Santa Cruz – April 2017

Deep Foundation Concepts

in Energy GeoEngineering

JC Santamarina H Shin
KAUST Univ. Ulsan
 Energy and Quality of Life

35% petroleum
~86% fossil

28% natural gas

18% coal

5% biomass (renewable)

9% nuclear power

3% hydroelectric
Deepwater Horizon
< 2% renewable non-hydro Explosion: 4/20/2010
Soils
Well-soil interaction
Repetitive loads – Thermal
Fractured Rocks
Alternatives: Bio-inspired
Soils
 Revised Soil Classification System USCS

Load-carrying fraction Flow-controlling fraction

0 0
100 100
10 10
90 90
20 20
30 80
30 80

40
70
40 70

50
60
50 60

60 50
60 50
F 40 (F) 40
70 70
80 30
80 30
GF SF 20 20
90
GSF 90
100 S
10
100 10
G GS (G) (S)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sand [%] Sand [%]
 geolabs.co.uk

RSCS: SE LLdeion
LLbrine
LLkerosene

5.5
Note: corrected ratios
5

4.5
Non Low Inter High plasticity

4
LLDW / LLbrine

Electrical Sensitivity SE
3.5

3 3

2.5
2 High SE
SE=1.0
2

1.5 0.4
1
Inter SE
1
Low SE
0.5 0
-1
3 -0.5 0
2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 50 100 150 200

LLker/LLbrine LLbrine/LLker Liquid limit using brine LLbrine (corrected)

 Compressibility ⎛ σ' ⎞ Terzaghi & Pe
Classical e = eref − Cc log⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ Schofield & W
40 ⎝ σref ⎠

Semi-log
3
⎛ σ' ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ σ' ⎞⎤
Cubic (3rd order) e = eref − α ⋅ log⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ + β ⋅ ⎢log⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟⎥ Burland (1990
⎝ σref ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ σref ⎠⎦

30 −1
⎛ '
σModified
⎞ ⎛ 1kPa 1kPa ⎞
e = e1kPa − Cc log⎜ ⎟ e = ec − Cc log⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎝ σ' = 1kPa ⎠
'
⎝ σ'+σL σH' ⎟⎠
Void ratio e [ ]

−β Hansen (1969
⎛ σ'+σ'c ⎞

Power
Juárez-Badillo
20 From gas to soil e = eH + (eL − eH )⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ Houlsby & Wr
⎝ σc ⎠ Pestana & W
Exponent.

Gregory et al.
e = eH + (eL − eH )⋅ exp−(σ' σc )
' β
Gompertz function Cargill (1984

10
Hyperbol

Hyperbolic function 1
40 e = eL − (eL − eH )
(classical hyp: β=1) (
1+ σ'c σ' )
β
Arctang.

Data (Mesri and Olson, 1971)

2 ⎡ ⎛ σ' ⎞β ⎤
0 S-shaped function e = eL + (eL − eH )arctan ⎢− ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ ⎥
30
0.1 10 1000 π ⎢⎣ ⎝ σc ⎠ ⎥⎦
Vertical effective stress σ' [kPa]
ratio e [ ]

20
 Hydraulic Conductivity
1.00E+00
100

1.00E-01
Sandy
1.00E-02
10-2 soils

1.00E-03
Hydraulic conductivity k [cm/s]

1.00E-04 Silty
10-4
soils
Pore size decreases

1.00E-05

1.00E-06
10-6
Clayey
1.00E-07 soils
1.00E-08
10-8

1.00E-09

1.00E-10
10-10
b

1.00E-11
k ⎛⎜ e ⎞⎟
=
𝑘o k o ⎜⎝ e o ⎟⎠
1.00E-12
10-12
0.1 1 10
Void ratio e
Dataset: 1440 datapoints, 92 soils.
Compressibility + Permeability: Coupled HM

−β b
⎛ σ'+σ 'c ⎞ k ⎛e⎞
e = eH + ( )
e L − e H ⎜⎜ ' ⎟
⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ σc ⎠ k o ⎝ eo ⎠

u σ’ e k
Nankai Trough - March 2013

http://www.nytimes.com

Well-soil interaction
> 4,500,500 wells
10,000 wells /yr
_ ___ ___ abandoned
 Upper Sediment = Block

(a) Shaft Resist. fs [kPa] (b) Pile Load Pz [kN] (c)

-500 0 500 -2000 0 2000 4000
0 0 12,000

20 20 10,000
controlled by
40 40 shaft capacity

Max Axial Load [kN]

8,000

60 60
6,000
Depth z [m]

Depth z [m]

80 80
4,000
100 100
2,000
120 controlled by production
120
induced settlement
0
140 140 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Tip Stiffness k [MN/m]
160 160
FEM – Cam Clay
Axisymmetric

Water pressure at seafloor =21MPa Seafloor

Gravity
k0=1-sinφ

Conical shell element

Interface element

Continuous
element

−β b
⎛ σ'+σ 'c ⎞ k ⎛e⎞
e = eH + ( )
e L − e H ⎜⎜ ' ⎟
⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ σc ⎠ k o ⎝ eo ⎠
1.0 u Casing axial force [MN]
-2 0 2 4 6
0
0.5

-20

0.0

-40
0.01 εv

-60

Depth [m]
0.00

-80

-0.01

-100

0.1
δz [m]
-120
Pyield

0.0 -140

screen
Pmax

-160
-0.1
 Casing axial force [MN]
-3 0 3 6 9 12
u
b=0.0 b=4.0 1.0 0

-20

-40

Depth [m]
0.5 -60

-80

-100 b=0

0.0 b=4
-120

screen
-140

-160

Casing axial force [MN]

-2 0 2 4 6
0
εz
Sandy sediment (b=3.0) High Compressibility (b=4.2) 0.01 -20

-40

-60

Depth [m]
0.00
-80

-100
High
-0.01 PI
-120
Sandy
-140
screen
-160
 Thermo-active
Mechanical

Poulos
Lehane
Jardine Laloui
Foray Soga
Puech Pereira
Randoph Narsilio Narsilio
et al. … et al. …

Repetitive loading
Collaboration: C. Pasten (U. Chile)
 Masada (Israel)

www.jibe-edu.org Bakun-Mazor et al. (2011)

Eugenia Canyon Grand Canyon - Skywalk

Eric Sakowski
Entering Carlsbad Cavern - NMx
Delphi - Greece Lavrion (Greece)
Brezno (Czech Republic)

Jan.Novotny@arcadis.cz
Energy Piles: Pile-Soil Interaction

Shaft Resistance
Qhead
Qi ⎛ sult ⎞ ⎛δ +δ ⎞
si = ⎜⎜ i * ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎜ i+1 i ⎟ ≤ sult
i
δ
⎝ s⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
δi

Compatibility of Displacements
Si
δi+1 − δi = δ T − δσ

Force Equilibrium
δi+1
Qi = Qi+1 + si A(δi+1, δi )
Qi+1

Knowns Qi+1, δi+1

⎛ Qult ⎞ Unknowns Qi , δi
tip
Q tip = * ⎟ ⋅ δN+1 ≤ Qult
⎜ tip
⎜δ ⎟
⎝ tip ⎠
Static Load Sult/Qult=0.7 FS=1.25 Qult=3750 kN

Qhead

0 0 0

Normalized Depth z/L

0.5 0.5 0.5

1 1 1
3 4 0 30 60 90 0 1500 3000
Displacement Side Friction Axial Force
[cm] [kPa] [kN]
1st Heating Cycle
0
Displacement
-2
[cm]
-4
Temperature 40 0 1 2
[°C] 0
Qhead -40
0 1 2
0 0 0

Normalized Depth z/L

0.5 0.5 0.5

1 1 1
3 4 0 30 60 90 0 1500 3000
Displacement Side Friction Axial Force
[cm] [kPa] [kN]
1st Cooling Cycle
0
Displacement
-2
[cm]
-4
Temperature 40 0 1 2
0
[°C]
Qhead -40
0 1 2
0 0 0

Normalized Depth z/L

0.5 0.5 0.5

1 1 1
3 4 0 30 60 90 0 1500 3000
Displacement Side Friction Axial Force
[cm] [kPa] [kN]
50th Cycle
0
Displacement
[cm]
-2
-4
Temperature 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
[°C]
Qhead -40
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0 0

Normalized Depth z/L

0.5 0.5 0.5

1 1 1
6 7 0 30 60 90 0 1500 3000
Displacement Side Friction Axial Force
[cm] [kPa] [kN]
In Addition: Volumetric Soil Response!

One soil element:

q

shakedown M
or
ratcheting

c
ε1 p'
terminal void ratio
eter

e0

Shaft resistance will decrease…

Fractured Rock
Shale Carbonate

Don Duggan-Haas Eltom, et al., 2016

 Implicit Joint-Continuum Model - Validation
1.0 5.0
kr=0.2 (analytic)
Normalized Elastic modulus [-]
0.8 kr=1.0 (analytic) 4.0
1 set kr=0.2 (num)
0.6 3.0

σf / σc [-]
kr=1.0 (num)
β
0.4 2.0

Jeager (1960)
0.2 1.0
num

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Dip anlge β [°] Dip angle β [°]

0.6 5.0
kr=0.2 (analytic) Jeager (1960)
num
Normalized Elastic modulus [-]

0.5 kr=1.0 (analytic)

2 sets kr=0.2 (num)
4.0

0.4
kr=1.0 (num)
3.0

σf / σc [-]
β1
0.3
Δβ
2.0
0.2
Δβ = 45!
1.0
0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Dip anlge β1 [°] Dip angle β1 [°]
 Caisson in Fractured Rock: Mean Stress
Caisson D=1m Lrock=5 m Ec/(s⋅Kn)=4 Ec/(s⋅Ks)=20

isotropic cont. transverse-isotropic implicit joint-cont.

β=45° β=45°
end-bearing
pull-out
Nature HB Calendars

Bio-Inspired …
Roots

with C.Viggiani et al.

 Roots: Finite Element Simulation

(b) - 1.1
10 mm

20 mm
4 mm

volumetric strain -4.45

5 mm
20 mm
Pile-to-host conductivity ratio

kr/kh=2 kr/kh=10 kr/kh=100

E=1.7 E=4.4 E=9.6

Pile Topology

kr/kh=40 kr/kh=40 kr/kh=40

E=6.4 E=7.2 E=7.8

Closing Thoughts
Energy: Great opportunities for geotechnical engineering

Soils: Classification: Caution …. consider new RSCS

Physics-inspired, data-driven constitutive models

Wells-soil: Local effects around production wells

Proper constitutive models + self-consistent parameters

Repetitive Loads: (1) Frictional ratcheting (at constant volume)

(2) Volume change … eter è decreased σh’
Thermo-plastic frictional ratcheting: ok if FS high

Frac. Rocks: Require proper numerical model

Bio-inspired: Nature: 1,000,000,000 years

Self-sensing, healing, adaptive…
Capacity, energy exchange
Current & past team members

HS Shin
(U. Ulsan)

Special thanks: Mario Terceros (aka MATH)

Thank you