DOCSLIB.ORG

Shear Strength and Stability of Highway Embankments in Ohio a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Russ College of Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shear Strength and Stability of Highway Embankments in Ohio a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Russ College of Engineering Shear Strength and Stability of Highway Embankments in Ohio A thesis presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Xiao Han March 2010 © 2010 Xiao Han. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Shear Strength and Stability of Highway Embankments in Ohio by XIAO HAN has been approved for the Department of Civil Engineering and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by Teruhisa Masada Professor of Civil Engineering Dennis Irwin Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology 3 ABSTRACT HAN, XIAO, M.S., March 2010, Civil Engineering Shear Strength and Stability of Highway Embankments in Ohio (182 pp.) Director of Thesis: Teruhisa Masada One of the primary factors that control the stability of earthen embankments is the shear strength of embankment fill soils. Karl von Terzaghi and U.S. Navy found empirical correlations between soil shear strength and lab or in-situ soil test results. Subsequently, the Navy proposed typical effective friction angle values for different soils types. However, it is not certain if these correlations and standard values are reliable for Ohio soils. The main objective of this thesis is to establish reliable correlations between shear strength and index properties/in-situ test measurements for embankment fill soils existing in Ohio. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were gathered from nine highway embankment sites spread throughout Ohio. Tri-axial compression tests were performed to determine the shear strength of these soil samples. During data analysis, statistical methods, such as regression analysis and T-tests, were utilized to assess the correlations. Through the statistical analysis, optimized correlations were identified between shear strength and other characteristics of soil have been found. Once the optimum correlations were established, soil shear strength properties were applied to sophisticated geotechnical software to perform a series of slope stability analysis for highway embankments. Lastly, results from the laboratory testing, field 4 testing, statistical data analysis, and slope stability analysis were all combined to suggest technical guidelines for highway embankment design/constructions in Ohio. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Teruhisa Masada Professor of Civil Engineering 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to show my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Teruhisa Masada, for assisting me through out my Master’s Program. I would also like to thank him for encouraging me to be diligence on this thesis and teaching me the skills that will be very helpful in my future career. I would also like to thank Dr. Greg Springer, Dr. Munir Nazzal, and Dr. Omer Tatari for being members of my thesis committee. Finally, I would like express my appreciation to my parents who supported me in many ways through out the years I worked on my Master’s degree. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Acknowledgments.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Figures .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 15 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Outline of Thesis ............................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2 : Ohio Geology ................................................................................................ 18 2.1 Geological Conditions ...................................................................................... 18 2.2 Soil Classifications ............................................................................................ 20 Chapter 3 : Research Methodologies ............................................................................... 22 3.1 Site Screening and Sample Collection .............................................................. 22 3.1.1 Site Locations and Distribution ................................................................ 22 3.1.2 Standard Penetration Test ......................................................................... 24 3.1.3 Soil Sampling Method .............................................................................. 26 3.2 Experiment ........................................................................................................ 28 3.2.1 Triaxial Compression Test - Introduction ................................................. 28 3.2.2 C-U Triaxial Test Procedure and Equipment ............................................ 30 Chapter 4 : Results and Data Analysis ............................................................................. 37 4.1 Introduction of Basic Theory ............................................................................ 37 4.2 Methodology to analyze the correlations .......................................................... 40 4.3 Effective Internal Friction Angle vs. Plasticity Index (by Terzaghi) ................ 42 4.4 SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression Strength (by Department of Navy) ........ 47 4.5 A Values and Level of Consolidation ................................................................ 52 4.6 T-test for Three Major Soils .............................................................................. 56 4.7 Single Variable Regression Analysis ................................................................ 69 4.7.1 Single Variable Regression Analysis for A-4a Soils ..................................... 71 7 4.7.2 Single Variable Regression Analysis for A-6a Soils ..................................... 79 4.7.3 Single Variable Regression Analysis for A-6b Soils ..................................... 89 4.7.4 Single Variable Regression Analysis for A-7-6 Soils ................................. 102 4.8 Multiple Variables Linear Regression Analysis (Part I) ................................. 112 4.9 Multiple Variables Linear Regression Analysis (Part II) ............................... 117 4.10 Closing Remarks ............................................................................................. 124 Chapter 5 : Highway Embankment Slope Stability ....................................................... 127 5.1 Soil Slope Stability Theory ............................................................................. 127 5.2 Embankment Model Assumptions .................................................................. 132 5.3 Results of Highway Embankment Slope Stability Analysis ........................... 138 5.3.1 Homogeneous Embankments...................................................................... 138 5.3.2 Outcomes of Embankments Built on Two Soil Layers .............................. 155 Chapter 6 : Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................... 174 6.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... 174 6.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 175 6.2.1 Conclusions on Empirical Correlations ...................................................... 175 6.2.2 Conclusions from T-Tests Performed ......................................................... 176 6.2.3 Conclusions from Single-Variable Regression Analysis ............................ 177 6.2.4 Conclusions from Multi-Variable Linear Regression Analysis .................. 178 6.2.5 Conclusions from Slope Stability Analysis ................................................ 179 References ....................................................................................................................... 181 8 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1: AASHTO Classifications for Fine-Grained Soils ........................................... 20 Table 4.1: Effective Internal Friction Angle vs. Plasticity Index by Terzaghi ................. 42 Table 4.2: SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) by Department of Navy . 47 Table 4.3: The A value for A-4a soil ................................................................................. 53 Table 4.4: The A value for A-6a soil ................................................................................. 54 Table 4.5: The A value for A-6b soil ................................................................................. 54 Table 4.6: The A value for A-7-6 soil ............................................................................... 55 Table 4.7: The Critical Value of T-Distribution ................................................................ 58 Table 4.8: Summary of T Tests Performed on A-4 Soil Subsets ...................................... 59 Table 4.9: Summary of T Tests Performed on A-6 Soil Subsets ...................................... 60 Table 4.10: The Calculation for T Value of A-4a in Various Locations (North and South) ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Soil Classification the Geotechnical Engineer Predicts the Behavior Of
    CE 340, Fall 2015 Soil Classification 1 / 7 The geotechnical engineer predicts the behavior of soils for his or her clients (structural engineers, architects, contractors, etc). A first step is to classify the soil. Soil is typically classified according to its distribution of grain sizes, its plasticity, and its relative density or stiffness. Classification by Distribution of Grain Sizes. While an experienced geotechnical engineer can visually examine a soil sample and estimate its grain size distribution, a more accurate determination can be made by performing a sieve analysis. Sieve Analyis. In a sieve analysis, the dried soil sample is placed in the top of a stacked set of sieves. The sieve with the largest opening is placed on top, and sieves with successively smaller openings are placed below. The sieve number indicates the number of openings per linear inch (e.g. a #4 sieve has 4 openings per linear inch). The results of a sieve analysis can be used to help classify a soil. Soils can be divided into two broad classes: coarse‐grained soils and fine‐grained soils. Coarse‐grained soils have particles with a diameter larger than 0.075 mm (the mesh size of a #200 sieve). Fine‐grained soils have particles smaller than 0.075 mm. The four basic grain sizes are indicated in Figure 1 below: Gravel, Sand, Silt and Clay. Sieve Opening, mm Opening, in Soil Type Cobbles 76.2 mm 3 in Gravel #4 4.75 mm ~0.2 in [# 10 for AASHTO) (2.0 mm) (~0.08 in) Coarse Sand #10 2.0 mm ~0.08 in Grained Medium Sand #40 0.425 mm ~0.017 in Coarse Fine Sand #200 0.075 mm ~0.003 in Silt 0.002 mm to Grained 0.005 mm Fine Clay Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Shear Tests Used in Soil-Geomembrane Interface Friction Studies
    DIRECT SHEAR TESTS USED IN SOIL-GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE FRICTION STUDIES August 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Denver Off ice Research and Laboratory Services Division Materials Engineering Branch 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamat~on ..........................................................................................TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE I I. REPORT NO. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 1 5. REPORT DATE August 1994 Direct Shear Tests Used in 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Soil-Geomembrane Interface Friction Studies 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Richard A. Young REPORT NO. R-94-09 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS lo. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office Denver CO 80225 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 1 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado 16. ABSTRACT The Bureau of Reclamation Canal Lining Systems Program funded a series of direct shear tests on interfaces between a typical cover soil and different geomembrane liner materials. The purposes of the testing program were to determine the shear strength parameters at the soil-geomembrane interface and to examine the precision of the direct shear test. This report presents the results of the testing program. 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. DESCRIPTORS-- water conservation1 geosyntheticsl canal lining/ b. IDENTIFIERS- c. COSA TI Field/Group CO WRR: SRIM: 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES (THIS REPORT) 59 Available from the National Technical Information Service, Operations Division UNCLASSIFIED 20. SECURITY CLASS 22. PRICE 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (THIS PAGn UNCLASSIFIED DIRECT SHEAR TESTS USED IN SOIL-GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE FRICTION STUDIES by Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Sand Sieve Analysis Instructions
    Field Sand Sieve Analysis Preparation To be able carry out a sieve analysis, the following materials are needed: • 3-cycle logarithm paper – an example is annexed to this document; • Set of sieves for sand analysis. A plastic set is available from www.geosupplies.co.uk . This set does not have larger mesh sizes, but is useful for field trips due to their weight; • Electronic scales with the ability to weigh 200 grams accurately to within 0.1 gram; • At least 200 grams of very dry sand. Instructions 1. Stack the sieves with the coarsest at the top and the finest at the bottom. 2. Place a small container on the scales that will receive the sand (e.g. cut off the bottom of a plastic water bottle), and then zero the scales. 3. Mix the sand and then measure out approximately 200 grams into the top sieve. 4. Put the lid on and shake the sieve column. Theoretically you should shake for 10 minutes, but several minutes should suffice. 5. Weigh the sand retained by each sieve to the nearest 0.1 gram. This is done in a cumulative way – this means that you add what is remaining on the coarsest sieve on top to the container on the scales, and measure the weight. Following this, you add the material from the second sieve down, and again note the combined weight of both samples. Continue in this way for the whole set. When finished, check that the final weight corresponds to the initial weight of the sample. 6. Clean each sieve as it is emptied and return the sand to the stock.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of in Situ Granular Materials
    134 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1227 Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of In Situ Granular Materials MICHAEL E. AYERS, MARSHALL R. THOMPSON, AND DONALD R. UzARSKI Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) and rapid-loading (1.5 in./ The DCP does not have these limitations. It can be used sec) triaxial shear strength tests were conducted on six granular for a wide range of particle sizes and material strengths and materials compacted at three density levels. The granular mate­ can characterize strength with depth. rials were sand, dense-graded sandy gravel, AREA No. 4 crushed The DCP, as used in this study, consists of a 17 .6-lb sliding dolomitic ballast, and material No. 3 with 7 .5, 15, and 22.5 percent weight, a fixed-travel (22.6 in.) weight shaft, a calibrated F A-20 material. (F A-20 is a nonplastic crushed-dolomitic fines stainless steel penetration shaft, and replaceable drive cone material-96 percent minus No. 4 sieve : 2 percent minus No. 200 sieve.) DCP and triaxial shear strength data (including stress­ tips (Figure 1). Test results are expressed in terms of the strain plots) are presented and analyzed. The major factors affect­ penetration rate (PR), which is defined as the vertical move- ing DCP and shear strength are considered. DCP-shear strength correlations are established and algorithms for estimating in situ shear strength from DCP data are presented. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study in which the shear strength of Handle granular materials has been related to DCP test data. Such rela­ tions have significant potential applications in evaluating existing Hammer (8 kg) ( 17.6 lb) transportation support systems (railroad track structures, airfield and highway pavements, and similar types of horizontal construc­ tion) in a rapid manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Method for the Grain-Size Analysis of Granular Soil Materials
    TEST METHOD FOR THE GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS OF GRANULAR SOIL MATERIALS GEOTECHNICAL TEST METHOD GTM-20 Revision #5 AUGUST 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TEST METHOD: TEST METHOD FOR THE GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS OF GRANULAR MATERIALS GTM-20 Revision #5 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU AUGUST 2015 EB 15-025 Page 1 of 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE .................................................................................................................................3 2. SUMMARY OF METHOD .................................................................................................3 3. EQUIPMENT.......................................................................................................................4 4. SAMPLE SIZE AND PREPARATION ..............................................................................5 4.1 Sample Size for Granular Construction Items .........................................................5 4.2 Sample Size for All Other Materials ........................................................................5 4.3 Condition the Sample ...............................................................................................5 4.4 Prepare Sieve Analysis Data Sheet ..........................................................................5 5. TEST PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................6 5.1 Initial Separation of the Plus and Minus 1/4 in. (6.3 mm) Particles ........................6 5.2 Weigh the
    [Show full text]
  • Sand Size Analysis for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Determination of Sand Effective Size and Uniformity Coefficient
    FACT SHEET Agriculture and Natural Resources AEX-757-08 Sand Size Analysis for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Determination of Sand Effective Size and Uniformity Coefficient Jing Tao, Graduate Research Associate, Environmental Science Graduate Program Karen Mancl, Professor, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Introduction sieve analysis and met the criteria of one of the following In many areas of Ohio, natural soil is not deep enough standards: to completely treat wastewater. Rural homes and busi- (a) ASTM C136, “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis nesses may need to install an onsite wastewater treatment of Fine and Coarse Aggregates;” or system if a septic tank-leach line system cannot be used. (b) ASTM D451, “Standard Method for Sieve Analysis Sand bioreactors are one option. To learn more, consult of Granular Mineral Surfacing for Asphalt Roofing Bulletin 876, Sand Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment Products” for Ohio Communities at the web site http://setll.osu.edu or a local OSU Extension office. How Is a Sieve Analysis Conducted? Size distribution is one of the most important charac- Apparatus teristics of sand treatment media. Sand bioreactor clogging • Scale (or balance)—0.1 g accuracy is usually the result of using sand that is too fine, has too • No. 200 sieve many fines, or has a weak or platey structure. The most • A set of sieves, lid, and receiver important feature of the sand is not the grains, but rather • Select suitable sieve sizes (table 1) to obtain the required the pores the sand creates. The treatment of wastewater information as specified, for example Nos.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Study of Structural Behavior of Mesh-Box Gabion
    University of Palestine College of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning Department of Civil Engineering Experimental study of structural behavior of mesh-box Gabion By: Mohamad Z. Al Helo 120110139 Mohammed S. Al-Massri 120111288 Hesham H. Abu-Assi 120111251 Mohammed J. Hammouda 120110163 Islam T. Joma 120090301 Supervisor: Dr. Osama Dawood Graduation project is submitted to the Civil Engineering Department in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering. Gaza, Palestine Oct. 2016 I DEDICATION We would like to dedicate this work to our families specially our Parents who loved and raised us, which we hope that they are Proud of us, for their sacrifice and endless support. We would like to dedicate it to our Martyrs, detainees and Wounded people who sacrificed for our freedom. II ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to express our appreciation to our supervisor Dr. Osama Dawood for his valuable advices, continuous Encouragement, professional support and guidance. Hoping our research get the satisfaction of Allah and you as well. III ABSTRACT The research described by the current dissertation was focused on studying the mechanical behavior of the wired-mesh gabions under axial compression load. And it is important to mention that there is no specific standard for using gabions as structural elements It is a unique study because using this type of construction usually does not take into consideration the study of the structural behavior of these boxes, and here many of the problems facing the construction of this kind appears. This research studied the behavior of these boxes through laboratory experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Different Sieving Methods on Estimation of Sand Size
    water Technical Note Influence of Different Sieving Methods on Estimation of Sand Size Parameters Patricio Poullet *, Juan J. Muñoz-Perez * , Gerard Poortvliet , Javier Mera, Antonio Contreras and Patricia Lopez CASEM (Centro Andaluz Superior de Estudios Marítimos), Universidad de Cádiz, 11510 Cádiz, Spain; [email protected] (G.P.); [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (P.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (J.J.M.-P.); Tel.: +34-956-546356 (J.J.M.-P.) Received: 27 March 2019; Accepted: 23 April 2019; Published: 26 April 2019 Abstract: Sieving is one of the most used operational methods to determine sand size parameters which are essential to analyze coastal dynamics. However, the influence of hand versus mechanical shaking methods has not yet been studied. Herein, samples were taken from inside the hopper of a trailing suction dredger and sieved by hand with sieves of 10 and 20 cm diameters on board the dredger. Afterwards, these same samples were sieved with a mechanical shaker in the laboratory on land. The results showed differences for the main size parameters D50, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Amongst the main results, it should be noted that the highest values for D50 and kurtosis were given by the small sieves method. On the other hand, the lowest values were given by the mechanical shaker method in the laboratory. Furthermore, standard deviation and skewness did not seem to be affected by the sieving method which means that all the grainsize distribution was shifted but the shape remained unchanged.
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Mechanics-Achievements and Current Problems Mehanika Stijena-Dostignuća I Aktualni Problemi
    Rock mechanics-achievements and current problems Mehanika stijena-dostignuća i aktualni problemi Prof. em. Ivan Vrkljan Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Rijeka President of Croatian Geotechnical Society ISRM Vice President at Large (2011-2015) Content Foundation of the ISRM Some of actual rock mechanics and rock engineering problems - Rock behaviour characterisation - In situ stress and residual stress in intact rock - What is the Strength of a Rock Mass? Rock mechanics position in Eurocode 7 Polemics in rock mechanics community Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM Conclusions Foundation of the ISRM Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized Geology Engineering geology Rock mechanics Malpasset, 1958 450 people were killed Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized For rock mechanics recognition, next circumstances are specially important: Critical mass of knowledge about the behavior of rock masses have been reached. Technologies of excavation and stabilization have begun to significantly affect on the rock engineering and rock mechanics. The hardline of experts in the field of soil mechanics that rock mechanics should be developed within the soil mechanics. Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized Bjerrum, Terzaghi i Casagrande, august, 1957. (ISSMFE officers) Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized The early 1960s were very important in the development of rock engineering world-wide. 1910-1964: 60 slides were recorded in cuts along
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Rock Properties
    Chapter 3 Rock Properties Rock properties are the measurable properties of rocks that are a measure of its ability to store and transport fluids, ionic species, and heat. Rock properties also include other measurable properties that aid in exploration or development of a reservoir. Grain Size Distribution Sieve Analysis An easily measurable property of unconsolidated sand is the grain size distribution. The classical method for measuring grain size distribution is to use a set of sieve trays of graded mesh size as illustrated in Fig. 3.1. The results of a sieve analysis are Fig. 3.1 Sieve analysis for tabulated to show the mass fraction of each measuring grain size distribution screen increment as a function of the mesh (Bjorlykke 1989) size of the increment. Since the particles on any one screen are Table 3.1 Sieve analysis (McCabe, Smith, and passed by the screen immediately Harriott, 1993) Mesh Screen ϕ Mass Avg. Cum. ahead of it, two numbers are opening fraction particle mass needed to specify the size range of retained diameter fraction an increment, one for the screen di, mm xi di å xi through which the fraction passes i and the other on which it is 4 4.699 -2.23 retained. Thus, the notation 14/20 6 3.327 -1.73 4.013 means "through 14 mesh and on 8 2.362 -1.24 2.845 10 1.651 -0.72 2.007 20 mesh." 14 1.168 -0.22 1.409 20 0.833 +0.26 1.001 A typical sieve analysis is 28 0.589 +0.76 0.711 shown in Table 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Atterberg, Casagrande, and Terzaghi
    Three Musketeers in Soils Testing: Atterberg, Casagrande, and Terzaghi By Tracy Barnhart, Quality Manager Posted: October 2014 Who in their right mind invented a test that involves making “worms” out of soil? Albert Atterberg, that’s who! The Atterberg limit tests, commonly known as liquid and plastic limit of soils, are named for Albert Mauritz Atterberg, a Swedish chemist and agricultural scientist. Atterberg was born in 1846. In 1872, he earned his Ph.D. in chemistry from Uppsala University in Sweden. Atterberg taught analytical chemistry at Uppsala for several years before becoming a principal of the Chemical Station and Seed Control Institute in Kalmar, Sweden. Atterberg was a late bloomer when it came to soil classification. It wasn’t until he was in his mid-50’s that Atterberg turned his attention to the classification and plasticity of soils. He is credited for determining that plasticity is a particular characteristic of clay, the most complex and unpredictable type of soil. In 1913, Atterberg’s soil classification work received formal recognition from the International Society of Soil Science. He was 67 years old at the time and he passed away three years later. Arthur Casagrande was born in 1902 in Austria, over a half century after Albert Atterberg. He attended the Technische Hochschule, a secondary school in Vienna from which he earned a degree in civil engineering in 1924. Casagrande’s father died that same year, after which Arthur became the sole financial provider for his entire family. Because construction work was scarce in Austria after World War I, Casagrande decided to move to the United States to follow his true passion of civil engineering, and to better support his family.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Geology
    Investigation methods in Geotechnics VŠB-TUO – Faculty of Civil Engineering Department of Geotechnics and Underground Engineering Geotechnics • Applied geology (engineering geology and hydrogeology etc.)? • Geomechanics • Soil mechnics • Rock mechanics • Mechanics of snow and ice • Foundation engineering • Underground engineering • Another branches – eg. Earth structures, environmental geotechnics, quarrying etc. Karl von Terzaghi Engineering geology • Interdisciplinary between natural and technical sciences • Releases from physical geology, historical and regional geology, geomorphology, geophysics, hydrogeology, structural geology, petrography etc. • Studies and characterizes mutual relationship among rock mass, groundwater, surface water, geomorphology and their effect on engineering project • Utilizes laboratory and field methods including state of the art remote sensing methods Hans Cloos - Quido Záruba – Vojtěch Mencl Zdroj: www.geology.cz Rock environment – Foundation soil - Investigation • Foundation soil = terminus technicus covering rock and soil environment interaction (thru the foundations) with the structure. It is necessary to include rock environment surrounding the structure! • Errors and imperfections of investigation have impacts on the structure life time. • Errors discovering during the: • Design (cheapest correction) • Construction (more expensive) • Operation (the worst case; the most expensive!) • Site Investigation cost (terminology) • Small simple structure cca 0,1-0,5 % of capital cost (investment) • Conventional
    [Show full text]