Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Proceedings of the 16th Conference for Junior Researchers „Science – Future of Lithuania“
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).
Ed Cd (1)
s
q' I c (2)
ZI
h
zp0 zg 0 zp,i ' i
n I
C1C2
s
C3 i 1 Ei (7)
s
q
E'
B 1 2 I
(8)
si
zpi H i
zp( i 1)
2 Ei (12)
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
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).
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.
P. Vitale, Š. Skuodis
Santrauka