2001-10 Pages 28-32 PDF
2001-10 Pages 28-32 PDF
2001-10 Pages 28-32 PDF
an( ~eave o
overconso ic a~:ec Eu
Cu
1000'00
c BIfs- Note
Curves NLI
illustrative c
ByAS O'rien and P Sharp, Mott MacDonald Normahsed undrained settlement Sz/50
0 0.5 1.0
0
Introduction
Settlement at working load is usually the critical design consideration
for vertically loaded foundations on stiff overconsolidated clays.
Foundation settlement is usually calculated by assuming that the
ground behaves as a linear elastic material. The reliability of this
calculation is mainly dependent on an appropriate choice of elastic
modulus. 0.5 >-
However, modern laboratory testing techniques have identified the
highly non-linear stress strain characteristics of overconsolidated
clays, for example, refer to Jardine et al 1984'nd Figure 1'. This cc
explains the wide range of values for "linear elastic" moduli, which 'aCl
have been reported in the technical literature; for example E/Cu ratios oi
of between 150 and 1500 have been quoted in CIRIA SP 27'. As a result io
E
the selection of an appropriate value for a linear elastic modulus o
becomes a matter of considerable engineering judgement. The recent
1.0,
Ground Engineering article'xemplifies some of the difficulties that
engineers face in selecting appropriate deformation moduli.
An additional problem is that linear elasticity incorrectly predicts
the pattern of settlement adjacent to and beneath a loaded area. For
example, if total settlement of a structure is correctly predicted, set-
tlement at depth or remote from the structure will be incorrectly pre-
dicted. In view of these problems, the applicability of linear elastic cal-
culations for overconsolidated clays is limited. However, the alterna-
tives to conventional linear elastic calculations, such as non-linear 1.5
'ey:
finite element techniques, can be complex, expensive and time con- ao (kN/m ) Sofmml zfm) Foundation Formation Reference';
geometry
suming, requiring high level expertise and considerable engineering 250 18 3.3 agua gie,Baca iii Il egal g
interpretation.
'o
B=m L=BB',
Hence, there is a need for a simplified method which enables the 137 7 33 Ae ac e Ai ac e
due to unloading is greater than time dependent settlement due to load- in layer i (due to, for example, the installation of drainage measures
ing. The fundamental difference in behaviour between the develop- within the proposed foundation).
ment of settlement and heave is highlighted by comparing the ratio of The drained secant Young's modulus, E',, is assumed to be dependent
the end of construction movement to the time dependent movement, on the average mean effective stress during the load increment (or
R = 6u ih,d. The settlement records typically indicate R to vary between decrement) and the magnitude of vertical strain which the layer expe-
1.4 and <2d.0. However, the records of heave indicate that R varies riences. For the latter, it is necessary to iterate equation 5 until the ver-
between 0.4 and 0.8. Although incomplete records of time dependent tical strain calculated for the layer is compatible with the strain
heave, the rates of heave described by Mettyear'nd Pierpointio (for assumed for estimating E'I Following a successful iteration, the final
24m and 10m deep excavations in London Clay and Oxford Clay respec- value of E',. is the mobilised drained secant Young's Modulus for layer
tively) provide additional evidence of the lower deformation moduli mob
mobilised beneath excavations. equation 6, e', is calculated following a successful iteration,
i'rom
It is observed that compared to settlement, time dependent heave and then the cumulative total vertical displacement is calculated by
appears to develop over significantly longer periods of time. At the summing for all layers:
Shell Building, in central London, the rate of time dependent heave i=n
shows little sign of decreasing even though the excavation took place 6T =~ (e.'v H,) (6)
i=i
over 30 years ago, Burford 1992""-.In contrast, time dependent settle-
ment is generally found to be complete within about five to 10 years.
Calculation of undrained settlement, or heave
Previous analytical studies The undrained settlement, or heave, 6u is calculated from a modified
Figure 4 summarises the results of non-linear finite element studies for version of the classical elasticity equation:
a rigid footing, carried out by Jardine et al 1986". Compared to linear
elastic theory, the non-linear analysis predicts that settlement will
= 1 [3o, v(A<si + A<Tg)]H (7)
reduce more rapidly with depth, Figure 4(a). Also the non-linear model ll
n layers
then for layer i;
-
<a<trav):: .:-:,:-'eii .<-,:a<dl
~4~~ )sfo.=.'--, vn-.-'':
a
mv A<tv
i
H, (3) .et
e<<rauviec<a-ro,
'.-'. -"~~:: -:
v<n
<,:.,".'-455nr-.
mvvi
=k (4)
F,,i
Non-linear,
Fs =
Fs =
3.3
2.0
L depth. aa v
for layer i stress with
rudimentary level, stress changes
06 - 'orlayeri, does
Calculate change in mean effective
within the soil mass may be
calculated strain equal calculated from simple Boussinesq
stress with depth, ao hence calcuate
assumed strain?-
profile of average mean effective stress theory for a uniformly distributed
with depth due to foundatron loading
yes load on a perfectly flexible foundation
Qg- f resting on the surface of a semi-
Calculate settlement/heave within layer Calculate profile of corrected E c with infinite medium. If this approach is
depth, at normalismg strain magnitude
and avergae due to foundation loading i adopted then for most real
Sum settlement/heave for n layers foundations corrections are required
i 9 to take account of:
Calculate strain within each of m
010 Apply correction factors for depth
layers ~ depth of foundation beneath
and ngidity of foundation surface;
Compare calculated strain with strain~
in
~ rigidity of foundation
assumed for E for layer i I
accordance,'ith
It is generally recognised that
Undrained settlement/heave 2
for layer i Fox'stg depth correction factors will
For layer i, does
lead to an under estimate of the actu-
No
calculated strain equal al settlement or heave for most foun-
assumed strain? dation substructures (except for
yes
piles), hence the depth factors rec-
f i 13 ommended by Burland" should be
Calculate settlement/heave within layer i