P. 1
Pile & Pier Foundation Analysis & Design

Pile & Pier Foundation Analysis & Design

|Views: 1,261|Likes:
Published by Oentoeng Kartono

More info:

Published by: Oentoeng Kartono on Feb 11, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/24/2013

pdf

text

original

Pile & Pier Foundation

Analysis & Design
by
Peter J. Bosscher
University of Wisconsin-Madison
5
Topic Outline
q Overview
q Axial Load Capacity
q Group Effects
q Settlement
6
Overview
q Shallow vs Deep
Foundations
– A deep foundation is one
where the depth of
embedment is larger than
2X the foundation width.
7
Historic Perspective
• one of the oldest methods of overcoming the
difficulties of founding on soft soils
• Alexander the Great, 332BC in Tyre
• “Amsterdam, die oude Stadt, is gebouwed op
palen, Als die stad eens emmevelt, wie zal dat
betalen?” an old Dutch nursery rhyme
• “If in doubt about the foundation, drive piles.”
1930-1940 practice methodology
8
Contrast in Performance
q Example
– deep clay
» cu = 500 psf
– Load = 340 kips
– Factor of Safety = 2
Settlements at working load Pad Single Pile Pile & Pad 4-Pile Grp.
Immediate 4.1 0.9 2.3 0.8
Consolidation 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.2
Total 5.3 1.0 2.7 1.0
9
Modern Uses
q weak upper soils
– shallow (a)
– deep (b)
q large lateral loads (c)
q expansive &
collapsible soils (d)
q uplift forces (e)
q bridge abutments &
piers (f)
Foundation
Design
Process
(FHWA)
Foundation
Design
Process
Continued
(FHWA)
10
Foundation
Classification
11
Pile Types
• Timber Piles
• Steel H-Piles
• Steel Pipe Piles
• Precast Concrete
Piles
• Mandrel-Driven Piles
• Cast-in-Place
Concrete Piles
• Composite Piles
• Drilled Shafts
• Augered, Pressure
Injected Concrete
Piles
• Micropiles
• Pressure Injected
Footings
12
Timber Piles
13
Steel H-Piles
14
Steel Pipe Piles
15
Precast Concrete Piles
16
Mandrel-Driven Piles
17
Cast-in-place Concrete Piles
Composite Piles
Drilled Shafts
Augered, Pressure Injected
Concrete Piles
Micropiles
Pressure Injected Footings
18
Evaluation of Pile Types
• Load Capacity & Pile Spacing
• Constructability
• soil stratigraphy
• need for splicing or cutting
• driving vibrations
• driving speed (see next slide)
• Performance
• environmental suitability (corrosion)
• Availability
• Cost
21
Soil Properties for
Static Pile Capacity
q Proper subsurface investigations yield critical
information regarding stratigraphy and also
provide quality soil samples.
q Boring depths minimally should extend 20 feet
beyond the longest pile. Looking for critical
information such as soft, settlement prone layers,
or other problem soils such as cobbles. Want
additional information from in-situ field tests (SPT
and CPT). Location of groundwater table is
critical.
22
Soil Properties for
Static Pile Capacity, cont.
q From soil samples, determine shear strength and
consolidation properties. For clays, both quick
and long term strengths (from UU and CU/CD)
should be determined. For sands, only CD tests
are used.
q For clays, the pile capacities in the short and long
terms should be compared and the lower of the
two cases selected for use. If the design is verified
by pile load tests, these results will usually
dominate the final design.
23
Factor of Safety
q Depends on many factors, including:
– type and importance of the structure
– spatial variability of the soil
– thoroughness of the subsurface investigation
– type and number of soil tests
– availability of on-site or nearby full-scale load
tests
– anticipated level of construction monitoring
– probability of design loads being exceeded
during life of structure
24
Classification of Structure &
Level of Control
q Structure:
– monumental: design life > 100 years
– permanent: design life >25 yrs and < 100 yrs
– temporary: design life < 25 yrs
q Control:
Control
Subsurface
Conditions
Subsurface
Exploration
Load
Tests
Construction
Monitoring
Good Uniform Thorough Available Good
Normal
Somewhat
variable Good None Average
Poor Erratic Good None Variable
Very Poor V. Erratic Limited None Limited
25
Factors of Safety for Deep
Foundations for Downward Loads
Design Factor of Safety, F
Classification
of Structure
Acceptable
Probability of
Failure
Good
Control
Normal
Control
Poor
Control
Very Poor
Control
Monumental 1E-05 2.3 3.0 3.5 4.0
Permanent 1E-04 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.4
Temporary 1E-03 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.8
Expanded from Reese and O’Neill, 1989.
26
Methods for Computing Static
Pile Capacity
q Allowable Stresses in Structural Members
q Pile Capacity
– Many different methods (α, β, λ, Meyerhof, Vesic,
Coyle & Castello, etc).
– Soil Type (Cohesionless, Cohesive, Silt, Layered Soils)
– Point Bearing
– Skin Resistance
» Normal (Positive) Skin Friction
» Negative Skin Friction
q Settlement of Piles
Allowable Stresses in Structural
Members
• Any driven pile has to remain structurally intact and not be
stressed to its structural limit during its service life under static
loading conditions as well as under dynamic driving induced
loads. Therefore, material stress limits are placed on:
• The maximum allowable design stress during the service life.
• The maximum allowable driving stresses.
• Additional material stress limits, beyond the design and
driving stress limits, may apply to prevent buckling of piles
when a portion of the pile is in air, water, or soil not capable of
adequate lateral support. In these cases, the structural design
of the pile should also be in accordance with the requirements
of Sections 8, 9, 10, and 13 of AASHTO code (1994) for
compression members.
• See excerpt from FHWA’s Design and Construction of Driven
Pile Foundations
27
Axial Pile Capacity
q In general:
q Three general cases shown (from Das)
30
F
A f A q
F
P P
P
s s e e
s e
a

+

·
+

·
31
Methods of Evaluating Axial
Load Capacity of Piles
32
Full-Scale Load Tests
q Most precise way to determine axial load
capacity. All other methods are indirect.
q Quite expensive thus use judiciously.
q Two types: controlled stress or controlled
strain, also quick and slow versions.
q Results are open to interpretation:
– 9 methods to analyze results
33
When to use Full-scale Load Tests
q many piles to drive
q erratic or unusual soil conditions
q friction piles in soft/medium clay
q settlement is critical
q engineer is inexperienced
q uplift loads on piles
34
How many load tests?
q From Engel (1988):
Length of
Piling (ft)
Length of
Piling (m)
Number of
Load Tests
0-6000 0-1800 0
6000-10000 1800-3000 1
10000-20000 3000-6000 2
20000-30000 6000-9000 3
30000-40000 9000-12000 4
35
Static Methods
(Based on Soil Tests or In-situ Tests)
q More difficult to interpret than load tests:
– pile driving changes soil properties
– soil-structure interaction is complex
q Less expensive than load tests
q Used for:
– preliminary analysis to plan pile load testing
– extend results of pile load testing
– design purposes on small projects
36
Cohesionless Soil
q no excess pore pressure
q End Bearing:
– many use shallow bearing
capacity formulas
– use
– but real piles do not behave
like shallow foundations
where capacity increases
linearly with depth.
( )
q N BN
e D q
' . · ′ − + σ γ
γ
1 0 5
37
Max Limit on End Bearing?
q Some suggest a limit on end
bearing to match experience.
q Problems with that approach:
– more complex than that; need to
consider both strength and
compressibility of the soil
– friction angle varies with
effective stress
– overconsolidation causes
changes in bearing capacity
Vesic/Kulhawy Method
q Based on Vesic’s work, Kulhawy gives the
two bearing capacity factors:
38
( ) φ σ ν tan 1 2
D s
r
E
I
′ +
·
( ) φ σ ν tan 1 2
D s
r
E
I
′ +
·
39
Coyle & Castello’s Method
q Based on 16 pile
load tests
q Based on φ and
D/B.
q CAUTION: No effect
of pile material,
installation effects, and
initial insitu stresses
40
Cohesionless Soil
q Skin (Side) Friction
– use a simple sliding model:
» where
» often rewrite using
» K varies with:
q amount of soil displacement
q soil consistency
q construction techniques
f
s h s
· ′ σ φ tan
′ ·
·
σ
φ
h
horizontal effective stress
tan coef. of friction between soil and pile
s
′ · ′ σ σ
h v
K
41
General Method (Kulhawy)
q rewrite equation:
q Suggest using:
f K
K
K
s v
s
· ′
|
.

`
,

|
.

`
,

]
]
]
σ φ
φ
φ
0
0
tan
Pile & Soil Types
φ
s

Sand/Rough concrete 1.0
Sand/Smooth concrete 0.8-1.0
Sand/Rough steel 0.7-0.9
Sand/Smooth steel 0.5-0.7
Sand/timber 0.8-0.9
Foundation Type &
Construction Method
K/K
0
Jetted pile ½ -2/3
Drilled shaft 2/3 - 1
Pile-small displacemnt ¾-1¼
Pile-large displacement 1 – 1.2
( )
φ
φ


− ·
sin
0
sin 1 OCR K
42
Simplistic β Method
q lumps K and tanφ into one term: β·Ktanφ
s
q can develop site-specific β or use empirical
formulas in literature.
q Eg: for large displacement piles in sand,
Bhushan (1982)suggests:
β · + 018 0 65 . . D
D
r
r
where is the relative density in decimal form
43
Coyle & Castello’s Method
q empirical correlation
of f
s
to φ and z/B.
q z is depth to midpoint
of strata.
q CAUTION: No effect of
pile material, installation
effects, and initial insitu
stresses
44
Cohesive Soil
q excess pore pressures produced by soil
displacement during driving takes time to
dissipate. This means capacity increases with
time. Usually assume full capacity is achieved by
the time the full dead load is applied.
q but usually need to consider live load too.
– end bearing affected by live load (soil compression)
» use undrained strength if significant live load
– side friction not affected
» use drained strength always
45
End Bearing
q most engineers use:
q not adhesion but rather frictional behavior
q could use cohesionless equation but
problems again with K
0
therefore use β
method.
′ · q s
s
e u
u
9
where = undrained shear strength
Skin Friction
46
β Method for Clay
q use Randolph
and Wroth
(1982):
q upper limit:
β
φ
≤ +
|
.

`
,
tan
2
45
2
47
Traditional Methods
q a large number of engineers still use
“adhesion” concepts.
q The α and λ methods are based on
undrained strength. See Sladen (1992) for
an analysis of these methods.
q These methods have wide scatter,
sometimes being as low as 1/3 or as high as
3 times the actual capacity.
48
In-Situ Soil Test Methods
q can determine φ or s
u
and then use previous
methods or can use direct correlation
methods.
q direct in-situ methods especially important
for sand as sampling and testing is difficult.
q In-situ tests:
– SPT & CPT
49
Standard Penetration Test
q SPT is inconsistent thus correlation is less
reliable than CPT.
q Two methods (for sand only): Meyerhof &
Briaud
q SPT does not seem reliable for clays
Meyerhof Method
q End Bearing:
For sands and gravels:
For nonplastic silts:
′ · ′ ≤ ′
′ · ′ ≤ ′
q N
D
B
N
q N
D
B
N
e r r
e r r
0 40 4 0
0 40 30
60 60
60 60
. .
. .
σ σ
σ σ
For large displacement piles:
For small displacement piles:
f N
f N
s
r
s
r
·
·
σ
σ
50
100
60
60
q Skin Friction:
NOTE N
N
r
:σ ·

1
60
60
tsf; = SPT N corrected for field procedures;
= SPT N corrected for field procedures and overburden stress
50
51
Briaud Method
q based on regression analyses:
( )
( )
′ ·
·
q N
f N
e r
s r
19 7
0 224
60
0 36
60
0 29
.
.
.
.
σ
σ
52
CPT Correlations
q the CPT is very similar to driving piles
therefore this test is a good predictor of
capacity.
q unfortunately, the test is rarely run in the
U.S. because of the inertia of the
engineering community.
q for correlations based on CPT see Coduto
(1994)
53
From Karl Terzaghi, 1943
“The problems of soil mechanics may be
divided into two principal groups - the
stability problems and the elasticity
problems.”
q Bearing capacity is a stability problem,
settlement is an elastic problem.
54
Pile Settlement
q Isolated piles designed using the previously
mentioned methods usually settle less than 0.5
inches at their working loads. Pile groups may
settle somewhat more but generally within
acceptable limits. Most engineers do not conduct
a settlement analysis unless:
– the structure is especially sensitive to settlement,
– highly compressible strata are present,
– sophisticated structural analyses are also being used.
55
Why put piles in groups?
q Single pile capacity is insufficient
q Single pile location may not be sufficiently
accurate to match column location
q To build in redundancy
q Increased efficiency gained by multiple
piles driven in close proximity
Group characteristics
q Common C-C spacing: 2.5 to 3.0 diameters
q Efficiency:
( )
η · ·
′ +
Group Capacity
Sum of Individual Piles
P F
N P P
ag
e s
where:
group efficiency factor
net allowable capacity of pile group
factor of safety
number of piles in group
net end bearing capacity of single pile
skin friction capacity of single pile
η ·
·
·
·
′ ·
·
P
F
N
P
P
ag
e
s
56
57
Individual vs Block Failure Mode
s
Individual Failure Mode Block Failure Mode
Group characteristics
q Do not use Converse-Labarre formula for
group efficiency (not accurate)
q From O’Neill (1983):
– in loose cohesionless soils, η > 1 and is highest
at s/B = 2. Increases with N.
– in dense cohesionless soils at normal spacings
(2 < s/B < 4), η is slightly greater than 1 if the
pile is driven.
– in cohesive soils, η < 1. Cap in contact w/
ground increases efficiency but large settlement
is required.
58
59
Design Guidelines
q Use engineering judgment - no good recipes
q Block failure not likely unless s/B<2
q In most cohesive soil, if s/B>2, eventual η ≅
1.0 but early values range from 0.4 to 0.8.
q In cohesionless soils, design for η between 1.0
and 1.25 if driven piling w/o predrilling. If
predrilling or jetting used, efficiency may drop
below 1.0.
60
Negative skin friction
q Occurs when upper
soils consolidate,
perhaps due to
weight of fill.
61
Negative skin friction
q The downward drag due to negative skin friction
may occur in the following situations:
– consolidation of surrounding soil
– placement of a fill over compressible soil
– lowering of the groundwater table
– underconsolidated soils
– compaction of soils
q This load can be quite large and must be added to
the structural load when determining stresses in
the pile. Negative skin friction generally
increases pile settlement but does not change pile
capacity.
62
Methods to reduce downdrag
q Coat piles w/ bitumen, reducing φ
s
q Use a large diameter predrill hole, reducing
lateral earth pressure (K)
q Use a pile tip larger than diameter of pile,
reducing K
q Preload site with fill prior to driving piling
Laterally Loaded Deep Fnds
q Deep foundations must also commonly
support lateral loads in addition to axial
loads.
q Sources include:
– Wind loads
– Impacts of waves & ships on marine structures
– Lateral pressure of earth or water on walls
– Cable forces on electrical transmission towers
From Karl Terzaghi, 1943
“The problems of soil mechanics may be
divided into two principal groups - the
stability problems and the elasticity
problems.”
Ultimate lateral load capacity is a stability
problem, load-deformation analysis is
similar to an elasticity problem.
Ultimate Lateral Load
q Dependent on the diameter and length of the
shaft, the strength of the soil, and other
factors.
q Use Broms method (1964, 1965)
q Divide world into:
– cohesive & cohesionless
– free & fixed head
– 0, 1, or 2 plastic hinges
Cohesive Soil Diagrams
Lateral
Resistance
Free-Head
Distributions
Fixed-Head
Distributions
Cohesionless Soil
Diagrams
Free-Head Distributions
Fixed-Head Distributions
Summary Instructions
for
Laterally Loaded Piles
by
B. Broms
Cohesive Soil:
Cohesionless Soil:
(a)
(b)
Short-Free:
( )
H
dg c
e d f
u
u
=
+ +
2 25
15 05
2
.
. .
or Fig (a)
where f
H
c d
u
u
=
9
and L d f g = + + 15 .
If M dg c
yield u
≤ 2 25
2
. then pile has one plastic
hinge and is “long”.
Long-Free:
( )
H
M
e d f
u
yield
=
+ + 15 05 . .
or Fig (b)
Check if ( ) M H L d
yield u
> + 05 0 75 . . . If so, pile is
short, else pile is intermediate or long.
Then if M c dg
yield u
> 2 25
2
. then pile is
intermediate, else pile is long.
Short-Fixed: ( ) H c d L d
u u
= − 9 15 . or Fig (a)
Intermediate-Fixed: H
c dg M
d f
u
u yield
=
+
+
2 25
15 05
2
.
. .
Long-Fixed: H
M
d f
u
yield
=
+
2
15 05 . .
or Fig (b)
Short-free: H
dK L
e L
u
p
=
+
05
3
. γ
or Fig (a)
Long-free: H
M
e f
u
yield
=
+ 0 67 .
or Fig (b)
where f
H
dK
u
p
= 082 .
γ
Check if M dK L
yield p
> γ
3
. If so, pile is short,
else pile is intermediate or long.
Then if M
yield
> the moment at depth f, then
pile is intermediate, else pile is long.
Short-fixed: H L dK
u p
= 15
2
. γ or Fig (a)
Interm.-fixed: H L dK
M
L
u p
yield
= + 05
2
. γ
Long-fixed: H
M
e f
u
yield
=
+
2
067 .
or Fig (b)
Load-Deformation Method
q Due to the large lateral deflection required to
mobilize full lateral capacity, typical design
requires a load-deformation analysis to determine
the lateral load that corresponds to a certain
allowable deflection.
q Considers both the flexural stiffness of the
foundation and the lateral resistance from the soil.
q Main difficulty is accurate modeling of soil
resistance.
p-y Method
q Can handle:
– any nonlinear load-deflection curve
– variations of the load-deflection curve w/ depth
– variations of the foundation stiffness (EI) w/ depth
– elastic-plastic flexural behavior of the foundation
– any defined head constraint
q Calibrated from full-scale load tests
q Reese (1984, 1986) are good references.
q Requires computer program
COM624P
q COM624P -- Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis Program for
the Microcomputer, Version 2.0. Publication No. FHWA-
SA-91-048.
q Computer program C0M624P has been developed for
analyzing stresses and deflection of piles or drilled shafts
under lateral loads. The technology on which the program
is based is the widely used p-y curve method. The program
solves the equations giving pile deflection, rotation,
bending moment, and shear by using iterative procedures
because of the nonlinear response of the soil.
p-y Method: Chart solutions
q Evans & Duncan (1982) developed chart
solutions from p-y computer runs.
q Advantages:
– no computer required
– can be used to check computer output
– can get load vs max moment and deflection
directly
Group Effects
q Complexities arise:
– load distribution amongst piles in group
– differences between group effect and single pile
q O’Neill (1983) has identified an important
characteristic: pile-soil-pile interaction (PSPI).
Larger interaction in closely spaced piles.
q Lateral deflection of pile group is greater than
single isolated pile subjected to proportional share
of load.

Topic Outline
Overview q Axial Load Capacity q Group Effects q Settlement
q

5

Overview
q

Shallow vs Deep Foundations

A deep foundation is one where the depth of embedment is larger than 2X the foundation width.

6

332BC in Tyre • • “Amsterdam.Historic Perspective • one of the oldest methods of overcoming the difficulties of founding on soft soils • Alexander the Great. wie zal dat betalen?” an old Dutch nursery rhyme “If in doubt about the foundation. Als die stad eens emmevelt. drive piles. die oude Stadt.” 1930-1940 practice methodology 7 . is gebouwed op palen.

9 0.2 5.1 1.0 Pile & Pad 4-Pile Grp.3 Single Pile 0.3 0.1 1.Contrast in Performance q Example – deep clay » cu = 500 psf – – Load = 340 kips Factor of Safety = 2 Settlements at working load Immediate Consolidation Total Pad 4.4 0. 2.7 1.2 2.0 8 .8 0.

Modern Uses q q q q q weak upper soils – shallow (a) – deep (b) large lateral loads (c) expansive & collapsible soils (d) uplift forces (e) bridge abutments & piers (f) 9 .

Foundation Design Process (FHWA) .

Foundation Design Process Continued (FHWA) .

Foundation Classification 10 .

Pressure Injected Concrete Piles Micropiles Pressure Injected Footings • • • • 11 .Pile Types • • • • Timber Piles Steel H-Piles Steel Pipe Piles Precast Concrete Piles Mandrel-Driven Piles Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles • • • Composite Piles Drilled Shafts Augered.

Timber Piles 12 .

Steel H-Piles 13 .

Steel Pipe Piles 14 .

Precast Concrete Piles 15 .

Mandrel-Driven Piles 16 .

Cast-in-place Concrete Piles 17 .

Composite Piles .

Drilled Shafts .

Augered. Pressure Injected Concrete Piles .

Micropiles .

Pressure Injected Footings .

Evaluation of Pile Types • Load Capacity & Pile Spacing • Constructability • • • • soil stratigraphy need for splicing or cutting driving vibrations driving speed (see next slide) • Performance • environmental suitability (corrosion) • Availability • Cost 18 .

Want additional information from in-situ field tests (SPT and CPT). Location of groundwater table is critical. 21 . Boring depths minimally should extend 20 feet beyond the longest pile.Soil Properties for Static Pile Capacity q q Proper subsurface investigations yield critical information regarding stratigraphy and also provide quality soil samples. Looking for critical information such as soft. settlement prone layers. or other problem soils such as cobbles.

both quick and long term strengths (from UU and CU/CD) should be determined. For clays. these results will usually dominate the final design.Soil Properties for Static Pile Capacity. the pile capacities in the short and long terms should be compared and the lower of the two cases selected for use. 22 . cont. only CD tests are used. For sands. If the design is verified by pile load tests. q q From soil samples. determine shear strength and consolidation properties. For clays.

including: – – – – – – – type and importance of the structure spatial variability of the soil thoroughness of the subsurface investigation type and number of soil tests availability of on-site or nearby full-scale load tests anticipated level of construction monitoring probability of design loads being exceeded during life of structure 23 .Factor of Safety q Depends on many factors.

Classification of Structure & Level of Control
q

Structure:
– – –

monumental: design life > 100 years permanent: design life >25 yrs and < 100 yrs temporary: design life < 25 yrs

q

Control:
Subsurface Subsurface Load Construction Control Conditions Exploration Tests Monitoring Good Uniform Thorough Available Good Somewhat Normal variable Good None Average Poor Erratic Good None Variable Very Poor V. Erratic Limited None Limited
24

Factors of Safety for Deep Foundations for Downward Loads
Design Factor of Safety, F Acceptable Classification Probability of Good Normal Poor Very Poor Control Control Control Control of Structure Failure Monumental 1E-05 2.3 3.0 3.5 4.0 Permanent 1E-04 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.4 Temporary 1E-03 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.8

Expanded from Reese and O’Neill, 1989.

25

Methods for Computing Static Pile Capacity
q q

Allowable Stresses in Structural Members Pile Capacity

– – –

Many different methods (α, β, λ, Meyerhof, Vesic, Coyle & Castello, etc). Soil Type (Cohesionless, Cohesive, Silt, Layered Soils) Point Bearing Skin Resistance
» »

Normal (Positive) Skin Friction Negative Skin Friction

q

Settlement of Piles
26

• The maximum allowable driving stresses. beyond the design and driving stress limits.Allowable Stresses in Structural Members • Any driven pile has to remain structurally intact and not be stressed to its structural limit during its service life under static loading conditions as well as under dynamic driving induced loads. or soil not capable of adequate lateral support. 9. may apply to prevent buckling of piles when a portion of the pile is in air. the structural design of the pile should also be in accordance with the requirements of Sections 8. • See excerpt from FHWA’s Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations 27 . 10. Therefore. • Additional material stress limits. and 13 of AASHTO code (1994) for compression members. material stress limits are placed on: • The maximum allowable design stress during the service life. water. In these cases.

Axial Pile Capacity q In general: ′ Pe′ + Ps qe Ae + ∑ f s As Pa = = F F q Three general cases shown (from Das) 30 .

Methods of Evaluating Axial Load Capacity of Piles 31 .

Full-Scale Load Tests Most precise way to determine axial load capacity. q Results are open to interpretation: q – 9 methods to analyze results 32 . All other methods are indirect. also quick and slow versions. q Two types: controlled stress or controlled strain. q Quite expensive thus use judiciously.

When to use Full-scale Load Tests many piles to drive q erratic or unusual soil conditions q friction piles in soft/medium clay q settlement is critical q engineer is inexperienced q uplift loads on piles q 33 .

How many load tests? q From Engel (1988): Length of Length of Number of Piling (ft) Piling (m) Load Tests 0-6000 0-1800 0 6000-10000 1800-3000 1 10000-20000 3000-6000 2 20000-30000 6000-9000 3 30000-40000 9000-12000 4 34 .

Static Methods (Based on Soil Tests or In-situ Tests) q More difficult to interpret than load tests: – – pile driving changes soil properties soil-structure interaction is complex Less expensive than load tests q Used for: q – – – preliminary analysis to plan pile load testing extend results of pile load testing design purposes on small projects 35 .

Cohesionless Soil no excess pore pressure q End Bearing: q – – – many use shallow bearing capacity formulas use q ' = σ ′ ( N − 1) + 0. e D q γ 36 .5γBN but real piles do not behave like shallow foundations where capacity increases linearly with depth.

q Problems with that approach: q – – – more complex than that.Max Limit on End Bearing? Some suggest a limit on end bearing to match experience. need to consider both strength and compressibility of the soil friction angle varies with effective stress overconsolidation causes changes in bearing capacity 37 .

Vesic/Kulhawy Method q Based on Vesic’s work. Kulhawy gives the two bearing capacity factors: Ir = E ′ 2(1 + ν s )σ D tan φ Ir = E ′ 2(1 + ν s )σ D tan φ 38 .

q q CAUTION: No effect of pile material. installation effects. and initial insitu stresses 39 .Coyle & Castello’s Method Based on 16 pile load tests q Based on φ and D/B.

Cohesionless Soil q Skin (Side) Friction – use a simple sliding model: » where σ h′ = horizontal effective stress f s = σ h′ tan φs » » ′ often rewrite using σ h K varies with: q q q tanφs = coef. of friction between soil and pile = Kσ v′ amount of soil displacement soil consistency construction techniques 40 .

General Method (Kulhawy) q rewrite equation: φs/φ 1.7-0.2 Pile & Soil Types Sand/Rough concrete Sand/Smooth concrete Sand/Rough steel Sand/Smooth steel Sand/timber q Suggest using: K 0 = (1 − sin φ ′)OCR sin φ ′ 41 .8-1.0 0.1 ¾-1¼ 1 – 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8-0.5-0.9  K    φs   f s = σ v′K0   tan φ     K0    φ   Foundation Type & Construction Method Jetted pile Drilled shaft Pile-small displacemnt Pile-large displacement K/K 0 ½ -2/3 2/3 .

18 + 0. q Eg: for large displacement piles in sand.Simplistic β Method lumps K and tanφ into one term: β=Ktanφs q can develop site-specific β or use empirical formulas in literature.65 Dr where Dr is the relative density in decimal form 42 . Bhushan (1982)suggests: q β = 0.

Coyle & Castello’s Method empirical correlation of fs to φ and z/B. q z is depth to midpoint of strata. installation effects. q q CAUTION: No effect of pile material. and initial insitu stresses 43 .

Cohesive Soil q q excess pore pressures produced by soil displacement during driving takes time to dissipate. This means capacity increases with time. Usually assume full capacity is achieved by the time the full dead load is applied. – – end bearing affected by live load (soil compression) » use undrained strength if significant live load side friction not affected » use drained strength always 44 . but usually need to consider live load too.

q 45 .End Bearing q most engineers use: qe′ = 9 su where su = undrained shear strength Skin Friction not adhesion but rather frictional behavior q could use cohesionless equation but problems again with K0 therefore use β method.

β Method for Clay use Randolph and Wroth (1982): q upper limit: q φ  β ≤ tan  45 +   2 2 46 .

q 47 . q The α and λ methods are based on undrained strength. q These methods have wide scatter. See Sladen (1992) for an analysis of these methods. sometimes being as low as 1/3 or as high as 3 times the actual capacity.Traditional Methods a large number of engineers still use “adhesion” concepts.

q In-situ tests: q – SPT & CPT 48 . q direct in-situ methods especially important for sand as sampling and testing is difficult.In-Situ Soil Test Methods can determine φ or su and then use previous methods or can use direct correlation methods.

Standard Penetration Test SPT is inconsistent thus correlation is less reliable than CPT. q Two methods (for sand only): Meyerhof & Briaud q SPT does not seem reliable for clays q 49 .

N 60 = SPT N corrected for field procedures.0 N 60σ r ′ ′ ′ B For nonplastic silts: D qe = 0.40 N 60 σ r ≤ 4.40 N 60 σ r ≤ 3.0 N 60σ r ′ ′ ′ B For large displacement piles: σr fs = N 60 50 For small displacement piles: σr fs = N 60 100 NOTE :σ r = 1 tsf. N 60 = SPT N corrected for field procedures and overburden stress ′ 50 .Meyerhof Method q End Bearing: q Skin Friction: For sands and gravels: D qe = 0.

Briaud Method q based on regression analyses: qe = 19.7σ r ( N 60 ) ′ 0.29 51 .224σ r ( N 60 ) 0.36 f s = 0.

because of the inertia of the engineering community.CPT Correlations the CPT is very similar to driving piles therefore this test is a good predictor of capacity. q for correlations based on CPT see Coduto (1994) q 52 .S. the test is rarely run in the U. q unfortunately.

53 . settlement is an elastic problem.” q Bearing capacity is a stability problem.From Karl Terzaghi.the stability problems and the elasticity problems. 1943 “The problems of soil mechanics may be divided into two principal groups .

54 .5 inches at their working loads.Pile Settlement q Isolated piles designed using the previously mentioned methods usually settle less than 0. Most engineers do not conduct a settlement analysis unless: – – – the structure is especially sensitive to settlement. Pile groups may settle somewhat more but generally within acceptable limits. sophisticated structural analyses are also being used. highly compressible strata are present.

Why put piles in groups? Single pile capacity is insufficient q Single pile location may not be sufficiently accurate to match column location q To build in redundancy q Increased efficiency gained by multiple piles driven in close proximity q 55 .

0 diameters Pag F Group Capacity q Efficiency: η = = q where: η = group efficiency factor Pag = net allowable capacity of pile group Sum of Individual Piles N ( Pe′+ Ps ) F = factor of safety N = number of piles in group Pe′ = net end bearing capacity of single pile Ps = skin friction capacity of single pile 56 .Group characteristics Common C-C spacing: 2.5 to 3.

Individual vs Block Failure Mode s Individual Failure Mode Block Failure Mode 57 .

in dense cohesionless soils at normal spacings (2 < s/B < 4). η is slightly greater than 1 if the pile is driven. η < 1. η > 1 and is highest at s/B = 2. Increases with N. Cap in contact w/ ground increases efficiency but large settlement is required. 58 . in cohesive soils.Group characteristics Do not use Converse-Labarre formula for group efficiency (not accurate) q From O’Neill (1983): q – – – in loose cohesionless soils.

efficiency may drop below 1.0. design for η between 1.Design Guidelines Use engineering judgment .25 if driven piling w/o predrilling. q 59 . q In cohesionless soils. if s/B>2.no good recipes q Block failure not likely unless s/B<2 q In most cohesive soil.4 to 0.0 and 1.0 but early values range from 0. eventual η ≅ 1. If predrilling or jetting used.8.

Negative skin friction q Occurs when upper soils consolidate. 60 . perhaps due to weight of fill.

61 . Negative skin friction generally increases pile settlement but does not change pile capacity.Negative skin friction q The downward drag due to negative skin friction may occur in the following situations: – – – – – consolidation of surrounding soil placement of a fill over compressible soil lowering of the groundwater table underconsolidated soils compaction of soils q This load can be quite large and must be added to the structural load when determining stresses in the pile.

Methods to reduce downdrag Coat piles w/ bitumen. reducing φs q Use a large diameter predrill hole. reducing K q Preload site with fill prior to driving piling q 62 . reducing lateral earth pressure (K) q Use a pile tip larger than diameter of pile.

q Sources include: q – – – – Wind loads Impacts of waves & ships on marine structures Lateral pressure of earth or water on walls Cable forces on electrical transmission towers .Laterally Loaded Deep Fnds Deep foundations must also commonly support lateral loads in addition to axial loads.

From Karl Terzaghi.the stability problems and the elasticity problems. . load-deformation analysis is similar to an elasticity problem. 1943 “The problems of soil mechanics may be divided into two principal groups .” Ultimate lateral load capacity is a stability problem.

Ultimate Lateral Load Dependent on the diameter and length of the shaft. the strength of the soil. q Use Broms method (1964. 1. and other factors. or 2 plastic hinges . 1965) q Divide world into: q – cohesive & cohesionless – free & fixed head – 0.

Cohesive Soil Diagrams Lateral Resistance Free-Head Distributions Fixed-Head Distributions .

Cohesionless Soil Diagrams Free-Head Distributions Fixed-Head Distributions .

Intermediate-Fixed: H u = Long-Fixed: 2. else pile is long.67 f or Fig (b) . else pile is intermediate or long.5 f ) 2.5 L + 0. else pile is intermediate or long.82 Check if M yield > γdK p L3 . pile is short.5 f ) M yield or Fig (b) Check if M yield > H u ( 0.25cu dg 2 then pile is intermediate.25cu dg 2 + M yield 15d + 0.5γL2 dK p + Long-fixed: H u = (a) M yield L (b) 2 M yield e + 0.67 f Hu γdK p or Fig (a) or Fig (b) where f = 0. If so. or Fig (b) Hu = 2 M yield 15d + 0.25dg 2 cu or Fig (a) Hu and L = 15d + f + g .25dg 2 cu then pile has one plastic hinge and is “long”.5γdK p L3 e+ L M yield e + 0. 9 cu d If M yield ≤ 2. Cohesionless Soil: Short-free: Long-free: Hu = Hu = 0. Then if M yield > the moment at depth f. Short-fixed: Hu = 15γL2 dK p or Fig (a) .Summary Instructions for Laterally Loaded Piles by B.-fixed: H u = 0. then pile is intermediate. (e + 15d + 0.5 f . pile is short. Interm. Short-Fixed: H u = 9cu d ( L − 15d ) or Fig (a) . Broms Cohesive Soil: Short-Free: H u = where f = .75d ) . Long-Free: H u = . If so. Then if M yield > 2. else pile is long.5 f . (e + 15d + 0.

. Main difficulty is accurate modeling of soil resistance. Considers both the flexural stiffness of the foundation and the lateral resistance from the soil. typical design requires a load-deformation analysis to determine the lateral load that corresponds to a certain allowable deflection.Load-Deformation Method q q q Due to the large lateral deflection required to mobilize full lateral capacity.

q Requires computer program q . 1986) are good references.p-y Method q Can handle: – – – – – any nonlinear load-deflection curve variations of the load-deflection curve w/ depth variations of the foundation stiffness (EI) w/ depth elastic-plastic flexural behavior of the foundation any defined head constraint Calibrated from full-scale load tests q Reese (1984.

Computer program C0M624P has been developed for analyzing stresses and deflection of piles or drilled shafts under lateral loads.COM624P q COM624P -.Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis Program for the Microcomputer. bending moment. rotation. FHWASA-91-048.0. and shear by using iterative procedures because of the nonlinear response of the soil. Publication No. q . The technology on which the program is based is the widely used p-y curve method. Version 2. The program solves the equations giving pile deflection.

p-y Method: Chart solutions Evans & Duncan (1982) developed chart solutions from p-y computer runs. q Advantages: q – no computer required – can be used to check computer output – can get load vs max moment and deflection directly .

Lateral deflection of pile group is greater than single isolated pile subjected to proportional share of load.Group Effects q Complexities arise: – load distribution amongst piles in group – differences between group effect and single pile q q O’Neill (1983) has identified an important characteristic: pile-soil-pile interaction (PSPI). . Larger interaction in closely spaced piles.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->