Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J. Erik Loehr, Ph.D., P.E. University of Missouri Dan A. Brown, Ph.D., P.E. Auburn University 2007 International Workshop on Micropiles Toronto, Ontario September 27, 2007
Structural failure
flexural failure shear failure axial failure
- compression - tension
Serviceability limits
2
Proposed Approach
Estimate/assume profile of soil movement Resolve soil movement into axial and lateral components Predict mobilization of axial and lateral resistance
Using t-z analyses for axial load transfer Using p-y analyses for lateral load transfer
Select appropriate axial and lateral resistance with consideration given to movement required to mobilize resistance
3
Slope Surface
axial
Sliding Surface
4
lat. soil
lat.
axial soil
axial
Sliding Surface
Transition (Sliding) Zone
10
clay
20 Depth (ft)
30
slide
40
rock
50
Upslope Micropile
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
clay
Sliding Depth (ft) 20
30
40
rock
50
lat
Sliding Surface
Transition (Sliding) Zone
z
9
10
10
10
clay
20 Depth (ft) 20 20
30
30
30
slide
40 40 40
rock
50 50 50
10
Upslope Micropile
Upslope Micropile
10.0
0.0
10.0
clay
Sliding Depth (ft) 20
30
40
rock
50
12
Example Problem
13
14
Example Problem
15
Effective Normal Stress (psf) Mobilized Shear Resistance (psf) increase in stress due to upslope pile
-150
50
p mob = 2.0
p mob = 1.0 p mob = 0.5 p mob = 0.25 p mob = 0.05 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
= 2.0
20
40 0
-40
40
10
10
20 Depth (ft)
20
30
30
40
40
50
tot = 0.39-in
50
tot = 0.31-in
21
10
10
20 Depth, z (ft.)
30
Depth, z (ft.)
20
30
40
40
50
tot = 0.34-in
50
tot = 0.24-in
22
Summary of evaluations
Comparison of measured and predicted forces reasonable BUTmust use modified p-y and t-z models Possible reasons:
Drained vs. undrained loading Group and/or scale effects Softening of pile-soil interface Pile inclination Error/bias in measurements:
- Shear strength parameters - Soil movement
Others???
23
24
25
26
20
20
15
15
10
10
100
200
300
0 -1000 C
1000 T
-500
500
1500
1000 T
Conclusions
Proposed uncoupled method suitable for predicting micropile resistance when cap influence is limited Use of modified p-y and t-z models required When cap interaction is significant, uncoupled method does not accurately predict response Full axial resistance frequently mobilized at relatively small soil movements Full lateral resistance frequently not mobilized without substantially greater soil movements Additional data needed!!!
29
Acknowledgements
ADSC/DFI Micropile Committee ADSC Industry Advancement Fund National Science Foundation
Grant CMS0092164
Many students
30