0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

123 Aufrufe5 Seitenthyj

Apr 17, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

thyj

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

123 Aufrufe

thyj

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Hollow Bar Micro Piles for Settlement Control in Soft Soils
- lateral load pile P-Y method.xls
- Poulos 2018 Subgrade.pdf
- General Works Method Statement - SAKURA.pdf
- 356 Tests on Not-grouted and Grouted Large-diameter Bored Piles
- Deep Foundation Piles
- P-Y curve
- 2012-tpc-408achmu
- 3 Tied-Back Grade Beams Beach
- geng.2006.159.3.153
- Settlement Prevision of Piles Under Vertical Load_castelli2003
- Drilled Shaft Foundation for Bridges
- Lecture 6 by Mr Aditya Sharma on Design of pile foundation & Well Foundation.pdf
- RSPile_-_Axially_Loaded_Piles_Theory_Manual.pdf
- Lateral Deflection of Rigid Piles
- DYNAMIC LATERAL PILE RESPONSE (Novak96).pdf
- Design of foundation.docx
- BH-18.pdf
- Ground Anchors 2010
- IS 2911 Part 4 2013

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

When piles act in a group, soilpile interaction reduces the lateral resistance of the

individual piles so that the group will generally exhibit less lateral capacity than the sum of the

lateral capacities of the individual piles. In the pile group, each pile pushes against the soil in

front of it, creating a shear zone in the soil. These shear zones begin to enlarge and overlap as

the lateral load increases. One of the most common methods of accounting for the group effects

in Winklers approach is to modify the single pile py curves using a pmultiplier, as suggested

by (Brown et al. 1988) (Fayyazi et.al (2014). In this approach, the soil resistance, p, is reduced

by multiplying by a constant factor, Pm, as shown in Figure 1. The pmultiplier for a leading

row is higher than the pmultiplier for a trailing row because of the shadowing effect. In an

alternative approach, rather than defining pmultipliers row by row, an average pmultiplier for

all piles in the group is used which gives the same pile cap loaddeflection curve (Brown et al.,

2001). This average pmultiplier is called the group reduction factor. Use of a group reduction

factor is convenient for seismic and cyclic loading because the direction of loading changes

repeatedly and often unpredictably during the loading event, and each load reversal converts a

leading row, with high pmultiplier, to a trailing row, with low pmultiplier, instantaneously.

Brown and Reese (1985), Morrison and Reese (1986), and McVay et al. (1995) did not

detect any significant variation in the response of individual piles within a given row; therefore,

they used average response curves for each row of piles rather than attempting to match the

response curves for every pile in the group. A similar approach was used by Ruesta and

Townsend (1997) and Rollins et al. (1998). In all of these cases, loads were essentially the same

for piles in a given row. The current state of practice is thus to use individual row multipliers,

rather than separate multipliers for each pile. This approach was followed in all of the studies

reported in .

1 | Page

The generally accepted approach is to assume that p-multipliers are constant with depth.

That is, a constant p-multiplier is applied to the set of p-y curves for all depths in each pile row.

Thus, individual p-y curves for a pile are adjusted by the same amount, regardless of variations

in the soil profile or depth below the ground surface. The suitability of this assumption was

investigated by Brown et al. (1988) during large-scale tests performed on fully instrumented

piles. They reported back-calculated Pm values along the length of three piles, one from each

row of the group. It was found that the variation of pm was small and had no effect on the

calculated response curve. In reality, the p-y modifier approach uses an average multiplier that

is determined by back-calculating an overall response curve. The modifier is adjusted until the

calculated response curve matches the measured response curve. Thus, assuming a constant

value of Pm with depth is reasonable, because the variation of Pm is implicitly accounted for

during the back-calculation procedure.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO

2014) has recommended the values of pmultipliers in its Table 10.7.2.4-1. These values are

averaged from the studies listed in the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manual

(Hannigan et al., 2006). AASHTO recommendations for choosing pmultipliers are based on

data from free head pile group tests. All of these tests were performed on 3 3 pile groups

except for the test by Ruesta and Townsend (1997), which was a full-scale test on a 4 4 pile

group. There is no consideration in the recommendations of AASHTO regarding the effects of

soil parameters or the pile head conditions. Moreover, AASHTO reports pmultipliers only for

pile groups with S/D of 3 and 5, and suggests interpolation to establish pmultipliers for other

pile spacing values when S/D is between these values. It has no specific recommendations for

S/D > 5. To obtain group reduction factors using AASHTO recommendations, the related p

multipliers for different rows of each pile group in are averaged. It is to be noted that these P-y

methods generally apply to foundation elements that have some ability to bend and deflect. For

large diameter, relatively short foundation elements, e.g., drilled shafts or relatively short stiff

piles, the foundation element rotates rather than bends, in which case strain wedge theory

(Norris, 1986; Ashour et al., 1998) may be more applicable. When strain wedge theory is used

to assess the lateral load response of groups of short, large diameter piles or shaft groups, group

effects should be addressed through evaluation of the overlap between shear zones formed due

to the passive wedge that develops in front of each shaft in the group as lateral deflection

increases.

Equations recommended for calculation of pmultipliers by Rollins et al. (2006) are

used in FEMA P-751 (2012). These equations are based on experimental results from three full

scale tests. The tests were conducted on a 33 pile group with S/D of 5.65, a 3 4 pile group

with S/D of 4.4, and a 3 5 pile group with S/D of 3.3. All pile groups were installed in stiff

clay, and the pile head condition was free in all three tests.

Reese and van Impe (2010) They proposed three equations for calculation of p

multipliers to account for the effects of piles that are side by side, in-line, or skewed (neither in

line nor side by side) with respect to the applied load. These equations are obtained using

experimental data from pile groups with just one row (edge effect) or one column (shadowing

2 | Page

effect) of piles. If a pile group contains more than two piles, the effects of piles on each other

must be considered. These equations are also implemented in the GROUP program (Reese et al.,

2010) to be used as the default value for the pmultipliers.

Fayyazi et.al (2014) conducted a comprehensive research focused on evaluating the

effects of number of piles, pile spacings, pile head conditions, and properties of the soil profile

on the group reduction factors for square pile groups. In particular, the results obtained from the

above study is compared with the different design guidelines such as AASHTO (2012), FEMA

P-751 (2012), and Reese and van Impe (2010). The calculated group factors in this study show

the following trends. For a given pile spacing, the group reduction factor decreases with

increasing number of the piles in the pile group, and also with the increase of friction angle of

soil. The group reduction factor increases with the increase of the S/D ratios. The calculated

fixed head group reduction factors appear to be generally smaller than the free head group

reduction factors. The study suggests that the pile head condition should be taken into account

in determination of the group reduction factor. The recommendations of AASHTO overestimate

the group reduction factors, hence the lateral resistance, which in turn leads to underestimation

of deflections at the pile heads under a certain demand from the superstructure. The

recommended values for the group reduction factors in FEMA P-751 (2012) and Reese and van

Impe (2010) are even higher than those in AASHTO (2012). In general, this study shows that

the recommendations of the above three design guidelines overestimate the lateral resistance for

larger pile groups and especially for pile groups with fixed head conditions. This could be due

to the fact that in these design guidelines the group reduction factors are essentially driven from

experiments on 3 3 pile groups with free head conditions.

Rollins et.al. (1998) performed a static lateral load test on a full-scale pile group to

determine the resulting pile-soil- pile interaction effects. The test is carried out on a 3 x 3 pile

group at three-diameter spacing which was driven into a profile consisting of soft to medium-

stiff clays and silts underlain by sand. The load testing was performed approximately eight

months after the piles were driven to dissipate the pore water pressure. The results obtained

from the above test are as follows. (i) At small displacements, the average load carried by the

piles in the group is similar to that of the single pile. However, as deflections increase, the

average load carried by each pile in the group is noticeably smaller than the single pile. It

highlights the fact that for the same average pile load, the displacement of the pile group is 2-2.5

times higher than that of the single pile. (ii) Load capacity in the pile group was a function of

row position. For a given deflection, piles in trailing rows carried significantly less load than

piles in the leading row, and piles in all rows carried less load than the single isolated pile due to

group (shadowing) effects. (iii) The p-multiplier concept provides a reasonable means of

accounting for the reduction in capacity produced by group effects and the resulting lateral

group behavior. P-multipliers in this study were found to be 0.6, 0.38, and 0.43 for the front,

middle, and back row piles, respectively. These values are at the low end of the range of p-

multipliers obtained from available full-scale tests; how- ever, the variation in p-multipliers is

relatively small considering the variety of soil types involved in the various tests.

3 | Page

Charles et.al. (2001) presents results of full-scale lateral load tests of one single pile and

three pile groups in Hong Kong. The test piles, which are embedded in superficial deposits and

decomposed rocks, are 1.5 m in diameter and approximately 30 m long. This reseach aims to

investigate the nonlinear response of laterally loaded large diameter bored pile groups and to

study design parameters for large-diameter bored piles associated with the p-y method using a 3

D finite-element program, FLPIER. Predictions using soil parameters based on published

correlations and back-analysis of the single-pile load test are also compared. It is found that a

simple hyperbolic representation of load-deflection curves provides an objective means to

determine ultimate lateral load capacity, which is comparable with the calculated values based

on Broms' theory. For a two-pile group, the group effect is negligible for pile spacing at 6 D

(where D = pile diameter). It is interesting to note that the trailing pile deflected less than the

leading pile for a free-head pile group. This might be due to different rotational restraints at

each group pile head, resulting from concrete cracking near the location of the leading pile.

Comparing the field test results with the predictions using the nonlinear numerical analysis, it is

found that the predictions using nh, values recommended by Terzaghi (1955) grossly

overestimate the measurements. However, predictions using the nh values suggested by Elson

(1984) agree reasonably well with the measured results, especially at low loads. This

demonstrates that, although the deduced nh, values (Elson 1984) are based on experimental

results on driven piles, they can also be applied to bored piles.

Past experience and the results of the study by ONeill and Dunnavant (1985) confirm

that the available tools for analysis of laterally loaded pile groups provide approximate answers

that sometimes deviate significantly from observed behavior, particularly with regard to

deflection calculations. Also, limitations in site investigation procedures and in the ability to

predict single-pile soil-pile interaction behavior produce uncertainty regarding proper soil input

to group analyses. Therefore, multiple analyses should be performed for pile groups, using two

or more appropriate methods of analysis and upper-bound and lower-bound values of soil

properties in the analyses. By performing such analyses, the designer will obtain an appreciation

for the uncertainty involved in his predictions of foundation performance and can make more

informed decisions regarding the structural design of the foundation and superstructure

elements (API 2002). Moreover, most of the pile group experiments were performed on 33

free head pile groups with the center to center spacing of 3 pile diameters (D) and pile head

deflections of up to 5 cm. Because pmultipliers were typically derived from free head pile

group tests, there are some uncertainties regarding their applicability for fixed head conditions

that are more routinely encountered in engineering practice where a pile cap is used (Rollins and

Sparks, 2002). The literature review also shows the lack of a comprehensive study on the p-

multiplier and group reduction factor for larger pile groups, various pile spacing, pile head

conditions, and soil properties. The limitations in the available experimental database justify

using threedimensional numerical simulations to study the effects of these different parameters

on the group reduction factor.

The major factors influencing the lateral group deflections and load distribution among

the piles are the pile spacing, the ratio of pile penetration to the diameter, the pile flexibility

4 | Page

relative to the soil the dimensions of the group, and the variations in the shear strength and

stiffness modulus of the soil with depth.

5 | Page

- Hollow Bar Micro Piles for Settlement Control in Soft SoilsHochgeladen vonJonathan Bennett PE DGE
- lateral load pile P-Y method.xlsHochgeladen vonCarlos Valverde Portilla
- Poulos 2018 Subgrade.pdfHochgeladen vonWeimar Garcia
- General Works Method Statement - SAKURA.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous pYgtIuvp
- 356 Tests on Not-grouted and Grouted Large-diameter Bored PilesHochgeladen vonAlfredo A Lopez
- Deep Foundation PilesHochgeladen vonaitzaz561
- P-Y curveHochgeladen vonnareshphilics
- 2012-tpc-408achmuHochgeladen vonMa Rco
- 3 Tied-Back Grade Beams BeachHochgeladen vone155159
- geng.2006.159.3.153Hochgeladen vontamlb0507
- Settlement Prevision of Piles Under Vertical Load_castelli2003Hochgeladen vonMarcos Ma
- Drilled Shaft Foundation for BridgesHochgeladen vonAnonymous pD2ymRUgu
- Lecture 6 by Mr Aditya Sharma on Design of pile foundation & Well Foundation.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous apmOvzVzmj
- RSPile_-_Axially_Loaded_Piles_Theory_Manual.pdfHochgeladen vonserialamine
- Lateral Deflection of Rigid PilesHochgeladen vonCelal Ünal
- DYNAMIC LATERAL PILE RESPONSE (Novak96).pdfHochgeladen vonDiego Castillo Jaramillo
- Design of foundation.docxHochgeladen vonRajib Bag
- BH-18.pdfHochgeladen voncivixx
- Ground Anchors 2010Hochgeladen voncerbu_bass_cdc
- IS 2911 Part 4 2013Hochgeladen vonMriganka Borah
- PE CSA Exam SpecHochgeladen vondesikudi9000
- Append 8Hochgeladen vonAarah Khalid
- Drilled Shaft End Bearing Based on Rock Unconfined.pdfHochgeladen vonHai Ming Lim
- Revised CQP07 Witness Hold Inspection Procedure - Revision 6Hochgeladen vondep_vin
- 0021Hochgeladen vonAlvian Ardiansyah
- Rahull (1).pdfHochgeladen vonbbwhale
- Bearing Cap v1.2Hochgeladen vonDaniel Laurence Salazar Itable
- BQ Ipoh to Padang BesarHochgeladen vonSyarifah_Madih_8093
- Identify Building Construction TermsHochgeladen vonMarie Maria
- 109889991-Top-Down-Hybrid-TB.pdfHochgeladen vonChris Findlay

- Antivirus 1Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Inverted-T Capacity Calculation@Phase1v2 (2)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Brahma by Ralph Waldo Emerson _ Poetry FoundationHochgeladen vonsatya
- Concrete Mix Lab-mo 3-29-16Hochgeladen vonsatya
- is.456.2000Hochgeladen vonArun Verma
- This 10-Minute Routine Will Increase Your Clarity and CreativityHochgeladen vonsatya
- GMATHochgeladen vonAditiMemani
- Tr b Submission GuideHochgeladen vonsatya
- TxDOT Research Library - Print Preview Selected Item(s)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- CDP Comp TimHochgeladen vonsatya
- AssignmentHochgeladen vonsatya
- UH Holiday Schedule - University of HoustonHochgeladen vonsatya
- CIVE 6338 - Plastic Analysis (Refined)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Inverted-T Bent Cap Calculations V1Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Reinforced Concrete Design SHEAR IN BEAMS.pdfHochgeladen vonsatya
- Aesthetics of Bridge DesignHochgeladen vonsatya
- Taiwan Earthquake - Seismic Damages of Concrete StructuresHochgeladen vonsatya
- Cive 4364 Chapter 1 (Md Sp13)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- CIVE 6338 - Sectional AnalysisHochgeladen vonsatya
- Lesson 3 (Sectional Analysis)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Lesson 2 (Materials & Fundamentals I)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- HW 0 (Fa 2017)Hochgeladen vonsatya
- CIVE 6338 Ch 1Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Chapter1_S2017Hochgeladen vonsatya
- 6335-N17S-Slab Systems 17.1.21Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Satya Assignment V2Hochgeladen vonsatya
- Satya Assignment V21Hochgeladen vonsatya

- Air ConditioningHochgeladen vonTarik Benzineb
- Health effects of ambient air pollution – recent research development and contemporary methodological challenges C Ren y S Tong 2008 ojo ojo.pdfHochgeladen vonEmmanuel Nieto
- flat ridgel Impression TechniqueHochgeladen vonrekabi
- 301697158-2015-Sinus-Grafting-Techniques.pdfHochgeladen vonHossam Elden Helmy Haridy
- new-zealand-14-auckland-region_v1_m56577569830517006Hochgeladen vonGiuli Fiore
- Organic and Inorganic Landscape ElementsHochgeladen vonAli Zainal
- Flowers and InflorescencesHochgeladen vonmartynapet
- HMS Water QualityHochgeladen vonjose
- C01_14PHochgeladen vonTiffany Liu
- SALTHochgeladen vonChristopher Balagot
- BPRHochgeladen vonAkshay Kaushik
- A1 TelescopesHochgeladen vonDanDezideriuIacob
- a25.pdfHochgeladen vonjoelrequena
- Peng-Robinson Equation Of State (1976)Hochgeladen vonSatyaki Majumdar
- AACC_12_Abstracts_A77-A119.pdfHochgeladen vonJagannadha Rao Peela
- Ice Forces on StructuresHochgeladen vonkkkelvin
- Frank Harary - Graph TheoryHochgeladen vonNandan
- ATLAS DEL DISEÑOHochgeladen vonEduardo Coello
- 5.1.2. Biological Indicators of SterilisationHochgeladen vonTanbir Mukherjee
- Duane & Mary Thompson AuctionHochgeladen vonkingfish8551
- Aplication of Funguicides to Reduce Yield Loss in Anthracnose Infected LupinsHochgeladen vonpepe
- Apxvll13n cHochgeladen vonvyshy
- VedicReport5-24-20193-11-17PMHochgeladen vonKaliprasad
- Geotechnical Properties of Dublin Boulder ClayHochgeladen vonBLPgalway
- 2010 Global Market Report on Sustainable Textiles-ExecutiveSummaryHochgeladen vonmahiyar
- Philippine Economic Zone Authority - Implementing Rules and RegulationsHochgeladen vonHannah Olivar
- wellness plan risks and strategiesHochgeladen vonapi-298364805
- ASME B31.1 2018 [Inspection-Academy]Hochgeladen vonroyal
- 100K Fish Frying System.pdfHochgeladen vonHisztErika
- Clasificación de FármacosHochgeladen vonElvis Cruz

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.