Sei sulla pagina 1di 62

Finite Elements Analysis

For
Geo-Technical Engineering

Presented by:
E. Omar Ahmed El-Kadi

MIDAS Symposium for GEO-Technical Engineering 6 May 2016, India


Contents

• Analysis of a Geotechnical problem

• Why would we use Numerical Analysis?

• What is Finite Elements analysis ?

• Some examples for different geo-technical problems.

• Pile modeling.

• Embedded piles using Tz and Qz Curves

• Piled-raft systems.

• Capacity analysis in FE

• Case studies

• What it takes for successful analysis.

2
Analysis of a Geotechnical problem
Geotechnical analysis
Generally a geotechnical analysis counts for the soil mechanics to ensure that the
sub soil can stand the load transmitted by the supporting system and use the
reaction on that supporting system to design it, there are many applications as:

• Shallow foundations.
• Deep foundations.
• Tunneling.
• Seepage analysis.
• Slope stability.
• Retaining structures.
• Brace cuts
And more,….

3
Analysis of a Geotechnical problem

There are many well developed theories and approaches based on soil mechanics to
solve a geo-tech. problems that can be simply applied when considering the
assumption of the theory or approach.

But remember !!
Rankin theory Coulomb theory

4
Analysis of a Geotechnical problem
Geotechnical report
Soil profiles
Lab (e.g. Triaxial tests)
Field (e.g. CPT, SPT,..)

Problem Definition
Model Simulation

Analytical Analytical solution


• There is a closed form solution. Numerical Analysis
Solution • There is an applicable theory with acceptable
assumptions.
Numerical Analysis
• Numerical analysis is preferred.
• Numerical analysis is a must.

Structural Design

5
Why would we use Numerical Analysis?
Numerical analysis is preferred when:

• More sophisticated analysis is required.


• Parametric analysis is required.
• Construction stages analysis is considered.
• Analytical approaches are approximate ( as
piled raft systems or braced cuts).

Numerical analysis is a must when: Messeturm tower, Frankfurt, Germany.


R.Katazenbach et al. 2005
• There is no analytical approach.
• Soil- structure interaction is to be considered .
• Complex and large systems and loading types
are considered (dynamic loads,…….etc)

6
What is Finite elements analysis?
Basics of FE:
Finite elements method divides the problem into small elements that fulfill continuum,
compatibility , stability.
Loading and
analysis cases

FE elements

Model boundaries

7 SAM slope stability , Midas GTS NX, Sharm el shiek , Egypt


What is Finite elements analysis?
Basics of FE:
Finite elements method divides the problem into small elements that fulfill continuum,
compatibility , stability.

Element type
• Depends on the Model Geometry.
• High Order elements enhance results by
increasing nodes and integration points but
computational expensive.

Constitutive model
• Simulates material behavior.
• It can be Elastic , Elasto-plastic , or Visco-
elasto-plastic.

8
What is Finite elements analysis?
Basics of FE:
Finite elements method divides the problem into small elements that fulfill continuum,
compatibility , stability.

9
What is Finite elements analysis?
Constitutive model:

Failure Envelope
Failure (Plastic-deformation)

Elastic deformation

Mohr – coulomb circle

1
0
What is Finite elements analysis?
Constitutive model:

11 Midas – Diana GTS


What is Finite elements analysis?
Model type :

2D Plain strain model 2D Axisymmetric model 3D Model

• Retaining walls. • Circular footing • General Modeling criteria.


• Slope stability. • Single pile analysis • If the model is Axis-
• Tunnels. symmetric ¼ the model
• Flow of injections and can be used.
• Strip footing pumping out wells
• Seepage 2D analysis
• Road Embankments

12
Numerical Analysis
Geotechnical report Pile Tests
Soil profiles
SLT, DLT, RLT, PDA
Lab (e.g. Triaxial tests)
Field (e.g. CPT, SPT,..) Numerical Model

Analytical
Solution

Model Simulation Calibration


• Parametric Study
• Load Combinations

Foundation Design
• Serviceability Limit State
• Ultimate Limit State
Determine the required structural parameters

13 Structural Design A.S.El-Kadi 2015


Pile modeling
Solid pile model

Model = Soil (solid) + Pile (solid) + Interface (surface)

Nodal connectivity is required on pile outer surface

14
Pile modeling
Solid pile model
Surface interface elements for solid-to-solid connection:

Advantages Cons
• Interface behavior: elastic, nonlinear elastic, • Many elements Large computation.
coulomb friction, and user-supplied material.
• Pile forces and moments are not directly
• Total stress dependency in nonlinear available in post-processing.
analysis.
• Model definition and mesh-generation could
be elaborative for large number of piles.

14 15
Pile modeling
Embedded pile model

Model = Soil (solid) + Pile (beam) + Interface (line-to-solid)

No nodal connectivity required => well-suited for PRs

16
Pile modeling
Embedded pile model
Line-to-solid interface elements for beam-to-solid connection:

x
Elementary Coordinate y

• Advantages • Cons
• No nodal connectivity is required between • Predefined capacity
pile and solid meshes.
• Concentration of stress.
• Nonlinear friction-slip properties for line-solid
interface elements.
• Less elements Less computation
• Pile forces and moments are directly
available in post-processing.

17
Pile modeling
Embedded pile model
Point-to-solid interface elements for beam-to-solid connection:

y x
z

Axis of pile tip bearing


Pile tip sping

Model = Soil (solid) + Pile (beam) + Interface (point-to-solid)


Characteristics of pile tip spring:
• The pile tip can be arbitrarily placed in the solid element
• Nonlinear properties for point-solid interface elements
18
Pile modeling
Embedded pile model
Line-to-solid interface elements for beam-to-solid connection:

Shaft friction force Input parameters:


per unit length of pile • Ultimate shear force, qu [kN/m]
per unit length of the pile, at reference depth
• Shear Stiffness Modulus, Ks [kPa]
Linear elastic penalty stiffness of the interface
Ultimate shear force, in the longitudinal direction of the pile.
qu
Ks • Normal Stiffness Modulus, Kn,Kt [kPa]
1 Linear elastic penalty stiffness of the
interface in the transversal direction.
Relative Slip
displacement

These input parameters are best extracted from


SLT results after separating shaft friction and
base bearing behavior from the total response
Pile bearing capacity is input in pile elements and not a result of the calculation!
=> Deformation behavior
19
Pile modeling
Embedded pile model Skin tractions
Line-to-solid interface elements for beam-to-solid connection: ts = qs/length = ks * (Du) ≤ qult

tn = qn/length = kn * (Du)
Force
tt = qt/length = kt * (Du)

Specified bearing capacity Tau

Relative
displacement

Base (tip) bearing capacity

qb = kb * (Du) ≤ qbult
Displacement
Tip
capacity

Relative
displacement

20
A.S.El-Kadi 2015
Single pile calibration
Single pile analysis of the Alzey Bridge pile loading test
The pile load test was conducted by Sommer & Hammabach in 1974 to optimize the
foundation design of Alzey Highway Bridge in Germany (El-Mossallamy 1999)

21
Single pile calibration
Modeling

22
Single pile calibration
Modeling

Displacement dis. In X-Y direction Displacement dis. In Z direction

23
Single pile calibration
Assessment of pile-soil interface stiffness

 Shaft interface stiffness based on Vesic empirical formula


(1977).
 Shaft interface stiffness based on Randolph and worth
(1978).
 Shaft interface stiffness based on software developers
recommended values ( commonly Used in FEM ).
 Base nodal connectivity.
 Base interface stiffness based on Boussinesq ‘s equation for
settlement of circular footing on elastic half space .
 Moreover, the effect of reducing interface shear strength is
examined.

24
Single pile calibration
Assessment of pile-soil interface stiffness

25
Single pile calibration
Load transfer mechanism and straining actions

26
Embedded pile elements
Concentration of stresses
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0

-10

-20 Measured total


Measured Skin
Measured Base
-30 Total
Base
Skin
-40

-50

-60

Use Large elements size or apply elastic zone!

27
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves

 T-z and Q-z curves are pile-soil load transfer curves, which are implemented
as nonlinear interface properties for the embedded type pile elements in 3D
finite element analyses of both single pile and pile group.
 The load transfer curves are relation between the ratio of shear stress to the
maximum shear stress and the corresponding relative displacements caused
by load transferred through pile shaft, and the same for pile base.
 The in-situ measured pile head displacement is the pile total displacement
which is the sum of following

Pile total settlement = Pile elastic def. + settlement due to load transferred by skin
friction + settlement due to load transferred by end bearing

28 Omar El-Kadi and A.S. El-Kadi 2011


Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves

Pile total settlement = Pile elastic def. + settlement due to load transferred by skin
friction + settlement due to load transferred by end bearing (Zb )
Qwp +∈QWS L
Pile elastic deformation (S) = Ap Ec

Where:
QWP: pile base load , QWS: Skin Friction , L: Pile length ,
AP: pile's cross sectional area , ϵ: Factor based on skin friction distribution

𝜂
1 − 𝜇2
𝑍𝑏 = 𝑄𝑏
2𝑟𝑜 𝐸𝑠
Where:
𝑍𝑏 : Pile tip displacement, 𝑄𝑏 : stress at pile tip ,𝜇 ∶ Poisson’s ratio
𝑟𝑜 : Pile radius, 𝜂: empirical factor = 1 for long piles ,𝐸𝑠 : Soil elastic modulus

29
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves

Relative displacement is defined as the difference between both pile's mass displacement
and displacement of adjacent soil elements.To calculate the relative displacement at
different load increments, the outputs of the FE 3D model were used together with the ratio
of relative displacement to total displacement extracted for both pile's shaft and pile's base
by using element at the middle of the pile's length and element adjacent to pile's base
respectively
1.2 1.2

Relative dis./displaacement
1 1
Relative dis/displacement

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
T (KN) Qb (KN)

30
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves
0 1 2 3 4
0 Load (MN)
1.2 1.2
-5

1 1 -10

-15 Measured total


0.8 0.8

displacement (mm)
Qb/Qb max
Measured Skin
T/Tmax

-20
0.6 0.6
Measured Base
-25
0.4 0.4 Total

-30 Base
0.2 0.2
-35 Skin friction

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -40

Relative Displacement (mm) Relavtive displacement (mm)


-45

31
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves

Normal force dis. Single pile displacement.

32
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves

Shear force dis. Piled raft displacement.

33
Embedded pile elements
Tz and Qz Curves
 Implementing load transfer curves with 3D finite element analysis showed good
results as compared to that measured in the field increasing the confidence in the
analysis results.
 T-z and Q-z curves simulated in-situ pile measured performance, which considers
different factors as construction technique,…etc.
 Load transfer curves also overcomes the problems of soil sampling and parameters
assessment as this technique doesn't only count on the soil shear parameters as
ordinary FE analysis.
 This technique can be used in primary analysis for PRs prior to SLT by calibrating
using single pile solid model, then updated after SLT.

Cons: Time Consuming

34
Piled-raft systems

“ Piled raft foundations utilize piled


support for control of settlements with
piles providing most of the stiffness at
serviceability loads, and the raft
element providing additional capacity at
ultimate loading.
A geotechnical assessment for design
of such a foundation system therefore
needs to consider not only the capacity
of the pile elements and the raft
elements, but their combined capacity
and interaction under serviceability
loading” (H.G. Poulos, 2005) www.abeno.project-takenaka.com

35
Piled-raft systems
Advantages of PR system

 Economical foundation option for


circumstances where the performance of the
raft alone does not satisfy the design
requirements
 Limitation of absolute and differential
settlements
 Reduction in foundation tilting either due to
load eccentricity or due to irregularities in the
subsoil
www.masterbuilder.co.in
 Reduction in raft internal stresses.

36
Piled-raft systems
Soil-Structure interaction of PR system

Interaction influences:
• Pile-Soil interaction
• Pile-Pile interaction
• Raft-Soil interaction
• Pile-Raft interaction

37
O.Elkadi 2011 - A.S.El-Kadi 2015
Piled-raft systems
Desirable characteristics for the analysis of piled rafts

 Pile groups subjected to vertical load and


moments in both horizontal directions

 Realistic (nonlinear) soil behavior

 Non-linear soil-pile interface behavior

 Different pile types within group

 Raft/cap stiffness incorporated

 Structure stiffness incorporated


3D Nonlinear FE Analysis

TC18 report, 2001

38
A.S.El-Kadi 2015
Parametric Study
Alzey bridge pile

D = 1.3m

S/D = 2, 3 & 4

L/D = 5 & 20

O. Elkadi (2011):
M.Sc. Thesis “Performance of Piled Raft Systems”

39
Parametric Study

30MM 15MM

D = 1.3m S/D = 2 L/D = 5

40
Parametric Study

Pile Group L/D=20 Pile Group L/D=5


30MM 15MM
D = 1.3m

S/D = 2, 3 & 4

41
Parametric Study

80

70

60
αr %

50
L/D=5

40
L/D=20
30

30MM 15MM
20
1 2 3 4 5 S/D

% load carried by raft for different pile layouts in piled-raft

42
Parametric Study

30MM 15MM

Group behavior and pile-raft interaction reduce on the one hand the stiffness
of the piles and increase on the other hand their bearing capacity

43
Parametric Study

30MM 15MM

44
Capacity analysis in FE

Achieving failure loads by finite elements analysis is a sophisticated problem, as


the elements stiffness matrix tends to be singular prior to failure which can lead
the analysis to unstable conditions. Moreover, at high strain levels the type of
elements used in analysis and the numerical iterative method are greatly
affecting the results.

Strength reduction method (SRM) and/or Stress analysis method (SAM) are
commonly used for slope stability analysis.

45
Capacity analysis in FE

SRM analysis of a slope


SAM analysis
But when there is soil-structure of a slope
interaction it becomes a bit
challenging

46
Capacity analysis in FE
Challenges in foundation capacity analysis

 Numerical in-stability.

 High stain and displacement values.

 Selection of suitable element type ,constitutive


model and iterative method.
Desirable characteristics for the capacity analysis

 Avoiding false failure due to numerical in-stability.

 Obtaining realistic failure mechanisms.

 Structure stiffness incorporated.

 Applying geometric non-linearity.


47
Capacity analysis in FE
Capacity of shallow foundations

Expected failure mechanism


9.1m x 9.1m raft with calculated
capacity of 82.7 MN according to
terzaghi’s formula of bearing
capacity , and 93.2MN by FEM

48
Capacity analysis in FE
Capacity of shallow foundations

Deformed shape for Vl. displacement at failure Vl. stress at last converged step ( failure)

49
Capacity analysis in FE
Capacity of shallow foundations

Hollow square raft of 9.1x9.1 with inner Deformed shape for Vl. displacement at failure
dim 6.5x6.5

Calculated capacity = 37.2 MN ( 40.5 to 34 by different approaches)


FEM obtained capacity = 45.6 MN

50
Capacity analysis in FE
Capacity of deep foundations Load (MN)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

-0.5

-1

Displacement (m)
-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

Deformed shape for Vl. displacement at failure Load displacement curve


Piledraft of 9.1x9.1 with 9 piles L/D =5

Calculated capacity = 82.7 MN (Raft) + 94.09 MN (Pile group) = 176.79 MN


Calculated capacity = 45.6MN (Raft exceeding pile group) + 94.09 MN (Pile group) = 139.69MN
FEM obtained capacity = 241.9 MN

51
Capacity analysis in FE
Capacity of deep foundations

Piledraft of 9.1x9.1 with 9 piles L/D = 20 Vl. Stress Vl. displacement Strain

Capacity obtained by FEM ranged 20-30% than calculated, while geometrical


nonlinearity wasn’t considered
52
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex
Chain Conveyors
At Northern Cost of Egypt
Machine tower

Delivery Tunnel

53
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex Bucket elevator

The capacity of bucket elevator and Machine Tower


machinery inside the tunnel were supported by
increase during Re-habitation , which the tunnel
increased supported loads by machine
tower and direct loads on the Tunnel

54
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

55
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

56
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

Load(tons)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0

2 Total
Settlement (mm)

Skin
3
Base
Measured
4

57
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

58
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

59
Case study
Tunnel at Silo complex

Soil-Structure interaction model


Non Soil-Structure interaction model

60
What is takes for Successful analysis?
For Good analysis results remember to:
 Use representing soil parameters ( extracted from tests), and make site calibration if
possible ( as pile loading tests).
 Design model’s mesh well, to have small mesh size at zones of expected
concentration of stresses and always make gradual change in mesh size (aspect ratio
of successive meshes).
 Use enough boundary for your analysis, and check that is satisfactory form your
outputs ( values recommended by Midas developers found to be satisfactory) .
 Always make stress initialization (initial stage analysis with zero displacement).
 Select suitable constitutive model for your soil type and analysis type.
 Select suitable element type and don’t waste your time in un-needed sophistications.
 Consider iterative method (convergence criteria) and geometric non-linearity when
needed.
61

Potrebbero piacerti anche