CEB5061 Geoengineering Foundations Materials

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POTENTIAL AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES OF WROCLAW UNIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY
MATERIALS
supporting the course CEB5061
GEOENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS
by
Wodzimierz Brzkaa, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor
General contents
Subject
1. Draft of the course CEB5061/Lecture
2. Instructions for the course CEB5061/Design Project
3. Instructions for the course CEB5061/Numerical program ZEM_SIN
General outcomes: the course completes the scope of the graduate course called Foundations (Level
I) and focuses on the presentation of selected new geoengineering technologies and some relevant
calculation techniques. Special attention is paid to the soil-foundation interaction which enables a
more realistic evaluation of structural actions. The role of the structural stiffness is underlined. Both
basic models, the elastic settlements and the ultimate bearing capacity, are developed.
The use of the simple numerical program ZEM_SIN supports the design of foundation beams on
elastic mining subsoil; during the lectures and the design project, students follow the derivation of
all governing equations (influence coefficients for both subsoil and beam deformations) and then
assemble to an algebraic matrix equation. By changing parameters of the foundation beam, i.e. local
stiffness or local foundation width, it is possible to control the soil-foundation interaction. A new set
of results can be obtained within a few minutes; therefore advantages of the computer aided design
are evident. Students are allowed to copy the program for exercising or private use (public domain).
Students get the background knowledge to cope with more advanced problems of geoengineering
and gain a skill in foundation design.
Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Description of the courses obligatory courses

1st semester
CODE CEB5061 GEOENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS
Language: English Course: Basic/Advanced
Year (I), semester (1) Level: II Obligatory/Optional
Prerequisits: none Teaching: Traditional/Distance L.
Lecturer: Wodzimierz Brzkaa, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor, Jarosaw Rybak, PhD
Lecture Tutorials Laboratory Project Seminar
Hours / sem. (h) 30 30
Exam / Course work/T: Test Mark
ECTS 3 2
Workload (h) 60 60
Outcomes: The course enlarges the scope of the graduate course Foundations (Level I) focusing on the
presentation of selected new geoengineering technologies and corresponding calculation techniques.
Design projects parallel to the lecture complete the contents of the lecture towards geoengineering
practice. The design projects cover an elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction (foundation beam,
pile groups) and limit states of stresses in soils (earth pressure, retaining structures).
Students get the background knowledge to cope with more advanced problems of geoengineering.
Content: Soil-foundation interaction problems in terms of calculation and design of simple

deformable foundations as well as stiff constructions (foundation beams and plates resting on elastic
subgrade, piles, block foundations). Special attention is paid to foundations exposed to mining
influences, surface protection aspects characteristic for mining areas, dynamical excitations of soils
and block foundations of machines. Retaining and embedded constructions are also considered
making use of a wide spectrum of earth pressure theories. Types, properties and applications of
reinforced soils and soil improvements are discussed. Supporting of deep excavations is presented
including the application of slurry walls for underground constructions, the Top & Down method,
secant-pile walls, soil anchors, etc. General criteria of safety and stability are defined following the
guidelines of the Eurocode EC7: Geotechnical Design. A number of calculation examples are
presented as well as relevant case histories, like the Pisa Tower and so on.
Literature:
1. Bond A., Harris A., Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor & Francis, 2008.
2. Cernica J., Geotechnical engineering: Foundation design. John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
3. Henry J., Foundation engineering, 1990.
4. Lancellotta R., Geotechnical engineering, A.A. Balkema, 1995; Spon Press, 2008.
5. Reese L.C., Isenhower W.M., Wang S.-T., Analysis and design of shallow and deep foundations.
John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
6. Selvadurai A.P.S., Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction, Elsevier, 1979.
7. Eurocode EC7 Geotechnical design.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
DRAFT
of the course CEB5061/Lecture
by
contents
Subject
4. Examples of soil-foundations interaction
5. Linear models of the subsoil behaviour
6. Foundations on the Winkler subsoil continuous modelling
7. Calculation examples
8. Beams and slabs on elastic subsoil simple discrete modelling
9. Underground mine workings and surface subsidence
10. Structures liable to the effects of mining subsidence
11. Types, applications and construction of retaining structures
12. General stability criteria of retaining structures
13. Earth pressure calculations
14. Reinforced earth constructions
15. Dynamical excitations in geoengineering
16. Case histories
17. Repetition and examples; the course synthesis
18. Final completion tests; marks.
I) focusing on the presentation of selected new geoengineering technologies and some relevant
calculation techniques. Special attention is paid to the soil-foundation interaction which enables a
more realistic evaluation of actions. Both basic models, the elastic settlements and the ultimate
bearing capacity, are developed. Special methods are required for mining influences.
Students get the background knowledge to cope with more advanced problems of geoengineering
and gain a skill in foundation design.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
1. Examples of soil-foundations interaction (1 hr)
Statically indeterminate foundation beam on 3 elastic supports

Elastic supports and fixities of a frame structure
Long beam loaded with a moving force
Long pipeline resting on an inhomogeneous subsoil
Contact forces under stiff plates and water pressure effects
Outcomes:
Students discover that structural calculations can be loaded with errors of the range up to 20-40%,
if the soil-structure interaction is ignored; the foundation (or structure) stiffness related to the
subsoil stiffness governs the redistribution of contact forces for design purposes, the rising of the
water horizon introduces new calculation situations.
2. Linear models of the subsoil behaviour (2 hrs)
The Winkler model, the subsoil coefficient

The Pasternak model
Elastic half-plane
Finite elastic layers
Evaluation of parameters the inverse analysis
Limitations of the linear models, no-tension joints
Outcomes:
Students look for a balance between model simplicity and acceptable accuracy for design purposes;
shortcomings of the linear models are discussed in detail, global and local models (analogs) of the
subsoil are introduced;
the question When the Winkler model (hypothesis of the elastic subsoil coefficient) can be
acceptable? is addressed.
3. Foundations on the Winkler subsoil continuous modelling (3 hrs)
The Euler-Bernoulli beam (strip foundation)

The force fundamental solution (infinite beam, concentrated loading force)
The moment fundamental solution (infinite beam, concentrated loading moment)
Boundary conditions
Semi-finite and finite beams the Bleich virtual forces
Variable subsoil coefficient solutions in terms of polynomial expansions
Foundation beams as virtual strips within rectangular slabs supporting an array of columns
Equations and analytical solutions for slabs
Outcomes:
A bridge to the courses Strength of Materials and Ordinary Differential Equations, practicing with the
superposition principle and the Green functions, application of virtual loadings as a prototype for the
Boundary Element Method, longitudinal variability of internal forces in beams on the elastic subsoil,
design of deformable continuous footings.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
4. Calculation examples (1 hr)
Distributed loads
Bending of piles and deformable retaining walls
Beams of variable bending stiffness
Action of mining subsidence
Outcomes:
Students acquire training and practice in the analytical treatment of simple geoengineering tasks,
building of the engineering intuition of the foundation behaviour under actions, redistribution of
contact forces, variability of internal forces for design purposes.
5. Beams and slabs on elastic subsoil simple discrete modelling (2 hrs)
Discretization of contact stresses

Influence coefficients for beams and slabs
Influence coefficients for linearly deformable elastic subsoil
Completing a required set of algebraic equations
Examples calculation code ZEM-SIN (public domain)
Outcomes:
Useful applications of the Force Method for statically indeterminate problems, approaching
continuous problems using a discrete approximation (towards numerical methods), approximation
error and discussion of approximation shortcomings, practical skills correlated with the parallel
course CEB3261/Design Project.
6. Underground mine workings and surface subsidence (2 hrs)
Mining technologies
Area of influence and subsidence curves
Parameters of the ground surface subsidence, mining categories
Tolerance of engineering objects to deformations
Time factor traveling mining area and rheological effects
Discontinuous mining deformations
Outcomes:
15-20% of Polands territory is in contact with mining influences (including dewatering of open-pits,
historical mining activity, mining induced quakes, etc.) and close to urban regions or industrial
ones, students acquire a description and classification of CE-problems;
students get a background for further contacts with mining engineers and municipal authorities.
7. Structures liable to the effects of mining subsidence (2 hrs)
Subsoil redistributed actions on foundations

Subsoil additional actions on foundations
Precautions against mining damage
Fundamental construction principles:
structural accommodation or high resistance?
Mining dynamical excitations

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Outcomes:
Design in difficult geoengineering conditions, evaluation of bending moment changes (mining
curvature) and tensile/compressive axial forces (mining strains); individual analysis of the allowable
differential settlements of CE-objects, shape optimization of foundations; some aspects are also
useful for foundations on swelling and shrinking soils or other origins of ground movements
8. Types, applications and construction of retaining structures (2 hrs)
Massive abutments and gravity walls

Concrete cantilever retaining walls
Slurry walls
Soil anchors
Outcomes:
Students acquire technical information (useful to make a rational selection) about characteristic
features of each construction type in the context of: required functions, safety, bearing capacity,
durability and costs; most recent technologies, such as the Top & Down construction processes
and the floor strutting method, are discussed; soil anchors are also useful for masts, suspension
bridges, hydrotechnical structures, deep tunnels (against up-lift).
9. General stability criteria of retaining structures (2 hrs)
Setting of loadings, positioning of the structure, eccentricity reduction

Sliding failure
Rotation failure
Bearing failure
Failure by (rotational) slip in surrounding soil
Other failure criteria: anchors, slurry trench, concrete design, etc.
Outcomes:
The criteria meet the geotechnical requirements of the Eurocode EC7 design code, minimal values of
allowable safety margins confirm the correct position and shape of the construction; other failure
criteria that are of interest: pull-out capacity of anchors, slurry trench stability, design of concrete
elements, etc.)
10. Earth pressure calculations (3 hrs)
The Coulomb-Poncelet theory

The Prandtl solution and its applications
Cohesive soils the method of corresponding states of stresses
Technical methods for the earth-pressure reduction
The EC7 approach to the earth pressure evaluation
Commercial codes analyzing full soil-structure interaction
Outcomes:
The limit equilibrium equations formulated in stresses can be solved only for several simple cases
most frequently, some additional simplifications are necessary; for the ultimate passive earth

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
pressure such simplifications can be dangerous (overestimated values by the Poncelet approach),
solutions for cohesive soils result from corresponding solutions for noncohesive ones; the rational
shape of the wall can reduce the earth pressure substantially; elastic-plastic numerical modelling is
more universal, if it uses adequate values of soil parameters.
11. Reinforced earth constructions (2 hrs)
Geosynthetics and their applications

Rupture, creep and pull-out tests of geogrids
Partial safety coefficients
Homogenization: reinforcement as a pseudo-cohesion
Macro-modelling: Design of reinforced-sand cushion
Macro-modelling: Design of reinforced-sand retaining walls
Construction details
Outcomes:
Students gain experience within a popular geoengineering technology of soil improvement useful
for shallow foundations, retaining walls, road embankments, etc.; get familiar with fundamental
reinforcing materials, calculation methods and design principles
12. Dynamical excitations in geoengineering (2 hrs)
Natural earthquakes, mining quakes, dynamic compactions, driven piles

Propagation of waves in soils
Soil liquefaction
Design of block machine foundations
Damping of vibrations: passive, semi-active, active
Outcomes:
Impact of vibrating surrounding soils to foundations and vice versa from foundations to
surrounding soils, increasing pore pressure and soil subsidence, allowable amplitudes and
frequencies for buildings, screening of vibrations, monitoring
13. Case histories (2 hr)
Was The Babel Tower made of reinforcerd earth? ziggurats (XXIc. BC) in Babilon/Iraq
The Leaning Tower of Pisa a sequence of geoengineering faults
Old monumental buildings in Mexico City very large settlements
Reclamation of a pond with liquid uranium wastes in Kowary reinforced soil cover
Outcomes:
Some spectacular situations as a background for profound geoengineering analyses: role of human
errors, insufficient geological data, lack of experience with new technologies, poor prediction of
environmental changes

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
14. Repetition and examples; the course synthesis (2 hr)
List of fundamental problems to be addressed

Questions and answers, discussion
Outcomes:
The last chance to explain problems, difficulties and to sum up what students learned;
preparation for the credit test.
15. Credit test (2 hrs)
2 calculation tasks (20min+10min, 7pts.+4pts)

3 detailed questions (3x5min, 3x3pts)
marks (at least 10 pts. to pass)
Outcomes:
It is expected that students engineers to be - become skilful in simple calculations for design
purposes; therefore 11 pts. - of the total of 20 pts. are assigned to the calculation part of the test.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
INSTRUCTION
to the course CEB5061/Design Project
by
contents
Subject
Design Project #1
19.
Foundation beam subject to mining deformations
Design Project #2
20.
Cantilever retaining wall
I) focusing on more advanced calculation techniques and design methods. Special attention is paid to
the soil-foundation interaction, including mining subsidence, which enables a more realistic
evaluation of actions. The role of the structural stiffness is underlined. Both basic models, the elastic
settlements and the ultimate bearing capacity, are developed. Students get the background
knowledge to cope with real geoengineering structures and gain a skill in foundation design.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
CEB5061: GEOENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS

Design Project #1
Foundation beam subject to mining deformations
Students name: Teachers name:
.......................................... Prof. Wodzimierz BRZKAA

Room 122 D-2, www.ib.pwr.wroc.pl/brzakala
Academic year: 2010/2011 (Spring semester)
Estimated progress: Project evaluation:
Tests:
Final mark:
Part of the Design Project Comments

1. First approach to the foundation length L (optimal moments) Assume linear response of the subsoil
2. ULS: Evaluation of the foundation width B and its cross section Use the bearing resistance & punching
3. Selection of the subsoil model, evaluation of its parameters Winkler, elastic layers or half-space
4. Calculation of loads transferred by the (deformable) columns Note that the superstructure is rigid
5. Taking into account mining influence: - changes in contact pressure
- curvature (different subsoil subsidence) - changes in moments
- tension/contraction (changes in axial forces and moments) - axial forces appear

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
6. Solving of the foundation beam: Use the code ZEM_SIN;
- settlements s(x) check SLS
- moments M(x) draw M(x)
- shearing forces Q(x) draw Q(x)
7. Concrete design; construction drawings bending, shearing, punching, shrink
8. Project defense and final acceptance (evaluation tests) Questions can also be oriented
towards CEB5061/Lecture
Task: Design a deformable foundation beam for the following design situation
Four vertical concrete columns acL x acB transmit the loads Wd and Md from a rigid structure.
Wd = Pi,d = . . . . . . . . . . kN Md =. . . . . . . . . . kNm
L1 = . . . . . . . m H = ......... m
Wd, Md
L2 = . . . . . . . m acL = . . . . . . . m
L3 = . . . . . . . m acB = . . . . . . . m
Pi,d = ? H
Lengths of the ending cantilevers cr , cl are not pre-defined.
L1 L2 L3 Mining characteristic deformations:

cl cr
Rk = ....... km
k = ....... mm/m
Use the soil data from:

a) the Ground Investigation Report and EC7
b) the Polish National Code PN-81/B-03020
Check SLS criteria for the foundation,

0,00 = Floor level =Ground level (G.L.)
calculated at 4 loaded cross sections:
hf
- saverage . . . . . . . mm
Founding Level (F.L.)
hw - beam tilt (averaged) f 1/ . . . . . . .
W .T. Soil #1 H1 - structure tilt fs 1/ . . . . . . .
- deflection arrow f . . . . . . . mm
- local rotation si / li 1/ . . . . . . .
Soil #2 H2
- local angular deviation s 1/ . . . . . . .
Soil #3 H3
Bedrock

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Soil name Layer thickness Density/Plasticity Genetic group Soil strata
Subgroup/Group symbol Hi [m] Index due to PN-81/B-03020 #
NB Construction backfill ID = 0,5. . . -----
G Silty clay - saclSi IL = 0,4. . . group A B C
Pg Clayey sand - clSa IL = 0,2. . . group A B C
Silt - Si IL = 0,3. . . group A B C
Ps Medium sand - MSa ID = 0,5. . . -----
Po Gravely sand - grSa ID = 0,6. . . -----
Teachers signature:

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
CEB5061: GEOENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS

Design Project #2
Cantilever retaining wall
Students name: Teachers name:
.......................................... Prof. Wodzimierz BRZKAA

Room 122 D-2, www.ib.pwr.wroc.pl/brzakala
Academic year: 2010/2011 (Spring semester)
Estimated progress: Project evaluation:
Tests:
Final mark:
Part of the Design Project Comments

1. Input shaping of the construction, setting of loadings Weights, backfill, surface surcharge
2. Earth pressure calculations Active earth pressure expected
3. ULS criteria (stability): To be considered:
- bearing failure of the subsoil - foundation slab width B = ?
- sliding failure - check founding contact and below
- deep rotational slip - methods of Bishop, Fellenius, etc.
4. SLS criteria Mean settlement, tilt
5. Concrete design; bending, & steel reinforcing
joints/dilatations; drains; construction drawings main construction details
6. Project defense and final acceptance (evaluation ,tests) Questions are also oriented towards
CEB5061/Lecture

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Task: Design a concrete cantilever retaining wall for the following design situation
Assume a general profile of the wall as indicated.

No ribs (supporting vertical pillars from inside) are planned.
A B C D
Use the soil data from:

a) the Ground Investigation Report and EC7
b) the Polish National Code PN-83/B-03010
qd
n =.1: ....
o
= .....
n Soil #1 Ho qd = . . . . . . . kPa
Ho = . . . . . . . m
0,00 = Ground level (G.L.)
H1 = . . . . . . . m
hw hw = . . . . . . . m
H1
W .T.
Soil #1
Other dimensions are not pre-defined.
Soil #2
Soil name Layer thickness Density/Plasticity Genetic group Soil strata

Subgroup/Group symbol Hi [m] Index due to PN-81/B-03020 #
NB Construction backfill ID = 0,5. . . -----
G Silty clay - saclSi IL = 0,4. . . group A B C
Pg Clayey sand - clSa IL = 0,2. . . group A B C

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Silt - Si IL = 0,3. . . group A B C
Ps Medium sand - MSa ID = 0,5. . . -----
Po Gravely sand - grSa ID = 0,6. . . -----
Teachers signature:

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
INSTRUCTION
to the course CEB5061/Numerical Program ZEM_SIN
by
contents
Subject
21. Program ZEM_SIN - description and background
22. Calculation example
23. Format of the data file ZEM_SIN.DAT
24. Format of the results file ZEM_SIN.RES
General outcomes: advantages of the computer aided design using a simple numerical tool that
supports the design of foundation beams on elastic mining subsoil; during the lecture and the design
project, students follow the derivation of all governing equations (influence coefficients for both
subsoil and beam deformations) and then assemble an algebraic matrix equation. By changing
parameters of the foundation beam, i.e. local stiffness or local foundation width, it is possible to
control the soil-foundation interaction. A new set of results can be obtained within a few minutes.
Students are allowed to copy the program for exercising or private use (public domain).

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
1. Program ZEM_SIN - description & background
Objectives
FOUNDATION BEAM
The program ZEM_SIN deals with elastic
foundation beams (or virtual slabs
Pi
A B sections of he with B) resting on the
elastic subsoil, such as:
- the Winkler model (WIN),
ri - the elastic half-space (POS)
- or the horizontal elastic layers
(WAS).
Ri
The continuous contact stress r(x) under
foundations is reduced to a sequence of
piece-wise constant pressures ri or
resultant contact forces Ri . Vertical
loads Pi act at the center of each
ELASTIC SUBSOIL segment i, independent subsidence
can be applied as well.
Due to the assumed discretization, the
foundation width and beam stiffness
can vary from segment to segment, Bi , EIi .
Both the evaluated forces Ri and the acting forces Pi can be used to design the foundation beam
(moments Mi , shear force Qi) and to predict its deformation.
Subsoil model selection

The selection between either WIN or POS or WAS depends on the relative thickness of the
deformable subsoil H/B under foundation. It is recommended to use:
- WIN, for H/B < 1,0-1,5
- POS, for H/B > 5,0-7,0 - if the subsoil is (more or less) homogeneous
- WAS, for other cases, such as distinct soil layers, soil stiffness strongly increasing with depth, etc.
Clearly, the option WAS is the most universal, i.e. it works also for H/B > 5,0-7,0 but numerically can
be less accurate; for H/B < 1,0-1,5 the results for WIN and WAS are very similar, so the much
simpler/faster WIN is recommended.
Since for WAS there is H < , some boundary conditions on the bottom of the lowest layer should be
defined, either in displacements or shear stresses. In practice, zero displacements are usually
recommended use the so called szorstkibrzeg option.
Concept of the calculation method

It is a version of the general Method of Forces, or rather a mixed one, since not only the contact
forces Ri , i = 1,2,,n 30, but also the beam-end settlements uA, uB are to be found (n+2 unknowns).

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Two equations of equilibrium are completed by n continuity equations subsoil settlements and
beam deformations in each of i segments are assumed as equal (not applicable in a case of potential
tension under foundation! Cut-off model required).
Hence, two sets of parameters should be pre-calculated:
- inter-segment influence coefficients for the subsoil settlements called wij (diagonal matrix for the
Winkler model, some multiple integrals of the Boussinesq solution for POS, the Fourier
expansions and their integrals for WAS),
- inter-segment influence coefficients for the beam called yij (simple application of the standard
Maxwell-Mohr method).
Subsoil-parameter selection; the inverse analysis

Traditionally, elastic subsoil parameters yield from the standard Young modulus Eo and the Poisson
coefficient . For the first approximation, the values of Eo and from the National Code PN-81/B-
03020 can be used. Note that some authors contest too small values of Eo for noncohesive soils, too
large values for the cohesive ones in plastic consistency and lack of the Eo increase with depth.
It is assumed that the averaged settlement of the foundation resting on the elastic subsoil model
equals the averaged settlement wo of the same foundation, expressed using Eo and .
The parameters Eo and are sometimes grouped (for the elastic halfspace) and appear as one elastic
coefficient Es = Eo/(1-2).
Very popular estimation of the elastic settlements based on Eo and uses the following formulae in
which H = Hi denotes the total thickness of the deformable subsoil under foundation and the values
zi stand for levels (depths) separating different soil layers.
- For one deformable layer of the thickness H1 + :
r( L B, H1 B )
w o1 = q B
Es
- For two deformable layers of the thickness H2 = z2 - z1 , H1 = z1 zo , zo = 0 :
( L B, z 1 B ) r ( L B, z 2 B ) r ( L B, z 1 B )
w o2 = q B r +
E s1 E s2
- For n deformable layer of the thickness Hi = zi zi-1 , zo = 0 :
n
r ( L B, z i B ) r ( L B, z i1 B )
w on = q B
i =1 E si
The symbol won estimates the average settlement of the rectangular area L x B
under the load q = const. The recommended coefficients r are presented in the table.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
r(L/B,H/B) Comment:
H/B L/B=1 L/B=10 L/B=20 L/B= to be precise, the expressions are correct only for n = 1
0 0 0 0 0 and H = +, i.e. for the elastic halfspace,
0,25 0,22 0,25 0,25 0,25 because the calculation of r uses only the upper part
0,50 0,39 0,46 0,46 0,46 of the same stress charts for the halfspace (the
0,75 0,53 0,63 0,63 0,64 Steinbrenner ones presented in PN-81/B-03020).
1,00 0,62 0,77 0,77 0,79
Therefore, wo is in fact the average settlement of the
1,50 0,72 1,00 1,01 1,03
sublayer 0 z H < + extracted from the halfspace 0
2,00 0,77 1,15 1,16 1,20
3,00 0,81 1,37 1,39 1,42 z +.
4,00 0,84 1,50 1,53 1,59
5,00 0,87 1,63 1,67 1,77
10,0 0,91 1,90 2,01 2,19
25,0 0,93 2,10 2,45 2,66
0,95 2,25 2,65
In other words, different moduli Eoi in all layers change
the stress distributions, so they should influence the coefficients r . This shortcoming is usually not
crucial (and it does not take place for WAS).
Example WIN
Since for the Winkler model w = q/C, and by the assumption w = won , so the subsoil parameter C
for the equivalent Winkler model can be easily found from this equation,
like C = Es/B/r(L/B,H/B) for n = 1.
Example POS
If H + and the subsoil is homogeneous then simply Eo and (or Es) are in use.
If H is large (but finite) and the subsoil is not layered then the equivalent halfspace should have a
greater value of the elastic coefficient, called Es*. Comparing two wo1 for both Es* and Es results in
Es* = Esr(L/B, /B) /r(L/B,H/B) > Es .
The same for the homogenized halfspace, if wo1 and Es* as well as won and Esi are compared.
Example WAS
The complete set of data {Hi , Eoi , i }, i = 1,,n 1 is required and also the boundary conditions at the
depth H = Hi (on the bedrock floor).
2. Calculation example
The foundation beam L x B = 19,6m x 1,60m is considered. The number of discrete segments equals
15, of the length Li = 1,0 , 1,4 and 2,0m , respectively. Note that Bi = const(i)= 1,60m.
The foundation is loaded by 4 vertical concentrated forces:
two outer forces 1,3MN situated 1,90m from the beam ends,
two central forces 1,7MN situated 3,0m from the beam center (symmetry assumed).
The beam is prismatic, i.e. EI = const = 2362.5MNm2. Note that EIi = const(i).
There is no additional subsidence, i = 0.

The subsoil model Winkler, the subsoil coefficient C = 18,6MN/m3.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
The format of data must follow the guidelines formulated below in Section 3. Use any simple text
editor to define/redefine the data in the file ZEM_SIN.DAT. Close the data file and write the data in
the txt format. Only the data from the file ZEM_SIN.DAT will be read by the program.
To run the calculation, set a separate directory, say ZEM_SIN Working Directory with the following
two and the only to files: the program ZEM_SIN.exe and the file ZEM_SIN.DAT.
Click the icon of the program to start and you will immediately see 3 new files created in the working
directory:
- Wij.RES and Yij.RES you can ignore them,
- ZEM_SIN.RES with the required results.
Comment:
- this way, there will be 2+3 = 5 files in the working directory; the next run is possible only if you
delete, remove or rename all 3 files called *.RES otherwise, an execution error is reported.

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
3. Format of the data file ZEM_SIN.DAT
WIN ! Select one model of the subsoil: either WAS = for elastic layers, either POS = for elastic half-space,
either WIN = for the Winkler model
0.25 80.0 ! for POS only: the Poisson coefficient & the Young modulus [MPa], (put any real numbers, if WAS
or WIN)
18.6 ! for WIN only: the Winkler coefficient [MN/m3], (put any real number if POS or WAS)
4 ! for WAS only: number of elastic layers, LW, 1<=LW<=10; then for each: the Poisson coefficient
& the Young modulus & thickness of the layer
0.35 40.0 1.5 ! the Poisson coefficient & the Young modulus and thickness of the layer#1 (the upper one)
0.30 60.0 1.0 ! the Poisson coefficient & the Young modulus and thickness of the layer#2 (the next lower one)
0.35 40.0 2.0 ! the Poisson coefficient & the Young modulus and thickness of the layer#3 (the next lower one)
0.25 80.0 2.0 ! the Poisson coefficient & the Young modulus and thickness of the layer#4 (here the lowest one)
szorstkibrzeg ! select either "szorstkibrzeg" (for rough boundary) or "gladkibrzeg" (for smooth boundary); these
are the zero-displacement or zero-shear-stress boundary conditions on the contact plane with
the undeformable bedrock
srednie ! select either "srednie" or "srodek" - the former calculates the influence coefficients wij in
the midle of the element, the later one calculates the averaged values (more accurate)
25 25 ! for WAS only, put the number of the Fourier series terms, maximal 50 50 (for slender
calculation segments)
15 ! number of calculation segments of the beam, with parameters respectively:
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000 ! L(1),B(1),EI(1),P(1),delta(1)
1.00 1.60 2362.5 1.300 0.000 ! similar for the second segment
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000 ! and so on ... L(i), B(i), EI(i),P(i), delta(i)
1.00 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.00 1.60 2362.5 1.700 0.000
2.00 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.00 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
2.00 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.00 1.60 2362.5 1.700 0.000
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.00 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000
1.00 1.60 2362.5 1.300 0.000
1.40 1.60 2362.5 0.0 0.000 ! L(N),B(N),EI(N),P(N),delta(N)
* the columns denote for the segments i=1,,...,N:
* segment length L(i) [m]
* segment width B(i) [m]
* segment stiffness EI(i) [MNm2]
* segment vertical force P(i) [MN], like 1.300MN = 1300kN
* segment additional (mining) subsidence delta(i) [m]
Comment:
- in each line of the data, only the numbers/letters before the sign ! are important
(the resting ones presented here in Times New Roman - are just some neutral comments).

EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
4. Format of the results file ZEM_SIN.RES
****************************** LAWA SZEREGOWA ******************************

****************************** FOUNDATION BEAM ******************************
Podloze Winklera: C = 18.6MN/m3

The Winkler subsoil: C = 18.6MN/m3
***** LICZBA WYDZIELONYCH SEGMENTOW OBLICZENIOWYCH (min=2,max=30) = 15 ****

****************************************************************************
***** NUMBER OF DISCRETE CALCULATION SEGMENTS (min=2,max=30) = 15 ****
****************************************************************************
xi= Li= Bi= EIi= Pi= Deltai=

[m] [m] [m] [MNm2] [MN] [m]
0.70 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
1.90 1.00 1.60 2362.50 1.300 0.0000
3.10 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
4.30 1.00 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
5.50 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
6.70 1.00 1.60 2362.50 1.700 0.0000
8.20 2.00 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
9.70 1.00 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
11.20 2.00 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
12.70 1.00 1.60 2362.50 1.700 0.0000
13.90 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
15.10 1.00 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
16.30 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
17.50 1.00 1.60 2362.50 1.300 0.0000
18.70 1.40 1.60 2362.50 0.000 0.0000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WYNIKI OBLICZEN PROGRAMU ZEM_SIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CALCULATION RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM ZEM_SIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Segment i = 1 ............ Wypadkowa reakcja podloza = 0.440 MN


EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN
SOCIAL FUND
Calkowite osiadanie lewego konca lawy UA = 0.0105 m
Calkowite osiadanie prawego konca lawy UB = 0.0105 m
Segment i = 1 ............ Resultant subsoil response= 0.440 MN

Beam total settlement of the left end UA = 0.0105 m
Beam total settlement of the right end UB = 0.0105 m
~~~~~~~~~~~~ OTRZYMANE WIELKOSCI PRZEKROJOWE W LAWIE SZEREGOWEJ ~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FOUNDATION BEAM CROSS SECIONAL DATA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Przekroj Wspolrzedna : Osiadanie Reakcja Moment Sila poprzeczna

lp. xi[m] : yi[m] ri[MPa] Mi[MNm] Qi[MN]
Cross section Coordinate: Settlement Response Moment Shearing force
lp. xi[m] : yi[m] ri[MPa] Mi[MNm] Qi[MN]
1 0.70 : 0.01056 0.1963 0.0770 0.2199 / 0.2199
2 1.90 : 0.01065 0.1981 0.5674 0.5983 / -0.7017
3 3.10 : 0.01054 0.1961 -0.0473 -0.3236 / -0.3236
4 4.30 : 0.01046 0.1946 -0.2100 0.0517 / 0.0517
5 5.50 : 0.01049 0.1951 0.0764 0.4259 / 0.4259
6 6.70 : 0.01047 0.1947 0.8122 0.8001 / -0.8999
7 8.20 : 0.01005 0.1869 -0.1935 -0.4451 / -0.4451
8 9.70 : 0.00982 0.1826 -0.5256 0.0000 / 0.0000
9 11.20 : 0.01005 0.1869 -0.1935 0.4451 / 0.4451
10 12.70 : 0.01047 0.1947 0.8122 0.8999 / -0.8001
11 13.90 : 0.01049 0.1951 0.0764 -0.4259 / -0.4259
12 15.10 : 0.01046 0.1946 -0.2100 -0.0517 / -0.0517
13 16.30 : 0.01054 0.1961 -0.0473 0.3236 / 0.3236
14 17.50 : 0.01065 0.1981 0.5674 0.7017 / -0.5983
15 18.70 : 0.01056 0.1963 0.0770 -0.2199 / -0.2199
~~~~KONIEC~~~~~~KONIEC~~~~~~KONIEC~~~~~~KONIEC~~~~~~KONIEC~~~~~~KONIEC~~~~~
~~~END OF CALCULATION~~~~~~ END OF CALCULATION~~~~~~ END OF CALCULATION~~~~~
Comments:
- for data checking purposes, all the input parameters are listed first,
- look for ~~~~KONIEC~~~~~ to make sure if the calculations finished correctly,
- draw the solutions as the functions r(x), u(x), M(x), Q(x),
- have a lot of fun with ZEM_SIN

CEB5061 Geoengineering Foundations Materials

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CEB5061 Geoengineering Foundations Materials

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EUROPEAN UNION

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

Description of the courses obligatory courses

Content: Soil-foundation interaction problems in terms of calculation and design of simple

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

Statically indeterminate foundation beam on 3 elastic supports

2. Linear models of the subsoil behaviour (2 hrs)

The Winkler model, the subsoil coefficient

3. Foundations on the Winkler subsoil continuous modelling (3 hrs)

The Euler-Bernoulli beam (strip foundation)

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

4. Calculation examples (1 hr)

5. Beams and slabs on elastic subsoil simple discrete modelling (2 hrs)

Discretization of contact stresses

6. Underground mine workings and surface subsidence (2 hrs)

7. Structures liable to the effects of mining subsidence (2 hrs)

Subsoil redistributed actions on foundations

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

8. Types, applications and construction of retaining structures (2 hrs)

Massive abutments and gravity walls

9. General stability criteria of retaining structures (2 hrs)

Setting of loadings, positioning of the structure, eccentricity reduction

10. Earth pressure calculations (3 hrs)

The Coulomb-Poncelet theory

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

11. Reinforced earth constructions (2 hrs)

Geosynthetics and their applications

12. Dynamical excitations in geoengineering (2 hrs)

Natural earthquakes, mining quakes, dynamic compactions, driven piles

13. Case histories (2 hr)

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

14. Repetition and examples; the course synthesis (2 hr)

List of fundamental problems to be addressed

15. Credit test (2 hrs)

2 calculation tasks (20min+10min, 7pts.+4pts)

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund

Project co-financed by European Union within European Social Fund