You are on page 1of 10

16-osios Lietuvos jaunųjų mokslininkų konferencijos „Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis“ teminė konferencija

Proceedings of the 16th Conference for Junior Researchers „Science – Future of Lithuania“

STATYBA / CIVIL ENGINEERING


2013 m. kovo 20–22 d. Vilnius ISSN 2029-7149 online
20–22 March 2013, Vilnius, Lithuania ISBN 978-609-457-536-5

ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS SETTLEMENTS VIA DIFFERENT


CALCULATION METHODS

Patrizia Vitale1, Šarūnas Skuodis 2


1
Politecnico of Torino
2
VGTU STF Geotechnikos katedra
El. p. 1Patrizia.Vitale@studenti.polito.it; 2Sarunas.Skuodis@vgtu.lt

Summary. The evaluation of the settlement of a square shallow foundation on a sand soil is presented in this article.
A series of methods have been taken under consideration, some of which are directly related to in situ test results, and
the analysis of the findings shows that the uncertainties about the soil parameters determination could be overcome
by selecting a method, such as the Summing method, which not directly depending on in situ testing activity could
lead the designer to a more reliable result. In order to support the previous findings and to have a comparison with re-
sults provided by a method which is not based on a simplified geotechnical model, a finite element program has been
run as well and it has been shown that the obtained settlement is comparable to that given by the Summing method.

Key words: settlement, shallow foundation, sand soil, reliability, simplified model, finite element method (FEM).

foundation (see Fig. 1.): settlement (s), rotation (θ), angu-


1. Introduction lar strain (α) and tilt (ω), as well as differential settlement
(δs), relative deflection (Δ) and relative rotation or angu-
Eurocode 7 requires that the typological choice and sizing
lar distortion (β).
of the foundations are suitable to ensure, in addition to
adequate safety margins against possible ultimate limit
states, the functionality of the overstructure, limiting the
absolute and differential settlements of foundations
within acceptable values (Lancellotta et. al. 2011).
For this purpose, it is required that the project expli-
cits the requirements concerning the compatible move-
ments and the expectations for the elevated structure.
For each serviceability limit the following condition
must be respected:

Ed  Cd (1)

where: Ed – design value of the effect of actions; Cd –


prescribed limit value of the effect of actions, to establish
according to the behaviour of the superelevated sructure.
Fig. 1. Definition of various forms of foundation movement
In many cases this requirement is the most restricti- 1 pav. Pamatų poslinkių apibrėžtis
ve in the design of foundations (Bond et. al. 2008). Before examining the methodologies for the shallow
‘Effects of actions’ (or ‘action effects’) is a general foundations to estimate the extent of the failure and their
term denoting internal forces, moments, stresses, and evolution over time, it is useful to make some general
strains in structural members – plus the deflection and considerations.
rotation of the whole structure [EN 1990, 2002]. The ultimate limit state (ULS) represents a scenery
As far as the serviceability limit states concerns, the that the designer introduces in a conservative model,
effect of actions deals with various movements of the based on predictions in favour of safety of the strength of

© Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, 2013 ISSN 2029-7149 online


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt ISBN 978-609-457-536-5
materials and on unfavourable loadings combinations. The proposed evaluation of settlements is deve-
The serviceability limit state (SLS), on the contrary, shall lopped through different methods. As a consequence, it is
consider the behaviour of structures in service, setting all necessary to introduce a series of parameters, which will
considerations on a model much closer to reality. The be used in the simplified calculation techniques. For this
difficulties and uncertainties often increase significantly purpose, an equipment and infrastructure of Civil Engi-
because the constituent simplified models, used in current neering Scientific Research Center of Vilnius Gediminas
practice, are not able to appropriately describe the real Technical University was employed for investigation.
behavior of soils and because many aspects which are The analyzed soil comes from a foundation testing
normally neglected, as the three-dimensional nature of stand in the Research laboratory of Geotechnical Engine-
many problems for example, can significantly affect the ering department of Vilnius Gediminas Technical Uni-
calculations (Lancellotta et. al. 1999). versity (Fig. 2).
Therefore, the present article suggests to face up to
the prediction of the structure behaviour in exercise phase
through different methodologies for the evaluation of
settlements focusing, instead on the structural aspects
and on the influence of subsidence on the functionality of
the structure, on the prediction of the amount of subsi-
dence and its evolution over time.
This article aim – to analyse different methodologies
for the evaluation of the settlement of a square foundation
on a sand soil, focusing on the differences between the
methods, and to point up the procedure which leads to
more realistic results.
If an advanced constitutive model is adopted, then
the designer should face many difficulties present in ad-
Fig. 2. Foundation testing stand
vanced computer codes and in defining the parameters of
2 pav. Pamatų bandymo stendas
the soil (Nova et. al. 1991). Alternatively, the designer
could take into account a more simplified model which
Firstly, a granulometric analysis of the soil was car-
should lead to more immediate solutions, but which
ried out in order to classify the soil type, according to the
requires that the estimation of the parameters should be
prescriptions in EN 1997-2 (EN ISO 14688-1, 2002; ISO
lead in correlation with the actual problem - level of
14688-2, 2004; ISO 3310-2:1999).
stress, load path, conditions of deformation and drainage
Precisely, the USCS system was used (Unified Soil
(Lancellotta et. al. 2011).
Classification System) developped by Casagrande (1948),
In the present article, the second approach will be
adopted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (1952) and
considered, limiting the discussion to some commonly
in the United States by the Bureau of Reclamation (1963)
used simplified methods. Since a choice has to be taken,
and it is suggested in Italy (Lancellotta 2004; Terzaghi et.
will be illustrated the method by Burland & Burbidge
al. 1996; Nova et. al. 1997) by reccomandation from
(1985), by Berardi & Lancellotta (1991), by Schmert-
Italian Geotechnical Association (AGI).
mann (1970), the Summing Method (Medzvieckas et. al.
According to this system, soils are devided into
2010), by Plaxis 3D Foundation (2007).
three major groups (Lancellotta 2004; Terzaghi et.
al.1996): coarse-grained, fine-grained and highly organic
2. Experimental set up
(peaty). The boundary between coarse-grained and fine-
The present article faces the evaluation of settlements of a grained soils is assumed to be the 200-mesh sieve (0.074
rigid shallow foundation resting on a sand soil. The mm). If more than 50% of the soil by weight is composed
supporting structure is a square foundation 2x2 m, with by grains that can be distinguished separately, the soil is
an embedment of 1 m, subject to a vertical distributed considered to be coarse-grained.
load of 2500 kN (the self-weight of the foundation should The coarse-grained soils are sub-devided into gra-
be added, considering a concrete unit weight of 24 velly (G) or sandy (S), according to whether more or less
kN/m3). than 50% of visible grains are larger than the 4.75 mm
sieve.

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 2
Three samples of foundation testing stand were ana-
lyzed, since they have been taken from a testing laborato-
ry area, and the resultant particles size distribution was
nearly the same for all the samples (Fig. 3). Furthermore,
considering the minimum and maximum values of the
uniformity coefficient (Cu, min = 2.5263; Cu, max = 2.6164)
and of the coefficient of curvature (Cc, min = 0.7924; Cc, max
= 0.9077), it is shown that the obtained values are close
one to each other. These results ensure that the soil is the
same in all experimental area.

Fig. 4. Universal soil simple shear testing equipment


4 pav. Universalus grunto paprastojo kirpimo aparatas

Three cilindric samples were prepared (sample


height equal to 33.90 mm and sample diameter equal to
71.40 mm) and subject to a costant vertical stress. The
test was repeated for three different vertical stress values
of 100 kPa; 200 kPa; 300 kPa per sample, and the
maximum ratio τ/σ was found for each test.
The characteristic shearing values have been deter-
Fig. 3. Granulometric foundation testing stand soil composition mined to be φk = 26.47°, ck = 0.0 kPa and it was also ac-
cepted a null angle of dilatancy (ψ).
3 pav. Grunto esančio pamatų bandymo stende granuliome-
trinės kreivės The oedometer test was performed on nine cilindric
samples (sample height equal to 33.90 mm and sample
diameter equal to 71.40 mm) characterized by three diffe-
The soil unit weight (γs) was estimated to be equal
rent density, so as to evaluate the parameters of strength
to 17 kN/m3, considering that the studied condition of
and deformability, according to international standards
the foundation is characterized by drained conditions and
ASTM D2435-96 and ASTM D4186-89 (Froldi 2012).
that the minimum density was estimated to be equal to
The oedometer modulus (E0) was calculated to be equal
1.63 g/cm3 at the top of the ground and the maximum
to 25 MPa and accepted the Poisson ratio (ν) equal to 0.3
density equal to 1.84 g/cm3 at 3 m depth . The void ratio
(Amšiejus et. al. 2006).
(e) was estimated to be equal to 0.639 (Amšiejus et. al.
A series of standard dynamic penetration tests (SPT)
2006).
were performed in the foundation testing stand (Bond et.
Shear parameters (internal friction angle φ, 0 and
al. 2008; EN 1990; EN 1997-2; Lancellotta et. al. 1999).
cohesion c, kPa) were determined by universal soil simp-
The test was performed according to DPSH ISSMFE -
le shear testing equipment (Fig. 4) and the characteristic
1988 STANDARD (hammer weight: 63.5 kg; drop height
values (φk, ck) were calculated according to least squares
0.75 m), referring to ISO 22476-2:2005, by „Pagani Geo-
method.
technical equipments“ probe set TG63-150 for soil re-
search (Fig. 4).

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 3
lement s of a square shallow foundation, resting on a
normally consolidated sandy soil, could be represented
as:

s
 q' I c (2)
ZI

where: ZI – thickness of the influence zone where there


are relevant deformations, m; Ic – compressibility index.
On the base of a statistical study of more than 200
cases concerning the operational behavior of real founda-
tions, with dimensions from 0.8 to 135.0 m of length, the
Fig. 4. Probe set TG63-150 for soil research Authors have correlated the compressibility index to the
4 pav. Grunto tyrimo įrangos zondavimo komplektas TG63-150 result N (arithmetic mean of the measured values within
ZI) of standard penetration tests (SPT):

The penetration reference is of 200 mm (N20), a-


1.7
gainst the 300 mm of AGI recommendations (N30), which Ic  (3)
complicates comparisons with the results of SPT (Cestari N 1.4
2005).
The results (Tab. 1) are therefore reported in N30, in while the thickness of the influence zone is related to the
line with Burland & Burbidge and Berarli & Lancellotta foundation dimensions (B, m) through the formula below:
methods further specified.
Z I  B0.7 (4)
Table 1. Standard dynamic penetration test results
1 lentelė. Dinamio zondavimo rezultatai So, it is possible to rewrite the settlement formula as:

s  q' B0.7 I c (5)


Depth, m
N30
[Gylis]
which gives the settlement (w, mm) of a square founda-
0,3 30 tion, corresponding to a uniformly distributed load (q‘,
0,6 25 kPa) applied to the surface, on a virtually normally con-
0,9 23 solidated sand deposit.
1,2 27 In the case in which the foundation is installed at a
1,5 11 depth referring to a geostatic stress σ‘v0, the compressibi-
1,8 18 lity in the reloading stretch is considered to be equal to
2,1 28 1/3 of the corresponding value in the loading phase and,
hence, equation (5) becomes:
2,4 28
2,7 25
 q' 'v0 B0.7 I c
Ic
s   'v0 B0.7 (6)
3
3. Settlements calculation methods
The inability to take undisturbed samples involves that in The equation (6) can be adapted for an overconsoli-
the case of sandy soils settlements calculation of founda- dated deposit. The value of the settlement obtained in
tions methods are based on the results of in situ testing previous formulae can be corrected (Lancellotta et. al.
(Lancellotta et. al. 1999). 2011) in order to take into account the shape of the foun-
Among the various methods suggested in literature, dation (fs), the thickness of the compressible layer (fH)
that proposed by Burland & Burbidge (1985) is one of the and the delayed effects over time (ft) (Fang 1991; Lancel-
most applied in Italy (Lancellotta et. al. 1999; Lancellotta lotta et. al. 2011).
et. al. 2011). It is based on the assumption that the sett-

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 4
Generally, when the results of static penetration
tests (CPT) are available, the Schmertmann method
(1970) should be considered, since the modulus of elasti-
city E‘ , MPa is here related to the value of the resistance
to the tip qc, MPa. The method lies on the assumption,
supported by theoretical non-linear analysis and by mea-
surements of displacements made on models, that the
distribution of the deformations on the vertical barycent-
ric is not far from that offered by the elasticity theory
(Lancellotta et. al. 2011).
The settlement of the foundation is calculated ac-
cording to the formula below:

 h
 zp0   zg 0  zp,i ' i
n I
C1C2
s
C3 i 1 Ei (7)

where: σzp0 – stress at foundation installation in loading


phase just under the foundation base; σzg0 – initial geosta-
tic stress at foundation base level; E‘i – elasticity modu- Fig. 5. Influence factor versus depth for the calculation of
lus; Δhi – width of considered influence layer; Izp,i – settlements (Schmertmann, 1978)
influence factor; C1, C2, C3 – correction factors (rispecti- 5 pav. Įtakos koeficiento priklausomybė nuo gylio skaičiuojant
vely for the embedment of the foundation, for the delayed nuosėdžius pagal Schmertmann (1978)

deformations over time and for the dimensions of the


foundation). Reliability of formula (8) is mainly related to the
The influence factor (Lancellotta et. al. 1999) is de- evaluation of the deformation modulus E‘. The factors
termined from a correlation with the dimension of the which have a decisive influence on the elasticity modulus
foundation and the considered depth. The influence factor should be considered: stress state, specific volume and
is calculated in three points of reference: at the embed- deformative level.
ment depth of the foundation, at B/2 from the basement The strss state influence is taken into account in the
level (Izp, max) and at 2B from the basement of the founda- expression proposed by Jambu (1963):
tion. Then, the influence factor is traced according to the
0.5
L/B ratio and the it is calculated in the middle of the con-
  '  0.5 v' 
sidered layers as Izp, i (Fig. 5). E'  K E  pa  v 0 
(9)
Berardi and Lancellotta (1991), basing the method  pa 
on a retrospective analysis of the results published by
Burland and Burbidge (1983), propose a method which where: KE – module number, depending on the specific
take into account the variables that mainly influence the volume, it is referred to a relative settlement equal to
deformation module of a sand. 0.1% (Fig. 6); pa – atmospheric pressure.
According to the introduced method, the settlement
of a foundation could be expressed by the further The influence of the deformative level can be consi-
formula: dered by relating the variation of the module number with
the relative settlement (Fig. 7).

s
q
E'
 
B 1  2  I
(8)

where: I – influence coefficient, depending on the geo-


metry and the stiffness of the foundation as well as on the
width of the compressible layer.

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 5
A common method for the evaluation of the
settlements used in Lithuania for the verification of the
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) of a shallow foundation
is the Summing method. This method can be applied to
small foundations of any shape, the width of footing or
diameter of which do not exceed 10 m. The method can
also be used for the calculation of settlements in any
geotechnical situation, except for the case in which the
soil deformation modulus reaches values which are more
than 100 MPa. The same method is used in case of bigger
foundation, with a width of footing or diameter bigger
than 10 m, if the deformation modulus is less than 10
MPa.
The method consists in calculating both the
geostatic stress (σzg) and the addictional stress due to the
foundation installation and to the uprising structure (σzp),
by identify the depth at which the settlements will be
Fig. 6. Evaluation of the module number from settlements
calculated subdividing the soil under the foundation in
measurements (Berardi and Lancellotta, 1993)
layers of equal thickness (Hi) considered to be the 20% of
6 pav. Nuosėdžių skaičiavimas pagal (Berardi and Lancellotta,
1993) the base length.
The settlement for each layer can be calculated as:

si 
   zpi  H i
zp( i 1)

2 Ei (12)

where: Hi – layers thickness; Ei – elasticity modulus of


the considered layer, MPa; σzp(i-1) and σzpi – additional
stresses in the soil from the building load at the top and
bottom of the layers, kPa.

The additional stresses in the soil from the uprising


structure are calculated according to the formula below:

 zp  k   zp0 (13)
Fig. 7. Influence of the deformative layer on the module number
(Berardi and Lancellotta, 1991) where: k – stress propagation coefficient; σzp0 – additional
7 pav. Suspaudžiamo sluoksnio priklausomybė nuo KE (Berardi
stress just below the base of the foundation, kPa (Me-
and Lancellotta, 1991) dzvieckas et. al. 2010).
The total settlement is calculated as a percentage of
the summing of the layers settlements:
This relation leads to the further formula:
n
E' s
0.7
s  0.8 si
 0.008  i 1
(14)
B
' (10)
E0.1
where: si – settlement at the considered layer, mm.
which introduced in formula (8) gives the expression:
The sum of the si settlements calculation should be
0.3
q 1 s stopped when the geostatic stress is 5 or 10 times the
 2  
'

E0.1 125  I  1   B   (11) additional stress, depending on the soil elasticity
modulus: if E ≤ 5~10 MPa, then the 10:1 ratio is

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 6
considered; otherwise, when E >5~10 MPa, the 5:1 ratio of the finite element approach inevitably involves some
is taken under consideration (Fig. 8). numerical and modeling errors, lying these partly on the
operator ability (the understanding of the soil models and
their limitations, the selection of model parameters, and
the ability to judge the reliability of the computational
results).

4. Results
The settlements obtained by different methods cannot be
compared directly one to each other. In fact, as it has
been introduced, there are methods which are directly
related and this feature must be taken into account when
comparing the results. The Berardi & Lancellotta result
is, as instance, directly bond to the Burland & Burbidge‘s
giving a settlement with the same order of magnitude
(Tab. 2).

Table 2. Settlement of a shallow foundation evaluated


according to different methods
Fig. 8. Calculation scheme of shallow foundations settlements 2 lentelė. Sekliojo pamato nuosėdžiai apskaičiuoti pagal
by summing method skirtingas skaičiavimo metodikas
8 pav. Sekliojo pamato nusėdžio skaičiavimo sumavimo
metodu skaičiuojamoji schema Calculation method Settlement, cm
A finite element program (PLAXIS 3D Foundation, Burland & Burbidge 3,23
2007) was finally used, so as to compare the obtained Schmertmann 6,35
results with that from the simplified methods shown ear- Berardi & Lancellotta 3,91
lier in this article. Summing 5,01
Plaxis 4,83

Nevertheless, it is shown that the other methods lead


to higher results. The Schmertmann method, as instance,
even basing the calculations on the same delayed time as
in the Burland & Burbidge, gives a settlement which is
twice that one carried out from Burland & Burbidge.
Moreover, the differences in the results must be read
from the visual of the reliability of the methods. Methods
as the Burland & Burbidge give a settlement which is to
be considered only an average value and not the real
value; so, this estimation can even reach 1.5 times the
given value. Such uncertainty is due to the impossibility
of taking into account all the factors which influence the
compressibility of a sand by dynamic penetrometric tests,
as well to the intrinsic spatial variability that characteri-
zes sandy deposits (Abuel et. al. 2011; Lancellotta et. al.
1991; Lancellotta et. al. 2011).
Fig. 9. Numerical calculation of settlement via FEM The result obtained from the finite element approach lyes
on directly measured soil physical and mechanical para-
9 pav. Nuosėdžių skaičiavimas BEM
meters and, hence, it can be appreciated as a particularly
The Mohr-Coulomb soil model was used to simulate
reliable value. Furthermore, it is surely closer to that
the soil behaviour (Fig. 9), constantly taking regard to the
achieved by the Summing method, which is not related to
fact that the simulation of geotechnical issues by means

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 7
the disadvantages of the mentioned methods about using EN ISO 14688-1, 2002. Geotechnical investigation and testing
– Identification of soil – Part 1: Identification and descrip-
SPT and CPT results. tion 12 p.
Fang H.-Y. 1991. Foundation Engineering Handbook, 923 p.
5. Acknowledgement Froldi P. 2012. Progettazione e relazione geotecnica (secondo
le NTC 2008 e gli eurocodici) [Geotechnical design and re-
An equipment and infrastructure of Civil Engineering lation (according NTC 2008 and the eurocodes)], Milano:
Scientific Research Center of Vilnius Gediminas Tech- Maggioli Ed. 286 p. (in Italian)
ISO 3310-2:1999. Test sieves. Technical requirements and
nical University was employed for investigation. testing. Part 2: Test sieves of perforated metal plate.
ISO 14688-2, 2004. Geotechnical investigation and testing –
6. Conclusions Investigation and classification of soil – Part 2: Principles
for a classification 13 p.
1. The calculation of the settlement of a shallow Lancellotta R.; Costanzo D.; Foti S. 2011. Progettazione geo-
foundation can be carried out through different methods, tecnica, secondo l‘Eurocodice 7 (UNI EN 1997) e le Norme
Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC 2008) [Geotechnical de-
but it is foundamental to read the results by evaluating the sign, according Eurocode 7 (UNI EN 1997) and the Tech-
reliability of the purchased method itself. It should be nical Standards for Construction (NTC 2008)], Milano: Ed.
noted that there are disadvantages in methods based on Ulrico Hoepli, 163 p. (in Italian)
Lancellotta R.; Calavera J. 1999. Fondazioni (collana di
SPT and CPT tests. istruzione scientifica, serie di ingegneria civile) [Founda-
2. In methods which take into account the delayed tions (series of science education, series of civil engine-
failure over time on sandy deposits (Burland & Burbidge; ering], Milano: McGraw-Hill, 611 p. (in Italian)
Schmertmann), it is recommended to consider a time Lancellotta R. 2004. Geotecnica [Geotechnics], Bologna: Za-
nichelli Ed., 481 p. (in Italian)
effect of more than 3 years, in order to give the sandy soil Medzvieckas, J.; Sližytė, D. 2010. [Geotechnikos kursinio pro-
the time to bear the weight of the superstructure and to jekto Metodikos nurodymai [Geotechnical project course
evaluate correctly the total settlement. book], Vilnius: Technika 72 p. (in Lithuanian).
Nova R.; Montrasio L. 1991. Settlements of shallow foundations
3. A finite element approach is suggested in the cal-
on sand, Géotechnique 41, No. 2, 243-256.
culation of settlements, in order to have a referring result Nova R.; Montrasio L. 1997. Settlements of shallow foundations
with which to refine the analysis of subsidence and to on sand: geometrical effects, Géotechnique 47, No. 1, 49-
compare with other methods results. 60.
Plaxis. 2007. 3D Foundation. Version 2. Delft University of
4. It is recommended to perform an experimental test, in
Technology & Plaxis bv. The Netherlands.
order to measure the directly applied vertical load and the Terzaghi K.; Peck R. B.; Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in
settlements of the foundation and to compare these results Engineering Practice, United States of America: John Wiley
with the simpified methods findings. & Sons, Inc., 549 p.

References
Abuel H. -Naga; Bouazza A.; Holtrigter M. 2011. On use of
dynamic probing in sandy soils. Lowland Technology Inter-
national Vol. 13, No. 2, p.p. 40-50. International Associa-
tion of Lowland Technology (IALT), ISSN 1344-9656.
Amšiejus, J.; Mackevičius, R.; Medzvieckas, J.; Sližytė, D.;
Stragys, V. 2006. Gruntų fizinės ir mechaninės savybės. La-
boratoriniai darbai [Soil mechanics. Laboratory testing
manual], Vilnius: Technika 164 p.
ASTM D2435-96 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional
Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loa-
ding.
ASTM D4186-89 Test Method for One-Dimensional Consoli-
dation Properties of Soils Using Controlled-Strain Loading.
Bond A.; Harris A. 2008. Decoding Eurocode 7, Abingdon
(Oxforshire): Taylor & Francis, 598 p.
Cestari F. 2005. Prove Geotecniche in Sito [In situ geotechnical
tests]. Segrate (Milano), Ed. GEO-GRAPH, 380 p. (in Ita-
lian)
EN 1990: Eurocode - Basis of structural design 2002.
EN 1997-1: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules 2004.
EN 1997-2: Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground investigation
and testing 2004.

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 8
SEKLIOJO PAMATO NUOSĖDŽIŲ SKAIČIAVIMO
METODŲ ANALIZĖ

P. Vitale, Š. Skuodis

Santrauka

Šiame straipsnyje yra nagrinėjamas sekliojo kvadratinio pamato


nuosėdis, kuris apskaičiuojamas naudantis penkiais skirtingais
nuosėdžių skaičiavimo metodais. Norint palyginti skirtingus
metodus, prieš tai buvo nustatytos grunto fizinės ir mechaninės
savybės, t.y. grunto tankis, drėgnis, poringumo koeficientas,
deformacijų modulis, vidinės trinities kampas, sankabumas,
kūginė sprauda, atliktas dinamis grunto zondavimas. Tiriamas
gruntas buvo paimtas iš Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universi-
teto geotechnikos katedros mokslo laboratorijos pamatų ban-
dymo stendo. Visiems eksperimentiniams tyrimams atlikti,
buvo naudojama Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universiteto
Civilinės inžinerijos mokslo centro įranga. Apskaičiuoti sekliojo
pamato nuosėdžiai svyruoja nuo 3,23 iki 6,35 cm. Skaičiuotinė
situacija buvo sumodeliuota naudojantis programa “PLAXIS
3D FOUNDATION”. Apskaičiuota modeliuojamo sekliojo
pamato nuosėdžio reikšmė – 4,83 cm. Gauti nuosėdžių rezulta-
tai parodė, kad skaičiuojant nuosėdį skirtingais metodais yra
gaunamos skirtingos reikšmės. Šie skirtumai atsiranda dėl
metodų trūkumų, kurie aptariami šiame straipsnyje. Skaitiškai
sumodeliuoto pamato nuosėdžio reikšmė yra patikima, nes visi
fizinių ir mechaninių savybių rodikliai, kurie įvedami į pro-
gramą, buvo nustatyti eksperimentiškai. Rekomenduojama
atlikti tikrą eksperimentą ir išmatuoti sekliojo pamato nu-
osėdžius bei jį veikiančias apkrovas. Tuomet, remiantis rezulta-
tais būtų galima tiksliai pasakyti, kuris iš nuosėdžių skaičiavimo
metodų turi mažiausią rezultatų paklaidą.

Raktiniai žodžiai: nuosėdis, seklusis pamatas, smėlis, nuosėdžio


skaičiavimo metodika, baigtinių elementų metodas (BEM).

ISSN 2029-7149 online / ISBN 978-609-457-536-5


http://jmk.statyba.vgtu.lt 9

You might also like