Jose Brito, Cenor, Portugal

Similar documents
EN Eurocode 7. Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland.

CPT: Geopractica Contracting (Pty) Ltd Total depth: m, Date:

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation

Minnesota Department of Transportation Geotechnical Section Cone Penetration Test Index Sheet 1.0 (CPT 1.0)

CPT Data Interpretation Theory Manual

Minnesota Department of Transportation Geotechnical Section Cone Penetration Test Index Sheet 1.0 (CPT 1.0)

Engineeringmanuals. Part2

The CPT in unsaturated soils

Spread footing settlement and rotation analysis

Soil Behaviour Type from the CPT: an update

Design Example 2.2. Pad foundation with inclined eccentric load on boulder clay

Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice

Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors in European and North American Codes of Practice

30/03/2011. Eurocode 7 Today and Tomorrow. Ground structures t Slope and Retaining wall design in the Netherlands. Contents

ISC 5 SELF-BORING PRESSUREMETER TESTS AT THE NATIONAL FIELD TESTING FACILITY, BALLINA 5 9 SEPT 2016

TC211 Workshop CALIBRATION OF RIGID INCLUSION PARAMETERS BASED ON. Jérôme Racinais. September 15, 2015 PRESSUMETER TEST RESULTS

Chapter 12 Subsurface Exploration

The Bearing Capacity of Soils. Dr Omar Al Hattamleh

Table 3. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002 equation. A (degrees) Rounded Sub-angular. 2 Angular. B (degrees) Uniform Moderate grading.

Use of Ultra-High Performance Concrete in Geotechnical and Substructure Applications

USE OF CPT/CPTU FOR SOLUTION OF

Chapter (5) Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement

Analysis of a single pile settlement

Station Description Sheet GRA

Examples of CPTU results in other soil types. Peat Silt/ clayey sands Mine tailings Underconsolidated clay Other

GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

CPT Guide 5 th Edition. CPT Applications - Deep Foundations. Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Dr. Peter K. Robertson Webinar # /2/2013

PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO DETERMINING SOIL PARAMETERS

Tower Cranes & Foundations The Interface & CIRIA C654 Stuart Marchand C.Eng. FICE FIStructE Director Wentworth House Partnership

From - To 0,00-4,90 4,90-6,40 6,40-8,60 8,60-9,60 9,60-10,50 10,50-12,00 12,00-14,80 14,80-15,80 15,80-19,30 19, ,00

Reinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls. Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai

Geotechnical Properties of Soil

The San Jacinto Monument Case History

Seminar Worked examples on Bridge Design with Eurocodes

Modified Dry Mixing (MDM) a new possibility in Deep Mixing

Chapter (11) Pile Foundations

Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics

Module 6 Lecture 37 Evaluation of Soil Settlement - 3 Topics

Chapter 1 Introduction

Soil type identification and fines content estimation using the Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) data

LRFD Application in Driven Piles (Recent Development in Pavement & Geotech at LTRC)

CPT Applications - Liquefaction 2

Chapter 7: Settlement of Shallow Foundations

Chapter 1 - Soil Mechanics Review Part A

Practical Design to Eurocode 2. The webinar will start at 12.30

LRFD Calibration of Axially-Loaded Concrete Piles Driven into Louisiana Soils

The Concepts of Eurocode 7 for Harmonised Geotechnical Design in Europe

Analysis of the horizontal bearing capacity of a single pile

Evaluation of soil liquefaction using the CPT Part 1

Verification of a Micropile Foundation

HKIE-GD Workshop on Foundation Engineering 7 May Shallow Foundations. Dr Limin Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Cone Penetration Test Design Guide for State Geotechnical Engineers

Use of CPT for design, monitoring, and performance verification of compaction projects

Liquefaction and Foundations

Boreholes. Implementation. Boring. Boreholes may be excavated by one of these methods: 1. Auger Boring 2. Wash Boring 3.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE TITLE PAGE DECLARATION DEDIDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ABSTRAK

Evaluation of soil liquefaction using the CPT Part 2


CPT: _CPTU1. GEOTEA S.R.L. Via della Tecnica 57/A San Lazzaro di Savena (BO)

Shear strength model for sediment-infilled rock discontinuities and field applications

K Design Graphs and Charts for Raft Foundations Spanning Local Depressions

A presentation of UniPile software for calculation of Capacity, Drag Force, Downdrag, and Settlement for Piles and Piled Foundations

IN SITU TESTING TECHNOLOGY FOR FOUNDATION & EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING. Wesley Spang, Ph.D., P.E. AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc.

This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine

Supplementary Problems for Chapter 7

Interpretation of the CPT in engineering practice

Solution:Example 1. Example 2. Solution: Example 2. clay. Textural Soil Classification System (USDA) CE353 Soil Mechanics Dr.

Correlations between soil parameters and penetration testing results

Calibration of Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts for the 2010 FHWA Design Method

IGC. 50 th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE ESTIMATION OF FINES CONTENT FROM CPT PARAMETERS FOR CALCAREOUS SOILS OF WESTERN INDIAN OFFSHORE

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Session 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model & Design (Part 2)

Vibroflotation Control of Sandy Soils using DMT and CPTU

Geocentrix Repute 2.5. Reference Manual. Onshore pile design and analysis

A Comparative Study on Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Sand from N and /

CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 3.2. Engineering Classification of Soil (AASHTO and USCS) (Das, Ch. 4)

Session 4. Risk and Reliability. Design of Retaining Structures. Slopes, Overall Stability and Embankments. (Blarney Castle)

, with SPT N value is a very profitable approach since most field parameters are based on SPT N values and CPT tip resistance.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Achmus Institute of Soil Mechanics, Foundation Engineering and Waterpower Engineering. Offshore subsoil investigations

Erratum. Chapter 4 - Earth and water pressure 26. Chapter Area loads. q a. c+d ϕ'/2. Piling Handbook, 9th edition (2016)

INDOT/Purdue Pile Driving Method for Estimation of Axial Capacity

STABILITY AND DEFORMATION RESPONSE OF PAD FOUNDATIONONS ON SAND USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST METHOD

Introduction to The Design Example and EN Basis of Design

Friction (kpa) Cross correlation between qc qc & & fs fs

CPTu in Consolidating Soils PAULUS P. RAHARDJO. PROFESSOR OF GEOTECNICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITAS KATOLIK PARAHYANGAN - INDONESIA

Evaluation of the Liquefaction Potential by In-situ Tests and Laboratory Experiments In Complex Geological Conditions

Bearing Capacity, Comparison of Results from FEM and DS/EN DK NA 2013

8.1. What is meant by the shear strength of soils? Solution 8.1 Shear strength of a soil is its internal resistance to shearing stresses.

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS)

Engineering Units. Multiples Micro ( ) = 10-6 Milli (m) = 10-3 Kilo (k) = Mega (M) = 10 +6

Bridge deck modelling and design process for bridges

Liquefaction potential of Rotorua soils

Maximum Envelope of Lateral Resistance through Dynamic Increasing Energy Test in Piles

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Harmonized European standards for construction in Egypt

Reliability of Settlement Analysis for Shallow Foundations

Foundation Engineering

Early Applications of DMT in Dubai in Two Main Projects for Natural and Artificial Earthfill Silty Sand

RELIABILITY ASPECTS OF DESIGN OF COMBINED PILED-RAFT FOUNDATIONS (CPRF)

CHAPTER 8 ANALYSES OF THE LATERAL LOAD TESTS AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE

Transcription:

Jose Brito, Cenor, Portugal Carsten S. Sorensen, COWI, Denmark

In this example it is asked to design a square pad foundation according to Eurocode 7. The aim is the evaluation of the foundation width with a maximum allowable settlement of 25 mm. The square pad foundation is made from concrete with a weight density of 25 kn/m 3 and has an embedment depth of 0.8 m. The ground surface shown can be reliably assumed to be below any topsoil and disturbed ground. The design action is vertical with a permanent load of 1000 kn andavariableloadof750kn a load of kn.

Problem description

Results of cone penetration tests (measured values) 0 MPa 0 20 40 60 80 0 MPa 0 20 40 60 80 0 MPa 0 20 40 60 80 0 MPa 0 20 40 60 80 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 (m) Depth 4 Depth (m) 4 Depth (m) 4 Depth (m) 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 qc fs x 100 qc fs x 100 qc fs x 100 qc fs x 100 CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3 CPT 4

Idealization of the soil (derived values) 1. Sensitive e fine-grained soil 2. Organic soils and peat 3. Clays [clay to silty clay] 4. Silt mixtures [silty clay to clayey y silt] 5. Sand mixtures [sandy silt to silty sand] 6.Sand [silty sand to clean sand] 7. Sand to gravelly sand 8. Sand clayey sand to very stiff sand 9. Very stiff, fine-grained, overconsolidated or cemented soil

Derived values The Young s modulus of elasticity, for calculating the settlement of spread foundations can be determined by the equation proposed on Annex D of fen1997 1997-2. E ' = 2.5 * qc For the determination of the soil shear resistance angle, from the CPT resistance, it s proposed on Annex D of EN 1997-2:2007 the equation: φ' = 13.5* log10 (qc) + 23

Soil characterization There are two main interdependent tasks to be considered in most of geotechnical design problems: a geometrical task, where the soil is idealized d into a few of well defined and homogeneous layers; a subsequent task, where the geomechanical properties of each layer are assigned.

Characteristic values EN 1990 defines a characteristic material property as follows: [EN 1990 4.2(3)] - where a low value of material or product property is unfavourable, the characteristic value should be defined as the 5% fractile value; where a high value of material or product property is unfavourable, the characteristic value should be defined as the 95% fractile value.

Characteristic values Eurocode 7 redefines the characteristic value as: [EN 1997-1 2.4.5.2 (2)P] The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state. [EN 1997-1 2.4.5.2 (11)] If statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be derived such the calculated probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of the limit it state t under consideration is not greater than 5."

Characteristic values Frank et. al (2004) explains that there are two main aspects to consider when selecting the characteristic value, which are: the degree of confidence in the information (which h includes the amount of information on the soil characteristics and the variability of results); the soil volume involved in the limit state considered and the ability of the structure to transfer loads from weak to strong zones of the ground.

Characteristic values Difference between cautious estimate of the mean and of the 5% fractile value (Frank et. al, 2004)

Characteristic values Schneider (1997) defines the characteristic value as the best estimate of the unknown statistical mean x m of a soil layer. By this he means that the characteristic ti value shall be selected with the aim that the probability of a more adverse (mean) value governing the behaviour of the soil and rock in the ground is not greater than 5%. Schneider shows that a suitable equation for the determination of characteristic value for most of soil properties is given by x k V = x * 1 x m 2

Proposed resolution

Characteristic cone resistance 0 qc (MPa) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 2 3 Depth (m) 4 5 6 7 8 CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3 CPT 4 qc,m qc,k

Characteristic design values Layer no. Depth Mean depth q c,m q c,k E φ (m) (m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (º) 1 [0.0; 0; 0.5] 025 0.25 932 9.32 822 8.22 20.6 35.4 2 [0.5; 1.5] 1.00 11.60 10.52 26.3 36.8 3 [1.5; 2.5] 2.00 14.72 13.77 34.4 38.4 4 [2.5; 3.5] 3.00 15.32 14.67 36.7 38.7 5 [3.5; 4.5] 4.00 17.67 16.45 41.1 39.4 6 [4.5; 6.0] 5.25 19.60 18.33 45.8 40.1 7 [6.0; 8.0] 7.00 21.83 20.58 51.4 40.7

Participants answers

Characteristic cone resistance 0 qc (MPa) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 2 Depth (m m) 3 4 5 proposed 2nd benchmark CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3 CPT 4 4 13 16 21 34 39 43 45 55 59 64 71 77 81 84 90 94 98 103 106 114 117

Characteristic Young modulus of elasticity 0 Young modulus of elasticity (MPa) 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 Depth (m) 3 4 5 proposed 2nd benchmark 4 13 34 16 39 21 43 45 64 55 71 59 77 81 94 84 98 90 103 106 114 117

Characteristic angle of shearing resistance Angle of shearing resistance (º) 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 1 2 Depth (m) 3 4 5 proposed 2nd benchmark 4 13 16 21 34 39 43 45 55 59 64 71 77 81 84 90 94 98 103 106 114 117

DA 1 com 1 and 2 DA 2 DA 3 GB, IT, PT GR, FR, DE, PL, IE DK, NL

Annex D National annexes Brinch Hansen Terzaghi Highway bridges (Japan) 10 answers 5 answers 4 answers 1 answer 1 answer

Annex D.3 EN 1997-11 Annex F.1 EN 1997-2 National annexes and different methods as Schmertmann, Tomlinson, Burland & Bridge 9 answers 5 answers 10 answers

m 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 ULS SLS Average: ULS 1.6 m and SLS 1.8 m

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Width of pad Tan(fi)