LORD-TRANSFER CRITERIA FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF

RD-RI39 236
AXIALLY LORDED PILES IN.-(U) ARMY ENGINEER IEATERldRYS
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS R L MOSHER JAN 84
UNCLASSIFIED
EESTRK84-iF/ 0/13 NL

.mmmmohmml
 t-C-

1.0 0

J&31.2

1.2 lL111.
j11

*~
TEST CHART
MICROCOP'Y RESOL.UTION
SuInAU OF TAPOAMDS ISGS
NIATONAL

6"
 ******, .

TECHNICAL REPORT K-84-1 (111

-. FOR LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA
FRNUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF AXIALLY
~ LOADED PILES IN SAND
PART 1: LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA

Auomti DtaPrcesigbene
Ac Reed L. Mosher-
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180

PA

A%

C"

% %r).49%
January 1984
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited - -

eL'

LA..

C3Prepared U. S. Army Engineer Division,

for
Lower Mississippi Valley
P. 0. Box 80, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180

'4 03 19 (001 -'

%-
 40

1%

Dhestroynsi this report he no toe need

ntud nota

official Department of the Army position unless so

designated by other authorized documents.

.0t

% h otnso hsrpotaentt eue o

adetsn, ulcto, rpooina4upss
Ciainord ae osntcnttt n5
 NPI---.
t.Y2I -. * . . . . . , .

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE (Wen Dat. EneedJ _I

REPORT DOCUMIENTATION PAGE RE mSTINORM

1. REPORT UMBER. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report K-84-1

- 4. TITLE (and Subtitri) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF Final report
AXIALLY LOADED PILES IN SAND (in two parts)
PART I: LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA; PARITt-A! 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
PACrITY_(MZ&VES VLU SFL_ ANDCNCRETE PI~IES
7. AUTHOR(s) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)

Reed L. Mosher
- -St

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Automatic Data Processing Center

P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
U. S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi January 1984
Valley IS. NUMBER OF PAGES
P. 0. Box 80, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 Part 1--386, Part 11--290
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 AODRESS(if iffeet from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thisrprt)

Unclassified
ISs. OECL ASSI FIC AT ON/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

I6. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Repoti)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

4,%

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the .betract entered In Block 20, iidifeent Report)

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Val. 22161.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reewee side itnecesary nd Identify by block nusber)
Concrete piles (LC)
Numerical analysis (LC)
Piling (Civil engineering) (LC)
Sand (LC)
. Steel piles (LC)
2& ABSTRACT (Mo ai oft& N naom IdmetiF btyblock mnubec)
awld
-Part I describes a study of load-transfer criteria for analysis of axially
loaded piles in sand using the discrete springs soil model. Various analysis
methods for axially loaded piles are presented, along with a literature review
of pile behavior in sands focusing on the changes the soil undergoes during pile
installation. Available criteria for spring representation of soil are pre-
sented and summarized. The criteria are compared with actual field data from
pile load tests and are critically evaluated based on these comparisons.
(Continued)
W I J"N" W3 EDlTIONoF 'NOVSSisom*LETE Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WhomDate Entered)

%-
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . ............ . :,.1 .... : .. .. .... ... ... k..*
.
-o ..

9.'

Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAG[tIMhm Date antefm)

20. ABSTRACT (Continued)

-Because of the poor performance of the available criteria, new criteria

are proposed. The new criteria use maximum side and tip resistance values
presented by Castello (1980). Castello's values are modified by the author to
reflect the field data from the Lower Mississippi Valley. Displacement func-
tions for side and tip resistance are developed based on correlations with
field data for pile load tests. The new criteria are evaluated against pile
load test data. Use of the criteria is demonstrated in an outline of an
analysis. The new criteria are used to develop a set of design curves for the
practicing engineer.
Part II of this report is published under a separate cover, and presents
load capacity curves for select steel and concrete pile.

* '" p.
• " "-. ',.- €< +
....','.:,?.,
.. . . .. : ;.. . . . ; .. : V ; . . . .V . .*3V b\

Unclassified .
SJCuNITY CLASSIFICATION OF TM|S PAGE fhon D f En7ere ?%
 PREFACE

This report presents load-transfer criteria for numerical analysis of

axially loaded piles in sand. The work in developing the criteria was done as
part of the applications support provided by the Automatic Data Processing

(ADP) Center, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), to the

U. S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley (LMVD).
Work on the project was coordinated with LMVD by means of conferences
Iand telephone conversations with Messrs. Frank J. Weaver and James A. Young,

Geology, Soils and Materials Branch, Engineering Division, who provided tech-

nical guidance on the desired results. Mr. Young also made a detailed review
of this report.
The work was done by Mr. Reed L. Mosher, Computer-Aided Design Group,
(CADG), ADP Center, WES, under the guidance and supervision of

Dr. N. Radhakrishnan, Special Technical Assistant, ADP Center. This report is

essentially a thesis submitted to Mississippi State University by Mr. Mosher

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree.

The considerable help provided by Mr. Dennis Williams, CADG, in completing
this report and generating pile capacity curves included in Part II of this
report is appreciated.
Part II of this report is published under a separate cover, and presents
load capacity curves for select steel and concrete pile.
Commanders and Directors of WES during the period of the work were
COL Nelson P. Conover, CE, and COL Tilford C. Creel, CE. Technical Director

was Mr. F. R. Brown.

Accession For

DTIC TAB
Unannounned
[
Justification

By _ --
Distribution/
Availability Codes
Avail and/or
Dist Special
 PCONTENTS Page
PREFACE.............................. .. ........... . .. . .. .. .. .....
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT .. ..... iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................
CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF PILE FOUNDATIONS .. ................. 4
History of Piles. .. ......................... 4
Pile Types. .............................. 6
Pile Installation .. ......................... 8
Review of Pile Design/Analysis .. ................... 10
Static Formula .. ........................... 10
-,Tip-Bearing Capacity.. ........................ 12
Skin Friction. ............................ 15
*Pile-Driving Formulas. ........................ 18
New Concepts .. ............................ 22
Elastic Solid Model. ......................... 26
Discrete Spring Model. ................... ....... 32
Mechanics of an Axially Loaded Pile. ................. 35
Review of the Interpretation of Pile Load Tests Results .. ..... 42
Residual Stresses. .......................... 52
Standard Penetration Test. ...................... 59
Behavior of Axially Loaded Piles in Sands .. ............ 62
*Summary. ................................ 86
CHAPTER 3: LOAD-DEFORMATION CRITERIA .. ................... 88
Review of Criteria .. ......................... 88
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria. ....................... 88
Vijayvergiya Criteria. ........................ 96
Parker and Reese Criteria .. .................... 101
Other Criteria. ............................ 113
Summary of Criteria .. ....................... 113
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED CRITERIA. ............... 117
Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 Pile Tests .. ........... 117
Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou Control Structure Pile Tests .. ...... 121
Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 Pile Tests .. ............. 124
Comparison of Criteria with Field Test Results .. .......... 133
Evaluation of Criteria. .. ..................... 138
Summary ............................... 148
CHAPTER 5: PROPOSED CRITERIA. .. ..................... 150
Displacement Function for Side Resistance .. ............ 151
Displacement Function for Tip Resistance. .. ............ 164
Comparison of Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Performance .. . . 177
Comments. .............................. 189
*Outline of Analysis Procedure .. .................. 190
Design Curves ............................... 206
Summary ................................. 213
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .. .................. 218

ii77:
 * CONTENTS
Page
REFERENCES .. ............................... 222
APPENDIX A: LOAD-TRANSFER CURVES FROM IDEALIZED TRIAXIAL CURVES
BASED ON PARKER AND REESE CRITERIA. .............. Al
*APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF FIELD PILE TESTS. .. ................. B
*APPENDIX C: COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE CRITERIA TO FIELD PILE
TEST DATA. ............................ Cl
APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF HYPERBOLIC CURVE FITTING OF
*FIELD f-z CURVES ......................... Dl
APPENDIX E: PROCEDURES FOR PARTIALLY SUBMERGED PILES. ........... El
*APPENDIX F: LIST OF SYMBOLS. ......................... Fl
 i1 -. .
.. - *$- -, o . - ,-.

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI (metric)

units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

feet 0.3048 meters

inches 2.54 centimeters
miles (U. S. statute) 1.609347 kilometers
pounds (force) per square foot 47.88026 pascals
pounds (force) per square inch 6.894757 kilopascals
pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.01846 kilograms per cubic meter
square feet 0.09290304 square meters
tons (force) per square foot 95.76052 kilopascals
tons (2000 lb mass) 907.18474 kilograms
square inches 6.4516 square centimeters
pounds (mass) 0.45359237 kilograms

77"

*1~% % %

" iV Not

* iv ..
 KNIL * - ---

LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

OF AXIALLY LOADED PILES IN SAND

PART I: LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Corps of Engineers installs hundreds of piles in the construction

of navigation and flood control facilities in the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Pile foundations are utilized to overcome poor subsoil conditions that are

encountered in the construction of these facilities. The subsoil conditions

that must be overcome generally involve soils at or near the surface that are

unable to provide adequate support without unacceptable deformation. Typical

examples of these subsoil conditions in the Lower Mississippi Valley are clay

and silt layers ranging from 5 to 70 ft* in thickness over medium to dense

sand. Piles transfer the loads from structures into the underlying sand-soil

stratum. This transfer of loads is extremely complex, highly indeterminate,

and difficult to analytically quantify. p

In practice, pile foundations have typically been designed based on

either the pile-driving formulas or the static formula. The static formula

has been considered the more reliable of the two. With the static formula,

the pile capacity is based on the static soil resistance determined by the

limit equilibrium theory for the tip of the pile and friction between two

surfaces for side resistance. The soil parameters used in the static formula

are derived from field and/or laboratory tests. For representative soil con-

ditions in the Lower Mississippi Valley, charts have been developed, employ-

ing the static formula, that yield the pile capacity for a given depth of

penetration in the sand-soil stratum.

*A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI

(metric) units is presented on page iv.
%
r.. The practicing foundation engineer must make a number of
simplifying assumptions in the design procedure for axially loaded

piles. These assumptions have been necessary to quantify the behavior

of the pile-soil system. One of the most grossly oversimplifying

assumptions in the static formula is that the ultimate bearing

capacity of the soil at the tip of the pile and the ultimate skin

I" friction along the pile shaft are mobilized simultaneously with no

regard to displacement compatibility of these separate components.

Another oversimplifying assumption is that the soil conditions extant

prior to installation are still present after placement of the pile.

In recent years, a number of investigators have been

researching new analytical and numerical procedure:s which lessen the

number of simplifying assumptions in modeling the behavior of the

pile-soil system. These investigators have taken two different

approaches: one based on modeling soil as a continuum, the other on

modeling the soil as a set of discrete springs. The discrete springs

model was chosen for the basic analysis procedure for axially loaded

represented by springs that relate the shear developed along the pile
7
shaft and resistance at the tip to the displacement at these points.

The objective of this report is to establish criteria for shear

developed (shear transfer) along the pile shaft due to a given

movement and for tip resistance due to a given tip movement based on

correlations with field data. Chapter 2 presents a brief history of

pile foundations, a review of the design/analysis methods (both old

2
 S. ... ...

and new concepts), a review of the interpretation of pile load tests,

and a literature review of axially loaded piles in sands that

considers the changes the soil undergoes during installations. In

Chapter 3, the available criteria for spring representation of soil

are presented and summarized. Chapter 4 contains a comparison of

these criteria with actual field data from pile load tests with a

critical evaluation based on these comparisons. New :eria are -

presented and evaluated in Chapter 5. The new critet are used to

develop a set of design curves for the practicing ern !er. These

curves are presented in Chapter 5 along with a detailL procedure for

utilizing this analysis technique.

-. 4-

'

'. ..

d3

42-.3

:.-,

*.4".D.~
- -. 4* -- - -. . .•-- - -".-
 CHAPTER 2:.- OVRIWO IEFUD .iN

mebe with a eaieysml.rs-etinldmnio oprdt

% itr fPles

A iei etclo lgty lne tutrlfudto

foudin stutue Hisotsory o Pieisrcmnbithsdelg

Anpiles
torise atverticaltoorgtly slatedt hisructurl foundato

meimer withosairelatielysalltcro-secinal dimensound acaednto

its. lenth.iuThesendbof the pile whic contns to thes

suesnutr

around
isurfaceisnee the ohafpilet the
r"bt roec
endonof
placed
4-4

inthesl isr erm

th bloth ilestip andstheiption ofsthpilesoe f

Pils
are orsne ofmns ouldest remdais.t rbesnovdi

dweling on piles
ena aeercre instzlead. Tyhenmales,bultand

- numere ofbigea cch

hine foundeamredls
ondpilwhel
udais.Ins5

AThe ietius dfte rdth seo retnsa

pilesdie
y a t in 15

mrshyluislndszinthe inet ofe the Laoo ofivenic to proate eth

oeatedn mahe malletsgrams, tradls, and waterwhigtie rqies

4.4
 -,- . 11 A.. 4 . , - * - %, . . . ... - - • - ." . .

'O

Head or Butt

.4.'

4-4
I'I

46

4--.

.4..°

Figure 1. Vertical Pile

N%
FV% -_W-Yl -7 -7 -7 -. y -*. ,~-v.x--. .- - ,. .

decreased which incre ;ed their economic advantage.

Piles are applied to difficult foundation conditions such as

off shore construction, construction on soils with high groundwater

tables, construction on soft soils, to provide stability when scour

occurs, and to resist unusually high lateral forces from horizontal

loads. Piles are generally used for two purposes: (1) to in-

crease the load carrying capacity of the foundation and (2) to

reduce the settlement of the foundation. These are accomplished

by transferring loads through soft stratum to stiffer stratum at

a greater depth or by distributing loads through the stratum by

friction along the pile shaft, or by some combination of the

two.

Pile Types

Large, mature trees were the first material to be used for

piling. Their use was well established in foundation construction by

-~ Roman times, details of which were presented by Vitruvius in 58 A.D.

They are still the most common type of piling employed in the world

today. In many situations, they provide a reliable and economical

foundation. They generally range in length from 10 to 80 ft with

* . diameters of 1 to 2 ft. Timber pilings have two main limitations:

4'- first, they usually do not come in lengths over 80 ft and it is very .

*difficult to splice them; secondly, they can be damaged when driven in

* highly resistant soil. If damaged, they lose their ability to carry

loads.

.0-
% P
 In the early 1900's, several types of concrete piles were

available to the construction industry. Today, the engineer has a

wide variety of them to choose from for particular projects. This

wide variety may be divided into two groups: cast-in-place and pre-

cast. Cast-in-place piles are installed by driving a casing (shell,

pipe) into the ground, clearing it out, and filling it with

concrete. As concrete is placed, the casing may be raised out of the

ground, or it may be left in place. Precast concrete piles are

manufactured at a concrete casting plant. They are generally used in

carrying fairly heavy loads through a soft stratum to a firmer or

stiffer stratum. They are usually reinforced for bending so that they

can be handled and driven without cracking and may be prestressed so

as to prevent cracking or spalling during driving. They are

manufactured in given lengths with joints that may be used to splice

them together. If the length is misjudged before construction, they

may be spliced together to obtain the given length during construc-

tion.

Steel piles are used often in modern construction. They come in

basically two shapes: steel pipe and steel H shapes. The pipe shapes

are usually in two forms, either open-ended or closed-ended. These

steel piles are often used when penetration resistance is high and

great depths are needed. They are easily sectioned together or

spliced together to provide more length during driving. Steel H pilesN

penetrate the ground most readily of all piles due to their relatively

small displacement of material. Steel H piles are suitable for

penetrating to rock and through hard material with the least amount of

7 .

C.,
 7 7 -V--
,oa 6

effort and in the shortest time because of this small displacement.

For many applications they may be the only pile that can be used

without using jetting or coring. Steel piles can carry heavy loads
which may reduce the number of piles needed for a foundation. They
v%
are also often used when large lateral loads occur because of their

high bending strength.

Pile Installation

Current construction practice for installation of piles may be

* . divided into three basic catagories: driving, boring, and jetting.

Jetting and boring will not be considered in this report because they

are seldom used in sands. The oldest and most common method of

.~ installation is impact driving of piles. This was the method used by

the first steam pile driver. Impact hammers or drop hammers

originated with the Romans who, in the early days, used stone blocks

hoisted by rope over a pulley guide and then dropped. The block was

guided to its destination by vertical poles that are similar to

today's pile leads. Piles are currently driven by means of a

ram/hammer or by a vibratory forced generator. A hammer operates

between a pair of vertical guides called leads suspended from the boom

of a crane. The leads are connected to the base of the crane by a

hor al member called a spotter. The spotter guides the leads to

p ct alignment for the pile. The leads have rails which

gui amer during its descent.

Impact driving can be performed with five types of hammer: a

drop hammer, single-action hammer, double-action hammer, differential

acting hammer, and diesel hammer. The drop hammer works by raising a
 S . . . 7

ram with a cable run over the top of a framework back to a drum or a

gear shaft. A tripping mechanism releases the ram once it reaches the

top of the framework. It free falls along the guide rails and is

allowed to strike the head of the pile, thus driving it into the

ground. For a single-action hammer, steam or air is forced into a

cylinder that raises a piston connected to the ram. The ram is

dropped by releasing the pressure. Hammers of this type are always

used in leads. A double-action hammer uses steam or air to raise the

ram and to add additional energy on the downstroke. Differential

q. acting hammers also employ steam or air to raise the ram and to add

energy on the downstroke. The diesel hammer originated in Europe. It

uses a closed system in which diesel fuel is ignited to raise the

ram. The hammer forms a self-contained unit including fuel tank and

injectors. A diesel hammer is lighter and more portable than a steam

hammer. Most impact hammers used today are either steam or diesel.

Vibratory drivers consist of force generators attached to the

pile head by clamps with a static weight. The driving force is from a

pair of counterrotating eccentric weights arranged so that the

horizontal components of their centrifugal force cancel whereas the 5

vertical components are added. The pulsating force facilitates the

penetration of the pile under the influence of the constantly acting

downward weight. Vibratory drivers differ from one another according

to the frequency of the power source. If the frequency is adjustable,

the driver is called a "resonant" driver because by adjusting the

frequency the natural frequency of the system can be attained which

will assist the penetration by making effective the full downward

.55~ 9
 weight of the hammer and the pile itself.

Review of Pile Design/Analysis

Into the latter part of the 19th century, the design of piling

was based totally on prior experience and rule-of-thumb criteria. The

A first attempt at theoretical evaluation of pile capacity was published

in Engineering News under "Piles and Pile Driving" edited by

Wellington in 1893. This approach is still known today as the

"Engineering News pile-driving formula." Since then, a number of

attempts have been made to predict the capacity of piles, and a large

number of reports of field experience have become available. The two

basic approaches that have been used or followed in the theoretical

attempts to evaluate pile capacity are the pile-driving formulas and

the static formula. The pile-driving formulas base pile capacity on

the resistance of the pile to driving. The static formula bases pile

capacity on the static soil resistance after the pile is driven. This

resistance is evaluated in two parts: limit equilibrium theory for the

tip resistance, and friction between two surfaces for side resistance.

Static Formula

The static formula has been used for years to determine the

ultimate axial capacity of a pile, Pu* The ultimate axial capacity of

a pile is separated into two components: the ultimate shear resistance

along the shaft of the pile, Pa; and the ultimate tip bearingN

capacity, Pt (Figure 2). The two are generally assumed to develop__

10
ST.ON

61P 5.

1 f

u
I t L

qmama a.1 B ,,

I " a B
t'.t x 0Lax.
"
0 max a0 ma

, Figure 2. Forces on Pile for the Static Formula"--- ::..ax

a=B x•L "

-.- ,. .. . . , . .. . .-_..,.-.- ,- .- .-. -,,,','.-.-...
da ..... .-'vmax
Ad..x, v : .- / ,
 . • °

T +
Pu t F I) :...-

axiacpit
where utmt i-baigcpct
Pu o the ultimate axial capacity t

Ps the ultimate shear resistance, or "skin friction,"

along the shaft

Tip-Bearing Capacity

The ultimate tip-bearing capacity of a pile is derived from the

classical bearing capacity theory for a strip load at the surface.

The first theoretical formulation for bearing capacity is attributed

to Caqout (1934) and Buisman (1930) in the mid-1930's, who extended

Prandtl (1920) and Reissner's (1924) work on punch failure. Prandtl's

theoretical approach considered the plastic flow in a semi-infinite

weightless continuum due to a distributed infinite strip load on a a,

frictional surface. In Caqout and Buisman's approach, the soil was

assumed to be modeled by a semi-infinite continuum having the

following properties: (I) Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria govern the

soil failure; (2) the strength at any point is independent of strain;

(3) the elastic deformations are negligible with respect to plastic

deformations; and (4) volume change due to stress is negligible. The

above assumptions describe the behavior of a rigid perfectly plastic

material which would have a stress-strain diagram as shown in Figure

3. This type of problem is solved by limit equilibrium analysis for

plasticity theory.

12
 * * - 2 ;:W W

I4

4.

Strain E
Figure 3. Stress-Strain Behavior for a Perfectly Plastic
Material

13
 Limit analysis for plasticity theory requires the establishment

of a representative kinematic failure mechanism for the prescribed

boundary and discontinuous conditions. The kinematic failure

Y mechanism is referred to as the "failure pattern." The stresses

* applied must satisfy the equations of equilibrium for the kinematic

configuration resulting from the failure conditions. This is called

"limit equilibrium." Limit equilibrium results if the stress state is

* reached in the soil mass so that a change, no matter how small, in the

surface forces will cause a loss of equilibrium or collaspe.

Since the first attempt, a number of different solutions have

followed introducing different assumptions for the surface conditions

* and the failure pattern or different empirical correlations from

experimental data.

One of the first and most famous contributors was Terzaghi-

* (1943). His equation for determining the bearing capacity of footings

is still used today:

Qmax 2B (6ccNc + qjNq + 6YYB N Y (2) *-

* where

2i = the width of footing

NciN Ny- the bearing factors

Y = the shape factors

q= overburden pressure

Y -unit weight of soil

C M cohesion

14
 The bearing capacity factors and the shape factors are

dimensionless factors dependent on the internal angle of friction, 0,

of the soil. For cohesionless soils (c = 0), the equation can be

"* written as

2 6
qmax BqlNq + Y BNy) (2a)

For piles, the YN term becomes negligible compared to the qlNq term
'Yq
and yields the equation

Pt = At(qlNq) (2b)

where N

qmax q~ -. '
q qlNq

At = the area of the tip of the pile

Other derivations for ultimate tip-bearing capacity using the

same general assumptions but different failure patterns have been

developed. These solutions are presented in Figure 4 for the

different failure patterns that have been used. For sands, some of

the various numerical values are plotted in Figure 5 to show the wide

range of the bearing capacity factors, N q. A good review of bearing

capacity equations for piles can be found in Sherman, Holloway, and

Trahan (1974).

Skin Friction

The skin friction represents the maximum shear resistance

developed at the pile-soil interface. The evaluation of the ultimate

skin friction is based on the simple laws of physics for the sliding

of two rigid bodies surface to surface. The unit resistance of two

15

xM!-A
 ID

1 >0 '-as

C-)

00)0

CIO

-4CJ

-LLcr c
LJ"(LJ 0I

N (r)
CM .T
Of 0)0 m0

_jc.

a- a)uCOF

%U

-- 41

16()t)
 I I w0,0002

1000
-Sr

C..

C))
4a-

0
____________
________z

LU

ZZ z I

10

250 300 350 400 450 500

ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION #

Figure 5. Bearing Capacity for Deep Circular Foundations

(After Vesic 1967)

17]
 .1-

sliding surfaces is due to the friction and the adhesion of these two

surfaces:

6
f = ca +a Gntan
n (3)

where

ca the adhesion between the shaft and soil

= the normal stress on the shaft

tan 6 = the coefficient of friction between the shaft and soil

For sands, the adhesion is equal to zero, and the side resistance is

due only to friction. The normal stress is assumed to be equal to the

horizontal earth pressure where the horizontal earth pressure is -- "

determined by multiplying the vertical stress at a point by the

coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K. The vertical stress is

taken as the effective overburden pressure. The unit side resistance

is

f KYDtan6 (3a)

and the total side resistance is

2
P = =YDyD2tan6 A (4)
s 2 s
where

A s = the surface area of the pile shaft

yD = effective overburden pressure

Pile-Driving Formulas

The equations which relate the resistance of penetration of the

pile under the blow of the hammer to the static resistance of the pile .

against a vertical static load are known as dynamic pile formulas.

For almost a century, foundation engineers have tried to obtain the

information needed to design pile foundations by measuring the

18
 penetration of the pile due to a hammer of known weight being dropped

on the head of the pile from a known height. The dynamic pile

formulas enjoy great popularity among practicing engineers due to

their simple procedure for design.

The editors of Engineering News have on file over 450 different

pile-driving formulas. The reliability of a number of these formulas

for predicting the capacity of piles has been investigated

by Sorensen and Hansen (1957), Agerschau (1962), Flaate (1964), Housel

(1966), and Olsen and Flaate (1967). These studies are summarized in

Poulos and Davis (1980). In the 450 different formulas for predicting

the ultimate pile capacity from the hammer blow count, the values of

* ultimate capacity vary over a very wide range. These formulas, no

.4 matter how sophisticated, group various parameters in one lump sum

adjustment making it very difficult to determine the factors

controlling pile capacity. The poor degree of reliability

demonstrated by the pile-driving formulas has reduced their use to

that of merely a check for the relative capacity of piles within the

same foundation.

4' In the 1930's, it was recognized that the behavior of a pile

being driven was not governed by a simple dynamic formula but rather

by a one-dimensional wave equation. An exact mathematical solution to

the wave equation was not possible for most practical problems. In

1960, A. E. L. Smith developed numerical procedures based on direct

element idealization of the hammer-pile-soil system (Figure 6) which

could be used for extremely complex pile-driving problems. .'

.04

19
Ram Ram

Anvil
Cap
Cushion

0.Q)

20)
 Texas A&M University has conducted extensive research on the

application of the wave equation to pile-driving analysis and has

developed a computer program to analyze a single pile during driving.

The wave equation models the behavior of the pile due to

driving much better than the pile-driving formulas. The model allows

for many of the lump variables in pile-driving formulas to be

investigated independently.

All pile driving analysis procedures have a deficiency that

leads to uncertainity of the static ultimate pile capacity. One

assumption which is inherent in this method is that the dynamic

resistance (the resistance to rapid penetration) is identical with

static resistance under slow penetration. The rapid penetration is

resisted not only by skin friction, cohesion, and point resistance,

but also by the viscosity of the soil.

The method requires an assumed resistance from the soil and a

distribution of that resistance along the pile shaft. This it,the

focal point for many of the uncertainties in the method. Accuracy in

applying the wave equation is highly dependent on the assumed

rheological model of soil resistance. The dynamic pile-soil

interaction behavior is extremely complex. As a pile penetrates,

discontinuous shear deformations develop at the tip and along the

shaft. Beneath the tip, the soil is compressed and displaced as the

region adjacent to the tip is sheared and deformed. The soil along

the shaft is severely sheared. Rapid hammer blows on the head of the

pile may severely reduce the skin friction from that of the static

condition.

21
 ".,-5-.

too ,

Soil behavior is a function of the stress-strain history, in

situ stress, stress path, and strain rate. The driving of a pile

induces excess pore water pressures in the surrounding soil which

alter the stress-strain behavior of the soil. Determining the

representative soil parameters for the pile-driving analysis is at

--
5
best a crude exercise of engineering judgment.

New Concepts

The approaches in the previous section are based on finding the

ultimate capacity of a pile with no regard to the deformation

necessary to reach this ultimate capacity. Both methods arrive at the

ultimate capacity of a pile by assuming that the maximum bearing

capacity of the soil at the tip of the pile and the maximum shear

resistance of the soil at the pile-soil interface along the pile shaft

are mobilized at the same time with no consideration to the

displacement compatibility of the pile-soil system.

Vesic (1977a) states that the static formula contains an

implied assumption that both the pile tip and all points of the shaft

have moved sufficiently with respect to adjacent soil to develop

simultaneously the ultimate tip and side resistance of the pile. The

displacement required for maximum side resistance is small in

comparison to the displacement required to achieve the ultimate tip

capacity (Figure 7). In medium to dense sand, an ultimate tip

capacity may never be reached.

* -,2

":22 I-",

•.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
........ ...... -. ,,. ,-..., ... .-.... . .,,..-.-.-.-.,..-. .- . .*.,'',',. ,
 Total Resistance, P
U

Tip Resistance,PL

* 0

Side Resistance, PS

SV

Movement of Pile Head

Figure 7.. Typical Load-Movement Characteristics of an Axially

Loaded Pile in Sand

* 23
 Without question, the best method for the design of pile

foundations has been to base the design on field load tests at the

site under actual conditions. A load test will yield the load-

displacement behavior of the head and tip of the pile. From this

load-displacement curve, the ultimate capacity can be determined by

applying a given failure criterion. The failure criteria are based on

'p allowable displacement. Allowable displacement is the displacement

* that will not cause damage to the superstructure. It would seem

logical that any new theoretical or analytical approach would consider

displacement of the pile head, although this has not been the case

until the present.

Not only is the load-displacement behavior of the pile

important in determining the load carrying capacity of pile, but it is

* also important for predicting the performance of the superstructure.

Traditionally, the design of a major facility is divided into two

components: the design of the superstructure, and the design of the

* foundation. The design of the superstructure, is based on assumption

of a rigid foundation. The loads are applied and analyzed to yield 2

the shears, moments, and thrusts in the structural members and the

loads to be transmitted to the foundation. The foundation is then

designed to carry these loads. The design of the foundation is often

divided into two parts itself: ultimate load carrying capacity, and

ultimate settlement. The displacements that the foundation undergoes

are generally not considered in the design of the superstructure,

* 24
 although in reality these displacements may affect the shear, moment,

and thrust within the superstructure and then ultimately affect the

design of the total structure.

In recent years, a number of investigators have been exploring

theoretical approaches that consider the load-deformation behavior w4

between the structure and the soil. These types of analyses are

called Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) analyses. Two basic

approaches have been explored by the investigators: one based on

modeling the soil as a continuous medium, and the other based on

modeling the soil as a set of discrete springs.

To model soil as a continuous medium, one must rely on the

engineering field of continuum mechanics to derive the theoretical

approach. For complex conditions which include most soil problems,

closed-form solutions have a very limited application. A

sophisticated approximation must be employed. Such procedures are

finite element, finite difference, and boundary element solutions.

The key to arriving at a useful theoretical approach of this type is

in choosing the correct stress-strain behavior of the soil and the

soil-structure interface. To arrive at a stress-strain model for soil

that will be of practical application, there must be some means for

predicting the behavior either by in situ testing or laboratory

experimentation. Without this, the model is virtually useless as a

tool for design or analysis. General stress-strain models available

from the field of continuum mechanics are linear elastic, plastic,

25

"€,'",', ' , € : ",.", ;"-",--.. .- ", .. ".... "-. . . . ."..". ." • "."". ".' -"."'" ".' ..
- - . . - r . -, -, .C r+ . . - .
...-

d--.°. .w

nonlinear elastic, viscoelastic, or some combination of these. Of

these models, the elastic solid is the simplest to use and the one

most often applied to pile foundations.

Elastic Solid Model

V. .-

D'Appolonia and Romuadi (1963) were among of the first to

utilize elastic theory in the analysis of load transfer in end bearing

piles. Since then a number of investigators have employed elastic

theory in the analysis of pile foundations: Thurman and D'Appolonia

(1965), Nair (1967), Poulos and Davis (1968), Poulos and Mattes

(1969a, 1969b), Butterfield and Banerjee (1971a, 1971b), Banerjee and

Davies (1977), and Randolph and Wroth (1978). In this approach the

pile is generally divided into uniformly loaded elements whose

displacement must be compatible with the surrounding soil. The

displacements in the compressible pile element are due to an imposed

axial load at the pile head. The displacement in the soil is due to

stresses induced from the pile shaft and tip. These stresses and

displacements are computed using Mindlin's (1936) equations for a load

within an elastic continuum. The major difference between these

procedures is in the shear stress distribution along the pile shaft:

whether a point load, uniformly loaded circular area at the center of

each element, or uniformly distributed load around the circumference

of each element. The latter has been found to be the most

satisfactory (Poulos and Davis 1980). A detailed description of the

approach is presented in Poulos and Davis (1980).

26

V• * °_,-°
,.-w -" w.- . . . -. .-. . - jW7• . *-. . . .,. .-. -.. . . .
* . :.- FL. . - ... - . .. . . "."-
.. " . . ,'.

With use of Mindlin's equations, the effect of the shear stress

at one point on the shaft or at the tip can be considered for all

other points within the system. The soil surrounding the pile is

assumed to be a homogeneous, linear elastic, isotropic solid defined

by a modulus of elasticity, E., and a Poisson's ratio, Ysp (Figure

8). The pile is divided into elements (Figure 9). The load transfer

for the pile element is

A~i=P - i-1 f(zi ) (5 "

The load-transfer function, fz9 for the soil is replaced by a set of n

"
equations of the form
n
U =B E I fs +E Iipq
(6)

and an equation for the tip

B n
U E I
- J--1
t Es f + Itq (7)

where U - the displacements vector of the soil

IiJ - the influence factor for settlement of element j caused

by forces P . The influence factors are determined by
Mindlin's solution for stresses and displacement in a semi-
infinite elastic solid from point loads in the interior
of the solid. If no slippage occur, there are n equations
of the form

u--U
U
PAL
p,j+l - p,j E A (8)
P

If slippage occurs they are replaced by

1W

27
 ,-J

* Soil -E

a.
Pile -E
p

47-

Figure 8. Problem Idealization

28
 'I.

Pu

-..

SAP

P
AL i+1

.i+2
'p..

--i+3

- U
,, t

Figure 9. Load-Transfer Analysis by Elastic Solid

-- App roach

"a..

a.-b

-C..i
P.29

%
n
*~-57 7 .7 "T Tq-~::V. -

AP =f sA sAL
(9)

pThis
where fsis

displacements.
the maximum side resistance for the point considered.

yields 2n+l equations for n unknown forces and n+l unknown

These are written in a matrix form and solved on a

digital computer.

The assumption of a linear elastic system greatly

oversimplifies the pile-soil system. Poulos and Davis (1980) present

empirical corrections for pile driving effects, nonlinear stress-

strain behavior, etc., all based on observations from the field and

model tests. The method allows for tension to occur in the soil which

most soils can take very little of, if any. Load transfer by

Mindlin's solution may induce significant tensile stress beyond the

point of the load application. Tensile stress could cause a

considerably different stress distribution surrounding the pile than

would actually occur in the soil.

This is shown in Figure 10: the left side of the distribution

is due to uniform shear load along the pile shaft; the right side -
%4M
shows the distribution due to a point load. Tensile stresses are 7
'4

developed along the shaft due to the tip load. For the stresses due

to skin friction to have an effect along the shaft, they must be

significantly larger than the tip load.

This model has some serious limitations as stated by two of its

most prominent advocates, Poulos and Davis (1980): "Soil and rock are

30
 U Is a .1

-S..

100

.31

0.50.

I.Sa jv~we
r-i evw
A w*A
- W SOMM

Figue f10 VrticlDisribuion Stesse Arond.

Filein anEasi Cnium(fe 97

S31
 * .7 i -7 V7.----

not ideal elastic materials in that the stress and strain are not

linearly related, strains are not fully recoverable on reduction in

stress, and strains are not independent of time. The best that can be

said is that, the strains in the soil increase as the stress .2

increases." Even with these limitations, the linear elastic model is

P often utilized. Attempts to use more sophisticated stress-strain

behavior models have shown some promise, but they are too difficult to

use in practice because of the complex numerical procedures and the

difficulty in determining soil parameters from laboratory or in situ "-

tests.

Discrete Spring Model

Modeling the soil as a set of discrete springs was first

suggested by Winkler for beams on elastic foundations. The concept

was later applied to laterally loaded piles by Matlock and Reese -'.

(1960) and to axial loaded piles by Reese and Seed (1957). The

discrete set of springs is known as Winkler springs. For beams on

elastic foundations, the set of springs is called a Winkler

foundation. Axially loaded and laterally loaded pile analyses are

classified as beam-colutm, analyses with springs modeling the soil

(Figure 11). '""

These are the general governing differential equations for the

beam-column system shown in Figure 12:

d du (10)
- (EA -) -K u = q
dx dx x x

2 2
d d v d dv
dx 22 (EI dx
-) 2 + - (P -) + K Y..
v = q (11)
dx dx dx dx V y

32

['
._
' 7* .."

PI
"."

It I
Figure 11. Beam-Column Idealization of a Pile

Ct .- '.C . C . . . . . *'t*:-.* --
C* * * CC * C C

qt-t
33
 P 1x
iy

xd

pq i+l .-
i+l

K yvdx d4 q dx

K udx

Kx+ dVx dx tdPx

xdx xdM
dx x
M + -dx
x dx

Figure 12. Free Body Diagram for Beam-Column Analysis

* C34
 where I moment of inertia

P axial force

Ky,Kx - spring constants

v,u - displacements in y and x direction, respectively

with the force-deformation relationship as

du (12)
P =-EA- (2
dx

M EI
2
M = El - "-v
2 d13(1.3)

d2

Vd (Id-v +Pdv
dx dx 2 (14) "

Mechanics of an Axially Loaded Pile

A vertical load applied at the head of a vertical pile is

resisted by the shearing resistance of soil along the pile shaft and

bearing resistance developed at the r f the pile (Figure 2).

Mathematically, this is stated as

X= L
Pu f fAdx + Pt (15)
X= 0

35

*1 ° . . . . . . ° . ..
• . . - ,,.- ~ j
-,,
-.--
..- ..-. " . ." -" 'o-.- ,-. -.- " - - " -.-. "" p " ' "" "- ' " " '''
-" ' ' " . "" : ;, .', ,' ¢
.. - ...... .. .. ........ . ..
.. -::

The above is the basis for the static formula (Equation 1). The

equation only ensures that the forces along the shaft and at the tip

and head of the pile are in equilibrium.

If an increment of the pile is considered, as shown in

Figure 13, summing force along the pile (x-direction) using the beam-

column equation gives

dP
-= 0 x (16)-u)(6
dx x

with a force-deformation relationship of

P= -EA du (17)
dx
Substituting the force-deformation relationship into Equation

16 and rearranging yields the governing differential equations:

a. d (Adu)"""
*.,. (EA dx - K(U)
x(18) = 0 (18 ..

The boundary conditions on the axially loaded pile are

d du for x =0
(EA 4u) =P
dx dx u
d (EAd) Pt
dx dx for x L ..

so the equation can be written as

d(FA K (u) (18a)

dx dx x PIPS

Either a finite difference or a finite element solution can be

used to solve these equations.

For the finite element solution, the pile is divided into beam

elements with distributed nonlinear springs (Figure 11), and the load-

displacement relationship for each element is written to form a system .]

of simultaneous equations:

4 36

*,"
It.

- .R,... ," _ . ," •. .. .. . ..~,. . • ._, .. . , . ,, . -. ,. . ,, . . . - . .. .. , . ... . ,4,,** * ,-,,,

4, -. . , 4 . ,, - ''.'-
 y

P
x

4..

I- I
II dx
-K (u)dx
xI

dP
x dx -ix-.

Figure 13. Free Body Diagram for One Increment of An

Axially Loaded Pile

37

,-v ,-....:-..-,.
, ,-.-,:. , - "-- , . - • -- -. .. " . . -- .-,. . ... -..- - .- . . ,:.-.,
-...
 7PT"V% -i.i

[F] = [Sb + Ssl[UI (19)

where

F = forces at end of each element

L S axial stiffness of the beam

Ss = stiffness provided by the soil

U = displacement at end of each element

The equation is then solved for the specified boundary conditions, the

forces, and the displacements within and along the pile.

For the finite difference solutlon, the pile is divided into

increments as shown in Figure 14, and the force in the pile is

described by: dp
P =P -(5
i+I i dx

The change in force in the pile is equal to the side resistance:

dei (20)
K (u)
dx x
" Then dP 2 (18b)
dx EAd 2

dx
Integrating gives d1
=
Pi dx
du EA (18c)

Writing in finite difference form gives

du ui- Ui+l (18d)

dx 2h
du _du

d u ui-l dXi+l (18c)

dx 2h

38
 h
i- p

K /u
'- il~
p

i+I~ It .

dP. -Pp
ii-1 i+1

x x i-i i+1

2h X. -x i+1
i-i

dPi-i i+1

dx 2hK(u
Figure 14. Finite Difference Idealization

.4. 39j
V

From Figure 14,

P -P
i-i i+l (20a)
K x (u)(2a 2h ,: 9

P - - I+ = 2h Kx(u) (20b)

2.0@
The change in force in the pile is assumed to be linear across an

increment

Pi- - Pi = h Kx(u) (20c)

Substituting Equation 18d for du/dx in Equation 18c, Pit can be

written as

i-i i+l
. 2h (20d)

Rewritten
2hP.
=U u (20d)
EA i-1 i+1 (2)
If the pile section has a constant E and A, the following is true:
hP (20e)
EA - - i+l

hP.
1 = u
EA i+l ui
Thus, starting at the tip, the force is determined and the

corresponding displacement, u, is computed. The procedure is

continued until the force at the head is obtained.

The load-displacement behavior of piles has been based on field

data and empirical correlations with soil parameters. This approach

has fallen under criticism by some theoreticians due to the fact that

the springs in the system are not connected, making the response of

40

""
. . .. "". - l
 7,.

each spring in the system independent of the others. The interactions

between springs along the pile are accounted for in the correlation by

developing the spring behavior from field pile data where the

- interaction of springs is built into the correlation. Criteria for

the springs developed from field data have the influence of the

continuous nature of the soil implicity represented.

V This brings us to a fundamental question in soil mechanics and

foundation engineering. Given that Boils are highly discontinuous and

are made up of small particles resting on each other, adhering to each

other, and chemically bonding to one another, it is difficult to -

* 4 obtain a theoretical model for the soil based on a continuous

medium. This has led to two different fundamental approaches to

foundation analysis. One approach is derived from the theoretical

consideration of the soil as a continuous medium and the geometry

configurations of the particular problem. An example of this is the

determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing based on

Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations derived from limit equilibrium

theory. The magnitudes of the bearing capacity factors, Ncl Nq N.

are only dependent on the strength parameters of the soil which are

measured by in situ or laboratory tests. Improvements to theoretical

approaches are advanced by better analytical and/or numerical

.4 procedures and better techniques for estimating the soil properties.

The second approach to foundation analysis has been based on empirical

correlations. These empirical approaches have been used for

. decades. An excellent example of this is the correlation between 4

standard penetration tests and liquefaction potential of sands. The

41
 empirical approach can only be as good as the test data that it is

based on. Having a large quantity of good quality observations is

necessary for finding a good correlation. The empirical approach may

be equal to or even better than the theoretical approach, for example,

in the determination of liquefaction potential for sands.

The latter approach has been used with great success in the

design and analysis of pile foundations, especially laterally loaded

piles and axially loaded piles in clay. This extensive usage has been

stimulated by a large volume of offshore construction and related

research. There has been a lack of information in the literature on

axially loaded piles in sands. To develop an empirical approach field

data must be available. For piles, the field data are obtained from

pile load tests. The next section outlines the procedures that are

used to interprete the pile load tests and determine the soil

parameters at the test sites.

Review of the Interpretation of Pile Load Test Results

Load tests can be classified under two categories: (1)

verification of a design calculation, (2) investigation of the pile-

soil system. The load tests employed for verification are generally

inexpensive tests yielding the load-displacement behavior of the butt

(Figure 15). Only limited information is gained in a test of this

. l
type. To investigate the pile-soil interaction, the pile must be

instrumented in a fashion that will give the distribution of the load

within the pile for a given butt load and displacement (Figure 16). A
%

42j
 _' o

Butt Load (tons)

00 50 100 200 250

.,.., .2 II 'I

.2

" *°' . .4

. , .6
-4

aCa

V,. Figure 15. Simple Load Test

.4. .4-
* . - " - 4"
- "4, -"" "---","-"f . ," "
" " ' " ' " ' ". ,"""""," -- '""'" - " . . . . .

43
 . .j . . . . ,.. . . . . . . . . . .,;. . . . '' . .'' " " . - .- . ., .

... o

'aw

.ii,

0'
# #2 Set t. t -t

.10.

#1 3 Se' Sec. #2 #'. ect. Sect.'- Set.-n

Fiur 6.Dstiutono La.i- Pl

a
'a'

444

p. ..

Figre16.Ditriutonof oa ina44l
2I:

_NO L A. ~ . . ,
 test of this type requires careful planning and more elaborate

instrumentation than the verification test and is more costly.

Although more expensive, the test is very cost-effective when weighed

against the fundamental insight into the pile-soil interaction that is

obtained from the test. Reese (1979) advised that, when possible, the

test piles should be loaded to failure, a sizable number should be

instrumented, and for nearly all piles the behavior prior to the

application of the load should be predicted.

No one single standard procedure exists for the testing of

piles subject to axial load. The American Society for Testing and

Materials has set forth procedures in "Testing Piles Under Axial

Compressive Loading" (D 1143) for the instrumentation and loading of

axially loaded piles. Unstrained rods (telltales) and strain gages

are the most common instruments used for determining the load

distribution in the pile, while load cells are employed to determine

the load at the pile head and dial gages to measure the movement.

Piles are instrumented to obtain the axial load at the head

versus head settlement, the axial load at the head versus tip .

settlement, and the load distribution along the pile shaft for each

load increment applied. Typical types of plots for this info, ition -

are shown in Figures 17 and 18. The field data from pile tests "i not
S.%
* provide pile-soil interaction information directly. The data must be

analyzed and interpreted to yield the necessary information.

Reese (1979) described a method for analyzing data from a test

on instrumented deep foundations under axial load. For a given

distance aogthe pile, xkand a load distribution curve, the slope

45
 Load (tons)
0050 100 150 200
0-

Tip

.2

Elastic --.
WI
compression
.4
Q-)

E Head
w

rn .6

.8

Figure 17. Pile Tip and Head Settlement Versus Butt Load

46

-7
 Loads (tons)

0 50 100 150 200 250

-FS

10

20

30

40

60

Figure 18. Load Distribution Within Pile Shaft

47
 b~~~~~ - .-.. -%7 -. b f ~~
-"... :6 -,77 .*j

°-.-

of that curve, dP/dx, divided by the circumference of the pile at a

given length yields the unit load transfer (Figure 19). The

intergration of the area under the load distribution curve divided by

the approximate value of axial stiffness yields the compression of the

* pile for the lengths selected. That compression subtracted from the

movement at the top of the pile for the load being considered yields

the vertical movement of the pile, z. Thus, using this procedure,

points on the load transfer, f, versus pile movement, z, curves can be

plotted at depths xk (Figure 20).

The detailed steps for analyzing the field data are:

(1) Starting at the pile head, compute the elastic

compression in each pile segment using the
average of the measured loads at the ends of the
segment (Figure 21).

k2 ) Determine the tip settlement for the load increment

N considered by subtracting from the displacement at
the pile head the total elastic compression of the
pile.

(3) Starting at the tip, calculate the total displacement

of the midpoint of each segment by considering the
settlement of the tip and the elastic compression.

(4) The load transfer within a section is assumed to vary

linearly throughout the section. Starting at the pile
head the difference between the measured loads at the
top and bottom of each section is assumed to be the
load transferred to the surrounding soil. Dividing the
difference by the surface area of that section gives
the shear transferred to the soil at the midpoint of
that section.

(5) Then, plotting the shear transfer and total movement at

the midpoint of each section for each load increment
gives the shear transfer versus pile movement along the
shaft (Figure 20).

The transfer along a shaft can be estimated for piles with just

the information on tip and head movement. The skin friction can be

48 -"

.
,,,..

-,
p
I

5/x
5'.K

_ _ _ _ _

* _ _ _ _ . d

( t Re 17
;_:].-.

q'.dP

So.o

,'a,

X49

4'-w

Sb~

2,
 4 4 .....
............
....

4J4

.4.4

0 Pile movement

Figure 20. Plot of Shear Transfer Versus Pile

Movement (After Reese 1978)

50
 * ~ *

A. = rsssctoalae

24 L

-A,

5A'E

~
Figure~
21 ~ ~ omrsin crsi
oss-eSeeinalae

.51

EV onr ouu
 obtained by plotting two curves: a curve showing the elastic

compression in the pile as a function of the applied load, and a curve

showing the downward movement of the pile tip as a function of applied

* load. From the first of these two plots, it is possible to find out

whether or not the pile is behaving principally as a friction pile or

an end bearing pile. From the second curve using assumptions that the

amount of skin friction support for the pile is limited to some

maximum value, this maximum value of skin friction is substantially

mobilized with pile movements considerably less than required to cause

a bearing capacity failure. The bearing stratum will deflect linearly

until the applied load approaches its ultimate bearing capacity. The

curve defining tip behavior can then be constructed.

Residual Stresses

To understand and determine the exact performance of pile tests,

the residual stresses in the pile must be accounted for. The process

of impact driving induces stresses in the pile-soil system before

piles are ever loaded in the testing procedure. If the ram delivers

its blow to the pile head the momentum of the ram is transferred to

the pile creating an impulse energy that compresses the pile and

impels it into the soil (Figure 22). After each blow, the total

rebound of the pile is prevented by the side resistance on the shaft

causing residual compression stresses to remain in the pile, which can

be shown using a mechanical model of the pile-soil system (Figure 23).

The side resistance in the upper section of the pile is due to

negative skin friction, while in the lower section the side resistance

* 52
-4

AE B t

.4, A=A -

h bt rmteblwo.h a
moeeto

h tpfo tebo o h a
At mvmnto

A elatic omprssio
E'

Fiue2.Pyia ersnaino rvn

.53
S.---.-.0000 0

No Residual Load Induced Residual Load

Figure 23. Mechanical Model of a Pile Before and After Driving

54 7
results in preloading the soil before a load is even applied to the

pile. i0I
Figure 24 show the soil behavior in the upper and lower section

of the pile due to residual load in the pile. The effect of not

adjusting for the residual load is shown in Figure 24 also. If the

plot is not adjusted, the shear transfer can be grossly overestimated

in the upper section and underestimated in the lower section.

The importance of the effects of residual stresses on the

interpretation of load test data can best be demonstrated by

hypothetical pile test results shown in Figure 25. Curve mc and curve

mt in Figure 25a show the measured load distribution in the pile. The

resulting side resistance from the measured load distribution is shown

in Figure 25b. The residual stresses are shown as curves r.

Adjusting the measured load distribution for residual loads yields the

actual load distribution in the pile as a result of the applied loads,

curves c and t. If the measured distribution was used without

adjustment for residual stresses, it would lead to an overestimated

side resistance and an underestimated tip capacity. Failure to

consider the residual stress in the pile could cause serious

deficiencies in a design based upon the pile test.

Residual stresses in pile tests were first recognized to be

significant in the Old River Low-Sill structure (Mansur and Kaufman

1958). An effort was made to measure the residual stresses by means

of strain rods, but this proved to be unsuccessful as a result of

temperature changes and manipulation of the strain rods prior to and

during driving. In the Arkansas River pile tests, residual stresses

were recorded and considered in the analysis of the test data. The

55
 . , '----"--n-- -.--..

** . *. .. . . t. t K4. --

U)

44

Pile Movement

unadjusted axis .

Upper Section

Ca

. unadjusted axis

Pile Movement

Lower Section

Figure 24. Load-Transfer Behavior Under Residual Loading

56

* *"-"-- . ' ".-'--..'.-' " '. -

" .i"- .
.- ,-",-.*-."-. ' "- "" . .''--'" '-C,'
.'"- '- " .-''..''., -;*,-. V " '-.' , , - -- ',.-
40..

(a)
Load in the Pile
teason rmprp,;4-

mcS

IC

(b)
Side Resistence

-9 tension compression -

mt
mc

It Ic

Figure 25. Hypothetical Pile Test to Show Effect of

Residual Loads in the Pile

57
 - - - 6
7 -

- - graph procedure used in the Arkansas River tests was presented by

Hunter and Davisson (1969). Their methodology calls for the test pile

to be instrumented so that the distribution of loads along the shaft

can be determined. Readings are made before driving, after driving,

and during each load cycle. The load distribution in the pile is

-:plotted in Figure 25. For a compression test, the measured loads at

each instrumentation point in the pile at zero butt load are added to

the measured load distribution under an incremental butt load. The

newly formed distribution from this procedure is curve c (Figure 25a);

* it is adjusted for residual stresses from driving or from the previous

load cycle. For tension tests (Figure 25), residual loads in the pile

are shown at the end of the compression test by curve r. Curve mt is

the load distribution in the pile after the tension load was applied.

Curve mt shows a tension load at the tip; however, this is an

impossibility, because the resistance at the tip has to be zero. The

compression test locked in residual stresses in the pile causing the

reading at the tip to show a tension load. Hunter and Davisson's

(1969) adjustment for a tension test was to subtract the measured

loads in the pile at the end of the compression test curve, r, from

the measured load distribution for the applied tension load at the W
butt. The newly formed distribution, curve t, is the load transferred

to the soil from the shaft.

Holloway, Clough, and Vesic (1978) presented a more

sophisticated procedure which would approximate pile-soil interaction

behavior throughout the installation and load test. This is based on

the one-dimensional wave equations for the driving behavior coupled

58
 *~ -7

with a static equilibrium solution. A finite difference computer

program was written for the analysis. The method also can be used to

predict residual stresses due to driving before the actual pile

driving and can be used to determine stresses in the pile from-

driving.

Standard Penetration Test

In cohesionless soils, field investigations have been limited

due to the fact that undisturbed samples of high quality are hard to

obtain. For this reason, standard penetration test (SPT) results are

used to estimate the angle of internal friction for the sands involved

in the tests in this report. The angle of internal friction and the

relative density have significant effects on the unit side resistance N

and point resistance. This was shown in Castello's (1980) report.

Since the standard penetration test is the only feasible means of

determining material properties, a closer look should be taken at the

relationship between the standard penetration test with results given

in blows per foot (N values) of penetration and the angle of internal

friction. Correlations have been developed between the two. To

obtain accurate results, corrections must be applied to the field blow .

counts to account for factors that affect the blow count and may lead

to erroneous values. Factors affecting blow counts are removal of

overburden, overburden pressure, saturated fine or silty sands below

the water table, type equipment, and its operation. The three factors

that will be considered for correction to N values are removal of

59
 overburden, saturated fine or silty sands for N values bel.~w the water

table, and the effect of overburden pressure during the performance of

the test. All these factors will be considered in analyzing the SP'r
tests for the results used in this report.

Mansur and Kaufman (1958) found a reduction in N values

obtained from standard penetration tests as a result of excavation of

material at the Low-Sill Structure. The removal of 50 ft of

overburden reduced the N values by as much as 50 percent. At the

Arkansas River test, Mansur and Hunter (1964) also discovered a

reduction in N values due to removal of the overburden. A reduction

of 15 percent was found due to an excavation of 20 ft. Based on these

results, a reduction in N values of an average of 1 percent for each.

foot of material removed was used in correcting the standard

penetration test for the test sites in this report. N values were

further reduced if the test piles penetrated either saturated fine

sand or silty sand by the equation (Bowles (1977)).

N 1+- (N-
Nf
15) (21)
C 2

where Nf is the field-measured blow count.

Gibbs and Holtz (1957) found that different overburden

pressures give different blows per foot for soil of the same relative

* density. They developed charts (Figure 26) that relate N values to

relative density, Dr* for a given effective pressure. Once the

relative density, Dr is found, the angle of internal friction can be

found from Meyerhof's (1956) equations: -

60
 o Air-dry
* Moist tNo overburden pressure I
8 -xAir-dry 9 to 10 lb./in 2__
80 Air-dry ._
2
.. A Moist 22 to 27 lb./in
2
0Ardy36 to 47 lb./in.
Nw 0Moist

60 -0

40-

a. 2

20-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Relative density (5.)
0 15 35 65 85 100
Very Loose Medium Dense j Very
loose dense

SCoarse sand

10 0l/n 1
9 b./in 2 Pressure as measured
80 - z 25 lb /in 2 All tests made on air-dry sand
0 48 lb./inJ

60

2
40 lb./in

240

2
I 20 lb./in

2
20 -------- 10 lb/in. _____

020 40 60 80 100 120

Relative density (~

0 15 35 65 85 100
Very Very
looe Loose Medium Dense dense

(b) Fine ?and

Figure 26. Results of Standard Penetration Tests (G;ibbs
and Holtz 1957)

61
 for > 5% fine 0=25 + 25 Dr (in degrees) (22a)

for < 5% fine 0 = 30 + 25 Dr (in degrees) (22b)

Peck, Hanson, and Thornburg (1974) present an equation for a v.--

correction factor, CN, for effective vertical overburden pressure to

be applied to field N values:

20
C= 0.77 loglo (23)
v
where a is the effective vertical overburden pressure in tons/sq ft.
v

Bazaraa (1967) presented a set of equations to correct the

field blow count for the effects of overburden pressure:

N
a < 1.5 ksf N
4 f
(24a)
v c 1+2a(2a
v
N
v> 1.5 ksf Nc 4 0.5a (24b)
V

Figure 27 shows a plot of these two methods for the correction

of the N value for the effects of overburden pressure. The method

presented by Peck, Hanson, and Thornburg (1979) will be used in this

study. Once the corrected N value has been determined, the angle of

internal friction can be obtained from the empirical correlation by

Peck, Hanson, and Thornburg (1974) shown in Figure 28.

Behavior of Axially Loaded Piles in Sands

"A surprising fact for your students in soil mechanics is that,

although men have built on deep foundations for many centuries, the

62

- ' .
;-- ".-
- .".;. .. - - , •.. - - -"
- ' -. -; i -- " -""."" ,- " . -"" . . ". . ''.". ".
. . .. -
 Correction factor CN N
00 0.2 0. 4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.5

1.0

2.0

3.0

CL 2.5

0.-

CU

5.5

IU

5.0

-~A, Pec etal

 10' ~-

20 - -- - - - -

30- -0

40 - - - - -- -

"a 50

60 -

4- C

CL

-~e0

28- 30 32 3a3.80 42 4

S..7 .7-
 S - 4 S . 4 4 4 -7 -

basic laws of the bearing capacity of these deep foundations are still

unknown." (Kerisel 1964).

This lack of knowledge of pile behavior is not due to lack of

interest but rather due to the complexity of the problem. The problem

of side and tip resistance of a pile is a complex one with many

variables. This complexity has resulted in very limited information

in the literature on the subject. The general approach for side

resistance has been based on earth pressure theory and friction

between two solids. The development of the point bearing and the side

- resistance is generally treated independently in design/analysis of

-. pile foundations. The load carried by the tip is commonly estimated

* by extending the classical bearing capacity theory for shallow

* foundations. The side resistance is usually estimated assuming the

- development of friction between the pile shaft and the surrounding

soil as if they were two solids. The pressure on a surface between

the pile and soil is determined by lateral earth pressure theory which

is assumed to be related directly to the vertical earth pressure from -

* the overburden soil. The lateral earth pressure is generally assumed

to be from one-half to one times the vertical earth pressure, but some

* feel it may approach values equivalent to the passive pressure which

* may be between two to three times greater than the vertical

pressure. The friction angle is assumed to vary between one-half to

* the equivalent of the internal angle of friction, 0. It is generally

4M-

established from values determined in laboratory tests. The direct

application of conventional earth pressure theory to determine the

* capacity of piles has perhaps occurred without due consideration to

65
such facts as the lack of definite shear planes and the presence of

arching in the vicinity of the pile.

Instrumented field pile tests and model tests, both large- and

small-scale, in homogeneous sands have shown that the side resistance

and point resistance do not increase at a constant rate with

increasing depth. It was once believed that the side resistance and

point resistance for homogeneous sands would increase linearly with

increasing depth for a constant angle of internal friction 0. The

increase was attributed to increasing overburden pressure as the depth

increased. Examining the static formula, the only variable that

changes in a homogeneous soil is the normal pressure computed as the

overburden pressure, which increases linearly with depth.

It has been found that the side resistance and point resistance

increase approximately linearly with depth to a critical depth shown

in Figure 29, beyond which the rate of change decreases with depth.

Vesic (1967) performed a number of field and model tests that showed

this phenomenon; examples of this are shown in Figures 30 and 31.

Very little is known about the cause of this, and much less is known

about a method of predicting its occurrence. To develop some insight

into the behavior of a single pile driven in the sand, a review of the

literature was conducted.

The key to developing and understanding this phenomenon that

occurs in axially loaded piles in sands is to consider the changes

that the soil undergoes during installation. The method of

installation of a pile has a direct influence on its behavior. The

piles that are examined in this report were installed by driving with

66

"
".' <'",.'i"".'i""'"
"" " "" " "" ..." ""' ' " " " ' ""' " ' ' " . ..."" . ....""" " . " ". ".
.\ * ,..
 P IT

Figure 29. Tip and Side Resistance Change with Depth

67
 0!

UL
WJ

0og

Ii 0 r

0 -4

Zz

co >

z
0 0

Z44

U33J) 3DjJ fs (]Nflod MO-139 Hid3(C

68
 2 "0

o 4co
2U

I-0

a' w Cu

(x c

_ __ __ _ _~~~ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
'2 -.4

cr- ~
_________) J z'

41~

Li C 0 0

IxI
'bo

4. 69
 either an impact hammer or a vibratory hammer. These two methods of

installation are the most common methods used for piles in sands.

*Driving generally creates more disturbance than any other method of

installation. A number of investigations have been conducted on the

effects of driving on the behavior of piles. This section will review

these studies arnd investigate the effect of driving on a design

procedure.

The act of driving piles in sand causes an altering of the soil

conditions in the vicinity of the pile. The soil conditions that were

present prior to driving are permanently changed. If this change is

not considered in the design, the design will not reflect the actual

soil conditions or the correct behavior of the pile. For many years,-

% this change in soil conditions due to installation was known to occur,

but little was understood about its influence on pile behavior.

Meyerhof (1959) investigated the compaction of the sand around

the shaft and under the tip of a pile after driving. He studied the

increase in relative density from the process of driving the pile andWI

its effect on the ultimate load capacity of the pile. The compaction

of the sand around the pile is due to the displacement from the

insertion of the pile into the soil and the vibration from the

hammer's impact. This causes a permanent rearrangement and a crushing

of the soil particles in the vicinity of the pile. The degree of

compaction is governed by the intensity and the duration of the

pressure introduced in the soil by the impact of the hamn-ar.

Meyerhof (1959) performed a number of laboratory tests to

develop a relationship between degree of compaction and induced

70
pressure from the impact hammer. He correlated this information with

field data to determine the degree of compaction around the pile tip

and shaft for a field pile. He developed a method to compute the

degree of compaction in the vicinity of the pile based on the maximum

pressure at the tip from the impact pressure at the pile head

determined by a dynamic pile formula. The state of stress in the soil

under the tip consisted of a zone where the shear strength is fully

mobilized, a plastic zone that extended out some distance from the

tip, to a zone that was in the elastic state prior to the driving. To

develop a plastic zone, the stress induced must be of the magnitude to

produce substantial permanent deformation under the tip of the pile.

The permanent deformation causes the compaction and the densification

of the sand in the immediate vicinity of the pile. Once the magnitude

of the pressure at the tip is determined, the stress in the

surrounding soil can be computed by classical plasticity theory and by

elasticity theory beyond the failure surface (Figure 32). From these

calculated stresses, the relative density (DR) is determined from

Meyerhof's correlation developed from laboratory tests for change

in relative density due to compaction. The angle of internal

friction, 0, corresponding to the new relative density determined from

the stresses in the soil may be reduced from results of standard or

static penetration tests. The zone of the new angles of internal

friction, 0, decreases with depth from the tip of the pile in the

plastic zone until it reaches the elastic zone. Once it has reached

the elastic zone, the angle of internal friction, 0, essentially

remains unchanged. The distance from the tip to the elastic zone was

71
4.

F1S

0. F gur 32 . Pl a ti c Zone and Shea Pa ter

72N
 found to range from about 8 diameters directly below the tip to about

3 diameters on the side, forming a tear drop shaped bubble around the

tip. Figure 33 show a comparison by Meyerhof (1959) of observed and

* - estimated results for a driven pile.

* -Robinsky and Morrison (1964) conducted a study of the effects

of shape and volume on the capacity of pile models in sand. They also

- . investigated the displacement and compaction of the sand around these

models. As Meyerhof (1959) had stated before, the action of driving

the pile into the sand creates a zone of compacted sand in the

vicinity of the pile. The extent of this compacted zone and the

behavior of the soil in the zone are affected by the volume and shape

of the pile and the method of driving. By the means of radiograph

techniques, they found that each of their model test piles formed a

similarly shaped displacement envelope surrounding the pile. The

shape was that of an elongated bubble that extended below the tip in a

spherical shape and up to the ground surface, which can be

approximated by a vertical cylinder narrowing as it approaches the

ground surface as shown in Figure 34. The width of the envelope was

found to be dependent on the diameter of the pile, increasing with

increasing pile diameter, roughness of the surface, pile taper, and

* increasing sand density. The pile capacity for each of the sand

densities varies directly with the diameter of the envelope,

regardless of the pile diameter, shape, or surface roughness. Both

displacement and compaction of the sand were evident in the envelope,

with most of the compaction being done by the tip as it was driven

into the soil. No shear plane failure was observed. A complex

S%

73
i) . .. . . ." .. . . . . -. ...

k0

Observed Results: - Estimated Results: -

Final Cone Resistance
Original
Angle of Friction 0 0
Resis e Major principal stress ratio-0

W238

,I
22J

2/

Limit of Limit of
soil compaction soil compaction

(a) Loose sand (b) Compact sand

0 2 4 6 feet
Scale: i I I

Figure 33. Compaction of Sand Near Driven Pile (After Meverhof 19 9)

* -.

74
Qi
 (a) (b)
SAND -LOOSE SAND -MEDIUM DENSITY
DEPTH -20 IN. DEPTH -20 IN.

.4A

. .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A. . ter . .Rob . .ns .

an Morion194

S. -75
 *~ ...

sequence of density changes was discovered from the sand displacement

beneath and around the tip. Robinsky and Morrison (1964) described

the sequence as two zones:

(1) A zone approximating the shape of a cone is found

beneath the pile extending downwards and outwards
from the edge of the pile point. This appears to
be the main compaction zone. Within the zone
vertical compression and two directional horizontal
expansion takes place accompanied by radial downward
translation.

(2) At the zone limits vertical compression ceases and

vertical extension begins to take place. It is found
that by the time the pile has passed any two points,
the vertical distance between them becomes
approximately equal to the vertical distance between
them, prior to pile driving. Also horizontal radial
compression and/or tangential expansion accompanied
by additional radial downward translation occur.
The vertical extension is caused by the downward move-
ment of soil below the point away from the previously
compressed soil to each side and immediately above the
pile point.

An additional vertical expansion was measured along the pile

walls. This phenomenon was also found by Vesic (1967) as shown in

Figure 35. This is attributed to the down drag effect of the pile

wall on the surrounding sand particles as the pile moves downwards.

The down drag did not occur uniformly along the pile shaft. It was

less pronounced near the surface. This coincides with the narrowing

of the envelope as it approaches the surface. So as the depth

increased the vertical downward movement increased. The most

pronounced vertical movement generally occurred about a fourth of a

pile diameter from the wall. This resulted in an increase in the void

ratio of the sand adjacent to the pile shaft. This creates a thin

sleeve or cylinder of loose sand adjacent to the pile shaft which sets

76
 Nor-_

*~~ ii .4196A -

U A.

TEST NO. 104 D/B-1O CIRCULAR FOUNDATION B=I IN. Dit"\O.9

Figure 35. Shear Pattern Under a Circular Foundation Placed
at Greater Depth in Very Dense Sand (Vesic 1967)

77
up ideal conditions for arching. The cylinder of loose send is

surrounded by much denser sand that was created from driving. This is

denser than the sand in its in situ form. The shear transfer from the

pile to the soil is thus developed through arching due to a looser

soil directly adjacent to the pile shaft surrounded by a much denser

sand. The arching makes it impossible to determine the relationship

between the lateral earth pressure applied on the shaft and the

vertical overburden pressure, making it is impossible to predict the

actual normal earth pressure adjacent to the pile shaft. Other

observations in their study were that the model tests showed a drop of

load transfer at or near the tip regardless of the depth of embedment

of the piles. The load transfer along the pile is irregular in shape;

this is attributed to the buildup and breakdown of the arching

system. The lateral earth pressure is apparently carried by the

cylinder of dense sand surrounding the sleeve of the loose sand

adjacent to the pile shaft.

Kerisel (1964) found from his laboratory experiments that the

tip resistance reaches a maximum value at a critical depth and only

increases slightly with increased depth. He attributed its occurrence

to the bearing capacity factor, Nq, being a complex function of the

angle of internal frictional, 0, depth of penetration to base width

ratio at the tip, D/B, and the base width, B. Vesic (1968) also made "7]

a similar observation, but offered another explanation for its

occurrence. Vesic first considered the assumption of the normal

stress used to compute the uni tip resistance being proportional to .-

78
 qmax =0 v Nq (25)

the overburden. Under this assumption, however, a limited plastic

zone (shear zone) forms beneath the pile tip. The tip resistance

will always increase as the overburden pressure increases, if the soil

properties remain constant with depth. The bearing capacity factor,

Nq, is dependent only on the angle of internal friction, 0. As the

*qP

pile is loaded, the sand will undergo physical changes from the

degradation and crushing of the soil grains. The angle of internal

friction, 0, of this newly formed material will remain greater than

zero, so the bearing capacity factor, Nq, will be greater than zero.

Consequently, the tip resistance will increase with continued

increases in overburden pressure. Vesic (1968) concluded that the

decrease in the rate of change of tip resistance is due not to a

decrease in N but rather to a change in the normal pressure at the

tip. He further stated that the in situ normal pressure, qf, at the

tip is not proportional to the overburden pressure before driving

(Figure 36).

To state that the theoretical solutions are inadequate or

incorrect may be premature. In the formulation of the different

theories for bearing capacity, the stress, qf, is only defined as the

normal stress at failure. It has been previously assumed that the

normal stress at failure was proportional to the overburden

pressure. This was not stated in the development of the method but . -

rather has been assumed by those applying the method.

79

-A 2 A.
W. .7 .. ,

00

PKqf

qf

qf q f-K ta
0

Figure 36. Stress Conditions in Vicinity of the Pile Tip

(After Vesic 1967)

80
 Vesic proposed a procedure to determine the N value from pile
q
tests or model tests that would be independent of use of the vertical

overburden pressure as the normal stress. If the point resistance and

side resistance are assumed to increase linearly with the normal

stress, then the normal stress is assumed to be the effective normal

" stress at failure acting at the tip. The effective normal stress for

an instrumented pile test may be eliminated from the determination of

Nq9 (Figure 36):

qo qfNq (26)

f0 qfKstan 6 (27)

where qo = unit tip stress

fo = unit shear stress of the shaft of the pile

Eliminating qf, q
N K tan6
q 7 s (28)
0

where o and q can be obtained from the pile test.

Ellison (1969) performed an analytical study using finite

elements on tests performed by Vesic on large-scale models. Ellison

found that the dense sand behaved as an incompressible material, as

the vertical stress increased and the horizontal stress also increased

appreciably. This was due to the fact that the horizontal strains are

high, which results in the small volumetric change as would be found

in an incompressible material. The higher confining pressures and

lower deviatoric stresses resulted in a higher Young's modulus and

yield for the sand. This was not found in the medium or loose

sands. A plastic zone was found directly beneath the tip. The

81

2.-
plastic zone for dense sands is larger than that for medium sands.

This is in agreement with the classical plasticity theories which

assume the size of the plastic zone to be proportional to the angle of

internal friction.

Ellison (1969) in his finite element studies discovered that

tension failure zones developed at the tip of the pile in the sand.

The zones in the dense sand extended diagonally from the edge of the

pile tip down and outward from the pile (Figure 37).

Similar observations were made by Robinsky and Morrison (1964)

in their model tests (Figure 38). This indicates that arching is also

occurring at the pile tip. This phenomenon was also found in the
medium sand but to a lesser extent (Figure 37b). A tension crack

was found to extend from the edge of the pile horizontally out

(Figure 37 and 39). The length of that tension crack was dependent on

the density of the sand.

Ellison (1969) was unable to simulate the load-displacement

relationships found in Vesic's models. This was attributed to the

horizontal pressure distribution used in the finite element

analysis. The distribution was linearly increasing with depth or

proportional to the overburden pressure. This is contrary to Vesic's

explanation for the behavior of his piles reported in his study and to

the work done by Robinsky and Morrison (1964) on their model tests.

The finite element analysis was unable to model the loosening of the

soil adjacent to the pile that resulted in the arching action.

A review of the literature reveals that the arching system

established along the shaft from driving and at the tip due to tensile

82

-,
-.......-
S S 9
 *9 . -. '- 9. -9 -. .9. . .. . . .
'9

z~ ui

Zsal 10 x

00

9- S -

40-
In "-)

44
m~hi 0
zz

ad U) 0"4

e~ N 0

00 8 80.
in U)
018 0 10 10W

0 0 i
in 0 i !
0 0 0 Q
onl o. 0

C4 qto

9. C

9~~~ . . .. . .. . . . . . 9 * * 99
 7 77-7 C

I N. 0
(NI C2.

I \
W d, I--

0 0

P4

Cl) CN

Z 4

s-I

CL)i

JL

-I-. LL
:

84
 a. /2 PILE RADIUS 3.375 INCHES

-i P
IL
PILE SHAFT STATIONARY

E w

--- - - --- SCL

0~.---- INCHE

Fiur 39 eso ,rc tTi rmFnt lmn

Anlyi (Elsn 99

-85
...
stress is the most important phenomenon affecting the behavior of a

pile. Until a procedure to determine its effects is found,

theoretical approaches are inadequate for estimating pile capacity.

Summary

Pile foundations have been utilized in the construction of

facilities for thousands of years. Yet engineers have been unable to

predict the capacity of piles with any reliability. New analytical

and numerical approaches have lessened the number of simplifying

assumptions in the analysis of the pile-soil system. These new

approaches give the displacement compatibility between the pile shaft,

the pile tip, and the soil. They allow the engineer to develop the

load-displacement response of the pile-soil system.

A review of the literature clearly points out the drastic

changes the soil undergoes as the pile is driven and the inadequacy of

designing pile foundations based totally on prior soil conditions.

PR

The installation of piles by driving causes a permanent rearrangement

of the sand particles in the vicinity of the pile. This develops a

zone of compacted sand in the vicinity of the pile. As the pile tip

penetrates, the shaft of the pile causes a down drag on the surround-

ing sand particles that results in a vertical displacement of the sand

particles. The sand that moves vertically loosens and creates a thin
0IV
sleeve or cylinder of loose sand adjacent to the pile shaft which sets

up ideal conditions for arching. This arching system reduces the

lateral pressure applied to the pile shaft, thus reducing the shear

86
 transfer between the pile and soil. The arching of the sand in the

vicinity of the pile has been shown by a number of investigations.

The arching makes it impossible to determine the relationship between

the lateral earth pressure applied to the shaft and the vertical

overburden pressure. Tensile stresses produced at the tip cause

soil arching to occur which leads to cracks forming horizontally from

the tip. The normal stress at the tip is then no longer dependent on

the vertical overburden pressure.

Based on these observations, a highly theoretical approach is

unwarranted. A semi-empirical or empirical correlation to actual

field pile tests will yield good reliable results if a large quantity

of high-quality observations can be obtained for a data base. The

next chapter will examine the published correlations for side and tip

resistance versus pile movement.

87

%.'-'.-.
.,. .,., .. , ° -. " ''*
-'- . ., .. ."". " . . . , ,- . . . . . . ", ,* ti_eS . . , . .. .° . ~a" ,,.7 . ,
 -O0

CHAPTER 3: LOAD-DEFORMATION CRITERIA

Review of Criteria

The lack of an accepted theoretical approach for determining

the load-deformation behavior of soil has required foundation

engineers to rely on semi-empirical and empirical criteria to describe

the phenomenon of load transfer in the pile-soil system. This type of

methodology has been used very successfully for laterally loaded

piles. The criteria are generally correlations between field tests

and laboratory test data and/or in situ tests. For axially loaded

piles in sands, four different criteria were found in a review of the

literature. In this chapter these criteria will be presented and

*reviewed.

Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) were the first to develop criteria

for skin friction versus pile riovement for sands. Their approach was

to relate field pile test data to model tests in the laboratory.

Three of the field pile tests conducted for the Arbansas River Lock

and Dam No. 4 project were used as the basis of their correlation.

From the report by Fruco ,nd Associates (1964), they reduced the 1o-,d-

distribution curves and load-settlement curves te obtain the skin

friction versus pile movement curves (Figure 40). They point .l

88

O 9
AD-Ai39 236 LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF 2/_5
AXIALLY LORDED PILES IN..4J) ARMY ENGINEER WdATERW4AYS
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS R L MOSHER JAN 84
UNCLASSIFIED NES-TR-4-i F/G 13/13 NI

mhmmmhhhmhhhhl
mmhhhhhhhhhhhl
mhhhhhhhmhhhhu
mh|hh|hhEE|hEI
mhhhhhmmhhhmhl
|mBhEEEE|h|hhI
 I.e-il
•. . '.. ,'

N.,

r36 - ':
-.

1.0

amS

--

I.M25 11.4-

TEST CHART
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION

...- '
.o-...

%, \
"" .

.,* .. _.
 W4S TEST FIL 2 a
a W&.GM5Tnn PPC F1, 1 PI
,-O S FT. j "LO
.. 0-0 11:Y 0EI 1
6...M.o &-& 35 pt* LEVEL
.4. N-K 45 PT."

100

800o

N
200

or
0 ox 4- 00
PEC MOVEMENT(iChS)

a. 16-in. Pipe

LEGEND
tA$N S ToST Pt , 0-O S FT. 1OPT"
I.Z,1. If. OdETER Pq 0-a
0 FT. ELOW
.
0-0 as FT. GROUND

* 4s FT.

* Ur

*4%O.

.4 1600:..-
4*sm.

*4%I
.400
, .. ""

P.[ Mh.NT IMOVEMSE

b. 12.75-in. Pipe

Figure 40. Skin Friction versus Movement for Arkansas

River Tests (Coyle and Sulaiman 1967)
4.

.9..
 that for their initial portions the curves were almost linear, and the

magnitude of the maximum shear transfer values decreased as depth

% increased. No consideration was given to residual stresses in the

pile as a result of driving due to the lack of information on how to

treat these stresses.

They normalized these curves for skin friction versus pile

movement by dividing the skin friction by the shear strength, s, of

the sand at the pile-soil interface. They defined the shear strength

as

S - - tan 0 (29)

where

a =the effective normal stress

n
The effective normal stress at a given depth is

an KyD (30)

where

K =the coefficient of lateral earth pressure

yD =the overburden pressure

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, was assumed to be

equal to 1.0 and constant with respect to depth. The normalized

curves are shown in Figure 41.

The magnitude of the curve for 5 ft is out of line with all a

other curves. Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) attributed the increase in

the curve at 5 ft to the assumption of K - 1. They felt that this may

be due to the arching in the sand. These conclusions were drawn by

Coyle and Sulaiman: (1) the ratio decreases with increasing depth, and

(2) the ratio reaches a limiting value at approximately 0.5 for the

90
 .4i

45

.4.
FT.
,.-CRV A

-d0 0

35FT

Lg-zz0 T.
'*3 02 W0c3
0 E 00"F.
06 VT Us & L
5
~
,44-Figure 41. Ratio of Skin Friction to Soil
Shear Strength
4Versus
Pile Movement for Piles 1, 2,
(Coyle and Sulaiman 1967) and 10

.-,
.'-.

-. 4
D91
--. 4

-'

%° -4

'.,,,_ , -. :.,D
, . '",%-%-. ,"-' --. , "
*"",;'" , ... ,.. .: ........... ,. ,.,. _ .,."" " "". "" .""" ," ". " ' " " " " 4.
 greatest depths (curve B, Figure 41). This is not supported by the

data plotted in Figure 41.

The model tests used to evaluate the pile-soil interactions

consisted of a 7-in. long steel pile embedded in a saturated sand in a

triaxial shear device. The testing program was composed of a test on

soil having two different densities which were controlled by the void
':fratio. The confining pressures were varied to simulate the overburden....

pressures at various depths. The results are shown in Figure 42.

These were normalized by the same procedure as the field tests

(Figure 43). Also the angle of wall friction was evaluated by

dividing the skin friction by the confining pressure (Figure 44).

The skin friction versus pile movement curves for the model

tests (Figure 42) do not exhibit the same trend of decreasing

resistance with increasing depth. Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) ascribed

this to the field data being influenc, I by the load capacity in the

tip. If the normalized curves for th model tests are compared to the

field tests, the high ratio for the shallow depth in the field curves

is out of line. As stated earlier by Coyle and Sulaiman (1967), this

is probably due to the use of K - 1. They felt it was possible to

obtain a higher K value due to densification of driving at the

surface. This assumption was based on the fact that the model tests

only reached a confining pressure of 1.3 psi compared to 7 psi at the

I'
5-ft mark in the field test and 2 psi at the 15-ft mark in the field

test for comparable confining pressures. The model curves (Figure 43)

exhibit the same trend of decreasing ratio with increasing depth or ...

confining pressure. In Figure 43 a limiting value of approximately

92 ' V

, * . -.. .- . . ." ..
:-.
 -PF, *. of. T6I q - 7%.

. CRY AT a P1
S4 0 tA MIEtt,011A*CD AT 0 PSI

,a * WRAMW
SATURAAIIO A? 10 PS
ORt at to PSI
USan-TED.tC0
* a0 AT 20 PSI
a"At LV 0 PSI
A UTtRaTEO. CRAOI AT 30 PSI
8000.

I=.-

1000f

*00'

Lno

a. e =m 0.63

Fiue4.Lbrtr.inauePl etCre

(Cyean uama 97

.493
 +-,A..

i\ ' C E.ff+

ID ~A -(AP",J
UinAB1RW? TEST WAS SATURATEDORNIEO
.0-10 OP I

Ooa0.3 %

t4

oa

04

02

a e ftE MOYPET IciS

Figure 43. Ratio of Skin Friction to Soil Shear Strength

Versus Pile Movement for Laboratory Tests,
e ° =0.63 (Coyle and Sulaiman 1967)

A-.. :

99

a ' a a'~' 9** ~. a** % ." -. .- -' :

A,,
-Wli " 7-7777777. * -

uaMMIUv TEST O*1* SA1TMATEDOR*3IC

LEGEN

It 3ps

4as
~I04 no M
30. PSI

01 02 M.3 0.4 Q5
PLC MOVEMENT
twxw~S)

Figure 44. Ratio of Skin Friction to Confining Pressure

Versus Pile Movement For Laboratory Tests,
e= 0.63 (Coyle and Sulaiman. 1967).

.4 UU95
 0.5 was reached at a confining pressure of 20 psi, which is equivalent2
to a depth of 25 ft or greater. This was also found in the normalized

field curves.
Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) used an analytical procedure similar

to the one described previously in this report to compute a load-

settlement curve for one of the axially loaded piles for the Arkansas

River site. They used curve A from Figure 41 for 0 to 20 ft and curve

B for 20 ft and greater to define the skin friction versus pile

movement.

They drew the following conclusions from their investigation:

(1) The field tests indicated that the skin friction

increases approximately linearly until pile movement
reaches 0.1 to 0.2 in.

(2) Skin friction decreases with increasing depth.

(3) Skin friction increases with increasing density

(Figure 41).

(4) The ratio of skin friction to shear strength has a

lower value of 0.5.

(5) The angle of wall friction decreases with increasing

confining pressure.

Vijayvergiya Criteria

Vijayvergiya (1977) presented a paper on load-movement

characteristics of piles in which he included criteria for both skin

* friction versus pile movement and tip load versus tip movement. These

were based on his review of the literature and his pers;onal

experience. When examining the skin friction, tip resistance, and

movement required to develop these, he found that the skin friction

reaches a peak value at a small movement and remains constant beyond

* 96

4-4- 4-N
 the critical displacement but that the tip resistance continues to

increase although at a decreasing rate (Figure 7). The gradual tipj

resistance is the reason that plunging failure is not found during a )

load pile test in sand. He proposed criteria that exhibited these

trends.

The proposed analytical relationship that states the load

transfer or unit skin friction mobilized at a given pile movement can

be expressed as a function of the maximum skin friction (Figure 45) by

fmaxAJ z z (31a)
ccN ZJ

where

f =unit skin friction mobilized along the pile shaft

segment at movement z

fmx maximum unit skin friction

zc =the critical movement of the pile shaft segment

when fmax is mobilized, z < zc (inches)

Vijayvergiya (1977) gave the values of A0 and B0 as 2 and 1,

0 0

respectively. Substituting these values for A0 and B0 gives

IO
ffx (2xj
maf (31b)

LNIn his review of the literature on pile tests in sands, he found DO9

that the maximum displacement required to reach the maximum skin

friction was independent of the size of the pile if the pile was

greater than 12 in. in diameter. The movement to reach maximum

* I. 97
 ---

Z"0.5
r. ~ .. ft - . 2 -

* 1.5 .°

41.

1.25
\-f,

1.0 v

ft...-,.0.75

0.. 0.5'""

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Ratio of z/z c

Figure 45. Normalized f-z Curve for Clay and Sand

(After Vijayvergiya 1977)

ft
,--,.,
S98t"
-ft'-'

"
ft-.'. % 'w '-' ' '. -'. . . .,.'. ... ' .*. -,. -' ", ."** "•"• :""" """ """"" """ " ". ' * * -
. i

side resistance, fmax' has a range between 0.2 and 1.0 in. (Table 1).

The value of maximum side resistance, fmax' for the proposed

criteria is computed from

f K 6 tan 6 (32)
max v

where

K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure

-Pa-= effective overburden pressure

V

a-..

6 = angle of friction between soil and pile surface

K in the above equation is difficult to determine accurately. It may

range from an active K in loose sands to a passive K in very dense

sands.

Available data suggest that large movements are required to

mobilize the maximum tip resistance. The critical displacement, Zc,.

is a function of the dimensions of the pile tip. Table 1 presents

variables from 0.04 to 0.09 times the base width. The mobilized value

of q at given tip movement z can be obtained from:

q Zm1/3 ax (33)

99
 Table 1
Summary of Critical Pile Movement Data in Sand
(After Vijayvergiya 1977)

Movement Movement
Required to Required to
Pile Diameter lobilize Mobilize
Reference in. max, in. q max in

Coyle et al. (1973) 16 0.20-0.40 0.05B*

Coyle and Sulaiman 12-3/4 0.30-0.40

(1967)

Darragh and Bell 12-3/4 0.25 0.04B-0.05B

(1969)
4.o

McCammon and Golder 24 0.40 0.08B

(1970)

Mansur and Hunter 16 0.20-0.40 0.04B-0.06B

(1970)

Vesic (1967) 18 0.07B-0.09B

Vijayvergiya (1969) 18 0.5-1.0

* B Base width or diameter of pile

N9 ..

.4.

4.--

100

" ."'."'.-"."-"'- -',-

.'- . ' ' .- -. - "-.-'--. -. - -..-.-- * :'- ",* :'- '- *'-' .- *- .'- ;*'-.' -. '.. . -'''. .-. '-..*
 .. -.

where q = maximum tip resistance

zc = critical displacement corresponding to qmax

q = tip resistance mobilized when z < z

c

The slightly modified curve for z > zc is shown in Figure 46. The

value of qmax is computed as in the static formula:

C N (34)

Parker and Reese Criteria

Parker and Reese (1969) proposed a third method based on the

performance of laboratory tests on two 90-in.-long instrumented piles

with 2-in. diameters. These piles were buried in a homogeneous sand

under controlled conditions. The shear transfer performance of these

tests was correlated with stress-strain characteristics from triaxial

tests on undisturbed specimens from the model test chamber.

The correlation that Parker and Reese (1969) obtained between the

shear transfer and the deviatoric stress is

UC - (35)
f = A
f
where Uc = correlation coefficient for compression loading

Cf - correction factor for maximum load transferred

A-G deviatoric stress

f = shear transfer in compression

101

..-.
- ~
 1.25

J'J

* .4°"

q' '

.
.4.
'4. 1.00

0.25

" 0 0,.5 '01' '.0 2 0.

Figure

". (After Vijayvergiya 1977) ..

,'::2
.'
A-' .

*102
 * ..... * - .. 4-- . - - .. .-

Correlation coefficients for compression loading for deviatoric stress

to shear stress are:

N
u = 2 C )'-
c 2
tan (45
+0
+
-(6
1 (36)

where
N = 7.0 - 0.04X

X = depth, in.

The correction factor for maximum shear transfer is

(37)
Cf 17.5 (D + 87.5
'I°%
80 RD 4.0
where DR is the relative density. Pile movement correlations to axial

strain from a triaxial test are determined from: .-

-4. V..'

z = ERc B Cf (38)

where e - axial strain

-R - correction for compression loading

B = pile diameter (in.)

z - pile movement (in.)

Correction coefficients for compression loading for axial strain to

pile movement are

• -

Rc 0.4 + 0.016X (39)

where X is depth in inches.

-I 103

Z °
 These criteria were investigated in detail, because it was

believed that the triaxial test data could be used to develop typical

curves for the Lower Mississippi Valley. Idealized triaxial data

information was developed from series of tests performed over the

years by the Geotechnical Laboratory, WES. The stress-strain curves

from a triaxial test are nonlinear and cannot be represented by a

simple modulus. The nonlinear stress-strain curves can be represented

.. -

by a hyperbolic function as suggested by Konder and Zelasko (1963).

They suggested a procedure to approximate the stress-strain

curves (as shown in Figure 47) that has been shown to be reasonably %%%%

* accurate. The hyperbolic representation can be fulfilled by

(40)

1- 03 a + bc

where o I and 03 = the major and minor principal effective stresses,

respectively

the axial strain

a and b = constants

The physical meaning of the constants a and b is shown in Figure 47.

They can be determined by performing an axis transformation and

~plotting axial strain divided by the deviatoric stress versus the

actual strain (Figure 48). The constant a is equal to the intercept,

and b is equal to the slope of a straight line formed by the plot: .%

a + hb"E"
033 a + (40a)

[,-
Numerically, a is the reciprocal of the initial tangent modulus, and bI 't. "

is the line at which the curve becomes asymptotic.

104 ... ,

A. .

.- % . . * '.--.'*~~ * * "J
 Asymptote =(a 1 CF3 ) =l b

1
i a

4-4S

-4

4:.7

Axial strain c

Figure 47. Hyperbolic Curve

105'
S. .. * **--*~ l. o*
-

S...'
, %ij o

S...

*4
-r-

0b

r-I

Axial strain E M

Figure 48. Transformed Axis.--

2'-'-

• -, .., .-.- . .-.. , - .. -. - ... - . . . - - - .. . . .. . .. . -, . . .. ., , : -. . . .. , .4,,. .- ,

106
 -
,.%' I

a (40b)

bf °3ult
3° (40c) .,
,~~

, When triaxial test data are plotted in this fashion, the

compressive strength values are slightly lower than the asymptotic

value, (01 - 03)ult . The asymptotic value may be related

to the compressive strength by the following Rf factor:

i
f
RRf '(1 - a'['
03) failure (41
(41)
(01 - 03)ultimate

Rf is always less than 1 and has a range from between 0.75 to 0.9, and

it is independent of confining pressure.

Substituting these into Equation 40 yields

1° - 3) 1 Rfe .
E( (aI -C3 (41b)
S1 (i-3)

Sands are stress-dependent which means that the compressive strength

and the initial tangent modulus vary with confining pressure. Janbu
J
(1963) found experimentally that the initial tangent modulus varied

with respect to confining pressure based on the expression

Ei = Ki (42)
i a

where

Ei initial tangent modulus

P = atmospheric pressure

minor principal stress

=03

107

..*...,-> ... .. o. . ... .. . .. . . . , , ,. ,.. ,, . . .. , . . ,. . .... ,, ,S % ,' , , - --

-, - *"'
L.
. . .. . . n, , . ; , . "" . , . , . .S. . . . '" " .'

Ki - a modulus number

n - the exponent determining the rate of variation of

Ei with 03

where KI and n are dimensionless numbers that are determined by

plotting Ei versus a3 on log-log scale and fitting a straight line to

]
the points (Figure 49).

The relationship between compressive strength at failure and I

confining pressure for sands assumes constant confining pressure
during failure, which is

(01 -03)f (tan (45 + 1) 3 (43)

Substituting this into Equation 40 will yield the following

expression for nonlinear stress-strain curves for sand:

Cy C .
E
(oi -03) ffi RfE (40d)

n2 0
(tn(45 +!-~ .
K. P a 0 ) (tanV

A computer program was written to generate idealized triaxial stress-

strain curves based on the parameters in Table 2. Examples of the

resulting idealized triaxial stress-strain curves are shown in Figure

50. Figure 51 shows curves for shear transfer versus the

dimensionless coefficient, C, which is multiplied times the pile

diameter, in inches, to give the pile movement required to produce the

shear transfer. The remaining curves are presented in Appendix A.

* 108

Z. ."
 ---4

.4.

,.-,.

00
""0::

*," -. ~~.~ .. :.,%**~

k ' '-
Log (a 3/P a

Figure 49. Variation of Initial Tangent Modulus

5' with Confining Pressure

S109
 Table 2

Parameters for Hyperbolic Siu.laLiot1 for Sanids

Relative
0_ Density Ki nRf

300 Loose 25% 500 0.5 0.80 56.5

30 Medium 50% 1000 0.6 0.85 6.

36 0 Medium 85% 1500 0.65 0.90 67.5

J1.0
 -131

im,-

ST03I 185

MeiE

~ Idaie
Figure ~ ~ ~ ~G 120. frailSrs-tanCre

A1115 s
 125 p f* T rf 473 -

phsp " .
f / 3 20 0 p f

'33

ps a 33 18!5 .

'. '..
-°!

Ic

O. .AS •1 •IS .2 asf .3 .3S .4 A4 S .5 A

Figure 51. Resulting f-z Curves from Idealized Triaxial ---

'g
Curves-

. .

I!''
"i''' ,,',l "' ' , ',"''''' ' / '" ' " " " _" -' ' ' '° ' ' ? ' '" ' "'' '-" - " '

112
 J1
Other Criteria

Coyle (1977) presented another criteria set in his class notes on

"Marine Foundation Engineering." For Coyle's (1977) procedure, the

maximum side resistance is computed by the same method as Vijayvergiya

(1979) proposed, but it has a different displacement function (Figure

52).

Clisby (1970) proposed another procedure for determining load-

displacement characteristics of axially loaded piles. His work was

founded on the use of laboratory test data to determine these

characteristics, direct shear tests for side resistance, and triaxial

tests for tip capacity. Obtaining undisturbed samples in sands is

expensive and seldom accomplished. For this reason, relating the load-

displacement characteristics for axially loaded piles in sands to

laboratory tests has been found to be unfeasible. In his later work

Clisby (1972) felt that the Dutch cone penetrometer could be used

directly to obtain the shear strength parameters of the sand. The

Dutch cone penetrometer has shown some promise, but the lack of

information on its use in the Lower Mississippi Valley has made this

procedure unacceptable at the present time.

Summary of Criteria

The four methods (Coyle-Sulaiman's, Reese and Parker's,

Vijayvergiya's, and Coyle's) for determining load-displacement

characteristics for pile-soil interaction have a number of

.--
4. *.4%* -4 •
.7

%.1.0

.5-

1.25

1.0----

.75 0E.2 . .10 .

.25

0 05 .05 .075 .10o .12z5

INS'

Figure 52. Displacement Function (Coyle 1970) 2".~

p-:
.i

"° .,

114 .
4.|

* -. 2. . -- o
 inadequacies that limit their usefulness. In Coyle and Sulaiman's

investigation, their attempt to relate model tests to field

performance was unsuccessful. The miniture piles did not show the

same trends as the field tests. The field tests showed side

* resistance decreasing with increasing depth, while the laboratory

I tests showed increasing side resistance with increasing confining

pressure; the confining pressure is comparable to an increase in depth

or overburden pressure. They attributed this to the influence of the

* tip load on the field data. The literature shows no evidence to

* substantiate this; rather, a review of the literature suggests that

two important aspects were not considered. First, residual stresses

as a result of driving were not accounted for, as stated in their

report, due to the lack of knowledge on how to treat them. The

*of
residual stresses may have been the cause of the unusually high values

side resistance near the surface. Second, the normal stress was

assumed to be proportional to the overburden pressure.

*consideration

driving.
No
was given to the arching in the surrounding soil due to

Instead of arching, they felt the coefficient of lateral

I
earth pressure and the angle of wall friction varied with depth.I

The criteria proposed by Vijayvergiya (1977) and Coyle (1977)

have the same limitations as does the static formula. The engineer

still must determine a coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, andI

use the assumption of the normal stress as being proportional to the

* ~overburden pressure. He must also determine a bearing capacity --

factor, Nq' by some method and again use the normal pressure as being

proportional to the overburden stress.

115

1. N4*.~*** * * * * ' . - ... *-.

'.- 7W 1WZ . -.
N.. .. . . w ... .- - -~~

Parker and Reese's (1969) approach was thought to have some

promise if used with idealized triaxial test data for typical sands of

the Lower Mississippi Valley. A detailed study of this procedure

found it to have more limitations than the previous methods.

Developing idealized triaxial test data presented the first major

problem for the method. Because of the lack of consistency of

triaxial test data for the Lower Mississippi Valley and the large

-~ variations in the data that was found in the literature, using values

in Table 2 for a preliminary study resulted in the shear transfer

versus pile movements curves increasing with confining pressure, which

is equivalent to increasing depth. The rate was far greater than

field evidence substantiated. For this reason, the procedure was

unacceptable and was not pursued any further.

The true test of the criteria is their ability to predict the per-

formance of actual field pile tests. In the next chapter, the three

remaining criteria will be evaluated against 14 field pile load tests

at three different sites.

-IN.
 CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED CRITERIA

The true test of the criteria is to compare them to actual field

pile tests. As late as the 1940's, Terzaghi and Peck (1967) stated

that the only method available to the foundation engineer to determine

the friction capacity of a pile was the field pile load test. The

field pile load test has been and still is the principal source of

information for the design of large-scale pile foundations. For

criteria to be reliable, they must compare favorably to results of

field pile tests.

* Only instrumented field pile tests were chosen because they can

*provide the necessary pile-soil interaction information required for a

comparison of the criteria. The field pile load tests that were

investigated are:

(1) Arkansas River Lock and Damn No. 4 (6 tests).

(2) Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou Control Structure (2 tests).

(3) Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 (6 tests).

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 Pile Tests

4The pile tests were conducted at a site near Lock and Dam No. 4

on the Arkansas River below Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The site is located

* I mile downstream of the Bob Roger Bridge on the St. Louis and

Southwestern railroad and about 500 ft east of the bank of the

Arkansas River. The pile tests were conducted as part of a

comprehensive study to develop information regarding the

117
.4.. ~.characteristics of different types of piles driven into alluvial sands
of the Lover Arkansas River Valley.0

- The typical soil profile in the Lower Arkansas River Valley

consists of alluvial deposit strata of loose surface silts, sandy

silts, and clays of variable thickness. This is underlain by a

* stratum of medium to dense sand and silty sand with a thickness

ranging from 90 to 150 ft which overlies a stratum of deeply bedded

tertiary clays. These conditions are very similar to the Lower

- Mississippi Valley.

Borings indicated that the soil profile at the site of the test

consisted of three major soil strata: a surface blanket of silt and

fine sands which extended from the ground surface at el 198 to 185*, a

*deep stratum of relatively dense medium to fine sand which extended to

about el 92, and a base of tertiary clay of undetermined thickness.

Some thin seams of silt and clay were present in the deep stratum

between el 160 and 137. Two series of borings were made at the test

site to determine the subsurface conditions prior to testing. The ,.

stratum into which the piles were driven showed a general increase

with depth, varying from 11 to 50 blows per feet (Appendix B, Figure

- Bl). The average dry density ranged from 90 to 109 pcf but showed no

significant trends with depth. Another series of test borings was

made to determine the effects of the excavation of 20 ft on theA

relative density of the subgrade.

*Elevations (el) are in feet referenced to mean sea level.

118
 _~~ %.: W,1. .a .

As mentioned above, after the excavation of 20 ft, the standard

penetration results decreased by approximately 15 percent with no

measurable change in relative density. A series of borings was made

after the pile driving to determine the effect of driving on the

relative density. No significant changes were found. Laboratory

tests performed on samples from the deep sand stratum consisted of

mechanical analysis and several direct shear tests to determine the

sliding friction between pile material and foundation sand. The soil

was classified as being medium to dense sand and silty sand (SM-SP)

with a submerged unit weight equal to 62.8 pcf. The angle of wall

friction between the steel ranged from 23 to 30 degrees, the angle of

wall friction for mortar ranged from 28 to 36 degrees, and the angle

of internal friction ranged from 31 to 35 degrees. Figure BI shows

the profile assumed for the evaluation of load test data.

Load tests were performed on prestressed concrete piles, steel

pipe piles, steel H piles, and timber piles. Steel pipe piles and

steel H piles were instrumented to develop a comparison between

displacement and nondisplacement piles. Strain gages were attached to

determine the distribution of load in the piles. Two types of strain

gages were used: steel strain rods, and electric-resistance strain

gages. on selected piles, both types of strain gages were used to

enable a comparison. Table 3 lists the piles that were selected for

this study and their properties. The results of the load tests on

these piles are shown in Figures B2-B9.

The field data were analyzed as outlined previously in this

report and yielded side resistance versus pile movement curves (f-z)

119
 Table 3

Pile Types for Arkansas River Tests

-STest Pile Type & Cross Sectional Modulus of Penetration

Pile Nominal Size Area 2A lsi tyEf
__________ _____in ___ 10 psi________

1 12.75" OD pipe 17.12 29.0 53.1*

(0.33" wall)
-r2 16" OD pipe 23.86 29.0 52.8*
(0.312" wall)

3 20" OD pipe 27.36 29.0 53.0*

* (0.375" wall)
6 14HP73,. 25-70 29.0 4.

7 14HP73 29.33 29.0 52.1*

9 14HP73 26.28 29.0 53.2*

10 16" OD pipe 23.86 29.0 53.1*

(0.312" wall)

*Only the first 50 ft of penetration was used for the side resistance
comparisons.

-7

120
 as shown in Figures BlO-B17. The tip load versus pile movement curves

(P-z) are shown in Figures B18 and B19. The f-z curves for test piles

6, 7, 9, 10 show that these piles never were loaded to their full

capacity. The field data did not include the necessary

information to perform a rigorous analysis of the residual stresses.

Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou Control Structure Pile Tests

The Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou Control Structure is located

approximately 3.4 miles northeast of Philipp, Mississippi, between a

Tallahatchie County road and the Tallahatchie River at Mile 207.7.

The control structure is for the diversion of flow into the

Tallahatchie River from the major drainage outlet of the Ascalmore

Creek-Tippo Bayou watershed which is part of the Yazoo Basin of the -.

Mississippi Delta Basin. The control structure consists basically

of three reinforced concrete U-frame structures founded on piles. The ,

estimated number of piles was 390 with an estimated total length of

30,900 linear ft.

Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou is located in the Yazoo River Basin,

a physiographic subprovince of the Lower Mississippi Valley which is

part of the Central Gulf Coastal Plain. The area was formally an

active meander belt of the ancient Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. It is

characterized by low-relief floodplains and meandering belts of

topography. The area is covered by a band of relief alluvial fan

material which is deposited from the loess hills to the east. The

121
4.121 . '

¢.. .. ,-.-. ,..*

-, -..-,. ,.., -. . . * -... .-.
-. . . .. _--.. .-.
-- _ -.---.- .-..
*- -... *- - ,- ---
Yazoo Basin segment of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley consists of

fine- to coarse-grained alluvial sediments over tertiary stiff to hard

clays or fine- to medium-grained dense sands. The alluvial sediments

can be divided into two distinct units, top stratum and substratum.

The top stratum is distinguished by fine-grained clays and silts and

silty fine-grained sands. The substratum deposits are generally fine-

to medium-grained lignite sands that grade downward into coarser sands

and gravels.

The control structure is located in an abandoned channel

deposit. The top stratum consists of predominantly thick inorganic

clay of high plasticity having a thickness of approximately 55 ft. A

large portion of this top stratum will be excavated for the control

structure, leaving a minimum of 20 ft ranging up to a maximum of 35 fc

of top stratum. After excavation, the material left in the top

stratum consisted of approximately 7 ft of inorganic clay with low

plasticity, 9 ft of silty material having a low plasticity, and 2 ft

of silty sand. The alluvial substratum consists of 20 ft of poorly

graded sand, lignite, and gravel which is resting on tertiary deposits

consisting of 11 ft of silty sand; 1 ft of high-plasticity inorganic

clay; and 1 ft of sand gravel. Four undisturbed sample borings were

made along the centerline of the structure and were drilled to the

tertiary clay. One of the borings was continuously sampled throughout

the entire length of the clay. A split spoon sampler was used in the

substratum to obtain the blow count data. No laboratory tests were

conducted on the sands of the substratum to determine strength

properties. All strength properties were based on blow counts and

122]
 experience in the area.asThe stratification of the profile and results
oftestandard penetration tests are shown in Figures B20 and B21.
1
The iletesingwas
ondcte bytheF&M Branch of the Corps of

Engineer's Vicksburg District after excavation for the foundation was

completed. Two HP 14 by 89 steel H piles, one 100 ft long and the

other 90 ft long, were tested at the site. Test pile No. 1 was driven

at the approximate location of the chamber monolith, and test pile No.

2 at the spillway basin monolith. Cyclic compression loading tests

were conducted on both piles, and a cyclic tension loading test was

run on pile No. 1. For the tests the piles were spliced, and strain

gages and lead hangers were installed. The strain gages located as

shown in Figures B20 and B21 were used to provide elastic compression

data along the pile. Extensometers were employed to measure pile head

movement. The pile tip movements were monitored by a piano wire

* strung inside a channel from the tip of the pile to a pulley near the

pile head. Observations were made from a reference point on the piano

wire and a fixed scale. The estimated pile capacities from the static

* formula were 300 tons in compression and 50 tons in tension for the

tests. Pile No. 1 and pile No. 2 both had approximately 280 tons of

compression applied before failure. A cyclic test was conducted by

loading in increments of 25 tons for two increments and then unloading

to 0. For the next cycle, the pile was reloaded to the same level as

the last load of the previous cycle and two more increments of 25 tons

were applied. The cyclic loading was continued until failure.

Measurements of strain and of head and tip movements were made at each

increment and at zero butt loading. The rate of load during the tests

123
 IF;~~~ V..' W.W.17. .7

was 2 tons per minute. Each increment was held constant for an hour

or until the pile head movement was less than 0.01 in./hr. The
0
results from the tests are presented in Figures B22-B27. The test

data were reduced by the method described previously in this report.

Figures B28 and B29 present the unadjusted side resistance versus

pile movement (f-z) curves for the two pile tests. Figure B30 shows

the unadjusted tip load versus tip movement (q-z) curves of the two

tests.

Figures 53 and 54 show the load distribution in the piles tested.

The loads measured in the top section of the piles for the last three

applied loads are greater than the applied loads. This is due to

residual loads in the piles. The first evidence of these residual

loads was found in a review of the load distribution in the piles at

zero butt load. After the last loading cycle was released, the loads

measured in the piles were approximately equal to excess loads in them

during the last loading increment. These misleading readings are due

to zeroing the strain gages after driving. The residual loads were

adjusted as described earlier in this report. The new load

distribution curves are shown in Figures B31 and B32, and the

resulting f-z curves and q-z curves for the sands are presented in

Figures B33, B34, and B35, respectively.

Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 Pile Tests

Lock and Dam No. I is located in southwestern Louisiana in a 1.7--1

mile-long cutoff between Miles 42.6 and 51.1, approximately 9 miles

124 -1
 '. "

LOAD IN THE PILE -TONS

0. 8e. 160. 24e. 320. 400.

40. 120. 200. 280. 360.

0.

20.

D4G
E
P60 .
T
H
8e.

F ISO.
E
E 120.
T

140.

Figure 53. Unadjusted Load Distribution in Pile No. 1,

Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou

125

I. . ". , . """ e . ." ." - .. ;. .' . .' " . ." . ,', .". . . ". .'-. -" .' . . '. -" . . . .. ,.' . -,
 LOAD -TONS
0. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.
40. 120. 200. 280. 360.0

20.

40.

D4
E
p 60.
T
H

.~~ F
E
T

140.j.

169. [___________________________
Figure 54. Unadjusted Load Distribution in Pile No. 2,
Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou

126
 L - -.-- O

upstream from the confluence of the Red and Black Rivers. The lock

structure is founded on soil, while the dam is placed on H piles. The

lock and dam is located within the Gulf Coastal Plain Province near

the western edge of the Mississippi River floodplain. The area is

characterized by natural levees, backswamps, oxbow lakes, and the

bridge and topography of meander scars. The sedimentary history is of

the Pleistocene Epoch. Deposits of sand and gravel were laid down as

the sea rose to it present level about 5000 years ago. The

Mississippi River and its tributaries gave way to a meandering

pattern. The sediments laid down during meandering are silts and

clays.

The soil conditions under the dam consist of a layer of medium to

stiff Holocene backswamp clays from the ground surface at el 28 to the

top of the substratum of sands between el -50 and -70. The bottom of

the substratum sand layer extends below el -140. The excavation for

the dam foundation extends to approximately el -22. Figures B36-B39

show the stratification and SPT results for the test site.

"0 A number of pile tests were performed at the site on H piles and

prestressed concrete piles. Six different H piles were instrumented

with strain r.d The tests were conducted after excavating

approximately 50 ft of overburden material. Two sites were chosen for

the tests. At site PT-A four piles were tested, and at site PT-S two

piles were tested. Three of these piles were retested, one at site

PT-S and two at site PT-A. The piles were driven through

approximately 48 to 50 ft of clay and silt into a substratum of sand

at site PT-A. The substratum was composed of find sands and silty

127

*. % 2PZ-2 ~ -----
 ' t.

sands. At the second site, PT-S, the piles were driven through

approximately 25 ft of clay into the substratum of sand. This

substratum was composed of fine, medium, and coarse sands. The range

of penetration into the sand for the piles at PT-A was between 10 and

30 ft and at site PT-S between 58 and 78 ft. Borincs were made at or

near the test piles. SPT results were taken from the nearest boring

to determine the strength of the substratum sand. The piles were

driven using a vibratory hammer. In analyzing the field data, two of

the pile tests showed instrumentation error and were not used in this

study. The results of the load tests are shown in Figures B40-B53.
The f-z curves for the sands are presented in Figures B54-B60. Since

the vibratory hammer places residual loads in the piles as does an

impact hammer, the piles tested were adjusted for residual loads.

Resulting load distributions are presented in Figures B61-B67, and f-z

curves from the adjusted distributions are shown in Figures B68-B74.

In the retested piles, the capacity was substantially

increased. This was attributed mainly to the increased tip resistance

in the retested piles which can be seen in Figures 55-58. One

explanation from these results is that the vibratory hammer does not

compact the soil under the tip to the same degree as an impact hammer,

thus resulting in less capacity. The increase in capacity for the

retested piles would be due to the compaction and densification of the

soil under the tip from the first tests on the piles. The higher skin

friction from the unadjusted tests can be attributed to residual

stresses from the first tests. Another possible explanation is that

the vibratory hammer induces high pore water pressures in the soil

128

V,
 % ..

700

S. T

P
L
0
* A 4

D 40

0 30 0,c
S

SPT-S-IC
13--E]PTS- C RETEST

10

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 '.

PILE TIP M'OVEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 55. Unadjusted P-z Curves, Red River, H Piles

awag

* 129
L
0!
A
D
40

PT-A-3C
E3--ElPT-A-3C RETEST

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

PILE TIP M1OVEM'ENT (IN4CHES)

Figure 56. Unadjusted P -z Curves, Red River, H Piles

130
 T
p
60 -.
L

44

h-6PT-A-3C
0
--PT-A-3C RETEST

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

PILE TIP MOUEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 57. Adjusted P-z Curves, Red River, H Piles

.131

4-%
 Nl

... .

O
. 40

.~o

120 00 P.-.-.

p
""L 80

"" 60

PT-I RET-.-S.
0

PO PIL TITOEET(NHS ~~-PT-S-IC . -4

o-- PT-S-1C RETEST

0 6.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 .2 1.4 1.6 -

PILE TIP IOVEflENT (IlNCHES) '
Figure 58. Adjusted P-z Curves, Red River, H Piles "

113

.. o°

S.',,

I",%

'.op
4 -q %

12j,,0
which reduces the effective stress and shear strength of the sand.

Comparison of Criteria with Field Test Results

The first step in conducting a comparison of the available

criteria to field pile test results is to determine the shear strength

of the sand at each site. The shear strength parameters were based on

standard penetration tests (SPT) performed at the sites. IMW

The SPT results were corrected as shown previously in this report.

The soil description, N values, angle of internal friction, and

overburden pressure for the pile tests used in this study are

presented in Table 4.

The comparison performed consisted of comparing field f-z curves -

with computed f-z curves based on the criteria presented by Coyle and

Sulaiman (1967), C-S, Vijayvergiya (1977), V, and Coyle (1977), C,

referred to previously. The displacement functions are shown in

Figures 59, 60, and 61, respectively.

The shear strength used in the Coyle-Sulaiman (1967) criteria was

determined from

S an tan 0' (44)

where -0 effective normal stress

n

0' -effective angle of internal friction

The maximum side resistance for the Vijayergiya (1977) and Coyle

(1970) criteria was determined from

133

-.,
 Table 4

Soil Properties

Substratum Test Depth aV 0

Test Site Soil Description Pile ft tsf Nf Nc deg

Ascalmore Fine to medium sand #1 43.0-53.0 1.6 44 20 33

Creek-Tippo (SP) w/some Silty 53.0-63.0 1.9 48 20 33
Bayou sand (SM) 63.0-73.0 2.3 48 19 32
73.0-83.0 2.7 95 21 34

#2 20.0-30.0 .67 42 21 33
30.0-40.0 .93 42 20 33
40.0-50.0 1.2 67 24 36
50.0-60.0 1.6 55 19 33
60.0-70.0 1.9 34 13 30
70.0-80.0 2.2 80 25 35
80.0-90.0 2.5 77 22 34

Arkansas Fine silty sand All 0-15 .24 30 23 34

River (SP-SM) to medium Tests 15-25 .63 33 23 34
sand (SP) 25-33 .91 30 19 32
33-40 1.15 34 21 33
40-47 1.37 36 20 33
47-53 1.57 43 23 33

Red River Find sand (SP) and PT-A 34.0-50.2 .91 40 20 32

silty sand w/clay -IC 50.2-58.2 1.27 44 20 32
strata (SM)
3C,2C 32.9-54.1 .96 44 20 32
54.1-67.1 1.45 53 21 33
PT-S 39.7-69.0 1.39 30 19 32
. -IC 69.0-84.2 2.03 65 20 32

.* 134

4'... , * 4* .* . .- **-.- * .4 - 4 . ~ .*4

13... -4".'-

.,
 4.0.

3.0

Curve A
4. g 2.0
0- M

U -

(4-

.- )

.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Pile movement(inches)
Figure 59. Displacement Function (After Goyle-Sulaiman
1970)

135

~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . *~~'~-. * V ' a'. ~~~~~~
%.~. . . ~ .. ~.. 5 .. ~ . ..2
 . . . . . 7 . 7 ., .. . . . °
:.

1.5

1.5

1.25

'.4. .4
4--
'E 0.75- f(277zl

,.4.
0 .-.

- 0. 1. 1.o 2. . .
0.5, ,'.

Ratio of zlz c

"..Figure 60. Normalized f-z Curve for Clay adSn

"- (After Vijayvergiya 1977) e'

:.

4.°
• , .., , . . . . . . .. .. , . . ..
... ,. ..-. .', . .;,.-.- 0
".... ... '.'j ,',. '; , '.,'.''.'; L " ' ' "
w ., q - -• , , , .- . , ...

13.
 1.0.

'4 .25

0
.5

1.07

.
 fmx K - tan6 (45)

where K -coefficient of lateral earth pressure

tan 6 -coefficient of friction between the pile and soilj

A value of 1 was used for the coefficient of lateral earth pressure,

K, in the comparison. Complete results of the comparison are

presented in Appendix C. On the field f-z curves, the symbols

indicate the measured values; the computed f-z curves are plotted as

smooth curves. In the next section, the results of this comparison

will be used to evaluate these criteria.

Evaluation of Criteria

In evaluating the three criteria, two characteristics were

observed: the magnitude of the maximum side resistance, fmx and the

shape of the f-z curves with respect to the shape of the field
curves. The magnitudes of the side resistance for the V and C

~criteria were calculated by a simple procedure; they will be examined

first. At the Arkansas River site, the two criteria grossly

underestimated the maximum side resistance in the upper portion of the

pile while overestimating it in the lower portion. An example of this

* is shown in Figure 62. For the Ascalmore-Tippo tests, the V and C

criteria produced a maximum side resistance that was close to the

* field curves for the midsection (30 to 60 ft from the ground surface) '
138 -
 -- r

I 4
-

tJ C -4-J

a)
S

I I--

139~
 of the pile, but for the lower section they produced a side resistance

more than twice the reported field maximum. An example demonstrating

this is shown Figure 63. In the Red River tests, the V and C

criteria produced maximum side resistance values that compared more

closely with the field curves except at depths greater than 50 ft

from the surface, examples of which are shown in Figures 64-67. At

depths greater than 50 ft, the V and C criteria grossly overestimated

maximum side resistance. The overestimations by the two criteria are

due to linear dependence of side resistance on the overburden

pressure.

The C-S criteria give better correlation with the field curves

for the lower portion (40 to 80 ft below the surface) of the piles in

the deep substratums of sand, but for depths 10 to 30 ft below the

surface, the C-S criteria underestimated the side resistance.

Examples of this are shown in Figure 62 for the Arkansas River tests,

Figure 63 for the Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou tests, and Figures 68

and 69 for the Red River tests. As with the other criteria, the C-S

are linearly dependent on the overburden pressure. It can be seen

from the field curves and from the review of the literature that the

side resistance is not linearly dependent and may even be independent

of overburden pressure.

For the second characteristic, shape, the C-S criteria yielded

the poorest result. The curves have a linearly increasing portion and

a horizontal straight line at maximum side resistance, f max' which

causes them to be the least representative of the three criteria. The

6% initial portion of curves produced by the V criteria are much steeper

140

,1 '1
 -. 6 %6 T

.....
...

w5 Z

. I IS

z 0
I1 0

ma 0

> U E

I.; j - -.

-a ~ - -

41k I-

I 141
 SS

H
E 2eee
A
R
T DEPTH.FT
R -15.0-4.

S
F
E
R ieee

S
F seeDEPTH. VT
&.-- 58.2-50.2
0-C 50.2-34.0

0 0.2 6.4 0.6 *.s 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE M1OVEM1ENT -INCHES

Figure 64. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-iC, Vijayvergiya Criteria

142
 . .. . . . . . . . . . .

S
E 2000
A
R

T DEPTHFT
R~~S 150 -- 2-34. 0

A -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 825.

F
E
R ie

S
F
P s50 DEPTHFT
i l 3----- - G-- 5.2-50.2
50.2-34.0

a 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MIOVEMIENT - !NCHES

Figure 65. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile
No. PT-A-lC, Coyle Criteria

67

143
 ---

2500

ase

H]
E 2eee,
A I'
R
T DEPTH,FT
--- 84.2-69.0
R isee -- 69.0-39.7
N
S
F
-E

S
F see 0" DEPTIA.FT
, 84.2-69.0
"-" 13--U 69.0-39.7
-- ... . -o 3g.7-12.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE IOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure 66. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-IC, Vijayvergiya Criteria

144
 E0

S
H
E aee/
A
R -DEPTH

--84 .2-69.e
R 1-- 69.0-39.7
N

F
E
R 1030
/--- ---- ---- --- --

50ee DEPTHFT

.-- .9 .. -39 .

0 6.2 6.4 0.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEM4ENT - INCHES

Figure 67. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-lC, Coyle Criteria

-j

145
/~ -.. . --..

145 "V'
 .-. * .. S.

E.. 2s0
.°,,' S

E eee
A
R
T DEPTH.FT
R --- 50.2-34.0
A
N See - S8.2-50.2

S
F
E
R ie

S
F see
DEPTH. FT
I' fr-~ 8.2-56.2
1j
0-C 50.2-34. 0
" "- I I I I I I

0 0.2? 6.4 6.6 0.8 1 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE IMIOUEMET - INCHES

Figure 68. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC,
*-.% Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

."' - ',.""," - ,' ,","*4• ,"%" ""' -•""' , ;"'"''"'''' .•,:,..'"" ,". ". ', .".(," .. ,. "..,.'. :."" ' . ".". .". ' .

146
S

E
A

T DEPTH,FT
R 8se
4.2-69.0
A -- 69.0-39.
H----------------------------------------------------
S
F
E 4
PIL MOEMNT-NCE
P---------------------------------------------------
S Figur 69. Copaiono.fzCrtri3t9najstdFil

- 25e2
PILE I'IIJP1ET INH

A'

R1 8..P ,* .>.....................
,'
•

147
 than the field curves causing the curve to level off at lesser pile

movement. The C criteria give the best match to the shape of the

field curve, but the initial portion was steeper than the field

curves. The initial slope of the field curves seems to be dependent ".-.

on the densities of the sand and may depend on whether the pile was a

displacement or nondisplacement pile. This dependence on pile type

was seen in the Arkansas River tests where pipe piles and It piles were

tested. It will be investigated in the next chapter.

Summary

The three criteria for determining side resistance versus pile

movement investigated in this chapter have demonstrated a lack of

* agreement with field results in several ways. First, and most

important, is their inability to predict the magnitude of the maximum

side resistance, fmax" These criteria give acceptable values for

depths of penetration in the range 30 to 50 ft, but show no consistent

trend for the shallower or deeper depths of penetration. The lack of

consistency severely limits the reliability of the criteria for

estimating the pile capacity. Second, the shape of the curves

produced by these criteria does not accurately simulate the field

curves in this study. The curves produced by these criteria have a

steeper initial slope which results in them reaching the maximum side

resistance with smaller pile movement, resulting in the computed pile

head movements being less than the actual field movements for the same

loads.

148
 7 1 "•"

From this study, it is obvious that these criteria are

insufficient for establishing a design procedure. Any estimation of

pile capacity from the use of these criteria would be suspect because

of poor performance compared to actual field tests. In the next

chapter, the work by Castello (1980) for estimating maximum side -

and tip resistance will be utilized to develop new criteria. A

displacement function will be established based on the data from these

field tests.

- -. -. -.- .i

149
 CHAPTER 5: PROPOSED CRITERIA

*1~Castello (1980) recently published a paper on the bearing

- capacity of driven piles in sand. Hle investigated 34 pile load tests-

pto determine the pile geometry and soil parameters that most
significantly affect the tip and side resistance of driven piles.

-~ These field pile tests were adjusted for residual stresses to

determine that effect on the results. Tip and side resistance,

bearing capacity factors, and the coefficients of lateral earth

* pressure,- were computed from the 34 field pile tests. These factors

-. were correlated with the most significant pile and soil parameters.

In the static formula for axially loaded piles in sands, the

primary parameter is the angle of internal friction. Castello (1980) :I

felt that other parameters such as pile size and shape, depth of

penetration, and relative density of the sands would also influence

the capacity of piles. He investigated these parameters and their

influence on a number of instrumented pile tests. From these tests,

* the unit skin friction and unit tip resistance were evaluated to

determine their relationship to these pile and soil parameters.

The depth of penetration to diameter ratio was found to have a

* significant influence along with the angle of internal friction and

* the relative density of the sand. Castello (1980) developed curves

for tip and side resistance, bearing capacity factor, Nq and the

*coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, versus depth of penetration

to diameter ratio for different relative densities which were

150
m.

distinguished by angle of internal friction (Figures 70-73). The

bearing capacity factors and the coefficients of lateral earth

pressure have little meaning, as explained in previous discussions in

this paper, due to the normal stress computations used in Castello's

study. The normal stress was taken as being proportional to the

overburden pressure. The curves for tip and side resistance are

felt to be the most meaningful representation of the information.

These curves are based on pile tests that were adjusted for residual

stresses.
The ultimate tip and side resistance curves developed by Castello

(1980) coupled with a displacement function will become the focus for

the development of load-displacement criteria for axially loaded piles

in sands. The displacement function will be developed from

correlations with the field curves. This approach follows the same

methodology as Castello followed with his development of ultimate tip

and side resistance. The field pile tests that were used in the

evaluation of the criteria in the previous chapter will be used in the

development of the displacement function.

Displacement Function for Side Resistance

The stress-strain behavior of sands can often be described by a , '.

hyperbolic expression of the form

a (46)
a + bE

eV b*

151
 .. . . ..

-..
Unit Side Resistance, fmax (tsf)
0 0.2 0.4 Cr 0. e. 1)
01

Example Notation
1(50) -~Relative Density, DR
10 33 - Friction Ancile, d'

Arkansas

iC(bo) - Jonesville
~3B 0 LOWT Sill
1(4 5) 4b Vesic
(10)' r03 V Gregersen

I (7 5) 1
Wi (50)

D.8~E32
_ __
20-

(50)
0

~=3Oo31 3*2 330 340! ~ 370 -

(%

030
- 30

-~ (100)1

360

Figure 70. fmax versus D/9, Comression

(tsf 95%.76 kN/m 2 ) (Castello 1980)

-7. 7-*
 Combined Factor, K tan-

General Equai ion:

Log(Ktan6) =Loc( Ktan6)- 0.01512D0

D,. o .: :

Example Notation

(50) - Relative Density, DR I

0 33 Friction Angle, 4' I

10-1I ( )

S
T I
n3B
-(45
0)(10) .032"

Arkansas// F30 "

E3 ,7 5)F
- Jonesville /37', ,
0 Low 7 Sill; (50) 03--
e Vesic (55)
C 200 Greqersen :::
> (50)
. 033

I I

% I 5) o ' I
30
3 (100)1
I @36!

0'3 0
I*3-
30/i
340 E71--4
K,__0_- ,'

140 4

Figure 71. K tan versus D/B, Compression (Castt,.l)o 1980)

.iur

".--I
4~~ii

::;-I
** -4 *.*--.-.-. 4 * ,..
 -Aj

Unit Point Resistance, q (tsf)

0 20 40 o0O so 00D 120 140 150

(60) - Relative Density, DR

0)34 Friction Angle, ~
3 10

300 350 \38

q0 5
0Csel 1980))

44

(654
3.
TS6.65
 BearinQ Cadcitv Factor, N a

10 20 40 FO 8D 100 2 r' "

0 131 ; 1 1 1 I S
3 32* 340, 360 3"

SV \r - Terzaqhi's
Theory

p I Example Notation:
10 I -elative

0 34 - Friction
e, 4''
! / I' IAnal
K.. ~~20 --.
-['f-'---
i)
" 190)Jt
hno
line o, r'raxirna ]

(5) (70)-
4:30 350

/ __
0o>!,
3j~ 5 4(0)3 ! v
C) ( (100)/
36 ' '6,u734 /i( M 4 '
40

0351 i

53 41- Arkansa-

--1/ ______ ,J onesvi lie - .

3Low- Sill

~IC 0.) Grecrsen,....

Figure 73. N versus q D/B, Compression (Castello 1980) ...

q

. )31. .

. .. . . . . . . J o .e v i. l . .
. . . . . . . . ..

155 .. ]
The characteristics of the use of this expression for stress-strain

behavior of sands have been presented previously in this report.

The hyperbolic expression has been proposed by Kraft et al.

(1981) for the general description of the shear transfer behavior of

axially loaded piles. Kraft et al. (1981) based the coefficients in

the expression on soil properties obtained from laboratory tests on

undisturbed samples. Their work was centered more on the shear

transfer of clays for which obtaining undisturbed samples for

laboratory tests is much easier than for sands. For sands, the most

practical correlations of the coefficients are with field tests. The

hyperbolic expression for shear transfer is

f z (47)
a + bz

The coefficients a and b, as described earlier, have a physical

meaning which is illustrated in Figure 74. The coefficient a is the

reciprocal of the initial tangent modulus, Eft and b is the reciprocal

of the asymptotic value of maximum side resistance, fmax* Rewriting

the expression including the term described above yields

f z

E f(4)
f max(4a

Using the data from the field tests , the values of the initial

modulus, Ef, and the maximum side resistance, fmx can be determined

by plotting the field data on a transformed axis system (Figure 75)

with the pile movement, z, divided by side resistance, f, as the @

ordinate and the pile movement, z, as the abscissa. The initial -
modulus, Ef, is the reciprocal of the slope intersect of the straight

line formed by connecting the data points. Appendix D show che

156
 1/b

E 1
fa

4-4

Q)

cc~

Pile movement, z

Figure 74. Proposed Hyperbolic Equation

* 157
 70

* Z/f

a=1

Figure 75. Transformed Axis

158 -
results of plotting the field data on this transformed axis. The

purpose of this investigation was to obtain a check on the maximum

side resistance, fmx from Castello's (1980) correlation and the

max

field tests, and to obtain values for the initial modulus, Eft of side

resistance. Table 5 show the ranges that were developed for the

initial modulus of side resistance.

From a review of the data, the initial modulus, Ef, is

independent of the pile diameter. Values of initial modulus were

within the same range for similar densities, except for the 12-in.

pipe pile in the Arkansas River tests. The initial modulus for this

pile was unrealistically high and was not used in establishing the

recommended values for initial modulus, Ef, in Table 6.

In the Arkansas River tests, the average standard error of the

side resistance between the field data and the Castello adjusted value

was approximately 32 percent. Using the values that were unadjusted

for residual stresses presented by Castello (Figures 76 and 77) for

side resistance, the error was approximately 25 percent. The field

data for the Arkansas River tests were insufficient to make a good

evaluation of the residual loads in the pile, and failure was not

completely reached in a number of tests. The Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou and Red River tests had standard errors of approximately 23 and

18 percent, respectively, for the unadjusted values and 16 and 11

percent, respectively, for the adjusted values.

The average standard errors were greater than had been

anticipated, but given that the average standard error was 50 percent

or more for the other three criteria investigated, the proposed

159
 Table 5

Initial Modulus of Side Resistance from Field Tests

Initial Modulus of Side Resistance, 'Ef (psf/in.)

a.'Relative Density! 30r- 33"' 36"'
Pile Type Loose Medium Medium-Dense

12" pipe -40,000-50,000 50,000-60,000

*.16" pipe -8,000-13,000 12,000-18,000

20" pipe -10,000-15,000 13,000-20,000

12" H pile 6,000-9,000 10,000-13,000 12,000-18,000

14" H pile 5,000-10,000 8,000-12S000 10,000-16,000

160-
 Table 6
Initial Modulus of Side Resistance
Relative Initial Modukus of Side
Density Resistance, f, psf/in.

Loose 280310 6,000-1 0,000

Medium 320-340 10,000-14,000

Medium-Dense 35-380 14,000-18,000

* .*',-1*S* . . .. . . .. . ..-.. . . . . . . . . . "

.-
*. .. -. .. * . . . .

... . .- *."

T i,6
 Unit Side Resistance, f max (tsf)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 .01.2

Example Notation
-~ (50)3;+ Relative Density, DR
-~ 33. Friction Angle, *

40

03

4(45

E) 3

03 360

05 Ar3na

\ 30Y 3(3 3 4
olB33ena
33 Coy5)

Figure
76 ~
max f3 S3 \essDBUajstdCmrsso)1)s 57
kN5m)\

d5 50 3

33 163
 Unit' Point Resistance, q (tsf)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Example Notation:
(60) -~ Relative Density, DR
10 034 - Friction Angle, 0

2234 03

'20-
(75

44

(5)C
Vesi

34\

M34 0)

(163
 criteria are acceptable. One must keep in mind that an err, of

20 percent in estimating soil performance is generally considered

reliable.

Displacement Function for Tip Resistance

Vijayvergiya (1977) was the only source presenting criteria for

tip resistance. Vijayvergiya (1977) gives the displacement function

as

q 1/ mx(48)

where the maximum bearing capacity, qmax* is

f
qmax vN
v q (49)

and -v is the effective vertical stress which is equal to the

V

overburden pressure. The greatest limitation of use of the maximum

bearing capacity is its dependence on overburden pressure which has

been discussed previously in this report.

Vijayvergiya (1977) linked the critical displacement, zc, to the

width of the pile tip. For displacements, z, greater than the

critical displacement, zc, the tip resistance is taken as being

constant. This is contrary to early statements in his paper, that

for sands the tip resistance continued to increase with displacement.

Another approach for defining the maximum tip resistance would be

to define it as the yield point; that is, the soil beneath the tip is

assumed to behave similarly to an elastic-plastic material with strain

hardening, as shown in Figure 78. The yield point is then defined as

the point of transition between elastic and plastic strain hardening

164
a., , ,1
A"-
W'7T.477

165]
 behavior. The yield capacity of a pile has been assumed to be reached

when the tip displacement is 0.25 in. Substituting 0.25 in. in

O

Vijayvergiya's expression for displacement yields

q (4 z 1/3
q=(4z qmax (49)

This displacement function showed better agreement with field data.

It was further altered to reflect the field data for different

densities:

*1/1

=
Loose q (4 z) 1 2
qmax (49a)
3
Medium q =(4 z)1/ (49b)

Medium-dense q (4 z ) qmax (49c)

where the maximum yield tip resistance, q is determined from

Castello's curves for ultimate tip resistance.

Comparisons were made between field P-z curves and the computed

P-z curves using Equation 49 and maximum tip resistances, qmax' from

Figure 72 for adjusted pile tests and Figure 77 for unadjusted pile

tests. The results are presented in Figures 79-88, where the field

curves are those plotted with symbols and the computed curves are the

smooth curves. Using the angle of internal friction, 0, established

previously, for determining the maximum tip resistance, qmax, from

Figures 72 and 77 yielded computed curves with higher values of tip

resistance, q, than field curves for the same pile movement. By

reducing the angle of internal friction, better agreement was

-4.
166 %
 00

400
80
-J.
S

20 TET IL
(3--ETETPL

a0. . . . . . .
PIETPMVMET(NHS

H----TS PILEe2

00.2 0.4 0.6708 1 12 . .

 77-71 11.
~ --

........

60 El
T 0 31
I 59

2-
~PT-A-IC
(3 --PT-A-IC RETEST

6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

* 4. PILE TIP M'OVEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 80. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, H Piles

-
-W 0; 71--

i9J

1 60

L
0
D 4

- ~~PT-A-3C
- --- E3PT-A-3C
(3 RETEST

I I I I A

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

PILE TIP MOVUEMENT (INCHES)
Figure 81. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Unadjusted
Field Curves, Red River, H-Piles

169
 70-
-032*

60-
T
I 0
P
L
0
A 40
D
T

-&PT-S-IC

IP~~ (3...
EPT-S-IC RETEST

0 0 2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

PILE TIP M1OVEMENIT (INCHES)

Figure 82. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, H Piles

170
 60

T
I

0 . -

A
D

S
-20ES IL
0
& 'TEST PILE 2
~TEST PILE 3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 11.2

PILE TIP MOVEM1ENT (INCHES)

Figure 83. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Arkansas River, Pipe Piles
 60

so
T
P
P4030
L 33'
0
A

00

.0puted Field Curves

0
TEST PILE 6
"---TEST PILE 9

e 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

PILE TIP M1OVEMIENT (INCHES)

Figure 84. Computed p-z Curves Comparison to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Arkansas River, H Piles

0-4

172
 J3'0
T 125
a.0.

L too
A
D_13
75
0
S 5

25 -~ TEST PILE I
G---TEST PILE 2

T0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
PILE TIP MIOVEMlENT (INCHES)
Figure 85. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Adjusted
Field Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou,
H Piles

173

a. . - . . - - -. . -%
 lee- ---

8030

0
A

0 0.0. . . . . . . 2_
F-4
PIETPP0ESET(NHS
Figure~~~~~~
86 Copue - Cuve Coprio to Aduse Fiel
*~1 Cures RedAI
RivrHEPle

PT--2

'p.-

174
 0 32'

T1

A 48I
0 /

40

T
0
0 4 '
T-
S

8- ---3-PT-A-3C
0
PT-A-3C RETEST --
"

0.2
6 0.4 6.6 1 -".2
PILE TIP MOUEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 87. Computed P-z Curves Comparison to Adjusted

Field Curves, Red River, H Piles

175

*. . . . . . . . . . . ." -

. . .. . • . . . . . . . C,,. . .S a S X .C -. -.- -,
 T 0 30'
P
L 80
0
A
D~ 60

T
0
S.S

20 ~PT-S-IC
OPT-S.IC RETEST
13---

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
PILE TIP MOVEM1ENT (INCHES)
Figure 88. Computed P-z curves Comparison to Adjusted
Field Curves, Red River, H4Piles

-al

176
 **.~~~~ - - - - . . .--.~
..
.-
. ...

obtained, as shown in Figures 79-88. The reason for this is that

Castello defines the ultimate capacity of the pile as the load at the
01
head of the pile resulting from a movement of 10 percent of the

diameter. For pile design in the Corps of Engineers' Lower

Mississippi Valley Division (LMVD), this is considered excessive. In

LMVD, a pile for which a movement of approximately 1/4 in. at the tip

occurs is considered as a limit. Based on the field data, new sets of

N
curves were developed and are shown in Figures 89 and 90. The shapes

of the curves produced by the displacement were in good agreement with

those of the field curves.

Comparison of Computed and Actual

Butt and Tip Performance

The Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou and Red River tests were selected

*for the comparison. The Arkansas River tests had insufficient data to

provide a good comparison. For the piles that penetrated clay

layers, the actual field f-z curves were used for the comparison. The

results of the comparison are presented in Figures 91-99. The

* agreement between the computed and actual load-movement behavior was

* found to be very good up until the pile-soil system began to yield.

K Beyond the yield point, the computed values from the criteria were
greater than the respective field values. This is attributed to the

tip resistance criteria overestimating the tip resistance at large

displacements.

1771
 Unit Point Resistance, q (tsf

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1500

10

0.0

~ 40

0)0

'.40

178
 ~. .'r

Unit Point Resistance, q (tsf)

ma
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150
0

10

r41

440
20I

-39

-38

-3 .f

36

3179
p0

60--

6f- 3L.-

Fiur go, q. ~ -
2~2f-
...
,; ..

0.-_ 80 6. 4.32.O0
7.2

-4-- .
L..
-". 8e. 1de. 240. 320. 400..

E40 12: 200. 28 co. 3e.

.2 a-ct-u

""s '. '..

,,,", p ' \
""L .6 \ "'7

C' '

Ecomputed

1.2a actual ""

,Si

I 1.4 computed

C
H 1.6
E - BUTT
1S 8 ...- TIP
actual

% .

Figure 91. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

1'

|. ..

qio ".-, 80
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.

.25
D

S
9 P
L .7S
A

T cocopuute

1.5

1 1.7\actual
C
H2
E BUTT'

2.S

Figure 92. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo
Bayou, Test Pile No. 2
 .1

1 ]
4.. . 1 . . 20

S0
1.1. 8 .-
L" .6
S 'compeute.d8

P0
1.2

S BUTT

.6

1, N
u 3 acomputed " "pL-

TI

11.48

H 1.6"
E actual "".,

-..-- TIP m ,

Figure 93. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-,.-,""

Movement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. "''
PT-A-IC .-i2

- -- 1

a'.,

-". 5, -
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 40.

*
80. 120. 160. 200.
*20. 60. 100. 140. 180.

.2
D '
.*4
S
P
L .6
A
c
E .
- E1. computed
N
T
p 1.2
ctual

N
CL
* SI - BUTT'

TIP

Figure 94. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-lC Retest

183
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180.

.25
D

S
L.75
AS.
C '

E computed
N1.25
T

1 1.75

C actual
H 2.
E
BT
2.25
-TIP

2.5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Fipourc 95. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

1ovement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-2 C
 NLYSIS OF 3
AXIALLY LOADED CRITERIR FOR NUMERICAL
PILES IN..(U) ARMY ENGINEER WATERWIAYS
RD-I39 236 LOD-TRNSFER
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG HS R L MOSHER JAN 84
UNCL FIE
ASS HSRK84IIF/0 0/0 NL

EhIIhhllhhlll
IhllEllhllEllE
mllllllllllllu
ElllElllEllEEI
lllillEEllllEI
llEEllEElllEI
 -1,-- % - - -. -- -- 77

7- 77-7 -- 7 7

kI.--

1.0
IIVl1.
*
W

ii1U~r6

1.25 1. 8

TEST CHART
MICROCOPY' RESOLUTION
Of STANDOARS.196 A
ftATONJMLBUREAU

% f
.A-

BUTT LOAD -TONS

-. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.
."v .20. 60. lee. 149. 180.

"f " D
1.4

.L .

BUT LOAUTTO
E -8

Cuvs
60ver Re. 100. 140 . 186.-

F u 6. Co. ad .ctual een

o-s

":$N
--- 4.185

.. .

.- , . . : . L- '. , -'o- o % . . -, % " , , , - -. •" -- - , r .. "- . . . .

Hr7.7
 W. W- a,- -a"

BUTT LOAD - TONS

0. 40. Be. 12e. 168. 200.
o 20. 6e. 1ee. 148. 18O.

.-.-..

1' .4%
IN
I
L.6
A \
C
E .%

1.2 F Lactual
1.4
11.8 -
* N
C
H 1.6
E
S 3 BUTT
---- TIP

Figure 97. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-3C Retest

-,,-u...--
186
 '2 *
W.L-.° 7. -7 " *

V..

BUTT LOAD - TONS

0. 40. Be. 120. 160. 200.
*. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180.

.2"°
S \

L.6 .
A S

C1 .4 ' '-'
E .8 '

T
1.2

1 1.4 V. N,* °5
Fiur ','--omputedanAculBtanTiLod.,.,
C actual

E
1.8 - BtTT

TIP --

Figure 98. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-8lC

187
 BUTT~~
ON LOD

9. So Is.10 -. 20

25. 50. 125. 17S. 22.25.

-- _ -. ! I I

S S

P
A '

C - computed

El.S

*
N1.5

-. h17 actual
C

E .
PI.25 Es

Figure 99. Computed and Actual Butt and Tip Load-

Movement Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-IC Retest

4N

188
 .

Comments

Two sets of curves for maximum tip resistance and shear transfer

have been shown in this chapter; one based on pile tests that were

adjusted for residual stresses (compression), and the other based on p.,

pile tests that weren't adjusted (unadjusted compression). For design

work the values from adjusted (compression) are recommended. The

values from the unadjusted are recommended for evaluating pile tests

with insufficient data to determine residual stresses.

The allowable pile load using a conventional pile design

procedure is obtained by dividing the ultimate capacity of the pile by

a specified factor of safety. In the conventional pile design

procedure, the displacement of the pile butt for the allowable pile

load is generally not considered in determining the performance of the

structure. For example, consider the butt load-movement curve .5

presented in Figure 91. The capacity of the pile is approximately 240

tons for a tip movement of 0.25 in. For a factor of safety of 1.5,

the allowable pile load would be 160 tons with a butt displacement of

approximately 0.40 in. If these piles were for a pumping station

which has a number of pipes entering it from outside, a displacement

of 0.40 in. may not be tolerable.

Thus, being able to determine the load-movement curve is very

important in determining whether or not the pile head displacement for

the design load is within allowable limits. The available Soil-

Structure Interaction (SSI) procedures can be used to compute the pile

"% load-movement curves. The reliability of these existing procedures

189

4.o'°
 can be improved by employing the relationships for sh.ear-transfer and

tip lodpresented in this report. These are based on actual pile

tests and reflect the true behavior of piles driven into sand

deposits. The computed load-movement performance using the new

criteria has shown good agreement with the actual load-movement

performance of field pile tests. A step-by-step illustration for

using this procedure is presented in the next section.

Outline of Analysis Procedure

-' Figure 100 shows a typical boring log and SPT result found at a

construction site in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The facility being

constructed Is being founded on piles after excavating the first 20-ft

layer of clay. The pile and its properties are described in Figure

- 101. The following is a step-by-step procedure employing SSI analysis

-~ and shear-transfer and tip load criteria presented in this report:

1. Determine the average blow count for each soil layer:

Depth, ft
30
50
Layer, ft
20-40
40-60
N Value
18
28
f
75 60-90 30

2. Correct N values for removal of overburden; a 1 percent

* reduction for each foot of overburden removed: 20 ft of excavation-

20 percent reduction.

190

Y, __*_
 10=

10 CH Values

NN
= -.--. ~-.-- 20.~02 3 0 5

1..30 0 -]
40 0
40.

50,. 0
C SP-SM

.9.,60-

IIS
90 .

110-

140

9191

.400
 S..,
:.., .-
'.

+, ..-

121
-

;,* - U ---
60'' Crs etinAe .0 f

Ie
12HP53 "5,.
.54.0

'60' Cross Section Area = .108 sq ft

,.' '-i Tip Area = 1.0 sq ft
Figur 10.Pln iePoete

Equivalent Diameter :
~B = Surface Area-
" J~i = 4. = 1.27 ft.

"

'" Figure 101. Pile and Pile Properties

'p

.5192
 Depth, ft Layer, ft N Value Reduced N Value
"-- 30 20-40 18 15

50 40-60 28 23

75 60-90 30 25

3. for penetration into fine sand or silty sand

Correct N values ..

below the water table using the expression

1
N' = (N - 15) + 15 (21 bis)

Depth, ft Layer, ft N Value Reduced N Value -

30 20-40 15 15

50 40-60 23 19

75 60-90 35 25

4. Correct N values for effective overburden pressure using the

correction factor, CN , determined by

CN =0.77 log -2 (23 bis) -_

where av is the effective overburden pressure (based on excavated

ground surface), tsf. The purpose of this correction is to normalize

the N values to an effective overburden pressure of 1 tsf on which the

angle of internal friction chart shown in Figure 102 is based.

Dept,
f
ft Laerft
Layer, ft aV , tsf
vDepth, CNN N Value Corrected N Value '

30 20-40 0.313 1.39 15 21

50 40-60 0.938 1.02 19 20

75 60-120 1.72 0.820 25 21

'77

.9 5. From Figure 102 determine the angle of internal friction, 0.

193

. . .* .. . . . .
 10I

20 .-.
-..

30.

p - - --- - - -

--

50
Li ~~~60 - - - - - - -

'U'
0

a0) (z
* .- ..

L.
- - -I - -"---

'U
- - - .

Angle~~~ of inenlfito

280o 30 ° 320 34) 36o 38o 40' 42 '° 44 ° .. ,.

.19 Angle of internal friction -
Figure 102. Correlation of N Values with angle of .i. I

Internal Friction'--"

194"'"

-, -..,.; ..,.-,f,
", , ,,,:q...,:,...-..
,,,. ,... ..., ,, ,.,. .. ,- - ,...... ..... ; .. :. , • . .. . /--. ,_, .: .. -
I.' - .- ., _ i . -.- - . . - . . .. . . . - -, . - ..

Depth, ft Layer, ft Corrected N Value

30 20-40 21 330

50 40-60 20 330

75 60-90 21 330

6. Develop the shear transfer and pile movements, f-z, curves.

a. Find the maximum side and tip resistance from Figures 7

103 and 104, respectively (Figures 103 and 104 are reprints o'l Lires

70 and 90, respectively). Extrapolate for depths greater tha: -.

ose

shown in Figures 103 and 104. The maximum tip resistance, q ,

the resistance for 0.25 inch of tip displacement.

Pile
Equivalent Penetration to max qmax
Depth, ft Diameter, ft Diameter Ratio (D/B) 0 psf psf

0 1.27 0 330 0

5 1.27 3.9 330 360

10 1.27 7.9 330 540

"0 1.27 15.7 330 780

30 1.27 23.6 330 860

40 1.27 31.5 330 950 -4

50 1.27 39,3* 330 1050*

60 1.27 47.4* 330 1100* 112,000

N .1
• Approximate values obtained from Figure 103 by smooth extrapolation
of appropriate curve.

b. Develop f-z curves using the expression

f z (47a bis)
-+ 1 (z)"-""
E f -
f max
In the above equation, f is in psf, z is in inches, Ef is in psf/inch,

and f is in psf. From Table 6 (p. 161), using an angle of internal

max

195

t '~
~, ~ .* 4 * * . - - .* . . . .
 Unit Side Resistance, fmax (tsf)
0 0.2 0.4 0. __E .0

Example Notation
.43
'(50) - Relative Density, DR
10 33 Friction Anqle,'

*0 I Arkansas "

10 (80) Jonesville
0 Low T Sill
1(4) z Vesic
(10) CD32 4 Gregersen
30

53) 5)

(50)
- ' (5~

.4
w 20
\ \ .

" 23.6

_ 3A0 31. 323Y 340 3s 3 37.

"- .. (5)~)30 :-
303

*030 -"'(100)1

SFgr1035

-361 L
3 4lO

Figure 103. max versus D/B, Compression

(1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m 2 ) (Castello 1980)

.p..

q6
 Unit Point Resistance, ma (sf

0 20 40 60 80 10 120 140 150

0-

10

201

4-4

202

0. . - ' . . . . - .
 friction, 0, equal to 33k' an initial modulus, Ef9 of 12,000 psf/in. is

found. Using Equation 47a, shear transfer, f, values are computed and

presented in Table 7 for given pile movements, z, at the depths of

penetration shown above. These are plotted in Figure 105.

c. Develop q-z curves using the empirical expression for medium

sands (see Equations 49a through 49c in Chapter 5 for relations for

other sands).

q =[4 z]l/qma

and

P =q x area of the pile tip

max max
where

q and q have units of psf and z is in inches. The q-z values

are shown in Table 8 and plotted in Figure 106. Load capacity is pre-

dicted based on a tip movement of 0.25 inch. Values of P for tip move-

ment greater than 0.25 inch are used to predict the entire load-

settlement curves.

A computer program that analyzes axially loaded piles using the

discrete spring soil model described in Chapter 2 (p. 32) is needed to

determine the tip and butt load-displacement behavior for this example.

An example of such a program is PX4C3, "Axially Loaded Pile Analysis

Program," written by Drs. Coyle and Reese at the University of Texas.

This program is available on the Conversationally Oriented Real-Time

Program-Generating System (CORPS) under program number 10003 and is

used for this example. Figure 107 shows a plot of the input data for

the program, Figure 108 shows a plot of the load distribution in the

E pile for given butt loads, and Figure 109 shows the tip and butt

198
 Table 7

Depth Penetration of Pile, Ft '

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60
fmax, psf 0 360 540 780 860 950 1050 1100
Pile Movement Shear Transferred, f, psf
z, in.

0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "
.025 0 164 193 214 220 228 233 235 .-
,
.050 0 224 284 335 350 367 382 388
.075 0 256 337 411 435 462 486 495
S- .
•.100 0 276 372 464 501 530 561 573.

.150 0 299 415 533 582 622 665 682

.200 0 312 441 576 635 681 733 754

.250 0 321 458 605 674 721 781 804

.300 0 326 470 626 690 752 816 842

.400 0 334 486 655 730 793 865 894

.600 0 342 503 686 755 820 921 954

1.000 0 350 517 713 800 880 971 1007

10.000 0 358 538 773 852 943 1047 1090

for a D/B 23.6, using figure 103;

fmax - .43 tsf - 860 psf

for a z = .100 in:

.10 in
f= 1 1
1+ I (z) 12000 psf/in + 860 psf (.10 in)
E f () 100pfi
f max
f 501 psf

199 --

' - - ~ ' -_(

 NPSI- SO. FT.

s"
L

S.FT

Ib W

ZF

1 .4200
 " - - ' •
"-t ft f t. ft 4- .ftft " ft ft P . .. . . "t. .t . ft f - .. "". "- ". . f . f. ft f t t

VIT7.771.;
-7 9 T.-.

Table 8

p-z Values

qma" 56.0 tsf*

=
Pmax (56.0 tsf) (2000.0 lb/ton) (1.0 sq ft)

- 112,000 lb

Tip Movements, in. Tip Load, lb.

0.000 0.0
•' 0.010 38460.0 I
0.020 48450.0

0.030 55460.0 ft .'

0.040 61050.0

0.050 65760.0

0.075 75270.0

0.100 82850.0

0.125 89240.0 -i

0.150 94830.0
"%

0.175 99830.0

0.200 104380.0

0.250 112000.0

0.300 119480.0

0.400 131500.0

0.600 150500.0

1.000 178400.0

10.000
1 178400.0

* a is the pressure corresponding to a tip .6%

* max
movement of 0.25 inch.

201
 . . .... _.

tIP IONV4?. °N

14404n 1 .I] .41 . .. ...

_.

TV" n. "wyvn.-
flo

* 4B60

off@

Figure 106. P-z Curve for Example Problems

-:.-7.

p 141Ise ,"5'.'

E!
20
m~i In.

5 202N 5
. -:.l- 4.14
' % . ' d.Y i.a . ' ' A .*5* " .,,.*
"SS
 *4d
'".e

1000

.49S09U

EXML PROBLEFT LPN. F.

I.I

8,1. 20. FT.

?40DPTN-

S
Go. FTF.

.449W4 LI.~
0a a 3 s a a a
4. O r
FLMOENT. IN.
0
4.I I -a

. s a 3 4 s 6 7 asa o
SPIP fb PNCNT. IN.

Figure 107. Plot of Data Input to Computer Program

NI
°% A

*203
 M.3023 9e469 IS114ZS61340 3M3

i.

4
p .

54.4

4204
.5.4

.1A

/1.

- M. TIPe
2458ff ~ f

Fiur 109 Ti an utLa -Dslcmn

Cuvsfr 2P3 ie J33

.2205
 77a . '. ' . . .

load-displacement curves for this example. Entering Figure 109 with a

tip displacement of 0.25 in. yields a pile capacity of approximately

135 tons.

Design Curves

Using the new criteria presented in this chapter, and an axially

- loaded pile computer program, a set of pile capacity curves was devel-

oped for various pile diameters, surcharge loads at the surface, and

soil densities. The capacity of a pile was defined as the butt load

at a tip movement of 0.25 in. The suicfarge loads were accounted for

by computing an equivalent depth and using that depth to determine

the maximum tip and side resistance. Samples of these design curves

* are presented in Figures 110-115. A complete set of design curves for

H piles, concrete piles, steel piles (closed) and steel piles filled

with concrete for 0 values of 300, 330, 350, and 370 is included in

'Sq Part II of this report. .

The pile capacity is found by entering the set of curves for a

given pile type with a pile length and surcharge load and matching the

desired pile length with the curve for the appropriate surcharge load.

Using the pile length type, and angle of internal friction, 0, for the
previous example, the pile capacity would be determined by entering MA
Figure 111 for a 12 HP by 53, finding the pile length (60 ft), matching

it with the curve of zero surcharge load, and reading down to find the
%S pile capacity (135 tons). A comparison of this value with the value

determined in the previous example reveals that they are identical, as

* they should be.

The pile capacity curves developed in this report are for

* 20'
 TOTAL LOAD (TONS) **
0 is 20 30 40 so Go 70 so go lee l1e

-U. L
E

T
H 1214PS3 Stoat Pile,
I ~ 60 Phi*30 Dog.. C-0.
* 1CURVE SURCHARGE
*NO. LOAD, PSF

10 250
14 750

Fiur 110 Toa1 ieCpaiyfra2SP3SelPieOumre

Conitin /-n.TpMvmnt h 0 e.
8 -'a-
2990 ~
go is 225
it 2S88

207
 TOTAL LOAD (TONS)
0 20 40 68 Be 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

100

* L

aH 12HP53 Steel Pile,

* * Ph&*33 Dog., C-9. . - -

T CURVE SURCHARGE
N10. LOAD, PSF

3 500
*4 750
6 1200
7 18
3 1750 -
9 200
to 2250
11 2500
12 27S9
- 13 3000 .U-

4 100

Figure 111. Total Pile Capacity for a 12HP53 Steel Pile, Submerged
Condition, 1/4-in. Tip Movement, Phi =33 Deg., C 0

208

N*
 TOTAL LOAD (TON~S)
0 s0 1ee 158 200 250 368 358 406 450 500

* 13

as

* 30

* 40

L
N So
* T
H
6
F 0
*T CURVE SURCHARGE
140. LOAD, PSF
70 a 0
3 50e
4 756
S 1ee@
Ss 6 1250
7 150$
8 17S0
9 2000
go0i 2250
11 2500
12 2750
13 3000
Se

*Figure 112. Total Pile Capacity for a 12HP53 iteel Pile, Submerged
Condition, 1/4-in. Tip Movement, Phi =37 Deg., C=0

209
 TOTAL LOAD (TONlS)
8 to 2. 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 119 120 130 140

300

* L

T
H 14HP89 Steel Pile,
F Phi-3B Dog., C-0.
T CURVE SURCHARGE
NlO. LAPSF
79 250
*3 see
4 750
S 1e09
s 6 1250
7 1500
8 17S6

*11 2500
12 2750
13 3000
lee

Figure 113. Total Pile Capacity for a 14HP89 Steel Pile, Submerged
Condition, 1/4-in. Tip Movement, Phi =30 Deg., C=0-

210
 TOTAL LOAD (TONS)
*0 25 5o 75 100 125 150 175 20e 225 250 275 300 325

38

* 40

E
N So
G
T
14 14HP89 Steel Pile.
F * Phi-33 Deg.. C-0. - - -- - - -

T CURVE SURCHARGE
NO. LOAD. PSF
1 S
3 s00
4 758
5 1eee
B0 6 1250
7 ISO@
a 1750
S 200
gois 22508
12 2750 4

13 3800
Los__ _ __ _ _ :~
Figure 114. Total Pile Capacity for a 14HP89 Steel Pile, Submerged
Condition, 1/4-in. Tip Movement, Phi =33 Deg., C=0

211
 TOTAL LOAD (TONS)0
0 so t00 is@ 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

103

40

L
E
N So
* T
*H 14HP89 Steel Pile,
F6 Phi-37 Deg., C-0. - __

* TCURVE SURCHARGE
NO. LOAD, 6 PSF
70 2 250
A3 5ee
4 750
5 1000
Be 6 1250
7 10
8 17S0
9 2000
go0i 22509_
11 2509
12 2750
13 3000
too

Figure 115. Total Pile Capacity for a 14HP89 Steel Pile, Submerged
Condition, 1/4-in. Tip Movement, Phi =37 Deg., C 0

%.

212
homogeneous soils. The pile capacity curves may give misleading re-

sults for a nonhomogeneous soil. The example presented previously will

be reexamined, but instead of having the tip resting in the same soil , .

stratum, it is to rest on denser sand. The soil at the tip has an

0
angle of internal friction of 39 . The tip resistance obtained from

Figure 104 is 140 tsf, and the resulting points for the P-z curves are

shown in Table 9 and are plotted in Figure 116. The tip and butt load-

displacement curves from the computer analysis are shown in Figure 117.

The pile capacity for this example is 240 tons, approximately 100 tons

greater than the pile capacity curves would give for a homogeneous soil.

The pile capacity curves should not be used without careful considera-

tion of the soil conditions. If the soil profile is highly nonhomoge-

neous, a detailed computer analysis should be performed using the side

and tip resistance curves for the appropriate soil conditions. . -

Summary

The proposed criteria have been formed by drawing on the work of

Castello (1980) for establishing the maximum side and tip resistance.

This approach reflects the newest and latest research in this area.

Castello's work has been verified and refined in this investigation to

yield more representative results for the soil conditions encountered

in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The displacement functions for the

side and tip resistance have been based on the results of field tests.

The criteria are established through correlations to actual field w

performace of piles in the Lower Mississippi Valley. They demonstrate

the consistency of resistance versus depth penetration that was found

in the investigation of field tests. The proposed criteria are a

213
 Table 9

P- z Values

Pmax =
140 tsf

(140 tsf) (2000.0 lbs/ton)(1.0 sq ft)

- 280,000 lbs
2
Tip Movements, in Tip Load, lbs

0.000 0.0
0.010 125200.0
0.020 148900.0
0.030 164800.0
0.040 177100.0
0.050 187200.0
0.075 207200.0
0.100 222700.0
0.125 235500.0
0.150 246400.0
0.175 256100.0
0.200 264800.0
0.250 280000.0
0.300 293000.0
0.400 314900.0
0.600 392000.0
1.000 395000.0
10.000 396000.0

214
 7..

i-° .%.

P ..- ?

II ;-
A-H.

loomo

... I4 TI. M! t ..-

...

IM
'.I.

HI

. .-

'a.,

215 ."
p •
 , -..°

tI
LORD.LO
.
6 .
60000
120"S
, t8sts
240"t 30006 360"S 42000 400060
O ,-...'1 , I i I -S46606
I '""

6
"t'. i. .8"
E
", \ ,1.2

1.4

a
t-. % ,"
.4.-. LEGMn

Figure 117. Tip and Butt Load-Displacement Curves

'.I-

.- -.

k ," ,
'
216 -.
°

..
-',
."" ""."5
,' -"-,-'
" -'-"..-
. "' -i .. .'._,_ '.-'_''-''-°.:, '-- "'-.-'-,-
 fuction of the angle of internal friction and the ratio of depth of

L ~ penetration to pile diameter. They are independent of overburden

pressure. The earth pressure effect and the arching system formed in

the vicinity of the pile from installation are implicity accounted for

in the ratio of depth of penetration to pile diameter. The criteria

demonstrate the ability to predict the load-deformation behavior of0

axially loaded piles in sand with reasonable accuracy for the soil

N conditions in the Lower Mississippi Valley.

The correlations for maximum side and tip resistance presented

here appear valid for similar type soils in the Lower Mississippi

Valley. They may be used in other regions, if they are cross-checked

with previous pile tests results for that region. If they yield

different results, adjustments should be made to the curves to reflect

the result of the field tests.

217
 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
The ultimate capacity of a pile in a conventional pile design

procedure is based on the assumption that the pile has enough

displacements at every point for the soil to reach its maximum

resistance. No consideration is given to the displacement

compatibility of the pile-soil system, but in the design of a pile

foundation based on an actual field pile test, the ultimate capacity

is determined by an allowable displacement.

The most important reason for utilizing a pile foundation is to

limit relative displacements. Thus, it would seem logical that a

design procedure for determining the capacity should be based on

allowable displacement.

Soil-structure interaction analysis techniques provide an

analytical tool for exploring the performance of the pile-soil

system. They have advantages over conventional methods in that they -

can consider the displacement compatibility of the pile and the

surrounding soil along with the nonlinear load-deformation

characteristics of the soil. A more realistic determination of pile

capacity can be made based on the computed displacements of the pile.

The difficulty with any pile design procedure for piles embedded

in sand is obtaining the soil parameters for the computations. In the

past, the capacity has been determined based on soil conditions that

were measured prior to installation of the piles. The installation by

driving alters the soil conditions surrounding the pile resulting in a

218

° %~
""e
 permanent change to the soil. The soil is compacted by insertion of

the pile and by the impulse from the hammer's impact causing a

permanent rearrangement and crushing of the soil particles in the

EI~i vicinity of the pile. As the pile tip penetrates compacting and
crushing the soil particles, the shaft of the pile causes a down drag

on the surrounding sand particles that results in a vertical

displacement of the sand particles. The vertical displacement of the

sand particles along the pile shaft creates a thin sleeve or cylinder

of loose sand surrounding the pile. The loose cylinder of sand

adjacent to the pile shaft is circumscribed by a much denser sand that

was densified under the tip as it was being driven. This condition is

ideal for arching and has been well documented in the literature. The

result of this phenomenon is that the shear transfer along the shaft

* '. is developed through an arching system that redistributes the in situ

lateral earth pressure that was present prior to the installation,

-N resulting ina reduction of pressure on the pile shaft. This

phenomenon and the arching system at the edges of the pile tip make it

virtually impossible to determine the relationship between the

vertical overburden pressure and lateral earth pressure along the

shaft or normal pressure at the tip.

Theoretical approaches are unavailable for this highly complex

and indeterminate system, but with empirical correlations, such as

* developed in this report, it can be implicitly accounted for.
Le
Empirical approaches can yield good, reliable results if a large
A, quantity of high-quality observations are available for a data

~1 219
 base. A large number of instrumented pile tests were used in this

study to give a representative cross section of data points.

In the reduction of the pile test data, residual stresses played

an important role in the interpretation of the results. Impact

driving of piles induces stresses into the pile-soil system before the

pile is ever loaded in testing. The ram of the hammer transfers

momentum to the pile causing it to compress and penetrate into the -

soil. After the blow is delivered, the pile rebounds due to the

compression force within it. The total rebound is prevented by the

-... soil along the shaft leaving the pile with compression stresses in its

lower portion and tensile stresses in its upper portion. The soil

will also have a stress build up from the loading action. These

stresses are commonly referred to as residual stresses. If the

residual stresses are not accounted for, the load distribution

measured in the pile from the test can lead to an overestimation of

N. side resistance and an underestimation of tip capacity.

The three published criteria for side resistance versus pile

movement evaluated in this report have demonstrated an inconsistency

with respect to the field results presented. They lack the ability to

predict the magnitude of side resistance and the shape of the function

of side resistance versus pile movement.

Because of this lack of agreement in field results for these

criteria, new criteria have been proposed in this report. The new

criteria were established by combining the ultimate capacity work of

Castello (1980) and the development of a displacement function from

actual field load tests. The new criteria demonstrate trends that are

220
 found in field tests and not presented in the other criteria. The

criteria have proven themselves in comparisons with field results.

They provide an engineer with a powerful tool for predicting the load-

displacement behavior of piles with reasonable and reliable results.

However, the methodology and criteria should only be used in

combination with good engineering judgment.

%..

2211
 REFERENCES

1. Aihart, T. P., Coyle, H. M., Hirsch, T. J., and Buchanan, S. J.

(1969', "Pile Soil System Response in a Cohesive Soil",
Performance of Deep Foundation, ASTM, SPT 44, pp. 264-294.

2. Banerjee, P. K., and Davies, T. G., (1977), "Analysis of Pile

Groups Embedded in Gibson Soil", Proceedings, 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 1,
pp. 381-386.

3. Bazaraa, A. R., (1967), "Use of the Standard Penetration Test for

Estimating Settlements of Shallow Foundations On Sand",
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, p. 379.

4. Bishop, A. W., Collingridge, V. H., and O'Sullivan, T. P.,

(1948), "Driving and Loading Tests on Six Precast Concrete Piles
in Gravel", Geotechnique, Vol I, June 1948, pp. 49-58.

5. Bowles, J. E., (1977), Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd ed.,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1977.

6. Brinch Hansen, J., (1961), "A General Formula for Bearing

Capacity", Bulletin No. 11, The Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
7. Broms, B. B., (1966), "Methods of Calculating the Ultimate

Bearing Capacity of Piles: A Summary", Sol-Soils, France,

Vol. V, Nos. 18-19, pp. 21-31.

8. Buisman, A. S. K., (1935), "De Weerstand Van Paalpunten in Sand",

De Ingenieur 50, pp. Bt. 25-28, 31-35.

9. Buisman, A. S. K., (1940), Grondmechanica, Delft, The

Netherlands, pp. 190.

10. Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P. K., (1971a)," A Note on the

Problem of a Pile-Reinforced Half Space", Geotechnique, Vol 20,

No. 1, pp. 100-103.

11. Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P. K., (1971b)," The Problem of

Pile Group and Pile Cap Interaction", Geotechnique, Vol 21,
No. 2, pp. 135-142.

12. Caquot, A., (1934), Equilibre des massifs afrottement interne,

Paris.

13. Caquot A., and Kerisel, J., (1953), "Sur le terme de surface dans
le calcul des foundations en milieu pulverulent", Proceedings,
Third Intern. Confer. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Zurich, Vol I,
pp. 336-337.

- 222
- •
14. Castello, R. R., (1980), "Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles
in Sand", Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas.

15. Chellis, R. D., (1961), Pile Foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York,

pp. 704.

16. Clisby, M. B., (1970), "An Evaluation of Pile Bearing Capacities

Load-Deflection Values of Piles by Interaction Interim Report",
Mississippi State University and Mississippi State Highway
Department.

17. Clisby, M. B., (1972), "An Evaluation of Pile Bearing

Capacities", Interim Report II, Mississippi State University and
Mississippi State Highway Department.

18. Clough, G. W., and Duncan, J. M. (1969), "Finite Element Analyses

of Port Allen and Old River Locks", Report No. TE 69-13, Office
of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley.

19. Clough, G. W., and Duncan, J. M., (1971), "Finite Element

Analyses of Retaining Wall Behavior," Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol 97, No. SM12.

20. Clough, G. W., (1972), "Application of the Finite Element Method

of Earth-Structure Interaction," Proceedings, Symposium on
Applications of the Finite Element Method To Problems in
Geotechnical Engineering, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

21. Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C., (1966), "Load Transfer to Axially
Loaded Piles in Clay", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol 92, No. SM2, Proc. Paper 4072,
March 1966, pp. 1-26.

22. Coyle, H. M., and Sulaiman, I. H., (1967), "Skin Friction for
Steel Piles in Sand", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM6, Proc. Paper 5590,
pp. 261-278.

23. Coyle, H. M., and Sulaiman, I. H., (1970), "Bearing Capacity of

Foundation Piles: State of the Art", Highway Research Record No.
333, p. 87.

24. Coyle, H. M., Bartoskewitz, R. E., and Berger, W. J., (1973),

"Bearing Capacity Prediction by Wave Equation Analysis - State of
the Art", Research Report No. 125-8, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University.

223

-'. ""
" .-"".. %
-. ' - "-.
.'. .".. ,'-"
• .".
- '. - '-. , - ''' " •"-". "-"" ". -"- - - " " "-" S
 '
• " .- w -- 'L' - . ' .- . - -' - . - -, - . . . . . . - ° - - i

WIN0

25. Coyle, H. M., (1977), "Marine Foundation Engineering",

Unpublished Class Notes, Texas A&M University.

26. D'Appolonia, E., and Romualdi, J. P., (1963), "Load Transfer in

End-Bearing Steel HI-Piles," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division ASCE, Vol 89, SM2, pp. 1-25.

27. Darragh, R. D., and Bell, R. A., (1969), "Load Tests on Long 0
Bearing Piles", Performance of Deep Foundations, ASTM, STP-4,"",
pp. 41-67.

28. Desai, C. S., and Abel, J. F., (1972), Introduction to the Finite
Element Method, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

29. Desai, C. S., and Holloway, D. M., (1972), "Load-Deformation

Analysis of Deep Pile Foundations, "Proceedings, Symposium on
Applications of the Finite Element Method to Problems in
Geotechnical Engineering", U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

30. Desai, C. S., (1974), "Numerical Design-Analysis for Piles in

Sand", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol 100, No. GT6, pp. 613-635.

31. Duncan, J. M., and Chang, Y-Y., (1970), "Nonliner Analysis of

Stress and Strain in Soils", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 96, No. SM5.

32. Duncan, J. M., and Clough, G. W., (1971), "Finite Element

Analyses of Port Allen Lock," Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 97, No. SM8, Proc. Paper,
pp. 1063-1068.

33. Ellison, R. D., (1969), "An Analytical Study of the Mechanics of

Single Pile Foundations", Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburg, PA.

34. Ellison, R. D., D'Appolonia, E., and Thiers, G.R., (1971), "Load- r-
Deformation Mechanism for Bored Piles", Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 97, SM4,
pp. 661-678.

35. Fruco and Associates, (1964), "Pile Driving and Loading Tests",
Report for Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas.

36. Furlow, C. R., (1968), "Pile Tests, Jonesville Lock and Dam,
Quachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana", Technical
Report S-68-10, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

224
 ~ - - - .. . . "-

37. Gibbs, H. J., and Holtz, W. G., (1957) "Research on Determining

the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing", Proceedings
of the IV International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, London, Vol 1, pp. 35-38.

38. Gregersen, 0. S., Aas, G., and DiBiagio, E., (1973) "Load Tests
on Friction Piles in Loose Sand", Proceedings of the VIII
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation .
Engineering, Moscow, Vol 2.1, pp. 19-27.

39. Headquarters, Department of the Army, (1958), "Design of Pile

Structures and Foundations", Engineer Manual 1110-2-2906,
Washington, D.C.

40. Hanna, T. H., and Tan, R. H. S., (1973), "The Behavior of Long
Piles Under Compressive Loads in Sand", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol 10, No. 3, pp. 311-340.

41. Headquarters, Department of the Army, (1971), "Instrumentation of

Earth and Rock-Fill Dams", Engineer Manual 1110-2-1908,
Washington, D. C.

42. Hirsch, T. J., et al., (1970), "Instruments, Performance and

Method of Installation," Proceedings, Conference on Design
Installation of Pile Foundations and Cellular Structures,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, pp. 173-177.

43. Holloway, D. M., (1974) "DUKFOR: Utilization Guidelines", Draft

Report submitted for review, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

44. Holloway, D. M., (1974), "User's Guide, Program AXISYM," Draft

Report submitted for review, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

45. Holloway, D. M., (1975), "Wave Equation Analyses of Pile

Driving," Technical Report, S-75-5, U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

46. Holloway, D. M., Clough, G. W., and Vesic, A. S., (1975), "The
Mechanics of Pile-Soil Interaction in Cohesionless Soils",
Contract Report S-75-5, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. •

47. Holloway, D. M., Clough, G. W., and Vesic, A. S., (1978), "The
Effects of Residual Driving Stresses on Pile Performance Under
Axial Loads", Proceedings of 1978 Offshore Technology Conference,
Paper No. OTC 3306 Houston, TX, pp. 2225-2236.

225
 °" °:* .......

48. Hunter, A. A., and Davisson, M. T., (1969), "Measurement of Pile

Load Transfer", Performance of Deep Foundations, ASTM, STP 444, .
pp. 106-117.

49. Janbu, Nilmar, (1963), "Soil Compressibility as Determined by

Oedometer and Triaxial Tests", European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesbaden, West Germany
Vol 1, pp. 19-25. '0
50. Kaufman, R. I., and Sherman, W. C., (1957) "Review of Soils
Design, Pile Loading Tests, Construction, and Performance
Observations, Section 1-B Floodwall, Memphis, Tennessee",
Technical Report No. 3-454, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS.

51. Kerisel, J., (1961) "Fondations Profondes en Milieux Sableux:

Variation de la Force Portante Limite en Fonction de la Densite,
de la Profondeur, du Diametre et de la Vitesse d'Enfoncement",
Proceedings of the V International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol 2, pp. 73-83.

52. Kerisel, J., (1964), " Deep Foundations - Basic Experimental

Facts; Proceedings, North American Conference on Deep Founda-
tions, Mexico City.

53. Kerisel, J., L'Herminier, R., and Tcheng, Y., (1965), "Resistance
de Pointe en Millieux Pulverulents de Serrages Divers",
Proceedings of the VI International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Canada, Vol 4, pp. 165-169.

54. Kezdi, A., (1975), "Pile Foundations", Foundation Engineering

Handbook, edited by H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, pp. 556-600.

55. Kondner, R. L., (1963), "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response:

Cohesive Soils", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol 89, No. SMI, p. 115. .I
56. Kondner, R. L., and Zelasko, J. S., (1963), "A Hyperbolic Stress-
Strain Formulation of Sands", Proceedings of the 2nd Pan-American
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 1,
Brazil, p. 289.

57. Kraft, L. M., Jr., Ray, R. R., and Kagawa, T., (1981),
"Theoretical t-z Curves", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol 107, No. GT1I, Proc. Paper 16653, pp. 1543-
1561.

226

**~*%~ ... .. -. .
58. Kulhawy, F. H., Duncan, J. M. and Seed, H. B., (1969), "Finite
Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Embankments During S
Construction", Report No. TE 69-4, Office of Research Services,
University of California, Berkeley, California.

59. Kulhawy, F. H., Duncan, J. M., (1972), "Stresses and Movements in

Oroville Dam", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol 98, No. SM7, Proc. Paper 9016, pp. 653-665. 0

60. Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., (1969), Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley &Sons, Inc., New York. i

61. Leonards, G. A., (1970), "Summary and Review of Part II", Pile
Foundations, Highway Research Record No. 333, pp. 55-59.

62. Mansur, C. I., and Kaufman, R. I., (1958), "Pile Tests, Low-Sill
Structure, Old River, Louisiana", Transactions of ASCE, Vol 123,
pp. 715-748.

63. Mansur, C. I., and Hunter, A. H., (1970), "Pile Tests - Arkansas
River Project", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol 96, No. SM5, pp. 1545-1582.

64. Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C., (1960), "Generalized Solutions

for Laterally Loaded Piles", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 86, No. SM5, pp. 63-91.

65. McCammon, N. R., and Golder, N. G., (1970), "Some Tests on Long
Pipe Piles", Geotechnique, Vol 20, No. 2, pp. 171-184.

66. McClelland, B., Focht, J. A., Jr., and Emrich, W. J., (1969),
"Problems in Design and Installation of Heavily Loaded Pipe
Piles", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, Vol 95, No. SM6.

67. McClelland, B., (1972), "Design and Performance of Deep

Foundations", ASCE Specialty Conference on Performance of
Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.

68. Meyerhof, G. G., (1951), "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Foundations", Geotechnique, Vol 2, NO. 4, p. 301.

69. Meyerhof, G. G., (1956), "Penetration Tests and Bearing

Capacity of Cohesionless Soils", Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 82, No. SMl, pp. 1-17.

70. Meyerhof, G. G., (1959), "Compaction of Sands and Bearing

Capacity of Piles", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol 85, No. SM6, Proc. Paper 2292, pp. 1-29.

227
 71. Meyerhof, G. G., (1976), "Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile
Foundations", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 0
ASCE, Vol 102, No. GT3, pp 197-228.

72. Meyerhof, G. G., and Valsangkar, (1977), "Bearing Capacity of

Piles in Layered Soils", Proceedings of the IX International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, Vol 1, pp. 645-650.

73. Mindlin, R. D., (1936), "Force at a Point in the Interior of a

Semi-Infinite Solid", Physics, Vol 7, No. 5.

74. Nair, K., (1967), "Load-Settlement and Load Transfer

Characteristics of a Friction Pile Subject to a Vertical
Load", Proceedings, Third Pan-American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 1, pp. 565-590.

75. Nordlund, R. L., (1963), "Bearing Capacity of Piles in

Cohesionless Soils", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol 89, No. SM3, Proc. Paper 3506,
pp. 1-35.

76. Parker, F., Jr., and Reese, L. C., (1969), "Experimental and
Analytical Studies of Behavior of Single Piles in Sand Under
Lateral and Axial Loading", Research Report 117-2, Center
for Highway Research, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

77. Peck, R. B., Hansen, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H., (1974), ..-
Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.

78. Potyondy, J. G., (1961), "Skin Friction Between Various Soils and
Construction Materials", Geotechnigue, Vol II, No. 4, pp. 339-
353.

79. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., (1968), "The Settlement Behavior
of Single Axially-Loaded Incompressible Piles and Piers",
Geotechnique, Vol 18, pp. 351-371.

80. Poulos, H. G., and Mattes, N. S., (1969a) "The Behavior of

Axially-Loaded End-Bearing Piles", Geotechnique, Vol 19,
pp. 285-300.

81. Poulos, H. G., and Mattes, N. S., (1969b), "The Analysis of

Downdrag in End-Bearing Piles Due to Negative Friction",
Proceedings 7th International Conference Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol 2, pp. 204-209.

4. 228
82. Poulos, H. G., (1972), "Load-Settlement Prediction for Piles and
Piers," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Vol 98, SM9, pp. 879-897.

83. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., (1980), "Pile Foundation

Analysis and Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 13-15,
52-66, 71-83.
84. Prandtl, L., (1920), "Uber die Harte plastisher Korper", .1
Nachrichten Kon. Gesell, der Wissenschafften, Gottingen,
Math., Physics Klasse, pp. 74-85.

85. Prandtl, L., (1921), "Uber die Eindringungsfestigkeit plastisher

Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden Zeitschrift fur
Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 1, No. 1, pp. 15-20.

86. Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P., (1978), "Analysis of

Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles", Journal of the Geotech-
nical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 104, No. GT12, pp. 1465-
1488.

87. Reese, L. C., (1964), "Load versus Settlement for an Axially

Loaded Pile", Proceedings, Symposium on Bearing Capcity of
Piles, Part 2, Central Building Research Institute, Rookee,
Rookee, India, Cement and Concrete, New Delhi, India,
pp. 18-38

88. Reese, L. C., Hudson, W. R., and Vijayvergiya, V. N., (1969), "An
Investigation of the Interaction between Bored Piles and Soil",
Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Vol 2, pp. 211-215.

89. Reese, L. C., (1979), "Design and Evaluation of Load Tests on

Deep Foundations", ASTM STP 670, Raymond Lundgren, Ed.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp 4-26.

90. Reissner, H., (1924), "Zum Erddruckproblem", Proceedings, First

Intern. Conference Applied Mechanics, Delft, The Netherlands,
pp. 295-311.

91. "Results of Tests in Foundation Materials, Lock and Dam No. 4,

Arkansas River Navigation Project, Little Rock District", U.S.
Army Engineer Division Laboratory, Southwestern, CE,
Reports No. 7920 and 7932, Dallas, Texas.

92. Robinsky, E. I., and Morrison, C. F., (1964), "Sand Displacement

and Compaction Around Model Friction Piles", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol 1, No. 4, pp. 189-204.

229

**4*.**- **~.*- %-~* ~ .* ~.-

*.*. -.**.: ~- *. . . . . . .- . -'...
S.-

93. Robinsky, E. I., Sagar, W. L., and Morrison, C.F., (1964),

"Effect of Shape and Volumne on the Capacity of Model Piles
in Sand", Canadian Geotechnical Journals Vol 1, No. 4,
pp. 189-204.

94. Schultze, E., and Menzenbach, E., (1961), "SPT and Compressi-
, bility of Soils", Proceedings of the V International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol 1,
pp. 527-532.

95. Scott, R. F., (1963), Principles of Soil Mechanics, Addison-

Wesley.

96. Sherman, W. C., and Trahan, C. C., (1968), "Analysis of Data

from Instrumentation Program, Port Allen Lock", Technical Report
s-68-7, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

97. Sherman, W. C., Holloway, D. M., and Trahan, C. C., (1974),

"Analysis of Pile Tests," Technical Report S-74-3, U. S. Army ..
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

98. Smith, A. E. L., (1960), "Impact and Longitudinal Wave

Transmission", American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

99. Smith, A. E. L., (1960), "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave

Equation",Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol 86, No. SM4..

100. Snow, R., (1965), "Telltales", Foundation Facts, Vol I, No. 2,

pp. 12-13.

101. Sowers, G. B., and Sowers, G. F., (1970), Introductory Soil

Mechanics and Foundations, 3rd. ed., MacMillan Publishing Co.,
New York, p. 446.

102. Szechy, C., (1961), "The Effects of Vibration and Driving Upon
the Voids in Granular Soils Surrounding a Pile", Proceedings
of the V International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Paris, Vol 2, pp. 161-164.

103. Tavenas, F. A., (1971), "Load Tests on Friction Piles in Sand",

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp. 7-22.

104. Terzaghi, K., (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.

105. Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B., (1967), Soils Mechanics in

Engineering Practice, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.

230
 A=

* . . S . . . . . . .. . . . .

106. Thurman, A. G., and D'Appolonia, E., (1965), "Computed Movement

of Friction and End-Bearing Piles Embedded in Uniform and
Stratified Soils", Proceedings, The Sixth International Confer-
*..... ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 323-327. .'.

107. Tomlinson, M. J., (1977), Pile Design and Construction Practice,

Viewpoint Publications by Cement and Concrete Association,
London.

108. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, (1956),

"Mississippi River and Tributaries, Old River Control Low-
Sill Structure: Pile Loading Tests", Design Memorandum 1-B
Supplement No. 3, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

109. Vesic, A. S., and Barksdale, R. D., (1963), "On Shear Strength
of Sand at Very High Pressures, American Society of Testing and
Materials", Symposium on Laboratory Shear Strength Testing of
Soils, Ottawa, Canada.

110. Vesic, A. S., (1964), "Model Testing of Deep Foundations in Sand Sc

and Scaling Laws, Panel Discussion, Session II", Proceedings,
North American Conference on Deep Foundations, Mexico City.

111. Vesic, A. S., (1966), "A Study of Bearing Capacity of Deep

Foundations", Project B-189, (Final Report), Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.

112. Vesic, A. S., (1967), "Ultimate Loads and Settlement of Deep

Foundations in Sand", Proceedings of the Symposium on Bearing
Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University,
Durham, North Carolina.

113. Vesic, A. S., (1968), "Load Transfer, Lateral Loads, and Group
Action of Deep Foundations", Performance of Deep Foundations,
ASTM, STP, pp. 5-14.

i14. Vesic, A. S., (1970), "Tests on Instrumented Piles, Ogeechee

River Site", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol 96. No. SM2, pp. 561-583.

115. Vesic, A. S., (1972), "Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil

Mass", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, Vol 98, No. SM3, Proc. Paper 8790, pp. 265-290.

116. Vesic, A. S., (1977a), "Design of Pile Foundations", NCHRP

Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 42, Transportation Research
Board.

231

S .. . ,m ' . ',. ,., ,.; .:r ...... :: ?. .-... , ...-. :.... :, .. :. ,. .-.. - :. :.. .
 117. Vesic, A.S., (1977b), "On Significance of Residual Loads for
Load Response of Piles", Contribution presented at Main Session 0
2: "Behavior of Foundations and Structures", Proceedings of the
IX International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Tokyo, Vol 3, pp. 374-379.

118. Vijayvergiya, V. N., (1977), "Load-Movement Characteristics of

Piles", Proceedings, The Port Allen 1977 Conference, Long '
Beach, CA.

119. Zienkiewicz, 0. C., (1971), The Finite Element Method in

Engineering Science, McGraw-Hill, London.

.. I.

p.

a,. .

- I2

-a

- ° -

. -

a,

-.. -'.
2-.
 APPENDIX A

LOAD-TRANSFER CURVES FROM IDEALIZED TRIAXIAL

CURVES BASED ON PARKER AND REESE CRITERIA

av

.... ... .. .... - -U-.*-

.

* Al
 06 10

03 -3125 psf

- 03 -2500 psf

* U 3

IWO1~~-

200

* 1 .2 .3 . S. .6 .7 .8 .9 ~ . 1.1 1.2
STRAIN %

LOOSP

Figure Al. Idealized Triaxial Results (Sheet 1 of 2)2

A2j
 700
%

o0 3 3120 psf

, S -

S
I ...
r
3
p Loose
F£ 3
Figure(See Al. 2")- 250 pof

4, C

S --

°
Loose,'' "

Figure Al. (Sheet 2 of 2) "-

-a-o

-p°

A3

4,!
J, , .,..'' " '"" "" - ' " ' " "" " " ' " "" " - " " '" ": """ ' " '"
 12000

-.- 4-----
j------4 50 --i
- ----------

875p-

le

~. IS
*~ ~
I~S *O~~.1
2 .~ .3 .~S .3 3E$.5..S .

13lu 12enser

10.9-

A2 0 0Z 1 .25 .5 1$ . a .1 3 _E 3

A
 7.7:7 7. . 7. 7 '- -

a-3125 psf

N a 250U psf

'34

120 s
S3
a

S2

0 US .*. .076 .1 .125 AiS .17s .3 .aa5 As5 .37 .3 .325 .3S .375 .4

Medium Dense

% Figure A2. (Sheet 2 of 2)

N-

"6' A5
 APPENDIX B

RESULTS OF FIELD PILE TESTS

BI

5. 4.5 4 - 4 - 1 - 6. 1 . .
 . - . ar.-7

-~L . 4-

17.0

St _ _ _ _ _4
7 T 7

I_____ .rip

I
.. . . . . . .

I--- ~ -~-- .- . ...-- B2

...... . ,. 4.."d.. .. •.. ° ... *- .

-1 -°0 ° e.01- .

I I I

..... ofpd: h LOAD DISTRIBUITION

I IN PILE ,

__ eteen lp/ l *Oo1 I

a-
P40TE
T,
0
"novemenh

m
Tp
,,nrod no/
,esn.,red by
L ---

~ --

r
1c -0
I ," [-',o]

r z 0 z 060O fcO 1150 250 J70

PILE MOVEMENT VS LOAD c. GROSS LOAD VS TIP

AND WALL LOAD

Figure B2. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 1, 12.75-in.-Diameter Pipe

49

B3

.. ...............
<2~~~~~~..:..... :...,.......... , :.'::r'.'.' ,-2 ,- .,,:. --.:.,","-,"; -- 2" ";"--.'- - .- i.2
 0~ - . . . . . . . . . . . .. .; .; ,.-L ";-* -
,,,, s_ 0 .- ,., ." - - . .. - . . . _• .-.. -. .._ . - .- . . - . - . . . - . . -

.i-. *"

Ii!I

o
", = - --- ;•,

- -..-... -.-

''1
-.
L '-

Z'- - D.NPL
.-, ..
V - I I I ! piIe u '1 of ---
, pd
0/ bu/ 20-
NOTE
S. p "o r'ssen# rasured by

- MO _!_r _MN MS LOA €-ROSS., , D S/ i P... .

-AND LOAD
WALL INPIL -lISR.-T.O
B3
S.igure Copesso etRsutAknasRvr et ie:f

"- .- ..
j - -,
G. I-d-r - -

PLMOEETVS LOAD . GROSS LOA-D VS -TIP

AND WALL LOAD

Figure B3. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 2, Test 1, 16-in.-Diameter Pipe

K0

1% ,

B4

,. .,- ,.... . .' -" :

 4-' J I ... I -.

ro.- _.
-.-- Ajcl-~ pll,
b!
jt _ofIl l, I
-tNOE .-. 00 90. d

, M - .e.ebL-od I .

1"./ran Mod no I b.LOAD DISTRIBUTIO NPIE1

_ r
o , Test 2, PNpe LOAD DISTRBUTION

- - " - - o - ---

8i - ~ " EO!A ' --.- -O0 D " - "

Figure jB4.n~ Co pesso etRsls Arknsa Ri, Ts il o

0 , JO,0, 30: /00 '50 302 2.50 JOS " -

a.PILE MOVEMENT VS LOAD c. C'RO:SS LCAO: VS TiP

Figure B4. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile No.
2, Test 2, 16-in.-Diameter Pipe i

%
• "
.%"
• "-ll

* -I . -- -... -
°
-I. . . . . .. 40*.I*.-'T--
~
 'Ice - - - - . . .. - . ,

02---,- - -- /

%
"I''I-

, - ,-- .- -. -. . v'i-1 l 1--+III

l I .+-.
-d -- . . . L -.

-~ -15 ~,
EH'O*~)~0i0

II

hp m.oteo
.. ....e.a ed by - o -.... I i
,~ .. od nolt.:.::

2 - mo- -mn

-A- /-.
/3

0 1'00 0 2zo0 O i 0ro .0 /00 I.0 200 zC0 303

.s~ p'e /0-d ", io, -s pI/adtons

a. PILE MOVEMENT VS LOA c. GROSS LOAD VS TIP

AND-WALL ,OAD

Figure B5. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile No.
3, 20-in.-Diameter Pipe

5.'.

* a

''-5

IB6
..-.-..
 * .-. • o

0'0

_ _ lo ,,

4C

ME / 70,C 200 250 300

O-A D D I N IN PILE

-'ss je./.owf o/P'l. buH Zo100

.-.
).' w ./.d/./

4PILE MOVEMENT VSLA

,'Ci
,GROSS LOD S -I
"al/m AND WALL
, LOAD

Figure B6. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile No.
4." 6, 14BP73 -
'rOp mve I /% -

:B7

"a -o "'.
%'- ,'j- "a"

. Fgue 6. omresio TstReult, rknsa Rve, estPie o. ::'L7

6, 14B73 I

--. '* 'C ."-

 100
25 T~

bai

I " 1 1 1 1.

rr,,3toa
tonZ/ca road in ,nt

bOAD WALTL9JTO N IL

FigreB7 Ctf~nsopressbcio TetRslsAkna Rvr tPl o

7, 14P7

I B8
o'-4 A.-_:
Wjj.
-V-.

__ -

/0

04 Ilk
XAI

S.Sr

$
""
".
-
LOAD I
-I---
D STRIBLTIONIN PILE I.-
--

Z ro-
- ~~ ~ ~ _
~ ~ - 5 10 ,aj

-
;f~.~j
I I
io zo100' P Z-0 I 0 5 0 10 zo 6 0

.1- 3- 0---
-- -"- .

0,0$3 p~illload o tons ",.5 le 1o0d on 1-n

GROS5 LOAD VS TIP '-
a. PILEI MOVEMENT VS LOADP.
AND WALL LOAD ''' -

Figure B8. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile ....
No. 9, 14BP73 " '
!"ANON0

No. 9,.1,BP73

B9-.-...:

B9 j

'°'2 '2 ."..•

'..." '" .-. ';" . ," , "," " "r -.-....-.. : .. .- , . . ., .. .,. - . - .,:. .: : ', . .. .-':.
-*-,._.z
 " ° -
. , 4-.'.,.=
S % . - - ' ' - " , .5 i o'+ . -° . * - J----.o • .. . .. . . -•

L-o-

0S
'C-.-

DI S I I

4..°

I, I

Ob, I I I I

a- o mov - nl'
1,111Vi - ' 1"7

P.ILE MOVE MENT VS L OAD GROSS LOAD VS TIP- .,

No,0,
16i.Daee
Pip Z
AND WA LL LOAD -
Figure B9. Compression Test Results, Arkansas River, Test Pile

B10
- -B xO'- f

....
..... .. .- s.. , ,,
.',,
rod .,.# . ..,",'j,, .-.
,sired,,y,, I., ,,,, - , ,. 3- 7 ]EE,I,
F
,,,.,,, , . ',,:'-,- ' ,': + , : '
S

E
A
R

S -se
- --- ---

F-- -- - --.-ETH
-

500~2 - 334-4

* 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 2

PILE MOVEMENT -INCHES

Figure B10. f-z Curves, Arkansas River, T,.tr I'll,

E -

R
T
A
m
F
E DPHF
R leeseETHF
5-33
2.c
S 0-040-47

S 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEM~ENT - INCHES

Figure Bil. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 2

B12
*.. i.i

S
E
A
R

T
-J C
R
0
1
A'

R le DEPTH.FT

- o--o 23-33
S 4 0~
33a-
40-47
F 5ee

* 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure B12. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 2 Retest

B13

~B13

,4 . .'_ .. .,, ".**''S

?-**
," , ".
.. ", ',... .*'. •",,.. .. .." " "-• " " .*.
 SS

H ae
E
A
R

S
F
ER' DEPTH,FT

(3 -C11-25

40-4
F see

6 0.2 6.4 6.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEENT- INCHES

Figure B13. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 3

B141
S
H 200e
E
A A
R

A
S
F
E of DEPTHFT
R 1000",

0-- -0207

*---*27-34
S see 34-38
~-q38-42

e 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure B14. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, Test

Pile No. 6

B15
 2500

SS

H
E
A
R 20
T
R
A DEPTH.FT

E J3 20-30
R / 3-40
0
1000e -40-50

P
Soo

0 A-

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 8

PILE MOVUEMENT -INCHES

Figure B15. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, Test Pile

No. 7, 14HP73

BI 6
7l.

.17

H
E

R 2000

T
A 150 DEPTHFT
S
F
R -- 20-30
R ~30-40
- ie00 40-SO
P

see/

Ile

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE flOUEFIE"T -INCHES

Figure B16. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansa' R~iver, Test Pile

No. 9, 14HP73

B17
 9%~~° V. Z .77p

SS .-.:

H B666
E
A-.
R

T
R Isee
A

S
E I DEPTHFT
R /
. I S-2$. .
2-5-33
P i ' - 33-40 ;%
F se J 40-47
F se /i' -" 47-53

ft I I I I I I I I 1 " " .'

6 6.2 6.4 0.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOUEfIENT - INCHES

Figure B17. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Arkansas River, -"

Test Pile No. 10

. ..

•.'ft'

B18

kS
 600

1 4

60

Se
&--&ETPL
I0 13--40ETPL

0"-- TEST PILE 1

e 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

PILE TIP MOVEMENT (INCHES)
Figure B18. P-z Curves, Arkansas River, Pipe Piles

B1 9
 600

T40
P
L
0 30
A
D

o20
'IN 0'

to
S
-.
-DT PILE 6§
IE&TEST ,
.:.A

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -

PILE TIP M1OVEM'ENT (IN4CHES)

Figure B19. P-z Curves, Arkansas River, H Piles

B20
 .*
t~ ,oo

PM.

II
Tl'~~ ... ... t"'

. .
. . . . . . .
.... .. .

. .
.... - .. ... . .. . . + . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .

. . . . . . . .
+ ..

_____
'-

-'- ...z+-- ... .....- Y- - r

. . . . ......7'_i
-1"+ - cc"
..._._._._._.-"_.

--- --v -K :I Vj _. ___... :. . , . .co~

U . -
.11

i .i. " i.."L

- .
,.~~
! ii,.go
.. .
i !
.. . -- -
j
F-': s-'
c
'
-.

. "- .. . _ . _.. . .I ' a

,+, .,*I..- .. . . , +-

*
. . . . .

..
-L " .. .
.
-+
-
....
,.,

-"+-
- _-
I --.. --I-
' " -_- _
-- ., .

5. . i.
-,,

. r r... '- .. . ... -

___ ___ __ _ _ _
o_ _ _ _ _ _ _.'..
I _ _ _ _ _ /_I_ -'
'...

i I. i , 2.!II. " - '

-. 0 0 0 0 0*

B21

,.-,..-.-. .
... . " ",".".'e-
, "... '.. a'.-,r,-',.' .,.--"-."..' .,-. " ,-' ,'.'',.+.-.- . ,'.-'-.- , .,-N '.", ". "."."."".''.).N: -
 - - r'~;* ~ - * - * . d

7.

-S7

.......
....... ....... . . . . .

.... . .~ K:I..........

t 0

........ -4P

6 'o a. 0

-~~
-0,- -. ~-0 ~
.-0 Q

i-Ci
t.

B221-.. j
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.

o. 40. 120. 200. 280. 360.

.2-- -- - -- --
D I

P-
S - - -- - - -

A
C
E .8

T
1.2

* C1 6
H .
E
*S 1.

2.8

Figure B22. Unadjusted Butt and Tip Performance,

Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

B23
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

e. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.

40. 120. 200. 280. 360.
0.L - -- -

D
1.4
S
-~ P
L .6 %i
-. A
C S -

E 8
M'
E 1. %astic Compression
H
T
1.2

1 1.4

C f
H 1.6
-. E
1.8

Figure B23. Butt and Tip Performance After Adjustment

for Cyclic Loading, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo
Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

B24
 LOAD IN4 THE PILE -TONS
0. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.
-c. 40. 120. 2e0. 280. 360.

40.

E
P 60.
T

8e.

4 F 100.

140.

188.1

. Figure B24. Load Distribution in Pile, Ascalmore Creek-

Tippo Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

A.4
B2

4j
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

e.80. 160. 240. 320. 400.

40. 120. 206. 286. 360.

.25 --

A
C
E ~

1 1.75 Bt
N
C
H2
E
S2.25-

2.5

Figure B25. Unadjusted Butt and Tip Performance,

Ascalmore Greek-Tippo Bayou, Test Pile No. 2

B26
 BUTT LOAD -TONS0

0. 80. 160. 240. 320. 400.

e. 40. 120. 200. 280. 360.

*.5

P
L .7 Elastic Compression
A

E1.2S
T

1 1.75
c Butt

2.5 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Figure B26. Butt and Tip Performance Adjusted for Cyclic

Loading, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou, Test%
Pile No.2

B27
 0.*~
80. 16. 240 320 ~- 40 .

* 0.
*20.

40.

DS
LOE-TN

D 40.
T
H

E
E le
T140.

* Figure B27. Load Distribution in Pile, Ascalmore Creek-

Tippo Bayou, Test Pile No. 2

B28

%
-2~
 2500
oS .

-. Q
DEPTHFT
- 93-83
S 3-- c 83-73
H -- o73-63 . -> •
E 2000 *-*63-53

A -053-43
R v-~43-33
T see ~.- - '~
R 1500
N-

G- -

p~
S
3 --- ---- -
RF- 5 0- - 3- - - -

O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMENT INCHES

Figure B28. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

F e - ... -[ .... - B.........--

- - - - - - - - - -

B29

F_ A L. A .' ._ "
 DEPTH, FT
S80-70
S 13--070-60
E 2ee0 S-40
50
A 0- 4 40-30
R 9-- V 30-20

T
Rse
A

//1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEM1ENT -INCHES

Figure B29. Unadjusted f-z Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou, Test Pile No. 2

B i)
 80
'I3

T 60

T
P
-, L
0 40
A0
D

T
F h TEST PILE 1
3
in -0 TEST PILE 2

s.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

PILE TIP MOVEMENT (INCHES)
Figure B30. Unadjusted Tip Load Versus Movement,
Ascairnore Creek-Tippo Bayou, H Piles
 LOAD -TONlS
0. Be. 160. 240. 320. 400.
40. 120. 20.280. 360.

D 40.
E
P 60.
T
HSo

F 100.
E
T 120.

140.
160..

Figure B31. Load Distribution Curves Adjusted for

Residual Loads, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo Bayou,
Test Pile No. 1

B3 2
 LOAD -TONS
0. Be. 160. 240. 320. 480.
40. 120. 200. 280. 368.

-40.

0.

E
P 60.
T

FISOI
E
T 120.

140.

Figure B32. Load Distribution Curves Adjusted for Residual

Loads, Ascalinore Creek-Tippo Bayou, Test Pile
No. 2

U, B337
 S VEPTH,FT
H 6- 983-78
E aess 3-- C378 -5S8
A 3- 38
S8-
R

R ie
* A

F
E
R 1009

S .
F s6e

6 0.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.a 1.4 1.6 1.e a

PILE MOUERENT - INCHES

Figure B33. Adjusted f-z Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou, Test Pile No. 1

B34
 .--

iH

S DEPTH,FT
H 20 96 --75
A3--3" 75 - S
A - 35 -

T
R
A
N 1
S
F
E
R 10,"

.- n
-------
F s ee

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOUrIENT - INCHES

Figure B34. Adjusted f-z Curves, Ascalmore Creek-Tippo

Bayou, Test Pile No. 2

B3 5
 ISO

0 100
D-

05

%II
125 .4 06 0. .
PIETPMVMET(NHS
0 Figue B5 dutdPzCres samr re-i
AaoH ie

B3
 . . . . . .. .

.m.K..~
.__ . .

.... ........... 7

.. . . .. . Lo

.. .IV
.. .... ...
4
..................................................

_ _ 4.

'K............... .. . . Lr2

.~ . .- .-. . . . . . . . . . . . q

co

B37
 . . . .., . .% N . .- . . . . . . . . . . . .k
.J. . j.
..- . t - ° . - o..
. /%
. , .
,.

...... . ...... .............

. .... .. . . . . .. :::

.. .., .... ....+.... .... ... . . . .. .. . . . . . .. "

.. . . . .. . .
iot
.. .....
.. . ..

"lj:: ::;I::: ... ..: :;4'' -

-:

...--

.....
.. . . . . I.. -
. . . .. ...
-.
.......
................... .:.. :. •
... :.. -. l -

, 7,-
4 j:
___T3Z ___ . , . -!i .~: -i : LJ..44J..'

j j
tip

.. -.,i... .4 i i ! i ii i : -.
c. * ' . . . .

*-" ... K .j*-:f.::

I"B38 -
K;~ ~ . ...-... 4.....

P14

-- -- --- -- -- --
m~

. . .~ .. . ... .. . .

* ~~ . .I. .
. . .. :: : a

.. . . . . . . .r.

*1:

................................... .. 1 ....

'4-4

- :2:10 T I+ . -

B390
 q~. . . . .......

. . . . .

...............
.. ..... ... ...
.......... ... . ........ ......... I

.........
............
.... ..............
.... .
.......................... .. ............... K:::'"____"
. ... .. .
S .....
.. ... .. ............
*,1
........ .

oz
. .. .:
. ... j
. . :.. . . . .
.............
.....
..
-.. ..
.. . ....................... ..

. ...
... .........
.. ...

.... ............ ..
.......
..-

!
......... . ' .I . ._
.. .::-

-:- ...
. . .:4
.... .. . . .. .. ... . ....... . . . .- : - : -
g -... - . :. ... p. . . A.T:.....
. ... : . . . . ...
, ''.. .. . ..
. ., ,
.... ..
.'''
.. . .
. .,.a-::,:
. .
. .I
.."-' :
- . - -. . . . - - -. . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DO

4-J~

S''

B4 0 .......................................
 I*O4 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.

p: L
1.2

S %.

T
L .

E 1.4
T

C Tip

E
S Butt
1.8

- . . . . . .
Figure B40.
... . . Tip
Butt . and Performance,
. ... . Red
. . River,
- Test
.. Pile S - - -'.'--
No. PT-A-IC
.. .A! - - - -- *S -

B41
 *.~~~~.,..-:
, .I*-F --- r r r

S .I " -. -

LOAD - TONS'S
0. 4e. 80. 120. 16e. 2e.
20. 60. 10e. 140. ISe.

t.

D2
E
P
T 30.

-40

F -
E SO-l
E~
T

70.

Be.

VIA_
99.

Figure B41. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Pile, Red

River, Test Pile No. PT-A-IC

% *** **-* ... ~.. .... ..-. . . . . . .

B42

... ...
..
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.

20. 0. ie801.0

D %~ Elastic

S .
P Compression
L .6 5
A
C
E .8

E1
N1
T Tip
1.2

1 1.4
M
C Butt
H
E

2.8

Figure B42. Butt and Tip Performance, Red RiLver, Test

Pile No. PT-A-iC Retest

B 3
 D-AI39 236 LOAD-TRANSFER CRITERIA FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF 4/3 '
I RXIRLLY LORDED PILES IN..(U) ARMY ENGINEER MATERNAYS
I EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS R L MOSHER JAN 94
p UNCLSSIFIED RES-TRKB4-i F/G 0/03 UL
 L6i
E11 2 .0'
I
I11111

o-. .
.2.~KXC.T'. K-V.ov.
--
%. ~.*.~-*: ~ ~.
S. .. ,.*% .- *~-

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART%

SlAMOADS193-A
NATIONALMACtAUO

m...p o
,S......

LOAD - TOS

. .. . G °o .
9 10 0 . 1 4 0 .. 1 0 . . . .. .. . I .. i

.54 .

e. 46. 8e. 120. 166. 266. .-.

__

A5

lee..--.

E'SO
- 24.6.. 1'. 1'

T So.

1e.

Figure B43. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Pile, Red

River,-40.-
Test Pile No. PT-A-IC Retest

76 B44 -

a'. B44
":
 Z-

BUTT LOAD - TONS

48. Be. 120. 160. 200.
* 20. 60. 100. 140. 180.
9. -----

.2S

D Elastic Compression
S
D
A
C

L t.75

T
a. N
E 1.-.-

S 2.5Butt -. ,
1.5

Figure B44. Butt and Tip Performance, Red River, Test

Pile No. PT-A-2C ./.

2.5 ' -.-

.-. ,¢.., ,Figu'.-'r
.',.".'c ,.-.-.-.' an-ip
.'- .-'.'. -.
Prfrane'But Red River,,
' .L.''Tes'\'t,'-,,€''''''''''';-' '''- -

B45.,
 4.,/

LOAD TONS
0. 40. Be. 129. 166. 2°0.
10. Se]

D
% E 26.

a.
T 36.
H

E
T So.

70.

I Figure B45. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Pile, Red

River, Test Pile No. PT-A-2C

4....

90.

B46
 * .-. - v.-
-- .,..-- *

BUTT LOAD -TONS

e. 46. 8e. le. 160. 200.
20. 60. le. 148. 18.

D
I . ' I-
$.4 Elastic Compression
P
L .6•.
A
C '"'
E ..

N 1.
T
1.8 -".
Tip
I 1.4
N .'- .,

C 4
H 1.6 Butt

1.8

Figure B46. Butt and Tip Performance, Red River, Test Pile
No. PT-A-3C

B47 .°.

B4 7'"""
h D
LOAD TONS
0. 40. 80. 120. 168. 290.
200S. l00. 140. 1B0.

E 20
40.
TS3.

E So.
E
T30 .°

A- -°

60.

70.
• 'V." .j

Be.

Figure B47. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Pile, Red

River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C

B4 8

A..°
 9-, .-

• 4.
'IL

i 4,

BUTT LOAD - TONS

0. 40. Be. 120. 160. 200.
*. 20. 60. lee. 140. 180.
---------------------------------------------------------------...............................
.2

D .-- Elastic-
.4 -

p ', 4,, Compression

s o

L6 "

4 C
E'
E 1. 4%"

T T Tip
1.e --..

I 1.4
9 N
C Butt
1.6

2.8

Figure B48. Butt and Tip Performance, Red River, Test "
Pile No. PT-A-3C Retest

B49

. . ~ * -~-. . %~ 4*** ** . * -. . .* . ....-"

**~. %.* . . . -
%*.~ . .P- ~ .R - . ** . - -*.
. . . . . *-. . . .- o
 LOAD -TONS

20. 60. ISO. 140. 180.

0. ,1

19.

DOD"
E
T 30.
'9 H

-40.

E
T60
,
.1 10 ' 9

D '.

9,.
b1w

Figure B49. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Ple, Red River,

Test Pile No. PT-A-3C Retest

E 5SO

...................... 9*S. .
a .S'996p0.J ~ '4 S

a77

- 4B50 S
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

6. 40. Be. 126. 16e. 200.

*. 20. 66. too. 140. 180.

.2 -

D Elastic Compression

N I' S

L .6
A
C

N
T

1 1.4 i
N
C .

H 1.6
.5 E
*S Butt

rA.m".

Figure B50. Butt and Tip Performance, Red River, Test

Pile No. PT-S-iC

B51
4is.

LOAD -ON

T 0. .

H
-40..

F
E SO--
E

60.

so.

go.,

* Figure B51. Unadjusted Load Distribution on Pile,

Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-iC

B52
 BUTT LOAD -TONS

*. So. lee. 150. 200. 250.

0. 25. 75. is 5. 17 1 . 22.5.

D Elastic Compression
.5
P
L .75
A
C

T I

1 1.75 Tip

C
H 2. Bt
E
2.2
2.5

* Figure B52. Butt and Tip Performance, Red River, Test

* Pile No. PT-S-IC Retest

B53
 4' LOAD -TONS

e. So. 100. 150. 2se

0s.
25. 75. 125. 175. 225.

.4.

E 0.

IS.L

E SO-*

70.4

4'B54
* S
E se
A
R
T
R
A
N
F
E
R loee DEPTH, FT

ZzA-(3--(3 50.2-34.0
P
S
F 5ee

0 6.2 0.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.2 2

PILE MOVJEMENT - INCHES

Figure B54. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC

B55
_________ r__ --______________
'- , ,=.- /x-rr.
. ..-..-.-.- *o".-,, ..-.-.-- "-o - " . ' .. '' * ° " ---
'' ' ''' ' -- a -'' "'--

]
.
..-

I 1@

E as
A
R

R
A1
r'..,
S
F
SJ*
R 1000DEPTH. FT
HE PLE NUEMET-- e a8.-S6. 2
NC-E
13--C 34. - 2 "..

-" R 15PT-.-l,..Retest

Fiur B55. Fil f uvs e ieT s.Pile N.2

.~ ~ ~
-Re....te-st.a ~ ~ TA1 ..

PIL B56 - Ir T-E-

.: o-.o 3. e-a., .B56

T I
 B5S

H Be
-l 2SE
A
R
DEPTH, FT
TT h-a67.1-94.1
R 1599 1--(3 64.1-32.9
A 0--032.9-10.1
N
S
F
E
R leee

P
F see

* 6.29 6.4 *.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure B56. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-2C

eN.
 S
E 20
4 A
R

T DEPTH, FT
R 15067.1-54.1
A ises
~-~32.9-10.1 54.1-32.9
::
S
F
E
R loe

'I0 0.2 0.4 6.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE I OUEM'ENT -INCHES

Figure B57. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-3C

B5
 W-W W' "-. K- "l °*-K

[-.9.
...

S
H
E
A
R

R -59(-( 413 .
A 06 V ,29-.

F
* E
R ie
C3t

S
F see

T I I I I T I I I
S 6.2 0.4 6.6 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 a
PILE MOVEMIENT - INICHES

Figure B58. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile

No. PT-A-3C Retest
R """" .. 0 o- 32.-1..

H 0"" ....

B599
 o..a...

S
E -. A
A
N DEPTNFT

1A 6o.. 39.7-12.6
N
S 1se4.4es~
F
E
F eee

6 @.a 6.4 *.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

- INCHES

Figure B59. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-lC .9-

*."

4 \%~ *
P*4 .~..**.. ~x~'. ~ . '.*-.;.'.

RIB60
 _ s ... .

TqT

FF
Sj
A
IP
39-7-12.6_
.
•3-' -

E r.-0--

R lse-- . -9.-'-.,

1500o ......
,,
S
F se
--- ------- ----------------
.......
.......................

* 0

o6.2 .4 9.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a -6

PILE 4OUENET - INCHES • .,"
Figure B60. Field f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-IC Retest ,.'.
64**

.B6

7-
1< •B6
:1

•-I.
 r. -~...
,

T3.
p2
E~ 20..
LOAD -"TON

-40.

q w2..,

F
E SO-
£
T 60.

70.% J-

Figure B61. Adjusted Load Distribution in Pile, Red River,

Test Pile No. PT-A-3C
.l.-
C

ge,.,-.5-

B6.2-

* *.***o*
.~

- ~ ~.....
~ *aw~ ~
>2&I.§.Le~g '., *°
 40. Be . lee. 16.20

20 o.le.19.le

.4.

JE

E So

9E
9T

I 4R

B6
 LOAD -TOMS
0. 40. so. 120. 160. 2e0.
20B. 60. lee. 140. 189.

0
B.

H
-40. ..

F
*E 50.
E
6o.

70.

30.

Figure B63. Adjusted Load Distribution in Pile, Red

River, Test Pile No. PT-A-2C

B64
 as.~
75 12.1S.25

'is.

E 20

T 30

-0.

60..
*
4'.

9D

FiueB4pdutdLa itrbto nPlRdRvr

36. Tes o P-S

B6
 LOAD -TONS
S.o5. ISO. ISO. 2M. 250.
2s. 75. 125. 175. 225.

i.

10.

T 30.
H

-49

E
4 TGO
S,.

80.

Figure B65. Adjusted Load Distribution in Pile, Red River,

Test Pile No. PT-S-IC Retest

B66
 LOAD -TONS

0.40. Be. 120. 168. 268.

20. Be. lee. 148. 18O.

i.

* D
E 28.
p
T 38.
H
* -48.
F

T60

70.

. --
901

Figure B66. Adjusted Load Distribution in Pile, Red River,

Test Pile No. PT-A-3C

B67 ~-

.7-
 LOAD -TONS
0.40. B6. 126. 166. 266.
20. 6o. lee. 146. ISO.

D 2
EBe
p
T 36.
H
- 46.
F
E SO-.
E
T
76.

Figure B67. Adjusted Load Distribution in Pile, Red River,

Test Pile No. PT-A-ic

B68
 "0]

ass$

H eo@ DEPTH.FT
A S.-50.2
AR G--O 50.2-34.0 ,

T
R
A
s i
F

R loe.

P -----------------

-/ S
F see

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 8

PILE MOVEMlENT - INCHFC

Figure B68. Adjusted f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile

No. PT-A-IC

B69
 .. . -r

A'A
-N. -.

'A.',.H

R
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R leee DEPTH.FT
fra 8.2-50.2
5-O
0.2-34.0
-0 34.0-22.1
S
F see

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 2

* -PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

0_ i
Figure B69. Adjusted f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile

I
No. PT-A-1C Retest III".N
e . . e6 08 1 1. .-. 6 18"
PIEiA"I'ET-ICHS."-'
4'"FgrB6.Ajse f-CuvsRe RveTsPie",
- . . ..

S.y-

"4°
4,' .. 9' ~' . . -'. V V A ,.~
S
N
E 2000
n.. %- -
A
R F 506,------.
T DEPTHDFT
67.1-54.1
A ol--4
A -- 32.9-10. 1
S
F
E
R lee@

P
S

0.

PILE HOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure B70. Adjusted f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-D2C

B71
S
H
E
A
R
DEPTHFT
T- T 67.1-54.1
R
A 158 -- O S4.1-32.9
N G- 291.
S
F
E
R lees

F 566

6 0.2 0.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.- 2

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure B71. Adjusted f-a Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-3C.t-

B72
 asee

S
Ea...
A
DEPTHFT
ft h-~67.1-S4.1

A e (3.. 5)4.1-32.9
3.9-10.1 ,
S
S *- -*-.---- ** --.
F
E
ft lees

PILE - INCHES PO-EMENT

Figure B72. Adjusted f-Z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-3C Retest

"- .4

B73

.* e. ... . .- . ..
 I?.%

) 'O

as**

S
.1~ H

1 DEPTH.FT
S 500
0 84.2-69.0
3-69.0-39.7
€--o{ 0-39.7-12.6
S
F
E
R lees

P
S
F so$
a..o

*9 4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE MOUEENT - INCHES

Figure B73. Adjusted f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-iC

-..
, :-/,'7;,.<- '.< - ,,%% .% N?" -
..
..
.
-'-"-',7, . -
.°o...-..
.--...1
i ,'_:,,..o,,r '-:7 , -; - :' ;": *

7. .-
 .4'-
H ... "O%
AA

2500 . ..,

R~~~. 159 70 9.-,.

E
H 2006O'"
E

'4 S
N ... * 3-.7-12.
R
E lse

E
R
A leee

4 P
4 S
*F 560 PIL MOVMEN - INHE

'
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 *.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 "- .
,' ~PILE NOUEIENT - TNCHES"'."
Figure B74. Adjusted f-z Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-S-IC Retest "":

.V-

'.."-.4
•. ".'.

B75 ""
.4._2
-ir7- 7

APPENDIX C

COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE CRITERIA TO FIELD

PILE TEST DATA

Cl
 * -. .*. -~ * . ~ ~ r;.-. .-*,

; . - U N' C

I-- - '-

:to
• . - . I-
I - -0-'

• ,.. a,
-t 4- IIi

"... . . . . . -*..
ro .111 a. I , I L . .,,
C I '.
a•
,
I , 'or
= 4: .

,A II
.- I - :

--- a
•,. \ ' i*I I

"..--
- -. -- - - - .- -- -
- -- .- .- . .. . -.- - -. - - , , - - , . .,,S,,--yeN,

'. - 2 .-'1C2
 -a - - *. ~ . .a **~*~* V* i ; ;.o

-aX

...aw.-ft W

I _ _ _ j
OWL
* - C-4

u P4

* a . f cf-l . . .-.

Ad I
 - S * . ''o' . .

-. -,

''S . W-

I
- C I -,%

.....
_.....

4JJ

I i:

0 Q)

.)

a --- . -'4

u u 0 C4

fl.l .,~hS , ," - S. .. a .. . L&AS., ' -"

, -J, -s . o ,- -

I,4-

.::c...- .
441
- I N "),

I , _. ::: ,

%rm o.4
0 -- - ..-.
C44.

I.. .I

-SIb S LUt , La.l- %a'

" " " ". ''.

" "" . " " '""""" "' "" ," "" " " " " " * "
-" " S-""" " ","" "" 0" ' '- -"- . -" "S""."
%
S.,. + . .- ' - ,' . ' . "- " ' . - ."o " " , " " " " • = + ' " " " " , -- "
 • .o

- .. .. -. ; o

-,- - c,/ ; '

C I .0C 0 iii- - -- .

41,
6,- -
". .... ....
I - I

aN U I

,. I, I I' -" "

ii , . . - *

I4I4

9. 11 -,1 0 .. . --. ":

-C-)
4 - - - 0::.--.

0= 4 m ~tI* . 14 -,,0h~ ,*A...-. .

-4 -

-I'
.".
' ..
. %"%
, .-
"
+.',.
:
.,",-% * . ' "
" '
10- .
"
11 .,
.
-
. . ".a
."H "
" , + '- ' ' ,' Y Y
~ L I' '
, : -. ',
' " ",,
' '
.
'
.
' -'
N
" I.'
•
."
."
- . . . " . . -. . .

C5 """-e
"-'
 , - - A. -- _ . . . . . . . . ° . o .. ° " o .. * . -. . . .- .. -. . S - • - - .

- I -.

- AS*.,i

- S

I'0 ,I.I

(a.I, • ' ? ol)

L.,0
,I -" ,- I - €

- ' ii, "-"

m-," - - I Co-)

E - I I " (..)
a I " -J
* , ... .. ...-. .,
1 .,I , . -:
, - .I.: -I _ I." , * ' ..

I I fU . .-i

"S ".. . .-- "-.-

-.
... -) C
l ..
'.. " .

, ,. ...

". " 'A>

-'.I c--i,'

' -.. .. . ... . , .. . . . . .... a H

5 C " II l i ? "
 a -a

-4~4 U 44I-

I. I -.

aoil

-4 4. IC7
4 sa9j

- 6
- - 0)
S -
- 0.'
La. I. a,.,,,. -

I I

.1 I -
a N.
I I a~

a
~
I
I
I -
'0
-
=
-
I -..
cJ~
0
-
I 0.0~ .-
- I -~ La - r
0. . -~
U II
*
I - S
L. I I -~
I 0
0J
LU
E I . - a

0 'I I 0
U I I
0 - I' I a
0)
0 .
I
LI I
* .

*1 *
I I
o I -
U I I ... -~

II '.\
*1 **.,N * 0)
~L.
S. * ~ 0
-~
*
*
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0)
Oh - - 0 a a a
(A)

- 0~0*N 000a~a0 H sow. a.-Ora.a0 tOLL.. fl

A, LU CO

- - 0)
- - aMer-I, .

~ 0~" -~ *~flhL*L=0

- II - Cl
a 0-Sn. N
0
0
Al I I
0I
0. LU
a U I a
U, I =
0. I 0L..~ 0
C, I . =

I- 0
- LI --
CL =
C, r40
a >. I
0 0 -~
~0 00 I - C CO
.5 *
0.1
a
CL
~,
II ~..
*

II a ~ ~

R 0.. 0 *0

4 .~ N K
'.4

K
.> I
6
o a 0 0 a *
o Oh 0 0 0 0 0 0

a ±500 0 C O , tOLL. OLi~e L-&0ZLO~L..0 ,

LU'0

(S
 . .- q

... a.,

I ) 0°.

II - • -
, °-.-0

o -- I I I

0 .,
* 0-.-)p

0 --- -- o- ,

-" . ... .4-..

. I. • . .. ,

a .,- A "
,o o

[Ii
" ." .' ° " ° . " " " .°-. . . ." o" .° " - ° , . .° 0 ° o - . " - ,~ . a ° " . - , - , - • -
J,, - . ' L .. - '' ' y ,,1~'' T 7 ! . 7

,.., __ __ _ __ __ __ .5"1-55
* ... * ...-

7.....
I: .. .. .. .. .

.. I: Wi ",I"
I', *0 5- ' " ""
"""I, .. - 5. . S o-. >1 """
'' .

s - .I -'0

~ o .S 5- 0
ft z. Z.4ftlaaX.
"" I, - " "i. "0,,...

.... ,,5 ' -

u: 0

....... .~C . . = o0
S* ... .. -, /5"

' : 0 m
i---
. . . "" . . a .
"" . . . . .'
- - zoaf
. . a -.
'
..-,x.-,
""

,. S•.
O.st II.s -C.aW

I n~s~a.- -i..

- * i...

",IO

I - -.

-- ii "i i. 5 m " , . 5-4

| , ' , , - '
 I -4

N 0 "-..'-N.'-

i a.,- a .- i,-)

* . . .

I ,LHO+,, + (I-.

- , I," •>.- -

• + +. .-
CI K'a

ll * I -L ii

'-. i .. - u= , +

- ! - )- . . = -,..

a 4.1

I . e -

* .. . .

o I:'.-+ ..-+".

,.,N *. ---..,.0- ,,. .

NS -- "--a.N ..-
-f.aMaI "XSS

" .. .~. .

S..,.. C.,,0
a ~NNS." z •-

N.:'.?
C 11 ,' .0,

* *1-
 ass@j~ i~
sI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

H
E 2060
A
R
T DEPTH,FT
R 150 5.2-34.0

F
E
R Me

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

DEPTH. FT
.J. h'-~58.2-56.2
G- -C SO0.2-34. #

0 6.2 6.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE PIOVEJIENT -INCHES

Figure C11. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-ic,
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C12
a'E

SA
R_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A 19

R ls

F seeDEPTH.FT
1. G-- 0.8-34.6

R . . . . . . 1-5.2-51.8

CC 3
'SS

.5E

AL

p.R

T aDP,,F
RS 595023.

R 19

---------------------------

F 13

F see DPeF

0 0.2 40.4 *.6 0.8 1 .1-.e 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

* PILE M OVEMENT - INCHES
Figure C13. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC,
Coyle Criteria

* C14
A
R

R 156.Se.
A
S
F

R je

s DEPTH.F T
F see 58.2-56.2
G-~50.0-34.0

a 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMIENT - INCHES

Figure C14. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC
Retest, Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C15
AA

if-,Se 2- 6 a .'_

R0

S
F

R ls
Fgr Csi,
C v Ri .
F,,.._rt r
C16 DEPTHFT"--
T DEPTH.F
T __.~--
5.234.* - .
S.2-34.0
50-r

A-A

S.. ,i . .. ... i

.d.+
_.,--\ .

.. %'.

Es Bee

.E
RpR
A iOOOeei
T- . DEPTH,FT
a-34.o .0-".
R .1 - -.- . ,5o e-6
A

S
F

1 . .... s DEPTH
-s .a
F

13 --- 50.--34.0

R . 0 0 0 1 a . . . Se. 2 2. e.-"

PILE flOUEFIFHT - INCHES .

Figure C 16 Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-IC
Retest, Coyle Criteria A

~"

C17.
.4- %
.4. % '°

4.aL"

*- -1,

...............................................
 2'.e

S. S

E
A
R DEPTHFT
T -- 54.1-32.9
$t 6
e -- 67.1-S4.1 *
A
N
S
F

R --------------------------------

F se56....0DPHF

PILE M~OVEMENT -INCHES

Figure C17. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted

*Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.
PT-A-2C, Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C18
 A-

T -- S.1- 2.

S
F
E
R ls

'4- DEPTHFT
F e ... 67.1-4.1
S4.132.

PI- MOEMN - INHE

FiurC8.Cmpriono fz rieiatoUndusedFil
Cuvs Re ivreeseieeo T--C

-Cyl Criteria-

-~ F19
 E 2000
A
R

T -- -- -- - EPTHFT
4. ise .-
/--- -- -- -- -- ---
S4.1-32.9
A SO -67.1-S4.1
N/
F
E
R too@
-I ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P ,
S
se ..... DEPTH.FT
...---
..... ~ 67.1-54.1
-0 32.9-19. 1

0 6.2 0.4 0.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVFrIENT - INCHES
Figure 019. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted -

Field Curves, Red River, Test Pile No.

PT-A-2C, Vijayvergiya Criteria

C20
S
H
E 200
A
R .

7 DEPTH.FT
T --- 54. 1-32.
R -59-67.1-54.1
A
S
F
E

S DEPTN.FT
F e 3----- . .. . . -~--~ 67.1-S4.1
C0--C 5 4 .1-32.9

-0 3 . -1

8 8.2 0.4 6.6 8.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MIOVEMlENT -INCHES

Figure C20. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C,
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C21-
•~-
". - N '. .. ...
~ -
~ .*°-
~ 7.-
--.-
~*.** -
..
- j.

-. ~-.*-

.0:

2509

S
E 2000
A
R
DEPTH.FT ..:.
T -- 5-
4.t-32.g
A
R se
150089~i / -- 67.1-54.1L
/

F /
R 1000 /- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F s00 'DEPTHFT
- -
f3 -- - -- -------- ---- . - 67.1-54.1
0--C 54.1-32.9

e " I I I I I I,. ..
',
0 6.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a
PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES ._--

Figure C21. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C,
Vijayvergiya Crfteria

'.
;.-.

C22

c
-. ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
. . . . ~ . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .
 2500

S%
H 20
E
A
R
/---------------------- DEPTH,FT
R 1500
N/
S/
FI

43 13---- ...---
--........ 67.1-54. 1
[3--C 54. 1-32.9
G-O32.9-10.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PILE MOVEMIENT -INCHES '
Figure C221. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C,
Coyle Criteria

C23
 SS

H 2eee

E
A
R
...- *--DEPTH,FT
-- 54.1-32.9
A - -- - 67.1-54.1
N
S
F )

F see DPHF

G-C54. 1-32. 9
o.-o32.9-10.1

6 0.2 0.4 6.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2

PILE MOUEMENT -INCHES

Figure C23. Comparison of f - z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C Retest,.
* ~. Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C24

1A
 _1 . . . . . ,°-#

2S8

S
H
E 20
A
R r
-
N
A ae----67--54.1 / --- " - 54.1-32.9
r'x~' i'

sse
R -------------- -67.1-54.1"
S

0 II I: :
4'G- 54.1-32.9
32.9-10.1

a 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2

PILE MVEMTENT -INCHES

Figure C24. Comparison of f-Z Criteria to Unadjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C
Retest, Vijayvergiya Criteria

) i 1 I t I I I '.' .':

• ,-.%
C2 .'
 A b -

1506.1S.

S
HF s.
E
R 10
-R- - ------ ----- -----

F DCPTH.FT
h 67.1-54.1
0.c54.1I-32.9

* 0.2 6.4 6.6 6.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MIOVEMENT - INCHES
Figure C25. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C
Retest, Coyle Criteria

C26
 2S9

S
E 2eee r----
RA

T DEPTH,FT
A see 8-94.2-69.0
--- 69.0-39.7
A
S
F
E

1 ... ... ... ... []., ".

P - ..-..
. -_
. .. .- . -. -. -, - - -

S
F see .0" DEPTHFT

-24.B-69.0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 9.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE M'OVEM'ENT -INCHES
Figure C26. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-1C,
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

.- .$.

C..7:..
 as., .0

S~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ -q -o --

. .I

A-° ," -.

A I

T ~DEPTH,
~ ~~ ~
-~~~~~ -------- - 1T
84.2-69.0
R 1599- ............ 69.0-39.?
A
S
F
E

F see ' a" DEPTH,FT

A 84.2-69.0
G--- 69.-39.7

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-lC,

Vijayvergiya Criteria

* . . . . . . e .- . . . . . . . ,,.......

C 28

L . -- . .. *-* .
 asee

S - - - - - - ----
- - - - - - - -
H
E 20
A
R
7 DEPTH.FT
R - 84.2-69.0
R 58e - 69.0-39.7
A
S
F
R logo
-------------------

F e DEPTH,FT
& 84.2-69.0
6
*[3- -0 9.0-39.7
- -~39.7-12.6

a *.a 0.4 0.6 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

FILE MOVEM'ENT - INCHES
Figure C28. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Unadjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-lC,
Coyle Criteria

C29
S
E
A
R
T DEPTH.FT
T 84.2-69.0
R 1590- 69.6-39.7
A
S
F

............ 3...

P~~PL - - - - - - - - -INC ES
--
FiueC9 oprsno - Ciei oUajse il

-- - - -- - - - - - -
C 30. -1 j
 S ** - -0

DEPTI4,FT
T
--- 84.69.0
AR 50

1599 069.0-39.7

S
F . . . . . . . ~

.............................. ......
 842-9.

R0

A 158 69.-39.

S.S

F0

R D EPTH.F T
R 84.2-6g .0
A- -- - - - - - - - - -- - 9 3 .
0--03971.

S . . . . . . . .
PIL MOEET-ICE
FiueC1 CmaioEffzCiei oUajse il
Ruvs Re iereetPieN.eTSl

Reet ColSriei

C32.-6~
, .,, ., ,; ., ,. , , .. , . ,. .. - ,. . - -..
, -. . - . - . .. - o -- . - ._. -.. . . . - . . . - . - . - .

p,...-J

. -p

e:eSe
S
H
A
R
DEPTH,FT
T --- 50.2-34.-
159 -58. 2-Se. a
A
S
F
E
R ie
R ! OeO__.-_

SI.
F see DEPTHNFT
- 58.2-60.2
13--0 S.2-34.0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure C32. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field . -

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC,

Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

.......................................-. "-

C33
 S

A
R

R T DEPTHFT
59.2-34.0
A 1509 58.8-50.2
N
S
F
% I..e
S .

F DEPTH.FT -. ,
G-fl5.2-34.0

S7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES
Figure C33. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,
Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC, Vijayvergiya
Criteria

C 34

.7'-.N -
S
H
E as
A
R
TT DEPTH, FT
S0.2-34.0
R 15095.-5
A
S -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F/
E
R Me

P --- -- -- -- --
FS e DEPTH. FT
~ .p G--0 90.2-34.0

0 0.2 6.4 6.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE ROUEMENT - INCHES
Figure C34. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,
Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC, Coyle Criteria

C35
 asee0

S
E 2eee
A
T DEPTH,1T
T --- 50.2-34.0
R ISee ---58.2-50.2

S
F
E
R 1eee

- ----- ----------------

S
F see
DEPTH, FT
S.2-34.0
50

6 0.2 6.4 6.6 9.1 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MIOVEMENT - INCHES
Figure c35. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC
Retest, Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

IA

C361
S
E 2000
A
R
DEPTH*FT
R -- 5.8-34.0
A 1500 S8.2-50.2
A
S
F
E
R

P- - ----
- - - - - -
FS e

DEPTH.FT
13-
- 50.2-34.0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 6.8 1 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE M OVEMENT - INCHES

Figure C36. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-lC
Retest, Vijayvergiya Criteria

C:37
 s2

-. H
2 ~E 2
A
R
T DEPTHDFT
R S0.2-34.0

F -I
E
R 1eee

S i
F see '
I'! DEPTH, FT
SS8.2-st.a
(3-(3 50.2-34.0

* 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE MiOUMEN4T - INCHES
Figure C37. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,
Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-iC Retest, Coyle
Criteria

G38
 .01

S
E as
A
R
T DEPTHFT
R 1568 54.1-32.9
A e -- 67.1-54.1
N
S
F
E

P ---------------------------------------
F se
DEPTH,FT

o--c 32. 9-10. 1

. . . 0 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure C38. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-2C,
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C 39
 SS

T - - - -- -- - - - -- - DEPTH,FT
R 4.1-32.9
5--
4 is-- 67.1-S4.1

F
E

--------------------------------

P '
S
F 5** ~DEPTH.FT

S 0.2 6.4 6.6 0.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE M~OVEMNT -INCHES

Figure C39. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,

Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-2C, Vijayvergiya
Criteria

C40
-S. j
E
A
R
T -----------------
- ------- -- -------- DEPTH,FT
R - 54.1-32.9
A
R -- 67.1-S4.1
N/
* S/
F
E
R
lose--- ------------------------
'5 ------------

.......... DEPTH,FT
...... (--aS4.1-32. 9

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 a

PILE MOVEMqENT - INCHES

Figuer C40. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-2C,
Coyle Criteria

C4 1

let.
 * - - . . .. 7 7Y. * ~ I.~j-

S0

T4.
S . -3 .

R 50
A0 7. -S .

R lse

-----
S

T o DEPTH.FT
R 54.1-32.9
10
A . . . . . 1.4 6. 1 .1

4'C42
 2500

A
R
T -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DEPTH.FT
R -- S4.1-32.9
A / -- 67.1-S4.1
S
N F/
E
R ie
I -----------------------------

S P--- - -----
566e DEPTH. FT

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMIENT - INCHES

Figure C42. Comparison of f-Z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,
Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C, Vijayvergiya
Criteria

ip.4

C4 3
 - -- - -- - - *- * . - -*, -~** - - - .. * . W ,...
*~~ - -

R Iss 67.-S4.

S
F

-- DEPTH,FT
T 54.1-329

0 S. 0./. . . . . .

.4 I

5)*..

CE44 F

Ilk;7.-5.
S
E
A
Rt

T DEPTHDFT
NA -- 54.1-32.9
A 59 -67.1-54.1

S 6.2 6.
6.4---- . 0 . . . .
seeMEN PIL - ICHES
Figure~~~~~~~~~~~~7- rtra
C44. oAjse
Coprsno il uvs

FigurC44Suomaian Criteriaiat Ajutd ildCrvs

Re ieTs Pl o TA3CRtsCye

C4 5
 U.

E aBee@

T - DEPTN.FT
1566 54.1-32.9

ee

*-3. 432.9.

0 0.2 6.4 6.6 6.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 a

PILE MOVJEMENT - INCHES

Figure Cp45. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field Curves,

Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C Retest, Vijayver-
giya Criteria

V. C46 .
 250l0

sees -..

SS

E0

A
R
T -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- VEPTH.FT
R - 54.1-32.9
A / -- 67.1-54.1

-.

E .- -
,..
'r / oS.-3. 9
---

F see "DEP
67.1-S4.1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3

PILE MOVEhENT - INCHES
o,-- 32.9- 0.1"'; -'
..
Figure C46. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-A-3C
Retest, Coyle Criteria.. .

C47'.

I**--"-

. . . . . . ,, ,, ,...-:"
C4L7'~,E'l1l lCE

Figre .46 Copaiso

off-zCrtera t Adustd iel ".-'.-'
- -'- ~ ~ 1. 1.7 - - - -

S
E 200
A
R
T DEPTH,FT
R --- 4.2-69.0
A 150 - 69.0-39.7

S
F
E
R logo

FS e DEPTH,FT-
84-06.2-69.0
0-- - 39.7-12.6

* 6.8 0.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.Z 1.4 1.6 1.8 a

PILE MOVEMENT -INCHES

Figure C47- Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-lC,
Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria

C 9
 2500

E
R
*R DEPTH,FT
r --- 4.2-6g.0
R ISO$ -- 69.0-3g.7

E ee

S DEPTHFT
see- 94.2-6g.0
- ---- --
-- -- G 0 69.0-39. 7
0-,39. 7-12.6

* S.2 0.4 6.6 *.8 1 i.2 1.4 1.6 1.98

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure C4& Comparison of f -z Criteria to Adjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-lC,
Vijayvergiya Criteria

C49
 S- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
- - - - - -

H
E as
A
R
T DEPTHFT
R i--- 84.2-69.0

S
F
E
R 1e00
- - -

FI DEPTH,FT
II _ hb 84.2-69.0
13-069.0-39.7
O-439.7-12.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE IIOUEflENT -INCHES

Figure C49-. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-iC,
Coyle Criteria

C 50

<CCC
 SS

H
E
A
R
T DEPTH,FT
R -- 84.2-69.0
A 8 -- 69.0-39.7

S
F
E
R ie
P -I

S i
F see DEPTH, FT
-- - - -- --- --- -- --- -- 84.2-69.0

e T I r
e 0.2 0.4 6.6 6.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PILE MOVEF E"T -INCHES

Figure C50. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field S

Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-lC

Retest, Coyle-Sulaiman Criteria
 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .

H
E 20
A
R
T DEPTHFT
-- 84.2-69.0
A 1500 , - 69.9-39.7
-. N
S
F
E
R loee
-- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- ---

S DEPTN.FT

F 6.2 6. 0. 8 1 1. 1. . .. . 2
--PIL
--- -- -- -- - - ---- 3- )6ES -39
Coprio of C9.
Figure~~~~~~~~ f-z Crtrat djse il

Fiur C5 etemast oifyvegiy CtriateriAdjse il

C52

Ap
S - - - - . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R "0

R see69031
A1

S
F
E 20
R te

F seeDEPTH. FT
-- - -
- -- 84.2-69. 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE MOVEMENT - INCHES

Figure C52. Comparison of f-z Criteria to Adjusted Field
Curves, Red River, Test Pile No. PT-S-IC
Retest, Coyle Criteria

C53
 APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF HYPERBOLIC CURVE

FITTING OF FIELD f-z CURVES

N.M..

LI'

-~ DI
 * . . . r~ c .. . . .- .

Table Dl

- Maximum
Test Depth Inijial Modulus Side Resistance
Test Site Pile ft f, psf/in. fmax, psf

Computed
No. 1 Field AD UAD
Arkansas River (12" pipe) 0-15 23100 2145 750 800
L&D No. 4 15-25 53967 1604 950 1200
25-33 40587 1418 1200 1540
33-40 41254 1301 1240 1590
40-47 60020 1387 1160 1400
47-53 16325 1284 1160 1400

No. 2
(16" pipe) 0-15 63492 1896 730 780
15-25 15115 1438 930 1180
25-33 7112 2717* 1160 1510
33-40 8532 2658* 1220 1570
40-47 10860 1830 1150 1400
47-53 12009 i961 1150 1400

No. 2
(Retest) 0-15 16410 1255 730 780
15-25 8217 2154* 930 1180
25-33 9217 2374* 1160 1510
33-40 10044 2985* 1220 1570
40-47 13144 1599 1150 1400
47-53 20284 1507 1150 1400

No. 3
(20" pipe) 0-15 - 1441 700 750
15-25 19200 1441 910 1150
25-33 15000 1337 1100 1500
33-40 18445 1603 1170 1500
40-47 13478 1071 1050 1290
47-53 7278 1039 1050 1290

No. 6
(14HP73) 0-10 - - 730 780
10-20 5482 1703 930 1180
20-27 13477 1712 1160 1510
27-34 15926 1307 1220 1570
34-38 6993 1340 1150 1400
38-42 16920 1305 1150 1400 p

(Continued)

D2
 Table Dl (Continued)

Maximum
Test Depth Initial Modulus Side Resistance
Test Site Pile ft f, psf/in. fmax, psf

Computed
Field AD UAD

No. 7
(14RP73)% 0-10 -- 730 780
10-20 7179 2313 930 1160
20-30 8286 1730 1160 1510
30-40 16286 1252 1150 1400
40-50 49261 726 1150 1400

Arkansas River No. 9

L&D No. 4 (14HP73) 0-10 -- 730 780
10-20 8450 1801 930 1180
20-30 15756 1513 1160 1510
30-40 16462 1356 1150 1400
40-50 14701 1381 1150 1400

No. 10
(16" pipe) 0-15 - - 730 780
15-25 11139 1956 930 1180
25-33 12175 1453 1160 1510
33-40 13150 1561 1220 1570
40-47 12159 1869 1150 1400
47-53 10999 1714 1150 1400

Ascalmore PT-l 43-53 111086 1211 1200 .

Creek-Tippo (14HP89) 53-63 4086 645 1300
Bayou Control 63-73 8019 1253 1350
Structure 73-83 5698 1809 -1350
(unadjusted) 83-93 7818 1643 1300
93-100 8179 2016 1350

PT-2 30-40 9225 1315 1000

(14ItP89) 40-50 8123 571 1100 _

50-60 11086 2178 1950

60-70 13152 456 670
70-80 12622 884 1400
80-90 13716 2517* 1650

*.Ascalmore PT-1 40-60 15003 845 990

Creek-Tippo 60-80 16233 951 1000
Bayou Control 80-100 14791 931 1000
Structure
(adjusted)
(Continued)

C, D3

4%
 °' .%
.- " • '..
7*...-

Table Dl (Continued)

Maximum . -
Test Depth Initial Modulus Side Resistance
Test Site Pile ft Ef, psf/in. fmax, psf

Field Computed O
AD UAD

PT-2 30-50 13553 782 990

50-70 15791 864 1000 e
70-90 13829 897 1000

Red River, PT-A-IC 34-50 10952 972 1300

L&D No. 1 (12HP53) 50-58 11778 961 1350
(unadjusted)

PT-A-IC 34-50 14184 1492 1300

(Retest) 50-58 11976 1429 1350

PT-A-2C 33-54 9380 500 970

(12HP53) 54-67 8333 476 1020

PT-A-3C 33-54 11148 442 970

(12HP53) 54-67 8400 576 1020

Red River, PT-A-3C 33-54 11111 1538 970

L&D No. 1 (Retest) 54-67 7143 1408 1020
(unadjusted)

PT-S-1C 40-70 1000 815 1190

70-85 8379 765 1250

PT-S-IC 40-70 6667 1037 1190

(Retest) 70-85 5555 992 1250

Red River, PT-A-1C 35-50 12561 719 800

L&D No. 1 50-58 11925 750 820
(adjusted) -

PT-A-IC 35-50 13071 692 800

(Retest) 50-58 12679 735 820

PT-A-2C 33-54 10146 556 770

54-67 9978 671 800

PT-A-3C 33-54 12513 680 770 '4W,

54-67 11428 741 800

(Continued)

4D4

•......................................,............-........ " -' ': ' ' ,,s--,-"," '':-,::

 -. a ---.

Table Dl (Continued)

Maximum
Test Depth Initial Modulus Side Resistance
Test Site Pile ft Ef, psf/in. max, psf

Field Computed
AD UAD

4 PT-A-3C 33-54 12871 775 770

(Retest) 54-67 14004 807 800

PT-S-1C 40-70 10731 779 800

70-85 12113 815 850 "

PT-S-IC 40-70 9761 823 800

(Retest) 70-85 10561 867 850

• = Not used in the Statistic Analysis

AD = Adjusted
UAD - Unadjusted

D5-.

@i1

• k- .*

i'"5
 Appendix E

Procedures for Partially Submerged Piles

b-1
*17.

Lowering the water table in the vicinity of piles causes an increase

in the effective stress in the surrounding soil mass which in turn increases

the capacities of the piles. The change in effective stress beginning at the 0

ground surface increases proportional with depth until the water table is

reached and then remains constant with increasing depth, Figure E.1. To

account for this increase in effective stress in the load-transfer criteria, .

the relative depth used in determining the maximum side and tip resistances

is adjusted to yield an equivalent homogeneous system. An example of this

procedure follows:

The soil and pile properties for this example are the same as the step-by-
o

step illustration given in Chapter 5, page 190, but with the water table 20 ft

below the ground surface, Figure E.2.

.- 1

* *- - - -* -
 Ii.)

a)
r41
aL- 7
-
-o
-'V
I-
V
.4-)
a) S

* v 3
a)
.4.. _______________ 4-)

4-
0

-~ 0

* I a)
3
i.1I
___________
I I.
I I
___________________
0
0

E
S.-
4-

U,
a)

C-)

- 4-)
S.-
a)

a)
1
I
4-)
C-)
a)
4-
4-
L±J

a)
U,

a)
S.-
C-)

I I.-.

S I___________________
a)
5-
0~
Li.-

E3
 '1 12

60' Cross Section Area = .108 sq ft

Pe.TI Tip Area = 1.0 sq ft
Surface Area = 4.0 sq ft/ft
Equivalent Diameter:
B -Surface Area
rr
4.0 1.27 ft.

Figure E-2 -Pile and Pile Properties

F40
 1.Find the change in effective stress from lowering water level.
Effective Vertical Stress, Psf,
With Water Table at 0
Aa0
Depth, ft Surface -20 ft.
0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 360 675 315

10 720 1350 630
20 1440 2700 1260

30 2160 3420 1260 7,G

40 2880 4140 1260

50 3600 4860 1260

60 4320 5580 1260 O

2. Determine the -:hange relative depth, DIB, due to lowering the water
table by:

A
AD
~sat

Depth, ft Av AD
0 0 0

5 315 4.4
10 630 8.8
20 1260 17.5
30 1260 17.5
640 1260 17.5
50 1260 17.5
60 1260 17.5
 -- r xv -. - --.- - r -..

3. Determine the new maximum side and tip resistance.

Surface *20 ft below surface 4

Depth,f D/B
Sufc
I fmax,psf
I AD,ft D,ft D/B t_ fmax,psf

0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 3.9 360 4.4 9.4 7.4 520

10 7.9 540 8.8 18.8 14.8 750

20 15.7 780 17.5 37.5 29.5 920

30 23.6 860 17.5 47.5 37.4 1000

40 31.5 950 17.5 57.5 45.3 1100

50 39.5 1050 17.5 67.5 53.1 1100

60 47.4 1050 17.5 77.5 61.0 1100

q1

qmax,tsf _max,tsf

60 47.4 56.0 17.5 77.5 61.0 6.4

4. Develop f-z curvws using the expression:

z
_f +
- (z)
f max

SHEAR TRANSFER TABLE

PILE LENGTH 0. 5. 10. 2. 30. 40. 50. 60.
FMAX(PSF) 0. 520. 750. 920. 1e0e. 1100. 1100. f1oe.
PILE MOVEMENT
Z0.(IN) SHEAR TRANSFE4RED, F,
e. 0. 0. 0. 0. (PSF)
0. e. 0.-
0.025 0. 190. 214. 226. 231. 236. 236. 236.
0.050 0. 279. 333. 363. 375. 388. 388. 388.
0.075 0. 330. 409. 45. 474. 495. 495. 495.
0.100 0. 363, 462. 51. 545. 574. 574. 574. E
0.150 0. 403. 529. 609. 643. 683. 683. 683.
0.200 0. 427. 571. 665. 706. 754. 754. 754.
0.250 0. 443. 600. 704. 750. 805. 805. 805.
0.300 0. 454. 621. 733. 783. 843. 843. 843.
0.400 0. 469. 649. 772. 828. 895. 895. 895.
0.600 0. 485. 679. 81. 878. 954. 954. 954.
1.000 0. 498. 7e6. 854. 923. 1008. 1008. 1008.
10.000 0. 518. 745. 913. 992. 1090. t090. 1090.

E-4

F'
kRD-RI39 236
I
I
LORD-TRANSFER CRITERIR FOR NUMERICRL
AXIALLY LOADED PILES IN..(U) RRMY
ANALYSIS OF5/
ENGINEER NATERNAYS
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS R L MOSHER JAN 84
p UNCLASSIFIED ES TA K 84 i F/G 3/3 NL
 ".% ",..."

I "
'%

",- "

.--

1.,0
UL. % 1.

.0~ &2.02

. .'..

111116258

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

.SURM&A O ST140ARDS
I~TO A
-9#

.; %

• :_.-; - , .- , . . .. . - .- . *.. *.. . .. .. . .

.- -: .~ ,,-, 2-. : . . . - . , .- . .. ... .. . - -' .,
 5. Develop P-z curve sing expression

4) 1/ 3
P (4Z) Pmax

where

P (q A)
max max t F,

= (64 tsf)(2000.0 -,)(1.0 sq ft)

tons
= 128,000 lbs

TIP IMOVEIEtT(IN) TIP LOAD(LOS)

0.025 59412.
0.0se
0.075 ?4855.
85687.
6.0ee 94311.
0.150 0.156118825. 197959"
6.P.86 128000.
6.3e 136e29.
0.40e 149719.
0.600 171375.
10.60 263187.
1t.606 437754.

.9., r -

.9.'

Using the above f-z and P-z curves for a water table 20 ft below the ground

surface, the pile capacity is 153 tons as compared to 135 with the water

table at the surface.

E7
 a i

13

•-
.

2-.,*i

5,,

l,1 un
'St-N
S

5'%"

a'"
-
 I APPENDIX F: LIST OF SYMBOLS

A -The area or cross-sectional area

ab -The constants in the hyperbolic expression

0~ A5 The surface area of the pile shaft

At -The area of the tip

B -The width or diameter of a pile

2B = The width of a footing

CN= The correction factor to N-values from a standard
.p ,
penetration tests for overburden pressure

4' W the cohesion 44

Ca = The adhesion

Cf -The correction factor for maximum load transferred

(Parker and Reese Criteria)

D -The depth of penetration or depth of overburden

Dc- The point beyond which the rate of change of the side
and tip resistance decreases with depth (critical
depth)1]
Dr =The relative density of the soil
6c
6
W The shape factors for bearing capacity
= The angle of friction between soil and pile shaft

E = The modulus of elasticity

Ef W The initial tangent modulus for shear transfer

Ei The initial tangent modulus

E h ouu o lsiiy.ftepl

E -The modulus of elasticity of the pil

.0 = The void ratio 4

0.-
C M The axial strain

F = The forces vector

F2
 f = The shear develop along the pile shaft (shear transfer)
or load transfer

f The maximum shear transfer

f = The unit shear stress of the shaft of the pile

fs = The maximum side resistance

= The unit weight of soil

h = The distance between increments

I = The moment of inertia

a The influence factor for settlement determined by

Mindlin's equations

KK 8 The coefficient of lateral earth pressure

K = A modulus in the hyperbolic expression for triaxial

data

Kx,K = The spring constants in the Beam-Column analysis 4,

'~ xy
L - The length of pile

Li The length of ith increment

NcNqNy = Bearing capacity factors

Nf = The number of blows per foot from standard penetration

test

N The corrected number of blows per foot from standard

penetration test

n = The exponent determining the rate of variation of Ei

with a

4,S P = The axial force or tip load

Pa = The atmospheric pressure

Pi = Axial force at point i

Pmax
- Maximum or ultimate tip load or capacity of a pile

P - The ultimate axial capacity of a pile

4'p F3

-N
 7. .7 .. N.

Ps = The ultimate shear resistance or "skin friction" along

the shaft

- The angle of internal friction.

1 =The effective angle of internal friction

Qmax- The ultimate bearing capacity of a footing per unit

length

qf The in situ normal pressure

qmax The maximum tip resistance or ultimate bearing capacity

per unit area

q- Overburden pressure

qo- The unit tip stress

qxqy- The pressure in the x,y direction, respectively

R - The correction for compression loading (Parker and

c Reese Criteria)

Rf - The ratio of compressive strength

The major principal effective stresses -a

a3 The minor principal effective stresses

an The normal stress

a = The effective overburden stress or pressure

v
Aa W The deviatoric stress ( - 3)

S - The shear strength of the sand

Sb - The axial stiffness of a beam

Ss W The axial stiffness provided by the soil

Sx - Shear transfer

tan 6 - The coefficient of friction between the shaft and soil

U - The displacement vector

Uij- The displacements vector of the soil

94
* *C - -
 U. The~~Z7V dipacmn inW the dirctio ' *

II M The displacement in the ydirection

M Poisson's ratio for soil

X M The depth

XK W The distance along the pile

z M The displacement of the pile or pile movement, inches

* -ZcM The critical movement of the pile which mobilizes the

maximum side or tip resistance, inches

IN

F5p
 t14A '- -
Wt 'r~

14- 1

a t5

'P J44
- ~/a~~AW'
A 1 ' ji~.As

Ilk. 1w~&s 4~L *;5 t V

,r~~1 ra r rlo,4'
w -' 3 ~~st.3 '4. 'Z