15th ICSMGE: Istanbul 2001

TC2 Workshop - Session W7

Overview of Geotechnical Physical
Modelling

Professor Mark Randolph

Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems1
The University of Western Australia

1Established and supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research Centres Program
 Outline

• Modelling in Design
− formulation of conceptual models

• Why Physical Modelling ?

• Soil Characterisation

• Examples

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Contribution of Modelling to Design

Data from
Rigorous full-scale
numerical events
analysis

Validation of
Calibration of
modelling
conceptual
techniques
model
Design

Physical Conceptual
model model
Demonstration of
applicability

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Verification of Conceptual Models
Two different categories:
• Simplified Analytical Models
− e.g. approximate elastic solutions; plastic limit analyses
− generally, must validate through rigorous numerical
analysis, NOT through physical modelling
• Correlations with Soil Parameters
− e.g. pile shaft friction; limiting vane torque; bearing
'capacity' in compressible granular materials
− essential to mimic typical (prototype) measurement of
key soil properties for correlations

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Why Physical Modelling ?
• Complexity of Soil Response
− particle crushing, destructuring (e.g. cemented soils)
− (strength) anisotropy, strain softening (shear bands)
− cyclic loading, creep
• Complexity of Geometry or Construction
− pile installation: jacked, driven, bored
− large penetration (e.g. drag anchors, caissons)
− tunnelling (?), deep excavation/retaining walls (?)
• New Phenomena
− e.g. fundamental soil response; thermomechanical or
chemical interactions
15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Soil Characterisation in Model Testing
• For conceptual model development, essential to
plan soil characterisation studies as integrated
part of model testing
− spatial variation of strength (3-D)
− temporal variation in strength
• Clays
− penetrometer testing (cone, T-bar etc), vane (?)
• Sands
− cone, buried samplers (void ratio), Go measurements

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Examples
• Micro-structural response of sands during pile
installation
− courtesy of White/Bolton experimental studies
− particle crushing, consequential stress changes
• Complex piled raft foundation study
− consolidation of soft clay using wick drains
− conditioning of clay by drawing down water table
− incremental loading of piled and unpiled foundations

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Friction Fatigue: Data
0
Local shear stress, τs (kPa)
10 20 30 40 50 60 Measured in the field
0

1
Observed in the lab
2

3
h/D= 25
4

5 h/D= 14

h/D= 4
6

Instrumented steel pile

Diameter, D = 102 mm

h/D= 25 Instrument cluster

h/D= 14
Distance from pile tip, h Mechanism: Horizontal compression around base creates
h/D= 4
Lehane, 1992 high horizontal stress on pile shaft. Subsequent shearing
leads to unloading and reduced horizontal stress.
From Lehane et al (1993)
UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE Courtesy of David White, CUEL
 Friction Fatigue: Challenge
How can this behaviour be modelled (and predicted)?
Initial conditions:
Stress path: Up to 2 MPa and
back to a few kPa
Strain path: shear strain > 100%
volumetric strain > 30%
Unbroken soil Shear zone Pile

Shear zone: D50 reduced by

Stiffness ? factor of 2 within 3 mm of pile.
10 mm Zone of fines able to migrate
Grain size = ?
Roughness height = ?
into voids in far field.
UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE Courtesy of David White, CUEL
 Foundations on Soft Clay
Objective Courtesy Dr Hackmet Joer, UWA
• Evaluate relative merits of alternative piling schemes and
conditioning of soft (n.c.) clay by drawdown of water table
Unpiled raft Piled raft

sand 27 mm33 mm
surcharge PPT PPT
25 mm
30 mm
soft PPT PPT
127
clay mm
192 mm
PPT PPT

sand
layer PPT PPT

wick
drains
162.5 162.5 162.5
mm mm mm
650 mm
15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Site Investigation: T-bar Tests
T-Bar Resistance (MPa)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 Six tests in 3 separate samples:
0
Test 1-1
Test 1-2 Upper clay:
5 Test 2-1 Resistance profile of 25 kPa/m
Test 2-2
dsu/dz = 2.4 kPa/m (Nt = 10.5)
Upper Clay Test 3-1
Prototype penetration (m)

10
Test 3-2
Linear fit Middle sand:
15 Peak resistance of 5 to 6 MPa
Middle sand layer Nq of about 100 (6 T-bar Ø)
20

Lower clay:
25
Lower Clay High resistance due to sand
carried into clay by T-bar
30
15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Installation of Wick Drains

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Finished Wick Drains

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Loading Device - Schematic
Loading frame Actuator

• Independent loading Displacement

of each foundation transducer
Displacement
• 4 loading increments transducer

(max of 100 kPa)

• Separate weights Weights
linked by sliding rods Raft

• Central and edge Strongbox

settlement measured

162.5 mm 325 mm 162.5 mm

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Loading Device - Photographs

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
Settlement Response During Loading

• Wick drains functioned well, leading to much

faster consolidation
• Drawdown of water table was shown to be
effective in reducing settlements to 20 % of
those without drawdown
• Detailed modelling of different pile geometries
and drawdown strategies was effective in
assessing an appropriate design approach

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001
 Discussion Issues
• Physical Modelling
− What rôle does it have in development of conceptual
models for design?
• Micro-structural Response
− New techniques to quantify micro-structural response
during construction processes
− Can we make quantitative links for use in design
models?
• Complex Problems
− Are we kidding ourselves that our (scaled) results are
a good guide to prototype performance?

15th ICSMG
Istanbul, August 2001