bearing capacity - ramcadds.in · 2 bearing capacity - comparison of results from m and dsn 1997-1...
Post on 30-Apr-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BEARING CAPACITYCOMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM FEM AND DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 2013Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 20132
Ramboll - Consulting Engineers
Hannemanns Allé 53 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark +45 51 61 10 00 info@ramboll.com
Optum Computational Engineering
Thorsgade 59 4. tv 2200 Copemhagen N Denmark +45 32 10 55 32 info@optumce.com
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction and summary 4
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Summary 4
2 Scope of work 5
3 Results 6
3.1 Undrained Analyses, plane strain 6
3.2 Undrained Analyses, axial symmetry 6
3.3 Drained Analyses, plane strain, q-case, centric loading 6
3.4 Drained Analyses, plane strain, q-case, eccentric loading 7
3.5 Drained Analyses, axial symmetry, q-case 7
3.6 Drained Analyses, plane strain, γ-case, centric loading 8
3.7 Drained Analyses, plane strain, γ-case, eccentric loading 8
3.8 Drained Analyses, axial symmetry, γ-case 9
4 Bearing capacity of surface strip footing located on top of slope – Mohr-Coulomb vs GSK 10
4.1 Geometry of slope and soil parameters 10
4.2 Mohr Coulomb model: 10
4.3 GSK model 11
4.4 NGI triaxial tests 12
4.5 Parameters of the GSK model 13
4.6 Results from slope analysis 15
5 References 15
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 20134
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY1.1 Introduction
TheconsultingengineersCowiandnmGeohavebeencontractedbyBanedanmarktoestimatethegeotechnicalbearingcapacityoffoundationsusingtheapproachrequestedinEurocodeDS/EN1997-1DKNA:2014andtocom-parewithresultsobtainedusingthefiniteelementmethod.ThisinvestigationhasresultedinReport14–07585entitled“BearingCapacity,ComparisonofResultsfromFEMandDS/EN1997-1DKNA2013”.Inthefollowingthisreport is referred to as Report 14.
ThereportathandshouldbeseenasasupplementaryworktoReport14focusingexclusivelyonbearingcapacityin the 2D and axisymmetric cases.
ThereporthasbeenpreparedbyRuneChristensen,RambollandSvenKrabbenhøft,Optumce.
1.2 Summary
ThereportpresentstheresultsfromanalysesofthebearingcapacityoffootingsinplanestrainandaxisymmetricconditionsusingthefiniteelementcodesPlaxisandOptumG2.Alsoacomparisonbetweentheresultsproducedbythetwocodeshasbeenmade.
Undrained conditions:
InthecaseofundrainedconditionsPlaxisleadstoresultsthatdeviateabout6%atthemostfromthetheo-reticalvalues,whileOptumG2producesresultswithanaccuracyof±1%.
Drained conditions, the bearing capacity factor Nq :
Bothprogramsproduceresultswhichintheassociatedcaseareveryclosetothetheoreticalvalues.Inthenon-associatedcasetheydeviate fromeachotherbyapproximately6%, withPlaxisproducingthe largervalues.
Drained conditions, the bearing capacity factor Nƴ :
ForcentricloadingPlaxisdeviatesfromthetheoreticalvaluesbyupto6%atafrictionangleof35°.ForlargerfrictionanglesnumericalproblemsoccurwithPlaxis.TheOptumvaluesdeviatefromthetheoreticalvaluesuptoamaximumof2.6%atafrictionangleof50°.Inthenon-associatedcasetheytwoproduceresultswhichdeviatefromeachotherby3.3%.
Foreccentricloadinguptoaneccentricityratioe/Bof0.25,thePlaxisresultsareupto6%greaterthanthetheoreticalvalues.Fore/B>0.30,numericalproblemsoccurwithPlaxis.Forallvaluesofe/Bupto0.45Op-tumproducesresultswhichdeviatebylessthan1.6%fromthetheoreticalvalues.
Footing on slope, drained conditions, Mohr-Coulomb and GSK model :
Inthecaseofacentricallyloadedsurfacestripfootinglocatedonthetopofaslopeinsandofrelativedensity0.60thebearingcapacitiesproducedbyPlaxisandOptumassumingtheMohr-Coulombmodeldeviatefromeachotherbyapproximately3.6to9.5%,thePlaxisvaluesbeingthegreater.TheresultsproducedbyOp-tum’sGSKmodelexceedstheMohr-Coulombvaluesbyupto74%,reflectingthefactthatthefrictionangletendstoincreasewithdecreasingstresslevel.
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 5
2 SCOPE OF WORKForthefiniteelementanalysisCowiandnmGeohaveusedthewell-knowngeotechnicalsoftwarePlaxis.Theprima-ryaimofthepresentstudyhasbeentocomparetheresultsobtainedbyEurocodeDS/EN1997-1DKNA:2013andPlaxiswithresultswhenapplyingOptumG2,whichisarathernewFEgeotechnicalsoftware.OptumG2iscapableofperformingelastoplasticanalysisandalsolimitanalysisandstrengthreduction.Forthetwolatteranalyses,itispossibletocalculaterigorousupperandlowerbound,thusbracketingthetruesolutionfromaboveandbelow.IncontrasttoOptumG2,Plaxisonlycomputesasingleestimate,whichusuallyisontheunsafeside,andconsequentlyveryoftenaconvergenceanalysisiscalledfor.
Thefollowingcaseshavebeenconsidered:
a. Undrainedanalysis,planestrain–bearingcapacityfactorNc.
b. Undrainedanalysis,axisymmetric–bearingcapacityfactorNc
c. Drainedanalysis,planestrain–bearingcapacityfactorNq
d. Drainedanalysisaxisymmetric–bearingcapacityfactorNq
e. Drainedanalysis,planestrain–bearingcapacityfactorNγ
f. Drainedanalysis,axisymmetric–bearingcapacityfactorNγ
Forallplanestraincasesbothcentricandeccentricloadhavebeenanalyzed,whilefortheaxisymmetriccasesonlycentricloadwasconsidered.Inalloftheabovecases,associatedplasticityhasbeenassumed,butincasese.andf.onesingleexampleofnon-associatedplasticity(φ = 30, Ψ=0)hasbeeninvestigated.Forassociatedplasticity,thelimitanalysisfeatureofOptumG2findingbothupperandlowerboundofthebearingcapacitywasemployed,whileelastoplasticanalysiswasusedinthenon-associatedcases.
TomakethecomparisonswiththeresultsinReport14asreliableaspossible,boththedimensionsofthefootings,thesoilconditionsandthewaytheloadingisapplied,areexactlythesameastheonesusedinReport14.Intheplanestraincaseastripfootingwithawidthof4.0misconsidered,andintheaxisymmetriccasethediameteris4.0m.
The results of the present study are given in tables and for the convenience of the reader, in every table, reference ismadetotheequivalenttableinReport14.InsometablesreferenceismadetotheABCmanualbyChrisMartin(2004).Intheinternationalgeotechnicalcommunity,thevaluesofthebearingcapacityfactorsfoundbyChrisMar-tinareregardedasbeingthemostaccurateones.
ForeccentricallyloadedfootingsthesocalledMeyerhofs“effectivewidth”approach(inReport14referredtoastheHansenmethod)hasbeenused;thatisB’=B–2ewheree=M/VwithB’beingtheeffectivewidthoverwhichtheverticalloadisuniformlydistributed
All of the above analyses are based on the linear Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This criterion ignores the fact, that themagnitudeofthefrictionangleatfailure–atagivendensityindex–isdependentonthestresslevel,althoughthishasbeenknownforatleastthepast40–50years.Thischaracteristicofcohesionlesssoilhasbeentakenintoaccountinanewsoilmodel–theGSKmodel–whichhasbeenimplementedinOptumG2,anditisbelieved,thatitwillleadtoamorecorrectandeconomicdesign.
Toverifythis,anexampledealingwithafoundationonthetopofaslopehasbeenstudiedbothwhenapplyingtheusual Mohr-Coulomb model and the GSK model. A detailed treatment of this example is given in Chapter 4.
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 20136
3 RESULTS 3.1 Undrained Analyses, plane strain
Table 1. Vertical centric and eccentric load, bearing capacity factors Nc (table2.1page8inReport14)
Eccentricity
e [m]
Eff.Width
B’ [m]e/B
Plaxis Optum
Nc,Plaxis Qf,lower[kN/m] Qf,upper[kN/m] Qf,mean [kN/m] Nc,mean
0.00 4.00 0.000 5.15 203.56 206.82 205.19 5.130.30 3.40 0.075 5.29 174.2 175.9 175.1 5.150.60 2.80 0.150 5.29 143.2 145.0 144.1 5.150.90 2.20 0.225 5.31 112.5 114.1 113.3 5.151.20 1.60 0.300 5.36 81.8 83.2 82.5 5.161.50 1.50 0.375 5.44 51.0 52.3 51.7 5.171.80 0.40 0.450 - 20.3 21.4 20.8 5.20
Comments Table 1 :Foraverticalcentricload,thetheoreticalcorrectbearingcapacityfactorNc has been found equal to π+2=5.14(Prandtl1920).ForeccentricloadingMeyerhofs“effectivewidthmethod”(Meyerhof1953)hasbeenused,andthetableshows,thatforallvaluesofe/BtheOptumvaluesarewithin1%ofthetheoreticalvalue.ThePlaxisvaluesdeviateintherange0to6%,andthegreatertheeccentricitythegreaterthedeviation.
3.2 Undrained Analyses, axial symmetry
Table 2. Vertical, centric load, bearing capacity factors Nc(table2.2page9inReport14)
Interface strength Qf [kPa] Plaxis NcBC Plaxis Nc
0, theoretical Nc0
ABC Nc0 Optum
10 60.64 6.06 6.05 6.05 6.050.10 57.08 5.71 5.67 5.69 5.73
Comments Table 2 : Theroughfootingprovidesagreaterresistancethanthesmoothfooting.BoththePlaxisandOptumvaluesareveryclosetothetheoreticalvalue.
3.3 Drained Analyses, plane strain, q-case, centric loading
Table 3. Vertical centric load, bearing capacity factors Nq (table3.1page14inReport14)
φ’ [°] Ψ [°]Plaxis Prandtl/Reissner OptumNq
BC Nq Nq,lower Nq,upper Nq,mean
15.0 15.0 3.95 3.94 3.90 3.97 3.9430.0 30.0 18.48 18.40 18.12 18.65 18.3945.0 45.0 135.59 134.87 129.57 136.93 133.2530.0 0.0 14.50 - - - 13.58
Comments Table 3 : ThePrandtl/Reissnervaluesareconsideredthetheoreticalcorrectonesforassociatedplastici-ty.BoththePlaxisandOptumvaluesareveryclosetothetheoreticalresults.Inthe-nonassociatedcasethePlaxisandOptumresultsdeviatefromeachotherbyabout6%,whichisconsideredunimportantforpracticaldesign.
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 7
3.4 Drained Analyses, plane strain, q-case, eccentric loading
Table 4. Vertical, eccentric load, bearing capacity factors Nq for φ = 30° (table3.2page15inReport14)
Eccentricity
e [m]
Eff.Width
B’ [m]e/B
Plaxis Optum
Nq,Plaxis Qf,lower[kN/m] Qf,upper[kN/m] Qf,mean [kN/m] Nq,mean
0.30 3.40 0.075 19.84 643.2 676.1 659.7 19.400.60 2.80 0.150 19.79 527.7 552.7 540.2 19.290.90 2.20 0.225 19.26 401.3 422.2 411.8 18.721.20 1.60 0.300 16.76 244.0 266.0 255.0 15.94
Comments Table 4 : ForsmallereccentricitiesthebearingcapacityfactorsforbothPlaxis(7.8%)andOptum(5.4%)aregreaterthanthePrandtl/Reissnervalue(18.4).ForgreatereccentricitiesthevalueofNqdrops,andfore/B>0.3thebearingcapacityrapidlytendstowardszeroinlinewiththefailuremechanismdevelopingundertheunloadedpartofthefooting,wheretheeffectivestressesarezeroorclosetozero.ThefailuremechanismfoundbyOptumG2incaseofe/B=0.375isshowninFigure1.
Figure1.Failuremechanism(sheardissipation)intheqcase,planestrainfore/B=0.375
3.5 Drained Analyses, axial symmetry, q-case
Table 5. Vertical, centric load, bearing capacity factors Nq(table3.3page17inReport14)
φ’tr [°]ABC Plaxis OptumNq,ABC Nq,Plaxis Qf,lower/A [kPa] Qf,upper/A[kPa] Qf,mean/A [kPa] Nq,mean
10.0 2.955 - 29.33 29.69 29.51 2.9515.0 5.246 5.28 51.99 52.75 52.37 5.2420.0 9.618 - 94.91 96.75 95.83 9.5825.0 18.40 - 180.90 185.08 182.99 18.3030.0 37.21 37.91 362.65 374.51 368.58 36.8635.0 80.81 - 780.38 814.03 797.21 79.7240.0 192.7 - 1848.88 1943.52 1896.2 189.6245.0 520.6 526.62 4926.27 5259.82 5093.05 509.31
Comments Table 5 : BoththePlaxisandOptumvaluesareingoodagreementwiththeABCvaluesthePlaxisvaluesbeingslightlylarger,andtheOptumvaluesslightlysmallerthantheABCvalues.ThemaximumdeviationforPlaxisis1.9%andforOptum2.2%.
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 20138
3.6 Drained Analyses, plane strain, γ-case, centric loading
Table 6. Vertical centric load, bearing capacity factors Nƴ (table4.1page24inReport14)
φ’ [°] ᴪ[°]ABC Plaxis OptumNγ,ABC Nγ,Plaxis Nγ,lower Nγ,upper Nγ,mean
15.0 15 1.18 1.26 1.17 1.19 1.1830 30 14.75 15.49 14.36 14.88 14.6235 35 34.48 36.86 33.46 34.79 34.1340 40 85.57 - 82.11 86.44 84.2845 45 234.2 - 222.1 237.2 229.750 50 742.9 - 693.7 754.1 723.930 0 - 12.03 - - 11.63
Comments Table 6 : ForPlaxisthediscrepancyrelativetotheABCvaluesgrowsasthefrictionangleincreasesfrom15 to 35°,whereitreachesamaximumof6.9%.AtthisfrictionangletheOptumvaluedeviatesfromABCby1%.Forgreatervaluesofφ,numericalproblemsoccurwithPlaxis,whiletheOptumvalueatφ = 50° deviates from ABC by2.6%.Inthenon-associatedcasethediscrepancybetweenPlaxisandOptumisabout3.3%,Plaxisproducingthegreatervalue.Incaseofnon-associatedconditionsitiscommontocalculateamodifiedfrictionangleandthuscon-vertthenon-associatedmaterialtoanassociatedmaterialthroughtheDavisequation(Davis1968):
modsin cosa tan( )
1 sin sinϕ ψϕϕ ψ
=−
Inthisequationφmodisthefrictionangleoftheequivalentassociatedmaterialandφ and Ψarethefrictionangleanddilationangleofthenon-associatedmaterial.Insertingφ = 30°andΨ=0° yields φmod = 26.56°whichaccordingto the ABC manual gives Nγ = 8.29. ComparedtobothPlaxisandOptumtheDavisequationprovidessaferesults.
3.7 Drained Analyses, plane strain, γ-case, eccentric loading
Table 7. Vertical, eccentric load, bearing capacity factors Nƴ for φ = 30° (table4.2page26inReport14)
Eccentricity
e [m]
Eff.Width
B’ [m]e/B
Plaxis Optum
Nγ,Plaxis Qf,lower[kN/m] Qf,upper[kN/m] Qf,mean [kN/m] Nγ,mean
0.30 3.40 0.0375 15.51 850.2 875.7 863.0 14.930.60 2.80 0.150 15.08 575.8 594.2 585.0 14.930.90 2.20 0.225 15.60 354.8 367.0 360.9 14.921.20 1.60 0.300 12.27 187.8 194.4 191.1 14.931.50 1.50 0.375 - 73.59 76.13 74.86 14.981.60 0.80 0.400 - 47.08 48.67 47.9 14.931.80 0.40 0.450 - 11.73 12.14 11.94 14.92
Comments Table 7 : Plaxis:Fortherelativeeccentricitye/B<0.25thebearingcapacityisaboutupto6%greaterthantheDS/EN1997DKNAvalues.TheresultsinReport14indicate,thatattheeccentricityratioe/B=0.30failuremaynotbefullydeveloped,andthisexplainsthelowvalueoftheNγ.Fore/B>0.3numericalproblemspreventPlaxisfromreachingasolution.
Optum:Forallvaluesofe/Buptoe/B=0.45thevaluesofNγ deviatelessthan1.6%fromtheDS/EN1997-1DKNA2013 values.
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 9
3.8 Drained Analyses, axial symmetry, γ-case
Table 8. Vertical, centric load, bearing capacity factors Nƴ(table4.3page28inReport14)
φ’ [°] ᴪ [°]ABC Plaxis OptumNγ,ABC Nγ,Plaxis Qf,lower/A [kPa] Qf,upper/A[kPa] Qf,mean/A [kPa] Nγ,mean
15.0 15 0.93 1.01 18.43 18.76 18.60 0.9330 30 15.54 16.61 303.9 311.5 307.7 15.3935 35 41.92 44.95 818.6 840.2 829.4 41.4740 40 123.72 - 2393 2480 2437 121.8545 45 417.79 - 7870 8366 8118 405.930 0 - 12.29 - - - 12.15
Comments Table 8 : Forfrictionangleslessthanorequalto35°Plaxisprovidesresultswhichareupto7.2%ontheunsafeside.Forfrictionanglesgreaterthan35°,numericalproblemsoccurwithPlaxis.OptumcalculatesvaluesofNγinthefullrangeandthemaximumdeviationfromtheABCvaluesis2.8%.
Inthenon-associatedcase,thereisagoodagreementbetweenthePlaxisandOptumvalues.
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 201310
4 BEARING CAPACITY OF SURFACE STRIP FOOTING LOCATED ON TOP OF SLOPE – MOHR-COULOMB VS GSK
4.1 Geometry of slope and soil parameters
Inthefollowingexamplethebearingcapacityofasurfacestripfootinglocatedonthetopofaslopeisdetermined.Theslopeconsistsofsand,andthefootingisplacedatadistanceof1.0mfromthecrestoftheslope.Thebearingcapacityisfoundforwidthsofthefootingequalto1.0m,2.0mand4.0m.
Theinclinationoftheslopeis1:2andtheslopeangle=26.56°.ThegeometryoftheslopeisshowninFigure2.
ThesoilstrengthisbasedontherelativedensityofthesandwhichistakenID=0.60andthesoilunitweightis18kNm-3.
FortheMohr-CoulombmodelthebearingcapacityiscalculatedusingbothPlaxisandOptum,whileonlyOptumisused for the GSK model.
ThePlaxiscalculationshavebeencarriedoutaselastoplasticanalyses,andtheOptumvaluesarebasedonlimitanalysis,wherebothupperandlowerboundsarefound.TheresultsoftheanalysesareshowninTable10attheend of this chapter.
Figure2.Geometryofslopeandfooting.
4.2 Mohr Coulomb model:
TheequationfromtheDanish1984CodeofPractice:
,
,
3 4 3 430 (14 ) 30 (14 )0.6 35.829 (NAF = non associated flow rule)2.1 2.1
Rule of thumb for the magnitude of the angle of dilation :30
35.829 30 5.829
tr NAF D
tr NAF
IU U
ϕ
ψψ ϕ
ψ
= − + − = − + − =
= −
= − =
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 11
“TheDavisequation”(Davis1968)isappliedtocalculatetheassociatedangleoffriction:
,,
,
sin cos sin 35.829cos5.829atan( ) atan( ) 31.763 (AF = associated flow rule)1 sin sin 1 sin 35.829sin 5.829
Stakemanns equation (Stakemann 1976) is used to find the plane angle of friction
tr NAFtr AF
tr NAF
ϕ ψϕ
ϕ ψ= = =
− −
,
:(1 0.163 ) (1 0.163 0.6)31.763 34.87pl AF D trAFIϕ ϕ= + = + ⋅ =
4.3 GSK model
TheGSKmodeltakesintoaccountthefact,thatthefrictionangleisstressdependent;thatisthefailureenvelopebecomescurvedinsteadofbeinglinearaswiththeMohrCoulombmodel.TheyieldfunctionissimilartothelinearMohrCoulombandisexpressedbythefollowingequation:τ = σ·tanφswhereφs is the secant angle in σ–τ space. UsingprincipalstressestheyieldfunctionfortheGSKmodelisformulatedinthebelowequations:
It should be noted, that in σ–τspace(Figure4),φ1istheslopeofthetangentatthepoint(σ,τ)=(0,0)andφ2 is the slope of the asymptote τ = c + σtanφ2
Figure3.FailureenvelopeforGSKmaterialin𝛔3-𝛔1space(σt = 0 for sand)
1 21 2 3 3
1 1 2 21 1 2 2
1 1 2 2
2 2
2 2
(1 exp( ))
1 sin 1 1 sin 1sin , sin1 sin 1 1 sin 12 cos (1 sin )1 sin 2cos
a aa kk
a aa aa a
c kk c
σ σ σ
ϕ ϕϕ ϕϕ ϕϕ ϕϕ ϕ
−= + − −
+ − + −= ⇔ = = ⇔ =
− + − +−
= ⇔ =−
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 201312
Figure4.FailureenvelopeforGSKmaterialin𝛔-τ space
4.4 NGI triaxial tests
The GSK model can be described by the three parameters φ1, φ2 and c, and these have been found on the basis of valuesfromadatabaseofpeakfrictionanglesestablishedatTheNorwegianGeotechnicalInstituteinOslo(Ander-sen and Schjetne 2013).
Thedatabasecontainsresultsfrommorethan500triaxialcompressiontestson54differentsandfrom38differentsites.ThemeanparticlesizeD50=0.23mmandthecoefficientofuniformityCu=1.95.Thequartzcontentwas85%on the average, and for most of the sands the grain shape has been reported and varied from rounded to angular.
TheresultsoftheNGItestsgivingthepeak,triaxialangleareshowninTable9.
Table 9. Results of NGI tests.
TheresultsoftheNGIteststogetherwiththeGSKmodelvaluesfoundbyregressionanalysisareshowninFigure5.TheresultshavebeencomparedwiththeBoltonequation(Bolton1986)forrelativedensities0.40,(thegreengraph)and0.80,(theblackgraph),andascanbeseen,theBoltonresultsconformwiththeNGIandGSKvalues,thoughthefrictionanglesatverysmallvaluesoftheminorprincipalstressaresomewhatoverestimated.
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 13
Figure5.Triaxialpeakfrictionanglesversusminorprincipalstressforrelativedensities0.20-1.20.Bolton’smodelisshownbythe green and black lines.
4.5 Parameters of the GSK model
General equations :
Forthethreeparametersφ1, φ2andcthefollowingequationshavebeenestablished:
Triaxial state, non associated flow rule (NAF)
Triaxial state, associated flow rule (AF)
21, 1 1 1 1 1 1,
22, 1 2 2 2 1 2,
22 3 3 2
1
2
( )
( )
( )
= 0.886; = 0.77;
trAF D D trNAF
trAF D D trNAF
trAF D D trNAF
k A I B I C k
k A I B I C k
c k A I B I k c
kk
ϕ ϕ
ϕ ϕ
= + + =
= + + =
= + =
21, 1 1 1
22, 2 2 2
23 3
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3
2.6; 12.4; 33.3; 6.0; 3.5; 31.4; -8.1; 24.4;
trNAF D D
trNAF D D
trNAF D D
A I B I C
A I B I C
c A I B IA B CA B CA B
ϕ
ϕ
= + +
= + +
= += = == = == =
Bearing capacity - Comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA 201314
Plane strain, non-associated flow rule (NAF) :
TriaxialanglesareconvertedtoplanestrainanglesusingtheequationproposedbyStakemann(1976):
(1 0.163 )pl D trIϕ ϕ= + ⋅
ItshouldbementionedthatBonding(1977)suggestedasimilarequation:
(1 0.160 )pl D trIϕ ϕ= + ⋅
1, 1,
2, 2,
(1 0.163 )(1 0.163 )
(1 0.45 )
plNAF D trNAF
plNAF D trNAF
plNAF D trNAF
II
c I c
ϕ ϕ
ϕ ϕ
= +
= +
= +
Plane strain, associated flow rule (AF) :
Actual parameters for ID = 0.60
Figure6.Failuremechanism.GSKmodel,B=2.00m.
1, 1,
2, 2,
(1 0.163 )(1 0.163 )
(1 0.45 )
plAF D trAF
plAF D trAF
plAF D trAF
II
c I c
ϕ ϕ
ϕ ϕ
= +
= +
= +
2 21, 1 1 1
2 22, 2 2 2
Plane strain, associated flow rule (AF) :( 1)(1 0.163 ) 0.8865 (2.6 0.6 12.4 0.6 33.3) (1 0.163 0.6) 40.53
( 2)(1 0.163 ) 0.8865 (6.0 0.6 3.5 0.6 31.4) (1plAF D D D
plAF D D D
k A I B I C I
k A I B I C I
ϕ
ϕ
= + + + = ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ =
= + + + = ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ +2 2
3 3
0.163 0.6) 34.70
0.77 ( 8.1 0.6 24.4 0.6)(1 0.45 0.6) 11.46plAF D Dc A I B I
⋅ =
= + = ⋅ − ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ =
Supplementary report to Banedanmark Report 14-07585 15
4.6 Results from slope analysis
Table 10. Results from analysis (bearing capacities in kPa):
Optum PlaxisMohr Coulomb GSK Mohr Coulomb
B [m] Lowerb. Upper b. Mean Lowerb. Upper b. Mean GSKmean/MCmean
1.0 164.4 171.8 168.1 285.4 299.3 292.4 1.74 1842.0 246.1 255.5 250.8 401.2 418.1 409.7 1.63 2664.0 428.1 444.6 436.4 643.3 666.9 655.1 1.50 452
Comments Table 10 :PlaxisproducesgreaterbearingcapacitiesthanOptum’sMohr-Coulombmodel,thedeviationsbeingintherange3.6–9.4%.TheresultsoftheGSKmodelaresubstantiallygreater–upto74%–thanOptum’sMohr-Coulombs values.
5 REFERENCES Andersen,K.HandSchjetne,K.2013.Databaseoffrictionanglesofsandandconsolidationcharacteristicsofsand,siltandclay.JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering.
Bolton,M.D.1986.Thestrengthanddilatancyofsands.Geotechnique,36(1),65-78.
Bonding, N. 1977. Triaxial state of failure in sand. DGIBuletin26,1977.
Davis,E.H.1968.Theoriesofplasticityandfailureofsoilmasses.In SoilMechanics,selectedTopics.EditedbyI.K.Lee,Butter-worths,London,341–380.
DGI-BulletinNo.36.Codeofpracticeforfoundationengineering.Copenhagen 1985.
DS/EN1997-1DKNA:2013NationaltannekstilEurocode7:Geoteknik–Del1:Generelleregler
Martin,C.H.2004.ABCAnalysisofBearingCapacity,Version1.0DepartmentofEngineeringScience,UniversityofOxford.
Meyerhof,G.G.1953.Thebearingcapacityoffoundationsundereccentricandinclinedloads.In:3rdICSMFEVol.1.Zu-rich:1953:440-45
OptumG2.OptumComputationalEngineering,www.optumce.com,2014.
Reissner,H.1924.Zumerddruckproblem.InProceedingsfirstinternationalcongressofappliedmechanics, Delft,TheNetherlands,pp.295–311.
Prandtl, L. 1920. Über die HärteplastischerKörper. Nachr.D.Ges.D.Wiss.,math-phys.KI. Göttingen1920
Stakemann,O.1976.BrudbetingelseforG12-sandogplanemodelforsøg(FailureconditionsforG12-sandand plane strain modeltests;inDanish).InternalMemoI.M.1976-1,DanishGeotechnicalInstitute.
top related