by - Foundation PerformanceSwell Limit 8 to 15 % Near 100 % 4 -10 4-10 3 Shrinkage Limit Tension 6...

FOUNDATIONS ON SHRINKING AND SWELLING SOILS

(Prediction of Movement, Construction Issues)

Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,

Texas 77843-3136, USA

Jean-Louis Briaud, Sangho Moon, Xiong Zhang

J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

• ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL STABILIZATION LTD.

Russ Scharlin

Johny Sherwood

• SPENCER J. BUCHANAN PROFESSORSHIP

• GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.

Doug Dayton

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

• FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOR

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD

• CASE STUDY

• SMART FOUNDATION

OUTLINEJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

Saturated

uw ≠≠≠≠ 0ua = 0

σσσσ’ = σσσσ - uw

Occluded Air

uw = ua

σσσσ’ = σσσσ - uw

Continuous Air

uw ≠≠≠≠ 0ua = 0

σσσσ’ = σσσσ - ααααu

soil grain water

soil grain waterair

soil grainwaterair

αααα ααααT T

ContractileSkin

- 1,000 kPa

á cos T 4 h

wc ====

mN/m 72 T where ====

Atmosphericpressure

hγγγγw

hcγγγγw0 kPa

Pure Water Salt Water

initial state Initial stateafter time, t

after time, th = Osmotic Suction

109 108Bottom of DeepestOcean

105 104Deepest OffshorePlatforms

Compression

103 102Large River

100 %0 0 0

25 to 50 %2 -102 -101Field Capacity

Swell Limit

8 to 15 %Near 100 %4 -104 -103Shrinkage LimitTension

6 -106 -105Air DrySuction NO

007 -107 -106Oven Dry

ShrinkSwellWater

ContentDegree ofSaturation

Suction

pF cm kPaExamplesWater State

Soil State Swell Shrink

Unsaturated Yes No

Saturated Yes Yes

Saturated No Yes

PHASE DIAGRAMSJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

∆∆∆∆V/V

∆∆∆∆((((∆∆∆∆V/V)max

∆∆∆∆wmaxSaturated orOccluded Air

SHRINK TEST PARAMETERS

t = 0 t

SHRINK

SHRINK TEST

Shrink Test

Shrink Test Example (B/RF1/6)

0.3-0.9 m,Ew = 0.86, w = 17.15 %

1.2-1.8 m, Ew = 0.69, w = 21.66 %

2.1-2.7 m, Ew =0.83, w = 16.03 %

data chosen for calculation of Ew

-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0

Volumetric Strain, ∆∆∆∆V/V

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 t, hr

∆∆∆∆ H/H

-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 ∆∆∆∆V/Vo

∆∆∆∆ H/H

∆∆∆∆V/Vo-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0

wsh wsh

Porcelain Clay Bentonitic Clay

Porecelain Clay and Bentonite Clay

SWELL TEST

Porous stone

Porous stoneSoil sample

Consolidometer

∆∆∆∆2∆∆∆∆1

-0.015

-0.010

-0.005

Time, hrs

∆∆∆∆ H/H

0.00954

0.00458

-0.00996

Swell withno OverburdenPressure

Swell underOverburdenPressure

Recompressionunder Overburden Pressure

Max. SwellUnder Overburden,(∆H/H)PS

MaximumFree % Swell,(∆H/H)FS

% Recovery,(∆H/H)P

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Swell Test Example (B/RF1/6 0.3–0.9 m)Swell Test

EXAMPLE OF THE PREMISS METHODJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

∆∆∆∆H/Ho-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02

∆∆∆∆V/Vo-0.2 -0.16 -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04

∆∆∆∆D/Do-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02

Sample(S) Overburden(O)

S (S1)S+O (S2)

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (3)

Influence of Vertical Pressure

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 ∆∆∆∆V/Vo

∆∆∆∆ w

-0.6Bentonic Clay

ShrinkSwell

∆∆∆∆ w

-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 ∆∆∆∆V/Vo

ShrinkSwell

Porcelain Clay

SHRINK AND SWELL TEST RESULTS

Porecelain Clay and Bentonite Clay

SUCTION VARIATION WITH DEPTH

Suction, u

zmaxSu

u(z,t)

∆∆∆∆u(zmax) = 0.1×××× 2∆∆∆∆u0

∆∆∆∆u0∆∆∆∆u0

After Mitchell (1979)

z) ) á T /(-(∂ exp Äu 2Äu(z) 0.500====

) Äu(Äw f====0.5

0max ) á T (3.1z ====

characteristic curve

∆u = change in suction at depth z∆u0 = change in suction at ground surfaceT0 = period of weather cycleαααα = diffusion coefficientz = depth below ground surface∆w = change in water contentzmax = maximum depth of water content change

After Styron et al. (2001)

30 (%) LL LI ±±±±====××××

)(PI/LL0.6Äw ====

WATER CONTENT VARIATION AS A FUNCTION OF TIME

0.00 Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994

CC = Corpus Christi (0-0.5m)SA = San Antonio (0-0.5m)CS = College Station (0-1.5m)OUTSIDE = Outside the Foundation ImprintUNDER = Under the Foundation Imprint

Time for SA and CC

Time for CS Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995

CC OUTSIDESA OUTSIDE

CC UNDER

SA UNDER CS OUTSIDE

From Posey, Briaud, 1995, Woodfin, Briaud, 1997

∆∆∆∆wiwi

∆∆∆∆ wi

εεεεi+ ∆∆∆∆εεεεi εεεεi εεεεv

∑∑∑∑ ∑∑∑∑========i w

iiii E

ÄwfHÄåHS

MOISTURE INDUCED MOVEMENTJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

∑∑∑∑∑∑∑∑ ========i

iiii E

ÄHÄåHS

σσσσ

εεεεi+∆∆∆∆εεεεi εεεεi εεεεvσσσσ ’

ov++++ ∆∆∆∆

σσσσ ’i

σσσσ ’ov

σσσσv

WEIGHT INDUCED SETTLEMENT

σσσσv

∆∆∆∆σσσσ’iσσσσ’ovHi

PLAN VIEW OF THE SITE

Boring date

# 1 : 06/24/99# 2 : 07/13/99# 3 : 10/25/99# 4 : 02/11/00# 5 : 05/11/00# 6 : 08/11/00# 7 : 11/17/00# 8 : 03/13/01# 9 : 07/15/01

W2 RF2

Boringlocation

Boringorder

..0.61m

1 - deep.

B/W1/7 redrill - deep

NorthSite in Arlington,Texas

SOIL STRATIGRAPHY

Legend

RF : Reference

W : Water injected

BM : Benchmark

Su = 179.8 kPawmean = 19.74 %h = 3.41 pFLL = 40.4, PL = 17.1

Brown Silty Clay, trace fine Sand : Calcareous

γt = 20.4 kN/m3

Ew = 0.869, f = 0.39%SW = 4.31%<0.002= 45.5

NorthA’

BM2BM1

Su = 151.5 kPawmean = 20.73 %h = 3.42 pFLL = 51.3, PL = 22.3

Dark Gray Silty Clay : Trace Fine Sand

γt = 20.3 kN/m3

Ew = 0.752, f = 0.39%SW = 5.17%<0.002= 47.7

A A’

GWL : 4.27 m (Jun./25/99) 4.8 m (Feb./1/01) 4 m (Jul./15/01)

Site in Arlington,Texas

WATER CONTENT AND SUCTION vs. DEPTH

0 1 2 3 4 5

B:Boring B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9

Suction, pF

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3

B:Boring B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9

Water ContentFooting RF1 at a sitein Arlington, Texas

GARNER’S STUDY (1999)

3 samples at 3 water contents sent to 5 laboratory.

Water Content, %

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Suction, pF

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Suction, kPa

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 %

0 1 2 3 4 5 pF

0 250 500 750 1000 kPa

0 500 1000 1500 2000 kPa

∆∆∆∆V/Vo

-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00

B/RF1/4 0.3 – 0.9 m, Ew = 0.67 1.2 – 1.8 m, Ew = 0.60 2.1 – 2.7 m, Ew = 1.30

-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 ∆∆∆∆V/Vo

B/RF2/4 0.3 – 0.9 m, Ew = 0.86 1.2 – 1.8 m, Ew = 0.76 2.1 – 2.7 m, Ew = 1.19

Three SamplesFrom Arlington,Texas

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (2)J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SELECTED SOIL TEST RESULT FOR RF1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7

f % SW

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

FOOTING MOVEMENT OVER TWO YEARS

RAINFALL AND TEMPERATURE

Ave. Monthly TemperatureAve. Monthly Rainfall

perature, oC

WATER CONTENT VARIATION AND MOVEMENT

Average Measured movements

Average Water content

Average of 4 Footings at a sitein Arlington, Texas

−100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, days

RF1+ RF2+ W1+ W24

Average Measured movements

Water Content Method

PREDICTED AND MEASURED MOVEMENTS

Average of 4 Footings at a sitein Arlington, Texas

HOUSES ON EXPANSIVECLAYS

MOST EXPENSIVENATURAL HAZARDIN THE COUNTRY

FOUNDATION SOLUTION

air gap

• Stiffened Slab on Grade

• Elevated Structural Slab on Piers

• Stiffened Slab on Grade & on Piers

• Thin Post Tensioned Slab

HOUSES ONEXPANSIVE

VERY DIFFICULT TO PREDICTTHE SOIL MOVEMENT

(WEATHER, VEGETATION, DRAINAGE)

MUCH EASIER TO DESIGNAN ADJUSTABLE FOUNDATION

SMART FOUNDATIONJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SMART FOUNDATION

52.5 ft(16 m)

13.1ft (4 m)

52.5 ft (16 m)

3.5 ft (1.1 m)

3.5 ft(1.1 m)

1ft(0.3 m)

1ft (0.3 m)

13.1ft (4 m)

SMART FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

Make Cavity Cast Footing & Place Spacer

Excavate Trench Cast Beam

Back Fill

Finish

COST COMPARISON

Conventional Waffle Slab 16 m ×××× 16 m ×××× 0.1 m Slab on Grade with 0.9 m deep ×××× 0.3 m thick Beams every 4 m $24,000

Smart Foundation 16 m ×××× 16 m ×××× 0.1 m Slab on Grade with 0.9 m deep ×××× 0.3 m thick Beams every 4 m and 1 m ××××1 m ××××0.3 m Footings $26,200

~ 10 % Increase in Cost

Shrinking Excavation Jack up

SMART FOUNDATION ADJUSTMENT

Front View of Jack up Replace Spacer Finish

Back Fill

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS BY SAFE

Edge drop case beam moment distribution

jacking

Edge drop case+ jacking

beam moment distribution

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS BY SAFEJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

• FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOR

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD PROPOSED

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD VERIFIED

• SMART FOUNDATIONS = ADJUSTABLE SOLUTION

CONCLUSIONSJ.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

by - Foundation PerformanceSwell Limit 8 to 15 % Near 100 % 4 -10 4-10 3 Shrinkage Limit Tension 6...

Documents

YES 2014 November 8-9, 2014 Limit Eq WT Cross Rails YES Class Placing.pdfYES 2014 November 8-9, 2014 Limit Eq WT Cross Rails 1; ... 6th Annie Agnew Soleil 3; Walk-Trot on the Flat

Table of Contents - Fun Company€¦ · printer command cbm1, esc/pos, star cbm1 system limit no, yes no auto ticket no, yes no demo music no, yes yes non stop no, yes no password

YES Parent Guidebook 10

Annexure I(a) STATE LEVEL/DISTRICT LEVEL INTER …polytechnicts.cgg.gov.in/Uploads/files/Recent_Updates/4386.pdf · Kabaddi Yes Yes 7+3=10 Volley Ball Yes Yes 6+3=9 Kho-Kho Yes Yes

Chapter 10 - Limit and Continuity

V Touch User Manual - Fun Company€¦ · printer command cbm1, esc/pos, star cbm1 system limit no, yes no auto ticket no, yes no non stop no, yes no password no, yes no odds table

LOGO! logic modules - Industrial Automation · acc. to EN 55 011 † Limit class B, for use in residential areas Yes; Radio interference suppression according to EN55011, Limit Value

Mubasher Financial Services BSC © Individual Equities List ... · ACKB.BR ACKERMANS V.HAAR Belgium 10 Yes Yes ACR.AX ACRUX LTD Australia 10 Yes Yes ACS.MC ACS CONS Y SERV Spain 10

Export Processing Zones: A Review in Need of Update€¦ · Mauritius. 11. Tax Exemption Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. c. No. d. Tax Holiday Period 8-10 years 5 years 4-6 years

YES Newsletter 10/2010

FACTSHEET - Bilderberg Hotels€¦ · Bilderberg Résidence Groot Heideborgh - Garderen FACTSHEET Talent 35 3 Yes Yes 9 Ontwikkeling 35 3 Yes Yes 10 Beweging 35 3 Yes Yes 8 Groei

limit...Title limit Created Date 10/2/2014 4:12:15 PM

03/10/2014 Welcome to · PDF file · 2017-04-11Dermaroller mesotherapy Surgery DrySkin Yes Sun-Damaged Skin Yes Yes Yes FineLines Yes Yes Maybe DeepWrinkles Yes Yes Scars Maybe Maybe

Catalogue No. 10– 64E · 2/10/2012 · Catalogue No.’10–!64E. 4 3 2 1 1. Ratings and Specifications ... e Yes (Red) Yes Yes Yes 250 S250-SN

BOILER IMAX XTRA EL. · IMAX XTRA EL. BOILER. ... High Limit Protection Yes Low Water Protection Yes Volt Free Common Alarm Yes ... Safety Interlock Kit Yes

Chest a b)thersome cwghing of b"? Or between cdds? wheezng or *histiing in dust? of breath when Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ... age 10 Frs.?

JACK PINE DRIVE SPEED LIMIT 10

Proximity and Limit · PDF fileProximity and Limit Switches A variety of sensors are available that give ON/OFF (or yes/no) binary outputs Mechanical limit switches often called “microswitches”

Proximity and Limit Switches - me.ua.edu · Proximity and Limit Switches A variety of sensors are available that give ON/OFF (or yes/no) binary outputs Mechanical limit switches often

p j CITY LIMIT n r I q F u t J X o · 2006. 10. 10. · Dr. Concord Ct. Marcliff Rd. CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT LIMIT CITY CITY LIMIT LIMIT Wallace Dr. Souchak Crampton