cuentiones sobre interfaces

© All Rights Reserved

131 visualizações

cuentiones sobre interfaces

© All Rights Reserved

- chapter 2 tutorial .pdf
- Deep Excavation Design
- Deep Excavations Foundations
- Pushover Analysis of Shear-Critical Frames: Formulation
- MITRES2 002S10 Nonlinear Lec1 13
- monografia
- ANSYS Postprocessing
- composite
- Ex15Uniaxial Tensile Test
- Bathe and bolourchi.pdf
- Examine2D Analysis Information
- Vibrations of Thick Cylindrical Structures
- Bending, buckling and free vibration analysis of size-dependent functionally graded circular/annular microplates based on the modified strain gradient elasticity theory
- Dynamic Properties of Sherman
- Lec 02
- 3D Hooke.pdf
- A refined RC beam element including bond slip.pdf
- Bathe_79-libre.pdf
- ES 64_EXAM 2 FiNAL
- Mom Review

Você está na página 1de 10

Problem

Haydar Arslan

University of Colorado-Boulder

Department of Civil Engineering

Boulder, CO

ABSTRACT

The shear stress parameters of the soil-structure interfaces were analyzed by Finite

Element modeling of direct shear test. The model is used to determine the stress

deformation behavior of clay-concrete interfaces, and to observe influence of area

reduction to shear stress at the clay concrete interface. The results of the FE study

showed that there is about seven percent stress increment due to the area change during

the direct shear test and area correction can not be ignored for soil structure interface

analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) analyses have been studied last 30 years for analyzing, designing, and

monitoring geotechnical structures. Clough and Duncan (1971), Ebeling et al. (1993), Ebeling and

Mosher (1996), and Ebeling, Peters, and Mosher (1997), Ebeling, Pace, and Morrison (1997) are some

examples of state-of-the-art studies available for SSI analyses.

Most often, interface tests were performed to determine the soil-to-structure friction angle for design of

geotechnical structures, such as retaining walls, buried culverts, piles, etc., and, in some cases, for the

determination of parameters for constitutive modeling of interface response. Early systematic efforts to

obtain data on the behavior of soil-to-structure interfaces were carried out by Potyondy (1961), and

Peterson et al. (1976). Their tests were performed using a slightly modified Direct Shear Box (DSB) in

which a concrete specimen occupied one of the halves of the shear box. In most cases, the soil sample

was prepared against a concrete specimen situated at the bottom. The tests were typically performed by

first increasing the normal pressure to a desired value, then shearing the interface under constant normal

stress to a maximum displacement of about 12.5 mm.

In SSI analyses, the soil-structure interface is represented by interface elements. Several kinds of

interface elements have been developed to model the behavior of the interface under certain loading

conditions. In most of the interface models, the interface yield stress is determined by the Mohr-

Coulomb criterion (Goodman, Taylor, and Brekke 1968; Clough and Duncan 1971; Zaman, Desai, and

Drumm 1984; Desai, Muqtadir, and Scheele 1986; and Wong, Kulhawy, and Ingraffea 1989). In this

study Mohr Coulomb model is applied to direct shear type soil-concrete interface by considering the

influences of area reduction on the SSI analysis.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

A Plane strain model is used for structures with a uniform cross section and corresponding stress state

and loading scheme over a certain length perpendicular to the cross section. Displacements

perpendicular to the cross section are assumed to be zero.

Soil Elements

The 6-node triangle element is chosen for a 2D analysis (Figure 1). It provides a second order

interpolation for displacements. The element stiffness matrix is evaluated by numerical integration using

a total of three Gauss points (stress points).

Mohr-Coulomb model is used as a first approximation of soil behavior in general. The model involves

five parameters, namely Young's modulus, E, Poisson's ratio, n, the cohesion, c, the friction angle, f, and

the dilatancy angle, y.

Figure 1. Position of nodes and stress points in soil elements (Brinkgreve et al., 1998)

Interfaces

Interfaces are used to model the interaction between structures and the soil. Examples of geotechnical

structures involving interfaces are presented in Figure 2. A typical application of interfaces would be to

model the interaction between a sheet pile wall and the soil, which is intermediate between smooth and

fully rough. In this application interfaces are placed at both sides of the wall. The roughness of the

interaction is modelled by choosing a suitable value for the strength reduction factor in the interface.

This factor relates the interface strength (wall friction and adhesion) to the soil strength (friction angle

and cohesion).

Figure 2. Examples in which interfaces are used (Brinkgreve et al., 1998)

Interface Elements.

Interfaces are composed of interface elements. Figure 3 shows how interface elements are connected to

soil elements. When using 6-node soil elements, the corresponding interface elements are defined by

three pairs of nodes. In Figure 3 the interface elements are shown to have a finite thickness, but in the

finite element formulation the coordinates of each node pair are identical, which means that the element

has a zero thickness.

Figure 3. Distribution of nodes and stress points in interface elements and connection with soil elements

(Brinkgreve et al., 1998)

Interface Strength.

An elastic-plastic model is used to describe the behaviour of interfaces for the modelling of soil-structure

interaction. The Coulomb criterion is used to distinguish between elastic behaviour, where small

displacements can occur within the interface, and plastic interface behaviour (slip).

For the interface to remain elastic the shear stress t is given by:

(1)

(2)

where fi and ci are the friction angle and cohesion of the interface and sn and t are the normal stress and

shear stress acting in the interface. The strength properties of interfaces are linked to the strength

properties of a soil layer. Each data set has an associated strength reduction factor for interfaces (Rinter).

The interface properties are calculated from the soil properties in the associated data set and the strength

reduction factor by applying the following rules:

(3)

(4)

(5)

Calculation of a Factor of Safety value was executed by reducing the strength parameters of the soil

(Phi-c reduction). In the Phi-c reduction approach the strength parameters tan(f and c of the soil are

successively reduced until failure of the structure occurs.

The total multiplier SMsf is used to define the value of the soil strength parameters at a given stage in the

analysis,

(6)

where the strength parameters with the subscript 'input' refer to the properties entered in the material sets

and parameters with the subscript 'reduced' refer to the reduced values used in the analysis. SMsf is set to

1.0 at the start of a calculation to set all material strengths to their unreduced values. The strength

parameters are successively reduced automatically until failure occurs. At this point the factor of safety

is given by,

(7)

This approach resembles the method of calculation of safety factors conventionally adopted in slip-circle

analyses. When using Phi-c reduction in combination with advanced soil models, these models will

actually behave as a standard Mohr-Coulomb model, since stress-dependent stiffness behavior and

hardening effects are excluded.

Msf; SMsf multipliers are associated with the Phi-c reduction option for the computation of safety

factors. The total multiplier SMsf is defined as the quotient of the original strength parameters and the

reduced strength parameters and controls the reduction of the tan(f) and c at a given stage in the

analysis. In contrast to most other total multipliers, SMsf is set to 1.0 at the start of a calculation to set all

material strengths to their unreduced values. SMsf is used to specify the increment of the strength

reduction of the first calculation step.

The Total displacements are the total vectorial displacements |u| at all nodes at the end of the current

calculation step, displayed in a plot of the undeformed geometry. The Total increments are the vectorial

displacement increments |Du| at all nodes as calculated for the current calculation step, displayed on a

plot of the undeformed geometry.

Methodology

The effect of area correction on the concrete body and clay interface has been evaluated by modeling

two separate direct shear tests and those have been compared in the project. The first model represents

the real direct shear test with the dimensions of 66 cm. There is no area change at the second model,

and two different boxes are used at the bottom and top of the shear box. The dimensions of the bottom

box are 1010 cm and the dimensions of the top box are 66 cm. The load and soil properties of the two

models are the same. In order to observe the interface behavior, a direct shear model is set up using a

commercially available finite element program Plaxis.

Since soil is a multiphase material, special procedures are required for the simulation of non-linear and

time dependant behavior. To overcome these difficulties, simplified models that behave like the real

model are used for the numerical analysis. In this study, direct shear model is used as a simplified model

of the concrete-soil interface model.

MATERIALS

The material properties used in this study are derived from zer inicioglus thesis (inicioglu, 2001).

Permeability of the clay is used as 1 mm/day. The interface permeability is taken as neutral, because the

interface should not influence the flow in the surrounding soil. This means that the interface is neither

works as a drain nor an impermeable material.

The material model selected for the clay material is Mohr-Coulomb model and the material type is

undrained. The Mohr-Coulomb model is a model of perfect plasticity. Plasticity is associated with the

development of irreversible strains. Table 1 gives the properties of the materials used in this study.

Table 1. The properties of the materials used in this study

The direct shear box model in the first phase of this study consists of two clusters, as it is seen in Figures

4 and 5.

Figure 4. The direct shear box model for the first phase of the first model

Figure 5. The direct shear box model for the first phase of the second model

The interfaces are created between two clusters to maintain full interaction between the structure and the

soil. A positive interface in the concrete cluster and a negative interface in the clay cluster are created.

The generation of the mesh is based on a robust triangulation procedure. The generated mesh is shown in

Figure 6 and Figure 7. Although interface elements have a zero thickness, the interfaces are drawn with a

certain thickness in order to show the connection between soil elements and interfaces.

Figure 6. The generated mesh for the first direct shear box model.

Figure 7. The generated mesh for the first direct shear box model.

The phreatic line is chosen under the clay liner to eliminate the effect of water on the soil-concrete

interface (Figure 8 and Figure 9). The calculation consists of two phases. The first one is for loading, and

the second one is for the execution of shearing. In the first phase of the calculation, SMdisp is selected as

zero to have zero displacement. The reason is to initiate the loading of the direct shear box. SMload and

SMweight are selected as one in both phases to have permenant application of the traction loads and the

weight forces. In the second phase SMdisp is increased to one in order to shear the clay surface with the

movement of the concrete block.

Figure 9. The phreatic line of the direct shear model

After running the direct shear box model, the generated mesh modified due to the interaction between

the clusters representing the concrete block and the clay. The deformed mesh for the two models are

shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The frictional behavior of the clay can be observed above the

interface. Total deformation in the soil body for the both model is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 10. The deformed mesh after the direct shear test

Figure 11. The deformed mesh after the direct shear test

Figure 12. Total displacements inside the soil body at both models

Shear stresses inside clay body are shown in the Figure 13 and Figure 14. The figures show that shear

stress increases by getting closer to the interface. It is in agreement with the deformed mesh of the

model.

Figure 13. Shear stress of the clay when area reduction is not considered

Figure 14. Shear stress of the clay body when area reduction is considered

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the clay-concrete interface shear behavior is investigated by using finite element package

program, Plaxis. Direct shear box is modeled to represent the shearing and to determine the role of

interface material. The direct shear box model provides to analyze the shear stress parameters for the

interface elements, and the stress deformation behavior of the soil during the shearing. The results of the

models are in accordance with Metehans (1996) experimental direct shear test results. The FE study

showed that stress rotation starts after the 1% strain under shear loading shearing. Stress rotation

continues up to 4% strain, however stress rotation is not observed after the 4% strain level. The area

change during the direct shear test affects the shear stress of the soil-concrete interface. The shear stress

of the real direct shear test model is 78.45kN/m2, and the shear stress of the second model that ignores

the area change is 83.66kN/m2. The results show that there is about seven percent stress increment due

to the area change during the direct shear test.

REFERENCES

1. Bathurst, R. J., D. J. Benjamin and R. M. Jarret (1988) Laboratory study of geogrid reinforced

soil walls Proc. of Sym. of Geosynthetics for soil improvement, Geotechnical Division, pp. 178-

192, USA.

2. Brinkgreve, R.B.J., et al. (1998) Plaxis Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, Delft

University of Technology,The Netherlands.

3. nicioglu, . (2001) Modelling and Evaluation of the Behavior of Concrete-Lime Modified Clay

Interface, MS Thesis, Bogazii University, Turkey

4. Desai, C. S., A. Muqtadir, and F. Scheele (1986) Interaction analyses of anchor-soil systems

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112(5), 537-553.

5. Duncan, J. M., and G. W. Clough (1971) Finite element analyses of Port Allen Lock, Journal of

the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM8), 1053-1067.

6. Ebeling, R. M., R. L. Mosher, K. Abraham, and J. F. Peters (1993) Soilstructure interaction

study of Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 subjected to sediment loading, Technical Report ITL-

93-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

7. Ebeling, R. M., J. F. Peters, and R. L. Mosher (1997) The role of non-linear deformation analyses

in the design of a reinforced soil berm at Red River UFrame Lock No. 1, International Journal for

Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 21, 753-787.

8. Ebeling, R. M., and R. L. Mosher (1996) Red River U-Frame Lock No. 1 backfill-structure-

foundation interaction, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122(3), 216-225.

9. Ebeling, R. M., M. E. Pace, and E. E. Morrison (1997) Evaluating the stability of existing

massive concrete gravity structures founded on rock, Technical Report REMR-CS-54, U.S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

10. Goodman, R. E., R. L. Taylor, and T. L. Brekke (1968) A model for the mechanics of jointed

rock, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 94(SM3), 637-659.

11. Metehan, C. T., Shear Strength Improvement at the Interface of Lime-Treated Soil and Conctrete

Structures, M.S. Thesis, Bogazii University, 1994.

12. Peterson, M. S., F. H. Kulhawy, L. R. Nucci, and B. A. Wasil (1976) Stress deformation

behavior of soil-concrete interfaces, Contract Report B-49 to Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation, Syracuse, NY.

13. Potyondy, J. G. (1961) Skin friction between various soils and construction materials,

Gotechnique 11(4), 339-353.

14. Wong, P. C., F. H. Kulhawy, and A. R. Ingraffea (1989) Numerical modeling of interface

behavior for drilled shaft foundations under generalized loading. Foundation engineering:

current principles and practice, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 22, 565-579.

15. Zaman, M. M., C. S. Desai, and E. C. Drumm (1984) Interface model for dynamic soil-structure

interaction, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 110(9), 1257-1273.

2005 ejge

- chapter 2 tutorial .pdfEnviado porChong Qi Wen
- Deep Excavation DesignEnviado pormike
- Deep Excavations FoundationsEnviado porbannasengineer
- Pushover Analysis of Shear-Critical Frames: FormulationEnviado porProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- MITRES2 002S10 Nonlinear Lec1 13Enviado pormaris
- monografiaEnviado porArnav Anuj Kasar
- ANSYS PostprocessingEnviado porNshuti Rene Fabrice
- compositeEnviado porChethan Ravi
- Ex15Uniaxial Tensile TestEnviado porjdial9664
- Bathe and bolourchi.pdfEnviado porjvasilva13
- Examine2D Analysis InformationEnviado porMinela Lulić
- Vibrations of Thick Cylindrical StructuresEnviado porAnonymous PT8OGe0Z
- Bending, buckling and free vibration analysis of size-dependent functionally graded circular/annular microplates based on the modified strain gradient elasticity theoryEnviado pormodfars
- Dynamic Properties of ShermanEnviado porUchaq Agaseh
- Lec 02Enviado porNuman
- 3D Hooke.pdfEnviado porSung Lee-ing
- A refined RC beam element including bond slip.pdfEnviado porBuiDucVinh
- Bathe_79-libre.pdfEnviado porjhharo2008
- ES 64_EXAM 2 FiNALEnviado porGlimmer Dawn Loredo Ordaniel
- Mom ReviewEnviado porusamaumer
- Notes for Print TEPEnviado porvempadareddy
- Contour_Method_Technique_Review.docEnviado porFilippin
- FEM__ShellEnviado porAnshul Sharma
- General Hooke's LawEnviado porKirito Kazuto
- 5 StrainEnviado porHar Ahmad
- Pin Bearing Behavior of Notched Pultruded PlateEnviado porYogesh Sutar
- Antonio J. Gil - Structural analysis of prestressed Saint Venant–Kirchho hyperelastic membranes subjected to moderate strains 2006Enviado porIlya Peshkov
- SimulationTechnology-2-3.pdfEnviado porAli Varmazyar
- 189.pdfEnviado porMohamed Ismail Shehab
- Anagnos Topou LouEnviado porFrancisco Calderón

- PIEAS PAST PAPER SET1.pdfEnviado porSalman Asgher
- lect_6_7Enviado porapi-3737931
- Revestimento - Turma 13 - Grupo 3Enviado poraptgaptg
- F10 Taps in Auto Transformers PaperEnviado porverma210
- Chemical BondingEnviado porध्रुव पांडेय
- ch4Enviado porKaaya Godfrey
- Kjellberg Product Brochure EnEnviado porMatija Bušić
- solidworks tutorial for COMOS 08Enviado pornasaknightwolf
- Oldroyd B FluidEnviado porAslıhan örüm
- Ploughing Lauder Phd 2010Enviado porisohary
- PE 2322Enviado porChristian Perner
- Unit1 From Mechanics of Materials by b c PunmiaEnviado porsimalaravi
- 11. Alcohols Phenols and Ethers Anil HssliveEnviado pormarty
- q1Enviado porManu K Vasudevan
- copy of finals project period 3Enviado porapi-249713017
- WFE Polarization Errors SPIE00Enviado porRhesa Pramudita
- FULL SOLUTION OF UPSEE 2017 SET AA HELD ON 16 APRIL 2017Enviado porAnonymous FLeMJZW
- Numerics in geotechnics 2010.pdfEnviado porRaúl Bernal Luna
- Seismic Load Paths for Steel BuildingsEnviado porJoe Aye
- 0907.2363v3Enviado porAnjali Gupta
- Polimerisasi addisiEnviado porDheyy Permata Kusuma
- 26494270 HandBook FE Devices 02Enviado porsmcmo
- Thyristor Commutation TechniquesEnviado porตะวันแดงปากน้ำโพ
- Gain and LossesEnviado porTuhin Mishuk Paul
- 12_10Enviado porDeepak Lohia
- Lect 14 1-Phase Induction MachinesEnviado pormarshadxp
- Chapter 6 Stress Distribution in Soils Due to Surface Loads _ Elisa AtryaEnviado porMohamed Kessy
- 5.Monograph_Part I(J~Z)Enviado porGopalaKrishnan Sivaraman
- pKaEnviado porbavirisettikiran
- Modified MSc Radiation Phy SylEnviado porJamshihas Ap