Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Bored Sockets in weathered Basalt

L. Maertens

Manager Engineering Department Besix, Belgium – Associate Professor Catholic University Leuven

Keywords: sockets, open-end piles, tensile piles, basalt

ABSTRACT: Offshore structures are often supported by open-end piles installed from marine equipment such as Self Elevating Platforms (S.E.P.). Depending on the subsoil conditions, the penetration of the driven piles can be sufficient to resist uplifting forces or not. In the case of very hard-cemented soils or weathered rocks with underlying sound rock layers, it becomes impossible to install the piles to a depth ensuring suffi- cient friction to resist uplift forces. It is then needed to install pre-stressed rock anchors inside the open-end pile or bore sockets beneath the open pile tip and install a reinforced concrete pile in this bored hole. These sockets can be drilled by rotation or by percussion. The present paper deals with the installation of 610-mm diameter bored sockets through open-end piles (dia. 762-mm) in weathered and sound basalt. The working compression loads reach 4000 kN and the tensile loads 2000 kN. Design, testing and installation of the sockets will be discussed.

1

INTRODUCTION

India’s first L.N.G. Terminal was constructed on the western coast along the Arabian Sea, about 160-km south of Mumbai. Steel open-end piles support the 1750-m long jetty, the jetty head, the berthing and mooring dolphins, the walkways and the navigation dolphins (see figure 1). All struc- tures are designed to resist live loads, wave loads with a significant height of 9-m, currents of 1- m/sec and earthquake loads with a ground accel- eration of 0.16-g.

earthquake loads with a ground accel- eration of 0.16-g. Figure 1: General view of the terminal

Figure 1: General view of the terminal

The subsoil consists of three subsequent layers:

Soft clay layer with a thickness between 0 and

6-m.

Weathered Basalt with a thickness between 1 and 5-m, and a RQD value varying between 0 to 90%.

Sound basalt with unconfined compression strength between 29 and 115 MPa.

A significant problem is the definition of the instal- lation procedure for the piles reconciling the re- quirement to guarantee an adequate bearing capac- ity and the requirement of limiting the deformation of the pile tip in such a way that the installation of the socket through the steel open-end pile remains possible without damaging the drilling equipment. This problem will be treated shortly in an adden- dum. The design values to be applied for the bond be- tween the concrete sockets and the (weathered) ba- salt on one hand and the bond between the sockets and the steel pile on the other hand are a second problem. To better assess both problems, an onshore test campaign was organized.

2 BORING EQUIPMENT

2 BORING EQUIPMENT Figure 2: RCDS-3 drilling hammer The drilling equipment used in Dabhol is specially

Figure 2: RCDS-3 drilling hammer

The drilling equipment used in Dabhol is specially designed and built for the site by Geotec Interna- tional (Belgium) and consists of a Numa Reversh Circulation Hammer (Massachusetts, USA) com- bined by a RCD rotary head (NCB, Italy). It allows for boring 610-mm diameter sockets in the weathered and sound basalt trough the 762-mm diameter pile.

The RCDS-3 drilling equipment consists of (see figure 2):

1. Casing clamp

2. Working platform

3. Raking cylinder

4. Mast inclination cylinder

5. Rotary head

6. Mast

7. Pull-down hydraulic gear motor

8. Suction pipe

9. Drill rod

10. Casing

11. Stabiliser

12. Down-the-hole hammer

rod 10. Casing 11. Stabiliser 12. Down-the-hole hammer Figure 3: drilling hammer 3 SOIL CONDITIONS AT

Figure 3: drilling hammer

3 SOIL CONDITIONS AT ONSHORE TEST LOCATION

Boring at test location

TCR RQD (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 TCR 5 RQD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
TCR
5
RQD
10
15
DEPTH (m)

Figure 4: Boring at test location

To perform the onshore trial pile test, a series of onshore borings were carried out in order to find a location with a geological profile as similar as pos- sible to the available offshore borings. The aim was to find a location with a sufficient thick layer

of weathered basalt.

A typical boring at the test location is given on fig-

ure 4.

Nine unconfined rock core tests were performed, giving an UCS of respectively: 72,5 – 43,1 – 61,6 – 50,8 – 113,3 – 52,6 – 65,1 – 30.0 and 42,8 MPa

4

STATIC TENSILE TESTS:

4 STATIC TENSILE TESTS: Figure 5: Tensile test Two static tensile pile tests were performed on

Figure 5: Tensile test

Two static tensile pile tests were performed on pile T1 with a socket of 6-m and on pile T2 with a socket of 3-m.

A tensile test up to 4000 KN was performed on

pile T1 and one up to 2000 KN on pile T2. As the

result of the tensile test on both piles T1 and T1 was totally satisfactory, it was decided to carry out a pull out test on pile T2 up to 5000 KN (limit due

to the strength of the testing frame). The pile char-

acteristics are given in Figure 6.

Testpiles 762x16 mm Sockets 610 mm

9,59

8,54

5,95

-0,05

T1 T2
T1
T2

Figure 6: Test piles

9,60

8,59

4,35

1,35

The results of T2-test, T1-test and pullout test are given in figures 7, 8 and 9.

Pile load test T2 (15-16/09/99) - Interpretation of socket load

Tensile Load (kN)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 First Loading Slope 0,1 Load
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
0
First Loading Slope
0,1
Load supported by friction on steel pile
0,2
Second Loading Slope
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
Average uplift (mm)

Figure 7 : Test result T2 (2000 KN)

T2 - superposition of loading and unloading curves to 2000 kN and 5000 kN

Tensile Load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 0,5 1 1,5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Average uplift (mm)
Working load

Figure 8: Test result T2 (5000 KN)

Pile load test T1 (10-11/09/1999) - Loading and unloading curves

Tensile Load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0,00 First Loading Cycle 0,50 1,00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0,00
First Loading Cycle
0,50
1,00
1,50
Second Loading Cycle
2,00
2,50
3,00
Average Uplift (mm)

Figure 9 : Test result T1 (4000 KN)

Results of the tensile test:

     

Deflec-

 

Deflec-

Pile

Socket

length

(m)

Wor

king

load

(kN)

tion at

working

load

(mm)

Test

load

(kN)

tion at

test

load

(mm)

T1

6.0

2000

1.5

4000

2.8

T2

3.0

1000

0.5

2000

0.7

T2

3.0

1000

 

5000

3.4

As pile tensile capacity is not only generated by friction on the socket, but also by friction on the steel pile, and since the uplift design is neglecting the latter, it was advisable to split up both. In Fig- ure 7 one can distinguish two slopes in the loading curve. We assumed that the change in slope corre- sponds to the start of mobilisation of the friction on the socket

One can see that the uplift resistance generated by the dead load together with the friction between the steel pile and the weathered basalt was found to be 1250-kN. This corresponds to a bond stress be- tween the steel and the basalt equal to 115 kPa or 0,115 MPa.

According to Hobbs and Healy [1], Tchepak [8] and to Tomlinson [2], the ultimate skin friction for driven tubular steel piles were published as fol- lows:

Type of soil

Ultimate skin

friction (MPa)

Weathered chalk [1] Weathered to unweathered chalk [1] Weak coral [2] Moderately strong sandstone [2] Weak calcareous sandstone [2] Medium weathered siltstone [8]

0,026

0,010 to 0,100

0,045

0,028

0,045

3 to 5

This shows that the uplift resistance due to the fric- tion between the steel pile and the weathered basalt is probably over-estimated, but this is on the safe side for the estimation of the ultimate skin friction between the socket and the basalt.

The remaining uplift force (3750 kN) was sup- ported by the socket; the ultimate skin friction be- tween the concrete of the socket and the basalt was at least 0,65 MPa.

5 CALCULATION OF THE UPLIFT FORCES.

The calculation of the uplift forces for sockets bored in rock is complicated since the ultimate skin friction and the bond between concrete and rock depends on many factors:

q uc : unconfined rock strength (MPa)

Discontinuities and fractions in the rock

Concrete strength (MPa)

Socket roughness, expressed by the mean roughness height Δr (mm) or by the roughness factor RF (non dimensional)

E m and ν: rock mass modulus (MPa) and Pois- sons ration.

R s: socket radius (m)

The length to the diameter ratio of the socket

The mass of mobilized soil

Installation method of the socket.

In the Dabhol case, following parameters are known (Test pile T2):

q uc = 36 MPa : this is the characteristic calcu- lated from the test values given in § 3 after de- leting the highest and lowest value

Discontinuities : the boring results given in figure 4 show over the socket length RQD val- ues between 40 and 95%. This corresponds to a number of fractures per meter between 10 and 1.

Socket length: 3m

R s = 0,305-m (socket radius)

Mass of mobilized soil can be calculated from the socket depth (7,24-m), socket length (3-m) and the rock density (= 22,5 kN/m³)

Installation method: percussion without use of drilling fluid. According to Seidel and Collingwood [3] a reduction factor η c on the ul- timate skin friction is recommended as follows (table below).

Construction method

Control

 

η

c

No drilling fluid

High level

 

1.0

No drilling fluid

Low level

0.3

– 0.9

Bentonite slurry

High level

0.7

– 0.9

Bentonite slurry

Low level

0.3

– 0.6

Polymer slurry

High level

0.9

– 1.0

Polymer slurry

Low level

 

0.8

Indicative values for reduction factor, η c

5.1 Design Method proposed by Tomlinson [2]

This method is based on research by Williams and Pelles [4], Rosenbergh and Journeaux [5], and Hobbs [6] and is given in figure 10.

Rock Socket skin friction according to Tomlinson f s =αβq uc

0,9 β -values by Hobbs 0,8 Fractures β per meter 0,7 15-20 0.4 0,6 Williams
0,9
β -values
by
Hobbs
0,8
Fractures
β
per meter
0,7
15-20
0.4
0,6
Williams and
Pells
8-15
0.6
5-8
0.7
α-values
0,5
1-5
0.8
1
0.9
0,4
0,3
Rosenbergh
and
0,2
Journeaux
0,1
0
q uc (Mpa)
0,1
1
10
100
Figure 10
For
= 36 MPa
q uc
α

α value is between 0,05 and 0,10

β value is between 0,6 and 0,9

An average value for the ultimate skin friction is given by:

ƒs = 0,75 * 0,75 * 36 = 2,02 MPa

The ultimate uplift force (Fs) is:

Fs = π * 0,61 * 3 * 2,02 = 11,61 MN

In case of a low control level during construction, a reduction factor η c = 0,3 to 0,9 has to be applied. For an average value of 0,6 the ultimate friction becomes 1,21 MPa and the ultimate uplift force 6,97 MN.

5.2 Design Method proposed by Horvath [7]

Horvath et all [7] developed a new factor charac- terizing the roughness of the socket wall:

RF

=

Δ

r

h

*

L

t

R

s

L

s

Δr h = mean roughness height L t = total travel distance along the socket wall pro- file L s = length of the socket = 3 m

According to Seidel and Collingwood [3], the av- erage value of Δ r h varies between 5 and 10-mm for quality boring without producing artificially grooves.

For the ultimate skin friction, one proposes:

α = 0,8 * (RF) 0,45 and f s = α * q uc

This means that for a boring without grooves (Δ r h = 0), the skin friction becomes zero and thus no bond between concrete and rock is considered, which is very conservative. To better understand the influence of grooves, let’s consider a triangular groove with a depth d each 100- mm (see figure 11):

Alfa Factor in function of Groove depth f s = α x q uc

0,26 Groove Shape: 300mm Pile 0,24 0,22 0,20 600mm Pile 0,18 d 0,16 1200mm Pile
0,26
Groove Shape:
300mm Pile
0,24
0,22
0,20
600mm Pile
0,18
d
0,16
1200mm
Pile
0,14
0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0,00
α
100 mm
300 mm (dotted)

02468

Groove depth d (mm)

Figure 11

10

This figure shows that the performance of a socket can be improved significantly by creating artifi- cially grooves in the socket wall. As one can ob- serve the skin friction factor α is also independent

from the strength of the rock. This is in contradic- tion with the approach given in 5.1.

The graphs in full line are the values that corre- spond to the assumption of one groove each 100 mm, and the graphs in dotted line to one groove each 300 mm. This shows that increase the depth of the grooves is much more efficient than increase density.

Considering for the Dabhol T 2 case a Δr h value of only 3-mm, we find α = 0.14 and f s = 5,04 MN/m² which gives F s = 28,98 MN.

5.3 Design method proposed by Seidel and Collingwood [3]

The authors consider a coefficient called SRC (Shaft Resistant Coefficient):

SRC

=

η

c

*

n

*

Δ

rh

(1 +

ν

)

d

s

with n = Em/q uc (rock mass modulus to the uncon- fined compression strength). n 100

ν = Poisson Ratio

ν = 0,25

By calculations using the software ROCKET, the authors conclude as follows:

f s = α * q uc with α according to figure 12. Adhesion Factor
f s = α * q uc
with α according to figure 12.
Adhesion Factor from SRC
f s = α x q uc
0,40
q uc = 0.5 MPa
0,35
0,30
q uc = 1.0 MPa
0,25
q uc > 3.0 MPa
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
SRC
α

Figure 12

In Dabhol T 2 case:

ηc = 1 ; n = 100 ; ν = 0,25 ; Δ r h = 3 mm ; d s = 610 mm

SRC = 0,38 → α = 0,12 f s = 0,12 * 36 = 4,32 Mpa F s = 24,83 MN

5.4 The mass of mobilized rock

The mass of the mobilized rock depends on the shape of the considered rock conus. The angle of failure can be considered ϕ 1 = 30° for weathered basalt and ϕ 2 = 45° for sound basalt.

By limiting the uplift force to the weight of this rock conus (see formula in figure 13), one neglects the cohesion or bond stresses at the failure surface, which is conservative.

Uplift Conus Test Pile 2 8,59 L1 Weathered 30° Basalt ϕ 1 = 30° 4,35
Uplift Conus Test Pile 2
8,59
L1
Weathered
30°
Basalt
ϕ 1 = 30°
4,35
2,59
45°
L2
Basalt
ϕ 2 = 45°
1,35
W = π/3*γ rock [ tg²ϕ 1 * ( (L1+L2) * tgϕ 2 /tgϕ 1 +L1*(1-tgϕ 2 /tgϕ 1 ) )³
+ tg²ϕ 2 * (L2)³ * (1-tgϕ 2 /tgϕ 1 ) ]
Figure 13

5.5 Evaluation of the discussed design methods

Build in Safety Uplift capacity against socket length for testpile T2 L1= 6m - Pile
Build in Safety
Uplift capacity against socket length for testpile T2
L1= 6m - Pile embedded over 4.24m
Weight of the rock conus: s = 1.2
Friction socket-rock: s = 3
30.000
28.000
26.000
24.000
Socket Friction
22.000
Socket Friction
(Horvath)
20.000
(Seidel)
18.000
16.000
14.000
Weight of
12.000
rock
conus
10.000
Socket Friction
8.000
(Tomlinson)
6.000
4.000
2.000
0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
Uplift force (kN)

Socket length L (m)

Figure 14

In figure 14 the allowed working load of the pile T2 is plotted against increasing socket length. A safety factor of 3 is applied on the skin friction and 1.2 on the weight of the corresponding rock conus. One can see that in this case the governing crite- rion is the weight of the rock conus, as far as the length of the socket is smaller than 3,25-m (Tomlinson), 7,50-m (Horvath) and 6,75-m (Seidel).

5.6 Bond stress socket-steel pile

In many cases, stud-bolds are provided to guaran- tee the load transfer from the concrete socket to the steel pile. According to B.S. 5400, Part 5 shear connections can be avoided as far as the ultimate bond stress does not exceed 0,4 MPa in the case of concrete poured in a cylindrical steel pipe. In the T 2 pile, the length of the socket plug inside the pile was 2,3-m, giving a bonded surface of 5,3 -m² and an ultimate bond capacity of 5,3 * 0,4 = 2,12 MN. The applied force was at least 3,75 MN, giving a bond stress of 0,71 MPa, or 1,75 times the ulti- mate bond stress according to B.S. 5400.

6 ADDENDUM: INSTALLATION PROCEDURE FOR PILES.

B.S. 5400. 6 ADDENDUM: INSTALLATION PROCEDURE FOR PILES. Figure 15: Damaged pile tip Damage of pile

Figure 15: Damaged pile tip

Damage of pile tip as shown in figure 15 cannot be accepted since excessive damage of pile tip pre- vents the installation of the sockets through the piles.

Driving analysis by TNO-WAVE (Pdp Wave) can predict for the considered soil profile the SRD (Static Resistance during Driving) as well as the stress in the pile during driving, for different Ham- mer Energy levels and different penetrations per blow.

In figure 16, the results of this analysis are shown for a compression pile (760 * 16-mm):

It shows that the stress during driving decrease significantly when the hammer energy is reduced. For a S90 hammer (hydraulic hammer from IHC), one can see that for an SRD value of 5250 KN, the driving stress is 350 MPa for a full energy setting of 90 KJ and is reduced to 260 MPa when the set- ting of the energy is reduced to 45 KJ.

On another hand, the number of blows is increased from 28 to 108 blows per 100-mm penetration. This means that the driving time is almost 4 times longer as the number of blows remains 50 blows per minute. Field test shows the following damage:

Pile

Thickness

Max

Maximum

Damage

(mm)

blows for

Driving

at toe

100-mm

Stress

(m)

penetra-

(from output

tion (at 90 kJ)

of TNO-

wave model)

 

(MPa)

 

1 16

51

380

0.1

 

2 16

50

380

0.5

 

3 19

57

360

0.5

Definition of refusal for compression pile 16 mm

10000 Maximum SRD = 2 Maximum Working Load 9000 = 2 * 2620 kN =
10000
Maximum SRD = 2 Maximum Working
Load
9000
= 2 * 2620 kN = 5250 kN
90 kJ
8000
7000
67,5 kJ
6000
5000
45 kJ
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
SRD (kN)

Blows per 100 mm penetration

450 400 Yield stress = 415 MPa 350 Allowable stress = 332 MPa 300 250
450
400
Yield stress =
415 MPa
350
Allowable stress = 332 MPa
300
250
200
150
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Maximum Driving Stress (MPa)

Blows per 100 mm penetration

Figure 16

As one can see, the maximum stresses during driv- ing were close to the yield stress (415 MPa). In fact these maximum driving stresses are computed by the IHC model with the assumption that the stresses are uniformly distributed over the entire cross section. This is of course never true in real- ity, and an appropriate safety factor has to be used in the definition of the refusal criteria.

Final installation criteria to guarantee the required SRD are governed by in-depth stress and damage analyses. It was concluded to allow 80% of the yield stress (= 332 MPa) for compression piles and 55% (= 225 MPa) for tension piles, since tension piles need a socket.

Finally the installation procedure was as follows:

Refusal criteria for permanent works

Pile

Hammer En-

Blows per

ergy

100-mm

penetra-

tion

(kj)

(% of

 

full en-

ergy)

Com-

16-mm

45

50

100

pression

19-mm

67.5

75

100

Tension

16-mm

45

50

20

(*)

19-mm

45

50

40

(*)

(*) This criterion was checked by installing two additional raking piles on the test location onshore. After inspection, no damage at pile tip was observed as shown below in figure 17.

damage at pile tip was observed as shown below in figure 17. Figure 17: Pile tip

Figure 17: Pile tip after driving

7

CONCLUSIONS

The most appropriate foundation method for off- shore structures in cemented soils or weathered rocks is a foundation on tubular steel pile.

Due to the problem of penetrating the piles to suf- ficient depth, bored sockets are often needed to re- sist uplifting forces.

This leads to following problems:

1. Pile driving criteria for piling to guarantee a very low damage level on the pile tips. This can be managed by driving analyses using appropriate software and in-situ testing.

2. Design methods for sockets are not yet stan- dardized and existing methods are giving a large dispersion of results. The weight of mobilised rock is often governing the design. In situ tests are needed to confirm the calcu- lations.

REFERENCES

[1] HOBBS, N. B. and HEALY, P. R. Piling in chalk, Con- struction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), Report PG6, 1979.

[2] TOMLINSON, M. J., Pile design and construction prac- tice, E & FN Spon, London, 1995.

[3] SEIDEL, J. and COLLINGWOOD, B., The SRC method for estimating side resistance of drilled shaft, The Maga- zine of the Deep Foundations Institute, Fall 2002.

[4] WILLIAMS, A. F. and PELLS, P. J. N. Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, 1981, pp. 502-513.

[5] ROSENBERG, P. and JOURNEAUX, N. L. Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket de- sign, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, 1976, pp.

324-333.

[6] HOBBS, N. B. Review paper – Rocks, Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, British Geotech- nical Society, Pentech Press, 1975, pp. 579-610.

[7] HORVATH, R. G., KENNEY, T. C. and KOZICKI, P. Methods for improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, 1983, pp. 758-772.

[8] TCHEPAK, S., CHIN, M.C. Statnamic testing of bored piles socketed into siltstone, BAPIII, Ghent, 1998.

[9] MAERTENS, L. Design and installation of steel open end piles in weathered basalt, International Deep Foundations Congress, Orlando, 2002