Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract: In order to delineate the significant variables affecting the ultimate uplift shaft resistance of a pile in dry
sand, a testing program comprising 64 pullout tests was conducted on open- and closed-ended rough and smooth model
piles of two sizes (41 and 61 mm outside diameter). The model piles were installed in medium dense and dense sand
to an embedded depth of 0.8 m using two methods of pile placement, static jacking and driving. A rigid steel box
measuring 1.1 1.1 1.3 m was used as a sand container. The results obtained from this study indicated that pile
placement method, initial sand condition, pile surface roughness, and pile end type are all significant variables (given
in descending order) affecting the ultimate uplift shaft resistance of a single pile in dry sand. Overall, the closed-ended
piles showed a 24% increase in shaft resistance compared with the open-ended piles and the average unit shaft
resistance of the driven model pile was 1.33 times that of the jacked model pile in the dense sand condition and 1.52
times that of the jacked model pile in the medium dense sand condition. Depending on the test variables, the rough
model piles tested in this study experienced a 1254% increase in capacity compared with the smooth model piles.
Also, the lateral earth pressure coefficient values for the rough model piles were greater than those for the smooth
model piles. This suggests that part of the increase in capacity due to pile surface roughness is attributed to an increase
in the radial effective stress during tensile loading.
Key words: piles, shaft resistance, pile placement method, smooth pile, rough pile.
Rsum : Pour pouvoir caractriser les variables significatives affectant la rsistance latrale lextraction dun pieu
dans du sable sec, on a conduit un programme exprimental comprenant 64 essais darrachement de pieux modles
pointe ferme, rugueux ou lisses, avec deux tailles (41 et 61 mm de diamtre extrieur). Les pieux modles ont t
installs dans un sable de compacit moyenne forte jusqu une profondeur de 0,8 m suivant deux mthodes, savoir
par vrinage statique et par battage. Une enceinte rigide en acier de 1,1 1,1 1,3 m a t utilise pour contenir le
sable. De cette tude on peut conclure que la mthode de mise en place du pieu, ltat initial du sable, la rugosit de
surface et le type de pointe sont tous des facteurs significatifs (par ordre dcroissant) affectant la rsistant latrale
ultime lextraction dun pieu isol install dans du sable sec. De manire gnrale, les pieux pointe ferme ont
montr un gain de 24% de rsistance latrale par rapport aux pieux pointe ouverte et la rsistance moyenne par unit
de surface du pieu battu sest avre tre 1,33 fois celle du pieu modle vrin dans le sable dense et 1,52 fois celle
du pieu vrin dans le sable moyennement dense. Selon les conditions dessai, les pieux rugueux ont montr une
augmentation de 12 54% de la rsistance par rapport aux pieux lisses. On a aussi trouv que les valeurs du
coefficient de pression latrale des terres taient plus leves pour les pieux rugueux que pour les pieux lisses. Ceci
suggre quune partie du gain de rsistance d la rugosit de la surface du pieu peut tre attribu laugmentation
de la contrainte effective radiale pendant un chargement en tension.
Mots cls : pieu, rsistance de ft, mthode de mise en place, pieu lisse, pieu rugueux.
Fig. 1. Trend of variation of cv with grain size of granular soils The lateral earth pressure coefficient, K, is the most diffi-
shearing against a steel interface with 10 m CLA roughness cult term to evaluate because it is a romantion of the original
(after Jardine et al. 1992). in situ at rest lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ko, and the
stress changes caused in response to the construction proce-
Critical State Interface Friction Angle, cv
40
dure and pile loading as is clear from eqs. [4a] and [4b]. The
combined effect of these factors is to cause an increase or a
decrease from the original Ko value. Reviewing the current
literature revealed that the reported K values vary over a
30
wide range from Ka to Kp and, in some cases, may be higher
(degrees)
Fig. 2. Particle-size distribution curve of the laboratory sand Table 1. Characteristics of the model piles used in the study.
used in the study.
Outside Wall Total Embedded
100 Pile end Surface diameter thickness length length
type finish (mm) (mm) (m) (m)
Closed Smooth 41 2.0 1.015 0.80
80
Smooth 61 3.0 1.050 0.80
Rough 41 2.0 1.015 0.80
Rough 61 3.0 1.050 0.80
% Passing
60
Open Smooth 41 2.0 1.015 0.80
Smooth 61 3.0 1.050 0.80
40 Rough 41 2.0 1.015 0.80
Rough 61 3.0 1.050 0.80
20
can be read on the vernier. A small part was cut from the
rough pile and this part was tested. The value of Rmax was
found to be greater than 100 m (very rough), which may be
0 considered representative of the surface condition of rusty
10 1 0.1 0.01 steel pipe pile or very rough casting of concrete pile in the
Diameter (mm) field.
Sand container
medium sand condition the average dry unit weight was Pullout tests were conducted in a sand box measuring
15.2 kN/m3 (sand relative density Dr 45%) and for the 1.1 1.1 1.3 m made of steel plates 5 mm in thickness.
dense sand condition the average dry unit weight was Four 90 horizontal steel angles were welded to the steel box
16.4 kN/m3 (sand relative density Dr 70%). The peak fric- from outside to support the box walls. The dimensions of the
tion angle of the sand obtained using direct shear tests at sand box provide 812 times the model pile diameter clear-
stress levels comparable to those in the sand box was 39 ance between the outer surface of the model pile and the
and 48 for the medium dense and dense initial sand condi- wall of the sand box in the lateral direction and 812 times
tions, respectively. The constant volume friction angle of the the model pile diameter clearance below the model pile tip.
sand is 33. These clearance ratios between the outer surface of the
model pile and the boundaries of the sand box exceed the
Model piles extent of the zone of primary compaction around a cylindri-
Four open- and closed-ended smooth steel pipe piles are cal pile in sand which has been reported by Robinsky and
used in this study. The closed-ended model piles have a 60 Morrison (1964) and Broms (1966).
solid conical tip. The pile wall thickness was selected to be
large enough to avoid buckling of the cross section during Pile placement method and test procedure
installation. Table 1 summarizes the properties of the model Two pile placement methods were employed in this study,
piles. The outside diameters of the model piles (41 and jacking and driving. In the jacking method, the model pile is
61 mm) were chosen so that they have L/D ratios compara- slowly jacked into the sand at a rate of 3 mm/s using a hy-
ble to those for cylindrical piles in the field (for the model draulic jack of 100 mm maximum stroke. In the driving
piles, L/D = 13.1 and 19.5, where L is the embedded length, method, the model pile is driven into the sand using a cylin-
and D is the pile diameter). All the model piles were in- drical steel hammer of 7.14 kg total mass falling freely from
stalled in the sand for the same embedded depth of 0.80 m. a height of 300 mm. The pullout test was conducted 4 h af-
In this study, the smooth surface refers to the original pile ter placement (rest period) using a displacement control test
surface. Numerical assessment of the smooth surface rough- at a rate equal to 0.04 mm/s. The pullout test was performed
ness using a roughometer instrument gives a maximum peak using a hydraulic actuator of 25 kN maximum capacity. Fig-
to valley height, Rmax, in the range of 1227 m. According ure 3 shows schematic representation of the test setup. The
to the data on a full-scale steel pipe pile, driven into sand hydraulic actuator is equipped with a load cell to measure
(Sumikin Weld Pipe Co. Ltd. 1983), Rmax ranged between 7 the pullout load and a displacement transducer to measure
and 25 m. Higher Rmax values for a driven steel pipe pile the pile head displacement. The accuracy of the load sensing
into sand are also possible due to excessive abrasive wear of cell is 0.02 kN.
the pile by the sand. When all the required tests on the
smooth model piles were conducted, the surfaces of the Test results
model piles were made very rough by cutting circumfer-
ential and longitudinal grooves. Since the surface roughness A total of 64 tests were conducted in this study under dif-
of the rough pile exceeded the sensitivity of the roughometer ferent conditions. Thirty-two tests were conducted on the
instrument, a microscope was used to quantify the rough- rough model piles and 32 on the smooth model piles. Aver-
ness. The focus of this microscope can be adjusted on a val- age unit shaft resistance, fa, is calculated using the following
ley then on a peak and the difference in height (i.e., Rmax) equation, and the results are summarized in Table 2:
[5] fa =
Qo where is the effective unit weight.
AS The interface friction angle at failure, f, for the rough and
the smooth model piles was taken equal to the constant vol-
where Qo is the net ultimate uplift load, and AS is the em- ume interface friction angle, cv (Lehane et al. 1993; Jardine
bedded pile surface area. and Chow 1996; Jardine et al. 1992). This angle was taken
The calculated average unit shaft resistances at ultimate equal to 30 for the smooth model piles, consistent with the
uplift vary between 3.50 and 17.67 kN/m2 depending on the experimental data of Jarine et al. (1992) shown in Fig. 1. For
method of pile placement, initial sand density, pile end type, the rough model piles, shear failure occurs within the sand
pile size, and surface roughness. Figure 4 shows typical mass (Uesugi and Kishida 1986) and, in this case, the con-
loaddisplacement curves. In general, the displacement re- stant volume interface friction angle, cv, can be taken equal
quired to attain the peak uplift load is in the range of to the constant volume friction angle of sand, cv, which is
27 mm. 33.
Also, lateral earth pressure coefficient, K, values are cal-
culated from the following equation, and the results are sum-
marized in Table 3: Effects of system variables
2 fa
[6] K= The experiments showed the importance of two parame-
L tan f ters on the measured unit shaft resistance at ultimate uplift:
Fig. 4. Loaddisplacement curves for the closed-ended 41 mm between 1.11 and 1.43, with an average value of 1.24
outside diameter model pile in dense sand for (a) a rough (Fig. 7). Pile surface roughness influences the measured pile
interface and (b) a smooth interface. capacity. The data in Fig. 8 are scattered but suggest
(a) 2 1255% increase in capacity due to the model pile surface
roughness, with an average value of about 30%. It seems
that pile size (for the range investigated in this study) is an
insignificant factor. Since only two piles were investigated,
1.5 driven this observation does not disprove the observations made by
Uplift Load (kN)
driven
(2) There is a tendency for the sand to dilate during uplift
loading. This, of course, contributes to the calculated K val-
1 jacked
ues as shown in eqs. [4a] and [4b]. This effect increases
with increasing sand density and decreasing effective verti-
cal stress (Hettler 1982). The increase in capacity due to
0.5 sand dilation may also depend on pile surface roughness. As
seen from Table 3, the highest K value of 4.33 is for a rough
pile in dense sand. A plot of the calculated K values for the
0
rough model piles versus K values for the smooth model
0 5 10 15 20 25 piles is shown in Fig. 9. All the data points in Fig. 9 are
plotted above the equality line, suggesting that pile surface
Displacement (mm)
roughness enhances the tendency of the sand to dilate during
uplift loading, which in turn increases the magnitude of the
radial effective stress against the pile surface. This observa-
(1) the relative density of the sand, and (2) pile placement tion is generally in agreement with the following formula
method. Other parameters (i.e., pile end type and pile sur- (Jardine et al. 1998):
face roughness) are also important but their effects on the
GRcla
measured shaft resistance are less than those of the pile [7] rd
placement method and sand relative density. Overall, when R
the initial sand relative density increases from 45% to 70%,
the shaft resistance increases in average by 70% for the in which rd is the change in radial effective stress during
driven model piles and 100% for the jacked model piles, as pile loading, G is the operating shear modulus, Rcla is the
shown in Fig. 5. The driving method yields higher pile ca- centreline average roughness, and R is the pile radius.
pacity than the jacking method. The average ratio of the
shaft resistance of the driven model pile to that of the jacked Scale effects
model pile is 1.33 in the dense sand and 1.52 in the medium
dense sand (see Fig. 6). The driving method is usually asso- The best approach to the understanding of the uplift be-
ciated with vibration which may cause additional sand havior of piles in sand is to conduct full-scale tests. Unfortu-
densification in comparison to the jacking method. If the nately, the time and cost factors make field tests impractical
sand is initially very dense, which is not the case in this for research purposes. Furthermore, geological variability in
study, the effect of vibration associated with driving may be the field often obscures the results. Alternatively, laboratory
negative (i.e., sand loosening) and this may nullify part of tests using model piles play an important role in providing at
the primary compaction caused by the volume of the dis- least qualitative understanding of uplift behavior of piles in
placed sand. For the driving and jacking methods, the ratio sand. However, one major shortcoming of laboratory testing
of the average unit shaft resistance along the closed-ended using model piles is the uncertainty regarding how closely
model pile to that along the open-ended model pile varies the behavior of the model pile resembles field behavior.
1999 NRC Canada
Alawneh et al. 751
Fig. 5. Effect of initial sand density on the average unit shaft Fig. 7. Effect of pile end type on the average unit shaft
resistance. resistance.
20 20
15 15
driving (average line)
slope = 1.7
10
10
5
5
jacked (smooth)
jacked piles driven (smooth)
driven piles jacked (rough)
driven (rough)
0
0 5 10 15 20 0
Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Medium Dense), kPa 0 5 10 15 20
Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Open-Ended), kPa
Fig. 6. Comparison between the driving and jacking methods of
pile placement.
20 Turner and Kulhawy (1994) have shown that nonlinearity in
the failure envelope and soil dilation at low effective confin-
Average Unit Shaft Resistance ( Driven Piles), kPa
Fig. 8. Effect of pile surface roughness on the average unit shaft Fig. 9. Effect of pile surface roughness on values of the lateral
resistance earth pressure coefficient K.
20 5
Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Rough Piles), kPa
5
1
jacked piles medium dense
driven piles dense sand
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5
Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Smooth Piles), kPa Earth Pressure Coefficient (Smooth Piles)
Randolph, M.F., Dolwin, J., and Beck, R. 1994. Design of driven D: pile diameter
piles in sand. Gotechnique, 44(3): 427448. Dr: sand relative density
Robinsky, E.I., and Morrison, C.F. 1964. Sand displacement and D50: effective grain size
compaction around model friction piles. Canadian Geotechnical fa: average ultimate shaft resistance
Journal, 1(2): 8193. f(z): unit shaft resistance at depth z
Sumikin Weld Pipe Co. Ltd. 1983. Measured surface roughness of G: shear modulus
a steel pipe driven into sand deposit. Technical Data Submitted Gs: solid specific gravity
to the Study Group on Steel Pipe Piles for Buildings. (In Japa- K: lateral earth pressure coefficient
nese.)
Ko: at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient
Toolan, F.E., Lings, M.L., Bristol, U., and Mirza, U.A. 1990. An
Km: lateral earth pressure coefficient excluding sand dilation
appraisal of API RP2A recommendations for determining skin
friction of piles in sand. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Off-
Ka: Rankines active earth pressure coefficient
shore Technology Conference, May 710, Houston, Texas, Kp: Rankines passive earth pressure coefficient
pp. 3342. L: embedded length of pile
Turner, J.P., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1994. Physical modeling of drilled z: depth below ground surface
shaft side resistance in sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Qo: ultimate uplift load
17(3): 282290. R: pile radius
Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H. 1986. Frictional resistance at yield be- Rmax: maximum peak to valley height
tween dry sand and mild steel. Soils and Foundations, 26(4): Rcla: centreline average roughness
139149. : pilesand friction angle
Vesic, A.S. 1977. Design of pile foundation. National Cooperative cv: critical state interface friction angle
Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice f: pilesand friction angle at failure
(42), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. : effective friction angle of sand
cv: constant volume friction angle of sand
List of symbols : effective unit weight
v: effective vertical pressure
AS: embedded surface area of pile rf : radial effective stress at failure
Cc: concavity coefficient rd : radial effective stress due to sand dilation
Cu: uniformity coefficient rc : stationary radial effective stress prior to pile loading