Você está na página 1de 15

# Numerical modeling of laterally loaded

grouting
Cheng Lin
Jie Han
Shuilong Shen
Zhenshun Hong

## The University of Kansas

The University of Kansas
Shanghai JiaoTong University
Southeast University

Outline of Presentation
Introduction
Numerical modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusions

Introduction
Why is jet grouting considered to improve lateral
capacity?
Insufficient lateral capacity of pile group
Scour occurs at bridge pile foundation
Tighter design code
Solutions
9 Structural retrofit
9 Jet grouting

Introduction
Why is jet grouting considered to improve lateral
capacity?
Insufficient lateral capacity of pile group
Scour occurs at bridge pile foundation
Tighter design code
Solutions
9 Structural retrofit
9 Jet grouting

and mobilization cost
Cost-effective in soft clay
(Rollins et al. 2003)

Introduction
What is the objective of this study?
Perform a numerical simulation of laterally loaded
pile group test in soft clay
before improved by jet grouting
after improved by jet grouting
Overall goal
Parametric study
Improving mechanism due to jet grouting

Numerical modeling
0.55 m

Ft

Corbel

2.84 m
Test pile

0.76 m

3.2 m

13.4 m

2.75 m

3.0 m

0.9 m

0.9 m

FLAC3D
Mohr-Coulomb model

Jet grouted
zone

4.57 m

Numerical modeling
Pile properties
Parameters of test piles

Pipe pile
Concrete
Equivalent
pile

Youngs Poissons
Diameter, Thickness, Length, Moment of
modulus,
ratio,
D (m)
t (m)
L (m) inertia, I (m4) E (kN/m2)
Qp
0.324
0.009
13.4
(1.42x10-4)a
2.0x108
0.3
2.1 x107
0.306
13.4
(4.30 x10-4)b
0.324

13.4

(5.41x10-4)c

6.9x107

## Equivalent pile modulus

E p _ eq

( E p I A  Ec I int ) / I out

0.3

Numerical modeling
Soil properties
Model 1
Depth
measured
from top of
pile cap (m)
0-0.76
0.76-3
3-10
10-18.2

## Properties of soil (Adsero 2008)

Undrained
shear
Unit
Youngs
strength,
weight,
modulus,
Cu (kPa) J(kN/m3) Es (kPa)
50
18.4
600Cu
15.5
17.5
200Cu
30
17.5
400Cu
50
17.5
600Cu

Poissons
ratio,

Xp
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45

Plasticity
Index,
PI (%)
20.5
23
13
21.3

## Es is cited from Poulos and Davis (1980)

Model 2

Es

150Cu
PI

Numerical modeling
Grouted soil properties
EG = 3,175 MPaqu

XG = 0.3

## Results and discussion

Lateral load at pile cap (kN)

3000
2500
2000
1500
Improved (Field)

1000

Improved (Model 1)

500

Improved (Model 2)

0
0

10
20
30
40
50
Lateral displacement at pile cap (mm)

60

## Results and discussion

Lateral load at pile cap (kN)

2500

Natural (Field)
Natural (Model)
Improved (Field)
Improved (Model)

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-5

15
35
Lateral displacement at pile cap (mm)

55

0
-2

Depth (m)

-4
Improved (Model)

-6

Natural (Model)

-8
-10

-12
-14
-16
-100

-50

50
100
150
Shear force (kN)

200

250

## At the same lateral displacement of pile cap: 38 mm

With lateral load at pile cap: 1300 kN (natural); 2200 kN (improved)

## Results and discussion

0
-2

Depth (m)

-4
-6

-8
-10

Improved (Model)

-12

Improved (Field)

-14

Natural (Model)

-16
-100

-50

0
50
Bending moment (kN-m)

100

150

Conclusions
(1) The soil moduli based on 200 to 600 times soil undrained
shear strengths yielded reasonable results
(2) The numerical results showed that jet grouting around
piles in the group significantly increased the lateral resistance
(3) Distributions of lateral pile responses (i.e. shear forces and
bending moments) before and after jet grouting below the
certain depth were almost the same.
(4) A further study is needed to investigate the reasons for the
difference in the magnitudes of the bending moments.

Thanks,
Questions?