Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Purdue e-Pubs
JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program
1984
Recommended Citation Hassiotis, S., and J. Chameau. Stabilization of Slopes Using Piles : Interim Report. Publication FHWA/ IN/JHRP-84/08. Joint Highway Research Project, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1984. doi: 10.5703/1288284314072.
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
SCHOOL OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
INDIANA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
JHRP-84-8
4?
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
JHRP-84-8
FINAL REPORT
S.
Hassiotis and
J.
L.
Chameau
http://www.archive.org/details/stabilizationofsOOhass
Interim Report
Stabilization of Slopes Using Piles
To:
H.L. Michael, Director Joint Highway Research Project J.L. Chameau, Research Associate
May
1,
1984
Project:
From:
6-36-360
File:
6-14-15
Attached is an Interim Report on the HPR Part II study titled "Design of Laterally Loaded Drilled-In-Piers for Landslide Correction Anchored Within Sedimentary Rocks". The report is entitled "Stabilization of Slopes Using Piles". It is authored by S. Hassiotis and J.L. Chameau of our staff.
The report presents a methodology for the design of piles or piers used to improve the stability of a slope. A step-by-step procedure is proposed to select design parameters such as pile diameter, spacing, and location which will provide an appropriate factor of safety for the slope and insure the integrity of the Two computer programs are provided to perform the necespiles. sary operations. The first computer program calculates the factor of safety of the reinforced slope; the second program determines shear force, bending moment, and displacement profiles along the pile. These programs can be used iteratively to achieve an optimum design solution.
The report Is submitted as partial fulfillment of the objectives of the study.
Respectfully submitted,
J.L. Chameau
Research Associate
cc:
ii
Interim Report
by
S. Hassiotis
Project No.:
File No.:
6-36-360
6-14-15
Purdue University
in cooperation with the
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of policies of the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Report No.
2.
Government Accession No
3.
FHWA/IN/JHRP-84/8
4.
5.
Report Dat
May
1,
1984
6.
Author(s)
,8.
S.
9.
Hassiotis and J.
Name
L.
Chameau
JHRP-84-8
10.
Performing Organization
and Address
Joint Highway Research Project Civil Engineering Building Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907
12.
11.
HPR-K2
13,
1)
Part II
Type
Sponsoring Agency
Indiana Department of Highways State Office Building 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204
15.
Interim Report
4.
CA 359
Supplementary Notes
Conducted in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration under a research study entitled, "Design of Laterally Loaded DrilledIn-Piers f or Landslide Correction Anchored Within Sedimentary Rocks"
16.
Abstract
"
'
This study is part of a project undertaken at Purdue University to develop a methodology for the design and analysis of slopes stabilized with piles. Different aspects of this problem are considered: (1) the determination of the force exerted on the piles by the slope; (2) the effect of a row of piles on the stability of a slope; and (3) simultaneous slope stability analysis and pile design to meet minimum safety requirements for both the slope and the piles.
It is suggested to compute the force exerted by the piles on the slope by dividing the maximum value calculated using the theory of plastic deformation by the factor of safety of the slope. The Friction Circle Method is extended to incorporate the reaction force provided by the piles and calculate the safety factor of the reinforced slope. The displacement, bending moment, and shear force profiles along the piles are also determined. A step-by-step procedure is proposed to select the pile dimensions and reinforcement which will provide an appropriate factor of safety for the slope and insure the integrity of the piles. These results are incorporated in two computer programs which can be used iteratively to provide an optimum design solution.
17.
Key Words
,
18.
Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
21.
19.
20.
No. of Pages
22.
Prie
Unclassified
Form
Unclassified
181
DOT
F 1700.7 (b-69)
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support for this research was provided by the Indiana Department of Highways and the
administered through the Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
HIGHLIGHT SUMMARY
CHAPTER
I.
- INTRODUCTION
.
CHAPTER II
- SLOPE REINFORCEMENT
10
\ 12 12 15 16 16 18 1"
24
32
33
38 40 47
"5
66
67 67 72
72
vi
Finite Difference Solution of Equation (4-4b) Boundary Conditions Condition 1 - Free Head ... Condition 2 - Unrotated Head. Condition 3 - Hinged Head . . Condition 4 - Fixed Head. . . Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction for Soils Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction for Rocks Summary
73 78 80 81 82
83
84
84
98 101
APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix
A:
B:
Appendix C: Appendix D:
Determination of a Stability Number for the Reinforced Slope 138 Determination of the Pile Length Above the Failure Surface. . . .144 Slope Stability Program 150 Pile Analysis Program 167
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Values of dimensionless coefficient in tons /ft A, to calculate k of a pile embedded in moist or submerged sand Values of k gl in tons/ft for a square plate, lxl ft and for long strips, 1 ft wide, resting on precompressed clay
3
Page
8'
"
Young's modulus for vertical static compression of sand from standard penetration test and static cone resistance
102
104
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
Page
20
22
23
25
Force Acting on Piles Versus Ratio D /D for Different Cohesive Soils 2 1 Force Acting on Piles Versus Ratio D-/D. for Different Cohesionless Soils
34
35
36
8
9
42
45
10
49
11
51
12
Effect of Pile Location on the Reaction Force Provided by the Piles ...
Effect of Pile Location on the Factor of Safety of a Steep Slope
53
13
54
ix
14
55
15
Normalized Curves of the Safety Factor Versus Distance S for Different Slopes of Same Height
56
16
F
17 18
...
61
Safety Factor Versus Location of the Piles Upslope for Different Ratios of
D /D
2
1
62
19
Factor of Safety Versus Position of the Piles Upslope for Different Values of Friction Angle Safety Factor Versus Position of the Piles Upslope for Different Values of Cohesion
63
20
64
69
21(a)
21(b)
69
22
70
74
23
24
100
25
103
26
107
.
.
27 28
110
113
29
114
30
115
31
32
119
33
121
Appendix Figure
34
35
Toe Failure
145
146
xi
AB
AB
a
,
chord length
arc length
a., a-, a1
constants of integration
b BC
BD
cohesion Intercept
c
CE
CEO
C
r
C.
,
C, C_, C,
D
D.
D_
xii
EB
ED
EI
EL
E E
c
f
F
F
*
FS
f,
,
f~
H
i
slope angle
K K
elastic constant
coefficient of subgrade reaction of the first layer below the critical surface
coefficient of subgrade reaction of the second layer below the critical surface
IC
K cn
SO
xiii
K_
Kg.
M
MT
n,n ,n_
OG
P
p
q,
q2
R
S
horizontal distance from the toe of the slope to the pile row
shear force on the pile
V V
W
x,y
xiv
y y
horizontal displacement that the soil would undergo without the piles
pile deflection above the critical surface pile deflection below the critical surface without the piles
y,
y2
depth along the pile measured from the ground surface depth along the pile measured from the critical surface
tt/4
a
Y
9
ij>/2
V s
Poisson's ratio
<J>
XV
HIGHLIGHT SUMMARY
A design metho-
The forces
acting on the pile sections above and below the critical surface are calculated using the theories of plastic deformation and subgrade reaction,
respectively.
xvi
A computer pro-
factor of safety for the slope and insures the integrity of the piles.
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Insuring the stability of both natural and manmade slopes continues to be an important problem in
geotechnical engineering.
There is no universally accepted method for the prevention and/or correction of landslides.
Each slide is
individual characteristics.
Avoidance of a potential
head,
(2) construct-
subsurface drainage.
solution of a single pile and introduce corrective factors to analyze the row of piles,
or treat the row of
Moreover, very limited research has been done to determine the growth mechanism of the lateral force acting
on a pile embedded in a slope and the increase in the
In this report,
strength, and the pile diameter, spacing and location. The safety factor of the slope after the placement of
the piles is calculated assuming that a portion of that
the length of the pile as a function of the soil pressure, and the pile diameter, stiffness,
location, spac-
CHAPTER II.
SLOPE REINFORCEMENT
observed.
groups of
or 3.
movement.
Satis-
diameter piers spaced 5 to 7-ft on center. Actual installations of such piers include the use of cast-in-place
Deep-seated slides have also been stabilized successfully by large diameter cylinder piles, anchored
According to D'Appolonia et al. (1967), the wall provided short term stability by preventing progressive
failure, while drainage assured long-term stability.
unbraced cut.
25-ft below the freeway and near the top of the wall.
The overall stability of the tunnel, wall, and the
In order to
The excavations
Hence,
An anchored cylinder pile wall was installed during construction of interchanges to connect 1-471 with
footings. A cantilever
would be necessary.
1982).
However,
forced slope.
10
CHAPTER III.
necessary.
Then, the
Finally,
parametric studies are performed to assess the influence of the location and spacing of the piles on the
11
1965;
1970; Poulos,
Garassino,
1983).
Coyle et al.
surrounding the piles, these authors arrived at acceptable solutions of piles subjected to horizontal loads
at the top.
In most cases,
lateral soil movements), the problems are more complicated because the lateral forces acting on the piles
are now dependent on the soil movements, and these are
in turn affected by the presence of the piles.
For
12
of a pile
Viggiani.,1981).
Theoretical Solutions
subgrade reaction;
In the modulus of subgrade reaction method, the pile is considered to be a beam on an elastic foundation, and the equilibrium equation is written as:
dz
where
EI
pile stiffness
13
v
P
v 's
- y ) g
are of y g
are introduced,
s
Poulos,
1977;
Tables can
to a row of piles
modifies the initial soil deformation values that are used in the calculations (DeBeer, 1977).
14
creeping mass.
unbalanced force.
izontal reactions.
it
is
stabilizing pile.
15
Elastic-Plastic Material
This
More recently,
when the surrounding soil undergoes horizontal displacement due to a surficial surcharge in the vicinity.
It
16
slope.
(1979).
It
program will be added to the design methodology proposed herein to form a complete design-analysis package.
Other Approaches
17
account.
Wang et.al. (1979) proposed a semi-empirical technique to calculate the pressure on piles embedded in
18
In most of the
The
the analysis.
in purely cohesive slopes undergoing creep. A theoretical method has been proposed by Ito and Matsui
(1975)
19
Assumptions
in plastically It is assumed that the piles placed
rately as possible.
landslide.
The
20
-r-
Direction of
deformation
Figure
1975).
21
following assumptions:
1)
<J/2)
2) The soil is
on plane AA';
rigid elements;
principal stresses.
and Matsui,
in the
The
and a &J
22
Element
Figure 2
Stresses Acting On Elements in Plastically Deforming Ground (After Ito and Matsui, 1975),
23
Element
Element
II
Ca)
Cohesionless Soil
(b)
Frictionless Soil
Figure 3
Mohr Circles of Elements in Plastically Deforming 979). Ground (After Ito and Matsui,
I
24
How-
distribution of stresses.
For planes
GH and G'H', it is assumed that the normal stress acting on element II,
o
-._,
is
acting on element I, o
principal planes.
Derivation
c-J>,
<J>,
and c
First, the equilibrium of the differential element GHH'G' surrounded by solid lines in Figure 4a is considered. Summation of forces in the x direction gives:
25
-co**
Q o
+
(a)
+ ^aTAN 4>
i
Oa
JL^
1
c+ CTaTANc^)
"x
^x + do;'
d*
CM
(b)
T
<7a
Figure
Stresses on Elements
Deforming Ground,
in
Plastically
26
-Dda
- a dD + 2dx {a tan (^ +
-|)
+o tan 9 +
c} - 0(3-2)
As it is assumed that o
a
,
is approximately equal to
from assumption
equation:
oN + x
<J>
2c, |N
\
I
(3-3)
where
2 N^ = tan ( + |)
(3-4)
From geometry
d(f)
dx =
(3-5)
tan(^ + |)
Ddo
= dD
{N^tan^
<J>
9x99
*
(3-6)
(N
1/2
*
tan9+
N -1) r75
9
--i
X
(C.D)
1 2 1/2 c(2tan9+ 2N / + N )
NV
tan 9 + N.-l
9
(3-7)
27
Dda
2
= 2(o tan a
<f>
+ c)dx
(3-8)
2N tan$
C exp
2
,,x) - c(2N /
4>
( D
Z
tan<jH-l)
M N
(3-9)
tan<b
Finally, assumption
plane AA' (x - 0):
n x'x=0
I
- yzN"
<j
- 2cN'
4>
1/2
(3-10)
where
is
The constant C
is
Equation (3-9):
28
- yz
tan<|i
+ c
(3-11)
'
Is found by using
From geometry,
AE - {(D
x
- D )/2} tan(ir/8 +
2
<fr/4)
(3-12)
then,
Klx=AE
"
NTi^
N.
9
tan<J)
{<Y*tan*c)-exp
(^
1
<p
(3-13)
2
Oh
tan4>
+ 1)}
The constant
C.
is obtained by considering
Equation
Equation (3-7).
(N
<C
1/2
*
tan<j*N -1)
*
(N
1/2
tan<{rfN
-1)
lV
D -D
Van/
...
{(Wn+fc)
exp(-j>
tan<|>
-1/2 /Z N/
9
(3-14)
29
BB' "
VScW
D 1~ D
" A
FT^
9
IT
Tf"n*+c)
exp(-
-N^tan*
2
1
1/2
2tan<f>
+ 2N
+ N~
f
1/2
l
2tan* + 2N
J
+c N
J.
1/2 '
_ C D
1
+ N~ 1/2
$
tan9+N-l
N^l
where
2
D,
(N
tan9 + N -1)
(3-15)
The lateral force q acting on the pile per unit thickness of layer is the difference between the forces act-
1
[
FTa^
9
{eXP (
V -D7-%
D
2
*
tan *
tan(|f|)) - 2N
/0 1/2
.
2tan9 + 2NV
tan9-l}H
1/2
*
N/
9
m
2D
+ N
9
-1/2 '
tan* + N -1
tan*+ 2N7
N
1/2
x
-c{D.
1
m /
1
+ N
9
-1/2
'
.
tan9 + N -1
N:
*
/0 1/2
}
30
4^2- {A
<j
exp(^- N^tan*
2
tan(|f|)) - D
(3-16)
the cohesion c is
D.
N^tan-trt-N -1)
* *
D-D.
exp(
2
JE
*
{Di
1)
2
li H
tan*
t.n(^-D 2
(3-17)
>
da
= 3c logD
(3-19)
After substi-
expression is obtained:
do ^ = jT-dx D c
j
(3-20)
31
stress in AEE'A'
=^x
(3-21)
where
C,
is
From assump-
|o
x'x-0
*~
2c
(3_22)
If Equation
tion,
following for
- Y2 - 2c
(3-23)
a
l
xlx={(D
rD
)/2}
tan(w/8)
2 c(-^
D 1~D
tan
-2)+^ (3-24)
obtained as:
D-D
C
3
- c (-g
tan| - 3logD
- 2) + yz
(3-25)
- D l {ax } D= Dl
<
3 " 26 >
32
Dj
{c
(3log
r = tan ^ + -g
i
- 2) + 72}
'-'bB'-V'x'x-O
D
c
(3 " 27)
{DjOlog gi +
D-D ~-=-
tan|) -
2^^)}
yz
(VV
(3-16),
Parametric Studies
As seen from
these paramthe center
the depth,
,
2,
33
linearly as y or
increases.
is
Figures 5,
6,
and
7,
respectively.
these
increases.
It
is
or
c.
This
to be expected,
In order to test
pipe piles of about the same diameter were used at the other two locations for the stabilization of
landslides.
The field lateral forces were deduced from measured strains induced in the piles by the sliding soil
34
O CD . - *
II
IU- I10 u.
o m ~
O.
"^
o
CO
II
II
"
>
CO
<t>
CO
a
o
Q
Q N. N a
to
OJ
o
cd
00
3 CO c CD >
CO cu
to
"d
en
+-
<
a>
o
o
-r~
ro
~l
OJ
r0>
-vto
CO
ir>
a>
(sqi)
01/ J
35
o
CO
CO CO CD
CO co
Ll.
U.
U.
O o_ m
oo
o
CO
t
4>
>-
b
o
Q
o
CVJ
cr
CO =1 CO C_ co
.CD
>
CO
o
in
<
CO
o 1
CD
CD
CD
lO
>cj-
ro
CVJ
CD
CO
csai)
oi /*d
c_ r>
o:
36
CO c_
<o
E
S
Q
o
c CO c
to CL
tg
<u
00
%-
o o
II
Q
O
c_
CO =J CO
CO
c >
CO CO
CO
c o
<
CO
- CD
-I CO
-r-
-rCO lO
I
OJ
co c_ =1
csai)
s-
01/
37
masses.
and
<J>
values obtained from shear and standard penetraThe experimental and theoretical results
tion tests.
When
When the pile head was allowed to deflect, the distribution of the force was triangular.
tions,
In most applica-
container with the model piles in a row and a The soil was pushed through
38
In a logarithmic scale
39
Of
these,
Parametric studies
Assuming
the factor of
FS =
c
a
r
+ o +
a
tan
<j>
-2.
tan
(3-28)
<b
and friction, F
.,
<p
can be
c c r
tan
and
F
*
tan
<b
(3-29)
40
is
obtained when F
1976):
and
FS
F
c
= F
(3-30)
1937) consid-
(Siegel,
1975).
failure surface.
Therefore,
safety is conservative.
41
The forces
that act on
the cohesion
of
is
equal
equilibrium, c
is
If
point
(Figure 8).
is
parallel to the
a,
is obtained by equat-
.AB.a = c .AB.R
r
(3-31)
Therefore,
a = R.AB/AB
(3-32)
42
RSIN<
00'=
Figure 8
43
It is
shown in
Figure 8.
A detailed
-7?
12
a
tfl
F
c
2cotx cotv +
(3-33)
and
a F 1& c
sr
12
2cotx cotv +
-(3-34)
2
where
x,y = angles describing the <}rcircle (Figure 8)
i
slope angle
44
n =
The safety factor with respect to cohesion on any surface defined by angles x and y can be obtained using
tion until F
equal to F
minimum value
is
is
The
The
tance, D.
1
(i.e., F
'
t = ). D
'
can be incorporated in
45
Figure
Piles.
46
12F
E p *yH
o esc
,
f
a F ^H
c
cos(CEO) sin
v
H
tt
x cxcy sin J T
{
r
cos x
,.
sin v
(3-35)
where
2
i
E=l-2(cot
and
12F
- 6nsin<(cscx cscy}
{E
"a
+ 6n
~^-
A
(3-36)
.
7H"
2 c ocsc
F
c
x cscy sin0
COSX sinv
:
+ csc(
u-v)cos (x-u
,
1
\
where
CEO = angle F
forms with the horizontal
OG = moment arm of F
P
Appendix A.
is assumed to pass
47
sonable since each individual pile is preventing movement essentially by cantilever action.
of F
is assumed to be
The direction
The magnitude of F
is a
of angles,
To
is
calculated.
This force
Parametric Studies
48
It
can be
of piles.
weight,
y.
<J>.
The
force, F tions.
is
10
respectively.
After insertion
of 0.6,
0"AB".
49
L. (0 o u. CO O a o a HO o u. o CM m m <* Q s n _l to - o X Q
IO
u o
_l
II
II
II
> o
a.
>>.
n
o
CO
ll
o
<8
CO
CO
o o
tO
50
each surface,
the soil
,
are
balanced.
is a function of
the
reaction force F
P
force F
P
decreases.
on the safety
large,
are negligible.
As F
becomes smaller,
the effect of
Consequently, the
E"
in Figure 10).
Figure
indicated by
11
51
o>
ex
o
00
GO
o
CO
O
h-
GO
o
CO
>
4-
cd
00
Ct-
o
to r\
+J
O o o
frt
U_
rn
o>
or
o
ro
o
+
J
o o
_l
o
OJ
a>
CL
_o
o
LJ
-J
05 CJ
CVJ
-T"
ro
00
O
iZ
SJ
52
surface,
original surface.
The force F
P
Figure 12.
The criti-
cal surfaces of a steep slope remain deep and the factor of safety keeps increasing as S increases until the
the
A comparison
of
the behavior of
The
is
max
where FS
max
the
53
lli
o
<
cr ->
a: UJ UJ
i 1
w
<
,.
^
.
Id
w
x
o
1rr
%U. L.
a:
o
-8
_i
< z
IT
<2
t*J
e>
E3
tr -j
OCL
o CO
> e
a o t~ o
U.
8
u
-8 b
CO
o fO
E
o CM
UJ
.o
C\J
UJ/#)
54
UJ
UJ u.
o <
UJ
X
H-
cc UJ I-
to UJ =/
u_
o o 2
UJ
CE Q. UJ
CO
a.
UJ CO UJ
o
4)
4->
CO
co UJ co CM
id
i-
<-
o
>
0)
CO CM
-
<3"
l-
CM
CM CM
cd
CO
-
O
CM CO
+>
o o
cd
L_
CO
o o m %>b O CM v >n
II
u. u. co Q. 0.
*
to
hu_
o
+
<d
o x
II
<M
CO
ii
.fl.O ^ 1 UJ o.
>*
_i CO
o a
o o
.
O
co
_l
C\J
CO
o
CD
<fr
UJ
CVJ
ro
-r
q V
o
to
IT)
O
CM
CM
Sd
55
lib
q.
tn !~ CM
o
II
u e
o
c o
U.
o
CO
a>
<X>
CO
<0
CO
(0
4)
56
CO
1/
w O <0 : Q.Q. O O 10 o O - O in - Q
II
U. U.
en
c\J
o fo <
UJ
5f=
m
ro ro
CO
o>
oo
II
cvj
oo
II
II
II
e-
Yi
>^
o
II
u c
td co
II
CM
o o o W *
CO CO
U.
Ll.
CO
CO
Li.
Q
C\J
CO => CO
t_
CO
>
o
cd
O)
X
co
co
>
-
E
<a
<f)
co
CO
o
CO
cd
CO
co
CO
o
CO a>
CO
CO
a.
>
c_
CO
o
CVJ
o
0>
-o
a>
N
cd
c_ a>
<f-
o
in
-*
CO
'
T"
ro
a>
CO
io
o
SJ
CVJ
o o
XBUJgj
57
is
C
fl
/F
c
YH - f(F
(3-37)
can lead to
where:
- F /a
p
(3-38)
used to analyze the slope, but the total force per unit
length will be used to design the pile.
This results
58
It
by the
).
/F
1H - f(F /F
c
p
(3-39)
is
- F, - FS).
<p
In these iterations,
the force F
P
is divided by the
= F /FS). p p
Physically, this
implies that F
will be equal to F
The curve
How-
sensitive to
10,
S as
before.
about 1.55.
59
Q.
LL
u.
O
z
o o
1-
o
1-
M
_J
<
< N w
_i
u-
>>
o>
m O
_i
^^ 0.
o
2
_i
2 O
1_i
O
CD
CO
<
icr
<
i-
O
1-
< D < O
a.
LU
o
U.
o
CD
Q.
o
lO
c o
N
CO
o
o
o 0. i- O fO o m u. o m o O ^r n a. o CO e- o >^ I o
O
II
L_
ll.
CD
CO CL
o
ro
0>
l_
en
II
4>
c\j
o>
IT)
II
II
II
II
o
CVJ
o
_
UJ
CD
a>
s
I
r~
ro CJ
o
oj
CD
CD
in
en
SJ
60
significantly as D_/D.
increases.
Figure 18 shows the relation between the safety factor and the distance
D /D,
2
S
The force per unit length of the pile given by Equations (3-16) and (3-27) decreases with an increase of
the ratio D_/D.
,
upslope.
Hence,
S
the
with S.
$,
and cohesion,
^ 0.716.
The shapes of
described before.
of
$,
Since F
is an
increasing function
61
,y*WA"
SLOPE =49*
1.6 C =
500 PSF
.4 ~
CO
.3
1.2
I.I
I
0.60
D 2 /D|
1
i
0.50
0.55
0.65
0.70
0.75
Figure
62
Q \ OJ o
V-
o
CO
4->
cd
CO ro in
or
CO CJ CO CM
4->
c
CO c_ 09
o
II
**-
Q
<d-
c_
CJ CJ CJ
o
>-
03
O
CO
Cl.
o
CJ
co ~
Q.
CO _a>
a!
CO
^ H
CO
CO
-=
+*
CO
0_
o 0.
*
<d-
O c
_
4J
(Ll.
o lO en O o CJ O JO rO u -0- o K X 0. o
o
<fr
ii
II
CJ
o o
_l
CO
cd
II
il
o
co
3
CO c_ <u
_l
co
>
CO
c_
->
o u
J
t
CJ
Ll.
> M CD
J
CO
lO
I-
TO
CJ
CO
a>
SJ
o>
b3
co CD
3
cd
>
+-
<x>
c
t_
a> <t<H-
b
m
rO
c o
o>
o
rO
to
o.
CO
CD
m
CM
cu
jC
-
o
CM
u.
K*f
o c o
+-
CO
CO
o
Q.
CO =J CO c_
OJ
m
^~
>
>>
+
CD
CU
t-
cd
CO
*>-
<
c_
c
o
CO
e
-
o
c_
o o
cd
u_
<l-
U. 0)
~i
CM
rCVJ
-i
c_
CT>
o
*
CD
CD
O
CM
CO
CO
CM
CJ
CM
CM
SJ
r 64
Ll.
Ll.
CO Q_
CO 0. CO CO
II
CO
ro
CD
CVJ
II
O O
to
O-
o
co
Cl
CO
CD
in
cvj
O
C\J
c o
+->
C o
CO CD
CO
W O
Q.
JZ
3
_
CO
O
<*-
io
CO
c_
o
CO CO =J
a>
>
c_
*->
o cd o >
rt
*->
L_
>
+->
c
CD
t_
CO
l
CD
d-
-IT)
CO
O
-r~
CO
Cvj
CM
Cvj
~TCO
CO
r~
CO
O
'
CVJ
CD _
q
cvj
CO
_
Sd
O -
CO
V.
65
SUMMARY
Laboratory
theoretical derivation.
Com-
puter programs were developed to compute both the lateral force and the factor of safety of the slope.
66
CHAPTER IV.
values are obtained by solving the differential equation (beam equation) governing the pile displacements.
of
analyze the pile section which extends above the critical surface.
Several techniques
67
(Hetenyi,
1946).
continuity.
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
con-
supporting medium.
68
of
P - Ky
(4-1)
b,
K = b K
(4-2)
placements,
y,
is
.4
EI
= -Ky HF-dz
*-f
(4-3)
where:
q =
z z
q.
= -CE)
69
Figure 2
(a)
Beam
on Elastic
Foundation
I
(After Hetenyi,
946).
/^
*
^
"2
S
qd^
kydZ
*:
-<
S + dS
>-
-*
M + dM
Figure 2
(b)
946).
70
Ground Surface
;;s>\\sj;;\\\s//
Figure
22
Stabilizing Piles
Embedded
in
Bedrock,
71
(z
= 0)
CE
surface
ED
surface
BD = length of pile from bedrock surface to the
pile tip
EI
A,
dz
r=-
= q(z)
(-CE
< z
<
0)
(4-4a)
EI
2 ^-
A
dz
= -K y
(z
>
0)
(4-4b)
where
y.
q(z) = q 2
q 2~ q l
+-e-
(*-5>
where
q.
72
SOLUTION TECHNIQUES
= a
x
8l
a^
a z
3
14 + y^^-gj + j^^
f f
(4-6a)
where
f,
= q.
q2 q
"
CE
and an , a., a
>
obtained by:
dy
Slope =
x -
Ii
Moment = -EI
dz
2 d y x
ir-
(4-6b)
73
Shear = -EI
rdz
where
dYi
I = 3a z &1 + 2a 2 z + 3 dz
f
l
+ ^-gj
^Til
(4-6c)
A d y,
f
l
T
dz
= 2a
+ 6a
z
3
2-EI
6H
and
3
T"
dz
d y x = 6a
f
x
+
3
EI
2~EI
length
(Figure 23).
i
=
(W>
mX
(4-8)
74
m-2
mm=
I
|
I
J-
|_.
I |
r
Sliding
Surface
m-2
mm
I
ED
m+
m+2
m = MT
I
L mt+i p
MT + 2 L- _J
Figure
23
75
A
EI
(
&> m ,4m dz
= b(
V
o
m ym
(4_9)
is
at node m, y
is
j-)
dz*
is
in Equation (4-
with depth:
- KSL
n
(
E>
(z
(4 - 10a)
where K
is
the value of K
= ED)
It
is
proposed herein to
the point z =
76
Also,
respectively:
h
K s "
S0
+ <K
SL-
S0> <eI>"
'
EB
(4 -' b)
So
(,
Sl=
i <
n! 2 i
> EB
(4 - 10c>
where
K K
SL
1C
at z =
the
material below
z = EB
K^
K
n.
= K = K
at z = EB
RL
atZ
= ED
to zero.
1C,
n.
and n will be
displacements as unknowns.
mations for the first, second, third and fourth derivatives of the displacement below the critical surface
are:
*[2.
C
dz
77
dz
hm
- -2i
_E
.2
5_L
(4-H)
d3y
,
2,
y m+2
- 2y
nH-l
dz
and
/ \
dz
y
4
2,
;
y -2 m
4y
m -l
+ 6y
A
" 4y
nH-l
+ y m+2
for z
<
EB
)ni]y
ET
m
(4-12a)
and for
> EB
^^O^hL^RO^^^K
(4-12b)
where
a =
-^
(4-12c)
78
5.
In
addition to the MT +
fin-
9,
following section.
Boundary Conditions
y ] z =o =
yi ] z =o
= [y ] 2 z =o
dy
t6]
dy
x
z=0
dz
_1
2
]
z=0
dz~ z=0
a d [m]
y,
a d
z=0
i-rh=o dz
ittU
dz
y,
(4 " 13)
79
tV]
z=0
t-^] z=0
dz
t-3-l z=0
dz
where
is
V is the shear at z = 0.
a^
and a
= y
a,
1
y1
-y
x
2X
HZ^f^L
y 2 - 2yj
(4-U,
6a, =
3
+ 2y_ - y_. x
2A
3
boundary
satisfied.
prevented (y = 0,
6 =
0),
resulting in:
y y
MT
=0
and,
y MT+1 - y
(4-15a)
80
If
MT+2
v yMT+l - 2v y MT
V y MT-l =
,
(4-15b) V
the boundary
One of the
following four conditions should model closely the restraint of the pile in the field.
Condition
- Free Head
'
M1
Z~CE
" EI
t-rU-CE dz
"
and,
(4-16)
*\ m z~CE--EI l-T-'z-CEdz
81
2a
- 6a CE
3
CE* -
^|
CE
and,
(4-17)
f
l
6a
CE + CE 3 " EI 2ET
"
(CE)y_
+ (2A - 2CE)y_
1
- (4A)y
+
Q
(2 A
+ 2CE)y
x
- (CE)y
2
= 2X
3 J
[gg| CE
3 J
12
^eY
f
CE^]
(4-18a)
and
-y_
)y_r
)y!+ y 2
HI
ce2]
4_18b >
Condition
2 -
Unrotated Head
[6]
z=-ce
i^r-WcE-
(4 " 19a)
[V]
Z =-CE
" EI
TTdz
z=-CE =
<
82
The expression for the slope is obtained by substituting equation (4-6c) into equation (4-19a):
a^ - 2a
CE + 3a
CE
~:
CE
|= CE
(4-20a)
2
)
yi
+ (CE
)y
= 4A
2
[^gi CE 3 - jjL. C E 4
(4-20b)
Condition
3 -
Hinged Head
^z=-CE
frll,-CB
(4 " 2U)
[Ml
z=-CE
= "EI
hA-CE
(4 " 21b)
83
a - ai CE
+ a
CE
2
- a
CE
3
^T
3
CE
"
T20~EI
CE
(4-22a)
Introducing a
14),
a^
and a
+ 6XCE
- 12XCE )y
3
)
yi
- (CE )y - 12 2
L_ CE 4 + CE 120 EI 24EI
5
] J
(4-22b)
(z
fvl lyJ
z=-CE
= iy [v
l
1 J
z=-CE
=0
(4-23a)
t^U-cE-^rWcE-
(4 - 23b>
84
reaction, K
at every point is
and (2) it has the same value at every point along the
contact face.
Both of these assumptions are approxima-
increase linearly with increasing pressure. The assumption of linearity is usually not valid for pressures
approximation.
85
However,
the errors
resulting from
(Terzaghi, 1955).
(1)
1954).
,
This method
is
but it
time con-
A more convenient
assuming an approximate
deflec-
from
86
Terzaghi
the
b,
z,
and the
is
given by:
E
s
= y'zA
(4-24)
Ter-
K
s
u33b
(4 " 25a)
TTH F
with depth:
87
Table 1 Values of dimensionless coefficient A, to calculate k g (tons/ft ) for a pile embedded in moist or submerged sand (Terzaghi, 1955).
Loose
100-300
200
Medium
300-1000
600
Dense
1000-2000
1500
Recommended values of A
88
K
S
d~b
S1
(4 " 26)
where
K,,.
is
In this
is
Recommended values of K
obtained
are given in
Table
2.
In cohe-
sionless soil:
E,
K
g
= 3.3
f-
(4-27a)
K
g
= 1.6
(4-27b)
and
is
3
.
=
s
^-E d
(b)
1/4
(4-28)
89
Values of k in tons/ft for a square plate (lxl ft) resting on pre compressed clay (Terzaghi, 1955).
.
Table
3
Consistency of Clay
Values of
q
Stiff
1-2
Very Stiff
2-4
Hard
>4
u
.
(tons/ft
2
)
Range for k
(square plates)
50-100
75
100-200
150
>200
300
90
"s
where
is
s
is
the Young's
(1964) suggested that this equation can be applied to piles, and they used it to estimate the modulus K
the lateral resistance of piles.
for
Francis, however,
doubled:
"
"s
in an unpublished report,
ness E
s
Following this
(1) a
91
loading (u
or (2) as
m
v v
for
is
0.40), where m
These
and homogeneous.
resistance, q
,
Correlations between E
verification and should be used with caution (Jamiolkowski and Garassino, 1977).
In general, it is expected that the coefficient of subgrade reaction will increase with depth in sand and
(to
in clay.
tions.
solidated clay increases linearly with depth, the coefficient of subgrade reaction should increase in a similar manner.
92
c
CD
J3
o
c_)
r> r<-
CD
u
CD CD
CD
CJ ra
C o
CO
u
(1)
u
a.
CD
J*
CD
cr
E
CI
o
o
C_)
in
m
X
C CD E
CD
CD cn
=>
ZD
CD
a
C
o
CD
O
co
0TJ
CD
j-> j->
u
j->
CO
CD
CD
H JZ
Dl
ra
ro
cn
cr
c
*H
CD
to CD
a.
cc
N u
"O
CO
>
CZ>
o
cn
co
CD
~H
c
ra
T3
C
CD cn
o
E
o
-iJ
O
c
>.
CD
3
T3
-tJ
,
TD
o c
ra
o
in
CD IT)
C
CO cn
>
CD
CD
TO
TZ>
U
cr
c
CO cn
c
CD
LO
en
u-
o H i "
to co
CD
t-.
c
O
,
CU
NO
cj
u
H
ro CO ON
a.
CD
CO
r^
lA
u
13
+
NO
cn
4J
ID
cn
Cu
-u
in
in
O
0) CJ
,j
ra
lA r rA
u O
E CJ "^
cr>
Q.
C
CJ
CP
-"s^
o H
J-l
co
-
rr*
'
"O -O
0)
U c ra
<>tvl
a u
no
CXI
1
cn
=>
a)
a c
cn
CJ
? z J* ^, ^ o ^ H lA V O
-*
cr>
CNI
>
o
CD
\ c
jj
c*-
c o
*>
O
H 4J
Oi
j*C"-J
E u
^^
D C
cn
CO
J_>
CO
O <>
ia
z (0 U
E
NO
1
CJ
J=
4J
>
H
-fcJ
p
1
m
c o
cn cn
H
Ji i^ vO
o o
r-4
,-Z,
CN1
O
CD
z o
+
3
^J
+
~_-
--
r-H
i^
o E
(0
tjl
CJ
c o
D^ > s
wno
II II
c_
Z*^
CD
II
lA
o fH
cn cn UJ
lA r~
o
0.
o <T
Z
CJ
H ^^ o >-^ c
i
CO
u
CD
ra
r^i
CO
J2
JJ
ra
-*-j
l/)->
c a
en
V o
3 C
cn>
UJ
C O
>-
o c
TD
ra
CD
c
CD
^^
IA -o
IT|
<r
Q.
CD
O c CD U
CD
Ct_
CD
^0 ON ^H
*~^
Cj CD Nl
CD
^-^
^ ON
r~ ON ~H
-o
CD
ON vC ON
tl
a
v c
ra
c
JJ
C
f
N D
*J
c
CD
o
E
u_
CD
4J
cn
ii
JZ
CJ
H
s:
n
ja
u
CO
CD u.
E
CD
<I
CP
CD
CD
cr
CD
CD
r ON ~H
c-
CD
<
* s
* 1
93
c
CD
-H
o
-i
CD
4-)
CO
cu
l_ C_
QJ
4J
r**
jo
re
O C o
*J
co
re ~-i co
(-.
u
CO cu
0)
r~
<-
(-.
-H
c_
cu re
r\ r~
3 2
I
E
cr
u o
c_>
a
ii
o
a
cu
cr
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO CU
D
jj
CO CO CD
-
CJ
CO
o c
cu co CD
i }
s:
c CU E
CO
u
H Jj
CJ
cu
a.
-TO
e o
C_>
EC
a
cu
a c
CO
Jj
J-
CD
Ii
CO
"O
c
CD
H
*->
o c H T3
CD
a
cr
CO CO
o>
"O ~l
CU
jj C_
rH U_
CD
CO
>. -u -H ^H "H JO
-l
X_C
CD CJ CU
>-l
3
cu
cn
re
NO
CJN
ELD ~H
u
in
u
CO
a
fH
> u. o
co in
D
c
CO CO
x>
re co
H 3
-o
o
4->
3
^H
CO
cu
"O -a
co
O
CO
>%
CO <-H c_)
-u fH
CO
i/i
CD
^
cn
a c
re
cn
0)
> CO u
D
C
CD
C
CD
cn
CO
JO
-u H
3
JO
CO
-1
>
lA
f
CU
u
lA
CM
I
CO
cr CM
/x
E
CJ
c
cu
T3
CSI
D
JO
CU
>
N C
-U
-
J-> i<-
\ c
O
J-"
4J C_
CM 4J U-
Z V CM z
E
o
J-J
jc
N^
O ^s
lA
.
m
-C
CO
CM, CSI
o o H u U 2 u
\ OJM
CI
*
^^
E
CJ
z
cn
H
1
D C
CO
~H
*
CO
CD
vO
^v
Dl . r vO JO
4-1
O
'-I
UN.
CM
CO
j]
T\
^H
z *KN
v
c o
CO CO
z
>
iH
o o JN
4J
..
3
4-1
c o
D ?
LJ
CM
tj
2 "V s_, a in h
ii
~H
UN.
CJ
H
Call
r~
n
ii
Z o <T CJ
II
+
'
1
-H
o
c
re CO
en
o lA
rN
II
K\
II
II
(U
c
CO CU
iA
vO OS
vO ON
o
c
cu
cu
N
*J
v.^
u
CJ
li-
u
Cu
^^
JD JO
ON SO OS ~H
fH
ON
>
'
4J
fH
c
cu
L<
N
--H CU
C c CO E
CU
u
re
Li-
H c^
o c cu E
~
^3-
cn
rON
CU
CJ
cr
CO
s:
CO
cu
* i
<'
<
94
CO
o
XI
CJ
u o 4-1 u
to
O' 4-J
c
co
CM
c o
E
-H
en en OJ (-
o
en 01
r4 4J
ra
4-1
c o
u
a
It.
X
CD
\ CT
JC
3
CO
CT
C
jz
00
E
oi
01
ii
a
o o
XI
-4
CD
>
ll
en
0)
JO
o o
o
4->
r
u
01
01
a
-Q
CD
01
c
o
CP
-4
4J
X
01
o
II
to
4-1
U c -4 u
4-1
01
H
CJ
c o
-4
CO
J3
CD
w
o
x
c
to
en
CD
J3
4_)
H D
01
CD
4->
JZ
CJ
CO
4-1
O
Ct_
u
cu
0)
0)
~4
01
-4
~4
JO
en
en
t~
o o c
CD
o
X)
*4
CO
cu
O
en
01
X
01 4-1
c
0)
en
u
CD
a
o
01 en CO
3
CD
3
JZ>
o
aj
CNI 4-)
H ^4
X>
01 0)
c o
4->
CD
4-1
-H
en 4->
c-
Cl
1a.
3
jn
CO
u
111
cr
CO
u
OUi 01
X
0)
CO CO
01
XI
> U
3
4-1 4-1
CO
>
O
_J
u
01 =
a
e o o
OJ
01
01
5E
en
01 -ij
en 01
4->
.
cr
<t
>
CO
E CJ
en
O
_l
0)
X
01
a.
4-1
x;
X
c
CO
c
CO
X c
CO
>^
CO
c
CD en
(0
CO
^4
in
3K
>^
CU
o
o
C
-4
C
o
CJ
O
cn
o c
to
en
c
to
XI
Xi
c
CO e/i
01
en
to C/l
t4
D
O-
4-1
>-
4-1 Ci_
-H
CJ1
to
en
t-J
en
r^
Ol
u
D
o ^J,
+
tn
en
D
r^
b
Q.
C
Oi
CM CO
r^i
1
XI
t-t
3 n u
o>
cr Oi
01
Ol
cr
en
D
+
7>
>
CJ CU
^ ^ o
ii
lA
Csj
-H 4J
o
4-1
o
-u
O
j-j
-H
r^ r^
-4
c
o
O o
1e?
a t i^
ceo
cr
C3
r^ ^H
CD
r--\
a)
c^
k\
01
loO
O O
wG
er
N
Ol
3VO
*
N
*H
-
o 3 o ~4
c CD E
in
O
fi -
(4 CD
01
0. XI
z:
O J* C
01
>
r\D
O ~4
U
01 01
XI
cc
C3N
ID
CD 01
N
D
E
O u
4-1
'
01
iJ"*
en
~H
JZ
CJ
Oi
CO
lA vC
CD
cr
CD
El
o
*
JZ
O
CD
to
CO *
O -4
vO
E O
JZ
i 1
H
i
95
CO
"0
H
4-1
c o
E
Q.
c
a)
u o u
SB
en
3
-X
c
CO 4-1
to CO CO
-I
It.
T3
CU (0
to to CD
4-1
CO to
J-J
10
4-1
*j
en OJ
4-1
o
o
to OJ
to
to
Cil
u
to
o
to
4->
CD OJ
CU
H
CO
01
4-1
4-1
-u
c
CD
CD
~H Q.
I
D
CO
u
o
CD
4->
O
CO
CO
O ~H
o
>.
to -1
14
4->
CD
CJ
to
OJ
X
CO
H
CD
4-1
S
OJ
4_>
>.
u
u c o
CO
4J
cu to
en
n
C
u o
C7>
CD
~H
CO
c
CO
D O H
(J
CD
cni
CJ
CD
H
4-1
CD CJ
co
CD
*H
a.
u
a.
H 4J
o
CJ
o
CO c-
en
o
4-1
JZ
4-1
H
^H 1
H
i
c
<-.
c o
c o
T3
0) CO co
a.
CO
o ~H
II
c
CO 14 co
u
J*
CD CD [4 CJ3
CO
Q
c
CO
"D
0) CO
T)
a>
CO
E
OJ
m
CD
0) CJ
D
0) CO
CO
Al
CQ
_l
u
CD
cc
r o
CO
CD
o
CO
>
CD n. _l
>* JZ
4-J
en ^H
Z>
H ^H
CO
4J
t
CD
to
^H
t-i
c
CO CO
4-1
CD 4-1 CO CO CD
Ol
>
CO
-.
JZ
4-1
~H H
CO
D
CD
4-1
-4
CU
3
CO
o o
c c
CO
CO
a.
O
rt
3 3
J3
T3
0)
CT
>N
-o
CO 1-
~H
JZ
CO
4-)
CO
3
4-
*J .H
-rH
D c
CO
CO CO
o
CD
4-1
>.
*j
0)
0)
0)
CD CO
CO
CO
co
CO
C
C
X)
>.
.
>.
(CD
4-1
CO
D
c
CO to
to
CO
~H M
"
c
CO
CD
0)
>N
D
C
CO
o
CO
><
4-1
CD
>4-> *-<
JD
CO
-*-
to
co
T3
>.
co
CO
in
CJ
in
in
LO
~H H in
u 3
4-1
c
CO CO
CO
T3
H
CO
CD
c
CO
-o
c
CO
"D
c
co
T>
c
CD
CJ
CO
CJ
2 2
CJ
in
to
LD
in
CO
CD
iA tN
-U
H
o
J->
O n
o
-4->
lA ^^
^H
II
CD ^H
II
lA
CN|
II
o
4-)
\
jD
E
n.
UCNJ
CJ
II
E
kg/c
CT
CNl
II
-H
CJ
^ ^ o eA
rA
~H Q.
CO
c
CD 0>
S &
CM
C3
e
CO
i
kg
30
CT
D
>
*4
in
Qcc
U
+
^H
*
r-"..
JZ
(0
o
CT cr
lA| CNIA|
II
ii
JJ
CO
o
*H
4->
-*
CD
CO CD
cr
in Ul
in
Ul
\ Oi
CJ
A CJ'N O cr v
CJ
Ul
Ui
O
CJ
CNI
CJ
u
cr vO fA
II
OCT
oin
-
cr cr LA la
CNI
II
cr
CIA
rA
II
cr ON
CJ
^H
II
**
II
f-i
f1
ll
/\
CNI
in in UJ L-J
in Ul
tn in in u Ul Ul Ul UJ
rI OS
-H
o
c c CO E
01
a c CD U
01
ON ) ON 4 JD
o
CN
c c CO E
4->
CJ
tf rOn -h
^
O
C
CD
>
4-1
U0)
t4 CD
u
CD
u
CD CD
cr
E
CO OJ
jZ
Oi
-O cr
E
JZ
CJ
CD
in
cc
in
CD
96
CU CJ
U
CD
a
c
CD
CJ
CD
u
a.
CJ
co
E
QJ
O
in
D
c
CO
E
en 0)
D
H D
CU
o.
o c
CD CO en
en
o
cu
TJ
Cu
>>
CD ~-t
C C
CJ
c
CD
c
CD
in
cj
in
01
CD
Z -X
Z J* V a S o VO V
lT> CNI
o o
CNt
!>
c o
u"n|
II
cs*^| r^3
II
a
Ul
CJ
CJ
cr
cu
cr
IS)
CO
CJv
CP CJ
>
O c
Cu
c
Cu
E
cu
97
(1)
the use
These
When equation
to CE
When Equa-
98
1960).
However,
in
soil.
of
the rock.
flatjacks);
ter tests.
calculated by using the theory of elasticity. Performing jacking tests for a small scale job is not practical (Wallace,
et al.,
1970).
99
site investigation;
(Dixon,
1970).
The modulus of this curve is a subgrade reacA conservative value of the modulus is
tion modulus.
obtained by taking the slope of the curve from the origin to the point of total deformation and maximum load.
For exam-
y = p b
I
E
2 U
)
(4-30)
100
ioooin
o.
UJ
O <
o o
cr
750
500"
IxJ
cr
05 CO Ld cr Q.
250-
t 0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
DEFLECTION
(in)
Figure
24 Load
1970).
101
where b Is the diameter or side of the loading plate and p is the pressure applied to the plate. For a lxl
(1 -
2 u
(4-31)
)
If
is not
available, it
modulus, E
E
-.
is
Typi-
It has been
=;
t50
SUMMARY
102
Rock
Modulus of,Elasticity
x 10 PSi
Poisson's Ratio
.15-. 24
.11
Granite
Gneiss
2.77-8.3
2.7-8.3 5.7-8.3
.6-2.8
Quartzite
Schist
.08-. 20
.17
Sandstone
Shale
.69-11.1
1.4-4.9
Mudstone
Coal
2.8-6.9
1.4-2.8
1.4-11
.16-. 23
Limestone
103
"
"
"
Buried
Dam, Limestone
a
1.0
Glen
o m
\
a:
y=0.023IX-l.32
0.8
-
UJ
<
or CO
0.6
3
=)
_)
0.4
0.2
20
40
60
80
100
Figure
25
Comparison of
and Merritt,
I
104
Table 5 Correlation between def ormability and RQD (Coon and Merritt, 1970).
Classification
RQD
Def ormability =
t50
Very Poor
Poor
0-25
>0.2
>0.2
25-50 50-75
75-90
Fair
Good
0.2-0.5
0.5-0.8
Excellent
90-100
0.8-1.0
105
Finally,
recommendations for
o
and K
as well
106
CHAPTER V.
are analyzed.
bilization scheme.
A typical application
is
given for
Chapters
and 4, respectively.
Finally, a structural
design example is given to illustrate how various factors can be modified to arrive at an optimum pile
design.
material.
<J>,
is
10
107
'o
II
U.
u.
co
UJ
Q.
o o
IT)
0.
o 0.
lO
II
o Q \ CJ a
o Q.
1-
O Q.
CO
Ll.
ll_
O
X
ii
O
X
II
m
*:
t_
*:
< _i o
>-
Ld _J
<
E
eu
CO
O
CL
Vd
Q.
E
cd
X
LlI
c o
to
=3
cr.
O
a>
o
CO CD CM
o.
O
I
x
!
=! Q.
Ji
M
O
uj
LJ jj
si-
ll
108
degrees,
the cohesion,
Y>
c,
is 500 psf,
weight,
is
125 pcf.
by a dashed line,
tor of 1.08.
A factor of safety
1)
A parameter,
a,
must be chosen.
As
indi-
total mobilization of F
P
,
in which case a
force F
= F
p
/a is
is
equal to the
total force, F
P
109
2)
3)
in Appendix C,
piles,
measured from
4)
selected.
5)
110
SLOPE = 30
<f>-
10
C=500 PSF
y= 25 PCF
I
H=45 FT
CO
u.
D,/b
Figure
27
/b,
Ill
of
6)
is
arbitrarily chosen.
the
ft in diameter with a
5
center-to-center distance of
ratio of 2.5).
ft
For a
lb-ft
2
.
7)
The pile is
In this example,
the
112
bedrock.
clay is assumed to be 5 x 10
pcf
Table 2).
pcf
(Equation 4-
The displacement, bending moment, and shear profiles corresponding to the selected parameters are
Chapter
head;
(BC = 1,2,3,4):
(1)
free head;
(2) unrotated
Figure 29
and (1).
piles due
The
113
O
tn
o
00
c
o
O
-o
c o
o
CD
m
U.
c z> o
c o
m
o
a.
O <
cn
Ld
<
0>
O
C\J
E <v o
o.
to
O o
CD
t\J
o o
O o
CM
I
o
I
O
rO
I
O
^I
CJ)
z-
114
O
03
O
CO
o
o
o
<fr
4-
-o
o
>>
I_ rt
/~\
c o
o
CM
o
o o o
-o
CD
o
\-f
c r> o
CD
4-
<-
o
L_
1
o
OJ
o
1
.a
\^*
QJ
o
<*
o
1
o
co
2 H 2 S O 2
E
+-
o
1
1
o Q 2
-z.
C o
+-
OJ
<
c
0)
LlI
o
CD
CO
o
1
2
ex.
E o
C
o o o
OJ
o
CO
CO OJ
(U) z-
115
o o
IT)
CO
cr
o o
<*
+-
o c
O
c
>>
o o
CO
"O
ro
m
m o
~\
c r> o
c 3 o
O O
CJ
\*t
1
U.
\^
cu
>
cl
o o
O cr o b_
< UJ i
CO
cr
LJ
cu
sz
+-
*~
c o
o:
<
cu CJ
o o o
o
Li.
cd cu
CO
o o
o
ro
o q
i
OJ) z-
116
unrotated head condition can be obtained by simply connecting the pile heads with a beam.
The constraint
used for the pile analysis should approximate the conditions in the field as closely as possible.
example,
the fixed head condition is assumed.
In this
8)
performed.
First,
Shan-
tolerable deflection.
117
In this example,
10
When the
is
considered
(usually
by
'c'
where
'
is
(McCormac, 1978).
In this example,
V
c
lbs) = 1.2 x
ft in diame-
In this case,
the center-to-center
lb-ft
2
.
designed with
12
No.
10 bars
to resist a factored
118
O
<
Li-
UJ
UJ
O <
Urr
UJ
o <
li-
CC ZD CO
3
_J
ce ZD
CO
CO
o ce o
=>
< O K cc o
o o cr Q
UJ co
*:
-o
CO
X
o
00
*
0>
-o
/~\
<D
o o
CO
CM
1
X
CD
o
X
\***
xz
+->
^\
*-
o
>-
en
o
c
CO
<
+-
o
<*
\-
o o
CM
z UJ 2 UJ o <
_J 0. co
e
o> CJ cd
CL
CO
O
CM
o
I
(U) z-
r
119
o
<d
o
w
.J
Q.
<r>
X
w
CD
o o
<-
O
l
C o c
o>
C71
-O
\-^
o
CJ
2
h"Z.
o
1
o
2
Ul :>
o
fO
O
<
U. T
LJ
o
<
UJ
o ^ n z
UJ
CD
m
ro
_ r>
3
CO
_l
3
CO
*:
u. ce
o
sr
o
i
o
H
<
o
o
UJ CO
iZ
CC
o in
o
i
o
o
CO
o
I
o
CM
I
o
to
I
o o
1
OJ) Z-
120
- 1.87 x 10
(Figure 33).
provided.
9)
The
the slope, S.
2
diameter from
Hence, for
200 piles of 2 ft in
Changing the
distance between the pile row and the toe of the slope
has also an effect on the number of piles.
To illus-
2 ft
in diameter or 100
However, plac-
A slide of such magnitude, but with different slope configuration and material, occurred during construction of 1-471 in Ohio.
L2L
o
CM
O <
Ll.
LJ
u o < L.
<r
cc z>
3
CO
O O
CO
< o
h-
_J
cc
^ o o cr Q ui m
O
CO
o I
o>
o
CD
in
C o
CO (J c_
en
o
C\J
o or o
ti-
O
Li-
ra CD
o o
<
Ld
er
CO fO to
l.
CO
o
CNJ
cr
d
i
o O
I
(U) z-
122
face and the loads that act on the pile, and conse-
Hence, this
10)
the length of
To
ft diameter pile,
the bending
There-
10 ft)
rock.
123
Otherwise,
SUMMARY
It
FS).
2) The
the
selected.
3) A graph of
Appendix C.
fied.
the required
124
D.
is determined by the
7)
8) The
Then,
9)
If
the distance S)
determined.
125
CHAPTER VI.
This study is part of a project undertaken at Purdue University to develop a methodology for the design
Dif-
the calculation of
(2)
the
design (dimensioning) to meet minimum safety requirements for both the slope and the piles. steps have been taken:
The following
This pro-
126
-A
It
sections.
closed-form solution.
127
center-to-
-After installation of the piles, the potential failure surface is expected to become
shallower.
128
/D i
As this ratio
-The factor of safety of the slope decreases as the ratio of the center-to-
Generally,
shallower ones.
129
piles.
130
REFERENCES
Andrews, G.H. and Klassell, J. A. (1964), "Cylinder Pile Retaining Wall,", Highway Research Record No. 56,
pp. 83, 97.
Baguelin, F., Frank, R., and Guegaz, Y. (1976), "Calcul Sur Ordinateur des Pieux Sollicites Horizontalement ou Subissant des Poussees Parasites" - Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, No. 84, Juillet-Aout, p. 113-120.
Baker, R.F.and Marshall, H.C. (1958), "Control and Correction in Landslides and Engineering Practice", Ed. by E.B. Eckel, Highway Research Board Special Report 29, pp. 150-158.
Baker, R. F. and Yonder, E. J. (1958), "Stability Analysis and Density Control Works in Landslides and Engineering Practice", E.B. Eckel, Ed., Highway Research Board Special Report 29, pp. 189-216.
Begemann-Deleeuw, E. H. (1972), "Horizontal Earth Pressure on Foundation Piles as a Result of Nearby Soil Fills", Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. I, pp. 309, Madrid.
Biot, M. A. (1937) "Bending of an Infinite Beam on an Elastic Foundation", Journal of Applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 59, p.
42.
Bishop, J. A. and Mason, A. G. (1954), "Piles Subjected to Lateral Thrust, Part I", Supplement to Symposium on Lateral Load Tests on Piles., American Society of Testing and Materials, SPT No. 154-A.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961), "The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles Against Transversal Forces", Copenhagen The Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 12.
131
Broms, B. B. (1964), "Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 90, SM2, pp. 27-63.
Broms, B.B. and Bennermark, H. (1967), "Shear Strength of Soft Clay," Discussion, Proceedings, Geotechnical Conference, Oslo, Vol.2, pp. 118-120.
"Stability of Natural Slopes and Embankment Foundations," Discussion, Proceedings, 7th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, Vol 3, pp. 385-394.
Broms, B.B.
(1969),
Broms, B. B. (1974) "Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, SM2, March, pp. 27-63.
Canizo, L. and Merino, M. (1977) "Elastic Solutions to the Bending of Piles due to Nearby Surcharges", Paper presented at Specialty Session No. 10, 9th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
Chen, W. W. (1978) Discussion: "Laterally Loaded Piles: Program Documentation", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, GT1, January, pp. 161-162.
Coon, R. F. and Merritt, A. H. (1970) "Predicting In Situ Modulus of Deformation Using Rock Quality Indexes", Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, American Society of Testing and Materials, STP 477, pp. 154-173.
Coyle, H. M. , Bierschwale, M. W (1983) "Design of Rigid Shafts in Clay for Lateral Load", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 109, No. 9, September, pp. 11471164.
Crandall, S. H. (1956) "Engineering Analysis", McGrawHill Book Company, Inc., New York.
D'Appolonia, E., Alperstein, R. and D'Appolonia, D.J. (1977), "Behavior of a Colluvial Slope", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, SM 4, pp. 447-473.
132
Dash U. and Jovino, P.L. (1980), "Root Piles at Monnesen Pen", Transportation Research Record 749.
Davisson, M. T. (1970), "Lateral Load Capacity of Piles", Highway Research Record, No. 333, pp. 104-112.
Davisson, M. T. and Gill, H. L., (1963), "Laterally Loaded Piles in a Layered Soil System", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 89, SM3, pp. 63-94.
Davisson, M. T. and Prakash, S. (1963) "A Review of Soil-Pile Behavior", Highway Research Record, No. 39:25-48.
DeBeer, E. E. (1977), "The Effects of Horizontal Loads on Piles, Due to Surcharge of Seismic Effects", Proceedings, Special Session 10, 9th International Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
DeBeer, E. E. and Wallays, M. (1970), "Stabilization of a slope in Schist by Means of Bored Piles Reinforced
with Steel Beams", Proceedings 2nd International Congress Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol. 3, pp. 361-369.
DeBeer, E. E. and Wallays, M., (1972), "Forces Induced in Piles by Unsymmetrical Surcharges on the Soil Around the Piles", Proceedings, 5th European Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Madrid Vol. 1, pp. 325-332.
Desai, C. S. and Christian, J. T. (1977) "Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering", McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Dixon, S. J. (1970) "Pressuremeter Testing of Soft Bedrock", Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, American Society of Testing and Materials, STP 477, pp. 126-136.
Francis, A. J. (1964) "Analysis of Pile Groups with Flexural Resistance", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, SM3, May, pp. 1-32.
Fukuoka, M. (1977), "The Effect of Horizontal Loads on Piles Due to Landslides", Proceedings, Special Session 10, 9th International Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
133
Goughour and DiMaggio, (1978), "Soil Reinforcement Methods on Highway Projects", Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, American Society of Civil Engineers Annual Convention, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, April, pp. 371399.
Hetenyi, M. (1946) "Beams on Elastic Foundation", University of Michigan, Press. Hovland, H.J. and Willoughby, D.F. (1982), "The Analysis of Wall Supports to Stabilize Slopes", Application of Walls to Landslide Control Problems, Ed. by R.B. Reeves, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29, pp.
19-29.
Hutchinson, J.H. (1977), "Assessment of the Effectiveness of Corrective Measures in Relation to Geological Conditions and Types of Slope Movement", Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, No. 16, pp. 131-155.
Ito, T. and Matsui, T. (1975) "Methods to Estimate Lateral Force Acting on Stabilizing Piles", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15, No. 4, December, pp. 43-59.
Methods to (1978), "Discussion: Estimate Lateral Force Acting on Stabilizing Piles", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 18, No. 2, June, pp. 41-44.
Ito, T. and Matsui, T. Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1979), "Design Method for the Stability Analysis of the Slope with Landing Pier", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 19, No. 4, December, pp. 43-57. Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W.P. (1981), "Design Method for Stabilizing Piles Against Landslide One Row of Piles", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 21, No. 1, March, pp. 21-37.
Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1982), "Extended Design Method for Multi-row Stabilizing Piles against Landslide", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22, No. 1, March, pp. 1-13
Jamiolkowski, M. and Garassino, A. (1977), "Soil Modulus of Laterally Loaded Piles", Proceedings, Special Session 10, 9th International Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
134
Jamiolkowski, M. and Garassino, A. (1977), "The Effect of Horizontal Loads on Piles, due to Surcharge or Seismic Effects", Proceedings of the Specialty Session 10, July 14, 9th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, pp. 43-58.
Kishida, H. and Nadai, S. (1977), "Large Deflection of a Single Pile under Horizontal Load", Proceedings, Special Session 10, 9th International Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
Matlock, H. and Ripperberger, E. A. (1954) "Measurement of Soil Pressure on a Laterally Loaded Pile", Procedure, American Society of Testing and Materials, Vol. 58, pp. 1245-1259.
Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C, (1960), "Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 86, SM5, pp. 63-91.
Matsui, T., Hong, W. P. and Ito, T. (1982), "Earth Pressures on Piles in a Row due to Lateral Soil Movements", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22, No. 2, June, pp. 71-81.
Merriam, R. (1960), "Portuguese Bend Landslide, Palos Verdes Hills, California", Journal of Geology, Vol. 68, pp. 140-153. Mindlin, R. D. (1936) "Force at a Point in the Interior at a Semi-Infinite Solid", Physics, Vol. 7, May.
Morgenstern, N.R. (1982), "The Analysis ports to Stabilize Slopes", Application Landslide Control Problems, Ed. by R.B. can Society of Civil Engineers National Vegas, Nevada.
Nethero, M.F. (1982), "Slide Control by Drilled Pier Walls", Application of Walls to Landslide Control Problems, Ed. by R.B. Reeves, American Society of Civil Engineers National Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Nicoletti, J. P. and Keith, J.M. (1969), "External Shell Stops Soil Movement and Saves Tunnel", Civil Engineering, April, pg. 72.
135
Oakland, M. W. and Chameau, J. L. (1982). "Finite Element Analysis of Drilled Piers Used for Slope Stabilization", American Society of Testing and Materials Symposium on Laterally Loaded Piles and Pile Groups, Kansas City, June.
Offenberger, J.H. (1981), "Hillside Stabilization with Concrete Cylinder Pile Retaining Wall", Public Works, September, pp. 82-86.
Oteo, C. S. (1977), "Horizontally Loaded Piles, Deformation Influence", Proceedings Special Session 10, 9th International Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
Palmer, L. A. and Thomson, S. B. (1948) "The Earth Pressure and Deflection Along the Embedded Lengths of Piles Subjected to Lateral Thrust", Proceedings, 2nd International Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 5, pp. 156-161.
Perloff, W. H. and Baron, W. (1976), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
"Soil Mechanics",
Poulos, H. G. (1977) "Stresses and Displacements in an Elastic Layer Underlain by a Rough Rigid Base", Geotechnique, Vol. 17, No. 4, December, pp. 378-410.
Poulos, H. G. (1971), "Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles: I - Single Piles", Proceedings Paper 8092, May, pp. 711-731. Poulos, H. G. (1973), "Analysis of Piles in Soils Undergoing Lateral Movement", Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, SM5, pp. 391-406. Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980) "Pile Foundation Analysis and Design", John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Reese, L. C. and Cox, W. R. (1969) "Soil Behavior from Analysis of Tests on Uninstrumented Piles Under Lateral Loading", American Society of Testing and Materials, STP 444, pp. 160-176.
Reese, L. C. (1972) Program Documentation: Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles by Computer, Univ. Texas Dept. Civil Engineering, Austin, July. Rocha, M. (1970) "New Techniques in Def ormability Testing of In Situ Rock Masses", Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, American Society of Testing and Materials, STP 477, pp. 39-57.
136
(1958), "Prevention of Landslides, in Landslides and Engineering Practice", Ed. by E.B. Eckel, Highway Research Board, Special Report No. 29, pp. 113-149.
Root, A.W.
Rowe, R. K.
Booker, J. R. and Balaam, N. P. (1978), "Application of the Initial Stress Method to Soil Structure Interaction", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5.
,
"A Method for Rowe, R. K. and Poulos, H. G. (1979). Predicting the Effect of Piles on Slope Behavior", Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 3, Aachen, April.
SieGel, R. A. (1975), "Computer Analysis of general Slope Stability Problems", MSCE Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Taylor, D. W. (1937), "Stability of Earth Slopes", Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Volume XXIV, Number 3, July, pp. 337-386.
Terzaghi, K. (1955) "Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction", Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. A, pp. 297-326.
Toms, A.H. and Bartlett, D.L. (1962), "Application of Soil Mechanics in the Design of Stabilizing Works for Embankments, Cuttings and Track Formations", Proceedings, Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol 21, pp. 705732.
Vesic, A. B. (1961) "Bending of Beams Resting on Isotropic Elastic Solids", Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 87, No. EM2, Proceedings Paper 2800, April, p. 35-53.
Vesic, A. S. (1965), "Ultimate Loads and Settlements of Deep Foundations in Sand", Proceedings, Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke.
Viggiani, C. (1981), "Ultimate Lateral Load on Piles Used to Stabilize Landslides", Proceedings, 10th Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp. 555-560.
Wallace, G. B., Slebir, E. J. and Anderson, F. A. (1970) "In Situ Methods for Determining Deformation Modulus Used by the Bureau of Reclamation", Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, American Society of Civil Engineers, STP 477, pp. 3-26.
137
Wans, M. G., Wu, A. H., and Scheessele, D. J., (1979), "Stress and Deformation in Single Piles Due to Lateral Movement of Surrounding Soils", Behavior of Deep Foundations, American Society of Testing and Materials, STP 670.
Welch (1972), "Lateral load behavior of Drilled Shafts", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Winter, H., Schwarz, W. , Gudehus, G. (1983), "Stabilization of Clay Slopes by Piles", Proceedings, 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Helsinki, May, p. 545. Yoshida, I. and Yoshinaka, R. (1972) "A Method to Estimate Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction for a Pile", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 12, No. 3, September, pp. 1-17.
Zaruba, Q. and Mencl, V. (1969), "Landslide and their Control", Elsevier, Amsterdam.
138
APPENDIX A
reinforced slope.
W
r
moment arm of C
OG = moment arm of F
P
H
i
139
to the chord
2y = angle AOB
=c r
AB = =^- AB =
r
^
r
R'sin(y)
(A-l)
where
c c
The length 00
'
and can be
expressed as:
00' = R sin
(<())
csc(u-v)
(A-2)
W = fR y-7R
(A-3)
R =
csc(x) csc(y)
(A-4)
140
rotation, 0, is:
3
Wd = -j|-{l-2cot (i)+3cot(i)cot(x)-3cot(i)cot(y)
(A-5)
+ 3cot(x)cot(y)}
Wd "
U~
(A" 6)
Using the equations derived above and two equations of equilibrium (derived by summing moments around
point
c F
tfl
12
cot(x) cot(v) + 2
(A-7)
sin(u-v) -
ttt
(<|>)
(A-8)
with
H
2
cot(u)
(y) - tan(x)
(A-9)
and,
141
rl
-z
12
2d
y{l-2cot (i)}+cot(i){cot(x)-cot(y)}+cot(x)cot(y)
(A-10)
When a force F
P
is
F
P
cos
(CEO) + C
cos(x) - Psin(v)
(A-ll)
gives:
P{Rsin(<J>)}
+ C
r
(00') + F
(OG) - w
(A-12)
(A-ll):
F cos (CEO) + C = -2 a t \
cos(x)
<
sin(v)
A_13 >
cos(CE0)+C
sinv.v)
; ,
>
{-2
cos(x)
}Rsin(<{.)+C {Rsin(4.)csc(u-v)} r
+F (OG)-^- E P
Li.
(A-14)
142
12 F
^ ^)
{
csc(x)csc(y)sin( tf+OG}
(-csc(u-v)cos(x-u)}
(A-15)
If
the slope:
- 2n
sin(<|>)
where
1937):
n =
{E+6n -6nsin($)csc(x)csc(y)}
a
12F
-2-
= 6csc (x)csc(y)sin(
yer
)l sl / y \ 'csc(u-v)cos(x-u)
(A-18)
143
where
cob(CEO) H C8c(x)c8c(y)8ln ( A .
sin(v)
2
fl
+ OG
(A-19)
is
assumed mobilized, F
P
(A-18).
144
APPENDIX B
145
//AV- &*&.
Figure
34
Toe Failure.
l'6
Figure
35
147
AC
cos(i)
p-
(B-D
(B-2)
S'
= R cos
(OAB + x)
(B-3)
(B-4)
OCA = cos
-1
0C
- R - AC _ 2AC(0C)
2
,
( S (B 5)
and
(B-6)
CE
2
)
(B _ ?)
the
OCE =
Ti
i -
OCA
(B-8)
148
The
AA' = n H
(B-9)
<J>)
where
n =
{cot(x)-cot(y)-cot(i)+sin(
csc(x) csc(y)}
(B-10)
AC = D/cos(i)
(B-ll)
OAA' = OAB + x
(B-12)
0A A
'
-2
cos
i
^^mhoPT
i
- OA' 2 - AA'
2
}
(B ~ 13)
OA'C = n - OA'A -
(B-14)
0A
/2
2
,
,_
(B-15)
...
and
OCE = OCA' + (y - i)
(B-16)
CE is
the
149
The force F
P
is
Hence, the
(B-17)
150
APPENDIX C
Slope Stability Program
After reading the input data, the slope stability program performs the following steps.
1)
ij>
2)
Computes the stability number for every possible surface through the slope
If piles are used, the following additional steps are necessary for the calculation of a
stability number
a)
b)
c)
d)
The distance, measured along the length of the pile from the face of the slope to the surface under investigation, is computed The reaction, from the piles on the slope, is calculated The moment arm from the center of the phicircle is found The stability number for the surface is calculated
3)
Finds the critical stability number after all possible surfaces have been investigated
Uses the critical stability number to calculate
a factor of safety with respect to cohesion
4)
5)
Checks for convergence If the difference between the factor of safety with respect to cohesion and the one with respect to friction is larger than the tolerance the program repeats steps 1 to 4. If the difference is less than the tolerance, it exits the itteration
Prints out the input and output
6)
151
The following data is required for the design program. All input is free formated.
DATA CARDS
CARD
1
slope h
s
slope angle in degrees height of slope horizontal distance from the toe of the slope to the piles
indicates the presence of piles indicates the type of analysis needed. For pilein=0 and nosur=0, the unreinforce slope For pilein=l and is analyzed. nosur=0, the reinforced slope is analyzed and the new critical surface is found. For pilein=0 and nosur=l, the reinforced slope is analyzed assuming that the piles did not alter the original critical surface
CARD
pilein nosur
CARD
phiav
c
gamma
friction angle for the soil, in degrees cohesion intercept of the soil unit weight of the soil
initial factor of safety with respect to friction; usually taken as 1.0 the difference between the safety factor with respect to friction and the one with respect to cohesion, used when checking for convergence. A difference of 0.001 is sufficient
the pile diameter, b. the center to center distance between the piles
CARD 4
fphi
sfdif
CARD 5
dO dl
CARD 6
fpar
degree cf mobilization of Fp. For will fpar=l, the total force, Fp, be will force the Fp=0 For be used. safety of factor the divided by
152
c
c
DATA
INPUT
c c c c c c c c c c c c
c c
slope h
s
= slope angle in degrees = slope height - the horizontal distance from the toe of
pilein nosur
the slope to the piles = The two quantities are used together to indicate the presence of the pile and the type of analysis needed. When no piles are
phiav
c
c
c c
gamma fphi
sdif
c c c c c c c
c
dO
dl
c
c
fpar
= = =
present, both pilein"0, and nosur=0 When piles are present and they change the critical surface, pileinl, and nosur = When piles are present but are not expected to change the critical surface, pilein=0, and nosur=l friction angle of the soil in degrees cohesion of the soil unit weight of the soil initial factor of safety with respect to friction difference between the safety factor with respect to friction and the one with respect to cohesion that will be used to check convergence. A difference of 0.001 will be sufficient pile diameter center to center distance between the piles if Fp is partially mobilized. Otherwise,
c c c c c
dfac
it is equal to 1 = a parameter in subroutine phycir. The max depth of the failure surface measured from the top of the slope is limited to dfac*h
;
1
c c c
1
1
MAIN PROGRAM parameter (pi=3 . 14 159 common /all/ slope, h,cosslp,cgch,oc, phi, xmax,ymax, nmax,dmax,tanslp, snmax, m, cots lp , sinphi , pilein, gamma , s , cosx, t anx d,n,x,y,c8cx,cscy,ge,fp,ce,ceo,og,r,oach,direc common /pres/ d0,dl,d2,tanphi,c,p(2), phiav
common /phi/ cemax,fpmax,rmax,f common /pc/ ii,jj,kk, 11, nosur, fpar
c c
real nmax
153
integer
c
pilein.fpar
read (5,*), slope, h, read (5,*),pilein,nosur read (5,*),phiav,c,gamma read (5,*),d0,dl read (5,*),fpar
c
d2=dl-d0
c
defining the different failure surfaces, c x goes from 15 to m degrees and y goes c from 25 to 50 degrees
c In c
m^nintCslope)-! ii=25
jj=50
sinphi=sin(phi)
c c
c c
c:
stop endif
c
c:
f c=c / ( s nmax*gamma *h
: :
154
c c
then
endif
c c c
05
c
c one well defined surface that does not change with the c presense of the piles c if (nosur.eq.l.and.pilein.eq.O) then c
pilein=l
c
ii-ymax*180/pi
jj=ymax*180/pi kk=xmax*180/pi
ll=xmax*180/pi
c
fphi=l. fc-1.
c c intialize a friction angle c 101 phi=atan(tan(phiav)/fphi)
sinphi=sin(phi)
c c find the critical stability number c
call phicir
c: c
: : :
(snmax.le.0.0) then print*, 'You are overdesigning the slope' stop endif
if
c
c:
: : :
f cc / ( s nma x*gamma *h
c c
155
if
endif
c
06
c
440
1 1
1
1 1 1
write (6,440) slope, h,phiav,c, gamma format ('SLOPE CONFIGURATION'// 5x, 'Slope Angle - ',f5.1/ 5x, 'Slope Height - ',f5.1// 'SOIL PARAMETERS'// 5x, 'Friction Angle - ',f5.1/ 5x, 'Cohesion - ',f6.1/ 5x,'Unit Weight = ',f6.1//)
(pilein.eq.O.and.nosur.eq.0) go to 450 write (6,441) dO.dl.s format ('PILE DIMENSIONS'// 5x, 'Pile Diameter - ',f4.1/ ',f5.1/ 5x, 'Center-to-Center Distance = ',f5.1//) 5x, 'Distance Upslope
if
441
1
1
1
442
1
443
1 1
(pilein.eq.l.and.nosur.eq.O) then write (6,442) format ('GEOMETRY OF THE CRITICAL SURFACE'// 5x, "The critical surface of the slope changes'/ 5x,'with the insertion of the piles'//) else if (pilein.eq.O.and.nosur.eq.l) then write (6,443) format ('GEOMETRY OF THE CRITICAL SURFACE'// 5x,'The critical surface of the slope does not change'/ 5x,'by the presence of the piles'//) endif
if
156
444
1
format (5x,'The angles that define the circle are:'/ lOx, 'x- ',f5.1/ 10x,'y ',f5.1//)
445
446
1 1
(nmax.lt.O. ) then write (6,445) format (5x, 'Toe failure'//) else if (nmax.gt.O) then hnmax=nmax*h write (6,446) hnmax The critical surface'/ format (5x, 'Failure below the toe. surface ',f7.2, 'units left '/ 5x, 'intercepts the ground 5x,'of the toe'//) endif
if
if (fpar.eq.l) then write (6,447) 447 format ('UNIT REACTION FORCE ON THE SLOPE EXERTED BY THE PILES'// 1 5x, 'Fp is assumed to be totally mobilized'//) else if (fpar.ne.l) then write (6,448) 448 f ormat ( 'UNIT REACTION FORCE ON THE SLOPE EXERTED BY THE PILES'// 1 5x, 'Fp is assumed to be partially mobilized,'/ 1 5x, 'and is equal to Fp/FS'//) endif
'
c c
449
1 1 1
write (6,449) fpmax,cemax format (5x, 'The unit reaction force on the slope provided'/ 5x,'by the piles is ',f7.0// 5x, 'The distance from the ground to the critical surface,'/
5x,'CE, is
'f5.1//)
450
451
1 1
write (6,451) sfdif, fs format ('FACTOR OF SAFETY'// 5x, 'The tolerable difference between Fc and Fphi'/
5x, 'is ',f7.4// 5x, 'The safety factor of the slope is
',f5.2)
c
c 8 top
end
c
c
c-
subroutine phicir
c c c subroutine that computes the critical surface and c stability number c
157
1 1
c c
if
if if
c
snmax=0.0
do 20 numy=ii,jj do 10 numx=kk,ll
c
x=numx*pi/180. y=numy*pi/180. cosx=cos(x) tanx=tan(x) cotx=l . /tan(x) coty=l./tan(y) cscx=l . /sin(x) cscy=l ./sin(y) secx=l . /cos(x) cosx=cos(x) siny=sin(y
d=0.5*(cscx*cscy-cotx*coty+l n=0.5*(cotx-coty-cotslp+sinphi*cscx*cscy)
c c
if
c.
c c
c
(n.le.0.0) then
the
failure
if
surface
passes
through
the
toe
(y.gt.x.and.d.ge.dfac) go to 20
if
(phi.le.O.O)go to 06
158
06
c
if
(pilein.le.O) then
***
c c
***
without piles
if (phi. gt. 0.0) then cfwhn=h2dn cf whd=2 . *cotx/tan( v)+2 else if (phi. le. 0.0) then cfwhn=(l.-2*cotslp**2)/3.+cotx*coty+cotslp*(cotx-coty) cfwhd=2.*y*c8cx**2*cscy**2 endif
c
sn=cfwhn/cfwhd
else if (pilein.ne.O) then
c
c
c
***
with piles
***
c
1
sn=cfwhn/cfwhd endif
c
else
c c c
the
failure
if if
surface
passes
below
the
toe
c c
159
07
c c *** c
if
(pilein.eq.O) then
***
without piles
if (phi. gt. 0.0) then cfwhn=h2dn cfwhd=2.*cotx/tan(v)+2. else if (phi. le. 0.0) then cfwhn=(l.-2.*cotslp**2)/3.+cotx*coty+cotslp*(cotx-coty)+2*n**2 cfwhd=2.*y*cscx**2*cscy**2 endif sn=cfwhn/cfwhd else if (pilein.ne.O) then
c
c c
***
with piles
call momarm
***
if (oach.gt.r) go to 20 eq4=l.-(2.*cotslp**2)+(3.*cotslp*cotx)-(3.*cotslp*coty) +(3.*cotx*coty) if (phi. gt. 0.0) then . . *(2 . *n**2-2 . *n*sinphi*cscx*cscy ) )-12 *f p whn=(eq4+3 cf (f*gamma*h**3)*(cos(ceo)/sinv*h/2.*cscx*cscy*sinphi+og) cfwhd=6.*cscx**2*cscy**2*siny*sinphi*(cosx/sinv+cscuv)
c
c:
160
c c c
10
20
c
return end
c
c
subroutine momarm
c c c c
c force Fp
1
1
common /all/ slope, h,cosslp,cgch,oc, phi, xmax,ymax, nmax,dmax,tanslp, snmax.m, cots lp,sinphi,pilein, gamma, s.cosx.tanx, d,n,x,y,cscx,cscy,ge,fp,ce,ceo,og,r,oach,direc real n parameter (pi=3. 14159)
r=h/2.*cscx*cscy oab=pi/2.-y
if
c.
then
c
c,
161
ce=*r-oc
og=oc+cgch
go to 111
endif
the
failure
surface
passes
below
the
toe
aach=n*h achc=s/cosslp oaach=oab+x oach=sqrt (aach**2+r **2-2 . *r *aach*cos (oaach ) oacha=acos((r**2-oach**2-aach**2)/((-2.)*aach*oach)) oachc=pi-slope-oacha oc^sqrt (oach**2+achc**2-2 . *oach*achc*cos (oachc ) ocach=acos((oach**2-achc**2-oc**2)/((-2.)*achc*oc)) sch=oach*cos(pi-oacha)
c c
if (sch.gt.s) then pile on left of origin oce=3 ./2. *pi+s lope-ocach else if(sch.lt.s) then pile to the right of origin
c
c
call presur
return end
c
c
162
subroutine presur
c c c
1 1
parameter (pi=3. 14159) common /all/ s lope, h,cosslp,cgch,oc, phi, xmax,ymax, nmax,dmax,tanslp,
snmax.m, cotslp, sinphi, pilein, gamma,
s, cos x,
tanx,
d,n,x,y,cscx,cscy,ge,fp,ce,ceo,og,r,oach,direc
common /pres/ d0,dl,d2,tanphi,c,p(2) ,phiav real nphi,nphil,nphi2
c c
c c c
equation in the form p=a+bz gives the pressure on the pile as a function of depth z
z-0.0
do 10 1=1,2
(c.le.0.0) then
cohesionless
soil
c c c
1
c c c
1
10
c
c c
to find the force (ie.the area of the pressure diagram and its center of action)
163
c c
al"ce*p(l) a2=ce*(p(2)-p(l))/2. ylce/2. y2=2*ce/3. alyl=al*yl a 2y2=a2*y2 sum=alyl+a2y2 ftot=al+a2 y3=sum/f tot cgch=y3 fp=ftot/dl
return end
164
DATA
30.
1
45.
25.
125.
10.
1.
500. .001
3.
7.5
165
RESULTS
SLOPE CONFIGURATION
PILE DIMENSIONS
7.5
Toe failure
21424.
16.5
166
FACTOR OF SAFETY
The tolerable difference between Fc and Fphl is 0.0010 The safety factor of the slope is
1.33
167
APPENDIX D
Pile Analysis Program
After reading the input data, the pile analysis program performs the following steps.
1)
on the pile
2)
Constructs an array and solves the simultaneous equations produced by the finite difference method. The displacement of the pile below the critical surface is thus obtained Calculates the slope, bending moment and shear force on the pile section below the critical surface Calculates the displacement, slope bending moment, and shear force for the pile section above the failure surface, using a closed form solution
Prints out the input and output
3)
4)
5)
168
The following data Is required for the pile analysis program. All input is free formated.
DATA CARDS
CARD
1
phiav
c
gamma
friction angle for the soil, in degrees cohesion intercept for the soil unit weight of the soil
depth from the slope face to the critical surface depth of pile below the critical surface depth of pile from the critical surface to the bedrock depth of pile embedded in the bedrock. If bedrock is not present, the quantities EB and BD can be used to indicate the depth of two different layers of material below the critical surface. If the material below the critical surface is uniform, one of the two quantities can be set equal
to zero.
CARD
CE
EL
EB
BD
CARD
MT
CARD 4
dO
dl
EI
CARD 5
ksO
ksl
krO
krl
surface the coeff icient of the horizontal subgrade reaction at the end of layer EB the coeff icient of the horizontal subgrade reaction at the beginning of layer BD the coeff icient of the horizontal subgrade reaction at the end of the pile
index greater or equal to zero. Indicates the variation of ks with depth, for the layer EB. For example, if nl=0, ks is constant with depth. If nl*!, ks increases
CARD 6
nl
169
n2
linearly with depth. Indicates the same Index as nl. with depth for variation of ks layer BD
CARD
be
hr
kopt
boundary condition at the top of the pile, equals to 1, 2, 3, or 4 (see Chapter 4) Indicates the degree of hardness For hrl, the layer of layer BE. is composed of hard rock (stiffer than the pile itself). For hr=0, this layer is composed of soft rock or soil gives the user the option to input ks for every single point of the discretized pile below the critical For kopt=0, a total surface. number of MT additional data cards (following card 7) are required.
170
c c
C
DATA
INPUT
c
c c c c c c
phiav
c
gamma
CE
= friction angle of the soil in degrees = cohesion of the soil = unit weight of the soil
c
c c
EL EB
BD mt
= =
=
c
c c
c
depth from the slope face to the critical surface depth of the pile below the critical surface distance between the critical surface and the bedrock depth of the pile below the bedrock number of points the pile will be descretized
c c c c c
dO
dl
ksO
ksl
= coefficient
=
=
c c c c
c
krO
krl
nl
= =
c
c c
c
c c c c c
n2 ei be hr
= = = =
kopt
c
c
distance between the piles subgrade reaction at the critical surface coefficient of subgrade reaction at the end of layer EB coefficiet of subgrade reaction at the beginning of layer BD coefficient of subgrade reaction at the end of the pile index that indicates the variation of ks with depth. For nl=0, ks is constant, for nl-1 ks increases linearly (in layer EB) same as nl, for layer BD pile stiffneso boundary condition for the pile top (1, 2, 3, or 4) for hr=l, layer BE is assumed to be hard rock for hr=0, it is assumed to be soft rock or soil if kopt=0, a total number of mt additional data carda are required to input the values of the subgrade reaction along the pile
of
c c c c c
MAIN PROGRAM dimension a (85, 86) ,g(85,86) ,h(85,86) ,y(86) dimension zl(86),z2(86),sl(86),s2(86) dimension ml (86) ,m2(86) ,vl(86) ,v2(86) ,yl(86) dimension ki(86)
parameter (mtl=6,pi=3. 14159)
c c
c,
gamma, p(2)
integer be,
r,
hr
171
real
nl,n2,
ksO,ksl,ks,
krO.krl.kr, ml,m2,
ki
480
c c
read(5,*) phiav.c, gamma read(5,*) ce,el,eb,bd read(5,*) mt read(5,*) dO.dl.el read(5,*) ksO,ksl,krO,krl read(5,*) nl,n2 read(5,*) bc,hr,kopt if (kopt.le.O) then do 480 i=3,mt+3 read(5,*) ki(i) continue endif
460
1
1 1 1 1
write (6,460) phiav, c, gamma format ('SOIL PARAMETERS'// 5x, 'Above The Critical Surface'// lOx, 'Friction Angle = ',f4.1,' degrees'/ lOx, 'Cohesion = ' ,f 6.1/ lOx.'Unit Weight = ',f6.1// 5x, 'Below The Critical Surface'//)
if (kopt.ne.O) then write (6,461) ksO,ksl,krO,krl,kopt fornat (lOx, 'Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction'// 20x,'ks0 = ',e!0.3/ 20x, 'ksl = ',el0.3/ 20x,'kr0 = ',el0.3/ 20x,'krl = ',el0.3// 10x,'kopt = ',12//)
461
1
1
1 1
1
462
else if (kopt.eq.O) then write (6,462) format (lOx, 'Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction'//) do 463 i=3,mt+3 write (6,464) ki(i) format (20x,el0.3) continue write (6,465) kopt format (10x,/ 10x,'kopt = ',12/ /)
endif
c
c
466
1 1
write (6,466) nl,n2 format (lOx, 'Variation of the subgrade reaction coefficients // 20x,'nl = ',f3.1/ 20x,'n2 = ',f3.1//) write (6,467) ce,el,eb,bd,dO,dl,ei,mt format ('PILE DIMENSIONS'//
467
172
1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
',f4.1/ 5x, 'Length of pile above the critical surface 5x, 'Length below the critical surface = ',f4.1/ lOx, 'Distance between the critical surface and the'/ lOx, 'bedrock (or hard soil layer) = ',f4.1/ lOx, 'Length of pile embedded in the bedrock = ',f4.1// 5x, 'Pile Diameter = ',f4.1/ 5x, 'Center-to-Center Distance = ',f4.1/ 5x, 'Stiffness = 'el0.3// 5x, 'Number of points that the pile length below the'/ 5x, 'critical surface is discretized to ',i3//)
if if if if
c c
469
1
1
1 1
write (6,469) p(l),p(2) format (5x,/ 5x, 'Force Diagram'/ lOx, 'force on the pile head = 'f7.0/ lOx, 'force acting on the pile at the critical'/ 10 X 'surface = 'f7.0//)
,
470
1
' ,
'
c c c c c c
zero array
do 2 i=l,85
173
do 3 j-1,86
3 2
c
c
c c
(bc.eq.l.or.bc.eq.3) then
a(l,D=ce
a(l,2)=2.*q-2.*ce a(l,3)=-4.*q a(l,4)=2.*q+2.*ce
( 1
i;mt+6)=2*q**3*(f2/(6*ei)*ce**3-fl/(2*ei)*ce**2)
a(l^t+6)*4*q**3*(fl/(6*ei)*ce**3-f2/(24*ei)*ce**4)
endif
if
f(^t+6)=12*q**3*(f2/(120*ei)*ce**5-fl/(24*ei)*ce**4)
endif
c c
c
a(i,j)="4.
j=i
m=i-3 z=m*q
if
(kopt.ge.l) then
174
if
a(i, j)=6.+a3*b*ki(l)
c
endif
a(i,j)=-4.
j=i+2
30
c c c c
c
a(i,j)=l. continue
c
c
i=int+4
a(i,iat+2)^l.
a(i,mt+3)=-2. a(i,mt+4)=l.
c
elseif (hr.ge.l) then Hard rock, displacement and rotation equal zero at EL
c c
i=mt+5 a(i,mt+l)=l.
a(i,rat+2)=-4. a ( i, mt+3 )=a( mt+3, mt+3)
a(i,mt+4)=-4. a(i,mt+5)=l.
c
175
a(i,mt+3)=l. a(i,mt+4)=0.
a(i,rct+5)=0.
c
endif
do 70 i=l,mt+5 do 80 j=l,mt+6
c
80 70
c c c
c
c
22
12
222
c
suml=0. sum2=0. do 111 l=l,mt+5 do 222 k=l,mt+5 if (l.le.l) go to 12 do 22 r-1,1-1 suml=suml+g(k, l-r)*h(l-r, 1) continue g(k,l)=a(k,l)-suml suml=0. continue
1-1 do 333 j=i+l,at+6 m=i if (l.le.l) go to 13 do 32 r=l,i-l
32
13
333
111
898 989
c c c
c
continue continue
176
65 55
555
c
sum3=sum3+h(m,m+r )*y (m+r) continue y(m)=h(m,mt+6)-sum3 sum3=0 z(m-3)*q if (z.gt.el) go to 555 continue
c
c
calculating slope
z>0.
s,
moment
m,
and shear v
for
c
c c
do 666 m=3,mt+3
666
c
c ************************************************* ******** c Close form solution of the pile section above the
c
failure surface
c ********************************** ***********************
c
c
c c
y,
slope
s,
moment
m,
and
c c
ql=ce/mtl zl(i)=-(i-l)*ql
c
777
c
442 440
177
441
c
go to 442 continue
444 443
c
do 443 m=3,mt+3 write (6,444) z2(m) ,y(m) ,s2(m) ,m2(m),v2(m) format (2x,f 5. 1 ,5x,el0.3 ,5x,el0.3,5x,el0.3,5x,el0.3) continue
stop end
c c
c-
subroutine presur
c-
c c
c
c c c c
equation in the form p=a+bz gives the pressure on the pile as a function of depth z
d2=dl-d0 tanphi=tan(phiav)
c
c
z=0.0
do
10 1-1,2
178
10
c
return end
179
DATA
125. 500. 30. 10. 40. 16.5 30 7.5 2.e+09 3. 5.e+04 5 .e+04 4.e+08
10.
0.
3
1
4.e+08
0.
3
180
RESULTS
SOIL PARAMETERS
= = = =
n2 = 0.
PILE DIMENSIONS
Length of pile above the critical surface = 16.5 Length below the critical surface = 40.0 Distance between the critical surface and the bedrock (or hard soil layer) = 10.0 Length of pile embedded in the bedrock 30.0
Pile Diameter = 3.0 Center-to-Center Distance = Stiffness = 0.200e+10
7.5
Number of points that the pile length below the critical surface is discretized to = 30
Boundary Condition
Hinged
Head
Force Diagram 4845. force on the pile head = force acting on the pile at the critical surface = 14556.
181
DISPL(Y)
SLOPE(S)
MOMENT (M)
SHEAR(V)
16.5 13.8
11.0 -8.3
-5.5 -2.8
0.
1.3 2.7 4.0 5.3 6.7 8.0 9.3 10.7 12.0 13.3 14.7 16.0 17.3 18.7 20.0 21.3 22.7 24.0 25.3 26.7 28.0 29.3 30.7 32.0 33.3 34.7 36.0 37.3 38.7 40.0
0.439e-06 0.511e-02 0.944e-02 0.124e-01 0.137e-01 0.131e-01 0.110e-01 0.953e-02 0.794e-02 0.629e-02 0.467e-02 0.317e-02 0.186e-02 0.833e-03 0.172e-03 -0.439e-04 -0.564e-04 -0.261e-04 -0.566e-05 0.120e-05 0.171e-05 0.814e-06 0.186e-06 -0.319e-07 -0.518e-07 -0.254e-07 -0.607e-08 0.830e-09 0.156e-08 0.790e-09 0.198e-09 -0.207e-10 -0.471e-10 -0.246e-10 -0.657e-ll -0.192e-12 0. e+00
0.191e-02 0.176e-02 0.136e-02 0.783e-03 0.122e-03 -0.514e-03 -0.999e-03 -0.114e-02 -0.122e-02 -0.123e-02 -0.117e-02 -0.105e-02 -0.875e-03 -0.633e-03 -0.329e-03 -0.855e-04 0.668e-05 0.190e-04 0.102e-04 0.276e-05 -0.143e-06 -0.572e-06 -0.317e-06 -0.891e-07 0.246e-08 0.171e-07 0.983e-08 0.286e-08 -0.148e-10 -0.513e-09 -0.304e-09 -0.918e-10 -0.143e-ll 0.152e-10 0.914e-ll 0.246e-ll . e+00
-0.300e+01 0.207e+06 0.365e+06 0.462e+06 0.486e+06 0.424e+06 0.264e+06 0.162e+06 0.633e+05 -0.337e+05 -0.129e+06 -0.223e+06 -0.317e+06 -0.409e+06 -0.502e+06 -0.228e+06 -0.483e+05 0.112e+05 0.152e+05 0.713e+04 0.159e+04 -0.303e+03 -0.461e+03 -0.223e+O3 -0.521e+02 0.800e+01 0.139e+02 0.694e+01 0.170e+01 -0.204e+00 -0.421e+00 -0.216e+00 -0.551e-01 0.517e-02 0.131e-01 0.695e-02 0.433e-03
0.827e-K)5
0.671e+05 0.471e+05 0.227e+05 -0.621e+04 -0.396e+05 -0.774e+O5 -0.753e+05 -0.736e+05 -0.722e+05 -0.711e+05 -0.703e+O5 -0.698e+O5 -0.695e+05 0.679e+05 0.170e+06 0.898e+05 0.238e+05 -0.154e+04 -0.511e+04 -0.279e+04 -0.769e+03 0.303e+O2 0.153e+03 0.865e+O2 0.248e+02 -0.400e+00 -0.459e+01 -0.268e+01 -O.795e+O0 -0.430e-02 0.137e+00 0.829e-01 0.256e-01 0.670e-03 -0.474e-02 -0.489e-02
g j
o q