Soil-structure interaction : the real behaviour of structures

117 Pages·1989·12.024 MB·English

by  Institution of Structural Engineers (Great Britain), Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain), International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering

TheInstitutionofStructuralEngineers
TheInstitutionofCivilEngineers
InternationalAssociationfor Bridgeand
StructuralEngineering
MARCH1989
Soil-structure interaction
Therealbehaviour ofstructures
m-
ÿr-
Published by the Institutionof Structural Engineers
TheInstitutionofStructuralEngineers
The InstitutionofCivilEngineers
InternationalAssociationfor Bridgeand
StructuralEngineering
Soil-structure interaction
Therealbehaviour ofstructures
MARCH1989
The Institutionof StructuralEngineers
11UPPERBELGRAVESTREET,LONDONSW1X8BH
Constitution
S. Thorburn, OBE, FEng, FIStructE,FICE,FASCE,FIHT, FGS Chairman
Professor J. B.Burland, MSc(Eng), PhD,FEng, MIStructE, MICE (1/4) Vice-Chairman
R.J. Adam, BSc(Eng),CEng, MICE (3/7)
J. Billam,PhD, CEng, MICE (resigned 1985) (1/7)
J.B.Boden, MSc, CEng, MICE (7/8)
K.W. Cole, MSc,CEng, FICE (2)
R.W. Cooke, BSc(Eng), CEng, MICE (1)
D.J. Curtis, BSc,MSc(Eng), DIC, CEng, MICE (3/8)
DavidJ. Dowrick,BSc(Eng),BE,CEng,FICE,FIENZ-corresponding member
R.Driscoll
H.Faulkner-corresponding member
H.B.Gould, CEng, FIStructE,FICE
D.R.Green, MSc, PhD,CEng, MIStructE (1/7)
P.A. Green, ACGI, BSc, DIC,FGS, CEng, FICE (1/4)
J. M. Head. BSc
J. A. Hemsley, DIC,MEng,PhD,CEng, MIStructE,MICE (1/8)
W. J. Larnach,BSc(Hons),MSc, PhD, CEng, FIStructE,FICE
Professor G. Macchi-corresponding member
K.C. Mead,MA(Cantab), CEng, MICE(5)
R.T. Murray,BSc, PhD,CEng, MICE,MIHT(7/8)
Professor Roy Olson-corresponding member
J. F.S. Pryke,MA(Cantab),CEng, FIStructE,FICE (1/2)
M.F.Randolph, MA,PhD (5/6)
W. J. Rigden, MSc, CEng, MICE (5/6)
R.M.Semple, BSc, MSc, PhD, CEng, MICE (5/6)
BrianSimpson, MA(Cantab), PhD, CEng, MICE (4)
J. E.Spindel, BSc(Eng), PhD,ACGI, CEng, MICE (3)
Professor I.M.Smith, DSc,CEng, MICE (5/6)
W. J. R.Smyth,BA,BAI,CEng, FIStructE,FICE,FIHT (3)
I.F.Symons, MSc,BSc, CEng, MICE,MIHT (4)
W. R.Varley, BScTech, CEng, FICE (3)
B.P. Wex, OBE, BSc, FCGI,FEng,FIStructE,FICE,FIHT
L.A. Wood, BSc,PhD,CEng, MICE (2/4)
R.J. W. Milne,BSc Secretary
Note on method of preparation
Following the symposium on soil-structure interaction held on 5 December 1984 a decision was
made to extend the 1978 report to cover other than building structures. The Committee divided
into a number of workinggroups:
1 Buildingstructures (Mr. P. A. Green. Convener)
2 Underpinning (Mr. J. F. S. Pryke.Convener)
3 Bridge structures (Mr. W. R. Varley. Convener)
4 Earthretainingstructures (Dr. Brian Simpson. Convener)
5 Offshore structures (Mr. W. J. Rigden. Convener)
6 Storage tank structures (Dr. R. M. Semple. Convener)
7 Earthworksand buriedstructures (Dr. R. T. Murray. Convener)
8 Tunnels and caverns (Mr. J. B. Boden. Convener)
The reference number against the member's name indicates which Working Group(s) the
member joined. Two of the Working Groups augmented their membership as indicated below:
A Steering Committee guided the Working Groups and finally edited their output into the
present report. The SteeringCommittee consisted of:
Mr. Sam Thorburn. OBE, FEng(Chairman)
Professor J. B. Burland. FEne (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. R. W. Cooke
Mr. H. B. Gould
Dr. W. J. Larnach
Mr. B. P. Wex. OBE. FEng
Assistance to the Working Group on Tunnels and caverns was given bv Mr. B. L. Bubbers.
Mr. L. M. Lake and Mr. R. E. Williams, to the Working Group on Tank structures by Mr. A. F.
Abbs. Dr. D. A. Greenwood, Dr. A. D. M. Penman. Mr. M. A. B. Steel. Mr. M. Sweenev and
Mr. Z. Witkowski. and to the Working Group on Offshore structures by Mr. J. Clarke.
Professor T. J. Poskitt. Mr. V. A. Mirza and Mr. M. J. Reardon. In addition Mr. C. Laird
assisted in the drafting of Section 12 (Buried structures).
Contents 4.7 Casehistories 29
4.8 Underpinning 29
4.8.1 General 29
4.8.2 Designconsiderations 30
4.8.3 Soil-structure interaction
aspects 30
Foreword
References 30
Preamble
5 Bridgestructures 33
5.1 Structuralpurpose 33
1Introduction 5.2 Interfacebetweenbridgeandsoil 33
1.1 General 5.3 Featuresofinteraction 33
1.2 Categoriesofinteraction 5.4 Thereality 34
1.2.1 Category I-Structures 5.5 Spill-throughabutments 36
supportedbyground 5.5.1 Introduction 36
1.2.2 Category II- Ground 5.5.2 Designconsiderations 36
supportedbystructures 10 5.5.3 Ultimate lateral resistance of
1.3 Groundbehaviour 11 piers 37
1.3.1 General 11 5.5.4 Spill-through abutment piers-
1.3.2 Effectivestress 11 attheworkingcondition 38
1.3.3 Stresshistory 11 5.5.5. Astudyofperformance 40
1.3.4 Influenceof non-homogeneity 5.6 Construction 41
ofsoil 11 References 43
1.3.5 Theoreticalandrealbehaviour 11
1.4 Siteandgroundinvestigationworks 12 6 Offshorestructures 44
1.4.1 Deskstudies 12 6.1 Introduction 44
1.4.2 Soilsamplingandtesting 12 6.2 Siteinvestigation 44
1.4.3 Fieldtests 12 6.3 Analysisofoffshorepilefoundations 44
1.4.4 Rockstrata 12 6.3.1 Introduction 44
1.4.5 Groundwaterregime 12 6.3.2 Approachtodesign 45
1.4.6 Mineralsituation 12 6.3.3 Prediction of foundation
1.5 Allowablemovements 13 response 45
1.6 Serviceabilitylimits 13 6.3.4 Cyclicloading 47
1.7 Definitions of ground and foundation 6.3.5 Structuralmodelling 47
movement 13 6.3.6 Temporary seafloor support
1.8 Dynamicresponse 15 forfixedoffshoreplatforms 48
References 16 6.4 Gravity base response in service
conditions 48
2 Designphilosophy 17 6.4.1 Introduction 48
2.1 Importanceofthesoilprofile 17 6.4.2 Loadingregimes 49
2.2 Idealizationandreality 17 6.4.3 Wavesandearthquakes 49
2.2.1 Soilgeometry 17 6.4.4 Quasi-static loads and
2.2.2 Soilproperties 17 displacements 49
2.2.3 Resultantloads 17 6.4.5 Displacements arising from
2.2.4 Structuralgeometry 17 cyclicloading 49
2.2.5 Structuralloading 18 6.4.6 Cyclic degradation arising
2.2.6 Structuralproperties 18 fromporewaterpressures 49
2.3 Conclusion 18 6.4.7 Dynamic amplification of
displacements 49
PartI:Structuressupportedbyground 19 6.5 Jack-upunits 49
3 Historicalnote 21 References 51
4 Buildingstructures 22 7 Cylindricalstorage-tankstructures 53
4.1 Theconstructionsequence 22 7.1 Introduction 53
4.2 Analysisofsoil-structureinteraction 23 7.2 Generaldescription 53
4.2.1 General 23 7.2.1 Tankdimensions 53
4.2.2 Detailedanalysis 23 7.2.2 Concretetanks 53
4.3 Limitingmovements 23 7.2.3 Steeltanks 53
4.3.1 Relative movements affecting 7.2.4 Hydrotest 54
visualappearances 23 7.3 Foundation considerations for steel
4.3.2 Visibledamage 23 tanks 54
4.3.3 Relative movements affecting 7.3.1 Soilconditions 54
serviceabilityandfunction 23 7.3.2 Consolidation under tank
4.3.4 Limitingrelativesettlements 24 loading 54
4.4 Fundamentaldamagecriteria 24 7.3.3 Preloadingwithsurcharge 54
4.4.1 General 24 7.3.4 Insitu compaction and stone
4.4.2 Limitingtensilestrain 24 columns 54
4.4.3 Crackpropagation 26 7.3.5 Piles 55
4.4.4 Discussion 27 7.3.6 Underbasepreparation 55
4.5 Routineguidesonlimitingsettlement 27 7.4 Limitingtankdistortions 55
4.5.1 Introduction 27 7.4.1 General 55
4.5.2 Sands 27 7.4.2 Deformation criteria for steel
4.5.3 Claysoils 27 tanks 55
4.5.4 Generalremarks 28 7.4.3 Steeloverstresscriteria 59
4.6 Criteria for design for dynamic 7.4.4 Reinforced-concretetanks 59
loading 28 7.4.5 Cryogenictanks 59
7.5 Stabilityandsettlementofsteeltanks 60 9.7.2 Simplecalculations 79
7.5.1 Foundationloads 60 9.7.3 Elasticitycalculations 79
7.5.2 Stabilityconsiderations 60 9.7.4 Completemethods 80
7.5.3 Settlementprediction 60 9.7.5 Finite-elementmethoc 80
7.5.4 Immediatesettlement 61 References 80
7.5.5 Long-termsettlement 61
7.6 Contingencyandremedialmeasures 61 10 Reinforced-soilstructures 82
7.6.1 General 61 10.1 Introduction 82
7.6.2 Tankdimensions 61 10.2 Designconsiderations 83
7.6.3 Bottomslope 61 References 86
7.6.4 Bottomplating 62
7.6.5 Floating-rooftanks 62 11 Tunnelsandundergroundopenings 87
7.6.6 Attachedpipework 62 11.1 Introduction 87
7.6.7 Tankjacking 62 11.2 Thetunnelsystem 87
7.6.8 Grouting 62 11.3 Geotechnicalinvestigations 87
7.6.9 Tank removal and 11.4 Ground-supportinteraction 88
replacement 62 11.5 Time-dependenteffects 89
7.6.10 Tankrectification 62 11.6 Elasticinteraction 89
7.7 Performancemonitoring 62 11.7 Elasto-plasticinteraction 90
7.7.1 Purposeofmonitoring 62 11.8 Ground-movementprediction 90
7.7.2 Measuringsettlements 62 11.9 Initialriskassessment 92
7.7.3 Shellovality 62 11.10 Stability 93
7.7.4 Excessporepressures 62 11.11 Analyticalmethods 94
7.7.5 Lateralsoilmovements 63 11.12 Supporttypes 94
7.8 Siteinvestigation 63 11.13 Designmethods 95
7.9 Designcodes 63 11.14 Caverns 95
7.9.1 General 63 11.15 Multipleopenings 95
7.9.2 Concretetanks 63 11.16 Intersections 95
7.9.3 Steeltanks 63 11.17 Commentary 95
7.10 Projectmanagement 64 References 96
7.10.1 Projectorganization 64
7.10.2 Functionsofparticipants 64
12 Buriedstructures 97
7.i0.3 Cryogenicprojects 64
12.1 Stiffness 97
7.10.4 Constructionaspects 64 12.1.1 Rigidstructures 97
References 64
12.1.2 Flexiblestructures 97
12.1.3 Intermediate-stiffness
Part II:Ground supported by structures 97
structures 67 12.2 Longitudinalsettlementeffects 98
12.2.1 Corrugated-steelculverts 98
8 Fundamentals 68
12.2.2 Reinforced-concreteculverts 98
8.1 Porewaterpressure 68
References 99
8.2 Deformationcharacteristics 68
8.3 Insitustresses 68
13 Conclusionsandrecommendations 100
References 69
Appendix Interactiveanalysisof building
9 Retainingwalls 70 structures 101
9.1 Introduction 70 A.l General 101
9.2 Types of retainingstructure A.2 Thestructuralmodel 101
requiringconsideration of soil- A.2.1 Introduction 102
structureinteraction 70 A.2.2 Framedstructures 102
9.2.1 General 70 A.2.3 Infillpanels inframed
9.2.2 Non-embeddedwalls 71 structures 102
9.2.3 Embeddedwalls 71 A.2.4 Loadbearing-wall structures
9.2.4 Short- and long-term (masonryandinsituconcrete) 103
conditions 71 A.2.5 Large-panelstructures 104
9.3 Earthpressures 71 A.2.6 Externalframes stiffened by
9.3.1 Limiting active and passive stiff cores (core-column
structures) 104
pressures 71
9.3.2 Relationship between earth A.3 Soilmodel 104
pressures and wall A.4 Analysis 106
movements 74 A.4.1 Introduction 106
9.3.3 Earthpressures arising from A.4.2 Padandstripfootings 106
surcharges 75 A.4.3 Raftfoundations 106
9.4 Groundmovements 76 A.4.4 Piledfoundations 109
9.5 Effect of stiffness on the structural A.5 Dynamic response of soil-structure
system 77 systems 111
9.5.1 General 77 A.5.1 Dynamicbehaviour 111
9.5.2 Propsandgroundanchors 77 A.5.2 Dynamicanalysis 113
9.5.3 Wallpenetrationandstiffness 78 A.5.3 Soil models for dynamic
analysis 113
9.5.4 Berms 78
9.6 Effect of type and method of wall A.5.4 Modelsfordynamicanalysis 115
construction 79 A.5.5 Seismic soil-structure
9.6.1 Wallsretainingbackfill 79 interaction 115
9.6.2 Insituwalls 79 References 115
9.7 Calculationmethods 79
9.7.1 General 79 Index 118
Foreword
Priorto1970designpracticetendedtoconsiderthegroundandthestructureinrelative
isolation.TheInstitutionofStructuralEngineers,insupportoftheneedforrecognition
tobegiventointeractiveeffects,formedaSpecialStudyGroupin1971tostudythe
matterandmakerecommendations.Thisledtothesetting-upofanad/zoccommittee
whichpreparedthestate-of-theartreport-Structure-soilinteraction-publishedin
1978.InaccordancewithInstitutionprocedurestherelevanceofthe1978documentto
currentpracticewasreviewed,andtheneedforrevisionandextensionwasidentified.
TheInstitution,withthecooperationoftheInstitutionofCivilEngineersandthe
InternationalAssociationforBridgeandStructuralEngineering,hasrespondedtothe
currentdemandforadequatedefinitionoftheproblemspresentedbyinteractiveeffects
andhasinitiatedthepreparationofthiscomprehensiveguidancecoveringmosttypesof
structure.
Sam Thorburn, Chairman, Joint Committee
IStructE/Soil-StructureInteraction 5
Preamble
IStructE/Soil-StructureInteraction
7
1 Introduction
1.1 General tions; this informationis used to assess the likelihoodof
The realbehaviour of structures incontact with ground damage andto investigatethe meritsof differentfounda¬
involvesaninteractiveprocessbeginningwiththeconstruc¬ tion and structural solutions: secondly,isthe muchmore
tionphaseandendingwithastateofbalanceafteraperiod specialized requirement of calculating the distribution of
of adjustment of stresses and strains within the structure forces and stresses within the structure. The second
and within the ground influencedby the structure. requirement entails a degree of sophistication and com¬
Buildingstructures, storage tanks, bridges adjacent to plexity many times greater than the first.
high embankments on soft ground, buried pipes and Golder (1969) has pointed out that engineers could
culverts, retention systems, tunnels, and offshore plat¬ estimatethesettlementsforaperfectlyflexibleloadorthey
forms all experience interactive effects. couldestimatetheaveragesettlementofarigidload,butin
Aretainingstructureisaclassicexampleoftheproblem between these limits the engineers could say nothing.
of strainandtime-dependent effectscausingvariations in Duringthe past few years progress has been made, but
ground pressures, and of the response of a structure to simple practical techniques are urgently required. Until
these changes. thisisachievedtheknowledgethatisbeingaccumulatedon
A subjective decision may be made by designers to the observed behaviour of structures will be difficult to
ignore the mechanism of structural behaviour known as apply.DeMello(1969)hasemphasizedthelackoflogicin
soil-structureinteraction,butinteractionwilloccurandits relatingsuch informationto computeddifferentialsettle¬
effectsmaybemorethanenvisaged.Adecisiontodesigna ments that neglect the stiffness of the structures.
structure inisolationcan result ina satisfactory solution
providedeither: Flexible buildingstructures
Formanysitesunderlainbygroundthathasbeensubjected
(cid:127)
the ground can sustain the loading with acceptable to pastloadingthe structurecouldbedesignedinrelative
(cid:127) displacements, or isolationafter adoptingthe following simple approach to
the ground is treated by some suitable technique to the predictionof ground-structure compatibility.
provide appropriate stiffness and strength.
The structure is consideredto be flexible andto apply
Piledfoundationsoftenhavebeenemployedtoprovide loadsinauniformlydistributedmanneroverspecificareas.
relativelyrigidfoundations andhavepermittedstructures If conventional geotechnical calculations predict ground
to be designed in isolation. Piled foundations however, displacements that a basic structure, its cladding, its
although reliable, are not necessarily economic and may partitionsanditsfinishescanaccommodatethennofurther
result inover-conservative designs inmany situations. consideration need be given to interactive effects. If,
A sympathetic treatment of problems of interaction is however,thecalculationsindicatemovementsthat cannot
requiredexcept where either the stiffness andstrengthof beaccommodatedthencare mustbetakento ensurethat
the designanddetailsofconstructionrecognizethe situa¬
the ground or of the structure are clearly dominant.
There are situations where interactionresultsfrom the tion.
existenceofastructureataparticularlocationratherthan Thedecisionthatabuildingstructurecanaccommodate
fromitsweight ontheground.Grounddisplacementsand themovementsthatareanticipatedcanbetakenonlywith
accelerations arising from actions such as ground subsi¬ referencetopreviousexperienceinsimilarsituationsorto
dence caused by mineral extraction, major landslips or published criteria such as that presented by Burland &
seismic events are typical instances. Wroth(1975).Thelimitationsonthe useofempiricismin
design practice have been demonstrated by situations in
Theactualbehaviourofstructuresrelatestotheinherent
spatialvariations inthe ground, anditshouldbeappreci¬ which problems have arisen. Frequently poor structural
atedthatthesevariationsarenotalwaysreadilyidentifiable performance has arisen from significant departures from
traditionalstructuraldesign,routineloading,andfamiliar
by occasional and local boring, sampling and testing.
groundconditions. The interactionof claddingandparti¬
tion walls within a basic structure must not be forgotten
1.2 Categories of interaction
sincethe responseofthe basicstructureto loadingcanbe
The contents of this report are presentedintwo parts in modifiedsignificantlybytheincorporationofthesesecon¬
ordertoreflectthetwomaincategoriesofinteraction.Part dary elements.
Iprovides guidance for the design of different types of In circumstances where the decision is taken that a
structure supported by ground, and Part IIdeals with building structure cannot accommodate the movements
situation where ground is supported by structures. that are anticipated from conventional geotechnical cal¬
culations-assumingaflexiblestructure-movementjoints
1.2.1 Category I- Structures supported by ground may be introducedto permit articulation and to provide
General globalflexibility. Carehasto betakeninthe detailingof
Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweentwobroadobjectives joints in the basic structure, its foundations, and its
incarryingoutsoil-structureinteractionanalyses:first,and cladding and partition walls to permit relative displace¬
perhaps of most concern to the engineer, is the needto ments without impairment of appearance, durability,
estimate the form and magnitude of the relative deflec¬ weathertightness, andacoustic andthermalperformance.
, , ,
IStructE/Soil-StructureInteraction blank 9
is
Manystructurescanbemodifiedto accommodatelarge offshoreplatformsrequiresconsiderationtobegiventothe
movementswithinthe limitsoffunctionandaestheticsby effects of cyclic stresses on soils, to :he potential for
introducingseparationjoints andusingsuitable construc¬ liquefaction, to the possibility of seismicity, and to the
tion materials. fatigue of structural components.
Theinstallationoffixedorfloatingplaformsinoffshore
Rigidbuildingstructures localities resting on or anchored to the seabed creates
Alternatively,structureshavingsimilarfunctionalrequire¬ structureswhosebehaviourisinteractive.Safeandecono¬
mentscanbedesignedtoredistributeloadandsoachieve micdesignoftheselargestructuresinvolvingmajorcapital
anacceptablereductionofdifferentialsettlement.Inthese expenditure requires that dynamic and interactive re¬
instances structural design is relatively complex, and sponsesberecognizedintheirdesigns.Theeconomicsofa
practical treatment of the subject requires reasonable designarerelativesincecost dependsoristructuralprovi¬
assumptions to be made regarding physical models for sionsthatmayvarydependingonthelevelsofriskaccepted
analysis. by the owner of the installation and by the certifying
Ifthestiffnessofastructurecanbeevaluatedadequate¬ authority.Theprincipaldesignengineer foraninstallation
ly,bearinginmindthemodifyinginfluenceofprogressive shouldbeawareoftheglobalinteractiveeffectsbetweenan
stages of construction, and if the ground and itsstiffness offshore structure, its foundations, and the soils that
modulicanbedefinedsufficientlybyaproperinvestigation support it.
of the site, reasonable predictionscan be made of forces
and displacements. Storage-tank structures
Powerful analytical techniques are now available to Tanks are usedfor the storage ofliquids;havingdifferent
designers,butatpresent,thereisapaucityofinformation properties and wide range of temperature. Steel and
derived from carefully conducted full-scale tests on all concrete are generally usedinthe constructionof tanks.
types of structure to permit the differences between The ductility of the former material and the relative
idealization and reality to be defined with complete brittlenessof the latter enforce the adoptionof distinctly
confidence. different serviceability limits and structural forms.
Steelstorage tanks are oftencylindricalwith their thin
Underpinning steel plate bases resting on very soft soils. The loading
Successful underpinning requires an awareness of the intensitiesappliedbythetank basesapproachthelimiting
hiddendistributionsofstrainandstressandoftheparticu¬ soil stresses, and large plastic strains are experienced.
largroundsupportconditions.Pathsofloadtransfer,both Severedistortionofthe steelplatesformingthewallsand
primaryandsecondary,needtobefullydefinedwithinany bases of tanks is often experienced.
structuretobeunderpinned,asdotheprobableconcentra¬ Thedesignoftankstructuresrequirescarefulconsidera¬
tionsofstrainandstressinthebuildingwhileinitspassive tionto begivento the magnitudeandrateof settlement,
condition.Further,itisimportanttoestablishthecauseof and to the distortion to which the tank elements can be
settlement inabuildingthat suddenlydisplaysmovement subjected.Theproblemisoftenoneofinteractionbetween
and, in particular, to know whether the event can be thin shellstructures andsoft soils, andinteractiveeffects
arrested by underpinningalone. Structuralstrengthening cannot beavoidedifeconomicdesignsareto beevolved.
measuresmaybeanessentialrequirementinconjunction
with underpinning to arrest movements. Underpinning
maybeunnecessaryiftheeventisinitiatedbyashort-term Category II-Ground supported by structures
phenomenon and the movements do not disturb signifi¬ Earth-retainingstructures
cantlythe naturalstateofbalanceofabuildingstructure. Earth-retainingstructuresareuniqueinthat thewallsare
Thetransferofloadfromastructuretoitsunderpinning integral components of soil-structure systems deriving
components needs to be carefully executed, and the bothloadingandsupport from the soil. Strain and time-
mechanism of load distribution has to be identified and dependent forces and movements cause variations in
controlled to an extent commensurate with either the groundpressures,andretainingstructuresrespondtothese
simplicityoftheoperationoritscomplexityandtheneedto changes inorder to maintaina state of balance.
restrict movements. Formanytraditionalgravityorcantileverretainingwalls
themagnitudesofthemovementsrequiredtomobilizefull
Bridgestructures activepressuresbehindretainingwallsarerelativelysmall.
Bridge structures are platforms capable of supporting Thisphenomenonhasencouragedtheuseofstaticsinmore
dynamicloads,andtheir serviceabilitylimitsaredifferent complex designs of modern retaining structures where
from those requiredfor buildingstructures. Buildingsare interactive effects have a major influence.
containment structuresprovidingnot only structuralsup¬ It is important to take into account in the design of
portbutalsoanambiencesuitableforoccupantsorforthe retentionsystems the initialinsitustresses,together with
storage of materials. the modifyingeffects of structural movements on lateral
Piledfoundations for bridges do not obviate problems soilpressuresand,inparticular,theeffectsofconstruction.
where softcompressiblesoilsexist,sincethemajorasym¬
metric loading imposed by high embankments behind Tunnels
bridgeabutmentsinducehighshearstressesinthesoftsoils The interaction between tunnel linings and the ground
and cause significant lateral movements of piled abut¬ withintheeffectivefieldsofstressaroundtunnelsdemands
ments. recognitioninorder to comprehendand make allowance
Considerationhastobegiventotheparticularproblems for the real behaviour of these man-made cavities. The
of interaction presented by bridge structures, and the samerecognitionneedstobegiveninthedesignofunlined
assumptionofrigidsupportsatabutmentsandpiersshould tunnels or caverns incompetent rocks.
not be made on the grounds of simplicity and ease of Considerable experience is required ::or the economic
calculation. andsafedesignoftunnels,andempiricismbasedoncareful
field measurements is still used by engineers. The stress
Offshore structures relief permitted by construction methods modifies the
Thecyclicnatureoftheenvironmentalloadingimposedon ground pressures, and interaction is inevitable.
10 IStructE/Soil-StructureInteraction
Buriedstructures where(p'istheeffectiveangleoffrictionofthesoil,andc'is
Pipesandculvertsinteractwiththeground,andthestresses theeffectivecohesion.Both<t>'andc'relatetothesoilinits
generated both in the ground and these structures are undisturbed state of stress history and should be deter¬
controlled and modifiedby the strains that occur. Time- minedfortherangeofstressesapplicabletotheparticular
dependentphenomenacontributelargelytothevariations problem.Thus<p' andc'arenotsoilconstantsbutdepend
instressthat areexperiencedduringtheservicelifeofthe on stress history and stress level.
structures.
Thin-walledcorrugatedsteelpipesandculvertsdepend 1.3.3 Stress history
on interactive effects for their strength and structural Soils often have been affected by past loading, and the
behaviour,andstressesarebothappliedandresistedbythe expression overconsolidation ratiois the ratioof the past
ground surrounding them. maximum vertical effective stress to the present in situ
vertical effective stress.
1.3 Ground behaviour A soil is described as normally consolidated when an
1.3.1 General equilibriumstatehasbeenattainedunderthepresentinsitu
Ground is the generic term used to describe the basic verticaleffectivestress,beingthemaximumverticaleffec¬
elementsofsoilandrock.CodesofPracticereferfrequent¬ tive stress to which the soil has beensubjected.
lytothesemaincategoriesofgroundassuperficialandsolid Estimation of overconsolidation is an essential step
deposits.Theexpressionsoil-structureinteractiondoesnot during the investigatory phase of a project and is com¬
completelyrepresentthe subject sincestructuresfounded plementary to the determination of the variations of the
on, or retaining, weak rocks can experience interaction strengthandofthecompressibilityoftheground.Overcon¬
effects. solidation impliesthe possible existence of highlateralin
Inorganic soils are composed of discrete mineralparti¬ situstressesrelativetothe effectiveverticalstressesinthe
cles, water and gas in solution, and exist in fully and ground, andthe designof retentionsystems, tunnels and
partially saturatedstates. Thesoilparticlesvary inshape buriedstructures should recognize this situation.
dependingon origin and attrition and have sizes ranging Generalstresshistoryinvolvesoverconsolidationofsoils
generally from large gravel (60mm) to clay fraction oversuchalargeareaofgroundsurfacethatthedimensions
(< 2|im). of a newstructure are generally insignificant by compari¬
son.The geographicalextentof geologicaleventscausing
1.3.2 Effective stress overconsolidationisgenerallyofsufficientdimensionsasto
Thestrengthofthediscreteparticlescomprisingthesoilis controldistrict,ifnotregional,geology.Overconsolidation
generally large relative to the strength of the mass. Thus relatedtogeneralstresshistorycanresultfromgroundwa¬
failuretakesplaceatthegraincontactsratherthanthrough ter-table movements, soil erosion, glaciation, chemical
the grains. The dependence of the mechanicalproperties weathering, cementation, and secondary compression.
ontheforcesactingbetweenthediscreteparticlesisunique Localstresshistoryisthe resultofeventseithernatural
inthe science of materialbehaviour. andinvolvingdesiccationof near-surfacelayers,or artifi¬
Thecornerstoneofsoilmechanicsistheeffectivestress cialandrelatedtopastloadingbyformer buildings,road
conceptfirst proposedbyTerzaghi(1943).Hedefinedthe and railway embankments, etc.
effective stress on any plane through the soil asthe total
stress on the plane minus the porewater pressure. Since 1.3.4 Influence of non-homogeneity of soil
water cannot carry shear,ashear stresswill alwaysbean The existence of varying stiffness has a very important
effectivestress.Theeffective-stressconceptstatesthatthe influenceonthe form andextent of the 'settlement bowl'
mechanical properties of a soil, and in particular its around a loaded area. For example, Terzaghi (1943)
strength,aredependentonlyontheeffectivestressesacting showedthat anunderlyingrigidstratumconcentratedthe
inthe soil. surfacemovementsaroundtheloadedarea. Gibson(1967
Itisevidentthatinordertodefinetheeffectivestresson & 1974)notedasimilareffectfor increasingstiffnesswith
anyelementofsoilitisnecessarytoknownotonlythetotal depth. Conversely,astiffoverlyinglayerwilldispersethe
stress but also the porewater pressure. That is why settlementsfurtherfromtheloadedarea.Thesensitivityof
groundwater conditions play such a vital role in most surface settlements to non-homogeneity has to be taken
ground engineering problems. Changes in groundwater into account in any soil-structure interaction analysis.
pressurewithout changesintotalpressure can take place Lateralvariationsofcompressibilityareclearlysignificant,
because of seepage, groundwater-table fluctuations, con¬ but little investigationwork has been carried out on the
solidation or swelling. All these effects will give rise to influence of this form of non-homogeneity on stress
changes ineffective stress andresult inimportant,some¬ distributions beneath loaded areas.
times catastrophic, soil behaviour.
Fine-grainedsoilsarerelativelyimpermeable,andhence 1.3.5 Theoretical and realbehaviour
any tendency to change volume will take place slowly The previous brief descriptions of the principles of soil
because of the lengthof time taken for the porewater to behaviourareintendedtodemonstratethatsoilvariability
flow into or out of the soil pores. Therefore changes in is the rule rather than the exception and that the stress
effective normal stress will take place only slowly even histories of soils and the dependence of mechanical be¬
though large rapid changes in total stresses might take haviour on the effective stresses between the discrete
place.Thusintheshortterm,thestrengthoftheclaywillbe particles demand recognition.
controlled by the initial effective stresses giving what is Theoreticalmodelsmaynotbeinexactconformitywith
calledtheundrainedstrength,whichissometimesthought
reality but maybe sufficient for engineeringpurposes. A
of as an apparent cohesion. clear distinction must be made between adequacy and
Inthelongerterm,drainageintooroutofthesoiltakes accuracy, andthe reliabilityof analyticalmodelsdepends
placegivingrisetochangesinstrengththatwillbedirectly not only on extensive usebut also that the probability of
relatedtothechangesineffectivestress.Thestrengthofa failureprovidedbyatheoreticalmodelisatruemeasure.
soilintermsofeffectivestressesisdefinedbytheequation: Terzaghi (1943) expressed the opinion that the differ¬
Tf = c' + ov' tan ence between the theoretical and the real behaviour of
IStructE/Soil-StructureInteraction 11