Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 04 PDF

    Uploaded by

    AlessandroAleotti
    16 views48 pages

    Original Title

    04.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views48 pages

    04 PDF

    Uploaded by

    AlessandroAleotti

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 48
    10. LL a, 8. 16 . Scott (CONSOLIDATION THEORY Bi L. (1967) Engineering geology of Norwegian normally- consolidated marine clays as related to settlement of buildings, Geotecknique, 17, 83~118. British Standard 1377 (1990) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standards Institution, London. Christie, LF, (1959) Design and construction of vertical drains to accelerate the consolidation of soils, Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Nos. 2, 3, 4 Cour, E.R. (1971) Inflection point method for computing cy; Technical Note, Joumal ASCE, 97, No. SMS, 827-31 problems in the com of clay, Proceedings ICE, Part I, Vol. 2, 182-98 Lambe, T.W. (1964) Methods of estimating settlement, Journal ASCE, 90, No. SM5, 43-67, Lambe, T.W. (1967) Stress path method, Journal ASCE, 93, No. SM6, 309-31 (1981) Practical aspects of the design drains, Geotechnique, 31, 3-17. Naylor, AH. and Doran, 1G. (1948) Precise determination of primary consolidation, in Proceedings 2nd International Conference 1, pp. 3440. ‘Sharrock, M.J. (1983) Settlement of Structures on Soils, PSA/CIRIA, London, Rowe, P.W. (1968) The influence of geological features of clay deposits on the desiga and performance of sand drains, Proceedings ICE, Supplementary volume, paper 70585. Rowe, P.W. and Barden, L. (1966) A new consolidation cell, Geotechnique, 16, 162-70. Schmertmann, TH. (1953) Estimating the tue consolidation Dehaviour of clay from laboratory test results, Proceedings ASCE, 79, 1-25. Scott, R.F, (1961) New method of consolidation coefficient evaluation, Joumal ASCE, 87, No. SML REE. (1963) Principles of Soil Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, ‘Simons, N.E. and Som, N.N. (1969) The influence of lateral stresses BOS mel fon the stress deformation characteristics of London clay, Proceedings 7th International Conference SMBE, Mexico City, Vol. 1. 22. Skempton, A.W. aud Bjerrum, L. (1957) A contribution to the settlement analysis of foundations on clay, Geatechnique, 7, 168-78. 23. Taylor, D.W. (1948) Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley i, K. (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York 25. Wilkinson, W.B. (1968) Constant head init permeability tests in clay strata, Geotechnique, 18, 172-94 INTRODUCTION La ‘Table 8.1 Presumed Bearing Values (BS 8004: 1986) Sell 9p easing value Remarks Nin) Bearing capacity ‘Dense gravel or dens ‘Medium dense gravel rnd and gravel 600 Width of "medium dense sand 200-600 foundation (B) for Joose sun and gravel <200 Compe: sand $300 ‘Medium dense sand 300-300 Loose send 100 ‘boulder cays and hard clays 300-600 81 INTRODUCTION Damage due to settlement may be classified as achitecturl, functional of structural ta the case of framed structures, settlement damage is Sr aly confined to the cladding and finishes (ve. architectural damage): Tak Jamage is due only to the settlement oecurzing subsequent to the Soplcation of the cadding 4d iishes. In some eases, structures can be ‘Begs and constructed i such a way that a certain degree of move, seecan be accommodated without damage. In other cases a certain Tepes of eracking may be inevitable ifthe structure i t be economic. Stamey be that damage to services, and not to the structure, wil be the Toiting erterion. Based on observations of damage in b Skempion and MacDonald [34] proposed i ft which damage could be expected and relat igulsr distortion, ‘The angular distortion between two points under 2 sreture is equal to the differential settlement between the points divided by the Getance between them. No damage was observed where the 2 tlar distortion was less than 1/300: for individual footings this Hue corresponds roughly to a maximom Friern clays, Angular distortion limits were subsequently proposed by Bjerrum [2} as a general guide f (Cleble 8.2), Lis recommended Cinel wall of framed structures should be 1/500. In the case of Rearing brickwork the citer recommended by are generally used. These i Jencetion tothe length of the deflected part and depend on the length-t0- elent rato of the building: recommended defection ratoe are within liminary design purposes BS 8004 (6) (Fable 8.3), being the pressure: . factor of safety against shear adequate types, but without UTMATE BEARING CAPACITY |] the range 0.3 x 10°? to 0.7 x 10. In the case of simple ideal vucture, including foundations, pasttions and Finishes, A comprehensive discussion of settlement damege in buildings thas been presented by Burland and Wro! centre of a strip footing of width pressure at a depth of 3B. In the significant pressure which ly below and strip the case of general shear failure, continuous failure surface develop between the edges of the footing and the ground surface as shown in Fig. 8.1. As the pressure is increased towards the value gy ly in the soil around the ‘gradually spreads downwards and outwards. ly developed throughout Pressure Sextamant nenerl chess, punching shear, fom both sides of the footing although the fnal stip movement would occur only on one side, accompanied by tilting of the footing. This mode of soils of low compressibility (Ke. dense of and the pressure—settlement curve is of the general form shown in Fi B11, the ultimate bearing capacity being well defined. Ia the mode of local shear failure there is significant compression of the soil under the footing | development of the state of plastic equilibrium, The do not reach the ground surface and only mn would not be expected also a characteristic of this mode defined. Punching sh the depth of the foundation relative to ‘The bearing capacity problem can be considered in terms of theory. The lower and upper bound theorems (Sect applied to give solutions for the ultimate bearing capaci In certain cases, exact solutions can be obtained corresponding to the equality of the lower and upper bound solutions. However, such solutions are based on the assumption that the soil can be represented by a perfectly jonship, as shown in Fig. 6.1. This ULTIMATE REARING CAPACITY 03 Fig. 2 Failure under a ssp footing. shown in Fig. 8.2. 1 uniform pressure fon the surface of a mass of homogene strength parameters for the soil are c and @ but the assuined to be zero. When the pressure becomes equal to the witimate bearing capacity qy the footing will have been pushed downwards into ‘equilibrium, in the form of footing, the angles ABC and BAC ‘The downward movement of the wedge ABC forces feways, producing outward lateral forces on both sides of the wedge. Passive Rankine zones ADE and BGF therefore and CG being logarithmic spi AC and FG, are tan- ats ab mass being in a @+ mo, 5d, a) the shear strength parameters are cand @ For the general case in whi it is necessary to consider 2 surcharge pressure gq acting on the soil surface as shown in Fig. 8.2: otherwise if ¢ = 0 the bearing capacity of a Fig. 8.3 Footing at depth D below the surface. ‘weightiess soil would be zero. The solution for this case, attributed to However, an addit {nto account the component of bearing capacity due to the self-wei the soil, This component can only be determined approximately, by ‘numerical or graphical means, and is sensitive to the value assumed for the angles ABC and BAC in Fig. 8.2. Foundations are not normally located on the surface of a soil mass, as assumed in the above shown in Fig. 8.3. In applying these solutions in practice it i shear strength of the soil between the surface and depth D is ected, this soil being co iform pressure qe = 7D 01 shallow foundation (interpreted as a greater than the bre normally weaker, especially if backfl can be expressed by the following general 41 = JYBN, + eNe + DN, 3) where N,, Ne and N, are bearing capacity factors depending only on the term isthe contsibution due to the constant component of shear and the third term is the contribution due to the surcharge pressure. It should be realized, however, that the superposition of the components of bearing capacity is theoretically incorrect for a plastic material: however, ‘any resulting error is considered to be on the safe side, Ea Teams emma 4 For many years Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors were widely used. 16] assumed that the angles ABC and BAC in Fig. 8.2 equal to g (i. ABC was not considered to be an active Rankine zo Values of N, were obtained by determining the total passive resitancs and adhesion force on the planes AC and BC. Terzaghi's values of Nq and N. were obtained by modifying the Prandl—Reissner solution. tang (Brinch Hansen) Ny = (Nq ~ Utan(L44) (Meyerhot) 'N, and Ng ate plotted in terms of in Fig. 8.4, Brinch 8 Of N, are used in the examples in this chapter. se and Sq. The ae sill widely used in 4¢ O4)BN, + 1.2cN, + yDNy (64) ar footing: 4¢= O.37BN, + LIN, + DN, @s) B and length £., the shape factors are (BIL = 0) and footing (B/L = 1), e.g. 5, = 1 - 0.2BIL. Alternative proposals for shape factors have been made by DeBeer (15] and Brinch Hansen [18, 41]. It should be recognized that the results of bearing capacity calculations fare very sensitive to the values assumed for the shear strength par- i "00 Fig. 84 Bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations BEARING CAPACITY [ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 302 ameters, especially the higher values of g. Due consideration must there {ore be given to the probable degree of accuracy of the sh parameters employed, Factor of safety ‘The actual pressore on the coil due to the weight ofthe structure is called the fora! foundation pressure (q). The net foundation pressure (q,) is the increase in pressure at foundation level, being the total foundation pressure less the effective weight of soil per unit area permanently removed, ie a= ¢- YD 66) ‘The factor of safety (F) with respect to shear failure is defined in terms of the net ultimate bearing capacity (dq), he. fos 0-10 pees = 19 6.7 % g= “ However, in the case of hallow footings, when the vale of is Sigh hes ‘Skempton's values of Ne In a review of beating capacity theory, Skempton [31} concluded that in the case of saturated clays under undrained conditions (@ = 0) the ultimate bearing capacity of 2 footing could be expressed by the equation: 90 GN. + yD a) the factor Ne being a fonction of the shape of tt depth breadth ratio. Skempion's values of N. are given footing end the n Fig. 8.5. The factor for a rectangular footing of dimensions B x L (where B <1) isthe ied by (0.84 + 0.16BIL) value for a square footing mul Eccentric and inclined loading bearing capacity. Ife we base of a footing of width B, it was suggested by Meyechof that an effective foundation width B’ be used in Equation 83, where B= B-2 (8.9) { ‘Strip (8M. = oF Nea be Fig. 8.5 Skempton's values of Nj for = 0. (Reproduced from A.W. Skempton (1951) Proceedings of the Building Research Congress, Divison 1, p. 18L, bY permission ofthe Building Research Establishment, © Crown copyright) ad is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the ef ‘The resultant fective width B’ ‘The effect of inclined loading on bearing capacity can be taken into account by means of inclination factors proposed by Meyerhof. If the angle of inclination of the resultant load is a to the vertical then the bearing capacity factors N,, N, and N, should be multiplied respectively by the following factors: =U ale? (8.108) RaQ (1 - abort (8.100) e inclination factors have been proposed by Brinch Hansen lined loading is to use the following empirical rule, given in BS 8004 (6 ball ane cana MAA BEARING CAPACITY =] allowable horizon. (G fraction of the available passive resistance). Example 8.1 A footing 2.25m square is located at a depth of 1.5 m in a sand, the shear strength parameters being c’ = 0 and g" = bearing capacity (a) ifthe wat (b) if the water table is at the surface, The unit weight of the sand above the ‘water table is IBKN/i’: the saturated unit weight is 20%N/m. For a square footing the ultimate bearing eapacity (with ¢ = 0) is given by ¢= 0.4yBN, + yDNg For g’ = 38" the bearing capacity factors (Fig. 8.4) are N, = 67 and Nq = 49. Therefore a¢= (0.4 X 18 x 2.25 x 67) + (18 x 1.5 x 49) = loss + 1323 = 2408KNIn| When the water table is at the surface, the ultimate beating capacity is given by a¢= 0.4y'BN, + ¥DNy (0-4 x 10.2 x 2.28 x 67) + (10.2 x 1.5 x 49) 61s + 750 1365 kA Example 82 ‘A strip footing isto be designed to carry a load of 800kN/m at a depth of (0.7 mina gravelly sand. The appropriate shear strength paremeters are c? = Oand #” = 40°, Determine the with of the footing ia factor of safety inst shear failure is specified and assuming that the water table ‘may rise to foundation level. Above the water table the unit weight of the iy 17 RNim? and below the water table the saturated unit weight i For ¢ = 40" the bearing capacity factors (Fig. 8.4) are N, = 95 and N, = 64, The ultimate bearing capacity (units kN/es) is given by IBN, + DN, = (x 10.2 x Bx 95) + (17 x 0.7 x 64) = 5B + 762 dec = q1~ yD = $858 + 750 ‘The net foundation pressure is 00 3 a7 x 0.7) a ‘Then, for a factor of safety of 3, 1 800 34858 + 750) ~ 5 Hence, B= 155m Example 83 ‘A footing 2m squate is located st a saturated unit weight 21 kN/m?. ‘Th ed strength of the depth of 4m is given by the parameters c, = 120kNim? and 6, a factor of safety of 3 with respect to shear failure, what load co carried by the footing? In this case D/B = 2 and fx footing is 8.4. The Fig. 8.5 the value of IN. for a square imate beating capacity is given by: 407 GN + yD Got = 6aNe = 120 x 8.4 = 1008 Nim? For F= 3, gy = 1008/3 = 336kNizn? = qu + 7D = 336 + (21 x 4) = A20KNim? Allowable load = 420 x 2? = 1680kN. Example 8.4 ‘The base of a long retaining wall is 3m wide and is Lm below the ground surface in front of the wall: the water table is well below base level. The vertical and horizontal components of the bate reaction are 282kNim and 102kN/m respectively: the eccentricity of the base reaction is 0.36m. Tf the appropriate shear strength parameters forthe foundation sil are = 310 | BEARING CAPACITY "RULOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAYS O and g" = 35", and th factor of safety agai 18kN/m?, determine the The effective width of the base is given by BY = B-26=2.28m For 4" the bearing capacity factors (Fig. 8.4) are N, = 41 and = Gx 18x 2.28 x 41 x 0.18) + (1B x 1 x 33 x 0.61) 151 4 362 = SISkNia? 6 =~ 7D = 495KNIn? et base pressure is ae 2 aa = 2 — 18 = 1064 Then the factor of safety is = tt 3 ee Be = i065 747 2 in excavations AL was pointed 01 Ne could also be us ced upwards: @ corresponding subsidence of the clay wil outside the excavation, adjacent to one or more of the side problem is analogous to that of bearing capacity. In the base problem the vunloaded as excavation proceeds, as oppoted to a4 Fig. 8.6 Bac follore in excavation in the bearing capacity problem: corresponding shear stresses act jons ia the two cases. ‘will occur at @ critical depth D. cor- responding to qc = 0 in Equation 8.8. Thus, Ne 7 "The appropriate value of cy immediately below and adjacent to the base of the excavation. In general the factor of safety against bese failure in an excavation of depth D is given by De (12) Ife surcharge pressure acts on the surface adjacent to the excavat value is added to yD in the denominator in Equation 8.12. 83 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAYS ‘The allowable bearing capacity of clays, silty clays and be limited either by the requirement of an adequate factor of safety against shear failure os by strength, and hence the factor of safety, place, For homogeneous clays safety, should be checked permeabil overconservative the immediate set sment under undrained conditions and the Jong-term ‘ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF SANDS foundation. The bearing pressure should normally be li preconsolidation pressure exceeded. In the case of a series of -ment may be reduced by increasing the size of ‘equited by the allowable bearing capacity Foundations are not usually supported on normally con the largest footings above top level of the cay are less than the allowable bearing, ty of the clay by an adequate factor. in a loose sand. Settlement in sand is rapid and irely during construction and is therefore, should be estimated using the dead load plus the maximum live loading. Settlement, sment between a number of footings is governed under extres differential settlement will be greater than 75% of ment, A few cases have been reported, howev settlement was elmost two footings is then likely to be less than 20mm. Differential may be decreased by reducing the size of the smallest fo the same ai lement of a le bearing capacity of a sand depends stress history, the position of the the value of the shear strength parameter 4’ are strongly dependent on density index: the denser the sand the less scape there is for particle rearrangement. However, the magnitude of settlement is by the stress history of the depo: normally ted or overconsolidated and the previous stress path. If two sands having the same grading were to exist at the same dens bbut one were normally consolidated and the other overconsol BEARING CAPACITY "LADS WABLE BEARING CAPAGITY OF SANDS | [=] sand within the ‘weight is roughly the technique of vibro- should be used. Due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining undisturbed sand samples for laboratory testing and to the inherent heterogeneity of sand deposits, the allowable bearing caps yy means of correlations question are plate bearing tests and dynamic or penetration test. The plate bearing test, | +} Foundation Fig. 87 Inflcnce of weak stratum. in the relationship between settlement and the size of the loaded area for a given pressure, Ideally, plate bearing tests should be carried out at different depths and using plates of different sizes in order that extra- polations may be made, but this is generally ruled Gut on economic. rounds: further problems would be introduced if the tests had to be carried out below water tebe level The screw-plate testis a form of bearing test in which no excavation is required. The plate penetrates the sand by rotation and ean therefore be positioned, in turn, at » series of depths above or below the water table. Loading is carried out through the shaft of the serew plate. ‘The standard penetration test is used to erformed using iamoter, 35mm 2 Sand depot. The tes . The sampler is driven borehole by means of @ 65kg hammer falling freely through "760mm onto the top of the boring rods. In the UK 8 trip- the blow to the boring rods. However, different methods of releasing the hhammer are used in different countries. The borehole must be cleaned ‘out to the required depth, care being taken to ensure that the material to be tested is not disturbed: jetting as part of the boring operation is undesirable. The casing must not be driven below the level at which the is dtiven 150mm into the sand to seat the device Be BEARING CAPAGITY RADE ARNG CAPACITY OF ARDS | and to by-pass any disturbed sand at the bottom of the boreh umber of blows required to drive the sampler a fi recorded: this number is called the standard penetration resistance (N). ‘The number of blows required for each 75m of penetration (i testis to be carried out in gra ing shoe is replace solid 60° cone. There is evidence higher results are obtained in the same material when the normal driving shoe is replaced by the 60" cone ‘When is carried out in very fine sand oF the measured N value, if greater than 15, be corrected for the [excess pore water pressure set up issipate immediately: the corrected value is NTs 15 440-15) (8.13) ‘Skempton [33] summerized the evidence regardin lence of test procedure on the value of standard penetration Measured NV ‘values should be corrected to allow for the differes releasing length of boring rods. Only ir ig the sand, the referred to as the rod energy ratio. Rod energy ratios for the operating procedures used in several counties vary between 45% and 78%. For the sembly and anvil generally used in the exceeding 10m is 60%. It has been recommenced that a standard rod energy ratio of 60% should be adopted and measured N values should be normalized, bj f length of boring rods (<1 reflection of energy occurs and a further los in delivered energy results, A forther correction should therefore be applied to the measured NV total length of rods is less than 10m: for example if a 34. length is used a correction factor of 0.75 has been proposed. An ad- able 2.3 Deasity Index of Sands Classification 0-4 Veryioose 10 Loose 10-30 Mediumdease 35-65 30-50 Dense 5-88 350 Very dense S100 ditional effect relates to the borehole diameter, there being evidence that lower N » ibsequently added by Gibbs and dard penetration resistance depends not only index but also on the effective stresses at the depth of meas- ‘effect tesistance at different depths. Several proposals the correction of measured N values following the work of Gibbs and Holtz. The corrected value (N;) is related to the ‘measured value (NV) by the factor Gy, where: M= OWN 14) ‘The relationship between Cy and effective overburden pressure shown in Fig. 8.8 represents a consensus of published proposals. ‘The following relationship between standard penetration resistance (N), density index (fp) and effective overburden pressure (of kNim®) was ‘Proposed by Meyerhot: N a Bate (8.15) ie parameters a and b for a number of sands have been given |. The characteristics of a sand can be represented by 113, where (N,)o isthe standatd penetration resistance rod energy ratio of 60% and an effective overburden BEARING CAPACITY "RA WABLE BEARING CAPACITY GF SANS 1 a] wre o 520 F = tad 2 am i Table 8.3. Table 8.3 should be considered to ay by the grading and and the time during whi (referred and ageing. #', standard rot be used for very shallow Associated design methods In 1948, Terzaghi and Peck [37] presented empirical correlations between ion resistance, width of footing and the bearing pressure maximum settlement to 25mm (and differential settlement 10 to Terzaghi and Peck, the ry « nd effective overburden pressure. (Reproduced from JH. the width of the footing. Ifthe sand at foundation level is saturated the pressures obtained from Fig. 8.10 should be reduced by one-half if the epth/breadth ratio of the footing is zero, and redveed by one-third ifthe depthPbreadth ratio is unity. For intermediate posit recommendations are now considered to produce too severe a reduction ble pressure, and a correction should be made only if the water De. G05 40557, ‘where Dy is the depth of the water table below the surface and D is the depth of the foundation. ‘Terzaghi and Peck stated chat their correlations were & conser ‘basis for the design of shallow footings. It was intended that the largest footing should not settle by more than 25mm even if it were situated on (6.16) 320 BEARING CAPACITY L | e500) — 450 t 2 i = 37> 0 e [t+ : 1 P= tt PKU i * a00 a : i Tn using the cortelations to depth & below the founda! lowest average is then use TLZOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF SANDS =] “Mechanies and Foundation Engineering) bbe doubled because 2 maximum settlement of SOmm is considered originally proposed) is excessively conservative. Meyerhot mended that the allowable bearing pressure given by the T "ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF SANDS a2 | [BEARING CAPACITY im Lie (8.18) ‘The NV values should not be corrected for effective overburden pressure ts this has a major infuence on both standard penetration resistance and this influence should not therefore be eliminated from ‘The results of the anal tend to confirm Meyerhors level is reflected in the measured N values. However, the position of the water table does influence settlement and if the level were to fall subsequent to the deter- ‘mination of the N values then a greater settlement would be expected. Equation 8.13 should be applied in the case of very fine sands and silty sands below the water table. It was further proposed that in the case of gravels or sandy gravels the measured NV values should be increased by 25%, In a normally consolidated sand the average ‘end of construction for a foundation of width Bi pressure q(kNim) is given by: = gb (6.198) the sand is overconsolidated and an estimate (22) can be made, the settlement is given by lowing expressions: =~ Fo) BAL Gig > of) (8.190) lement s(mm) at the arying a foundation Irit can be establ of preconsolidation fone or other of the hed th ut a statistical analy 2 sands and gravels. smpressibility of the soll (a), }) and the average value sim gue (fg

    You might also like