Some Thougths About Teaching Soil Mechanics To Civil Engineering Undergraduates

Manuel de Matos Fernandes
Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto
Photo by Francisco Piqueiro Since September 2000

1 Manuel de Matos Fernandes
Position of UNIV. of PORTO in the field of
CIVIL ENGINEERING in some rankings in 2016
• QS, Quacquarelli Symonds: World 51-100

Europe 15-33
• NTU, National Taiwan Univ.: World 58

Europe 13
• ARWU Shanghai Ranking: World 78

Europe 28

Teaching Soil Mechanics to Civil Eng. undergraduates
Context of our work
• Integrated master in Civil Engineering – 5 years course
• Soil Mechanics – 7th semester (in parallel with Concrete
Structures, Roads, Project Management and Hydraulics)
• Introduction to Geotechnics – 8th semester
• Block of specialization disciplines in the 9th semester
(Structures, Hydraulics, Geotechnics, Buildings, etc.)
• Dissertation in the 10th semester
• Around 160 students (this year)

Teaching Soil Mechanics to Civil Eng. undrgraduates
Context of our work
• Semester with 13 weeks
• This allows 24/25 theoretical classes (1 hour)
• In complement, 12 practical classes (3 hours) to

solve exercises and lab works
Physical indices Shear strength and
Grain distribution stress-strain
Clay minerals relationships for
Atterberg limits sands and clays
Classification

Students that have learned the
EFFECTIVE STRESS PRINCIPLE past week

City of Porto
Photo by José Paulo Andrade

A remarkable collection of
bridges over river Douro
estuary.
Photo by Francisco Piqueiro

Maria Pia Bridge, the largest iron arch in the world at the date of its conclusion, G. Eiffel and T.
Seyrig, 1877
Photo by Luís Ferreira Alves
Luíz I Bridge, the unique XIX century iron bridge with two decks in the world, T. Seyrig, 1886

Arrábida Bridge, the largest reinforced concrete arch in the world at the date of its conclusion, Edgar
Cardoso, 1963
Photo by Luís Lousada Soares
S. João Bridge, the

prestressed concrete railway
bridge of this type with the
largest span (250 m) until
today, Edgar Cardoso, 1991.

The best students dream to become bridge designers!
Photo by Luís Lousada Soares

• 3D heterogeneous mass
• Formed by grains, water and air
• Non elastic material. Failure
• Time dependent behaviour
• Influence of stress/geological history
(overconsolidation, ageing, weathering)
• Dilatancy
• Effective stress and total stress analyses
SOIL MECHANICS

• 3D heterogeneous mass
• Formed by grains, water and air
• Non elastic material. Failure
• Time dependent behaviour
• Influence of stress (geological) history
(overconsolidation, ageing, weathering)
• Dilatancy
• Effective stress and total stress analyses
SOIL MECHANICS
The natural science built by civil engineers.

CONVENTIONAL CHAPTERS OF SOIL MECHANICS
Physical indices
Effective stress
Grain distribution
principle
Clay minerals
Permeability
Atterberg limits
Seepage
Classification
Shear strength and

stress-strain
relationships for
sands and clays

Mechanics
Physical indices
Effective stress
Grain distribution
principle
Clay minerals
Permeability
Atterberg limits
Seepage
Classification
Shear strength and

stress-strain
relationships for
sands and clays

Issues usually treated in the first chapter(s)
10 0
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 .0 0 1 0 .00 5 0 .01 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .5 1 5 10 50
FIN E M E D IU M C O A R SE FIN E M ED IU M C O A R SE F IN E M ED IU M C O A R SE
C LA Y
S ILT SA N D G RAVEL
w
ws wP wL
60
IP
50
e
lin
40 A
CH
30
20 OH
CL or
CL MH
10 OL
CL-M L or
ML ML
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 wL

GAP!
Physical indices
Effective stress
Grain distribution
principle
Clay minerals
Permeability
Atterberg limits
Seepage
Classification
Shear strength and

stress-strain
relationships for
sands and clays

The contents of Soil Mechanics syllabus of the
degree courses in many universities, as well as
many text books, do not emphasize and
analyse the strong relationships between the
physical/identification parameters and the
main trends of the mechanical behaviour of
soils.

This is not in agreement with the capital
importance they have in geotechnical
practice.
In fact, most of the main decisions of an

experienced engineer are made on the basis
of the interpretation of the site geology and
of the physical/identification parameters of
the relevant soil layers.

This means that experienced engineers have a
clear idea on how the basic mechanical trends
of soils are influenced by site geology and by
the physical/identification parameters of the
relevant soil layers.
Why this matter is not discussed in detail in
our Soil Mechanics courses and books?
Is it impossible to obtain this skill at the
University?

We reflect on the soil at micro-scale:
Physical indices
mineral particle or sample
10 0
90
Grain distribution 80
70
Clay minerals 60
50
Atterberg limits 40
30
Classification 20
10
0
0 .0 0 1 0 .00 5 0 .01 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .5 1 5 10 50
FIN E M E D IU M C O A R SE FIN E M ED IU M C O A R SE F IN E M ED IU M C O A R SE
C LA Y
S ILT SA N D G RAVEL
w
ws wP wL
60
IP
50
e
lin
40 A
CH
30
20 OH
CL or
CL MH
10 OL
CL-M L or
ML ML
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 wL

But we should in the following think macro!

a ground mass…

a ground mass…
…in its geological context

Physical indices
Effective stress
Grain distribution
principle
Clay minerals
Permeability
Atterberg limits
Seepage
Classification
Basic trends of
sedimentary sands and
clays and of residual soils
This is a good time
to discuss these matters!
Shear strength and

stress-strain
relationships for
sands and clays

e min – e max interval for sands
0 emin emax e

SIMPLE, ESSENTIAL, BUT OFTEN OMMITED QUESTIONS!
• Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?

• Which natural mechanisms lead to a progressive
reduction of the void ratio?
• What are the consequences of such reduction to the
response of the soil to static and dynamic loading?
• How can we prevent a poor performance if the
natural void ratio is close to emax?
• If at a given site we have two sandy layers, how can
we compare their density index?

Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?!
0 emin emax e

Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?
0 emin emax e
Sedimentation (!!!)

Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?
0 emin emax e
time
Sedimentation (!!!)

Where is the sand just after sedimentation?
0 emin e emax e
time
Sedimentation (!!!)

Where is the sand just after sedimentation?
0 emin e emax e
time
emax − e
ID =
emax − emin Sedimentation (!!!)

How does Nature improve loose sands?
Settlement due to
sand vibration
Kobe, Japan, 1995 earthquake Photo by António Gomes Coelho

How can we prevent a poor performance
if the natural void ratio is close to emax?
Vibrocompaction Dynamic compaction

SIMPLE, ESSENTIAL, BUT OFTEN OMMITED QUESTIONS!
• Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?

• Which natural mechanisms lead to a progressive
reduction of the void ratio?
• What are the consequences of such reduction to the
response of the soil to static and dynamic loading?
• How can we prevent a poor performance if the
natural void ratio is close to emax?
• If at a given site we have two sandy layers how can
we compare their density index?

Atterberg limits for clayey soils
e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP wL

SIMPLE, ESSENTIAL, BUT OFTEN OMMITED
QUESTIONS!
• Where is the clay just after the sedimentation?
• How does Nature improve clayey soils?
• What are the consequences of such reduction to
the response to static loading?
• If we apply a static load on a clay whose water
content is close to wL, what can we expect?
• How can we prevent such poor performance?
• If at a given site we have two clayey layers, how
can we compare their consistency index?

Where is the clay just after the sedimentation?!
e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP wL

Where is the clay just after the sedimentation?
e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP wL
Sedimentation (!!!)

e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP wL
time
Sedimentation (!!!)

e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP w wL
time
Sedimentation (!!!)

e
Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%
Gs
1
0 w
ws wP w wL
time
wL − w
IC =
wL − wP Sedimentation (!!!)

Some topics for discussion:
- this idea is a simplification, and should be taken as a basic approximation
(as will be observed in the next slide);
- further, there are exceptions to this idea; we will have oportunity to
comment these exceptions (quick clays, etc.);
- if the lab test for emax is basically a simulation of a grain pack of a sand that
has just sedimented, why the liquid limit is determined through this strange
test?!
- Since it would not be feasible to replicate in the lab the sedimentation

process for fine soils, the tests for determining wL were conceived in order
to provide a result of the water content corresponding to a very small
consistency of the soil.

How does Nature improve clayey soils?
w (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
wp w wL
z (m) 60
65 Burland, 1990
45
How does Nature improve clayey soils?
5
Void ratio, e Boreholes

in sea bed
4
1
Approxim. 10 cm
under sea bed
Depth (m) 3 10 30 100 300 1000 3000
A. W. Skempton, “The consolidation of clays by gravitational compaction”, 1970

If a static load is applied on a clay whose water
content is close to wL, what can be expected?
Basilica de Guadalupe and Templo de Las Capuchinas, Mexico City

Courtesy of Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos
content is close to wL, what can be expected?
time
Clay
Large delayed settlements due to reduction of the water content.

content is close to wL what can be expected?
Embankment
Soft clay
Slip surface
... or even a slip failure involving the soft clay and the embankment.

How can we prevent such poor performance?
Settlement acceleration - vertical drains

Soil reinforcement – stone columns

SIMPLE, ESSENTIAL, BUT OFTEN OMMITED
QUESTIONS!
• Where is the clay just after the sedimentation?
• How does Nature improve clayey soils?
• What are the consequences of such reduction to
the response to static loading?
• If we apply a static load on a clay whose water
content is close to wL, what can we expect?
• How can we prevent such poor performance?
• If at a given site we have two clayey layers, how
can we compare their consistency index?

SIMPLE, FUNDAMENTAL, but OFTEN OMMITED IDEAS!
• Sedimentary soils are born in Nature

very weak (loose/soft).
• They become stronger over time.
• Aged soils are typically sound soils.

THIS HAS AN OBVIOUS RELATION WITH
GEOLOGICAL PERIODS/EPOCHS
• a Holocene clay is certainly a soft clay.

• a Holocene sand is probably a loose sand.
• a Pliocene sand is likely a dense sand.
• a Eocene clay is surely a stiff/ hard clay.
In Nature, relations between Geology and

Mechanics are fecund!

Residual soils from granite (saprolite)
Little, 1969 Weathering profile in northern Portugal

Residual soils from granite (saprolite)
100
90
80
70
60
PERCENT PASSED (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 (mm) 5 10
SILT SAND
CLAY GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE
γs wL IP w Sr e γ
(kN/m3) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kN/m3)
25.5 – 26.7 25 - 40 < 13 10 - 30 60 - 100 0.40 – 0.85 17.0 – 22.0

Granite residual soils – typical heterogeneity
70 70
(Proj. 2,6m) SAL1 SAL9 (Proj. 5,8m) SAL2
PERFIL F-F' PERFIL E-E'
?
At At At
70 70
W2 - W3 (nível de blocos)
? ? W5 ? 22
W2 - W3 (nível de blocos)
?
? 32 W5
? W5 ?
65 W5 65
?
?
W5 - W4
?
W5
60 16
60
34
W5 - W4
96
55 61 55
COTAS (m)
75
W5 - W4 W4 - W3
31
55
64
W4 - W3
50 66 50
78
W4 - W5
57
46
45 24 W4 - W3 45
50
83
?
33 W3
W4 - W3 W2 - W3
W3
40 22 ? 40
56
46
60 W4 - W3
46 ?
35 30 35
100
?
0
50
-20 -10 0 44
10 20 30 40 50 60
W3 - W2
100
0
50
DISTÂNCIA (m)
? W3
?
?
W3 - W2
Av. Aliados, Porto, Portugal Courtesy of Metro do Porto

Granite saprolitic soils - cemented structure
Photo by António Viana da Fonseca

Granite saprolitic soils - relic structures
Photo by António Viana da Fonseca

Examples of exercises solved
in weeks 3 and 4 of the semester.
This week (week 5) students are solving a

short test with similar questions.

Example 1: Cylindrical storage tank installation over
sedimentary and residual soils on a granite substratum.
Layer A
Layer B
Layer C
(?) (?)
Granite

Soil w γs wL wP emin emax
(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.89
Layer A
100
90
Layer B 80
70
Layer C II III
60
50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
Granite 20
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
• Establish the most plausible correspondence between

the soils of the table and the grain size curves.

(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.89
Layer A
100
90
Layer B 80
70
Layer C II III
60
Soil 2 50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
Granite 20
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL


(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.89
Layer A
100
90
Layer B 80
70
Layer C II III
60
Soil 2 50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
Granite Soil 1 20
Soil 3 10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL


(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.89
Layer A
100
90
Layer B 80
70
Soil 2 Layer C Soil 2 II III

60
50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
Granite Soil 1 20
Soil 3 10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
• Establish the most plausible correspondence between layers A, B and

C of the figure and soils of the table. Present the computations which
justify your answer.
Soil w γs wL wP emin e emax
(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.51 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.74 0.89
Soil 3 Layer A
100
90
Soil 1 Layer B 80
70

60
50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
Granite Soil 3 Soil 1 20
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
• Establish the most plausible correspondence between layers A, B and

C of the figure and soils of the table. Present the computations which
justify your answer.
(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.51 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.74 0.89
Soil 3 Layer A
100
90
Soil 1 Layer B 80
70

60
50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
• In case of a strong earthquake, is it probable that one (or more)

layer(s) exhibit poor performance? If that is the case, describe what
may happen. Propose a method that can prevent it.
(%) (kN/m3) (%) (%)
1 (sedim.) 19 26.1 --- --- 0.40 0.51 0.98
2 (residual) 23 25.8 34 25 --- --- ---
3 (sedim.) 18 26.0 --- --- 0.20 0.74 0.89
Soil 3 Layer A
100
90
Soil 1 Layer B 80
70

60
50
(?) (?) 40
I 30
10
0
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL

layer(s) exhibit poor performance? If that is the case, describe what
may happen. Propose a method that can prevent it.
Example 2: crossing a wide alluvial plain by a new railway.
Embankment Bridge
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

68
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)
Soil γs γ wL w wP emin emax

(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (%) (%) (%)
1 26.0 18.5 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.95

2 25.8 20.1 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.89
3 26.3 15.0 88 81 40 --- ---
4 26.1 20.9 53 18 22 --- ---
•Establish the most plausible correspondence between layers of

the figure and the soils of the table.
Present the computations which justify your answer.

A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)
Soil γs γ wL w wP emin e emax

(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (%) (%) (%)
1 26.0 18.5 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95

2 25.8 20.1 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89
3 26.3 15.0 88 81 40 --- 2.17 ---
4 26.1 20.9 53 18 22 --- 0.48 ---


A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)
Soil wL w wP emin e emax IC ID

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---


A (Clay)
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---


A (Clay)
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel) soil 2
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---


73
A (Clay) soil 3
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel) soil 2
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---


A (Clay) soil 3
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel) soil 2
D (Clay) soil 4

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---


A (Clay) soil 3
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---
• Will any of the soils suffer large delayed settlements? If that is

the case, identify the soil and propose a method for ensuring
the settlement stabilization in a shorter time.

A (Clay)
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

layer(s) exhibit poor performance? If that is the case, describe
what may happen. Propose a method that can prevent it.

A (Clay)
B (Sand) soil 1
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---
• Which soil would you select (regardless its concrete position) as

fill material for the embankment?

OTHER POSSIBLE QUESTIONS (for the following weeks):
• Sort the soils in ascending order of permeability.
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

• Sort the soils in ascending order of compressibility, considering:
i) only immediate volumetric strain;
ii) only time dependent volumetric strain;
iii) the total volumetric strain.
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

• Is any soil(s) to behave as a normally consolidated soil?
• Is any soil(s) to behave as an overconsolidated soil?
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

• What would you say about the expected dilatancy
(positive/negative) of the soils?
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11

2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

• For soil 3 (soft clay) depict the evolution in depth of the
undrained shear strength su at the tidal flat and at the river bed.
• Assign a plausible value for su at the centre of the layer.
A (Clay) soil 3
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)

(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 --- 33 --- 0.25 0.87 0.95 --- 11
2 --- 21 --- 0.46 0.55 0.89 --- 79
3 88 81 40 --- 2.17 --- 0.15 ---
4 53 18 22 --- 0.48 --- 1.13 ---

Evolution of su under the bed of river Tagus
at the site of Vasco da Gama Bridge, Lisbon
cus(kPa)
u(kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
σ v0
' =(16.5-9.8) z (kPa,m)
SR2
SR3
5 Vane-test
SR4
SR5
SR7
SR10
Triaxial tests
10
Direct simple
shear tests
15
20
cu
σ v0
'
=0.40
25
cu
σ v0
'
=0.20
30
z(m)
Evolution in depth of su in Layer A (soil 3)
A (Clay) soil 3
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay)
su su
z z
Tidal flat River bed
1
• What would you say about the expected value of the undrained
shear strength at point P in layer D, in comparison with the one
obtained by simply extending the line drawn for layer A?
su
A (Clay)
B (Sand)
C (Gravel)
D (Clay) PX
z ? ? ?
su(P)
CONCLUSIONS
In the presentation it was identified a GAP in the

usual process of teaching/learning Soil Mechanics.
This GAP seriously affects the understanding that
the mechanical behaviour – expressed by a series
of abstract concepts – is totally controlled by the
physical/geological soil characteristics…
… and these physical/geological characteristics are

much easier to realize because they are
intrinsecally concrete!
Then, the rational synthesis is not properly achieved.
Physical Geological
indices conditions
Basic
mechanical
Mechanical
trends
trends

CONCLUSIONS
Most of the main decisions of an experienced
engineer are made on the basis of the
interpretation of the site geology and of the
physical/identification parameters of the relevant
soil layers.
The characterization via mechanical lab and field
tests and the calculations are essential in design
but seldom lead to significant changes in the
conception of the solution based on the
aforementioned interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS
The acquisition of expertise to assess “field
atmosphere” usually requires years of experience
but can be prepared at the University.
This requires training the ability to interpret the
geological conditions and the physical-identification
indices and to associate them to trends of the
mechanical soil behaviour.
This training should begin even before studying the
approaches that quantitatively characterize the
mechanical soil behaviour. But should continue and
be improved in parallel with these approaches!!!
This strategy has many relevant advantages!
• Train the eagle eye: much can be extracted from the physical
indices to assess the expected mechanical trends!
• Those simple but powerfull ideas are easier to remain acquired in
the future, as a general knowledge.
• They form an impressive background for the following
(mechanical) chapters, whose subjects become more “realistic”.
• This is a good opportunity to introduce solutions to prevent
undesirable soil behaviour (just the basic idea).
• This gives rise to very vivid classes, in which students gain
enthusiasm because they discuss real engineering problems.
Thisisisdone
This doneininweeks
weeks33and
and44ofofthe
thesemester!
semester.

Soil Mechanics and Introduction to
Geotechnics have been the two best rated
disciplines by the students in the official
educational surveys, over the last 20 years.

Thank you for your attention!

Some Thougths About Teaching Soil Mechanics To Civil Engineering Undergraduates

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Some Thougths About Teaching Soil Mechanics To Civil Engineering Undergraduates

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto

Photo by Francisco Piqueiro Since September 2000

• QS, Quacquarelli Symonds: World 51-100

• NTU, National Taiwan Univ.: World 58

• ARWU Shanghai Ranking: World 78

2 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

3 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

• This allows 24/25 theoretical classes (1 hour)

• In complement, 12 practical classes (3 hours) to

4 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

5 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Photo by José Paulo Andrade

6 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Photo by Francisco Piqueiro

7 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

9 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

S. João Bridge, the

11 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Photo by Luís Lousada Soares

12 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

13 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

14 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Shear strength and

15 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Shear strength and

16 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

17 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Shear strength and

18 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

19 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

In fact, most of the main decisions of an

20 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

21 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

22 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

23 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

24 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

…in its geological context

25 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Shear strength and

26 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

27 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

• Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?

28 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

29 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

30 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

31 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

32 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

33 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Kobe, Japan, 1995 earthquake Photo by António Gomes Coelho

34 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Vibrocompaction Dynamic compaction

• Where is the sand just after the sedimentation?

36 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%

37 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

38 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%

39 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%

40 Manuel de Matos Fernandes

Sr = 0 Sr < 100% Sr = 100%

41 Manuel de Matos Fernandes