Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transportation
Research
Program
JTRP
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/8
Final Report
ON CONE PENETRATION
TEST RESULTS
Rodrigo Salgado
Junhwan Lee
October 1999
Indiana
Department
of Transportation
Purdue
University
Final
Report
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/8
PILE DESIGN BASED
Junhwan Lee
Research Assistant
and
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
Joint Transportation
Project
File
Research Program
Number: C-36-450
Number: 6-18-14
Highway Administration
who
Purdue University
West
Lafayette,
IN 47907
October 1999
of Transportation
http://www.archive.org/details/piledesignbasedoOOsalg
1.
2.
3. Recipient's
Catalog No.
FHWA/LN/JTRP-99/8
4. Title
and
Subtitle
Report Date
5.
October 1999
Pile
7.
Authors)
6.
8.
FHWA^N/JTRP-99/8
9.
Performing Organization
Joint
10.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1284
Contract or Grant No.
11.
SPR-2142
12.
Sponsoring Agency
13.
Report
IN 46204
Sponsoring Agency Code
14.
15.
Supplementary Notes
Highway Administration.
Abstract
consists
is
The
is
in
mobilized early in the loading process, the determination of pile base resistance
pile design.
cone penetration is well related to the pile loading process, since it is performed quasi -statically and resembles a scaled-down pile load test In order
advantage of the CPT for pile design, load-settlement curves of axially loaded piles bearing in sand were developed in terms of normalized base resistance
Although the limit state design concept for pile design has been used mostly with respect to either s/B = 5% or s/B =
(qv'qc) versus relative settlement (s/B).
10%, the normalized load-settlement curves obtained in this study allow determination of pile base resistance at any relative settlement level within the - 20%
Static
to take
range.
and displacement
3-D
piles
were addressed.
The
3-
D non-linear elastic-plastic constitutive model takes advantage of the intrinsic and state soil variables that can be uniquely determined for a given soil type and
condition.
model.
A series of calibration chamber tests were modeled and analyzed using the finite element approach with the 3-D non-linear elastic-plastic stress-strain
The predicted
load-settlement curves
curves.
investigated for different relative densities and boundary conditions using the finite element analysis.
The value of the normalized base resistance q> q was not a constant, varying as a function of the relative density, the confining stress, and the coefficient of
pressure at rest The effect of relative density on the normalized base resistance qt/q c was most significant, while that of the confining stress at the
pile base level was small. At higher relative densities, the value of qb/q t was smaller (qtAfc = 0. 12 -0.13 for Dr = 90%) than at lower relative densities (qt/q< =
0. 19 - 0.2 for L\ = 30%).
The values of the normalized base resistance qt/q c for displacement piles are higher than those for non-displacement piles, being
typically in the 0.15 - 0.25 range for s/B = 5% and in the 0.22 - 0.35 range for s/B = 10%
(
lateral earth
The values of the normalized base resistance qjq, for silty sands are in the 0. 12 - 0. 17 range, depending on the relative density and the confining stress at
The confining stress is another important factor that influences the value of qi/q, for silty sands. For lower relative density, the value of q^qj
decreases as the pile length increases while that for higher relative density increases.
For effective use of CPT-based pile design methods in practice, the method proposed in this study and some other existing methods reviewed in this study
were coded in a FORTRAN DLL with a window-based interface. This program can be used in practice to estimate pile load capacity for a variety of pile and
soil conditions with relatively easy input and output of desired data.
17.
Keywords
piles,
18. Distribution
sands,
constitutive
cone
model,
design, calibration
penetration
finite
element
bearing
analysis,
capacity,
No restrictions.
This document
is
states
VA 22161
chamber test.
Unclassified
test,
Statement
Unclassified
249
22. Price
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST
OF TABLES
LIST
OF FIGURES
vii
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
Background
1.2
Statement of Problem
1.3
Report Outline
1.1
1.4
CHAPTER
2 PILE
2.1
Introduction
2.2
2.3
Meyerhofs method
10
11
2.2.3
12
2.2.4
14
2.2.5
Neely's method
15
CPT Results
LCPC method
Summary
3
17
18
20
22
22
27
3.2
Results
2.2.2
CHAPTER
3.1
SPT
2.2.1
2.3.4
2.4
28
Introduction
Interpretation
28
Methods
29
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.2.1
29
3.2.2
31
3.2.3
Chin's method
31
3.2.4
Davisson's method
33
3.2.5
De
35
3.2.6
Permanent
Beer's method
set
method
35
37
3.3.1
3.3.2
37
39
Buildings
3.4.2
Bridges
43
43
47
Summary
51
53
4.1
Introduction
53
4.2
54
4.3
4.4
60
67
67
4.5
4.6
modulus
4.4.1
Initial elastic
4.4.2
71
4.4.3
75
at
small strain
76
76
4.5.1
Failure criterion
4.5.2
Flow
4.5.3
Soil dilatancy
rule
and
stress
and
hardening
critical state
79
of sand
82
Summary
CHPATER
3-D
85
87
5.1
Introduction
87
5.2
Intrinsic
87
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.4.1
Modified hyperbolic
5.4.2
5.4.3
Three Dimensions
90
95
dimensions
..
95
99
101
118
5.5.1
5.5.2
120
5.5.3
121
Summary
118
126
Ill
CHAPTER
6.1
6.2
CHAMBER TESTS
Introduction
Calibration
129
Chamber
Plate
Load Tests
129
6.2.1
6.2.2
129
6.3
6.4
6.5
131
in Calibration
Chambers
ABAQUS
6.3.1
Program
6.3.2
Finite element
Calibration
Chamber
136
136
6.3.3
129
137
139
155
6.4.1
155
6.4.2
155
Summary
161
163
7.1
Introduction
163
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.3
The
soil
conditions
Kq
7.6
7.7
7.8
Summary
CHAPTER
Introduction
8.2
Non-Displacement Piles
8.4
Sands
174
181
187
189
191
198
198
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
Simonini's results
8.2.4
Calibration
200
200
test
200
test
chamber
201
plate load tests
Displacement Piles
8.3.1
8.3.2
NGI
Summary
167
174
196
8.1
8.3
Silty
piles
164
165
load tests
201
202
test
202
204
205
IV
CHAPTER 9
9.1
Introduction
9.2
Base resistance
9.2.2
Shaft resistance
9.2.3
Factor of safety
9.4
9.5
Summary
9.3
CHAPTER
10.1
10
Summary
Recommendations
206
206
206
209
211
214
219
223
CPT-based Method
10.2 Conclusions
10.3
in
206
..
224
224
226
228
LIST OF REFERENCES
229
APPENDIX
242
LIST
OF TABLES
Page
Table
2.1
Values of
2.2
2.3
2.4
types
13
pile types
for the
13
Dutch method
18
by Schmertmann (1978)
different soil and pile types
20
and
25
c sf
2.5
Values of k for
2.6
Values of
3.1
3.2
3.3
44
45
49
3.4
50
3.5
et al.
24
pile types
(after
Eurocode
1)
et al.
(1985)
50
distortion
4.1
4.2
Values of
Salgado
Cg
66
72
al 1999). ...~
et
5.1
5.2
Values of
5.3
Values of
6.1
6.6
7.1
Basic
7.2
Pile
7.3
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.4
1994)
soil properties
geometry and
7.6
Base resistance
Values of qt/q c
7.7
Values of
7.5
et al.
used
soil
in finite
ratio for
117
1
element analysis
conditions used in
FEM
analysis
133
134
157
157
158
158
175
184
184
17
166
190
190
soil intrinsic
102
silt
VI
et al.
7.8
192
Values of
R with
friction angle
different
silt
7.9
7.10
Values of
qt>/q c
contents (after
and g used
Values of
<(>
at critical state
in finite
silty
sands
9.
193
and
194
pile lengths
8.
192
tests
on non-displacement and
199
9.2
9.3
Correlation between
9.4
CPT
and
SPT
212
214
218
221
Vll
LIST
OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1.1
2.1
2.4
3.1
3.2
Brinch Hansen's
3.3
32
3.4
32
3.5
34
2.2
2.3
80%
90%
19
21
26
30
criterion
30
criterion
DeBeer's criterion
36
3.6
3.7
36
3.8
Load
38
3.9
41
3.10
3.11
42
46
3.12
Components of
levels at ultimate
and
(d)
states
nonuniform
tilt
4.1
Nine components of
4.2
4.3
element
(after
48
55
..
61
68
soil
69
4.4
4.5
Hyperbolic model
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.1
5.2
test
(a) stress-strain
.......
73
78
and
81
softening material
vin
(after
Teachavorasinskun
91
1991)
et al.
5.3
5.4
Definition of x
5.5
for
5.6
for
D R = 48.8%
5.7
for
D R = 48.2%
5.8
for
DR =
for
5.10
for
D R = 82.3% and G
5.11
for
DR =
5.12
for
for
DR
for
5.15
for
DR
5.16
for
D R = 100%
for
DR
5.9
5.13
5.14
5.17
x,
(a)
and g
93
D R = 51.5% and
rj 3
= 400 kPa
with
104
105
106
50.8% and
o~ 3
10 kPa with
107
D R = 84.6% and a
Ill
D R = 100%
= 98.6% and
5.19
Plastic strain in
ct 3
(a) in
15
119
Drucker-Prager
5.20
6.2
6.7
6.1
6.6
14
Stress plane
6.5
116
6.4
12
113
5.18
6.3
96
flow rule
chamber
122
122
130
135
138
141
142
143
IX
with
D R = 55.2%,
a' v
a' h
= 24.4 kPa
at
s/B =
10%
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.
144
145
tests
146
tests
147
148
6.12
6.13
6.14
tests
149
tests
150
tests
6.15
151
6.16
152
153
154
6.18
7.1
168
7.2
Different failure
7.3
171
Stress rotation
173
Finite element
176
6.17
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
177
178
piles
Ko on normalized base
7.11
Effect of
7.12
8.
Values of qb/q c
(b) s/B
silty
179
182
186
188
resistance qb/q c
sand
in calibration
159
170
piles in
at the pile
Georgia tech
7.10
20-m
mechanisms
test at
195
chamber
5%
and
= 10%
203
9.1
208
9.2
210
9.3
CPT-SPT
9.4
9.5
mean
Campanella 1983)
215
217
222
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
In the present study, in order to take advantage of the cone penetration test for pile
design, load-settlement curves in terms of normalized base resistance (q b/q c ) versus
relative settlement (s/B)
where q c = cone
resistance, s
to either s/B
pile
state design
5%
or s/B
B =
base settlement,
pile
= 10%,
settlement curves obtained in this study allow determination of pile base resistance for
in the
of specific
consideration
components of the
facility,
- 20%
project
features,
by selecting a
This
range.
related
is
important, as
the
to
it
permits
or
superstructure
other
design.
The value of
is
qb /q c
function of the relative density, the confining stress, and the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure at
The
rest.
effect
of the confining
DR =
displacement
5% and
CPT
if
pile design
therefore,
The evaluation of
90%) than
at
recommended
that the
= 10%, depending on
DR =
At higher
piles
is,
It is
small.
test.
piles.
in the 0.22
It
30%).
made through
is
base level
is
soil condition.
location,
and
XI
The
relative
recommended.
participation of
This
may be done
INDOT
future
It is
on both driven
strongly
piles
and
drilled shafts
separate
at the interface
tests
also
projects
is
is
number of
be performed along
The
fully instrumented
recommended
be such
that a
piling
recommended
would allow
INDOT
design personnel.
in
10%.
shaft resistance,
soil layers.
This
of
of Indiana
soil
types be
Results for such sites would be useful for further validation of the CPT-based
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
With
on marginal
sites,
where surface
soils are
to build heavier
in piling
technology
improvements
in
pile
and
piles, at
in the past.
design capability.
Additionally, there
is
growing
realization in the foundation engineering industry that certain types of deep foundation
1993).
In this context,
advances
in
design methods can have significant economic impact and should be actively
pursued.
Based on
the
method of
installation,
displacement or non-displacement
displacement
displacement
piles,
and
piles.
piles.
pile
most
common
common
type of
type of non-
displacement piles consists of two components: base resistance and side resistance.
side resistance of piles
resistance
is
is
in
most cases
is
fully
After
maximum
The
base
As
is
mobilized early
element
1.2
in the
is
a key
in pile design.
Statement of Problem
Although
solely
on side resistance
to
sometimes used,
it
is
Physically,
mobilized early
which
is
in the
number of
soil
different
developed
pile
in this
Plunging
loading process.
lateral
confinement imposed
to assess
pile base.
done by
the base unit load overcomes the limit base resistance q b i_,
by the surrounding
when
is
This
One modern
tests
pile design
philosophy
is
De
based on
1995).
According
greater than
situations,
10%
to
however, settlements
less
than
10%
it is
reached.
is
state.
In
some design
may
cause the
methodology be
available to calculate the settlements caused by a given load and vice-versa in order to
As
the loading process, the determination of the load-settlement relationship for the pile base
is
is
serious limitation
is that its
is
it
to drive a
is
test
not
is
A much
is
Skemptonl986).
statically,
which
test,
et al.1985,
test,
sometimes
SPT
(CPT).
better
In this
in
in
test
on a
pile),
Europe, and to a lesser extent in the Americas and Asia, for pile
is
the
pile
LCPC method
(Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982), only recently has a method based on establishing the
relationship between cone tip resistance and the load-settlement relationship of a pile
et al.
If
volume and
become
methods.
1.3
The main
is to
test.
The focus
will be
on
the design of piles used to support typical transportation structures, with focus on the
In order to
finite
element modeling
modeling of
soil
may
3-D
used.
is
soil conditions,
For more
realistic
be used
in the finite
The
element analyses.
calculated load-
settlement curves are normalized with the cone resistance q c and the pile diameter
the base resistance qb
s,
respectively.
The
fully
for
developed load-
settlement curves in terms of qb/q c versus s/B can be used to determine the normalized
pile
base resistance
analyses are
qt>/q c
compared with
Figure
1.4
for
1.1
criterion.
The
results of the
and
free
this study.
Report Outline
methods presented
in
test results.
The
It
its
main focus
on ultimate and serviceability limit states that are important in geotechnical engineering.
Tolerable settlements for different types of structures, including buildings and bridges are
discussed as well.
Chapter 4 covers the conceptual framework for describing the mechanical behavior
of
soils,
including
relationships,
stress
tensors,
invariants,
plasticity.
linear
and
non-linear
stress-strain
Constitutive
Modeling
Finite
Element
Analysis
Calibration
<C
Chamber Test
C>
Pile
Load Test
Investigation of
Size Effects
Pile
Load-
Determination of
Settlement Curves
Cone Resistance
Assessment of Results
Usins Field Test Data
Limit States
Design of Piles
Pile
Base
Pile Shaft
Resistance
Resistance
Determination of Pile
Load Capacity
Figure
elastic-plastic soil
model used
in this study.
The
required for the non-linear soil model are presented based on experimental test results.
The Drucker-Prager
plastic
is
chamber
finite
The
tests.
accuracy of plate resistance predictions and assess the existence of chamber size effects
Chapter 7 presents the determination of pile base resistance based on the normalized
load-settlement curves fully developed for axially loaded piles bearing in sand for a
variety of soil
lateral earth
and
stress conditions.
The
Chapter 8 presents case histories for the validation of the results obtained
study.
The case
Chapter 9 discusses
Chapters
1-8.
correlations
In
CPT
and displacement
in this
piles.
CPT
is
this study.
2.1
Introduction
(1) Indirect
done through:
Methods
or
(2) Direct
Indirect
Methods
4>
soil characteristic
su,
from
test
On
the results
from
in-
measurements for the analysis and the design of foundations without the
The
empirical relationships.
indirect
make use of
et al.
and
is,
application of direct
methods
to the
some examples of
the
methods available
for
Indirect
methods for
(3
soil,
and
su
soil.
Most
A.
Indirect
Sandy
method
Qayey
soil
Direct
Base
Shaft
Base
SPT
Rock
soil
method
CPT
J-9su
|
a method
(3
method
A.
method
Vesic
Shaft
(3
Figure
2.
method
Examples of methods
between the
factor
stress state
and base or
shaft resistance
parameters.
Direct methods used for pile design have been mainly based on the standard
Although the
it is
Skempton 1986).
1985,
blow count)
is
purposes.
loading
if it
is
that its
ground as
has a
serious limitation
were a scaled
number of
it
The CPT
is
has been
limitations (Seed et
(the
SPT
also
main measurement
SPT
tip is
between the
pile
soils,
it
more accurate
in-situ
soil properties.
study
is
cone penetration
will
be reviewed.
SPT
Results
In
count
SPT blow
typically of the
form
qb
=n N b
qs=%n N
si
where
q b = base resistance
(2.1)
si
on
methods
2.2
this
(2.2)
10
n b = factor to convert
SPT blow
Sj
SPT blow
it
is
recommended
They
will
i.
that the
SPT
value
presented.
Meyerhofs method
2.2.1
SPT
results:
qb
for nonplastic
silts
^=0.4N160 ^Po
where
(2.3)
<3.0iV li60 P
(2.4)
fl
qb = base resistance
Ni,6o
= SPT
stress
The upper
case of
diameter
reference stress
= 100 kPa =
0.1
MPa =
D/B > 10
for sands
1 tsf.
and
silts.
For pile
11
cm ~ 40
in.
= 3.28
ft.,
qb
is
2,
(B + 0.5B R Y
IB
where n =
1,2,
r b as
= 100
follows:
(2.5)
Meyerhof (1976,
1983) also proposed the expression of shaft resistance for small- and large-displacement
piles:
N
<Is=
100
(2-6)
60
.-*.
where
P.7)
q s = shaft resistance
2.2.2
qb
=^rN P
b
different soil
and
pile types:
(2.8)
12
q si
where
=^N
si
(2.9)
F2 =
a = shaft resistance
factor depending
on
soil
type
si
= average
Nb
Pa =
The values of K,
reference stress
a, and Fi,
F2
i,
excluding
= 100 kPa =
0.1
MPa ~
and
1 tsf.
2.2, respectively.
2.2.3
tests,
embedded
in
sand:
qb
=0.6NP
was
beyond
stress
selected because
< 45Pa
= 100 kPa =
(2.10)
0.1
MPa =
tsf.
The
limit
test results.
In (2.10), the
SPT N
value should
be mean uncorrected value within a distance of two times the base diameter (B b ) below
the base of the drilled shaft.
In order to restrict the settlement of large-diameter shafts, they also suggested to use
,r
as follows:
13
Table
Type of
2.
Values of
Soil
Sand
Silty
sand
Clayey
silty
sand
Clayey sand
Silty clayey
sand
Silt
Sandy
types.
(%)
10.0
1.4
8.0
2.0
7.0
2.4
6.0
3.0
5.0
2.8
4.0
3.0
5.5
2.2
4.5
2.8
2.3
3.4
2.5
3.0
Clay
2.0
6.0
Sandy clay
Sandy silty clay
3.5
2.4
3.0
2.8
Silty clay
2.2
4.0
3.3
3.0
silt
Clayey sandy
Clayey
silt
Sandy clayey
Silty
silt
silt
sandy clay
Table 2.2
Values of Fi and
F2
F,
F2
Franki Piles
2.50
5.0
Steel Piles
1.75
3.5
Type of
Pile
Bored
Piles
1.75
3.5
3.0-3.50
6.0-7.0
14
^=1-25
v
resistance;
for
qb
5*
BR =
Bb >
reference length
it
is
not
24
in
(610 mm).
use of the
(3
1.25
BR
(2.11)
recommended
ft
(4.6
m)
~ 40
to
in.
= 3.28
ft.
recommend
the
method.
2.2.4
modeled
driving
as hyperbolic curves.
was
In this
(s).
Briaud
shaft (q s ) resistance
and q s versus
are
for
+q
Qs
Ts.max
where
tf=18684(tf)
-<3s.>
00065
(2.12)
(2.13)
"s.r
(2.14)
i
BR
15
q tm =19.75(N pl
Z
Ires
(2.16)
(2.17)
021
S!de )
m = 40
in.;
SPT blow
pile base;
and
Ap
r- Pa
and
A
s
(2.19)
reference stress
L, P, Ep, and
area, respectively;
average
Pa =
5irle
/A <
q s ,es=<lresAp
(2.18)
BJ
K
^.^=0.224(N
(2.20),
(2.15)
\K T P
K =200(N
Pa
= 5.57 LSlP
a
&=
In (2.12)
)- 36
(2.20)
= 100 kPa =
0.1
MPa ~
ltsf;
BR =
reference length
pt
is
section
the uncorrected
count within the zone from 4 diameters above to 4 diameters below the
side
is
Neely's method
2.2.5
in sands.
value
For expanded-base
piles such as a Franki pile, he pointed out that the ultimate base resistance of twice the
value for conventional driven piles, as suggested by Meyerhof (1956), would result in
expanded-base
piles.
It
was explained
that
the
The
piles
is
16
comparable
piles
having cased
show
shaft.
piles in
as:
q b =0.2S-N
< 2.8-N-Pa
(2.21)
q b = base resistance
where
sum
The
limit value of
stress
= 100 kPa =
0. 1
MPa ~
ratio of
1 tsf.
D/D b
is
For
augered, cast-in-place (auger-cast) piles, the base resistance was suggested as follows
(Neely 1991):
qb
The
=\.9N-Pa
(2.22)
auger-cast piles are different from the conventional drilled shafts in terms of the
installation process.
The
hole by the soil-filled auger without use of temporary casing or bentonite slurry.
From
shown
that
the
(2.22)
results
reasonable
grain size
(D 50 )
increases,
It
was
on auger-cast
piles,
it
was
mean
17
2.3
CPT Results
Similarly to what
capacity based on
is
done
be expressed
qb
pile load
as:
=c b q
1s=Zc
si
2 23 )
-
q ci
(2.24)
q b = base resistance
where
= empirical parameter
cb
q c = cone resistance
at
q s = shaft resistance
c si
= empirical parameter
to convert
q c to shaft resistance
Values of c b and c si have been proposed mostly based on empirical correlations developed
between
and
different values of c b
and c si
CPT
results.
conditions similar to those under which they were determined (Bandini and Salgado
1998).
Although most expressions were based on cone resistance q c some authors (Price
,
and Wardle 1982, Schmertmann 1978) suggested the use of cone sleeve
1s=c f
sfi
where
c s f,
is
fS is a representative
i
(2.25)
si
cone sleeve
i.
In this section,
CPT results
are described.
18
2.3.1
In the
cohesionless
a pile base,
where
determined
along
is
for
layer
'x'
is
The base
resistance q b
is
base resistance in
the
which
in
pile
below
As can be seen
in
base
is
the
selected so as to
above the
pile
pile
minimize q c i.
base
is
calculated
q c2 as follows:
2*L5*2 <l50P
(2.26)
q b = base resistance
where
w = correlation factor
q c = average cone resistance for the layer below pile base
i
Pa =
The values
reference stress
of correlation factor
= 100 kPa =
0.1
MPa ~
for the
1.0
Dutch method.
Values of
Soil Condition
OCR =
tsf
Sand with
OCR = 6 to
OCR = 2 to 4
10
0.67
0.50
19
Pile-
D
8B
1'
B
4B
_L
Depth
Figure 2.2
Dutch method
20
Schmertmann's method
2.3.2
base resistance in
pile
cohesive
stiff
soil,
Schmertmann (1978)
proposed the use of an average cone resistance with multiplying the reducing factor
shown
in Figure 2.3.
to
described previously.
4B below
He
also
resistance
is
same way
recommended reducing
60%
in case of
in sand, the
Dutch method
is
obtained
soil.
cs
= 0.008
for
cs
= 0.012
cs
= 0.018
open-end
for vibro
According
to
Schmertmann (1978),
The values of
cone sleeve
piles.
Values of c S f
fs/Pa
Steel Piles
Pa =
0.25
0.97
0.97
0.50
0.70
0.76
0.75
0.48
0.58
0.88
0.40
0.52
1.00
0.36
0.47
1.50
0.27
0.43
2.00
0.20
0.40
reference stress
= 100 kPa =
0.1
MPa
tsf
21
100
150
200
i_
1000
2000
3000
4000
(lb/ftA 2)
22
2.3.3
tests
and
CPT
results,
following relationship for both shaft and base resistance in terms of cone resistance qc
q s =--q c
(2.28)
as
shown
in
2.2.
LCPC method
2.3.4
From
number of load
tests
and
CPT
method.
The
pile design
method using
is
and
factors related to
be written
as:
(2- 29 >
q,=-qe
(2.30)
kc
= base
resistance factor;
ks =
LCPC
K^
q>
where
types,
soil
at pile
base level;
23
The
its
degree of compaction as
(1982), the values of kc for driven piles cannot be directly applied to H-piles and tubular
piles with an
The
where B =
base,
The curve of
to 1.5B
for determining
is
smoothened
pile
q ca consists of the
raw curve.
Beginning with the smoothened curve, the mean cone resistance q cm of smoothened
resistance between the distance equal to 1.5B above and
(3)
mean of
2.4):
irregularities of the
(2)
The procedure
pile diameter.
(1)
The
smoothened curve
at
is
0.7q cm to 1.3q cm
below
This clipping
is
higher than 1.3 q cm below the pile base, and the values higher than 1.3 q cm and
In the
resistance.
LCPC
pile base.
were considered, so
Qw
Q w = allowable load
S
b
QL =
QL
and base
where
to the shaft
Ob
(2 31)
'
24
Table 2.5
soil
and
pile types.
Maximum q
Value of k s
Nature of Soil
q c /Pa
mud
Moderately compact
Silt
Compact
to stiff clay
mA mB
iia
iib
<10
30
30
30
30
0.15
10 to
40
80
40
80
0.35
0.8
<1.2
<50
60
150
60
120
0.35
0.8
>50
60
120
60
120
0.35
0.8
<50
0.35
50 to
120
0.8
Weathered
>50
60
Moderately compact
<2.0
0.8
0.35
0.8
1.2
<2.0
1.2
1.5
<2.0
1.2
1.5
<2.0
0.8
60
80
80
fragmented chalk
to very
HA HB
Pa
Soft chalk
Compact
IB
to
IA
50
clay
Type
IA
IB
1.2
0.8
1.2
>120
1.2
0.8
1.2
gravel
Pa =
reference stress
Type
= 100 kPa =
0.
mud
MPa =
bored
tsf
piles,
piles, cast
barrettes,
Type
IB:
Bored
Type
Type
Type
IIIA:
Type
MB:
piles with
screwed
piles, piers,
piles.
piles.
mm
and micropiles
installed
25
Table 2.6
Values of
and
pile types.
Value of
Nature of Soil
Group
Soft clay and
mud
to stiff clay
and compact
0.50
10 to 50
0.35
0.45
< 50
0.40
0.50
> 50
0.45
0.55
< 50
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
> 50
0.20
0.40
120
0.30
0.40
Soft chalk
Weathered
Compact
Pa =
Group
to
to very
= 100 kPa =
0.
Group
II:
to
reference stress
I:
50
fragmented chalk
MPa =
bored
Group
0.40
silt
< 10
Compact
kc
/Pa
120
1 tsf.
piles,
mud
bored
piles,
low injectionpressure.
II
in
Type
piles, piers,
26
= 1.5B
Depth
ica
LCPC
method.
27
2.4
Summary
Pile design
indirect
methods using
can be classified
methods
two categories,
Indirect
On
the direct
in
soil
bearing
capacity.
Direct methods have been based mainly on the standard penetration test (SPT) and
the cone penetration test (CPT).
pile bearing capacity to the
In
SPT blow
count
These
methods include Meyerhof (1976, 1983), Aoki-Velloso (1975), Reese and O'Neil (1989),
and Neely (1990, 1991), while Briaud and Tucker (1984) presented a hyperbolic formula
for the base
It
should be noticed
soil
SPT N
that, since
and
value in the
of such factors must be taken into account for the selection of pile design methods.
test is
the
mechanism.
SPT because
it
LCPC method
and
parameters.
The
The
LCPC method
Some
authors
propose the use of cone sleeve friction fs for the estimation of shaft resistance, while
others propose that
it
28
3.1
Introduction
The
In general,
test
provides an important
however, there
load-settlement curve.
pile
from a load
is
pile
et al. 1981).
based on a
have been proposed, they produce a very wide range of results (Horvitz
The approach
no unique
to
and the
perform "properly",
fundamental requirements.
Whenever
number of
soil condition.
it is
it is
It is
number of
events in order to achieve a balance between the needs for safety and
economy
in
critical
design
(Bolton 1989).
In this chapter,
some of
geotechnical engineering and tolerable settlement for different types of structures are
discussed.
29
3.2
Interpretation
3.2.
90%
and
Methods
80% methods
90
(1963). In the
% method, the
failure point in the load-settlement curve is defined as the load that causes a settlement
of this method
is to
90%
define the failure load as the point from which significant change in
Hansen
also suggested
80%
method.
In this
80%
(s f) in the
Q=
load.
From
is
80% method
is
Q versus
s,
Brinch
defined as the
The
failure
on the
As shown
where
in
Figure 3.2,
settlement and
versus
sf
through a
hyperbolic equation in Figure 3.2, the failure load (Q f) and corresponding settlement
can be obtained
as:
Qf
=^=
(3.1)
=^
(3.2)
in
which
respectively.
(Sf)
and
C2
are the slope and the intersection point of the curve in Figure 3.2,
30
2S
So.9
Figure 3.1
90%
.9
method.
JL
Q
Js/Q = C s + C2
1
Figure 3.2
Brinch Hansen's
80%
method.
31
3.2.2
Butler and
point of
two
Hoy
other line
is
curve, where
ton
9.8
curve
the intersection
One
at different points.
tangent
line.
The
BR =
reference length
m = 40 in.
= 3.28
ft
and
Q =
r
reference load
kN.
rebound
is
Based on
compression
line as an elastic
is
more or
less parallel to
3.2.3
Chin's method
load-settlement curve
is
approximately
(1)
The
load-settlement curve
(2)
The
failure load
is
It
drawn
in
(Q f) or ultimate load
is
is
test.
(Quit) is
s;
defined as Qf
1/Cj.
s
32
,,--
1/(0.00 125B R
1
1
IT
t
+*
B R = reference
length
reference load
f
Figure 3.3
s/Q
C, = 1/Qf
rf^
x^
s/Q = CjS +
C2
Qf=l/Ci
*-
Figure 3.4
33
method
3.2.4 Davisson's
In Davisson's
is
leading to a deformation equal to the summation of the pile elastic compression and a
This relationship
where
Sf
ff
AE
L
0.0038lB R +
+ nnnoo,z>
,
is
given by:
^_
3.05
(3.3)
fl c
Q = applied load
L = pile
E=
length
A = cross sectional
BR =
B=
As can be seen
area of pile
reference length
m = 40 in.
= 3.28
ft
pile diameter.
column which
is
given by a equation of
s d asuc
QUAE.
Since
data
this
method
is,
in general,
regarded conservative,
tests.
Due
to the
dynamic
it
appears to
effect, loads
the quick maintained load tests tend to be higher than loads obtained
maintained load
tests,
sometimes
(Coduto 1994).
best with
obtained from
work
results
when
It
34
Of
0.00381B r + B/(3.05Br)
Figure 3.5
35
De
3.2.5
Beer's method
De Beer
maximum
curve
is
(1967) defined the "failure load" as the load corresponding to the point of
shown
in
In this
Figure 3.6.
at
The
which two
This method was, however, originally proposed for the slow maintained pile load
3.2.6
Permanent
In the
specified
set
test.
method
permanent
set
method (Horvitz
by a certain
To
determine the failure load with this method, the value of the permanent settlement should
As shown
test.
settlement can be determined by conducting the load-rebound for each applied load.
The
in
case depends on what level of permanent settlement the user associates with
"failure".
36
logQ M
-^~
logs
Figure 3.6
De
Beer's method.
Specified settlement
Figure 3.7
37
3.3
and serviceability
when
of
loss
two types of
limit states
components of the
An
equilibrium,
static
structure occurs.
On
structural
is
reached
damage, or rupture of
critical
is
deformation,
utility,
difference of the load levels between ultimate and serviceability limit states on the load-
deformation curve.
In practice,
design.
It is,
it is
and serviceability
limit states be
investigated.
3.3.1
Design
Geotechnical design
is
established for
criteria in the
addressed
in
Eurocode 7 (1993).
in order to establish
common
minimum
The
(1)
vegetation, etc.);
38
Load
*
Ultimate limit state
Deformation
Figure 3.8
Load
levels at ultimate
and serviceability
limit states.
39
(3)
Ground conditions;
(4)
Groundwater conditions;
changes of moisture,
Geotechnical Category
etc.)
performance
criteria will
it is
possible to ensure
life.
Geotechnical Category 2
This category includes structures for which quantitative geotechnical data and
analysis are necessary to ensure that the performance criteria will be satisfied, but for
These
Geotechnical Category 3
abnormal
structures,
structures
involving
3.3.2
The
Eurocode
40
Bearing capacity
(IA)
damage
to the pile
element
itself;
(EB)
(II)
to displacement of
the foundations;
(III)
is
is
located close to a
In
most
pile
design situations under axial loading condition, either limit state (U) or limit state (IB)
governs design.
This
is
and
II
(II).
The
sib
corresponding differential settlements Asib and Asuas the ratio of differential settlement
between them,
is
and
Sn
and
su
The angular
to the distance
at the
As can be seen
in Figure 3.9, a s
and
ai
represent the distances between two adjacent piles, and As s ,max and Asimax are the
maximum
It
must be realized
ai is
and larger-diameter
piles, respectively.
diameter piles are used to carry heavier axial loads with larger spans.
angular distortion
(3 max
The maximum
41
As.s. max
1.
(a)
Figure 3.9
max
(b)
and
42
"max
As max
^^s,
(3.4)
a.
As /.max
for larger-diameter piles
(3.5)
maximum
angular distortion
fimax
common way
Given
the pile
total
diameter B.
The
sR
0.
As shown
is
Load
0.01-0.02
SR "
Figure 3.10
in
s R (after
Franke 1991).
43
3.4
Buildings
3.4.1
Tolerable settlements for buildings have been extensively studied by several authors
(Skempton and MacDonald 1956, Polshin and Tokar 1957, Burland and Wroth 1974,
Wahls
1981).
movement
buildings.
still
widely
to
be related to distortional deformation, the angular distortion (P) was selected as the
critical
to
(3
From
index of settlement.
for the
be
p=
histories,
settlement.
settlement
As would be
about 3/4
in.
The
was smaller
maximum
angular distortion
maximum
Pmax
a sand.
in
ft is
1/150.
The
MacDonald
= 255 R
25B r
Pmax
= 18.755 R
"
(1956):
(3.7)
P^max
(3.8)
)3 max
(3.9)
31
as well
(3.6)
Pv = 155 P /L av
=
(3.6)
maximum
was observed
was smaller
total
/3 max
Pmax
settlement
It
and
44
in
which
reference length
= 40
total
settlement suggested by
the
maximum
summarizes the
3.1
BR
ma x
Table
in.
(3
distortion of
(1956).
3.1
soils.
Polshin and Tokar (1957) proposed separate tolerable settlement criteria for framed
structures
For framed
L=
shows
More
tolerable
the
of angular
to 1/200.
were suggested
A = maximum
relative settlement
common
criteria in the
found
The
Eurocodes.
in
tolerable settlements in
Figure
movement
(1957).
(1993).
It
Pmax
BR =
reference length
1/31.25
0.075B R
Pmax
0.05B R
1956).
1/25
1/15
settlement
Raft foundation
Sand
total
Isolated foundation
Clay
in
m = 40 in. 3.28
ft.
0.075B R to0.125B R
1/18.75
a
0.05B R
to
0.075B R
45
Table 3.2
Tolerable
movement
Eurocode
1).
Total settlement
mm
Isolated foundations
25
Raft foundations
50mm
Differential settlement
Open frame
Frames with
Angular distortion
mm
10 mm
5 mm
20
1/500
46
E
iHf
Pab
Pmax
AsabT
"^J!^^
(a) settlement
without
As AB =
differential settlement
tilt
tilt
between
A and B
A/L = deflection
Figure 3.11
ratio
47
Bridges
3.4.2
tolerability of the
movement should be
assessed qualitatively by the agency responsible for each bridge using the following
"Movement
definition:
repairs
not tolerable
is
damage
if
As shown
this is a
Although
it
tilt
(or rotation),
the bridge,
to avoid this
in
amount.
it
may
all
foundation elements
settle
Uniform
by the same
at the
end of
Wahls
angular distortion.
Uniform
1990).
stiff superstructures.
tilt
is
approach slab, with drainage, and with clearance, while distortion effects are largely
absent in the superstructure.
Nonuniform
settlement
can
be
by
categorized
two
representative
types:
regular nonuniform [see Figure 3.12 (c)] and irregular [see Figure 3.12 (d)] nonuniform
If the
settlement.
cause
more
is
(Xanthakos 1995).
to
mainly due
state.
Limit values of tolerable settlements for bridge have been proposed by several
investigators
measure of settlement or
damage, due
to the
distortion,
No
single
Although the
48
^
(a)
(b)
Angular distortion =
Figure 3.12 Components of settlement and angular distortion in bridge for (a) uniform
settlement, (b) uniform
and
(d)
nonuniform
tilt
1991).
49
different authors,
it
reasonably consistent.
As shown
in
mm was suggested
The upper limit value of approximately 100 mm was
by Bozozuk (1978)
as not harmful.
may
et al.
Later
1985, Moulton
1986) turned out to be reasonably consistent with the tolerable values given in Table 3.3.
They found
which the
269
vertical
50
less than
that the
mm,
movement was
100
less than
as tolerable for
mm
90%
piers.
According to Moulton
establishing tolerable
et al.
movement magnitude
given
in
by Moulton
The values of
shown
in
tolerable angular
Table
3.4.
The
Table 3.4 were based on the observation for 56 simple span and 119
Settlement
Basis for recommendation
Recommended by
51
Not harmful
Bozozuk (1978)
63
Ride quality
Walkinshaw (1978)
Structural distress
Walkinshaw (1978)
102
Graver (1978)
102
Bozozuk (1978)
Usually intolerable
Wahls (1990)
Magnitude (mm)
>63
> 102
50
The
details considered in
are less
The
in
in
Table
3.5.
(1985).
(3
et al.
1/200,
may
They recommended
(1985).
(3
1/125.
et al. 1985).
Angular distortion
1/250
1/200
Table 3.5
al.
AASHTO
et al.
which
amount of
angular distortion was
for
this
considered to be tolerable
was considered
be tolerable
0.000-0.001
100%
98% (100%)
0.001-0.002
97%
98% (100%)
0.002 - 0.003
97%
98%(100%)
0.003 - 0.004
96%
98% (100%)
0.004 - 0.005
92%
98% (100%)
0.005 - 0.006
88%
96% (98%)
0.006 - 0.008
85%
93% (95%)
to
51
Summary
3.5
The concept of
Most
proposed
criteria
based on
is
potentially controversial.
pile load-settlement
curves
associate failure with relatively dramatic changes in settlement increment for a given load
increment.
Butler and
Hoy method
method (Horvitz
90%
criteria
et al. 1981).
the
1963), Chin's
method
(1970), and DeBeer's method (1967), on the other hand, define the failure conditions
scale.
different
method
the
Whenever
of
soil condition.
modem
of
quality
foundations
and
criteria, it is said to
value of
superstructures
damage.
considered.
performance
its
two
technical
and
been proposed as a
adequate
The
when
there
when
is
10%
and
state".
if relative
settlement
s R is
place.
The value
states
For building
on the results proposed by Skempton and MacDonald (1956) and Polshin and Tokar
(1957).
The
results suggested
to 1/500.
relatively consistent,
showing
52
For bridge structures, several authors proposed limit values for tolerable settlement.
No
single
indicator of bridge
damage due
distortion,
complex settlement
to the
patterns.
This value
is
Bozozuk (1978)
mm
as a tolerable
Highway
53
4.1
Introduction
to describe
mechanical behavior of a
Although
convenient to use,
problems.
it is
may
soil
by
be linear
elasticity.
linearity in the
absence
hence
soil
from the
initially
unstrained
condition takes place, several soil models have been proposed (Kondner 1963,
Duncan
and Chang 1970, Hardin and Dmevich 1972, Fahey and Carter 1993, Tatsuoka
1993).
The hyperbolic
soil.
among
the
most popular
These types of
soil
soil
models
et al.
models for
are relatively
where large
and
elastic
from modest
stress increases.
two
basic concepts,
i.e.
linear behavior
strain.
strains result
soil
stress-strain curve
and flow
rule.
failure criterion
54
The flow
and
stress
associated.
Otherwise,
may
start
same
it is
4.2
Stress Tensor
As shown
in
is
After satisfying
stress tensor.
The
in the
and Invariants
and
referred to as
the plastic
is
If
between
denoted by Oy.
The
The
in a soil
element
in a
can be expressed
in
matrix notation as
follows:
au
an
o\,
o\,
0\,
o.
o\,
a 33
stress tensor
13
(4.1)
a shown
X)
in (4.1),
it
follows that
it
symmetric:
u=j,
or
<7
U =
(7 21
(4.2)
is
55
2,y
'
o?->
l,x
Figure
4.
Nine components of
56
CT
(7
The
stress tensor
CTij
= (T 31
13
23
(4.3)
"32
as:
i}
"tfll
<^12
CT .3
^2.
<T 22
"23
CT 31
<T 32
^33.
=
_
The diagonal
stress
components of
Txy
T*
^.vx
CT.vv
CTv
T >,
T v:
o\.
cr..,
a.
a.
(4.4) are
(4.4)
other stress terms are tangential to these planes and are referred to as shear stresses.
stress tensor
given by (4.4)
is
The
According to the
The
invariants of a tensor
represent the quantities that are constant irrespective of the rotation of the coordinate
axes.
The
<j-
-I o~ +IjO-Iz =0
(4.5)
From
the characteristic equation of (4.5) and the stress tensor matrix of (4.4), the
quantities of
Ii, I2,
and
I3
/,
=<y
tl
=a u +a
22
+<7 33
<J,
<*n
CT 22
\2
11
<7
/,
23
a 23
a 33
(4.6)
+
\i
a 33
a,
.v:
+
a.
=a +a +o_
<7
(4.7)
...
57
= determinant of o v - \<J..
/,
The
shown
in (4.6)
(4.8)
different formulation:
=/ =
CT
(4.9)
(4.10)
(4.11)
where
/,
I2
and
73
are the
first,
respectively while
some authors
invariants
stress
of the
symmetric tensor
is
refer
It
I2 ,
and
I3
and
third
tensor.
For a
given stress tensor, this implies that a set of planes, for which only the normal stresses are
non-zero, can be found.
The
referred to as the principal directions, and the corresponding normal stresses are the
principal stresses.
Using
the principal stresses, the stress tensor of (4.1) can be rewritten as:
0"
"<7.
lj
c\
(4.12)
CT
where
0\,
a 2 and
,
3.
The
is
called the
minor principal
The
58
given in (4.5).
Three
from the
possible to
decompose
parts;
two
stress
0"
(4.13)
p
p_
where
l
,
(4.14)
and
o"
**
(4.15)
The
l}
is
Then
=<7
'j
is
written as:
(4.16)
P* 9
as:
~s u
12
sa
s*
S 22
s 23
s i2
5 33.
n-P
<^I2
Vv
a 22 - p
"31
CT
32
^,3
CT
^33
23
"P
(4.17)
59
The
deviatoric stress tensor represents physically the shear deviatoric state of stress
state
of
stress.
second-order symmetric tensor, the invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor can be
obtained from the characteristic equation.
the deviatoric stress tensor
It
invariant of
first
zero, as:
is
S = 5n
+S :: +S 33
1
-a mm
= an
.
The second
(4.18)
is
given by:
h-\s*
v]]
= i[((T n -
pf
(<7 22
^22
~'~^'>t
13
12
*^23
33
32
31
- p) 2 + 7 33 - p) 2 + 2S 12 2 + 2S 23 2 + 25 13
(4.19)
Since S12
(J12,
S23
/,
CT23,
and S13 =
(o-jj
G\3, (4.19)
can be rewritten
+ a 12 + a 33 + 2a n +
2ct 23
as:
2<7 13
- 3p 2 )
(4.20)
or
t[('ii
stresses,
-ovJ
2
]
o-,
+ o\ 3 + ct 13
(4.21)
'
60
(4.22)
The
= I ((7 _/l5
o
7,3
'
^
)(cr
y
"
_Zl<5
jm
--/,/,. +
1
where
4.3
I,
1^
and
are the
first,
) (ct
ft*1
*}
tm
-!l$ mi )
o
(4.23)
Z,1
2?
stress tensor.
The complete
relationships:
relationship.
equilibrium
condition,
how
compatibility
body requires
and
condition
three basic
stress-strain
condition defines the relationship between the displacement u and the strain
because
the
The compatibility
a and
it
e.
The
The
elasticity
linear relationship
between
stress
o~jj
the generalized
and
strain
sk
is
referred to as linear
61
External force
Displacement
F,T
Equilibrium
>-
Compatibility
Stress
a
\1
Stress-strain relationship
(Constitutive law)
Figure 4.2
body
(after
1988).
62
where
i, j,
k,
and
1, 2,
and
3;
= c eu
m
and Qjh
is
(4.24)
Opi
also symmetric.
is
is
Eq.
Since both
Gjj
The
final
expression for
Cjjki
of (4.24)
is
c mi
*"1122
'-'1133
&2Z
'-'2211
>-")!-))
c
c
'-'3322
c 1222
c 2322
c
'-'1322
c
c
'"3333
c 1233
c 2333
c
'"1333
^33
__
*12
*-"121I
c 23
c
<*23
.<V
where En,
22,
and
833
*3311
1 1
131
A,
u.,
and
*'33
a are
and
=M 8 U +1*60,6
V
scalar constants.
c
'-'ins
c 2223
c
'-'3323
c 1223
c 2323
c
*"1323
c
'-'3312
c 1212
c 23
c
'"1312
Cm
where
">
c
*"1112
c2212
fi
Y13
c
c
c"3313
v
c 1213
c 23
c
*"1313
'-'1113
''213
= shear
ljk i
11
-)->
33
(4.25)
Ya
Y23
Ya
For an isotropic
strains.
+Ct8 a 8 jk
Because Cyw
is
(4.26)
=C
(4.27)
This leads to
kl
jt
JI
kl
Jl
ik
(4-28)
63
From
Taking (4.29)
it
into (4.24),
Then we
we
ij
get:
M 8u e
u
H($ik s ji
+ 5 S jt
.!
) u
4 -30)
or
G,
J
=AS
iJ
E kk+ 2fl
n and X
material constants
(4.31)
IJ
Lame's
Following Hooke's law for the three dimensional and isotropic element, the
stress-strain relationships
(4-32)
22
= [a
E
22
e33=^33- V ( CT
ll
7,2
7 23
G
=
+a
-v((Tu
C,
G
33 )]
(4.33)
+Cr 22)]
(4-34)
(4.35)
(4.36)
7,3
where
(4.35)
(4.32)
(4.37),
<5\z,
(4.37)
Poisson's
ratio;
elastic shear
Using
modulus.
In
indicial notation,
64
or
o
"
Comparing
(4.39)
and
(4.31),
=
\
+v
E
e
"
vE_
(l
;:., c,g,
+ v)(l-2v)
Lame's constants
u.
(4.39)
as:
H=G=
(4.40)
2(l
+ v)
vE
A=
(4.41)
(l+v)(l-2v)
There
is
another elastic parameter, called the bulk modulus K, which defines the
is
expressed
the relationship of
p-
<7
= o\ 2 =
<7
32
as:
a kk =3ke kk +2 tie
From
strain.
(4.42)
kk
p = (X + -fi)s kk
where e kk = 8n +
22
33
= volumetric
strain.
Then
K = -?- = A + -fi
u
(4.43)
the bulk
modulus
K is
defined
as:
(4.44)
65
modulus
K is rewritten
as:
(4.45)
3(1
-2v)
far.
Using these
parameters
elastic
moduli tensor
ijk i
shown
in
(1-v)
(1-v)
(1-v)
(1
[C]
-2v)
(4.46)
(l
+ v)(l-2v)
(1
-2v)
2
d-2v)
or
K + -G K--G K--G
3
3
9
K--G K + -G K--G
[c]=
3
?
3
?
K--G K--G
(4.47)
G
G
66
Constant
X,\i
X
(l
K, n
vE
3K-2n
+ v)(l-2v)
2(1
3A +
3(1
fxOk +
A+
lfx)
-2v)
//
2(A +
K
9KpL
3K +
IJ.
3K-2H
A
V
+v)
2a*
E,v
V
jU)
6K + 2/A
67
4.4
Elastic
4.4.1
Behavior of Soil
Initial elastic
known
well
It is
modulus
is in
upon unloading.
is,
There
10
modulus
The
for sands.
modulus
elastic
initial
however, a certain
strain
i.e.,
elastic
modulus for
small strains.
is
et al.
behaves
As can
this strain
range
referred to as the
is
is
It
Those include
soil
shear
initial
is
loading type,
at
in
The
and the
limit of
small strain
be seen
at
Yu and
1997c).
most
field
soil.
In
initial
et al. 1992).
al
and laboratory
shear modulus
is
determined by measuring the shear wave velocity based on the following relationship:
G =p(V
where
shear
wave
is
transmitted; and
analysis of surface
examples of
is
initial
shows
wave
in-situ
penetration test
obtaining the
shear modulus; p
initial
test
tests
(4.48)
= mass density of
shear
(SASW)
wave
velocity.
the
The cross-hole
shear modulus.
The
wave generated
at the
test is
performed
in a similar
surface (Robertson et
cone penetration
al.
test.
the
manner
1985).
tests for
to a
down-
Figure 4.4
68
Plastic ranse
Figure 4.3
soil.
69
Oscilloscope
1
oo
zf
Source
Seismic Cone
Penetrometer
Figure 4.4
test.
70
For laboratory
often used.
The
conventional triaxial
elements) attached
the shear
column
at the
wave do not
test
test
test,
test
test are
soil
sample as
end caps of a
disturb the
triaxial
initial soil
Because the
sample.
strains generated
by
assumed
soil
condition.
modulus
of:
-2- = CF(.
(4.49)
P.
where
initial
shear modulus;
Pa =
= mean
dependence of the
initial
units as
Pa
Eq
n = material
same
ratio;
C =
is
One
of the
commonly used
as follows:
where
Cg
initial
void
e g and n 2
Ca
Pa =
ratio;
e,
reference pressure
same
and n
unit as
Pa
= 100 kPa =
In the original
were suggested
for
kgf/cm
2
;
and o' m =
initial
mean
71
values of
Cg
eg
4.4.2
As discussed
wide range of
strains.
behavior of a
shows
soil
first
equation for the stress-strain relationship, several modifications have been suggested
(Duncan and Chang 1970, Hardin and Dmevich 1972, Fahey and Carter 1993, Purzin and
Burland 1996).
strain relationship
assuming piece-wise
are based
on the quasi-linear
elastic stress-
and
strain
level.
by Kondner (1963)
is
where
CTi
and
O;,
are the
-<7 3 =
<7 1
(4.51)
a + be
stresses;
is
b are the material constants that characterize the feature of stress-strain curve.
seen in Figure 4.5, the constants a and b
strain curve.
in
As can be
(Gi
03) U
by
modulus
72
Table 4.2
Values of
(after
Cg
eg
et al.
1999)
Cg
eg
ng
Ottawa
612
2.17
0.44
Ticino
647
2.27
0.43
Toyoura
900
2.17
0.40
Hokksund
942
1.96
0.46
Monterey No.O
326
2.97
0.50
Sand type
73
cti
-cr 3
Asymptote =
(o"i -
a3 ) =
1/b
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.5
Hyperbolic model
(a) stress-strain
74
From
is
it
amount of
required for the stress-strain curve to reach the ultimate stress level (O]
is
a3 ) u
a 3 ) ult
strain is
This also
it
is
taken as the
maximum
stress
at failure.
fitting the
curve,
The
(<J 1
-o
then written
~i
is
o 3 )f
(4.52)
3 ) uh
as:
nr
by introducing the
=Rf (o -a
eo
a 3 ) ul
Rf
factor
3 )f
is
<'.-">
(4 53)
'
y,-<7 3 ) /
a3 ) f
is
failure criterion:
(a,
- <r,) =
2c-cos</>
-
'
where
than
stress
1,
and
(j)
are the
(CT] -
o3 )f
at failure.
(o"i -
WW
-sin</>
(A
l-sin0
Mohr-Coulomb shear
+ 2o\-
c3 ) u
is
strength parameters.
If
the factor Rf
4n
is less
75
strain relationship
As
a result,
it
can be readily
4.4.3
strain:
7
(4.55)
1
where
shear stress
initial
Y-Rf
at failure.
x^
= maximum
as:
(4.56)
*/
WG
Thus,
- = l-Rf
where
G =
modulus from
its initial
maximum
(4.57)
G/G
according to (4.57).
stress.
of elastic
The degraded
76
magnitude of the
elastic
modulus
at failure is
lies
in (4.57).
1.0.
4.5
Failure criterion
4.5.1
When
and behaves as a
is
is in this
condition,
failure criterion
plastic behavior.
is
In
is
no longer
failure criterion
most
defined by a failure
plastic
valid.
F can be expressed
as a function of
components as follows:
F = F(a u = F(o n ,a 22 ,o 33 ,o v M
)
where F =
failure criterion;
ay =
six stress
same
as
given
it is
Once
criterion.
the soil
The
plastic material.
the material
stress
a condition for which relatively dramatic changes of stress, for a given strain
is
state at
soil starts
in
follows:
components.
all
,,o n )
If
the soil
(4.58)
is
assumed
to
be
It
77
F = F(<r lf <Tj,cr 3 )
(4.59)
F=
(4.60)
or
where
o~i,
o 2 and
,
and
J3
Ii
the
first
stress tensor.
hydrostatic
F(I ,J 2 ,J i )
pressure on
failure
of the material
is
is
minimal.
Based on
these
the
form as follows:
F = F(J 2 ,J i )
In
some
elastic-plastic
models
is
in soil
(4.61)
mechanics, a
soil
remains
in the elastic
F<
plastic, the
range
in the
following holds:
(4.62)
and
F=
For a perfectly
Ojj
and
the
at failure
and
state
and the
is
stress
failure
F>
(4.63)
Figure 4.6
physically impossible.
stress
and beyond
increment
In the figure
at failure, respectively.
As shown
in
Figure 4.6,
when
it
the stress
On
loading condition.
other hand, the case where the stress state drops below the failure surface
unloading condition.
If
is
the
called
78
Loading
dGjj,
loading
Figure 4.6
79
conditions
/(<7)
/(<T
df=-l- do,.
and
(4.64)
fl
for loading
and
and
df=^-da<0
(4.65)
for unloading.
4.5.2
Flow
When
rule
and
stress
hardening
The
sum
The flow
state.
total strain
can be determined.
=de g '+de/
rule, the
The flow
increment tensor
at plastic
de 9
where dey =
total strain
rule
de^ =
between the
(4.66)
elastic
and
plastic strain
plastic strain
stress
increment
given by:
dB,'-kl0<7
(4.67)
80
where
A. is
When
is
is
same
the
Otherwise
it
is
is
Eq. (4.67) also indicates that the direction of the plastic strain vector
rule.
space.
This condition
increment
de,j in
is
positive
condition
is
is
normal
work done by
no further increment
Some
materials, however,
show
by a
d|j
is
reached,
referred to as
is
possible.
work hardening
This
According
to
Drucker, the following two conditions should be satisfied for the hardening material:
(1)
Over
produces
first
produces
is
work performed by
The
it
is
the external
work done by
the external
positive.
added
in
new
displacements
non-negative.
do
>0
-de
:j
(4.68)
:J
or
da (d/+de ")>0
iJ
(4.69)
lJ
that:
dcr
-de/>0
(4.70)
it
81
Hardening, stable
Figure 4.7 Stress-strain behavior for hardening, perfectly plastic and softening material.
82
work done by
If the
referred to as
additional stress
work softening or
An
increment
is
is
unstable.
work softening
materials.
The
soil
strain
4.5.3
is
and
with respect to
its
DR
most and
e,mx
max
where
DR
initial
void
least
states.
xl00% =
'
and emm =
and Yd.mm =
relative density
Yd
'
rf.max
Yd ma
written as:
xl00%
'
D R is
(4.71)
rf.min
maximum
The
7rimax
nun
ratio; Yd.ma*
dense
compactness of the
void ratios; e
DR =
100% and
0%
Yd
initial
The
stress-strain
looser sand
shows
a stress-strain
On
As can be
until failure,
With respect
negative volumetric
strains,
is
it
in
dense sand
is
friction angle.
The
other
83
O'l
-C,
1
Dense sand
n.
^w
Critical
state
s^~^
Loose sand
taxial
1
Dense sand
^_^
taxial
|
+
Loose sand
Loose sand
\.
^^-"""^
Dense sand
'
^^axial
Figure 4.8
1986).
84
the confinement.
is
There
is
in sand.
a condition far beyond the peak point of the stress-strain curve, for
no volume change
is
observed.
This stage
It
remain constant.
The
is
g'
3
and void
which
As shown
ratio e at the
regarded as a material
property that depends only on the nature of the sand, and not on either the
initial
density
or confining stress.
The
lr
sin0 f =
where
(J)
sand
is
(4.72)
given by:
and
0"'
]c
0,=0
in
which
<j)
= peak
dilatancy angle.
The
friction angle;
dilatancy angle
(j>c
\|/
= 6.251 R
iff
+O.8vr,
is
given by:
(4.73)
and
\|/
(4.74)
and
iff
- 3.751 R
(4.75)
85
The
IR
where I D =
relative density as a
lkgf/cnr; P' p
= mean
is
given by:
=I D [Q + M-)]-l
number between
effective stress at
and
1;
peak strength
(4.76)
Pa =
in the
reference stress
same
it
is
confinement.
The higher
vj/
(4.73) through
the relative density, the higher the dilatancy angle, whereas the
From
P a and
(p
units as
= lOOkPa =
- <p c < 20
For
at:
(4.77)
(4.78)
and
<j>
4.6
-<p c
<\2
Summary
mechanical behavior of
and
strain
soil
was discussed.
The
linear elastic
ay = C
where the
the bulk
elastic
modulus
is
M ,,
kl
ijkl
expressed
in
ratio v.
86
Hyperbolic stress-strain models have been used to represent the non-linear behavior
soil
strains
for
which
soil
behaves as a linear
elasticity
stress level
and the
initial elastic
in
terms
The degraded
modulus, which
material.
elastic
maximum
is
At
behavior of
soil,
two conditions
soil
under which
soil
and a flow
The
rule.
The
flow rule represents the relationship between the stress and strain rate
plastic
on
The peak
friction angle of
The
constant for a given sand, and depends only on the nature of the sands.
angle,
is
a function of confinement
where
fyp
= peak
friction angle;
in
and
linear surface.
is
The dilatancy
relative density.
Bolton
c = friction angle
at critical state;
and
\|/
= dilatancy
As
friction angle, is
regarded as a non-
at
87
CHAPTER 5
5.1
3-D
Introduction
The
three-dimensional modeling.
chamber
is
In order to obtain
more
such problems,
therefore, the full description of the stress-strain relationship including non-linear elastic
and
In this chapter,
we
dimensions
discuss
first
is
necessary.
5.2
model
Intrinsic
is
The
full
and
state soil
non-linear elastic-plastic
then presented.
Soil variables used for the description of soil behavior can be classified as either
intrinsic or state variables.
only a function of
Salgado
et al.
soil particle,
1997a).
soil state
state, history
given
et al.
soil
or initial condition.
(<j) c ),
and are
specific gravity
1991,
can be
These
(G s ), and
88
modulus
and
in
most important
&nun)-
in-situ vertical
The
soil exists.
and horizontal
The
soil state.
initial
stresses (o' v
soil
void ratio
et al.
1986).
difficulties
cohesionless
soils.
The
intrinsic
and
complex
soil
test,
to relate the
may be
parameters.
the
The procedures
experimental efforts.
stress-strain
as the cone
behavior to
state variables.
results
particularly for
variables,
to
problems.
accurate
state
useful soil
of soil
This presents
tests) requires
to
the use of
soil
more
most
soil
obtaining
and model
the soil
models
are, the
more laborious
the
As
is
sometimes used
shows
and displacement
is
to represent the
value of the secant modulus depends on the soil condition and the characteristics of the
modulus
It is
that will
It
all
possible
is
no
initial
single value of
conditions.
is
results as a
89
Figure
5. 1
90
and may
state
soil variables in
results.
intrinsic
stress
and
state
5.3
modulus with
static
Elasticity
is linear.
Figure 5.2 shows measured modulus degradation curves of normally consolidated sand
was
line
where
As can be
The
initial
seen, the
maximum
for
On
the
other hand, the modulus degradation curve for monotonic loading reveals significantly
different response
from
modulus degradation
quite rapid.
The
for
initial
The measured
shear modulus
is initially
normalized shear
stress
increases.
In order to account for the characteristics of the
real
soils,
in
hyperbolic model.
The modification
(4.57):
|*- =
l-/()*
(5.1)
91
1.0
Cyclic
0.8
NC
sand
</T
3
3
"\
0.6
0.4
Hyperbolic
equation
o
%,
JZ
V)
"
>v
0)
>*
,N
/*'*
15
E
o 0.2
N*
"*
Monotonic
NC sand
'
.
*--.
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Figure 5.2
Modulus degradation
(after
0.8
\
1.0
x/T max
Teachavorasinskun
et al. 1991).
92
The parameter
If f
level.
role as Rf in
same
by Kondner (1963).
set
equal to
1,
(5.1)
becomes
the
If f is
modulus
irrespective of stress
level as:
-^-
=1
G=G
or
(5.2)
If
to be equal to
is set
and
the
f,
For a
g.
of
Fahey
to reasonable
tangent modulus with successive incremental procedure rather than a secant modulus
1977).
is
incremental procedure
which
is
is that
The accuracy of
the incremental
procedure can significantly be improved by combining the iterative method for each
increment.
(5.1).
J- = !-/(__)*
G
(5.3)
T,
or
-=G
V
/
r-
-G
f{
T
max
)'(t)'-
(5.4)
93
1.0
G/Go
0.0
Figure 5.3
X/Xn
1.0
and
g.
94
Replacing 1/y by
,:
7 =
<T
(5.5)
Then,
dr
dx
2
]
T max
[G t-
+G /U-1)(
r
y
)
(r)^
2
]
max
Gj- [i-f(i-g)(y]
T max
(5.6)
Yiry[GX'-GJi
T
Thus,
dY
i-/d- g )(-L-)
dT
Because
dr
dy
(5.7)
^max
G [l-f() s
(5.7)
2
]
becomes:
i-fa-g)(y
T max
(5.8)
'
or
S
G
)
G
i-fa-gxy
(5.9)
95
Using
5.4
modulus G, corresponding
modulus
and
G can be obtained.
5.4.1
Modified hyperbolic
dimensions
Application of the hyperbolic model to the analysis of the loading of a natural soil
deposit requires the resolution of
what shear
two
issues.
stress-strain response,
to define
Ko = g\/o\.
which
Most
is
determined by a
laboratory studies on
how
of
more
second issue
is
common
shear modulus
f
and
g.
To
is
expressed in terms of shear stress level x/Xma* with the model parameters
initial
initial stress
anisotropy in the
^- = l-/(
where x =
t
initial
x and Tmax
were defined
initial
Ko
condition.
(5.10)
it
how
should be noticed
96
/
B
^^
Ko
^^
Tmax
A
X
To
(a-,
g' )/2
3
a
(a)
y Kf
^
AE^^
d/|/
/I
T
'
\
'
Tmax
/ ^S\ c
(b)
97
that
The
a' 3 )/2.
all
stress path
defined
AB
The
more representative of
where
condition,
stresses.
is
at
the
same confining
CF
Figure 5.4
in
stress path
maximum
CF, the
on
stress
line
CF.
As an
maximum
initially
is
Ko
and confining
on
(a'i
point
(b),
with
test
For the
by
stress as represented
Figure
in
Full description of the stress state under various types of external loading requires a
Three-dimensional
stress invariants.
The
first
stress conditions
invariant
I]
may
also be represented
by the use of
is
a measure of
confining stress, and the square root of the second invariant J 2 of the deviatoric stress
tensor given
by (4.22)
invariants,
the
dimensions
as:
is
hyperbolic
relationship
S-i-/(
are
t 'ie
may now be
of (5.10)
f~*
ff
Using the
rewritten
for
in (5.10).
is
this
three
(5.ii)
stress
It is
The
The Drucker-
given by:
F = //7-ctf,-/c =
(5.12)
98
where
a and K are
related to the
Mohr-Coulomb
strength parameters c
and
<j)
through:
., ...
2sin</>
a = j=
(5.13)
V3(3-sin0)
and
K=
* CCOS *
(5.14)
V3(3-sin0)
In (5.13)
and
(5.14),
obtained
(j)
k=
and
0.
From
of
a result, the
For
confinement would be
as:
7 2max
As
versus
x,
3-D
stress plane of
Ii
=a
versus .^77
(5.15)
is
2-D
manner
stress plane
similar to that
of Figure 5.4.
CH in Figure
Sl = [l- /(
where
Ii
and
I ]0
f f
2
y ](^)
n<
(5.16)
The parameter n g
is
the
same
as appears in (4.50).
In both equations,
Use of
and
initial states.
n g represents the
in
99
and confining
Ii
=I ]o
at
any
As
which
stress level.
can be written
in
modulus
O-n
CT 22
^33
K + 4G
A
K-lGy/
K .2 G/
K+
K -2G
22
A
4Gy/
/:
CT
.
G
G
723
13.
7.3.
As described
earlier, the
shear modulus
is
is
al.
modulus
G and bulk
The magnitude of
model
(5.17)
Yl2
the stress state changes in a non-linear elastic model, the elastic parameters
modulus K.
^33
<
21
K _2G
On
As
is
and
in
5.4.2
The
The
the bulk
al.
1981).
elastic characteristics
K-G
are:
1.
2.
100
3.
The
first
in the
stress.
K-G model by
Naylor
tangent bulk
=D
K,
where P a = reference
same
units as
Pa
stress
= 100 kPa =
and the
initial
rCP
<1
kgf/cm
-"<
(5.18)
n )
a' m
= mean
-7'
5
initial
stress;
bulk modulus
may
initial
shear modulus
0.15
range.
ratio
Young's modulus E,
4.
Based on these
to the initial
can be
Young's modulus
ED
can be written as
either:
5.. G '" + V)
(5.19)
G.a+v.)
E
or
E,
__
K,(l-2v)
(5.20)
K (l-2v o
{
in
which v =
initial
moduli, respectively.
state
From
(5.19)
and
K G
t,
and
initial
101
a+vjS-(i-2vj
a
v,=4
2-Ml+v + (l-2vj
g
(5.2D
a:
In (5.21),
is
it
seen that the Poisson's ratio approaches 0.5 as the shear modulus
5.4.3
The parameters
elastic
modulus.
and g
in (5.16)
and g
and
g, a set
of triaxial
test results
performed by Giuseppe (1991) and Vecchia (1991) for Ticino sand was analyzed.
sand has been studied extensively (Salgado 1993, Bellotti
number of
When
results,
it
The
the
first
soil
an isotropic
stress
a' m
(o"'i+2a'3)/3
in
is to
Table
The conventional
If
confinement
a's, a
5.1.
triaxial test
performed by
is
triaxial
soil
stress.
is
mean
specimen can be
As
a result,
it is
not
1994, Salgado
rather than
maximum
al.
be determined from
is
in
specimen under
pressure a' 3
cell
shown
applying
et al.
et al. 1997a).
Ticino
maximum
Instead,
it
from
triaxial tests.
is
more
Young's modulus
modulus degradation
from the
102
Table 5.1
D 10 (mm)
0.36
D 50 (mm)
0.54
(G s )
Specific gravity
2.623
34.8
^max
0.922
Cmin
0.573
Ymax (kN/m
Ymin
(<J> C )
1.5
(kN/m
16.68
13.65
cg
647
ng
0.44
eB
2.27
et al. 1994).
103
The
constant.
&?,)
stress level
strain E^ai
a^ remaining
maximum
(a'i
a' 3 )
(o~'i
o-' 3 ) f .
Figures 5.5 through 5.17 show the measured and calculated modulus degradation
triaxial tests
As can be
Young's modulus
initial
initial
a'3)/(o"
a'3)f,
The
respectively.
the
initial
Poisson's ratio
initial
at
The values of
found to be
in the
summarizes the
samples used
0.96
in the
initial elastic
in Figures 5.5
From
Figures 5.5
for the
were
medium
triaxial soil
it is
As
observed
the relative
This result
modulus
5.8
Table 5.2
5.17.
Those
in Figures 5.5
value
is
higher for
denser than for looser sand, and the rate of degradation of elastic modulus
is
higher for
Because the
for only
two
The
triaxial tests
and g shown
in
and g for
DR
90% which
intuition.
agreement with
DR
= 50% and
relationship.
104
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
0.4
o
UJ
UJ
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
(a'i
Figure 5.5
a' 3 )/(a'i
= 0.97 and ? =
0.18.
0.8
0.6
for
1.0
a' 3 )f
D R = 51.5%
and
a 3 = 400 kPa
105
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
LU
LU
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
{0\-& 3 )/(0' -0 3
1.0
Figure 5.6
for
)i
D R = 48.8%
106
1.0 *-
measured
0.8
calculated
Figure 5.7
f=
0.97 and g
0.18.
for
D R = 48.2%
107
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
HI
ai
0.4
0.2
0.0
0-0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Figure 5.8
for
0.8
<j'
1.0
3 )f
D R = 50.8% and a
10 kPa
108
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
UJ
Jo
UJ
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
(ct'j
Figure 5.9
a' 3 )/(a' 1
0.20.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
for
1.0
a' 3 ) f
109
1.0
measured
calculated
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(CT'j-a^/Ca'j-aS),
Figure 5.10
0.25.
for
D R = 82.3% and o
= 100 kPa
110
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
LU
CO
0.4
0.2
0.0
(o'i
Figure
5. 1 1
o' 3 )/(a\
=0.95 and g =
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.20.
1.0
a' 3 ) {
for
DR =
Ill
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
UJ
us
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
(o'i
Figure 5.12
0.6
- o\)l{o\ -
= 0.95 and g =
0.20.
0.8
1.0
o' 3 ) f
for
D R = 91.1% and a
= 150 kPa
112
1.0
measured
'
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
UJ
-a,
LU
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
Figure 5.13
= 0.95 and g =
0.25.
0.8
1.0
a' 3 ) f
for
DR =
113
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
UJ
HI
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 5.14
= 0.95 and g =
0.27.
for
D R = 100%
and
o 3 = 400 kPa
114
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
UJ
*"
UJ
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Figure 5.15
0.2
0.4
= 0.94 and g =
0.8
0.6
0.32.
for
DR =
100% and
1.0
a?,
= 600 kPa
115
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
UJ
UJ
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
(a'j
Figure 5.16
0.6
&
3 )/(o\
= 0.94 and g =
0.28.
0.8
1.0
o' 3 ) f
for
DR =
116
1.0
measured
0.8
calculated
0.6
o
LU
111
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Figure 5.17
0.2
0.4
0.6
= 0.94 and g =
0.20.
for
0.8
DR =
1.0
117
DR
tests
and
These values
Table 5.2
DR
Values of
and 2 from
o' 3 (kPa)
E (MPa)
51.5
400
367.1
0.97
0.18
48.8
200
266.0
0.97
0.15
48.2
500
396.6
0.97
0.18
50.8
110
207.2
0.97
0.20
84.6
650
563.6
0.93
0.20
82.3
100
243.7
0.95
0.25
88.9
200
344.2
0.95
0.20
91.1
150
307.8
0.95
0.20
100
200
369.6
0.95
0.25
100
400
501.4
0.95
0.27
100
600
599.3
0.94
0.32
100
800
680.2
0.94
0.28
98.6
100
270.5
0.94
0.20
(%)
Table 5.3
Values of
densities.
Dr (%)
30
0.98
0.17
50
0.97
0.20
70
0.96
0.23
90
0.95
0.26
118
5.5
5.5.
Three Dimensions
Mohr-Coulomb
is
The
soil behavior.
account.
Mohr-Coulomb
problems
It
cannot, therefore, be
in
and post-failure
dimensional stress
As can be
state, the
soil
J2
and
Ii
(4.9).
it
When
is
in this study.
expressed in terms
F = VA-(<tf +*0 =
a and K
strength parameter c
are given
and
parameters
<j>
in
of:
(5.22)
Coulomb
been often
minor principal
For plane-
as follows:
tan</>
a=
(9
+ 12tan
K=
-r
2
-r
2
(9
(5.23)
</>/
+ 12tan 0) /2
(5.24)
119
Failure criterion
JJl-(aI
+k:)
(a)
Mohr-Coulomb
Drucker-Prager
failure surface
failure surface
(b)
Figure 5.18
(a) in l\-^[j 2
plane and
120
all
can be used for the description of a failure condition under the three-
dimensional stress
states.
Figure 5.18 shows the failure surface defined by the Drucker-Prager failure criterion
in
both
h-^J^
As shown
Drucker-
Prager failure surface appears as a straight line in l\-*JJ 2 plane, and a smooth circle in
As
plane.
computation due
hexagon
5.5.2
The
as a straight line as
a.
Mohr-Coulomb cannot
is
71-
As discussed
shown
in
peak
in chapter 4, the
Because the
parameter
friction angle
stress.
in the
<t>
for sand
is
is
obtained from
the peak friction angle using (5.13), the envelope of the Drucker-Prager failure surface
also non-linear.
As a
becomes steeper
is
stress decreases.
It
has been widely recognized that the original Drucker-Prager plastic model with an
increment vector
5.19.
The
de/ be
i.e.,
as:
This
is
excessive
at
point
in Figure
5
121
de,'=de, m +de,"
The
vertical
component
component
pv
dij
dE\}
ps
represents the
(5.25)
plastic
The
shear-strain.
horizontal
an associated flow
rule.
is
in
in the original
Drucker-
volume.
von Mises
von Mises
Q. is the
von Mises
et al. 1989).
The
Q.
where
flow
= t]J 2 -k
(5.26)
and
Jt is the
study and plastic strain increment with the non-associated flow rule.
5.5.3
incremental
According
to the
method
calculating
the
tangent
stiffness
for
plastic
condition.
cannot be uniquely determined from the current stress state ay and stress increment do^.
The
stress
plastic
increment
strain
do;j,
increment d\f.
This relationship
is
stress
ct,j
and a given
condition, which forces the stress state to remain on the failure surface, and given by:
dF^^da
3ov
t]
=0
(5.27)
122
JTl
d lJ
pv
Drucker-Prager
failure surface
Figure 5.19
Non-linear
failure surface
I.
Figure 5.20
rule.
123
From
and
increment
d(jjj
is
one of
as:
(5.28)
Thus,
d0 9
in
which
and
Q,
Qjio
elastic
= Von-Mises
=Cm dB H -M:m l-
moduli matrix;
dki
and
dki
(5.29)
total
and
is
obtained
as:
A=
(530)
j/ C jQ
drstu
*\
<7
that, for a
A.
do,..
dQ.
" mn
do, = [Cm
da
mn
5-=
dF
is
F and
strain
Substituting
expressed as a form
of:
dF
da pq
fe
dh
pqkl
]de u
(5.31)
The
The
stress-strain
coefficient tensor of
124
dF
dQ.
=C -
C*
C.
(532)
fe
dF
in
dQ
d mn
dl
37,
#1
9o- mn
dF
dF
3/,
dQ
37,
37 2
3o- mn
_3F
37 2
37 2
do pq
dQ.
37,
37,
(5.33)
3a
and
do pq
in
which
Ii
the
first
37, 3o-
+
.
p9
dF
^^- +
.
L.
(5.34)
37 3 3<x M
37,
In (5.33)
and
and
J3
37,
=s.
37 2
3a
37,
do,,
=s
-s
(5.35)
(5.36)
h
ik
s*-
(5.37)
125
where
5jj
= Kronecker
delta;
and Sy = deviatoric
stress tensor.
From
stress invariants,
(5.22)
and
which appear
(5.26),
in (5.33)
AQ,
(5.38)
61,
do.
dJ 2
2^/77
(5.39)
a,Q
(5.40)
6J 3
and
dF
:
-a
(5.41)
d/,
dF
dJ 2
2^/77
(5.42)
dF
(5.43)
dJ 3
as:
dQ.
da mn
2^77
S mn
(5.44)
and
afriir
Now
"-^
(5 - 45)
explicitly by:
126
As
Jh
2
tl
C kl " = Ca
(5.46)
da,} =
And
is
obtained
C"ds u
as:
(5.47)
as:
dE /=U-^=-ccS)
(5.48)
iJJl
in
which
5.6
A. is
given by (5.30).
Summary
may be used
stress-strain
relationship
problem.
is
three-dimensional problems,
it
still
is
much
to treatment using
is
This
is
an axi-symmetric
certainly different
soil
model
three
presented.
chamber
symmetric problem
based on plane-strain
is
suitable
criteria.
was
127
elastic
and condition.
stress-strain relationship
is
The
soil type
were used
The
expressions for the variation of shear modulus and bulk modulus according to the stress
level are given by:
f*'^
^- = [!-/(
)"'
)'](f-
and
K,=D
The parameters
and g
in (5.49)
-(C7' m
r(P f-
nt>
it
As
level.
is
From
the
and g vary
is
soil
The Drucker-Prager
and post-failure
sand
is
128
parameter
a was
critical state.
defined in terms of the dilatancy friction angle and the friction angle
at
129
6.1
Introduction
chamber
Calibration
tests
response of the base of non-displacement piles and cone penetration resistance under a
variety of conditions (Parkin 1991,
be performed
at
Ghionna
et al. 1994).
relative density
and
elastic-plastic stress-strain
model presented
in
the
previous chapter, calibration chamber tests are modeled and analyzed using the finite
The
element approach.
chamber
6.2
size effects
Calibration
Chamber
calibration
non-displacement
plate resistance
is to
Description of
6.2.1
chamber
compared with
test
Plate
chamber
pile.
Load Tests
sand specimen
is
carefully prepared,
LVDT
Top
Plate
Rubber
Membrane
Rod
Steel
Casing
Load
Cell
Rigid Plate
Base
Membrane
Water-Filled
Base Cushion
Displacement
Transducer
Figure 6.1
131
order
In
state,
to simulate
m.
The
chamber (Figure
series of
30
tests
al.
response
load-settlement
the
et
tests
et al. (1994),
where
The
test
surface of the sample reached mid-height, so that a rigid circular plate having a diameter
of 104
mm
inner rod
was
same diameter
sample prepared
from the
soil
is
was
as the plate
in this
manner simulates
is
the
separated
the
The
pile.
is
was disassembled.
is
at the
test
when
the sample
tested.
The
test results
end of each
6.2.2
Test material and boundary conditions for calibration chamber plate load tests
whose
in the calibration
properties are
shown
two
in
chamber
Table
5.1.
different levels,
The
was Ticino
sand, a silica
dense.
The medium
dense and dense samples represent the relative-density levels equal to around
DR
= 50%
132
and
D R = 90%, respectively.
For over-consolidated
in the tests.
soil
(OCR) were
The
7.61 range.
applying separately the vertical and lateral boundary stresses on the sample surfaces.
The
boundary
vertical
stresses
were
in the
range while the lateral boundary stresses were in the 25 - 235 kPa range.
the value of
used
in the tests
test
chamber
In calibration
were
in the 0.34
samples used
- 0.97
chamber
tests,
chamber
used
surfaces.
in the calibration
from each
other.
chamber
BC4
lateral
lateral,
conditions
of boundary conditions
Based on the
soil
used.
Accordingly,
range.
in calibration
62-513 kPa
boundary conditions
that has
differ
indeed significant
influence on the plate resistance or cone penetration resistance, the boundary conditions
can be classified into two categories, constant-stress and fixed boundary conditions.
constant-stress boundary conditions include
BC3
conditions while
BC2
and
should be noticed that none of these boundary conditions perfectly reproduces the
chamber used
in a test
calibration
chamber
and
infinite sizes
useful as
tests
were used.
has a limited
free-field tests
The other
tests
et al.
under
conditions (Salgado et
(1994) include 26
BC3
is
tests
conditions, and
test
test are
BC2
and
calibration
under
condition,
BC4
shown
in
results
6.1.
is
is
between
chambers with
because achieving a
chamber
conditions.
Table
BC3
This
sample boundary
BC1
so because the
exist if calibration
1998b).
al.
The 30
under
that
is
The difference of
size.
would not
limitation
Ghionna
This
The
test
under
BC2
by
conditions,
133
Table 6.1
and
Boundary
DR
Condition
(%)
(kPa)
(kPa)
51.0
115.0
92.0
50.4
327
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC3
BC3
BC2
328
329
Test No.
300
301
302
303
!
Soil
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
chamber
tests.
Ko
OCR
51.0
0.443
1.00
115.0
40.0
0.347
1.00
113.0
51.0
0.451
2.73
55.2
313.0
140.0
0.447
1.00
55.2
214.0
92.0
0.429
1.00
58.4
512.0
223.0
0.435
1.00
49.4
116.0
76.0
0.655
2.70
92.8
314.0
123.0
0.391
1.00
92.5
216.0
85.0
0.393
1.00
92.5
115.0
77.0
0.669
2.73
90.9
66.0
25.0
0.378
1.00
91.7
63.0
25.0
0.396
1.00
55.5
513.0
235.0
0.458
1.00
51.7
62.0
26.0
0.419
1.00
49.1
54.0
52.0
0.962
7.61
43.5
410.0
189.0
0.460
1.00
56.8
512.0
184.0
0.359
1.00
55.2
62.0
24.4
0.393
1.00
59.0
216.0
92.0
0.425
1.00
58.0
65.0
53.0
0.815
6.34
59.3
63.0
50.0
0.793
6.54
60.2
412.0
177.0
0.429
1.00
92.2
314.0
129.0
0.410
1.00
92.0
66.0
64.0
0.969
6.27
91.2
66.0
27.0
0.409
1.00
91.4
116.0
47.0
0.405
1.00
91.2
65.0
25.0
0.384
1.00
90.9
65.0
26.0
0.400
1.00
BC4
90.9
65.0
26.0
0.400
1.00
BC1
90.6
65.0
26.0
0.400
1.00
Table 6.2
Boundary
Boundary conditions
Constant stress
= constant)
(o v = constant)
No
displacement
No
0)
constant)
displacement
(Uv
Constant stress
No
displacement
(0h
Top/Bottom Boundary
Constant stress
(u h
BC4
tests.
Condition
(u h
BC3
chamber
Condition
(o" h
BC2
Boundary
Lateral
Condition
BC1
in calibration
b
)
Constant stress
(o v = constant)
No
displacment
(u v
0)
135
ah
ah
-<y h
rrm
(a)
BC1
(b)
BC4
(d)
BC2
o,
LLLLA
IMI!
a,
(c)
Figure 6.2
BC3
in calibration
chamber
test.
136
6.3
Program
6.3.1
in Calibration
Chambers
ABAQUS
Finite-element analysis of calibration chamber plate load tests or pile load tests in
the free field requires an accurate
model of the
the complicated behavior of the soil around the rigid plate or pile base.
can represent
The
description
of a stress-strain relationship for soils, therefore, must take into account the non-linear,
stress-dependent stress-strain response before failure as well as the post-failure soil
The commercial
Inc.,
Pawtucket,
R.I.)
finite-element program
was used
to
ABAQUS
many
analyze
engineering problems.
It
The program
two
parts (Lee et
al.
(2)
ABAQUS
The
analysis procedure
in the analysis.
is
divided
The
model information;
interpretation of
problems, the
Sorensen,
1999):
(1)
&
(Hibbitt, Karlsson
condition
is
In
most geotechnical
state.
Instead of using the optional material model provided by the original program, a
subroutine
was
previous chapter.
3-D non-linear
137
Finite element
6.3.2
test
chamber
was
predicted numerically using the finite element method with the non-linear elastic plastic
model discussed
earlier.
This
finite
mesh used
model
to
using the same dimensions as those of the real calibration chamber having a diameter
equal to 1.2
to 1.5
m.
elements, necessary for modeling the three-dimensional loading conditions, with four
internal integration points.
In
ABAQUS,
The
Figure 6.3 was plotted with a visual angle equal to 180 for better visualization.
The
finite
6.3 consists of
two
i.e.
soil
test
shown
in
Figure
The
elements were modeled using the 3-D non-linear stress-strain relationship written
specific subroutine.
Because the
steel
casing
is
relatively rigid
compared
casing
how
is
at the
of the calibration chamber, no significant friction between the soil and casing
However,
realistically,
elements.
relative
thin-layer
The
The
in the finite
to occur.
in a
casing elements were modeled as a linear elastic material with very high stiffness.
steel
soil
interface
elements
chamber
is
middle
expected
soil
more
and casing
thin-layer interface elements have zero initial thickness, and allow the
movement of
Coulomb
friction
exceeds a
critical
i.e.
slippage.
The
shear stress defined by a friction angle and normal stress acting on the
138
Figure 6.3
Finite element
model
for calibration
chamber
139
As
were used
chamber
in the calibration
finite
In the
The values of
modulus, were
= 90%
level, selected
for
D R = 50%
level,
and
After defining
analysis
is
<j) c ,
e max e^n, e
,
DR
The only
other soil
which
are given
state variables,
o' v g\),
all
performed
first
by checking the
initial
state.
6.3.3
Figures 6.4
calibration
chamber
6.7
show
settlement (defined as the ratio of the vertical settlement to the plate or pile base
shown
in
= 10%.
The displacement of
the
deformed
finite
element mesh
visualization.
Figures 6.5 - 6.7 represent the vertical stress, vertical displacement, and lateral
From
stress concentration
Consequently,
it is
and shear
and displacement,
most
observed
significant reduction
Figure 6.8 shows the variation of secant shear modulus with horizontal and vertical
distances from the plate for three different settlement levels.
As can be
seen in Figure
140
6.8
(a),
modulus
at the level
is
most severe
the soil
immediately below the center of the plate undergoes rather slow degradation, as the
state is
stress
stress.
observation of the formation of an "elastic core" beneath the base of axially loaded piles
(BCP
1971; Salgado et
1997a).
al.
the shear
modulus
initially
At
down
to a depth of around 10
down
zones (curve
modulus
is
to the depth of 10
approximately 10
time no
2, 3).
chamber
below the
loads, similar
calibration
cm
For higher
cm
show
plate
mm,
(1994).
the
load
al.
tests.
to
a settlement
of
the finite
agreement
is
5 and
10%
for
calibration
all
maximum
dilational response of
sand under
test
triaxial
This
load
at
the
chamber
tests.
20%.
There
error of about
between the
unit
may
relative
Overall
is
a slight
be due to differences
loading conditions.
141
Figure 6.4
Deformed
DR
finite
= 55.2%
g'v
&
= 24 .4 kPa
at
s/B
= 10%.
test
with
142
Figure 6.5
DR =
55.2%
g' v
o' h
chamber
= 24.4 kPa
at s/B
= 10%.
143
Figure 6.6
chamber
D R = 55.2%
at
o'v
a' h
= 24.4 kPa
s/B
= 10%.
144
Figure 6.7
with
DR =
55.2%
o'v
a' h
= 24.4 kPa
at
s/B
= 10%.
test
145
35000
at plate
^__i
base level
"""""^
30000
co
0.
V)
25000
''
+~
.-'*
"'
_'
O 20000
.c
15000
//
A'*,,.
10000
."
/
/
m
c
CO
o
*'
*"
Sy
^;_.^-
..A*
.*
03
5000
,"'
/
CO
0)
."
- s/B
1%
-s/B
2%
3%
"
'
- .
s/B =
..
'
50
A-
100
150
Horizontal Distance
From
200
Plate Center,
250
mm
base level
20000
30000
a.
100
E
2
u.
<u
150
o
c
CO
to
5
b
200
CO
>
2%
= 3%
= 1%
s/B =
250
s/B
s/B
300
Figure 6.8
40000
'
146
2500
Test No.
2000
300
..
1500
o
c 1000
3
Q)
ffl
500
a.
r
'
fill
-
10
12
10
12
Settlement (mm)
3UUU
load
4000
Oo o
unit
Oo o
J5
a.
1000
^^\.
'
-
n
4
Settlement (mm)
2500
A3
a.
2000
..
o
ro
1500
E 1000
3
JO
0.
500
"
^fT
r
i
10
12
Settlement (mm)
-Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.9 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 300, 301 and 302).
147
to
0.
2C
load
unit
4000
ooo
.'
ooo
0)
to
1000
Q.
J.
..
10
12
Settlement (mm)
3000
2000
(0
^^
'E
^'
1000
<0
Q.
_i
10
12
10
12
Settlement (mm)
3000
2500
Q.
T3
Test No.
306
2000
<0
1500
'E
3 1000
y<f
0)
500
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.10 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 303, 304, and 306).
'
'
'
148
OUUU
Test No. 307
T
X.
^-
^^^
6000
^^^"^
""
^^\
^^^
TJ
TO
^^*
4000
,*>r.
^%'
c
3
y/f'
2000
sT
jt
CO
Q.
10
12
Settlement (mm)
euuu
Test No. 308
"to
6000
a
TO
"
4000
^--*^*V--
*"
'
'E
~TO
2000
0.
''
i
10
12
Settlement (mm)
DUUU
"to"
5000
4000
TO
3000
'E
3 2000
a
*-*
TO
jj;
1000
10
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.11 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 307,
149
4000
Test No. 310
1?
(k
ooo
load
oo o
yT
unit
.-
ooo
Plate
Settlement
10
12
10
12
(mm)
4000
Test No. 311
CO
a.
3000
a
CO
2000
c
3
0)
1000
Settlement
(mm)
(0
6000
TJ
CO
..--''
4000
'E
2000
(0
0.
1.
10
Settlement
Measured
12
(mm)
Predicted
Figure 6.12 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 310,311 and 312).
'
'
150
2000
Test No. 313
CO
^
D
1500
CO
1000
c
3
CD
S
CO
500
10
12
Settlement (mm)
CD
Q.
..-
1500
T3
<*"^
CO
1000
500
^*"T^
/
a.
10
12
Settlement (mm)
1500
(0
1000
^s^\
'
f^-
3
J2
500
(0
a.
10
12
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.13 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 313,
"
151
5000
4000
ro
3000
2000
2
n
1000
'
_i__
10
Settlement (mm)
8000
TO
a.
6000
(0
4000
'E
2000
10
12
Settlement (mm)
a.
D
TO
4000
3000
/ '
2000
TO
.-
1000
a.
1_
10
12
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.14 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 321, 322 and 323).
'
'
152
"JsT
a
o
o
3000
CO
^^-
2000
'E
'
1000
JO
_^
...
10
12
Settlement (mm)
a.
ji
ro
4000
3000
^s* ^-
/^.-''
_o
C 2000
3
jr
0>
1000
Q.
10
12
10
12
Settlement (mm)
4000
326
Test No.
CO
0-
3000
cc
"
2000
'c
3
0)
s
CO
1000
jr
'
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Figure
6.
Predicted
chamber
'
'
153
a!
J
re
4000
3000
^^^
C 2000
3
1000
Q.
S/
10
12
Settlement (mm)
"re"
^
a
3000
re
*-*
-^\7--
2000
'
'E
1000
re
a.
/'
10
12
Settlement (mm)
re
S
^^
D
o
+*
3000
^_
re
^s^
"
.*
^ ,
-
^,0^
>^
^*"****'^**^
J
j*"**"^
C
3
Sj
'
^t^* "^
2000
1000
(0
J^
10
12
Settlement (mm)
Measured
Predicted
Figure 6.16 Load-settlement curves for calibration chamber plate load tests
(Test No. 327,
154
ouuu
D R = 90%
TO
0.
5000
D R = 50%
73
re
o 4000
.-"
.*
"
.0
o 3000
o.
re
a.
2000
.-o
0)
0*
"
"-
o-o
V 1000
.no
s/B
5%
'
'
2000
1000
3000
4000
5000
Measured Plate
(a) s/B
Unit Load,
6000
kPa
5%
8000
DR
re
0.
JC
= 90%
*
6000
O D R = 50%
re
,'
_l
-
'c
13
o 4000
.-&
4"1
'
re
Q.
.s>'*
TJ
2000
o
o. ymj
o
o*
a-'
.
s/B
a.
= 10%
4000
2000
6000
8000
Figure 6.17
s/B
= 10%
chamber
tests.
155
6.4
Calibration
6.4.1
Chamber
Because of
field conditions.
As
measurements made
a result,
cone penetration
1991;
These
size effects
where
testing.
It
chamber sand
same
relative
1991; Salgado et
al.
in
connection with
has been determined that size effects in calibration chambers are more
induced
a calibration
size effect.
chamber
testing,
difficulties tend to
in
free-
in the
much
the other hand, the plate diameter used in the study (100
mm)
is
much
On
chamber
results of calibration
tests to
well understood,
under
controlled conditions.
6.4.2
chamber
analyses of both full-scale non-displacement piles and calibration chamber plate tests
were performed.
L=
m, 10
and 20
were analyzed.
piles,
three
60-cm
The corresponding
156
ratios
IVB of
the length
The
respectively.
values of
DR
piles
to the diameter
B were
equal to approximately
90%.
The
initial vertical
and
soil
8,
16 and 33,
deposit with
assumed
the pile base level for each pile length are as follows:
g'
o' h
= 43 kPa
for the
5-m
(2)
g'v
a' h
= 86 kPa
for the
10-m
(3)
a' v
o' h
= 172 kPa
(1)
for the
pile
pile
20-m
pile.
and
chamber were
stresses.
Comparison of
the base unit load in the full-scale pile load tests with plate
chamber
same
sand,
The comparison of
and chamber
tests
show
Tables 6.3
BC4
Tables 6.3
boundary
all
chamber
tests
with BC1,
was defined
chamber
The
size
plate resistance
BC3
BC4
DR
same
BC2.
This
As can be
BC1
boundary
chamber.
157
Table 6.3
Pile
S ze effect
in calibration
Load Test
Calibration
Pile length
DR
(m)
(%)
30
1516
50
2066
70
2794
90
3631
30
2152
10
20
q b (kPa)
(s/B
= 10%)
condit on.
Chamber Test
Size
C7' v
DR
(kPa)
(%)
100
30
1286
84.8
50
1762
85.3
70
2361
84.5
90
3087
85.
30
2018
93.8
50
2699
92.0
200
q b (kPa)
(s/B
= 10%)
Effect
(%)
2933
3869
70
3528
91.2
90
4959
90
4497
90.7
30
3112
4162
30
3152
100.1
50
50
4120
98.9
70
5404
70
5262
97.4
90
6836
90
6623
96.7
400
Load Test
Calibration
Dr
(m)
(%)
30
1516
20
BC1
50
Pile length
10
test for
70
Table 6.4
Pile
chamber
= 10%)
BC2
condition.
Chamber Test
DR
q b (kPa)
(s/B
test for
q b (kPa)
= 10%)
Size
Effect
(%)
(kPa)
(%)
100
30
1555
102.6
50
2085
100.9
99.2
(s/B
50
2066
70
2794
70
2772
90
3631
90
3600
99.1
30
2152
30
2364
109.8
50
2933
50
3108
105.9
70
3869
70
4017
103.8
90
4959
90
5119
103.2
30
3112
30
3591
115.3
50
4625
111.1
200
400
50
4162
70
5404
70
5854
108.3
90
6836
90
7338
107.3
158
Load Test
Pile length
DR
(m)
(%)
30
10
20
= 10%)
(s/B
1516
(kPa)
100
BC3
condition.
Chamber Test
(%)
30
q b (kPa)
= 10%)
(s/B
Size
Effect
(%)
1534
101.1
50
2053
99.3
50
2066
70
2794
70
2717
97.2
90
3631
90
3521
96.9
30
2152
30
2333
108.4
50
2933
50
3063
104.4
70
3869
4959
70
3945
101.9
90
90
5017
101.1
30
3112
30
3549
114.0
200
400
50
4162
50
4564
109.7
70
5404
70
5774
106.8
90
6836
90
7213
105.5
in calibration
Load Test
chamber
Calibration
DR
(m)
(%)
30
1516
50
2066
20
test for
Dr
q b (kPa)
Pile length
10
chamber
Calibration
in calibration
q b (kPa)
(s/B
= 10%)
test for
BC4
condition.
Chamber Test
Size
Effect
a' v
DR
(kPa)
(%)
100
30
1348
88.9
50
1828
88.4
q b (kPa)
(s/B
= 10%)
(%)
70
2794
70
2422
86.7
90
3631
90
3156
86.9
30
2152
30
2106
97.8
50
2933
50
2789
95.1
70
3869
70
3630
93.8
90
4959
90
4602
92.8
30
3112
30
3272
105.1
50
4162
50
4249
102.1
70
5404
70
5402
99.9
90
6836
90
6778
99.1
200
400
159
ouuu
..-'
.*
CO
6000
.-"
*-'
a
.*
CO
o
c 4000
3
7**
0)
(0
CO
A
t
43
=
Q.
*'
5m pile
2000
10
m pile
20
m pile
-"
.-''
2000
4000
6000
8000
BC1
conditions
8000
.'
TO
Q.
6000
.-**
TO
_.-
**
'E
4000
#
s
0)
2000
jt*
5m pile
10
m pile
20
m pile
2000
4000
6000
8000
BC2
conditions
Figure 6.18 Comparison of pile base unit load with plate unit load
chamber
in calibration
8000
re
0.
6000
a
re
"E
4000
-i
05
5m pile
2000
10 mpile
20
4000
2000
m pile
6000
8000
BC3
conditions
8000
re
Q.
6000
T3
re
O
3
4000
5m pile
re
2000
10
m pile
20
m pile
a.
4000
2000
6000
8000
Figure 6.18
BC4 conditions
chamber
161
Differences between pile base unit load and plate unit load were small for
relative density levels.
It
is
all
BC1
conditions were smaller than the pile base unit loads, and more substantially so in the
low
is
differences between pile base unit load and plate unit load were around 14 to
5
m, 6
to
The
BC1
9%
L=
for
results for
10 m, and
BC2
to
3%
for
conditions, as
15%
for
L=
L = 20 m.
shown
in
Figure 6.18
(b), differ
conditions in that the plate unit loads from the calibration chamber plate load tests
were found
The
L =
20 m.
to
3%
for
L=
m,
3 to
9%
for
L=
10 m, and 7 to
This indicates that the differences are more significant for long
which confinement
6.5
The
at the
is
high
at
15%
for
piles, for
Summary
Calibration
chamber
chamber
In
finite
compared with
The
predicted load-settlement
series
The comparison
and 10% was also made for both dense (D R = 90%) and medium dense (D R = 50%) sand.
Predicted plate unit loads were in good agreement with measured results, showing
relative errors not larger than about
Calibration
chamber
20%
at
s/B
= 10%.
from the
chamber, were
finite
162
element analysis.
pile
loaded under field conditions and plate unit loads from the calibration chamber
The
piles
densities.
and higher
(for
pile
chamber
size effects
longer piles.
under
BC2
at
(1998b) regarding
or
BC4
results
be used
show
CPT
The
size effects
under
In
chamber
tests to
chamber
chamber
BC4)
in calibration
The confining
calibration
at
different relative
The magnitude of
tests
and four
tests.
it is
purposes, no correction
is
recommended
If this is
et al.
BC1
here that
plate
unit load in estimating pile base unit load, unless very short piles are being simulated.
163
7.1
Introduction
test
to obtain
SPT blow
Ghionna
et al.
(CPT)
test
The
test is
counts
is
are the
and Salgado
cone penetration
is
(e.g.
De Beer
two
may be
al.
1995),
piles.
In this chapter, the base load-settlement curves of axially loaded piles bearing in
sand are obtained for different stresses and densities using the
a non-linear elastic-plastic stress-strain model.
same
soil
Cone
finite
resistance q c
CONPOINT
The
fully
manner
et al.
to
(1997a)
1997a, b; Salgado et
al.
al.
in
164
7.2
Methods
If a pile
Response
it
in a
cone penetration
at
test
(CPT).
This
is
soil
mass,
same way
it
as a
a condition of limited
is
and length,
not bearing in a very strong soil layer, and the engineer specifically requires a
is
plunging load
test.
Those include
a pile.
modeling.
chamber
tests
and numerical
Full-scale pile load tests are the best option to investigate the load-settlement
relationship for a specific site and pile, but cannot typically be used to obtain an accurate
correlation
Only
soil state.
with significant efforts to characterize the soil around the pile could potentially be used
for that purpose.
relative density
Difficulties that
and
would
still
need
known
not
in the field,
and
chamber
testing
Calibration
chamber
plate load tests, as discussed in the previous chapter, have been used
pile load
element method
is
among
the
most popular, as
et al.
it
et al.
identified
The
non-linear soil behavior and various interface conditions, with different geometries and
soil
behavior.
key element
in a finite
element analysis
is
165
chapter 5
is
used in a
finite
7.3
Finite
The commercial
loaded
The
piles.
finite
ABAQUS
chamber
element program
finite
way
was used
to
model
vertically
tests.
subroutine was written for the non-linear elastic-plastic model described previously.
Because the
made of
compared
was assumed
Eight-noded axisymmetric
elements with four internal integration points were used to model both the
pile.
soil.
The
showed
the calibration
Harris 1993)
compared.
The
chamber
al.
(1991).
(Mayne and
19.5
the validity of the proposed finite element analysis of the pile base load-
and the
The analyses of
initial
soil
test site
test
the numerical
bedrock.
silty silica
down
to
Institute of
and experimental
sand extending
20 - 24.8
soil to
soil
results
down
to 15.8
be composed of about
on the
were
shows the
Technology
soil
70%
samples
Table 7.1
166
Table 7.1
Basic
soi 1 properties
used
in finite
element analysis.
Layer No.
Depth (m)
Ko
a' V o(kPa)
eD
0-1.82
34
0.44
18.2
0.70
23642
1.82-3.93
34
0.44
53.8
0.70
43838
3.93-5.93
37
0.40
87.6
0.73
54056
5.93-7.93
33
0.46
119.9
0.73
67081
7.93
- 9.93
32
0.47
151.8
0.74
76051
32
0.47
185.6
0.72
87849
9.93-11.93
(kPa)
11.93-13.93
36
0.41
219.9
0.70
96102
13.93 - 14.93
38
0.38
244.8
0.67
100472
14.93
- 16.76
36
0.41
268.6
0.67
112540
10
16.76-18.28
36
0.41
296.8
0.67
119145
167
surface, at
mesh was
The
last layer
of the
mesh from
m to 21.93 m was the partially weathered rock layer, which was assumed to behave
Values of
as an elastic material.
shear modulus
initial
changes
wereC =214,
According to the
et al.
(1999) regarding
adopted for
ec
the
model parameters
elastic plastic
were taken as 0.98 and 0.05 respectively, based on the observed non-linear
properties of silty sand (Salgado et
76
cm
were
and n
The values of
to
al.
to 16.8
1999).
m.
The
model
elastic
Overall, agreement
is
observed to be
satisfactory.
7.4
Cone
analytically
and experimentally to
correlate the cone penetration resistance q c to stress state and soil conditions (Terzaghi
et al.
1997a).
(1)
(2)
(3)
Steady
(4)
state
(5) Calibration
deformation
chamber
testing.
Yu
168
measured
....... calculated
TO
0.
o
(0
10
20
15
test at
Georgia Tech.
169
The
is
1997a).
al.
obtaining the cone penetration resistance q c and takes advantage of utilizing the intrinsic
,
and
According
to
Salgado
uncemented
soils,
qc
in
pushed into
soil,
to zero.
The
in-situ vertical
it
creates
=q c {DR ,cr:,(j'h )
(7.1)
DR
intrinsic variables;
stress.
When
and
a penetrometer
is
penetration resistance q c based on the cavity expansion resistance required to form such a
cylindrical cavity.
Figure 7.2 shows different types of assumed failure mechanisms proposed for deep
penetration.
It
(a), (b)
and
(d)
are theoretically impossible for soils with the usual value of the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure ratio
Ko
1.0 range.
This
is
be directed towards
the side since the values of lateral stresses are smaller for these values of
vertical stresses.
(1993)
proposed
the
slip
pattern
on the
expansion pressure p L
slip line
that of
kinematically possible.
(c) is
Ko than
shown
in
Figure
In Figure 7.3, 0\
7.3
P
is
(BCP
1971),
considering
the
represents horizontal
related to the cavity
170
(a)
(b)
Terzaghi (1943)
Oe Beer (1948)
Hu (1966)
ill
(O
Berezantzev
Vesic (1963)
Figure 7.2
et ai. (1961)
Different failure
Biarezetal. (1961)
Hu
mechanisms
(1966)
for
deep penetration.
171
d.
Figure 7.3
172
The
considering plastic, non-linear elastic and elastic stress region around the cavity.
The
principal stresses in
angle
two
different zones
shown
in
Avj/ as:
a? = afe 2 * v *a *
in
which 0\
and Gi
rotation angle
angle.
For the
= major
<7
P
o"i
is
in
=cr
zones
and
in Figure 7.4;
and B; and =
Ay = Till
Man *
tip,
stress
Ay =
friction
as:
(7.3)
where
(7.2)
pL
Q
;
0"i
is
related to q c
Figure 7.3.
in
and
tyr is
Integrating G\ Q with
and
soil
More
conditions.
details
regarding the procedure to compute q c using cavity expansion analysis can be found in
Salgadoetal. (1997a).
The cone
et al.
CONPOINT
containing the
1997a, b, Salgado et
al.
1998a,
b).
173
Zone B
Zone
Figure 7.4 Stress rotation between different zones (after Salgado 1993).
174
7.5
7.5.1
The
soil
conditions
and
can be
stress conditions
obtained by analyzing axially loaded piles with different pile lengths and relative
The
densities.
pile
dimensions and
soil
curves in this section are the same as used in the investigation of size effect in calibration
chamber
Chapter
test in
equal to 60
cm were
6.
used.
Three
unit
400 kPa,
weight = 20
m, 10
kN/m\
0.43.
soil deposit
selected because
(Ghionna
in
et al.
calculations were
it
assumed
as
normally
near the center of the typical range of 0.39 to 0.47 observed for
tests
with a diameter
respectively.
was
For an assumed
m, 10 m, and 20
pile lengths of 5
K,, in
sands.
it is
Ticino sand
al.
1996)
1994, Salgado
et al.
1997a).
DR
used
basic pile geometry and soil conditions are illustrated in Table 7.2.
in
The
and
cf h represent the in-situ vertical and horizontal effective stresses at the pile base level,
respectively.
The
finite
at
to or larger than
showed
The widths of
that the
7.7.
two times
the
used
Figures 7.5
were equal
in
The
the
meshes
performed
mesh dimensions
175
Figure 7.8 shows a set of pile base load-settlement curves obtained from
and
pile lengths
relative densities.
finite
The curves
in
show
20%.
stiffer
It is
observed
responses than those for lower relative densities under the same
The
is
The
was about
difference
The
2.2
MPa
7.2.
Pile
modulus degradation
Relative
(m)
density (%)
DR
is
lower.
pile, the
pile
was about
geometry and
Pile Length
20
at a
20-m
difference for a
Table
10
initial
10%.
soil
3.0
MPa
at the
conditions used in
same
relative settlement.
FEM analyses.
Type of Sand
a' v (kPa)
o' h (kPa)
30
50
70
90
Ticino
100
43
Ticino
100
43
Ticino
100
43
Ticino
100
43
30
50
70
Ticino
86
90
Ticino
200
200
200
200
30
50
70
90
Ticino
400
400
400
400
172
Ticino
Ticino
Ticino
Ticino
Ticino
86
86
86
172
172
172
176
20
Figure 7.5
Finite element
model
for
5-m
pile.
177
20
Figure 7.6
Finite element
pile.
178
40
Figure 7.7
Finite
pile.
"
179
12
re
D R = 30%
D R = 50%
D R = 70%
D R = 90%
10
Q.
12
15
12
15
12
15"
10
Q.
2
a
>
D R = 30%
D R = 50%
D R = 70%
D R = 90%
re
o
_i
4->
C
Z>
0)
(0
re
Figure 7.8
(a)
(c)
20-m
piles.
180
12
15
Figure 7.8
(a)
5-m,
(b)
10-m, and
(c)
20-m
piles
181
7.5.2
piles
The cone
al.
same
and
et al.
1997a, b; Salgado et
al.
1998a,
was divided by
the cone
resistance q c
stress state
soil conditions;
was divided by
the settlement
(2)
Salgado
DR
(1)
CONPOINT
et
b).
settlement curves in terms of qb/q c and s/B for each of the pile lengths and relative
densities.
A common
the load
is less
is to
than the load required for the pile settlement to reach a certain percentage
of the shaft diameter B, serviceability and ultimate limit states are not reached.
It
may be
requirements, that
values of qt/q c
some
0.05.
0.1, while
The
British
analyses.
5%
and
It
on
is
critical
structural or architectural
several authors.
recommended by
at
s/B
= 5% and 10%
fall
182
0.5
SI
o:
0.4
0)
o
c
(0
to
0.3
re
-Q
0.2
u
N
re
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
(a)
0.5
J3
cr
aT
0.4
o
c
re
55
3S
re
.o
0.3
0.2
v
N
re
E
o
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.15
(b)
Figure 7.9
(a)
(c)
20-m
piles
183
0.5
o
o
c
0.4
TO
C5
5
0.3
v
to
.Q
0.2
V
N
15
E
o
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
(C)
Figure 7.9
(a)
(c)
20-m
piles
184
Table 7.3
qb/q c
= 5%)
(s/B
(s/B
= 10%)
German Specification
(DIN 4014, Franke 1993)
N/A
0.2
Franke (1989)
N/A
0.2
Jamiolkowski and
0.2
Lancellotta (1988)
Ghionna
et al.
(for
(1994)
0.09
0.02
Table 7.4
Values of qb/q c
Length
DR
(m)
(%)
(kPa)
(kPa)
30
939
1517
50
70
90
1303
2238
2062
2789
3630
30
1343
50
1817
70
90
2409
3054
30
1933
50
70
2590
3357
4289
10
20
90
0.13 0.02
N/A
Salgado(1995)
Pile
N/A
B < 60 cm)
0.15
at s/B
1726
2158
2915
3871
4970
3106
4158
5401
6845
5%
qc
(kPa)
7157
12052
19562
30121
and 10%.
qt/qc
(s/B
= 5%)
qi/qc
(s/B
= 10%)
0.13
0.21
0.10
0.17
0.09
0.14
0.07
0.12
10922
0.12
0.20
17544
26644
38816
0.10
0.16
0.09
0.14
0.08
0.13
16716
0.11
0.19
25694
36718
50524
0.10
0.16
0.09
0.15
0.08
0.13
'
185
and
relative density
(i.e.,
qt/qc-
it
is
is
confinement
The values of
= 10%.
Only a
base
qb/q c in
not significant.
at pile
This
is
because
depend on
initial
no
As can be seen
base resistance
is
in
The value of
whereas
it
is
substantial.
qb/q c at s/B
Dr = 90%.
These
= 10%
is
DR
= 30%,
are required for soils with higher relative densities to reach a base resistance equal to a set
The
some
insight into
MPa
(e.g.,
limit,
why most
0.2 for
which
When
is
pile design
10%
methods
that calculate
piles are
embedded
in very
dense sand
value proposed by Franke (1989) irrespective of relative density] would be too high.
However,
if
in
Table
7.4, the
on q b
value of qjqc
MPa)
186
0.35
n
U"
0.30
O
o
c
0.25
0.20
2
to
-*- Dr
-- Dr
-^- Dr
_*_ D R
"35
Qi
i-
=
=
=
=
30%
50%
70%
90%
o
</>
(0
0.15
Si
a
2
X
_-*
0.10
.N
15
0.05
0.00
50
Mean
100
150
200
250
level, rj' m
300
(kPa)
(a)
0.35
.cr
n
CT
0.30
L =
6
o
c
0.25
ro
5m
L=10m
L = 20 m
'35
0.20
2>
a
v>
<o
0.15
XI
"a
0.10
"re
0.05
0.00
20
40
60
Relative density,
80
100
D R (%)
(b)
Figure 7.10 Normalized base resistance qb/q c with (a) mean effective stress (o' m )
pile base level
and
(D R ).
at
the
187
The
7.5.3
Ko
Ko
initial
0.5 range.
and
1.0)
were assumed
Ko on normalized base
in a series of finite
may
Ko values
(0.4, 0.7
The value of Ko =
element analyses.
In order to
1.0,
the upper limit on Ko, observed for highly overconsolidated sand deposits.
Ko on
= 10%.
10m and 20
5 m,
It
is
in
pile lengths
m).
initial
Ko
increases, although
DR
and
deviation from this trend can be seen in the case for the highest relative density of
1.0
m,
the difference
was equal
and 20 m)
level,
in
which
DR
= 90%
Figure 7.11,
is
relative density
These
at
it
for
For
to approximately 0.05.
was found
qt/q c
(L
No
Ko = 0.4
at
D R = 30%
Ko = 0.4 and
at
Ko =
to 1.0.
Comparing
at
5,
10
much
influence as the
Ko
when
the soil
is
of normalized base resistance qb/q c given in Table 7.4 and Figure 7.9 need to be modified
considering the variations in the values of qb/q c shown in Figure 7.11.
soil,
is
necessary.
188
0.30
L=
0.25
5m
0.20
o
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
_i
0.0
0.2
0.4
i_
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
K
0.30
L=
0.25
10
0.20
XI
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
K
L = 20
0.25
0.20
""---..
0.15
0.10
0.05
00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
K
D R = 30%
Figure 7.1
D R = 50%
Effect of
D R = 70%
Kq on normalized base
D R = 90%
resistance qb/q c
189
7.6
The
piles.
settlement
and
levels
is
mentioned
conceptually
for
identical
earlier, is
et al.
both
mobilized
at
very large
and
non-displacement
1993, Salgado et
al.
1997a).
cannot be directly applied to displacement piles, because of the very different loadsettlement response of displacement and non-displacement piles for low to moderate
settlement levels.
De Beer
by a displacement
shown
that,
pile
differ
Non-
displacement piles
settle
same applied
load.
mainly due to the different installation processes for these two types of
installation of
around the
of the
the
is
The
piles.
soil
pile.
soil in the
This
two types of
settlement increases.
De
The
piles.
same settlement
pile base,
becomes
less
pronounced as
(e.g.,
et al. 1993).
Table 7.5 shows the typical ratio of base resistance of displacement piles to base
resistance of non-displacement piles for different values of relative settlement but
initial soil
conditions.
As can be
may be used
same
much
smaller than
at
small relative
simple approach
the application of the ratios of Table 7.5 to the results of Table 7.4 for non-displacement
190
piles.
more
uncertainties than the values proposed for non-displacement piles in Table 7.4.
Table 7.6 provides the normalized base resistance qt/q c for displacement piles obtained
using this approach.
Table 7.5
Base resistance
ratio for
Relative Settlement
9,b>ND
2.5%
0.482
5%
0.517
0.15-0.21
10%
0.587
0.3-0.5
25%
0.715
0.3-0.7
>
->
oo
Table 7.6
Length (m)
Dr
(%)
10
20
,b.D
De Beer (1988)
Ghionnaetal. (1993)
-> 1.0
1.0
Pile
'
(s/B)
pile
qt>,ND
q b ,D
piles.
= 5%)
piles.
qt/q c
(s/B
= 10%)
30
0.25
0.35
50
0.19
0.29
70
90
0.17
0.24
0.14
0.20
30
0.23
0.34
50
0.19
0.27
70
0.17
0.24
90
0.15
0.22
30
0.21
0.32
50
0.19
0.27
70
0.17
0.26
90
0.15
0.22
191
7.7
Silty
Sands
are also bearing layers for piles, if the fines contents of soils are not high and soils are
sufficiently strong to support axial loads.
normalized base
resistance qt/q c for soils containing fines, the load-settlement response of piles in silty
They
silty
The
same
20%
stress increases.
in weight.
On
(J)
silt
As can be
shown
content.
The
in
modulus and
Cg
in the finite
low
dilatancy parameters
in higher
and
R=
considered
in
soil
Table
in
at critical state.
parameters given
silt
finite
silt
The
material used
decreases as the
et al.
7.8.
Since
fines content,
element analyses.
friction
1.
tests in silty
it is
peak
silt
contents equal to
The values of
5%
parameters
by Bandini (1999).
silt
contents.
192
Table 7.7
Values of
(after
Silt
Salgado
et al.
silt
contents
cg
eg
ng
^min
^max
612
2.17
0.439
0.48
0.78
454
2.17
0.459
0.42
0.70
10
357
2.17
0.592
0.36
0.65
content (%)
Table 7.8
Values of
friction angle
with different
Silt
soil intrinsic
silt
at critical state
al.
<1>C
29.0
9.0
0.49
30.5
9.0
-0.50
10
32.0
8.3
-0.69
content (%)
and
193
Table 7.9
Values of
and g used
5%
in finite
silty sands.
10%
silt
silt
Dr (%)
f
o
5
a
&
30
0.98
0.15
0.98
0.13
50
0.97
0.18
0.97
0.16
70
0.96
0.21
0.96
0.19
90
0.95
0.24
0.95
0.22
meshes and
Finite element
The cone
used
stress states
CONPOINT
in the analyses
(Salgado
and
et al.
7.8.
Table 7.10 and Figure 7.12 show the normalized base resistance q\Jq c for
with different relative densities and pile lengths.
in the
0.12
- 0.17
For both
range.
For
in
On
at
the
silt
was small
10%
stress
silt
content.
The value of
qt/q c of the
DR
20-m
As shown
in (4.50)
and
was even
(4.76), the
= 30%.
pile for
These
silt
DR
results
content.
The higher
As
qb/q c for the silty sand between different pile lengths were
for the clean sand.
was more
This observation
may be due
content
of
irrespective of the
the
silt
contents,
= 90% with
10%
sands
silty
and 10%
silty sands,
As can be seen
significant.
5%
As discussed
was
194
Table 7.10
and
Silt
Pile
content
length
5m
DR
(%)
silty
pile lengths.
q b (kPa)
q b (kPa)
(s/B
5%
(s/B
= 10%)
qb/q c
(kPa)
(s/B
= 5%)
qb/q c
(s/B
= 10%)
30
828
1336
8012
0.103
0.167
50
1103
1760
11911
0.093
0.148
70
1405
2239
16960
0.083
0.132
|
5%
10
20
10%
20
1749
2839
22488
0.078
0.126
30
1194
1909
12509
0.095
0.153
50
1551
2486
17391
0.089
0.143
70
1961
3144
23321
0.084
0.135
90
2425
3902
29800
0.081
0.131
30
1668
2736
19705
0.085
0.139
50
2191
3556
25596
0.086
0.139
70
2763
4460
32390
0.085
0.138
10
90
90
3411
5469
39808
0.086
0.137
30
755
1253
8789
0.086
0.143
50
1001
1641
12186
0.082
0.135
70
1283
2100
16231
0.079
0.129
90
1630
2662
20716
0.079
0.128
30
1129
1865
14186
0.080
0.131
50
1505
2440
18329
0.082
0.133
70
1903
3076
22976
0.083
0.134
90
2341
3815
27963
0.084
0.136
30
1682
2809
22953
0.073
0.122
50
2224
3674
27783
0.080
0.132
70
2813
4629
32863
0.086
0.141
90
3456
5596
38029
0.091
0.147
195
0.25
0.20
0.15
.o-D
o-
0.10
5-m
0.05
pile
10-m
pile
20-m
pile
0.00
20
40
60
80
100
5%
content
silt
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
5-m
0.05
pile
10-m
pile
20-m
pile
0.00
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 7.12
10%
silt
Values of
content
qt>/q c
196
7.8
Summary
The cone
advantage of the
in terms of
Although the
developed.
CPT
In
5%
or s/B
= 10%,
- 20%
range.
This
is
important, as
it
at
any relative
permits consideration
elastic-plastic constitutive
m and 20 m were
with
soil deposit
assumed
DR
to
The cone
Salgado
et al.
resistance q c
used
element analyses
model.
Three 60-cm
in the analyses.
30, 50,
The
70 and 90%.
piles
Because
Most
analyses
10%.
fall
The
pressure
= 0.19
Ko
at the pile
0.2 for
Ko was
increases.
5%
was smaller
at rest
finite
lateral earth
from the
(qb/q c
DR
= 0.12 -0.13
= 30%).
also investigated.
for
The
DR
At higher
= 90%) than
at
lower
The value of
relative
at
qb/q c tends to
lower relative
197
Based on the
piles
results
for s/B
= 5% and
in the 0.22
5%
and 10%
silt
contents,
0.25 range
= 10%.
was
in the
also investigated.
0.12
- 0.17
range.
For both
These
values are typically smaller than those for clean sands, which ranged from 0.12 to 0.21.
The confining
stress
For
lower relative density (D R = 30%), the value of qb/q c decreases as the pile length increases
while that for higher relative density increases.
198
8.1
Introduction
In
this
chapter,
presented previously.
we reexamine
We
do so
the
in the context of a
chamber
few case
data,
Both non-
tests
The case
on drilled
For displacement
et al.
section
NGI
al.
(Gregersen
load
test
tests
(Ghionna
et al. 1994),
and the
at
a site
at the
et al.
tests
at the
summarized
Purdue
piles
pile load
piles, the
in Atlanta,
another performed
chamber
two instrumented
in
Table
8.1.
separately.
199
Table 8.1
Pile
Type
Test
tests
Name
qt/q c
(s/B
= 5%)
qt/qc
(s/B
= 10%)
Non-Displacement
0.18
0.26
USP Test
0.09
0.20
Simonini's Analysis
N/A
0.17
Purdue Test
0.27
0.37
0.32
0.36
NGITest B
0.32
0.36
NGITest C
0.30
0.39
0.43
0.47
Displacement
Pile (Driven pile)
NGITest
NGITest
piles.
200
Non-Displacement
8.2
Piles
8.2.1
test
was described
load test
the
in
previous
The
section.
representative value of q c for base resistance calculation, an average value between the
level of the pile base
base,
are
is
6.5
and a
level about
The estimated
DR
relative density
10%
suggested by Salgado et
al.
Since
the relationship
state.
relative settlement
Using Table
as 0.12
7.4, the
corresponding values of
0.21, respectively.
The
small (20
8.2.2
- 30%
underprediction).
test
test site is
located near
downtown Sao
The
The upper
site
layer
is
at
is
relative
typically
a depth of 10
10%
is
a reddish material of
ratios close to
1.
was placed
settlement
m
5
The base of
10%
are 50
The
The
The load
test
for
(QMLT)
201
performed
after a
value of q c
this case
medium dense
to
sounding provided
5%
The
relative settlement.
in Albiero et al.
(1995) as 2.8
= 5% and
for s/B
qb/q c
in
The
Table
= 10%
for
sand.
Simonini's results
8.2.3
soil unit
to s/B
weight Ym = 16.5
The
resistance
al.
1997a,
b),
The value of
cone resistance q c
was
fy c
al.
at the pile
D R = 90%
used.
The
7.4, equal to
is
CONPOINT
soil
Table
33,
to
MPa.
pile
soils
kN/m J
to be 8.6
(Salgado
finite
The
in sands.
(SMLT) up
This yields qb/q c values of 0.09 and 0.20 for s/B = 5 and 10%, respectively.
MPa.
7.4,
CPT
the
test
obtained as 0.17.
Combining
the
is
D R = 90%.
Calibration
8.2.4
series of
chamber
30
calibration
chamber load
tests
et al.
= 90%) and
202
Calibration
chamber
Figure 8.1
small.
These
size effects
0.
= 5%, and
D R 90% at s/B
DR
earlier to
chamber
calibration
be
tests
D R = 90% at s/B
for
The cone
for the
al.
As can be seen
D R 50%
tests
= 90%,
(1997a,
b).
- 0.14 range
in the 0.1
= 10%. Although
for
DR
DR
results given in
Table
7.4.
8.3
8.3.1
Displacement Piles
test
campus
in
West
was performed on
test
Wabash
and gravel
DELMAG
D-12
much
1972).
al.
This
site is
Purdue
located on
layers.
diesel
15-m long
hammer and
steel H-pile
load tested.
(10HBP57)
H-piles are
The base
resistance q b
and
equivalent circular base area transformed from the half perimeter area of the H-pile.
5 and
test
10% were
2.43
MPa
The
test,
the
cone
203
U.JU
0.25
0.20
a-
0.15
;.
0.10
0.05
n nn
20
40
60
80
100
Dr(%)
(a)
100
(b)
Figure 8.1
Values of qt/q c
(b) s/B
= 10%.
in calibration
chamber
= 5% and
204
resistance q c
SPT-CPT
SPT blow
was about
MPa.
9.0
The values of
These
8.3.2
NGI
in the
shown
homogeneous sandy
middle of the
in
Table
Drammen
The
soil.
From
D in Table 8.1.
cm
Piles
C was
with a diameter of 28
diameter of 20
MPa
Although
cm
cm
and
Piles
down
Drammen, Norway.
to
The four
al.
Four instrumented
1973).
B and
pile
by the
cm
The cone
letters
at the pile
pile
B had
5%
a pile
and 16
were
A,
resistances at depths 8
piles
A had a diameter
from 28
The
30 m, underlain by a clay
site is
3.1
5 and
and
7.6.
at
B,
tests
is
results
at the pile
load tests
Holmen,
count
Campanella (1983).
10% were
the
205
8.4
Summary
In order to verify the normalized base resistance value qb/q c > several case histories
for both non-displacement
and displacement
piles, the
chamber
piles
tests, finite
Chapter
7.
7.
For displacement
piles, 5 pile
For non-displacement
given in Chapter
were examined.
the comparison
results of
non-displacement
206
9.1
Introduction
be used
proper
SPT-CPT
A
CPT
correlation
makes
results is discussed.
discussed.
CPT
it
test is still
widely used
possible for
is
in
also
CPT-based methods
to
results is introduced.
In this
based on
9.2
9.2.1
Base resistance
As
CPT
discussed in Chapter
results (DeRuiter
All of these
in
Since these
method should be
207
made with
The
important differences between the methods include (Bandini and Salgado 1998):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
soil
below the
pile base;
CPT-based
piles the differences in pile capacity are not large, as the diameter increases the
is
defined becomes
critical.
pile
way
in
Following Franke (1991), piles must typically undergo relative settlements s/B
greater than
structures or
10%
damage
may
10%
settlement associated with the limit states design of piles, the type, functionality, location,
CPT
The
results.
soil is a
The
having a length of 10
pile
different methods.
and
MPa
The cone
at the surface to
10
resistance q c
MPa
was assumed
at the pile
base level.
208
10.9
8.2
Drilled Shafts
6.4
10
11.8 q c
(MPa)
B = 50 cm
Depth (m)
qb =
8.2
+ 10.9
Dutch method:
q.
9.55
MPa
= -^ =
3.25
LCPC
Proposed method:
Figure
9.
method:
= 3.07
q b = k c x q ca = 0.4 x 10 = 4.0
qb =0.16x10.9 = 1.74
MPa
3.25
MPa
MPa
209
medium dense
was equal
condition.
corresponding
to 0.16
in this
example
extremely simplified, the values of q b obtained using different methods show a quite
wide range.
It
to 1.74
to 9.55
MPa
MPa
the
Dutch
should be noticed that the lowest base resistance obtained from the
proposed method was based on the relative settlement s/B equal to 10%.
9.2.2
Shaft resistance
The
maximum
base resistance
is
most cases
is
at least
resistance.
LCPC method
in
Chapter
2,
a simple
example of estimation of
two clayey
layers
layers.
Pile condition
The
CPT results.
in
the
is
the
Soils consist of
same
previous
section.
The
LCPC method
were
taken as the limit values given in Table 2.5 because the calculated shaft resistances were
greater than the limit values.
LCPC
method.
210
Drilled Shafts
1.9 2.5
5.5
6.0
9.1
q c (MPa)
B = 50 cm
LCPC method
Aoki-Velloso method
qs
(kPa)
qc
(kPa)
ks
6.5
4.1
1900
60
31.6
6.0
6.5
23.1
2500
40
35.0
5500
1.4
6.5
11.8
5500
100
55.0
6000
6.0
6.5
55.4
6000
60
35.0
9100
1.4
6.5
19.6
9100
100
80.0
Layer
(kPa)
(%)
1900
1.4
2500
Figure 9.2
F2
114.0
qsi
(kPa)
236.6
211
This indicates that Aoki and Velloso's method produces very conservative results in the
estimation of the shaft resistance compared to the
was studied by
found
to
9.2.3
Factor of safety
al.
LCPC
method.
was
be satisfactory.
The
factors of safety
may be
is
an important.
In general, large
1992):
(1)
(2)
sites
tests
where
soil
When
and
silts
is
for
determined from
et al.
and
1988,
field test,
In the
Some
reaches a limit
state.
most cases,
Based on
is
As mentioned
is
sometimes suggested to
and base
resistance.
artificially
of safety for
212
Table 9.1
Resistance modification factor fp and factor of safety for different field tests
(after
Type of filed
Cone
test
penetration test
Standard penetration
test
fP
Factor of safety
0.5
0.3
3.3
0.5
0.6
1.7
0.5
(routine test)
Static pile load test
Dynamic
analysis using
measured data of
and acceleration
strain
213
Q^=Q^ +
Qd=
where
= unfactored
FS b
FS g
Q>
FS
(9.1)
S
load capacity
FS g =
FS b =
FS =
Qb = base
resistance
from a
limit state
shaft resistance.
Since
Q =Q +Q
u
(9.2)
FS h -FS-(l + ^-)
FS.
(9.3)
FS+FS
If
FSg = 2 and FS S =
Table 9.2
it
are assumed,
is
Qb
From
(9.3)
and
can be seen that for a constant global safety factor no unique value of factor
FS b
-Q-
allowed to vary.
is
obtained
when
214
Table 9.2
Qs/Qb
FS b
0.4
0.8
0.6
1.0
2.5
3.33
10
CO
partial
0.2
is
is
>
<0
FS g =
2), the
use of
9.3
The method
widely used
the
CPT
pile design
approach
in
many
SPT blow
between the
may be
useful
CPT-based Method
in
Although the
CPT
is
CPT-SPT
count
more
considerable scatter
that the
mean
q c/N
ratio
correlation
was found
data.
This
ratio
soils.
mean
q c /N ratio for
grain size
silty clay,
(D 5 o).
Since
they suggested
grain size.
As can be seen
increases.
silty
proper correlation
is
SPT
SPT blow
If the
subjected to
based on the
count
is
sand were
in the 3
-4
range.
ratio
were
in the
215
bars
N,blowj/(ool
(Ibor'IOOkPo)
CL*EY
SILTS
8 SiLTT CLAY
SANDY
ft
SILT
SAND
SILTY SAND
SILT
10
4
4
9
.
/I
7
<I
cr
y
*4
12
4
12
i *4.
%^h* 45
12
L^^J
u"
f "
001
01
MEAN GRAIN
Figure 9.3
CPT-SPT
(after
0.1
SIZE
D 5Q
mm
mean
grain size
<6
216
at the
same
Evansville, Indiana.
The
site.
The
tests
site
was located
penetrate in the
few
first
Two
taken
at
feet,
Both
fill
down
at the
material
it
CPT
and
SPT were
66 over Garvin
Street,
SPT
20 m.
difficult to
same elevation
CPT
all
to
The
rig.
No
was observed.
m down
soil
and
to about
size
soil
making
appeared to be
appreciable presence of
State route
CPT
US
at
both
ratio,
to 14.7
CPT
Some
m.
sampler.
soil
void ratio
mm, and
tests,
the
The mean
test.
grain
0.454, respectively.
SPT blow
counts
Table
9.3.
As can be
in the 3
was about
a depth of 13.47
8 range.
at
This result
CPT pile
is
was approximately
N 60
which was
Most
m.
Campanella (1983).
the values of
SPT N
55%,
Since the
SPT blow
5.63.
in
the q c /N ratios,
count
217
SPT blow
q c (MPa)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
10
20
30
count, N
40
50
10
Q.
Q.
Q
15
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 9.4
Cone
resistance q c and
SPT blow
count
N with depth.
60
218
Table 9.3
Correlation between
CPT
and SPT.
Depth (m)
N 60
0.21
36
33.12
236.9
7.12
0.98
17
15.64
112.0
7.16
1.12
40
36.80
120.0
3.26
2.80
11
10.12
26.7
2.63
4.33
15
13.80
16.0
1.15
5.85
10
9.20
49.8
5.40
7.38
18
16.56
85.0
5.10
8.90
37
34.04
138.5
4.10
10.42
40
36.80
55.6
1.51
11.95
13
11.96
88.7
7.4
13.47
7.36
110.0
14.96
14.99
33
30.36
146.6
4.8
16.52
15
13.80
120.0
8.7
18.04
27
24.84
156.7
6.3
N 6o
= SPT
q c (bar)
q c/N 60
219
9.4
Program
CONEPILE
method proposed
in this study in
it
"CONEPILE".
program.
pile design
The methods
available in the
program
CONEPILE
is
in
program
addressed in the
are:
(2)
LCPC
(3)
proposed method;
method;
Program
(1)
(2)
LCPC
CONEPILE
method.
can be used to calculate base and shaft resistances for both non-
piles.
program
calculation.
The
for pre-
consists
user-friendly interface
FORTRAN
a user-friendly
code used
in actual
LCPC
given in Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 were included in the program
of table.
as a
form
For the calculation of base resistance using the proposed method, regression
CONEPILE
The
regressions were
2
coefficient of correlation (r
made with
shown
in
220
used
in the
program.
Ko of
lateral earth
pressure
at rest,
in
Figure 7.10),
it
was not
The estimation of
Salgado
et al.
relative density
(unpublished paper):
^=C (^)
~ C:
<Vexp(C D
3
C3 =
/?
(9.4)
where q c = cone
and
= 100 kPa =
MPa
The
0.1
tsf;
oh =
relative density
C3
state
correction for
program CONEPILE).
the effect of
Ko was based on
Ko was small
70%.
the relationship
CONEPILE
are given in
relative density.
Using
(9.4), the
relative density
shown
in
70%,
Figure 7.1
it
1.
Because
program
The estimated
DR
reference stress
The
and
Pa =
and
correlation parameters;
Appendix.
More
221
Table 9.4
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
c,
40.0
44.7
49.7
55.3
61.6
68.6
76.4
c2
0.524
0.519
0.514
0.508
0.501
0.496
0.490
c3
0.0195
0.0196
0.0197
0.0197
0.0198
0.0199
0.02
222
Input parameters
a' v Kq,
,
qc
(|)c,
s/B
Estimation of
Relative Density
Calculation of
(D R )
qt>/q c
with
Modification for
a given
Ko value
Determination of
Base Resistance q b
Figure 9.5
soil condition.
223
9.5
Summary
methods available
discussed.
Since the
CPT
of the method should take into account the differences and recommendations of the
methods.
From
was observed
method while
it
that the
was
resistance obtained
10%.
For the
shaft resistance,
Aoki and Velloso's method produced lower values compared with the
LCPC
method.
was found
to
global factor of safety (and not partial base and shaft factors of safety)
in pile design.
SPT blow
count
N and the
pile design
is
between q c and
Field
test
data
proposed by
sandy deposits.
was
FORTRAN-based DLL.
224
CHAPTER
10.1
10
Summary
heavy superstructures
Based on
the
method of
side resistance
resistance
is
is
maximum
The
base resistance
methods using
(CPT).
test
is
the
CPT
counts
Such a
cone
Static
The
test is
In the present
Salgado
SPT blow
axially
in
is
As
reached.
is
piles
process
displacement or non-
Pile design
result
to excessive settlements.
displacement.
most cases
at sites
et al.
Cone
CONPOINT. The
in
been
225
is
considered.
for pile design has been used mostly with respect to either s/B
in this study
= 5%
design concept
or s/B
= 10%,
the
- 20%
state
range.
were addressed.
In
elastic-plastic constitutive
in finite
reached.
dimensional stress
state, the
failure
elastic
stress
element analyses.
intrinsic
and
and condition.
state soil
This non-
and post-failure
soil
was used.
Calibration
chamber
tests
response of the base of non-displacement piles and cone penetration resistance under a
variety of conditions.
size
and boundary
effects arises.
can be used to experimentally assess pile base resistance under controlled conditions.
series of calibration
chamber
tests
The
Calibration
chamber
finite
The
chamber
of
in
element
analytical
calibration
were also
investigated for different relative densities and boundary conditions using the finite
element analysis.
CPT
pile design
methods
in practice, the
in study
method proposed
226
load capacity for a variety of pile and soil conditions without significant difficulties for
input and output procedure.
10.2
(1)
Conclusions
The values of
strain
the parameters f
elastic-plastic stress-
As
modulus
value
is
This indicates
than for looser sand, and the rate of degradation of elastic modulus
higher for
is
(2)
BC3) than
chamber
tests tend to
chamber
size
effects
under
The confining
chamber
size effect.
(3)
at
The
calibration
low confinement,
pronounced
The value of
is
function of the relative density, the confining stress, and the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure at rest;
(4)
The values of
within the 0.07
5%
fall
= 10%;
227
(5)
The
was
significant, while that of the confining stress at the pile base level
90%)
(6)
than
at
lower
= 0.19
0.2 for
= 0.12
(7)
= 5% and
the 0.22
at rest
0.13 for
DR =
At
D R = 30%);
s/B
small.
= 10%;
(Ko) increases.
This trend
is
more pronounced
at
(8)
The values of
the normalized base resistance qb/q c for silty sands are in the 0.12
0.17 range, depending on the relative density and the confining stress at the pile
base level.
The confining
stress is another
For lower
decreases as the pile length increases while that for higher relative density increases;
(9)
at the
same
site
show reasonable
CPT
pile design
the
SPT blow
count
for practical purpose, if the proper value of q c /N can be obtained for a given soil
condition.
228
10.3
(1)
Recommendations
test results
the
the selection and relative importance of q c values above and below the pile
base;
(2)
soil
Use of global
is
aimed
in
factor of safety
is
more
(3)
The
piles in sands.
density be
since
(4)
it is
therefore,
made through
recommended
Piles typically
state
It is,
soil
CPT,
samples;
to reach a limit
relative
settlement associated with the limit states design of piles should be done with
229
LIST
AASHTO
(1994).
OF REFERENCES
H., Sacilotto, A.
C, De
Specification.
N. R., Teixeira, C.
Albiero,
J.
(1995).
Mantilla,
J.
Z.,
and Carvalho, D.
Pan-American
2, pp.
991
- 1002.
Aoki, N. and Velloso, D. A. (1975). "An Approximate Method to Estimate the Bearing
th
Pan-American Conference
Coi
of
Foundation Engineering, Bueno Aires, Vol. 1, 367 376.
Capacity of Piles", Proceedings of 5
Soil
Mechanics and
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghiona, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and LoPresti, D.C.F. (1989).
"Modulus of Sands from CPT and DMT", Proceedings of 12th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp 165170.
Baligh,
M.M.
(1975). "Theory of
Deep
Static
Cone
Institute of
Proceedings of
BCP
st
ed.),
CPT
and SPT
in
(P.
-49.
Been, K.,
Jefferies,
J.
(1991).
"The
Critical
State
of Sands",
230
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.E., and Jefferies, M.G. (1986). 'The Cone
Penetration Test in Sands: Part I; State Parameter Interpretation", Geotechnique, 36(2),
239 - 249.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lo
Bellotti, R.,
Presti, D.C.F.,
Berezantev, K. and Golubkov (1961). "Load Bearing Capacity and Deformation of Piles
Foundations", Proceedings of 5
J.,
1,
th
pp. 11.
Wack, B.
International
(1961). "Contribition
th
Mechanics and
603 - 609.
Bolton,
M. D.
(1979).
Bolton,
M.D.
(1986).
Guide
to Soil
Mechanics, Macmillan
Inc.,
Greenwich, Conn.
36(1), 65-
78.
th
M.D.
Borja, R.
I.,
(1989).
in
J.
Singapore.
J.
L.
TRR
in Sand:
ASCE,
10(1
and Gibbens, R. (1994), "Test and Prediction Results for Five Large spread
Footings on Sand", Proceedings of a Prediction Symposium Sponsored by the Federal
Briaud,
J.
L.
Highway Administration
Texas
at the
ASCE
Conference
128.
at
231
J.
G.B
and
Dam
Load
Tests at
Lock
J.
1,
pp.
925 - 942.
241-242.
Broms, B.B., Chang, M.F., and Goh, A.T.C. (1988). "Bored Piles in Residual Soil and
st
Weathered rocks in Singapore", Proceedings of the 1
International Geotechnical
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles (Van Impe, ed.), Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 17 - 34.
Burland,
J.
B.
(1973).
6(3),
Simple Fundamental
30 -42.
Burland, J.B.
structures, including
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli (1982). " Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction by Means of
CPT", Proceedings of 2
Testing, Amsterdam, Vol. 2, 493 - 500.
Static
Penetration
nd
H.D. and Hoy, H.E. (1977). "Users Manual for the Texas Quick-Load Method for
Foundation Load Testing", Federal Highway Administration, Office of Development,
Butler,
Chen,
W.
Chen,
W.
F.
F.
and Han, D.
Virginia.
J.
232
Chin, F.V. (1970). "Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles Not Carried to Failure",
Proceedings of 2
nd
90.
Coduto, D.P. (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall,
Englewood
Coyle, N.
Cliffs,
M. and
New Jersey.
"New Design Correlations for Piles
Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT7), 965 - 986.
Castello, R. R. (1981).
in
Sand",
Davisson, M.T. (1972). "High Capacity Piles", Proceedings, Lecture Series, Innovation
Foundation Construction,
ASCE,
An
En Ais De
22 - 40.
De
Penetration
in
En Profondeur", Geotechnique,
1,
Beer, E.E. (1967). "Proefondervindelijke Bijdrage tot de studie van zand onder
funderingem op
Beigie
staal", Tijdshrift
6-68.
De
Beer, E.E. (1984). "Different Behavior of Bored and Driven Piles", Proceedings of VI
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Budapest (G. Petrasovits
ed.), pp.
De
307-318.
Beer, E.E. (1988). "Different Behavior of Bored and Driven Piles", Proceedings of
Piles
(Van Impe
ed.),
Ghent, pp. 47
82.
De
J.
Piles
(Van Impe,
and Beringen,
F.
ed.),
L.
Mcgraw-Hill
Inc.,
New
J.
267 - 314.
T. (1977). Numerical
Methods
in
Geotechnical Engineering,
York.
J.
(1984). Constitutive
Duncan,
J.
M. and Chang,
- 1653.
233
Duncan, J.M. and Tan, C.K. (1991). "Engineering manual for estimating tolerable
movements of bridges", Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations, NCHRP Report
No. 343, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
pp.
219-228.
Durgunoglu, H.T. and Mitchell, J.K. (1975). "Static Penetration Resistance of Soils I:
Analysis", Proceedings of ASCE Special Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil
Properties,
Vol.
1,
151 - 171.
European
Eurocode 7 (1993). "Geotechnical Design", Fourth and Final Draft, European Committee
for Standardization, TC 250/SC7.
Fahey, M., and Carter, J.P. (1993).
"A
Finite
Elastic Plastic
in
348-361.
Fahey, M., Robertson, P.K., and Soliman, A. A. (1994). "Towards a Rational Method of
Predicting Settlements of Spread Footing on Sand", Vertical and Horizontal Deformation
ASCE,
pp. 599-611.
and
ASCE,
New
Pile
869.
Load
Tests",
Ground
19-31.
N,
in
Asian
ICSMFE, Rio
th
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Franke, E. (1990).
FOUNDATIONS",
Proc. of 9
Foundation Engineering,
Franke, E. (1991).
th
International
th
"EUROCODE
173 - 182.
pp. 13
18.
234
Franke, E. (1993).
"Design of Bored
Piles,
nd
ed.),
and
Deep
57.
Bored
Piles
Sands
in
J.
S.
Highway Administration
Texas
at the
11
85.
La Sabbia Del
Italy.
Goble, G. G., Kovacs, A. M., and Rausche, F. (1972). "Field Demonstration: Response of
Instrumented Piles to Driving and Load Testing", Proceedings of Specialty Conference on
S.,
Aas,
G, and Dibiagio,
USSR,
th
ASCE,
pp. 3 -38.
E. (1973).
International
ati
pp. 109
3,
117.
W.
L. (1966).
"Sand
Stiffness
in Soils;
Design
ASCE,
98(7),
667 - 692.
235
Wave
ASCE, 89(SM1),
33-
65.
Harris, D. E.
and Mayne,
P.
W.
(1994). "Axial
Construction of
Deep Foundations,
367.
ASCE,
ed.),
Vol.
2,
pp. 848-856.
Load Tests on
Kulhawy
ed.),
Vol. 2,
ASCE,
pp.
132
- 1
149.
Observed
Engineering Division
at the
ASCE
Impe
ed.),
Piles
(Van
Sons, Korea.
M. A. and
Cemented Calcareous
Congress, Vol.
Lee,
J.
1,
Sands",
Proceedings
pp.
of
the
1989
Foundation
Engineering
485 - 499.
236
Lee,
J.
Lee,
J.
J.
Sand
Sands",
Sand",
Lee,
in
Lightweight
as
Engineering,
Mayne,
ASCE,
W. and
P.
Shaft Foundation
Bemal,
A.,
C.W
and Lovell,
Journal
Backfill",
125(2), 132
and
Geotechnical
of
Geoenvironmental
141.
in
FHWA.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1991). "Calibration Chamber Database and Boundary
Effects Correction for CPT Data", Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Calibration
Chamber Testing,
Elsivier,
New
ASCE,
102(3), 197
Meyerhof,
"Scale
Effect
G.
G.
(1983).
Geotechnical Engineering,
Milovic,
ASCE,
Pile
Capacity",
of
Journal
806.
st
1
International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 381 - 384.
Proceedings of the
and Auger
228.
Ultimate
of
109(6), 797
Moulton, L.K., GangaRao, H.V.S., and Halvorsen, G.T. (1985). "Tolerable movement
criteria for highway bridges". Report No. FHWA/RD-85/107, Federal
Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
(1981).
Finite Elements
in
Sand",
W.
Proceedings
Practices,
ASCE,
of Congress
Vol. 2, 979
990.
- SPT
Correlation for
Foundation
Engineering:
Expanded Base
Current
Piles in
Principles
and
237
Neely,
W.
ASCE,
Geotechnical Engineering,
Neely,
W.
(1991).
"Bearing
87.
ASCE,
Geotechnical Engineering,
116(1), 73
117(2), 331
in
Sand",
Journal
of
345.
Ovesen, N.K. and Orr, T. (1991). "Limit State Design - The European Perspective",
Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Geotechnical special publication No. 27, Vol. 2,
ASCE,
pp. 1341
Parkin,
A.K.
- 1352.
Proceedings of the
Elsivier,
New
(1991).
th
"Maximum
International Conference
Con
on Soil
1,
pp.
402 - 406.
Poulos, H. G. (1989). " Developments in the Analysis of Static and Cyclic Lateral
and Wardle
I.
F.
(1982).
in
Penetration Test
Results and the Performance of Small diameter Instrumented Piles in Stiff Clay",
Proceedings of 2
nd
2,
775
- 780.
Purzin, A.
M. and
Burland,
J.
B. (1996).
"A Logarithmic
Rocks
M. W.
and
Common
Soil
M. W.
(1989).
from
ASCE, 1449 -
"SPT-CPT
correlation", Journal of
1459.
Hogentogler
CPT
ed.
238
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A. (1985). "Seismic
CPT
to
Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity" Proceedings of Measurement and Use of Shear
Wave Velocity for Evaluating Dynamic Soil Properties, ASCE, 34 - 48.
Salgado, R. (1993). "Analysis of Penetration Resistance in Sand", Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, California.
CPT
Results", Proceedings of
3,
- 1274.
M.
Resistance
Engineering,
ASCE,
in
of
Journal
Sand",
and Geoenvironmental
Geotechnical
123(4), 344-354.
CPT
Liquefaction
W. and
Resistance
Mitchell,
J.
Correlations",
of
Geotechnical
and
Ashmawy,
(1997c).
Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE,
123(4), 382-388.
Measured
Geoenvironmental Engineering,
in Calibration
ASCE,
M.
(1998a).
"Chamber Size
Effects on
124(9), 878
888.
Salgado, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Mitchell, J.K. (1998b). "Penetration Resistance in
di Geotecnica, Vol,
Salgado, R., Bandini, P. and Karim, A. (1999). "Stiffness and Strength of Silty Sand",
Journal
of Geotechnical
accepted
for
publication.
Schmertmann,
J.
- 1042.
Schmertmann,
J.
FHWA-TS-78-209.
239
Schmertmann,
J.
H., Hartman,
and Brown,
J. P.,
P. R. (1978).
1131-1135.
Schnaid,
F.,
in the
Procedures
in
Shibuya,
S.,
111(12),
Tatsuoka,
F.,
M,
Harder,
Resistance Evaluations",
Liquefaction
Soil
ASCE,
Engineering,
K.,
1425-
Journal
SPT
of Geotechnical
1445.
Teachavorasinskun,
S.,
Kong,
X.J.,
Abe,
F.,
Kim,
Y.,
and Park,
Skempton, A. W. (1986). "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effects in Sands
of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing and Overconsolidation",
Geotechnique, 36(3), 425 - 447.
Move", by Bozozuk,
Transportation Research Board 678, Tolerable Movements of Bridge Foundation, Sand
Drains, K-Test, Slopes, and Culverts, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 17-21.
Stermac,
A.
G.
(1978).
"Discussion
of Bridge
Foundation
1,
pp. 164
178.
Tatsuoka,
Teachavorasinskun,
Monotonic
and
S.,
Shibuya,
Cyclic
S.,
Torsional
ASCE,
pp. 863
240
H. (1994).
J.
Do
Estacas
Brazilian
Iguacu, pp. 3
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiely and Sons Inc.,
New
York,
N.Y.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiely
and Sons
Inc.,
New
York, N.Y.
J.
New
Inc.,
(1971).
Edition,
York, N.Y.
"Some
Conference on Behavior of
Piles,
J.,
and Christiano,
14.
P. (1991).
"Three-Dimensional Nonlinear
ASCE,
17(3),
429
447.
nd
di
Torino,
Con
II
Italy.
Vesic, A.S. (1972). "Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass", Journal of Soil
NCHRP
Deep Foundations
in
112-153.
Viggiani, G.
Clay",
OTC paper
1718,
th
J.
A. (1972).
Vilar (1979).
241
Engineering Division,
Walkinshaw,
J.L. (1978).
in the
New
Jersey.
Yokel, F.Y. (1990). "Proposed Design Criteria for Shallow Bridge Foundations", Dept. of
Commerce, National
Inst,
MD,
pp. 50.
in Dilatant Soil:
Loading
183.
Yu, H.S. and Mitchell, G.T. (1998). "Analysis of Cone Penetration Resistance: Review of
Methods", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(2),
140 - 149.
Yu,
P.
and Richart, F.E. (1984). "Stress Ratio Effects on Shear Modulus of Dry Sands",
Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE,
110(3), 331-345.
242
APPENDIX: THE
A.l
PROGRAM CONEPILE
Introduction
base resistance:
is
in the
program
CONEPILE
are:
LCPC
method;
shaft resistance:
LCPC
The
details of
method.
in
Chapter
2.
calculate the base and shaft resistances for both non-displacement and displacement piles.
program
calculation.
The
for pre-
consists
soil
FORTRAN
user-friendly
code used
user-friendly interface
A.2
A. 2.1
Starting the
CONEPILE
program
named "CONEPILE"
in
Windows.
in actual
program needs
(4) Click the "continue" button after reading the introduction (Figure A-2).
243
^^s^i!?m*hWMmi\mKtJ M~'i-'^\
*
[4
r>'-
J Debug
AIR
li
ill
Wl Iffl
I' |
|iiF"'""'-
TT-rr
lo* S*o
sl xl^iBl
-1
xlsffl a
->l
|>|s|S
ConJenti of T>ebu9'
Name
Seel Twe
> ImroOlsobi
IcpahaltlOlgoti
Modfied
58KB
Intermedwte Fie
10/26/38
27KS
Iniwmediate Fie
10/26/38
857 PM
857 PM
Lcpcs*wft2Dlgobi
^ lcocshettDlo,o6i
C
.
"
LesatmeDirjoci
Ql lpbaseDlg.abt
^ LpmetacDig, at*
6
n
IF
IP
fCONEPlLL
LcJs2D^ob
LpmdexiDlg.o&i
OutovavOl^obi
Ouiffv()Dlo.oCn
VERSION
"
i|
1.0
OubpavDtoobi
outttoDiaotj,
E1
^ OutbtOlo.obr
SCONEPILE
*J protect *
*? pfQWClO&
637KB
imetmed.ateFie
plOfeCtltt
103KB
imemedtaie Ft c
63KB
imemediale Fie
40K3
imetmediale Fie
7KB
imeimediale FJe
11GKB
Intermediate Fe
SlcJfch.oti
01
40
21
>db
vc40pdb
If?
& 56 PM
PM
10/23/38 1255 PM
1 C/2S/38 & 57 PM
1 0/26/98 8 56 PM
0/2S/38 8 57 PM
0/26/38 & 57 PM
F*e
2.849*B
p<aecipdb
wowctDlgott
01
immediate
piwecipch
0/26/38
10/23/38 1255
z.
233KB
3BSll| ^JEntorgDabug
3yHicTMoHWotd Arerefa
Figure A-l.
Ek E
I*
>>
f CONEPIIT
||
Start of the
(0O HSPM
program CONEPILE.
a*
JO ebug
EI
jd
*|ib|kfi|
-*|
XIeS
*a|SU8
Siw|T*
Nana
;
.
-1
iModfed
IrXtoDtflOb
T> LepexhaftlDlgobj
INTRODUCTION
P< Lcpcstw!i2Dlg-ob
;
LcpctfwftDlaotn
1
Ca Lat>aseOlg.oti
O LotwieOlfjobi
O LoeidwDlftobi
T h proojam can
tesuk*.
lAraJabb method:
AflfttWetae method: shaft and bate tendance
^UjrxJewlObaab,
tano>, tiy and dayey
^ U>ndea2Dlaobi
sot
O LpndexsOirjObi
"*
OuiavsvDloobi
O OJavipOlgobi
undyioi
^OiibavOlsotx
? OudobDlooDi
3
Q
LCPC method:
OuiMvOigobi
sand;. s*v and dayey
ti
OutlilpDIg-obi,
BCONEPILE
uf]
projects
pioiect obj
|!
01 DfOiecLpch
-J
piaec Pdb
5)
ptoieci
Sic^Kob,
^O
1
vciOdb
0/26/38 8 57
69KB
Iniemiecfcate Fas
40KB
Iraenrwtoe Fie
10/26/98
7KB
Intennedete Fie
0726/38
(rtetmedete
0/26/98 8.57
21
11&KB
voULpdb
oupci[ii*
^BSuyl|
ik
r> pioiectOlg.obj
!X~>
File
PM
856 PM
857 PM
PM
23SKB
.^JE<r*yT>g- Debug
3?MooollWii-acw*i
|
Figure A-2.
|l-CONEnLE
^j^* 12I8AM
244
A.2.2
Selection of the
method
(1)
(2)
pile
index number;
pile
diameter (B);
cone resistance
(3)
at the pile
Click "pile index" button to find a pile index number for a given pile type;
required parameters.
all
pile
index number;
pile
diameter (B);
below
and 2B
base
(4)
is
all
located
(<)) c
);
required parameters.
A-6):
soil types;
diameter (B);
cone resistance
at the pile
base level (q c );
Click "index box" button to find index numbers for given pile and
all
required parameters.
soil types;
245
ammmmsmzm^
aJFt Corarts
ci
T>!bt5
Kae
3]
s|i5i_
...
msMsmmm
lntioOlg.obi
? UpcshaftlDlgobi
OLcpcshart2Dlsobi
lcpcshaft01g.ob|
?" LesobajeDbobi
Olj*eDloobi
E? LpnctexOtBObi
? LprdewlDlgobi
Pteaee
Lpr*ie2Dlgob,
"* LDrtcwOlpoh
tanctt
JovovOlgobi
O Oiivte0lg.obi
^ OiibavOigobi
O
O
OutlpipDlgobi
Outbv0igobi
AoktVcloatT^
[|
LCPC
lae-5alpado
OutdpOlgobi
HCONERLE
*)pioiect*.
*? pqeci.o6i
O pioieclpch
I? p>oicc(.pdb
f
O pioieclDlgobi
pfoiect.ies
Ga SidAfxob,
db
O vc40.pdb
liT
1
vc)
63KB
Iniermediale Fie
10/25/38857 PM
40KB
Intermediate Fie
10/26/98
ln(etmio(e
10/26/98
217KB
116KB
Imetmedale Fie
File
856 PM
857 PM
10/26/98 8 57
PM
239KB
obJK&)jdccted
^MboaoftWttd-Appcndb.
Selection of the
Figure A-3.
T CONEPILE
method
.^.-OO
1221AM
EMI]
REnilbnKi'-Oelan':-
Be * frm
look
U*
-J Debug
zi
xNel
xirffl
.1>1=l
AIFt:Conrjt>obLtf
Hart,
ni InlioO^OC-
Tjt
Mcdfed
AJi.LMJJ.U.I..UI,!.l.l
-1
-_J:.J.-_^_
II
t? LcpcshafMDIgobi
LcDChart2Dlgobi
Cl LcpcshaltDlg.obi
K
d
<
D LabeOlg.ob,
O LpbateOlgobi
>
Bdton >cu enter the input data, find tho appropriate inde* mebai
pie tjK id wtkh jou
tocabiale the ban wjstanec.
mh
C? LOMteaOkobl
for
the
<e
LoMJewlOlgobi
re
Lprriew2Dlg
t
D-re
PwnoexriuroDec
8elndr
jj
OutavipOlgobi
[? Outr&ovOJgobi
OudpteDlgobi
|"~
OutliavDigobt
or
c
TodoH^pbanokfctenilmbcM.
obi
^ LpndewOlg-Dbi
D OiiavavDlg.061
D OotlsloOlg
obi
HCONEPILE
frrtw*
*\ pcorect.*
r? pmjfirt obj
prorectoch
C? p(Oiect.odb
01 pra.ect.ies
Imermedaie Fie
10/26/38
Wermaoate Fie
0/26/98
IntenwdMte Fie
0/26/38 & 57
116KB
Irtwmeiiate Fie
0/26/38
StoAhtobi
vc40.D<fc
23!
Figure A-4.
857 PM
856 PM
69KB
40KB
217K8
proiectDIg obi
C> v C .idb
PM
857 PM
SB
|
yHjoojcHWonl-Ocoon-.l
tcOHEPILE
SS&SS
123SAM
'
246
tdl
B*
In*
"3 a]
^CletuB
^l>|s( s_
j|na|ej_^ [x|iff|
AlFeContenttofTJebuo'
3
iwcOlftobi
Lcpciheft1Dlg,obi
Laxihaft2DtG,obi
< Lee-Saioado method fa bats raeetanc* >
LcccshaftOlo,oti
..-'.
jbasrf
.i...^-.
...
1 ft*
dBpiaceraent pies)
LcrttoolDlfl ooi
:
:'r
:-.."
.
i
:r
Cone tesriance
tDndexiip,obi
OuavavDlg.061
- Vafical
OiisvbOigob
Cooftaent of
OutHcDigoOi
OuiiavOlcobi
-Cl
lateral earth
[faN.Ceand.Ko-0410 05]
OuHpovO-gobi
.'.
at
afiecove
Retetwe
Critical
mUbm4 (nuifcer
ii
decinafc
i<*
CONERLE
proectoeh
DfOtecLDOb
frora
cored 'ei
piorectOlg. ooi
StoAfxobi
vc40.db
""
ri*
,,
:.
_- TT
,
:_-^T
40KB
InlefmedaleFte
857 PM
1C/26/38B56PM
217KB
IrtermedateFie
10/26/98 &57PM
116K9
Intermediate fie
10/26/36657 PM
10/26798
\^s- S?
V 1246AM
Figure A-5.
dt>aw-Ioob H<*
fib
'^l
Eranaaic
IntemecWe F*e
239K1
lobpoctfri selected
ni
S9KB
~H gO
Debug
*I^M
rt
l
X|gl
a ftl>lst5"
AlFt Cottttrf'Mug'
SwJT*
Han
C InDoOiflobi
O
'
l>
.1
JMadfcd
LcpcshaH1Dlo,obi
" LcpcsheiT2Dlftobi
O LcpcjhahDlo,obi
Q
'
"*>
D
IC
al
HJUU^'..,".l'.|.".H,i.yWHiliiiiiiiiiiiiMiiMi^ilMxt
O
O
LptwaOigobi
Mm
*e
LpoTdexDig.otH
LordoalDloobi
|
Todot^iacpleMeciektherdeibox
.
LondemDlgobt
GS OiiovavOlgooi
re
numberfcr&ie
appropriate
Baron yaii enter (he input date, find
pis and soi type* ha Wich joj nidi to caJcatats (he base wwtance.
? Lpnde20lg.ooi
<
LwabaseOlsiobi
f? O^avipD^obi
fndexBo*
OmlDevOlaobi
-PfedametefaBi
01 OutlplpDlo,ooi
O OutypOlsobi
g CONERLE
)pioiecL*,
O
.
Continue
pioiecLobi
protect
pdb
protect, res
pwctDle,
or*
StoAhtoti
l^
1
*? proiectpchi
P
?
63KB
Intemedaie Fie
1Q/2S/38
857 PM
40KB
Intefroedate Fie
0/26/38
217KB
IniermecWeFJe
0/25/98 8 57
856 PM
PM
IrtermeoiaieFJle
10/26/38857PM
vciO jdb
vciO.pdb
116KB
obrdEsJs
|
Figure A-6.
ayMcie.JWd-Acpji.| >jCDPtoyg-HBHB23
|-rcotlPILE
9Va*
247
Selection of the
A.2.3
method
(1)
(2)
pile index
number;
number of layers
of each sub-layer;
Click "pile index" and "soil index" buttons to find pile and
(3)
soil types;
soil
all
required parameters;
A-9):
number of
thickness,
LCPC
q c of each sub-layer;
"LCPC
Click
A.2.4
all
soil types;
required parameters;
(1)
Click "show results" button to get the calculated base and shaft resistance.
(2)
248
fe
loob Uet>
yiew
J Debug
Al
Ft
~3
1 xifctel
xtet Hi^lsSr
Cortonfc of Debug'
N.,
Sc-slTjce
Modified
LcpcihafilDlgobi
Lcohatt20lflobi
'
^ LcpcshaftDljobi
''
O Labe01sL0b!
LpbaieOlgobi
^ UxndodDlftobi
"
OLwxtedlDlgobi
R Lpnde2Dtg
Pleme tded
obi
wwlwu.
" UwTdewOlQobi
OutavavOlgobi
^OjavlpDtgob)
O OuHoavOlflob.
OiilpbDlflobi
"T
!?"
(X
OiibavDlgobi
HCONERLE
H
kCPC
IVr*SSF3
OutbloDtg.obi
project, ft.
owed obi
piotecLpch
pdb
_ ^
cxoiect
project, res
9 proiectDlg at*
^StdAKobi
Li
vciOidb
S?
vcittodb
69KB
Irtermeciaie Fie
40KB
Irtferrnectate
Re
217KB
Intwmedwte F3e
116KB
Intermediate Fie
0/2S/98 B57
10/26/98
PM
&5E PM
57PM
107207386- 57 PM
10/26/38 8
zl
2333
Jj
Eistarrq
Debus
3a>PteimHL.| -rcoNEPBj
STMicrowftWcni-
^s
SW
130AM
Figure A-7. Selection of the method for calculating the shaft resistance.
^^^^fei^afeifeaissifefea -
<
5 IntJcOkjoci
Belare
*? LcpdhaHlDlgobi
pis
O Lcocihari2D 15001
^ LcpcshattDlg,0O]
O LesebeseO
gg
you ertat tvj npU date. &id the appropnaM ridex nmber to the
aid Hri i^se* la -*hch you wjh to c*ia/ate th jhart wnsanca
-Ptendon^her
Fjfatod
[j
Soitniex
10,0b,
D LpbaseO^ot,
^ LpndeDlg.obi
-PSedHneterfcrri
f~
Naoilaacofo-jhoHn
cAjiattsnPOmoxt
OLondewlDlflobi
O Lpndew20lo.obi
LaperKo.
SoJrdexPta.
PiWa)
T" Lpnde*sDlgot>
O OL*avavDlo,obi
P> OutovipDl^obi
*? OutpavDlg.ot>
OuibtoDioobi
E? 0ullHlv0IO.Ob|
^ OuibJoDlg.obi
HCONERU
_*) protect,
ft,
^
pioiecLpch
protect obi
01
ptoiect.pab
O ctoiectres
PoiectDla.ofci
StdAhtobt
If?
1
Contrae
*0-Pdb
etweti:!
o^KttC
^BSw[
TTOT
0726799 8 57
PM
Z33K8
gjExploio- Debug
Figure A-8.
InterroecieieFile
^yMipowftWord-.
-jCPPhi-|tt3)ll-|
I
l-CONEPHE
^J-i
*>
134AM
249
f*pfewng.-;Dbug
Efe
a*
-l.l.l.'lJJIIJIJJJiWimiMP.MIimUM.UJ
|_i Debug
l Fc
:J
* <* let
"
7
CMe^oToebug
3[^
<
IntroOtflobi
Before jou enter the incut this, fhd the apcHpoate nfex number tor the
P6c and joJ tjipry f whcti >x*j wei to cataiore ihe tfwft icjiaance.
S LcpcshoH1DI*obi
O l_CDCthaH2Dlg.obi
n LcpcahattDlg.otn
Ptedamaretlcml
LpbweOlgobi
Mo. of layer*
tor
Aaft
femarwcaksiabonpOtMxJ
9* LpfidwDlgobi
O LpB^tealDlg-obt
LorKJeo20lo.ob(
UverHa
UTCndnNo,
Uy thickness (m}
QcftPal
jCPC Index
LorxteeOlBobi
O Q^avavOlgobi
D OUavlpDlgobt
$ OufcavOlsobi
D OutbDiB-obi
5> CMbavOlg
* OiibbOlg
obi
obi
gCONERLE
projedobj
O
DrneClpCh
f? projecLpdb
'T1 protect
praectOlg obi
Cam*
^StdAfxobt
L^
1
vc40Jdb
D vc40.p*
116KB
^fMiootdiWord- ]
ffCP
Playgr
[0610-j
,^W
TCONEPtLE
Figure A-9.
n txptoww
1lVX^5S57PM
lo.ermrd.are Fie
'239KB
obrcdtj tetecwj
i*4AM
shaft resistance.
v0s6uo
E
AlFtfContertioCDetug*
"-1|
Haw
KMtodEi) UtednrheCosfUWion
? IfWoOltjob
O LcrxihartlDlg.ol
&* Lctxshatt2Digo(
n
O
LcpcthoftOlg.ob
LesisswOlg.ob|
Shaft
mistncc
AofcWefetornefcod
> LoboaeOtgobi
O
O
Lj^noexDlftobi
LpndewlDlgob
P* Lowfcxs2Dlg.ob
ShowRosJrif
O LorxiewOlgobi
O OutavvDloc*i
?* OuiovlpDigobi
D OuitpovO^obi
P OuHDODlaobi
Sm retiaaxs.
'
fcNl
?* OuiiavOl&ob
O OutlsbOlg
obi
IkM)
HC0NERL
^J pmjed.lt
O prO|ecLob(
^ ptotectpch
r*
oroiec!
pdb
~^~3
protect, res
01 proredDlg
obi
O StdArxoh
O
n
iii
1
vc40db
vc4Q.pdb
ohecl|l**>cMd
lr*eimedw*e
He
lu/A/3Bb/HM
233KB
3TMioi>iBWcri
jCDPtwtlBlILl TCONEFftE
Figure A- 10.
Output
^is--.0O 150AM
results.