72 views

Uploaded by Hemandra Kumar

- Flexural test of precast high-strength reinforced concrete pile prestressed with unbonded bars arranged at the center of the cross-section
- Dec-2011 mechanical questions
- KISSsoft, Shaft Analysis_ Introduction to DIN 743, October 2000
- Sname - Numerical Prediction of Buckling
- Tunnel support in weak rock (Hoek,1998).pdf
- Failure Mode and Strength Predictions of Anisotropic
- V3I2-IJERTV3IS20831
- PROACTIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PEDLAR DAM
- ES 321 (Strength of Materials) Syllabus
- ER288- Pile Load Test
- 650683
- 1989-4 Analisis of Curved Expandable Space Bar Structures
- Tension Capacity of Pile
- Suction Pile Spec
- 328570
- BDC16MB01
- Assignments IIIrd Year
- av1
- Hong Hao-Advances in Protective Structures Research-CRC Press (2012)
- Theories of Failure Under Static Load

You are on page 1of 6

www.geo-slope.com

1 Introduction

This example simulates pulling a pile out of the ground. It is not a realistic field case, but numerically the simulation makes it possible to verify the behavior of a structural element with slip elements on both sides. The primary purpose of this example is to check the behavior of the slip (interface) elements in SIGMA/W when there is a beam along the center of the slip elements.

Figure 1 shows the problem configuration and setup. Basically, there are interface elements down the center of a box with a beam along the center of the interface elements. Of significance is that the beam does not go to the bottom of the interface elements, and that the beam extends up into the air above the ground. To have the beam above the ground surface, we need a geometric Line in space and then the beam can be attached to the Line.

30 28 26 24 22 20 18

Elevation - m

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Distance - m

Figure 1 Configuration and setup for pile pullout test

Page 1 of 6

www.geo-slope.com

The interface (slip) zone extends below the bottom end of the beam, as shown in the magnified view in Figure 2. The reason for this is that we do not want to directly connect the beam to a mesh node that is common with the soil; that is to say, we do not want the beam directly attached to the soil. We want the beam to be able to slip within the soil.

The pulling effect is simulated with a displacement boundary condition at the top of the pile of +0.01 m per load step (the + sign indicates upward or in the direction of the positive y-direction). The pile is modeled as a beam. The properties of the beam are not all that important, except that the stiffness (E) should be considerably great than that for the soil.

Analysis: Insitu

We need the lateral stress on the pile to activate the friction between the soil and the pile. Therefore, we need to start with an insitu analysis to set up the stress state in the ground. The soil is assigned a Poissons Ratio of 0.495. This is analogous to a Ko condition of 0.98. (It is not possible to make = 0.5 to get Ko exactly equal to 1.0). The total unit weight of the soil is 20 kN/m3. Figure 3 shows the lateral stress on the pile. The pile is 20 m long and with = 20 and Ko = 0.98, the lateral stress at the bottom of the pile should be close to 400 kPa which is the case as shown in Figure 3.

Lateral stress

30

Y (m)

20

Page 2 of 6

www.geo-slope.com

This test uses only undrained strength for the frictional behavior between the pile and the soil. Since the cohesive strength is not a function of the lateral stress, it is numerically a more stable test and easier to compare with hand calculations. Figure 4 shows the slip force between the soil and pile on the left and on the right. The pile is 20 m long, C is 100 kPa and the total frictional slip force therefore should be 2000 kN. The maximum value in Figure 4 is just above 2000. The slight additional resistance is due to end-effects at the bottom of the pile, even though the pile is not directly connected to the soil, as discussed earlier.

Left slip - time

2500 2500

Right slip

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

500

0 0 10 Time (sec) 20

0 0 10 Time (sec) 20

Figure 4 Slip forces between soil and pile on the left and on the right

The total frictional resisting force will be the sum of the left and right sides. This can be illustrated by looking at the slip forces along the center of the interface elements. Physically, there are no slip surfaces down the middle, but numerically, the comparable forces are available due to the double-layer formulation of the interface elements. In this case, because the outside two slip forces are in the same direction, the middle forces will be the sum of the outer two, but of the opposite sign (the algebraic sum must be zero). This is confirmed in Figure 5. The middle slip forces are physically in the pile (beam), not in the center of the interface.

Page 3 of 6

Center slip

0 -500 -1000 Y-Slip Force (kN) -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 -4000 -4500 0 10 Time (sec) 20

www.geo-slope.com

Figure 6 shows the axial force in the pile. The maximum is -4082 kN at the top, which matches the total frictional resistance as indicated in Figure 5 (the minus sign indicates tension). At the bottom, the axial force approaches zero as it correctly should.

Beam axial

30

Y (m)

20

Now we will switch the properties of the interface material from C = 100 kPa and = zero to C = zero and = 30 degrees. In this case, it is not as simple to compare the SIGMA/W results with hand

Page 4 of 6

www.geo-slope.com

calculations, due to the variable lateral stress with depth and since the frictional resistance is a function of the lateral stress. If the pile and soil would remain in perfect contact, and if the lateral stress distribution with depth would remain unaltered by pulling on the pile, then the total frictional force should be around: F = * h2 /2 * tan = 20 * 20 * 20 /2 * tan 30 = 2310 kN times 2 sides = 4620 kN. The soil and pile, however, do not remain in perfect contact and the lateral stress gets altered by the pulling. As a result, the SIGMA/W frictional forces do not match the hand-calculated values, as is evident in Figure 7. The resulting total is only about 3360 kN.

Center slip

0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 0 5 Time (sec) 10 15

One of the reasons for the difference is that the soil and pile separate at the top and consequently the slip forces go to zero. This is evident in Figure 8, where at the top the slip surface has gone to zero. This is further evident in Figure 9, which shows the axial force distribution in the pile. The distribution is nearly linear in the bottom half of the pile, but then varies significantly in the top half. The forces actually become nearly constant near the top, which is a reflection of almost no frictional resistance toward the end of the pulling.

Page 5 of 6

www.geo-slope.com

Slip - depth

30

Y (m)

20

Beam axial

30

Y (m)

20

Conclusion

The example confirms the correct behavior of a beam along the middle of interface elements and the correct behavior of the slip elements when they are vertical.

Page 6 of 6

- Flexural test of precast high-strength reinforced concrete pile prestressed with unbonded bars arranged at the center of the cross-sectionUploaded byIbis Tello
- Dec-2011 mechanical questionsUploaded byYugesh Kumar
- KISSsoft, Shaft Analysis_ Introduction to DIN 743, October 2000Uploaded byTomas Pinheiro
- Sname - Numerical Prediction of BucklingUploaded byemampar
- Tunnel support in weak rock (Hoek,1998).pdfUploaded byniken tri ayuning
- Failure Mode and Strength Predictions of AnisotropicUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- V3I2-IJERTV3IS20831Uploaded byLarry Smith
- PROACTIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PEDLAR DAMUploaded byvhgaitan
- ES 321 (Strength of Materials) SyllabusUploaded byHarold Taylor
- ER288- Pile Load TestUploaded byalfie
- 650683Uploaded bySilvia Dona Sari
- 1989-4 Analisis of Curved Expandable Space Bar StructuresUploaded byEDITORIAL STARBOOKS
- Tension Capacity of PileUploaded bynimal179
- Suction Pile SpecUploaded byriaz16shaik
- 328570Uploaded byFahid Aslam
- BDC16MB01Uploaded byArianBaghi
- Assignments IIIrd YearUploaded bysirsa11
- av1Uploaded bysadewaam
- Hong Hao-Advances in Protective Structures Research-CRC Press (2012)Uploaded bynishant
- Theories of Failure Under Static LoadUploaded bySneh
- Resistance of Bolted Shear Connectors in Prefabricated Steel-concrete Composite DecksUploaded byFerhan Öztürk
- AbutmentsUploaded bysoroware
- Mechanics of Wood MachiningUploaded byPeter Nomikos
- 12 Timoshenko - Strength of MaterialsUploaded byashi111290
- Ductile Concrete With FiberUploaded bydan1007
- sdUploaded bySaswindrran Annadorai
- IRC 112 2011[1]Uploaded bypadeep
- home workUploaded by陸政宏
- PCI Hollow Core Manual 2nd EdUploaded byRosalio Acosta
- A 615 A615M-96aUploaded byipkm123

- limit state of flexureUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- NBCC-GCC.pdfUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- AD004-06-009-0-001 REV00Uploaded byHemandra Kumar
- 64 Interview QuestionsUploaded byshivakumar N
- HddUploaded bylhikbani
- Civil Works ManualUploaded bySam Roger
- Specifications for Excavation and EarthworkUploaded byAjay Singh
- CVC guideline for BGUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- Civil Engineering Objective Type QuestionsUploaded byJean Simon
- IM-1476691466Uploaded byHemandra Kumar
- bsnl_w8_cs3_GCCUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- IES Syllabus CivilUploaded byMadhu Priya
- engineering services(civil engg 1)Uploaded bykumarsarvan
- Advt. no. 04-2014Uploaded byAjay Singh
- Building Foundation by AzmatUploaded byazmat786
- Pile Pull Out TestUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- SFD_BMDUploaded byraj_anu13
- SFD_BMDUploaded byraj_anu13
- Civil Conventional 10032012Uploaded byHemandra Kumar
- Top Public Sector CompaniesUploaded byHemandra Kumar
- Mechanics of Materials Solution Manual 3rd Ed.Uploaded byserdartekin
- Chapter 6Uploaded byvekaveka
- IS 1893Uploaded bybrindhu
- GATUploaded bysantoshumi

- CE6405-Soil Mechanics.pdfUploaded byShanmuga Sundaram
- 1603195Uploaded byTony_Black99
- Domex 100 XF Data SheetUploaded byzubblwump5063
- 38CUploaded byDarshit D Raj
- Shaft failuresUploaded byDarshak Gowda
- Horizontal Lifting Lug Calculation - Rev. 0Uploaded bysridhar
- Nut & Bolt Connection DesignUploaded byChandana Kumara
- 05-006.pdfUploaded byZeus4321
- Steel Alloying PrinciplesUploaded byHendra Yudistira
- Doc14-6 Eurocode1 Accidental ActionsUploaded byMihnea-Bogdan Nicolaescu
- Lecture NoteUploaded byOlaolu Olalekan
- 첨부 3. Reference Standard(ASTM E488)Uploaded byAmir Sajjad
- Comparison of Specific Strength of MaterialsUploaded bynsitvar
- Tensile and Compressive Behaviour of Treated Sisal and Jute Fiber Blended Polypropylene CompositeUploaded byraghu
- Stiffening Effect of Refractory Lined Piping _ Carmagen EngineeringUploaded bynaeand
- Nozzle & Sadle ProcedureUploaded byaike_5
- 5-Investigation-of-Bond-Stress-in-Pull.pdfUploaded byFahid Aslam
- An Ant Colony Optimization based Routing Techniques for VANETUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- CatalogoMebraLowRes Mebraplastik FURTUNEUploaded byCostel Sentes
- Modern Steel Construction July 2010Uploaded byMelissa Flores
- Aerospace Structural Metals HandbookUploaded bycharles_boyle_3
- API 579 BlueUploaded byMohamed Alkhiat
- AITECH Building System Evaluation ReportUploaded byMaria Aiza Maniwang Calumba
- BEAM PresentationUploaded byMohammad Parvej
- Pies ProtesicosUploaded byJoel Ontiveros
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813004049-mainUploaded byOsama Tarek
- 10 Rock Mass Classification SystemsUploaded byezhy18
- Whitmore SectionUploaded byLawrence Arellano Fernandez
- Student Competitions 2016Uploaded byChetan Patil
- Technical DataUploaded byt_syamprasad