Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Eg1 Chapter5

    Uploaded by

    Andrew Lee
    7 views22 pages

    Original Title

    eg1_chapter5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views22 pages

    Eg1 Chapter5

    Uploaded by

    Andrew Lee

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    37 5. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS 5.1 GENERAL This Chapter gives guidance on the evaluation of geotechnical parameters relevant to the design of retaining walls. 5.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 5.2.1 Content of Site Investigation Guidance on the content of site investigation for the design of retaining walls is given in Section 2.3. A common starting point in site investigation is the collection of information about ground conditions and properties determined in previous investigations. This is usually followed by ground investigations using techniques such as borehole drilling, trial-pitting and insitu testing. For walls which are designed with retained heights of less than about 3 m, it is usually sufficient to select parameters for the backfill and the insitu ground on the basis of results of previous tests on similar materials. The materials should be carefully examined and described, particularly those at the proposed foundation level. Classification and other tests required to characterise the materials should be carried out both in design and during construction. This is to ensure that the assumed design parameters are consistent with the material types encountered. For walls designed with retained heights of more than about 6m, values of geotechnical parameters should be determined from laboratory tests on samples selected by the designer, or from appropriate field tests, in addition to detailed description of the materials. For intermediate wall heights, the need for laboratory tests depends on the sensitivity of the wall dimensions to the design parameters. A preliminary design of the proposed wall using assumed parameters is often useful in identifying those parameters that need to be obtained from the ground investigation. Laboratory tests are usually carried out to obtain values of geotechnical parameters. Good quality representative samples should be selected for such tests. Also, the test conditions should be specified in such a way as to model as closely as possible the conditions that are likely to exist at the limit state being considered. Field tests are very often carried out to obtain information to supplement results of laboratory tests. In situations where mass- scale geological features govern the behaviour of the ground, field tests can yield more reliable parameters than laboratory tests. For example, the permeability of the ground can often be determined more reliably by field permeability tests than by laboratory tests performed on small ‘undisturbed’ samples. Testing schedules should include a sufficient number of tests to provide results representative of the variation of material properties relevant to the design. Where established empirical relationships exist between results of laboratory or field tests and geotechnical parameters, these may be used to take advantage of the valuable database available. However, the applicability of such relationships to the particular field conditions must be carefully scrutinized. 38 The Geotechnical Information Unit of the Civil Engineering Library, which is operated by the Geotechnical Engineering Office, holds records of previous ground investigations and laboratory tests carried out for building and civil engineering projects in Hong Kong. Such records may allow rapid assessment of design parameters which are suitable for preliminary designs. 5.2.2 Evaluation of Geotechnical Parameters Only a discussion of general principles is given below as it is not possible to provide a set of rules for the evaluation of relevant parameters from geotechnical data. Designers should always look critically at material descriptions given in the ground investigation report. Where there is doubt, the designer should examine the samples or consult the people who supervised the ground investigation and logged the samples. Techniques based on statistical methods (¢.g. the Least Squares Method) are often applied to the test results to obtain ‘best-fit’ parameters (e.g. see Lumb, 1970). Such techniques should not be used uncritically. In the grouping of test results for evaluation, account should be taken of all available information, especially the geological conditions and the descriptions of the materials. Any anomalous test result should be considered carefully in order to determine whether it is misleading or represents a real phenomenon that should be accounted for in the design. "Best-estimate’ parameters are those which are representative of the properties of the materials in the field. They should be determined from a careful analysis of all relevant information. Statistical best-fit parameters should not be taken directly as best estimates without due consideration being given to the factors which can affect the representativeness of the test results. Sampling bias can affect the representativeness of the test results. For example, sampling of very weak material is difficult and test specimens that can be successfully prepared tend to be the stronger portions of the material. The same problem of sampling and specimen preparation occurs for insitu soil containing a significant proportion of gravel- or cobble-size particles, but with the opposite effect. Specimens containing a few or no coarse particles are often tested, giving strength values lower than the average shear strength of the insitu soil. The problem of sampling bias is not limited to insitu soil. The shear strength of compacted fill is sometimes obtained by laboratory tests on specimens compacted to the minimum degree of compaction specified by the designer. Such tests are likely to yield lower bound values of shear strength because over-compaction of fill usually occurs on site. Whenever possible, the derived parameters should be compared with relevant published data, and local and general experience. Published correlations between parameters should be examined and deviations from established relationships should be critically evaluated. Where possible, the derived parameters (e.g. soil stiffness) should also be checked against values which have been back-analysed from measurements taken from comparable full-scale construction in similar ground conditions (e.g. Humpheson et al, 1986). Commentary on the evaluation of test results to obtain 'best-estimate' geotechnical 39 parameters and an explanation of the basis of all assumed parameters should be clearly presented in the geotechnical design report (see Section 4.6). Relevant references should be included. If in the opinion of the designer the data are defective, inaccurate or insufficient, this should be pointed out in the geotechnical design report. Proposals for any additional investigation and testing required prior to the start of construction should also be given. 5.3. DETERMINATION OF SELECTED VALUES OF DESIGN PARAMETERS The determination of selected values of geotechnical parameters for design should be based on a careful assessment of the range of values of each parameter which might govern the performance of the retaining wall during its design life, with account taken of the conditions representative of the ground and the nature of the environment. Many geotechnical parameters are not true constants (e.g. soil shear strength parameters). It may be necessary to adopt different selected values for a parameter in different limit states and design situations. For example, different design strengths may need to be used when assessing potential shear failure in a soil containing relict joints, depending on whether the shear surface is free to follow the joints or is constrained to intersect intact material. Strain levels and compatibility should be considered in the assessment of strengths in materials through which a presumed failure surface passes. Also, different (upper or lower) selected values are sometimes used for the calculation of loading and of resistance. Selected values should usually be based on ‘best-estimate’ parameters (see Section 5.2.2), taking into account the following factors : (a) the quality of the ground investigation, viz. quality of retrieval, transportation and storage of samples, sample disturbance and quality of testing, in relation to the level of technical supervision provided, (b) the appropriateness of the test methods in relation to the likely field conditions, viz. geology, presence of strong or weak inclusions and specimen size relative to the mass characteristics of the ground, iC the adequacy of test data, in relation to the inherent variability of the materials encountered, the possible existence of weaknesses, sample disturbance and sampling bias, @ the appropriateness of the test conditions in relation to scale, viz. size of ground features relative to size of the retaining wall and in relation to the limit states being considered, viz. failure mechanism and mobilized strain levels, the effects of construction activities on the material properties, especially for insitu soils (e.g. excavation, preparation of the foundation, upward hydraulic gradients © 40 and dewatering), (f) the influence of workmanship for compacted fill materials, and (g) time effects (e.g. consolidation). If the design is sensitive to certain parameters (e.g. the ultimate bearing capacity of a spread foundation is sensitive to $'), the designer should take special care in assessing the reliability of the selected values of those parameters. Reasonably conservative selected values should be adopted where the level of confidence in any of the above factors is low. In this respect, sensitivity checks of design parameters are useful. At the design stage, the source of the backfill is usually not known, Assumed values of backfill parameters (e.g. unit weight and shear strength parameters) should not be overly optimistic, in order not to limit the choice of materials unnecessarily. Account should be taken of the specification of the backfill and the compliance testing requirements adopted. In the following Sections, typical ranges of values of various parameters are given in the form of Tables. These are for general guidance only. Appropriate values of parameters within the upper and lower limits given may be used in preliminary designs. For detailed design, the basis for selecting the value of each design parameter should be justified in the geotechnical design report. 5.4. UNIT WEIGHT Typical ranges of values of unit weight for selected Hong Kong soils are given in Table 8. The unit weight used for a submerged soil should correspond to the saturated state. For backfill, the unit weight may be determined from standard laboratory compaction tests on representative samples or estimated from records of field compaction tests on similar fills. The selected values should correspond to the compaction and moisture conditions which will apply in the field, Laboratory compaction tests are indispensable when fill materials from new sources are used. This is important because the new fill materials may have unit weights much higher than those normally encountered, e.g. soils containing metallic minerals such as the magnetite- or haematite-bearing soil found at Ma On Shan. ‘There has also been a case history of collapse involving a wall which retained soil-like industrial wastes with unit weight much higher than that of soil. For insitu soils, the unit weight may be determined from laboratory measurements made on ‘undisturbed samples’ taken for shear testing. Where the soil is granular in nature or is weakly cohesive, disturbance in sampling renders laboratory determination of unit weight unreliable. In such cases, conservatively assumed values are normally adequate for design. However, where accurate values of unit weight are needed, advanced sampling techniques using special drilling fluid may be used. 41 5.5 SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS 5.5.1 General Table 8 gives typical ranges of values of shear strength parameters for soils commonly found in the granitic and volcanic (tuff and rhyolite) areas of Hong Kong. Soils derived from the meta-sedimentary and argillaceous rocks may have markedly different typical values of shear strength parameters (see Section 1.2.4). 5.5.2 Design Soil Strength Model and Parameters The shear strength of a soil may be represented graphically on a Mohr diagram. In general, the shear strength (failure) envelope of a soil is curved. However, for simplicity of analysis, it is conventional to use ac! - $' soil strength model (i.e. a linear strength envelope) in design. In this model, the shear strength of the soil, 7,, is expressed in terms of effective stress by the parameters c’ and ¢' using the following equation : te sci toyftang 2. (5.1) where c', ¢' = apparent cohesion and angle of shearing resistance of the soil in terms of effective stress On¢' = effective normal stress at failure It should be noted that the values of c' and ¢' are not intrinsic soil properties, but are merely coefficients in the simplified design model, As such, they should only be assumed constant within the range of stresses for which they have been evaluated. Figure 3 shows two linear strength envelopes for a soil for two stress ranges. It should be noted that the linear envelopes are not tangents to the curved failure envelope. Also, it is worth noting that c! is lower and 4" is higher for stress range I than for the wider stress range II. The shear strength parameters of a soil are often interpreted from laboratory test results. It should be noted that where the Least Squares Method is used to obtain values of c' and ¢', problems can arise where there are too few test results and the soil is very variable. Figure 4 illustrates some of the pitfalls of using the Least Squares Method. When interpreting laboratory shear test results, account should be taken of the amount of data available within the relevant stress range, extrapolation required in the low stress region, possibility of curvature of the shear strength envelope and the likely variability of the soil. The value of c' in particular should be selected with care. A suggested procedure for determining the values of c’ and ¢" of a soil from laboratory test results is given in Figure 5. Considerable engineering judgement is required when selecting shear strength parameters for design, and account should be taken of the various factors given in Section 5.3. The ‘critical state’ strength of a soil (ey', see Section 5.5.3) can serve as a guide in the selection of the soil's shear strength parameters. ¢,y' delineates the lower limit of shear strength in a 7~ on (or pe’ - q)) plot (see Figure 3), where pj’ = (034! + o'/2, qr = (oe a')/2, and o,¢', 0,4" are effective major and minor principal stresses at failure respectively. ‘Asa guide, the lower bound value of ¢

    You might also like