Soil-Pile Interaction in FB-MultiPier Dr. J. Brian Anderson, P.E. Developed by: Florida Bridge Software Institute Dr. Mike McVay, Dr. Marc Hoit, Dr. Mark Williams Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile Soil-Structure Interaction Vertical Nonlinear Spring Torsional Nonlinear Spring Lateral Nonlinear Spring Nonlinear Tip Spring Driven Piles - Axial Side Model z r t t to t o ro r (Randolph & Wroth) z s s t + D t/D r d r dz sr s r + D s r/ D r d r t s dr d r Driven Piles - Axial Side Model r0 rm Dz d z Dr d r DZ z Substitute: Dr Rearrange: dz Substitute: dz Substitute: z rm r0 t o r0 rG t G dr dr t r Gi 1 tf 2 t dr t G dz G dr Previous Also: t o r0 Also: t t o ro t G Gi 1 tf r 2 Driven Piles - Axial Side Model z t 0 r0 rm rm r0 ln , Gi r0 rm r0 r0 t 0 tf T-Z (Along Pile) 1200 Tau 0 (psf) 1000 tf = 1000psf 800 600 Gi = 3 ksi 400 200 0 0 0.5 1 z - Displacement (inches) 1.5 Driven Piles - Axial Tip Model z (Kraft, Wroth, etc.) P 1 - P 4 r0 G i 1 Pf Where: 2 P = Mobilized Base Load Pf = Failure Tip Load ro = effective pile radius = Poisson ratio of Soil Gi = Shear Modulus of Soil T-Z (At Tip) Tip Load (kips) 300 Pf = 250 kips Gi = 10 ksi = 0.3 r0 = 12 inches 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 z - Displacement (inches) 4 5 Driven Piles - Axial Properties • Ultimate Skin Friction (stress), Tauf , along side of pile (input in layers). • Ultimate Tip Resistance (Force), Pf , at pile tip . • Compressibility of individual soil layers, I.e. Shear Modulus, Gi , and Poisson’s ratio, n. Driven Piles - Axial Properties • From Insitu Data: – Using SPT “N” Values run SPT97, DRIVEN, UNIPILE, etc. to Obtain: Tauf , and Pf – Using Electric Cone Data run PL-AID, LPC, FHWA etc. to Obtain: Tauf , and Pf – Determine G or E from SPT correlations, i.e. Mayne, O’Neill, etc. Florida: SPT 97 Concrete Piles Skin Friction, tf (TSF) • Plastic Clay: – tf= 2N(110-N)/4006 • Sand, Silt Clay Mix: – tf = 2N(110-N)/4583 • Clean Sand: – tf = 0.019N • Soft Limestone – tf = 0.01N Ultimate Tip, Pf/Area(tsf) • Plastic Clay: – q = 0.7 N • Sand, Silt Clay Mix: – q = 1.6 N • Clean Sand: – q = 3.2 N • Soft Limestone – q = 3.6 N Cast Insitu Axial Side and Tip Models • For soil (sands and clays) – Follow FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual For Sands and Clays to Obtain Tauf and Pf ( and cu) – Shape of T-Z cuve is given by FHWA’s Trend Lines. • User has Option of inputting custom T-z / Q-z curves Cast Insitu - Sand (FHWA): L/2 sv’ = L/2 L D 1.5 .135 L/2) 0.5 1.2> >0.25 Qs = p D L sv’ Qt = 0.6 NSPT p D 2 / 4 NSPT < 75 Cast Insitu - Clay (FHWA): Qs = 0.55 Cu p D (L-5’-D) L D Qt = 6 [1+0.2(L/D) ] Cu (p D 2 / 4) Mobilized Stress / Ultimate Stress Cast Insitu trend line for Sand 1.6 1.4 End Bearing 1.2 Side Friction 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 2 4 6 Settlement / Diameter (%) 8 10 Cast Insitu trend line for Clay Mobilized Stress / Ultimate Stress 1.6 1.4 1.2 End Bearing 1.0 0.8 Side Friction 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 2 4 6 Settlement / Diameter (%) 8 10 Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile Torsional Model (Pile/Shaft) • Hyperbolic Model – G and Tauf • Custom T- Torsional Model (Pile/Shaft) T (F-L) (dT/d)=1/a Gi Tult =1/b Tult = tf Asurf r Tult = 2p r2 D L tult tult = Ultimate Axial Skin Friction (stress) T=/a+b (rad) Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile Lateral Soil-Structure Interaction Y Active State Passive State Near Field: Lateral (Piles/Shafts) y X sr sr r P Y=5” Y=0 F 2p P sr r d L 0 P=0 P r F 2p P sr r d L 0 Sand & Soft Clay Pu P Pr Stiff Clay Y P-y Curves - Reese’s Sand Pu is a function of , , and b P x = x4 x = x3 x = x2 pu m pk x = x1 m yu pm k u ym yk Y is a function of b (pile diameter) ks x x=0 3b/80 b/60 y Matlock’s Soft Clay 1.0 Pu is a function of Cu, , and b P PU p y 0.5 pu y 50 0.5 Y is a function of y50 (50) 0.0 1.0 8.0 y y 50 1/ 3 Reese’s Stiff Clay Below Water Soil Resistance, p (lb/in.) Pc is a function of C, , ks and b S TATIC y P 0 .5 P c ( y ) 0 . 5 50 P offset 0 .055 p c ( 0.5Pc E ss Esi = k s x Y is a function of 0 y50 (50) y A s y 50 1 . 25 ) A s y 50 Asy50 y50 6Asy50 Deflection, y (in.) 18Asy50 0 .0625 p c y 50 Pu is a function of c, and b RATIO OF SOIL RESISTANCE, P/ PU O’Neill’s Integrated Clay P PU F O R X X Cr 1.0 P PU 0 .5 ( YY ) 0 . 387 C 0.5 P PU 0.0 Fs is a function of 100 Yc is a function of b and 50 1 6 FS (1 FS ) 20 RATIO OF DEFLECTION, Y YC X X Cr Soil Properties for Standard Curves • Sand: – Angle of internal friction, – Total unit weight, – Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k • Clay or Rock: – Undrained Strength, Cu – Total Unit Weight, – Strain at 50% of Failure Stress, 50 – Optional: k, and 100 Soil Information Help Menu EPRI (Kulhawy & Mayne) P-y Curves from Insitu Tests • Cone Pressuremeter • Marchetti Dilatometer Insitu PMT & DMT Testing Cone Pressuremeter Cone Pressuremeter (Robertson, Briaud, etc.) Marchetti Dilatometer P-y Curves Auburn, Alabama PMTPressuremeter P-y Curves - Auburn 2000 1800 1600 1m 2m 3m 4m 6m 8m 10 m P (kN/mm) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 y (mm) 25 30 35 40 DMT Dilatometer P-y Curves Auburn P-y Curves-Auburn, Alabama 2500 P(kN/m) 2000 0.6 m 2.1 m 3m 4.2 m 6.3 m 7.2 m 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 y (mm) 250 300 350 Actual and Predicted Lateral Top of Shaft Deflections Auburn Predictions Auburn, Alabama 1000 900 PMT DMT CPT Shaft 1 Shaft 2 Shaft 3 Shaft 6 Lateral Load (kN) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Lateral Deflection (mm) 50.0 60.0 P-y Curves for PMT1 Pascagoula, Mississippi PMT P-y Curves Pascagoula 6 5 9.7 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.8 14.8 15.8 16.8 17.8 18.8 P (kN/mm) 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 y (mm) 120 140 160 180 200 P-Y Curves from DMT 1 DMT P-y Curves Pascagoula Pascagoula, Mississippi 1.8 1.6 y (kN/mm) 1.4 9.6 10.8 11.7 12.6 16.0 16.9 17.8 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 p (mm) 40 50 60 Pascagoula Predictions 4500 4000 Load (kN) 3500 DMT 3000 2500 2000 PMT 1500 1000 Actual 500 0 0 10 20 30 Deflection (mm) 40 50 Instrumentation & Measurements • Strain gages – Measure strain – Calculate bending moment, M = ε(EI/c), if EI of section known – “high tech” • Slope inclinometer – Measures slope – Relatively “low tech” Theoretical Pile Behavior M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment M’(z) Shear P(z) Soil Reaction Strain Gages Bending Moment Bending Moment versus Depth Bending Moment (kN*m) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 1 Lateral Load in Kilonewtons Depth (m) 2 3 4 5 6 36 62 93 121 153 182 211 258 Bending Moment vs. Depth M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment M’(z) Shear P(z) Soil Reaction Two Integrals to Deflection M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment M’(z) Shear P(z) Soil Reaction Two Derivatives to Load M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment z M’(z) Shear z P(z) Soil Reaction Non-linear Concrete Model Test Pile T1 1.0E+06 2 EI (kN-m ) 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-03 4.0E-03 6.0E-03 8.0E-03 Curvature, (1/m) 1.0E-02 P-y Curves from Strain Gages 140 D. to G.S. (m) 120 p (kN/m) 100 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.1 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement, y (mm) 25 30 35 Slope Inclinometer Slope Deflection versus Depth Horizontal Displacement (m) -0.01 -2 0 Depth (m) 2 4 6 8 10 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Lateral Load in Kilonewtons 36 62 90 122 153 183 208 243 Slope Inclinometer → Slope vs. Depth M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment M’(z) Shear P(z) Soil Reaction One Integral to Deflection M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) M(z) Slope Moment M’(z) Shear P(z) Soil Reaction Three Derivatives to Load M P Y(z) Pile Deflection Y’(z) z M(z) Slope Moment z M’(z) Shear z P(z) Soil Reaction P-y Curves from Slope Inclinometer 140 D. to GS (m) 120 p (kN/m) 100 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement, y (mm) 25 30 35 Comparison of P-y Curves 80 SG inc PMT/DMT SPT p (kN/m) 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement, y (mm) 25 30 35 Prediction of Pile Top Deflection 300 W. line FLPIER-sg FLPIER-inc 250 Load (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 Top Displacement (mm) 80 100 P-y Curves Available in FB-Pier • Standard – Sand • O’Neill • Reese, Cox, & Koop – Clay • • • • O’Neill Matlock Soft Clay Below Water Table Reese Stiff Clay Below Water Table Reese & Welch Stiff Clay Above Water Table P-y Curves Available in FB-Pier • User Defined – Pressuremeter – Dilatometer – Instrumentation • Strain Gages • Slope Inclinometer Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile Pile Discrete Element Model h 2 M1 h M3 h 2 X Universal Joint Spring (Top View) Z Rigid center-blocks Y M4 M2 X (Side View) Rigid end Block Curvature-Strain-Stress-Moment N2 N1 a) Strain due to z-axis bending b) Strain due to y-axis bending c) Strain due to axial thrust F y x Fi z dAi , , i dFi e) Stress-strain relationship d) Combined strains Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete & Steel Strains -> Stress -> Moments dFi=si*dAi Mx dF* y y x Integration_Points z dAi dFi d) Combined strains Stiffness of Cross-Section: Flexure, Axial M y x z dAi dFi d) Combined strains Mx dF* y Integration_Points Failure Ratio Calculation Actual Length Failure Ratio = Surface Length P Mx Pactual Mxo Myo My Pile Material Properties References: • • • • • • Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Brown, P. T., Grof, I., and Hughes, J. M., "Design of Axially and Laterally Loaded Piles Using In Situ Tests: A Case History,“ Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.518-527, 1985. Robertson, P. K., Davies, M. P., and Campanella, R. G., "Design of Laterally Loaded Driven Piles Using the Flat Dilatometer," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 30-38, March 1989. Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. and Koop, F. D (1974). "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand," Paper No. OTC 2080, Proceedings, Fifth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, (GESA Report No. D-75-9). Hoit, M.I, McVay, M., Hays, C., Andrade, P. (1996). “Nonlinear Pile Foundation Analysis Using Florida Pier." Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.135-142. Randolph, M. and Wroth, C., 1978, “Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 104, No. 12, pp. 1465-1488. Matlock, H., and Reese, L., 1960, “Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles,” ASCE, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 86, No. SM5, pp. 63-91. Session Outline • Identify and Discuss Soil-Pile Interaction Models – Precast & Cast Insitu Axial T-Z & Q-Z Models – Torsional T- Models – Lateral P-Y Models – Nonlinear Pile Structural Models • FB-MultiPier Input and Output – Example #1 Single Pile