E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

Geotechnical analysis of optimal parameters for

foundations interacting with loess area
Olha Dubinchyk1,∗, Dmytro Bannikov1, Vitalii Kildieiev1, and Vitalii Kharchenko1
1
Dnipro National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan, 49010,
Dnipro, Lazaryan Str., 2, Ukraine

Abstract. The article highlights results of the geotechnical analysis of the

stress and strain state for the base of a subsoil massif under its interaction
with the strip foundations. The massif is represented by loess soils which
while soaking give overtime subsidences that complicate the operation of a
building or a structure. Through geotechnical iterative research,
optimization of the parameters for strip foundations on four axes at a four-
storeyed residential building is carried out. Checks are performed on two
groups of limiting states for scenarios of soil occurrence in natural,
moistened and compacted states. The optimum dimensions in the width of
strip foundations are selected, they give approximately the same strain
values of the base after the creation of the soil bedding with its layer-by-
layer compaction. The relevance of this research is to develop optimal
parameters in the design of strip foundations for shallow depth on
subsidental loess soils.

1 Introduction
Geomechanics, as a science, combining the mechanics of rocks and underground structures
tends to analyze workings and structures that lie in sufficiently hard rocks at deep depths
[1]. Geotechnics, based on soil mechanics and structural mechanics, examines structures
affecting the weak massifs formed by soils [2]. Given all the differences between these
varieties of Earth science, one should determine the main conceptual feature that unites
them. It is the principle of the interaction between feats of engineering (from mines at
considerable depths [3] to foundations of shallow depth [2]) and the natural environment
which is rock or subsoil massif [4].
It is the diversity of soil and rock conditions that by Protodyakonov's scale are in range
f = 0.5 … 50, dictates the adoption of geotechnical or geomechanical tools which will
fully enables the interaction of the engineering structure and the underlying or surrounding
massif. It should also be noted that geotechnical analysis of the very soft soils
( f = 0.5 … 1.2), which, unlike the hard ones, have the features of deformation under load
and in time, is of particular importance in the case of planting soils, which are forested
ones.
These soils occupy up to 35 % of the territory of Ukraine, the thickness of their layers

∗
Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

lying in the soil massif can range from several centimeters to tens of meters [1]. Loess and
loesslike loams are continental sediments, consisting mainly of dusty particles of
0.05 … 0.005 mm (more than 50 %) and a significantly lower content of clay particles with
a size of less than 0.0005 mm (not more than 10… 15 %). The amount of dust particles can
reach 90 %.
Particle density of loess soils varies within 2.6 … 2.75 g/cm3 depending on the
mineralogical composition. The density depends on the mineral composition, structure and
water content and varies from 1.33 to 2.0 g/cm3. Loess soils are characterized by high
porosity and the presence of macropores that can reach 3 mm in diameter. Usually, the
porosity of loess soils varies from 40 to 60 %. The porosity ratio of planting loesslike loams
can be higher than 0.9 [5].
Loess soils of natural moisture and undisturbed structure have high strength and low
deformability. Their use as soil bases for the foundations of buildings or structures in such
state is not limited. The compression properties of loess soils of natural humidity do not
differ from ordinary low cramped soils. In this case, the value of squeezing coefficient and
the total deformation modulus when the pressure changes up to 0.4 … 0.5 MPa depends
little on the pressure.
However, when the interaction of loess soil with water while soaking during the
operation of a building or structure results in a negative subsidence effect. Structural bonds
of loess soils are conditioned by water-colloid and cementation bonds, they are low water-
resistant, so they relate to structurally unstable soils. With increasing humidity in the soft
soils, the following processes take place: when moisture enters the soil, the calcite
dissolves, the clay particles moisten. In this case, the water films around the clay particles
thicken and wedge open them. As a result, the macrostructure of soil is destroyed, its
strength sharply decreases and it takes on the property of being strongly compressed under
load. Therefore, at a constant value of the compaction pressure under the impact of
moistening, the porosity ratio changes abruptly, which indicates a radical change in the
structure [6].
The problem in the existence of loess soils that form the subsoil massifs, in geotechnics
is posed as follows: the design of foundations requires detailing engineering-geological
studies, experiments of soil samples with further prediction in deformation of soil under
loading, as well as potential reinforcement by various methods. Prediction has a scenario-
based nature, since the foundation of a building or structure is checked at different states of
a subsoil loesse, layered or inhomogeneous massif [9, 10]. However, most often this
prediction process ends only with the conclusion concerning the further foundation
operation in various conditions. Therefore, optimization of its characteristics, for example,
geometric ones, is a topical scientific and technical task that can be solved in analysing the
prediction results.

2 Methods
According to regulatory requirements, the subsoil massif of construction sites, which are
composed of subsidental soils, depending on the possibility in occurrence of soil subsidence
by its own weight are divided into two types [9]: type I are soil conditions in which soil
subsidence from external loading is possible, and soil subsidence from its own weight is
absent or does not exceed 5 cm; type II are soil conditions in which, in addition to soil
subsidence from external loading, their subsidence from own weight is possible and its
value exceeds 5 cm.
For buildings on loess soil, several types of foundation structures are used on the
existing strata of the loess soil, depending on the category of subsidence. If the strata of the
subsidence soil is small and the roof of the stable lower bed is achievable, then the

2
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

subsidental layer is cut through and the foundation rests upon a reliable soil. In the case
when strata of the subsidental zone is large, then the foundation is placed in this layer, but
measures are being taken to compact with heavy rammers, jet grouting piles, or practice
cutting the loess soil and its replacing with stronger soils or by these loess soils by smaller
strata with layer-by-layer compaction (creation of soil bedding).
According to the constructive solution of the building, for the optimization of its
foundations we collected loads on the strip foundations that interact with subsidental strata
(Fig. 1), their values are shown in Table 1.

1)

2)
Fig. 1. Fragments of the structures for foundations: 1) with axes 1, D and B; 2) with axis 5.
Table 1. Values of composite loads.
Axis
Characteristic value Operation load Design ultimate load
number
Axis D 231.56 kN/m 231.56 kN/m 261.63 kN/m
Axis B 300.83 kN/m 300.83 kN/m 342.58 kN/m
Axis 1 123.39 kN/m 123.39 kN/m 135.73 kN/m
Axis 5 115.55 kN/m 115.55 kN/m 127.11 kN/m
For all temporary loads for the overlaps of a multi-storeyed building, the characteristic
values of loads should be reduced with consideration to the combination factor ψ n1 , which
is calculated by the formulas:

ψ A1 − 0.4
ψ n1 = 0.4 + , (1)
n

where n is the total number of overlaps.

3
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

The characteristic values for structure weight were determined by the design dimensions
and specific gravity of the materials and soils. The operational design values of the
structure weight and soils are taken to be equal to the characteristic one. The limiting
design value of the structure weight and soils is determined by multiplying the
characteristic value on the reliability coefficient by the limiting load.
The loads and impacts on the foundations transferred to the foundations of buildings or
structures were determined according to the provisions [11]. The calculated values of
loading from soil weight for the first and second limiting states were adopted using the
characteristic values of the specific gravity of the soil, determined during engineering-
geological surveys, with the load safety factors γ f .
According to the engineering-geological conditions, the base of the foundations, having
been calculated, compose of subsidental soils, which in conditions of soaking can
dramatically increase the uneven subsidence while reducing the bearing capacity of the
foundation. Therefore, several variants of foundations were considered and proposed [9].
Through the iterative study, the parameters of strip foundations along the axes D, B, 1 and 5
of a residential four-storeyed building were optimized and checks were performed on two
groups of limiting states.

3 Results and discussions

If the loess soils are in a dry state, then the bearing capacity of the base is provided with a
reserve. However, according to engineering-geological conditions, the base of the
foundations is composed of subsidence soils, which in the conditions of soaking change
their physical characteristics and simultaneously the subsidence of the foundation increases
sharply and the bearing capacity of the foundation decreases.
The bearing capacity of the base (the first group of limiting states) is performed when
observing the criterion in general case:

σ ≤ σR , (2)

or

p≤R, (3)

where σ R is calculated stress; p or σ is medium pressure or stress directly below the

foundation bed; R is design resistance for soil of a base under the foundation bed.
Foundation subsidence s (the second group of limiting states) using a design scheme in
the form of a linearly deformable half-space by the method of layer-by-layer summability is
calculated by the formula

n
s = β∑
(σ zp ,i − σ zγ ,i ) hi
, (4)
i =1 Ei

where β is dimensionless coefficient that equals to 0.8; σ zp ,i the average value of the
vertical normal stress from the external load in the i-th layer of soil on the vertical line
passing through the center of the foundation bed; hi is thickness of the i-th layer of soil, it
is accepted no more than 0.4 of foundation width; n is the number of layers into which the
compressed base strata is divided; σ zγ ,i is the average value of the vertical stress from the
own weight of soil extracted from the pit in the i-th layer of soil on the vertical line passing

4
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

through the center of the bed, at depth z from the foundation bed; E is the deformation
modulus of the i-th soil layer with a primary load branch.
Tables 2 and 3 present the calculation data of foundation on soils in two states that
comply with the scenarios of its operation. These and the following tables accept the
following designations of values: b is the width of the strip foundation, m; R is calculated
soil resistance of the base under the foundation bed, kPa; p is the average pressure directly
under the foundation bed, kPa; δ is the relative error between the mean pressure under the
foundation bed and the calculated soil resistance of the base, %.
Table 2. Calculated values (the unmoistened state episode).

Axis of the foundation

Calculated values
C B 1 5
b 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.6
R 247.5 250.7 243.2 242.1
p 232.0 223.1 204.5 202.6
δ -6.25 -11.01 -15.93 -16.34
Table 3. Calculated values (the moistened state episode).

Axis of the foundation

Calculated values
D B 1 5
b 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.6
R 168.9 171.6 165.2 164.3
p 232.0 223.1 204.5 202.6
37.4 29.9 23.7 23.3
δ
(overload) (overload) (overload) (overload)
As the foundations on all axes have significant overload, that is to say they do not have
adequate bearing capacity, it is necessary to change the soil properties of the base by means
of a surface (layer-by-layer) mechanical seal, which is performed by ramming,
vibroramming or combining the above methods, including soaking for subsidental soils.
For these engineering-geological conditions, a surface (layer-by-layer) mechanical seal
is performed and a soil bedding is designed. The sealing is performed in layers. The
thickness of the layer was equal to 30 cm. To accurately determine the number of roller
passages and to define the rational layer thickness, a test soil compacting is carried out with
an optimum humidity W0 = 0.15, with a limit deviation of ± 15 %, on a strip with length of
15 m. At least six soil samples (top, middle and bottom of the suspended bed) are selected
to determine density and humidity. When creating soil beddings, the test seal is carried out
at three variants: the number of a roller passage is of 6, 8 and 10.
Verification must be carried out on the basis of geotechnical monitoring and laboratory
testings. Each subsequent layer of soil is compacted immediately after its filling and
leveling continuously. To determine the moisture and soil density after the compaction of
each layer, samples are taken at checkpoints assigned at the rate of 1 point for every
300 m2, but not less than two per object [9]. The number of samples at each point was not
less than three. Sampling was performed from the middle of each rammed layer.
The soil bedding is designed in accordance with the requirements [9, 10]. Thickness of
soil bedding is 1.80 m; six layers of compacted soil, selected from the pit with thickness of
30 cm. The pit bottom under the soil bedding is compacted to a skeleton density
ρd = 1.7 g/cm3. The soil bedding is made of local loess loam at W0 = 0.15, with a limit

5
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

deviation of ±15 % from W0 . In case of deviation from the set humidity value, moistening
or drying is performed. If moistening is necessary, if the soil moisture is 15 % or more
below the optimum, if the soil moisture is below the optimum by 15 % or more, the soil in
the cavalier is laid in layers of 25 cm with simultaneous moistening.
Table 4 shows the data for the calculation of foundations on compacted soils.
Table 4. Calculated values (episode of compacted soils).
Axis of the foundation
Calculated values
D B 1 5
b 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.6
R 397.72 402.86 390.89 389.18
p 232.01 223.09 204.46 202.58
δ -41.67 -44.62 -47.69 -47.95
For the obtained dimensions of strip foundations, the total deformation of the base and
structure was calculated using a design scheme in the form of a linear-deformed half-space
by the layer-by-layer method (Table 5).
Table 5. The obtained initial values of geometric parameters.
Axis of the foundation
Calculated values
D B 1 5
Strip foundation width b , m 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.6
Foundation subsidence s , sm 1.51 1.69 0.79 0.68
For structures on loess soils it is desirable to have approximately equal numerical values
of deformation in the base subsidence on all axes of the building. Due to this, some
dimensions of the strip foundation width were changed (Table 6).
Table 6. Optimized values of geometric parameters.
Axis of the foundation
Calculated valus
D B 1 5
Strip foundation width b , m 1.3 1.6 0.7 0.6
Foundation subsidence s , sm 1.43 1.62 0.79 0.68
The limiting value of the combined deformation of the base and structure for residential
multi-storeyed frameless buildings with load-bearing walls of brickwork without
reinforcement is su =10 cm according to paragraph 7.9.4 [9]. That is, on all four axes, the
condition of the calculation for deformation of bases is fulfilled.

4 Conclusions
Geotechnical analysis of the optimum parameters for foundations of a four-storeyed
residential building was carried out with consideration to the results of engineering and
geological surveys, data characterizing the purpose, structural features of the building,
loads acting on foundations, as well as prediction of the operating conditions and economic
capabilities of the customer.
On the basis of the calculations, the optimal design of the strip foundation on the
compacted soil bedding was developed. At the same time, the possibility of a relative
uniform deformation of the subsidence of the loess base under the foundation of a four-
storeyed residential building was taken into account. The option optimized on the basis of

6
E3S Web of Conferences 168, 00024 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016800024
RMGET 2020

strength and deformability calculations provides the most complete use of the
characteristics of loess base soils.
The decision taken meets the requirements of safety of people's habitation,
serviceability and durability of the structure.

References
1. O. Voloshyn, O. Riabtsev (2019). Some important aspects of rock mechanics and
geomechanics. E3S Web of Conferences, International Conference Essays of Mining
Science and Practice, 109 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201910900114
2. Shvets, V.B., Shapoval, V.G., Petrenko, V.D., Andreyev, V.S., Selikhova, T.A.,
Tiutkin, A.L. (2008). Fundamenty promyshlennykh, grazhdanskikh i transportnykh
sooruzheniy na sloistykh gruntovykh osnovaniyakh. Dnepropetrovsk: Nova ideolohiia
3. O. Voloshyn, O. Riabtsev (2013). Studies of stationary supporting zone sizes varied in
the course of mining operations in deep horizons. Annual Scientific-Technical
Collection – Mining of Mineral Deposits, 71-76
4. Bulychev, N.S. (1994). Mekhanika podzemnykh sooruzheniy. Moskva: Nedra
5. Krayev, V.F. (1971). Inzhenerno-geologicheskaya kharakteristika porod lessovoy
formatsii Ukrainy. Kiyev: Naukova dumka
6. Krutov, V.I. (1982). Osnovaniya i fundamenty na prosadochnykh gruntakh. Kiyev:
Budivelnyk
7. O. Dubinchyk, V. Petrenko, D. Ihnatenko, V. Kildieiev (2019). Comprehensive
analysis of the retaining pile structure with the determining the stability factor by
numerical methods. E3S Web of Conferences, International Conference Essays of
Mining Science and Practice, 109 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/
201910900020
8. Tiutkin, O.L., Dubinchyk, O.I., Kildieiev, V.R. (2018). Analiz rezultativ stiikosti
porodnykh skhyliv, skladenykh neodnoridnymy ta sharuvatymy gruntamy, Bridges and
tunnels: Theory, Research, Practice, 14, 81-92
9. DBN V.2.1-10-2009 (2009). Osnovy ta fundamenty sporud. Osnovni polozhennia
proiektuvannia. Kyiv: Minrehionbud Ukrainy
10. DBN V. 1.1-5-2000 (2006). Budynky i sporudy na pidrobliuvanykh terytoriiakh i na
prosidaiuchykh gruntakh (Chastyna II. Budynky i sporudy na prosidaiuchykh
gruntakh). Kyiv: Minbud Ukrainy
11. DBN V.1.2-2:2006 (2006). Navantazhennia i vplyvy. Normy proektuvannia. Kyiv:
Minbud Ukrainy