Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SlNOPSIS
D i c i e m b r e 1979
Lima - P e r u
SIXTH PANAMfIKlCAN CONFI:RENCLi BEHAVIOR OF SANDCONCRETE INTERFACES 227
R = R s t r u c t u r a l face
Rsoil
BEHAVIOR O F SANDCONCRETE INTERFACES 23 1
230 SIXTH PANAMllRlCAN C0NI'I:RICNCE
i n which: Kk = normal s t i f f n e s s number and m = normal s t i f f n e s s expo- Brumund. W.F. and G.A. Leonards, 1973, Experimental Study o f S t a t i c
nent. The l i m i t e d data suggest t h a t rn = n and Kk = 1.5 t o 10 times K and Dynamic F r i c t i o n Between Sand and Typical Construction Materials,
w i t h the lower range f o r looser s o i l and lower normal stresses. U n t i j J. Test. Eval., l ( 2 ) : 162-165.
more d e f i n i t i v e data a r e available, i t i s suggested t h a t the above be Clemence, S.P.. 1973. Developtnent of Instrumentation and Yodel Test-
used f o r normal s t i f f n e s s dete-inations i n l i e u of the current p r a c t i c e ing f o r the Load D i s t r i b u t i o n i n a D r i l l e d Pier, Ph.D. Thesis. Ga.
of arbitrarily assuning values.
I n s t . Tech.
SUWARY AND CONCLUSIONS Clough, G.W., 1969, F i n i t e Element Analyses o f Soil-Structure I n t e r -
a c t i o n i n U-Frame Locks, Ph.0. Thesis, U. C a l i f . , Berkeley.
The r e s u l t s of an extensive t e s t i n g program conducted t o examine the
strength and stress-deformation behavior of sand-concrete i n t e r f a c e s are Duncan, J.M. and C . Y . Chang, 1970, Nonlinear Analysis o f Stress and
S t r a i n i n Soils. J. Soil Mech. Fndns. Div., ASCE, 96(!345):1629-1653.
presented. A range of s o i l parameters was considered and four d i f f e r e n t
i n t e r f a c e roughnesses were evaluated. Based on these data, the following Goodman, R.E., R.L. Taylor and T.L. Brekke, 1958, Yodel for the Mech-
conclusions were reached: anics of Jointed Rock, J. S o i l Mech. Fndns. Div., ASCE, 94(SM3):637-
659.
1. Interface roughness can be q u a n t i f i e d by using t h e r e l a t i v e rough-
ness (RR) defined herein. Meyerhof. G.G., 1961. Some Problems i n the Design o f Rigid Retaining
Walls, Proc. 15th Can. S o i l Mech. Conf., Ottawa:59-79.
2. For rough i n t e r f a c e s ( R R > ~ ) ,the i n t e r f a c e f r i c t i o n angle ( 6 ) i s
Parcher. J.V. and R.E. Means, 1968, Soil Mech. and Fndns. Columbus.
equal t o o r greater than t h e s o i l f r i c t i o n angle (6). This implies
Merrill.
t h a t t h e i n t e r f a c e I s stronger than the s o i l , leading t o the conclu-
sion t h a t f a i l u r e would occur i n t h e s o i l , out from the Interface. Potyondy. J.G., 1961. Skin F r i c t i o n Between Various Soils and Con-
3. For smooth interfaces (RR<l). 6 = 0.8 t o 1.0 0 w i t h an average 6 = s t r u c t i o n Material s. Geotechnique. 1l ( 4 ) : 339-353.
0.9 0. I n t e r f a c e shear would c o n t r o l f a i l u r e i n t h i s case. Sowers, G.B. and G.F. Sowrs, 1970, I n t r o . Soil Mech. and Fndns. New
4. Concrete poured d i r e c t l y against t h e s o i l develops a rough interface. York, Macmillan.
while concrete poured i n a form w i t h s o i l placed against i t a f t e r U.S. Army Eng. S W Div., 1962, Results o f Tests i n Foundation Materi-
c u r i n g leads t o a smooth i n t e r f a c e . a l s . Lock and Dam No. 4. Arkansas River Navigation Project, SWDGL
5. The f u l l y softened, o r residual. I n t e r f a c e f r i c t i o n angles range Rpts. 7920 and 7932, Oallas.
frm 95% of t h e peak i n t e r f a c e , f r i c t i o n angle I n the loose s t a t e Wu, T.H., 1976, S o i l Mech. Boston, A l l y n and Bacon.
t o 85% i n t h e dense state.
6. The shear s t i f f n e s s o f the i n t e r f a c e i s both nonlinear and normal
stress-dependent. The shear s t i f f n e s s parameters, f o r rough l n t e r -
V.I. m ~ 1 . e unn m * . u I-, S
I,, *mar 4
1.1 61.5 - 111.a 7,- .
1111 ./.
I sao rr.0 I . o.n
,
0 -.
I
1111
."
.I w
1
.1
..
IOII.. 9.1 41.1-1.1.1 ,,.lCOI.y/.= 5 11.0 1 . 1.01
2
7)
*.I.. s. I 47.1 1 1 I,. 111. .,/.a LOU 11.1 Jb.1 0.- >
IO.," 17.1 61.1 - Ja7.I I,- 15%'.l.1 ,om s.1 1I.S 0.11
L . 4 1.1-I., L..,.. &..I 41.S - 1.1.1 7, 1-1 1
*
.
= I.DO 11.1 I . I . ..
Illl, l-4 1") *I,., 15.1 1.5 - 1 . v I h 2 5.10 11.1 n.1 1.05
m
$
--
CLrr- 1J 1 W m Ibu U r n m-4 t w l -r e-cn.~. Dr. ~ n . 1 11 L O, 61. 11.0 1.1 10.4 0.w >
I O . l h COII.... Dr. 10.1 11.a 0, LI, 1.2 Z
--
11.0 Y.2 1.-
--
-.ICI =-.... 0.. 10.1 - 13.. O, n. 1114 41.1 I 1.w n
1
-
. W L.1.I Y., h.1, CI.d.. W h IO.,.. 0 - I 0, .R
0
0.7 JJ.50 0.1
-.
lu.c Ill ll.0 0.11 z
purr, 1-4 -.ti- c.r.6 -. 4 *.o - 16.1 0, - w. 11.1~ 0 . 0 I.., 0.4. 2
m,,., ..
.-
S,.I*l.. -.I.( M "n
mr...
.Pa .art., Dr. l.0 - -.I .D. 11.10 0.. ,,.a '.., W
c.r... MI. .o.l., ar I.0 - -.I D m, 11.LO n.1 *.. 0.11 yr.
.--
.,."a I... ,.,lo. .a.l.d .- ,,,, .O - -.I D, r WA 2I.\U Y.. 29.9 0.b)
nrr,.,
~h m r t . ~ D
.v *.o - w . ~ OB - 11.10 n.. n.0 I.-
k r a IIMb~ -el#