Method for Prediction of Micropile Resistance for Slope Stabilization

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

Limit States for Soil Reinforcement

Geotechnical 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
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

Soil Movement Components

+

Slope Surface

axial
Sliding Surface
4

lat. soil

lat.

axial soil

t-z analyses for axial resistance

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

axial

Axial Component of moving soil

Pile Axial Stiffness (EA)

Sliding Surface
Transition (Sliding) Zone

Stable Soil (no soil movement)

Soil End Bearing (Q)

5

Mobilization of Axial Resistance

0 0 Upslope Micropile Sliding Depth = 33-ft 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

Mobilization of Axial Resistance

300 250 Mobilized Axial Force (kip) 200 150 100 50 0 0.0
7

Upslope Micropile

10-ft 33-ft 40-ft

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1.0 1.2 Total Slope Movement (in)

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Axial Resistance Function

0 0 Upslope Micropile 10 20 40 60 Axial Resisting Force (kip) 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

clay
Sliding Depth (ft) 20

30

40

rock
50

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
9

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

10

Mobilization of Lateral Resistance

1600 1400 Mobilized Bending Moment (in-kip) Mobilized Shear Force (kip) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.0
11

Upslope Micropile

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Upslope Micropile

z=10-ft z=33-ft z=45-ft

z=10-ft z=33-ft z=45-ft

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Total Slope Movement (in)

10.0

0.0

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Total Slope Movement (in)

10.0

Lateral Resistance Function

0 0 Upslope Micropile 10 Ultimate d<1-in 20 40 Lateral Resisting Force (kip) 60 80 100 120 140 160

clay
Sliding Depth (ft) 20

30

40

rock
50

12

Example Problem

13

Example with Micropiles

Micropiles battered at +/- 45

14

Example Problem

15

Stresses on sliding surface

9000 8000 7000 6000 Stress (psf) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -200
16

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

decrease in stress due to downslope pile

-150

-100 -50 X coordinate (ft)

50

Comparison with measured resistance

Compared resistance predicted using proposed method with measured values
Mobilized axial resistance Mobilized bending moments

Used measured values for:

Soil strength Pore water pressures Soil deformations

Developed best match using p-modifiers and t-modifiers

17

Modified p-y curves

1.6 1.4 Lateral Load Intensity, p (kip/in) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0
18

Soft Clay Model s u = 2,000 psf 50 = 0.02 z = 30-ft

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 2.5 3.0 Lateral Deflection, y (in)

Modified t-z curves

10.0 9.0 8.0 Axial Load Intensity, t (kip/ft) 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
19

Soft Clay Model s u = 2,000 psf z ult = 0.06-in = 0.01*d

= 2.0

= 1.0 = 0.5 = 0.3 = 0.1

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Axial Deflection, z (in) 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Littleville Alabama Case

20

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

21

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)

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

Predicted Mobilization Littleville

120 100 80 Mobilized Axial Force (kip) 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Total Slope Movement (in) 4.0 prediction A prediction A* calibration points Upslope Micropile Sliding Depth = 33-ft Mobilized Shear Force (kip) 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 Total Slope Movement (in) 20
stiff clay model API sand model alternate calibration points

Upslope Micropile Slide Depth = 33-ft

24

Large-scale Model Tests

25

Large-scale Model Tests

26

Model vs. measurement no cap

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

27

-500 0 500 Induced Axial Load (lb)

1000 T

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

Model vs. measurement with cap

45 Position Along Pile (in. from bottom) Position Along Pile (in. from bottom) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -1500 44 (1.9) LPile (1.9) 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)

28

-500 0 500 Induced Axial Load (lb)

1000 T

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

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