Third Bolivian International

Conference on Deep Foundations

Effects of Installation Processes on
Axial Pile Capacity
Monica Prezzi and Prasenjit Basu
Acknowledgments
R. Salgado
Ayda Galvis

Fei Han

Eshan Ganju
Overview
Introduction
Friction degradation driven piles

Loading direction effects

Design of drilled displacement piles

Plug formation OE pipe piles

Conclusions
Components of Axial Pile Resistance
Axial Load

Soil

Shaft resistance

+ Total resistance

Base resistance
Review of Design Methods
Niazi and Mayne (2013) CPT-based Design
Methods
Axial Pile Design Framework
Base capacity Shaft capacity
Qb,ult = qb,ult Ab Qs,L = qsL,i As,I

Unit shaft resistance

Unit base resistance
SAND - Effective stress approach

qsL = ( K tan ) v0
= v0

Factors that Affect Resistances
Pile geometry (size and shape)
Installation method/pile type
Degree of soil displacement during pile installation (drilled shaft vs.
drilled displacement piles)
Friction degradation (the closer to the surface, the more the degradation
of the shaft capacity of driven piles)
Degree of soil plugging developed during installation (OE pipe piles vs.
H piles)
Loading direction (compressive vs. tensile)
Soil type and initial stress state
Set up and other time related effects (e.g., soil aging)
 Displacement Spectrum
Pile Types

Nondisplacement Small or Partial Displacement Large Displacement

Drilled Shafts H Piles Driven Piles
? Open-ended ? Jacked Piles
Continuous Pipe Piles Drilled
Flight Auger (in some soils) Displacement
Piles (DD) Piles

Quantification of Installation-Induced Soil

Displacement is Important!
Unit shaft or base resistance
Measured Profiles of Shaft Resistance on a Pile Jacked
into Sand (Lehane et al. 1993)

h/B=
h/B=25
h/B=
h/B=14
h/B=
h/B=4
h/B= the vertical distance above the pile tip normalized by the pile diameter B
 Local shear stress (kPa)
Near the pile tip
K is maximum
qs=0.5-1 % qc

Depth (m)
qc/100

h/B=25

h/B=14

h/B=4
 Purdue-CPT Method Driven CE Pipe Piles
qsL = K v0 tan c
h
K = K min + ( K max K min ) exp( )
B
K min = 0.2
K max = 0.02qc / v0 Term that accounts for degradation

h is the distance from the depth being considered to the pile base; Kmin = 0.2; = 0.05

(Randolph 2003; Randolph et al. 1994, Salgado et al. 2011)

 ICP CPT Method Driven CE Pipe Piles
qsL = ( rc + rd ) tan c
0.13 0.38
v0 h
rc = 0.029qc
max R ,8
p
A
rd = 2Gr / R
1
G = qc 0.0203 + 0.00125 1.216 106 2
0.5
= qc ( p A v0 )

r = 0.02mm for lightly rusted steel piles

Jardine et al. 2005

 Degradation Terms Used In the Design Methods for Calculation of Unit Shaft
Resistance of Driven Piles in Sand

Purdue ICP UWA NGI Fugro
0.9
h
if h / R 4
h
0.38
z 0.5 R
exp( ) h h
Term max ,8 max , 2
B
R zbase
B
0.9 h
( 4) if h / R < 4
4 R

Maximum value 1 0.45 0.71 1 0.29

Han et al. 2016

PLT on CE
Pipe Pile on
U.S. 31 -
Marshall
County, IN

Han et al. 2016

Compression vs. Tension
Design methods for Driven Piles in Sand
B
Some of the current design methods for driven piles in sand have adopted
empirical approaches to account for the effect of loading direction on
shaft capacity z
qsL = ( f ICP rc + rd ) tan c ;
ICP method 0.8 in tension
f ICP =
1.0 in compression h
4Gr
UWA-05 qsL = fUWA rc + tan c ;
B
method 0.75 in tension
rc = Radial effective stress
rd = Dilatant increase in radial
fUWA =
1.0 in compression effective stress during pile loading
c = Interface friction angle
1
2 G = Soil shear stiffness
Fugro v0 h R = Pile diameter
qsL = f Fugro qc max , 4 ;
p
A R r = Radial displacement at soil-pile interface

method R = Pile ridius

f Fugro = 0.045 1 = 0.15 2 = 0.85 in tension p A = Reference stress=100kPa

qc = Representative cone resistance

f Fugro = 0.08 1 = 0.05 2 = 0.09 in compression h = Relative pile tip depth
Tensile-to-compressive Shaft Resistance Ratios
Ratios of tensile to compressive shaft capacity reported in literature vary over a wide
range (0.20 to 0.99)
Installation Tensile-to-compressive
Reference Method Pile type Soil
procedure shaft resistance ratio
Static load tests in
Rao & Venkatesh Closed-ended Loose and
calibration Jacked 0.20 - 0.90
(1985) model piles dense sand
chamber
Static load tests in
Amira et al. Closed-ended Dense Inagi
calibration Preinstalled 0.48- 0.80
(1995) model piles sand
chamber
Static load tests in Tapered and Loose and
Naggar &Wei
calibration straight-sided wall Preinstalled medium-dense 0.33 - 0.99
(2000)
chamber model piles sand
Open, sleeved Medium-dense
De Nicola & Static load tests in
and closed-ended Driven to dense silica 0.52 - 0.86
Randolph (1999) centrifuge
piles sand
 Half-circular Calibration Chamber
Rectangular insert for
Front view
pile penetration

Height = 1.20 m
Half-circular Bottom pressure
air bladder plate
3 observation Top view
windows Diameter = 1.68 m
Experimental setup

Front view
(Observation windows)
Panoramic view of the set up at Bowen Laboratory
Pile installation and static loading tests
C-T loading sequence

Installation stage First loading Second loading

Monotonic jacking Compressive loading Tensile loading

T-C loading sequence

Installation stage First loading Second loading

Monotonic jacking Tensile loading Compressive loading
 Test Matrix No 1
Test(1) Relative density DR (%) Shaft surface Installation depth (mm)
D-R-TC 90 SP* grit #120 400
D-R-CT 89 SP* grit #120 370
D-MR-TC 88 SP* grit #320 400
D-MR-CT 90 SP* grit #320 370
D-S-TC 90 Brass 400
D-S-CT 88 Brass 370
* Sand paper
(1)
All tests performed with v of 70 kPa and installed using monotonic jacking

D
Codes for relative density
Dense sand
D R CT Codes for load sequence
CT Compression Tension
MD Medium-dense sand Relative Shaft Load test TC Tension - Compression
density roughness sequence

R Rough =SP grit #120

Codes for roughness of the shaft MR Medium rough = SP grit #320
S Smooth = Brass
 Unit Shaft Resistance Virgin Samples

300 D-R-CT (Compressive loading) For loading tests on virgin

250 qsL,C=260 kPa
samples, the magnitude of the
Unit shaft resistance qs (kPa)

200
150 Ohio Gold Frac sand (silica)
unit shaft resistance in tension is
100
Dense samples lower than that in compression
v= 70 kPa
50 FTL=First time loading loading
0
-50 qsL,T = 136kPa
-100 D-R-TC (Tensile loading)
qsL,T= -136 kPa
qsL,C = 260kPa
-150
-200
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pile head displacement w (mm)
 Unit shaft resistance qs

Average unit shaft resistance qs,avg. (kPa)

300 (+) Comp res sion 300 (+) Compression
D-R-TC D-R-CT
Unit shaft resistance qs (kPa)

R a= 24.31 m
200 D R= 90 % Second loading 200 Ra= 24.31 m
DR= 89 %
v = 70 kP a First loading
100 100 v= 70 kPa
en d
begin p ush- in
pull-out
0 0
begin
First loading push - in Second loading
-100 -100
end pull- out (-) Tension
(-) Tension
-200 -200
360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 360 370 380 390 400 410 420
D epth (mm) Depth (mm)

First loading qsL,T = 136.0kPa First loading qsL,C = 260.0kPa

Second loading qsL,C = 170.0kPa Second loading qsL,T = 131.5kPa
 Shaft Resistance Ratios Results
SRR and SRRFLT are lower than Test code qsL qsL
tension compression
one (loading SRR(1) SRRFLT(2)
loading loading
sequence)
SRR is always greater when the stage (kPa) stage (kPa)
model pile is first loaded in D-S-CT -58.0 89.0 0.65
0.67
tension D-S-TC -60.0 68.0 0.88
D-MR-CT -117.0 210.0 0.56
SRRFLT tends to decrease as the 0.59
D-MR-TC -123.0 147.0 0.84
pile surface roughness D-R-CT -131.5 260.0 0.51
increases 0.52
D-R-TC -136.0 170.0 0.80
(1)
SRR is the ratio of the qsL in tension divided by qsL in compression for the same
SRR calculated from C-T tests test
are comparable to SRRFLT (2)
SRRFLT is the ratio of qsL in tension divided by qsL in compression, both measured
from first time loading, for the same shaft surface roughness and relative density
Drilled Displacement Piles
Piles with displacement bodies
Basic Features of DD Piles
Drilling tools typically contain:
n a displacement body
n a helical, partial-flight auger
n a sacrificial tip
Displacement body displaces the soil laterally (may
have single or multiple helices)
Torque required greater than that of CFA

Equipment capacity (torque and vertical force) limits

the depth of installation and the diameter of the pile
Types of DD Piles
APGD (Berkel and Company, Inc.)
ATLAS
DE WAAL
FUNDEX
OLIVIER
OMEGA
SVB
SVV
APGD ATLAS DE WAAL FUNDEX OLIVIER OMEGA SVB SVV
Atlas Pile
nEquipment positioned and displacement
head connected to the sacrificial tip

Displacement
head

Van Impe, 2004

Sacrificial tip
Dc
Dc = Diameter of body
Df Df = Diameter of projected
helical flange
Joint between sacrificial tip and
displacement head is sealed
Additional reinforcement pushed down into
fresh concrete if needed

n Diameter = 45 to 70cm

n Allowable loads = 1000

to 2000 kN

n Productivity = 100 to
150 m/day
Source: Cementation Foundations Skanska
Helical-shaped pile
qb = K Atlas Base Resistance
Bustamante and Gianeselli; 1993,1998

In-situ
(MPa) a
Tests
a
SPT 1000 3 N1 N2 N3 0.5 m
Pile Base a
Arithmetic mean
Soil CPT of qc over 1.5 Ds
PMT CPT SPT
Type a length = 2a
Clay 1.6 1.8 0.55 0.65 0.9 1.2
Sand 3.6 4.2 0.50 0.75 1.8 2.1 PMT 3 pl 1 pl 2 pl 3 0.5 m

Gravel 3.6 0.5 --

Chalk 2.6 0.6 2.6 Values of K based
Marl 2.0 2.6 0.7 1.2 on soil type
 Atlas Shaft Resistance
Bustamante and Gianeselli; 1993,1998
qs estimated from: Soil Type qc Curve
qs (MPa)
Clay, clayey <1 Q1
silt, sandy >1.5 Q3
clay >or=3 Q4
Sand, gravel <1 Q1
>3.5 Q4
>8 Q5
Chalk >1.5 Q4
>4.5 Q5
Marl <4 Q4
>or=5 Q5
APGD PILE
 APGD Base Resistance
qb = 0.4 qcm + wb qc 19 MPa

qb = 0.19 Nm + wb Nm 50 (rb in MPa)

qcm and Nm = representative values of qc and NSPT at the base of the
pile
wb = constant that depends on soil gradation and angularity

Gradation and Angularity of soil wb (MPa) Upper limit of qb (MPa)

Poorly-graded, rounded sand 0 7.2

particles (up to 40% fines)
Well-graded, angular sand particles 1.34 8.62
(less than 10% fines)

NeSmith, 2002
 APGD Shaft Resistance
qs = 0.01 qc + ws qc < 19 MPa

qs = 0.005 N + ws N < 50 (rs in MPa)

Gradation and Angularity of soil ws (MPa) Upper limit of rb (MPa)

Poorly-graded, rounded sand 0 0.16

particles (up to 40% fines)
Well-graded, angular sand particles 0.05 0.21
(less than 10% fines)

RECOMMENDED ONLY FOR SANDY SOIL

NeSmith, 2002
Omega Pile
Omega Pile Installation
n At base level,
casing pulled
up and rotated
CW
n Reinforcement
vibrated down
Van Impe,
2004
Idealization of DD Pile Installation
Initial stage Displacement body Displacement body Structural loading/ Pile
passes element A passes element A load test
during drilling during removal of
drilling tool K/K0 is estimated at
this stage
K r3
=
0 1 z
2 3 K 0 r0

1 2 3
r0 A
r1 r2 r3

Analysis Stages Cavity expansion Upward (negative) Downward vertical shearing

followed by vertical and vertical shearing along the pile shaft
torsional shearing along
the borehole wall
 Proposed Equations
Initially Anisotropic Sand Fabric
0.11
K DR ( % ) pA
= 0.33 v0 exp 3.59 + 0.53ln (1 0.11tan )
K0 pA 100
v0

Initially Isotropic Sand Fabric

0.11
K D ( % ) pA
= 1.3 v0 exp R 2.91 + 0.38ln (
+ 1 0.12 tan )
K0 pA 100
v0

DR: Initial relative density v0: Initial vertical stress

pA: Atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) = tan-1(z/)
 Comparison of Different Piles
DD piles vs. Drilled Shafts Jacked piles vs. DD piles
3.5 3.5
o o
Anisotropic Analysis, K0 = 0.45, = 20 Anisotropic Analysis, K0 = 0.45, = 20
Calculations of K/Kof
Calculations 0 for
K/Kjacked
0 for piles
3 Calculations of K/K0 for 3 arejacked
done following
piles arethe equations
done following
drilled shafts are done following the equations
proposed by Basuproposed
et al. (2011)
the equations proposed by 'v0 = 50kPa in Chpater 2
Loukidis and Salgado (2008)
'v0 = 50kPa

(K/K0)Monotonically Jacked
(K/K0)Drilled Shaft

2.5 100 kPa 2.5

(K/K0)DD

'v0 = 100kPa

(K/K0)DD
2 200 kPa
2
400 kPa
'v0 = 200kPa
'v0 = 400kPa
1.5 1.5

1 1
40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80
Relative density DR (%) Relative density DR (%)
 Drilled Displacement Piles
Used extensively in practice - Emerging technology in
the foundation engineering industry
DD piling technology ahead of design methods

Improvement of design methods - research

opportunity (design methods developed for specific
DD pile types)
Different equipment and procedures used to install
piles - Induced degree of soil displacement can differ
significantly
Steel Pipe Piles
 OE pipe pile

CE pipe pile
OE Pipe Piles
Soil enters the steel pipe as it is driven
Compared with CE pipe piles, OE pipe
piles displace a smaller volume of soil
during driving
Degree of Plugging
Unplugged penetration (fully-coring mode)
Soil column remains in place
Partial plugging
Soilcolumn dragged down by the pile with some
slippage between the soil and the pile
Plugged penetration
Soilcolumn dragged downwards by the pile without
slippage
Drilled Shaft vs. Pipe Piles
Fully-coring (or unplugged) mode Fully-plugged mode

~ Drilled shaft CE pipe pile

(non-displacement) (displacement)
OE Steel Pipe Piles - Sands
OE Steel Pipe Piles - Sands

Case 1: fully coring (unplugged)

OE Steel Pipe Piles - Sands

Case 2: plugged penetration

OE Steel Pipe Piles - Sands

Case 3: Partial plugging

Plug Measurement

Plug length
OE Steel Pipe Piles - Sands
Lp
PLR =
L
dLp
IFR =
dL

L
Lp

plug
 Importance of Plug Measurement
IFR and PLR are key variables in design methods (e.g.,
Purdue and UWA) for OE pipe piles
Research is needed to learn how to predict plug
formation and its effect on the piles resistances

Paik, K., and Salgado, R. (2003). Determination of Bearing Capacity of Open-Ended Piles in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 129(1), 4657.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. a., and Xu, X. (2005). The UWA-05 Method for Prediction of Axial Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand. Proceedings of the
International Symposium. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (IS-FOG 2005), 683689.
Plug Formation
Diameter
nLarge diameter
piles often are driven in an
unplugged condition because of the inertia of the
soil column
Thedifferences in OE pile response result from
different plug lengths, soil plug densities, and
level of preloading and densification of the soils
around and below the pile during driving
Base Resistance of OEPs Randolph and
Lehanes Proposed Approach

qc qc qb of nondisplacement piles
ICP Method - OEPP
Fully plugged piles if
Bi < 0.02 ( DR 30 ) with Bi in meters and D R in %
qc
Bi < 0.083 BCPT
Pa

qb ,ult = max [0.15, 0.5 0.25log( Bo / BCPT ) ] qcb ,avg BCPT = 0.036 m
B02 ( B02 Bi2 )
Qb ,ult = max qb ,ult , qcb ,avg
4 4

( B02 Bi2 )
Unplugged piles Qb*,ult = qcb ,avg
4
Jardine et al. 2005
PLT on OEPP and CEPP
US 52 Bridge, West Lafayette, Indiana
Double-wall OE Pipe Pile
Inner pile with ER strain gauges attached was inserted
into the outer pile
The inner pile and the outer pile were welded at the
head to construct a double-wall pipe pile
The inner and outer piles move independently of each other
Independent motion of the inner and outer piles allows
for separation of resistances coming from the plug and
the outer shaft
 Wires collected from pile head are
connected to the data acquisition box
to monitor the stresses in the pile
during driving and static load test

Data acquisition
Instrumented double-wall pile system Data display on
computer
Layout of Strain Gauges OE Pile
Layout of Strain Gauges CE Pile
Electrical Resistance (ER) Strain Gauges

Electrical Resistance (ER) Water protective coating Wire extension for ER strain gauges
strain gauges

Electrical resistance gauges placed on inner and outer piles

 Vibrating Wire (VW) Strain Gauges

Vibrating bar and mounting blocks for vibrating

Vibrating wire strain gauge with sensor attached
wire strain gauge welded to pile surface

Vibrating wire gauges placed only on the outer pile

Double-Wall Assembly
Outer pile

Inner pile

Inner pile slid into the outer pile,

making sure sensors are aligned
Strain gauge cables

Rollers

Spacing rod Cables from

the inner pipe

ER strain gauge
Hole (=5cm)
drilled on outer
pipe

Inner pipe
Sliding
Double-Wall Assembly
 Double-Wall Pipe Pile Driving Shoe

Silicon

Bolt

Pile shoe
Piles Ready for Driving and Loading

Channels placed on
outer pipe to
prevent damage to
gauges and wires
during driving
Pile driving
Plug Measurement
Plug length (ft)
Incremental filling ratio (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
40% 60% 80% 100%
0
0
10
10
20 20

Penetration depth (ft)

Penetration depth (ft)

30 30
40 40

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80
Static Load Test - Layout
6'
= 24''

ROEP-1 ROEP-2 ROEP-3 ROEP-4 ROEP-5 ROEP-6

10' 9''
Test Pile Test Pile
CEP OEP

= 24'' = 26''

ROEP-7 ROEP-8 ROEP-9 ROEP-10 ROEP-11 ROEP-12

9' 12' 12' 12'

(ROEP: reaction open-ended pipe pile; CEP: closed-ended pipe pile; OEP: open-ended pipe pile)
Static Load Test
Static load test
Static load test
Reaction
beam

Spherical
seating

Load cell

Hydraulic
Reference jack
beam

Dial
gauge
Double-wall System for OE Pile
Axial load F
=++
A B

Measurements:
A: outer shaft
Qs B: plug + annulus
C: annulus
Qplug B-C: plug
C

Qannulus
 Purdue Sand Method (OE Driven Pile)
Unit shaft resistance (qsL) for open-ended pipe piles
qsL = K v0 tan c
K = K 0 ( 7.2 4.8 PLR )
Lplug
PLR =
D
Unit base resistance (qb,ult) for open-ended pipe piles = 1.0 for dense sands, 0.4 for medium
IFR ( % ) sands, and 0.22 for loose sands
qb ,ult = h 326 295 = 1.0 for dense sands, 0.6 for medium
100 sands, and 0.25 for loose sands
IFR ( % ) = 109 PLR 22 c = interface friction angle
D = penetration depth
L plug Lplug = soil plug length
IFR = 100(%)
D B0 = outer pile diameter
Paik & Salgado 2003 Bi = inner pile diameter
 Purdue Sand Method (CE Driven Pile)
B
Unit shaft resistance (qsL) for closed-ended pipe piles
qsL = K v0 tan c
h z
K = K min + ( K max K min ) exp( )
B
K max = 0.02qc / v0
h

Unit base resistance (qb,ult) for closed-ended pipe piles

h = distance from the pile base
qb ,ult = (1 0.0058 DR ) qcb , avg Kmin = 0.2
= 0.05
q '
ln c 0.4947 0.1041c 0.841ln h 0
B = pile diameter
p
DR (%) = A p A 100% DR = relative density
'
0.0264 0.0002c 0.0047 ln h 0 c = interface friction angle
pA qcb,avg = average cone resistance
Randolph 2003; Salgado et al. 2011; Salgado & Prezzi 2007; Han et al 2016 near the pile base
Conclusions
There has been substantial progress in the last decades
in the development of design methods
Technological advances are ahead of design methods
Topics that require attention are plug formation in OE
piles, friction degradation, set up and relaxation, pile
surface roughness effects, loading direction and cyclic
loading effects
Conclusions
Changes in the soil state reflect directly on the
load-carrying capacity of piles - Further
research needed
Analytical or numerical modeling combined with
well-designed experiments and systematic
monitoring - A step forward to meaningful
advances in analysis and design of piles
Thanks!