Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(Killiney Bay)
For this example Drained conditions give the larger design widths Considering undrained and drained conditions (design width): DA1.C2 is larger than DA1.C1 DA3 gives largest width for ULS (2.29m) DA2 gives smallest width for ULS (1.87m) Considering just undrained conditions: DA2 gives the largest width for ULS (1.57m) DA1 gives smallest width for ULS
SLS Design
Is it always necessary to calculate the settlement to check the SLS? In SLS Application Rules, Eurocode 7 states that: For spread foundations on stiff and firm clays calculations of vertical displacements (settlements) should usually be undertaken For conventional structures founded on clays, the ratio of the bearing capacity of the ground, at its initial undrained shear strength, to the applied serviceability loading (OFSu) should be calculated If this ratio is less than 3, calculations of settlements should always be undertaken. If the ratio is less than 2, the calculations should take account of non-linear stiffness effects in the ground i.e. if OFSu < 3, one should calculate settlement If OFSu < 2, one should calculate settlement accounting for non-linear stiffness For undrained designs of foundations with permanent structural loads only
DA1 give OFSu = 1.4 while DA2 and DA3 give OFSu = 1.89. Hence settlement calculations are needed
OFSu Ratios
ULS design (drained) width (m) DA1 DA2 DA3 2.08 1.87 2.29 OFSu using drained width = Ru,k / Vk = 0.833 B2 3.60 2.91 4.37 ULS undrained width (m) 1.39 1.57 1.56 OFSu using undrained width = Ru,k / Vk = F x M/R 1.57 1.99 1.97
Calculating the undrained OFS ratio using the design width i.e. the drained design width:
OFSu = Ru,k / Vk = A ( (p + 2) cu,k bc sc ic + qc ) / Vc = B2 x ( 5.14 x 200 x 1.0 x 1.2 x 1.0 + 20.0 x 0.8) / ( 900 + 600 ) = B2 x ( 1234.0 + 16.0 ) / 1500 = 0.833 B
In this example, using design (i.e. drained) widths: For DA1, OFSu = 3.60 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated For DA2, OFSu = 2.91 ( < 3 ) Settlement should be calculated For DA3, OFSu = 4.37 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated But using the undrained widths OFSu values are all less than 2.0, - much lower than value of 3 often used in traditional designs
Settlement Calculations
Components of settlement to consider on saturated soils:
Undrained settlements (due to shear deformation with no volume change) Consolidation settlements Creep settlements
The form of an equation to evaluate the total settlement of a foundation on cohesive or non-cohesive soil using elasticity theory, referred to as the adjusted elasticity method, is given in Annex F:
where: Em = design value of the modulus of elasticity f = settlement coefficient p = bearing pressure s = p B f / Em
f = (1 2) I where = 0.25 and I = 0.95 for square flexible uniformly loaded foundation Then f = (1 0.252) x 0.95 = 0.891 p = (Gk + Qk)/B2 = (900 + 600) / B2 = 1500 / B2
Hence settlement:
s = p B f / Em = (1500 / B2 ) x B x 0.891 x 1000 / 60000 = 22.28 / B mm where B is in m
Calculated Settlements
ULS design width (m) DA1 DA2 DA3 2.08 1.87 2.29 OFSu 3.60 2.91 4.37 Settlement ( mm ) s = 22.28 / B 10.7 11.9 9.7
In this example, using adjusted elasticity method and ULS design widths, the calculated settlements, s for all the Design Approaches are less than 25 mm
Note words of caution in EN 1997-1: Settlement calculations should not be regarded as accurate but as merely providing an approximate indication
Conclusions
In the example considered: ULS design: For each Design Approach, the drained condition determines the foundation width SLS design: The calculated settlements are less than the allowable settlement of 25mm, so that the SLS condition is satisfied using the design widths obtained using all the Design Approaches The ratio Ru,k / Vk for the ULS drained design widths is greater than 3 for DA1 and DA3 so settlement calculations are not required
Any Questions?
10
11
12
13
The first method is a graphical method giving graphs of horizontal components of Ka and Kp for different values, wall friction and slope angles, of ground behind the wall These are taken from BS 8002 (BSI 1994) and are based on work by Kerisel and Absi (1990), e.g. Ka values in figure below:
14
15
16
= 2
( 1
A ' c
u
with H Acu
17
18
100
80
60
Nck
40
Nc,DA1.C2
20
Nc,DA2
20
25
30
35
o
40
19
100
80
60
Nq,k
40
Nq,DA2
20
Nq,DA1.C2
0
20
25
30
35
o
40
20
100
N,k
80
60
N,DA2
40
20
N,DA1.C2
20 25 30 35
o
40
21
Comparison of N Values
120.0
Exact solutions are not available for N and a number of different equations have been proposed:
Caquot and Kerisel (1953): N = 2(Nq + 1) tan Meyerhof (1963): N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.4) Brinch Hansen (1970): N = 1.5 (Nq - 1) tan N = 2 (Nq - 1) tan
N
100.0
80.0
Meyerhof Eurocode 7
60.0
20.0
0.0 15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
EC7 eqn. was obtained by Vesic (1973) and adopted in Eurocode 7 as an updating of Brinch Hansens eqn. on basis of tests carried out Muhs (1973) in Berlin
Recently Martin in Oxford has obtained exact solutions for N to which Salgado (2008) has fitted the following eqn:
N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.32 )
Salgados eqn. is closest to Brinch Hansens eqn. and appears to indicate that the Eurocode 7 equation for Ng may be unconservative (i.e. unsafe)
22
b, s and i factors
The source of the b, s and i factors in Eurocode 7 are: For undrained conditions:
The shape factor was proposed by Skempton (1951) The load inclination factor is an algebraic fit to an exact solution by Green (1954)
23
This equation is taken from the French rules, MELT 1993 No values for the k factors are given in Eurocode 7
24
Settlement Evaluation
Annex F has 5 sections outlining the principles and methods for evaluating the settlement of a foundation Section F.2, titled Adjusted Elasticity Method, states that the total settlement of a foundation on cohesive or non-cohesive soil may be evaluated using elasticity theory and an equation of the form:
s = ( p b f ) /Em
25
26
Conclusions
Eurocode 7 developed to provide the principles for geotechnical design Emphasises that knowledge of ground conditions and control of workmanship have greater significance to fulfilling the fundamental requirements than applying sophisticated calculation models Variety of calculation models used for geotechnical design in different countries due to different soil types, climatic conditions and testing methods Calculations models are informative not mandatory and placed in Annexes Calculation models in Annexes from many sources, times and countries The various models in Eurocode 7 have been reviewed by many geotechnical engineers during the 29 years since the first EC7 meeting They represent a synthesis of geotechnical knowledge, design practice and experience
Should provide a sound basis for harmonised geotechnical design in Europe using Eurocode 7
27
28
29
30
Section 10 of Eurocode 7 is concerned with hydraulic failure where the strength of the ground is not significant in providing resistance and where failure is induced by excessive pore-water pressures or seepage The hydraulic modes of failure include:
1. Failure by uplift (buoyancy) 2. Failure by heave 3. Failure by internal erosion 4. Failure by piping
31
32
Hydraulic Failures
Figures from EN 1997-1 showing Hydraulic Failures
33
34
35
First eqn:
Two equations are given for HYD equilibrium udst;d std;d Sdst;d Gstb;d (w i Vol)d ( Vol)d where i = h / d (w h/d)d ()d (w h)d (d)d udst;d stb;d (effective stress eqn.)
2.9a
(total stress eqn. - only equation in Eurocode 7 in terms of stress) Second eqn: i.e.
2.9b
36
UPL
HYD
Note: In UPL, a factor of 1.0 is recommended for destabilising permanent actions, e.g. uplift water pressures. The required safety is thus obtained by factoring stabilising permanent actions by 0.9 and the soil strength or resistance In HYD, no partial material factors are provided as no soil strength is involved
37
For no Rd (i.e. soil resistance on side of buried structure ignored) G;dst Vdst;k = G;stb Gstb;k
Overall factor of safety (OFS) = Gstb;k / Vdst;k = G;dst / G;stb Applying recommended partial factors G;dst/G;stb = 1.0/0.9 = 1.11 Hence OFS = 1.11
38
Equation 2.9b
Sdst;d Gstb;d G;dst Sdst;k G;stb Gstb;k G;dst w i V G;stb V OFS(b) = Gstb;k / Sdst;k = G;dst / G;stb = / (wi) = ic/i = critical hydraulic gradient / actual hydraulic gradient OFS(b) = dst/stb = 1.35/0.9 = 1.5
Equation 2.9a
udst;d stb;d G;dstwd + G;dstwh G;stb'd + G;stbwd OFS(a) = G;dst / G;stb = (d + wd) / (wh + wd) = (ic + 1)/(i + 1) = 1.5 ic/i = 1.5 + 0.5/i if i = 0.5 then ic/i = OFS(b) = 2.5 i.e. more cautious than using Eqn. 2.9b because wd occurs on both sides of equation and is multiplied by different F values
39
Comment on HYD
HYD ultimate limit states include internal erosion and piping as well as heave The OFS value traditionally used to avoid piping is often very much greater than the 1.5 provided by the HYD partial factors; e.g. 4.0 Hence, EN 1997-1 gives additional provisions to avoid the occurrence of internal erosion or piping For internal erosion, it states that:
Filter criteria shall be used to limit the danger of material transport by internal erosion Measures such as filter protection shall be applied at the free surface of the ground Alternatively, artificial sheets such as geotextiles may be used If the filter criteria are not satisfied, it shall be verified that the design value of the hydraulic gradient is well below the critical hydraulic gradient at which soil particles begin to move. ic value depends on the design conditions
EN 1997-1 states that piping shall be prevented by providing sufficient resistance against internal soil erosion through by providing:
- Sufficient safety against heave - Sufficient stability of the surface layers
40
5.0m T
U = Uplift water pressure force = w15 (5 + T G = Weight of basement plus structural load R = Resisting force from soil on side walls
41
42
43
44
H=?
- 1.0 m water in excavation - Weight density of sand = 20 kN/m3 Require H - Height of GWL behind wall above excavation level
Sand = 20kN/m3
3.0m
45
46
47
48
49
Scope
Applies to end-bearing piles, friction piles, tension piles and transversely loaded piles installed by driving, jacking, and by screwing or boring with or without grouting
Not to be applied directly to the design of piles that are intended to act as settlement reducers
50
51
Checked
52
53
54
Design considerations
Stiffness and strength of the structure connecting the piles Duration and variation in time of the loading when selecting the calculation method and parameter values and in using load test results Planned future changes in overburden or potential changes in the ground water level
55
56
Gives method of determining characteristic values directly from the results of pile load tests or from profiles of tests etc. using values DA1 is a resistance factor approach DA3 not used for design from pile load tests
57
58
Self weight of pile should be included, along with downdrag, heave or transverse loading, however the common practice of assuming that the weight of the pile is balanced by that of the overburden allowing both to be excluded from Fc;d and Rc;d is permitted, where appropriate The pile weight may not cancel the weight of the overburden if
a) downdrag is significant b) the soil is light c) the pile extends above the ground surface.
Rc;d is ULS design bearing resistance and is the sum of all the bearing resistance components against axial loads, taking into account the effect of any inclined or eccentric loads
59
60
61
Table A.9
62
Note
For structures which have sufficient stiffness to transfer loads from weak to strong piles, may be divided by 1.1 provided it is not less than 1.0
63
Loose fill
No of test = 2 Max Applied Load = 4000kN (same on both piles) Max load on base = 600kN
64
DA1.C1
DA1.C1
(A1 + M1 + R1)
Note weight of pile not included) Rc;m = 4000 kN for both Rc;k= lesser of 4000/1.3 or 4000/1.2 = 3077 kN Rb;k= (600 / 000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN
Use measured toe force to give shaft force from ratio of total load to base load
Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k / 1.0 = 462 / 1.10 + 2615 / 1.0 = 3035 kN Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (3035kN) DA1.C1 is satisfied.
65
DA1.C2
DA1.C2 (A2 + M1 or M2 + R4)
Fc;d = 1.0*1200+1.3*200 = 1460 kN Note weight of pile not included Rb;k = 462 kN; Rs;k = 2615 kN as before for DA1.C1
Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.45 + Rs;k / 1.3 = 462 / 1.45 + 2615 / 1.3 = 2615 kN Fc;d (1460 kN) < Rc;d (2615kN) DA1.C2 is satisfied
66
DA2
DA2
(A1 + M1 + R2)
Note weight of pile not included Rc;m = 4000 kN for both Rc;k= lesser of 4000 / 1.3 or 4000 / 1.2 = 3077kN Rb;k= (600 / 4000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN as before
Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k/ 1.1 = 462 / 1.1 + 2615 / 1.1 = 2797 kN Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (2797kN) DA2 is satisfied
67
Provided an adequate site investigation has been carried out and the method has been calibrated against static load tests on same type of pile, of similar length and cross-section and in comparable ground conditions
Dynamic load tests may be used as an indicator of the consistency of piles and to detect weak piles
68
where the b , b and t values are given in Table A.6, A.7 and A.8 (same as for design from pile load tests)
69
Alternative Procedure to Determine Rs,k and Rb,k from Ground Strength Parameters
Calculate the characteristic base resistance (qb;k) and shaft resistances (qs;k) using characteristic values of ground parameters [C7.6.2.3(8)] and hence:
Rb;k = Abqb;k and Rsk = qsi;kAsi where Ab = the nominal plan area of the base of the pile Asi = the nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer i
A Note in Eurocode 7 states: If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors b and s recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model factor larger than 1,0. The value of the model factor may be set by the National annex In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied to b and s or t when using this approach
70
Loose fill
2.0m
9.0m
71
72
Ground Parameters
73
DA1
qb;k = (9cu + v) = (9*600 + 2*18 + 9*22) = 5634 kPa qs;k = cu = 0.4*{(100 + 600)/2} = 140 kPa Rb,k = Abqb,k = ( * 0.62 / 4) * 5634 = 1593 kN Rs,k = Asqs,k = ( * 0.6 * 9 * 140 = 2375 kN DA1.C1: (A1+M1+R1)
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Rc;d = Rb,k /(1.0*1.75) + Rs,k /(1.0*1.75) = 910.3 + 1357.1 = 2267.4 kN OK
DA1.C2
Fc;d = 1.0(1200 + 74.6) + 1.3*200 = 1534.6 kN Rc;d = Rbk /(1.45*1.75) + Rsk /(1.3*1.75) = 700.2 + 1044.0 = 1744.2 kN OK
74
DA2
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Rb;k = 1593.0 kN ; Rs;k = 2375.0 kN as for DA1
Fc;d < Rc;d (2020.7 < 2061.3) so inequality is satisfied for DA2
75
DA3
Fc;d as per DA1.C2 but partial factors on structural actions are 1.35 and 1.5 Design value of resistance obtained by using m (Table A4) parameters on soil properties and in Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied on b and s
76
DA3
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Note: increased partial factors compared with DA1:C2 qb;d = (9cu / m + v) = (9*600/(1.4*1.75) + 2*18 + 9*22) qs;d = cu / m = 0.4*{(100/(1.4*1.75) + 600/(1.4*1.75))/2} Rb;d = Abqb;d = (*0.62/4)*2438 = 689.4 kN Rs;d = Asqs;d = *0.6*9*57.1 = 968.7 kN = 2438.1 kPa = 57.1 kPa
2020.7 kN 1658.1 kN
77
Piles in Tension
Design of piles in tension is same as the design of piles in compression except a greater margin of safety required and there is no base resistance Ft;d Rt;d Must consider Pull-out of piles from the ground mass Uplift of block of ground (or cone) Group effect shall consider reduction in vertical effective stress The severe adverse effect of cyclic loading and reversal of loading shall be considered
78
79
values from Table A.10 s,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 on s,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 if alternative procedure is adopted
80
81