Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics A. AYSEN & A.A. BALKEMA PUBLISHERS / LISSE / ABINGDON / EXTON (PA) / TOKYO. rt3orTekLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data pied for Cover design: Studio fan de Boer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Printed by: Gorter, Steenwijk, The Netherlands. © 2003 Swots & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse Alll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, oF transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic. mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers Although alt care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication anctior she information contained herein, Published by: A.A. Balkema Publishers, a member of Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers wow:balkems.nt and woew.sep-swets.nl ISBN 90 5809 532 2Contents Preface CHAPTER! Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 1.1 INTRODUCTION 12 PROBLEMS 13 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS CHAPTER 2 Effective Stress and Pore Pressure in Saturated Soils 2.1 INTRODUCTION 22 PROBLEMS 2.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS, CHAPTER3 The Movement of Water through Soil 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.2 PROBLEMS 33 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS CHAPTER4 Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 PROBLEMS: 4.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS, CHAPTERS Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 5.1 INTRODUCTION 52 PROBLEMS 53 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS cuarTER6 One Dimensional Consolidation 16.1 INTRODUCTION 16.2 PROBLEMS 6.2 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS, vii Is 1s 15 20 2 2 2 31 33 33 33 48 49 49 7 9 95vi Comenes CHAPTERT Application of Limit Analysis to Stability Problems in Soil Mechanics 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.2 PROBLEMS 73. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING cuapters Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 8.1 INTRODUCTION 2. PROBLEMS 8.3 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS CHAPTER Stability of Earth Slopes 9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.2. PROBLEMS 9.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS CHAPTER 10 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 30.) INTRODUCTION 102 PROBLEMS 103 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Index 7 97 97 112 43 13 13 136 139 139 139 158 161 161 161 198 181Preface Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics is primarily designed as a supplement to Soi! Mechanics: Basic Concepts and Engineering Applications, but can be used as an {independent problem solving text, since there is no specific reference to any equation or figure in the main book. This book is written for university students taking first-degree courses in civil engineering, environmental and agricultural engineering. Its main aim is to stimulate problem solving learning as well as facilitating selfteaching. The book is ‘written with the following objectives 1. To present the solution of unsolved problems of Soi! Mechanics: Basie Concepts and Engineering Applications. 2. To provide all necessary methods, equations and figures in a clear step by step ‘explanation ofthe solution to each problem. Each chapter is composed of three sections: introduction, worked examples and references for further readings. In the introduction section, the main objectives and the ‘ange of problems covered are presented. The second section includes those unsolved probiems of the corresponding chapter in the main book. TIhe summary of the theory including equations and figures are described within the solution of each problem ‘The special structure of the book makes it possible o be used in two, three and four year undergraduate courses in soil mechanies. However, as new and advanced topics are included, the book will also be a valuable resource for the practicing professional engineer. ‘The use of S.1. units throughout, and frequent references to current international codes of practice and refereed researeh papers, make the contents universally applicable. This book is written for readers that have prior knowledge in soil mechanics, however, necessary basi information is included in each worked example ‘The author is grateful to those scientists and authors whose methods have been esed in the solution of the worked examples ofthis book, The author is also grateful to Professor A.S. Balasubramaniam of Grifith University, Australia for his continuous encouragement. Tam in debt to my family, especially my wife Par, for her support and patience during this projec. A, Aysen, M.Eng, Ph.D. aysena@bigpend.com October 2002CHAPTER 1 Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 1.1 INTRODUCTION ‘This chapter encompasses the three major topics in relation to the basic characteristics of soil, and its physical properties. These topics are associated with the mass-volume relationships (Problems 1.1 to 1.5), index properties (Problems 1,7 to 1.9) including particle size distribution (Problems 1.6, 1.11 and 1.12) and compaction (Problem 1.10). ‘The mass-volume relationships describe parameters, which control the engineering behaviour of the soil. These parameters are void ratio e, porosity , degree of saturation SS, ait content 4y, moisture content m or w, density of soil p (dry, saturated and natural), and density of solids p, or specific gravity of solids G.. The particle (grain) size analysis, ‘and plasticity indices are needed for soil classification. Problems 1.11 and 1.12 show the ‘engineering application of the particle size analysis where the particle size distribution of ‘a mixture is obtained by knowing the panicle size distributions of the individual materials ‘within the mixture. Soil compaction is necessary to improve its strength and bearing capacity. In a laboratory technique explained in Problem 1.10 the relationship between moisture content and density is demonstrated to yield the optimum moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry density 1.2 PROBLEMS Problem 1.1 ‘The following data are given for a specimen of soil: M=221 g, My=128 g, Gy=2.7, 5-= 75%. Determine the total volume and the porosity of the specimen. Solution: ‘Mass related symbols are: -M, = mass of solids (or dry mass), M,, = mass of water, M, =mass of ai M =Total mass of soil sample= M, + M,, aay M=221.0=M, +M,,=128.0+M,, M,, = 93.09, IMgim’ jensity of water = Ig/em*2 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Volume related symbols are defined as follows: V,, = volume of the air within the voids between particles. V,, = volume of the water within the voids between particles, /, = volume of the solids. volume of the voids within a given sample = 1, +V, otal volume of soll sample=V, +, ry Deasity of solids pi the ratio of the mass of the solids 0 the volume af the solids: Me 13) uy, a3) Specific gravity of sotids G, isthe ratio ofthe density of the solids to the density of water: G, =f aay Pw Py =I, 9M, ¥,=474em*, Degree of saturation 5-8 the ratio of the volume ofthe water to the Volume of the voids 1g Vy = Gy Py XV, = 2.TXLOXY, 28.0, = as) $, 30.75 =V,,J%, = 93.0010, + ¥, ~124.0 em®, thus V=V, +V, =47441240=171.4 om’, ‘Void ratio e isthe ratio of the volume of the voids to the volume of the solids: ic e=a 16) 7, 6) Porosity 1 isthe ratio ofthe volunae of voids to the total volume: Vee = 7 V4%, Tee aw V/V = 1240/1714 n: 72.3%. Problem 1.2 Day soil with G, = 2.71 is mixed with 16% by weight of water and compacted to produce a eylindsical saraple of 38 mm diameter and 76 mm long with 6% air content, Calculate the mass of the mixed soil that will be required and the void ratio of the sample. Solution: 3.8) V=76x- = 86.19 cmp, =G,py, = 2711.0 = 2.71 glem’, Ve +V, +V, =86.19, até, +0.06%86.19 = 86.19, py = 1 giem’, hence: 2a PwNature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 3 Volume (er) Mass (@) ° 207 WATER 245 86.19 1776 96.49 SOLIDS 1834 Figure 1.1 Problem 1.2. 153.12, M =153.1+0.16%153.1 53.1 = V, xPy =P, XG, XDy, V, =193.1/2.71 = $6.49 cm’. V,=V -V, =86.19-5649 = 29.7 em’, V,AV, =29.7/56.49 = 0.52. ‘The results are shown in Figure 1.1 i116. Wy Problem 1.3, During @ field density test 1850 g of soil was excavated from 2 hole having a volume of 900 ci’, The oven-dried mass of the soil was 1630 g. Determine the moisture content, dry density, void ratio and degree of saturation. G, Solution: Moisture content and different types of density are according: My wi oa (1.8) pbalkcor wet densiy) = AE as) Ma+h, rg (dry density Pu (Saturated density) =e PoP 10) ‘The relationship between dry density, moisture content and bulk or wet density is: spl pg ee aay My-=M-—M, =1850.0-1630.0 =2200 wo, /M, =220.0/1630.0= 0.135 =13.5%. 1630.0/900.0 =1.81 giem? or Mg/m* pga MyIV4 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ¥, =1650.0/(2.111.0)=601.48em', V,, = 900.0 - 601.48 = 298.52 em’ = 298.52/601 48 = 0,496 5, = Bay, = (220811 0)/298.52 = 0.737 = 73.1%, Problem 14 A soil specimen kas a moisture content of 21.4%, void ratin of 0.72, and G, Determine: (@) balls density and degree of saturation, b) the new bulk density and void rato ifthe specimen is compressed undrained until full saturation is obtained. Solution: Assume = 1 m?, thus V,#¥, =Le=0.72=0, (Vy solving for % and V, =0419m?,¥, = 0.581m° (@) M, =V, xG,py = 0.58127 «1.0= 1.569 Mg, (M =1,569+1,569%0.214 = 1.905Mg. $905 /1.0 =1,905 Mgjin® S, =V pI, = (1-569 0.214/1.0)/0.419 = 0.801 =80.1%. MIV =1,905/(0.581+1,569%0.214/1.0)=2.08 Min? V, = (0.569 %0.214/1.0)/0.581 = 0578. Problem 1.5 ‘The moisture content of a specimen of a clay soil is 22.4%. The specific gravity of the solids is 271. (@) Plot the variation of void ratio with degree of saturation and calculate the void ratio, and the dry and wet densities at 50% saturation, 5} « sample of this soil with inital degree of saturation of $0% is isotropically compressed to achieve a void ratio of 0.55. Calculate the volume change in terms of percentage of the intial volume. How much of this vokeme ehange is due to the outward flow of water from the sample? Sotuion: @) 5, =V/M, =(M, X0224/1.0)/V, =, X2.711,0%0224/10)/¥, =060T Fe ‘The plot of e versus S-is shown in Figure 1.2. For S, = 50% ¢= 0.607 /0.5 = 1.214. Assume /= Lm? V,4V, sle=1214=V,/Fy, V, =0.5483m.V, = 0.4527 m?. My =V,G,P y= O4S1T*2.T1X1.0 224 Mg,Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction S 22 2 18 16 14 12 1 08 08 Void ratio 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1 Degree of saturation Figure 1.2. Problem 1.5: part (a) fg = M,(V =1.224/1.0=1.224Mgim’, ‘M =1,224+1.224x0.224 = 1.50 Mg. p= MIV =1.50/1.0=15Mgim’ ) €=055=4,/0.4517 +F, V =0.2484+-0.4517=0.7001m" ‘Volume change % = (1.000 ~ 0.7001) / 1.0 = 0.2999 = 30%. ‘The volume of the outward flow = (1.224 0.224 1.0 0.2484) = 0.0258 = 2.6% ‘The results of part (b) are shown in Figure 1.3, 2484m’, ‘Volume (m3) 8 ae Yolume (m3) 3 a = al oy | water S| water B] | sous =] 3] | sous Isotropic pe compression | Figute 1.3. Problem 15: pat ().6 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Problem 1.6 ‘The results ofa particle size analysis are shown in the table below: Sievesize Mass etained Sieve size Mass retsined fam @) (am) @ 63 00 475 50 378 26 236 Ww 190 28 ie 46 132 18 os 31 9s 20 0234 6 » 0073 30 ‘The total mass was 469 g. Plot the particle size distribution curve and determine the coefficient of uniformity, coefficient of curvature and soil description, Solution: ‘The cafculations are summarized in the table below and presented in Figure 1. which: from Panicle Individual Individual Cumulative Cumulative size (om) mass percentage percentage percentage retained (g) setsined retained finer 6 00 0.00 of 100.00 31526 5.54 5: 9446) 19 28 597 HSI 849) B28 3.84 1535 B65 95 2» 426 1961 8029 67 a 10.45 30.06 69.94 49s 50 10.66 40.72 59.28 236 137 20.21 69.93 30.07 re 46 981 7978 20.26 06 Hu oot 8635 1385 022M 125 93.60 6.40 007s 30 6.40 100.00 0.00 Dyg = 0.36 mm, Dao = 2.35 mm and Dog = 48 mm, where Dyo, Ds, Dep at the particle sizes corresponding to 10%, 30% and 60% passing (or finer) respectively. The coefficient of uniformity Cy abd the coefficient of curvatare Ce are found fom Pw Cae (LQ) oD Di DeoPio 48 8-133, 036 aus)Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 7 3 Percentage finer by weight oot a4 088 4285 4849 100 Particle size (mm) Figure 14. Problem 1.6 dispaytidaaes ta CC DepDig 48036 The soil may be classified as GW (well graded gravel). Problem 1.7 ‘The following data were recorded in a liquid limit test using the Casagrande apparatus Determine the tiquid limit of the soil. Classify the soil assuming plestic limit PL = 19.8%. Number Masso — Massof wet Mass of dry ofbiows —can(z) sil +can(e) __soil+can (g) 8 1180 3605 29.18 16 132000 MAS 28.60 2m 14103695 S116, 40 12083329 281 Number Moisture of blows content 8 0395) 6 0360, 7 0339 40 0323 ‘The results of the calculations for moisture contents are shown in the table above and Figures 1.5 (moisture content against mumber of blows) and 1.6 (plasticity chart: ASTM D-2487) from which: LL = 34.2%, ‘The sol is classified as CL.8 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 40 38 38 37 36 35 by 34 33 32 eT 30 2342 Moisture content (%6) 1 108 100 Number of blows: Figure 1.5. Prablem 1.7: moisture content against numberof blows, 0 so Aling 8a ou 2° MH or OH 2 é 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Ligue mit (6) Figure 1.6, Problem 1.7: plasticity chart (ASTM D-2487) Problem LS ‘The recorded data in a liquid fimit test using the cone penetration method are as follows. Determine the liquid limit of the soil Cone penetration (mm) 14.1183 22.) 272 ‘Moisture conten 283 422 24 4 Solution: ‘The results are plotted in Figure 1.7 from which LL = 47%,Nature of Soits, Plasticity and! Compaction 9 Moisture content (%) 100 Cone penetration (mm) Figure 1.7. Problem 1.8, Problem 1.9 ‘The maximum and minimum void ratios for a sand are 0.805 and 0.501 respectively, The field density test performed on the same soil has given the following results: 1.81 Mg/m’, w= 12.7%, Assume G,= 2.65. ‘Compute the density index. Solution: “To express the consistency states of send and gravel, the natural void ratio is compared ‘with the maximum and minimum void ratios obtained in the laboratory. Density index (or ‘elative density) is defined by: SS (loosest) 05 Ip $1 (densest) ais) Day density in the field is calculated from Equation 1.11: =1.606 Me'm*, v= Me 806 9606! G¥ py, 265%1.0 V, =1.0-0.606 = 0.394 m? 0,394/0.606 = 0.650. From Equation 1.14: 0.805 ~0.650 (0805 —0.501 Dp10 Problem Solving in Soll Mechanics Problem 1.10 ‘The following results are obtained ftom a standard compaction test: ‘Mass oF compacted soll(g) 1920.5 20515 21385 21470 21200 2081.5 ‘Moisture content (%) no 121 2836 46 163 The specific eravity ofthe solids is 2.68, and the volume of the compaction mould is 1000 cm, Plot the compaction curve and obtain the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, Plot also the 0%, 5% and 10% air void curves. AC the maximum dry density, caiculate the void ratio, degree of saturation and air content. If the natural moisture content in the field is 11.8%, what will be the possible maximum dry density if the soil is compacted with its natural moisture content? Solution: ‘The results of computations are tabulated and shown in Figure 1.8 from which 907 Malm’. Sample ezicufations for test number 3 MIV =2138.5/1000.0 = 2.1385 g/em? or Mg/ m. A+ w) = 2.1385 (1+ 0.128) = 1.896 Mam’, Wopr = 13% and panax Pa Dry deity expressed in terms of Gy ad Ay (air conten: 4, =7,/7) GPwll- Ay) “rw, (8) Gp, ; Pu zero sircurve a6 iewG, ania J For 220 sir (dy = 0) with w = 12.8%: py = 2a. 2681.0 995 nig? Pa Tawa, 160128 2.68 For 8% air py =1.995%0.95 =1.896Mg/mn’ For 10% air py =1.995%0.9=1.796 Mpl’, ‘At the maxiamum dry density and assuming = 1m! with) pelMigim’) PCR: puCMain’): pu(Mgin’) O%air——SYoair «10% air to 17302070 1.966 1.863 121 1830 2.024 L922 1821 128 1.896 995 1.396 L196 136 1890 L968 1.866 L768 146 1.850) 1.926 1820 Ln 163 1.790 1x65 Lm 1679 170 Lat Lag 1.687 180) 1.808 Lat 1627Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 1 22 2a 2 19 18 rg (Malm?) 47 18 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 wi) Figure 1.8. Problem 110. Me 1907 Leen 68x10 ¥, =1.0-0.711=0.289 m> 289/0,711= 0406, 5, V/V, = (1.907 0.13/1.0)/0289 = 0858 VV =V, V0, A, = (0.289 -1.9070,13/1,0)/1.0=0.041 = 4.1%, 711m From Figure L.8 for w = 11.8% the corresponding dry density is = 1.8 Mg. Problem 1.1L The results of two particle size analyses on sand and gravel samples are shown in the first and second columns of the following table. The mass of each specimen is S ky. Plot the panicle size distribution curve for both specimens. A third specimen is made by mixing ‘wo volumes of sand with one volume of gravel. Plot the particle size distribution curve for the mixture assuming that the densities of gravel and sands are equal Solution: ‘The results are tabulated below and shown in Figure 1.9. In the able corresponding to the mixed sample the retained mass on the individual sieve related to the sand is multiplied by 2. Thus the total mass of the assumed mixture is 15 kg. Ifthe particle size distribution for the mixture was given (either as a single curve or a zone bounded by 1wo curves), then a trial and error procedure in terms of the mass ratios of sand and gravel must be adopted ‘until the required distribution is obtained12 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Sieve size individual Individual Curnlative Cumulative (mm) mass-——_percentage percentage percentage retained (g) retained retained finer Gavel 0 © 0.00 0.00 100.00 28 315 750 9230 : ns BS 24.00 86.00 67 1000 2000 44.00 $6.00 34s 1880 7100 39.00 2 1450 10000 0.00 Sand 2 a 0.00) 0.00 100.00) la 500 10.00 1000 90.00 Lis 200 400 14.00 8600 oss 580 11002500 75.00 06 1100 22.00 47.0 53.00 042s «1750-3500 $2.00 18.00, 03 900 1800 10000 0.00 In the case where the densities of the given two materials are not equal then the mass of ‘the material I on the individual sieve must be multiplied by m1 according: Bs Ty Ps where V1 / V2 represents the volume ratio (in this example is 2) and pi and p are the corresponding densities, ay Sieve size Individual Individual Cumulative Cumulative (nm) mass percentage percentage percentage retained (g) retsined retained finer 50 ° 0.00 0.00 100.00 25 375 20 2.50 97.50 Rs 8s 550 5.00 92.00 67 1000 567 1467 8533 34s 1350 3.00 2307 7633 2 aso 9.67 3334 68.66 14 1000 687 4001 $9.98 Lis 400 2.65 4267 5733 oss 100 733, 50.00 50.00 2200 Mer 64.67 3533 3500 2333 85.00 12.00 i800 12.00 100.00 0.00Nature of Soils, Plasticity and Compaction 13 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o oa 1 10 100 Particle size (mm) Figure 1.9, Problem 1.11 Problem 1.12 Re-work Problem 1.11 with the volume ratio, (sand to gravel) of 1.0. The densities of gravel and sand are 1.25 Mg’m’ and 1.5 Mg/m’ respectively. Solution: ‘The mass of the sand on each individual sieve is multiplied by m1: ere Va Pr ‘The corresponding calculations are tabulated and shown in Figure 1.10; total mass of the mixture = 11 kg. yy Sieve size Individual Individual Cumulative Cumulative (cm) mass percentage percentage percentage retained (g) resined retained finer 50 o 0.00 0.00) 100.00) 2s 375 341 341 96.59 Ins 825 750 10.81 89.09 67 1000 9.10 2001 7399 34s 1350 1227 3228 oun 2 1430 1318 4546 S454 14 600 345 5091 49.09 Lis 240 218 53.09 4691 085 660 6.00 59.09 4091 06 1320 12.00 71.09 2891 042s 2100 19.09 90.18 982 03 080 9.82 00.00 0.00,14 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 100 90 50 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ° ‘Sand Gravel Percentage finer by weight of 1 10 100 article size (mm) Figure 1.10. Problem 1.12, 1.3 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS ASCE. 1962, Symposium en grouting. Journal SMEE, ASCE, 81SM2): 1-148, [ASTM D-2487. 1998. Stondard classificaion of sole for engincering purposes (Unified Soil Ciassfcavion System). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials Akinson, J. 1998. 4m inmadvetion 10 the mechanics of soils and foundations, London: MeGraviHil AS.1993. Geotechnical investigations, 3" eon. NSW, Austlia: Standard Association of Australia Aysen, A. 2002, Soi mecamies: Basie concep and engineering applications Lee: Balkema. Bowles, 1, 1996, Foundacon anahsis and devin. $* edon. New York: McGraw-Hill, BS 5930, 1981. Code of practice for site iwestigation. London: British Standards Institution. Casagrande, A. 1948, Classifications and ienificaions of oils. Translated: ASCE, 113: 901-91 Craig, RF. 199, Soil mechani. 6" edcon, London: E & FN Spon. Isbell, RF, 1996, Te dusation oi elesifcain, Austin, Cong wor: CSIRO Publishing Terzaphi, K& Peck, RB. 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2™ elton, New York: obs Witey & Sos White, RE. 1979. fnroduction tthe principles and practice of sot scence, Melbourse: Blackwell Selenite Yong. RN, & Warkentin, BP. 1966. Jurvducron o soll behaviour. New Yosk: The Macmillan Company.eee CHAPTER 2 Effective Stress and Pore Pressure in Saturated Soils 2.1 INTRODUCTION ‘The stress related to the intemal forces acting on the contact points of the pattcles is termed the effective stress whilst te stress within the liquid phase or water is termed pore pressure, The combination of these two stresses represents the fora stress ata point: ono'tu en) where o isthe fatal normal stress ata point in a specified plane, of isthe effective normal stress ot that plane resisted by the particles and u is the pore pressure acting on the plane. {n drained loading the effective stress controls the strength ofthe soil and its deformation. In the undrained conditions the total stress is of major concem. Both conditions may occur in the field in the form of moving from undrained conditions to the drained conditions as the time passes; the process being controlled by he drainage conditions. The change in the effective vertical stress within the soil is the major factor in the consolidation settlement in clay soils. For a soif section composed of m layers, above the point of interest, and each having thickness of hy, Equation 2.1 yields: = Dh - hy i 22) A where yi is the effective unit weight of each layer. The problems in this chapter are designed to cover three major areas. First, the main definition of the effective stress is investigated through Problems 2.1 and 2.2. Second, the case of the water with a high pressure (artesian conditions) that is located at some depth from the ground surface has been considered (Problems 2.3 and 2.4). The third area is the concept of the inerease in the effective vertical stress due to dewatering that is explained in Problem 2.5. Note that ‘only the stresses due to gravity are considered. The cases of external surface loading will be discussed in Chapter 6. 22 PROBLEMS Problem 2.1 For the soil profile shown in Figure 2.1 plot the variation of total vertical stress, pore pressure and effective vertical stress with depth.16 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 0.0m ~saSSE WT Sol 1 pay 1.70 Main? 120 pea 180 Mom? 2m Soll 2: Psat= 2:10 Malm? 50m Sold! Page 2.15 Moin 80m Figure 2,1, Problem 2.1: sol profile Solution: the ground surface, 6) = 0.0, 1= 0.0, 6', = 00, 12m T9811 25m: 10.0 +4 9 9.81(2.5-1.2) 10.0 KPa, v= 0.0, 0" 14.2-+2,1x9.81(5.0-2.5)=95.7 kPa, 1.0% 9.81(5.0-1.2) =37.3 kPa, Stess (KPa) 50 100 «150-200 Pore pressure Depth (m) Figure 22, Problem 2.1: variation of pore pressure total and effective vertical stresses with depthEffective Stress and Pore Pressure in Saturated Soils. 17 15.7+2.159,813.0=159.9kPa, 0x9.81(8.0-1.2) = 66.7 kPa, 59.0 ~ 66.7 = 92.3 kPa, The results are presented in Figure 2.2 Problem 2.2 : For the given soil profile of Figure 2.3 calculate the effective vertical stress at 2 depth of 1$m. Solution: For soil | and assuming V= Um? S,=¥ yh, 205, Vig = My /Py =O.14%M, /1.0, ¥, =1-V,, Vz =M,/p, = M, AG, XPp) Vp 014M, Me 2681.0 M, +wM,)/V =(1.531+6.14%1,531)/1.0=1.745 Mgim’, 1,531/(2.68%1.0) = 0.571 m°, 1.0-0.571 = 0.429 m', thus Pour =, *G,Py +¥,* Py)/V =(1-531+0.429%1.0)/1 Soil2: ‘Assume V= 1 m’, thus ¥, 40, =Le=¥,1V, =5.0: solving for Mand Fs: {= 0.8333, V7, = 0.167 m> Poot =, XG, Py Vy Py )/V = (0.167 2.0%1.0+0,833%1.0)/1.0 Soil 3: Vi 4¥,=he= 5,M, =1.531Mg. ¥, = 1.960 Mgim?, 167 Mein’ (AV, = 1s solving for Vand Ve 0.0m SST Wr w= 14%, S)= 60% 45m “Soll 1:6, =2.68, 30m Soil 2: Peat e= 60m Soll3:e=1,6, Figure 2.3. Problem 2.2,18 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies ¥,=0.5m3,¥, =0.5 m5, Problem 2.3 Alay layer of 4 m thick with pus =2 Mgim’ is overain by a 4 m sand with pu = 1.9 Mgim® and paiy= 1.65 Mg/m’, dhe top of this layer being the ground surface. The water table is located 2m below the ground surface. The clay layer is underlain by a sand siratum that is in artesian conditions withthe water level in a standpipe being 4 m above the ground surface. Calculate the effective vertical stresses at the top and the base of the clay layer. Ifthe dry sand is excavated, in what dept the effective stress at the bottom of the clay layer will become 2210? Solution: ‘At the top of the clay layer =4 m: 6, =(1.65%2.0+1,90%2.0)x9.81 = 69.6 kPa, 0x9. 81x2.0=19.6 KPa, 69.6 19.6 = 50.0 kPa. ‘At the base ofthe elay layer z= 8 m: 6, =69.6 + 2.0x9.81x4.0=148.1 kPa, = 1,0%9:81(8.0+40)=117.7 kPa, = 48.1-117.7 = 30.4 kPa Assume D is the depth of excavation inthe sand layer, thus at the base ofthe elay layer: 6, =148.1-1,65*9.81 D=148,1 -16.2D kPa, of, =148.1-16.2D-117.7 =0, D =1.9m-<2.0-m (the thickness ofthe dry sand layer). Problem 2.4 A clay tayer 10 m thick has a density of 1.75 Mg/m’ and is underlain by sand. The top of the clay is the ground suaface. An excavation in he clay layer failed when the depth of the excavation reached to 6,5 m from the ground surface. Calculate the depth of water in @ standpipe sunk to the sand layer. Solution: Caleulate the total vertical stress atthe base of the clay: 5, =1.75x981(10,0—6.5) = 60.1 kPa, ‘The pore pressure om the boundary of sand and clay is:Effective Stress and Pore Pressure in Saturated Solt’s 19 1 =10%981Khy =9.8Uhy. ‘where hw isthe height of water above the boundary. Set the effective vertial stress at the base ofthe clay to zero: oF, =60.1-9.81h, =0, hy =6.125 m, Depth of the piezometric level from the ground surface = 10.0 ~ 6.125 = 3.875 m. Problem 2.5 A stratum of soil is 15 m thick and its top surface is the ground surface. Formulate the effective vertical stress within the layer if (a) the water table is at the ground surface, (b) the water table is lowered 3 m by pumping, Pear =2 Mei? and pry = 1.65 Mei’ Solution: (a) Ata depth z from the ground surface: Gy, = Pag = 2.09.81 =19,622 kPa, 0x981x2=98) 19.622-9.9812 (b) Ata depth 2 > 3.0 m from the ground surface: Gy = Pay % 8X30 Pyql2—3.0) kPa, G, =1.65%9.81«3.0+2.0%9.81(2-3.0) 4 =1,0%9.8(2-3.0) = 9.812 ~ 2943 kPa, 1, =19.622-10.30-9.812 +2943 =9.812 +19.13 kPa. ‘The increase in the effective vertical stress after pumping is: Aol, =9.812 +19,13-9.812 = 19.13 kPa, which is independent from the depth of the point of interest. {In general the increase in the effective vertical stress is 19.622 ~10.30 kPa, $0" = AMP 8 SHC Po) e3 where AH is the magnitude ofthe drop ofthe water surface, py isthe density of water nd fis the density ofthe dewatered zone. For example for 2 > 3m: ‘Ao! =3.0%1.0%9.81-3.0%9.81(2.0-1.65) =19.13kPa [Ata depth z 3.0 m from the ground surface: py 82 1.652981 2 = 16,192 KPa the effective vertical stress is: 6382 kPa, The formulation at this region is as follows: AG" = £20, +P Psat) 4)20 Problem Solving in Soil Mechantes 23. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS ‘Aysen, A. 2002. Soil mechanics: Base concepts and engineering opplications. Lise: Balkema. Bishop, A.W. 1959. The Principal of effective stress, From a lecture in Oslo, Norway 1955, Reprinted in Teknik URebiad (39): 889-863. Klausner, Y_ 1991. Fundamentals of continaum mechanic of soils. London: Springer-Verlag Powrie, W. 1997, Soil mechanies-concepis and opplications. Landon: E & FN Spon ‘Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. 1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2" edition. New York: John Wiley & Sens.CHAPTER 3 The Movement of Water through Soi! 3.1, INTRODUCTION ‘The problems that are solved in this chapter investigate the flow of water through interconnected pores between soil particles in both one and twa dimensions. To obtain the coefficient of permeability k (or hydraulic conductiviy) wo common laboratory test methods of constant head and falling head are used. These methods are described through Problems 3.1 to 3.3. The flow is assumed laminar and Darey's law is valid, Problem 3.4 shows the application of Darcy's law in formulating the flow rate in a two-dimensional flow problem. Problems 3.5 and 3.6 are related to the in-situ test methods of obtaining the coefficient of permeability in unconfined and confined aquifers. The equivalent coefficients of permeability in layered soils (parallel and normal to the stratum) are explained in Problem 3,7. Using a simplified approach the flow nets that, describe the seepage flow, are constructed and used to obtain the flow rate under the impermeable dams or sheet piles (Problems 3.8 and 3.9). The flow within a permeable dam is explained by Problems 3.10 and 3.11 3.2. PROBLEMS Problem 3.1 Ina laboratory constant head permeability test, eylinctical sample 100 mm in diameter and 150 men high is subjected to an upward flow ofS40 ml (cm)min, The head loss over the length of the sample is measured « be 360 mm, Calculate the coefficient of permeability in ms Solution The hydraulic aradient within the length L isa dimensionless parameter and is defined as the rate of change in foal head (or head loss) Ai over the length ah 4 aA an 1 we assume the flow obeys Darcy" Jaw Ki 62) where v is the velocity and f is the coefficient of permeability of the material. The ‘quantity of water that flows in a unit of time through an area of A or flow rate is:22 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 9-2 av=ati~ ae G3) ' Using Equation 3.3 for a constant head permeability test: OL gh Ahx At Ahx A GA OL 540.0106 x150.0%10 Alix At 360.010" (100.07 x/4)10-® 1.060" k=48 10 mss, Problem 3.2 Ima laboratory falling heed test, the recorded data are: diameter of the tube = 20 mm, diameter ofthe coll = 100 mm, length ofthe sample = 1000 mm. Te head measured from the top level of the sample dropped fiom 800 mm to 600 nun within 1 hour and the temperature of the water was 30 °C, Calculate the caceficient of permeability at 20 °C. 11= 1.005 x 10" N.sim? (at 20 °C), n= 0.801 «10 Ns! mi (at 30°C), Solution: At the start ofthe test and at '=0 the head in the vertical capillary tube is equal to fy. The valve on the tube is opened and the time # for the head to fall to hy is recorded. The coefficient of permeability i caleulated from: aby th =23 2 fogAt 35 ka2ad igh G3) where a isthe intemal sectional area ofthe capillary tube and A is the sectional area ofthe soil. jy. 20.02 x! 1000.0%10" | 800.0 100.0? xx/4 1.0x60x60 "8 500.0" = 3.1910" mis, To include the effect of temperature, the following equation may be used to 0 Tho € is the temperatute of the outflow water in degrees Celsius, fag and fy are the coefficients of permeability at 20 °C and at 6 °C, m2 and ng are the dynamic viscosities of water at 28 °C and @ °C respectively 6, 9.801x10 1.005210 kan 66) =3.1910~ hay =2.54x10 mvs,The Movement of Water through Soil 23 Figure 3.1, Problem 3. Problem 3.3 For the test arrangement shown in Figure 3.1, calculate the volume of water discharged in 20 minutes. The cross-sectional area of the soil is 4000 mm” and k= 4.0 mimis. Solution: 1 = 20.060 = 1200.0. 4 =4000.010°% = 4.010) k= 4.0107 mss BO; BOs 5 yr6 [S008 oatsm V0" *o00 ‘an _225043750-1500 T 3750 Using Equation 3.3: 200.0% 4.0% 10" «4.01073 «1.2, ah = anh . L = 23.0410 m? ——_—_~ : impermeable , 3.04 Figure 32. Problem34424 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Problem 3.4 A long treneh is excavated parallel to a river, as shown in Figure 3.2. The soil profile consists of permeable soil of thickness D confined between two impermeable layers Initially the water level inthe trench is the same as tat inthe river. Water is pumped out of the trench at a flow rate of (2) Formulate qin terms of the geometrical parameters shown in Figure 3.2, (©) for £ (the average horizontal distance between the trench and the river's slope) = 100m, D=5m,2y = 7m, and k= 4 x 10-* ms, calculate the flow rate corresponding to a drawdown of Dy = 2m, (©) ealeulate g when the water table in the trench is 2 m below the surface of the permeable layer. Solution: (a) For full flow between points a and b using Equation 3.3 = Av= Aki=(Dx1.0)k where / is the average horizontal distance between river's slope and the section where the drawdown starts. For the flow between sections b and c: qzdved & ext. oS LOS). Gy-DuP} Equating the flow rates of two zones: 2LDXe,.~D) wD) Replacing / in the flow rate equation: * bp, -D)+ = FRPP Pa) () Substituting numerical values for the ease with Dj = 2m: 4.0107 3600%24 254000 (@) Im this case Dy = 4m: [2«5.0(7.0~5.0)+5.02 ~(7.0~2.0)" |= 0.346 m' day, 4.0510" 3600% 24) 0.622 mda 2100.0 %5,0(7.0 ~5.0) +5.07 ~(7.0-4.0)The Movement of Water through Soil 25 Problem 3.5 A well of diameter 0.3 m is constructed to the full depth of an unconfined aquifer of thickness of 150 m. The water table is 10 m below the ground surface. A pumping test of 12 m’/hour has resulted a drawdown of 10m. Assuming yo = 400 m; calculate the coefficient of permeability of the aquifer, Ifthe flow rate increases to 18 m*/hour, and in the absence of any other data, what will be the best estimate forthe drawdown in the well? Solution: In the unconfined aquifer the piezometric level = (measured from the bottom of the well), in terms ofr (the distance of any point from the centre jine of the well) and an observation \well data (or 2 known point), may be expressed in the following form: 3.7) 7 G7 For r = 0.3 /2=0.15 m, == 150.0 ~ 10.0 - 10.0 = 130.0 m, ‘The radius of influence 7» defines the point(s) where the water level fully recovers to its original value: thus for r = 400.0 m, = = 150.0 ~ 10.0 = 140.0:m. Substituting the above numerical values in Equatioa 3.7: yo For g= 18 m'/hour: h4o.o? +189 _ tg 015. = 134.9 m. \ 3600 %3.1%10-6 "400.0 150.0-10.0-1247 120, 0.15 0p OB ga 3.1x104 360% 7k "400.0 oa \ Problem 3.6 A pumping test carried out in a $0 m thick confined aquifer resulted in a flow rate of 90 Vmin, The thickness of the impermeable layer above the aquifer is 20 m and the original water level in the well was 2 m below the ground surface (which is also the top of the impermeable layer). Drawdowns in two observation wells located 50 m and 100 m from the well are 3 ard I m respectively. Calculate: (a) the coefficient of permeability of the aquifer, (b) the drawdown in the well, (6) the radius of influence, The diameter of the well is 0.6 m, Solution: In the confined aquifer the piezametric level = (measured from the bottom of the well), in terms of r (the distance of any point from the centre line of the well) and an observation well data (or a known point, is expressed in the following form: a ont = ink 38) teen es)26 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics For r= 50m, :=50.0+20.0-2.0-3.0=65.0m. For r= 100.0m, 2 = 50.0+20.0- 2,-1.0 = 67.0 m, therefore: (@) 65.0= 67.0 [600.01000360321%50.08 ]in(S0.0/100.0), & 9 2670+ [s00.0/0000%60%26%50.0<1-1x10-)} 03/1004) = 2, @Atrary 2 1107 mis = 68.0:m; thus 680 = 67 0-+{500.0/(1000%60%2%50.0%1.1+10°5) int, /100.0), 21413 Problem 3.7 A soil profile consists of three layers with the properties shown in the table below. Calculate the equivalent coefficients of permeability parallel and normal to the stratum Layer Thickness (0m) r(Porallel, vs) A: (normal, ms) 1 30 202107 oxo 2 40 saxo 2.510% Puen) 3.0x10° 1510 For the flow parallel to the layers 2iky 2 pkga tt Faken ky 69) where 2 =2) +2, 4044, 2.0510" +4.0%5.0% 10-8 +3.0%3.0%10°S y= 2OLOHIOS + AOS DIO S.OLOIO ogy 30440430 For the flow normal tothe layers: eee 3.10) akg tag lhe, Mh oa eERe eed = 6.1«10-% mvs 3.0/1.0%10"° + 4.0/2.5x10* #3.0/1.5x10™> Problem 3.8 For the sheet pile system shown in Figure 3.3(a), caleulate the flow rate in m'iday by constricting the flow net in the following two condiThe Movement of Water through Soil 27 50m 5.0m 65m CS) Figure 3.3, Problem 3.8: (a) sheet pile system, (b) the Now net under the sheet pile (a ky 0x10" mis, and (b) &, (horizontal) = 5.010 ms, &, (vertical) =3.0%10°S mis, Solution: ‘The flow net is constructed by sketching, as illustrated in Figure 3.3(b). The flow rate is expressed by: N, ir ea rie GD where / is the total loss due to the seepage, jis the number of equal drops in total head and Nis the total number of flow lanes. From Figure 3.3(b) Ny Ya 11; therefore: KAN ¢ _ (5.010"$ x5.0%5)3600%24 eons i = 9.82 miday/metre run, (b) The material can be treated as an isotropic soil by assuming an equivalent isotropic coefficient of permeabilty of: ik, @.12) and using a transformed seale of: 13) As the thickness of the sheet pile is ignored and there is no horizontal element (e.g, horizontal impermeable layer) thus there is no need to use the transformed scale and the flow net is the same as of case (3) Using Equation 3.12:28 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 180m, | ) Figure 3.4, Problem 3:9: (a) concrete dam and sheet pile system, (b) the flow net 50x10" «3.010 =3.87%10" mis 3.87.0 10° + 5.0% 5)360024 1 . 4g = 7.60 mm iday/metre run. Problem 3.9 A concrete dam retains 8 m of water, as shown in Figure 3.4(a). Calculate the flow rate in sm /day by constructing the flow net under the dam, k=S «10% ms Solution: ‘The flow net is constructed by sketching and shown in Figure 3.4(6) from which: 3, Na= 8; therefore: Impermeable stratum 100.0 m Figure 3.5. Problems 3.10 & 3.11The Movement of Water through Soil 29 HiN'y (5.0107 47.5%3)3600%24 Na 8 2.15 m /day/metre run. Problem 3.10, For the earth dam section shown in Figure 3.5, calculate the flow rate in m’ day. Solution: ‘A traditional (Casagrande) method defines the phreatic surface as a parabola with its focus located at the origin O of the xz coordinate system (Figute 3.5). This parabola referred to as basic parabola can be defined mathematically if the coordinates of one point on the boundary (or within the seepage zone) is known, Experimental investigations have shown, that the intersection point of the basic parabola and the water surface, point F, is located such that FA = 0.3E4, which means that the coordinates of point F are known. The parabola has fo be corrected at point A to meet the requirements of the entry conditions. The disiance of any point on the basic parabola fom the Focus is equal to the distance of this point from the directrix, which is located at an unknown distance of p from the z-axis, This condition yields the equation of basic parabola as: 2_ yi 2p By substituting the coordinates of point F in Equation 3.14, the value of p so obtained is: posh eek mxp G15) ‘The flow rate is estimated by constructing the flow net schematically. An alternative solution is to assume a constant hydraulic gradient in the vertical sections: G1) Aki & spe, Mae : ap From Equation 3.14, = 2 and “ a ip G.16) In the absence of a toe drain the basic parabola interseets the downstream face at point B as shown in Figure 3.5, In reality, the phreatic surface must be tangent to the downstream face at point 7 with a distance @ from the origin Q. In the Casagrande method, the correction length of BT expressed by Aa is found from experimental results, The distance OB = Aa +a can be easily established, because the equations of the basic parabola and the downstream face are both known, ‘An alternative solution, called the Dupuit method gives the distance of a as: z ah G7)The Movement of Water through Soil 29 HaN g _(5.0x10-S x7.5%3)3600% 24 Ng 8 : 12.15 m'/day/mewe run, Problem 3.10 For the earth dam section shown in Figure 3.5, calculate the flow rate in m°iday. Solution: ‘A traditional (Casagrande) method defines the phreatic surface as a parabola with its focus located at the origin 0 of the xz coordinate system (Figure 3.5). This parabola referred to a basic parabola can be defined mathematically if the coordinates of one point on the boundary (or within the seepage zone) is known, Experimental investigations ave shown that the intersection point of che basic parabola and the water surface, point F, is located such that F4 = 0.3E4, which means that the coordinates of point F are known, The parabola has to be corrected at point A to meet the requirements of the entry conditions, The distance of any point on the hasic parabola from the focus is equal to the distance of this point from the directrix, which is located at an unknown distance of p from the z-axis This condition yields the equation of basie parabola as: ft 2p By substituting the coordinates of point F in Equation 3.14, the value ofp so obtained is: pad eet x 15) ‘The flow rate is estimated by constructing the flow net schematically. An altemative solution is to assume a constant hydraulic gradient in the vertical sections: a a Gla) = Aki xe, From Equation 3.14 2 Pane: 4q=h G.16) In the absence of a toe drain the basic parabola intersects the downstream face at point B as shown in Figure 3.5. In reality, the phreatic surface must be tangent to the downstream face at point 7 with a distance @ from the origin O. In the Casagrande method, the correction length of BT expressed by Aa is found from experimental results. The distance (OB = Aa +a can be easily established, because the equations of the basic parabola and the downstream face are both known, An alternative solution, called the Dupuit method gives the distance of @ as: a= Se | G1) cosa Veos*a sin? a30 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies In this case itis assumed that the correction curve passes through point F and is tangent 16 the downstream face, thus the flow rate can be obtained by the following equation, which is different from Equation 3.16: g= kasinctanae Guts) Calculate the slope ofthe dam (equa fr both upstream and downstream sides): 230 ‘doo.0-soy72~°* : 6.56. Referring to Figure 3.5: 210 wan26.56° 0.0 -420+03+420 spe 2hm Using Egnation 3.17 20m, naa : 0826.56" V cos? 26.56° sin? 26.56"" 5.49 m. ‘The flow rate is calculated from Equation 3.18: 0x10"? 515.49 sin 26.56 « tan 26,56° 3600s 2 18m" Hday/metre run. Problem 3.11 For the earth dam section shown in Figure 3.5, calculate the minimum length of the toe drain required to ensure that the phreatic surface becomes tangent to the downstream face. Solution ‘The equation of the downstream slope in the 2Ox coordinate system is: tang. ‘When the point 0 is located inside of the dam having a distance Z (he length of filter) fiom the previous origi; the equation of the downstream slope is modified to: ‘ana To find the intersection point of this line and the basic parabola, we substitute the x value from the equation of the line into equation of the basie parabola (Equation 3.14):The Movement of Water through Soil 31 Rearranging the above equation we obtain: 2, 2 Persp, ma oe This equation is inthe general form of; az? +he+e=0, which will yield wo answers for =. If the basic parabola is tangent 10 the downstream slope, these two answers are equal. pa Pit eota) ‘The new x coordinate of point F (on the basic parabola) is: aps 706-1, Substituting this value in Equs 3s: p= (70.6 - Ly? +21.0? -(70.6-L), ‘The basie parabola is tangent to the downstream face if L = p(1 + cot? a)/2., therefore: pa Blltcot? a) _ p(l+2.07) 2 2 p=04L. Thus 0.4L = (706-1)? +21.07 -(70.6-1), (70.6-L)? +441 =(70.6-0.61)*, =25p, 0.6412 ~ 56.481 +441 =0, Le 65m, 33. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS AS 2368,1990, Test pumping of water wells. NSW, Australia: Standard Association of Australis, [AS 1289,6.7.1, 1999. Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: Soil strength and consolidation tests-Detormination of permeability of a sollconstamt head method for a remoulded specimen. NSW, Austalia: Standard Association of Australi, AS 1259:6.7.2, 1099. Methods of resting soils for enginecring purposes: Soil sirength and ‘consoliderion tests-Determination of permeability ofa soiling head method fora remoulded specimen, NSW, Australi: Standard Association of Australia,32. Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics AS 12896173. 1999, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: Soil strength and ‘consalidaran texs-Determination of permeability ofa soilconstant head method using a fleible veal pemeameier. NSW, Australia: Standard Assocation of Australia. ASTM D.-5084. 2000. Standard est methods for measurement of hydraulic conductviy of saturated ‘porous materials using a exible wal permeameter. West Conshohocken, PA: Amesican Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D-2434-68, 2000, Standard! cst method for permeability of granular soils (constant head) West Conshohocken, PA: Ameriean Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D-4044. 1996. Standard test method for (field procedure) for instantaneous change in fead (Singh: Tests for determining hydraulic properties of agufers. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Aysen, A. 2002. Soi! mechanies: Basie concepts and engiseering applications. Lisse: Balkema BS 5930, 198]. Code of practice for ste investigation. London: British Standard Institution, Head, KH. 1986, Manual of soi! laboratory testing. London: Pentach Press. Roberson, JA, Cassidy, JJ. & Chaudhry, MH. 1999. Hyarauile engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CHAPTER 4 Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 4. INTRODUCTION The problems solved in this chapter describe the shear strength characteristics of soils and related failure criteria, Problems 4.1 to 4.3 show the applications of the stress transformation equations in soils. The shear strength parameters, Which include eakesion and internal fiction angle, are investigated through Problems 4.4 to 49. Both, the effective stress analysis and the total sess analysis, are applied. The post peak behaviour Of the soil may be predicted by using the critical state models that are now common for specific types of soils, The practical applications of the critical state theory are described by Problems 4.10 f0 4.12. 42 PROBLEMS Problem 4.1 ACa point 15 m below the ground surface, the relationship between the effective vertical sttess o'- and the effective lateral stess 6’, is: oy = 0", (I ~ sing’). Ifthe water able is 2m below the ground surface, calculate the normal and shear stresses on dhe Gwo perpendicular planes P and Q (Figure 4.1(@)) where the angle g for the P plane is 45° +6 /2. 6° = 0, 4! =40°, pay = 1.7 Mg/ar and pyay= 1.95 Mp’ Solution: 5m 1,7%9,81%2.0+1.95%9.8113.0 = 282.0 kPa, 0x 9.81%13.0 = 127.SkPa,o', = 282.0-127.5 = 154.5 kPa. of (sing! 5.2 kPa, Due to symmetry tye The normal and shear stresses on any plane P, with angle a. to the x-axis, are determined by the following equations: cos2a +, sin 20 1) cos 20 42) For the plane P, 5.0° + 40.0°/2 = 65.0° > 2a =130.0°, Thus34 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies (a) (b) (Allin kPa) Figure 41. Problem 4.1 54.5 + 55.2)! 2+ |(154.5 - 55.2}/ 2]eos130.0° = 72.9 kPa. 1 =[(154.5-55.2)/2]sin 130.0° = 38.0 kPa, For the plane Q, = 90.0° + 45,0° + 40,0°/2=155.0° > 2a =310° or 20 9 =(154.5+55.2)/2 + [054.5~55.2)/2]cos(-50.0°) =136.8 kPa 1 [(154.5 -55.2)/2]sin(-$0.0°) The results are illustrated in Figure 4.1(b) Problem 4.2 ‘Ata point within a soil mass, the effective lateral and shear stresses are 100 kPa and SO kPa respectively. Calculate the effective vertical stress to cause the failure of the point. 30°, Solution: The Mobr-Coulomb fare criterion can be expressed in terms of Cartesian stresses by enforcing the Moh’ circle of stress (Equations 4.1 and 4.2) to be tangent to the failure envelope (the concept of failure in the form oft = 6 tang! + <) 8)? +2 +04 )sing’? 43) Which means, the radius of the Mohr’s circle of stress, (square root of the left term) is equal to the distance of the centre of the circle from the failure envelope (square root of te right term), ‘Substituting the numerical values inthe above equation and noting that 92> 0; = 100 kPa (6%, -100.0)? + (250.0)? =[(o", +100.0)sin 30.0°]?, After simplifying and rearranging: 0.75(a",)? -250.0c', +17500.0= 0, of, = 233.3 KPa. 2c'cosd' + ( Problem 4.3 [An clement of soil in x-z plane is subjected to oz, o's, and ‘Trq= 0.306 oy calculate the ratio a’, / "zat failure. c? = 0,Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 38 Solution: Substituting the given data in the failure criterion expressed by Equation 4.3 (@ - 0)? +(2x0.3060",)? = (0, +05 )sin36.0°7? After rearrangements: 1,02%e', /a',)? -2.691(6, /o",) + 0.6545 =0. of fo! =0271,2.344 i Both answers are acceptable, however practically a! / a's smaller than 1 Problem 4.4 ‘The results ofa direct shear test on a specimen of dry sand are as follows: Normal stress = 96.6 kPa; shear stress at failure = 67.7 kPa, By means of'a Mohe's circle of stresses, find the magnitude and directions of the principal stresses acting on a soil clement within the zone of failure. Solution: ‘The equation of the failure envelope is tang’ +’, therefore: 67.7 =96 6tand' +c! For dry sand assume c' =0; thus 17 ond! 5.0 700 6! 96.6 ‘The normal and shear stresses on any plane P may be expressed in terms of principal stresses and the angle of the plane («) from the major principal stress plane. Thus rearranging Equations 4.1 and 4.2: of 40s os onda. ay es) Figure 4.2. Problem 4436 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics a6) an Solving for o's and o's we obtain: 0/1 = 226.7 kPa, o's = 61.4 kPa, 10,0° + 35.0°)/2 = 625° ‘The resulls are shown in Figure 4.2. Problem 4.5 Dats obtained from 4 drained triaxial test are as follows: (kPa) Testo. 6)(KPa) 1-05 1 50 191 2 0 226 3 130261 Determine the drained shear strength parameters. Solution Test | Indrained test =o, = 50.0kPa, 0.0+191.0 = 241.0 kPa, ie IF Figure 4, Problem 4.5 150 100 50‘Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 37 00.0 kPa, 100.0-+ 226.0 = 326.0 kPa, 50.0 kPa, of =150.0+261.0=411.0 KPa Moht’s circles of stress arc shown in Figure 4.3." ‘The best estimation for drained shear strength parameters are: = 60 kPa and 6 = 15° Problem 4.6 ‘The results of three consolidated-undrained triaxial tests on identical specimens of particular soil are: Testno. _oy(kPa) o,—oyatpeak (kPa) vat peak (kPa) 1 202s 3s 2 304 107 3 40384 139 Determine cand 6! ‘What would be the expected pore pressure at failure fora test with 63 = 100 kPa? Solution: CCaloulate o's and o'y at failure fr each rest: Test I: 100.0 $5.0 = 145.040a, 0} =145.0+ 244.0 = 389.0 kPa 300.0 -107.0 = 193.0 kPa, a =193.0+314 07.0 kPa, 100.0 159.0 = 241.0kPa, oj = 241.0 + 384.0 = 62 kPa, ‘Mohr’s circles of stress are shown in Figure 44 from which: = 10 kPa and @' = 25° ‘To calculate the shear strength parameters related to the total stresses Test 100.0 kPa, c, = 200.04 244.0 444.0 kPa 100.0 kPa, 6, =300.0+ 314.0 = 614.0 kPa, 100.0 + 384.0 = 784.0 kPa. in Figure 4.4 (dashed cireles) from whieh: ¢ = 40 kPa38 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 300 200 o' (kPa) Figure 44, Problem 4.6, ‘To obtain the failure criterion in terms of pri on the plane of failure expressed by Equations 4.6 and 4.7 are substituted in the equation of failure envelope: ¢ =o’ tang’ +c" Alternatively Cartesian stresses in Equation 4.3 are replaced by principal stresses and the Cartesian sheat stress is set to zero: oj =of tan? (45° + §°/2)-+ 2c" tant 45° §'/2) 48) ‘The above equation may also be presented inthe following, form: 4 = 6 tan?(45°— $'/2)—2e"tan(4s°— 9/2) us) For a3 = 100 kPa use Equation 4.8 for both total and effective stresses. For total stresses: oy = 100.0 tan?(45.0° + 15.0°/2) + 2x 40.0tan(45.0°+15.0°/2) = 274.1 kPa. For effective stresses (274.1 =) = (100.0~u) tan? (45,0° + 25.0°/ 2) + 210.0 tan(45.0° + 25,0°/2) = 2.6 kPa Problem 4.7 ‘The results of drained and consolidated-undrained triaxial tests on two samples of normally consolidated clay are shown below: “Type ofthe test, 03(KPa) 61 ~93 at peak (KPa) Drainod 300650 Consolidated-undeained 200280‘Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 39 Determine: (a) 4" from the drained test, (b) 6 from the consolidated-undrained test, () the pore pressure in the consolidated-undrained test at failure. Solution: (3) For normally consolidated clay ¢ = 0, thus using Equation 48 o =05 tan?(45°+ 4/2), (300.0 + 650.0) = 300.0tan7(45.0° +62), tan2(45.0° + 1/2) =3.1667 6! =31.33°*31.3°. (b) Using the same equation for total stresses and assuming ¢ = 0: (200.0 + 250.0) = 200.0tan?(45.0°+4/2), tan?(45.0° + 4/2) =2.25 > § = 22,62" =22.6°. (©) Substitute the results of the consolidated-undrained test in the equation of the failure criterion using ¢ value obtained in part (a: (200.0 + 250.0 —1) = (200.0 ~u)tan2(45.0° + 31,33°/2) = (200 —n)3.166; thus u=84.6KP a, The results are graphically ilustrated in Figure 4.5. Problem 4.8 A soll has the following properties: « (porosity) =0.38, E; (Modulus of Elasticity) JOMPa, 41 = 0.3. The bulk modulus of the pore water is 2200 MPa. Estimate the pore pressure coefficient B. 500 400 300 200 100 s2siea 625 kPa Figure 45, Problem 4.740 Problem Salving in Soil Mechanies Solution: If an clement of saturated soil is subjected to isotropic compression Ao, the instant increase in pore pressure Au (excess pore pressure) is calculated from: 1 4 = ——-—Aa= Bao (4.10) we 3KI-24) where mis the poros sticity of soil, pis the Poisson's raid, K is the bulk modulus of the pore water and B is termed the pore pressure coefficient Substituting the given data in the above equation: 1 ~_aaasiae 203) 0.9986, Problem 4.9 ‘An unconfined compression test has given a UCS value of 1266 kPa. The effective shear strength parameters are: c'=25 kPa, 4'=30°. Assuming the pore pressure parameter A =~ 0,08, calculate the initial pore pressure in the sample Solution: Using the failure criterion in terms of effective stresses (Equation 4.8): 7; tan? (45,0° + 30,0°/ 2) + 2x 25.0tan(45.0° + 30.0°/2), 105 +866. The unconfined compression strength represents: xP 833kPa 128.6KPa \ 80 100 {Aso Initial state of stress og = 07 = 8.6 KPa Figure 4.6, Problem 4.9Shear Sirength of Soils and Failure Criteria 41 1266. 05 +126.6= 304 +86.6 > 05 = 20.0 kPa. The effective major principal stress i: 0} =) $126.6 = 20.0 + 126.6 = 146.6 kPa. mn unconfined compression test the confining presture os is zero: 03 =05 +4 =200+u=0-¥u=-200KPa The excess pore pressure in a traditional triaxial compression testis determined from the following equation where 4 and B are termed pore jressure coeicente: ‘r= aft + (40, 40) ay In an unconfined compression test AG = 0. Furthermore the incremental stresses ean be replaced by o1 and a3 for evaluation of the average values for 4 and B, Assuming B= Land knowing that 61-0) =0}-95, the pore pressure coefficient 4 at failure is calculated from: thus 91-93-95 4=-0.09=—M4 = M5 ay = 114 kPa. ao 1266 The inital pore pressure is u; =-20.0-(-11.4) = 8.6 kPa, ‘The results are graphically presented in Figure 4.6, Problem 4.10 The values ofthe critical state parameters fora particular type of clay are: N =2.1,2= 0.087, P= 2.05, M= 0.95, Two samples of this soil are consolidated under a confining pressure of 300 kPa, One sample has been subjected to a drained triaxial test whilst the second sample has been sheared in an undrained condition, Determine: (a) the deviator stress atthe eritical state for both the drained and undrained tests, (b) the pore pressure in the undrained test atthe critical state, (c) the volumetric strain in the drained test when the sample approaches the critical state Solution: (a) Projection of the critical state line (CSL) onto the p’-q' plane defines the state of stress atthe critical state and isa line that passes through the origin with gradient M. 4.12)42 Problem Solving in Soil Meckanies The inital state of the sample is point C in Figure 4.7(a). It can be shown that the stress path of the drained test on the p'-q’ plane has a slope of 3 vertical to I horizontal (line (CD). The stress path forthe undrained testis represented by CU. Points D and U that are located on the eritical state line represent the states of the two samples at critical state, For the drained test the equation ofthe drained path line CD in Figure 4.7(a) is 4g’ =p’ ~300.0) This ensures the slope of 3 vertical, | horizontal on the p’-q' plane. Substituting g’ in the equation of C' i 4g’ = 0.9Sp' = 3(p' ~300.0), thus (at critical ste) = 439.0 kPa Substituting he above value ofp’ in Equation 4.12: 4/=6{ ~04 =0.95%439.0 = 417.0 kPa ‘The state ofthe sample subjected to anisotropic compression or confining pressure 03 is defined Sy a relationship between v and p' called the normal compression line (NCE), a5 shown in Figures 4.7(b) and 4.7(c). Specific volume v is @ dimensionless parameter and represents a voturne in which the solids occupy a unit volume. From a phase diagram it can be shown that v= 1+ ¢ where ¢ is the void ratio, The normal compression Tine is established by means of a triaxial compression test, The equation of the normal compression line (NCL) in v, In p" coordinate system is N-Ain p! (4.13) anto}- Note: 1604 1. Stress in kPa Pr 2.Not to scale 1688! 300}0 @ P 168.8 300.0 439.0 1688 300.0 439.0 ©) © Figute 4.7. Problem 4.10.Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Crireria 43 The projection of the CSL. on to the v, In p’ coordinate system is approximated by a line parallel to the NCL (Figure 4.70) v=P=ilnp" (4.14) For the undrained test we first substitute numerical values in the NCL equation and caleulate the corresponding specific volume during the tes and at failure: y= 2.1-0,087:1n300,0 =1,6038, The magnitude of p’ at critical state is calculated ky substituting the specific volume in the CSL equation 1.6038 = 2.050.087 «In p' > p'=168.8kPa The deviator stress at the critical sat is Mp! =0.95 168.8 = 160.4 kPa P= (04 +205)/3 = (6) ~ 03 +03 +205)/3=(g'+303)/3, p’=(160.4+305)/3 =168.8, of =115.3 kPa, u = 300.0-115.3 = 184.7 kPa, (€) Caleulate the specific volume at critical state (drained test) (05 ~ 0.087 In 439.0 = 1.5206, n of volumetric strain is expressed by we, 46) +83 (4.5) where AV is the volume change, Mis the initia] volume; 1, £2, and £3 are the axial strains in the direction of major principal stresses. The above equation can be expressed in terms of specific volume: ee (4.16) ‘Thus ey = (1.6038 ~1.5206)/1,6038 = 0.051 ‘The results are illustrated in Figure 4.7 Problem 4.11 In a drained triaxial test carried out on a sample of the clay of Problem 4.10, the sample ‘was first consolidated under a confining pressure of 400 kPa, It was then unloaded to 300 kPa and, after equilibrium was reached, it was sheared in drained conditions. If the « value is 0.037, calculate the volumetric strain at failure. Solution: ‘The equation of expansion line (unloading) in v, In p' coordinate system (Figure 4:8(¢) is in the form veyy-Kln pt (4.17) where44 Problem Solving in Soll Mechanics a me In pe —In pe, parameter vis not constant for the soil and its magnitude depends on the magnitude of| PG, Note inthis example pe, =400 kPa, and_ ple = 300 kPa, Altematively (e—ve)lln p' In pes (2.19) EOF (Y= Ve, Hn p= In poy) = Calculate the specifie volume for p" = 400.0 kPa on the NCL: V 4qg = 2.1-0.087 > In 400.0 = 1.5787, Calculate the specific volume after unloading to py = 300.0 kPa: eal 00 “00 “(0500 “15787) © (1n300.0 = 1n400.0) * (in300.0=In400.0) From part) of Problem 4.10 the specific volume at critical stat is 1.5200, ‘Volumetric strain from equilibrium conditions a p= 300.0 kPa and v = 1.5893 t eritical state ap! = 439.0 kPa and y = 1.5206 i sy = (0.5893 -1,$206)/1.5893, ey = 0.0432 = 4.32% (compression). = 0.037 > v399 = 1.5893, 417.0 Note: 1, Stress in kPa 2. Not to scale 1 sees 1.5206 “yee so weo se00 4980 (b) te) Figure 4.8, Problem 4.1!‘Shear Strength of Soils and Failure Criteria 4S Note: 1. Stross In kPa ° 2. Not to scale 0) © Figure 49. Problem 4.12. ‘This is less than 5.19% obtained in Problem 4,10 due to its lightly overconsolidated state However the deviator stress a critical state is the same as the drained sample of Problem 4.10. Volumetric strain during unloading from p’ = 400.0 kPa to p’ = 300.0 kPa is gy = 15787=1.5893 i 1578 (expansion). ‘The behaviour of sample during the testis shown in Figure 4.8 Problem 4.12 ‘The crtieal state parameters of a soil are: M=9857, 4, = 0,095, N=2.1, P= 2.05, «= 0.045, Specimens of this soil have been consolidated and unloaded to obtain an initial void ratio. of 0.62, (a) If the specimens are subjected to an undrained triaxial test, find the minimum overconsolidation ratio (OCR =m) above which the pore pressure at the critical state becomes negative, (b) calculate the volumetti strains for dhree specimens of OCR above) and OCR = 8 that are subjected to drained triaxial tests, Solution: OCR =m (as defined46 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics (a) We consider the case where the pore pressure at failure becomes zero. At this state the effective stress path and the total stress pati intersect each other on the CSE. (p'g" plane) so that the g's the sarae for both sess paths at this point (eritical state) ‘At the critical state the specific volume is: ¥=14 e=1+ 0.62 =1.62, Using Equation 4.14 the value of at v= 1,62 becomes: v=P—Aln p'=1,62=2.05-0.095in p’, p'=S24 KPa, ‘The deviator stress at the critical state is ealeulated from Equation 4.12: = Mp’ = 0.857%92.4 = 79.2 kPa. The progress ofthe undrained triaxial tes in terms of the total stresses, on the isa line with the slope of 3 vertical to 1 horizontal Referring to Figure 4.9(2) the equation of the total stress path may be writen as follows: q-92 p24 Forg=0,p= ple = 66.0 kPa This means an unloading (after consolidation) has yielded p’c = 66.0 kPa as the inital state for triaxial test. In order to find the corresponding preconsolidation pressure (the tropic compression where the sample was unloaded: point D in Figure 4:%(c)) on the ‘normal compression line we interseet this line with the expanston (or unloading) line. For this purpose first we define the slope of the expansion line (Equation 4.18): plane, ‘which has a slope of 3 vertical, | horizontal Ye=¥p __, oq45=- 2p Inpe in py in66.0-In pi Point D is located on the normal compression line; thus. vp = N~Aln p'=2.1-0.095In ply ‘Substituting vp in the equation of the expansion line: 1.62-(2.1~0.095In pip) in66.0—In py Solving for pp: Pip = 340.0 kPa. ‘The value of v a this point is: vp =) (0,0951n 340.0 =1.5462, Ry definition the overcensolidation ratio is the ratio of the preconsolidation pressure to the existing effective vertical stress on the element: OCR = 340.0 / 66.0 = 5.15, Having the values of specific volumes at points D and C we may use the following equation for determination of the overconsolidation ratio which is applicable for any linear unloading in v, In p' coordinate system 0.043 In p oc =(te=2) wnShear Strength of Soits and Faiture Criteria 47 Och = xp( SESH) 25.15. 01045 For the OCR values lower than 5.15 (p'p < 340.0 kPa) the pore pressure at the critical state is positive; for the OCR values higher than 5.15 (p'p > 340.0 kPa) the pore pressure is negative. The pore pressure can be calculated in a way similar to part (b) of Problem 4.10. As an example if pp = 400.0 KPa: Vp = N—hln p'=2.1-0.095 In 400.0 = 1.5308, Using the definition of the slope of the expansion line: Inge Po = 55.1 KN < 66.0 kPa From the definition ofp we have (part (b) of Problem 4,10): (0) +205) /3= inpe —n400" ~ of, +04 +20!)/3= p= (64 +205)/3=(19.2+304)/3 1 =55.1-66.0=-10.9kPa ‘The results of part (a) are shown in Figute 4.9. 240 () For ocR= 1: vp =162=N— An p'=2.1-0.095In.r Dip =156.4 kPa ‘The p value atthe critical states 4 = Hp'-1564) = 0.8579" p= 218.9 Pa “The corresponding specific volume at the eritcal sate: yaT~hin p'=2,05-0.095in2189 = 1.5381 (1.62-1.5381) 162 5s 0.0506 = 5.06% = 5.1% (compression) For OCR=5.15,p'=92.4KPa v=T-Alnp! 05 0.095 1n 92. 62, ey EE) _ 99 -0.0%, 162 For OCR —Ye-*D _,a04 lnpe np nS) Vp = 15264. vp =N =k py =1.5264 =2.1-0.095in pp -> pp = 419.0 kPa. Die =419.0/8=52.4 kPa ( p' 52.4) = 0.857",48. Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics pis TB.3kPa ‘The corresponding specific volume atcritical state y=P=2ln p'=2.05~0.095In73.3 =1.6420, OLGEE COA) ee pe ea 5, 0.0136 = 1.36% (expansion) 43. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Arthur JRF, & Aysen, A. 1977, Ruptured sand shere plane stain, Proc. ater. conf SMFE, 1192, Takyo, Atkinson, JH Brarsby, PL, 1978, The mechnes of sols. London: MeGraw-Hi ‘Aysen, A. 2002, Sol mechanics: Basic concepts a engineering application. Liss: Balkema, Brito, A. & Gunn, MJ. 1987. Critical state soil mechanics via fine elemens, Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Jewell, RA. 1989, Direc shear tess on sands. Geotechnigue, 392): 309 Powis, W. 1997 Soil mechanesconceps ot applications. London: E & FN Spon Reseos. K. HLI9S3. Ar apparatus forthe application of simple shear © soil samples. Proc. 3° ier. conf SMFE, |: 186-191. Switzerland Roseos, Ki, & Burland, 5B. 1968. On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. In 3 Heyman & F.A. Leckie (eds), Engineering plasticity: 535-659. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pres. Teezaghi, K, Peek, RB, & Mes G. 1996, Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 3 edition ‘Now York: John Wiley & SonsCHAPTER $ Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 5.1 INTRODUCTION ‘The problems solved inthis chapter are divided into three major categories: 1. Stress distribuion within an. idealized elastic soil mass due to applied extemal and intemal loading (Problems $.L 105.11) 2, Caleulation of elastic settlement (Problems 5.12 t 5.16). 3. Calculation of contact pressure under the base and settlements through two different concepts of rigid and elastic footing (Problems 5.17 to 5.21) In categories 1 and 2 the soil is assumed to be an ideal semi-infinite homogenous elastic material obeying Hooke's law, and a linear elastic stress-strain model is employed 10 determine the stress distribution within the soil. The elastic properties include the Modulus of Elasticity Ey and Poisson's rario w. For soils where the compressibility characterises are non-uniform and depend upon the state of the stress, the cancept of @ compressibility index my is introduced. In this ease, an average m, within a zone of influence is estimated by in-situ testing 2 PROBLEMS Problem 5.1 A cylinder of diameter 150 mm and height 309 mm is filled with sand. The surface of the sand is subjected (0 a vertical sess of 300 KPa causing 4 mm settlement under the loading plate, Calculate the lateral stress on the wall of the cylinder and Modulus of Elasticity of the sand, Poisson's ratio forthe sand is 0.2 Solution: ‘The average strain along the length of the sample is: = 4.0/300 = 0.0133, In an ideal elastic material Hooke's law relates the axial strains to the axial stresses by the following tinear equations: E16, -H9, -ns.)50 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics (0, -19,-¥9,) Ga) In axisymmetric conditions (about the z-axis) o; = Gy, & = &- Furthermore there is no lateral strain in the sample of this example and therefore: & = cy = 0. Enforcing these conditions on the above first or second equation we obtain: 2) 25a, =0.25%300.0=75.0 kPa 1 1 0.0133 (6, po, -n0,)= + 00.0-9.2%75.0-02% 75.0), FOr He Hoy) = F-BOO9-0.2%75.0-02¥750) 00133-2200 10300 kPa, Problem 5.2 Referring to Figure 5.1(b), calculate the distribution of vertical stress along a vertical plane passing through one of the two forces. Specify the values of stress at depths of I m, 210, 3m, 4m and $m, Solution: With de geometry defined in Figure 5.1(a) the following equations represent the vertical stress component along the depth =: Figure 5.1. Problem 5.2. Q + Beos5 0), oF 63) Dae" som, Q,=400KN Qy=400 KNStress Distribution and Settlement in Soils $1 ey 2 G4) 2nftr2)? +1? : (5.5) 2al(r/zy +1? 4 ‘Ate = L0-mand under the load I(using Equation 5.4) 100.0 3.0) @.(due 0 Q,) = 4028 _M.0"__ 199.99 Pa, i er 2m (0.0? +1.07)5? 6.3 (dueto 9,)= 009 XL = 0.06kra, : 2 De 6.08 +102) 0, = 0, +03 =190,99+0.06 = 191.0 KPa, Similar calculations for depths 2 m, 3 m, 4 mand 5 m are carried out and tabulated below. Depiim 10 20 30 40 50 kPa) 1910-48-22. 13.1_—90 Problem 5.3 Figure 5.2(a) shows a plan view of a footing that applies a uniform load of 300 kPa on & horizontal ground surface, Calculate the vertical stress component at point 4 at a depth of 2 musing: () the principle of superposition of vertical forees by dividing the area into elemental 1 m squares (Figure 5.2(b)), () Newmaik’s influence chart Load Load Load Kast any o¢kay E84 omy oz cna) TS remy 0; (kPa) 1 3808 078 101381 1064 1D NSH 2 2915 207 0.707 2668 302.915 2.07 3 221 S44 120.707 2668 212.549 3.21 4 1581 1064 13 L581 064 22,2915 2.07 5 1881 1064 42849 321233535 LO 6 ©2121 $44 1S 0.707 2668 243.535 1.08 7 291s 20716811064 =—-25 3.808 0.78 8 3535 los 172549321 264301 Ot 9 2349 3211813811064 Total: 186352 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics | I 70m (a) o | Figure 5.2. Problem 5.3: (a) plan view of a footing, (b) dividing the area into elemental Im squares. ‘Scale of depth z -— Influence factor = 0.005 Figure $3, Newmark's influence chart used inthe solution of Problem 5.3.‘Suress Distribution and Settlement in Soils $3 Solution: (a) The results of computations (using Equation 5.4) are tabulated above where the total vertical siress component under point 4 at the depth 2 m is 186.5 kPa. (b) A plan is drawn by assuming that the depth under point 4 is equal to the length of the seale in Figure 5.3. The re-scaled figure is adjusted on the Newmark's chart so that the point (under which the vertical stress component is required) is located at the central point of the chart. The vertical siress component due to 2 unit contact pressure is equal to the number of elements within the plan multiplied by the influence factor, or (number of elements covered) fy xq (5.6) (0.005 (for the chart of Figure 5.3) is called the influence factor. ‘The best estimate for the number of elements is 123. Therefore: 6, =123%0.005x 300.0 = 184.5 kPa. Problem 5.4 Re-work Problem 5.3 using Fadum's equations (or chart) Solution: The vertical stress component at a specified depth under a comer of a rectangular loaded area is caleulated from: 0, =9%l, 67 where [y is the influence factor, a dimensionless parameter defined by’ 1 2mmln® PH mB 4242 1 2mmln e at ee Sune ttl ss) 45 | w2 en cL emen? me ened mtenteimnz| OF and m and n ace interchangeable parameters defined as: are ” 69) where L and B are the plan dimensions of the loaded rectangle. For negative values of tan! nshould be added to the calculated angle measured in radians The Keaded area is divided into the 3 rectangles Abed, Adef, Aghb es shown in Figure 5.206). Note tha all rectangles share a common comer of 4 Resilts are tabulated below. Recungle L(m) Bim) om on 6: (Pa) Abed «3020S LO 0.1936 58.08) ‘def = 403.02. LS 0.2236 67.08 4g 40202 1.0 9.1999 $9.97 ‘Total vertical stress component at 85.1 KP54 Problem Solving tn Soil Mechanics 5.0m t tb 1.0m 20mx20m Reon hole | oon 10m al (b) Figue $4 Potlen 3 Problem 5.5 Figure $.4(a) shows a plan view of a rectangular footing with a 2m «2 m square hole (through its entire thickness), The hole is located at 1 m from the left edge and is equally positioned between the top and lower edges of the footing, Ifthe uniform contact pressure under the footing is 200 kPa, use Fadum’s equation (or chart) to compute the vertical stress component ata point 2 m below the centre of the square hole, Solution: ‘The centre of the square hole is outside the loaded area then a few of the rectangles that share this common comer cover areas that are not loaded. In this case itis convenient to assume that the rectangles that cover the unloaded areas are subjected fo a negative contact pressure, ¢ vertical stress at depth = due to area ebedg (Figure S.4(b)) = vertical stress de to area abed ~ vertical stress due to atea def ‘The results of the computations are summarized in the table below. Because of symmetry only the upper half of the footing is considered. Rectangle Lim) Bim) om on ly okra) Abed «3020S 10 (0.1936 38.72, Ahi 20 20-10 10 0.1782 35.64 seh 10 10 0S 05 00840 16.80 Aike 10 10 05 05 oss 16.80 Total: 49.16, ‘Total vertical stress component at 4 =2 40.16 = $0.3 kPa Problem 5.6 Compute oy, 6: and ty. point 4 (Figure 5.5(b)) due to the two Tine Toads shown, Solution:‘Swress Distribution and Settlement in Soils $5 15m Figure 55, Problem 5.6. The stress components at depth 2 are calculated from the following equations with sign conventions shown in Figure 5.5(a). 2¢ 42 2 Qgr?z — cos’ Osin? 9 = —F (5.10) me w(x? +27)? = uy (5.12) For the line load of 10 KNim the coordinates of point 4 ate: 2450.0, 24 = 2.0 mi 2%10.0x2.0° a = SO 218 Pa FF (0.07 $2.07)? For the line load of 20 kN the coordinates of point 4 ate ngs 1S m,24=2.0 m: 2ge?s _ 2x20.0%1.5? «2.0 Bey mS? 42.07)? ate 220.0207 (LS? +2.0° 61 kPa,56 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 220.051.5207 (LS? +207)? Superposing two results: 8, = 54 +5, = 0.04 SkPa, 3.18+2.61=5.8 KPa. 0+2.0=2.0kPa. Problem $.7 ‘Compute the magnitudes of the major and minor principal stresses within a soil that is subjected to an infinitely long line load applied atthe ground surface Solution: Using Equations 5.10 to 5.12 the position of the centre and the radius of the Mohr’s circle of stress are obtained by: Ecos 0+ cos? Osin? 6), cos? 8, = > fee t=fi@,-op Fe = | Licosto-cos* on? + Zhcos} osind)?, 1{fcos? 0—sin? @)]? + 2eossin®)? , Leos? a+ Leos? = = me ‘The direction of the major principal stress plane is calculated from: 2740s sind 24 (cos 6~ cos? sin? 0) 2cos} sin 2eos sind _ sin20 _ cox? 0-sin2 60820” "7? eos @—cos™ Asin This means that at any point the angle between the major principal plane and the x-axis is 8 or the major principal stess is on the line connecting the point of interest to the application point ofthe fine load.Swress Distribution and Settlement in Soils. ST Problem 5.8 Under the centre line of an infinite strip footing, calculate the depth at which the vertical stress component is 10% of the applied load. Solution: Referring to Figure 5.6 the vertical stress component is aevording 9, nacos(a+ 28)] 6.13) Angles: and are defined by: em ton 1 24. (S.14) Along the centre fine x = 0, thus var! Benue? ator! Which means B =~ a / 2. Substituting these conditions in Equation 5.13 and setting the result to 0.19: 4fa +sin acos(a-«)) , Olx=a+sina. A trial and error method yields = 9.02°. a =9.02! Figure 5.6. Problem 5.8.58 Problem Solving in Soll Mechanics Problem 5.9 A stzip loading of infinite length is shown in Figure $.7. Compute the vertical stress component at points 4B, C, and D. Solution: At point 4, x=0,2= 1.0 m: = tan“"{(0.0+1.0)/1.0}-tan™[(0.0-1.0)/1.0]=90.0°, B=tan"[(0.0-1.0)/1.0]=-45.0° Using Equation 5.13; 100.0 90.0° = [Tso At point B,x= 10 m,2= 10m: a= tan™!{.0+1.0)/1 0]-tan”"[0.0-1.0)/1.0]= 63.43", B= tan-![(1.0-1.0)/1.0]= 0.0% 100.0/ 63.43% al 180.0° At point C, x=2.0,2= 1.0 m: (2.0+1.0)/1.0]-tan“"[(2.0 -1,0)/1.0]= 26.56°, B= tan“ [(2.0-1.0)/1.0]=45.0°. 7 Mio 2636 = | 180.0° At point D,x=3.0,2= 1.0 m: a= tan[(3.0+1.0)/1.0]-tan "[(3.0-1.0)/1,0]=12.53°, tan“"[(3.0-1.0)/1.0] = 64.43° Se oe [ 180.0" singnreason0® 204507] -81. 84, sine8.3%co4634"+2x00)|= 4804 ssina6serco26.or+254507)|=8 4h sin e0412.83°+ 264499 17a Figure 5.7. Problem 5.9,‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils $9 Problem 5.10 ‘An earth embankment is 2.5m high and has a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. IF the base of the embankment is 20 m, find the vertical stress component at a point on the centre line at a depth of 7 m, (measured from the base). The unit weight of the embankment material is 18 Nim’ Solutio: Figure 5.8(a) shows « vertical distributed load applied to an infinitely long strip end linearly increasing across its width 2h. Using the sign convention shown, the stress ‘components are: 19) 6.16) 617) Angles and fare defined by oe tan! Stayt 2% (5.18) The vertical stress component under a linear and uniform loading combination shown in Figure $.8(b) is obtained by combining Equations 5.13 and 5.16: @) ©) Figure 58, Problem 5.1066 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics where « and a3 are calculated from Equations 5.18: yet 282 gs, ay tnt? (520) Referring to Figure 5.8(b): ‘a=2,5 (the height of embankment) x 2= 5.0m, b= half ofthe width of the embankment at the top, b= (20.0~2a)/2 = (20.0-25.0)/2 = 5.0 m. From Equations 5.20: ay = tan (5.0/7.0) = 35.54", [(6.0+5.0)/7.0]-ay = 55.00° - 35.54°=19.46°, 4g =18.002.5 = 45.0 kPa rom Equation 5.19 and multiplying the result by 2 2x45.0/ 35.54% | 19.46%, 5.0450) 979 ppp 180.0" 180.0" "5.0 Problem 3.11 A ertial pile carrying a load of 1500 kN has been driven 18 m into the ground. Calculate the vertical stress component a a point 19.8 m below the ground surface and 3 m from the centre ine of the pile forthe following eases (a) the entire load is transmitted to the soil through the base of the pile, (6) the base carries one half ofthe load ard the rest is carried by skin fiction. w= 0.3. Solution ‘The vertical stress component at any point with a horizontal distance r from the load Q and a depth z> Lis 2 2 Bl, 621) where L is the depth of vertical load Q and Jy is given by Tables 5.1(a) and 5.1(6) (for w= 03), The coordinates ofthe point of interest are expressed in dimensionless forms of m=2/L.and n=r/L m=2/L=19.8/180=1.1, and n=r/L=3.0/18.0 =0,167 (@) Using Table 5.1(2) and interpolating J, values between r= 0.1 and r= 0.2: 8.9054-0.5978) 9054 — (0.167 —0.1) = 1, 7003, a= 21, 397003 -79 SB i80 (b) From Table 5.1(b) and interpolating J, values between r= 0.15 and r= 0.2: (08368-06419) 268- - 0.05 (0.167 ~0.15) = 0.7705, i ora 002 se rases7i8n‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils. 61 ‘Table 5.1(a). Vertical stress influence factors due to vertical load applied in the interior ofthe soil 01 020 030 040 050 075 100 130 200 10 & 01.1013 0.0986 0.0944 0.0889 0.0824 0.0641 0.0463 0.0209 0.0087 1 19.3926 3.9054 0.5978 0.2123 0.1287 0.0986 0.0668 0.0475 0.0222 0.0097 1.2 4.9099 2.9275 1.0358 0.4001 0.2027 0.1303 0.0722 0.0493 0.0235 0.0106 13 22222 1.7467 0.9757 0.4970 0.2717 0.1687 0.0808 0.0519 0.0247 0.0116 14 12777 LILs2 0.7905 04891 0.3032 0.1974 0.0908 U.0355 4.0260 0.0125 13 0.8377 0.7686 0.6070 0.4336 0.3012 0.2098 0.0999 0.0594 0.0274 4.0134 146 0.5968 0.5626 0.4768 0.3738 0.2809 0.2086 0.1063 0.0631 0.0288 0.0143, 1.7 0.4800 04312 0.3819 03177 0.2538 0.1988 0.1094 0.0661 0.0302 0.0152 18 0.3536 03424 0.3122 0.2706 0.2262 0.1849 0.1096 0.0682 0.0315 0.0161 19 0.2866 02795 0.2600 0.2321 0.2006 0.1697 0.1076 0.0693 0.0326 0.0169 20 0.2380 0.2333 0.2201 0.2007 0.1780 0.1547 0.1039 0.0694 0336 0177, ‘Table 5.1(b) Vertical stress influence factors duc to uniform shear force applied in the interior of the soil +03), n> 0.00 002 008 006 008 010 0.15 020 050 100 200 mb 10% GAR419 3.4084 2.2673 1.6983 1.3567 0.8998 0.6695 0.2346 0.0686 0.0076 LL 1.9219 1.8611 1.7072 1.5134 1.3211 1.1503 0.8368 0.6819 0.2335 0.0728 6.0091 1.2 0.2699 0.9403 0.9166 0.8825 0.8400 0.7922 0.6688 0.5588 0.2292 0.0760 0.0108 1.3 06430 0.6188 0.6099 0.5992 0.5850 0.5675 0.5157 0.4397 0.2207 0.0782 0.0120 14 0.4807 0.4558 0.4507 0:4461 0.4396 0.4316 0.4063 0.3761 0.2082 0.0796 0.0134 13 0.3766 03561 0.3533 0.3510 0.3476 03432 0.3291 0.3115 0.1834 0.0800 0.0148 1.6 0.3339 0.2895 0.2878 0.2863 0.2843 0.2617 0.2732 0.2621 0.1777 0.0796 0.0160 17 0.2664 0.2438 0.2414 0.2399 0.2384 0.2369 0.2313 0.2239 0.1623 0.0784 0.01 LS 0.2025 0.2045 0.2054 0.2044 0.2038 0.2026 0.1989 0.1938 0.1479 0.0766 6.0182 9 0.1847 0.1794 0.1785 0.1777 0.1768 0.1760 0.1733 0.1696 0.1347 00744 4.0191 2.0 0.1634 0.1565 0.1561 0.1556 0.1551 0.1545 0.1525 0.1498 0.1229 0.0718 0.0199 Problem 5.12 ‘Two flexible square footings 2 mx 2 mare constructed 4 m apart (centre to centre) on the ground surface (Figure 5.9). The uniform contact pressure under one footing is 200 kPa and is 400 kPa under the other. Calculate the clastic settlement at the centre of each footing and at the mid-point of the line connecting the two centres. E, = 10000 kPa, 38 Solution: ‘The elastic settlement S_ of a flexible footing, either rectangular of dimensions L x B (L> B) or circular of diameter B, is given by: (5.22)62 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 20m*20m 9 sm | Figure 5.9, Problem 5.12 ‘where / isan influence factor depending on the shape and L/B ratio, The influence factor fora flexible rectangular footing atthe comer of a loaded rectangular area is 4 pire MOS al A) 235) TL ‘[(centre) = 21 (5.24) I, {average) = 1.696 fy (5.25) For a rigid rectangular footing the influence factor is approximately 0.926 of the average influence factor of the flexible footing. Hnce, fs (rigid) = 0.926 x Is (average) = 0.926 » 1.696 fr: In Grigid) = 1.5701 = (8/2) For a square loaded area (L / B = 1), 1 = 0.561, thus at the centre Jy settlement of each footing with no contributions from the adjacent loadings 1-035? 100000 S. (for g = 400.0 kPa) = 0.0788, Contribution of the adjacent loads are calculated and summarized in the second and third rows of the table below: S,tforg 2000 kPa) = 00.01«2.0) 1.122 =0.0394 m. Rectangle E(m) B(m) bed «5010 Abf 3.010 Ceed 3.010 Ceef 1010 2 S, (forg = 2000KPa) = os 9394 +2 400.0%1.0% (1.052—0.891) = 0.0507 m, 100000 S, (for g = 2000%Pa) Simm.‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 63 1-035? 1000.0 S.(forg = 4000 kPa) = 0,0788-+2%200.0%1,0% (1.052 -0.891) = 0.0844 m, S, (for g = 400.0 kPa) = 84.5 mm, ‘The areas involved at point C are explained in the lower two rows of the table above, Because of the geometrical symmetry only areas at the right hand of this point are considered; hence: 033? (0.891-0.561) + no 70.561) S, (at point C) = 2«200.0%1.0%. (at point C) T000 1-035? 19000.0 2400.0%1.0% (0.891~0,561) = 0.0347 m, 5, (at point C)= 34.7 mm, Problem 5.13 ‘A flexible circular footing 4 m in diameter exerts @ pressure 300 kPa at the ground surface. The soil is a saturated clay with E, = 8000 kPa, and an incompressible stratum is located 12 m below the ground surface. Calculate the settlement under the centre of the footing using: (a) a semi-numerieal method by dividing the depth into 6 layers of 2 m thickness, (b) Steinbrenners influence factors. Solution: (2) For the point that is located on a vertical axis passing through the centre of the loaded. circle, the integration process for the vertical stress component (Equation 5.4 or 5.5) is straightforward and yields: ieee 2 [e/a | 627) ‘where Rc is the radius of the loaded area, The radial and tangential stress components (Figure 5.1) are: Fp es 2) SEE usa 628) 2 acl al Wael Using Equations 5.27 and 5.28 along with Hooke's law (Equations 5.1) the following rosults are obtained, For the saturated clay we assume 4 = 0.5, Layer Depth (m) 9. (KPa) 6, (KPa) 9:~ 20, (kPa), x10 Asm) 1 10 23.17 11217 161.00 212 4024 a 30. 1719 119811521 1440 28.80 3 50 sess 2255363 120 1440 4 10 3331066 3265 4088.16 5 90 2092 025 «2067 238516 6 110 428012 14.16 Lp 336 Toul = 10064. Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies ‘Sample caleulation for layer 3: 1 300.0) 1 - ——_—____} = 59.88 kPa. { (20/80)? x} 15001, 9495-20405) _ 1 [2.0/5.0 +1"? (2.0/5.0) +1f (6, =20,) _ (59.88-2%2.25) __ 57.63 8000.0 3000.0 3000.0 As =e, x 2p 7.20199 x2000.0=14.4 mm. (0) Ian incompressible layer (for which E, —> «) is located at depth 17 from the ground surface, the f, vals for a flexible rectangular footing are given by: 7.20%10 2H 5,, 1, (contre) = 21, /,(average) = 1.696/, (5.29) =i 1, | (Hera Were? aay ul pecan seoee eeitac Latte Yui) +(H4/By +1 (cme sera? Niecy 630) 1/B+ (LB) +(H/B) +1 HD ate | san 2m (IBLE BY (HB)? +1 ‘The equivalent £ or B is: VxD*/4 = y'n4.02 /4 =3.545 m. ‘Thus f1 = 0.383, fs = 0.0432, /) = 0.383, J, (centre) = 27, = 20.383 = 0.766 ~05? 'S, (at contre) = 300.053.5451 95 8000.0 0.766 = 764 = 77 mim, Problem 5.14 A flexible rectangular footing for which B= 2 m and L = 4 m, exerts 300 kPa, 2 m below the ground surface. The Modulus of Elasticity for the soil is $000 kPa, and v=0.5. An incompressible stratum is located at 10 m below the ground surface. Calculate the average settlement of the footing using (@) Steinbrenner's influence factors and Fox's correct (®) the improved chart of Janbu etal, (Figure 5.10). Solution: factor for depth,‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 65 (a) Fox's correction factor Jp for the effect of the embedment of a footing (D) on the average elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded rectangular area is given in Table 5.2 Table 5.2, Depth factors fr (H= 0.5). DIB LIB 0 Li 0.00 1.0000 1.0000 .0000 09424 09760, 0.9783 ‘o.ss0o1 os2ss © 09348 7960 O880S 0.3909 07234 ox394 0.3525 0.6587 07180 07919 0.6220 7288 0.7473 0.5828 0.6685 0.6868 0.5625 0.46319 0.6485 3502 0.6079 0.6226 05419 S911 0.6040 os3is 05692. 05796 05282 05587 0.5643, 0.3030 93113 05131 0.5025 03056 0.5068 1 09s 58 os | og o4 6 10 15 ot 1 4 10 too 1000 HIB Figure $.10. Improved (originally Janbu etal, 1956) influence factors py and ty For seturated clays (Christian & Carvier, 1978) sed inthe solution of Problem 5.14{65 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘Assume the base ofthe footing is located at the ground surface, therfore: HB =10.0/2.0=5.0,L/B=4.0/2.0=20, From Equations 5.30 and 5.31: 2 = 0.526, fs = 0.058. Thus using Equation 5.29: 1 (comer) = fy = 0.526, 1, (average) = 1.696 0,526 = 0.892, 1-05? '8000.0 Using Table 5.2 the Fox’s depth factor is found to be 0.7864; thus S, (average)= 50.0% 0.7864=39.3 mm, (b) For the saturated clay the settlement is calculated from: S_ average)=300,0%2.0% 0,892 = 0,050 m = 50 mm, 8, 7 a 6 where jw and 1 are influence factors for depth and layer thickness respectively. With definitions deseribed in Figure 5.10: H/B =(10.0~2.0)/2.0 = 4.0, L/B = 4.0/2.0 =2.0,D/B =2.0/2.0=1.0 From Figure 5.10: 4p = 0.925, and jy = 0.80, therefore using Equation 5.32: S_ = 0.925% 0.80% 300.0% 2,0/8000.0 = 0.055 m = 55mm. Problem 5.15 ‘A footing has plan dimensions of 3 m x 5m and exerts a uniform net contact pressure of 200 kPa on the underlying saturated sand. The base of the Tooting is at the ground surface, tnd the average SPT number at a depth of 3 m is 19. Calculate the settlement of the footing using Burland and Burbidge method. Solution: For a normally consolidated sand and square footing the general equation for the settlement is: ors 17 N! where Si is in mm, q is the contact pressure in kPa, B is the width of the footing in m and is the average SPT number within the influence depth Z; defined by: 8. 633) Z, = Bes (534) The value of His corrected for ssturated sands and gravelly sands according: N’=15+0.5(N -15) ‘saturated sand (5.33) yw as eravelly sand 636 For overconsolidated soils, and for g > p’c(preconsolidation pressure) the settlement is the sum of the recompression and normally consolidated stages, and a different value for compression index:m, =1.7/N'at the recompression side has to be evaluated. ‘Assuming the compressibility index at the recompression stage is | / 3 of the normally consolidated stage:‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils. 67 s,< 98 1g Sea 2013) fora 637) If the applied contact pressure is less than p'e this becomes: ys 17 3 ea ee (538) ¥ The above equations are also applicable to footings located at some depth below the sground surface if the preconstruction vertical stéss i substituted for p'e. For rectangular footings with L / B > 1.0, the settlement is increased by a shape factor according: 1 ={-225L/B 7iB+023) If the incompressible layer is located within the influence depth Z, the calculated settlement is multiplied by a correction factor defined by: 1, Hawa (540) 1 (5.39) where Hs the depth ofthe incompressible layer from the footing level The influence depth relating tothe average N value is csleuated from Equation 5.34 Z; ~3.0"5 =2.3m, thus no corecton for Nis needed, Corretion for saturated state using Equation 3.35 N’=15+0,5(19-15) =17. Settlement is computed from Equation 5.33: SG mby 310) =3007 27 200.0 14.7 mm, Shape fata fom Equation 5.39 1, =[(1.25x5.0/3.0)(5.0/3.0+0.25)P =1.18 $,Gmby Sm) =14.7x1.18=173mm. Problem 5.16 ‘A rectangular footing of width 2 m and length of 20 m is located at the ground surface. It exerts a net uniform contact pressure of 180 kPa to the underlying deep deposi: of sand, Calculate the settlement of the footing using Schmertmann's modified strain influence factor diagrams. The average results of the Cone penetration test (CPT) are shown in the table below Deph(m) 10-2030 SO ge(kPa) 1600 1600 200018002400 24002600 For calculation of £, use the plane stra Solution: An sltemative method of estimating settlement is based on the following equation: conditions expressed by: E; =3.54e, Gal)68 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics where » is the number of the layers within an influence depth of 2), (2); is the thickness of a typical layer and (6); is the average vertical strain of the layer. Substituting (62), from Hooke's law (Equations 5.1) into Equation 5.41 we obtain | ( ‘Schmerimann's proposal in sands involves imroducing a strain influence factor replace the stess ‘erm in Equation 5.42, The settlement of each layer is defined by’ 5, 2) ‘geo, -wlo, +9,) Bi [stent i jy SEG *9y) gg Oy (5.43) ’ “Ee Equation 5.41 may therefore be written as 2; 5.24 Se: sa fe ad E G44) The influence depth Zs defined by zZ, 26( 11x] 545) ‘The Modulus of Elasticity must be determined for cach layer by means of in-situ testing preferably using the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). Strain influence factors, given by ‘Schmeremann (1970) idealize the Boussinesq pattern by straight lines and are based on extensive in-situ tests, and are shown in Figure 5.L1, The zesults obiained from Equation 5.44 must be multiplied by depth and time factors defined by: Cy =1-0.5(,, 19} 205 (6.46) Cy =1+0.2109(0/0.1) (any ‘Strain influence factor Strain influence factor 0 02 04 08 08 0 02 04 06 08 0 o A 0s 08 Lis: + | Axsymmetric ae 15 Beaman, Depth ratio z/B 25 25 3 3 Plane strain 35 38 45 (@) ©) Figure $11. (a) Strain influence factor (Schmertmann, 1970), (b) improved strain influence factor (Sehmertmann et al, 1978) used inthe solution of Problem 5.16.Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 69 where p' is the effective overburden pressure at the footing level and is the elapsed time in yeats. The term q represents the net contact pressure at the foundation level. If the footing is at some depth below the ground surface. q has to be replaced by g ~ po, Inthe improved strain influence factor diagram the maximum value of /: is given by: vey 205401 Pe 48) V2 /20r0) ‘where (a 2 oy isthe effective overburden pressure at the depth of B /2 or B from the footing level depending on the L / B ratio. For LB = | (axisymmetric) and L/ B > 10 (niane strain), the effective overburden pressures corresponds 10 B /2 and B respectively Calculate Iya from Equation 5.48: Fax) 705 + 0.1Y0.80.0=0.0)/18.0%2.0 = 0.7236, ‘The soil under the footing is divided into 8 layers each having I m thickness. The influence factors and the Modulus of Elasticity are then calculated at the centre of each layer. Equations of lines B4 and BC (Figure 5.1 1(b)) ae: 0.7236-0.2 I BA 0.2618 +02. 1, = 0.12062 + 0.9648, The results are summarized in the following table. The J: values are shown in the third coluran whilst the forth column shows estimation of Ey values at the mid-point of each layer. Layer z(m) Ey (mmlkPa) —S, (eam) 1 03309 5600 59.1107 106 2 05927 6001088 10% 190 3 0.6633 6300 105.3 10") 189 4 05827 6650 816x107 17 5 042217350 $74 103 103 6 03015 8400 65 7 0.1809 8750 37 8 0.0603 9100 12 Toul =35 Problera 5.17 Calculate the contact pressures under the comers of a rigid square footing using the following data: P= 600KN, Me Solution: 60 KN.m, My = 2m, (00 kNam, L =10 Problem Setving in Sail Mechanies Consider a rigid footing subjected to parallel vertical forces and moments that are applied about the axes in she plane of footing. This system is equivalent to a single resultant force P that is perpendicular to the plane of footing. It is more convenient to express the contact, pressure in terms of the coordinate system Gxyz where G represents the centroid of the footing, zis perpendicular to the footing and parallel to the contact pressure, and xGp is the plane of the footiag. To simplify the problem the resultant force P is moved from its application point to point G, which requires the addition of the two extemal moments, Me and M,, to maintain equilibrium: Mp=—P yo. My= Pxo (5.49) where xo and yo are the coordinates of point (assumed both positive) in the xy system, and the righthand mule sign convention for moments is adopted. For a footing symmeirical about the Ge or Gy axes the contact pressure is ? ye2 550 yd 50) ‘where 5 isthe (plan) contact area of the footing, f, and J, are the second moments of area of the footing about the x and y exes. For a rigid rectangular Footing with the symmetric loading (about the x-axis), we ean use Equation 5.50 to obtain the contact pressures at the ‘wo edges of the rectangle. a tm) af be sent 651) L where xo is replaced by © to give the familiar expressions used in soil mechanies- geotechnical engineering textbooks. thing Eaton 850 2.0(2.0)° /12: 333m", 122081) 41.0) S08 indo 4a asp ce, 200.0200 608 aro ite cgay som = 1208) ==.) 00-8000 astaon cme 1008-25024.) 68 «049 come Problem 5.18 Calculate the contact pressures forthe rigid footing of Figure 5.12 at points a, b and c. Solution: Find the centroid: total area ofthe footing, $= S(abda’) + S(8'c'e"d’) = S; + Sy =2.0%1.042.0%1.0= 4.0m‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 71 if’, 7 von ples te Joon 7 5 i cian 20 oom P=1000 kN ea a igure 5.12, Problem S.18, ler ‘Taking the moments of the area about the left edge: S|] #8, 2x5 = 9% x, 20% 10104201025 = 40%, 2178, Caleulate fy 1.0%2.0° 41.0% 2.0% (1,751.0)? + 41.0% 2.0%(2.5-1.75)%, 2.0%1.0° 12 1, = 3.0833 mi, M, = 1000.0 Git = 1000,0(3.0 0.91.75) = 350.0 KN. ‘Using Equation 5.50 (note M, = 0): 350.0 (4.75) 1000 fag Gy ae 44 = 2228 (20-1275) + 0008 - are sua se = 2380-17510 spr 940 Problem 5.19 ‘The following data apply to a square footing located at the ground surface: L=B=1.8m,P=270 KN, My=—160 KN.m, My= 160 kN.m, Determine: (@) the contact pressure atthe comers ofthe footing,72 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics (6) the equation of the zero pressure line, its readjusted position (by formulation) and the ‘maximum contact pressure (assume readjustment occurs parallel to the original zero pressare line), (© the size of the footing to limit the maximum contact pressure to 280 KPa and the position af the new zero pressure line, Solution: (2) Using Equation 5.50 with J, = J, =1.8(.8)° 12 = 0.8748 m4, JERE (0.8) ASEE (09) + STOO. = 93.3 kPa let-top comer) = A009) 1508 4099-2208 = a1. sura htop came = ZOE 20.9) E00 0.9 + OE. 283. kPa ighe-botom comer. 4= ABB. (-09)- A809) 4 2708, = 2459 Pa (est botiom comer, (b) To find the equation of zero pressure line we set Equation 5.50 to zero: 160.0 | 1600, 2700 osvas® oss? 18x18 =0, x+y 40.4556 =0. ‘The zero pressure line (ZPL) is shown in Figure 5.13 (line ef) To locate the readjusted zero pressure line (R-ZPL), we assume it is located at the right side of point G (line A”) as shown in Figure 5.13. Calculate the second moment of area of triangle BA? about its base hi gue 5.13, Problem 5.19.Siress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 73 Dh i =P heh, andb= kl = 2h, Thus 1=—L. 12 ae 7 6 Calculate the momen’ of the resultant of extemal forces about (R-ZPL): ‘The application point of the resultant (P = 270 kN) is point O and its distance from (RZPL) is: ~ (0G -OG) = hy, ~(Le0s45.0°-V2 xe, ore, ). has hy (21 8/23 x160.0/270.0) = hy -0.435m M =270.0(h ~0.435). Mh 270.060 4p "contact pressure at b= 270.0604 —0.435)h 435)h, ii6 _1620,0¢h, -0.435) ea oe, Equate the soil reaction with the applied force (vertical equilibrium): 1620.0(h, -0435) a % nxt arena winngle bil = gg = 1200087 - 0.435) oar (©) Define parameter fin terms of the length of the square footing L: f= hy ~(N2 x L/2—V2 x160.0/ 270.0) = hy ~(0.707L -0.838) m, = 1070 kPa, Mh _ 2700%6fhy ~(0.707L -0838)) L=2.4 m, fy = (3/2). Ths the new zero pressure ini a (Figure §.13) Problem 5.20 For trapezoidal rigid footing shown in Figure S.14 compute the dimensions 8 and 4 that will ensure a uniform contact pressure of 200 kPa, Solution:74 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Pes Columns:0.5 m x 0.5 m, ONE [a 60m aa kN 1600 et Figure 5.14, Problom 5.20, Locate the application point of the soil reaction. Taking moments about the left edge of the footing: 2000.0%0.25 + 1600.0%5.75 = (2000.0+1600.0)x", Fora uniform contact pressure this point must be the centroid of the contact arca: »_L2A+B _6.0244B 3 4tB 3 AGB Baiss2, A For a uniform contact pressure of 200 kPa AsB 36000%2 6 0%200,0 = 3600.0 -» 4p = 3600022. cy based cd 6.0% 200, Solving for 4 and 42208 m,B=392m Problem 5.21 Predict the soil settlement and reaction at selected points for the finite beam shown in Figure 5.15. The thickness of the footing is 0.7 m and its width is 1 m. The beam is divided into 5 equal seuments of 2 m each, 22. 10° kPa, E, = 10440 kPa, p= 03. Solution: The modiulus of subgrade reaction is defined as: ky =a/S, (S52)Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 75 where q is the contact pressure under a loading plate and S. is the corresponding settlement. This modulus is measured in kN/m ‘The relationship between k, and Modulus of Elasticity £, has been extensively investigated, and the Vesié equation is often used in design: 6.53) where Ey, Eyare the Moduli of Elasticity of soil and footing respectively. isthe width of the footing, rs the second moment of area of the footing section, ys Poisson's rato for the sil, and hs = i B A. simplified version of Equation 5.53 is also used E, BW) The Winkler model (beam resting on bed of springs) can be simplified by replacing the bed of springs with a finite number of springs of stiffness K wher. 6.4) Ks contact area corresponding to a single spring xAy=Bxaxky=Kya (5.55) \where a isthe horizontal distance between the parallel springs; thus k, Baz, (5.56) ‘The governing differential equation forthe deflection of the beam is =MQ) Ef ‘where M(x) is the bending moment at distance x from the origin (say left edge) and £1 is the flexural stiffness ofthe beam. Using Equation 5.53 fo calculate Ki $0.65 xf OHO 1.0" _, 100 5300 Pa, 2%10°(0.7) x1.0/12 “1-03 K=K,x a= 5300 x 2.0 = 10600 kN/m, For the edges: K =, x (a/ 2) = $300 kNim. 6.57) 100m 2000 kN Figure 5.15, Problem 5.2176 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Thus, Ri =5300 21, Re= 10600 =2, Ry = 10600 =3, Because of the symmetrical loading, the required parameters at points 1, 2 and 3 are equal to the corresponding values at points 6, 5, and 4. To solve the problem three linear equations involving the three unknowns of 1, 23 and 23 (settlements at points 1, 2 and 3) must be developed. Applying the finite difference equations at points 2 and 3, we have: 108 «(1.00.75 /12) Calculate bending moments at points 2 and 3: My= Ry x 2.0= 106002, 1 x 4.0 + Rox 2.0=212002} + 212002 Substituting My and MG into the finite difference equations: 2342-22) _ -106002, 40” 6288333. 7212002 + 2120023) 4062883333 ‘The third equation is obsained ftom (static) equilibrium ofthe vertical forces: 2R] + 2Rp +2Rs ~ 2000.0, y+ Ro+ Ry= 1000.0 of: 15300 =) + 106002 + 1060023 = 1000.0. Simplifying and rearranging the equations: (671233, 3324 ~ 1257666.6622 + 628833.3325= 0.0, $4800z) + 713633.3329 — 628833.3153= 00, 530021 + 106002 + 106003 = 10000. Solving for 1,22, and 23: 2 =26.2% 107 m= 262 mm. 222364107 m=364 mm, 235448 x 10 m=44.8 mm. Ry =5300 x 26.2 x 10° = 139kN. 7 Ro=10600 « 36.4 x 10 = 386 KN. T 3 =10600 x 44.8 « 1079475 KN. T‘Stress Distribution and Settlement in Soils 77 5.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS ACI, 1988. Suggested analysis and design procedures for combined fotings and. mats, 4 ) The step procedure for calculation of the settlement ata specified time includes I. Caleulate time factor 7, fram Equation 6.6 2, Caleulate average degree of consolidation U from Equations 69 or 6.10. 3. Use Equation 6.11 for ealulation ofS. Thus 0.75%1.0 oie U4 20,1875 + U = 0.4886 < 06. 1375,One Dimensional Consolidation $3 3. U=8/125.0= 0.488695 (©) For 50% consolidation 7, LO mm, 197, therefore: rsx 1=1.0507 year = 383.5 days 40727 [ us (4) U =25.0/1250=02,7, = xU? /4= 00.2) 0314, 0314+ =0.1675 year = 61.0 days. Problem 6.3 Data obtained from a laboratory consolidation test are shown in the table below: Time(miny 025 «1 GS HLM Total AM/(rum) 06221244 2.468 3.400 3.838 3970 4.000 4081 4.100 0 kPa, 0”; =200 kPa, Hy =23.6 mm. Determine (2) ¢, ftom the root time plot in m?/year, (©) ey ftom the log time plot in m/year, (©) kins Solution (2) Hy (average thickness) =23.6—4.1/2=21.55mm,d = 21.58/2 =10.775mm, The square root time plot i shown in Figute 6.2(a from which Yfoq = 3.25, t90= 10.56 min, At 90% consolidation 7, = 0.848; thus from Equation 6.6: 848% 10.775? «10-6 /[10.56/(365 «1440)] = 4.9 mi iyear, (©) The log ime plot is shown in Figure 6.2(b) from which 9 = 2.35 min, 6, = 0.197 10.7752 «10° 2.35 (365%1440)]=5.Lm? year, (©) Cateulate my HiHy 41/236 G94, 2000-1000 Using Equation 6.7 with an average value of y= 5 miyear =e, Yq, =5.0%1,737 x10" «9.81 (865 x 24 60% 60) =2.7 x10" mis From Equation 6.4: m, 1.737103 mPIKN, Problem 64 In a one-dimensional consolidation test the time required for $0% consolidation has been measured at 154 seconds (through the observation and measurement of pore water pressure). The settlement of the sample atthe end of the test was 2.5 mm, 0° = 60 kPa, oy = 120 kPa, e9= 0.65, Ho = 20 mm. Determine:84 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 6 20 ‘Settlement (mm) abobwai&o 10 100 1000-10000 ‘Settlement (mm) w) Figure 6.2. Problem 6.3: (a) square root time method, (b) log time method (a) the time required for 90% consolidation, (b) the coefficient of permeability in m’s, (6) the compression index. Solution: (a) Using Equation 6.6 for 50% and 90% consolidation: 0.197 _ 6 154: sas?One Dimensional Consolidation 85 DAT «1540 5 663s 0.848 iy (b) Calculate ey and my H gy = 20.0-2.5/2 = 18.75 m0, =18.75/2=9,375 mm, 197 9.3757 «10-6 154.0 From Equation 6.6:0, = =1.124%1077 mss, AiHy 25/200 ajay 1200-600 From Equation 6.4: m, 2.083 1079 m7/KN, Using Equation 6.7 =e, yp = 1124x1077 x2.083 «103 x9.81 = 23x10" mis, (©) From Equation 6.2: Ae 14065 50.206, 25 200 ‘Thus the compression index is found from Equation 6.1 0.2062 685, Jo g(120.0/ 60.0) — Problem 6.5 For a4 m layer of the clay of Problem 6.4, how long would ittake to reach 50% degree of | consolidation under the same drainage, physical and stress conditions? What will be the settlement of the clay layer at this stage? Solution: : 972.02 124 10-7 «246060 = 2172.0" Using Equation 6.6:¢, 91 =81.1 days, ‘The fina! consolidation setlement is calculated from Equation 6.3: 6854.0, 1200 DEBS AO 9 1200 9.5 my = 500 mm, 14065 600 flatten ‘Therefore: $(50%) = 500.0 0.5 = 250.0 mm, Problem 6.6 A surface load of 60 kPa is applied on the ground surface over a large area. The soil profile consists ofa sand layer 2m thick, the top of which isthe ground surface, overlying 2.4 m thick layer of elay. An impermeable boundary is located atthe base of the clay layer. The water table is 1_m befow the ground surface. I the preconsolidaion pressure for a sample of soil from the mid-point of the clay layer is 60 KPa, calculate the consolidation setlement of the clay layer. The properties of the soil section are: sand: dry = 1.6 Mg/m’, pear= 1.9 Mavi’, clay: Pear = 1.65 Mg/m’, e0 = 1.5, Co= 0.6, C= 0.186 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Solution: If the initial effective vertical stress oq is less than the preconsolidation pressure (overconsolidated state) and the final state is on the virgin compression Tine (normally ‘consolidated state), then the settlement is calculated in two stages according: Goth jog Pe, CH gg 8h (1 Toeg Pop “Tse, 8p Where ¢, is the void ratio corresponding to the preconsolidation pressure and G, is the recompression index, which ean be obtained from either the overconsolidated segment of the e-logo’ plot or an unloading-reloading eycle. 65% 2,0%9,81+1.9%1.0%9.81 + 1,6%1.0%9,81-1.0%3.0%9.81 = 37.3 kPa. of =37.3+60.0=97.3 kPa In the e-logo® coordinate system the equation ofthe recompression line is: e=1,5-0.1(logo’ ~1og37.3), thus '$~0.1(log60.0—log37.3) = 1.479. Using Equation 6.12: D140 9 600 , 06440 973. 115 98373" 141.479" 600 S), = 0.033 + 0.203 = 0.236 m = 236 mm, Problem 6.7 A soil profile consists of a sand layer 2 m thick, whose top is the ground surface, and a clay layer 3 m thick with an impermeable boundary located at its base. The water table is at the ground surface. A widespread load of 100kPa is applied at the ground surfice, Construct isochrones corresponding to 10%, $0%, and 90% consolidation, indicate the amount of excess pore pressures on the impermeable boundary and determine the amount of settlement after 2 years. Assume that the soil is in a normally consolidate state. The properties of the soil section are: sand: Your 20 KN/tn*, clay: your = 16 Nim, e9 = 1.3, Co= 0.5, ey = 6.5 m"/year. Solution: ‘The distribution of excess pore pressure in depth is according: wr.) 6.13) ‘The definitions of tj and M are described in the explanations of Equations 6.8 and 69. ‘The magnitudes of 7) for 10%, 50% and 90% consolidation are calculated from Equations 6.10 and are 0.008, 0.197 and 0.848 respectively. Using Equation 6.13 the followi fables are constructed for each T. The magnitudes of excess pore pressures on the impermeable boundary are found to be 100.0 kPa, 77.8 kPa and 15.7 kPa for 7, values of (0.008, 0.197 and 0.848 respectively. The cortesponding isochrones are shown in Figure 6.3. To predict the settlement after 2 years we first find the final settlement: ‘0 fat the contre of clay layer) =16.0x1,5+20.0x 2.0-(1,5+2.0)x9.81 = 29.7 kPa,One Dimensional Consolidation 87 Exp(- af) m oM otIM Tym 0197 Ty= 0.848 0 05m 12732 09804 0.6150 0.1234 1 15x 04244 08372 0.0126 0.0000, 2 25 02546 0.6105 0.0000 0.0000 3 35% O.18I9 03801 0.0000 0.0000, 445m 01415 02021 0.0000 0.0000 S SSe 11S? @0918 0.0000 0.6000 6 65x 0.0979 0.0386 04,0000 0.0000 775m 00849 00118 9000 0.0000 sin(M hd) » aid 4 0250 0500 0.750 1.000 0 03827 07071 09239 1.0000 109239 07071-03827 —1.0000 2 09239-7071 03827 1.0000, 3 03827-07071 0.9239 -1.0000 4 03827 07071-09239 1.0000, 5 -0.9239 0707103827 1.0000 6 09239 07071 03827 1.0000 7 -03827 07071-09239 1.0000 id 0.500) Sm nlm AT7TORO—-RNRGBOXIO™ 115828810 DaB AION yim; 328268«10"* —251.238«10"7—135976«10-* 385,307.10 ay! 143.605%10"% —tonga7t0~*— s9.484e10~?—158.435.107 nay 264600107? ~ 48.88-10"7 63879107? 69.140x107% 9 apgapnto™? — 26421K10-3 —2gs97«10~7 Mayu 1094410" gly 98t3ei078 7810107068 t07* 0.621107? molt —3220K1073 ~ 2464x1077 34x10 3.45x107F teqimy— ~ 0383«1078 0.708410? 0926410? .002.10-? ticluy—981.676x10?—999.635310" —999.725e10~*_ 999,690x10~ u 0.0483 0.000 .0003 0.0008 e(kPa) 98.17 99.96 9997 999788 Problem Solving ix Soil Mechanics sid 0250 0.500 5 13m 197 om 299.661x10-> $83.672«107> 723430x107> _783,018«10~ uiyia 4940x1073 3. 781x107? — 2.046107 ~ 5.34710 tlm 304.601x10->—557.453%107?—721.38410°? 777.67 D«10~ « 0.6984 oases 02786 02223 (kPa) 3046 5574 na mm vd 0250 0.500 0750 1.000 sm elsm 2=225m =30m 1109107? 145.187x107? 157.113.4107 111094107? 145.1s7x107$ —157.11310~ yoy my 60.127%10 lus 60.127%10 u, 08399 0.9 ossas oa eka) 601 mn 1432 1371 aj = 29.7 + 100.0 =129.7 kPa, Using Equation 6.3: 0.53.0, 129.7 95%3.0 9g 1297 9.417 m T#13 8297 KPa) 100 80 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 zum) Figure 6.3. Problem 6.7One Dimensional Consolidation 89 Follow the step procedure explained in Problem 6.2. From Equation 6.6: ‘The average degree of consolidation is compated from Equations 6.10: 444 = 0,933 log(1-U} 0.085, U =0,9770, thus s U=09770=—5— 9 $0407 m Problem 6.8 Ifthe water level in Problem 6.7 is lowered to the surface ofthe clay layer, calculate the ccoxsolidation settlement ofthe clay layer after 6 months if (a) the drawdown is instantaneous, (b) the drawdown takes 2 months. ; Assume there is no surface load and take the unit weight of the sand Jayer 17.5 kNim' after the drawdoven has taken place Solution: (a) From Problem 6.7: 09 {at thecentreof clay layer) = 29.7 kPa. 6} (at the centre of clay layer)=16.0x1.5+17.5%2.0~1.5x9.81=44.3 kPa Using Equation 6.3 443 tog “43 <0.113m, lousy Toll 113 From Equation 6.6: 1, = SSEMGOND) «5361 38 Ty=0,361 = -0,93310g(1-U)-0.085, U = 0.6674, thus SHES, = 0.667 U = 006; 3 8 = 0.075 m, (b) Terzaghi’s method for the correction of the time-settlement relationship is based on the following assumptions. The corrected settlement at 1 > ¢ (in this example f. = 2 ‘months) is equal (0 the settlement on the uncorrected curve correspording to ¢ / 2. For 1 < fe further correction is needed by considering the load ratio atthe time of interest. The load ratio is the ratio of the load at the time 1 to the final load Ao. The setilement corresponding to ¢/ 2 is multiplied by this ratio, This method implies that fora specified & the amount of time is tice of the time required for instantaneous loading.90. Probiem Solving in Soil Mechanies ‘As 12 1. therefore from Equation 6 6: 6.5x(6.0/ 2/12 30 1805, GU? =0.1805 + U =0.479 <0.6, Thus s =0.479 =—S 5 § = 0,054 m. U=049 = TS Problem 6.9 {A stratum of clay is $ m thick and is overisin by 3 m of sand, the top of which is the ground surface that is subjected toa widespread load of 200 KPa. The water table is 1.5 m below the ground surface, and the pore pressure at the impermeable boundary was ‘measured tobe 242.5 kPa after 18 months. [the setlement of the ground surface was 230 mm, determine the field values of cy and Co, the final consolidation settlement, and the settlement and pore pressure atthe base of the clay layer after 3 years, using the concept of parabolic isochrones. The properties ofthe soil seetion are: sand py = 1.75 Mast’, pu =2 Mei’, clay: pyar = 1.95 Moin’, en = 0.8. Solution: Two general types of dhe parabolic isochrones are shown in Figure 6.4. The middle portion of the isochrone corresponding to a low value of 7, (the left band parabola) is approximately a vertical line, indicating high excess pore pressures and that the process of consolidation has not yet progressed into this part. It ean be shown that the time factor 7 corresponding to 2) = 4, is 1/12. The isochrone with atime factor of 7; > 1/12 represents & more developed case and is well approximated by a parabola. For a uniform distribution of the initial excess pore pressure and Ty < 1/12 the exeess pore pressure, average deures ‘of consolidation and zp are expressed by. 2a ] (6.14) (6.15) (6.16) 4) (6.17) (6.18)One Dimensional Consolidation 91 Figure 64. Parabolic isochrones, The excess pore pressure on the impermeable boundaty is u, =2425~(5.0+1.5)981=178.7 kPa, Thus assuming 7; > 1/12 and using Equation 6.17 xs es (1 seynisont2 sa J°Pla- 502 u, =178.7 =200.0| - 5 14S 18.7 = 200.005 | : oj 25.0 } 6 =2.0m Check 7, from Equation 6.6: 2.0% 18.0/12 5.0" ‘The area between the left hand side of the isochrone (plotted in the ue-2 coordinate system) and =-axis (area S} in Figure 6.5), when multiplied by m,, will yield the settlement at that specific time. Similarly, the total area (= x) multiplied by m, will equal the final 1, 083. 12>1/1 (KPa) 200 16010080 ° T,=O.120rt= 18 months Impermeable boundary Figure 6.5. Problem 6.9: parabolic isochrone for Ty= 0.12 oF = 18 months92. Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics settlement providing that m, is constant within the layer: iy Xd OF 2d), xd OF 2) (6.19) Where ve-g is the excess pore pressure on the impermeable boundary with d representing the hickness of layer. In the open layer the thickness of the layer is represent by 2d and nue-d i the excess pore pressure at the mid-point of the layer. Therefore: 8-028 55052000-m, 502201787, sm, = 5.6910 IK, From Equation 6.4: Aei(l+eq) _ Aei(1.0+0.8) im, =5.69%104 . Bs oop ‘where oy and op are initial and final (or atthe end of a specified time) effective vertical stresses atthe centre ofthe elay layer, 95x98 142.542.0%9 8141.5 +1,75x981x1.5-L0x9812.5+15), o'y = 63.9 KPa. oj (final) = 63.76+200.0= 263.8 kPa. Substitute 0 and og in the my equation: Aei18 200.0” im, =5.69x10-4 Ae =0.205, Prom Equation 6.1 en OOS ol Tog(oj /o)) 10g(263.8/63.8) To find the final settlement we use Equation 6.11: 332. where U is the average degree of consolidation of the layer after 18 months (T= 0.12), Using Equation 6,18: unos 222.45, «057m ‘To compute the settlement after 3 years we follow the step procedure of Problem 6.2: 13.0 50°One Dimensional Consolidation 93 u Zeon( t-340 28) =05893, 34 U=5/57.0=0:5833 45 =033m Excess pore pressure at she base of the ely layer i calelated from Equation 6.17 sot 2x50), (sams a 50? a (aficr3 years) =125,0+(5.6+.5)9.81=188.8 kPa One may estimate the pore pressure by adding the average excess pore pressure within the layer (o the hydrostatic pore pressure that existed before loading: 1 (after 3 years) = 200,041 ~ 0.5833) + (5.0 +1.5)9.81 = 147 kPa, = 125.0 kPa, Problem 6.10 In the soil profile of Problem 6.9, vertical drains of diameter 0,3 m are constructed in a square pattem, It is required that 95% of the combined consolidation be achieved after 1.5 ‘years, Calculate the required distance between the vertical dain. cy = 4 mr !year. Solution: Vertical drains are arranged in triangular or square patterns. The influence zone of each drain defines a soil eylinder of diameter De hat is a function of the distance £ between the drains: 128 L rectangular patter, De= 1.505 L_ triangular pattern (6.20) ‘The parameters cy (the coefficient of consolidation in the horizontal) and Uj (the average degree of consolidation inthe horizontal) are defined by: (621) (6.22) ‘where hy is the coefficient of permeability in the horizontal direction and n, F(a), and Tj are defined below in which D,, is the diameter ofthe drain 623) 624) (6.23) For the values of > 10, F(x) may be approximated by: F(n)=Inn—-3 (626)94 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘The combined excess pore pressure is given by: “Met 27) here ue is the excess pore pressure duc to vertical drainage only (Terzaghi's solution) and xc i the excess pore pressure due to radial flow. Consequently, the combined degree of consolidation can be written inthe following form: v=1-a-u,-v,) 28) where Uj, and U;, are the degrees of consolidation for radial and vertical flow respectively. From Problem 6.9 for 1.3 years 7)~0.12 and U, ~ 04028, Using Equation 628: 1 =0.95(given data) =1-(1-U, X1-0.4028) + U, = 09168, From Equations 623 and 624: Den EE 3 761 thro: 40x15 _ 4716 “ans? 2 Substtting Ty and values in Equation 6.22 hs ane Uy =0.9168=1-ex9] -8* . of as ‘The value of Fn i substituted from Equation 6.26 Uy, =0.9163=1 ~exp| ~8x—5 4716 _ BP x(inn—3/4) 4.716 Uj, =0.9163=1-exp|--8x——4716 _ [ Ex(in3, 1 ‘The above equation may be solved by trial and error from which L = 3.0 m will reasonably satisfy the equation, Note: = 3.76 L = 11.28 > 10, which justifies the use of Equation 6.26. Problem 6.11 In Problem 6.7, calculate the consolidation settlements at 3 months, 6 months and 2 years it the load is increased linearly to 100 kPa over 6 months. Solution For 1 =3 months ext _6.5(3.0/2)/120 3.07 0903,One Dimensional Consolidation 9S 10903 > U = 0.3391. Conection for linear loading: U = 0.3391 «3.0/6.0 = 0.1695, S=5, «0.1695 = 0.417 0.1695 = 0.0707 m =71 mm. For f= 6 mons: Saf _ 65% (6.0/2)/12.0 ae 30° nu? + No further correction is needed, thus = S, «04794 = 0.417 0.4794 =0.1999 m =200 mm, For 1=2 years ed _ 65%(2.0/2) a 30 T,, =-0.933log(l-U)-0.085 = 0.7222 U [No furtner correction is needed, thus s 1, 0.1805, Xt 1305 30. 14794, 1, 0.7222, 8636> 0.6, 0.3601 va = 360 mm, 63. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS AlKhafaji, AW. & Andersand, O.B. 1992. Equations for compression index approximations. Journal GED, ASCE, 118(1); 148-153, ASTM D-2435, 1996, Standard! test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soll PA, West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials Australian Standard AS 1289.6.6.1. 1998. Methods of testing for engineering purposes, method 6.6.1 soil strength and consolidation test-determination of one-dimensional consolidation properties ofa soll-standardimethod. Australia, NSW: Standatd Association of Aust [Aysen, A. 2002, Soil mechanics: Basic concepts and engineering applications. Lise; Balkema, Balasubramaniam, A.S, & Brenner, &P. 1981. Consolidation and settlement of soft clay. In E.W. Brand & RP. Bronner (eds), Soft clay engineering: Developments in geotechnical engineering 20. New York: Elsevier Scientific Pubishing Company Barron, RA. 1948. Consolidation of fine-grained soil by drain wells, Transactions, ASCE, 113: 718-782 Bergado, D-T, Anderson, LR, Miura, AS. & Balasubramaniam, AS. 1996. Soft ground ‘improvement in lowland and other environments, USA: ASCE Press BS 1377-6. 1990. Methods of tes for soils for civil engineering purposes. Consolidation and Permeability ests in hydraulic cells and with pore pressure measurement. London: British Standards Institution, Casagrande, A. 1936, Discussion 34: The determination of preconsolidation load and its practical Significance. Proc. intern. cont SMPE, 3: 60-64. Cambridge96 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Craig, R.F, 1997, Soil mechanics. 6" edition. London: E & FN Spon. Duncan, IM. 1993 Limitations of conventions analysis of cvsoidation selement Jonna! GE. ASCE, 1198) 1333-1359, Hans, 5.1981, Consolidation of ine-gruned sis hy prefsvicatd dens roe 10 iter con 'SMPE, 3: 1222 Stockholm anit, &, 1987. Design aspects of consolation of vertical drains ad lime column installation Proc. 9" Southeast Asian geotechnical con. 2: 812. Rangkok, Thailand. Kopp, .D. 1986, Discussion: consoidation parameters derived fom index tes. Geotechnigne, 36(2) 68-73 ; Looanis, GA. 1976. Fstimaing comalidatios. setlements of sallow foundations on overcosoldted clays Special report 143 raportain research board: 1-16 Mest, G.& Caso, A. 1987. The Co! Ce concept and ky during secondary compression. Journal GE, ASCE, 1120): 230287 Mest, G.& Godlewski, PM, 1977, Time and tess compress interlatonship. urna! GE, “ASCE, 1055): 417-40. Mest, G:& Rots, A. 1974, Theory of consolidation for clays, Journal GED, ASCE, 1OOGTE): 880-904 Nagus, TS. & Srinivasa Murthy, BAR 1988. Praicion of the preconsoidtion pressive and Tecompression index of ols. Geotecinial esting journal, ASTM, () 199-202 Olson, RIF Ladd, CC. 1579, Onedimersional consolidton problems, Jounal GED, ASCE, 105(GT1): 11-30 Power, J.D. 1985. Devatringmoiding its unwanted side effects, Underavound technology research council New York: ASCE. Rayanond, GP. & Webs, HE, 1976 Eximating I-dimensional consolidation, including secondary ‘compression of clay loaded fom overeansoidate to normally consolidated sat, Special report 163, ransportation researc Board 7-28 Rendon-fewero, 0.1980, Usiveal compression inex eqaton Journal GED, ASCE, \OGGT1N} 1179-1200. Rendon-Hemero, 0, 1983 Closure: univers compression index equation. Jounal GED, ASCE, OXETS: 155-761 Rixner, JJ Kraomer SR. & Smith, AD. 1986, Profabicted vertical dans. Bngincring guidelines, federal highway administration, (FHWA-RD-86 / 168). Washington DC. Schmestmann, 4H. 1983, Estimating the tras consoldation bshavioe of clay from Ubortory tet results Jounal SME. ASCE, 79011): 26 Scot RE. 1963. Principles of oil mechanics. Reading, Massachusets: Addison Wesley Skermpton, A.W. 1944, Notes onthe compressibility of clays. Qa. journa of eefogcol soley, ‘0; 119-13, London Skempion, AW. & Bierum, L. 1957. consbaion tthe setlement analysis of foundations on clay. Geotehnique, (168-178 ‘Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., & Mesti, G. 1996, Soil mechanics in ensincering practice. 3° edition, ‘NewYork: fn Wiley & SonsCHAPTER 7 Application of Limit Analysis to Stability Problems in Soil Mechanics 7.1 INTRODUCTION The main objective of sis chapter is to investigate the stability ofa soil suucture using the Jower and upper bound theorems of plasticity, These theorems are used to predict collapse loads where analytical solutions either do not exist or are inconsistent with the governing equations of mechanies. They are also used when the deformations of the soil structure are nealigibie. ‘A lower bound solution provides a safe limit load, whereas an upper bound solution estimates an unsafe limit load under which the failure of material has taken piace already. In 2 lower bound solution only the equilibrium and yield criterion are satisfied, whilst in ‘an upper bound solution, only the companibility and the yield criterion are considered. These solutions, obtained either manually or numerically, bracket the exact solution ‘within usually acceptable accuracy (Aysen & Sloan, 1991a), In a simplified upper bound solution (in two dimensiors) the continuum is converted into a mechanism consisting of rigid blocks sliding on their contact areas. For a virtual ? 4) ‘The highest lower bounds found for the stability aumber 7H /c’ and load parameter g / may be related by a linear relationship, as shown by the line AB in Figure 7.4(b). This allows the estimation of a lower bound for one of the parameters when the magnitude of the other parameter is known, Thus from Equation 7.4 slut) For the case q =0, a higher value of 6.12 is given; therefore Equation 7.3 will not be used. ‘The results are shown in Figure 7.4(b) from which the equation of line 4B becomes: 2tan(45.0° + 30.0°/2) = 3.46, ~0,5654 14. 3.46, The sabiliy number coresponding to the given dais 5654 4.75 +346 =0.774 +g =0.774% 20,0 = 15.5 KPa104 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Figure 7S. Problem 7.6: (a) & (b) single mechanism, () & (4) two-block mechanism, Problem 7.6 For a 45° plane strain slope in a cy, = 0 soil, compute the upper bound values for the stability number 7H / cy using the collapse mechanistn shown in: (a) Figure 7.5(a) fora single block and () Figure 7.5(¢) for two blocks. Solution: {a) The displacement diagram is shown in Figure 7.5(b), where vy (or om) represents the displacement across the slip plane and o7 isthe vertical displacement ofthe sliding block. From the geometry of the mechanism and displacement diagram we have: be=ca=1.414H1 ab =2.613H,0n = 0.383%) > = 1.0 on = 0.383 HA A14H «1.0% y =0.207yH> w= weight of the block abe = Compute external work: E, = wxon =0.107yH? 0,383 = 0.271yH?. Compute internal work B, =abxe, x01 6084, = 2613 xe, +10 quate external work to intemal wrk: 0.271yH? =2.613He,, HH 1 964 Ce 613M,Application of Limit Analysis to Stability Problems iu Soil Mechanics 105 (b) The displacement diagram is shown in Figure 7.5(@), where vy (or am) and v3 (or op) represent the displacements of blocks across the «wo slip planes and o” and og are the vertical displacements of the sliding blocks. The displacement ¥2i is the relative displacement of block 2 against block 1 on the corresponding slip plane (de in Figure 7.5(6)). From the geometry of the mechanism and displacement diagram we have: be =1.414H cd = 0.707 H bd = 1.2251 ,da =0.966 1, 0,1, =0.866,v3, = 0.5,0n = 0.707,09 = 0.224. wy = weight of the block 1 = 0.707 1 sin 60.0°x 0.966 1.0% y = 0.296yH7, vey = Weiaht of the lock 2 = 11.2258 0.707H «1.0% y = 0.483 yH2 Compute external work E., = wy xon + w3 0g =0.296yH? «0.707 + 0.433yH? 0,224 = 0,306,H1? Compute internal work = adc, x1 C086, +dbxc, xv; cosh, +64 *6, *¥C084,, > C084, = 1.0, 96611 xe, x1.0+1.225H xe, x0:866+0.707H xe, x0.5=2.380He, quate extemal work to internal work 7 os0sy? - 2.3901, 2 78 < 9.64 (single mechanism). Problem 1.7 For a 45° plane strain slope in @ ¢y, dy = 0 soil, calculate the load parameter g / cy using the collapse mechanism of Figure 7.6(a). y#f/ cy = 0 Solution: From the geometry of the mechanisin and displacement diagram: be =1.414H bd =1.454H,da = 0863/1, 0.x, = 0.922, = 0.815,0n = 0.866, Figure 7.6, Problem 7.7106 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Compute external work: E, = 4XcaXon = gx 086311 20866 =0.787gH. ‘Compute internal work ad xe, +9 6050, +db%¢, Xv, 6054, +d ¢, X¥31 €084,, -> £084, F=0.863H xe, *1.0 +1454 6, «0.922 + 0.863H xc, x0815 =2.907He, Equate extemal work to internal work: o.747yrr? =2.907He, » 89 < 4.10 (Problem 7.4). Problem 7.8 ‘A.10m height of saturated clay is supported by a gough retaining wall. The properties of the soil are: cy, = 60 kPa, 6, =0, and y= 18 kN/m’, The vertical boundary load is q = 50 kPa arnt cy(Cohesion mobilized between wall and soil) = 30 kPa. Calculate the lower ‘bound value of the horizontal active thrust andthe position of its point of application, Solution The formulation for cy y= 0 soil and a rough wall with one stress discontinuity (Figure 7.3() i as follows The rotation ofthe principal stresses along the sess discontinuity is e= $ 3s) where 0 is defined by: sin® ri (7.6) ‘and the angle o.is found to be: an Herd stratum @ ) Figure 7.3. Problem 7.8Application of Limit Analysis to Stability Problems in Soil Mechanics 107 From the geometry of Figure 7.7(b) the active lateral pressure ph at depth zis: Pa = +4)~6 [en sco) 8) Integrating the above equation along the wall, the total horizontal active thrust is expressed by: wi | ~e,{1+2sin$.-cor0) If the number of stress discontinuities is increased from 1 to », then the term 2sin(9/2) in Equations 7.8 and 7.9 is replaced by 2nsin(@/2n). However, the improvement in the active ‘thrust is not significant. The passive pressure can be calculated in a similar manner: pasterd tol ts3se ecu) «a0 esi pet Poy = yw [rea{tese $e] aay a) Note that ifthe horizontal active pressure (Equation 78) hes negative value at the ground surface, Equation 79 cannot be used because the sil cannot sustain the tensile sess, Assuming one sess discontinuity and sing Equations 76 and 73 fu 300 yg S309 9549-3007 60.0 oe 2sin 32” + cos30.0° )} Pon = 1802-9302. Pop = 18.02 + 50.0 -60.0| 02-93.02=0 ies reser yy(2 10.01) =18,0%100-95.02 =8698 KPa Pay (borizontalthrust) = py (2 = 100m) «(104 P., horizontal thrust) =86.98 « (10.0-5.17)/2 ‘The application point of the active thrust measured from the base = (10.0-5.17)/3=1.61 m. Pah Problem 7.9 [A retaining yall of height 6 m retains a sandy soil for which c' =0 and 6’ =35°, and y=19 kNim’. A uniform load of ¢ = $0 kPa acts on the upper ground surface. Assuming 3 (the friction angle mobilized on the interface) = 35°, calculate the lower and upper bounds for the active thrust (the resultant ofthe horizontal and vertical components) For the upper bound solution assume a single variable mechanism similar to Figure 7.9(2. Solution ‘The stress circles fora e’ = 0, f material and for one stress discontinuity (similar to Figure 7.1(a)) are shown in Figure 7.8. The shear stress on an element of soil immediately behind the retaining wall is:108 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies <~ Figure 7.8, Problem 7.9. atten The active pressure is expressed by: = (y+ ghey = (ye +9) HMORAI Pan = (2+ Dey = 8+) aR 713) where the angles 0, and} are defined in Figure 7.8 an: sino = (7:13) Roiation of the principal stress directions due to the stress discontinuity is defined by y that is given by: 20-20) -o (7.14) ‘The angle @ can be expressed in terms of 8” and 4 by introducing the angle « defined in Figure 7.8, then: (71s) (7.16) Using a similar approach, the soil pressure coefficient for the passive case can be obtained: 4, = Silo+h)(1+sin4’c0s0) sin(o—A)(1—sin ‘The total active or passive thrusts are the integral ofthe soil pressure along the wall: ayyApplication of Limit Analsis to Stability Problems in Soil Mechanies 109 (7.18) (119) It can be shown that the increasing of number of stress discontinuities will not significantly improve the solution. Using Equation.7.15: sin co! = sin /sin g’ = sin 35,0°/sin35.0° = 1.0 oy =90.0°, 0+5'=0+35.0° + 6=55.0° 9 0/2=27.5° From Equation 7.14: 0/2 =27.5° =90.0°- 0+ a= 62.5". Thus the angle A can be found from Equation 7.13: ind. 5in353. Calculate the horizontal component of active thrust using Equations 7.12 and 7.18: in(co—A)(1-sin #'cos@) _ sin(62.5°-30.6°)(1 ~sin35.0°cos55.0°) sinfo=i)(-+sin§') sin(62.5° +30.6\(+sin35.0°) sino =sin62.5° = = 306° kon =0,2257. Pay = (YH? 12+ gH Mk gy = (19.06.07 /2+ 50.0% 6.0)x 0.2257 = 144.9 EN. Vertical component of active thrust is P,, = 144.9% tan35.0° = 101.5KN, thus P, = V144.9? +1015? = 176.9 kN From the geometry of the upper bound mechanism and the displacement diagram of Figure 7.9 H xtana = 6tana. w= H(H xtana!2)7 = 6.0 «6.6 tan a x1/2 «1.0 «19.0 = 342 tana. iy = 1.0.07 = cos( os +35.0°), nm = sin(ea+35.0°) ‘Compute extemal work: E, =(qxca+ w)xon~P, sin35.0° xon ~ P, c0s35.0°% nm, As c= 0, therefore the intemal work is zero, thus the sum of the external works must ‘equal to zero: (50.0% 6 tana +342.0tan a) cos(a.+35.0°) =P, sin35.0°cos{o. + 35.0°)~ P, c0s35.0°sin(a.+ 35.0°) =0. B 642.0 tana xeos(er+35.0°) 642.0tana.xcos(a+35.0°) #° sin35.0°e0s(a.+35.0°) + 00835.0°sin(a.+35.0°) sin(a+ 70.0") Using a trial and error method the value of « corresponding to the m: is found to be 32.5°, therefore: 642.0 tan 32.5° x cos(3: sin(32.5°+70.0°) imum value of P, P=110 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics > @ ) Figure 79. Upper bound mechanism for Problems 7.9 & 7.10, Problem 7.10 Using the single variable mechanism of Figure 7.9(a), find the upper bound value for the active thrust using the following data: HS m, a= 34°,q = 80 kPa, & = 20°, c= 10 kPa, = 25°, and y= 18 kN/m. Solution: From the geometry of the upper bound mechanism and the displacement diagram of Figure 7.9(b): ca = 5.0 tan 34.0 w= $.0%3.37 x1.0%18.0/2 = 151.7 KN Mg =1.0,0n = cos(34.0° + 25.0°) = 0.515,nm =sin(34.0° + 25.0°) = 0.857. Compute extemal work (q xca+ w) xn P, sin 20.0°xon~ P, 0820.0" nm, (80,0x3,37 +151.7)x0.515~P, sin20.0°%0.515~P, cos20.0°0.857, E, =2170-0981P, ‘Compute internal work: E, = abxcV, 6086! =6.03%100x1.0%60525.0° = $4.65. Equate extemal work to internal work: 217.0-O.981P, = 54.65, P, =165.5 KN. Problem 7.11 For the upper bound mechanism of Figure 7.10(a) (a sinnel heading) compute an upper bound value for gy (internal pressure inside the tunnel applied to the Fae ofthe heading). ‘The given data are 0°, §= 90", H = 10m, 1-7 = 20 Nim? =2myc, =40kPs, 4, = Solution:Application of Limit Analysis to Stability Problems in Soil Mechanics 111 -8-8 Figure 7.10, Problem 7.11 From the geometry of the upper bound mechanism and the displacement diagram: bem bd =ed = 2m, de =———_10-0___u 55m 05(180,0° — 60.0 — 90.05) a 12.70 m 1.0,0n = cos(180.0° — 90,0° — 60,0°). nm = sin(180.0° — 90.0° — 60.0°) = 0.5. sin(180.0° 3) LOxsin90.0° 0g =1.155c0s(60.0° + 60,0° +90.0°-180,0°)=1.155xc0s60.0°= 0.577, pq =v) xsin a =1,155 xsin 60,0° =1.0, 4 0.866, 1.155. sae f+B—180.0%)_LOssin300" 4 555 ~sin(i80.0—a =p) sin60.0° 4 ZANE 70) *1.0 99.9 = 485.0 KN. ny = RORRON C0830 0°HLP 20.0 34.6 4N, ‘Compute extemal work: Eq = 4, xdex pat w, Xon+ x04, E, =, *20%1.04 485.0% 0,866 +34.6x0.377, F, = 440.0-24,. ‘Compute internal work: ed xc, X¥ +abXe,,x¥4 +bexe, xvp +hd xe, XVyy, 11,55%40.0%1.0+12,70340,01.0+ 2.0%40,0%1.155 +2.0%40,0%0.577, 11086. Equate extemal work to intemal work 440.0 2g, = 1108.6 g, = ~334.3 kPa (tensile,112 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 7.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Atkinson, JIL, 1993. dn introduction to the mechanics of sols and foundations. London ‘Metra. Aysen, A, 1987. Lower bound solution for soil mechani problems using finite clement method Proc. 2" national con SMFE, 1: 121-136, University of Boga, Istanbul, Turkey. Aysen, A 2002. Soil mechanies: Basic concepts and engineering apptcaions. Liss: Balkema. AAysen, A. & Loadbick, F- 1995, ability of slopes i cohesive frictional soil using upper bound collapse mechanisins and numerical methods. Pro. 14" Ausralasian conf. onthe mechanies of surunures and material, 1 55.59 Ayn, A.& Sloan, SW. 1991, Undrained sabity of shallow square tunnel. Journal GE, ASCE, 11748): 1182-1173, Aysen, A. & Sloan, 5. W, 1991 Sailiy of circular tunel in a cohesive ectional sil. Proc. 6 inter. con in Ausraia on fine element methods, 1: 68-76. University of Sydney. Aysen A. & Sloan, $.W. 199%e, Undrained stability of plane strain heading. Research Report No (03902.1991, ISBN 0 7259 07134. NSW, Australia: The University of Newcastle, ‘Aysen, A. & Siaan, SW. 1992. Stability of slopes in cohesive fetionl soil. Proc. 6 usratio- ‘New Zealand conf on geomechants: Geotechnical rsk-identifction, evaluation and solutions: 44-419, New Zealand: Now Zealand Geomechanics Society Brivo, A.M, & Kusshabe, 0, 98S. Upper bound mechanioms for undrained axisymmetie problems. Proc. 5 tnterm conf mumerical methods in geomechanic: 1691-1688, Nagoya Chen, W-F 1978. Lint anahsis and soil Plsriciy: Amsterdam: Elsevier hon, WF. & Balad, G-Y. 1985, $0 plastic: theory and implementation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Davis, EH., Gunn, ML, Mair, RJ. & Senevirate, H.N. 1980, Th sabi of shallow tunnels and ‘underground openings in cohesive mate. Geotecnigue, 304): 397-46, Heyman, J. 1973. The stability of a vertical eat erm Jowral of mechanical science, (18) S43.858 Lysmer, J. 1970, Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics. Journal GB, ASCE, 96): 13H 1334 Mulhaus, H.B. 1985, Lower bound solutions for circular tunes in two and three dimensions owrnal of rock mech, and rook eng, 1837-82 Naylor, Dd. & Pande, G.N. 198 Finite element in geotechnical engineering. Swansea: Pinesidge Press Parry, RG, 1995. Mobr circles sires puts cn geotecncs. London: E& Spon. Pastor, J. 1998 Limit analysis: numerical determination of complete statial solutions: application 1 the vertical eu. Journal de mecanigue applique, in French), (2) 167-196 Sloan, $.W, 1988, Lower bound limit analsis using fist elements and linsar programming ner journal for nanerical and analytical methods in geomechanies, 121) 61-77 ‘oun, SV. 1988. Upper baud ini analysis ing ite elements ier Programing, Iter. ‘Journal for numerical and anaes! methods in geomschanies, 133) 2 Sloan, SV, & Aysen, A. 1992, Stability of allow tunes in soft ground n GT. Houlsby & AN, Schofield (eds), Predictive soll mechanics. London: Thora Telford Turgeman, 8. & Pastor, J. 1982. Limit analysis linear formulation ofthe kinematie approach for axisymmetric mechanic problems. fntrn jownal for mamerical and enalvical methods tn seomechanies, 6: 109-128CHAPTERS. Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 8.1 INTRODUCTION The problems solved inthis chapter are divided into three major categories: 1. The evaluation of the magnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressure behind a retaining wall and understanding the concepts of active and passive failure. Other factors considered are the effects ofthe surface load and stratified backfill (Problem 8.1), sloping ‘backfill (Problem 8.2), the location of water table (Problem 8.3), and the existence of friction or adhesion on the interface between wall and backfill (Problem 8.4). In the above problems a Rankine type method where the lateral pressure inereases linearly with depth is adopted. For this purpose the corresponding active and passive carth pressure cocfficien's are formulated. For a wall with significant friction, and irregular ground surface, a Coulomb wedge analysis, can be applied (Problem 8.5). In this method the actual Ineral pressure distribution is not defined but based on experimental data, the location of the resultant of these (lateral) pressures can be obtained. The stability of different types of retaining walls that are subjected to lateral earth pressures are then explained in Problems 8,6 and 8.7 2. The static analysis of sheer pile walls are demonstrated in Problems 8.9 and 8.10 along ‘with determination of the maximum bending moment in the sheet pile and analysis of the anchorage system in an anchored sheet pile. 3. This eategory (Problem 8.11) investigates the stability of a reinforced soll where the lateral earth pressures are resisted by reinforcement elements rather than the retaining wall 82 PROBLEMS Problem 8.1 An 8 m high retaining wall retains a soil comprised of ow0 4 m thick layers (Figure 8.1(2) with the following properties Upper layer: c’ = 10 kPa, 4° = 18°, y= 18 kN/m’, lower layer =0, @' =38%,7 = 18 kNim® Fora surface load g = 50 kPa, determine the active thrust and its distance from the base of the wall Solution:114 Problem Solving in Soll Mechanics The disibution of lateral ative arth pressure behind a smooth vertical walls Po =Sthg 20 fhe en where ky is the lateral active earth pressure coefficient given by: ian?(45°-9'/2) 62) For the passive ease: pp =oky 2 fie 63) ‘where fy isthe lateral passive earth pressure coefficient given by: Lasin 6 san2(4504 9 by ame a5 472) (84) For layer 1 k,, = tan?(45.0° - 61/2) = tan?(45.0°-18.0°/2) = 0.528. For layer 2: = tan?(45.0° -35.0°/2) =0.271 At o':= 50.0 kPa, Pa, = 50.0 0.52820.00,528 = 11,9 kPa. Atz= 4.0m, of, =18.04.0+ 50.0 = 122.0 kPa, Pq =122.0% 0.528~20.00.528 = 49.9 kPa. Ate =4.0 m but using k, of the lower layer: 50 KPa tobi @) wb) Figure 8.1, Problem 8.Lareral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 115 122.0% 0.271 0.090.271 33.1 kPa, 8.0m, G1, =18.0%4,0+18.0%4.0 + 50.0 =194.0 kPa, 194.0 0,271 = 52.6 kPa, Po ‘The lateral earth pressure distribution is shown in Figure 8.1¢b) from which: 1.9% 4.0x1.0 = 47.6KN, 49.9 -11.9)%4.0/2 «1.0 = 76.0 KN, 3.1 4.01.0 = 132.4 kN, 52.6 - 33.1) x 4.0/2x1.0 7.6 + 76.0-+132.4 +39.0 = 295.0 kN, ‘Take the moment of every force about the base to find the position of the resultant: 47.6(2.0 + 4.0) + 76.0(4.0/3 + 4.0) +132.4 2.0 + 39.0% 4.0. 295.0 Problem 8.2 ‘A otaining wall of S m height retains a sloping backfill with B (the angle of the sloping ground with horizontal) = 20°. The properties of the backfill ar: €=0,6°= 35%, y= 17 Nim’ Determine the active thrust on the wall an its horizontal and vertical components Solution: Fora granular soil wit shear stength parameters ’ =0, ¢ and i < aap! cosh yeos™ B— cos? aa cos + yas? ~ cos? 4! ‘The active earth pressure at depth zis Pg = 12h, C058 66) ‘The (otal active thrust is parallel to the ground surface and acts ata height H/ 3 above the base and is given by: : Eso on In tho passive state the earth pressure coefficients + efooe? Boost wt cos + Yeos? pcos? aa cos — ycos? cos? 6! ‘The passive earth pressure at depth 2 and the total passive thrust are calculated using ‘equations similar to Equations 8.6 and 8.7 in which ky is replaced by ky. In the presence of «a surface load q, yz must be replaced by 72 + q116 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Using Equation 8.5: ky = 0.342. The total thrust from Equation 8.7 is P, = 0517.05.07 x0,342xc0820.0°x1.0=68.34N. Py = 68.3%00520.0° = 64.2KN. P,, = 68.3% sin20.0° = 23.4 KN (downwards). Problem 8.3 7 Rework Problem 8.1 assuming that the water table is located 2 m below, the ground surface (Figure 8.2(a)). The saturated unit weight for both layers is 19.5 kN/m: Solution: Atz=0, 50.0 kPa, ~20.00.528 = 11.9 kPa. 16.0% 0.528 ~20.0Y0.528 = 30.9 kPa. Atz=40m, 8.0% 2.0 419.5% 2.0 + 50.0-9.81x2.0=105.4 kPa, 105.4% 0.528—20,00.528 = 41.1 kPa ‘Again at == 4.0 m but using ky ofthe lower layer: 105.4 0.271 -0.0J0.271 = 28.6 KPa, 80m, ! =18.0%2.0+19.52.0+19.5x4.0-9.81%6.0+50.0=144.1 kPa, 144.1 «0.271 = 39.0 kPa. ‘The lateral earth pressure distribution is shown in Figure 8.2(b), Calculate the resultant of active Fores: F, =11.9x2.0%1.0=23.8KN, 30.9 = 11.9) 2.0/2 «1.0 =30.9*2.0x1.0= 618 EN, Fy = (41.1 30.9)x2.0/2x1.0 Fs =28.6x4.0%1.0= 114 4kN, F,, = (39.0 ~ 28.6) «4.0/2 1.0 = 20.8KN. P, =23.8419.0461.8+10.2+114.4+20.8 = 250.0 kN ‘Take the moment of every force about the base to find the positon of the resultant 2B.8x7.0-419.0%6.67 + 61.8% 5.0-+10,2% 4,67 + 114.4«2.0420.81.33 = 3.62 m. 250.0Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 117 sora oT wad 7= 18 kNim3 eal iid Allin (kPa) y= 19.5 kNim3 1.2.0 m, i y= 35", 4om 1=19540um? : : 09 (a) () Pique 82, Probl 83 Cates the force det wate pressure Behind he wal (Figure 8.26), spore presure az = 80m) © 3.81% 6.0 589 kPa = S82*60*19 «176.7 4N-Thas ne ttl fore applied othe resining all is $0.01 76.7 = 426.7 (per meter rn of wal Problem $4 ‘10, sang wall ens soi with the flowing properties: cy = 40 KPa, = 175 Nim’, cy = 17.6 kPa, and & (friction angle mobilized between wall and soil) = 0. Determine the magnitude of the active thrust: (a) when the surface carries no surcharge, {(b) when a surface surcharge of 50 kPa is applied, In both cases the ground surface is horizontal Solution: ‘This problem can be solved by applying the wedge analysis for cy, éy = 0 soil which ean be formulated for vertical wall with horizontal ground surface. cota i+ ‘ 9) ws isth angle ofthe ur plane wits orizona wee forg=0 (8.10) Ievericlsrace fading ¢ exis he p=) fix torso an 4+q(H -2,)-2c,(H ~2)! +L18 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘The magnitude of z is unknown but may be estimated from the following equation which is based on the linear distribution of the lateral active earth pressure behind a smooth wall: (612) Altmatively we may assume Equation 8.10 fo be equivalent fo @ linear distribution of laters! earth pressure given by: Pa = 2-2, f+ (8.13) where : =0 atthe ground surface and 2 = H at the base of the wall, With the assumption of | 2 linear lateral pressure distribution, the depth at which the earth pressure becomes 2er0 is: foe (8.14) ee The total scive thrust is the inopral of Equation $13 with comestion for the tension zone (ignoring the ensilearea n te ses distribution graph). YAH BS SAEs (8.15) Forg >0,and py <0 at =0, the equivalent linear laterel earth pressure, depth of tension crack and total active thrust are given by: Pa tg te flee (816) a eis Cg) pa Wate), toda eis (8.19) WH att #20, H i+ 74 The critical magnitude of « s given by Equation 8.9. (@) From Equations 8.14 and 8.15 for 8.10): 2, =(2x40.0/17.5)VI+17.6740.0 =S 48m, P, =17.5x10.0(10.0~5.48)/2~ 40,0(10,0~$.48)T+17,6740.0 =178.5 KN. (b) Similarly; and using Equations 8.17 and 8.18 (ar 8.11): 40.0/17.5)V1+17.6/40.0 ~$0.0/17.5 = 2.63 m, 7.5 10.0(10.0 -2.63)/2 + 50.0010,0 ~2.63)/2~ 40,0(10.0-2.63)V1+17.674000 = 475.4 kN,Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 119 @ © Figure 83. Problem 85. Problem 85 A reiaining wall of height 12 m (Figure 8.3(a)) retains a two-layer soil having the following propentes: : 0 m- 5 mbelow the surface: cy = 12 KPa y= 0, y= 17 KN Below 5 m, cy =35 kPa, Oy = 0, and y= 18 KNim*. Calculate the magnitude of the total sctive thrust and the critical value of «. For this purpose formulate P, in tems ofthe angle a using the force diagram and set ae = 0, 5’ =O and cy = 10 kPa. oa Solution: Depth of tension zone from Equation 8.14: 2x120 f/ 10 ° 170 V 120 Calculate the total weight of the trial wedge using the geometry of the wall and trial edge shown in Figure 8.3(a) W = wy + wy = area of AFGDE * 1.0%, + area of FBG «1.0% wy = (area of AFGC -area of EDC)x1.0% 7), 191m, vw ={ Beata 12OC0t 5g LPTHI-PNeOte 179-776 Scota kN \ wy = LOA DOCOH G5 18.0 = 441 Ocota RN. W = wy + wy = 776 Scota +441 cota = 1217 Scot.120 Protlem Solving in Soil Mechanics CCaleulate shearing resistances (due to cohesion) on the failure plane and back face of the wall due to adhesion) $.0-191 1994 20 35.92 2824 sing sing sina Ty, = (AB ~ 25) 1.0% 6, = (2.01.91) 10.0 = 100.9 KN. Calculate the horizontal force due to water pressure in the tension crack: py x fletta)e Sy HHO Bhs 3 From the polygon of the Forces shown in Figure 8.3(b) P can be evaluated as follows: P, = fe ~ ag = getan a ~ (ah P,) = (W —Ty ~ eh) tana ~ (T, cosa~ By), W -T,, T,sina)tan a ~(T, cose - P,). Substituting values of Wf, Tw. Te and Py 1217 Seotct ~ 100.9 ~ 282.1) tan a ~ (282.1eot a -17.9), 1235.4 — 383.0 tan a — 282.1eot o kN. GD 10x ey, + BG X10 E,2 = =1T9RN, 282.1 . Jan 9 7 0858 7 = 40.639. Thus P, = 1235.4 ~383.0tan 40,63° ~ 282. 1cot 40,63° = 578.0 kN, tan Problem 8.6 A conerete gravity retaining wall is 6.6 m high and 3.2 m wide. If the thickness of the soil 2 the front of the wall is 2 m, determine the maximum and minimum base pressures assuming no base friction or adhesion. The sol has the fallowing properties: 61 = 0,4 = 35°, p (for sol) = 1.8 Mgim’,p (For concrete) = 24 Mgim® Solution: Calculate fs and fp from Equations 8.2 and 8.4 tan?(45.0° ~35.0°/2) = 0,271. ian? (45.0° +35.0°/2) = 3.690. Active pressure distribution and thrust: 0,0':= 00 and p, =0.0%0.271-0.0V0.271 8x981x6.6=116.5 kPa, Pq =116.5%0.271-0.0Y0.271 = 31.6 KPa, 31.6 «6.61.0 2 Passive pressure distribution and thrust: 03.690 +0.0y3,690 = 0.0. = 104.3 KN,Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 121 497.2 KN 20m 190.2 KPa $30.2 KN Figure 84. Problem 8.6. Pp = 35.3% 3,690 + 0.015.690 = 130.2 kPa. P, = 130.2 2.0%1.0/2 = 130.2kN, Factor of safety against sting isthe rato ofthe resisting forces inthe siding direction to the component ofthe active thrust or disturbing forees along the same direction: Fg =130.2/104.3 = 1.248 = 1.25, The weight of the wall is: W = 6.6%3.2%1.0%24 «9.81 = 497.2 kN, Taking the moments of the forces about the toe (point ¢, Figure 8.4) we have: (130.2/ Fs) x (2.0/3) + 497.2«1,6 - 104.3% (6.6/3) — Nxx=0 Where Wis the total vertical force (or vertical reaction of the soil applied to the base) and xis the distance of this force from the toe. From vertical equilibrium N= 497.2 kNS thus (130.2/1.248) x (2.0/3) + 497.2% 1.6 ~ 104.3 (6.6/3) ~ 497.2% x=1278m, ‘The eccentricity eis calculated from L e 8.20) ai Thus € = 1.6 1.278 = 0.322 m, For a rigid rectangular Footing the contact pressure distribution under the footing may be assumed linear, With the symmetric loading about the Z-axis, the contact pressures at the ‘wo edges of the rectangle are (Equations 5.51): N ( 6e) N be = Tall) dain =Zy (IE 8.21 dom = F5(+E) tai = 741-2) ean Far > Othe maximum cont pressure ocr tthe te wilt he minimum exact prosare oer the hed max = (497.21 3.2 x LOMO + 6 x 0.322/3.2) min = (497.2132 1.0(.0 ~ 6% 0.322/3.2) = 61.6 kPa (at point h, Figure 8.4), 49.2 kPa (at point , Figure 8.4).122 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Problem 8.7 For a concrete gravity retaining wall of 3.2 m width and 6.6 m height, determine the maximum and minimum base pressures assuming a base friction angle of 8! = 15°, and a base adhesion of cs = 10 kPa. A surcharge load of 20 kPa is applied vertically to the round surface on the backfill. The soil haste following propetics (0 KPa, = 25°, p (for soil) = 1.8 Mg/m’, p (for concrete) = 2.4 Mem’. Solution Caloulate fy and Ap from Equations 82 and 8.4 4k, = tan? (45.0°-25,0°/2) = 0.406, k,, = tan? (45.0° + 25.0°/ 2) = 2.464, Active pressure distribution and thrust: 20.0 and pg = 20.0%0.406 ~2%10.0V0.406 =-4.6 kPa ‘The depth of tension crack is calculated by setting Equation 8.1 to zero (or use Equation 8.17 with c¥,=0, and replace ¢, with) + a)k, -22"fhy =0, tus tant 45° + $2) g Y 1 2x16.0/(1.8x9.81V 0.406 ) ~ 20.0/(1.8%9.81) = 0.64 m. Atz= 6.6m, o =1.8%9.81x6.6+ 20.0 =136.5 kPa, (322) Dg =136.5% 0.406 ~2 «10.00.46 = 42.7 kPa. p, = S27 (6:8=0.61)1.0 _ 199 9 yy, 2 Passive pressure distribution and thrust: Atze0.c%=00and p, = 00%2 464 +2010 0VT404 =31.44Pa At #1849 8142.0 35.34Pa, pp 353% 2.464 4 2100/7404 =118.4 KPa Poy = 314x2.0%1.0 = 62.80N Pag = (18.431 4)*200%1.0/2 = 81.0 6N P, = 62.84 87.0 = 149.8 KN, ‘The active and passive pressure diagrams are shown in Figure 8.5. The weight of he wall is 497.2 kN, Factor of safety against sliding is: P, +W xtand'+Lx1.0xe, PB E Fs = (149.8 +497 2x tan 15.0°+3.2%1.0x10.0)/127.2 = 2.477 ‘Taking the moments ofthe forees about the toe: (62.8/2.477) x (2.0/2) + (87.0/2.479)x (2.0/3) + 497.2 1.6 ~ 127.2% (6.6 ~ 0.64)/3 - 497.2.¢ = 0 > x =1.190 m. The cocentrcity¢ is caleulated as: FsLateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 123 64m 497.2 KN 314 kPa 20m j 118.4 KPa ee Figure 8.5. Problem 8.7, e=15-1.19=0.4Im, = 274.8 kPa (at point, Figure 8.5), 35.9 kPa (at point h, Figure 8.5). Problem8.8 The concrete gravity retaining wall shown in Figure 8.6 supports evo layers of soll each having @ thickness of 3m. The properties ofthe layers ae: upper layer: c’ = 0, 6 = 30°, Yary = 17.5 KNitn, and Yyqy = 19.5 KN/m: lower layer: = 10 kPa, = 18, and yi = 19 kNim, There is surface load of 50 kPa and the water table is 1.5 m below the ground surface. The front ofthe wall is supported by soil with c’ = 20 kPa, = 25° and y = 18 kNim*. Determine (2) the factor oF safery against sliding, assuming thatthe cohesion between the base of the wall and the sil is 20 kPa, and the mobilized fFition angle on this interface is 25", () the factor of saery against overturning, {¢) the distribution ofthe contact pressure under the base othe wal Take the unit weight of the concrete as 24 kN/m', Assume the back and font faces ofthe wall are smooth (¢y-=0, 8 (wall) = 0). Solution (a) For the upper layer Equation 8.2): ky =tan?(45.0°~30.0°/2) For the lower layer: ky = tan?(45.0°-18.0°/2) =0,528. = 50.0 kPa, u=0,02= 50.0 KPa, p., =k, = 50.0% 0,333 16.7 kPa 6, =50.0+17.5%1.5 = 76.2 kPa, o':= 76.2 kPa, 0333. Atz=0, Atz= LS m, kPa, =124 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 1615 48.0 444 1 r jx 28m notto scat, all stresses in (kPa) Figure 8.6. Problem 88. 301m, 0, =500417.5x Gf, =105.5~14.7 = 90.8 kPa, using ka= 0.333, py = 528, pg =Ojhy ~26°x fy =908x0,528-2%10 0VOSTR = 33.-4kPa, Using k= A u=981x4.5= 44,1 kPa, c= 162.5—44.1= 118.4 kPa, aq =118A%0,528 210.090.3528 = 48.0 kPa, The results are shown in Figure 8.6 and the computations are summarized in the table below. Distance of the total horizontal thrust from the base = 640.35 / 294.66 = 2.175 m. 6.0 m,o, = 50.0417.5x1.5 419.5 x1.5+19.0%3.0 = 162.5 kPa, ‘Armabove Force xarm are the base (my (AN) y= 167 «1.5 LO(permeterrun)=2505 525 B11 Fy=Q5A- 16 1Sx1/2*1L0=652 500 32.60 Fyn 28415 «1.0 38.10 375 142.87 Fae (303-254) %1Sx1/2x10=367 3.50 184 4% 3.0 L0= 100.20 30 150.30 Fo= (880-334) 31/2 10=2190 100 21.90 Fra4a.i x 4501/2 10) 150 143.83 Passive pressure distribution and thrust: de, = tan2(45,0° + 25.0°/2) = 2.464. Atz=0, o'c= 0.0 and py = 0.0%2.464 + 2 20.042.464 = 62.8 kPa,Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 128 p = 36.0 2.464 + 2 20.002464 = 151.5 kPa Py = 62.8 2.0 x1.0 = 125.6 KN Ppp = (U51.5 ~ 62.8) 2.0% 1.0/2 = 88.7 RN, P,, = 125.6+88.7 = 214.3 kN. Referring to Figure 86 the weight of the wall is: W = +1 + 1s, W =3.5%20%1.0% 24.0415 4.0%1.0/2%24.0+ 2.0 «4.0 «1.0% 24.0, W = wy + 3 + Wy = 168.0 + 72.0 + 192.0 Factor of safety against sliding is: P, +W xtand!+ Lx1.0xc, Fat Py 214.3 + 432.0% tan 25.0° + 3.51.0 20.0 294.7 (©) For overtuming, the factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the sum of resisting ‘moment tothe sum of disturbing moments about the toe ofthe retaining wall, ee 62) a 125.6428 | 88.7420 a, = 15x28 mM > : YM, =640.85kN.m (se the table on the previous page) = 1.648 = 1.65. $168.0 «1.75 + 72.0%1,0-+192.0%2.5=1080.73 kN, 1030.73 640.85 (©) Taking the moments of the farees about the toe: (125.6 1,648) x (2.0/2) + (88.7/1 688) x (2.0/3) + 168.0 «1.75 + 72.0% 1.04 192.0 x 2.5 ~ 640.85 ~ 432.0xx = 0 x = 0.734 m, €=1.75-0.734 = 1,016 m, 432.0 (10, Setate [6021.61 Imax =F 5x10) 35 (at points, Figure 8.6) A cantilever sheet pile supports a 6 m high backfill withthe following properties: i Om = 2 mc =O, ¢ =30°, y=16.5 kNan’ 2 m = 4 m:c’ =0, 6 = 35%, y=17 EN 4m_ Ov: c' = 15 kPa, ¢' = 20°, y= 17 kNim’ Embedment depth D = 3.5 m and the soil under the dredge line (at both sides} isthe same as the soil under the 4 m depth, Determine the factor of safety (in terms of ¢ and &y) assuming a simplified pressure diagram. The ease of the cantilever sheet pile in c soil is not formulated in this chapter126 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Solution: Inc’ =6, 6 soil values of the earth pressure coefficients ky and kare calculated from the following two equations that are obtained using wedge analysis. sin?(0-¢') 2 gsino+ay | 1+, [Sie +5 sin(’-B) sin? @sin(@+3') [ ae ee where 0 is the angle of the back face ofthe wall from the horizontal, [ s the inclination of the upper ground surface from the horizontal and 8 isthe friction angle mobilized on the soil wall interface, For a vertical wall (B= 90°) and a horizontal ground surface (B = 0) k, (3.24) 2 cos” i 25) [ e088 + ae Fora smooth ( = 0) vertical wall with horizontal ground surfice, ka becomes identical to Equation 8.2 ead pau (+6) 62 pg, =8.1 6020.0" = 7.6 KPa 1 =16.5%2.0+17.0x20= 67.0 kPs 67.00.2458 =16.4 > py, =16:4%c0520.0° =15.4 kPa 5 =7.6%2.0%1,0=15.2 kN, sim above the base is 65 m. Fy =(15.4=7.6)x20/2x1.0=7.8KN, am above the hase is 6.167 m. At2=4.0 m, using k= 0427, Pe =67.0%0.427 -2.0%15.090.427 0 pa, =9.0%60820.0° =8.5 kPa. Atz=9,5 mo! =16,5%2.0+17.0%2,0+17.0%5.5 = 160.5 kPa, Pg =160.5* 0.427 -215.0Y0.427 = 48.9 > pg, = 48.9 0520.0" = 45.9 kPa. Fy =8.5%5.5%1.0= 46.7 KN, arm above the base is 2.75 m, Fs =($S9-8,5) «5.5/1.0 = 102.8 KN, arm above the base is 1.833 m. The results are shown in Figure 8.7. Passive pressure distribution and thrust The value of fy is calculated from Equation 8,27: ky = 3.525. The mobilized cohesion and ‘earth pressure coeflicient are shown by cy, and fq respectively = 0.0 and > Dph = 2X6 fgg, X20820.0° =1.88e'y lpg, KPa 17.0%3.5=59.5 kPa,128 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Pp = 595K pg, +2% Cy hep KPA. P pt = (59-5k py, +2% C5 fF jy )608 20.0° = 55.9% py +1880, yy = 1.88 cy fhpy 3.51.0 = 6.58 fn IN Pn = Phy = 55.9 yy ®3512%1.0=97 8h KN Py =97.8x3.525/ F = M447) F KN 9.268.167 + 15.2% 6.5 4 78% 6.167 + 46.7 2.75 + 102.8% 1.833 — 185.3V1/F? x 1,75 ~344.7/ F «1.167 =0, = 6.58% 15.0/ P3525 F = 185 3V1/F? KN, 2 ‘Taking the moments of the forces about point e 538.9-324.3V1/ F? ~ 402.3/F =0, A trial and error method gives F'= 1.28, Problem 8.10 ‘A cantilever sheet pile supports a 9 m high backfill with the following properties: Om-3m;c' =0,¢' =35%,y=18kNim’, 3m-6 mm: e'=15 kPa, 6° =20°, 6m-9 m: There is a vertical surface load of 20 kPa applied at the backlill. The water table is 3 m below the ground surface of the backfill and bas the same level at the front of the sheet pile. The soil under the dredge line (at both sides) is purely cohesive soil with: cy = 100 kPa, and = 0, (a) Determine the embedment depth D assuming that the full passive resistance is mobilized, (b) add a horizontal anchor rod at a depth of 1-5 m and, with the same embedment depth of part (a), ealculate the factor of safety (in terms of mobilized cohesion) and the anchor rod force, (©) determine the location and magnitude of the maximum bending moment (@) if the anchor rod is supported by a concrete block anchor with thickness of 0.5 m, ‘width of 2 m (parallel to the sheet pile), and height of 1.5 m, calculate the distance ‘between anchor rods along the sheet pile (anchor rod is anchored at the centre point of the concrete block), Assume no cohesion and friction resistance along the surfaces of the anchor. Include the surface load in both the active and passive thrusts and assume 4 factor of safety of 1.5 for the mobilized kat the fron’ of the anchor Solution: (2) Using Equation 8.2: for layer 1: ky = 0.271; for layer 2: ky = 0.490 and for layer 3 fo 0.271 20.0x0.271=5.4 kPa, 3.0 mo, = 20.0 +18.0%3. Pa =74.0%0.271=20.0 kPaLateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 129 20kPa Not to scale, all stresses in kPa eon 5803 Figure 8.8, Problem 8.10: pat (3), 5.4% 3.01.0=16.2 KN, arm above the dredge line is 7.5 m. 20.0-5.4)x3.0/2%1.0=21.9 AN, arm above the dredge line is 7.0 m 3.0m, using ka = 0.490, Pg =74.0% 0.490 ~2315.0V0490 = 15.3 kPa Atz=600 mol, = 74.0 +20.3%3.0-9.81%3.0 =105.5 kPa, 105.5 0.490 ~ 215.0,/0.490 = 30.7 kPa, 5.3%3.0%1.0= 45.9 KN, arm above the dredge line is 4.5 m. Fy = G0.7 15.3) 3.0/2.0 = 23.1 KN, arm above the dredge line is 4.0 m, Atz=6.0m, using ka= 0.271, Py =105.Sx0.271 = 28.6 Pa, Atz=90 mo, = 74.0+20.3%3.0421.1x3.0-9.81%6.0 39.30.271 =37.8kPa. 8.63.0 =85.8KN, sem above the dredge line is 1.5m. Fg = (37.8-28.6)x3.0/ 21.0 =13.8N, arm above the dredge line is 1.0 m. ‘The results are shown in Figure 8.8 Calculation of resultant 2, and its position above the dredge line: | ty + Py + Fy + Fg + Fe =16.2+ 21.9 +45,9 + 23.1 +85.8+13.8= 206.7 KN. Taking the moments ofthe forces about the dredge line: 16.275 +21.9%7.0 + 45.9 x 4.5 + 23.1% 4.0 + 85.8% 1,5 +13.8x1.0 = 206.72, 3.465 39.3KPa.130 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘When the material below the dredge line is a purely cohesive soil with cy and g=0, the net pressure diagram under the dredge line will be as shown in Figure 8.8. Noting that i the clay layer a= Ay= 1, the net pressure at d becomes 4c, — ag, where 4, is the effective vertical stress at the dredge line level at the back of the sheet pile, As the active and passive pressure coefficients under the dredge line are equal, the effect of the weight sisappears and the net pressure below point d remains constant up to the point of rotation (of the sheet pile). It can be shown that the net pressure at the end point at the back of the wall is 4c, + ga. For equilibrium of the horizontal forces and moments about the base: Dido, (830) Ra) 31) Hey dg ey ~4g)\20y, +44) For the simplified pressure diagram with z,= 0, and with R acting asa concentrated force atpoint 2R, ey dq ey 4a ‘The computed D values arc increased by 20% t0 40% or, alternatively, the mobilized pte D- =0 (8.32) cohesion com =Cy/ F is substituted for ev where F = 1.5 to 2.0. For a stable sheet pile Sean = qa > Dor: 4e,/F > 44 (633) Calculate the necessary coefficients 4g = 01, 82 =9 m=139,3 KP ey — 4,4 = 4100.0 139.3 = 260.7 kPa 2h, _ 2206.7 ean = 1586, de, + 9g = 539.3 kPa eytg 2607 re Ry(l2ey2 +R) _ 206.7(12x100.0%3.465 + 206.7) Gey qa), +94 260.7(2100.0+-139.3) Substituting into Equation 8.31: D?-1,586D 10.208. D=4.08m=4.10m. Using Equation 8.30: 2, = (4.10% 260.7 -206 7) (4% 100.0) = 2.15 m. From the similarity concept: fee eee ape eels ae 4G, 4g Gey 94) (Ae, 44) $393 8000 60.7 1O=2.15)+4.10-145) 9 99 64 2Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 131 R-=(539,31 45)/2 1.0 = 391.0 KN, Check statics LF horizontal) = 599.6 -206.7-391.0=1.9 kN, which is due to the rounding off of the embedment depth and 2, (b) With the net pressure diagram shown in Figure 8.9 and full mobilization of c,, the sum. (of the moments about the anchor rod level yields: (834) dey 4a Equilibrium of the horizontal forces is used to determine the force in the anchor rod. The general expression for the mobilized passive thrust i: (8.35) 9.0-3.465-1,5=4.035 m, H. -1.5=7.5 m, Use Equation 8.34: 2206.7 «4.0: $1007 F = 13 AI? +2%75%4,1 F =2.49. From Equation 8.35: 06,7 -87. 5 =119.2 kN STSKN, Not to scale, all stresses in kPa 400.0) F - 139.3 Figure 89, Problem 8,10: part (b),132 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies 286.\80.7 soi3 : f, Not to scale, all stresses in kPa Figure 8.10. Problem 8.10: par () (€) The maximum bending moment oceurs ata point where the shear fore is 2270, ‘The sum of Fy to Fis less than the anchor rod force: Bj Fy + Fy + Fy =162421.9 +45,9-+23.1 = 107.1KN <1 19.2 RN. ‘Thus the position of the zero shear force is located below point c with « depth x measured fiom the top ofthe soil 3 (Figure 8.10). The lateral earth pressure a this depth is: Pq = 28.6 +(7—Yy ) hay Pq =28.6+(21.1-9.81)2x0.271 = 28.6+3.06 kPa. The corresponding forces fan fate: fu =28.6xx%1.0=28.6x KN, fy = 3.06% x/ 251.0 = 1.5337 kN Set the shear foree to zero: SF=-Ry +h +R +t yt hth 1537 +28.6x-121=0 > = 041m. A= 28.6x041=11.7 KN, fy =1.53x0.41? = 0.3 KN, ‘The magnitude ofthe bending moment at this point is BM =R,, x491~F, x491—Fy 441-Fy x1.91~Fy x1 A= fy ex/2— fy xx/3, BM =119.2x491~16.24.91~ 21.94.41 —45.9+1.91-23.1x1.41— 11,7*0.41/2-0.3«0.41/3 = 286.5 kN. ‘This means that the back of the sheet ple at this point will be in compression, while its front will bein tension. -119.2+107.1+28.6x+1.53x? =0,Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls. 133 tt HAMAS AA Ad me Ta cones Fy —— anchor -! P, Ps ° cc Figure 8.11, Problem 8.26: part, (@) Using Equations 8.2 and 8.4 for layer 1k Referring to Figue 8.11 20.0-+18.0%0.75)x0.271 =9.1 kPa, 20.0-+18.0%2.25)x0.271 =16.4 kPa, [x1 Sx1.0+(16.4-9.1)¥1.5%1,0/2 =13.6+5.5=19.1 kN, 2004180407532. 369, 2.4 kPa, ea (2010+ 18.02.25) x29 _ 148.8 kPa Py. Sree asipraaesee yest 23.6+49.8= 1734 KN, For horizontai equilibrium with s being the distance between successive anchor rods Ry, x84+P, ¥20 (width of the concrete anchor) —P,, «2.0 0, 119.25 +19.1x2.0-173,4%2.0=0- 5 2.6m, Problem 8.11 ‘An carth retaining wall 12 m high is reinforced with metal strips of width 100 mm, the first row of which is at a depth of 0.5 m. The strips are spaced at sy= 1 mand s-=1 m, and the allowable tensile strength of the metal strip is L40 MPa. The thickness ofthe stip is 5mm. The propeties of the backil soi are: = 0,6" =35°, and y= 18 kNim’ The friction angle mobilized inthe soi-strip contact area is 85= 23°. Caleulate the length ofthe reinforcements at depths 0.5 m, 5.5 mand 11.5 m. Solution The allowable tensile strength of the reinforcement is computed from the following equation: (8.36)134 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics where Tay and Tur tepresent the allowable and ultimate tensile strengths respectively. The parameter CRF < | is the ereep reduction factor atthe order of 40% and higher. The factor of safety of F-= 1.3 to 14 is applied for construction damage and F,~ 1.2 (slightly higher for retaining walls) is 2 general factor of safety to take account of the possibility of reaching a limit state and other uncertainties dusing the design life, If necessary, factors of safety against chemical damages and biological degradations (F.) must be considered The tensile force in the reinforcement is redistributed in the sil through the susface area of the reinforcement. The friction angle mobilized between the reinforcement snd the adjacent soil 65 is related to the internal friction angle of soil @ using the folloking equation, where the magnitude off, depends on the type ofthe reinforcement material and varies from 0.5 to L.0. tang! 37 tand, Depending on the type of te reinforcement, wo design methods are avaiable 1. For reinforcement with high extensibility such as geotextles, the active state in the cath wall is fully mobilized and the active Rankine earth pressure coefficient ky is used 2. For reinforcement of low extensibility (eg. metal strips), an active zone that is seperated fom the resisting zone by two linear failure planes (Figure 8.12(a)) are introduced where: |, 03H tan 1-0.3te8 For f = 0, if) = H and the inclized failure plane may be continued up to the upper ground surface or it can be teminated a 0377 (horizontal distance) from the face of the wall. The distribution ofthe appropriate earth pressure coefficient i shown in Figure 8.12(b). In the absence of hydrostatic water in the soil, the axial tensile load transferred to cach horizontal reinforcement element can be calculated as y= 6.28) Reinforcement Hy Metal bars, i 6om welded wire Hy 4 {Pe Ra grids HAI2 —- @) ) Figure 8.12. Reinforcement of low extensibility: (a) active zone, (6) variation f= k/ ky with septLateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walis 135 (8.39) ‘where p+ is the tensile force in the clement, ois the vertical stress at depth = within the active zone; sy and s, are the horizontal and vertical spacing of the reinforcement elements respectively. The embecment length J, is calculated to resist the tensile force p,. For 2 stip clement of width x, the maximum tensile load py due to the frictional bond on both sides is Pe = Pah Xp X82 = (kg, COP), 5 me cos, wtand, = 2c, cosBi, wf, tang! (8.40) where ois the vertical stress on the reinforcement element (at depth =) in the vicinity of the resisting zone, If the ground surface is horizontal and there is no surface loading, or the surface loading is uniform and covers a large arca behind the facing panel, we may assume Oey = Thus, equating Equations 8.39 and 8.40 we obtain: (sn) Note that with low extensibility material the term ky in Equation 8.41 must be replaced by inka obtained from Figure 8.12(b). The tensile force in the reinforcement must be equal to ‘or smaller than Tajy(Equation 8.36). For continuous grid reinforcement, se and w are unity and p represents the tensile force per unit length ofthe wall Using Equation 8.2 we obtain: ka= 0.271. The position of the potential failure plane is: = 45.0°+ §'/2 = 45.0°+35.0°/2 = 62.5° from the horizontal Using Equation 8.41 we have: nx 0.27151.0%1.0 "=F (100.01000) x tan 23.0" Referring to Figure 8.12(b) for metal stips the magnitude of the lateral earth pressure ‘coefficient or the equivalent value can be found by: 190. Atz=0.5 m, = 1.66, at2= 5.5 m, n= 1.24, and at ‘The corresponding values are: 1, (0.5m) =3.19n =3.19%1,66=5.29m, 1, (8.5m) =3.19x1.24= 3.96 m, J, (11.5) =3.19%1.2=3.83m. ‘The reinforcement lengths: 1@.Sm)=5.29+0.3H =5.29+03x120289m, 1.51m) =3.96+03%1207.6m, 101.5m)=3.83+ (12.0 11.5) tan 625° 4.1m, ‘The axial tensile load from Equation 8.39 (note P= 0): Pr = Pak *8z*Sz * (kg, OSB)S 5, 1S m,n=12, Pp =O.2Mxnx18,0%2x1.0x1.0%1. Allowable tesile foree = Ty * sectional area of reinforcement element, 8780136 Problem Solving in Soit Mechanies Allowable tensile force =140.0 1000 «(100.07 1000) x (5.0/1000) = 70.0 KN. (05m) = 4.878% 1.66% 0.5 = 4.0 KN < 70.0 EN. PASSt1) = 4878x1 2445.5 =33.3 KN < 70.0 KN. D_ALL.Sm) =4878x1.2x1 1.5 = 613KN < 70.0 KN. 8.3 REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS [AASHTO 1997. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Section 5. Washington, D.C ‘Alpan, 1. 1967. The enipiical evaluation of the coefficient &, and hace. Soils and foundaions, “i: 31-40, Tokyo, ASTM D-£262. 1997, Standard test method for evaluating the unconfined tension rep bshavior “Yor geosymiercs. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Material “Aysen, A 2002, Soil mechanies: Basic concepis and engineering applications. Liste: Balkema, Benoit, & Lutenegger, A. 1993. Determining lateral tes in soft clays. ln GT. Houlsby & AN. Schofield (eds), Predicive so meckanies. London: Thomas Telford Bishop, A.W. 1958, Test requirements measuring the coefficient of earth pressure at rst Proc. Brussels conf on earth pressure probes. Bowles, E1996, Foundation analysis and design. 5 edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. BS 8006, 1995, Cade of practice for sinngihenedreinfrced lls and other fils. London: Betis Standatd Instition BS 8081. 1989. Ground anchorages. London: Brish Standaud Institution. Burland, J.B, Pots, DM. de Walsh, NIM. 1981, The overall stability of fee and propped embedded cantilever retaining walls, round engineering, 14(5): 2838. Cheney, RS. 1988. Permanent ground anchors. Report FHWA/DP-68IR Us D.C. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Das, BM, 1990, Barth anchors, Amsterdam: Elsevier Das, BM, Targuin, A & Moreno, R. 1988. Mode! tests for pullout resistance of vertical anchors in clay” Civil eng. for practising and design engineers, {2}: 191-209. New York: Program Press Duncan, M, Clough, G.W. & Ebeling, RM. 1990, Behavior and design of gravity earth retsning ‘inictires. In PCC. Lambe & LA. Hansen (ots), Design and performance of earth retaining structures: 251-277. New York: ASCE Duncan, 1M, & Seed, RB. 1986, Compactionindueed earth pressure under k-conditions. Joumal ‘SMB, ASCE, 112(1): 1-22 Exxon, 1992, Designing for soil reinforcement. editon. UK: Exxon Chemical Geopolymers Felio G.Y., Vueetc, M, Hudson, M. Bara. 0. Chapman, R. 1990. Performance of sil nailed walls during te October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Proc. 43" Canadian geotechnical anf 165-173, Guedes. Flaate, K. Peck, R.B. 1973, Braced cuts in sand and clay. Norwegian geotechnical instint, Publication 96 Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A. Randolph, MF. & Bl Surrey University Prest-Halsted Pres. Hanna, T.H. 1982. Foundations in tension-groun? anchors. 1% eilition: 269-274, USA: MeGraw-Hil ‘Hueckel, S. 1957, Model tests on anchoring capacity of vertical and inclined plates. Proc. 4” intern. conf SME, 2: 203-206, London Jay, J. 1948, Earth pressure in soils. Proc, 2% intern. conf. SMEFE, 1: 103-107. Rotterdam, Juran, 1. & Seblosser,F. 1978. Theoretical analysis of failure in reinforce earth structures. Proc “symp. on earth reinforcement, ASCE convention, Pittsburg: 828-888, New York: ASCE. +136. Waskington, », WK, 1992, Piling engineering. UK:Lateral Earth Pressure and Retaining Walls 137 Juraa, 1, Baudtand, G, Fatrag, K. & Elias, V.1988, Kinematical limit analysis for design of nailed structures. Jounal GED, ASCE, 116(1): 54-72, : Koemer, RM. 1994 Designing with geasynuhetics. 3% edition. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice Hal Kranz, E, 1953, Ober die verankerung von spundwanden, Berlin; Verlag Ernst & Sohn Kulbawy, FH, Jackson, C'S. & Mayne, P.W. 1989. First order estimation off in sands and clays. Foundation engineering: current principles and practices. Journal GED, ASCE, |: 121-134, Latlsinka, G.S. 1970. Soil anchors. Proc. conf. grotd eng: 33-88, London: Institution of Civil Engineers i Liflejohn, GS. & Bruce, D.A. 1977, Rook anchore-stare of the aris: $0. UK: Foundation Publications Le. Locher, H.G. 1969. Anchored retaining waits and ew-off walls. Berne: Losinget & Co, Mayne, P.W. & Kulhawy, FH, 1982, ky-OCR relationships in soil. Journal GED, ASCE, 108(GT6): 851.872 Meyerhot, G.G. 1973. Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles. Proc jntern. conf SMFE, 2.1 172. Moscow. Munfakh, G-A. 1990, Innovative earth retaining structures: Selection, design, & performance, In P.C. Lambe & L.A. Hansen (eds), Design and performance of earth retaining stracres: 85-118, Now York: ASCE, Maunfakh, G.A., Abramson, LW., Barksdale, R.D. & Juran, 1. 1987. Soil improvement-a ten year update. In JP. Welsh (ed), ASCE geotechnical special publication. (12): 59. New York: ASCE. (’Rourke, T.D. 1987. Lateral stability of compressible walls. Geotechnique, 31(1}: 145-149. O'Rourke, T.D. & Jones, CFP. 1990, Overview of earth retention systems: 1970-1990. In PC. Lambe & L.A. Hansen (ods), Design and performance of earth retaining structures: 2 "New York: ASCE. Ostermayer, H. 1977. Practice on the detail design application of aichorages-A review of gphragm walls: $5-61. London: Institution of Civil Engineers. (Ovesen, N.K. & Stromana, H. 1972. Design methods for vertical archor slabs in sand. Proc speciality conf om performance of earth and earth supported sructures, 2(\): 1481-1500, "New York: ASCE, Palossy, L., Share, P. & Szalatiay, I. 1993. Earth walls, New York: Ellis Hopwood. Peck, RB, 1969, Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground Prac. 7 intern. conf’ SMFE, 225.200. Merico Peck, RB. 1990, Fifty years of lateral earth support. In P.C. Latte & L.A. Hansen (eds), Design ‘ned performance af earth retaining structures. New York: ASCE, Pos-tensioning Institute (PTD). 1996, Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil anchors Phoenix, Arizona Ponts, D.M. & Fourie, A.B. 1984. The behaviour ofa propped retaining wal: results of @ numerical experiment. Geotechnigue, 34(3): 383-404 Pos, DIM. & Fourie, A.B. 1985. The effect of wall stfiness on the behaviour of propped retaining wall, Geotechnigue, 35(3): 347-382. Rowe, P.W, 1952. Anchored sheet pile walls. Proc. insiation of cil engineers, (I): 27-70, Rowe, P.W. 1957, Sheet pile walls in elay. Proc. institution of civil engineers, \(): 629-654. Schaefer, V.R., Abramson, LW., Drumheller, 1C, Hussin, J.D. & Sharp, K.D. 1997. Ground improvement, ground reinforcement, ground teatment-developments 1987-1997. ASCE _geoteelmical special publication, (69): 178-206. New York: ASCE, Scott, CR. 1980. 4m introduction to soil mechatics and foundations. 3 edition. London: Applied Science Publishers, “Task force 27 (Federal Highway Administration). 1990, In-situ soil improvement techniques: design _EuUdolines for use of extensible reinforcements (geosymthetics) for mechanically stabilized earth158 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies walls in permanent applications. Joint committee of AASHTO, AGC, ARTBA. Washington, Dc. Teng, W.C. 1962. Foundation design. Englowood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Terzaghi, K.1966. Theoretical soil mechanics. 14° edition, New York: John Wiley & Son Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. 1967. Sol! mechanics ix engineering practice. 2 edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ‘Terzaghi, K., Peck, R-B., & Mesri, G. 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 3 edition. "New York: John Wiley & Sons Tschebotarioff, GP. 1973. Foundations, retaining and earth structres, 2% edition. New York: ‘MeGraw-Hill Unterrener,P., Benhamida, B. & Schlosser, F. 1997. Finite element modelling of the construction ‘of a fullscale experimental soil-naied wall, French national research project CLOUTERRE, Journal of ground improvement, (1): 18, Williams, B.P. & Waite, D. 1993. The design and coxstruction of sheet piled cofferdams. Special publication 9S. London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Williams, G.W., Duncan, JM. & Sehn, AL. 1987. Simplified chart soltion of compaction-induced earth pressures on rigid structures. Geotechnical engineering report. Blackburg, VA. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wrath, C.P. & Houlsby, G7. 1985. Soil mechunies-property characterization and analysis, Proc, ‘intern. conf. SMFE, ¥: 1-56 Xanthakos, PP. 1991. Ground anchors and anchored structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Xanthakos, PP, Abramson, LW. & Bruce, DA. 1994. Handbook on ground conirol and “improvement. New York: John Wiley & SonsCHAPTER 9 Stability of Earth Slopes 9.1 INTRODUCTION ‘This chapter examines the stability of earth slopes in two-dimensional space using a limit wuilibrium method where « mass of soit rotates on a circular oF non-cirelar faire surface at is limit state. On this surface the Mohr-Coulom failure eriterion applies and the shear strength parameters used corespond to the peak strength obstned by a total or eifetve sess analysis, The factor of safer is defined asthe ratio ofthe sheae strength to the mobilizd shear stress on the siding surface required for equilibrium, and is assumed to be constant along the surface. The average value obisined from a traditional circular analysis isa relable indication of overall slope stability. Problems 9.1 to 9.3 investigate the slope stability in undrained conditions where the factor of safety can be formulated in tems of geometry ofthe trial circle and undrained cohesion, Fora fretonal soil the mass is divided into vertical slices to facilitate the application of the force and moment equilibrium requirements Problems 9.4 to 9.7). An infinite stope is nommally associated with a translational failure parallel to the ground surface. This ease has been explained by Problem 9.8, The cirular mettod can also be applied to evaluate a reinforced slope as show in Problem 9.9. An altersative method to circular solution isthe use of wedge mechanisms for bth reinforced soil Problem 9.10) and unreinforced soil (Problem 9.11), 9.2. PROBLEMS Problem 9.1 Determine the factor of safety fora | vertical to 2 horizontal slope $m high vsing a tal toe circle for which xe-=/43 m and yo=8 m (Figure 9.1), The cross-sectional area ofthe sliding mass is 40.22 m* and is eenroid i located 2.69 m tothe right ofthe centre ofthe tral ele, The soil properties re c= 18 KP@, 64 =0, and y= 18 kNim’, Solution: The tral cireular fire surface is defined by its centre C, reds R and central angle 8 Shear stresses along the tral surface are due only to undrained cohesion cy and are mobilized 0 ¢y/ F (o mentain the equilibrium of the sliding block), where Fis the factor ‘of safety, The weight of the sliding block 1’ acts at a distance d from the centre of the ccirele (Figure 9.1).140 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Figure 9.1. Problem 9.1 Taking moments of the forces about the centre of the circular are, and noting that the normal stresses on the are passthrough the eentre, then: @.) whore La isthe length ofthe ct Geometrical data are: @=0, +0, =29.36°+ 70.92" = 100.3” W =40.22%1.0%18.0= 7240KN a etsaiae ie prof I80H9.187 0003218009) 55 Wa 724.0% 2.69 Problem 92 For a 43° plane strain slope 30 m high determine: (a) the factor of safety fora toc circle for which xc = 12.5 m end yc=42 m if there is no surcharge load on the upper ground surface, and (©) find the maximum surcharge load q (L = 20 m) chat will eause the failure ofthe slope ‘on the same slip circle. “The soil properties are: cy = 100 kPa, 4y=0, and y= 18 kNim’Stability of Earth Slopes 141 Figure 9.2, Problem 9.2 Solution: (a) Area of the sliding mass: A= A,(area of ADL) + ,(area of AKD)~ Ay(area of AKB), tan, =12.5/42.0 = 0.2976 > 8, = 16.6°. Radius of the tial cite is R= 42.07 412.5? = 43.82 m. cos, = CE/CD = (42.0 ~30.0)/43.82 = 0.2738 05 =74.1° 6 =0, +0, =16.6°+74.1° =90.7°, slelation ofthe area of ADL and the position of s centroid: F@-sind) [n(90.7°/180.0°) ~ sin 90.7°]= 559.8 m* Coy AR in /2)? _ 443.82 (sin 90.7°/2)* 36.08 m, G3 O=sind 3 (90.7°/180.0°)=sin 90.7 XG, = 419) = Xe + CG; sin(@y ~ 8/2) =12.5 + 36.08sin(74.1° -90.7°/2) = 29.85 m. Caleutate 49 and 43 and the corresponding x values of the centroids: KD = KE + ED =12.5+43.82 «sin 74.1° = 54.64 m, 10.0% $4.64/2 = 819.6 m" gy = 265 = KB/3=30.0/3 = 100 m. ‘The area of the sliding mass and the position of its centroid are: A= A, + Ay ~ Ay = 559.8 +819.6-450.0=929.4 m?142 Problem Solving in Soll Mechanics Na Ai thay 42-% A +A, —Ay 4 xq =8G= 10.0% 450.0 19.85 x $59.8-+18.21%819. 929.4 W’ = 929.4 18.0 = 16729.2 KN and: d= xg ~¥¢ =29.20-12.50 = 16.70 m, s 29.20 m. Thus F 291.1 Wa 16729.2%16.70 (©) Ifa surcharge load gis applied to the upper ground surface: p28 02) egies where £ is the length of the surcharge load on the plane strain section and s is the hhorizontai distance of the resultant from the centre of the circle (Figure 9.2), Check if L < 8D: BD = KD ~ KR = 54.64 ~30.0 = 24.64 m, Thus L =20.0 m<24.64 m. = EB+L!2=30.0-12.5+20.0/2=27.5m, (00.0% 43.827 x(90.7°/180.0°)n }6729.216.10+ 9% 20.0%27.5 Problem 9.3 Using Taylor's stability chart Figure 9.3), re-solve part (a) of Problem 9.2. Solution: The stability of sn earth slope in undrained conditions can be expressed in terms of a dimensionless parameter N called the stability number: 3) For a specified value of B the magnitude of N at failure (critical stability number) has constant value (Nj) and the factor of safety (Equation 9.1) may be expressed by: ee Fed @4) where jis the stability number corresponding to the design values of y, Hf and x. In undrained conditions, a horizontal hard stratum located at ngHf below the upper ground surface affects the critical stability mumber Nj The stability number increases as ng decreasesStability of Earth Slopes 143 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 B (degrees) Figure 93. Taylor’ stability chars used inthe solution of Problem 93. For > $3°, the critical circle is a toe circle and the hard stratum has no effect on the stability number. The slope stability chart developed by Taylor (1948) is shown in Figure 9.3, where the dashed curves represent the undrained conditions, For the c', @ soils, Taylor adopted a simplifying assumption for the direction of the resultant of the frictional forces acting on the sliding eitcle, thus a slice method for these soils are more convenient. A slice method facilitates the force equilibrium. Calculate the stability number corresponding to the design values: 18.0300 _ 100.0 From Figure 9.3 Nj= 5.52, therefore: Nae 34, ¢ pa Ne 52 Ny 340 Problem 9.4 Using Fellenius’ method determine the factor of safety for a slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and height = 4.5 m using a trial toe eile for which xe=4.5 mand yo= 6.25 1m, The soil mass is divided into 4 slices all having identical width of b = 3 m, whose average height and angle « are tabulated below. ‘The soil properties are as follows: = 6.75 kPa, 6! = 17°, and p= Solution: 96 Mein’144 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Slicene, 12 mm) 16 37 (dee) This method assumes thatthe shear forces ane the normal forees on the wo sides of each slice are equal. The factor of safety is expressed by the following equation: Lle1+Ovcosa—u/tang];, Llet+w(cosa—n,seca)tang'], i Ei a) Lovsina); Yoesine); a where /is the length of the arc, w isthe weight of each sles, o isthe angle ofthe base of the slice from horizontal, 1 isthe pore pressure a the base ofeach slice, and nis the total number of slices. The pore pressure ratio isa dimensionless parameter defined by ub, 06) \which is an alternative replacement for pore pressure 1. The results of the calculations are summarized in the table below. Ske @ |W weos sine o™ x) fl 16-23 92.29 8495 36.06 2 37 0 21343 213.43 0.00 30 46 244.25 103.68 4 30 51 108.90 134.8 ct otal: 651.53 202.10 Sample calculation for slice 3: w= bx hx 1.0% px9.81 = 3.0% 4.6% 1.96% 9.81 = 265.34 KN, 265.34%c0823,0° = 244,25 KN. 165.34 xin 23,0° = 103.68 KN, D 625m z, was Figure 9.4, Problem 9.4Stability of Earth Slopes 145 From Figure 9.4: Ra V4? 4625? =1.7m. tan, = 45/6.25=0.72 +6, =35.15°, £0589 =(6.25-4.5)/7.7 =0.2273 +0, = 76.86", = 0, +0, =35.75° + 76.86" =112.61°, Using Equation 9.5: Flere qveosaimns)], et + tang’) (woos); ey Lovsin a); a 6.757. x x(t 12.61° /180.0°) + 651,83 tan 17.0° 202.1 F Problem 9.5 A'S m high slope has an angle of B = 45°, Data on che 1m wide slices are given in the table below where fw is the height of water measured from the mid-point of the base of each slice. The trial cirele is not a toe eitcle and slices | and 2 are located to the left of the toe. Using both Fellenius” method, and Bishop's method determine the factor of safety for this tial eizele c= 15 kPa, @ Solution: 10%, Year = 20.7 kNim*, and yy = 17.5 kNim*. Slice no, h(m) —gttm) a (dee) 1 020 020 2 060 0.60 3 13s 13s 4 240 240 5 340 3.20 6 435 3.60 7 525 3.80 8 5603.80 ° 5253.70 10 435 340 nL 420 2 3.50 3 250 4 12s Sample calculation for slice 8: iy gap + A i ME 93.80% 20.7 +1.0(5.6—3.8)17,5 = 110.16 kN,146 Problem Sctving in Soil Mechanics weosa. 1=b/cosa=1.0/e0s14.0° yh, XL =9.81%3.80%1,031= 3843 KN. (veosc.—wi) tang’ = (10689-3843) tan20.0° = 24.9240N, €'x1 =150x1.031= 15.46 KN, 1 +(wcoste—ul) tang’ =15.46+2492=40.38KN. ‘ws =110.16xsinl 40° = 26.65 kN. Slice apse caie farce 8 eee weose ttm) wl (BHA) cl 5) (6) sina wo end! 1 443981085215 08562 ITOL 1.8 2 naz 20s Les GO? 2181S ITH B00 3 2794-2743 L019 B49 SOT 15.28 2035 5.3 4 #68 49.61 Loo 2387-948 ISO 243-260 5 6974 69.74 1.000 3139 1396 15.00 2896 0.00 6 — so 8724 00s 354918831807 33.90 840 7 10408 101.95 1.020 3802-2327 1530-3857 20.74 8 Net6 10689 1.031 3843 4921S 40382665 9 B71 9474 1095 39.74 20021642 3644 DIB to 9400 S221 14433813 605 3394557 1 33827036 Ls 12481779 30274482 57 Saas 1278 3981972724331 13 49193417 1439 2400 «3:70 2158 2528 3538, 14 287912961836 OSL «G78 TSK 2832.19.95, Toial aig? 27439 Using Equation 9.5: ‘The Bishop's method assumes that only the shear forces on the two sides of each slice are equal. This method is considered to be more accurate than Fellenius” method. An increase ‘of 5% to 20% in the factor of safety over Fellenius’ method is usually realised. The factor of safety is calculated from: ef b+ war Poa 1 zi ‘b+ w(l~r, tan en ‘Sowsinay, a here ma is defined by: m, =cone Statens ig = cosa DOE 98) ‘Equation 9.7 is non-linear in F and is solved by fixed-point iteration,Stability of Earth Slopes 147 ‘A summary of the computations is tabulated below where 3 iterations have been carried ‘out. The inital value for Fin the firs iteration was taken 1.5. Fo the socond iteration, the initial value of F is that computed from the first iteration (1.57). This iteration yields F = 1.57, thus the intial ond computed factors of safety become equal within a computational error less than 0,005. As a further check a third iteration is conducted with an initial value of F = 1.6 which gives a smaller value of 1.58 indicating the intial value must decrease. In general the factor of safety is selected as 1.57, which is 7.5% higher than Fellenius’ method. Sample calculation far slice 8: cb =150x1,0=15 0 N : w(l=7, tang’ = (1 -1b/w) tang! =(w—ub) tang’, w(d=7,) tang’ = (110.16 -9.81%3, 81,0) tan2000° = 26.53 KN. For frst iteration with nil F = Ls sinf4.0°xtan20.0° 13 be w(l=r,)tang’ _ 15,042653 img =c0s14.0°+ ay 1.029 @ ® © F180 F160 Slice eB (lr) +0) (@) @ oa —— ww fot (ona 1450 0791579 Osis 1937 os 1923 2 180 238 1738 0.912 19.06 0915 18.99 3 150 53570350938 21.76 0938 21.69 4 180 93124510986 2486 0987 2483, S180 1396 2896 1.000 2896 1.000 28.96 6 180 190¢ 34041919 33.40 10173347 7 130 2430 39.30, L028 3823 10283834 8 15@ 2653 4153 L029 4036 102s 40.52 9 180 24s4 3988 L012 3907 1006 39:30 10 130 2207 ©3707-0982 3737 0985 37.63 {1 150 1929 34290974 3520 0.966 35.50 12 150 1604 31.08 0.938 3823 094 33.59 1B 150 1183 26830869 30.87 08883127 4 150 6522182048 287 0735 2928 30.51 Total = 432.60 From Equation97: Fx1.S7 Problem 9.6 ATL mhigh slope for properties (Figure 9.5) Upper layer: 3.6.m thick, ¢ Lower layer: 3.5 m thick, c': = 6.3 Kl ich B = 35° is composed of two layers of soil with the following 20. 1 = 154 91 = ISN v: yo =20kNim’,148 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Figure 9S, Problem 9.6. The centre of the trial circle is located $ m to the right and 12 m above the toe and its radius is 13.9 m. Consequently the failure surface is not a toe circle but passes from a point 2m to the left ofthe toe. The total central angle is 99,6° for which the central angles corresponding to the upper and lower layers are 17° and §2.6° respectively. Data on the slices are tabulated below. There are 10 slices 2 m wide each. Calculate the weight of each slice from the equation: w= boyah + 72h), where fy, fz are the heights corresponding to layers 1 and 2 respectively. The angle a for each slice is to be computed from: in) =, R where ¥ is the horizontal distance from the mid-point of the base to the centre of the circle, Using Fellenius* method, calculate the factor of safety for the given tial circle, 14=03. @ Slice no, him) 00-0800 fom) 08 20 38 Solution: The results of calculations are summarized inthe table below. Note that the are related tothe last slice is located in the upper leer: Equation of the trial circle: (x= xe)? (ye)? = (5,042.0)? + (3.543.644.9)? =1930, Fory =3.5 m: (p70)? +(3.5-12.0) 93.0.9 =180m, This means the right edue of slice 9 passes through point B and only the base of slice 10 (BD) is located in layer 1, Slices 1 and 10 have bexk triangular shape. In a triangular sliceStability of Earth Slopes 149 it is convenient to calculate oF atthe intersection point of a vertical Tine passing through ‘centroid of the triangle with the base, Sample calculations for slice 6: 7h, + gh) = 2.0(18.0 2,80 + 20.048) = 292.8 KN, Om, R139 cose, r, seect= cosl6.7°=0.3xsec16.7°=0.645 W(cosa~1, seca) = 292.8 0645=1889 kN. vwsing = 2928xsin16.7°=84.1kN. Caleulation of shear resistance due to cohesion: Lely = 20.0%13.9%17.0°x /1 800° +6.313.9%82.6°«/1800° = 2087 kN. Slice na wis) (my ) cosa =ry see (1) (4) (KN) sine: KN) 1 200 5.67 0.584 UL 2 300 40 0.648 516 3 120-20 0.886 1043 4 2160 a0. 9.100 1312 5 2584-20 0886 173 6 2s 40 ois 1889 7 286.060 0.369 1627 8 2416 8.0 0431 109.0 9 1936 100 0.263 509 Toal (1) 1007.6 10 %4 1167 STL 0.009 00 ms Total (2) 00 Total 1007.6 5226 Using Equation 9.5: Diets weosa r,seca)tand'], x (sine), Problem 9.7 Asslope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and hight of 7.5 m has the following soil properties: cf =15 KPa, §°=25°, and y= 20 KN/m’. Using the stability coefficients of Bishop & Morgenstem (1960), compute the factor of safety for ry =0.0, 0.2, and 0.4. Solution: Bishop & Morgenstem method uses two stability coefficients, m and n, that satisfy the following equation:150 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Femm, 9) To estimate the factor of safety, the procedure is as follows: 1. Caleulate «7H from the soil and slope data, 2. For a value of «' / ff just greater than that found in step 4, use the corresponding section of table below and find m and n for ng =1. Use linear interpolation (for 6" values) if necessary, 3. If ms underlined the critical eirele is ata greater depth, Use the next higher value of ng to find a non-snderlinedn, Use linear interpolation (For values) if necessary. 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for values of '/yH just less than that found instep 1 5. Use Equation 9.9 to obtain 1wo factors of safety for the upper and lower values of € (7H Calculate the final factor of safety by interpolating between these two values © 7H =15.0/(200%7.3)=0.1 Tins there is no need to try steps 2 and 4 as Table 9.1 is for cy Table 9.1. Stability coefficients by Bishop & Morgenstem 1960 (or c!y#7= 0,100) recalculated by Whitlow (1990) corp 05:1 LL BL 4 1.00 20° 098 080 25° 110 192 1411.07 30° 121 128 138 130 35° 134 150 177437 4148178199 125 20° 148 103 1521.09 2°72 129 179138 30° 199 139 208 173 35° 227 190 240° 207 40° 258 223 274 244 150 20° 107 130 185 136 25° 2H 166 220 172 30° 24s 208 258 211 38 28 247 298 254 4or 333 294 3.48 3.03, 241 278 37 359 407 227 267 3.09 3 358 430 409) 436 238 173 276 200 283 221 328 253 333 272 386 312 388 528 449 3.78 449392 521 451 Fore’ /yH=0.1, corB thus select ng: For @'=25°,m=2.19,n For ry = 0.0: F=2.19-1.63x0.0=219, For ry =0.2: F22.19-16340.2=1.86, For ry= 04 F =2.19-1.63x04=1,54. (0 and ny= 1, is undestined for the range of from 20° to 2 25 for a deeper critical cirele 63Stability of Earth Slopes 151 Problem 9.8 A long slope is to be constructed using a material with: c' =0, = 35°, and Yuu = 20 KeN/m". Determine the critical slope angles (B.) for both dry condition and steady state flow parallel to the surface, Calculate the factor of safety for both cases if = Bo 1. Solution: For ¢, soil the factor of safety is defined by the rato of shear strength to shear stress on a failure plane parallel to the ground surface, then: seoneneetE er ean (9.10) VisioBoosh" tanB The critica Height His defined by setting Equation 9.10 to unity ey For the case where fi< g the factor of safety is always greater han 1 and is computed from Equation 9.10. This means that there is no limiting value for Hf, and at an infinite depth the factor of safety approaches: tang tan For a granular material with c= 0 and B < 6 the factor of safety is computed from Equation 9.10 (or 9.12). The case where > 4 and e' = 0 is always unstable and cannot be applied to practical situations, This means thatthe critical value ofthe slope angle is (9.12) 913) Pei 4) sin(2H) B. =0ssin“! x. @.15) YH ‘The case of steady state flow parallel to the slope angle ft and with the water table at the ground surface: fang! aia “HsinBicosp "tans If the water level is at some depth but parallel tothe ground surface: tang’ _ Yuh, tang | qisinBeosp tan 1 tan where fy isthe height of the water above the base of the slice. ifthe unit weights of the saturated zone and the zone above the water table are not the same, the term yA in Equation 9.17 must be replaced by Ey, Equation 9.17 may be conveniently presented in the following form:152 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ¢ y{ tang! =e 8) “sinBcosB 7 tanp By setting Equation 9.18 to unity the critical ieight is calculated as: =k 19) YranB—y'tand’ For the values of tof < ('/ an, the factor of safety expressed by Equation 9.18 is always greater than 1.0. [Minnie depth the factor of safety is given by tang’ vianp From Equation 9.20 we can also calculate the festor of safety for a granular material with 0. In this case tanB must be less than (y'/ y tang’, otherwise the slope will not be Stable, By setting Equation 9.20 to unity aerial slope angle is defined for granlar (9.20) 21) For the dry conditions the ertical angle is according to Equation 9.13: Be 35°, B, =tan 1(0.357) = 19.6 For B= Be/ 1.5 = 35.0° 1.5 =23.33° and dry conditions use Equation 9.10: e fang’ __tan35.0° yHsinBeosB tanB wn23.33 62. For B= 19.6° / 1.5 = 13.0° and the steady state flow conditions use Equation 9.16 ¢ tang! ng” yHsinBeosB tan ytanB— tanl3.0° 20.0xtan13.0° 1.54, Problem 9.9 ‘A712 mhigh slope, which has a batter of 1.0 horizontal to 1.8 vertical, is to be reinforced ‘with horizontal geosynthetic elements. Properties ofthe soil are 6° =0, 6 =38, y= 19 kim? and ry = 0.4. For a (0 circle of radius 10.54 m tangent to the base at the toe compute the total tensile force in the reinforcement assuming a factor of safety of 4 and using Bishop’s simplified method.Stability of Earth Siopes 153 Relevant data are given in the table below and b =2 m for al slices Sliem, 1 920 03 4 him) «17 49«S9 4418 ads) S54 166 284 418 595 Solution: . In the case of horizontal reinforcement in a cy, y= 0 soil, adding the moments of the reinforcement tensile forces to the resisting moments results in the following equation: ott Stroev, fe recta Wa ‘ (922) ‘where 7) is the reinforcement tensile force, y, is the vertical distance of the reinforcement from the x-axis and m is the number of the reinforcement layers. For the slope in the ',¢ soil Bishop’s simplified method is modified as follows: Liles wer, ean g']/m}, 1 Stroe-vl, si (9.23) Soesine, ‘The total reinforcement force Tiorat is the sum of the tensile forces in the reinforcement; it is equivalent to the integral of the lateral soil pressure «7, with the pressure coefficient k less than ky (for F =1) due to the slope angle. tt is convenient to assume a linear distribution for lateral stress with depth. Equations 9.22 and 9.23 are solved fora specified F to yield Trt am = ¥[roe-9)], =Tonat 1c ~H/3)= HPA 2My¢ -HI3) il 24 ‘The results of computations are summarized in the table below. Slice (mm) ee(deg) (RN) wsina GN) se ramp ma (KN) 1 17 S46 260 2 49 166 532 710 5 59 284 106.6 83 4 44 418 ua 6s 5 Is 595 589 306 Total: 3362 2710 ‘Using Equation 9.23;154 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 277.0+ AM 10.54 336.2 From Equation 9.24: AN = 20414 = Tg 10.54 Fel AM = 2041.4 kN, Problem 9.10 For the reinforced slope shown in Figure 9.6(a), calculate the total force in the reinforcement forthe tral two-part wedge shown, BC i parallel to AD. ‘The soil properties are: c! =, = 29°, and y= 18 kNim’, Solution With a vertical inter-wedge boundary, the mechanism is defined by three independent variables h, 81 and G2 (Figure 9.6(a). Ifthe inter-wedge boundary is not vertical then an additional variable is nceded to specify the boundary. In the evaluation of stability, only force equilibrium is used, The feilure enterion is assumed to apply on the three sliding surfaces, which in cura implies thatthe shear strength on these surfaces is fully mobilized In the two-part wedge method adopted by the Department of Transport, UK, itis assumed thatthe friction angle on the inter-wedge sliding surface is zero: wich results in reduced computational effort. Free body diagrams of the wedges (with the above simplifying assumption) are shown in Figare 96(0) where the total reinforcement force Tia is the sum of Tyand F corresponding to wedges I and 2 respectively ‘aor Ny Ue 6) Figur 9.6, Problem 9.10,Stability of Earth Slopes 155 ‘The forve system is statically determinate and Tips: can be formulated by considering horizontal and vertical equilibrium of both wedges: tani’) + U fang’—Cy)sec0, 1 tan, tang! (0.28) Where the first term represents T}, the second term is T2, and J¥1, Ware the weights of the wedges I and 2, Ci, Cz are the forces due to cohesion acting onthe sliding bases, and Ut, Us ate the forces due to water pressure acting on the sliding bases. Similar to the circular method, the computed value of Try! is assumed 0 be linearly distributed along the slope height, From the geometry of Figure 9.6(3 BD = 4,0 m, DC= 6.0 m; the horizonta distance of point from BD is 12.0 m, ant 40 60 4 3.69" and, eetae aalstaas ino Calculate the weights of the wedges: 1, =£0280210 go a1604%, 495120510159. 4204 As the soil is cohesionless, therefore Cy = Cp Caleulate the forces due to water pressure (Uj and U3) on the sl ing bases af BC and AB: O20, Uy = Ona Where a4 and ag are pore pressures at points 4 and B respectively 1g =0,u 4 =9.81%4.0 =39.24 kPa and, AB =V4.0? +12, 39.24+0.00 26 U2 ‘Substituting the above values in Equation 9.25: = 216.0414 33.69°— tan 29.0°) | ‘oral "T+ tan 33,69° tan 29.0° 432,0can18.43°— tan 28.0%) + (248,19tan29.0°)5e018.43° _ T= tan 43°00 29.0"156 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies T, +Ty =17.72+41.79 =59.5KN. Equivalent earth pressure coefficient (assuming @ linear earth pressure distribution) from Equation 8.7 (with horizontal upper ground surface) is | 95 = hl 180%8,0%. ke01. Problem 9.11 For the multiple-wedge mechanism shown in Figure 9.7(@), calculate the factor of safety for the slope assuming that no cohesion or friction is mobilized on the vertical inter-wedge planes of CE and BF. c'=9.5 kPa, #” = 30.8°, and y = 18 kim, Sotution: The free body diagrams of the wedges are shown in Figure 9.7(b) where c'm and mn ae the mobilized cohesion and ftiction angle on the non-vertical sliding surfaces. It is assumed no cohesion and friction are mobilized on the vertical interfaces, which means the corresponding intemal forces are normal to the boundaries. The solution procedure involves a selection of a factor of safety and investigating the force equilibrium. The intemal force Ez calculated from wedge 2 (Ezr) is compared with the corresponding force from wedge 3 (Ez,). For F = 1.9 these values become equal (within an aecepted erro). The results of the calculations are tabulated and sample calculation for = 1.9 is included. From the gcometry af the mechanism it can be shown that: EC=2.0m, ED= 140m, CD =2.44 m, FE=BC=11.31 m, AF =2.86m, BA =349 m. ‘The areas of te blocks are a follows: S:(CED)=1.40.m", Sa (BFEC) = 16.00 m2", Ss (AFB) = 2.86 m1 CCaleulate weights and cohesion fores: 401.0% 18.0=25.24N 6.0%1.0%18.0 = 288.0 KN 861.0% 18.0 = S148 EN.Stability of Earth Slopes $7 Figure 9.7, Problem 9.11 Cohesion force along CD: C=CDx1.0xc}, =244%5.0=12.2 kN, ‘Cohesion force along BC: Cy = BC «1.06, =11.31%5.0=56.55EN. Cohesion force along B/ Cy = BAxL.O% 65, =3.49x5.0=1TASKN, Vertical and horizontal equilibrium of wedge CED: HW, ~C00835.0° ~ Ry cost55.0°-17.42° 25.2-12.2¢0835.0°—R, c0337.58°=0, Ry =19.191N. By + C,sin35.0°—R, sin(55.0° 17.42) =0,158 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics E, +12.2sin35.0°-19.19sin37.58°=0, Ey =4.70 KN ‘Vertical and horizontal equilibrium of wedge BFEC: Wa ~Cy c0s45.0°— R, cos(45.0°-17.42°) =0, 288.0-56.55c0s45,0°— Rp cos27.58°=0, Ry = 279.81 KN, Egg ~ By + Cy sin 45.02 ~ Ry sin(45.0°-17.42°) = 0, Egy 4.1 +56.55sin45.0°—279 sin 27.58: Ey =94.26 EN. Vertical and horizontal equilibrium of wedge AFB: Wy + C3 c0855.0°— Ry cos(35.0°+17.42°) = 51.48+17.4500555.0° ~ Ry 60852.42°, Ry = 100.82N. Ey ~Cysin55.0°— Ry sin(35.0° +17.42°) =0, Egy ~17ASsin $5.0°—100.82sin52.42° =| Ey =94.19 IN = Ep = 94.26 EN. Fem (KPa) Hm (4ee) RN) RAN) REN) Fae&N) Fax KN) 17359 193217276996 1074S—-7433——«10326 18 528 1832182727806 © 103888480 SBT re) 1742 19.19 27981 100829426 94.19 ‘Note that the variables in the geometry of the wedges are not optimised yet. This means with the variation of the angles in wedges 1 and 3 we may obtain a lower Value for F. 9.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS ‘kinson, JE 1993, An introduction 10 the mechanics of sols and foundations. London: McG Hil Aysen, A, 2002, Sol mechani: Base cones and enginccring applications. Liss: Bae Aysen, A. & Sloan, SW. 1992. Slabibty ef slopes in cohesive reonal soil. Proc 6 Ausra New Zealand conf on geomechanics: Gecschnca sientifeation, elation and solutions 414-419, Now Zealand: New Zealand Geomechnics Soci Aysen, A. & Louk, F, 1995, Stability of slopes in cohesive frietonal soil using upper bound collapse mechanisms and numerical melds. Pro. 4” Australasian conf. onthe mechanics of Strutires and materia: 5559. Hobart. Ausal: University of Hobart Bishop, A.W. 1955. The wie of slip sie ine stabihty ansysis of slopen. Geoechnigne, 5) 717Stability of Earth Slopes. 159 Bishop, A.W. & Morgenstem, N.R. 1960, Stability coefficients for earth slopes. Geotechnique, 104): 129-147 Bromhead,E.N, 1992, The stabil of slopes. 2" edition. Surey: Surrey University Press. Celestino, TB. & Duncan, JM. 198], Simplified search for non-circular slip surface, Proc. 10" intern. conf SMPE, 3: 391-394, Rowerdam: Balkema ‘Chandler, RJ. & Peiris,T-A.1989, Further extensions o the Bishop and Morgenster slope stability chars. Ground engineering, May! 7491. ‘Chen, RH. & Chameau, LL. 1982. Three dimensional slope stability analysis. Proc, 4" intern, conf. ‘miner: meth in geamech 2: 671-677. Rowterdam: Balkema Chen, RH. & Chameau, JL, 1983. Three dimensional limit equiirium analysis of slopes. Geotechnque, 331): 31-40 CChen, 2 & Shao, C. 1988. Evaluation of minimum fata of safety in slope stability analysis Canadian geotechnical journal, 25(4) 735-748, Cousins, BF. 1978, Stability charts for simple earth slopes. Jounal GE, ASCE, 108 Duncan, 3M. 1996. Site ofthe art: Limit equilibrium and fine element analysis of slopes. Journal GE, ASCE, 122(7): 577-596, Duncan, IM. Buchignani, AL. & De Wet, M. 1987. An engineering manual for slope stability studies. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, Exxon Chemicals. 1992. Geoiertles: desi far soil reinforcement 2" edition: $8. UK: Exxon ‘Chemicals Geopolymers Lid Fellenus, W. 1927, Enditarische berechnungen mit reibung und Kobasio Emst Hovland, HJ. 1977. Three dimensional slope stability analysis method. Journal GE, ASCE, 1039): 971-986. Hunger, 0. 1987. An extension of Bishops simplified method af slope stbilty analysis to dimensions. Geotechigue, 311). 13-117 Janbu, N. 1968, Slope siailiy computations. Soif mechanics and foundation engineering report ‘Trondheim, Norway: The Technical University of Norway. Janbu, N. 1973, Slope stability computations. In E, Hirschfield & S. Poulos (eds), Embankment dam ‘engineering, Casagrande memorial volume: 47-86, New York: John Wiley Jewell, RA. 1991. Application of revised design chats for steep reinforced slopes. Georetles & ‘geomeminvanes, 103); 203-233, UK: Elsevier Jewell, RA. Paine, N. & Woods, RI. 1985. Design methods for steep reinforced enbankmens, polvmer grid reinforcement 7081, UK: Thomas Telford King,C..W. 1989, Revision of effective stress method of slices. Geotehique, 39(3): 497-802. Koemer, RM, 1984, Slope stabilization using anchored geotextils: Anchored spider netting. Proc special eotechnical engineering for roads ad bridges conf: 1-11. Harrisburg, PA: Pean DOT. Koemer, RM. & Robins, JC. 1986. insta stabilization of sol slopes using nailed geosynl Proc. 3" conf on geosynthetice: 395-399, Vienna Ladd, CC. 1991, Stability evaluation during staged construction. Journal GE, ASCE, 1171) 537-615, Leshchinsky, D.& Huang, C. 1992. Generalized three dimensional stope stability analysis. Journal GE, ASCE, 8(11): 1748-1764 Morgenstem, NR. & Price, V.E. 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotcchnigue, 18(1): 7993, Naylor, DJ, 1991. Finite element methods for fills and embarikment dams. In M. das Neves (ed) ‘Advances in rockfil structures, North AMlantic Treaty Organization advanced study intrue series: 291-339. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kiuver Academic Publisher. Spencer, E. 1967. A meitod of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel iterslice forces. Geotechnique, 171): 1-26. (in German), Bertin160 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘Tavenas, F., Trak, B. & Leroueil, 8. 1980. Remarks on the validity of stability analyses. Canadian -geoteclica’ journal, 1K}: 61-73. ‘Taylor, D.W. 1948. Fundamentals of sol mechanics, New York: Wiley. ‘UK Department of Transport. 1994, Design methods for the reinforcement of highway slopes by reinforced soil and sol neiling techniques. Design manual 4, section 1, FA 68194, Whitlow, R, 1990, Basic soil mechanics. 2™ edition. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical.(CHAPTER 10 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 10.1 INTRODUCTION ‘The problems solved in this chapter are related to the imate hearing capacity of shallow footings, piles and pile groups. The ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow footing is evaluated using traditional methods (Terzaghi, 1943; Meyethof, 1951, 1953, 1963, 1965 and 1976) including methods by Hansen (1961 and 1970) and Vesié (1973) with modifications by Bowles (1996); (Problems 10.1 to 10.4). All the above solutions introduce bearing capacity factors of Ne. Ng, Ny that are functions of the intemal friction angle 6 These factors represent the effects of cohesion, surcharge load adjacent the footing and the weight of the Soil within the failure zone. The improvements suggested by Hansen and Vesié take account of the geometry ofthe footing and inclinations of the load ‘and ground surface. The base capacity ofa pile inc, soil or cw $y =0 Soil is calculated using modified methods of Hansen and Vesi¢ (Problems 10.5 and 10.6) For piles in sands {c’ = 6, a solution proposed by Fleming et al. (1992) is used (Problem 10.7). This, solution is based on the known vaiues of density index Jp, the critical friction angle or and the effective overburden pressure p'o. The 4=N relationship used is taken from the theory of ultimate bearing capacity developed by Berezantzev et al. (1961). The shaft ‘capacity of a pile may be calculated by « method (Skempton, 1959; Tomlinson, 1977) where the average limiting shear stress t, mobilized on the shaft is estimated as a traction of the undrained cohesion c,.. The improvements proposed by Fleming et al. (1992) and Randolph and Murphy (1985) are used in the solution of Problem 10.8. An alternative effective stress analysis suggested by Burland (1973), (fp method) is considered in Problem 10.9. A pile wroup is treated using Equation 5.50 assuming a rigid cap resting on piles. Thus the individual axial force can be evaluated (Problem 10.10), The settlement of cach pile is estimated by establishing the vertical stress distribution under the pile using Mindlin solution (Problem 10.11). With the settlement caleulated, The Winkler spring model ean be applied to analyse the cap as an elastic beam supported by springs. 10.2 PROBLEMS: Problem 10.1 ‘A square footing of | m is located at a depth 1.5 m below the ground surface. The soil properties are162 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies = 0, = 40%, 7= 16.7 KNim, 750) = 20 KN, Using Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors calculate the ultimate bearing capacity: (a) The water table is well below the foundation level, (b) the water table is atthe ground surface. Solution: ‘The ultimate bearing capacity for a shallow strip, square and circular footings according to Terzaghi 4, =ON. +1DN, +0.5B PN, (10.1) 4, =13CN, +2DN, +04BIN, (102) 4 =12EN, + 7DN, +0.3B/N (10.3) The corresponding bearing capacity factors are: 2cos?(45°+ 61/2) N,=cotpN, -D, aia y, és cos? 6! fi Stand -) «ay From the given values of N; the following matching empirical equation is proposed: py = (BH? 44) +38) tan? (60°+9'/2) (19) ‘where ¢' (in the first term) is in radians. Figure 10.1 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors with the effective internal friction angle In the undrained conditions with cy and 6y = 0: 71, Nq= Land Ny =0 (10) ‘When the water table ison the ground surface the unit weight is replaced by effective unit weights Your Yu Where jw is the unit weight of water. Ifthe water table is below the ground surface then a linear interpolation can be adopted between two ws onc with the saturated unit weight and one with the unit weight above the water table 8 104 Using Equati +40.0°/2) As the soil undemeath ofthe footing is cohesionless, there is no need to calculate No. 400% Rr» 4 40.0% A002 _ 4, $00. 53.8 an? 60,024 40.0°/2) = 15781 Ps [« 180.0° 180.0° 5} 7 >Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 163 1000 100 10 Ne Ne Ny o 10 20 20 40 50 ¥ (degrees) Figure 10.1, Bearing capacity factors using Terzaghi’s equations The proposed equation for kin, overestimates the Ny value about 3% to $% (at high values) which is not significant considering that the Terzaghi’s method underestimates the ultimate bearing capacity nearly by a factor of 1.5. =0.5xtan40.0%¢ 3281-11241 cos? 40.0° N, ‘The Teraghi’s value for Ny is 100.39. ©) y =CN, + DN, +0SByN, =16.71 5481.27 +0.41.016.7 112.41 Using Ny = 100.39, gy = 2706 kPa (6) In this case we use the effective unit weight (or submerged unit weight): Y= Yeas Tw = 20.0-9.81= 10.19 kNim’, 4, =10.19 «1.581.279 +0.4 1.010.191 12.41 =1700 kPa Using Ny = 100.39, gy = 1651 KPa. Problem 10.2 Re-work Problem 10.1 using Meyerhof's bearing capacity equations Solution: In the Meyerhof's bearing capacity equations the shape of the footing, inclination of the applied load and the depth of the footing are taken into account by introducing the corresponding factors of s, i and d. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B)164 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies dy = ENeslele + DN ggg + OSBIN yh oz) For veriea load: = y= f= | and ty ON eSctle+1DN gy HOSBYN Sy aos) ‘The bearing capacity factors are N,, = exp(ctang')tan?(45° + $"/2),.N. ow, -Ds : Ny = (Ny —Deantl 49) (10.9) ‘The shape, inclination and depth factors are according: 2140. 23 tan? (a5°+4'/2), +0. 17 ea? (45°+6'/2) (10.10) For én by = 080i y 2) tol i cy +022 taase+4'/2), 02s 242 cos soil dy ‘The equivslent plane strain ¢' is related to triaxial ” by: hy nee R Obs 4! io. 4) 00.13) For the eccentic load the length and width ofthe rectangular footing are modified to: L=L~2e,,B'=B-2ey (0.18) ‘where ez and eg represent the eccentricity long the appropriate diretions. From Equations 10: Ng =eF 840 tan? (45.0° + 40.0°/2) = 64.19. Ny = (64.191) tan. 4x 40.0") = 93.68 Using Equations 10.10 and 10.12 0 nt se 1'12)=101! an? 45.0408 72)=146 7 B jot 012 ands 429-1403 ans ore an0'2 =kBearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 165 isBort a T= Vtandyt oA [Figure 10.2, Identification ofthe terms in Hansen's bearing capacity equations. From Equation 10.8 (8) 44, = 16.7 1.564.191 46% 32+ 05 ,.916,793.68%1 461.32 = 4606 kPa 4b) gy, = 10.19 1 5664. 191 46x 132+ 0.531,0% 10.19 93,68% 1.46% 1.32 = 2811 kPa, Problem 10,3 Re-work Problem 10.1 using Hansen's bearing capacity equations. Solution: Hansen's method extends Meyerhot’s solutions by considering the effets of sloping ground surface and tilted base (Figure 10.2) as well as modification of Ny and other factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground surface, base and load: Scled Be + YDN gSghgdyhy y+ OSBIN Syd by Sy (10.13) a> For horizontal ground surface and base be = by = By= ge= gq = 71, the general bearing capacity equation becomes the same as Equation 10.7, For the amdrained conditions: ~b,-g.)+@ «ans dy =Slde,(l +5, 4g “The bearing capacity factors of Ny and Ne are she same as Meyerhof above; Ny is Ny =1S(N, — Drang! 0.17) ‘The shape and inclination factors are according: 8 B ’ Sop ple saa Itza side ~048 4.9206 0.8) Nok L : L Me law Ses Bes sin spp 1-04, 206 (1019) For cys by =0 soil166 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics a 50.0202 Sop, 02 Fle (10.20) {,-—25%1_" TV de,cothl ) * 07H, inal 1-——_+ _ 10.21) welt tc] wy where i (in Equations 10.21) =B or L, 2a, £5, 2a £5, A is the area of the footing base and cp is the cohesion mobilized inthe footing-soil contact area. For the tilted base co. : 1°/ 450°), ” For cy, dy =0 soil 14 =0.5~ i=Bork (10.23) In the above equations B and L may be replaced by their effective values expressed by Equations 10.14. The depth factors are specified in two sets. De P For 2.s1, 21: Ee D D dap =14042, dy g =1~2tand'tsinp? 2 (10.24) D i 1D deg “14042, di, =142ung-sing)? 2 (10.25) For 2>1, 251 BL D dag =140dranD, dy, 142000 §0- 2 (10.26, 42 pau Le D deg = 1+ 0Atan Hs day, = 1+ 24a —sin g')? tan (0.27) Forboth sets d, =1.0 (10.28) For cx, dy =0 soil: do (10.29) For the sloping ground and tilted base the ground factor gi and base factor by are proposed bby Equations 10,30 to 10.33. The angles and 7 are at che same plane either parallel to B ork: Be Be =I“ Toa &y = By = (I= 0.StanB)? (10.30)Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 167 For cin due = 0 soil: B° 1031 Be" Tage (10.31) 1 -antang! Tyan : b age Oe eT by 1a (10.32) For cus bu = 0 soil: iw b6 = Typ (1033) Find N, from Equation 19.17: N, =1.5(N, —Itang! =1.5(64.19~ 1.0) tan40.0°= 79.53 ‘The inclination factors ig = iy = 1.0 Caleulate shape and depth factors from Equations 10.18, 10.26 and 10.28 +9. .0xsin40.0°=1.643, 10 ~042.1,0=0.600. Lo : arp pe) ant ES +2eang'( sing)? an) = +2tan40,0%( —sin 40.07) tan! 7 = 1210 d, =10. ‘Thus from Equation 10.15 and with c’ = 0 and be= 6, (2) Gy $16.7 1,564.19 1.643 «1210+ 0.5 1.0%16.7 79.53% 0.600% 1.0 = 3595 kPa, (6) gy = 10.19 1.5 64.19 1,643 1.2104 +0.S21.0 19.19% 79,53 0,600%1,0= 2194 kPa Problem 10.4 Re-work Problem 10.1 using Vesié’s bearing capacity equations, Solution: Vesié’s bearing capacity solution is similar to Hansen's with minor modifications in Ny and some selected factors. This method seems easier to use, since there is no interrelationships between different factors, In this method Equations 10.15 and 10.16 are used with the following modifications Ny =2N, +Deang (0034) For cys du = 0 80 AM, =-2sinB (1035) Tae other terms are as follows with the sloping ground (Figure 10.2)168 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics % B B se, / . sep lege pig Ir panb sp 10ST 206 Meh L is Sop ttt Esq = 14 tang, 5, =1-04£ 206 ek NA peg 14 BANOS Sy, z B L For cy, $y =0s0il 5, =0.2%, s,, =024 4 oh 027° a For i. use Hansen's equation; other terms are defined by: i= Bork peellnatiee Ae, co The, oo mH, Foren by=Os0il fg =1-2L j= pork tT AeyN, np a2tBle , 24LIB 2 Teard’ "Te Lie For the sloping ground and tilted base (Figure 10.2) Ii Hately ease Be ly spa g By = hy = tan x om =O nlp, - Foren y= soil g, = 2 t=1-— 8 __, 5, 24, <0-ntang? 7 T4tang #4 B For én du= 0 soil b, =P te 0x0, = A (10:36) (10.37) (10.38) (10.39) (10.40) oan) (10.42) (10.43) (10.44) (10.45) ‘The depth factors are the same as Hansen's method. For a circular base, in both Hansen's and Vesie's methods, the dimensions of an equivalent square may be used Ny =2(Ny +Dtang’ = 2(64.19 +1.0) tan 40,0° = 109.40, Shape factors are calculated from Equations 10,36: +(B/L) tang’ =1+(1.0/1.0) tan 40.0? = 1.839, s,=1-0.4(B/£) =1-0.4(.0/1.0) =0.60. Depth factors are the same as Hansen's method: dy= 1.210, dy= 1.0. (2) jy =16.7¥1.5% 64.19% 1.839%1.210 + 0.5%1.0%16.7 109.4% 0.61.0 = 4126 KPa, (0) ay Problem 10.5 (0,19 1.5% 64.19 x1.839%1.210 + 0.$1,0%10,19x109.4%0.6%1,0= 2518 kPa, Using Hansen’s method calculate the base capacity of a square pile of 0.4 m width and 10m length for the following two cases: (a) the water table is well below the pile base with y = 16.7 kNim’,Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 169 (b) the water table is at the ground surface with Yuq=20 kNim®, Ignore the Ny term. =0,4' = 40°, Solution: For ¢, 6 soil the general form of the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile base is: 1p =CNed, + Ned (10.46) where p's is the effective vertical stress atthe base level due to the weight of the soil and 11 represents the effect of the at-rest lateral earth pressure. The Ny term is negligible in comparison with the other terms. The Hansen's bearing capacity equations may be used ‘where the pile length Z replaces D in the depth factors and n, For cm dy = 0 soil (undrained conditions) the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile base is reduced to: t= Cue 0.47) ‘The term Ncde may be assumed 9 for most practical purposes. Ay =04x04=0.16 m0, Using Equations 10.9 we find Ny = 64.19. Depth factors from Equations 10.26 dy =142tan 40.0) ~ sin 40.0°)* tan*(10.0/0.40) = 1.328, (@) p%, 16.7 10.0 =167.0 kPa, Thus using Equation 10.46: 4p = 167.064.1931 328= 14236 KPa Base cxpacity: 14236016 = 2278KN, (0.19 10.0 =101.9 kPa. 01.9 x64.19%1.328 = 8686 kPa % Base capacity P, = qyAy = 8686%0,16 = 1390KN. Problem 10.6 Re-work Problem 10.5 using Vesié’s method with J, = 20 Solution: The values of N; and 7 (instead of N; and N, in Equation 10.46) derived by Vesié are: —Deotd" (10.48) sing! 5°91) Mkesin plex! 2—4' 1 Ja i049) (0.50)170 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics where £7 is the volumetric strain ofthe soil atthe vicinity of the pile base at failure and J, is a rigidity index according: jean op, ane aos) ‘The term G represents the shear modulus of the soil. Note that in undrained conditions ey=0, The parameter 7 is @ function of the coefficient of soil pressure atest condition k, in the following form: 142k, 3 ‘The Vesie's value for undrained conditions is: Mn, +0) (10.52) +2) Nt (10.53) From Equation 10.49 we find: (v2 PA sparc, 4 3 sin 40.0" 180.0° V7, = 58.10, The lateral sol pressure coefficient at-rest ky may be calculated from: Ising! (10.54) ~sin40.0° = 0.357 From Equation 10.52; ny=(1+2x0357)/3=0.571 (9) fy =O 871167 O58 tet R= TAT Pa P, = 7357 0.16=1177EN, (©) gp = 0.571% 101.9%58.1%1.328 = 4489 kPa. P, = 4489%0.16= 7I8RN, k Problem 10.7 pile of length 15 m is embedded in a sand layer with the following properties: Density index Ip = 0.75, critical friction angle 6'¢y = 33°, y= 17 KNim’, yay = 20 KN/m", Caloulate the base bearing capacity if (a) there is no water in the vicinity ofthe pile base, (b) the water table is atthe ground surface Use the iteration based method of Fleming ea (1992) Solution: ‘The critical friction angle @'¢y is a constant property of the soil being independent from the tial void ratio and stress level. ‘The magnitude of this parameter can be found from:Bearing Capacity of Shatlow Foundations and Piles 171 Mt oom where M=4'/ p' (Equation 4.12), 4" equals to (o's ~ 6's) and p' is the effective mean stress (o} +204)/3 ‘The appropriate value of internal friction angle under the pile base is estimated from the following equation: @'=6,, +3/p[5.4—In(p'/p,)]-3 (degrees) (10.55) where ps i the atmospheric pressure (= 100 kPa) The base bearing capacity is defined by: y= PNG (10.56) in which Ny isthe bearing capacity Factor corresponding to the intemal frietion angle ‘mobilized beneath the base. The effective mean stress p' in the vieinity of the pile base is taken as the geometric mem of the base bearing capacity and effective overburden pressure v= (KP, (10.57) ‘To evaluate Ny, an erative process is carried out by fist assuming an inital value for Ny and calculating p’ fom Equation 10.57. The corresponding 4! is then calculated from Equation 10.55 and, using an appropriate 4'-N, relationship, the value of Ny can be obtained, If this value is not sufficiently close (0 the assumed Ng iteration is continued _until the difference in Ny between successive eycles becomes insignificant. The @=Ny relationship used is taken from the theory of ultimate bearing capacity developed by Berezantzev eta. (1961) illustrated in Figure 10.3. {a) 7), =17.0x15,0 = 255.0 kPa, Assume Ny = 79.0, thus sing, = pf = {pp =V79.0255.0 = 2266.5 kPa 1000 nN, 100 fol! 25 30 35 40 45 4 (degrees) Figure 10.3. Rearing capacity factor Nj used fr piles in sand (Berezantzev eta. 1961).172 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 61 =38.0°+30.75{54—In(2266.5/100.0)]-3.0°=35.1° From Figure 10.3 Nj = 75.0. For the second iteration we assume N, = 75.0, therefore: iy = 175.0% 255.0 = 22084 kPa. 4 =33.0°+30.75[5.4—1n(2208.4/100.0)]-3.0° = 35.2" Seleet Ny = 75.0 5 = PNig = 255.0% 75.0 = 19125 kPa = 19.1 MPa (b) p', = (20.0-9.81)x15.0 = 152.8 kPa. Assume N, = 106.0, thus pl = {Np = $100.0 «152.8 =15280kPa, 6° =33.0°+ 3x 0.75[5.4 —In(1528.0/100.0)]~3.0° = 36.0°. From Figure 10.3 Ny < 100.0. For the second iteration we assume Ny = 90.0, therefore p= fpr VO ~152.8- 1449.6, 61 =33.0°+ 3 0.75[5.4~In(1449.6/100.0)]-3.0°=36.1° Select Ny = 88.0 5 = ByNig =152.8%88,0 = 13446 kPa = 13.4 MPa, Problem 10.8, Estimate the ultimate pile capacity of a 30 m concrete pile with Q4 m diameter in an offshore structure where the submerged unit weight is 83 kim’. The profile of the uundrained shear strength, which changes linearly between the measured points, is Depth) 0 6 «182A eu(kPa) 200440 440220 Solution: In the conventional analysis called « method the average limiting shear stress t, ‘mobilized on the shaft is estimated empirieslly as a fraction of the undrained cohesion cy: a0.s8) This method has been improved (Fleming et al., 1992) relating « to the strength ratio defined by cy p’g according Pa J yc\ Po 028 7 | (s] et (10.60) Pod yel PoBearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles \73 Where the subscript NC represents the normally consolidated state. For normally consolidated soil a = 1. The shaft capacity may be expressed by: 0.61) where ai cui are the average values related to a finite length of pile in specified depth, and Ay; the perimeter surface area of the finite length, Based on the experimental data, for driven piles reported by Randolph & Murphy’(1985) Equation: 10,59 and 10.60 may be simpitied to the following: a aras{ Sr) Seg) (10.62) Po Po 0.95 a=05 “) Su 10.63) e te oe ‘The results of computations are tabulated where the total shaft capacity is 4824 KN, Deh Gy Po ed, RAL =) Py) ay (kPa) (a) Ga) 06 3202491285 ODGH HHS 754837 G18 440 99.6442 O35. 1518 15.08 2289.1 1824 3301743189 0.426 140.6 7.541061 2430-220 2241098 = OSOS ITT 754 832.7 Total = 4824 alte « Sample calculation for depth 18 m -24 m , (average) = (440.0 + 220.0)/2 = 330.0kPa Pi, =83x(18.0+ 24.0)/2 =174.3 kPa, q/ Py = 330.0/174.3 = 1.89. From Equation 10.63: 5x(1.89)-"5 = 0.426, 0.426% 330.0 = 140.6 kPa A, = (x 0.4)(24.0-18.0) =7.54 me? §, ¥ Ay = 140.6 7.54 = 1060.1 kN, ‘The ultimate bearing capacity ofthe pile base is calculated from Equation 10.47 4p =e yNedle =, *9=220.0%9 = 1980 kPa P, =1980.0x70.4"/4 = 248.8N. ‘The ultimate bearing capacity Py is the sum ofthe shaft capacity P, and the base capacity Ps B, = Py + P, = 248.8+ 4824 ~ 5073 KN = 5.07 MN.174 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Problem 10.9 It is required to estimate the length of # frictional concrete pile of 0.4 m digmeter embedded in cohesionless soil. The ultimate bearing capacity of the pile is 1850 kN. The soil is comprised of 10 m fipe sand with y = 16.5 N/m’ and 6 = 30° underlain by @ course sand of y= 18.8 kNim” and (= 36°. Assume K (lateral earth pressure coefficient) = 5 for both layers. Solution: ‘An alternative effective stress analysis suggested by Burland (1973) assumes no effective cohesion on the pile shaft due to the remoulding effects of pile installation, The ultimate frictional shear stress mobilized ata specific depth on the shat is: 5 =o), tand!= Kp, tand =Bor, (10.68) where os i the effective normal stress horizontally applied by the soil on the pile, 3 is the effective friction angle mobilized on the ple surface, p's the effective vertical stress, and K represents the lateral earth pressure coefficient. For bored piles in heavily consolidated soils a value of K=(I+k,)/2is recommended. For driven piles experimental results give a range for K from 1.5 tL. Find the average effective vertical stress atthe fine sand layer: Pf, =16.5x(10,0/2) =82.5 kPa. “The average mobilized shear stress on the shaft from Equation 40.64 and by assuming 8 = = 3000": +t, = Kpy, tané’ =1.5*82.5 xtan30.0° = 71.4kPa, The corresponding shaft capacity is: Py = R04 x100% 71.4 =897.2KN < 1850.0 KN. ‘The pile must be extended to the coarse sand to the depth of! with shaft capacity of: Pyy =1850,0 ~897.2 = 952.8KN, pl, =165%100+18.8%1/2=16584 9.4 kPa, +, = Kp) tan6"=1.5(165.0+9.41) tan 36.0" kPa Pjy =9528= 4x04 x1 x1,5(1650+9.41)tan36.0", P-41755I~7401=0-1=3.5m. ‘Thus the total length ofthe pl is 10.0 + 3.5 = 13.5 m. Problem 10.10 A pile group of Figure 10.4 carries 600 KN vertical force at x 17 ma, The piles are of ‘equal diameter with s:= 14 mand sy = 1.2 m, Cateulate the vertical load at each pile. Solution: For the load distribution through a rigid pile cap Equation 5.50 may be used in the following form: (10.65)Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 115 y A cy af: tam i o7m aie x | Cee a eee aa Figure 10.4, Problem 10.10, where P is the total vertical load, My and My are the moments about the x and y axes (Figure 10.4), x,y are the coordinates of the centriod of each ple, f and fy are the second moments of arca of the pile group about the x and y axes, Sis the cross-sectional area of cach ple, Sis the total cross-sectional area of the pile group (excludes the area of the pile cap) and P; is the vertical load taken by the pile i. The origin of the coordinate system is at the centroid of the pile group, which may be different from the centriod of the rigid cap. Forn piles of equal cross-sectional ares Benet awe Ji n (600.0% 0,7 =420.0 kN.m, Considering the right-hand rule sign convention: (Mg =~ 420.0 kNm, My = 420.0 kN, xy Dy? =6x1.2? =8.64 m2 61.4? =11.76m, From Equation 10.66: 420.0, 4 7420.0 600.0 11.76 420.04 (000 5.340, 9196 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics Similarly, 16.7 KN, Ps = 66.7 KN, 116.7 KN, P7 = 75.0 kN, 125.0 KN, and Py = 175.0 KN. Problem 10.11 A pile group has 3 coaxial piles all having equal length of 10 m and are spaced equally at 1.5 m. The central pile carries 600 KN; the side piles each has 450 KN. Calculate the settlement of the central pile assuming skin resistance load mechanism. 1 (Poisson’s ratio) =0.3, E,=8 MPa. Solution: ‘The base settlement may be calculated using the Mindlin stress distribution. After dividing the sol under the base ofthe pile into a finite number of layers the vertical stress is computed using Table 10.1 (or relevant equations, see Aysen (2002) regarding tables for different values ofp and influence factors for end bearing piles) Table 10.1, Vertical stress influence factors due to uniform shear Force applied in the interior ofthe soil = 03) n000 002 0.04 0.06 008 0.10 O15 020 030 1.00 200 md LO co 68419 3.4044 2.2673 1.6983 1.3567 0.8998 0.6695 0.2346 0.0586 0.0076 11 1.9219 L861] 4.7072 LSI34 1.3211 1.1503 08368 0.6419 0.2335 0.0728 0.0091 1.2 0.9699 0.9403 0.9166 0.8825 0.8400 0.7922 0.6638 0.5588 0.2292 0.0760 0.0105 1.3 0.6430 0.6188 0.6099 0.5992 0.5850 0.5675 0.5157 0.4597 0.2207 0.0782 0.0120 14 04867 0.4558 0.4507 24461 0.4396 0.4316 0.4063 0.3761 0.2082 0.0796 0.0134 1.5 03766 0.3561 0.3533 0.3510 0.3476 0.3432 0.3291 0.3115 0.1834 0.0800 0.0148 1.6 0.3839 0.2805 0.2878 0.2868 0.2843 0.2817 0.2732 0.2621 0.1777 0.0796 0.0150 1.3 0.2664 0.2438 0.2414 0.2399 02384 0.2369 0.2313 0.2239 0.1623 0.0784 0.0172 1.8 0.2025 0.2065 0.2084 0.2044 0.2038 0.2026 0.1989 0.1938 0.1479 0.0766 0.0182 1.9 O.1847 0.1794 0.1785 0.1777 0.1768 0.1760 0.1733 0.1696 0.1347 0.0744 00191 20 0.1634 0,1565 0.1561 0.1556 0.1551 6.1545 0.1525 0.1498 0.1229 0.0718 00199 ‘The vertical stress component at any point with a horizontal distance r from the load Q ‘anda depth 2 > L (pile length) is: 2 nae (1067) where I is given by the above table. The coordinates of the point of interest are expressed in the dimensionless parameters of m= 2/L, and =r. The settlement of the base is approximately: w= DED, (10.68)Bearing Capacity of Shaltow Foundations and Piles. 177 ‘where /s the thickness of the finite layer, o' is the increase inthe effective vertical stress at the mid-point of the layer due to loading, and E, is the Modulus of Elasticity of each finite layer. For a uniform £; and assuming: Q = allowable load applied to the pile = Pa, substituting rom Equation 10.67 into Equation 10.68: Pa, sae Lys iy bel yy and oly ly+-+y =L (length ofthe pile Py Sta) _ Fo =e 2 4) Te, latoveraze) (10.69) which simplifies the use of the above or similar tables. ‘The soil beneath the base is divided into 5 layers of equal thickness of Q=h=h=l ny (ue to the central pile) = r/L=0.0! 10.0 =0, 1L=15/100= =11.0/100= 1.1, ny and m3 (duc to side ples) ‘my (centre of layer 1) == / ‘my = 13, ms = 1.5, m4= 1.7, and ms = 1.9. ‘The results are tabulated below: Layer z(m) m=z/L Ig(n=0.0) fy (n= 0.15) 1 od 19219 0.8368 2 Bo 13 06430 05157 3 15015 03766 0.3291 4 17017 02664 0.2313 5 19919 0187 0.1733 Total: 33926 2.0862 Average: 06785 04172 Using Equation 10,69: vp (due to midale pile) = 0009 96785 = 5.1103 m= 5.1 mm. :0x8000.0 vp (due to side ples) = 2x — 4500 __.9.4172=4.7%10-9 100x800 ‘The base settlement of the central pile is: wp(total) = 5.1+4.7=9.8 = 10mm,178 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics 10.3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS, Anagnostpouls, C. & Georgiadis, M1998. Interaction of axial and lateral pile responses, Journal 'SMFED, ASCE, 119(4) 793-798 APL, 1984. APL recommended practice for plang, designing and constructing fixed ofshore layforms. 13" edition, APERP2A page 115, Ametican Petroleum Insite, Arsen, A. 2002, Sof mechanics: Base concepts and engineering splications Lise: Balkema Fererintey, VC, Khairy, V & Gobo, V, 196, Load bei stpasty and defomaton of piled foundations. Proc." iner.conhSMBE_2: 11-18, ergdahl, U. & Hult, G. 1981. Load tests on frietion piles in clay. Proc. 10” intern. conf. SMFE, 2 625-0 Stockhoim Bolton, MD. 188, The strength and lataney of sands. Gepecnigne 361: 65-78, Bowles, LE, 1996, Foundaion anabss and design. Seton. New Yorks MeGraw-Hil Burland, 118.1973 Shaft ition piles in cay simple Randanental approach. Ground engineering, 68): 30-42, Busland, 1B. & Bubidge, MC. 1985, Selenents of foundations on sands and gravel, Pro, Part I, 78: 1325-1381, London: asitaion of Civil Engines Butterfield, R. & Doupls, RA. 1981, Flexibility coefficients forthe design of piles and pile groups CIRLA technica ote, 108. Cooke, RW. 1974. Setlenent of ition pile foundations, Proc. cone om ll budding: 7-19. Kuala “Lumpur DrAppolonia, . & Rowualdi, TP. 1963. Load wonsfer in end bearing stot H pis, Jounal SMFED, ASCE, 88M): 1-26 DeBeer, EE. & Marrs, A. 1857. Method of computation of an upper lit forthe influence of heteogensity of sind layers on the seulement of bridges. Proc. #” imerm. cont, SMEE, 1275-28 Londo Buuerworts DeNicola, DA. & Randolph, MF. 1985, Tensile and compression shaft capacity of piles in sand Journal SUED, ASCE, 11912): 1953-1973, Fleming, W.G.K, & Thorburn, S. 1983. Recent piling edvances: state ofthe art report, Prve conf ‘on advances i piling and ground treatment for foundations. London: Institue of Cis Fleming, WGK. Weltman, A.G., Randolph MCF. & Elson, W.K. 1992, Piling Engineering, 2° edition New York: Blackie Academie & Professions Francescon, M- 1883. Mode ile texts cay: srenses and displacenens due fo installation and ‘nial loading. PuD. Thesis, University of Cambridge Ghazani, M1997, Stare and chnamic analysis of pfed foundations. PRD. Thesis, University of Quesrsland, Aust Gibbs, HJ. & Holy, W.G. 1957. Reseach ga determining the density of sands by spoon pentation testing. Proc. ier. cont SPE, 138-39, Gupic, AA. 1984. Construction, design and application of post tensioned auger east soil anchors Titern symp. of prestressed rock and sol anchors, PostTensioing lsttute, Des Panes, 1, USA. Gupte, A.A. 1989. Design, consrution and aptcaions oP auger ptiog system for earth retention ‘nd underpinning of structures. fn J. Burland & 5. Michel (es), Piling ae deep foundation, 163-72. Roterdam: Balkema Hansen, JB. 1961. A. general formula for bearing capacity, Donish geovectnlcal istnne Copenhagen, Desmar Bulletin (11): 38-46 Hansen, 3. L970. A revised and extended formula for bearmg capacity. Danish geotechnical insta. Copeahagen, Desa Bulletin (28): $1 Jumikis, AR. 197, Foundation engncering Scranton, Pa {next Educational PublishesBearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations and Piles 179 Konrad, JM. & Roy, M. 1987, Bearing capacity of friction piles in marine clay. Geotechnigue, 37(Q): 163-175, Lee, SL, Chow; V-K., Karunarante, GP. & Wong, K.Y. 1988, Rational wave equation model for pile driving analysis. Journal SMFED, ASCE, 114(3) 306-325, Liag, SS. & Whitman, R.V. 1986, Overbusden correction actors Tor sand. Jounal SMFED, ASCE, 1123) 373-377, Lunn, T. & Edie, ©. 1976. Correlations between cone resistance and vane shear strength in some Scandinavian soft to medium stiff elays. Canadian geotechnical journal, 13(4): 430-441 MacDonald, D.H. & Skempton, A.W. 1985, A survey of comparisons between calculated and ‘observed seltlements of structures on clay. Conf om correlation of calculated and observed sresses and displacements: 318-337. London: Institut of Civil Engincers Mansur, CL & Hunter, AH. 1970, Pile tests-Arkansas river project. Jounal SMPD, ASC! 96(SM5): 1545-1582, Meyerhof, G.G. 1981. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechmique, 2: 301-332. Meyetof, G.G. 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads, Proc 3” intern. conf. SMFE, 1: 440-445. Zurich Meyerhof, G.G. 1956, Penetration tests and bearing capacity of eohesionless soils. Journal SMFED, ASCE, 82(8M 1: 1-19, Meyerhof, G.G. 1963. Some recent rescarch on the bearing capacity of foundations. Canadian _geotechnical journal, V1): 16-26 Meyerhof, G.G. 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal SMFED, ASCE, 91(SM2}: 21-31 Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of ple foundations. Journal SMFED, ASCE, 9UGT3}: 195-228 Mori, f & Inamura, T. 1989. Construction of cast-in place piles with enlarged bases. In J. Burland & J. Mitchell (eds), Piling and deep foundations, 1: 85-92. Rotterdam: Balkema. Peck, R.B, Hanson, WE. & Thombun, TH, 1974, Foundarin engineering, New York: John Wiley ‘& Sons Powtie, W. 1997, Soil mechanies-concepis and applications. London: E & FN Spon, Ramiah, B.K, & Chickanagappa, LS. 1982, Handbook of soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Reterdam: Balkema Poulos, 1.G. 1982. The influence of shaft length on pile load capacity in clays. Geotechnigue, 3212): 145-148, Poulos, H.G. & Davis, FH. 1980. Pie foundation analysis and design John Wiley & Sons Randolph, MF. & Murphy, B.S. 1985. Shaft eapacity of driven piles in clay. Proc. 17” offshore technology conf: 371-378, Randolph, MF. & Simons, HA. 1986. An improved soil model for one-dimensional pile driving analysis. Proc. 3” intern, con on numerical methods inoffehore piling: 3-15. Nantes, Franc. Randolph, ME. & Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. Journal SMPED, ASCE, 10MGT12): 1465-L48. Robertson, PK. & Camanella, R.G. 1983. Intepretaion of cone penetation tests. Canadians geotechnical Jounal, 204: 718-745, Robecson, PK. Campanella, RG. & Wightman, A. 1983. SPT-CPT correlations. Journal SMFED, ASCE, 109(11): 1449-1489, Schmertmann, LH. 1970. St ASCE, 9(SM3) 1011-1058, ‘Schmertmann, J.H. 1975, Measurement of in-situ shear strength. Proc. conf on in-situ measurement ‘of soil properties, : 57-138, New York: ASCE. Schmertmann, JL, Hartman, JP. & Brown, P.R_ 1978. Improved strain influence factor diagrams. Jounal SMFED, ASCE, 1048); LI3I-L135, Scod, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, LF. & Chung, RM. 1984. The influence of SPT procedures in ‘oil liquefaction evaluations Journal SMPED, ASCE, 11112) 1425-1445, je cone 1 compute state setlement over sand, Journal SMPED,180 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanics ‘Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity of clays. Proc. building research congress, 1: 180-189, London, UK, ‘Skempton, A.W, 1959, Cast in-situ bored piles in London Clay. Geotechnigue, 9: 153-173. ‘Skempton. A.W. 1986, Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden. pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geoteokigne, 36(3) 425-487 Smith, E.A.L. 1960, Pile driving analysis by the wave equation. Jounal SMFED, ASCE, 86(SMA) 35-61 Swoud, M.A. 1989, The standard penetration fst: As appliation and interpretation, Penetration testing im the UK: 29-89. London: Thomas Telford Terzaghi,K, 1943, Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R, B, [967. Soll mochanles in engineering practice. 2" edition. New York: Joh Wiley & Sons Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., & Mesti, G. 1996, Soi! mechanics in engincoring practice. 3° edition. ‘New York: John Wiley & Sons. ‘Thorbum, S. & McViear, RS.L. 1971. Pile load tests to failure in the Ciyde alluvium. Proe. conf. on behaviour of piles: 1-7, 53-4, London: Institute of Civil Engineers Tomilinson, MJ. 1977. Pile design and construction practice. 4" edition. Landon: E, & FN Spon. Tomilinson, MJ. 1995. Fowrdation design and contruction. 6° edition. Haclow, Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical Vesié, A'S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Jounal SMFED, ASCE, 99(SM} 45-73 Vesié, AS. 1975. Principles of pile foundation design. Soil mechanics services. School of Engincering, Duke University, Dutham, (38) page 43. Walsh, H. 1981. Tolerable settlement of buildings. Journal SMPED, ASCE, LOETI1): 1489-1504, Wellman, A. & Little, .A.1977. A review of bearing pile types. DoB/CIRIA piling development group, report PG Whitaker, T- & Cooke, R.W. 1966. An investigotion of the shaft and base resistanee of large bored piles in London clay. Proc. symp. on larged hored piles: 7-9. London: Institution of Civil Engineers,Index. Active earth (or soil) pressure 107, 114 Air content 1 ‘Anchored sheet pile 113 Anchors (conerete) 128 ‘Angle of internal fiction 33 Base capacity (piles) 161, 168, 169 Base settlement (piles) 176 Basie parabola 29 Beam (on an elastic foundation) 74 Bishop and Morgenstem method (stabil- ity of slopes) 149 Bishop's simplified method (stability of slopes) 101 Bulk density (see density of soil) Burland and Burbidge method 66 Cantilever sheet piles 125, 128 Copillary rise 22 Coarse sand 174 Coefficient of consolidation 79, 82, 93 Coefficient of curvature 6 Coefficient of permeability 21 Coefficient of soil (or earth) pressure at- rest 170 Coefficient of uniformity 6 Coefficient of volume compressibility np Cohesion 33 Collapse mechanisms 104 ‘Compaction: 1; standard test 10 ‘Compression index 79, 80 Conerete piles 172, 174 Cone liquid limit 8 Cone penetration test 67 Ist Confined aquifer 21, 25 Consistency states 26 ‘Consolidated-Uindrained test (triaxial) 7 ‘Consolidation: average degree 82; cor- rection for construction period 79. 94: ‘degree 82; settlement SI, 82; test 80 ‘Constant head test 22 ‘Contact pressute 49 Coulomb wedge analysis 113, Critical stability number 142 Critical state: line 41; parameters 41; theory 33, Darey’s law 21 Degree of saturation 2 Density: of soil 3: of solids 2; dry 3 Density index 9 Depth factor 65 Description of soil 6,7 Deviator stress 41, 43.45, 46 Direct shear test 35 Displacement diagram 01 Drained: loading 15; test (ianial) 36 Dry density-moisture content relation- ship 10 Dynamic viscosity 22 Earth pressure coetfcient(s) 114 Effective angle of internal fretion 162 Effective cohesion 174 Effective stress (concept) 15 Effective unit weight 15 Elastic settlement 49; semi numerical solution 63182 Problem Solving in Soil Mechanies Excess pore pressure 40, 82 Factor of safety: retaining walls 121, 23, 125, 134: slopes 139, 142, 143, 146 ‘allure criterion 34, 35, 38, Failure envelope 34 Falling head test 21, 22 Fellenius’ methed (stability of slopes) 13 Flow nets 21, 26, 28 Flow rate 21 Flow rule 102 Gravity retaining walls 120 Hydraulic conductivity 21 Hydraulie gradient 21 Influence depth 66 Influence factor: stress $3, 61; settle: arent 62, 65 strain 68 Isochrone 86; parabolic 90 Isotropic compression 40, 42, 46 Lateral earth pressure 113 Limit analysis 97 Limit equilibrium method 139 Limit load 97 Liquid limit 7 Log time method 83 Lower bound 97 Mass-volume relationships 1 Modulus of Elasticity 39, 69 Modulus of subgrade reaction 74 -Mob’s cite of stresses 34, 35, 37,56 Moh-Coulomb (failure criterion) 34, 139 Moisture content 1,3 Negative contact pressure $4 [Negative pore pressure 45, 47 ‘Newnnark's influence chart $2 ‘Normally consolidated: lay 38; sand 6; state 86, 173 Open layer SL ‘Optimum moisture content 1, 10 ‘Overconsolidated: soil 66; state 45, 86 Overconsolidation ratio 45, 46 Particle size distribution 1, 6,11 Passive earth (r soil) pressure 107, 14 Passive resistance 128, Plasticity chart 7, 8 Plasticity indices 1 Plastic limit 7 Permeability of aquifer 25 Permeability of stratified soils 26 Permeability tess (laboratory) 21 Phreatic surface 29 Pile: Axial ultimate besring capaci 169, 172; groups 174, 176; settlement 176 Poisson's ratio 40, 49 Pore pressure 15 Pore pressure coefficients 39 Pore pressure ratio 144 Porosity 2 Potential failure (plane) 135 Precansolidation pressure 46, 66, 79 Pumping test 25, Radius of influence 25 Rankine theory 113, 134 Recompression: 66; index 86; line 86 Reinforced soil (retaining walls) 113, Root time method 83 ‘Schmertmann’s method 67 ‘Seepage: flow 21; zone 29 Sertlement: alternative influence factors foslddurated clays 66; flexible and rigid {footings 49; the effect of embeément septh 65 Shaft capacity of piles 161 Shape factor 67, 168 Shear modulus 170 Shear strength: 33, 139, 151, 154; pa rameters 36, 37, 40, 115, 139: undrained mR Sheet pile walls 113 Sieve (analysis) 6 Skin friction 60Sliding blocks) 101, 104, 139 Specific gravity of solids 2 Specific volume 42, Stability number 101, 142 Sebility (of infinitely long earth slope) ISL ‘Stability (f reinforced earth slopes) 154 ‘Standard compaction test 10 Steady state flow 131 Stross discontinuity 97 Stress path 42, 46 Stress-strain model 49,97 ‘Submerged unit weight 163, 172 Taylor's (lope) stability chart 142 Time factor 68, 82, 90 Total ative thrust 115,118, 119 Total ead 21 ‘oral passive thrust 115 ‘otal stress (concep) 15 ‘Triaxial compression test 41 Tunnel heading 97, 110 ‘Two-part wedge method 154 Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations: 161; Hansen's methed 165; Meyerhofs method 163; Terzaghi's method 1625 Vesie's method 167 Ultimate bearing capacity of strip Foot- ing (limit theorems) 99 Uneonfined aquifer 21,25 Uneonfined compression test 40 Undrained: cohesion 159, 161, 172 conditions 15, 41, 100, 139, 142, 143, 162, 165, 169, 170; shear stengt 172 ‘Upper bound: theorem 97; solution 97 Vertical cut 102 Vertical drains 79,93 Virgin compression line 79, 80, 86 Void ratio 1,2 Volumetric train 41, 43 Wall adhesion 113, 120 Wall ition 113, 120 ‘Wedge (mechanism for reinforced slopes) 158 Index 183 Well pumping test (see pumping test) Wet density (see density of soit) Winkler model 75, 161 Yield criterion 97, Zero air curve 10