11/8/2011

36th
6 h Annuall Conference
f
on Deep
D
Foundations
F
d

Axial Pile Displacement Evaluations

from Seismic Piezocone Data
and Back-analysis of Load Tests
F
FawadS.Niazi
d S Ni i
ResearchAdvisor:Dr.PaulW.Mayne

Introduction
Deep foundations for multi-span bridges, high-rise towers, offshore structures

Golden Ears Bridge, Vancouver, BC

(ahamedia.files.wordpress.com)

Petronas Towers, Kuala lumpur

120 m deep foundations
(www.extremeskins.com)

The Centaurus, Islamabad

34 m deep foundations
(xcitefun.net)

Taipei 101: 67 m deep foundations

(taipei-101.info)

260 tons mono piles

(www.twd.nu)

Offshore piling
(casagrandeindia.blogspot.com)

11/8/2011

Axial Pile Response

Qtotal =Qsides +Qbase

QwResponse

Qt

Qt = (fpi d zi) + qb d2/4

Qs =fp dAs
unit side friction, fp
80

Qb =qb Ab
unit base resistance, qb

Displacement (m
mm)

Drilled Shaft O-cell Upper Segment

Drilled Shaft O-cell Lower Segment

60

d = 1.4 m

40
L = 10 m

20
0

L=4m

-20
0

Load (MN)

Axial Pile Response - Pile Load Tests

11/8/2011

Capacity Interpretation from Pile Load Tests

42 different criteria for capacity"

Axial Pile Response

Empirical Approach: Direct CPT Methods
Qt
Vs
Qs

fs
u2

Qb
qt

11/8/2011

Axial Pile Response

Empirical Approach: Direct CPT Methods

Almeida et al. (1996, BRE-NGI)

Aoki & de Alencar (1975 Pan-Am)

Eslami and Fellenius (1997)

Schmertmann (1978, FHWA Rept)

Jardine & Chow ((1996,, MTD))

de Ruiter & Beringer (1979)

Takesue et al. (1998, KTRI)

Bustamante & Gianeselli (1982)

Lee & Salgado (1999, ASCE JGGE)

Zhou et al. (1982, ESOPT)

Tumay & Fakhroo (1982)

Price & Wardle (1982, ESOPT)

Van Impe (1986, 4th IGS)

Robertson et al. (1988, ISOPT-1)

Alsamman (1995, PhD, UIUC)

NGI-05 Clausen et al. 2005

Fioravante et al. (1995, 10th ARC)

Schneider et al. (2008, UWA)

15th

Powell, et al. (2001,

ICSMGE)

Jamiolkowski (2003 BAP - Ghent)

Fugro-05 Kolk et al. 2005

ICP-05
ICP
05 Jardine et al. 2005

Abu-Farsakh & Titi (2004, JGGE)

UWA-05 Lehane et al. 2005

Xu et al. (2006, JGGE)

Provide estimate of axial "capacity" only

Axial Pile Response

CPT--based Evaluation of Axial Load Transfer
CPT
Grimsby Research Site,UK:Bored Pile

Niazi etal.2010(2nd IntlSymp.onCPT,CPT10)

NGESHouston,TX:ACIP

Mayne &Niazi 2009(DFIJournal)

11/8/2011

Axial Pile Response Analytical Approach

Complete Q-w-Qult response
Displacements: s < 10-6 - Qult
Incorporates nonlinear
operational soil stiffness
Homogeneous soil profiles
Gibson-type soil models
Floating-type piles
End-bearing type piles

Randolph elastic continuum pile model

Limitations - Existing Approaches

CPT-based methods focus on axial capacity. Q-w?

Mostly utilize single reading, qc (or qt) alone to evaluate fp and qb

S
Scatter
iin the
h estimated
i
d capacities
i i from
f
different
diff
methods
h d

Recent CPT R&D focused on driven pipe piles in sands. Bored piles
in clays?
Soil non-linear response to loading, pile type/geometry and the
effects of pile installation techniques?
At least 42 different criteria to interpret capacity from pile load test
results
Selection of appropriate stiffness reduction scheme for matching
field measurements with analytical solution

11/8/2011

Operational Stiffness from Back-analysis of

Pile Load Tests
1.0

GsL / GsL(max)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

GsL/GsL(max) =(5.81x102 w/d+0.80)1

0.0
0
0
0.01

0.1

10

w/d (%)
w
ro
rb

Stiffness Decay
Curves

GsL

GsM, Gsb

Ep, L, ro,

Randolph Solution

Q(w)

GsL(max)

Berardi andBovolenta 2005(Proc.Inst.ofCivilEngineers,Geotech.Engrg.)

11

Database of Pile Load Test Sites

61well documentedpile load

testsfrom16sites

Drilledshaftsand
open/closedendedsteel pipe
piles(d=0.073m 2.5m,L=
2.5m 47m)

Geomaterials: uniform
siliceoussandtosilty/clayey
sandtoveryhardclay

Axial loading: 69% C 31% T

Axialloading:69%C,31%T

Vs profilesfrom:88%SCPT;
4%SASW; 8%correlations

Mostly Gibsontypesoil
profiles

11/8/2011

Operational Stiffness from Back-analysis of

Selected Database of Pile Load Tests
1.0
Back-analyzed data
Mean trend
Upper bound
Lower bound

GsL/GsL(maxx)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.01

0.1

10

100

w/d (%)

Summary

Develop a SCPTu-based generalized direct method

Semi-empirical approach

Derive stiffness reduction trends to forecast Q-w response

Randolph elastic solution de-coupled for uplift and O-cell loadings

Implicitly takes account of pile-soil interaction and installation

Possible mitigation of the observed scatter (consider origin, stress

history, plasticity etc.)
Possible refinement of direct CPTu-based pile design methods
(utilize qt, fs and u2)

11/8/2011

Thank you!