Special Foundations

Copyright © 2013. Alpha Science Internation Limited. All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted
CHAPTER 1
SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS
This chapter sets out to discuss some ‘special foundations.’ The specialty of the foundation can arise on
account of the following:
1. Type of the superstructure,
2. Type of the soil or the environment,
3. Form of the foundation, especially its geometry, such as in the case of ‘shell foundations.’ To this
category may be added ‘prestressed’ and even ‘precast’ foundations.
Among the above, since the author has brought out a detailed monograph on the subject of shell foundations
(Kurian, 2006), it is not proposed to add much on the subject in this book except reproducing a state-of-the-art
paper by him (∗ Sec. 2.3) which presents a gist of the subject for the sake of coverage and for introducing
the subject to readers uninitiated in the subject and hence not aware of the great scope of deploying shells
in the realm of foundations. This, together with the other topics mentioned under 3. above, are covered in
Chapter 2. We shall therefore bring the rest of the topics categorised above as special foundations and focus
attention on the same in this chapter.
1.1 FOUNDATIONS FOR SPECIAL STRUCTURES

By special structures we mean unconventional or not so frequently occurring structures such as buildings.
There are a number of such special structures, which may be above ground or below ground, on-shore or
off-shore, commercial or industrial and for civil or defense use, as the following sections will show.
1.1.1 Foundations for Water Tanks and Silos
Overhead structures like water tanks, grain silos, etc. which are supported on columns can be considered
as constituting examples of special structures. The columns of these structures can be founded on soils
by means of footings, rafts (or mats) of the beam and slab type or flat slab type, piles or piers with cap,
depending upon the loading and soil conditions (Fig. 1.1). When footings are used, strap beams may be
under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
provided connecting the columns at their base, to reduce the effects of differential settlements (Arya, 1966).
When the loads are heavy, the soil weak, and the columns closely spaced, individual footings have to be
ruled out if they are found to overlap, when a raft becomes the automatic choice. Even when the footings
do not overlap, but cover more than half the base area, a raft should prove more economical than a system
of individual footings (Kurian, 2005: Sec. 9.3). In place of plain footings and plain rafts, shell footings and
shell rafts (see Kurian, 2006: Ch. 1) can be attempted where conditions are favourable for their economic
adoption.
∗
Section in this book, the first number being that of the chapter.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/22/2019 8:56 PM via PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA
- BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL
AN: 1805050 ; Kurian, Nainan.; Introduction to Modern Techniques in Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, An
Account: s6670599
1.2 Special Foundations
Copyright © 2013. Alpha Science Internation Limited. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted
Fig. 1.1 Raft Foundation for Overhead Water Tank Fig. 1.2 Annular Raft Foundation
When the columns form a circular row, a circular or annular raft is very often attempted as the foundation
on to which the loads are transmitted as a circular line load through a ring beam, which supports the columns
(see Fig. 1.2). Kurian (2005: Sec. 9.5.2) quotes expressions for Mr , Mθ , Mrθ and Qr , both under symmetric
and antisymmetric loading conditions, needed for the design of such rafts followed by a detailed example of
design (∗ D.P. 9.8). The effect of wind producing antisymmetrical soil pressure is dealt with in a conditional
manner as shown by him in the D.P. cited. It has been stated by Arya (1966) that for relatively large horizontal
forces, annular rafts are more economical than full rafts.
Shell foundation alternatives for circular and square (also rectangular) rows of columns have been given
by Kurian (2006: Ch. 1). Among them the ‘double cone folded raft’ (see Fig. 2.22c) in place of a plain
annular raft is particularly attractive. He has also worked out design examples (in the format of Design
Plates) covering them in Ch. 6 of the same book.
1.1.2 Foundations for Chimneys and Cooling Towers
Tall cylindrical structures such as chimneys are normally founded on circular rafts, when the soil conditions
are favourable (Smith and Zar, 1964; Chu and Afandi, 1966; Manohar and Desai, 1967). For facilitating
construction, these circular rafts are normally detailed octagonally (see Fig. 1.3).
∗
Design Plate in a special format.
Account: s6670599
Foundations for Special Structures 1.3
Fig. 1.3 Octagonal Raft for Chimney (Smith and Zar, 1964) Fig. 1.4 Foundations for Cooling Towers
[Courtesy: American Concrete Institute]
The possibility of a truncated conical shell raft (upright or inverted) or an inverted dome-cum-cone raft
for structures such as chimneys has been explained in (Kurian, 2006: Ch. 1).
Cooling towers, normally in the form of hyperboloid of revolution (Fig. 1.4) are typically found in thermal
power stations. Towers of this type were first built by Van Itersen in the Netherlands in 1912 (Rogers and
Cohen, 1970; Abu-Sitta, 1970). An annular raft may prove to be a convenient foundation for such towers on
good soil. Deep foundations, if needed, could be in piles or caissons.
1.1.3 Foundations for Telecommunication Towers

Tall reinforced concrete telecommunication towers such as for radio, television, telephone etc. are nor-
mally founded on an annular raft through a conical substructure. A note on such structures is already included
in (Kurian, 2006: Ch. 1). In addition to the flexural effect due to soil reaction, the foundation ring is also
subjected to hoop tension due to the horizontal component of the inclined thrust from the cone, to resist
which, prestressing is sometimes resorted to. The tallest of these structures is the Moscow TV Tower at
Ostankino (see Kurian, 2006: Fig. 1.9). The structure which has a total height of 533 m, and a weight of
550 MN has a ring foundation (decogonal, prestressed) with an outer dia. of 74 m and a thickness of 9.5 m.
Account: s6670599
It is founded at a depth of 3.5 m below ground level, to a mean soil pressure of 274 kN/m2 . The foundation
soil is compressible to a depth of 35 m, which is underlain by incompressible rock.
An elegant shell foundation alternative consists of a frustum of an inverted cone replacing the plain
annular raft as illustrated in (Kurian, 2005: Fig. 9.48) effectively combining frusta of an upright cone in the
substructure and an inverted cone in the foundation.
Even though R.C. telecommunication towers are very popular in Europe, particularly in Germany, similar
towers in India practically are all of steel, and mostly founded on piles.
1.1.4 Foundations for Transmission Line Towers
Tall tower-shaped structures, as a class, are subjected to large horizon-

tal forces due to wind∗ (Sachs, 1972). These horizontal forces transmit
both horizontal loads and moments at the foundation level (Kurian, 2005:
Sec. 9.5.1). (In a general case even twisting moments can be transmitted.)
When the vertical loads are comparatively smaller, these moments can
produce a resultant tension in foundation elements such as footings and
piles. Since wind may not always act, and in a general case it may act
in any direction, the geotechnical and structural aspects of design of
the foundation element concerned should cater simultaneously to the
maximum values of compression, tension and horizontal forces, which
may also act in either direction (Fig. 1.5).
In the case of steel transmission line towers, the wind forces are Fig. 1.5 Transmission Line
relatively low because of the open lattice form of tower construction. Tower: Forces on
However, design for “broken wire condition” (BWC), i.e. all wires on Foundations
one side snapping, if stipulated by Codes (e.g., IS:∗∗ 4091–1979), will
have to cater for large horizontal forces. The net result is that the foundation element can be subjected to
either compression and horizontal force, or tension and horizontal force.
Some typical foundations for transmission line towers (Deb, 1971) are illustrated in Fig. 1.6. For small
towers the foundation can be in the form of blocks into which the tower legs are properly anchored. Individual
reinforced concrete footings, or combined footings (Kurian, 2005: Chs. 8, 9) may have to be employed for
higher loads (Süberkrüb, 1958).
Underreamed piles (Kurian, 2005: Sec. 5.4) which are normally used as foundations in expansive soils
can be effectively employed as foundations for the legs of transmission line towers even in ordinary soil,
either as a single pile, or in a group, depending upon the load and the capacity of the individual pile. The
function of these piles in expansive soils is to transmit the loads to the stable zone which lies under the
zone susceptible to swelling and shrinkage due to moisture variation. When the loads are compressive, the
under-ream or the bulb serves to increase the bearing area, while under tension it serves as an anchor for
the pile in the stable zone. This dual function explains the effectiveness of underreamed piles as potential
foundations for transmission line towers. The design values of underreamed piles of standard dimensions, in
compression, tension and lateral load are tabulated in sources such as I.S. 2911(Part III)-1980, using which
these foundations, including the capping beams/slabs can be easily designed. (The scope and possibility of
the use of presressed ground anchors as transmission line tower foundations are touched upon in Sec. 3.3.)
∗
The wind effect is actually dynamic, and to consider the same as static, is to oversimplify the problem.
∗∗
Indian Standard – issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (see Title under References)
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.6 Foundations for Transmission Line Towers (Deb, 1971) [Courtesy: Irrigation and Power] (a) Block foundation
(b) Piled foundation with capping block (c) Pillar foundation (d) Augered belled foundation (e) Footing
(f) Anchored leg (g) Grillage foundation (h) Combined footing (Elevation) (i) Beam and slab raft (Plan)
(j) Under-reamed pile foundation (k) Screw pile foundation
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.7 Fig. 1.8
1.1.5 Design of Footings subjected to Tension (also see (Kurian, 2005: Sec. 8.9))
(a) Geotechnical design
The maximum capacity of a footing in tension (which is the same as the anchoring capacity of a horizontal
anchor subjected to vertical pull) is made up of (Fig. 1.7) the self weight of the footing including the stem,
the weight of the backfill, the surcharge, if any, and the frictional resistance (downwards) along the vertical
faces of the trench (Winterkorn and Fang, 1975: Sec. 15.11). The geotechnical design must ensure that the
actual design value of tension to which the footing is subjected, has a reasonable factor of safety (if possible,
not less than 3) with respect to the above ultimate tensile capacity. Actually the footing must be proportioned
for both compression and tension, and the bigger of the two resulting plan dimensions, adopted.
(b) Structural design
As far as compression is concerned, the footing may be designed as an ordinary footing subjected to
vertical load, horizontal load and moment, the latter two being the effect of the horizontal load at top of the
stem (Fig. 1.8a). The design for tension must be for the combined effect of the symmetrical (downward) and
antisymmetrical soil reactions at the top of the footing due to the tension at the foot of the stem (which equals
tension at top less self weight of stem), and the moment, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.8b. The possibility
of considering the section as doubly reinforced may be noted in the interest of economy (see Kurian, 2005:
Sec. 9.5.7).
The Stem
The stem should be designed against compression (composite section) and tension (steel alone is effective;
bars to be properly anchored into the footing; equivalent concrete section to be checked against tension) and,
(if the horizontal soil support is not being taken into account to be on the safer side), also against the cantilever
moment and shear due to horizontal load at the top.
1.1.6 Piles subjected to Tension (also see (Kurian, 2005: Sec. 11.1.6))
Figure 1.9 shows the different mechanisms of transmission of compressive and tensile loads through
prismatic and belled piles, together with the variation of axial load in the section of the pile. (Note that
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.9 (a) Compression (I) Bearing pile (II) Friction pile (III) Bearing-cum-friction pile (b) Tension (I) Anchor pile (II) Friction
pile (III) Anchor-cum-friction pile
the triangular variation of axial load applies to the case of uniform friction. If friction increases uni-
formly with depth, as the soil pressure, the variation of axial load will be parabolic (see Kurian, 2005:
Sec. 11.1.6.2). For horizontal loads, structural design of the section of the pile follows only after the
geotechnical part of the design, which ensures adequate load transmission into the soil, is satisfactorily
completed.
1.1.7 Poles
Poles are used in a number of ways, such as for carrying power and telephone
lines, as fence posts, tent stacks, and supports for sign boards – the latter used
mainly by highway departments and advertising agencies. The distinction between
pile and pole is sometimes difficult to make; the major difference is that poles func-
tion integrally as superstructure and foundation, and are normally not embedded as
deeply as piles (Fig. 1.10). Poles are subjected to horizontal forces, as for example,
when the power lines change direction or alignment), or due to wind on the tent, sign
boards, etc.
Davisson and Prakash (1963) give an excellent review of soil-pole behaviour, and
attempt to suggest depths of embedment for various types of poles on types of soils Fig. 1.10 Pole
classified by them on the basis of penetrometer readings. A detailed account of
the geotechnical design procedure for laterally loaded poles suggested by Broms is given by Parcher
and Means (1974: Sec. 5.14). Subba Rao and Eswaraiah (1973) report improved behaviour of belled
poles.
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.11 Fig. 1.12 Guyed Mast (Goodman and Karol, 1968)
[Courtesy: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.]
1.1.8 Anchors
Anchors are encountered in a number of situations in foundation engineering, like for example those
needed for anchoring the stays of simple electrical posts, giant sheet pile bulkheads, guy wires of masts,
suspension bridges, etc. The anchors may be continuous (anchor walls, beams etc. as used for bulkheads
(see Kurian, 2005: Sec. 6.3), or individual (anchor plates or deadmen, pile bents, piers, etc. (see Teng,
1965: Sec. 12–13). The ultimate soil resistance of anchors is called the anchoring capacity (analogous to the
bearing capacityin the case of foundations), and the geotechnical part of the design of anchors must ensure
that the anchor has a capacity equal to the factor of safety multiplied by the actual allowable design pull
of the anchor. Vertical anchors subjected to horizontal pull derive their anchoring capacity mainly from the
passive resistance of the soil at the pulling side (see Kurian, 2005: Sec. 6.5). In Sec. 1.1.5 we have already
noted the “anchoring capacity” of a footing subjected to tension, installed in a trench. Horizontal anchors
embedded in sand and subjected to vertical pull break out along rupture lines which Khadilkar and Gogate
(1970) and Khadilkar et al. (1971) approximate to logarithmic spirals (Fig. 1.11). Yilmaz and Hanna (1971)
have conducted model tests for studying the group behaviour of horizontal anchors by varying the group
geometry, anchor spacing and depth of embedment. Das (1975) and Das and Seeley (1975, 1975a, 1975b,
1975c, 1976, 1977) have carried out extensive experimental studies on the pull-out resistance of model plate
anchors of various shapes, in sand, under varying angles of pull and depth of embedment (also see Neely
et al. 1973).
Like in foundations, shells can be used in anchors with attendant advantages, which are more structural
than geotechnical, as in the case of foundations (Kurian and Jayakrishna Devaki, 2004 – see under Sec. 2.3).
A new type of anchors called “prestressed ground anchors” which enjoy extensive application in foundation
engineering is covered in detail in Sec. 3.3. It also includes a note on “rock anchors.”
1.1.9 Foundations for Guyed Structures
Guyed steel masts and towers are often used to carry radio antennas and other telecommunication equip-
ments and devices. The guy wires serve to “absorb” all horizontal forces, thereby helping to reduce the
structural sections of the mast towards the lower part which would have otherwise been heavy due to the
high moments from the horizontal forces, besides arresting the sway of the mast which is not desirable from
the functional point of view. Not only masts, but stacks are also sometimes guyed. A minimum of three guy
wires (at 120◦ apart) are needed in all cases. If necessary, guy wires can be taken from more than one location
on the mast. While the mast itself may be supported on a plain circular footing, or a conical shell footing
(upright or inverted), the guy wires should be terminated at suitable anchors (Fig. 1.12). These anchors may
Account: s6670599
take the form of block footings, piles or piers, depending upon the capacity needed. The anchors are called
upon to resist the vertical and horizontal components of the inclined tension in the guy wires. The magnitude
of the vertical component of the tension can be brought down by keeping the angle of the wire (from the
horizontal) as low as practicable, but this would be at the expense of extra length and increased horizontal
forces.
1.1.10 Foundations for Industrial Structures
Industrial structures, particularly those found in chemical

and processing industries, pose a number of problems not
normally encountered in the case of ordinary residential and
commercial structures. These are mainly in the form of forces
which include not only wind forces, fluid thrust, etc., but even
forces created by thermal expansion and contraction.
Structures in the above group include process towers and
stacks supported on octagonal footings or pile groups, drum
exchangers, pipe lines and bents. (see example – Fig. 1.13),
which may be above ground, on grade or below ground. Good-
man and Karol (1968: Ch. 8) present an excellent exposition Fig. 1.13 Foundation for an Industrial Pro-
of the foundation problems associated with these structures, cess Drum (Goodman and Karol,
1968) [Courtesy: Macmillan Pub-
together with design examples.
lishing Co. Inc.]
Thermal analysis
Shah et al. (2011) in a significant paper note that foundation structures supporting nuclear, thermal power
plants and the like have to be designed for extreme service conditions arising from uncontrolled thermal
situations. In incidents where submerged soil under foundations is subjected to high temperature gradients
caused by failure of the cooling systems, the pore water vapourises and escapes resulting in the lowering of
the ground water table, leading to settlements, as in the case of consolidation. They propose a systematic
theoretical approach to calculate heat transfer, temperature distribution in the soil, vapourisation of pore
water and prediction of settlements resulting from this process.
1.1.11 Foundations for Ground Storage Tanks
Cylindrical ground storage tanks of substantial dimensions, carrying fluids, are employed in petroleum
refineries, chemical plants and many other manufacturing industries, for storing both raw materials and
finished products. These tanks are made of thin steel plates welded together. They are basically of two types:
(1) with ‘floating’ roof and (2) with ‘fixed’ roof (Tomlinson, 1968).
These storage tanks present special foundation problems, as they are often required to be founded on
soft coastal and estuarine soils. The tanks are relatively very light compared to the material (fluid) stored
in them. Since the bottom plates are sufficiently flexible, they are able to transmit their liquid loads on
to the soil without much structural interaction, i.e. leading to identical soil reaction as the loading itself
which is uniform (Kurian, 2005: Sec. 10.2.1). Since the bulb of pressure can extend to considerable depths
depending upon the diameter of the tank, settlements of the order of a metre are not unknown in the case
of larger tanks. Oil companies, however, are wary of adopting pile foundations in such soils, as the cost
Account: s6670599
of the foundation can exceed by several times the cost of the tank itself. Hence, attempts are normally
directed to make the foundation as cheap as possible consistent with performance. Among the several types
of foundations available (Goodman and Karol, 1968: Sec. 8.7; Tomlinson, 1986; Roberts, 1961) those with
oiled sand pad, crushed rock or concrete ring wall, interlocking sheet pile ring wall, and piled foundations
with crushed rock pile cap, are suitable types for soils in the order of the decreasing quality of the latter.
Some of these types are illustrated in Fig. 1.14. The advantage of providing thicker foundation bases lies
in dispersing the load mostly through the base, thereby reducing the bearing pressure on the soil below
(Tomlinson, 1986). An ingenious foundation incorporating a thin R.C. dome (Fig. 1.15), which is a shell
foundation – Sec. 2.3, as an economic alternative to pile foundation, has been quoted by Little (1961:
Sec. 6.02).
To prevent high total as well as differential settlements of the tank in service, which if allowed, may lead
not only to structural failure of the tank, but also to physical issues such as disruption of pipe connections, it
is customary to resort to preloading of the tank with water (the specific gravity of which is higher than that
of oil) over extended periods of time. This consolidates the deposit, where high settlements are anticipated.
Consolidation can also be effected by surcharging, and can be expedited by such means as installation of
vertical sand drains (Peck et al., 1980: Sec. 9.5 – also see Fig. 5.44). Where high settlements have occurred, it
is standard practice at certain sites to jack up the tank to the required position, and place a packing underneath
the scraped bottom plates. Penman (1977) in a valuable paper on the subject describes several case histories
of tank foundation failures. As a compromise between replacing the whole thickness of the poor soil at site
with more competent soil from elsewhere, and piled foundation, he suggests the partial replacement of the
soil by stone columns (Sec. 5.1). He also presents several expedients and guidelines for the successful design
of modern storage tank foundations.
1.1.12 Foundations for Underground Structures
1.1.12.1 Beddings of conduits
The most typical of underground structures are conduits and tunnels (also shafts) used for a variety of
purposes. Since the stresses in the sections of the conduit are considerably influenced by the bedding or
foundation conditions, the latter have been standardised, with each type assigned a standard value of load
factor, which relates the ultimate load (strength of conduit) with the bedding condition concerned, to the
standard test value of strength by the three-edge support method (see Kurian, 2005: Sec. 13.5.5). Some
‘standard bedding conditions’ for rigid conduits, of the ‘ditch’ and ‘positive projecting’ types are illustrated
in the above source, quoting Spangler and Handy (1982).
1.1.12.2 Tunnels
Tunnels are needed not only for carrying water for irrigation and power; their scope has vastly increased
with the introduction of underground metropolitan transportation systems, like the “tube railways” in several
major cities of the world. (India has also embarked on such an initiative starting with the major metropolitan
cities of New Delhi, Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras)). One of the most
important of these is the London Metro or the so-called ‘Tube’, but the most famous of them is perhaps
the Moscow Metro (Proksch, 1966) with a total length nearing 400 km. In addition to the tunnels for the
metro, which are very often constructed by the ‘cut-and-cover’ method (Sec. 3.4), there are underwater
tunnels for carrying road traffic. The Ij tunnel in Amsterdam (overall length 1039 m) (“Der Ij Tunnel, 1967;
Account: s6670599
(Contd.)
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.14 Ground Storage Tank Foundations (Parts a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i, j: (Roberts, 1961)) [Courtesy: Dunod Publishers,
Paris] (Part e: (Goodman and Karol, 1968)) [Courtesy: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.]
Fig. 1.15 Durley Dome Foundation for Oil Storage Tanks (Little, 1961) [Courtesy: Edward Arnold Publishers]
Corper, 1969) and the new Elbe Tunnel in Hamburg (see Fig. 1.16) are two famous European examples.
Such tunnels consist of sections constructed in open pits near the approaches (Tomlinson, 1986), continued
by shield tunnelling, and precast sections constructed in graving docks, floated to site, sunk and anchored
on to foundations, which may be piles or caissons.
1.1.12.3 Underground power houses
Parker (1970) explains the scope of power houses which are constructed fully underground, and states
that when the cost of long penstock runs needed for surface location of power houses exceeds the added
cost of excavation for underground location, the latter is preferable. To these must be added the security and
aesthetic (in not disturbing the landscape) factors that favour the choice of the latter. The construction of
these power houses consists in excavating inclined penstock shafts, excavating the other shafts that may be
required for permanent power house access, ventilation, etc. and chambers needed for housing generators,
and other machinery. Such an underground power house which is also one of the largest in generating
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.16 Underwater Road Tunnel (Shield-Tunnelled Section)
capacity exists at Churchill Falls, in Labrador, Canada. It contains 11 generating units, each with a capacity
of 475 MW. The main chamber is of size 30.5 × 23.2 × 45.7 m. The power house needed in all 2.3 million
m3 of underground excavation.
There is a similar underground power house at the Idukki hydroelectric project in Kerala, India.
1.1.13 Foundations for Coastal and Offshore Structures
Structures under this group are coming into wider prominence lately. They include all port and harbour
structures, such as jetties, wharves, piers, breakwaters, fender piles, quay walls, anchored bulkheads and
the like, as also river, estuarine and other marine structures including defence installations, and offshore
structures such as oil-drilling platforms, and even such exotic structures as undersea oil storage tanks.
The subject of offshore site investigation is discussed by Smith (1974), Fox (1975) and Sullivan (1978).
Chellis (1961) discusses forces on marine structures. Books by Quinn (1972) and Brunn (1973) discuss
special problems associated with the foundations of coastal and marine structures. Quinn in particular
dwells at length on topics such as wharves with relieving platforms, oil piers and jetties, steel H-piles
with concrete encasement, gunite and shotcrete protection, wooden piles, pile to cap connection details,
piles and cylinders for the support of docks, precast concrete piles, etc. with design examples. Proceedings
of the 3rd Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Haifa, Vol. 1, has a
section on foundations of sea and water front structures. Mathis (1961) and Vongvisessomjai and Thinaphong
(1976) also discuss coastal and marine foundation problems.
Account: s6670599
1.1.14 Marine Piles
Piles are extensively used in marine foundations. These include prestressed concrete piles (Sec. 2.2.1)
and steel H-piles. The subject of marine piles is discussed by several authors who include Sullivan and
Ehlers (1973) and Millbank (1974). Cornfield (1964) discusses cased piles, the steel casing of which is
driven by cylindrical hammer striking at the bottom and subsequently infilled with concrete. Paulet (1961)
(Contd.)
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.17 Offshore Substructures and Piled Foundations (a) Assembly schedule for an offshore segmented pipe pile
(McClelland et al., 1969) [Courtesy: ASCE] (b) ‘Template’ or ‘Jacket’ type construction of ocean platforms
(c) ‘Template’ type substructure with skirt piles (d) Substructure with high capacity column supports
(e) Substructure with large diameter legs (McClelland, 1974) [Courtesy: ASCE]
suggests a procedure for the economic design of long slender piles susceptible to buckling. McClelland et al.
(1969) discuss the design and installation of offshore piles. As mentioned, prestressed concrete piles are
extensively used in marine foundation work. In fact, marine structures as a class rank amongst the foremost
application of prestressed concrete. McClelland (1974) presents an excellent review of ocean structures on
piles. Figure 1.17 illustrates a few of these structures.
1.1.15 Foundations for Offshore Drilling Platforms

The most common among modern offshore structures are the oil-drilling platforms. Till the prospecting of
oil under ocean waters in many parts of the world began, the major activity connected with offshore drilling
had been in the Gulf of Mexico and the Persian Gulf.
Focht and Kraft (1977) present an interesting review of the evolution of marine geotechnical engineering
as a modern discipline. According to them civil engineer’s association with the sea precedes both ocean
engineering and geotechnical engineering. They trace the development of marine structures, starting with
the timber trestles erected for petroleum exploration in the Pacific at the turn of the previous century to the
exciting breed of North Sea structures of the 1970s. Much of the technological growth of marine geotechnical
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.18 Offshore Oil Structures (Focht and Kraft, 1977) [Courtesy: ASCE] (a) Pipe lines (b) Small footings (c) Large
footings (e) Tension leg drilling platform (Mobile)
engineering has been funded by proprietary research programmes undertaken by the oil companies, even
though many academic institutions of late have come up with the establishment of centres for ocean engineer-
ing studies, such as, for example, The Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Figure 1.18 illustrates some
types of drilling platforms (Focht and Kraft, 1977). A new generation of concrete oil platforms is mentioned
in (New –, 1975). Journals like Civil Engineering/ASCE, April 1976, and Civil Engineering, Feb. 1978, are
special dedicated issues on offshore structures.
With the prospecting of vast deposits of oil in the North Sea, this area has shot into wider prominence,
and has since become a beehive of construction activity. Hansen (1973) discusses North Sea structures in
general. The most famous of these is the undersea oil storage tank (Gerwick and Hognestad, 1973) (see
Fig. 1.19a), with a ribbed raft foundation resting on the sea bottom. Fig. 1.19b illustrates an underwater oil
storage tank in the Persian Gulf.
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.19 Underwater Oil Storage Facilities (a) The towed part of a North Sea offshore drilling production and storage
facility. [Courtesy: American Concrete Institute] (b) Inverted funnel type underwater oil storage tank in the
Persian Gulf “Khazzan” (McClelland, 1974) [Courtesy: ASCE]
1.1.16 Foundations for Offshore Defence Installations

Radar stations housed in what are called “Texas Towers, ”are a new development in US defence construc-
tion. These towers may be regarded as a new member in the growing family of offshore structures. Little
(1961: Sec. 6.07) presents details of construction of the first of these towers positioned at 256 km southeast
of Boston, Massachusetts (Fig. 1.20). The triangular tower stands on three cylindrical legs telescoped into
caissons at their bottom.
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.20 Texas Towers [Courtesy: Little/ASCE]
1.2 FOUNDATIONS IN SPECIAL SOILS

The specialty of the soil as such can often call for special types of foundations, as discussed under the
following sections.
1.2.1 Foundations in Expansive Soils
Clays susceptible to large volume changes with seasonal moisture variations are perhaps the most important
of these special soils. These soils are the foundation engineer’s despair – if not nightmare – as they can cause
extensive damage to structures founded on them. Much has been written on the subject of expansive soils,
as also the foundation techniques which can best meet the special needs arising from the swelling and
shrinkage of these soils (“Building –, 1958; Zeevaert, 1973; Chen, 1975). These techniques essentially
consist in moisture stabilisation of the soil, physically isolating the foundation from the troublesome soil, or
taking the foundations past the swelling zone to the stable zone below. The topic having been widely discussed
elsewhere and being quite familiar to geotechnical engineers already, no attempt is made to summarise here
the several aspects of the problems caused by expansive soils. However, reference to a novel approach
to analysing swelling soils and their potential for causing damage to foundations interacting with them,
investgated by Srilakshmi (2003) and Kurian and Srilakshmi (2005) using “thermal analogy,” which is refresh-
ingly different from the existing approaches, and which has given very encouraging results, is included in
Sec. 2.1.2).
India has extensive deposits of these soils (locally called “black cotton soil” because of its association
with cotton cultivation) covering as much as 16 percent of the land area of the country (“Building –,
1958) and spread over the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh
Account: s6670599
Foundations in Special Soils 1.19
Fig. 1.21 Map of India showing Approximate Extent of Major Regional Soil Deposits (Katti et al., 1975).
The external boundary and coastline shown in the figure have been certified by the Survey of India, Dehra Dun
vide letter No. TB-1190/62-A-3/851, dated 6-5-1982
and Tamil Nadu. Figure 1.21 (Katti et al. 1975) shows the extent of major regional soil deposits in
India. The most successful foundation technique adopted in these soils in India has been the underreamed
pile (Mohan et al., 1969, 1973; Kurian, 2005: Sec. 5.4; Sec. 2.1.2). Among other countries where
serious foundation problems are encountered with expansive soils are: Canada, Egypt, Spain and South
Africa.
Account: s6670599
1.2.2 Foundations in Soft and Compressible Soils
Soft and compressible soil deposits merit considerable foundation engineering concern from the point
of view of settlement and also bearing capacity. Mexico city presents a spectacular example of a highly
compressible regional deposit where startling settlements of structures of the order of 3 m are reported to
have taken place. The site was a lake in the geological past, where the present soil is a deep deposit of
volcanic ash interspersed with alluvial sand with void ratios and water contents reaching values as high
as 5 and 500 percent, respectively. Little (1961: Sec. 2.28) presents details of these deposits and their
formation, and cites historic examples of foundation subsidence in this soil (also see (Zeevaert, 1973:
Sec. V.3)). The problem is not only the settlement of the structure, but also that of the surrounding soil, as
a result of the added load and the lowering of the ground water table, which in some extreme cases have
caused some of the pile-supported foundations resting on a deposit of sand below, to remain high, while
the surrounding surface has settled more, resulting in a rather peculiar foundation situation seldom found
elsewhere.
1.2.3 Foundations on Overconsolidated Desiccated Soils
Parcher and Means (1974: Ch. 6) dwell at length on the foundation problems associated with over
consolidated desiccated clays. Among the passive techniques suggested to combat the effect of swelling,
and the exertion of the swelling pressure on the foundations, are grade beams on cardboard beam boxes,
structural slab on loosened clay, baled straw form, fibreboard form, so no tube form, etc. (see Fig. 1.22) all of
which serve to absorb the swelling by offering little resistance to deformation, thereby relieving the structure
of much of the harmful effects due to swelling pressures. Among the active techniques are included stiffened
slab-on-ground, designed to withstand the pressure. The analysis and design of such stiffened slabs are given
by Parcher and Means (1974: Sec. 6.17). Of late prestressed slabs have also been suggested (Swanson, 1975 –
Sec. 2.2.4) to serve a similar function.
Parcher and Means (1974: Sec. 4.14) also discuss the topic of settlement due to creep and lateral
deformation of soils.
1.2.4 Foundations in Other Soils
Other regional deposits of interest in India are marine soils and the laterites (Katti et al., 1975). We have
already had a look into marine foundations in Secs. 1.1.13 and 1.1.14. The red-coloured laterite is a tropical
formation of considerable geomorphological interest. They are formed by the decomposition of rock, removal
in solution of silica and bases, and accumulation of aluminium and iron sesquioxides, titanium, magnesium,
clays and other amorphous products. Depending upon the lateritic concentration, we have “laterites” as well
as “lateritic soils” in India, where they cover an approximate area of 100,000 km2 , spread over the states of
West Bengal, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Orissa (see Fig. 1.21). The book by Gidigasu (1975) is a
comprehensive treatise on the subject of laterites.
Foundations on loess (a wind-blown deposit of fine silt with small amounts of clay particles) are discussed
by Parcher and Means (1974: Sec. 2.11).
Foundation problems associated with rocks strictly fall within the ambit of ‘rock mechanics’ (see Stagg
and Zienkiewicz, 1968; Farmer, 1968; Muller, 1969; Jaeger, 1972; Lama and Vutukuri, 1974 and Jumikis,
1979.)
Account: s6670599
Foundations in Special Soils 1.21
Fig. 1.22 Some Foundation Techniques in Expansive Clays (Parcher and Means, 1968) [Courtesy: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company, a Bell & Howell Company, USA] (a) Structural slab on loosened clay (b) Structural
slab on baled straw form (c) Structural slab on cardboard forms (d) Structural slab on sonotube forms
(e) Stiffened slab (section)
1.2.5 Foundations under Special Environments
By special environment here, we mean particularly the thermal environment – both hot and cold. One
may note that the theoretical basis of this subject is the modern discipline of ‘Thermal Soil Mechanics’ (see
Jumikis, 1966).
The problem arises on account of the transmission of heat into the soil through the foundations of structures
such as boilers, brick kilns (Little, 1961: Sec. 3.05), blast furnaces (Baljekar et al., 1963) and certain industrial
processing structures (Sec. 1.1.10).
On the colder side, the problem is mainly associated with ‘frost’ and ‘permafrost’ (see Williams, 1959;
Robinsky and Bespflug, 1973).
1.2.6 Foundations to resist Dynamic Loads
The subjects of ‘soil dynamics,’ ‘structural dynamics’ and ‘dynamic soil-structure interaction’ are
advanced specialties in modern geotechnical engineering.
Goodman and Karol (1968: Sec. 8.6) explain the general aspects of dynamic loading. Wu (1971) discusses
such topics as wave propagation in soils including reflection and refraction, blast loading, soil and foundation
vibration, earthquake problems, etc.
Account: s6670599
Fig. 1.23 A Building on Springs (Waller, 1969) [Courtesy: Pergamon Press, Oxford]
It is well appreciated that vibration potentially reduces people’s enjoyment of their environment. A novel
technique of “building on springs” (Waller, 1969) has been suggested for isolating residential and commercial
buildings from low-frequency ground-borne vibrations. An example from London has been quoted where
a multi-storeyed building has been erected ‘on springs’ over a stretch of the ‘tube railway’ (Fig. 1.23) at
Albany Court (also see Little, 1961: Sec. 6.05).
The subject of ‘machine foundations’ constitutes perhaps the most important part of the subject of soil
dynamics. Besides the several treatises available on the subject at present, special mention may be made of
an excellent state-of-the-art report on the subject by McNeill (1969) which among the several aspects of the
problem deals with ‘response design,’ as well as ‘isolation design,’ both ‘active’ and passive.’
REFERENCES
Abu-Sitta, S.H. (1970), “Cooling towers supported on columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, Proc.
ASCE, Dec. 1970, Vol. 96, No. ST 12, pp. 2575–2588.
Arya, A.S. (1966), “Foundations for tall circular structures,” The Indian Concrete Journal, April 1966,
Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 142–147.

Baljekar, B.G., Taraporevala, P.J., Kumaraswamy, M., Raghavan, G.C. and Kumar, R.L. (1963), “Construc-
tion of foundations for new blast furnaces at Bhilai,” The Indian Concrete Journal, April 1963, Vol. 37,
No. 4, pp. 125–130.
Brunn, P. (1973), Port Engineering, Gulf Publ. Co., Houston, Texas, 1973.
“Building foundations in shrinkable soils (black cotton soils),” First Report of the Committee constituted by
the National Buildings Organisation, New Delhi, 1958.
Butler, H. (1976), “Offshore maintenance,” Civil Engineering, Feb. 1976, pp. 32, 34.
Account: s6670599
References 1.23
Chellis, R.D. (1961), Pile Foundations, 2nd Edn., International Student Edition, McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha,
Tokyo.
Chen, F.H. (1987), Foundations on Expansive Soils (2nd edn.), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
1987.
Chu, K-H and Afandi, O.F. (1966), “Analysis of circular and annular slabs for chimney foundations,” Journal
of the American Concrete Institute, Dec. 1966, Proc. Vol. 63, No. 12, pp. 1425–1447.
Cornfield, G.M. (1964), “Further examples of cased piles in maritime structures,” Dock and Harbour
Authority, Aug. 1964, Vol. 45, No. 256, pp. 104–110.
Corper, M. (1969), “Amsterdam’s new road tunnel,” Dock and Harbour Authority, March 1969, Vol. 49,
No. 581, pp. 418–419.
Das, B.M. (1975), “Pullout resistance of vertical anchors,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Proc. ASCE, Jan. 1975, Vol. 100, No. GT 1, pp. 87–91.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1975), “Passive resistance of inclined anchors in sand,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, March 1975, Vol. 101, No. GT 3, pp. 353–356.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1975a), ”Load-displacement relationship for vertical anchor plates,” Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, July, 1975, Vol. 101, No. GT 7, pp. 711–715.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1975b), “Inclined load resistance of anchors in sand,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, Sept. 1975, Vol. 101, No. GT 9, pp. 995–998.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1975c), “Breakout resistance of shallow horizontal anchors,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, Sept. 1975, Vol. 101, No. GT 9, pp. 999–1003.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1976), “Shallow anchor resistance to eccentric uplift load,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, April 1976, Vol. 102, No. GT4, pp. 389–393.
Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1977), “Uplift capacity of shallow inclined anchors,” Proceedings of the
Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977, Vol. 1,
pp. 463–466.
Davisson, M.T. and Prakash, S. (1963), “A review of soil-pole behaviour,” Highway Research Record, 1963,
No. 39, pp. 25–48.
Deb, K.R. (1971), “Foundations for transmission tower,” Irrigation and Power, April 1971, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp. 151–170.
“Der Ij Tunnel in Amsterdam,” Der Tiefbau, July 1967, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 491–495.
Farmer, I.W. (1968), Engineering Properties of Rocks, E. & F.N. Spon, London, 1968.
Focht, J.A. and Kraft, L.M. Jr. (1977), “Progress in marine geotechnical engineering,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, Oct. 1977, Vol. 103, No. GT 10, pp. 1097–1118.
Fox, D.A. (1975), “Offshore site investigation,” Civil Engineering, Feb. 1975, pp. 35–37.
Gerwick, B.C. and Hognestad, E. (1973), “Concrete oil storage tank placed on North Sea floor, Civil
Engineering, ASCE, August 1973, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 81–85.

Gidigasu, M.D. (1975), Laterite Soil Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1975.
Goodman, L.J. and Karol, R.H. (1968), Theory and Practice of Foundation Engineering, The Macmillan
Co., New York, 1968.
Hansen, F.J. (1973), “North Sea structures – a new breed?” The Structural Engineer, Jan. 1973, Vol. 51,
No. 1, pp. 17–26.
IS: 2911 (Part III)–1980: Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations: Part III –
Underreamed pile foundations (first revision) with Amendments: No. 1-1983, No. 2-1984, No. 3-1987,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Account: s6670599
IS: 4091–1979: Code of practice for design and construction of foundations for transmission line towers and
poles (first revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Jaeger, C. (1972), Rock Mechanics and Engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Jumikis, A.R. (1966), Thermal Soil Mechanics, Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1966.
Jumikis, A.R. (1979), Rock Mechanics, Trans Tech Publications , Clausthal-Zellerfeld (Germany), 1979.
Katti, R. K., Kulkarni, K.R., Chandrasekaran, V.S., Venkatachalam, G. and Dewaikar, D.M. (1975),
“Regional soil deposits of India, a state-of-the-art report,” Fifth Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Bangalore, Dec. 1975, pp.
Khadilkar, B.S. and Gogate, A.V. (1970), “Theoretical and experimental investigations of strength of anchor
foundations,” Proceedings, Second Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, 1970,
pp. 439–449.
Khadilkar, B.S., Paradkar, A.K. and Golait, Y.S. (1971), “Study of rupture surface and ultimate resistance
of anchor foundations,” Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, July 1971, pp. 121–127.
Kurian, N.P. (2005), Design of Foundation Systems – Principles and Practices (3rd revised and enlarged
edn.), (Design CD attached), Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, Alpha Science International, U.K.,
2005, 830 pp.
Kurian, N.P. (2006), Shell Foundations – Geometry, Analysis, Design and Construction, Narosa Publishing
House, New Delhi, Alpha Science International, U.K., 2006, 380 pp.
Lama, R.D. and Vutukuri, V.S. (1974), Handbook on Mechanical Properties of Rocks, Trans-Tech Pub-
lications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld (Germany), Vol. I, 1974; Vol. II, 1978; Vol. III, 1978 and Vol. IV,
1978.
Little, A.L. (1961), Foundations, Edward Arnold (Publishers), London, 1961.
Manohar, S.N. and Desai, S.B. (1967), “Design of circular raft foundations for chimneys,” Civil Engineering
and Public Works Review, August 1967, Vol. 62, No. 733, pp. 905–911.
Mathis, S.J. (1961), ”Marine foundation construction in oil fields,” Journal of the Construction Division,
Proc. ASCE, an. 1961, Vol.87, No. CO 1, pp. 17–37.
Mc Neill, R.L. (1969), “Machine foundations, the state of the art,” Soil Dynamics – Proceedings of Specialty
Session 2, Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico
City, Mexico, August 1969, pp. 67–100.
McClelland, B. (1974), “Design of deep penetration piles for ocean structures,” (9th Terzaghi Lecture),
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, July 1974, Vol. 100, No. GT 7,
pp. 709–747.
McClelland, B., Focht, J.A. and Emrich, W.J. (1969), “Problems in design and installation of offshore piles,”
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proc. ASCE, Nov. 1969, Vol. 95, No. 6,
pp. 1491–1514.
Millbank, P. (1974), “Piling under the ocean,” Civil Engineering, June 1974, p. 29.
Mohan, D., Jain, G.S. and Sharma, D. (1973), “Foundation practice in expansive soil in India,” Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Expansive Soils, Haifa (Israel), 1973.
Mohan, D., Murthy, V.N.S. and Jain, G.S. (1969), “Design and construction of multi under-reamed piles,”
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico, 1969, Vol. II, pp. 183–186.
Muller (1969), Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Springer Verlag, New Delhi, 1969.
Account: s6670599
References 1.25
Neeley, W.J., Stuart, J.G. and Graham, J. (1973), “Failure loads of vertical anchor plates in sand,” Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proc. ASCE, Sept. 1973, Vol. 99, No. SM 9, pp. 669–685.
“New generation concrete oil platform,” The Indian Concrete Journal, June 1975, Vol. 49, No. 6, p. 166.
Parcher, J.V. and Means, R.E. (1974), Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 1974 (U.S.A. 1968).
Parker, A.D. (1970), Planning and Estimating Underground Construction, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Paulet, E.G. (1961), “Concrete piles designed for maritime foundations,” Civil Engineering, ASCE, March
1961, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 51–53.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), Foundation Engineering (2nd edn.), Wiley Eastern
Ltd., New Delhi, 1980 (U.S.A. 1974).
Penman, A.D.M. (1977), “Soil-structure interaction and deformation problems with large oil tanks,”
International Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Roorkee, 1977, Vol. I, pp. 521–536.
Proksch, H. (1966), “Die moskauer U-bahn–heute und morgen” (The Moscow metro–today and tomorrow),
Strassen-und Tiefbau, March 1966, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 240, 242, 244 and 246.
Quinn, A. DeF. (1972), Design and Construction of Port and Marine Structures, (2nd Edn.) McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1972 (First Edn., 1961).
Rezsofi, F. (1971), “Grundung von Fernleitugsmasten bei Donaukreuzungen” (Foundation for electric posts),
Proceedings of the Fourth Budapest Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Third
Danube-European Conference), Oct. 1971, Kezdi, A. (Ed.), Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 1971,
pp. 727–736.
Ridler, K. (1977), “Protecting offshore structures,” Civil Engineering, Oct. 1977, pp. 31, 33, 35.
Roberts, D.V. (1961), “Foundations for cylindrical storage tanks,” Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, 1961, Vol. 1, pp. 785–788.
Robinsky, E.I. and Bespflug, K.E. (1973), “Design of insulated foundations,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proc. ASCE, Sept. 1973, Vol. 99, No. SM 9, pp. 649–667.
Rogers, P. and Cohen, E.W. (1970), “Hyperbolic cooling towers, development and practice,” Journal of the
Power Division, Proc. ASCE, Jan. 1970, Vol. 96, No. PO1, pp. 117–128.
Sachs, P. (1972), Wind Forces in Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1972.
Shah, S.J., Sowmya, V.K. and Sandeep, M.N. (2011), “Foundation settlement in soils subjected to high
temperature gradient,” Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, Dec. 2011, pp. 847–850.
Smith, G.N. (1974), “Investigations for offshore structures,” Civil Engineering, Oct. 1974, pp. 58–61.
Smith, J.W. and Zar, M., (1964), “Chimney foundations,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, June
1964, Proc. Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 673–700.
Spangler, M.G. and Handy, R.L. (1982), Soil Engineering, (4th Edn.), Harper and Row, New York, (1st Edn.
International Text Book Company, Scranton, 1951).
Stagg, K.G. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1968), Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons,
London, 1968.
Subba Rao, K.S. and Eswaraiah, H.V. (1973), “Improved behavior of bell-bottomed poles,” Journal of the
Power Division, Proc. ASCE, May 1973, Vol. 99, No. PO 1, pp. 155–163.
Süberkrüb, M. (1958), Mastgrundungen fur Freileitungen Fahrleitungsanlagen und Bahnspeiseleitungen,
Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, 1958.
Sullivan, R. (1978), “Platform site investigation,” Civil Engineering, Feb. 1978, pp. 26–33, 45.
Sullivan, R.A. and Ehlers, C.J. (1973), “Planning for driving offshore pipe piles,” Journal of the Construction
Division, Proc. ASCE, July 1973, Vol. 99, No. CO 1, pp. 59–79.
Account: s6670599
Teng, W.C. (1965), Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (U.S.A 1962).
Tomlinson, M.J. – with contributions by Boorman, R. (1986)), Foundation Design and Construction
(5th edn.), English Language Book Society, Longman Group Ltd., Singapore, (U.K. 1986).
Vongvisessomjai, S. and Thinaphong, S. (1976), “Foundations in coastal margins,” Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Dec. 1976, Vol.7, No. 2, pp. 81–93.
Waller, R.A. (1969), Building on Springs, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Williams, R.H. (1959), “Ventilated building foundations in Greenland,” Journal of the Construction Division,
Proc.ASCE, Sept. 1959, Vol. 85, No. CO 2, Part 1, pp. 23–36.
Winterkorn, H.F. and Fang, H-Y. (1975), Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co,
New York, 1975.
Wu, T.H. (1971), Soil Dynamics, Allyn & Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1971.
Yilmaz, M. and Hanna, T.H. (1971), “The interaction of group of anchors in sand,” The Interaction of
Structure and Foundation, Proceedings of the Symposium, held at the University of Birmingham, July
1971, pp. 196–205.
Zeevaert, L. (1973), Foundation Engineering for Difficult Subsoil Conditions, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, 1973.
Account: s6670599

Special Foundations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Special Foundations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Copyright © 2013. Alpha Science Internation Limited. All rights reserved.

1.1 FOUNDATIONS FOR SPECIAL STRUCTURES

1.1.1 Foundations for Water Tanks and Silos

1.1.2 Foundations for Chimneys and Cooling Towers

1.1.3 Foundations for Telecommunication Towers

1.1.4 Foundations for Transmission Line Towers

Tall tower-shaped structures, as a class, are subjected to large horizon-

Fig. 1.7 Fig. 1.8

(a) Geotechnical design

(b) Structural design

1.1.9 Foundations for Guyed Structures

1.1.10 Foundations for Industrial Structures

Industrial structures, particularly those found in chemical

1.1.11 Foundations for Ground Storage Tanks

1.1.12 Foundations for Underground Structures

1.1.12.1 Beddings of conduits

1.1.12.3 Underground power houses

Fig. 1.16 Underwater Road Tunnel (Shield-Tunnelled Section)

1.1.13 Foundations for Coastal and Offshore Structures

1.1.14 Marine Piles

1.1.15 Foundations for Offshore Drilling Platforms

1.1.16 Foundations for Offshore Defence Installations

Fig. 1.20 Texas Towers [Courtesy: Little/ASCE]

1.2 FOUNDATIONS IN SPECIAL SOILS

1.2.1 Foundations in Expansive Soils

1.2.2 Foundations in Soft and Compressible Soils

1.2.3 Foundations on Overconsolidated Desiccated Soils

1.2.4 Foundations in Other Soils

1.2.5 Foundations under Special Environments

Robinsky and Bespflug, 1973).

1.2.6 Foundations to resist Dynamic Loads

Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 142–147.

Engineering, ASCE, August 1973, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 81–85.

S-ar putea să vă placă și