Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lateral Loaded Pile
Lateral Loaded Pile
Abstract: In the United States, an estimated $1 billion is spent annually on repair and replacement of deep foundations. In a recent study,
the possibility of using ultrahigh-performance concrete 共UHPC兲 for deep foundation applications was explored with the objectives of
increasing the service life of deep foundations supporting bridges to 75 years and reducing maintenance costs. This paper focuses on field
evaluation of two UHPC piles and references a steel H-pile. An UHPC pile with an H shape was designed to simplify the process of
casting the pile and reduce the volume 共i.e., cost兲 of the material needed to cast the pile. Two instrumented UHPC piles were driven in
loess on top of a glacial till clay soil and load tested under vertical and lateral loads. This paper provides a complete set of results for the
field investigation conducted on UHPC H-shaped piles. The results presented in this paper prove that the designed UHPC piles can be
driven using the same equipment used to drive steel H-piles through hard soil layers without a pile cushion. The vertical load capacity of
the UHPC pile was over 80% higher than that of the steel H-piles.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000350
CE Database subject headings: Deep foundations; Driven piles; Load tests; Concrete.
Author keywords: Deep foundation; Driven piles; UHPC; Load tests.
Introduction sive stresses or due to the use of large driving hammers 共Salgado
2008兲. Cracked concrete intensifies corrosion of steel reinforce-
In 2005, the American Association of State Highway and Trans- ment, leading to eventual spalling and deterioration of the con-
portation Officials issued a strategic plan for bridge engineering, crete pile, which reduces its axial and flexural capacities. Steel
which included seven grand challenges. The first two challenges piles are vulnerable to local buckling during hard driving condi-
were extending service life and optimizing structural systems. tions and experience corrosion, which often occurs near the re-
One of the greatest challenges to achieving the 75-year service gion that has the largest stresses due to combined axial load and
life for foundations with minimal maintenance is material dete- flexural moment 共Huck and Hull 1971; Mekkawy 2004; Vande
rioration, which is targeted for future typical bridges according to Voort et al. 2008兲. The maintenance challenges associated with
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Offi- conventional piles are emphasized by Pando et al. 共2006兲, who
cials 共2005兲. reported that the United States spends an estimated $1 billion
The most common pile foundation systems used to support annually on maintenance and replacement of pile foundations.
bridges and buildings are made of steel or concrete. Both of these To achieve the target service life, minimize drivability chal-
pile materials have limitations, especially related to durability and lenges, and ensure durability, the use of pile foundation elements
drivability. Concrete piles 共precast or prestressed-precast兲 are sus- made of ultrahigh-performance concrete 共UHPC兲, with its high
ceptible to cracking during easy driving due to development of compressive and tensile strengths and excellent durability, was
large tensile stresses—a main reason why pile cushion is used investigated. An H-shaped UHPC section, with dimensions and
during driving. Concrete piles may also fail in compression dur- weight similar to that of a commonly used HP 10⫻ 57 共depth
ing driving in hard soil due to development of excessive compres- = 254 mm and weight= 86 kg/ m兲 steel pile, was designed. In-
strumented UHPC full-scale piles were driven near a bridge con-
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, struction site with a soil profile of loess on top of a glacial till clay
Lehigh Univ., 326 STEPS Building, Bethlehem, PA 18015; formerly, As- 共a common soil profile in the Midwestern United States兲 and
sistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, tested under vertical and lateral loads. Furthermore, laboratory
Lafayette College, 321 Acopian Engineering Center, Easton, PA 18042 3
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: mts210@lehigh.edu tests were conducted on 2.4-m-long specimens scaled to 4 of the
2
Formerly, Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Envi- cross section of the piles used in the field, and drivability studies
ronmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 176 Town Engineering, Ames, were also performed. In addition to summarizing the properties
IA 50011-3232. E-mail: tomvv@psmail.net and drivability of precast-prestressed normal concrete 共NC兲 and
3
Wilson Engineering Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction steel H-piles, Vande Voort et al. 共2008, 2009兲 summarized the
and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 406 Town Engineer- properties and durability of the UHPC, the section design of the
ing, Ames, IA 50011-3232. E-mail: sri@iastate.edu UHPC piles, and the theoretical drivability analysis results of the
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 2, 2009; approved on
pile in several soil conditions using different driving equipment.
March 2, 2010; published online on March 4, 2010. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for The drivability analysis showed that stresses induced in the
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and UHPC pile during driving are not significantly higher than those
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 10, October 1, 2010. in NC piles, and the ratio of the calculated stresses to the permis-
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/10-1403–1413/$25.00. sible stress limits was significantly lower for the UHPC than for
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional details of the UHPC pile compared with the steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile
the NC, and was comparable to those obtained for steel H-piles. steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile, which is commonly used by many state
The analyses further showed that UHPC may be driven with no department of transportation to support bridges; both piles have
pile cushion in most situations with a wide range of hammers and similar outer dimensions and weight per unit length. The design
strokes. This paper focuses on the behavior of instrumented process of the UHPC pile cross section included developing the
UHPC piles tested in the field and presents the experimental re- interaction diagram, which describes the axial load capacity of a
sults obtained during driving as well as vertical and lateral load beam-column element as a function of bending moment for the
test behaviors compared with theoretical responses and with the UHPC pile compared with the steel HP 10⫻ 57, and the moment-
behavior of a steel H-pile subjected to vertical loads. curvature relationship of several possible sections as well as a
drivability study considering different soil conditions. Vande
Voort et al. 共2008兲 presented more details on the design of the
Properties, Design, and Production of UHPC Piles UHPC pile cross section.
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
203 280
Strand 2 Strand 2 Strand 4
890 7, 8 927
1, 2
13-15 3-6 Sister bars 1, 3, 5 Gauge 9 Gauge 7,10,13,16
2298
635 9-12 610 7-9
890 1, 2 445
Strand 5
470 10
16-17 Gauges 8,11,14
11,12 Strand 1 Strand 3
Sister bars 2, 4, 6 Gauges 12,15,17
3683
(b) (c)
3, 4 Strand 1 Strand 2
Gauge 3 Gauge 1,4,7,10,11
3543
Strand 4
Strain Gauge Gauges 2,5,8
Strand 3
Gauges 6,9,18
5, 6 Sister Bars (Pairs)
Fig. 2. Instrumentation used for test units UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2: 共a兲 locations of various gauges along test units measured from the top
of the pile with all dimensions in mm; 共b兲 strands instrumented with sister bars for UHPC Pile 1; 共c兲 instrumented prestressing strands on UHPC
Pile 1 and 共d兲 instrumented prestressing strands on UHPC Pile 2; 共e兲 sister bars used in UHPC Pile 1; and 共f兲 strain gauges used on strands of
UHPC Pile 1
lateral loads. Threaded rods were also installed near the top of was conducted at approximately 75 m from the CPT located at 12
UHPC Pile 2 to mount the acceleration and strain gauges of the m from UHPC Pile 2 and showed hard layers at depths of 7.6 m
pile driving analyzer 共PDA兲 during pile driving. 共N ⬎ 100兲 and 11 m 共N ⬃ 75兲, respectively. Observations during
driving confirmed the locations of the hard layers at 4.65 and 7.6
m, as will be discussed in a later section.
Site Characterization Fig. 3共d兲 also shows the estimated undrained shear strength
and friction angle of soil layers using the CPT-based empirical
The two 10.7-m-long UHPC piles and steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile were relationships recommended by Lunne et al. 共1997兲. The average
installed next to a bridge site near Oskaloosa, Iowa. The bridge at undrained shear strength of the loess soil in the top 2.7 m was 60
this site is a three-span bridge carrying future expansion of north- kPa underlain by a sandy clay having an undrained shear strength
bound U.S. 63 across Union Pacific railroad. The soil at the of 136 kPa. The friction angles of the sandy soils ranged from 34°
bridge was initially characterized using standard penetration tests to 43° with estimated relative densities varying between 77 and
共SPTs兲 conducted by the Iowa Department of Transportation 87%. Fig. 3共d兲 also included the strain at 50% of the strength for
共2007兲. In the field, the research team characterized the soil at the cohesive soil and the modulus of subgrade reaction for cohesion-
site using the SPT and piezocone penetration tests 共CPTs兲. Dis- less soil based on values recommended by Reese et al. 共2000兲.
turbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples were also collected
using Shelby tubes to characterize the soil in the laboratory.
The soil at the Oskaloosa bridge site consists of 4.8 m of Predicted Pile Capacity
Wisconsinan loess overlaying a pre-Illinoian hard glacial till,
which is a well-graded mixture of clay, silt, and sand with occa- Using the soil properties presented in Fig. 3 and pile dimensions,
sional gravel and boulders. The soil profile of loess on top of a static analysis methods were used to estimate the capacity of the
glacial till is very common in the Midwestern region of the UHPC and steel piles. Because the soil profile at the site consisted
United States. Using laboratory tests and CPT results, the Wis- of mixed soils 共clay and sand兲, static analysis methods developed
consinan loess soil was classified into three soil layers consisting for both materials were used to provide estimates of pile capacity.
of 1.5 m of a low plastic silt 共ML兲 overlaying a 1.2 m of a low Assuming no soil plugging, Table 1 summarizes the predicted pile
plastic clay 共CL兲 and 2.1 m of a low plastic clay with sand 共CL兲. capacity using SPT-Meyerhof 共Meyerhof 1976兲, ␣ method 共Tom-
The pre-Illinoian hard glacial till consists of layers of clayey sand, linson 1986兲,  method 共Esrig and Kirby 1979兲, Nordlund 共1963兲
sandy clay, and well-graded sand with gravel 共see Fig. 3兲. method, and Iowa Blue Book method 共Dirks and Kam 1989兲,
The results of two CPTs, which were conducted at distances of which is an in-house method developed by the Iowa Department
1.2 and 12 m from UHPC Pile 2, indicate a 0.9-m sand layer at a of Transportation 共2007兲 for the local soil conditions. The esti-
depth of 4.65 m, with an average CPT tip resistance of 15.6 MPa mated capacity of the UHPC pile ranged from 725 to 1,299 kN
and 1.35 m deep of a very stiff well-graded silty sand layer at a while the estimated capacity of the steel pile ranged from 479 to
depth of 7.6 m with an average CPT tip resistance of 26.7 MPa. 755 kN. The difference in calculated pile capacity depends mainly
The measured pore-water pressure during the CPTs indicated that on estimated soil properties and assumptions made during the
the water table was located at approximately 3 m below the development of several static analysis methods. For example, the
ground surface. The CPTs were terminated at approximately 11 m Nordlund 共1963兲 method accounts for the volume of the pile and
due to refusal indicating large inclusions at this depth. The SPT the interface between soil and pile material 共i.e., steel or con-
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Tip resistance (qT in MPa) Fr (%) Undrained shear strength, Su (kPa)
N (SPT) = 8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
5 Clayey sand = 20.5 kN/m3 w =4.33% 5 5 Water table 5 = 41o
(SC) LL = 32.5%, PI = 17.7% k = 33.9 kN/m3
6 3
6 6 6
Low plastic clay = 20.4 kN/m w =4.83%
with sand LL = 36.7%, PI = 19.2% Glacial Till = 35o
7 7 7 7 k = 6.7 kN/m3
(CL) N (SPT) = 7
8 Well graded 3
sand = 20.6 kN/m 8 8 8 = 42o
9 (SW) N (SPT) >100 k = 33.9 kN/m3
Low plastic clay 3
9 9 9
= 20.4 kN/m Su = 800 kPa
10 (CL) 10 10 10
Well graded 3
50 = 0.004
11 sand with gravel = 20.4 kN/m
11 11 11
(SW) N (SPT) ~ 75
12 12 12 12
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 3. Properties of soil at the test site: 共a兲 soil profile; 共b兲 CPTu tip resistance; 共c兲 CPTu friction ratio; and 共d兲 estimated undrained shear strength
for cohesive soils and friction angle for cohesionless soils including the values of the undrained shear strength 共Su兲 and the strain at 50% of the
strength 共50兲 for cohesive soils and the friction angle 共兲 and the modulus of subgrade reaction 共k兲 used to generate the p-y curves for the LPILE
analysis investigating the response of the UHPC pile subjected to lateral loads
crete兲, while the ␣ method assumes a total stress analysis 共i.e., frame. However, due to very low cold temperatures and signifi-
short-term capacity兲, and the  method uses effective stress cant snow accumulation experienced in Iowa, the vertical load
analysis 共i.e., long-term capacity兲. The vertical load tests on tests were conducted approximately 3 months after driving. Based
UHPC and steel piles were planned to be conducted within 1 on this, it was expected that the  method will provide the best
week after the end of pile driving and assembly of the loading estimate of the load test results.
Table 1. Estimated Capacities 共in kN兲 of UHPC and Steel Piles Using Static Analysis Methods Compared to Static Load Test Results
UHPCa Steelb
Method Capacity Skin friction End bearing Capacity Skin friction End bearing
c
SPT-Meyerhof 725 370 355 479 374 105
␣ methodd 794 715 79 746 714 32
 methode 1,299 519 780 755 525 230
Nordlundf 897 302 595 642 466 176
Iowa Blue Bookg 932 380 552 618 320 298
PDAh 925 259 666 641 545 96
CAPWAPh 894 384 510 578 434 144
Static load test 1,640 1,053 587 881 NA NA
a
Cross-sectional area equals to 36, 600 mm2 and cross-sectional surface length equals to 1,016 mm.
b
Cross-sectional area equals to 10, 800 mm2 and cross-sectional surface length equals to 1,028 mm.
c
After Meyerhof 共1976兲 and based on SPT corrected N values.
d
Adhesion factor 共␣兲 after the American Petroleum Institute 共API兲 共1989兲; the Su calculated based on the SPT corrected N values using the empirical
correlation 关0.29N0.72兴 after Hara et al. 共1974兲.
e
 coefficient after Burland 共1973兲; the calculated based on SPT corrected N values using the empirical correlation 关54− 27.6 exp共−0.014N160兲兴 after
Peck et al. 共1974兲.
f
After Nordlund 共1963兲; using 共same as in  method兲.
g
Iowa Blue Book 共after Dirks and Kam 1989兲; mainly use a combination of the SPT-Meyerhof method 共Meyerhof 1976兲 and ␣-Tomlinson method
共Tomlinson 1986兲.
h
Using the procedures summarized in Hannigan et al. 共1997兲.
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Cumulative Blows
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
500 17.0 500 16.7
kips f/s kips f/s
F V F V
51.2ms 51.2ms
4.20 ms 4.00 ms
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. PDA force and velocity curves at the end of driving for 共a兲 UHPC Pile 2; 共b兲 steel pile
2007–2008, the static load test was conducted in March 2008, lined in ASTM D1143/D1143M-07 共ASTM 2007a兲. For UHPC
approximately 93 days for UHPC and 102 days for steel pile after Pile 1, load increments of 31 kN 关i.e., 5% of the predicted pile
driving. Vertical load tests were conducted on UHPC Pile 1 and capacity using initial soil testing conducted by the Iowa Depart-
steel HP 10⫻ 57 using the setup shown in Fig. 7. Given that the ment of Transportation 共2007兲兴 were used and sustained between
predicted vertical load capacity of the UHPC pile was larger than 4 and 8 min to allow pile settlement to stabilize. After exceeding
that of the steel pile, and it ranged from 725 to 1,299 kN with an the predicted pile capacity, the load steps were increased to 111
average estimated capacity of 930 kN, the load frame was de- kN. For loads greater than 890 kN, the measurements of strain
signed to sustain a maximum vertical load of 1,668 kN 共1.8 times gauges and sister bars were not recorded. For the steel H-pile,
the predicted capacity兲. A hydraulic jack with 1,780-kN capacity load increments of 27 kN, which is also 5% of the predicted pile
and a load cell of 1,335-kN capacity were used. In addition to capacity, were used.
monitoring applied axial load and the strains along the length, the
vertical settlement of UHPC Pile 1 was measured using four dis-
placement transducers. For the steel HP 10⫻ 57, only the applied Pile Load Capacity
axial load and the vertical settlement were monitored. The tests
were conducted in accordance with the quick test procedure out- The load-displacement responses of UHPC Pile 1 and steel HP
10⫻ 57 pile obtained from the vertical load tests are shown in
Fig. 8. The Davisson 共1972兲 failure criterion, which is shown by
Reaction Pile Reaction Pile the dashed line in Figs. 8共a and b兲, was used to define the capacity
Reaction Beam
of both piles. Although several methods could be used to deter-
mine the pile capacity using the measured pile response during a
1.98 m 1.52 m 1.98 m
load test, the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was used because it is the
Unit UHPC 1 Steel Pile major pile capacity determination method used in the load and
1.22 m resistance factor design of deep foundations. Since the study fo-
Reaction Pile Reaction Pile cuses on comparison of pile capacities, the choice of using Davis-
son 共1972兲 criterion has less impact on the outcomes of the study.
The load test on the UHPC pile had to be stopped at a load of
Unit UHPC 2 1,335 kN, which was the capacity of the load cell used for this
(a) test. At this load, the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was not reached
for UHPC Pile 1. To estimate the UHPC Pile 1 capacity, the
procedure recommended by Paikowsky and Tolosko 共1999兲 was
used to extrapolate the load-displacement curve, resulting in a
Davisson 共1972兲 pile capacity of 1,640 kN. The steel pile experi-
enced failure during the vertical load test as the pile vertical dis-
placement increased significantly without any significant increase
in the applied load, as shown in Fig. 8共b兲. The steel pile capacity
estimated using the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was 881 kN.
Given that the static load tests were conducted about 3 months
after driving the piles, the  method, which is based on effective
UHPC 1 Steel H Pile
stress analysis, provided the best prediction of the UHPC and
UHPC 2 steel pile capacities. Furthermore, the  method also closely pre-
dicted the ratio of the UHPC pile capacity to the steel pile capac-
ity, which was 1.72 compared to the ratio based on static load test
results, which was 1.86. The ratio of the UHPC pile capacity to
(b) the steel pile capacity is not only a function of the ratio of cross-
sectional area 共which was 3.4兲 but also a function of the interface
Fig. 7. Setup used field testing of UHPC Pile 1, UHPC Pile 2, and properties between the soil and the material of the piles. In com-
HP 10⫻ 57 steel pile: 共a兲 plan view; 共b兲 elevation view parison, the Nordlund 共1963兲 method, which accounts for the pile
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0 0
Da
vis
s on
4 4 Pil
eC
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
ap
Extrapolation ac
Dav ity
8 8 isso = 88
Dav n Fa 1k
isso ilure N
nF Crit
ailu er ion
12 re C 12
rite
rion
16 16
Fig. 8. Vertical load-vertical displacement and Davisson 共1972兲 failure criterion for UHPC and steel test piles from static load test and CAPWAP
analyses
material in estimating skin friction, resulted in a skin friction of static load test results and CAPWAP analysis may be attributed to
the steel pile that is 1.54 times the skin friction of the UHPC pile, the soil displacement at which these results were obtained where
although both piles have similar surface areas. Neglecting the the UHPC pile was driven at a rate of 15 blows/0.3 m at the end
effects of pile driving and those of larger soil movement resulting of driving 共average of 20-mm displacement per blow兲 and the pile
from driving of the UHPC pile on its load bearing capacity, the displacement at the Davisson 共1972兲 pile capacity was 15 mm.
UPHC pile provided larger end bearing capacity than the steel Fig. 9共b兲 exhibits the increase in unit skin friction for the two
pile due to 3.4 times larger cross-sectional area. When this in- main soil types at the test site as a function of pile head displace-
crease in capacity combined with a reduction in the skin friction ment 共i.e., loess for the top 4.8 m and glacial till for the bottom
component expected for concrete piles 共e.g., Nordlund 共1963兲 5.1 m along the length of the pile兲. This figure shows that the unit
method estimates 1.54 times smaller skin friction for concrete skin friction of the glacial till is higher than that of the loess soil
piles than for steel H-piles兲, using the  method, the UHPC pile with a ratio ranging from 1.54 to 1.85. Although the unit skin
capacity is expected to be about 1.72 times that of the steel friction is expected to reach a maximum limit value as the pile
H-pile, which is close to the ratio of 1.86 from the measured head displacement increases, such behavior was not observed dur-
UHPC pile capacity to the steel pile capacity. ing the test, indicating that the maximum skin friction limit was
Although ongoing research at Iowa State University on steel not mobilized in either soil. Extrapolation of the unit skin friction
H-piles shows a difference between the CAPWAP predicted ca- curves indicates that the maximum unit frictions between the
pacity and static load test results less than 5% when conducted UHPC pile and loess and glacial till were 47 kN/m 共3.22 kips/ft兲
within 3 days 共Ng et al. 2010兲, significantly larger differences and 94 kN/m 共6.44 kips/ft兲.
were observed between CAPWAP estimated pile capacities and Fig. 9共c兲 shows the increase in total, skin friction and end
those determined from the static load tests in this study. These bearing as a function of pile head displacement, which indicates
differences were 83% for the UHPC pile and 50% for the steel that the percent of the load resisted by skin friction decreases as
pile, which was attributed to pile setup. Using PDA measurements the load increases 共i.e., the difference between applied load and
and CAPWAP analyses conducted at the end of driving and at the skin friction curves increases兲. The figure also indicates that
several restrikes, and the results of static vertical load tests, Ng et the curve of skin friction may become constant at a top pile dis-
al. 共2010兲 developed an equation to estimate steel pile capacity as
placement of about 7 mm 共2.7% of the pile cross-sectional dimen-
a function of time, which shows that for a similar soil profile pile
sion兲.
setup after about 3 months 共the time between the end of driving
and testing for the presented research兲 approached 50% for steel
H-piles.
Lateral Load Test
Load Transfer
Test Procedure and Observations
Using section and material properties, the measured strains from
sister bars and strain gauges were used to calculate the load in The lateral load test on the UHPC piles was conducted using a
UHPC Pile 1 at different locations along the length of the pile, as 445-kN capacity hydraulic actuator with a 46-cm stroke, which
shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 9共a兲 shows that when the applied load was was used to simultaneously push test units UHPC Pile 1 and
876.7 kN 共i.e., corresponding displacement at the top of the pile UHPC Pile 2 laterally against each other. The actuator was placed
was 5.3 mm兲, 23.6% of the applied load was resisted by end at 0.61 m above the ground surface 共i.e., 0.25 m below the top of
bearing. At smaller pile displacements 共i.e., beginning of the test兲, the pile兲. The lateral load test followed the “standard loading”
6% of the applied load was resisted by end bearing. CAPWAP procedure outlined in ASTM D3966-07 共ASTM 2007b兲. Accord-
analysis results indicated that at the end of driving 57% of the ingly, for all loading steps, the load was kept relatively constant
load was resisted by end bearing and 43% of the load resisted by for duration of at least 10 min. At the end of the test, the piles
skin friction. In addition to pile setup, the difference between the were unloaded in four equal load steps. For both the loading and
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Vertical Load (kN)
Ground Surface
234.4 80
1
Loess 261.7
2 292.0 70
396.6 50
5
Glacial Till
425.7
6 451.3 40
477.3
7 UHPC pile 30
502.7
8 529.2
554.8 20
9 616.6
10 700.3 10
Points at 9.9 m are based on extrapolation 790.0
11 876.7 0
12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement at the top of the pile (mm)
(a) (b)
1000
600
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement at the top of the pile (mm)
(c)
Fig. 9. Measured vertical load transfer as a function of depth for UHPC Pile 1 obtained from strain measurements: 共a兲 load as a function of depth
with points at 9.9 m determined using a constant slope of the measurements within the glacial till soil; 共b兲 skin friction per unit length for the two
main soil layers; and 共c兲 skin friction and end bearing as a function of pile top displacement
unloading stages, deflections, strains, and loads were recorded at creased up to 92.7 kN. For UHPC Pile 2 at the end of testing, the
1, 5, and 10 min after the load was applied and at 5-min intervals maximum lateral displacement at the point of loading was 6.25
for any remaining duration. cm for a lateral load of 101.3 kN. Test units were expected to
During the lateral load test, unexpected shear cracks and shear sustain larger lateral loads and displacements but could not be
failure developed in UHPC Pile 1 near the point of lateral load loaded further after the shear failure of UHPC Pile 1. At a load of
application. Although section analysis showed that the shear ca- 101.3 kN, UHPC Pile 1 started experiencing a significant increase
pacity of the UHPC pile section was 191 kN, UHPC Pile 1 expe- in lateral displacement as the shear cracks developed to a shear
rienced extensive shear cracking at a lateral load of 101.3 kN. In failure. After the shear failure began, UHPC Pile 1 continued to
a posttest investigation, it was concluded that the shear cracking
displace to reach a total displacement of 20.1 cm while sustaining
and premature shear failure in this pile were caused by a reduc-
a lateral load of approximately 80 kN.
tion in shear capacity due to the presence of a 20-mm-thick
bundle of instrumentation wires from 6 sister bars and 11 strain The lateral load response of the UHPC pile was also predicted
gauges through the web of the pile, as shown in Figs. 10共a and b兲. using the LPILE software 共Reese et al. 2000兲. The pile was sub-
jected to an increasing lateral displacement. The soil resistance in
the horizontal direction was represented with nonlinear springs
Force-Displacement Response 共p-y curves兲 located at the midheight of the elements modeling
The force-displacement responses of UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC the pile foundation. The p-y curves for all soil layers were devel-
Pile 2 from the lateral load testing are shown in Fig. 10共e兲, where oped using the soil parameters 共i.e., undrained shear strength, Su,
both units show similar responses as the applied lateral load in- and strain at 50% of the strength, 50, for cohesive soil, and fric-
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 10. Response of UHPC 1 and UHPC 2 when subjected to lateral loads: 关共a兲 and 共b兲兴 cracking and failure of UHPC 1 at the location of
instrumentation wires through the web of the pile; 共c兲 the p-y curves representing the nonlinear soil response used in the LPILE analysis for the
major soil layers along the UHPC pile; 共d兲 the moment-curvature relationship used to model the response of the UHPC pile subjected to flexural
bending; and 共e兲 lateral load versus lateral displacement
tion angle, , and modulus of subgrade reaction, k, for cohesion- Strain Profiles
less soil兲 reported in Fig. 3共d兲 and using the default LPILE p-y
curves shown in Fig. 10共d兲. The flexural responses of the beam- The strain profiles established for longitudinal reinforcing strands
column elements representing the pile foundation were character- in UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 are presented in Fig. 11. Fig.
ized by specifying the moment resistance of the pile section and 11共a兲 presents the strain profiles combining measured strains for
the corresponding flexural stiffness 共EcIeff, where Ec is the elastic Strands 2 and 4 for UHPC Pile 1 and Fig. 11共b兲 shows the strain
modulus of the UHPC material and Ieff is the effective moment of profile along Strand 3 for UHPC Pile 2; both of which show that,
inertia of the UHPC pile cross section兲, which was generated by for a given lateral load, the largest strains were recorded at a
performing the moment-curvature analysis 关see Fig. 10共e兲兴. depth of 1.43 m below the ground surface. The strain profiles also
Fig. 10共c兲 shows the force-displacement response of the UHPC suggest that strains gradually reduced below 1.43 m, and insig-
pile predicted by LPILE analysis compared with the measured nificant strains were recorded at 5.12 m below the ground surface.
force-displacement response of UHPC Pile 2, which shows that Based on these observations and the LPILE analysis results, it
the analysis captured the overall lateral load response of the was concluded that the maximum moment in test units UHPC
UHPC pile. LPILE analysis predicted the lateral capacity of the Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 was at a depth of about 1.43 m below the
UHPC pile to be 141 kN occurring at a maximum displacement of ground surface 共i.e., depth approximately 5.6⫻ pile size兲. The
26.3 cm. differences in magnitude between recorded strains at similar
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Strain ( Strain (
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-1 -1
0 Ground Surface 0 Ground Surface
1 1
2 2
3 3
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth =1.43 m 15.9 kN
4 15.9 kN 4
27.9 kN
5 27.9 kN 5 40.7 kN
40.7 kN
6 6 55.9 kN
55.9 kN
7 7 68.8 kN
68.8 kN
77.8 kN
8 77.8 kN 8
92.7 kN
9 92.7 kN 9 101.2 kN
101.2 kN
10 10
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Measured strain profiles along the length of UHPC piles: 共a兲 along Strands 2 and 4 in UHPC 1; 共b兲 along Strand 3 in UHPC 2
depth in test units UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 were attributed 2兲 was 101.3 kN at 6.25 cm. The LPILE analysis of the
to shear cracks and shear failure observed in UHPC Pile 1 during UHPC pile closely matched the measured response of UHPC
the lateral load test. The maximum measured strains along UHPC Pile 2 and predicted a lateral load capacity of 141 kN with a
Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 result in bending moments of 125 and maximum moment location at a depth equals to approxi-
101 kN m, respectively, which is smaller than the bending mo- mately 5.6 times the cross section of the pile.
ment capacity of 198 kN m expected at zero axial load. These
results confirm that UHPC Pile 1 failed due to shear as concluded
previously.
Acknowledgments
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 27–63. J. Geotech. Found. Eng., 89共SM 3兲, 1–36.
Graybeal, B. A. 共2006兲. “Material property characterization of ultra-high Paikowsky, S. G., and Tolosko, T. A. 共1999兲. “Extrapolation of pile ca-
performance concrete.” FHWA-HRT-06-103, Federal Highway Ad- pacity from non-failed load tests.” FHWA-RD-99-170, Federal High-
ministration, Washington, D.C. way Administration 共FHWA兲, Washington, D.C.
Hannigan, P. J., Goble, G. G., Thendean, G., Linkin, G. E., and Rausche, Pando, M. A., Ealy, C. D., Filz, G. M., Lesko, J. J., and Hoppe, E. J.
F. 共1997兲. “Design and construction of driven foundations: Volume I 共2006兲. “A laboratory and field study of composite piles for bridge
and II.” Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Rep. No. FHWA- substructures.” Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-04-043, Federal Highway Ad-
HI-97-013, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. ministration 共FHWA兲, Washington, D.C.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 共1974兲. “Shear Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 共1974兲. Foundation
modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils.” Soils Found., 14共3兲,
engineering, Wiley, New York.
1–12.
Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., Isenhower, W. M., and Arrellaga, J. A. 共2000兲.
Huck, R. W., and Hull, J. R. 共1971兲. “Resonant driving in permafrost.”
Foundation Facts, 7共1兲, 11–15. Computer program: LPILE version 4 technical manual, Ensoft, Aus-
Iowa Department of Transportation. 共2007兲. “ASD/LFD bridge design tin, TX.
manual.” 具http://www.dot.state.ia.us/bridge/manualasd.htm典 共Jan. 10, Salgado, R. 共2008兲. The engineering of foundations, McGraw-Hill, New
2008兲. York.
Lunne, T., Powell, J. M., and Robertson, P. K. 共1997兲. Cone penetration Tomlinson, M. J. 共1986兲. Foundation design and construction, Longman
testing in geotechnical practice, Taylor & Francis, London. Scientific and Technical, Essex, England.
Mekkawy, M. 共2004兲. “Management of water and backfill characteristics Tuchlinski, D., Hegger, J., and Kommer, B. 共2006兲. “Studies on pre-
for improved bridge approach performance.” M.S. thesis, Iowa State stressed concrete beams made from UHPC.” Concrete Precasting
Univ., Ames, IA. Plant and Technology, 72共1兲, 14–20.
Meyerhof, G. 共1976兲. “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile founda- Vande Voort, T., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2008兲. “Design and
tions.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102共3兲, 195–228. performance verification of ultra-high performance concrete piles for
Ng, K. W., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2010兲. “LRFD resistance deep foundations.” Final Report, Iowa DOT, IHRB Project TR-558,
factors including the influence of setup for design of steel piles using CTRE Project 06-264, Iowa Dept. of Transportation, Ames, IA.
WEAP.” GeoFlorida 2010—Advances in analysis, modeling and de- Vande Voort, T., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2009兲. “Design,
sign, Florida 2010, Geo-Institute of ASCE, West Palm Beach, FL. construction, and drivability of UHPC pile.” Int. Foundation Con-
Nordlund, R. L. 共1963兲. “Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soils.” gress and Equipment Expo 09, ASCE and Geo-Institute, Orlando, FL.
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org