Offshore Pile Design PDF

pare DESIGN GUIDES FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES Co-ordinated by the CLAROM (Gab des Actions de Recharche sur luz Ouwagos on Mer Edited by Pierre Le Tirant 1982 EDITIONS TECHNIP 27 RUE GINOUX 75737 pais cesex +5 technild©1982 Eattone Techip. Pais ight resrved. No paral te pbtcnen may be rprofiene ansidinary frm ty ay mea, scr wcrc ny ploy. arg, ary momaaN ‘trag andvava stom wnat pss nen ees te pasar Isa 2710806142 SSN 0085-1821 Prot a France by Cla Edons, £4846 Salt Hes FOREWORD The collection of “Design Guides for Offshore Structeres” offers the petroleum industry the practical information required in the different stages of project, from design to exccution: determination of the environmental cha~ acteristics 10 be accounted for in load calculations, choice and design of the foundations en¢ anchoring systems, computation procedures for estimating the behavior of the structures and to predict their service life, specific proportios of the materials (steel or concrete) in very severe service conditions ‘The Design Guides are not regulations, and do hot claim to supplant the standards, codes and regulations of the classification societies or the national regutations, However, the regulations could refer to the Design Guides in so fa as the Guides incorporate the latest scientific and technical advan- es in the areas concerned. ‘The Design Guides also focus largely on the examination of the grounds for the regulatory provisions whose areas of validity need to be clarified, and which sometimes impose computation procedures and fabrication methods ‘without specific justification Finally, the Design Guides offer engineers invaluable aid in consolidating the scientific and technical basis andeslying the arrangements they propose within the framework of the regulations in force. z ‘These Design Guides have been prepared by Reseaich Associations on Off- shore Structures formed since 1970 on the initiative of the Institut Frangais, dy Pétrole (IFP), and the Institut Frangais de Recherche pour !'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), with the participation of the French oil companies and several petroleam equipment and service contractors. These Associations fare now grouped together in the CLAROM (CLub des Actions de Recherche sur les Ouvrages en Mer or Club for Research Activities on Offshore Struc- ures) For the design of foundation and anchoring offshore structures, the practical information compiled by the “Association de Recherche en Géotechniquevi —w Marine” (ARGEMA), with the collaboration of many specialists, led to the writing of four Design Guides: + Anchoring of Floating Structures. + Offshore Pile Design. + Foundations in Carbonate Soils. + Stability and Operation of Jackups. Design Guide on “Offshore Pile Design” brings to the attention of project engincers involved in this area all the required background information, based on a critical analysis of the state-of-the-art and on ret search results. It offers, firstly, detailed geiaclines for each different phase of a pile Aesign project. i then presents the main pile design methods, both current and proposed, dealing particularly with the recoriimendations of the API and the evolution of these recommendations over recent years. Finally it puts at the disposition of the project engineer the geotechnical informa tion necessary to carry out the project. The performances of the methods of design are confronted with the results of pile tests, and their application is illustrated by a number of sample calculations, We hope that this Design Guide will satisfy the needs of project engineers faced with the wie variety of offshore pile projects, and that it will ac- cordingly help 10 chance the design and safely of offshore structures, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Design Guide “Offshore Pile Design” is the result cf the collective efforts of an ARGEMA Working Group lead by A. Goulois (SNEA()), ‘Tne original document has been produced by J-P. Bécue (previously with Géodia). This Design Guide could not have been compiled without the active and continuous co-operation of many specialists of pile design and offshore struc: lure installation, who devoted a large share of their time by participating in the many meetings of the Working Group, by providing written or oral contributions Working. Group LP. Béoue (previously T.Le Xuan (ETPM) with Géodia) A. Longueval_ (BOS) D. Berdin (Bureau Veritas) J. Meunier (IFREMER) F Brucy CEP) R. Nahra (previously. with P. Boisard (SNEA(®)) Géodia) LP. Crespin — (SNEA(P)) IF.Nauroy (FP) G. Byers (Solétanche) A. Puech (Géodia) FC. Ferrari Cintessub) P! Schmitt (Solmarine) MGambin (Solétanche) F. Tavenas (previously with A. Goulois (SNEA(®)) Univ. Laval-Québec) UP. Kervadee (Total) W.Zawisza (previously with PiLeTiram (IP) DORIS) F, Baguelin (previously with LPC), M. Fahey (Univ. Western Australia) and CR. Golightly (previously in post-doctoral year at IFP) kindly revised the manuscript. ‘They all deserve grateful thanks of CLAROM. CLAROM would also like 10 thank N. Lemoine for typing the manuscript, and G. Thibaud for preparing the illusteationsTABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword. Acknowledgements Sat Table of Contents Natice INTRODUCTION. Chapter 1 PILE DESIGN: BASIC GUIDELINES L.1_ Pile Design P:2paration Z 1.1.1 Compilation of Basie Data 111d Structure... et 1.1.1.2 Loads and Loading Conditions 1113 Soit Beeb eee 1.1.2 Cnoice of Design Criteti8 n.s.ennseanmnnnne 1.1.2.1 Rules, National Codes and Recommendations, 1.1.2.2 Lumped and Partial Safety Factors 1.1.3 Influence of the Pile Installation Method 1.1.3.4. Driven Piles 1.1.3.2 Drilled and Grouted Piles. vin x xx[ I 1.2. Pile Desi 13 42a Pile Design Methods and Choice of Di Parameters 134 132 133 134 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS m Stops, Ultimate Pile Capacities 1.2.1.1 Neutralized Pile Height 12.1.2 Ulimate Pile Capacity in Compression 1.2.1.3 Ultimate Pile Capacity in Tension... 1.2.1.4 Progressive Failure 1.2.1.5 Design Assumptions. 1.2.1.6 Layers of Difesest Soils Near the Tip 1.2.17 Pile Grovps.. 12.1.8 Cyctie and Earthquake Loading Vertical Pile Displacements senmnsnnnmnenense 1.2.2.1 Purpose of Evaluating Vertical Displacements. 1.2.2.2 Methodology for Evaluating Vertical Displacements. Cohesive Soils 1.3.1.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils 1.3.1.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Scils Cohesionless Siliccous $0HlS msn 1.3.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Soils 1.3.22 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils Calcarcous Sands. 1.3.3.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Calcareous Sands 1.3.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous Sands cer ted Caicareous Formations. 1.3.4.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cemented Calcateous Formations. Po W ” 8 2 23 4 28 30 31 32 32 32 3 3 33 36 36 36 39 40 40 a 2a as TeRLE ne CONTENTS 1.3.4.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cemented Calearcous Formations. Rock 1.3.5.1. Skin Friction of Piles in Rock 13.5.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Rock... Chapter 2 DESIGN METHODS API Method 2a Specific Use of the API Method 21d. Use of the API Method... Dit Salery Factors of the APIRP 2A - WSD Method on 2.1.3 Pile Resistance Factors of the API RP 2A - LRFD Method Pile Design in Cohesive Soils ot 2.1.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils Recommendations of APT 1991 2.1.2.2 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils: Recommendations of API 1986, 24.23 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils 2.1.2.4 Design of Piles Using Spevitic Installation Techniques. 2.1.2.5 Comments on the Recommendations of API 1986 and API 1991 Pile Design in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils. 2.1.3.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils 2.1.1.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils 24.3.3 Design of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques x a “6 “8 “a 49 49 “9 49 50 st 31 54 56 58 38 60 6 oo 66xit TASLE OF CONTENTS: 2.1.3.4 Characterization of Cohesionless Siliceous Soiis According to API 1991 DABS Dis ion of the Recommendations DIA Pile Design on Rock at 2.1.4.1 Skin Friction of Drilled and Growted Piles in Rock 214.2 Tip Resistance of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Rock 2.2, DNY Method. 2.2.1 Specific Use of the DNV Method. 2.2.1.1 Limit State Calculation venwnon: 2.2.1.2 Geotechnical Parameters 2.2.2 Design Resistance of the Pile, L 2.2.2.1 Compressive Resistance. 2.2.2.2 Tensile Resistance... 2.23 Pile Design in Cohesive Soils.. 2.2.3.1 Skin Friction... 2.2.3.2 Tip Resistance... 2.24 Pile Design in Cohesionless Siliccous Soils 2.2.4.1 Skin Friction 2.2.4.2 Tip Resistance 2.3 Alpha Method of Semple and Rigden 2.3.1 Specific Use and Reliability of the Semple and Rigden ($R) Method ... 23.1.1 Application of the SR Method. 2.3.1.2 Geotechnical Parameters .. 2.3.1.3 Reliability of the SR Method General Formulation of the Semple and Rigden Method 2.3.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils 66 o n a a a n n 2 2 24 25 26 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.2.2 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils With $aNd LAYEES sno 7 2.3.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils Alpha Method of Randolph and Murphy. 2... 2.4.1 Specific Use and Reliability of the Randolph and Murphy (RM) Method... 24.1.1 Application of the RM Method .. 24.1.2 Reliability of the RM Method 2.4.2 General Formulation of the Randolph snd Murphy Method.. 2.4.2.1 Skin Frietion in Cohesive Soils.. 2.4.2.2 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils Beta Method 2.5.1 Specific Use of the B Method 2.5.1.1 Specificity of the B Method 2.5.1.2. Application of the B Method 2.5.2 General Formul of the B Method 2.5.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils... 2.5.2.2 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils with Sand Layers . 2.5.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils 2.5.3 Detailed Effective Stress Methods. 2.5.3.1 Estimate of Effective $t2e8828 son cononn 2.5.3.2 Reliability of Effective Stress Methods Lambda Method. 2.6.1 Specific Use and Reiiability of the 2 Method .. 2.6.1.1 Specificity of the & Method 2.6.1.2 Application of the 2 Method 2.6.1.3 Reliability of the & Method xi i a4 a5 85 85 85 8s 85 w 8 a8 es a8 8 a En a 92 92 s2 93 93 3 93 9axv TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS xv ; 2.6.2 General Formulation of the 4 Method 94 2.9.1.1 Behavior of Piles in Calcareous Formations: na ' 2.6.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soits oe 2.9.1.2 Specifitity of the ARGEMA Method wns 14 26222 Skin Fiction i) Cohesive Soils 2.9.2 General Formulation of the ARGEMA Method... nis ; With Sand Layers 95 2.6.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils. ot Fi 2.9.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Caleareous Sands. 115 29.2.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous 2.7 Penetrometer Methods 7 Sands ce ne 2.7.1 Specific Use of Penetrometer Methods ..cumum 97 2.10 Pile Displacement Calculations m2 2.7.4.1 Specificity of Penetrometer Methods 7 2AO.1 bx Transfer Curve Method unsnnnennnnwnnnnannnnnan 1B 2.7.1.2 Offshore Application of Penetrometer 2.10.1.1 Principle of Pile Displacement Methods fe 7 Caleulations oe ra 2.7.2 Formulation of Penetrometer Methods oe 2.10.1.2 Shape of the t-z Transfer Curves 123 2.7.21 Skin Friction “ 98 2.10.2 tx Curves for Skin Friction and Tip Resistance 122 ‘ 2.7.2.2 Tip Resistance .. : 101 2.0.2.1 t2 Curves for Skia Friction in Cohesive Soits. at 14 +> 2.8 Pressuremeter Methods. : ; a -2 Curves for Skin Friction 7 2.8.1 Specific Use and Application of in Cohesiontess Siliceous Soils 129 a Pressuremeier Methods. 105 2.10.2.3 tz Curves for Skin Friction 28.1.1 Specificity cf Pressuremeter Methods 105 in Catcarcous Formations... " 7 - 2.8.1.2 Application of Pressuremeter Methods. 105 2.10.24 tz Curves for Tip Resistanr= in Different Soils ... : 131 * 2.8.2 Pre-Boring Pressuremeter (PRP) Method eoessonuu 108 2.8.2.1 Skin FrieQiON veeon cutee oesee os 241 Steel/Grout Adhesion in Drilled and Grouted Piles. 134 2.8.2.2 Tip Resistance : : 108 2.11.1 Computation of Allowable Stecl/Grout Adhesion 134 2.8.3 Selt-Boring Pressuremeter (SBP) Method. Mm 2L-L.1 Values of SteeliGrout Adhesion... a : 2.8.3.1 Skin Friction... : ne 2111.2 Example of Caleslation of Steel/Grout 2.8.3.2 Tip Resistance ; a AAHESIOR scene : 135 2.11.2 Limitations of Steel/Grout Adhesion os as "2.9 ARGEMA Method in Cateareous Sands... ne : fe DALLA APL Design Procedure onnmn 138 2.9.1 Piles in Calcareous Formations and Specificity 2.11.2.2 DEn Design Procedure of the ARGEMA Method a naxv 3 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 3 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Geotechnical Classification of Soils 3.1.1 Siliccous and Silicate Soils 3.1.1.1 Geotechnical Classification 3.1.1.2 Characterization of Cohesive Soils... 3.1.1.3 Characterization of Cohesionless Soils. 3.1.2 Calcareaus Formations: : 3.1.2.1 Caleareous Sands 3.1.2.2 Cemented Calcareous Formations Evaluation of Geotechnical Parameters. . Plc 3.2.1 Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. 3.2.1.1 Laboratory Measmements and Correction Factors nnn - 3.2.1.2 Field Measurements and Correction Pactors 3.2.1.3 Normalized Shear StENGU mscnoemnnne 3.2.2 Penetrometer Paremovers.. 3.2.2.1 Soil Identification and Classification Based on CPT Results 3.2.2.2 shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from CPT Results 3.2.2.3 Shear Steagth of Cohesionless Soils Derived from CPT Results 3.2.3 Pressuremeter Parameters . 3.2.3.1 Soill Classification Based on SBP Results 3.2.3.2 Shecr Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from SBP Results... a 12 Ma 142 146 ur 9 1st 1s3 153 154 185 1st 139 159 182 16 167 167 168 33 34 3S TABLE OF CONTENTS Installation Methods and Pile Design. 3241 Pile Monitoring and Decision During Driving Operations anne Pile Wall Thickness and Allowable Stresses. Influence of the Shoe on Driving and on Pile Bearing Capacity 3.3.1.4 Soil Set-Up and Resumption of Driving... 3.3.1.5 Driving of Battered Piles, 3.3.16 Driving of Pile Groups. 3.3.2 Other Pile Installation Methods... 3.3.2.1 Cleaning-Out of the Pile and Redriving 3.3.2.2 Drilling of a Pilot-Hole and Redriving. 3.3.2.3 Driving of an Insert-Pite.. 3.3.24 Drilled and Grouted Piles (Single and insert) ot 3.3.2.5 Driven and Grouted Pites 3.2.6 Pile Vibro-Driving .. Combination of Axial and Lateral Loads... 34.1 Coupling Between Axial and Lateral Load., 3.4.1.1 Models with Axial ané Lateral ‘Transfer Curves. 3.4.1.2 Anclysis of Coupling Esfects 3.4.2 Influonce of Letersl Loads on Antal Capacity, 3.4.2.1 Slotting of the Hole Around the Pilé... 34.2.2 Newtralized Pile Height scmemmnennenn Effect of Relative Pile Flexi ity. 3.5.1 Pile “Flexil ty" or “Compressibility” 3.5.1.1 Progressive Failure 3.5.1.2 Short and Long Pites.,. XVI 7 i” 178 v8 178 180 180 180 1st' | xvi TABLE 8 CONTENT 3.5.2 Consideration of the Influence of Relative Pile: Flexibility sun el 3.5.2.1 The Murif Approach of Pile Flexibility 3.5.2.2 The Randolph’ Approach of Pile Flexibility 3.6 Efiect of Cyclic Loading. onsrnsnesnnenen 3.6.1 Behavior of Short Rigid Piles Under Cyclic: Loading nner 3.6.1.1° Cyclic Pile Tests in Overconsolidated Clays 3.6.1.2 Cyelie Pile Tests in Cohesive Soils. 3.6.1.3 Cyclic Pile Tests in Cohesionless Soils 3.6.2 Behavior of Long Flesible Piles Under Cyclic Loading 3.6.2.1 Phenomenology of the Behavior of Long Piles: 7 3.6.2.2 Combination of the Effects of Relative Flexibility and Cyclic Loading 3.6.2.8 Numerical Modelling of Pilr Behavior Under Cyclic Loading 3.7 Effect of Earthquakes and Loading Rate. 3.7.1 Soil Degradation Due to Earthquake Action 3.7.1.1 Cohesionless Soils. 3.7.1.2 Cobesive Soils 3.7.2. Assessment of the Risks of Soil Liguefaction 3.7.2.1 Shear Stresses Induced by an Earthquake 3.7.2.2. Liquefaction Resistance of the Soil 3.7.3 Effect of Loading Rate on Pile Bearing Capacity increase in Pile Bearing Capacity ash Loading Rate of Loading Rate and Pile Design 181 185, 187 198 190 192 192 196 196 17 197 197 198 198 198 200 200 201 38 4a Pile Group Effect 3.81 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Phenomenology and Characterization of the Group Effect 3.8.1.1 Efficiency Factor . 3.8.5.2 Solid Block Method ... 3.8.1.3 Punchthough Verification Group Effect According to Soil Type... 3.8.2.1 Group Effect in Cohesive Soils... 3.8.2.2 Group Effect in Cohesionless Soils... Chapter 4 EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND EXAMPLES OF PILE DESIGN Experimental Data on Pile Skin Friction and End-Bearing Capacity 4d Coh-sive Soils 4AJAL Measuted and Calculated Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils 4.1.1.2 Influence of a Pitot-Hole on the Skin Friction of Piles in Clay emmnm Cohesionless Siliceous Soil 4.1.2.1 Measured and Céleulated Bearing Capacity of Piles in Sands. 4.1.2.2 Measured and Calculated End-Bearing Capacity of Piles in Sands. Caleareous Sands... 4.1.4.1 Skin Friction and End-Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles in Calcarcous Sands 4.13.2 Skin Friction of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Caleareous Sands xix 203 203 203 204 206 206 206 207 26 26 220 220 220x 43 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1.4 Cemented Caleareous Formations 4.1.4.1 Skin Friction of Driven Piles in Comented Calcareous Formations evens 4.1.4.2 Skin Friction of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Cemented Calcareous Formations Application of Design Methods to ARGEM. Experimentat Piles 4.2.1 Cran Experimental Pile... 4.2.1.1 Cran Pile Characteristics 4.2.1.2 Cran Soil Data... 4.2.1.3 Calculations of Pile Capacity in Tension 4.2.1.4 Comparison Between Calculated and Measured Results and Conclusions. 4.2.2 Plancott Experimental Pile, 4.2.2.1 Plancogt Pile Characteristics 4.2.2.2 Plancost Soil Data Hatt 4.2.2.3 Calculations of Pile Capacity in Tension 4.2.24 Comparison Between Calculated and Measured Results and Conclusions Examples of Actual Pile Design, 4.3.1 Project A (Gulf of Guines) AB.AL Description of the Soil. 13.1.2 Pile Type and Dimensions a 4.3.1.3 Caleolations of the Shaft Friction Capacity 4.3.14 Calculation of the End-Beating Capacity. 43.1.5 Bearing Capacity of Piles 4.3.1.6 Comparison Between Calculated Results 4.3.2 Project B (North Sea) ss 43.2.1 Statement of the Problem 43.2.2 Project Data. 43.2.3 Design Criteria, 43.2.4 Description of the Soil na am 26 ae 238 28 21 a6 aus 49 29 252 256 2st 263 263 263 266 266 27 43.25 43.26 43.2.7 43.28 43.29 REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Calculations of the Shafi Friction Capacity... 7 Calenlation of the End-Bearing Capacity Capacity of @ Single Pile in the Group Capacity of the Pile Group. Complementary Soil Investigations xt 281NOTICE For easier consultation, this document has two types of print: (2) The major recommendations are in standard (roman) charac- ters, (b) Commentaries offering assessments of the choice of calcul. lion methods, their ranges of validity, their limits of appli- cotion, examples of their use, etc., are in italics.INTRODUCTION Despite the large amount of research carried out on the bearing capacity of piles and the considerable experience built up in the installaion of deep foundations onshore and offshore, pile design still presents many uncertainties. fo fact, the evaluation of the bearing capacity of piles by the various calculation methods available often leads to very wide discrepancies, Tt is therefore important to guide the offshore foundation engineer by providing him with the means for a consistent approach to the problems and the infor- imation necessary for the different wethods used in designing piles under axial loading, in compression and in tension. This is the objective of this Design Guide “Offshore Pile Design”. Based on the widest possible critical analysis of the state-of-the-art and on the recent research resulis (including work by ARGEMA) on the behavior of piles subjected to static and cyclic loading, in tension and in compression, this Design Guide is limited to the design of: + Tubular piles, generally open-ended, the most common type of pile used for foundations and anchorings of offshore su + Pile or pile groups subjected to axial loads, with latczal loads represent: ing only a small fraction of the axial leads. : ‘This Design Guide, intended as a manual for the offshore foundation’engineer. is divided inte four chapters containing the basic guidelines for the design of offshore pile foundation, ‘The first chapter, entitied “Basic Guidelines”, offers detailed guidelines for each different phase of a pile design project: preparation (basic data, design criteria, installation method), ultimate pile capacities and vertical displac ments, choice of computation methods and parameters in accordance with soil type. The basic guidelines recommend using several computation methods (always including the API method) and making final decision in accordance with the results obtained and the geotechnical engincer's experience. ‘The second chapter, in the form of annotated data sheets, presents the main Pile Design Methods routinely applied or proposed, describes their specific2 reTropucTON ture and fields of application, and suggests procedures for evaluating. skin friction and tip resistance, A large part is devoted to the critical analysis Of the API method (and to its changes through successive editions), due 10 the importance of this method in the design of offshore structures every. where. The method suggested by ARGEMA for pile design an carbonate soils, which relies on the current state of knowledge, is subject to change in the light of subsequent experience. With regard to the penetrometst and pressure ‘mete, methods routinely applied for onshore pile design, they ace still litte used for offshore projects ‘The third ecapter, in the form of guide sheets, contains a body of widely varied Information for Pile Design, including geotesi.aics! soil classifica, tion, the evaluation of geotechnical parameters, the influence of pile installation methods on design, pile “flexibility”, the effect of cyclic loading and earthquakes on pile behavior, and the “group” effect on pile bearing capacity. It should be noted that the results of the many investigations conducted on the Pshavior of piles subject to cyclic loads still le virtually in the domain of basic knowledge, without any real influence on structural design methods and the choice of safety factors. The fourth chapter contains Experimental Data on the skin friction and Lip resistance of many piles in various types of soil, as well as the compara tive results of different design methods applied to ARGEMA experimental piles and to two examples of pile (or pile group) design of actual offshore This Design Guide, on a subject that is necessarily evolving in character, dloes not claim to be complete. Modifications and supplements will certainly be necessary in the light of developments in knowledge and subsequent expe Fience, Comments from users will be eagerly appreciated for use in the planned updates Finally, it is important to emphasize that this Design Guide has not regula Fy character. The procedures recommended, like the information compil ed, are only intended vo guide the project engineer and in no way involve the responsibility of CLAROM, Chapter L PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES Every project requires an organized and progressive procedure from the desi- ‘ener. Keeping this in mind, these basic guidelines are aimed to lead the desi- ner through the different phases of 2 project for pile design under axial Toad, in compression and in tension: + Preparation of design (Section 1.1) including the compilation of the minimum basic data, the choice of design criteria, and the influence of installation methods on design, Actual design phases (Section 1.2). Computation methods and the choice of design parameters according to the type of formation and the type of pile (Section 1.3). The basic guidelines refer to the following three chapters concerning: + The comments on pile design methods (Chapter 2) + The information concerning geotechnical data acquisition, pile installation, the action of cyclic and seismic loads, and the “pile group” effect (Chapter 3). . + Experimental data and examples of the design of single piles and pile groups (Chapter 4). This Design Guide on offshore pile foundations considers only stee), tubular and normally open-ended piles, and pile groups: + Usually between 24 and 84 inches (0.61 and 2.13 m), and up to 132 inches 3.35 m) in diameter. + Driven or drilled and grouted piles Usually installed with 2 maximum batter of 1:4 + Essentially subjected to axial loads, with lateral loads nol exce to 20% of the axial loads,4 1 PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 1.1 PILE DESIGN PREPARATION ‘The procedure for pile foundation design projects is shown schematical. ly in Table Ila. A general, although non-exhaustive list of the questions which should be saised and the checks and decisions to be made is given in Table 1.16, 1.1.1 Compilation of Basic Data ALLL Structure 8) The basic data supplied by design engineers are as follows: + Type of structure, described according to its purpose, the water depth, ate, + Number of legs, + Pile batter. Within the batter limit of 1:4, neither the batter nor the lateral component of the load is generally taken into account, for the design of axially-loaded piles, Allowable vertical displacements, If applicable, certain installation constraints #¢sociated with the type of structure: installation exports, hammer availability, pile supply, ctc b) In certain cases, the following deta may also be available: + Number of piles per leg: single pile, mai pile with skist-piles or pile roup. The pile groups employed for North Sea platforms are all of the circular type (clusters) Leg and guide diameters ©) the parameters that the geotechnical engineer can adjust are Purely geometric: number, diameter, embedded length and thickness of the piles. If the basic data are changed, the project must be resumed and checked. 1. PILE DESIGN Basic GUIDELINES Table 11m Progress of pile foundation projects + Number of ets lowable displacements Local geology CGeophysicl aad geotechnical Experience —;, — Teealized prefile + Soil parameters Design teria (codes ‘egalations) Load cases Safety margin Displacement: deformations Serene Recommendations for Desigs(pensration, et.) acording wo ype of pile snd installation metho (rivenbiity study) Compaubilty of tine required for instal probable metzo-sceanogical conditions isk ezessmen ln with Driven piles: Driven Dried and Belted omer er) piles piles } + Soi removat snseepies plo + Receiving Feasbiig, + Avila of egiprsntreqived - 7 i (Cotee of the sluton Franses to base Yer project, Supplementary asiyses hat may be required 1 verifications6 2 PILE DESICN gasie Table 1.tb Litt of quetiions 1 he raised and cheeks requized Basie data Suryotre: Dee 1 Nultbes of tees | egdiamerer Aiba Septacemente | fnstllanon eonsrsims Leads and losding eosditions: «Precise significance: “Applica ier loading condicions Earthquakes Landslide set vestigation depth 1 Consideration of alt results ized profiles end design P Supplementary profiles 1 Degee of enilermiy Choice of design eriteria Applicable codes or regulations ‘Gareent cations) Appropsiate safely factors for Prope Teading conditions Maximum displacements Allowable sresses in both pile ‘nd grout Influence of installation method Diigespitiy suay ‘Choice of hammers Pile mickoese Steel auestes Seem Stoel Dating lle behavior 1 Effect of mud on £ [Effect of sol comoval on ap Grout ys ule Fracturing bcakdown * Quality and quantity control Grouttestedl adhesion Injection "Feesciity 1 Etimation off 5 Estimation of gp Design of single pile Application of the API method inal asenother procedures Scour depth Effect of iateral loading Consideration of pile weight and weight ‘of internal soit eoloma CW". W") Eerding to loading ditection (com: bression, tension) site long oe tere fom phe- jomenew, of plug formetion dun Sing)! sonvenona evasion of bhimate eapeety in compression Ultimate capacity fa tension: tip rematance (ution) ignored fsilure: effect of length or ive “flexibility CGiteal depuvrimst values off and op Maloiyetd aot suet lace near tp risk of punchthravekl tmbedment . Ccttexreout formations Gnffoenes of ompreatiy of aleareus sands ont for driver piles) Ditplacement eniolation Llond-tranefer curves Effec of eyeie loading (one-way, two-way} Earthauakes osding rates Design of pile groups Cepaciyfetticiency fator/eguivatent ald blook Sr Displacements Punehthrovgh veils (compaction) 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES .2 Loads and Loading Conditions 1) Three types of load are considered: b) Various scenarios are taken into account, referred to as “loading con tions", which combine the environmental conditions and the drilling and pro- Dead loads: the self-Weight of the structure and of the fixed equipment, and hydrosiatic pressure. Live loads: dismountabie equipment, consumables, operating and handling loads, findering and mooring of vessels, helicopters, etc. fonment loads: wave, current, wind, ice. “The environmental Loads define the operational (normal) environmental condi- sions and the design (extreme) environmental conditions, while the dead zad live loads are combi ‘d to determine the urilling and production condi- Juction conditions The API loading conditions include Operating environmental conditions combine dead loads and maximum or minimum live loads, appropriate to normal operation of the platform. Design environmental conditions combine dead ioads and maxi- mam or minimum live loads appropriate to extreme conditions. The loading conditions accepted by the DNV (comparable to those Imposed by the Norwegian authorities) are given in Section 2.2 Ie is always necessary to make sure that these loads are actually the estimated loads, i.e. without 0 safety factor. These loads must bbe calculated down to the pile head, which is usually at the mudline, For very soft soils at the surface, it is important (0 accurately determine the mechanical properiies of he soil for the firsifew meters, in order to design the mud-mats fitted to the jackes bracings, The weight of the piles and of the internal soil column is taken into account in formulas for the ultimate capacity of piles, and is diseussed in Section 1.2.1 ‘The foundations musi guarantee sufficient capacity (o withstand the mazimam loads caleulated in compression and in tension, with appropriate safety factors (Section 1.1.2).8 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES In practice the design loading conditions in compression often correspond to the operational or extreme environmental conditions for ‘asmall or large structure respectively. In tension, the extreme conditions are nearly always the design conditions Other lozd cases, which should be considered as specific loading conditions, are also defined: In areas with landslide risks, Jn areas with seismic risks (Section 3.7) 1.11.3 Soil a) All the available information must be gathered and analyzed on + Local geology. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys already conducted. Local experience. ‘The purpose of a geophysical survey in the zone of the site is 1 provide data for a geologic assessment of foundation soils : |n general, @ geotechnical survey should be defined after review of the | Seophysical results. A soil investigation comprises one ot more boreholes, with: + Preferably continuous sampling, depth, + In situ measurements (penetrometer, vane’ probe, pressuremeter), if possi ble along the entire borehole depth, and if not alternating with the sam. pling. if possible slong the entire borehole ‘The muiuber of boreholes depends un the Soil variability in the zone of the site, ‘The investigation depth depends on the type of structure and the type of soil encountered. The penetration depth of deep boreholes is often around 80 to 100 m. For pile groups of diameter (or width) B, the survey must be con 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 8 tinued (0 a depth of 1.5B below the projected tip depth (George 1976), b) The geotechnical engineer must compile a geotechnical synthesis in the form of one or more idealized profites and, for the main soil strata identified, ‘with the design geotechnical parameters (Table 1.1¢), and recommendations for pile installation, Tableau 1.16 Main geotachsieel parametece Category Main geotechniest parameters | ASTM standard ‘Total unit weight () and ‘moisture content (W) ase Cohesive soils (including Plasticity index (1p) 409 caleareovs soil) Overcontalidation ratio (OCR) Undeained coher, « srenges (Ca) 2aes Total unit weight (2) 854 Cohesiontess siliceous Grain size distribution 42 soils Relative density (Ds) 2089 Intesnal fiction angle (9) 2435 ‘Total nik weighs (| 54 Grain size distibstion m0 Cemented esleateous Carbonsie content sande Limit compreesibity sndex (Cp ARGEMA Internal friction angle (6°) ‘Total wnit weight (Y) 354 Caleareous formations Unconfined compression surength (90) 2938 ‘Total unit weight i ase Rocky toile Unconfined compression strength (qe) 2938[ [ 10 1. PILE DESIGN ASIC GUIDELINES For some projects, statistical analyst may be made of the avat lable daa ad probbintecolearon erred out for verfestion if there is sufficient data to permit @ statistical analysis. ‘ The geotechnleal classWteation wsed i discussed tn Section 3. Requirements forthe evaluation of geotechnical parameters ere ds ousted n Sesion 2.2 in practice, ihe sols likely tobe encountered are divided ine five math categories + Cohesive soi Conetontsssiteeous sols Coleoreous sends: Crone erere ter «Rock formas Idealized profiles are often provided by the consultant after soil surveys. The geotechnical engineer responsible for the foundations is required to check them, and if they are unavailable, he must establish them himse'f. In all cases, a basic profile must be worked ous incorporating the parameters in Table Ite. Whenever possible, one or more supplementary prefiles should be determined from the effective stress characteristics (in clay layers). or from penetrometer (or pressuremeter) profiles (Tolan and Coutts, 1979). If several boreholes, drilled on the same site, reveal practically uniform soit conditions, a single idealized profile may be prepared. If significant variations appear from one borehole to:another, it is routine practice to develop. + A profile for each borehole separately Or preferably, 10 profiles corresponding to the “auper” and “lower” bounds respectively, defined from the scatter of geo techaical parameters from different boreholes. 1.1.2 Choice of Design Criteria ‘The sales, codes and recommendations define the design criteria and ove rall and paral safety factors whieh should be applied according to different areas, normal and exteeme conditions, the {ype of foundation, ad the type of subsoil, 7 ar 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES u 1.1.24 Rules, National Codes and Recommendations Projects are usually based upon either (Eri et al, 1977): a) Government regulations and guidances are usually of a very general natu: re, bus which prevail over all the other codes within theit area of application. Such regulations include those issued by: + vhe Department of Energy (DEx) in the United Kingdom, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) in Norway. Tne NS Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (US9S). b) Recommendations and guidelines issued by institutions and certificetion societies for offshore structures: Bureau Veritas (BY). Det Norske Veritas (DNV) + Lloyd's Register of Shipping (LRS). ©) National construction codes: + American Petroleum Institute (APD). ‘American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), American Sockety for Testing and Materials (ASTM). British Standards (BS) + Norwegian Standards (NS). These documents are fairly regularly updated and the designer should always refer (0 the latest editions. 1.1.2.2 Lumped and Partial Safety Factors a) Safety is accounted for either: By lumped safety factors (SF) expressing the minimum ratio required between the ulimate capacity and the allowable capacity, in accordance ng conditions considered (especially API) (Section 2.1). ¢ partial factors: on the one hand, reduction factors for geotech- 2:5, and on the other multiplication facters for loads (API RP DNV and NPD, Section 2.2.1) Section 2.1.1n Lo MLE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES AS a rule, design methods are applied with their own safety fac 9% thresholds of maximum allowable absolute of differential somctimes determined by considerations of soil or foundation behavior (degradation or tolerances). 40 is important 10 take horizontal pile displacements into account However, according to ARGEMA, the determination of allowable ver {ica ite displacements docs not appear to be essential for fixed ©) The design criteria also concern the maximum allowable stresses: « In ihe piles in the installation phase and in service, Wf applicable, in the grout sheath. During the pite installotion phase, the pile diameters compatible wlth the stresses induced due to driving are given in Section 33 dn service, under the combined effect of axial and lateval loads, each cross-section of the pile must satisfy the following criterion fa fhe Fre? with Fe = 06, Fe 0068, where, fe = calculated axial stress, fe = calculased bending stress, F, = allowable compressive or tensile stress, i Fy = allowable bending stress, Fy = steel yield stress. 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES B The allowable stresses may be increased by one-third if the stresses are induced by extreme environmental conditions. d) The documents which concern the choice of criteria to be applied in accordance with the main regulations and recomendations are listed in ‘Ta- ble Ltd. This choice must be consistent with the overall design of the structure: 1.1.3 Influence of the Pile Installation Method ‘The design study and the choice of the pile installation method must be conducted simultaneously. Furthermore, the installation method chosen often affects the pile capacity and behavior (Section 3.3) as shown in the influence diagram in Table J.te, 1.1.3.1 Driven Pites a) The feasibility of Griving, the choice of hammers and of installation Procedures, the verification of the allowable stresses in the piles, and the definition of the procedures to be followed in case of difficalty, result from 4 driveability study (Section 3.3) The presence of a shoe is generally not taken into account in designing axially loaded piles. b) If the internal soil column is removed. particularly if a pilot-hole is Used to facilitate :nstallation, any possible effects of alteration oP the bearing capacity, and especially of the tip resistance, must be taken into account, as indicated in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 LA. 2. Drilled and Grouted Piles 8) A drilled and grouted pile foundesion project must: Account for the effecis of drilling upon the ultimate pile capacity (mud, Cleaning of the hole sump). + Examine the risks of formation breakdown (hydraulic fracturing) during grouting15 siropmast snore « yor Jo soueisises 20 “naffog ayy jo 20 some fg nua} stan sed smog saravopun aun 24a 2u € uon29g) Butaup Bus ateuinsym (i jor fons puoi “Aanuenb “Apenb) fosiuo> nos) (einesoid ynos)) unopyeasg SutinI2eg enous afoyunop) & Jo uonremsy oa9/193 Jo 19}80801 242 92%, it (67 von228) $9910} 98 Jo uo suas ouny T spumugp oq) u;osns0u! ue + oteuep ond a jo ssveaiayed ood « ashes 7 /ssons antss2oxg ‘yo unest ood Jo Aan getaeHN so sans wip 250229 (I esnas amveseng | casorop 0831821519 098 # inp womiustunnse noe J wopeay}as poe senaiqorg ‘njoudes Pusvag-puo pur donot vans Wo poyaw woneTTHSU! 14 0 soKTLT arrears, (osst ‘161 ‘AN) ied sidsooe 109 (VE dl AV) 13 Mayes podung aeDEpT 1S pur suoteF2mog Uo eauEpING or punoH#AzEG., © 0 eOUa IO ntag 30 9903, a12nbape fur 5349098 Af (ANA) s20138) f19p svonpenog 2g uipusddy ‘sumianig ss049}0 30 Uotiedsuy pe uo (CaWT-¥E a TEV) 54 (ved 1a) 8 (ew) La ¥o7 woteuog 104 @ @ w @ © @ @ wo @) o ) © sroisey Kain. suonspunog © ssumanne 13515 p09 Buspuory rpoitza wi9429 1361) wonmps ist Le aM 1a¥ (oe C¢x61) wopipe 987 syusiansoq 2104510, (6361) 200 aawrve du av Je uonsnsisuoy pure | -yesuy s104s3)0 paxig 661) frog aut wo soueptng,, | uo oj saimy,, | te upo wet Ve dd Fav “aa ANG lay ‘8t29p oq Jo) suonepuawisooss pus 4 2 Dr a8, REE Re Ha eI ea Se iS oe ea16 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES b) I @ grouting sheath is used (for the structure-to-pile bond or for drill ‘ed and grouted piles), the minimum values of the “cement-to-formation” friction resistance and of the “cement-to-steel” ond governs the capacity of the pile. 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES v7 1.2 PILE DESIGN STEPS ‘The design of axially-loaded piles always requires the static calculation of te ultimate pile capacity, which ensures that the penetration of the piles into the soil is sufficient 10 withstand the maximum design loads with ade. quate safety factors applied. In practice, this calculation amounts to: Plotting the variation of the ultimate capacities in compression and tension, as a function of depth. + Determining the pite penetration depth at which the capacity in compression (or in tension) is at least equal to the maximum value of the compres sive (or tensile) loads after the application of their respective safety fac tors. Whenever possible, the use of several design procedures is recommended always including the API methods, with suitable sets of geotechnical parameters (Section 1.1.1.3}, and to conclude in accordance with the different results obtained (Toolan and Coutts, 1979) 1.2.1 Ultimate Pile Capacities 1.2.1.1 Neutralized Pile Height Initially the depth 2» down to which the external skin friction is disregar~ de must be determined. 8) The scour dzpth (0 general scour depth and a local scour depth of about one pile diameter each, are generally assumed). This effect is negligible with regard to axial loads. but is significant for lateral loads, b) ‘The depth ac which pile contact with the soil may be non-existent or Unreliable, owing to the effect of lateral loads (this is a maximum of five diameters for cohesive soils and calcareous formaticns) (Section 3.4). a a ee eeLoe 1. PILE DESIGN aasic CHER [ 1.2.1.2. Ultimate Pile Capacity in Compression a8 a4 The ultimate resistance of a tubular pile (driven or drilled and grouted) s 23 zt 4 to an axial force in static compre-sion applied al the pile top is determined | g fe BER 23] a8 shown in Table 1.23 2 |e: £3 Lag is Driven pites | = [eh Sbbse|ei eg $3 ie =O) + tat [Q1.Q,3]- | é ebede|eaae i: L Drilled and grouted piles: g e22222/a223 S83 eee | : 235223 (2222 23 é -Q=2+0,- 2 e2St2l|es3 34 | where: z egezbs| gees 23 fe & o|° fe a 8) Qi = ¥ fodAe = extermal shatt friction capacity, equal to the g 3° r Let sum of the external shaft friction forces over the 3 ze a8 L pile penetration depth after deduction ofthe depth e 6s & ed 4 % along which skin friction is ignored (Section | 3 os 12.1.0) | & | L pile length { a3 : G2e L fe = axiernal unit shaft friction, i zéle = S Esa BAe entewial Tateral contact area with the soil for the | 22/2 & 6 Bee r layer n wich fois applied For drilled and geouted =| Z| : = 22% 1 piles, da is determined from the diameter of the & 5 iad 7 drilling bit, 4 3 = - 3 z 2 . i g a a . 2 é Ss For belled piles, skin friction against the bell walls is ignored Z A 7 oo r fin compression) 3 g 3 Bae 3 gs : fe \ £ 24 5 BB z * $ 3 6 6 ° Bf end:- bearing capacity ofa pile assumed to be plugged 1 : Fig, 1.23): & ; unit end-bearing capacity, i i 23. r sist foss-seetional atea at the tip. q i 2 gid L. sonslae cfeas-sectional area of the pile ip, : u a & |g2s8 ip hip Piles thot “plug” during static loading do not necessarily remain plugged during driving (API. 1984: St. sohn, 1980; Brucy et al 1991) ‘The expression for the ultimate pile capacity complies with the formula of Olson (1984) (for the AP! Committee}, essentially aim ‘ed at cohesive soils. The formula for tke weight W" of the pile “submerged in the soil” corresponds to the difference between joss! weight of the pile (stee! + soil colunn) and the con tribution of the to1al overburden pressure 10 the end-bearing ca pacity of the pite. The introduction of W", corcesponding on average 0 a correction i : of 1.6%, is largely masked by other uncertainties, a) W'= & Avg lp 1) AL = weight of pile “submerged inthe soil” The unit end-bearing capacity of a “plugged” pile Gpi may be regar 220 ded as the end-bearing of a large foundation, whereas the unit end: Ave = annular cross-sectional area of the pile, bearing capacity of an “unplugze! * = specific weight of steel (= 77 KN/m), the end-bearing of the tip of @ pene:re TEPEEEAE! op Hg Lf mas be regarded us2 |. PILE DESIGN Baste GUINELINES 1.2.1.3 Ultimate Pile Capacity in Tension ‘The ultimate resistance of pile Copen- or closed-ended) to a static axial pullout force is determined as shown in Table 1.22: O- ae where L 3) Q = ¥ foMAc = external shart frictional capactty, equal tothe sum wat of the exiernat shaft friction forces along the pile penetration depth L, after deduction of the height 29 over which skin ftietion is ignored (Section 12.1.0) fo = external unit skin friction, = fhe = external lateral contact area with the soil along the layer in which fy is applied, L = pile lengen, tal + AcY] aL = buoyant weight of pile and of Wnternal soll columa, if any, annslar cross-sectional area of the pile for stan- Gard section, A = cross-section ofthe internal soil column for stan daca section, % specific weight of steel (~ 77 kN/m), te unit weight of water, Y buoyant unit weight of soil, AL length of pile sections along which the steel cross- sectional area A, of the pile, the cross-sectional area of the soil column A,, and the soil buoyant nit weight y', are constant This expression complies with the formula of Olson (1984). For @ plugged pile, instead of W", it is more logical 10 consider (for capacity in tension) she sotal submerged weight of the pile (steel + soil column} as the pile rises with the soil column inside. The introduction of W" corresponds on average to a correction of 6.9% according 10 Olson (1984) 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC CUIDELINES Any mobilized resistance at ine wp shouid be ignored ) For drilled and grouted piles, the ultimate tensile capacity is defined fas the minimum value of the “grout-to-soil” shaft frictional resistance and the “grout-to-steel” bond (Section 2.11). 1.2.1.4 Progressive Failure a). Progressive Failure results from the fact thatthe relative soil-to-pile displace ments necessary to mobilize ultimate friction or tip resistance may not ve observed simultaneously along she entire pile (Fig. 1.2c). The summation of the resistances in the ultimate capacity expressions becomes questionable in tis case. Ha — Total Capacity ‘Skin Friction Capocity Axial Load Tip Copocity splgcerant required 19 Displacement Abie te ston tnetion (ypeaty Oot 0.688, dieplscome Imobibze the tip resistance Tiypically 01 B for crven piles) ple siareer Fig. matic mode! of mobilization of sxil pile capacity sive failure alters the summation of the maximum shaft friction pile: For lung riley vslendermness > $0), which are “flexible” with respect to the sot ¢°atialiy-compressible”),a4 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES in soits characterized by strain-softening (Fig. 1.24), such rs calcareous sends, very stiff clays and silty clays, cemented formations and frozen soils. Skin Friction Soil /Pile Displacement Fig. 1.20 Mobilization of skin (riction in #atrain-softening 50 fact, certain procedures take account of the length effect either ‘tly (Semple and Rigden, 1984) (Section 2.3}, (Ran- dolph and Murphy. 1985) (Section 2.4), or implicitly (Vijayvergiya and Focht, 1972) (Section 2.6), (Meyerhof. 1976} (Section 2.5). If the design methods do not take account of progressive failure or of the length =ffect of long piles, they can be taken into account either + Dy means of a displacement calculation (Section 1.2.2 and 2.10) By repeating the design procedure and by introducing a lump reduction depending on the relative flexibility of the pile (See~ Hon 3.5). Or by assigning different safety factors to the end-bearing and shaft friction capacity terms 1.2.1.5 Design Assumptions ‘This section reviews the key hypotheses often implicitly accepted by the profession, 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 25 Certain points are summarised for the main soil classes in Sec tions 1.3.1 10 1.3.4 a) External and internal unit skin friction. The current tendency is to make no distinction between internat friction f, and external friction f. (API, 1988): fatet b) Layer-by-layer summation. Friction may be calculated along the pile length layer by layer. Friction behavior in a layer is assumed 10 be independent of the adjacent layers, which implies in particular that the effects of pro- Bressive failure of the different layers are ignored. The behavior of each layer should be evaluated according co the type of soil The identification of the existence of thin layers of a different soil ‘ype depends upon the degree of accuracy of the survey Ii is very rare to be able 10 determine the mechanical properties of these dif ferent layers, and the mechanical properties of an equivalent layer are obtained by in situ measurements (CPT) or in the laboratory. For finely-stratified soils, skin friction may be estimated in pro portion 10 the relative thickness of each of the soil classes ©) Critical depths. The “critical depth” concept and the limit values of skin friction and tip resistance are the subject of debate (Secton 2.1.3.5). However, in practice, the following hypotheses are accepted: ‘Tho maximum skin friction of piles in cohesionless soils remains constant below a certain depth called the “critical depth” + The tip resistanee also remains constant in nearly all cohesionless soils below a “critical depth”, which may be different from the critical depth for skin friction In most cases offshore, pile peneiration exceeds the critical depth Limit values of skin friction (fin) and tip resistance (4p in) are often chosen in estimating pile capacities.m.m 6 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 4) Pile in compression or in tension. The maximum skin friction is often considered independent of the loading direction. The hypothesis that the skin friction is equal in tension and compression results {rom global statistical analysis of pile test data (Dennis and Olson, 1983) (Secticn 2.13.12). The equality of friction in compression and in tension in coke.ionless soils appears in the 15th edition of API (1984) (Section 2.1.3.3). However, this hyrathests can not be confirmed in dense sands. The identit, of friction in compression and in tension in very plastic silty clay was identified by tests on the Cran éxperimental pile (Sec tion 4.2.1) 1.2.1.6 Layers of Different Soils Near the Tip a) The calculcsion ot vip resistance must account for the presence of layers with different properties located near the tip (less than three diameters sway) according to the type of interface: + Clay/eta,, Table 1.2 (). Sand/sand, Table 1.2b (3D. + Clay/sand or ‘sand/elay, Table 1.2b (UD. Ic is very important to know accurately the position of the tip with respect, to the interface, b) Punchthrough risk (piles and pile groups). For “plugged” driven piles and drilled and grouted piles, the bearing capacity of the underlying soil may bbe checked by assuming 2 stress distribution bulb at 30 degrees (Fig. 1.20) If the underlying soit is a clay (Table 1.2b (III), case 11), the siress transmit: ted to the imerface is limited to 3 C,, This condition guarantees a sufficiently high safety factor with respect to punchthrough. The procedure is applicable to single piles and pile groups, ©) Depth of embedment in a dense sand layer. For the most commonly used pile diameters (24 10 84 inches), the limit value of the mobilizable stress at the tip is reached when the pile has penetrated @ maximum of onc diameter into a dense send layer, provided that the vertical effective stress exceeds 250 kPa at the tip level (Puech, 1975), tip differing resistances nese the 0 inerCace wit Procedure for correcting 4, for «clay 2382827 5 \E Sbagees 2 2 | Seegiei. gle cele soeeseis e)2 g2)2 soek895* E\£ i2|£ i8sfzess Sie BPE WSeei ee B og |S $353zab2 S F |S sy3esi Zech se 338 ail 43 é ease Sil fg. é g = geade gigss| 288 = z| ¢ dgiegy 4S5tz| 283 . E t Beissd gtise| 2255 o az #gigi 2° 252) se82| 7 2@e02 2 &eh| 2gcc f) g |e?" 33 q y Configuration ‘Care No.9 8 [10s Supuodsosio> oy: jo esjoud woyten ¥ Jo at04p 01195 HuInjo> ,stoNIpLO, 240 UF paTEDS! 4 yo sonyen au, t6=% so6<@p%s | sxorpues a asoar 490 sip 4 oss 85 6 suo av're't wopoes eb vspuninses di us poous oq Kae | Ap 6.<(D | Keroypues u waguog sinau oy, | -gBROrqnpURA Yo 5H ue ¢ te 93H 208 13889 995 ane >ro6 | puss ov uoupegt “aL es) "620 imte>r6 6 swopipaoy | voezmaz | wopeantysey | “on a8¥> joyous 10 pus] fopo + 105% Suoouos 105 2np2204g (a wea Bespuodsotuo> ay! so onyoHd uutoytun + 02% you uunqoo ,sw% yuo, 241 ut woast th fo Fane 24, «in =% an D4 ae ’ Seema stot fosomoq 39m) | AOnpouNd fo ISN a i} ow ioprsuoo epuaeuiosat 66 TV sai (teat ap > pec hat 5 fl o sruawuo3 wonoan409, suomp209 gees eos tet arene ayy ay 240 wou sosurepeos Ssapzp uitm 2oep:21UT puEsypuES + 20) "b Bus9e1I09 20} snp900%4 aD eer ageLBiter Fig. 1.2¢ Swess distribu on below pile tip. Attempting (0 achieve an embedment of wo to three diameters in 4 resistant cohesionless layer, as recommended by the API, in order 0 apply ihe values in Table 2.le is highly covservative, and may give rise 40 instailusion difficulties 1.2.1.7 Pile Groups 4) The capacity Qxof 2 group of a piles may be determined from the capacity @ of a single pile, using an efficiency factor Cy (Section 3.8) Q = min (Cen, 2Q) - 8) The capacity ofa plle group is ususily evaluated by te lid block method (Tool: mn i alent s0- and Fox, 1979) described in Section 3.8.1.2. In sensitive clays. C, may be less than 1. The value of C. adopted for circular g7ou72 of driven piles in the Nork Sea (Heather, Alwyn, Thescie> oe 01. In cohesioniess soils, Cz is generally greater than 1. Consideration of tke compaction effect is vitally important in determining the order 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 31 in which the piles are driven, It is essential to ensure thal the sum of the individual capacities gives a safety factor of at least 1. In cokesionless soils, the efficiency factors of drifted pile groups are lower than those of driven piles. whereas in cohesive soils no distinction is made regarding the installation method (Foche and OWeill, 1385) ©) The risk of punchthrough must be examined thoroughly in multilayer soils (Section 1.2.1.6). .8 Cyclic and Earthquake Loading a) For one-way cyclic loading (i.e. always in compression or in tension), pile design does vot take account (in general) the cyclic loading effect. For the anchoring piles of the Hutton TLP (North Sea), skin friction was ignored along the upper 15 m of the piles to take account of the effect of horizontal cyclic loading Higher safely factors are applied in specific cases, particularly in TLP projects (Karlsrud et al, 1984). Accoriting 10 one-way loading tests on short and rigid piles, embedded in overconsolidated Haga clay, the cyclic Umit capacity obtained by Karlsrud et al (1985) lies between 0.75 and 1.0 times the static limit capacity (Section 3.6) Similar results have been reported by Mc Anoy et al (1982); Kraft et al (J981)}; Gallagher and St. John (1980); Puech (1982). b) For two-way cyclic loading ((.e, alternately in compression and tension). the degradation of skin friction may be very severe and must be teken into The experimental work of NGI (Karlsrud et al, 1984, 1985) has led 10 @ relative cyclic limit capacity of about 0.4 in two-way tests under controlled loading conditions, and about 0.3 in two-way tests under controlled displacement conditions.i 32 |. PILE DES'GN BASIC GUIDELINES For long piles, it is recommended 10 take account of the relative flexibility effect (Sections 3.5 and 3.6) and 10 carry out an analysis of load transfer (Sections 1.2.2 and 2.10). €)_ In very rare cases, specific analyses (Section 3.7) are required 10 evaluate the possible effects of earthquake loading on the axial pile capacity (Focht and O'Neill, 1985), because of the risk of liquefaction of loose cohesionless . and the consequent possible degradation of skin friction The effect of the loading rate, notably tn the improvement of static limit capacity in cohesive soils. is generally not taken into account and is only used as an implicit safety factor 1.2.2. Vertical Pile Displacements 1.2.2.1 Purpose of Evaluating Vertical Displacements ‘Vertical displacements do not generally cause a problem for most pited structures offstiore. Their estimation is required in the following cases in order to: + Provide the stiftnesses of the fo «Examine the risks of progressive failure, ie. the influence of pile length ‘and compressibility on the effective summation of the increments of skin friction and of tip resistance (Sections 1.2.1 4 and 3.5). + Evaluate the displacements that can be tolerated by the conductor pipes and the flowlines terminating at tue platform. < Ensure that any differential settlement aoes not disrupt certain platform functions (e.g. water removal by gravity drainage), dation for structural calculations. 1.2.2.2 Methodology for Evalusting Vertical Displacements ‘The most widely employed method is based on the use of ((~z) ioad-transfer curves (Section 2.10). ‘The calculation is goncrally carried out with design loads and static (ea) curves. |. PILE DESIGN RasiC GUIDELINES 3 1.3 PILE DESIGN METHODS AND CHOICE OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ‘Recommendations for the design of offshore st spat etary te API nets ausgn considerable space methods using aborory measurements. Penetrometer and pressuremeter methods are only mentioned f3 supplementary methods, and are still litle used in offshore applications. This siwvation is likely 10 change with the farther development of in sty measurements, ‘The choice of method and of design parameters according 10 soil class and pile type is Giscussed in detail in Chapter 2 (See in particular Table 2.02) 1.3.1 Cohesive Soils Conesive soils are fine grained soils with over 50% of particles smaller than 0,08 mm, for which the liquidity end plasticity fimirs can be determined (Section 3.1) + Very plastic (CH) to slightly plastic (CLY clay + Very plastic silts (MH), Calcareous formations with fine uncemented grains or with nodular or discon~ tinuous cementation are also dealt with in this category. 1.3.1.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive § a). Driven Piles ‘The routine use of the API RP 2A recommendations for che design of offshore structures naturally leads to the use of the API 1991 method for driven piles (Section 2.1) together with the basic geotechnical profite (Table 13a), Whenever possible, the following are also used: Methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2). ‘The a methods of Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2,3) and of Randoiph and Murphy (1985) (Section 2.4) + The % (ection 2.6) and B Section ed calcareous soils, for which the B method is pt in fine grain- 101 recommendedHl pisies (acer uaaeelareiet ee 38 rece No method actually proposes limit values, but the unit skin friction i g of North Sea clays is usually limited 10 200 kPa 2 & The API and Randolph & Murphy (1985) meikods are applied layer 3 5 # i by layer. 3 = ae i The Semple and Rigden (1984), 4 and B methods are global me- : i u i thods in at much bs they consider the everage friction along the 3 #4 He 3 entire pile lengih. They are hence applicable to homogeneous pro- a HE : i files of cohesive soil. or soil containing a smell proportion of sand g layers, which are taken into account by the procedures recommended = = = by the authors (Sections 2.3, 2.6 ond 2.5 respectively) 8 2 q sat The A and B methods are essentially applied to normally conso- 5 es g [sists lidated and slightly overconsolidated clays =3 : s: & |pe88553 ‘he ws of the piezocone in cohesive soils ts recommended for identi Be E Bee ficotion ond meckanicai characterization, but the use of peneiro- 28 . gfe meter methods for the direct determination of f is not recommended in this type of material 7 i. é 6 The use of the PMT pressuremeter (the PBP, Pre-Boring Pressure- z ' 2 E ig meter, or particularly the SBP. Self Boring Pressuremeter for soft z ° = el a soils) iz recommended. The pressuremeter method may be applied Lt = é = z L Ie in this cose as 0 supplementary procedure for pile design. & 7 ue ai Driven Pile: with Use of Preérilling or Jetting 1 se; 3 By a | The maximum design skin friction must never exceed the values given for ze = 354 i | stiven pites (Section 1.3.1.8) 2s z 289 i | 7 = 3° i i l = 42:2 The use of a pilot-hole to inserta step-topered pile results in values i gress of @ ranging between 0.25 and 0.41 (Endiey et al, 1979). The a : i EEes 2 and B methods have proved to be unconservative (Section 4.1, Tar [ Z pial ble 4.16) . 388 ' | ¢). Drilled und Grouced Piles = 045 and tye = 200 KPa. “Overt method in heen : vormatty consnlidated clays, soilsta-cement adhesion may be determined re ol fe : as for driven piles (Section 1.4.14) [2 |e 7 ‘i sift of overconsolidated clays, the @ method should be appliod with 336 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES pee i 2g |abbe : The use of the value @ = 0.45, also suggested b, Skempton (1959) g gk RSEd resuits from a statistical analysis carried out by Kraft and Lyons Bl. iad zg 1974). covering sixty piles drilled in overconsolidated clays gE: 3 z The API does not purpose any precise value for a, but mentions Sk Pit 5 shat f may exceed the value proposed for driven piles. z|* ay aa ea 5 ies 1.3.1.2. Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils 8 a Tip resisiance in cohesive als ip eatinated from she equation i . 2ai y= CaN 2 gtsiiae Pets ce undrained cohesive strength measured in the laboratory or infer 2e332a8 2asGe ra red from in situ tests (penetrometer, vane tests), eee z N. = 9 = bearing capacity factor (unless the pile tip is close (0 the inter- = a - face between two soils of very different resistances) : beg a tye de pele ate 2 3°, 29 zee | 42 The previous equation may also be applied to calculate the sip ae & .& 33 egie = resistance of piles in fine grained calcareous soils. ze 7 2 58 z * - : i i i 4 8 1.3.2. Cohesiontess Siticeous Soils Bee z z ESgee - eles 7 5 gzies e)ie Be 2 BE = By convention, cokesionless siliceous soils are classified as those soils in Elee 23 & eiaad which over 30% of the elements are larger then 0.08 mm in diameter, Le. 3 | a a é (Section 3.1) 3 7 + Gravels and geavelly soils (GW. GP, GM and GC) elte zig a Sands and sandy. soils (SW, SP, SM and SCD Z| Es ra § ib gs “Non-plasiic silts” ¢ML} e|ffl 8s gid £ 7 plate site IML) e|Gb| ffs idl ie! = esi 4) Driven Piles (Table 1.3b) z . Ie all cases, the API 1991 method (Section 2.1.3) should be applied, using 3 If possible, the values of the relative density D,and of the intesnal friction ils. i 7 angle g' inferced from the interpretation. of the penetrometer results a | 25 2BASIC GuIDELINES (Section 3.2.2) or from representative laboratory tests, together with the values of the limit friction fim, depending on the type of material (fim cannot exceed 120 kPa). Failing this, values of 8 and fim (Table 2.14) recommended by API 1991 may be used. These values are not applicable to calcareous fcrmations, loose silts, or to volegnic or highiy micaceous soils. ‘The value of the soil lateral pressure coefficient K depends upon the plugg- ing or unplugging behavior of the pile during tustallation. As a first ap. proximation, K is taken 2° 0.8 Some organizations, such as Lloyd's, do not accept the API 1984 recommendations in force and continue 10 use the API 1982 recommendations, with the limit values of API 1978 (Section 2.1.3.1). The pencsrometer method (Section 2.7) can be applied as a supple mentary calculation, if continuous penetrometer results are available The direct use of local friction values measured on the CPT sleeve is not recommended, b) Piles Installed Using Predrilting or Jetting ‘Skin friction must notexceed the values recommenited for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.12) ©) Driiled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout adhesion is obtained by the equation: £m Inf (py tan8, fix) where: Be effective grouting pressure, which must be lower than the hydraulic fracturing pressure, S= 9 = 5° = soilto-grout friction angle, fim = 100 kPa = unit limit skin friction, 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 0 ‘The hydraulic fracturing criterion is generally expressed as a function of the staie of the in situ stresses, which is characterized by the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ke! If Ke eh, Bp < Ko o'y: hydraulic fracturing takes place along. a vertical plane, If Ko >I, Pe < Oy: fracturing occurs along a horizontal plane (dense overconsolidated soils), where oy is the effective overburden pressure. The design procedure of Elhers and Ulrich (1977) recommends a material reduction factor of 1.4 for Pr 1.3.2.2 Tip Resistance’of Piles in Cohesionless Soils 4) Driven Piles (Table 1.3b) The API 1991 method, in Section 2.1, should be apolied in all cases using the following: If penetrometer results (Sections 3.2 and 2.7) or representative laboratory test results are available, the values of the relative density (D,) and of the internal friction angle (q') may be inferred from the interpretation of these results, Failing this, the values of the bearing capacity factor Ng and of dptim from Table 2.14 should be used (these values are not applicable to caleareous formations, loose silts, or volcanic or highly micaceoas soils) The API recommendations in force are disputed by certain orga: nizations, who continue t0 use the API 1978 recommendations If a continueus or nearly continuous penetrometer profile is avai lable on either side of the predicted position of tke pile tip, the meihod of de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) may be applied (Sec~ tion 2.7) b) Driven Piles with Predrilling or Jetting The tip resistance must not exceed the values recommended for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.2a).40 1. PILE DESIGN asic avinctines In practice, it ts recommended: To avoid the use of jeuing near the tip. + In all cases, 10 create an artificial plug by grouting: the pr dure recommended for driven piles is then applicable ©) Drilled and Grouted Piles ‘To calculate the tip resistance of drilled and grouted piles in sands, proceed as for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.2) 1.3.3 Caleareous Sands ‘The term “calcareous sands” (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) refers to calcareous fore mations with coarse ancemented grains or with nodular or discontinuous ee mentation, No proven method is yet available for designing pites in this eype of forma sion (API, 1991), 1.3.3.1 Skin Friction of Pile in Caleareous ands a) Driven Piles The ARGEMA procedure based on the use of the limit compressibility in dex Co ection 2:9) should be applied, The skin frictis, of driven piles in calcareous sands decreases rapidly as the compressibility of the material in freates: In highly-compressible formations, the skin ftietion is always very low (a few kPa) or zero (Nauroy et al, 1985), £) Drilled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout aithesion should be determined a: for cohesionless siliceous soils (Section 1.3.2.1) This approach is conservative and ARGEMA, based on experimental results (Nauroy et al, 1985), proposes using f= Inf (8%. 189, fin) where o, = effective overburden pressure o = internol friction angle of the soit |, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUiprLINEs 41 Sim = 100 kPa = limit unit skin friction (this limit value some times appears conservative). The use of a drilling mud (bentonite or polymer base) should be avoided, since the presence of this mud is liable to sharply reduce shin friction (Angemeer et al, 1973, 1975; Fragio et al, 1943), if @ mud is used, the borehole must be thoroughly cleaned by water circulation (Murff. 1987). This recommendation is probably conserve. tive. 1.3.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous Sands The ARGEMA procedure based on the Se Of the compressibility index x (Section 2.9) should be applied. Uf penetrometer results are available, they may be used for identifi cation and as a tog for estimating the degree of cementation, but Mm no circumstances they must be used for foundation design 1.3.4 Cemented Calcareous Formations The term “cemented caleateous formations” Formations with coarse to fine grains and wit as calesrenite, (Section 3.1) refers to calcareous ith continuous cementation, such ion of Pites in Cemented Caleareous Formations ‘The skin friction of driven piles in cemented calcareous formations is much hipher than the frictio# generated in uncemente owing to the excessively smal amount cedure can yet be proposed to estimate calcareous formations, d sand formations, However, ‘of experimental data, no proven pro. the skin friction f of piles in cemented A number of special tests are sometimes performed to provide a approximate estimate of skin friction.42 |. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES «+ Measurement ofthe pullout force of a sampler tube dr the formation. Peete rer «Steel friction tests on sections of small driven pies. Pile tects have revested voles “ shin friction obove 10 somesines abose 300 tPe, Informations wiih an averege anon ed compression strength of between 3.5 and 5 MPa (Se 380 : Segoe, 19 Beake and Sutscliffe, 1980) (Table 4.1i). 7 ad Tefen of ating driven plesin cemented coleareousfermat is generally limuted and their use is usually discarded in fave ie drilled and groued piles. f eee b) Drilled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout adhesion may bs obtained from the unconfined compression strength gy as shown in Figure 13a mest = ose Foor Unconfined Compression Suength g,,(14P2) Pig. 24 Skin friction of drilled ané groutes piles in ealeareous formations (Abbe and Needham, 1985), seston of drilled and grouted pites inression strength of between 0.3 This curse a> ploved in calcareous formatians to 5 MPa, in the Arabo-Persisn 6 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES a 1.3.42. Tip Resistance of Piles in Cemented Calcareous Formations 1c is given by the equation: ap = Inf (4.5 gus dptio) ‘The tip cesista where: os pm = unconfined compression strength of the cemented material, = Limit unit end-bearing (limit Up resistance). Vales of dp im in excess of 10 MPa may be acceptable (Murff, 1987) 13.5 Rock rock" refers 1o cemented materials of sedimentary, metamorphic ‘The term ‘but excludes cemented calearcous formations, which were or igneous on iscussed in Section 1.3.4 Piles are installed in rock by drilling and grouting. 1.3.5.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Rock | the shart friction capacity of drided and grouted piles im rock is generally determined from the ‘grout resistance and the grout-to-pile bond (Sec~ tion 2.11), In API 1991, unit skin friction is limited by the triaxial shear resistance of the rack. which may be reduced to account for the dis turbance due to installation, or by the triaxial shear resistance of 3.5.2. Tip Resistance of Piles in Rock ‘The tip resistance is obtained from the equation. ap = Inf (4.5 des Gptin) whore: jo unconfined compression strength of rock. Goin = limit unit end-bearing (limit tip resistance)4 1. MILE DESIGN Basic GUIDELINES | 4. PLE DESIGN Base evioeLes 5 : I The limitation of the limit tip resistance to 10 MPa (200 kipeifa), | ‘Table 13 recommended by API 1991 for drilled and grouted piles in rock (gcc, Design methods recommended for driven pies tion 2.1.4), is not consistent with the existence of higher lini: velacy (amas) in dense sands. However. this limitation may be explained by the : difficulty in evacuating drilling cuttings in large diameter holeg To ensure that high values of tip resistance can be achieved, piles should be properly embedded in th: rack, with due considersiion iat of any dip at the rock surface. ae emanate API 1991 stipulates that the rock tip resistance should be deer and 2 Section 2.2.2) 7 i imined from the triaxial shear resistance and a suitable bearing, ca Randolph and Murphy Formation Baste method Other recotninended methods racity factor, but does not provide further details. recom: tselen 2-4) fine grained celareous | ¢ |” 200kPa forever {Section 23) - i soils) consolidated clays) ‘Amethod (1), 3) | (Section 2.6) Ef i he pile design methods recommended in accordance with the type of soi + Bmetios 0). (2.03) id { and ype of pile are summarized respectively in Table 13e for devven pil, (section25) : i and in Table 1.34 for drilled and grouted piles | 9 89 Cy i £ | APL 1991 (wien use of r t | Cohesionless siiseous piezocone or laboratory [ ' setae test resus fave | Peneromessr method af ' | > | tere de Ruiter and Bezingen i ty | 1] ARGEMA metos, With fin #4 Gin i Calesreous sands 1 ay | obvained asa funesion i ; Of Cp (Section 29) I Cemented ealeareous available - fermaiions : ap | p= 198 S gu, gon) : £ | tnstttaion by diving Rock seneally unfeasible oy | See Table 134 (2) Overatt method, with appropriate procedure in the case of send seams and layers. (2) Exceot in fine eateareous sais, B) To be avoided in everconsolidated clays,46 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES Table 1.34 Design methods recommended for dellled and grouted piles (summary) Formation Basle method Other recommended methods NC: API 1991 © Cohesive soils (inebuding Oc: APL 1991 (with fine ealeareous soils: fm 200 kPa) op gn 9 rfe Tof (Pg 8 8, find with fig = 100 kPe Cohesiontess siliceous soils APL 1991 Gvith vse of | Penetrometer method of 4% | riezocone or labora | de Ruiter and Beringen tory test resus, if 979) svtilabie) © | feet fos t6 9 fied ¥i0h Fim» 100 KPa ARGEMA method, ith guim obtaineg 1s. function of Cyp (Section 2.9) Cateareous sends os 1 | Abbs and Needham aera ee a ‘a5 formations : ae | apt 0: ad Rock : the pile-to-cement bonde ap | gpm Ia 04.S gu ain) NC: Normally consolidated OC: Overconsolidated Chapter 2 PILE DESIG METHODS Although the API methods are the most widely used in designing offshore pile Foundations, several other design methods are now available. These methods, often complementary to the API methods, differ according to the type of soil ang the type of pile. Moreover, it should always be remembered that pile design methods and geotechnical data acquisition methods are closely inter- linked This chepter presents the 1ain pile design methods routinely applied or proposed, in the form of annotated data sheets, with we following outlined in each case: Specific use and application of the method Relovant global or partial safety factors. Calculation of skin friction and unit end-bearing, capacity + Estimate of reliability To provide an introduction to the different design methods, Table 2.03 sum- mariaes the fields of application and the advantages of the different methods, in the context of the type of soit and the type of pile, and draws attention to the corresponding sections in the text! 48 | 2 PILE DESIGN METHODS 49 2.1 APIMETHOD routed wo te veed offhore ‘The following reference documents are particularly considered: . APIRP 2A, “Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms”, 134h edition, 1982; 15th edition, 1984; 17th edition, 1987; 18th edition, 1989; 19th edition, 1991 : APIRP 2A - LRFD, “Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Design- ing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance os Factor Design”, Ist edition, Dec. 1991 + Olson (1984) “Analysis of pile response under axial loads", Final report to APL = Lings (1985) “The skin friction of driven piles in sand”, M. Sc. Thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology. ae o Driven Complementary meth, rations (3) ‘40° Recommended method design methods a 2.1.1 Specific Use of the API Method API RP 2A is the recommended practice which addresses the design of fixed offshore structures. Currently, the API RP 24 - WSD standard (WSD: Working Stress Design) calls for developing a single safety factor (which incorporates all loads under all conditions). The API RP 2A - LRFD Standard (LRFD: Load - ‘and Resistance Factor Design) considers multiple load and resistance fac~ tors. This mew standard is expected to be adopted in 1992. ‘refering to AFILA and B methods, wl ly factors the introduction of ps ty ofthe different pi ‘alls Brief tummary according to type of forms Coheslontes | ca “Type of sll) Table 2.08 | | | conestve tells Recommend @ @ homogsoeoes re-boring er #l-borng 1. Use of the APE Method 2a 3 Tr 2) The API method for designing axially-loaded piles concerns: + All fine grained cohesive sous. Cohesiontess siliceone soils (silts, sands, gravels) - Rock. b) ‘The method is applied layer by layer. It miust be used wnerever possible for the design of offshore pile foundations. ©) The method of calculating the ultimate axial pile capacity in compression or in tension is the same, whether using API RP 2A - WSD or API RE 2A- LRED. a 22 2 Ta a 2 i i § i i 21.1.2, Safety Factors of the API RP 2A - WSD Method - Presvureneter @BP, SB) (5) PRP, SBP: preesuemeter methods wf ‘Semple ond Rigden Pensioner (CPT) ARGENA APL A990) DNV 7a (1) Forthe “rock” entegery (Secon 1.3.5 and 21.4), 4) The formulas defining ultimate pile capacity in the APIRP 2A - WSD Z (Working Stress Design), currently called the API method, are those givenDESIGN METHODS in Section 1.2. Parameters introduced according (othe type of soil are gi in Sections 2.1.2 to 2.1.4. = Lisi b) The atlowable pile capacities are obtained by applying appropriate safety factors (SF) to the calculated ulti iti ate capacities (Table 2.1a) Table 2.18 Safety factors recommended by API RP 2A - WSD No Load conditiosis bien : factors 1 Design environmental conditions with epropriay= rilling foads eee Ls 2 Environmental conditions dosing de operations 2 3 Design envitonmentl conditions with production loads Bs 4 Environmental conditions during production erations 5 Design environmental conditions with minimum loads (fr puilout) 1s 2.1.1.3 Pile Resistance Factors of the API RP 24 - LRFD Method 2) In the APURP 2A - LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Dedign), safety is taken into account by using load and resistance factors, ») The soil resistance should satisfy the following conditions: for piles in compression: Po < Qe for piles in tension S OQ where Qc oF Qr = ultimate exial pile capacity in compression or tension, 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS a Pe or Py = axial compression or tension pile Joad determined from a model using factored loads, Ge or @y = pile resistance factor in compression (or &c = 0.8) oF in tension (or Oy = 0.8) 2.1.2 Pile Design in Cohesive Soils ‘The recommendations of APIRP 2A discussed for pile design in cohesive soils are those of the 19th edition (1991), derived directly from the method of Randolph, and Murphy (1983) (Section 2.4). However the API allows alter- nalive prediction merhods to be used for the evaluation of skin friction, pai ticularly methods I and 2 of the API previous editions, These recommendations concern both: + Driven piles. Drilled and grovted piles for which certain parti mentioned specifications are 2.1.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soil Recommendations of API 1991 For pipe piles in cohesive soils, the skin friction at any point along the pile may be calculated using the equation: fea, where @ = adhesion factor, Cy = undrained shear strengih at the point in question, a) The adhesion factor @ is computed from the following cquations (Fig. 2.18): a= 05 yes for w <1 a= 05 yer for y > 1 where vy = Cyo,! = normalized shear strength, 9, effective overburden pressure. In clays undergoing active consolidation, with excess pore pressures (where w may be fess than 0.25), a can usually be taken as 1. In heavily overconsolidated clays (with y 2 3), due to a lack of pile load test results, API 1991 recommends the application of the equations with some engineering. judgement.2 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS anos 9-028 Adhesion Fector 0 Normalized Shear Stengh = Cu! Fig. 2. Variation of the adhesion factor a with y = C/o (APL 1991) This Design Guide suggests shat a limit of 200 Pa be assumed in North Sea overconsolidated clays as suggested in methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2) ©) Selectivn of soil parameters: in the commentary, API 1991 emphasize that the axial pile capacity in clay determined is directly influenced by the undrained shear strength and effective overburden stress profiles selected for use in the analyses The following points should be noted: WU triaxial compression tests are recommended on high quality samples, preferably taken by pushing a thin-walled sampler with 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 3 @ diameter of 3 inches (76 mm) or more into the soil (Section 3.24.1). + Miniature vane ests on-the pushed samples should correlate with the UU test results and can be particularly beneficial in weak clays + In situ testing with a vane (Section 3.2.1.2) or cone penetrometer (Section 3.2.2.2) can help in assessing sampling disturbance effects in gassy or high!y structured soils, The SHANSEP approack (Section 3.2.1.2) can help provide a more consistent interpretation of standard laboratory tests and can provide stress history information which may be used to deter- imine the effective overburden pressure in normally consolidated clays. ©) Pile length effect: API 1991 emphasizes the possibility that for long piles driven in clay capacity degradation may occur due to factors related to doth installation conditions and soil behavior as follows: Continued shearing during pile installation, + Lateral siovement of soils away from the pile due to “pile whip” during driving. + Progressive failure due to strength reduction with continued displacement (softening). ‘To estimate the possible magnitude of reduction in capacity of long piles, API refers to methods suggested by. Kraft et al (1981b), also referred to as Murff's approach (Section 3.5.2.1). + Randolph and Murphy (1985) (Section 3.5.2.2), + Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2.3.2) 4) Alternative prediction methods are allowed by API 1991 foy determining vile skin friction in cohesive soils: Methods 1 and 2, of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2). + The % method, either in terms of pile penetration (Section 2.6), or of pile-soit stiffness ratio Tly, as expressed by Kraft and al (1981b) ‘The @ method of Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2.3) Most available pile test results refer to methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2).IGN METHONS 2.1.2.2 Skin Friction of Pte in Cohesive Suits: Recommendations of API 1986 whee Maximum skin friction in clay is di I 7 derived from unconfined compression or labora ee faae, APL 1980 proposed two different methods, dno the degree of plasticity of the clay. : ae in very plastic coesive sole (CH), where Wy. 2 50 ant fe as In normally consolidated (NC) or consolidating cla eee 1B clays, f may be equal to In overconsolidated (OC) clays (Fig. 2.16): For Cy > 72 kPa! *] fay = mas (28a, CO ind Ste Soest hey Fig. 21 Values off fin in very plastic Doverconsolidaied clays (API 1986, metao¢ 1). 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 35 = undrained shear strength of the clay in its normally consolidated state, given: by ot - 025e, (where 'y = effective overburden pressure). fof by the Skempton relation: ck 2 [011 + 0.0037) oy b) Method 2 of API 1986 is used for evaluation of skin friction of piles in other cohesive soils (not classed as “very plastic”) (Fig. 2.0): For C, < 24 kPa: ael + For 24 < Cy < 72 kPa: 1 should decrease linearly from 1 10 0.5. a 205 0. =1.25-0,016u (6u in 4a) | ff fee, for Cu batigon 50 and 721s st assumed Gest 37 8h Fig. 2 Variation of the adhesion factor & with ondrained shear stength Cy ©) Comment on application of methods I and 2 of API 1986. In practice, methods 1 and 2 are often applied using cohesive strength values obtained from different tests. From UU triaxial tests (preferably on samples taken with thin- walled push samplers) Or from in situ tests (penetrometer, vane).i i ' | | | 56 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS It is unconservative to use very high-quality tesis which may give values of Cy higher than those obtained by the reference test, API 1986 recommends method 1 for very plastic clays, such os those found in the Gulf of Mexico (W, = 80 and ly = $0). This dis. tinction is mainly historical. In practice, it iz hardly justified from the standpoint of pile capacity (Olson, 1984). This leads some consul tants to use both methods | and 2 for all the clays encountercd. Certain specialists (St John, 1980; Toolan and Coutts, 1979; Parry, 1978) apply: Method 1 to normally consolidated t0 slighily overconsolidated clays. + Method 2 for highly overconsolidated clays: The definition of very plastic clays is that used by Dennis and Olson (1983). The difference between this and the USCS criterion is minimal. Method 1 refers 12 the concept of overcansolidation. which must be defined from oedometer 1ests (OCR > 2) or, failing this, by using the criterion of Kraft et al (1981) (Cx > OM o'y). Im practice, there is no real need to define the precise state of overconsolidation, as the determination of fim is usually sufficient ©) Upper ‘etion limit in clay: except in very plastic overconsotidated clays, there Rg upper friction timit in clay A limit of 200 kPa is assumed in the North Sea for shin friction in clays (Offshore Engineer, D:tober 1985). However, this limit is not always applied (e.g. at Heather), but 1: recommended in this Design Guide except for normally consolidated (NC) clays. where @ high value of Cy usually corresponds 10 @ high value of ov (Semple and Gemeinhardt, 1981), 2.1.2.3 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils The unit end-bearing capacity (or ultimate tip resistance) of piles in cohesive soils may be determined using the equation: 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 1 ap = Ce where Cy = undrained shear strength, Ne = bearing capacity factor, Ne 9 (except for esis 2 1b) The value of N, is defined by Skempton’s relationship (Pig. 2.14). hook : [tees Embedded Depth Fig. 2.14 Shempton's relationship, a) No limit value is imposed on the ultimate end-bearing capacity in clay. b) APL 1991 specifies that the end-bearing values for piles bearing into cohesive layers with adjacent weaker layers may be those given by the equation p= NeCy assuming that: The pile penetraces wo or three diameters er more unto the layer in question + The tip is approximately three diameters above the oroer 10 prevent punchthrough. se of the layer in However API 1991 does no: specify shai suck modifications should be applied. Where these disiances are not achieved, the relevant Guidelines are given in Section 1.2.1.6 of this Design Guide t J58 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2.4.2.4 Design of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques 4) For piles driven in undersized drilled holes, piles jetted in place or piles drilled and grouted in place, APL recommends that disturbance resulting from installation be taken into account b) For éri fed and grouted piles: Values of skin friction should not exceed those recommended for d1iven piles. However, in some cases in overconsolidsted clay, f may exceed these values, In determining f, the strength of the soil-grout interface, including p- tential effécts of drilling mud, should be considered. + The strength of the grout-steel pile interface should be taken into account (Section 2.11), For further discussion, API 1991 refers 10 Kraft and Lyons (agra), 2.1.2.5 Comments on the Recommendations of API 1986 and API 1991 @) Tue API 1991 method, in comparison with the APL 1986 methods | and 2, offers two advantages; Better integration of the soil properties into calculation, by linking the shear strcngth to the local effective stress. ‘The application, in principle, whatever the plasticity of the clay Jn fact, in the absenve of data, the APL 199] method has not yet been validat ed either for very overconsolidated clays (such that y > 3, Section 2.3.2.1) or for long piles (Section 2.1.2.te) b) The computed skin friction using the API 1991 method is generally higher than that obtained in applying methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 + For ¥ (- ] > 825, retro > oar ses tees 9 a) > Fer deep penetration piles in soils with Cy > 72.APa, axes soi is a little lees than J, whereas 4711966 menos sy = OS 2. PILE DESIGN wen: 9 ©) Comparison between results of the API 1991 method and the API 1986 methods varies depending on soil characteristics and pile lengths. In normally consolidated cohesive soils, the API 1991 method appears 10 give good results (Section 4.2.1.4) + In normally consolidated very plastic cohesive soils, the results of *he API 1991 method and those of the API 1986 method 1 are in good agreement (Section 4.3.1.6}. + Im overconsolidaied cohesive soils, the results of the API 199] method and those of the A? 1986 method 2 are in good agreement (Sevtion 4.3.2.7). + In several examples of long piles in stiff elays, application of the API 199] method shows that estimated load capacities are often 30 10 $0% greater than those estimated using methods 1 and 2 of API 1986, 4) ‘The statistical analysis of Dennis and Olson (1983), carried out on the results of 84 tests on piles in slay (57 in compression and 27 in tension), allows @ comparison to be made between these result. and + Methods 1 and 2 of APL 1986. + The method of Randolph and Murphy (1985) from which the API 1991 method is directly derived The resulis of this analysis are given in Table 2.16 Teble 216 Results of a compariton beiween the AP! 1986 methods ‘and Randolph ond Murphy's method De Om date urin. | max. | ave | cov a oa | 232 | 12 | ose Rancoiph ant Morphy (15985) ays method os: | 420 | 102 | 06860 2. FILE DESIGN METHODS The uncertainty inkerent in the results of Randolph and Murphy's method is twice that of API 1986. s+ The preceding remarks and results confirm the need to: + Validate the API 1991 method, + Standardise the methods of determination of soil parameters (Se: 2.1.2.18). The validation of the API 1991 method could logically lead to a revision of values of the adhesion factor a (Y). 2.1.3 Pile Design in Cohesiontess Siliceous Soils The recommendations of API RP 2A considered here for pile desi sionless siliceous soils are those of the 15th edition (1984) and following editions, They concera: + Driven piles. Drilled and grouted piles for which certain particular specifications ace discussed. 2.1.3.1 Skit, Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils For pipe piles in cohesionless siliceous soils, the skin friction may be calculated using the equation: f= Koy' tan 8 where K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to vertical rormal effective swess). Gv= — cffective overburden pressure at the point in question, 5 = friction angle between the soil and pile wall In fact the skin friction does not increase indefinitely with depth but tends towards a limit value fig such that the skin friction may be expressed by the following fit [oy 18, fa] 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS a a) The value of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K depends upon the type of pile (open- or closed-ended) and upon the behavior of the pile during installation K = 0.8 for unplugged piles which do not displace the soil snd which are internally filled with soil during driving, This value is taken in ten sion as in compression, K = 1 for plugged piles, which displace the soil during driving The value of K is controtied by the behavicr of the pile during installation. ‘1 is perfecily acceptable for a pile plusginglunplag. sing character to change during installation, ond thus different va~ Iues of K may be used according 10 depth. Mlowever, this behavior must be accurately established and, in no circumstances, can cal culations Le based exclusively on the concept of a static plug (Section 1.2.1.2), As a first approximation, K is taken as 0.8 ‘The hypothesis that the skin friction is equal in tension and compression for unplugged piles (K = 0.8 in both eases) results from 4 global statistical analysis of pile test data (Dennis and Olson, 1983) The equality of shin friction in tension and compression is diffie cult to verify as @ result of the existence of residual stresses in piles after driving (Section 2.1.3,5a). These recommendations are noi ac~ cepted by many certification authorities (DEn, Llovd's, Bureau Verisus} Who continue 10 recommend that fission = 0.7 feompranian (SE tion 2.1.3.5) b) ‘The pile-soil friction angle 8 varios from 15° to 35° according to the density of the sand. In the absence of more precise data, the value of 8 may be estimated from the guidelines given in Table 2.10.| { «2 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS Table 2.16 Design parameters for cohesionless siliceous soils (API. 1991) Seit-pite | Limiting Limiting soit | trietion [sta trietion nit ene Density | description | angle, 8 f values Dearing degrees) | “tie values cary in (MPa) Very toore Sand Loose Sands f 15" 6 8 2 Medium silt Send Send-rile | 20° 6 2 3 sit 7 Medium Sand ase a 20 5 Dense Sand-silt, Denes Sand 30" 96 40 10 very Sand-sitt Dense Greed as us 50 2 Very donse Sand The Introduction, in API 1984, of the category “very dense send”, with @ soil-pile frietion angle 8 of 25°, constitues an improvement when compared with the preceding recommendations (Table 2.14) for pile design in dense sands, Experience shows, however, that these recommendations are still very conservative in the case of very dense sands with a relative density in sxcess of 80% (Section 2.1.3.5b). Table 2.14 Design parameters for cohesionioss siliceous soils (API, 1982) Soll Friction Soll type angle frletion angle 5 aeprees) (degrees) silt 20 15 8 Sands sit 3s 20 2 Sih sand 30 2 20 Clean sand 35 30 4 2. PILE DESIGN x:eTHoDS 63 ©) The skin friction, flim for deep piles in cohesionless siliceous soils would be reached at a certain depth, known as the “critical depth”. Tk is essentially 2 function of the soil density and the pile diameter. Experience appears to indicate that values of the relative critical depth (D/B)qjy are as follows (Lings, 1985) Approximately 10 in loose sands Approximately 25 0 30 in dense 10 very dense sands. ‘The API recommendations for values of limit skin friction, classed accord'ng to relative density (Table 2.1c), are represented on Fig. 2.1¢ as 3 function of the soil-pile friction angle 8, as Ba a 30 35 laerees Fig. 2le Limiting skin friction and unit end-bearing values in cohesionless silicsous soils, (APL, 1991},a 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS ‘The limit skin friction values suggested by API inctease almost proportionally with tan &, from 8 = 15° (loose sands) to 8 = 35° (very dense sands}. Thc does not conform with reality, where the skin friction observed siderably in very dense sands (Section 2.1.3.56). 2.1.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils ‘The unit end-bearing (tip resistance) of piles in cohesionless siliceous soits may be computed using the equation: Gp = oy Ng where O'y = effective overburden pressure, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factor. Like the skin friction, the unit end-bearing of deep piles tends towards @ Himit value, such that the unit end-bearing may be expressed using the follo. wing expression Qe = TE oY Ng. Spin) The values of Ny and Goin recommended by API 1991 are given in Table 21¢ for different classifications and densities of cohesionless silice ous soils, a) ‘The total end-dearing differs according to whether the pile is “plugged” or “unplugged” (Section 1.2.1.2) In the case of a plugged pile, the total end-bearing is gp Ay + In the case of an unplugged pile, the tolal end-braring is dy Avy + skin friction of the internal soit colsmn, where 4 unit end-bearing (tip resistance) Ae annular cross-sectional area of the pile tip, Ap = total cross-sectional area of the pile tip. ») The bearing capacity factor Nq (8) values suggested by API approach & limit at around 8 = 30° 10 35° (Table 2.1¢ and Fig. 2.10) ‘The API recommendations for limit unit end-beating are given in Table Y.1e and are shown on Fig, 2.10 as @ function of the soil-pile friction angle 8. 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 6s 1000 g gs 2 0 8 30 3 1 us Pe Ng igh Attor Borezanteey et of 1961) ‘Values Recommanded by Randolph (985) = 4,08) Recommended by AP! assuming 5=p™ 5° ‘according to API 1982) Ng fGed Rocommended by DNV (wit tants) ‘ezording to ONY 1977), “a Pig. 260 Vas mis of Ny with the fiction angle Tne unit end-bearing. values recommended by API appear to” be conservative, particularly in dense anc very dense sands. with a relative density in excess of 80% (Section 2.1.3.5b}. In very dense overconsolidaced sands, such as those found in the Nort Sea, the limit value of the unit end-bearing qyin. which is assumed 10 be 12 MPa by API 199], is sometinies raised 10 15 MPa (Van Zandwijk, 1986), or 20 MPa, ©) The unit end-bearing value for piles topped in cohesionless layers with adjacent soft layers may be computed as described above, assuming that6 2. PILE OBSIGS METHOnS The pile achieves penetration of wo to three diameters or more into the cohesionless soil Tae tip is approximately three diameters above the bottom of the layer to preclude punchtheough, However, the API does not provide modifications (0 be applied where these distances are not achieved. Relevant guidelines are given in Section 1.2.1.6. 2.1.3.3 Detign of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques a) For driven piles with a drilled or jetted pilot-hole, the values of f and qp must take account of the disturbance associated with installation, and must never exceed she values obtained for driven pites b) For drilled and grouted piles, the values in Table 2.1 are applicable, ‘Tne resistance of the cement-to-pile bond should be taken into account (Sec. tion 2.11), 2.1.3.4 Characterization of Cohesionless Soils According to API 1991 siliceous ‘The determination of design parameters for cohesionless siliceous soil ing to API 1991 (Table 2.tc) is based upon two criteria: ‘The grain size distribution of the soil An indication of the relati Is accord: doisity Toble 2.Je restates the dasa given in Table 2.1¢ of API 3964, by Proposing a more quantizaiive representation of the relative density for each type of cohesionless siliceous sail 4) The grain size distribution is determined by sampling. On the other hand. this meshed Le in..35 “+ the determination of the relative density. sin-e che one 23 {methods are inadequate for recovering insect samsies .m vane ssniess soils. The relative density i results, particularly from pene: is usually estimated from in si trometer data (Section 222 Taole 2.16 fiction angle Sand the coeffcient N,, together with li for skin feiction and unit end-bearing @ (API, 1991). FE] Ean | annglansoals a/e 3 aglessslensssis : eee closets eg] ages (agea8|9 s jee /S8s8e]o8sss]s as 38 ig aa eeleia 3 2 Je | fale eg ee aujadie| suds i 2§)$s4s)SsaF/8 = set i 3a 8 gek = 8g ls | ds [8 8 .| 35 Pa 3 Bz] 88 | 3B [é classes are not mentioned. TPhis table is incomplete in that certs col cl acy 2, PILE DESIGN METHODS 6) API 198¢ clearly stipulates that the values of 8, Sims Ny and Grim are merely guidelines. Other values may be selected if justified by detailed infordhation resulting from: Static penetrometer tesis, + Mechanical strength cests on high quality samples. + Model tests. + Pile driving performance There is an increasing tendency to infer 9! from penetrometer.test results using a clearly-defined procedure, such as that discussed in Section 3.2.2 (Focki er al, 1986) ©) Table 2.16 no lunger shows the internal friction angle 9! of the material, but previous edition (namely AP! 1982) suggests using 9 - 5° in the absence of more accurate data, This relationship is acceptable for p< 35° Potyondy (1961) recommends 8 = 0.8 for saturated sands with @ friction angle > 37° and rough sieel surfaces: 4) Table 2.1 is exciusively used for siliceous materials, with the exception of loose silts, and soils containing a large fraction of mica or particles of volcanic origin. In these cases, API recommends using the resuits of in situ or laboratory tests. For calcareous formations, refer 10 the ARGEMA method (Section 2.9) concerning calcareous sands. 2.1.3.5 Discussion of the Recommendai ns of API 1984 ‘The 15th edition of APIRP 2A (1904) introduced three important modifications 10 preceding editions: + The equality of skin friction in tensica and compression (K = 0.8). + The introduction of limit values fim and qpim + An increase from 30° to 35° of the pile-soil friction angle. The first two modifications are not unanimously accepted by geotechnical specialists. Their validation by full scale pile tests is necessary for further use in. design, a) The hypothesis that the skin friction is equal both in tension and compression (Olson, 1990) can not be confirmed as a result of the analysis of test data from full or half-dimension piles (Lings, 1985; Helfrich et al, 1985; Komomik et al, 1991; Brucy et al, 199ta, 1991b; Le Tirant et al, 1981) PILE DESIGN METHODS 68 Due to she effect of compressive residual pile-driving: ses resulting from The measured loads in compre cohen che irue values, whereas the measured loads i lenvsn represent values which are 100 high (Fig, 2.18). The eatewtated capacities do not represent those ruly mobili- sable, If the residual compressive load represents 1S% of the ‘measured load, then the ratio between the skin friction mobili- rable in tension and compression is of the order of 75% t ] \.. fe oe tit covrnession renson Fig. 21g Measured and true loads in piles, due to residual siresses (After Briaud and Trucker, 1984) Any discussion of the hypothesis of the equality of skin friction in tension and compression must. take account of the distinction between “short” piles and “long” piles For “short” piles. where the length is less than the “critical depth", the mechanisms of rupture are different in tension and compression; the concept of equality of skin friction in tension and compression in this case is not convincing (Lings, 1985). For “long” piles the mechanism: of rupture in tension and compression should be comparable, and it follows that the concept Of equality is less contestable (after subtraction of the residual siresses}. The API deliberately follows this hypothesis since piles of diameter 2 }'m and of length < 30 to 40 m Grequently the2. PILE DESIGN METHons n 2. ILE DESIGN METHODS like “short” piles (of length inferior to the “critical depth) Jn dense sands, and particularly very dense sands, of relative ae areca taee editiuns which were content only:to mention the possibility of the existence 7 | 3-04 3 c m7 Wor the end-bearing resistance, the very small amount of data does 1. to local experience. In fact, for long piles, longer than the “critical depth", not allow sufficlently confident conclusions to be drawn. although fim and qyjim howd always be the parameters used in design. The discussion it would oppear that for dense ond very dense sands, the API recom: should therefore be over the renommended values chosen by API taking ac- mendations are conservative, count of the relatively small amount of experimental data available, In fact, the “critical depth” concept (Kérisel ct al, 1961, 1964; Vesic, 1965; 4 For the tit sk feton the conclusion of anaes of teste on | Liga, 1988) ante lin vaace Sin ion tnd end-baringctiance i. [il or hay scale pt of lamer geaer thar 20 em Linge 1986 teeth sajet of considerable astute (Kulawy, 1964), In a covesoness : Tolan erat 1998; eicneral, 1985: Briand ea 1991c Renoraa | sol deposi with layering, variably a sol ropes coal esl na cha i etal 1991; Brucy etal 99! 19910) fer nobly from ine abt | ge nvessones with ineasing depth, In & sed Gepost wih Ne lyerag, 1980 recommendations (Fig. 218) the Trent eral 130) Ison be expected thatthe skin ition ang ont endearing resianes 2 woul intense wah depth eta. dectssing rt rat, 1991), Figure 1 shows the eapeted wend in vation cs skin fein wth epi, compared th - the APT RP 2A recommendations Tes results ncaliraton chamber coafem this wend (Foray ct al, 1991) Fig. 2.11 Expected trend in variation of unit skin friction in cohesionless soil with depih, compared with ‘APL RF 2A weconmendations bee t 28 rc touea " © 9 cguenes neg x : 5B cones ome EQ lom Areva coon O Hite (After Krat 1991). wd om Fee eee eee Fig. 2.1h Pile test eesuts im ronds and API 1984 recommendations (Le Tirant etal, 1991)n 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS The following reasons can be postulated to explain the reducing rate of increase in unit friction with depth, as shown in Fig, 2.1i (Krafi, 1991): Soils exhibit less ditasive behavior with depth (due 10 increasing effective overburden pressure). Soil friction angle tends to decrease with depth (also due 10 increasing effective overburden pressure). + Lateral stresses can be reduced due to strain fatigue during driving. Pile “whip” for long piles during driving contributes to reduce the skin friction 2.1.4 Pile Design in Rock Pile design in rock concerns oaly drilled and grouted piles. 2.1.4.1 Skin Friction of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Rock 4) Skin friction is limited by the wiazial shear resistance of the rock or Of the grout. In practice, it is normally assumed to be much lower than this . value to account for the reduction due to installation, Jn soils such as shales, skin friction can be controlled by the resistance of the mud or clay cake on the walls. b) For this type of pile, the limit friction often corressonds to the resis tance of the pile-to-cement bonds (Section 2.11). 2.1.4.2 Tip Resistance of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Rock ‘The tip resistance of drilled and grouted piles in rock is determined from resistance in triaxial tests but should not exceed about 10 MPa (API, 1991). 4) This limit seems to be highly conservative because it effectively equates dense sand to sound rock, According to certain results, an end-bearing stress of 30% of the triaxial compression resistance is 2. PILE DBSIGN METHONS B perfectly acceptable in service, and the ultimate value of this compres sion can apparenily be taken as equal 10 the iriaxial compression resistance, without imposing @ timit value as done by AP) b) It is essential to ensure that the pile is firmly socketed into the rock, accounting for any dip at rockkead level.— 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2.2 DNV METHOD ‘The reference documents are: Det Norske Veritas (1977, 1980), “Rules for the Design, Construction and Irspectiun of Offshore Structures”, Appendix F (Foundations). Det Norske Veritas (1989), "Rules for Classification Fixed Offshore Installations” 2.2.1 Specific Use of the DNV Method DNV refers to a “semi-probabilistic” approach in which safety is taken into account using load coefficients and material coefficients. 2.2.1.1 Limit State Catculation Safety is determined by a limit state calculation by confirming that, for the piles See Q where Se = design loading 120. b) For multilayer ciay soils, tie ratio y is obtained from the expression: 1 Ey Hy vegty where Wi = average value of the ratio Cylo'y for the clay layer i, Hy = thickness of the layer considered, Ho = total thickness of clay fayers crassed by the pile. 2.3.2.2 Skin Frietion in Cohesive Soils with Sand Layers IF the soil profile indicates the presence of sand: + The average skin friction in the clay is calculated as a function of the average values of C, and oy in the clay layers and the value LF corresponding to the total embedded length of the pile. + The skin friction capacity in sand is determined separately by the usual methods, + These two terms are summated 10 obtain the total friction capacity, 2.3.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils ‘The ultimate unit end-bearing capacity (tip resistance) gp in cohesive soil is given by: dp = Ney where ce undrained shear strength, Ne = 9 = bearing capacity factor (except for Case 2 in Table 1.2b (1)). 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 85 2.4 ALPHA METHOD OF RANDOLPH AND MURPHY ‘The documents referred to here are Randolph and Murphy (1985), and Olson et al (1984) 2.4.1 Specific Use and Reliability of the Randolph and Murphy (RM) Method 2.4.1.1 Application of the RM Method The @ method of Randolph and Murphy relates the maximum skin friction to the degree of overconsolidation of the soil, reducing the influence of the measurement of the shear resistance on the eeleulation of the bearing capacity, ‘The method is applied layer by layer, to all types of cohesive soil The API 1991 1 c vormalized shear strength, oy {fective overburden pressure, ce = undrained shear strength obtained, by order of preference, from the results of the following tests: + tiatial (UU), unconfined compression (13), ip situ vane (FV), laboratory miniatore vane (MV), ete., Ysc = normalized. shear strength of the soil in its normally consolidated state, measured in the saboratory, estimated from the plasticity index or from the friction angle: Yue = 0-11 + 0,0037 tp with 0.2 < Yye < 0.3. Failing this, or in uncertain cases, Vo is taken as 0.25, No correction is suggested to account for the effects of sainpling, changes in states of cress, or of the shear rates on C. Figure 2.éa shows the variation of a with v. : Nemtzed Sheer Suet Caton Fig, 2.48 Variations of a withthe ratio Cyo'y (After Randolph and Murphy, 1985), 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS: 87 The method does not include any explicit correction to take account of the length effect. The aushors nevertheless point out chat the risk of progressive failure of very tong piles should be analyzed by one of the following methods: Load transfer analysis (Section 2.10). The use of diagrams introducing the relative “flexibility” of the soilipite sysiem (Section 3.5). The correction factor LF of Semple and Rigden (1984) (Sec- Hon 2.3) The method was developed on the basis of API data, 41 relies on methods for calculating the total stresses and the exist= ing effective stresses. 14 is consistent with other methods based on references to the lacal character of soilipile friction, partieularly the API method 2.4.2.2 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils The ultimate unit end-bearing capacity (tip resistance) q, in cohesive soil ie given by: where G Ni 9 Gs = NeCe = undrained shear strength, bearing capacity factor (except Case 2 in Table 1.2b (1).8 2. FILE DESIGN METHODS 2. PILE DESIGN METKoDS 89 2.5 BETA METHOD a ao a i The documents referred to here are Burland (1% Meyernof «1976), Soll Pile fength (L) 8 Leen Bis given by the Fig, 25 2.8.1 Specific Use of the B Method Ne 7 zn L> 60m 2.5.1.1 Specificity of the B Method a eee eee Poa The § method is a simplified effective stress method, relating the skin oc see Raye ae ecammend friction in cohesive soils to the effective overburden pressure in sity.as for OCR isthe vereensolidation cohesionlss soils, satio 2 2.8.1.2 Application of the B Method ° o) 02 03 oa 05 08 B ° 2) ‘The B method is easily applied to profiles consisting entirely of conesive soil 25 The method is applicable to pile design in normally consolidated to slightly : overconsolidated clays. For highly overconsolidated clays, the method gives highly dispersed results Be 6 (oolan and Coutts, 1979), and is not recommended 4 The use of the method is not recommended in fine-grained calcareous soils 275 b) For peofiles containing layers of itferet sol pes, proceed as inden g ° He ed in Section 2.5.2.2. $100 seommte | ao Im practice, the B method is rarely employed offshore. : : / eoaac* . - e135 ~ f- Sr Bt sss) —] it 2.5.2 General Formutation of the f Method = fe? cay 7 ‘ seatas 2.5.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils 150 i meen 45 2) The skin fiction is obtained fom the equation | Sn . "5 fae f= Boy : t toe where te wena O'y = effective overburden pressure 2001 tht dots gL —_! ee B= coefficient given in Table 2.52 for eriven piles, as a function of: Fig. 284 Vaiues of the coefficient B for driven piles in soft to medium stiff clays. (Aier Meyerhof, 1976). + the overconsolidation ratio of the soil, + the pile length2. PILE DESIGN METHODS The average value 6 0.3 assumed for short piles (L < about 15 m) (50 jt) results from a compilation of pile test results in soft clays, obtained by Burland (1973) (Fig. 2.56). Average Skin Peesion (KP) Sr | tae a5 ine pony Sharon 8 “ieee a8 epi (my Meyerhof (1976) limits the mobilizable skin friction to the undrained shear sirength of the soil Cy 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS an The values in Fig. 2.5a are a result of the interpretation of a large number of pile tests, particularly in normally consolidated clays. The relationship Bi = f(L) is comparable 10 the relationship & = f(L) (Section 2.6) The decrease in B with L characterizes the progressive failure of Jong compressible piles. Vijayvergiya (1977) proposed an expression for f as a func.ion of 0 and of the parameters Cey and @ew. However, certain elements of this expression are “ighly debatable and she method is not recommended. b) For drilled and grouted piles, Meyerhof (1976) recommends the following In NC clays: the same values of skin friction as for driven piles In OC clays: a reduction of 0% compared with driven piles. ©) ARGEMA does not recommend the use of the § method for overconsolidated soils irrespective of the type of pile. 28.2.2. Skin F, ietion in Cohest with Sand Layers e Soils If the soil profile indicates the presence of sand, proceed as follows: 2) Determine the curve of the variation in ultimate capacity, by substituting for each sand layer a virtual clay layer of the same density. b) Estimate the capacity of each virtwal clay layer, from the difference in the capachies eatculated by the B method at the top and the bottom of each layer. ©) Evaluate tne inherent capacity of each sand layer by the methods recom. mended for cohesionless soils. 4) Substitute the capacity of the corresponding sand layers calculated in ©) with the inherent capacity of each of the virtual clay layers obtained in ». 2.8.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils The ultimate unit end-bearing capacity gp in cohesive soil is given by: = NC2 2. PILE DESIGN MaTHoDS where Cy = undrained shear strength, Ne=9= bearing capacity factor (except Case 2 in Table 1.2b (1)). 2.5.3 Detailed Effective Stress Methods Developed by Esrig et al (1977, 1979) and Kraft (1982), detailed effective stress methods are designed 10 evaluate skin friction by taking account of the entire history of the effective stresses in the soil around the pile during : pile installation, set-up and pile loading. 2.8.3.1 Estimate of Effective Stresses ‘The variations in the effective stresses are e: ciples of the limit state and the critical state The mechanisms occurring during pile installation and soil set up are actually much mo~s complex than those considered in the methods currently available. The expression for skin friction contains @ large number of empirical correction factors related {0 the pile, installation method. 2.8.3.2. Reliability of Effective Stress Methods Although these methods represent some theoretical progress, they are too complicated, and incorporate too many arbitrary assumptions 10 be consider ed operational and reliable. The analysis of ten pile rests (Cambridge, Hamilton and Empire) by Kraft (1982) shows that their reliability is not nowceably greater than that of the standard methods (particularly the API and 2 methods). PILE DESIGN METHODS 933 2.6 LAMBDA METHOD The documents referees (1975), and Kraft et al Suaysergiya and Fockt (1972), Fox 2.6.1 Speci ic Use and Reliability of the A Method 2.6.1.1 Specificity of the & Method ‘The % method is a composite method relating the average skin friction in clay soils to the average values (over the pile depth) of the effective overburden pressure and of the undrained shear strength of the soil 2.6.1.2 Application of the 4 Method a) The X method is chiefly applicable to normally consolidated to slightly overconsolidated clays, by using the curve corrected by Fox (1975) for piles less than 35m (50 fi) long. b) The application of the % method implies relatively homogeneous soil conditions. Thus, in the .ase of a double clay layer with highly contrasting resistances the method proves to be very conservative (Toolan and Coutts, 1979). If the pile penetrates sand layers, Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972) recom: mend proceeding as stated in Section 2.6.2.2. ©) The method is fairly routinely applied offshore and is recommended as sn alternative prediction method by API 1991 . 2.6.1.3. Reliability of the & Method ‘The analysis of over 100 pile tests conducted ai 33 different sites, carried out by Olson (1984), shows that the catio of the calculated capacity to the capacity measured by the 1 method: ~ Ranges between 0.40 and 5.03. + Averages 1.06, with a coefficient of variation of 0.55,4 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2.6.2 General Formulation of the 4 Method 2.6.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils ‘The average skin friction over the entire pile length is given by the equa: Ta + 2T) a = coefficient related to the pile length L, given in Fig, 2.63 with the curve modified by Fox (1975) for normally consolidated (NC) soils and’ short piles. FZ = average value of the effective overburden pressure °, over the entire length of the pile, o@- 21 02 03 04 05 4 25 50 75 45 Liam 175 Pe Penetration & fin fe 200 a 225 250 18 276 300 20 Fig. 2.68, Variations of the coefficient & with pile length 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS es G average value. of undraincd shear strength Cy over the entire pile length, where C, is obtained from unconfined compression for laboratory vane probe tests The experimenial date used in constructing she empirical curve A= F(L) inclides 42 pile tests varying from 3 10 110 m in length, For extreme uepths, the method is equivalent 10 taking f = 0.6 Ce {a value higher than the APL 1986 method 2) (Section 2.1) Olson (1984) proposed a reformulation of the methed known as the Ay method: Normally consolidated clays (Cu! o', < 0.4) 0.296 ~ 0.032 Ln (L). Gverconsolidated clays (Cel 0's > 0.4) Ay = 0.488 ~ 0.078 Ln (1) where L ile length fin foeth Cu o', = normalized shear sirengih, o effective overburden pressure, 2. Skin Frietion in Cohesive Soils with Sand Layers, The procedure recommended for the application of the 2 method in the pre- P p sence of sand layers in a clay formation includes the following operations: 8) Determine the pile Iriction capacity, by substituting for each sand layer virtual clay layer of the same unit weight and cohesive sirength extzapolat- ed by continuity from the adjacent layers. b) Estimate the capacity of each virtual clay layer from the difference in the capacities calculated by the A method at the top and the bottom of each layer, ©) Evaluate the inh: priate methods of each of the sand layers using appro- 4) Substitute for the int obtained in b) the capacity of th sapacity of each of the virtual clay lay. corresponding sand layer calculated in ¢)96 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2.6.2.3. Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils ‘The ultimate unit end-bearing capacity gy in cohesive soil is given by: ap = NeCe where ce uundrained shear strength, No=9 = bearing capacity factor (except Case 2 in Table 1.2b (1) 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS ” 2.7 PENETROMETER METHODS The reference documents considered are de Ruiter and Beringen (1979), Bus- lamamte and Gianeselli (1981), and Olson et al (1984). 2.7.1 Specific Use of Penetrometer Methods 2.7.1.1 Specificity of Penetrometer Methods Penetrometer methods are based on the analogy between the siatic penetrometer test and the loading of @ driven ot jetted pile: ‘They relate the soil/pile skin friction and the vitimate unit end-bearing capacity of the pile to the tip resistance q, of the penetrometer ‘they are applicable layer by layer. 2.7.1.2 Offshore Application of Penetrometer Methods Penetrometer methods are still very litte uses offshore. In offshore practice, the applicasion uf direct penetrometer methods is limited, as complementary methods, to pile design ix cohesiontess siliceous soils As a rule, the peneirometer data (tip resistance, etc.) derived from the CPT or CPTU (plezocone) are routinely used. 2) In cohesive soils, 9 estimate the undrained shear strength (See~ tion 3.2) bj tn cohesionless soils t estimate The relative density and internal friction angle 9 of the soil (Section 3.2) or the soilipile friction angle &. The limit values (fim. dpm) used in the API method (Section 2413 The safely factors applied by de Ruiter and Beringen (1979), o: by Olson ef al (1984), are the same as those used in the API meth (Section 2.1) st —100s 9 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2, PILE DESIGN METH The safety factors recommended by Busiamante and Gianevell Vutec of Hand fy recommended by Boreas (1981), for onshore structures, on the Shaft friction and end-beoting sta of Nand capacities. are respectively 2 and 3 am “operational conditions” Tonven dome | Driledana 1S and 2 In "extreme conditions" 1 nded ples | grouted ples | Soit type a | wpe [Ns [tim | | fan ‘ | ory ory 2.7.2 Formulation of Penetrometer Methods | ' 2a... Skin Frietion Soft cay <1 [a | ss | x | os [= The skin fiction fis obtained from ie tip resistance gg of CPT by i * if : sult hard cay ros] a | as | a | 3s 1 =ur(&, te) where Ny = friction coefficient for the CPT 7 : fad a vely asd [ faim = limit skin friction aac ai >s | 1 | ss | 60 | 3s 1) The values of N and ne Fecommended: Metiun tas d « 300 | a0 [” Ra.RAtroug.oe Gigeael O54 ae gine in Tati. tes and gravel sw | 20 | 9 | Tues ean not be applied for driven piles in very dense sands (qe >°30 cnc to vey dene and yaaa Pinan aia | 200 | 20 | 150 | 120 {+ By Olson et at (7984), and by de Ruiter and Beringen (1979), are given : L in Table 2.76. zl Table» Vatues o 8 0 fg secommerded by Olson ets (1984) c Tia dejadaaa raaeedveacieg Hee are eee en ciate etka tad peagenctor ; rreter methods, using values of Ny ranging between 200 ond 400, are generally underessimated in comparison with the cetual eapacily Reference xe | tim kPa) Application t (Section 41). ; 200 | 100 | Pgged pits For dense sands, the extent of underestimation ranges from 40 10 Ct placemens : 65% according 10 Beringen et al (1979), who report skin fiction gees) r values of 320 kPa, i. nearly three tines higher than the mesimam ao 50 | Unplugge pes b Timit value normally assumed (120 bPo}, (ho displacement) For Plancott fine sand ond loose silt (Section 4.22), the voriations , a 120 | In compression 7 Jn thin friction appear 10 correlate relatively weil with the penetto- peceeeetiacte mu f meter profiles. The coefficient N, determined from back-anelystt va. Je Roier and Berngos J : a 120 | Inteasion &, ries from 50 10 100 0) =100 2. HILE DESIGN METHODS More generally, the use of a single value for the coefficient N, irrespective of the density and resistence of the material (de Ruiter ‘and Beringen, 1979: Thorburn and Buchcran. 1979. does not seem 10 be appropriate. The recommendstiini \! Bassamanie and Gianeselli {1981}, introducing values of , those of the other procedures and related to the sou! deniuis are a step in the right direction ©) Pile design methods based on the use of fice, derived from the cone lip resistance qe, is not used for offshore pile design. The value of fige is nevertheless sometimes used a2 a limit value (de Ruiter and Beringen, 1979) Design procedures using the results of piezocone tests are current by being developed. but none are yet operational, 9) The relative density is not very weal adapted for caracterizing dense sand vory dense sand. Indeed for such sand, the relative density varies fro 80 to 100%, whereas the cone Lip resistance ge ranges from at least 25 to more 60 MPa. The development of a method of designing piles for dense sand 4s a function of the cone tip resistance seems to be a realistic approach, Figure 2.7a, compiled from various data (Section 2.1.3.5b}, shows ther shin fietion increases very quickly wlth the cone tip re: sistance (Le Tirant et al, 1991) 2. ILE DESIGN METHODS 101 o> mas tanaito / 7 / o/ ° ty ° ° / crea ot wea) ect ° eS eee eg eee Fig. 2.7 Variation of limit ekin friction with penetrometer ‘ip resistance in dense ronds 2.7.2.2 Tip Resistance a) According to de Ruiter and Berin, of a closed pile or a driven open-ende: by the equation: igen (1979), the unit tip resistance gp 4 pile with @ plug may be expressed opts al where 7 Tw average value of qe under the pile tip over a vactble depth between 0.7 B and 4 B, selected as the most unfavorable, where B is the pile diame102 2. PILE DESION serHnps Hi minimum vaiue of qe over the same depth, II = average of the overall minimum values of qc measured above the pile 4p over a variable depth between 6 Band 8 B. To determine this average the values higher than the minimum velue if most act te taken into account (Fig. 2.70). 4p = cone tip resistance. Penetration Fig. 2.78 Example of caleetation of gy Irom cone tip Tesistance profile (Alter de Rutter and Bsringen, 1979) The procedure of de Ruiter and Berincen was developed at a time when penetrometer {erie were 2 > performed discontinuously, with mechanical cure ta Thin layers with low sip res they may be identifies an electri conservative results «Te Kamp. 1977, ected, whereas ‘uous profiles with of the method yields cone tip, A stringent applic DESIGN METHODS 13 b) ‘The values of qp thus calculated should be corrected as shown in Fig. 2c, im accordance with the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of the soil. In every case: agin S15 MPa T T pin = SMP fr all Cohesioniass Soils et Comected Valve of a to be Used (MPa) ° 5 8 5 26 2s 30 35 Cofeusted Volve of tg lin MPa} by the Raster and Boingan Mdhod (1979) Fg. 2.7¢ Corrected valucs of tip resistance gy of driven piles as function fof the overconsalidation ratio (OCR) of eohesionless 0:6 (After de Ruiter end Beringen, 1979). The diagram proposed for determining Gein makes use of the over cansolidation ratio (OCR) of the soil. However, this is often impos: sible o determine.In certain cases, however, this value may be inferred from the state of consolidation of the overlying andior underlying or interbedded clay layers (Section 3.2.2.3), For open-ended unplugging piles, the bearing capacity of the pile* tip wall can be inferred directly from the cone resistance Ge, but must not exceed a limit value of 15 MPa The method is applicable offshore if continuous or nearly continu ous peneirometer profiles are available. It is extremely valuable for heteropencous soils.sot 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS St. Joha (1980) points out that the method can also be used to calculate unis end-bearing capacity in cohesive soils although. in fact, the procedure is generally of litle interest in this case. 2, FILE DESIGN METHODS 105 2.8 PRESSUREMETER METHODS ‘The reference documents cossdesed are SETRA-LCPC (1985) (“Ragles de Justification des Fondations sur Pieux™'. Bustamante and Gianeselli (1961, 1985), Bécue ei al (1986), Baguetin et ai (1978), Baguelin (1982), 2.8.1 Specific Use and Application of Pressuremeter Methods 2.8.1.1 Specitis of Pressuremeter Methods The specificity of pressuremeter rules is derived from the results of the PMT pressuremeter test: 4) Pre-boring pressuremeter (PBP) test (Section 2.8.2): the pressuremeter probe is inserted in a prebored hole. This test observes the procedures of the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC) and the ASTM draft Standard, 2) Self-boring pressuremeter (SBP) test (Section 2.8.3): the self-boring module cnabies the pressucemeter probe into the soil with minimal bance of the formation, Pressuremeter methods directly relate the skin friction f and the tip resistance Gp Of the piles to the pressuremeter parameters, derived feom the PBP or SBP tesis, These methods have so far been little used offshore. 2.8.1.2 Application of Pressuremeter Methods Few offshore pressuremeter tests iave been carried out. The tools used for these teste were essentially. ‘The Ménard (pre-boring) pressuremeter. ‘The Push-In Pressuremeter (PIP), + The IFP seif-boring pressuremeter. The pre-boring pressuremeter method was applied during the period 1965 10 1970 for designing the pile foundations for certain offshore siruicrares (Gulf of Guinea, Arabo-Persian Gulf, Indonesia, etc). The pressuremeter results obtained at-many sites, particularly in ‘he North Sea (Fyffe, 1986), are often used 0 determine xoil shearL106 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS Strength profiles (Section 3.2), followed by the opplication of API or other design methods. The self-boring pressuremeter (standard, cyclic, creep, relaxation fests) has been used offshore for comparison with other methods or Sor calibration of experimental data on piles in soft soils (Brucy and Le Tirant, 1986; 2.8.2 Pre-Boring Pressuremeter (PBP) Method <+ The application of Pre-Boring Fressuremeter rules presumes that the types Of soil crossed by the pile are accurately known, According to the LCPC s+ Classification, these rules distinguish explicitly between the following (Seo. tions 3.1 and 3. + Clays, + Sills + Sands. - + Gravets The existence of many intermediate formations is revealed in practice (for instance, clayey gravels, silty sands, etc.) or the presence of complex structures (calcareous soils, ete.) which do not fall directly into the above classification. For these formations, particularly from : the laboratory test results, it is recommended that the formation concerned is classed ax che type of soil it most closely rezembles in the proposed classification. Otherwise. it may be necessary to carry ou! an interpolation of parameters, ‘The safety factors recommended by Bustamante and Gianeselli (1981 and 1985), on the nominal shaft friction and end-bearing pile capacities calcu: “ated by the normal pressuremeter method, are 2 and 3 respectively. These factors may be significantly refined according to the type of pile, driven or Grilled and grouted (Frank, 1985). “The PBP pressuremeier method discussed iuere is taken from SETRA-LCPC se! Pressuremeter Rules (1985). These rules fall into the framework of a so-called semi-probabilistic approach, established for onshore structures. This formu lation, which differentiates between the design factors applicable to the loads and to the materials, is similar in principle to the DNV approach (Svotion 2.2), and could casily be transposed to offshore structures. 2. PILE DaSIGN METHODS 17 Friction tion and limit skin friction fiiq are given in Table 2.88 and Fig. 2.8a, as a function of the limit pressure p; and the type of soil, for Griven open-ended or drilled steel piles, loaded in compression. 300 r =a % e § 20 roa : 7 z © & roof — : 3 | 7 : : : 3 7 ‘ Liat Pressure P82) eal Expreon of the Garver QnA E De fli, (Be pour es tn = «00 Py 214080 tin Mat fizaa | torrizozmes {Senet Fray are Fig. 188 Relaionsiups between shin fretion(P) and ait ‘i pressure (p,) measured on the PBP pressuremeter. {After SETRA-LCPC. 1985)108 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 109 ] Table 2.88 and Limit skin friction recommended by : SETRA-LCPC Presturemeter Rules (1985). = Kove ] where 7 Driven stoi piles Drited ana |e = horizontal pressure at the depth of the pile tip, ; (closed-eaded) ples fective overburden pressure, | ‘Soll type Pore pressure, Pe Curve | tm Pa) fin Pe) carth pressure at rest coefficiem, otal overburden pressure st the level of the pite sip, "1 lays, silts 1 h 0 Chay. i 8 0 Q “ B= limit pressure, 4 cae ne ; ia Pe = equivalent Limit pressure, 7 7 a Smif Bel 4 Gravels Qs 120 & 80 058 if B>1m, 1 B= pile diameter, Bf K = bearing factor, given in Table 2.8 for penetration depths greater b) The SETRA-LCPC Roles (1985) do not specify precise guidelines for than the critical depth “4 driven open-ended unplugged piles, but nevertheless state thatthe limit skin friction should be taken as equal 10 the limit friction indicated for Table 2.8 piles (Table 2.8a and Fig 2.85) Values of beating facie k applicable to piles (SETRA-LCPC, 1985) cs The SETRA-LCPC Rules (1985) deal with “low pressure" and “high Driven piles Drited and pressure” injected piles, which are sill rarely insalled offshore, eaaanth oa — { The mobilization of @ limit friction higher than the friction re- ‘Soil types. assumed (without piles 4 sulting from the Qq curves (Table 2.60 and Fig. 2.8a) is probable, “pluggea” lug) especially for drilied and grouted piles in sands, clays and silts, 1 but the SETRA-LCPC Rules (1985) condition the adoption of higher Clays, ses ad 09 1 : values 10 the performance of a full-scale loading test in the same Eatnene formations. dense sands (*) 42 a pre IMPs ut | 2.8.2.2 Tip Resistance ' Very dense sands (°) ct 7 i Po 3MPa 8) The unit tip resistance, determined by pressuremeter measurements, is expressed by the equation (SETRA-LCPC, 1985): | Forni den natn rsh ht MPu cp, <3 MP, inept nay fe Qp = K Pe ~ Pe) + Ge ' tion of py with / Lope ) Por driven open-ended ples, the SETRA-LCPC Rules (1985) recommend : mer tf noo linking the end-bearing resistance to 5D% of the value esloulated for the same pile assumed to be “plugged” at the ba:u 17-64 4 110 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS ©) The proposed Rules were established from experimental results cozres- ponding to piles whose embedded length D, was generally greater than the so-called critical embedded length De The Rules are applicable without restricticn if: D258 vith L 1 A forma Ple # where 3s ite comer 1 Cie penetin dep ics the equivalents pressre, tk incorporates the seater thes reais nthe homogencon bearing lage ts the Ngo, hood ofthe pile tip te tis vspect foto, orn oa Jametion te contiered honpenecus If hc nessa haa or Tare mesered doesnot exced 1 ines the ninon a eee Iso the equivalent presiare i cleaed fon a pci: eter design profile define over te distance "as mena es Tae ihe pie rp evel Jf the only results available are those from a single pressuremeter borehole, ihe calculated pressiremeter profile is the broken line ob- fained by joining the successive values of the limit pressures mea~ sured at the different depihs by line segments. If results are available ‘srom -everal pressurenieter boreholes, confirming the transverse con ‘inuity of the formations encountered, a single calculated pressure meter profile con be established by taking account of the horizontal scatter of the values of the limit prescures measured in each of the presumably homogeneous formations The value of pu is calculated from the continuous curve of the caleulated pressuremeter profile and no longer, as recommended by the former Rules, from the local values of the limit pressures mee sured in the soil “interval” considered. This arrangement helps in particular t0 discard relatively sudden variations in pu for slight variations in the pite tip level in the bearing formation If the bearing layer is not homogeneous, the equivalent limit pres sure is calculated in the same way at those discussed above, by clip 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS mL ping the high values of the limit pressures measured 10 1.5 times the lowest limit pressure measured over the depth of soil considered, This arrangement, which is very conservative in certain cases, should lead to a close scrutiny of the reasons for selecting the pile tip depth Jn any event, the cdhsideration of the characteristics of the bearing layer over a relatively small thickness in no way eliminates the need to ensure that this soil layer firmly rests on formations where the ctrength is of least equal 10 that measured immediately under the pile tip. The presence of ters with weaker characteristics should be subjected to tlose straliny, in order to determine the conditions In which this is liable (> affect "he Bearing capacity ofa single pile or of a pile group Linle data is currently available in sands and gravets 2.8.3 Self-Boring Pressuremeter (SBP) Method The pressusemeter rules by self-boring or SBP proposed here result from the work of the LCPC (Baguelin, 1982; Frank, 1985) and of IFP (Bécue et al, 1986; Brucy and Le Tizant, 1986) 2.8.3.1 Skin Friction easurements is given by the ex: The skin [riction estimated from SBP pression f= £(Bsar, pt20) where Boor = soil identification factor (Section 3.2.3), pY20= Puv~ pe = nel soil pressure corresponding to 20% of volumetric expansion, where: Pre pressure at 20% of volumeisic expansion, Pe = at rest horizontal pressure. The values of £ are given: ) For unplugged piles: driven open-ended piles without plug formation, an Pig. 2.80. b) For plugged piles: driven closed or driven open-ended piles with plug formation in Fig. 2.8¢2 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS Tw 7 a g | | Ie Fig. 2.80 Skin friction (0 for unplugged piles (Griven open- ended piles without plug formation). (Aller Bove eta, 1986), Sn Frition 11h) & 8 Fig. 2.8¢ Skin friction (0 for plugged piles (driven clored-ended fr dtlven open-ended with plug formation). (Ateer Béeue et a3, 1986), 2. PILE DESIGN MerHoDs nn The curves for predicting { have been plotted from PBP procedures using: + An adjustment in accordance with the soil Identification factor Bssp (Section 3.2.3), + An extrapolation for high values of prev. + A revfitting using the ARGEMA experimental pile data (Cran, Plancoét) (Section 4.2) 2.8.3.2 Tip Resistance ‘The unit tip resistance estimated from SBP data is expressed by the equa- Poe Fig. 2.84 Chart for determining Ksgp 8a function of Baye and ps0. (After Beeve et tion: Gp = sae pt2e where pY2 = net soil pressure at 20% of volumetric expansion, Kap = bearing factor given in Fig. 2.8d as a function of p*ze and of the soil identification factor (Bsap) for penetration depths greater than j the critical depth. | \ sep \ 5 Pho wen = i 4060 : 4 Zo00 i 7 x = i 986), ‘i it aeoe 7 na 2. PILE DESICN MeTHODS: 2.9 ARGEMA METHOD. IN CALCAREOUS SANDS The main documents referred to here are Nauroy and Le Tirant (1985), Nauroy et al (1988), 2.9.1 Piles in Calcareous Formations and Specificity of the ARGEMA Method 2.9.1.1 Behavior of Piles in Calcareous Format ns The lack of data on the properties and behavior of calcarcous formations ‘and the lack of experience ia foundations in this type of material (untit recent years) explains the many problems, with sometimes costly consequences, arie ing in the installation of large offshore structures in calearecs formations (Mc Clelland, 1988). These consequences mainly concern the installation and beering capacity of the piles: 4) During pile driving in highly compressitic calcareous sands, the free fall of the pile over a height of several meters. or even several dozen meiers, is frequently observed, under its own weight or under the action of @ few hammer blows (with the risks incurred for the equipment}. By contrast, the random presence of cemented layers sometimes requites the use of drilling b) The skim friction of driven piles is always very difficult 1o evaluate (Murff, 1987). It may be zero or higher than 100 kPa (Settgast, 1980: Beake and Suttliffe, 1980), depending on the characteristics of the material and of the pile (Section 4.1). API 1991 states that the design parameters are much lower than for the more common cohesionless soils and should be selected in the light of local experience (especially pile tests) 2.9.1.2 Specificity of the ARGEMA Method ‘The ARGEMA method takes account of the influence of the compressibi lity of the material on the mobiiicable skis f pacity fom and unit end-bearing ca It applies to calearcous fermaiivas nodular oF discontinuous cementation sands", se uncemented grains or with d under the erm “e 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 5 The classification and the geolechnical parameters of calcareous formations are giver in Section 3.1.2 Complete details on the analysis of calcareous formations and foun. dation projects in this type of material are discussed in the Desig Guide on “Foundations in Carbonate Soils When designing pile foundations in fine-grained caicareous soils, procedures for cohesive soils are applied. n of the ARGEMA Method 2.9.2 General Formula 2.9.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Calcareous Sands 1) The anit skin friction of a driven pile in a cohesionless soil is given by the expression (Section 2.1.3.1): f= Inf (Ko'y tan 8, fin) where K = coofficient of lateral earth pressure. = effective overburden, soil to pile friction angle, Limit value of maximum skin fiction, 8 fim b) Experiments conducted by ARGEMA (Nauroy and Le Tirant, 1983) skow- ed that the values of K and fiim depend on the compressibility of the material and of the type of driven pile concerned (open- or clcsed-ended). Table 2.9a gives the values of fire a8 4 function of the limit compressibility index Cyr defined in Section 3.1.2.1 yretation of the results The values of fun edepted result from an interpretation of ofthe ARGEMA experiments, and are compatible with the API recommendations for siliccous sands (Fig, 2.92). They must be used with caution while awaiting confirmation by more numerous observations.16 100 Lait Skin Friction f jy (KPa) ED urorion tet | Be PA Model Test 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS | BS ut-seate Tost | FF Closed Enea Pte PO Open Ended File Proposed Values A for Plugged Piles rae ocr ear abe oy et unit Compressbilty Index C gy Fig. 2.96 Limit shin friction fg) in calcareous sands. (After Neuroy et ai, 1986, 1988). 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS ur Table 2.98 sended by ARGEMA for [,, (in Pa) Limit compressibitiy Index Cp: Drives open Driven elosed- or open without plug ended ples with formation tug formatton < 0.02 100 320 onwes | 10 03 w 04 » 2 04 w 04s | 7 x 08 w 01 : » oa w 02 : re oa wos 03 wes | 20s ° sansses —__|_____l ‘The experimental database available is insufficient to allow the recommendation of values of K and as 2 function of the compressibility Cy: of the calcareous send. Given the low values of fim the choice of Kiand is of lesser impor- The soil-to-pile friction angle § varies from about 20 10 35 de grees as a function of the Cy value (Nauroy et al, 1985, Noorany, 1985; Datta et ai, 1980) Varlous procedures for determining f and fim in calcareous sands have been proposed on the basis of wide variety of criteria CaCOs content Degree of cementation (not defined). + Relative density These procedures should not be used, because these criteria are ininsically irrelevant t0 the mechanical behavior of the materials (Nauroy and Meunier, 1984), |[ — eee ol 1 us 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS The set-up effects observed in this type of formation have been atiribuied to the dissipation of pore pressure and re-cementation (Angemeer et al. 1973; Nauroy and Le Tirant, 1985; Murff, 1987). These effects cannot be taken into account due to the lack of expe- Fimensal dato. 29.2.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Calcaresous Sands ‘The unit end-bearing (tip resistance) of piles in cohesioniess soils is given by the expression (Section 2.1.3.2): Gp = Inf (O'WNg, dria) where OY = effective overburden, Ng = bearing capacity factor, Goin = limit tip resistance. a) The ARGEMA experiments showed that the values of Ny and qpin, depend essentially on the compressibility of the material Table 2.9b gives the values of dyiiq as a function of the limit compressibility index Cp defined in Section 3.1 ‘Table 2.9% Values of ay, (MPs) Limit compressibility Index Cp, Aplin OP) < 0.03 “ >12 0.03 w 0.04 10 0.04 to 0.05 5 0.05 to 01 4 01 02 15 02 t 03 , 03 wos <08 0s ° The limit values adopted result from an interpretation of the results of ARGEMA experiments (Fig. 2.96), compatible with the API re commendat s Unit Limit End-Bearing Capacity Agi (MPE) oat b) The experimne mendation of val reous sand 2 PILE DESIGN METHODS ng ions for siliceous sends, They are propased with some 8 and require further verification. Laboratory Test ‘Model Test Closed Ended Pile PO Open Enced Pite Proposed Values im 002 005 OL COR ost Limit Compressibility Index C py Fig. 2.96 Limit end-boaring (gp) in calcareous sands After Nowroy e ol, 1986, 1988) fl datanase available is insufficient to allow the recom- sof Sz a5 a function of the compressibility of the calca120 2 PILE DESIGN MeTHoDs Given the tow values of dyin, the choice of N, is of lesser impor tance. Depending wn the compressibility of the material (inereas~ ing Cyd, Ng lies between S and 50, but the experimental data is currently inadequate to allow the proposal of a variation in Ny with the compressibility index Cyt As for the maximum skin friction, the other different procedures for determining gp and don proposed for calcareous formations should not be employed, 4. PILE DESIGN METHODS i 2.10 PILE DISPLACEMENT. CALCULATIONS The response of a pile to atial loading is controlled by the rheological properties (stress/strain/time) and the failure characteristics of all she ele- ‘ments of the pile/soil system, and by mechanisms related in particular to the Pile installation method The prediction of pile displacements may be made by carrying out @ study of soillstructure interaction for whick thrce sypes of ana- ysis are available (Aschenbrener ond Olson. 1984) The elastic solid approach, based on the basic assumption that the soil transmits the loads like an elastic homicgeneous end isotropic solid medium characterized by a Young's modulus and a Poisson's ratio, The transfer curve method, + The finite element method ‘The most widespread method is hased on the use of transfer functions {oF curves) introduced into computer programs (Meyer et al, 1975). 2.10.1 t-z Transfer Curve Method 2.10.1.1 Principle of Pile Displacement Calculations 4) In this approach, the pile is divided into elements considered as very short compressible columns, with a given elastic modulus and cross-section (Fig. 2.108), Each pile element is associated witn @ tansfer curve (t-z) relating the load ( transmitted by this element to its displacement (2). In other words, the soit around the pile is replaced by a set of non-linear springs which support the pile at mid-height of each element, and which are totally independent from each other.122 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS Fig. 2.108 Modelling diagram by transfer curves, b) Methods classed as Uz curve” methods have not beon as successful as the “p-y” curve methods applicable to the calculation of displacements of laterally-loaded piles. This is due to several reasons The need 10 determine for a tong pile subject to horizontal loads the reaction of the soil from small deformations 10 failure, in order to determine the displacements at the top and the stresses in the pile, involves special tests. The ultimate limit staie calculations are generally sujficient for designing axially-loaded piles with, if necessary, an estimation of the displacements at tke lop by the simple application of elastic methods The experimental data is often insufficient to allow the calibra- sion of the tz curves. ©) However, the foreseeable use of axially-toaded piles in tension for the anchoring of floating platforms today raises the acute problem of estimating the overall pile displacements (at the top), aS well as that of the knowledge of the focal displacement of the pile, At every point of the pile, the value Of this displacement conditions the response of the soil to the cyclic loads imposed. The use of calculation procedures using 1-2 curves implicitly pre sumes that the displacements along a pile element do not depend [ on the loads mobilized by the other elements, 0 that they are dealt 1 with as @ purely local phenomenon. The interpretation of ARGEMA experiments, particularly for the Cran site, helped to establish the local character of the mobilization of friction under static or cyelie loading (Puech et al, 1982). | 2. FILE DESIGN METHODS 13 t I 2.10.12 Shape of the t-z Transfer Curves The shape of tne tz trausfer curves generally used is illustrsted in Fig, 2.108. Zor fb zor Fig. 2.100 Shape of tx curves. In this figure: maximum mobi to: tae able capacity on the pile element corresponding the sum of the maximum skin frietion £ mobilizable at the soil/ pile interface for standard clements of the pile, the maximum unit end-bearing mobilizable for the lower element of the pile (for loads in compression), vitical displacement necessary to mobilize tyes,m4 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS § = ratio of the mobitizable resistance at large deformation ta t0 the maximum resistance toast te : ratio of the displacement 2. displacement 24: S875 10 Leach tie 10 the critica, Inea) While the establishment of the coordinates of the peak and the presence, as a first approximation, of an elastic zone before this peak are more or less accepted, the “post-peak” behavior is stilt the subject of controversy. There is no unanimous agreement on the existence of a resistance Stage for large displacements sometimes inappropriately called “resi. dual friction". Neversheless. this concept is routinely employed, Certain authors reserve the nomination "t-2" curves for skin fric~ tion transfer curves, The sransfer curves of tip resistance are then defined by g-2. This chapter uses the notation tz for tip resistance as well as for skin friction. 2.40.2 t-z Curves for Skin Friction and Tip Resistance ‘The parameters for generating t-z curves ate given in Table 2.10a for the main soil categories considered and for driven piles. 2.10.21 t-z Curves for Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils ‘The shape of the skin friction transfer curves is shown in Fig, 2.10¢. 2 Parameters for genera PILE DESIGN METHODS ‘Table 2.108 na x curves ‘Sot es Observation ‘Cohesive soils 12 fos | 2 CConesionless siliceous soils 25 ita Caleareous sands (*) 1025 |oa| Murff (1987) Cemented cslowreous formations (*) (1) Very Tite experimental data, See Teble 2.100 2 20 eet [Abbs and Needham (1985 do not consider a resis tance stage for large displacement, endrecer: send a progressive eceease in beyond 2g, up 0 5 KPa for B, pile di t= Fy Fig. 2.106 te transfer curve of skin friction in cohesive soils bt I a126 2. PILE DESIGN MeTuODS a) The order of magnitude of the relative critical displacement (7.1/8), ne cessary 10 mobilize maximum skin friction, is close to 1 to 2% (Fig. 2.104). z “La 5 Bad Jou ava ( é 2 To Ir | > Average Tendenoy g of foo iar ot at 198) & a 2 3) (a) (3) (6) a @) 3 0) an re (23), Fig. 2.104 Vaives of 50 inches) 050 Yo tr) Pile Dismeter 8 fm) Giecil tit ley IBREY, MeRnoy er af 1962, Beaumont clay, after O'Neil et of 1872. INC plastic clay trom Cran, Puech at a/ 1862. ‘Aurore et 2/1981, Sif clay, eter MeCemmon et af 1970, Aurore et 311881, Shaly clay, after Aurora ot af 198% Planceat cleyey layers. Solt clay, ater Avrora er “32: Models Kargrud era: 8 Pelletier 1986, | displacement (2,8) 15's function of pile diameter (B) in cohesive sols 2, FILE DESIGN MBTHODS 127 b) The determination of the post-failuie curve is very uncertain, In the absence of experimental valueb, the following can be used for large-diameter &= 08 and ne? The choice of a simple and lineur representation of the mobiliza- sion of friction as a function of local displacement before failure is justified by experimental results, especially those of ARGEMA at Cran and Plancodi (Seztion 4.2) and those of NGI (Karlsrud et al, 1985). The vatues of the relative critical displacement 2<-!B, shown in figure 2.10d, are taken from the studies of Aurora et al (2981), and of ARGEMA, NGI and BRE. For large-diameter piles, the values of ter are much higher than the Sto 8:am routinely assumed. For stiff clays, ze appears to decrease with depth (perhaps due 10 the effect of confinement) (McAnoy et al, 1982; Coyle and Reese, 19565. The values of & and p selected correspond 10 the conservative vax les of the ranges given by Kroft et al (J981b) (Table 2.126). The work of Lupini et al (1981) reveals a close dependence between the resistance of cohesive soils at large deformations, measured on the circular shear bex by torsion, and their state of plasticity For soils with o plasticity index (Ip > 25), the residual friction angle Ov is very small, around 10 to 15 desrees, whereas the displacement required to reach the residual resistance stage is generally greater than 100 mm, and may reach 400 mon For soils low plasticity (Ip < 25), the corresponding values are generally 20 10 35 degrees and no more thon 10 mm respectively, The concept of residual resistance is only valid for plastte stiff clays.18 Table 2.108 Data relative 10 the shape of the "postfailure” 12 eurve in clays 2 §\5 gle]2 g]8/8 S/S/F fa Feys]s ele;s~ js} sys]2 dy gs . at Bde] x]x me | | x i * gé ES] E/E. feel FS1§ Belisle eelelels S*rsls*lssi1eisls 2. FILE DESIGN METHODS 129 t-z Curves for Skin Friction in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils ‘The general shape of the usual -z curves and the main 22° - cee ven in figure 2.10e, 1 b= tag, Fig. 2.106 tz transfer curve of skin friction in cohesionless siticeoss cols 1) “The first part of the curve before & = teu = 1 may be modelled satisfac- torily by w live segment. The releive critical displacement r.,/B required fo mobilize tan is close to 2.5% (Fig, 2.100. b) The second part of the curve, beyond i for large displacements so that the mobilizabl mum friction (& = 1). titq = 1, i8 a resistance stac Triction is equal to the maxi The experimental values of 22/18 ie peiween 25S ond S% (Fig 240f). For piles smalter than 0.50 m in diameter. the values tend 0 decrease az B risesaoe een 130 tive Critical Displacement & op 1B (6) 2. ‘MLE DESIGN METHODS o ie) 21 8) 3 ‘4 er]. ‘6 x13) inches} | cana 18 Ea Ey Py = 2050 190 (ny Pile Diamater @ fr) (2) Laboratory (iota), (2) Prancost (ait and 1oose sends) {3} Arkansas River + laborstary (sandy sil, Coyle end Sulaiman 1967, (8) Aurora eta 1981, (5) Hoogrand (dense sand}, Seringen ef a 1978, (6) Aurora et 5/1981 (7) Aurora et at 198%, (8) Ogeechee River, Aurore er af 1981, (9) Arkansas River (sity sand) Aurora et af 1884 Fig. 2101 Valves of relative cttical displacement (2/8) 8 a function of pile diameter (B) in sande DESY wenn 33 The work of Coyle and Sulaiman (1967), and of Reringen et al (1979), showed that. in sands, friction remains practically constant and equal 10 tnx Up 10 rela:ive displacement greater than 10. The hypothesis of @ friction siage for large displacements & = 1 also appears to be validated by the Plancoét tests. 2.10.2.3 ez Curves for Ski Formations Friction in Calcareous Very little experimental data is available for the construction of t-z ronsfer curves for shoula be piles in calcareous formations. Hence the values in Table 2,10¢ rused with considerable caution ‘Table 2.106 Examples of 2 curve parameters for piles Jeareabs formations so | te wml y Rete type category E » a 4s as 55 ‘by Angemeer et al (1973) fe cand Muri (3985) awe | os | 10 | Rommeyie a gmyes 1985) aes | seta 10) baa snc PeEe 1986) Drie an 3 fons | «| Renton ste aoznay rove | Pees) Comened sstaveos | 2 | 0664 | 20(9) | Abbe ane Nethon 5) Tomei comin) 210.24 tor Curses for Tip Resistance The foiiowi cbhesior in Different Soils erally assumed for the different types of cohesive and ss. soils:2. PILE DESIGN METHODS a) The equation of pre-failure curve (Pig. 2.10g) is us Tez | and where tous = ap Ap with | a, = unit dip resistance, Ap = total area at dip, es Relative Displacement 2/8 8 ig. 2.10g tz ransfer curve of tip resistance b) The relative critical displacement is 2/B (where B is the pile diameter): + Generally ranging beween S and 10% for driven piles. + About 30% for drilled and grouted piles. 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 133 €) The resistance is stabilized beyond & = 1, except for sensitive clays, where & is the ratio of the value of the mobilizabie tip resistence at large deformations 10 the value of 4p In sands, Beringen e1 al (1974) indicate a relative displacemen: of about 5 10 7%2.11 STEEL/GROUT ADHESION IN DRILLED AND GROUTED PILES The allowable capacity at the steel-to-grout interface may be éctermined from values of edhesion (Section 2.11.1) using the limitations indicated in Section 2.11.2. 2.11.1 Computation of Allowable Steel/ Grout Adhesion 21.1.1 Values of Steel/Grout Adhesion According to API 1991, the allowable values of adhesion fy, between the pile and the grout, according to whether or not the pile is equipped with shear keys (Fig. 2.112), are expressed, as indicated in Table 2.113, as @ fonc- tion of the following paramecsrs. fy = unconfined compression resistance of cement grout. +L = shear key spacing. c= key thickness Pite Wat Soar Keys Soil oF Rock Formstion Coment Gro Fig. 2.114 Shear key arrangemens fora crilted ‘nd gronted pile 2. PILE DESIGN MarHoDS: 135 Table 2118 Allowable values of seel/grout adhesion (f,.) (KPa) With shear keys ‘Without shear keys Normal Bt Be + 05 ta Extreme 184 18s + 0.678, 2.1.1.2 Example of Calculation of Steel/ Grout Adhesion The allowable value of steel-to-grout adhesion in normal conditions with shear keys is calculated using the equation: fou = 138 + O56, (kPa) With she following data fox © 30,000 BPa, e, = 12mm. 1 = 666 mm this gives Sia ~ 138 + 05 (30,000 « Z| = 408 kPa 66, 2.11.2 Limitations of Steel/Grout Adhesion 2.11.2.1 API Design Procedure The API design procedure is applicable with the following limitations (API 1991):136 a) Sleeve geometry, for connection of the pile (@ the son grouting, should be where B, = sleeve diameter ta = sleeve wall thickness. Bec 80 2) Pile geometry should be where 8 t= pile wall thickness. 6) Geomesry of grouting where B= 4) Relative spacing of shear kayt should be ass! £8 ‘only for helicol tess) i where pile diameter le = key spacing. 40 “1s annulus should be ter of annalus, = grout annulus thickness e) Shear key ratio should be: where ay thickness a sat 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 137 £) Shear key shape ratio should be where W, = key width, 2) Product of fox and ey ly (relative. strength of cement grout) should be 4 fou 8 55.MPa where Jou * uiiconfined compressive strength of the grout 211.2.2 DEn Design Procedure ‘The Department of Energy (DEn) recommands a slightly different shear key design procedure (API 1991, “Commentary on grouted pile to structure connections”, Section C.7.4.4.4). This method has received considerable use in the design of connections using shear keys, a iT PROG Eee CeeChapter 3 GEOTECHNICAL NFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Offshore pile foundation design requires the most complete possible com- piilation of information about: + The geotechnical chara.teristics of the soils and the data acquisition methods or techniques employed, + The pile installation method (driving, drilling} planned or feasible, ‘The types and levels of foreseeable loads on the structure, and hence fon the foundation piles Specific features of the structures and foundations: single pules or pile groups, relative flexibility of long piles, etc. This chapter provides 2 body of information in the form of guide sheets, that is indispensable or useful to the designer of foundation and anchor piles for offshore structures, To facilitate access to these different guide sheets, 1wo introductory tables briefly review the data required in accordance with the major soil classes, and refer to the carrespanding sections Fable 3.0a summarizes the methods used in obiaining and applying the geotechnical parameters, Table 3.0b shows how the effects of the types of loading and the specific pile characteristics are accounted for in pile foundation design1 a ve ze (80; oneauorey 129 ores acre) eet geet ‘sepspint 3 sonses vanes Nu GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FoR MLE DE ouput a pastes sa 0 suonsanb 40 poaabar eys0u9, porn a i anbyayseg ropuste woos: ou mq posidde ombriyse rf par aqgeatiddy > onbruyso) papusuiuiossy 42 suojrepuouincosoy Suodoina lot &e Aseawns jog wre ages 129 © pus rods Suspeo| eiss99 Jo s1999,2 otf Jo womeraptsu ‘3 Aw ey a3 oererpan Praepsrorsoqun + ND ‘iat wolesaudules pauljuoaufl = AL ssay £01120 soft jo sigyouesed 0 Burpioay eve woneg iijosd sovowolieued 3c, wor eve ‘Tovouonrausd 4, ‘ay 7 BP ES | OR | notha ae | gaa cap saser mis uy a fos uyuan ayy 303 Azeusuns jap siojauesed t22nuyoaioa8 Jo 26a pus uonisinboy wore 1a,r Ll “| 4. we 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3.1 GEOTECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS A basic distinction may be drawn between: = Siliceous and silicate soils containing gravels, sands, silts, and non- calcareous clays (Section 3.1.1). + Calcareous soils with wide range of carbonate contents (Section 3.1.2) The notations. symbols and units used in describing the scils are those used by the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foun dation Engineering, recommended at the 9th Conference in Tokyo (1977). 3.1.1 Siliceous and Silicate Soils 3.1.1.1. Geotechnical Classification 1). The geotechnical classification of siliceous and siticate soils (Table 3.13) is based on: Grain size criteria. Plasticity parameters for soils containing grains smaller shan 0.08 mm. 'b) This classification results in two main categories: Fine of cohesive. soils: + Granular or cohesiopless soils. The criteria used by Dennis and Olson (1983), to characterize very plastic clays (API Method, Section 2,1), are Ws > 50% and I, > 35%. The difference between this and the geotechnical classification criterion in Table 3.14 is minimal 3.1.2 Characterization of Cohesive Soils The state of cohesive soils may be characterized by three parameters: consistency, sensitivity and overconsolidation rativ. 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 43 apie San Classification of siliceous and silieate soils : pera 1 [tie [S Paggatiom ooterenas festa om atc j tere i tract ett ean o et Spresecien, | pe | Wage as oer py ged mi lasses | el te reer Ieee [ee i a jie marae Taga ec cere “ees etceap sts Tie cat in a ir (poet et cea “opicatondope ay eqeiow mo busarsaae in Spiee so elels Vp pc aren ee Ggresap on a op cee Roane a [naira { wewmaycrctone Cyrene Gee g, Sang. Sap Narr crdtons Gassands ceca H*E 7 inp sere Os fg, Dg: mete gar ny 10,30 6% ol see ti. LiguiityLinst fy, )Me 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION POR PILE DESIGN 2) Consistency may be quantified using the undrained shear strength (or seston) Co, ‘TM Standard 2488 defines a classification of fine soils as a function consistency, relying on simple tests (Table 3.10). Table 3.1 Consistency of eohesive soils (ASTM Standard D 2488) ‘Undeained Consistency Identification procedures cohesive strength Cy (kPa) Soft ‘Thumb penetrates easily 225 Medium stitt | Thumb penetrates with slight effert 251050 oe Ensily indented by the thomb, bat only 50 10100 penetrates with great effort Very stiff Easily marked using the thombaail 100 t@ 200 Had Difficult to mark using the thumbnail > 200 In practice, the value of the undrained shear strength depends on the shear test utilised (Section 3.2). b) Sens!:ivity may be defined as the ratio of the peak undrained shear strength (Cy) to the resistance in the completely disiurbed state (C,), i.e. the state of minimum resistance obtained after the application of high shear strains (Table 3.16) vapte 3.16 Sensitivity of cohesive soils ce Description = Insensitive 1 Slighny eensitive 1102 Mediaes censitive 204 Highly sensitive 408 Extremely centitive (quick) 28 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR FILE DESIGN us ©) By definition, the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) is the ratio of the preconsolidation pressure (c',) to the 0.4 is said to be overconsolidatedim r L mo. i: mm mers oo he 6 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DBSIGN Note that the term “underconsolidated” is often used incorrectly. Clayey formations in which the process of consolidation under self weight has not terminated are in a normally consolidated. non- stationary state, and should be described using the expression “consolidating” 3.1.1.3 Characterization of Cohesionless Soils ‘The state of ccnesionless soils 1s generally described by the degree of com- action, based on the relative density determined in the laboratory, or by correlations from in situ tests (penetrometer, pressuremeter, SPT). The “correlations” in Table 3.14 between the relative density D, and the parameters qc, p: and Nspx, which are purely indicative in the absence of data on the vertical siress, are based on. + The “determination” of the relative density D, from the results Of the standard penetration test (SPT), namely the number of blows per foot (Nepr) of Tersaghi and Peck (1948). Table 3.14 State of compaction of cohesiontess soils Very | saay | Media very tose | 12° Vdtense | Pe | dense Relative density is gs is Dm) 41 t _f _ Presseremeter Limit pressure o2 os is as pitas Penetrometer Cone tip resistance ig 49a (MPa) tt SPT Blows per foot 4 0 so Novy eS eee 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 17 + The relation between Nepr and the cone tip resittance for the static penetrometer (4. in MPa) used by Meyerhof (1976) fe = 04 Neer : The relation between Nspr and the limit pressure for the pressuremeter (pi in MPa} recommended by Baguelin et al (1978): Pi = 0.05 Newr 3.1.2 Caleareous Formations ‘The basic system remains that of the classification given in Section 3.1.3 ‘The characteristics of the calcareous formations must also be considered: Carbonate (CaCOs) content (Table 3.10). Origin of the constituents and deposition conditions: terrigencous, bio- : geneous (coralline, algal or shelly) or hydrogencous (oolitic). ‘Cementation, allowing a distinction between uncemented (Section 3.1.2.1) and cemented formations (Section 3.1.2.2) Compressibitity, at least for uncemented materials. Table 3.6 Mineral composition ‘CaCOs Content (>) Denomination > 90% Carbonate 50 10 90% "Siliceous carbonat 10 t0 50% "Ctleazeoue silica” 10% Siliecous (1) Generally tothe nearest 5%. One of the most widely adopted classifications is that of Clark and Walker (1977), which sccounts for (Table 3.11): Grain size distribution + Carbonate content. Induration, + Origin of the constituentsis 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORM IN FOR MLE DESIGN 3. GEOTECHNICAL DYFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 149 ‘This classification, which does ant make use of soil plasticity, is incom: pele eee eee oe el Hele patible with that adopted for siliceous and silicate soils. eaves 2 3.1.2.1 Calcareous Sands 1 ga = —— a) Phe deseription of this type of formation includes: 2 ot ose The specific geotechnical category i Hi Piid ‘A qualification of the minera’ composition 7 3 gi Pra: A comment on the geological origin. 1 } 2 | 8 ae bbe Furthermore, one of the predominant geotechnical parameters describing the 7 i 2 | gl t RES behavior of these materials and the design of pile foundatidis is their com- z i & : : E ig Hl eessibility (Nauroy and Le Tirant, 1988), ' z oe } Ri b) The compressibility index C, is derived from the curve e-log 6 obtained L 2 | lay. IEEE EEE i from an cedometer or triaxial iscteopic test (Fig. 3.1), where H 2/8 Bd) ge a Bagh: & © = void ratio, i : ee pea! Wag pigs © = confining pressure : 2 Spd g gs ge bd aa. e J | sé lO i Pb 8 Baya! ie ee . i ae gd te ' i gy ad pio ' 22 ag rrrerers ts | 3 baal i 3 : | 3 ig it : | t Ua a 2 3 alt 3 XN lel fd li \ z 3 - ! | 2/88 i : ' 1 = | 2 ie 1 | a ! i 2 { | EEE eee Peet eee cece eee Hee Contning Pressure © Fig. 3.19 Datonination ofthe eupresiitity inden | carve e-log 4, The compressibility index Cy varies with e. For granular for, | : mations, Cy tends to 8 limit value Cy1_with increasing @ (Fig. 3.le), By con IC m7 im 150 3. GBOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR Hin eiestow vention, the limit compressibility index Cyy is taken as the value of C, cor. responding t0 ¢ = 800 kPa. + - i = ! EE | ew | exttem At ofS | amy ora jot fee | Same ony 2} S| eter one yd Crna |S | see | anim come fig jc i So Lg | unas a fore LEE | fo an gee = cab, = 98% i aad 2 So, + uve, sue and relative density ef cheemented sands, 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN ast In the ARGEMA method for pile design in calcareous sands (Section 2.9), the skin friction and end-bearing capacity of driven piles are defined as function of Cy Table 3.1 gives the order of magnituae of Cpi for varioxs types of material Table 3.15 ‘Typicol values of the limit eorspressibilty index Soit oa Silceous sande 0.01 10 0.04 Detrtal calcareous sands Shelly end coralline calcareous sands Oltol Algal calcareous ronde oT 3.1.2.2 Cemented Caleareous Formations 8) ‘The description of the material includes: ‘The mineralogical composition (carbonate content) (Table 3.1¢), ‘A comment on the origin of the constituents ‘The adjective “cemented” with a hardness qualification (Table 3.1h) ») I the material is very slightly to moderately cemented, cementation is ily Gestroyed by pressure of the fingers or any abject, Specific identifica: Hon tests for uncemented materials can be employed in this case, includ: ing grain size analysis and plasticity tests. Hence the USCS classification is applicable, ©) If the material is moderately 10 very highly cemented, a grain size analysis is not feasible, and the materiat musi be described visually Fine-grained material, (<2 mm): the terms “sand”, “silt” and“ used, as well as their composition Coarse-grained material: the term “conglomerate” or “breccia” is used. telay” are.12 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3, GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DEstaN 153 + The term limestone is reserved for material with indiscernible grain size ei A 7 3.2 EVALUATION OF GEOTECHNICAL distribution, which is strongly cemented. PARAMETERS Table 3.1b Cementation seale This section provides practical indications wi she memnods used in eva ~ i Sssnssnsssseasnnaneanasnaananpannene008H052055385 \ Juating geotechnicat parameters from laboraivs, vr aa shiv icais. The routine | Cementatlon Test a OPH correlations between pacameters and any corcections suyyested are vot claimed | to be complete. They are simply intended to guide the designer, who must i | Very weak Crushed under finger pressure. <02 constantly ensure the validity of the correlations for his own problem, and avoid non-valié extrapolations in particular | Weak (Crashed under the pressure of hari. O21 : | 3.2.1 Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength | Mediu strong | Breaks eaity under a simple hammer blow: of Cohesive Soils | friable fragments, die10 4) ‘The measured undrained cohesive strength of a clay depends on many i Strong Breaks under one of two hammer blows, lacteal deidice Gia Te aeeataats | ‘but with sharp fresments 16 1 100 Hding (Biesram, 1972 and 1973; Ladd et al, 1977) i Geological features,’ physicochemical properties and degree of homoge: ery song | Breaks under severa) hammer blows, neity and isotropy of the soil ‘but with very sharp frsgmens, > 100 + Type of in sitv or laboratory test employed «stress state, Joad direction, ——_+_____— ed loading rate, ete.). = unconfined compressive stzength Degree of core disturbance liable 10 be induced by: SE a ar Dridling and sampling techniques. + Extrusion, handling, storage and transport operations. ‘Any decompression or release of dissowved gases during very A very full analysis of the methods used in determining the me~ T chanical properties of soits was published in Tokyo by” Ladd # al i" (1977). The authors lay special emphasis on the potentially very horm ful effect of disturbance on the measured undeeined cokesive strength of soft to medium suff clays, measured by the UU “rasta! test, lead g | 10 an underestimate usually ranging betweeh 20 and 30% of the tea sistance measured by the CU trtantal test on Supposedly “perfect : samples. They recommend the ase ofthe CU test after consolidation [ inthe K, sce (CK,U), tn preference to isotropic consolidavion (CIs, which generally leads to an averestination of Cu Moreover, Ladd i eal 997) po in fractured class, the andrained cohestve Lrength measured on sionderderised samples may be hagtly overs =ms yo eo - 2 ASAE SEES al 158 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILF DESIGN b) The cohesive strength of clayey marine soils is mainly determined from Jaboratory measurements, and sometimes from in situ tests (shear vane, pene. trometer, pressuremeter). 3.2.1.1 Laboratory Measurements and Correction Factors ‘The stanoard technique of core sampling offshore has gradually evolved from the thick wall driven into the soil (hammer sampler) to the thin-wall Push sampler. The latter technique is now used whenever adequate penetration of the sampler may be carried ovt. Incteasing use of the stationary piston corer improves the quality of Sampling, a) The most widely used“laboratory tests for determining the undrained cohesive surengih of clayey marine soils are: + Pocket torvane (TV) and miniature vane (MV) tests (and possibly tests lasing the povket penetrometer). + Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests (UU), Consolidated undrained wiaxial tests (CU). b) Several corrections for the measured values of cohesive strength Cy are proposed Corrections are proposed for specific geographic areas, for exam- le by Young et al (1983) for clays of the Gulf of Mexico (Table i 3 Table 3.24 Corrections factors propesed by Young (1983) to determine the reference cohesive strength C, Determination method Correction Thin.wall sampler uaasia ta uw (corrected) Type Diameter ©, Wet) Driven | 57 mm (2,28) uv 1S Driven | $7 mm (2 28°} uy Ms Pushed | 75 mm (3") uv ! Pusned | 75 mms") wy 0.75 Us Unconfined compression test MY > Miniature vane 3 ctorecumie: 135 Corrections of the same type are recommended by Olson (1984) for very soft to stiff clays, using the UU triaxial test as a reference, performed on samples taken with the 3 inch (76 mm) thin. or thick wall sampler. with or without a stationary piston: cu (1.610 1.7 if the U testis performed on samples ti obtained using the 2 inch (S1 mm) hammer or push sampler). ou) ios TD APL 1991 refers explicitly 19 the SHANSEP concept (Siress History ond Normalized Soil Engineering Properties), which uses a relatively elaborate laboratory technique In which the measured resistance it not directly used for design, but only in terms of @ normalised shear strength related to the preconsclidation stress (Ladd end Foot, 1974, odd et al, 1977). 1s application requives extremely high quality samples, obtained using the push sampler (Young et al. 1983). For large-scale pro'scts requiring a complete soil survey. the SHANSEP method is potentially highly auiractive. 3.2.1.2 Field Measurements and Correction Factors 2) The field vane (FV) is used for the in situ measurement of undrained hesive strength Cy of soft soils, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. In using the average cohesive strength mobilizeble along a failure line of an earth dans or embankments cohesive sirengths measured vith the field vane are often corrected by empirical factors which decrease with the increase in the plasticity index ef the soil. The correction factors applied are those of: (2972) (Fig. 32a) and Pilot (1972). Sut er ai “15601, caking account of the stress history ond the cotutsiizn ratio of the soil (Fig. 3.26) Bie156 a (GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 12 3] 10 Be El= o8 Bs Bl a8 ot © 20 40 60 80 100 120 Ip (8) ig. 3.20 Correction of Bjerrum (1972) on C, a measured wsing the field vane, asa Janciton of the platy index of the ela YYoung Formation Aged Formation ie pee “0 1 x z | Hes 3lo \ Ne 3 os So =| oe oom oy Fig. 326 Correction of Aas etal (1985) on C. measured using the field vane, as &funcsion ofthe plasiciy index 2nd the overconsolidation ratio of the clay. 3. GEOTECHNICAL DMFORMATION TOR FILE DESK N 7 The corrections of Bjerrum (1972) and Aas et al (1986) arc a applicable to pile problems. However, they form part of many osher correction factors for cohesive strength meacured using the field -ane (FV) proposed for pile design in marine clays (Table 3.26) Teble 3.28 rious corrections propaseé for cohesive strength measured ssing the field vane (FV ) Vor Proposed correction Coveecton factor Gulf of Hesico cays Cu Gores) (Young eal, 1983) Tea Very soft to stiff clays Suv, (Olson, 1948) e.0F) Mediu plate clays iy = 40) Cu lorrected) (Bjerrum, 1972) oevT —— However, there is no unanimous agreement on rect the cohesion values obtained iv situ with the field vane, as some designers feel shat these values. are equal to those measured by UU triaxial test or by the miniature vane (Briaud ond Meyer, 194 the need 19 cer b) By using empirical corrections for the penetrometer test (CPT), it : Possible to relate the cone tip resistance qc to th. undrained cohesive stse Cu in soft 10 ‘stiff clays (Section 3.2.2), ©) The pressuremeter test, which is still little used offshor of the undrained cohesive strength of solt.and mediu:s clays, higher than those determined usin, 3.2.3). provides value: which are oft 1B standard laboratory methods (Secti:~ 3.2.1.3 Normalized Shear Strength ‘The normalized shear th YW is defined by the ratio: c, Where o'y is the effective overburden pressure, ve13k GOTECHMICAL INFORMATION FoR FILS DESIGN Figure 3.2c illustrates the ranges of variation of the ratio Cy /o'y for @ num= ber of offshore sites vont Gude sl ine ce or o3 oe OS oc Symooi focal fan pee nessired Aten Ly eo) Eameoresiee parame HIE Gairos et ui, 3983) Ta Wioreova 10771] ara i“ cE ‘Non Soo (Worwegin Tench Se Morse CH kev UY Lett fog Tet (CU. Gilded Geran Frat Conesin Test EU je) er by Earn Tet WU! Unorshats Oe Tl Seacon Tes BS es he Te Fig, 3.2¢ Examples of variation of Cyl’, for e numberof typieal clay soils in accordance withthe C, measurement method (indiedies valocs {0 be considered with enution) 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFC2MATION FOR PILE DESIGN 159 3.2.2 Penetrometer Parameters | ‘The use of wire-line penetrometers for offshore soil surveys is carried out: : Either alternated with corings, which presents the drawback of discontinuous penetrometer profiles that ate difficult to use. + OF preferably using successive sequences which help to obtain a more “continuous” profile. 4) The penetrometer resulis may be used directly in the design methods, like those indicated in Section 2.7. The application of penetrometer results is limited to cohesionless siliceous soils in practice, and is used as a complementary procedure. The method of de Ruiter and Beringen (1979), proposed 10 calculate the tip resistance, is applicable if virtually continuous pri files are available, 5) The penctrometer results are used more routinely for the geotechnical characterization of soils Soil identification and classification Determination of the consistency of cohesive soils, Evalvation of the degree of compaction and internal f hesiontess soils 11 is necessary to check the calibration of the sensors in all cases ‘and, in the specific case of he piexocone, to apply apprapriate corrections 10 the measurements. The interpretation of piezocone (ests must take account of the location of the piezometer cell 3.2.2.1 Soil Identification and Classification Baseii on CPT Results 3) Soll identification is based on three parameters (Figs 3.24 and 3,2e): ‘The cone resistance q. measured by the cone10 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR FILE DESIGN 161 ‘The friction ratio (Fig. 3.24) where du is the excess nore pressure measured with the piezocone. FR = fx 100) © where fe is the local friction measured on the pere:" , : : i 2 i 1 E ln 7 coarse gre : oa 5 3 0 02 Ge c8 os ic 12 s Past 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Friction avo, FR % These charts only offer a guide which should be used with caution for low values of qc and in the fist few meters below the mudline, due to the uncertainty in the local friction ratia FR Fig. 3.20. CPT soil charscterization chast. (Dougtas and Olson, 1981), ») In calcareous formations, the penetrometer may be useful, if the cemented layers are thin and the cementation week particularly in identifying the indurated zones thst are not apparent from coring (Beringen et al, 1981), - ‘The results must not be employed for pile design. + The ratio of the excess pore pressure t the cone resistance (Fig, 3.2) au102 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION Fog wit mun A decrease in the local friction rato FR is generally observed with increasing induration The major limitations of the penetrometer test in shis type of fore mation are the following, + Penetration impossible in strongly cemented formations + Inability 10 distinguish a large cemented aggregate from a mas: sively cemented layer + Possible difficulties in the interpretation of discontinuous data obtained from wiresline penetrometer tesis. The penetrometer dia grams giving a continuous record obviously do not present the Some covtion is always necessary in extrapolating, from one tone 0 another, the correlations that may have been established (jor exam. ple, between the cone resistance g. and the degree of cementation of @ ecleareous formation), 3.2.2.2 Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from CPT Results ‘The undrained shear strength C. of cohesive soils is usually inferred from the cone resistance q, measured using the penetrometer from the equation Gs where Gy = total overburden pressure Ny © cone tip coefficient (Table 3.2c), Table 3.26 Values of N, in the Noth See (Luane and Kleven, 1983), pee eee HEE hy ope SS Eee) Normally consotidsiey «SCs 121018 Overconsolidaied 10C+ | 150020 | eee Eee 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 163 Certain correlation methods propose: sen oy ie Cue where o', is the effective overburden pressure. However, the difference between the methods is slight because, generally, oy (or 0's) can be ignored in comparison with qc. The expression is simplified and hence becomes: If piexocone results are available, it is possible to use the still tentative correlations (Lune et al, 1985; Aas et al, 1986) to detcr- ‘mine the skear strength characteristice in terms of total and effective 3.2.2.3. Shear Strength of Cohesionless Soils Derived from CPT Results For granular soiis, the penctrometer results are: Either introduced disectly imo the calculation methods (Sectica 2.7), Or used to estimate the density or the shear strength characteristics, Thus the relative density and the internal friction angle q* of granular soils can be derived from penetrometer results ax proposed by Lunne and Christoffersen (1983), 8) For normally consolidated, uniform, fine to medium siliceous sands, the recommended procedure is at follows: Determine the relative density D, using the chart in Fig. 3.2f. Other correlations between D, and 3, have been developed from 4¢ measured in calibration chamber (9. was corrected for the cham ber size effect) (Jamiolkowski et al, 1988). Then measure g! in the triaxial test, for the corresponding density Dy failing his, estimate @* by means of the correlations in Fig. 3.2g.164 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 1020 30 40 5060 ac (MPa) fo =n zai eos 3 100%) 8 8 250, § Effective Overburden Pressure 1g and Tj, in KP Ny 0, = 20% 40 90) 100% | 3soh— 1 tt i Fig. 3.21 Determination of relative density D, for fine to medium NC silleeous sands (doted line, equations proposed by Sch ? © 1 20 30 40 50 69 70 80 90 100 Relative Density (%) Fig. 3.2g. Relationship between relative density D, and friction angle 3. GEOTECHSICAt, INFORMATION HOK PILE DESIGN 16s b) For overconsotidated, uniform, which a reatistic value of the evercor timated from the state of consol Section 2.7.2.2, or from local 4: siliceous sands, for ailable (es- 3 clayey layers, : + 3s follows ced Determine @ cone resisturse seve + Ge with the formula Le fis 075 loca - i] ae ‘Then proceed as for 2 normally consolidated NC sand. a ©) For fine (0 medium sends, the valuc of jhe relative denstiy Dy obtain: e* using 2) shoulé be reduced by 10 t0 15 1) For welt graded sonds and sands with erushable grains, the same pro cedure is secommended, with the stipulation that the values of D, are con servative ©) For silty sands, the foregoing proceduce is unsuitable, 1) IE the cone resistance profile is eniin figure 3.2h can Se employed «0 30 (Mo) 20 init Votes of Fig. 3.2h Approximate retsionship between internal friction angle @” ted lilt value of the cone resistance gq Moyerhof, 1976), i Lene dr 156 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Example. Estimation of D, and 9" for an uniform medium sand, ‘at depths 10 and 15 m for the profile in Fig. 3.21 (Lunne and Chris. toffersen, 1983), (MN) os Spl ko 7 likPay kPa) 9.210120 30 40 $0 60 H see so] + | so | oa = w 4h to] 1 | 100} 04 é 18. 2} | 150] 7 }rosofose| 200 | 5.51100] o.86} 20 Fig, 3.21 Simplified profile of cone resistance 4. end assumptions ‘om the values of dy. 07. OCR and Ky. At 10m: oy = 1004Pa and g. = 3MPa By reading from Fig. 3.2f, we obtain Dy = 22%. By using the relationship between D, and ' in Fig. 3.25. for an uniform medium sand, we obtain g = 34°, Ab IS m: O's = 150 kPa, 9. » 47 MPa and OCR = 7 Hence ne 1 a ap F 2 MPa reo "yy From Fig. 3.2f with o', and q.°, we obsain D, = 82% By using the relationship beeen Dy and 9" in Fig. 3.20, for an uniform medium sand, we obtain g = 41° FCUNICAL wewuanow ene #ILe DESION 167 3.2.3 Pressuremeter Parameters ‘Two different types of parameters may be oullined, according 10 the me. thod of introduction of the probe into the formation: + The pre-boring pressuremeter (Ménard type) installed in a prebored hole (ep), The self-boring pressuremeter installed by self-boring (SBP), Pressuremeter results are used: + Ditectly in design methods such as these ¢eveloped to analyse the ca- acity of axially-loaded piles (Section 2.8) As an indirect measurement of shear strength in cohesive soils (Section 3.2.3.2), The results of SBP type tests can also be used independently to classify soils (Section 3.2.3.1) 2.3.1 Soil Classification Based on SBP Results An indication of the soit ciassification (Table 3.2d) is obtained trom the (wo parameters Bear ans pe ‘Table 3.24 Soll classification based on the resus of sef-boring Dressuremeter (SBP) tests (Bécve etal, 1986) fa eee Sout type Bap (®) Yan (kPa) Siliceous ang slleate soils Soft clays (and silty clays) <5 < «00 Medium sit clays (and silty clays} <0 600 v0 1200 SUI clays (and sity clays) <0 > 1200 Loose sls 300 45 < 600 Medium dense silts 351050 600 w 1200 De 35 10 50 > 1200 4010 55 < 700 s feces sands 4510 60 709 0 2000 s 25 > 2009 Caleareves sols Sends 3010 40 -168 3, GBOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Bssp = aoe = soil ideptification .oefficient (Baguelin, 1982), Po = at rest horizontal pressure, Ps Pae pressures at § and 20% volumetric expansion, net pressure at 20% volumetric expansicn. p20 = p20 - po These values are the results of an analysis of the available data from a number of sites, including test sites of ARGEMA (Sec- ion 4.2). There is still insufficien: for calcareous sands 3.2.3.2 Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from SBP Results a) With the pre-boring pressuremeter test (PBP), the cohesive strength C, of soft to very stiff clay soils (C, < 200 to 300 kPa) can be inferred from pressaremeter results using the empirical equation of Ménard where Pi = limit pressure, o = at fest horizontal pressure. ») With the SBP test ‘The previous equation may be used if pao # pi (where pao is the pressure at 20% volumestic expansion of the probe), which applies in practice in soft to slightly stiff soils. Different procedu:ss for deriving the pressuremeter curve have been developed to obtain the “shear .irength-strain” curve of the soil The values of the shear strength obtained by derivation from the SBP type pressuremeter curve are generally higher (by a facior of about 2) than the cohesive strengths from obtained standard tests or by applying the Ménard equation (Zanier, 1985), 3. GEOTECHNICAL NFORWATION FOR PILE DESIGN 169 3.3 INSTALLATION METHODS AND PILE DESIGN Suitable installation of piling is essential to the life of the structure and sequires each pile to be driven to (or near) design penetration, without damage. Offshore pile foundations are installed by driving (generally) or by drilling grouting, 3.3.1 Pite Driving Driving is by far the most widesproad method used for instalting piles of. shore. Piles are installed either partly or wholly by driving ‘The feasibility of driving, the choice of hammers and installation proce- dares, the outlining of the procedures t0 be followed in case of difficulty, the checking of stresses in the pite, require that a driveability study be carried 1 Pile Monitoring and Decision During Driving Operations During driving operations, especially if problems ac anticipated during ins- lallasion, it is important to have proper instrumentation on the site to moniter the installation of 2 test pile or of the pile sections liable to cause difficul ctions liabie co cause difficulties, A decision flow chart, which could effectively be used to move 10 alternative Pile installation mothod~ as problems arise, is given in Table 3.3a, 34.1.2 Pits Wall Thickness and Allowabte Stresses The driveabitity study by simulation must check that the pite wall thick- hess is sufficient with respect to the “dynamic str by driving, . ‘ net In liew of @ wave equation simulation, information for sel i rmation for selecting, the pile wall thickness may be given by the API method, 2s a function of she maximum hammer energy (Table 3.36).mo cq GEOTECHNICAL TSFORMATION FOR PILE DESION Table 3.30 3, GEOTECHNICAL iNPORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN m1 Table 3.38 Guide for selecting pile wail thickness (in mm) (After API 1901) Diemeser B Nominol Hemmer Energy (21) fmm) |}_——_ oat 510 a Ly 2 - z = 762 wee : 914 6 6 TE : : 1667 2 oe Le 2 9 9 1 1 19] 9 1524 2 2 2m 2 | 1829 ‘ 22s as 214 4 = 2 pase ‘ - nm 92 2703 - ‘ : 7 3s 3086 - - a 3838 fT The values located above the line relate ‘oa minimum pile wall thickness (In mm) (corresponding 10a eross-tection of 23.8% ofthe nomincl energy ofthe hammer expressed in BI), ‘The values located below the line correspond tothe minimum thickness required p= 635 + 0.01 B (1 and B in men) The foregoing procedure implies that the driveability study is conducted before the ordering and fabrication of the piles. If, however, pile fabrication is iniciated before the driveability stu 4y, the study is carried ont 10 select the hammer and to determine the pile installation procedures The maximum dynamic stresses during driving should be limited (0 60% of the sieel yield stress Fy Jn certain cases, maximum dynamic stresses of 70 10 80% of the ieel yield stress are allowed. Hence, for an APIX $2 grade steel with a yield siress F, = 360 MPa, the maximum dynanic sirers cf 220 MPa can Se raised 10 290 MPa The pile wall thickness, especially in the neighbourhood of the mudline, is often conditioned by its response 10 lateral loadingsmm 3. GEOTECHNICAL INEORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN The pile configuration tpossible-adsisis tain heighi, positioning of shear hess. os. m0 com) of differences liable to occur between ibe tars. utd os ation depths (underdrive or overdrive, +A: 3.3.1.3 Influence of the Shoe on Driving and on Pile Bearing Capacity Piles are often equipped with driving shoes consisting of an extra thickness of 15 10 25mm on the internal wall of the pil2 tip 2) API 1991 recommends considering the positioning of a driv. ing shoe at the tip with the following dimensions. Length = one diameter, Thickness = one and a half times the minimum thickness requi red for the pile b} Experience shows that o driving shoe nish o lengsh uf une dia meter often appears: + Inadequate 10 avoid tke excessive siresses neur the pile tip. + Sufficiently tong to produce coil decompression, ive. 10 reduce the internal friction fi ¢) In actual fact, it is very difficult 1 predict the effect of the presence of a driving shoe + For driving resistance. a reduction of 30 10 50% in intern! skin Sriction should be assumed jor stiff North Sen clays (Heerema 1979; Durning and Rennie 1979) For the s.atic timit capacity, uncertainties in behavior are suck ‘that the internal skin friction f, 18 tometimes considered as zero in suf clays. s0 that the insertion of a cement “plug above the soil column is sometimes recommended (Heerema, 1979). The ‘assumption of zero internal friction is in contradiction with experience (S:, John, 1980) and with the philosophy of the API. The reduction in internal friction due to the presence of a driving shoe couid reach a maxinem of 3h 10 50% in stiff clays (Semple and Gemeinkards, }981) + Experience with !arse scate piles in dense sand showed that the presence of a skoe with a keight of two pile diameters has no 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN ue influence on the driving resistance or the static loading capa city (Brucy and Meunier, 1991) In most cases, itis chserved that the pile behaves as if “plugged under static loading, so that the presence of an internal shoe does nol alter the capacity (Brucy and Meunier, 1991), The use of an external shoe is considered as detrimental to the pile bearing capacity, 3.3.1.4 Soil Set-Up and Resumption of Driving In cohesive soils, the resistance of a pile to driving inereases With time after driving is stopped. This mechanism of soil sei-up around the pile is well known. If driving has to be interrupted for a fairly long period, because of add on, breakdown, weather conditions, etc., it is sometimes necessary to remove the internal soil column partly or completely before the resumption of driving, The magnitude and extent of set-up depends on the type of clay 2) In the stiff overconsolidated North Sea clays. suck as those found at the Heather field, the increase in driving resistance is slight, ‘about 10% on average after 24 hours, and a maximum of 30% after several days. Driving can generally be resumed with the same hammer if the blow count does not exceed 150 10 170 per 0.5 in before interruption (Heerema, 1979). b) In soft and sensitive clays, the effect is more important. and driving resistance may b- increazed by @ factor of 1 (0 3 after only a few days (Fox et al, 1976) : Driving of Battered Piles In most cases, pites are installed with a batter of about 4 to 10 dex grees to the vertical (taper of 1:12 t9 1:5). This installation technique may be taken into account in the driveability study. 10 de termine the operation of the hammer, but is not generally considered for design under axial load.ammo es r | 174 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3.3.1.6 Driving of Pile Groups Ifpite groups are 1o be installed in cohestoniess soils. itis important 10 take account of any compaction in developing the driving installation procedures (Section 3.8). 3.3.2 Other Pile Installation Methods In the case of refusal to driving before the required embedded depth is reached, the use of expedients or other installation techniques is sometimes necessary. This eventuality must be considered, in the preliminary driveability study, and appropriate solutions and back-up strategies developed 3.3.2.1 Cleaning-Out of the Pile and Redriving ‘The removal of all or part of the internal s: ing, may be necessary before driving is resy L column, by jetting or drilled, If jetting is employed, it is recommended that it be stopped at a height of five 10 ten pile diameters above the pile tip (George, 1976) 3.3.2.2 Di g of 4 Pilot-Hole and Redriving The Grilling of a pilot-hole ahead of the pile tip often allows the resumption of driving, The pilot-hole diameter B, should be selected in accordance with the type of soil; Cohesive soils and consolidated formations 0.75 B< By < B~ 6 in (150mm) Cohesionlese soils. Bs 058 where B Is the pile diameter. The use of a pilot-hole may present a major drawoack in that an uncontrolled alteration of the static limit capacity of the pile (end- 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FoR bearing capacity and skin friction over the height of the pilot-hole) may be created. This is why jetting is virtually never recommended and dritiing is preferable, with mud circulation 10 guarantee the stability of the hole. To ensure the full mobilization of the end-bearing capacity with respect t0 the static limit capacity of the pile, an artificial plug és sometimes created by grouting. 3.3.2.3. Driving of an Insert-Pile ‘The removal of the internal soil column may be followed by the driving ‘of an insert-pile of a smaller diameter through the pile already in place. The !wo components of the pile aze connected by grouting of the annulus. This technique is used particularly where there is significant set- up in cohesive soils 3.3.2.4 Drilled and Grouted (Single and Insert) The technique of the “single” drilled and grouted pile (without driven element) or “insert-pile” (inside a first driven element) is employed in hard formations (very stiff clays, cemented formations) in which driving proves to be very difficult or unfeasible The hole diameter should be at least 150 mm (6 in) larger than the pile diameter, To ensure stability of the borehole the use of @ drilling mud is often required, Downhole cleaning-out must be carried out, generally by the pro-~ ing fluid. to guarantee the end-bearing longed citeulation of :6 capacity of the piles Grouting operations require the maintencnce of the grout pres: sure below the hydraulic fracturing threshold, and monitoring of the injected flow raies 10 detect any leaks176 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN ‘The load transfer capacity at the pile/grout interfaces may be analyzed by the method presented in Section 2.11 3.3.2.5. Driven and Grouted Piles ‘The technique whereby piles are driven and then grout injected is in the development stage. It should prove extremely atractive in uncemented careous formations or formations with nodular or discontinuous cementation (Barthélemy et al, 1986) The design of this type of pile is currently being developed from the results of full-scale experiments ‘ving, combined, if necessary, with jetting, routinely used onshore, is suitable for penetcating a dense sané layer, but is not applied for large offshore structures, Vibro-driving is sometimes employed to anchor lightwe'ght structures (templates) on the seabed. 2. GHOTECHNICAL, B FORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN m 3.4 COMBINATION OF AXIAL AND LATERAL LOADS Piles acc generally subjecied both co axial and fateral loads; the Latier may be broken down into shear loads and bending momens, 3.4.1 Coupling Between Axial and Lateral Load Interaction necessarily takes place between the axial and lateral loa mission mechanisms in the soit 3.4.1.1 Models with Axial and Lateral Transfer Curves che Soil-pile (-structure) models 01 ine the “axial” (6-2) and “a tral” (p-y) transfer curves. However the true response of the pile to these tws loading modes is actually uncoupled 3.4.1.2 Analysis of Coupling Effects Analysis by means of axisymmetric finite elements shows that the coupl ing effects between lateral and axial foads are weak For the anchor piles (working ia tension) of the Hutton (North Sea) tension 1eg platform, in which the fou~dation soile consist of losers of hard clay and dense sand, the analysis ckowed that the coupling effects between lateral and axial loads were not substan- Hol (Bradshaw et al, 1984). In practice, avial and lateral loads are dealt with independently.me 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3.4.2 Influence of Lateral Loads on Axial Capacity 3.4.2.1 Slotting of the Hole Around the Pile The effect of lateral loads transmitted by the structure to the foundation piles may result in the formation of a void or slotting of the hole around the pile at the mudline, Particularly evident in cohesive soils and calcareous formations, this often results in a loss of contact between the pile and the formation and, consequently, a reduction in the mobilized skin friction in the zone concerned. The presence of a cohesionless soll layer along the upper part of the pile, capable of filling this hole, is very favourable in this situation 3.4.2.2 Neutralized Pile Height The effect of lateral loads can be accounted in echesive soils by nevira liaing the embedded depth at which the deflections celeulated under lateral oadings exceed a given threshold yc, such that: ye = 258.8 c= strain corresponding to 50% of the maximum sitess on laboratory un- Grained compression tests of undisturbed soil samples of soft clays (API, 199). In the absence of measured values for €, can be employed, ie values in Table 34a In the case of the Hatton (North Sea) TLP, by azsuming, for piles with diameter B = 1.83 m, a lateral deflection threshold of 0.5% B. the depth t0 be neutralized witk respect 10 slotting was 6m, The ‘otal neutralized depth was cherefore 15 m, raking the effect ofc clic lateral load into account 3. GEOTECHNICAL. INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 179 Table 3.40 Values oft, recommended by Sultivan et al (1980) in cohesive soils Undrained cohesive strength a yet Cu (APa) (%) (%) : 12 1025 2 3 25 10.50 1 2ws 5040 100 o7 175 ‘ 400 10 200 os pas 200 10 400, oa , For the same project, ihe depth of the pile to be neutralized, according (0 a centrifuge test, corresponded to & m for loads three times greater than the design axial and horizontal loads (Bradshaw, 1984) Randolph and Wroth (1982) indicate a neutralization depth varying between 3 and 5 diameters180 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR FILE DESIGN : 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FoR RS EFEECT ORRELA TIVE 3.8.1.2 Short and Long Piles PILE FLEXIBILITY a) The experimental data chiefly concern tess oF tively rigid in the axial direction. When they ate only slightly, so that the maximum fiction is 1 Pile “Flexibility” or “Compressibility” at every point “ - st, very long piles, which are hence rela ~ Many investigations into the axial capacity of piles in clay soils have shown, bye commas) raty Ore ay . that the average skin friction, related to the average valee of the undained exhibit large variations io length under Toad. This is pra : shear strength or of the effective overburden pressure, decreases with pile fier nema AE Re SP bon at te pte tea 2 ; Penetration (Kraft ct al, 1981; Pelletier and Doyle, 1982; Hoeg, 1983; Aurora pile to the soil is hence mobilized 10 different de; : 5 8 Syma 93) tone ep 3.0, T ta nec = et al, 1981; Cha, 3.5.1.1 Progressive Failure 3.5.2. Consideration of the Influence ‘The progressive failure effect is particularly significant in the presence of Relative Pile Flexibility of a combination of two factors Very long “flexible” piles (axially compressible), The calcutation of pile displacement allows pile #120 Bees a + Strain-softening soils (Section 1.2.1.4 and Fig. 3.5a), tor (Section 2.10), Some design procedures implie:ty (A method, Seetion 2.4 se a | sare ple and Rigdon ited, Seeion29) ake acount af #4 Sa z Different approaches to the consideration of relative piié ©: 0s wes our Helen rently recommended (API, 1991) c: 17 Pia! Disolacerent roi of ie 3.5.2.1 The Murff" Approach of Pile Flexibility 4) Consideration of the effect of relative pile fl. Load Transfer I | Fete casacomon for by the coeficlet Ti, (Murfl, 1980; Kraft et a sin ) K—_ 1984), for piles assumed 10 be uniform sa a homoze EEE 7 Ty expresses the rutiv of he elastic compression of 252 72% oust with ; i a3 a free column) to the toval soil displacement ne was 5 i a ee : Ih { - a BIL 1 | q AVE RBiL f a oa | in a strain-softening sil, Ay = annular cross-section of pile,182 9. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FoR PILE DESTO™ 5. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 183 steel moduius, ‘The calculation requires the use of an iterative process (see example, Sec- maximum skin friction, tion 3.5.2.14). elative soil/pile displacement for which Tis mobilized Figure 3.5c reproduces a number of curves of variations in Ry with Tly for é typical values of & and y (Section 2.10) and for uniform or uiangular distributions of f with depth. 7 1 11 may be confirmed that the parameter Ty increases with pile fength and soil stiffness, and decreases with pile thickness. Fectuction Factor Ry By modelling soil/pile behavior by means of t-z curves, sech as those in 02 94 os om t 8: 3.5b, Musff (1980) highlighted the influence of the relative flexibility Ts on pile response 3) AFA [ al 2 r “ ie Satna oma Fig. 3.5 Vaintons in Rewith Hy Fig. 3.50 Idesized 2 curve (Mont, 1980) Precie data are sill very jrarmentary concerning the choice of a the parameters to be considered, in accordance with the type of for- is 8) The Marth approach can be used to infer the actual limit friction coe mation, Essentially, this isthe level at which practical dificaltes A Pacity of a flexible pile (Que) from that obtained assuming that the pile free ~ infinitely rigid (Qugi) using the reduction factor Re Nevertheless, by using “best” assumption concerning the ratio (£) ie of “residual” friction 10 maximum friction, it 1s suggested that the oe. probably conservative recommendations of Table'i.5a are used 10 - Qe determine the reduction factor Ry.18 3. GHOTECUSECA1 INFORMATION BOR PILE DESKEN Tobie 450 Recommendations ‘ue deter reduction fast P. Curse | bisiribution of |. tvs on (Fig. 350) f vith depth 1 | Uniform or 1 = | Lense dense sand Irianglor and sls 2 | Uniform 075 4 | Sensitive suff clays L 3 | Uniform os 1 | Mard ar cemented fur | smations, feoten svi 4 | Triangetar ors Insensitive cloge 5 | Triangutar os ©) From a practical point of view, the effect @. pile flexibility Is not significant in: Normally cosolidated, soft 10 stiff clays soils Sands and non-plastic silts, Is likely to be sign cant + Very stiff and sensitive clays Caleareous sands, Cemented formations. + Frozen sous. 6) Example of pile Mexibility determination. For a maximum applied axiel load of P = SCOO kN (inclusing safety factor) decermine the penetration depth required for a pile of 1m OD and 20mm wall thickness, in @ scil characterized by + Maximum skin jriction j $5 iPa, mobilizable at 2e¢ = 10 mm. + Residual shin friction of 25 kPa, or § = 0.5, with w= 1 The end-bearing term is ixnored, 3, GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 185, The steel modulus 5 Eur = 2. 10° kPa. The peneivation depth L is timized To a minimum value obtained assuming the pile 10 be rigid, with mobilization of maximum skin friction along the en tire length: baa =e = 318m Rey To a maximum value obtained assuming the pile to be infinitely flexible, which would mobilize the “residual” skin friction fete Pelee wees The determination of L can be carried out by successive itere Hons (Table 3.56), Table 3.56 Example of determination ofthe length L of a “exible” pite by ruccessive iterations tuer-| Lb | Grigie EBS 17) Br | Give | Com tion | tm) | ON) PO" ZEEE Vesrrea)] (an) | etusion Ines 1 | 4s. | rose 253 067 | 4735 Jeient, in jerease L 2 | so | rae 312 oes | 026 | Saris: factory 3.5.2.2 ‘The Randolph’ Approach of Pite Flexi iy ‘andolph (1983) proposes a very similar approach, in which the critical displacement top of the Murff’ approach is replacee by the Additional displacement required to pess from maximum skin fric~ Hon (tqax) 10 “residual” skin friction (ta) Ht — Dey Bien © tne er where : wetland p= i 1 | |Fee 4 186 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN tus commonly lies berween 30 and 50 mm. The variation in the reduction factor Ry with the Randolph f+ bility coefficient is given in Fig. 3.54. Reduction Factor Ay 0 os 1 aS 2 es 3 Relative Flexibility of ile Aw Otay ere Fig. 3.54 Voriation ofthe reduction factor Ry withthe relative “exibitty of the pile and the soi “atrain-softening® rate (Randolph, 1983), 3. GEOTECHNICAL DIFORMATIC: om er 17 3.6 EFFECT OF CYCLIC LOADING ‘The effect of cyclic loading, particularly the degradation of maximum skin friction with cyclic loading, has been the subject of major experimental fe- search in recent years (ARGEMA, NGI, BRE, Conoco) ‘The results of thee> experimental investigations, which are mainly concerned with short rigid piles an cohesive soils, are summarized in Section 3.6.1 The case of long flexible piles, for which the effects are much more complex, is dealt with in Section 3.6.2. The effect of loading rate is examined in Section 3.7. 3.6.1 Behavior of Short Rigid Piles Under Cyclic Loading ‘The behavior of short piles under cyclic loading can be analyzed using two of the following parameter: Maximum load Pnas Minimum load Pais Average load Pre = 1/2 (Prin + Pras Cyclic toad Pose = 1/2 (Pax ~ The latter two parameters Pyye and Paye are generally used, related tu the static limit capacity Q. The test results can be plotied on a diagram (PrJQ, Peye/Q) according 10 whether stabilization or failure occurs after a number of cycles N. Cyclic tests can be divided into two categories: One-way tests, corresponding to tests in which Pye = Peye (Pmis = 0), and tests in which Pure > Peye + Two-may tests, corresponding to alternate tesis which may be of the symmetrical or quasi-sy metrical type (Pare = 0) oF non-symmetrical (0¢ Pu Pay €188 3. GEOTECHNICAL, INFORMATION HOR Pine DESIGN 3.6.1.1 Cyclic Pile Tests in Overconsolidated Clays a) The interaction diagram plowed by Karlsrud et al (1986) for tests ner controlled load in Haga overconsolidated clay, is reproduced) in Fig. 3.4 tk é So eaten Armaan toad Fate ° no | no of Opctee | rste| “No Fasce paconnveas| © | ave rete | a | asco Fig. 3.68 Interaction been te numberof cycles N to tore and the cyclic loading level for cohesive soils. (arlsrud et a, 1986), To have an ultimate failure criterion in cyclic loading which is fairly consistent with static loading (total displacement of about 3 mm ‘and rate of displacement around 1.0 mmimin,), complete cyclic fai lure was defined by the following combined criteria (Karlsrud et al, 1986): 3. GHOTECUSICAL INFORMATION Ha PILE 189 (1) A tow accumaaed eipts-emen 10 13 mi (2) An “effective (3) An inereuse in tive 10 the firs ee > 10 Criteria (2) and which control displacements. except ests, which are characte Dy apis savres are generaliy those ‘cal two-way sed by un increase in 8, (ertierion (3) bb) The resuks of cyclic twsts conducted by BRE in Cowden stiff glacial ant highly overconsolidated clay (McAnoy ct al, 1982) are in good agree ment with those of NGI (Fig. 3.6a) ©) The eyctic capacity Q., under conwolled eyclie ioad, corresponding to the 102d Pas Pare + Poe) at failure, depends upon ‘The rolative amplitudes of the average and cyclic toads The number of loading cycles, ‘The reduction wa capacity under “tae than under “one-way” loading much mace severe 4) ‘The definition of the number of cycles to failure depends upon the load ing rate and the holding time of the maximum load Pax The holding time of load Pprs is 2 sec/eycle for most NGI wsts. ‘The static loading time to failure is $ minutes ©) The date im Fig. 3.6a suggest that the relative cyclic capacity QUO should be expressed a5 summarized in Table 3.6a, where Q is the ltima The cyclic capacity QuQ decreases as the number of cycles increases and is stabilized after about 1000 cycles at @ valuc 10 te 15% lower than sat defined for N = 120, Degeadation under “two-way” cyclic loading ander controlted displacement conditions can reach 70% of the reference ukimate static capacity, ‘The NGI tests also demonstrated the favourable effect of pre-shearing duc to @ series of static loadings or cyelic loadings (Followed by a period of Set-up) on the static limit capacity in comparison with the initial capa- city3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Table 3.60 Relative eyeliceapscity Q/Q in Haga overconsolidated clay (Karlerud et a, 1986) ‘Type of exetie Ge loading a Symmeuical two-way (Pave =9) ° oat ‘Non-symmetrical two-way (Pave #0) 05 0.58 ‘One-way (With Pave = 0) 1 0.75 ‘One-way (with Pain > 0) 2 0.38) The static limit capacity Q used in the diagram in Fig, 3.6a is estimated from the initial reference static test (loading raie 3.3 RN vain), increased by 23% 10 account for pre-shearing and set-up ef fects. 3.6.1.2 Cyclic Pile Tests in Cohesive Soils 4) The results of the ARGEMA pile tests in Cran very plastic silty clay, slightly overconsolidated (1 < OCR < 2) (Ma, 1982; Bonal, 1981), appear (0 be in good agreement with the NGI sesults (Pig. 3.62), The number of cycles necessary to reach failure in the ARGEMA tests are shown in Fig. 3.6a. The consistency of the ARGEMA and NGI results (in which foi lure depends on the cumulative time of application of the maximum load Pgs) would require: Multiplication of she values of N by 2.75, the time of applica- Hon of Prax in each cycle being 5.5 sec. Harmonization of ihe interpretation procedures, particularly concerning the choice of failure criteria and the definition of the reference static limit capacity 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATIOY FOR PILE DESIGN 191 ‘The favourable effect of pre-shearing and set-up was also observed during the ARGEMA tests. »)_ Figure 3.6b presents a compilation of results in clay soils (Poulos, 1983). ‘There is good agreement between these results and those shown on Fig, 3.62, at Teast with respect to one-way tests. 7 0a key ‘Thaoratical with Rate Met (N= 100) 2. Theoret without Rate Eft IN 100) Tests witout Fale f¢ N> 10009} peep er. Se Waa tatiatn a esos i . ‘that Flare x Watt Settemont + Settamant Continued oF Feature by Pune Trough OF Poulos 1981 : Model Teste, Faire Aer 3190 Oyeae Fig. 3.65 Interaction between ihe number of eycles N to failvre and the cyclic loading level for ples in cohesive soils nd theoretical analyzes (Poutes. 1983)192 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN 3. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR FILE DESIGN 193 36.1.3 Cyclic ile Tests in Cohesiontess Soils + The distributions of the maximum (tyes) and minimum (tna) Skin [eietion associsted with the maximum values (Pyyx) and minimum velucs (Prin) of the axial load respectively. ‘The distribution of the average skin friction conventionally devined by 8) In siliceous sands, the lack of a cyclic test database for full-scale piles oes not allow a quantitative analysis of theresa! bj In calcareous sands, the results of tesis on drilled and grouted piles installed at the Plouasne site (Fig. 3.6¢) ate still insufficient to allow any Tove # U2 Comes + tai) conclusions to be drawn (Nauray et al, 1985) The distribution of the eyelie component te = U2 (Tmax ~ tin) b) Whatever the load direction, roughly three zones can be distinguished ! along the pile, with their extent dopencing apon the flexibility ef te le ~ oul and the type of loading (Pg. 3.68) : : ‘A middte zone in which tue and t, a esscatally of the vane oneer : | of ‘sagniiudei the shear Toads here ave of the one-wit 4 a A lower zone in which t, is very low: the shear loads ' i static” : oak ¢ } oS pte ea Pee EHH es tE yoaar ew Fig. 3.6¢ Interaction etween the ruber of eyeles No failure and the cvolie loading level for drilled and grouted piles in ealearcous sands, (Maroy etal, 1985). Ft Easentiay Loaded i Comores Pile Essentially Loaded in Tension 3.6.2 Behavior of Long Flexible Under Cyclic Loading Fig. 3.60 Schematic rep-etentation of tne behavior of s long pte under eyeie ding 3.6.2.1 Phenomenology of the Behavior of Long Piles ©) The values copresenting these three zones would be distributed quite a) For s pile subjected to cyclic Inading, ignoring any residual siresses, Gifferently in the diagram (tyye/f, te/f) of Fig. 3.6e, in which f is the maxi- it is possible 10 determine: mum mobilizable skin friction.

Offshore Pile Design PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Pile Design PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like