Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

COMPARISON OF LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY OF PILE USING SIMPLIFIED LINEAR SPRING APPROACH AND IS: 2911 (2010)

J.C. Shukla, L&T – Sargent & Lundy Ltd. Vadodara, India. E mail: Jaykumar.Shukla@Lntsnl.com P.J Shukla, App. Mech. Dept , K.J. Polytechnic, Bharuch, India. Pn_dave@rediffmail.com D.L. Shah, Professor, App. Mech. Dept., M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, India. dr_dlshah@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: There are many approaches to estimate the lateral capacity of piles however, Beams on elastic foundation still very popular in the practice. In present study relatively simple iterative procedure is adopted to estimate the lateral load capacity of the piles using beams on elastic foundations. The instrumented pile history of Mustang Island is selected to demonstrate the efficiency of the method and compared with the actual measured response of the pile. In order to demonstrate the applicability in the Indian context, the results are also compared with the lateral pile analysis recommendations given in IS:2911 Part 1 (2010). The approach uses the SAP2000 computer code for the estimation of the lateral response against the applied load. The comparison reveals that the present approach is efficient and can be used for preliminary estimation of the lateral response of the piles. Case of small loading and high loading are also incorporated in the present study to investigate its applicability. It is observed that for both of the level of loading (high and low) the present approach is efficient compared to the equivalent cantilever approach of IS: 2911. The estimated lateral displacement, shear force and bending moment response are compared with the actual observed response at the end of the paper.

with the actual observed response at the end of the paper. INTRODUCTION Laterally loaded piles can

INTRODUCTION Laterally loaded piles can readily be idealized and analyzed as beams on an elastic foundation using the Winkler soil model in order to obtain acceptable values of bending moment and shear force. This approach is relatively crude and is obviously not as sophisticated as analyses based on elastic continuum theories. It does, however, provide a useful means of carrying out preliminary designs. Soil is an intrinsically variable material, even in the same location and at the same depth. Accordingly, the idea of estimating the deformation characteristics of the soil for analytical purposes must be considered from a practical viewpoint, with the intention of formulating a representative mathematical model. It must be understood that the Winkler soil model does not pretend to predict the real behavior of the soil as it does not allow for continuity within the soil mass. The sensitivity of the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction (k h ), the parameter central to the analysis, is not usually great. It is always advisable, however, to carry out sensitivity analyses using a wide range of k h values. Values of k h may be assessed by reference to indirect parameters relating to soil stiffness, e.g.

SPT N- values, California bearing ratios and

undrained shear strengths. Alternatively, they may be estimated using empirical formulae that have been proved to be reasonably representative of the soil(s) under consideration. Assessments or choices of k h for single piles, pile groups and continuous sheet piling are understandably somewhat different. The software like SAP2000/STAAD allows user to model spring supports for subgrade reaction and can, therefore, be used to analyze each of these constructions using whatever variations of let, are considered appropriate by the designer(s). In the subsections which follow, the generally accepted estimations of k h are described and used in the following illustrative examples, with kh set to allow tension.

.

Single Piles Consider a single pile of width b (b is the diameter of a circular pile or b is the width of a square/rectangular pile which is normal to the applied loading) with an embedded length of L subjected to lateral loading as shown in Figure 1 The assumed variation of the modulus of

Shukla J. C., Shukla, P. J., and Shah D. L.

horizontal subgrade reaction (let,) is dependent on the soil type and site conditions (Fig. 1(b) and (c)). In general, the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction k, accounting for the width b of the pile, is given by k= k h *b where k h , is the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction for a pile of unit width, and b is the width of pile.(Units: k in kN/m2 , k h in kN/m 2 /mm and b in mm) The variation of kh shown in Figure 1 (b) can be expressed as

n

h

(

z

b

)

; where nh is the rate of increase of

k), with depth z measured from ground level for a single pile (Units: nh in kN/m2/mm and z, bin nun).

k

h

=

a single pile (Units: nh in kN/m2/mm and z, bin nun). k h = Fig. 1

Fig. 1 (a) single pile; (b) generally assumed variation of horizontal subgrade reaction modulus for sands, normally consolidated days and variable over-consolidated clays (where the effect of local yield at ground level and /or surface weathering are significant); (c) assumed variation of horizontal subgrade reaction modulus for uniform over- consolidated clays (where the effect if local yield at ground level and /or surface weathering are not significant)

In the case of sands, Terzaghi (1955) has suggested the values of n h given in Table 1. These are valid for stresses up to one half of the ultimate soil pressure and include an allowance for long term movements. However, interpretations of in-situ

measurements by different investigators have indicated that the values in Table 1 are very much on the low side. Elson (1994) recommends that Terzaghi (1955) values are used as a lower limit and that values calculated from the following relationship attributed to Reese et al. (1974) should be used as an initial upper limit for sands

'

n h = 0.19D

1.16

Where n’ h is the initial value of n h

at small strain expressed in kN/m 2 /mm and D is the relative density of soil expressed as a percentage. Some observed values of n h for normally consolidated clays lie in the range of0-35 to 0·70 kN/m 2 /mm. In order to account for the non-linear behavior of piles at higher loads, Garassino et al. (1976) suggested the following relationship for sands and normally consolidated clays

n

h

= n

'

h

 y g   b   ' y  g   b
y
g
b
'
y
g
b

q

where n h is the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction for a pile of unit width (in kN/m 2 /mm), y g is the lateral deflection of the pile at ground level (in mm), y’ g is the limiting value of lateral deflection of the pile at ground level for which n’ h , applies (in mm), and q is the dimensionless exponent (in the range - 0·5 to -0·7). Typical values of y’ g , expressed as a percentage, are given in Table 2.

Table 1 Terzaghi (1955) values of n h for sands in kN/m 2 /mm

 

Relative density

 

Loose

Medium

Dense

 

dense

SPT (blows / 300 mm)

4 to 10

10 to 30

30

Dry

moist

3

6

17

sand

Submerged

1

4

10

sand

Note : The above values of n h may be modified to allow for difference in the width b (mm) of the pile

Comparison of lateral load capacity of pile using simplified linear spring approach and IS: 2911 (2010)

and the 305 mm square plate used in the tests to

determine above values; n h(modified) = n h(from Table) X

(b/305) -0.75

Table 2 Typical values of lateral deflection of the pile at ground level

to derive

(b/305) -0.75

the above values k h(modified) = k h(from Table) X

IS: 2911 Recommendations on values of k /η h (after

Table 4 Values of constant for sand (η h )

 

Soil Type

y' g /b (%)

 

Sands

0.2 to 1.0

 

Types of

Above

Water

Submerged

in

Normally

consolidated

0.2 to 0.5

soil

Table (kPa/m)

(kPa/m)

clays

IS:29

Recom

IS:29

Recomm

 

11

mended

11

ended by

A suitable value of y g /b is chosen by following the iterative procedure listed below.

 

by

Author

Author

 

1. Choose a trial value of y g /b

 

Loose

2600

6790

1460

5430

2. Calculate n h using equation given by Garassino et al. (1976)

Sand

Medium

7750

24430

5250

16300

3. Use any good analysis package /software (SAP 2000 / STAAD) to analyze the pile (beam supported on springs) to obtain a value of y g

Dense

Sand

Dense

20750

61000

12450

33900

Sand

4. Calculate y g /b

If this calculated value of y g /b is significantly different (say 10%) from that the assumed, revise the value of y g /b and go back to step 2. In the case of stiff, over consolidated clays, the value of the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction k (in kN/m 2 ) for short term loading can be assumed to be in the range 200 C u ≤ k ≤ 400 C u where C u is the undrained shear strength of clay (in kN/m 2 ). Moreover, for long term loading and for stresses up to 50 % of ultimate load, one third of the above values may be appropriate. Terzaghi (1955) recommended values of modulus k h (k/b) for different values of C u , are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Terzaghi (1955) values of k h for clays in kN/m 2 /mm

 

Consistency of clay

 
 

Firm to

Stiff

Very

Hard

stiff

Stiff

C

u

50

to

100

to

200

to

>400

(kN/m 2 )

100

200

400

*k h

(305

15

27

54

>108

mm plate)

 

Note: The above values of k h may be modified to allow for the difference in the width of the pile b (mm) and the 305 mm square plate used in the tests

Table 5 Values of constant for Clay (k)

Unconfined

 

Value

in

k=

67*Cu

compressive

kg/cm 2 (kPa)

(Prakash

and

strength

in

Sharma

)

kg/cm 2

(kPa)

 

(kPa)

(Cu)

 

0.2 to 0.4 (20 to

7.75 (775)

1340 to 2680

40)

 

1

to

2

(100 to

48.80

(4880)

6700 to 13400

200)

 

2

to

4

(200 to

97.75

(9775)

13400

to

400)

 

26800

More

than

4

195.50

>26800

(400)

 

(19550)

Example Problem The problem presented by Reese et al. (1974) for instrumented piles in Mustang Island is selected to demonstrate the methodology and will be compared with IS:2911 procedure and actual measurements.

Shukla J. C., Shukla, P. J., and Shah D. L.

Shukla J. C., Shukla, P. J., and Shah D. L. The two tests were carried out

The two tests were carried out on the test piles

 

Lateral

Moment

force (kN)

(kNm)

Initial Loading

89

23

High Loading

220

56

IS : 2911 Procedure :

As per Table 4, selecting η h = 12.45 MN/m 3 EI = 163000 kN.m 2

EI T = = 1.672 5 n h
EI
T =
= 1.672
5
n
h

Considering load application on ground (L 1 =0.305 m), referring the Figure 2 of Appendix C of

IS:2911 (Part 1), for L 1 /T =0.18, L f /T = 2.1 for fixed end condition Hence depth of fixity below ground level = L f = 2.1 * T = 3.512 m ( 5.75 D). Total Horizontal force on Pile (Q)

= 89 kN + 26/3.512 = 96.40 (for Initial loading)

= 220 kN + 15.95 = 235.95 (for High Loading)

Knowing the total horizontal load on pile and length of the equivalent cantilever (length of fixity), the pile had deflection shall be computed using the equation given in IS: 2911

Y =

Q L

(

1 +

L

f

) 3

12 EI

for fixed head condition

Y = 2.74 mm (for Initial loading)

Y=6.7 mm (for high loading)

Summary of Results

Description

 

Lateral

Estimate

displacem

d

 

ent

at

Maximu

ground

m

level

bending

(mm)

moment

 

(kN.m)

Actual/measur

Initial

5

125

ed Reese et al.

Loading

(1974)

High

23

374

Loading

 

IS:2911,

static

Initial

2.74

156*

estimate

using

Loading

provisions

in

High

6.7

386*

code/procedure

Loading

 

s

STAAD with spring constant for short term loading as per by Reese et al.

(1974)

Initial

4.38

105.34

Loading

High

10.67

253.66

Loading

 

STAAD with

Initial

7.66

118.95

spring constant

Loading

for

high

High

18.77

287.18

loading as per Garassino et al.

Loading

 

(1976)

STAAD

with

Initial

7.79

119.32

spring constant

Loading

selected

from

High

19.02

288.10

IS:2911

Loading

 

LPILE analysis

Initial

5.34

136.501

Loading

High

22.67

398.08

Loading

 

Observations and recommendations:

1. The idealization of spring supports using theory of beams on elastic foundations (Winkler Model) is useful approach for preliminary / approximate analysis of the laterally loaded piles. 2. There are wide variations in the recommendations for modulus of subgrade reaction values (k) for soils. Since the k-

Comparison of lateral load capacity of pile using simplified linear spring approach and IS: 2911 (2010)

value is not fundamental soil property, its evaluation requires geotechnical expertise and engineering judgment for appropriate solutions of the problem.

3. The uncoupled spring idealization of soil supporting a pile is useful approach. However, sensitivity of the spring value must be attempted in order to get the better solution of the laterally loaded pile problem especially for particular loading conditions i.e. Short term/ Long term / Cyclic. The problem can be extended by bilinear approximation of the spring value and considering different spring value respective to soil layering which may increase computing effort to get more precise solutions (Fig. 2a and 2b).

4. It is also advisable to consider the construction method, consolidation, long term settlement etc. as influencing factor for such analysis since they will in fact modify the in situ soil properties thereby modulus of subgrade reaction.

5. The soil stiffness thereby modulus of subgrade reaction value of soil may degrade under the action of cyclic loading. Some gapping phenomena have been observed worldwide especially in clay soil which may not be possible to model using present approach and some specialized computer codes like LPILE, OPILE, FLPIER should be used.

6. It is observed that the modulus of subgrade reaction specified in IS:2911 are lower bound values and for short term loading higher values may be selected.

7. It is also observed that IS: 2911 may predict the load very close to the actual values (especially for long term loading based on the formulae specified in IS:2911) however, it will under predict the displacement which may cause serviceability problem. In such case of long term loading, the present methodology using the value of modulus of subgrade reaction can be used to predict the displacement.

8. LPILE results are in very good agreement with the actual measured values which further indicate that the later pile analysis using p-y curve approach is better compared to other methods in all the loading cases. Figure 3 and 4 gives STADD Pro and L Pile output for lateral analysis respectively.

References:

1. Terzaghi K., (1955). Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique, 5(4), 297-326.

2. Reese L. C., Cox W.R. and Koop F.D., (1974). Analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. Proc. 7 th offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Texas, 473-483.

3. Garassino A., Jamilokowski M. and Pasqualini E., (1976). Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles in sand and NC clays. Proc. 6 th Europ. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engng, Vienna, 1.2, 429-434.

4. Ramasamy G., Gopal Ranjan and Jain N.K., (1987). Modification to Indian Standard code procedure on lateral capacity of piles. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 17(3),

249-258.

Shukla J. C., Shukla, P. J., and Shah D. L.

Fig. 2a Comparison of calculated lateral displacement for pile Fig. 2b Figure Comparison of calculated
Fig. 2a Comparison of calculated lateral displacement for pile
Fig. 2b Figure Comparison of calculated maximum bending moment for pile

Comparison of lateral load capacity of pile using simplified linear spring approach and IS: 2911 (2010)

Fig. 3 STAAD Pro out put for lateral pile analysis Fig. 4 LPILE output for
Fig. 3 STAAD Pro out put for lateral pile analysis
Fig. 4 LPILE output for lateral pile analysis