Design Guides For Offshore Structures

pare DESIGN GUIDES FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES Co-ordinated by the CLAROM (Gab des Actions de Recharche sur luz Ouwagos on Mer Edited by Pierre Le Tirant 1982 EDITIONS TECHNIP 27 RUE GINOUX 75737 pais cesex +5 technild©1982 Eattone Techip. Pais ight resrved. No paral te pbtcnen may be rprofiene ansidinary frm ty ay mea, scr wcrc ny ploy. arg, ary momaaN ‘trag andvava stom wnat pss nen ees te pasar Isa 2710806142 SSN 0085-1821 Prot a France by Cla Edons, £4846 Salt Hes FOREWORD The collection of “Design Guides for Offshore Structeres” offers the petroleum industry the practical information required in the different stages of project, from design to exccution: determination of the environmental cha~ acteristics 10 be accounted for in load calculations, choice and design of the foundations en¢ anchoring systems, computation procedures for estimating the behavior of the structures and to predict their service life, specific proportios of the materials (steel or concrete) in very severe service conditions ‘The Design Guides are not regulations, and do hot claim to supplant the standards, codes and regulations of the classification societies or the national regutations, However, the regulations could refer to the Design Guides in so fa as the Guides incorporate the latest scientific and technical advan- es in the areas concerned. ‘The Design Guides also focus largely on the examination of the grounds for the regulatory provisions whose areas of validity need to be clarified, and which sometimes impose computation procedures and fabrication methods ‘without specific justification Finally, the Design Guides offer engineers invaluable aid in consolidating the scientific and technical basis andeslying the arrangements they propose within the framework of the regulations in force. z ‘These Design Guides have been prepared by Reseaich Associations on Off- shore Structures formed since 1970 on the initiative of the Institut Frangais, dy Pétrole (IFP), and the Institut Frangais de Recherche pour !'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), with the participation of the French oil companies and several petroleam equipment and service contractors. These Associations fare now grouped together in the CLAROM (CLub des Actions de Recherche sur les Ouvrages en Mer or Club for Research Activities on Offshore Struc- ures) For the design of foundation and anchoring offshore structures, the practical information compiled by the “Association de Recherche en Géotechniquevi —w Marine” (ARGEMA), with the collaboration of many specialists, led to the writing of four Design Guides: + Anchoring of Floating Structures. + Offshore Pile Design. + Foundations in Carbonate Soils. + Stability and Operation of Jackups. Design Guide on “Offshore Pile Design” brings to the attention of project engincers involved in this area all the required background information, based on a critical analysis of the state-of-the-art and on ret search results. It offers, firstly, detailed geiaclines for each different phase of a pile Aesign project. i then presents the main pile design methods, both current and proposed, dealing particularly with the recoriimendations of the API and the evolution of these recommendations over recent years. Finally it puts at the disposition of the project engineer the geotechnical informa tion necessary to carry out the project. The performances of the methods of design are confronted with the results of pile tests, and their application is illustrated by a number of sample calculations, We hope that this Design Guide will satisfy the needs of project engineers faced with the wie variety of offshore pile projects, and that it will ac- cordingly help 10 chance the design and safely of offshore structures, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Design Guide “Offshore Pile Design” is the result cf the collective efforts of an ARGEMA Working Group lead by A. Goulois (SNEA()), ‘Tne original document has been produced by J-P. Bécue (previously with Géodia). This Design Guide could not have been compiled without the active and continuous co-operation of many specialists of pile design and offshore struc: lure installation, who devoted a large share of their time by participating in the many meetings of the Working Group, by providing written or oral contributions Working. Group LP. Béoue (previously T.Le Xuan (ETPM) with Géodia) A. Longueval_ (BOS) D. Berdin (Bureau Veritas) J. Meunier (IFREMER) F Brucy CEP) R. Nahra (previously. with P. Boisard (SNEA(®)) Géodia) LP. Crespin — (SNEA(P)) IF.Nauroy (FP) G. Byers (Solétanche) A. Puech (Géodia) FC. Ferrari Cintessub) P! Schmitt (Solmarine) MGambin (Solétanche) F. Tavenas (previously with A. Goulois (SNEA(®)) Univ. Laval-Québec) UP. Kervadee (Total) W.Zawisza (previously with PiLeTiram (IP) DORIS) F, Baguelin (previously with LPC), M. Fahey (Univ. Western Australia) and CR. Golightly (previously in post-doctoral year at IFP) kindly revised the manuscript. ‘They all deserve grateful thanks of CLAROM. CLAROM would also like 10 thank N. Lemoine for typing the manuscript, and G. Thibaud for preparing the illusteationsTABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword. Acknowledgements Sat Table of Contents Natice INTRODUCTION. Chapter 1 PILE DESIGN: BASIC GUIDELINES L.1_ Pile Design P:2paration Z 1.1.1 Compilation of Basie Data 111d Structure... et 1.1.1.2 Loads and Loading Conditions 1113 Soit Beeb eee 1.1.2 Cnoice of Design Criteti8 n.s.ennseanmnnnne 1.1.2.1 Rules, National Codes and Recommendations, 1.1.2.2 Lumped and Partial Safety Factors 1.1.3 Influence of the Pile Installation Method 1.1.3.4. Driven Piles 1.1.3.2 Drilled and Grouted Piles. vin x xx[ I 1.2. Pile Desi 13 42a Pile Design Methods and Choice of Di Parameters 134 132 133 134 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS m Stops, Ultimate Pile Capacities 1.2.1.1 Neutralized Pile Height 12.1.2 Ulimate Pile Capacity in Compression 1.2.1.3 Ultimate Pile Capacity in Tension... 1.2.1.4 Progressive Failure 1.2.1.5 Design Assumptions. 1.2.1.6 Layers of Difesest Soils Near the Tip 1.2.17 Pile Grovps.. 12.1.8 Cyctie and Earthquake Loading Vertical Pile Displacements senmnsnnnmnenense 1.2.2.1 Purpose of Evaluating Vertical Displacements. 1.2.2.2 Methodology for Evaluating Vertical Displacements. Cohesive Soils 1.3.1.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils 1.3.1.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Scils Cohesionless Siliccous $0HlS msn 1.3.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Soils 1.3.22 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils Calcarcous Sands. 1.3.3.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Calcareous Sands 1.3.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous Sands cer ted Caicareous Formations. 1.3.4.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cemented Calcateous Formations. Po W ” 8 2 23 4 28 30 31 32 32 32 3 3 33 36 36 36 39 40 40 a 2a as TeRLE ne CONTENTS 1.3.4.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cemented Calearcous Formations. Rock 1.3.5.1. Skin Friction of Piles in Rock 13.5.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Rock... Chapter 2 DESIGN METHODS API Method 2a Specific Use of the API Method 21d. Use of the API Method... Dit Salery Factors of the APIRP 2A - WSD Method on 2.1.3 Pile Resistance Factors of the API RP 2A - LRFD Method Pile Design in Cohesive Soils ot 2.1.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils Recommendations of APT 1991 2.1.2.2 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils: Recommendations of API 1986, 24.23 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils 2.1.2.4 Design of Piles Using Spevitic Installation Techniques. 2.1.2.5 Comments on the Recommendations of API 1986 and API 1991 Pile Design in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils. 2.1.3.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils 2.1.1.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils 24.3.3 Design of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques x a “6 “8 “a 49 49 “9 49 50 st 31 54 56 58 38 60 6 oo 66xit TASLE OF CONTENTS: 2.1.3.4 Characterization of Cohesionless Siliceous Soiis According to API 1991 DABS Dis ion of the Recommendations DIA Pile Design on Rock at 2.1.4.1 Skin Friction of Drilled and Growted Piles in Rock 214.2 Tip Resistance of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Rock 2.2, DNY Method. 2.2.1 Specific Use of the DNV Method. 2.2.1.1 Limit State Calculation venwnon: 2.2.1.2 Geotechnical Parameters 2.2.2 Design Resistance of the Pile, L 2.2.2.1 Compressive Resistance. 2.2.2.2 Tensile Resistance... 2.23 Pile Design in Cohesive Soils.. 2.2.3.1 Skin Friction... 2.2.3.2 Tip Resistance... 2.24 Pile Design in Cohesionless Siliccous Soils 2.2.4.1 Skin Friction 2.2.4.2 Tip Resistance 2.3 Alpha Method of Semple and Rigden 2.3.1 Specific Use and Reliability of the Semple and Rigden ($R) Method ... 23.1.1 Application of the SR Method. 2.3.1.2 Geotechnical Parameters .. 2.3.1.3 Reliability of the SR Method General Formulation of the Semple and Rigden Method 2.3.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils 66 o n a a a n n 2 2 24 25 26 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.2.2 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils With $aNd LAYEES sno 7 2.3.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils Alpha Method of Randolph and Murphy. 2... 2.4.1 Specific Use and Reliability of the Randolph and Murphy (RM) Method... 24.1.1 Application of the RM Method .. 24.1.2 Reliability of the RM Method 2.4.2 General Formulation of the Randolph snd Murphy Method.. 2.4.2.1 Skin Frietion in Cohesive Soils.. 2.4.2.2 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils Beta Method 2.5.1 Specific Use of the B Method 2.5.1.1 Specificity of the B Method 2.5.1.2. Application of the B Method 2.5.2 General Formul of the B Method 2.5.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils... 2.5.2.2 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soils with Sand Layers . 2.5.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils 2.5.3 Detailed Effective Stress Methods. 2.5.3.1 Estimate of Effective $t2e8828 son cononn 2.5.3.2 Reliability of Effective Stress Methods Lambda Method. 2.6.1 Specific Use and Reiiability of the 2 Method .. 2.6.1.1 Specificity of the & Method 2.6.1.2 Application of the 2 Method 2.6.1.3 Reliability of the & Method xi i a4 a5 85 85 85 8s 85 w 8 a8 es a8 8 a En a 92 92 s2 93 93 3 93 9axv TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS xv ; 2.6.2 General Formulation of the 4 Method 94 2.9.1.1 Behavior of Piles in Calcareous Formations: na ' 2.6.2.1 Skin Friction in Cohesive Soits oe 2.9.1.2 Specifitity of the ARGEMA Method wns 14 26222 Skin Fiction i) Cohesive Soils 2.9.2 General Formulation of the ARGEMA Method... nis ; With Sand Layers 95 2.6.2.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soils. ot Fi 2.9.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Caleareous Sands. 115 29.2.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous 2.7 Penetrometer Methods 7 Sands ce ne 2.7.1 Specific Use of Penetrometer Methods ..cumum 97 2.10 Pile Displacement Calculations m2 2.7.4.1 Specificity of Penetrometer Methods 7 2AO.1 bx Transfer Curve Method unsnnnennnnwnnnnannnnnan 1B 2.7.1.2 Offshore Application of Penetrometer 2.10.1.1 Principle of Pile Displacement Methods fe 7 Caleulations oe ra 2.7.2 Formulation of Penetrometer Methods oe 2.10.1.2 Shape of the t-z Transfer Curves 123 2.7.21 Skin Friction “ 98 2.10.2 tx Curves for Skin Friction and Tip Resistance 122 ‘ 2.7.2.2 Tip Resistance .. : 101 2.0.2.1 t2 Curves for Skia Friction in Cohesive Soits. at 14 +> 2.8 Pressuremeter Methods. : ; a -2 Curves for Skin Friction 7 2.8.1 Specific Use and Application of in Cohesiontess Siliceous Soils 129 a Pressuremeier Methods. 105 2.10.2.3 tz Curves for Skin Friction 28.1.1 Specificity cf Pressuremeter Methods 105 in Catcarcous Formations... " 7 - 2.8.1.2 Application of Pressuremeter Methods. 105 2.10.24 tz Curves for Tip Resistanr= in Different Soils ... : 131 * 2.8.2 Pre-Boring Pressuremeter (PRP) Method eoessonuu 108 2.8.2.1 Skin FrieQiON veeon cutee oesee os 241 Steel/Grout Adhesion in Drilled and Grouted Piles. 134 2.8.2.2 Tip Resistance : : 108 2.11.1 Computation of Allowable Stecl/Grout Adhesion 134 2.8.3 Selt-Boring Pressuremeter (SBP) Method. Mm 2L-L.1 Values of SteeliGrout Adhesion... a : 2.8.3.1 Skin Friction... : ne 2111.2 Example of Caleslation of Steel/Grout 2.8.3.2 Tip Resistance ; a AAHESIOR scene : 135 2.11.2 Limitations of Steel/Grout Adhesion os as "2.9 ARGEMA Method in Cateareous Sands... ne : fe DALLA APL Design Procedure onnmn 138 2.9.1 Piles in Calcareous Formations and Specificity 2.11.2.2 DEn Design Procedure of the ARGEMA Method a naxv 3 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 3 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR PILE DESIGN Geotechnical Classification of Soils 3.1.1 Siliccous and Silicate Soils 3.1.1.1 Geotechnical Classification 3.1.1.2 Characterization of Cohesive Soils... 3.1.1.3 Characterization of Cohesionless Soils. 3.1.2 Calcareaus Formations: : 3.1.2.1 Caleareous Sands 3.1.2.2 Cemented Calcareous Formations Evaluation of Geotechnical Parameters. . Plc 3.2.1 Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. 3.2.1.1 Laboratory Measmements and Correction Factors nnn - 3.2.1.2 Field Measurements and Correction Pactors 3.2.1.3 Normalized Shear StENGU mscnoemnnne 3.2.2 Penetrometer Paremovers.. 3.2.2.1 Soil Identification and Classification Based on CPT Results 3.2.2.2 shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from CPT Results 3.2.2.3 Shear Steagth of Cohesionless Soils Derived from CPT Results 3.2.3 Pressuremeter Parameters . 3.2.3.1 Soill Classification Based on SBP Results 3.2.3.2 Shecr Strength of Cohesive Soils Derived from SBP Results... a 12 Ma 142 146 ur 9 1st 1s3 153 154 185 1st 139 159 182 16 167 167 168 33 34 3S TABLE OF CONTENTS Installation Methods and Pile Design. 3241 Pile Monitoring and Decision During Driving Operations anne Pile Wall Thickness and Allowable Stresses. Influence of the Shoe on Driving and on Pile Bearing Capacity 3.3.1.4 Soil Set-Up and Resumption of Driving... 3.3.1.5 Driving of Battered Piles, 3.3.16 Driving of Pile Groups. 3.3.2 Other Pile Installation Methods... 3.3.2.1 Cleaning-Out of the Pile and Redriving 3.3.2.2 Drilling of a Pilot-Hole and Redriving. 3.3.2.3 Driving of an Insert-Pite.. 3.3.24 Drilled and Grouted Piles (Single and insert) ot 3.3.2.5 Driven and Grouted Pites 3.2.6 Pile Vibro-Driving .. Combination of Axial and Lateral Loads... 34.1 Coupling Between Axial and Lateral Load., 3.4.1.1 Models with Axial ané Lateral ‘Transfer Curves. 3.4.1.2 Anclysis of Coupling Esfects 3.4.2 Influonce of Letersl Loads on Antal Capacity, 3.4.2.1 Slotting of the Hole Around the Pilé... 34.2.2 Newtralized Pile Height scmemmnennenn Effect of Relative Pile Flexi ity. 3.5.1 Pile “Flexil ty" or “Compressibility” 3.5.1.1 Progressive Failure 3.5.1.2 Short and Long Pites.,. XVI 7 i” 178 v8 178 180 180 180 1st' | xvi TABLE 8 CONTENT 3.5.2 Consideration of the Influence of Relative Pile: Flexibility sun el 3.5.2.1 The Murif Approach of Pile Flexibility 3.5.2.2 The Randolph’ Approach of Pile Flexibility 3.6 Efiect of Cyclic Loading. onsrnsnesnnenen 3.6.1 Behavior of Short Rigid Piles Under Cyclic: Loading nner 3.6.1.1° Cyclic Pile Tests in Overconsolidated Clays 3.6.1.2 Cyelie Pile Tests in Cohesive Soils. 3.6.1.3 Cyclic Pile Tests in Cohesionless Soils 3.6.2 Behavior of Long Flesible Piles Under Cyclic Loading 3.6.2.1 Phenomenology of the Behavior of Long Piles: 7 3.6.2.2 Combination of the Effects of Relative Flexibility and Cyclic Loading 3.6.2.8 Numerical Modelling of Pilr Behavior Under Cyclic Loading 3.7 Effect of Earthquakes and Loading Rate. 3.7.1 Soil Degradation Due to Earthquake Action 3.7.1.1 Cohesionless Soils. 3.7.1.2 Cobesive Soils 3.7.2. Assessment of the Risks of Soil Liguefaction 3.7.2.1 Shear Stresses Induced by an Earthquake 3.7.2.2. Liquefaction Resistance of the Soil 3.7.3 Effect of Loading Rate on Pile Bearing Capacity increase in Pile Bearing Capacity ash Loading Rate of Loading Rate and Pile Design 181 185, 187 198 190 192 192 196 196 17 197 197 198 198 198 200 200 201 38 4a Pile Group Effect 3.81 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Phenomenology and Characterization of the Group Effect 3.8.1.1 Efficiency Factor . 3.8.5.2 Solid Block Method ... 3.8.1.3 Punchthough Verification Group Effect According to Soil Type... 3.8.2.1 Group Effect in Cohesive Soils... 3.8.2.2 Group Effect in Cohesionless Soils... Chapter 4 EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND EXAMPLES OF PILE DESIGN Experimental Data on Pile Skin Friction and End-Bearing Capacity 4d Coh-sive Soils 4AJAL Measuted and Calculated Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soils 4.1.1.2 Influence of a Pitot-Hole on the Skin Friction of Piles in Clay emmnm Cohesionless Siliceous Soil 4.1.2.1 Measured and Céleulated Bearing Capacity of Piles in Sands. 4.1.2.2 Measured and Calculated End-Bearing Capacity of Piles in Sands. Caleareous Sands... 4.1.4.1 Skin Friction and End-Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles in Calcarcous Sands 4.13.2 Skin Friction of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Caleareous Sands xix 203 203 203 204 206 206 206 207 26 26 220 220 220x 43 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1.4 Cemented Caleareous Formations 4.1.4.1 Skin Friction of Driven Piles in Comented Calcareous Formations evens 4.1.4.2 Skin Friction of Drilled and Grouted Piles in Cemented Calcareous Formations Application of Design Methods to ARGEM. Experimentat Piles 4.2.1 Cran Experimental Pile... 4.2.1.1 Cran Pile Characteristics 4.2.1.2 Cran Soil Data... 4.2.1.3 Calculations of Pile Capacity in Tension 4.2.1.4 Comparison Between Calculated and Measured Results and Conclusions. 4.2.2 Plancott Experimental Pile, 4.2.2.1 Plancogt Pile Characteristics 4.2.2.2 Plancost Soil Data Hatt 4.2.2.3 Calculations of Pile Capacity in Tension 4.2.24 Comparison Between Calculated and Measured Results and Conclusions Examples of Actual Pile Design, 4.3.1 Project A (Gulf of Guines) AB.AL Description of the Soil. 13.1.2 Pile Type and Dimensions a 4.3.1.3 Caleolations of the Shaft Friction Capacity 4.3.14 Calculation of the End-Beating Capacity. 43.1.5 Bearing Capacity of Piles 4.3.1.6 Comparison Between Calculated Results 4.3.2 Project B (North Sea) ss 43.2.1 Statement of the Problem 43.2.2 Project Data. 43.2.3 Design Criteria, 43.2.4 Description of the Soil na am 26 ae 238 28 21 a6 aus 49 29 252 256 2st 263 263 263 266 266 27 43.25 43.26 43.2.7 43.28 43.29 REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Calculations of the Shafi Friction Capacity... 7 Calenlation of the End-Bearing Capacity Capacity of @ Single Pile in the Group Capacity of the Pile Group. Complementary Soil Investigations xt 281NOTICE For easier consultation, this document has two types of print: (2) The major recommendations are in standard (roman) charac- ters, (b) Commentaries offering assessments of the choice of calcul. lion methods, their ranges of validity, their limits of appli- cotion, examples of their use, etc., are in italics.INTRODUCTION Despite the large amount of research carried out on the bearing capacity of piles and the considerable experience built up in the installaion of deep foundations onshore and offshore, pile design still presents many uncertainties. fo fact, the evaluation of the bearing capacity of piles by the various calculation methods available often leads to very wide discrepancies, Tt is therefore important to guide the offshore foundation engineer by providing him with the means for a consistent approach to the problems and the infor- imation necessary for the different wethods used in designing piles under axial loading, in compression and in tension. This is the objective of this Design Guide “Offshore Pile Design”. Based on the widest possible critical analysis of the state-of-the-art and on the recent research resulis (including work by ARGEMA) on the behavior of piles subjected to static and cyclic loading, in tension and in compression, this Design Guide is limited to the design of: + Tubular piles, generally open-ended, the most common type of pile used for foundations and anchorings of offshore su + Pile or pile groups subjected to axial loads, with latczal loads represent: ing only a small fraction of the axial leads. : ‘This Design Guide, intended as a manual for the offshore foundation’engineer. is divided inte four chapters containing the basic guidelines for the design of offshore pile foundation, ‘The first chapter, entitied “Basic Guidelines”, offers detailed guidelines for each different phase of a pile design project: preparation (basic data, design criteria, installation method), ultimate pile capacities and vertical displac ments, choice of computation methods and parameters in accordance with soil type. The basic guidelines recommend using several computation methods (always including the API method) and making final decision in accordance with the results obtained and the geotechnical engincer's experience. ‘The second chapter, in the form of annotated data sheets, presents the main Pile Design Methods routinely applied or proposed, describes their specific2 reTropucTON ture and fields of application, and suggests procedures for evaluating. skin friction and tip resistance, A large part is devoted to the critical analysis Of the API method (and to its changes through successive editions), due 10 the importance of this method in the design of offshore structures every. where. The method suggested by ARGEMA for pile design an carbonate soils, which relies on the current state of knowledge, is subject to change in the light of subsequent experience. With regard to the penetrometst and pressure ‘mete, methods routinely applied for onshore pile design, they ace still litte used for offshore projects ‘The third ecapter, in the form of guide sheets, contains a body of widely varied Information for Pile Design, including geotesi.aics! soil classifica, tion, the evaluation of geotechnical parameters, the influence of pile installation methods on design, pile “flexibility”, the effect of cyclic loading and earthquakes on pile behavior, and the “group” effect on pile bearing capacity. It should be noted that the results of the many investigations conducted on the Pshavior of piles subject to cyclic loads still le virtually in the domain of basic knowledge, without any real influence on structural design methods and the choice of safety factors. The fourth chapter contains Experimental Data on the skin friction and Lip resistance of many piles in various types of soil, as well as the compara tive results of different design methods applied to ARGEMA experimental piles and to two examples of pile (or pile group) design of actual offshore This Design Guide, on a subject that is necessarily evolving in character, dloes not claim to be complete. Modifications and supplements will certainly be necessary in the light of developments in knowledge and subsequent expe Fience, Comments from users will be eagerly appreciated for use in the planned updates Finally, it is important to emphasize that this Design Guide has not regula Fy character. The procedures recommended, like the information compil ed, are only intended vo guide the project engineer and in no way involve the responsibility of CLAROM, Chapter L PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES Every project requires an organized and progressive procedure from the desi- ‘ener. Keeping this in mind, these basic guidelines are aimed to lead the desi- ner through the different phases of 2 project for pile design under axial Toad, in compression and in tension: + Preparation of design (Section 1.1) including the compilation of the minimum basic data, the choice of design criteria, and the influence of installation methods on design, Actual design phases (Section 1.2). Computation methods and the choice of design parameters according to the type of formation and the type of pile (Section 1.3). The basic guidelines refer to the following three chapters concerning: + The comments on pile design methods (Chapter 2) + The information concerning geotechnical data acquisition, pile installation, the action of cyclic and seismic loads, and the “pile group” effect (Chapter 3). . + Experimental data and examples of the design of single piles and pile groups (Chapter 4). This Design Guide on offshore pile foundations considers only stee), tubular and normally open-ended piles, and pile groups: + Usually between 24 and 84 inches (0.61 and 2.13 m), and up to 132 inches 3.35 m) in diameter. + Driven or drilled and grouted piles Usually installed with 2 maximum batter of 1:4 + Essentially subjected to axial loads, with lateral loads nol exce to 20% of the axial loads,4 1 PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 1.1 PILE DESIGN PREPARATION ‘The procedure for pile foundation design projects is shown schematical. ly in Table Ila. A general, although non-exhaustive list of the questions which should be saised and the checks and decisions to be made is given in Table 1.16, 1.1.1 Compilation of Basic Data ALLL Structure 8) The basic data supplied by design engineers are as follows: + Type of structure, described according to its purpose, the water depth, ate, + Number of legs, + Pile batter. Within the batter limit of 1:4, neither the batter nor the lateral component of the load is generally taken into account, for the design of axially-loaded piles, Allowable vertical displacements, If applicable, certain installation constraints #¢sociated with the type of structure: installation exports, hammer availability, pile supply, ctc b) In certain cases, the following deta may also be available: + Number of piles per leg: single pile, mai pile with skist-piles or pile roup. The pile groups employed for North Sea platforms are all of the circular type (clusters) Leg and guide diameters ©) the parameters that the geotechnical engineer can adjust are Purely geometric: number, diameter, embedded length and thickness of the piles. If the basic data are changed, the project must be resumed and checked. 1. PILE DESIGN Basic GUIDELINES Table 11m Progress of pile foundation projects + Number of ets lowable displacements Local geology CGeophysicl aad geotechnical Experience —;, — Teealized prefile + Soil parameters Design teria (codes ‘egalations) Load cases Safety margin Displacement: deformations Serene Recommendations for Desigs(pensration, et.) acording wo ype of pile snd installation metho (rivenbiity study) Compaubilty of tine required for instal probable metzo-sceanogical conditions isk ezessmen ln with Driven piles: Driven Dried and Belted omer er) piles piles } + Soi removat snseepies plo + Receiving Feasbiig, + Avila of egiprsntreqived - 7 i (Cotee of the sluton Franses to base Yer project, Supplementary asiyses hat may be required 1 verifications6 2 PILE DESICN gasie Table 1.tb Litt of quetiions 1 he raised and cheeks requized Basie data Suryotre: Dee 1 Nultbes of tees | egdiamerer Aiba Septacemente | fnstllanon eonsrsims Leads and losding eosditions: «Precise significance: “Applica ier loading condicions Earthquakes Landslide set vestigation depth 1 Consideration of alt results ized profiles end design P Supplementary profiles 1 Degee of enilermiy Choice of design eriteria Applicable codes or regulations ‘Gareent cations) Appropsiate safely factors for Prope Teading conditions Maximum displacements Allowable sresses in both pile ‘nd grout Influence of installation method Diigespitiy suay ‘Choice of hammers Pile mickoese Steel auestes Seem Stoel Dating lle behavior 1 Effect of mud on £ [Effect of sol comoval on ap Grout ys ule Fracturing bcakdown * Quality and quantity control Grouttestedl adhesion Injection "Feesciity 1 Etimation off 5 Estimation of gp Design of single pile Application of the API method inal asenother procedures Scour depth Effect of iateral loading Consideration of pile weight and weight ‘of internal soit eoloma CW". W") Eerding to loading ditection (com: bression, tension) site long oe tere fom phe- jomenew, of plug formetion dun Sing)! sonvenona evasion of bhimate eapeety in compression Ultimate capacity fa tension: tip rematance (ution) ignored fsilure: effect of length or ive “flexibility CGiteal depuvrimst values off and op Maloiyetd aot suet lace near tp risk of punchthravekl tmbedment . Ccttexreout formations Gnffoenes of ompreatiy of aleareus sands ont for driver piles) Ditplacement eniolation Llond-tranefer curves Effec of eyeie loading (one-way, two-way} Earthauakes osding rates Design of pile groups Cepaciyfetticiency fator/eguivatent ald blook Sr Displacements Punehthrovgh veils (compaction) 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES .2 Loads and Loading Conditions 1) Three types of load are considered: b) Various scenarios are taken into account, referred to as “loading con tions", which combine the environmental conditions and the drilling and pro- Dead loads: the self-Weight of the structure and of the fixed equipment, and hydrosiatic pressure. Live loads: dismountabie equipment, consumables, operating and handl- ing loads, findering and mooring of vessels, helicopters, etc. fonment loads: wave, current, wind, ice. “The environmental Loads define the operational (normal) environmental condi- sions and the design (extreme) environmental conditions, while the dead zad live loads are combi ‘d to determine the urilling and production condi- Juction conditions The API loading conditions include Operating environmental conditions combine dead loads and maximum or minimum live loads, appropriate to normal operation of the platform. Design environmental conditions combine dead ioads and maxi- mam or minimum live loads appropriate to extreme conditions. The loading conditions accepted by the DNV (comparable to those Imposed by the Norwegian authorities) are given in Section 2.2 Ie is always necessary to make sure that these loads are actually the estimated loads, i.e. without 0 safety factor. These loads must bbe calculated down to the pile head, which is usually at the mudline, For very soft soils at the surface, it is important (0 accurately determine the mechanical properiies of he soil for the firsifew meters, in order to design the mud-mats fitted to the jackes bracings, The weight of the piles and of the internal soil column is taken into account in formulas for the ultimate capacity of piles, and is diseussed in Section 1.2.1 ‘The foundations musi guarantee sufficient capacity (o withstand the mazimam loads caleulated in compression and in tension, with appropriate safety factors (Section 1.1.2).8 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES In practice the design loading conditions in compression often cor- respond to the operational or extreme environmental conditions for ‘asmall or large structure respectively. In tension, the extreme conditions are nearly always the design conditions Other lozd cases, which should be considered as specific loading conditions, are also defined: In areas with landslide risks, Jn areas with seismic risks (Section 3.7) 1.11.3 Soil a) All the available information must be gathered and analyzed on + Local geology. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys already conducted. Local experience. ‘The purpose of a geophysical survey in the zone of the site is 1 provide data for a geologic assessment of foundation soils : |n general, @ geotechnical survey should be defined after review of the | Seophysical results. A soil investigation comprises one ot more boreholes, with: + Preferably continuous sampling, depth, + In situ measurements (penetrometer, vane’ probe, pressuremeter), if possi ble along the entire borehole depth, and if not alternating with the sam. pling. if possible slong the entire borehole ‘The muiuber of boreholes depends un the Soil variability in the zone of the site, ‘The investigation depth depends on the type of structure and the type of soil encountered. The penetration depth of deep boreholes is often around 80 to 100 m. For pile groups of diameter (or width) B, the survey must be con 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 8 tinued (0 a depth of 1.5B below the projected tip depth (George 1976), b) The geotechnical engineer must compile a geotechnical synthesis in the form of one or more idealized profites and, for the main soil strata identified, ‘with the design geotechnical parameters (Table 1.1¢), and recommendations for pile installation, Tableau 1.16 Main geotachsieel parametece Category Main geotechniest parameters | ASTM standard ‘Total unit weight () and ‘moisture content (W) ase Cohesive soils (including Plasticity index (1p) 409 caleareovs soil) Overcontalidation ratio (OCR) Undeained coher, « srenges (Ca) 2aes Total unit weight (2) 854 Cohesiontess siliceous Grain size distribution 42 soils Relative density (Ds) 2089 Intesnal fiction angle (9) 2435 ‘Total nik weighs (| 54 Grain size distibstion m0 Cemented esleateous Carbonsie content sande Limit compreesibity sndex (Cp ARGEMA Internal friction angle (6°) ‘Total wnit weight (Y) 354 Caleareous formations Unconfined compression surength (90) 2938 ‘Total unit weight i ase Rocky toile Unconfined compression strength (qe) 2938[ [ 10 1. PILE DESIGN ASIC GUIDELINES For some projects, statistical analyst may be made of the avat lable daa ad probbintecolearon erred out for verfestion if there is sufficient data to permit @ statistical analysis. ‘ The geotechnleal classWteation wsed i discussed tn Section 3. Requirements forthe evaluation of geotechnical parameters ere ds ousted n Sesion 2.2 in practice, ihe sols likely tobe encountered are divided ine five math categories + Cohesive soi Conetontsssiteeous sols Coleoreous sends: Crone erere ter «Rock formas Idealized profiles are often provided by the consultant after soil surveys. The geotechnical engineer responsible for the foundations is required to check them, and if they are unavailable, he must establish them himse'f. In all cases, a basic profile must be worked ous incorporating the parameters in Table Ite. Whenever possible, one or more supplementary prefiles should be determined from the effective stress characteristics (in clay layers). or from penetrometer (or pressuremeter) profiles (Tolan and Coutts, 1979). If several boreholes, drilled on the same site, reveal practically uniform soit conditions, a single idealized profile may be prepared. If significant variations appear from one borehole to:another, it is routine practice to develop. + A profile for each borehole separately Or preferably, 10 profiles corresponding to the “auper” and “lower” bounds respectively, defined from the scatter of geo techaical parameters from different boreholes. 1.1.2 Choice of Design Criteria ‘The sales, codes and recommendations define the design criteria and ove rall and paral safety factors whieh should be applied according to different areas, normal and exteeme conditions, the {ype of foundation, ad the type of subsoil, 7 ar 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES u 1.1.24 Rules, National Codes and Recommendations Projects are usually based upon either (Eri et al, 1977): a) Government regulations and guidances are usually of a very general natu: re, bus which prevail over all the other codes within theit area of application. Such regulations include those issued by: + vhe Department of Energy (DEx) in the United Kingdom, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) in Norway. Tne NS Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (US9S). b) Recommendations and guidelines issued by institutions and certificetion societies for offshore structures: Bureau Veritas (BY). Det Norske Veritas (DNV) + Lloyd's Register of Shipping (LRS). ©) National construction codes: + American Petroleum Institute (APD). ‘American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), American Sockety for Testing and Materials (ASTM). British Standards (BS) + Norwegian Standards (NS). These documents are fairly regularly updated and the designer should always refer (0 the latest editions. 1.1.2.2 Lumped and Partial Safety Factors a) Safety is accounted for either: By lumped safety factors (SF) expressing the minimum ratio required between the ulimate capacity and the allowable capacity, in accordance ng conditions considered (especially API) (Section 2.1). ¢ partial factors: on the one hand, reduction factors for geotech- 2:5, and on the other multiplication facters for loads (API RP DNV and NPD, Section 2.2.1) Section 2.1.1n Lo MLE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES AS a rule, design methods are applied with their own safety fac 9% thresholds of maximum allowable absolute of differential somctimes determined by considerations of soil or foundation behavior (degradation or tolerances). 40 is important 10 take horizontal pile displacements into account However, according to ARGEMA, the determination of allowable ver {ica ite displacements docs not appear to be essential for fixed ©) The design criteria also concern the maximum allowable stresses: « In ihe piles in the installation phase and in service, Wf applicable, in the grout sheath. During the pite installotion phase, the pile diameters compatible wlth the stresses induced due to driving are given in Section 33 dn service, under the combined effect of axial and lateval loads, each cross-section of the pile must satisfy the following criterion fa fhe Fre? with Fe = 06, Fe 0068, where, fe = calculated axial stress, fe = calculased bending stress, F, = allowable compressive or tensile stress, i Fy = allowable bending stress, Fy = steel yield stress. 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES B The allowable stresses may be increased by one-third if the stresses are induced by extreme environmental conditions. d) The documents which concern the choice of criteria to be applied in accordance with the main regulations and recomendations are listed in ‘Ta- ble Ltd. This choice must be consistent with the overall design of the structure: 1.1.3 Influence of the Pile Installation Method ‘The design study and the choice of the pile installation method must be conducted simultaneously. Furthermore, the installation method chosen often affects the pile capacity and behavior (Section 3.3) as shown in the influence diagram in Table J.te, 1.1.3.1 Driven Pites a) The feasibility of Griving, the choice of hammers and of installation Procedures, the verification of the allowable stresses in the piles, and the definition of the procedures to be followed in case of difficalty, result from 4 driveability study (Section 3.3) The presence of a shoe is generally not taken into account in designing axially loaded piles. b) If the internal soil column is removed. particularly if a pilot-hole is Used to facilitate :nstallation, any possible effects of alteration oP the bearing capacity, and especially of the tip resistance, must be taken into account, as indicated in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 LA. 2. Drilled and Grouted Piles 8) A drilled and grouted pile foundesion project must: Account for the effecis of drilling upon the ultimate pile capacity (mud, Cleaning of the hole sump). + Examine the risks of formation breakdown (hydraulic fracturing) during grouting15 siropmast snore « yor Jo soueisises 20 “naffog ayy jo 20 some fg nua} stan sed smog saravopun aun 24a 2u € uon29g) Butaup Bus ateuinsym (i jor fons puoi “Aanuenb “Apenb) fosiuo> nos) (einesoid ynos)) unopyeasg SutinI2eg enous afoyunop) & Jo uonremsy oa9/193 Jo 19}80801 242 92%, it (67 von228) $9910} 98 Jo uo suas ouny T spumugp oq) u;osns0u! ue + oteuep ond a jo ssveaiayed ood « ashes 7 /ssons antss2oxg ‘yo unest ood Jo Aan getaeHN so sans wip 250229 (I esnas amveseng | casorop 0831821519 098 # inp womiustunnse noe J wopeay}as poe senaiqorg ‘njoudes Pusvag-puo pur donot vans Wo poyaw woneTTHSU! 14 0 soKTLT arrears, (osst ‘161 ‘AN) ied sidsooe 109 (VE dl AV) 13 Mayes podung aeDEpT 1S pur suoteF2mog Uo eauEpING or punoH#AzEG., © 0 eOUa IO ntag 30 9903, a12nbape fur 5349098 Af (ANA) s20138) f19p svonpenog 2g uipusddy ‘sumianig ss049}0 30 Uotiedsuy pe uo (CaWT-¥E a TEV) 54 (ved 1a) 8 (ew) La ¥o7 woteuog 104 @ @ w @ © @ @ wo @) o ) © sroisey Kain. suonspunog © ssumanne 13515 p09 Buspuory rpoitza wi9429 1361) wonmps ist Le aM 1a¥ (oe C¢x61) wopipe 987 syusiansoq 2104510, (6361) 200 aawrve du av Je uonsnsisuoy pure | -yesuy s104s3)0 paxig 661) frog aut wo soueptng,, | uo oj saimy,, | te upo wet Ve dd Fav “aa ANG lay ‘8t29p oq Jo) suonepuawisooss pus 4 2 Dr a8, REE Re Ha eI ea Se iS oe ea16 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES b) I @ grouting sheath is used (for the structure-to-pile bond or for drill ‘ed and grouted piles), the minimum values of the “cement-to-formation” friction resistance and of the “cement-to-steel” ond governs the capacity of the pile. 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES v7 1.2 PILE DESIGN STEPS ‘The design of axially-loaded piles always requires the static calculation of te ultimate pile capacity, which ensures that the penetration of the piles into the soil is sufficient 10 withstand the maximum design loads with ade. quate safety factors applied. In practice, this calculation amounts to: Plotting the variation of the ultimate capacities in compression and tension, as a function of depth. + Determining the pite penetration depth at which the capacity in compression (or in tension) is at least equal to the maximum value of the compres sive (or tensile) loads after the application of their respective safety fac tors. Whenever possible, the use of several design procedures is recommended always including the API methods, with suitable sets of geotechnical parameters (Section 1.1.1.3}, and to conclude in accordance with the different results obtained (Toolan and Coutts, 1979) 1.2.1 Ultimate Pile Capacities 1.2.1.1 Neutralized Pile Height Initially the depth 2» down to which the external skin friction is disregar~ de must be determined. 8) The scour dzpth (0 general scour depth and a local scour depth of about one pile diameter each, are generally assumed). This effect is negligible with regard to axial loads. but is significant for lateral loads, b) ‘The depth ac which pile contact with the soil may be non-existent or Unreliable, owing to the effect of lateral loads (this is a maximum of five diameters for cohesive soils and calcareous formaticns) (Section 3.4). a a ee eeLoe 1. PILE DESIGN aasic CHER [ 1.2.1.2. Ultimate Pile Capacity in Compression a8 a4 The ultimate resistance of a tubular pile (driven or drilled and grouted) s 23 zt 4 to an axial force in static compre-sion applied al the pile top is determined | g fe BER 23] a8 shown in Table 1.23 2 |e: £3 Lag is Driven pites | = [eh Sbbse|ei eg $3 ie =O) + tat [Q1.Q,3]- | é ebede|eaae i: L Drilled and grouted piles: g e22222/a223 S83 eee | : 235223 (2222 23 é -Q=2+0,- 2 e2St2l|es3 34 | where: z egezbs| gees 23 fe & o|° fe a 8) Qi = ¥ fodAe = extermal shatt friction capacity, equal to the g 3° r Let sum of the external shaft friction forces over the 3 ze a8 L pile penetration depth after deduction ofthe depth e 6s & ed 4 % along which skin friction is ignored (Section | 3 os 12.1.0) | & | L pile length { a3 : G2e L fe = axiernal unit shaft friction, i zéle = S Esa BAe entewial Tateral contact area with the soil for the | 22/2 & 6 Bee r layer n wich fois applied For drilled and geouted =| Z| : = 22% 1 piles, da is determined from the diameter of the & 5 iad 7 drilling bit, 4 3 = - 3 z 2 . i g a a . 2 é Ss For belled piles, skin friction against the bell walls is ignored Z A 7 oo r fin compression) 3 g 3 Bae 3 gs : fe \ £ 24 5 BB z * $ 3 6 6 ° Bf end:- bearing capacity ofa pile assumed to be plugged 1 : Fig, 1.23): & ; unit end-bearing capacity, i i 23. r sist foss-seetional atea at the tip. q i 2 gid L. sonslae cfeas-sectional area of the pile ip, : u a & |g2s8 ip hip Piles thot “plug” during static loading do not necessarily remain plugged during driving (API. 1984: St. sohn, 1980; Brucy et al 1991) ‘The expression for the ultimate pile capacity complies with the formula of Olson (1984) (for the AP! Committee}, essentially aim ‘ed at cohesive soils. The formula for tke weight W" of the pile “submerged in the soil” corresponds to the difference between joss! weight of the pile (stee! + soil colunn) and the con tribution of the to1al overburden pressure 10 the end-bearing ca pacity of the pite. The introduction of W", corcesponding on average 0 a correction i : of 1.6%, is largely masked by other uncertainties, a) W'= & Avg lp 1) AL = weight of pile “submerged inthe soil” The unit end-bearing capacity of a “plugged” pile Gpi may be regar 220 ded as the end-bearing of a large foundation, whereas the unit end: Ave = annular cross-sectional area of the pile, bearing capacity of an “unplugze! * = specific weight of steel (= 77 KN/m), the end-bearing of the tip of @ pene:re TEPEEEAE! op Hg Lf mas be regarded us2 |. PILE DESIGN Baste GUINELINES 1.2.1.3 Ultimate Pile Capacity in Tension ‘The ultimate resistance of pile Copen- or closed-ended) to a static axial pullout force is determined as shown in Table 1.22: O- ae where L 3) Q = ¥ foMAc = external shart frictional capactty, equal tothe sum wat of the exiernat shaft friction forces along the pile penetration depth L, after deduction of the height 29 over which skin ftietion is ignored (Section 12.1.0) fo = external unit skin friction, = fhe = external lateral contact area with the soil along the layer in which fy is applied, L = pile lengen, tal + AcY] aL = buoyant weight of pile and of Wnternal soll columa, if any, annslar cross-sectional area of the pile for stan- Gard section, A = cross-section ofthe internal soil column for stan daca section, % specific weight of steel (~ 77 kN/m), te unit weight of water, Y buoyant unit weight of soil, AL length of pile sections along which the steel cross- sectional area A, of the pile, the cross-sectional area of the soil column A,, and the soil buoyant nit weight y', are constant This expression complies with the formula of Olson (1984). For @ plugged pile, instead of W", it is more logical 10 consider (for capacity in tension) she sotal submerged weight of the pile (steel + soil column} as the pile rises with the soil column inside. The introduction of W" corresponds on average to a correction of 6.9% according 10 Olson (1984) 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC CUIDELINES Any mobilized resistance at ine wp shouid be ignored ) For drilled and grouted piles, the ultimate tensile capacity is defined fas the minimum value of the “grout-to-soil” shaft frictional resistance and the “grout-to-steel” bond (Section 2.11). 1.2.1.4 Progressive Failure a). Progressive Failure results from the fact thatthe relative soil-to-pile displace ments necessary to mobilize ultimate friction or tip resistance may not ve observed simultaneously along she entire pile (Fig. 1.2c). The summation of the resistances in the ultimate capacity expressions becomes questionable in tis case. Ha — Total Capacity ‘Skin Friction Capocity Axial Load Tip Copocity splgcerant required 19 Displacement Abie te ston tnetion (ypeaty Oot 0.688, dieplscome Imobibze the tip resistance Tiypically 01 B for crven piles) ple siareer Fig. matic mode! of mobilization of sxil pile capacity sive failure alters the summation of the maximum shaft friction pile: For lung riley vslendermness > $0), which are “flexible” with respect to the sot ¢°atialiy-compressible”),a4 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES in soits characterized by strain-softening (Fig. 1.24), such rs calcareous sends, very stiff clays and silty clays, cemented formations and frozen soils. Skin Friction Soil /Pile Displacement Fig. 1.20 Mobilization of skin (riction in #atrain-softening 50 fact, certain procedures take account of the length effect either ‘tly (Semple and Rigden, 1984) (Section 2.3}, (Ran- dolph and Murphy. 1985) (Section 2.4), or implicitly (Vijayvergiya and Focht, 1972) (Section 2.6), (Meyerhof. 1976} (Section 2.5). If the design methods do not take account of progressive failure or of the length =ffect of long piles, they can be taken into account either + Dy means of a displacement calculation (Section 1.2.2 and 2.10) By repeating the design procedure and by introducing a lump reduction depending on the relative flexibility of the pile (See~ Hon 3.5). Or by assigning different safety factors to the end-bearing and shaft friction capacity terms 1.2.1.5 Design Assumptions ‘This section reviews the key hypotheses often implicitly accepted by the profession, 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 25 Certain points are summarised for the main soil classes in Sec tions 1.3.1 10 1.3.4 a) External and internal unit skin friction. The current tendency is to make no distinction between internat friction f, and external friction f. (API, 1988): fatet b) Layer-by-layer summation. Friction may be calculated along the pile length layer by layer. Friction behavior in a layer is assumed 10 be independent of the adjacent layers, which implies in particular that the effects of pro- Bressive failure of the different layers are ignored. The behavior of each layer should be evaluated according co the type of soil The identification of the existence of thin layers of a different soil ‘ype depends upon the degree of accuracy of the survey Ii is very rare to be able 10 determine the mechanical properties of these dif ferent layers, and the mechanical properties of an equivalent layer are obtained by in situ measurements (CPT) or in the laboratory. For finely-stratified soils, skin friction may be estimated in pro portion 10 the relative thickness of each of the soil classes ©) Critical depths. The “critical depth” concept and the limit values of skin friction and tip resistance are the subject of debate (Secton 2.1.3.5). However, in practice, the following hypotheses are accepted: ‘Tho maximum skin friction of piles in cohesionless soils remains constant below a certain depth called the “critical depth” + The tip resistanee also remains constant in nearly all cohesionless soils below a “critical depth”, which may be different from the critical depth for skin friction In most cases offshore, pile peneiration exceeds the critical depth Limit values of skin friction (fin) and tip resistance (4p in) are often chosen in estimating pile capacities.m.m 6 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 4) Pile in compression or in tension. The maximum skin friction is often considered independent of the loading direction. The hypothesis that the skin friction is equal in tension and compression results {rom global statistical analysis of pile test data (Dennis and Olson, 1983) (Secticn 2.13.12). The equality of friction in compression and in tension in coke.ionless soils appears in the 15th edition of API (1984) (Section 2.1.3.3). However, this hyrathests can not be confirmed in dense sands. The identit, of friction in compression and in tension in very plastic silty clay was identified by tests on the Cran éxperimental pile (Sec tion 4.2.1) 1.2.1.6 Layers of Different Soils Near the Tip a) The calculcsion ot vip resistance must account for the presence of layers with different properties located near the tip (less than three diameters sway) according to the type of interface: + Clay/eta,, Table 1.2 (). Sand/sand, Table 1.2b (3D. + Clay/sand or ‘sand/elay, Table 1.2b (UD. Ic is very important to know accurately the position of the tip with respect, to the interface, b) Punchthrough risk (piles and pile groups). For “plugged” driven piles and drilled and grouted piles, the bearing capacity of the underlying soil may bbe checked by assuming 2 stress distribution bulb at 30 degrees (Fig. 1.20) If the underlying soit is a clay (Table 1.2b (III), case 11), the siress transmit: ted to the imerface is limited to 3 C,, This condition guarantees a sufficiently high safety factor with respect to punchthrough. The procedure is applicable to single piles and pile groups, ©) Depth of embedment in a dense sand layer. For the most commonly used pile diameters (24 10 84 inches), the limit value of the mobilizable stress at the tip is reached when the pile has penetrated @ maximum of onc diameter into a dense send layer, provided that the vertical effective stress exceeds 250 kPa at the tip level (Puech, 1975), tip differing resistances nese the 0 inerCace wit Procedure for correcting 4, for «clay 2382827 5 \E Sbagees 2 2 | Seegiei. gle cele soeeseis e)2 g2)2 soek895* E\£ i2|£ i8sfzess Sie BPE WSeei ee B og |S $353zab2 S F |S sy3esi Zech se 338 ail 43 é ease Sil fg. é g = geade gigss| 288 = z| ¢ dgiegy 4S5tz| 283 . E t Beissd gtise| 2255 o az #gigi 2° 252) se82| 7 2@e02 2 &eh| 2gcc f) g |e?" 33 q y Configuration ‘Care No.9 8 [10s Supuodsosio> oy: jo esjoud woyten ¥ Jo at04p 01195 HuInjo> ,stoNIpLO, 240 UF paTEDS! 4 yo sonyen au, t6=% so6<@p%s | sxorpues a asoar 490 sip 4 oss 85 6 suo av're't wopoes eb vspuninses di us poous oq Kae | Ap 6.<(D | Keroypues u waguog sinau oy, | -gBROrqnpURA Yo 5H ue ¢ te 93H 208 13889 995 ane >ro6 | puss ov uoupegt “aL es) "620 imte>r6 6 swopipaoy | voezmaz | wopeantysey | “on a8¥> joyous 10 pus] fopo + 105% Suoouos 105 2np2204g (a wea Bespuodsotuo> ay! so onyoHd uutoytun + 02% you uunqoo ,sw% yuo, 241 ut woast th fo Fane 24, «in =% an D4 ae ’ Seema stot fosomoq 39m) | AOnpouNd fo ISN a i} ow ioprsuoo epuaeuiosat 66 TV sai (teat ap > pec hat 5 fl o sruawuo3 wonoan409, suomp209 gees eos tet arene ayy ay 240 wou sosurepeos Ssapzp uitm 2oep:21UT puEsypuES + 20) "b Bus9e1I09 20} snp900%4 aD eer ageLBiter Fig. 1.2¢ Swess distribu on below pile tip. Attempting (0 achieve an embedment of wo to three diameters in 4 resistant cohesionless layer, as recommended by the API, in order 0 apply ihe values in Table 2.le is highly covservative, and may give rise 40 instailusion difficulties 1.2.1.7 Pile Groups 4) The capacity Qxof 2 group of a piles may be determined from the capacity @ of a single pile, using an efficiency factor Cy (Section 3.8) Q = min (Cen, 2Q) - 8) The capacity ofa plle group is ususily evaluated by te lid block method (Tool: mn i alent s0- and Fox, 1979) described in Section 3.8.1.2. In sensitive clays. C, may be less than 1. The value of C. adopted for circular g7ou72 of driven piles in the Nork Sea (Heather, Alwyn, Thescie> oe 01. In cohesioniess soils, Cz is generally greater than 1. Consideration of tke compaction effect is vitally important in determining the order 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 31 in which the piles are driven, It is essential to ensure thal the sum of the individual capacities gives a safety factor of at least 1. In cokesionless soils, the efficiency factors of drifted pile groups are lower than those of driven piles. whereas in cohesive soils no distinction is made regarding the installation method (Foche and OWeill, 1385) ©) The risk of punchthrough must be examined thoroughly in multilayer soils (Section 1.2.1.6). .8 Cyclic and Earthquake Loading a) For one-way cyclic loading (i.e. always in compression or in tension), pile design does vot take account (in general) the cyclic loading effect. For the anchoring piles of the Hutton TLP (North Sea), skin friction was ignored along the upper 15 m of the piles to take account of the effect of horizontal cyclic loading Higher safely factors are applied in specific cases, particularly in TLP projects (Karlsrud et al, 1984). Accoriting 10 one-way loading tests on short and rigid piles, embedded in overconsolidated Haga clay, the cyclic Umit capacity obtained by Karlsrud et al (1985) lies between 0.75 and 1.0 times the static limit capacity (Section 3.6) Similar results have been reported by Mc Anoy et al (1982); Kraft et al (J981)}; Gallagher and St. John (1980); Puech (1982). b) For two-way cyclic loading ((.e, alternately in compression and tension). the degradation of skin friction may be very severe and must be teken into The experimental work of NGI (Karlsrud et al, 1984, 1985) has led 10 @ relative cyclic limit capacity of about 0.4 in two-way tests under controlled loading conditions, and about 0.3 in two-way tests under controlled displacement conditions.i 32 |. PILE DES'GN BASIC GUIDELINES For long piles, it is recommended 10 take account of the relative flexibility effect (Sections 3.5 and 3.6) and 10 carry out an analysis of load transfer (Sections 1.2.2 and 2.10). €)_ In very rare cases, specific analyses (Section 3.7) are required 10 evaluate the possible effects of earthquake loading on the axial pile capacity (Focht and O'Neill, 1985), because of the risk of liquefaction of loose cohesionless . and the consequent possible degradation of skin friction The effect of the loading rate, notably tn the improvement of static limit capacity in cohesive soils. is generally not taken into account and is only used as an implicit safety factor 1.2.2. Vertical Pile Displacements 1.2.2.1 Purpose of Evaluating Vertical Displacements ‘Vertical displacements do not generally cause a problem for most pited structures offstiore. Their estimation is required in the following cases in order to: + Provide the stiftnesses of the fo «Examine the risks of progressive failure, ie. the influence of pile length ‘and compressibility on the effective summation of the increments of skin friction and of tip resistance (Sections 1.2.1 4 and 3.5). + Evaluate the displacements that can be tolerated by the conductor pipes and the flowlines terminating at tue platform. < Ensure that any differential settlement aoes not disrupt certain platform functions (e.g. water removal by gravity drainage), dation for structural calculations. 1.2.2.2 Methodology for Evalusting Vertical Displacements ‘The most widely employed method is based on the use of ((~z) ioad-transfer curves (Section 2.10). ‘The calculation is goncrally carried out with design loads and static (ea) curves. |. PILE DESIGN RasiC GUIDELINES 3 1.3 PILE DESIGN METHODS AND CHOICE OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ‘Recommendations for the design of offshore st spat etary te API nets ausgn considerable space methods using aborory measurements. Penetrometer and pressuremeter methods are only mentioned f3 supplementary methods, and are still litle used in offshore applications. This siwvation is likely 10 change with the farther development of in sty measurements, ‘The choice of method and of design parameters according 10 soil class and pile type is Giscussed in detail in Chapter 2 (See in particular Table 2.02) 1.3.1 Cohesive Soils Conesive soils are fine grained soils with over 50% of particles smaller than 0,08 mm, for which the liquidity end plasticity fimirs can be determined (Section 3.1) + Very plastic (CH) to slightly plastic (CLY clay + Very plastic silts (MH), Calcareous formations with fine uncemented grains or with nodular or discon~ tinuous cementation are also dealt with in this category. 1.3.1.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive § a). Driven Piles ‘The routine use of the API RP 2A recommendations for che design of offshore structures naturally leads to the use of the API 1991 method for driven piles (Section 2.1) together with the basic geotechnical profite (Table 13a), Whenever possible, the following are also used: Methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2). ‘The a methods of Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2,3) and of Randoiph and Murphy (1985) (Section 2.4) + The % (ection 2.6) and B Section ed calcareous soils, for which the B method is pt in fine grain- 101 recommendedHl pisies (acer uaaeelareiet ee 38 rece No method actually proposes limit values, but the unit skin friction i g of North Sea clays is usually limited 10 200 kPa 2 & The API and Randolph & Murphy (1985) meikods are applied layer 3 5 # i by layer. 3 = ae i The Semple and Rigden (1984), 4 and B methods are global me- : i u i thods in at much bs they consider the everage friction along the 3 #4 He 3 entire pile lengih. They are hence applicable to homogeneous pro- a HE : i files of cohesive soil. or soil containing a smell proportion of sand g layers, which are taken into account by the procedures recommended = = = by the authors (Sections 2.3, 2.6 ond 2.5 respectively) 8 2 q sat The A and B methods are essentially applied to normally conso- 5 es g [sists lidated and slightly overconsolidated clays =3 : s: & |pe88553 ‘he ws of the piezocone in cohesive soils ts recommended for identi Be E Bee ficotion ond meckanicai characterization, but the use of peneiro- 28 . gfe meter methods for the direct determination of f is not recommended in this type of material 7 i. é 6 The use of the PMT pressuremeter (the PBP, Pre-Boring Pressure- z ' 2 E ig meter, or particularly the SBP. Self Boring Pressuremeter for soft z ° = el a soils) iz recommended. The pressuremeter method may be applied Lt = é = z L Ie in this cose as 0 supplementary procedure for pile design. & 7 ue ai Driven Pile: with Use of Preérilling or Jetting 1 se; 3 By a | The maximum design skin friction must never exceed the values given for ze = 354 i | stiven pites (Section 1.3.1.8) 2s z 289 i | 7 = 3° i i l = 42:2 The use of a pilot-hole to inserta step-topered pile results in values i gress of @ ranging between 0.25 and 0.41 (Endiey et al, 1979). The a : i EEes 2 and B methods have proved to be unconservative (Section 4.1, Tar [ Z pial ble 4.16) . 388 ' | ¢). Drilled und Grouced Piles = 045 and tye = 200 KPa. “Overt method in heen : vormatty consnlidated clays, soilsta-cement adhesion may be determined re ol fe : as for driven piles (Section 1.4.14) [2 |e 7 ‘i sift of overconsolidated clays, the @ method should be appliod with 336 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES pee i 2g |abbe : The use of the value @ = 0.45, also suggested b, Skempton (1959) g gk RSEd resuits from a statistical analysis carried out by Kraft and Lyons Bl. iad zg 1974). covering sixty piles drilled in overconsolidated clays gE: 3 z The API does not purpose any precise value for a, but mentions Sk Pit 5 shat f may exceed the value proposed for driven piles. z|* ay aa ea 5 ies 1.3.1.2. Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils 8 a Tip resisiance in cohesive als ip eatinated from she equation i . 2ai y= CaN 2 gtsiiae Pets ce undrained cohesive strength measured in the laboratory or infer 2e332a8 2asGe ra red from in situ tests (penetrometer, vane tests), eee z N. = 9 = bearing capacity factor (unless the pile tip is close (0 the inter- = a - face between two soils of very different resistances) : beg a tye de pele ate 2 3°, 29 zee | 42 The previous equation may also be applied to calculate the sip ae & .& 33 egie = resistance of piles in fine grained calcareous soils. ze 7 2 58 z * - : i i i 4 8 1.3.2. Cohesiontess Siticeous Soils Bee z z ESgee - eles 7 5 gzies e)ie Be 2 BE = By convention, cokesionless siliceous soils are classified as those soils in Elee 23 & eiaad which over 30% of the elements are larger then 0.08 mm in diameter, Le. 3 | a a é (Section 3.1) 3 7 + Gravels and geavelly soils (GW. GP, GM and GC) elte zig a Sands and sandy. soils (SW, SP, SM and SCD Z| Es ra § ib gs “Non-plasiic silts” ¢ML} e|ffl 8s gid £ 7 plate site IML) e|Gb| ffs idl ie! = esi 4) Driven Piles (Table 1.3b) z . Ie all cases, the API 1991 method (Section 2.1.3) should be applied, using 3 If possible, the values of the relative density D,and of the intesnal friction ils. i 7 angle g' inferced from the interpretation. of the penetrometer results a | 25 2BASIC GuIDELINES (Section 3.2.2) or from representative laboratory tests, together with the values of the limit friction fim, depending on the type of material (fim cannot exceed 120 kPa). Failing this, values of 8 and fim (Table 2.14) recommended by API 1991 may be used. These values are not applicable to calcareous fcrmations, loose silts, or to volegnic or highiy micaceous soils. ‘The value of the soil lateral pressure coefficient K depends upon the plugg- ing or unplugging behavior of the pile during tustallation. As a first ap. proximation, K is taken 2° 0.8 Some organizations, such as Lloyd's, do not accept the API 1984 recommendations in force and continue 10 use the API 1982 recommendations, with the limit values of API 1978 (Section 2.1.3.1). The pencsrometer method (Section 2.7) can be applied as a supple mentary calculation, if continuous penetrometer results are available The direct use of local friction values measured on the CPT sleeve is not recommended, b) Piles Installed Using Predrilting or Jetting ‘Skin friction must notexceed the values recommenited for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.12) ©) Driiled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout adhesion is obtained by the equation: £m Inf (py tan8, fix) where: Be effective grouting pressure, which must be lower than the hydraulic fracturing pressure, S= 9 = 5° = soilto-grout friction angle, fim = 100 kPa = unit limit skin friction, 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES 0 ‘The hydraulic fracturing criterion is generally expressed as a function of the staie of the in situ stresses, which is characterized by the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ke! If Ke eh, Bp < Ko o'y: hydraulic fracturing takes place along. a vertical plane, If Ko >I, Pe < Oy: fracturing occurs along a horizontal plane (dense overconsolidated soils), where oy is the effective overburden pressure. The design procedure of Elhers and Ulrich (1977) recommends a material reduction factor of 1.4 for Pr 1.3.2.2 Tip Resistance’of Piles in Cohesionless Soils 4) Driven Piles (Table 1.3b) The API 1991 method, in Section 2.1, should be apolied in all cases using the following: If penetrometer results (Sections 3.2 and 2.7) or representative laboratory test results are available, the values of the relative density (D,) and of the internal friction angle (q') may be inferred from the interpretation of these results, Failing this, the values of the bearing capacity factor Ng and of dptim from Table 2.14 should be used (these values are not applicable to caleareous formations, loose silts, or volcanic or highly micaceoas soils) The API recommendations in force are disputed by certain orga: nizations, who continue t0 use the API 1978 recommendations If a continueus or nearly continuous penetrometer profile is avai lable on either side of the predicted position of tke pile tip, the meihod of de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) may be applied (Sec~ tion 2.7) b) Driven Piles with Predrilling or Jetting The tip resistance must not exceed the values recommended for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.2a).40 1. PILE DESIGN asic avinctines In practice, it ts recommended: To avoid the use of jeuing near the tip. + In all cases, 10 create an artificial plug by grouting: the pr dure recommended for driven piles is then applicable ©) Drilled and Grouted Piles ‘To calculate the tip resistance of drilled and grouted piles in sands, proceed as for driven piles (Section 1.3.2.2) 1.3.3 Caleareous Sands ‘The term “calcareous sands” (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) refers to calcareous fore mations with coarse ancemented grains or with nodular or discontinuous ee mentation, No proven method is yet available for designing pites in this eype of forma sion (API, 1991), 1.3.3.1 Skin Friction of Pile in Caleareous ands a) Driven Piles The ARGEMA procedure based on the use of the limit compressibility in dex Co ection 2:9) should be applied, The skin frictis, of driven piles in calcareous sands decreases rapidly as the compressibility of the material in freates: In highly-compressible formations, the skin ftietion is always very low (a few kPa) or zero (Nauroy et al, 1985), £) Drilled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout aithesion should be determined a: for cohesionless siliceous soils (Section 1.3.2.1) This approach is conservative and ARGEMA, based on experimental results (Nauroy et al, 1985), proposes using f= Inf (8%. 189, fin) where o, = effective overburden pressure o = internol friction angle of the soit |, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUiprLINEs 41 Sim = 100 kPa = limit unit skin friction (this limit value some times appears conservative). The use of a drilling mud (bentonite or polymer base) should be avoided, since the presence of this mud is liable to sharply reduce shin friction (Angemeer et al, 1973, 1975; Fragio et al, 1943), if @ mud is used, the borehole must be thoroughly cleaned by water circulation (Murff. 1987). This recommendation is probably conserve. tive. 1.3.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Caleareous Sands The ARGEMA procedure based on the Se Of the compressibility index x (Section 2.9) should be applied. Uf penetrometer results are available, they may be used for identifi cation and as a tog for estimating the degree of cementation, but Mm no circumstances they must be used for foundation design 1.3.4 Cemented Calcareous Formations The term “cemented caleateous formations” Formations with coarse to fine grains and wit as calesrenite, (Section 3.1) refers to calcareous ith continuous cementation, such ion of Pites in Cemented Caleareous Formations ‘The skin friction of driven piles in cemented calcareous formations is much hipher than the frictio# generated in uncemente owing to the excessively smal amount cedure can yet be proposed to estimate calcareous formations, d sand formations, However, ‘of experimental data, no proven pro. the skin friction f of piles in cemented A number of special tests are sometimes performed to provide a approximate estimate of skin friction.42 |. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES «+ Measurement ofthe pullout force of a sampler tube dr the formation. Peete rer «Steel friction tests on sections of small driven pies. Pile tects have revested voles “ shin friction obove 10 somesines abose 300 tPe, Informations wiih an averege anon ed compression strength of between 3.5 and 5 MPa (Se 380 : Segoe, 19 Beake and Sutscliffe, 1980) (Table 4.1i). 7 ad Tefen of ating driven plesin cemented coleareousfermat is generally limuted and their use is usually discarded in fave ie drilled and groued piles. f eee b) Drilled and Grouted Piles Soil-to-grout adhesion may bs obtained from the unconfined compression strength gy as shown in Figure 13a mest = ose Foor Unconfined Compression Suength g,,(14P2) Pig. 24 Skin friction of drilled ané groutes piles in ealeareous formations (Abbe and Needham, 1985), seston of drilled and grouted pites inression strength of between 0.3 This curse a> ploved in calcareous formatians to 5 MPa, in the Arabo-Persisn 6 1, PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES a 1.3.42. Tip Resistance of Piles in Cemented Calcareous Formations 1c is given by the equation: ap = Inf (4.5 gus dptio) ‘The tip cesista where: os pm = unconfined compression strength of the cemented material, = Limit unit end-bearing (limit Up resistance). Vales of dp im in excess of 10 MPa may be acceptable (Murff, 1987) 13.5 Rock rock" refers 1o cemented materials of sedimentary, metamorphic ‘The term ‘but excludes cemented calearcous formations, which were or igneous on iscussed in Section 1.3.4 Piles are installed in rock by drilling and grouting. 1.3.5.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Rock | the shart friction capacity of drided and grouted piles im rock is generally determined from the ‘grout resistance and the grout-to-pile bond (Sec~ tion 2.11), In API 1991, unit skin friction is limited by the triaxial shear resistance of the rack. which may be reduced to account for the dis turbance due to installation, or by the triaxial shear resistance of 3.5.2. Tip Resistance of Piles in Rock ‘The tip resistance is obtained from the equation. ap = Inf (4.5 des Gptin) whore: jo unconfined compression strength of rock. Goin = limit unit end-bearing (limit tip resistance)4 1. MILE DESIGN Basic GUIDELINES | 4. PLE DESIGN Base evioeLes 5 : I The limitation of the limit tip resistance to 10 MPa (200 kipeifa), | ‘Table 13 recommended by API 1991 for drilled and grouted piles in rock (gcc, Design methods recommended for driven pies tion 2.1.4), is not consistent with the existence of higher lini: velacy (amas) in dense sands. However. this limitation may be explained by the : difficulty in evacuating drilling cuttings in large diameter holeg To ensure that high values of tip resistance can be achieved, piles should be properly embedded in th: rack, with due considersiion iat of any dip at the rock surface. ae emanate API 1991 stipulates that the rock tip resistance should be deer and 2 Section 2.2.2) 7 i imined from the triaxial shear resistance and a suitable bearing, ca Randolph and Murphy Formation Baste method Other recotninended methods racity factor, but does not provide further details. recom: tselen 2-4) fine grained celareous | ¢ |” 200kPa forever {Section 23) - i soils) consolidated clays) ‘Amethod (1), 3) | (Section 2.6) Ef i he pile design methods recommended in accordance with the type of soi + Bmetios 0). (2.03) id { and ype of pile are summarized respectively in Table 13e for devven pil, (section25) : i and in Table 1.34 for drilled and grouted piles | 9 89 Cy i £ | APL 1991 (wien use of r t | Cohesionless siiseous piezocone or laboratory [ ' setae test resus fave | Peneromessr method af ' | > | tere de Ruiter and Bezingen i ty | 1] ARGEMA metos, With fin #4 Gin i Calesreous sands 1 ay | obvained asa funesion i ; Of Cp (Section 29) I Cemented ealeareous available - fermaiions : ap | p= 198 S gu, gon) : £ | tnstttaion by diving Rock seneally unfeasible oy | See Table 134 (2) Overatt method, with appropriate procedure in the case of send seams and layers. (2) Exceot in fine eateareous sais, B) To be avoided in everconsolidated clays,46 1. PILE DESIGN BASIC GUIDELINES Table 1.34 Design methods recommended for dellled and grouted piles (summary) Formation Basle method Other recommended methods NC: API 1991 © Cohesive soils (inebuding Oc: APL 1991 (with fine ealeareous soils: fm 200 kPa) op gn 9 rfe Tof (Pg 8 8, find with fig = 100 kPe Cohesiontess siliceous soils APL 1991 Gvith vse of | Penetrometer method of 4% | riezocone or labora | de Ruiter and Beringen tory test resus, if 979) svtilabie) © | feet fos t6 9 fied ¥i0h Fim» 100 KPa ARGEMA method, ith guim obtaineg 1s. function of Cyp (Section 2.9) Cateareous sends os 1 | Abbs and Needham aera ee a ‘a5 formations : ae | apt 0: ad Rock : the pile-to-cement bonde ap | gpm Ia 04.S gu ain) NC: Normally consolidated OC: Overconsolidated Chapter 2 PILE DESIG METHODS Although the API methods are the most widely used in designing offshore pile Foundations, several other design methods are now available. These methods, often complementary to the API methods, differ according to the type of soil ang the type of pile. Moreover, it should always be remembered that pile design methods and geotechnical data acquisition methods are closely inter- linked This chepter presents the 1ain pile design methods routinely applied or proposed, in the form of annotated data sheets, with we following outlined in each case: Specific use and application of the method Relovant global or partial safety factors. Calculation of skin friction and unit end-bearing, capacity + Estimate of reliability To provide an introduction to the different design methods, Table 2.03 sum- mariaes the fields of application and the advantages of the different methods, in the context of the type of soit and the type of pile, and draws attention to the corresponding sections in the text! 48 | 2 PILE DESIGN METHODS 49 2.1 APIMETHOD routed wo te veed offhore ‘The following reference documents are particularly considered: . APIRP 2A, “Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms”, 134h edition, 1982; 15th edition, 1984; 17th edition, 1987; 18th edition, 1989; 19th edition, 1991 : APIRP 2A - LRFD, “Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Design- ing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance os Factor Design”, Ist edition, Dec. 1991 + Olson (1984) “Analysis of pile response under axial loads", Final report to APL = Lings (1985) “The skin friction of driven piles in sand”, M. Sc. Thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology. ae o Driven Complementary meth, rations (3) ‘40° Recommended method design methods a 2.1.1 Specific Use of the API Method API RP 2A is the recommended practice which addresses the design of fixed offshore structures. Currently, the API RP 24 - WSD standard (WSD: Working Stress Design) calls for developing a single safety factor (which incorporates all loads under all conditions). The API RP 2A - LRFD Standard (LRFD: Load - ‘and Resistance Factor Design) considers multiple load and resistance fac~ tors. This mew standard is expected to be adopted in 1992. ‘refering to AFILA and B methods, wl ly factors the introduction of ps ty ofthe different pi ‘alls Brief tummary according to type of forms Coheslontes | ca “Type of sll) Table 2.08 | | | conestve tells Recommend @ @ homogsoeoes re-boring er #l-borng 1. Use of the APE Method 2a 3 Tr 2) The API method for designing axially-loaded piles concerns: + All fine grained cohesive sous. Cohesiontess siliceone soils (silts, sands, gravels) - Rock. b) ‘The method is applied layer by layer. It miust be used wnerever possible for the design of offshore pile foundations. ©) The method of calculating the ultimate axial pile capacity in compression or in tension is the same, whether using API RP 2A - WSD or API RE 2A- LRED. a 22 2 Ta a 2 i i § i i 21.1.2, Safety Factors of the API RP 2A - WSD Method - Presvureneter @BP, SB) (5) PRP, SBP: preesuemeter methods wf ‘Semple ond Rigden Pensioner (CPT) ARGENA APL A990) DNV 7a (1) Forthe “rock” entegery (Secon 1.3.5 and 21.4), 4) The formulas defining ultimate pile capacity in the APIRP 2A - WSD Z (Working Stress Design), currently called the API method, are those givenDESIGN METHODS in Section 1.2. Parameters introduced according (othe type of soil are gi in Sections 2.1.2 to 2.1.4. = Lisi b) The atlowable pile capacities are obtained by applying appropriate safety factors (SF) to the calculated ulti iti ate capacities (Table 2.1a) Table 2.18 Safety factors recommended by API RP 2A - WSD No Load conditiosis bien : factors 1 Design environmental conditions with epropriay= rilling foads eee Ls 2 Environmental conditions dosing de operations 2 3 Design envitonmentl conditions with production loads Bs 4 Environmental conditions during production erations 5 Design environmental conditions with minimum loads (fr puilout) 1s 2.1.1.3 Pile Resistance Factors of the API RP 24 - LRFD Method 2) In the APURP 2A - LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Dedign), safety is taken into account by using load and resistance factors, ») The soil resistance should satisfy the following conditions: for piles in compression: Po < Qe for piles in tension S OQ where Qc oF Qr = ultimate exial pile capacity in compression or tension, 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS a Pe or Py = axial compression or tension pile Joad determined from a model using factored loads, Ge or @y = pile resistance factor in compression (or &c = 0.8) oF in tension (or Oy = 0.8) 2.1.2 Pile Design in Cohesive Soils ‘The recommendations of APIRP 2A discussed for pile design in cohesive soils are those of the 19th edition (1991), derived directly from the method of Randolph, and Murphy (1983) (Section 2.4). However the API allows alter- nalive prediction merhods to be used for the evaluation of skin friction, pai ticularly methods I and 2 of the API previous editions, These recommendations concern both: + Driven piles. Drilled and grovted piles for which certain parti mentioned specifications are 2.1.2.1 Skin Friction of Piles in Cohesive Soil Recommendations of API 1991 For pipe piles in cohesive soils, the skin friction at any point along the pile may be calculated using the equation: fea, where @ = adhesion factor, Cy = undrained shear strengih at the point in question, a) The adhesion factor @ is computed from the following cquations (Fig. 2.18): a= 05 yes for w <1 a= 05 yer for y > 1 where vy = Cyo,! = normalized shear strength, 9, effective overburden pressure. In clays undergoing active consolidation, with excess pore pressures (where w may be fess than 0.25), a can usually be taken as 1. In heavily overconsolidated clays (with y 2 3), due to a lack of pile load test results, API 1991 recommends the application of the equations with some engineering. judgement.2 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS anos 9-028 Adhesion Fector 0 Normalized Shear Stengh = Cu! Fig. 2. Variation of the adhesion factor a with y = C/o (APL 1991) This Design Guide suggests shat a limit of 200 Pa be assumed in North Sea overconsolidated clays as suggested in methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2) ©) Selectivn of soil parameters: in the commentary, API 1991 emphasize that the axial pile capacity in clay determined is directly influenced by the undrained shear strength and effective overburden stress profiles selected for use in the analyses The following points should be noted: WU triaxial compression tests are recommended on high quality samples, preferably taken by pushing a thin-walled sampler with 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 3 @ diameter of 3 inches (76 mm) or more into the soil (Section 3.24.1). + Miniature vane ests on-the pushed samples should correlate with the UU test results and can be particularly beneficial in weak clays + In situ testing with a vane (Section 3.2.1.2) or cone penetrometer (Section 3.2.2.2) can help in assessing sampling disturbance effects in gassy or high!y structured soils, The SHANSEP approack (Section 3.2.1.2) can help provide a more consistent interpretation of standard laboratory tests and can provide stress history information which may be used to deter- imine the effective overburden pressure in normally consolidated clays. ©) Pile length effect: API 1991 emphasizes the possibility that for long piles driven in clay capacity degradation may occur due to factors related to doth installation conditions and soil behavior as follows: Continued shearing during pile installation, + Lateral siovement of soils away from the pile due to “pile whip” during driving. + Progressive failure due to strength reduction with continued displacement (softening). ‘To estimate the possible magnitude of reduction in capacity of long piles, API refers to methods suggested by. Kraft et al (1981b), also referred to as Murff's approach (Section 3.5.2.1). + Randolph and Murphy (1985) (Section 3.5.2.2), + Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2.3.2) 4) Alternative prediction methods are allowed by API 1991 foy determining vile skin friction in cohesive soils: Methods 1 and 2, of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2). + The % method, either in terms of pile penetration (Section 2.6), or of pile-soit stiffness ratio Tly, as expressed by Kraft and al (1981b) ‘The @ method of Semple and Rigden (1984) (Section 2.3) Most available pile test results refer to methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 (Section 2.1.2.2).IGN METHONS 2.1.2.2 Skin Friction of Pte in Cohesive Suits: Recommendations of API 1986 whee Maximum skin friction in clay is di I 7 derived from unconfined compression or labora ee faae, APL 1980 proposed two different methods, dno the degree of plasticity of the clay. : ae in very plastic coesive sole (CH), where Wy. 2 50 ant fe as In normally consolidated (NC) or consolidating cla eee 1B clays, f may be equal to In overconsolidated (OC) clays (Fig. 2.16): For Cy > 72 kPa! *] fay = mas (28a, CO ind Ste Soest hey Fig. 21 Values off fin in very plastic Doverconsolidaied clays (API 1986, metao¢ 1). 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 35 = undrained shear strength of the clay in its normally consolidated state, given: by ot - 025e, (where 'y = effective overburden pressure). fof by the Skempton relation: ck 2 [011 + 0.0037) oy b) Method 2 of API 1986 is used for evaluation of skin friction of piles in other cohesive soils (not classed as “very plastic”) (Fig. 2.0): For C, < 24 kPa: ael + For 24 < Cy < 72 kPa: 1 should decrease linearly from 1 10 0.5. a 205 0. =1.25-0,016u (6u in 4a) | ff fee, for Cu batigon 50 and 721s st assumed Gest 37 8h Fig. 2 Variation of the adhesion factor & with ondrained shear stength Cy ©) Comment on application of methods I and 2 of API 1986. In practice, methods 1 and 2 are often applied using cohesive strength values obtained from different tests. From UU triaxial tests (preferably on samples taken with thin- walled push samplers) Or from in situ tests (penetrometer, vane).i i ' | | | 56 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS It is unconservative to use very high-quality tesis which may give values of Cy higher than those obtained by the reference test, API 1986 recommends method 1 for very plastic clays, such os those found in the Gulf of Mexico (W, = 80 and ly = $0). This dis. tinction is mainly historical. In practice, it iz hardly justified from the standpoint of pile capacity (Olson, 1984). This leads some consul tants to use both methods | and 2 for all the clays encountercd. Certain specialists (St John, 1980; Toolan and Coutts, 1979; Parry, 1978) apply: Method 1 to normally consolidated t0 slighily overconsolidated clays. + Method 2 for highly overconsolidated clays: The definition of very plastic clays is that used by Dennis and Olson (1983). The difference between this and the USCS criterion is minimal. Method 1 refers 12 the concept of overcansolidation. which must be defined from oedometer 1ests (OCR > 2) or, failing this, by using the criterion of Kraft et al (1981) (Cx > OM o'y). Im practice, there is no real need to define the precise state of overconsolidation, as the determination of fim is usually sufficient ©) Upper ‘etion limit in clay: except in very plastic overconsotidated clays, there Rg upper friction timit in clay A limit of 200 kPa is assumed in the North Sea for shin friction in clays (Offshore Engineer, D:tober 1985). However, this limit is not always applied (e.g. at Heather), but 1: recommended in this Design Guide except for normally consolidated (NC) clays. where @ high value of Cy usually corresponds 10 @ high value of ov (Semple and Gemeinhardt, 1981), 2.1.2.3 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils The unit end-bearing capacity (or ultimate tip resistance) of piles in cohesive soils may be determined using the equation: 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 1 ap = Ce where Cy = undrained shear strength, Ne = bearing capacity factor, Ne 9 (except for esis 2 1b) The value of N, is defined by Skempton’s relationship (Pig. 2.14). hook : [tees Embedded Depth Fig. 2.14 Shempton's relationship, a) No limit value is imposed on the ultimate end-bearing capacity in clay. b) APL 1991 specifies that the end-bearing values for piles bearing into cohesive layers with adjacent weaker layers may be those given by the equation p= NeCy assuming that: The pile penetraces wo or three diameters er more unto the layer in question + The tip is approximately three diameters above the oroer 10 prevent punchthrough. se of the layer in However API 1991 does no: specify shai suck modifications should be applied. Where these disiances are not achieved, the relevant Guidelines are given in Section 1.2.1.6 of this Design Guide t J58 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 2.4.2.4 Design of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques 4) For piles driven in undersized drilled holes, piles jetted in place or piles drilled and grouted in place, APL recommends that disturbance resulting from installation be taken into account b) For éri fed and grouted piles: Values of skin friction should not exceed those recommended for d1iven piles. However, in some cases in overconsolidsted clay, f may exceed these values, In determining f, the strength of the soil-grout interface, including p- tential effécts of drilling mud, should be considered. + The strength of the grout-steel pile interface should be taken into account (Section 2.11), For further discussion, API 1991 refers 10 Kraft and Lyons (agra), 2.1.2.5 Comments on the Recommendations of API 1986 and API 1991 @) Tue API 1991 method, in comparison with the APL 1986 methods | and 2, offers two advantages; Better integration of the soil properties into calculation, by linking the shear strcngth to the local effective stress. ‘The application, in principle, whatever the plasticity of the clay Jn fact, in the absenve of data, the APL 199] method has not yet been validat ed either for very overconsolidated clays (such that y > 3, Section 2.3.2.1) or for long piles (Section 2.1.2.te) b) The computed skin friction using the API 1991 method is generally higher than that obtained in applying methods 1 and 2 of API 1986 + For ¥ (- ] > 825, retro > oar ses tees 9 a) > Fer deep penetration piles in soils with Cy > 72.APa, axes soi is a little lees than J, whereas 4711966 menos sy = OS 2. PILE DESIGN wen: 9 ©) Comparison between results of the API 1991 method and the API 1986 methods varies depending on soil characteristics and pile lengths. In normally consolidated cohesive soils, the API 1991 method appears 10 give good results (Section 4.2.1.4) + In normally consolidated very plastic cohesive soils, the results of *he API 1991 method and those of the API 1986 method 1 are in good agreement (Section 4.3.1.6}. + Im overconsolidaied cohesive soils, the results of the API 199] method and those of the A? 1986 method 2 are in good agreement (Sevtion 4.3.2.7). + In several examples of long piles in stiff elays, application of the API 199] method shows that estimated load capacities are often 30 10 $0% greater than those estimated using methods 1 and 2 of API 1986, 4) ‘The statistical analysis of Dennis and Olson (1983), carried out on the results of 84 tests on piles in slay (57 in compression and 27 in tension), allows @ comparison to be made between these result. and + Methods 1 and 2 of APL 1986. + The method of Randolph and Murphy (1985) from which the API 1991 method is directly derived The resulis of this analysis are given in Table 2.16 Teble 216 Results of a compariton beiween the AP! 1986 methods ‘and Randolph ond Murphy's method De Om date urin. | max. | ave | cov a oa | 232 | 12 | ose Rancoiph ant Morphy (15985) ays method os: | 420 | 102 | 06860 2. FILE DESIGN METHODS The uncertainty inkerent in the results of Randolph and Murphy's method is twice that of API 1986. s+ The preceding remarks and results confirm the need to: + Validate the API 1991 method, + Standardise the methods of determination of soil parameters (Se: 2.1.2.18). The validation of the API 1991 method could logically lead to a revision of values of the adhesion factor a (Y). 2.1.3 Pile Design in Cohesiontess Siliceous Soils The recommendations of API RP 2A considered here for pile desi sionless siliceous soils are those of the 15th edition (1984) and following editions, They concera: + Driven piles. Drilled and grouted piles for which certain particular specifications ace discussed. 2.1.3.1 Skit, Friction of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils For pipe piles in cohesionless siliceous soils, the skin friction may be calculated using the equation: f= Koy' tan 8 where K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to vertical rormal effective swess). Gv= — cffective overburden pressure at the point in question, 5 = friction angle between the soil and pile wall In fact the skin friction does not increase indefinitely with depth but tends towards a limit value fig such that the skin friction may be expressed by the following fit [oy 18, fa] 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS a a) The value of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K depends upon the type of pile (open- or closed-ended) and upon the behavior of the pile during installation K = 0.8 for unplugged piles which do not displace the soil snd which are internally filled with soil during driving, This value is taken in ten sion as in compression, K = 1 for plugged piles, which displace the soil during driving The value of K is controtied by the behavicr of the pile during installation. ‘1 is perfecily acceptable for a pile plusginglunplag. sing character to change during installation, ond thus different va~ Iues of K may be used according 10 depth. Mlowever, this behavior must be accurately established and, in no circumstances, can cal culations Le based exclusively on the concept of a static plug (Section 1.2.1.2), As a first approximation, K is taken as 0.8 ‘The hypothesis that the skin friction is equal in tension and compression for unplugged piles (K = 0.8 in both eases) results from 4 global statistical analysis of pile test data (Dennis and Olson, 1983) The equality of shin friction in tension and compression is diffie cult to verify as @ result of the existence of residual stresses in piles after driving (Section 2.1.3,5a). These recommendations are noi ac~ cepted by many certification authorities (DEn, Llovd's, Bureau Verisus} Who continue 10 recommend that fission = 0.7 feompranian (SE tion 2.1.3.5) b) ‘The pile-soil friction angle 8 varios from 15° to 35° according to the density of the sand. In the absence of more precise data, the value of 8 may be estimated from the guidelines given in Table 2.10.| { «2 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS Table 2.16 Design parameters for cohesionless siliceous soils (API. 1991) Seit-pite | Limiting Limiting soit | trietion [sta trietion nit ene Density | description | angle, 8 f values Dearing degrees) | “tie values cary in (MPa) Very toore Sand Loose Sands f 15" 6 8 2 Medium silt Send Send-rile | 20° 6 2 3 sit 7 Medium Sand ase a 20 5 Dense Sand-silt, Denes Sand 30" 96 40 10 very Sand-sitt Dense Greed as us 50 2 Very donse Sand The Introduction, in API 1984, of the category “very dense send”, with @ soil-pile frietion angle 8 of 25°, constitues an improvement when compared with the preceding recommendations (Table 2.14) for pile design in dense sands, Experience shows, however, that these recommendations are still very conservative in the case of very dense sands with a relative density in sxcess of 80% (Section 2.1.3.5b). Table 2.14 Design parameters for cohesionioss siliceous soils (API, 1982) Soll Friction Soll type angle frletion angle 5 aeprees) (degrees) silt 20 15 8 Sands sit 3s 20 2 Sih sand 30 2 20 Clean sand 35 30 4 2. PILE DESIGN x:eTHoDS 63 ©) The skin friction, flim for deep piles in cohesionless siliceous soils would be reached at a certain depth, known as the “critical depth”. Tk is essentially 2 function of the soil density and the pile diameter. Experience appears to indicate that values of the relative critical depth (D/B)qjy are as follows (Lings, 1985) Approximately 10 in loose sands Approximately 25 0 30 in dense 10 very dense sands. ‘The API recommendations for values of limit skin friction, classed accord'ng to relative density (Table 2.1c), are represented on Fig. 2.1¢ as 3 function of the soil-pile friction angle 8, as Ba a 30 35 laerees Fig. 2le Limiting skin friction and unit end-bearing values in cohesionless silicsous soils, (APL, 1991},a 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS ‘The limit skin friction values suggested by API inctease almost proportionally with tan &, from 8 = 15° (loose sands) to 8 = 35° (very dense sands}. Thc does not conform with reality, where the skin friction observed siderably in very dense sands (Section 2.1.3.56). 2.1.3.2 Tip Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Siliceous Soils ‘The unit end-bearing (tip resistance) of piles in cohesionless siliceous soits may be computed using the equation: Gp = oy Ng where O'y = effective overburden pressure, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factor. Like the skin friction, the unit end-bearing of deep piles tends towards @ Himit value, such that the unit end-bearing may be expressed using the follo. wing expression Qe = TE oY Ng. Spin) The values of Ny and Goin recommended by API 1991 are given in Table 21¢ for different classifications and densities of cohesionless silice ous soils, a) ‘The total end-dearing differs according to whether the pile is “plugged” or “unplugged” (Section 1.2.1.2) In the case of a plugged pile, the total end-bearing is gp Ay + In the case of an unplugged pile, the tolal end-braring is dy Avy + skin friction of the internal soit colsmn, where 4 unit end-bearing (tip resistance) Ae annular cross-sectional area of the pile tip, Ap = total cross-sectional area of the pile tip. ») The bearing capacity factor Nq (8) values suggested by API approach & limit at around 8 = 30° 10 35° (Table 2.1¢ and Fig. 2.10) ‘The API recommendations for limit unit end-beating are given in Table Y.1e and are shown on Fig, 2.10 as @ function of the soil-pile friction angle 8. 2. PILE DESIGN METHODS 6s 1000 g gs 2 0 8 30 3 1 us Pe Ng igh Attor Borezanteey et of 1961) ‘Values Recommanded by Randolph (985) = 4,08) Recommended by AP! assuming 5=p™ 5° ‘according to API 1982) Ng fGed Rocommended by DNV (wit tants) ‘ezording to ONY 1977), “a Pig. 260 Vas mis of Ny with the fiction angle Tne unit end-bearing. values recommended by API appear to” be conservative, particularly in dense anc very dense sands. with a relative density in excess of 80% (Section 2.1.3.5b}. In very dense overconsolidaced sands, such as those found in the Nort Sea, the limit value of the unit end-bearing qyin. which is assumed 10 be 12 MPa by API 199], is sometinies raised 10 15 MPa (Van Zandwijk, 1986), or 20 MPa, ©) The unit end-bearing value for piles topped in cohesionless layers with adjacent soft layers may be computed as described above, assuming that6 2. PILE OBSIGS METHOnS The pile achieves penetration of wo to three diameters or more into the cohesionless soil Tae tip is approximately three diameters above the bottom of the layer to preclude punchtheough, However, the API does not provide modifications (0 be applied where these distances are not achieved. Relevant guidelines are given in Section 1.2.1.6. 2.1.3.3 Detign of Piles Using Specific Installation Techniques a) For driven piles with a drilled or jetted pilot-hole, the values of f and qp must take account of the disturbance associated with installation, and must never exceed she values obtained for driven pites b) For drilled and grouted piles, the values in Table 2.1 are applicable, ‘Tne resistance of the cement-to-pile bond should be taken into account (Sec. tion 2.11), 2.1.3.4 Characterization of Cohesionless Soils According to API 1991 siliceous ‘The determination of design parameters for cohesionless siliceous soil ing to API 1991 (Table 2.tc) is based upon two criteria: ‘The grain size distribution of the soil An indication of the relati Is accord: doisity Toble 2.Je restates the dasa given in Table 2.1¢ of API 3964, by Proposing a more quantizaiive representation of the relative density for each type of cohesionless siliceous sail 4) The grain size distribution is determined by sampling. On the other hand. this meshed Le in..35 “+ the determination of the relative density. sin-e che one 23 {methods are inadequate for recovering insect samsies .m vane ssniess soils. The relative density i results, particularly from pene: is usually estimated from in si trometer data (Section 222 Taole 2.16 fiction angle Sand the coeffcient N,, together with li for skin feiction and unit end-bearing @ (API, 1991). FE] Ean | annglansoals a/e 3 aglessslensssis : eee closets eg] ages (agea8|9 s jee /S8s8e]o8sss]s as 38 ig aa eeleia 3 2 Je | fale eg ee aujadie| suds i 2§)$s4s)SsaF/8 = set i 3a 8 gek = 8g ls | ds [8 8 .| 35 Pa 3 Bz] 88 | 3B [é classes are not mentioned. TPhis table is incomplete in that certs col cl a

Design Guides For Offshore Structures

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design Guides For Offshore Structures

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi