Downdrag - VietnamPresentation

12/15/2021 Performance of foundation on piles subject to downdrag Slide 1
Performance of
foundation on piles
subject to downdrag
Theoretical framework and case studies
Augusto Lucarelli December 15, 2021
CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Terminology and general framework

Is it a bearing capacity problem?

What happens when Q+QNSF >
QP+QPSF ?

0 1
Applied Load Qc at the top of the pile
Drag load: the difference between the max axial force and the load at the
top of the pile. It is maximum when Qc is zero and goes to zero when
geotechnical capacity is reached.
In summary
Negative skin friction is a soil-structure interaction
problem.
• It doesn't change the geotechnical bearing
capacity;
• It changes the pile stiffness and produces
settlements (downdrag);
• It changes the axial load distribution along the
pile shaft (dragforce). Check structural capacity
of the pile.
From a geotechnical point of view, it is a Service
Limit State issue. It might be a structural capacity
problem at the neutral plan elevation although
usually there is no significant bending moment.
Example - Drilled Shaft, D=1.0 m; L=30m

Settlement profile
Ground
200 mm level
Pile Layer 1: soft clay

element tlim = 25 kPa
Displacements imposed
on the non-liner springs 50 mm -10.0
Layer 2: medium
-15.0 sand
tlim = 70 kPa
-20.0
Layer 3: dense
sand
tlim = 110 kPa
-30.0
Base:
qblim = 5000 kPa The ultimate bearing
capacity is around 10 MN

Pile-Soil interaction…
Pile-soil interaction (along the shaft and at the base) is accounted for by means of non-linear t-z springs.
The effect of negative skin friction is evaluated by imposing boundary displacements to the spring.
t-z curve at 5 m depth

25 Curve at 5 m depth with
negative skin friction
tau [kPa]
Soil-pile relative displacements
-25
t-z curve at 27 m depth Curve at 27 m depth

110 without negative skin
friction. It goes
Base curve: displacement
qb [kPa]
through the origin

at full capacity for drilled
piles 0.25-0.30 D
Soil-pile relative displacements
-110
Displacements at the base

Load settlement curve at the head of the pile
Axial Load applied at the top [kN]

Failure Load: 10000 kN
Load
curve
without Load Curve with
NSF NSF
Let’s consider a Service Load of 4000 kN: without negative skin friction
the settlement would be around 5 mm. With skin friction the settlement
4000 would be around 15 mm. If the last value is not tolerable, the Service Load
must be reduced.
2000
40 100
5 15
Displacements [mm]
NSF doesn’t affect the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile-soil system.
NSF does affect the stiffness of the pile-soil system and axial load distribution along the shaft.

In summary
problem.
capacity;
of the pile.
Axial force distribution along the pile

Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN]
1000 2000 4000
0 2000
Qc = 2000 kN
Qc = 0.0
10 10
Depth [m]
Downdrag force 1800 kN Downdrag force 1700 kN
20
20
Sand Sand


5000 8000
Qc = 5000 kN Qc = 8000 kN
10 10 Downdrag force 600 kN

Depth [m]
Downdrag force 1200 kN
20 20
Sand Sand


4000 10000
Qc = 2000 Qc = 8000
Qc = 10000 kN
Neutral plan position

Qc = 0 Qc = 5000 Qc = 10000
Downdrag force 0
All NSF has become PSF
10 10
Depth [m]
20 20
Sand Sand

Back analysis of a real

case using flac3d
Steele County Highway 7 in Owatona
Bridge 74551

Project Site


ShapeAccelArray (SAA)
Approximate Length [m]
Profile
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Approximate Displacement [mm]

1 25
0 0 North South
Abut. Abut.
Displacement [in]
-1 -25 SA
Elevation
A Location
-2 -50
-3 -75
-4 Maximum SAA Deflection = 3.6 in (91 mm) -100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length [ft]
Deformation profile SA
Plan Location
A N
measured by the SAA after
the bridge deck was placed.

SAA Time History
0 0
Approximate Displacement [mm]

-1 -25 North South
Abut. Abut.
Displacement [in]
Settlements of the soil SAElevation

-2 -50 A Location
around the pile
-3 -75
Time (August, 2010 – June, 2014)

-4 -100
• Surcharge loads induced roughly 1.7 inches
of vertical displacement. SA
• Surcharge removal resulted in 0.9 in of Plan Location
A N
rebound.
• Construction loads resulted in a little over 2
in of vertical displacement.

Soil Stratigraphy

Model Setup: single pile interaction
Embedded
FILL 9 pile
m
SOIL 15
m
BEDROCK
Simplified model: only one embedded pile. The objective is to

simulate the local interaction with soil considering the main
construction phases.

Embedded pile: lateral interaction with the

soil
FILL
Yield Criteria: effective
stress approach
𝜏𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 𝜎𝑧𝑧
′ 𝛽∗ 𝑘𝑃𝑎
′
fnlim kn 𝜎𝑧𝑧 is the effective vertical stress
fslim
ks 𝛽 ∗ factor ….function of soil type,
installation method…
SOIL
𝑓𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑓𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚
= 𝜏𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑃 𝑘𝑠 =
𝑙 𝛿𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚
BEDRO
CK Linear elastic beam element,
EA, EJ…

Shear Response along the shaft of the pile

𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 − 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟 … 𝑓𝑟𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑤
𝑓𝑠
𝑙 𝑓𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚
= 𝜏𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑃 𝑘𝑁/𝑙
𝑓𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑙
𝑙 P is the perimeter of the pile
𝑙 is unit length along the pile
ks
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚
𝑘𝑠 =
𝛿𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚
𝛿𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 1 − 5𝑚𝑚 𝛿𝑠

(3) SURCHARGE
(2) Loading
(1) Load induced by backfilling was
modeled with a density “ramping”
(1) procedure of the back fill.
BACKFILL
(2) Additional loading (Pile cap, beams,
etc…) was simulated by applying an axial
force directly to the pile head.
(3) Additional surcharge loading after

the deck was placed, was simulated by
SOIL increasing the density in the zones
above the pile.
BEDRO
CK

Soil Profile & Properties

STRATA BF A B C D E F G
Bottom elev. [m] 10. 11. 13. 20. 22. 24.
BACK 9.0 30.0
0 5 5 5 0 0
FILL
Young’s modulus, 52.
35 35 35 35 65 65 100
[MPa] 5
A) CLAY Poisson ratio [] 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Angle of Friction
B) SANDY CLAY 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 30
[°]
C) CLAYEY SAND Cohesion [MPa] - - - - - - - 520

Density [g/cc] 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.5
D) SANDY CLAY
E) SAND
F) SANDY CLAY
G) BEDROCK

Settlement
4 cm
Calibrated with the SAA

Initial Shear Response to Loading
BACKFILL
SOIL
BEDROCK
′ 𝛽∗

Final Shear Response to Loading
BACKFILL
SOIL
BEDROCK
′ 𝛽∗

Loading Process

Load History
Place Fill
Load Pile
• Case 3: 100 MPa Base Layer

Additional Load After Deck Placed

Sensitivity analysis: Cases
• Five cases were run to simulate the response to changing base

layer stiffness
 Case 1: The base layer is 10 GPa representing bedrock
 Case 2: The base layer is reduced to 1 GPa, representing weathered
bedrock
 Case 3: The base layer is reduced to 100 MPa, representing gravel or
very soft bedrock
 Case 4: The base layer is reduced to 10 MPa, representing loose sand
 Case 5: The base layer is reduced to 1 MPa, representing soft clay
• In all cases, the mean soil modulus was kept constant at 52.5
MPa

Axial Force as a function of bedrock stiffness
Mean soil modulus = 52.5 MPa

FILL
Base layer modulus varies by (Case 5)
case (Case 4)
(Case 3)
(Case 2)
(Case 1)
Ln
Ls
SOIL
h = Ln/Ls = 10/15 = 0.67
BEDROCK
Case 3 (100 MPa base layer) correlates well to
the strain gage data.

Relative displacements
Bottom of fill
Neutral plane:
relative displ.
is zero
Relative displ. = soil displ. – pile displ.

Results from other real cases around the world





Neutral plan position – end bearing in clay

Neutral plan position – end bearing in sand & rock

In our case Nspt>50….but is an H
pile and there is a sand layer just
on top of the bedrock….100 Mpa
is not a very stiff bedrock.

Axial Force and Neutral Plane Position

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN]
As the base layer stiffness is

decreased, the neutral plane
position moves from the bottom of
Depth [m]
the pile (Case 1) up towards the
top (Case 5).
Neutral Plane

Sensitivity Analysis - Considerations

• Relative stiffness between the soil and base Case 1 Case 2
layer influences the amount of dragload, the
Case 3
axial force distribution and the position of the
neutral plane. Case 4
Case 5
• At relative stiffness below 0.1 (very stiff base
layer), the neutral plane is at the bottom of the
pile and maximum possible dragload forces
are realized.
• At a relative stiffness above 10 (very soft base

layer), the neutral plane is near the top of the
pile and the drag load forces are minimal.
Case 5
• Between a relative stiffness of 0.1 and 10, Case 4
The neutral plane position and drag load
forces are functions of several factors. Case 3
• This region is a transition zone where 1) the Case 2

drag load increases with increasing base Case 1
layer stiffness and 2) the position of the
neutral plane decreases with increasing
base layer stiffness.

Downdrag Force Matrix (kN)
Pile RS 0.00525 0.0525 0.525 5.25 52.5

Load (kN) (Base Case)
0 630 610 500 405 365
275 538 506 390 246 192
550 430 385 225 40 0

(Base Case)
825 320 263 65 0 0
RS is relative stiffness i.e., the ratio of the mean soil modulus to the base
layer modulus.
Pile Load is applied directly to the top of the pile.
The base case is the scenario calibrated to the field data i.e., RS = 0.525 and Pile
Load = 550 kN

Relative to Max Downdrag Force Matrix

RS 0.525
Pile 0.00525 0.0525 (Base Case)
5.25 52.5
Load (kN)
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
275 0.85 0.83 0.78 0.61 0.53
550 0.68 0.63 0.45 0.01 0

(Base Case)
825 0.51 0.43 0.13 0 0
RS is relative stiffness i.e., the ratio of the mean soil modulus to the base layer
modulus.
Pile Load is applied directly to the top of the pile.
The base case is the scenario calibrated to the field data i.e., RS = 0.525 and Pile
Load = 550 kN

Downdrag Force Contour

High
Downdrag
force Downdrag
force [kN]
Base case
Low
Downdrag
force
Increasing base stiffness

Load test simulation: effect of NSF

As the axial load applied

at the pile head
increases, the maximum
axial moves toward the
pile head vanishing the
effect of negative skin
friction. All the available
friction along the pile
becomes positive.

Bin Dai wind Farm - Design Application in Vietnam

Pile load test back analysis model

Pile load test back analysis model
The tests show homogenous behavior. The residual deflection is of the order of 20-25% of the maximum
deflection, which is a good indication that limited plastic deformation mobilized along the shaft of the pile. The
theoretical failure load is in the range of 3500-4500 kN. This back analysis shows a failure of about 4200 kN
and a plunging deflection of about 40 mm, which is also 10% of the pile’s diameter, usually considered a
reference deflection to establish the ultimate load for a driven pile. The geotechnical performance of these
piles is excellent.

Pile load test back analysis model - NSF

Bin Dai wind Farm - Design Application in Vietnam
Another possible interpretation of the load test is shown above (left) where the back-analysis follows the load test PTP-02-F
(gray curve). The test shows a steeper curve for load above 2200 kN and this might be indication of weaker conditions. In
fact, the back analysis provides a failure load of 3200 kN. The shear mobilization along the shaft is not uniform because the
pile is quite long, and the elastic deformation of the pile plays an important role as well. Interestingly, the repetition of the
numerical load test considering now NSF bring the results shown above right. The dashed dark blue line is the load-
displacement curve considering the initial downdrag of the pile due to NSF. The light blue continuum line is the same line but
starting at the origin assuming that the downdrag was not monitored on site (which is usually the case). The green dashed
line is the curve without downdrag. The idea that some of the piles could have experienced downdrag before the test is likely.
Even the excess pore pressure dissipation after driving would induces downdrag.
Control building foundation analysis

Control building foundation analysis - NSF

Control building foundation analysis - SLS

Control building foundation analysis - ULS

Conclusions
problem.
capacity;
of the pile.
Questions?

Downdrag - VietnamPresentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downdrag - VietnamPresentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/15/2021 Performance of foundation on piles subject to downdrag Slide 1

Augusto Lucarelli December 15, 2021

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Terminology and general framework

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Is it a bearing capacity problem?

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Example - Drilled Shaft, D=1.0 m; L=30m

Pile Layer 1: soft clay

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

t-z curve at 5 m depth

t-z curve at 27 m depth Curve at 27 m depth

through the origin

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Load settlement curve at the head of the pile

Axial Load applied at the top [kN]

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Axial force distribution along the pile

Downdrag force 1800 kN Downdrag force 1700 kN

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN]

10 10 Downdrag force 600 kN

Downdrag force 1200 kN

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Axial Force [kN] Axial Force [kN]

Neutral plan position

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Back analysis of a real

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Approximate Displacement [mm]

-4 Maximum SAA Deflection = 3.6 in (91 mm) -100

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

SAA Time History

Approximate Displacement [mm]

Settlements of the soil SAElevation

Time (August, 2010 – June, 2014)

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Model Setup: single pile interaction

Simplified model: only one embedded pile. The objective is to

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Embedded pile: lateral interaction with the

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Shear Response along the shaft of the pile

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

(3) Additional surcharge loading after

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Soil Profile & Properties

C) CLAYEY SAND Cohesion [MPa] - - - - - - - 520

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Initial Shear Response to Loading

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Final Shear Response to Loading

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

• Case 3: 100 MPa Base Layer

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION

Sensitivity analysis: Cases

• Five cases were run to simulate the response to changing base

CIVIL ● MANUFACTURING ● MINING ● OIL & GAS ● POWER GENERATION