Behavior of Acip Piles Socketed in Clay-Shale

GSP 132 Advances in Deep Foundations
BEHAVIOR OF ACIP PILES SOCKETED IN CLAY-SHALE
C. Vipulanandan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1 and Swapnil Kaulgud, Student M.ASCE 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 03/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
Chairman and Professor of Civil and Envir. Eng. and Director of Center for
Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT), University of Houston,
Houston, Texas 77204-4003; Phone (713) 743-4278; Fax (713) 743-4260; email:
cvipulanandan@uh.edu URL: http://cigmat.cive.uh.edu
2
Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-4003; email:
swapnil_kaulgud@rediffmail.com
Abstract
Increasing use of ACIP piles, as an alternative to drilled shafts, to support load-

bearing structures has resulted in socketing the piles in rocks. In this study, the
behavior of eight ACIP piles socketed in soft clay-shale was investigated. The
diameter and length of piles varied from 457 to 610 millimeters (18 to 24 inches) and
from 12 to 25 meters (40 to 83 ft) respectively. The piles were socketed in clay-shale
up to 7.5 diameter of the pile and the measured maximum loads from field tests
varied from 1915 to 4000 kN (215 to 450 tons). The unconfined compressive strength
(qu) of clay-shale was in the range of 1300 to 2300 kPa (188 to 333 psi). The load-
displacement relationships for the ACIP piles were predicted using a non-dimensional
hyperbolic relationship and the model parameters were related to the rock properties
and pile dimensions. For the ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale, 50% of the ultimate
load was achieved in the displacement range of 0.005 to 0.012 of the diameter.
Simple relationships have been developed to predict the pile capacity and model
parameters based on unconfined compressive strength (qu) of rock and Texas Cone
Pentrometer (TCP) results.
Introduction
The use of augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles socketed in rock formations to support
high rise apartments, hotels and arena structures has been on the increase due to
advances in the construction practices of the piles (Frizzi and Meyer 2000). Augered
piles have been used commonly for building and transportation construction in
Europe and other parts of world (ONeill 1994). In North-Central Texas (Dallas,
Texas), heavier structures are supported using drilled shafts socketed in soft clay-
shale whose load carrying capacities are largely derived from the skin friction in clay-
shale sockets (ONeill and Hassan 1993). Similarly ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale
are gaining popularity because of their ability to derive large capacity from the rock
socket friction. Since large amount of capacity is provided through rock socket in the
above-mentioned deep foundations, it has been subject of study for researchers;
Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Advances in Deep Foundations
(Williams et. al, 1980; Reese and ONeill, 1987; Horvath et. al, 1989; Kulhawy and
Phoon, 1993).Many researchers have proposed correlation between unconfined
compressive strength of rock (qu) in the socket and the ultimate skin friction in socket
(fsu), (Williams et. al 1980, Rowe and Armitage 1987, Carter and Kulhawy 1988 and
Reese and ONeill 1987). In the case of ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale, there has
been very limited information in the literature on the performance of rock-socketed
ACIP piles. Mostly drilled shaft design methods are used for the design purpose of
ACIP piles socketed in rocks or they do not distinguish between bored piles (drilled
shafts) and augered piles (TXDOT, 2000; Rizkallah, 1988), since limited information
is available in the literature. In buildings and bridges displacement of piles is
important criteria, and hence it is important to determine the load-displacement
relationships for the piles. A design guideline such as TXDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual limits the deflection of the drilled shafts used as foundations in bridges.
Most of the load tests are performed to a load twice or thrice of the design load but
not to the complete failure of the pile (ultimate capacity criteria used such as load at
displacement of 5% or 10% of diameter of pile and Davissions criterion). Limited
data obtained from field tests must be further enhanced, by using appropriate
behavior models to determine the ultimate capacity of the piles. Hence it is necessary
to develop the representative models for load-displacement relationships for ACIP
piles socketed in the rocks.
Objective
The overall objective of this study was to investigate and model the load-
displacement relationship for ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale.
Site and Load Test Results
A total of eight load tests, on ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale in North-Central

Texas were studied. Load tests were performed using conventional static loading
system (with reaction frame) in accordance with ASTM D1143, Quick Load test
method for individual piles. The displacement of pile head was measured with at
least two dial gages supported on reference beam. In some cases over burden soil
(above rock socket) was clay, sand or mixed soil profile. Characterization of
overburden soil in original boring logs have been reported in terms of Pocket
Pentrometer (PP) values, but whenever sand or sandy clay was encountered, the
pocket pentrometer wasnt able to characterize sandy soils, and in such cases the
properties of the overburden sandy soil was reported in terms of SPT (N blows / 300
mm). For all eight-load tests, characterization of clay-shale was done using the Texas
Cone Pentrometer (TCP). A correlation between unconfined compressive strength
(qu) and TCP was developed using 218 data for uncemented clay-shale in Dallas,
Texas (Nam 2004). The variation of unconfined compressive strength with TCP is
shown in Fig.1. The strength varied from 100 to 3000 kPa., the relationship can be
represented as follows:

qu ( kPa ) = 7500[TCP (mm)] 0. 4

(1)
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the TCP used by TXDOT for characterizing the soils
and soft rocks in Texas. General information on all eight load test sites are as follows:
Case 1: This site was located in Arlington, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
support a multistory building. The overburden soil was 10.4 m and the geological
profile of site is shown in Fig. 3(a). The underlying rock was clay-shale with TCP
varying from 75 to 83 mm/100 blows with an average of 79 mm/100 blows and the
unconfined compressive strength was estimated (Eqn. 1) as 1308 kPa. The measured
load test results are shown in Fig. 3(b). Total length of the pile was 12.2 m and the
rock socketed height was 1.8 m (Table 1), 3.5 times pile diameter.
Case 2: This site was located in Coppell, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
support a school building. The overburden soil was 9.2 m. The underlying rock was
clay-shale with TCP varying from 95 to 25 mm/100 blows with an average of 60
mm/100 blows. The unconfined compressive strength was estimated (Eqn. 1) as 1450
kPa. Total length of pile was 12.2 m and the rock socketed height was 3.1 m (Table
1), 5 times the diameter of pile.
Case 3: This site was located in Irving, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
clay-shale with an average TCP of 19 mm/100 blows. The unconfined compressive
strength was estimated (Eqn. 1) as 2307 kPa. Total length of pile was 25.3 m and the
rock socketed height was 4.6 m (Table 1), 7.5 times pile diameter.
Case 4: This site was located in Irving, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
support a school building. The overburden soil was 11 m. The underlying rock was
clay-shale with an average TCP of 19 mm/100 blows. The unconfined compressive
strength was estimated (Eqn. 1) as 2307 kPa. Total length of pile was 14 m and the
rock socketed height was 3.1 m (Table 1), 5 times pile diameter.
Case 5: This site was located in Little Elm, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
kPa. Total length of pile was 14.3 m and the rock socketed height was 2.4 m (Table
1), 4 times pile diameter.
Case 6: This site was located in Little Elm, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
support a school building. The overburden soil was 15 m. The underlying rock was
kPa. Total length of pile was 17 m and the rock socketed height was 2.1 m (Table 1),
3.5 times pile diameter.

4000
Denton Tap (Uncemented Shale) Hampton Road (Uncemented Shale)
Belt Line (Uncemented Shale) SH 45 (Uncemented Shale)
3500 Lone Star Park (Uncemented Shale) GTE (Uncemented Shale)
Dallas Areas
3000
Uncemented Clay Shale with
Occasional Sandstone Seams
2500 q u (kPa) = 7500.2 [TCP (mm)]-0.4

qu (kPa)
2000
1500
1000
500
N = 218
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
TCP (mm / 100 Blows)
Figure 1. Correlation between TCP (Texas Cone Pentrometer) and qu

(Modified after Nam 2004)
Figure 2. Schematic of TXDOT cone

Clay (CH), dark

brown
Shaley Clay (CH),

light brown,
yellowish-brown, (a)
calcareuos
Shaley Clay (CH),

tan gray,
yellowish-brown
+
Pocket Pentrometer, * Texas Pentrometer (mm/100 blows)
350
(b)
300
250
Load ( tons)
200
150
1 Ton = 8.9 kN
100 1 inch = 25.4 mm
Measured Data
50
Model
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Displacement ( inch)
Figure 3. Information on case No.1 (a) Soil Profile (b) Load-Displacement

relationship

Table 1. Load Test results for ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale

Max.
Case Length (m) Diameter Rock Socket Av. qu Max. Load*
Location Displacement
No. (ft) (mm) (in) (m) (ft) (kPa) (kN) (Tons)
%D
1 Arlington, TX 12.2 (40) 510 (20) 1.8 (6) 1308 2581 (290) 3.50%
2 Coppell, TX 12.2 (40) 610 (24) 3.1 (10) 1449 2225 (250) 2.50%
3 Irving, TX 25.3 (83) 610 (24) 4.6 (15) 2307 4005 (450) 2.45%
4 Irving, TX 14 (46) 610 (24) 3.1 (10) 2307 3338 (375) 3.90%
Little Elm,
5 14.3 (47) 610 (24) 2.4 (8) 1591 2884 (324) 4.25%
TX
Little Elm,
6 17 (56) 610 (24) 2.1 (7) 2057 3605 (405) 3.75%
TX
Lewisville,
7 18.3 (60) 610 (24) 2.4 (8) 1852 2937 (330) 2.15%
TX
Lewisville,
8 20.4 (67) 610 (24) 4.6 (15) 1852 2092 (235) 4.66%
TX
1308 2225 4000 2.15 % to 4.66
Range 12.2 20.4 m 510-610 mm 1.8 4.6 m
2307 kPa kN % of D
* Maximum load reached in that load test, not actual maximum
Case 7: This site was located in Lewisville, Texas and the ACIP piles were used to
support a single story school building. The overburden soil was 15.9 m. The
underlying rock was clay-shale with the TCP varying from 19 to 45 mm/100 blows
with an average of 33 mm/100 blows. The unconfined compressive strength was
estimated (Eqn. 1) as 1850 kPa. Total length of the pile was 18.3 m and the rock
socketed height was 2.4 m (Table 1), 4 times pile diameter.
Case 8: This site was located in Lewisville, Texas and ACIP piles were used to
support a single story school building. The overburden soil was 17 m and the
geological profile at site is shown in Fig.4 (a). The underlying rock was clay-shale
with the TCP varying from 19 to 45 mm/100 blows with an average of 33 mm/100
blows. The unconfined compressive strength was estimated (Eqn. 1) as 1850 kPa.
Measured load test results are shown in Fig.4 (b). Total length of pile was 20.4 m and
the rock socketed height was 4.6 m (Table 1), 7.5 times pile diameter.
Analysis and Discussions
As summarized in Table 1, all of the load tests were performed to a displacement of

less than 5% of diameter and hence a model should be used to best estimate the the
ultimate capacity of the piles at appropriate deflection. A preliminary review of the
load-displacement relationship from load test data may be represented by hyperbolic
relationship and will be verified in this study. Chin (1970, 1978) has used hyperbolic
relationships to estimate ultimate capacity of piles, when load tests did not reach
failure load and to investigate defects in driven piles. Vipulanandan et al. (2005) have
used the non-dimensional hyperbolic relationship to predict the load-displacement
behavior of ACIP piles in soils.

(a)
Clay (CH)
light brown,
trace iron
deposites
Sandy clay (SC),

light brown with
trace of iron
+
Pocket Pentrometer, * Texas Pentrometer (mm/100 blows)
300
(b)
250
200
Load (tons)
150
100 1 Ton = 8.9 kN

1 inch = 25.4 mm
50 Measured Data
Model
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Displacement (inch)
Figure 4. Information on Case No.8 (a) Soil Profile (b) Load-Displacement

relationship

General form of hyperbolic equation is as follows,
Q= (2)
A+ B
Where is the displacement at the pile head at a applied load of Q. Parameters A and
B are and related to hyperbolic relationship as follows,
dQ 1
= (3)
d =0
A
and,
1
Qult = (4)
B
In order to verify the potential of hyperbolic relationship to represent the load test
results, equation (2) can be rearranged as follows,
= A+ B (5)
Q
Figure 5 shows the data for Case No.1 (Arlington, Texas) and that the relationship is
linear and hence can be represented by equation (5), which verifies the fact that the
hyperbolic relationship could be used to represent the load-displacement relationship
for ACIP piles socketed in rocks. Similar trend was observed with all other cases.
Model parameters A and B are summarized Table 2 and the coefficient of correlation
varied from 0.92 to 0.99.
Hence hyperbolic relationship can be used to represent the load-displacement
relationship of ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale. Equation (2) can be further
modified into non-dimensional form as follows,
Q d
= (6)
Qult 50 +
d d
Where, 50 / d is the displacement to diameter ratio for Q/Qult ratio of 0.5 as shown in
Fig. 6. The ratio 50 / d for all eight ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale varied from
0.5% to 1.2% as shown in Fig.7 and Fig.8, the variation of 50 / d is relatively small
considering the geological diversity of the cases studied and load capacities achieved
by the various piles. Theoretically, Q will reach to ultimate value when displacement
is at infinity (Eqn.4).

0.003
0.0025
D is p la c e m e n t / lo a d (in c h /to n )
0.002
y = 0.0026x + 0.0006
0.0015 R2 = 0.9989
0.001 Measured Data
Trend Line (Eqn.5)

0.0005
1 TON = 8.9 kN 1 Inch = 25.4 mm
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Displacement (inch)
Figure 5. Verification of Model for Case No.1 (Arlington, Texas)
1
Qult
0.9
1
0.8
1
0.7
0.6
Q / Q ult
A
0.5
0.4
50 /d
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
/ D % (Displacement / Diameter of pile)
Figure 6. Defining Relative Displacement ( 50 / d) at half the ultimate load

capacity

0.9
0.8
Relative Load Capacity (Q / Qult)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Case No.3
0.4 Case No.4
Range of 50 /d Case No.1
0.3 Case No. 2
Case No.5
0.2
Case No.6
Case No.7
0.1
Case No.8
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Relative Displacement , / D (%)
Figure 7. Variation of Relative displacement and relative load capacity
Table 2. Comparison of failure capacities from various criterion
Case A B Qult 1/B Qmax. Qult Davission's Qult Qmax./

Davission's
No. (kN) (kN) (kN) / Qult 1/B
Qult 1/B
1 0.0006 0.003 3427 2581 2403 0.70 0.75
2 0.0008 0.003 3177 2225 2003 0.63 0.70
3 0.0004 0.002 5936 4005 4183 0.71 0.68
4 0.0003 0.002 3872 3338 3026 0.78 0.86
5 0.0004 0.003 3071 2884 2474 0.81 0.94
6 0.0004 0.002 4450 3605 3364 0.76 0.81
7 0.0007 0.002 4681 2937 3115 0.67 0.63
8 0.0006 0.004 2403 2092 1958 0.81 0.87
Av. NA NA NA NA NA 0.73 0.78
Std.
NA NA NA NA NA 0.0674 0.11
Dev
COV NA NA NA NA NA 0.09 0.14
Where, Qult 1/B is Q = 1/B (Equation 3), Qult Davission's is Q derived from
Davissions Failure line on real load-displacement curve, Q max. is maximum load
measured during the load test. (NA Not Applicable).
10

The ratio of Davissions capacity to predicted ultimate capacity (hyperbolic) varied

from 0.63 to 0.81 with a mean of 0.73.
Parameter Correlations
In order to use the non-dimensional hyperbolic relationship in design, it is important

to determine the Qult and 50 / d from geotechnical properties of the site and pile
dimensions. These parameters could be influenced by rock lamination, joints, seams
and faults in rock socket, unconfined compressive strength of rock and socket
roughness (Rowe and Armitage 1987). In the case of clay-shale from North-Central
Texas socketed drilled shafts formation of Smear Zone can significantly reduce the
resistance offered by the socket for drilled shafts (ONeill and Hassan 1993).
Although construction procedure for ACIP pile is different from drilled shafts it will
be essential to come up with a correlation from this study, which roughly indicates
the amount of skin friction offered by rock socket especially for clay-shale, which are
laminated (ONeill and Hassan 1993).
With the limited load test data on ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale the variation of
normalized rough estimate of peripheral friction factor (Qult /qu* * D * L) with
L/D ratio of the rock socket is shown in Fig. 9, and can be expressed as follows,
Qult
= 0.11( L / D) + 0.96 (7)
qu DL
The term qu* *D*L represents the maximum side friction that can be generated in
the rock socket when = 1, (fs = qu). Further more to mobilize the ultimate skin
friction (fs) in the case of the bored piles it requires displacement of 0.5-2% of pile
diameter (Reese 1978, De Beer 1988), but to mobilize tip resistance the displacement
required is up to 10% of diameter of pile (De Beer 1988), hence the ratio of Qult and
qu* *D*L, represents the large fraction of the side resistance developed by the pile
socketed in clay-shale.
The variation of Qult with TCP is shown in Fig.10. The relationship can be
represented as follows,
Qult 99216
= (8)
LD TCP
By knowing in-situ TCP penetration resistance (per 100 blows) and assuming the
length and diameter of pile, Eqn. 8 can be used to determine the Qult. The prediction
of the above two relationships are compared to the ratio of the Qult of the hyperbolic
relationship and the results are summarized in Table 3. The predicted capacity to
ultimate capacity (hyperbolic) for Eqns. (7) and (8) varied from 0.63 to 1.43 with a
mean of 0.98 and 0.34 to 3.45 with a mean of 1.6 respectively. Also the Qult of the
hyperbolic relationship is compared to the pile capacity at 5% and 10% of pile
diameter deflection and the results are summarized in Table 4.
11

1.4
1.2
1
/ d (% )
0.8
50
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case Number
Figure 8. Variation of 50/d (%) with each load test case
1.00
Case-1
0.90
0.80
0.70
*D*L
0.60
Case-7
Case-6
Qult / q u uc
0.50
TXDOT Geotechnical Case-4
0.40
manual Case-3
Case-5
recommendations for
0.30
drilled shafts in soft
rocks, for minimum rock
0.20 Case-2
socket to be
1d to 3d.
0.10 Case-8
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L / D ratio of Rock Socket
Figure 9. Variation of rough estimate of side friction factor in socket with L/D
ratio of rock socket
12

Table 3. Comparison of failure capacities determined from Eq. (7) and (8)
Case Qult 1/B QultEq.7 Qult Eq. 7 / QultEq.8 /

Qult Eq.8 (kN)
No. (kN) (kN) Qult 1/B Qult 1/B
1 3427 2161 1176 0.63 0.34
2 3177 3469 3027 1.09 0.95

3 5936 2729 14529 0.46 2.45
4 3872 5524 9686 1.43 2.50
5 3071 3865 3059 1.26 1.00
6 4450 4834 5085 1.09 1.14
7 4681 4498 4470 0.96 0.95
8 2403 2190 8382 0.91 3.49
Av. NA NA NA 0.98 1.60
Std. Dev NA NA NA 0.316 1.1
COV NA NA NA 0.32 0.67
QultEq.7 and Qult Eq.8 are derived from equation (7) and (8) respectively.
(NA Not Applicable).
Table 4. Comparison of Predicted Pile Capacities (Hyperbolic Model)

Case Qult 1/B Qult5%D Qult 10%D Qult 5%D / Qult10%D /
No. (kN) (kN) (kN) Qult 1/B Qult 1/B
1 3427 2786 3069 0.81 0.90
2 3177 2448 2767 0.77 0.87
3 5936 4851 5340 0.82 0.90
4 3872 3489 3670 0.9 0.95
5 3071 2750 2902 0.9 0.95
6 4450 3818 4108 0.86 0.92
7 4681 3587 4061 0.77 0.87
8 2403 2136 2260 0.89 0.94
Av. NA NA NA 0.84 0.91
Std. Dev NA NA NA 0.06 0.033
COV NA NA NA 0.07 0.04
Qult 5%D and Qult 10%D are Q predicted with equation (2) at displacement of 5% and
10% of the diameter. (NA Not Applicable).
13

The ratio of pile capacity at 5% deflection (using hyperbolic relationship) to ultimate

capacity varied from 0.77 to 0.90 with mean of 0.84. The ratio of pile capacity at 10%
deflection (using hyperbolic relationship) to ultimate capacity varied from 0.87 to
0.95 with mean of 0.91.
The variation of 50/d with qu (of the rock from TCP values) is shown in Fig.11 and
can be expressed as follows,
15.8
50
/d = (9)
qu
P1Atm
Hence both parameters for the non-dimensional hyperbolic model can be estimated
from the rock strength, TCP and pile dimensions.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the full-scale load test results of eight ACIP piles socketed in
clay-shale following can be advanced;
1) The load-displacement relationship of ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale can

be represented by a non-dimensional hyperbolic relationship. The model
parameters are related to the in-situ rock strength and pile dimensions.
2) The ratio of pile capacities based on Davissions method (Qult Davissions) to

ultimate capacity predicted by the hyperbolic method (Qult) had an average of
0.73 with coefficient of variance (COV) of 9%. The average pile capacity
ratio based on 5% displacement of diameter (Qult 5%D) to Qult (predicted
hyperbolic) was 0.84 with a COV of 7% .
3) Relationships have been developed to estimate the model parameters, Qult

(hyperbolic), and 50 / d based on in-situ rock properties (unconfined
compressive strength or TCP) and pile dimensions.
Acknowledgement
Authors thank Mr. Tracy Brettmann of Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc, Mr. Tim
Roberts of Fugro South, Inc (Houston office) and Mr. David Lutz of Fugro South, Inc
(Dallas office) for providing some of the data on ACIP pile load tests.
14

6000
Hyperbolic
5000
4000
Q u lt/L D (k P a )
Case-6 Case-7
Case-1
3000
Case-3 Case-5
2000 Case-2
Case-4
1000
Case-8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TCP (mm/100 blows)
Figure 10. Variation of Qult and TCP (mm/100 blows)

1.4
1.2 Case-1 Case-8

Case-3
Case-2
1
/ d (% )
0.8 Case-8
Case-4
50
0.6
Case-6
Case-5
0.4
Hyperbolic
0.2
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
qu / P 1atm (kPa/kPa)
Figure 11. Variation of 50 / d (%) with Normalized Unconfined Strength of clay-

shale
15

References
[1] Carter, J.P. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1988), Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft
Foundations Socketed into Rock, EPRI Report El-5919, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
[2] Chin, F.K. (1970), Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles from Tests not
Carried to Failure, Proceedings of the 2nd South East Asian Conference on Soil
Engineering, Singapore, pp.81-90

[3] Chin, F.K. (1978), Diagnosis of Pile Condition, Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol.9, pp.85-104
[4] De Beer, E. (1988), Different Behavior of Bored and Driven Piles, Deep
Foundation on Bored and Auger Piles, Van Impe (ed), Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp.47-82.
[5] Frizzi, R.P. and Meyer, M.E., (2000), Augercast Piles South Florida
Experience, New Technological and Design Developments in Deep
Foundations, Proceedings of sessions of Geo-Denver 2000 held in Denver,
Colorado, August 5-8, 2000, edited by Norman Dennis, Jr., Ray Castelli and
Michael W. ONeill. pp. 382- 395.
[6] Horvath, R.G., and Chae, K-J. (1989), Long Term Settlement of Rock
Socketed Piers, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.26 No.3, August, pp.248-
358
[7] Kulhawy, F.H. and Phoon, K.K. (1993), Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Clay
Soil to Rock, Deign and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in
Soil and Soft Rock, GSP No. 38, Ed. by Nelson P., Smith T., Clukey E., ASCE,
pp. 173-183.
[8] Moon, N.S. (2004), Improved Design for Drilled Shafts in Rocks, Ph.D.
Thesis (In Print), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
[9] ONeill, M.W.(1994), Review of Augered pile Practice Outside the United
States, Design and Construction of Augered Cast Piles, and Other
Foundation Issues Transportation Research Record No.1447, TRB, pp.3-9.
[10] ONeill, M.W. and Hassan K.M. (1993), Perimeter Load Transfer of Drilled
Shafts in Eagle Ford Formation, Deign and Performance of Deep
Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock, GSP No. 38, Ed. by Nelson
P., Smith T., Clukey E., ASCE, pp. 227-244.
[11] Reese, L.C. and ONeill, M.W. (1987), Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods, Design Manual, US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
[12] Reese, L. C. (1978), Design and Construction of Drilled Shafts, 12th Terzaghi
Lecture, Proceedings of ASCE, Vol.104, No.GT1, p.p. 95-116
[13] Rizkallah, V. (1988), Comparison of Predicted and Measured Bearing
Capacity of Auger Piles, Proceedings of International Conference on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Augered Piles, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
pp.471-475.
[14] Rowe, R.K. and Armitage, H.H. (1987), A Design Method For Drilled Piers in
Soft Rock, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, pp.126-142
16

[15] TXDOT (2000), Geotechnical manual (online version), Texas Dept. of

Transportation, Bridge Division, Austin, Texas
[16] Vipulanandan, C., Tand, K. and Kaulgud, S. (2005), Axial Load-Displacement
Relationship and CPT Correlation for ACIP Piles In Texas Gulf Coast Soils,
GSP, Advances In Deep Foundations: Construction, Design, And Testing-In
Memory of Michael W. ONeill, (Under Review).
[17] Williams, A.F. (1980), The Design and Performance of Piles Socketed Into
Weak Rock, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash

University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
17


Behavior of Acip Piles Socketed in Clay-Shale

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Behavior of Acip Piles Socketed in Clay-Shale

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GSP 132 Advances in Deep Foundations

BEHAVIOR OF ACIP PILES SOCKETED IN CLAY-SHALE

C. Vipulanandan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1 and Swapnil Kaulgud, Student M.ASCE 2

Increasing use of ACIP piles, as an alternative to drilled shafts, to support load-

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Site and Load Test Results

A total of eight load tests, on ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale in North-Central

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

qu ( kPa ) = 7500[TCP (mm)] 0. 4

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

2500 q u (kPa) = 7500.2 [TCP (mm)]-0.4

Figure 1. Correlation between TCP (Texas Cone Pentrometer) and qu

Figure 2. Schematic of TXDOT cone

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Clay (CH), dark

Shaley Clay (CH),

Shaley Clay (CH),

Figure 3. Information on case No.1 (a) Soil Profile (b) Load-Displacement

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Table 1. Load Test results for ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale

Analysis and Discussions

As summarized in Table 1, all of the load tests were performed to a displacement of

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Sandy clay (SC),

100 1 Ton = 8.9 kN

Figure 4. Information on Case No.8 (a) Soil Profile (b) Load-Displacement

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

General form of hyperbolic equation is as follows,

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

0.001 Measured Data

Trend Line (Eqn.5)

/ D % (Displacement / Diameter of pile)

Figure 6. Defining Relative Displacement ( 50 / d) at half the ultimate load

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Figure 7. Variation of Relative displacement and relative load capacity

Table 2. Comparison of failure capacities from various criterion

Case A B Qult 1/B Qmax. Qult Davission's Qult Qmax./

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

The ratio of Davissions capacity to predicted ultimate capacity (hyperbolic) varied

In order to use the non-dimensional hyperbolic relationship in design, it is important

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Case Qult 1/B QultEq.7 Qult Eq. 7 / QultEq.8 /

2 3177 3469 3027 1.09 0.95

Table 4. Comparison of Predicted Pile Capacities (Hyperbolic Model)

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

The ratio of pile capacity at 5% deflection (using hyperbolic relationship) to ultimate

1) The load-displacement relationship of ACIP piles socketed in clay-shale can

2) The ratio of pile capacities based on Davissions method (Qult Davissions) to

3) Relationships have been developed to estimate the model parameters, Qult

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Figure 10. Variation of Qult and TCP (mm/100 blows)

1.2 Case-1 Case-8

Figure 11. Variation of 50 / d (%) with Normalized Unconfined Strength of clay-

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Engineering, Singapore, pp.81-90

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

[15] TXDOT (2000), Geotechnical manual (online version), Texas Dept. of

Weak Rock, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Deep Foundations

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen