Negative Skin Friction on Large Pile Group New Wembley Stadium. Mei Cheong

Similar documents
TC211 Workshop CALIBRATION OF RIGID INCLUSION PARAMETERS BASED ON. Jérôme Racinais. September 15, 2015 PRESSUMETER TEST RESULTS

Finite Element Investigation of the Interaction between a Pile and a Soft Soil focussing on Negative Skin Friction

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE TITLE PAGE DECLARATION DEDIDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ABSTRAK

INTI COLLEGE MALAYSIA

Lateral Earth Pressure

SOIL MODELS: SAFETY FACTORS AND SETTLEMENTS

Cubzac-les-Ponts Experimental Embankments on Soft Clay

Analysis of the horizontal bearing capacity of a single pile

Analysis of a single pile settlement

Engineeringmanuals. Part2

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION Validation Manual. version 1.5

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS TEST SERIES PILE #2 USING OPENSEES (WITH LPILE COMPARISON)

Effect of embedment depth and stress anisotropy on expansion and contraction of cylindrical cavities

Clayey sand (SC)

BENCHMARK LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE USING OPENSEES & COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

Verification of a Micropile Foundation

Ch 5 Strength and Stiffness of Sands

A Pile Pull Out Test

TIME-DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR OF PILE UNDER LATERAL LOAD USING THE BOUNDING SURFACE MODEL

Gapping effects on the lateral stiffness of piles in cohesive soil

Cyclic lateral response of piles in dry sand: Effect of pile slenderness

Axially Loaded Piles

Recent Research on EPS Geofoam Seismic Buffers. Richard J. Bathurst and Saman Zarnani GeoEngineering Centre at Queen s-rmc Canada

Mechanical Behaviors of Cylindrical Retaining Structures in Ultra-deep Excavation

Evolution Group 7 - Pile Design

Table 3. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002 equation. A (degrees) Rounded Sub-angular. 2 Angular. B (degrees) Uniform Moderate grading.

1.8 Unconfined Compression Test

Towards Efficient Finite Element Model Review Dr. Richard Witasse, Plaxis bv (based on the original presentation of Dr.

Deep Foundations 2. Load Capacity of a Single Pile

DESIGNING FOR DOWNDRAG ON UNCOATED AND BITUMEN COATED PILES

Reinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls. Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai

CONSOLIDATION BEHAVIOR OF PILES UNDER PURE LATERAL LOADINGS

Benefits of Collaboration between Centrifuge Modeling and Numerical Modeling. Xiangwu Zeng Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Pre-failure Deformability of Geomaterials. Hsin-yu Shan Dept. of Civil Engineering National Chiao Tung University

Chapter (11) Pile Foundations

Entrance exam Master Course

Earth Pressure Theory

PURE BENDING. If a simply supported beam carries two point loads of 10 kn as shown in the following figure, pure bending occurs at segment BC.

1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION 1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION

YOUR HW MUST BE STAPLED YOU MUST USE A PENCIL (no pens)

Application of cyclic accumulation models for undrained and partially drained general boundary value problems

Monitoring of underground construction

OP-023. INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUMENTED TEST PILE RESULT

HKIE-GD Workshop on Foundation Engineering 7 May Shallow Foundations. Dr Limin Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

ON THE FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN WEAK ROCKS

Verification of the Hyperbolic Soil Model by Triaxial Test Simulations

On equal settlement plane height in piled reinforced embankments

N = Shear stress / Shear strain

Evolution Group 7 - Pile Design

CPT: Geopractica Contracting (Pty) Ltd Total depth: m, Date:

UNIVERSITY OF BOLTON WESTERN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE FZE BENG (HONS) CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER TWO EXAMINATION 2016/2017 GROUND AND WATER STUDIES 2

BE Semester- I ( ) Question Bank (MECHANICS OF SOLIDS)

Cavity Expansion Methods in Geomechanics

Landslide FE Stability Analysis

EXAMPLE OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

PILE-SUPPORTED RAFT FOUNDATION SYSTEM

both an analytical approach and the pole method, determine: (a) the direction of the

The Modified Matlock Method

CHAPTER 8 ANALYSES OF THE LATERAL LOAD TESTS AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE

Stresses and Strains in flexible Pavements

Numerical Modeling of Direct Shear Tests on Sandy Clay

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Achmus Institute of Soil Mechanics, Foundation Engineering and Waterpower Engineering. Monopile design

Soil Properties - II

PES Institute of Technology

Verification Manual GT

Geotechnical Properties of Soil

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF PILES IN SAND BASED ON SOIL-PILE INTERACTION

Session 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model & Design (Part 2)

4 Undrained Cylindrical Cavity Expansion in a Cam-Clay Medium

3D FEM investigation on bending failure mechanism of column inclusion under embankment load

1 Introduction. Abstract

Soft Ground Coupled Consolidation

D1. A normally consolidated clay has the following void ratio e versus effective stress σ relationship obtained in an oedometer test.

Compressibility & Consolidation

EN Eurocode 7. Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland.

BRASIL MAY 2010

STANDARD SAMPLE. Reduced section " Diameter. Diameter. 2" Gauge length. Radius

CPT: _CPTU1. GEOTEA S.R.L. Via della Tecnica 57/A San Lazzaro di Savena (BO)

Dynamic Response of EPS Blocks /soil Sandwiched Wall/embankment

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES

The San Jacinto Monument Case History

Deformation And Stability Analysis Of A Cut Slope

Haulage Drift Stability Analysis- A Sensitivity Approach

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE AXIAL CAPACITY OF MICROPILES

Single Pile Simulation and Analysis Subjected to Lateral Load

Analysis of CMC-Supported Embankments Considering Soil Arching

Soil Properties - I. Amit Prashant. Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar. Short Course on. Geotechnical Aspects of Earthquake Engineering

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Wick Drain

EXTENDED ABSTRACT. Combined Pile Raft Foundation

Analysis of Pile Foundation Subjected to Lateral and Vertical Loads

Unbound Pavement Applications of Excess Foundry System Sands: Subbase/Base Material

Australian Geomechanical Society Victoria chapter 18 th April Design of columnar-reinforced foundation

REINFORCED PILED EMBANK- MENT FOR A HIGH-SPEED RAILWAY OVER SOFT SOIL: A NUMERICAL AND ANALYTI- CAL INVESTIGATION

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Behavior of Offshore Piles under Monotonic Inclined Pullout Loading

SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

water proofing will relatively long time fully completed) be provided 10 storey building (15x25m) original GWT position 1 sat = 20 kn/m 3

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

A presentation of UniPile software for calculation of Capacity, Drag Force, Downdrag, and Settlement for Piles and Piled Foundations

1. A pure shear deformation is shown. The volume is unchanged. What is the strain tensor.

Transcription:

Negative Skin Friction on Large Pile Group New Wembley Stadium Mei Cheong

PRESENTATION OUTLINE An Introduction NSF Back analysis from monitoring Design Implications Conclusion

An Introduction NSF Rigid Floating Pile Compressible Clay

An Introduction NSF =Drag down =Primary Consolidation d =? NSF/Drag force Neutral plane Key question Assumption: : Depth No of drag neutral force plane? Ground settlement = pile group settlement

Indicative section Fill Arch base Eastern Arch Base 9m clay fill NSF Eastern Arch Base

Base dia = 19.5m Total piles = 19 Pile dia = 1.5m Pile length = 27m Clay fill = 9m NSF Eastern Arch Base

PRESENTATION OUTLINE An Introduction NSF Back analysis from monitoring Design Implications Conclusion

Settlement, mm Back analysis-ground settlement with time 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Start of monitoring 26 April '03 Primary Consolidation t = 19 years p=~120mm Monitoring End of fill 03 Aug '03 Start of arch lift 21 May 04 End of arch lift 26 June 04 Current time 28 Mar 07 12m bbf 6m bbf Base of fill 10 100 1000 10000 Time, days

Back analysis-ground settlement with depth 50 Base of fill 40 Elevation, mod 30 20 10 0 Monitoring Monitoring -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Settlement, mm

Settlement, mm Back analysis-pile Group settlement with time 10 5 0-5 -10 End of arch lift 26 June 04 Start of arch lift 21 May 04 Monitoring Rezeroed monitoring Load on arch Last monitoring point 14 March 06 20 0-20 -40-60 -80 Load, MN -15 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time, days -100

Settlement, mm 10 5 0-5 -10-15 Back analysis Neutral plane End of arch lift 26 June 04 Monitoring Start of arch lift Ground settlement = pile group Rezeroed settlement monitoring 21 May 04 Pile Group Settlement Assumption: Neutral Plane Ground Settlement Load on arch 10m bbf 6m bbf Last monitoring point 14 March 06 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Time, days Neutral plane about 8m bbf 20 0-20 -40-60 -80-100 Load, MN

PRESENTATION OUTLINE An Introduction NSF Back analysis from monitoring Design Implications Conclusion

Day to day design Ground settlement with depth Crucial Allowable pile/pile group settlement Identify Neutral Plane Negative Skin Friction/ Drag Force No Yes Job Check Acceptable FoS and Settlement done!

Ground settlement with time 0 20 Start of monitoring 26 April '03 12m bbf Settlement, mm 40 60 80 100 120 140 Δ=35mm Primary Consolidation t = 19 years p=~120mm Monitoring Neutral Plane 8m bbf End of fill 03 Aug '03 Start of arch lift 21 May 04 End of arch lift 26 June 04 Base of fill Current time 28 Mar 07 6m bbf 10 100 1000 10000 Time, days

Ground settlement with depth 50 45 Pile head level = 43.5mOD Elevation, mod 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10m Δ = 35mm 28m Linear Elastic 0 50 100 150 200 250 Settlement, mm Non-Linear Elastic Pile toe level = 16.5mOD Linear Elastic Non Linear Elastic

Non Linear Elastic better solution Analysis type Depth of Neutral Plane (m) Backanalysis () ~8 Non Linear Elastic ~10 Linear Elastic ~28

Drag down, mm Varying Depth of Neutral Plane 0 50 100 150 200 Drag down Total Stress Method Effective Stress Method Drag force Non-Linear Elastic Linear Elastic Ko varying with depth Ko constant 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Drag force, kn 250 0 5 10 15 20 Depth of Neutral Plane, m 0

Conclusion NSF Large pile group back analysis Depth of Neutral Plane CRITICAL for NSF Non linear elastic comparable to back analysis Linear elastic grossly overestimate Neutral Plane

www.mottmac.com

Model 52.5 19.5m 43.5 Fill 41mOD Elevation, mod 37.5 32.5 21.0 13.0 Upper Weathered London Clay Lower Weathered London Clay Upper Unweathered London Clay Lower Unweathered London Clay 5.0 Lambeth Group

Input Parameters Soil Layer Layer thickn ess (m) Unit weig ht, γ sat (kn/ m 3 ) Horizontal & Vertical Permeab ility, k (m/s) Poisson s Ratio, υ Young s Modulus, E (MN/m 2 ) z=depth from top of London Clay Cohesion, c (kpa) Friction angle, φ (degre es) Interface Param eter R Clay Fill 9 19 10-9 0.25 10+0.6z 1 20 1 Upper Weathered London Clay Lower Weathered London Clay 6 20 10-8 0.15 5+3z 6+0.2z 20 0.85 5 20 10-9 0.15 25+5z 7+0.6z 20 0.85 Upper Unweathered London Clay Lower Unweathered London Clay 11.5 20 10-10 0.15 50+13.6z 10+0.4z 22 0.9 8 20 10-9 0.15 220+26z 15+0.4z 22 0.8 Lambeth Group 8 20.5 10-8 0.2 400+80z 26+0.4z 22 1

NLS input parameters Elevation, mod Depth, m Initial Mean Effect ive Stres s, p (kpa) Young s Modulus, E at 0.1% strain (MPa) 43.5 0 80 23 E /E 0.1 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.7 Strain 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 38.5 5 130 38 33.5 10 185 54 23.5 20 305 88 13.5 30 460 133-3.0 40.5 710 206

VDisp Input Elevation, (mod) Thickness, (m) Undrained shear strength U 100, s u (kpa) 0-4m, s u =60+17z >4m, s u =115+3.3z z = depth from top of London Clay Young s Modulus, E =200s u, (MPa) 43.5 0 60 12 39.5 4 129 26 16.5 27 204 41 5 38.5 242 48

Soil Structure Interaction 50 Elevation, mod 40 30 20 10 0-10 Extensometer [ME4R] at Point A Plaxis Clay Fill at Point A Single Pile Pile Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Settlement, mm

A better solution! 0 Down drag, mm 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Linear Elastic Non Linear Elastic Non Linear Elastic Linear Elastic 0 5 10 15 20 Depth of neutral plane, m

Drag force, kn Sensitivity test 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Total Stress Effective Stress Total stress Effective stress 0 0 5 10 15 20 Thickness of NSF zone, m