Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1550

-

-PRESENTATIONS - INDEX
-
-Mark Randolph.- K. Rainer Massarsch Lecture:. Practical Approaches for Design of
Pile Groups and Piled Rafts.

-EmiliosComodromos.- Fundaciones de plateas piloteadas bajo carga combinada:


metodología eficiente para análisis y diseño. Piled Raft Foundations Under Combined
Loading: Efficient Methodology for Analysis and Design.

-Alessandro Mandolini.-
Bengt H. Fellenius Lecture: Lecciones aprendidas de
investigaciones experimentales sobre pilotes: un punto de vista personal. Lessons
Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles - A Personal Point Of View.
-
-Der-Wen Chang.- Desarrollo de un analisis tridimensional de diferencias finitas para
asentamientos de cimentaciones de plateas piloteadas bajo cargas verticales.
Developing a Three Dimensional Finite-Difference Analysis for Piled Raft Foundation
Settlements Under Vertical Loads.

-Mario Terceros H.- Celda de carga como elemento de mejora de la base de los pilotes perforados

-Bengt Fellenius.- Respuesta estática de un grupo de 13 pilotes ensayados simultáneamente.


Static response of a group of 13 piles tested simultaneously.

-K. Rainer Massarsch.- Mario Terceros Banzer Lecture: La evoluci6n del concepto Expander Body
y sus futuras aplicaciones. The evolution of the Expander Body concept and future applications.

-Kyle Rollins.- lnteracci6n del grupo de pilotes durante carga lateral. Pile group interaction during
lateral loading.

-Anthony O’Brien.- De menor a mayor - La evolución de las cimentaciones profundas para


proyectos de transporte. From minor to major - The evolution of deep foundations for transportation
projects

-Dimitrios Konstantakos.- Immersive Geotechnical Engineering

-Anthony Marinucci.- Design and Construction Considerations for Anchored

-Luis Raygada.- Muros de Sostenimiento en Áreas Urbanas

-Alejo Sfriso.- Excavaciones urbanas en Buenos Aires

-Franz-Werner Gerressen.- Retaining Systems in Urban Excavations

-Carlos Medeiros Silva.- Desempenho Das Estruturas De Contenções Em Solos Colapsíveis.

-Walter Paniagua.- Sistemas de contención para excavaciones profundas Procedimientos


constructivos
4th Congreso Internacional de

Fundaciones Profundas de Bolivia

Practical approaches for design of pile


groups and piled rafts
Mark Randolph and Oliver Reul

Mark Randolph The University of Ocean Graduate School 23 May 2019


Western Australia Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems
Outline

Analysis philosophy: pile groups and piled rafts


• Ultimate limit states (capacity) & serviceability (deformations)
• Absolute deformations: relative importance of non-linear pile responses
• Differential settlements: bending stiffness of pile cap or raft
Non-linear response of pile groups - hierarchical approach
• Simple (non-linear) lumped models: pile group, raft, piled-raft interactions
• Elasticity based methods: allowance for non-linearity at pile or soil element
• Comparisons with field data: axial, lateral loading
Piled rafts
• Iterative approach to couple pile response with (flexible) raft
• Case studies: numerical and field measurements

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 2
Analysis focus: pile groups, piled rafts

Size of foundation

‘Small’: B << L ‘Large’: B >> L

B Pile-reinforced zones B
L L

• ULS >> serviceability • Serviceability >> ULS


(capacity rules over deformations) • Non-linear pile and raft responses of
• Non-linear pile response critical limited importance
• Pile cap, raft: limited importance • Differential settlements critical:
load distribution from superstructure;
positioning of piles;
thickness of pile cap or raft

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 3
Evolution: raft, pile group, piled raft

Concept: piles as ‘settlement reducers’ for notional raft foundation


• Superstructural load distribution important
• Differential settlements more critical than absolute settlement
• Controllable by: (a) Profile of raft thickness (b) Locations of piles

Piled raft
Pile group

Raft
Randolph (1994)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 4
A few software tools

Pile groups Basic approach Soil model Interaction Loading


REPUTE BEM Layered (approximate) Elastic - Mindlin Vertical only
(PGROUPn) Non-linear, limiting capacity Rigid pile cap
CLAP, DEFPIG BEM Layered (approximate) Interaction General 3D
Non-linear, limiting capacity factors Rigid pile cap
PIGLET Analytical Linearly varying modulus Semi-analytical General 3D
Non-linear, limiting capacity Rigid pile cap
GROUP, PILGRP1 Load transfer Layered Load transfer General 3D
curves Non-linear, limiting capacity modifiers Rigid pile cap
Piled rafts
Small & Zhang (2002) Finite layer Layered Elastic General 3D
Elastic, limiting capacity Flexible raft
NAPRA, NAPHOL BEM Layered (approximate) Interaction Vertical only
Non-linear, limiting capacity factors Flexible raft
GARP BEM Layered (finite layer) Interaction General 3D
Elastic, limiting capacity factors Flexible raft
HyPR Semi-analytical Linearly varying modulus Elastic - Mindlin Vertical only
and elastic Elastic, limiting capacity Flexible raft

… and then there is 3-dimensional finite element analysis

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 5
Treatment of non-linearity

Soil, pile-soil or foundation models


F F F

g
k k  F 
F = k0 d F = k0d  Flim = 1− f 
k0  lim 
F
d d
Elastic d Elastic-plastic Non-linear

Level of application
• Foundation unit level: F  Q (total load); Flim  Qult (ultimate total load)
• e.g. Mandolini (2017): direct estimates of average settlement
• Pile head level: F  V (axial load); Flim  Vlim (limiting axial capacity)
• e.g. PIGLET
• Soil element level: F  t (pile-soil traction); Flim  ts (limiting pile-soil traction)
• e.g. HYPRnl, PGROUPn & REPUTE, NAPRA & NAPHOL, GARP
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 6
Interaction and non-linearity

Principle (virtually universal)


• Interactive deformations based on initial tangent stiffness
• Non-linear component of deformations treated as local to individual pile

Load (per pile)


O A B C D

Single pile
Single pile Group pile
Group pile
response response

Elastic: OC = RsOA
Non-linear: AB = CD

Displacement
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 7
Simple lumped model for piled rafts

Mandolini (2017)
• Distinguish between initial (elastic) tangent stiffness
Ki,0 and current tangent stiffness Ki,t Raft

Pile group
nr
dQr  Q 
• Raft (non-linear): = K r ,t = K r ,0 1 − r 
dwr  Q
 r ,ult 
np
dQ p  Qp 
• Pile group (non-linear): = K p ,t = K p ,0 1 − 
dwp  Q p ,ult
 

dwp   1/ K p ,t a pr / K r ,0  dQ p 
• Elastic interaction:  =  
 r  a rp / K p ,0
dw 1/ K r ,t   dQr 

• Interaction factor arp ~ 0.8 for large pile groups (Clancy & Randolph 1993)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 8
Non-linear response of each pile: PIGLET

Axial loading
• Elastic response from closed form solution of Randolph & Wroth (1978)
• Interactive deformations (elastic) from logarithmic decay
Vi ln ( rm / sij ) Vi 1.1
w j = a =x f=0 f = 0.7, g = 0.9 f = 0.9
kvi ,0 ln ( 2rm / d ) kvi ,0 1
0.9

Normalised axial load, V/Vlim


with rm the limit of interaction and sij 0.8 g
kv  V 
the spacing of piles with diameter d 0.7 = 1− f  
0.6
kv ,0  Vlim 
• ‘diffraction’ parameter x allows for 0.5
g = 0.3, 0.7, 1.5

0.4
differential pile compression
0.3
(Mylonakis & Gazetas, 1998) 0.2
Axial response
• Leading diagonal of stiffness matrix 0.1 Generalised hyperbola
0
‘softened’ to allow for non-linear 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Normalised axial displacement, w0kv,0/Vlim
response of individual pile

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 9
Non-linear response of each pile: PIGLET

Lateral loading
• Elastic response from closed form solution of Randolph (1981)
• Interaction according to approximate inverse relationships: a  d/sij
• Pile head stiffness reduced according to
6
kh 1
= Lateral response

Normalised lateral load, H/kh,0 u0,50


p
kh,0 u  5 Generalised hyperbola
1 +  0,el
 u0,50 
4 Linear p = 0.5
where u0,el is the purely elastic pile
deflection at ground level and u0,50 is 3 p=2
the value of u0,el at which secant 2
stiffness is halved p = 100
1
• Values of p > 10 reduce to elastic-
plastic response 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Normalised lateral displacement, u0 /u0 ,50
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 10
Comparisons among different software

Pirrello & Poulos (2014): combined loading of two different foundations


1. Small 3  3 pile group
2. Large 172-pile group proposed for Incheon Tower

Four different analysis techniques considered


• CLAP (Coffey 2017)
• PIGLET 5.1 (Randolph 2004)
• REPUTE (Geocentrix 2017)
• PLAXIS 3-D (General FE code)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 11
Pirrello & Poulos – 9-pile group

2m 2m 50 MPa
0 E

2m 0.5 m

 = 0.3
2m
G = 19.2 MPa

V = 9 MN
Hx = 0.9 MN
Hy = 0.9 MN
Mx (y to z) = 3 MNm 15 m
100 MPa
My (x to z) = 4.5 MNm
G = 38.5 MPa
T = 1.5 MNm

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 12
Pirrello & Poulos – 9-pile group results

Quantity Units CLAP PIGLET1 REPUTE PLAXIS


Central settlement mm 7.43 9.4 8.8 14.1
Lateral deflection (x) mm 3.1 2.9 3.3 4.7
Lateral deflection (y) mm 3.2 3.0 2.3 4.2
Rotation (about y axis) mradians 0.4 0.4 0.2 3.2
Rotation (about x axis) mradians 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.9
Torsional rotation mradians 0.4 0.4 0.5 -
Maximum axial load MN 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.27
Maximum lateral load (y) MN 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.26
Maximum moment (x:z) MNm 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.32
Maximum moment (y:z) MNm 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.31
• Pile
Maximum group softwareMNm
torque generally 0.01
in good agreement
0.01 0.01 -
• PLAXIS deformations are surprisingly high
• CLAP and PIGLET maximum lateral loads and moments are
lower than from REPUTE and PLAXIS (no shadowing effect)
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 13
Incheon Tower foundations
x coordinate (m)
8 m 172 piles
20 m Diameter 2.5 m

y coordinate (m)
Typical spacing: 5 m
2m
V = 6560 MN
20 m Hx = 149 MN
Hy = 115 MN
Mx (y to z) = 21600 MNm
My (x to z) = 12710 MNm
T = 1996 MNm

Pile embedment from 46.3 to 71.3 m (average 55.3 m)

• Soil shear modulus profiles: Gaxial = 7 + 4.5z MPa


Pirrello & Poulos (2014) Gb = 600 MPa ~ 2GL
Glateral = 5 + 3.5z MPa ( = 0.3)
Proposed 151 • Shaft friction: 50 kPa to 500 kPa: design average ~ 125 kPa (54 MN)
storey twin towers
• End-bearing capacity: 12 MPa (58.9 MN): design limit 30 MN
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 14
Incheon Tower foundations

~ 88 m 7 MPa
0 G

 = 0.3
5m 2.5 m

~ 77 m
4.5 MPa/m

Pile cap: 5.5 m thick;


0.1 m above ground surface

Pile embedment varies Below pile base


from 46.1 to 76.1 m
~60 m
600 MPa
V = 6560 MN
Hx = 149 MN ; My (x to z) = 21600 MNm
Hy = 115 MN ; Mx (y to z) = 12710 MNm
Pirrello & Poulos (2014)
T = 1.5 MNm

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 15
Incheon Tower foundations - results
Pirrello & Poulos (2014)

PIGLET1
Quantity Units CLAP REPUTE PLAXIS
E E-P NL-P
Central settlement mm 53.0 56.7 58.7 69.7 55.0 56.0
Lateral deflection (x) mm 18.5 19.5 19.8 20.4 21.0 18.7
Lateral deflection (y) mm 14.9 15.0 15.3 16.4 18.0 15.0
Rotation (about y axis) mradians 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Rotation (about x axis) mradians 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2
Torsional rotation mradians 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3
Maximum axial load MN 84.6 140.6 83.5 69.4 84.8 83.0
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 2.7 4.2 4.2 3.9 3 2.5
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.2
Maximum moment (x:z) MNm 22.9 18.9 18.7 16.4 21.4 20.0
Maximum moment (y:z) MNm 22.9 13.8 13.4 11.3 18.5 21.0
Maximum torque MNm 3.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.5
• Excellent agreement among all analysis results
• PIGLET maximum axial load very high from purely elastic analysis
• PIGLET non-linear analysis gives much more even axial load distribution
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 16
Comparisons with field test data

A. Three small groups of piles


1. O’Neill et al. (1980, 1982): axially loaded 9-pile group
2. McCabe & Lehane (2006): axially loaded 5-pile group
3. Rollins et al. (2006): laterally loaded 9-pile group
Note: all studies included independent tests on single piles

B. Field measurements from settlement of 697 pile group


• Goosens & van Impe (1991)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 17
Axial load tests on 9-pile group
O’Neill et al. (1980, 1982)

0.82 m 0.82 m

0.82 m 800
0.274 m

Vertical load per pile, P (kN)


700
0.82 m 600
500
400
Piles:
300 Measured - single pile
Steel tubes: 0.274 m diam.
200 Piglet single pile
Wall thickness: 9.3 mm
Embedded 13.1 m 100 Measured - average group pile
Loads applied 0.9 m above ground Piglet average group pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Soil data: Vertical displacement, w0 (mm)
Shear modulus: G = 50 + 10z MPa
Limiting axial pile capacity: 674 kN
Non-linear parameters: f = 0.6, g = 0.85

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 18
Axial load tests on 5-pile group
McCabe & Lehane (2006)

1m 1m
70

Vertical load per pile, P (kN)


1m 60
0.282 m 50
1m Piglet: average group pile but
40 reduced central pile capacity

30 Measured - single pile

20 Piglet single pile


Piles:
Measured - average group pile
0.25 m square concrete 10
(modelled as cylinders) Piglet average group pile
0
embedded 6 m 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical displacement, w0 (mm)
Soil data:
Shear modulus: G = 10 MPa
Limiting axial pile capacity: 64 kN
Non-linear parameters: f = 0.96, g = 0.4

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 19
Lateral load tests on 9-pile group
Rollins et al. (2006)

0.97 m 0.97 m
200 Measured - single pile
180 Piglet output
0.97 m

Lateral load, H (kN)


0.324 m 160
Measured - average group pile
140
Piglet output - group
120
0.97 m
100
80
Piles (pinned at head): 60
Steel tubes: 0.324 m diam.
40
20
Wall thickness: 9.5 mm
0
Embedded 9.1 m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Loads applied 0.44 m above ground
Lateral displacement, u0 (mm)

Soil data:
Shear modulus: G = 10 MPa
Non-linear parameters: u0,50 = 0.02dp, p = 0.8

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 20
Measured response of 697-pile group
Goosens & van Impe (1991)

Section A-A

Soil data:
Shear modulus: G = 60 MPa
Axial pile capacity: 4.9 MN
Non-linear param.: f = 0.95, g = 0.7

Piles:
Cast-in-situ: 0.52 m diam.
Embedded 13.1 m
Expanded base diameter: 0.8 m
Pile spacing: 2.08 m (41  17 grid) A
Design working load ~ 1.3 MN/pile

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 21
Measured response of 697-pile group
Goosens & van Impe (1991)

Group pile settlement w0 (mm)


0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
2.5
Non-linear
Elastic average average group
Average vertical load, V (MN)

group response response


2

1.5 Single pile responses


(bottom axis)

1
Measured - single pile
Piglet single pile
0.5 Coordinate across silos (m)
Piglet average group
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Piglet elastic average 0
group
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, w (mm)

Single pile settlement, w0 (mm) 20


Measured along edge of silos
40 after 2 years
(Goosens & van Impe 1991)
• Underlying clay strata gave 60
continuing settlements
80
• After 10 years, central edge Piglet: Edge of silos

settlements ~ 180 mm 100


Piglet: Centre of silos
120
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 22
Piled rafts

Analysis objectives
• Sharing of load between raft and piles
• extremes of raft with a few settlement reducing piles, or
pile group with ground contacting cap
• Raft (pile cap) flexibility helps even out load distribution
• and controls differential settlements
• Simple geometries – uniform raft thickness
• raft-soil stiffness ratio a useful concept

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 23
Raft-soil stiffness ratio
Horikoshi & Randolph (1997)
Lr
0.5 3
Br E r 1 −  s2  Br   tr 
K rs = 5.57     Br
E s 1 −  2r  L r   Lr 
tr Lr

Differential settlements Bending moments


0.6
w 0.03
Central Lr/Br = 1
0.5 w average 0.025
moment
0.4 M/qLr2 0.02 Lr/Br = 5
0.3 Midside-centre
0.015
Rectangle (Lr/Br = 1 or 10)
0.2 Lr/Br = 10
0.01
0.1 0.005
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 24
Piled raft analysis – iterative approach

Investigation of iterative approach


• Pile group analysis using PIGLET
• Pile cap (no soil contact) or raft
(soil contact) analysis using finite
element code TOCHNOG Elastic soil

• Iteration process: Piles modelled


as equivalent
• Model pile group with fully flexible cap springs

(vertical response only)


• Output: spring stiffness for each pile, settlements at pile head
• Model raft on elastic continuum and elastic pile ‘springs’
• Input: pile spring stiffness values; output: settlements at pile head
• Convergence check
• Finish
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 25
Application of iterative approach

Example numerical study


(Reul & Randolph, 2003)
• Pile group:
• diameter 1 m
• spacing 6dp
• layout 7 7 grid
• length 30 m
• Raft
• square 38 m 38 m
Frankfurt clay:
• thickness 3 m
  z − 30  
E = 45 + 0.7  tanh   + 1 z MPa
• Krs ~ 0.05   15  
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 26
Convergence over 20 iterations

Load share Settlement difference:


Settlement Qpile/Qtotal between raft and pile group

3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 27
Load-settlement responses

Mobilised soil resistance

Iterative
approach

Piles
Raft (3D FEA) Total
(3D FEA) (3D FEA)

Settlement

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 28
Pile group – relative spring stiffnesses

Corner Iterative approach Corner 0.031


3D FEA
pile pile
Non-linear
Elastic

0.018 0.025

0.014 0.016 0.024

Centre Centre
pile pile
0.013 0.014 0.016 0.024

• 3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75


• Piled raft: differential settlements ~ 10% of average settlement of raft alone
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 29
Prototype case study 1: Messeturm

64 bored piles
1.3 m diameter
Spacing ≥ 3.4dp
Profiled raft:
6 m to 3 m

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 30
Messeturm: 3D finite element analysis
Reul and Randolph (2003)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 31
Messeturm: effect of groundwater level

• Groundwater drawdown from adjacent tunnel construction


• Pressure changes on raft cause corresponding changes in pile loads
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 32
Messeturm: load-settlement response

Effective settlement inducing load, Peff (MN)

Piled raft: 3D FEA


Iterative approach
(elastic)
Raft only: 3D FEA

Measured

Central
settlement (mm)
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 33
Messeturm: settlement profiles

Corner Corner

Normalised
settlement • Measurements show greater differential settlement
s/smax • Low differential settlement of iterative approach
partly due to approximation of raft profile

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 34
Messeturm: pile load-settlement responses

Inner ring
• Measurements show considerable scatter
• Elastic iterative approach gives less even
3D FEA load distribution
Iterative Middle ring

Measured
3D FEA

Measured Outer ring

Iterative
3D FEA

Iterative

Measured

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 35
WestendDuo: piled raft foundation

• Twin 96 m high towers, constructed 2004-2006


• 4 storey basement – excavation depth 15 m

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 36
WestendDuo: foundation layout

Cross-section A-A

Raft:
• Irregular shape
A A
• 1.8 m thick under main towers
• 1.2 m thick under low-rise sections
Piles: 1.2 m diameter
~ 68 m • 13 inner piles - 25 m long
Raft thickness 1.2 m (elsewhere 1.8 m)
• 13 outer piles - 20 m long
Instrumented pile

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 37
WestendDuo: geological section

6m
Basement depth 15 m

79 m

> 50 m

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 38
WestendDuo: alternative foundations

Foundation Analysis Max. sett. Differential Pile load


configuration smax (mm) settlement, /L proportion, zpr
F1 unpiled raft 3D FEA 137 1/300 (F2 1/500) -
K3 piled raft 3D FEA 72 1/500 (K2 1/700) 0.380
K3 piled raft Iterative 76 1/500 0.379
K3 piled raft Measured 47 1/700 -

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 39
WestendDuo: groundwater fluctuations

Pore pressure (kPa) Measured pile load (MN)

Pile load range

Net superstructure load:


Peff ~ 613 MN (150 kPa)

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 40
WestendDuo: settlement contours

Settlements (mm)

• 23 geodetic survey points


• Maximum settlement 47 mm
• Maximum /L ~ 1:700
• Well within design estimates

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 41
Pile group and piled raft stiffnesses

Group 20
McCabe
18 L/D = 25
stiffness 5 piles
L Ep/GL = 1000
Kp/GLB 16 B r = 0.75
s/D = 2
14  = 0.3

12
Pirrello
10 s/D = 3 9 piles Incheon
Messeturm
8 s/D = 5 172 piles
64 piles Goosens
6 697 piles
4 s/D = 10
O’Neill et al. Reul WestendDuo
2 9 piles 49 piles 26 pilesRaft stiffness
0
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 42
Summary comments - 1

Analysis approaches for pile groups and piled rafts


• Charts and simple lumped models for complete pile group and raft
• Interaction between elements based on elasticity
• Several purpose-specific software tools available, most based on BEM
• Gold standard: 3-dimensional finite element analysis

Treatment of non-linearity
• Elastic-plastic, or non-linear (hyperbolic-style) functions
• Applied at level of (a) foundation unit; (b) individual pile; or (c) soil element
• Interaction based on initial tangent elastic response

Design and analysis strategy


• Start simple; progress to sophisticated analysis as design matures
• Non-linearity important for small pile groups; less so for large foundations
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 43
Summary comments - 2

Approaches illustrated using PIGLET software for pile group analysis


• New non-linear extension of software for both axial and lateral response
• Single pile response calibrated from independent analyses of field tests
• Derived parameters then applied for analysis of full pile group
• Good consistency with other pile group analysis software and FE analysis
• Reasonable matching of field studies on small groups of 5 to 9 piles
• Consistent magnitudes and settlement profiles for large (697-pile) group

Coupled iterative approach for piled raft analysis


• Linking of pile group software to raft analysis software
• Iteration to provide consistent distributions of pile loads and settlements
• Promising comparisons with 3D FEA and data from piled rafts in Germany

Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 44
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Piled Raft Foundations Under Combined Loading


EFFICIENT METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Emilios M. Comodromos
Laboratory of Computational Geotechnical Engineering

Emilios M. Comodromos, Professor in soil-structure interaction


Civil Engineering Department, University of Thessaly, Greece
1
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

In a 3-D analysis a designer can take into account most of the


mechanisms arising from the soil-pile-raft interaction under any
loading combination, but at high computation demands.
Experience from 3-D analyses of foundations and other cases
demonstrates that more than 95% of computer resources and
computational time arises from the simulation of the soil domain by
volume elements.

2
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Straightforward analysis allowing for pile – soil – raft interaction by


replacing the surrounding soil with non linear springs

Advantages
• Dramatically reduce the computational time.
• Carry analyses for various combination of loads, required by most
design codes.
• Provide the possibility of unified numerical analysis of both the
foundation and the superstructure.
▪ implicitly generate the envelopes of internal forces on structural elements >
design

Prerequisite
• Accurately introduce the mechanisms of soil-pile-raft and the
variation of soil resistance associated with their activation

3
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Straightforward analysis allowing for pile – soil – raft interaction


by replacing the surrounding soil with springs of variable stiffness

Presentation Layout

• Response of a single pile under axial loading


• Response of a pile in group under axial loading
• Response of a single pile under lateral loading
• Response of a pile in group under lateral loading
• Effect from the Raft to piles and vice versa
• Combined loading
• Applications

4
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Three main approaches to define the response of a pile under


axial load
simplicity less accuracy accuracy complexity

Geotechnical Simplified Numerical 3D Nonlinear


Methods Methods Numerical Methods
‘t-z’
Load

Settlement
5
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Simulation of a single pile under axial load by one dimensional elements

𝑑2 𝑤𝑗 𝑧
𝐸𝑝 𝐴𝑝 − 𝑘𝑧 Δ𝑤𝑗 = 0
𝑑𝑧 2

Beam 60

Shaft resistance τ (kPa)


elements
40

w 20

0
0 w 0.05 0.1
Pile settlement S (m)

Non-linear spring elements simulating


the shaft and base resistance

6
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Shaft resistance
Simplified Numerical
Methods
shaft and base resistance
according to API (2002)

Pile base resistance

7
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Pile base resistance


Simplified Numerical
Boussinesq, Timoshenko and Goodier Methods
Relationships for assessing the
𝑄b 1 − 𝜈 shaft and base resistance
𝑆b =
2 𝐷 𝐺b
Shaft resistance
Randolph et al.
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑠
Δ𝑠
𝜏s = 𝜏sf − 1.1 𝜏sf − 𝜏s;res 1 − exp −2.4
Δ𝑠f

8
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

From the single pile to


the pile group response Single pile
It is commonly accepted that, for the
same mean load, a pile group exhibits
considerably higher settlement than an Group 3 x 3
identical single pile, while each pile of S/D = 3
the group demonstrates a different L/D = 25
response, depending on its location.

Ras: response amplification factor

𝑆mG 𝑆nG
𝑅as = =
𝑆mLs 𝑆ns

9
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

2 (𝑠Τ𝐷) 𝐵
4𝐵ʹ + 2.7 𝑠/𝐷(5 − )
𝑅as = 3 𝑅as =
𝑅as = 𝐷
𝐵ʹ + 3.6 1 2
1+
𝑛𝑟
Skempton, 1953 Meyerhof, 1959 Vesic, 1969
−0.15
−0.675 0.66 𝐷
𝑁·𝑠 𝐷g Τ𝐷 𝑅as =
𝑅as = 0.29𝑁 ηg = 𝑅s−1 = 𝐷g
𝐿 𝑁

Randolph and Clancy, 1993 McCabe and Lehane, 2006 Castelli and Maugeri, 2002

A
𝐷𝑔 Τ𝐷 0.07 1.9 −0.08 0.54𝑁𝑅
5
ηg = ηf = 𝑅as = 0.8 𝑆𝑛𝑠 1.23𝑁𝑅 + 𝑆𝑛𝑠 e ln 1.25 + 𝑠
𝑁+1 ൗ𝐷
Sheil and McCabe, 2014 Comodromos et al., 2009, 2016

10
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
Skempton (1953) Meyerhof (1959)
Vesic (1969) Kaniraj (1993)
Randolph & Clancy (1993) Castelli & Maugeri (2002)
Comodromos (2004) Comodromos et al. (2016)
McCabe & Lehane (2006) Sheil & McCabe (2015)
Field data (O'Neill et al. 1977) Field data (Randolph & Clancy 1994)
Field data (Rampello 1994) Field data (Trofimenkov 1977)
Settlement ratio, Rs 14

-1 0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of piles, N

Comparison of the settlement amplification factor provided by


existing empirical approaches, Sheil et al. 2019
11
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Different behavior depending on the pile location 60

Shaft resistance τ (kPa)


40
Free standing
piles 20 Single pile
Pile in a group
0
0 0.05 0.1
Pile settlement S (m)

Sp Ss

Lower shear strain


Less activation
of shear resistance

Ss -> 0 ∀d➚
Ss = Sp ∀d➘

12
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Fixed head piles

250%

p1
p2
p3 P5 P6

Normalised Axial Load Na (%).


200% P3
p4
p6 P2 P4

150% P1

100%

50%

0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Normalised Settlement Sns

Fig. 8. Variation of normalised load with normalised settlement for caracteristic piles p1, p2, p3, p4 and
Define the mechanism of location effect on
p6 in a 5*5 layout with a spacing of 5.0D, soil type C3 and relative length L/D=25.

characteristic piles
Comodromos & Bareka: On the Response Prediction of Axially Loaded Fixed Head Pile Groups in Clayey Soils
13
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

14
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
MESSERTUM SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT
Foundation Layout

Location effect on pile resistance

256m

59m

Sandy soil
Frankfurt clay

Katzenbach et al. 2005


Katzenbach et al. 2005

15
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Location weighting factor


Once the ‘t-z’ curves for the S.P. are known then we can define
those of a pile in a group through a bijective function,
i.e. from (tS,zS) and Ras -> (tG-zG)

𝑡S 𝑡S
𝑡G = 𝑡G;j
𝑅as

𝑡G , 𝑡S
Piles in a group
𝑧G = 𝑧S 𝑡G
tS-zS
tG-zG
tS
tG
Modification to account for the
location 𝑧S = 𝑧G
𝑡S 𝑡S
𝑡G;j = = 𝑙𝑤
𝑅as;j 𝑅as j
𝑧G;j = 𝑧S
16
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Location weighting factor

𝑛 𝑛
𝑡S 𝑡S
෍ 𝑅as;j = ෍ 𝑙𝑤𝑖 𝑅a𝑠 = 𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑅a𝑠 𝑡G;j = = 𝑙𝑤
𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑅as;j 𝑅as j
17
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Two main approaches to define the response of the pile under


lateral load

simplicity accuracy accuracy complexity

Simplified Numerical 3D Nonlinear


Methods Numerical Methods

18
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Simplified Numerical
Methods Soil resistance

Loading 1
Loading 2

‘p-y’ curves
p : soil resistance Epy=p/y
y : pile displacement

19
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Beam on elastic foundation

(M+dM) – M + Ndy - Vvdx = 0 

dM dy d2M d2 y dVV
+N − VV = 0  + N − =0
dx dx dx 2 dx 2 dx

d2 y d2M d4 y
M = EpIp  = EpIp
dx 2 dx 2 dx 4
dVV
p= , E py =p/y ⇒p=E py  y
dx

d4 y d2 y
EpIp 4 + N 2 + Epy  y = 0
Hetenyi, M., 1946. Beams on Elastic dx dx
Foundations, Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.

20
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
load

beam elem.

springs

Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD (1974) Analysis of


laterally loaded piles in sand. In Proc. 6th Offsh.
Techn. Conf., Houston, pp. 473–83.
Matlock, H. (1970). Correlations for design of
laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Proc.2nd Offsh.
Techn. Conf., Houston, 577-594.
Reese, L.C. & Welch, R,C. (1975). Lateral loadings
of deep foundations in stiff clay. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 101, 633-649.
21
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Hyperbolic form of p-y curves in clayey soil 22


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Hyperbolic form of p-y curves in sandy soil


23
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Correlation of group response


to that of a single pile

𝑦nG 𝑦G
𝑅ad = =
𝑦ns 𝑦S
yG = group displacement
ys = single pile displacement

Comodromos EM and Papadopoulou MC (2012) "Response evaluation of horizontally


loaded pile groups in clayey soils", Géotechnique, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp 329-39. 24
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

For the same displacement the


resistance of a pile in a group is
lower than that of the S.P.
Use of p-multipliers to reduce soil
resistance.
Values from experimental results in
tabular form, quite few,
limited to s = 3D.

Transformation relationship
f(ps, ys, Rad)

25
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
RESPONSE OF PILE GROUPS IN CLAYEY SOILS

Affecting factors:
➢ group layout
➢ pile spacing
➢ shear resistance
displacement level
Amplification factor Ra

Range of
application

Normalised displacement y/D


26
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
RELATIONSHIP FOR GROUP AMPLIFICATION FACTOR Ra
Mean load Hm

K Gi − K Gp
i
WG − WGp y nG = Ra y ns Normalised displacement y/D
m
K err = 1
j  K i
Werr =
WG
yG = Ra ys
i =1, j G

The most suitable values for parameters a and b were obtained from the
optimization for the less stiffness and potential energy mean error procedure over
112 cases and were found to be 0.25 and 0.40 for a and b, respectively. 27
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Comodromos, E.M. and Papadopoulou, M.C. 2013. Explicit extension of the p–y method to pile
groups in cohesive soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 47: pp. 28–41. 28
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

GROUP RESPONSE IN SANDY SOILS EXPERIENCE LESS INTERACTION


EFFECTS
Amplification factor Ra

The most suitable values for


parameters a and b were
Normalised displacement y/D found to be 0.10 and 0.20 for a
and b, respectively.

−b a
 d  yns m tanφ
Ra = 1 + 2(m − 1)   − ln log
30
(1 − 2 yns )
 20  d
o
3 tan25 d
Papadopoulou MC and Comodromos EM (2010) "On the response prediction of horizontally
loaded fixed-head pile groups in sands", Computers & Geotechnics, Vol. 37, No. 7-8, pp 930-941.
29
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Papadopoulou, M.C. and Comodromos, E.M. 2014. Explicit extension of the p–y method to pile
groups in sandy soils. Acta Geotechnica, 9(3): 485-497. 30
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Response of characteristic piles in a group


31
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

From the single pile to the pile group response

C1, 3 x 3, 2.0D C1, 3 x 3, 3.0D


yG = 14.4 cm yG = 10.3 cm

C1, 3 x 3, 6.0D
yG = 8.6 cm
32
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

33
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Forming the p-y curves for each particular pile in a group


(along pile length)
Transformation relationship
f(ps, ys, Rad;j)

Piles in a group

34
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED PILE RAFT FOUNDATIONS

Katzenbach et al.
The response of the piles, is it affected by the raft resistance or vice-versa?

35
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED PILE RAFT FOUNDATIONS

Low raft resistance


High raft resistance !!!!

The response of the piles remains practically unaffected by the existence of the raft.
On the contrary the springs simulating the raft resistance must be reduced to 50% of the raft alone.
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Rentzeperis IK (2009) "Pile foundation analysis and design using
experimental data and 3-D numerical analysis", Computers & Geotechnics, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp 819-836.
Comodromos, E., Papadopoulou M, Pitilakis K.(2010) "Analysis and design of piled raft foundations",Int. Geot
Confer. Geotechnical Challenges in Megacities, ISSMGE, Moscow.

36
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
5
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS N= 0.00 Nult N= 0.25 Nult N= 0.50 Nult
4 N= 0.75 Nult N= 0.90 Nult N= 0.95 Nult

Lateral load Η (MN)


3

2
failure in vertical equilibrium
1 arising from pile-soil separation

0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Normalised deflection y/D (%)

Zormpa TE, Comodromos EM (2018) "Numerical Evaluation of


Pile Response Under Combined Lateral and Axial Loading",
Geotechnical and Geologigal Engineering, Vol. 36 pp 793-811
doi: DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0354-1.

37
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS

REDUCTION OF SHAFT RESISTANCE


IN THE ZONE OF SOIL-PILE REPARATION

38
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS

39
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED LOADING: SANDY SOILS
INCREASE OF SHAFT RESISTANCE
AT THE UPPER ZONE AS A RESULT OF THE
SOIL REACTION AGAINST THE LATERAL LOAD

40
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
COMBINED LOADING: SANDY SOILS

41
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

APPLICABILITY

ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/
PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
42
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

43
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Laloui L. GK (2016) "Contribution to the design methodologies of
piled raft foundations under combined loadings", Canadian Geotechnical Journal. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0251.
44
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

45
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

46
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT

47
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Performance based-design > Ultimate Limit State (ULS)


Focus on the capacity of structure to carry safely the actions
(actions increased by a pf < resistance decrease by a pf)

Displacement based-design > Serviceability limit state (SLS)


Partial factors of safety are not applied since they are leading to unrealistic stress
path (higher) and the reduction of the failure surface > irrelevant zone plastification
Non-linear behavior governs the system (the foundation response is required rather
than the ultimate capacity)

Combinations of actions for seismic design situations

48
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Partial factors on actions and recommended combination ψ


factors for buildings, according to Eurocode

49
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
Estimation of the location weighting factor in horizantal loading
Location weighting factors for characteristic piles under lateral loading
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Laloui L. (2015) Contribution to the design methodologies of piled raft foundations under combined loadings, to appear in Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Current case: 6 x 7 at 3.4D


Number of characteristic piles
FC
2
FR
4
PE
12
IN
24
Total number of piles
42
Rad= 2.40
0.85 0.9 1.00 1.03 at yns= 2%
Verification
1 < should be equal to 1

ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
Emilios M. Comodromos, 2015 50
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Location weighting factors for characteristic piles under axial loading

1. Pile Groups less than 5 x 5


Current case: 3 x 3
Number of characteristic piles
corner external internal Total number of piles
4 4 1 9
1.1 0.9375 0.85

Verification
1 < should be equal to 1

2. Pile Groups bigger than 5 x 5


Current case: 42 piles Torhaus Building, Frankfurt
Number of characteristic piles

corner external mid Internal Total number of piles


4 18 14 6 42
2.11 1.11 0.75 0.5

Verification
1 < should be equal to 1

Please notice that in the case 2 an iteration is needed.


For MAC o.s. > Go to the menu Preferences> Calculations and set iteration to 100 and maximum change to 0.001
For Windows o.s. > Go to File>options>Folmulas>enable iterative calculations Ras= 6.74
at Sns= 2 %

ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
51
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Finite Element Mesh


Plate elements: 4748
Beam elements: 1680
Spring elements: 5040

52
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Soil springs
Lateral: 80 different types
Shaft: 80 different types
Base resistance: 1 type

53
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Actions
1. Dead load (400 MN)
2. Variable load (2 kPa on each floor)
3. Wind Load in X-X and Y-Y directions
4. Thermal load on geothermal piles (+15 C and -15 C)
5. Seismic action
Artificial accelelogram,
soil type A, acceleration 1.2 m/sec2
H1, p2

X-X Y-Y

H1 (m) 45 24

P1 (kPa) 1.62 0.78

P2 (kPa 2.13 1.97

H1, p1

54
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Load cases
1. Piled raft with distributed load (in total 200 MN on each raft), load case 100, 21 sec
2. Dead Load of the skyscraber (in total 401.6 MN), load case 101, 43 sec
3. Variable, load case 102, 30sec
4. Wind Load Y-Y, load case 150, 40 sec
5. Wind Load X-X, load case 151, 39 sec
6. Thermal Load on Piles , +15o C, load case 300, 30sec
7. Thermal Load on Piles , -15o C, load case 301, 30sec

Design Load Cases


1. ULS analysis, 1.35 LC101+1.5 LC102+ 0.6 LC150+ 0.2 LC300+ 0.6 0.2 LC151, 65sec
2. Seismic action, LC101+0.5 LC102+0.6 LC300 + seismic action, 1649 sec

Additional time analysis


1. Mesh generation and applied load, 67sec
2. Design of piles from maximum values of the design LC, 12 sec
3. Design of raft elements from maximum values of the design LC, 34 sec

Storage requirements
Database in bin format, 0.4 GB for all analyses, except the seismic action which requires over than 2 GB

55
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

LC100 LC101

-20.00

-20.00
-10.00

-10.00
0.00

0.00
10.00

10.00
20.00

20.00
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111

109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100

120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110

108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Beam Elements,Quadrilateral Elements M 1 : 403 Sector of system Group 1...5 M 1 : 403
Z X Z X
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local z in Node , Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local z in Node ,
Y nonlinear Loadcase 100 Permanent on Raft , from 101.4 to Y nonlinear Loadcase 101 Permanent on Floors , from 100.0 to

Same level of settlements, slight difference in distribution


56
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

LC100 LC101

-20.00

-20.00
-5941 -4774 -5942 -5932 -4604 -4606 -5933

-4637 -3695 -213 -815 -4752 -3666 -212

-4634 -2694 -4634 -4743 -2663 -2664 -4745

-4635 -2695 -4635 -4773 -2686 -2686 -4774

-10.00

-10.00
-4641 -3697 -4640 -4835 -3748 -3748 -4835

-5944 -4779 -5943 -5985 -4729 -4729 -5985

0.00

0.00
-5944 -4778 -5943 -5985 -4728 -4727 -5984

10.00

10.00
-4641 -3697 -4640 -4835 -3748 -3747 -4833

-4635 -2695 -4635 -4774 -2686 -2686 -4772

-4634 -2694 -4634 -4745 -2664 -2663 -4743

-4637 -3695 -4638 -4754 -3668 -3667 -4752


20.00

20.00
-5941 -4774 -5942 -5933 -4606 -4605 -5932

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 355 Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 355
Z X Z X
Beam Elements , Normal force Nx in kN, nonlinear Loadcase 100 Beam Elements , Normal force Nx in kN, nonlinear Loadcase 101
Y Permanent on Raft (Min=-5944.) (Max=-213.3) Y Permanent on Floors (Min=-5985.) (Max=-212.4)

Same axial load on piles >> the raft is practically rigid


57
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

-5933 LC101
-4774
-5480 -5985
-2686 -4379
-4604 -5533 -5984
-5027 -4772
-5932 -3727 -4729 -5532 -4547 -5932
-3459 -5080
-4773
-5479 -5985 -4138 -4728 -4182 -5479
-5079

0.00
-3160 -4168
-4379 -5985 -4606
-5533 -3788 -5026
-5026 -3703 -4774
-2848 -3610
-3988 -5533 -4548 -5933
-5080 -4027 -4154
-4154 -3256
-2533 -3054
-3498 -5080 -4184 -5480
-4168 -3607 -3602
-3602 -2845
-2229 -2490 -3964
-3080 -4168 -5027
-3610 -3177 -3052
-3052 -2384 -3498
-1872 -1925
-2666 -3610 -3270 -4154
-3054 -2778 -2488
-2488 -1872
-1462 -1360

10.00
-2148 -3054 -2873 -3602
-2490 -2329 -1923
-1923 -1362 -2652
-680.0
-1370 -1633 -2490 -3052
-1925 -1827 -1358
-276.8 -2149
-1018 -1112 -158.3 -831.1 -2488
-1925 -1880 -1327 -678.9
-556.6 -1020 -1393
-559.2 -1368 -1923 -808.0
-340.0 -1020
-839.2 -1358 -269.2
-340.0 -555.9

20.00
-678.9
-158

-1165

-1748

-2331

-2913

-3496

-4079

-4661

-5244

-5826

-5985
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Group 0 M 1 : 271


X
Y Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 101 Permanent on Floors , 1 cm 3D = 15391. kN (Min=-5985.) (Max=-158.3) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

Distribution of axial load in piles


58
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Seismic action, envelope


-10168
-7731
-9387 -10214
-6045 -7112 -10208
-8616 -9432
-7712
-9284 -6496 -9427 -10163
-7125 -8662 -5727
-9332 -7094
-8552 -5632 -8657 -9382

0.00
-6542 -9331 -6479
-7831 -8600 -4942 -7126 -8612
-5964 -8600 -9282
-6464 -7879 -4256 -6543 -6998
-5194 -7879 -8551
-5642 -6465 -3520 -5965 -6124
-4569 -6465 -7830
-4828 -5643 -2849 -5194 -5255
-3951 -5643 -6462
-3897 -4828 -2180 -4569 -4241

10.00
-3185 -4827 -5641
-2973 -3897 -1512 -3951 -3233
-2423 -3896 -4826
-2054 -1439 -3185 -2228
-202.7 -2972 -3896 -1495
-1026 -1244 -719.0 -2423
-2054 -2972 -747.1
-415.6 -1026 -1664
-1026 -2054
-831.4
-1026

20.00
-203

-2002

-3003

-4004

-5005

-6007

-7008

-8009

-9010

-10011

-10214
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 271


X
Y Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 9902 STEP min values of all timesteps , 1 cm 3D = 18047. kN (Min=-10214.) (Max=-202.7) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

Distribution of axial load in piles


59
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
LC101

0.00

0.00

0.00
-5933 4.66 -34.0 102.1

-5706 9.27 100.7


-20.0 99.5
-5480 8.84
98.2

5.00
-5253 6.34
-4.84 97.0

5.00
-5027 3.85
-0.987
5.00

5.00
95.9
-4588 1.86 0.877 94.9
-4154 0.566 1.44 94.0
-3878 -0.117 93.1

10.00
-3602 -0.375 0.951
92.3

10.00
-3327 -0.392 91.5
10.00

10.00
0.257
-3052 -0.302 90.8

-2770 -0.189 90.2


-0.0277
-2488 89.7
-0.0957 -0.0606

15.00
15.00
89.2
-2205 -0.0329
88.7
-1923 0.0014 -0.0437
15.00

15.00
88.4
-1640 0.0154
-0.0122 88.1
-1358 0.0176
87.8

20.00
20.00
-1018 0.0139
87.7
-678.9 0.0085

-12
-15

-21
-24
-27
-29
-32
-34
1
0
-6
-9
87.6
0.0037
20.00

20.00

0.00 5.00 m 0.00 5.00 m 0.00 5.00 m 15.00 20.00 m

Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0
M 1 : 158 M 1 : 158 M 1 : 181 M 1 : 166
Y X Beam Elements , Normal force Y X Beam Elements , Shear force Y X Beam Elements , Bending X Nodal displacement in global
Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 101 Vz, nonlinear Loadcase 101 moment My, nonlinear Loadcase
Y Z, nonlinear Loadcase 101
X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z 101 Permanent on Floors , 1 Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z * 0.962
3D = 5000. kN (Min=-5933.) 3D = 5.00 kN (Min=-0.392) cm 3D = 20.0 kNm (Min=-34.0) 3D = 100.0 mm

Distribution of axial, shear force, b.moment and settlement on corner pile 60


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

LC seismic action, max values

0.00

0.00

0.00
-9282 -74.1 -244.0 161.0
-8915 -73.4 158.9
-96.5
-8551 -54.4 156.9
-8190 -32.2 -42.1 155.0

5.00
-7830 -16.0 -9.84 153.2
5.00 6.13

5.00

5.00
-7140 -5.25 151.4

-6462 0.591 9.21 149.8


-6051 2.75 6.33 148.3
-5641 2.03 147.0

10.00
1.53
-5233 1.24 145.7
10.00

10.00
0.296

10.00
-4826 0.588 144.6

-4360 0.172 143.5


-0.464
-3896 -0.0437 142.5

-3433 -0.122 -0.492 141.6

15.00
-2972 -0.125 140.9
15.00

15.00

15.00
-2512 -0.139 -0.364 140.2

-2054 -0.112 -0.225 139.6

-1539 -0.0703 139.2


-0.0426
-1026 -0.0333 138.8

20.00
-0.0092 -0.0092 138.6

-24420.00
20.00

20.00

138.5
-1026
-2064
-2752
-3440
-4128
-4816

-6192
-6880
-7568
-8256
-8944
-9282

-100

-150

-200
-50
9

0
-15
-23
-31

-46
-54
-61
-69
-74
3
0

0.00 5.00 m 20.00 25.00 m 20.00 25.00 m 15.00 20.00 m

Sector of system Group 0 2 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0
M 1 : 179 M 1 : 179 M 1 : 181 M 1 : 174
Y X Beam Elements , Normal force X Y Beam Elements , Shear force X Y Beam Elements , Bending X Nodal displacement in global
Nx, Loadcase 9902 STEP min Vy, Loadcase 9902 STEP min moment Mz (Maximum values
Y Z, Loadcase 9901 STEP max
X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z cubic interpolated), Loadcase Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z * 0.962
cm 3D = 5000. kN (Min=-9282.) cm 3D = 50.0 kN (Min=-74.1) 9902 STEP min values of all cm 3D = 100.0 mm

Distribution of axial, shear force, b.moment and settlement on corner pile 61


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Wind in Y-Y direction Wind in X-X direction Permanent Load 62


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Thermal Thermal
contraction expansion

63
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

-120.00
-100.00

-100.00
-80.00

-80.00
-60.00

-60.00
-40.00

-40.00
-20.00

-20.00
0.00

0.00
20.00

20.00
-6

-95

-142

-190

-237

-285

-332

-380

-427

-474

-480

16
994

884

773

663

552

442

331

221

110
1121

-40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 m


-40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 m

Sector of system M 1 : 752


X Sector of system M 1 : 812
Y Deformed Structure from LC 9902 STEP min values of all timesteps Enlarged by 50.0 X * 0.502 X
Y * 0.906
Y Deformed Structure from LC 9901 STEP max values of all timesteps Enlarged by 20.0 X * 0.502
Z
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local x in Node , Loadcase 9902 STEP min Z * 0.962 Z Y * 0.906
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local x in Node , Loadcase 9901 STEP max Z * 0.962

Seismic action
64
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

ULS, desing

-10.00
.9
Minimum reinforcement
16 .6 .7
14 14 .8 31.7 cm2
.5 14 .9 .5
14 5 .9 6 14 17
1 1 3. 8
. 5 3 . . 9 5 .9
14 . 6 .8 1 1 4
16
. 17 .3 .3
13 14 15 15 .3
.0 .8 9 .1 15 .4 .3
17 .7 13 4. .9 5 15 . 9 2 15 18
1 4 . 7
.8
1 1 3
15
. 16 4. .3
14 14 .9 1 4 4
.9 14 .6 .9 .1 1 1
5 . . 2
15 .6 17 13 .8 1 5
14
. . 8 1 17
13 .7 .8 12 15 .2
13 3 9 2 .8 14
4

0.00
.9
1 13
. . 6
.8 9.
6 17 .2 3 1 5. 4 .3 . 2
14 .6 16 12 1 5 . .3 1 6
12 .6 15 15 .4 1
12 .7 .9 62 2 .8 15 .2 .3
12 12 5.
5 9. .3 16 .2 18 14 .3
6 0 2 1 8 14 .2 3 13
9. 9.
6 62 2 2 14 1 4. . 3 2 6 2
9. .6 6 2 9 .6 . 32 0 2 .8 14 17
. .3 9.
30
9 9. 8 7. 15 .2 .2 13
8. 32 13 13 .2 62
8. 32 32 32 13 .3 1 9. .3
2
8. 8. 32 8. 02 79 9 13 6. 8
8. 7. 6. 9.
5 6 2 1
. 00 2 2 9. 62 2 62 2
7 7.
0 02 0 02 9. .6 62 9. .3 2
7. 02 7. 7. 79 29
9 9 . 8 . 0
7. 6. 79 8. 32 33
7
79 6. 8. 32 32 8. 32
6. 79 8. 8. 8. 02 79
79 .7
9
6.
9 7. 6.
6. 9 .7 79 00 2

10.00
7 6 6 . . 0 2 2 . 0 2
79 6. 79 6 7 7. 0 7 7.
0 02
6. 79 6. 79 79 7. 7. 79 79
79 6. 6. 6. .7
9 6. 6 .
6. 7 9 6
79 79
79 6. 79 79 79 79 79 6. 79 9
79 6. 6. 6. 79 6. 6. 79 6. 6. 6. .7 79
6. 6. 6. 6 .
79 79 9 79 79 79
6
79 6. 6. 79 9 .7 79 6. .7
9 6. 6. 79 9
6. 6 . 7 6 . 6 6 .
6.
7
79 6. 6
79
6. 79 79 79 79 6. 79 79 79
6. 79 79 6. 6. 6. 6. 79 6.
6. 6. 9 6. 6.
7 9 6 .7 7 9 9 7 9
6. 6. 6 .7 . 79 6.
79 79
6
6. 6. 79 79
6. 79 6.

20.00
6.
18
18
18
17
17
17
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
13
13
13

12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Group 0 M 1 : 275


X
Y Minimum-Beam Elements , Longitudinal Reinforcements Lay. 0, 1 cm 3D = 30.8 cm2 (Max=18.3) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

Pile reinforcement, Loadcase LC 101


65
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Seismic, design

-10.00
.4
22 .3
17 .5
0 22
3. .0 .5
1 20 .3 .3 22 .3
12 15 .1 17 .4
.4 4 20 .6 22
1. .0 .2 1 16
31 1 15 4 13 2 0.
.1 1 2. .0 8.
7
.0
.4 28 15 .6 20
23 9 .6 14

0.00
9. 9 .3 .0 11 . 0
. 1 0 30 15
6 . 2 20 2 .2 . 3 1 1 .4 .0
17
. 7 10 1 .2 1 31 15
7. .0 22 .
8 8 .8 10 . 2 . 3
. 0
8 0 1
9.
1 11 23 10 .2
.0 6. 7. .4 12
16 17 1
8. . 5 7
8 6 . 8 . 9 6 . 8
8.
0 17 8. 1
6. 15 8 9.
4 6. .9
8. 15

10.00
. 8 . 8 8 8
8 . 8 6 . 4 6 8 8 6. .9 6.
6 . 6 8 6 . 6. 15
3 8
8 6.
8 8. 8 6.
8 6 .8 6. 8 6.
8 3 6.
6 . . 8
6.
8 6. 8. 8
8
6 8 6.
8 6.
6. 8 6 . 8 6.
6.
8 6. 8
8 6.
8 6.
6.

20.00
31

27

25

22

20

17

15

12

10

7
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 m

Sector of system Group 0 M 1 : 283


X
Y Beam Elements , Longitudinal Reinforcements Lay. 0, Design Case 2 , 1 cm 3D = 37.7 cm2 (Max=31.4) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

Pile reinforcement, Seismic action


66
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

389
350
LC 100, 101 8047
8000

-20.00
7500

-20.00
300 -401.6

-205.0
250 -199.7 -218.3 7000

42.5
222.9
389.2
6500
200 327.9
6000
150 190.4

-10.00
-10.00
5500
100
-414.5 5000
50
4500

0 4000

0.00
0.00
-50 3500

-100 3000
-12.7
2500
-150 -440.3
2000

10.00
-345.3
10.00
-200
1500
-445.7

-426.5
-424.9
-423.4
-420.7

-417.7
-415.8

-250
1000
-300
500
-350
20.00

20.00
-444.4
-400 -10.4 -500
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 m
-446 -683
Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1...4 M 1 : 364 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1 3 M 1 : 355
Z X Z X
Bending moment m-yy in local y in Node , nonlinear Loadcase Bending moment m-yy in local y in Node , nonlinear Loadcase
Y 100 Permanent on Raft , 1 cm 3D = 832.0 kNm/m (Min=-445.7) Y 101 Permanent on Floors , from -683.1 to 8047. step 500.0

Bending moments Loadcase 101 67


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Seismic action 213.0

-20.00

-20.00
2882.6

-3 7.4

-1. 8
366.4

8. 1

9. 1
15. 0

17. 5
63.5
108. 5
19 5.0

20 0.8
272. 2

423 .0

9.4

3.4
5 45.5
59 0.9

851 .6
34 6.3

-10.00

-10.00
3395.8

164.1

0.00

0.00
105.6

10.00
3590.6

10.00
139.0

-57.2

3184.4

20.00
16 93.7

20.00
1 81 3. 8

2 054. 4
20 68.4
2168 .6

2205 .1
2 239. 1
26 83.4

2 820. 2
30 69.2

34 08 .4

184.8
5 019 .5
51 14.4
58 70. 6

594 5. 3

42258
6258
6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-500

-962
0
5945
5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-57
0

30.00

-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1 3 M 1 : 418 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1...4 M 1 : 403
Z X Z X
Principal bending moment I in Node, Loadcase 9901 STEP max Principal bending moment I in Node, Loadcase 9901 STEP max
Y values of all timesteps , 1 cm 3D = 5000. kNm/m (Min=-57.2) Y values of all timesteps , from -961.6 to 6258. step 500.0

Bending moments, Seismic action 68


Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

0.00
0.00

5.00
5.00
140.5 140.5 140.5 140.5 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7

140.5

140.5

140.5

140.5

292.7

292.7

292.7

292.7

292.7
140.5 140.5 140.5 140.5 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7

140.5

140.5

140.5

140.5

292.7

292.7

292.7

292.7

292.7
50.2 15.5 23.7 24.8 25.4 37.0 25.4
9.66

10.1

9.66

9.73

9.47

11.5

10.00
10.00
140.5 140.5 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 292.7

140.5

140.5

140.5

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

292.7
24.3 8.58 20.0 15.4 18.4 32.7 16.3
4.86

1.89

4.00

3.09

5.89

6.85

12.1
140.5 140.5 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0

140.5

140.5

140.5

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

15.00
15.00
36.2 11.6 35.8 19.1 34.3 32.8 21.0
29.7

3.99

18.2

3.81

15.7

9.58

14.8
105.8 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0

105.8

140.5

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0
14.9 49.7 25.2 34.3 35.3 22.6 105.8 105.8 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0

20.00
105.8

105.8

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0
20.00
29.7

8.73

18.2

9.35

15.7

8.18

8.28
105.8 105.8 105.8 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0

105.8

105.8

105.8

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

298.0

25.00
25.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 m 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 m

Sector of system Group 1 M 1 : 233 Sector of system Group 1 M 1 : 234


Z X Z X
Quadrilateral Elements , upper Reinforcements in Node in Quadrilateral Elements , lower Reinforcements in Node in
Y cm2/m, Design Case 1 ULS design (Max=50.2) Y cm2/m, Design Case 1 ULS design (Max=298.0)

Raft reinforcement resulting from the envelope of results (bottom and top layer) 69
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering

Gracias por su atención

70
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius
TC212
Deep Foundations

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)
Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
- Introduction
- Experimental findings and practical implications for pile design
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft)
- Exercises
- Concluding remarks

Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)


Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
Due to ever-increasing demands by the society, in the last
decades attention has been addressed to:

- even more versatile and powerful piling equipment

- new pile loading test techniques

- optimized design criteria (i.e., piled raft)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WORLD’S RECORDS

The largest diameter bored pile:


Jiashao Bridge (China); d = 3.8 m; L = 110 m

The largest diameter CFA pile:


108 Tower (Australia); d = 0.9 m; L = 50 m

SOILMEC (d = 1.2 m; L = 36 m)
BAUER (d = 1.5 m; L = 28 m)

The largest diameter driven pile:


Hong Kong–Macau Seaway Project (China);
d = 30 m; L = 34 m

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WORLD’S RECORDS

The largest pile loading test:


Ohio River Bridge (USA)

Q = 322 MN
(4 x 860 mm O-Cell at 1 single
level 1.1 m above pile base)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WORLD’S RECORDS

The tallest building (H = 828 m):


Burj Khalifa (DUBAI)

Foundation:
3.7 m thick raft supported by
- Tower – 194 bored piles d = 1.5
m; L = 47.45 m
- Podium – 750 bored piles d =
0.9 m; L = 30 m

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Looking to the recent Past (50 years):  WTC x 2

 415 m  830 m

Source: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2010)


Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Looking to the next Future:  WTC x 2.5
 1000 m

 415 m  830 m

Source: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2010)


Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Main design stages @1

Single pile response to vertical and horizontal design actions:


- bearing capacity
- movement

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Main design stages @2

Group effects (interaction among piles)


- approaching failure (single pile failure, row of piles, block
failure)
- under design working loads (superposition of movement
profiles)

Figures from Fleming et al. (2009)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Main design stages @3

Raft contribution (for capacity and/or settlement problems)


Mandolini et al. (2005):
State of the Art Report at XVI ICSMGE, Osaka (Japan)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
The traditional approaches to predict the response of the
overall foundation system (pile group, piled raft) are based
on the ‘extrapolation’ to the group of the single pile
response to loads:

➢ Qlim,SP

➢ wG = Rsws or KG = wNKSP

➢ …

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
It follows that, whatever is the project and the design
approach,

the prediction of single pile response


to loads is still a fundamental step in
the design process ……

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
It follows that, whatever is the project and the design
approach,

the prediction of single pile response


to loads is still a fundamental step in
the design process …… but also the
most uncertain!!

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
While some uncertainties are common with other branches
of Foundation Engineering, like for instance:

• defining subsoil profile and initial and undisturbed


properties

• modelling foundation-soil interaction during loading


stage

one is peculiar for piling problems, that is

• Estimating soil changes during construction stage

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
International Prediction Event – Santa Cruz, 2017

• The shape of the curves are


different pile by pile

• Whatever the criterion is, the


failure load is different pile
by pile

At w = 10%d: QA3  1100 kN; QB2  1400 kN; QC2  2000 kN


Piles with same length (9.5 m) but different diameters (450 and 620 mm)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
International Prediction Event – Santa Cruz, 2017

• The shape of the curves are


different pile by pile

• Whatever the criterion is, the


failure load is different pile
by pile

At w = 10%d: QA3  1100 kN; QB2  1400 kN; QC2  2000 kN


In order to compare different pile geometries, Mandolini et al. (2005) and
Mandolini (2017) proposed to look at data in terms of Capacity Ratio
CR = Q/Wp ((Wp = pile weight)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
International Prediction Event – Santa Cruz, 2017

• The shape of the curves are


different pile by pile

• Whatever the criterion is, the


failure load is different pile
by pile

At w = 10%d: CRA3  16.9; CRB2  40.8 (x2.4); CRC2  58.2 (x3.5)

Fifty years of Research and Practice for Pile Foundations


Alessandro Mandolini
International Prediction Event – Santa Cruz, 2017

• The shape of the curves are


different pile by pile

• Whatever the criterion is, the


failure load is different pile
by pile

Piles with different construction methods →


‘conventional failure load’ differing up 350%

Fifty years of Research and Practice for Pile Foundations


Alessandro Mandolini
A personal doubt when preparing the Lecture:

(*)
Option 1 – Say ‘little’ of ‘all’
(*)
Option 2 – Say ‘all’ of ‘little’

(*)
all within the scheduled time
A personal doubt when preparing the Lecture:

(*)
Option 1 – Say ‘little’ of ‘all’
(*)
Option 2 – Say ‘all’ of ‘little’

(*)
all within the scheduled time
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
- Introduction
- Experimental findings (Bolivian experience, sand and silty sand)
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft)
- Exercises
- Concluding remarks

Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)


Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
• 50 predictions

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
• 11 predictions

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
(L = 9.00 m)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
East to West (m)
E2-E14

South to North (m)

Bored 620 CFA 450 FDP 450 FDP 300

Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia)

Nienov F.A. (2016)

Dinner at Mario Terceros place (27/04/2017) Robertson (2017)


From the left: Massarsch, Terceros, Mandolini, Fellenius

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
• 72 predictions

A3 B2 C2 E1
Head-Down LT Head-Down LT Head-Down LT Bi-Directional LT

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
COMMENTS from previous three CFPB:
- 9 load tests (HD, BD) on different piles (bored, CFA, FDP) with
different sizes (d = 300 to 620 mm; L = 9.0 to 17.5 m) embedded in
rather well documented subsoil conditions (sand and silty sand)
- 133 predictions by specialists from all over the world

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
COMMENTS from previous three CFPB:
- 9 load tests (HD, BD) on different piles (bored, CFA, FDP) with
different sizes (d = 300 to 620 mm; L = 9.0 to 17.5 m) embedded in
rather well documented subsoil conditions (sand and silty sand)
- 133 predictions by specialists from all over the world

Large scatter for entire Q-w curve


Different perception about capacity

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
HD LT on Pile B2: CFA – d = 450 mm; L = 9.5 m

- Large scatter for shaft (150 to 1000 kN,  1:6) and


end-bearing resistance (250 to 850 kN,  1:3)
- Movement at which end-bearing resistance is
‘attained’ from 2 to 113 mm ( 1: 55)
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
HD LT on Pile B2: CFA – d = 450 mm; L = 9.5 m

Even in those case where the predicted values were


quite close to the measured value, the perception is
that it was by chance !!!!
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
ONLY ONE REASONABLE REMARK:

great uncertainties
Reducible to
some extent ?

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
- Introduction
- Experimental findings (Bolivian experience, sand and silty sand)
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft) looking back
- Exercises
- Concluding remarks

Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)


Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
Base resistance (effective stress approach, sand)

𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳

WHAT TO DO ?

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳

Many textbooks and guidelines suggest


Berezantzev et al. (1961) solution →
most widely used in practice

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
NOTE @1:
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 Experiments (and consequent results)
concerned with piles embedded in dense
sand → stiff and dilatant behaviour

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻

𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅

Berezantzev et al., 1961


1000
Loose sand (j = 30): Bk  30
reference factor, Bk [-]

Medium sand (j = 35): Bk  70


100

Dense sand (j = 40): Bk  180

10
Very dense sand (j = 45): Bk  530
30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 T takes into account for the reduction in


vertical effective stress due to ‘silo’ effect,
that is the reduction of vertical effective
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅 stress with depth due to shear forces
acting along a soil cylinder around the pile
and extending at free surface.

Berezantzev et al., 1961


j= 30° 45°

Short piles (L/d  10): 0.66 < T < 0.84

Medium piles (10 < L/d  30): 0.51 < T < 0.80

Long piles (L/d > 30): 0.46 < T < 0.79

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 NOTE @2:
Failure surface may extend at
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅 free surface only for relatively
short piles

Berezantzev et al., 1961


j= 30° 45°

Short piles (L/d  10): 0.66 < T < 0.84

Medium piles (10 < L/d  30): 0.51 < T < 0.80

Long piles (L/d > 30): 0.46 < T < 0.79

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳

𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅

Berezantzev et al., 1961


1000
bearing capacity factor, Nq [-]

Bk NOTE @3:
100 Slender the pile, larger the
L/d = 25
L/d = 50 reduction for qb (especially for
L/d = 10 loose sand, i.e. relatively low j
10
30 35 40 45 values, say 3035)
friction angle, j [°]

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Bolton (1986): Dilatancy theory

Friction angle j is related to the relative density of the sand (ID),


corrected by the mean stress level at failure (pf) to give the corrected
relative density (IR), and to the friction angle at critical state (jcv) which
relates to condition where the soil fails with no dilation (i.e. at constant
volume):
𝒑′𝒇
𝑰𝑹 = 𝑰𝑫 ∙ 𝟓. 𝟒 − 𝒍𝒏 −𝟏 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑′𝒇 ≥ 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝒌𝑷𝒂
𝒑𝒂

𝑰𝑹 = 𝟓 ∙ 𝑰𝑫 − 𝟏 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑′𝒇 < 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝒌𝑷𝒂

𝝋𝒑 = 𝝋𝒄𝒗 + 𝒎 ∙ 𝑰𝑹 𝒎 = 𝟑 𝑨𝑿 𝒐𝒓 𝟓 (𝑷𝑺)
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Fleming et al. (1992, 2009):

The mean stress level at failure (pf) may be taken approximately as the
geometric mean of the end-bearing pressure and the ambient effective
vertical stress at depth L:
Berezantzev et al., 1961
1000

reference factor, Bk [-]


𝒑′𝒇 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 100

10
Few iterations required to get the final jp and Bk 30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
1000

Base resistance

reference factor, Bk [-]


100

jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700

800 800 800

900 900 900

1.000 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
1000

Base resistance

reference factor, Bk [-]


100

jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

ID = 0.30 (loose);

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700

800 800 800


loose
900 900 900

1.000 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
1000

Base resistance

reference factor, Bk [-]


100

jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium);

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700

800 loose 800 800

900 900 900


medium
1.000 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
1000

Base resistance

reference factor, Bk [-]


100

jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium); 0.70 (dense);

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700


loose
800 800 800
medium
900 900 900

1.000 dense 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
1000

Base resistance

reference factor, Bk [-]


100

jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium); 0.70 (dense); 0.90 (very dense)

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700


loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900

1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

At depths whose extension depends on ID, the soil fails dilating


although not dense: jp > jcv → Bk(jp) > Bk(jcv) → qb > qb(jcv)

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700


loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900

1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Once again, qb increases less than linearly with depth but for dilatancy
(reduction of friction angle at peak) and not for ‘silo’ effect (reduction
of vertical effective stress)

jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]


27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700


loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900

1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Technological effects (Fleming et al., 2009):

Procedure reasonable for closed-ended driven piles in the absence of


more specific information (field tests).

• For bored and CFA piles, reduce Nq from 30% to 50%

• For open-ended driven piles, 20% Nq reduction

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Once again, qb increases less than linearly with depth but for dilatancy
(reduction of friction angle at peak) and not for ‘silo’ effect (reduction
of vertical effective stress)
jcv, ID and p ??
jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]
27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0

100 100 100

200 200 200

300 300 300

400 400 400


'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]

'v [kPa]
500 500 500

600 600 600

700 700 700


loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900

1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Vesic, 1977:

“Experience shows that soil under a


deep foundation always fails in the
same manner; i.e., in punching shear
under the foundation point,
accompanied or preceded by a
direct-shear failure of the soil along
the foundation shaft.”

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Practical consequence:

As in the case of punching shear of


shallow foundations, the ultimate
load is rarely well defined; in many
cases there is no visible collapse of
the foundation and no clearly
defined peak load.”

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑

Vesic (1977):

- Elasto-plastic material model


- Expansion of a spherical cavity

𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
𝑰𝒓 =
𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋
Vesic (1977)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝟑 𝝅
−𝝋 ∙𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋 𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝑪𝟏 𝝋 = ∙𝒆 𝟐 𝟑
𝟑 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝟐
𝝅 𝝋
𝑪𝟐 𝝋 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 + = 𝑲𝒑
𝟒 𝟐
𝟒 ∙ 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑪𝟑 𝝋 =
𝟑 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
Soil stiffness

𝑵𝝈 = 𝑪𝟏 𝝋 ∙ 𝑪𝟐 𝝋 ∙ 𝑰𝒓𝒓 𝑪𝟑 𝝋

𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝝈 ∙ 𝒑 𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
Nq 𝑮
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ′ 𝑰𝒓 =
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝝈 ∙ ∙ 𝝈𝒗 Vesic (1977)
𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋
𝟑

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑

Vesic (1977):

- Elasto-plastic material model


- Expansion of a spherical cavity Soil stiffness

Practical consequence:

The end-bearing capacity depends 𝑰𝒓𝒓 =


𝑰𝒓
not only on soil strength, but also 𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
on its stiffness 𝑰𝒓 =
𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋
Vesic (1977)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance 𝑮𝒐
𝒑𝒂

Carriglio et al. (1990):


𝟐∙𝝀
𝑮𝟎 𝒑
= 𝑴 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑰𝑫 ∙
𝒑𝒂 𝒑𝒂

M = modulus number  250


 = coefficient ( 0.25)
𝟐
𝒑
𝒑𝒂

M depends on type of sand (silica, SILICA SAND: Suggested variation of M/Mclean


calcareous) and on fine content % fine content 05 510 1015 1530
(passing 0.2 mm sieve) Value of M/Mclean 1 0.50 0.25 0.20

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Stiffness degradation for sand and silty sand (Lee et al., 2004)

Clean sand:
when approaching failure (say q/qf > 0.60)
0.05 < E/E0 or G/G0 < 0.25 whatever ID and OCR
𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
𝑭𝒂𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟑 : =𝟏−𝒇∙
𝑮𝟎 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Stiffness degradation for sand and silty sand (Lee et al., 2004)

𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
=𝟏−𝒇∙ Silty sand (s/c  20%): f  1 and g = 0.5ID
𝑮𝟎 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙

s/c = 0% s/c = 2%
s/c = 5% s/c = 10%
s/c = 15% s/c = 20%

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Stiffness degradation for sand and silty sand (Lee et al., 2004)

𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
=𝟏−𝒇∙ Silty sand (s/c  20%): f  1 and g = 0.5ID
𝑮𝟎 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙
1,00

0,80

very dense: ID = 0.90


0,60

G/G0 (-)
s/c = 0% s/c = 2%
s/c = 5% s/c = 10%
s/c = 15% s/c = 20%
0,40 loose: ID = 0.30

0.210,20
0.070,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
t/t max (-)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
Loose sand and silty sand Very dense
ID = 0.30 ID = 0.90
qb (MPa) qb (MPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 0

dilatancy dilatancy
200 200

dilatancy + stiffness dilatancy + stiffness

400 400
'v (kPa)

'v (kPa)
600 600

800 800

15 10 <5 (%fc) 15 10 <5 (%fc)


1000 1000
5.4 3.9 2.8 1.0 4.3 3.1 2.2 1.0

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

The approach suggested by Fleming et al. (1992) has clearly revealed


that the reduction of end-bearing resistance with depth is due to
dilatancy: Nq = f(jcv, ID, p).

Vesic (1977) added the role played by soil stiffness and its importance
in determining ‘punching’ mechanism of failure at pile base with
significant reduction of end-bearing resistance: Nq = f(j, G, p).

Carriglio et al. (1990) established a relation G0 = f(s/c, ID, p),

Lee et al. (2004) gave simple role about stiffness degradation for sand
and silty sand – G/G0 = f(ID).

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

By combining all:

Nq = f(jcv, ID, p, G)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
Randolph et al. (1994):
21 class C prediction for OE and CE driven piles embedded in sand or silty sand

Calculated vs. measured capacity within  25% range


Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
Randolph et al. (1994):
21 class C prediction for OE and CE driven piles embedded in sand or silty sand

calculated / measured base capacity:  = 0.73; S.D. = 0.30


large scatter; general tendency to predict low values for long piles
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Randolph et al. (1994), from the Conclusion:

- Accurate determination of end-bearing capacity is limited by a


number of factors, including insufficient displacement of the pile
during the loading test, resulting in underestimation of the end-
bearing capacity (particularly for relatively long piles)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Wind Farm (Apulia, Italy) – 2015
Bored piles d = 1.20 m; L = 20 to 31 m

BD loading tests with O-Cell close to pile base


where sand or gravels are found

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WTG01 WTG05 WTG12

1.75 m
1.9 m
4m

Silty clay and clayey silt

Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27)

Sandy gravel (jcv = 31)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WTG01 WTG05 WTG12

1.75 m
1.9 m
4m

WTG12 WTG05 WTG01


Silty clay and clayey silt L = 31 m L = 29 m L = 27 m
v = 466 kPa v = 495 kPa v = 406 kPa
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27) Qmax = 5.0 MN Qmax = 8.1 MN Qmax = 9.2 MN

Sandy gravel (jcv = 31)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
Nq = 15.8
Nq = 12.0

Nq = 5.5

1.75 m
1.9 m
4m

Silty clay and clayey silt

Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 125)

Sandy gravel (jcv = 31; ID = 0.50; M = 250)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
Nq = 15.8
Nq = 12.0

Nq = 5.5

1.75 m
1.9 m
4m

Silty clay and clayey silt

Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 125) Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + stiffness
Sandy gravel (jcv = 31; ID = 0.50; M = 250)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
WTG01 WTG05 WTG12

Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + reduced
stiffness

1.75 m
1.9 m
4m

Silty clay and clayey silt

Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 50) Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + stiffness
Sandy gravel (jcv = 31; ID = 0.50; M = 250)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
L d L/d wmax wmax/d 'v qb j Nq
Case history Pile type Reference
[m] [m] [-] [mm] [%] [kPa] [kPa] [°] [-]
42,00 1,50 28,0 111,5 7,4% 252 1403 35 5,6
Bored (bentonite)
New Law Court 42,00 2,00 21,0 100,0 5,0% 252 1305 35 5,2
Viggiani & Vinale (1983)
Building (ITALY) Bored (bentonite,
preloading cell at the base)
42,00 1,50 28,0 123,2 8,2% 252 4544 35 18,0
Holiday Inn & Office 24,00 0,60 40,0 65,6 10,9% 144 3501 36 24,3
CFA Mandolini (1994)

40 Load tests
Tower (ITALY) 24,00 0,60 40,0 84,6 14,1% 144 3466 36 24,1
Poggiomarino 24,00 0,80 30,0 75,6 9,5% 156 3084 35 19,8
CFA Mandolini et al. (2002)
Treatment Plant 22,50 0,60 37,5 81,9 13,7% 146 3148 35 21,5
48,80 0,36 135,6 85,1 23,6% 415 13560 38 32,7
Garigliano Bridge Driven (steel tubular closed
end)
Mandolini (1994) 48,10 0,36 133,6 112,4 31,2% 409 4521 38 11,1
(ITALY)

10  L/d  136
48,70 0,36 135,3 108,6 30,2% 414 9042 38 21,8
28,30 1,20 23,6 181,0 15,1% 406 6373 32 15,7
Wind Farm (ITALY) Bored (bentonite) Mandolini (2015) 29,75 1,20 24,8 100,0 8,3% 495 5898 29 11,9
33,30
30,00
1,20
0,41
27,8
73,2
240,0
19,90
20,0%
4,9%
466 2583 27
195 3408 37
5,5
17,5 4,2%  w/d  33,3%
Driven (steel tubular closed 31,00 0,36 86,1 41,10 11,4% 202 3930 37 19,5
end) 42,00 0,36 116,7 20,90 5,8% 273 9824 37 36,0
42,00 0,41 102,4 17,50 4,3% 273 4545 37 16,6

- Bored
Sarno Treatment
Massaro et al. (2006) 22,00 0,50 44,0 25,50 5,1% 143 2037 37 14,2
Plant (ITALY)
22,00 0,60 36,7 64,20 10,7% 143 1945 37 13,6
Vibro-driven 22,00 0,50 44,0 21,00 4,2% 143 1019 37 7,1 (bentonite, polymer, EB, TB)
22,00 0,50 44,0 31,50 6,3% 143 3310 37 23,1

ISC 2002 test site Bored (bentonite) Viana de Fonseca et al.


24,80
6,00
0,50
0,60
49,6
10,0
22,40
95,00
4,5%
15,8%
161 3667 37
111 2157 32
22,7
19,4 - CFA
- Screw
(PORTUGAL) CFA (2004) 6,00 0,60 10,0 155,00 25,8% 111 1592 32 14,3
29,00 0,62 46,8 26,20 4,2% 174 1656 35 9,5
Agorà (ITALY) FDP Unpublished data (2009)
16,90 0,62 27,3 71,60 11,5% 101 1656 35 16,3
Araquari test site Bored (bentonite) 24,00 1,00 24,0 60,0 6,0% 200 1462 33 7,3 (FDP, FDP+EB)
Nienov (2016)

- Driven
(BRASIL) Bored (polymer) 24,00 1,00 24,0 99,0 9,9% 228 1714 33 7,5
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,62 15,3 89,00 14,4% 71 1375 39 19,3
Bored (with TB) 9,50 0,62 15,3 55,50 9,0% 71 1904 39 26,7
Bored 9,50 0,62 15,3 71,30 11,5% 71 1971 39 27,7 (tubular steel closed end)
CFA (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 19,03 4,2% 71 1896 39 26,6
CFA 9,50 0,45 21,1 80,00 17,8% 71 2452 39 34,4
B.E.S.T. piles FDP (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 93,20 20,7% 71 2355 39 33,1
Fellenius (2017)
(BOLIVIA) FDP 9,50 0,45 21,1 43,83 9,7% 71 3144 39 44,1
Self-Boring micro (with EB) 9,50 0,15 63,3 21,58 14,4% 71 1790 39 25,1
Self-Boring Micro 9,50 0,15 63,3 50,00 33,3% 71 1415 39 19,9
FDP (with EB) 9,50 0,30 31,7 32,00 10,7% 71 2204 39 30,9
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 97,95 21,8% 71 4181 39 58,7
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,60 15,8 37,20 6,2% 71 1436 39 20,2

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

 58

5

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

 1:7

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance

Only j and L/d ??


1000
bearing capacity factor, Nq [-]

Bk

100

L/d = 50
L/d = 25
L/d = 10
10
30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑

Only j and L/d ??


1000
bearing capacity factor, Nq [-]

Bk

100

L/d = 50
L/d = 25
L/d = 10
10
30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°] 𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
𝑰𝒓 =
No: jcv, ID, p and G !!!! 𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋

+ technology
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
- Introduction
- Experimental findings (Bolivian experience, sand and silty sand)
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft) looking back
- Exercises
- Concluding remarks

Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)


Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
Shaft resistance

𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐

It is commonly believed that the quantity K/Ko measures the stress


changes induced in the soil as result of pile construction.

- poorly constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko < 1


- well constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko  1
- N-D (CFA) pile: K/Ko = 1.01.5
- D (screw, driven) pile: K/Ko = 1.54

Note: the suggested values derive from pile load tests → ……

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐

In reality:

𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹

ho = at rest horizontal stress = kov


hc = horizontal stress change due to pile construction
hl = horizontal stress change due to pile loading
 = soil-pile interface friction angle ( j)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍
𝑲 = 𝑲𝒐 + ′ + ′
𝝈𝒗 𝝈𝒗

or

𝑲 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍
=𝟏+ ′ +
𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈𝒗 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗

Note: the suggested values derive from pile load tests → ……

It follows that K/Ko values take into account not only for the effects
during construction but also for pile-soil interaction during loading

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance
=1
𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐

The quantity K/Ko measures the stress changes induced in the soil
as result of pile construction and subsequent loading.

- poorly constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko < 1


- well constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko  1
- N-D (CFA) pile: K/Ko = 1.01.5
- D (screw, driven) pile: K/Ko = 1.54

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance  = Kotan

𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance  = Kotanj

𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝝋

 represents the friction angle at pile-soil interface.

- Cast in situ concrete pile:  = j


- Precast concrete pile:  = 0.75j
- Steel pile:  = 20

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

1.2 1.8
sands
N60  15

gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15

0.25

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

1.2 1.8 3
sands
N60  15

gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15

Rollins et al. (2005)


gravels ( 50%)
N60  50

0.25

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

1.2 1.8 3
sands
N60  15 increasing
soil grading

gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15

Rollins et al. (2005)


gravels ( 50%)
N60  50

0.25

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
From -depth dependent method to ‘rational’ method

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
From Discussion in Appendix C

….. a significant amount of additional information available from load tests


has made it possible to move beyond depth-dependent empirical equations
for  and into realm of methods based on the correct theoretical model.

A stated by O’Neill and Hassan (1994), the rational method is ‘clearly superior
to the depth dependent  method from a soil mechanics perspective’ and
‘should give accurate values for ’ than the depth dependent  method.

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance  = Kotanj

𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝝋

𝑶𝑪𝑹=𝟏
𝑲𝒐 = 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋

Note:
nc = Ko,nctanj  0.280.30
for 27  j  40°

any j

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝝋

The earth pressure coefficient Ko is related to the soil friction angle


j and to the stress history of the soil deposit (OCR):

𝑲𝒐 = 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑲𝒐 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

FHWA (2010):
OCR effect

Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

FHWA (2010):
OCR effect
 = 6.4 at 3 m depth →
OCR  225 for j = 27
OCR  90 for j = 40

 = 3 at 9 m depth →
OCR  40 for j = 27
OCR  30 for j = 40

Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

FHWA (2010):
OCR effect

ONLY OCR ???

Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
SOME COMMENTS

- FHWA (2010) is very useful in practice

- Step forward if compared with FHWA (1999)

- Greater values of skin friction qs at shallow depth are


possible only for OC soils

- Role played by soil grading lost

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance

𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹

ho = at rest horizontal stress = kov

hc = horizontal stress change due to pile construction

hl = horizontal stress change due to pile loading

 = soil-pile interface friction angle ( j)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance (hc = 0)

𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹

As for G0, also hl depends on:


- nature, fabric and grain size distribution
- void index or porosity or relative density
- mean stress

but also on:


- pile-soil surface roughness
- pile diameter

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
PILE-SOIL SURFACE ROUGHNESS

- Maximum surface roughness, Rt


- Soil grain size, d50
- Normalized roughness over Lm, Rn = Rt/d50

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
PILE-SOIL SURFACE ROUGHNESS

Smooth Medium rough Rough


Rn = 0.03 Rn = 0.26 Rn = 1.14

Soil engagement is Soil gets engaged; a Soil fully engaged, with


limited; no shear band thinner shear band a clear formation of a
forms into the soil forms into the soil shear band

(video courtesy by R. Salgado)


Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
SHEAR BAND FORMATION

Approaching failure, large shear strains start to concentrate in a very


thin soil cylinder around the pile shaft (the shear band, SB).
(e.g. Frank 1974; Wernick 1978)

video courtesy
by R. Salgado

ts  (520)d50
Uesugi and Kishida 1986; Viggiani et al. 2001
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
DILATION

Depending on the soil state (void index, e, or relative density ID; mean
stress, p) the shear band will dilate or not. If dilating, an outward radial
displacement u will occur.

ts u

video courtesy
by R. Salgado

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
SOIL STRESS INCREASE DUE TO SOIL DILATANCY

The outer soil will react to the displacement ur by an increase of the


horizontal stress h,l whose magnitude will mainly depend on the soil
stiffness G (e.g. Wernick 1978; Boulon and Foray 1986).

ts + ho + hl
u

video courtesy
by R. Salgado

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Dilatancy as ‘trigger’ for soil stiffness engagement along pile shaft

𝟒∙𝑮
Cylindrical cavity expansion (elastic theory): 𝒌𝟏 =
𝑫

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Dilatancy as ‘trigger’ for soil stiffness engagement along pile shaft

𝟒∙𝑮
Cylindrical cavity expansion (elastic theory): 𝒌𝟏 =
𝑫
𝟒∙𝑮
∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 = 𝒌𝟏 ∙ ∆𝒖 = ∙ ∆𝒖
𝑫
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini
Available skin friction qs at pile/sand interface:

𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜹 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗


𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ ∆𝒖 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫

PILE
PALO BT
SB
SOIL
Terreno
di
Contrasto

t
'hho + h,l

R ts
u

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Available skin friction qs at pile/sand interface:

𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ ∆𝒖 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫

Mascarucci, Mandolini, Miliziano (2015), 3M method:


𝜸𝒄𝒗
PILE
PALO BT
SB
SOIL
Terreno
∆𝒖 = 𝒕𝒔 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙
di
Contrasto 𝟐
t
'hho + h,l Bolton (1986): 𝝍𝒑 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟓 ∙ 𝝋𝒑 − 𝝋𝒄𝒗
Uesugi and Kishida (1986), 𝒕 = 𝟓 ÷ 𝟑𝟎 ∙ 𝒅
𝒔 𝟓𝟎
Hammad (1991):
Stroud (1971), Mortara (2001): 𝜸𝒄𝒗 ~ 𝟎. 𝟔𝟎

R ts
u

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Available skin friction qs at pile/sand interface:

𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ 𝒕𝒔 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝟎. 𝟑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫

𝒒𝒔 𝑮 𝒕𝒔
𝜷 = ′ = 𝑲𝒐 + 𝟎. 𝟒 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ ∙ ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒑 𝑫

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance (effective stress approach)

𝒒𝒔 𝑮 𝒕𝒔
𝜷 = ′ = 𝑲𝒐 + 𝟎. 𝟒 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ ∙ ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒑 𝑫

𝑲 ∆𝑲
𝑲 = 𝑲𝒐 + ∆𝑲 𝒐𝒓 =𝟏+
𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐

The peak angle of dilation (p) determines increasing values of K/Ko (or
K/Ko) depending on:

a) the soil grading (ts = nd50) relative to the pile diameter D, ts/D
b) the stiffness ratio G/p, decreasing with depth and playing the role of
‘amplifier’

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Shaft resistance (effective stress approach)

𝒒𝒔 𝑮 𝒕𝒔
𝜷 = ′ = 𝑲𝒐 + 𝟎. 𝟒 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ ∙ ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒑 𝑫

𝒏 ∙ 𝒅𝟓𝟎 𝒕𝒔 ∆𝑲 𝑲
= →𝟎⇝ → 𝟎; →𝟏
𝑫 𝑫 𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐
Mascarucci,
Miliziano &
Mandolini (2014)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
3M method (Mascarucci, Miliziano & Mandolini, 2015):
pile L = 45 m, d = 1.5 m (L/d = 30) pile shaft factor, pile shaft factor,
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0
SOIL PROPERTIES 0 SOIL PROPERTIES 0

g [kN/m3] 18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0


10 10
j cv [°] 32,0 3M j cv [°] 32,0 3M
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56

depth [m]
depth [m]
20 20
ID [-] 0,75 ID [-] 0,75
d50 [mm] 0,20 30 d50 [mm] 2,00 30

n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 40 ts [mm] 40,00 40 

g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60


50 50

increasing d50

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
3M method (Mascarucci, Miliziano & Mandolini, 2015):
pile L = 45 m, d = 1.5 m (L/d = 30) pile shaft factor, pile shaft factor,
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0
SOIL PROPERTIES 0 SOIL PROPERTIES 0

g [kN/m3] 18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0


10 10
j cv [°] 32,0 3M j cv [°] 32,0 3M
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56

depth [m]
depth [m]
20 20
ID [-] 0,75 ID [-] 0,75
d50 [mm] 0,20 30 d50 [mm] 2,00 30

n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 40 ts [mm] 40,00 40 

g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60


50 50

increasing d50
pile L = 15 m, d = 0.5 m (L/d = 30) pile shaft factor, pile shaft factor,
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0
0 0
SOIL PROPERTIES SOIL PROPERTIES
g [kN/m ] 3
18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0
decreasing pile dia.
3M 3M
j cv [°] 32,0 j cv [°] 32,0
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56
depth [m]

depth [m]
ID [-] 0,75 10 ID [-] 0,75 10
d50 [mm] 0,20 d50 [mm] 2,00
 
n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 ts [mm] 40,00
g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60
20 20

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
East to West (m)
E2-E14

South to North (m)

CFA: d = 450 mm

Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia)

Nienov F.A. (2016)

Dinner at Mario Terceros place (27/04/2017) Robertson (2017)


From the left: Massarsch, Terceros, Mandolini, Fellenius

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm

base, shaft and total load


Rb, Rs and Rc [kN]
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
10
20 at w = 80 mm (18%d):
settlement [mm]

30
40
Rb = 316 kN; Rs = 1123 kN; Rc = 1439 kN
50
60
70
80
90

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Robertson (2017): CPTU interpretation
B2

27 tests over upper 9.5 m

0.1 mm  d50  0.25 mm

ID,av  0.50; jcv = 31; OCRav  7.6

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
𝑲𝟎 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟖
20
settlement [mm]

30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
𝑹𝒔𝜷 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐 𝒌𝑵
50
60
70

80
90 Curves obtained by assuming
hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
𝑲𝟎 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟖
20
settlement [mm]

30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
𝑹𝒔𝜷 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐 𝒌𝑵
50
60 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟔𝟑𝟗 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝒎
70

80
90 Curves obtained by assuming
3M
d50,min hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
𝑲𝟎 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟖
20
settlement [mm]

30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
𝑹𝒔𝜷 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐 𝒌𝑵
50
60 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟔𝟑𝟗 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝒎
70
 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟏𝟎𝟖𝟔 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 𝒎𝒎
80
90 Curves obtained by assuming
3M 3M
d50,min d50,max hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Only OCR effect ?

Also
G/p’ and d50/D!!
+ technology

Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
Circle: loading test data
Full line: Vesic + 3M
Dashed line: Berezantzev + 

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius

Honor Lecture

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches


on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
- Introduction
- Experimental findings (Bolivian experience, sand and silty sand)
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft) looking back
- Concluding remarks

Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)


Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’

23-24 May, 2019


Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
CONCLUDING REMARKS (#1) Nq = f(jcv, ID, p)

Bk-values given by Berezantzev et al. (1961) derived from experiments


on piles in dense (and stiff) sand.

Dilatancy Theory by Bolton (1986) 1000

bearing capacity factor, Nq [-]


and its use for assessing qb-values Bk
as suggested by Fleming et al. 100

(1992, 2009) has clearly revealed that L/d = 50


the invoked ‘silo effect’ is only a L/d = 10
L/d = 25

display of the role played by dilatancy. 10


30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
CONCLUDING REMARKS (#2) Nq = f(jcv, ID, p, G)

The failure beneath the pile tip is a confined failure (with no rupture
extending to a free surface), which entails the end-bearing resistance
being affected by the stiffness of the soil in addition to its strength.

Vesic Theory (elasto-plastic material


model and expansion of spherical
cavity) helps to explain lower Nq
values for looser (and softer) sand Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + reduced
by including its dependency on G/p’ stiffness
(rigidity index Ir).

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
CONCLUDING REMARKS (#3)  = f(jcv, ID, p, G, d50)

Also the failure along the pile shaft is influenced by the combination of
the soil close to the pile (shear band, SB) to dilate (jcv, ID and p’) and
the surrounding soil to resist proportionally to its stiffness (G).

Hammad (1991)

SB thickness (thus, the outward displacement u)


depends on the soil grain size distribution (d50).

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
CONCLUDING REMARKS (#4)  = f(jcv, ID, p, G, d50/D)

Elastic or elasto-plastic material model and expansion of cylindrical


cavity helps to explain larger  values also for
normally consolidated sand
(as experimentally observed).

Under given soil conditions (jcv, ID , p’, G, d50),


larger the pile diameter D, lower -values
(influence of the ratio d50/D).

Mascarucci et al. (2016)

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
The Past still stores
concepts very useful for
predicting Future

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
Napoli – a Paradise lived by Devils

Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View


Alessandro Mandolini
4th Bolivia International Conference
on Deep Foundations

Developing a Three Dimensional Finite-


Difference Analysis for Piled Raft Foundation
Settlements under Vertical Loads
Der-Wen Chang, Hsin-Wei Lien, Gao-Yun Hu and Yu-An Chuang
Department of Civil Engineering
Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

Hotel Marriot, Santa Cruz – Bolivia


May 23-24, 2019
Outlines
• Introduction
• 2D FD Analysis of Rigid Mat
• 2D FD Analysis of Flexible Mat
• 1D FD Analysis of Single Piles
• Combined 3D Analyses
• WERAFT-S Analysis of Raft Foundation
• WEAPR-S Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation
• Problems and Modifications
• 3D FD Analyses on Foundation Vibrations
• Concluding Remarks
Combined Pile Raft Foundation (CPRF)

PBD Principles
1. SAFETIES
- Overall Foundation
- Fdt. Elements

2. SERVICEABILITIES
- Overall Foundation
- Fdt. Elements

From Katzenberg and Choudhury (2013)


Combined Pile Raft Foundation (Cont.)

For small CPRF, i.e., Pile


length > width of the raft or width
of raft ≤ 15m, foundation can be
regarded as grouped piles – Rigid
Raft can be assumed. This is
typically done in most of the
conventional pile foundation
designs. If not, flexibility of
the raft must be taken into
account. In such case, the design
needs to consider the flexibility of
the raft and the interactions
between the structural elements
From Katzenberg and Choudhury (2013) and the soils.
Current Pile Design Practice in Taiwan
• Soil data – SPT-N etc…
• Evaluating Qs & Qb of
single pile
• Computing Qall = Qult/FS
• Concerns of negative skin
frictions and pull out
resistance
• Pile load test assessments
• Seismic concerns
• Group pile capacity
assuming rigid cap
• Structural Design
Scope (Research Grant MOST106-2221-E-032-025-MY2)
• 3D FEM analysis has been recognized as the most
powerful tool in simulating the piled raft foundation
behaviors. However it is relatively complex to be used in
design practice.
• The simplified numerical solutions applicable at the
preliminary design stage are always merited.
• 3D finite-difference analyses based on equilibriums of
the structural system was thus proposed to simulate the
pile-raft foundation settlements under vertical loads
(both static and dynamic).
• This presentation will introduce the methodologies,
validations and further attentions.
Approximate Computer Based method

Soil springs are used in


such modeling
Methodologies – Theory of Thin Plate

Thick Thin Very Thin


Plate Plate Plate

W/D 5-10 10-100 >100

w/ transverse w/o transverse


Nonlinear
characteristics shear shear
geometry
deformations deformations

Plate Theory Reissner,


Kirchhoff-Love Von Karman
(2 dimensions) Mindlin

Beam Theory
Timoshenko Euler, Bernoulli
(1 dimension)
Methodologies – Finite Difference method
∂4 w 2 ∂4 w ∂4 w 12qሺ1 − 𝜈 2 ) 12Pሺ1 − 𝜈 2 )
+ + = +
∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 ED3 ED3 (∂x ∂y)

20𝑤0 − 8ሺ𝑤 𝑇 +𝑤𝐵 +𝑤𝑅 + 𝑤𝐿 ) + 2ሺ𝑤𝑇𝐿 + 𝑤𝑇𝑅 + 𝑤𝐵𝐿 + 𝑤𝐵𝑅 )


q𝑠 4 P𝑠 2
+ሺ𝑤 𝑇𝑇 + 𝑤𝐵𝐵 + 𝑤𝐿𝐿 + 𝑤𝑅𝑅 ) = +
B B

Using the Central Difference schemes, the


above equation can be derived as follows.
Thirteen unknowns are involved in this
equation.
If the raft is large enough w/ infinite
boundaries or rigid enough with relatively
thick raft, displacements can be assumed
equal. Then solutions are easy.
Soil springs need to be
implemented. Bowles (1970s) Foundation Analysis and Design
Methodologies – Soil Springs

Governing Equation with uniform load q was assumed,

𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w 12q 1−ν2


+ 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 + =
𝜕x4 𝜕y4 ED3

The effects of soil reactions can be computed by q* to account for the soils,
Σ𝐾𝑠 𝑤𝑘
𝑞∗ = 𝑞 − 𝐴𝑟
= 𝑞 − 𝐸𝑆 Τ𝑙 Σ𝐴𝑆𝑘 𝑤𝑘 /𝐴𝑟

𝑬𝑫𝟑
l𝐞𝐭 𝐁 = 𝟏𝟐ሺ𝟏−𝝂𝟐 ) the above equation can be written as follows,

𝒘𝒊,𝒋+𝟐 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋+𝟏 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊,𝒋+𝟏 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋+𝟏 + 𝒘𝒊−𝟐,𝒋 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋 + 𝟐𝟎𝒘𝒊,𝒋 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋


𝒒∗ 𝟒
+𝒘𝒊+𝟐,𝒋 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋−𝟏 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊,𝒋−𝟏 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋−𝟏 + 𝒘𝒊,𝒋−𝟐 = 𝒔
𝐁
Methodologies – Boundary effects
Governing Equations and Boundary Conditions
𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w 12q∗ 1−ν2 12P 1−ν2 𝑞∗ P
+ + = + = +
𝜕x4 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 𝜕y4 ED3 ED3 ሺ𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑦) 𝐁 B𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑦

where q* = q –ΣKswk /Ar = q – (Es/l)ΣAsk×wk /Ar  q-(Es/l)wk(Ask/Ark)

Mx = −Bሺ𝜕 2 w/𝜕y 2 + ν𝜕 2 w/𝜕x 2 ) = 0 NOTE:


𝜕3 w 2−ν 𝜕3 w Both single rod stiffness EA/l
Vy = −B 3 + =0
𝜕y 2 𝜕y𝜕x = ks
My = −Bሺ𝜕 w/𝜕x + ν𝜕 2 w/𝜕𝑦 2 ) = 0
2 2
and Lysmer’s Analog soil
𝜕3w 2 − ν 𝜕3w spring
V𝑥 = −B 3
+ 2
=0 where ks = 4G×ro/(1-n)
𝜕x 𝜕x𝜕𝑦
were considered in this study.
Resulting formulations (6 types of Eqs., total 25 Eqs.)
WERAFT-S for the Raft Displacements

n2

Chang et al. (2018). “Finite Difference Analysis of Vertically Loaded Raft Foundation Based on the Plate
Theory with Boundary Concern” Journal of GeoEngineering, TGS 13(3), pp 135-147.
Studies on rod stiffness
Studies on rod stiffness (cont.)

Matching
line
Validations/Comparisons of the Raft Displacements

Midas-GTS NX WERAFT-S (rod) WERAFT-S (Lysmer)


Center 1.88 cm Center 1.86 cm Center 1.86 cm
Edge 1.31 cm Edge 1.37 cm Edge 1.36 cm
Corner 0.97 cm Corner 0.92 cm Corner 0.79 cm

Standard numerical model: Raft: L×W×D = 26m×26m×1m, E = 2×107 kPa, ν = 0.15;


Soils: Vs = 150 m/s, ν = 0.4; q= 100 kPa
Some Observations (Poulos, 2001 TC18 Report)

18
Wave equations of single piles
 Wave Equation of
single piles subjected
to vertical loads

Governing eq.
𝜕2 Wp
EpAp 𝜕𝑧 2 𝑑𝑧 = kps.Wp

Boundary conditions
EpAp𝜕Wp
Pp = - @ pile head
𝜕𝑧
𝜕Wp
EpAp = − kpb.Wp @ pile tip
𝜕𝑧

Chang, D.W. and Lin, K.C. (1999). "Interaction Effect on Vertical Pile Response from Time-Domain Wave
Equation Analysis," Procds., The 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
June, Vol. 1, pp. 407-412.
19
Soil Springs along the Piles

 Linear (small strains), t, p, Q


static and dynamic (both
frequency independent or ks
dependent impedance) – 1
such as pile behaviors to
z, y, w
be controlled in elasticity,
machined fdt. problems, Novak and Jurado (1974), Roesset and Angelides (1980),
etc. Dobry and Gazetas (1988)… etc.

 Nonlinear (large strain t, p, Q


levels), static and
seismic – such as pile ks
capacities, seismic
1
influences of the super-
z, y, w
structural loads and the
ground impacts to piles, Matlock and Reese (1960), Duncan and Chang (1970),
etc. Kagawa and Kraft (1980), Chow (1985), Fahey and Carter
(1993)… etc.
20
WEAPR-S incorporating the piles in WERAFT-S analysis

𝜕4w 2𝜕 4 w 𝜕 4 w 12q" 1 − ν2 NOTE: q”= q- (ks + kp)×w/AR


+ + =
𝜕x 4 𝜕x 2 𝜕y 2 𝜕y 4 ED3 where q” is used if pile is encountered
at the nodes, otherwise q* is remained.

NOTE: kp is the equivalent stiffness of a single pile which includes the surrounding
soil effects.

1. If linear pile-soil elements are used, kp = constant.


2. If nonlinear pile-soil elements are considered, kp ≠
constant. Iterative procedures need to be used to obtain
kp.
3. Pile-to-pile interactions need to be considered if the piles
are close enough to have the interactions.

21
Hybrid piled raft model (Clancy and Randolph, 1993)

 One-dimensional pile element


 Lumped soil response at each pile-
node-load transfer spring
 Two-dimensional plate bending FE
raft mesh
 Ground resistance at each raft node
represented by an equivalent spring
 Pile-soil-pile interactions
 Raft-soil-raft interactions
 Pile-soil-raft interactions
22
Equivalent Stiffness of Single Pile, kp

model shaft bottom KP

𝐺𝑠 𝐴 𝐸𝑠 𝐴
𝐾𝑠 = 𝐾𝑏 =
Rod stiffness 𝑙𝑠 𝑙𝑏 130,683 kN/m
(𝑙𝑠 =1m) (𝑙𝑏 =1m)
𝜋𝑟0 𝐸
2𝜋𝐿𝑖 𝐺𝑠 𝐾𝑏 =
Liang (1993) 𝐾𝑠 = 2 1−𝜇𝑠2 𝐼𝑏 144,840 kN/m
ln 2.5𝐿𝑖 1 − 𝜇𝑠 Τ𝑟0 (𝐼𝑏 =0.64)

Matsumoto 2𝜋𝐺∆𝐿
𝐾𝑧𝑃 = 131,208 kN/m
(2003) ln 𝑟𝑚 Τ𝑟0

23
Validation/Comparisons of the Piled Raft Displacements

Lysmer’s
analog
model
was used
For soil
springs
below
raft

Center Edge Corner Center Edge Corner

Midas 1.41 cm 0.96 cm 0.64 cm WEAPR-S 1.35 cm 0.95 cm 0.34 cm

Numerical model: Piles: LP = 20 m, d = 1 m, S/d = 8, E = 2×107 kPa, ν = 0.15


Parametric studies on soils and piles

1. Numerical
tools
Soils 2. Averaged
springs
Corners Corners

Due to
Piles Pile-to-pile
interactions

Corners Corners
Comparisons of a = 0.4 S/d=4
WEAPR-S with Midas Midas/GTS
WEAPR-S w/
w/ and w/o reducing Reduced Kp

pile stiffness WEAPR-S

a = 0.6
S/d=6 a = 0.8 S/d=8
Concerns on soil springs

For Lysmer’s Analog model used, the averaged spring constant at


the nodal points will result in some problems. Therefore 3D FEM
solutions were examined to monitor the foundation springs
underneath the raft.
Concerns on soil springs (cont.)
1. Find the soil spring constants along the
central line of the foundation, then
compute the normalized function for
the variations of the spring constants
from the center to the edge, i.e. f(x).

2. Compute 2D variations of the soil


springs underneath the raft foundation,
where H(x,y)=f(|x|)× g(|y|)

3. Soil spring constant ks underneath the


flexible raft is computed by ks= Ko ×
H(x,y) where Ko is 4G×ro/{(1-n) .N};
and N is the number of nodal points.
Concerns on soil springs (cont.)
The normalized function at one dimension

• However in order to match the solutions of 3D FEM


continuums, the soil springs along the edge of the
foundation again require reductions.
Concerns of soil springs (cont.)
Need to be reduced
in order to yield
compatible solutions
to the ones from FEM
continuums.

Reduction factor found at the edge


Poisson’s ratio, n
Vs (m/s)
0.3 0.4 0.5
120 0.36 0.51 0.52
150 0.32 0.32 0.35
180 0.29 0.33 0.47
Modeling Pile-to-Pile Interactions
Dobry and Gazetas (1988)

Ah(t,s)

If frequency = zero, then

Chang, D.W., Lin, B.S. and Cheng, S.H. (2009). ″Lateral


load distributions on grouped piles from dynamic pile-
to-pile interactions factors.″ International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
33(2), 173-191.
Modeling Pile-to-Pile Interactions

With the foundation displacements


obtained by WEAPR-S, compute
wp1/wp2 = a and wp2/wp5= b

Knowing that

wp1-a×wp2 = (Pp1/kp)×a1j– a×(Pp2/kp)×a2j = p1×a1j - a×p2×a2j = 0


wp2-b×wp5 = (Pp2/kp)×a2j– b×(Pp5/kp)×a5j = p2×a2j - b×p5×a5j = 0
(4Pp1+4Pp2+Pp5)/Pptotal = 4p1+4p2+p5 = 100%

where a1j= a11 + a12 + a13 + a14 + a15 + a16 + a17 + a18 + a19
𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 0.5
= 1 + 2×( )0.5 + 2×( )0.5 + 2×( ) 0.5 +( )0.5 + ( )
𝑺 𝟐𝑺 𝟓𝑺 𝟐𝑺 𝟐 𝟐𝑺
Modeling PPI (cont.)
• Once the loads carried at each pile (Ppi* =
Pptotal × pi) were computed, the equivalent
stiffness of each pile can be obtained as kpi*=
Ppi*/wpi, replace kpi by kpi*.
• Then solve for new wpi and the
corresponding pi and kpi*. The analysis is
iterated and stopped until the variations of
both kpi* and/or wpi are becoming trivial.
Modeling PPI (cont.)
Developing FD Analysis for the Raft
under Dynamic Loads
Governing Equation:
𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w q ρD 𝜕2 𝑊
+ + = − (Kirchhoff-Love Theory)
𝜕x4 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 𝜕y4 B B 𝜕𝑡 2

Boundary Condition (1) (LEFT AND RIGHT EDGES)


• 𝑀𝑦 = 0 𝑉𝑥 = 0 𝑥 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤
➢ 𝑀𝑦 = −𝐵 + 𝑣 2 =0
𝜕𝑥 2 𝑦

Boundary Condition (2) (TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES)


• 𝑀𝑥 = 0 𝑉𝑦 = 0 𝑦 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤
➢ 𝑀𝑥 = −𝐵 + 𝑣 2 =0
𝜕𝑦 2 𝑥
Soil springs and dashpots
For Disk on Homogeneous Half-Space
Spring Dashpot Mass
Frequency 4.54𝐺𝐵
Dependent
Gazetas 𝐾𝑣 = 𝑘෨ 𝑧 𝐶𝑣 = ሺ𝜌𝑉𝐿𝑎 𝐴𝑏 )𝑐𝑧ǁ -
1−𝑣
Lysmer’s 4𝐺𝑅 3.4𝑅 2
𝐾𝑣 = 𝐶𝑣 = 𝐺𝜌 -
Analog 1−𝑣 1−𝑣
𝐴
𝐾𝑣 = 𝜌𝑐 2 0ൗ𝑧0 𝐶𝑣 = 𝜌𝑐𝐴0 -
1 1
(Cone) < 𝑣 < ; 𝑐 = 2𝑐𝑠
Frequency 3 2
Independent Discrete
2
Element 𝑧0 𝜋 𝑐
Model; = 1−𝑣 1
𝑟0 4 𝑐𝑠 ∆𝑀 = 2.4ሺ𝑣 − )𝜌𝐴0 𝑟0
Wolf (1997) 3

𝑐𝑠 = 𝐺ൗ
𝜌
Frequency dependent soil springs and dashpots
Gazetas, G. (1991) “Foundation Vibrations”, in Foundation Engr. Handbook edt. by
Fang)
3D FEM analysis conducted by Midas
Model 1
Analysis Zone: 100 x 100 x 60 m
Raft Dimension: 10 x 10 x 1 m
Boundary Constraint
Left and Right X- direction

Front and back Y- direction


Bottom Z- direction
3D FEM analysis conducted by Midas
Model 2
Analysis Zone: 200 x 200 x 70 m
Raft Dimension: 26 x 26 x 1 m
Boundary Constraint
Left and Right X- direction
Front and back Y- direction
Bottom Z- direction
Model 1: 10 x 10 x 1m
Model 2: 26 x 26 x 1m

Gazetas Wolf

Small
raft

Large raft

Lysmer 3D FEM
Harmonic Loading
Total Load: 150 kN
Load Amplitude: 1.5 kPa
Raft Model 1: 10 x 10 x 1m

 FEM raft on springs also


gave similar solutions to FD
analyses.
 The missing resonance of
raft was possibly caused by
overestimating the
damping in FD analysis.
 At the resonance of the
foundation, material
damping rather than
geometric damping should
become more significant.
Harmonic Loading
Total Load: 150 kN
Load Amplitude: 0.222 kPa
Raft Model 2: 26 x 26x 1m
Concluding Remarks
The proposed FD analysis for 2D raft WERAFT-S can simulate the
flexible foundation settlements in a rational manner.
- If rod spring was used, the length of spring and the
influencing area should be adjusted to provide adequate
solutions.
- If Lysmer’s Analog spring was used, fdt. settlements are okay
at center and edges, but the ones at corners are much smaller
than 3D FEM solutions.
The proposed FD analysis of CPRF WEAPR-S can simulate fdt.
settlements in similar order to the ones by 3D FEM.
- Again, the corner displacements were found much smaller.
- Pile-to-pile interactions must be taken into account.
Further investigations are conducted to modify the analyses.
Brief Introduction of 16ARC
www.16arc.org
The 16th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Taipei International Convention Center (TICC), Taipei, Taiwan
October 14-18, 2019

16ARC Program at a Glance (tentative)

12 Oct. 13 Oct. 14 Oct. 15 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct.


Time\Date Time\Date
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
08:00-08:30 08:00-08:30
103 (120 105 201BC 201A 201B 201D (88 201E
Venune National Taiwan University Venune 201 (800 pax) 201 (800 pax) 201 (800 pax) pax) (100 pax) (232 pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax)
08:30-09:00 08:30-09:00 Opening Ceremony Keynote III (50 mins) Keynote IV (50 mins)
09:00-09:30 09:00-09:30 (08:30-09:20) (08:30-09:20) SF01M (9) SA08 (9) SFA05 (9) SA03 (8) SA09 (7) SA10 (9) SA11 (9)
Keynote I (50 mins)
09:30-10:00 09:30-10:00 (09:10-10:00) Invited Lecture I Invited Lecture IV
10:00-10:30 10:00-10:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break
10:30-11:00 10:30-11:00 Keynote II (50 mins) Mentoring Lecture (30 mins) Invited Lecture V
SFA05 (6)
11:00-11:30 11:00-11:30 (10:30-11:20) Invited Lecture II Invited Lecture VI SF01M (9) SA08 (9) SA03 (8) SA09 (6) SA10 (9) SA11 (9)
11:30-12:00 11:30-12:00 Invited Lecture III Special Lecture by AECOM SA07 (3)
12:00-12:30 12:00-12:30
Lunch @ Banquet Hall (120 mins) Technical
12:30-13:00 Pre-Conf. Pre-Conf. 12:30-13:00 Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Visit
Short Short
13:00-13:30 13:00-13:30
Course Course
Program Program North 103 (120 201A 201B 201C 201D (88 201E 201F 103 (120 105 201BC 201A 201B 201D (88 201E
Venune
made by made by
Venune 201 BCDE (476 pax) (90 pax) 201 BCDE (476 pax) 401 (60pax)
pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax) (112 pax) pax) (100 pax) (232 pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax)
13:30-14:00 CTGS CTGS 13:30-14:00 Theme Lecture I Theme Lecture IV
Asian
14:00-14:30 14:00-14:30 Theme Lecture II YMPG (9) Council TC202 (9) SI14 (8) SF01 (9) SF02 (9) SA04 (9) SFA05 (9) SA06 (9) SF01M (8) SA08 (9) SA07 (9) SI15 (8) SI17 (7) SA10 (9)
CAPG session "Are we over-designing?" Meeting
14:30-15:00 14:30-15:00 Theme Lecture III
15:00-15:30 15:00-15:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break
103 (120 201BCDE 105 201A 201F 401 North 103 (120 201BCDE 105 201A 201F North South 103 (120 201A 201B 201C 201D (88 201E 201F
Venune Venune
pax) (476 pax) (100 pax) (112 pax) (112 pax) (60 pax) (90 pax) pax) (476 pax) (100 pax) (112 pax) (112 pax) (90 pax) (90 pax)
401 (60pax)
pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax) (112 pax) 201BC (232 pax)
15:30-16:00 15:30-16:00 AGSSEA Asian
YMPG (6) ATC6 (6) ATC1 (6) SA06 (7)
16:00-16:30 16:00-16:30 TC103 (8) ATC10 (8) TC104 (9) Council ATC3 (9) ATC18 (9) ATC19 (8) TC304 (8) TWN Council ISSMGE Bright Spark Lecture & Closing Ceremony (16:00-17:30)
ATC6 (11) ATC7 (9) Meeting Meeting TC209 (10) TC305 (12) SF01 (10) SA08 (12) SA04 (12) SFA05 (12)
16:30-17:00 16:30-17:00 Session
ATC6
YGES (6) SA04 (5) SA07 (5)
17:00-17:30 17:00-17:30 meeting
ATC3
17:30-18:00 17:30-18:00 meeting

18:00-18:30 18:00-18:30
18:30-19:30 18:30-19:30
Welcome reception @ Banquet Hall Gala dinner
19:30-20:30 19:30-20:30

Registration 15:00-17:00 Registration 08:00-17:00 08:00-17:00 08:00-17:00 08:00-16:00

Poster Session Poster Session 09:00-17:00 P1/P2 09:00-17:00 P3/P4 09:00-17:00 P5/P6 09:00-17:00 P7/P8

Exhibition Exhibition 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00


Thank you!

48
INCOTEC LOAD CELLS
FOR CAISSONS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450


Fuerza (tn)
-10

10
Desplazamiento (mm)

20

30

40

50
GENERAL ASPECTS

The CCI consists in a piston-cylinder system, similar to a hydraulic jack, installed at


the toe of the caisson/drilled pile.
Once the pile is finished and the concrete has hardened, the injection of the cell is
performed with grout. This process mobilizes downwards the toe of the cell,
compacting the soil and measuring the forces: and occasionally, mobilizes the shaft
upwards, allowing to calculate the average friction of the shaft.
QUALITY SYSTEM
GENERAL ASPECTS

TYPICAL CURVE FORCE VS. TOE MOVEMENT


THE CHANGE OF STIFFNESS IS PRESENTED

CAISSON:
Ø150 CM
Altered L = 22m
soil
Stiffness
MAX. INJECTION
PRESSURE: 25 Kg/cm2
After injection
stiffness TOTAL MOBILIZED
LOAD : 406 TN
QUALITY SYSTEM

ALTOUGH THE “CAPACITY” OF A


PILE SHOULD BE DEFINED PRIOR
TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE
CCI, DURING THE INJECTION THE
VALUES OF PRESSURE, VOLUME
AND MOVEMENTS (TOE AND
HEAD) ARE DIRECTELY
MEASURED, GIVING THE
RESISTANCE PARAMETERS OF
EACH PILE/CAISSON. 100%
CONTROL
OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT IS
THAT THE SHAPE OF THE
INJECTED ELEMENT IS KNOWN
DYNAMIC LOAD TEST

THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS


SHOW THE RESULTS OF
TWO DLT PERFORMED IN
TWO CAISSONS 5 m APPART
FROM EACH OTHER.
THE FIRST HAS A CCI AND
SECOND DOES NOT.
THE DROP HAMMER IS A 15 t
FREE-FALL HAMMER AND
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 1.8
m.
PRUEBA DE CARGA

CAISSON Ø 1200 mm, L=22 m AND WITH CCI


PRUEBA DE CARGA

CAISSON Ø 1200 mm, L=22 m AND WITHOUT CCI


CASO DE ESTUDIO:
Pilotes excavados con inyección en punta. Aplicación en ríos
bolivianos
ÍNDICE

1. Situación y descripción 6. Perforación de los pilotes


2. Condicionantes geotécnicos 7. Procedimiento de inyección
3. Normativa de diseño a) Equipos y control
4. Propuesta de inyección b) Monitoreo de movimientos
5. Método de cálculo c) Resultados
8. Conclusiones

10
Situación y objeto.

3 puentes en vía ferroviaria para exportar urea y amoniaco a Brasil y Argentina

Bulo Bulo:

We are
here !!!!

Santa Cruz

11
Descripción del proyecto y obra

Tres puentes:
- Río Piraí de 331 m.
- Río Yapacaní de 799 m
- Río Ichilo de 331 m

Luces de 39 m.
Yapacaní
Socavación de 10 m.

Piraí Ichilo

12
Condicionantes geotécnicos

Carretera existente

- Suelos aluviales, principalmente arenosos.


Muy pocos finos
- Nivel freático en superficie
13
Condicionantes geotécnicos. Campaña geotécnica

Sondeos con ensayos SPT

14
Condicionantes geotécnicos. Perfil geotécnico

N30 % Finos Límite líquido


15
Factores que determinan el comportamiento
de la punta
Pilotes excavados en arenas

1. Alteración
2. Acumulación de detritus
3. Baja rigidez y resistencia
creciente
16
Factores que determinan el comportamiento
de la punta

1 – 2%
inclinación Mullins et al.

1. Alteración
2. Acumulación de detritus
La limpieza no es perfecta
3. Baja rigidez y resistencia
creciente
17
Factores que determinan el comportamiento
de la punta

Carga en punta versus asiento

1. Alteración
2. Acumulación de detritus
3. Baja rigidez y resistencia
Carga movilizada normalizada en punta, en función del
creciente
asiento (AASHTO 2012).
18
Normativa aplicable (AASHTO)

𝑞𝑝 = 0.057 𝑁60 ; 𝑁60 ≤ 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎 N=50 → qp=2.87 MPa


0.8
𝑝𝑎
𝑞𝑝 = 0.0285 𝑁60 𝜎𝑣, ; 𝑁60 > 50 N=100 → qp=6.00 MPa
𝜎𝑣,

19
Normativa aplicable (AASHTO).

Comparando otros métodos:

Método analítico

Métodos semiempíricos (SPT,


Presiómetro)

20
Inyección en punta

a)Normativa restrictiva
b)Terreno realmente alterable

Inyección Punta

a)Normativa con método cálculo para inyectados


b)Terreno mejorará capacidad punta x 2

La alternativa: pilotes más largos, o mayor número de pilotes


21
Sistema de inyección: El TOE BOX

¿Qué es un gato plano?


(Flat Jack)

Pilote Bomba

La lechada ocupa un área conocida bajo la punta:


→ Se conoce la fuerza aplicada en la punta (presión x área)
→ Se obtiene cota inferior de la resistencia por fuste
→ Similar a una prueba de carga.
22
Sistema de inyección con gato plano

Gato plano usado en USA

Gray Mullins (2001)


23
Sistema de gato plano o celda de inyección

Celda de inyección usada en este proyecto

24
Sistema de celda de inyección

25
Método de cálculo de pilotes inyectados (FHWA)

Gray Mullins et al. (2004)


𝑞𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑦𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 = 𝑇𝐶𝑀 (𝑞𝑝൯ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENG. ASCE/APRIL 2006

%𝐷 TCM:Tip Capacity Multiplier


𝑇𝐶𝑀 = 0.713 𝐺𝑃𝐼 %𝐷 0.364 +
0.4 %𝐷 + 3.0

𝑃𝑖
𝐺𝑃𝐼 =
𝑞𝑝

Para 5 % 𝐷 𝑇𝐶𝑀 = 1 + 1.28 GPI

N=50 → qp=3 MPa ; Pi=3 MPa → TCM=2.28

Como establecer la presión de inyección:


- La presión de inyección de diseño está limitada por la resistencia por fuste
- La presión de inyección de diseño hay que lograrla después en obra.
Metodología de diseño usada por Uriel&Asociados:
1. Usar el método analítico ( = 𝟑𝟐 − 𝟑𝟓º) para obtener una “resistencia por punta deseada (qp*)
2. Usar esa qp* como la resistencia a conseguir mediante la inyección (qp inyectada=qp*).
3. Definir la presión de inyección necesaria para ello, usando Mullins (y AASHTO para qp)
4. Comprobar que se dispone de resistencia por fuste suficiente

26
Método de cálculo de pilotes inyectados (FHWA)

Ejemplo capacidad de pilote convencional versus pilote inyectado

27
Perforación pilotes

Participaron 2 empresas
Pilotes de 1,2 y 1,5 m.
Longitud: 22 a 30 m

Excavación con camisa


recuperable en toda la longitud,
sin lodos 28
Inyección

Mezcladora + bomba

Conductos y llaves de paso

Transductor de caudal y presión Registro de datos en tiempo real

29
Registros de la inyección

Presión máxima (MPa): 4.1


Volumen inyectado (l): 700
Fuerza movilizada total (kN): 6440
30
Inyección. Control asentamiento en punta

Tell Tales

31
Inyección. Control levantamiento en cabeza

Levantamiento en cabeza
Anclajes externos

Hilo para nivel


de Referencia
Medición de
desplazamientos

Cese de la inyección si se levanta 5 mm.


→ La resistencia por fuste puede limitar la presión de inyección

32
Registros de movimientos

33
Resultados. Resistencia por punta movilizada

Presión de inyección (Mpa)

Resistencia admisible por punta (Mpa)

• Presiones de inyección del mismo orden de magnitud que las resistencias


admisibles por punta calculadas

(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m)


34
Resultados. Resistencia por fuste movilizada
Resistencia movilizada FUSTE (kN)

Ratio
Resistencia última calculada FUSTE (kN) movilizada/calculada
• En el 75 % de los pilotes se “ensayó” su resistencia por fuste hasta valores por
encima de su resistencia nominal calculada.
• El método analítico (=Ko tan  )ha sido conservador para obtener la resistencia por
fuste
(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m) 35
Resultados. Carga total aplicada por la inyección

• 75 % de los pilotes se “ensayaron” a una carga total mayor que la carga en servicio.

→ Confianza el diseño y la ejecución.

(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m) 36


Conclusiones

Respecto a la celda de inyección

- Técnica con grandes posibilidades para la inyección en punta.


- Como posibles mejoras:
- Monitorización de movimientos en tiempo real.
- Será de interés realizar en el futuro alguna prueba de carga estática para
corroborar aun más la bondad del sistema.

37
Conclusiones.
Respecto a la inyección de punta de pilotes
“Toe post-grouted bored piles have amazing benefits:
increased end bearing,
reduced foundation cost,
increased design confidence, etc.” (Gray Mullins)

“La inyección en punta de pilotes excavados tiene enormes


beneficios:
Incremento de la resistencia por punta,
Reducción del coste,
Incremento de confianza en el diseño” (Tomás Murillo)

38
Muchas gracias por su
atención

39
REFERENCES
References
Berggren, B., Sellgren, E. and Wetterling, S. 1988. Expanderkroppar. Anvisningar för
dimensionering, utförande och kontroll (Expander Body. Instructions for design,
installation and control). Swedish Commission on Pile Reseach, Report 79, 54 p.

Broms, B.B. 1985. Expander Bodies – A new concept for underpinning of structures.
Proceedings XI ICSMGE San Francisco.Vol. 3, pp. 1531 – 1534.

Broms, B.B. and Nord, B. 1985. Axial bearing capacity of the expander body pile. Soils
and Foundations 25(2) pp. 31-44.

CEN 2000. Execution of special geotechnical work - Displacement piles. European


Committee for Standardization (CEN). ICS 93.200. December 2000, 46 p.

Coutand, S.C. 2007. Ajuste de parámetros presiométricos en la estimación de la


capacidad de carga última de pilotes con tecnología Expander Body en arenas
sedimentarias. Tesis de grado. Ed. Universidad Federico Santa María. Valparaíso, Chile.
99 p.
REFERENCES
Decourt, L., 2008. Loading tests: interpretation and prediction of their results.
ASCE GeoInstitute Geo-Congress New Orleans, March 9-12, "Honoring John
Schmertmann—From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering",
Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 180, Edited by J.E. Laier, D.K. Crapps, and
M.H. Hussein, pp. 452-488.

Eslami, A. and Fellenius, B.H., 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTU
methods applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34(6)
886–904.

Fellenius, B.H. and Terceros, Herrera.M. 2014. Response to Load for four different
types of piles. Proceedings, International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations. 2014., Stockholm

Fellenius, B.H., 1989. Tangent modulus of piles determined from strain data. The
ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1989 Foundation Congress, Edited by
F.H. Kulhawy,Vol. 1, pp. 500-510.
REFERENCES
Fellenius, B.H., 2114. Basics of foundation design. Electronic Edition.
www.Fellenius.net, 428 p. Page 21/21

Fellenius, B.H., Kim, S.R., and Chung, S.G., 2009. Long-term monitoring of strain in
instrumented piles. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 135(11) 1583-1595.

Goudreault, A.A and Fellenius, B.H., 2013. UniPile Version 5, Users and Examples
Manual. UniSoft Geotechnical Solutions Ltd. [www.UniSoftLtd.com]. 100 p.

Massarsch, K.R., Brieke, W., and Tancré, E. 1988. Displacement auger piles with
compacted base. Proceedings, Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 333 – 342.

Massarsch, K. R. and Wetterling, S. 1993. Improvement of augercast pile performance


by expander body system. 2nd International Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, June 1 - 4, 1993, pp. 417 - 428.
REFERENCES
Massarsch, K. R. 1994. Execution, supervision and quality control of anchors.
Panel Discussion, Section 3.3, Construction, Instrumentation and Real Time
Management, XIII. Proceedings, International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India,Vol. 5, pp. 317 - 319.

NeSmith, W. 2002. Static capacity analysis of augered, pressure-injected


displacement piles. Deep Foundations Journal 2002: pp. 1174-1186.

Terceros Herrera, M. 2008. El uso de la tecnología Expander Body en


fundaciones profundas en suelos sedimentarios de Santa Cruz, Bolivia (Use of
Expander Body technology for deep foundations in sedimented soil of Santa
Cruz, Bolivia). Proc. of 19th Congreso Argentino de Mecánica de Suelos e
Ingeniería Geotécnica, La Plata,Argentina, 8 p.

Terceros Herrera M., Wetterling, S., and Massarsch K. R. 1995. Application of the
Soilex Pile System with Expander Body in Bolivia. X. Congreso Panamericano de
Mecanica de Suelos e Ingenieria de Cimentaciones, Mexico. pp. 1319 - 1327.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mario A.Terceros H., Incotec S.A., Santa Cruz, Bolivia
www.incotec.com.bo
E mail: math@incotec.cc - Phone: +591 3 349522
Observations and analysis of pile
group of 13 EB-equipped piles

Bengt H. Fellenius
and
Mario Terceros H.
Mario Terceros A.
K. Rainer Massarsch
Alessandro Mandolini

4th CFPB
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
May 23 - 24, 2019

1
Shaft response to load for a single pile
and a group of piles
Conventional model for the
Single response of a piled raft to load.
PERIMETER PILE
Pile INTERIOR PILES

I expect that under the pile


cap (raft), the strain in the
pile and in the soil are
equal. Thus, for working
load conditions, neither
relative movement nor
shaft resistance should
develop between the pile
and the soil. So, can there
be resistance all along the
interior piles?

2
A study of the shaft response to load for a
single pile and a group of piles
Conventional model for the
Single response of a piled raft to load.
PERIMETER PILE
Pile INTERIOR PILES

I expect that under the pile


cap (raft), the strain in the
pile and in the soil are
equal. Thus, for working
load conditions, neither
relative movement nor
shaft resistance should
develop between the pile
and the soil. So, can there
be resistance all along the
interior piles?

3
Cable-stayed bridge over the Garigliano River in Southern Italy; constructed in 1991-94.
(Russo and Viggiani 1995, and Mandolini et al. 2005).

PIER
W
800
CORNER

AXIAL LOAD (kN)


Foundation 600 SIDE
Piles
b = 406 mm
D = 48 m
Bored Pile Wall INTERIOR
b = 800 mm 400
D = 12.0 m
(To prevent scour.
End of
Construction Construction
Free from contact
with raft and piles). 200 Pause

0
19.0 m

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


TIME AFTER CONSTRUCTION START (days)

10.6 m

The soil profile consisted of about 10 m of clay on about 10 m of dense sand underlain by soft
clay deposited at about 48 m depth on a very dense sand and gravel bed. The clay is normally
consolidated undergoing small. The piled raft foundation comprised 144 mandrel-driven, then
concrete-filled, steel pipe piles, 406-mm diameter, 48 m long, uniformly distributed in a 10.6 m by
19.0 m raft and driven into the very dense sand and gravel layer. The pile c/c distance was 1.2 m
(3.0 pile diameters). The Footprint Ratio was 9 %. The unfactored load from the pier was 800
kN/pile, which incorporated a factor of safety of 3.0 on pile capacity as stated to have been
verified in static loading tests.
4
Actual measurements on response of pile groups to load are very scare.
Okabe (1977) presented very informative measurements on axial load
distributions of 43 m long piles in a wide piled foundation.

Single Pile LOAD (kN)


LOAD (kN)
LOAD (kN)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
-1,000
-1,000
-1,000 000 1,000
1,000 2,000
1,000 2,000 3,000
2,000 3,000 4,000
3,000 4,000 5,000
4,000 5,000
5,000
0
9.4 m 000 The working load?
The
The working
working load?
load?

43 m long
10
10 single pile
10
10 43 m long
43
43 m
m long
installed long
single pile
single
awaysingle
from pile
pile
installed
installed
installed
group
away from
away
away from
from
group
20 group
group

(m)
20
10.6 m

20
20

DEPTH(m)
DEPTH
DEPTH
( )
1.5 m

30
30
30
30
N.P.
Perimeter
pile
Monitored 40
40
40
40 Perimeter
A back-calculation of the pile
Piles Interior Perimeter
with
Interiorload distribution shows
Interior loads
pile that
piles
piles it corresponds shifted to same
piles to a unit
1.5 m 0.7 m load atequal
negative skin friction start as
to a the= others
ß-coefficient 0.4
50
50
50
50

Note, the interior piles showed no


shaft resistance and no drag force.
Data from Okabe 1977
5
A 36-pile group with a rigid pile cap (resting on the ground) forced down 40 mm
SOILSOIL
SOIL SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT AND
and PILEAND PILEMOVEMENT
PILE
MOVEMENTMOVEMENT (mm)
(mm) (mm) LOAD (kN)
LOAD (kN)
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600
00 00

FF
22 22
EE

DD
44 44
CC

BB
66 66
AA

11 22 33 44 55 66
88 88

(m)
DEPTH (m)
(m)
DEPTH (m)

Interior
Interior

DEPTH
DEPTH

10
10 10
10 Piles
Piles

12
12 12
12
Perimeter
PerimeterPiles
Piles

14
14 14
14
PileToe
Pile Toe Depth
Depth
Pile
Pile 16
16
16
16
Soilat
Soil at Movement
Movement
PerimeterPile
Perimeter Pile
Calculations
18
18 18
18
Soilat
Soil at performed with
InteriorPile
Interior Pile Plaxis software
20
20 20
20

Distribution of soil settlement at perimeter and interior


piles, pile and pile cap movements, and load for peri-
meter and interior piles loaded by a rigid pile cap.
6
Procedure for determining the load-transfer movement of interior piles.

Theoretically, this
should be toe
resistance. Is it?
Average sustained
load on interior piles
500 20.0
Applied load minus

LENGTH ABOVE TOE LEVEL (m)


"Soil-pile"(shaft)
400 Left Ordinate axis 16.0
LOAD (kN)

300 12.0
Pile-toe
Resistance
200 Left Ordinate 8.0

100 4.0

0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Pile length above MOVEMENT (mm)


Pile-toe load-transfer
the pile toe with movement for the
shaft resistance sustained load
Right Ordinate

The intersection of the green, blue, and red lines


Calculations performed with is where the downward toe movement matches 7
UniPile software
(www.unisoftGS.com) the upward soil movement at the pile toe
Comparison of load-movement response of perimeter and
interior piles for rigid and flexible rafts

3,000

2,500

Rigid Raft, so same Perimeter


2,000
movement and Pile
LOAD (kN)

different load
1,500
Interior
Pile
1,000

Flexible Raft, so
500
same load and
different movement
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

Slightly exaggerated, 8
qualitative graph
The perimeter piles will carry a larger But piles are often installed at a site that is
load than the interior piles. Should the affected by general subsidence. Thus, the
perimeter piles then not be shorter than perimeter piles will experience down-drag,
the interior piles so as to reduce so the foundation raft will tend to settle.
differential settlement? Should the perimeter piles then not be
installed longer than the interior piles to
ensure non-differential settlement?

FILLS, etc. FILLS, etc.

G.W. G.W.

Equivalent Pier with a Equivalent Pier with a


stiffness of AE combined stiffness of AE combined

Equivalent Raft placed at Equivalent Raft placed at


the pile toe level the pile toe level

2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq


distribution distribution distribution distribution

Settlement of the piled foundation is caused Settlement of the piled foundation is caused
by the compression of the soil due to increase by the compression of the soil due to increase
of effective stress below the neutral plane of effective stress below the neutral plane
from external load applied to the piles and, for from external load applied to the piles and, for
example, from fills, embankments, loads on example, from fills, embankments, loads on
adjacent foundations, and lowering of adjacent foundations, and lowering of
groundwater table. groundwater table.

9
Observations and analysis of pile
group of 13 EB-equipped piles at
the B.E.S.T. test site.

10
Soil Profile

WATER CONTENT (%) SOIL TYPE FRACTIONS (%) SPT N-INDICES


(blows/0.3 m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30
0 0 0
GW Silty
1 1 1 Sand
SAND
2 2 Silt
2 Clay
3 3 FINES 3 Silt or
PL w n LL SAND
4 4 Clay
4
5 5 5
Clay
DEPTH (m)

6 6 6
FINES SAND
7 7 7

8 8 8
Sand
9 9 9
10 10 10
11 11 11
12 12 FINES 12
13 13 Silty
13 SAND
FINES Sand
14 14 14
0 5 10 15
CPTU qt (MPa)

11
CPTU Results
WATER CONTENT (%) SOIL TYPE FRACTIONS (%) SPT N-INDICES
Cone Stress, qt (MPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Pore Pressure (kPa) (blows/0.3
Friction m)
Ratio, fR (%)
0 5 10 0 200 40 60 80 100 0 10 10 3 204 30
10 1515 20 25
0 3025 35 5040 75 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 2 5
0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GW Silty
1 1 2
1 Sand
2 2 2 SAND
2 2 Silt
2 Clay
4 4 4 4
3 3 FINES 3 Silt or
PL w n LL SAND
6 6 4 6 6
4 Clay
4
8 5 8 5 8 8 5
Clay
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)

6 6 6
10 10 10
FINES SAND 10

7 7 7
12 12 12 12
8 8 8
Sand
14 14 14
14 9 9 9

16 10 16 10 16 16 10
11 11 11
18 18 18 18
12 12 FINES 12
20 20 20 20 Silty
13 13 SAND 13
FINES Sand
22 14 22 14 22 22 14
0 5 10 15
CPTU qt (MPa)

12
The piles were pressure-grouted, 300 mm
diameter, full displacement piles equipped
with an Expander Body

The Expander Body, EB and EBI

Un-inflated before installation Extracted Expanded in air


13
The pile group layout and sequence of construction

Sequence of EB Expansion
Sequence of Construction Sequence of EB Expansion
Piles E2 - E14 E12, E2, E8, E7,
E10, E5, E6, E11,
1st: E8,
E8,E2,
2nd: E3,
E2, E4,
E3,E9,
E9,
E12,E14,
E4, E12,
E13,
E13,
and E14
and E7
E7, E11
2.54 m
2.5 m E13, E3, E9, E4, and E14 E10, E5, and E6
3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4 E2 E3 E4

E5 E6
E5 E6
DISTANCE (m)

5.0 m
E8
E7 E9
E1 E7 E8 E9

E10 E11 E10 E11


E12 E13 E14
E12 E13 E14

The single pile

14
Arrangement for measuring Phase-1 movements

15
Phase 2, the head-down test

8.00

6.00

4.00 2.0 m
E-GROUP
3.0 m
2.00

PILE E1
0.00 REACTION PILE

2.0 m
-2.00

REFERENCE
-4.00
BEAM SUPPORT

-6.00

-8.00
-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

16
The results
First those of the single pile
700 1,500
UniPile simulation Pile broke
LOAD IN BIDIRECTIONAL CELL (kN)

fitted to test curve near head

EB response (>800 kN)


600

500
BD Test 1,000

LOAD (kN)
400 Head-down
Test
300
Phase 1 500
200 BD Test

100

0 PILE E1
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 10 20 30 40 50
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)
MOVEMENT (mm)
The effective stress proportionality coefficient, ß,
was 0.4 at the ground surface increasing linearly Phase 1 now with Phase 2
to ß = 2.0 at 6 m depth, which value was then
kept the same to the BD depth (8.3 m).
17
t-z and q-z functions are fundamental
to the analysis of pile response
Common t-z and q-z functions
140
The t-z function applied to the back-analysis
Ratio, θ = 0.200
Strain-hardening
120 Hyperbolic (r∞ = 120 %)

rtrg Elastic-plastic Exponential, b = 1.20


100
δ100 % = 5 mm
SHAFT SHEAR (% of rult)

Hansen 80 %
80
Strain-softening
δtrg Zhang, a = 0.009
Hyperbolic
60 C1 = 0.0099

40

This is typical for an element affected by residual force


20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
RELATIVE MOVEMENT BETWEEN PILE AND SOIL ELEMENT (mm)

18
E-Group test — Phase 1

Load versus time


700
Piles E2-E14 Piles E2- E14
600
Phase 1a Pile E1 Phase 1b
Unloading due to
Pile plunging mistaken f or
BD LOAD (kN/PILE)

collector malf unction.


500 Ceased pumping re-newed 'leak'
and, then, unloaded.
400
Pump
300 'leaking'

200

100 Restarted

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
TIME (minutes)

19
E-Group test — Phase 1a
Same data with rotated graph
30
PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

25
Single,
Pile E1
20

15

10 E-Group
Phase 1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
LOAD IN BIDIRECTIONAL CELL (kN)

The load (same for all 13 piles) that pushed the pile group
upward corresponded to a unit shaft resistance acting along
the circumference of the group that was about equal to the
unit shaft resistance measured for the single pile, Pile E1.
20
E-Group test — Phase 1a and 1b

Load versus movement


700
LOAD IN BIDIRECTIONAL CELL (kN)

Pile E1
600
Average Average
Phase 1a Phase 1b
500

400

300

E6, E8,
200 E9, & E11

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
UPWARD PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

21
Upward movement of pile heads
60 60
Phase 1a Phase 1a
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm) Phase 1b Phase 1b

UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)


50 50

40 40
Average Average
30 Phase 1b 30 Phase 1b

Unloaded Unloaded
20 20

10 10
Phase 1a
0 0
0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60 0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60
DISTANCE ACROSS (m) DISTANCE ACROSS (m)

Upward movement of ground surface


50 50

UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)


S6
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)

S6

S1 S4 S9
Phase 1b S1 S4 S9
Phase 1a
S7 S7

40 S2 S5 S10
40 S2 S5 S10 Phase 1b
S3 S8
S3 S8
Average
Average Pile Head Average
30 Soil Heave 30 Soil Heave

20 20
Unloaded Unloaded

10 10

0 0
0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60 0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60
DISTANCE ACROSS (m) DISTANCE ACROSS (m)

Conclusion: the pile heads and ground


22
surface moved more or less in unison.
After Phase 1 E-Group test

23
E-Group test — Phases 2 and 3
Phase 2: Head-down Test; Loading the rigid pile cap.
Phase 3 : BD-Test: Repeating Phase 1. Now with the rigid cap.

1,200
Ph. 2.1 Ph. 2.2

Ph. 3.1
1,000

Ph. 3.2

800 Phase 2
LOAD (kN/Pile)

Head-down.
Load applied
to Pile Cap
600 Phase 3
Load in BD
Phase 2
Load in BD
400

200
Load remaining
in BD af ter
Weight Ph. 2.4 unloading
Ph. 2.3
of Cap Pile Cap
0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

24
E-Group test — Phases 1 through 3
Shaft Resistance versus Pile-head Movement

700
SHAFT RESISTANCE (kN)/Pile

600

500 Phase 1a, BD Phase 1b, BD

400
Phase 3, BD
300 SHAFT

200 Phase 2, HD
SHAFT
100

0
Phase 1a Phase 1b

-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

25
Phase 2, E-Group test
Load-movements of the total load applied to the pile cap, the
average pile-head loads, the shaft resistance between pile head
and BD level, and the average contact load.

1,000
E-GROUP Total Load

EB response (>500 kN)


PHASE 2
800 Average
LOAD per PILE (kN)

Pile Load

600
SHAFT
Resistance
400
Average
Contact Load
200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

26
Phase 2: all piles pushed downward from above the pile cap,
i.e., a head-down test. Because of the rigid pile cap, all pile head
movements were equal—the piles were forced down in unison
1,000
E9
E7
E12 E2 Average
E4 perimeter

LOAD AT PILE HEAD (kN)


800 piles
E13
Average all
E6 E8 piles
600 E3 Average
E14 E11 interior
E5
Sequence of EB piles
Expansion
E10
1st: E8, E2, E4, E12, and E14
2nd: E3, E9, E13, and E7
400 3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4

E5 E6

E8
200 E7 E9

E10 E11
E12 E13 E14

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

Maximum load applied to the Pile Cap: 10.8 MN = 900 kN/pile


Weight of the pile cap, beams, jacks etc.: 0.7 MN = 50 kN/pile
Actual maximum load from cap: 11.5 MN = 950 kN/pile
Maximum total load on the piles: 8.7 MN = 670 kN/pile (3/4 of total load)
The balance rests on the ground: 2.8 MN ==> ≈100 kPa contact stress
The average axial strain change induced by the Phase 2 loading of the cap was about 500 με. Strain
compatibility for this strain (100 kPa ground stress) indicates an E-modulus of about 200 MPa for the
soil, which is a very high value even considering that the sand is compacted and confined.
27
Conclusions

The eight perimeter piles carried the load with the five interior piles not
experiencing resistance to the upward loading.

In both Phases 1 and 2, the interior piles moved considerably more than
the perimeter piles for the same applied load. Phase 2 measurements
showed that the perimeter piled mobilized considerably more shaft
resistance than the interior piles.

The Expander Body provided a considerably enhanced pile-toe


resistance thus, enabling the BDs to push the piles as planned; The
enhanced resistance was a key aspect of the study.

28
Thank you for your attention

29
”Conferencia Mario Terceros Banzer”
The evolution of the Expander Body
concept and future applications
K. R. Massarsch
Geo Risk & Vibration AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Bo “Bosse” Skogberg
19 February 1942 – 26 August 2018
“A person with really exceptional talents and initiative”
In the late 1970s
BO SKOGBERG
invented
the Swellex Rock bolt

SWELLEX
ROCK BOLT
still used world-wide.
A multi-million
business for
Atlas Copco
SWELLEX PATENT
Granted in 1980
In the early 1980s,
first experiments by
BO SKOGBERG
to inflate folded steel tube

EXPANDER BODY PATENT


granted in 1982
In 1988, the Swedish Commission On Pile Research issued:
Guidelines for the design, execution and control of Expander Body
piles.
Before Stages of Expansion Final Shape
Expansion
Results of loading tests were used
to develop a design concept for Soilex anchors and piles
Soilex piles were used for underpinning
and as conventional pile foundations
A close personal relationship developed between Incotec and SOILEX
C-PILES

260 mm

450 mm
800

350 mm 1,15

• Cost-effective production of Expander Body


• Bottom injection system - EBI
• Displacement auger pile (FDP) with Expander Body
Vibrated Expander Body Pile Full Displacement
Auger Pile
Full-scale testing of vibrated
Expander Body pile by Franki
STEEL TUBE PILES
Diameter: 356 mm
Length: 12 and 17 m
EXPANDER BODY PILES
Steel tube pile: 273 mm
EB 510 and EB 810
VIBRATOR MS 25H
Frequency: 0 – 35 Hz
Eccentric moment: 25 kgm
Centrifugal force: 750 kN
SOIL CONDITIONS
• 0 – 8 m: loose to medium
dense sand with organic layers
• 8 – 20 m: medium dense sand

PILE LOADING TESTS


LOAD (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
Steel tube, 12 m
10
Steel tube, 17 m
20 EB 510, 12 m
EB 810, 12 m
MOVEMENT (mm)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
Depth

Geophone

Measurement of pile penetration speed and vibration


response of ground to optimize Expander Body installation
1. Parameters measured during pile driving
• Vibrator acceleration (g)
• Vibration frequency (Hz)
• Time (min)
• Pile depth (cm)
• Vibration velocity on ground (mm/s)
2. Derived parameters
• Movement amplitude (mm) by integration of g
• Pile penetration speed, v (cm/min)
• Pile vibration cycles, ce/0,2 m
3. Correlation with geotechnical parameters
• Correlation of vibration cycles (ce) with
penetration resistance (qc)
c0.2: vibration cycles for 0,2m 0,2 m

f
ce =
v
f (Hz): vibration frequency
v (cm/min): pile penetration speed

ce (cycles/cm): number of vibration cycles per depth interval.


In granular soils, related to penetration resistance (qc or N)
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) PENETRATION SPEED, v (cm/min)
0 5 10 15 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0

2 2

4 4

6 6

INCREASED REDUCED
8 8
CONE PENETRATION
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)
RESISTANCE SPEED
10 10

12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18 Penetration speed
has been estimated
20 20
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) VIBRATION CYCLES, ce (cycl/0,2 m)
0 5 10 15 20 0 50 100 150 200
0 0

5
6

8
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)
10 10

12

14

15

16

18

20 20
20

SITE-SPECIFIC CORRELATION
BETWEEN qc AND ce
15
CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
VIBRATION CYCLES, ce (cycl/0,2 m)
• When granular soil deposit is compacted at
the resonance frequency of the vibrator-
pile-soil system, ground vibrations increase -
resulting in enhanced compaction.
• At the same time, pile penetration speed is
reduced due to increased shaft resistance.
• Resonance frequency can be determined by
vibration measurement with geophone at
ground surface.
25

Penetration
VERTICAL VIBRATION VELOCITY , mm/s

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
VIBRATION FREQUENCY, Hz
25

20
VERTICAL VIBRATION VELOCITY , mm/s

15

10
COMPACTION

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
VIBRATION FREQUENCY, Hz
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) SLEEVE RESISTANCE, fs (kPa)
0 5 10 15 0 50 100 150 200
0 0

5 5
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)
10 10

15 15

20 20
SLEEVE RESISTANCE, fs (kPa)
0 100 200 300
0
Before
compaction
After
5 compaction
DEPTH (m)

10

Compaction effect 15 Increase in


has been estimated horizontal stress
due to resonance
20 compaction
• Installation of pile at high frequency (> 30
Hz) gives high production rate
• When foundation depth has been reached,
reduce vibrator frequency to system
resonance frequency (vibrator-pile-soil)
• Resonance compaction of soil around shaft
increases horizontal stresses and shaft
resistance
• At end of driving, lower eccentric moment
(reducing toe movement)
F

GEOPHONE

Reduced
shaft resistance
during high
frequency driving

Low toe resistance of uninflated


Expander Body during vibratory driving
F
GEOPHONE

High shaft
resistance due
to increase in
horizontal stress

High toe resistance


due expansion
pressure
Enlarged pile toe area
of Expander Body
• Use of vibrator with variable eccentric
moment and variable frequency achieves
efficient installation.
• Record vibration response of ground during
vibratory installation to avoid resonance
effects.
• Monitoring of vibratory driving to determine
required installation depth.
• Full documentation of driving process gives
high quality control - similar to Expander Body
inflation phase.
• Smooth and efficient pile installation at high
vibration frequency.
• Verification of required installation depth of
each pile by measurement of pile penetration
speed.
• Increase of shaft resistance in sandy soil by
resonance compaction at end of driving.
• Increase of horizontal stresses at pile toe.
• Verification of toe resistance from EB grouting
data.
Congratulations to Ing.
Mario Terceros Banzer
for your exceptional achievements by
creating a loving family and at the same time
developing a prosperous and inspiring
foundation business!
Lateral Load Behavior of Pile
Groups Based on Full-Scale Tests

Prof. Kyle M. Rollins


Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept.
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA

4° Congreso Internacional De Fundaciones


Profundas De Bolivia
May 23-24, 2019
Ralph Rollins, performed geotechnical
investigations for 5000 structures

I took Soil Mechanics class from my Father


Rachel Rollins was a Civil Engineering student

Rachel took Soil Mechanics class from her Father


Granddaughter, Ella, shows early
interest in soil behavior…
Lateral Load Behavior of Pile
Groups Based on Full-Scale Tests

Prof. Kyle M. Rollins


Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept.
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA

4° Congreso Internacional De Fundaciones


Profundas De Bolivia
May 23-24, 2019
Wind and Waves in Seismic Forces
Hurricanes

Landslides
Landslides andand lateral
lateral
Ship Impact spreading
spreading in Earthquakes
in Earthquakes
Lateral Pile Load Analysis
H

y
p y1
Interval
y
p y2

Non-linear p y3
springs
y y
p 4

y5
y
Pile Groups for Bridges on I-15
Good Group Behavior
Poor Group Behavior
Angry Mob
US Congress

Group IQ = Lowest IQ of anyone in the group


Pile Group Interaction

Leading Row Piles Row 1

Row 2

Trailing Row Piles

Row 3

Direction of
Loading
P-Multiplier Concept (Brown et al, 1988)
Horizontal Force/Length, P

Single Pile Curve

PSP
Group Pile Curve

PGP = PMULT PSP

Horizontal Displacement, y
P-multipliers from Full-Scale Tests
(Situation in 1998)
nd rd
Soil Type Front 2 3
(Reference) Row Row Row
Clean Sand 0.8 0.4 0.3
(Brown et al. 1988)
Stiff Clay 0.7 0.5 0.4
(Brown et al. 1987)
Soft Silty Clay 0.9 0.5 -
(Meimon et al. 1986)

BYU has conducted 11 Full-scale tests over the past 20 years


Influence of Friction Angle on Group Interaction

Elevation View
▪ Passive failure wedge
inclined at 45-/2.
▪ As  increases the
45-/2
45-/2

angle gets smaller and


wedge gets longer.
▪ Longer wedge causes
more group
interaction.
Influence of Friction Angle on Group Interaction

Plan View
▪ Passive failure wedge
fans out at .
▪ As  increases the
angle gets larger and
wedge gets wider.
▪ Wider wedge causes
more group

 interaction.
Influence of Friction Angle on P-multiplier

Less Group
1.0 Interaction
More Group
Interaction
P-Multiplier

Soft
Clay Stiff Looser
Clay Sand Denser
Sand

Drained Friction angle, ’


Limitations of Test Database

▪ Relatively few full-scale pile group load


tests with necessary measurements.
▪ All full-scale tests performed at about 3 pile
diameter spacing.
▪ Nearly all full-scale tests involved 3 rows or
less.
Pile Group Project Objectives
▪ Determine p-multiplier as a function of spacing.
▪ Evaluate p-multipliers for groups with more than
three rows.
▪ Examine effect of cyclic loading on lateral
resistance.
▪ Evaluate available computer models for analyzing
lateral response.
“One good test is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”

Werner Von Braun


Designer of Saturn V Moon Rocket
Healthy Skepticism for Tests
▪ A theory is something nobody believes,
except the person who proposed it.
▪ An experiment (test) is something
everybody believes, except the person who
performed it
--Albert Einstein
Sponsors
▪ Utah DOT - FHWA
▪ Caltrans
▪ Washington DOT
▪ Arizona DOT
▪ New York DOT
▪ Syro Steel
▪ PDCA-Build Inc.
▪ National Science Foundation
Bent Test with Carbon Fiber
Joint Wrapping

BYU - Univ. of Utah Collaboration


Bent Test Layout on I-15 (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Hydraulic Actuator

Reaction Frame

Pile Reaction Footing


(12-0.324 m diam., 11.9 m)

Geopier Aggregate Piers


(10-0.76 m diam., 4.57 m long)
3x4 Pile Group
Test 3x3 Pile Group
(4.4 D Spacing)
Site (3 D Spacing)

Layout

3x5 Pile Group


(3.3 D Spacing)

3x3 Pile Group


(5.6 D Spacing)
Site Characterization

▪ Field Testing ▪ Lab Testing


Cone Penetration Testing Atterberg Limits
(CPT) Grain Size Distribution
Standard Penetration Testing Undrained Strength
(SPT) Testing
Dilatometer Testing (DMT)
Pressuremeter Testing (PMT)
Shear Wave Velocity Testing
WT Clay Generalized
Sand Soil
Clay
Sand
Profile
Clay
Sand

Clay
Field & Lab Test Results
Idealized Soil Profile Tip Resistance (qc), kPa Friction Ratio, % Shear Strength of Clays, kPa Stress Profile, kPa
1.0 0.5 0.0 0 2 4 6
0 5000 10000 15000 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200
0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Fat CLAY (CH)
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
Lean CLAY (CL)
with silt (ML) layers
2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0


Silty SAND (SM)
Lean CLAY (CL)
4
Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0


Silty SAND (SM)
5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Used in
Analysis
6 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
CPT Su
Sensitive Fat
7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
CLAY (CH) Vane Shear
Test
8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Unconfined
Compression
9 9.0 9.0 9.0 Test 9.0

10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0


Lean CLAY (CL)
with silt (ML) and 11 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
silty sand (SM)
layers
12 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

13 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0


Effective Stress

14 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pre-Consolidation


Pressure

15 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0


qc (MPa)
0 5 10 15
0

1
Sand
Comparison
2
of
3

4
Sand
CPT
Depth Below Excavated Surface (m)

5
Sand
Soundings
6
9 Pile Group (0.324 m)
7 12 Pile Group (0.324 m)
8 15 Pile Group (0.324 m)
9 Pile Group (0.6 m)
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
Single Pile Load Tests
324 mm OD Steel Pipe Pile 600 mm OD Steel Pipe Pile
Single Pile Test Procedure
▪ Test performed in incremental fashion with
initial 5 min hold.
▪ 15 cycles at each increment to the same
deflection.
▪ Load applied in one direction only.
Full-Load Deflection Curve
250

200
Load (kN)

150

100

50

0
0 25 50 75 100
Deflection (mm)
Load-Deflection (324 mm Single Pile)
250

200

15-20%
150
Load (kN)
Load

65% Continuous
100 15th Cycle
Curves

50 1st Cycle
15th Cycle

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
Stiffness Degradation vs Load Cycle
1

0.9
Stiffness (K/Ki)

0.8

0.7
12.7 mm 19.05 mm 25.4 mm
38.1 mm 50.8 mm 63.5 mm
0.6 76.2 mm

0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Cycles
PILE GROUP LOAD TESTS
3x3 Pile Group at 5.6 Diameter Spacing
Tie-Rod
Load Cells

Existing Pile Load


Cells
Cap

Two 500 Ton


Jacks
9 Pile Group at 5.6 D Spacing

Pinned
Connection

LVDT Tie-Rod
Load Cell
3x5 Pile Group at 3.3 D Spacing
Crack Patterns During Lateral Load

1.42 m 1.02 m 0.61m


3 6 9

1.22 m 0.76 m 0.64 m


EXISTING 2 5 8
PILE CAP
Direction of
Loading 0.66 m 0.66 m
1 4 7
1.22 m*

LOAD DIRECTION

N * depth of gap
Stiffness Reduction with Cycling
1.00
Single Pile
0.95 9 Pile Group
12 Pile Group
15 Pile Group
0.90
K/Ki

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 5 10 15
Number of Cycles
Load Distribution in 3x4 Pile Group
Row 1 Row 3
160 120

140 100
120
80

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100
80 60
60
40
40 Left Left
Middle 20 Middle
20
Right Right
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average Group Deflection (mm) Average Group Deflection (mm)

Row 2 Row 4
140 120

120 100
100
80
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
80
60
60
40
40 Left Left
20 Middle 20 Middle
Right Right
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average Group Deflection (mm) Average Group Deflection (mm)
3x3 Pile Group at 5.6 Dia. Spacing
250

200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

150

100
Single
Row 1
50
Row 2
Row 3
0
0 20 40 60 80
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
3x4 Pile Group at 4.4 D Spacing
200

150
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

100 Single
Row 1
Row 2
50 Row 3
Row 4

0
0 20 40 60 80
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
3x5 Pile Group at 3.3D Spacing
250
Single
Row 1
200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

Row 2
Row 3
150 Row 4
Row 5
100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
3x3 Pile Group at 3 D Spacing
500

400
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

300

200
Single
Row 1
100 Row 2
Row 3

0
0 20 40 60
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
Influence of Cycling on Row Loads
125
Previous cyclic deflection

100 Row 1
Avg. Load in Row (kN))

Row 2
75
Row 3
Row 4
50

25

0
0 10 20 30 40
Average Group Deflection (mm)
Bending Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1 -1

0 0

1 1
Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)

Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)


2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5
50.8 mm
6 1st cycle 50.8 mm 6 Single
Single Row 1
7 7
Row 1 Row 2
Row 2 Row 3
8 8
Row 3 Row 4
9 9 Row 5

5.65D Spacing 3.3D Spacing


10 10
3x3 Pile Group at 5.65D Spacing

350

300 Front
Middle
Max. Moment (kN-m)

250 Back
Single Pile
200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Avg. Load per Pile in Row (kN)
3x3 Pile Group at 3 D Spacing
900
800
700
Max. Moment (kN-m)

600
500
400
Front
300 Middle
200 Back
Single Pile
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Avg. Pile Load in Row (kN)
Conclusions from Load Tests
▪ Load capacity dependent on row position.
▪ Group effects decrease as pile spacing increases.
▪ Behavior of 3rd, 4th and 5th row piles very similar
▪ For a given deflection, group effects decrease
maximum bending moment, due to reduced soil
resistance.
▪ Repeated cyclic loading only led to a 15-20%
reduction in capacity at the peak load
COMPUTER ANALYSIS
Undrained Strength, su (kPa)

0 100 200 300


0.0
STIFF CLAY su= 70 kPa  50= 0.005
k= 136 N/cm3
1.07 m Water Table
1.0
1.34 m

1.65 m SAND  = 36O k =61 N/cm3

su= 105 kPa  50= 0.005 2.0


STIFF CLAY 3
k= 271 N/cm
3.02 m
3.0
3.48 m SAND  = 36O k=61 N/cm3
STIFF CLAY su= 105 kPa  50= 0.005

Depth below excavated surface (m)


k=271.43 N/cm 3
4.09 m 4.0

SILTY SAND  = 38O k=61.07 N/cm3


5.15 m
5.0 Vane Shear Tests

Unconfined Comp. Tests

6.0 Avg CPT strength

Strength Used in Analysis


7.0
SOFT CLAY su= 35 kPa  50= 0.01
k= 27 N/cm3
8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0
Computed & Measured Load vs Deflection
(324 mm Single Pile)
250

200
Load (kN)

150

100
LPILE

50 FLPIER
Measured
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deflection (mm)
Computed & Measured Moment vs Load
(324 mm Single Pile)
400
Maximum Moment (kN-m)

350
300
250
200
150
Measured
100 Florida Pier
LPILE
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Average Load (kN)
Computed & Measured Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment (kN-m)
Bending Moment (kN-m)
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
-100 0 100 200 300 400 0
0
1
1
2
2

Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)


3
Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)

3 4

4 5

5 6

Meas.- 6.35 mm
7
6 LPILE- 6.35 mm 133 kN

Meas.- 25.40 mm 240 kN


8
300 kN
7 LPILE- 25.40 mm
414 kN
Meas.- 50.8 mm 9
8 LPILE- 50.8 mm
10
Meas.- 88.90 mm
9
LPILE- 88.90 mm 11

10 12
P-multiplier vs Spacing for Stiff Clay
(a) FIrst Row P-Multipliers
(c) Third & Higher Row P-Multipliers
1.2
1.2
Row 1 Rows 3
1.0
1.0
1 Rollins et al. (2006b) & Higher 1
P-Multiplier

0.8

P-Multiplier
0.8
0.6 Rollins et al. (2006b)
0.6
0.4 Stiff Clay
0.4
Stiff Clay
0.2
0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
(b) Second Row P-Multipliers
First (Lead) Row Piles: Pm= 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1.0
1.2 Second Row Piles: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1.0
Row 2 Third or Higher Row Piles: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) - 0.25 ≤ 1.0
1.0
1
P-Multiplier

0.8

0.6
Rollins et al. (2006b)
Row 1: Pm = 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1
Row 2: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1
0.4 Stiff Clay
Row 3 & up: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) – 0.25 ≤ 1
0.2

0.0
2 3 4 5 6
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
7 8
Rollins et al. Oct 2006, ASCE JGGE
P-multiplier Curves vs. Spacing
Rollins et al. 2006, ASCE JGGE

1.2

1.0
m
P-Multiplier, P

0.8 Row 1

0.6 Row 2
Row 3 &
0.4
higher 1st Row Piles
2nd Row Piles
0.2 AASHTO 3rd or Higher Row Piles
2000
AASHTO
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
Measured & Computed Load-Deflection
2000
1800
5 Row Group
1600 (3.3 Diameter Spacing)
1400
Total Load (kN)

1200
1000 1600
800
1400 4 Row Group
600 (4.4 Diameter Spacing)
1200
Total Group Load (kN)

400 Measured
200 1000 GROUP

0
800
0 20 40 60 80 100
600 Avg. Group Deflection (mm) 1600
1400 3 Row Group
400 Measured
(5.6 Diameter Spacing)
Total Group Load (kN)

1200 GROUP
200
1000
0
0 10 800
20 30 40 50
Avg. Group
600 Deflection (mm)

400 Measured
GROUP
200

0
0 20 40 60 80
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
Comparison of Measured & Computed Behavior

Front Row
1600
1400
1200
Load (kN)

1000
800
600
400
Measured
200
Group
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Comparison of Measured & Computed Behavior

Back Row
1600
1400
1200
Load (kN)

1000
800
600
400 Measured
200 Group
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Measured & Computed Load-Deflection
(9 Pile Group-60 cm Pile)

500

450

400
Avg. pile load per row (kN)

350

300

250

200
single pile
150 Front
Middle
100 Back
GROUP-Front

50 GROUP-Middle
GROUP-Back

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
Measured & Computed Moment vs. Depth
(3x5 Pile Group)

Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m)
-100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100
-2 -2 -2 -2

0 0 0 0
Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)

2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

6 6 6 6

8 Measured--Row 1 8 Measured--Row 2 8 Measured--Row 3 8 Measured--Row 4


GROUP--Row 1 GROUP--Row 2 GROUP--Row 3 GROUP--Row 4
10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12
Conclusions from Computer Analysis
▪ Current computer models for clay provide
reasonable estimates of single pile response for
virgin loading.
▪ P-multipliers increase as spacing increases and can
be grouped for leading rows and trailing rows.
▪ P-mulitipliers for 0.6 m and 0.32 m piles were
about the same at similar spacing.
▪ With appropriate P-multipliers, pile group response
can be modeled with reasonable accuracy (< 20%
error).
Salt Lake City Intl. Airport
Test Site

North

Funding from NSF


9 Pile Group at
Test 5.6 D Spacing

Site
Layout

1.2 m Drilled
Shafts
15 Pile Group at
3.9 D Spacing
9 Pile Group at
2.8 D Spacing
Plan View of 15 Pile Group Test
Profile View of 15 Pile Group Test

GROUND SURFACE
Soil Profile
Shear Strength (kPa)
Soil Profile 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

Silt and Clay


Soil
1 Layers

2
(ML, CL) Profile and
3
Properties
Depth Below Ground (m)

Sand
Med. Dense
Φ=38°
4 Sand (SP)

5
Silt and Clay
Layers (ML,
6 CL, CH)

7 Silty Sand Silty Sand


(SM) Φ=33°

8 PMT
Torvane
Gray Silt VST
9
(ML) UU
Analysis
10
How soft is the clay?
Track-hoe Penetration Test (TPT)
P-multiplier vs Spacing for Clay
(a) FIrst Row P-Multipliers (c) Third & Higher Row P-Multipliers
1.2 1.2
Row 1 Rows 3
1.0 1.0
1 Rollins et al. (2006b) & Higher 1
P-Multiplier

0.8

P-Multiplier
0.8

0.6 Rollins et al. (2006b)


0.6
Soft Clay
0.4 Soft Clay
0.4
Stiff Clay
Stiff Clay
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
(b) Second Row P-Multipliers
1.2 First (Lead) Row Piles: Pm= 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1.0
Second Row Piles: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1.0
1.0
Row 2 Third or Higher Row Piles: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) - 0.25 ≤ 1.0

1
P-Multiplier

0.8
Rollins et al. (2006b)
0.6
Row 1: Pm = 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1
Soft Clay Row 2: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1
0.4
Stiff Clay Row 3 & up: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) – 0.25 ≤ 1
0.2

0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Rollins et al. Oct 2006, ASCE JGGE
Lateral Statnamic Load Testing

0 to 1600 kN in 0.2 seconds


Large Displacement, High Velocity
Schematic of Lateral Statnamic Test
Combustion
Load Piston Chamber
Statnamic
Test Sled
Foundation
Statnamic Test Firing Videos
Next time your friends ask…

Yes,
Foundation Design Actually
is Rocket Science
Static vs Dynamic Response
1800
1600 15th Static Cycle
Dynamic Cycle
1400
1200
Load (kN)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm)
Unloading Point Method Model-Axial Loads
Stanamic Force, (Fstn)

Pile Mass, M
(Fa)
Fstn = Fu + Fv + Fa
Sping, K Dashpot, C or
(Fu) (Fv)
Fu = Fstn - Fv - Fa
Interpreted Static versus Measured Static Resistance

2000
Measured Dynamic Test

1500 Computed Static


Force (kN)

1000 Measured Static Test

500

0
Damping Ratios of 30 to 40%
-500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
Pile Group Load Tests in Sand

4x4 Group at 3D,


3x3 Group at 3D (Brown et al, 1988) (Ruesta & Townsend, 1997)
3x5 Group at 3.9D Spacing 3x3 Group at 3.3D Spacing
3x3 Group at 5.65D Spacing 2x2 Group at 3.3D Spacing
Treasure Island Naval Station
San Francisco

Test Site
Treasure Island Naval Station
CPT Cone Resistance, q c1 SPT Blow Count, N1(60) Relative Density, Dr
Interpreted
(MPa) (Blows/300 mm) (%)
Friction Angle, 
Soil Profile 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 10 20 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 25 30 35 40 45
0
Fine Sand
w/ Shells
1
(SP)

2
Depth Below Excavated Surface (m)

Interbedded
3
Fine Sand
and
4 Silty Sand
(SP-SM)

6 Fine Silty
Sand
(SM)
7

8
Gray Silty
Clay (CL) Mean
API Phi CPT
Mean-SD From CPT
9 Mean+SD From SPT API Phi SPT
From PMT Bolton Phi
Sand (SP)
10
Load-Displacement - 3x3 Pile Group (3.3D)
100
Single Pile (b)
Measured Front Row
Measured Middle Row
80
Measured Back Row
Computed
Avg. Load (kN)

Pm=0.8
60
Computed
Pm=0.4
40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Load-Displacement - 3x5 Pile Group (3.9D)
250

Single Pile
200 Row 1
Average Pile Load in Row (kN)

Row 2
Row 3
150 Row 4
Row 5

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average Group Deflection (mm)
P-Multipliers vs Spacing for Sand
1.2 1.2
(c) Third Row
1.0 1.0

P-Multiplier, Pm
P-Multiplier, Pm

0.8 0.8

Full-Scale Test
0.6 0.6 Full-Scale Test
Centrifuge Test
0.4 Centrifuge Test
0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.

1.2 1.2
(b) Second Row (d) Fourth Row or Higher
1.0 P-Multiplier, Pm 1.0
P-Multiplier, Pm

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Full-Scale Test
0.4 0.4 Full-Scale
Centrifuge Test
Centrifuge Test
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
Explanation of Variability in Sand
▪ Natural variability of sand relative to clay
▪ Sand more influenced by installation
procedure than clays
▪ Different installation procedures
Jetting
Driven, Closed-end and Open-ended
Come visitaround
Sand Compacted us inpreviously
Utah! driven piles
Natural Arches An Engineer Can Appreciate
Comparison of P-Multipliers for Sand and Clay

1.2
1.2

1.0
1.0
P-Multiplier, Pm

0.8

P-Multiplier, Pm
0.8

0.6
0.6
Row 1
0.4
1st Row Piles 0.4 Row 2

0.2 2nd Row Piles Row 3


0.2 Row 4
3rd or Higher Row Piles
0.0
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.

P-Multipliers for Clay P-Multipliers for Sand


Influence of Friction Angle on P-multiplier

Less Group
1.0 Interaction
More Group
Interaction
P-Multiplier

Soft
Clay Stiff Looser
Clay Sand Denser
Sand

Drained Friction angle, ’


Lateral Load Tests in Liquefied Sand

High-Speed
3x3 Pile Group Hydraulic Ram
1 m Drilled Shaft

Liquefied Sand

5m

8m

Non-Liquefied
Sand
Schematic Diagram of Load Test
0.9 m Cast-in Steel Shell 324 mm
(CISS) Pile Driven Piles

2200 kN Actuator
3.3 D
Sub-Frame
Load Frame
9 Pile Group vs 0.9 m CISS Pile
9 Pile Group Blast Test Video
Post-Liquefaction Pile Response
100

80
Single Pile Resistance due
Average Pile Load (kN)

60 to Soil Dilation
40 Resistance due
to Pile alone
20

-20 P-y curves for Liquefied Sand


(ASCE JGGE, Jan 2005)
-40 Built into LPILE/GROUP
-60
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Displacement (mm)
Post-Liquefaction Group Effects
(10th 200 mm Cycle)
80
100
60 Lead Row-Group
80
Single Pile
Middle Row-Group
(kN)

40 Lead Row-Group
60
(kN)

Middle
Trail Row-Group
Row-Group
Load
Load

40
20 Trail Row-Group
Pile
Pile

20
0
Average
Average

0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
-60
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Overall Conclusions
▪ Group interaction effects become less significant as
soil strength decreases.
▪ Separate p-multiplier vs. pile spacing curves
necessary for piles in sand and in clay
▪ Special attention necessary for soil properties
within depth of 5 to 10 pile diameters
▪ Single pile lateral loading tests are very useful for
calibrating model because of low test cost.
Come visit us in Utah!
Natural Arches An Engineer Can Appreciate
Questions?

Kyle Rollins, rollinsk@byu.edu


Rollins Pile Group References
▪ Rollins, K.M., Olsen, R.J., Egbert, J.J., Jensen, D.H., Olsen, K.G.,
and Garrett, B.H. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile
Group Behavior: Load Tests.” J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 10, October, p.
1262-1271.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H, Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J.,
and Egbert, J.J. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group
Behavior: Analysis.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 10, October, p. 1272-1283.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D., and Gerber, T.M. (2005). “Measured and
Computed Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Sand.” J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 1
Jan., p. 103-114.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Gerber, T.M., Lane, J.D. and Ashford. S.A. (2005).
“Lateral Resistance of a Full-Scale Pile Group in Liquefied Sand.”
J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 131,
No. 1, p. 115-125.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Snyder, J.L. and Broderick, R.D. (2005). “Static and
Dynamic Lateral Response of a 15 Pile Group.” Procs. 16th Intl.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Engineering, Millpress,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 4, p. 2035-2040.
The Evolution of Deep Foundations
for Transportation Projects
- from Minor to Major

Tony O’Brien
Global Practice Leader - Geotechnics
April 2019

anthony.obrien@mottmac.com
Evolution of piling requirements

• Conventional pile
groups for bridge
foundations

• Over site
developments (OSDs)
above underground
metro stations
Industry trends

Buildings Basements and piles Crossrail Lee Tunnel and Tideway Shaft diameters
Bigger, taller larger and deeper deeper deeper wider

Larger, – hi rise tower – 50 to 80MN O Cells in – into – in Chalk – 30m becoming


boom in Farringdon and Lambeth common in London
Deeper London Canary Wharf in chalk Group (HS2/Tideway) and up
to 60m (Tideway)

Closer Tideway Crossrail, NLE, VSU, HS2 etc Major underpinning works Development of
(over, to – piling in close – catalyst for urbanisation. All – domestic basements in – piling methods, load
the side vicinity of have oversite development west London; planning tests and I&M
sewers load requirements controls limit size of these – development of new
and ‘iceberg basements’ finite element methods,
under) 2D + 3D
Current state of industry practice

• Fragmentation – “silo working”; consultants/specialists and


main contractors

• Commercial risks – “fair” procurement?

• Industry and code focus on single pile geo ULS capacity

• Hence, limited innovation

BUT

• Health/safety and buildability concerns

• Foundation construction – critical path for whole project


Industry drivers

• Increasing urbanisation -
50% increase in urban
population, by 2050

• Digital economy and


Digital design

• Availability of specialist
skills reducing
Industry drivers

• “Green” politics (?)

• Climate change

• Need for low carbon, sustainable


construction

• Locally – procurement
encourages low carbon solutions

• Significant environmental
constraints
Industry drivers

In UK, Government strategy is aiming for:

• 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

• 33% reduction in costs

• 50% reduction in time for project delivery

• embracing Digital technology


Outline of lecture

1. Over-view of Pile Group design

2. Pile Group design – case history

3. Practitioner’s view of Piled-Raft design – a simple


conceptual framework

4. Deep Foundations for OSD’s (Over Site Developments,


above underground Metro Stations)

5. Innovation – combining Deep Ground improvement with


Piles, a Singapore case history
Pile group design

• Contractor often responsible

• Designer often responsible

• Delivery of state-of-art solutions –


need single party responsibility
Pile group design – vertical loading

• Ground-structure interaction leads to non-


uniform distribution of structural loads on
piles across a pile group

• Codes offer limited guidance

• Key issue is clear definition of - “STIFF”


(versus flexible) pile cap, hence consider
OVERALL geo ULS capacity of the pile
group (not of an individual pile)

• Then, can focus on pile group deformation


and ensuring adequate structural strength
and stiffness Rigid pile cap,
non-uniform axial forces
Pile group design – vertical loading

• Second key issue – recognition that


the relevant ground modulus (for C
linear elastic solutions) is SMALL Contours of
STRAIN STIFFNESS, eg Go! deviatoric strain
around a pile 30m
• Awareness amongst practitioners long when factor
of safety = 2.0
remains limited on the relevance of
Go for practical design
Pile group design – vertical loading
Theoretical predictions vs. field observations

• Current practice often uses commercial


software:
− Linear elastic ground behaviour
− Rigid pile cap
− Zone immediately adjacent to pile, either
ignored or characterised by a single
interface

• Linear elastic analyses over-predict


axial loads in corner piles
• Over-predictions become worse as pile
group size increases
• Predictions improved if non-linear
stress-strain models used
Pile group design –
horizontal/moment loading
Parameter selection

• Predicted bending moments are highly


sensitive to the selected shear
modulus profile

• Non-linear stiffness characteristics


(both of ground and piles) more
important for pile groups subject to
large horizontal loads
Pile group design – case history
Crewe Green Link Road - Underbridge substructure

• A “typical” pile group design for a rail


bridge, over new highway

• BUT – piles had to be installed


adjacent to live railway

• Bridge deck – placed during track


possession

• Time for foundation construction on


critical path
Pile group design – case history
Loads - large horizontal and moment loads

F
Mx
N
Fb

My
Sr

N Vertical load 7.0 MN


F Lateral load 6.2 MN
Mx Bridge deck moment 15.2 MN.m
My Bridge deck moment 0.9 MN.m
Fb Braking forces 1.7 MN
Pile group design – case history
Original GI - Ground conditions
Made Ground

• Alluvial deposits Upper Sand


SPT ‘N’ → 5 – 15, av. 10
loose – med dense
over ~2.5
Glacial deposits
Upper Clay Firm (Su ~ 40 to 50)
(outwash deposits moderately
over-consolidated, interbedded ~5.5
sand/clay sequence)
Lower Sand SPT ‘N’ → 10 – 25, av. 15
• Groundwater table – close to med dense
ground surface
~9.5

• CFA piles – preferred pile type, Lower Clay Soft - stiff (Su ~ 30 to 70)
depth and reinforcement (?)
Pile group design – case history
Small strain shear modulus, Go - empirical correlations

Go MN/m2
0 50 100 150 200 250
UUT 300 and Muladic (MAX)
+ PI Larsen Estimated Go scatter using
0 available GI and various
UUT + PI Larsen and Muladic (MIN)
literature correlations
depth below ground level (m)

CPT Su + PI Larsen and Muladic (max)


5
CPT Su + PI Larsen and Muladic (min)

OCR + Po' Atkinson (MAX)


Design line – moderate
10 increase with depth
OCR + Po' Atkinson (MIN)

Po' Seed and Idris (MAX)


15
Po' Seed and Idris (MIN)

SPT Clayton (MAX)


20
SPT Clayton (MIN)

CPT Rix and Stokoe


25
Pile group design – case history
Additional GI – Reinterpretation of Ground Conditions
Made Ground

Upper Sand (silty) Med dense to dense


qc → 5-15 MPa
• CPT/Piezocone ~2.5

• pronounced macro-fabric Upper Clay


Firm, Su ~40 to 60
qc → 0.5-1.0 MPa
• at depth, Silt rather than Clay
~5.5
Med dense to dense
Lower Sand (silty)
qc → 6-18 MPa
~9.5
Su ~60 to 80
Interbedded qc → 1.2-1.8 MPa
Clay + Sand PI → 15-35%

~12.5
Lower Clay (laminated)
~18.0
Su ~80 to 100+
Silt qc >2 MPa
Pile group design – case history
Additional GI - Reinterpretation of Ground Conditions
Field measurements of G0 Go MN/m2
0 100 200 300
0
Go profile

depth below ground level (m)


Seismic Cone Siesmic cone
(scpt1)
• Go profile, limited scatter 5 Go profile
Seismic cone
• significant increase in Go at depth >18m (scpt1) LR
10 Go profile
siesmic cone
(scpt2)
Go profile
15 siesmic cone
(scpt2) LR
Bender
20 element

25
Pile group design – case history
Preliminary pile load tests

• 900mm dia CFA pile, 23m deep


Verify with pile tests

• Test piles - similar initial stiffness, different 4.0


ULS (3.9 vs 5.3MN) 3.5
3.0
• Higher capacity than original estimate, 2.5
drained end-bearing (?)

Force (MN)
2.0 CEMSET best
estimate
1.5
• Also, shaft effective stress rather than total 1.0
Test pile 1
stress - better match with observed response Test pile 2
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
Pile group design – case history
Test pile 1 – Repute comparison

4.0

3.5
• Fleming’s hyperbolic model used to
3.0
simulate non-linear load-displacement
behaviour of single pile 2.5

Force (MN)
2.0
P tot inc el sh
• Repute’s non-linear hyperbolic model
1.5
calibrated against test pile data TP1
1.0

0.5 Repute 2 calibrated

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm)
Pile group design – case history
Pile Group Deformation and ULS Capacity

Fixed head (pile to pile


• Calibrated non-linear model then used cap rotational stiffness)
to simulate group behaviour

• Field Go profile key input parameter,


for overall group response

Pile group, fixed head, under lateral


and moment load
Pile group design – case history
Pile Group – load-displacement under vertical loading

• Additional GI – revised Go profile indicated 8


much stiffer overall response 7
6 Original
5 model

Load (MN)
Test piles and effective stress analysis 4
also indicated higher capacity in 3
Revised
interbedded/laminated sequence 2 model
1
0
• Pile lengths reduced, overall 25% saving 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)

• Critically reduced time required for piling!


Pile group design – case history
ULS Capacity – independent Checker approvals.

• Initial problem – getting Mobilised loads and factored resistances


approval from
independent Checker

• Unhappy with some piles


not having “code” FoS

• Following discussions –
approvals were eventually
gained (otherwise CFA railway
not viable)
> Factored capacity
• Pile cap/sub-structure – Mobilised EC7 factored 70-100 %
very stiff, can redistribute capacity of individual piles 40- 70 %
loads across group < 40 %
Pile group design – case history
Deformation at WL

Estimation Monitoring
west east

6-7 mm 6-7 mm 2-3 mm 4-5 mm

Convergence measured at bearing


Conclusion
6
Group capacity and deformation is 5
cumulative 4
key; individual pile capacity versus transverse 3
code not the significant issue. displacement
(mm) 2
1
Guidance for HS2 – definition of a 0
-1
“stiff” pile cap, hence group capacity -2
can be used.
Piled-raft design

• Piled-raft behaviour is complex

• Practitioners need a simple


conceptual framework – “get the
concept right”

• ICE MOGE (O’Brien, Burland,


Chapman, 2012) – useful to consider
2 types of piled-raft

• “Raft-enhanced pile group” – extra


capacity from raft allows fewer piles

• “Pile-enhanced raft” – piles used to


reduce peaks of stress in raft, reduce
differential settlement
Piled-raft design
Simple conceptual framework

• A “raft-enhanced pile group” – relatively stiff,


but piles operating more efficiently. Relative
stiffness between piles and raft is key

• A “pile-enhanced raft” – overall stiffness much


lower, key is control of differential settlement,
pile geo ULS capacity fully mobilised (pile
response must be ductile)

• For “simple” design –avoid intermediate zone,


for different load cases will be highly sensitive
to assumed non-linear stress-strain
characteristics
Piled-raft design
Raft-enhanced pile groups, preliminary design

• Load sharing at working loads –


empirical relationships (eg Mandolini
et al, 2005)

• Elastic theory (eg Randolph, 1994),


pile-raft interaction factors only vary
across a small range
Piled-raft design
Raft-enhanced pile group, preliminary design

• Care required in assessing plausible upper and


lower bound stiffness of raft and pile group

• Raft stiffness can often be under-predicted using


routine methods

• Although assumed to be “pseudo-elastic”,


non-linear stiffness should be considered in kr
assessing appropriate secant stiffness moduli

• Number of piles can often be reduced to a half to


two-thirds of conventionally designed pile groups
Piled-raft design
Preliminary design

• Poulos, 2001 – simplified tri-linear


load-settlement curve, useful for
preliminary design

• A raft-enhanced pile group should


operate within initial stiff zone (ie
applied loads < P1)

• A pile-enhanced raft should operate


in second “softer” zone (applied
loads > P3)

• For plausible range of design loads


should avoid traversing across P1
Piled-raft design
Preliminary design

• Katzenbach et al, 1998: helpful insights


into behaviour - small number of long
piles similar settlement as much larger
number of short piles

• Viggiani, 1998: back analysis of


Stonebridge Park – indicated a third of
the piles (117 vs 350), only 5 to 10mm
increase in settlement; with raft
carrying about 25% of load
OSD Deep foundations
Compensated piled-raft design

• Presence and magnitude of a


“buoyant” force (raft is below water
table) – significant effect on overall
behaviour and load sharing

• Pile behaviour and load distribution


– modified by excavation and pile
installation sequence

• Typically piles take a smaller


proportion of overall load
OSD Deep foundations
Effective stress changes, deep foundation capacity changes

Average shaft friction plotted with Average shaft friction plotted with
average vertical effective stress average horizontal effective stress

For clays the use of total stress methods is inappropriate


Non-linear stress-strain model
Bespoke A* Model

Revised model

• Integration of insitu and lab data

• Research in Japan and UK

• Combine field Go (Geophysics)


and lab decay curve
Estimating an In-Situ Non-Linear Stress-Strain Curve; A* Model
Revised A* model stiffness decay curve Benefits
• Integration of insitu and lab data • Multiple sources of data – improve reliability

• Combine field Go (Geophysics) and lab decay curve • Routine data can be integrated with
advanced data
Source
G G
Input Empirical or Site specific
In situ 4 parameters needed In situ
theoretical Sitemeasurements
specific
Go Go
In situ Go, εo, εf , shear strength Gvh and G hh from down-hole
Insitu
andgeophysics
cross -hole
Laboratory Bender element respectively
tests (lab)
G0 G0 ~ f(PI, OCR, p 0’) geophysics
(field). column (lab)
Resonant
Bender element tests (lab).
Directly measurable,
Tangent G

Tangent G
physically meaningful, S u ~ f(c’, Φ’, Af) Triaxial tests
Triaxial (lab)
tests (lab).
parameters! Su
SBP,SBP, SPT,CPT
SPT, CPT (field).
(field)

εf Technical literature Triaxial


Triaxial tests
tests (lab).
(lab)
ε0 Technical literature

εo Shear strain
εf Shear strain
Application for Deep Foundations
Example for stiff clays

• Variation Su with depth


• Variation of Failure Strain with depth

Failure strain (%)

Proposed A* framework
Go (field)
Lambeth Group Advanced triaxial test
Small strain stiffness (lab)

• Complex interbedded unit Advanced triaxial


test at 32mbgl
• new framework enabled realistic
stiffness decay curve to be derived
Case history, London
Compensated piled-raft for Metro Station and OSD

• Piled-raft - raft 22m bgl

• Stiff clay at raft level

• Deep foundations – deep


diaphragm walls, discrete piles
and raft

• Also deep retaining wall for


Metro station “box”

• Metro tunnels connect into box


For approximate load comparison, consider GL18-20 as typical
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design
Calibration of numerical modelling

Prior to detailed design –


calibration of non-linear model
against case history data.

Reliable prediction of load-


sharing and settlement?
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design
Calibration
-0.005 of numerical modelling Predictions Measured
Uz, mm

Centre
Centre Centre
Edge
Edge Edge
-0.01
• Numerical model predictions – realistic 0.01

compared with observations


-0.015 0.005

• Main uncertainty is the time dependent


0
change
-0.02 in groundwater pressure following 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
bulk excavation
-0.005

Uz, mm
-0.025
• Hence, impact on buoyancy Time
force and
(months)
-0.01
effective stress
-0.015
• Mass permeability of ground?
-0.02
• Sensitivity studies to ensure robust design
-0.025
Time (months)
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design
Plaxis 3D model

• Representative 12m
section through Metro box

• D-walls – plate elements

• Piles/barrettes –
embedded pile elements

• Coupled effective stress


analysis
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design
Foundation load share
70%

60%
Load sharing between D-
walls/piles and raft varies during
50%
loading history, sensitive to
assumed construction scenario.

Load/Total Load
40%
DFE %
D-walls/piles – need to act as Raft %
Remaining %
tension elements if OSD 30%

construction delayed!
20%

For illustrated scenario, raft load


share increases once buoyancy 10%

force develops.
0%
Install B1 & B2 Slabs Activate Station Loads Activate OSD Consolidate
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design OSD Load Increment
Settlement and differential settlement 0.01

0
60 65 70 75 80 85
-0.01
• One construction scenario is illustrated,

PUz (m)
-0.02
“early OSD construction”
-0.03

Station Load Increment


• Piles 62m long (toe at 39m OD) – 1 in 0.01
-0.04

1700 differential 0
60 65 70 75
-0.05
80 85
-0.01 Raft
Raft

Piled raft, toe at 39m


Piled Raft

PUz (m)
• Piles 41m long (toe at 60m OD) – 1 in -0.02
Toe @ 60m raft, toe at 60m
Piled
900 differential -0.03

Total
-0.04
0.01
-0.05
• Tensile capacity of deep foundations – 0
60 65 70 75 80 85
OK if OSD delayed -0.01

Uz (m)
-0.02
• Shorter piles acceptable – buildability,
-0.03
health/safety, programme benefits
-0.04

-0.05
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Combining deep ground improvement with piling – Singapore

014
010
015 016
011 012 013
009
–Phase II (1970-1971) Phase I (1966-1970)

008
007
006 Phase VII (1979-1985)
005
004
003

001 002

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
N
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Conventional design – deep ground improvement and piles

First Reserve
Grout block formed by Ground Level
deep soil mixing (DSM) – 6m 6m
minimise tunnel
settlement as soft clay 2m Grout Block
3m 3m 3m 3m
consolidates. Properties:
cu = 800kPa
Future allowance for OSD Eu = 280MPa
within “first reserve” –
deep piles.

Deep piles penetrate


through DSM and below
“old alluvium”. Old Alluvium Minimum 1m penetration into
OLD ALLUVIUM
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Innovative alternative – “trouser leg” DSM geometry

2m above tunnel crown


3m below tunnel invert

Fill
UMC
~33.7% grout block F2
volume reduction 6m 6m 6m LMC

F2
O(C)
Grout Block O(B)
Eu= 280Mpa
cu= 800kPa
O(A)
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Ground improvement trial and preliminary pile load test

• DSM block formed, 40m deep

• DSM properties checked

• Pile load test – 1.8m dia pile, 24m long,


8m into DSM

• Pile WL = 16.8 MN

• Load test to 41MN


OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Plaxis 3D model

• Back analysis of pile load test

• Main focus is behaviour at WL and up


to 1.5 times WL

• Simple Mohr-Coulomb model used for


preliminary back-analysis
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Pile load vs Settlement curve (DSM - Eu = 280MPa, Cu = 800kPa, R-inter = 0.75)

Based on initial assumed properties for


DSM and pile/DSM interface – predicted
settlement >> test pile settlement (25%
and 33% over-estimate at WL and 1.5WL).

Increasing DSM Eu to 1000 MPa and Cu


to 2.1 MPa improved match with test pile
up to 1.5WL (but unsafe for loads > 2 WL).

DSM exhibits brittle behaviour, so cautious


design parameters needed.
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Load transfer curve (test pile vs. Plaxis 3D)

Back analysis parameters gave


good match with observed load
transfer curves (based on strain
gauge data) up to 1.5 WL.

Mobilised skin friction about


500 kPa up to 1.5 WL.

Mobilised skin friction,


increased to about 750 kPa at
2.5 WL. Maximum skin friction
not fully mobilised.
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Settlement vs. Time

GI 1 GI 2 Greenfield
Greenfield
(FULL) (Reduced) (0.5k)

r (mm) 4 14 541 560

• Ground Improvement
• ERL Tunnels
• (t= 35 years)

560mm 541mm
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
First Reserve

Base of Fill

Pile length can be reduced if


resistance from GI block is considered
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay

• Singapore is underlain by deep very soft marine clays

• Coastal reclamation has induced consolidation of the


marine clay

• Metro schemes and future building developments (OSDs)


are now planned through these areas

• Innovative solution: combine ground improvement and


piling - cost-effective solution. Limiting settlement of Metro
tunnels and future OSDs – circa 35% reduction in DSM
and 65% reduction in piling (lengths reduced from 70m to
about 24m)
Summary - Pile Groups and Piled-Rafts

Pile group design


• Often over-conservative
• Improved Practice needs – single point design responsibility for
“total foundation system”; field measurements of Go; acceptance of
criteria for “stiff” pile cap, hence “group ULS” rather than single pile
Piled-raft design
• Communication of simple conceptual framework may encourage
practitioners
• “Raft-enhanced pile group” – relatively stiff system, pile group
operates efficiently
• “Pile-enhanced raft” – small number of fully mobilised ductile piles,
reducing “peaks” of stress/differential settlement across a raft
Summary – Compensated Piled-Rafts

• City Metro schemes use OSDs to support major urban


redevelopment

• Must consider changes in effective stress, and


buoyancy force from long term water table level

• Several scenarios must be considered – construction


sequence, timing of OSD construction, etc.

• Detailed design – carefully calibrated non-linear NM


can justify more economic design

• Differential settlement often the key issue – realistic


criteria? Robust discussion often needed!
Concluding remarks – from “minor to major”

• Future developments – increasing urbanisation will


place increasing demands on the deep foundation
industry

• Society expectations – reduced environmental


impact, lower carbon use

• Considerable opportunities for innovation

• Foundation systems – quicker, safer, easier to build

• Technology is available, but will procurement


practice encourage innovation?
Immersive Geotechnical Engineering

MAY 24, 2019
4 TH I.S.G.E

Dimitrios Konstantakos, P.E. 1
Overview
History of deep excavation design
Where we are today
Where we are heading

I skimped a little on the foundation, but no one will 
ever know it!

2
Famous Quote by Terzaghi
“Unfortunately, soils are made by nature and not by man,
and the products of nature are always complex… As soon as
we pass from steel and concrete to earth, the omnipotence
of theory ceases to exist. Natural soil is never uniform. Its
properties change from point to point while our knowledge
of its properties are limited to those few spots at which the
samples have been collected. In  soil  mechanics  the 
accuracy  of  computed  results  never  exceeds  that  of  a 
crude  estimate, and the principal function of theory
consists in teaching us what and how to observe in the
field.”

3
Peck – Observational 
Approach
The observational method
Continuous managed and integrated 
process of design, construction control, 
monitoring and review enabling 
appropriate, previously defined 
modifications to be incorporated 
during (or after) construction.
• All aspects demonstrably robust
• Objective – achieve greater economy  

4
Terzaghi‐Peck Apparent Pressures

5
Where we started from
In the beginning there was …a

6
WES Honeywell DPS/8

Cyber 865?

7
8
Fishin… with FLAC (May 1995)

9
3D Analyses
distribution 
beams
3.60

5.60

9.00

12.0
0

Courtesy of August Lucarelli, Ph.D., ITASCA

10
3D FE Excavation

11
Deep 2001 (Deep Excavation)

12
DeepEX 2019

13
SOE Software today: Analysis
Wide range of applications:
 Limit‐equilibrium and conventional analysis 
methods
 Beam on springs solutions
 Finite elements (2D, 3D)
 Finite difference (2D, 3D)
 Neural Networks (research)

14
SOE Software ‐ Expertise
 FE programs are not expert GEO systems 
they require expert engineers
 Expert systems 
 Guide users
 Provide warnings and diagnostics
 Optimize solution
 Advanced capabilities

15
Guiding the 
SOE Engineer
Wizard:

16
In SPT they… trust ……
 SPT is still used to estimate soil response
 Our greatest challenge is still getting 
meaningful geotechnical data, and 
understanding
GIGO – Garbage In – Garbage Out

Lo juro por SPT,


a decir verdad, y solo la verdad para el suelo,
así que ayúdame Terzaghi-Peck
17
The major challenges….
Black box solutions
 Powerful tools – lack of real 
understanding by engineers
Current systems do not learn from 
previous experience

18
SOE Design and Practice 2035
Neural network design
Genetic evolution design
Big data
Innovative construction methods
Immersive geotechnical design

19
Neural Network Design
Teach neural networks 
Excavation performance
Soil response
Good quality data needed

20
21
Genetic Evolution GEO Design
Engineer to provide an initial design or set 
of parameters
Software to perform massive search of 
alternatives with cost estimates
Design to evolve at each calculation step
Design adjustments with monitoring data

22
Big Data ‐ GEO
Big data – GEO
Massive reanalysis of GEO 
performance
Machine learning 

23
Future Foundation 
Equipment
Equipped with machine 
learning
Learn from previous 
projects, learn from current 
project
Equipment connected to 
design

24
Real Time – Observational 
Approach
Observational approach on steroids!
Monitoring data feeding automatically to 
design software.
Design adapts with updated information.

25
Construction & Monitoring
Integrated follow up
Real time VR from office
Drone info to SOE BIM
Adaptive design based on SOE performance

26
Immersive Geotechnical 
Design
Step into the design‐drawing
Live interaction with 
elements/computer
Real immersion beyond today’s VR/AR 
systems

27
28
Field 
Inspection!
(Image courtesy of Andrew 
Baxter GEI)

29
Pile Installation & Inspection

30
Today’s Technology

31
Good morning deep 
excavation
Interacting with A.I. SOE software like never before
DK: Hey SOE
SOE: Hi Dimitrios
DK: I have a new deep excavation project
SOE: That is great. Where?
DK: New York city, 31st Street & Park Avenue. 
SOE: Would you like me to pullout some relevant data?
DK: Yes, please do so.

32
Good morning deep 
excavation
SOE: I have found two excavations in adjacent blocks, a geological map, 
and 30 borings. Would you like to review this information?
DK: Yes, please….
DK: We also have some new geotech data… SPT values and laser testing. 
Could you please import from P350917
SOE: Sure, importing please wait… Would you like me to prepare 
geotechnical sections.
DK: Please do so. Could you also import relevant adjacent building 
information from the building department?
SOE: Sure

33
Good morning deep 
excavation
SOE: I have prepared the relevant information, but as you are aware the 
building department requires approval by a professional engineer. 
Please review.
DK: Will do, give me sometime I am not as fast as you are….
What is our degree of certainty on this profile?
SOE: 65%
DK: Please layout a wall perimeter around this area and an excavation 
support system. We are going 50ft down.
SOE: This will take a little time. I can compare with our knowledge data 
base. Would you like me to prepare a genetic evolution SOE design?
DK: Yes, I will grab lunch and come back..

34
Interacting
DK: Hi SOE, what’s your status?
SOE: I have investigated 5240 alternatives, and the following five appear 
to be the most promising. Would you like to review them?
DK: Yes…… ok, I like alternatives 2 & 4. Could you prepare a cost 
estimate range?
SOE: It is already done. You should anticipate a range between …
DK: Great! Please prepare an immersive model so we can discuss with 
the owner
SOE: Sure

35
Challenges
Industry is not leading the 
technological revolution
Geotech market is “niche”
Adoption by engineers – shift in 
paradigm

36
Geo‐
Automation

37
Why Geotechnical Engineers 
will still have jobs in 2045
Soil is not standard
Every solution is unique
Engineering judgement over automated 
solutions
SPT

38
Thank you!

dimitrios@deepexcavation.com

Connect on LinkedIn

39
May 25, 2019, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
May 29, 2019, Lima, Peru

Dimitrios Konstantakos, P.E.


CEO Deep Excavation LLC, Adj. Professor, NYU
Chair of ASCE/G-I, TCC 1
2
1. Introduction 11.Voice control
2. Soil properties 12.Slope stability
3. Wall sections 13.Nonlinear analysis
4. Cantilever walls
14.Frame analysis
5. External surcharges
15.ASD vs. EC7
6. Analysis methods
7. Supports in DeepEX and 16.Building damage module
examples
8. Wall elements
9. Lateral earth pressure options
10.Wall friction

3
` Software for design of deep excavations
` User friendly & interactive
` Multiple stages
` Multiple design sections
` Geotechnical design
` Structural design
` Code compliance
` 1200 users worldwide

4
An excavation, typically deeper than 3.5m that
requires structural support.
Webinar examines vertical cut excavations that
require structural support.

5
` A deep excavation system has to retain earth,
water, and neighboring structures
` Unknown factors and risks
` Protect adjacent properties
` Design issues
` Code issues
` Economy
` Constructability

6
` Deep excavations always require staged
construction.
` Even wall construction can affect
performance.
` Start from at-rest conditions (or before)

7
8
` Right click on main model

9
` Define angle for slope surface
` Define V/H for slope surface
` Define elevation next to the wall
` Define bench offset
` Define bench elevation

Figure: Slope/bench surface options

Figure: Slope surface Figure: Bench surface

10
` Click and drag mouse

` Define surface elevations in General tab

11
12
` Click to edit the soil properties
` Define soil name
` Define soil type
` Define default soil behavior for
clays (drained/undrained)
` Define soil cohesion
` Define soil friction angle
` Define soil permeability and
Poisson's ratio
` Define soil model (for non-linear
analysis only)
` Define soil loading-reloading
elasticity parameters, exponent
etc. (non-linear)
` Define ultimate bond resistance
for tiebacks

PROPERTIES IN YELLOW ARE THE


MOST ESSENTIAL FOR ANALYSIS
Figure: Define general soil properties and Estimation tools

13
` Soil unit weights:
◦ γt = total soil unit weight below water table
◦ γd = soil unit weight above water table
◦ Note: do not use boyant weights
` v = Poisson ratio, used in some elasticity
equations for surcharges
` Kx = horizontal permeability
` Ky = vertical permeability (10 x Kx)
` KoNC = At-rest earth pressure coefficient for
normally consolidated conditions

14
` Look for the for general recommendations
` The shows you an additional tab for
determining soil properties

15
` Click to edit the Stratigraphy
` Define top of the soil
elevation and soil type
` Define OCR
` Add multiple borings
` Define SPT or CPT test
records

Figure: Define stratigraphy

16
` Edit SPT Record

17
` Soldier pile walls
◦ Steel beams
◦ Reinforced concrete
◦ Timber piles
` Sheet piles
` Secant & tangent pile walls
` Slurry walls
` SPTC walls
` Combined king pile-sheet piles
` Box sheet pile walls

18
` Double-click on the wall to edit the wall properties
` Define wall section
` Define top of the wall
elevation
` Define wall length
` Define wall position

Figure: Edit wall properties

19
` Double-click on the wall to edit the wall properties
` Define wall type
` Define reinforcement
section
` Define lagging
properties
` Define materials
` Define wall spacing
` Define Passive, active
and water pressure
widths
Figure: Edit wall section properties

20
` The following wall types are available
Soldier pile and lagging walls Secant pile walls Tangent pile walls

SPTC walls Diaphragm (slurry) walls Sheet pile walls

Combined sheet pile walls Box sheet pile walls Custom walls

21
22
` S= Horizontal pile spacing
` Sact = active spacing below exc. for soil
pressures = (1 to 2 x pile diameter)
` Spass = passive spacing below exc. For soil
pressures (2 to 3 x pile diameter)
` Swater = width for water pressures
` Change width for predrilled holes (filled with
grout)

23
24
` Timber lagging
` Shotcrete
` Steel plate

` Lagging position (affects clear span)

` Analysis methods

25
` Calculation method > Determine soil
pressure
◦ CALTRANS trenching and shoring manual
◦ Full active (exact soil pressures)
◦ Percentage of soil pressures
` Bending and shear calculations
◦ Simple span
◦ 50% pressure at center
◦ User defined equation M = alpha x w L2

26
27
` Consider concrete in stiffness

` Consider axial strength increase due to


concrete

` Consider strength reduction due to threads

28
29
` Can consider percentage of concrete between
beam flanges

30
` Add reinforcement
` Steel beams
` Section analysis with method of slices
` Add internal HP12x74

31
` Theory
` Examples (Limit-Equilibrium Method)

32
` Free earth method (balance Moment)
` Fixed earth method (balance moment-shear)
` Driving earth pressures: Active
` Resisting pressures: Passive or /Safety Factor
Fixed earth method

33
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX
We will use AZ 17 sheet piles
A. Define soil properties and stratigraphy

Figure: Define soil properties Figure: Define stratigraphy

34
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX

B. Define wall and wall section properties

Figure: Define wall properties Figure: Define wall section properties

35
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX

C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5 m

Figure: Model in Stage 1

36
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX

D. Run the analysis and review results – Moment and wall deflection

Figure: Wall moment and wall deflection, Stage 1

37
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX

E. Review results (continue) – Soil pressures and wall embedment FS

Figure: Soil pressures and wall embedment FS, Stage 1

38
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX

F. Wall embedment optimization

` Select to optimize wall embedment in the Design tab of DeepEX


and define the required safety factors
` Run the analysis. The wall length is optimized

Figure: Soil pressures and wall embedment FS, Stage 1

39
` Use CALTRANS approach for more reasonable
displacements

40
41
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX
We will use HP12x74 piles, not in drilled holes
A. Define soil properties and stratigraphy

Figure: Define soil properties Figure: Define stratigraphy

42
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX
B. Define wall and wall section properties

Figure: Define wall properties Figure: Define wall section properties

43
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX

C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5 m

Figure: Model in Stage 1

44
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX

D. Run the analysis and review results – Moment and wall deflection

Figure: Wall moment and wall deflection, Stage 1

45
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX

E. Review results (continue) – Soil pressures and wall embedment FS

Figure: Soil pressures and wall embedment FS, Stage 1

46
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled holes
We will use HP12x74 piles, installed in 0.7m drilled holes
A. Define soil properties and stratigraphy

Figure: Define soil properties Figure: Define stratigraphy

47
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled holes

B. Define wall and wall section properties

Figure: Define wall properties Figure: Define wall section properties

48
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled piles

C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5 m

Figure: Model in Stage 1

49
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled holes

D. Run the analysis and review results – Moment and wall deflection

Figure: Wall moment and wall deflection, Stage 1

50
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled holes

E. Review results (continue) – Soil pressures and wall embedment FS

Figure: Soil pressures and wall embedment FS, Stage 1

51
` Balances out moment
` Shear not balanced
` Increase length by 1.2 to get FS 1.0
` Then apply additional safety factors

52
` Surcharge options in DeepEX
` Different methods of analysis

53
` Select tool, click to add the load and define
load properties through dialogs
` Surface strip surcharge
` Surface line load
` Strip surcharge on wall
` Linear load on wall
` Prescribed displacement
` External moment on wall
` 3D Surface load
` Footing load
` 3D Building

Figure: Loads in DeepEX

54
` Strip surcharges or trapezoidal
` Typ: 0-3.5m 10 kPa
3.5 to 7m 5 kPa

55
` Strip load
◦ Theory of elasticity
◦ Distribution angle
` Field surcharge (applied
on vertical stress)

56
57
Elasticity 1-Way Distribution 1-Way Distribution

Elasticity σv 2-Way Distribution CIRIA Approach

58
` Estimate loads from floors etc
` Use footings or mat

59
` Wall line loads
` Moments loads applicable only in non-linear
analysis
` Prescribed displacement loads applicable only
in non-linear analysis

60
` 3.5m cantilever excavation
` Draw loads on the wall
` Draw footing loads
` Draw building loads
` Draw a 12.5 kPa strip surcharge
◦ On the surface
◦ Below the ground
◦ On the wall (from 0 to -10ft)

61
` Conventional
` Non-linear with BEF

62
` Conventional methods
` Beam on elastoplastic foundations

63
` Assume lateral earth pressures.
` Determine fixity locations for forces at subgrade.
` Analyze wall beam with assumed loads.
` Advantages: Easy method to verify. Gives a back check for
more rigorous methods.
` Disadvantages: Soil-structure interaction ignored.

64
65
` Horizontal force
` Moment
` Length

66
` Envelopes captured maximum force from all
stages
` Wall moments were almost never measured!
` Wall moment recommendations may not be
reasonable!

67
Peck, 1969

FHWA

68
Where m=1 according to Henkel (1971). The total load is then
taken as:

Henkel’s mechanism of base failure

69
` Blum’s method
` FHWA method with simple spans (GEC-4)
` Mix between FHWA and Blum’s
` CALTRANS Trenching and Shoring Manual
` WMATA approach

70
` Pinned supports – continuous beam
` Point of zero net soil shear below subgrade.
` Use point of zero shear as a virtual support.

Reaction for Virtual


embedment suppor Available FS.passive
Fxb t resistance Rx

71
` Pin support at excavation base, simple spans

Reaction for Virtual


embedment suppor Available FS.passive
Fxb t resistance Rx

72
` Pinned supports – simple span
` Point of zero net soil shear below subgrade

Reaction for Virtual


embedment suppor Available FS.passive
Fxb t resistance Rx

73
` Pinned supports – simple span
` Base at point of zero moment below bottom support
` Shears and moments balance out

No Reaction Virtual
embedment suppor FS.rotation
t

74
` Simple span may be very conservative
` Assume negative moments (20% of simple span)

No Reaction
Negativ Virtual
embedment FS.rotation
e suppor
Moment t

75
` Similar to Blum’s
` Fixity at subgrade

76
A 15m deep excavation is to be analyzed with different
analysis methods. The purpose of this example is to
illustrate different analysis methods and their
differences. Ground water level is assumed at 10m
depth. Soil layers consist of the following:

` 0m to 15m: Sand with friction angle 30 degrees,


unit weight 19 kN/m3
` 15m and below: Sand with friction angle 36 degrees,
effective cohesion c’= 5 kPa, and a unit weight of
19.5 kN/m3
1) Water pressures are calculated with a
simplified 1D flow analysis. In the FHWA
approach we need to determine first the total
active thrust above the excavation subgrade.
2) Multiply thrust with a 1.3 multiplier.
3) Distribute the total thrust in an apparent
earth pressure envelope, with the top and
bottom triangular portions established at 2/3
of the clear height to the first support, and
2/3 of the clear height from the excavation to
the bottom support.
El. -15 (driving side) El. -23 (resisting side)
` Integrate active thrust above excavation
Blums's FHWA Simple FHWA Mixed CALTRANS CALTRANS - Nonlinear
method span Blum Method negative analysis*
Maximum support
reaction 33.68 23.91 27.66 30.08 30.08 30 – 31.8
(kips/ft)
Maximum
Moment 58.25 36.78 74.29 99.41 87.45 65 – 86
(kips/ft)
Maximum Shear
18.13 13.14 15.49 17.77 17.77 17.4 - 20
(kips/ft)

Blums's FHWA Simple FHWA Mixed CALTRANS CALTRANS - Nonlinear


method span Blum method negative analysis*
Maximum support
reaction 38.51 31.81 31.81 34.36 34.36 31.6 - 34.6
(kips/ft)
Maximum
Moment 66.74 43.46 83.95 112.33 98.63 76.9-101.5
(kips/ft)
Maximum Shear
20.41 16.94 17.45 20 20 19.5 - 22.2
(kips/ft)

84
Not physically possible specifications
Active pressures
=19kN/m3
Ma.dry = 30 D
Ma.wet = 15 D
Results in Ka= 0.24
and = 37.8 degrees

Passive slope produces


Kp= 2.4, thus
= 24.32 degrees

85
86
` Select support type, click to add the support and
define properties through dialogs
` Ground anchors (tiebacks)
` Struts
` Slabs
` Rakers
` Fixed supports
` Spring supports
Figure: Tiebacks and struts in DeepEX
` Waler supports

Figure: Rakers in DeepEX Figure: Fixed, spring supports and slabs


in DeepEX

87
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
We will use HP12x74 piles, FHWA and Peck apparent pressures
A. Define soil properties and stratigraphy

Figure: Define soil properties Figure: Define stratigraphy

88
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

B. Define wall and wall section properties

Figure: Define wall properties Figure: Define wall section properties

89
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m

Figure: Model in Stage 1

90
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

D. Add a new stage and add first tieback row at El:-3m – support properties

Figure: Edit tieback properties Figure: Edit tieback section properties

91
92
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

D. Add a new stage and add first tieback row – model

Figure: Model in Stage 2

93
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

E. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m

Figure: Model in Stage 3

94
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

F. Add a new stage and add second tieback row at El:-6.5ft

Figure: Model in Stage 4

95
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX

G. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m(final exc. level at El:-10.5m)

Figure: Model in Stage 5

96
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
H. Add a new stage and define a traffic load behind the wall
We will assign a 30kPa strip surcharge for 5.5m, starting 0.5m behind the wall

Figure: Model in Stage 6 – External strip surcharge

97
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
I. Add a new stage and change apparent pressures to Peck 1969
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change the driving side pressures

Figure: Choose to use Peck apparent pressures in the new stage

98
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
J. Add a new stage and change apparent pressures to FHWA
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change the driving side pressures

Figure: Use FHWA apparent Figure: Define FHWA pressures


pressures options

99
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
K. Add a new stage and change beam analysis method to CALTRANS
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change beam analysis method

Figure: Use CALTRANS method for beam analysis

100
` Go to design tab
` Factors can be changed on any stage
` Select use Soil bond values…
` Coef.str = 0.6

101
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
L. Review results – Moment and wall deflections, Stages 3 and 5

Figure: Moment and wall deflection Figure: Moment and wall deflection
diagrams – Stage 3 diagrams – Stage 5

102
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
M. Review results – Soil pressures – Peck and FHWA apparent

Figure: Peck 1969 apparent pressures Figure: FHWA Apparent pressures

103
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
N. Review results – Wall moments – Blum’s and CALTRANS method

Figure: Wall moments, FHWA pressures Figure: Wall moments, FHWA pressures
and Blum’s method and CALTRANS method

104
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
We will use the model wizard to create a braced excavation with 3 levels of struts
A. Define analysis methods
` Define analysis method
` Define apparent
pressures
` Define beam analysis
method

Figure: Define analysis method

105
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
B. Define general project and strut properties
` Define project type
` Define general project
properties
` Select/define strut
section
` Define strut spacing

Figure: Select project type, define project and strut properties

106
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
C. Define soil properties and stratigraphy
` Define soil properties
` Define stratigraphy

Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy

107
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
D. Select wall section
` Select wall section
` Edit wall section
properties

Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy

108
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
E. Define support elevations – create stages
` Define depth for each
support level
` Define excavation depth
below each support
level

Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy

109
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
G. Define external load
` Define strip surcharge
magnitude and position

Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy

110
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
H. Define structural and geotechnical codes
` Define structural codes
` Define geotechnical
codes

Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy

111
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
I. Review created model

Figure: Model, Stage 7

112
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
I. Review results – Moment and wall deflection, Stage 5

Figure: Moment and wall deflection diagrams, Stage 5

113
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
J. Review results – Wall shear and soil pressures, Stage 7

Figure: Wall shear and soil pressure diagrams, Stage 7

114
115
Hydrostatic 1D Flow Full flow net

116
117
` Consider all stages
` 5m excavation with raker@3m
` Raker@ 30 deg from horizontal
` Heelblock at base
` Consider all stages
` HE340A@2.5m in 0.7m holes
` Water level at 10m

118
119
` Add stage
` Create berm, right click on model

120
121
` Add stage
` Draw heelblock near bottom

122
123
124
` Add stage
` Right click, set right surface level

125
` Set analysis to LEM and run

126
` Interaction between passive wedge from wall
and heel block not considered
` Place raker sufficiently behind passive zone
` GEO stress check 0.5 to 1/1.5 = 0.6
` Program does not look at bearing capacity of
heelblock

127
` Change wall section with depth
` Create liner or basement walls

128
` Use wizard, create 30ft deep excavation with
struts
` Create basement wall section (0.6m)

129
130
131
132
` Model base slab
` Vertical unbraced
length
` Change 40cm slab
` Slab used as an
approximation,
more detailed
analysis required

133
134
135
136
137
` Tension gap effects can be modeled in NL
analysis
` LEM analysis:
◦ when wall & elements overlap is approximate
Distribution of moments based on stiffness
◦ Wall displacement based on base wall

138
` Different options
` FHWA
` Peck
` Adaptive
` User defined
` Passive pressures

139
` Explore
different
options

140
` Active x load factor
(select inside box)

` Between Ka and Ko

141
` Ko controlled from borehole OCR

142
143
` m for stiff clays

144
145
Challenge, change B until pressures match FHWA from Ka

146
147
148
` Kp = Passive
` Kp/FS
` Kp = At-rest
` Ko x multiplier
` User defined
` User defined
passive slope &
start pressure
` Max. pressure

149
` Control minimum driving pressures

150
` Interface friction angle between soil & walls
` Decrease in acting pressures
` Increase in passive resistance
` Keep in mind of Thrust options

151
` Ka -> Coulomb (very close to logspiral)
` Kp -> Caquot-Kerisel (tables) when no
seismic
` Kp -> Lancellota equations consider log-
spiral values

152
` Undrained/drained conditions at any stage

15
3
154
` Used active earth pressures are calculated
` If not specified, then with stiffer clays
pressures can be zero
` Drained analysis (effective properties)
represent long term conditions

155
156
`

157
` Windows 10, voice recognition
` Microphone required (headphones for less
noise)
` Can quickly create a model

158
` Create a new model then:
` Say: What can I say

` Create a 13 meter deep excavation with tiebacks


` Create a 13 meter deep excavation with struts
` Add stage and install tieback
` Add stage and excavate 3 meters
` Excavate right 3 meters
` Backfill right 3 meters

159
` Perform global stability analysis
` Bishop method
` Spencer
` Morgenstern-Price
` Activate-Deactivate wall

160
161
` Circular failure only
` Move search rectangle

162
163
` Fundamentals
` Setting up elasticity properties
` Limitations

164
165
` Linear elastic perfectly plastic

` Exponential

` Subgrade modulus

Reloading stiffness linear 3 to 5 x loading E

166
167
` Soldier pile wall HE360A@0.7m hole@2.5m
` Wall 12m long
` Tieback @20 deg, 3m depth, @2.5m
` 3m: ,
`
`

168
169
170
171
17
2
173
` Add stage and draw tieback

174
175
` Change model limits

176
177
178
179
` Troubleshoot
` Look for FS passive
` Mesh density
` Increase wall embedment
` Ignore arching stage 0 to Stage 3
` Optimize & iterate
` Experiment with prestress

180
3D Frame Analysis Module of DeepEX
Using the base model created in the previous example, we will use the DeepEX
3D Model Wizard to create the 3D Frame model

D. Review 3D Model
` Review each strut level
` Click on any strut or waler or wall
part to change the structural
section and edit the properties
` Choose to add/remove struts and
tiebacks on each support level
` Use beak points to create more
composite shaft shapes

Figure: Generated 3D Model

181
` View in 3D or Virtual Reality
` Prepare models in DeepEX
` Export to HoloDeepEX
` Go to Microsoft App Store and Download
HoloDeepEX

182
` Evaluate building damage
` Crack width analysis
` 2D methods
` 3D methods

183
184
` Change the out of plane y coordinate

185
186
187
` Conference organizing committee
` Deep excavation team members
` You for joining us!

188
For attending this Workshop.
dimitrios@deepexcavation.com

Visit us at:
www.deepexcavation.com
Connect on LinkedIn

189
AXIAL & LATERAL LOAD
TRANSFER IN DRILLED SHAFTS
PERMANENT CASING &
HIGH-STRENGTH REINFORCEMENT

Dr. Antonio Marinucci, MBA, PE


V2C Strategists, LLC
Co-authors:
Dr. Armin W. Stuedlein, P.E.
Dr. Qiang Li
OBJECTIVES

 Oregon DOT Bridge Design Group concerns


with seismic-related design issues
 Increased seismic loads → increased steel
reinforcement
 Evaluation & recommended use of:
1.High(er) strength steel reinforcement bars
(80 ksi vs 60 ksi)
2.Permanent steel casing in design
(flexure & lateral loading)
3.Hollow bars - dual purpose elements (structural &
CSL access), compare to TIP thermal wires
OBJECTIVES

 Axial Load Transfer


 Evaluate side resistance (t-z) & end resistance (q-z)
 Develop t-z & q-z curves for Willamette Valley soils
 Recommend axial load transfer reductions (cased)
based on installation

 Lateral Load Transfer


 Compare p-y curves - uncased & cased, & in
commercial software
 Compare development & location of plastic hinging in
test shafts
 Develop p-y curves for Willamette Valley soils
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
 4 Test Piles (drilled shafts)
 2 uncased & 2 cased
 Testing
 Axial - Top-down compression testing
 Lateral - Two similar pile types laterally tested
simultaneously w/ hydraulic ram/jack

Drill Casing Wall Volume Internal &


Depth
diam. diam. thick. concrete external steel
MIR 36 in 60 ft --- --- 21.0 cu yd 2.0 %
HSIR 36 in 60 ft --- --- 20.0 cu yd 1.5 %
CIR 36 in 60 ft 37 in 0.5 in 17.4 cu yd 7.2 %
CNIR 37 in 60 ft 37 in 0.5 in 17.3 cu yd 5.3 %
SITE EXPLORATION
& TEST LAYOUT

ACIP/CFA Reaction Piles - 30 inch diam x 55 ft deep


SUBSURFACE
CHARACTERIZATION

stiff-very stiff;
silty CLAY to
clayey SILT

stiff sandy SILT


& med. dense
silty SAND
(w/ gravel)

stiff-very stiff;
silty CLAY to
clayey SILT
UNCASED SHAFTS
▪ Hole diam. = 36 in
▪ No casing
MIR ▪ Steel bars – fy = 60 ksi
(Mild Internal
Reinforcement) ▪ Steel ratio = 2%
3 – PVC
▪ Concrete volume CSL TUBES
9 – #14 GR.
= 21.0 cu yd 60 REBAR

▪ Hole diam. = 36 in 6 – #11 GR.


80 REBAR
▪ No casing
HSIR
(High-strength ▪ Steel bars – fy = 80 ksi
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 1.5%
Reinforcement)
▪ Concrete volume 3 – 73/56 GR. 80
= 20.0 cu yd FULL THREAD
HOLLOW BAR
CASED SHAFTS
HOLE DIAM.
= 36 IN
▪ Hole diam. = 36 in
▪ Casing OD= 37 in
CIR
(Cased, Mild ▪ Steel bars – fy = 60 ksi
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 7.2% 3 – PVC
Reinforcement)
▪ Concrete volume CSL TUBES
9 – #14 GR.
= 17.4 cu yd 60 REBAR

3 – PVC
▪ Hole diam = 37 in CSL TUBES
▪ Casing O.D.= 37 in
CNIR
(Cased, No ▪ Reinf. for gauges only
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 5.33% 8 – #4 GR.
Reinforcement) 60 REBAR
▪ Concrete volume
= 17.3 cu yd HOLE DIAM.
= 37 IN
INSTRUMENTATION

 TIP thermal wires in MIR, HSIR, CIR


 CSL tubes and probes
 Strain gages
 18 levels - concrete
embedment strain gages
 6 levels - resistance
strain gages
 Load cells
 In-place inclinometers
 String potentiometers
 Displacement dial gauges (top of shaft)
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

 Wet method using polymer slurry


 Concrete was placed using tremie method
 Design: 4,000 psi; Actual: 9,270 to 10,500 psi
 Casing vibrated into place after drilling
 Axial testing 10 mths after construction; Lateral later
CONSTRUCTION
TIP METHOD – ASTM D7949

 Concept
 Measure / record data during curing of concrete
 Uniform temperature profile → good quality shaft
 Temperature depends on
 Pile diameter, mix design, time of measurement,
distance from TIP sensor to center & edge

 Measurements (Quality Assurance)


 Cooler –inclusions, necking or poor quality concrete
 Warmer - bulges outside of cage diameter
 Variation b/t diag opposite pairs - cage misalignment
TIP TESTING RESULTS

 Peak heat of hydration at ± 46 hrs


 Profile of diameter
 Critical for interpreting measured strains
 Uncased Shafts (MIR & HSIR)
 Temperature similar, but definite differences
 HSIR - 1 inch smaller radius than MIR
 MIR - consistently > 36 inch diam. auger
 Cage slightly off-center (max 0.75 inch)
TIP TESTING RESULTS

Radius
vs Depth
TIP TESTING RESULTS

Ground Ground
Surface Surface

Steel Rebar Cage


Gap b/t soil
& casing
(load transfer) Radius of
Casing
CSL METHOD - ASTM D6760

 Uses ultrasonic pulse velocity;


transmitter & receiver probes
 PVC tubes & hollow bars
 CSL through hollow bar
 Should provide similar results as
PVC tubes
 Threads should improve bond at
concrete / steel interface
CSL METHOD - ASTM D6760

 Compressive (p-wave)
velocity
 Straight-line path (only)
 Function of density, age, &
Young’s modulus of concrete
 Need to wait 7 to 10 days
for concrete to achieve
strength
 Potential anomalies
 Deviations in expected p-wave
RESULTS FROM CSL TESTING
2” PVC block-outs
(for actuators)
clearly identified

Note:
“anomalies”
at regular 10 ft
intervals
(couplers in
hollow bar)

MIR MIR HSIR HSIR


RESULTS FROM CSL TESTING
1000

750 CIR - PVC Tubes


HSIR - Hollow Bar
Crosshole Signal (millivolts)

500

250

-250

-500

-750

-1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (microseconds)

 Comparison of signals
 Clear difference in signal quality
 Signal through hollow bar - clear, undamped, regular
 Signal through PVC - erratic, muddled
 Observations reflected in the “waterfall” plots
AXIAL COMPRESSION LOAD TESTS

 Uncased shafts >> capacity than cased shafts


 Resistance fully mobilized (plunging) for cased
shafts before end of test
 Applied loads << expected test loads
 Cased shafts - very stiff, rigid
AXIAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Similar initial response; then
mostly hardening-type
response
 Auger-induced belling at mid-
shaft produced largest t-z
response
 HSIR performed slightly better
than MIR despite slightly
smaller diameter
 MIR – 1,300 kips at 0.15 inch displ.
 HSIR - 1,400 kips at 0.15 in displ.
 0.15 in = 0.4% norm. displ.
AXIAL RESPONSE
- CASED SHAFTS
 Construction effects
 Gap b/t casing & borehole
 Substantial influence by method
 CIR - drilled w/ 36 inch auger
 CNIR - drilled w/ 37 inch auger
 Vibrated casing after drilling
 Axial resistance
 CIR – 375 kips at 1.0 in displ.
 CNIR – 280 kips at 1.0 in displ.
 1.0 in = 2.7% norm. displ.
 2.0 in = 5.4% norm. displ.
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Unit side resistance
 120 to 6,200 psf
 Differences from 0 to 22 ft
 Bending & as-built geometry
 Water content in near-surface soil
 0.84 inch of rain 7 days before
testing HSIR
 1.47 inch of rain 4 days before
testing MIR
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER
- CASED SHAFTS
 Unit side resistances
 175 to 700 psf
 Only used data from 26 to 59 ft
 Due to gaps b/t casing & soil
 CIR had greater unit side
resistance than CNIR
 Due to installation method
AXIAL LOAD
TRANSFER

CIR CNIR
MIR HSIR
LATERAL LOAD TESTS

 Hydraulic actuator applied load @ 30 inch


above ground
 Tested shaft pairs simultaneously (MIR &
HSIR; CIR & CNIR)
 Criteria – limitation of actuator
LATERAL LOAD RESULTS

 Similar initial behavior


 MIR and HSIR slightly stiffer
response (larger diameter)

 Minimal differences b/t


similar shaft types
 Cased response governed by
steel casing
 Differences in soil variability
(layer thicknesses, stiffness,
consistency)

 Mobilized resistance
 Uncased – fully @ 180 kips
 Cased – not fully
LATERAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Similar response Displacement, y (in) Displacement, y (in)

for small lateral -3


-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

(b)
-10
(a)
loads (<95 kips) 0 0
Ground

 Dissimilar as 3
Surface
10

lateral load

Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
6 20
MIR HSIR
increased 9 30
V = 170 kN (39 kips)
V

 Mobilized soil
h

12 V = 280 kN (63 kips)


V h 40
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
Vh

reaction around 15
Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
50
V

12 ft or 4D 18
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V
60
-3 -10
(c) (d)

0 0
Depth, z

Depth,
LATERAL RESPONSE 9
V = 170 kN (39 kips)
Vh
30

- CASED SHAFTS 12 V = 280 kN (63 kips)


Vh 40
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
V
h
Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
15 50
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
V
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V

 Similar response 18
-3
(c) (d)
60
-10

for small lateral 0 0

loads (<90 kips) 3 10

 Dissimilar as 6

Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
20
CIR CNIR
lateral load 9 30

increased 12
Vh= 275 kN (62 kips)
V
Vh= 415 kN (93 kips)
V 40
Vh= 745 kN (167 kips)

 Mobilized soil 15 Vh= 925 kN (208 kips)


Vh= 1,350 kN (304 kips)
50

reaction around 18
Vh= 1,540 kN (346 kips)
V
60

30 ft or 10D Displacement, y (mm) Displacement, y (mm)


LATERAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED VS. CASED
Displacement, y (in) Displacement, y (in)
-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-3 -10

 Greater displacements for


(a) (b)

0 0
Ground

uncased shafts than for 3


Surface
10

cased shafts

Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
6 20

9
MIR HSIR 30

 Stiffer shafts mobilize soil 12


V = 170 kN (39 kips)
V
V
h
V = 280 kN (63 kips)
h
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
V
40
h

reaction to greater depths 15


Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
V
50

 Uncased – 12 ft or 4D
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V
18 60
-3 -10
(c) (d)

 Cased – 30 ft or 10D 0 0

 Depth of significant soil-foundation 3


CIR CNIR
10

displacement 6

Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
20

 Mainly due to flexural rigidity 9


Vh= 275 kN (62 kips)
V
30

 Lesser so due to soil 12 Vh= 415 kN (93 kips)


V
Vh= 745 kN (167 kips)
V
40

15 Vh= 925 kN (208 kips)


50
Vh= 1,350 kN (304 kips)
V
Vh= 1,540 kN (346 kips)
V
18 60

Displacement, y (mm) Displacement, y (mm)


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
– AXIAL RESPONSE
 Uncased vs cased shafts
 Enhanced response for uncased shafts
 Better bond at concrete-soil interface than for steel-to-soil
 Larger as-built shaft diameters for uncased shafts
 Presence of gaps between soil and casing for cased shafts
 Grouting may be required when using permanent casing

 Unit shaft resistance


 For a cased shaft compared to uncased
 3 - 15% (avg 7%) in stiff sandy silt & dense silty sand
 11 – 23% (avg 17%) in stiff sandy clayey silt
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
- LATERAL RESPONSE
 Gr. 80 vs. Gr. 60 response (uncased shafts)
 Similar lateral load transfer response
 Similar pre-cracking flexural response

 Response for cased vs. uncased shafts


 Mobilized soil resistance to greater depths
 Produced significantly stiffer response (>> uncased shafts)

 Steel casing dominated lateral response


 Response w/ & w/out internal reinforcement were similar
 May not need internal reinforcement if full-depth permanent
casing used
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
THANK YOU !

Dr. Antonio Marinucci, MBA, PE


Managing Director
V2C Strategists, LLC

Phone: 347-670-2006
Email: amarinucci@v2cstrategists.com
ANCHORED EARTH
RETENTION SYSTEMS
Design & Construction
Considerations

Dr. Antonio Marinucci, MBA, PE


Managing Director
WALL CLASSIFICATION &
TYPES OF AER WALLS
AER WALL SYSTEMS DEFINED
 A system that stabilizes & retains an
unstable in-situ soil or rock mass using top-
down construction concurrent with the
excavation of in-situ ground
 Systematic pattern of drilled-&-grouted ground
anchors or bracing used in combination with a
structural facing
 Maintains a difference in elevation between two
ground surfaces
TEMPORARY & PERMANENT WALLS
 Design Life
 Temporary: < 2 to 3 years
 Extended: between 2 & 5 years
 Permanent: > 5 years up to 100 years
 More restrictive requirements on
 Material durability
 Lower resistance factors (i.e., lower loads)
 Performance
 Overall appearance
 Corrosion protection
 Function of ground aggressiveness, design life, risk
potential, risk tolerance
APPLICATIONS
 Support of excavation
 New or widened highways
 Groundwater cut-off barriers
 Grade separations
 Bridge abutments & wing walls
 Cofferdams
 Slope stabilization
WALL CLASSIFICATION
1. Load support mechanism
 Externally stabilized
 Loads supported by external structure
 Internally stabilized
 Loads supported by soil-reinforcement interaction

2. Construction method (fill or cut walls)


 For AER walls → CUT → constructed in top-down
manner, removing in-situ soil to expose face of wall

3. System rigidity (rigid or flexible)


 For AER walls → FLEXIBLE → redistribution of soil
pressure, bending deformations
WALL SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Cantilever Wall Raker System Braced Wall

Anchored Soil Nail


Wall Wall
TYPES OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
 Narrow
 AER wall with struts
 AER wall with ground anchors

 Building sized
 AER wall with struts with intermediate support
 AER wall with raker bracing
 AER wall with ground anchors
 Soil nail walls

 Wide
 AER wall with raker bracing
 AER wall with ground anchors
 Soil nail walls
NARROW EXCAVATIONS

(Finno, 2016)
BUILDING EXCAVATIONS

(Finno, 2016)
BUILDING EXCAVATIONS

www.ecdny.com

(Finno, 2016)
BUILDING EXCAVATIONS

(Finno, 2016)
BENEFIT OF GROUND ANCHORS

(Finno, 2016)
TYPES OF WALL SYSTEMS
Discrete Wall Elements Continuous Walls

Wood or precast
Concrete lagging

5 to 10 ft
TYPES OF AER WALL SYSTEMS
 Soldier Pile-and-Lagging Walls
 Sheet Pile Walls
 Tangent / Secant Pile Walls
 Soil Mixed Walls
 Diaphragm Walls
 Soil Nail Walls
SOLDIER PILE-&-LAGGING WALL
 Different types & lagging placement
SOLDIER PILE-&-LAGGING WALL
SOLDIER PILE-&-LAGGING WALL
 Advantages / benefits
 Wide range of pile sections
 High bending resistance
 Can penetrate hard strata
 Piles can be spliced
 Soldier piles can be driven into place or a hole
predrilled an then the soldier pile is set in the hole
and grouted into place using lean concrete
SOLDIER PILE-&-LAGGING WALL
 Limitations
 Wall generally free draining
 Susceptible to corrosion
 Greater ground displacements
 Potential ground loss during excavation
 Not applicable below groundwater table
 Compared to stiffer walls such as tangent pile or
slurry
SHEET PILE WALLS
SHEET PILE WALLS
 Advantages / benefits
 Top-down construction
 Provides temporary & permanent support
 Reduced quantity of excavation
 Reduced quantity of backfill
 Narrower work area
 Faster construction time
 Can provide seepage barrier
 Can support vertical loads
SHEET PILE WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized construction techniques
 More complicated soil-structure interaction
 Performance greatly dependent on construction
method & quality
 Components susceptible to corrosion for exposed
steel sheeting & soldier beams
 Cannot penetrate hard layers
 Length limited to about 30.5 m (100 ft)
TANGENT / SECANT PILE WALLS

Tangent Pile Wall Secant Pile Wall


TANGENT / SECANT PILE WALLS
 Advantages / benefits
 Constructed using conventional drilled shaft
excavation equipment & procedures
 Less construction / staging space requirements
than for diaphragm walls
 Wide range of pile sections
 High bending resistance
 Can penetrate hard strata
 Piles can be spliced
TANGENT / SECANT PILE WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized construction techniques
 Complicated soil-structure interaction
 Performance greatly dependent on construction
method & quality
 Need good verticality control
 Increased seepage through vertical joints
(especially for tangent piles)
 Difficult connections at face of wall
 Rough and irregular exposed face
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Consist of a system of overlapping soil-
cement columns formed by mixing a binder
with the soil in-situ
 Goal - produce soil-cement with improved properties
 Binders - cement, lime, fly ash, slag-cement blends...

(courtesy of Jafec USA)


SOIL MIXED WALLS

(courtesy of Schnabel Foundation Co)


SOIL MIXED WALLS - VIDEO
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Advantages / benefits
 Can be performed in a broad range of soils
 High production rate
 Reduces or eliminates settlement of adjacent
structures
 Dewatering may not be necessary
 Reduces disposal - smaller volume of spoils
 Minimum environmental concerns
 Low noise, vibration and impact on surroundings
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized design, construction, specifications
and quality control / quality assurance
 High unit & mobilization costs
 Obstructions & cobbles must be removed &
replaced with suitable soil
 Relocation of utilities may be required
 Elements limited to vertical installation
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Soils
 Very soft-to-medium stiff clays
 Very loose-to-medium dense sands
 Very soft-to-medium stiff organic soils

 Typical depth limit of 130-foot


 Wet method
 Physical space on site required for equipment yard,
slurry batch plant & equipment maneuvering

 Limited by cobbles, boulders, etc.


SOIL MIXED WALLS - EQUIPMENT
 Many types of mixing equipment, such as
 Vertical axis with one or more shafts
 Cutter type on two wheels
 Chainsaw type of mixers

 Binder injection
 Ports located at or near
the cutting & mixing
blades or teeth

Courtesy of
Geosystems, L.P.
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
 Advantages / benefits
 Relatively impermeable wall
 Very high bending resistance
 Smaller ground displacements
 Support vertical loads
 Can be incorporated into permanent structures
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized equipment & methods
 Requires large construction area
 Significant spoils generated
 High cost – mobilization and unit cost
WALL SELECTION
CONSIDERATIONS
WALL SELECTION
WALL SELECTION
 Factors affecting wall selection
 Ground type
 Groundwater location
 Construction considerations
 Speed of construction
 Easements and right-of-way issues
 Aesthetics of the final wall facing
 Environmental concerns
 Durability & maintenance
 Contracting practices & tradition
 Costs
FACTORS AFFECTING WALL COSTS
 Type of structure
 Project demands – performance, watertightness,
wall facing, temporary or permanent…
 Materials - how much steel, concrete…
 Labor and equipment
 Specialization, availability, requirements
 Easements and right-of-way
 Disposal of excavation & spoils
 Drainage requirements
FACTORS AFFECTING WALL COSTS
 Life cycle costs
 “A structure with the least construction cost may
not be the most economical alternative”
 Schedule
 Permitting
 Site constraints
 Environmental constraints
GEOTECHNICAL SITE
CHARACTERIZATION
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PURPOSES
 Develop picture of site conditions, layering,
soil types, in-situ parameters, variability…
 Obtain information about geology
 Define vertical & lateral distribution of soil & rock strata
 Define and evaluate effects of groundwater
conditions
 Determine potential geo-hazards
 Unstable slopes, rock joints, problematic soils…
 Perform sampling and (in-situ and lab) testing
 Identification, classification, engineering properties
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
 Optimum amount of money spent early (&
properly) can lead to cost savings later
(structure, time, litigation, etc.)
 Every test should have a distinct purpose
 What affects costs / time?
 Quantity, location, depth of borings / probes?
 Groundwater testing?
 Specimens for lab testing? Quantity, type, quality?
 In-situ testing? Quantity and method(s)?
 Advanced testing?
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
 Cost or Investment?
SITE CHARACTERIZATION LAYOUT
 Recommended
maximum
distances
 Capture
information in
front & behind
wall alignment
SITE CHARACTERIZATION LAYOUT
 Groundwater
 Corrosion potential of metallic components
 Reduction in frictional resistance between soil &
structural component
 Excavation dewatering and special drilling &
grouting procedures
 Liquefaction potential of loose, cohesionless soils
 Soil / rock slope instability resulting from seepage
 Average high & low groundwater levels
LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURES
GENERAL
 Lateral pressure (𝝈𝒉 )
 Function of vertical overburden pressure (𝝈𝒗 )
𝜎ℎ = 𝐾𝑖 𝜎𝑣

 𝐾𝑖 = coefficient of lateral earth pressure


 Influenced by material, structure and lateral strain
 Limiting states of stress
 Active (𝐾𝑎 ) = max. wall movement away from soil
 At-Rest (𝐾0 ) = no wall movement
 Passive (𝐾𝑝 ) = max. wall movement into soil
EARTH PRESSURE
EARTH PRESSURE
Semi-Empirical Earth Pressure Diagrams
 Related to theoretical triangular distributions
 Provide envelope to observed behavior
 Flexible walls undergo
bending deformations
→ tend to shift load
from “weak” areas to
“strong” areas
 Provide conservative
designs for anchored
walls
APPARENT EARTH PRESSURES
 Based on work with braced excavations
 Envelope of maximum pressures
 Reflects variability in construction
 Does not include water pressure or surcharge(s)

Sands

Terzaghi &
Peck AEP
for soft-to-
medium
clays
APPARENT EARTH PRESSURES

Semi-Empirical Earth Pressure Diagrams


 Related to theoretical triangular distributions
 Provide envelope to observed behavior
 Flexible walls undergo
bending deformations
→ tend to shift load
from “weak” areas to
“strong” areas
 Provide conservative
designs for anchored
walls
WATER PRESSURE - DESIGN
 Water loads / pressures can be significantly
greater than earth pressure loads / pressures
 Consider effects of groundwater drawdown
 Consider “permeability” of wall itself
 Many failures caused by poor drainage
 i.e., higher water pressures than considered in
design
HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE
SEEPAGE PRESSURES
SURCHARGE LOADS & PRESSURES
 Types
 Point loads
 Line loads parallel to wall
 Strip loads parallel to wall
 Uniform surcharge
 Causes
 Railroads, highways, buildings, sign/light
structures, electric/telecommunications towers,
construction equipment, material stockpiles, etc.
 Effects
 Increased lateral earth pressures
SURCHARGE LOADS & PRESSURES
 Effects
 Increase lateral earth pressures

 Types
 Point loads
 Line loads parallel to wall
 Strip loads parallel to wall
 Uniform surcharge

 Causes
 Construction equipment, material stockpile,
adjacent structures, roadways, railroads, etc.
SURCHARGE LOADS & PRESSURES
 Methods of Analysis
 Uniform surcharges
 Equivalent backfill height
 Other surcharges
 Semi-empirical formulas
from elastic theory &
experiments on
unyielding walls
 Used for line loads, point
loads, and surface loads
GROUND ANCHORS:
CONVENTIONAL & SBMAS
GROUND ANCHORS - BAR
 Diameters = 26 mm up to
75 mm (1 inch to 3 inch)
 Common diam. = 26 to 44
mm (1 inch to 1-3/4 inch)
 Grade 150 ksi (1034 MPa)
GROUND ANCHORS - STRAND
 Diameter = 13 mm (0.6 inch)
diameter, 7-wire strand
 Grade 270 ksi (1862 MPa)
TYPES OF GROUND ANCHORS

Type A:
Straight shaft gravity-grouted

Type B:
Straight shaft pressure-grouted

Type C:
Post-grouted

Type D:
Underreamed
GROUND ANCHORS – HOLLOW BAR
 Diameter = 30 to 103 mm
(1-1/4 to 4 inch)
 Suitable in collapsing
hole conditions
 No casing required
 Simultaneous drilling &
grouting
GROUND ANCHORS
 In a given soil deposit,
actual anchor resistance
will depend on:
 Method of drilling, including
quality of drill hole cleaning
 Period of time that drill hole
is left open
 Diameter of drill hole
 Method & pressure used in
grouting
 Length of anchor bond zone
GROUND ANCHORS - DETAILS
CORROSION PROTECTION
 Function of ground aggressiveness, design
life, risk potential, tolerance to risk...
 Aggressive ground & moisture conditions
 Soils & environmental conditions that promote the
corrosion of steel at relatively fast rates

Severely corroded strand


exhibiting slippage through
wedges after 18 months in
service
CORROSION PROTECTION
 Part of design, and protection must
 Accommodate elastic movements during testing &
stressing
 Withstand damage during storage, handling, &
construction
 Resist attack in aggressive environments
 Allow elastic movements after lock-off
 Permanent Anchors
 Protect free length
 Protect anchor head
 Routine Applications
 Grease & sheath in free length
 Only grout in bond length
TYPES OF CORROSION

Generalised attack

Localised attack

Stress corrosion
cracking
DESIGN LIFE & CORROSION
 Limits for assessing corrosion potential
Test Units Threshold for Non-Aggressive Test Method
pH --- 5.0 < pH < 10 AASHTO T-289
Resistivity Ohm-cm > 3,000 AASHTO T-288
Sulfates ppm < 200 ASTM D4327
Chlorides ppm < 100 ASTM D4327
Organics % by weight < 1% AASHTO T-267

 Effect of Resistivity on Corrosion Potential


Corrosion Potential / Aggressiveness Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Very corrosive < 700
Corrosive 700 – 2,000
Moderately corrosive 2,000 – 5,000
Mildly corrosive 5,000 – 10,000
Non-corrosive > 10,000
CORROSION PROTECTION

 Class I
(Double)
 Grease inside
sheath - provides
protection as well
as a free length.
CORROSION PROTECTION

 Class II
(Simple)
 Grease inside
sheath - provides
protection as well
as a free length.
CORROSION PROTECTION

Anchor
Head
Protection
▪ Cover for
anchor not
embedded in
concrete.

Critical location from a corrosion point of view. In documented failures of


anchors due to corrosion, corrosion took place at / near face of wall.
CORROSION PROTECTION

Prefabricated
Trumpet
GROUND ANCHORS
 Advantages
 Eliminates internal bracing
 Provides open work area with excavation
 Generally straightforward installation
 Reliable load capacity → each anchor load tested
 Provides more uniform load distribution
GROUND ANCHORS
 Limitations
 Not suitable for some soils
 Pull-out resistance
 Long-term creep
 Requires penetration through wall
 Vertical load component → could be large
 Interference with utilities, basements, etc.
 Corrosion potential of the steel elements
 Requires skilled labor and specialized equipment
 Easement needed → temporary and/or permanent
GROUND ANCHORS
 Soils unsuitable for ground anchors
 Organic soils
 Cohesive soils (i.e., clays)
 LI > 0.2 LI = (wn – PL) / PI
 LL > 50
 PI > 20 (High creep potential)
CONVENTIONAL ANCHOR & SBMA

Conventional
Ground Anchor

SBMA
Ground
Anchor
LOAD MOBILIZATION - TENDON
Anchor
Loading

Tendon
Bond
Stress

Progressive
Loading

Initial
Loading
Ultimate
Residual Loading
bond stress
0 Fixed anchor length = max 10 m (typ.)
Mobilization of bond stress for tension anchor
LOAD MOBILIZATION

SBMA

Conventional
Anchor

Anchors with 100%


efficiency mobilize peak
grout-to-ground bond
stress over entire length SBMAs efficiently mobilize ground
strength over multiple of short unit
lengths, where each unit length is
designed individually
EFFICIENCY FACTOR, 𝒇𝒆𝒇𝒇
 Ostermayer (1974)
 Relationship b/t fixed length & unit side friction (bond
stress) - in clays & sands, post-grouted or not
 Anchor load
 Function of fixed length and distribution of load, per
efficiency factor → 𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 1.6 ∙ 𝐿−0.57
 = 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 ∙ 𝐿𝑏 ∙ 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓

 Conventional anchors
 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 = average along fixed length

 SBMAs
 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 = average along fixed length for each unit SBMA
 Design length to ensure same load in each unit SBMA
EFFICIENCY FACTOR, 𝒇𝒆𝒇𝒇
 Barley (1995)
 Ultimate load is NOT proportional to fixed length
= 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 ∙ 𝐿𝑏 ∙ 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∙ 1.6 ∙ 𝐿−0.57
SBMA STRESSING SYSTEMS

Hydraulically synchronised stressing Single hollow ram jack to


system – 4 unit SBMA stress and test a SBMA
(in Simsima Limestone in Doha, Qatar) (in Turkey)
REMOVABLE SBMAS – WHY?

Cutting tool tied up by prestressing strand left in ground


(Moscow, Russia)
REMOVABLE SBMAS
2M LONG
PLASTIC
ENTIRE STEEL BAR
HOLLOW STEEL
TUBE 70 X 70 X
TENDON FULLY 70 CM
WITHDRAWN
FROM THIS
BOREHOLE

PLASTIC
SHEATHING
GROUT

GREASED AND SHEATHED


PRE-STRESSED STRAND

PULL STRAND

SADDLE
REMOVABLE SBMAS - MECHANISM

STAGE I: STAGE II: STAGE III:


Pre-Stress & De-Stress Strand
Lock-off Removal

Borehole Removable Greased plastic


grout strand sheathing
SBMAS – USAGE EXAMPLES
 Conventional anchors for SOE
 Design load = 600 kN (135 kip) not
achieved due to creep displacement
 Highly heterogeneous soils → low
strength clays, sands, & sandy silts
 3,600 SBMAs with grouting
 End-of-casing grouting in granular soils
Kuntsevo Plaza Development
(Moscow, Russia)
 Post-grouting in cohesive soils
 Test results
 Max. working loads = 580 to 780 kN
(130 to 175 kip)
 Lateral wall deformations
 ≤ 7.5 mm (5/16 inch)
 SBMA capacity
 > 2x conventional anchors
SBMAS – USAGE EXAMPLES

• 400 anchors with corroded strands 1,537 removable SBMAs, Simsima


Limestone (Al-Quds Tower Project,
• Original - replace with 400 new
Doha, Qatar)
conventional anchors with working
load of 1,500 kN (337 kips)
• Alternative - 200 SBMAs in weak
rock with working load 3,800 kN
(855 kips); 3 unit anchors each 6.3
m long (82 m long overall)
CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE
 AnchorTestTM
 Innovation for ground anchor industry
 Cloud-based mobile tool to process & store data
stressing records for post-tensioned ground anchors
 Can optimize analysis & data management
processes
 Paperless, intuitive & cost-saving
CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE
AnchorTestTM

Analyzes stressing data &


assesses conformance to
acceptance criteria in real-time
(together with auxiliary plotting)

Testing incorporates on-screen


guidance & data plotting w/ built-in
timer & image capture capabilities
CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE
AnchorTestTM

Collates data in MS Excel™ files &


transmits instantaneously to office
via AnchorTest™ Cloud
DESIGN OF EXTERNALLY
STABILIZED AER WALLS
GENERAL DESIGN STEPS
Step 1 Establish project requirements.

Step 2 Evaluate soil and rock parameters.

Step 3 Evaluate design soil & rock parameters &


resistance factors. Select corrosion
protection.
Step 4 Select lateral earth pressure distribution.

Step 5 Evaluate factored loads for appropriate


limit states.
GENERAL DESIGN STEPS
Step 6 Compute horizontal anchor loads &
subgrade reaction; evaluate anchor
horizontal spacing.
Step 7 Evaluate anchor inclination.
Step 8 Select tendon type and check tensile
resistance.
Step 9 Evaluate anchor bond length.
Step 10 Evaluate factored bending moments and
flexural resistance of wall.
GENERAL DESIGN STEPS
Step 11 Evaluate bearing resistance of wall below
excavation subgrade.
Step 12 Evaluate overall stability of anchored wall
at service limit state.
Step 13 Estimate max. lateral wall movements &
ground surface settlements.
Step 14 Select lagging. Design walers, drainage
systems, and connection devices.
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS
 For “flexible” walls, apparent earth pressure
(AEP) diagrams can be used
 AEP diagrams are semi-empirical & developed to
account for relatively complex deformation pattern
associated with relatively flexible AER systems

 Many anchored walls are flexible walls (e.g.,


soldier pile & lagging)
 AEP diagrams are generally conservative for
anchored walls
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS
 Location of anchor / strut / bracing affects
the lateral load distribution
 Cohesive soils
 Su is weighted average value of soil retained by
wall with depth of cut = H

 Granular soils
 Use average drained shear strength
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS (Finno, 2016)

Terzaghi & Peck AEP Envelopes


 Measured loads in struts (flexible wall systems)
 For a given soil condition
 At each excavation
 Loads in each brace divided by tributary area
 Selected max. apparent pressure (each level)
 For all excavations, defined envelope of maxima
 Developed loading diagrams for sand, stiff clay, &
soft clay
AEP FOR SANDS
Terzaghi & Peck Recommended
𝑄𝑖

𝑄𝑖
ℎ𝑖

𝑄𝑖
a

Total Load = 0.65 ∙ 𝐾𝐴 ∙ 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 2


𝐾𝐴 = tan2 45 − 𝜙Τ2
𝑄𝑖 = 𝑝 ∙ ℎ𝑖 ∙ 𝑏
AEP FOR SOFT-TO-MEDIUM CLAYS (Finno, 2016)

𝑄𝑖
p=1.0 ∙ 𝐾𝐴 ∙ 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻
𝑄𝑖 4𝑆𝑢
ℎ𝑖 𝐾𝐴 = 1 − 𝑚
𝛾𝐻
𝑄𝑖 = 𝑝 ∙ ℎ𝑖 ∙ 𝑏
𝑄𝑖

m=1 unless soft clay extends


to significant depth below
bottom of cut, for Mexico City
conditions, m=0.4
AEP FOR STIFF-TO-HARD CLAYS (Finno, 2016)

 Magnitude of pressure does not depend on strength


of clay
AEP FOR CLAYS (Finno, 2016)

 How to determine when to use the soft clay


or stiff clay diagrams?
4𝑆𝑢
𝐾𝐴 = 1 −
𝛾𝐻
 when 𝐾𝐴 ≥ 0 → use soft clay diagram
 when 𝐾𝐴 < 0 → use stiff clay diagram
 No net lateral load acts on wall for undrained
conditions & Rankine assumptions
ANCHOR LOADS & REACTION
Tributary Area Method Hinge Method
ANCHOR LOADS & REACTION
 Anchor Load Calculations
𝑻𝒉 = 𝑻𝒉𝒊 ∙ 𝑺𝒉
𝑻 = 𝑻𝒉 Τcos 𝜽
𝑻𝒗 = 𝑻 ∙ sin 𝜽
 𝑻𝒉 = nominal horizontal anchor load
 𝑻𝒉𝒊 = horizontal component of 𝑻𝒉 per unit width of wall
 𝑺𝒉 = horizontal spacing between anchors
 𝑻 = nominal anchor load
 𝑻𝒗 = vertical component of 𝑻𝒉
 𝜽 = angle of inclination of anchor below horizontal
TENDON SPACING
 Vertical spacing (𝑺𝒗 ) between anchors
 Common = 2.4 to 3.0 m (8 to 10 ft)

 Horizontal spacing (𝑺𝒉 ) between anchors


 Load in an anchor is linearly proportional to
horizontal spacing between anchors
 Bending moments in wall element (for discrete
elements) are proportional to horizontal spacing
 Minimum (whichever is greater)
 1.2 m (4 ft) or 3*drill hole diam.
 Range = 2.4 to 3.0 m (6 to 10 ft)
ANCHOR LENGTH CRITERIA

Bond zone must be established


behind potential slip surfaces
ANCHOR INCLINATION
 Install as close to horizontal as possible to
minimize vertical loads from lock-off loads
 Common = 15 to 30 degrees
 Grouting of anchors installed at angles less than 10
degrees not common unless special grouting
techniques are used.

 Can be as steep as 45 degrees


 e.g. - To get around utilities & to get to better
ground (but more vertical load on wall)
SELECT ANCHOR TENDON
 Prestressing steel element of tendon
 Must be capable of safely transmitting load in bond
zone to structure without tendon breakage

 Maximum proof test load (𝑇𝑛 ) shall not


exceed 80% of GUTS
 Guaranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS)
𝐺𝑈𝑇𝑆 ≥ 𝑇𝑛 Τ𝜙
 = 0.8
 Select tendon with: (high strength steel)
Σ𝛾𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝐺𝑈𝑇𝑆 >
𝜙
ANCHOR BOND LENGTH
 Preliminary bond length
𝑇
𝐿𝑏 ≥
𝜙𝑄𝑛

 𝐿𝑏 = anchor bond length


 𝑇 = factored anchor load
 𝜙 = resistance factor
= 0.65 (cohesionless soil)
= 0.70 (cohesive soil)
= 0.50 (rock)
= 1.00 (with proof tests to a specified load)
 𝑄𝑛 = nominal anchor pullout resistance
ANCHOR BOND LENGTH
 Minimum bond length
 Soil = 4.6 m (15 ft)
 Rock = 3.0 m (10 ft)

 Maximum bond length


 Soil = 12.2 m (40 ft)
 Rock = 6.1 to 9.1 m (20 to 30 ft)

 Overburden Cover
 Minimum = 4.6 m (15 ft)

 In soils
 Long bond zone > 10 m (33 ft) are not practical or efficient
 Large deformation of anchor (stretch) required to mobilize load
& to transfer load to deep anchors
ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE
𝑸𝒏 = 𝝅 ∙ 𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 ∙ 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 ∙ 𝑳𝒃
 𝑄𝑛 = nominal anchor pullout resistance
 𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 = diameter of drill hole
 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 = nominal anchor bond stress
 𝑳𝒃 = anchor bond length

 In cohesionless soils
 Pressure grouting significantly increase normal
stresses acting on grout body (increases
confinement)
 Increases 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘
ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE
 Actual resistance in field depends on
 Method of drilling, including quality of drill hole
cleaning & period of time that drill hole is left open
 Diameter of the drill hole (𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 )
 Method & pressure used in grouting
 Length of anchor bond zone (𝑳𝒃 )

 Actual bond stress (anchor bond length)


 Verified in field through load testing every anchor to
at least the factored anchor load
STABILITY (Sabatini et al, 1999)
STABILITY (Sabatini et al, 1999)
STABILITY

Bearing capacity
at bottom of wall
should also be
evaluated

 For multiple levels of anchors, failure surfaces should be


checked that pass just behind each anchor
 If external stability requirements cannot be met, anchors may
be lengthened or methods to improve anchor bond or load
transfer mechanisms may be used.
WALL & GROUND MOVEMENTS
 Numerous factors influence amount of wall
& ground movements:
 Subsurface conditions
 Cohesive or granular soil, groundwater
 Type of wall
 Stiffness, continuity, support spacing
 Installation procedures
 Preloading, disturbance, sequencing, time
 External factors
 Surcharge loads, weather
WALL & GROUND MOVEMENTS
(Clough and O’Rourke, 1990)

Curves assume average conditions, good workmanship


ANALYTICAL MODELS
 Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)
 Can be developed & analyzed using commercially
available software packages
 DeepEX, PYWALL, Shoring Suite, Plaxis, WALLAP…
 Previous methods not amenable to stage
construction analysis
 Provide a more accurate estimate of wall forces,
moments, shear, & deflections
 Results greatly influenced by soil shear strength
ANALYTICAL MODELS

(Deep Excavation; www.deepexcavation.com)


ANALYTICAL MODELS
 Representative results for bending moment,
shear force, & deflection profiles
Bending Moment (in-kips) Shear Force (kips) Deflection (in)
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0 0 0

5 5 5

10 10 10

15 15 15

20 20 20

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

25 25 25

30 30 30

35 35 35

40 40 40

45 45 45

50 50 50
WOOD LAGGING SELECTION
(Goldberg et al, 1976)
BRACING CONNECTIONS

 Details for common support elements

Strut Components
Wale  Struts
Wall  Wales
Plate
 Walls
 Stiffeners
Stiffeners
 Plate
BRACING CONNECTIONS

 Details for common support elements


ANCHOR CONNECTIONS

 Typical
connection to
sheet pile wall
 Back-to-back
channel
sections as Anchor
head
wales

Channel
sections
ANCHOR CONNECTIONS

Connections to secant pile wall


SOIL NAIL WALLS
(INTERNALLY STABILIZED
AER WALL SYSTEMS)
SOIL NAIL WALLS
DEFINED
 Stabilization method of in-situ ground using
systematic pattern of drilled-&-grouted steel
reinforcement bars (nails) with shotcrete facing
 Nails experience tensile force
 As ground deforms laterally in response to excavation
 Acts across potential failure surfaces through ground,
which increases shearing resistance

 Produces block of reinforced ground that can


support itself, external loadings, & unreinforced
ground behind
BASIC COMPONENTS
BASIC COMPONENTS
BASIC COMPONENTS

Temporary Soil
Nail Walls
BASIC COMPONENTS

Permanent Soil
Nail Walls
BASIC COMPONENTS
 Soil nails
 Drilled hole, nail tendons, centralizers, washers,
bearing plate, lock nut
 Grout
 Simple mix - water and cement
 Drainage elements
 Geocomposite strips – 305 to 460 mm (12 to 18 in)
wide, centered b/t nails, weep holes, foot drains
 Structural wall facings
 Temporary shotcrete facing, permanent wall
facings, architectural face treatments
MATERIALS – SOIL NAIL BARS
 All-thread bars, Grade 75 ksi (517 MPa)
 Diameter = No. 6 to 28 (3/4 to 3-1/2 inch)

Solid Bars Holl