Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

646 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Behavior of Rock Socketed Short Piles Under Lateral Loads (Paper)
- Rowe n Armitage rock socketed piles.pdf
- nchrp_syn_360-Rock-Socketed-Shafts-for-Hwy-Construction.pdf
- Long and Collins 1999 IEI Piling in Rock
- Drilled Shaft in Strong Rock - Design, Validation, and Construction of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge, Autoroute 30, Montreal
- Grouting
- CGJ 1987 24 (1) 114-125 Rowe and Armitage
- Adhesion Factor for Rock Soketed Piles
- TN-326 Average Pre Compression
- Pile Foundation Design and Construction Practice in Malaysia
- Drilled Shaft in Rock Analysis and Design_Part3
- Laterally Loaded Pile
- O NEIL REESE 1999 DRILLED SHAFTS CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND DESIGN METHODS.pdf
- Rock Socket EC 7 Template- Rev 00
- Theoretical Manual for Pile Foundations
- Case Studies of Rock-Socketed Piles
- Pile Load Testing Handbook
- ICE Specification for Piling and Embeded Retaining Wall
- A few comments on pile design
- Code of Practice for Precast Concrete Construction

You are on page 1of 66

Understanding Load Transfer Behaviour (and the geotechnical design) of Rock Socketed Bored Piles Dr. Gary Chapman, Principal, Golder Associates

Outline

Geotechnical Design Rock socket behaviour -base and shaft Socket Design Methods

load capacity

settlement performance Required geotechnical design inputs Construction issues and costs associated with various design methodologies Specifications for rock socketed piles Testing and compliance issues

December 6, 2010 2

Zhang and Einstein (1998) Embedment > 3 pile diameters. Pile diameters from 0.3 to 1.9 m Rock strengths 0.5 to 30 MPa q b = 3.0 to 6.6 x (UCS) 0.5

qb / UCS 12

10

Melbourne Siltstone tests by Williams, 1988

Diameters from 0.1m to1 m

qb / UCS

40

Stanley Avenue - UCS = 0.4 to 0.7 MPa

35

qb > 10 UCS for Road - UCS = 1.1 to embedment > 5 dia. Middleborough piles with 2.7 MPa May be lowerfracturedextremely fractured rock extremely for

West Gate, Eastern Freeway - UCS = 4 to 8 MPa,

30

25

20

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Embedment/footing dia.

Log Log plot

Clear correlation with UCS and Adhesion factor aranges from0.02 to 1.0 x UCS Order of magnitude scatter in data For UCS < 5 MPa is greater than 0.1

1

Effective upper limit

Adhesion Factor

4 3 2

0.1

4 3 2

Piles in Clay (after Kulhawy & Phoon, 1993) Piles in Rock (after Kulhawy & Phoon, 1993)

0.01

4 3

0.01

3 4

0.1

3 4

3 4

10

3 4

100

Resistance (frictional, base/passive)

1% of diameter

(Serviceability limit)

Displacement at ultimate frictional resistance (elasto-plastic) >10 % of dia. Serviceability requirement : usually less than 1% of pile dia. Bearing capacity is unlikely to control design of socketed piles Displacement

(and is dominated by shaft resistance)

Socket roughness

Shaft resistance (kPa) Shaft resistance (kPa) Shaft resistance (kPa)

1000

800

(concrete placement)

2000

15.0 17.5

0.35

600

600

1200

1500

0.9 7.5 1.5 5.0 2.0

2.5 10.0

600 300

1000

200 200 0

100 0

500

15 15

0 0

5 10

15

Clean sockets

Shaft resistance of a clean socket: increases with increased rock (intact)strength increases with increased rock (mass) modulus increases with increased initial normal stress (e.g. grouting pressure & expansive concretes) increases with increased interface roughness decreases with increased pile diameter

Why is it so?

Pile and socket diameter D

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .

. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .

Normal force

.

Pile . shaft

.

. . . . . . .. . .

Shear.. .. force. . ..

. . .

It rock mass Youngs modulus Em = is the interplay between

interfacer roughness, pile diameter and rock mass stiffness that m = rock mass Poissons ratio defines shaft resistance in a clean socket r = D/2 = radius of socket

r = dilation of socket n = change in normal stress K = normal stiffness

Em n K= = r (1+ m).r

There is a clear correlation between UCS and E and Interface behaviour

Friction angle of interface (residual friction angle) and intact (not mass) strength of asperities control interface behaviour

Design Methodology

Adopts lower bound design parameters to account for variability and risks (ground and construction).

A (usually) safe and over-designed foundation but at a potentially higher cost.

Determine ultimate load for pile Select trial diameter of pile considering Concrete strength available Ductility additional confining steel if > 60 MPa Out of position bending moments Ability to clean base effectively Usually most economic to make shaft work as hard as possible Proceed with socket design to satisfy both settlement (controls) and ultimate capacity

6/12/2010

Load combinations 1.35 G or 1.2 G + 1.5Q or 1.2G + Wu +yc.Q yc = 0.4 0.6 G + Equ +yc.Q Determine maximum design action effect (Ed) Ultimate wind = 1.5 x working wind Ultimate Eq = 1.4 x working Eq Design pile/s for Fg. Rug > Ed Select Fg from Pile Code AS 2159

G = dead load, Q = live load, Wu = ultimate wind, Equ = ultimate earthquake

Given service settlement limit and SLS & ULS load We then need rock modulus and rock UCS values over the proposed socket length Calculate geotechnical strength reduction factor Fg considering: Construction process and controls Basic Fg factor and testing benefit factor Then adopt a trial shaft diameter and socket length Estimate pile ULS capacity Estimate pile head service settlement

December 6, 2010 15

Available Design Methods Code based allowable strength methods Strength based methods Williams / Vicroads non linear elastic method Pells - Elastic design method Pells - Rowe & Armitage side slip methods RATZ and other load transfer methods Golder GARSP method & Rocket - Monash University program

Strength Based Methods Q ultimate = Ultimate shaft + Ultimate base Q allowable = Qult/FOS or Q allowable = allowable shaft + allowable base Prescriptive methods such as Q base = 1.5 UCS or RQD correlations for base and shaft resistance. Building Code values

6/12/2010

But in Strength Based Design Load will be shared between base and shaft according to pile & rock shaft and toe stiffness In rough sockets (grooves>1-4mm @ 50 -200mm) shaft displacement is elasto - plastic Peak shaft is mobilized well before peak base Allowable side and base resistances are not additive Settlement is not considered and is (hopefully) allowed for by use of suitable Factors of Safety

6/12/2010

Method was developed for Westgate Freeway Used for settlement sensitive structural design of elevated Westgate Freeway in Melbourne Large diameter bored piles into Silurian rock at around 30 m depth Design uses a Factor of Safety on Settlement Allows for non linear elasto-plastic socket behaviour Proven with static load tests on sockets

6/12/2010

Select pile diameter (structural or construction related) Determine shaft and base modulus and UCS Select trial socket length (L) Design load Ql and allowable settlement Pile properties : Modulus, diameter L

6/12/2010

Eb

Williams Method

Select pile diameter and socket length Calculate fictitious elastic load for design settlement Determine base and side components of elastic load Determine ultimate side resistance Calculate fse/fsu then fsp/fsu Calculate actual stress ratio Calculate actual side and base resistances Determine pile load Compare to design load and repeat until agreement Check overall capacity

6/12/2010

= design settlement

6/12/2010

Given L/D find Qbe / Qe Calculate Qbe and Qse = QQbe Then calculate base and shaft elastic stresses

6/12/2010

Peak shaft resistance fsu = x x UCS is related to UCS is related to jointing of the rock mass

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

Given a value fse / fsu this curve will yield a plastic stress ratio fsp / fsu

6/12/2010

Given a value of elastic stress ratio fbe / fbl this graph will yield a value for plastic stress ratio fbp / fbl

6/12/2010

Calculate peak side resistance using fsu = x x UCS Calculate elastic stress ratio fse / fsu Calculate plastic stress ratio fsp / fsu Calculate actual side load Qs Actual stress ratio fs/fsu =fse/fsu fsp/fsu We now have values of fse, fsp, fsu so we can Calculate fs, the actual shaft resistance

6/12/2010

Determine ultimate end bearing

6/12/2010

Finish Design Total load = Qs + Qb Repeat until Total load ~ Design load Then check FOS for Capacity peak shaft load = Qsu Peak base resistance >= 5 x UCS FOS = (Qsu+Qbu)/ design load

6/12/2010

Verification

6/12/2010

Pells - Elastic Method Design Inputs Socket diameter and length Socket shaft and base modulus values Average UCS for socket shaft and base Average roughness of socket walls

Documented in Hobart ANZ Geomechanics Conference

6/12/2010

Design Step - 1 Calculate peak side shear av. peak using 0.45 x UCS sockets <R3 roughness 0.6 x UCS sockets R4 or more or x x UCS

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

Design Step 2 Calculate max socket length (Lmax) using peak side shear av. peak Calculate Lmax/D Select appropriate design chart for Er/Ep and Er/Eb Draw line on chart from L/d=0, 100% base to Lmax/D 0% base

6/12/2010

Design Step 4

Dotted line shows all elastic solutions which satisfy tav. Peak Select intersection on dotted line with relevant Epile/Erock line Determine L/D and % Pbase/Ptotal for intersection point

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

Design Step - 5

Calculate settlement d = swl x I /(Er x D) using influence factor for revised L/D Er is the average factored shaft modulus Calculate base load at serviceability using % base load for revised L/D, and check that this load is within the elastic range for the base For intact rock 2 - 4 times UCS For jointed rock 75 -125 % UCS Check that settlement is typically less than 1% diameter (include shaft settlement if significant)

6/12/2010

Rowe & Armitage - Side Slip Draw Lmax/D line Calculate elastic base load Calculate % Pbe/Pbt Draw horizontal line on chart for % Pbe Intersection of 2 lines gives L/D and I Calculate settlement d = SWL x I /(Er x D) Check ultimate geotechnical strength

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

RATZ & Load Transfer Computer Analysis Input Parameters Pile data Socket layer shear modulus Load transfer parameters deflections to fully mobilize base and shaft cyclic load parameters (if any) peak and residual skin frictions displacement to achieve residual shaft strain softening parameter

6/12/2010

Can handle multi layered sockets Varying base properties and base debris Socket roughness Socket diameter effects Insitu stresses from concrete head Based on Melb mudstone (1-10 MPa UCS) but applicable for UCS 1-100 MPa Requires detailed strength data

6/12/2010

Input data required Layers Pile properties Layer properties Layer stress conditions Layer geometry Pile base properties Load Transfer Parameters Input parameters depth Ep, L, diam Er, c ,F insitu horiz stress thickness Eb, c , F, debris segment length, height

6/12/2010

Load from structure

Stress

Base displacement

Layer 1

Calculates load displacement response for each layer and the base

Layer 1 HW

Load

Socket

Layer 2 MW

displacement

Base

Layer 3 HW

Golder Associates ROCKET field Socket Procedure Serviceability based design process for bored piles socketed into weathered rock Allows final design in real time during logging of the sockets Developed in house using state of the art software package ROCKET Extensive experience in Melbourne

sufficient boreholes to assess variation across site and with depth insitu testing

pressuremeter tests every 2m to 3m

laboratory testing

moisture contents at 1m intervals UCS tests at pressuremeter test locations point load index tests (for stronger rocks) CNS direct shear tests (keep core moist and tests ASAP)

60 For estimating purposes only. Actual socket lengths to be assessed based on ground conditions at pile locations 50 Upstream end Downstream end socket diameter = 1.8m

preliminary sizing for costing (increase socket lengths by 10% to allow for variations in the field) final design done in real-time during logging of sockets

1.2m 30 1.8m

20

0.9m

1.2m 1.2m 10

Preparation

1. ROCKET analyses

FRESHWATER 2. Logging Sheets PLACE : ROCK SOCKET DESIGN SHEET

Developed specifically for ground conditions at Freshwater Place. Not to be used for any other site.

Disp (mm) Base (MN) Max All. Shaft Residual 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 HW 14.2 1.15 1.44 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.61

Load (MN/m) HW-MW MW MW-SW SW<RL-35m SW>RL-35m 26.9 33.4 66.3 114.6 114.6 1.64 2.65 5.05 5.92 10.40 2.05 3.32 6.31 7.40 13.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.35 0.50 0.47 1.12 0.36 0.67 0.95 0.90 2.14 0.53 0.95 1.37 1.31 3.06 0.68 1.19 1.75 1.68 3.89 0.82 1.41 2.10 2.03 4.64 0.95 1.60 2.42 2.36 5.31 1.00 1.67 2.54 2.49 5.56 1.05 1.73 2.66 2.61 5.80 1.09 1.79 2.77 2.73 6.02

Stage 4 : Construction

Site

1. Socket Logging: Golder Associates Geotechnical Engineer on site - to optimise socket lengths, confirm design assumptions (insist on good construction practices), keep the piling contractors honest and control risk 2. Roughening : To obtain minimum roughness levels (design assumption) 3. Cleaning : To obtain clean sockets (design assumption) 4. Moisture Contents : To confirm logging 5. ROCKET check : To confirm pile performance 6. Certification : pile sign-off

GARSP In summary State of the art technology Optimises socket dimensions Controls risk (e.g. dykes) Design considers construction practice Promotes good construction practice Requires detailed site investigation Net gain = Confidence + Savings

Need socket UCS and Modulus for rational design Consider using pressuremeter tests to get modulus data Pells elastic or Armitage side slip method is easy and quick to use For complicated sockets and good data consider using Rocket/GARSP For down drag and cyclic loads consider using a load transfer program such as RATZ

6/12/2010

Intact rock modulus Drained rock mass modulus (Es, Eb) Rock unconfined compressive strength (qus qub) Residual friction angle (F) Intact cohesion and friction angle (c F) Socket roughness (segment length & height) Load transfer function

6/12/2010

Ideally we will have lots of boreholes to below socket depth with UCS tests and pressuremeter tests - a Platinum Class investigation Or UCS and some UCS with modulus measurement and/or pressuremeter a Platinum/Gold Class investigation Or point load index tests and hopefully moisture contents over socket length (if in Melbourne where we have good correlations between E and UCS and mc in Silurian rock) a Silver Class investigation Or bore holes and coring with visual strength & weathering assessment only often not over the full depth of socket a Bronze class investigation

December 6, 2010 55

UCS Estimation From direct tests Inferred from Point load tests with some UCS correlations . But UCS can vary from as low as 5 times Is50 to as much as 30

December 6, 2010

56

Point Load Strength Index Quick and inexpensive Large scatter Tensile test (?) Axial vs diametrical Failure mode No reliable relationship with UCS Siltstone Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength

Failure mode

0.10

100

10.00

10 UCS (MPa)

1.00

25 Is(50) 1

0.01 0

Preparation, saturation, test rate Modulus End platen measurement - compliance effects, soft rocks only, max. tangent modulus local measurement 0.1 2 4 6 10 12 16 18 20 0.01 0.10 Drained or 8undrained 14 Moisture Content (%) Triaxial tests Softer rocks Multi-stage ? Drained or undrained ? Moisture Content Correlations/Empirical Correlations

5 Is(50)

Melbourne Siltstone

10.00

100.00

Modulus moisture content correlations Correlation of modulus with in situ moisture content is possible for sedimentary rocks e.g. Melbourne Mudstone

6/12/2010

In the absence of insitu pressuremeter of UCS test data strength can be correlated to: moisture content RQD core logs

6/12/2010

6/12/2010

Construction Issues

Serviceability is usually critical (not ULS) Shaft resistance usually dominates settlement Construction processes are critical shaft integrity how rough and clean is the shaft? base cleanliness

Overburden

Side resistance

Rock

Debris

Base resistance

Longer Shaft and not a so clean base Roughen sides of sockets to increase shaft resist. Allow for a reduced % of base area cleaned Consider additional geotechnical investigation with UCS and pressuremeter tests to refine design A 30 m borehole with pressuremeter testing would roughly equate to about 15 to 20 m of rock socket

December 6, 2010

62

Should be settlement based and state of the art No need for down hole inspections (OHS issues) Can design for the use of drilling fluids with experienced contractors and appropriate on site supervision Consider using the socket excavation as a design tool e.g. GARSP Should be aimed at producing durable & intact pile shafts Allow the use of appropriate tremie concrete

December 6, 2010 63

Specifications should consider integrity testing CHS and high/low strain PDA particularly for heavily loaded piles close to structural capacity Consider high strain PDA or O cell tests for critical designs, highly variable sites or where cost of testing can be offset by potential savings in sockets Consider engagement of an independent geotechnical engineer to log sockets and confirm capacity and construction methodology compliance Consider settlement monitoring

December 6, 2010 64

Why Review Socket Designs? Consultants are generally conservative because they dont know who will construct the piles Structural consultants often only quote allowable loads Rarely is settlement considered in detail Socket length is usually very expensive Often there is scope for alternative designs

Thank You!!

6/12/2010

- Behavior of Rock Socketed Short Piles Under Lateral Loads (Paper)Uploaded byyyanan1118
- Rowe n Armitage rock socketed piles.pdfUploaded byJonathan Kok
- nchrp_syn_360-Rock-Socketed-Shafts-for-Hwy-Construction.pdfUploaded byAnil Singh
- Long and Collins 1999 IEI Piling in RockUploaded byShane
- Drilled Shaft in Strong Rock - Design, Validation, and Construction of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge, Autoroute 30, MontrealUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- GroutingUploaded byfhlim2069
- CGJ 1987 24 (1) 114-125 Rowe and ArmitageUploaded byCoolioDragoon
- Adhesion Factor for Rock Soketed PilesUploaded byZeyad Elsherbiny
- TN-326 Average Pre CompressionUploaded byPartha Pratim Roy
- Pile Foundation Design and Construction Practice in MalaysiaUploaded byHanizan Abu Bakar
- Drilled Shaft in Rock Analysis and Design_Part3Uploaded byrshaghayan
- Laterally Loaded PileUploaded byvpamatya
- O NEIL REESE 1999 DRILLED SHAFTS CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND DESIGN METHODS.pdfUploaded byChalko
- Rock Socket EC 7 Template- Rev 00Uploaded byyhargey
- Theoretical Manual for Pile FoundationsUploaded byrqamprasat
- Case Studies of Rock-Socketed PilesUploaded bytangkokhong
- Pile Load Testing HandbookUploaded bySrinivas Reddy
- ICE Specification for Piling and Embeded Retaining WallUploaded bySubashini Jaganathan
- A few comments on pile designUploaded byctorres_88
- Code of Practice for Precast Concrete ConstructionUploaded byAlaaGaballa
- Geotechnical Engineering BasicsUploaded bydaniel.j.mccarthy
- PT BuildingsUploaded byscchung
- MB_ConcreteBridges_Nov08Uploaded byaht1989
- Maple Getting Started GuideUploaded byarpanmath
- Spiderman the Other Sketch Book Up x Comicsandmangas.blogspotUploaded by54090
- CAST QuestionsUploaded byQuan Huynh Van
- 1. BS 5400-8 1978 Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges (Specification for Loads)Uploaded byJaypee Iquin
- Precast Concrete for Building SystemsUploaded bymukundmgk
- Code Tiltup PrecastUploaded bybalgit
- Precast Joint ParkingUploaded bycerveza02

- Aluminum RMCUploaded bymegamusclemen
- MM440_PList_Engl_B1Uploaded bynasir214
- Fig P11-01Uploaded byFernando Pauli Prado
- 0352 ThesisUploaded byCristian matamoros paitan
- Electrical Safety and HygieneUploaded byShashi Kant Vashisth
- Unit-4 Heat Treatment of AlloysUploaded byShyam Patidar
- Hardy Cross TutorialUploaded byNurul Shaheera
- ansysUploaded bynanduslns07
- Ridged horn antennaUploaded bychmscem
- Third Grading Test Science V with TOSUploaded byAbbie HT Laquiao
- Dvantages and Disadvantages of System With FeedbackUploaded byMariel Mae A. Maculbe
- Slew RateUploaded byvilavanadonis
- GasketsUploaded byDebayan Pal
- Paper 2 - Midyear 2011Uploaded byMonis Diana Abu Bakar
- 3031 Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD)_web.compressedUploaded byproject list
- 18.03 Pset 5.pdfUploaded byJustin Collins
- SFD-CSA-S16-14Uploaded byEmily Stafford
- 282PUploaded byNarasimha Reddy
- fpga projectsUploaded bySachin Patil
- Mallesh-Argas.pdfUploaded byMekala Lakshman
- Transformer Life Extension Pdmsa Southafrica 2010Uploaded byEddy Fernando Queca Cadiz
- Common Control LoopUploaded byRaju
- Study on Deblocking Reaction of Blocked PmdiUploaded byAdlyLubis
- tl431Uploaded byGuilherme
- CA_7A_Practice_U2M04L2_AB_TE.docUploaded byRajendra Pilluda
- Orthographic projectionUploaded byAzizi Yahya
- ManualMQ.pdfUploaded byLan Linh
- EdsUploaded byTariq Abbasi
- hphxUploaded byGanesh Nag
- 114 WorksheetsUploaded byKpz Charles