Jacked-in Piles- The Way

I See It ?
(Prof Harry’s perspective on what make it
works?)

Prof Harry Tan & Dr Jie Sun

NUS Geotechnical Research
Introduction
 High capacity Jack-in pile machine has been developed.

 Limited progress has been made to model Jack-in pile performance

Max Jack-in force8000-9000kN

 Broere & Tol’s method (2006)

 The numerical cavity expansion model is

validated.

 The new numerical model for modelling

performance of Jack-in pile is proposed
 Broere & Tol’s method
Load (MN)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.00

0.03

Settlement (m)
0.06

0.09
GeoDeflt Centrifuge test
ignore the installation effect
Broere & Tol's method (2006)
0.12
this prestressing stage is to model the
stresses associated with pile installation
  Problem of Broere & Tol’s method

Shaft friction( kPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0

2 Mahutka et al., 2006

4
White
By & Lehane,
RANDOLPH(1994)
Depth(m) 6 2004& Tol(2006)
BROERE
8

10

12

14

after pile at failure 16

installation Nicola,1996
 The behavior of shaft friction in Plaxis is
described as follow:
σ h′ ⋅ tan φi + ci
τf =

Thus the shaft friction drops near the pile tip is due to
the decrease of normal effective stress some distance
above the pile tip.
  Case 1: the prescribed displacements ux = 15mm and u y = 0mm
are applied
 Case 2: the prescribed displacements ux = 0mm and u y = 400mm

are applied
 Case 3: the prescribed displacements ux = 15mm and u y = 400mm

are applied
radial
radial stress(kPa)
radialstress(kPa)
stress(kPa)
00 0 50 100
100100 150200 200
200 300250 300
400
300 350 500 400
400
00
-1

-5-5 -3 Ko
Ko ux=15,uy=0
ux=0,uy=400

-5
-10
-10
depth(m)
depth(m)
depth(m)

-7
-15
-15 -9

-11
-20
-20
-13
-25
-25
-15
 Applying horizontal displacement to the pile shaft
gives reasonable distribution of normal effective
stress, while applying simple vertical prescribed
displacement to the pile tip will give unreasonable
behavior of shaft friction.
Cylindrical cavity expansion in
Plaxis – How does it work?
 Mesh set-up

The Updated Mesh option in PLaxis should be used.

Validation

Case 1 Case 2
Spherical cavity expansion in
Plaxis – How does it work?
 Mesh set-up & initial stress generation
Initial effective
stresses are
generated following
Ko procedure

Axi-symetric
mesh

Xu (2007)
 Calculation

node points stress points Incremental expansion

(A to I) (J to S)

The Updated Mesh option in PLaxis should be used.

 Validation
600
3500
8000
500
3000
7000
2500
400
6000

p (kPa)
2000
5000

p (kPa)
300

p (kPa)
4000
1500 Close-form
200 Close-form
Plaxis
Close-form
3000 Plaxis
1000
MC1 Plaxis
100
2000
500
MC2 E=5000kPa, φ=20°, ψ=0°
E=50MPa, φ=40°, ψ=0°
MC3 E=100MPa, φ=40°, ψ=10°
1000
0
0
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 a/a0 4 5 6
a/a0
a/a0
 Validation

500
450
400
350
Total Stress Close-form
300 Plaxis
Excess pore pressure Close-form
p(kPa)

Plaxis
250
200
150
100
50
E=7500kPa, φ=0°, cu=30kPa
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
a/a0
 Development of new numerical model
Contrasting to Broere & Tol’s (2006) method, the spherical
cavity expansion is applied to the soil cluster below the pile tip
instead of prescribe vertical displacement
the prescribed horizontal displacement is applied at the
interface between pile and soil along the shaft similar to Broere &
Tol’s procedure.
 ∠ABC=∠ACB=45¡ã+¦ µ /2
∠CBD=¦ µ
AE=a
BC=d
C E B a=d/2¡ Á
tan(45¡ã+¦ µ
/2)

A
 Validation
1. GeoDelft centrifuge test

Load (MN)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0

0.02

0.04 GeoDeflt Centrifuge test

Settlement(m)

Broere & Tol (2006)

0.06 ux=10mm,ev=150%
ux=15mm,ev=100%
2.34 0.08
1.12 ux=12mm,ev=100%
ux=10mm,ev=100%
0.1 ux=10mm,ev=125%

0.12
 In order to further judge the correctness of FEM results, the following
issues are considered:

• The later earth pressure in the vertical cross section after installation
•The shear stressRadial
along pile shaft at failure
stress(kPa)
Shaft friction( kPa)
0 200 400 600 800
•The
0
distribution
0 between the shaft friction500and base
100 200 300600 resistance at failure
400
0
FEM's result
5 2
Ko
4 By RANDOLPH(1994)
10 0.85
Depth(m)

6 NEW MODEL
Depth(m)

BROERE & Tol (2006)

15 8 0.98
10 0.92
20
12

25 14

16
2. City university centrifuge test (Klotz & Coop, 2001)

The prototype of pile in this test is 1.6m diameter and installed 36m into a
dry sand. The soil parameters are taken based on Klotz & Coop’s report.
 Load (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.05
0.1
The city university
0.15 Centrifuge test
Settlement (m)

0.2 Broere & Tol (2006)

0.25 New model

0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Conclusions
 Applying prescribed horizontal displacement to the pile shaft
gives reasonable distribution of normal radial effective stress
around the pile shaft 0 50 100
radial stress(kPa)
150 200 250 300 350 400
0

-5 Ko ux=15,uy=0

-10
depth(m)

-15

-20

-25

However, when applied to end

bearing response, the vertically
prescribed displacement model
produced an erroneous result
that do not agree with reality
 For Shaft bearing resistance, Cylindrical
Cavity Expansion theory can give
reasonable stress distribution around pile
shaft

However for End bearing resistance,

distribution, Spherical Cavity
Acceptable bearing capacity Expansion is needed to produce the
response correct response between base
resistance & shaft friction resistance

 Further tests of the same calculation scheme would be needed for

different pile geometries and different soil conditions in order to verify
the general applicability of this new numerical model for Jack-in piles
installations effects.
Research Jack-in Pile at Tuas
View in Collaboration with CSP

Prof Harry Tan and Dr. Sun Jie

Layout of Test Piles and CPTu
tests around the piles
1. Soil profiles from CPT data

q=
E (qt − u2 )

(after Eslami & Fellenius, 1997)

TP1(28.7m)
CPT1 CPT2 CPT3 CPT4

SAND(Fill)

SMC
Sandy clay
(SVI)
Sandy Silt
(SV)
TP2(29.9m)
CPT1 CPT2 CPT3

SAND (Fill)

SMC
Alluvial clay
Sandy clay (SVI)

Sandy Silt
(SV)
TP3(31.7m)

CPT1 CPT2 CPT3

SAND(Fill)

SMC
Sandy clay
(SVI)

Sandy Silt
(SV)
2. Typical CPTu data after installation
cone resistance(Mpa)
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
0.00

5.00

10.00
depth(m)

CPT1a
15.00 CPT1
20.00 CPT2

25.00

30.00
3. Typical Piezometer data after installation

13.5m in soft marine clay

31.5m in sandy silt (S V)

 P1a 31.5m level

P1b 13.5m level

installation

Change after installation :

P1a----495kPa
P1b-----60kPa
 P2a 31.5m level

P2b 13.5m level

installation

Change after installation :

P2a----464 kPa
P2b-----0 kPa
Conclusions from CPTu and
Piezo Data Interpretation
 Soil profiles based on CPT data is consistent
with that from borehole.
 The soil conditions for CPT1-CPT3 are very
similar.
 The evaluation of soil geotechnical parameter
from CPT is addressed as φ, OCR and Ko for
soils near the three test piles are generally quite
similar.
 Cone resistance in the sand fill layer significantly
increases after installation. The magnitude of
increase reduce with normalized radii (r/R)
distance from the piles.
 Increase of cone resistance in clay layers are not
observed after installation. While significant
changes in pore water pressure exist in the sand
silt layers below the pile tip after installation.
FEM Numerical simulation
 TP1
Soil parameters

Hardening soil model

Linear elastic model

Soil stress states estimated from CPTu results
and Plaxis model
K0
0.20 0.70 1.20 1.70
0

5 CPT1a
immediately after installation
10 30 days after installation
Depth (m)

15

20

25

30

K0 profile from Numerical simulation has Similar trends

compared with that from CPT data
Immediately after installation: Plaxis results
K0
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7
0

5
r=2R r=3R r=5R
10
Depth (m)

15

20

25

30
2R 3R 5R
 Pile TP1’ test response: Measured vs Plaxis results
Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

0
10
20
30
Movement (mm)

40
50
60
70 TP1'
80 installation+consolidation (evol=50%)
90 no installation effect
100 undrained installation
Pile TP3 test response: Measured vs Plaxis results

Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0

20
movement (mm)

40

60

80

100
TP3
120 ev=125%
Pile TP2 test response: Measured vs Plaxis results

Load ( kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0

10
Movement (mm)

20

30

40

50 TP2
ev=100%
60
Conclusions
 The proposed method applies spherical cavity
expansion to the soil cluster below the pile tip and
the prescribed horizontal displacement (cylindrical
cavity expansion) at the interface between pile and
soil along the pile shaft.
 Applying prescribed horizontal displacement to the
pile shaft gives reasonable distribution of normal
radial effective stresses increase around the pile
shaft that are comparable Ko values interpreted
from CPTu tests after installation.
 The magnitude of volumetric strain (evol) applied to soil
clusters below the pile tip is directly related to max Jack-in
force.
 The applied evol (volume strain) increases as the max
installation Jack-in force increases
 This method may be used to predict delayed bearing resistance
increase of Jack-in piles in cohesive residual soils (Silts and
Clays)
140
120
100
80
ev (%)

60
40
20
0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Max Jack-in force (working load)