ce5108envexc敏avationatscottroad.pptVIP

Plaxis Input Parameters UMC and LMC Strength and Stiffness increase linearly with depth Struts at 8.5 m cc Sheet-pile wall FSP IV * Construction Stages Model NO Preloads Strutting and next excavation level can be modeled in one single stage * GWT Model by Steady-State Seepage * Low k in UMC keep GWT from dropping, so SS Seepage is OK for this Case Limit Equilibrium Model using CADS Piled-Wall Suite * * * EXC -3.7m * EXC -5.1m * EXC -7.5m Maximum Lateral Deflection * Wall Bending Moment Final Stage of Excavation * Development of Field Strut Forces * Strut Forces at Level 1 (-0.8m) * Strut Forces at Level 2 (-2.5m) * Strut Forces at Level 3 (-4.5m) * Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams * Conclusions LE solutions in modelling indeterminate multi-propped system were unable to predict reasonable estimates in terms of wall lateral deflection, wall bending moment and strut force In short, LE method should not be used when handling indeterminate multi-propped system FE predictions, on the other hand, are able to do so and its results are quite indicative of the field values Peck’s empirical earth pressure diagram(1969) is a suitable method for estimating strut loads for design. Moreover, it is a simple and quick hand calculation method * FOS vs Displacements Global FOS = 2.0 by c/phi reduction analysis; for elastic wall But at FML of 7.5m Wall deflects 400 mm; Is this failure?? NO in terms of collapse, BUT YES in terms of Serviceability limit * Basal Heave Analysis Use Bjerrum and Eide method: H=7.5m, B=30m, Clay wt. g = 16 kN/m3, cu=20 kPa, Nc=6.0 FOS = Nc * cu / (g*H) = 6*20/(16*7.5) = 1.0 imply that wall would nearly fail by basal heave? Why did wall not fail? Use Terzaghi Method: Obviously, the wall socket into Clayey Sand below the LMC prevented basal heave failure Also the flexure capacity of the wall add to the FOS against basal heave failure * Basal Heave Analysis * FOS for basal heave 1; so expect large wall deflection and large strut loads Bolton MS