Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The following standards are valid for the verification of safety against
sliding and foundation failure, and also for determining the active earth
l
pressure:
ria
Sliding: DIN 1054
Foundation failure: DIN 4017
Slope failure: DIN 4084
Earth pressure: DIN 4085
ate
3.2 Safety against failure by hydraulic heave (R 115)
where:
S$ = characteristic value of flow force in body of earth in flow
= partial safety factor for flow force in limit state LS 1A to
DIN 1054 table 2
py
67
the water ywand by the mean flow gradient measured in this body in the
vertical.
dM If water flows upwards through the soil in front of the base of the wall,
the flow force should be considered in a body of soil whose width may
generally be assumed to be equal to half the embedment depth of the
wall (DIN 1054, section 11.5 (4)). In more accurate calculations, other
boundaries to the body of soil should be examined as well.
Fig. R 115-2 shows the method according to TERZAGHI-PECK [17, p. 2411,
fig. R 115-3 the method according to BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF [ 168,
p. 611.
hte
In the rectangular failure body with a width equal to half the embedment
depth t of the structure, the characteristic value of the vertical flow force
S i can be found approximately from the following equation:
rig
L L
where:
h, = effective hydraulic head at base of wall (difference between
standpipe water level at base of sheet piling and underwater
py
table level)
h, = effective hydraulic head at boundary of failure body opposite
base of wall
According to BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF [ 168, p. 661 verification of safety
Co
68
where:
yf = soil weight density, submerged
yw = gradient density of water
l
i = mean hydraulic gradient in path considered (i = h, / t )
ria
In this approach as well, the effective hydraulic head h, at the base of the
sheet piling can be calculated using a flow net according to R 113,
section 4.7.4 or 4.7.5.
ate
+7.00
V
dM
heave failure body
Fig. R 115-2. Safety against a failure by hydraulic heave in a dredge pit bottom according to the
TERZAGHI-PECK method, determined with the flow net as per R 113, section 4.7.7
+7.00
rig
py
Co
Fig. R 115-3. Safety against a failure by hydraulic heave in a dredge pit bottom according to the
BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF method
69
h, =
hw, ' 4c + hw, ' Ji
l
&+A
ria
from which we get:
where:
ate
h, = difference between standpipe water level at base of sheet
piling and lower water level
hF = standpipe water level at base of sheet piling
h,, = depth of soil in flow on upper water side of sheet piling
h,,= water level above base of sheet piling on upper water side
dMh,,= water level above base of sheet piling on lower water side
t = embedment depth of sheet piling
In the case of a horizontal inflow, the residual hydraulic head at the base
of the sheet piling increases considerably and in such cases the approxi-
mate approach may not be used!
The decrease in hydraulic head is not linear over the height of the sheet
piling and therefore it is not permitted to calculate h, from the develop-
hte
ment of the flow path along the sheet piling! Advice on determining the
hydraulic head at the base of the sheet piling and the factor of safety
against heave failure in stratified subsoils can be found in R 165,
section 4.9.4.
The danger of an impending hydraulic heave failure in an excavation
may be indicated by wetting of the ground in front of the sheet piling;
the ground then seems soft and springy. If this occurs, the excavation
rig
than the external pressure changes acting on the soil due to changes in
the water level (e.g. tides, waves, lowering of the water level) and
70
water is therefore always connected with a mass transport, i.e. the (non-
steady) flow of pore water in the direction of a lower hydraulic head.
Quick changes in the water level therefore always require verification
for the non-steady excess pore water pressure Au(z) for the initial condi-
tion in addition to verification of adequate safety against heave failure
py
in the final condition with a steady flow. The object of the verification is
to avoid the limit states for stability and serviceability. Serviceability
can be impaired by unacceptable loosening (heave) of the base of the
excavation, or undesirable base and (lateral) wall deformations [21 I].
The distribution of the excess pore water pressure Au(z) over the depth
Co
71
l
b = pore water pressure parameter from fig. R 115-5
ria
z = depth of soil
The pore water pressure parameter b (unit of measurement: l/m) can be
found from fig. R 115-5 based on the relevant time period t, and the
permeability k of the soil.
For a depth z the dead load G,, of the body of soil with unit width 1, unit
ate
length 1 and density y' is:
Gb, = y'. z
Due to the excess pore water pressure, a vertical, upward, seepage force
develops in the soil and acts on the body of soil:
dM . yw . Ah
yn!,,,,,,
= (1 -
The ratio of weight to seepage force is most unfavourable at the section
in which the excess pore water pressure reaches its maximum. In this
case this is at depth z = zCrit:
hte
t, = 1 sec
rig
t, = 10 sec
t, = 100 sec
t, = 1000 sec
py
t, = 10 000 sec
Fig. R 115-5.Parameter b for determining the flow force for unsteady flow depending on
time t A
72
l
carried out for the base.
ria
If the condition
ate
non-steady flow processes requires verification of equilibrium at least:
gradient in the direction of the upper water level. The maximum gradient
always occurs at the interface between structure and wall. If the channel
reaches a free upper watercourse, erosion causes widening of the channel
within a very short time and leads to a failure similar to heave failure. In
doing so, a mixture of water and soil flows into the excavation with a
high velocity until equilibrium is achieved between outer water and
excavation. A deep crater forms behind the wall.
rig
The presence of loose soils or weak spots in the base support area (e.g.
inadequately sealed boreholes) and loose zones in the immediate vicinity
of the walhoil interface behind the wall are the conditions that tend to
promote piping, but also a sufficient amount of water (free upper
watercourse) and a relatively high hydraulic gradient.
py
73
ate
soiliwater mixture
dM /
be considered for every individual case owing to the diversity of the de-
signs and boundary conditions. Other conditions being equal, the risk of
piping increases in proportion to the increase in the hydraulic head be-
tween the upper and lower water levels, as well as with an increase in the
presence of loose, fine-grained, non-cohesive material in the subsoil, parti-
Co
cularly when there are embedded sand lenses or veins in soils not other-
wise at risk of erosion. In cohesive soil there is generally no risk of piping.
74
l
If conditions prevail that appear to make piping possible, precautions to
ria
prevent this should be planned from the very beginning of work on site
in order to take appropriate countermeasures immediately if this should
prove necessary. In particular, in such cases it is important to drive the
sheet piling to an adequate depth in order to reduce the gradient of the
flows around the sheet piling. The minimum embedment depth to prevent
ate
erosion failures can be determined according to R 113, section 4.7.7.
Defects in the walls (e.g. interlock declutching in sheet piling) shorten
the seepage path of the flow around the wall and hence steepen the
gradient dramatically. Therefore, such defects are to be considered with
respect to a hydraulic heave failure provided there is a real risk of these
in the actual circumstances.
dM
3.4 Verification of overall stability of structures on elevated piled
structures (R 170)
3.4.1 General
Verification of overall stability of structures on elevated piled structures
can be carried out using DIN 4084.
hte
3.4.2 Data
The following must be available for verification:
(1) Data on the design and dimensions of the piled structure, applicable
loads and internal forces, most unfavourable water levels and live
loads.
rig
75
l
3.4.4 Application of the resistances
ria
(1) The resistances (axial and dowelling forces) of the rows of piles
within the pile bent plane are distributed along the equivalent length
according to fig. R 170-1. They are calculated with the least favour-
able values as per DIN 4084, section 6.
( 2 ) The passive earth pressure may be calculated with the kinematically
ate
compatible passive earth pressure angle Sp. In special cases the
W
1
py
Co
Fig. R 170-1. Sketch for determining overall stability of an elevated pile-founded structure
76
l
(3) The favourable effect of deeper embedded stabilising walls or aprons
ria
may be taken into account.
(4) Effects of earthquake actions are to be covered in accordance with
R 124, section 2.13. For verification with combined failure mecha-
nisms having straight failure lines as per DIN 4084, the seismic force
may be calculated as a horizontal mass force.
ate
dM
hte
rig
py
Co
77