Brief Note PDF

TECHNICAL NOTE
ON
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN STUDIES AND ANALYSIS OF
LPG BULLET VESSEL FOUNDATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
Power Aim Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. was engaged by the M/s DESCON to undertake a
geotechnical design studies and analysis for the foundation design of 5 Nos LPG Bullet Tanks located
in Al Kharj, Riyadh, KSA. Geotechnical Investigations were carried out by M/s Soil and Foundation
Company (SAFCO). This report does not cover the interpretation of geotechnical investigation report.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in Al Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. As per Geotechnical report by M/s Soil
and Foundation Company (SAFCO), the proposed site is bordered by vacant lots from all sides. The
surface of the terrain is generally flat. The conducted borings revealed the presence of a surface asphalt
pavement layer (0.0m to 0.15m in thickness) in both boreholes followed by fill material (silty sand with
gravel, cobbles from 0.15m to 1.0m) were encountered then below the above layer limestone rock was
encountered which extended down to the maximum explored depth. Underground water was
encountered at depth of 12.0 m below existing ground level during the investigation.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
Following is the scope of study:
• Evaluation of bearing capacity for the foundation design of LPG Vessel Bullet.
• Assessment of Excavated Material to be used as foundation and backfill material.
• Recommendation of gradation limits and technical specifications for the soil type-1 (foundation
engineered fill), soil type-2 (sand cushion and back fill material for the mound)
• Calculate immediate and long-term settlement of tanks for various load cases
• Submission of design report along with backup calculations
4. AVAILABLE DATA AND REPORTS

1. Following reports were made available in soft form to the Consultants.:
2. Project Geotechnical Report
3. EEMUA 190
4. LPG Bullet GA Drawing
5. LPG Bullet Loading Sketch
6. Project Plot Plan
5. STRESSES ESTIMATION FOR VARIOUS LOAD CONDITIONS
Following load and stress conditions have been used for evaluation of LPG tank foundation settlement:
Case-1: Sand Bed only 0.2 m above Installation Level (Sand Bed Angle 34 Degree):
In this case the chord length is 2.74 m with an angle of 34 degree., sand bed is recommended 0.2 m
above installation level of LPG vessel. Following (Table-1) are the average pressures in this case.
1
Table-1: Stress at Foundation Level (34 Degree)
Different Discontinuous Sand Bed, Continuous Sand Bed,

Loading 22.2 m Gap No Gap
Cases (installation with trailers) (installation with cranes)
Empty Case 499 kPa 292 kPa
Operation
1003 kPa 588 kPa
Case
Hydro Case 859 kPa 504 kPa
Case-2: Sand Bed Angle 120 degree:

As per EEMUA-190 A.4.2.10 Sand bed at angle of 120 is a realistic assumption. Considering angle as
120-degree, sand bed will be prepared at height 4.84 m from FGL for hydro case. Following (Table-2)
are the average pressures in this case.
Table-2: Stress at Foundation Level (120 Degree)
Continuous Sand Bed,

Discontinuous Sand Bed,
Different No Gap
22.2 m Gap
Cases (installation with
(installation with trailers)
cranes)
Empty Case 182 kPa 110 kPa
Operation
366 kPa 221 kPa
Case
Hydro Case 314 kPa 190 kPa
6. PROPOSED GRADATION LIMITS FOR FOUNDATION AND BACKFILL

MATERIAL
6.1 Gradation Limits for Select Fill of Foundation (Type-1):
The fill material underneath the foundations shall meet the requirements of select fill material given
hereunder. Selected fill material shall be composed only of inorganic material, free from deleterious
substance, and shall have
Passing U.S. sieve # 200 0 – 15 %
Passing U.S. sieve 3 / 4 inch 70 - 90 %
2
Passing U.S. sieve 1 inch 80 - 100 %
Gradation envelop curve and construction material requirements are given in Figure-1 of
Appendix-A.
6.2 Blending of Source Material with Red Sand
In accordance with the sieve analysis results of source material and red sand, we suggested that
systematic blending of red sand with source material (S-2 JC No 968, 969 and 970) can used for
foundation fill material. Blending has been designed in such a way that overall gradation fall within the
designed envelop. Blending Sheet is given as Table-1 of Appendix-A and overlay of blending material
within the designed envelop is shown in Figure-2 of Appendix-A.
6.3 Gradation Limits for Sand Cushion (Type-2):
The select fill material underneath and above the foundations shall meet the requirements of gradation
limit given hereunder. Selected sand fill material shall be composed only of inorganic material, free
from deleterious substance, and shall have
Gradation envelop curve is given in Appendix-B as Figure-1 along with construction material
requirements.
7. ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGN PARAMETERS
Engineering analyses for the determination of allowable load carrying capacities for subsoil conditions
have to be based on carefully selected representative soil parameters. Geotechnical design parameters
have been selected on the basis of available laboratory test results, related literatures and best
engineering judgment and are given below:
Table-3: Selected Geotechnical Design Parameters
Depth Bulk Undrained Angle of Poisson’s Elastic

Type of Density Cohesion Ratio Modulus
Internal
Material
(m) Friction
γb* Cu Φ Ѵ* Es*
- From To (kN/m3) (KPa) (degree) (-) (MPa)
Soil Type-2 0 0.6 18/20/20 0 34 0.35/0.3/0.3 20/40/60
Soil Type-1 0.6 3.5 20/22/22 0 36 0.33/0.3/0.3 25/45/65
Limestone 3.5 15 25 880 26 0.25 1600
*Empty / Hydro Case/Operation
3
Reference - Joseph E. Bowles 5th Edition
Reference - Joseph E. Bowles 5th Edition
8. EVALUATION OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

The allowable bearing pressures on the basis of shear failure of soil were determined by adopting the
approach given by Terzaghi. A factor of safety of 3.0 was used for determining the respective net
allowable bearing pressures.
Taraghi’s Bearing capacity equations:
Qu = c Nc +  D Nq + 0.5  B N
Where:
c: Cohesion of soil (apparent cohesion intercept);
: unit weight of soil;

D: depth of footing (depth of embedment);
4
B: width/breadth of footing;
Nc, Nq, N : Taraghi’s bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle,
 Angle of internal friction

Following allowable bearing capacity values were obtained based upon different sand cushion
thicknesses while calculation sheets are attached in Appendix-C.
Table-4: Results of Bearing Pressure for Different Sand Cushion Thickness
Sr. Sand Cushion Allowable

Thickness Bearing Capacity Remarks
No.
(m) (KPa)
Ok in All Cases
1 0.3 529
Ok in All Cases
2 0.6 506 (Bearing Capacity is Slightly Above the
Applied Pressure)
Not Ok With Empty Case
3 0.8 486
(Dis-Continues Sand Bed)
Not Ok with Empty Case
4 1.0 474
(Dis-Continues Sand Bed)
9. STRESS AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element stress and settlement analysis has been carried out using computer software GeoStudio
(2018) for each loading conditions (Empty, Hydro Case and Operation case) with continues and
discontinues sand beds. Just to remain on conservative side, estimated pressures for dis-continues
case which is higher than the continues case have also been applied for settlement analysis, in addition
to the actual estimated pressure of continues case. Both the maximum settlement and differential
settlement have been calculated. Summary of the settlement analysis is given in Table-5 and 6 with
0.3 m thick sand cushion and 1.0 m thick sand cushion respectively.
Table-5: Summary of Settlement Analysis with 1.0 m Thick Sand Cushion

Dis-Continues Bed
Immediate Long Term Total Differential
Load Pressure Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement
Condition (Kpa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -
Hydro Case 314 31.92 3.192 35.112 11.6
Operation 366 18.9 1.89 20.79 2.1
Total Settlement 125.532 13.7
Continues Bed
Condition (Kpa)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -
Hydro Case 190 20.11 2.011 22.121 8

Operation 221 12 1.2 13.2 1.87
5
Table-6: Summary of Settlement Analysis with 0.3 m Thick Sand Cushion
Discontinues Case
Continues Case
Figures for detailed Settlement Analysis for each case (0.3 m and 1.0 thick sand cushion) are given in
Appendix-D and E.
6
APPENDIX-A
LPG STORAGE CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT KSA
1. Gradation Limits for Select Fill Material for the Foundation of LPF Bullet Vessel (Type-1)
The fill material underneath the foundations shall meet the requirements of select fill material given
hereunder. Selected fill material shall be composed only of inorganic material, free from deleterious
substance, and shall have
Passing U.S. sieve 3 / 4 inch 70 - 90 %
Passing U.S. sieve 1 inch 80 - 100 %
Gradation envelop curve is given as Figure 1.
2. Construction and Material Requirements
• Prior to placement of the first lift of fill, the ground surface shall be proof-rolled by a minimum of
five (5) passes of the same equipment used to compact the fill material.
• Embankment fill shall consist of earth free from large lumps, wood and other organic materials
and of a quality acceptable to the Engineer. It shall be placed in the position and to the required
depths shown on the Drawings and/or as required in writing by the Engineer and it shall be well
compacted in layers not to exceed fifteen (15) cm in depth to the density, 95 % of maximum dry
density obtained by Modified Proctor ASTM D1557.
• Optimum moisture content and unit weight will be determined from laboratory Modified Proctor
test as per ASTM D1557. + 3% of OMC can be used at site.
• The plasticity index (PI) of the material shall be ≤ 6. And Uniformity of Coefficient (Cu) should be
greater than 4.0
• The compaction of the embankment shall be carried out at the designated moisture content
(obtained from laboratory) consistent with the available compacting equipment.
• Embankment material that does not contain sufficient moisture to obtain the required compaction
shall be given additional moisture by means of approved sprinklers and mixing. Material
containing more than the optimum moisture may not, without written approval of the Engineer, be
incorporated in the embankment until it has been sufficiently dried out. The drying of wet material
may be expedited by scarification, disking or other approved methods.
• Maximum sulphate content should be 0.02%
• maximum chloride content should be 0.02%
1
3. Blending of Source Material with Red Sand
In accordance with the sieve analysis results of source material and red sand, we suggested that systematic
blending of red sand with source material (S-2 JC No 968, 969 and 970) can used for foundation fill
material. Blending has been designed in such a way that overall gradation fall within the designed evvelop
(Figure-1). Blending Sheet is given as Table-1 and overlay of blending material within the designed evelop
is shown in Figure-2.
Figure 1: Gradation envelop curve for Selected Fill
Figure-2: Overlay of Designed Blending Material Over the Designed Envelop
2
Table-1
Blending Sheet of Source Material with Red Sand
3
APPENDIX-B
1. Gradation Limits for Sand to be Placed Below and Above LPF Bullet Vessel (Type-2)
The select fill material underneath and above the foundations shall meet the requirements of gradation
limit given hereunder. Selected sand fill material shall be composed only of inorganic material, free from
deleterious substance, and shall have
Gradation envelop curve is given as Figure 1. Material shall be non-plastic
2. Construction and Material Requirements
• Sand fill shall consist of earth free from large lumps, wood and other organic materials and of a
quality acceptable to the Engineer.
• When using this material underneath the foundation (1.0m depth), it shall be well compacted in
layers not to exceed fifteen (15) cm in depth to the density, 95 % of maximum dry density obtained
by Modified Proctor ASTM D1557. + 3% of OMC can be used at site.
• Material shall be non-plastic
• When using this material as a backfill, it shall be well compacted in layers not to exceed twenty
(20) cm in depth to the density, 90 % of maximum dry density obtained by Modified Proctor
ASTM D1557.
• The compaction of the sand fill shall be carried out at the designated moisture content (obtained
from laboratory) consistent with the available compacting equipment.
• Maximum sulphate content should be 0.02%
• maximum chloride content should be 0.02%
1
Figure 1: Gradation envelop curve for Selected Fill
2
APPENDIX-C
BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION FOR 0.3 M SAND CUSHION
SHEAR ANALYSIS BY TARZAGHI
Trial Widths
Type of Footing = 0 (enter 1 for square/mat/circular and 0 for strip) Trial-1 Trial-2 Trial-3 Trial-4 Trial-5
Df = 0.2 m GWT Depth = 20 m B (m) 2.74
Footing should max. be placed within the 2nd layer
FOOTING
 b= 1.84 g/cc = 34 deg Soil Type = SAND

2
N'70 = 0 mv = 0 cm /kg Layer thikness (m)= 0.5
Cu = 0 kg/cm2
 b= 2.04 g/cc = 36 deg Soil Type SAND

= AND GRAVEL
2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm
 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

2
N'70 = 0 mv = 0 cm /kg Layer thikness (m)=
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm
H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

H= 0.5x274x1.88 258 cm below foundation depth
 = 35.8 deg I.Z. has gone beyond 1st layer, that’s why φ is weighted.
2
Cu = 0.000 kg/cm (weighted)
NC = 62.37
Nq = 46.02
 = 52.57
r = 1.00
W/T EFFECT
 b= 0.00202 kg/cc (weighted)
SUB = 0.00102 kg/cc
dw = 2000-20 cm (depth of GWT - depth of foundation)
dw = 1980 cm
 e= (2xH - dw) x dw / H2 x b + sub / H2 x (H - dw)2
 e= (2x268 - 1980) x 1980 / 71573 x 0.00184 + 0.00102 / 71573 x (268 - 1980)^2
 e= -0.03188 kg/cc
QULT = C NC+  Df (Nq-1)+ 0.5 b B N
Strip Footing 0x62.37 + 0.00184x20x45.02 + 0.5x0.00202x274x52.57x1
2
16.18 kg/cm Qa = 5.39 kg/cm2
F.O.S = 3 529 KPa
Trial Widths
Df = 0.2 m GWT Depth = 20 m B (m) 2.74
FOOTING

2
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

= AND GRAVEL
2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm

2
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm
H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

2
NC = 61.22
Nq = 44.87
 = 50.78
r = 1.00
W/T EFFECT
SUB = 0.00099 kg/cc
dw = 1980 cm
 e= (2x266 - 1980) x 1980 / 70861 x 0.00184 + 0.00099 / 70861 x (266 - 1980)^2
 e= -0.03319 kg/cc
QULT = C NC+  Df (Nq-1)+ 0.5 b B N
2
15.49 kg/cm Qa = 5.16 kg/cm2
F.O.S = 3 506 KPa
Trial Widths
Df = 0.2 m GWT Depth = 20 m B (m) 2.74
FOOTING

2
N'70 = 0 mv = 0 cm /kg Layer thikness (m)= 1
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

= AND GRAVEL
2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm

2
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm
H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

2
NC = 60.06
Nq = 43.73
 = 48.99
r = 1.00
W/T EFFECT
SUB = 0.00098 kg/cc
dw = 1980 cm
 e= (2x265 - 1980) x 1980 / 70391 x 0.00184 + 0.00098 / 70391 x (265 - 1980)^2
 e= -0.03409 kg/cc
QULT = C NC+  Df (Nq-1)+ 0.5 b B N
2
14.86 kg/cm Qa = 4.95 kg/cm2
F.O.S = 3 486 KPa
Trial Widths
Df = 0.2 m GWT Depth = 20 m B (m) 2.74
FOOTING

2
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

= AND GRAVEL
2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm

2
Cu = 0 kg/cm2

2
2
Cu = 0 kg/cm
H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

2
NC = 59.48
Nq = 43.16
 = 48.10
r = 1.00
W/T EFFECT
SUB = 0.00096 kg/cc
dw = 1980 cm
 e= (2x264 - 1980) x 1980 / 69925 x 0.00184 + 0.00096 / 69925 x (264 - 1980)^2
 e= -0.03502 kg/cc
QULT = C NC+  Df (Nq-1)+ 0.5 b B N
2
14.49 kg/cm Qa = 4.83 kg/cm2
F.O.S = 3 474 KPa
APPENDIX-D
Summary of Settlement Analysis with 0.3 m Thick Sand Cushion
Continues Case
Immediate
Load Long Term Settlement Total Settlement Differential Settlement
Pressure (Kpa) Settlement
Condition (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Empty 499 53 5.3 58.3 -
Hydro Case 199 17.12 1.712 18.832 4.42
Operation 221 10.6 1.06 11.66 0.4

Dis-Continues Case
Immediate Long Term
Load Total Settlement Differential Settlement
Pressure (Kpa) Settlement Settlement
Condition (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm)
Empty 499 53 5.3 58.3 -
Hydro Case 314 28.5 2.85 31.35 7.5
Operation 366 17.5 1.75 19.25 0.6

Settlement Analysis With Empty Condition – 499 Kpa ( Longitudinal Profile)
Total Settlement =53.0 mm

Continues Case
Settlement Analysis With Hydro Test Condition – 199 Kpa ( Longitudinal Profile)
Continues Case
4.42 mm 4.42 mm
Settlement Analysis With Operation Condition – 221 Kpa ( Longitudinal Profile)
Continues Case
Maximum Settlement= 10.6 mm
0.4 mm 0.4 mm
Dis-Continues Case
Dis- Continues Case
7.5 mm 7.5 mm
Dis- Continues Case
0.6 mm
0.6 mm
Appendix-E
Summary of Settlement Analysis with 1.0 M Sand Cushion Below The Installation Level
Continues Bed
Condition (Kpa)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -
Hydro Case 190 20.11 2.011 22.121 8

Operation 221 12 1.2 13.2 1.87
Dis-Continues Bed
Condition (Kpa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -
Hydro Case 314 31.92 3.192 35.112 11.6
Operation 366 18.9 1.89 20.79 2.1

Empty Condition
Settlement Analysis With Empty Condition – 499 Kpa ( Longitudinal Profile)
Total Settlement = 63.3 mm

Continues Bed
8 mm
1.87 mm
Dis-Continues Bed
11.6 mm
2.1 mm

Brief Note PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Brief Note PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TECHNICAL NOTE

4. AVAILABLE DATA AND REPORTS

Different Discontinuous Sand Bed, Continuous Sand Bed,

Empty Case 499 kPa 292 kPa

Hydro Case 859 kPa 504 kPa

Case-2: Sand Bed Angle 120 degree:

Table-2: Stress at Foundation Level (120 Degree)

Continuous Sand Bed,

Empty Case 182 kPa 110 kPa

Hydro Case 314 kPa 190 kPa

6. PROPOSED GRADATION LIMITS FOR FOUNDATION AND BACKFILL

Table-3: Selected Geotechnical Design Parameters

Depth Bulk Undrained Angle of Poisson’s Elastic

- From To (kN/m3) (KPa) (degree) (-) (MPa)

Soil Type-2 0 0.6 18/20/20 0 34 0.35/0.3/0.3 20/40/60

Soil Type-1 0.6 3.5 20/22/22 0 36 0.33/0.3/0.3 25/45/65

Limestone 3.5 15 25 880 26 0.25 1600

*Empty / Hydro Case/Operation

Reference - Joseph E. Bowles 5th Edition

8. EVALUATION OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

c: Cohesion of soil (apparent cohesion intercept);

: unit weight of soil;

 Angle of internal friction

Table-4: Results of Bearing Pressure for Different Sand Cushion Thickness

Sr. Sand Cushion Allowable

9. STRESS AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Table-5: Summary of Settlement Analysis with 1.0 m Thick Sand Cushion

Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -

Hydro Case 314 31.92 3.192 35.112 11.6

Operation 366 18.9 1.89 20.79 2.1

Total Settlement 125.532 13.7

Empty 499 63.3 6.33 69.63 -

Hydro Case 190 20.11 2.011 22.121 8

• Maximum sulphate content should be 0.02%

• maximum chloride content should be 0.02%

Figure 1: Gradation envelop curve for Selected Fill

Figure-2: Overlay of Designed Blending Material Over the Designed Envelop

• Material shall be non-plastic

• Maximum sulphate content should be 0.02%

• maximum chloride content should be 0.02%

Footing should max. be placed within the 2nd layer

 b= 1.84 g/cc = 34 deg Soil Type = SAND

 b= 2.04 g/cc = 36 deg Soil Type SAND

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

Footing should max. be placed within the 2nd layer

 b= 1.84 g/cc = 34 deg Soil Type = SAND

 b= 2.04 g/cc = 36 deg Soil Type SAND

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

Footing should max. be placed within the 2nd layer

 b= 1.84 g/cc = 34 deg Soil Type = SAND

 b= 2.04 g/cc = 36 deg Soil Type SAND

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

H= 0.5 x B x Tan(45+/2) B= 274 cm

Footing should max. be placed within the 2nd layer

 b= 1.84 g/cc = 34 deg Soil Type = SAND

 b= 2.04 g/cc = 36 deg Soil Type SAND

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =

 b= 0.00 g/cc = 0 deg Soil Type =