OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIXOUTLINE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Geosynthetics in Separation University of Strathclyde
Advertisements

Bharani Ravishankar, Benjamin Smarslok Advisors Dr. Raphael T. Haftka, Dr. Bhavani V. Sankar SEPARABLE SAMPLING OF THE LIMIT STATE FOR ACCURATE MONTE CARLO.
foundations are generally grouped into two categories:
JP Singh and Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., P.E. Gary Norris, Ph.D., P.E. March 2004 COMPUTER PROGRAM S-SHAFT FOR LATERALLY LOADED.
Calculation of Heave of Deep Pier Foundations By John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E., Hon. M. SEAGS, F. ASCE, Kuo-Chieh (Geoff) Chao, Ph.D., P.E., M. SEAGS, M.
1 Volpe The National Transportation Systems Center Finite Element Analysis of Wood and Concrete Crossties Subjected to Direct Rail Seat Pressure U.S. Department.
SINTEF Petroleum Research The strength of fractured rock Erling Fjær SINTEF Petroleum Research 1.
8. Axial Capacity of Single Piles
SHALLOW FOUNDATION NAME: INDRAJIT MITRA
LRFD Design of Shallow Foundations
Course : S0705 – Soil Mechanic
INTRODUCTION Session 1 – 2
Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Short Course on Computational Geotechnics + Dynamics Boulder, Colorado January 5-8, 2004 Stein Sture.
Sensitivity Analysis In deterministic analysis, single fixed values (typically, mean values) of representative samples or strength parameters or slope.
Chapter (1) Geotechnical Properties of Soil
Session 25 – 26 DRILLED SHAFT And CAISSON FOUNDATION
Stress due to soil weight Contact stress Stress due to loading
Prediction of Load-Displacement Curve for Weld-Bonded Stainless Steel Using Finite Element Method Essam Al-Bahkali Jonny Herwan Department of Mechanical.
1 Asia Managing Geotechnical Risk Learning from the Failures “Issues related to the use of Numerical Modelling in Design of Deep Excavations in Soft Clay”
Priyantha Jayawickrama, Ph.D. Associate Professor
Shallow Foundation Settlement
Bearing Capacity Theory
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
Session 17 – 18 PILE FOUNDATIONS
Lecture-8 Shear Strength of Soils
GEO-MECHANICS (CE2204) Shear Strength of Soils
Direct Shear Test CEP 701 PG Lab.
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
CEP Soil Engineering Laboratory
Field Validation and Parametric Study of a Thermal Crack Spacing Model David H. Timm - Auburn University Vaughan R. Voller - University of Minnesota Presented.
Liquefaction Analysis For a Single Piled Foundation By Dr. Lu Chihwei Moh and Associates, Inc. Date: 11/3/2003.
Reference Manual Chapter 9
Chapter 14 Monte Carlo Simulation Introduction Find several parameters Parameter follow the specific probability distribution Generate parameter.
Concrete 2003 Brisbane July 2003 Design Of Pre-cast Buried Structures For Internal Impact Loading.
Session 7 – 8 SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
J. L. Bassani and V. Racherla Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics V. Vitek and R. Groger Materials Science and Engineering University of Pennsylvania.
Settlement Criteria  f f f for clays, silty clays, plastic silts: Chapter 5 (short term) Chapter 7 (long term, i.e., consolidation)  i i i in this.
AMML Effect of rise, peak and fall characteristics of CZM in predicting fracture processes.
Soil Mechanics-II STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS DUE TO SURFACE LOADS
Bearing Capacity ظرفيت باربري.
Safety and soil-structure interaction: a question of scales Denys BREYSSE CDGA, Université Bordeaux I Probamat – JHU Baltimore – 5-7/01/2005.
1 Foundations and retaining walls.
SP2Support WP 2.1Track bed quality assessment Task Numerical modelling of poor quality sites First phase report on the modelling of poor.
Classical and Finite Difference Method to Estimate pile Capacity Compared With Pile Load Test Results Yogesh Prashar, P.E., GE Force Pulse Conference,
dr. isam jardaneh / foundation engineering / 2010.
CE 482 Examples.
BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL Session 3 – 4
Settlement of foundation
SEMBODAI RUKMANI VARATHARAJAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SHALLOW FOUNDATION BY KARTHIVELU.
PILE FOUNDATIONS UNIT IV.
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-II (CE 311)
GLE/CEE 330: Soil Mechanics Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footings
Soil Mechanics Topic – Triaxial shear test(CD, CU, UU tests)
Chapter 15 Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations
GLE/CEE 330: Soil Mechanics Settlement of Shallow Footings
Pile Foundation Reason for Piles Types of Piles
Date of download: 6/22/2016 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: The Importance of Intrinsic Damage Properties to Bone Fragility: A Finite Element.
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-II (CE 311)
Lecturer: Dr. Frederick Owusu-Nimo
The Engineering of Foundations
Soil Mechanics-II STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS DUE TO SURFACE LOADS
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Prediction of settlements of buildings, bridges, Embankments
Christopher R. McGann, Ph.D. Student University of Washington
Structure II Course Code: ARCH 209 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg.
Discussers (alphabetical order):
Chapter 14 Monte Carlo Simulation
Numerical Analysis of slopes
Structural Design I Course Code: CIVL312 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg.
Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils.
Presentation transcript:

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIXOUTLINE OUTLINE 1.There is significant spatial variability of soil properties, even in so-called homogeneous layers SPATIAL VARIABILITY 3.Monte Carlo simulation method for analyzing the effects of spatial variability MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS 2.How soil heterogeneity affects the bearing capacity of shallow foundations EFFECTS 4.How each probabilistic characteristic of spatial variability influences the structural response FRAGILITY CURVES 5. Implications for geotechnical design DESIGN RECOMMEND

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL PROPERTIES Cone tip resistance recorded at Tarsiut P-45 Average values (spatial trends) Fluctuations: standard deviation probability distribution correlation structure SPATIAL VARIABILITY

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL PROPERTIES SPATIAL VARIABILITY Average values (spatial trends) and percentile values of cone tip resistances recorded at Tarsiut P45 (Molikpaq core)

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL PROPERTIES SPATIAL VARIABILITY

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL PROPERTIES SPATIAL VARIABILITY The correlation structure for the fluctuations of recorded cone tip resistance, based on the sample correlation functions correlation function in vertical direction sample cross-correlation between q c and I c

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX Predicted deformed shape and contours of plastic shear strain for a uniform soil BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Pressure-settlement relation Vertical pressure (kPa) Settlements (m) ultimate bearing capacity Uniform Soil EFFECTS BEARING CAPACITY: Load carrying capacity of foundations Based on criteria of shear failure

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX One sample function for cohesion (kPa) Actual failure surface deviates from its “theoretical position” to pass through weaker material Average mobilized strength is, in general, lower than the actual average strength BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Heterogeneous Soil – EFFECT OF LOOSE ZONES EFFECTS

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX  =0.1 Max. shear strain (%) Initial soil level  =0.1 B=4m Max. shear strain (%) a. c. b c u (kPa) d. Settlement  (m) Spatially varying soil shown in Fig. 1b Uniform soil (deterministic) Normalized pressure q/c u av

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX B 7.5 x B 2.5 x B F OC clay long, rigid structure plane strain analysis undrained loading elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour large deformations interface with Coulomb friction Soil properties undrained shear strength, c u,  STOCHASTIC PARAMETER deformation modulus, E = (300 to 1500) c u coefficient of variation of c u : CV = 10% to 40% probability distributions: Gamma and Beta separable correlaton structure with  H =  V FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES WITH STOCHASTIC INPUT Bearing Capacity – ABAQUS/STANDARD MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX Pressure-settlement curves ( Gamma distribution; C V = 40%) Monte Carlo simulation results Vertical pressure (kPa) Settlements (m) Deterministic analysis results BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Heterogeneous Soil – MONTE CARLO SIMULATONS MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS TWO EFFECTS: 1. Response variability 2. Reduction in average bearing capacity

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX Footing rotation (%) Vertical pressure (kPa) Footing rotations under centered vertical loads FRAGILITY CURVES – BEARING CAPACITY FRAGILITY CURVES: Express the probability of exceeding a certain damage level as a function of the load intensity DAMAGE LEVELS: Describe discrete serviceability limit states, and can include the ultimate limit state (failure) Damage levels in terms of footing rotations (along the lines of Grant et al. 1974) minor damage: 1/500 medium damage: 1/300 major damage: 1/150 FRAGILITY CURVES

OUTLINE SPATIAL VARIABILITY FRAGILITY CURVES MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS CONCLUSIONS EFFECTS DESIGN RECOMMEND BEARING CAPACITY OF HETEROGENEOUS SOILS APPENDIX FRAGILITY CURVES – BEARING CAPACITY FRAGILITY CURVES: Express the probability of exceeding a certain damage level as a function of the load intensity DAMAGE LEVELS: Describe discrete serviceability limit states, and can include the ultimate limit state (failure) normalized bearing pressure (q/q u det ) probability of damage minor damage medium damage major damage failure b. Fragility curves for a strip foundation on heterogeneous soil: CV = 40%  H /B = 1.25 E/c u = 1500 Gamma distribution P f = 5% Estimating the Nominal value – q n FRAGILITY CURVES