evaluation of eurocode 7 example 2.3 – pile in clay etc 10 ... 2... · evaluation of eurocode 7...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of Eurocode 7Example 2.3 – PILE IN CLAYpETC 10
Adriaan van SetersFugro Ingenieursbureau BV
The Netherlands
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Introduction in exampleIntroduction in exampleSLS-design – source of parametersCharacteristic values of Cu – profileCharacteristic values of Cu profileSLS – required pile lengthULS – shaft friction / endbearing computationULS shaft friction / endbearing computationDesign Approaches usedLoad/strength/resistance factorsLoad/strength/resistance factorsULS – computed pile lengthConclusions
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Pile in Clay – Outline of problemPile in Clay – Outline of problem
W TW.T.
Soil data: boreholes 13,14SPT’s – borings 11, 12, 14 -17CPTPressuremeter tests PM2, PM3Triaxial UU – borings 11, 12, 14 -17
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Soil Conditions0 – 3 to 4 m Man made ground, clayey sand, gravelBelow 3 to 4 m London CLAY – Cu: 30 – 230 kPaBelow 34 m SAND
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
All data - design profileg p
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Questions asked
1st Question 17 Respondents from D UK PT PL IT:
Questions asked
1 Question 17 Respondents from D, UK, PT, PL, IT:• Permanent load 300 kN, variable load 150 kN
downwarddo a d• SLS maximum settlement 20 mm• SLS-State – required pile length?q p g• ULS-State – required pile length?
2nd Question – 7 Respondents:• Repeat the exercise using the given Cu design
values (red lines)
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
General Results
Observations:
General Results
Observations:• 13 (of 17) have designed more than 3 piles in clay• 15 (of 17) are confident in a sound EC7 design• 15 (of 17) are confident in a sound EC7 design• 9 used an average of all tests• 8 used nearest test results, took location into8 used nearest test results, took location into
account• 13 (of 14) assumed a linear/bilinear/stepped pp
variation of Cu or E with depth
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Parameters used for SLS-designg
10
12
6
8
10
2
4
6
0
2
Qc-CPT SPT-N UU-Cu Plim Eund E'drain PoissonNu
M th ibl !More than one answer was possible!
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
• Relation E d and OCR Duncan et al• Relation Eund and OCR, Duncan et al• Cu = 4.5 N – SPT, Stroud• Adhesion factors Tomlinson• Adhesion factors, Tomlinson• DIN 1054• Correlations UU and qc, KempfertCorrelations UU and qc, Kempfert• Transform functions for bored piles, Gwizdala et al• EA PfahleEA Pfahle• Correlation Cu and Plasticity Index, Duncan et al.• Relation E’/N60 (SPT), Stroud/ ( ),
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Answer No Comments
By eye 9
Linear regression 3
Existing standard 2 DIN 1054, EN1997-1
bl h d l dPublished correlation 2 CIRIA, SPT-Stroud
Other 5Other 5
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Characteristic values for SPT N CPT Pli d T i i l C
Questions 11- 13 (qc Plim SPT-N) not answered
SPT-N, CPT-qc, Plim and Triaxial Cu
Questions 11 13 (qc, Plim, SPT N) not answeredOnly characteristic values CU-value (Q14)
Each participant converted test result back to
Cu - Triaxial versus depth
15
20
OD
]
Not many
esu t bac toCu-value
5
10
15
vatio
n [m
O
ydifferences between countriesVariation σ/μ: 0,2
-5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Elev
Cu - value [kPa]
Average Average - st dev Average + st dev
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Method of calculation – Pile settlement
• No method from the national Annex (Annex F is N A )
Method of calculation – Pile settlement
• No method from the national Annex (Annex F is N.A.)• German standard DIN 1054, Annex B• EA-Pfahle German method• EA Pfahle, German method• Wide range of handbooks, references:
• Linear elastic solution• T-z, q-z curves, Fellenius• Transform functions method• T-z curves Reese & Wang (1990)T z curves Reese & Wang (1990)• Poulos and Davis (1980)• Randolph and Clancy (1993)• Piglet Randolph• Piglet, Randolph• Tomlinson
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Q17 – Which length is needed in SLS – state?
• 12 Answers received
Q17 – Which length is needed in SLS – state?
• 12 Answers received
• Average pile length is 14 m• Average pile length is 14 m
• Standard deviation of 2.8 m – variation 20 %Standard deviation of 2.8 m variation 20 %
• All countries in the same rangeAll countries in the same range
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Tests used for ULS Pile design
• <Bullet 1>
Tests used for ULS Pile design
16• <Bullet 1>• <Bullet 2>
12
14
16nt
s
8
10
part
icip
an
2
4
6
No
of p
0
2
Qc-CPT SPT-N UU-Cu Plim
Soil tests
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Correlations for ULS designCorrelations for ULS design
• Wide range of correlations:• DIN 1054• Cu = 4 5 N (SPT) or f1 * N (SPT) Stroud• Cu = 4.5 N (SPT) or f1 N (SPT), Stroud• Tomlinson, adhesion factor a for piles• Kempfert et al, Correlation from UU-test to cone resistance
P li h ili d PN B 02482• Polish piling code PN-B-02482• German code EA-Pfahle • Cone qc = Cu * Nc + σv0• CPT – cu correlation Meigh (1987, CIRIA)• DIN 4094-1: 2002-06 (CPT)• Baguelin et al 1978 (pressuremeter)• Baguelin et al, 1978 (pressuremeter)
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Characteristic values of Unit Shaft Resistance
• <Bullet 1>
Characteristic values of Unit Shaft Resistance
20• <Bullet 1>• <Bullet 2>15
OD
] Q_shaft,k at 7 m OD
5
10
atio
n [m
O Countries:
D, I, PL, PT 55 kPa
0
5
Eele
va UK 80 kPa
-50 50 100 150 200
Sh ft f i ti [kP ]Shaft friction [kPa]
Average qs qshaft + s qshaft - s
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
20
15
D] Q_base,k at -3 m OD
5
10
vatio
n [m
OD
Countries:
D, I, PL, PT 1750 kPa
0
Elev UK 700 kPa
-50 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Unit End Bearing [kPa]
(UK applies a model factor of 1.4 in achieving at characteristic values)
Average qb qbase + s qbase - s
characteristic values)
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Use of Design Approaches
• <Bullet 1>
Use of Design Approaches
Design Approaches - ULS Design• <Bullet 1>• <Bullet 2>
10
12
ants
6
8
10
of p
artic
ip
0
2
4
Num
ber o
DA1 - C1.1 + C1.2 DA1 - C1.1 DA1 - C1.2 DA2/DA2* DA3
Design approaches GermanyOthers
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Use of Partial Safety Factors in ULS-checkLoad factors• All participants: DA1 - Comb. 1, DA2 γG = 1.35 γQ = 1.5All participants: DA1 Comb. 1, DA2 γG 1.35 γQ 1.5
DA1 – Comb. 2 γG = 1.0 γQ = 1.3
Partial factors on strength• Generally no partial factors on Cu (DA3) were applied
Partial factors on shaft/base friction acc Nat Annexes:• Partial factors on shaft/base friction acc Nat Annexes:• DA1 - Comb. 1 γshaft = 1.0 γbase = 1.0 (PL/PT: 1.25)• DA1 - Comb. 2 γshaft = 1.3/1.45/1.6 γbase = 1.6/1.7/2.0• DA2 γshaft = 1.1/1.4 γbase = 1.1/1.4• ξ-factors: ξ4 (9x) 1.135 to 1.7, ξ3 (2x) 1.45
Partial model factor• UK / PT partial model factor of 1.4 / 1.5 on Cu
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Results of the Analyses – ULS Pile length
• 16 answers received
Results of the Analyses – ULS Pile length
• 16 answers received
• Average pile length is 15 1 m (SLS 14 0 m)• Average pile length is 15.1 m (SLS 14.0 m)
• Standard deviation of 2.7 m (SLS 2.8 m)Standard deviation of 2.7 m (SLS 2.8 m)
• UK – pile length 12.5 mUK pile length 12.5 m • Italy – pile length 17.5 m• Others – pile length ca. 15 mp g
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
• 17 participants from 5 countries!All l d il d C l i• All answers translated soil data to Cu-value using many correlations!Variation of Characteristic values of Cu (no anomalies• Variation of Characteristic values of Cu (no anomalies, below level + 7 m) within 10 %.
• Many SLS-methods less ULS-methods (all based on Cu)• Many SLS methods, less ULS methods (all based on Cu)• Good agreement load factors + Design load (630 kN)• Spread in γ h ft and γb in DA1- Comb 2 (and DA2?)Spread in γshaft and γbase in DA1 Comb 2 (and DA2?) • Use of partial model factor?• Variation computed pile length (SLS and ULS) ca. 20 %Variation computed pile length (SLS and ULS) ca. 20 %
Thanks for all contributions!Thanks for all contributions!
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
Is EC7 - Design Conservative? Comparison EC7 with previous designg
789
nts 8
9
23456
o. o
f par
ticip
an
6
7
nts
012
ervativ
e
ervati
ve
out rig
ht
ervati
ve
ervati
ve
No
4
5
No.
of P
artic
ipan
Very C
onse
r
Conse
r
Abou
Uncon
ser
Very un
cons
erv
1
2
3N
0
1
More conservative About the same Less conservative
2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 20102nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010