This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Prof Harry Tan Jan 2011 Jan 2011
• • • • • 2D Axi symmetric Pile Model 2D Axi‐symmetric Pile Model Problem Definition Parameters Input 2D FEM 2 Parametric Studies Conclusions
2D Axi symmetric Pile Model 2D Axi‐symmetric Pile Model Load Interface for soil‐slip Solid concrete of E=30 GPa for pile p Dummy paper beam to get axial force in pile easily. f i il il EA and EI= 1e‐6 times of pile EA and p y EI respectively 3 .
Problem Definition Problem Definition Reclaimed Fill cause soil long‐term settlements GWT at ground surface Soft Clay consolidates slowly over very long time (like Singapore Marine Clay) g p y) Pile socketed in non‐settling Dense hard soil (like OA) 4 .
565m so that pile cross‐section area = 1m2 for convenience to get load in kPa same as in kN in Plaxis plot of Load vs movement of pile 5 .0 • Pile is elastic with E=30 GPa • Dummy pile is paper plate with EA=1E‐6 times of real pile ith EA 1E 6 times of real pile • Pile in model is L=20m with 5m socket into Dense soil Pile in model is L 20m with 5m socket into Dense soil • Pile radius=0.Plaxis Input R_inter = 1.
1 (assume coating is and Soft Clay from 1 0 to 0 1 (assume coating is 90% effective as observed in real projects) 6 .0 to 0.Parametric Studies • Impact of Soil Settlements on Pile load vs movement response movement response – Produce different ground settlements by fictitious values of weight of 3m fill above soft clay values of weight of 3m fill above soft clay – Vary ground settlements from 0 mm to 200 mm • Impact of Bitumen Coated pile Impact of Bitumen Coated pile – Simulate bitumen coat by reducing R_inter in Fill and Soft Clay from 1.
Impact of Soil Settlements Pile installed and simulate drained consolidation So=215 mm Fill Soil Reclaimed land Fill Wt [kN/m3] 10 12 15 20 30 So [mm] 0 22 54 108 215 So is ground surface So is gro nd s rface settlement due to reclaimed fill loading after full consolidation is completed (Drained) 7 .
Load Test Simulation Load Test Simulation • Pile installed with reclaimed land (Drained) • Load Tests (UnDrained) 8 .
and larger pile settlements 9 .Load Tests Results Pile movement [mm] 10 30 50 2000 4000 6000 LOAD [kN] • NSF do not affect Ultimate Pile Resistance (about 6500 kN in above cases) • Soil settlements (So) produce drag‐loads (NSF) on piles • Larger So showed softer pile response.
Model Pile in long‐term Working Load Condition P=2000 kN •Install Pile before Reclaim Land (Drained) •Load Pile to WL = 2000 or 4500 kN (Drained) •Switch on Reclaim Fill (Drained ie assume full soil consolidation is •Switch on Reclaim Fill (Drained ie assume full soil consolidation is completed) 10 .
Reclaim land with Drained Analysis (full consolidation) 11 .Compare piles at various So (P=2000 kN) So 0 So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So 215mm So=215mm • At P=2000 kN.
0m • At P 2000 kN Neutral Plane NP is deeper as So increases At P=2000 kN.99 mm Pile move 4.Compare piles at various So (P=2000 kN) So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So=215mm Pile move 3.55 mm NP at 12.86 mm Pile move 8.5m NP at 15m NP at 15. NP is deeper as So increases 12 . Neutral Plane.
NP is deeper as So increases S i • Smaller So produces large transition zone (small toe movement) • Larger So produces small transition zone (large toe movement) 13 .Compare piles at various So (P=2000 kN) So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So=215mm Large transition zone from Nsf to Psf NP at 12.0m • A P 2000 kN NP i d At P=2000 kN.5m NP at 15m Small transition zone from Nsf to Psf NP at 15.
Drag load Pnsf increases as So increases At P=2000 kN.99 mm Pil 3 99 P=2000 kN So=22mm l Pile move 4.Compare piles at various So (P=2000 kN) So=0mm Pile move 3.55 mm P=2000 kN P=2000 kN Large transition zone from Nsf to Psf NP at 12.5m Pnsf=0 kN Pnsf=430 kN Pt=520 kN Pt=602 kN Small transition zone from Nsf to Psf from Nsf to Psf NP at 15 m Pnsf=1340 kN Pt=856 kN • At P=2000 kN. increases as So increases 14 . Drag‐load Pnsf increases as So increases • Position of NP is deeper as So increases • End bearing resistance Pt.86 mm So=215mm Pile move 8.
Reclaim land with Drained Analysis (full consolidation) 15 .Compare piles at various So (P=4500 kN) So 0 So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So 215mm So=215mm • At P=4500 kN.
5m NP at 15m • At P=4500 kN.5m NP at 10.5m NP at 7. p • Compare slides #12 and #16. NP is deeper as So increases . for same So. and will produce larger vertical movement of piles 16 .Compare piles at various So (P=4500 kN) So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So=215mm Pile move 10mm Pile move 14mm Pile move 77mm NP at 7. larger load P means higher NP.
5m Large transition zone from Nsf to Psf NP at 10.Compare piles at various So (P=4500 kN) So=0mm So 22mm So=22mm So=215mm NP at 7. NP is deeper as So increases • Smaller So produces large transition zone (small toe movements) • Larger So produces small transition zone (large toe movements) 17 .5m Small transition t iti zone from Nsf to Psf NP at 15m • At P 4500 kN NP is deeper as So increases At P=4500 kN.
Drag load Pnsf increases as So increases At P=4500 kN.Compare piles at various So (P=4500 kN) So=0mm Pile move 10mm Pil 10 So=22mm Pile move 14mm Pil 14 P=4500 kN So=215mm Pile move 77mm Pile move 77mm P=4500 kN P=4500 kN NP at 7.5m to Psf Pnsf=990 kN Small S ll transition zone from Nsf to Psf Pf Pt=946 kN Pt=1132 kN Pt=1786 kN • At P=4500 kN. Drag‐load Pnsf increases as So increases • Position of NP is deeper as So increases • End bearing resistance increases as So increases 18 .5m Pnsf=250 kN Pnsf=0 kN Large transition zone from Nsf NP at 10.
as P increases from 2000 to 4500 kN: NP rises from 12.Compare piles at So=22 mm Pile move 4.5m level • NP rises from 12 5m to 7 5m level • Drag‐load.86 mm Pile move 14mm P=4500 kN P=4500 kN P=2000 kN NP at 7.5m Pnsf=430 kN Pt=602 kN Pt 602 kN • For same So=22 mm.5m to 7. Pnsf reduces from 430 to 250 kN •End bearing resistance Pt increases from 602 to 1132 kN 19 Pnsf=250 kN Pt 1132 kN Pt=1132 kN .5m NP at 12.
55 mm P=2000 kN P=4500 kN Pile move 77mm P=4500 kN NP at 10.5m NP at 15.0m Pnsf=1340 kN Pt=856 kN Pt=1786 kN Pnsf=990 kN • For same So=215 mm.5m level • NP rises from 15 0m to 10 5m level • Drag‐load.Compare piles at So=215 mm Pile move 8.0m to 10. Pnsf reduces from 1340 to 990 kN • End bearing resistance Pt increases from 856 to 1786 kN 20 . as P increases from 2000 to 4500 kN: NP rises from 15.
so the NP is not readily obtained from the force vs load equilibrium plots.5m NP at 15. It is quite likely that NP is at interface between soft 21 clay and stiff soil layers in this instance .0m Pnsf=1340 kN Pt=856 kN • NP can be determined by intersection of resistance vs loading plots at P=4500 kN when skin friction (fs) along pile is fully mobilized • At P=2000 kN.Unified Design at So=215 mm P=2000 kN P=4500 kN Pult=6400 kN Pult=6400 kN Ultimate pile load test load test NP at 10. the fs below NP is not yet fully mobilized.
1 in Fill and p y g Soft clay soils • Install pile first and simulate full consolidation of reclaimed fill to produce various ground surface settlements of So from 0 t d i d f ttl t fS f 0 mm to 215 mm (Drained analysis) • Simulate top‐down load test of bitumen coated piles until p p failure is reached 22 .Bitumen Coated Pile Bitumen Coated Pile • Effects is produced by choosing R_inter to be 0.
Results of load tests on bitumen coated piles Pile movement [mm] Pil t[ ] 10 30 50 2000 4000 6000 LOAD [kN] • Coating reduces total resistance of pile from 6500 kN to 5300 kN g p • But the external ground settlements influence on pile movement is almost insignificant compared to uncoated pile 23 .
Bitumen piles at P=4500 kN So=22 mm So=22 mm So=215 mm So 215 mm Pnsf = 170 kN Pnsf = 250 kN • NP at 15m depth on top of dense stable OA d h fd bl O • Small drag‐loads in the piles (Pnsf = 170 to 250 kN) • Both axial force plots are nearly identical 24 .
larger soil settlements (So) results in deeper NP. smaller drag‐load (Pnsf). larger soil settlements (So) results For the same top load (P). larger top load (P) results in shallower NP.Conclusions • NSF do not affect the geotechnical capacity of pile • FEM analysis showed agreement with Unified Pile design principles and concepts principles and concepts • The neutral plane (NP) is defined by the point along the pile where soil and pile settle together • The NP can be identified by the intersection of force curve and the resistance curve by the Unified Pile design method • For the same top load (P). larger drag‐load (Pnsf). and larger mobilized end bearing (Pt) 25 . and larger mobilized end bearing (Pt) • For the same soil settlement (So) larger top load (P) results in For the same soil settlement (So).
Coating of pile is a good alternative to increasing pile length g for NSF design 26 . This increase is larger at larger loads on pile head • The CP4 method of design by capacity is too conservative. but its load vs movement response can be significantly affected by NSF y • The settlement of pile will increase as soil settlement becomes larger.Conclusions • The ultimate axial load capacity of a pile is not influenced by NSF. but it will prevent excessive settlements • Th i i f NSF il d i The criterion for NSF pile design should be settlement and not h ld b l d capacity based analysis • Bitumen coating of pile may lead to improved design ie higher allowable loads or smaller settlements than uncoated pile.
Singapore Case History at PSA Port NP at base of MC 27 .
Singapore Case History at PSA Port NP at base of MC 28 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.