Geotechnical Engineering Handbook

Geotechnical Engineering Handbook Editor: Ulrich Smoltezyk Erste Sohn ‘A wiley Companydar: Professor Dr.tng. Ulion Smoltcayc AdlersiraBe 63 71032 Beblingen Cover: Campo Vatle Maga, Tessin Inetrurentation for Investigating an extensive 260 m deep sliding mass, Soloxperts AG This hook contains 616 Figures and 82 tables Dre Deutsche Bibliothek ~ CIP Cataloguing:in Publication Data ‘catalogue vecard for this publeation Is avaable ‘ror Dle Deutschan Bibllothek (SBN 3.43301493 © 2002 Eenst & Sahn Verlag flr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH und Co. KG, Berlin All rignts reserved, especially thase of translation into other languages. No part of tis book may be reproduced In any form ~ i.e. by photocopying, microphotograpiy, oF any other process ~ or be rendered or translated into language useabie by machines, especially data pracessing machines, without written permission of the publisher. ‘Typasetting: Naitterweger & Partner Kommunikationsgeselischaft mbH, Prankstadt Printing: BetzDruck GmbH, Darmstadt Binding: Litges & Dopf Buchbindarei GmbH, Heppenheim Printed in GermanyPreface to Volumes 1 to 3 ‘Tt was in the early 1950s that a German consultant in Berlin came to the conclusion that structural engineers needed much more guidance on the special problems which they faced ona daily basis due to geotechnical difficulties associated with designing structures. He discussed this with his professional friends in civil engineering companies, administration and science and with a publisher who became quite interested in editing an appropriate “pocket book” about geotechnical matters. This was the birth of the German “Grundbau- ‘Taschenbuch” (ground engineering pocket book). The first edition had already been quite a success for the publisher but some professionals thought it could be impraved. The editor at that time was assisting his professor of soil mechanics and foundation engineering at the Technical University in Berlin, who was also a member of the editorial board, He asked me to consider the concerns that had been raised. and as a result of I was given the job of criticizing authors who were much more experienced and prominent than myself. T hope, however, that those authors who are still alive, will forgive the ‘youngster’ for some of the things he wrote. In subsequent editions we added material that we thought might provide additional professional help. This, however, made the “pocketbook” expand until today it comprises three volumes of a handbook that was published at the beginning of the 2Ist century in its sixth edition. There is a general topic to each volume: the first one deals with the fundamentals, the second with geotechnical procedures and the third one with foundation elements and structures. Potential subscribers asked me why I thought they might be persuaded to spend money on a sixth edition when they already had the fifth one? I was glad to point out the fact that firstly, we have been lucky enough to obtain new and famous authors to bring a fresh viewpoint to many of the problems, and secondly that the significant harmonisation of design rules in Europe has produced new types of verification procedures due to limit state design which will be new to some pract Recently, globalization has also become an essential topic, both in the field of publish- ing and in international civil engineering activities. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, a publisher of technicat iiterature for more than 19U years, became associated wiih Wiley of New York, and the question was asked as to why such a handbook on geotechnics was not available in English, You are now holding the result of this discussion but we should confess that has not been an easy job. It was realized that for many of the chapters, a one-by-one translation would not have been appropriate. The authors of the various chapters were therefore asked to review their texts on behalf of the readers outside German speaking countries and to consider the international state of the art to that extent that would, at the very least, allow further concise guidance to be given by appropriate references. AS a book devoted to daily practice of experts, it also had to take account of the considerable bulk of technical rules already in place, the contents of which should not be repeated simply to fill pages but should be commented on, controversially if necessary.vi Preface to Volumes 1 t03 ‘Volume 1 starts with an overview of the state of international geotechnical harmonisation, which has been achieved by the civil engineering Eurocode programme in which design is now based on the concept of limit state analysis and the establishment of characteristic values for actions and resistances. Since the editor for more than the last two decades participated in this work, he became well aware of the difficulties raised by the need to find the relationship between conventionally applied geotechnical parameters and characteristic values. Chapter 1.2 is therefore devoted to finding the characteristic values for geotechnical parameters, The next two chapters deal with field and laboratory testing whilst emphasising the state of knowledge documented in the pre-standard versions of Furocode 7 ~ Parts 2 and 3, Chapters 1.5 to 1.9 describe the scientific background and calculation models to be used in geotechnical design, whilst Chapter 1.10 explains how these numerical tools can be used nowadays in design practice. As surveying has always been @ most important method of controlling the performance of geotechnical structures during construction and thereafter — especially when obser- yational methods are used ~ the state of modern geodetic know-how, including satellite positioning is covered in Chapter 1.11. To supplement field-testing, Chapter 1.12 gives details of the recent developments in measurement equipment. The special issues associated with defining the actions caused by ice and ice flows are described in Chapter 1.14. Finally, Chapters 1.13 and 1.15 focus on the engineering geology problems of mass movements and rock mechanics problems of slope stability. Volume 2 collects together 14 chapters dealing with the various procedures available for ground improvement (Chapter 2.1), grouting (Chapter 2.2), underpinning (Chap- ter2,3), freezing techniques (Chapter2.4), anchoring (Chapter 2.5), drilling (Chapter2.6), Griving and pulling (Chapter 2.7), offshore processing (Chapter 2.8), ground dewatering (Chapter 2.9), rock excavation (Chapter 2.10), tube jacking (Chapter 2.11), earth works (Chapter 2.12), application of geotextiles (Chapter 2.13), and engineering biolos (Chapter 2.14), Each of these chapters has been produced by authors who are experts in their specific professional field. They outline the most recent developments that have occurred and provide the information necessary for geotechnical designers to select the proper method to achieve their foundation proposals. The broad variety of techniques used required a very concise treatment of the information, often leaving the technical details to those who are especially familiar with these. Volume 3 is concemed with the geotechnical design of structures, starting with spread foundations (Chapter 3.1), pile foundations (Chapter 3.2), and caissons (Chapter 3.3). ‘The application of the new limit state concep is illustrated by examples. This also applies to Chapter 3.4 on the stability of excavations, in which German and British practice are compared, Chapters 3.5 and 3,6 are concemed with excavation pits protected by trench retaining walls or sheet pile walls, and in Chapter 3.7 a general outline of gravity walls is presented. The special aspects of machine foundations and foundations in areas of subsidence are dealt with in Chapters 3.8 and 3.9 and finally the waterproofing of structures is discussed in Chapter 3.10. Hopefully, the three volumes will enable the practicing engineer to interpret test results ina more meaningful way, to judge the likely limitations of any chosen method with more confidence and to therefore find the most appropriate solution to the foundation problems that he is faced with solving in his daily practice. The object of this handbook is also to close the credibility gap between geotechnical science and practice that is often seen in either type of congress and symposium,Preface to Volumes 1 103 VIL ‘The editor gratefully acknowledges the involvement of the authors who have spent a considerable amount of extra time producing the chapters, over and above their daily professional duties ~ especially as not all of them are sufficiently familiar with the English language. Where such difficulties arose, the authors were asked to focus on providing the correct translation of their technical terms. The linguistic improvement, was then provided by Robert W. East, of Aylesbury, UK, whose help reviewing the papers is much appreciated. October 2002 Ulrich SmoltczykList of contributors Dipl.-Ing. Christophe Bauduin NV. BESIX S.A. Avenue des Communautés 100 1200 Bruxelles Belgium (Chap. 11 International agreements, Chap. 1.2 Determination of characteristic values) Ulf Bergdahl Chief Engineer ‘Swedish Geotechnical Institute 58193 Linkdping Sweden (Chap. 1,3 Geotechnical field investigations) Dr. Jan Bohée Department of Engineering Geology Charles University Albertov 6 12843 Praha 2 Czech Republic (Chap. 1.4 Properties of soils and rocks and their laboratory determination) Dr.-Ing. Clans Erichsen Grundbau und Felsbau GmbH HenricistraBe 50 52072 Aachen Germany (Chap. 1.15 Stability of rock slopes) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. hc. Gerd Gudehus Institut fir Bodenmechanik und Grundbau Universitit Karlsruhe POB 6980 76128 Karlsruhe Germany (Chap. 1.5 Constitutive laws for soits from a physical viewpoint, Chap. 1.9 Earth pressure determination) Prof. Dr-Ing. Peter Gussmann Am Baechle 3 74629 Untersteinbach Germany (Chap. 1.10 Numerical methods) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Hager Merler Allee 99 53125 Boan Germany (Chap. 1.14 ee loading actions) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gunter Klein Ostieldstrabe 64a 30559 Hannover Germany (Chap. 2 8 Soil dynamics arab earthquake Prof. Dr. Edmund Krauter geo-international Mombacker Strabe 49-53 55122 Mainz Germany (Chap. 1.13 Phenomenology of natural slopes and their mass movement)XX Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. sc. techn. h.c. Klaus Linkwitz Obcre Tannenbergstrate 24 71229 Leonberg Germany (Chap. 1.11 Metrotogical monitoring of slopes, embankments and retaining walls) Dr.-Ing. Klaus-Jiirgen Melzer KJM Industry Consult Drosselweg 7a 61440 Oberursel Germany (Chap. 1.3 Gevtechnicat field investigations) Prof. Dr, Roberto Nova Politecnico di Milano Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 20133 Milano Italy (Chap. 1.7 Treatment of geotechnical ultimate limit states by the theory of plasticity) Prof, PhD DSc (Eng,) Harry Poulos PO Box 125 North Ryde New South Wales Australia 2113 (Chap. 1.6 Cateulation of stress and settlement in soil masses) Priv-Doz. Dr.-Ing. Herrmann Schad ReinsburgstraBe 111b 70197 Stuttgart Germany (Chap. 1.10 Numerical methods} Prof. Dr.-Ing. Willfried Schwarz Am Appelgraben 50 59425 Weimar-Taubach Germany (Chap. 1.11 Metrological monitoring of slopes, embankments and retaining walls) List of contributors Prof, PhD Jan M. Smith Simon Engineering clo University of Manchester Brunswick Street Manchester M13 9PL_ Great Britain (Chap. 1.10 Numecical methods) Prof. Dr-Ing. habil. Dr-Ing. E.h. rich Smoltczyk Adlerstrae 63 71032 Béblingen Germany (Chup. 1.1 International agreements) Dipl.-Ing, Paul von Soos Reubweg 30 81247 Munchen Germany (Chap. 14 Properties of soils and rocks and their laboratory determination} Dr.-Ing. Frank Sperling Spinozawej 12 2202 AV Nordwijk ‘The Netherlands (Chap, 1.8 Soil dynamics and earthquakes) Dr. Arno Thut Solexperts AG POB 230, 8603 Schwerzenbach Switverland (Chap. 1.12 Geotechnical meastrement procedures) Prof, Dr-Ing, Walter Wittke. WBI- Beratende Ingenieure far Grundbau und Felsbau GmblL Alenricistrabe 50 52072 Aachen Germany (Chap. 1,15 Stability of rock stopes)Li t of contributors ‘ony Barley Geotechnical Consultant High View Harlow Pines, Harrogate HG3 1PZ, England (Chap. 2.5 Ground anchors) Dipl-ing. Bernd Braun 620 Dover Court Coppell, 1°X 75019-2866 USA (Chap. 2.4 Ground freezing) Jacob Gerrit de Gijt Gemeentewerken Rotterdam Galvanistraat 15 Postbus 6633 3002 AP Rotterdam ‘The Netherlands (Chap. 2.8 Founitations in open water) Dipl.-Ing. Regine Jagow-Klaff Heltorfer StraBe 91 47269 Duisburg Germany (Chap. 2.4 Ground freezing) Prof. Dr-Ing. Hans-Ludwig Jessberger! (Chap. 2.4 Ground freering) Dipl-Ing. Klaus Kirsch Keller Grundbau GmbH KaiserleistraBe 44 63067 Offenbach Germany (Chap. 2.1 Ground improvement) Dr-Ing. Helmut Ostermayer Drosselweg 13 82152 Krailing Germany (Chap. 2.5 Ground anchors) Dr.-Ing. ‘Thomas Rumpelt Smoltezyk & Partner GmbH Untere Waldplitze 14 70569 Stuttgart Germany (Chap. 2.12 Earthworks) Dr.-Ing, Fokke Saathoff BBG Bauberatung Geokunststoffe GmbH Alter Bahndamm 12 49448 Lemforde Germany (Chap. 2.13 Geosynthetics in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering) Prof. h. c, Dr.-Ing, Hugo M. Schiechtl” (Chap. 2.14 Slope protection by bioengineering techniques) Prof, Dr.-Ing, Hans-Henning Schmidt Smoltezyk & Partner GmbH Untere Waldplatze 14 70569 Stuttgart Germany (Chap, 2.12 Earthworks) Prof, Dr.-Ing. Stephan Semprich Anstitut fiir Bodenmechanik Technische Universitit Graz RechbaverstraBe 12 8010 Graz Austria (Chap. 2.2 Grouting in geotechnical engineering} Prof, Dr.-Ing, Ulrich Smoliczyk Adlerstralie 63 71032 Boblingen Germany (Chap. 23 Underpinning, undercutting: Chap. 2.9 Ground dewatering}XVI Dr-Ing, Wolfgang Sondermann Keller Grundbau GmbH. KaiserleistraBe 44 63067 Offenbach Germany (Chap. 2.1 Ground improvement) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gert Stadler Institut tr Baubetrieb und Bauwirtschaft Technische Universitat Graz Rechbauerstrabe 12 8010 Graz Austria (Chap. 2.2 Grouting in geotechnical engineering) Prof. Dr-Ing. Axel C. Toepfer Alter Weg 10a 38302 Wolfenbiittel Germany (Chap. 2.10 Construction methods {for cuttings and slopes in rock; Chap. 2.11 Microtunneling) List of contributors Dr-Ing. Georg Ulrich Baugrundinstitut Zum Brunnentobel 6 88299 Leutkirch-Herbrazbolen Germany (Chap. 26 Drilling technoloy) em. Prof, fr. Abraham [: Van Weele Hofstede 12 2821 VX Stolwijk ‘The Netherlands (Chap. 2.7 Driving and extraction) Prof. 1g. Karl J. Witt MarienstraBe 7 99421 Weimar Germany (Chap. 2.3 Underpinning, undercutting)List of contributors Prof. Kurt Dieter Eigenbrod, PhD Department of Civil Engineering Lakehead University 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay Ontario P7B SEI Canada (Chap. 3.2 Pile foundations) Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Friedrich Emig Griiningweg 274 22119 Hamburg Germany (Chap. 3.10 Watertight buildings and structures) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Alfred Haack clo STUVA-Kéiin ‘Mathias-Briiggen-Strafle 41 50827 KSIn Germany (Chap. 3.10 Watertight buildings and siructures) Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil Achim Hettler Riitererbergstralle 4 76437 Rastatt Germany (Chap. 3.4 Stability of excavations) Prof, Dr.-Ing. Manfred Kany Vestnerstrake Sb 90513 Zirndort Germany (Chap. 3.1 Spread foundations) o. Prof, Dr-Ing. Hans-Georg Kempfert Universitat Gesamthochschule Kassel Fachbereich 14 Manchcbergstrafe 7 34125 Kassel Germany (Chap. 3.2 Pile foundations) Dr-Ing. Dietrich Klein Steinsiralbe 23 97270 Kist Germany (Chap. 3.8 Machine foundations) Prof, Dr.-Ing. Giinter Klein Ostfeldstrabe 64a 30559 Hannover Germany (Chap. 3.8 Machine foundations) Dip!-Ing. Hans Lingenfelser Meyerhofener Weg 8 61352 Bad Homburg Germany (Chap. 3.3 Caissons) Prof. Dr. Dr-Ing. h.c Boleslav Mazurkiewicz ul, Syrokomli 7 81-439 Gdynia Poland (Chap. 3.6 Sheet pile walls for harbours and waterways) Prof. Dr-Ing. Dieter Nevvel Tngenieurgemeinschaft Bauen Gebelsbergstrabe 41 70199 Stuttgart Germany (Chap. 3.1 Spread foundations) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Placzek Erdbaulaboratorium Essen SusannastraBe 31 45136 Essen Germany (Chap. 3.9 Foundations in mining regions)XVIII Beian Simpson, PhD Arup Geotechnies 13 Fiuroy Street London W1P 6BQ Great Britain (Chap. 3.4 Stability of excavations) Prof. Dr-Ing. Dr. Ulrich Smoltezyk AdlerstraBe 63 71032 Boblingen Germany (Chap. 3.1 Spread foundations, Chap. 2.2 Pile foundations, Chap. 3.7 Gravity retaining walls) Ing. E.h. Dr-Ing. Manfred Stocker Bauer Spezialtiefbau GmbH Wittelsbacherstrabie 5 86529 Schrobenhausen Germany (Chap. 3.5 Bored pile walls, diaphragm walls, cut-off wails) Contents o. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Bernhard Walz Bergische Universitit GH Wuppertal Fachbereich Bauingenieurwesen PauluskirchstraBe 7 42285 Wuppertal Germany (Chap. 3.5 Bored pile watts, diaphragm walls, cut-off walls) ©, Prof. Dr-Ing, Anton Weissenbach Am Gehilz, 14 22844 Norderstedt Germany (Chap. 3.4 Stability of excavations)Contents of Volume 1: Fundamentals Smottezyk/Bauduin, Tmernational agreements Bauduin, Determination of characteristic values Melzer/Bergdahl, Geotechnical field investigations von Soos/Bohaé. Properties of soils and rocks and their laboratory determination Gudeiius, Constitutive laws for soils from a physical viewpoint Poulos, Calculation of stress and settlement in soil masses Nova, Treatment of geotechnical ultimate limit states by the theory of plasticity Klein/Sperling, Soil dynamics and earthquakes, Gudehus, Earth pressure determination Gussmann/Schad/Smith, Numerical methods Linkwite/Schwarz, Metrological monitoring of slopes, embankments and retaining walls Thut, Geotechnical measurement procedures Krauter, Phenomenology of natural slopes and their mass movement Hager, ice loading actions Witthe/Erichsen, Stability of rock slopes Contents of Volume 2: Procedures Kirsch/Sondermann, Ground improvement Semprich/Stadler, Grouting in geotechnical engineering Witt/Smoltczyk, Undespinning, undercutting Jessberger/lagow-Klajf/Braun, Ground freezing Ostermayer/Barley, Ground anchors Ulrich, Drilling technology Van Weele, Driving and extraction de Gijt, Foundations in open water Smoltezyk, Ground dewatering Toepfer. Construction methods for cuttings and slopes in rock Toepfer, Microtunnelling Schmid/Rumpelt, Earthworks Saathoff. Geosynthetics in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering Schiechl, Slope protection by bioengineering techniquesContents of Volume 2: Procedures Kirsch/Sondermann, Ground improvement Semprich’Stadler, Grouting WitSmoliczyk, Underpinning and undercutting Jessberger/Jagow-Klaff/Brown, Ground freezing Ostermayer/Barley, Ground anchors Ulrich, Drilling technology van Weele, Driving and extraction de Gijt, Foundations in open water RieB/Kordonis, Ground water flow and drainage techniques Toepfer, Construction methods for cuttings and slopes in rock Toepfer, Microtunneling Schmidli/Rumpelt, Earthworks Saarhoff, Application of geotextiles Schiechil, Slope protection by bioengineering techniques Contents of Volume 3: Structures Smoliczyk/Netzel/Kany, Sprcad foundations Kempferd Eigenbrod/Smoliczyk, Pile foundations Lingenfelser, Caissons y an Stocker/Walz, Trench walls Mazurkiewicz, Sheet-pile walls for harbours and waterways Haack/Emig, Waterproofing of buildings and structures Klein/Klein, Machine foundations Placzek, Foundations in mining regions Brandl, Slope protection and retainmentContents of Volume 1; Fundamentals Smoliczyk/Baudein, International agreements Bauduin, Determination of characteristic values Melzer/Bergdahl, Geotechnical field investigations von Soos/Bohdé, Properties of soils and rocks and their laboratory determination Gudehus, Constitutive laws for soils from a physical viewpoint Poulos Calculation of stress and settlement in soil masses Nova, Treatment of geotechnical ultimate limit states by the theory of plasticity Klein/Sperling, Soil dynamics and earthquakes Gudehus, Earth pressure determination Gussmann/Schad/Smith, Numerical methods Linkwite/Schwarz, Metrological monitoring, of slopes, embankments and retaining walls Thut, Geotechnical measurement procedures Krauter, Phenomenology of natural slopes and their mass movement Hager, Tee loading actions Wittke/ Erichsen, Stability of rock slopes Contents of Volume 3: Structures Smoltezyk/Netzel/Kany, Spread foundations Kempfert/Eigenbrod/Smoticzyk, Pile foundations Lingenfelser, Caissons Weifenbach/Hettler/Simpson, Stability of excavations Stocker/Walz, Trench walls Mazurkiewicz, Sheet pile walls for harbours and waterways Smoltezyk, Gravity retaining walls KleitvKlein, Machine foundations Placzek, Foundations in mnining regions Haack/Emig, Waterproofing of buildings and structuresContents 1.1 International agreements Ulrich Smottezyk and Christophe Bauduin 1 Cla cation of geotechnical literature . 1 2 Symbols... 2. eee e eee beveere ees 3 3. International rules for foundation engineering. : 4 4 Basic terms by EN 199%) and EN 1997 . eee eeee . 6 41° Classification of assessments in Furocodes (FN 1990, 1 4; EN ‘1997. 4 1.3) 6 42 Limit states (EN 1990)... 60s e eect eect eee ees 6 43. Design situations (EN 1990, 3.5) . 7 4.4 Geotechnical categories (EN 1997-1, 2.1) 1 4.5 Observational method (EN 1997, 2.7) - 7 46 Partial salety factor method ........ . 8 5 Geotechnical report... - 2 5.1 Ground investigation report (EN 1997-1, 3.4) - 3 2 Ground design report cent 1997-1,2.8 8) 14 6 References : 16 1.2 Determination of characteristic values Christophe Bauduin 1 Introduction .......... 66. . . peeeeeeee 17 2. From derived value to design value... 0. yc .0sscseeseeseveeeeere AT 2.1 Sequential steps...... 0.055 ween : veeee 17 22. Points of view when analyzing test results 19 2.3. Points of view when determining characteristi parameters (EN 1997-1, 2.4.5). dct eet eeesteeeteveeetteeees 28 24 — LUse of statistic thads OR 3 Examples 37 3.1 Local sampling. . . 37 2 Local sampling with V well-known - 38 3.3. Soil property increasing linearily with depth 39 3.4 Analysis of shear tests . . 41 35 Example: Boulder clay 45 4 References ves. e sees teeee teens 49Sa Contents Geotechnical field investigations Klaus-fiirgen Melzer and Ulf Bergdah BaSiCS . 6. e cee cece eee eee see eee st Standards <6... eee cee ce eee eee eee eee ees vee SL Preliminary investigations - 2 Design investigations . 33 Ground investigation by excavation, drilling and sampling « 53 Genetal oe. ee cece eee eee ee eeeeee ete eee ees 53 Investigation of soils. . . 56 Investigation of rocks... 6.0. e cece ce eee eevee erereeen eters 62 Obtaining special samples .. 67 Investigation of groundwater conditions. 68 Ground investigation by penetration testing 7 General . heen 7 Dynamie probing... ++ sittetsteeeeseeeseesees TB Standard penetration test . id Cone penetration test... . . beeen 82 Field vane test... 0660s cece eee ee eee, Weight sounding test... beeeee . 3 Lateral pressure tests in boreholes... veveeee 96 Equipment and test procedures... . bene 96 Evaluation... 0.2.02... : 103 Determination of density 106 Sampling methods ... beeen cee ee 106 Radiometric methods : : 107 Geophysical methods 109 General . ve sites eens 109 Brief descr tions of some methods... . . see 110 References .....--.-..-.-.- it Standards ..... sees . 116 Froperiies of soiis and rocks und thei Paul von Soos and Jan Bohéé Soils and rocks - origins and basic terms . . covet 19 Properties of soi 119 Soil layers beens seeees 9 Soil samples 120 Laboratory investigation ~ performing and evaluating . 120 Soil properties and laboratory testing ... . eens 12 Properties of rocks 126 Characteristics and properties of solid soil particles - 126 Particle size distribution ......... » 126 Density of solid particles»... 06.0.5 065 +. 129 ‘Mineralogical composition of soils wees ceeeee eee 130 Shape and roughness of particles : seve 132 Specific surface. vet vet eet tees etteeeteeeseeee 132Contents XI 46 47 5 5 52 53 54 55 56 37 58 59 5.10, sal $.12 6 61 62 63 64 65 66 7 WW 72 13 14 8 9 10 101 10.2 103. 10.8 ir id 12 12 15 ppyoee BE Ba Organic content . : 133 Carbonate content ........ vee 134 Characteristics and properties of soil ageregates ...... 134 Fabric of soils... « : sete eeeee 134 Porosity and voids ratio... 135 Density : 138 Relative density . 138 Water content . 140 Limits of consistency - “Atterberglimits.... 0.0... Water adsorption . : : 14g Compaction; moisture ~ density relations. : 145 Size of voids; fillers 02.0... eee cece e eee ee eee ee eee 146 Capillarity 147 Water permeability... cee ee nes 150 Air permeability... 0.0.00 .0s00s 0s eee 152 Stress-strain behaviour . ... 153 General considerations... weeeeee 153 ‘One-dimensional compression and consolidation (cedometer) test . 157 Triaxial compression test cence 164 Unconfined compression test. eee ees orrerenen 168 Tesls with the general state of stress ~ true triaxial test and biaxial test . 168 ‘Measurement of time dependent deformation .. . . - 169 Determination of shear strength parameters ...... - 1 General aspects of strength testing . . vee a7 ‘Triaxial compression test vente eens : - 116 Determination of unconfined compressive strength and sensitivity . . 179 Shear box test .. cee : : 180 Determination of tensile strength 182 Determination of slake durability of rock 183 Correlations... . 183 Proctor density and epuimm water content of fine-grained soils 183 Water permeability. 184 Strese-strai 148 Parameters of shear strength ...........0ccccceceeeeeeveseecee 18? Classification . . 189 Soil classification 189 Rock classification 197 References ... 2... cess Constitutive laws for soils from a physical viewpoint Gerd Gudehus Introduction... cee beet ee eee. 207 Motive and objective .. . 207 Contents . 208 States and changes of state 210 210 220xi 23 Bl 32 33 41 42 43 Bl 35 4.10 4.1 412 4.13 44 415 416 Contents Special sequences of state and stability. 2 Stress-strain relations . 237 Fit constitutive law: 237 Elastoplasticity 21 wees 248 Further con: itutive laws 253 Physico-chemical and granulometric changes. 253 4 ‘Transport laws... Granular interfaces . . 254 References . severe 256 Calculation of stress and settlement in soil masses Harry Poulos Introduction . . 259 Basic relationships from the theory of elasticity . - 260 Definitions and sign convention . 260 Principal stresses . . Maximum shear stress... 60. .0..000 261 Octahedral stresses - sees 261 ‘Two-dimensional stress systems. eteeeeee beeeeenee 262 Analysis of strain... 0.0... eee eee es . 263 Elastic stress-strain relationships for an isotropic material Summary of relationships between elastic parameters . . Principles of settlement analysis... 0.2.6. 00c0eeeeceee ees eev ees 267 Components ofsellement vo cee eee cee Application of elastic theory to settlement calculation . : Allowance for effects of local soil yield on immediate settlement Estimation of creep settlement ........ fee ee ee ec eee ees 269 267 Methods of assessing soil parameters 270 Solutions for stresses in an elastic mass . 2m Introduction ...... 272 Kelvin problem . 22 Boussinesq problem. .... 213 Cerruti’s problem........- 213 Mindlin’s problem no.1 ,... 214 Mindlin’s problem no, 2 276 Point load on finite layer... 22.2... 278 Finite line load acting within an infinite s 278 - 279 sevens 279 Melan’s problem 1. 2380 Melan’s problem 11. se. 281 Uniform vertical loading on a strip ++ 281 Vertical loading increasing linearly... . 281 Symmetrical vertical triangular loading . 282 ‘Uniform vertical loading on circular area. 283Contents 4.17 Uniform vertical loading on a rectangular arca 4.18 Other cases . 5 Su 52 53 6 61 62 63 64 65 7 Th 72 13 74 18 8g 8 82 9 Solutions for the settlement of shallow footings - ee Uniformly loaded strip footing on a homogencous clastic layer... Unilormly loaded circular footing on a layer Uniformly loaded rectangular footing on a la Rate of settlement af shallow footings... One dimensional analysis . . Effect of non-linear consolidation » Consolidation with vertical drains . ‘Two- and three-dimensional consolidation... ‘Simplified analysis using an equivalent coefficient of consolidation .-- Solutions for the settlement of strip and raft foundations Point load on a strip foundation .... Uniform loading on a strip foundation veceeee Uniform loading on a circular raft wees . Uniform loading on a rectangular rait . Concentrated loading on a semi-infinite raft Solutions for the settlement of pile foundations Single piles. Pile groups... 0... References .. ne ‘Treatment of geotechnical ultimate limit states by the theory of plasticity Roberto Nova Fundamentals of ultimate limit states 0.00.00... 0e 0c cee vee eee Introduction Definitions... _ : Fundamental theorems for standard mate : Limit analysis of shallow foundations on a purely cohesive soil... +s... Introduction... ‘Upper bound analysis. . see Refined lower hound analysis: method of characteristics Refined upper bound: slip lines... .. Strip footing 66... ce eee ee Circular footings . Limit analysis for non-standard materials Introduction . Fundamental theorems for non-standard materials Further limitations of limit analysis — slope stability Introduction... _ vote ee eee Simple lower bound analysis. Simple upper bound analysis. Improvement of bound estimates . .. Actual critical height of a vertical cut, Elastoplastic analysis of shallow foundations XML 284 285 285 285 285 287 289 289 291 291 293 293 297 297 297 299 301 303 305 305 309 310 313 313 314 317 319 319 321 322 325 326 328 329 329 329 332 332 333 333 334 335 336XIV Sa 52 53 54 58 56 57 18 21 22 31 32 33 al 42 43 44 Sa 52 53 19 11 12 24 2.2 23 3 32 4a 42 5 Contents, Introduction 336 fundamental experimental findings 337 Behaviour in unloading-reloading ...... » 338 Permanent displacements and rotations. . see 339 Parameter determination ...-.....-...---- oo ML Comparison with experimental data... 2.2... : 342 An application to the settlement of the Pisa bell-tower 345, References 2.02.20. 00. eveee eee eee ceceeee 351 Soil dynamics and earthquakes Giinter Klein and Frank Sperling Introduction 60.0... 2.2. ee ee 353 Basic mechanical considerations .... « 354 “Time dependent processes ....+..+ 354 Basics of technical vibration systems . 357 Dynamics of foundation structures . - 363 Vibration excitation ...... bees tees 363 Model systems for foundation structures vs ..esssssssevseevereres 368 ‘Fundamentals of the half-space theory ..........-...2..--+ 2. 375 Dynamics of subsoil ..... : . 378 Dynamical properties of soils 378 Characteristic parameters of dynamic soil properties . 380 Design parameters for rigid foundations . . . sees 382 Shock protection and vibration isolation 384 Dynamics of earthquakes, 388 Basic scismological concepts. : 388 Design methods for buildings -..... . 393, Effect of earthquakes on foundation engineering . 398 Literature .. References .... Earth pressure determination Gerd Gudehus Introduction Objectives ceeeee Selection and organization of material in the paper... Limit states without pore water... . Plane slip surface ............ Curved slip surfaces and combined mechanisms 42 ‘Three-dimensional effects... ...... ag Limit states with pore water ....... veces AL Air-impervious soils... : at Air-pervious soils...... vebeeeeee weeeee 426 Deformation-dependent earth pressures - 428 Granular soils . - 428 Clayey and organic soils... . 2 43h References 435Contents xv 1.10 Numerical methods 1 12 21 22 3. 32 4 42 43 44 45 46 1.11 2 22 23 24 25 Bd 32 33 34 35 4a 42 43 44 Sal 52 53 54 Peter Gussmann, Hermann Schad, lan Smith General methods . bocce tenes ceetee eee nee es vee 437 Difference procedures oo... 606. .6e eee es teeteeeveeeeeee 437 Integral equations and the boundary element method ...esssescceseee 440 Basics of the finite element method (FEM) . 44h Matrices of elements and structures . . 442 Calculation techniques for non-linear problems . 448, ‘The application of FEM in geotechnics » 452 Static problems ....... . ~ 452 ‘Time dependent problems . beeee . 455 ‘The kinematical element method (KEM) and other limi 460, Basics ...... fe eeee eee eee es : 460 A static approach: the method of characteristics from Sokolovski + 461 Kinematical methods: KEM 462 Slice methods ..... 2... sees . . 47 Application to bearing capacity of footings: comparison investigations .... 474 Design formulas and design tables or charts for standard slopes see 477 References ... we errr ee. sevese AIT Metrological monitoring of slopes, embankments and retaining walls Klaus Linkwitz and Willfried Schwarz Task and objective «6... 66.45 we feeeerees 481 About the practical organisation, solution and carrying out of the task =. 482 Conceptual design and exploration of the measurements . 483 Selection of the points and monumentation 483 Observations . : : ~ 484 Evaluations... rere re +e 484 Interpretation ....... 22. . a8 Geodetic methods of monitoring measurements vs 485 Alignments ... te ve 486 Polygonal traverses . 494 ‘Trigonometrical determination of individual points: nets 500 Automated methods ..........-.. neeee 512 Inclination measurements costes 519 Photogrammetrical methods of monitoring measurements ..-..... 0... 526 Methodology and procedures 526 Aerial photogrammetry ‘Terrestrial photogrammetry 532 Digital photogrammetry . feeeeeeee 533 Satellite supported methods . . veces 535 System structure of GPS . Procedures for absolute po Procedures for relative positioning... 56... ..e0ee eee eees Monitoring measurements with satellite supported procedures. . 542 545XVI Contents 6 Evaluation and analysis of the measurements cence ce S46 6.1 Geodetic analysis and interpretation . . - a wees we S46 6.2. Structural-physical analysis and i interpretation. 548 63 Integral analysis and interpretation 549 7 References . . cece e eee . 551 1.12 Geotechnical measurement procedures Arno Thut Introduction .. 561 Objectives of geotechnical measurements 0.00.0. 6c cece ee eee ee SOL Measured parameters... . ween eee eee ee eee eee es 563 Parameters in the foundation soil... ceeeeeeee + 50 Parameters during construction... .. ce ecee eee ee ee 564 Parameters in the supporting structure 22.22.2222 0 22 564 Parameters at adjacent structures ..........-..- ceceeeee eee 565 Parameters for permanent structures... 2.00.00... cece eee eee ees 565 Parameters for the rehabilitation of buildings . - bees -. 566 Measuring instruments, installation and costs ‘566 Geodetical measurements. sees cic cee een es 566 Geotechnical measurements ....6....6+5 seve cee eee eee 567 Execution of the measurements, reporting. - 587 Manual measurements .... 2.6.60 0200 589 Automatic measuring systems ....... . 589 5.3. Data visualisation software... 590 6 Case histories 6. eee eee . 590 6.1 Deep excavations, adjacent structures . . . . 590 6.2 Test embankment load, observational method . cee 60L 63 Adler Tunnel -readjustment of a structure - - cee 608 64 Monitoring of unstable slopes... .. .. fee eee es 607 6.5 Test loading of supporting structure, pile tests, displacement measurements in pile foundation . 6iL 7 References 615 1.13 Phenomenology of natural slopes and their mass movement Edmund Krauler 1 Definitions. . 617 2 Introduction. . 617 3. Slope shapes : 618 4 Mass movement of slopes... - 621 4.1 Causes, factors... .- . 626 4.2 — Classification, types... . cece . 638 43. Shapes of sliding surfaces and failure mechanisms «0.0... css 651 44 Sequences of moyements and hazard assessment . . a wee 654 45 Identification and investigation . : 662 5 References... 0.2. e eee ceceee es 664Contents XVII 1.14 Ice loading actions Martin Hager 1 Preliminary remarks . 669 2 Types of ice loads and ive-structure interactions... 2... 0e 2s eee es 669 3 Properties of ice. vente eee eee eee ceeeeeeee ee 610 3.1 Mass density of ice . - ceceeeeee 670 3.2 Elasticity of ice . 671 3.3. ‘Thermal expansion of ice on 34 Strength of ice... : on 4 Definitive values of the ice strength for calculation so ssscscccccccseee 674 S Thickness of ice... 06.6. eee ee cece eee eee eee eee eee 616 6 Calculation of the ice loads . . 67 6.1 Ice loads on wide structures veces 617 62 Ice loads on narrow slender structures... .. 678 6.3 Thermal ice pressure loads 66.66... eee eee eee ve 682 64 Additional vertical ice loads ..... 6-6... 683, 6.5 _ Ice loads on groups of structures 683 66 ce londs under special climatic and ice conditions vee 684 7 References ....-.--.--- vee eee vec ee eee OBS 1.15. Stability of rock slopes Walter Wittke and Claus Brichsen 1 Introduction : 687 2 Structural models of rock mass . 633, 3° Mechanisms of failure of rock slopes... : 693 4 Model for the stress-strain behaviour of rock 696 4.10 General... sce cc reece ee oe 696 42 Intact rock . 698 43 698 44 TOL stress displacement behaviour of persistent discontinuities with no fillings . 705 5 Model for seepage flow through a rock mass ........ ++ 707 6 Stability investigations according to the finite element method . . m2 61 General 712 62. Computation of stresses and displacements . 712 63 Computation of a seepage flow. ....... : 716 6.4 Presentation and imterpretation of the computed results... 718 65 Influence of shear parameters of discontinuities on the stability of a slope. 720 66 Support of a slope with prestressed anchors wees 1B 6.7 Influence of high horizontal in-situ stresses n 68 Stability investigations on the wall of a construction pit using a refined conceptual model of the mechanical behaviour of a rock mass. . 71 7 Stability analysis on the basis of rigid-body mechanies . 735 7.1 General . vee bb eee eeete bet etan erate ieetees 735 72, Possibilities of translation and rotation of rock mass wedges... 735XVII Contents 7.3. Stability analysis of planar rock mass wedges... . coves 740 74 Stability analysis of three-diimensional rock mass wedges supported by two discontinuities... cones TAB 75. Stability analysis of three-dimensional rock mass wedges supported by three discontinuities. . eee eee . . wee 1ST 8 Buckling problems.............- TIT s8 9 Example for the stabilization ofa slope failure. 2.2... 759 91 General . . - 759 9.2 Landslide ‘and immediate action a 759 9.3. Results of the measurements and explorations . wees ce 764 94 Concepts for stabilization of the slope .......-.-..--.-..-- _ 766 9.5 Chosen measure for stabilization ...... vee sense 769 96 Drainage measures 0... oe ee eee eee cote eee 70 10 References... eee ee eee ee teeeeeeee TH Subject index ............ 15Contents 2.1 Ground improvement Klaus Kirsch and Wolfgang Sondermann 1 Introduction /overview . 2. Ground improvement by compaction .... 21 Static methods . 2.2. Dynamic methods : 3. Ground improvement by reinforcement 3.1 Methods without a displacing effect 3.2 Methods witha displacing effect 4 Conclusion ...... bene ee eee 5 References .....-.- veeece eee 2.2 Grouting in geotechnical engineering Stephan Semprich and Gert Stadter Introduction .. 1 2 Aims of grouting 3. Groutability of soil and rock 3 3. 3 1 General... -.. 3.2 Geometry of pores in soil. 33. Void volume of a rock mass 3.4 Water in soil and rock mass - 4° Grouting materials and their basic constituents 5 Methods of grouting. . - 5.1 Flow regimes of grouts 5.2. Classification of grouting applications . 5.3 Grouting parameters . 6 Design of grouting works 6.1 Exploration of the subsoil 62 Choice of grouting material 63 Contract and compensation ... a 7 Examples of application : 7.1 Grouting test in weathered rock 7.2 Kélnbrein dam... 73 Debis excavation pit. : 8 References 6... 0.23 Bec A anne nvopens ee g KIAMAURE ERY BENK geese Contents Underpinning, undercutting Karl J. Witt and Ulrich Smottceyk Tens oe eee eee eee eet eet eeeeeeeee General aspects . a1 Underpinning and its adaptations : 92 ‘Traditional technique citteseete ees . 2 Grouting and jetting technique . 96 Micropiling 100 Undercutting . : : 105 Cut-and-cover methods 2.222 cece eee 105 Underground excavation methods 2.0.0.0. eee cece cence eee M10 Final remarks sees 12 References 3 Standards and recommendations us Ground freezing Hans-Ludwig Jessberger’, Regine Jagow-Klaff, and Bernd Braun Introduction ...... beeen 17 Exploration of subsurface conditions 118 Ground freezing techniques ........-. 120 Brine freezing . vee 120 Liquid nitrogen (LN2) freezing... 120 Characteristics of freezing and [rozen s 122 ‘Thermal properties . betes 122 Sirength and deformation properties 126 Freeze wall design a 14 Struetural design . 141 Thermal design .. coerce 146 Ground movements due to freezing ..... cee 151 Ground freezing apticatons and recommendations for its use... 152 References . . vee 164 Ground anchors Helmut Ostermayer and Tony Barley General eee ieee cece cece eet eee cece nee eeteee teense 169 Standards, recommendations, technical approvals : 169 Function and structural elements of anchor systems . coe Im General requirements... 2... 0.02 0ce vee eee eee eee reece eereeee VT Steel tendon and anchor head... -- coetieteeteeeteeeeees TTI Grout body . . : : 174 Corrosion protection . rrr v2 18 Execution seteees ve U7 Drilling : 17 Installation, grouting and postgrouting - 179 Installation of anchors against high hydrostatic head - 181 Corrosion protection measures on site... cones 184 Removable anchors oo... .0e.0ccccsseeeeeseseveseeeses eee 184Contents XI 5 Testing, stressing and monitoring 0.0.00. 00.020 ee eee ee eee ee ee 185 5.1 Stressing equipment and procedure. weet eee cece rece 185 SQ Systemtest o.oo cece eee eee cece eee ee eee ee eee eees 186 5.3 Investigation and sui Ly test eee 186 5.4 Acceptance test and lock-olf load . 187 Monitoring . bees vee 188 6 Fixed anchor design oe rn 189 61 General cient e ees 189 62. Ultimate load capacity in non-cohesive soll... sss ose sees cee veeeee 1ST 6.3 Ultimate load capacity in cohesive soil . . . . . 196 64 Working loads . 201 65 Creep displacements and load losses . 202 66 Performance under alternating actions 1 204 6.7 Performance under dynamic actions 203 68 Influence of spacing (group effect) . + 205 7 ‘Design of anchored structures . 206 TA Design requirements ....... : = 206 7.2 Prerequisites for applying ground anchors... . = 206 73 Design of the individual anchor . wees beeen eee 206 7.4 Design of anchors ina group ... ce ceee ee 208 73 Choice of appropriate anchor systems and methods of execution |... . 214 8 References 2... eee eee eee eee etree sense eee DUS 2.6 Drilling technology Georg Ulrich 1 Methods .. . 221 LL Dry drilling system... 2... . 221 1.2 Drilling with water flushing 224 13 Raise boring . . - 237 14 Full diameter drilling of smaller diameters 239 15 Soil investigation ariing : 2a 2 Cranes and rigs. 24L 21 Percussion drill erane . .. 241 22 Universal rotary drilling rig. 244 2.3. Excavator attachments... 0-2-2002 05-5 veeeee eee ec esse 245 24 Large diameter and deep drilling... 00... 1s sss sesecceeeee ees 246 2.5 Slimhole drilling eauipment - 247 2.6 Casing . : 248, 3 Drilling tools... ss cece e eee 249 4 Natural drilling obstructions 2.000000 scc.c veeeeees 251 5 Directional drilling with flushing a beeeeee 251 6 — References . viene 254 2.7 Driving and extraction Abraham F. Van Weele Application of driving techniques... .. 2.2.0.2. ee 255 Principle of impact driving... .. cece te 255 Piling hammers... 0.000000 0 eee e cece eect eee ete ee scence 287x Contents 31 Free fallhammers .... 0.000000. 000 e cece eeseceveveeeeeveee 257 3.2 Diesel hammers... - wee eee ee ec ee eeceeeeeerenseeess 258 33. Hammers for cast in-situ piles 261 3.4 Driving with a mandrel. . 261 4 Alternative installation methods for displacement piles . sees 262 4.1 Pile jacking a wee - 262 4.2. Pile serewing with simultancous pushing coe wee 263 43 Grouted steel piles, MV-piles ........ : oe + 264 44 Coupled piles.........--.... 265 5 Jetting assistance en + 266 6 — Drivingeap 22.220. -- 267 7 Piling machines . . : 269 8 Stresses during impact driving - voc net eee vee 2B 8.1 Maximum compressive stresses... tee 2B 8.2 Relationship between wave length and pile length for concrete piles . 274 83 Driving timber piles . 276 84 Driving steel piles . 216 9 Sheet piles 217 91 Profiles ......... . wee 277 92 Sheet pile locks... . wees 277 93 Lock cleaning and lubrication. : 278 10 Impact driving of piles — general viene 278 11 Impact driving of sheet piles . .. Settee 219 11.1 Successive installation ....... bees see 279 11.2 Intermittent installation oe ee 280 113 Conerete and timber sheet piling... weeeee eee 281 114 Combined sheet pile walls ........ bones 1. 282 12 Vibratory driving and extraction... 00.0... coe 283 le of vibratory driving o.oo eee eee 288 Additional static pulldown... 2.2.20... wees eee 284 Vibratory extraction ee eee eee cee 285 Piling vibrators... . 285 High frequency vibration : betee eens se. 286 Working procedure .-..- cece ect ete et eee eceec eee ee 287 \ 3 dee Inflnence on bearing capacity 288 Accessibility of the working site 289 14 Stone layers and underground obstacles vo... sss oss vie cece 239 15 Foot sensors. 290 16 Driving and extraction close to adjacent structures. 290 16.1 Consequences of driving.......... bine - 290 16.2 Consequences of extraction 0... =. weet eee ee eee eens 291 17 Driving under special circumstances ..--.. 292 17.1. Drivingincaleareous soils ......-.. 0.0 sss seve ve veeeeeeeeee, 292 17.2 Driving in, or near slopes . . . -. 293 17.3. Driving behind earth retaining structures =... + 294 18 Dynamic quality tests on piles... . 2 294 18.1 Integrity testing ............ + 294 182 Dynamic load testing | Bo a Dll) dos 183 “Soft” dynamic load testing vobiietetereneteeee . 297 19 Admissibility of vibration emission. 02.00.00... csc teee 2 299Contents 28 45 5a 53 54 Foundations in open water Jacob Gerrit de Gijt Generale eee Appropriate planning documents - Load assumptions .. .. soos Design and construction . - Equipment for construction work at sea’ ‘The most important pieces of equipment Liftingisland .... 6... 0.004. Dredgers .......... Procedures for breaking down rock Cable- and pipe-layers -.... Block layers. . Foundations in an open excavation Floating structures ........ Preparation of the bed ..... : Construction of the floating structures... ‘Towage .... 0.0.0.0 Setting down PLL) 330 Caissons as quay wall . . . 331 Caissons for moles and breakwaters see 332 Floating structures for lighthouses, offshore platforms and storage ..... 1. 336 Fating structures for tunnels underwater bate veae eas see MB Caisson foundations ree : co. MB “Alte Weser” lighthouse (1960/63) feet treeeeceee ees 350 “GroBer Vogelsand™ lighthouse (1973/74) sees a veeeeeeee 353 Piled foundations ............. wees 354 KOhIbrand viaduct, Hamburg (1971-75) 356 Goerée Lighthouse, The Netherlands (1971) ... 356 Drilling platform, Cognac, USA (1978) . . + 358 Suction pile technology - + + 358 References... : 362 Utrich Smoltezyk General code requirements ....... : - 365 Basic assumptions and solutions for dewatering scheme analyses + 366 Methods of dewatering . fete ceeeeets eters 367 Dewatering by bored Well. -. 0. cece ccc eeeee 368 ‘Dewatering by open drai Or Slit pumping (line source) 10) sss) BRE Dewatering by electro-osmosis . 388 Field 10805 eee ce. ce ec ceeeeee cree ee nes 391 General... 301 Tests . bene : wees 391 Groundwater recharge... . 396 Steady state... 396 Initial time-dependant state... 396 Capacity of a recharge well.......665 307 Interaction of recharge wells 397XIV 2.10 Suwunnne 2a Interaction of suction and recharge wells References .... . wees cece cece Construction methods for cut Axel C. Toepfer Introduction . . wees Cuttings in rock .. 02.00. Mechanical loosening by ripping wees Loosening by blasting methods . bette eee Construction method for rock slopes. Mechanicai construction method for the production of rock slopes Smooth blasting methods ........-.-. References cone Microtunnelling Axel C. Toepfer Introduction ‘The microtunnelling construction method for non-man-sized entry pipes - ‘The components of the construction method Description of soil and rock Pipe material . . . . . . Microtunnelling system Driving and reception shaft. . . wee Construction sequence Further development . .. errr ereerreee References . . . - Earthworks Hans-Henning Schmidt and Thomas Rumpelt Introduction Standards. environmental legislation . ‘Terms and definitions ....... Construction materials classifications and characteristic values Gerneral introduction... 00.066 eee eee e ee ee eee ens Characteristic parameters Design of earthwork structures Site investitgation ........ : : Design calculations . .. - - Standardised slope angles ‘Assessment of the stability of slopes - Drainage measures for earthworks . - Landscape planning Earthwork processesiearthworks equipment Machines for digging, transporting and placing Loading with hydraulic excavators Hauling equipment Equipment for placing and spreading. Contents - 398 398 399 400 400 403 47 418 418 427 429 430 430 431 431 432 437 438 440 440Contents xv 65 66 7 11 72 73 14 1: 16 Td 8 81 82 83 84 85 8.6 9 lo ul 2 124 122 123 1B 14 15 16 17 wa 172 173 174 17S 176 18 Compaction Special equipment Planning and orga Site survey Mass distribution : Determination of performance .,........ . Methods excavating or borrowing of material... 0... 0... Methods of placement and compaction . . Compaction techniques ...... Compaction criteria . Quality assurance: tests, specifications and observations. General remarks . : Tests... : Compaction requirements, for road constru ion of earthworks sites . ona 419 cette teeeerseee ene 479 sectee eee eee eee 4BL ‘Testing methods in road construction feecceeseee 487 Compaction control in rockfills . teens 488 Observational methods . deere eens «488 Soil treatment: soil improvement, stabilisation and cementation... + 489 Excavation of cuts sees 489 Dams and ‘embankments 490 Excavations and trenches . . . 492 Excavations 02.02... 492 Trenches 02... 493 Narrow trenches ...-.....6. 494 Backfills and fills covering structures 494 Sound protection embankments ..... 495, Syntheticand clay liners........ 496 Recultivation 5... -..., 497 Embankment construction by means of hydraulic fils. 498 General. .... . wee - . 498 Hydraulic transport of sand-water mixtures (slurries) : 498 Equipment cone 500 Some operational detai . 500 Sedimentation impoundment . S01 Economical aspects. 502 References sees 503 Geosynthetics in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering Fokke Saathoff Gencral . nee cesses SOT : 307 fication of geosyntheties. . S07 Geotentiles ..-. eee eee 509 Geotextile-related products ......... : veces ~ 512 Geomembranes . on eee SB Geomembrane-related products 000000022 sta Raw materials . . a eeeeeeeee SIS Functions 2.2.0... ..00 cones SIS References to the execution . S21244 Subject index ........ 6.620.000 eee Contents ‘Test methods... 6. 6.465 522, Fields of application . 523, Coastal protection ne Waterways engineering... Small-scale hydraulic engineering»... 0. .ccssse5- Dam construction . Landfill construction hee e en ereee Road construction, railway track construction and tunnelling - Notes on the form of contract wee wae . Delivery terms........ Quality management . : Advice on contract tenders . . Invoicing and warranties Summary References . Slope protection by bioengineering techniques Hugo Meinhard Schiechtt* Introduction . Bivengineering slope protection - : Preliminary works using inert material .. Combined methods . Ground stabilizing techniques Soil protection techniques Supplementary construction technique . Requirements for bioengineering materials ........ General... 5... . Biotechnical suitability of plants... Materials for ground stabilizing techniques . Seed mixes... Effectiveness of bioengineering slope protection « : requirements 2... 0c cee eee ce eee eeece eee ence es 665 Ul requirements . . cece eee. 665 PIII 664 SE 6s Economie req bevtte ences es 666 Design and execution of bioengineering works for slope protection ...... 666 Maintenance of bioengineering structures : References... 0.0.2 ee ceec eee eeeContents S aps a Be2 WAWUBUEASEREEOONA G65 3.2 BORE RPRPPNNRRe=eae Spread foundations Ulrich Smoltezyk, Dieter Netzel, and Manfred Kany Definitions Basis of design Footings . . : General aspects of design Geotechnical design . . Structural design... Slab foundations General : Vertical interaction | Horizontal interaction, restraints . Mat foundations (tank foundations) General . Geotechnical verifications Groundwater protection . Tension foundations. References, standards and software References... Programmes and guidebooks European codes (Status 2002) .. . German standards referenced in this chapter. Pile foundations Hans-Georg Kempfert, Kurt Dieter Eigenbrod, and Uirich Smoirczyic (Section 6) Introduction . Applications . Governing codes and safety concepts Preliminary investigations for pile foundat Terminology . . Pile types and construction methods . - Selection of appropriate pile type Quality assurance and control Displacement piles ..... Bored piles Micropiles : Measures to inerease pile resistance.BORE Bo oRE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2. 2, 2 2. 2. 2 3 3. Contents 15 1S 141 Axial pile resistance . Single piles... . : Compression pile groups - Pile-raft foundations ~ .. 49 ‘Tension pile groups... » 157 Lateral pile resistance and moment actions 157 157 163 -- 167 - 167 170 173 173 174 181 184 184 184 192 196 202 +. 202 - 203 203 Single piles Negative skin friction. Lateral pressure and bending due to settlement Bearing capacity and ser General . Bearing capacity ( : Calculation of serviceability. Static axial load tests Static horizontal pile load tests Analysis & pile structures . General Piling systems ‘Analysis of axially loaded pile systems Special simple cases . : Deviations from initial assumptions. | : Design of non-axially loaded pile foundations +. 2IL - 213 Check for buckling 218 Sheet pile wall as part of a piled foundation 218 Eigenfrequencies of «spatial pling system 219 Example 220 References . . 2 223 Hans Lingenfelser General 229 Terms . 229 Typical features of pneumatic caissons 230 ‘Typical features of open caissons (wells) 231 Ficlds of application . . . 232 Structural concept and equipment 24 General : 24 Construction materials 24 Caisson edges. . weve eee 238 Caisson working chamber and working chamber ceiling <<. 12 02... 237 Open caisson bottom . 238 Caissons walls... . 240 241 241 Construction of caissons . Manufacture on land -Contents Construction in open water... ese e eee ee es Construction in a dock and floating in Sinking the caisson . . Soil excavation Control of sinking inking tolerances tallation and works : Regulations governing pneumatic works . Essential pneumatic equipment Caisson calculation . General . : : Calculation of the lowering diagram 1.2.2... 0s..cs cesses Loads working on the caisson cutters ee Dimensioning for the lowering phases Construction examples : References ......... Stability of excavations Anton Weissenbach, Achim Hettler, and Brian Simpson Construction measures for the stability of excavations. . Unlined excavations . Timbered trenches Sheet pile walls. Soldier pile walls Solid walls... Support by bracing corre Basic design assumptions 0.0.0.2... Soil properties, loads and general rules Active earth pressure for cantilever walls... Active earth pressure for walls supported by props and anchors . Active earth pressure from surcharg : Earth pressure under backfill conditions... . . . Passive carth pressure... 0... 2. ++ Calculation procedures : ‘Walls with fixed earth support ‘Walls with free earth support Multiple supported walls . . : Calculation using subgrade reaction. Numerical unalys . Equilibrium of vertical forces. 1.2... : Determination of the vertical component of the earth resistance Equilibrium of horizontal forces in soldier pile walls Heave of the excavation bottom -..-. . - Safety concepts ....... vee British design approach... . . German design approach. +... ne General regulations in EC 72 Design Approach ]........... : XI -. 242 - 243 » 245 245 -. 247 . 247 249 250 + 250 . 251 253 253 254 ~ 255 257 259 1.271 273 273 = 275 278 1.29 284 287 290 12291Contents Design Approach 2 . 357 Special constructions 361 Anchored walls... . 361 Excavation walls supported by raking props | 2364 Large excavations 365 Some features related to specific shapes of excavations. Excavation with asymmettic cross sections Excavation walls adjacent to existing buildings . Excavations under water... 2.2... Excavations in jointed, unstable rock Excavations in soft soils... . Calculation examples. . 397 Problem » 397 German design approach - 308 Eurocode 7: Design Approach 2 401 References . 404 Bored pile walls, diaphragm walis, cut-off walls Manfred Stocker and Bernhard Walz Bored pile walls Field of application 409 ‘Advantages 410 Disadvantages . 4iL Standards and references . Purpose and wall types « Construction. Quality assurance . Diaphragm walls all all 412 4l4 414 Field of application 414 Advantages Als Disadvantages . 45 Standards and references . 416 416 416 Construction. . 421 Construction materials 425 Characteristics . 426 Quality assurance ‘Thin cut-off walls 427 428 Field of application 428 Advantages. . +429 Disadvantages. + 429 Standards and references . Purpose and types of wall . : Construction of a vibrated thin cut off ‘wall or vibwall” Construction materials Characteristics . Quality assurance Stabilizing of earth walls using fl 429 429 430 433 434 2 434. 435Contents XI Reeeoee Eeao BEM GBS BORE AD AANA EERE REDD ab SU RUBE aa ae an ~ ib Supporting fluids... : Fluid supporting force and stability determination. Mechanisms for transferring the fluid pressure difference onto the grain skeleton. - bees Proof of the ,interal™ stability Proof of the ,extemal" stability Structural facilities close to suspension s Standards and recommendations Standards . Recommendations - References ...-...-.- Sheet pile walls for harbours and waterways Boleslav Mazurkiewicz Shect pile wall structures, their performance and field of application General .. 0.00... veeee veces 45! Application purpose. - celtic teens 451 Usability of different construction materials... beeen 452 Regulations concerning sheet pile walls 452 ast Sheet pile wall structures, EN 12063/1999 ... . 452 Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours and Waterways, EAU 1996... . 453 Evtocode 3: Design of steel structures ~ Part 5: Piling - - 453 Other recommendations and handbooks... . - 2. 453 Sheet pile types, profiles and anchoring pats, avalty and steel erodes 1 454 Steel sheet pile walls. . vee 456 Basic design of sheet pile walls. 457 Safety concept ........ Actions and resistances . Load cases Ultimate limit state design of sheet pile wall structures Calculation methods for sheet pile walls Calculation of a single-anchored sheet pile wall according t0 Bim .-. | 461 Special cases of sheet pile wall calculation .. fees Calculation principles for combined steel sheet pile walls . - . » 468 Caleulation principles of sheet pile cofferdams . . .. 469 Calculation of a sheet pile wall anchorage and its fittings . : 474 Verification of stability of an anchorage at a lower failure plane and of safety against failure of the anchoring soil .......-......... 474 Calculation and sizing of anchor walls and anchor plates beens ATS Calculation and sizing of anchors and hinges, walings and capping beams made of steel and reinforced concrete 477 Calculation and sizing of anchor piles... Tol) 48s Calculation and sizing of hinged and fixed supports for a way wall superstructure on steel sheet pile walls... . » 488 Further structural remarks and recommendations. oe. 489 Estimation of shect pile wall driving depth and selection of its profile and material... vce veveeteetevtees wees 489 Steel sheet pile walls o.oo eee eee » 490xiv woe em 2 0 ae Bee 10 10.1 10.2 37 Peers 38 BORED deone 1 2 2, 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3 4 4, 4, ror Contents Construction of waterfront structures made of steel sheet piles ........ 494 General .. : 494 Construction of new waterfront structures 494, Protection and deepening of existing wateriront structures | + 501 Corrosion and corrosion protection . 506 General considerations 506 Expected corrosion of steel sheet piles 506 Corrosion protection of steel sheet piles. » 506 References 00... 0... e eee eee +. 509 Books and papers » 509 Standards... 510 Gravity retaining walls Ulrich Smoltezyk Introduction Sil General design considerations 513 Gravity wall 514 Cantilever wall 515 Drainage 2. 516 References 2518 Machine foundations Giinter Klein and Dietrich Klein Overview wees Classification of machine foundations » Requirements for machine foundations Loads on machine foundations 521 Static loads 521 » 522 Transient loads... 525 Random loads... 530 Amlysis aud desiga of a 532 ‘Types of supports 532 Rigid foundations . 536 Elastic foundations 539 Spring foundations : 545 Design recommendations . - 546 Examples : 347 Hammer foundation eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee! 547 Reinforced concrete box foundation for 2 100 MW steam turbine-generator set . 550 References » 557 Standards || 557 Books and Pape 557Contents xv 39 3.10 BRAREUNNDE SORES SSS Foundations in mining regions Dietmar Placzek General remarks on mining-induced effects Ground movements... Ground movements above deep mine workings ......, Ground movements above shallow and near-surface mine workings Influence of ground movements on the foundation . . Influence of equal vertical subsidence ..... Influence of tilt — differential vertical subsidence . .. Influence of curvature . - Influence of strain. . Influence of ground movements above near-surface mine workings. Influence of discontinuous ground movements . Preventive measures in areas with deep mine working: Types of preventive measures. . we : Basic considerations on layout and design of surface structures Bearing capacity and functionality of a structure... Provisions for tilt... . . Provisions for curvature Provisions for extensional strain Provisions for discontinuous ground movements... 2... Preventive measures in areas with near-surface mine workings. ‘Types of preventive measures ...... Preventive measures for structures . Stabilisation of the ground by injection Preventive measures for tunnels . General remarks : Options for preventive measures. . Upgrading of existing structures Preliminary remarks ©... ..- Provisions for equal vertical subsidence - Lee Provisions for differential vertical subsidence ....... Provisions for horizontal ground movements References ..... 2.2.0.2. Watertight buildings and structures Alfred Haack and Kart-Friedrich Emig General - .-- 501 General aspects of ‘design . seas 502 Geotechnical and structural influences poses 502 Serviceability provisions ..... . : wes 508 Selection and srt of materials + 504 Systems - : 2. 505 Bonded layers. te 505 Polymere modified : see. 506 Loose plastic sheets veces 507 Steel board sealing . : bette eect eres 508DORI RRA RR SROs eae bi Subject index Contents, Watertight conerete structures (white wh) 508 Special design considerations . 509 510 Design provisions codified in DIN 18195": General... .. . Structural factors. : Watertight systems according to German ¢ Code 18 195 Joint seals in watertight concrete . : Supervision... References 510 513 513 +. 539 . 544 545 German recommendations and gutdetnes examples) : 2) 546 References . see a . 546 » 6391.1 International agreements Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin 1 Classification of geotechnical literature ‘The International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMEE) have since 1981 used a classification scheme of geotechnical literature (GC) as in Table 1 ‘There has also been a joint agreement with the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) since 1998 which enables access to their Information Retrieval System for Geotechnical Literature (IRS-Geo) available worldwide via the Internet. Their continuously updated database provides about 54,000 literature references from 1976 onwards. Each reference is described by IGC key words and classification codes (for combining key words, use and, o7 and noi). Subscription is available via the SGI website at bttp://www.swedgeo.se! indcx-e.himl, The references are 69% English, 16% Swedish, 6 % German, 4 % French and 5 % with other tongues. ‘Table 1. International geotechnical classification system, published in March 1981 A General B 8 Catraterrestrial Soil and Rock Condi- A 1 Geotechnical Engineering Scope tions . ‘A 2 Historical Aspects B 9 Geomorphologic Aspects and Terrain A. 3. Information Services, and Literature Classification Classification B 10 Mineralogical Aspects A. 4 Textbooks, Handbooks, and Periodicals 1 Description of Regional Soit and Rock AS Terminology Conditions A 6 Companies Institutes,and Taboratories B12 Other Environmental Aspects A. 7 Societies, Meetings, and International Cooporation € Site Investigations A 8 Professional Ethics Legel Require- Equipment and Techniques of Exploration, ments, Codes of Practice,and Standard-_Prospection, Sampling, and Field Testing of Soils ization and Rocks (excl, determination of engineering A 9 Bducation properties), Presentation of Result A 10. Research Activities 0 General Airphoto Surveys and Remote Sensing ‘Geophysical Surveys Probings (Soundings) Visual Exploration Techniques General Boring Techniques and Equipment Formation of Soil and Rocks (ef. C10) Hydrogeological Aspects Sampling Mass Movements and Tand Subsidence Measurement of Field Conditions Seismic Activity and Crustal Move- «incl, Post-Construction Monitoring) ments 8 Field Testing (excl tests for engineering Climatic Conditions properties, see Groups D and F) Submarine Geological Aspects Presentation of Results, Data Base 2 10. Underwater Site Investigations B Geological and Environmental Aspects (Basic Geology, see Principal Group T) ooenan ana wee ceeo2 D Soil Pro Determinal (incl. Rocktill, Artificial Soils, Waste Materials) Concepts, Theories, Methods of Determination, Equipment, and Results, Laboratory and In-Situ DO General D1. Classification and Description of Soils D_ 2. Physico-Chemical Properties D3 Composition, Structure, Density, and Water Contents D4 Hydraulic Properties D5. Compressibility and Swelting D_ 6 Shea-Deformation and Strength Properties D7 Dynamic Properties D8 Thermal Properties D9 Compactibility D 10 Properties of Soil Additive Mixtures E Analysis of Soil-Engineering Problems ‘Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical Methods of Analysis 0 General Stress Analysis Deformation and Settlement Problems Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foun- dations 4 Bearing Capacity of Piles and other Deep Foundations, Anchors 5. Earth Pressure Problems © Stability of Slopes and Excavations 7 Seepage and other Hydraulic Problems 8 9 Dynamic Problems Frost Action and Heat-Transfer Problems 10 Analysis of Layered Systems and Pave: 11 Soil-Vehicle and Soil-Too! Interaction 12. Soil-Strvetures interaction 13 Mathematical Methods, Computer Analysis Model Test Analysis haviour Amo om modo om mone ot F Rock Properties: Laboratory and In-Situ Determinations Concepis, Theories, Methods of Determination, Equipment, and Results F 0 General F 1 Classification and Description of Rocks and Rock Masses Physico-Chemical Properties Composition, Density, and Structural Features Hydraulic Properties F2 Fa F4 Ulrich Smoltezyk and Christophe Bauduin Compressibility and Swelling Shear-Deformation and Strength Properties F 7 Dynamic Properties F 8 Thermal Properties F6 G Analysis of Rock-Fngineering Problems ‘Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical Methods of Analysis G 0 General G1 Stress Analysis G 2. Deformation and Displacement Problems G3. Bearing Capacity of Rock Masses G4 - G5. Rock Pressure on Tunnels and Under ground Openings G6 Stability of Rock Slopes and Open Excavations Seepage and other Hydraulic Problems Dynamic Problems Frost Action and Heat-Transter Problems Rock-Structure-Interaction 13 Mathematical Methods, Computer Analysis Model Test Analysis: G G G12 G a H Design, Constructi of Engineering Works Description and Case Records of Engineering Works 0 General 1. Foundations of Structures (other than dams) Retaining Structures and Cut-off Walls Offshore Structures Dams and Reservoirs, Embankments ‘Tunnels and Underground Openings Roads, Railroads and Airfields Harbours, Canals, and Coastal Engineering Works (Conduits and Culverts Slopes and Unsupported Excavations Land Use Waste Depositories 1d Behaviour EEG Raommm mm x 1 Construction Methods and Equipment General Drainage Methods Scaling and Grouting Processes Preloading and Soil Replacement RRR A1,1 International agreements. 4 w ul 2 3 4 RRRN ROR RRRR OK xx 1) shall be reduced by a combination factory = yo < 1, toallow for the fact that all variable actions will not occur simultaneously by their maximum value. ‘The representative value of an action for an accidental situation is also combined, but by applying special reduction factors wy (frequent value) for Qy and wo; (quasi-permanent value) for Q, > 1,associated witha time interval (EN 1990, 6.4.3). In addition, the nominal value of an accidental action, Ag, is to be taken into account (e.g: collision force). For earthquake situations, the representative value consists of Gy, the variable unfavourable actions Qi, reduced by yj and an earthquake action Ap. ‘The numerical values of these reduction -factors are separately tabled in the Annexes of EN 1990, for buildings and traffic structures. For example, yy = 0.6 applies to wind as an accompanying action with traffic structures. Ifitis not obvious which variable action is the governing one, then each relevant variable action shall be analysed in turn as Q;10 Ulrich Smohtezyk and Christophe Bauduin 4.6.2 Load cases (combinations of actions) ‘The combinations of actions concerning the various verifications of ultimate limit states are collected in EN 1990, 6.4.3, and in 6.5.3 those for serviceability limit states. ‘These combinations are based on the representative values of actions, both from the structure and the ground. In foundation engineering, where actions from the ture normally act in conjunction with actions from the ground, the following equations apply: 1, Ultimate limit states for permanent and transient design situations Sve Greg" yor Qe “4” YY vos Ym bei jst ist where “4” means in combination with; G, ~ characteristic value of a permanent action from the structure and/or from the ground such as earth pressure or water pressure. According to EN 1997-1, for the weight density of the soil yq.j = 1 applies (see Table A.2.2 of the Code); Q —characteristic value of a variable action from the structure and/or from the ground allowing for the representative values mentioned in 46.1. Applying these combination actors, the different load combinations are obtained by substituting Qy for Q; to determine the governing one; YG — partial safety factor of G with distinct numbers for unfavourable (yg;sup) and favourable (¥¢;ini) actions. It should be noted that the factor yq = 1.35 (EN 1990, Annex A13.1 and EN 1997-1, Table A.2.1) with a minus Latur of about 1.1 covers possible uncertainties of weight. The larger factor takes account of uncertainties resulting from load re-distributions during construction and thereafter: ‘vo. — partial safety factor for unfavourable variable actions Q with a value 1.50 for any ultimate limit state (EN 1990, Annex A}.3.1, and EN 1997-1, Table A.2.1). Favourable variable actions shall not be considered. ™ é 4 a in EN 1997-1. The introduction of such values is permitted by national standards hecause reductions of this kind will depend significantly on distinct regional construction methods. 2. Ultimate limit state for an accidental design situation Dl Gag 7 Ag 4% Gynt OF yaet) Qe “AT y+ De it ia where Ag ~the design value for the accidental action that shall be assessed as a nominal value by contract ‘yur OF tf2.1 Shall be determined according to the type of accident or its consequences (EN 1990, 6.4.3.3), ‘This combination also applies to the situation after an accident when A = 0.LA Tnternational agreements W 3. Ultimate limit state for an earthquake design situation Guy + Agia ot Yves: Oey it a where Agia~ the design value of the action caused by an earthquake that shall be determined by EN 1998 (see also chapter 1.8) 4. Irreversible limit state of serviceability (characteristic combination) YGuy A Qe ot vos Qe a ot 5. Frequent limit state of serviceability (see 4.6.1) LG Fist ier ot Dyas - Oe at a 6. Quasi-permanent limit state of serviceability (see 4.6.1) Gey ye Oks fat 46.3 Geotechnical verification of ultimate limit states Verification methods defined in EN 1997-1 for ultimate limit states STR and GEO differ depending on where the partial safety factors are applied in the course of analysis, ‘There are principally two possibilities to introduce partial factors: either on the input data of the calculation models or on their output data, In the first case this applies to the material parameters (shear strength, concrete strength, yield strength of steel etc. ~ material factor approach, MFA). In the second case this applies to the output from the model used to calculate a ground resistance (pile load capacity. bearing capacity. earth resistance etc. ~ resistance factor approach, RFA). Ascalculation models in geotechnics depend either linearily on the shear strength (sliding, skin friction, slope stability of undrained cohesive ground) or non-linearily (earth pressure, bearing capacity, slope stability of drained ground), different design results are obtained when a foundation element i: ed by each procedure. For this reason, the choice of ‘one of the verification procedures indicated in EN 1990, A.1.3.1, with appropriate partial factors given in EN 1997-1, Annex A, remains with the national standardization bodies. ‘Three alternatives are offered for the STR and GEO ultimate limit states: ‘© Design approach 1: Two verification types are required; (1) based on factored actions and non-factored shear strength parameters and (2) factored shear strength parameters and non-factored permanent actions with variable actions factored by yq = 1.3. The sizing and positioning of the foundation elements depends on both types, with the more adverse to be adopted. The factors are given in Annex A of EN 1997-1, Tables A.2.1 and A.2.2. (J) provides safety against adverse deviations of the actions from their characteristic values and (2) provides safety against adverse deviations of the shear parameters.12 Ulrich Smoltcayk and Christophe Bauduin # Design approach 2: Uses only one type of analysis, based on characteristic values. Actions are then factored as in approach 1(1) and resistances are divided by partial factors given in Annex A, Tables 23, of EN 1997-1 © Design approach 3: Again uses one type of analysis, based on design values of structural actions, applying the same partial factors given by approach 1(1}. On ground actions and resistances partial factors are applied as in approach 1(2). For ultimate limit states EQU, UPL, HYD straighforward procedures (EN 1997-1, 2.4.7.2, 2.4.7.4 and 2.4.7.5) are required similar to the traditional global safety concept. Equal partial safety factors for the three approaches are recommended in EN 1997-1, Annex A (Tables A.1, A.3 and A.4) but depend, of course, on national requirements and standards. 46.4 Verification of the limit state of serviceability (SLS) ‘The limit state of serviceability can be checked by proving that a limit value, Cas, of a chosen quality of the structure does not occur thereby confirming the normal use of the structure (EN 1997-1, 2.4.8). The analysis may be based on checking limit values of action effects, settlements, displacements, tilting angles, accelerations ete. For the definition of movement modes see EN 1997-1, 2.4.9, and Annex H which give some limit values (for further details, see chapter 3.1 of volume 3 of the Handbook), Design values ‘Normally, design values for the SLS are equal to the characteristic values (sve 4.6.2). However, partial factors = 1.0 may be appropriate if a deterioration of soil qualities or a change of boundary conditions cannot be excluded during the lifetime of the structure, see EN 1997-1, 24.83). Uf the check on the limiting values of deformation or movement is not required, it may be pple cases and based on comparable experience, to prove that the level of mobilized shear strength in the ground is sufficiently low (EN 1997-1, 2.4.8(4)).. 5 Geviechnicai repori A geotechnical design report and a ground investigation report are detailed in EN 1997-1 for the documentation of soil investigation results and the appropriate conclusions The information required for these reports is summarized in clauses 2.8 and 3.4. ‘The following notes should be read as comments with accompanying remarks by the second author (see [3]). The aim of a geotechnical report generally, is the expert desciption of geotechnical conditions, premises and assumptions for the design and construction of a structure classified in category 2 or 3. Expertise on a category 1 structure will normally only be made when this classification looks dubious or if itis required by court proceedings for example. ‘The statements in the geotechnical report may a) be prepared for a project during design, b) accompany a project with site consulting,1 International agreements B ©) provide guidance during construction in terms of supervision, for example hy suggested monitoring etc, especially when the observational method is applied. At the stage of contract negotiations (a) normally is considered, whilst (b) often becomes necessary during construction. Itis recommended that the layout of the report is retained ina way that allow later supplements to be added easily in a clear and logic order. With very extensive projects such as traffic lots, the official request of public consensus only needs a rather general description of the ground conditions, In these cases, distinction. can reasonably be made between preliminary investigations (see EN 1997-1, 3.2.2) and design investigations for individual structures and problems (see EN 1997-1, 3.2.3). This may even be done by different consultants. 5.1 Ground investigation report (EN 1997-1, 3.4) ‘The ground investigation report should start by explaining the reasons for the investigation, This is especially important in cases where facts have become obvious during vestigation which were not realized at the time when it was planned and contracted, To manage these situations, alist of unit prices for tests and services should be in the contract. Following EN 1997-1. 3.4(2) this report should contain, « asummarizing documentation of the investigation results and the methods applied with reference to EN 1997-2, « actitical commentary on the results and the parameters derived from them. It is recommended that the expert who does the test supervision is also involve the report to ensure a consistent description is produced. When the general situation is explained, it should be said whether the investigations had to be donein an area complety unknown until now or if reference was possible to previous. geological findings and earlier investigations. Furthermore, valuable general information may have been obtained from people who are familiar with the environment (for example; “a hunderd years ago, there was a lake here”, “this area was used for dumping for a long, time”, or “the ground water level was pumped down” etc). writing port shou spatial geometry of the and the surface, the ground and free water levels and the llow ratesand directions and the existing structures and their recognizable sensitivity to excavations or any other change of topography. Special risks such as creeping slopes, geological faults, changing water levels, erosion phenomena should be included wherever possible. All of these more general remarks should be checked to determine whether or not they are relevant for inclusion in the design report. Arguments should be given for risks that can he neglected, although the public is frightened about a risk-bearing phenomenon. ‘The description of the soil situation to a large degree is already an expert interpretation because it provides a suggested spatial coordination between successions investigated at singular locations Ttis therefore always possible (especially from a scientific pointof view) to question this interpretation. This does not mean however that it should not be tried, since an expert description should provide overall information of the ground character for contractual purposes — itis reasonable to clarify in the report what is fact and what is supposition. This may be indicated hy introducing classes of reliability14 Ulrich Smoliczyk and Christophe Bauduin Class 1: Areas where interpolation between investigation points is easy and, therefore, possible to a very high degree of probability. Class 2; Areas with remaining uncertainty although the available facts appear to allow interpolation. Class 3: Areas where the results allow distinct interpretation which necessitates assump- ns based on facts derived from additional sources of information (for example: evaluation of geological statements). Class 4: Areas where additional investigations are necessary, as available information allows only limited assumptions to be made. Records which contain the results of the visual inspection of bored cores by an expert soil engineer or geologist and the details of sounding or test pit inspections should he included in an annex to the report, This makes the main text clearer where not all details need to be considered. The report should rather clarify which details listed in the annex are of major importance in understanding the total situation. As an example, a thin cohesive interlayer, detected in but a few borings, would be insignificant when mainly normal stresses are mobilized for the bearing capacity of a foundation embedded in plane terrain, but would have to be taken into account in sloping ground where shear strength plays the dominant role, Consideration should also be given to the fact that the results of geotechnical calculations often have an integral character, For example, it would not make much sense to produce an earth pressure calculation when the soil succession is detailed into layers of 30 cm each. On the other hand, thin less permeable interlayers will have great significance for the flow of groundwater or for consolidation time predictions. Where organic matter is found in the boreholes, the borehole readings should be supplemented by indicating the distribution of this matter in a sufficiently long section (c. g. 1m) and its degree of deterioration. For instance, it would be misleading if a layer is described as “highly organic clayey sill layer” when within a clayey silt layer a peat interlayer has been found, In EN 1997-1, 3.4.2, it fs mandatory to explain the reasons for defective or incomplete investigation results. The report shall also specify where additonal or special investigations are still missing. 5.2. Ground design report (EN 1997-1, 2.8) ‘The ground design report contains the conclusions drawn by the geotechnical expert from the investigation report as well as calculations which he has made to verify limit states. The extent of work connected with this should only be given in a preliminary way: like the service of a doctor or a lawyer. the real amount of consulting often becomes obvious only as the project proceeds. The consultant should be charged by established experience and mutual confidence in his eapacity, rather than on a comparison of prices. The client should understand that the cheaper such work is offered, the more general and undetailed. the report will be with a tendency to shift hidden risks to the client — often without him recognizing it. In EN 1997-1,2. is recommended that the report should also contain statements on the suitablity of a site with respect to the proposed construction and the level of acceptable risks.1.4 International agreements 15 ‘There will, however, be little freedom for alternatives when a site is located in an area which is already densely populated. Insuch situations, the guidance should focus on finding. «a suitable type of foundation in terms of its feasibility, economy, ground water conditions, compatibilty with the above ground parts of the structure etc. Suitable alternatives may therefore be apt for discussion where traffic routes are to be built. ‘The ground design report, if not contracted otherwise, will he limited to findings in terms of geotechnical verifications and duration against adverse environmental effects, This marks the houndary between geotechnical and structural engineering works. The “external” sizing of foundation elements like footings or retaining walls depends on geotechnical points of view, the sizing of concrete or steel sections and the reinforcements is truly a structural task, Even with such delimitation, the work of a geotechnical en; ficant amount of quantifying engineering by analyses. General phenomenological considera tions will not yield the kind of information that is of real value to a client. Although the details of a structure may not he known at the time when the report is delivered, the ground design report should provide examples of typical calculations — especially when the design shall he based on the partial safety factor method. For legal reasons it should be clearly indicated to the client for each number report whether it is the result of an investigated fact which can he proved, if¢ anyone, or an expert assumption, The expert is ohliged to state his assumptions where sufficient facts or established rules are missing, When established application rules are not used, arguments shall he provided in such a way that they can he understood and realized by a user or supervisor who may not have scientific geotechnical training but a good general knowledge of civil engineering prohlems. Regional terminology should not be used to avoid misunderstanding by users from outside the region Recommendations tor foundation procedures should contain all the possible alternatives to avoid a restricted competition, Methods that are acknowledged by the profession but can be implemented by only a few contractors must not be recommended exclusively but they may be considered by allowing for a special additional tender. In EN 1997-1, 2.8(4) it is recommended that the geotechnical design report should also deal with tems which require checking during construction o” which require maintenance r be Concise “directions of use” guidance note to the as-built decuments delivered tothe user when the work is finished, giving for example the recommended settlement checks to be carried out at later time intervals. ‘As the design report follows the completed site investigation, it may become apparent during negotiations with contractors ~ especially when special tenders are evaluated — that the choice of a particular method of construction would need additional soil investigations, In such situations the consultant that compiled the design report should be asked for is advice and possibly to provide to necessary supplements to his report. However, it often happens (maybe even by intention, maybe just forgotten) that these additional soil investigations do not become an item in the tender contract. If at a later stage an unacceptable construction yields a legal case, it will be important that the geotechnical consultant can prove that he had pointed to the need for additional investigations and when. On the other hand, excessive additonal investigations should not be asked for as an alibi to avoid straightforward decisions. They should always remain in reasonable relation to the value of the project. In this way design reports will always have a degree16 Ulrich Smoliczyk and Christophe Bauduin of compromise: documenting the art of realizing the works in relation to ground risk avoidance. Large geotechnical design reports should have a summary containing the most important technical statements in a concise manner with examples referring to the annexes enclosed in the documents published for tenders. 6 References [1] Feck, RB: Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. 9th Rankine Lecture: Géotechnique 9 (1969), 171-187, [2] Smottczyk, Us Beobachten—aber methodisch richtig, Vortrige Christian Veder-Symposium, Graz 1999, 11 [3] Smoticzyk, Us Internationale Vereinbarungen. In: Grundbau-Taschenbuch Teil 1, Sth edition, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1996, 1-231.2. Determination of characteristic values Christophe Rauduin 1 Introduction One of the most difficult tasks in geotechnical engineering is the selection of the “charac teristic value” of a geotechnical property, this is the value of the property that governs the behaviour of the geotechnical structure at the limit state considered. The difficulty results, from the variability of a property in the soil, from differences between test conditions and real conditions and from the small number of tests usually available. Therefore, all relevant information complementary to the test results should be considered. ‘This chapter illustrates the various aspects leading from test results to characteristic and design values of material properties and gives some statistical methods to assess characteristic values from a sample of test results. ‘A clear insight can only be obtained by dividing the process into sequential, well defined steps and by knowing exactly what has been done, what information is requested, and what output is obtained by each individual step. The first part of the chapter therefore identifies these steps and indicates the type of uncertainty covered by the calculation procedure of the step being considered. When soil or rock tests are evaluated, the limit state on which the test results shall be applied should be taken into account, Once alll he tests are analysed, a set of (derived) values of the ground parameter are obtained giving stochastic variations from which the characteristic value for the limit state considered has to be assessed (Section 2.2). Statistical methods may be useful to do this. In Section 2.3 a flow chart is given, as a schedule of factors affecting the choice of the characteristic value and a description of application rules in practice. Finally, in Section 3, ite different approacies are exemplified fo. sume iypival sviis. 2 From derived value to design value 2.1 Sequential steps ‘The design value of a soil parameter is obtained through a sequence of steps, starting with some site measurements and a subdivision of the soil succession into “homogeneous” layers. Thissubdivision is based on previoussoil investigations and ifavailable, engineering geology judgement. Homogenity means that the parameters of a soil layer show only stochastic variance, i,¢, variations that are at random around the true value or follow a well established trend such asa linear increase with depth.18 Christophe Bauduin It should be noted that homogenity need not he an absolute category: a soil layer may be homogeneous with respect to a particular property (e. g. shear strength expressed through angle @’) but not to another one, Homogenity is also related to scaling; considering a soil, ‘mass at a small scale may lead to the conclusion that itis not homogeneous but it may be assumed to be homogeneous when considering a soil mass as a whole. ‘The sequence from test result to design value comprises the following main steps. In some situations they may be performed simultaneously or in a different order: Step 1: Measuring of the soil behaviour on site or in the laboratory An example of this step is carrying out a CPT or a SPT, where the resistance opposed by the soil to the (static or dynamic) penetration of a measuring device is measured as a function of depth. Another example is the use of an oedometer test where the axial strain is registered as a function of the applied stress (and also sometimes as.a function of time). Step 2: From measurement to measured soil propery Examples of this are the assessment of the undrained shear strength of the soil, from the measured cone resistance or blow count, or the assessment of the compression modulus and consolidation coefficient from the oedometer test results. Step 3: From meusured soil property 10 in situ property ‘In this step, the measured soil property is adjusted/corrected to fit to the real conditions in the soil for the problem under consideration. This step therefore needs a good insight in the expected behaviour of the soil and the geotechnical structure. Examples are the adjustment of the undrained shear strength, obtained in previous steps, to a very different. stress level in the real problem, or the establishment of the value of the compression ‘modulus for the expected stress increase. Step 4: From in situ property to characteristic (representative) value In this step. all individual values of the in situ property are brought together to select a representative value for the soil layer. This step includessome conservatism. This requires that not only the values obtained from devoted tests be considered, but also all other information which might increase the knowledge of the soil should be included. For example, water content and grain size distribution may also contain some information to be considered when selecting the characteristic value of the undrained shear strength. Previous knowledge is extremely valuable and should be included wherever possible. Also, previous knowledge may be test results in the same soil, or the observed behaviour of existing structure Another important point to consider at this stage is the variability of the soil parameter, so that not only the expected (mean) value of the parameter is established, but also the magnitude of its variation, ‘Of course the larger the number of tests and other relevant information, the higher the confidence one can have of the representativity of the value chosen and the less conservative the choice needs to he.1.2 Determination of characteristic values 19 Step 5: From characteristic value to a design value for use in a calculation model, applying a partial safety factor ym» Xy = X/Ym When considering the above described process of determination of geotechnical parameters, one realizes that it involves a lot of uncertainties: ¢ Step 1 contains rather few uncertainties, especially as testing material and procedures are more and more standardized. Any measurement corrections should be performed at that step; « Step 2 contains more uncertainty, as some interpretation is involved. For example, triaxial tests, even when well performed, may include some difficulties in trying to establish the values ofc’ and q by drawing.a straight line tangent to the failure circles, When deriving a parameter value through an empirical relationship (e.g. undrained shear strength from cone resistance) the uncertainty and validity of the relationship used arises. So this step contains more uncertainty than is usually admitted; «The uncertainty related to step 3 is often wrongly neglected. For example, the soil is much stiffer at small strains than at large strains; the stiffness of the soil is often strongly influenced by the stress path. The adjustment from the measured soil property to the in situ property requires good soil mechanics judgement « Step 4 contains often the largest contibution to the uncertainty. A difficulty in this step is that the engineer has either very little information, or has to deal with a iot of diverse, sometimes contradicting information. Statistical techniques are helpful to complement sound judgement in this crucial step. + The partial factor, introduced in step 5, aimed to cover unfavourable deviations of the real value of the soil property from the characteristic value, also includes some uncertainty Table 1 summarizes the aspects of proceeding. 2.2 Points of view when analyzing test results Properties of soil and rock and rock masses are quantified by geotechnical parameters which are used in design calculations, EN 1997-1 Section 3 requires ground properties to bbe derived from the resuits of fieid and laboratory tesis and other reievani data, ‘The test results should be presented in such a way that the determination of geotechnical parameter values is understandable. The values of geotechnical parameters are either directly obtained from test results or as derived values based on tests. “Derived values” are defined in Eurocode 7 part 3 as: “a value of a geotechnical parameter obtained by theory, correlation or empiricalism from test results”. Examples of soil parameters that may be obtained directly, are the results of triaxial tests (shear strength: peak value, at critical state, at a given strain; E-modulus at a given stress level, e. g. Esp) and oedometer tests (compression modulus at a given stress interval; consolidation coeflicient at a given stress interval) etc. Derived values are mainly obtained from ficld tests, Examples of this are undrained shear strength or the angle of internal friction deduced from cone resistance (CPT) or blow count (SPT). Part 3 of Eurocode 7 gives correlations for finding derived values for geotechnical parameters from most standard field tests (see Table 2 tor some examples).‘Table J, Scheme of investigation steps (LS limit state) Activity Method Applied on | Requested info | Output Part of | Asepet of uncertainty ECT | convered Measured [Measuring onsite [Testing proce | Each ingle | NA value orin the lb dures test ‘Fest results| Analysis ofmess- | Validation proce- | Each single | NA Validated vatue ot [2-3 | Test errors ured values dures and presen: | test parameter or rela- tation of the ionship boteon measurement parameters Geotechnical] Evaluation of test Each single | Calculation model | Value of the geo- [2-3 | Adequacy between test parameter | results test ‘intended! tobe used | technical para: result and calculation value for analysis ofthe | meter for the LS ‘model for LS consi Timitstate consid: | considered ered ered = Assumed beha Jour at the LS: ange of stress oF Strains if elevant Derived | Derivation of pare- | Applying on test. | Each ingle | ~Caleulation model | Derived value out [2-3 | —Adequacy between value meter(s) as needed | results test result, | intended tobe used | of each test result, test result and cal: im thecalculation | Empirical rela- | afterideal- | for analysis ofthe. | which ean be: culation model for model converting | tame ation if | fitstate comes | = geotechnical TS eansieret aand=ifnecessary | —Semi-empinical {relevant | ered parameter value = Calibration of model correcting the test | relations Assumed behav: | eveiient or result into sol para- | - Theoretical fr jour atthe LS: | resistance in meter(s) assumed | molas range of tresses or| indirect method to modelise the sil | ~ Calibration strains ifrelevant behaviour factors pag sunsTable 1 (continued) Astivity Method Applied om ‘Output Part of | Ascpet of uncertsinty BCT | convered ‘Selection ofa caue | ~ Statistical Allevall [= Lemitstate consta- | The enaractersue | t Spatial stochastic varia- tiousestimate of | methods ablerele- | ered value(s) for the — | (24.34P)) tons ofthe sol para the value governing |-Engineecing | vant deriv. | - Statistical ype of meters around its value the occurrence of | judgement fed values | data (local ~ cor etablished trend in the limitstate under andcom- | regional previous homogeneous sail layer consideration, tak plementary | knowledge) ing inte account soil information | - Ability of sol and) variably within (prio | or structure to the homogeneous knowledge | reuistbute layer, and nel. all previous selavent eo para ssperience) meter knowledge trom previeus experience Design value Deriving the value tobe usedin the verification of the LS under consideration Dividing value by rater actor 4 ‘Character istic value Design value Safety margin: = Uniavourable devie- tons from char. values ~ Tasceucacy ia conver son factor ~ Uncertainties geome ny und cate, mode! 2 i2 Christophe Bauduin ‘Table 2. Examples of gootcchnical parameters derived from ficld tests Field test | Test resuits | Derived value | BR” | Reference to ECT-3, Annex cer ae ¢ B Bl En B Ba cer a Pile resistance R BA PMT Pim bearing capacity R ca PMT. P settlement C2 PMT. Pin pile resistance R 3 rT deo Ip B b2 ¥ Da DP Nw Ib El @'for bearing capacity |B B2 calculations pr Nw Eee B £3 wsT | halttuns/ ¢ B F 02m Em B F FvT oy Sta R 6 B: parameter to be used in analytical method R: resistance [F/L?] or coefficient in semi-empirical methods Note that derived values can be a “basic” parameter (strength parameter ¢’ or y's cy, Ce etc.) or a soil resistance (bearing capacity). An example of this is the hearing capacity of a shallow foundation or a pile deduced from the results of pressuremeter tests, Asexamples of lahoratory tests, derived values are only applied when shear strength parameters are derived from the results of classification tests (e. g. gradation, water content, A very important point when dealing with derived values, is the kind of correlation used. EN 1997-1, Section 2, further requires © Values obtained from test results, derived values and other data shall be interpreted appropriately for the limit state considered (2.4.3 (2)). + The characteristic value of geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state (2.4.5.2(2)) Inthe process from measurement to characteristic values therefore the adequacy between the value of the geotechnical parameter and the limit state considered should be introduced. To obtain reliable data, the following points shall be taken into account (2.4.3 (4)): «© many geotechnical parameters are not true constants but depend on stress level and the mode of deformation: © soil and rock structure (fissures, laminations, large particles, etc.) that may play a different role in the test and in the geotechnical structure;(.2 Determination of characteristic values 23 # time effects; # the softening effect of percolating water on soil and rock strength; # the softening effect of dynamic actions; # the brittleness or ductility of the soil and rock tested: © the method of installation of the geotechnical structure; © the influence of workmanship on artificially placed or improved ground; «© the effect of construction activities on the properties of the ground. In subclause (5), the need to consider relevant published information and any kind of useful experience is also emphasized. Acalibration factor shall be applied where necessary to get laboratory and field test results to represent the behaviour of the soil and rock in the ground (2.4.3 (6)). An example of such a calibration factor is the factor L.1 to convert a @/ value from triaxial tests to plane strain conditions. idual test result before sum- Preferably calibration factors should be applied to each in ming them up and selecting the characteristic value. Iustration of the points mentioned above 1. Effect of stress and strain dependency: strain compatibility ‘As hard and soft layers differ significantly in their stress-strain performance, the shear strength of a oil succession is influenced such that the hard layers yield their peak strength at small strain, when the soft layers are still far from mobilizing their maximum strength. When ultimate limit states are to be verified therefore, it is not appropriate to apply peak strength values of the different layers involved without careful consideration. In the same way, deformation moduli of the soil should be chosen in accordance with the stress level. 2. Effect of differences in the soil structure between the test and the real structure A typical example of the different effect of a fissured soil structure on the test results and on the real structure is the size effect on CPT results in stiff fissured tertiary clays. For ap. P od (accord the reduced by a factor depending on the ratio of the pile diameter to the cone, Any corrections related to the specific test or test conditions should be performed at this, carly stage of the process. ameter. Some considerations about the use of correlation to obtain derived values One of the difficulties often encountered in applying derived values is the lack of know!- edge about the variance and safety contained in a correlation. A correlation might be + a “mean” correlation, # a “conservative estimate”correlation, # provide a “characteristic” value, # provide a “design” value, Ifa correlation is a “conservative estimate”, how conservative is it? (e. g. cautious guess of a mean value, a lower bound correlation?)24 Christophe Bauduin Some existing national codes provide “characteristic values” of geotechnical parameters derived from the results of field tests or identification tests (see e.g. NEN 6740 or DIN 4014). The characteristic values in this case are often given for “classes” of measured values. Other national codes give “design values” to he derived from (field) tests that are often denoted as “allowable values”, mostly related to a deterministic design approach (i.e. unfactored loads). Here also the design values are given for “classes” of measured values. In these latter two cases homogeneous conditions are usually assumed without specifying some criteria to check if homogenity is fulfilled or not. ‘The test results available to establish derived values are often results given as a function of depth for different test locations. To manage this information, some “idealization” of the obtained profiles is usually made, However, with natural soils, variations of measured properties may indicate significant variations in site conditions. It is therefore very important that weak zones are identified. ‘Summarizing test results from several test locations at too early stage, by using statistics may mask the variability of the geotechnical parameter value and/or the presence of weaker zones. Therefore, both the idealization of the soil succession and the determination of derived values should be done for each test location separately. When correlations are applied to derive a shear parameter or deformation moduli trom measured values, 4 diagram as illustrated by Fig. 1 is produced (e. g. taking the horizontal axis for measured water contents, the vertical axis for derived sheat parameter values). «test locaton 1 = lest focaton 2 . 4 lest focation 3 Fig. 1. Example for a cautious choice of derived values from scattering measured values Asi is not evident il the correlation already considers the variance of values, it seems logical to choose 4 lower bound curve in terms of a “cautious estimate” when characteristic input data for verilying calculations are to be developed taking account of the spatial distribution in the next step. The reason for this is the fact that the applied correlations are normally based on wide-spread regional experiences and need not necessarily reflect jocal conditions. If however, it is possible to base a correlation (for example between Atterberg limits and cu) on a sufficiently large number of site samples, a “mean” correlation will be appropriate, Derived values uset semi-empirical models When using a semi-empirical model, a test result (usually from field tests) is transformed into a resistance value. The transformation rule is often the result of the comparison between the test result and the behaviour of the geotechnical structure that has been1.2 Determination of characteristic values 25 measured experimentally: e.g. pile shaft unit skin friction deduced by cone resistance, is based on the comparison of the skin friction obtained by pile tests and CPT results. A calibration factor may be introduced to adapt the value of the test result or detived value to the limit state considered. Such factors also aim to increase the reliability of the prediction by covering its scatter. Examples are: « The correction factor on the field test result to obtain the value of undrained shear strength for slope stability design (see EN 1997-3, Annex G). The factors given are based on local experience and back calculations of slope failures. « The factor & to derive the ultimate compressive pile resistance from semi-empirical methods (in situ tests, EN 1997-1, 7.6.2.3(6)P and Annex A). If for example CPTs are applied, the factor should be such as to have a probability of less than 5% from a deviating individual result. Remarks: a) The value of the calibration factor depends on the level of reliability chosen. This in turn depends on the total safety required for the type of geotechnical structure considered and the load and material factors applied b) The calibration factor is linked with the calculation method used. 2.3 Points of view when determining characteristic values of ground parameters (EN 1997-1, 2.4.5) ‘Once a set of values for the geotechnical parameters has been determined, the charac~ teristic value for the problem being analyzed has to be evaluated from it. The selection of the characteristic values of soil and rock properties shall take account of the following (EN 1997-1, 2.4.5.2(4)P): # geological and other background information, such as data from previous projects; # the variability of the measured property values and other relevant information, « g. from isting knowledge: # the extent of the field and laboratory investigation; © the type and number of samples; # the exient of the zone of ground governing the behaviour of the geotechnical structure at the limit state being considered; # the ability of the geotechnical structure 10 transfer loads from weuk to strong zones in the ground. Complementary sources of relevant information may include databases, known variation coefficients of the geotechnical parameter considered and test results from nearby locations. 1. Effect of soil volume and/or ability of the structure to transfer loads The local (point) values of a geotechnical parameter fluctuate in the soil around its mean value (or trend). It is always necessary to identify the specific volume of ground which governs the behaviour of the structure in the limit state considered.26 Christophe Bauduin As the characteristic valuc is required to be @ cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit sate (EN 1997-1, 2.4.5.2(2)P), the first question to be answered is: what magnitude of the soil parameter governs the limit state in relation with the extent of the soil influence zone? A value close to the mean value may govern the limi state when (see 2.4.5.2(7) and (9)) © large soil volume within the homogeneous layers is involved, allowing for compensation of (stochastically occurring) weaker by stronger areas; «the structure carried by the soil allows a transfer of forces from weaker to stronger foundation points. A value close to the (stochastically occurring) lowest value of the govern the limit state when I parameter may © a small soil volume is involved that does not allow for compensation: a kinematically possible failure surface may devclop mainly within the weak soil volume; ‘* the structure may reach its ultimate limit state before the transfer of forces from weak to strong paris can occur. ‘The extent of the influence zone depends on several factors: © The type and size of the structure have the most significant effect on the influenced soil. As an example, in the case of a raft resting on a sand soil containing some loam lenses, the behaviour is governed by the sand, while in the case of a foundation on individual pads, the behaviour can be governed by a weak spot occurring under a single pad. +» The sliffness of the structure: a stiff structure will allow load transfer from weak to stronger zones, allowing it to reduce the emphasis on the local weak spots. As an example, in the case of a stiff structure founded by strip footings ona sand soil containing some loam lenses, the behaviour is governed by the sand, while in the case of a weak structure foundation on individual pads, the bchaviour can be governed by a weak spot occurring under a single pad. © The loads involved: for example, the shape of the failure surface under a strip footing depends on the ratio between vertical and horizontal components of the load. It should be emphasized here that “large” and “small” are related to the distance over ye pruperty uouis aiuund ily mean value (auto- correlation length): the smaller this distance (i.e. quick variations around the mean value), the casicr a “mean” value can be obtained. For a long auto-corrclation length (i.e. slow variations of the soil property around the mean value) a significant part of the influence zone can be located within the part of the soil having the lew point valucs. Remark: The influenced volume of soil should not be confused with the volume of soil which needs to be investigated by borings and in situ tests, as part of the soil investigation, prior to the desiga, 2, Processes governed by extreme values of soil properties When carrying out the design analysis, it should be noted that processes in the soil may ‘be governed by “extreme” values of the soil parameters, despite the fact that a large soil volume is involved or that the stiffness of the structure allows transfer of loads.1.2 Determination of characteristic values 27 Examples of this are deposits formed by thin, parallel layers (sandwich formation) that are often modelled as homogeneous layers, although for special calculations they behave ina non-homogeneous way. Examples are: ‘* groundwater-flow perpendicular to layered deposit, governed hy lowest vertical per- » groundwater-flow parallel to layered deposit, governed hy highest horizontal permeability; +» compression of a layered deposit, governed hy compressibility of weakest component; # reactivation of slip movements along previously developed slip surfaces; + akinematically admissible slip surface through a “chain” of weak ground section. When it is recognized that a process for a limit state is governed by the extreme values of a soil property within the influence zone of soil, the characteristic value should be selected a8 a cautious estimate of the governing extreme value, and not as a mean or fractile value of the property. For instance: in a layered deposit, the mean value of the compressibility of the most compressible strata should be considered rather than the point value of the tests including compressible and non-compressible strata, When soil or rock masses show a brittle (or strongly expressed softening ) behaviour, one should be extremely careful when considering “mean values” or “redistribution from ag to weak arcas”; brittle matcrials de show a brutal rupture, together with a loss of all strength compared to ductile materials, which more or less maintain their strength when strained continuously after reaching their full strength. Failure systems in ductile soils are more or less parallel systems, while they are close to series systems in brittle soils. This is ilustrated in Fig, 2 by a stiff structure supported by four foundation points, having ultimate bearing capacities of 125KN and 200kN. In the example, “brittle” corresponds to a complete loss of strength after the peak value is reached, while ductile means that the maximum resistance is retained even atter the maximum value is attained, ER PP 125200 200 125 Fig, 2, Example of footing support Fur duviife beitaviows ibe ic ireating capacity of the fuuudativn is 650K G25 + 125 + 200 + 200) and is related to the mean value of the individual foundation points. For brittle behaviour, the ultimate bearing capacity is reached once the first foundation element reachesits maximal bearing capacity and is 500 (there is no redistribution possible as once 125 is reached at supports 1 and 4, further loading means loss of strength in these points as the two other supports are loaded to more than 250KN, what they cannot carry). ‘The strength in the latter case is determined by the lowest value. 3. Type of sampling, extent of investigation and complementary information Distinction should be made hetween “local” and “regional” sampling, taking account of the fact that the same formation may deviate in its performance, Local sampling means that the test are taken at (or close to) the site of the intended geotechnical structure. In the case of regional sampling, the results of tests taken over a wide area are brought ‘together (maybe in a databank). Examples of this are road, railway or dyke projects. In these cases spatial variation has to be considered: the same soil layer may have rather28 Chvistophe Bauduin different property values at different locations along the project. Special account has to be taken for this source of uncertainty. Clearly the more information available, the more reliable the prediction of the character- tic value will be. The Eurocode insists on adding all the complementary information relevant to the test results of the local soil investigation because with local sampling only a few tests are normally available. The complementary information may be introduced through: «A good knowledge of the coefficient of variation of the property. Within a soil layer, the coefficient of variation does not vary much, especially if compared with the mean value. When the coefficient is known, this notably reduces the uncertainty of assessing the characteristic value. The statistical formula used will therefore be different when both the mean value and the coefficient of variation have to be determined from a set of results, compared with one used when the coefficient of variation is already known and only the mean value has to be determined. +» Bayesian statistics, in which a prior knowledge of values of the soil property (established by regional databases or previous comparable projects) is used as a starting point and in which the results of samples from a given location are used to verify it, if the prior values are used or need to be Updated. This method is especially useful when a good prior knowledge is available and it is not intended to perform many tests at a given construction site. However, if only local investigation results are available and any kind of pre-information is lacking, then very conservative characteristic values should be assumed due to the small number of local tests, 2.4 Use of statistical methods EN 1997-1 allows the use of statistical methods to select the characteristic value. When they are used, in 2.4.5.2(11) it requires: If statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be derived such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than 5 %. In this respect, a cautious estimate of the mean value is the selection of the mean value of the limited set of geotechnical parameter values, with a confidence level of 95%; a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5% fractile, ‘The difference between these cases is illustrated in Fig. 3. The flow charts in Figs. 4 and 5 sum up all the previously mentioned essentials leading to a mathematical formulation for the ssment of characteristic values. These essenti: are summarized as follows: a) local or regional sampling: b) homogeneous soil or trend; ¢) large or small soil volume involved ~ load redistribution by structural stiffness; d) useful experience available, prior knowledge. The flow charts do not give all of the possible combinations between items (a) to (d), but only those that are most relevant for daily practice. Bayesian analysis is not treated further here.1.2 Determination of characteristic values ‘mean vatve 1 possibe dstidutin | estimated for BS tests) my value of parameter Moan omar , GS -s- (i9p eu! Aeshna | AG os (ten]49 ‘geotechnical parameter or derived vatues 29 Hig, 3. Example of 95 % confidence required foramean and of a 5% fractile af 95% 2 95% | janalysis| confidence | | confidence ‘evel, ‘eve, linear virown vurknown aration point vue 5% rach, Vurkrown Fig. 4, Local sampling as starting point30 Christophe Bauduin, apa ores regional experience; emcees “supple mented local fo me coment confidence levet cae ea, ae ae ‘supplemented by ‘known regi Fig. &. Regional sampling as startin; vrs Fe, Resionl sampling as ting Note: Statistical methods are inappropriate when very few test results are availnible, except if they can be used in conjunetion with previous experience and/or Baysian anally- sis. Very often the “previous experience” is summarized in standard tables, giving characteristic values of soil properties, cautiously estimated on basis of regional experience (see Section 2.2). 2d Stati formulas to assess the characteristic value A normal distribution is assumed. This assumption is discussed in more detail in Sec- tion 2.42. An this first case the characteristic value will be an estimate of the real mean value froma tests, with a confidence level of 95 % (50 % fractile with 95 % confidence level). In other words the characteristic value with will be estimated such that there is a probability of 95 % that the “real” mean value is more reliable than the estimated one: x S 1 Xe [1 = 1085 -V al a where X —__~arithmetical mean of n values X; of the geotechnical parameter V =5/X — coefficient of variation 1 x aot 2% ~ xy 1095 0.95, — Student factor with (n — 1) degrees of freedom at 95 % confidence1.2 Determination of characteristic values 31 ‘Table 3 gives the values of &) = Xx/X asa function of n and V. ‘Table 3. Numerical values of & ‘v= | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.45 | 0.20 | 0.25 n=3 | 0.92 | 083 | 0.75 | 066 | 058 4} o94 | oss | 082 | 0.76 | a7 5/095 | 0.90 | 086 | ast | 0.76 6 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 084 | 0.79 8 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 090 | 087 | 084 10 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 89 | 0.386 20 | 0.98 | 096 | 0.94 | 092 | 0.90 40 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 095 | 093 Case 2 As Case 1, but calculating a low value where there is only a 5% chance of finding a location in the soil having a worse value: =X [p-tite-y (e)] Xb @ It should be noted that there is a small difference between the statistical aspects of the formulas for the mean value and for the fractile value. The mean value (50 % fractile) at 95 % confidence level considers the stochastic variation and the statistical uncertainty as two different sources of uncertainty that should be covered by the statistical formula ‘The 5 % fractile considers both uncertainties together. The mean value at 95 % hasa more “predictive aspect” while the fractile has an “observation from test result set” aspect. A +95 % reliable 5 % fractile” value leads to extremely low & values. Conversely, the § values given for the 5 % fractile in Table 4 are close to a 75 % reliability guess of a 5 % fractile. Table 4, Numerical values of & ste TF Taal ve | ows | uau | vas | vz | uz Case 3 Useful well-known experience available. ‘When enough test results (including on site and off site information) are available to state that the variation coefficient V of the particular soil parameter is well-known and32 Christophe Bauduin that locally V does not much differ from that known value, advantage may be taken of well established experience in terms of V by replacing (2.%,, by 1.645 in the previous formulae. ‘The decision to consider V as being well-known dependson the judgement of the responsi- ble engineer. Such a statement normally requires a supporting database of acknowledged test results, Case 4 Experience available but V not fully known, This case might be approached by using Bayesian analysis ({3, 6, 7)). However, its useful- ness for standard problems seems to be questionable, especially when comparing the two limit situations (Vunknown V known) mentioned above. Remark: The following casesrefer to situations where the value of asoil property increases (linearly) with depth or the shear resistance — t increases with the mean principal stress s Case S No useful experience available. characteristic mean value at a 95 % confidence for a linear trend. Statistical methods are available to calculate the confidence interval with @ given probability and the prediction interval of a linear regression curve, The lower bound of the confidence interval, when calculated with a confidence level of 95 %, gives the characteristic value of the real mean. The best estimate, X(z), of the ground parameter at a depth z, follows the Suen t-distribution with (n — 2) degrees of freedom. The mean value equals to the true mean of the ground parameter at this depth, and the standard deviation, s3, as follows: So fon-9 - bea DP? @ ft ‘Thus, the characteristic value of X at depth z is: XX +b—7)— 05), «sy (4) +b@-2) (5) (xy + x2 4--- + Xn) 1 qa tat... ten) (6) Ea -YA-D Len a1.2 Determination of characteristic values, 33 It should be noted that the calculated characteristic values are not a lincar but a slightly hyperbolic function of depth due to the term (22°... s;. The distance between the linear regression and the characteristic value is smallest at the contre of gravity of the readings. This shows the advantage of performing the tests both within the relevant problem interval, and slightly outside. As many calculation methods and computer codes use linear relationships, the hyperbolic relation in the relevant (stress) interval has to be linearized, but subsequent errors are usually insignificant, Remark: The significance of the presumed trend can easily be proven by a statistical test Case 6 As Case 5 but for point value 5% fractile. Statistical methods are available to calculate: the confidence interval with a given probability and the prediction interval of a linear regression curve. The lower bound of the prediction interval gives the characteristic value of the lower (point) value (only 5% of the test results should be lower, i.e. 5% fractile). ‘The difference between the local value of the ground parameter and its best estimate at a depth z follows Suudent’s t-distribution with (n — 2) degrees of freedom. The mean value is equal to zero and the standard deviation, s2, is: up? 3 4 ry hy ene = be 7] oO . Ya-7 ‘Thus the local characteristic value Xj at depth zis, Xe =X+b- 7-7-1095, 5 (8) Case 7 As Cases 5 and 6, but with pre-information. Available expericnce may be used. When very complicated statistical methods a1 avoided, pragmatic approaches can be followed as below: tobe a) to qualitatively check the assumption of an existing significant trend; ») to verify the b-value (semi-quantitative evaluation): c) to.add complementary measurements to the local set (a) and (b) evaluations should always be made. Usually, when a significant trend is established by local test results and checked according to (a) and (b), there is not much to gain by (c). This last one should always be done with care as the value of (b) may have some regional consistency but might vary on site at z = 0 due to different values of overburden.34 Christophe Bauduin Case 8 Regional soil sampling with no regional or local trend versus depth and no local soil test available. Mean value at a 95% confidence level. ‘This case has to be calculated taking care to consider the variability at one point (along vertical axis) and the global variability. A formulation according to [2] may be: maxfi- Bev ye Taino] (9) with the symbols are as before plus =F +324) sy — standard deviation at a specific test location (variations around the local mean valuc) assumed to be the same at all test locations, 54m — standard deviation of the local mean values around the overall mean value. ‘Table 5 gives numerical values §3(«) — Xq/X for different values of V and n, Values given for small test numbers (c.g. n < 8) should be disregarded: « regional data set based on so few results is very questionable, Rematl ¢ a = 0 means dominant stochastic variations over the arca undcr consideration. The charactcristic value is then the 5% fractile. © «= | means no stochastic variations over the area, only Jocal variations, ‘The characteristic value is the mean value at a 95 % confidence level. * A major difficulty is the choice of an appropriate « value, Dutch experience based on a small number of measurements indicates values between 05. and 07 [2]. ‘© The formula was established for embankment stability analyses. It may be used where large soil yolumes (¢. g. embankments, long retainments ctc) arc involved in the limit slaie under consideration. Where smaii voiumes are inyoived (c.g. strip footings), it probably provides too optimistic values: a 5% fractile from the regional sample would, then probably he a better approach. Case 9 Local tests com! 1ed with regional sampling (sce Cases 3 and 4). Calculate the local mean value and the characteristic value as in Case 3, with V produced according to regional experience, Care should be taken if the local mean value differs significantly from the regional mean value, either much lower or much higher. Additional tests would then be required. Prior to using this method it should be confirmed that there is no underlying regional trend (e.g. linear variation of the parameter value in horizontal direction), This can only be established from large data hascs. Statistical analysis of such regional databases is beyond the scope of this chapter.1.2 Determination of characteristic values Table 5, Numerical values of &3 v= | 00s | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 02s «= 10 nit» = 811.860 | 0.96 | 095 | 0.90 | 0.87 | O84 risi2 | a97 | 094 | om | ago | 086 #360 | 0.96 | ot | 087 | 0.82 | 0.78 101.812 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 088 | 084 | 0.80 @=08 sisoo | 095 | oso | 084 [079 | 0.73 yaisi2 | 095 | 090 | 08s | 080 | 0:75 0.94 | oss | 0.82 | 076 | 0.70 0.94 | 089 | 0.83 | 0.77 | O71 wiaeo | 093] 087 | aso | 079 | a6 | 101.812 | 0.94 | 0.87 | ast | 074 | 0.68 a=05 siiseo | 0.93 | 085 | 078 | 071 | 0.63 rovi.si2 | 093 | 086 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 06s «04 siseo | 09 | ose | 076 | 068 [0.00 rorisi2 | 092 | o8s | 077 | 070 | 0.62 a=03 8i.s60 | 0.92 | 083 | 075 | 0.466 10.812 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.76 | 068 3.860 | 0.0 | 082 | 0.73 | 0.64 | 05s ro1si2 | oa | 0.83 | 0.74 | 06 | 0.57 a= wise | 91 [oat | 072 | 002 rorgi2 | a91 | 082 | 073 | ose i800 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.61 | ost 10812 | 0.99 | o81 | o71 | O62 | 052 2.4.2 Choice of a distribution 35 The formulae in Section 2.4.1 have been established assuming 4 normal distribution of the geotechnical parameters. Is this assumption plausible? A definite answer is not possible but some general thoughts might help reflexion on this matter,36 Christophe Bauduin «The log-normal distribution (i. the logarithm of the parameter has @ normal distribution) may be used by transforming each value as follows: Xj =logX Kat xe +. Seoexy a =a 08 X (10) _ ER — xy? e-e * As geotechnical parameter values are always positive, they are in fact not normal- distributed. + Dnough tests are very seldom available to make a definite choice of the best distribution, «+ For large values of V, the log-normal distribution should be adopted. For small values of V, the difference between the results of both distributions is small. Note that for the processes governed by extreme yalues, the data assembly should be reduced to the extreme values before making an assumption about the distribution of the relevant extreme values What should be done when only very few tests are available? It is a common situation in geotechnical engineering that only 1 or 2 tests are made. It is impossible to apply statistical methods to such small samples. Engineering judgement and complementary information become then of enormous importance. Asa first step, one should try to increase the amount of local information by using values obtained as derived values from other tests performed at the site, If there a large database is available, correlations can be cross-checked and a regional approach or Bayesian techniques applied. “Regional” information is often recorded in standard tables, indicating characteristic values (or ranges of values) of the usual soil properties as a function of some sample in-situ or laboratory measurements (qc, sounding tests, classification tests etc). ‘Comparison of the few test results with this complementary information should lead to the selection of the characteristic value. It is, however, impossible to establish definite rules indicating the relative importance of either source of information, and the few test. results, Taking the most conservative value for both will probably yield a safe design, although in many cases not the most economic one. 2.4.3 Characteristic values in the light of geotechnical categories For geotechnical Category | problems there are usually only a few field tests (soundings) or a bore-log with some classification tests and maybe some general geological information. Characteristic values may then be taken from standardized tables based on regional experience, with the results of the field or classification tests used as input. The values in such tables are of course conservative estimates. ‘The problem of choosing characteristic values is most complicated for geotechnical Cat- egory 2 problems, at least theoretically. Indeed, more sophisticated calculation methods1.2 Determination of characteristic values 37 are used requiring “accurate” input values, whilst usually few (or no) appropriate test results are available. It is clear that the standard charts mentioned for geotechnical Cat- egory 1 provide a first estimate. However, this usually leads to a conservative design. ‘The use of a more detailed analysis by comparing the few test results with those of (regional) databases allows for a better estimate of the characteristic value. Normally the extreme assumptions concerning the knowledge of V (known or totally unknown, see Section 2.4.1) are sufficient to estimate parameters for calculations on Category 2 level problems, although sometimes Bayesian anil ysis should be used. The specialism however, related to this kind of analysis usually prohibits the application to geotechnical Category 2 problems. For problems in geotechnical Category 3, the extent of field and lahoratory testing is usually such that local knowledge becomes more important than the regional information. Comparison of both, however, is ulways udvisuble 24.4 Conclusions: advantages and pitfalls of statistical methods in geotechnical engineering ‘The use of statistical methods without sound judgement might lead to completely erro- neous results despite the appearance of some accuracy due to the use of mathematical formulae, That is why statistics should never be applied without good understanding of the problem: statistics are not a method that yields automatically a correct result. They are only an objective tool to support sound reasoning, If the reasoning is false, then the statistical methods will not eliminate the faults and the results will remain false. On the other hand an engineer who is trained to justify the selection of a characteristic value based on all available information, will have no difficulty in choosing the most adequate statistical approach. 3. Examples 3.1 Local sampling Assume the data set illustrated in Fig. 6 and calculate the characteristic mean value at a confidence level of 95 %. shear angie «9 30° 35° 40° a > ! . 2 . 4 4 | . + 6 f = , Ee - = if = | le Fig. 6. Shear angles from 10m deep Bio Lf investigation (example)38 Christophe Bauduin (a) All tests considered The analysis is performed on tani tne 0.6914, s(tang) = 0.060; (st) ‘Varan) = 0.087 tan, 0.6914 — 0.58 0.060 = 0.656; 9, = 33.3° 346° a") (b) Less tests considered To illustrate the effect of the number of tests, only some of the test results of Fig. 6 are considered: Tests | ung | s unm | ok 1105 | 0699 | 350° | o0677 3.9" | asas | 324° 1237 | 0735 | 363° | 0.0770 4.4 | O64 | 32.8° 123 | 0720 | 357° | 0.0867 4.9 | os74 | 299° 12.78 | 0707 | 352° | 0.0943 54° | 0.596 | 33.4° With only a few tests available, the characteristic mean value is rather low when the formula ftom Case 1 in Section 2.4.1 is used as a method of evaluation. ‘The reasons why and a proposal to get much closer to the reality is given in Section 3.4 “Analysis of strength tests” ‘There are also suggestions [9] that a simplified rule X, = K- (1 ~ 0.5 V) might be applied which does not consider explicitly the number of tests. [n this example this formula would yield values of qm between 33.4° and 34.0". 3.2. Local sampling with V well-known ‘The same test results in Fig. 6 are taken but V is assumed to be known with a value of 0.087. ‘This is the value of the sample. Of course, normally many more tests would be required than are shown here but for this example it allows easy comparison of results. (a) Two tests are performed. From regional sampling tanp = 0.691 (@ = 46°) and V = 0.087 are known. Applying the equation tang, = tang[i — 1.645 - 0.087(1//2)) the calculation of the local characteristic value will now be based on the various sets of measured values: 2valuesofy | wn® | ange | ve 32 and 32° | 0.625 | 0.562 | 29.9" 38° and 38.5° | 0.788 | 0.709 | 353° 32° and 38° | 0.703 | 0.632 | 32.3 32’ and 34° | 0.650 | 0.584 | 30.9"12 Determination of characteristic values 39 Itis now possible to check that no errors have been made by introducing the knowledge of V toa set of only two measurements: ‘+ the characteristic value is about 10 % lower than the mean value; « except in the second example (38°; 38.5°) the calculated characteristic value is lower than the regional mean value of the layer (34.6°). As both tests are close together and significantly higher than the mean value of the soil layer, the calculated characteristic value would be acceptable if other tests on the site (c. g- CPT, DPTSPT) indicate that the soil is denser locally. (b) Comparison of the benefit of knowing V by using the results of example (b) in Sec- tion 3.1: Tests Values of @ Vknown | Vunknown tg, gk | BKK Atos | 32%338.5%; 36.5"; 33.534" | 0655 33.2" | 0.635 324" .2.3,7 | 32°38s°: 3653 | 0683 3° | U6I 328" 1,2,3 32°; BS"; 36.5" 0661 334° | 0574 29.9" 1.2.7.8 38.5% 32° 38"; 32° 0656 333° | 059% 38" Jt can be seen that the @, values for a known V are 5 % to 10% higher than those for an unknown V. The difference increases with decreasing numbers of tests. The simplified formula by Schneider [9] mentioned in Section 3.1 yields a value close to the value of gy when V is known, 3.3. Suil property increasing linearily with depth ‘The next example illustrates Case 5, leading to the “characteristic mean value” and to the “point valuc” as a function of depth, The available data include n = 20 vane test results of cy Which clearly show (sce Fig, 7) a linear trend versus depth. ‘The characteristic mean value and point value are calculated by applying the Case 5 equations and are ploticd in Fig. 7 together with the measured values. ‘As the fluctuations of the measured values are low, the characteristic mean value is close to the regression linc. oy RI Fig.7.c, profile i clay normally-consolidated depth fo40 Christophe Bauduin ‘Fest value Regression Characteristic values of ea value [kPa] depth | cy depth | mean value | fractile value [om] | kPa) | os | eafkPal | tm os | 100 | 1509 | 100s 00 871 697 ro | 115 | 0962 | 1139 os 1005 8.26 1s | 130 | osa7 | 1273 10 11.39 9.54 20 | 170 | 4059 | 1406 15 1273 10.88 2s | io | 7631 | 1539 20 14.07 12.10 30 | iss | 3960 | 1671 25 1539 1338 35 | 18a | ossi | 18.03 30 16.72 14.65 40 | 20 | 10 | 1933 35 1803, 1592 45 | 20 | vex | 20.02 40 19.53 ints so | 240 | 2253] 2199 | 45 2062 rea ss | 250 | 1560 | 2314 5.0 21.89 19.70 60 | 220 | 9020 | 2437) 55 23.4 20.95 os | 270 | osss | asso | 60 2437 2220 10 | 280 | 0242 | 26.79 70 26.29 24.69 1s | 260 | rox | 2799 | 80 29.17 27.15, so | 300 | eae | 2917 | 90 3182 29.61 ss | 320 | os | 3034 | 100 | 3384 32.05 oa | ars | ioe | 3isz | iz | anda 36.89 9s | 340 | oss | 3268 | 14a | 4309 41.68 roo | 360 | ogse | 3384 | 160 | 4769 46.84 mean: | mean: | sum 528 | as.as | 44.622 Another example, Fig. 8 shows mcasurcd values of the modulus of elasticity versus depth, The linear regression line, an engineering judgement of a cautious estimate of the mean value and 2 95% reliable mean value, as function of depth, are shown. Fig. 8 Modulus of elasticity depth profile modulus of elasticity [MPaj oe» ow mt T, otlony Judgement
] o [ 2 | oa 59 0 5.99 423, 1 | us | oss B54 1 asa =L99 2 | we | U5 11.07 2 1107 023 3 | 1s | 1as7 13.58 3 13.8 242 a | 2 | om 16.06 4 16.06, 460 5 | 2% | 9s9 18.50 s 18.50 675 6 | 3 | 37 20.88 6 20.88 839 7 | 25 | 3% 23.21 7 23.21 11.00 8 | 25 | 1628 25.45 8 25.45 1309 9} 2 jis? 21.59 9 27.99 13.16 wo | 45 fistog 29.64 10 2964 17:20 i | ss |aosa1 3158 uw ase 1922 2 | 38 | 063 33.42 2 33.42 21.22 13} 36 | 1058 38.19 B 35.19 23.20 | 3s. | 3968 30.89 4 36.89 25.15 is | 3s | oss 3854 1s 38.54 27.08 r 56 juz7 30.15 6 405, 28.90 a | 62 [21237 41.73 "7 4173 30.88 i | 32° [30522 43.28 18 43.28 32.75 w | a9 | 632 4482 20 46.34 36.43 95 | 32.10 3.4 Analysis of shear tests ‘The following applies in principle to all tests used to measure the shear resistance ofa soil asa function of the effective normal stress. For the sake of simplicity triaxial tests have been used to illustrate the analysis, 3.41 Cantious estimate of the mean value of shear resistance Using the equations in Section 2.4.1, Case 1, often leads to characteristic values that are lower than the purely arithmetical mean values. This is especially true when only a few tests are available, which normally happens, and when V is not very small, which seldom happens. When threc to five tests arc available, the characteristic mean valuc is frequently as low as the lowest test result. This does not support the adaption of a “cautious estimate of the mean value”. ‘Two main reasons basically cause this and understanding them will lead toa better procedure to cautiously estimate the mean shear resistance: ‘« As few tests are available, high values of t®9} have to be applied (e.g: 5 tests > 1/,/m = 0.953), This means that the characteristic value is less than the arithmetical mean minus about one standard deviation,42 Christophe Baudusin # The procedure for determining effective shear strength parametersis applied to’ and tan y’ independently. However, it is well known that they are negatively correlated (low ¢ values often go together with high q! values and conversely). This favourable effect is neglected when ¢, and qj, are calculated separately. Remembering that the soil hehaviour isin fact not governed by c! and g’ (in ULS) but by the ultimate shear resistance, and that the shear resistance is a linear function of normal stress (in the stressranges of the geotechnical problems). all points (ty; Ou} of the triaxial test results should be treated together, to look for a characteristic mean shear resistance as function of the effective normal stress according to Section 2.4.1, Case 5. For triaxial tests, the easiest method is to plot all the 3n test results in coordinates p! (|, +04); q = (a1 — 2). See Fig. 9. The criterion for determining the relevant {p'; q} will be based an physical considerations about the geotechnical problem being considered, e.g. peak strength. residual strength or strength at a certain strain level to allow for strain compatibility in multi-layered systems. As most of the calculation models usec! and q, the Ayperbolic relationship has to be linearized eventually for the relevant stress interval, Remark: If the above equations yield results in the range p’ < 0, these shall be omitted. Fig. 9. Scheme of plotting measured (qq) and caicuinted characteristic values (qe) 34.2. Estimate of the 5% fractile The same can be said concerning the cautious estimate of the mean value holds for the asemmieai vf ie point value of tie siscar resisianey, if tine equations of Cases 2 and 3 in Section 2.4.1 result in non-realistic values of c’ and y’, especially when few tests are available and V is unknown. 34.3 Shear parameters that are not negatively correlated If the analysis of the test results shows that cand g! are not negatively correlated, the above- procedure should only be used with extreme care or not applied at all. 3.4.4 Numerical examples “The procedure described above has been applied to a set of 10 triaxial tests of clay speci mens out of which one test was rejected as being completely unreliable. In the first stage. all nine relevant tests are analysed, comparing the “p'; q” approach with the analysis of independent shear parameters ¢’ and «! (local sampling, V unknown).1.2 Determination of characteristic values 43 In a second stage the procedure is repeated for the more usual situation that only Jour tests are made. The results of the an anal :q” approach are then compared with those from of independent shear parameters (local sampling, V known, taken from the value obtained with 9 tests). The data of classification of the 9 clay samples were: Sample 8138 | Bsa | B743 | 8748 | Boies | Bios | BI149 | Bi2!s2 | B1261 w [%] 328 | 312 | 312 | 278 | 304 | 349 | a6 | 327 | - vweightdensity | 191 | 174 | 193 | 187 | aga | as7 | ist f 192 | - [kNim3] 1p [%] ass | 626 | 64s | 472 | s64 | 043 | 343 | 780 | 969 Va [%] os} 10] 20] 19) o8 | 7 | 27 | 17 | 23 Veo [2] 32 | 22] 37 | 22) 42 | a7 | 17 | s2 | 32 and the results of CU tests are: sample | Buss | psi | B743 | Bre | ors | Bios | Brio | Bizis | Br2%61 © [Nine] | 20 x | is | w | a 35 85 65 Lee 2 | 2 | m4 | 2% | 2s is | is 16 ws | confidence) for a separate evaluation of c’ and g’ are obtained: Arithmetic mean | Standard deviation | Characteristic mean © [kNim?] 383 252, 230 etl 20.95 614 1754 Ist stage of calculation fo regression tine {p:9}-mean vate {0 9)596 acti value {e! ¢-mean value 200 6 200400 600 800 Fig. 10, Results of the 1st stage of calculation From these results the arithmetic mean values and the characteristic mean values (95 %

Geotechnical Engineering Handbook

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geotechnical Engineering Handbook

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen