Scribd
Upload
167 views33 pages

Practice in Geotechnical Design

The document discusses the design of foundations and limit states within foundation soil. It provides examples of calculating footing dimensions based on bearing capacity and bending moment calculations for different load cases. Key steps include determining bearing capacity factors, computing footing width to satisfy bearing capacity and deformation limit states, and estimating maximum bending moment in the footing. Design is governed by load combinations and soil properties are accounted for through correction factors.

Uploaded by

Maxim Paul
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
167 views33 pages

Practice in Geotechnical Design

The document discusses the design of foundations and limit states within foundation soil. It provides examples of calculating footing dimensions based on bearing capacity and bending moment calculations for different load cases. Key steps include determining bearing capacity factors, computing footing width to satisfy bearing capacity and deformation limit states, and estimating maximum bending moment in the footing. Design is governed by load combinations and soil properties are accounted for through correction factors.

Uploaded by

Maxim Paul
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 33

6/11/2013 1

Case studies for practice


in geotechnical design
Lecture 4

Master courses
6/11/2013 2
New P10/2005
structure+basement+foundation+soil= structural system
6/11/2013 3
Loads from the structure
Designing infrastructure is entirely conditioned by
the complet structure analysis.

Loads delivered to the infrastructure are
established in both fundamental and special
groupings.

Any failure mechanism according to the special
groupings of loads is restricted only within the
structure.
6/11/2013 4
Dimensions of the footing
Are established so that the contact pressures on
the footing have acceptable values, to prevent
developing of any limit states, endangering the
safety or service of the construction.

Limit states within foundation soil can be
regarded as the followings:

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Service Limit State (SLS)

6/11/2013 5
Limit States within Foundation Soil
EC 7
SLS settlements within
acceptable values for the
structure
ULS sperated on 3 cases:
P 10
Case A loss of the
static equilibrium:
material or soil strength is
irrelevant;
Case B
structure/structure
elements failure, including
footings, piles, basement
walls: due to the material
failure within the
structure;
Case C soil failure;
Deformation Limit State (SLD)
SLD.U when the soil
deformations are inacceptable
for the structure safety;
SLD.EN when the soil
deformations are affecting the
structure service
Bearing Capacity Limit State
(SLCP)
ULS soil failure
6/11/2013 6
Pressure Setllement dependency
6/11/2013 7
Acceptable pressures are considered to be:

a conventional pressure p
conv
;
a pressure to comply with the restrictions
regarding the SLD.U and SLD. EN;
a pressure to comply with the restrictions
regarding the SLCP;


All these pressures are established based on both
construction and soil characteristic features

6/11/2013 8
Construction influencing factors:
a) The class of importance
Special constructions, CS (class I and II, as within
STAS 10100/0-75);
Regular constructions, CO (class II, IV, and V);
b) The sensitivity to settlements
Sensitive constructions to differential settlements
(CSEN);
Insensitive constructions to differential settlements;
c) The existence of deformation restrictions
during service
Constructions with restrictions (CRE);
Constructions without restrictions.

6/11/2013 9
Soil influencing factors
Soil category:
Adequate/good foundation soils (TB);
Inadequate/difficult foundation soils.
6/11/2013 10
Conditions to set the footing dimensions based on
the acceptable pressure concept:
6/11/2013 11
Limit states restrictions:
A) STAREA LIMIT DE DEFORMAIE (S.L.D.)
1) Starea limit a exploatrii normale (S.L.E.N.), prin verificarea terenului sub
efectul ncrcrilor totale de exploatare, n gruparea fundamental la
aciuni corespunztoare (S.L.E.N.) prin restricia:


2) Starea limit ultim (S.L.U.) de rezisten i stabilitate, prin verificarea
terenului de fundare sub efectul ncrcrilor totale corespunztoare
S.L.U. prin restricia:


acompaniate de .
A') Calculul dup presiuni convenionale sub ncrcrile din gruparea
fundamental de aciuni prin restricia:


B) STAREA LIMIT DE CAPACITATE PORTANT (S.L.C.P.)
prin verificarea terenului sub efectul ncrcrile de gruparea special
de aciuni prin una din restriciile:


| |

+ +
i g i i
V n C P
t t
A s A
| |

+ +
i i g i i i i
V n n C n P n
s s
A s A
pl ef
p m p s
max
conv ef
p m p s
| |

+ +
i i g i i i i
V n n C n P n
| |

+ + +
i i i i i
E V n C P
cr c ef
p m p s
'
6/11/2013 12
6/11/2013 13
Correction coefficients for p
conv
and p
pl

6/11/2013 14
Cohesionless soils - p
conv
6/11/2013 15
Cohesive soils - p
conv
6/11/2013 16
Bearing capacity limit state (SLCP)
6/11/2013 17
|*(
o
) N

N
q
N
c

o
o
0,0 1,0 5,1
5
o
0,1 1,6 6,5
10
o
0,2 2,5 8,3
15
o
0,7 3,9 11,0
20
o
1,8 6,4 14,8
22
o
30 2,7 8,2 17,5
25
o
4,1 10,7 20,7
27
o
30 6,1 13,9 24,9
30
o
9,0 18,4 30,1
32
o
30 13,6 24,6 37,0
35
o
20,4 33,7 46,1
37
o
30 31,0 45,8 58,4
40
o
47,7 64,2 75,3
42
o
30 75,0 91,9 99,3
45
o
120,5 134,9 133,9
( )
q q q c c c cr
i N q i N c i N B p + + =

* *
|
N
1
N
2
N
3

0 0,00 1,00 3,14
2 0,03 1,12 3,32
4 0,06 1,25 3,51
6 0,10 1,39 3,71
8 0,14 1,55 3,93
10 0,18 1,73 4,17
12 0,23 1,94 4,42
14 0,29 2,17 4,69
16 0,36 2,43 5,00
18 0,43 2,72 5,31
20 0,51 3,06 5,66
22 0,61 3,44 6,04
24 0,72 3,84 6,45
26 0,84 4,37 6,90
28 0,98 4,93 7,40
30 1,15 5,59 7,95
32 1,34 6,35 8,55
34 1,55 7,21 9,21
36 1,81 8,25 9,98
38 2,11 9,44 10,80
40 2,46 10,84 11,73
42 2,87 12,50 12,77
44 3,37 14,48 13,06
45 3,66 15,64 14,64
) (
3 2 1
N c N q N B m p
l pl
+ + =
)
3
2
(
3 2 1
N c N
q q
N B m p
i e
l pl
+
+
+ =
Differences between p
pl
and p
cr
6/11/2013 18
Coefficient of the working conditions
6/11/2013 19
Soil failure on limited depth - p
pl
6/11/2013 20
Pressure Setllement dependency
6/11/2013 21
Soil failure - p
cr
6/11/2013 22
Tentative
values of
and c
6/11/2013 23
Example 1 EC7
A
A
B
D=1m
G
k
G =1000kN
k
|
k
=35
0

k
=18kN/m
3
c =0
k
Case A
There is no buyoancy possibility; case A is irrelevant
Case B
The foundation width is based on the bearing capacity of the soil and
accordingly computed:
( )
sup G K q q
2
G s N B 5 , 0 s N ' q B = +

For
0
k d
35 = | = |
the bearing capacity factors are Nq=33,3 and N=45,2
The coefficients depending on the footing shape are s

=0,7 and
s
q
= 1+sin
d
=1,57
It results that:

( ) 35 , 1 1000 B 7 , 0 3 , 45 18 5 , 0 57 , 1 3 , 33 1 18 B
2
= +
and B=1,05m

Considering an uniform soil pressure distribution
onto the footing, the maximum bending moment for
the A-A cross section can be estimated as:

( ) ( ) kNm 2 , 177 4 / 05 , 1 2 / 1350 M
' A A
= =

6/11/2013 24
A
A
B
D=1m
G
k
G =1000kN
k
|
k
=35
0

k
=18kN/m
3
c =0
k
Case C
The design value of the permanent load is
kNm 1000 00 , 1 1000 G G
k k d
= = =
and
( )
0
k d
3 , 29 35 , 1 / tg arct = | = |
so that consequently
Nq = 16,9 and N=17,8
s

=0,7 and s
q
= 1+sin
d
=1,49

( ) 1000 B 7 , 0 8 , 17 18 5 , 0 49 , 1 9 , 16 1 18 B
2
= +
and B=1,29m
Consequently the maximum bending moment is:

( ) ( ) kNm 218 4 / 29 , 1 2 / 35 , 1 1000 M
' A A
= =

Foundation self weight is


kN 40 24 00 , 1 29 , 1
2
=
which certifyies neglecting it in the first place
6/11/2013 25
Example 1
new P10
A
A
B
D=1m
G
k
G =1000kN
k
|
k
=35
0

k
=18kN/m
3
c =0
k
6/11/2013 26
Example 2 EC 7
A A
A A
B B
B
D=1m D=1m
G
k
G
d
G
f
Q
k
Q
d
G =400kN
k
Q =76,9kN
k
|
k
=35
0

k
=18kN/m
3
c =0
k
H=4m H=4m
e
6/11/2013 27
Case A
There is no buyoancy possibility; case A is irrelevant
Case B
The foundation width is based on the bearing capacity of the soil and accordingly computed for the
dimensions of the footing as B and B:
( ) H Q i s N ' B 5 , 0 i s N ' q ' B B
d q q q
= +

H Q e R
d
= Applying the partial coefficients from table 2.1.

) load le unfavourab for ( 50 , 1
) load favourable for ( 00 , 1
Q
inf , G
=
=
m 30 , 2 ' B ) 2 / ' B e ( 2 B and
m 15 , 1 R / H Q e
kN 4 , 115 50 , 1 9 , 76 Q Q
kN 400 00 , 1 400 G G R
d
Q k d
inf , G k d
+ = + =
= =
= = =
= = = =
For
0
k d
35 = | = |
the bearing capacity factors are Nq=33,3 and N=45,2
The coefficients depending on the footing shape are:
s

=1-0,3B/B and s
q
= 1+(B/B)sin
d


( )
( ) 508 , 0 G Q 7 , 0 1 i
360 , 0 G Q 1 i
3
d d q
3
d d
= =
= =

It results that B=0,39m


And 1,15>2,69/3 (e>B/3) it is recommanded to increase B with at least 10cm , so that:
B=0,39+2,30+2x0,10=2,89m
The verification for horizontal forces meets the restriction:
Sd > Hd (friction force onto the footing larger than the horizontal load)

d d d
Q 280 tg G > = |
Considering an uniform soil pressure distribution onto the footing, the
maximum bending moment for the A-A cross section can be estimated as:

kNm 460 15 , 1 400 e R M
' A A
= = =

6/11/2013 28
Case C
The design value of the permanent load is

m 00 , 1 e kN 100 30 , 1 9 , 76 Q Q
kNm 400 00 , 1 400 G G
Q k d
k k d
= = = =
= = =
and B=B+2,00m
For
( )
0
k d
3 , 29 35 , 1 / tg arct = | = |
the values are Nq = 16,9 and N=17,8
s

=1-0,3B/B and s
q
= 1+(B/B)sin
d

and the inclination coefficients:

( )
( ) 562 , 0 G Q 7 , 0 1 i
422 , 0 G Q 1 i
3
d d q
3
d d
= =
= =

consequently B=0,65m and once again B=0,65+2,00+0,20=2,85m


Consequently the maximum bending moment is:

kNm 400 1 400 M
' A A
= =

Foundation self weight is


kN 201 24 00 , 1 89 , 2
2
=
so it cannot be neglected.
Consequently, being favourable
00 , 1
G
=
For the B case: e=0,89m, B=0,48m and B=2,26m
For the C case: e=0,78m, B=0,78m and B=2,32m and that validate the
supplementary computation with respect to the foundation self weight.
6/11/2013 29
Example 2 application of the new P10
6/11/2013 30
6/11/2013 31
6/11/2013 32
6/11/2013 33
Conclusive remarks
Different approach of soil-structure
interaction;
Apparently unique values of and c;
Value of settlement is assessed within a
ultimate limit state SLD.U;
Can a structural engineer perfom a
foundation design based a geotechnical
report?

You might also like