Soil Mechanics

© All Rights Reserved

2 vistas

Soil Mechanics

© All Rights Reserved

- PILES BEHAVIOR
- EM 1110-1-1905 - Bearing Capacity of Soils
- soil - chapter 12
- Plastic Soil
- Shear Stength of Soil
- GEON
- syllabus.pdf
- Invariants of Stress and Fabric Tensors in Charged Granular Systems
- Civil 7 Sem Syllabus
- Homework2.1
- 375 Liquefaction Pumice Sands
- Geotechnical Assesment for Weir Foundation RMR
- Gm Glo0305 01 a2 Gms Endeavour at l7a Aa
- Pile Load Capacity
- D3387
- Guidelines for Design of Earth Slopes
- V2-1_01.pdf
- geolett.14
- Resonant Column. to Get the Real Picture
- houlsby2002.pdf

Está en la página 1de 51

Soil Mechanics II

Course Instructor

Sai K. Vanapalli

A015(CBY)

sai.vanapalli@uottawa.ca

(613)562-5800 Ext. 6638

1

Introduction

Foundation Engineering is a clever combination of soil mechanics, engineering

geology and proper judgment derived from engineering experience.

Foundation engineering to some extent can be considered as ART

What information is required to design a foundation?

Load from superstructure (such as dead load, live load etc.)

Stability (i.e., f(τf)) and deformation (i.e., f(∆V) properties of soils

Geological conditions

Soil type

Depth and thickness

Engineering properties

Hydrogeology

Site investigations (i.e., subsurface exploration)

2

Introduction

Weathering of Rocks

(Physical forces) (Original material properties

Loads from columns and foundation change and a different

material forms)

or deep foundations (e.g., pile

foundations, pier foundations) Coarse-grained

(Cohesionless)

Fine-grained

(Cohesive)

Dense Loose

N.C. O.C.

3

Shallow foundations

Shallow foundations are used when you have favourable soils such as coarse

grained soils ( i.e., high shear strength, τf and low deformation, ∆H)

(b) long (strip) footing

(c) rectangular footing for two

columns (combined footing)

(d) trapezoidal footing for two

columns

4

Shallow foundations

If sum of areas of spread footing = ½ of total area use Mat (or Raft) foundations.

Mat foundations are used to reduce differential settlement between adjacent

areas (for soils having low bearing capacity or where soil conditions are variable

and erratic).

5

Shallow foundations

6

Deep foundations

cast-in-place pile

(b) drilled or cast-in-place pier

with enlarged bases

(c) open caisson

(d) box type caisson

(e) pneumatic caisson

7

Major purpose of foundations

To transfer the loads from the superstructure to the earth safely such that the

supporting soil is not overstressed and the deformations would cause no serious

settlement of the superstructure.

Foundation classification depends on Df / B ratio (where Df is the depth of

foundation and B is the width of the foundation).

The soil-foundation system is responsible for providing support for the lifetime of

a structure

Foundations should be designed for the worst conditions that may develop during

its lifetime.

Structural loads (dead and live loads)

Load effects that may result from environmental factors such as wind, ice,

frost, heat, water, earthquake, and explosive blasts.

8

Shallow or deep foundations

Establish the loads supplied by the structural loads (i.e. dead load and live load).

Shallow foundations (2 to 3 m depth) if the upper soils are competent.

Deep foundation if the loads are large (say 200 kN).

Other factors: Bearing capacity (stability and deformation properties of soils).

Stability: Depends on the shear strength parameters, c’ and φ’.

Deformation: ρ total = ρ elastic + ρ consolidation + ρ sec ondary

NOTE: In many situations, ρt is controlled by code provisions

9

Characteristics of shallow foundations

Df ≤ B to 3B

Df = depth from ground level to the base

of footing

B = width of footing

Foundation or footing should be below

depth of frost penetration, undermining

by scour and preferably below zone of

seasonal change. Can be very difficult to

meet all these criteria and sometimes

impractical.

Footing must not break into ground (i.e.

safe against overall shear failure).

Footing must not settle excessively.

10

Foundation design consideration

The soil bearing capacity is the pressure that a foundation unit can impose onto

the supporting earth mass without causing overstressing (shear failure).

Deformations occurring because of foundation loading usually cause settlement.

Lateral movements associated with settlement are also of concern.

Failure of foundations can be due to:

Shear failure (based on the permissible load)

Settlement failure (permissible settlement)

11

Estimate/determine the bearing capacity of soils

Bearing capacity equations: shear strength

properties of the soil (takes into account only

shear failure criteria) (NOT SETTLEMENT! Don’t

know what will be the settlement)

Penetration resistance data (i.e. such as the

SPT data) and relate it to the bearing capacity

and settlement characteristics of the soil.

(Commonly used for sandy soils and shallow

foundations. Such design approaches are not

available for all type of soils and foundations).

Takes into account shear strength and

settlement: Good design approach.

12

Estimate/determine the bearing capacity of soils

Relating soil type to presumptive bearing

capacity recommended by building codes

(Limitation: do not consider the soil

compressibility and the possible influence of

poorer soil layers under the bearing layer).

Not a good approach for foundation design.

(reliable only if you have prior experience)

Field load tests (commonly used for pile

foundations).

Test results related to both carrying capacity

and settlement (Expensive)

Careful evaluation

For every 10 piles, 1 pile is fully tested.

13

Estimate/determine the bearing capacity of soils

Factor of safety between 2 and 4. Note: In many cases < 0.1% of the construction

area is investigated.

The foundations profession is still considered a “state-of-the-art” profession.

Experience is the “key” parameter in the design of foundation.

Scientific methods and principles are utilized, but there are no unique solutions.

Various alternative solutions are possible….

The ultimate soil bearing capacity for foundations is related to the properties of

soil, stress history, GWT, including the size, depth, and shape of the foundation

and the method of construction or installation.

14

Footing behavior - general shear failure

Well-defined failure mode

Dense and coarse-grained soils

φ’ ≥ 36o, Dr ≥ 71%

The ground surface adjacent to the

footing bulges upward.

Soil displacement is accompanied by

tilting of the foundation.

15

Footing behavior – local shear failure

Has both general shear and punching shear failure characteristics.

Any increment of load is associated with foundation settlement.

39% ≤ Dr ≤ 71%, φ’ = 24 to 28°

16

Footing behavior – punching shear failure

No defined failure load (occurs in soils with plastic properties).

Footing sinks, very large settlement

Dr ≤ 39%

Test at

greater

depth

17

Definitions and terminology

Ps

Gross bearing pressure, q at the base

of foundation: P +P

q=

s f

A

Total vertical stress (overburden

Df pressure): q = γ D

Pf 0 f

and foundation will rise if qn is

negative.

18

Definitions and terminology

Floating foundation

Take advantage of load of soil removed by excavation. qn =q − q0 =0

Ultimate bearing capacity, qu: bearing pressure of soil at failure conditions.

From an engineering practice point of view, we do not load a foundation close to

ultimate bearing capacity of the soil to avoid failure conditions (i.e. strength or

deformation failure).

qu − q0

Net safe bearing capacity qns =

FS

Safe bearing capacity, (Footing will not fail, but settlement may be excessive).

q=s qns + γ D f

19

Definitions and terminology

Typically FS: between 2.5 to 3

Dead load

Live load

Variability of deposit

Extent of site investigation

Reliability of shear strength parameters

FS = 4 or even higher for pile foundations

Allowable bearing capacity, qa is the bearing pressure that will not cause

excessive settlement (i.e. to limit the settlements to some allowable limit ρa, it is

necessary to reduce the bearing pressure to some value qa).

qa < qs < qu

20

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory (for

drained loading conditions)

General bearing capacity equation

valid for strip footings (i.e. continuous

footing with an infinite length).

21

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

(for drained loading conditions)

Terzaghi assuming general shear failure conditions proposed bearing capacity

equation in terms of shear strength parameters, unit weight, depth and width of

foundation for drained loading as given below:

1

qu =c′N c + qN q + γ BNγ

2

c’ = cohesion of the soil below foundation level

q = γDf

Nc = bearing capacity factor associated with the cohesion

Nq = bearing capacity factor associated with the surcharge

Nγ = bearing capacity factor associated with the unit weight of soil

22

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

(important notes)

Shear strength properties at the base of the footing!

Only width and depth

Shear strength of a soil by its angle of internal friction only (φ’ in drained loading

conditions (typically φ’ > 36) (General Shear Failure: GSF)

Non-cemented soils: c’ ≈ 0

Nc, Nq and Nγ = f(φ’ )

Different bearing capacity factors available in the literature with small

differences.

You can stick to the values available in the text book. The charts given in your text

book are reproduced on the next page.

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

23

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

(GSF)

24

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

General shear failure Local shear failure

qu = c′N c + qN q + 1 2 γ B Nγ qu= 2 3 c′N c′ + qN q′ + 1 2 γ B Nγ′

qu= 1.3 c′N c + qN q + 0.4 γ B Nγ =qu 0.867c′N c′ + qN q′ + 0.4γ B Nγ′

qu= 1.3 c′N c + qN q + 0.3 γ B Nγ = qu 0.867c′N c′ + qN q′ + 0.3 γ B Nγ′

25

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

(LSF)

φ ′ = tan −1 ( 2 3 tan φ ′ )

26

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity theory

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation for continuous strip footings under drained

loading conditions.

qu = c′N c + qN q + 1 2 γ B Nγ

Do not use c’ value in the bearing capacity equation unless there is enough

evidence with respect to cohesion value, say in the form of soil cementation.

27

Effect of groundwater table on the bearing capacity

qu = c′N c + qN q + 1 2 γ b B Nγ

Case I (0 ≤ D1 ≤ Df)

D1γ + D2 (γ sat − γ w )

q=

γ=

b γ=′ γ sat − γ w

Case II (0 ≤ d ≤ B)

q = γ Df

d

γ′

γ b =+ (γ − γ ′)

B

Case III (B ≤ d): no effect

28

DGD Problem 1

A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable load of 1805 kN (FS = 3).

Given: Df = 1.5m, γ = 15.9 kN/m3, φ’ = 34°, and c’ = 0 kPa.

Use Terzaghi’s equation to determine the size of the foundation (B). Assuming

general shear failure.

29

The general bearing capacity equation

Ultimate bearing capacity equation

continuous, square and circular foundations (not rectangular foundation)

Influence of shearing resistance in the surcharge loading region

Inclination of load of the foundation

Meyerhof (1963)

Fcd , Fqd , Fγd = depth factors

Fci , Fqi , Fγi = inclination factors

30

General bearing capacity equation

Meyerhof (1963) from Canada

Depth factors are ignored in soil layer above the footing. However, soil

confinement increases as depth increases. Due to this reason, depth factors are ≥

1.

Inclination factor is a load reduction factor and is less than 1.

Shape factor due to influence of cohesion and surcharge ≥ 1 and due to unit

weight < 1.

31

General bearing capacity equation

1963; Hanna and Meyerhof,

B Nq 1981)

Fcs = 1 +

L Nc

β°

2

B Fci= Fqi= 1 −

Fqs = 1 + tan φ ′ 90°

L 2

β°

B Fγ= 1 − ′

Fγ s = 1 − 0.4 i

φ

L

32

General bearing capacity equation

Depth factor (Hansen, 1970)

for D f / B ≤ 1, φ ′ > 0 for D f / B ≤ 1, φ ′ =

0

1 − Fqd Df

F= Fqd − Fcd = 1 + 0.4

N c tan φ ′

cd

B

Df F= F=

γd 1

1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ )

qd

Fqd = ′ ′

2

B

Fγ d = 1

0

1 − Fqd Df

F= Fqd − −1

Fcd = 1 + 0.4 tan radian

N c tan φ ′

cd

radian B

Df F= F= 1

1 + 2 tan φ ′ (1 − sin φ ′ ) tan −1

Fqd = γd

2 qd

B

Fγ d = 1

33

The general bearing capacity equation

34

DGD Problem 2

kN/m3, γsat = 18.5 kN/m3, D1 = 0.6m, Df = 1.2m. The gross allowable load, Qall, with FS

= 3 is 667 kN. The SPT values (N60) are as follows. Determine the size of footing. (Use

General bearing capacity equation)

Depth (m) N60

1.5 4

3.0 6

4.5 6

6.0 10

7.5 5

35

DGD Problem 3

The applied load on a shallow square foundation makes an angle of 15° with the

vertical. Given: B = 1.83m, Df = 0.9m, γ = 18.08 kN/m3, φ’ = 25, and c’ = 23.96 kN/m2.

Use FS = 4 and determine the gross allowable load. (General bearing capacity

equation)

36

Eccentrically load foundations

37

Eccentrically load foundations

(Effective area method, Meyerhof, 1953)

In addition to vertical loads,

foundations are subjected to

moments (example, base of retaining

walls).

The pressure distribution under such

loading conditions is not uniform .

Q 6e

=

qmax 1 +

BL B

Q 6e

=

qmin 1 −

BL B

38

Eccentrically load foundations

Q 6e

=

qmin 1 −

BL B

= M e B= / 6 qmin 0

e=

Q e > B / 6 qmin =

( −)

tensions (i.e., cracks will develop);

separation between the

foundation and the underlying

soil.

Exact distribution of pressure is

difficult to estimate.

39

Meyerhof’s effective area method

Step 1: effective dimensions

B’ = effective width = B – 2e

L = effective length = L

Note: if the eccentricity is in the direction of length, then, L’= L-2e and B’ = B.

qu′ =c′N c Fcs Fcd Fci + q N q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 1 2 γ B′ Nγ Fγ s Fγ d Fγ i

Step 3: total ultimate load

Qult = qu′ ( B′ )( L′ )

Qult

FS against bearing capacity failure FS =

Q

qu′

FS against qmax FS =

qmax

40

DGD Problem 4

A continuous foundation is shown in the figure below. If the load eccentricity is 0.2

m, determine the ultimate load, Qult per unit length of the foundation. Use

Meyerhof’s effective area method.

41

Bearing capacity equation for undrained loading Conditions

Foundations on clay soils which are typically in a state of saturated condition and

are frequently loaded much more rapidly than which the pore-water pressures

can dissipate.

For such cases, the concept of φu = 0 should be used for determining the ultimate

bearing capacity of soils. In other words, undrained shear strength, su (in some

cases term cu is used) describes the shear strength of soil.

For φu = 0 , the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ are 5.7 (Terzaghi)/5.14

(Genral bearing capacity), 1 and zero respectively (This set of values should be

remembered).

φu = 0, c = cu

42

Bearing capacity equation for undrained loading Conditions

qu =c′N c + γ D f N q + 1 2 Bγ Nγ

qu =5.7cu + γ D f (1) + 1 2 Bγ (0)

qu 5.7cu + γ D f

Net bearing capacity: qnet = qu – surcharge

qnet = 5.7cu

Net bearing capacity of saturated clay soils under undrained loading conditions is

not dependent on shape and size of the foundation and only depends on cu.

43

Bearing capacity equation for undrained loading Conditions

=qu c N c Fcs Fcd + q0

Skempton (1951): φu = 0

Df B

qn =5.14cu 1 + 0.4 1 + 0.2

B L

Field vane tests (typically in soft and sensitive saturated clays) (In situ test)

Laboratory vane tests

Standard penetration tests (SPT).

Cone penetrometer test (static or dynamic cone tests)

44

DGD Problem 5

stiff clay if a factor of safety 3 with respect to shear failure is specified. The saturated

unit weight if 20 kN/m3 and the relevant shear strength parameters are cu = 135

kN/m2 and φu = 0.

45

Factor of safety

A safety factor is introduced into geotechnical stability in order to ensure

reasonable safety of earthworks, earth retaining structures and foundations,

design, and construction.

Safety factor may be defined as the ratio of the resistance of the earth structure

or foundation to the applied load effects to ensure freedom from danger, loss or

unacceptable risk (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual).

Global factor of safety value is typically in the range of 1.3 to 3.0. This factor of

safety depends on how well we are able to define dead load, live load, variability

of deposit, extent of investigation and reliability of strength parameters.

46

Factor of safety

Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested customary safety factors (also called as global

safety factors) which are summarized below:

Failure type Item Safety factor, F

Earth retaining structures, excavations 1.5 -2

Foundations 2-3

Exit gradients, piping 2-3

Lower values: maximum loads and worst environment conditions. These are used

in conjunction with performance observations, large field tests, analyses of

failures of similar structures, at the end of service life, and for temporary works.

47

Factor of safety

Various influences affecting the margin of safety in earthwork and foundation are

the variability of the loads and load effects and of the soil resistance (Meyerhof,

1970)

Meyerhof (1982) introduced a more consistent approach (leading to a more

uniform margin of safety for different types and components of earth structures

and foundations under different loading conditions) by using partial safety

factors.

Ultimate Limit States (ULS): Uses load factors that are greater than one and

factored strength parameters that are less than one. These factors are based on

structural working stress design (consistent with structural design concepts);

supported by probability studies of variability of various types of loading (Allen

1975).

48

Factor of safety

Category Item Load factor Load factor

Symbol Value

Loads Dead loads fd 1.25 (0.8)

earthquake

Category Item Load factor Load factor

Symbol Value

Shear Cohesion (c) (stability, fc 0.65

strength earth pressures)

49

Factor of safety

The load factors are provided mainly for variability and pattern of loading, which

differ for dead loads, live and environmental loads, and water pressures.

The resistance factors (i.e. strength) take into account mainly the variability and

uncertainty of the assessment of shear strength parameters.

50

Thank You

for

Your Attention

51

- PILES BEHAVIORCargado porMichael Sheinin
- EM 1110-1-1905 - Bearing Capacity of SoilsCargado porPDHLibrary
- soil - chapter 12Cargado porSudharsananPRS
- Plastic SoilCargado porSanjithRNair
- Shear Stength of SoilCargado porRamKrishnaMurti
- GEONCargado porporur
- syllabus.pdfCargado porAsad Hafudh
- Invariants of Stress and Fabric Tensors in Charged Granular SystemsCargado porAshar Smy
- Civil 7 Sem SyllabusCargado porLalit Bedi
- Homework2.1Cargado porOssamaBladen
- 375 Liquefaction Pumice SandsCargado porTuroy
- Geotechnical Assesment for Weir Foundation RMRCargado portsuak
- Gm Glo0305 01 a2 Gms Endeavour at l7a AaCargado porABA
- Pile Load CapacityCargado porAziz ul Hakeem
- D3387Cargado porgrats_singco
- Guidelines for Design of Earth SlopesCargado pornikom kraitad
- V2-1_01.pdfCargado porNikhilesh Dey
- geolett.14Cargado porabidah fitra
- Resonant Column. to Get the Real PictureCargado porSara Ines Alvarado Carvajal
- houlsby2002.pdfCargado porPu Thea
- DESIGN OF SLOPE FOR ROAD EMBANKMENT WITH THE HELP OF SOFTWARE FOR FINE SAND WITH SANITARY WARE WASTE MATERIALCargado porIJAR Journal
- 41 Pile FoundationCargado porNejbel M Ab
- Pages From Detail Design Document - StructuresCargado porPrince Mittal
- Geotechnical Engineering – IICargado porLeslie Ompad Razon
- Ppr2014.406maCargado por3ces
- GEO12-FW-048Cargado poramerico_30
- languages.txtCargado porcusianel02spg
- soil mechanics 2Cargado porSylvester Wafula
- Research OrganisationsCargado porPriya Balaji
- Appendices E - G-utilization RatioCargado porIgnatius Samraj

- ENVS_Chapter 3_Environmental Policy - Decision Making & Problem SolvingCargado porNathan
- Ch06 Lecture 3eCargado porHari Harul Vullangi
- 7448018Cargado porNathan
- 2005483029_HydrologicSoftwareCargado porNathan
- CVG 3106 Chp2 Site Studies 2018 Summer FinalCargado porNathan
- CVG 3106 Chp1 Review 2018 Summer FinalCargado porNathan
- CVG3106 Chp3 BC of SF 2018 SummerCargado porNathan
- Dire SWAT Natural Flow 1961 2000Cargado porNathan
- TransportationCargado porAgnivesh Patel
- IHA Manual V7-1Cargado porNathan

- CESSM Guidance Note May 1994(1)Cargado porSachith Seneviratna
- 01 Section Specs[1]Cargado porBrian Phillip
- Materials Engineer Accreditation Examination ReviewerCargado porZherrinore Rasay
- RMS BTD List.pdfCargado porMehedi Chowdhury
- Timbering Week 5Cargado porFikaduKitessa
- CivilCargado pornitish
- SNiP 3.06.03-85 HighwaysCargado porGasca Viorel Ionel
- PS2ReportCargado porKoushik G Sai
- Deep Soil MixingCargado porsuvra
- ISAFE2013 - Wet Speed Mixing by Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte LtdCargado porPcEng
- DhananjayCargado porjaswant
- PTC excavator mounted Vibrodrivers WEB 09-2015.pdfCargado porDaniel Fuhr
- Concrete BasementsCargado porrbashir6
- mos-prfCargado porNadim527
- Types of FootingCargado porVince Ilagan Maravillas
- 93076747-Micro-Piles.docxCargado porMohamed Rashad Elseadawy
- is.8414.1977Cargado porRajashekar.P
- Erosion & Scour[1]Cargado porOswald Os
- Small Craft HarborsCargado porMoises Guilherme Abreu Barbosa
- habib derivative mohammadpur.xlsCargado porhabibur Rahman Khan
- ASTM D3689 (Prueba de Carga en Traccion)Cargado porJosh Claure
- Preview of Analysis of Structures on Elastic FoundationsCargado porwilliamvargasmonge
- Calculation of Foundation Settlement and Coefficient of Soil Subgrade ReactionCargado porleodegarioporral
- 2014-07-01 Construction Meeting Minutes.pdfCargado porIthacaVoice
- Steel Sheet PilesCargado porDonothan Sookraj
- AMP ProfileCargado porsuvra
- Otc 16158Cargado porRavi Khandelwal
- Barrettes Bored Piles PrintedCargado porVo Kien Cuong
- 30- Process Plant Item SummaryCargado porStelian Barbu
- Sample Reviewer GEOCargado porAn D Ro