0 views

Uploaded by Yuki Gitara

30

- General Information.pdf
- Pile - Point of Fixity
- Design CFA Eng
- s Announcement 4067
- Intro to Field Investigation
- User Manual for PileLAT 2014 - A program for single piles under later loading
- Pile Example
- Analysis of Reduced Modulus Action in U Section Steel Sheet Piles
- Auto Index Excel
- Writeup for Fdp
- 01_3IJ
- 1056898 Lin Ppt Grouting
- Pile Design Calculation
- How to Design Foundations
- NIE PG Structures Syllabus
- Dept Comparative
- 10.1680@fiodap.32446.0043
- Piled Raft Foundations
- ICP Spun Pile Brochure
- The Use of Pile in Deep Foundation_3

You are on page 1of 10

net/publication/256461702

CITATIONS READS

0 1,843

2 authors, including:

University of Technology, Iraq

262 PUBLICATIONS 503 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic response of plates on elastic foundation under eccentric impact load View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Yousif Fattah on 30 May 2014.

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

myf_1968@yahoo.com firas_alobaydi@yahoo.com

Department of Building and Construction

University of Technology

Baghdad - Iraq

ABSTRACT: A beam-on-elastic foundation model is used to analyze a laterally loaded pile in order to investigate its

necessity for reinforcement. This model is performed using the finite element method as a numerical tool for the analysis.

The pile is discretized into a number of elements while the soil is represented by a number of springs. The stiffness of

these springs is considered to be variable with depth. The analysis results are compared with closed form solutions given

by Broms (1965). Two types of soils are used in the analysis; sand and clay. They are assumed dry and homogeneous. It

is concluded that bored piles embedded in sand must be provided with reinforcing bars extending to a depth of not less

than 0.4 times the pile length, while the reinforcement required for bored piles placed in clay depends mainly on the

strength of the soil.

LOADED PILES

The main causes of tensile stresses in a pile section are the

lateral loads and/or bending moments. The reinforcement The finite-element solution is a suitable method to solve

should be provided for all concrete sections subjected to complicated foundations such as a laterally loaded pile.

tensile stresses. One can use the same procedure for the beam-on-elastic

Deep foundations may be subjected to lateral loads as well foundation described by Bowles, (1996).

as axial loads. Lateral loads often come from wind forces The three fundamental equations in the finite element

on the structure or inertia forces from traffic or method of analysis are:

earthquakes. The lateral resistance of adjacent soil and P = A.F (1)

bending moment resistance of the foundation shaft e = A T .X (2)

determines lateral load resistance of deep foundations. The

F = S .e (3)

ultimate lateral resistance Tu often develops at lateral where

displacements much greater than can be allowed by the P: The external nodal forces,

structure. An allowable lateral load Ta should be e: The internal member deformation,

F: The internal member forces, and

determined to be sure that the foundation would be safe

X: The external nodal displacements.

with respect to failure.

The problem of a pile subjected to lateral loading is one of

The internal member forces can be obtained which are

a class of problems concerned with the interaction of soils

necessary for design.

and structures. The solution of such problems usually

involves the use of iterative techniques because the soil

response is a non-linear function of the deflection of the EVALUATION OF THE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE

structure, (Reese and Desai, 1977). REACTION

Brom’s equations given in Table 1 can give good results

for many situations. Thus, these equations are The subgrade reaction approach, in which the continuous

recommended for an initial estimate of ultimate lateral nature of the soil medium is ignored and the pile reaction

load Tu . Ultimate lateral loads can be readily determined at a point is directly related to the deflection at that point,

for complicated soil conditions using a computer program is adopted in this study. The soil is modeled as an elastic

based on beam-column theory and given p-y curves Winkler foundation model having horizontal modulus of

(Reese, Cooley, and Radhakkrishnan 1984). A p-y curve is subgrade reaction. This modulus can be constant or

the relationship between the soil resistance per shaft length variable with depth. In general, the variation of subgrade

(kips/inch) and the deflection (inches) for a given lateral reactions along the embedded length of the pile is taken

load T. from Eq. (4)

202

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

(Broms 1964a, Broms 1964b and Broms 1965).

Pile Equations Diagram

a- Free head pile in cohesive soil

Tu = 18C u Bs

(

e 2 + 1.5 B se + eL + 0.5 L2 + 1.125 B s2 ) 1

2

− (e + 0.75 Bs + 0.5 L )

Short

L ≤ Lc 1

My

2

9

Lc = 1.5 Bs + +

C u Bs 2.25C u B s

1

2M y 2

Tu = 9C u Bs (e + 1.5 B s ) + − −

2

e 1 . 5 Bs

u s

Long 9 C B

L ≥ Lc

′

where for circular section: M y = 1.3 f c Z

γBs K p L − 2 M a

3

Tus =

Short 2(e + L )

L ≤ Lc 2Tul 2( M a + Tul e )

L3c − Lc − =0

γBs K p γBs K p

Long M y − Ma

Tul =

L ≥ Lc e + 23 f

LOADED PILES

where:

As is a constant for either horizontal or vertical Computation of lateral deflection for different shaft

members, penetrations may be made to determine the depth of

Bs is a coefficient for depth, and penetration at which additional penetration will not

significantly decrease the groundline deflection. This

n is an exponent to give K s the best fit.

depth will be approximately 4 βl for a soil in which the

soil stiffness increases linearly with depth

1

5

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM

EpIp

If the pile is not designed for buckling, then the main

βl = (5)

causes of tensile stresses in a pile section are the lateral k

loads and/or bending moments, i.e., the reinforcement where:

should be provided for all sections that are subjected to E p = elastic modulus of shaft or pile, ksf

tensile stresses. For this reason, a computer program

named (PLRN) is modified from that given in (Bowles, I p = moment of inertia of shaft, ft4

1988) to check the depth through which the reinforcement k = constant r elating elastic soil modulus with depth,

will only be required to cover the tension zone of the pile. E s = kz kips/ft3.

The (PLRN) program is coded in Fortran-77 language and

based on Winkler foundation model where the pile is Shafts that carry insignificant axial loads such as those

treated as beam elements and the uniaxial soil resistance is supporting overhead signs can be placed at this minimum

represented by independent springs. depth if their lateral load capacity is acceptable.

203

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Broms’ method uses the concept of a horizontal coefficient deflection than the finite element method. The lateral

of subgrade reaction and considers short pile failure by deflection increases with the increase in pile diameter.

flow of soil around the pile and failure of long piles by In Figures 8 to 10, the required length calculated by the

forming a plastic hinge in the pile. Refer to Broms closed form solution and the finite element method are

(1964a), Broms (1964b), Broms (1965), and Reese (1986) compared. In the former method, the minimum length of

for estimating Tu from charts. penetration of the pile is calculated while in the finite

element method, the maximum length to which

Cohesive soil to depth 1.5Bs is considered to have

reinforcement must be extended is calculated. The results

negligible resistance because a wedge of soil to depth

points are fitted using the graphing fitting techniques, and

1.5Bs is assumed to move up and down when the pile is

the following relations are obtained.

deflected.

Iteration is required to determine the ultimate lateral Let Lmax = maximum length of reinforcement.

capacity of long piles Tul in cohesionless soil, Table 1. Lmin = minimum length of penetration.

Distance f , Table (1-b) may first be estimated and Tul 1) Cohesion=60 kPa:

Lmax. = -0.8 + 9.5 B

calculated; then, f is calculated and Tul recalculated as Lmin . = 2.607 + 9.464 B

necessary. Tul is independent of length L in long piles. 2) Cohesion=80 kPa:

Lmax. = 2.2 + 6.5 B

The method of solution using load transfer p-y curves is Lmin . = 3.893 + 8.036 B

also based on the concept of a coefficient of horizontal 3) Cohesion=100 kPa:

subgrade reaction. A fourth-order differential equation is Lmax. = -0.833 + 7.5 B

solved using finite differences and load transfer p-y Lmin . = 3.571 + 7.85 B

curves.

An estimate of allowable lateral load Ta is best From the above relations, it can be concluded that the

accomplished from results of lateral load-deflection (p-y) maximum length of reinforcement in a pile is in the order

analysis using given p-y cuves and a computer program. of (70 to 78)% of the minimum length of penetration

The specified maximum allowable lateral deflection required for the pile.

should be used to estimate Ta . Figures 11 and 12 show the effect of undrained cohesion

of the soil on the lateral deflection in the pile as predicted

Calculating lateral groundline deflection yo using by the finite element method and the closed form solution,

equations proposed by Broms (1964a) and Reese (1986) respectively. In the former method, the lateral deflection

may make a rough estimate of allowable lateral load Ta , increases slightly with cohesion until reaching (cu = 90

kPa) at which a sudden increase in lateral deflection is

ya noted. In the closed form solution, the trend is opposite;

Ta = Tu (6) the lateral deflection decreases with cohesion until

yo reaching (cu = 90 kPa). Above this value, the behavior is

where y a is a specified allowable lateral deflection and similar to that predicted by the finite element method.

Tu is estimated from equations in Table 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR COMPARISON The basic parameters that are used in the finite element

parametric analysis are as follows: -

In this section, a parametric study is carried out using the

closed form solution and the finite element method. In 1) For pile:

Figures 1 to 4, the effect of the undrained cohesion on the M = 0.1 ∗ B ∗ Qa kN.m

lateral deflection is presented. It can be observed that for

all values of the undrained cohesion, the closed form

H = 0.1 ∗ Qa kN

solution gives values of lateral deflection greater than the where Qa is the allowable axial load.

finite element method. It is also concluded that the pile L = 25.0 m

length has very little effect on the lateral deflection in the B = 1.0 m

closed form solution, while the lateral deflection increases

with the increase in pile length through the finite element 2) For soil:

analysis. The soil is assumed homogeneous with no water table

Figures 5 to 7 show that the lateral deflection increases and its properties are as follows:

when the pile diameter increases. In these figures, the γ = 15 kN/m3

closed form solution also gives greater values for lateral φ = 30° for sand

= 5° for clay

204

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

cu = 0 for sand in the compression side. The constant value in the stress

= 80 kPa for clay distribution curves is the same for all values of the applied

The effect of different parameters on the stress lateral loads. The maximum tensile stress, for all curves, is

distribution and, hence, on the extent of reinforcement located at about 4D. The depth where the tensile stress

below the ground surface are presented below. equals to zero will increase as the lateral load increase.

Effect of Soil Type Figure 16 represents the effect of pile length on the stress

distribution along the shaft of bored pile in sand. As the

Figure 13 represents a relationship between the minimum pile length increases, the stress will increase too in both

stress within the pile sections under the general working compression and tension sides, but it will not affect the

load and the depth ratio for bored piles embedded in both depth of zero tensile stress nor the location of its

sand and clay. The curve increases in compression side, in maximum value. The maximum tensile stress appears at

case of sand, until it reaches its maximum value, then it approximately 5D and it will be equal to zero at about 6D.

starts to decrease to reach a maximum tensile stress, and

again it starts to increase until reaching a constant 4) Effect of pile diameter:

compression value. In clay, the pile will no longer be Figure 17 shows the effect of pile diameter on the stress

subjected to tensile stress and, therefore, it will act as a distribution along the shaft of bored pile in sand. The

compression member. The variation in the stress increase in pile diameter; increases in pile stiffness, will

distribution along the pile shaft is due to the change in the decrease the value of the stress concentration along the

distribution of bending moment along the shaft and the shaft. The minimum stress will occur at a depth ranging

decrease in the allowable load wi th depth, according to the between 4D to 5D for a pile diameter of 2.0 m to 0.8 m,

following equation, (Teng, 1979): respectively. The depth of zero tensile stress decreases as

Q a M.r the pile diameter increases, but generally it does not

f = − ≥ 0.0 (7) exceed 7D.

A I

where:

5) Effect of angle of internal friction:

f = pile tensile stress on the extreme fiber,

Figure 18 shows the effect of angle of internal friction on

Qa = applied axial load,

the stress distribution for bored pile embedded in sand.

A = pile cross-sectional area,

The angle of internal friction has a significant effect on the

M = bending moment from pile analysis,

stress distribution. As it increases in value; increasing soil

r = distance of extreme fiber from neutral axis, and

stiffness, the bending moment will decrease and the tensile

I = moment of inertia of the pile.

stress will not appear, according to Eq. (7). In general, for

D= pile diameter.

minimum value of the angle, 25°, the zero tensile stress

will appear at about 8D with maximum tensile stress

For bored pile in sand, the maximum tensile stress located

located at about 5D.

at a depth of about 5D and it will equal to zero at a depth

of approximately 6.5D.

6) Effect of soil unit weight:

Figure 19 shows the effect of soil unit weight on the stress

distribution along the bored pile in sand. The behavior is

PARAMETRIC STUDY

somewhat similar to the previous figures, increasing in

Bored Pile in Sand compression side, decreasing to reach a maximum tensile

1) Effect of moment loading: stress; then increasing again to reach a constant

Figure 14 shows the effect of moment loading on the stress compression value. The soil unit weight has little effect on

distribution along the pile shaft for the case of bored pile the stress distribution, at least in the upper part. The

embedded in sand. A family of similar curves shows that; maximum tensile stress located at approximately 5D,

as the applied moment increases, the tensile stress will where it reaches a zero value at about 5.5D to 6.5D

increase at the pile top and decreases or vanishes as it goes diameters.

down. It is seen that the zero tensile stress occurs at a

depth of about 6.5D. Bored Piles in Clay

1) Effect of moment loading:

2) Effect of lateral loading: Figure 20 shows the effect of moment loading on the stress

Figure 15 shows the effect of lateral loads on the stress distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in clay.

distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in Similar to Figure 14, the tensile stress will appear only in

sand. The stress decreases as the applied lateral load the top of the pile shaft, due to the applied moment, and it

increases until reaching the maximum value of the tensile will increase in depth and value as the applied moment

stress, then it begins to increase to reach a constant value increases. The zero tensile stress will reach a maximum

205

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

depth at about 2.5D, which corresponds to the maximum more or less equal to that recommended by (Bowles,

applied moment. 1996), and this will be reduced for other cases.

Table 5 shows that, for bored piles, the depth of zero

2) Effect of lateral loading: moment in soft soils (sand or clay) is greater than that of

Figure 21 represents the effect of lateral loading on the medium or stiff soils. This depth will not be less than one-

stress distribution along the bored pile in clay. The tensile half the pile length.

stress will increase as the applied lateral load increases

and, therefore, the depth of zero tensile stress will increase

too, similar to Figure 15. In general, the maximum tensile CONCLUSIONS

stress will be at approximately 4D to 6D for a lateral load

of (30) to (10) percent of the applied load, respectively. For cast in situ bored piles, the design codes do not

The zero tensile stress will be at about 11.5D for a lateral recommend a specific depth for the reinforcement bars that

load of 30% of the applied load. should be provided to resist the tensile stresses. The

problem is left to the designer. Based on the results

3) Effect of pile length: obtained using the finite element method, the following

Figure 22 shows the effect of bored pile length on the conclusions can be made:

stress distribution if it is embedded in clay. It is obvious 1) Piles embedded in sand must be provided with

that if the pile increases in length, the compression stresses reinforcement bars extending to a depth of not less

will increase and, therefore, the pile will not be subjected than (0.4) times the pile length.

to any tensile stress. 2) The reinforcement required for bored piles in clay

depends mainly on the shear strength of the soil. In

4) Effect of pile diameter: stiff clay, the length of reinforcement may be reduced

Figure 23 shows the effect of pile diameter on the stress to the top quarter only to provide anchorage with the

distribution along the bored pile in clay. The minimum pile cap. In soft clays, this length may be extended to

stress will decrease in value as the pile increases in cover more than one-half the pile length.

diameter and it will reach the maximum tensile stress at 3) A comparison between the finite element analysis

diameters of (1.8m) and (2.0m) with a depth of about 6D. carried out in this paper and the closed form solution

This may be related to the high lateral load applied at the of Broms (1965) showed that the former method gives

pile top. These two diameters will have a depth of smaller values of lateral deflection for all values of

approximately 7D for the zero tensile stress. undrained cohesion.

4) For piles in clay, the maximum length of

5) Effect of soil cohesion: reinforcement bars required ranges between (70 to 78)

Figure 24 shows the effect of soil cohesion on the stress % of the minimum length of penetration required for

distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in clay. the pile as calculated by the closed form solution.

The cohesion has a significant effect on the variation of

the stress curves. The stress increases as the soil cohesion

increases, due to increase in soil stiffness. For soft soil REFERENCES

(low cohesion, c = 20 kPa), the pile will be subjected to a

tensile stress at about 6D for maximum, and 12D for the

Bowles, J. E., (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4 th

zero tensile stress.

edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

For bored piles embedded in sand, the depths of zero Bowles, J. E., (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 th

tensile stress will not exceed 9.5D, Table 2, which edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

corresponds to the maximum applied lateral load. The

Broms, B. T., (1964a). The Lateral Resistance of Piles in

depth of zero moment, in which the pile is completely

Cohesive Soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and

under compression, will appear at about 14D, Table 3.

Foundations Division, American Society of Civil

For bored piles in clay, Table 2 shows that the pile will not

Engineers, Vol. 90, No. SM2, p.p. 27-63.

be subjected to tensile stresses below a depth of 12D. This

large value appears in soft soil. From Table 3, the depth of Broms, B. T., (1964b). The Lateral Resistance of Piles in

zero moment will also occur in soft soil and this will be at Cohesionless Soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and

a depth of 16D. Foundations Division, American Society of Civil

Table 4 shows that, for bored piles, the depth of zero Engineers, Vol. 90, No. SM3, p.p. 123-156.

tensile stress in clay is greater than that in sand and it is

Broms, B. T., (1965). Design of Laterally Loaded Piles,

generally not exceeding one-half the pile length, except for

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,

(2.0m) pile diameter embedded in clay which equals to

American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. SM3,

(0.56) from pile length.

p.p. 79-99.

From the above, it is seen that; the depth of the necessary

reinforcing bars in case of bored piles embedded in clay is

206

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

under Lateral Load, Publication No. FHWA-RD-85-106. Table 2. h/B for zero tensile stress.

Available from US Department of Transportation, Federal Parameters Sand Clay

Highway Administration, Office of Implementation, Moment loading, M 6.5 2.5

McLean, VA 22101. Lateral load, H 9.5 11.5

Reese, L. C., Cooley, L. A. and Radhakrishnan, N. (1984). Pile length, L 6 –

Laterally Loaded Piles and Computer Program Pile diameter, B 7 7

COM624G, Technical Report K-84-2. Available from Angle of friction, φ 8 –

Research Library, US Army Engineer Waterways Soil density, γ 6.5 –

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Soil cohesion, Cu – 12

Reese, L. C. and Desai, C. S., (1977). Laterally Loaded

Piles, Chapter 9 in “Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Table 3. h/B for zero moment.

Engineering”, edited by C. S. Desai and J. T. Christian, Parameters Sand Clay

McGraw-Hill Book Company. Moment loading, M 13 11

Teng, W. C., (1979). Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall of Lateral load, H 12 12

India. Pile length, L 12 15

Pile diameter, B 14 15

Angle of friction, φ 14 –

NOTES Soil density, γ 12 –

Soil cohesion, Cu – 16

ft = 0.3048 m

kip = 4.4482219 kN

ksf = 47.88 kN/m2 Table 4. h/L for zero tensile stress

kips/ft3 = 157.08746 kN/m3 (Based on L=25m).

Parameters Sand Clay

Moment loading, M 0.260 0.100

Lateral load, H 0.380 0.460

Pile diameter, B 0.224 0.560

Angle of friction, φ 0.320 –

Soil density, γ 0.260 –

Soil cohesion, Cu – 0.480

(Based on L=25m).

Parameters Sand Clay

Moment loading, M 0.520 0.440

Lateral load, H 0.480 0.480

Pile diameter, B 0.448 0.480

Angle of friction, φ 0.560 –

Soil density, γ 0.480 –

Soil cohesion, Cu – 0.640

207

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

40 45 35

Closed form solution Closed form solution Closed form solution

35 40

Finite elemente solution Finite element solution 30 Finite element solution

Lateral deflection (mm)

35

30

25

30

25

25 20

20

20 15

15

15

10

10

10

5 5 5

0 0 0

10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30

Pile length (m) Pile length (m) Pile length (m)

Fig. 1. Effect of pile length on Fig. 2. Effect of pile length on Fig. 3. Effect of pile length on

lateral deflection, lateral deflection, lateral deflection,

(cu=40 kN/m2). (cu=60 kN/m2). (cu=80 kN/m2).

35 45 45

Closed form solution Closed form solution Closed form solution

40 40

30 Finite element solution Finite element solution Finite element solution

Lateral deflection (mm)

35 35

25

30 30

20 25 25

15 20 20

15 15

10

10 10

5

5 5

0 0 0

10 15 20 25 30 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Pile length (m) Pile diameter (m) Pile diameter (m)

Fig. 4. Effect of pile length on Fig. 5. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 6. Effect of pile diameter on

lateral deflection, lateral deflection, lateral deflection,

(cu=100 kN/m2). (cu=60 kN/m2). (cu=80 kN/m2).

40 24 24

Closed form solution M in. Length of Pe ne tration N im . Le ngth of Pe netration

Finite element solution

Lateral deflection (mm)

30 20 20

Required length (m)

18 18

20 16 16

14 14

10 12 12

10 10

0 8 8

0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Pile diameter (m) Pile diameter (m) Pile length (m)

Fig. 7. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 8. Required length of penetra- Fig. 9. Required length of penetra-

lateral deflection, (cu=100 tion of the pile and reinforc- tion of the pile and reinforce-

kN/m2). ment, (cu=60 kN/m2). ment, (cu=80 kN/m2).

208

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

22 11 42

Min. Le ngth of Pe netration D=0.8 m D=0.8 m

40

Max. L ength of Rienforce ment 10 D=1.2 m

20 D=1.2 m

38

D=1.6 m D=1.6 m

Required length (m)

18 9 36

D=2.0 m

D=2.0 m 34

16 8

32

30

14 7

28

12 6 26

24

10 5

22

8 4 20

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 50 60 70 80 90 100 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile diameter (m) Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)

Fig. 10. Required length of penetra- Fig. 11. Effect of cohesion of soil Fig. 12. Effect of cohesion of soil

tion of the pile and reinfor- on the lateral deflection of on the lateral deflection of

cement, (cu=100 kN/m2). the pile predicted by the the pile predicted by the

finite element method. closed form solution.

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8

0 0 0

5 5 5

Depth ratio (h/H)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10 10 10

M=0.10*B*Qa H=0.10*Qa

15 15 15

M=0.15*B*Qa H=0.15*Qa

M=0.20*B*Qa H=0.20*Qa

20 20 20

Sand M=0.25*B*Qa H=0.25*Qa

25 25 25

Fig. 13. Stress distribution of bored Fig. 14. Effect of moment loading Fig. 15. Effect of lateral loading

piles embedded in sand and on the stress distribution on the stress distribution

clay. along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,

(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand).

-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -3 -1 1 3 5 7

0 0 0

5

5

10 5

Depth ratio (h/B)

15

Depth ratio (h/B)

10

20 10

15 D=0.8 m

25

L=10.0 m D=1.0 m

30 15

L=20.0 m 20 D=1.2 m Phi=25.0 deg.

35

L=30.0 m D=1.6 m Phi=30.0 deg.

40 25 20

L=40.0 m D=1.8 m Phi=35.0 deg.

45

L=50.0 m D=2.0 m Phi=40.0 deg.

30

50 25

Fig. 16. Effect of pile length on Fig. 17. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 18. Effect of friction angle on

the stress distribution the stress distribution the stress distribution

along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,

(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand).

209

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

0 0 0

5 5 5

Depth ratio (h/B)

10 10 10

γ = 15 kN/m3

15

γ = 16 kN/m3 15

M=0 .10*B*Qa

15 H= 0.10*Qa

H= 0.15*Qa

H= 0.20*Qa

H= 0.25*Qa

H= 0.30*Qa

25 25 25

Fig. 19. Effect of unit weight of soil Fig. 20. Effect of moment loading Fig. 21. Effect of lateral loading

on the stress distribution on the stress distribution on the stress distribution

along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,

(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay).

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 Stress0(MPa) 1 2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0 0 0

5

5

10 5

Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10

20 10

25 15 D=0.8 m

30 15

L=20.0 m 20 D=1.2 m coh=60 kPa

35

L=30.0 m D=1.6 m coh=100 kPa

40 25 20

L=40.0 m D=1.8 m coh=140 kPa

45

L=50.0 m D=2.0 m coh=180 kPa

30

50 25

Fig. 22. Effect of pile length on Fig. 23. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 24. Effect of soil cohesion on

the stress distribution the stress distribution the stress distribution

along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,

(Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay).

210

- General Information.pdfUploaded byIlkaItzelMeneses
- Pile - Point of FixityUploaded byJahid Jahidul Islam Khan
- Design CFA EngUploaded bySubhajit Chandra
- s Announcement 4067Uploaded byJuni Pher
- Intro to Field InvestigationUploaded bySam Jandali
- User Manual for PileLAT 2014 - A program for single piles under later loadingUploaded bymyplaxis
- Pile ExampleUploaded bydgsgsrgsr
- Analysis of Reduced Modulus Action in U Section Steel Sheet PilesUploaded byArif Fauzi
- Auto Index ExcelUploaded bypravin awalkonde
- Writeup for FdpUploaded byPrakash Mahandra
- 01_3IJUploaded byMilan Nayek
- 1056898 Lin Ppt GroutingUploaded byAlfredo A Lopez
- Pile Design CalculationUploaded byjologscresencia
- How to Design FoundationsUploaded byjrandeep
- NIE PG Structures SyllabusUploaded byBalaji Nallaval Chinnaswamy
- Dept ComparativeUploaded byvaranasirk1
- 10.1680@fiodap.32446.0043Uploaded byNguyễn Nhân
- Piled Raft FoundationsUploaded byAntoine Letendre
- ICP Spun Pile BrochureUploaded byTee Bun Pin
- The Use of Pile in Deep Foundation_3Uploaded byIsidro Buquiron
- geotehnical paperUploaded byparamarthasom1974
- GTS Seminar Dubai 7DEC2015Uploaded byAnonymous 7Rq6IYhLsI
- 2007TechManualTableofContents1.pdfUploaded bydangatz4763
- Frances Badelow.pdfUploaded byhanumabendadi
- Pile LiteratureUploaded bybhumi_29
- Pile DesignUploaded byksathambi
- Advances in Auger Pressure Grouted Piles-Design_Construction_TestingUploaded byMUHAMMAD ALI
- Hebron Gravity Based StructureUploaded byAnupriya Palanisamy
- Wp5 Appendix c PrelimstructualdesigncalculationsUploaded byAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- Drilled Shaft 2aUploaded byJohn Philip Garcia

- Shed 1 PDA Dynamic Test ReportUploaded byYuki Gitara
- 2011-07-Pengendalian Mutu dan Waktu.pdfUploaded bySalsabila Cakke
- -Uploaded byYuki Gitara
- 5TS11810.pdfUploaded byEggy Pesela
- GRC Manual Edition 2_AHUploaded byYuki Gitara
- SpanSet Indo Wire Rope CatalogUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Calculation reference.pdfUploaded byYuki Gitara
- 530_02.pdfUploaded byEstuardo Pastor
- 328 Srt Instruksi TKD, Relawan n Simpatisan Hari H Pencoblosan 15 April 2019.pdfUploaded byAndy Almer
- Shed 1 PDA Dynamic Test Report.pdfUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Bolt DesignUploaded bymahesh
- 151828894 AS3845 Road Safety Barrier SystemUploaded byKarim
- MScCE-AY20182019.pdfUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Soil Properties (Lpile & Com624p)Uploaded bywaleed4631
- SNI 8665-2018 Cat Pelapis Antibocor Berbasis AirUploaded byYuki Gitara
- ANGIN.pdfUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Beam Connections #2Uploaded byYuki Gitara
- GRC outdoor panelUploaded byYuki Gitara
- MPPKS2019 Kak SayembaraUploaded byAdil Mochtar
- Reo Detailing HandbookUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Seventh Edition Hot Rolled and Structural Steel ProductsUploaded byKenneth Richards
- 5TS11810.pdfUploaded byEggy Pesela
- GFRCUploaded bycbler
- SpanSet Indo Wire Rope CatalogUploaded byYuki Gitara
- Perhitungan IPKUploaded byYuki Gitara
- PPPURG 1987Uploaded byAndreas Galih Pamungkas
- Pricelist 2016 - Dany_085225293374Uploaded byYuki Gitara
- GRP-NewCatalogueUploaded byRidas Mika
- brosur ISTNUploaded byYuki Gitara

- ph_theoryUploaded byJohnny Hudgson
- CA7 Commands Used FrequentlyUploaded byarunmulka
- Physics 2nd Year Test (1)Uploaded byRashid Jalal
- FO TestsUploaded byirfankhan
- SplunkUploaded byAnuj Gupta
- ANSYS Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byPrateek Jha
- lm56.pdfUploaded bytutesam
- Rajat Arora PPTUploaded byBibhu Ranjan Mohanty
- dbprin_1Uploaded byipolyzo
- Biology Study GuideUploaded byBrooke Barrios
- IIW_Best Practical Guide on Statistical Analysis of Fatigue DataUploaded byBaran Yeter
- Ultrasound PDMUploaded byMahesh Kumar
- Apsim 7.2 - Training Manual (as at 23 Aug 2010)Uploaded bymollenburger
- PDMUploaded bycontact_manishkumar5378
- sn74als245a.pdfUploaded byRodriguezJoseCarlos
- Training ReportUploaded byalvinraharjo
- 14.IJAEST Vol No 6 Issue No 1 Automatic Detection of Glaucoma Disease in Eye 077 080Uploaded byiserp
- HCNA-UC-IHUCA V2.8 Training Material(20160201).pdfUploaded bydrethgor
- slides19Uploaded byapi-3731921
- Seidel 1998 Qualitative Data AnalysisUploaded byTravis McGee
- Elastic Analysis & Application Tables of Rectangular Plates [Artigo-papanikolaou]Uploaded byMelekeen
- Remaining Life Assessment of Engineering ComponentsUploaded byAdlian Pratama
- Lec - 5 Fractional Fourier Transform v4.0Uploaded byNikesh Bajaj
- Manual 1 Torres AmcotUploaded byRobert Hernandez
- L08-1 d SettlementUploaded byChakshu Gautam
- 1-BlueHouse-Products-12.2015..Uploaded bySaif Chowdhury
- Gaussian TutorialUploaded byandrea
- mma_070921_endress_liquidlevelpart1Uploaded bysarsuresh
- Macroseep Association With ProductionUploaded byKunal Rathod
- Node.js: A Guided TourUploaded bycacois