lutful i. khan, phd, pe cleveland state university

80

Upload: others

Post on 28-Apr-2022

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University
Page 2: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE

Cleveland State University

Page 3: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Foundations• Classified as deep foundations

• How deep?

• The 55-story 181 Fremont tower, San Francisco – 264 ft

• Installed in groups

• Other types of deep foundations

• Pier

• Cassions

Load TransferPiles transfer loads:

• To suitable bearing strata through toe resistance (end-bearing piles)

• To strata in which pile is embedded through shaft resistance (friction pile)

• Through a combination of both shaft and toe resistance (most common)

Page 4: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University
Page 5: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Driven Pile Design• The driven pile design and construction process has aspects that are

unique.

• The driving characteristics are related to pile capacity for most soils, and they can be used to improve the accuracy of the pile capacity estimate.

• In general, the methods of determining pile capacity from dynamic data such as driving resistance with wave equation analysis are considerably more accurate than the static analysis methods based on subsurface exploration information.

• The static analysis based on the subsurface exploration information usually provides an estimate of the pile length prior to field installation.

• The final driving criterion is usually a blow count that is established after the field tests of the individual pile penetrations.

• May vary depending on the soil variability.

• Pile driveability is a very important aspect and must be considered during the design phase.

Page 6: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity

Primary factors controlling the ultimate geotechnical capacity of a pile are:

• Pile details (type and length)

• Subsurface data

• Method of installation

• Pile setup

❖ Pile drivability is an important aspect of driven pile design

❖ The failure to evaluate pile driveability is one of the most common deficiencies in driven pile design practice.

Driveability

Page 7: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Controlling Factor• The primary controlling factor on pile

driveability is the pile impedance, which is defined as EA/C, where E is the elastic modulus of pile material, A is the cross-sectional area of the pile and C is the wave propagation velocity of pile material.

• Since E and C are constant for a given type of pile, only increasing the pile cross sectional area, A, will improve the pile driveability.

A pile must satisfy two aspects of driveability:

• The pile must have sufficient stiffness to transmit driving forces large enough to overcome soil resistance.

• The pile must have sufficient structural strength to withstand the driving forces without damage.

Other factors affecting Pile Drivaibility

• Pile material strength

• Characteristics of the driving system such as ram weight, stroke, and speed

• Dynamic soil response

Factors Affecting Driveability

Page 8: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Driven Piles (High Displacement and Low Displacement )

Increase lateral ground stress

• Densify cohesionless soils, remolds and weakens cohesive soils temporarily

• Setup time may be 6 months or more in clays for pile groups

Page 9: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Design Approach

1. Perform thorough subsurface exploration including in-situ and laboratory testing to determine design parameters.

2. Perform Static analysis to estimate pile requirements.

3. Perform wave equation driveability analysis.

4. Use design stage pile load testing on large pile driving projects to determine load capacities (load tests during design stage)

5. Use wave equation analysis coupled with dynamic monitoring for construction control and load capacity evaluation.

6. Use pile load tests on projects to substantiate capacity predictions by wave equation and dynamic monitoring.

Page 10: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Static Analysis of Driven Pile Capacity

Page 11: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Static Analysis

• A large number of static analysis methods exists in the literature with

recommendations on factor of safety.

• These recommended factors of safety have routinely disregarded the

influence of the construction control method used to complement the

static analysis computation.

• Qualitative assessment of the validity of the chosen design analysis

method and the reliability of the geotechnical design parameters is

important.

Page 12: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis of Ultimate CapacityUltimate total capacity

Qu = Qs+Qp - W

Qs = Skin Friction capacity

Qp = End Bearing capacity

W = weight of pile (usually small)

Qs

Qp

Ignoring W, Total capacity Qu = As fs+ At qt

As = pile surface areafs = unit skin friction At = pile cross-section areaqt = unit tip resistance

Qu

Page 13: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis

Different equations for sand and claySand

Skin Friction Qs : one method

End Bearing Qp : three methods

Clay

Skin Friction Qs : three methods

End Bearing Qp : one method

Qp =9CuAp

Qs

Qp

Soil Resistance• The pile design load should be

supported by soil resistance developed only in soil layers that contribute to long term load support.

• The soil resistance from soils subject to scour, or from soil layers above soft compressible soils should not be included.

Page 14: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis in Sand

Skin Friction

Qs = surface area x f

Qs = SpDL f

unit skin friction f = Ks0’ tand

End Bearing Qp

Three methods• Meyerhof• Vesic• Janbu

Qs

Qp

15D

f

TOTAL PILE CAPACITY Qu = Qp +QsQu

Page 15: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

p

Page 16: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

= 2000 psf

Page 17: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University
Page 18: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

0'0 9060

Use : Soft clay 600, Sand 900

Page 19: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University
Page 20: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis in Clay

Skin Friction Qs = S pDL fs

= pL fs (for straight piles)

Unit Skin Friction fs : three methods1. a method f = aCu

2. l method fav = l(so’ + 2Cu)3. b method f = b so’

End Bearing Qp : one method

Qp =9CuAp

Qs

Qp

QuTOTAL PILE CAPACITY Qu = Qp +QsTOTAL PILE CAPACITY Qu = Qp +Qs

Page 21: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

• Total stress analysis

• Ultimate capacity is calculated from the

undrained shear strength Cu of the soil

• Assumes that the shaft resistance is

independent of the effective overburden

pressure and that the unit shaft resistance can

be expressed in terms of an empirical adhesion

factor a times the undrained shear strength.

Frictional Resistance of Pile in Clays : a - method

Qs = S pDL fs

Page 22: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

❑ The adhesion factor, α, is a function of the soil stratigraphy and pile embedment

❑ Three common cases are as follows:

• Case 1: Piles driven into stiff clays through overlying sands or sandy gravels• Case 2: Piles driven into stiff clays through overlying soft clays• Case 3: Piles driven into stiff clays without overlying different strata

Tomlinson, 1980

Frictional Resistance of Pile in Clays : a - method

Page 23: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

• For a soil profile consisting of clay layers of significantly different consistencies adhesion factors should be determined for each individual clay layer.

• In clays with large shrink-swell potential, static capacity calculations should ignore the shaft resistance from the adhesion in the shrink-swell zone.

• In the case of H piles in cohesive soils, the shaft resistance should not be calculated from the surface area of the pile, but rather from the perimeter area of the four sides.

Tomlinson, 1980

Frictional Resistance of Pile in Clays : a - method

Page 24: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Frictional Resistance of Piles in Clay: l method

• Proposed by Vijayvergia & Focht (1972)

• Values are weighted averages along the embedded length

• Over predicts capacity if the embedment length is less than 50 ft.

Page 25: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

• Static capacity calculations in cohesionless, cohesive, and layered soils can also be performed by using effective stress.

• Effective stress based methods were developed to model the long term drained shear strength conditions.

• The effective soil friction angle, φ', should be used in parameter selection.

Frictional Resistance of Piles based on effective stress: b method

According to Fellenius (1991) β depends on soil

composition including the grain size distribution,

• angularity

• mineralogical origin of the soil grains,

• the orginal soil density

• density due to the pile installation,

• the soil strength, as well as other factors.

Even so, β coefficients are generally within the

ranges provided and seldom exceed 1.0.

Page 26: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Frictional Resistance of Pile in Clays : b - method

Page 27: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

The unit toe resistance is calculated from:

qt = Nt pt

where: Nt = toe bearing capacity coefficient.

pt = effective overburden pressure at the

pile toe in ksf (kPa).

Frictional Resistance of Pile in Clays : b - method

Page 28: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Ultimate Capacity of Single Piles in Cohesionless Soil

Nordlund method(1963)

• Based on field observations• Considers pile taper and soil

displacement in calculating the shaft resistance.

• Accounts for the differences in soil-pile coefficient of friction for different pile materials.

• The method is based on the results of several load tests in cohesionless soils.

where:

d = depth.

D = embedded length of the pile.

Kδ = coefficient of lateral earth pressure at depth d.

CF = correction factor for Kδ when δ ≠ φ.

Pd = effective overburden pressure at the center of depth

increment Δd.

δ = interface friction angle between pile and soil.

ω = angle of pile taper from vertical.

φ = soil friction angle.

Cd = pile perimeter at depth d.

Δd = length of pile segment.

αt = dimensionless factor dependent on pile depth-width

relationship.

N'q = bearing capacity factor.

At = pile toe area.

Pt = effective overburden pressure at the pile toe.

Page 29: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis - Factor of Safety FS

Allowable Capacity Qa = Qu / FS

Qs

Qp

FS primarily depends on:

• The level of confidence in the input parameters.

• The level of confidence is a function of • The type and extent of the subsurface

exploration and laboratory testing of soil and rock materials.

• Variability of the soil and rock. • Method of static analysis. • Effects of and consistency of the proposed pile

installation method. • Level of construction control (static load test,

dynamic analysis, wave equation analysis, Gates dynamic formula).

Page 30: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis FS Factor of Safety

FS = Qu /Qa

• Range of static analysis factors of safety in the past was from 2 to 4• Most static analysis methods recommended a factor of safety of 3• As foundation design loads increased over time, the use of higher

factors of safety often resulted in pile installation problems.• Experience has shown that construction control methods have a

significant influence on pile capacity. • The factor of safety used in a static analysis calculation should be

based on the construction control method specified.

Page 31: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity: Static Analysis FSFactor of Safety

FS = Qu /Qa

Construction Control Method Factor of Safety1. Static load test with wave equation analysis 2.002. Dynamic testing with wave equation analysis 2.253. Indicator piles with wave equation analysis 2.504. Wave equation analysis 2.755. Gates dynamic formula 3.50

FHWA NHI-06-089 9 – Deep Foundations Soils and Foundations – Volume II

Page 32: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Setup

Page 33: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Capacity Change with TimePile Setup

• Capacity increases with time

• Occurs frequently in clay soils.

• Skov & Denver method (1988)

• Qt = axial capacity of the pile after time t of driving,

• Q0 = initial axial capacity at time t0 ( 1 day) after driving,

• A = constant dependent on soil type and subsurface condition. Requires evaluation at the site after pile installation.

Pile Relaxation

• Capacity decreases with time after the driving has been completed

• Occurs rarely in dense saturated fine sands, dense silts, or weak laminated rocks such as shale

)].[log(100 t

tA

Q

Qt +=

Page 34: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Set-up in Ohio Soils

Twenty three small diameter steel pipe piles driven in silt-

clay soils were investigated.

Relaxations were observed in two piles.

Set-up occurred in twenty one piles, i.e. 91 % cases

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Pile

Lo

ad (

Kip

)

Pile number

Intial Capacity Total (kips)

Restrike Capacity Total (kips)

Page 35: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Set-up in Ohio Soils

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Pile

Lo

ad (

Kip

)

Pile number

Intial Shaft capacity (kips)

Restrike Capacity Shaft (kips)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Pile

Lo

ad (

Kip

)

Pile number

Tip Capacity Initial

Tip Capacity Restrike

Page 36: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University
Page 37: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Drivability Evaluation• Candidate pile types should be evaluated for driveability.

• Can the candidate pile type and/or section be driven to the required capacity and penetration depth at a reasonable pile penetration resistance (blow count) without exceeding allowable driving stresses for the pile material?

• Analysis is performed by using the wave equation theory.

• Possible hammers must be identified to make sure that the pile is driveable to the capacity and depth required.

• For H-piles and pipe piles, it may be possible to increase the pile section without increasing the soil resistance to driving.

• For concrete piles an increase in section usually means a larger pile size. Therefore, an increase in soil resistance must also be overcome

FHWA NHI-06-089 9 – Deep Foundations

Soils and Foundations – Volume II

Page 38: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Design

Page 39: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pressure Isobars of Group of closely spaced piles

• Governed by the sum of the ultimate capacities of the individual piles, with some reduction due to overlapping zones of shear deformation in the surrounding soil

• Holds In the absence of negative shaft resistance in cohesive soil

• Reduction in group capacity is done by multiplying the aggregate capacity of the individual piles with group efficiency

Pile Group Design

Page 40: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Minimum Spacing between Piles• Stipulated in building codes

• Straight uniform diameter piles – 2d to 6 d

• Friction piles – 3d

• For end bearing piles • passing through relatively compressible strata, the spacing of piles shall not be less than 2.5d• For end bearing piles passing through compressible strata and resting in stiff clay - 3.5d

• For compaction piles - 2d.

Page 41: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

CAPACITY OF PILE GROUP

Group capacity in Sand• Feld’s Rule

• Reduces the capacity of each pile by 1/16 for each adjacent pile

• Converse-Labarre Formula

Group capacity in clay• Failure Modes

Individual failure – spacing about 8d

Block failure - spacing less than 3d

Block failure of pile groups is generally a design consideration only for pile groups in softcohesive soils or in cohesionlesssoils underlain by a weak cohesive layer.

Page 42: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

GROUP CAPACITY IN SAND CONVERSE-LABARRE FORMULA

( ) ( )mn

nmmng

90

111

−+−−=

g = pile group efficiencym = number of columns of piles in a group,n = number of rows,θ = tan-1( d/s) in degrees,d = diameter of pile,s = spacing of piles center to center.

= uggu QQ

Page 43: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

GROUP EFFICIENCY IN CLAY

(d = pile diameter)

TWO Failure Modes• Individual pile failure : spacing about 8d• Block pile failure : spacing less than 3d

= PILE EFFICIENCYQ1 = ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF SINGLE PILEQB = ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF BLOCKn = number of piles

𝑛

𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚

𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

5 10 15

1

𝜂2= 1 +

𝑛2 𝑄12

𝑄𝑔2

GROUP EFFICIENCY IS SMALLER OF THE TWO:1. Q1 X n2. QB

Page 44: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Block Failure

cLLBAcNQ rrgcgu )(2 ++=

c = cohesion beneath the pile group,

L = length of pile,

2(Br+Lr) = perimeter of pile group,

A g= sectional area of group,

Nc = bearing capacity factor which ~ 9 for deep foundations.

NOTE: ONLY HAPPENS IN CLAY

Page 45: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

Settlement of a group is affected by • Shape and size of the group • Length of piles • Method of installation of piles and possibly many other factors.

Page 46: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Total Settlement

Elastic Settlement

Consolidation Settlement

Page 47: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Settlement of Pile Groups in Cohesionless Soils• Meyerhof (1976) recommended

the settlement of a pile group in a homogeneous sand deposit not underlain by a compressible soil be conservatively estimated by the following expressions in FPS units. s = estimated total settlement in inches

pf = design foundation pressure in ksf = group design load divided by group areaB = width of pile group in ftN' = average corrected SPT N60 value within a depth B below pile toeIf = influence factor for group embedment = 1 - [ D / 8B ] ≥ 0.5D = pile embedment depth in ft

Page 48: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Semi-Empirical Formulas and Curves

• Vesic (1977) – single pile, extended to pile group

S = total settlement,

Sp = settlement of the pile tip,

Sf = settlement due to the deformation of the pile shaft.

Settlement of Pile Groups in Cohesionless Soils

Page 49: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile settlement : sand

• Qp= point load,

• d = diameter of the pile at the base,

• q pu - ultimate point resistance per unit area,

• Dr = relative density of the sand,

• Cw = settlement coefficient, = 0.04 for driven piles= 0.05 for jacked piles= 0.18 for bored piles,

• Qf = friction load,

• L = pile length,

• A = cross-sectional area of the pile,

• E = modulus of deformation of the pile shaft,

• α = coefficient which depends on the distribution of skin friction along the shaft and can be taken equal to 0.6.

Page 50: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Settlement : Vesic method(1967)

Fg = group settlement factor

Sg = settlement of group,

S = settlement of a single pile.

Curve showing the relationship between group settlement ratio and relative widths of pile

groups in sand (Vesic, 1967)

Page 51: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Settlement of Pile Group: Cohesive Soil

( ) ( ).

.z

B Lq

B z L zsD =

+ +

( )1

46

av t m bs s s s D = D + D + D

Consolidation Settlement equation

log log1 1

s c c c c o avc

o o o c

C H C HS

e e

s s s

s s

+ D= +

+ +

Page 52: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Settlement of Pile Group: Cohesive Soil

CASE 1

• The soil is homogeneous clay.

• The load Qg is assumed to act on a fictitious footing at a depth 2/3L from the surface and distributed over the sectional area of the group.

• The load on the pile group acting at this level is assumed to spread out at a 2 Vert : 1 Horiz slope.

CASE 2

• The pile passes through a very weak

layer of depth L1 and the lower

portion of length L2 is embedded in a

strong layer.

• In this case, the load Q is assumed to

act at a depth equal to 2/3 L2 below

the surface of the strong layer and

spreads at a 2 : 1

Page 53: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Settlement of Pile Groups in Cohesive Soil

CASE 3

• The piles are point bearing piles.

• The load in this case is assumed to act at the level of the firm stratum and spreads out at a 2 : 1 slope.

Page 54: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Allowable Load in Groups of Piles

1. Shear failure

2. Settlement

Page 55: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Negative Skin Friction

Page 56: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Occurrence of Negative Skin Friction

• If the fill material is loose cohesionless soil.

• When fill is placed over peat or a soft clay

stratum

• By lowering the ground water which

increases the effective stress causing

consolidation of the soil with resultant

settlement and friction forces being

developed on the pile

Page 57: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Magnitude of Negative Skin Friction• Single pile – Cohesionless Soil

• Single pile – Cohesive Soil

• Ln = length of piles in the compressible material

• s = shear strength of cohesive soils in the fill

• P = perimeter of pile

• K = earth pressure coefficient normally lies between the active and the passive earth pressure coefficients

• δ = angle of wall friction

Page 58: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Negative Skin Friction on Pile Group

L1 = depth of fill,

L2 = depth of compressible natural soil,

s1, s2 = shear strengths of the fill and compressible soils respectively,

γ1, γ2= unit weights of fill and compressible soils respectively,

Fnl = negative friction of a single pile in the fill,

Fn2 = negative friction of a single pile in the compressible soil.

Page 59: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Uplift Capacity

Page 60: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Uplift Capacity• Pul = uplift capacity of pile,

• W p= weight of pile,

• fr = unit resisting force

• As = effective area of the embedded length of pile.

• cu = average undrained shear strength of clay along the pile shaft

• α = adhesion factor

• ca = average adhesion

Cohesive Soil

Page 61: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Uplift Capacity of Pile Group

L = depth of the pile block

B = overall length and width of the pile group

cu = average undrained shear strength of soil around the sides of the group

W = combined weight of the block of soil enclosed by the pile group plus the weight of the piles and the pile cap.

Uplift of a group of closely-spaced piles in cohesive soils

Page 62: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Group Settlement Based on Pile Stress Interaction

Page 63: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Settlement: Early EquationsEmpirical Approaches

• Skempton (1953) • Meyerhof (1959)• For driven piles and displacement

caissons in sand

• Square group

Page 64: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Analytical ApproachPoulous & Davis (1980)

Page 65: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Analysis of Pile Group Settlement

Page 66: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Capacity and Settlement

a

Page 67: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Interaction Factors a for Floating Piles• Skin friction piles

S

AP

E

REK =

4/2d

AR P

A

=

Average values of K for different solid piles

Multiply by RA for H- piles

Page 68: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Interaction Factor Corrections

• Effect of finite layer• Nh is the correction factor.• Can be used for other L/d and K values

hF Naa =

Other Interaction Factor Corrections• Effect of enlarged pile base

• Effect of Poisson’s Ratio

• Effect of Non uniform Soil Modulus

• Finite Compressibility of Bearing Stratum

• Interaction of Piles of Different Size

Page 69: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Interaction Factors: End Bearing Piles

Page 70: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Pile Group Capacity and Settlement

• For a group of 4 piles equally spaced at s diameters

rG = displacement of pile groupP1 = load on each pile (equally loaded)r1 = displacement of single pile under unit loada1 = interaction factor for spacing s.d

a2 = interaction factor for spacing 2s.d

Page 71: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Group Settlement Analysis of General GroupsSettlement of k-th pile in group

( ) k

n

kjj

kjjk PP 1

1

1 . rarr += =

ALSO The load equilibrium must be satisfied

rk = displacement of the k th pile in the groupPj = load on pile jPk= load on pile kr1 = displacement of single pile under unit loadakj = interaction factor for spacing between pile k and j

PG = total group load

Gives n+1 equations for n piles

Page 72: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Analysis of General Groups

• The n+1 equations are solved for either of the two conditions

1. Flexible Pile Cap - Equal Loads on all piles

2. Rigid Pile Cap – Equal Settlement of all Piles

The Results can be expressed

In terms of settlement ratio Rs

𝑅𝑆 =𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝

In terms of group reduction factor RG

𝑅𝐺 =𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝

Page 73: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Analysis of General Groups

• Also provides loads in individual piles when analyzed for flexible pile cap condition

1rr avSG PR=

1rr GGG PR=

Pav = average load on a pile in the groupPG = total group load

• Once Rs and Rg have been determined, the group settlement rG is given by either of the two equations:

Page 74: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

A freestanding group of six 12 inch – diameter concrete piles is driven into a deep layer of medium clay, and is to be subjected to a load of 300 tons. A test on a single pile at the site gives a final settlement of 0.60 in. under a load of 50 tons. Determine the final settlement of the six pile group

Summary of Solution• Value of K is about 2000 • Piles 1,3,4 and 6 behave identically – Type A : Load PA

• Piles 2 and 5 will behave identically – Type B : Load PB

• Find interaction factors from Fig. 6.3 for L/d = 25 and K = 2000

tons2.35 tons,4.57

in. 66.1

BA ==

=

PP

Gr

For Rigid Cap

Page 75: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Load Distribution in Piles with Rigid Pile Caps

Page 76: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Analytical Method of Group Settlement

• Soil properties not required

• Field condition is incorporated

• Based on actual pile capacity measured in the field

• Loads on individual piles can be obtained for rigid pile cap condition

Advantages

Disadvantage

• Does not account for pile setup or relaxation

Page 77: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Design StepsDetermine static capacity for a single pile

L, D

Design a pile group

Determine single pile (L, D) settlement under average

group load in the field

Use Analytic Approach to determine group settlement and

load on individual pile

Adjust L, D if settlement exceeds design value

Adjust L, D if group settlement exceeds design value

Page 78: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Closing Notes

• The shaft resistance of piles driven into cohesive soils is frequently as much as 80 to 90% of the total capacity. Therefore, it is important that the shaft resistance of piles in cohesive soils be estimated as accurately as possible.

• It should be remembered that the movement required to mobilize the toe resistance is several times greater than that required to mobilize the shaft resistance.

• At the movement required to fully mobilize the toe resistance, the shaft resistance may have decreased to a residual value.

• Therefore, the contribution of the toe resistance to the ultimate pile capacity in cohesive soils is sometimes ignored except in hard cohesive deposits such as glacial tills.

Page 79: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Closing Notes• The time dependent capacity (setup or relaxation) may

significantly affect the long term capacity of driven piles

• The ability of a pile to be driven to the required depth has become increasingly more important and must be evaluated in the design stage.

• All of the analysis methods are meaningless if the pile cannot be driven to the required design depth without sustaining damage.

• The limit of pile driveability is the maximum soil resistance a pile can be driven either without sustaining damage or a refusal driving resistance with a properly sized driving system.

Ref: FHWA NHI-06-089 9 – Deep Foundations Soils and Foundations – Volume II

Page 80: Lutful I. Khan, PhD, PE Cleveland State University

Thank you!