Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www . elsevier . com/locate/engstruct
Universit de Bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5295-I2M, GCE Department, Bt. B18, Alle Geoffroy St Hilaire, CS 50023, 33615 Pessac Cedex, France
article info
Article history:
Received 27 June 2013
Revised 21 February 2014
Accepted 8 April 2014
Available online 4 May 2014
Keywords:
Continuous spread footing Differential settlement
Foundation and overall structure designs Geological anomaly
Low stiffness zone Spatial variability Finite element
method
Soilfoundation interaction Geostatistics
cavitie
s
or
bould
ers in
1. Introduction
soils.
The
Soil
exhibits
spatialprese
heterogeneities resulting from thence of
history of its deposition andthese
aggregation processes, which occurunfav
in differ-ent physical and chemicalorable
environments. This inherent or naturalmateri
variability can be also accompanied als
by a geological anomaly. A geological could
anomaly is any inclusion that is of lead
different properties from that normallyto
expected in a design soil profile. Thisunsati
anomaly may include weak pocketssfacto
or lenses of clay in a sand layer,ry
abstrac
t
Spatial
variability
of
soil properties
and geological
anomaly can
be
very
important
in
the case of low
weight
buildings with
continuous
spread
footings
inducing
differential
settlements
which
can
have harmful
consequences
on
the
structure. They
are also the
major source
of uncertainty
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
x
.
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/
1
0.1016/j.engs
truct.2014.04.
019 01410296/ 2014
Elsevier Ltd.
All rights
reserved.
prese
nce of
a
geolo
gical
anom
aly in
found
ation
design
param
eters
[1].
Raych
owdhu
ry et
al.
studie
d the
shallo
w
found
order to perform an
accurate analysis
leading to correct
designs.
In this research
work,
two
approaches
are
used for the design
of
continuous
spread
footings:
the first approach
with a foundation
design using a
one-dimensional
finite
element
modeling (1D) and
the
second
approach with an
overall
structure
design using a
three-dimensional
finite
element
modeling
(3D).
These approaches
213
Ec I
px ks b wx
d4wx
4
ks b wx qx
dx
where Ec I is the constant bending
stiffness of the beam (Ec and I are
respectively Youngs modulus of
concrete and the moment of inertia
of the cross section of the
foundation). When the deflection
w(x) is known, the bending
moment and shear force can be
determined.
Numerous expressions or semiempirical models are available to
determine
the
soil
reaction
modulus (ks) as a function of the
studied applications
[9,2124].
The Vesic semi-empirical model
(Vesic [25]), commonly used in
the design of continuous spread
footings, is considered in this study
in order to obtain a value of the soil
reaction modulus (Eq. (3)).
3
0:65 : 12 12Esb
ks
equation
w(x), of a
bending
bending
Winklers
a vertical
can be
Es
3
1
Ec h
m2
property as the Young modulus (E s) and thestudied by Cassidy et al. [26]. The
Poisson ratio (ms) of soil, cannot ensure that the finite element method has been
very same settlements which have been assumedlargely used in numerous studies
for the subgrade system will be developed also on to
model
the
soilstructure
the soil surface.
interaction: Denis et al. studied
When the structure rigidity is significant, using soilshallow
foundation
the Winkler model is valid. This has been pointed
interactions [27], Dubost et al. [7]
out earlier in the well known study carried out by
Stavridis et al. for the two dimensional analy-sis of and Niandou et al. [8] analyzed
soilpile interaction, Elachachi et
the concrete tunnel frame [16].
al. [911], Buco et al. [1214]
studied
soilburied
pipe
interactions.
In this section the finite element
models for foundation and overall
The influence of the soil spatial variability on a structure designs of the considered
spread footing, using a finite element model, was continuous spread foot-ings in this
3. Finite element models for foundation and
overall structure designs of continuous spread
footings
214
reconnaissance
buildings: a width of 0.5 m and a height The
(6
auger
of 0.3 m. Youngs modulus of the soundings
foundation (Ec) and Poissons ratio ofboreholes to a depth of 8
and
twelve
soil are respectively equal to 20 GPa m)
and 0.3 with a uniform loading of 30 kNpressuremeter tests (depth
of
boreholes
ranging
per running meter.
between 1 and 7 m)
the
surface
In foundation design (1D), this low enabled
weight building is modeled with aformations detected using
continuous spread footing (for examplethe VLF-R technique to be
for a spread footing of 6 m) as a beamconfirmed (
Fig. 3).
resting on an elastic soil with a uniform Deformation
modulus
loading of 30 kN per running meter as
(EPMT) and limit pressures
illustrated in Fig. 1. Finite element
(PL) are obtained for each
modeling of this spread footing has 12sounding
from
the
elements and 13 nodes.
pressuremeter test. The
However, in overall structure design pressuremeter soundings
(3D), this low weight building ismade to a maximum depth
modeled with four continuous spreadof 12 m, including a test
footings along with concrete columns, measurement every meter,
beams and floor slab in order to make it confirmed
the
sandyclose to reality. Finite element modeling clayey character of the soil
of these spread footings has 64 with, for some soundings,
the presence of sand,
elements and 64 nodes ( Fig. 2).
which
occurs
as
The computations are performed
embedded lenses rather
with the CASTEM software [28] usingthan continuous seams or
layers at depths greater
the Winkler model.
In the following the geological than 7 m. Pressuremeter
allows
the
conditions of the studied construction sounding
site and available data from the detection of a lens of
geophysical
and
geotechnicalclayey soil of weak
mechanical properties at
investigations are briefly presented.
the depth of 2 4 m. The
average values found for
4. Presentation of the studied site and the limit pressure and the
available data
The study site with a surface area of
2
i1
Fig. 3. Localization of the VLF point measurements, wells and pressuremeter tests in
the studied area.
Table 1
Average values for the deformation modulus EPMT and pressure limit PL.
FP1
FP2
FP3
FP4
FP5
FP6
FP7
FP8
FP9
FP10
FP11
FP12
3.71
3.21
5.1
3.55
4.41
6.5
3.88
4.38
4.46
3.58
3.65
4.19
P L (MPa)
0.73
0.64
0.8
0.5
0.81
1.05
0.69
0.87
0.88
0.7
0.45
0.7
E PMT
5.08
5.02
6.38
7.1
5.44
6.19
5.62
5.03
5.06
5.11
8.11
PMT
(MPa)
to be estimated, Z (x0)
is the estimated value
of the main variable at
x0, w0 is the
and becomes stabilized at a given variogram point
weight assigned to the
value called the sill. The range (or correlation value of the auxiliary
variable (S) at point x0,
length) is the distance at which the variograma
is
an
index
numbering the samples
reaches the sill value. The variogram will be used from 1 to n, Z(x ) are
a
for the geostatistical estimation and conditionalthe values of the main
variable
at
point
xa,
simulations that are explained in the ensuing
S(xa) are the values of
sections.
the auxiliary variable at
a
point xa, w z are the
weights assigned to the
values of the main
5.2. Multivariate geostatistical estimation
variable
(Z) at point x a
a
(collocated cokriging)
and w s are the weights
assigned to the values
of the auxiliary variable
When we have a variable of interest or main at point xa.
[6].
The
collocated
ordinary
X
where x0 is the point where the main variable (Z) is
This multivariate
technique
requires
the computation and
fitting of a variogram
model that contains
simple variograms for
each variable and a
cross
variogram
measuring the spatial
correla-tion between
both variables.
In order to use this
method, a correlation
must exist between
the variable of interest
(soil modulus in this
case)
and
the
auxiliary variable (soil
resistivity).
In
a
clayey-sandy soil with
no important change
in water content, the
more the proportion of
sand there is, the
more
there
are
(X m)
associated
with a range equal to
37 m (Eq. (6)), which
represents
the
isotropic
variogram
for the dataset,
216
to
in
Fig. 4. The bivariate model is
deduced from this model and from the
coefficient of correlation and variance
ratio between both variables.
85: 1
exp 3h
h : lag m
37
Fig. 5. Collocated
ordinary cokriging
estimate for soil
modulus.
Es beneath a structure.
Starting from estimation
2
results on a 10 10 m
mesh (Section 5.2) and
computing new results on
2
a 0.5 0.5 m mesh is
authorized
by
the
application of the three
perpendicular
theorem
[5]. Finally, results will be
analyzed in terms of
cumulative
distribution
function
by
postprocessing
simulations
results.
In the following, the
influences of the spatial
variability of soil modulus
and geological anomaly of
soil on the maximum
settle-ment,
maximum
differential settlement and
maximum
bending
moment of continuous
spread
footings
using
foundation and overall
structure
designs
are
studied.
6. Foundation and
overall structure
designs of
continuous spread
footings
The location of the
considered low weight
building along with the four
spread footings on the
Fig. 4.
Experimental
217
218
mean spacing of 10 m
between
measurement
points and a low stiffness
zones of soil such as weak
pockets or lenses of clay
in a sand layer with a
length of 2 m and a depth
of 24 m is difficult to
detect by geophysical and
geotechnical
survey
campaign. In the following,
for the same spatial
variability of soil modulus
(Section 6.1) and for the
continuous spread footing
(2) we consider that there
is a low stiffness zone of
clayey soil. For this zone
the values of soil modulus
and soil reaction modulus
are respectively equal to
3
1.64 MPa and 1.5 MN m
with a length of 2 m under
the continuous spread
footing and not detected
during digging out the soil
for placing the concrete (
Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 shows for both
designs
the
bending
moment along the lengths
of the spread footings for
the same simulation as in
Fig. 8 with considering a
low stiffness zone of 2 m
in the middle of spread
footing (2). For this
considered simulation, for
the founda-tion design of
the spread footing (2) the
maximum value of the
bending moment is greater
than that one obtained
from the overall structure
design at the same
position of the maximum
bending moment.
The
1000
results
obtained for the maximum
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution function of the (a)settlement,
maximum
maximum settlement, (b) maximum differential
differential settlement and
settlement and (c) maximum bending moment
bending
for the Vesic model taking into account the maximum
for each of
spatial variability of Es for the continuous spreadmoment
footing (2).
foundation and overall
structure designs of this
contin-uous spread footing
are transformed in the
form of cumulative distribution function ( Fig.
12).
For the foundation
design of this continuous
spread
footing
the
intervals of the maximum
settlement,
maximum
differential settlement and
maximum
bending
moment ranging between
1% and 99% of cumulative
probability are respectively
[11.12, 12.44] mm, [3.49,
5.42] mm and [26.7, 28.52]
kN m. The latter intervals
for the overall structure
design of this continuous
spread
footing
are
respectively [8.8, 9.8] mm,
[0.86, 2.29] mm and [17,
18.9] kN m ( Fig. 12).
From these results we
obtain for each design the
means (E[DA], - E[DdA],
E[MA]), variances (Var[DA],
Var[DdA], Var[MA]) and
then the coefficients of
variation
(CV[DA],
CV[DdA], CV[MA]) of the
maximum settlement (DA),
maximum
differential
settlement
(DdA)
and
maximum
bending
moment (MA) ( Tables 4
and 5).
6.3. Comparison and
discussion
We
compare
the
results presented for the
considered
continu-ous
spread footing in the two
previous
sections
(Sections 6.1 and 6.2) in
order
to
show
the
influence of the spatial
variability of soil modulus
and the presence of a
geological anomaly on the
estima-tions
of
the
maximum
settlement,
maximum
differential
settle-ment,
maximum
bending moment and their
associated uncertainties.
The values of the
maximum settlements and
maximum
differ-ential
settlements obtained for
the continuous spread
footing (2) taking into
account only the spatial
variability of soil modulus,
from the overall structure
design are softly smaller
than those obtained from
the foundation design (
8.006
0.0204
CV[D]
0.0179
E[Dd] (mm)
2
Var[Dd] (mm)
1.472
0.2692
E[M] (kN m)
2
Var[M] (kN m)
0.7540
0.1827
CV[Dd]
0.3524
CV[M]
0.5670
E[D] (mm)
2
Var[D] (mm)
7.750
0.0332
E[Dd] (mm)
2
Var[Dd] (mm)
1.094
0.1271
E[M] (kN m)
2
Var[M] (kN m)
1.876
0.4562
CV[D]
0.0235
CV[Dd]
0.3257
CV[M]
0.3601
structure
system,
Fig. 9c) and then the
same
interpretation
for the mean of the
maximum
bending
moments ( Tables 2
and 3). Note that, the
values
of
the
maximum
bending
moments remain low
compared
to
the
value of the maximum
elastic
bending
Fig. 10. Schematic view of the finite element modeling of the moment equal to 37.5
spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a
kN
m
for
such
geological anomaly for the continuous spread footing (2).
structural elements.
The uncertainty of the
maximum
bending
moment from 1D
modeling is greater
than
that
one
obtained from 3D
modeling ( Tables 2
and 3). This shows
that, although the
mean value of the
maximum
bending
moment
obtained
from
the
overall
structure design is 2.5
times greater than
that one obtained
Fig. 11. Bending moment along the spread footings of the
from the foundation
low weight building for both foundation and overall structure
the
designs in the presence of the spatial variability of E s and adesign,
uncertainty of the
geological anomaly for one simulation.
maximum
bending
moment
for
the
structure
close together ( Tables 2 and 3). In this case, a overall
one dimensional finite element modelingdesign is less than
(foundation system) is sufficiently ade-quate forthe same uncertainty
the design of spread footings. It should be notedfor the geotechnical
that this result is valid for the identical charges on design.
For the overall
each of the spread footings.
structure design, all of
However, there is a difference between thethe spread footings
values of maximum bending moments obtained are affected by almost
same
spatial
from these both designs. The obtained values ofthe
of
soil
the maximum bending moments from 1Dvariability
modeling (foun-dation system) are smaller than modulus
those obtained from 3D modeling (overall
220
Table 4
Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the foundation design of continuous spread footing (2) with
taking into account the spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a geological anomaly.
Statistical parameters (foundation design, 1D)
Maximum settlement (DA)
E[DA] (mm)
2
Var[DA] (mm)
11.783
0.0826
E[DdA] (mm)
2
Var[DdA] (mm)
4.332
0.1485
E[MA] (kN m)
2
Var[MA] (kN m)
27.557
0.1364
CV[DA]
0.0244
CV[DdA]
0.0890
CV[MA]
0.0134
Table 5
Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the overall structure design of continuous spread footing (2)
with taking into account the spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a geological anomaly.
Statistical parameters (overall structure design, 3D)
Maximum settlement (DA)
E[DA] (mm)
2
Var[DA] (mm)
9.281
0.0480
E[DdA] (mm)
2
Var[DdA] (mm)
1.421
0.0768
E[MA] (kN m)
2
Var[MA] (kN m)
17.702
0.1127
CV[DA]
0.0236
CV[DdA]
0,1950
CV[MA]
0.0190
In fact, in the overall structure design, the presence of a geolog-icalEs coupled with the presence of a
anomaly leads to an anisotropic spatial variability of soil modulus on thegeolog-ical anomaly as a lens of
beneath the spread footings which leads to signif-icant impacts on their clayey soil of weak mechanical
settlements and their bending moments. This is illustrated for the bendingproperties.
The values of the maximum
moment as previously presented in Fig. 11 only for one simulation. The
settlements, maximum differential
values of the bending moment for the spread footings (1), (3) and (4) are
settlements and their associated
between 4.3 to +5.7 kN m ( Fig. 11), which are identical to some extent to
uncertainties obtained from the
those obtained without taking into account the geological anomaly ( Fig.
both foundation and overall
8). However, we observe a considerably different distribution of these
structure
designs
of
the
values along their lengths which is due to an effect of load redistribution
continuous spread footing taking
in the structure [21]. The values of the bending moment for the spread into account only the spatial
footing (2) are smaller than those obtained from the foundation design (
variability of Es (first case) are
Fig. 11). The load redistribution effect
nearly close together. In this case,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-81-
[2]
[3]
[4]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
variability on reliability
2012;43:6171.
[12]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[6]
[13]
[19]
[1]
[5]
221
[20]
[21]
[22]
Sadrekarimi
Comparative
study
Geotechnique
J,
of
Akbarzad
methods
M.
of
determination of
coefficient of subgrade
reaction. Electr J Geotech Eng 2009:14.
[23]
Comput
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
Appl
[31]
[32]
[33]
Chentsov
[34]
[35]
[36]