Briaud-Foundations Under Static Loads (English) PDF

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Jean Louis BRIAUD1

Deeyvid SAEZ BARRIOS2
1. President of ISSMGE, Professor and Holder of The Buchanan Chair,

Texas A&M University
2. PhD Graduate Student and Research Assistant, Texas A&M University
THEORY PRACTICE
April 2010
CONTENT OUTLINE
1. Load Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) Approach

2. Site Investigation
3. Design of Shallow Foundation for Vertical Loads
4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
5. Design of Single Piles for Vertical Loads
6. Design of Pile Group for Vertical Loads
7. Design of Piles for Horizontal Loads
8. Special Cases (Shrink-Swell Soils, Downdrag and
Scour)
9 The Role of Load Testing
9.
10. Conclusion
Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
1 1
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
→ WORKING STRESS DESIGN
R
L= FS ≈ 2.0
2 0 to 3.0
30
FS
→ LOAD RESISTANCE FACTORS DESIGN (LRFD)
γ = 1.0 to 2.0
γL = ϕ R
Φ = 0.30 to 0.90
L= Load γ = Load Factor γ

FS =
ϕ
R= Resistance Φ = Resistance Factor

→ IMPORTANT LOAD FACTORS IN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
Σγi Li= 1.25DL + 1.75LL For Ultimate Load
Σγi Li= 1.0DL + 1.0LL For Settlement in Sand &

Immediate Settlement in Clays
Σγi Li= 1.0DL Long Term Settlement in

Clays
Σγi Li= 1.25DL + γEQLL+1.0EQ For Earthquake Analysis
2 2
→ IMPORTANT RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
Σφi R= 0.35R For Friction Angle Approach ---SANDS
Σφi R= 0.45R For SPT Approach ---SANDS
Σφi R= 0.55R For CPT Approach---SANDS

Σφi R= 0.60R For Su Approach---CLAYS
Σφi R= 0.50R For CPT Approach---CLAYS
Su= Undrained Shear Strength


→ IMPORTANT RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR DRIVEN PILES
UNDER COMPRESSION LOADS
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ i =1
i Ri
Σφi R= 0.56R to 0.70R (Verif.) For αSu Method---CLAYS
Σφi R= 0.36R to 0.45R (Verif.) For SPT Method ---SANDS

Σ i R=
Σφ R 0.44R
0 44R to 0.55R
0 55R (V
(Verif.)
if ) F CPT Method---SANDS
For M h d SANDS
Use 0.85φ(compression) for φ(uplift)

3 3
→ IMPORTANT RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR BORED PILES
UNDER COMPRESSION LOADS.
n n
∑γ
i =1
i Li = ∑ϕ
i =1
i Ri
Σφi R= 0.65R For αSu Method---CLAYS SIDE

Σφi R= 0.55R For 9Su Method ---CLAY POINT
Σφi R= 00.65R
65R For βσ’ Method---SANDS
Method SANDS SIDE
V
Σφi R= 0.55R For 0.057N Method---SANDS POINT

Use 0.85φ(compression) for φ(uplift)

CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
7. Design of Single Pile for Horizontal Loads
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
4 4
SITE INVESTIGATION – WHY IS BORING IMPORTANT?
http://www.earth-engineers.com/DSC01903.JPG
SITE INVESTIGATION – STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002).
5 5
SITE INVESTIGATION – STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002)
Advantages
1) Sampling Is Possible
2) Simple
3) Suitable in many soil types
Disadvantages
1) Sample Disturbance
2) Not applicable for very soft or very
loose soils
3) High Variability
SITE INVESTIGATION – CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

6 6
SITE INVESTIGATION – CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)
Advantages Disadvantages
1) Fast and continuous 1) Required skill
profile
profile. operator to run
2) Applicable for soft 2) No soil sample can be
soils. obtained.
3) Strong Theoretical 3) Unsuitable for very
basis in interpretation. hard or dense soils
and large particles.
SITE INVESTIGATION – SEISMIC PIEZOCONE TEST
7 7
SITE INVESTIGATION – PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT)
SITE INVESTIGATION – PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT)

Advantages
1) Theoretically sound in determination of
soil parameters.
parameters
2) Applicable for larger zone of soil mass
than any other in-situ test.
3) Develop complete stress vs strain curve
Disadvantages
1) It requires trained personel .
2) Time consuming (8 tests per day).
3) Delicate equipment.
8 8
LABORATORY TESTS
1. Clays and Silts:

• Classification Tests,
• Undrained Shear Tests,
• Drained Shear Tests,
• Consolidation Tests
2. Sands and Gravels:

• Classification Tests
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
9 9
DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
→ BEHAVIOR OF SANDS AND CLAYS UNDER LOAD CONDITIONS
CLAYS SANDS
Qu Qu
FS Qu Q (Load) FS Qu Q(Load)
S < S all S > Sall
0.1B 0.1B
B=Foundation Width
S(Settlement) S(Settlement)
Ultimate Load Controls Settlement Controls
GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION (G.B.C.E)

Q
γ 1D γ 1D
D
γ2
fs Pp Pp fs
B
1
Pu = S c cN c + S γ γ 2 BN γ + S q γ 1 DN q
2
THE G.B.C.E RARELY WORKS
Sc, Sγ, Sq= Correction Factors (shape, inclination, eccentricity and inclined loads)
Nc, Nγ, Nq= Bearing Capacity Factors (function of the friction angle, φ)
10 10
THE STATIC LOAD TEST FOR THE FOOTINGS
LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE RESULTS
11 11
G.B.C.E vs STRENGTH EQUATION
THE STRENGTH EQUATION ALWAYS WORKS

IN SANDS
Pu = K p pL + γ D From The Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Kp = 1.0
1 0 for
f square footing
f i
Pu = K c qc + γ D From The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)

Kc ≈ 0.20 for sands.
Pu(kPa) = KN N + γ D From The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

KN = 75
Pl= Limit Pressure from PMT qc= Cone Point Resistance
N=blows/ft from the SPT
12 12
THE STRENGTH EQUATION ALWAYS WORKS
IN CLAYS
Pu = Nc Su + γ D From the Undrained Shear Strength, Su

Nc ≈ 6.0
6 0 for square footing.
footing
Pu = K p pL + γ D From The Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Kp = 1.0 for square footing
Pu = Kc qc + γ D From The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)

Kc ≈ 0.40 ffor clays
y .
Pu(kPa) = KN N +γ D From The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

KN=40
Pl= Limit Pressure from PMT qc= Cone Point Resistance
N=blows/ft from the SPT Su= Undrained Shear Strength
ZONE OF INFLUENCE IN SHALLOW FOUNDATION
B
Zi B
Zi
SQUARE FOOTING STRIP FOOTING RECTANGULAR FOOTING
Zi = 2B Zi = 4B ⎛ 2B ⎞
Zi = ⎜4 − ⎟B
⎝ L ⎠
13 13
STRESS INCREASED UNDER THE FOUNDATION
(MURTHY, 2002)
NEWMARK’S INFLUENCE CHART

(SOWER, G. 1961 ; MURTHY, 2002)
PRESSURE BULB CHART
14 14
2:1 METHOD
Q
Strip Footing Rectangular Footing

Q' Q
Δσ = Δσ =
(z + B ) (z + B )(z + L )
B
Square Footing Circular Footing
Q 2 2 z 4Q
Δσ = ∆σ Δσ =
(z + B )2 1 ∆σ(2:1) 1
π (z + D )2
z/2 B z/2
∆σ=actual pressure distribution

Q’ = load per unit of length
∆σ(2:1)= average pressure from the 2:1 method
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

--GENERAL METHOD--
σ'
σ'+∆σ’
σ'
Stress-Strain Curve from
a suitable test
εb εa ε
Hi σv uo σ'v ∆σ’ εb εa ∆H=∆εxHi

H1
Zi H2
H3
H4
∑
n
HT = i =1
ΔH i
15 15
--CONSOLIDATION THEORY--
σvo' σp' σvo'+∆σ' σ'
eo
Normally Consolidated Clays
e1 Cr H0 ⎛ σ ' vo + Δσ v' ⎞
1 sc = Cc log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
1 + e0 ⎝ σ vo
'
⎠
Overconsolidated Clays
If σ’vo+Δσ’ < σ’p
e2
H0 ⎛ σ ' v o + Δ σ v' ⎞
sc = C r logg ⎜ ⎟
Cc 1 + e0 ⎜ σ 'vo ⎟
⎝ ⎠
If σ’vo+Δσ’ > σ’p
1
H 0 ⎪⎧ ⎛ σ 'p ⎞ ' ⎫
⎟ + Cc log⎛⎜ σ vo + Δσ v ⎞⎟⎪⎬
'
sc = ⎨Cr log⎜⎜ ' ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
e 1 + e0 ⎪⎩ ⎝ σ v0 ⎠ ⎝ σp'
⎠⎪⎭
σ'p=maximum past pressure experience by the soil


--TIME RATE OF SETTLEMENT--
T H 2
Δ H (t )
t = v dr
U ave =
C v Δ H max
Hdr=Smallest Drainage Path

Uave= Average Degree of Consolidation
50% 90% Time, t

H1
Zi H2
H3
∆Hmax
H4
Settlement, ΔH
16 16
--ELASTIC SOLUTION--
Q I (1 − ν ) q 2
B Q
S = ; q=
E BL
E≈100 Su for clays

E≈750 N(SPT) for clean sands
E≈450 N(SPT) for silty sands
B
SHAPE FACTOR
0 .5
⎛L⎞
I=0.88 I = 0 .88 ⎜ ⎟ I=π/4
⎝B⎠
B B
B L D
PLAN VIEW

--LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE METHOD--
PMT
∆R
P P
2Ro
Limit Pressure
PL
∆R/Ro
17 17
s 0 .2 4 Δ R
=
B RO
Pf = f L / B . f e . f δ . f β ,d Γ .Pp
f e = 1 − 0 . 33 (e / B ) Eccentricity
f B , D = 0 . 8 (1 + D / B )
0 .1
Slope Proximity
f L / B = 0 . 8 + 0 . 2 (B / L ) Shape
(F h / F v ) ⎤
2
⎡ tan −1
Inclination
fδ = 1 − ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 90 ⎦

18 18
19 19
FIVE LARGE SPREAD FOOTINGS TESTS IN SANDS
LABORATORY TESTS IN-SITU TESTS

→ Water Content & Unit →Borehole Shear Test & Cross-Hole
Weight
Wave Tests
→Atterberg Limits →PiezoCone Penetration Test
→Relative Density →Dilatomer Test
→Triaxial Test
→Pressuremeter Test
→Resonant Column Test →Step Blade Test
→Standard Penetration Test & Cone
Penetration Test
20 20
21 21
Creep Model
n
S ⎛ t ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
S1 ⎝ t1 ⎠
22 22
IMPORTANT FINDING
Pu (kPa) = 75 N
THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY

DOES NOT WORK IN THIS CASE
DEVELOP ED THE LOAD SETTLEMENT

CURVE METHOD
23 23
Comparison between Bearing Capacity Predictions and Measured Pressure at 150 mm of Se.
Comparison between Predicted and Measured Load at 25 mm of Settlement
EXAMPLE - SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
San Jacinto Monument LOADING:

Gross Pressure = 224 kPa
Houston (1936)
Max Pressure (Dead + Wind) = 273 kPa
Excavation= - 83 kPa
Net Pressure=141 kPa
Net Pressure after Mat Poured = 10 kPa
Pressure from Terraces = 34 kPa & 84 kPa
24 24
STRATIGRAPHY - SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES
25 25
CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTICS
STRESS DISTRIBUTION
26 26
CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTUAL SETTLEMENT
27 27
ACTUAL SETTLEMENT
DESCRIPTION S(m)
CASE 8a
8 (Including
(I l di Rebound)
R b d) 0.607
0 607
CASE 7a (Not including rebound) 0.370
DAWSON’S PREDICTION 0.187
MEASURED SETTLEMENT 0.329
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
28 28
DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATION-TYPES OF PILES
BORED PILES DRIVEN PILES

→ Concrete (dry drilling → Timber , Concrete, and
or mud drilling), timber Steel.
or steel piles. → Use in softer soils.
→ Use in harder soils or → Nominal diameters
for high loads. ranging from 0.30 to 3.0
→ Nominal diameters m.
ranging from 0.40 to 4.0 → Typical length ranging
m. from 3.0 m to 60 m.
→ Typical length ranging
from 3 m to 45 m.
END BEARING PILES FRICTION PILES
DRIVING ANALYSIS
N (bpf)
W
Set-Up
W
s
ΣN (bpf)
I-
II-
III-
End of Driving
s
29 29
INSTALATION OF BORED PILES
http://www.coastalcaisson.com
http://www.vibropile.com.au
DRILL DRY
DRILL WET
USING CAISING
DRILL DRY - BORED PILE INSTALLATION

http://www.moretrench.com/~moretren/cmsAdmin/uploads/thumb2/Drilled_Shafts_001.jpg
30 30
DRILL WET - BORED PILE INSTALLATION
http://www.kbtech.com/images/photos/Anderson%2022%20Cobble%20on%20Auger%20Pilot.jpg
INSTALLATION OF BORED PILE WITH CAISING

http://www.agrafoundations.ca/images/large/3.0-Bored-Piles/Thumb-2.jpg
31 31
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING FOR BORED PILES
BULB, STRONG LAYER ≈ FIXED END
V
WAK
A at A
time
L 2L
COMP. COMP. F t=
c
at A
time
2L
t=
c
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING FOR BORED PILES
NECKING, WEAK LAYER ≈ FREE END
V
WAK
A at A
time
L 2L
COMP. TENS. F t=
c
at A
time
2L
t =
c
32 32
PILE DRIVING
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www2.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/projects/t
PILE DRIVING ANALYSIS FOR DRIVEN PILES

eW h (m m )
R U D =
W 300 c
+
N (b p f ) 2
h
Load, Q
st
st
R
L
sb Settlement, s
33 33
PILE DRIVING ANALYSIS FOR DRIVEN PILES
RUD eWh ( mm )
Total Elastic RUD RUD max =
2.5
Energy Energy
RUD
c S 75 Np(bpf)
s
e=efficiency of the hammer
W= hammer weight g
eW h (m m ) h= drop height
R U D =
300 c Np= number of blow per foot
+
N (b p f ) 2 C= elastic compression (5mm?)
RUD= ultimate resistance of the pile

at the end of driving.
WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS

∂ 2U πD ρ ∂ 2U
WAK − R =
∂z 2 AE E ∂t 2
E Wave Velocity
c =
ρ
ρ=mass density of the pile
E=elastic modulus
D A=cross sectional area of the pile
RUD= ultimate resistance of the pile at the end of
driving
RUD
L
Np
34 34
WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS
WAK WAK
D D
L L
+
-
+ +
Soft Hard
PILE DRIVING ANALYZER

Software: CAPWAP
W Driving Process
Pile Capacity
h
Pile
Pil Integrity
I i
st
Stresses along the Pile
Strain and
Acceleration
Transducers STRAIN
R
L
time
ACCELERATION
sb
35 35
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF A SINGLE PILE

Qu
Qu Qu = Q fu + Q pu
Working
Load
Q u = f u As + p u A p
L fu Qfu fu= Ultimate Skin Friction (kPa)
Ultimate As= Surface Area

Load
pu= Ultimate Point Pressure (kPa)
pu Qpu Ap= Point Area
36 36
ULTIMATE POINT RESISTANCE FOR DRIVEN PILES
Short and Long Term
q max = 9 S u For Clays -Short Term.
q max = σ vo' N q For Clays -Long

Long Term
(Nq from API)
qmax (kPa) = 1000( N )
0.5
For Sands (Short & Long Term)
q max = σ vo' N q For Sands -Short & Long Term

(Nq from API)
Others Methods are based on Pressuremeter and Cone
Penetration Test
Frank, R. (1997), Calcul des Fondations Superficielles et Profondes, Presses de
L’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, pp141
ULTIMATE FRICTION FOR DRIVEN PILES IN CLAY

Short and Long Term
f u max = α S u f u max = βσ v'
37 37
ULTIMATE FRICTION FOR DRIVEN PILES IN SAND
Short and Long Term

f u max = βσ v'
For Piles in Sand
f u max (kPa ) = 5( N )
0 .7
N=SPT blow count
For Bored Piles Use

fumax=0.75fumax (Driven)
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF A BORED PILE

Reese & O’Neil
Nc Square
For Clays:
f u = 0 . 55 Su S u ≤ 275 KPa Strip
S
⎡ ⎛ L ⎞⎤
Pu = N c S u ; N c = 6 ⎢1 + 0 . 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ≤ 9
⎣ ⎝ Bb ⎠⎦ D/B
For Sands:
f u = β σ 'v ; β = 1.5 − 0.135( z ( ft )) 0.5 ;
0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2; f u ≤ 200 kP a
Pu(kPa)=57 NSPT for 0≤ NSPT ≤75 blows per foot

Pu= 4300 kPa for NSPT ≥ 75 blows per foot
38 38
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON DOWNDRAG VISIT:
PILNEG, free software

http://ceprofs.tamu.edu/briaud/
Briaud J.-L., Tucker L.M., 1998, “Design guidelines for
downdrag on uncoated and bitumen coated piles”, NCHRP
Report 393, National Academy of Sciences.
CRITICAL DEPTH OF A SINGLE PILE
Qu
Qu
SKEMPTON’S CHART
Dc=4B
Nc
L1 fu
Square
9.0
LAYER 1
St i
Strip
7.0
4B LAYER 2
pu
B 4.0 D/B
39 39
SETTLEMENT FOR SINGLE PILES
Qtop GENERAL APPROACH

Stop
Pave L
S top = S bottom +
AE
L fu Pa v e = 0 .6 Q to p ( ? )
s bottom = I (1 − υ )p
2 B
E
Sbottom
q
SETTLEMENT FOR SINGLE PILES
PL
Qtop P1 = q 1 A p + 1
2
f 1 A s1 w 2 = w1 +
AE
f1
Q
wT
Qtop
L1 f1
P3
w
w3 f2
L2 f2 P2
w
w2 q
f1
L3 f3 P1
w1 w w
q q1
40 40
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF A PILE GROUP
Qugroup
Qusingle
L L
Zone of Influence
Qugroup = enQu sin gle

e=overall efficiency factor ≈1.0
41 41
BLOCK FAILUREANALYSIS OF A PILE GROUP FOR CLAYEY SOILS
Qugroup
B L
Q ublock = 2 S u (B + L )D + N c S u BL
Qugroup = min ( nQusingle , Qublock )
LOAD TRANSFER FOR A PILE GROUP ANALYSIS

Qugroup Qugroup
2/3L L
L
Hard Layer
Transfer the Load to 2/3 L if the

Transfer the Load to the bottom
Soil is uniform (Friction Piles) if there is a hard layer
(End Bearing Pile)
42 42
CASE HYSTORY – NEW ORLEANS HOSPITAL
10000 Timber Piles
0.3 m diameter (average)
1500 MN 16 Story-Building
15 m Long
Soft Clay at the top
2m thick dense sand at 14.5 m
Load Test for a Single Pile
H=14.5 m Su=20 kPa LOAD
H=2 m Sand
H1
H2
Su=30 kPa
H=83.5 m H3 L
H4
H5
CASE HYSTORY – NEW ORLEANS HOSPITAL
Weight of the Hospital=1500 MN

1500 MN Ru for one pile = 300 kN
10000 x Ru=3000 MN ----FS=2.0 ok.
Ultimate Block Capacity= 1200 MN
(PROBLEM)
∆Htotal = 0.50 m
H=14.5 m
H=2 m Hi σv ∆σ Uo ∆σ’ εb εa ∆H=∆εxHi

H1
H2
H=83.5 H3
,
H4
H5
43 43
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
8. Special Cases (Shrink-Swell Soil, Downdrag and
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
44 44
45 45

ULTIMATE HORIZONTAL LOAD
⎛π ⎞
Dv = ⎜ ⎟lo for L > 3lo
⎝ 4 ⎠
3 L
H ou = p l BD v Dv = for L < lo
4 3
1/4
⎛ 4 EI ⎞
lo = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ K ⎠
Pl = limit ppressure from PMT L=length

L length of the pile
B = projected pile width Dv=(π/lo) with Io=(4EI/K)1/4 for l>3lo
E = modulus of the pile material Dv=L/3 for l<lo.
I = moment of inertia Hou=ultimate horizontal load
K = 2.3 Eo lo =transfer length
46 46
FIXED HEAD BEHAVIOR FREE HEAD BEHAVIOR
M M
y o
y
H ou H ou
o
y o' ≠ 0
y' =0
o
L L
L =length pile
Hou =ultimate horizontal load yo = horizontal displacement at the top of the pile
M =moment at the top of the pile y'o =deflection at the top of the pile
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT @Hou/3

GENERAL CASE
2H o 2M
yo = + 2 o f
for L > 3 l o Long
L andd Flexible
Fl ibl
lo K lo k
−2 ( 2 H o L + 3M o )
yo yo = for L < l o Short and Rigid
KL2
K = 2 .3 E o
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
f PMT L = length pile
B = projected pile width Hou = ultimate horizontal load
E = modulus of pile material lo = transfer length
I = moment of inertia Ho = applied horizontal load
M = moment at the top
47 47

FREE HEAD
2H o
yo = for L > 3 l o Long
L andd Flexible
Fl ibl
lo K
4H o
yo yo = − for L < l o Short and Rigid
LK
K = 2 .3 E o
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
B = projected pile width Dv = (π/lo) with Io=(4EI/K)1/4 for l>3lo
E = modulus of pile material Dv = L/3 for l<lo.
I = moment of inertia Hou = ultimate horizontal load
K =2.3 Eo lo = transfer length

FIXED HEAD
Ho
yo = for L > 3lo Long
L andd Flexible
Fl ibl
lo K
H
yo yo = − o2 for l < lo Short and Rigid
KL
K = 2 .3 E o
Pl = limit
li it pressure from
B = projected pile width Hou = ultimate horizontal load
E = modulus of pile material lo = transfer length
I = moment of inertia Ho = applied horizontal load
48 48
LONG TERM LATERAL LOAD
H ou (t )
−n
y o (t )
n
⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟
H ou (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎟⎠ y o (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎟⎠
n=0.01 to 0.03 in sands

n=0.02 to 0.08 in clays
Hou= ultimate horizontal load at time t

Hou= ultimate horizontal load at time to
yo = lateral deflection at time t
yo = lateral deflection at time to
49 49
“n” VALUES FROM THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
⎛ Δ R (t ) ⎞
− log ⎜⎜ ⎟
Δ R (t ) ⎛ t ⎞
−n
⎝ Δ R (t o ) ⎟⎠
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ n =
Δ R (t o ) ⎝ t o ⎠ ⎛ t ⎞
log ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ to ⎠
n=0.01 to 0.03 in sands

n=0.02 to 0.08 in clays
∆R(t)= change in the radius of the cavity at time t

∆R(t0)= change in the radius of the cavity at time to
“n” VALUES FROM THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
50 50
CYCLIC LATERAL LOADING
y N = y1 N a
a averages 0.1 for clays (one way and two way)

a averages 0.08 for sands under one way loading
a averages 0 for sands under two way loading
Ho Ho
ONE WAY CYCLIC
TWO WAY CYCLIC
LOADING
LOADING
y
y
“a” FROM THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
⎛ ΔRN ⎞
ΔRN log ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
= N a
R1 a = ⎝ Δ R1 ⎠
log ( N )
PMT ONLY APPLICABLE FOR ONE WAY

CYCLIC LOADING
51 51
THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
THE PRESSUREMETER TEST
52 52
LATERAL LOAD NEAR A TRENCH
LATERAL LOAD NEAR A TRENCH

H trench = λ H no trench
53 53
FUTURE WORK IN RETAINING WALLS
EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT VS MOVEMENT/HEIGHT
54 54
DESIGN OF PILE GROUP FOR HORIZONTAL LOADS
FIXED HEAD BEHAVIOR

Hou Hou
L L
Hou( group) = enHou(single)

n= number of piles
e=efficiency factor
GROUP EFFICIENCY FOR HORIZONTALLY LOADED PILES
4 DIAMETER PENETRATION AND 0.5- DIAMETER CLEAR SPACING
Direction of the Load
0.33 0.31 0.36
Fraction of the Load
55 55
GROUP EFFICIENCY FOR HORIZONTALLY LOADED PILES
8 DIAMETER PENETRATION AND 0.5 DIAMETER CLEAR SPACING
0.20 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.28
0.21 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.26
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.24
CONTENT OUTLINE

4
4. P
Pile I
Instalation
Scour)
9.
10. Conclusion
56 56
FOUNDATION ON SHRINK-SWELL SOILS
Soil Movement
Water Content Profile
Shrink Swell Soil ∆w

h=active zone
ΔH i Δwi 0 . 33 Δ w i
ε = = f =
Hi E wi γw
γ d
FOUNDATION ON SHRINK SWELL SOILS

Shrink-Swell Soil
Shrinking Swelling
Qu Qu
LOAD h=active zone
L
Qu
L LOAD = f u π Dh
Swelling L LOAD = f u π D ( L − h )
Qp
πD 2
Shrinking L LOAD = fuπ D ( L − h ) + p u

4
57 57
STIFFENED SLAB ON PIERS
ELEVATED STRUCTURAL SLAB ON PIERS

THIN POST TENSIONED SLAB ON GRADE
STIFFENED SLAB ON GRADE
58 58
DOWNDRAG ON PILES
PILE POINT BEHAVIOR
59 59
PILE POINT BEHAVIOR
π Qp D
ω punch = (1 − v 2 )
4 AEs
ωpunch = Pile point movement

ν = Poisson’s ratio
Qp= Point resistance
A= Area of pile point
D= Diameter of pile point
For clays = Es = 100 Su = EPMT
Es= Soil modulus
For sands=Es (kPa) = 750 N = 2 EPMT
EXAMPLE OF DOWNDRAG ON SINGLE PILES
Pile Ultimate Capacity

Qu = 706 + 1000
Qu = 1706 kN
60 60
EXAMPLE OF DOWNDRAG ON SINGLE PILES
DOWNDRAG FOR A GROUP OF UNCOATED PILES
Qfn(group)
Qfn(single)
L
L
s s s
Corner Piles Q fn ( group ) = 0 . 5 Q fn (sin gle )
s
Side Piles Q fn ( side ) = 0 . 40 Q fn (sin gle ) for = 2.5
d
Internal Piles Q fn (int ernal ) = 0 . 15 Q fn (sin gle )
61 61
SCOUR TYPES
CL
y s(Abut) Applies y s(Cont) Applies

Probable Flood Level
y s(Abut)
y s(Cont)
y s(pier)
Normal Water Level
Where, y s(Abut) is Abutment Scour Depth

y s(Cont) is Contraction Scour Depth
y s(pier) is Pier Scour Depth
MAXIMUM PIER SCOUR (Oh, 2009)

y s ( Pier )
= 2.2 ⋅ K w ⋅ K1 ⋅ K L ⋅ K sp ⋅ ( 2.6 ⋅ Fr( pier ) − Frc ( pier ) )
0.7
a'
⎧ ⎛y ⎞
0.33
y1
⎪0.89 ⎜ 1 ⎟ , for < 1.43
Kw = ⎨ ⎝ a'⎠ a'
⎪1.0 , else
⎩
⎧1.0 , for θ > 30°
Where, K1 = ⎨
⎩Value in following Table , else
K L = 1.0, for whole range of L / a
⎧ ⎛ S ⎞ −0.91 S
⎪ 2.9 , for < 3.42
K sp = ⎨ ⎜⎝ a ' ⎟⎠ a'
⎪1.0
⎩1 0 , else
Shape of pier nose K1 Shape of pier nose K1

Square nose 1.1 Circular cylinder 1.0
Round nose 1.0 Sharp nose 0.9
62 62
OBSERVED FAILURE MODES OF BRIDGE DUE TO SCOUR
(based on failure photos in Briaud’s files)
Case 1 - Big Scour Hole Case 2 – Settlement of Pier
26% Observed Occurrence 32% Observed Occurrence
Case 3 - Loss of Deck Case 4 - Loss of Pier
5% Observed Occurrence 37% Observed Occurrence


Case 1 - Big Scour Hole
26% Observed Occurrence

126
63 63
Courtesy of the University of Kentucky at Louisville

64 64
Case 2 – Settlement of Pier

129

65 65

66 66

Case 3 - Loss of Deck

134
67 67

Hatchie River Bridge, Tennessee
68 68

Case 4 - Loss of Pier

138
69 69

70 70

71 71

72 72
This distance should be

made larger to decrease
the risk of collapse
145
THE ROLE OF SOIL STRUCTURE-INTERACTION
STRUCTURAL
and
GEOTECHNICAL
Qu Q
k
1
S
73 73
CONTENT OUTLINE

4 Pile
4. P I
Instalation
8. Special Cases (Shrink-Swell Soils and Downdrag)
9. Example Problems
10.The
0T Role of Load Testing
T
11. Conclusion
THE ROLE OF LABORATORY TESTING

→ Laboratory testing brings the problem of sample
disturbance . However, its application is valuable for the
understanding of some properties that can not be
determined using In-Situ Tests.
74 74
THE ROLE OF IN-SITU TESTING
→In-situ testing gives a good estimation of the soil properties by

reducing the problem of sample disturbance.
→Its application depends on the project magnitude and importance.
THE ROLE OF LOAD TESTING: SONIC INTEGRITY TEST
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://
→ SONIC-INTEGRITY: is an in-situ test that helps to locate

potential problems in bored piles.
75 75
THE ROLE OF LOAD TESTING: STATIC LOAD TEST FOR PILES
LOAD Hydraulic
Jack and Gauges Qu Qu
RX RX Q(Load)
0.1B
L
AE
Qu Qu
L
CLAYS SANDS
S(Settlement)
Reaction Piles
QL
S e = 0 .1 B +
AE
THE ROLE OF LOAD TESTING: STATIC LOAD TEST FOR PILES

http://www.earth-engineers.com/Pile%20Load%20Test%20%281%29.jpg
→ It provides the load curve of an installed pile. From that,

the ultimate load resistance of the pile can be determined.
76 76
STATIC LOAD TEST FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
(Texas A&M University Load Tests)
THE ROLE LOAD TESTING: STATNAMIC TEST

www.statnamiceurope.com/
→ The Statnamic is another load test that provides a load

Settlement curve of an installed pile.
77 77
STATNAMIC LOAD TEST FOR SINGLE PILES
BANG
Q((Topp Load))
BIG MASS Charge
LASER
stop
Calibrated
Dynamic
y
L Load Cell
S(Top Settlement)
Sbottom
THE ROLE OF LOAD TESTING: OSTERBER CELL TEST
Transducers FROM: HTTP://WWW.LOADTEST.COM

HC O’CELL INSTALLATION
Hydraulic
Control
Tested Area
L Steel Plates
Load Cell
Reaction Area
78 78
CONTENT OUTLINE

4 Pile
4. P I
Instalation
8. Special Cases (Shrink-Swell Soils and Downdrag)
9. Example Problems
10.The
0T Role of Load Testing
T
11. Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Foundation engineering requires:
1. A good understanding of site
conditions including Geology
2. Proper use of theory in design
3. Safety against ultimate capacity
4. Allowable movements
5. Good experience and engineering
judgement
6. Appropriate specifications
7. Quality control during
construction
79 79
MORE REFERENCES
BRIAUD, J.L., “SALLOP: Simple Approach for Lateral Loads

on Piles,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 10, pp. 958-964, ASCE, New
York, October 1997.
BRIAUD, J.L., The Pressuremeter, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 1992.
ASSHTO LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design).
BRIAUD J.-L.,
J L GIBBENS R., R “Behavior
“B h i off Five
Fi S
Spread
d
Footings in Sand,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No.9, pp. 787-797,
September 1999, ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
80 80

Briaud-Foundations Under Static Loads (English) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Briaud-Foundations Under Static Loads (English) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD1

1. President of ISSMGE, Professor and Holder of The Buchanan Chair,

1. Load Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) Approach

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

→ WORKING STRESS DESIGN

→ LOAD RESISTANCE FACTORS DESIGN (LRFD)

L= Load γ = Load Factor γ

LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

Σγi Li= 1.25DL + 1.75LL For Ultimate Load

Σγi Li= 1.0DL + 1.0LL For Settlement in Sand &

Σγi Li= 1.0DL Long Term Settlement in

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Σφi R= 0.35R For Friction Angle Approach ---SANDS

Σφi R= 0.45R For SPT Approach ---SANDS

Σφi R= 0.55R For CPT Approach---SANDS

Σφi R= 0.50R For CPT Approach---CLAYS

Su= Undrained Shear Strength

LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

Σφi R= 0.56R to 0.70R (Verif.) For αSu Method---CLAYS

Σφi R= 0.36R to 0.45R (Verif.) For SPT Method ---SANDS

Use 0.85φ(compression) for φ(uplift)

Su= Undrained Shear Strength

Σφi R= 0.65R For αSu Method---CLAYS SIDE

Σφi R= 0.55R For 0.057N Method---SANDS POINT

Su= Undrained Shear Strength

1. Load Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) Approach

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

SITE INVESTIGATION – STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

SITE INVESTIGATION – CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

SITE INVESTIGATION – SEISMIC PIEZOCONE TEST

MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002)

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

MAYNE, P., CHRISTOPHER, B., & DEJONG, J. (2002).

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

SITE INVESTIGATION – PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT)

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

1. Clays and Silts:

2. Sands and Gravels:

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

1. Load Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) Approach

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION (G.B.C.E)

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE RESULTS

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

THE STRENGTH EQUATION ALWAYS WORKS

Pu = K p pL + γ D From The Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Pu = K c qc + γ D From The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)

Pu(kPa) = KN N + γ D From The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Pl= Limit Pressure from PMT qc= Cone Point Resistance

N=blows/ft from the SPT

Jean Louis BRIAUD – TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Pu = Nc Su + γ D From the Undrained Shear Strength, Su

Pu = K p pL + γ D From The Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Pu = Kc qc + γ D From The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)