Designing of Piles Subjected To Negative Skin Friction Slides

Common Mistakes in Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction
Wong Kai Sin

WKS Geotechnical Consultants wks@wks.sg
25 January 2011
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 1
Common Mistakes in Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction Mistakes Misconceptions Misunderstandings
Misinterpretation of CP4:2003
Controversial issues Clarifications Proposals
Known Facts about Negative Skin Friction

1. QNSF develops when the soil settles more than the pile. 2. QPSF develops when the pile settles more than the soil. 3. There exists a neutral point which divides QNSF and QPSF. 4. It only takes a few mm of relative movement to fully mobilise QNSF and QPSF.
d pile soil
Issue # 1 -- Drag Load vs Downdrag

Negative Skin Friction Shear stress on pile due to downward soil movement relative to pile Drag Load Force on pile caused by NSF Downdrag Settlement of pile due to drag load
Issue #2
The soft clay layer is over-consolidated or fully consolidated under the existing fill. Therefore, NSF is not an issue.
1. Will there be settlement under future loading? 2. Do you have control over future developments?
25 January 2011
NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin
Issue #3
What happen when Q + Qnsf > Qp + Qpsf ?
Qult
QNSF
? QPSF d QP
What will happen when ( QC + hQNSF > QP + QPSF ) ?

QC
0 0 5 10 2000
Applied Load Qc (kN)

4000 6000 8000 10000
QC
QNSF
Depth (m)
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
QS
QPSF
d QP QULT = QP+QS
QP
1. No plunging failure until (QC+ hQNSF) = (QP+QS). 2. NSF is a settlement problem. 3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity = (QP+QS).
25 January 2011
Issue #4
Soft Toe Qp = 0 Friction Pile Therefore Ln = 0.6Ls
Neutral Point Location CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.
OA(A)
Ls
Ln
Soft Clay
25 January 2011
CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls
Neutral Point Location

Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.
Ls
Ln
Soft Clay
Sand
25 January 2011
Neutral point of pile end bearing in clay

Ln = 0.6 L
Ln = 0.7 to 0.9 Ls Ls Ln
Soft Clay
L Ln = 0.9 to 1.0 Ls
Ln= Ls=
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin
Stiff to Hard Clay
10
Ln = 1.0 LsLs
Ln Ls
Neutral point of driven pile end bearing in sand & rock
Ln = 0.95 LsLs Ln = h Ls Ls Ln
Soft Clay
Sand
25 January 2011
11
Issue #5
NSF should be computed using effective stress method only.
QC Sand Fill Soft Clay cu 20 kPa
-method fs = sv
Total stress method can also be used for clayey soils.

- method fs = cu
NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 12
OA N 80
QP
25 January 2011
Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Clay

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore) Use either or method - method fs = cu LTA Use effective stress method -method fs = sv
25 January 2011
13
Determination of NSF in Clay using Total Stress Method
Clay (Fleming et al., 1987)

fs = cuf where = 0.5 / (cuf / svf) 0.5 for cuf / svf 1 = 0.5 / (cuf / svf) 0.25 for cuf / svf > 1 cuf = final undrained shear strength svf = final effective stress
25 January 2011
14
Issue #6
NSF can be computed using cu values from SI report.
QC Sand Fill Soft Clay cu 20 kPa
- method fs = cu
1. Use final cu. 2. May not be appropriate to use current cu. It depends on the state of consolidation and the long term effective stress.
OA N 80
QP
25 January 2011
Determination of NSF in Clay using Effective Stress Method
Clay (Wong and Teh, 1995)

fs = svf where = (cu / sv)NC OCR f 0.5 (cu / sv)NC ~ 0.22 for many clays OCR f = sp / svf sp = preconsolidation pressure svf = final effective stress For conservative estimation of Qnsf, higher unit weights and lower ground water table should be used. For conservative estimation of Qpsf, the opposite trend should be used. NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin
25 January 2011
16
Issue #7
How to determine NSF in Sand?
-method fs = sv = Ks tan d
Use one of following:

1. = 0.35?
2. fs = N? 3. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. fs = qc / 200? 5. fs = qc / 400?
Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

1. May be appropriate for sand above water where OCR>>1. 2. May be too conservative below water where OCR 1. 1. Conservative for PSF. 2. Unconservative for NSF.
18
1. = 0.35?
2. fs = N? 3. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. fs = qc / 200? 5. fs = qc / 400?
Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

-method
fs = sv = Ks tan d
25 January 2011
19
Issue #8
For piles subjected to NSF we only need to check the following according to CP4:2003.
QC
Structural QC + h QNSF QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete Geotechnical
QC + h QNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs

where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5 h = 0.67 or 1
Need to check : QC = ( QP + QS ) / Fs
10
Issue #9
Is it necessary to consider self-weight of pile?
QC
QC
QC
hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QPSF QP
QC+WP hQNSF
For 300x300 RC pile with Ln=20m, Wpile 2.5 t. For 1.2m diameter bored pile with Ln=30m, Wpile 50 t.
Issue #9
QC
QC
QC
hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QP
QC+WP hQNSF
Theoretically Wpile should be included in the design.

11
Issue #9
QC
QC
QC
hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QP
QC+WP hQNSF
Practically, it may not be necessary to include Wpile . It depends on how we compute QNSF . A conservative QNSF can easily covered Wpile .
Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh, 1995)
Norway (Bjerrum et al., 1969)

25 January 2011
Tokyo Bay (Fukuya et al., 1982)

Bangkok (Indraratna et al., 1992)

24
12
Melborne (Walker & Darvall, 1969)

25 January 2011
End bearing pile

Floating friction pile

25
Japan (Nishi & Esashi, 1982)
Closed-end pipe pile (End bearing)

25 January 2011
open-end pipe pile (End bearing)

Closed-end pipe pile (Floating friction)

26
Tokyo (Endo et al., 1969)
13
Issue #9
The above comparisons show that the current method of NSF computation has implicitly included the self-weight of pile.
No need to include Wpile !
Tokyo Bay, Japan (Fukuya et al., 1982)

Issue #10
Bored pile is limited to Grade 30 concrete.
QCS Structural QCS + h QNSF QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete CP4 allows only grade 30 concrete? fcu / Fs = 7.5 MPa For piles subjected to NSF
Bored Piles Use Grade 40 or higher Driven Piles Use as high as possible
28
14
Issue #11
Difficulties with h and Fs
QC Geotechnical QC + h QNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5
h = 0.67 or 1
What is h ? When to use h = 0.67 or 1? When to use Fs = 2.0 or 2.5? Can we use Fs = 1.5 if Qp =0?
CP4:2003 - Degree of Mobilization h

The negative unit friction along the pile section above the neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.
QC
hQNSF
h=
QPSF
h= 1.0 for low capacity piles in highly compressible clay
h = 0.67 for all other cases

QP
25 January 2011
15
Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point
25 January 2011
31
Bangkok, Thailand
(Indraratna et al., 1992)
25 January 2011
32
16
Nishi & Esashi (1982)
End Bearing Pile
Floating Pile
25 January 2011
33
Melborne, Australia (Walker & Darvall, 1969)
Difficult to justify h = 0.67 !
25 January 2011
34
17
Degree of Mobilization h
The negative unit friction along the pile section above the neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.
QC
hQNSF
hQNSF
Difficult to justify h = 0.67 ! h=
= 0.67
QPSF
QPSF
QP
QC
hQNSF
For single pile or piles in group with large spacing: Use h = 1.0 Many LTA tunnels fall into this category!
QPSF
QP
25 January 2011
36
18
QC
hQNSF
QPSF
Does that mean we should not use h =0.67 ?
QP
25 January 2011
37
4 3 2 1
(After Okabe, 1977)
Single pile QNSF7000 kN
25 January 2011
corner pile 38 kN QNSF3500
19
Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness

(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)
h = 0.6
h = 0.6
25 January 2011
39
Group Reduction Factor "h"

Downdrag = h QNSF where h ~ 0.5 to 1 h
Corner Pile -- Based on AIJ
Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong) Use group reduction factor h = 0.85
20
Degree of Mobilization h Group Efficiency Factor

QC
hQNSF
For piles in group with small spacing: Use h = 0.67
QPSF
QP
25 January 2011
41
Degree of Mobilization h or Group Efficiency Factor h
Single Piles or Piles in Group with Large Spacing h = 1.0
Piles in Group with Small Spacing h = 0.67

21
Geotechnical Capacity of Piles subjected to NSF

QC No NSF
QALL = (QP + QPSF) / 2.5

or QALL = QP / 3 + QS / 1.5 With NSF QC + h QNSF (QP + QPSF) / (2 or 2.5) Can we also use: QC + h QNSF QP / 3 + QS / 1.5 ?
1. What are the implications on pile capacity? 2. Is it supported by code?

1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete QC
Which factor of safety should we use ?

QC + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs
QNSF = 282 t
FS 1.5 2.0
Qc (t) h=1.0 253 119
Qc (t) h=0.67 346 212
QPSF = 663 t
2.5
39
132
QP = 142 t
25 January 2011
What are the corresponding settlements?

22
Pile Settlement due to NSF

QC QC QC QC
hQNSF QS QC QPSF QP QP
QC Q QC Q
hQNSF
D
D
45
What factor of safety should we use ?

0 0 50 2000

Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Pile Top Settlement (mm)
hQNSF = 2820 kN
FS= 2.5 FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0 With downdrag
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
No downdrag
QPSF = 6625 kN
Case 1 (h=1.0)
FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.5 390 6 2.0 1190 10 1.5 2530 17 1.2 3870 29 1.0 5200 58
46
QP= 1415 kN
25 January 2011
23

0 50 0 2000

Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
FS= 2.5 hQNSF = 1890 kN

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
No downdrag FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0 With downdrag
FS= 2.0
QPSF = 6625 kN
Case 1a (h=0.67)
FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.5 1320 7.3 2.0 2123 10.4 1.5 3460 17.7 1.2 4797 32 1.0 6135 73
47
QP= 1415 kN
25 January 2011
1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete

Ground water lowered by 2m.

Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0
QC
0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22
50 100 150
FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0
No downdrag
31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP= 0 Soft Toe Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa
200 250 300 350
With downdrag
Case 2 (h=1.0)
FS 2.0 495 8 1.5 1600 14 1.2 2700 25 1.0 3930 51
48
400 450 500
Qc (kN) D (mm)
25 January 2011
24
400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete


Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0
QC
0m 4m hQNSF = 1435 kN Sand fs=15 kPa
50
Soft Clay = 0.22

FS= 1.5
100 150
No downdrag FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0 With downdrag
31m QPSF = 2030 kN 41m QP= 290 Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Case 3 (h=1.0)
FS Qc (kN) D (mm)
1.5 110 10
1.2 500 18
1.0 885 34
49
25 January 2011
400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete

What factor of safety should we use?

Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0
QC
0m 4m hQNSF = 1435 kN 31m QPSF = 3374 kN Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0
No downdrag With downdrag
Case 4 (h=1.0)
FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.0 245 9 1.5 805 16 1.2 1365 24 1.0 1925 38
50
47m QP= 290
25 January 2011
25
For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:

Single Pile or Pile Group with Large Spacing h = 1.0 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4)
25 January 2011
51
1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m. Q 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP = 0 Soft Toe
25 January 2011
Example illustrating effect of Fs and h on QNSF QC + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 1.0 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 1620 kN Therefore, h= 0.67 and Fs = 2 yield reasonable results for single piles & piles in group with large spacing.
Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22
Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa
26
1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m. Q 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP = 0 Soft Toe
25 January 2011
Example illustrating effect of Fs and h on QNSF

QC + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 0.67 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 2530 kN If h=0.67 and Fs=2 are used for pile group with small spacing, the computed QC is conservative. There is plenty of fat in the design.
Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22
Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa
For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:

Pile Group with Small Spacing h = 0.67 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4)
25 January 2011
54
27
For Failure (ULS) Consideration:

Geotechnical QC (QP + QS ) /2.5 or QC QP /3 + QS /1.5
Structural QC + h QNSF QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete

Issue #12
Difficulties with Load Test on Piles subjected to NSF
Qmax Q Qmax = ? Q
dall = ?
QS
dTOP QP
1. What is the maximum test load? 2. What is the allowable settlement? 3. What is the settlement under NSF?
25 January 2011
56
28
CP4 : 2003 & HDB - Settlement at (WL + 2QNSF) 10 mm Eurocode EC7 : Maximum test load = WL + 2QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. Found. Code 2004 (Hong Kong): Max. test load = 2QC+ QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. Other - Settlement at (WL + QNSF) 10 mm
Q Q
Q Q
?
QS
dTOP
25 January 2011
QP
57
Why Maximum Test Load = WL + 2QNSF ?

Q QC QMAX Q
? QMAX QULT Q
Ln QS QC + QNSF QNSF QC + QNSF
QP
dTOP
QP
25 January 2011
58
29
Working Pile:
QMAX = WL + 2hQNSF
Preliminary Pile: QMAX = QULT = QP + QS

QC QC QMAX Q dALL = ? QS
QC + hQNSF QMAX QULT Q
Ln QC +hQNSF hQNSF
QP
dTOP
QP
What is the allowable settlement?

1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete

Example illustrating different code requirements

Applied Load on Pile Q (kN)
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Q
0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22
50 100
No downdrag
150 200 250 300 350
With downdrag
31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP= 0 Soft Toe Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa
400 450 500
25 January 2011
60
30
Code
(h=1)
Maximum Load
Allowable Settlement (mm)
Allowable Load Qc (kN)
CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn. Code of H.K. 2004
QC+ 2QNSF QC+ 2QNSF 2QC+ QNSF
10 25 (assumed) 25 (assumed)
QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN
-980 1620 2000
QC + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs With Fs=2 and h=1 QC = 500 kN

Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF

1620 kN QC=500 kN
0 0 1000
QC=2000 kN
2000 3000
Applied Load (kN)

4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
8 mm 13 mm 16 mm
Pile Top Settlement (mm) .
20
40
60
Code
80
(h=1)
EC7
QC (kN)
Settlement with NSF (mm)
Geotech. Fs
CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode 100

120 QC
-980 1620 2000 500
13 16 8
1.50 1.37 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

62
Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs

25 January 2011
31
Code
(h=0.67)
Maximum Load
Allowable Settlement (mm)
Allowable Load Qc (kN)
CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn. Code of H.K. 2004
QC+ 2hQNSF QC+ 2hQNSF 2QC+ hQNSF
10 25 (assumed) 25 (assumed)
QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN
-80 2520 2200
(h=0.67)
QC + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs With Fs=2 and h=0.67 QC = 1420 kN

Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF

2220 kN 1420 kN
0 0 1000 2000
QC=2520 kN Applied Load (kN)

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
12 mm 17 mm
Pile Top Settlement (mm) .
20
20 mm
40
60
Code
80
(h=0.67)
QC (kN)
Settlement with NSF (mm)
Geotech. Fs
CP4:2003 & HDB

100
-80 2520 2200 1420

20 17 12
1.50 1.62 2 0.67 0.67 0.67

64
Eurocode EC7 Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 + hQNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs
QC 120
25 January 2011
32
Load Test on Piles Subjected to NSF

Proposed Allowable Settlement at QC+ 2QNSF 25 mm
QULT Q
QMAX
dALL = 25 mm
dTOP
Conclusions & Recommendations

1. NSF should be considered, if future settlement is real regardless of current state of consolidation. 2. NSF is a settlement problem. 3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity QULT = QP + QS
4. Neutral point top of competent stratum
25 January 2011
66
33
Conclusions & Recommendations (cont)

5. Both and method can be used. 6. Use h=0.67 and Fs=2 in all cases. 7. For bored piles, use Grade 40 concrete or higher. 8. Self-weight of pile need not be considered in design.
25 January 2011
67
Conclusions & Recommendations (cont)

9. For load test on preliminary piles: QMAX = QS +QP Allowable settlement at 1.5WL 15 mm Allowable settlement at 2WL 25 mm Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF 25 mm 10. For load test on working piles: QMAX = QC+ 2hQNSF Allowable settlement at 1.5WL 15 mm Allowable settlement at 2WL 25 mm Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF 25 mm
34
Thank You for your attention !

If you have any comments and suggestions, please email to me at wks@wks.sg.
25 January 2011
69
35

Designing of Piles Subjected To Negative Skin Friction Slides

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Designing of Piles Subjected To Negative Skin Friction Slides

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Common Mistakes in Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction

Wong Kai Sin

Known Facts about Negative Skin Friction

Issue # 1 -- Drag Load vs Downdrag

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

What will happen when ( QC + hQNSF > QP + QPSF ) ?

Applied Load Qc (kN)

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls

Neutral Point Location

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Neutral point of pile end bearing in clay

Stiff to Hard Clay

Neutral point of driven pile end bearing in sand & rock

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Total stress method can also be used for clayey soils.

Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Clay

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Determination of NSF in Clay using Total Stress Method

Clay (Fleming et al., 1987)

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Determination of NSF in Clay using Effective Stress Method

Clay (Wong and Teh, 1995)

Use one of following:

Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

QC + h QNSF (QP + QPSF) / Fs

hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QPSF QP

hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QP

Theoretically Wpile should be included in the design.

hQNSF QC + Wpile + QNSF QPSF QP QP

Norway (Bjerrum et al., 1969)

Tokyo Bay (Fukuya et al., 1982)

Bangkok (Indraratna et al., 1992)

Melborne (Walker & Darvall, 1969)

End bearing pile

Floating friction pile

Japan (Nishi & Esashi, 1982)

Closed-end pipe pile (End bearing)

open-end pipe pile (End bearing)

Closed-end pipe pile (Floating friction)

Tokyo (Endo et al., 1969)

No need to include Wpile !

Tokyo Bay, Japan (Fukuya et al., 1982)

CP4:2003 - Degree of Mobilization h

h= 1.0 for low capacity piles in highly compressible clay

h = 0.67 for all other cases

Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Nishi & Esashi (1982)

End Bearing Pile

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Melborne, Australia (Walker & Darvall, 1969)

Difficult to justify h = 0.67 !

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Difficult to justify h = 0.67 ! h=

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Does that mean we should not use h =0.67 ?

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin