Anda di halaman 1dari 13

PEB 802 Capstone Design Project

Assignments II
Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete Pile Foundation using
Australian Design

Submitted By

Apakuki Koroi - 2016133967


Under Supervision of

Mr. Maika Tuicakau

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of


Bachelor of Building and Civil Engineering

to

SCHOOL OF BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING,


FIJI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, FIJI ISLAND

August 30, 2019


1. Detailed Interpretation of the outcomes of the PEB 802 Capstone Design Project

This project should investigate the optimum design of concrete pile foundation subjected to
Australia and New Zealand codes of practice and develop an optimized design of concrete pile
foundation in Fiji to achieve minimum cost and stability.

Detailed analysis of the project outcomes that were achieved and yet to be done are listed
below:

1.1 Complete analysis of a reinforced concrete pile foundation.

This step was completed with the use of MS Excel software which was to be further modified
to achieve optimization.

Example (Conventional Design

Use the α –Method to calculate the ultimate pile capacity and the allowable design load for a
356 mm square, prestressed concrete pile driven into the soil profile described below. The trial
pile length for the calculation is 17m. The prestressed concrete pile has a pile–soil surface area
of 1.42 m2/m and a pile toe area of 0.127 m2. Based on the soil profile, Figure 6.19 or Figure
6.20 should be used to calculate pile capacity. A Factor of Safety of 2 should be adopted.

STEP 1 The soil profile was delineated in the problem statement. The bottom of Layer 1 is at 9
meters. Therefore, calculations for Layer 1 should be based on an embedded pile length to
diameter ratio, D/b, of (9 m)/ (.356 m) or 25. The bottom of Layer 2 is at 17 meters.
Calculations for Layer 2 should then be based on an embedded pile length to diameter ratio,
D/b, of (17m)/(.356m) or 48

Using Figure 6.19 the pile adhesion for each layer is as follows:
1.1 Design Parameters

Soil Design Parameters

Quantity Symbol Value Units

Layer 1

Angle of internal friction (undrained) ϕu 0 °

Undrained shear strength Cu 130 kPa

Weight density γ 19.8 KN/m3

Angle of internal friction ϕ' 27.5 °

Soil Coefficient β1 0.315 -

Depth of Layer 1 h1 14 M

Young’s modulus Es 35 MPa

Poisson’s ratio Vs1 0.3 -

Layer 2

Weight density γ 18.8 KN/m3

Angle of internal friction ϕ' 35 °

Correct SPT value Ncor 30 °

Design Coefficient β2 0.413 -

Depth of Layer 2 h2 6 M

Young’s modulus Es 90 MPa

Poisson’s ratio Vs2 0.3

Factor of Safety FOS 2 -

1.15 -
Pile Design Parameters

Quantity Symbol Value Units

Diameter D 0.4 m

Length of Pile L 20 m

Area of section 1 As1 17.58 m2

Area of section 2 As2 7.54 m2

- t 0.02 m

Young’s modulus Ep 210000 MPa

Load Design Parameters

Quantity Symbol Value Units

Shaft Resistance – Layer 1

σ'v1 79.80 KPa

h1/2 7 m

Qs1 442.01 KPa

Shaft Resistance – Layer 2 σ'v2 176.80 KPa

h1+(h2/2) 17 m

Qs2 549.60 KPa

Total Shaft Resistance Qs 991.61 KN

Ultimate Toe Resistance:

Nt 55 -

σ'vb 203.80 KPa

Ap 0.13 m2
Qp 1407.85 KPa KPa

Ultimate Pile Capacity Qu 2399.46 KN

Allowable Design Load Qa 1199.73 - 2086.49 KN

1.2 Other Outcomes

The listed outcomes are yet to be achieved or still in working progress.

1. Identify Constraints and produce manual calculation as to understand every modification


factors.
2. Constraints should be used to formulate formulas into the excel solver.
3. Understand the effects of modified design parameters to the weight and cost of pile
foundation.

1. Understand how to use every clause from the Australia and New Zealand standards that
is related to the designing of pile foundations.

2. Software able to execute all values for to compare and identify the best outcomes.

3. Compilation of a standard that is suitable to Fiji climate and condition to different types
of weather experience in Fiji.
4. Detailed investigations of complex engineering problems using research-based
knowledge in implementation of PEB Capstone Design Project

Liu (2012) stated that pile design optimization is defined as minimum cost of the foundation,
while maintaining satisfactory performance. Their concept highlights the pile optimization
problem at the initial design stage. Where they consider the pile characteristics (number, length,
and diameter) and pile layout by using an improved automatic grouping genetic algorithm
(AGGA) to attain simultaneous optimization of pile size and layout.

Finally, Liu (2012) found out that the automatic grouping genetic algorithm (AGGA) achieves
the optimization of pile foundation and design variable grouping with a remarkably effective
search method. The improvements with the crossover and penalty function increase the
efficiency of AGGA. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is illustrated by two practical
projects, and the innovative and economical conceptual designs which fulfill all constraints and
minimize the cost are obtained.

Another investigation, Y. Cao (2014) indicated the problems set out to optimize the design,
construction and monitoring of CFG pile compound foundation using numerical simulation
technology and put forward for consideration that the reason for cost increment is the empirical
selection of design parameters.

Y. Cao (2014) has been found to be empirical with regard to the selection of design parameters
in the CFG pile compound base in conventional designs and to optimize design parameters, and
also to close relationships with the length of the pile and its sub graduate horizontal
deformation.
5. An Overview of Modern IT Tools, and why you decided to use in your Capstone
Design Project

3.0 Microsoft Excel Solver

MS Excel Solver is a commercial, simple and user- ‐friendly program used to find an optimal
solution once a suitable design problem has been determined (Arora, 2012b). Within an Excel
spreadsheet there are worksheets that are each dived into cells that contain values and formulas,
which can directly relate to other cells and automatically alter accordingly if a value is
changed. The Solver command will change the defined cells containing the variables until it
establishes a set of values that satisfy all constraints and give the maximum/minimum outcome,
whichever is desired. It achieves by undertaking an intelligent “trial and error” approach where
the outcome of each trial, referred to as and “iteration”, is extensively analyzed to determine
the choice of the next values to trail (Microsoft, 2015).

The solving method used was Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG2) for a smooth non- ‐linear
problem developed by Leon Lasdon and Allan Waren (Microsoft, 2015). The MS spreadsheet
can be seen in Appendix A and was prepared in the following stages:

An initial foundation design, as per Balfour Beatty’s


established design procedure, was carried out and
input in to excel so the calculations could be done
automatically.

The design variables {x} were input vertically into a single column of cells and the initial
fixed parameters were entered when needed in the foundation design calculations. These cells
were block colored yellow to allow easy identification.

The objective function equation was input a cell named “Objective Cell” and worked directly
off a further three cells each forming the separate parts of the equation described in Chapter
3.2. The formula within these cells relates directly to the variables and material rates.
The constraints, determined during the design process carried out in Stage 1, were clearly
defined and labelled in a table below the variables and objective cell.

3.2 – Solver Parameters

The “Objective Cell” was input


into the “Set Objective” box.

This option was set to “Min” to


obtain the minimum cost.

The variables {x} were


highlighted and input into “By
Changing Variable Cells” box.

The constraints from Stage 4 were


entered into the “Subject to the
Constraints “box. This was done
by selecting “Add” and then
inputting the relevant cells with
the specified constraint, e.g. ≤, =
or ≥, see Figure 15.

Figure 16 -‐ Solver Parameters Dialog Box

Once all the necessary information had been input into the dialog box then the optimization
process could start by pressing “solve”. The solver function would then repeatedly analyze
different combinations of possible values for the design variables until an optimum solution
was determined and the following display message would appear “Solver found a solution. All
constraints and optimality conditions are satisfied”. The solution given by using the GRG
nonlinear method would be formed from the ‘best’ set of values for the design variables that are
close to the initial values. Another solution may exist but is further away from the initial
starting values for the design variables. Therefore, several trials were carried out starting at
different combinations of values for the variables and the best solution from these would be
deemed the optimum.

When a solution was produced, three reports were created, ‘Answer’, ‘Sensitivity’ and ‘Limits’.
The Report offers basic information about the variables and how well satisfied the constraints
are once a feasible solution has been found. The Sensitivity Report delivers information in the
form of “classical sensitivity analysis” (Frontline Systems, 2015). And the Limit Report
produces the upper and lower limits of each individual variable whilst the keeping the
remaining variables constant and satisfying the constraints by re- ‐running the optimization
process.

However, in some instances a different message would occur; “Solver could not find a feasible
solution”. This would appear when Solver could not find a set of design variables that satisfied
all of the constraints. However, by using the GRG nonlinear method, a solution may exist but
the combination of values for the design variables lie distant from the initial starting values.
Therefore, to find this possible solution the optimization process can be tried again starting at
different initial values.
6. Recommendations

List what recommendations come from your results related to the topic of the PEB Capstone
Design project.

Since the project relies directly on the running and execution of MS excel program which is
still in progress. There are still no results that are available yet therefore no recommendations
have been made.
7. Recommendations for future research

List the recommendations for what future researchers can do to replicate the study or do the
project and accomplish even more than you did. How can future studies or projects in your
topic area be better?

As mentioned above, this project relies mainly on the running and execution of MS excel
program. The results generated from the program is all that is needed to complete this thesis.

A recommendation for future researchers would be, since there would be a limited time frame,
a time schedule is highly recommended since the making and execution of this program takes
up a considerable amount of time and time limit would be a problem,

8. References

• Liu, X., Cheng, G., Wang, B. and Lin, S, "Optimum Design of Pile Foundation by
Automatic Grouping Genetic Algorithms," ISRN Civil Engineering, pp. 1-16, 2012.

• H. Y. Cao and Y. F. Liu, "Optimum Design of CFG Pile Compound Foundation Based
on Numerical Simulation Method," • H. Y. Cao and Y. F. Liu, “Optimum Design of CFG Pile
Compound Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 578-579, p. 346–350, 2014.

 Arora, J.S., 2012b. Chapter 6: Optimum Design with Excel Solver. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier
Inc.

 Frontline Systems, 2015. Excel Solver Help. [Online] Available at: www.solver.com
[Accessed 25 August 2019].

 Microsoft, 2015. Solver Uses Generalized Reduced Gradient Algorithm. [Online]


Available at: www.support.microsoft.com [Accessed 25 August 2019].