Tablaestacas y Troqueles

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE
INGENIERIA ESTRUCTURAL, A.C.

Curso: Diseo Estructural de Cimentaciones
23 al 26 de septiembre, 2002

1
DISEO ESTRUCTURAL DE CIMENTACIONES

Diseo de elementos auxiliares de construccin:
tablaestacas y troqueles.

PREAMBULO:

El diseo ejecutivo de excavaciones profundas tiene una gran interaccin entre el Ingeniero
Estructural, el Ingeniero Geotcnico y el Ingeniero Constructor.

Para poder estimar las cargas que se generan en los elementos de soporte de la excavacin, se
requiere conocer la distribucin de presiones laterales que ejerce el terreno sobre estos
elementos. Sin embargo, esta distribucin de presiones vara en funcin de la separacin que
se establezca para los elementos de apoyo, de la rigidez de los mismos y del proceso
constructivo que se siga. Dadas las incertidumbres que implica el comportamiento de los suelos,
ste no es un problema que pueda resolverse con precisin, sino que su solucin ser ms
razonable que exacta.

Con objeto de dar una idea de los procesos que se siguen en el diseo de elementos de apoyo
de excavaciones profundas, en las notas siguientes se ha includo el Captulo 7 de un excelente
libro de Ingeniera de Cimentaciones: Principles of Foundation Engineering; Braja M. Das;
PWS Engineering; Boston, MA; 1984.

Estas notas pretenden ser slo una ayuda para entender el comportamiento y diseo de estos
elementos, y se invita al lector a estudiarlas detenidamente y a profundizar en bibliografa
adicional referente a este tema.

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA ESTRUCTURAL
Septiembre, 2002


2

Braced Cuts

7.1 Introduction

Sometimes construction work requires ground excavations with vertical or near-vertical
faces - for example, basements of buildings in developed areas or underground
transportation facilities at shallow depths below the ground surface (cut-and-cover type
of construction). The vertical faces of the cuts need to he protected by temporary
bracing systems to avoid failure that may be accompanied by considerable settlement
or by bearing capacity failure of nearby foundation(s).

Figure 7.1 shows two types of braced cut commonly used in construction work. One
type uses the soldier beam (Figure 7.la), which is driven into the ground before
excavation. Soldier beams are vertical steel or timber beams.

After the excavation is started, laggings. are placed between the soldier beams as the
excavation proceeds. Laggings are horizontal timber planks. When the excavation
reaches the desired depth, wales and struts are properly installed (wales and struts are
horizontal steel beams). The struts act like horizontal columns. Figure 7. 11) shows
another type of braced excavation. In this case, interlocking sheet piles are driven into
tire soil before excavation. As the excavation proceeds, wales and struts are inserted
immediately after reaching the appropriate depth.

To design braced excavations (that is, to select wales, struts, sheet piles, and soldier
beams), one must know the lateral earth pressure to which the braced cuts will be
subjected. This topic is discussed in Section 7.2; subsequent sections cover the
procedures of analysis and design of braced cuts.

3

Figure 7.1 Types of braced cut: (a) use of soldier beams: (b) use of sheet piles

7.2 Lateral Earth Pressure In Braced Cuts

In Chapter 5 we learned that a retaining wall rotates about its bottom (Figure 7.2a). With
sufficient yielding of the wall, the lateral earth pressure can he approximated to be equal to that
obtained by Rankines or Coulombs theory.

4

In contrast to retaining walls, braced cuts show a different type of wall yielding (see Figure 7.2b).
In this case, the deformation of the wall gradually increases with the depth of excavation. The
variation of the amount of deformation will depend on several factors, such as the type of soil,
the depth of excavation, and the workmanship. However, one can easily visualize that, with very
little wall yielding at the top of the cut, the lateral earth pressure will be close to the at-rest
pressure. At the bottom of the wall, with a much larger degree of yielding, the lateral earth
pressure will be substantially lower than the Rankine active earth pressure. As a result, the
distribution of lateral earth pressure will vary substantially in comparison to the linear distribution
assumed in the case of retaining walls.

A theoretical evaluation of the total lateral force, P, imposed on a wall can be made by using
Terzaghi's general wedge theory (1943a) (Figure 7.3a), in which the failure surface is assumed
to be the are of a logarithmic spiral, defined by the equation

r =r
0
e
tan
(7.1)

where =angle of friction of soil

A detailed outline for the evaluation of P is beyond the scope of this text; readers should check a
soil mechanics text for more information (for example, Das, 1979). However, a comparison of the
lateral earth pressure for braced cuts in sand (with angle of wall friction =0) with that for a
retaining wall ( =0) is shown in Figure 7.3b. lf =0, a retaining wall of height H will he
subjected to a Rankine active earth pressure, and the resultant active force will intersect the wall
at a distance of nH measured from the bottom of the wall. For this case, n =1/3. In contrast, the
value of n for a braced cut may vary from 0.33 to 0.5 or 0.6. The general wedge theory can also
be used to analyze braced cuts in saturated clay (for example, see Das and Seeley, 1975).

In any event, when choosing a lateral soil pressure distribution for design of braced cuts, one
should keep in mind that the nature of failure in braced cuts

5

is much different from that in retaining walls. After observation of several braced cuts, Peck
(1969) suggested using design pressure envelopes for braced cuts in sand and clay. Figure 7.4
shows Peck's pressure envelopes, to which the following guidelines apply:

1. Figure 7.4a is for braced cuts constructed in dry or moist sand. Note K
. is the Rankine active

earth pressure coefficient.

6
2. For cuts in clay, first calculate the value of H/c (where c =undrained cohesion of the clay
located on the sides of the cuts; =0 concept). lf H/c is less than or equal to 4, the pressure
envelope shown in Figure 7.4c should be used. The value of
varies between 0.2H and 0.4H,

with an average of 0.3H. lf H is greater than 4, the pressure envelope shown in Figure 7.4b
should be used. In this case,
may he equal to H[1 - (4c/H)] or 0.3H, whichever is greater.

Peck's pressure envelopes are sometimes referred to as apparent pressure envelopes.

Sometimes one encounters layers of both sand and clay when constructing a braced cut. In this
case, Peck (1943) proposed that an equivalent value of cohesion =0 concept) should be
determined in the following manner (refer to Figure 7.5a):

Once the average values of cohesion and unit weight are determined, the pressure envelopes in
clay (Figure 7.4b and c) can be used to design the cuts.
In a similar manner, when a number of clay layers are encountered in the cut (Figure 7.5b), the
average undrained cohesion can be expressed by the equation

7

7.3 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut

Struts

In construction work, the struts should have a minimum vertical spacing of about 2.75 m or more.
The struts are actually horizontal columns subject to bending. The load-carrying capacity of
columns will depend on the slenderness ratio, l/r. The slenderness ratio can he reduced by
providing vertical and horizontal supports at intermediate points. For cuts with large widths, it
may be necessary to splice the struts. In the case of braced cuts in clayey soils, the depth of the
first strut below the ground surface should he less than the depth of tensile crack, z
c
From Eq. (5.
1 1)

A simplified conservative procedure can be used to determine the strut loads. This procedure will
vary depending on the engineers involved in the project, Following is a step-by-step outline of it
(refer to Figure 7.6).

1. Draw the pressure envelope for the braced cut (see Figure 7.4). Also show the proposed strut
levels. Figure 7.6a shows a pressure envelope for a


8

sandy soil; however, it could also be for a clay. Also, in this figure, the strut levels are marked A,
B
1
, C, and D. The sheet piles (or soldier beams) can be assumed to be hinged at the strut levels,
except for the top and bottom ones.
In Figure 7.6a, the hinges are at the level of struts B and C. (Many designers also assume the
sheet piles, or soldier beams, to be hinged at all strut levels, except for the top.)

2. Determine the reactions for the two simple cantilever beams (top and bottom) and all the
simple beams in between. In Figure 7.6b, these reactions are A, B
1
, B
2
, C
1
, C
2
, and D.

3. The strut loads in Figure 7.6 can now be calculated as follows:


9

4. Knowing the strut loads at each level and the intermediate bracing conditions, one can now
select the proper sections by using the steel construction manual.

Sheet Piles

In order to design the sheet piles, perform the following steps:

1. For each of the sections shown in Figure 7.6b, determine the maximum bending moment.

2. Determine the maximum value of the maximum bending moment (M
max
) obtained in Step 1.
Note that the unit of this moment will he, for example kN-m/meter length of the wall.

3. Obtain the section modulus of the sheet piles:

all
M
S
max
=

where
all
=allowable flexural stress of the sheet pile material
4. The sheet pile section can now be chosen from a table such as Table 6. 1.

Wales

1. Wales can be treated as continuous horizontal members if they are spliced properly.
Conservatively, they may also he treated as though they are pinned at the struts. For the section
shown in Figure 7.6a, the maximum moments for the wales (assuming the they are pinned at the
struts) are as follows:
where A, B
1
, B
2
, C
1
, C
2
, and D are the reactions under the struts per unit length of the wall (Step
2 of strut design).

2. Determine the section modulus of the wales:

10
The wales are sometimes fastened to the sheet piles at points that satisfy the lateral support
requirements.

Example 7.1 The cross section of a long braced cut is shown in Figure 7.7a.

a. Draw the earth pressure envelope.
b. Determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.
c. Determine the section of the struts subjected to the largest load.
d. Determine the sheet pile section required.
e. Determine a design section for the wales at level B.

Note: The struts are placed at 3 m center-to-center in the plan.

Solution

Part a

Given: =18 kN/m
3
, c =35 kN/m
2
and H =6 m.

4 6 . 3
35
) 7 )( 18 (
< = =
c
H

So, the pressure envelope will he like the one in Figure 7.4c. This is plotted in Figure 7,7a with
maximum pressure intensity, p
equal to 0.3H =0.3(18)(7) =37.8 kN/m

2

Part b

For determination of the strut loads, refer to Figure 7.7b. Taking the moment about B
1
,


11
Figure 7.7 (Continued)

0
2
75 . 1
) 8 . 37 )( 75 . 1 (
3
75 . 1
75 . 1 ) 75 . 1 )( 8 . 37 (
2
1
) 5 . 2 ( =
= A


12
or

A =54.02 kN/m

Also, vertical forces =0. Thus

2
1
(1.75)(37,8) +(37.8)(1.75) =A +B
1

33.08 +66.15 - A =B
1

So

B
1
=45.2 kN/m

Due to symmetry

B
2
=45.2 kN/m
C =54.02 kN/m

Strut load at level

P
a
=54.02 x horizontal spacing, s =54.02 x 3 =162.06 kN
P
b
=(B
1
+B
2
)3 =(45.02 +45.2)3 =271.2 kN

P
c
=54.02 x3 =162.06 kN
Part C

The struts at level B are subjected to the largest load-that is, P
B
=271.2 kN. For the struts,
effective length (KL: refer to the American lnstitute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
Construction, 1980, pp. 3-29) with respect to x and y axes is 6 m. Accordingly, the section W 250
mm X 49 kg/m (in English units, it is section W 10 X 33) will be more than sufficient. (Note: F
y
=
248.4 MN/m
2.
)

Part d

Refer to the left side of Figure 7.7b. For the maximum moment, the shear force should be zero.
The nature of variation of the shear force is shown in Figure 7.7c. The location of point E can be
given as

m
B at reaction
x 196 . 1
8 . 37
2 . 45 1
8 . 37
= = =

The magnitude of moment a
=
3
1
1
75 . 1
8 . 37
) 1 (
2
1
x A

l meterofwal m kN / 6 . 3 =


13
The magnitude of moment at
=
2
196 . 1
) 196 . 1 8 . 37 ( ) 196 . 1 2 . 45 ( x x E

l meterofwal m kN / 03 . 27 03 . 27 06 . 54 = =

Because the loading on the left and right sections of Figure 7.7b are the same, the magnitude of
moments at F and C (Figure 7.7e) will be the same as E and A, respectively. Hence, the
maximum moment =27.03 kN-m/meter of wall.

The section modulus of the sheet piles,

m m x
m kN x
m kN M
S
all
/ 10 9 . 15
/ 10 170
03 . 27
3 5
2 3
max
=
= =
of the wall

According to Table 6. 1, section PMA-22 can he used.

Part e

The reaction at level B has been calculated in Part b. Hence

m kN
s B B
M =
+
=
+
= 7 . 101
8
3 ) 2 . 45 2 . 45 (
8
) 2 (
2 2
1
max

Section modulus,
) 1000 4 . 248 ( 6 . 0
7 . 101
6 . 0
7 . 101 7 . 101
x F
S
y all
x
= = =

3 3
10 682 . 0 m x

=

So, a section of W 310 mm x 54 kg/m (in English units, W 12 x 36) with an S
x =
0.754 x 10
-3
m
3

can be used. (Note: L
c
=2.1 m and L
u
=4.085 m AISC Manuel.)

7.4 Stability of Braced Cuts

Heave of the- Bottom of the Cut in Clay

Braced cuts in clay may become unstable as a result of the heaving of the bottom of the
excavation. Terzaghi (1943b) has analyzed the factor of safety of braced excavations against
bottom heave. The failure surface for such a case is shown in Figure 7.8. The vertical load per
unit length of the cut at the level of the bottom of the cut along the line bd and af is equal to

14

Q =HB
1
- cH (7.8)

where B
1
=0.7B

c =cohesion ( =0 concept)

This load Q can he treated like a load per unit length on a continuous foundation at the level of
bd (and af) having a width of B
1
=0.7B. Based on Terzaghis bearing capacity theory, the net
ultimate load-carrying capacity per unit length of this foundation can be given by the equation
[Chapter 3; see Eqs. (3.3) and (3.34)]

Q
u
=cN
c
B
1
=5.7cB
1

Hence, from Eq. (7.8), the factor of safety against bottom heave can he given as

= =
B
c
c
H cH HB
cB
Q
Q
FS
u
7 . 0
7 . 5 1 7 . 5
1
1

(7.9)

The preceding factor of safety [Eq. (7.9)] has been derived based on the assumption that the
clay layer is homogeneous, at least up to a depth of 0.7B below the bottom of the cut. However,
if a hard layer of rock or rock-like material is located at a depth D <0.7B, the failure surface will
he modified to some extent. In such a case, the factor of safety can be modified to the form

=
D c
c
H
FS
/
7 . 5 1


15
Bjerrum and Eide (1956) also studied the problem of bottom heave for braced cuts in clay, and
they proposed the following equation for the factor of safety

H
cN
FS
c
=

The bearing capacity factor N
c
varies witli the ratio of H/B and also L/B (where L =length of the
cut). For infinitely long cuts (B/L =0), N
c
=5.14 at H/B =0 and increases to a value of N
c
=7.6 at
H/B =4. Beyond that-that is, for H/B >4 - the value of N
c
remains constant. For cuts square in
plan (B/L =1), N
c
=6.3 at H/B =0, and N
c
=9 for H/B 4. In general, at any given H/B

+ =
L
B
N N
square c gle rec c
16 . 0 84 . 0
) ( ) tan (
(7.12)

Figure 7.9 shows the variation of the value of N
c
for L/B =1, 2, 3, and . In any case, a factor of
safety of 1.25 to 1.5 is desired.

Stability of the Bottom of the Cut in Sand
The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the ground water table is encountered, the
bottom of the cut is stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is higher than the

16
ground water level. lf the water level inside the cut is lowered below the ground water level by
pumping, instability may be created as a result of the upward seepage of water into the cut.
Section 7.5 discusses this problem in more detail.

Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles

In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet pile walls may be expected (Figure 7. 10). Of
course, the lateral yield will depend on several factors, the

17
most important of which is time elapsed after excavation that is required for the placement of
wales and struts, Mana and Ciotigh (1981) analyzed the field records of several braced cuts in
clay from the San Francisco, Oslo (Norway), Boston, Chicago, and Bowline Point (New York)
areas. Under ordinary construction conditions, it was found that the maximum lateral wall yield
[
H(max
)] has a definite relationship with the factor of safety against heave. This is shown in Figure
7. 10. Note that the factor of safety against heave as plotted in Figure 7. 10 has been calculated
by using Eqs. (7. 9) and (7. 10).

In several instances, the sheet piles (or the soldier piles as the case may be) are driven to a
certain depth below the bottom of the excavation. This is done to reduce the lateral yielding of
the walls during the last stages of excavation. The lateral yielding of the walls will cause
settlement of the ground surface surrounding the cut. The degree of lateral yielding, however,
depends mostly on the soil type below the bottom of the cut. lf clay below the cut extends to a
great depth and H/c is less than about 6, extension of the sheet piles or soldier piles below the
bottom of the cut will help considerably in reducing the lateral yield of the walls. However, under
similar circumstances, if H/c is about 8, the extension of sheet piles into the clay below the cut
does not help to a great extent. In such circumstances, one nay expect a great degree of wall
yielding that may result in the total collapse of the bracing systems. lf a hard soil layer is located
below a clay layer at the bottom of the cut, the piles should be embedded in the stiffer layer. This
will have a great effect in reducing the lateral yield.

Ground Settlement


18
The lateral yielding of walls will generally induce ground settlement (
v
) around a braced cut.
This is generally referred to as ground loss. Based on several field observations, Peck (1969)
has provided curves for prediction of ground settlement in various types of soil (see Figure 7.11).
The magnitude of ground loss varies extensively; however, Figure 7. 11 can be used as a
general guide.

Based on the field data obtained from various exits in the areas of San Francisco, Oslo, and
Chicago, Mana and Clough (1981) have provided a correlation between the maximum lateral
yield of sheet piles [
H(max)
] and the maximum ground settlement [
V(max)
] This is shown in Figure
7.12. It can be seen that

V(max)
0.5 to 1
H(max)
(7.13)

7.2 Example

Refer to Example Problem 7.1. Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave using Eqs.
(7.9) and (7.11)


19

Solution

In Example Problem 7. 1, =18 kN/m
3
, c =35 kN/m
2
, and H =7 m.

95 . 2
) 6 )( 7 . 0 (
35
18
) 35 )( 7 . 5 (
7
1
7 . 0
7 . 5 1
=
1
1
1
1
]
1
=
|
|
|
|
\
|
=
B
c
c
H
FS

Factor of Safety from Eq. (7.9)

H
cN
FS
c
=

Factor of Safety from Eq. (7.11)


20

According to Figure 7.9, for H/B =7/6 =1. 16 and B/L 0, the value of Nc is equal to 6.46. Thus

79 . 1
) 7 )( 18 (
) 46 . 6 )( 35 (
= = FS

Tablaestacas y Troqueles

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tablaestacas y Troqueles

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE

INGENIERIA ESTRUCTURAL, A.C.

. is the Rankine active

varies between 0.2H and 0.4H,

may he equal to H[1 - (4c/H)] or 0.3H, whichever is greater.

equal to 0.3H =0.3(18)(7) =37.8 kN/m

Вам также может понравиться