A model-scale investigation into ‘set-up’ of displacement piles in sand

D.J. White & Y. Zhao

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

ABSTRACT: A model scale investigation into set-up of displacement piles in sand is described. Thirty-two
model piles were installed into two test chambers, and repeatedly load tested over a period of 100 days. Cor-
rodible and inert piles were used, and in one test chamber the water table was cycled. Consistent profiles of
penetration resistance and initial load test capacity confirmed the repeatability of the modelling procedure.
Corrosion of the small model piles led to dramatic set-up. In the absence of corrosion, modest set-up was ob-
served. Cycles of the water table significantly increased the amount of set-up, providing some suggestion of
the governing mechanism, and indicating a possible technique for the enhancement of set-up.
1 INTRODUCTION 1.3 Mechanisms of set-up
1.1 ‘Set-up’ of displacement piles in sand From the initial stress conditions shown in Figure 1,
any creep-induced equalization of stresses will tend
The shaft capacity of displacement piles in sand is
to increase the radial stress at the pile wall, and
often observed to increase with time, even after dis-
hence cause set-up. Creep of a granular material can
sipation of installation-induced excess pore pres-
be attributed to small perturbations in loading caus-
sure- this phenomenon is known as set-up. Set-up
ing sliding at points of contact. Sources of load per-
rates of 20%-170% per log cycle of time and in-
turbations in the field include thermal effects, traffic
creases in capacity by factors of 5 or more have been
loading, precipitation and tides. Deliberate small cy-
reported, and trend lines have been proposed (Skov
cles of loading will accelerate this mechanism of
& Denver, 1988; Fellenius et al, 1989; Chow et al
creep by increasing the frequency that contacts slide
1998; Bullock et al 2005). However, the governing
and loads redistribute. These cycles of loading could
mechanisms are not well understood.
be applied to the soil near the pile either by the pile
itself, or by ambient changes in either the total stress
1.2 Effect of installation or the pore pressure.
Other proposed mechanisms of set-up include (i)
Since set-up is not observed on bored piles in sand,
an increase in soil dilatancy with time due to aging,
some aspect of the installation process of displace-
leading to a greater increase in radial stress on load-
ment piles is a necessary condition for set-up to oc-
ing, (ii) kinematically restrained dilatant creep,
cur. The installation-induced stress history of a soil
which causes an increase in radial stress with time
element adjacent to a displacement pile in sand in-
(Bowman & Soga 2005), and (iii) chemical or corro-
volves (i) loading to failure at a stress level compa-
sion effects. Bowman & Soga (2005) conducted tri-
rable to the cone resistance qc as the pile tip ap-
axial tests that mimicked the stresses created by pile
proaches the soil element, (ii) a reduction in stress
installation. They observed a dilatant response dur-
by approximately two-orders of magnitude as the
ing creep at constant stress and a high stress ratio.
pile tip moves past, and (iii) cyclic shearing along
Greater dilation was observed when small loading
the pile shaft, leading to contraction of the interface
cycles were imposed. The mechanisms of set-up are
zone and ‘friction fatigue’ (Poulos 1989, Randolph
reviewed in more detail by Chow et al. (1998),
2003, White 2005).
Axelsson (2000) and Bowman & Soga (2005).
This loading history causes particle breakage and
This paper describes a model-scale investigation
results in a stress distribution close to the pile shaft
into set-up. The hypothesis that small loading cycles
that can be idealized as cavity expansion followed
can increase set-up is tested by imposing cycles of
by a slight cavity contraction (White et al. 2005).
ambient effective stress via changes in the water ta-
The final unloading step creates a zone close to the
ble level.
pile in which the circumferential (hoop) stress is
greater than the radial stress (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Idealized stress distribution close to pile, based on
cavity expansion followed by contraction (White et al 2005)
2 EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
2.1 Model-scale testing
The testing programme was conducted at model
scale in the laboratory. Although stress similitude
could be achieved using the centrifuge, set-up is not
necessarily accelerated at high g-levels in the same
manner as consolidation. If set-up is due to creep,
and if creep arises from random perturbations of
load, these random loads must be replicated within
the centrifuge and accelerated. Since such modelling
is not practically achievable, this investigation was
conducted in the laboratory at 1-g.
The use of a pluviated soil bed and small piles al-
lowed a large number of tests to be conducted in
uniform conditions. By not using the centrifuge, the
piles could be left undisturbed for almost 100 days.
2.2 Test chambers
Two identical circular steel test chambers of diame-
ter 850 mm and depth 400 mm were used during this
investigation. Test chamber 1 was fully saturated
condition throughout the test programme, with the
water table located ∼20 mm above the soil surface.
To investigate the possible influence of changes in
pore pressure on set-up, the water table in test cham-
ber 2 was lowered to the base of the chamber then
restored to the ground surface at regular intervals. A
total of 15 water table cycles were imposed over the
duration of the chamber 2 test programme. No set-
tlement of the soil surface was detected during this
period, indicating no change in soil density.
2.3 Test soil
The test soil was Dog’s Bay sand. Coop (1990) de-
scribes the mechanical properties of this carbonate
sand which originates from the west coast of Ireland.
Coarse particles were removed by a 1.18 mm sieve
before the sand was pluviated into the test chambers
from a constant drop height at a constant rate, form-
ing a uniform medium dense bed of depth 330 mm.
Coop (1990) notes that carbonate sands “exhibit
all the principal features expected of conventional
soils”, and presents triaxial test data for Dog’s Bay
sand within the framework of critical state soil me-
chanics. Yielding, compression and the critical state
line all take the same form as for silica sands, but
shifted to a lower stress level, reflecting the weaker
carbonate particles. The low ambient stress level in
this investigation (compared to prototype condi-
tions) may be partly compensated for by the low
strength and stiffness of the model sand: the ob-
served trends may be representative of stronger soil
and deeper depths. White (2005) shows that the shaft
resistance of displacement piles in ‘normal’ silica
and ‘unusual’ carbonate sand show similar trends. A
key difference is that greater friction fatigue occurs
in carbonate sands, leading to a sharper reduction in
radial stress above the pile tip.
2.4 Model piles
The model piles were fabricated from steel rod, with
a diameter of 10 mm. Most of the piles were made
from mild steel, which can corrode, but 4 additional
piles were made from stainless steel to separate this
influence. The piles were initially smooth.
The piles were uninstrumented, so the relative
contributions of base and shaft resistance to the pile
capacity could not be identified. However, since it is
generally accepted that set-up of base resistance
does not occur, any changes in compression capacity
are assumed to arise from changes in shaft resis-
tance.
2.5 Pile installation
The piles were installed to a depth of 200 mm at a
rate of 0.25-0.5 mm/s using a jacking mechanism.
The head load was measured throughout installation
by a compression load cell. Fourteen piles were in-
stalled in chamber 1, and 17 piles were installed in
chamber 2 (when the water table was above the
ground surface). The minimum separation between
adjacent piles was ∼150 mm (15 diameters), and the
minimum distance from a pile to the chamber wall
was 200 mm. After installation, the pile tips were lo-
cated 130 mm from the base of the chamber.
2.6 Load test procedure
A jacking mechanism was used to conduct dis-
placement-controlled axial compression load tests. A
settlement of ~1 mm (10% of the pile diameter) was
applied over a period of 6 minutes. The pile head re-
sistance mobilised at 1 mm settlement has been in- 3 RESULTS: INSTALLATION
terpreted as a measure of pile capacity. Plunging
failure was not always observed, so the measured re- The repeatability of the installation procedure and
sistance does not always represent the sum of the ul- the uniformity of the soil beds are indicated by the
timate, or maximum, shaft and base resistance. The consistent installation resistance profiles (Figure 2).
load tests were conducted when the water table was The anomalous result for pile 14 in chamber 1 is due
above the soil surface. to misalignment and friction in the pile guide.
The resistance at the final embedded depth of 200
mm is denoted Qinstall. There is no consistent varia-
2.7 Load test schedule
tion in Qinstall with order of installation, indicating
A total of 104 load tests were carried out at dif- that interaction between the piles is negligible. Mean
ferent intervals after installation of the piles. The values of Qinstall= 161 N and 170 N were recorded
schedule of load tests aimed to separate the influ- for chambers 1 and 2 respectively, indicating a simi-
ences of (i) elapsed time since installation, (ii) re- lar initial soil state in each chamber.
tested vs. virgin piles, (iii) stainless steel vs. mild The stainless steel piles were installed 55 days af-
steel piles, and (iv) constant vs. variable water table. ter the mild steel piles, but showed no evidence of
Due to space constraints, effect (ii) is not discussed. increased penetration resistance due to aging of the
The schedule of pile installation and load tests is sample. Therefore, the set-up that affected the previ-
shown in Tables 1 and 2. All piles were first load ously-installed piles during this period can not be at-
tested between 1 hour and 1 day after installation. tributed simply to aging of the soil bed.
When differentiating between ‘virgin’ and ‘tested’
piles, this initial load test is not considered. Pile head load (N)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Table 1. Chamber 1 pile installation and load testing schedule
_________________________________________________ 0
Pile → 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13S 14S
Day ↓
0 B 50
2 I I I I I I I I B
3 L L L L L L L L L
4 L 100
7 L L
Pile 14
14 L L L B
22 L L L L L L 150
32 L L L L L
39 L L L L L
55 L L L L B B 200
57 L L
62 L
64 L 250
71 L L
Em bedded depth (m m )
80 L L
96 L L L L L L L L L L (a) Chamber 1
__________________________________________________
Key: I: Installation; L: Load test; B: Installation and load test Pile head load (N)
S: Stainless steel pile
0 50 100 150 200 250
Table 2. Chamber 2 pile installation and load testing schedule 0
__________________________________________________
Pile → 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17S 18S
Day ↓
50
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 L L L L L L L L L L L L L
5 L L
100
6 B
10 L
14 L B L L L
17 L L 150
18 L L
22 L L L L L L
26 L L L 200
33 L L L L
55 B B
61 L L 250
73 L L Embedded depth (mm)
81
__________________________________________________ L L (b) Chamber 2
Key: See Table 1 Figure 2. Penetration resistance vs. depth during installation
 250 Figures 4 and 5 compare the load tests results for a
re-tested mild steel pile in each chamber. In chamber
Pile 14
1 the water table was fixed, whilst in chamber 2 it
200 was cycled.
Qinstall
Pile 10 in chamber 1 shows a strong trend of in-
Pile head load (N)

creasing capacity with time, if the settlement is ze-

150
roed at the start of each load test (Figure 4a). How-
Chamber 1 Chamber 2 ever, since plunging failure is not reached in each
100
test, a plot of cumulative settlement reveals that part
of the apparent set-up is simply further mobilization
Q0.1D-first of the full pile capacity (Figure 4b). Caution is re-
50 quired when interpreting re-tests: if plunging failure
is not reached, apparent set-up is observed if the set-
tlement is zeroed between tests.
0
0 5 10 15 20 Pile head load (N)
Order of installation 0 50 100 150 200
0
Figure 3. Penetration resistance and initial load test capacity
0.2

4 RESULTS: LOAD TESTING 0.4

4.1 First load tests Pile head settlement (mm)

0.6
The capacity at a settlement of D/10 during the first
0.8
load test (conducted within 1 day of installation) is
denoted Q0.1D-first, and was consistently lower than 1
the installation resistance, Qinstall by a factor of 0.5-
0.6 (Figure 3). This lower value could be attributed 1.2
to (i) partial mobilization during the load test, (ii)
drainage of installation-induced negative excess 1.4
pore pressure (i.e. installation was not fully drained
1.6
but the load test was), or (iii) a pore pressure-
independent ‘set-down’ mechanism (‘relaxation’). 1.8
Inspection of the load-settlement curves suggests (a) Settlement zeroed at start of load test
that only ∼10% of this discrepancy can be attributed
to partial mobilization. In most cases, the load- Pile head load (N)
settlement curves during the first load tests were 0 50 100 150 200
close to plunging failure (e.g. Figure 4a). 0
Negative excess pore pressures are not usually 0 days
recorded during penetration into carbonate sands. 1
Cumulative pile head settlement (mm)

The contractile behaviour of these sands tends to 1 day

create positive excess pore pressure if penetration is 2
not fully drained. Dissipation of this positive pore 5 days
3
pressure leads to ‘set-up’ after wait periods during
12 days
pile driving (e.g. Dolwin et al. 1988). 4
It is therefore unlikely that the contrast between 20 days
Qinstall and Q0.1D-first can be attributed to partially- 5
drained installation. The remaining explanation for 30 days
the observed reduction in shaft or base resistance 6
soon after installation is some pore pressure- 37 days
7
independent time effect. Other evidence of short-
term relaxation of base resistance on jacked piles is 94 days
8
reported by Lehane (2005).
9
(b) Settlement cumulated during load test sequence
4.2 Repeated testing of single piles
Two piles in each chamber made from each material Figure 4. Tests on pile 10, chamber 1 (mild steel, fixed WT)
were repeatedly load tested throughout the project.
 Pile head load (N) the cyclic exposure to oxygen. Set-up of the mild
0 100 200 300 400 steel piles is therefore primarily due to this roughen-
0 ing and effective increase in the diameter of the mild
steel piles. Since a corrosion layer represents a far
smaller fraction of the diameter of a prototype pile,
0.2
this set-up mechanism will have a smaller effect at
full scale.
Pile head settlement (mm)

0.4 The four stainless steel piles did not corrode dur-
ing the test program, and exhumation revealed that
0.6 no soil had adhered to the shafts, which remained
smooth. Figure 6 compares the repeated load testing
0.8 of one stainless steel pile in each chamber. There is
negligible set-up in chamber 1, but a steady increase
in capacity in chamber 2. As for the mild steel piles,
1
cycles of pore pressure increase the amount of set-
up; in this case in the absence of corrosion.
1.2 The trends in each of Figures 4-6 were matched
by another pile of the same type in the same cham-
1.4 ber undergoing the same sequence of tests, confirm-
(a) Settlement zeroed at start of load test ing the repeatability of the results. All of these re-
sults are collated in Figure 7. The D/10 capacity in
Pile head load (N) each load test has been normalized by the capacity
0 100 200 300 400 measured during the initial load test on that pile.
0
Pile head load (N)
1 day
0 50 100 150
Cumulative pile head settlement (mm)

1
0
5 days
Pile head settlement (mm)

2 0.25
14 days 0 days
3 0.5 2 days
22 days 9 days

4 0.75 16 days
26 days 27 days
1
5

33 days 1.25
6 (a) Pile 14, chamber 1: fixed water table
(b) Settlement cumulated during load test sequence Pile head load (N)
0 50 100 150
Figure 5. Tests on pile 16, chamber 2 (mild steel, cyclic WT)
0
Although the capacity of pile 10 did increase be-
Pile head settlement (mm)

yond the day 0 value, the later tests (after 20 days) 0.25
indicate a reduction in capacity that can be attributed
to degradation of the shaft resistance due to the re- 0 days
0.5
peated cycling- an effect known as friction fatigue 6 days
(Figure 4b) (White & Lehane 2004). 18 days
Pile 16 in chamber 2 showed more dramatic set- 0.75 26 days
up, with a four-fold increase in Q0.1D over the 30 day
test period (Figure 5). The cycles of pore water pres- 1
sure enhanced the rate and magnitude of set-up.
However, post-test exhumation of the mild steel
piles revealed that crushed sand had been bonded to 1.25
the pile shafts by corrosive action. Greater corrosion (b) Pile 18, chamber 2: cyclic water table
and stronger bonding was observed in chamber 2,
presumably since the corrosion was accelerated by Figure 6. Tests on stainless steel piles
 4.5 seasonal climatic conditions create significant cycles
Cyclic w ater table
4
Pile 1, chamber 1 of ambient pore pressure. Cycles of pore pressure ar-
Normalised pile capacity

Pile 10, chamber 1

Pile 15, chamber 2
tificially imposed by pumping might enhance set-up.
3.5
Pile 16, chamber 2 However, high-level cycles of pile loading cause
3 friction fatigue, reducing the shaft capacity (Poulos
2.5 1988, White & Lehane 2004).
2 Two mechanisms can account for the acceleration
of set-up by small-amplitude cycles of loading.
1.5
Fixed w ater table Loading cycles may accelerate the creep-induced
1 equalization of the radial and circumferential stress
0.5 fields created close to the pile during installation.
1 10 100 Alternatively, loading cycles may accelerate set-up
Days since installation by enhancing dilatant creep, as has been observed in
(a) Mild steel piles
triaxial testing (Bowman & Soga 2005).

1.5
Pile 13, chamber 1
REFERENCES
Normalised pile capacity

1.4 Pile 14, chamber 1 Cyclic w ater table

Pile 17, chamber
1.3 Pile 18, chamber
1.2
1.1
1 F.C. 2005. Side Shear Setup. II: Results From Florida Test
0.9
1 10
Days since installation
(b) Stainless steel piles
Figure 7. Summary of repeated load testing of single piles
5 CONCLUSIONS
A model scale investigation into the set-up of dis-
placement piles in sand is reported. Thirty-two
model piles were installed into two test chambers,
and repeatedly load tested. In one test chamber the
water table was kept fixed, whilst in the other cham-
ber the level of the water table was cycled. The fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
− Consistent profiles of penetration resistance and
initial load test capacity confirmed the repeatabil-
ity of the modelling procedure.
− Due to the small diameter of model-scale piles,
corrosion causes dramatic set-up that is unrepre-
sentative of prototype conditions.
− Smooth model piles that do not rust experience
modest set-up in the absence of changes in water
table.
− Cycles of the water table level significantly in-
crease the amount of set-up.
This acceleration of set-up via cycles of the water
table suggests that greater set-up may occur in tidal
conditions, under low-level wave loading or where
2 Axelsson G. 2000. Long-term set-up of driven piles in sand.
2 PhD thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering. Stockhom Royal Institute of Technology.
Bowman E.T. & Soga K. 2005. Mechanisms of set-up of dis-
placement piles in sand: laboratory creep tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 42(5): 1391-1407
Fixed w ater table
Bullock P.J., Schmertmann J.H., McVay M.C. & Townsend
Piles. ASCE J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering 131(3):301-310
100 Chow F.C., Jardine R.J., Brucy F. & Nauroy J.F. 1998. Effects
of time on capacity of pipe piles in dense marine sand.
ASCE J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering
124(3): 265-276
Coop M.R. 1990.The mechanics of uncemented carboonate-
sands. Géotechnique 40(4):607-626
Dolwin J., Khorshid M.S. & Van Goudoever P. 1988. Evalua-
tion of driven pile capacities- methods and results. Proc.
International Conference on Engineering for Calcareous
Sediments, Perth, Australia. (2): 409-428
Fellenius B.H., Riker R.E., O’Brien A.J. &Tracy G.R. 1989.
Dynamic and static testing in a soil exhibiting set-up. ASCE
J. Geotechnical Engineering 115(7): 984-1001
Lehane B.M. 2005. General report: Technical Session 2h: Pile
Foundations (II): Installation, Quality Control, Performance
and Case Histories. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Geotech.
Engng., Osaka.
Poulos H.G. 1989. The mechanics of calcareous sediments.
Jaeger Memorial Lecture, Aust. Geomechanics, Special
Edition: 8-41
Randolph M.F. 2003. Science and empiricism in pile design.
Géotechnique 53(10): 847-875
Skov & Denver 1988. Time-dependance of bearing capacity of
piles. Proc. Third International Conference on the Applica-
tion of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles: 879-888.
White D.J., Schneider J.A. & Lehane B.M. 2005. The influ-
ence of effective area ratio on the shaft friction of dis-
placement piles in sand. Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, Perth: 741-747
White D.J. 2005. A general framework for shaft resistance on
displacement piles in sand. Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, Perth: 697-703
White D.J. & Lehane B.M. 2004. Friction fatigue on displace-
ment piles in sand. Géotechnique 54(10): 645-658