671017.pdf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

00.02 0.04 0. 06

Displacem ent (m)

C 3D 20R -8-60

C 3D 8-2-15

C 3D 8-4-15

C 3D 8-8-15

−0. 02

y(

m)

(a) Grid number being 15 along the pile shaft

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

00.02 0.04 0. 06

Displacem ent (m)

C 3D 20R -8-60

C 3D 8-2-30

C 3D 8-4-30

C 3D 8-8-30

−0. 02

y(

m)

(b) Grid number being 30 along the pile shaft

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

00.02 0.04 0. 06

Displacem ent (m)

C 3D 20R -8-60

C 3D 8-2-60

C 3D 8-4-60

C 3D 8-8-60

−0. 02

y(

m)

(c) Gridnumberbeing60alongthepileshaft

Figure 14: Comparison of horizontal displacements.

3. 2D Analysis of a Sheet Pile Wall

Figure 6shows a sheet pile wall subjected to a load푝=1MPa.
The bottom of the domain and the pile tip are fully restrained
from moving in any direction while both sides of the domain
are restrained in the푥direction, while free in the푦direction.
The length of the pile is the same as that of the above beam,

30 m, and the width is 1 m. We used different mesh partitions

to do the calculation with the rectangular first-order element

(CPE4).

Since there is no analytical solution for this problem, re-

ferring to the above analysis of the cantilever beam, the re-

sults using a grid partition of8×60, the 8-node plane strain

element, reduced integration (CPE8R) were considered as