Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Heave due to frost: In cold areas, if shallow foundations rest on saturated soils, appreciable
heaves can be caused by freezing of the pore water. The settlement/heave caused by swelling
soils and by frost cannot be prevented. In these cases it is necessary to place the footings
below the level at which these phenomena take place, or to use deep foundations.
Subsidence: It consists of settlement of large areas due to, e.g., to the lowering of the water
table level due to hydrogeological causes; to pumping of water from drainage wells; to
extraction of natural gas or oil from deep rocks, etc. Subsidence is usually associated to local
differential settlements that could damage the buildings.
Liquefaction of saturated sand deposits: This depends on the temporary loss of shear strength
of loose sand due to a rise of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading, e.g. caused by
seismic events.
Seismic densification of dry or non-saturated sand: This is due to the densification of loose
sands above the groundwater level due to ground vibrations.
Here only the settlements due to the applied loads will be considered on the bases of:
a) Winkler soil model; b) Bussinesq elastic half-space. The evaluation of settlements due to
consolidation will be discussed during the exercise classes.
3-2
A linear relationship is assumed between the local pressure q exerted by the foundation on the
soil (that is equal to the subgrade reaction of Winkler soil) and the settlement ,
where the Winkler constant k, having dimension of force/volume, represents the unit weight of
the equivalent liquid.
It is not possible to determine the parameter k through laboratory tests on soil sample because
the weight of the equivalent liquid does not represent a physical property of a solid material.
3-3
The only way to estimate k is based on the results of in situ plate load tests.
Even in the linear range the load settlement curve depends on the size of the plate.
This, as already observed, is due to the fact that Winkler soil cannot model the behaviour of
continuous solid, even in the elastic case.
3-4
S0 = settlement of plate
S = settlement of footing
B0 = size of plate
B = size of footing
In the case of a rigid footing, a linearly distributed interaction pressure exists between
foundation and Winkler soil.
In the design practice, this linear distribution is assumed also when evaluating the settlement on
Boussinesq half-space.
3-6
3-7
Note that for Winkler soil the settlement depends solely on the applied pressure q, while in the
case of elastic half space it depends also on the size of the foundation.
3-8
For saturated clay (undrained conditions), the contact pressure is similar to that predicted by the
elastic half space solution.
For relatively shallow foundations on granular soil, the contact pressure tends to decrease in the
vicinity of the footing edges.
3-9
3-10
The analysis of settlements of shallow foundations on elastic half space is customarily carried
out neglecting the actual distribution of the soil/foundation contact pressure.
A constant or linear distribution of the applied load is assumed in most cases, hence neglecting
the influence of the foundation stiffness.
Note that, in the case of a rigid footing, the above distributions are correct for Winkler soil
while they are not theoretically for the elastic half space.
The distribution of the contact pressure, however, has an appreciable influence only on the state
of stress within the footing. In particular, Winkler soil could underestimate the bending moment
for stiff slab foundations, e.g. if the applied load is uniformly distributed on the foundation, the
bending moment vanishes for Winkler soil.
3-11
Example:
Difference %
3-12
3-13
3-14
The solution for the homogeneous half space can be also used in the case of layered soils
assuming that the stress state is not affected by the change of the elastic properties with depth.
a)
b)
c)
The integration depth H should reach possible soft layers and should fulfill the requirements:
3-15
)]
3-16
3-17
Settlement of point C:
If
If
Rotation:
3-18
The loading conditions (a) and (b) can be expressed as the superposition of the following cases
3-19
The rotation B of foundation B due to the load q on foundation A can be easily evaluated on the
basis of the settlements of pints P1 and P2
3-20
Consequently the reaction forces can be evaluated directly, i.e. by solving the structural
problem without considering the foundation settlements.
Then, the settlements are determined on the basis of the reactions .
3-21
which, being
(
in the case of
, leads to
3-22
3-23
a) The reactions of the foundations are determined by solving the structural problem adopting
only the coefficients expressing the direct settlements (i.e. the Winkler soil scheme)
(
(
(
)
)
)
b) The settlements of the foundations on the half space are evaluated considering both direct
and indirect coefficients
c) The structural problem is solved again, and the reactions are re-calculated, imposing to the
foundations the settlements evaluated at step (b)
(
(
(
)
)
)
3-24
Steps (b) and (c) are repeated until no appreciable changes of settlements and reactions occur.
This iterative procedure could not converge when the global stiffness of the foundations is
markedly different from that of the structure. In this case, a suitable provision could consist in
averaging at step (c) the settlements obtained from two subsequent iterations
(
where
3-25
for
for
Categories of potential damage (Bjerrum, 1963)
)
Safe limit for flexible brick walls (
Danger of structural damage to most buildings
Cracking of panels and brick walls
Visible tilting of high buildings
First cracking of panel walls
Safe limit for no cracking in buildings
Danger to structural frames with diagonals
Damages to machinery of industrial plants
1/150
1/150
1/150
1/250
1/300
1/500
1/600
1/750
3-26