14 528Lecture6-GroupandLateralAnalyses

Revised 10/2012
14.528 DRI LLED DEEP FOUNDATI ONS

Gr oup, Upl i f t , and Lat er al Anal yses
GROUPS: ADVANTAGES
Figure 14-2. Group vs. Single Shaft
(FHWA NHI-10-016).
Large overturning
moments are most
effectively resisted
using groups of
shafts.
Higher axial
capacities.
May be cost effective
(larger shafts = larger,
heavier equipment).
Revised 10/2012
GROUPS:DISADVANTAGES
Arthur Ravenel Jr. West Pier
Figure courtesy of Marvin Tallent
(PBC).
Construction Time.
Construction of Pile
Cap (especially over
water).
Limited Foundation
Footprint Required.
Scour (may be less
for single shaft).
Revised 10/2012
Figure 14-3. Overlapping Zones of Influence
(FHWA NHI-10-016 after Bowles, 1998).
Construction Effects:
DS & CFA generally
decrease effective stress.
DD generally increase
effective stress.
More pronounced in
cohesionless soils
GROUP ANALYSIS:
EFFECT ON AXIAL
RESISTANCE
(STRENGTH LIMIT STATE)
Revised 10/2012
Figure 14-3. Block Type Failure
(FHWA NHI-10-016 after Tomlinson, 1994).
GROUP ANALYSIS:
COHESIVE SOILS
R
n,|
n
|=1
g
=
B|uck
R
Block
= Nominal resistance of
Block Failure
R
n
= Nominal
resistance of
a single shaft
q
g
= Pile
Group
Efficiency
1
*Must take into account 2-3Z below block.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
MICROPILES IN COHESIVE SOILS
Table 5-4. Efficiency Factors in Cohesive Soils
(FHWA NHI-05-039).
Figure 5-3. Block Failure Model for Micropiles
(FHWA NHI-05-039).
AASHTO 10.0.1.2: Minimum Micropile Spacing
should not be less than 30 inches or 3D.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
GROUP EFFICIENCY (COHESIONLESS)
=
R
ng
= Nominal
resistance of the
shaft group
R
n
= Nominal
resistance of a single
shaft
q
g
= Pile
Group
Efficiency
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
GROUP EFFICIENCY (COHESIONLESS)
Drilled Shafts (AASHTO 10.8.3.6)
= 0.65 for center to center spacing of 2.5D
= 1.0 for center to center spacing 4.0D
Use Linear Interpolation between 2.5 < D < 4.0
Micropiles (AASHTO 10.9.3.6 refers to 10.7.3.9)*
= 0.65 for center to center spacing of 2.5D
= 1.0 for center to center spacing 6.0D
Use Linear Interpolation between 2.5 < D < 6.0
*FHWA GEC8 recommends same for CFA Piles.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP
ANALYSIS:
GROUP
EFFICIENCY
(COHESIONLESS)
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS: SETTLEMENT
(SERVICEABILITY LIMIT)
Figure 14-8. Deeper Zone of Influence for End Bearing
Shaft Group (FHWA NHI-10-016 after Tomlinson, 1994).
Simplified Methods.
Formulated for use with
driven pile groups.
Considered to be
generally
representative of drilled
shaft group settlements.
The deeper zone of
influence unlikely to be
significantly affected by
deep foundation type.
Revised 10/2012
Bridge Abutment on Piles - 30 inches of
Settlement over 10 years
Photograph courtesy of FHWA-NHI-132012 Soils and Foundations Workshop Participants Workbook
(SERVICE LIMIT STATE)
Revised 10/2012
If Rigid, the elastic
shortening of pile is
very small compared to
settlements related to
soil.
R
L
B
F
xu||
F
p||e
0.01
Foundation is Rigid if
Elastic Compression
| |
| |
n
|=1
If not Rigid, the
elastic shortening of
pile should be
estimated and included
in settlement
calculations.
Revised 10/2012
For Uniform Unit Skin Friction
Upper Bound Elastic Compression
(No Downdrag)
max xhat
xhat xhat
max
max xhat
xhat xhat
Revised 10/2012
(COHESIONLESS - CFA)
From FHWA GEC8 after Meyerhof (1976).
Revised 10/2012
(COHESIONLESS DRILLED SHAFTS)
From FHWA NHI-10-016 after Meyerhof (1976).
Revised 10/2012
GROUP
ANALYSIS:
SETTLEMENT
(COHESIVE)
Figure 14-9. Equivalent Footing Concept for Pile Groups
(FHWA NHI-10-016 after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).
Revised 10/2012
GROUP
ANALYSIS:
SETTLEMENT
(COHESIVE)
Figure 14-10. Pressure Distribution Below
Equivalent Footing for Pile Group (FHWA
NHI-10-016 after Cheney and Chassie, 2002).
Revised 10/2012
Figure 14-11. Typical e vs. Log P Curve from Laboratory
Consolidation Testing (FHWA NHI-10-016).
Same Analysis as
1D Consolidation
Settlement.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP
ANALYSIS:
SETTLEMENT
(COHESIONLESS
MICROPILES)
Figure 5-9. Bearing Capacity Index vs. N1
60
(FHWA NHI-05-039 modifed after Hough, 1959).
H=H
o
1
C
i
p
u
+Ap
p
Similar Analysis as 1D
Consolidation Settlement.
Revised 10/2012
Figure 14-11. Typical e vs. Log P Curve from Laboratory
Consolidation Testing (FHWA NHI-10-016).
Same Analysis as
1D Consolidation
Settlement.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
UPLIFT (STRENGTH LIMIT STATE)
Figure 13-14. Typical Loading Combination
Resulting in Uplift (FHWA NHI-10-016).
Figure 13-15. Forces and Idealized
Geomaterial Layering for Computation of
Uplift (FHWA NHI-10-016).
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
UPLIFT (DRILLED SHAFTS)
Do not use suction for drilled shafts.
Same ultimate f
s
for uplift and
compression (FHWA).
FHWA IF-99-025: Reduction Factors for uplift.
FHWA NHI-10-016: Account for reduction in
Resistance Factor (Read Manual!)
AASHTO: Use lesser of the following:
Sum of individual shaft uplift resistance.
Uplift resistance of pile group as block.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS: UPLIFT (CFA)
CFA Piles behave essentially like drilled shafts in
response to uplift (FHWA GEC 8).
CFA Piles need corresponding reinforcement.
Same Ultimate f
s
for uplift and compression (FHWA).
Reduction Factor of 0.8 recommended in cohesionless soils.
Dont use reduction factor when uplift is due to soil load (e.g.
swelling).
Still need safety factors.
AASHTO (1996): Use lesser of the following:
Sum of individual shaft uplift resistance.
2/3 Effective Weight of Group and Soil in Block.
Effective Weight of Group and Soil in Block + Total Shear
Resistance of Block.
Revised 10/2012
GROUP ANALYSIS:
UPLIFT (MICROPILES - COHESIVE)
Figure 5-5. Uplift Cohesive Soils
(FHWA NHI-05-039 after Tomlinson, 1994)
Figure 5-6. Uplift Cohesionless Soils
(FHWA NHI-05-039 after Tomlinson, 1994)
Effective weight of a
block of soil
Undrained shear
strength of the
block of soil
enclosed by the
group plus the
effective weight of
the pile cap and
pile-soil block
*See also FHWA NHI-05-042
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS (SERVICE LIMIT)
Deep Foundations can be subjected
to Lateral Loads due to:
Vehicle Acceleration/Braking.
Wind and/or Wave action.
Pile supported earth retaining
structures.
Debris or Ice Loading.
Vessel Impacts.
Construction Procedures.
Thermal Changes.
Slope Movements.
Seismic Events.
Figure 12-5. Elevation View of an Overhead
Sign Structure (FHWA NHI-10-016 from
FHWA IP-84-11).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS (SERVICE LIMIT)
Figure 9.36. Soil Resistance to a Lateral Pile
Load (FHWA NHI-05-042 adapted from Smith,
1989).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
Available Analysis Methods:
Brooms Method equilibrium,
simplified and practical (FHWA
NHI05-042).
Non-Dimensional Solutions.
Computer Codes based on
Numerical Solutions.
FEM FB Pier (UF).
FD p-y curves like L-PILE or
SWM (Strain Wedge Method).
FB-Pier
Figure courtesy of Bridge Software
Institute (https://bsi-web.ce.ufl.edu)
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
LATERAL DEFLECTION
K
h
=
Coefficient of
Subgrade
Reaction
(K
h
)
P = Load per Unit Area
Y = Lateral Deflection
The soil can be
replaced by a
series of linearly
elastic springs
and the coefficient
of subgrade
reaction
corresponding to
the stiffness of the
springs.
P = K
h
y
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K
h
)
K
h
is not a material constant
since it varies with the size of
the loaded area and thus with
the diameter of the pile.
y
P
D
z f
K
h

f = Coefficient of variation (tons/ft

3
)
(see NAVFAC 7.02)
z = Depth (ft)
D = Width or diameter of loaded
area (ft)
K
h
= Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction (tons/ft
3
)
Figure 9. Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
(NAVFAC DM7.02).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
K
h
COHESIVE SOILS
For short term loading E >>,
K
h
>> so that an increase in Su
will bring an increase in K
h
.
Heavily over consolidated
cohesive soils - assume K
h
constant with depth K
h
~(35 to
70)S
u
Normally consolidated clays -
since S
u
for NC will increase
with depth K
h
will increase with
depth
Based on theory of elasticity
K
h
(short term) for a pile with L>5D
Due to creep and consolidation, the
lateral deflection will increase with time.
For inorganic clays, the lateral
deflection will normally be 2 to 6 times
(25% to 50% for stiff, 20% to 30% for
soft) the short term loading deflection.
Hence for the long term, Kh = 20 Cu/D
can be used.
K
C
D
h
u
120
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K
h
)
E is a function of density and
overburden pressure and hence
will increase approximately
linearly with depth.
K
h
decreases under cyclic
loading and the largest
reduction is for lowest density.
D
r
<35%: K
h
=0.25K
h
of 1
st
loading
35%<D
r
<65%: K
h
=0.33K
h
of 1
st
loading
D
r
>65% : K
h
=0.50K
h
of first loading
*For clays correlate soft with loose and
stiff with dense.
K
h
decreases with an increase in
the size of the pile or pile group.
Group action should be
considered when the pile spacing
in the direction of loading is less
than 6 to 8 D. Group action can be
evaluated by reducing the
effective K
h
in the direction of
loading by the following reduction
factors (multiply K
h
by):
Cohesionless Soils Other Considerations
Spacing 8D 6D 4D 3D
Reduction Factor 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.25
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
(p-y METHOD a.k.a.
REESES LPILE METHOD)
Figure 9-44. LPILE Pile-Soil Model
(FHWA NHI-05-042).
Pile is modeled as a beam-column with
a distributed load along the length of
the beam produced by the elastic
(spring) foundation.
The governing differential equations
derived by Hetenyi (1946).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
(p-y METHOD a.k.a.
REESES LPILE METHOD)
Figure 9-44. LPILE Pile-Soil Model
(FHWA NHI-05-042).
E
s
= -
E
s
= Soil Modulus (secant modulus)
p = Soil Resistance per Unit Pile
Length
y = Lateral Soil or Pile
Deflection
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
(p-y METHOD a.k.a. REESES LPILE METHOD)
Figure 9-45. Typical p-y Curves for
Ductile and Brittle Soil
(FHWA NHI-05-042 after Coduto, 1994).
p-y Curves influenced by:
Soil Properties (most)
Depth
Pile Width
Water Table
Loading (Static or Cyclic)
Ductile Soils:
Soft Clays, Sands
Brittle Soils:
Stiff Clays under Dynamic Loading
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
(p-y METHOD a.k.a. REESES LPILE METHOD)
Figure 9-46. Graphical Presentation of LPILE Results
(FHWA NHI-05-042 after Reese et al. 2000).
differentiate integrate
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
FAILURE MECHANISMS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES
From Gunaratne (2006) after Broms (1964)
FREE HEAD FIXED HEAD (RESTRAINED)
Plastic
Hinge
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY
BASED ON STRENGTH
(BROMS 1964a,b)
See Gunaratne (2006) for
Step by Step Details.
Figure 8.5. Failure mechanisms for
laterally loaded restrained piles in
cohesive soils (c) long piles.
(From Broms, B., 1964a, J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):2756.)
Simplified solutions for the ultimate lateral load
capacity based on strength of the pile material,
pile dimension, and the soil shear strength.
At a lateral displacement of about 0.2D the
passive resistance will be mobilized as shown
with soil located in front of the pile moving
upwards towards the ground surface.
* See also FHWI NHI-05-042
& FHWA NHI-10-016
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL
ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN
PROCEDURE
(AFTER REESE AND
MATLOCK, 1956)
Three (3) Principal Loading
Conditions (i.e. Cases)
Figure 10. Design Procedure for
Laterally Loaded Piles.
(NAVFAC 7.02)
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN PROCEDURE: CASE I
Figure 10. Design Procedure for Laterally Loaded Piles (NAVFAC 7.02)
Pile with Flexible Cap or Hinged End Condition. Thrust and moment are applied at the top, which is free to
rotate. Obtain total deflection, moment and shear in the pile by algebraic sum of the effects of thrust and moment,
given in Figure 11.
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN PROCEDURE: CASE I
Figure 11. Case I Influence Values (NAVFAC 7.02)
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN PROCEDURE: CASE II
Pile with Rigid Cap Fixed against Rotation at Ground Surface. Thrust is applied at the top,
which must maintain a vertical tangent. Obtain deflection and moment from influence values of
Figure 12.
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL
ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN
PROCEDURE: CASE II
Figure 12. Case II Influence
Values (NAVFAC 7.02)
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN PROCEDURE: CASE III
Pile with Rigid Cap above Ground Surface. Rotation of pile top depends on combined effect of superstructure and resistance
below ground. Express rotation as a function of the influence values of Figure 13 and determine moment at pile top. Knowing thrust
and moment applied at pile top, obtain total deflection, moment and shear in the pile by algebraic sum of the separate effects from
Figure 11.
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL
ANALYSIS
NAVFAC DESIGN
PROCEDURE: CASE III
Figure 12. Case III Influence
Values (NAVFAC 7.02)
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
LATERAL PILE GROUPS
Figure 1.1 Illustration of shadow and edge effects on a laterally loaded pile group
(Walsh, 2005).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL
ANALYSIS
LATERAL PILE GROUPS
(P-MULTIPLIER METHOD,
BROWN ET AL. 1988)
Figure 5.27. The p-Mulitplier (P
m
)
(FHWA GEC 8 from FHWA NHI-05-042).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
LATERAL PILE GROUPS
(USING LPILE,
FHWA NHI-05-041)
Figure 5.27. Typical Plots of Load versus Deflection
and Bending Moment versus Deflection for Pile
Group Analysis (FHWA NHI-05-042 adapted from
Brown and Bollman, 1993).
STEP 1: Obtain Lateral Loads.
STEP 2: Develop p-y curves for single
pile.
STEP 3: Perform LPILE analyses.
STEP 4: Estimate group deflection
under lateral load (see Figure
9.69).
Revised 10/2012
LATERAL ANALYSIS
FHWA DRILLED SHAFT LATERAL LOADING
DESIGN PROCESS
Figure 12-13. Drilled Shaft Design
Process for Lateral Loads
(FHWA NHI-10-016)

14 528Lecture6-GroupandLateralAnalyses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 528Lecture6-GroupandLateralAnalyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revised 10/2012

14.528 DRI LLED DEEP FOUNDATI ONS

f = Coefficient of variation (tons/ft

You might also like