I FILE CO mISCELLANEOUS PAPER GL8

AFULL SCALE CYCLIC LATERAL LOAD TESTSON SIX SINGLE PILES IN SAND

Ifl byTRobert L. Little, Jean-Louis Briaud

Geotechnical DivisionCivil Engineering Department

Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843

I

DTIC

_______ SEP 2 01988August 1988Final Report

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

Prcpare, for US Army Engineer District, St. Louis210 Tucker Boulevard, N.

St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1986

Monitored by Geotechnical LaboratoryUS Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station

BR PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631Under Contract No. DACW39-87-M-044688 9 20 0 60

-74.--.'

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE A w oved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo.070OrU .la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT %

2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release;distribution unlimited

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

Research Report 5640 Miscellaneous Paper GL-88-27

Ga. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a, NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(if applicable) USAEWES

(See reverse) Geotechnical Laboratory

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b, ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 0

PO Box 631 %

(See reverse) Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/ SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

ORGANIZATION (if applicable) %-

(See reverse) CELMS-ED-G Contract No. DACW39-87-M-04468C. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT SELEMENT NO. NO. NO. CCSSION NO.-

(See reverse)

11. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Full Scale Cyclic Lateral Load Tests on Six Single Piles in Sand

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Little, Robert L.; Briaud, Jean-Louis

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 1DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE LOUNT --'

Final report FROM T_ 14 August 1988 90...

Avai ao e from National Technical Information Service, 5825 Fort Royal Road, i

Springfield, VA 22161 ; _

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUBGRO" Cohesionless soils , Pressuremeter

Cyclic lateral loading, Single piles_

19, ATRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

This study was performed to determine responses of single piles in sands subjected

to cyclic lateral loading and compaie the results with predicted responses based on in-

situ pressuremeter tests. The pressuremeter method used for predicting pile response to

monotonic lateral loading is applicable to piles which will experience little or no

degradation in flexural stiffness such as steel piles and prestressed concrete piles

loaded less than the prestress. I ,.,

,..-1...

20. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

'DUNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED ] SAME AS RPT C DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22t TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOL

DO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

V PV % ' %,

I.

UnclassifiedSECURITv CLASSIF'CATION OF THIS1 PA( E

6a & 6c. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS (Cnine%

Geotechnical Division ~ICivil Engineering DepartmentTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TK 77843

8a. & 8c. NAME AND ADDRESS OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION (Continued).

US Army Engineer District, St. Louis210 Tucker Boulevard, N.St. Louis, MIO 63101-1986

%

%, ,

Unclassifie

W~~~j~~iTY~ CLSSP,*TO OF 04rS %P

N ,

L% J1

PREFACE

This study was performed by the Geotechnical Division, Civil Engineering

Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, under contract to the ,°%"

US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, MS, for the US

Army Engineer District, St. Louis. The study was performed under Contract No.

DACW39-87-M-0446.

This report was prepared by Mr. Robert L. Lrttle and Dr. Jean-Louis

Briaud, Texas A&M University, and reviewed by Mr. G. Britt Mitchell, Chief,

Engineering Group, Soil Mechanics Division (SMD), Geotechnical Laboratory

(CL). WES. General supervision was nrovided by Mr. Clifford L. M c'':ar,

Chief, SMD, and Dr. William F. Marcuson III, Chief, GL.

COL Dwayne G. Lee, EN, is Commander and Director of WES. Dr. Robert W.

Whalin is Technical Director.

%

'

%

%

:'pi

Accession For

NT, A"DT. T~i R

;~ 1V

D 1,3 i ,

D st ' .%p

*f- - -

-]~-

]A

..

V."

a...;

-.a,

.

i i "a,-

a,.-9:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

This project was sponsored by the US Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station. Mr. Britt Mitchell, who was .

the technical contact, is thanked for his help and advice

throughout the project.

At Texas A&M University, Mr. Larry Tucker's help in the

microcomputer programming and in the preparation of the

report is much appreciated..'.

A. %. P

. . . .~. .:2.:::: a

- -- - - -'. -"A)-A -.

" %

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION .......... ................... 1

1.1 Project Purpose.. ............ 11.2 Project Appruach .............. 2

2. THE SITE AND THE SOIL ....... .............. 3

2.1 Test Site Location. . . . . _... . . . . . . 32.2 Soil Conditions and Stratigraphy. . . . . . . 3....

3. THE PILES ........ .................... 13e

3.1 Layout of the Piles .... ............. 133.2 Geometry and Properties of the Piles . . .. 13

4. THE LATERAL LOAD TESTS .... .............. 17

4.1 Site Preparation .... .............. 174.2 Loading Apparatus .............. 174.3 General Loading Scheme .......... .... 19..'.....4.4 Results of the Lateral Load Tests ...... . 19

4.4.1 Monotonic response envelopes ..... . 204.4.2 Cyclic response and degradation . . 35 4.4.3 Creep response .. .......... 46

5. THE PRESSUREMETER TESTS .... ............. 67

5.1 PMT Tests at the Site ... ............ 675.2 PMT Moduli and Net Limit Pressures ..... 675.3 Prebored TEXAM PMT and Driven CPMT Test

Results ....... ................... 67

5.3.1 PMT generated P-y curves ........ . 705.3.2 Cyclic degradation parameters .... 765.3.3 Creep response ... ............ 81 •

6. COMPARISON OF PMT AND CONVENTIONALPREDICTIONS WITH THE MEASURED RESPONSE ....... . 85.....

6.1 Monotonic Loading Response . ......... 856.2 Cyclic Loading Response .. ........... . 966.3 Comparison of Creep Exponents ........ .. 106.-'-...

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. ........ 107

8. REFERENCES ........ .................... iii

iv

Page

APPENDIX A - Pile Load Test Data .. ......... . 113 1 .

APPENDIX B - Corrected PMT Curves .. ........ 135 S

APPENDIX C - Cyclic Degradation of the PMT SecantShear Modulus ........ ..... 149

APPENDIX D - Cyclic Degradation of the PMT CyclicShear Modulus ... ........... . 163

.'%;

".-Z

°- *% ..

- .5

v >. .

,S.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Location of Test Site ..... .. ............ 4

2 Site Plan and Arrangement of Test Piles 5

3 Soil Profile at Test Site ..... .......... 6

4 Test Site Boring Log. . .......... 7

5 Test Site Grain Size Curves ..... ......... 9

6 Test Site Cone Penetrometer Data . ...... 11

7 Arrangement and I.D. Numbers for theTest Piles ...... ................. 14

8 Horizontal Load Application and Displacement N

Measuring System .... .............. 18

9 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 1 ............. 21

10 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 1, Cycling Detail ..... . 22

11 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 2 .... ............. 23

12 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 2, Cycling Detail ..... . 24

13 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 3 .... ............. . 25

14 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 3, Cycling Detail ..... . 26

15 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 4 ............. 27

16 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 4, Cycling Detail ..... . 28

17 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 5 ............. 29

18 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 5, Cycling Detail ..... . 30

N. Vi

Figure Page . -

19 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 6 ... ............ . 31

20 Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral LoadTest for Pile No. 6, Cycling Detail ..... . 32 .5

21 Monotonic Response Envelopes Measured During .-

Pile Load Tests, Full Range Scale ...... . 335JL

22 Monotonic Response Envelopes Measured DuringPile Load Tests, 0 to 40 kips scale . ."...34

23 Percentage Increase in DisplacementCalculation ...... ................. 36

24 Cyclic Parameters Definition . ........ 39

25 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 1 ..... ............... 40

26 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradation 0for Pile No. 2 ............... 41

27 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 3 ..... ............... 42

28 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 4 ..... ............... 43

29 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradation ...

for Pile No. 5 ..... ............... 44

30 Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 6 ..... ............... 45

31 Cyclic Shear Modulus Parameters Definition 47 .

32 Measured Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 1 .............. .. 48

33 Measured Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 2 ..... ............... 49

34 Measured Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradationfor Pile No. 3 ..... ............... 50

35 Measured Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradation .,..

for Pile No. 4 ..... ............... 51

36 Measured Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradation 0

for Pile No. 5 ..... ............... 52

v' i.

Figure Page

37 Meas,:red Cyclic Shear Modulus Degradation Prfc. Pile No. 6 ..... ............... 53

38 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 1 ..... . 55

39 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 2 ..... . 56

40 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 3 ..... . 57

41 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 4 ....... 58

42 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 5 ..... . 59

43 Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 6 ..... 60

44 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,Pile No. 1 ...... ................. 61

45 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,Pile No. 2 ...... ................. 62

46 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level, . *

Pile No. 3 ...... ................. 63

47 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,Pile No. 4 ...... ................. 64

48 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,Pile No. 5 ...... ................. 65

49 Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,Pile No. 6 ...... ................. 66

50 Location of In-Situ Tests at Load Test Site 68

51 Net Limit Pressure, Initial Modulus andReload Modulus Profiles ... ........... .. 69

52 Prebored TEXAM PMT Generated P-y Curves for42" R.C. Drilled Shafts, Pile Nos. 4,5,6 71

53 Driven CPMT Generated P-y Curves for 20""Square Concrete, Pile No. 3 .. ......... . 72

54 Prebored TEXAM PMT Generated P-y Curves for20" Square Concrete, Pile No. 3 ........ . 73

55 Prebored TEXAM PMT Generated P-y Curves for24" Non-displacement Steel Pipe, Pile No. 2 74

Viii -:

.' %

Figure Page ,SSS'.

56 Prebored TEXAM PMT Generated P-y Curves for36" R.C. Drilled Shaft, Pile No. 1 . . ... 75

57 Conventionally Prepared P-y Curves for 24".Non-displacement Pipe, Pile No. 2 ........ 77...

58 Conventionally Prepared P-y Curves for 36"-R.C. Drilled Shaft, Pile No. 1 . ....... 78

59 Definition of the Cyclic DegradationParameter for the Secant Shear Modulus . . . 79

60 Definition of the Cyclic Shear Modulus . . . 82

61 Definition of the Cyclic DegradationParameter for the Cyclic Shear Modulus . . . 82

62 Creep Response in the Prebored PMT Tests 83

63 Creep Response in the Driven CPMT Tests . . . 84 ..-

64 Summary of Method used to Modify a Static .

P-y Curve for Cyclic Predictions . ...... 86./ ,* - ",

65 Comparison of PMT Predicted, ConventionallyPredicted and Measured Response for Pile -

No. 1 under Monotonic Loading, S0 to 40 kip scale .... ............. . 87

66 Comparison of PMT Predicted, ConventionallyPredicted and Measured Response for Pile ,.No. 1 under Monotonic Loading,0 to 200 kip scale ............. 88

67 Comparison of PMT Predicted, Conventionally %Predictcd and Measured Response for PileNo. 2 -.der Monotonic Loading,0 to 40 kip scale .... .............. 90

68 Comparison of PMT Predicted, ConventionallyPredicted and Measured Response for PileNo. 2 under Monotonic Loading,0 to 200 kip scale .... ............. 91

69 Comparison of Measured and PMT Predicted .Monotonic Responses for Pile No. 3,0 to 40 kip scale .............. 92

70 Comparison of Measured and PMT PredictedMonotonic Responses for Pile No. 3,0 to 100 kip scale ............. 93

. . . . . . . . . , : ,,,

ix. ~,"'-,k

_m -~~~*A .' :.. . . , : ,- . - ,

Figure Page

71 Comparison of Measured and PMT PredictedMonotonic Responses for Pile Nos. 4,5,60 to 40 kip scale ... ............ .. 94 3

72 Comparison of Measured and PMT PredictedMonotonic Responses for Pile No. 4,5,60 to 200 kip scale ... ............ . 95

73 Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Response, APile No. 1 ................. 97

74 Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Respoi.se,Pile No. 2 ...... ................. 98

75 Driven CPMT Predicted Cyclic Response,Pile No. 3 ...... ................ 99

76 Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Response,Pile No. 3 .i................ 100

77 Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Response,Pile Nos. 4,5,6 ..... ............... . 101

78 Difference in Confinement Between the PMTProbe Expansion (A) and the Lateral Movementof a Pile (B) ..... ................ 103

.-

.i

4 ,

LIST OF TABLES

-a

Table Page

1 Geometry and Properties of the Test Piles . . 13

2 Measured Cyclic Percentage Increase inDisplacement from the Pile Load Tests . . . . 35 :v

3 Measured Secant Shear Modulus DegradationParameters ...... ................. 38

4 Pressuremeter Cyclic Degradation Parametersfor the Secant Shear Moduli ..... ......... 80

5 Comparison of Percent Increase in Deflectionwith Cycling: Predicted and Measured . . . . 102

6 Comparison of Measured and Predicted SecantShear Modulus Cyclic Degradation Parameters 106

xi"5 N

,4:.

-4',.

%p4

_nL_~

! Ti ~i-S

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Purpose

Six existing piles were readily available for lateral..V,

load testing. The purpose of this project was to subject

those six piles to cyclic horizontal loads and study the

corresponding accumulation of horizontal displacement.4

These load tests also provided a unique opportunity to study

the potential of the pressuremeter for predicting the res-

ponse of piles in sand subjected to cyclic horizontal loads. .-

Pressureete- tests offer an array of advantages over

present day metnods employed in the design of laterally-

loaded piles. The pressuremeter method allows site specific

P-y curves developed from point-by-point in-situ measurement

to be obtained, rather than curves derived from one or two •

measured soil parameters. The pressuremeter is a versatile

instrument and can be employed in virtually any soil type,

including those for which there ire no existing recommenda-

tions for the derivation of conventional P-y curves. The 0

pressuremeter allows the pile installation method to be

modelled directly: pre-bored pressuremeter tests for drilled

shafts and driven pressuremeter tests for driven piles. The

pressuremeter is also capable o- simulating the expected

pile loading conditions: sustained pressure increment tests,

unload-reload cyclic tests and iapid inflation tests yield

site-specific soil responses to creep loading, cyclic load-

ing and dynamic loading respectively.

These advantages over existing methods prompted this

project. The chief objective was to incorporate cyclic

loading effects into the derivation of P-y curves obtained

from pressuremeter tests in order to predict the response of

piles in sand subjected to cyclic lateral loading.

% %

1.2 Project Approach

This project was designed to allow for a comparison of

measured responses of piles in sand subjected to cyclic

lateral loading with predicted responses based on in-situ

pressuremeter tests. The project was divided into three

phases. In the first phase, a series of pressuremeter (PMT)

tests were performed at a site where six individual piles

had earlier been installed and load tested vertically. In

the second phase, the piles were load tested under cyclic

lateral loading and the responses were recorded. In the

final phase, predictions of the pile response were prepared

based on the PMT tests and the predictions were compared to

the measured results.

.9.

'.9'

I.

2. THE SITE AND THE SOIL A.-

. .. , .i

2.1 Test Site Location '.

The pile load test site was located on property under

the authority of the Texas State Department of Highways and

Public Transportation at the northern end of the Baytown-La . ..

Porte tunnel on State Highway 146 near Houston, Texas (Fig-

ure 1). The six piles were arranged in a triangular pattern

approximately 300 ft south of the tunnel maintenance build-

ing near Lagoon Number Three (Figure 2). The piles were

originally installed for vertical pile capacity load testing

in connection with the construction of a 100 million dollar S

cable-stayed bridge spanning the Houston ship channel at the

same location. ' A[

2.2 Soil Conditions and Stratigraphy

A variety of soil tests had been previously performed

at the site in conjunction with the vertical load testing of

the piles (Briaud Engineers, 1986). The soil was primarily ' '

composed of loose to medium dense fine sand in the upper 73 p

ft underlain by stiff to very stiff clay (Figure 3). A .-.

boring log with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results,

grain size analysis curves and cone penetrometer test re-

sults are presented in Figures 4 through 6 to complete the

documentation of the soil.

-- %.- %=

, .-. A",.

3 A,,'. I

q. '4

l ' UlitllI

mlil ~ il ii iA •

HOUSTONINTERCONTINENTALAIRPORT

1-45

TEST SITE

1-610 ~

146

FIGURE 1. Location of Test Site

4

%0

- --- ~ . A -. .) - V

BAYTOWN 0 600' 1200' -.

LaP ORTE ___________SCALE

MAINTENANCE pm

'V".'.

o

'.4

N

20' 8"1

101 311LEGEND

C3 20" SQUARE CONCRETE

Yl

L E24" STEEL PIPE PILE

®36" DRILLED SHAFT

42" DRILLED SHAFT

TEST SITE-'

FIGURE 2. Site Plan and Arrangement of Test Piles

5*1

LAGON NO 3 HY. .,5146 7

FINE SAND18, Loose to medium dense

N = 20bptPI* =23 ksf

51FIRM CLAY Su =0.6 ksf

FINE SANDLoose

N =l10bpfPI* 15 ksf

70FIRM CLAY S~ 3.0Oksf

FINE SAND N =29 bpf89 Medium dense PI* = 16 ksf

FINE SAND N =4S bnfDense P1* - 34 ksf

CLAYSti1ff to very stiff

40'Su = 3.3 ksf

P1* =37 ksf0

HARD CLAY Su =4.2ksf

11'DENSE SILT N =80 bpf

FIGURE 3. Soil Profile at Test Site e.

6

LOG OF BORING NO. 3NORTH LOAD TEST SITE • ',,

.CATION WAIR cov1w % UNDRAIP4. SKEAR TR2ING k

Houston Ship Channel ItLoad Test Site IL "I o %s o is SSURFACE EL I0~ _0 - 0a

-silty, gray ith shell lovers b o , I *

isI .

__ __ __ __ - .10 . P

Loose grb fine sno 15 %

6tr 10 wFsif0~e9~yC4 ~ **

ji *.t Clay 00CO@'.) and 34ais balm. M, % %

I , I

-w-.*Zi organjc .atter balm. 63' % %0

B Z .'=-'\

0 Frm to ery stiff oline gray"clay and

modan ci h l and s ad r eou ts 3.0

H . do-*@ Light gray fine sand .1,j°5-la.e. sand av. rs and clay s m I

10 %

DOens* ignt orown, fine sand

70~ 4- I 0

$ Stff relddisn aronn and light. gray Clay 13 %

eth sand aockets and Calcareous5I

so 4. Ts iBdios 70 to 30 0 %-

I , .. .I. .-.

-ta" and gray 93' to 18'15

90 &Ziff to ,ard *,'.n Sand = 100Anc I It & rt INS Doesm '0'6

-indis y~..,andqr. 98 o10

SS

0e~~~~~,~ %.n % ~.'~ . tn

7 00.

j L 'XMNA?".A N

LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (Conrc) 1NORTH LOAD TEST SITE

- WAhIE COStiff l. hiIIDA10ra 94IWI SThVMGO s,

I~~I P .6 %P.V

, srt~f tno hardhi e It. ore a"g y

- -

U 0 '. .m

-dt .dL&- twlss 108' 106 % P110 A

veystiff to hard light gry t y 114 -

! . 2 ... " 5.

'VI

oarti dffd oranic ntteI -

-. 4th. I&Wr poftets 0010- 14) '

--1U .. !:I,1.

ISO

zoo I.

FIGURE 4b. Test Site Boring Log, 100' to 150' '-0 ' %

% " '

r , .,- s 2. " ".

tUaeM AS -w lwe

t

- A1

II~1 IA IAt .

4c 3a~ V.

(UU

ItiMOM~ ~~ ~ AS-ti uoa

_ _ _ _ _~d

%__ __ _

_ - -

S - - ..... C.. *.k *k t n - a,..........$

V7.

£

7'.

S 7.7

~U 8 'M Ag a~~woo ~uOOJ% 7

-- p

.7'.2 ~ 2 2 2 2

I' -~IC7~~

I .1~"S4.7

- C 7

UI -

0 H- p7

C .~ ..~ -, C

N -

C~ U~ V~

~.J >-

I -~ SII ~:~~::: S

~.7

0 -

0 0 ~ .7.7w -I I 7. DII[

-.7 N -.7

.7

77

17 --4

0 _________________________ l~ I-.

* F

-p ____________ .~

.77 mm. 7.~ '.7'77 ______________ 7.

7' -

7' ~- ~-

S -4 .7

'.1* .- .71 0 --- .7

C' -

7 (.F *77

V. _____________________

* _________________ -____________________________

0

*7

~J~'~M .\~ JOUI~ UBZJQd

.7 I .7,5'

.777~*

7...

10 .7

.7.7

47*

4

7.'.

.-,-

0

FRICTION SLEEVE TIP RESISTANCE RATIO(TSF ITSF) (IZ

0.0 2.0 4.0 0 100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 %

I . _ _, - - _ ,

%.

4 _-_ 11- ,,-

U.--

7.-

969

F9GURE 6a. Test Site Cone Penetrometer Data: CPTI

S %

- -. %r

' " " " ",i, ,". " " '...., -. '.'.''. '. .. . -- ". _. ',...:,..- ....... '-%..J-.' ..... '.....#%-%- ,",",",S

FRICTION SLEEVE TIP RESISTANCE RRTIOTSF) (TSF) M ) "'

36 - - -I-

soo6 _" _ . "7:*1

, 5, I,

(D

U -- "-

70

: T l - R" tlb 'I t' t "

.4%

4.

4-.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :-. * -

3. THE PILES

3.1 Layout of the Piles

The six piles at the load test site were arranged in a 4'

triangular pattern as shown in Figure 7. This layout was

selected at the time the piles were installed to load test

vertically the three smaller piles on the legs of the tri-

angle. The three 42-in diameter shafts in the corners were

used for vertical reaction.

3.2 Geometry and Properties of the Piles

To accuately predict the response of laterally loaded .

piles, the geometry and flexural stiffness of the piles must S

be accurately represented. Correctly selecting the

properties of the piles in this study was complicated since

the piles had previously been stressed during the vertical

load tests. The geometry and properties which were selected

for use in the prediction process are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Geometry and Properties of the Test Piles ,

Pile ID Embedded AssumedNumber Description Lenth EI

(f) (Ib-in2 )

1 36" Diameter Reinforced 97 1.70x101 1Concrete Drilled Shaft

24" O.D., 5/8" Thick Steel 20 0.91x10 I "Pipe P4le (Open-ended)

3 20" Square Prestressed 98 0.16x10 I1

Concrete Pile "

4,5,6 42" Diameter Reinforced 128 1.80x10 I .Concrete Drilled Shaft

The 36-in diameter drilled shaft was subjected to axial

compression during the vertical load test. The flexural

stiffness assumed for the lateral load test predictions was •

set equal to the stiffness obtained using its cracked moment

of inertia. This method assumed that during lateral loading

of the pile the portion of the pile cross section in

compression transferred stresses to the concrete and to the

13

EXTENT OF 3-FT EXCAVATION

N0 feet

scale

CORING ALIGNMENTS

6 5P

PILE NO. TYPE

1 36" DIA. R.C. DRILLED SHAFT2 24" O.D. 5/8" THICK STEEL PIPE PILE

3 20" SQUARE PRESIRESSED CONCRETE PILE/4,5,6 42" DIA. R.C. DRILLED SHAFTS

FIGURE 7. Arrangement and 1.D. Numbers for theTest Piles

14

'Y N

steel reinforcement. The portion of the cross section in

tension, however, was assumed to carry all the stresses in

the steel reinforcement alone. The areas of the cross sec-

tion in compression and tension were assumed to be the comp-

ression and tension areas obtained when applying the allow-

able bending moment to the reinforced concrete section (Wang

and Salmon, 1979). For a previously unstressed pile these

assumptions may be considered to be conservative.

The 24-in pipe pile was assumed to have an elastic ". -.

modulus of 29 000 ksi. The moment of inertia selected for

the prediction process was based on the pile being complete- S

ly empty of any soil throughout its length due to the soil,. *

plug being drilled out after driving.

For the 20-in square prestressed concrete pile, the

stiffness calculation was further complicated by the fact

the square cross section was not aligned with the direction

of the horizontal load to be applied. The angle between the

horizontal load and the sides of the square cross section

was 260. The selected stiffness in Table 1 considered the

unusual angle of load application and was based on the

cracked moment of inertia as explained for the 36-in drilled

shaft. In all inertia computations, the prestressing

strands were assumed to carry stresses only in tension, and *

were not included in the computations for the portion of the

cross section in compression.

During the vertical load tests the three 42-in diameter _

reinforced concrete reaction shafts were subjected to axial

tension up to 1000 tons. In the calculations of their flex-

ural stiffness, the elastic modulus and the moment of iner-

tia were substantially reduced from the values that would be

assumed for a previously unstressed pile. This was neces- ..

sary to account for the inevitable tension crack formation

that must have occurred during the axial load tests.

15

* ~ *,,.....,,.%.V%

1

.,,

$

I|

4. THE LATERAL LOAD TESTS F..

4.1 Site Preparation

The site had been backfilled following completion of S

the vertical load tests, necessitating excavation before

performance of the lateral load tests. The boundaries of

the excavation can be seen on the pile layout in Figure 7.

The depth of the excavation was approximately 3 ft, allowing

sufficient clearance for setting up the loading apparatus .

and the displacement gages support frame. A..

4.2 Loading Apparatus and Pile Preparation

The lateral loading of the piles was achieved using the .,-

system depicted in Figure 8. Each pile was cored horizon- .a..'

tally to allow a length of 1-3/8 in, 150 ksi Dywidag-

threadbar to be passed through the pile's central axis. The

cored holes through each pile in the corner of the triangu-

lar layout were aligned with the cored holes through the

pile on the opposite leg of the triangle (Figure 7). AS

length of threaded bar was passed through the cored hole of -

a corner pile and a 200-kip load cell was screwed onto the

end of the bar near the center of the triangular layout. .

Another bar, passing through the pile on the opposite leg of

the triangle, was screwed onto the other end of the load

cell. Steel reaction pads were placed over the threaded

bars behind the piles to distribute the lateral load over a

wider area and the threaded bar was locked with a nut behind .

one of the two piles. A 200-kip hollow-core hydraulic jack

was locked behind the opposite pile around the threaded bar.

As the jack was expanded, the tensile force in the threaded -.

bar pulled the two piles towards each other. The load cell ."

measured the horizontal load applied to each pile.

Dial gages were securely attached to an independently

supported displacement measuring frame. Deflections were

measured at two points on each pile: one point below the

17

200 KIP HYDRAULIC HOLLOW-CORE JACK DISPLACEMENT MEASURING FRAME

42" DIA. R.C. DRILLED SHAFT 9" TRAVEL DIAL CAGE3" TRA,, VEL DIAL GAGE.: T1 PL~DISPLACEMENT MEASURING FRAME

DYWIDAG NUT "._ CORED HOLE 1 DYWIDAG-TIIREAIJBAR

0 %'

A = Distance from line of loading to top dial gage

B = Distance from line of loading to bottom dial gage

C = Distance from line of loading to ground surface

S

Pile I.D. A B CNo. * (in.) (in.) (in.)

1 24.75 (4.25) 3.5

2 11.56 4.94 8.4 .'.!

3 21.06 8.06 10.0 .-

4 10.0 2.0 3.5

5 11.88 4.56 8.4

6 8.5 9.38 10.0

* See Figure 7.

•* Above line of loading

FIGURE 8. Horizontal loa0d Application nd .

D iop I acement Measur ing System

%

,-

% % - .%, % %.%

axis of loading close to the groundline and one above the

axis of loading. This allowed the deflection and the slope

at the groundline to be obtained. The position of the dis- --

placement measuring frame was checked with a transit before

and after each load test to guarantee that there was no

movement of the frame during testing. The locations of the

dial gages and the line of loading are shown on Figure 8.

4.3 General Loading Scheme

The loading scheme for each test followed the same

general pattern. Loads were applied in five kip increments.

After each increment, displacement readings were taken imme- A

diately and at one minute intervals for five minutes as the

load was maintained. Two load levels were selected during

each test to perform 20 unload-reload cycles. The cycles

were performed under load-control conditions. After reach-

ing the first chosen load level, the displacements were

recorded during the first five minutes as the load was main-

tained. The load was then decreased to near zero by com-

pletely relaxing the jack. Displacements and load readings

were recorded after two minutes and the original cyclic load

level was reapplied. A new set of readings were then re-

corded after an additional two minutes; the cyclic period

was thus four minutes. After ten cycles, the bottom, lower

load, of each cycle was increased to half of the top cyclic

load level. After twenty cummulative cycles, the five-kip, Vs

five-minute inccemental loading was resumed. When the sec-

ond chosen cyclic load level was reached, the load was

cycled between the chosen load level and one-half of the

chosen load level for the first ten cycles and then between

the chosen load level and near zero load for the last ten

cycles. After completion of the second series of cycles the

five-kip, five-minute incremental loading was resumed and

continued until the end of the test.

4.4 Results of the Lateral Load Tests

Tabulated results of the lateral load tests are pre-

19

I . . - * ' . U L i I . -. - - . _ :. - , t a .- -- . -- . 1

sented in Appendix A. Lateral loads versus horizontal de-

flections of the piles are presented graphically in Figures

9 through 20. The displacements are those measured by the

lowest dial gage for each pile, as described in Section

4.2. Two graphs are presented for each pile: one showing J

the entire response range during the load test and another

detailing the cyclic response.

4.4.1 Monotonic response envelopes

Curves enveloping the response of the piles to incre-

mental loading intervals are presented as monotonic response

envelopes in Figures 21 and 22. These curves yield a con-

servative estimate of each pile's behavior under strictly

monotonic incremental loading. In reality, the responses

for identical piles not subjected to the two series of

cycles would likely be stiffer. This can be substantiated

by observing the pronounced permanent displacements experi-

enced by each pile during cyclic loading in the case where

the load was decreased to almost zero load (Figures 9

through 20). Furthermore, the concrete piles were subjected

to increased crack propagation during the cyclic series (see

Section 6) effectively reducing their stiffness as the tests

progressed.

The monotonic response envelopes allow comparisons

between the piles to be made. The three 42-in diameter

drilled shafts reponded within a narrow range of values,

showing consistency within the testing method, shaft con-

struction and soil properties. They proved to have the

stiffest response, followed by the 36-in diameter drilled

shaft, the 24-in diameter steel pipe pile and finally the

* 20-in square prestressed concrete pile. )

One of the 42-in diameter drilled shafts failed during

the load tests (Pile No. 6). This premature failure re-

fle;ts the damage incurred by the reaction shafts during the

vertical load tests discussed in Section 3.

20

I_'

2001 1 I I I I I I I I I I

175 PILE #i

150

U'125

100

100 Drilled ShaftFlo 36 inch Dia. /~

wI< 75 77'SN

N = 21 blows/f t.

P= 3.3 ksf25 Pi=3 s

0 12 3 4

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 9. Measured Response from CyclicLateral Load Test for Pile No. 1,0 to 200 Kips Scale.

21

zJ

PILE #1

. . .... - ....

75

</a 50--

I-

25 -- ,"

SERILLED SHAFT

:" . 36 INCH DIAMETER .,

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 -/

DEFLECT ION (INCHES)

''%,

FIGURE 10. Measured Response from Cyclic" ',.Lateral Load Test for Pile No. 1,Cly _ling Detail, 0 to 100 Kips Scale.

22

I%',S

1 -.

6*c'-.-.". °4 -. 4- . , . .,".-- ' . .'% . . . % ' '. . % ,' ,' ' .' ".'-' . *' ,' "-. . . . ". -","",'.. . . % % '4. w %. 4.. . . ./ . ,. # . ,- . ,. ._. # ,. . .. W. . ,W,,,. * . . .-. ., ., W . . . . . .

_ -I ,-, - I ,o, w * . , ,444., 4"44I~l k'lilk~li . . ...

.- .r.-,,. ,.-

- ..- V

175 PILE #2

Ap

"d -50-..

U 125CL

.'.".

a 10 Steel Pipe Pile_1 . /,.. 24 inch Dia.••.

I- -? -. "hu0625inc wall.~ ,

< 7-

N = 21 blows/ft. .Pr' = 20 ks-

".% .**.CLAY! ,9' Su= 3.3 ksf <.

r ~~P*= 36 ksft. .,

a * I I a I * a "° - -0 1 2 3 4 ,',. ,. ..

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

,-. 4 '."

FIGURE 11. Measured Response from Cyclic LateralLead Test for Pile No. 2, 0 to 200Kips Scale.

23

.........

."4"/

-' 4 p.**'.~*,1'~ ... 'E'.d. . .1 4g.> . * 4~ %~,%~~ .4 p. ~.p.p. 'p.. 'p.54p p.~p.' .,..* * .. -' - 4 ' " ... :-.-'p.

-a -A. 4/ - - .vJ~,70

" 60 PILE #2* "

50,

'-' S7U)I

.~ 40 ..

< 30 "

W I

20

STEEL PIPE PILE

1 024 INCH DIAMETER

101

-,0 1* "-

0 .2 .4 .6 .8

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 12. Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral

Load Test for Pile No. 2, Cvclin-Detail, 0 to 70 Kips Scalp.

24 /%V

200

Prestressed Concrete

175 20 inch square%

ISO

V) 125 9 =3. s%

Pt*=36 kst

0

4C 750

so1

PILE #7 "

0 1J, 2 34

FIGURE 13. Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral

Load Test for Pile No. 3, 0 to 200

Kips Scale.

25

-~~~~~~~ ..---------------------------------------------...- - - - - - - --.

700

70p

60 PILE #3

50-

(n/a.

40 1.

0/<~ 30

wI

/ .2 .4.S. 1

20LCTO (INCHES)UR --

FS -IR 4 esrdRspnefo V1CTaea

LoadTestfor ileNo. , C-clciigS

Deal o7 isSae

O~~~ %2 .4 8 .

200

17S PILE #4.

ISO

15S

-- e

0 1200.

o2 inch Di

N ='e Shaft s ft

44

2S U21;Pl* /1 36 kst

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 13. Measured Response fernm Cyclic LateralLoad Test for Pile No. 4, 0 to 200Kips Scale.

27

/ II liC

100

PILE #4

75

a-p

0 50

2 IC D

~ 0

,, -l

--.

-2INH IAETR p

,

0 .2 3 4 5

DEFLECTION (INCHES)-C

FIGURE 16. measured Response from cyclic Lateral

Load Test for Pile No. 4, Cycling Detail,

0 to '00 Kips Scale.

28

NJ'. w

I .... . _ _ .t

175 PILE #5

ISO

• , '* .,r

125

a. *lI "

!/

C

a 100

<~ Drilled Shaft

w 0 --- 'I ' I ' ' 'l I | I I I I ."":"'

< 75

/S

150 /-,""".

25 -

Pl*=36 ksf

o O0 %_1__Drilled____Shaft____.____.__-...__,

0-- " I a I I

0 .5 1 1.5

I ' \•

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 17. Maasured Response from Cyclic LateralLoad Test for Pile No. 5, 0 to 200Kips Scale.

--29 9".-%

O .5 . 5 . F

F%%*FGURE* 17~..* M*sue Respons fro Cy li Laea "...'-..

70 0

60* %.

80<V

7 0 PIES

42 INC DIMEE

0 .2 .3. 4

/ELCTO (ICHS

0 40 80 KisSae

< 30

200 , ' * "

Drilled Shaft

175 42 inch Dia.

73 SAND

150 N- 21 blows/ft.

PI" = 20 ksf

L) 125 * CLAY 0I. F Su= 3.3 ksf ." "

Pl*= 36 ksf

.J

p

~PILE #6

o 100 -.. '. ,

I l

m..

,

- .:- .2SS

0

DEFLECTION INCHES)

.

FIGURE 19. Measured Response from Cyclic

Lateral

-..

A .,

Load Test for Pile

No. 6, 0 to 200

Kips Scale.

31

%.% %

.0

70

PILE #5/

so Od-ai

a./

//-4

x 40

D // -". .30

-J Iw

I- / -.'

20 8 / DRILLED SHAFT

/m 42 INCH DIAMETER

10

5 €.g". I,. .

U. *.. • . . .

0 .1.2 .3

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 20. Measured Response from Cyclic Lateral .

Load Test tor Pile No. 6, Cycling Detail,0 to 70 Kips Scale.

32

mS

200

175 PILE NO. 4 1%In

S./ 0 0 3

150~~ + V/ / //1jo 4. o" .- . :

,c + //

L" 125 + *

- ,x + , _

/2

o 20" SQUARE CONCRETE.

"/ * 24" PIPE PILE

://

0 36" DRILLED SHAFT".,--20 x, .4" DRILLED SHAFT.00

0 1 2 :3 -:"

DEFLECTION (INCHES)•

FIGURE 21. Monotonic Response Envelopes Measured :.

During Pile Load Tests, Full Range Scale. ,'£

% %

33 2"-E NE

50 / ~ 4" PIPPILE

, , .(

$, X,,O,,. ,-,;-w..,:,,..-,),:,..,-,,-,,..;...,.0:. 36"v .....-.;... DRILLED;.--.....:...-.;:. . -..vSHAFT....-..... .:... .---. .. . , t l m l l l~ " " •" '"-I 'l/eli" n ' ;''' '

40 /.~~- . . ,I,,

40

MI 25 x

C L J

0 20-

/11/- 20" SOUARE CONCRETE-

15 * 24" PIPE PILE

"36"1 DRILLED SHAFT

x #542" DRILLED SHAFT

10 1 1 [t

.,

0 .1 .2 .3 .4

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 22. Monotonic Response Envelopes Mea.sured '1

During Pile Load Tests, 0 to 40 Kips

Scale.

34

['.- , . ...... ., . • • . ."," " •- ."• " ". ". ". ". "..": .- ." " " ","".""."",""."", ." "" "" "" 7 >.' -' '.''. :.' .' ."",,' ,,' ,,' .,'.'.'.'1'£.,.''.',",7. '." '

4.4.2 Cyclic response and degradation

The cyclic response of the piles is presented in two

different ways: 1. as percentage inc:ease in displacement

after cyclic loading, and 2. in terms of cyclic degradation

of the secant and cyclic shear stiffnesses.

The percentage increase in displacement was measured as

shown in riguie 2-. Table 2 lists the iacrL-ase ii, displace-

ment after 10 and 20 cycles for each pile at each cyclic

load level. Several observations concerning the pile's

responses may be made from the tabulation.

TABLE 2. Measured Cyclic Percentage Increase in Displacementfrom the Pile Load Tests

First Cycling Level Secord Cycling LevelPileID No. Description Load % Increase in Displacement Load % Increase in Displacement

(kips) a 10 cycles 2 20 cycles (kips) @ 10 cycles @ 20 cycles '

1 36" Drilled 55 51.1 66.9 80 17.9 35.4Shaft

2 24" Pipe Pile 40 24.9 34.1 60 15.2 25.9

3 20" Square 30 22.3 27.9 50 26.4 43.1Concrete

4 42" Drilled 55 55.4 72.7 80 17.8 28.3Shaft %

5 42" Drilled 40 41.7 56.0 60 19.5 34.1Shaft

6 42" Drilled 30 48.1 79.6 50 11.5 17.9Shaft *-

The four reinforced concrete drilled shafts suffered -

significantly more loss in pile-soil stiffness during the

first cyclic series than the steel pipe or prestressed con-

crete pile. This greater loss probably reflects the rapid

deterioration in the piles' flexural stiffness as the con- ,.

cret, experiences crack propagation, and the more compressi-

ble soil left by the drilling process at the concrete/soil

interface. At the second, higher, cyclic load level, the

relative increase in displacements with increasing number of

35

A-. .,-.%. I

.wr

% INCREASE . x 100%

Y°i.

CYCLE 1

N CYCLE N

DISPLACEMENT

!

~~FIGURE 23. Percentage Increase in Displacement

Calculation.

" 36

-4.

55

cycles was much lower. This difference may be explained as

follows. During the first series of cycles the piles' flex-

ural stiffness deterioration contributed significantly to

the total pile-soil stiffness response. In the second

cyclic series, as the piles' flexural stiffness was reaching

a limiting value and since the sand had been stiffened by

the first series of cycles, the cyclic deterioration of the

pile-soil stiffness was much less. As an example, notice

that pile 4 was cycled at 55 kips and experienced an in-

crease in displacement of 72.7% after 20 cycles, whereas .oM

pile 6 cycled at 50 kips experienced only a 17.9% increase

in displacement. The significant difference was that the 55

kips cycling level was the first cyclic series for pile 4

and the 50 kips cycling level was the second cyclic series

experienced by pile 6, occurring after a cyclic series at a

load level of 30 kips.

The prestressed 20-in square concrete pile and the

steei pip( pile did not exhibit the same behavior. Pre- %

stressing of the 6quare concrete pile enabled it to resist

the effects of crack propagation by keeping a larger portion

of the pile cross-section in compression during the lateral

loading. As a result, the percentage increase in d iplace-

ments of the prestressed concrete pile duplicate more close-

ly the behavior of the steel pipe pile during the first

series of cycles. At the second cyclic load level, the

prestressed concrete pile showed a significant increase in

relative displacement during the last ten cycles. At this

load level, the internal bending moment within the pile was

probably of sufficient magnitude to put a large portion of

the concrete cross-section into tension, causing crack prop-

agation and the associated loss in pile stiffness.

Very little loss in pile stiffness alone was expectedin the 24-in diameter steel pipe pile load test, especially

at low load levels. It is reasonable to assume then, that

37

the majority of the relative increase in displacement due tocyclic loading is the result of the soil stiffness degrada-

tion. This assumption seems to be reinforced when comparing

the response of the 24-in diameter pipe at the 60-kip load

level with the response of the drilled shafts during the

second series of cycles. Indeed, all the values are rela-

tively close to one another.

Another method used to evaluate the effect of cyclic

loading on the pile-soil stiffness was to evaluate the de-

gradation of the piles secant stiffness K as describedS(N)in Figure 24. The cyclic degradation parameter "a" is de-

fined as the negative slope of the best fit line through the

points plotted on the graph of the relative secant stifiness

S(N)/Ks() , versus the cycle number, N, on a log-log scale

(Figure 24). The "a" values obtained from the pile load

tests are presented in Table 3. The actual relativc secant

stiffness degradation plots are presented in Figures 25 '5

through 30.

TABLE 3. Measured Secant Shear Modulus Degradation Parameters

Too "a" ValuesPile Cyci icID No. Description Load,H Reload Reload Average Average Overall .

(kips) 9 H/2 near 0 1st Level 2nd Level Average

1 36" Drilled 55 0.064 0.098 0.091 0.086 ,

Shaft 80 0.046 0.136 0.081.1%

2 24" Pipe Pile 40 0.069 0.061 0.065 0.06260 0.038 0.081 0.059

. 3 20" Square 30 0.031 0.045 0.038 0.063Concrete 50 0.067 0.109 0.088

4 42" Drilled 55 N.095 0.090 0.093 0.080Shaft 80 0.044 0.091 0.068

5 42" Drilled 40 0.066 0.080 0.073 0.073Shaft 60 0.049 0.096 0.073

6 42" Drilled 30 0.082 0.092 0.087 0.068Shaft 50 0.030 0.068 0.049

Averages 0.057 0.087 0.075 0.070 0.072

38

j&%

0--- M'a

I.H

4N.1

0

Relative Displacement, v/R

Z slope -a

Ks(N) = -aN,...

l

10 100 1000-%%Cycle Number, N

FIGURE 24. Cyclic Parameters Definition (After Makarim and Briaud,1986).

39

oI

- e. 't. 'Ple~~

op

LLpitp

0 -0

b-w

0r-i u%

0* u

L0

V

(1) )4/ N) *

-40

iq

(.I.% %.

ofo >ulu

0 cI,-

L2z z, I. J 5 ~..,,-,

I - ..IJ '.vV

.. -"! 11. .2 l- ". ..

- ,J " U '

(nt LLU)f,,,0,.* .. -,,"

C ~~~ILl ""'-:

1) •

~.-. ,J.

,I , , ,... ,, , -,. ._,. , . . .. :- ,- .. : . . . +. . .. . . .- .. . . . .. .. . . . ; . . .,, . . . , .. . . . .. ..,,,, r,-" " )-

C rL.

cww

Cu '.- .*.

>

w Ucr u '

U 0 z 0C 0

aa.

cru EOW >.

LLU Li u

w

b-4p

OLS

I P0e

oD -M (N-)

- 42

.1 J

OD0

0 -0

w L L5 .10

C3 U -1W> 0

0j zzS

0* a

0* '-cnO .

0*

0

w cU)

0*

0*00

CN

o i l 1 - 1 1

(1) IDA/ (N)) ON

43 a

<r wx 5% >~

(n > w

-i z %

II wCuu

U -

in o -i

0I tL> I I

0* >-P

0*) OX N)O

0*4-

0-4S

w >

>w >w -iwJ

wS

_j ZSU

C3 U..1 -J

0 C.)

o0 LL U)W

0 '

0 0 )uJu

ta I.-

ILN

(1) M/ () 9S

45.

When comparing the "a" values, it becomes clear that

cycling with total unloading causes greater degradation than

cycling with only partial unloading (one-half of the top

load). This may be the result of greater inward yielding of

the soil as the pile is passed through a greater range of

displacements.

Also evident from the "a" values is that the first

series of cycles were generally more damaging than the fol-

lowing series. This behavior was true for all except the

20-in square prestressed concrete pile. As discussed ear-

lier, a probable reason for the greater degradation in the

first cyclic series of the concrete drilled shafts is the %decrease in the piles' flexural stiffness. The prestressing

in the square concrete pile postponed the crack propagation

until the second series of cycles. However, the steel pipe

pile also had less degradation during the second series of

cycles with "a" values of 0.065 and 0.059 respectively.

Assuming that the flexural stiffness of the steel pipe pile

itself suffered little or no degradation, it would appear

that the soil stiffness also suffers less degradation at the

higher load level. The first series of cycles may have

caused a slight densification of the soil in front of the .

pile.

The cyclic stiffness for the pile KC(N), as defined in

Figure 31, showed little or no degradation within each por-

tion of the cyclic loading where the difference between the

upper and lower loads was constant (Figures 32 through 37). .

The cyclic stiffnesses were stiffer for cycling where the

magnitude of the difference was one-half of the upper load

level. This is to be expected from a non-elastic medium.

4.4.3 Creep response

Taking readings every minute for five minutes after

reaching a specified load allowed observation of the creep

response of the piles. These responses are presented in

140*

H .----. --

".q.,,2R-f

H -. .-',.-.YI

KC( 1 ) .' .,

,, K (N)

-j-

oO1 /"

0N

Y/R

10

KC(N) N-bKc(1) N

slope -b 0z

1 10 100

CYCLE NUMBER, N -"-"

FIGURE 31. Cyclic Shear Modulus Parameters Definition. .

47

N. , i .. 'Z.

'

0 z 0

...... ,....

pill ..I , 0

< J

T zo>

o- -j

I R I. - .- 4.0 X...

u C2

w,. . .2 az Lz

0* b4 in 5

x R

(D-* o .ILL 0 ,

0: 1 -0 u0*

- -- "I

0*L

•0.- .- ,

Q*Q

( 1) OM/ (N) ON

48

J.

". ". '. * " " " " % ". " ' " " . . . . ". ". ". • %, ". ". " ' " . ..'. " " " " '- "- "- " " " % " 5 " -" ' j .,"

." . * " dm,,_ " ,' " ' ,* d" ." ." .r.,, , . ,, * ° -,'.-" " ' " - ." " /',, 'q." ,,., r ." .= . w J' " '" ".' , '4 " " -".."', ,," ,,- A' 4 .r .

w 0-4

w -5-.-w J a

a. u

45

_j z w-

w >U

00j1-z0

1)U 0)4 (N)M

49 ~ >

1 1

oJ W

> W

w 0

U3 J c

3: U 0r -z

u ..

ZW'-4

fJ L u 0

liii I I iii

500

% .*N,

LL~<'

X: w

cn >w 4o

rum. *i r-l; ,

40

C.) Al

00 C..)'

*0 -u 0 z'

00

4-4N

IA %~

eSo

C5 .. . .. . .

L.L

T -w

U) >

* 0 >-L

*0 LI z*P 0

c* o 0 Z0 rj-wL

CLi

*Al I I

(1 OX (N 0>

52)

47knK .-w IJ V--,

p-fl

c;~

LL0wI-

s~U > Wui * w~

c u0o uL

0 -t L -

0 -.

0

~-. 1 - !

Figures 38 through 43. These figures show the values Sn/So,

the displacement at time Tn divided by the displacement at

time T o when the load was initially applied, plotted as a00

function of the values Tn/To on a log-log scale. The slope

of each line may then be defined as the creep exponent n:

(Tn= (1)

[' s o T o -

Values of n are plotted against the lateral load in Figures

44 through 49. From these figures it can be seen that the

creep exponent for two of the 42-in diameter drilled shafts

(Piles 4 and 5) dropped from an initially high value to a

fairly stable value of about 0.02. The creep exponent for

the third 42-in diameter drilled shaft (Pile 6) dropped

similarly at first down to the 0.02 level, but then began to

climb as the test progressed. The initial high creep may

not only be a reflection of initial soil creep, but also the

creep associated with crack propagation in the cc,. :Lete

piles. The stabilization of the n value aroung 0.02 indi-

cates that the cracking had stabilized. The upward turn in

the n values for pile 6 is indicative of the impending pile

failure at 90 kips.

The 36-in diameter drilled shaft behaved similarly to

the 42-in diameter drilled shafts, with the values of n

dropping initially and stabilizing around 0.015. The steel

pipe pile and square prestressed concrete pile had much

lower initial n values. This is consistent with the theory

that the high initial creep for the drilled shafts relects

creep associated with crack propagation in the concrete.

I'he prestressed concrete pile reached a critical creep

load at 90 kips. At this sustained load the increase in

deflection began to rise rapidly (Figure 46).

V.

S.I

PIE#1: 36" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

CREEP RESPONSF

0a

0a

ca

Lo,

...............

Tn/ 7o

,:IG:RE 8. easued reepPil

C5 5

I ar .

PILE #2: 24" O.D. STEEL PIPE PILE

CREEP RESPONSE

0.

c.

7n/To

FIGURI" 49

PILE #13: 20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED PILE

CREEP RESPONSE

0/

I

FIGURE 40. Measured Creep Response, Pile No. 3.

57

z~/.;.4;;'v.;;~~% 8 .S % %, %v~~

PILE #f4: 42" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

~CREEP RESPONSE _.

°'

0Uj

N.;

! ,.

.,

! .

_. .. = , , ' .' .'_ '_. _. -. .' .. _ _.' .. .'_ ' . . - . # . . . .. . . , . . " . " , - . ,, -. -. , . .. ,,",- ,.' .- # . . ,. , ,, . . . -,, • ",,, ._" = . I II d • d ... ... ii

PILE #15: 42" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

CR1ELr RheS±ONSE

0. %

W .~

- -V

Tri/ To.

FIUR 42 Mesre repRspne Pl: o

(41 ata-V59

PILE #~6: 42tr R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

CREEP RESPONSE

06

- . --.t - - - . - - r- -T T -.

PILE #1: 36" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

.125 CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE

TO LOAD LEVEL .

.075

w

w0

W '" .4

.05

*%

05

FIUR 44. Cre0xoetRsos oLa

Level, Pile No. 1.

61

4J .. .4 * .'.

I '.

PILE #2: 24" O.D. STEEL PIPE PILE

CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE125--

TO LOAD LEVEL -

r"--

z

zCL.075

X

CL

05101

0... *

U ..

0 50 100 150 2C0

HORIZONTAL LOAD (kips)

FIGURE 45. Creep Exponent Response to Load Leveil,

V Pile No. 2.

.o .62

-**" 4".

O *' ,, I. , , I4, ,-'"

" 62

.2, -,.

.% 21I.

PILE #}3: 20" SQUARE

PRESTRESSED PILE

. 125

CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE TO

LOAD LEVEL..

-0.15 1 I* " ,

L .075

125•

..1

.025. .-. '

0 50 100 V150 200 .. .

HORIZONTAL LOAO (ips)E

FIGURE 46. Creep Exponent Response to Load Level, .,,-

Pile No. 3.- -

% le

z.:$

mw

.-- , ,- -. ' " ' -' -- --

PILE #4: 42" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

125 .CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE

TO LOAD LEVEL '

." .i

%

t- .075

8. ', ( -

.. IX

• ,-

. 025 - - '

z "

0 50 100 15 0 2CC "

HORIZONTAL LOAD (kips) .

FIGURE 47. Creep Ex-ponent Response to Load Level, "-Pile No. 4.

h'

w O

I ,. , , ',

a' ,

t"

-* '

'"". . s e-."-. -.. ..- - - - - ---- , " - - - ,..- . - - - - -- . .

.. .

PILE #5: 42" R.C. DRILLED SHAFTS

CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE•125TO LOAD LEVEL

.1 0 75

0_. 079 ;%

wu j

.02504 ---._ -

.025 44 4* *-.,_. .,

4% %

0 , I I , , L ~I -L, , -.V

0 90 100 150 200

HORIZONTAL LOAD (kips)

FIGURE 48. Creep Exponent Response to Load Level,

Pile No. 5.

65

15 i,, , , , - , , ' , , , ,..

PILE #6: 42" R.C. DRILLED SHAFT

CREEP EXPONENT RESPONSE '. .*

125TO LOAD LEVEL

c4

wZ ,z0CL .074w %..

w

.05

.025 ,

0 I , I I , , I , , ,

0 50 100 150 2C,

HORIZONTAL LOAD (kips)

FCIURfE 49. Cree? Ep xponen t Respnse to K.<hid L v ,, . e

pile No. ...

74'

66

?J•!

5. THE PRESSUREMETER TESTS ,.,, .'?.-

5.1 PMT Tests at the Site

Two series of pressuremeter tests were conducted prior Oto the lateral pile load tests and one series of tests af-

terwards. The first series was conducted in conjunction

with the vertical pile load tests and consisted of prebored

pressuremeter tests using the TEXAM PMT system (Briaud Engi-

neers, 1986). This test series was performed in June 1986

and included two cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings, but

did not include any cyclic or creep tests. The second ser-

ies, performed in December 1986, included both prebored

TEXAM PMT and driven cone-pressuremeter (CPMT) tests with .-

cyclic and creep tests under pressure-controlled conditions.

These tests were concentrated within the upper layers of the

soil which have the greatest impact on the response of lat-

erally loaded piles. The third series, performed in January

1987, was also composed of both prebored TEXAM PMT and driv-

en CPMT tests. The tests were conducted after the lateral

load testing of the piles to investigate the changes in the

soil response following the pile load tests.

The locations of the tests are indicated on the summary

of in-sitL tests shown in Figure 50. Corrected pressureme- - Ster curves for the cyclic PMT tests used in this report are

included in Appendix B.

5.2 PMT Moduli and Net Limit Pressure

The pressuremeter first load moduli, reload moduli and

net limit pressure profiles for the site are presented in

Figure 51. When compared to the data from the other geo- -

technical investigators (presented in Section 2) it can be

seen that the PMT data confirms the general stratigraphy •

shown in Figure 3.

5.3 Prebored TEXAM PMT and Driven CPMT Test Results

The PMT tests performed prior to the lateral pile loadtests were used to generate the monotonic P-y curves for

w-e .. . . ..,- -

- I

Scale:

( B3 )B2 *'

o" -5'

B4T N P0

Test ..,'Hole PMT Type Date '"

Btl T EXAM 12 /86 .B2 Prebored 1187 ,.

B3 PMT1 1/87 ,

74

DI Drivyen 1/87 " .D2 CPMT 1/87

BI B4 TE2AM 6/86

CP'T 1 _ 6/8{6

.44, .

CPT26/8

A . T .citioi) of In-,Itu et ;Ls it Ioid '1pt'

68_ _*4.4

Dl Diven 1/87.r

' . % . , .. . % % % "*4 % %4

0

oor0%

00

each of the pile types and the cyclic degradation and creep

response exponents.

5.3.1 PMT generated P-y curves

The procedure for generating P-y curves from pressure- -

meter data is described in detail by Little and briaua

(1987). Generally, the process uses the analogy between the

pressuremeter probe's expansion into the in-situ soil and

the horizontal displacement of a laterally loaded pile. It

provides a series of curves defining the total resistance to

lateral displacement that may be expected during lateral

loading of a pile within each layer of the soil stratigra-

phy. These curves are plots of the total soil resistance .-

per unit length of pile, P, against the lateral pile dis-

placement within each stratum, y.

The P-y curves generated from the pressuremeter tests

at the load test site are presented in Figures 52 through

56. The first family of curves (Figure 52) were generated

for the three 42-in diameter drilled shafts from the pre-1

bored TEXAM PMT test results. The P-y curves correspond

relatively well to the site stratigraphy as shown in Figure

3. Recalling that the site had b'en excavated three ft

before performance of the lateral load tests, the P-y curvesincrease in stiffness until a depth cf 15 ft. This depth

coincides with the first layer of firm clay. The P-y curves

in the fine sand layers from 18 to 58 ft are clustered toge-

ther. The soil resistance shows a marked increase in the

dense sand layer 65 ft below the surface, and drops off in

the clay layer below 75 ft.

Two different families of P-y curves were produced for

the square prestressed concrete pile (Pile 3). Both sets

assumed that the pile was a full displacement driven pile.

The first set (Figure 53) was generated by using the driven

CPMT test results down to 17 ft and using the prebored TEXAM

PMT reload curves below 17 ft (Little and Briaud, 1987)

a.. C

%

ISO %

96' 5

125 1

Q

IN 100 .-. *-

a.

w

< 7575

-30

o 5041.

25 -15

0

0 2 46

Y -DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)

1,'RF E2. Preboreci TXAM PMT Gencr Itud P-v (Aurves fo~r

"Id 0.

7 7

7% %-

% -

17'

-' 757

IN9

< 5~

I-i

<25' __-

a_ 25 30----

4~ 1'

I I j5V

y - DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)

FU;URE 53. DriLven C.PMT Gener ated P-'- to 20r

Square Cocre te, Pi 1 e No. 3.

el

7 2

1 0 0 % i I I * "

I%

96'A

'O

*J. -JLLA

I-* 75 . '-A-.

U96

CL

-5 107 '

Lfl 7 1 '

0. 530 "., .."75''

a. 25,

"-" ' "" '" '-..

15 ' ,.

A'--",."

I- 0

Y - ISPLACEMENT (INCHES)"'""

FIGURE 54. Prebored. TEXAM PMT Generated P-v Curves '.,-.-

for 20" Square Concrete, Pile No. 3. #j

.A-'

= . . ''' . '.'"%"""w , ' - ' ' ' , ' ' 2 , o ' ". . " z . . .' .. - . ' ,_ ' ' "..,...=-U-,,, -. ,., , , %

100

96'

75

0LL.N

11,

Li

z 71s

U,

25' 1'

CL 25S4

0 i

2'

Y DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)

F UR F 537. Preored IiEQ\ M PMT Generaited P-vCor 24'' Noii-iij,)I acemont Steel Pipe

74

,NAN N N' %' %'*

- 7y,- . -

a.,

96'125

IL'.100

U,0

z 71< 75 AI-

C3 SO

I-P

00 34

for '16 R - D i l d h f , Pi e N . 1

255

The second set (Figure 54) was generated using only the

prebored TEXAM PMT reload curves. As can be seen in Figures -p

53 and 54 the driven CPMT tests generally lead to stiffer P-

y curves.

The P-y curves for the pipe piit (Figure 55) were gen-

erated using the prebored TEXAM PMT test results and assum-

ing that the pile was a non-displacement pile. This assump-

tion is consistent with the fact that the pile did not plug

until a significant depth. Therefore, at least in the more

important shallow depth region, the pile acted as a non-

displacement pile.

The P-y curves for the 36-in diameter drilled shaft

(Figure 56) were also generated from the prebored TEXAM PMT

test results.

The P-y curves for the 24-in diameter pipe pile and the

36-in diameter drilled shaft prepared using the conventional

method (Reese et al., 1974) are shown in Figures 57 and 58. .

These curves were prepared by McClelland Engineers (1986).Compared to the PMT P-y curves, the conventional P-y curves

show a much softer initial response and a lower ultimatesoil resistance within the critical upper layers of the

soil,

5.3.2 Cyclic degradation parameters

The cyclic degradation parameter, a, for the pressure-

meter tests represents the degradation of the secant PMT

shear modulus with increasing cycles as defined in Figure

59. The GS(N)/Gs(l) versus N curves for each test are pre-

sented in Appendix C. A summary of the resulting A values

for the secant shear modulus degradation is presented in

Table 4.

The cyclic degradation parameters for the driven CPMT

and the prebored PMT tests at 2 ft depth are less than the a

values of larger depths. A possible explanation for the

76

* -' - ,,- - -

10010

86/

17

75

LL

tU 24' .

U

< •LU ., .% ,

~~~~20 '"-.- -.<5U, S

-101"

I--

CL 2516

12'"

0 1 2 3 4

Y - OISPLACEMENT (INCHES) % %

71GURE 57. Conventionally Prepared P-v Curves for 24" '.._

Non-displacement Pipe Pile (McClelland

Engineers, 1986).

77

7.... ....* ~ ~-~& C- * * .' < .- *> v

ISO- -

a 1' 10 9

86'

12551

a LL".100 U461

30'a

ui 75 1

'C

121

62

251

1986).

07

-'~ ~ - - - --- -- -

r p

pr

2R- AR

RELATiVEZ DISPLACEMENT, AR/Ro

100

vGs(N) Na

G300

---

1 10 100

CYCLE NUMBER, N

Figure 59. Definition of the Cyclic DegradationFarameter for the Secant Shear Modulus.

79%. ' 4

.JsJ

TABLE 4. Pressuremeter Cyclic Deqradation Parametersfor the Secant Shear Moduli

PMTTest PMT Depth t R/R a aNo. Type (ft) (%) Average

S12.8 0.044 0.041B2-2 2 22.4 0.038 0

7.9 0.091 0.077BI-7 7 15.8 0.062 0

PREBOREDBl-10 TEXAM 10 5.8 0.086 0.07516.0 0.063

BI-15 15 17.3 0.064 0.06413.3 0.074 06Bl-30 30 22.0 0.056 0.065

Overall Average 0.0b4

D1-2 2 3.2 0.054 0.0817.3 0.107 0

D1-5 5 1.2 0.115 0.105DRIEN5.0 0.094DRIVEN

D1-9 CPMT 3.2 0.112 0.1109.1 0.108

3.3 0.108Dl-13 13 8.6 0.109 0.109

Dl-17 17 1.8 0.136 0.1166.4 0.096 0

Overall Average 0.105

B3-2 PREBORED 2 7.6 0.056 0.043TEXAN 13.4 0.030

D2-2 DRIVEN 2 3.6 0.120 0.114CPMT 8.5 0.108

lower degradation may relate to the degree of saturation of

the sand. The water table at the time of testing was locat- ..4

ed 3.5 ft below the ground surface, indicating that degrada-

tion may be greater in saturated sands than in unsaturated

sands.

The average a values below the water table were fairly'p'

consistent. For prediction purposes an overall average a

value was selected for each pile (see Section 6.2).

Another observation on the cyclic degradation entailed

the degradation of the cyclic shear modulus as defined in

80

Figures 60 and 61. The GC(N)/GC(l) versus N curves for the

individual PMT tests may be found in Appendix D. The curves

for the driven CPMT tests show an apparent degradation of

the cyclic shear modulus during the first series of cycles.

5.3.3 Creep response

Near the end of each PMT test the pressure was held

constant while recording the increase in volume of the

probe. The results are presented graphically in Figure 62

and 63 using the same variables as employed to define creep

in the piles (Section 4.4.3). For the prebored TEXAM PMT

the creep exponent, n, averaged 0.006. The average n value

for the driven CPMT tests was 0.011. Both values fell below

the creep exponents found for the load test piles. The

difference between the pile creep and the PMT creep expo- ..

nents may be the result of the creep occuring in the pile S

material inself (Section 4.4.3). • '.

81 " 5'

. -.. .q

Gc(1) Gc(N)

LB a II j/ r 4--

a P - -.~r

? R n R, 0

A R (.N)R5

RELATIVE RADIAL INCREASE (AR/R 10

Figure 60. Definition of the Cyclic Shear Modulus.

- 0A

Gc(N) -bGc (1)

%1

- slooe =-b

-i-i

= t

2 .1 = 4

1.... :, NUMBER, .

Figure 61. Definition of the Cyclic Degradation Parawmeter

for the Cyclic Shear Modulus.

82

$ :'S:

MLSCALE CYCLIC LATERAL LOWP TSS ON SIX SINGLEPILES IN SF.. (U) TEXAS A AND UNIV COLLEGE STATIONDEPT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING. R L LITTLE ET AL. AUG N7 Wa SIFIED TAIIU-M-56NS/N/L-02 O133 Mm1hhii-hhihii

hmhmhhhhmhhhfEhllllllllllllllllllllllllhlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"""IIIIIIII

A 0%

* I *I -- 1111=11111al *o

11111-111-4 I

w w w w v 0 v vI l v-

1.2 ?a 1 112 "K* - .

PREBORED PMT*-P**

CREEP RESPONSE

4/ %

LEGEND '.-

7+7

# - i0' ,0.

+ - 15' H.

o - 30' n avg .006 .

S

10 ~50v..-

onT

FIGURE 62. Creep Response in the Prebored PMT Tests. ,,,

83 - ;

:.'.'--''. 'u - '--'''.',',-,U ) a-].], o . T -,'. ... , ' ' ' '., . .b <.. -"'-'-", ".' ...a-I

A 40-

122%1-

DRVE CM

CRE RESONS

0 - 13'

x 17,~

n 1':% 0.01.

844

6. COMPARISON OF PMT AND CONVENTIONAL PREDICTIONS

WITH THE MEASURED RESPONSE

The approach employed in this report to predict the

monotonic response of the test piles has been presented in

detail in an earlier report (Little and Briaud, 1987). For

the prediction of the cyclic response, the desired number of

cycles is first selected, then each value of y from the

monotonic P-y curve is multiplied by Na to obtain y(N). The

deflection y(N) is the deflection after N cycles at the

chosen level of soil resistance. The a values were selected

as detailed in Section 5.3.2. This process is summarized in

Figure 64 and in the following equations:

P(N) = P(1) (2)y(N) = y(l) x Na (3)

where N = cycle number for which the P-y curve is de-

sired,

P(l) = total soil resistance arrived at in static

analysis, 0

P(N) = total soil resistance arrived at after N

cycles,

y(l) = the static displacement at P(l),

y(N) = the displacement at P(N) after N cycles, and 6

a = the cyclic degradation parameter otained from

the pressuremeter tests.

The cyclic P-y curves were then input as resistances

into a beam-column program to obtain the predicted deflec- .

tions of a pile subjected to a given set of cyclic lateral

loads.

6.1 Monotonic Loading Response O

The preboring PMT prediction yielded excellent results

for the 36-in diameter drilled shaft at loads up to 40 kips

(Figure 65). The conventional method predicted a much soft-

er response. At higher loads (Figure 66), after the pile 0

had been subjected to the series of cycles, the PMT predic-

.5.. ...

P(N) : P(1)

y(N) y(1) x N

y ()

H'. ..* .,.

P (N)

y- DISPLACEMENT ..

FIGURE 64. Summary of Method used to Modify a StaticP-y Curve for Cvcl Lc Predictions. -

86,."

40 ' , ,1 ' 5 ' I I' ' ' I .,.I.-

PILE #1: 36" R.C.I S

35 +..* PREDICTED AND MEASURED

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

/o - ""..

-

II" -i" -

< 15 -..J II /I

* MEASURED

10 --*--

+ PMT PREDICTEDS

x CONVENTIONALLY

PREDICTED ,?,

0.DEFLECTION (INCHES) '

FIGURE 65. Comparison of PMT Predicted, Conventionally .%

Predicted, and Measured Response for Pile .'

No. I under Monotonic Loading, 0 to 40 KIP ,

Scale.

87

L&-

36" R.C. PILE" ','175 .t" .

PREDICTED AND MEASURED

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

150

-% .-'

u1 125 -Y*

5- *O ,

.o * ..,4 x

w*< 75 - x

* MEASURED

5 + x + PMT PREDICTED

x x CONVENTIONALLY

PREDICTED "

1, X %

!5-

00 1 2 3

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FTGURE 66. Comparison of PMT Predicted, Conventionally

Predicted, and Measured Response for Pile No.I under Monotonic Loading, 0 to 200 KIP Scale.

i. .d.

.'_ .,- .,,%%;N_,,, t','L.r,,__' . .,-.., , , .,-. ,.,.-. .-. . .. , . , .. ,. . ,...- - .-.-.. , . .. / . ....-.. ..-. .. .

tion was stiffer than the measured results. This is probab-

ly due to the fact that the cycles induce accentuated curva-

ture in the monotonic envelope and that the flexural stiff-

ness of the pile decreases with increasing load and with

increasing number of cycles due to crack propagation. This

deterioration was not modeled in the prediction process.

The predicted response for the pipe pile using the

preboring PMT and assuming the pile was a non-displacement

pile gave excellent results throughout the range of lateral

loads applied (Figures 67 and 68). The steel pipe was not

subject to the same magnitude of stiffness deterioration as

the concrete drilled shafts. At high load levels, after the

series of cycles, the PMT method slightly underpredicted the

pile displacement. The conventional method, on the other

hand, significantly overpredicts the displacements through-

out the range of loads applied to the pile.

The square concrete pile was modeled with both the

driven CPMT and prebored PMT test results. Both methods

produced excellent predictions for loads up to 40 kips (Fig- OT

ure 69). At higher loads the prebored PMT predictions

closely followed the measured results until after the second 9.

cycling series (Figure 70). It is likely that the deterior- 0

ation of the pile stiffness (EI-value) associated with cycl- ..

ing was not a factor in the pile-soil response until the .'

effects of the prestressing in the pile were overcome.

Therefore, the envelope on measured results up to the second S

series of cycles probably is an accurate reflection of theA-" 4

soil response alone. The driven CPMT predictions overestim-

ated the pile-soil stiffness response at high loads.

For the three 42-in diameter drilled shafts the pres-

suremeter method predicted a softer initial response at

loads below 30 kips and a stiffer response at load levels

over 50 kips (Figures 71 and 72). A partial reason for the

predictions of the 42-in diameter drilled shafts not being

89

40

PILE #2: 24" STEEL PIPE

35 *PREDICTED AND MEASURED

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

30

Ul 25e 4CL

YV

• MEASURED

Q 20 0 + PMT PREDICTED

1/ x CONVENTIONALLY PREDICTED-J

w / '

S 10

10 x

a 1a 1 p I p p p I ! p * I I I I, , 7,,

O' .I .2 .3 .4 ;..,

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 67. Comparison of PMT Predicted, Conventionally p

Predicted, and Measured Response for Pile No.2 under Monotonic Loadino, 0 to 40 KIP Scale.

90

.'a,..

200 , F%PILE #/2: 24" STEEL PIPE

175 4EASURED AND PREDICTED2

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

150

125 N

% %'50 %

75 COVNIOAL

+PPREDICTED

252

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 68. Covtt arison of Drted Lctud, Conivention b ll C

l rLulA' tud, XkcasMurc, 2 Rosp -Lse '"r Pile Nv2 uinder MenloCte't jC I oa~d uJ, 0 to 200) KIP Sclile.

91

JA

40 -

PILE #3: 20" SQUARE CONCRETE ".'

PREDICTED AND MEASURED '35 a

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

/

'AA'.

30-

- .:

Um 25 -.

o 20 4

E, I. * MEASURED

"+ PREBORED PMT PREDICTEDw A

<a DRIVEN CPMT PREDICTED15 40

" '

0%

A-

",1

2 3 4 -

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 69. Comparison of Measured and PMT Predicted

Monotonic Responses for Pile No. 3, 0 to A

10 kip Scale.

%

%. 92 .~% ~ ~AA7 ***A**'A* . '**.

%- AN N~ V %. A%*~, - , . -A

/ +1. . .%.*.4"%.

V%*

PL #3: 2o0, SQ. CONCRETE-.4

.i PREDICTED AND MEASURED i '

ul0. .I Q ~ ~~~~MONOTONIC RESPO NSE ,y., ." ,.".

_J "-'

C3 So . :.--

< * MEASURED

+ PREBORED PMT PREDICTED,.'..,~~~o DRIVEN CPMTr PREDICTED"'':

25 ""

Monotonic~~~ to lltl No 0to10

0 1 2 •... - -,

.

KIP sc.al1e.°"- -

93- .4,,

* PILE~k3: 2" SQ. ONCRET

40-,- 1/.4

30 +PREDICTED AND MEASURED

MONOTONIC RESPONSE

J 25 0

2 0 0 / +S5.

o MEASURED PILE #4

W # MEASURED PILE #5

< is * MEASURED PILE #6

+ PMT PREDICTED

' .

10 #.-,

0 . 05 .I.15 .2-J'

OEFLECT ION (INCHES) .

FTGURE -71 Co~mparison of Measiired to PMT Predicted Monotonic '.,Re- ponse 'or PtIe N(,-,. , ,and 6, 0 to.' 40 KIP ,-

a* I e.

'

J, -ep~~

0 '-SI

: , ,_ - m , • f : , " ,- 'd - ' 0d .05 .1-.1 . . . ./ - - l - - -

200

PILES #4, 5, 6 . - -

42" R.C. SHAFT1 75-...

PREDICTED AND MEASURED/%

0 # MONOTONIC RESPONSE .4

150 /

125 / 0CLI I

o 100 -- o MEASURED PILE #4 "

< # MEASURED PILE #5

• # MEASURED PILE 06

< 75 + + PMT PREDICTED

-4 #

25

0 1 2 3

DEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 72. Comparison of Measured to PM, Predicted

Monotonic Response for Pile Nos. 4, 5, and 6,

0 to 200 KIP Scale.

5..

95 'i,

-.... ,'-'.. .''',.":,>. --.,:.''."- .-'....:,.i-'-. '':.:. -2.5 ." .7.-..: .,':. ,-., 2"'--:?"..:-'.-- -'''-,,-.< . ' -".''-.., 'V

as good as the predictions for the other piles is the diffi-

culty encnuntcred in determining the correct pile stiffness

to incorporate into the pile-soil stiffness model. As ex-

plained in Section 3, these shafts were used as reaction

shafts during the previously performed vertical load tests.

As such, they were subjected to extreme axial tension stres-

ses. Although in the prediction method a reduced pile

stiffness (EI-value) was assumed, it may not have been an ,*

accurate model of the actual piles. Judging from the excel-

lent results in predicting the response of the other piles

in this study, the less satisfactory results for the 42-in

diameter drilled shafts must be due to inaccuracies in mod-

elling the pile itself, and not in modeling the soil

response.

6.2 Cyclic Loading Response

The predictions of the cyclic response of the test

piles using the results of the cyclic PMT tests are shown in

Figures 73 through 77. The predictions are presented as

cyclic envelopes. For any given load level the Nth cyclic

envelope represents the deflection expected after N cycles

at that load level.

The cyclic prediction for the square prestressed con-

crete pile was obtained from both the preboring and the

driven CPMT results. The cyclic predictions for the steel

pipe pile and the drilled shafts were obtained from the

preboring PMT only.

Table 5 summarizes the cyclic predictions and compares

them to the measured responses. In each case, the predictedincrease in deflection is less than the measured increase.

Four possible reasons for the PMT method underpredicting the

cyclic degradation are: (1) the difference in confinement

between the pile and the PMT probe, (2) load-control cyclic

pile load tests may not cause exclusively load-control

cyclic loading of eich soil strata, (3) influence of previ-

I' 96

! AAI

200 .

PILE #/1: 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE SHAFT

175 PREDICTED CYCLIC RESPONSE2

Cycles: 1 10 20

150

Lw 125

wS

<' 75

00DELCTO INHS

FIUE7.weoe M reitdCci epnePie o.1

<-97

%Se~a

I200 %'

175 PILE #2: 24" STEEL PIPE

PREDICTED CYCLIC RESPONSE

150

CYCLES 1 10 20 p

Un 125 -C-

(3

o 100 ~po -x

w< 75 L..V.-

75

50

/

25 V..

0 I0 1 2 3 :

OEFLECTION (INCHES)

FIGURE 74. PMT Predicted Cyclic Response, Pile 2.

98a * ~ ' .' ~ ' ~ '. . . .

200

PILk. # i: 20T' tiQ. GONCRETE PILE

PREDICTED CYCLIC RESPONSE175

(CPMT)

1500

010

100 10

w

50 0 412DELCTO INHS

25 UR 75frvnCM rcce ylcRsosPl 3

I9

%I 6 6P- .I

.41

200 r;,,' i T --- - :

PILE #3: 20" SQ. CONCRETE PILE ,,

17 PREDICTED CYCLIC RESPONSE " ...

(PBPMT)

150

< CYCLES 1i0200 100 1 -. 20"-J*

25--

0

<j' 75 .... :-,

so - 'I:'

/-25/9

II I0 -' I $ 4,_ ,

0 1 2 3

DEFLECTION (INCHES) "

FIGURE 76. Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Response, Pile 43.

10'.%

1.00 :

/~* ~ , s~'.d" ., %4~%~.~.%% %% *. .. ~ 5.. -~5.. * .

200 . " " . " . ' * , u '"

PILE #4, 5, 6: 42" R.C. SHAFT

175 n2PREDICTED CYCLIC RESPONSEITS.

cycles 1 10 20

15 00

S125

a3100

< 75-,,'so

'.

25 00

0 .2 .3

DEFLECTJON (INCHES) "

FIGURE 77. Prebored PMT Predicted Cyclic Response, Pile Nos. 4, 5,

and 6. "-

25 4.

10a1

% %,

i;n

we i"". " .r ," .- ,r r '..e -. ,r " ,.." .- w " , "W " - w - " ,- , w , . - '.€ a. a- .I. .. . - - -w j"

TABLE 5. Comparison of Percent Increase in Deflection withCycling: Predicted and Measured

Cyctic % Increase in DeflectionPile Pile LoadID No. Description Level After 10 Cycles After 20 Cycles-lop

(kips) Measured Predicted Measured Predicted

1 36" Drilled 55 51.1 8.5 66.9 11.6Shaft 80 17.9 7.6 35.4 10.3 '

2 24" Pipe Pile 40 24.9 4.5 34.1 5.8

60 15.2 4.2 25.9 7.9

3 20" Square 30 22.3 5.5 27.9 7.2Concrete 50 26.4 6.0 43.1 7.9

4 42" Drilled 55 55.4 10.8 72.7 14.5Shaft 80 17.8 10.5 28.3 14.1

5 42" Drilled 40 41.7 11.0 56.0 14.5Shaft 60 19.5 10.6 34.1 14.5

6 42" Drilled 30 48.1 10.5 79.6 14.5

Shaft 50 11.5 11.0 17.9 14.5

Averages 29.3 9.0 43.5 12.2

0

ous series of cycles on subsequent series of cycles during a

test and (4) degradation of the pile flexural stiffness

during cyclic loading.

N There is a difference in confinement between the pile

and the PMT probe; this is shown in Figure 78. During the

lateral movement of a pile, the soil is able to move towards

the back of the pile where a gap is opening. During a PMT

test, the soil is displaced radially outward. Under mono-

tonic loading, the difference in confinement may not signi-

ficantly affect the pile-pressuremeter probe analogy. Under

repeated cyclic loading, however, the difference in confine-

ment may result in significantly greater degradation in the

soil resistance against the pile than against the pressure-

meter probe.

Another possible explanation for the pressuremeter

predicting less degradation under cyclic loading may arise

from the mode of cycling experienced by the soil during the

cyclic lateral loading of a pile. In earlier studies

(Makarim and Briaud, 1986; Little and Briaud, 1987) it has

102

" " y . " . • . -" .. . .. ' . " " ." . ' - " -- -" " . ' " - " . " v v " " -." " ." -" ." .' . " " " " ; -" ." ." " " " " -' - " " .; ' ' .' " " " , " " " " .' )

.1,.' ' ".' '' ' ' ','", ' ' .. . . . . . . .' . - .. , '.. .". " r , ' _ , -. r . w 'J . w ',

4>

- *

N,

%

103

%

• . . -. .*-

FUE7. Difrec in Cofnmn bewe, te

Novmet f Pil ( ,. J*

i \ .,',,'--

,-J* *1::

R m

been shown that for pressuremeter tests the soil resistance

degrades more rapidly under displacement-controlled condi-

tions than under pressure-controlled conditions. In this

study, pressure-controlled cyclic pressuremeter tests were

used to predict the soil resistance degradation for the

load-controlled cyclic pile load tests. In reality, each

soil layer may not be subjected exclusively to load-

controlled conditions during a pile load test. The actual

loading conditions on the soil may lie somewhere between

pressure-control and displacement-control, making the

pressure-control-predicted response the most conservative.

It is recommended that future pressuremeter predictions be

based on a combination of two cycling modes. One possible

method may be to perform 10 cycles load-controlled and then

10 cycles displacement-controlled during the pressuremeter

tests and calculate the degradation exponent for each mode '

of cyclic loading. N'

The influence of the first series of cycles on the soil

response during subsequent cycles may also have affected the

comparison between predicted and measured results. The

first series of cycles in a test is more likely to be influ-

enced by seating problems than subsequent series of cycles.

Particularly damaging to the prediction process employ- -<

ed in this study was the degradation of the pile flexural

stiffness associated with cyclic loading. The deterioration

of pile stiffness had a profound effect on the concrete a

piles studied in this report. This can be seen by comparing

the measured increase in deflection after 20 cycles on con-

crete pile 4 at a load of 55 kips with the increase in de-

flection for concrete pile 5 at a load of 60 kips. The .O

increase is 72.7% for pile 4 and 34.1% for pile 5. The

piles were designed and constructed using identical proce-

dures, and since they were installed within the same soil

strata it would be logical to assume that the response of

'NV

70.- - -

the soil during the series of cycles would be nearly the

same. The explanation for the large variation in response

between the two identical piles lies in the relative degrad-

ation of their flexural stiffnesses.

The primary mechanism for reduction of the pile flexur-

al stiffness was the propagation of cracks through the con-

crete cross-section during cycling. Increased cracking

reduced the strength of the concrete. Crack propagation was

most pronounced during the first cycling series for each of

the reinforced concrete drilled shafts. After the concrete

had suffered significant cracking during the first cycling

series, the pile stiffness would tend toward a limit value

since the stiffness would primarily be related to the

strength of the steel reinforcement. Therefore, the differ-

ence mentioned above exists because pile 4 was being cycled

for the first time while pile 5 was being cycled for the

second time.

An alternative method for using the pressuremter re-

sults to predict the pile responses would be to treat the

pressuremeter tests as a model pile load test and apply the

PMT degradation parameter a directly to the monotonic pre- -..

diction:

y(N) = y(l) x Na (4)

H(N) = H(l) (5)

where y(N) = pile deflection at the groundline after N .--.-

cycles at load H, -

y(l) pile deflection at the groundline after mono-

tonic load H, -.

a = average PMT degradation parameter,

H(N) = horizontal load applied at the top of the Nth

cycle,H(l) = horizontal load applied at the top of the 1 st

cycle,

N = number of cycles.

105

.4% J-. *. z

I.

The accuracy of this prediction method for the relatively

homogeneous strata and piles in this study may be judged by

comparing the measured average a values with the PMT pre-

dicted average of 0.064 (Table 6). This alternative method

yielded excellent agreement between predicted average and

measured average a values for the piles expected to have the

least deterioration in pile stiffness, namely the steel pipe

pile (a = 0.062) and the prestressed concrete pile (a =

0.063). The reinforced concrete drilled shafts, on the

other hand, showed greater cyclic degradation than predicted

(a values of 0.086, 0.080, 0.073 and 0.068 for piles 1,4,5

and 6, respectively).

TABLE 6. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Secant ShearModulus Cyclic Degradation Parameters

Pile Measured PredictedNo. aaverage aaverage

1 0.0862 0.0623 0.0634 0.080 0.0645 0.0736 0.068

Overall 0 76Average 0.072 0.064

6.3 Comparison of Creep Exponents

In Section 5.3.3 it was shown that the PMT creep expon-

ents were 0.006 for the TEXAM preboring PMT tests and 0.011 .4

for the driven CPMT tests. These exponents were lower than

the exponents backcalculated from the pile load tests since 1

these exponents stabilized around 0.015 to 0.02. The disre-

pancy may be the result of two of the same mechanisms cited

for the underprediction of cyclic degradation, namely the

difference in confinement between the pile and the pressure-

meter probe and the creep of the pile flexural stiffness

under a sustained load.

106

" J ,-.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main conclusions to be gathered from this study

are the following:

- The four drilled shafts exhibited significantly more

cyclic degradation during the first series of cycles % -

than during the second series. This may be due to %

two things. First, the pile stiffness may degrade

due to crack propagation from the cycling. By the

second series of cycles, the pile stiffness is mainly

obtained from the steel reinforcement which will not

exhibit much degradation. This is thought to be the

major cause. Second, the sand is densified by the

first series of cycling, causing a stiffening of the

response in the second series.

- The steel pipe pile showed a somewhat stiffer re-

sponse during the second cyclic series than in the

first. Since the stiffness of the steel should ex-

perience little or no degradation at these low load

levels, the increase in stiffness is probably due

entirely to the stiffening of the soil due to pre-

vious cyclic loads.

- The prestressed concrete pile showed more degradation O

of stiffness during the second cyclic series than in % %

the first. This is thought to be caused by a

postponement of cracking of the concrete due to the

prestressing of the pile. The bending moment in the -

pile at the lower cyclic load level was not enough to-

cause tension cracks in the concrete. However, at - -'

the second, higher, cyclic load level, the effect of

the prestressing was overcome and tension cracks

began to form, thus reducing the pile stiffness.

- The cyclic degradation parameter, "a", values for

cycles which unloaded to zero load were 53% higher 0

4.-."I (" o .)

than for cycles which unloaded only to oivn-half the

top cyclic load.

- The creep exponent, "n", values for all the piles

except the prestressed concrete pile exhibited the

same behavior. The n values started between 0.05 and

0.075 then reduced and stabilized between 0.015 and or

0.02. For the 42-in diameter drilled shaft which

failed, the n values showed an upward turn towards

the end of the test indicative of the impending

failure. The n values for the prestressed concrete

pile began around 0.015 then increased during the

test, reaching a critical load at about 90 kips.

This may be due to creep in the concrete as the

effect of the prestressing is overcome.

- The prediction of the monotonic loading curves by the

pressuremeter method (Little and Briaud, 1987, was

very good for all piles in the working load range

based on the prebored PMT test data. As the loads

increased, the measured deflections of the drilled

shafts increased much faster than the predictons due

to crack propagation in the concrete. The predic- , -i

tions for the steel pipe pile were good throughout

the entire loading range. The predictions were too

stiff for the prestressed concrete pile at larger

loads using both the prebored PMT and. the driven CPMT

test curves, with the prebored data yielding the best

results of the two. From these results it can be

concluded that the pressuremeter method predicts weli

the soil response but does not include any pile

stiffness degradation.

- The conventional P-y curves overpredicted the dis-

placement of the piles throughout the entire loading

range. "N

108

.,de '

J i~2

0

-For all piles the predicted increase in deflection

due to cyclic loading was much less than the measured

increase. Four possible reasons for this difference

are: (1) the difference in confinement between the •

pile and the pressuremeter, (2) load-control cyclic

pile load tests may not cause exclusively load-

control cyclic loading of each soil strata, (3)

influence of previous series of cycles on subsequent

series of cycles during a test and (4) degradation of

the pile flexural stiffness during cyclic loading.

- The average cyclic degradation parameter from the e

pressuremeter tests (a = 0.064) matches very well the

average cyclic degradation parameter from the pile Vload tests which should experience little or no deg-

radation of the pile flexural stiffness, namely the

steel pipe pile (a = 0.062) and the prestressed con- ..

crete pile (a = 0.063). The reinforced concrete %'%

drilled shafts showed much higher cyclic degradation.

- The creep exponents from the PMT tests were 0.006 for

the prebored TEXAM tests and 0.011 for the driven

CPMT tests. These exponents were lower than the

creep exponents backcalculated from the pile load .I.

tests which stabilized around 0.015 to 0.02. The "

difference may be caused by two of th 'iechanisms

cited for the underprediction of cyclic degradation,

namely the difference in confinement. between the pile

and the pressuremeter probe and the creep of the pile

flexural stiffness under a sustained load. -

The following recommendations are made based cn the

results of this study:

- The pressuremeter method used in this study fo pre-

dicting pile response to monotonic lateral loading

(Little and Briaud, 1987) is applicable to piles

which will experience little or no degradation in -.

A. . A *. .. . . . . .- • A . . ,.-

-A.-- N A. -.

A-..

flexural stiffness (such as steel piles, prestressed

concrete piles loaded less than the prestress, etc.)

due to the applied loading. 0•

- Further study needs to be done in four main areas in

order to apply the pressuremeter method to cyclic and

creep loading. These areas are (1) the effects of

the difference in confinement between the pile and

the pressuremeter probe, (2) determining what type of

loading each soil strata actually undergoes due to

various loading at the top of the pile, (3) the - -

influence of previous series of cycles on subsequent

series of cycles and (4) the degradation of the pile

flexural stiffness during loading (monotonic, cyclic

and creep).

The fourth item relating to degradation of the pile

flexural stiffness during loading is felt to be the

most critical factor for prediction of the behavior

of reinforced concrete drilled shafts.

%,

110

7,I• - .f

VA?.:-

' ''-"- -' ' - ; . - -- -' , ' , ' . ' , ' '' ' . ,, - ,: . ' - -' -. ' ' . """,'+" . ",' '.: "',4.+"- '-,,,"[-- *,[, ''4' '-, +, ' . ", . " ".'." - '. +

.0REFERENCES

BRIAUD ENGINEERS, 1986, "Pressuremeter and Cone PenetrometerTesting for SH 146 Bridge Over the Houston Ship Chan-nel," Report for the Texas State Department of %nel,_Highways and Public Transportation, College Station,Texas.

LITTLE, R.L. AND BRIAUD, J.-L., 1987, "A Pressuremeter Met-hod for Single Piles Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loadsin Sand," Research Report No. 5357, Civil EngineeringDepartment, Texas A&M University, College Station,Texas.

MAKARIM, C.A. AND BRIAUD, J.-L., 1986, "Pressuremeter Methodfor Single Piles Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loads inOverconsolidated Clay," Research Report No. 5112, CivilEngineering Department, Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, Texas.

McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, 1986, Private communication. _

REESE, L.C., COX, W.R. AND KOOP, F.D.,t974, "Analysis ofLaterally Loaded Piles in Sand," 6 Offshore Techno-logy Conference, Houston, Texas.

WANG, C.K. ANR SALMON, C.G., 1979, Reinforced Concrete De- 0sign, 3r edition, Thomas Y. Crowell, Harper and RowPublishers, New York, New York.-Nu

-% %.

10"2.,o'.,

TII )/

.--e . - ..-.. .. "- . -. " . .. "- .'. . ."". '..'_ .'k '..¢-'." ''w " . "" '-. "''. s""- - ' - " ". "'° -' ' """. ""'."• -"" -4

N

h-

..5

i!

'--

A

,"4:5

A'N'a

J2

€'a

!Sa LI a-'. .a ¢~*h~a' s.id

APPENDIX A !

PILE LOAD TEST DATA

... ':

, ., -p.

• ,,' .,..,

Y S-,-

'- " "- ' 7 " ; ; " ;'" " " " " -" " "" .- r .. ., ., . , , , . ,. ." " , ., .,.,',, . . . , .. . ,, ,.. "-,..,. , ,. ,., ' .- , ,,,,, X "V '.

TUNNEL SITE _

PILE LOAD TEST DATA %

Test Pile: 20 r0UA P_ C 2cR r r Date: - ?7a

Reaction Pile: 4Z -t, hLLEI -siAF -

Displacement gage locations: '3

#1: 3/8 1 TO kkItT OV LpA A( k-I aJ'~ A~v C KS Ir, 4#2: J/ C III f I AXI (tj R% BEcoLA.)#3: 1-7/4' roP ~I ( ifT (w, LOAN AxeS A 0'/," AZ3O'J tA) IJ~trNz

04: ' t tL C1,1 OL

I Time Load Cell [Pressure Test Pile isp.L Reaction kile Disp. _r

", Reacing in Jack #1 (#2 # 3 u14

S_ _ (lbs.) __________.O_ )_

15t C)IQ GS.. l. 4Z 0-1,1 0. A________,

,1 S ,so A cw A..-." 1 g )o

,,;...*

'7-l- ~ -1, 4 ~ 1~ o .1 )n96

1Z A4 In o

kyLt . 2-o S!~ .Q2 L-i /Of I o 8 ci IC,1 n 2"l,

-715 _ _ _ A. -2: 1; 54i. 9i... Ci' ___I______ -

'A A i)4L 9. S4A ir ci2 o.r

.11.5, 14 8 2LLZ 0 (£ i L i p 7a

;n -7.__ 12 2. n -7-. ~

30 n. I 19.~~ 0S. 1 C r

-T. 4 ~ L z( .~-- 4

3-4 -5 0 12'

114

N N

TUNNEL SITE

PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: uate: 0 S7.

Time Load Cell Pressure 1 Test Pile Lisp. Reaction Pile Disp.Reading in Jack I I #2 #3 v

" AS 4, ~ (lbs.) _ _ .. 7 I) (;...

3 c 6 -7 5 ..ZL .. U 5 4 Y.

49aa~ - u1 r4 .A

_44 So Hoo lGoo. _l .o n ,. 1 , G" I'!!; . .i]. . ,

50; ~ ~ ~ ~ o In Kon 1 91,

s4. In o o ". !2.r o. 0 c. n t %

o.A, C. r

l9 Ao tA tA Jn IL ,. . 0. 1 n" , , ,

S oI (10 o l5,50f I0O n..?_ I 4: 04 1 i ,

-I,).. 4 L C LCl n ,! .7' So.],

01 1 ,

(I-2z oo .147n u1 J o 6 ... 1z' f

on 7, t n

89 i' 2 alt 14n 4 4 ~

i~ ..... q 'AL 0,1. fl)LU 0 4

15:0L0_222 0i21

- ~ 1 _ _ _,., .

W1 o I r)r!oC I -sl' r

I o i I 1I4J 1- ____,

1____ If)1 li -S 0 pqC-

' o ~ ~~~~ 1180 ,.n f'

119 . 01 1:,Clr 11r

TUNNEL SITE P,

PILE LOADl TEST DATA C.

Continuation of: vare.

Tim Load Cell Pressure TeSL Pie isp Reaction kile Disp.SReading in Jack V1 2# Y4

IQ -m pC() 21 111*3 -- it~ A-12 .

1 I n 41 nm9 2(,n~J..... 0- 14

/ -3420 11 -7 .3r .1 4 .r)0-2 0 if04-1 -2.. 10 1 1) 24 o 4 .4, :

___4_Sow_____ra 010e. io27 0 1-S

it% 04- o. L M i . f s4

U2i. -I. 1 -- ________Z___

II it 6

264 L k.... E2Z.L _r,_______

13:1 it.. '1.. -7 A 7,6r 0 1 . p go

_ __- In T 10 15,9 nn 0. A .f

o~ 9 I _ __ _ __ _

16~.c 2 _T n n I q__ _ _

eqS ~ ~ IF._7_U

i77 ~~~42.T 1 (7___ ___

d lioci; LA

wr'

TUNNEL SITE e

PILE LOAD TEST DATAs

continuation of: liate:

TieLoad Cell Pressure TeIst Pile [lisp. Reaction ile Disp.Reading in Jack i 1,U2 #3 *4

Ian - -"n1 qcJ. 0. hR

£1....1Q . 0-. S~i .ILL. Az... II).ma .2 ? ..1

I3.fl-2A 0,? 561 .&q . 33&. 0.1 M I !

9_______ 1. - 5n 1m 80 G.66.(A ?6z

9I'n o 64 ' U4 n. 7 r n 2'tC3

21 3n 95- 4 1 2

320 Q1 so 0 o . ,1

9 0) -o 17. C. L qb .11 Q, 7-0

Y.4 in T~f 7 qm a6p 0 (sL* o. 2z

S'o ____________

Yt. r?.2 -

110 31 141 ?faI I D bs oci _ n314 51.3 2

0

TUNNEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA S

Continuation of: a3e:

Time Load Call Pressure Test Pile Uisp. Reaction File Disp.Reading in Jack oil #2 f3 ,4

L%%! Q. (lbs.) 0JtL.0 4' r , ty ___

7 44l 30 0 4 3€Z 0-77a #B. 21 if,'

_____ a' . Z 8 9 o. , , 3'4 -

g .~ ~~ 301 m7 ni,0 4tot __________ a .Qo 4.Q - O -9-(,J -

2- _" ____-_ i94J ( / . .3 0. 31 <,

20:~~~~ 3 ( .1 4 69r) o. 3'-zq "

90'6. In A n, 0.- 40lW, ..6z 0I. ,50 z _34 ? %,

: m , -, 3 G . 2 q(, 4. (%, 0, V7 0-Q._2 lZ-

., s ,, U ,: 16 1 . 1 5 2 , 9 0 -1 o , " 0 , 3, 5-19

$gq4400 4.p 0tJ #l 5 o . -73 . ,316,

.L...

Ono q____ _______go_0,_0

1 I w8 0.576 0. ,L-

f'i I 33 -n gn q- no 0-40

AI _ _ _ _ T 4A

__ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __118_ __A

________ _____________ _____________ _______________ ________W______ ______________ _______N____________

TUN~NEL SITE

PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: Z4 b'4. OPk tur P~ PILE Date: I ~~

Reaction Pile: 4z r),A )P) -Et SHAFT8

Displacement gage locations: +#1: - 1 9/11 4116VC LA A,'11 1141. To 7HN& RikHT /ASFCAr^OfSt# 2: 4 '-/ F&~L~ L6A!j " A,, ' .9., F O * r TH7 QjJ I*F 4 0 E-#3: A6011C 4O , -At r, L '71" To 74 L -T A% tc

#4: ' t.,W sL* A'1S '/ O ~ -F 0.7 ,

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Disp. Reacti.on jpjl- DipReading in Jack 1,1 1)2 1)3 i'4

:kc (lbs.)

60 00 "" 1--t P-Ei-11A4 OVW 7rtir .JE- L __ _ __ _ _

I7 8: 50 a9 C) - 0.~L niL . r) -( ) 4

-1 11 17 CSS..& 2 2n (,n 4 nIN Lt

______1 _____ C7S. Lz M D . 0 n0 p0

5____ 414 6S, 5,0L 0 60 Q 044 G

M41 lo~ L1. el f- 1f 0 046t

ISI3 0.2- ni 62 0 ? -q*V

'7 C Q~n(, . 0 7 S

1__ ___ ___ __7__ 4_ _ _ _ 6-'(S.0 1 05

n, 0[6 (2 Qc -I I

___ 141s 7, 4* 4 --_7-42_ t__ _ C __ .____4 __ __ _ C)2. 6

I ~ ~ ~ 5. f__ _ __ __ _ ____ ._ __ _ n._____ _I

In_ __ ,. jt ?%7 4 -:'n

11 ___2A n. )A -. %6_ _

M~n 5 . Z 0 1 - 06 . 0. ? 6 - ( (7,

tI 1 1 -0. - (, SY

1111 1!' %A. 4 PC, 44 2

11.3o 3 cxy,, 19", , r, .n

'~j', .20: Vn I V &'Vy. .3 a 74 f

Y%"

TUNNEL SITE%PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: Uate: 1.-7i-67. : ~ - - -

Tim Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Disp. Reaction Pile Disp.Reading i.n Jack of #2 #3 #4 .'

'AZ

780 "" qZ7 6,. 3 7 0.07-1 0. Ogg60 Inr

o;,_:, - 26 6. AL 7-t o. () '.A

w'Rsol :24x' 2-q o 5". 1% 6. 'r- 2 ). 01(,2 Ns,"""

41-16 RS -. ". . 4 0. oqc 1. 1 _ ,,.,

45 s :o .5- 2nn I. ro ..2 4z . ..0 C1, 0. 1,7n

Time~17 Loa Cell0 Pr0sr Test %ie ~ Rato 'l

- Readitccng itn ackl_' #2tf #3 r4 q.L lbs1 .q) (_ 0 5 J .,77 .6b r (-.4

a,2 anein 24 .L, 97 lec2 C. pg, I Mt-r

5 ____ __ __ arnn61-3 0 a

-St ;3a 4 n .72, "T-& 0.4! A 6. 44.l 0, r.29 0 ,. DR' ..

I' In -r 6. 9.1-

L10 206w..w- . . - -

II. it I 154~o /

:0 034j AL vO Z. 1j 4 ~ J zl

11 ,1 1 coo ; o. [l n

a~Q. - 0 r, r,14 IL 8 [^,B 14

71 0 0 H)___ . rfZ.2

i~5%

%I

TUNNEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: T ae: -a 1 7

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Uisp. Reaction File Disp.r Ir" Reading in Jack vi #2 13 v4

4 In 3p ocoo 14 & n_ , 0 11

Ul.2: Ao J 0 I. , n -. ? in _. 91._ .r -

110-2 CO 4 .... Lib C7 .i n

2111 I n I;, I Ao. U,2 n a, C. I2(

za4,1 4g~ 7 U5 1- .0qq (

1 ______410011- c- n , IPA (.12L 0. !A

12fl. ;0~ a "zrqn- U 15 2od 1,) !7 7 o-0314 1).z

II-1 ayQ Y. SL4 m1~ ()q 0 III

IZ 03 a onc ? (o 5", 01."5,Z 9 oq ,I. '

9".1 II ... -I .o .2 0-9 l l.4

19 _ __I 11 - m (-1 C., I f, 2 -

9 . - 2A 40 n0. 1- , t f , II10I. 'M] Z4 m-SD 0S 0,. S 1, I£2 o . 163L. ,

a _ ___ __n . 3

M3. in Eo ow 0l 7"1 C. 11.4--. , [q3O.I

______ ,, ___ _qQ __'.01 _ _,.110)_._ _ r. 1- 1400

__ _"..n _"__ I " L I_ _ _ 1 l M

I AC, .. i I,-

, . r +.!I"0 r)

S._ pi It 4 F . 7 _ _ _ _ _ _

-;0~ ___ __ - aA 7__4___C,_____0 1q1 1,Z7-

r,- u, __ _ 4 ./, I .', 1 / -1

I t. o " + q 5 A o . ,2 o 0 3o L... r

L A! So " m& .2 . " 1,o -

57,1~ 2l 4 4._ __ F____T _It_

:1

Uw'v% P P3

P

.

C C

TUNEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

* , Continuation of: uate: -7- 7

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile isp. Reaction ile Diso. rReading in Jack V1 02 #3 #4 %

aI 0_'_,-_ ?q I r-. 7C-

(J. 27 " _ 7

4 , ,.t4.99, ,- r ' !-. 2.

1 :32 ,. 4. 27- . 2 q.

II ' 2

4(,,-in '"'w -1 a- 4 .4 .7 t. 2 ,n "t;:~ Of o _ _ f

0l~ U ~ 4O~ -L)4 S-, q

c. .-. q -y 4 _n

5a 4oE.~ C- 4~ 7-4 r2 / 4

2 Jf L '33 p2 iL________EZ4 0 0 1 t;

-2L 3 ] .. : Z . - ,_ 2_, .. 1n. 3.YAP., '0 7q IA(, a . [

9."_J,3o G~,, 2'u- , _ __ .. P J 7 -, -, " 5

iI : !: . !, 1 12 7 ,h-%. ..._ 3 11 o EL , %

i L nn o , - _,___'. 1 -,..

~~J.. ___

_______ ___'_- - " '.... c_-, -- 22a f.. 2.P00

'5* '5I.-'..k

.,.' .',.*, .', .'. ,..,. , <. " ,".,-.,, .% -,-.y - -,,,-,2 -,- ,- ,,,'.,," -,,,,, .,-.., ,. ,,, ,,..,.-, .,-. , ._-.-' .'. -. -:, q" "£ " 7-. ... ... " _% :].- :-t .. ,

.,;NEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: uate: -- 7Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Disp. Reaction Pile Disp.

Reading in Jack v 1 #2 #3 W4G (bs.) jj ~ k. ~s) G ~ ()j~/.)-

E"T nu 4,63? .2. r4 . 0,2- r1 tL: 3 ____ L .(P 31 -9- 8 O 41

__ 4..-__ .C7. "I C7 '._

"

1A : ? , ,7 5,. " ST. 4_1 U 14sz+ 0. 4.Z-I.9 ;3 111 -M 1 q71 _ !5. 4 2_ 4- It-2" 0. 4fOf ,4, .

6n, 'ro 4 211 4.,..' !a.l I. '+ S 0I ,.< :._ ____o 0, 411-_ e)________S, -%

__-_: 4 Ti,.-

L+ (,q L 0. ""

571__0 5. e, 4- 1Q-4

... , .- __ , + .4, 2, .0, .- __ q Q-_ _q

.,:7o 5 51Q 4 e, 14 0~ , 46 0

B"' gbo _4ZQ 4-. L! T 1" * A 0, 64 q

_41 -0 0. 57 fbU1:30- Q-___ _ 0

-9,-r ,2. C,4rA 1. 4._ _ 4 1 S, .

2 12-S U W 5,L49 Ell E 0 5' 1

. LZ." s.++ I -. I -+ 3 . 77 0p 7 _ ..

4. t4 ;9___ 5' 54 9-jj < 0 4. -52

123 ,FV;

Wo 4-1 .:5V):0

TUNNEL SITE*PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: L i ate: 7e7Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile vis Reaction ?~Ile Disp.

Reading iq Jack W1 #2 93 v

24L~~4 M4.~ t~ ( t+ n, A3 g 4-

.....La U4.. 00. f-7 ~ 14 77Z

942o 11 < IQ,.,... 43 - O.6 , 1-

zl -2"flj:3 .5 0 f l --

UI1 1200 4000 -1 a 5 g< 0q -,1

*4L 0 6n A____ n____ q2 5' o± Q .sr 0. 3 G4

Int' S _ _1 _ PL . . 0 4 2. .q 0. 9,

9-<w o) .7 . JL.f..qq 0.2 V; 97 4l 7

Ma 11) ___ -__ __ n&. 5;- o.2L taG

rr ~ i i10. .3~.(9.e. .. r. go,

-q -4PI 4.63 .n

% -7-

12 V 1 l2 4 1"

P44

16 qV '.7. 4..-4 .2V~ ~ *''..\%.4 =~' N* ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 644+*.,* ~Y

. . %

TUNN4EL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

Continuation of: uate: N -

Time~7~ Load Cell Pressure Test Pile 2sp Reaction 'il e r"isp.

I Rad2.ng i.n JaL-:. #1 02 - 3 #46.. . tk (lbs.) ( -.P' _ __ __ _ )

StLI 3. ~. 7!2 4. Z i4 1,~L U6 [.0 5-U0 1,261? L4.0L. . L3U 1,101

iN 3 Q :~ 3 0 4Io ' .L . s. 2 5 7 I

x,. ~~~~~~~I 1 *b0f t S 4 - ,6

I4~ (, o 4 I Z33

_____4_q651_-e_ I- Z 7 '1

S.015 4- . Q.q I wj . Z40

Z^ 4.3 1."oI . 2 S4%

A. JL2.Z. 4,l 1.'4331,2

14 -1 -6 6 to _____0 It. I, -p.-. -, . 3

U61 ___ So____ -7416. 1 4 ) 3L(34 w 3,1 ___ E0 zo 94 ..1 IS Q1 7

________Z_ _____00________ 11 WI_____________ ____________

_ _ _ _~~F1 t__I_ _

_ _ _ _5 coo _ _ _ _ _

125

TUNNEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: A26'& Ly~Ie 4' 'I, , Date: 19

Reaction Pile: 4, A."? "Pdc IIIjeI,1,3 U 7f,

Displacement gage locations:

Time Load Call Pressure Test Pile.24. Reaction Pilie Disc).* Reading in Jack V1 2 #3 r

ovo2 0 a & ~o ___V_____0_ 9 12s

2n ______ _____ .4-1 . nJ L. .l 0 .btqs ( v1

LZ. ItI. k~i.5 f)... 8e3 04Cr 0

it__ _ 1, 4 0. p ~ -*. -*- '.

I I~ - ~ it) 1 _ _ _ __01.4l . 4 0 -

I,;!__ I A~ 1~ 1.4 .el i 7

143) it _____ 06.72t

1].~(i /0 20 ewx

if -

17f -7r q±~ -1 r, (17

3nomo Iqq 1. U017 zo 3

M.3f 7__ _ b i # ~1g4 0p ______ I L fiiL

126

% .fir it, A.it,

.,.". -.,

TUNNEL SITEPILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: 11,k11 'Uo/l- Date: '--- 7

Reaction Pile: _ ___ __ _

Displacement gage locations:411:#2:#3:#4:

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile oisp. Reaction eile Disp. %Reading in Jack #2 #3 W4 ./. I,(lbs.) 1____ _ _ _ __ I L.85- ( ~ ~ ( hli

i. n A if I.)&A,) q 7; O. -7 - .1' ,.'rr

._ I. , a. L ,, Z 0,1 9

LI 70 z

__. 1. A I. 4 )4- 0. - . I 7

.S':~ 6t "I 0 1, pe) 1.'!/3" t 1704__ (7. It)~

46, k it 'j, 1, fkof 1.tO£ 7 " . 170 "% ?2, 0 .- W .ho.. '7( 1r

46:3 c.-w S I59 0 1 91Ik

5 0o : 2 3 A 1 .g 4 A, 4 4. 2 1 .n ,4 1., .

r% It T R '1

5"57 3o 1"1n1 1, 0 6 Io q 0, .' 6O IA7

A~~ %.*., _ ,% '

An 5,Y00

t 0653g :a ,r 9.fC ,'. S C,

-1: "0 S F 1. 7,O ' l' 'I4 <

F C - ren

; z7:%%

TUNN4EL SITEPILE LOADl TEST DATA

Test Pile: ________________ _____ Dat e:__________

Reaction Pile: ________________________________

Displacement gage locations:

#2:#3:#4:

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Visp. Reaction P~ile Disp.-Reading in Jack wl#2 #3 #

(lbs.) W ( 6e~r2J (6) f05. - )

1-7 3A ~... 6" LI.. Q14j

1.Q 21f I2P9 1~& 0. j C

L qn~o 574n3 1. nL~ 14 Q0. 17

' ~ 6 w.&0 I JA.L 0ai... . 1 F

JA-1i 9n 1 .I .A2(, 1w ._ q4 0 /it

%L. L.. s-5 .-Q.31 1-03 2 6. .iL. '2

o.50 1 2 ~ .z1 0,e~ 4 4 )G2

51'5

153 1 ., 2 A( A C, q C, r, ':r

IVL 0 z3 5f g 4. 0 2. 01 1. z 21( n.qs7 .

Lti, 30 .1ct1 5 - Qin 0 2. 014

11. 1r SO 1.6 1.2 O..- I__6_Af___"to

143 21 2csD n- FS. .F V7J1 0 .; _____

I r.n55' .306 1-

1111 2- % 0

128

'_" *' .L ' ,

TUNNEL SITE 'PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: Date: _,.-,_ _

Reaction Pile: .,__ _ _ _ _ _

Displacement gage locations:

#2:#3:#4:

Reading in Jack 1/ #2 #3

(lbs.) ____ () I ' (_)_*.

,'4A ,i 4, 2 .. . 2r- 1.., .? 73,

t. In --7 27 r-S 0 '2, 2n Lia1136 1? 3 401 1

1 _3 2 r .Jq 4f ( 0 0 , 33 2

/ ;l, 3 0 .3 29 0_ .f /., f 4 Ib C. .33 " 2

I-' 1z. I l 9#7 1,341) 0. q4 2- 0 3232ke9..3 2: 1, 34£q 1 ~ r. q44 z .5 4,

1L7.3a '" __ __ _ . .%1 L,21 . .... 0.3 -3Zrcl e)o I if it.,249- t.37._ 0, 6 ,0, 3S-0/,-,_

0 :" "Q, j 4 , 37 2

lg7 9# i. s, IQ q1. 6 s- ID., - 5l 7

15't.n I e 9. 2<3 / .-779 l- 0. 41A, 0. 7,

10 i 75 _____ _ 7 4

1h) in,,.T mn. 3 AO t ., 1 e, 0. o " 4o(_13____Ej_' 12 4,0 t0 4 A f; 0 4

141,30b 2.'2gi 1 4 419 0s .,t 2 0 711

14 310 9 L. s / t . . 0, 3. .

07']3 " . - In ,l /,oV o '-",

.~~~~~~ f4:0 u" ,( 197 f,0_#J 0. ¢n7RZ.,.,g

444.' L, -n 0 0. 3q

* 9. 4 Ls,() ,2 I fq o. ---

Iu 3 1l [. 13 . 0 3 3 . ,'M .l V,( rp V7 -. b -f 1. L; I;' o. 437 41..,'o1-3f) 41 i]c.b 7,,4,1A 1.e n. I. 42 0.. 2 F.,,, ,,

2 0 11 l, .. '2 a< o _. I. 2- 8.go 05- OO .

9 I:;I I I Inilll

1U1 1. 04J 2 ~~ Q. 43 r'wN

IiL ~ ~ ~ 2 a 1.~ CT Q. 4o7 -______Il-t qrZpn IILl 1~l. An aL A2oL 0.962

-3 .n, 19. crln 9 ;54 77 107-7 0.#6 . ,-.-1 f ;Q -r.. & . _

q2 0 5c,- 5_%

129 *%\

TUNNEL SITE

PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: ________________ _____ Date:__________

Reaction Pile:____________________________ ______

Displacemnt gage locations:

#2:7#3:#4:

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Visp. Reaction v'ile Disp.Reading in Jack if1#2 #3 #4

13t:3A eno I o . a si I4 I s. 1. 0 41g -1 i4.:a 7 zo 1,484 1,014 . If~0

1441-1 RnLom.. 211 9f -5(, L L .O 1.IC n 4!~ 6,

94:Lo AD" 4IIAO 2. .7& ~ 1.1-112 L. 4 $9

8 oj 40-n 7-6 911419" 1 . 4..Z1 .07 61o42,0'

10 14;3 so U om zlr - 4 R3

51b30 - 4Q*** 570 2.-, ... 2.. 11.0a.... 30)192.10; 30 Ano 14 1 (, o~ ~ 9 47q 1g4 1,7 o,4?

ttL:30 A ____1_R____1_A7__._32__

U8130i Ando 4180 2.Q& (,, 7- 11,4 0. sz)

1' Injl -U 00CT 0- - 2 .7 .1 .v+I(, r. -3211

15 9,03 :10Q 0 A2 & 13 0, 7 0 A, .1'Y, 2~3to nc _ _~ ~.0 zLU .;n ,54 .

'4 11 5 Cn 2.0q4 . J1. 2 C o. Oz '32?

1 ,3 eQ 416cl L.2. As-2L.Zt . J __5q___._5 _

'8 2 tV -.32n 1) o -- 0 2 . iL0L 3L 1.2o oNo .z246su Rnao 4ho 2 o 1,411 16s 52

130

TUNNEL SITE

PILE LOAD TEST DATA

Test Pile: Date: _ _,"__ _

Reaction Pile: ____

Displacement gage locations:

#1:#2:#3:#4:

Time Load Cell Pressure Test Pile Disp. Reaction File Disp.Reading in Jack if1#2 #3 v(lbs.)

15i.~ F 214 . 901~ 11010 Z(O. g, ;f .. leo 6 .6.3 0.1. E I2 o:XI- A19 q 9.. 9&,1..0o4 6. 5z-

_ _ so , ______. OW I , 10 (. 10, S. S

__________ ,I .. L.. I . h z z 3 .- J- i2ASg U. 4 -,i. 9w a~ . -Aq177 .--

2/66 -in Y,. 61"7 1,677 1.J.7 J D. o.g 7

* 24LiL N i-oo .L. I.4 A.. IZ ' .3 ,.

24i, __ __0_ .9 .f34. A 4- t. 7 33e. 5-,q

169h .0 1 . . 1.A (, .112,3 r) ,01_l I AO 1 1.

216: 50 70 CAL 1~. aZ 0,2

27:3o w l 10 o 5-n6 o . . 3 .1, q3 . 2-5 - O.,o -6--"A54"o 144L .q 2 1. 2 6

A ,-?l86 O 24) q 3 1. 1& 1 L , oL7

A : D "II ',4}€ h - .! r. e . .0.64 r

] . ~ ~~ 1s , n 7 2. o-1t 4 1(, q--6.7o

•4, t .. , 7

131

I roa P" .- -- - - n. -AA -4j .1 10

1.~~ ~ a.' 1. o6 0,

1,I410 0,737%- A u3.141 ±. lL 1,417- (9,736 -

4vo 6 e .,e 0,741

3,-l I ' 1.03 0,45

586 .*S,21~~2.~O 145'2. 0,771

5M..Z1 2.1(7 I4SZ o-776-.5

So3. o 10 J 2,200 1, Wd 0,716

6eJ o 3,114 z 1,413 O.8o7~8. 200 .301o zlzza 19

2-373 Z. 183 1.535- ez 5

I 13o 3 3 22. 541Co4

31:o.3-401 2,30, 1,S3%;:30 A a,0 0, g 15

3q1:30 13rco 666 - 2348I5 0,877 -

!32D: 3o 34y ,38

32Z:3 ~5O3.411~ .2,378 15%O.o

Su ~30 Z. 48D35q .30 o z 0.9zo

132

23a Z; -5 6.5S 76 045

70000 A7C /5

33; 0 1 6378 2Ji71 o q34 oo 7,0o 3. 562 1617

331 !30 1 .3. , .672 0-16ry(

- _____ --. 747 - Oo708 f

S34:3 -4 -7/1O~-l

- 3-631- 1, 61I 1.7 - 1,02Z

_____~~S 6~a~ i~O ~ .q3 t.0 1,761 I.0

sqO; -0 - - .- w 2.715 1.76 1.041

-- - 736 3.6q3 2.. l.7s04 /.o7.

-4 6:30 A' 04] 2. 2.8 1,6 2 , ,2

34 : 5 tb 4,2 00~Q 2,76 1.71 /.016

sD R) 2.77 t.o q.C I g

3t31O3mt 2. 713 1.964 1.4051:~~~-. so4 q. .l

Y{4i0 - .~~33~o .. w~[6

3 S3~2 I4Si~a 8$~ 'ff~I ,Y671 - - 1,9( d

354!k A -. 6 1.9Z6 1,1~>~ i76

- 8 eo - 414 3.013 1.1't3 (.187

-57 4,z- - - 5. 31023 050~ 1. 19S5

351 1; 1 o . 4,2tea 3.O8Z 071 1,7,20

360 i30 36 4,320 3.0 .99q3 12Z31

36L13O .3o4.338 3.II 111 0ol 123/.

No 2.: 5 3,133 9-006 1.244

3a ilk 4. 373 &,,oIZS.5 1. E-50 -4

2413 44 - .1 5 2.021 L~ 21r

345,m I7~ 4,143 2. 1bg . 3 l.z77y

3443o - - 4.46L J ),.3~ .. S

~1i3 17 74 Zp 46 2.974 1,729a4

74Zlo ( 4 o lru J".75 /.

134.

- - - - .. ,-*- - - - - - - - - - )4 V .

d, %

% . e %

e

.0

APPENDIX B %e

CORRECTED PMT CURVES .

-.-

% %

i~~liT.. -.

,..- ,,,44 ."135 '" '

.- . " .,"t4~4 , ~4 E4. *-p~'.4 ' ~..'. S. ~* * ** 4~ .~ **:.4..--.-*. d ,4.? * -4 .+ - .4' ? * 4 5%4. :4 V * . . N " * *. ,9% .4 * *.-. p5. -. 45-, ".'-- *

30 ' ' ' ' ! ' ' ' ' * , '

BOREHOLE DEPTH a

Dl 2'25

DRIVEN CPMT

X 20

LU

Lnw 15

Chi

LU

S 15

0,

10 5 10-- .....

/ S

0 5 10 15 20 25..'.::

INCREASE IN RAOIUS / INITIAL RADIUS k%)

,.-6

136

30 1 , I 5, I , , , J , , I J I , I' J , , , I,,'

m, ,Aft,%

.so'

BOREHOLE DEPTH

Dl 5125

DRIVEN PMT -'

w 20--"

2i). / -

Lii

LI)w, 15 /

n-/

u

n ..- F.

a:100u

5 4512

INCREASE IN RADIUS /INITIAL RADIUS M7.

13!'7 ..

•~ -F,1O - --

F,

mm "%F.,

137 -.F',% ' ,'

'p

. :.

BOREHOLE DEPTH

Dl 9' ""-

25 - -DRIVEN PMT

cLS

,,--

., 20

(n

w 15 .

"-0w

w -

w 10 _

//"5 /

00 5 10 15 20 25

INCREASE IN RADIUS / INITIAL RADIUS (M)

138

f • *' X - * "U- *j l'U i~U~ U % | ........ ''

30030 "" ' 'to'I ' i , , , I ' ,

BOREHOLE DEPTH

-Dl 13'

25 DRIVEN PMT

Ln0

-20A

w 15

cc 15 .--

0 5 10 15 20 25,-

INCREASE IN RAOIUS /INITIAL RADIUS ),----"

9'.

139 p

w, .

-., .".,"v ", .""""'""",.- , .."i -+', -" '..',.',..-.- ",..:¢ .Z.,.,,-.',10,,-..,",-.-'''-'''' .- ' '' S' '- ' '..-.--.

BOREHOLE DEPTH

Dl 17' " S* Z

25- "DRIVEN PMT

.-. V

Lfl 20 -

<0

,U-

w 15

w

re 10C / Sc

5)2

0 5 10 15 20 25

INCREASE IN RADIUS / INITIAL RADIUS (%)

-400

0

I

140 -S. "S. - -

15

BOREHOLE DEPTH

B2 2' . .

125 "TEXAM PREBORED PMT

S10-

SJ,

w 7.5-xS

CL-

I .,- ,,.

2.5

2 I I ' LI II

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

INCREASE IN RADIUS /INITIAL RADIUS ~

14.

w~v,%,,-.--., ". ",,,-,, ,,.-.-';.,. .,,z.. .. , ".2 .. " "r "," , '"?'r "r%.,, ",. ". '% ",' "" "' " %,' -, "' " '. "

-" '

"" " '" " .- %" " J -".'w ' -. -. '

.0

BOREHOLE DEPTH

BI 7'

12. 5 TEXAM PREBORED PMT

--,= /

//

Ln,, 7.5 ,j.

CL / S e.0I

Lu

LLI

(il /

00

5

5 I0 5 1

5 // ;.;

0 SO 1 2 5 3 3 .-

INCREASE IN RADIUS_ INITIAL RADIUS 0/0"-.,

-7w

1

,.5

(. '. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... : .:-

BOREHOLE DEPTH

Bi 10' a

12. 5 TEXAN PREBORED PMT .'

100 5 1 15 0 25 30 /

INRES IN RAIS IIILRDU

/143

BOREHOLE DEPTH

BI 15'

12. 5 TEXAM PREBORED PMT

i0-

Lu

LU

Li 7.5a.

Lii ..

I-

ujj

5

2..

//

I I l 1 L..1 1 1 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 so 35 '

INCREASE IN RADIUS IINITIAL RADIUS 7,"

144*"4

N .

'

BOREHOLE DEPTH

Ri 30' l

12. 5 TEXAM PREBORED PMT

'U

LU

,, 7.5

I- .I- :.- .'q

2.5 ..//.. I,-/ . . .. ii. ,

0 5 10 15 20 25 so 35""

INCREA SE IN RADIUS /INITIAL RADIUS 0", ".";.

I%.v

145'-n '

,., II JA...

.' ~ , , J -, ' " '. .w .W'% ' ,' ' W % ,Z '. " N ' " ,"%0 5. , .. ." , ' % 1 0.5"2 2 5%" . ,3".." ,0." . ' 3 5 - % . •% - % " ,," .. . " . , " " . - % " ,

.IWA

BOREHOLE DEPTH

B3 2'

12. 5 TEXAM PREBORED PMT N

inS 10

7.5

mS

wck:.

w 7.5a-

w

w

/

. " i, 'S ,

a: 5

I % IC2.5.

0 -r I , I I I I I I I I I I I t , I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

INCREASE IN RADIUS / INITIAL RADIUS (X)

10

* ..A..

F, •"

146:

.i i i l i l l i i ll I mlliii iil ll ... ... ... .1

BOREHOLE DEPTH

D2 2' ,'

25-DRIVEN PMT

Of 20-

0- -re

0

105 / .

/ Sq'%

o , S , , .. a , , I , ,a I , , a , I a a , a " '-0 5 10 15 20 25 ,.--.

INCREASE IN RADIUS / INITIAL RADIUS (%

147

-- - .- ,**Pj..~: ~ - -%% %' - -

N--

NA.%

N1 4 8

S -

-' .'%''."%"". % -. •" " , '- - ,o,",,,"W " '." .. ,,'.", '.._ " , " .-,..-. "',"".' '4"" " ."",, "" .""-""- " '- - % ""-- '' ..'" ' " -4'- " , . .,. 5%

. '

-,, ., . , , , , , .- ., . . . . . ", ., . .

:j-AA

op

IX"

+°i+ 'I.

APPENDIX C

CYCLIC DEGRADATION OF THE

PMT SECANT SHEAR MODULUS

140

,.'. -

'-'.'."4

5'."

_. - +, , -,,,,.= =rita+,l~rl,,r i, i l~l-= h dkrdbllb'I='l =llkll l l ,l~ll ++".. . . . ... .. . , . . . . . . ..

oli 1 4 lollu I I I 1 0

1

*a.

" i

w0

1501

% e

(-) -

,

'.

'-, -[ -/N)s ,.

d}

,,-',

-', 150-'a"

a'

• ." "-. ""." . "-'- --".---.'-'--- '-'- ." "-. -'-,- .- '-',,'-.,-.,- "." '-,'-,--.., .- ".'-"- "o', " .,'-'-> -" -. -'-.'-'--,-">.-,"'a.

I'" -llI

- - :.:

%./*-B

,-, B•

..,.*:

-. r

([) ~l/() s '- 'S

• " . ', -,w"",/ .,..," .,.;.,-" -*'- ."'"+ " '€".""..' ,." ." "," . ,€ .. " ,,''-''.""-''." -" ." -" -" ,-'"-'".''."".""." + . " """ " ", " " '"'"B-

I

%)

I A

iP

A

C,_______________________________________________________________ A

,gI I I I Ijill I I I

' 1 A'

4 "C-A- LJ,

A- > "-

,AM

(T) 3/() og',

w $

,.

%, . , . • . . % % . % % "C I.. , . , 4 , . %. .i

-4

*w*w

z

4-J >->cni

LL)

(1) GO (N) 9

153_

09 1 1 I I I 1 li i I I

0* .

mS

zw

*ai

w) a.

0I

-4.

,

154 'N...-

O b.O

:A.K K - , .J

-0

1 1 I I , m m i l I I I I a-.

%

w

-"o r

( ) m l(N) m

155 •.,-

."- %2m

W." ".- '_ , " ' ' " , , " " , .' " " -" i e . ' " " ..% e -.# '2 i c .-" . ' T , ; P 3 , L "". , ' " " , ' , ' .'2 " .. .€ ' .' . . " ' . '. " , .-" . " " ,

. , ,., ,,, , .. -. .,

.,. ., - " ,"; ... . " - .l ,, ,,...,, ,, - ,, , ,, v ,,,.-. 7 . , ,,.*, ..,. . ,.. .

,,,"%

I I ! !

0

,"-'4. . '. ,

--.. 4.

w S

,,.4-.,,.4% .

LIj

-P %

00

4.j.

rz -z

0.

157

'-t*

k. - - A. ~ - -- -a

0

o" 0

-

-jg

-' '

O •

LJ Q ',,

W.-J_.-,

0 '-a - -

-4-] I I it I I ! IL , I

'V'%

(tl)8 o CN) m O -'.

~~e58

1 5 8 ,/ ,,,

• ,."." .'',,' '*,,. ,,."-. ..', -r.• V ,.' .",,.""," .' '". %"v;"..' ''.',, .%.,,.., , . ' 6 ",',," .', - , Q' . '"-",,"/".' 2 '.- '- •.'. ,'"._V,-V'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0

w

>) >

V ca

PQ 9= -KV

(1 O ()0

CNJ :~-:. 159

w ~ 0

z

w

0 0

0 Q2ccJ cl '

-PI

- - .. Ak '. l.* -A .C - - - - - - - - -

"'' ' ' ' ' ' I'' ' ' . ,

-v,%

•.,, .

", -. "

-. . :.:....

"o- ,V °

-

Z-...

161 ".,.-. ,

*:: .*,:

! " " " " v . _ "/ "" .. . "/ " " " " ".'."": - "__" ", ." ; "'" "_" i " .7 ''_"_ . . . '4

"% Ir

O

l.o

,%

--

:-p

oS ,

S.,

5,

% " " ", '% % . % % .. % . . ., .*'.t* '% %'-. " % -, % %"%."%"..' -%'. '% %'' P., t

APPENDIX D

CYCLIC DEGRADATION OF THE

PMT CYCLIC SHEAR MODULUS S

163

an I

vAAv~wol. 797L br - -'- - -W

0V

00

0 5-

0 -1

0 >w

0

SF0 S

00

00LA%

*~ %5

S

I 0

I C S.~. -,~-

Js-

'4'-Mw

S

,1'*

z'S

C wooa - ~

0 w0 -3

(-30

Li

r 1J 6/

- ~ .~

slam a . a

0 - 2

S

AVV...

V

p

- - s -

.p

Sil I I Ilii I I '"I

- Z

0 *,

* ..

-q-

-aw

a -00

,, , , , , , " ' ' ' ' ' c

00

,5.-..

0) ,., .'.

5-S

0 -J

uS

5,.-. -.

o >

o * S

CD ..-,?!,

16 t% S,

-%

* z US

1 -

"'a'

V e

00

C3 -

16

z*V .w

_ o x UpU,.

O- ; -*1

-0 -I$

("-3*, U -4

I I i i 1 i I I I ,-

'U

a6

a * - •

V. '

' ".-'

A I , U I I I I l l l i U I I I0 0

0-

• -, .", -.- ,

zS

w~

oca

zS

w

00

0-

> >

4z -x

16 9

U"'",'" -, . . ' " - n " t m " " ' " / .. .. .. i " . .. . . .I . . . . "'0* ' '

*~ * . * ~ ~ -- - I. V

a) 0 0

Liii L'. '

(1)03(N~n

170Q

........ - V

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _% d0

'.V4

le N

> >

4..j 0

WW 9-4

17101w

- -- A A .4 F . --- . - . . ~ d.~~~d t~eJt. 4 ..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o ~

.):.'.:

O-

* 4 .: S

* --S )" ". -

U S !

*72°''"

• °

- .i - - - ~ - ~ -..---- ~ -. ~-- -. ,. - -p-.-- - -., J%~

~ .4~

S

.- 4*

*1.~ ~ -_________________________ 0liii I I I I jill. I I I I 0

- ;4q1

V

S

IZ A

* 0** w

0 *o 0 ~

* -

* z v*q....w* S

Uo

LI

0

- e~J

-~ ~4-~4.J ~J~J~ ~, >w~ ~ So -o-oW~-J 00

0.0~)

~ -~ 0

S-4

0 - ~. .. ~.

,1*

173~.

9

;-.....

*~m

551

U •

. -( " .. 5 , .o• .. .*;.

- , .,.".

.5, , L

oo

07 '% '

0- .

.1r-w

cr~

0 w/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _C

>- >

4S

0

0

175