Sie sind auf Seite 1von 61

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Session 2 Design (Part 1)


Time Session Topic p 09:00 10:30 1 Overview Coffee Break 10:30 11:00 11:00 12:30 2 Design (Part 1) Lunch 12:30 - 01:30 01:30 03:00 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model & Design (Part 2) Coffee Break 03:00 03:30 03:30 05:00 4 How to reduce wall deflection
ULSDesign&StrutForces 1

MajorDesignConsiderationsinDeepExcavations

Totalcollapse y Overallstability Upliftorblowoutfailure Piping&quickcondition Basalheave Toestability


ULSDesign&StrutForces

Excessivemovements Walldeflections Wall deflections Groundsettlement Effectonadjacent structures

Struttingsystemfailure

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Overall Stability

ULSDesign&StrutForces

UpliftInstabilityorBlowoutFailure
Fill E UMC F2 LMC

E/F2

Sand

1. Whatisthepermeabilityofthesand?
ULSDesign&StrutForces

2. Isthereafreesupplyofwater?

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

BlowoutFailure
Forverylongexcavation:
B

T Bd+2cu d Fs= w h B hB

T
R R

Forrectangularshape: T dBL +2d cu(B+L) Fs= Fs = w hBL

ULSDesign&StrutForces

PipinginSand

Pipingisaphenomenonofwaterrushingupthroughpipe shaped Piping is a phenomenon of water rushing up through pipeshaped channelsduetoupwardseepageunderhighgradient.Itcanlead tototalcollapseofthesystem.Sufficientpenetrationofsheetpile mustbeusedtolengthentheseepagepathandtoreducethe hydraulicgradient.
ULSDesign&StrutForces 6

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

PenetrationDepth againstPiping
(Teng,1962) Fs=1.5

ULSDesign&StrutForces

BasalHeaveStability

qo qult

Whenqo >qult,failureinimminent.
ULSDesign&StrutForces 8

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Whichmethodshould weuse?
Terzaghi Bjerrum&Eide Eideetal. Tschebotarioff Goh Chang WongandGoh O'Rourke Suetal. Ukritchonetal. Plaxis

DoesFOS1meanfailure?
ULSDesign&StrutForces 9

MethodsofAnalysis

ULSDesign&StrutForces

10

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

TerzaghisMethod
(Terzaghi,1943)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

11

Terzaghis Method

HardStratum

5.7 5 7 cub B1 FS = ---------------------g H B1 - cuhH

If T 0.7B, B1 = 0.7B If T < 0.7B, B1 = T

ULSDesign&StrutForces

12

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ModificationtoTerzaghisMethod

ULSDesign&StrutForces

13

BjerrumandEidesmethod(1956)

cu Nc FS = -------------H+q

ULSDesign&StrutForces

14

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

15

Eideetal.sMethod(1972)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

16

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

17

ComparisonofMethods Case1 SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

18

WongKaiSin

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ComparisonofMethods Case2 SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

19

ComparisonofMethods Case3 SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

20

WongKaiSin

10

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

EffectofDepthtoHardStratum(T)

WhenT0.7B,failuresurfacecanbedevelopedfreely. , p y WhenT<0.7B,thedevelopmentoffailuresurfaceisrestrained.Itisnolongerthe planeoflowestresistance.Therefore,therewillbeanincreaseinfactorofsafety. Thecorrectionfactor accountsfortheeffectofdepthtohardstratum,T.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

21

ComparisonofMethods Case4 SheetpileWall

0.97
ULSDesign&StrutForces 22

WongKaiSin

11

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Sheetpiles are very flexible. They tend to move along with the soil.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

23

ComparisonofMethods Case5 DiaphragmWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

24

WongKaiSin

12

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ComparisonofMethods Case6 DiaphragmWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

25

EffectofWallPenetration
(ZhangandZhang,1994)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

26

WongKaiSin

13

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ModifiedTerzaghis MethodforDiaphragm Wall


(WongandGoh,2001) (Wong and Goh, 2001)

Method1:

Method2:

ULSDesign&StrutForces

27

ModifiedTerzaghis MethodforDiaphragmWall
(WongandGoh,2001)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

28

WongKaiSin

14

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ModifiedTerzaghis MethodforDiaphragmWall
(WongandGoh,2001)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

29

Terzaghi (1943): Modified Terzaghi:

Fs = 0.82 Fs = 1.13 (Method 1) Fs = 1.06 (Method 2)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

30

WongKaiSin

15

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Narrow Excavation for all Wall Types Modified Eide et al.s Method

ULSDesign&StrutForces

31

WideExcavationwithSheetpileWall

cuh

cub T

HardStratum

ULSDesign&StrutForces

32

WongKaiSin

16

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Wide Excavation with Diaphragm Wall

cuh
cud

cud cub

HardStratum

ULSDesign&StrutForces

33

Howimportantistheshapefactor?

ULSDesign&StrutForces

34

WongKaiSin

17

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

BasalHeaveFailureinTaipei(1998)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

35

BasalHeaveFailureinTaipei(1998)

Factor of Safety Method Terzaghi Bjerrum & Eide Wong & Goh
ULSDesign&StrutForces

A-A AA 0.67 0.58/0.69 0.94

B-B BB 0.66 0.61/0.69 0.99


36

WongKaiSin

18

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Whatfactorofsafetyshouldweuse?

ULSDesign&StrutForces

37

HowreliableisthecomputedF.S.?

ULSDesign&StrutForces

38

WongKaiSin

19

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Whattypeoftestshouldweconducttodeterminecu?

Which strength envelope should we use ?


1. Mostconservative: "worstscenario" BestEstimate: "mostprobablescenario" Mostoptimistic: "mostfavourable scenario" Depth
39

cu

2.

3.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Case7 SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

40

WongKaiSin

20

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Case8 DiaphragmWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

41

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Case9 SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

42

WongKaiSin

21

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ExcavationwithFullPenetrationofWallintoHardStratum

Basalheavestability isnotanissueforthis case. Buttoekickout failuremayoccur.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

43

ULSDesign&StrutForces

44

WongKaiSin

22

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ToeKickinStability

Pp
Scenario1

Pa
Scenario2

v1

v1

5.29cu v1
ULSDesign&StrutForces

5.29cu v1
45

ToeKickinStability

MA =? A

ULSDesign&StrutForces

46

WongKaiSin

23

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Howtoovercomethenegativenetpressure?
Option1

Option2
A

AddJGPslab

A MA =?

negativenetpressure
ULSDesign&StrutForces

Penetrateintohardstratum
47

Howtoovercomenegativenetpressure?
Option3

Useshorterwall

negativenetpressure
ULSDesign&StrutForces 48

WongKaiSin

24

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

49

ADeepExcavationin Oslo
(Aas,1985)

30kPa

1.13

ULSDesign&StrutForces

50

WongKaiSin

25

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

51

BasalHeave

ToeStability

Pp

Pa

IfthereisadequateF.S.againstbasalheave, If there is adequate F.S. against basal heave, toestabilityisnotanissue.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

52

WongKaiSin

26

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Pa &Pf arebasedon
unfactoredstrength:

ToeKickoutStability

Method1: Pp L p Fs= Fs = Pa La Method2: Pp Lp +Mall Fs= Pa La Method3: Pp Lp +Mult Fs= Pa La


ULSDesign&StrutForces

M
Lp

Pp

Pa

La

Ppf& Paf are based on factored strength: f &P f arebasedonfactoredstrength: Method4: Ppf Lp >PafLa Method5: Ppf Lp +Mall>PafLa

53

ToeKickoutStability

M
Lp

Pp

Pa

La

1. Howdoyoudeterminetheactiveand passiveearthpressures? 2. AssumingPa andPp areknown,whichofthe fivemethodswouldyouuse?


ULSDesign&StrutForces 54

WongKaiSin

27

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

EarthPressure accordingtoRankines Theory


FS=1.29(Terzaghi)

A A

ULSDesign&StrutForces

55

EffectofPenetration Depthon BendingMoment Bending Moment

D=0,8&17m

ULSDesign&StrutForces

56

WongKaiSin

28

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Shouldtheoreticalearthpressuresbeusedintheanalysis?

ULSDesign&StrutForces

57

SoilArching&RowesMomentReduction

ULSDesign&StrutForces

58

WongKaiSin

29

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Net

ULSDesign&StrutForces

59

EarthPressure(kPa)(kPa) Passive Pressure


-300 -200 -100 0 0 100 200 300

H=8m

o
=18kN/m3 cu =25kPa

D=8m

Depth (m)

10

12

Theory Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall

14

16

ULSDesign&StrutForces

60

WongKaiSin

30

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

NetEarthPressure(kPa) Passive Pressure (kPa)


-100 -50 0 0 50 100 150 200

H=8m
2

o
=18kN/m3 cu =25kPa

D=8m

Depth (m)

Mo(kNm/m)
10

Theory Sheetpile

838 304 1120

12
Theory

Diaphragm

14

Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall

16

ULSDesign&StrutForces

61

EarthPressure(kPa) Passive Pressure (kPa)


-400 -300 -200 -100 0 2 0 100 200 300 400

H=8m
4 6 8 10

o
=18kN/m3 cu =25kPa

D=15m

Depth (m)

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Theory Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

62

WongKaiSin

31

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

NetEarthPressure(kPa) Passive Pressure (kPa)


-100 -50 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 200

H=8m

o
=18kN/m3 / cu =25kPa

D=15m

Depth (m)

12 14 16 18 20
Theory

Mo(kNm/m) Theory Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall 2121 298 601 (Mmax=1010)

22 24 26

Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

63

Soilstructureinteractionaffects PA &PP
NetEarthPressure(kPa) Passive Pressure (kPa)
-100 -50 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 200

B&DcanaffectPA &PP
B

Depth (m)

12 14 16 18 20
Theory

22 24 26

Sheetpile Diaphragm Wall

Analysisbasedonearthpressuretheoriescanleadto unrealisticresults!
ULSDesign&StrutForces 64

WongKaiSin

32

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Methods1to3are basedonunfactored strength: Method1: Pp L p Fs= Fs = Pa La Method2: Pp Lp +Mall Fs= Pa La Method3: Pp Lp +Mult Fs= Pa La
ULSDesign&StrutForces

ToeKickoutStability
1. Methods1,2andyieldaboutthesameFS becauseMall andMult arenegligiblewhen comparedtotheotherterms. 2. Methods4&5yieldaboutthesameFSforthe 2 Methods 4 & 5 yield about the same FS for the samereasongivenin(1). 3. Ifearthpressuretheoryistobeusedtocompute Pa andPp,all5methodscanbeused. 4. IfPa istobedeterminedfromFEA,onlyMethods 1or3shouldbeused. Methods4&5arebasedonfactoredstrength: Method4: Ppf Lp >PafLa Method5: Ppf Lp +Mall>PafLa
65

ToeKickinStability Pp Lp +Mult Fs= Pa La

Lp

Pp

Pa

La

1. 2.

Iffactorofsafetyagainstbasalheaveisadequate,toestabilityisnot anissue.Noanalysisisnecessary. ComputePa andPp fromearthpressurestheory.IfthecomputedFS isadequatewithoutrequiringexcesspenetrationdepth,nofurther is adequate without requiring excess penetration depth no further analysisisneeded. Iftherequiredpenetrationdepthfrom(1)isexcessive,tryusingPa fromFEA.

3.

ULSDesign&StrutForces

66

WongKaiSin

33

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

67

LateralEarthPressureinBracedExcavations

R di t ib ti Redistributionofearthpressureduetoarching f th d t hi Preloading Incrementalexcavationandstrutinstallation


ULSDesign&StrutForces 68

WongKaiSin

34

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSand
(CIRIA,1996)

P=0.2H
ULSDesign&StrutForces 69

StrutForcesinStifftoVery StiffClay
(CIRIA,1996)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

70

WongKaiSin

35

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

CIRIAsCharacteristic PressureDiagramforSoft Clay


(CIRIA,1996)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

71

CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSoftClay
(CIRIA,1996)

SoftClay (Unstablebase)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

72

WongKaiSin

36

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSoftClay
(CIRIA,1996)

FirmClay (stable)

SoftClay (stable)
ULSDesign&StrutForces 73

CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSoftClay
(CIRIA,1996)

SoftClay (unstable base)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

74

WongKaiSin

37

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

StrutForcesbyTributaryareamethod

PA PB PC

a b b c c d d AreaA AreaB AreaC

e.g.PB =(b+c )pinkN/mrun


ULSDesign&StrutForces 75

ComparisonofAPD SheetpileWall

ULSDesign&StrutForces

76

WongKaiSin

38

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

ComparisonofAPD DiaphragmWall

AreFEresults reliable?

ULSDesign&StrutForces

77

StrutForcesonDiaphragm WallinSand
(Kastner &Lareal,1974)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

78

WongKaiSin

39

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

EffectofWallStiffnessonStrutForces
(Chang&Wong,1996)

x107

ULSDesign&StrutForces

79

EffectofWallStiffnesson StrutForces
(Chang&Wong,1996)

(m=1)
ULSDesign&StrutForces 80

WongKaiSin

40

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

Effect of Temperature on Strut Forces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

81

DegreeofRestraint
(CIRIA,1996)

B=StiffClayC=GranularSoilsD=MixedSoils
ULSDesign&StrutForces 82

WongKaiSin

41

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

DegreeofRestraint
(CIRIA,1996)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

83

TemperatureEffecton StrutForces
(Battenetal.,1996)

ULSDesign&StrutForces

84

WongKaiSin

42

November2009

ULSDesign&StrutForces

TemperatureEffecton StrutForces
(Battenetal.,1996)

Tubularsteelprops

ULSDesign&StrutForces

85

OtherFactors AffectingStrut Forces

ULSDesign&StrutForces

86

WongKaiSin

43

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

MajorDesignConsiderationsinDeepExcavations

Totalcollapse Overallstability Upliftorblowoutfailure U lift bl t f il Piping&quickcondition Basalheave Toestability Struttingsystemfailure


FiniteElementAnalysis

Excessivemovements Walldeflections Wall deflections Groundsettlement Effectonadjacent structures


NeedFiniteElementAnalysis!
1

WhatdoyougetfromFiniteElementAnalysis?

Strutforces Wallbendingmoment&shearforces Walldeflections Groundsettlement Tunneldisplacements Factorofsafety


FiniteElementAnalysis 2

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

DeformationAnalysisusingFiniteElementPrograms

1-D Programs Rido Wallap FREW

2-D Programs Plaxis Sage Crisp Sigma/W Flac

3-D Programs Plaxis 3D Flac 3D ZSOIL GEOFEA ABAQUS MidasGTS-3D MidasGTS 3D

Which program should we use?


FiniteElementAnalysis 3

MethodofAnalysis
Plaxisoffersthefollowingchoicesforanalysisofshortterm performanceofTERSinclay: A. MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c ,undrained B. B C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c MohrCoulomb: effective stress cu u,undrained undrained MohrCoulomb:totalstress,cu u,nonporous,undrained MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c ,consolidation MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,cu u,consolidation SoftClay:effectivestress,c ,undrained SoftClay:effectivestress,c ,consolidation Mod.CamClay:effectivestress,c ,undrained y , , Mod.CamClay:effectivestress,c ,consolidation AdvancedHardening:effectivestress,c ,undrained AdvancedHardening:effectivestress,c ,consolidation

Whichoneshouldweuse?
FiniteElementAnalysis 4

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

Blessings&cursesofcommercialsoftware
Blessings: Userfriendly User friendly Generatesoutputwithbeautifulplots Givesuserasenseofaccomplishment Curses: Sometimesitabortswithoutsuggestingthe nextcourseofaction t f ti Sometimesitproducespuzzlingresults

FiniteElementAnalysis

Geotechnical problem

User

Mustdefinetheproblem thewaytheprogramwill understand

Faithfulbutnottoo intelligent
FiniteElementAnalysis 6

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

Advice to Users
1. Attendtrainingcourse! y p 2. Studythemanualanddothetutorialproblems. 3. Donotassumeitwillworkthewayyouthink. 4. Whenindoubt,deviseasimpleproblemandtestout howtheprogramworks. 5. Checkinput mesh,designparameters 6. Studyoutput: Isthemodeofdeformationcorrect? Arethemagnitudesreasonable?
FiniteElementAnalysis 7

2DFiniteElementMethod

FiniteElementAnalysis

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

FEModelingofanExcavation

Useofhalfmeshbecauseofsymmetry
FiniteElementAnalysis 9

HalfmeshorFullmesh?

HalfMesh
FiniteElementAnalysis

FullMesh
10

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

NotesonMeshGenerationforFEA
1.Setleftandrightboundariesfarawayfromareaofinterest.

2.Useafinemesh. 3.Includeonlythekeyelements.Excludethedetails. 4.Simplifythesoilprofile. 5.Setproperdrainageboundariesinconsolidationanalysis. 5 S d i b d i i lid i l i 6.Includepilesonlywhereappropriate.

FiniteElementAnalysis

11

EffectofMeshFinenessonWallDeflection

FiniteElementAnalysis

12

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

Whattypeofanalysisshouldweconduct? TotalStress EffectiveStress ff Undrained Drained Consolidation

Itdependsonthepermeabilityofsoiland durationofconstruction.
FiniteElementAnalysis 13

Effectofpermeabilityonwalldeflection

FiniteElementAnalysis

14

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

Effectofpermeabilityongroundsettlement

FiniteElementAnalysis

15

Isitimportanttoconductconsolidationanalysisfordeep excavationinclay?

FiniteElementAnalysis

16

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

CoefficientofPermeabilityk
k (m/s)

Clean gravels

Clean sands

Very fine sands

Silts & clayey sand Transition

Clays

Drained

Undrained

FiniteElementAnalysis

17

1D(BeamnSpring)AnalysisbyFiniteElementMethod

WALLAP RIDO FREW REWARD

FiniteElementAnalysis

18

WongKaiSin

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

ParametersfortheBeamandSpringModel

Kh = ??? cu =???c

FiniteElementAnalysis

19

Ka &Kp

FiniteElementAnalysis

20

WongKaiSin

10

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

CalibrationofSoilModulususing1Dand2DPrograms
EXCAV97 2Dcontinuum HyperbolicModel

RIDO:1D BeamandSpring

Ks /cu =???
FiniteElementAnalysis

Ei /cu =???
21

ComparisonofResults Rochor Complex

FiniteElementAnalysis

22

WongKaiSin

11

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

ComparisonofResults LavenderStation

FiniteElementAnalysis

23

ComparisonofResults SyedAlwiCondo

FiniteElementAnalysis

24

WongKaiSin

12

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

FiniteElementAnalysis

25

LimitationsofBeamandSpringMethod
1. Itignoredtheeffectofwidthonwall deflection. 2.Itignoredtheeffectofclay thicknessonwalldeflection.

FiniteElementAnalysis

26

WongKaiSin

13

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

LimitationsofBeamandSpringMethod
1. Itignoredtheeffectofwidthon strutforce. 2.Itignoredtheeffectofclay thicknessonstrutforce.

FiniteElementAnalysis

27

IsEu/cu=200applicabletoallsoilmodelsandprograms?
MOE Building
WALLAP, Mohr Coulomb, Eu/ cu SAGE CRISP Mohr Co lomb Eu/cu CRISP, Coulomb, SAGE CRISP, Hyperbolic, Ei/cu EXCAV97, Hyperbolic, Ei/cu 250 100 300 200 Rochor Complex 250 150 300 200 Syed Alwi Project 300 300 300 200 Lavender Station 300 500 300 200

FiniteElementAnalysis

28

WongKaiSin

14

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

MajorShortcomingsof2DAnalysis

Is2Danalysis y appropriate?

Isappropriateto modelthepilesas plates?


FiniteElementAnalysis 29

I1

Is2DAnalysisappropriateat I1,I2andI3?
I5 I4 I3 (AfterOuetal.,1996) I2

FiniteElementAnalysis

30

WongKaiSin

15

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

3DEffectinBraced Excavation
(AfterOuetal.,1996) I5 I4 I3

I1

I2

(I4&I5) FiniteElementAnalysis 31

Whichsectionisclosertoplanestraincondition?
A
L=100m B=100m

B
L=40m B=20m

A PSR=0.91

B PSR=0.90

H,max (3D) PlaneStrainRatio,PSR= H,max(2D)


FiniteElementAnalysis 32

WongKaiSin

16

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

PSR=0.60

PSR=0.83

PSR=0.91

B=L=40m B=L=60m B=L=100m

PSR 0.60 PSR =0.60


B=40m L=40m

PSR=0.50
B=40m L=60m

PSR=0.42
B=40m L=100m

FiniteElementAnalysis

33

ReductionFactorforH,max dueto3DEffect
(DevelopedbasedondatafromOuetal.,1996)
1 0. 9 0. 0 8 0. 7 PSR 0. 6 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0 0
FiniteElementAnalysis

B=20m

B=40m B=60m B=80m B=100m B

20

40

60 L (m)

80

100

120
34

WongKaiSin

17

November2009

FiniteElementAnalysis

ReductionFactorforH,max dueto3DEffect
(DevelopedbasedondatafromOuetal.,1996)
1. 2

B=80m B=100m

B=60m

B=40m

B=20m

0. 8

PSR

0. 6

L B

0. 4

0. 2

0 0
FiniteElementAnalysis

0. 5

1. 5

2. 5

3. 5
35

L/B

FiniteElementAnalysis

36

WongKaiSin

18

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen