几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


回复
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-15, 12:30 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 piled bases - pile loads = forces 9springs-pinned0

piled bases - pile loads + forces (springs-pinned)
as has been discussed many times a lot of people model piles as springs in order to spread load as would truly happen. but what restraints do you use in your model to model moments etc? the spring model or one based on rigid (pinned) supports?
we usually assume the interface of pile cap and piles is pinned. by either pin or spring, you are going to collect a set of vertical and horizontal loads for use in the design of piles. the reason to use spring model is to study the settlement and lateral displacement to adjust the number of piles and size of pile caps.
once the pile configuration is set, you can design the cap use the method for spread footings.
dont think that is what i asked with repect. i am aware of load evaluation for pile design. i am asking, (just to clear up) in a fea model do you continue to use your spring analysis in designing the slab or use a pinned condition. a pinned condidition for pile loads will result in inaccurate vastly increased pile loads particarly if concentrated loads are applied, the effect is less pronounced in udl's.
hope this clears up any confusion on my query.
if the slab is cast integrally with the pile and pile cap, then you have to be consistent in using one type of support - pin or spring.
i would be interested to see how others respond here. my initial thought is to try and keep your model as consistant all the way through the analysis, so if springs are modelled to analyse the piles, springs should also be modelled when determining slab moments over.
an aside note, my pile design approach has been to model the foundations as pinned. the reactions that are returned by my analysis are then linked into a seperate pile design program that works on the simple broms method for pile analysis.
due to the amazing speed and capability of modern day pc & software, i personally prefer to spend some time to put my foundation on a 3d model with spring supports for a test. it, the results, provides better feel of the entire sub system, and understanding of load path and distribution. the most beautiful thing is we gain better control in horizontal movements, if it is of great concerns.
for smaller project with less concern of foundation movement, i too, use pin supports to simplify the design. actually, i don't think there exists the correct/incorrect way to model/design the foundation system, as long as you have set the loads properly, and taking into account of the subgrade conditions, the system tends to balance itsself, and reach equirbrium ultimately.
finally, the choice always depends....
but what if the two models have differing slab moments that will effect the design?
if i have time to fool around computer model, i tend to trust the spring model better, because it provides more information, such as foundation settlement and deformation of structures, from which, i can exert certain control by detailing techniques.
the pin model, by neglecting the relative movement, in my opinion, is less accurate. however, it has been done over the years by manys, including me. but in order to ensure integrity/longitivity of the foundation system, understanding on behavior of the soil-structural interface, and sound engineering judgement are indispensable.
if you have time to play both, be conservative (but not overly), envelop the maximum if possible. otherwise, select one method based on the nature of the project, budget and any other constraints, then be consistant throughtout. your slab will survive if all load case are considered and applied properly. also important is specify the subgrade preparation properly.
if the pile configuration is simple such as 2 lines of piles and a moment exerting forces on these, then i would expect traditional rigid hand calculations to give accurate results.
if it is more complicated, e.g. odd layout, multiple spans e.t.c. then i would expect a full computer analysis would be more accurate.
i would only bother with springs in the latter case.
csd is right on the point.
yes this is a more complicated base than a simple 2 line case which agreed i would use hand calcs for. i am actually trying to prove an existing base for additional load. i do not have the original calcs. there are over 150 piles in this structure so you understand the computer model. i have proved the pile capacities using spring application. if i model as pinned however and compare the moments in the spans are a lot greater. i suppose as long as my spring coefficent is valid then the forces will distribute as given in spring. just a bit concerned on the reasons the pinned are much greater in some locations.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
回复


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
pile design load factors huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-15 12:24 PM
lateral loads on pile groups huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 09:45 AM
h pile huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 03:39 PM
fea on conrete slab - use real loads or factored loads huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 11:24 AM
expected pile settlemen huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 09:13 AM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 04:25 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多