AXIAL PULL-OUT TEST OF TWO PILES IN CLAY COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND TESTED H-PILE AND PIPE PILE CAPACITY by Marlin D, Smith A project submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University December 2009BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a project submitted by Marlin D, Smith This project has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. Date ~ Kyle M. Rollins, Chair Date Travis M. Gerber fig [oop _Mm—T- Dat Norman £7 Joi Accepted for the E. James Nelson, Department Graduate CoordinatorABSTRACT AXIAL PULL-OUT TEST OF TWO PILES IN CLAY COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND TESTED H-PILE AND PIPE PILE CAPACITY ‘Marlin D, Smith, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Master of Science Two test piles were driven in saturated clay soil. One pile was a closed end steel pipe pile that was later filled with reinforced concrete and the other a steel H-pile. The piles were allowed to sit for 4 months to allow for reconsolidation of the soil. A geotechnical analysis was performed to obtain strength parameters for estimating pile axial capacity. They were then loaded axially with a negative (pull-out) force while monitored for deflection with thin-wire strain gauges.‘They were then tested laterally by loading to a target deflection and maintaining the deflection while monitoring the load. A lateral load model was created using Ensoft LPILE and soit parameters obtained from the axial load tests. The results of the testing are compared with the model and estimate to determine if the soil gained strength during pile installation. This paper describes the test and the analysis.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I'd like to thank my wife Jennifer. She offered sound advice when I pondered returning to school and then gave her support when I decided to. When returning to school and changing careers afier many years, the support and patience of professors are greatly appreciated. I'd like to thank Dr. Norman L. Jones and Dr. Travis M, Gerber for their encouragement, I'd like to thank Dr. Kyle M, Rollins in particular for his patience and support during the writing of this document.LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF EQUATIONS. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2. Objective of Research. 2 Literature Review... 2.1 Prediction of Pile Capacity (Bengt H. Fellenius, M. AS 2.2, Results of Foundation Engineering Congress Pile Load Tests (Richard J. Finno, M. ASCE, Tanguy Cosmao, and Brett Gitskin, A.M. ASCE) 2.3. Analysis of Load Tests on Instrumented Stee] Test Piles in Compressible Silty Soil (M. Boozuk, G. H. Keenan, and P. E. Pheeney) 2.4. Driven piles in clay — the effects of installation and subsequent consolidation (M. F. Randolph, J. P. Carter, and C. P. Wroth in Geotechnique 29, No. 4, pgs, 361-393) 3 Geotechnical Site Characterization 3.1 Geotechnical Site Conditions. 4 Axial Load Testing and Interpretation of Results. 4.3. Instrumentation 4.4 Procedure 4.5 The Test. 4.6 Results... xj4.7 Interpretation of Results ss 48 Summary 5 Lateral Load Test... 5.1 Test Pile Properties... 5.2 Test Layout, Instrumentation and Procedure .. 5.3 Pipe Pile Lateral Load Test Results. 5.4 H-Pile Lateral Load Test Results... 5.5 Pipe and H-Pile Lateral Test Results; Compari 5.6 SUMMAFY svn 6 LePile Analysis sass 6.1 Introduction ..... 6.2. LPILE Analysis of the Pipe Pile rm 6.3 LPILE Analysis of the H-pile ..... 6.4. Discussion of result sence SB 7 Conclusion References... Appendix A: CPT Resutts Appendix B: Pile Characteristics 60 Appendix C: Geotechnical Bore Log. o reverennne OD Appendix D: Sample Pipe Pile Axial Load Data and Sample Calculations... Appendix E: Sample H-Pile Axial Load Data and Sample Calculations. Appendix F: Sample Pipe Pile Lateral Load Data and Sample Calculations Appendix G: Sample H-Pile Lateral Load Data and Sample Calculations... xiiAppendix H: Sample Euivalent Width Cateulation Appendix I: LPILE Output File for Pipe Pile.. Appendix J: LPILE Output File for H-Pile. ‘Appendix K: Pipe Pile Extrapolated Loads vs. LPELE Analysis xiiiLIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Foundation Engineering Congress Test Result ‘Table 2-2 Bozozuk, Keenan, and Pheeney Soil Properties... Table 3-] Summary of Geotechnical Test Data.. ‘Table 4-1 Predicted and Tested Pile Capacities.. ‘Table 4-2 Results of Three Methods for Determining Tested Pile Capacities ‘Table 4-3 H-pile Prediction Using Reconsolidated Clay Strength nnn xivLIST OF FIGURES. Figure 2-1 Fellenius Distribution of Effective Stress and Shaft Resistance....scsssessnernsnee 8 Figure 3-1( a) Borehole Log (b) Atterberg limits and Moisture Content (¢) §y:sessenueenone 21 Figure 3-2 Soil Profile, Cone Tipe Resistance, Friction Ratio, and Pore Pressure. Figure 3-3 Soil Profile, All Cone Penetration Test Results and CPT Sounding . Figure 3-4 Soil Profile, Cone Tip Resistance, and Shear Wave Velocity vs. Depth... 24 Figure 4-1 Pile Test Layout... eee 25 Figure 4-2 Step Loading of the Piles... a ee} Figure 4-3 Load Deflection Curves for Axial Pile Tests... Figure 4-4 Three Methods to Determine Tested Pile Capacity... Figure 5-1 Cross-section of Single Pipe Pile : 36 Figure 5-2 Photograph of the Lateral Load Test on the Single Pipe Pile. 38 Figure 5-3 Pipe Pile Head Load vs. Deflection 39 Figure 5-4 Pipe Pile: Peak Pile Head Load vs. Deflection .....nsnnnn 41 Figure 5-5 Pipe Pile: Peak Pile Head Load vs. Head Rotation snne A] Figure 5-6 Pipe Pile Deflection vs. Depth Curves at Several Depths... Figure 5-7 H-Pile Head Load vs. Deflection... Figure 5-8 Lateral Load Virgin Curves Figure 5-9 Load vs. Maintianed Pile Head Defection after 1.5 min, 45 49 Figure 6-1 First LPILE Model of H-Pile Compared with Lateral Load Virgin Figure 6-2 Virgin Curves from Lateral Tests with LPILE Models Figure 6-3 LPILE Models shown with 1.5 Minute Curves from Lateral Load Te8ts...:..0s:e 51 xvLIST OF EQUATIONS ( Bquation 2-1. ; Equation 2-2... 7 Equation 2-3. ( Equation 3-1... 7 Bguation 5-1 ( Equation 6-1... ; ( ‘ ( q t ( r fl ‘ t i f ¢ { ‘ ‘ ‘ xvi1 Introduction 1.1 Background “The concept of a pile for construction is credited to a Neolithic tribe called the "Swiss Take Dwellers™ who Hived in what is now Switzerland about 6,000 years ago” Evidence of timber piles have been found in ancient Babylon and ancient Rome where the Romans constructed the first bridge over the Tiber River. In Venice timber piles driven around 600 AD have survived to the present time. But timber piles decay if the conditions provide the right amounts of moisture and oxygen, This decay and the increase in design loads have made timber piles impractical for many applications. Improved materials and driving methods have increased the use of piles as a choice in deep foundations. Piles of steel, reinforce concrete, or a combination of both is driven up to depths of 200 feet and support design axial loads up to 1000 kips. Some of the most common piles are open ended steel pipe piles, close ended steel pipe piles, concrete filled pipe piles, reinforced conerete piles, tapered piles and H-piles. Pile capacity is dependent upon the bearing capacity of the soil structure that the pile is installed in. Indeed, to determine pile capacity, the makeup, characteristics, and strength of individual soil layers are carefully analyzed and correlated with known similar soil characteristics to determine the beating capacity of each layer and so the total structure, The installation method also affects the bearing capacity of the pile. Driving a pile in clay for instance increases the pore pressures in the clay and as the pore pressures dissipate, the clay ' Timber Piling Couneit Website found at htip:/wwwstimberpilingcouneil.orgfhistory.btml 1reconsolidates and gains strength. This reconsolidation occurs up to one pile diameter from the surface of the pile.” Improved methods of testing the soil both as a geotechnical survey and during the installation and loading of piles has given further understanding of the behavior of soils and their oad bearing capacity as well as provides better information for modeling. Improved modeling in ‘um, gives the designer and technician better geotechnical analysis, 1.2. Objective of Research Fall scale testing of piles gives actual results. Testing piles with conditions as close to normal as possible helps to understand the mechanisms for load bearing by the pile and surrounding soil. But full scale testing is cost prohibitive, so when the opportunity to test piles arises, whether for a construction project or simply for the research, any knowledge gained adds to the collective effort and experience of geotechnical exploration and pile research, ‘There has been evidence of larger than predicted capacities of piles driven in cohesive soils. There is also evidence of larger capacities in pipe piles than in H-piles of similar size and weight driven in cohesive soils. One theory is that clay is disturbed during the installation process and the driving process increases pore pressures in clay. With time the pore pressures return to normal and the clay reconsolidates. With reconsolidation the clayey soil gains strength. ‘The strengthening effects of the disturbance/reconsolidation appear to be greater in the pipe piles, s. Tests have been made to with greater displacement than with low displacement H- 2ccorge Geottrey Meyerho, “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundstion” in Journal ofthe Geotecinical Fagineerng Division, Proceedings ofthe American Society of Civil Engines, Vol. 102, No. GT3, March 1976, pg. 212determine the increase in axial capacity of the pile and the results of these tests have been correlated and verified by further testing. However, the results of axial testing can be correlated with the results from lateral testing to better understand and quantify the increase in capacity. During full scale testing of groups of piles the opportunity came to test uplift and lateral loading of two individual piles driven in clay. A pullout test and a lateral load test were performed on the two driven piles, one, a concrete filled pipe pile and the other, an FFpile. Several comparisons were made of the test results ‘The object of this paper is to determine first, any differences between pile capacity of pile types, second, any differences between predicted and measured pile capacities, and finally, if the differences are related and if they can be explained,2 Literature Review 21 Prediction of Pile Capacity (Bengt H. Felleni » M. ASCE) The author describes the effective stress approach to predict the capacity of two driven piles. He begins with a discussion on prediction by stating that, “only rarely are the predictions compared with measurements of the actual behavior of the foundation.” The academic profession uses scale models to determine the capacity of piles and focuses on “theoretical evaluation of known results,” giving rise to the erroneous use of the word, “calculation”, “determination”, “computation”, and “to calculate”, “to determine”, “to compute”, as synonyms of “prediction”, and “to predict ‘The predictive ability of the profession is a collective effort of individual predictions and is aided yet limited by state of the art soil, pile, and procedural information. Tn this example, the soil investigations include standard penetration testing, split spoon sampling, as well as laboratory classification. Two main soils were found, one a thick layer of sand (23 fect) overlying a thick layer of clay and the phreatic surface was encountered at 15 feet. “Because of the dominant soil being a silty clay, for which in-situ testing data are not quantitatively applicable to the calculation of pile bearing capacity, the SPT-indices and the static cone penetrometer data have only served to assist in the selecti n of parameters for an effective stress approach using beta and N, coefficients to determine the shaft and toe resistances.” ‘The soil density and friction angle were not given for the sand, Both of these are used to predict the pile capacity in sand so using other factors such as soil type, moisture content, andgrain size and distibution, a density of 125 to 130 pounds per cubic foot and a friction angle of 35 to 38 degrees were estimated and used in the calculations. ‘The clay layer was classified as silty clay and a density of 120 pounds per cubic foot was assumed. Using a vane shear test, a shear strength of 0.3 t0 0.4 tons per square foot was determined. A drained direct shear test and a triaxial test were both performed on a sample from a depth of 40 feet. The direct shear test showed a ratio of shear strength lo vertical stress of 0.4 while the triaxial test showed the ratio to be 0.3. ‘One of the driven piles was a closed end steel pipe pile and the other was an H-pile. The pipe pile was 18 inches in diameter with 3/8 inch walls. A C8-18.5 channel was welded along the length to protect telltale gauges. The toe plate was 19 inches in diameter. The H-pile was a 14HP73 with owo C8-18.5 channels to protect the telltales. Both had wire strain gauges at the toe and at 10, 23, and 36 feet, and both were driven to a depth of 50 feet. Data were collected during driving. ‘More information was collected than is normally used in estimating pile capacity yet too limited for a detailed pile analysis. The author used the effective stress method for predicting the pile capacity of both piles where the shaft resistance and toe resistance are functions of the effective overburden stress of the soil layers. The portion of the pile capacity determined from shaft resistance is calculated by using a beta coefficient while the portion of toe resistance included is determined by using an N coefficient. Both of these are chosen ftom the known conditions and engineering judgment. ‘The soil layers were mentioned previously and consisted of a 23 feet thick sand layer overlaying a silty clay. The phreatic water surface was at a depth of 15 feet. The effective overburden stress was determined as a function of the soil densities and the pore water pressure. 6‘The pore pressure was assumed to be hydrostatically distributed. As mentioned previously, the soil densities were assumed yet the author stated, “The consequence of the potential errors in the density values is smal! compared to the consequence of an error in the assumption of the pore pressure distribution. Both these errors are less important than errors in the assumed beta and toe coefficients” For the sand layer, the author chose a beta coefficient of 0.25 above the water table and 0.45 below and gave no other explanation than mentioning the pre-augering of the pipe pile Deing similar to the low displacement H-pile, He calls this a “guestimate”. The beta coefficient for the clay layer should be between 0.3 and 0.4. The direct shear test supported the higher value of 0.4 but the author chose # lower value of 0.35 by stating, “The slightly lower value chosen is intended to account for some pore pressure build-up and the effect of strain softening when Toading the pile.” ‘The author compared two approaches to determine the toe resistance. The first was based on his experience with silty clay to assign a toe coefficient (N)) of 1 10 2. He chose the average of 1.5 and given the effective overburden stress at the 50 foot depth to be 2 tons per square foot, the: toe resistance was estimated to be 3 tons per square foot. The second approach to determine a toe resistance was the rule of thumb of using 9 times the undrained shear strength. The undrained shear strength was determined to be slightly higher than 3 tons per square foot so the estimated toe resistance using this method was about 3 tons per square foot or about the same as before. The shaft resistance of both piles was essentially the same. The pipe pile bad a circumference of 4.71 feet while the H-pile had a circumference of 4.67 feet. There was a difference in the size of the bearing surface for toe resistance between the two piles, Since the end of the H-pile is considered to he plugged after driving, the surface area of the end was J.4 7square feet and the end of the pipe pile was 2.0 square feet. The difference in tip resistance from the pipe pile to the H-pile was small compared to the large capacity developed from shaft resistance. SSTmess ANO SHEAR (te) Figure 2-1 Fellenius Distribution of Bffeetive Stress and Shaft Resistance Figure 2-1 is 2 recreation of FIG. 1 which shows the estimated side friction or shaft resistance and the effective overburden stress of the soil vs. the depth. Using the methods described above, both the pipe pile and the H-pile are estimated to exhibit the same amount of skin friction. Any difference between the estimated capacity of each pile would be in the bearing, of the toe. Both piles have an estimated capacity of 100 tons.2.2 Results of Foundation Engineering Congress Pile Load Tests (Richard J. Finno, M. ASCE, Tanguy Cosmao, and Brett Gitskin, A.M. ASCE) Four fifty-foot piles installed through twenty-three feet of dense sand overlying a medium stiff clay were tested by axial loads at two, five, and forty three weeks, Results of the tests on an 18 inch diameter closed end pipe pile, an HP 14x73 H-pile, a drilled pier installed with the shury ‘method, and a drilled pier installed with temporary casing were analyzed in conjunction with the “Foundation Engineering Congress” held at Northwestern University in June 1989. Soil borings were made at the test location and predictions were made for the capacity of each pile. Loading was stepped. An incremental load was applied and held for one hour. ‘The load was then increased incrementally and held for one hour each time until failure occurred. Failure was determined when the increased loed could not Keep up with the deflection in the pile, or the pile failed in plunging failure. Measured axial load pile head settlements, axial load distribution, and unit side resistance were given as well as effects of residual Joading of the three load/unload cycles. Results were compared and a time dependent analysis was made of the results Increased pore pressures around the reaction piles were measured in the clay layer during installation, The increased pore pressures were greatest around the closed end pipe pile. Short term, high pore pressures observed were attributed to construction but dissipated rapidly. Yet significant excess pore pressures remained in the clay and were observed to dissipate over time, While the tests at 2 and 5 weeks reflect these remaining pore pressures, after the 43" week the pressures had becn allowed to dissipate and return fo near preconstruction levels so that the tests give a more accurate test of the long term capacity of the piles. For the driven piles, the maximum axial loads for the 43 week test are about the same, ‘The short term loading of the pipe pile demonstrated an increase in capa 9 ity over time while theH-pile demonstrated little increase over time. Table 2-1 lists the results of the tests. (Table reproduced with existing error), ‘Table 2-1 Foundation Engineering Congress Test Results Maximum Axial Loads (kips) Measured with Load Cell Test Pile Two Weeks Four Weeks Forty-three Weeks HP 14x73 180 194 220 Pipe 140 __180 230 Slurry Pier 259 340 410 Cased Pier ___260 346 400 ‘The increased pore pressure around the pipe pile explains the lower capacity of that pile in the earlier tests. The pipe pile demonstrated the lowest capacity at two and five weeks while exhibiting the highest pore pressures as mentioned earlier. As the pore pressures returned to normal, the capacity of the pipe pile inerease the greatest until it was comparable to the capacity of the other driven pile, Relating (o the time dependent increase in resistance in clay, the paper concludes that it “was apparently related to the dissipation of installation-induced pore pressures.” 2.3 Analysis of Load Tests on Instrumented Steel Test Piles in Compressible Silty Soi (M. Bozozuk, G. H. Keenan, and P. E. Pheeney) ‘A new bridge over the Saint John River at Fredricton, New Brunswick, was to be constructed on compressible silts over dense gravel. The foundation was to be pipe piles penetrating through the silts and into the dense gravel. To obtain design parameters for the bridge foundation, a full scale test was conducted using seven steel piles driven through an eleven meter embankment of granular fill and into layers of silty clay. Two of the piles were end bearing and 10five were friction piles. Two of the friction piles and both of the end bearing piles were tested to failure in both axial compression and pullout. ‘The granular fill was placed in three layers. The first was 3 meters deep and placed in water. Settlement gages and vibrating-wire piezometers were installed in this layer to measure settlement and excess pore pressure. The second layer was 6 meters deep, while the final 2 meters of fill consisted of dredged fill from the river. The density of the first two layers was determined to be 1825 kilometers per cubic meter, while the density of the dredged fill was 1800 kg/m’, ‘The natural soi] consisted of six layers. The granular fill was placed on a layer of soft organic silt, sand, pebbles, and gravel with organic material such as wood mixed in. The next layer was clayey silt with varying water content from 23 to 38 percent, a liquid limit of 29 percent and a placicity index of 9 percent, The wet density was 1840 kg/m’ and the maximum in- situ vane shear strengths were between 0.3 and 0.5 kg/cm”. Table 2-2 gives the properties of the all of the soil layers. ‘Table 2-2 Bozozuk, Keenan, and Pheeney Soil Properties Dain] layer | Wet Densiy | Water —] Laud] Pasty] Shear —] Gay ] Si] Glow below (koim') "| Content | Unit | index | Strength Caunt Fun om) toy Loy” | agen’) (SPT) ‘Organ oa | sit 1880) 5 w 525 | Clayeysit| 160 | 230 | 29 o | osos | aon | % | 19 B5- | Layoted 35 46 | cyeysa| rao | 2aa7 | s¢ | 12 | o609 | asm | % | va Tayered 36 1026 | cayeysit| 140 _| ass | 40 | 20 | oo42 Jem | % | 10 Pet Vary Denise Gravel, San ara Stones ee 4 Beatock NG. wPiles 1 and 2 were end-bearing, pile I was an H pile and pile 2 was a closed end pipe pile. Piles 3 and 4 were friction piles. Pile 3 was a closed-end pipe pile while Pile 4 an HP 304.8 mm by 132 kg/m (12 in. by 89 Ibs per foot) H-pile. These four piles were driven along two lines 3.028 meters by 2.886 meters. Besides the settlement gages and vibrating-wire piezometers installed in the fill, each pile was instrumented with 8 tell tale gages to measure deformation. ‘Two reaction girders were placed over the test piles and anchored at each end to a reinforced concrete pile cap. Hach pile cap was poured over a set of 8 reaction piles. The tests involved both axial compression and axial tension. The girders were placed so that each girder spanned a line containing two of the test piles, one H- pile and one pipe pile. A 500 ton load cell and a 500 ton hydraulic jack provided the load. ‘The piles were loaded incrementally by 10 tons for 1 minute and then the load was held for 9 minutes, and then loaded again by 10 tons. Pore water pressure increased in the soil layers during the installation of the test piles, and then slowly decreased back to normal over time. As the pore pressures decreased, settlement ‘was observed in the fill and axial compression was observed in the test piles. A layer of dredged fill was placed over the test area and the pote water pressure increased (0 nearly the previous high level. With the increased pore pressures, the compression in the test piles decreased and the piles rebounded. Prior to the compression test of piles 3 and 4, the piles were in a state of compression or “prestressed” due to the force of the negative skin friction. This prestressed condition was considered a starting point in the test and the piles remained in this state during the test until the Joading from the test exceeded the skin friction load. Through the remainder of the test, the piles exhibited normal compression to the point of ultimate load or “plunging failure”. For the pipe 2pile this ultimate load was 175 tons and for the H-pile it was 155 tons, When the piles were unloaded they rebounded to within 0.01 inches of their original pre-test height During the axial tension test the friction piles (3 and 4) acted the same. They both reacted similar to the end bearing piles and the curves were much the same as the compression loading curves. The difference was the failure loads in tension were less than the compression loads. The failure tension load for pile 3 was 76 tons and the failure tension load for pile 4 was 66 tons, The author gives the following reason for this difference in failure loads between compression and tension, When the pile is in compression, the vertical stress in the soil increases as does the horizontal normal force which increases the contact pressure between the soil and the pile. Under compression the pile expands radially outward which also increases contact pressure with the soil. The increase in contact pressure is manifest as an increase in skin friction along the pile which increases the axial compressive resistance of the pile. Under tension, the opposite ‘occurs. In tension, the pile stretches and contracts radially. The horizontal stress in the soil also decreases. Both of these combine to reduce the contact pressure between the soil and pile which reduces the skin friction, ‘The author derived an equation for calculating the skin friction using the effective normal soil stress, 0°s, and the coefficient of friction between the pile and the soil, tand’ Po tan 3 Equation 2-1 where: Po = potential skin friction Po= 6's total horizontal effective normal soil pressure acting on the pile, andtan 8'= coefficient of friction between the pile and the soil, where 8° is the angle of ftiction between the soil and the pile. And the total horizontal effective normal soil pressure acting on the pile is: O1= 011+ Ao + Aor Equation 2-2 where o’x1 is the in-situ horizontal effective stress in the soil before the pile is driven, and is related to the vertical effective stress by Ko by: O'n = Kyo'y Equation 2-3 2.4 Driven piles in clay — the effects of installation and subsequent consolidation (M. F. Randolph, J. P. Carter, and C. P. Wroth in Geotechnique 29, No. 4, pgs. 361-393) Historically the capacity of piles driven in clays has been predicted using the undrained shear strength of the soil. ‘This estimate uses an alpha factor which is meant to account for the disturbance of the soil during installation and is based largely on engineering judgment and experience, Recently efforts have been made to determine the capacity by the effective stress state around the pile. The major problem with this is the “lack of knowledge of the effective stress state around the pile” “There is widespread experimental evidence showing that the bearing capacity of a pile driven into clay increases with time after driving”. This increase has been attributed to the consolidation of the clay immediately around the pile as the installation induced excess pore pressures dissipate. When a pile is driven into soil, a volume of soil is displaced which is equal to 14the volume of the pile, At shallow penetrations (up to ten times the diameter of the pile), surface heaving oceurs. At deeper penetrations the displacement occurs radially outward from the pile. ‘As consolidation takes place, the soil immediately around the pile continues to yield, causing it to work harden, The time of consolidation is based on the diameter of the pile and the consolidation ratio of the soil and may take several months, Included in this paper is a look at the past stress history of the soil and, “whatever the initial value of overconsolidation ration (OCR), the soil close to the pile ends up as one dimensionally normally consolidated with the radial stress as the major principal stress.” 15163 Geotechnical Site Characterization 3.1 Geotechnical Site Conditions North of Salt Lake City, 1-215 tums from its north-south direction to one of east-west and the freeway ties back into I-15. Right before the I-15 junction, 1-215 passes under the Redwood Road interchange. In the south-west gore area of the interchange, a pile test pit was set up for Jateral testing of group piles. The opportunity was provided at the site for testing two single piles under both axial and lateral loading. Prior to installing the piles, geotechnical testing was provided by RB&G Engineering, Geotechnical site conditions were evaluated using field and laboratory testing. Field testing included one drilled hole with undisturbed sampling, four cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, and shear wave velocity testing. Laboratory testing included unit weight and moisture content determination, Atterberg limits testing, and undrained shear testing. A generalized soil boring log at the test site is provided in Fig. 3-1, The depth is referenced to the top of the excavation which was 2.5 ft above the top of the pile as shown in the figure. ‘The soil profile consists predominantly of cohesive soils; however, some thin sand layers are located throughout the profile, The cohesive soils typically classify as CL or CH materials with plasticity indices of about 20 as shown in Fig. 3-1(a). In contrast, the soil layer from a depth of 15 to 25 ft consists of interbedded silt (ML) and sand (SM) layers as will be highlighted by the subsequent plots of CPT cone tip resistance. The Fiquid limit, plastic limit and natural moisture content are plotted in Fig. 3-1(b) at each depth where Aterberg limit testing was performed, The water table is at a depth of 1.5 ft. 1r the ground surface suggesting that the ‘The natural water content is Jess than the liquid limit nes soil is overconsolidated, but the water content is greater than the liquid limit for soil specimens from a depth of 5 to 27 feet suggesting that these materials may be sensitive, Below a depth of 30 fect the water content is approximately equal to the liquid limit suggesting that the soils are close to normally consolidated. ‘The undrained shear strength is plotted as a function of depth in Fig. 3-1(¢). Undrained shear strength was measured using a miniature vane shear test or Torvane test on undisturbed samples immediately after they were obtained in the field. In addition, unconfined compression tests were performed on most of the undisturbed samples. Both the Torvane and unconfined compression tests indicate that the undrained shear strength decreases rapidly from the ground surface to a depth of about 6 ft but then tends to increase with depth. This profile is typical of a soil profile with a surface crust that has been overconsolidated by desiccation, However, the undrained shear strength from the unconfined compression tests is typically about 30% lower than that from the Torvane tests. The unconfined compression tests at a depth of 27 and 48 ft appear to have been conducted on soil with sand lenses because the measured strength is, substantially lower than that from the Torvane test and are not likely to be representative of the soil in-situ. The undrained shear strength was also computed from the cone tip resistance using the correlation equation: Equation 3-1 where ge is the cone tip resistance, o is the total vertical stress, and Ny is a variable which was taken to be 15 for this study. The undrained shear strength obtained from Eq. 3-1 is also plowed 18versus depth in Fig, 3-1(c) and the agreement with the strengths obtained from the Torvane and unconfined compression tests is reasonably good. Nevertheless, there is much greater variability and the drained strength in the interbedded sand layers is ignored. A summary of laboratory test results is provided Table 3-1 Four cone penetration tests were performed across the test site and plots of cone tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure are provided as a function of depth in Fig. 3-2. In addition, the interpreted soil profile is also shown, From the ground surface to a depth of about 15 feet the soil profile appears to be relatively consistent with a cone tip resistance of about 6 tsf and a friction ratio of about 1%. However, one thin sand layer is clearly evident between 6 and & ft, The cone tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure plots clearly show the interbedded silt and sand layering in the soil profile between 15 and 27 ft. below the ground surface. Fig. 3-3 provides plots of the cone tip resistance, friction ratio and pore pressure versus depth as a function of depth for all four of the CPT soundings. The measured parameters and layering are generally very consistent for all four sounding which indicates that the lateral pile load tests can be fairly compared from one site to the next. Fig, 3-4 provides a plot of the shear wave velocity as a function of depth obtained from the downhole seismic cone testing. The interpreted soil profile and cone tip resistance are also provided in Fig. 3-4 for reference. The shear wave velocity in the upper 10 ft of the profile is between 300 and 400 fisec which is relatively low and suggests a low shear strength, Between a depths of 10 to 20 ft the velocity increases to about 550 /see. This increase in velocity is likely associated with the interbedded layer which contains significant sand layers, Below 20 ft, the velocity drops to a value of around 500 f/see and remains relatively constant to a depth of 45 ft 19‘Table 3-1 Summary of Geotechnical Test Data Tn-Place Aiterberg Limits Miniature Dry | Natural | Liguid | Plastic | Plasticity| Unconfined | Vane | Unified Soil Depth | Unit | Moisture] Limit | Limit | Index | Compressive | Shear | Classification (ft) | Weight | Content | (LL) | @L) | (PD | Stength | Strength | System Ye ©, (%) | %) | (%) (ivf?) | (Forvane) | Symbol (abiet®) |__ (6) awit?) 125 | ti76 [34.27 [39 18 21 1104 - cL 275 | 1174 | 344 [38 18 20 626 620 CL 5.75_| 104.6 [56.0 | 51 21 30. 384 320 CH as [24 | 415 | 38 18, 20 684 534, cL ws [108 [7441 38 19 19 7A 500 cL 165_| 1266 | 24.2 19 18 a 108i 560, ML 26.15 | 1169 | 35.0 [27 14 13 237 780. CL 33.5 [1246 [261 27 4 13 1306 780 cL 36.75 | 17.1 | 348 | 35 7 18 1381 840 cL 41.75 [112.0 [42.1 46 17 29 1037 520 cL 4 [172 [346 [33 16 17 297 660, cL. 20‘adap snsion qiuans zeoys pourespun Jo 10(d v (9) “Eas Buoye ‘tpdop snsion uoquo9 sovem ferMeU puv saquNT Broqiony Jo 10jd B (q) BO] e]oysI0K (e) [-¢ omNsTy 24 os ; os [a (218 Aan ue » » (70) Av Nv pappodien rl or = o g — e |e Nw ee at fee g premememnovarown 5 +s = oo Pa ep ee ‘secu puss 2 x ote 2 18 (10) AIO NYS AGNYS: ee oa ae 8 | fax ne wo 2 oe 02 B | siete feo ueo1 pur pues 3 fag ad x4 i US HN CW) ES ANS o x¢——a or | seeunusm coy avronvan B oy xe a ‘ xs——2 ‘ seauer pues im tho avi uv NY g a same Bums : oot, roves mo) TO Coot oss 00s 080 08 or ce ° ‘tyors vos. ns inven 1e2ys pauEsPUA (0) woe aimsion,‘1YoUd [los qua SuoTe axis aup Jo JoyUao op JeaU z SuIpunos (_[q>) se) woHENaUEd auoo Woy seamo tndap snszea amnssard azod pue omer wonony ‘eouerstsa: dn att09 Jo stold Z-¢ any 6 os Co hows * ve Go) avo wma a of I 5 wk g |semoms aco) ano nat 3 3 3 2 + =f oc & e sme pag z 2 2 | mooi avonvatsows: = wef nee 2 z 5 3 ae ee oo 8 sonar inoue sue =|" 5 & owns ange ve Acs az od =i. on | soonest) anions a SI < [eammieors min AO wa 2180— son pues m1) AO We ° e wc wet ye Oo ae (a) nvoinesaig ood (60 hs one won ‘us tb ‘cousstsay dit ouog ayers os woqensona Moje wideg ow 22‘oftyoud [ros ym uope as aup ze sSupumos (La: uoneneuod ‘uoo qe wosy seaimo yidop snsiaq amssaid azod pue oner wonoLy ‘aouvystsex di 2u09 Jo siord €-¢ arn Ly 28 8 8 8 (a) woneavoxs moje dea and 218 saw ve (20) ATO NWT PER seus pues m 20) ANNO Ww seu puss 555007 BUS (70) ATO NET ove “00 oot ° yorg vos o ea o 23pts Supe Sunsey auoo owustes wouy yndop snsion £iJoo|OA 9AvA IWaYS pur ‘souDIsIsa1 Gn auod Jo SlO|d +E AUN I os 0s os cw) 118 Acts pur co ow (99) Av70 NvST peopsqiawy fF oy ! oF 7 ov or Jsosuer pues 1 a se ripues me Cro) avTO NWT HE (9) uonencoxg mojoa uidoa (u) uoneneaxa more dog s05us7 pues. 18 (99) A879 1837 AGNYS, (y) uopeneoxa mojog tndoa 008 . a 80827 HS 8 (10) AVTO NYSTT ¢ 5 ‘S08ua7 pues /m\ (HO) AVIO AW sesuen pues ym (10) AW1O NWS i. ° oe 009 oor 002 ost oot os ° —! (sd) Kyo019n enenn 1004s 51) 4b ‘counrsisou diz ovo eee 244 Axial Load Testing and Interpretation of Results 4.1 Layout ‘A five foot deep trench was dug at the test site and the piles were driven in the ‘bottom of the trench. Two reaction girders spanned the trench on either side of the test pile which transferred the test load to the ground on either side of the trench. A smaller I- beam spanned the reaction girders immediately above the test pile and acted as the load frame. This I-beam frame was reinforced with welded struts to prevent buckling or twisting during the test. On this frame a load cell was placed atop a hydraulic ram, A square steel plate was welded to the top of each test pile with 1 inch diameter holes near each comer. Long threaded rods or dewey dags were inseried through the holes in this plate to corresponding holes in a plate sitting atop the hydraulic ram or “load”, By extending the ram, the plates separated and the dewey dags applied a pullout or tension force to the top of the pile. Figure 4-1 shows the test layout. 254.2 Test Piles The H-pile was an HP 12 x 53. The total length was 50 feet with 45 feet driven into the ground. ‘The cross section dimensions were 12.0 x 11.75 inches. The total area of steel in the cross section was 15.5 square inches leaving a cross section area for soil plugging of 125.5 square inches. Using an average soil weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot and the pile weight of 53 pounds per foot, the total weight of the pile with soil plug is 7400 pounds. The H-pile was driven with a hydraulic hammer to a depth of 45 feet below the excavated ground surface on June 15, 2007, The pipe pile was a closed end pipe pile with an outside diameter of 12.75 inches and a wall thickness of 0.375 inches. It had a piece of angle welded on opposite sides to protect instrumentation, The pile was filled with concrete, the top 10 fect being reinforced with a cage. The reinforcement cage consisted of 6 #8 reinforcement bars which were confined with a #4 bar spiral with @ diameter of 8 inches. The concrete had an average 28 day compressive strength of 5150 psi based on tests of four samples. Including the concrete, the total weight of the pile is 8500 pounds. The pile was driven with a hydraulic hammer to a depth of 45 feet below the excavated ground surface on Jone 15, 2007. 4.3 Instrumentation ‘To measure deflection, three thin wire strain gauges were placed around the perimeter of the top of each test pile, They were secured to a frame independent of the test frame and pile so they wouldn’t move in relation to the pile during the test. The gauges measured deflection at the top of the pile in increments of one thousandths of an inch. The applied load was constantly monitored by the Joad cell on top of the hydraulic 26Jifting ram, Both the strain gauges and the Joad cell data were collected in real time by computer, A mark was sprayed on the pile at ground level so deflection in the soil and movement in the pile could be monitored visually. 44 Procedure A predicted pile capacity was determined as a starting load and incremental steps. ‘The loading was to be in steps of about 10% of the predicted pile capacity. Using the effective stress method, the capacity of the pipe pile was predicted to be around 66 kips and the predicted capacity of the H-pile was 76 kips, The pipe pile was tested first, With the load plates and dewey dags in place, the load ram was extended to tighten everything up without loading the pile and all of the instruments were zeroed out to give a baseline reading. Using the load cell, pressure applied by the hydraulic ram could be measured as a Joad or force. ‘The first load increment was applied and pressure was adjusted to maintain the load. The load was held for two minutes and the next increment was added. The load ‘was kept constant by adjusting the pressure on the ram while watching the pressure at the oad cell. This step loading continued until failure. Failure was determined when the soil/pile interface sheared and the load could not be sustained, resulting in soil deflection and pile movement without added load. Figure 4.2 shows the test set-up of the pipe pile. 45 The Test ‘The axial load test for the pipe pile (ook place at about noon on Oct, 3, 2007. The duration of the test took just over an hour and just over four thousand data points were collect. The loading took place as planned with load increments of approximately 7 kips each. The first three loadings were not precise and the loading curve showed erratic 27behavior, When the load reached about 20 kips, loads and deflections stabilized and the curve demonstrated a smooth step load. Figure 4.X shows the step loading of both piles in relation to time. The loading reached 100 kips with no appreciable pile movement but with each increment the deflections became larger and the load was harder to maintain, Soil cracking began to appear near the excavated surface along the soil/pile interface, At 134 Kips the load could no longer be sustained and failure occurred. Step Load of Piles 160 wo x20 Pipe Pile 8 Hie Load (kins) ses 0 000» «2000» «3000» am005000 Time (seconds) Figure 4-2 Step Loading ofthe Piles The axial load test for the H-Pile took place on Friday, October 5, 2007. As stated above, the predicted pile capacity was 76 kips so a load increment of about 9 kips was used. The same pattem was observed with the H-pile as with the pipe pile. The first load was hard to stabilize and successive loads were more stable. As the load became larger and deflections became greater, the load became more difficult to maintain. Unlike the pipe pile, failure occurred at a much lower Joad, Small soil cracks developed at the pile/soil interface and failure occurred at 113 kips. 284.6 Results Deflections can be in the soil, in the pile, and in the test equipment. By setting the spring gauges on a frame independent of the test, the attempt was (and it is assumed) to make the deflection in the test equipment negligible. The deflections in the pile are small enough that they were neglected for this paper As noted above, the test of the pipe pile was made on October 3, 2007. The results are shown in a load/deflection curve in figure 4.3. While the test of the He-pile was conducted in the same way, the resulting capacity was less. As with the pipe pile chart, the H-Pile chart (figure 4,3 below) pile deflection vs. load. Load vs. Deflection Pipe Pile Deflection H-Plle Deflection o+—- a ~ 0.000 0.500 1.000 1500 2.000 2500 3.000 3500 Deflection (in} Figure 4-3 Load Deflection Curves for Axial Pile Tests 29‘The incremental loading of the H-Pile was increased to 10 kips, The result was, fewer test data points and shorter test duration. The tested capacity of both piles exceeded the predicted capacity. Table 4.1 lists the predicted and tested capacity of each pile as well as the difference between the estimate and test capacities. ‘Table 4-1 Predicted and Tested Pile Capacities Predicted Capacity Tested Capacity ‘Test percentage over ‘¢kips) (Kips) Estimate Hie [75.7 Ti 19% Pipe Pile 682 199% 4.7 Interpretation of Results ‘Three methods were used to determine the pile capacity based on test results. The 4% inch offset method, the tangent intersection method and the slope tangent method. All three methods use a tangent to the original curve in a load/displacement plot or the portion of the load displacement curve that estimates the elastic response of the soil (see figure 4-4). With the % inch offset method a line is drawn parallel to the original curve with its origin at no load and % inch deflection. The point of intersection between the offset line and the load deflection curve is the pile capacity. With the tangent intersection method a line is drawn tangent to the original curve. Another line is drawn tangent to the final linear section of the load displacement curve and the point of intersect between both tangent lines is the tested capacity of the pile. The slope tangent method is identical to the ¥%A inch offset method except the offset is to a point of 0.15 inches. An adjustment factor 30is used based on a small length to diameter ratio of a pile but this was not used because the ratio was large. Table 4.2 shows the capacity of each pile as determined by these three methods. 140.000 120.000 100.000 + Tange ltreetion Method Uplift Load (kj g ‘Slope Tangent Method 20.000 "Anh Of Method 0.000 Pa 0.000 0.200 0.400 0,600 0.800 Deflection (inches) Figure 4-4 Three Methods to Determine Tested Pile Capacity ‘Table 4-2 Results of Three Methods for Determining Tested Pile Capacities “inch Ofeet (Kips) | Tangent intersect (kips) | _Slope Tangent (kips) Pipe Pile 182 106 aeatnneis Pile | 112.5 405 108 ‘The perimeter of the H-pile was 119% greater than the perimeter of the pipe pile. Since the total stress method of estimating pile capacity uses the strength of the soil and 31area of the skin of the pile, the predicted capacity of the H-pile was the same 119% greater than the predicted capacity of the pipe pile. ‘The theory for increased capacity of piles driven in clay is reconsolidated strength increase in the clay, During installation the clay is disturbed and the pore pressures instance 4 months) the increase under the driving of the pile. After some time (in this pore pressures decrease, the clay reconsolidates and gains strength during reconsolidation. This would explain the larger inetease in strength for the pipe pile. The pipe pile displaces a much larger column of clay during driving, At this point a simple check (o test the reconsolidation theory was made using the strength of the soil as obtained from testing. The average shear strength of the reconsolidated clay can be determined from the ultimate capacity of the pipe pile. The average shear strength is determined by taking the ultimate capacity of the pipe pile and subtracting the weight of the pile then dividing out the surface area that is in contact with the soil. Using the results from the 0.15 inch offset method (pipe pile capacity of 125 ips), the strength of the clay was determined to be 775 psf. Next the average predicted strength of the clay is needed. The original pile capacities were determined using the total stress method which in turn used the tested strength parameters of the soil. By taking either the predicted pipe or H-pile capacity, subtracting the weight of the pile (and soil plug in the case of the H-pile) and dividing its surface area, the predicted average shear strength of the clay can be calculated. This predicted average shear strength was determined to be 384 psf. As the H-pile is pulled out of the ground, the soil between the flange and the web shears along the surface bounded by both flanges and plugs or sticks with the pile. The 32weight of this soil adds to the pullout capacity of the pile. Thus the failure surface or shear surface of the pile forms « rectangular column along the soil/flange interface at both flanges and through the soil from the edges of the flanges. So along the two flanges the strength of the soil is the reconsolidated strength and along the sheared surface between the flanges the strength of the soil is the predicted shear strength. To test the theory, the capacity of the H-pile was again estimated using the recons idated strength as determined by testing at the flanges and the predicted shear strength through the soil between the flanges and then adding back in the weight of the pile. Using this method, the predicted capacity of the H-pile was 113.9 kips, a difference of about 1% from the tested capacity. Table 4.3 below shows the predicted capacity of the H-pile, the tested capacity, and the predicted capacity using the above method for easy comparison. The predicted capacity of the piles was based on soil properties, weight, and pile surface area. The difference between the predicted capacities (minus their weight) was proportional to the difference between their circumferences. The test showed that the capacity of the pipe pile was significantly higher than predicted (about double). The test also showed that the capacity of the H-pile was approximately (150%) higher than predicted, From experience we have determined that the failure mechanisms in pipe piles is shear failure in the interface between the pile and the soil and that the failure mechanisms for an H-pile are shear along the interface along the flange surfaces and shear in the soil plugging along the surface between the edges of the flanges. Since the major differences 33,of failure mechanisms is the shear through the soil of the H-pile plug, the lower capacity is shown to be caused by a lower shear strength in this region of the soil. ( ‘Table 4-3 H-pile Prediction Using Reconsolidated Clay Strength, Predicted H-Pile Capacity 75.7 kips ( Tested H-Pile Capacity 112.5 kips ( ila Capacity using Reconsolidated Clay Strength | __ 110.9 kips ( 48 Summary ‘The results of these tests support the theory that the clay reconsolidates at a higher strength. The results also conclude that the installation of a pipe pile disturbs the clay structure more than the installation of an H-pile creating higher final bearing capacity in the pipe pile. The inerease in tested vs, predicted capacity in the pipe pile was 199% while the increase in capacity of the H-pile was 149%.5 Lateral Load Test 5.1 Test Pile Properties A 12.75 inch OD pipe pile with a 0.375 inch wall thickness was driven closed- ended with a hydraulic hammer to a depth of 45 feet below the excavated ground surface on June 15, 2007. The test pile had a beveled end which allowed a 1.5 inch thick plate to be welded flush with the edge of the pile at the bottom. The steel conformed to ASTM A252 Grade 2 specifications and had a yield strength of 58,700 psi based on the 0.2% offset criteria. The moment of inertia of the pile itself was 279 in*; however, angle irons ‘were welded on opposite sides of the test pile which increased the moment of inertia to 343 in‘. A steel reinforcing cage was installed at the top of the test pile to replicate the reinforcing cages in the test piles within the pile groups. The reinforcing cage consisted of 6 - #8 reinforcing bars which were confined within a #4 bar spiral with a diameter of 8 inches. The reinforcing cage extended to a depth of 10 ft. The stee! pipe pile was filled with concrete with an average 28 day unconfined compressive strength of 5150 psi based on tests of four specimens. A drawing of the cross-section for the test pile is provided in Fig. 5-1 3512.76 inch OD pipe pile with 0.975 in a wal thickness =e (§=88.6 ksi) 6-48 longitudinal bars (y=60 kal with inch dlametor #4 boar spiral a 4 inch 7 pitch — Concrete in-til (€=5160 psi 1.5°%1.5°x0.25" = angles (j=36 ks!) (rotated 18 from line of loading) Direction of Loading Figure $-1 Cross-section of Single Pipe Pile In the same trench an H-pile was driven with a hydraulic hammer to a depth of 45 feet below the excavated ground surface on June 15, 2007. This pile was an HP12X53 with a flange width of 12 inches, a depth of 11 % inches and a web and flange thickness of seven sixteenths of an inch. The pile had a moment of inertia about the X-X axis of 393 in' and a moment of inertia about the Y-Y axis of 127 in’. 5.2 Test Layout, Instrumentation and Procedure ‘The lateral load test was conducted on October 10, 2007 after the piles had been in the ground for about four months. The ground around the test piles was excavated to approximately 2.5 ft, below the ground surface from the geotechnical condition report 36Load was applied at a height of 1.5 feet above the surrounding ground surface, The pile head for the single pile test was un-restrained (“free-head”). A free-head lateral load test for a single pile is common because it is very difficult to create a truly “fixed-head” condition for a single pile. One purpose of the test was to calibrate an analysis model for group piles and it was considered more important to know the pile head fixity condition than whether it was “free-head” or “fixed-head”. ‘The load was applied to the test pile using a hydraulic jack altached to an electric puinp. Hemispherical plates were used to prevent the application of moment to the pile and account for any eccentricity in the loading. Load was measured using a resistance- type strain gauge load cell which had been previously calibrated in the laboratory. Pile head deflection was measured at the elevation of the load point with a string potentiometer attached to an independent reference frame. In addition, for the pipe pile, head deflection was measured at an elevation 3.31 ft above the load point so that pile head rotation could be computed. Prior to placing concrete in the test pile, a one inch diameter conduit was installed to a depth of 30 ft. A. shape accelerometer atray was inserted into this conduit at the beginning of the load test so that deflection versus depth profiles could be determined at various load increments. Data was recorded using computer data acquisition systems. A photograph of the test pile during testing is provided in Fig. 5-2. 31background) ‘The load test was performed incrementally using a deflection control approach. ‘The load in the hydraulic jack was increased to deflection increments of 0.125, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 inches. The maximum deflection was somewhat larger than that used for the pile group testing to facilitate calibration of the numerical models. After reaching each target deflection, the deflection was maintained for 3 minutes and then load was reduced to zero prior to loading the pile to the next increment. 385.3 Pipe Pile Lateral Load Test Results A plot of the complete pile head load versus deflection curve for the entire test is presented in Fig, 5-3. This curve provides the load path taken during loading, unloading and reloading for each cycle, During the hold for three minutes at each deflection, the soil exhibited a relaxing as it took less force to hold the deflection over time, While the load ‘was decreased to zero after each increment, the pile did not return to its initial zero deflection level, but exhibited a residual deflection. This may have been due to side friction and soil falling into the gap behind the pile. During re-loading, the load-defection curve was stiffer than that observed during virgin loading at the same deflection. 00 a5 10 1 20 2s ao Pile Head Detection ti) Figure 5-3 Pipe Pile Head Load vs. Deflection ‘The virgin pile head load vs. deflection curve has been developed in Fig. 5-4 by plotting the peak values and eliminating the unload and reload segments. The curve exhibits the conventional hyperbolic shape that would be expected for a pile in soft clay, 39‘The peak pile head load vs. rotation curve is also plotted in Fig. 5-5. The rotation, @, was determined using the equation: a= tn A) ) Equation §-1 where Ay is the pile deflection 3 ft above the load point, Az is the pile deflection at the Joad point, and H is the distance between the measurements (3.31 f1.). Deflection versus depth curves obtained from the shape accelerometer arrays are provided in Fig. 5-6 for a number of deflection increments. The shape array provides horizontal deflection values at 1 ft intervals from the top of the pile which was approximately 40 inches above the load point. Without any corrections, the computed deflection curves obtained from the shape arrays are consistent with the maximum pile hexd deflections measured by the string potentiometers at the load point, The deflected shape curves are also consistent with the “free-head” (zero-moment) boundary condition,ao as 10 1s 20 25 30 Plo Hoad Detection (In) Figure 5-4 Pipe Pile: Peak Pile Head Load vs. Deflection Pile Head Load (ks) sa 8 8 8 000 02k Pte Hes Rotiton (Degrees) Figure 5-5 Pipe Pile: Peak Pile Head Load ys. Head Rotation 41Horizontal displacement (in) 1.0 00 10 2.0 30 ss ° = a5 3 z é =05m z 10 —--0.75in 3 1.0% 2 = 15in § —20in = 15 ae 2.5in 2 Sting Pot AL Load Ft é 4 Sting Pot Above Load Pt 20 : i 25 Figure 5-6 Pipe Pile Deflection vs, Depth Curves at Several Depths 5.4 H-Pile Lateral Load Test Results The Hepile was loaded in the same manner as the pipe pile. However, the load ‘was applied perpendicular to the X-X axis (at the flange). This test was not used to obtain conditions for a model but for comparison with the results from the pipe pile test. Deflection measurements were taken at the point of load and at 3 fi. above the point of 42Joad. Rotation was not calculated. A plot of the pile load versus deflection curve is shown 5-7. As with the pipe pile, during re-loading, the loac!-defection curve was stiffer than that observed during virgin loading at the same deflection. The virgin pile head load vs. deflection curve has been developed and is shown in figure 5-8 along with the virgin pile head load vs. deflection curve for the pipe pile in order to give a comparison. 30.00 25.00 Piighend Load (08). 8 8 0.00 0.50 4.00 41.50 200 250 3.00 Pile Head Deflection (in) Figure 5-7 H-Pile Head Load vs. Deflection 435.5 Pipe and H-Pile Lateral Test Results; Comparison The first comparison from the two lateral load tests is x comparison of the virgin curves shown in Figure 5.8. This shows the maximum load at each deflection for both tests. Next a curve for each test was developed for the load vs. deflection after 1.5 minutes. This curve shows that the load decreased as the deflection was held steady over time (see Figure 5-9). The result is a curve much the same as the virgin curve but with less load. Finally, using Microsoft Excel, a curve was developed for each test showing the load at each deflection vs. time. From this load vs. time curve, a trendline was developed having the form: Load = a In (1) + C where (1) is time measured in seconds. Loads could then be extrapolated out for any time (1) a as aa estes Hite a a Tested Fpe Pile 0 os 1 as 2 2s 3 Pile Head Deflection (in) Figure 5-8 Lateral Load Virgin a4ra SS TEESE ow ee) ie seneed Pe Head Detection in) Figure -9 Load vs. Maintained Pile Head Defoction after 1.5 min, With this curve, one data point didn’t make sense as the load was released early for the first loading of the pipe pile, so the load at 1 minute after the peak loading was used. The curve developed from extrapolated times followed much the same shape as the virgin and 1.5 minute curves and it was used for comparison with the LPILE analysis with correlation only within the 2-3 minute range. 5.6 Summary Unlike the axial load test, the H-pile exhibited close to the same lateral capacity as the pipe pile. The soil showed nearly identical strength for each pile until the larger deflections were reached suggesting the upper layers of soil had the same strength while the lower layers were weaker for the H-pile 456 L-Pile Analysis 6.1 Introduetion Further lateral Joad analysis was performed using Ensoft LPILE plus v 5.0. The puxpose was to produce a predictive model for the lateral capacity of the piles and ‘compare the model with measured results as with the axial testing. 62 LPILE Analysis of the Pipe Pile ‘The soil parameters used for the LPILE model for the pipe pile were obtained by multiplying the estimated soil strength taken from the geothechnical analysis by 199% or the determined increase from estimated to measured capacity taken from the axial load tests. A free head was used for the boundary conditions. For the pile properties, an adjusted moment of inertia of 486 in* was used to account for the reinforced concrete fill. The deflections were fixed and the model determined the applicable load to reach each deflection. 6.3 LPILE Analysis of the H-pile For the pile properties an equivalent circular diameter or “width” was used, This equivalent diameter is determined by the equation: 47Equation 6-1 where w = width of the section; d = depth of the section; pac = ultimate resistance of a circular section with a diameter b equal to w; and f, = sheating resistance along the sides of the rectangular shape at the depth z below the ground surface. ‘The soil parameters used for the first LPILE model for the H-pile were obtained by multiplying the estimated soil strength taken from the geothechnical analysis by 149% or the determined increase from estimated to measured capacity taken from the axial load tests. When compared to the lateral test results, the loads determined to reach the target deflections were considerably lower. Another model was created using the soil parameters from the pipe pile model. A much closer correlation was noticed between the ‘model and the test results demonstrating that the soil along the flange had increased in strength. Still, there was a measure of difference between both pile models and test results. The comparison of the virgin lateral load curve with the first LPILE model using soil strength from the axial load test is shown in Figure 6-1. 48a» 20 || ! z Zs, 14 | : a4 me restec ie » test pecs eae ° os 1 1s 2 25 3 Pile Head Detection (in) Figure 6-1 First LPILE Model of Compared with Lateral Load From the geotechnical report, several sand lenses were shown. These lenses were ignored in previous models as they were thin and considered mixed in with the clay. A mode] was created for both the pipe pile and the H-pile using four of the larger sand lenses, The results were closer still. Figure 6-2 shows the comparison of both virgin curves from the lateral load tests with both LPILE models using soil strength parameters obtained from the axial pile test and sand Jenses, Finally, using the observation that the soil seemed to relax under load, the results from the 1.5 minute curves were used instead of the maximum Joad to compare with the LP/LE models. The results were almost an exact match (see Figure 6-3). 493s 30 25 20 Load tips) as r ~ + Tected 4 Pile Tested iperile 10 bteor nie Ite ip ile ot | ssa ° ° 05. 3 13 2 23 Figure 6-2 Vingin Curves from Lateral Tests with LPILE Models 6.4 Discussion of results “The lateral load test demonstrated that the strength of the soil had inerease equally Pte Head Deflection (in) for both the H-pile and the pipe pile in the direction of loading. 503 | eestor + pie eestor Pipe Pile lleot Pte Fo Load with Deflection eld for 90sec. (ips) —nlectrperie | ge eee eee sence psa | | ij | ° os 1 1s 2 25 3 Pile Heod Deflection (in) Figure 6-3 LPLLE Models shown with 1.5 Minute Curves from Lateral Load Tests Si7 Conclusion ‘The pipe pile exhibited a substantial inctease in capacity over the H-pile in axial testing, Both piles had about equal increases in capacity in lateral loading. The clay exhibited a twofold increase in strength in the pipe pile axial test and both lateral tests suggesting that the increase was along the surfaces that were disturbed the most during pile installation, While an increase of only 49% was observed in the H- pile axial load test, it can be shown that the majority of the strength increase came from the flange to soil interface where the clay was disturbed the most. Several steps can be taken to verify the results of these tests in further testing, Pore pressures in the clay can be monitored, samples from the web of the H-pile can be taken and tested, pore pressuzes can be monitored during lateral loading, and the lateral load can be held longer. Also, the H-pile can be loaded laterally in the weak (Y-Y) axis, 353References ‘Timber Piling Council Website found at: http://www timberpilingcouncil. org/history. html George Geoffrey Meyerhof, “Bearing Capacity and Seitlement of Pile Foundation” in Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. GT3, March 1976, pg. 212 Das, B. M. , (1998). Principals of Foundation Engineering (4" ed.), PWS Publishing Lymon C, Reese and William F. Van Impe (2001). Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading; Chapter 4 pg. 110, A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield 55.Appendix A: CPT Results COR Fie ‘81¢P01.6OR Sounding cProt ste 215 AEDWOOD Date 05.0507 1637 cone 20 Ton st 122 operator conerec ax Depth im) 1525 ‘Depth ine) 008 Note: Fla contains raw corded eat Tp (is ot comes for poe pressure elec, Doh ae Depth = eee ei m ish we]__ea0[ ons] ano [ a7 oor] nes i2| ate om] 793 mH oo] 42751 x25 | 1e0a | 026| ooo [98s oot 1883 13] 167[ 025 | 014 ma oor [13028 zas|_nza[" 02] ase 995 oor [15072 +4] ear [or] sos 10 oo [10.08 14s] zor -oos | _a4t7 | 10.08 0.4 1505, 45] 65| cos] 2a00| 104 ors | 110065, iss | 899005 | 2924 10.18 os [051 +6{_s00| 005] s2z0| 102 ot 34.8 x65 [574 [005 | 95.00 | 102s ois] 3388 17] __s35[ oo | 397] 108 os) 3548 w7s[ sa | 005 | aos) 10.35 ose | 2074 48,4 [o0s| a.m [104 028 e224 tes [sea o0s | a5e7| 104s oxo | 6256 a0[ 37[ 002 | soar [108 201 7358 iss ss[ om] ss0| ross aot 60.43 2{ ssi] oo| sax | 106 aor 307 25 [aoe | 405 | toss oa |___14n21 21] sae] oos| 48.1 [107 os | 12474 [21s —s121 005 | —aa20 | 7075 oz | 198.48 22| 2s0| o06| 3538 | 108 001 1125 225260] 006 | a524 | iss aor] ise4823 at| oo] 4172 1o9| _s90| os 1978 25 | 217] ooa[ aso | i005 | 669 | oor 48.48 24 [249 | 004 | 47.77 rT] 856/001 1547 [245 274 [oor {sel an05 {7.13 | a0 158.62 25| 24a} oos| 435 tit 97 | a9 157.49 ass| 261 | 005 | aes} is[ ea} oor 189.18 28| 223] 001] 39.80 m2] 96s | oor 151.25 265 | 236] os] atz7| i126 797 | oor 123.52 27198 | aoe | 4552 sis} 669 | 001 199.14 a75| 185 | aot | ass in35| sae oo1 142.48 28 20s 002 | 49.46, 114 est | _o08 49.42. 20s] ttar[ os2 | av.16| ina] 602 | o01 148.41 29] 599 012 10 1s |6a2{ oor 151.11 205 | 198 | 0.11 a2 |r| 7.84 | oor 162.98 3| 136 [006 | 313 ti8| 835} 01 164.81 305 |~—1.66 | oz | 45.00 31.65 975 | oor 129.01 a1 [136 | 002 | 51.08 i17 | i029 [oor 151.99 315 |" 178[ aos | saaa{ anys | 1498 | oo 168.43 32] 605{_o1[ e476 sar | 0.02. 90.24 325| aos | “aos 26 {ites [03 | 0.02 1185 33] 695 | om | was s19| 707 oor ¥s304 ‘as5 [aa os| asa i196 | 7.65) oor 148.95. 34] 2506 [025] 535, 12 | tor: [oot | 181.19 —34s [1058 [0s | 282 [i205 | 1668 | 0.02 $602 as|aat[ ozs | eas vt] 17.50 | 005 1353 ass| 290 [ oss {a702[ eas | 1006 | 008 | 105.07 ~_88| 220 | oo« | se.05 122 | 2052 | 070 121.87 305] 295002 | orca | io2s| 1070 | 0.16 42.38 a7] ‘re | oo | 98.09 1231651 | 0.7 64 375 21 003 | e612] sass | t165] ais 74.08 3a [217 | 003 | 70.49 seat aze| 01 115.02 385 | 249 eas | 70s | aor | 12248 a8 [26a w25{__816| oop 141.38 305 | 204 mess | 7.46 | 002 197.47 4[ 249 se6| 669} aot 3.74 405 [2.93 [oo |” 704s | i265 [905 | oor 167.96, 41] 236 | 008] v2.1 sar] 192 oor 169.45 415 3{ 0.09 | ras | 1275 86] 001 9601 42 ae] 00s | 6758 ves| zea] oor 132.06 425| 319] ooa| stae[ i205 622 aor 60.52 as ssi} on | eave wo] 173] 01 175.37 435 |" ssa[o15| sia | 1205, 93 oot 121.64 44] 1064] o19| 4955 +3 | 782 {oot 148.25 [44s [1006 | oze| 10.20 | ~ta0s | e.4a | oot 160.64 4s|1255[ 025 | 1962 13.1 7.33 | 0.01 1696 485 [ote] ase] sas { is16| 707] oor 156.84 46] 758) ots | iaee is2| 7.01 01 68.10 465 | 5.03 | 0.09 [108 | ta25 | ase} oor 178.08 47 408 | oor | oare 133673 | 002 167.44 a75|__395|005| _sa7i| i335) ea} 003 | 156.84 45[ 495 | 006 | 7e02 134 _922| 008 178.05 485 | 395 [00s | ezai{ 1345) a2 | oon 190.08 49| 405 | 006 | o1.29 135| 956] 002 170.82 495 [55 [ora [ soass | 1355] 10.01] 005 | 120.14 s[amatow} ois} 136 1013] oor | 12887, 87sos| _sos| ors| 44| 1365] s001| 0.08 +2788 | si] as7| ors] 4819 137 25 |__0.08 116.48 5.15 65 o00| 7aas| 1975| o| 008] 309 s2| ser] coo | 6631 138 es |__oor 19877, 25 |__4ar| 006 | 7aco| iss | a05 | 06. 135.5 sa | 4z7| 006 | 9226 sag[ aze | 005 | 19145, a5] a05| oos | ora | is05| vee] os 145.06 sa] a7] 005] 9618 44 7a} 002 | 160.45 545 |a8| 00s | esei| 1405 | aze| oot 180.07 55. 3] 005 | 98.96 443 i473 | 0.08 | posar sss] aso] 05] 1093] 1415 14,09 | 0.04 151.16] 56] ste] 0.16] 11272 142 [1326 | 0.08[ 15064 Ses 2o0r{ ozs] 2216] r425| 1026 | 0.03 1695. s7| e096 | ost] 724 143 |__1421 | 00s | 22a.t1 B75} soose| oss) -s21f rass| ta0{ 0.08 | 11103) se| seat] 05] 393 144 [__11.15 | 008, 112.39 jes] is7| os4| 526] raas| oo | 0.08 19112 sa [765] 036 | ~ 005 145] 955 [oot 190.18 505] soa | ore] aa25] rass[a2e| oor 41s —_ af ss7| 006 | 9405, 146} 954 | oo 1635 os | se | 00s |_t0146 | fas [v2.17 [008 181 1 [ 76 | 0.02 105.78 47 | 1750] 005 | 20386 1s | 44 003 | 10512] 4475 | 167 | o.00) 55.24 | 62| a2t| oos|” 886 4a | tata] 008 12952 625, 3a7{oos| ova7| 1465 | 1102 003 | 193.42 6s [880 | 0.04 | i09.00, us| 1179] 008] 17603, a5 | 631 | 00a} voza| 1495 | 1396] 00s | 199.21 64] eas | 08 | 13151 15 | 17.52 | 0.08 56.13 | 645 | so2r | ose] 1o95| 1505 [14.15 | oor 101.69 es| tsaa| o72| 1205 151] 10.5 [001 49.42, ss | 1873| ose | a8] 1516 [ 10.64 002 178. e6| tssat| os Ser 152] 14.22] 002] 1687 eas | ws [101] 620] 1525 | ties | oo2| 202.26 [67[_wo7'[ ost |_7at a7 | jae | o53| 2.26 es] o6ss | osi[ 258 305] 5608 | oss | 5.77 eg | va2s| 066 | 6.66 [“es5 [1032 | o46 [5.07 7491 | oze| ast zs |_s67 | 000 | 54.1 711 197] aoe | 10838 71s | wer | o16| 35.43 72 | saz] ois | 6082 725|___520| oor] 116.66 73[ 509 | 0.05 [198.08 7a5 | 1380 | 021 | 15158 74[_450| os | 11249 745 | 552 | o8e| 3.06 75 {7st | 10s | 465 zss | soea| osi | 751 76 [1610] 043 | 006 zs | 676 | 021 | -605 77[ 590 | 0055.02 z75| seo [oo | 95.01 58zo| saa oor| sant 75 | asa | 002 | 11239 vs [491] ooa| 129.4 795 | __599 | 004 | 190,46 a] sosa| on] waz Bos} 144) 015 | 1.20 at] 605] o15| 976 B15] 625| 005 o002 a2| 6251 oo3| 0761 325] 816] 04] 197.55 as] ass | oat | 11559 335] ea7ef ora | 746 a4] aces | oas| ses 45) 19.16) 0.56 | 455 85 | __ 765. 6.5. = 55) zor | 05 | 47.68 a6| asea| 7 | 119.62 ‘65 | tons | 108] 15.25 ar[ sar] 128 | 07 75 2280| oo4| 5.68 ea] as} ow] sa ass| 686 | 021] 200 a9] 82a | 006 | au77 05 eat | 011 | ero of ao2| 018} 19267 205 |__40.90 | 01] 5662 ai | arse | oze | 61s 315] 1937 | os | 089 92| 828 | o27| 08 a25| 503| 00a | i272 ea] 605 | 001] 39.47 ass 508 | oor] 7053 o4| aor] oor] 04st 245 |___535| oor] 11061 a5 | ool on] 3201 255 | i472] 01 | oie as[ zor| o1| 46.76 205) 509 | oos| 9.54 97. s8[ oo] 110395 59Appendix B: Pile Character PIPE PILE CHARACTERISTICS (OUTSIDE DIAMETER fn) INSIDE DIAMETER (in) LENGTH ‘OUTSIDE AREA INSIDE AREA RING AREA PERIMETER OF PILE AREA OF ANGLE IRON TOTAL VOLUME OF ANGLE IRON TOTAL VOLUME OF BOTTOM. PLATE TOTAL VOLUME OF STEEL ‘TOTAL VOLUME OF CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT OF STEEL TOTAL WEIGHT OF STEEL UNIT WEIGHT OF CONCRETE TOTAL WEIGHT OF PLE H-PILE CHARACTERISTICS TYPE OF PILE WIDTH OF FLANGE DEPTH AREA OF STEEL XY PLANE: LeNeTH LENGTH OF x axis IENGTH OF VY AXIS AREA OF STEEL XY PLANE PERIMETER OF PILE PERIMETER OF PILE TOTAL VOLUME OF STEEL IN PILE TOTAL WEIGHT OF STEEL IN PILE AREA OF SOIL WITHIN FLANGES: [AREA OF SOIL WITHIN FLANGES TOTAL WEIGHT OF SOIL IN PRE TOTAL WEIGHT OF PILE PERIMETER OF H vs PIPE PILE 1275 2 50 0.388600 o.7esae82 o.0%ater aasreare oer, 0.209715 0.1108 5.116519 9.269008 400 2651-7004 180 542.1058 HP 1265 2 175 155 50 1 9791067 o.1076309 3.9588593 3.958950 5.2819464 2550 1255 oarisara 4706.25 7356.25, 1.1858608 istics st st st f sain cu cunt cur cut ct Ie pet Ibs out ‘os sin sit ‘os Ios percent 60Appendix C: Geotechnical Bore Log ‘DRILL HOLE, ELSE 5 AR OEE Dare staRTED: G57 Dare conPurren: oxaua7 tooea0a BORING NO. 07-4 & 1A oer WME re Lean cuay yon Lenses } 61Appendix D: Sample Pipe Pile Axial Load Data and Sample Calculations as ee oe sme | cosessns | ue [re | seo | omen | Bt | He sees a} noe scoows|n__|in | sin sac -roee | see ou | saszue | oor | oom sors | se | ro | as | cons | gore | eee | oo | aon wow] san | o eo | ese | no | oa mee | sae | we | cue | 2 [soseuo | oni ‘i save | sae | | com | ors | rscvo | 001s | oom mace | aan | wee | sal 2 | saseeo | ocr ‘i wer] aan | ree | ase | oom | ons | esse | oor | ooo eva] sas | ree | aur | con | one |asze | oon | ooo secs | sas | re | as | som | one | senza | oor qi se ve Dine Pee sa coe oy om) ovvenaceouma se noone remcmunsoeuee rive | -useacoton | woueene snvenaaetoH ETA | -noomeoiss,ressune psu roue | aremsararto | sores iets savERuaecsee8H snoonnmey roses sssusee rin | sruiscAcodan | woustnesa wenAaefotss 105 snooKunmresreosmaniroeumenrive) | swunssxcaten | aves eavsmccorsesa | sm)" | woonungorso,ruesuaemiesuice ue | sen, | avernorosesae esr =nooAypyeres, gs Sur BSUS THD cts) eavensoe(cwsa est noc e109, oe Sus 6G TAUEL ores) AVERAGE cron 59, v.00 Fee, mgs StL SSMU ery wenaceformnie, =W0OK.F{B00, go Ser LSBSUBNRETRUE sven avenacecea e190 =n 204 r(0i8e, os us sBSMINETEUE sorte savenanei VL 00 B18, Pipe Secs SME TPL soins Lesvernatrcroas ese) ‘Tn cor russe ron croansiesgusn, TE sore) 62Appendix E: Sample H-Pile Axial Load Data and Sample Calculations ese | smoot | smxetces | ser | sre | era | oeacenen | Bo oe ve [rn |, {e Je |e so| soe vom| mene | vaow| seni | seme|erua| aol ome iene! ome] om a] sazecae| soos | sore | eames | emus | ac | oe | na | ose se | seein ss an | oom | [eso | sess | ase ie oat | wna om aac seman | serait | wart sos] cao num| exe| ot nso | soc | gen | ex [oom [rom | owe | oon of some | rm | own | ew | evoar | ene | con | nan | a ot vise as {sam | ease | erase | aos oom | sta | ase | nom swe | seca see oo 1 ee ee sauce caa| oc woe | ezesm seer [cam [sno exe | oan sia [satzmm | ems | save eo | su | aoe 2 size ssencime | som | sess sais | ose] oan pikkkeRP = 63Appendix F: Sample Pipe Pile Lateral Load Data and Sample Calculations SYSTEM INFORMATION Mode 5414AC Total RAM: — 67108864.00 Serial: s04093. Acquisition RAM: 67108864.00 Version: 7.04 RAM Disk Size Adc Type: apeseie - TIME 300_Kip_Load | SP1 SP2 ‘SP3 Load Deflection seconps | __ibs in in in (os) | tn) 1563.00 1713803 576{ 001 | i193 1.08 1563.50) 1700.88 “679| 0.01 | t7080.88 [1.08 564,00 | 1710210 ~579| 0.01 | 17102.10[ 1.08 7564.50 1755.15, 679| 0.01 | 17185.15[ 1.03 1565.00 | 16836.87 679 0.01 | 16836.87 | __1.08 1565.50 | ___17186.08 -6.79| 0.01 | 17146.98 | _1.08 7566.00 1707027 “6790.01 | 1707027 [1.08 1566.50 16974.79 “5790.01 | 1697470 | __1.08 1567.00 16985.40 679, 0.0% | 1695.40 | __1.08 1567.50 1695357 “6.70 0.01 | 16963.57 [1.08 1568.00 1703845 679| 0.01] 17038.45 [1.08 Toad ibs) Daffetion tn} =B3156 =6.5403156 =B0167 =6.5103157 =5.5+C3158 5403159 '=6.5403160 =6.5403162 =6.54C3164 =6.5403165 =6.5103166 64Appendix G: Sample H-Pile Lateral Load Data and Sample Calculations ‘SYSTEM INFORMATION Mode: 5414AC. Total RAM: — 67108864.00 Serial 804093 Acquisition RAM: 67108864,00 Version: 7.04 RAM Disk Size: ADC Type: ADOSE16 TIME: ‘300_Kip_Load | SP1 SP2 ‘SPS Load | Deflection SECONDS Ibs in in in (bs) (in) 1563.00 16567.03 | -10.22 -9.00 | 0.00 | 16561.03, 1.04 1563.50 16635.29 | -10.22 -9.00 |_0.00 | 16635.20 1.04 1564.00 16603.47 | 10.22 -9.00 | “0.00 | 16603.47 1.04 1584.50 16645.90 [10.22 9.00 | 0.01 | 16645.90 1.04 1565.00 16698.95 | -10.22 -9.00 | 0.00 | 16698.95 1.04 1585.50 1624.69 | -10.22 -9.00 [0.00 | 16624.69 1.04 1566.00 =10.22 -9.00 [0.00 | 16677.73 1,04 1566.50 310.22 -8.99 | 0.00 | 16550.42 4.04 1567.00 10.22 -9.00[ 0.01 | 16603.47 1567.50 16550.42 | -10.22 9, 0.00 | 16550.42 4568.00 1655042] -10.22 -9.00 | 0.01 | 16550.42 Toad (ibs) | Deflection tiny =BStES 21126-05163 =B3154, =11.26+03154 =B3165, =11.26+C3163Appendix H: Sample Equivalent Width Calculations w 00 Pulit 5400. Gepim ] Pc | bequvalent ela ee | 2aar.06-| "119554 ‘2 1000.28 [~~ #.28e0 | 3 | 2295.07 [1.25185 Ts | ase.a5 |r 2227 5 | 1685.44 [10167 6 | 2090.88 [1.275 at [2206.32 [T2804 8 | 4066.25 [T4141 | agas.a6 [113118 To [aronsa [1.17292 ‘11 | sava.7e [4.1060 a2] S400 [1.1054 13 [5400 | 1.10648 14 [sano |__1.10648. 15 | 5400 [1.10648 16 | 5400" | 1.10848 "vr [5400 | 1.j054e. se | _s400.[ —1.106¢8 [13 32 | 5400 | 1.10848 | 44.2778 20 | 5400" 1.10848 | 18.2778 21 | 5400 [1.10508 | 13.2778 | s400 | 1 10048 | 19.2778 23 | e400 | 1.1058 [13.2778 24 [6400 | 1.10608 [13.2778 25 | sco. | 1 toes | 18.2778 26 | aaa7.ag | 7.12900 | 19.5515 27 | as0n.12 | 1.12505 | 15.5006 26 | 474a.61 | 1.12108 | 13.45. 20 | aso0.a0 | 7.71796 | 79.4003, [20 [5050.17 [11386 13.9665) 31 | 5400 | 1.108es [g.27re 32 | 5400 | 1.10648 [13.2778 sa | 5400 | 1 108s [13.2778 24 [6400 | 1.10548 [1.2778 35 | _s400-| 1.1088 | 19.2778 6 | 5400 | 1.10548 [13.2778 a7 | S400 [1.10548 | 15.2778. 38 | 5400 | 1.10548 [19.2778 ‘30 [ 5400 | 1.10608 | 73.2778 ‘40-5400 | 1.10648 | 13.2776 [5400 | 1.10808 [iazrre 42 | s400 | 1.10508 [a2776 aa sa00 | 1.10608 | 13.2778 44[ 5400 | 1.10508 | 13.2778 5. [sano | 1.10048 [13.2778 66: — am a . [stout amniaerncacnncamasanca | casmauamunen |S | eu rani cates ara wena earth nica tenandesnasensrana | |ssicersmessoursernctciseeanmaiaarsizenry [apap sine mianosniinaeneismnanersnautnnary [age ee ipaarasemamernenascie aeons [apg see deen nos asrene ccs ounueeabasr ner) | yaeeg ee Shera Hg Ub 36,00) N68 CSE C35 ue AND Bre 2 ATO AN C8006 el AABN see (28 051A 85,06 gH AeA OAD Sine STO ETTTE se OTT | ace aIge Arno oeAeeosTAy | Yee. Ta TTT stimu room pcscsoeuesosranrnicy | Mat igre danvroos ipa oescrspueteevosnieneay | ne so Sen E TRE suse dnencorosiicar ese ycescEs (0 uteenosivnenreuey | pon i COTTE srammensosrnsracn cscs eeusravesirearwiey | Wes. Sie CET FARE | srtsese teins are -685. 05:0 eat dado ARE ded sist At e501 A HE So CHO 246 UA OA 2 2508 eC, 2,8 06057128) | sass ote acr ostrAcr steno 05 ne dee Aera0 Aer) fe ho) 08H CE 8 SDN ACH AE | srtmreoaneorcoournoreu cesctjoerdinierceosirnesrany | iret SAT TE Hie caramaerrsy ar cscscweansosrispatry | pay Qt et 91.04 AS) SPONSE 160. VAS WOE Se SETI Fugue. dee seo Ay vaserswen | Varad. Se TET | arte sherrasynwrAsrasr pests oumanerrncsapeecy | iuPE. eee ats 04 ASA ea OHS. 2 ADMD ASHY a Sse COT pen (0402 est 96/0 e888 se HOI SS IBS OST (29819 1 ANB Wa CH, 0858462407 07250 ot AeA aI A I $5 Ht AAS NPA AE ETT 44 TE Uo dow oor DCE cH tmomNDOSNNresRY) | iar at OTST | tte emenoosrmerncsosceeamanoernreiny | agg ea cde a wo nate 3085635. ue’ AcDsr nye) | be 80 no Ate 95, fn MANDI) Se ORETTTTE | ta nena Aa aa 08 Hau As MOI =O ara Sie OETA ru) sa fre 944s SSS C85 He AN LOA ws =e OOP 5 TET | inset naoon nay tron cert Aass0 NANG") 7 sig. smencesrinraw cco umrsaawsneny | ieee | srusreedsnenenas ayo ycsscs so uenenmonrawretion | vay fgg ua AOS Hj Co8CGO.0e dilied een se asov0 gnats aeAppendix I: LPILE Output File for Pipe Pile {PLE Plus for Windows, Version 5.0 (5.038) Analysis Indvidual Pes ard Dil Sas Subject to Lateral Lazcng Using he py Method (c) 19852007 by Enso, Ine Al ight Reserved “This program seensed to: Marin Sith orrocks Engineers Path toe loetons: C\Docwments and Sttingynatas\Oasizep\ Masters Prot ame of int data fle: Pipe Pile Aust Solind Mamet output tie: Pipe Pile Acjusted Soipo amet plot ouput le: Pipe Pie Aijstod olipp Nameottuntimenie: pe Pe Adjusted Sollpr Time and Date of als December 1 2009 Time: 1300:20 Pipe Plo with cal Lose Test Sel strength Progam options ‘Units Used In Computations - US Customary Uns Ices, Founds 82s Program Options: ‘nals Type Comptition of Lateral ie Response Using User-spced Constant El {Computation Options: ‘Only inter enerates py curves used in analysts Analysis doesnot se -y multiples (naldua peor shaft ction ony) ‘analss assumes no shea resistance at tp nals or xe-ength ple or shalt onty No computation of fundatin silfiness mati elements ‘Output le response fo ful length of ple analysis assumes n soll moverents sting on ple “ho adatlonal p-y cirves tobe computed at user-spectied depths Solution Control Parameters Number afpllelncements = 125 “lipripum sumberef trations alowed = 100 Deflection tolerance for convergence = 5.00006 05 in “Maximum alowable deflection = 16000E+02in Printing Options: Yalu of pleshead deflection, bonding meen, sheds fore, ond ‘so rection ae printed for fal length file. Pring increment spacing of output pols) = £ Pile Structural Properties and Geometry Phetength = 52200in Depth of ground surface below tp ofpile= 38.00in Slope angle ofgroimd sufoce = ODE Structural properties of pile defined using 2 poins Pint Depth Pile Momentot | Ple Modubsot X-" Dismeter Ines Area Elstity hin te Sain yen 3 180000 12.75000000 $86.0c00 127.7000 29000000, 2 $220000 12,75000000 486.0000 127.7000 28002000. Soi and Rock Layering nfrmationThe ot profile moseled using 13 ners Layer 2s soft ay, py entera by Matic, 1970 Distance from topf pile to tp of ayer = 18:000in Dance from top of pile to bottom of ayer= — 36.000in Layer 2s soft cay, py citar by Matte, 1970 Distance from top of ple to top ot ayer = 36.000 in Distance trom top of pl to bottom of ayers 63.000 in Layer 3s sofa, petra byatoes, 1870 Distance from top of ple to top otiayer = 5,000in Distance rm top of plet bottom at ayer 72000 Ha layer ie sand, py err by APIRP-28 1987 Distance rom top of plato tepef layer = 72.000in DOstance fiom ropf plate battomeflayer= 8&.000In Prysubgrate madulisk er top of sol ayer= 45.000 fsfn**3 eysubgrade moduus kia: Beton of ayer = 4,000!bsha**2 Layer Sis soft cay, py enter by Mattos, 2970 Dance from topo pl to top offayer = #4000in Distance trom tp of pe to atom of byer=__132.000ia Layor 6 of clay, py eta by Matlocs, 1870 Distance trom top of ple to top oflayer = 1320001 Distance trom top of pletoettom of layer = 168.000 Ia {ayer 7s san, py teria by APLRP-24 20897 Distancetrom topo platetop flyer = 168.0001" Distance from top of plete bottom af ayer = 280.000n py subgrade meduliskor tp ofcallayer= 96.00 ibn py subgrade moduliskforbotom of layer = 9.000 Ib/nt*3 Layer Bis sot cay, py ertariby Matec, 2870 Distance from topaf ple toon oflyer = 180.000in Distance fram top of Fle ta ettom of ayer= 204,000 n {ayer 91 sand, py tea by API RP-78, 1987 Distance rom top ape totop of yer "= —204.000%n Distance rom top of pie to bette ot ayer = 228000in pry subgrade moduli fortop of sallayer= 110.000 lasnt subgrade mods kor bottom of ayar = 210,00 fi {ayer 30's soft chy py criteria by Watlot 1970 Distance from topof pile to topo ayer =” 228.0001n Distance from top efile to bottom af ayer = 788.000%n Layer 1 isan, p-yererla by APIRP-24, 1987 Distance from topetpleto top ofayer = 28K.000in Dtanee fram top ef ple to btom aflayer= 288.0009 Prysubgrademoduluskfortop of slayer = 80000 bs/n**3 rysubgrade moduli for batter oflayer = _ &00001bs/n**3 Layer 2 soft chy py criteria ty tock, 187 Distance rom top apie oop of layer = 298.000in Distance rom tp af plete bottom of layer= 372.0000 Layer 13 ist dy, py eiteria by Matlock, 3970 Distance from topafpiletotop of ayer = 3720001n Distance from top of plletobatom af layers $40.0001n {Depth eflowest ayer entends 18,00 below pl tp) Effective Unit Weight of Sols. Depth EFectve unit weight of salwith depth dined uss 26 points Point Depth x EAC Unil Weight No in fnt®3 3180093360 2 3600 2160 2 3600 08160 4 G00 ‘o3160 5 6300 ‘o3160 6 7200 o31e0 7 72.00 93600 8 00 93620 9 8400 oni60 6910 32002160 8200 ORG 2 36800 02160 16800 03620 ‘4 18000 03620 1$ 18000 3160 16 20400 2160 47 20409 03820 18 22800 03620 19 22800 oa160 2 2800 on160 nn 2880935200 m2 2940003620 2 29409 os160 24 372093160 2% 3n.09oa160 25 s4009 3160 {759 agai - POSSIBLE INPUT DATA ERROR **** Values entered for ffecve un weights of sol were outside the init of 0.021574 pel (20 ete 0.0810019 pei {140 pf) yeon@ous. Blase check your ata ‘Shear Strength of os ‘Shear strength parameters with depth detned using 26 points Point CepthX Cohesione Angle of Frion ES0er ROD Noo ia ibsfnt2 agen ‘gon 7.65000 “p1000 a 20 2 2 36000 76500 © 010000 3 36000 43400 © 01D 4 e000 43400 © 00 soto 5S «000 26000 001m 6 7200 26000 0 1000 7 72009 00000 300 — & son “om SLO) —— 9 son 4740 = 0010000 10 t32000 474000 00010000 4 132000 513000 © 00010000 12 168000 513000 00010000 18 163000 00000 36.00 16 180.000 00000 3600 35 180.000 743000 00010000 35 204000 749000 00010000 37 20x00 000003700 ~ 38 22000 ‘000003700 ~ 19 228000 749000 00 20 788.000 74900060 m1 28.000 00000 3500 2 24000 00000 38.00 w 24000 isto 00 24 372000 151000 00 2 372000 690000 00 2% 54000 69500 60 Notes: (G) Cohesion = niall compressive strength for rock mater (2) Vales of 50 are rported or day strata. {9} Defautvalues wi be generates for E50 when Input values are 0. (4) ROD ane km are reported ony for weak otk sataNumber ofloadsspcited = toad Case Mamter 2 Plead boundary condition te Displacement and Mement (8 Type 4) Deflection atpileheas = 125In Bending moment at ple Nead= 000 m-bs Datatlod at pile head = 000% oad case umber 2 Plc head boundary constons ae bislacement and Moment (8CType 4) Defecion stpilenead = 25010 Bending moment at pie Read» "000 tas xia lod at pleas 00 bs load Cate Member 2 Pehead boundary conditions are Displacement nd Moment (8C Type 4) Detecion at pile hea 500 in Bending nomen a ple he {00 ns Dublloasatpilehead = 000% aad Case umber e-a boundary conditions are Displacement and Moment (@C ype) Defect atpilohewd = 750in Bending moment at pile he 000 ns Aalleadatpllehead = 0001s toad Case Number § Pte head boundary condi are Displacement and Moment {BC Type 4} Defecton at plehesd = 4.00018 Bending moment at pile hea ‘000 ns dxalad at lle head 200 tbs {aul ase Number 6 Pe-head boundary conor ae Displacement and Moment (@CTyoe 8) Deflection at pile head = 50D Bending momenta ile hea 00s Acalleadatpliehead = 000 bs load Case Nomber 7 Fleshead boundary conditions are Displacement ané Moment (BC TYP 8} Defiection ape head "2000'n Bending moment at ple head = 000 nbs Araldite heed = 000 hs lead Caze Number 8 Ple-hea boundary condtons ae Osplocement and Moment (Type 4) Deflection atple head = 2.500in ending momenta pile head= 000 ‘aad at pile head 200 iss be Computed Values of tad Distribution ad Deflecion {or tateral Loading for Load Case Number 2 Pile head toundary conditions ae Displacement and Moment (8C Type) Speotieddelecton atpllehead = 128000 in Specified moment at lees = -000nlbs Specfed avlleadat ple head = 000/bs Depth Detect. Moment shear slope Total Soles. Es wy MVS Shes pF in fo sin fos Rad. lbafint*2" ain thsin (9000 125000 0.0000 4591.6002 -0DIse0% 0.0000 e.9t00 0000 4476 “118400 101745228 45916003 -0015776 2515177 0.6000 0.0000, 8352 “1ntaza 3e24a.0086 4816003 -o015e51 503.0353 0.0000 0.0000, 12528 "105295 575235684 459.6003 -0018549 7545590 0000 anna 5,704 onsa38 7o6ae.0811 4591-6003 "0015350 1006.0705 0.0000 9.0000 2nd ome7s 95872.5139 4380.9456 0015088 1757-5889 a00ARG4 4585.296, 25056 086231 113268. 39525779 on34764 14860220 -104,2725 0x9 4968 29.252 060127 s28R85. 3510-7653 -op34425 10506152 -107.3236 5593 3803 33408 0748s 142610. 2056.0272 -ooM407a 28706518 11008 61940330 B7S84 058615 154416. 2691.9146 0019583 2025-5285 -64.7826 39542667 nm41.760 062838 95.936 057456 80422052300 4.288 087379 SwA64 012885 2610 038232 6816 034029 yo992 30078 pease 026384 79344072908 3520 019772 7.695 016854 sLe72 ones 6088 0x15 aco228 08608 103.400 007588 oes76 05959 naz752 ons? 16578 oasi7a 208 on2081 198.280 oon182 129456 ooou0s 33632 «000202 365002, 74036, 22068, wos, 9610, 200ssa, 2oasa7, 207200, downs, 20052, 202284, ose, 966c0, 300023 383070 4656, 165240, 54a, 143678 33176, ss. 105998, 203.6590 conan10 22655660 56.0908 4382-7059 21903153 0012507 21804832 67.1946 48825712 857896 0012077 24000485 8.0635 5435.6683 15723339 0011s2¢ 24940361 68.7005 5055.2374 12846037 0030952 25723074 62.2013 6760.4519 995.7085 010366 2698.718 5.2608 7565 0864 758.7950 0009763 2681.3923 1.2020 5424.4612 S78A8S7 9009384 27379018 44.0587 6138.4059, 2TRATAD 0008597 7740.3908 975077 15433.4685 414501 “0007916 27aRes4o 0.4707 16273.8658 14672368 0007297 792.1205 0.9657 171005777 7843693. 0006604 26972659 70.4307 17453.6836 30736191 ~00nG081 26462580 68.5580 201200200 11355.3676 “0005290 25735809 66.3681 28557 4103 “16273922 -0004917 2497.8100 -€5.8161 27788.7123 "18875620 “9004368 74023770 60.82 $3158.5699 "xn34 7858 “9003836 22910171 57.5701 403065334 23669294 0003330 21674903 53.6569 50166.4218, 25816190 0002856 7031.7076 49.1656 64605.5945 "27757488 “0002613 188.6586 43.8073 87a05.060 “20445359 0002006 1727-6088 37.0200 132837, 307.9096 -cCO163¢ 15520805 268659 276081 082473 0001301 13904067 19.8890 #10553, 437.908 -co0ss0 92572985 -2977 0831 - 0001005 3223.2825 38.3765. 21730. 441.986 -col042 811234693 -2825 9788-7 4697F-05 10682307 41.7608 167451. 597382437 26826053 52300605 47763 460828 14748, 591459617 26383822 23257605 775344 489865 134301. 49407.9538 2027 2872-2.7370E-05 946.0562 502012 132301. 120543,6592 -2007 2517 28437E06 318227 08384 130072. '325¢0.7029 -1806 2913 658GGE05 427.1080 sa4ase 150567. 254575144 -1596.6990 155926.05 2939324 49.9311 51503 19225.0797 -1485.6125 22202608 250.1007 17.6391 49657-0002 13300-2385 -1969.3706 27020605 1744590 169596 51366.8502 146.160 -co1304 150.396 -co1a7s 154512 -o01581 158.688 -co1623 162.864 001614 167.040 001568 37.216 001885 175.392 003378 179568 001258 183.744 001127 187.920 000994 182.096 «000863 196.272 000738 200.48 «000522 pou -co0s16 208.00 -c00820 252976 «000336 a7as2 000239 y2u328 00013 225804 «000138 229.680-6.22605, 203.856 s.4Be 05 m8082-2506-06 242208-3.286-06 246.384 1.28605 250.60 2.38605 254.736 306605 2se.9n2 3426-05, 263088 3586-05, 267.268 3496-05, 2niago 3326-05, 2ys.ex6 2088-05, 2.792 2806-05, 243.968 2525-05, 209.264 223605, 292.320 105805 296496 L63e-05 300.672 1436-05 30488 1196-05 309.004 9798-06 313.200 7.87606 carers 17 13185819 3.012760 100.6268 15.9852 530762354 3320.8909 148.7675 33607605 304879 65.591 202128. 5899,7604 877.4536 33G7IE0S 247696 62.6012 263326, “S007.6%19 “6riai6s 3.06496 05 GS.c8e7 59.7703 289348. 709.1813 3765656 exs¥e 05 929K 56.7252 321117 91604271 -4s.2445 2eS0RE-O5 1071606 53.5759 358825 93213502 205137 2438505 102.1836 7.5998 61SS3.823 3407524 6795 21587605 100.4080 6.3817 634727728 8249,9520 329397 19229605 1082027 5.2372 653906316 065.6389 §2.004 16812605 105.7953 4.1788 67308.8605 7OO9SA33 680424 L4460E-05 202.4400 3.2168 69227-2845, 74973896 796856 121906-05 gR3eeO 23504 71145.5902 7184.9099 120.7342 10024605 93.7100 144263 653813, ‘6520.0896 GL /485 79564605 5.7751 85502 653513, STRAT3I6 KEATS 6-1706E05 75.8400 3.9780. 653312, 49610038 198-3108 45787605 5.079 S0stg0o 653313, 23284294 1951827 32921606 541999 “20007 653313, SE0H62 189.2365 21270E 06 «3.6915 3.7157 65331, ZSORDHTE 1664874 12487606 340793 0.7820 653313, AO4RSHSS 194.3316 S.7S09E07 255015 “5.3182 683513, 2925004 122.6068 AOO7EEOR 18.2670 5.5353 683313, 9320253 9R6596-26MGEO) 122388 $4520 653513, SBR5521 764930-4858260) 74579 5.1098 653313, 2D4SH2E 5554R6-G107960) 38541 -a8165 653313, 3086103 363326-57353607 13722 -a3aes 653343. ‘88659 53.7034 sags ag9852-€H811807 1263080 3.9360 653313, 100522 6.7abse-07 "7O44e32 -285168 61506.1391 7527-65738607 1.2175 -2038638 629012573 3268061 69379-620C0607 esse ~5758807 143085, 390.7602 47252 Se9486.07 19776 -48H9200 145089, 3661882 | 28013 53652607 21799 —0Hs402 145049, S744a9S 1.2575-486086.07 22988 «3354223. 14504, 769835 0M42$47 42399607 23710 -2695911 143048, R317.76 617606 1745020 .9797613-2.81896-07 22035 2112505 521552 468E08 16a7s85 “L7s56-93101607 22137-60122 325.728 340-05 1600289 -23538-28220607 20901 365576, 320.908 232605 149.2567 -27433-296488 07 1.9500 0795659, 334090 1436-05 137.1169 “20115 19605507 1.7985 -.0689008, 338256 7.02607 120.1143 -2.1639-15595607 1.6280 -0240873, 312432 230607 1206924 -3.223412057507 1.4520 0045S 143049, sa30es, 43040, 143049, 142049, 142009, 009, 3W6608-305E.07 74928 2.1109-8970E08 12749 o10sa67 143049, 350.788-6.20607 3.754 3:1447-629956 08 11002 0212285 142089, 354.960-8316.07 709282 -20810-4G0L1E08 $303849 0284551 3591136-954607 584772 -29133-2084ve-08 7670618 0326755. 363312-100E.05 465960 -27732-S273

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5814)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (844)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1850)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)