Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

746

Tension tests on smooth and rough model piles


in dry sand
Ahmed Shlash Alawneh, Abdallah I. Husein Malkawi, and Husein Al-Deeky

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.

[Traduit par la Rdaction] Alawneh et al. 753

Introduction where Qo is the net ultimate uplift side resistance, D is the


pile diameter, L is the pile embedded length, and f is the
The uplift resistance of a single pile in sand is usually as- pilesand friction angle at failure.
sumed to be dependent on the peak local shaft friction which
The research programs of Lehane et al. (1993) and Jardine
is related to the radial effective stress at failure, rf . Gen-
and Chow (1996) have led to the conclusion that the radial
erally, an equation of the following form is usually used to
effective stress acting on the pile shaft is comprised of two
evaluate the net ultimate uplift side resistance of a vertical
components. These are the stationary radial effective stress
circular pile in sand:
component (radial stress after installation and before load-
L ing) and the additional component which may come from
[1] Qo = D rf tan f dz sand dilation during loading:
0
[2] rf = rc + rd
Received June 17, 1998. Accepted November 2, 1998.
A.S. Alawneh, A.I.H. Malkawi, and H. Al-Deeky. Jordan in which rc is the radial effective stress after installation
University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan. and before loading, and rd is the contribution of sand dila-

Can. Geotech. J. 36: 746753 (1999) 1999 NRC Canada


Alawneh et al. 747

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)

than Kp (where Ka and Kp are Rankines active and passive


earth pressure coefficients, respectively). Due to the wide
range of recommended K values, predicted shaft resistance
20 can vary by several hundred percent. The procedure in the
American Petroleum Institute (API 1984) RP2A code rec-
ommends the use of K values equal to 0.8 and 1.0 to esti-
mate shaft resistance of open- and closed-ended driven piles
10 in sand, respectively. No distinction is made between shaft
0.01 0.1 1 resistance in tension and that in compression. The API
Mean Partical Size, D50 (mm) (1984) adopted the limiting unit shaft resistance concept
which is not in agreement with observations made from cone
penetrometers (Kraft 1991). Kulhawy (1984) argued that
tion to the effective radial stress during loading. Equation unit shaft resistance continues to increase with depth without
[2] may be written in the following form: a limiting value and gave a rational explanation for the ob-
served limiting values in the field over a limiting range in
[3] rf = v Km (z) + rd depth. Moreover, the studies by Toolan et al. (1990),
v Randolph et al. (1994), Jardine et al. (1998), and others have
revealed the limitations of the API code design guidelines
where Km is an earth pressure coefficient excluding the con- for tension piles, especially for piles in loose and dense sand
tribution of sand dilation, v is the effective vertical stress, sites, and recommended new design methods.
and z is the depth below ground surface. This equation can This study describes the results of an experimental investi-
be written as gation of the pullout resistance of smooth and rough steel
[4a] rf = K(z)v model piles in sand. The model piles are driven or slowly
jacked open- or closed-ended for a penetration of 0.80 m in

[4b] K(z) = Km (z) + rd a dry medium dense or dense sand before testing them in
v tension. All the test results are analyzed to investigate the ef-
fects of the pile placement method, initial sand density, pile
where K is the lateral earth pressure coefficient including the surface roughness, pile size, and pile end type on the ulti-
contribution of sand dilation. mate uplift shaft resistance.
The factors K and are the most important factors that
need to be determined. Using direct shear test data, Kulhawy Test variables
et al. (1983) related the interface friction angle, , to the
friction angle of sand, , for different construction materials In this study, the following test variables were selected:
(timber, steel, and concrete). Vesic (1977) stated that tan (i) pile placement method (driving, jacking), (ii) pile end
can be taken as tan , the coefficient of friction of the type (open- and closed-ended piles), (iii) pile surface rough-
remolded soil in terms of effective stress. Recent contribu- ness (smooth and rough), (iv) pile size (41 and 61 mm out-
tions by Lehane et al. (1993), Jardine and Chow (1996), and side diameter piles), and (v) initial sand density (medium
Jardine et al. (1998) indicate that a highly localized critical dense and dense sands).
state interface shearing condition predominates when local
shaft failure develops and the operating angles of interface Materials and methods
friction at ultimate uplift, f, in the field compare closely
with the constant volume (critical state) interface friction an- Laboratory sand
gles, cv, that appear to be independent of initial sand rela- In this study, a siliceous, clean, poorly graded sand was
tive density. For a given pile roughness, these angles tend to used. The grain-size distribution curve is presented in Fig. 2.
decrease as grain size increases, as shown in Fig. 1 for a typ- The analysis of the gradation curve yields a uniformity coef-
ical steel pile surface roughness of 10 m (centreline aver- ficient (Cu) of 1.76, a curvature coefficient (Cc) of 0.78, and
age roughness, CLA). When the pile surface roughness an effective grain size (D50) of 0.27 mm. The maximum and
exceeds a certain normalized critical value with respect to minimum dry densities are 13.7 and 17.7 kN/m3 (American
D50 (effective grain size), shear failure occurs within the Society for Testing and Materials Method D-854). The solid
sand mass (Uesugi and Kishida 1986) and, in this case, the specific gravity of the sand (Gs) is 2.65.
operating interface friction angle at peak, f, is upper A homogeneous sand deposit was obtained by gradually
bounded by the constant volume friction angle of sand, cv. filling sand into the container in layers 15 cm thick. For the

1999 NRC Canada


748 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

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:

1999 NRC Canada


Alawneh et al. 749

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the test setup.

Table 2. Average unit shaft resistance (kPa) at ultimate uplift.


Rough pilesa Smooth pilesb
Pile end Pile size Medium dense sand Dense sand Medium dense sand Dense sand
type (mm) Jacking Driving Jacking Driving Jacking Driving Jacking Driving
Closed 41 6.70 9.03 13.50 17.67 4.73 6.96 9.29 12.59
6.22 9.91 12.53 17.19 4.34 7.25 9.97 12.30
(6.46) (9.47) (13.0) (17.4) (4.54) (7.11) (9.63) (12.45)
61 6.70 11.00 12.56 16.48 4.91 7.32 10.06 13.58
6.22 10.80 13.02 15.76 4.71 7.06 9.34 13.06
(6.53) (10.9) (12.7) (16.1) (4.81) (7.19) (9.70) (13.32)
Open 41 4.81 7.33 10.24 11.89 3.50 6.03 8.35 10.59
4.52 6.75 11.18 12.67 3.60 6.41 8.45 11.07
(4.67) (7.04) (10.7) (12.2) (3.55) (6.22) (8.40) (10.83)
61 5.05 8.00 9.81 13.14 3.64 6.51 8.99 11.41
6.32 8.18 10.14 13.46 3.58 5.99 8.67 11.01
(5.69) (8.09) (9.98) (13.3) (3.61) (6.25) (8.83) (11.21)
Notes: Medium dense sand Dr = 45%, and dense sand Dr = 70%. Average values are shown in parentheses.
a
Rough interface (rusty steel pipe pile, Rmax > 100 m).
b
Smooth interface (normal steel pipe pile, Rmax from 12 to 27 m).

[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:

1999 NRC Canada


750 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

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)

jacked other investigators. On the basis of tension tests conducted


on model piles, Hettler (1982) found that the unit shaft resis-
1 tance increases as the pile diameter decreases and the
amount of this increase increases with increasing initial sand
density. In loose sand, Hettler concluded that the unit shaft
0.5 resistance is practically independent of pile diameter.
In general, the calculated lateral earth pressure coefficient
values shown in Table 3 are relatively high and this may be
explained by the following:
0 (1) The driving method is usually associated with vibra-
0 5 10 15 20 25
tion, which causes additional densification of the sand in
Displacement (mm) comparison to the jacking method. It seems that the effec-
tiveness of this phenomenon is a romantion of the initial
(b) 2 sand condition (more effective in the medium sand condi-
tion, since there is room available for extra sand
densification). This, most probably, yields relatively high K
1.5 values in the medium dense sand condition, especially for
the driven model piles.
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

Table 3. Lateral earth pressure coefficient K.


Smooth pilesa Rough pilesb
Pile end Pile size Medium dense sand Dense sand Medium dense sand Dense sand
type (mm) Jacking Driving Jacking Driving Jacking Driving Jacking Driving
Closed 41 1.29 2.01 2.52 3.26 1.63 2.39 3.23 4.33
61 1.36 2.05 2.54 3.49 1.65 2.75 3.18 4.00
Open 41 1.01 1.77 2.2 2.83 1.18 1.78 2.66 3.05
61 1.02 1.78 2.31 2.93 1.44 2.04 2.48 3.30
Notes: Values in the table are averages. Medium dense sand Dr = 45%; dense sand Dr = 70%.
a
Smooth interface (normal steel pipe pile, Rmax from 12 to 27 m).
b
Rough interface (rusty steel pipe pile, Rmax >100 m).

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

Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Closed-Ended), kPa


Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Dense Sand), kPa

jacking (average line) slope = 1.24


slope = 2 (average line)

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

ing stress can combine to cause apparent scale effects. They


concluded that the effect of curvature in the failure envelope
slope = 1.52 (medium)
(high friction angles) at low effective confining stresses is
15 insignificant for depths greater than 600 mm. All the model
piles tested in this study were installed for greater depths
(800 mm). Sand dilation during uplift loading contributes to
slope = 1.33 (dense) the measured shaft resistance of the model piles in this
study. Although the effect of sand dilation was not quanti-
10
fied and separated from the measured shaft resistance of the
model piles in this study, the test results still provide a con-
sistent basis to compare the influence of the different param-
eters on a relative scale. The slopes of the lines shown in
5 smooth piles in medium sand Fig. 48 represent average shaft resistance ratios. The effect
smooth piles in dense sand of sand dilation on these ratios is expected to be small, since
rough piles in medium sand division nullifies a significant part of this effect, and the
rough piles in dense sand conclusions drawn from this study on the basis of these ra-
tios are acceptable and meaningful. On the other hand, any
0 attempt to extrapolate, for example the K values calculated
0 5 10 15 20
from the tests in this study, directly to piles in the field is
Average Unit Shaft Resistance (Jacked Piles), kPa not accepted unless measures and corrections similar to
1999 NRC Canada
752 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

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

approximate upper bound

Earth Pressure Coefficient (Rough Piles)


limit, slope = 1.55
4
15

approximate lower bound 3


limit, slope 1.12
10 equality line

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)

those recommended by Turner and Kulhawy are considered. References


API. 1984. API recommended practice for planning, designing and
construction of fixed offshore platforms: APIRP2A. American
Conclusions Petroleum Institute, 15th Ed. Washington, D.C.
In this study, pullout tests were conducted on model piles Broms, B.B. 1966. Methods of calculating the ultimate bearing ca-
pacity of piles: a summary. Sol-Soils, France, 5(1819): 2131.
in sand under different conditions to investigate the effects
Hettler, A. 1982. Approximate formulae for piles under tension. In
of the pile placement method, initial sand condition, pile
Proceedings of the International Union of Theoretical and Ap-
surface roughness, and pile end type on the ultimate uplift plied Mechanics (IUTAM) Conference on Deformation and Fail-
shaft resistance of a pile in sand. On the basis of the results ure of Granular Materials, pp. 603608.
of these tests, the following conclusions are drawn: Jardine, R.J., and Chow, F.C. 1996. New design methods for off-
(1) Pile placement method, initial sand condition, pile sur- shore piles. MTD Publication 96/103, Center for Petroleum and
face roughness, and pile end type are all significant variables Marine Technology (CPMT), London, U.K.
affecting the ultimate uplift shaft resistance of a pile in sand. Jardine, R.J., Everton, S.J., and Lehane, B.M. 1992. Friction coeffi-
A rating of the importance of these variables is as follows cients for piles in cohesionless soils. In Proceedings of the Inter-
(the most important factor is given first): initial sand density, national Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and
pile placement method, pile surface finish, and pile end type. Foundation Behavior. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
(2) The driving method yields higher shaft resistance than The Netherlands, pp. 661680.
the jacking method. Overall, the ratio of the average unit Jardine, R.J., Overy, R.F., and Chow, F.C. 1998. Axial capacity of
shaft resistance of the closed-ended driven model pile to that offshore piles in dense North Sea sands. Journal of Geotechnical
of the jacked model pile is 1.33 in the dense sand condition and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(2): 171178.
and 1.52 in the medium dense sand. In comparison to the Kraft, L.M. 1991. Performance of axially loaded pipe piles in sand.
open-ended model piles (driven or jacked), the closed-ended Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(2): 272296.
model piles (driven or jacked) exhibited approximately 24% Kulhawy, F.H. 1984. Limiting tip and side resistance: fact or fal-
increase in shaft resistance at ultimate uplift. lacy? In Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Founda-
tions, Oct. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco,
(3) In general, the rough model piles tested in this study Calif., pp. 8098.
experienced 1255% greater capacity than the smooth model Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H., Beech, J.F., ORourke, T.D.,
piles (30% on average). McGuire, W., Wood, W.A., and Capano, C. 1983. Transmission
(4) The lateral earth pressure coefficient is affected by the line structure foundations for upliftcompression loading. Report
pile surface roughness (larger for the rough model piles). EL-2870, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
This implies that pile surface roughness enhances the ten- Lehane, B.M., Jardine, R.J., Bond, A.J., and Frank, R. 1993.
dency of the sand to dilate during uplift loading, which in Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile
turn increases the magnitude of the radial effective stress tests. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(1):
against the pile surface. 1935.

1999 NRC Canada


Alawneh et al. 753

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

1999 NRC Canada

Potrebbero piacerti anche