0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

2 vues11 pagespile in rock

Apr 10, 2017

Car Rubba 1997

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

pile in rock

© All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

2 vues11 pagesCar Rubba 1997

pile in rock

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

into rock

Paolo Carrubba

Abstract: The results of five axial loading tests on large-diameter drilled piles socketed into rock are discussed in this paper.

The piles were built on an Italian site where several shallow rock formations are found below loose soils. Pile sockets

involved rocks with different strengths such as marl, limestone, gypsum, and diabase. The pile response during static loading

depended on the rock strength, the length of the socket in the rock, and the length of the pile in the soil. In this paper, an

analytical model is used to evaluate the limit skin friction at the pilerock interface. The model is based on the hyperbolic

transfer function technique and allows back-analyses to be carried out easily. Following current empirical approaches, a

preliminary appraisal of the model parameters is made using extensive data from laboratory and in situ tests. The parameters

are subsequently modified by fitting the measured pile head displacements to computer simulation results. The shaft resistance

values obtained from the analyses are compared with published values and are found to be lower.

Key words: socketed pile, skin friction, large diameter, transfer functions.

Rsum : Dans cet article sont discuts les rsultats de cinq essais de charge axiale sur des pieux de grand diamtre ancrs

dans la roche. Les pieux ont t raliss dans un site italien o lon a diffrentes formations rocheuses une profondeur

modre au-dessous de terrains granulaires plus superficiels. Les ancrages ont t effectus sur des roches ayant diffrentes

caractristiques de rsistance, telles que marbre, calcaire, gypse et diabase. La rponse statique des pieux sous charge sest

rvle tre dpendante de la rsistance de la roche, de la longueur de lancrage et de la portion de pieu dans les terrains. Un

modle de calcul est utilis dans cet article afin dvaluer le frottement latral linterface pieu-roche. Ce modle, bas sur les

fonctions de transfert de type hyperbolique, permet deffectuer aisment des analyses a posteriori. En suivant les approches de

type empirique, les paramtres du modle sont dabord caractriss sur la base des donnes fournies par les essais in situ et de

laboratoire. Les paramtres sont ensuite modifis en comparant les dplacements rels des ttes des pieux avec ceux fournis

par le modle de calcul. Les valeurs finales de frottement limite ainsi calcules savrent sensiblement plus basses que celles

quon trouve dans la littrature.

Mots cls : pieux ancrs dans la roche, frottement latral, grand diamtre, fonctions de transfert.

[Traduit par lauteur]

Introduction estimation of the shaft friction of socketed piles using only the

unconfined compression strength of the rock.

The use of drilled piles socketed into rock as foundation struc- Five loading tests on large-diameter ( = 1200 mm) drilled

tures is one of the best solutions when layers of loose soil piles socketed in rock are discussed in this paper. An analytical

overlie bedrock at shallow depths. In these cases, considerable model for pilesoil and pilerock interactions is employed for

bearing capacity can be ensured by shaft friction in rock, even careful evaluation of the experimental data. The model takes

with small pile displacements. into account site heterogeneity by selecting different hyper-

Socketed piles are designed using analytical or empirical bolic transfer functions for each geological formation. More

approaches. The former have received much attention, and complicated models were not believed to be necessary in this

finite-element solutions are now available; the latter are based study.

on the results of full- and small-scale testing. Comparisons between simulated and measured pile head

Both analytical and empirical approaches are equally suit-

displacements provided theoretical skin friction values at the

able for socketed piles. The analytical approach allows phe- pilerock interface. The latter were then compared with pub-

nomena to be modeled in detail, whereas the empirical approach lished values.

takes constructive techniques into account. The difficulties that

may arise in drilling large-diameter shafts in hard rock at

depths exceeding about 10 m are well-known. Moreover, drill-

ing can strongly affect rock properties and the roughness of Current design approaches in socketed

the pilerock interface, causing a reduction in the bearing ca- piles

pacity and an increase in settlement. Empirical criteria allow

Theoretical aspects of rockpile interaction in the linear-

elastic field have been investigated by many authors (Osterberg

Received March 28, 1996. Accepted December 3, 1996. and Gill 1973; Pells and Turner 1979; Kulhawy and Goodman

P. Carrubba. University of Padova, Istituto di Costruzioni 1987).

Marittime e di Geotecnica, Via Ognissanti 39, 35129 Finite-element analyses in the elastic-plastic field were car-

Padova, Italy. ried out by Rowe and Armitage (1987a, 1987b), while Leong

Carrubba 231

and Randolph (1994) included dilation, hardening, and soften- Fig. 1. Map showing site location.

ing effects.

Analytical procedures based on the transfer function tech-

nique have been proposed by Kodikara and Johnston (1994),

who simulated hardening and softening by means of an ideal-

ized transfer function consisting of a series of linear steps.

Experimental studies on small-scale models were carried

out by Rehnman and Broms (1971) and Benmokrane et al.

(1994). The influence of the less resistant material (rock or

concrete) and the roughness of the pilerock interface were

stressed by the authors.

Empirical procedures have been presented by several

authors (Rosenberg and Journeaux 1976; Horvath and Kenney

1979; Williams and Pells 1981; Horvath et al. 1989) who reported

the results of loading tests on full-scale pile models. A certain

scatter of ultimate skin friction values was observed with respect

to the unconfined compression strength of the rock.

Site investigations

Loading tests on five socketed piles 1200 mm in diameter and

varying in length between 13.50 and 37.00 m were performed

at Rosignano in Tuscany (Italy) before the construction of the

Poggio-Iberna Viaduct (Fig. 1). The piles were built and tested

to design the actual foundations of the viaduct to be placed in

the same area. Heterogeneous soil deposits of moderate thick-

ness covered the underlying rock formations in which the piles

were socketed (Fig. 2). Bedrock conditions also varied consid- (w), compared with Atterberg plastic (PL) and liquid (LL) lim-

erably along the the viaduct, so that both soft and hard rocks its, confirmed the slightly overconsolidated nature of clay

with compressive strength (qu) varying between 0.90 and soils. The standard penetration test value (SPT N), obtained in

40.00 MPa could be encountered. granular layers, indicated moderately dense sand.

The geological process of formation of the area is typical Table 1 summarizes geotechnical soil properties, including

of the marine series of the Upper Miocene, Pliocene, andQuaternary the low strain shear modulus (Go) obtained by means of empiri-

in central Tuscany. Basal conglomerate began to form during the cal correlations found in the literature. For slightly overconsoli-

marine transgression of the Upper Miocene (upper Tortonian dated clay soil, Maugeri et al. (1988) proposed Go/su = 400,

lower Messinian). Neritic deposits, known as Rosignano while Bellotti et al. (1986) suggested a Go/qc ratio of 8 in mod-

limestone, and evaporitic deposits of gypsum, formed during erately dense granular soil.

the Messinian transgression and regression, are overlain by Pile 1 (Fig. 3), 18.50 m long, was socketed into an intact

Pliocene marls and Quaternary deposits. With reference to the marl formation for about 7.50 m. The unconfined compressive

tectonic setting, the interaction between the European and Afri- strength reached values around 0.90 MPa. Pile 2 (Fig. 4),

can plates gave rise to a vertical faulting system, evolving as 19.00 m long, was socketed into a diabasic breccia for 2.50 m.

a horst-and-graben configuration. Occasional volcanic processes The RQD value, about 10%, indicated a highly fractured for-

occurred in an underwater environment through faults, giving mation; an unconfined compressive strength of 15.00 MPa

rise to diabase pillow lavas. was measured on core pieces. Pile 3 (Fig. 5), 37.00 m long,

Several continuous borings with undisturbed sampling was socketed into gypsum with an RQD of about 60% and an

were performed to characterize the mechanical properties of unconfined compressive strength of 6.00 MPa; the socket

both soils and rocks in the laboratory. The rock quality desig- length was 11.00 m. Pile 4 (Fig. 6), 20.00 m long, was sock-

nation (RQD) of rock formations was evaluated during sam- eted into a very hard diabase with an RQD of about 50% and

pling. With regard to the upper soils, cone penetration tests an unconfined compressive strength of 40.00 MPa; the socket

(CPT) and standard penetration tests (SPT) were also made to length was 2.00 m. Pile 5 (Fig. 7), 13.50 m long, was socketed

characterize the in situ strength of clayey and granular soils. into an intact limestone formation with an unconfined com-

Stratigraphies related to the tested piles are shown in pressive strength of 2.50 MPa; the socket length was 2.50 m.

Figs. 37, together with geotechnical characterizations ob- Table 2 summarizes geotechnical rock properties including

tained from in situ and laboratory data. The undrained resis- the longitudinal modulus (ER). When the rock mass was ac-

tance of clay soils (su), varying between 0.025 and 0.15 MPa, cessible, plate bearing tests (with a plate of 300 mm in diame-

was typical of moderately to slightly overconsolidated soils. ter) provided in situ measurements of ER in the case of

Undrained shear strength was derived from laboratory testing, limestone and diabasic breccia formations, while in the re-

such as torvane (TV), pocket-penetrometer (PP), unconfined maining cases only the results of compression tests on specimens

compression (qu), and unconsolidated-undrained (UU) tests. were used. Poissons ratio of rock formations was assumed to

The same parameter was also derived from in situ cone penetra- be R = 0.25. The geometric features of the socketed piles are

tion resistance (qc) and vane tests (VT). Natural water content summarized in Table 3.

232 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

qc STP N Go

Soil type su (MPa) (MPa) (blows/foot) (MPa)

Clayey soil 0.0250.05 1.0 1020

Sandy clay 0.050.15 2.0 2060

Sand and gravel 812 20-R 7090

Note: R, refusal. 1 foot = 0.305 m.

Each pile was drilled with a bucket in soils and a casing was

used for borehole support. When the bedrock was encountered,

drilling operations required the use of a rock bit. Concrete was

poured into the boreholes, and a volumetric check was carried

out. After a suitable time had elapsed, integrity tests were car-

ried on the piles to verify geometry and concrete homogeneity.

Sonic cross-hole (Fig. 8) and vertical admittance tests pro-

pile behavior was very different under the same load level,

vided constant values of longitudinal stress waves (Vp) with

depending on the anchorage length in rock, the pile length in

depth, varying between 3500 and 3900 m/s. According to the

the soil, and the rock strength.

theory of elasticity, the longitudinal modulus (Ep) can be de-

Piles 1 and 2 showed typical behavior close to failure

rived using the following equation:

(Figs. 10 and 11), with maximum head displacements between

[1] Ep = Vp 2 20 and 25 mm and permanent displacements between 15 and

20 mm. Nevertheless, clear failure loads were not found by

where is the concrete unit mass. Assuming mean values analysing pile head settlements with conventional methods

Vp = 3700 m/s and = 2300 kg/m3, a modulus Ep of 3.15 (Fellenius 1980). The shape of the experimental loadsettlement

104 MPa is obtained, consistent with the mean value of con- curves shows noncontemporary mobilization of side and base

crete compressive strength (c = 25.00 MPa) obtained on bearings. As in drilled piles in soils, side friction appeared to

specimens taken during pile casting. be mobilized at first. Only under the last loading steps did the

Loading tests were performed following a slow-maintained base bearing produce a modification in the experimental

load procedure. Axial loads were transmitted to the pile head loadsettlement curve.

by five hydraulic jacks reacting against a platform with a 12 MN Piles 3, 4, and 5 showed nearly elastic behavior, even at the

kentledge (Fig. 9). A typical loading schedule had three loading maximum testing load (Figs. 12, 13, and 14). Maximum head

unloading stages with maximum axial loads of 4, 6, and 10 MN, displacements were always less than 7 mm, and permanent

respectively. During the loading steps, pile head settlements were displacements were less than 2 mm. This variation may be

measured every 10 minutes until stabilization. A conventional zero explained by the greater resistance of the rock sockets.

settlement rate of 0.05 mm/min was assumed. In pile 2, an anomalous variation in axial stiffness was noted

Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 give the results of loading during the second unloading stage from the head load of 6 MN

tests for each pile in terms of loadsettlement curves. Static (Fig. 11). Although this event may be related to brittle failure

Carrubba 233

234 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Fig. 6. Geotechnical characterization at site of pile 4. Fig. 8. Results of sonic cross-hole test on pile 1.

Rock type qu (MPa) RQD (%) ER (MPa)

Marl 0.90 100 200

Diabasic breccia 15.00 10 200

Gypsum 6.00 60 2 000

Diabase 40.00 50 10 000

Limestone 2.50 100 500

explained. [4] lim = = qlim

w w b

where qlim is the ultimate strength of the base in rock (lim) or

Numerical model for loading test analysis the ultimate friction along the shaft in both soil and rock (lim).

Numerical analyses were carried out by selecting three

For the actual loaddisplacement curves, numerical analyses transfer functions for each pile: one representative of overall

were carried out by means of a computer code (Castelli et al. friction in soil, one for overall friction in rock, and the last for

1992) to evaluate limit skin friction at the pilerock interface. compressive strength at the pile base. The friction transfer

The model is based on a hyperbolic transfer function approach functions in soils, once selected, were maintained constant

(Chin 1970; Fleming 1992) and solves the equilibrium of the throughout the analyses, being supported by previous analyses

pile by means of finite-element discretization. The interaction of pile loading tests with the same numerical model (Castelli

at pilesoil and pilerock interfaces is described by the follow- et al. 1992; Maugeri et al. 1993). Transfer function parameters

ing function: for rock, both along the shaft and at the base, were first estimated

(Table 4) and then modified with an iterative process until the

w(z) experimental loadsettlement curve was reproduced (Table 5).

[2] q(z) =

a + bw(z) For both soil and rock, the limit strength values (1/b) were

evaluated by means of empirical correlations with in situ and

where q(z) is mobilized strength along a shaft portion () or at laboratory test results.

the pile base (), and w(z) is the corresponding displacement In rock, the value of compressive strength at the pile base

(Fig. 15). In the transfer function, parameters a and b represent (lim) was assumed as the minimum between the compres-

the reciprocals of initial slope and limit strength, respectively: sive strengths of concrete (c) and four to six times the

unconfined compressive strengths of rock (qu) (Rehnman

dq 1

[3] lim = and Broms 1971).

w0 dw a

1997 NRC Canada

Carrubba 235

Pile No. Rock socket L (m) Lsoil (m) Lsocket (m) Lsocket/ Lsocket/L (%) Lsocket/Lsoil (%)

1 Marl 18.50 11.00 7.50 6.25 40 68

2 Diabasic breccia 19.00 16.50 2.50 2.10 13 15

3 Gypsum 37.00 26.00 11.00 9.20 30 42

4 Diabase 20.00 18.00 2.00 1.70 10 11

5 Limestone 13.50 11.00 2.50 2.10 18 23

Fig. 9. Pile load test arrangement. Fig. 10. Results of loading test on pile 1.

Depending on the rock type, the limit side friction (lim) was

evaluated following Thorne (1977) and Williams and Pells

(1981). For moderately fractured hard to weak rock, lim was

assumed to be the minimum value between 0.05 and 0.10 times

c and 0.05 and 0.10 times qu. For highly fractured rocks, such where Go is the soil shear modulus at small strains, Ro is the

as diabasic breccia, lim was assumed to be 0.03 to 0.05 times pile radius, and R is the radial distance at which shear stress

qu. For soft rock (qu 1 MPa), it was assumed to be 0.2 to 0.5 becomes negligible. Baguelin and Frank (1979) proposed that

times qu. ln(R/Ro) may vary between 3 and 5. Table 4 shows the initial

In soils, only the transfer function parameters of side fric- slope of the soil shear transfer function used in the analyses.

tion were required. The static approach allowed limit friction For rock, parameter a is required to define the transfer func-

(1/b) to be estimated from drained and undrained shear tion both along the shaft and at the pile base. According to the

strength of granular and cohesive soils, respectively (Table 4). theory of elasticity (Poulos and Davis 1974; Pells and Turner

Evaluation of the initial slope of the transfer function (1/a) 1979), solutions may be found to describe the relationship be-

was related to soil and rock deformability at low strain. tween stress and displacement at rock socket boundaries. The

For soils, Randolph and Wroth (1978) proposed the follow- 1/a values of the side transfer function were evaluated follow-

ing equation: ing the elastic solution proposed by Pells and Turner (1979)

for a shear socket. Taking into account elastic shortening of

R the pile socket under compression, the ratio between shear

Ro ln stress (mean) and displacement (wmean) at the center of the pile

Ro

[5] a= socket was obtained:

Go

1997 NRC Canada

236 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Shaft in soil Shaft in rock Base in rock

Pile No. 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3) 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3) 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3)

1 0.080 25 0.30 45 4.50 440

2 0.050 20 0.60 65 25.00 420

3 0.050 20 0.45 350 25.00 4 650

4 0.035 15 2.00 3 000 25.00 18 900

5 0.040 20 0.20 165 12.50 1 050

Fig. 11. Results of loading test on pile 2. Fig. 12. Results of loading test on pile 3.

mean 1 EREP

[6] = =

wmean a 2Lsocket IEP L2socket ER evident when small displacements are mobilized, the rock

strength increases, and the socket length is high.

with the I settlement influence factor of Pells and Turner

(1979). Table 4 shows the initial slope of the rock shear trans-

fer function used in the analyses. The 1/a values for the base Results of numerical analyses

transfer function in rock were evaluated according to the elas- As stated, the shape of the experimental loadsettlement

tic half-space solution of Poulos and Davis (1974). The ratio curves of piles 1 and 2 (Figs. 10 and 11) shows noncontempo-

between normal stress and vertical displacement of the pile rary mobilization of the side and base strengths, although the

base is provided by the following expression: numerical model used here was not capable of simulating this

1 4ERn event. To overcome the problem, two different ideal pile be-

[7] = = haviors were examined. The first neglects the base reaction;

w a (1 vR2)

the second takes into account the contemporary mobilization

with n being a factor depending on the relative depth (Lsocket / D) of side and base resistances from the beginning of the tests.

and the Poisson ratio (R) of the rock. The 1/a values for the Simulations in terms of side friction only (Figs. 16 and 17)

base transfer function in rock are reported in Table 4. fit the experimental curves up to nearly 12 mm of pile head

Although two transfer functions had to be defined for the displacement, whereas simulations in terms of side and base re-

rock sockets, one for side friction and another for the base sistances only fit values under the maximum head displacement.

reaction, the first appears to have more influence on fitting However, with the second assumption, complete failure is not

between the computed and experimental curves. This is more reached in either pile, the base strength being mobilized up to 45%

Carrubba 237

Shaft in soil Shaft in rock Base in rock

Pile No. 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3) 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3) 1/b (MPa) 1/a (MN/m3)

1 0.080 25 0.14 100 5.30 220

2 0.050 20 0.49 70 8.90 300

3 0.050 20 0.47 200

4 0.035 15 1.20 500

5 0.040 20 0.40 500 8.90 3000

Fig. 14. Results of loading test on pile 5. Fig. 16. Comparison between test results and numerical simulations

for pile 1. Curve a neglects base reaction; curve b takes into

account contemporary mobilization of side and base reactions.

per soils and lower rock formations has different characteristics,

depending on the socket length, the pile length in the soil, and

the rock strength. In pile 1, the limit friction in soils is reached

after full mobilization of the limit friction in rock; whereas in

pile 2, the friction in soils is fully mobilized earlier.

For piles 3, 4, and 5 (Figs. 12, 13, and 14) back-analyses

in pile 1 and 22% in pile 2. Limit friction at the socket is were performed assuming contemporary activation of side and

reached in both piles under the testing loads, with values of base resistances from the beginning of loading. Final parameters

about 0.14 MPa for pile 1 and 0.49 MPa for pile 2 (Table 5). of side transfer functions indicate the following limit frictions

Axial load distributions with depth are reported in Fig. 18 in sockets: 0.47 MPa for pile 3, 1.20 MPa for pile 4, and

for pile 1 and Fig. 19 for pile 2 up to the maximum testing 0.40 MPa for pile 5 (Table 5).

load. Only frictional behavior is considered in Figs. 18a and Axial load distributions with depth are shown in Figs. 20, 21,

19a, and the contemporary mobilization of side and base re- and 22. In piles 3 and 4, limit friction was achieved in soil but not

238 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Fig. 17. Comparison between test results and numerical simulations Fig. 19. Axial load distributions in pile 2 from numerical

for pile 2. Curve a neglects base reaction; curve b takes into simulation: (a) side friction only; (b) side and base reactions.

account contemporary mobilization of side and base reactions.

simulation: (a) side friction only; (b) side and base reactions.

in rock. The maximum mobilized friction in rock (mob) was In piles 2, 3, 4, and 5, the limit friction in the upper soils

only 25% of the limit value for pile 3 and 74% for pile 4 (Table 6), was always reached before any failure in the socket, depending

while the base resistance was never mobilized in either pile. In on the Lsocket / Lsoil ratios of these piles (Table 3). In pile 1,

pile 5, the limit friction was fully mobilized first in soil and then where the ratio was higher, limit friction in soil occurred after

in rock; the base resistance was mobilized up to 42%. anchorage failure in marl.

Carrubba 239

Pile No. Rock socket mob (MPa) lim (MPa) mob / lim (%) (MPa)1/2

1 Marl 0.14 0.14 100 0.15

2 Diabasic breccia 0.49 0.49 100 0.13

3 Gypsum 0.12 0.47 25 0.19

4 Diabase 0.89 1.20 74 0.19

5 Limestone 0.40 0.40 100 0.25

Fig. 21. Axial load distribution in pile 4 from numerical simulation. Fig. 22. Axial load distribution in pile 5 from numerical simulation.

Conclusions Fig. 23. Computed skin friction values at pile sockets: comparison

with published values. 8, limit friction obtained by numerical

The results of five axial loading tests on large-diameter ( = analysis.

1200 mm) drilled piles socketed into rock are discussed in this

paper. The static response of the piles varied considerably,

depending on the rock strength, the drilled length in the rock,

and the drilled length in the soil. Analysis of pile head settle-

ments by means of conventional methods showed that none of

the tested piles revealed clear failure under the maximum axial

load of 10 MN.

The aim of this paper was to simulate the static behavior of

piles up to failure and to assess limit skin friction in rock. A

numerical model, based on the hyperbolic transfer function

approach, allowed back-analyses between computed and

measured pile head settlements.

Results of numerical simulations showed that friction along

the socketed pile length generally developed earlier than the

base reaction. This aspect may be related to socket geometry, deeply socketed in weak rock, while pile 4 was socketed for a

rock mechanical properties, and constructive aspects. For piles short length in hard rock. Contemporary mobilization of shaft

1 and 2, socketed in soft or highly fractured rocks, mobilization and base resistances were required to model the actual behav-

of the base reaction occurred as the side strength was exceeded ior of pile 5, socketed for a short length in weak rock.

in both soil and rock. No base reaction was mobilized in piles Ultimate friction in soils may develop earlier, at the same

3 and 4, even under the maximum testing load; pile 3 was time, or later than ultimate friction in the socket. This aspect

240 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

is mainly related to the ratio between socketed length and pile Fleming, W.G.K. 1992. A new method for single pile settlement pre-

length in soil. In long piles with a short anchorage in rock, the diction and analysis. Gotechnique, 42: 411425.

limit friction in soil is mobilized earlier than that in rock. The Horvath, R.G., and Kenney, T.C. 1979. Shaft resistance of rock sock-

opposite happens in short piles with longer sockets, for which eted drilled piers. Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engi-

neers, Symposium on Deep Foundations, Atlanta, Ga., October

ultimate friction in soil follows that in rock.

25, pp. 182214.

Computed skin friction values at the sockets (Table 5) were Horvath, R.G., Schebesch, D., and Anderson, M. 1989. Loaddis-

generally lower than those estimated by empirical approaches placement behaviour of socketed piersHamilton General Hos-

(Table 4). Moreover, a comparison with limit values suggested pital. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 260268.

by Rowe and Armitage (1987b) and Horvath and Kenney Kodikara, J.K., and Johnston, I.W. 1994. Analysis of compressible

(1979) is shown in Fig. 23. Following these authors, the range axially loaded piles in rock. International Journal for Numerical

of limit skin friction versus unconfined rock compression may and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 18: 427437.

be described by the equation: Kulhawy, F.H., and Goodman, R.E. 1987. Foundations in rock. In

Ground engineers reference book. Chap. 55. Edited by F.G. Bell.

[8] lim = (qu)1/2 (MPa) Butterworth, London.

Leong, E.C., and Randolph, M.F. 1994. Finite element modelling of

According to Rowe and Armitage (1987b), coefficient rock-socketed piles. International Journal for Numerical and Ana-

may vary between 0.45 and 0.60 (MPa)1/2, and may vary lytical Methods in Geomechanics, 18: 2547.

between 0.20 and 0.25 (MPa)1/2 according to Horvath and Maugeri, M., Carrubba, P., and Carrubba, A. 1988. Caratterizzazione

Kenney (1979). Both authors refer to experimental results on dinamica e risposta del terreno nella zona industriale di Catania.

full-scale models of varying diameter and rock strength. In this Ingegneria Sismica, V: 918.

paper, the computed limit frictions are close to Horvath and Maugeri, M., Castelli, F., and Motta, E. 1993. A new method for

Kenneys (1979) lower limit, with values in the range 0.13 single pile settlement prediction and analysis. Discussion.

to 0.25 (MPa)1/2 (Table 6). Gotechnique, 43: 616619.

Lastly, in spite of some uncertainties related to the analyti- Osterberg, J.O., and Gill, S.A. 1973. Load transfer mechanisms for

piers socketed into hard soils or rock. Proceedings, 9th Canadian

cal approach used here, results show that low values of limit Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Montral, pp. 235262.

skin friction are to be expected at the pile socket when large Pells, P.J.N, and Turner, R.M. 1979. Elastic solutions for the design

diameters are involved. and analysis of rock-socketed piles. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-

nal, 16: 481487.

References Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1974. Elastic solutions for soil and rock

mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Baguelin, F., and Frank, J. 1979. Theoretical studies of piles using the Randolph., M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of deformation of

finite element method. Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers vertically loaded piles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering

Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, London, Division, ASCE, 12: 14651488.

2223 May, pp. 8391. Rehnman, S.E., and Broms, B.B. 1971. Bearing capacity of piles

Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and driven into rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 8: 151162.

Manfredini, G. 1986. Deformation characteristics of cohesionless Rosenberg, P., and Journeaux, N.L. 1976. Friction and end bearing

soils from in situ tests. Proceedings, American Society of Civil tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design. Canadian

Engineers Symposium, In Situ 86, Blacksburg, Va., June 2325, Geotechnical Journal, 13: 324333.

pp. 4773. Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987a. Theoretical solutions for

Benmokrane, B., Mouchaorab, K.S., and Ballivy, G. 1994. Labora- axial deformation of drilled shafts in rock. Canadian Geotechnical

tory investigation of shaft resistance of rock-socketed piers using Journal, 24: 114125.

the constant normal stiffness direct shear test. Canadian Geotech- Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987b. A design method for drilled

nical Journal, 31: 407419. piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24: 126142.

Castelli, F., Maugeri, M., and Motta, E. 1992. Analisi non lineare del Thorne, C.P. 1977. The allowable loadings of foundations on shale

cedimento di un palo singolo. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, and sandstone in the Sydney region. Part 3. Field test results. Paper

26: pp. 115135. presented to Sydney Group of Australian Geomechanics Society,

Chin, T.K. 1970. Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests Institution of Engineers, Australia.

not carried to failure. Proceedings, 2nd South East Asian Confer- Williams, A.F., and Pells, P.J.N. 1981. Side resistance rock sockets in

ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Singapore, sandstone, mudstone and shale. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,

pp. 8192. 18: 502513.

Fellenius, B.H. 1980. The analysis of results from routine pile load

tests. Ground Engineering, 13: 1931

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.