Ge0dude
Geotechnical
- Feb 26, 2015
- 3
The structural engineer has utilised the stiffness matrix from Repite to model the pile group. There were a few concerns the structural engineer had.
1. Only a axial load was applied in the repute model, however a coefficient for rotation in the thetaZ axis was positive. Why would there be a rotation in this axis, when only an axial load has been applied.
2. It was queried if the pile analysis was normalised or was a model factor used? Could someone enlighten me on what that means.
3. When applying the stiffness matrix in their LUSAS model at the top of pile, there was a difference in pile settlements. It was higher at the top of pile and smaller at the bottom. Geotechnical speaking this is expected, however I'm unsure on the ins and outs of LUSAS, therefore I'm confused how these settlement can differ if a nodal spring has been applied at the top. Is this due to the elastic shortening of the pile?
Thanks in advanced.
1. Only a axial load was applied in the repute model, however a coefficient for rotation in the thetaZ axis was positive. Why would there be a rotation in this axis, when only an axial load has been applied.
2. It was queried if the pile analysis was normalised or was a model factor used? Could someone enlighten me on what that means.
3. When applying the stiffness matrix in their LUSAS model at the top of pile, there was a difference in pile settlements. It was higher at the top of pile and smaller at the bottom. Geotechnical speaking this is expected, however I'm unsure on the ins and outs of LUSAS, therefore I'm confused how these settlement can differ if a nodal spring has been applied at the top. Is this due to the elastic shortening of the pile?
Thanks in advanced.
