Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Numerical study on stress paths in grounds reinforced with long and short CFG piles during adjacent rigid retaining wall movement Cover

Numerical study on stress paths in grounds reinforced with long and short CFG piles during adjacent rigid retaining wall movement

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2022

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Typical (a) plan and (b) sectional view of finite element mesh used for nine long–short pile composite foundation at 3-m distance away from wall.
Typical (a) plan and (b) sectional view of finite element mesh used for nine long–short pile composite foundation at 3-m distance away from wall.

Figure 2

Schematic view of the test model setup: (a) sectional view, (b) plan view and (c) photograph taken during wall rotation.
Schematic view of the test model setup: (a) sectional view, (b) plan view and (c) photograph taken during wall rotation.

Figure 3

Particle size distribution of cushion and model foundation soil
Particle size distribution of cushion and model foundation soil

Figure 4

Comparison of experimental (a) load settlement curve and (b) load-sharing ratio during wall rotation with finite element analysis result (Lp - long pile, Sp - short pile, Sbp - soil between piles).
Comparison of experimental (a) load settlement curve and (b) load-sharing ratio during wall rotation with finite element analysis result (Lp - long pile, Sp - short pile, Sbp - soil between piles).

Figure 5

Soil stress paths at different observation points for nine long–short pile composite foundation located at 3 m away from the wall (0 indicates the stress state before wall rotation)
Soil stress paths at different observation points for nine long–short pile composite foundation located at 3 m away from the wall (0 indicates the stress state before wall rotation)

Figure 6

Principal stress changes during wall rotation about the base for nine long–short pile composite foundation located at 3 m away from the wall.
Principal stress changes during wall rotation about the base for nine long–short pile composite foundation located at 3 m away from the wall.

Figure 7

PSRs of element C: (a) 3D cubical element representation and (b) symbol plot for nine long-short pile composite foundation located at a distance 3 m away from the wall
PSRs of element C: (a) 3D cubical element representation and (b) symbol plot for nine long-short pile composite foundation located at a distance 3 m away from the wall

Figure 8

Stress paths experienced by a soil element for different locations of the composite foundation from the wall.
Stress paths experienced by a soil element for different locations of the composite foundation from the wall.

Figure 9

Stress paths experienced by a soil element C for groups with 9 and 25 long–short CFG piles situated at 3 m behind the wall (C-9 indicates element C in a group with nine piles)
Stress paths experienced by a soil element C for groups with 9 and 25 long–short CFG piles situated at 3 m behind the wall (C-9 indicates element C in a group with nine piles)

Figure 10

Stress paths experienced by soil element at the central composite foundation section for groups with 9 and 25 long-short CFG piles situated at 3 m behind the wall.
Stress paths experienced by soil element at the central composite foundation section for groups with 9 and 25 long-short CFG piles situated at 3 m behind the wall.

Figure 11

Effect of wall rotation on pile head load in 5 × 5 long-short pile group located at 3 m away from the wall.
Effect of wall rotation on pile head load in 5 × 5 long-short pile group located at 3 m away from the wall.

Figure 12

Influence of soil stiffness on the stress state during wall progression (e.g., 0–5 indicates initial stress state before wall movement for the case E = 5 MPa).
Influence of soil stiffness on the stress state during wall progression (e.g., 0–5 indicates initial stress state before wall movement for the case E = 5 MPa).

Figure 13

Response of soil element beneath the pile toe during wall movement (e.g., 0-S indicates initial stress state before wall movement for element S).
Response of soil element beneath the pile toe during wall movement (e.g., 0-S indicates initial stress state before wall movement for element S).

Figure 14

Computed shear stress–volumetric strain curves for monitoring points (a) in the upper soil near pile shaft and (b) underneath pile toe.
Computed shear stress–volumetric strain curves for monitoring points (a) in the upper soil near pile shaft and (b) underneath pile toe.

Material properties used in validation_

Material typeE (MPa)νγ (kg/m3)Φ (°)c (kPa)
Cushion15.000.30141633.904.00
Soil10.500.30161833.426.48
Pile8.14 × 1030.202700––
Raft210 × 1030.207800––
Retaining wall210 × 1030.107800––
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2021-0029 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 38 - 52
Submitted on: Apr 19, 2021
Accepted on: Oct 19, 2021
Published on: Mar 31, 2022
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
CFG pile,
composite foundation,
cushion,
load-sharing ratio,
retaining wall,
excavation
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2022 Bantayehu Uba Uge, Yuancheng Guo, Yunlong Liu, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 44 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)Next article