Nonlinear Percolation Theory for Ultralow-Permeability

Reservoirs
Ran Xinquan, in Advanced Water Injection for Low Permeability Reservoirs, 2013
2.3.1.1 Equations for Deliverability and Pressure Distribution of Steady Seepage
Flows
For single-phase fluids, the equation for their areal radial flow velocities is
(2.38)QB2πrh=Kμdpdr
Permeability is a function of effective overburden pressure with permeability
variations considered. Putting Eq. (2.9) into Eq. (2.38):
(2.39)QSB2πrh=K0μ(σv−αpσeff0)−Sdpdr
The boundary conditions for steady seepage flows can be expressed as
(2.40){r=rw,p=pwfr=re,p=pe
Integrating the individual variables in Eq. (2.39) and putting the results into the formula for
boundary conditions, we can get the formula for output:
(2.41)QS=2πK0hμBσeff0−S.(σv−αpwf)1−S−(σv−αpe)1−Sα(1−S)lnrerw
We also get the formula for pressure distribution:
(2.42)p(r)=σv−[QμBσeff0−Sα(1−S)lnrer2πK0h+(σv−αpe)1−S]11−Sα
where
Qs—flow rate, cm3/s
B—volumetric factor
K0—initial permeability, 10−3 μm2
h—reservoir thickness, m
μ—fluid viscosity, mPa s
σeff0 —initial effective stress (reference value), MPa
σv —overburden pressure, σv=ρrgH, MPa
pe—drainage boundary pressure, MPa
pwf —bottom hole flowing pressure, MPa
p(r) —pressure at the point with a distance of r from the well hole, MPa
α—effective stress coefficient (ranges from 0.9–1.0 for low- and ultralow-permeability
reservoirs)
S—stress-sensitivity coefficient
re and rw—drainage radius and well radius, m
In fact, if we use the ground gas-logging permeability as the reference value for the initial
permeability, then its variations caused by medium deformation may influence the
deliverability in two ways. One is called the static influence, which refers to the influence of
the overburden pressure on permeability variations, while the other is the dynamic influence,
i.e., the influence of changes in the pore pressure during production on permeability
variations, which attracts more attention from oil producers at present. Figures 2-29 to 2-
32 show the curves of how stress sensitivity influences production.
Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 2-29. The relationship between the output decline percentage and initial permeability.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 2-30. The relationship between output decline percentage and pressure drawdown.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 2-31. The relationship between output decline percentage and reservoir pressure factor.
Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 2-32. The pressure distribution curve considering stress sensitivity.

View chapterPurchase book

Fundamentals of Rock Properties
Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fourth Edition), 2010
Rock Compressibility
A reservoir thousands of feet underground is subjected to an overburden pressure caused by
the weight of the overlying formations. Overburden pressures vary from area to area
depending on factors such as depth, nature of the structure, consolidation of the formation,
and possibly the geologic age and history of the rocks. Depth of the formation is the most
important consideration, and a typical value of overburden pressure is approximately one psi
per foot of depth.
The weight of the overburden simply applies a compressive force to the reservoir. The
pressure in the rock pore spaces does not normally approach the overburden pressure. A
typical pore pressure, commonly referred to as the reservoir pressure, is approximately 0.5 psi
per foot of depth, assuming that the reservoir is sufficiently consolidated so the overburden
pressure is not transmitted to the fluids in the pore spaces.
The pressure difference between overburden and internal pore pressure is referred to as
the effective overburden pressure. During pressure depletion operations, the internal pore
pressure decreases and, therefore, the effective overburden pressure increases. This increase
causes the following effects:
•
The bulk volume of the reservoir rock is reduced.
•
Sand grains within the pore spaces expand.
These two volume changes tend to reduce the pore space and, therefore, the porosity of the
rock. Often these data exhibit relationships with both porosity and the effective overburden
pressure. Compressibility typically decreases with increasing porosity and effective
overburden pressure.
Geertsma (1957) points out that there are three different types of compressibility that must be
distinguished in rocks:
• Rock-matrix compressibility, cr
Is defined as the fractional change in volume of the solid rock material (grains) with a unit
change in pressure. Mathematically, the rock compressibility coefficient is given by
cr=−1Vr(∂Vr∂p)T
where cr = rock-matrix compressibility, psi−1
Vr = volume of solids
The subscript T indicates that the derivative is taken at constant temperature.
• Rock-bulk compressibility, cB
Is defined as the fractional change in volume of the bulk volume of the rock with a unit
change in pressure. The rock-bulk compressibility is defined mathematically by:
(4-61)cB=−1VB(∂VB∂p)T
where cB = rock-bulk compressibility coefficient, psi−1
VB = bulk volume
• Pore compressibility, cp
The pore compressibility coefficient is defined as the fractional change in pore volume of the
rock with a unit change in pressure and given by the following relationship:
(4-62)cp=−1Vp(∂Vp∂p)T
where p = pore pressure, psi
cp = pore compressibility coefficient, psi−1
Vp = pore volume
Equation 4-62 can be expressed in terms of the porosity ϕ by notingthat ϕ increases with the
increase in the pore pressure; or:
cp=1ϕ∂ϕ∂p
For most petroleum reservoirs, the rock and bulk compressibility are considered small in
comparison with the pore compressibility cp. The formation compressibility cf is the term
commonly used to describe the total compressibility of the formation and is set equal to cp,
i.e.:
(4-63)cf=cp=1ϕ∂ϕ∂p
Typical values for the formation compressibility range from 3 × 10−6 to 25 ×
10−6 psi−1. Equation 4-62 can be rewritten as:
cf=1VpΔVpΔp
or
(4-64)ΔVp=cf Vp Δp
where ΔVp and Δp are the change in the pore volume and pore pressure, respectively.
Geertsma (1957) suggested that the bulk compressibility cB is related to the pore
compressibility cp by the following expression.
(4-65)cB≅cpϕ
Geertsma has stated that in a reservoir only the vertical component of hydraulic stress is
constant and that the stress components in the horizontal plane are characterized by the
boundary condition that there is no bulk deformation in those directions. For those boundary
conditions, he developed the following approximation for sandstones:
cp (reservoir) = 1/2 cp (laboratory)
Example 4-15
Calculate the reduction in the pore volume of a reservoir due to a pressure drop of 10 psi. The
reservoir original pore volume is one million barrels with an estimated formation
compressibility of 10 × 10−6 psi−1.
Solution
Applying Equation 4-64 gives
ΔVp=(10×10−6)(1×106)(10)=100bbl
Although the above value is small, it becomes an important factor in undersaturated
reservoirs when calculations are made to determine initial oil-in-place and aquifer contents.
The reduction in the pore volume due to pressure decline can also be expressed in terms of
the changes in the reservoir porosity. Equation 4-63 can be rearranged, to give:
cf∂p=(1ϕ)∂ϕ
Integrating the above relation gives:
cf∫pop∂p=∫ϕoϕ∂ϕϕcf(p−po)=ln(ϕϕo)
or:
(4-66)ϕ=ϕoecf(p−po)
where po = original pressure, psi
ϕo = original porosity
p = current pressure, psi
ϕ= porosity at pressure p
Noting that the ex expansion series is expressed as:
ex=1+x+x22!+x33!+…
Using the expansion series and truncating the series after the first two terms, gives:
(4-67)ϕ=ϕo[1+cf(p−po)]
Example 4-16
Given the following data:
•
cf = 10 × 10−6
•
original pressure =5000 psi
•
original porosity =18%
•
current pressure =4500 psi
Calculate the porosity at 4,500 psi.
Solution
ϕ=0.18[1+(10×10−6)(4500−5000)]=0.179
It should be pointed out that the total reservoir compressibility ct is extensively used in the
transient flow equation and the material balance equation as defined by the following
expression:
(4-68)ct=Soco+Swcs+Sgcg+cf
where So, Sw, Sg = oil, water, and gas saturation
co = oil compressibility, psi−1
cw = water compressibility, psi−1
cg = gas compressibility, psi−1
ct = total reservoir compressibility
For undersaturated oil reservoirs, the reservoir pressure is above the bubble-point pressure,
i.e., no initial gas cap, which reduces Equation 4-68 to:
ct=Soco+Swcw+cf
In general, the formation compressibility cf is the same order of magnitude as the
compressibility of the oil and water and, therefore, cannot be regulated.
Several authors have attempted to correlate the pore compressibility with various parameters
including the formation porosity. Hall (1953) correlated the pore compressibility with
porosity as given by the following relationship:
(4-69)cf=(1.782/ϕ0.438)10−6
where cf = formation compressibility, psi −1
ϕ = porosity, fraction
Newman (1973) used 79 samples for consolidated sandstones and limestones to develop a
correlation between the formation compressibility and porosity. The proposed
generalized hyperbolic form of the equation is:
cf=a[1+cbϕ]
where
For consolidated sandstones
a = 97.32 ×10−6
b = 0.699993
c = 79.8181
For limestones
a = 0.8535
b = 1.075
c = 2.202 × 106
Example 4-17
Estimate the compressibility coefficient of a sandstone formation that is characterized by a
porosity of 0.2, using:
a.
Hall's correlation
b.
Newman's correlation
Solution
a.
Hall's correlations:
cf=(1.782/0.20.438)10−6=3.606×10−6psi−1
b.
Newman's correlation:
cf=97.32×10−6[1+(0.699993)(79.8181)(0.2)]1/0.699993=2.74×10−6psi−1
View chapterPurchase book
Fundamentals of Rock Properties
Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition), 2019
Rock compressibility
A reservoir thousands of feet underground is subjected to an overburden pressure caused by
the weight of the overlying formations. Overburden pressures vary from area to area
depending on factors such as depth, nature of the structure, consolidation of the formation,
and possibly the geologic age and history of the rocks. Depth of the formation is the most
important consideration, and a typical value of overburden pressure is approximately one psi
per foot of depth.
The weight of the overburden simply applies a compressive force to the reservoir. The
pressure in the rock pore spaces does not normally approach the overburden pressure. A
typical pore pressure, commonly referred to as the reservoir pressure, is approximately 0.5 psi
per foot of depth, assuming that the reservoir is sufficiently consolidated so the overburden
pressure is not transmitted to the fluids in the pore spaces.
The pressure difference between overburden and internal pore pressure is referred to as
the effective overburden pressure. During pressure depletion operations, the internal pore
pressure decreases and, therefore, the effective overburden pressure increases. This increase
causes the following effects:
○
The bulk volume of the reservoir rock is reduced.
○
Sand grains within the pore spaces expand.
These two volume changes tend to reduce the pore space and, therefore, the porosity of the
rock. Often these data exhibit relationships with both porosity and the effective overburden
pressure. Compressibility typically decreases with increasing porosity and effective
overburden pressure.
Geertsma (1957) points out that there are three different types of compressibility that must be
distinguished in rocks:
○
Rock-matrix compressibility, cr
Is defined as the fractional change in volume of the solid rock material (grains) with a unit
change in pressure. Mathematically, the rock compressibility coefficient is given by
(4-60)cr=−1Vr∂Vr∂pT
where
cr = rock-matrix compressibility, psi–1
Vr = volume of solids
The subscript T indicates that the derivative is taken at constant temperature.
○
Rock-bulk compressibility, cB
Is defined as the fractional change in volume of the bulk volume of the rock with a unit
change in pressure. The rock-bulk compressibility is defined mathematically by:
(4-61)cB=−1VB∂VB∂pT
where
cB = rock-bulk compressibility coefficient, psi–1
VB = bulk volume
○
Pore compressibility, cp
The pore compressibility coefficient is defined as the fractional change in pore volume of the
rock with a unit change in pressure and given by the following relationship:
(4-62)cp=−1Vp∂Vp∂pT
where
p = pore pressure, psi
cp = pore compressibility coefficient, psi–1
 Vp = pore volume
Equation 4-62 can be expressed in terms of the porosity ϕ by noting that ϕ increases with the
increase in the pore pressure; or:
ϕϕcp=1ϕ∂ϕ∂p
For most petroleum reservoirs, the rock and bulk compressibility are considered small in
comparison with the pore compressibility cp. The formation compressibility cf is the term
commonly used to describe the total compressibility of the formation and is set equal to cp,
i.e.:
(4-63)ϕϕcf=cp=1ϕ∂ϕ∂p
Typical values for the formation compressibility range from 3 × 10–6 to 25 × 10–6 psi–1.
Equation 4-62 can be rewritten as:
cf=1VpΔVpΔp
or
(4-64)ΔVp=cfVpΔp
where ΔVp and Δp are the change in the pore volume and pore pressure, respectively.
Geertsma (1957) suggested that the bulk compressibility cB is related to the pore
compressibility cp by the following expression.
(4-65)ϕcB≅cpϕ
Geertsma has stated that in a reservoir only the vertical component of hydraulic stress is
constant and that the stress components in the horizontal plane are characterized by the
boundary condition that there is no bulk deformation in those directions. For those boundary
conditions, he developed the following approximation for sandstones:
cpreservoir=1/2cplaboratory
Example 4-15
Calculate the reduction in the pore volume of a reservoir due to a pressure drop of 10 psi. The
reservoir original pore volume is one million barrels with an estimated formation
compressibility of 10 × 10–6 psi–1
Solution
Applying Equation 4-64 gives
ΔVp=10×10−61×10610=100bbl
Although the above value is small, it becomes an important factor in undersaturated
reservoirs when calculations are made to determine initial oil-in-place and aquifer contents.
The reduction in the pore volume due to pressure decline can also be expressed in terms of
the changes in the reservoir porosity. Equation 4-63 can be rearranged, to give:
ϕϕcf∂p=1ϕ∂ϕ
Integrating the above relation gives:
ϕϕϕϕϕϕcf∫pop∂p=∫ϕoϕ∂ϕϕcfp-po=lnϕϕo
or:
(4-66)ϕϕϕ=ϕoecfp−po
where
po = original pressure, psi
ϕo = original porosity
p = current pressure, psi
ϕ = porosity at pressure p
Noting that the ex expansion series is expressed as:
ex=1+x+x22!+x33!+…
Using the expansion series and truncating the series after the first two terms, gives:
(4-67)ϕϕϕ=ϕo1+cfp−po
Example 4-16
Given the following data:
○
cf = 10 × 10–6

○
original pressure = 5,000 psi
○
original porosity = 18%
○
current pressure = 4,500 psi
Calculate the porosity at 4,500 psi.
Solution
ϕϕ=0.181+10×10−64,500−5,000=0.179
It should be pointed out that the total reservoir compressibility ct is extensively used in the
transient flow equation and the material balance equation as defined by the following
expression:
(4-68)ct=Soco+Swcs+Sgcg+cf
where
So, Sw, Sg = oil, water, and gas saturation
co = oil compressibility, psi–1
cw = water compressibility, psi–1
cg = gas compressibility, psi–1
ct = total reservoir compressibility
For undersaturated oil reservoirs, the reservoir pressure is above the bubble-point pressure,
i.e., no initial gas cap, which reduces Equation 4-68 to:
ct=Soco+Swcw+cf
In general, the formation compressibility cf is the same order of magnitude as the
compressibility of the oil and water and, therefore, cannot be regulated.
Several authors have attempted to correlate the pore compressibility with various parameters
including the formation porosity. Hall (1953) correlated the pore compressibility with
porosity as given by the following relationship:
(4-69)ϕcf=1.782/ϕ0.43810−6
where
cf = formation compressibility, psi–1
ϕ = porosity, fraction
Newman (1973) used 79 samples for consolidated sandstones and limestones to develop a
correlation between the formation compressibility and porosity. The proposed
generalized hyperbolic form of the equation is:
ϕcf=a1+cbϕ
where
For consolidated sandstones
a = 97.32 × 10–6
b = 0.699993
c = 79.8181
For limestones
a = 0.8535
b = 1.075
c = 2.202 × 106
Example 4-17
Estimate the compressibility coefficient of a sandstone formation that is characterized by a
porosity of 0.2, using:
a.
Hall’s correlation
b.
Newman’s correlation
Solution
a.
Hall’s correlations:
cf=1.782/0.20.43810−6=3.606×10−6psi−1
b.
Newman’s correlation:
cf=97.32×10−61+0.69999379.81810.21/0.699993=2.74×10−6psi−1
View chapterPurchase book
Geotechnical Data and Pile Design
Mohamed A. El-Reedy Ph.D., in Offshore Structures, 2012
Skin Friction and End Bearing in Cohesive Soils
Traditionally, piles for an offshore structure platform are pipe pile. If the pipe pile
penetrates cohesive soils, the shaft friction, f (in kPa), at any point along the pile may be
calculated by:
(4.14)f=αc
where α = a dimensionless factor and c = undrained shear strength of the soil at the point in
question.
The factor α can be computed by:
(4.15)α=0.5ψ−0.5ψ≤1.0α=0.5ψ−0.25ψ>1.0
with the constraint that α ≤1.0, where ψ = c/p, for the point in question and p′ is the
effective overburden pressure at the point in question (in kPa). For underconsolidated clays,
clays with excess pore pressures undergoing active consolidation, α can usually be taken as
1.0.
The appropriate methods for determining the undrained shear strength, c, and effective
overburden pressure, p′, including the effects of various sampling and testing procedures, are
important. As the number of pile-load tests is not enough in soils having c/p′ ratios greater
than three, Equation (4.15) should be applied with some engineering judgment for high c/p′
values. The same engineering judgment should be applied for deep-penetrating piles in soils
with high undrained shear strength, c, where the computed shaft frictions, f, using Equation
4.14 above, are generally higher than previously specified in API RP2A. In the case of very
long piles, some reduction in pile capacity occurs, because the shaft friction may reduce to
some lesser residual value on continued displacement.
For piles end bearing in cohesive soils, the unit end bearing, q (in kPa), may be computed by:
(4.16)q=9c
It is obvious that in open-driven piles the shaft friction, f, acts on both the inside and outside
of the pile. The total resistance is the sum of the external shaft friction, the end bearing on the
pile wall annulus and the total internal shaft friction or the end bearing of the plug, whichever
is less.
If the pipe pile is considered to be plugged, the bearing pressure may be assumed to act over
the whole cross-section of the pile. For unplugged piles, the bearing pressure will be
calculated on the pile wall annulus only. Whether a pile is considered plugged or unplugged
may be based on static calculations. For example, a pile could be driven in an unplugged
condition but act plugged under static loading.
In some cases, piles are driven in undersized drilled holes, piles are jetted in place or (in some
minor projects) the piles are drilled and grouted in place. In these situations, the soil
disturbance resulting from installation will affect the shaft friction values. In general, f should
not exceed values for driven piles; however, in some cases for drilled and grouted piles in
overconsolidated clay, f may exceed these values.
In determining f for drilled and grouted piles, the strength of the soil-grout interface,
including potential effects of drilling mud, should be considered. As discussed by Kraft and
Lyons (1974), a further investigation and check should be made of the allowable bond stress
between the pile steel and the grout.
The shaft friction values, f, in the cohesive layers should be as given in Equation (4.14). End-
bearing values for piles tipped in cohesive layers with adjacent weaker layers may be as
given in Equation (4.16), assuming that the pile achieves penetration of two to three pile
diameters or more into the layer in question and the tip is approximately three pile diameters
above the bottom of the layer, to avoid punch through.
Some modification in the end-bearing resistance may be necessary if these distances are not
achieved.
View chapterPurchase book
Geophysical and Geotechnical Design
Jean M. Audibert, Jun Huang, in Handbook of Offshore Engineering, 2005
16.14.6 Pile Drivability Analyses and Monitoring
16.14.6.1 Soil Resistance To Driving
Computation of the soil resistance to pile driving is analogous to the computation of the
ultimate axial pile capacity by the static method. The resistance to driving is the sum of
the shaft resistance and the toe resistance. The shaft resistance is computed by multiplying
the average unit skin friction during driving and the embedded surface area of the pile. The
toe resistance is computed by multiplying the unit end bearing and the end bearing area.
Stevens, Wiltsie and Turton (1982) proposed computing the lower and the upper bound
values of soil resistance to driving for both the coring and the plugged pile conditions. When
a pile cores, relative movement between the pile and the soil occurs both on the outside and
inside of the pile wall. Skin friction is, therefore, developed on both the outside and the inside
pile wall. The end bearing area is equal to the cross-sectional area of steel at the pile toe.
When a pile plugs, the soil plug moves with the pile during driving. Skin friction is mobilised
only on the outer wall. The end bearing area is the gross area of the pile. The determination if
a pile is coring, partially plugged or plugged is based on the soil conditions and pile
acceleration. Plugging during continuous driving in cohesive soils is unlikely, as discussed
by Stevens (1988).
For piles driven in cohesive soils, Semple and Gemeinhardt (1981) recommended multiplying
the unit skin friction after full set-up by a pile capacity factor, such that:
fdr=Fpf
where:
fdr = unit skin friction during pile driving;
Fp = pile capacity factor; and
f= unit skin friction after full set-up.
A pile capacity factor (Fp) empirically determined from the wave equation analyses
performed for six sites is given by:
Fp=0.5(OCR)0.3
The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) is estimated using the equation:
Su/Sunc =(OCR)0.85
where:
Su = actual undrained shear strength of clay having a given PI; and
Sunc = undrained shear strength of the same clay, if normally consolidated at that
depth.
Also, according to a relationship developed by Skempton (1957), the undrained shear
strength of the same clay, if normally consolidated at that depth, can be estimated as follows:
Sunc = σ′vo(0.11 + 0.0037 PI)
where:
σ′vo = effective overburden pressure; and
PI = plasticity index.
For piles driven in granular soils, the upper bound plugged case is computed by increasing
the unit skin friction 30%, and the unit end bearing 50%. A corresponding increase in
limiting values for unit skin friction and unit end bearing is assumed.
16.14.6.2 Wave Equation Analyses
The GRLWEAP computer program, originally coded by Goble and Rausche (1986), is
recommended to calculate the predicted blow counts. Wave equation analysis of pile driving
is based on the discrete element idealisation of the hammer–pile–soil system formulated
by Smith (1962). The parameters used in the wave equation analyses can be divided into
three groups: (1) hammer parameters, (2) pile parameters and (3) soil parameters. These
parameters are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Hammer Parameters: The air/steam hammers are modelled by three segments: (1) the ram as
a weight with infinite stiffness, (2) the cushion as a weightless spring with finite stiffness, and
(3) the pile cap as a weight with infinite stiffness. The pile driving hammer is described by
(1) the rated hammer energy, (2) the efficiency of the hammer, (3) the weight of the ram, (4)
the weight of the pile cap, (5) the cushion stiffness, and (6) the coefficients of restitution for
the ram hitting the cushion and for the pile cap-pile contact. The rated energy and the weight
of the ram and pile cap are obtained from the manufacturer. The hammer efficiency and
cushion properties are either the measured driving system performance data (e.g. from in-
house databases) or published values. For hydraulic hammers, a cushion is not used. The ram
impacts directly on the pile cap. For diesel hammers, a thermodynamic analysis determines
the gas pressure in the combustion chamber during compression, combustion delay, ignition
and expansion, rather than assuming a constant pressure, and the hammer stroke is calculated
rather than using a prescribed value.
Pile Parameters: The pile is divided into an appropriate number of segments of
approximately equal length. Each pile segment is modelled as a weight and a spring. The pile
parameters consist of the diameter, the wall thickness schedule, modulus of elasticity of the
pile material, unit weight of the pile material, free-standing length of pile and penetration
below the seafloor.
Soil Parameters: The soil resistance is distributed along the side of each embedded element
and at the pile tip. During driving, the static component of resistance on each element is
represented by an elastic spring with a friction block used to represent the ultimate static
resistance. The dynamic component of resistance is modelled by a dashpot. There are
essentially three soil parameters used in the wave equation analyses. These parameters are (1)
the quake (also referred to as the elastic ground compression) for the side and tip of the pile,
(2) the damping coefficient for the side and tip of the pile and (3) the percentage of the total
resistance to driving at the pile tip.
The soil quake and damping parameters recommended by Roussel (1979) can be used in the
wave equation analyses. These parameters were determined from a comprehensive
correlation study performed for large-diameter offshore piles in which the driving records of
58 piles at 15 offshore sites in the Gulf of Mexico were analysed. The side and the tip quake
are assumed equal, with a magnitude of 0.10 in. for stiff to hard clay, silt and sand. Side
damping in clay decreases with increasing shear strength, which is in agreement with the
laboratory test results of Coyle and Gibson (1970) and Heerema (1979). Tip damping of 0.15
s/ft is recommended for firm to hard clay, silt and sand.
Difference Equations: The equations of motion for the idealised system are written in finite
difference form. The pile–soil system is assumed to be at rest with no residual effects from
previous blows. The response of the pile under one hammer blow is desired. The
computations proceed as follows:
(1)
the impact velocity of the ram is calculated and other time-dependent quantities are
initialised so as to satisfy static equilibrium;
(2)
displacements are calculated for each mass;
(3)
compressions of internal springs, forces in internal springs, forces exerted by external
soil springs, accelerations and velocities are calculated for each mass; and
(4)
the cycle is repeated for successive time intervals.
16.14.6.3 Pile Installation Considerations
During driving, it will be necessary to interrupt driving operations in order to make pile add-
ons or change hammers. Interruptions of driving operations may last six to eight hours.
Delays on the order of several days may result from bad weather or equipment breakdown.
During this time, many clays will gain strength as excess pore pressures dissipate and soil
particles reorient themselves. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as set-up (see
discussion in subsection 6.2.5). A similar phenomenon may also occur in fine-grained
granular deposits. Upon redriving piles after some set-up has occurred, increased blow counts
may be experienced. Due to set-up, soil resistance to driving at the beginning of driving may
increase to the point of refusal. It is suggested that the driving programme be planned so as to
reduce the number and duration of delays in order to reduce the set-up of the soil around the
piles.
View chapterPurchase book
Geotechnical data and pile design
Mohamed Abdallah El-Reedy Ph.D., in Offshore Structures (Second Edition), 2020
Shaft friction and end bearing in cohesionless soils
A simple method for assessing pile capacity in cohesionless soils will be discussed. There are
reliable methods for predicting pile capacity that are based on direct correlations of pile unit
friction and end-bearing data with cone penetration test (CPT) results. The CPT-based
methods have been discussed in depth recently in many researches and it was found that it
provided good results from a statistical point of view as the results almost coincide with pile-
load test results and, although they are not required, they are, in principle, the preferred
methods. CPT-based methods also cover a wider range of cohesionless soils. As the
experience of CPT in offshore structures is limited and increases only in the last 30 years, it
should be applied only by competent engineers who are experienced in the interpretation of
CPT data and understand the limitations and reliability of the methods. It also may require
putting pile-driving instrumentation data systems to use to provide greater confidence in our
calculating capacities.
For pipe piles in cohesionless soils, the unit shaft friction at a given depth, f, may be
calculated by:
(4.17)f=βp'
where β is a shaft friction factor and p′ is the effective overburden pressure.
In the case of open-ended piles driven unplugged, Table 4.10 may be used for selection
of β if there are no available data. In the case of plugged piles, values of β can be obtained
also from Table 4.10 but its values are increased by 25%.
Table 4.10. Pile-capacity factor of safety in API RP2A (2007).

Load condition Factor of safety

Design environmental conditions with appropriate drilling loads 1.5
Operating environmental conditions during drilling operations 2.0
Design environmental conditions with appropriate producing loads 1.5
Operating environmental conditions during producing operations 2. 0
Design environmental conditions with minimum loads (for pullout) 1.5
From q practical point of view in the case of long piles, the skin friction cannot increase
linearly with the overburden pressure, as per Eq. (4.17) for infinity, so the limit of the skin
friction value, f, should be as stated in Table 4.10.
From the following equation the end-bearing capacity for piles in cohesionless soils can be
calculated:
(4.18)q=Nqp′
where Nq=a dimensionless bearing capacity factor and p′=effective overburden pressure at
the depth in question.
Recommended Nq values are also presented in Table 4.9.
In the case of long piles, q may not increase linearly with the overburden pressure, which is
different to that the stated in Eq. (4.18). In such cases, it may be appropriate to limit q to the
values given in Table 4.9. For plugged piles, the unit end bearing q acts over the whole cross-
section of the pile. For unplugged piles, q is calculated by considering the area of annulus of
the pile only. Based on that the pile internal skin friction shall be considered in pile capacity
calculation.
The design parameters in Table 4.9 are just a guide from API RP2A, and detailed information
must be obtained from the CPT results, strength tests, and other soil and pile response tests.
The soil condition is identified based on the relative density, as shown in Table 4.5.
Olson (1987) compared the load test data for piles in sand (obtained by measuring the axial
load capacities for open steel piles) and the calculated capacity from API RP2A. Studies done
in 2005 by Lehane indicate that variability in capacity predictions using the API calculation
method may exceed those for piles in clay. These researches also indicated that the
calculation method is conservative for short offshore piles [short=piles less than 45 m
(150 ft.) long] in dense to very dense sands loaded in compression and may be
unconservative in all other conditions. In unfamiliar situations, the designer may want to
account for this uncertainty through a selection of conservative design parameters or by going
toward higher factors of safety.
In the case of soil types that do not have characteristic values that fall within the ranges of
soil density and the description given in Table 4.9, or for materials with unusually weak
grains or compressible structure, Table 4.9 will be not suitable to consider in selecting design
parameters. A special laboratory or field tests are required to obtain the design parameters as
in the case of very loose silts or soils containing large amounts of mica or volcanic grains, or
sands containing calcium carbonate, which are found extensively in many areas of the
oceans. From a practical point of view, it suggests that driven piles in these types of soils may
provide lower design strength parameters than those described in Table 4.9.
On the other hand, drilled and grouted piles in carbonate sand may have significantly higher
capacities than driven piles and have been used successfully in many areas with carbonate
soils. The characteristics of carbonate sands are highly variable and the experience of the
behavior of this type of soil in the location of the platform will be the main factor in obtaining
the design parameters which will be used.
It is worth mentioning that for carbonate soils with higher quartz content and higher densities
the pile capacity can be improved.
However, the cementation may increase the pile end-bearing capacity but there are losses
in lateral pressure which reduce the pile skin friction capacity.
Except the unusual soil types, which are discussed above, the f and q values given in Table
4.9 may be used for drilled and grouted piles, with consideration given to the strength of the
soil–grout interface.
The unit shaft friction values in cohesionless layers and the end-bearing values for
cohesionless layers are presented in Table 4.9, provided that the pile penetrates into
the cohesionless soil layer more than 2–3D, in which D is the pile diameter, and the tip is at
least 3D above the bottom of the layer, to avoid punching this layer.
View chapterPurchase book
Geotechnical data and piles design
Mohamed A. El-Reedy Ph.D., in Marine Structural Design Calculations, 2015
6.6.1.2 Shaft friction and end bearing in cohesionless soils
This section provides a simple method for assessing pile capacity in cohesionless soils. There
are reliable methods for predicting pile capacity that are based on direct correlations of pile
unit friction and end-bearing data with cone penetration test results. The CPT-based methods
are considered fundamentally better, have shown statistically closer predictions of pile-load
test results, and although not required, they are, in principle, the preferred methods. CPT-
based methods also cover a wider range of cohesionless soils. However, offshore experience
with CPT methods is limited, and hence, more experience is needed before they are
recommended for routine design. CPT-based methods should be applied only by qualified
engineers who are experienced in the interpretation of CPT data and understand the
limitations and reliability of the methods. Following installation, pile-driving instrumentation
data may be used to give more confidence in predicted capacities.
For pipe piles in cohesionless soils, the unit shaft friction at a given depth, f, may be
calculated by
(6.15)βf=βp′
where β=a dimensionless shaft friction factor and p′=effective overburden pressure at the
depth in question.
Table 6.7 may be used for selection of β values for open-ended pipe piles driven unplugged if
other data are not available. Values of β for full-displacement piles (i.e., driven fully plugged
or closed ended) may be assumed to be 25% higher than those given in Table 6.11. For long
piles, f may not increase linearly with the overburden pressure, as implied by equation (6.15).
In such cases, it may be appropriate to limit f to the values given in Table 6.9.
Table 6.11. Relation between the axial deflection to pile diameter ratio and percentage of end-bearing capacity

Pile axial deflection for different pile diameters, mm

z/D Q/Q p

24″ 36″ 48″

0.002 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.25
0.013 7.9 11.9 15.8 0.50
0.042 25.6 38.4 51.2 0.75
0.073 44.5 66.8 89 0.90
0.100 61 91.4 121.9 1.00
Note: z=axial tip deflection (in mm), D=pile diameter (in mm), Q=mobilized end-bearing capacity (in lb or KN)
and Qp=total end bearing (in lb or KN).

Table 6.9. Pile-capacity factor of safety in API RP2A (2007)

Load condition Factor of safety

Design environmental conditions with appropriate drilling loads 1.5
Operating environmental conditions during drilling operations 2.0
Design environmental conditions with appropriate producing loads 1.5
Operating environmental conditions during producing operations 2. 0
Design environmental conditions with minimum loads (for pullout) 1.5
For pile end bearings in cohesionless soils, the unit end bearing q may be calculated by
(6.16)q=Nqp′
where Nq=a dimensionless bearing capacity factor and p′=effective overburden pressure at
the depth in question. Recommended Nq values are also presented in Table 6.7.
For long piles, q may not increase linearly with the overburden pressure, as implied
by equation (6.16). In such cases, it may be appropriate to limit q to the values given in Table
6.9. For plugged piles, the unit end bearing q acts over the entire cross section of the pile. For
unplugged piles, q acts on the pile annulus only. In this case, additional resistance is offered
by friction between the soil plug and the inner pile wall.
Whether a pile is considered to be plugged or unplugged may be based on static calculations
using a unit skin friction on the soil plug equal to the outer skin friction. It is noted that a pile
could be driven in an unplugged condition but can act plugged under static loading.
The design parameters in Table 6.9 are just a guide from API RP2A, and detailed information
must be obtained from the CPT results, strength tests, and other soil and pile response tests.
Olson (1987) compared the load test data for piles in sand (obtained by measuring the axial
load capacities for open steel piles) and the calculated capacity from API RP2A. Studies done
by Lehane et al. (2005a, 2005b) indicate that variability in capacity predictions using the API
calculation method may exceed those for piles in clay. These researchers also indicated that
the calculation method is conservative for short offshore piles (short=piles less than 45 m, or
150 ft, long) in dense to very dense sands loaded in compression and may not be conservative
in all other conditions. In unfamiliar situations, the designer may want to account for this
uncertainty through a selection of conservative design parameters or by going toward higher
factors of safety.
For soils that do not fall within the ranges of soil density and descriptions given in Table
6.7 or for materials with unusually weak grains or compressible structure, Table 6.7 may not
be appropriate for selection of design parameters. For example, very loose silts or soils
containing large amounts of mica or volcanic grains may require special laboratory or field
tests for selection of design parameters. Of particular importance are sands
containing calcium carbonate, which are found extensively in many ocean areas. Experience
suggests that driven piles in these soils may have substantially lower design strength
parameters rather than those described in Table 6.9.
Drilled and grouted piles in carbonate sand may have significantly higher capacities than
driven piles and have been used successfully in many areas with carbonate soils. The
characteristics of carbonate sands are highly variable and local experience should dictate the
design parameters selected. For example, experience suggests that capacity is improved in
carbonate soils of high densities and higher quartz contents.
Cementation may increase end-bearing capacity but result in a loss of lateral pressure and a
corresponding decrease in frictional capacity.
For piles driven in undersized drilled or jetted holes in cohesionless soils, the values
of f and q should be determined by some reliable method that accounts for the amount of soil
disturbance due to installation, but they should not exceed values for driven piles. Except in
unusual soil types, such as described previously, the f and q values given in Table 6.7 may be
used for drilled and grouted piles, with consideration given to the strength of the soil-grout
interface.
In layered soils, unit shaft friction values in cohesionless layers and the end-bearing values
for piles tipped in cohesionless layers with adjacent layers of lower strength may also be
taken from Table 6.7, provided that the pile achieves penetration of two to three diameters or
more into the cohesionless layer, and the tip is at least three diameters above the bottom of
the layer, to preclude punch-through. Where these pile tip penetrations are not achieved,
some modification in the tabulated values may be necessary. Where adjacent layers are of
comparable strength to the layer of interest, the proximity of the pile tip to the layer
interface is not a concern.
View chapterPurchase book
Experience of Consolidation Process from Test Areas
with and without Vertical Drains
Sven Hansbo, in Ground Improvement Case Histories, 2015
Vagnhärad vacuum test
Torstensson (1984) reported an interesting full-scale test in which consolidation of the clay
was achieved by the vacuum method. The subsoil at the test site consists of postglacial clay
to a depth of 3 m and below this of varved glacial clay to a depth of 9 m underlain by silt.
The clay is slightly overconsolidated with a preconsolidation pressure about 5–20 kPa higher
than the effective overburden pressure. The coefficient of consolidation ch was found equal to
0.95 m2/year and the average virgin compression ratio CR equal to 0.7 (max. 1.0).
The vacuum area, 12 m square, was first covered by a sand/gravel layer 0.2 m in thickness,
and then by a Baracuda membrane, which was buried to 1.5 m depth along the border of the
test area and sealed by means of a mixture of bentonite and silt.
Mebradrains (dw = 0.066 m) were installed in a square pattern with 1.0 m spacing to a depth
of 10 m. The equivalent diameter of the mandrel dm = 0.096 m. The average under-pressure
achieved by the vacuum pump was 85 kPa. After 67 days, the vacuum process was stopped
and then resumed after 6 months of rest. From the shape of the settlement curve (Fig. 2.21),
Asaoka’s method yields the correlation si = 0.0756 + 0.9075si–1, from which sp = 0.82 m. This
value is low with regard to the loading conditions and the compression characteristics. This is
mainly because the applied vacuum effect is not fully achieved in the drains. Thus, the
primary settlement of 0.82 m corresponds to a vacuum effect of about 35 kPa (▵h = 3.5 m).
Another reason may be that the test area is too small as compared to the thickness of the clay
layer.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 2.21. Results of settlement observations at Vagnhärad, Sweden. Consolidation by vacuum. 1.0 m drain

spacing (D = 1.13 m). EOP = end of primary consolidation settlement estimated according to Asaoka’s

method. Full lines: analytical results according to non-Darcian flow, Eq. (2.19), with λ = 0.95 m /year
2

and n = 1.5. Broken lines: analytical results according to Darcian flow, Eq. (2.18), with c  = 2.4 m /year.
h
2
The theoretical settlement curve in this case has to be determined in two steps, the first one
up to a loading time of 67 days leading to a then settlement s1=U¯h1sp. In the next load step,
starting again from the time of resumption of the application of vacuum, the remaining
primary settlement is obtained from the relation Δs=U¯hsp–s1, such that the remaining
settlement equals st=s1+U¯htsp–s1 where t starts from the time of resumption of the
application of vacuum. In this case, where vacuum is applied to create underpressure in the
drains, the effect of vertical one-dimensional consolidation is eliminated.
Inserting the values D = 1.13 m, dw = 0.066 m, ds = 0.19 m, kh/ks=κh/κs=4, and Δh¯ = 3.5 m
into Eqs. (2.18) and (2.19), the best agreement between theory and observations is found
for ch = 2.4 m2/year and λ = 0.95 m2/year (Fig. 2.21). Even in this case, the λ theory agrees
better with observations than the classical theory.
Inserting the maximum value Δh¯ = 3.5 m into Eq. (2.13) yields imax = 7.3, and inserting the
values ch = 2.4 m2/year and imax = 7.3 into Eq. (2.15) yields λ = 1.1 m2/year. The
value λ = 0.95 m2/year corresponds according to Eq. (2.15) to imax = 9.9. Assuming il = 5, the
value of imax, derived from Eq. (2.16), becomes respectively 7.7 instead of 7.3 and 11.8
instead of 9.9.
View chapterPurchase book
Probabilistic Design Methods as Applied to High
Capacity Grouted Anchors
E. STEMSHORN, in Probabilistic Methods Applied to Electric Power Systems, 1987
PRELIMINARY ANCHOR TESTING PROGRAM
After reviewing the various anchor designs used by other Canadian utilities as well as those
recommended by several other authors (Adams & Klym, 1973; Brown, 1970; Ostermayer,
1974; Rice & Hanna, 1981), it was quite evident that there is a large discrepancy in both
anchor design philosophy and the estimated bond strength for similar materials. It was also
realized that the anchoring in the fractured bedrock was unique. These discrepancies led
TransAlta to believe that a complete anchor development program was necessary prior to the
beginning of construction of this line.
The objectives of this program were;
1)
Determine the applicable anchor bond theories that suited the various soil and rock
types encountered.
2)
Determine the soil or rock properties that control the anchor design, their values and
their variation.
3)
Develop a suitable production anchor testing program.
The stratigraphy on this segment of line was idealized into four units, and combinations of
these units;
—
glaciolacustrine clay
—
clay till
—
sand and gravel
—
 bedrock
These units are based on the applicable theory, the anticipated anchor behavior and the
magnitude of the bond strength.
For all anchor types, the required bond length (Lb) may be determined by the following
expression;
(1)πLb=SF×UDLπ×d×Tf
where Lb =required anchor bond length in m
SF =safety factor =2,0
UDL =ultimate design load =347 kN
d =effective grout column diameter =0.23 m
Tf =failure bond stress in kPa
Glaciolacustrine Clays In the analysis of the failure bond for drilled anchors
in cohesive soils, it is common practice to express the mobilized failure bond of the
soil (Tf) as a fraction of the undrained shear strength (Cu) of the material. This ratio is
defined by the coefficient α.
(2)αTf = α × cu
Agreement is generally good, however the scatter of individual results is large
reflecting the difficulty of measuring the soils undrained shear strength, the various
construction methods, and the empirical nature of the ratio. Work by several
researchers (Tomlinson, 1957; Skempton, 1959; Somerville, 1980; Robinson &
Taylor, 1969) indicates the values of α used in design has generally varied between
0.3 and 0.6.
The soil investigation identified the mean undrained shear strength to be 80 kPa with
a coefficient of variation of 53.5 percent. For the clay anchors tested, based on the 3
tests, α was estimated to have a mean value of 0.88 and a coefficient of variation of 42
percent.
Glacial Till And Sand And Gravel Deposits In analyzing the performance of grouted
anchors in granular soils, an effective overburden pressure theory is generally used.
Pullout resistance is generated from friction mobilized on the surface of the grout
column. The skin friction (Tf) can be defined as:
(3)γφTf = kn × γ × d × tan φ
where Tf =average failure shaft friction, kPa
Kn =the ratio of effective stress normal to the shaft surface to the average vertical
effective stress
γ=average soil density over the bond length, kN/m3
d =average depth in soil over the bond length, m
φ =the mobilized friction angle which is generally taken as the angle of internal
friction of the soil (Φ)
simplifying the expression:
(4)γφTf = β × γ × d   where β=kn × tan φ
For a vertical drilled shaft, the minimum value of Kn can be assumed to be the
horizontal stress coefficient at rest, Ko, (Ko =Kactive =tan2(45 −Φ/2)). The value of
Ko increases with the degree of overconsolidation (Brooker & Ireland, 1965), and
intuitively the value of β would increase with the degree of overconsolidation. The β
term is also a function of construction procedure. Therefore the value of β like the α
 térm can only be determined empirically. Work by several researchers (Burland,
1973; Robinson & Taylor, 1969; Adams & Klym, 1972) suggest that the value of β
used in design varies from 0.8 to 3.0.
The soils investigation identified the mean soil bulk density to be 19.3 kN/m3 with a
coefficient of variation of 25%. For the clay till anchors, based on 6 tests, the mean
value of β was determined to be 1.55 and the coefficient of variation is 30%.
Although none of the sand and gravel test anchors provided reliable information on
the bond strength, an estimate of the failure bond and its variability were made using
the effective overburden method, and the common friction angle (Φ) and bulk density
versus blow count relationships. The mean soil bulk density was established as 22.0
kN/m3 with a coefficient of variability of 36%. A mean β value of 1.05 and a
coefficient of variation of 36% were estimated.
Bedrock Bond values in bedrock are difficult to estimate due to the variability of the
rock. Unconfined compressive tests are only possible on relatively competent rock
samples. Therefore the design bond was based on the weakest rock encountered ie.
very low strength mudstone. A review of the bond values in rock was conducted
by Littlejohn & Bruce (1975). For low strength mudstones working bond values were
generally greater than 150 kPa. Pile tests conducted in the Calgary area in similar rock
(EBA Eng., 1983; Burgess & Eisenstein, 1977) indicated concrete to rock bonds in
the order of 200 to 300 kPa. In view of the many unknowns, it was decided that a
theoretical analysis was not justified. A bond strength in rock of 250 kPa was adopted.
Assuming the bond strength varied as the compressive strength of the rock, a
coefficient of variation of 100% was adopted for the bond strength. It was also
realized that production testing of rock would have to be carefully monitored initially
to confirm the estimated bond strength, and to establish the variability.
View chapterPurchase book
Design, construction and installation of support
structures for offshore wind energy systems
K. Lesny, W. Richwien, in Wind Energy Systems, 2011
Steel framework structures
The design parameters of the axially loaded piles used to fix steel framework structures to the
seabed are the pile diameter, the embedment length in the soil and the wall thickness.
The characteristic resistance of a compression pile in the ultimate limit state is calculated
with the characteristic values of base resistance and shaft friction:
[16.9]R1,k=qb1,k⋅Ab+∫zqs1,kz⋅Aszdz
where qb1,k is the characteristic value of the pile base resistance, qs1,k(z) the characteristic value
of the local pile shaft friction in depth z, Ab is the base area and As the shaft area of the pile
referred to the relevant diameter. With tension piles only the pile shaft resistance is
considered.
The characteristic value of the base resistance of cohesive soils in the defined contact area
depends on the undrained shear strength cu,k of the soil:
[16.10]qb1,k=Nc0⋅cu,k
The bearing capacity coefficient Nc0 is usually assumed to be Nc0 = 9.The base resistance of
non-cohesive soil is:
[16.11]qb1,k=σv′⋅Nd0≤qb1,k,max
with the effective vertical stress σ′v and the bearing capacity factor Nd0. Table 16.1 includes
the bearing capacity factor Nd0 and limit values of the base resistance qb1,k,max for various types
of soil.
Table 16.1. Interface friction angle δ , bearing capacity factor N
k d0 , and maximum values of base resistance qb1,k,max and shaft

friction qs1,k,max in non-cohesive soils according to DNV (1992) and API (2000)

Soil δ  [°] q
k s1,k,max  [kN/m ] N  [−] q
2
d0 b1,k,max  [MN/m ]2

Very loose sand, loose sand-silt, 15 47.8 8 1.9

medium dense silt
Loose sand, medium dense sand-silt, 20 67.0 12 2.9
dense silt
Medium dense sand, dense sand-silt 25 81.3 20 4.8
Dense sand, very dense sand-silt 30 95.7 40 9.6
Dense gravel, very dense sand 35 114.8 50 12.0
The inner and outer shaft friction of the pile is determined either on the basis of total stresses
(α-method), effective stresses (β-method) or as a combination of both (λ-method).
For cohesive soils the α-method is often used which is based on the undrained shear strength
of the soil cu,k (z):
[16.12]qs1,kz=α⋅cu,kz
The parameter α is defined according to DNV (1992) and API (2000) as:
[16.13]α=0.5⋅cu,kσv′−ψ≤1.0with:Ψ={0.5forcu,k/σv′≤1.00.25forcu,k/σv′>1.0
In the β-method, which is used for non-cohesive soils but is assumed to be more suitable for
cohesive soils as well (see Burland, 1973; Meyerhof, 1976), the shaft friction is derived from
the effective overburden pressure σv′:
[16.14]qs1,kz=K⋅tanδk⋅σv′z
where K is the earth pressure coefficient and tan δk the interface friction angle which is
usually δk ≈ φk′. For larger displacements, however, the residual shear strength of the soil is
more appropriate, i.e. δk = φres,k (see Randolph, 1983). For normally consolidated soils K is
derived from an increased earth pressure at rest K0 (Meyerhof, 1976):
[16.15]K=1.5⋅K0
For over-consolidated cohesive soils Mayne and Kulhawy (in Randolph and Murphy, 1985)
relate K to the overconsolidation ratio OCR:
[16.16]K=1.5⋅K0⋅OCRsinφk′
For non-cohesive soils a simple definition of K is given in DNV (1992) and API (2000) with
an upper limit of the shaft friction according to Table 16.1:
[16.17]‐K={0.8openpipepileswithoutsoilplug1.0openpipeplieswithsoilplugorclosed‐
endedpipe
In the λ-method (Vijayvergiya and Focht, 1972) the average shaft friction is a function of the
average values of the effective vertical stress σ¯v′ and the undrained shear strength c¯u,k:
[16.18]q¯s1,k=λσ¯v′+2⋅c¯u,k
The parameter λ is defined, for example, by Kraft et al. (1981), as a function of the pile-soil
stiffness Ks:
[16.19a]‐forNCclays:λ=0.178‐0.0.16lnKs
[16.19b]‐forOCclays:λ=0.232‐0.032lnKs
[16.19c]with:Ks=π⋅D⋅q1s,k,max⋅L2EApile⋅tmax
where D and L are the pile diameter and embedment length, respectively, EA the axial
stiffness of the pile, q1s,k,max the maximum shaft friction and tmax the displacement necessary to
mobilize it.
Beside these methods, procedures have been developed in recent years in which the pile
bearing capacity is derived from site investigations. The best known procedures are based on
the cone tip resistance qc k measured in a cone penetration test (CPT).
With the CPT-based procedures it is assumed that the cone penetrometer corresponds to a
model pile. The following values for base resistance and shaft friction are recommended by,
for example, Toolan & Fox (1977), Young (1991) and DNV (1992):
[16.20a]qb1,k={0.7⋅qc,kOCR=2−40.5⋅qc,kOCR=6−10≤15MN/m2
[16.20b]qb1,k≈{qc,k/300≤120kN/m2compressionqc,k/400tension
More detailed procedures for determining the pile bearing capacity are described in Jardine et
al. (2005), Lehane et al. (2005), Clausen et al. (2005) and Kolk et al. (2005).
The CPT-based procedures are a clear improvement compared to the aforementioned
standard design procedures. However, comparisons with the results of static pile load tests
show that, especially with pipe piles, the results are influenced by the way that a possible
plugging of the soil inside the pile is considered (see discussion in Jardine et al., 2005;
Clausen et al., 2005; Lehane et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2005). As a result, it is currently difficult
to reliably predict the pile bearing capacity with any of the procedures presented here.
For the consideration of possible pile group effects reference is made to, for example, Poulos
and Davis (1980) for axially loaded piles and Brown et al. (1988), Remaud et
al. (1998), McVay et al. (1998) amongst others for laterally loaded piles.
View chapterPurchase book
Recommended publications


Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
Journal
 
Computers and Geotechnics
Journal


Soils and Foundations
Journal


Ocean Engineering
Journal
Browse books and journals

 About ScienceDirect
 Remote access
 Shopping cart
 Advertise
 Contact and support
 Terms and conditions
 Privacy policy
We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By
continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a
registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.