Details

<p>Foreword ix<br /> <i>Philippe GUILLERMAIN† and François SCHLOSSER</i></p> <p>Entrepreneur’s Tribune: Geotechnics is at the Heart of Our Projects xi <br /> <i>Pascal LEMOINE and Eric DURAND</i></p> <p>Preface xiii</p> <p>Acknowledgments xix</p> <p>Symbols and Notations xxi</p> <p>Introduction lv</p> <p><b>Chapter 1 Foundations: Behavior, Design, and Justification 1</b></p> <p>1.1 Analogies and differences between foundations 1</p> <p>1.1.1 Foundations and their integration into the geotechnical project 1</p> <p>1.1.2 Method of operation and similarities in behavior 3</p> <p>1.1.3 Photos providing demonstrations of foundations 6</p> <p>1.2 Shallow foundations 7</p> <p>1.2.1 Types of shallow foundations 7</p> <p>1.2.2 Behavior of a load-bearing footing 9</p> <p>1.2.3 Load-bearing capacity of the subsoil 10</p> <p>1.2.4 The special case of a footing under an eccentric load 22</p> <p>1.2.5 Special cases of footings under an inclined load on horizontal ground 25</p> <p>1.2.6 The special case of a footing on the crest of a slope 26</p> <p>1.2.7 The case of a footing on two layers 29</p> <p>1.2.8 The case of a footing on a dual layer: soft soil on top of a nearby substratum 30</p> <p>1.2.9 Calculation of settlements under footings 31</p> <p>1.2.10 Special cases: constructive provisions 38</p> <p>1.3 Superficial foundations on rafts 40</p> <p>1.3.1 Roles and types of rafts 40</p> <p>1.3.2 Load-bearing capacity of soil under rafts 41</p> <p>1.3.3 Settlements under rafts 41</p> <p>1.4 Deep foundations 43</p> <p>1.4.1 Preamble 43</p> <p>1.4.2 Insulated pile under axial load 44</p> <p>1.4.3 Isolated pile under lateral reactions 71</p> <p>1.4.4 Effect of groups of piles 81</p> <p>1.4.5 Justification of deep foundations 86</p> <p>1.5 For the special case of foundation blocks subjected to reverse forces 93</p> <p>1.5.1 The elastic center method 94</p> <p>1.5.2 The rotation method 95</p> <p>1.5.3 Simplified method 96</p> <p>1.5.4 The “State Network” method 98</p> <p>1.6 Consideration for other forces on the foundations 98</p> <p>1.6.1 Spurious stresses due to soil swelling 98</p> <p>1.6.2 Parasitic stress due to soil shrinkage 100</p> <p>1.6.3 Seismic actions on piles: simplified Souloumiac method 100</p> <p>1.6.4 The special case of vibrating machines on a non-deformable foundation block 102</p> <p>1.7 Threshold displacements of the structure 103</p> <p>1.7.1 Absolute settlements 103</p> <p>1.7.2 Differential settlements (relative settlements) 104</p> <p><b>Chapter 2 Real Projects and Comparisons of Methods and Referentials 109</b></p> <p>2.1 Study of an apartment building on shallow footings 109</p> <p>2.1.1 Project criteria 109</p> <p>2.1.2 Soil data and foundation solution 110</p> <p>2.1.3 Justification of the footings using the pressuremeter method 112</p> <p>2.1.4 Justifications of the footings under the “Eurocodes” using the pressuremeter test (MPT) 113</p> <p>2.1.5 Estimation of settlements (Ménard’s rule T0) 119</p> <p>2.1.6 Comparison of calculation methods in terms of stresses 120</p> <p>2.1.7 Impact of footing dimensions 129</p> <p>2.1.8 Comparison of methods in terms of settlements 133</p> <p>2.1.9 Determining the footing reaction coefficients 139</p> <p>2.1.10 Footing stiffness 141</p> <p>2.1.11 Practical rules for calculating the stiffness of footings 148</p> <p>2.1.12 Reinforcement of footings 151</p> <p>2.1.13 Economic analysis: do not just bury concrete for no reason! 153</p> <p>2.2 Study of an office building on piles under axial loads 157</p> <p>2.2.1 Project criteria 157</p> <p>2.2.2 Soil data and foundation solution 158</p> <p>2.2.3 Soil/pile interaction parameters and loads 159</p> <p>2.2.4 Justification of the piles following the “Eurocodes” 160</p> <p>2.2.5 Comparative study of the various regulations using the MPT method 173</p> <p>2.2.6 Impact of the number of pile and soil tests (n) 177</p> <p>2.2.7 Influence of the net limit pressure of the “MPT” method 180</p> <p>2.2.8 Comparison of empirical methods of pile calculation 182</p> <p>2.2.9 Axial stiffness of deep foundations 196</p> <p>2.3 Horizontally loaded piles 202</p> <p>2.3.1 Piles under parasitic horizontal pressure: application of the G(z) method 202</p> <p>2.3.2 Analysis of pressures and moments using the “Tschebotarioff Method” 208</p> <p>2.3.3 Evaluation of the negative friction on the piles 210</p> <p>2.3.4 Rigidities at the top of horizontally stressed piles 212</p> <p>2.4 Reinforcement of deep foundations 215</p> <p>2.4.1 Reinforcement according to “static” standards 215</p> <p>2.4.2 Reinforcement by “seismic” reference bases 218</p> <p>2.5 Settlement of a general raft 226</p> <p>2.5.1 Calculation of stresses and settlements 226</p> <p>2.5.2 Reaction coefficient under raft 228</p> <p>2.5.3 Reinforcement of the raft 233</p> <p>2.6 Study of a road embankment on soft ground 235</p> <p>2.6.1 Project 235</p> <p>2.6.2 Data for the soil 236</p> <p>2.6.3 Calculation of the bearing capacity of silty clays 239</p> <p>2.6.4 Estimation of soil settlement under the embankment 240</p> <p>2.6.5 Time of consolidation settlements 240</p> <p><b>Chapter 3 Observations from Experience, Illustrative Examples, and Practical Appendices 243</b></p> <p>3.1 The case of rafts in high-rise buildings 243</p> <p>3.2 The case of strip footings 248</p> <p>3.3 Behavior of piles under an axial load 250</p> <p>3.4 Embankment settlement: Asaoka’s method (1978) 251</p> <p>3.5 Summary and useful information 253</p> <p>3.6 What not to do! 258</p> <p>3.6.1 Early 1990s: metal piles driven into chalk 258</p> <p>3.6.2 2010: poorly anchored piles in compact marls 259</p> <p>3.6.3 2008: substrate misidentified via cone penetration test 259</p> <p>3.6.4 2011: inadequate soil survey for pile anchoring 260</p> <p>3.6.5 Damage still not settled since late 2000: “collapsible soils” 261</p> <p>3.7 Wise conclusion 264</p> <p>3.8 Appendices 265</p> <p>3.8.1 Appendix 1: combinations of loads 265</p> <p>3.8.2 Appendix 2: diffusion of stresses as a function of depth 267</p> <p>3.8.3 Appendix 3: foundation blocks subject to overturning – methods for resolution 283</p> <p>3.8.4. Appendix 4: determination of the stress bulb at ultimate limit states (ULS) by the pressuremeter method according to Eurocode 7</p> <p>(standard NF P94 261, normative Appendix D) 292</p> <p>3.8.5 Appendix 5: calculation of footing stiffness 294</p> <p>3.8.6 Appendix 6: calculation of pile rigidities 323</p> <p>3.8.7 Appendix 7: bearing capacity of piles under a vertical load 335</p> <p>3.8.8 Appendix 8: frost protection in France 337</p> <p>3.8.9 Appendix 9: earthquake and soil liquefaction 339</p> <p>References 361</p> <p>French, European and ISO Standards in the Field of Geotechnics 369</p> <p>Index 401</p> <p>Summaries of Other Volumes 405</p>

<p><b>Ammar Dhouib</b>, doctor of civil engineering specializing in soil mechanics, is a lecturer and professor of geotechnics at Polytech Sorbonne University, Paris, France. He is also a geotechnical expert at the VINCI construction group and a justice expert at the Court of Appeal in Versailles. His research interests focus on geotechnics, and he has authored or co authored five books on this topic.</p>

US