FGE Master ETHZ – BAUG – HS2014

FORENSIC GEOT. ENGINEERING 2 EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS 23 3 LEANING INSTABILITY 45 4 BEARING CAPACITY FAI LURE 67
© chager – Version 2014 - 1.0 Prof. A.M.Puzrin, ETHZ → Kansai International Airport, Japan → Tower of Pisa, Italy → Transcona Grain Elevator, Canada
D E SC R IP T I ON 2 .1 D E SC R IP T I ON 3 .1 D E SC R IP T I ON 4 .1
1 SETTLEMENTS INTERACTION 3
Settlements due to immediate, consolidation and creep Stability problem of tall buildings on soft soil Bearing capacity for not homogenous soil on rapid loading
→ Mexico City Cathedral
→ Silos, Canada T H E OR Y 2 .2

D E SC R IP T I ON 1 .1 T OTA L 2. 2
Total settlement:
Influence of neighboring structures due to different building
𝜌𝑇 (𝑡) = 𝜌𝐼 + 𝜌𝐶 (𝑡) + 𝜌𝑆 (𝑡) (2.1)
times or preconsolidations
T H E OR Y 1 .2
S TR ES S ES 1. 2. 1
Stress-increment from load 𝒒: T H E OR Y 4 .2
Δ𝜎𝑧 = 𝑞 ⋅ 𝐽(𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑧) (1.1) U ND R A I NED B EA R I NG C A P A C I TY 4. 2. 1
1 𝑎𝑏 𝑎𝑏𝑧 1 1 Bearing capacity:
𝐽= [arctan ( ) + ( + )] (1.2)
2𝜋 𝑅 𝑅 𝑎2 + 𝑧 2 𝑏 2 + 𝑧 2 T H E OR Y 3 .2 𝜎𝑓 = (𝛾 ⋅ 𝑡 + 𝑞) + 𝑐𝑢 𝑁𝑐 (1 + 𝑠𝑐 + 𝑑𝑐 ) (4.1)
with 𝑅 2 = 𝑎2 + 𝑏2 + 𝑧 2, TR set to RAD! L EA NI NG I NS TA B I LI TY 3. 2. 6 𝑁𝑐 = 2 + 𝜋 𝑠𝑐 = 0.2 𝑏/𝐿 𝑑𝑐 = 0.4 𝑡/𝑏 (4.2)ff
TR: dsz(q,a,b,z) does the RAD autom. I M M ED I A TE S ET T L EM E N T 𝜌𝐼 2. 2. 1
Criteria: see also LHAP or ZF Grundbau
jdsz(a,b,z) set TR to RAD! Linear elastic compression: 𝐻𝑐 𝐵 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝑈
Δσ (1 + 𝜈)(1 − 2𝜈) ≤ Safety factor:
𝜌𝐼 = 𝐻 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 𝐻 Δσ (2.2) 𝐵 𝐺 𝐾𝐿 + 𝐾𝑈
𝑀𝐸 𝐸(1 − 𝜈) 𝐻𝑐 𝐵 1.15 ⋅ (1. +𝑒0 ) (3.22) 𝐹𝑆 = 𝜎𝑓 /𝜎𝑒𝑓𝑓 (4.5)
𝜈 ∈ [0.2 ÷ 0.3] ≤
𝐵 𝑓(𝐿⁄𝑏) 𝑏 𝐶𝑐 + 𝐶𝑠 UP P ER B O U ND LI M I T A N A L YS I S
→ take into account for big sand-layers (drained)
See Fig 3.7, 3.8 full scale test; Fig 3.9 soil parameters
C O NS O LI D A TI O N S ET T LE M E N T 𝜌𝐶 (𝑡) 2. 2. 2 Search for upper bound limit, minimize load.
otherwise see (3.23)ff [p53ff]
→ If in middle of load: superposition, also negative possible. → See (4.6)ff
Final consolidation settlement:
Safety fator:
S ET T L EM EN TS 1. 2. 2 𝐻 𝐻 𝜎0′ + Δ𝜎 (𝐻𝑐 ⁄𝑟)𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡
TW O LA YER S TR A TA
𝜌𝐶,𝑖𝑛𝑓 = 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 Δ𝜎 = 𝐶 log ( ) (2.3) 𝐹𝑆 =
Settlement: 𝑀 (𝜎) 1 + 𝑒0 𝑐 𝜎0′ 𝐻𝑐 ⁄𝑟
(3.29) “Approximation”
Δ𝑒 𝐸
𝑐̅𝑢 = 𝑐𝑢1𝑚 + 𝑐𝑢2(1 − 𝑚) (4.12)
Δρ = ⋅ Δ𝐻 See equations (3.29) to (3.32) for different situations
1 + 𝑒0 (1.x) Development in time: 𝑚 = 2𝐷/𝑏 (4.13)
𝜌 = ∑ Δ𝜌𝑖 𝜌𝐶 This is bullshit at not science ;]
𝑈𝑚 (𝑇𝑣 ) = (2.5) B EA R I NG C A P A C I TY 3. 2. 8
𝜎𝑧′ + Δ𝜎 𝜎𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝜌𝐶,𝑖𝑛𝑓
Action: Scope upper bound limit analysis numerical solution:
Δ𝑒 = 𝐶𝑖 log ⊝ ( ) = 𝐶𝑖 log ( ) 𝑐𝑣 𝑡 𝐺 𝐺𝐻𝑐
σ′z 𝜎𝑛𝑒𝑢 𝑇𝑣 = 2 𝐹𝐿 = + tan 𝛼 (3.33) 𝜎𝑓 = (𝛾 ⋅ 𝑡 + 𝑞) + 𝑐𝑢1𝑁𝑐 (1 + 𝑠𝑐 + 𝑠𝑑 ) (4.5)
(1.x) 𝑑 2 𝐵
𝜎𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 (2.x) Button, 1953:
𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑢 = 𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡 + 𝐶𝑖 ⋅ log ( ) 𝑘𝑀𝐸 𝑇𝑣 𝑑 2 𝑚2 Load on footing increases (strip footing) with leaning
𝜎𝑛𝑒𝑢 𝑐𝑣 = = [ ] Bearing capacity can be derived according Terzaghi (Grundbau)
𝛾𝑤 𝑡 𝑠
Final settlement: Bearing Capacity (drained):
2 𝑐𝑣 𝑡
1 𝜎𝑐′ 𝜎0′ + Δ𝜎 𝜌𝐶 (𝑡) = 𝜌𝑖𝑛𝑓 ⋅ √ (2.8) 𝐹𝑠 (𝛼) = 𝜎𝑓 /𝜎𝐿 (𝛼) (3.38)
Δ𝜌 = Δ𝐻 ⋅ ⋅ (𝐶𝑒 log ′ + 𝐶𝑐 log ) (1.3) 𝑑 𝜋
1
1 + 𝑒0 𝜎0 𝜎𝑐′ with 𝑇𝑣 =
𝜋
𝑈2 𝑈𝑚 ≤ 0.526 ; 𝑇𝑣 < 0.217 (2.6) 𝜎𝑓 = (𝛾 ′ 𝑡 + 𝑞)𝑁𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑑𝑞 + 𝑏 𝛾 ′ 𝑁𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑑𝛾 (3.34)
4 𝑚 2
Compressibility: 𝑐𝑣 𝑡⁄𝑑2 +0.085
bearing capacity, shape and deep correction factors with:
Δ𝜎 ′ 𝜌𝐶 (𝑡) = 𝜌𝑖𝑛𝑓 ⋅ (1 − 10− 0.933 ) (2.9) trf(b,l,t,0,0,𝜑,c,F,0,0,0) → mu_i (i=q,c,y)
𝑀𝐸 = trfn(𝜑) only for Ni
Δ𝜌 with 𝑇𝑣 ≈ −0.933 ⋅ log(1 − 𝑈𝑚 ) − 0.085 (2.7)
or book (3.35)ff or LHAP or ZF Grundbau
Alternative notification:
Layer thickness: R EM A R K S
S EC O ND A R Y C OM P R ES S I O N ( C R E EP ) 𝜌𝑆 (𝑡) 2. 2. 3
Δ𝐻 = Δ𝑧 = ℎ0  𝐻𝐶 goes till the center of mass, normally 𝐻/2
Settlement: Creep settlements: 𝐻
𝐶𝑎 𝑡  Ring foundation stable if 𝑐 ≤ 2.74
𝑟
Δρ = Δ𝑠 = Δℎ 𝜌𝑠 (𝑡 … ) = 𝐻 log ( ) 𝐻𝑐
Sweeling index 1 + 𝑒0 𝑡𝑝 (x.x)  Square foundation stable if ≤ 3.54
𝑟
𝐶𝑒 = 𝐶𝑠 Go on forever. Problem with creep-influence at beginning… L ES S O NS L ER N ED 3 .5 R EM A R K S
L ES S O NS L ER N ED 1 .6  Leaning instability for tall structures on soft soil  Factors not the same as undrained solution, not even close!
L ES S O NS L ER N ED 2 .5
 Failure caused by insufficient bearing or structure capacity  Check also drained situation (f.e. only with weak layer)
 Loading history is important! → Fig 1.12 silos p15  Ajustable design, due to unknownable parameters
 Distance between structures helps much  Prevention: Sufficiently wide or use deep foundations like L ES S O NS L ER N ED 4 .5
→ observation method
piles to increase stiffness (also tension piles)  Proper site investigation is key, deep enough (about B)
 Regional subsidence can cause huge diff. settlements (spatial  Do not always neglect immediate settlements and creep
 Soil extraction useful method
variability in compressibility of soil due do loading history)  Not all sand layers are drained  Field load test don’t test possible weak underlying stratas
 Don’t mess with other people’s god!  𝑇50 = 0.196  Upper bound limit analysis is nice for layered problems

23. Februar 2015 S e i t e |1 Christoph Hager

FGE Master ETHZ – BAUG – HS2014

6 BRACED EXCAVATION COLLAPSE 151 7 TUNNEL EXCAVATION COLLAPSE 183 8 CREEPING LANDSLIDES 23
→ Nicoll Highway, Singapore → Borras Square, Spain → Brattas St. Moritz Landslide
D E SC R IP T I ON 6 .1 D E SC R IP T I ON 0 D E SC R IP T I ON 1 .1
Problem with wrong CNM and bad design
T H E OR Y 6 .2
L O NG TER M EA R T H P R ES S UR E 6. 2. 1
Excess pore pressure totally dissipated
Effective earth pressure:
𝑒𝑎 = 𝐾𝑎 𝛾′𝐻 (6.1)
1 − sin 𝜑′
𝐾𝑎 = (6.2)
1 + sin 𝜑′

Tag/Grundbruch Blockierter Kriechhang

T H E OR Y 7 .3F F T H E OR Y 1 .2
A R C HI NG EF F EC TS / S I L O T H E OR I E 7. 3 M OD E L 1. 2. 1
Vertical stresses in soil above tunnel See book p10
𝛾𝑅̅ − 𝑐 𝑧
− 𝐾 tan 𝜑
𝑧
− 𝐾 tan 𝜑 C UR V E F I T TI NG 1. 2. 2
𝜎𝑣 = (1 − 𝑒 𝑅 ) + 𝜎𝐴𝐿 𝑒 𝑅
𝐾 tan 𝜑 (7.x) Fitting curve
𝐴 𝛿 ̅(𝑥̅ , 𝑡) = 𝛿(𝑥 ⁄𝐿 , 𝑡)/𝐿
𝑅̅ = (1.4)
𝑈 𝛿 ̅(𝑥̅ , 𝑡) = 𝑥̅ (𝑎 − 𝑏𝑥̅ )(1 − exp(𝑐𝑡 + 𝑑))
Rectangle:
𝐴 𝐵𝐿
𝑅̅ = = (7.x) S A F E TY F A C T OR 1. 2. 4
 𝐾𝑎 need displacements of 1‰ of high, in braced excavations 𝑈 2(𝐵 + 𝐿)
not possible, therefore +30% load Circle: Safety factor:
𝐴 𝑅 1 − 2 𝑏⁄𝑎
 Water pressure has to be considered separately (hydrostatic) 𝐹𝑆 =
𝑅̅ = = (7.x) 𝑝𝑎′ /𝑝𝑝′
(1.13)
to get total stresses on braces. 𝑈 2
→ see (7.7) with:
S H OR T T ER M EA R TH P R E S S UER 6. 2. 2 𝐾 according Terzaghi about 0.8 ÷ 1.2 𝐾𝑎
{𝐾 } = 1 + 2 𝑡 2 𝜑 ∓ 2√(1 + 𝑡 2 𝜑)(𝑡 2 𝜑 − 𝑡 2 𝛼) (1.14)
Analysis is total stresses. For undrained shearing: For other cases (stresses on surfaces…) see Untertagbau GZ 𝑝
NC: positive pore water pressure, water wants go out 𝑡 = tan 𝛼
B UT TR ES S F A I L UR E 7. 4
𝑝𝑎′ 1 𝐾𝑎
OC: negative pore water pressure, water wants to draw in Safety factor: { ′ } = 𝛾 ′ 𝐻 cos 𝛼 {𝐾 } (1.15)
𝑝𝑝 2 𝑝
Total stresses: 𝑁 tan 𝜑+𝑐𝐿
𝑒𝑎 = 𝐾𝑎 𝛾𝐻 (6.3) 𝑆𝐹 = (7.11)
𝑁 tan 𝛽 L O NG TER M D I S P LA C EM E N TS 1. 2. 5
4𝑐𝑢 For FS>1:
𝐾𝑎 = 1 − 𝑚 (6.4) 𝑁=
𝑇+𝑊
𝛾𝐻 cos 𝛽+tan 𝛽 sin 𝛽
(7.12) 𝛿𝑀 (𝑥)
where 𝑚𝑁𝐶 ≈ 0.8 𝛿∞ (𝑥) = (1.16)
1 − exp(−𝑐(𝑡𝑀 − 𝑡0 ))
= cos 𝛽 (𝑇 + 𝑊)
𝑡0 𝑎𝑡 𝛿𝑡0 = 0
per unit length: TI M E U NTI L F A I L UR E 1. 2. 6
For FS<1:
1 Δ𝑝′ ⁄𝑝𝑝′
𝑡𝑓 = 𝑡𝑠 + ln (1.19)
𝑐 (1 − exp(−𝑐Δ𝑡))(1⁄𝐹𝑆 − 1)

R EM A R K S
 Application routine see 1.2.7/Exercise
 kapcul() from Grundbau not working for Ka, Kp!
Rule of thumb: L ES S O NS L ER N ED 7 .6
′
𝑐𝑢 = [0.21 ÷ 0.25]𝜎𝑣0 (6.5)  Bench excavation(Kalottenvortrieb): attention with
L ES S O NS L ER N ED 1 .6
underpinning
L ES S O NS L ER N ED 7 .6  Benefit from arching  Even “blocked” Landslides can fail
 Effecitve risk management, use measured data  Structural strength of support is not an issue  Labor tests are useless, use displacements for parameters
 Robust design (ductility, redundancy, numerical modeling)  Long-term monitoring for reliable predictions needed
 Proper Back analysis with right model (change model if  Structures: allow to “swim”, rigid foundation
parameter seems not right anymore)  Landslides are sensitive to environment (rain, earthquake…)

23. Februar 2015 S e i t e |2 Christoph Hager

FGE
GL HOULSBY - RANKINE
→ Interactions in Offshore foundation design
IN ST AL L A T I O N OF J AC K - U P U N IT S
→ bearing capacity problem, V/z can be measured on site
 Compare trends of measurements to predicted behavior
 Statistics/Probability very usefull
P ER F OR M AN C E OF J AC K - U P U NIT S
 Interaction, “swipe tests”, “moment rotation test spudcan”
 Model: footing pinned or fixed → springs
 Use plasticity theory (elastic+yielding)
F OU ND A T I O N OF F SH O R E W IND T U R B I NE S
L OC A TI ON
High average wind speed, low water depth
L OA D I NG
 40m water depth, 110m mast
 2MN on turbine, 4MN waves, 10MN dead load
F O U ND A TI O N
 Monopiles
 Suction caisson (problem with cyclic loading)
 Screw piles (key ratios: 𝑉𝐷𝑝 /𝑇, 𝑉𝑡 /𝑉)
The larger/deeper water, more multiple footing is needed
23. Februar 2015
Master
GL VOIGT – CONTRACTOR
OV ER V I EW
Project phases: Acquisition, Bid, Execution
C AU S ES OF F A IL U R E
Not one single reason, mostly water in geotechnic, people
TE C H NI C A L
 Construction method (bad choice)
 Design/Calculation (model, assumptions)
 Building materials/soil (wrong delivery, soil cond. changed)
 Execution (changes, information, events, monitoring)
C O N TR A C TUA L
 Contract type (account, lump sum, functional lump sum)
 Construction time (late contract award, no time for nothing)
 Cost (not technical best solution is chosen, management)
EX AM P L E 1 – B U IL D I NG P IT
P R OB L EM
Artesian water level not evaluated during soil investigation by a
local guy results in settlements and refill of pit
New project with braced frames and huge monitoring
S UM M A R Y
 Artesian water was not known, stability not given
 Real ground risk of employer became effective (not normal)
 Do parameter studies and sensitivity analysis
 Do addition investigation if there are any doubts
 Control assumed parameters by measurements/observations
 Check if country standards are met
EX AM P L E 2 – T U N N EL OP E N C U T C R O S S I NG R IV ER
P R OB L EM
Ingress of water due to anisotropy
Solution with vacuum deep wells and deeper walls
R ES U M E
 Dewatering system in fine sand is no so easy
 Minimum monitoring system always advisable
 Do not separate earthwork and dewatering system
L ES S O N L ER N ED
 Inspection, monitoring and controlling is key
 Control assumptions from older work. New site, new game
 Proper Documentation
 Do not try to ignore unusual observations!
S e i t e |3
GL LEE – ONSHORE OIL/GAS
P IP EL I NE S
 Onshore oil/gas pipelines, problems with landslides
 Workspace: B=30m, T=1.5-3m
 Problems: Landslides in mountain terrain,
around 1 spill/1000km/year
 Building on ridge crest only 10-20 workspace with 2-5 times
higher construction costs.
 Project programs by huge organizations
U NC ER T A I N IT Y
 Known knowns
 Known unknowns
 Unknowns unknowns
ST R A T E G IE S F O R M A N A G I NG L A N D SL ID E S
Existing landslides/crossings:
 Avoidance → rerouting
 Stabilization → Design
 Designed Crossing → Design
pipeline should respond in tension
 No action → Monitoring
There is never a guarantee to totally reducing risk to an
acceptable level. There could be a lot of unknown possible
landslide. Risk avoidance is generally a preferred strategy
GL KLOTZ – TÜV SÜD RISK ANLYSIS
TÜV SÜD
Does act in mobility, industry, certification
ID ENT IF Y IN G C O NS T R U C T I ON R I SK S
About number of events, losses, fatalities
R I SK M A NA G EM ENT B A S I C S
 Risk = Probability x Consequences
 Knowledge-Illusion: Its calculated, so I know what will hapen
 Turkey Illusion: I have a model, so it can be calculated
R I S K A NA LYS I S M OD EL S
Methods for analysis of the technical system:
Fault Tree Analysis, Reliability Block Diagrams, Markov Chains
Methods for the calculation of consequences:
Layer of protection, Event Tree Analysis
D I S C R E T E R I S K M A TR I X
Semi quantitative (continuous to discrete: 1-5)
P R O JEC T R I SK R A T I NG
3 Levels: Risk containers with risk areas with risk topics
Evaluate needed containers: Result +0-
ETHZ – BAUG – HS2014
GL MILLS– PEAT IRELAND
PEAT (TORF)
Organic soil, organic matter content > 75%.
Forms in blanket bogs or rain fed raised bogs
P E A T A S A P R OB L EM - S OIL
 Settlements (rapid consolidation, indefinite sec.
compression, nonlinear, UK about 1m depth, excavation,
chemical stabilization, preloading or piling
 Wind farms as low carbon energy sources have to account
carbon losses in constructing over peat
 Instable → Landslides/Erosion
 Peat stability assessment, Peat management plans, Guidance
on track construction and landscaping
 Classification? Bog burst (basal), peat slide (matrix)
K EY M OR P H OL OG I E
Scars/scraps (Source areas)
Tension zone updip and adjacent to scars
Compression zone
Debris field (rafts, blocks, slurry, super elevated debirs
M A T ER IA L P R OP ER T IE S
High moisture, compressibility, spatial variability, low shear str.
Accumulation, Sphagnum (wet)/culluna layer(dry), fibres and
filling, properties controlled by humification, reinforced water,
complex water-content, 4 soil layer relevant (acrotem [upper],
catotelm [lower], substrate [“rock”], peat-substrate interface)
F A IL U R E
P R EC O ND I TI O NS
 Deep peat, accumul., increase of mass(form, grow, water)
 Reduction shear strength (change phys. structure
creep/fracturing, weathering, clay dispersal, waterflow)
 Moderate slope angels >15°
TR I G G ER S
 Rainfall/Rainstorm
 Snowmelt
 Seismic shaiking
 Unloading/Erosion at toe by fluvial incision
 Loading by landslide debris
 Human: drainage, blasting/vibration, cutting, digging,
loading, afforestation (reduce water held)
C H A L L E NG E S
 Spectrum of failure types
 Characterization of parameters not straight forward
 No easy undisturbed peat sampling
 Lot of different views on analyzing (consolidation,
plastic/liquid limits, shear strength)
C O NC L U S IO N
 Lot of ways to characterize geotechnical properties
 No standard test really applicable
 Inconsistency in approach
 Systematic approach: (properties of layers (tensil strength
acrotelm/sensitivity catotelm), quantification/calibration,
water state, right test for right types of failure
Christoph Hager
FGE Master ETHZ – BAUG – HS2014

TR-PRGRAMME
S ET T L EM EN TS
dsz(q,a,b,z) does the RAD autom.
jdsz(a,b,z) set TR to RAD!

B EA R I NG C A P A C I TY
trf(b,l,t,0,0,𝜑,c,F,0,0,0) → mu_i (i=q,c,y)
trfn(𝜑) only for Ni

EXAM WINTER 2014/2015

M IT N EH M EN A N P R Ü F U N G
 Buch Forensic Getechnical Engineering
 Übungen
 ZF Bodenmechanik
 ZF Geotechnik
EX AM W I NT ER 2 0 1 4/ 2 01 5
5 Aufgaben. Theoriefragen zu Gastvorlesungen geben
Extrapunkte. (sind aber nur 3Pt von total 103Pt) Für die 6 muss
man wahrscheinlich 100Pt machen. Aufgaben ähnlich Übungen.
Randbedingungen sehr klar formuliert. (Grundwasser,
Drainiert/undrainiert… welche Vereinfachungen)
1 L EA NI NG I NS TA B I LI T Y 2 5P T ?
Problem am Kreisringfundament. Fragen zu äquivalenten
Parametern, Sicherheitsfaktoren, Tragfähigkeit. Versagen bei
welchem 𝛼. Kritische Höhe berechnen.
2. B EA R I NG C A P A C I T Y 2 0P T ?
Gegebenes Problem. Andere Bodenschicht nach tiefe von 4
Metern. Undrainierte Scherfestigkeit Überprüfungen bei
bekannter Versagenslast. Scoop Mechanismus: Wie gross ist R,
b, wo ist Rotationspunkt. Breite b bei besserem
Versagensmechanismus bestimmen. SF möglichst genau
bestimmen.
3. C R E EP I NG LA N D S LI D E 3 5P T ?
Maximal möglicher Erddruck bestimmen. a/b bestimmen
(Tabelle gegeben, Punkte liegen genau auf Kurve). C bestimmen.
(gab je 10 Punkte!) Wann wird versagen eintreten? SF
bestimmen. (Wie Übung)
4. B R A C ED EX C A V A TI O N 2 0P T ?
15m Tiefe Baugrube mit 3 struts. su bestimmen wenn 3. strut
bei gegebener Last versagt (undrainiert). Drainierte Kräfte,
Erddrücke bestimmen. Bei MCC sind qf und pf gegeben,
bestimme su.

23. Februar 2015 S e i t e |4 Christoph Hager