DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Static Resistance of Deep Foundations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Static Resistance of Deep Foundations Final Report FDOT Contract No.: BDV31-977-05 UF Contract No.: 108380 Evaluation of Static Resistance of Deep Foundations Principal Investigators: Michael C. McVay, Ph.D. (PI) Jae, Chung, Ph.D. (Co-PI) Researchers: Thai Nguyen, M.S., P.E. Sudheesh Thiyyakkandi, Ph.D. Weina Lyu, M.S. John L. Schwartz III, M.S. Lin Huang, M.S. Vinh Le, M.S. Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment University of Florida P.O. Box 116580 Gainesville, Florida 32611-6580 Developed for the Project Manager: Rodrigo Herrera, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation Structures Office May 2017 DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. ii SI (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS (from FHWA) APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) °F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius °C or (F-32)/1.8 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS Lbf * poundforce 4.45 newtons N kip kip force 1000 pounds lbf lbf/in2 (psi) poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa ksf kips per square foot 0.04788 Megapascals Mpa tsf tons per square foot 0.09576 Megapascals Mpa iii APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) °C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square lbf/in2 inch *SI is the symbol for International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003) iv TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Static Resistance of Deep Foundation: Phase I May 2017 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Michael McVay, Jae Chung, Thai Nguyen, Sudheesh Thiyyakkandi, Weina Lyu, John Schwartz III, Lin Huang, and Vinh Le 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of Florida – Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment 11. Contract or Grant No. 365 Weil Hall – P.O. Box 116580 BDV31-977-05 Gainesville, FL 32611-6580 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 5/20/13 – 5/30/17 Tallahassee, FL 32399 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract: The focus of this research was to evaluate and improve Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FB-Deep software prediction of nominal resistance of H-piles, prestressed concrete piles in limestone, large diameter (> 36”) open steel and concrete piles, as well as estimation of unit side friction on permanent steel casing for drilled shafts in Florida limestone. To accomplish this the following data was collected, (1) 642 dynamic load tests (DLT) and 33 static load tests on H-piles, (2) 100 DLT tests for prestressed concrete piles in Florida limestone, (3) 50 open-ended steel and concrete piles (22 piles larger than 36-in) from coastal areas in the U.S. and Asia, and (4) 17 cased drilled shafts embedded in Florida limestone. Evaluation of the H-piles revealed that generally, the piles undergo both setup and plugging after driving that is lost after a few restrikes; in addition, long piles undergo skin friction unloading. Recommendations to improve FB- Deep H-pile prediction include averaging Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values only beneath the pile tip and increasing the limiting N values to 100 for strong limestone layers. In the case of prestressed concrete piles embedded in limestone, (1) weak limestone which for the purposes of this report was classified as N < 45 blows per foot, exhibit unit skin friction values more representative of soil than rock/shelly sand, (2) for competent limestone (N>45) the limiting SPT N value for estimating side and tip resistance should be increased to 100, and (3) the nominal tip resistance should be estimated by averaging the SPT N values within four diameters (or pile width) “B” below the pile tip. For all limestone (weak and competent), a revised unit tip resistance for 4B SPT N averaging is recommended. For all open-ended steel and concrete cylinder piles, it was found that many piles behaved plugged per the static load test results. It was established for both FB-Deep (2015) program and American Petroleum Institute (API - 2011) method that the end bearing was the minimum of inside side friction or unit end bearing acting over the bottom soil plug; in addition, the limiting N value should be increased to 100. Finally, for a permanent cased drilled shaft, the unit skin friction in load tested shafts was found to increase with rock strength to a limiting value of 1.2 tsf; an equation of nominal resistance as well as mobilized resistance as a function of displacement is presented. The contribution of casing in drilled shafts that derive most of their side resistance from the rock socket interface should not be implemented in design, due to strain incompatibility between the cased and uncased portions of the embedded length. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement H-piles, prestressed concrete piles, open-ended steel and concrete piles, cased drilled shafts embedded in limestone, No restrictions. Static and Dynamic Load Tests, and FB-Deep 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 212 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researchers would like to thank the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the financial support to carry out this research and the State Materials Office in Gainesville, Florida, for providing access and assisting with many of the field tests (SPT) on H-pile sites. In addition, the assistance of district geotechnical engineers in obtaining project plans, geotechnical reports, driving logs, as well dynamic load tests (DLT) and signal matching (e.g., CAPWAP) assessments is appreciated. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The focus of this research was to evaluate and improve Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FB-Deep software prediction of nominal resistance of H-piles, prestressed concrete piles in Florida limestone, large diameter (> 36”) open steel and concrete piles, as well as estimation of unit side friction on permanent steel casing for drilled shafts in Florida limestone. To accomplish this the following data was collected, (1) 642 dynamic load tests (DLT) and 33 static load tests along with site data for H-piles, (2) DLT test and site data for more than 100 prestressed concrete piles, (3) site data and static load tests or over 50 open-ended pipe piles (steel and concrete) with diameters ranging from 30” to 54” in coastal areas of the U.S. and Asia, and (4) load tests (Osterberg and Statnamic) from seven sites for 16 cased drilled shafts embedded in Florida limestone.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PART 1 BDV25 TWO977-25 Task 2B Delive
    EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND CLASS IV CONCRETE FLOW IN DRILLED SHAFTS – PART 1 BDV25 TWO977-25 Task 2b Deliverable – Field Exploratory Evaluation of Existing Bridges with Drilled Shaft Foundations Submitted to The Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS30 Tallahassee, FL 32399 [email protected] Submitted by Sarah J. Mobley, P.E., Doctoral Student Kelly Costello, E.I., Doctoral Candidate and Principal Investigators Gray Mullins, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, PI Abla Zayed, Ph.D., Professor, Co-PI Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-5845 [email protected] January, 2017 to July, 2017 Preface This deliverable is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements set forth and agreed upon at the onset of the project and indicates a degree of completion. It also serves as an interim report of the research progress and findings as they pertain to the individual task-based goals that comprise the overall project scope. Herein, the FDOT project manager’s approval and guidance are sought regarding the applicability of the intermediate research findings and the subsequent research direction. The project tasks, as outlined in the scope of services, are presented below. The subject of the present report is highlighted in bold. Task 1. Literature Review (pages 3-90) Task 2a. Exploratory Evaluation of Previously Cast Lab Shaft Specimens (page 91-287) Task 2b. Field Exploratory Evaluation of Existing Bridges with Drilled Shaft Foundations Task 3. Corrosion Potential Evaluations Task 4. Porosity and Hydration Products Determinations Task 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Ie, Genetic Programming
    Final Report FDOT Contract No.: BDK75-977-68 UF Contract No.: 00100800 Pile/Shaft Designs Using Artificial Neural Networks (i.e., Genetic Programming) with Spatial Variability Considerations 10 x 10 3500 FB-DEEP MODEL ST1 15 FB-DEEP MODEL ST2 3000 FB-DEEP MODEL ST3 GP MODEL ST1 GP MODEL ST2 2500 GP MODEL ST3 ] 2 10 2000 [psf] s f 1500 5 1000 MSE [lbs Minimum 500 0 0 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 N [Blows/12in] Generation [-] SPT Principal Investigators: Michael C. McVay Harald Klammler Khiem Tran Primary Researcher: Michael Faraone Student Assistants: Nathan Dodge Nilses Vera Le Yuan Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment University of Florida P.O. Box 116580 Gainesville, Florida 32611-6580 Developed for the Rodrigo Herrera, P.E., Project Manager; Peter Lai (Retired) February 2014 DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. ii SI (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS (from FHWA) APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of End Bearing for Drilled Shafts and Suggestion for Design Guidelines of End Bearing for Drilled Shaft in Florida Limestone
    PREDICTION OF END BEARING FOR DRILLED SHAFTS AND SUGGESTION FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES OF END BEARING FOR DRILLED SHAFT IN FLORIDA LIMESTONE By SANG-HO KIM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003 Copyright 2003 by Sang-Ho Kim To My Mother and My Wife ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank God, at first, with all my heart. Without his leading, I would not be here right now. During my one year and eight months at the University of Florida, I have learned a lot of things and met many people. This period has been the most memorable and important time in my life. I would like to express my appreciation for all the professors (Dr. Michael C. McVay, Dr. Frank C. Townsend, Dr. David Bloomquist, Dr. Paul Bullock, Dr. John L. Davidson, and Dr. Bjorn Birgisson) in this department for giving me the opportunity to study here. In addition, I would like to extend a special thank to Professor Michael McVay for providing me the opportunity and for assisting me throughout the pursuit of my degree. He taught me many geotechnical concepts and how to think throughout our research when I was stuck. I would also like to thank all of my friends, Lila, Badri, Zhihong, Landy, Evelio, Minh, Erkan, Carlos, Thai, Scott, and Dinh, in our geotechnical field in civil engineering. It has been a pleasure studying with them and getting to know one another. In addition, I want to thank Sang-Min Lee, who helped me with the statistical aspects of this research, for being a good friend and colleague.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan
    STRATEGIC PLAN 1 2 2014 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 10 12 14 13 ASBI STRATEGIC PLAN COMMITTEE 10.27.2014 15 1. Natchez Trace Parkway Arches, Tennessee 2. South Norfolk Jordan Bridge, Virginia 3. Blue Ridge Parkway Viaduct, North Carolina 1988 - 2013 4. SW Line Bridge Nalley Valley Interchange, Washington 5. Victory Bridge, New Jersey 6. Miami Intermodal Center, Florida 11. I-76 Allegheny River Bridge, Pennsylvania 7. I-280, Veterans Glass City Skyway, Ohio 12. AirTrain JFK, New York 8. New I-35W Bridge, Minnesota 13. Otay River Bridge, California 9. I-275 Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Florida 14. San Antonio “Y” Bridge, Texas 10. US 191 Colorado River Bridge, Utah 15. Penobscot Narrows Bridge & Observatory, Maine 25 I-64 over Kanawha River, 1 2 West Virginia 3 ASBI STRATEGIC 4 PLAN COMMITTEE 1. Noyo River Bridge, California 2. Selmon Expressway, Florida 3. U.S. 1 Wiscasset Bridge, Maine 10.27.2014 5 4. I-93 Boston, Massachusetts 5. C755 Central Link Light Rail, Washington 1 Introduction 5 Performance Measures 1 Mission Statement 11 Strategic Priorities 1 Vision Statement 12 Evaluation of Strategic Objectives 1 Values 13 Implementation Considerations 2 Strategic Goals 14 Recommended ASBI Organizational Structure 3 Objectives & Strategies I-4 Connector, Florida South Norfolk Jordan Bridge, Virginia CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ASBI has developed a Strategic Plan in order to guide its growth and development over the next 25 years. This document is intended to help align the organization’s resources and activities with the various goals and objectives outlined herein. This Strategic Plan includes VALUES 5 goals supported by 10 objectives that are in A Values Statement outlines the turn supported by 31 strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Strength Envelopes for Florida Rock and Intermediate Geomaterials
    Strength Envelopes for Florida Rock and Intermediate Geomaterials FDOT BDV31-977-51 Principal Investigators: Project Manager: Michael McVay, Ph.D. Rodrigo Herrera, P.E. Xiaoyu Song, Ph.D. Researchers: Thai Nguyen, P.E. Scott Wasman, Ph.D. Kaiqi Wang 2 Tasks Task 1 – Equipment setup Task 2 – Field rock acquisition Task 3 – Laboratory testing Task 4 – Test results and analyses Task 5 – Numerical modeling Task 6 – Final report draft and closeout teleconference; Task 7 – Final report. 3 Literature Review Geology of Florida Surface Rocks: Calcite mineral (Rhombohedral structure – cube of rhombi faces) Limestones Aragonite mineral (Orthorhombic structure) Dolostones: Dolomite mineral Marl or marlstone: Calcite mixed with soils and other earthy substances Calcarenite (for example Anastasia formation) 4 Literature Review 5 Literature Review South Florida limestone: Hester & Schmoker (1985) Other limestone in the world: Solenhofen limestone: n = 0.05 Great Britain limestone: n = 0.06 Salem/ Bedford limestone: n = 0.12 to 0.13 6 Literature Review Table 3-3. Mineral specific gravities from literature Jumikis, 1983 Goodman, 1989 Lambe & Whitman, Hester & Schmoker, 1969 1985 Calcite 2.71 - 3.72 2.7 2.72 2.71 Aragonite 2.94 Dolomite 2.80 - 3.00 2.8-3.1 2.85 Quartz 2.65 2.65 2.65 Table 3-6. Florida rock strengths with regards to strength engineering classification Strength RMR Q (ksi) str Florida Rocks Class u Rating A – Very high > 32 15 B – High 16-32 8-12 C – Medium 8-16 5-7 Isolated Avon Park D – Low 4-8 3-4 Avon Park, Ocala LS, Ft. Thompson, Ocala LS, Miami LS, Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspire™—Spring 2008
    THE CONCRETE BRIDGE MAGAZINE SPRING 2008 g Protecting Against & Evaluating FIRE DAMAGE! www.aspirebridge.or DES PLAINES RIVER VALLEY BRIDGE ON I-355 Lemont, Illinois MAROON CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT State Highway 82, Aspen, Colorado LOOP 340 BRIDGES Waco, Texas TAXIWAY SIERRA UNDERPASS Sky Harbor Airport, Phoenix, Arizona Aspire Spring 08.qxp:Layout 1 2/20/08 4:52 PM Page 1 Bentley® LEAP Bridge. It’s all in there. The power of LEAP Software’s mature and proven analysis & design applications is now ONE. ONE Central Application ONE Parametric Design System ONE Console LEAP Bridge acts as the central information All data for bridge components is All component design modules are accessed hub for your projects. Exchange data with exchanged and maintained in a from the single user console. 3D solid or AASHTOWare’s BRIDGEWare Database. single database with design transparent views of your entire bridge project Transfer important data with any LandXML changes from individual modules or individual components are available on compliant applications (MicroStation®, populated instantaneously. Your demand with the capability to print or export GEOPAK®, InRoads® and more). bridge is always up to date. views to DXF files. Run full project/bridge reports and individual component reports from a single location. Superstructure Geometry Substructure ONE Powerful Solution Efficient, logical and accurate. The new fully integrated LEAP Bridge is developed by engineers who have expert knowledge of code specifications, design methodologies and have been leading the industry in new technology development for over twenty-two years. When you work in LEAP Bridge you have the advantage of a virtual bridge engineering brain trust at your fingertips powering a seamless analysis and design workflow.
    [Show full text]
  • ASPIRE™—Winter 2008
    THE CONCRETE BRIDGE MAGAZINE WINTER 2008 g Torrey Pines Road Bridge San Diego, California www.aspirebridge.or ERNEST F. LYONS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Stuart, Florida ST. ANTHONY FALLS (I-35W) BRIDGE Minneapolis, Minnesota FIFTH STREET PEDESTRIAN PLAZA BRIDGE Atlanta, Georgia DEVIL’s slidE BRIDGE Pacifica, California DAGGETT ROAD BRIDGE Stockton, California leap_aspire_ad.qxd 2/27/07 10:32 AM Page 1 LEAP Bridge. It’s all in there. The power of LEAP Software’s mature and proven analysis & design applications is now ONE. ONE Central Application ONE Parametric Design System ONE Console LEAP Bridge acts as the central information All data for bridge components is All component design modules are accessed hub for your projects. Exchange data with exchanged and maintained in a from the single user console. 3D solid or AASHTOWare’s BRIDGEWare Database. single database with design transparent views of your entire bridge project Transfer important data with any LandXML changes from individual modules or individual components are available on compliant applications (MicroStation®, populated instantaneously. Your demand with the capability to print or export GEOPAK®, InRoads® and more). bridge is always up to date. views to DXF files. Run full project/bridge reports and individual component reports from a single location. Superstructure Geometry Substructure ONE Powerful Solution Efficient, logical and accurate. LEAP Software engineers software for engineering minds. The new fully integrated LEAP Bridge is developed by engineers who have expert knowledge of code specifications, design methodologies and have been leading the industry in new technology development for over twenty-two years. When you work in LEAP Bridge you have the advantage of a virtual bridge engineering brain trust at your fingertips powering a seamless analysis and design workflow.
    [Show full text]