1 / 16

Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE

Computer Program DFSAP D eep F oundation S ystem A nalysis P rogram Based on Strain Wedge Method. Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University of Nevada, Reno APRIL 3/4, 2006.

vachel
Download Presentation

Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computer Program DFSAPDeep Foundation System Analysis ProgramBased on Strain Wedge Method • Prepared by • J. P. Singh & Associates • in association with • Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE • West Virginia University Tech • and • Gary Norris Ph.D., PE • University of Nevada, Reno • APRIL 3/4, 2006

  2. AXIALLY LOADED PILES/SHAFTS IN LAYERED SOILS (SAND/CLAY)

  3. Qo X Vert. Shear Stress distribution  Loading Direction q Shaft Cross Section Sheared soil layers Deformations in soil layers around an axially loaded shafts X Shear Stress,  T-Z curve o n Shear Stress, T n + m Distance Zn + m QT zn Shaft zmax ro rn rn + m Shaft Vertical Displacement, Z Displacement, z Vertical Shear Stress Shaft Cross Section

  4. Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3

  5. A Comparison Between Measured and Computed Axial Pile Load at Different Depths (After Vesic, 1970)

  6. Fig. 3-15 Comparison Between Measured and Predicted Load Transfer () – Pile Movement (z) Curve for the California Test

  7. Predicted Axial Load Distribution along the Pile Pile-Head Load-Settlement Curves for Seven Loading Tests at Different Time Periods for the California Test in Comparison with the Predicted Results

  8. Layer 1 Layer 2  = 320 Layer 3 Liquefiable soil Effect of Developing Liquefaction on Axial Capacity of a Pile from FHWA/RD/86/102 Clay Layer 4

  9. Effect of Soil Liquefaction on the T-z Curve No Liquefaction amax = 0.25g, M = 6.5 amax = 0.40g, M = 6.5

  10. Ks = 14.2 x 106 lb/ft Ks = 14.4 x 107 lb/ft Pile Axial Stiffness Using DFSAP vs. FHWA/RD/86/102

  11. Lateral Load D j m Sloping Ground j C D m j (h-x) tan b tan m m j m B x h b m Different Failure Planes h-x Piles/Shafts in Sloping Ground

  12. Piles/Shafts in Sloping Ground

  13. 0 Degree Sloping Ground 10 Degree Sloping Ground

  14. 500 G r o u n d S l o p e 0 D e g r e e s p 1 0 D e g r e e i 400 k 2 0 D e g r e e , o P , d 300 a o L d a 200 e H - t f a h 100 S 0 0 4 8 12 S h a f t D e f l e c t i o n , Y , i n o Effect of Ground Slope on Pile/Shaft Lateral Response (Downhill Loading)

  15. Effect of Ground Slope on Pile/Shaft Lateral Response (Uphill Loading)

  16. Effect of Ground Slope on Pile/Shaft Lateral Response

More Related