Design of Micropiles for Slope Stabilization

J. Erik Loehr, Ph.D., P.E. University of Mi U i it f Missouri i ADSC Micropile Design and Construction Seminar Las Vegas, Nevada April 3-4, 2008

Outline
Background
Typical implementation Construction sequence

Stability Analysis Issues Prediction of resistance for micropiles Comparison of predicted and measured resistance Summary and conclusions

In-situ reinforcement schemes

Soil Dowels

Shotcrete
Fill

Soil Nails N il
Stiff Clay Relic Shear Surface

Reticulated Micropiles

Firm Stratum
3

after Bruce and Jewell, 1986

Common implementation

anchor micropiles

Oso Creek Landslide Stabilization

Photo courtesy of John Wolosick

Stability analysis for reinforced slopes

Potential Sliding Surface

Raxial Rlat

Reinforcing Member
6

Stability analysis for reinforced slopes

Same methods of analysis used for reinforced slopes
Same assumptions invoked p Same solution methods used

Only change is to include magnitude of known force(s) into equilibrium calculations

Force must be consistent with breadth considered in stability analyses (i.e. force/unit width)

Search for critical sliding surface can also become more challenging
Magnitude of resisting force changes with location Numerous local minima frequently exist
7

Example

Micropiles battered at +/- 45 deg.

Fill F=1.00

weathered shale

Result

F=1.44 34 K 7K

Fill

11 K 37 K

weathered shale

Stresses on sliding surface

9000 8000 7000 6000 Stress (psf) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -200
10

Effective Normal Stress (psf) Mobilized Shear Resistance (psf) increase in stress due to upslope p p p pile

decrease in stress due to downslope pile

-150

-100

-50

50

X coordinate (ft)

Impact of reinforcement on stability

Reinforcement contributes to stability in two ways:
Direct resistance to sliding Modifying normal stress on sliding surface

Both of these can be significant Relative magnitude of contributions depends on:

11

Orientation of reinforcement w.r.t. soil movement Type of reinforcement Depth of sliding Frictional resistance of soil

Prediction of micropile resistance

Potential sliding surface

12

The challenge
Micropiles are passive elements Soil provides both load and resistanceload transfer is complex Numerous limit states

Must consider compatibility of axial and lateral resistance Must be able to mobilize resistance within tolerable deformations
13

Prediction of micropile resistance

Estimate profile of soil movement Resolve soil movement into axial and lateral components t Independently predict mobilization of axial and lateral resistance
Using p-y analyses for lateral load transfer g y Using t-z analyses for axial load transfer

Select appropriate axial and lateral resistance with consideration given to compatibility and serviceability
14

Soil movement components

+

Slope Surface

axial soil
Sliding Surface
15

lat.

lat. axial soil

p-y analyses for lateral resistance

L-Pile Model Input Profile of Lateral Soil Movement

lat

Lateral Component of moving soil Pile Bending Stiffness (EI)

Soil Lateral Resistance (p)

Sliding Surface
Transition (Sliding) Zone

Stable Soil (no soil movement)

z
16

Lateral resistance from p-y analyses

Use soil movement option (L-Pile v4.0M or v5) For an assumed depth of sliding:
1. 1 Apply displacements in soil above sliding surface 2. Determine response from p-y analyses 3. Mobilized resistance is shear force in micropile at depth of sliding 4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 with incrementally increasing displacement until a limit state is reached Shear force at sliding depth when first limit state is reached taken to be available resistance for that sliding depth NOTE: MUST ALSO CONSIDER DEFORMATIONS REQUIRED TO MOBILIZE RESISTANCE
17

Mobilization of lateral resistance

0.0 0 Pile Deformation (in) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Mobilized Bending Moment (kip-in) Mobilized Shear Force (kip) 5.0 -1500 -750 0 750 1500 -80 -40 0 40 80 0 0 d=0.1 in d=1.0 in d=3.0 in

10

10

10

clay
20 Depth (ft)
20 20

30

30

30

slide
40
40 40

rock
50
50 50

18

Mobilization of lateral resistance

50 45 40 Mobilized Shear Force (kip) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0
19

1.0

2.0

3.0 4.0 Total Slope Movement (in)

5.0

6.0

t-z analyses for axial resistance

Input Profile of Axial Soil Movement Cap Bearing
Soil Sh S il Shear Resistance (t)

axial

Axial Component of moving soil

Pile Axial Stiffness (EA)

Sliding Surface Transition (Slidi ) Z T iti (Sliding) Zone Stable Soil (no soil movement)

Soil End Bearing (Q)

20

10

Axial resistance from t-z analyses

For an assumed depth of sliding:
1. Apply displacements in soil above sliding surface 2. Determine response from t-z analyses p y 3. Mobilized resistance is axial force in shaft at depth of sliding 4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 with incrementally increasing displacement until a limit state is reached Axial force at sliding depth when first limit state is reached taken to be available resistance for that sliding depth NOTE: MUST ALSO CONSIDER DEFORMATIONS REQUIRED TO MOBILIZE RESISTANCE

21

Mobilization of axial resistance

0 0 d 0.1 d=0.1 in d=0.3 in d=0.42 in d=0.5 in 20 40 Mobilized Axial Load (kip) 60 80 100 120 140 160

10

clay

20 Depth (ft)

30

slide
40

rock
50

22

11

Mobilization of axial resistance

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.00
23

Mobilized Axial Force (kip)

0.25

0.50 0.75 1.00 Total Slope Movement (in)

1.25

1.50

Limit states for soil reinforcement

Soil failure
passive failure (lateral) above or below sliding surface pullout failure (axial) above or below sliding surface

Structural failure
flexural failure shear failure axial failure
- compression - tension

Serviceability limits
24

12

Repeat for other sliding depths

Result is two resistance functions that describe resistance versus position along reinforcement
25

Resistance functions (per member)

0 0 Axial Resisting Force (kip) 50 100 150 200 250 0 Ultimate d<1-in 0 Lateral Resisting Force (kip) 50 100 150

10

10

clay
Sliding Depth (ft) Sliding Depth (ft) 20 20

30

30

40

40

rock
50 50

26

Member resistance for individual member

13

Input for stability analyses (per lineal foot)

0 0 Axial Resisting Force (kip/ft) 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 Lateral Resisting Force (kip/ft) 5 10 15 20 25

spacing = 6-ft
10 10

clay
Sliding Depth (ft) Sliding Depth (ft) 20 20

30

30

40

40

rock
50 50

27

Member resistance divided by member spacing

Comparison w/ measured values

28

14

Mobilized bending moments Littleville

-40 0
predicted measured (2+70U) measured (1+70U)

Bending Moment (in-kips) -20 0 20

40 0

-40

Bending Moment (in-kips) -20 0 20

predicted measured (2+70U) measured (1+70U)

40

10

10

20 Depth (ft)

upslope p mod = 0.2 Depth (ft)

20

downslope p mod = 0.2

30

30

40

40

50

tot = 0.39-in

50

tot = 0.31-in

29

Mobilized axial resistance Littleville

-60 0 Axial Load T, kip (+=tension) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 0 -60 Axial Load T, kip (+=tension) -40 -20 0 20 40 60

10

10

20 Depth, z (ft.)

30

Depth, z (ft.)

upslope = 0.3 z ult = 0.06-in

20

30

40

predicted measured (2+70U) measured (1+70U)

40

downslope = 0.3 z ult = 0.06-in

predicted

50

tot = 0.34-in

50

tot = 0.24-in

measured (2+70U) measured (1+70U)

30

15

Large-scale model tests

31

Model vs. measurement no cap

30 Positi ion Along Pile (in. from bottom) b 44 (2.8) LPile (2.8) Position Along Pile (in. from bottom) b 30

25

25 44 (2.8) t-z (2.8) 20

20

15

15

10

10

0 -300 -200 -100

100

200

300

0 -1000 C

Induced Bending Moment (lb-in)

32

-500 0 500 Induced Axial Load (lb)

1000 T

Test 2-A, Member 3 (downslope), S/D=10

16

Model vs. measurement with cap

45 Positi ion Along Pile (in. from bottom) b 44 (1.9) LPile (1.9) Positio Along Pile (in. from bo on ottom) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -1500 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -1000 C 44 (1.9) t-z (1.9) ( )

-500

500

1500

Induced Bending Moment (lb-in)

33

-500 0 500 Induced Axial Load (lb)

1000 T

Test 3-A, Member 2 (upslope), S/D=10

Summary and Conclusions

Prediction of resistance for reinforcement requires consideration of soil-structure interaction
Cannot predict resistance based on structural capacity alone!!!

Both axial and lateral components of resistance can substantially influence stability
Relative contribution depends on pile orientation and pile/soil characteristics Axial resistance frequently mobilized at relatively small soil movements Lateral resistance frequently requires greater soil movements

Uncoupled method suitable for predicting resistance p p g when no cap or when cap influence is limited Comparison of measured and predicted forces reasonableBUTmay need to use modified p-y and t-z models Additional data needed!!!
34

17

Acknowledgements
ADSC/DFI Micropile Committee ADSC Industry Advancement Fund National Science Foundation
Grant CMS0092164

Many students

35

18