huangyhg

lateral loads on pile groups
i am designing a retaining wall with a driven pile foundation and attempting to determine the lateral capacity of the piles due to passive pressure. aashto section 4.6.5.6.1.4 discusses group action for drilled shafts and shows a table for the reduction of lateral capacity in the direction parallel to the loading based on the spacing of the piles in that direction. the reduction seems quite large for piles that are closer than 4b and i am trying to determine if this is applicable to driven piles. section 4.5.6.4 discusses group pile loadings, but i was told that this applies to vertical loading only.
does anyone have a clear interpretation of these sections? what should i use for my lateral capacity reduction? we are using 12" diameter steel shell piles filled with concrete.
thanks,
ppalooza
check out our whitepaper library.
what are you building? where? soil/groundwater conditions? any special conditions or considerations?
i don't have a copy of the aashto document you reference, so i can't be sure what the "quite large" reductions are that you have encountered. but putting 12-inch piles on less than 4 foot centers is pretty damn close.
think about the problem another way: what happens when bolt holes are placed too close together, and the bolts are subjected to shear? the connection fails -
and keep in mind that the reductions in efficiency are based on both theoretical and experimental information. the reductions are real, and failure to incorporate the group effect into your design could have disastrous effects.
this is for a retaining wall with two to four rows of piles. the back row will be vertical and the front rows will battered. no special conditions.
the aashto standard specs list a ratio of group pile action to single pile action of 0.40 for spacing of 4b and 0.25 for spacing of 3b.
i do recognize the need for reduction due to group action, however by utilizing this method for a second battered pile at 3 feet behind my front pile row, my total passive resistance is actually reduced.
for example, if i have a passive resistance in the pile of 1.0k for a single pile in the front row, when i add a second pile 3 feet behind it (this is the minimum spacing per illinois dot), my total resistance becomes
(1.0k + 1.0k) x 0.25 = 0.50k
intuitively, it seems as though my total resistance should at least be 1.0k, not half of the original resistance.
should i only reduce the resistance of the additional pile? should i treat drilled shafts and driven piles the same as they pertain to lateral resistance?
i hope this clears up the question a little bit.
thanks,
ppalooza
that does seem goofy - i've always seen reductions taken on either the entire group, or on the "trailing" piles. those seem like awfully punitive reduction factors, though - either way.
and the battered piles are picking up a lot of their resistance in axial force, not lateral bending.
give me some more details about the soil conditions, loading, etc. and i'll think about it. don't expect a response until tomorrow.
i have already accounted for the force taken through axial load, but must check for the additional required bending resistance.
this question is not specific to one case but more a practical question that i consider independent of soil conditions since aashto provides reductions that do not consider soil. but for arguments sake, i will give you the data for this particular location:
0-5 ft submerged very loose sand
5-15 ft medium clay qu = 1.5ksf
15-20 ft stiff clay qu = 2ksf
20-35 ft hard clay qu = 8ksf
thanks,
ppalooza
a number of years ago i was involved in some 1/5 scale field tests of group piles for offshore structures. i believe the offshore industry and engineers designing offshore structures have a fairly good concept of better procedures than aashto for group pile "reductions." bottom line is that i believe that if the clear spacing between piles is more than about 3 pile diameters, there is little or no reduction in maximum lateral resistance. i do not think you should be limited by the guidance in aashto as it is very conservative. also, wall displacements are usually small enough that the initial tangent to the nonlinear soil supports for the piles can be represented by elastic springs, and there are a number of analytical techniques out there to solve the problem.
dee5fff"> is correct; those guidelines are unnecessarily punitive. can you kindly point me to the appropriate aashto section - i'd like to review it. it sounds like a typo, misprint - or someone's work that was taken entirely out of context -
hi dee5 and focht3,
this is revolutionary. i, probably like most of us structurals, have been using 75% kh reduction for 3 pile dia. c-c spacings to no reduction at 8 pile dia. c-c spacings.
regards
vod
vodfff">:
don't panic - the available research that i've seen generally supports your approach. i suspect that there is something wrong with ppaloozafff">'s setup; i just don't know whether it's with the aashto documents or ppaloozafff">'s understanding of the same. and i won't know until i have a chance to read the aashto section that ppaloozafff"> is referring to -
aashto standard specifications for highway bridges, 17th edition:
section 4.6.5.6.1.4
again, this is a section on drilled shafts and i am working with driven piles. specifically concrete filled metal shell piles with a 12 in diameter.
aashto does not specifically cover lateral reductions for driven piles, as best as i can interpret.
thanks for the help,
ppalooza
hi ppalooza,
the way you are approaching the design of battered piles sounds funny.
first, mixing bending and soil passive resistance with battered pile design is unknown to me. typically, i find the resultant on the footing which accounts for the moment.
second, i don't use the reduction you mention for this type of design. i use the reduction, as mentioned in my previous post when i am designing a pile group with no batters that are required to resist lateral loads. this is when i also use soil parameters.
for the design of battered foundations, look at a book by teng, which describes it nicely along with a good example.
regards
vod

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]