Anda di halaman 1dari 25

# Three-dimensional Finite Element Nonlinear Static

## Analysis of a Drilled Shaft Subjected to Axial Load

By: Masood Hajali, PhD Candidate
Major Advisor: Dr. Caesar Abi Shdid

Outline
Introduction
Research Objectives
Numerical Work
Geometry
Numerical Results
Numerical and Analytical Results
Side Resistance and End Bearing Capacity
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Drilled Shaft

## Length: 10->300 feet

Introduction

in dense and
gravel is easier

Group of piles
= more economic

Ground vibration
= damage nearby structures

Introduction

Application
Drilled shafts are often used in many retrofit projects with certain ground conditions

Clay
limestone
loose sand
water saturated sand

## carry very high design loads

high level of quality assurance

Introduction
Qu = Q s + Qb
Qp = ultimate load-carrying capacity at the base
Qs = frictional (skin) resistance
Qs = (qs)(Surface area)
Qb = (qb)(Base area)
Qu = {(qs)( D L)} + {(qb)( D2)/4}
qs = Unit skin friction
qb = Unit base resistance
D = Diameter
L = Length

Research Objectives

Objectives
1) Developing a three-dimensional Finite Element Model
2) Evaluating the load-displacement curves on the shaft and soil
3) Considering two different stress-strain relationship for the
concrete, confined model and unconfined model and compare
4) Comparing the numerical results from ANSYS and
Experimental model

Numerical Work
This part of the study presents a three-dimensional finite element modeling of a

drilled shaft subjected to axial load and then compares the results with an
analytical results.

Diameter = 7 ft
Length = 95 ft
Concrete strength = 3 ksi
Longitudinal reinforce= 2.12% A
Cohesive Soil Profile

Numerical Work

Materials
Steel

CSL

Reinforcement

tubes

Material

Concrete

No.

3605

29000

29000

13.88

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.45

Elastic Modulus
(ksi)
Poisson's Ratio

Density
(pcf)
Soil

120

Cohesion

Angle

Dilatancy

of

angle

friction
0.06

35

30

Soil

Numerical Work

## Stress-Strain Relationship for Steel

O'Neill and Reese Model (1999)
Bi-linear

Numerical Work

## Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete

Un-Confined Concrete Model
O'Neill and Reese Model (1999)

Numerical Work

## Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete

Confined Concrete Model
Mander Model (1988)

Numerical Work

Contact
Elements

Nodes Selected on
the Drilled Shaft

## Surface was Selected on the

Soil around the Drilled Shaft

Geometry

Drilled Shaft

## 5844 nodes and 23557 elements

including 5578 contact elements Soil around the Shaft

Numerical Results
Z Component of
Stress in Drilled Shaft
(Un-confined Model)

Numerical Results
Z Component of Stress in Soil
(Un-confined Model)

Numerical Results
Z Component of Displacement
in Drilled Shaft (Un-confined Model)

Numerical Results
Z Component of Displacement in Soil
(Un-confined Model)

Numerical Results

8.00E+03

## Load Displacement in Drilled Shaft

(Un-confined Model)

7.00E+03

6.00E+03
5.00E+03
4.00E+03
Bottom Displacement

3.00E+03

Middle Displacement
Top Displacement

2.00E+03

1.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

5.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.50E+00

2.00E+00

## Vertical Displacement (in)

2.50E+00

Numerical Results

8.00E+03

## Load - Displacement in Soil

(Un-confined Model)

7.00E+03

6.00E+03

5.00E+03

4.00E+03
Top of Shaft
Middle of Shaft

3.00E+03

Bottom of Shaft
2.00E+03

1.00E+03

0.00E+00
0.00E+00

5.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.50E-01

Displacement (in)

2.00E-01

2.50E-01

## Numerical and Analytical Results

7-ft Diameter 95-ft Long Shaft (Un-confined Model)

## Numerical and Analytical Results

7-ft Diameter 95-ft Long Shaft

Conclusion
With increasing the load, after 5000 kips displacement in the nodes on soil
is reduced.
Load- displacement curve in unconfined model has closer results to the
analytical results in comparison to confined model.
In confined model for concrete, since bars have been removed and confined
concrete model has been used for the stress-strain relationship, the loaddisplacement curve is less than analytical and un-confined results.
For drilled shafts with the diameters of 4 ft to 10 ft, in the first depths the
difference between the total axial load capacities of drilled shafts is less than
the end of the shafts.
For a drilled shaft with 7 ft diameter, and 95 ft length with cohesive soil profile ,
75.5 percent of the total axial load is resisted by the soil around the shaft
or side resistance and the rest of the axial load is resisted by the tip resistance.

References
Geotechnical Design Policy DS-1 , Intermodal Transportation Division, 206 South
Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213, Arizona Department of
Transportation, December 2010, page14
Numerical analysis of composite piled raft with cushion subjected to vertical load,
Fa-Yun Liang, Long-Zhu Chen, Xu-Guang Shi
Three-dimensional finite element nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile groups for
lateral transient and seismic excitations, Bal Krishna Maheshwari, Kevin Z. Truman,
M. Hesham El Naggar, and Phillip L. Gould
Reese, L. C., ONeill, M. W. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration.
Rollins, K. M., Clayton, R. J., Mikesell, R. C., Blaise, B. C. (2005). Drilled Shaft Side
Friction in Gravelly Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmetral Engineering,
Volume 131, Issue 8, 987-1003.
Bal Krishna Maheshwari, Kevin Z. Truman, M. Hesham El Naggar, and Phillip L. Gould,
Three dimensional finite element nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile groups for lateral
transient and seismic excitations, NRC Research Press, Can. Geotech. J. 41: 118133 (2004)
Bathe, K.J. 1982. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Thank You