![Efforts to Predict Setup
Khan (2011) – Prediction of Pile Set-up for Ohio Soils
Bullock et al (2005) – Side Shear Setup: Results from Florida Test Piles
Skov and Denver (1988) – Time-Dependence of Bearing Capacity of Piles
1
log
1
log
0
0
0
0
0
t
t
Q
m
t
t
A
f
f
Q
Q
S
S
S
S
S
S
Q = Qo (1 + A log [ t / to ])
Q = 0.9957 Qo t 0.087](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/7641891-230621020941-b6cc3a99/85/addition-consideration-in-pile-11-320.jpg)
addition consideration in pile
- 1. Additional Design Considerations 2011 PDCA Professor Pile Institute Patrick Hannigan GRL Engineers, Inc.
- 2. Additional Design Considerations • Time Effects • Scour • Densification • Plugging • Drivability
- 3. Time Effects on Pile Capacity Time dependent changes in pile capacity occur with time. Soil Setup Relaxation
- 4. Vesic’ (1977) – NCHRP 42 Design of Pile Foundations Time Effects on Pile Capacity
- 5. Soil Setup End of Initial Driving Restrike 8 Days Later Shaft = 3 x EOID
- 6. Relaxation Restrike 24 Hours Later End of Initial Driving Toe = ½ EOID
- 7. Soil setup is a time dependent increase in the static pile capacity. In clay soils, setup is attributed to increases in effective stress as large excess positive pore pressures generated during driving dissipate as well as due to thixotropic effects. Soil Setup In sands, setup is attributed primarily to aging effects and / or release of arching effects with time.
- 8. Soil setup frequently occurs for piles driven in saturated clays as well as loose to medium dense silts and fine sands as the excess pore pressures dissipate. The magnitude of soil setup depends on soil characteristics as well as the pile material and type. Soil Setup
- 9. • Multiple Static Load Tests (time, $$) How to Quantify Time Effects • Dynamic Restrike tests - inexpensive, cost-effective - check for setup or relaxation - short-term restrikes establish setup trend - long-term restrikes provide confidence in capacity estimates • Non-instrumented Restrike Tests - uncertain if blow count change due to change in hammer performance or soil strength
- 10. 1 day 10 days 100 days 1000 days log time pile capacity Restrike testing generally performed 1 to 10 days after installation Quantification of Time Effects
- 11. Efforts to Predict Setup Khan (2011) – Prediction of Pile Set-up for Ohio Soils Bullock et al (2005) – Side Shear Setup: Results from Florida Test Piles Skov and Denver (1988) – Time-Dependence of Bearing Capacity of Piles 1 log 1 log 0 0 0 0 0 t t Q m t t A f f Q Q S S S S S S Q = Qo (1 + A log [ t / to ]) Q = 0.9957 Qo t 0.087
- 12. where: A = Dimensionless setup factor QS = Side shear capacity at time t QS0 = Side shear capacity at reference time t0 fS = Unit side shear capacity at time t fS0 = Unit side shear capacity at reference time t0 t = Time elapsed since EOD, days t0 = Reference time, recommended to use 1 day mS = Semilog-linear slope of QS vs. log t 1 log 1 log 0 0 0 0 0 t t Q m t t A f f Q Q S S S S S S Efforts to Predict Setup Bullock et al (2005) – Side Shear Setup: Results from Florida Test Piles
- 13. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Aucilla, Static Test Aucilla, Dynamic Test 1 min 15 min 60 min QS0 =1021 kN (at t0 = 1day ) mS = 293.4 kN Elapsed Time, t (days) Pile Side Shear Q S (kN) 18” PSC with O-Cell at bottom Bullock et al (2005) – Side Shear Setup: Results from Florida Test Piles
- 14. For Closed-end Pipe Piles in Ohio Soils Q = 0.9957 Qot0.087 Q = pile capacity (kips) at time t (hours) since EOID Qo = pile capacity (kips) at EOID Khan (2011) – Prediction of Pile Set-up for Ohio Soils ( Q includes shaft + toe)
- 15. 5 80 -4000 0 4000 8000 ms kN 9 L/c Force Msd Velocity Msd 5 80 -4000 0 4000 8000 ms kN 9 L/c Force Msd Velocity Msd 5 80 -4000 0 4000 8000 ms kN 9 L/c Force Msd Velocity Msd 5 102 -4000 0 4000 8000 ms kN 9 L/c Force Msd Velocity Msd 5 102 -4000 0 4000 8000 ms kN 9 L/c Force Msd Velocity Msd EOID, t = 0.0007 Days Rs = 453, Rt = 1846, Ru = 2299 kN BOR #2, t = 0.69 Days Rs = 1046, Rt = 2077, Ru = 3123 kN BOR #3, t = 14.65 Days Rs = 1530, Rt = 2113, Ru = 3643 kN BOR #4 t = 48.81 Days Rs = 2121, Rt = 2092, Ru = 4213 kN BOR #1, t = 0.006 Days Rs = 818, Rt = 2047, Ru = 2865 kN
- 17. Soil Setup Factor The soil setup factor is defined as failure load determined from a static load test divided by the ultimate capacity at the end of driving.
- 18. TABLE 9-20 SOIL SETUP FACTORS (after Rausche et al., 1996) Predominant Soil Type Along Pile Shaft Range in Soil Set-up Factor Recommended Soil Set-up Factors* Number of Sites and (Percentage of Data Base) Clay 1.2 - 5.5 2.0 7 (15%) Silt - Clay 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 10 (22%) Silt 1.5 - 5.0 1.5 2 (4%) Sand - Clay 1.0 - 6.0 1.5 13 (28%) Sand - Silt 1.2 - 2.0 1.2 8 (18%) Fine Sand 1.2 - 2.0 1.2 2 (4%) Sand 0.8 - 2.0 1.0 3 (7%) Sand - Gravel 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 1 (2%) * - Confirmation with Local Experience Recommended
- 19. Relaxation is a time dependent decrease in the static pile capacity. During pile driving, dense soils may dilate thereby generating negative pore pressures and temporarily higher soil resistance. Relaxation has been observed for piles driven in dense, saturated non-cohesive silts, fine sands, and some shales. Relaxation
- 20. The relaxation factor is defined as failure load determined from a static load test divided by the ultimate capacity at the end of driving. Relaxation factors of 0.5 to 0.9 have been reported in case histories of piles in shales. Relaxation factors of 0.5 and 0.8 have been observed in dense sands and extremely dense silts, respectively. Relaxation Factor
- 21. Time Effects on Pile Drivability and Pile Capacity Time dependent soil strength changes should be considered during the design stage. • SPT – torque and vane shear tests • CPTu with dissipation tests • Model piles • Soil setup / relaxation factors Tools that have been used include:
- 22. Piles Subject to Scour Aggradation / Degradation Scour Types of Scour Local Scour Contraction and General Scour - Long-term stream bed elevation changes - Removal of material from immediate vicinity of foundation - Erosion across all or most of channel width
- 23. Piles Subject to Scour
- 24. Pile Design Recommendations in Soils Subject to Scour 1. Reevaluate foundation design relative to pile length, number, size and type 2. Design piles for additional lateral restraint and column action due to increase in unsupported length 3. Local scour holes may overlap, in which case scour depth is indeterminate and may be deeper.
- 25. Pile Design Recommendations in Soils Subject to Scour 4. Perform design assuming all material above scour line has been removed. 5. Place top of footing or cap below long-term scour depth to minimize flood flow obstruction. 6. Piles supporting stub abutments in embankments should be driven below the thalweg elevation.
- 26. Densification Effects on Pile Capacity
- 27. Densification Effects on Pile Capacity Densification can result in the pile capacity as well as the pile penetration resistance to driving being significantly greater than that calculated for a single pile. Added confinement from cofferdams or the sequence of pile installation can further aggravate a densification problem.
- 28. Densification Effects on Pile Capacity Potential densification effects should be considered in the design stage. Studies indicate an increase in soil friction angle of up to 4˚ would not be uncommon for piles in loose to medium dense sands. A lesser increase in friction angle would be expected in dense sands or cohesionless soils with a significant fine content.
- 30. Plugging of Open Pile Sections Open end sections include open end pipe piles and H-piles. It is generally desired that the open sections remain unplugged during driving and behave plugged under static loading conditions. Why ?
- 31. Plugging of Open Pile Sections Factors influencing plug development include hammer size and penetration to pile diameter ratio (D/b)
- 32. Plugging of Open Pile Sections During driving: Large hammer plug slippage Small hammer plug formation Therefore size pile for larger hammer. See Reference Manual Page 9-185
- 33. Plugging of Open Pile Sections Under static conditions: Dense sand & clay D/b ≥ 20 = plug Medium dense sand D/b ≥ 20-30 = plug H-piles are usually assumed to be plugged under static loading conditions due to the smaller section size.
- 34. PILE DRIVABILITY
- 35. PILE DRIVABILITY Pile drivability refers to the ability of a pile to be driven to the desired depth and / or capacity at a reasonable driving resistance without exceeding the material driving stress limits.
- 36. FACTORS AFFECTING PILE DRIVABILITY • Driving system characteristics • Pile material strength • Pile impedance, EA/C • Dynamic soil response Primary factor controlling drivability
- 37. PILE DRIVABILITY Pile drivability should be checked during the design stage for all driven piles. Pile drivability is particularly critical for closed end pipe piles.
- 38. PILE DRIVABILITY EVALUATION DURING DESIGN STAGE 1. Wave Equation Analysis Computer analysis that does not require a pile to be driven. 2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis Requires a pile to be driven and dynamically tested. 3. Static Load Tests Requires a pile to be driven and statically load tested.
- 39. Effects of Predrilling and Jetting on Pile Capacity
- 40. Effects of Predrilling and Jetting on Pile Capacity Predrilling in cohesive soils and jetting in cohesionless soils are sometimes used to achieve minimum penetration requirements. Both predrilling and jetting will effect the axial, lateral, and uplift capacity that can be developed.
- 41. Effects of Predrilling and Jetting on Pile Capacity Depending upon the predrilled hole diameter, the shaft resistance in the predrilled zone may be reduced to between 50 and 85% of the shaft resistance without predrilling. In jetted zones, shaft resistance reductions of up to 50% have been reported.
- 42. Effects of Predrilling and Jetting on Pile Capacity It is important that the effect of predrilling or jetting be evaluated by design personnel whenever it is proposed.
- 43. Questions ? ? ?