Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Review and Analysis of Pile Design PDF
A Review and Analysis of Pile Design PDF
15. Supplementary Notes Publication of this report was sponsored by the Kentucky Transportdt ion
Cabinet in cooperation with the U. s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
Study Title: Soil-Bridge Abutment Interact ion
16. Abstract
A review of lateral load design of piles is presented. It appears many different
methods and allowable lateral loads are pemitted by the states. One particular
method is discussed in detail, and from that method two charts are presented that
relate pile deflection to lateral load. Recommendations are given on design criteria
for lateral loads.
A review of allowable axial stresses is also presented. The results of a brief
finite element analysis of pile tip settlement versus load for various conditions
are also presented. These results are compared to data obtained from the literature.
Recommend at ions on maximum allowable axial stress are given.
19. Security Ciani f. (of this report) 20. Security Clauif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 38
by
David L. Allen
Chief Research Engineer
in cooperation with
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Commonwealth of Kentucky
and
December 1984
INTRODUCTION
These piles are usually point-bearing and are most often driven through
Vertical loads on these piles are derived from dead load of the structure,
allowable lateral load of 2 kips per pile for the dead load condition,
Bridges). The maximum allowable axial load for point-bearing steel H-piles
is 9,000 pounds per square inch times the end area of the pile (Section
FHWA, approximately 22 indicated that lateral loads were not analyzed and
that battered piles were used to resist any lateral loads that might be
present. Two states used the method presented in NAVFAC DM 7.2 (2), which
(3). Three states used a method reported by Broms (4, 5). Also, there is
NAVFAC DM 7.2 (2) states that 0.25 inch is often used as the maximum
allowable deflection at the top of the pile. However, this criterion would
depend largely upon the structure and the amount of deflection it could
tolerate.
The maximum allowable axial load permitted by the states for steel H-
12,000 psi on a site-by-site basis. Other states allow 12,000 psi when
load tests are performed. The state of Texas sets no maximum allowable
stress, but "loads are determined from information furnished by the soils
laboratory."
From discussions with bridge design engineers in other states, and from
apparently related to concern for the strength of the bearing stratum and
lateral load design than is presently available in the literature, and from
given, and a finite element analysis has been performed to estimate the
2
analysis are presented along with recommendations for both lateral load
Lateral Load" (6). In that report the following statement appears: "The
lateral deflection of the pile. The reactions that are generated in the
soil must be such that the equations of static equilibrium are satisfied,
and the reactions must be consistent with the deflections. Also, because
interaction· problem."
approaches have been used to solve it. One of the better known analytical
methods was published by Broms (4, 5). In recent years, others, including
development of more rational methods that are generally based upon more
complete data.
based on his work and the work done by some of the authors in the
may be found in the listed references and will not be given here.)
Because piles that support bridge end-bents are often driven into clay
cores that are generally above the water table, that particular case is
3
discussed and illustrated in this report. Also, it is asst.UDed the pile
is valid only for piles that have a constant stiffness and no axial load.
movement must be known. The ultimate soil resistance per unit length of
pile, p , can be calculated from one of the following two equations, and
u
the smaller value for p is always used.
u
p = (3 + (w'/c)x + (J/b)x)cb (1)
u
or
p • 9cb, (2)
u
where x = distance from ground surface to point on pile where calculation
w' =average unit weight from ground surface to depth x (lb/cu in.),
deflection curve (called a p-y curve) for various depths on the pile. The
depths chosen should be more closely spaced near the top of the pile where
the deflection is greatest. To develop the p-y curves, the soil deflection
(3)
4
e = strain at one-half the maximum principal stress
50
difference from the triaxial test (if no test data are
From Equation 3, a general p-y curve for the particular soil and pile
Beyond y = 16y
50
, p equals p
u
for all values of y. An example of a
From Equation 4, individual p-y curves for each chosen depth on the
The relative stiffness factor between the pile and the soil is then
computed:
T (EI/k)0.20 (5)
depth (E = kx).
s
However, k is not known. Therefore, T must be assumed and an iteration
5
with two plastic hinges -- one near the top where the pile is constrained,
The pile deflection may be calculated at each point on the pile for
yf - F (P T/EI)
y t
(7)
The secant modulus of soil reaction, Es, is computed for each depth
k • E
s
/x. (9)
6
described, and lateral load. Figure 4 is for a 12x53 pile, and Figure 5 is
From these two figures, it is evident the two piles under consideration
can withstand considerably greater loads than the 2 kips presently allowed
of the limiting deflection would depend largely upon the amount of movement
NAVFAC DM 7.2 (2) states that a limiting deflection value of 0.25 inch is
often used.
the lateral loads, the designer simply refers to the appropriate figure
(assuming the undrained shear strength of the earth core is known or may be
is presented. The rationale behind and the explanation for the allowable
pile being ·exceeded are listed and discussed in that report and in other
7
3. Inadequate design or calculation errors that result in
underestimated loads,
5. Pile mislocation,
6. Differential settlement,
7. Construction activities,
9. Driving damage,
12. Corrosion.
factor that accounts for the environment into which the pile is driven.
For example, a soft soil having no particles larger than gravel size would
the stress reduction factor would be 0.7. For normal condi tiona, the
The same report also recommended other stress reduction factors. The
used because there are residual stresses in the pile cross section that
result from differential cooling during and after the mill roll operation.
8
account for off-axis or eccentric loading. The recommended value for this
factor is 0.70.
f
a
~ (4!) (ecc) (HDF) (F )
y I LF (10)
Therefore,
for Highway Bridges (1977 Edition), Section 1.7.59 (B). Therefore, these
sections are subject to even further stress reductions of 0.75 and 0.70,
allowable stress of 7.9 ksi for ideal conditions and 5.4 ksi for severe
The American Iron and Steel Institute indicates that 50 percent of the
specified yield strength of the steel may be used in design. Dismuke (27)
9
states that "experience with the steel pile stress level of 0.5 F is
y
considered to be sufficient for inclusion (in codes) as an allowable
stress." Also, the building code of New Orleans and Germany permit 50
and Swiger (26) indicate that 50 percent of the yield stress is too high.
A number of reports (29, 30, 31) have presented data that show steel H-
piles may often fail at stresses well below the stated yield stress of the
had been used in design, a factor-of-safety of only 1.46 would have been
the result. This is well below the generally accepted factor of safety of
12.0 ksi or 0.35 F (12.6 ksi for steel with 36-ksi yield strength). These
y
building codes include the Canadian Standard Association; the Basic
Building Code; the Standard Building Code; the Uniform Building Code; the
u.s. Navy; and cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Davisson (28)
and Fuller (25) indicate that a maximum allowable stress of 12.0 ksi
Fellenius (32) states that not only should the structural capacity of
the yield strength above 36 ksi, but very dependent on the hammer-soil-pile
combination used in any particular case. Thompson and Thompson (29) report
10
an end-bearing pile and the impact driving stress near the top of the pile.
capacity is 1.2 times greater than the impact driving stress at the pile
head. One standard deviation of that data was ± 20 percent. Based partly
upon the data by Thompson and Thompson and on other sources, Fellenius
f • FE/c (12)
a
where F = F-factor (equal to 7.0 ft/sec for steel and concrete piles),
c • speed of the driving wave in the pile (16,800 ft/sec for steel).
tons.
number of cases were analyzed and are listed in Table 1. In all cases, it
was assumed that 100 percent of the load was carried by the pile tip and
none by the shaft. The results listed in the table show only small
element results, comparisons were made with load test data published by
Brierley and his co-authors did not describe the type or condition of the
12,000 psi. This recommendation must be qualified and limited when the
conditions are present that might be expected to damage the pile during
driving, 9,000 psi should be the maximum allowable axial stress. (3) Also,
REFERENCES
12
2. ""Foundations and Earth Structures,"" Department of the Navy Facilities
Engineers, 1956.
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 90, No. SM2 Part 1, March 1964.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 90, No. SM3 Part 1, May
1964.
1984.
13
Research Report 244-2F, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, May
1982.
1970.
11. Matlock, Hudson; Ingram, W. B.; Kelly, A. E.; and Bogard, D.; "Field
12. Reese, L. C., "Load versus Settlement for an Axially Loaded Pile,"
14
15. Reese, L. C., ""Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups under Lateral Load, ..
Conference, Vol II, Paper No. OTC 2080, Houston, Texas, 1974, pp
473-485.
17. Reese, L. C.; Cox, W. R.; and Koop, F. D.; ""Field Testing and
Seventh Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Vol II, Paper No. OTC
September, 1956.
20. Reese, L. C.; O'Neil, M. w.; and Smith, R. E.; ""Generalized Analysis
21. Reese, L. C., and Nyman, K. J., ""Field Load Tests of Instrumented
15
Drilled Shafts at Islamorada, Florida," A Report to Girdler
22. Reese, L. C., and Welch, R. C., "Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations
83/059, 1983.
STP 670, Raymond Lundgren, Editor, American Society for Testing and
197 8.
16
Lundgren, Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials, June
1978.
31. Williams, J, A., "Report on Test Pile Program Conducted by Kansas and
STP 670, Raymond Lundgren, Editor, American Society for Testing and
17
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF FINITE ELEMENT CASES OF PILE LOADS
LOAD SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. DESCRIPTION (TONS) (INCH)
18
l
0.8
l
::>
a.
"'- ~
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 i2 14 16
Y/Yso
Figure 1. Ratio of Soil Resistance to Peak Soil Resistance as a
Function of the Ratio of Soil Deflection to Deflection
at 50 Percent of Peak Soil Resistance.
20r----------------------------------
BP 14X73
c -=1.0 tsf
DEPTH llnchesl-z
16 ,[o
.
0
..X
I ~ 100
.a•
-a.
.........
I / 70
0
08 1.6
Y [in.]
Figure 2. Soil Resistance versus Soil Deflection Curves.
1 I I
1.0
r-....... -
r- '
~'' \ ·.
0.8
""
' ~. \
\·
I ..
\:~.
\
0.6
~\ ·-
s a1o\\
--
IL""
c::
:~ 0.4
\,
- -·
"'\:\
8
(J
-.
.8
:.."'
-
j 0.2 ....
Q
\
·-
"'
Zmax•2
\ 1n.
0.0
\ ·-..... ~. !5
\ 4'-..,
\
\
·0.2 - :5
-04~~~~--~---L-i__L___L-;--L----IL-~--~
0.0 1.0 2.0 :5.0 4.0 !5.0
Depth Coefficient, z
21
0.9
ff}
:I:
0 o.s
~
~
w
...1
0:: 07
~·
c..
0
.....
0.6
ti
z
0
..... 0.5
0
w
...1
LL
w
0
0.4
...1
<t
0::
w
ti...1 0.3
22
0.5
(BP 14X73I
I I
v
'
0.4
I _j
en
~
LIJ
J:
(.)
II I
z
~
LIJ
...J
a.. 0.3 I I
i ll
LL
0
~ /
Iv
ti
z
0
/
,/I
i=
~ 0.2
~
...J
LL
LIJ
c
...J j /
Iv v / /
<1:
a::
~...J
o. I
II / -----
v
c:~·~ ~
1-
~
00
~ ~
10 20
~
liD 40 50 60 70
LATERAL LOAD (kips)
23
i
•~
"" a
~ ••
...........
1\ \
\
••
.
.....
.....
Q)
Ill
"'
""\
u
•• ...0
.
~
.....
~
~
Ill
Q)
• "
.;
.•c ,.c:
K\\ I\
t)
\ 0
0
..."
'-'
• -..• ..."'
f-c" -
0
c
0
...l ·~ ~ 0
:l I
..
z
..."
0
"
~v I
0
0 u
.-•• ...
"
• cz
.;
.. m
Q)
L/ J I ..•
!!
a ......
.-<
Q)
z
"'.
v "'
_,/
v ..• ...
. Q)
....f«"""
""'
v
0 •
C"J.d) tU.diiG
24
LOAD
: \ ,\~~V) )
,~
-~-+~~+-~~~~~~~~~
~~"-,_v___ vv ~/Y
til :l
a
~~'------ -~v
!..
"
..1-----t---l---+-----+--+---+--l---+-+---+--l---+--l---+-----+--l------l
~- -- -- -- -- --- --- -
DISTANCE fiOM CENTIR Of lOAD lPT.J
'
\ \ \ ~~ J J
v
I
~ "~ ~v /
'
""~ ~
~ .........____
....___ ..... ~ .,~
v
/
~
"'
0> -. r-.
,.:
!!>
...
-"
' - ---r--
._
...
...
L--
1---
-- ~
'
- J
-- -- - -- . - -- -- -- --
DISTANCI PIOM CINTII Of LOAD CFT.J
- -- . - --- ...I
Figure B. Settlement Contours (inches) for Case IV.
0 BRIERLEY ET AL.(331
0 FINITE ELEMENTS
-c • 0
0 CASE 1
-·-
1-0.08 0
"'.... z
1111
CASE 2
........
IIll
""
CASE 3 b
Ill
en
""
0.16
"""""
0.200
40 80 120 160
""" 280
LOAD (tons)
Figure 9. Settlement Predictions from Finite Elements Compared to
Data from Brierley et al. (33).
APPENDIX
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
28
APPENDIX
Pile Length - 40 ft
Depths of Calculations - 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 70, 100, 180 in.
STEP 1. Compute the ultimate soil resistance per unit length of pile at
each depth.
Depth =0 inch
pu = (3+(w'lc)x+(Jib)x)cb
p
u
= 607.8 lblin.
Depth = 10 inches
p = 686.8 lblin.
u
Depth = 20 inches
p = 765.8 lblin.
u
29
Depth = 30 inches
p
u
= (3+(0.0637 lblcu in. I 13.89 lblsq in.)30 in. +
p
u
= 844.8 lblin.
Depth = 40 inches
p
u
= (3+(0.0637 lblcu in. I 13.89 lblsq in.)40 in.+
p
u
= 923.8 lblin.
Depth = 70 inches
p
u
= (3+(0.0637 lblcu in. I 13.89 lblsq in.)70 in. +
p
u
= 1,160.8 lblin.
p
u
= (3+(0.0637 lblcu in. I 13.89 lblsq in.)100 in. +
p = 1,397.8 lblin.
u
p
u
= 2,029.8 lblin.
y = 2.5(e )b
50 50
= 2.5(0.010)14.6
30
• 0.365 in.
p/p = o.s(y/yso>0.25
u
for y/yso = 1; p/p
u
= 0.50
y/yso = 2; p/p u - 0.60
Depth =0 inches
Y1 1Yso = 1
Y1 = t.o(Yso>
y1 = 1.0(0.365)
y1 = 0.365
therefore:
pl = 0.5(607.8)
= 304
in like manner:
y2 /y 50 • 2
y 2 - 2.0(0.365)
31
y = o.73
2
and
p = o.6(607.8)
2
- 365
This procedure is repeated for three additional points.
y = 1.1 y = 1.8
3 5
p
3
= 401 p
5
= 45o
The corresponding y and p values are plotted to create a load
Figure 2 of the report. The p-y curves are now developed for
Depth = 10 inches
Depth = 30 inches
Depth = 40 inches
Depth = 70 inches
32
DeEth a 100 inches
STEP 5. Assume a value for the relative stiffness factor, T (Try T = 100)
0 20
T = (EI/k) •
7 0 20
100 = ((3.0x10 )(734)/k) •
k = 2.20
Z = X /T
max max
= 480 in./100
= 4,8
Z = x/T
Therefore:
Z100 = 1.0
Zl80 = 1. 8
From Figure 3:
33
STEP 8. Calculate yf values for each depth.
3
yf = Fy(PtT /EI)
Therefore:
STEP 9. From the p-y curves in Figure 2, select the value of soil
k = 11.7
T = (2.202 x l0 10 /11.7)0.ZO
34
T = 71.6
k = 215
(b) Z
max
= X
max
/40
= 480/40
= 12
z(O) = 0/40 = 0
Fy(O) = 0.94
Fy(lO) = 0.91
Fy(20) = 0.84
Fy(30) = 0.73
Fy(40) = 0.64
35
m 0.30
Fy(70)
Fy(100) = 0.08
Fy(180) - -0.02
k = 138.
T = 43.7
Where the line of Equality crosses the line drawn between the
36
~
80
z
-
J:
1- •
a_
w 120
0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
2
E 5 ( PSI x 10- )
FIGURE AI.
37
100----------------------------~
LINE OF EQUALITY
T ASSUMED
FIGURE A2.
38