in volume when the load is applied. Such
soils offer few problems of consolidation and settlement. Soils which pre-
sent problems of compressibility are those with fine grains structure and
high void ratio - cohesive soils.

For stability analysis of footings, the pressure under a footing

may be assumed to spread out on a slope of 2 vertical for 1 horizontal. The
clay thickness should be divided into several layers to obtain reasonably
 Page -11-

accurate settlement of a thick layer.

2, J

_ l____ --- ·- ----·-·---- ·-----

5 \\c.c.. ""' ~

FIG. 10

Y\
~\).,. £
;.,~,
bh~-:. settlement

settlement due to consolidation

where P weight of soil above mid height (at Hi) of the consolidation
0
slice i.

e.~= void ratio at Pressure P 0 for the slice i.

natural void ratio.

~p = vertical stress due to load on footing.

Cc. Compression index.

e-- e ande = void ratio at 'P~ 'Pt> ..f.~P
(
e~ 1>/Po)

H thickness of the slice. If the soil is drained on top and bottom

as in the consolidat i on test, half thickness should be used .

. . . /12
 Page -12-

4. SOILS INVESTIGATIONS

The object of investigating the properties of the soil at any site

is to determine the stability of the structure concerned, and to ensure an
economic design. The samples of material and their properties should lead
to a determination of the bearing capacity of the natural soil and its possi-
ble deformation under the proposed load. This necessitates not only the mea-
surement of the properties of extracted samples by testing in the laboratory,
but also the determination of data from in situ measurements.

A soil investigation is required to provide information on the soil

profile, on the location of the ground water level, on the shear strength and
on the compressibility of the soil.

Types of Samples

When one extracts a sample from the soil, one should knoH if the
sample is undisturbed or not i.e., if the consistency of the soil has been af-
fected by the sampling operations.

An undisturbed sample is one for Hhich the soil structure has not
been greatly altered; without change in moisture content, void ratio and
chemical composition. Those samples require specific samplers which generally
are expensive to operate. That is why we try to use methods which do not re-
quire undisturbed samples.

Soil Profile

It is necessary to recognize by sampling from an earth auger or

from the standard penetration test, the nature and thickness of the various
s9il layers. This arrangement can be shown in the form of a soil profile on
 Page -13-

which the ground water level should be indicated. The maximum water level
can be given by the farmer.

4.1 SHEAR STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS

Shear strength measurements are required up to a depth of two thirds

of the diameter of the foundation to determine the bearing capacity of the
soil. The number of tests required as a function of depth should be sufficient
to evaluate the strength of the various strata within this depth. As for the
shear vane, at least one measurement per meter is necessary but it is prefe-
rable per half meter.

Shear strength may be measured by different ~ethods;

Standard Penetration Test

Since a sample of granular soil is easily disturbed, the engi-

neering properties of such soils can be evaluated by taking disturbed samples
and by measuring the relative density "Dd" with the standard penetration test
(S.P.T.).

The S.P.T. consist of counting the number of hammer blows (140 lb)
required to penetrate of 12 inches the split spoon into the soil. see fig.11.

FIG. 11 SPLIT SPOON. Earth auger.

 Page -14-

The shear strength and compressib ility of granular soils are re-
lated to the compactnes s of the grains. Quantitativ ely, the compactnes s is
expressed in terms of relative density.

Compactness Yery loose Loose Medium Dense Very dense

· Relative density Dd 0 15% 35% 65% 85% 100%

Standard penctra- 0 4 10 30 50
tion resistance,
N = no. of blows
per foot
4> (degrees)*
I I
28 30 36
I
4J
Unit weight, pcf
moist < )00 95- 125 ll0-130 110 - 140 > 130
submerged <... 60 55- 65 60-70 65- 85 > 75

TABLE 1 PtELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN Dd (re la t i ve density), N (number of bloHs) AND

~ (angle of internal friction)

N.B. increase five degrees for soils containing less than five per-
cent fine sand or silt.

At shallow depth (for an effective overburden pressure smaller or

equal to 40 psi) the number of blows "N" is generally to low. Equation 5
makes the correction.

N N' (50/ ( P + 1 0) ) ........... .... eq. 5

where N adjusted value of standard penetrati on
p effective overburde n ryressure

Since different kinds of samplers and different kinds of test

procedures are used in penetration tests, table 1 is used to correlate those
 Page -15-

different results. To convert into Standard N-values, the number of blows

should be divided by the conversion factor given.

Sampler type Diameter (in.) Hammer Free drop Com:ersion

/.D. O.D. weight (/b) (in.) factor

Split spoon 1.0 1.3 140 30 ].5

Split spoon (standard) 1.4-1.5 2.0 140 30 1.0 .
Split spoon 2.0 2.5 300 18 1.0
Split spoon 2S 3.0 375 )8 1.0
Seamless 2.75 2.65 140 30 1.0

TABLE 2 CONVERSION FACTOR FOR DYNAMIC PENETRATION TESTS

Shear strength of cohesive soils may also be determined from the

standard penetration test, see table J.

Consistency Very soft Soft lvledium Stiff Very stiff Hard

qu = unconfinecl 0 0.25 0.50 LOG 2.00 4.00

oompression
strength·, tons
per square ft
Standard penetra- 0
I I I
2 4 8 16
I
32
tion resistance,
N =no. of blows
p;!C ft
Unit weight, pcf
I
100- 120 110- 130 120-140 130+
tsatJJrated)

I~~ntification Exudes Moldt:d Mold~d Indented Indl!nted Difficult

~haractcris tics from by light by strong by thumb by thumb to indent
bet·.veen fing~r finger nail by thumb
fingers pressure pressure nail
when
squeezed
in band

TABLE 3 SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

... /16
 Page -16-

Shear Vane

A useful method for determ ining the shear streng th in situ even
at
the bottom of a bore hole is by means of the shear vane, see fig. 12.

The torque requir ed to twist the vane in the soil gives a measur e
of shear streng th of the soil over the surfac e of cylind er swept·
out. This
test is used especi ally for clay when ~=0 ( it is not necess ary to measur
e the
angle of intern al frictio n) .

.Sheath

r ly
.r-
x
J ,.
X
y

Vone
(Exfer;de d)
~
!
~
i
... --V......_._
T= C1T ((d~h/2) + (d 5 /6))

T= Torque
C= cohesi on of clay

FIG. 12 VANE SHEAR APPARATUS.

 Page -17-

For cohesive soils, the assumption of ~= 0 known as "f=O Analysis"

is often made for the design procedure since the shear strength has to be com-
puted for the most critical conditions which exist during construction and
during the first loading where at that time, the shear strength consists of
only cohesion.

This test is the most useful for cohesive soils in soil investiga-
tions for silo foundation designs particularly for sensitive clay which requi-
res undisturbed samples.

Unconfined Compression Test.

\)
5 ~,

··\~,..- ·
., .,..~

l1 I
I
I
(~
I
I I
~
().3

FIG. 13 UNCONF1NED COMPRESS~ON TEST (diagram and graph)

With only one test, for the axial normal pressure where failure
occurs, the strength of the soil can be calculated.

The unconfined compression test is a simple and useful one for pure
clays. For such soils, the elaborate triaxial - compression test gives little
more information than the simpler test. The time to erect a tower silo is ve-
ry short compared with time required to dissipate pore pressure in deep stra-
tum of clay. The strength of the soil will be the same at the end as at the
beginning of the construction. Over a longer period, the strength of the clay
under the consolidat ion caused by the weight of the structure will begin to
 Page 18-

increase. This fact can be looked as an assurance that if the silo can be
erected on clay and filled without a shear failure, then it will continue to
be safe since the strength will increase.

Triaxial Test

The triaxial test is much more complicated and much more costly,
but can be resorted to if the so i l is likely to have an angle of internal
friction.

ti

With two or more tests, AB can be drawn. This test is not popu-
lar for silo foundation design only· because of its high cost.

Shear strength of Granular soils

A good method to evaluate the shear strength for granu~ar soils is

with the shear box test.

A block of soil is inserted into two bottomless boxes. One is

pulled across the other until the soil shears along the plane S~P, see figure
14. The shear load at failure is divided by the cross sectional area of the
sample to give the ultimate bearing stress. This is a direct method and gives
points as A, B and C on fig. 14. It is a very useful method for granular soils
by measuring the relationship between the shear strength "S" and the angle of
 Pa e -19-

internal friction "~" with this equati on; S N Tg~

St------t P
<1-

\J,

FIG. 14 SHEAR BOX TEST

4.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST

The consolidati on test is ·ntended to provide basic inform t"on

for making settlement calcu at"ons.

The appropriat e type of sampler (undisturbe d sample) for a consol·-

dation test for Hhich a sample of 3 inches or more is used, is the one of Os-
terberg . The principle of this type is illustrated in f"g. 15.

Vertical load (consolidat- Lon pr ssure) is a~ppl"ed in in r ment

and the soil moisture is allowed to escape through the por us stones. The
compression is measured on a dial gauge.

Results of this test are plotted in the form of e - P or e - lo P

 Page -20-

graphs, where P consolidation pressure

e = corresponding void ratio

From this graph, the compression index Cc can be calculated

~ e~- e =slope of thee-log P curve for the virgin soil.

log(P/Po)

(o) (b) (c)

FT.G. 15 OSTERBERG PISTON a) sampler is set in drilled hole

b) sampling tube is propelled hydraulically
into soil.
c) pressure is release through hole in piston rod
After Engineering News-Record, April 24, 1952.

L--- --:~ Water

-- - --- - ~,/"'•no;,

0
/11

~~~~~~~
'

FIG. 16 OEDOMETER OR CONSOLIDATION APPARATUS (diagrammatic)

 Page -21 -

5. DES IGN

To ensure safety, an adequate factor of safety is used to allow

for strength anisotropy, non-uniform pressures applied to the soil, overtur-
ning pressures due to high winds, large eccentric loads, and to guard against
excessive settlement, Terzaghi and Peck suggest to use a safety factor (S.F.)
of 3 in bearing capacity determinations.

A safety factor of 2 may be acceptable, but a S.F. of 3 will lead

to a lower settlement. (Note: Teng suggest·s a minimum S. F. of 2.)

The allowable bearing pressure is equal to the ultimaye bearing

capacity divided by the safety factor;

· = ~11= qult/S.F.
qd eslgn

- for silo foundations, the allowable ma..-ximum settlement should be 2 inches.

1. Calculate the total load which will be applied on the footing, seep. 1

2. Determine the soil profile, the thickness of the different layers.

For each layer, d_etermi ne the cohesion "c" and if necessary, find the
angle of internal friction, see section 4.1 .

3. Establish the maximum water level,

4. Determine the Bearing capacity of the supporting stratum

for granular soils, see p. 7
for cohesive soils, see p. 9

... /22
 Page -22-

5. For c·o hesive soils, limit the settlement to 2 inches, see p. 10-11

6. Proportion the footing sizes,

where Q= Total load

A= area of the footing =l\B~/4 and B is the outside
diameter of the footing

7. Foundation Design; Since now we have the outside diameter of the footing,
we use the Canadian Plan Seryice (C.P.S.) which gives
all the other requirements, see fig. 17.

N. B. Our "B" calculated is not the same as B from C. P. S. , the variable B from
C.P.S. represents the footing vridth meanwhile our B refers to the outside
diameter of the foundation.

FIGURE 17 SECTION THROUGH A SILO VTITH A REINFORCED RING FOUNDATION

FROH C.P.S.
Example. E. 1

A silo of 20 feet of diameter and 60 feet high has to be bui ld.

- We have to calculate the appropriate foundation dimensions to ensure safety

and security.

·~------ D ----~~·

D = 20 ft
D·= D -2ft= 18 ft
'
assume t = 20 inches
f = density= 150 lb/ft3
B =?

- silo and equipment ~ 140 tonnes

- capacity ( from fig. 1) ~ 480 tonnes

-foundation weight (F.W.) =Volume X density

= 1r/4 ( Ba.- D~) X t X p

than the total load= ( 480 + 140 + F.W. ) tonnes

( 620 +'ft/4 ( B~- D;~) X t X f) tonnes
3
( 620 + "fr/4 ( Bd.- 18d) X 20 ft X 150 lb/ft3 X 1 tonnes )
12 2200 lb

( 620 + . 0893 B~- 2.3. 93 ) tonnes

(591.07 + .0893 B~) tonnes where B is in feet

From soil analysis, the soil profile is;

from 0'0" to 0' 11" top soil

0' 11" to 1' 2" fine silty sand (brown) and gravel
1' 2" to 1' 1 0" vegetable earth and roots
1 1 0" to 2' 6"
t fine silty sand
 E. 2
from 2' 6" to 12' brown silty clay
and below 12 ft, sand becomes important.

Shear vane measurements on the site are;

Depth Cu
(m) (ft) kg/cm~

1.0 3.3 .38

1.5 4.9 .32
2.0 6.6 .25
2.5 8.2 .21
3.0 9.8 .28
3.6 11.8 .26

Cu = .38 + .32 + .25 + .21 + .28 + .26 1. 7 := 0. 283 kg/ cm a

6
--
6

Cu = 0.283 kg/cm~~ 580 lb/ft~

The water level is at about 4 ft below the surface.

qall= qult/S.F. = 1.74/3 = 0.58 tonnes/ft~

qall= 0.58 tonnes/ft~= Total Load

Area

-total load= ( 591.07 + .0893 Ba) tonnes

- Area = (11' /4 B~) ft ~

.58= (591.07 + .0893 B~)

~/4 B;).

~ BC),X 0. 58 = 591. 07 + . 0893 B,;t

4
 E. 3
0.4555 B:k= 591.07 + .0893 B ~

0.366 B~= 591.07

B~= 1613.93

B ~ 40 ft

Now we have to check the settlement with B = 40 ft.

total load= 591.07 + .0893 (40~) = 734 tonnes= 7193 KN

\~-e- - --
·w-

.t;- ••. •• • • ~ • • : : ~ • • ;'- • • r ' n • • • • • L .\ • ...... .- .. .............

.
• • ." •. • • • • • •.. •. • ...-, • •
6 1
r<."' '('{\. Q..'-'.. F.:) e.. • •• ,• "' • ,
...... ·~ .· .
"'• , , , • • • '• • • •, • ,• • I I ' ,_ •· • • • •,:
,.. ~ . ·, ·•\ ' ..
Use the properties at mid height, i.e. at Z = 6ft

Bz= 6== B + Z = 40 ft + 6 ft = 46 ft = 14. 02 m

H = half thickness since the clay layer can drain from top and from bottom.
6ft= 1.83 m

Cc= 0.12
/lP at z==6 ft = 7193 KN = 46.6 KPa
11"/4 (14. o2t m=>.

than

1 . 8 3 X 0 .12 log[ 20 : 46. 6 ]

1 + 1.1 2
 h = 0.1046 X log ( J,JJ ) E. 4

0.1.46 X 0.522
.0_546 m

= .179 ft
2.15 inches

2.15 inches is acceptable. Therefore we can use 40 ft as the outside diameter

of the foundation.

B from C . P. S. = B D~ 40 - 18 11 ft
2 2
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bozozuk, M., Bearing Capacity of Clays for Tower Silos, Technical Paper no.
424 of the Division of Building Research NRCC 14265.

Bozozuk, M., Tower Silo Foundations, Canadian Building Digest, National Re-
search Council Canada, 1960.

Canada Plan Service, Reinforced Extended Ring Foundation for 2 i inch con-
crete stave Tower Silos, Plan 7412.

Capper, P. Leonard, Cassie, W. Fisher, The Mechanics of Engineering Soils,

6c edition, @ 1976.

Cassie, W. Fisher, Fundamental Foundations, C.B.E., Elsevier Publishing Com-

pany, © 1968.

) Craig, R.F., Soil Mechanics, ~R.F. Craig, 1974, Van Nostrand, Reinhold
Company.

Filliat, Georges, La Pratique des Sols et Fondations, Edition du Moniteur

Paris 1981.

Morin, J.P., feuillet preliminaire; Directives sur la Construction des Fon-

dations de Silos, presente a la Commission des Productions Vege-
tales du Quebec, le 11 decembre 1975.

Teng, Wayne C., Foundation Design, © 1962 by Practice-Hall inc., Civil

engineering and Engineering Mechanics series.

Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., Soil Mechanics in Engineering practice,

2°ed. John Wiley & Sons, inc. New-York, London Sidney.