Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CONTENT OUTLINE
1 1
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
R
L= FS ≈ 2.0
2 0 to 3.0
30
FS
γ = 1.0 to 2.0
γL = ϕ R
Φ = 0.30 to 0.90
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
2 2
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
→ IMPORTANT RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
3 3
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
→ IMPORTANT RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR BORED PILES
UNDER COMPRESSION LOADS.
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ
i =1
i Ri
CONTENT OUTLINE
4 4
SITE INVESTIGATION – WHY IS BORING IMPORTANT?
http://www.earth-engineers.com/DSC01903.JPG
5 5
SITE INVESTIGATION – STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002)
Advantages
1) Sampling Is Possible
2) Simple
3) Suitable in many soil types
Disadvantages
1) Sample Disturbance
2) Not applicable for very soft or very
loose soils
3) High Variability
6 6
SITE INVESTIGATION – CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)
MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002)
Advantages Disadvantages
1) Fast and continuous 1) Required skill
profile
profile. operator to run
2) Applicable for soft 2) No soil sample can be
soils. obtained.
3) Strong Theoretical 3) Unsuitable for very
basis in interpretation. hard or dense soils
and large particles.
7 7
SITE INVESTIGATION – PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT)
Advantages
1) Theoretically sound in determination of
soil parameters.
parameters
2) Applicable for larger zone of soil mass
than any other in-situ test.
3) Develop complete stress vs strain curve
Disadvantages
1) It requires trained personel .
2) Time consuming (8 tests per day).
3) Delicate equipment.
8 8
LABORATORY TESTS
CONTENT OUTLINE
9 9
DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
→ BEHAVIOR OF SANDS AND CLAYS UNDER LOAD CONDITIONS
CLAYS SANDS
Qu Qu
FS Qu Q (Load) FS Qu Q(Load)
S < S all S > Sall
0.1B 0.1B
B=Foundation Width
S(Settlement) S(Settlement)
Ultimate Load Controls Settlement Controls
γ 1D γ 1D
D
γ2
fs Pp Pp fs
B
1
Pu = S c cN c + S γ γ 2 BN γ + S q γ 1 DN q
2
THE G.B.C.E RARELY WORKS
Sc, Sγ, Sq= Correction Factors (shape, inclination, eccentricity and inclined loads)
Nc, Nγ, Nq= Bearing Capacity Factors (function of the friction angle, φ)
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
10 10
THE STATIC LOAD TEST FOR THE FOOTINGS
11 11
G.B.C.E vs STRENGTH EQUATION
12 12
THE STRENGTH EQUATION ALWAYS WORKS
IN CLAYS
B
Zi B
Zi
Zi = 2B Zi = 4B ⎛ 2B ⎞
Zi = ⎜4 − ⎟B
⎝ L ⎠
13 13
STRESS INCREASED UNDER THE FOUNDATION
(MURTHY, 2002)
NEWMARK’S INFLUENCE CHART
14 14
STRESS INCREASED UNDER THE FOUNDATION
2:1 METHOD
Q
z/2 B z/2
σ'+∆σ’
σ'
Stress-Strain Curve from
a suitable test
εb εa ε
Zi H2
H3
H4
∑
n
HT = i =1
ΔH i
15 15
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
--CONSOLIDATION THEORY--
σvo' σp' σvo'+∆σ' σ'
eo
Normally Consolidated Clays
e1 Cr H0 ⎛ σ ' vo + Δσ v' ⎞
1 sc = Cc log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
1 + e0 ⎝ σ vo
'
⎠
Overconsolidated Clays
If σ’vo+Δσ’ < σ’p
e2
H0 ⎛ σ ' v o + Δ σ v' ⎞
sc = C r logg ⎜ ⎟
Cc 1 + e0 ⎜ σ 'vo ⎟
⎝ ⎠
If σ’vo+Δσ’ > σ’p
1
H 0 ⎪⎧ ⎛ σ 'p ⎞ ' ⎫
⎟ + Cc log⎛⎜ σ vo + Δσ v ⎞⎟⎪⎬
'
sc = ⎨Cr log⎜⎜ ' ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
e 1 + e0 ⎪⎩ ⎝ σ v0 ⎠ ⎝ σp'
⎠⎪⎭
Zi H2
H3
∆Hmax
H4
Settlement, ΔH
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
16 16
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
--ELASTIC SOLUTION--
Q I (1 − ν ) q 2
B Q
S = ; q=
E BL
B B
B L D
PLAN VIEW
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
∆R
P P
2Ro
Limit Pressure
PL
∆R/Ro
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
17 17
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
--LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE METHOD--
s 0 .2 4 Δ R
=
B RO
Pf = f L / B . f e . f δ . f β ,d Γ .Pp
f e = 1 − 0 . 33 (e / B ) Eccentricity
f B , D = 0 . 8 (1 + D / B )
0 .1
Slope Proximity
f L / B = 0 . 8 + 0 . 2 (B / L ) Shape
(F h / F v ) ⎤
2
⎡ tan −1
Inclination
fδ = 1 − ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 90 ⎦
18 18
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
--LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE METHOD--
19 19
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
20 20
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
21 21
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
Creep Model
n
S ⎛ t ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
S1 ⎝ t1 ⎠
22 22
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
IMPORTANT FINDING
Pu (kPa) = 75 N
23 23
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
Comparison between Bearing Capacity Predictions and Measured Pressure at 150 mm of Se.
24 24
STRATIGRAPHY - SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
25 25
CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTICS
STRESS DISTRIBUTION
26 26
CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTUAL SETTLEMENT
27 27
ACTUAL SETTLEMENT
DESCRIPTION S(m)
CASE 8a
8 (Including
(I l di Rebound)
R b d) 0.607
0 607
CONTENT OUTLINE
28 28
DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATION-TYPES OF PILES
DRIVING ANALYSIS
N (bpf)
W
Set-Up
W
s
ΣN (bpf)
I-
II-
III-
End of Driving
s
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
29 29
INSTALATION OF BORED PILES
http://www.coastalcaisson.com
http://www.vibropile.com.au
DRILL DRY
DRILL WET
USING CAISING
30 30
DRILL WET - BORED PILE INSTALLATION
http://www.kbtech.com/images/photos/Anderson%2022%20Cobble%20on%20Auger%20Pilot.jpg
31 31
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING FOR BORED PILES
V
WAK
A at A
time
L 2L
COMP. COMP. F t=
c
at A
time
2L
t=
c
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
V
WAK
A at A
time
L 2L
COMP. TENS. F t=
c
at A
time
2L
t =
c
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
32 32
PILE DRIVING
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www2.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/projects/t
st
R
L
sb Settlement, s
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
33 33
PILE DRIVING ANALYSIS FOR DRIVEN PILES
RUD eWh ( mm )
Total Elastic RUD RUD max =
2.5
Energy Energy
RUD
c S 75 Np(bpf)
s
e=efficiency of the hammer
W= hammer weight g
eW h (m m ) h= drop height
R U D =
300 c Np= number of blow per foot
+
N (b p f ) 2 C= elastic compression (5mm?)
RUD
L
Np
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
34 34
WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS
WAK WAK
D D
L L
+
-
+ +
Soft Hard
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
W Driving Process
Pile Capacity
h
Pile
Pil Integrity
I i
st
Stresses along the Pile
Strain and
Acceleration
Transducers STRAIN
R
L
time
ACCELERATION
sb
35 35
CONTENT OUTLINE
36 36
ULTIMATE POINT RESISTANCE FOR DRIVEN PILES
Short and Long Term
q max = 9 S u For Clays -Short Term.
37 37
ULTIMATE FRICTION FOR DRIVEN PILES IN SAND
f u max (kPa ) = 5( N )
0 .7
⎡ ⎛ L ⎞⎤
Pu = N c S u ; N c = 6 ⎢1 + 0 . 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ≤ 9
⎣ ⎝ Bb ⎠⎦ D/B
For Sands:
f u = β σ 'v ; β = 1.5 − 0.135( z ( ft )) 0.5 ;
0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2; f u ≤ 200 kP a
38 38
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON DOWNDRAG VISIT:
Qu
Qu
SKEMPTON’S CHART
Dc=4B
Nc
L1 fu
Square
9.0
LAYER 1
St i
Strip
7.0
4B LAYER 2
pu
B 4.0 D/B
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
39 39
SETTLEMENT FOR SINGLE PILES
L fu Pa v e = 0 .6 Q to p ( ? )
s bottom = I (1 − υ )p
2 B
E
Sbottom
q
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
PL
Qtop P1 = q 1 A p + 1
2
f 1 A s1 w 2 = w1 +
AE
f1
Q
wT
Qtop
L1 f1
P3
w
w3 f2
L2 f2 P2
w
w2 q
f1
L3 f3 P1
w1 w w
q q1
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
40 40
CONTENT OUTLINE
Qugroup
Qusingle
L L
Zone of Influence
41 41
BLOCK FAILUREANALYSIS OF A PILE GROUP FOR CLAYEY SOILS
Qugroup
B L
Q ublock = 2 S u (B + L )D + N c S u BL
2/3L L
L
Hard Layer
42 42
CASE HYSTORY – NEW ORLEANS HOSPITAL
10000 Timber Piles
0.3 m diameter (average)
1500 MN 16 Story-Building
15 m Long
Soft Clay at the top
2m thick dense sand at 14.5 m
Load Test for a Single Pile
H=14.5 m Su=20 kPa LOAD
H=2 m Sand
H1
H2
Su=30 kPa
H=83.5 m H3 L
H4
H5
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
∆Htotal = 0.50 m
H=14.5 m
H2
H=83.5 H3
,
H4
H5
43 43
CONTENT OUTLINE
44 44
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
45 45
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
46 46
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
FIXED HEAD BEHAVIOR FREE HEAD BEHAVIOR
M M
y o
y
H ou H ou
o
y o' ≠ 0
y' =0
o
L L
L =length pile
Hou =ultimate horizontal load yo = horizontal displacement at the top of the pile
M =moment at the top of the pile y'o =deflection at the top of the pile
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
f PMT L = length pile
B = projected pile width Hou = ultimate horizontal load
E = modulus of pile material lo = transfer length
I = moment of inertia Ho = applied horizontal load
M = moment at the top
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
47 47
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
K = 2 .3 E o
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
f PMT L = length pile
B = projected pile width Dv = (π/lo) with Io=(4EI/K)1/4 for l>3lo
E = modulus of pile material Dv = L/3 for l<lo.
I = moment of inertia Hou = ultimate horizontal load
K =2.3 Eo lo = transfer length
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
f PMT L = length pile
B = projected pile width Hou = ultimate horizontal load
E = modulus of pile material lo = transfer length
I = moment of inertia Ho = applied horizontal load
48 48
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
H ou (t )
−n
y o (t )
n
⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟
H ou (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎟⎠ y o (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎟⎠
49 49
“n” VALUES FROM THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
⎛ Δ R (t ) ⎞
− log ⎜⎜ ⎟
Δ R (t ) ⎛ t ⎞
−n
⎝ Δ R (t o ) ⎟⎠
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ n =
Δ R (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎠ ⎛ t ⎞
log ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ to ⎠
50 50
CYCLIC LATERAL LOADING
y N = y1 N a
Ho Ho
ONE WAY CYCLIC
TWO WAY CYCLIC
LOADING
LOADING
y
y
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
⎛ ΔRN ⎞
ΔRN log ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
= N a
R1 a = ⎝ Δ R1 ⎠
log ( N )
51 51
THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
52 52
LATERAL LOAD NEAR A TRENCH
53 53
FUTURE WORK IN RETAINING WALLS
54 54
DESIGN OF PILE GROUP FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
L L
55 55
GROUP EFFICIENCY FOR HORIZONTALLY LOADED PILES
CONTENT OUTLINE
56 56
FOUNDATION ON SHRINK-SWELL SOILS
Soil Movement
ΔH i Δwi 0 . 33 Δ w i
ε = = f =
Hi E wi γw
γ d
L
Qu
L LOAD = f u π Dh
Swelling L LOAD = f u π D ( L − h )
Qp
πD 2
57 57
FOUNDATION ON SHRINK SWELL SOILS
STIFFENED SLAB ON PIERS
58 58
DOWNDRAG ON PILES
59 59
PILE POINT BEHAVIOR
π Qp D
ω punch = (1 − v 2 )
4 AEs
60 60
EXAMPLE OF DOWNDRAG ON SINGLE PILES
Qfn(group)
Qfn(single)
L
L
s s s
Corner Piles Q fn ( group ) = 0 . 5 Q fn (sin gle )
s
Side Piles Q fn ( side ) = 0 . 40 Q fn (sin gle ) for = 2.5
d
61 61
SCOUR TYPES
CL
y s(Abut)
y s(Cont)
y s(pier)
Normal Water Level
a'
⎧ ⎛y ⎞
0.33
y1
⎪0.89 ⎜ 1 ⎟ , for < 1.43
Kw = ⎨ ⎝ a'⎠ a'
⎪1.0 , else
⎩
⎧1.0 , for θ > 30°
Where, K1 = ⎨
⎩Value in following Table , else
K L = 1.0, for whole range of L / a
⎧ ⎛ S ⎞ −0.91 S
⎪ 2.9 , for < 3.42
K sp = ⎨ ⎜⎝ a ' ⎟⎠ a'
⎪1.0
⎩1 0 , else
62 62
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
63 63
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
Courtesy of the University of Kentucky at Louisville
64 64
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
129
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
65 65
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
66 66
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
134
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
67 67
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
68 68
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
69 69
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
70 70
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
71 71
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
72 72
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
145
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
STRUCTURAL
and
GEOTECHNICAL
Qu Q
k
1
S
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
73 73
CONTENT OUTLINE
74 74
THE ROLE OF IN-SITU TESTING
MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002).
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://
75 75
THE ROLE OF LOAD TESTING: STATIC LOAD TEST FOR PILES
LOAD Hydraulic
Jack and Gauges Qu Qu
RX RX Q(Load)
0.1B
L
AE
Qu Qu
L
CLAYS SANDS
S(Settlement)
Reaction Piles
QL
S e = 0 .1 B +
AE
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
76 76
STATIC LOAD TEST FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
(Texas A&M University Load Tests)
77 77
STATNAMIC LOAD TEST FOR SINGLE PILES
BANG
Q((Topp Load))
BIG MASS Charge
LASER
stop
Calibrated
Dynamic
y
L Load Cell
S(Top Settlement)
Sbottom
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Hydraulic
Control
Tested Area
L Steel Plates
Load Cell
Reaction Area
78 78
CONTENT OUTLINE
CONCLUSION
Foundation engineering requires:
1. A good understanding of site
conditions including Geology
2. Proper use of theory in design
3. Safety against ultimate capacity
4. Allowable movements
5. Good experience and engineering
judgement
6. Appropriate specifications
7. Quality control during
construction
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
79 79
MORE REFERENCES
80 80