Structural capacity of steel tubular cast-in-place piling

Steel tubular cast-in-place pilings are used throughout the country for many different project types. These piles are a closed-end pipe with varying wall thicknesses and outer diameters, that are driven to depth and then the core is filled with concrete. These piles are typically used for smaller bridges, or secondary structures. Mostly the piling is designed based on a resistance based method which is a function of the soil properties of which the pile is driven through, however there is a structural capacity of these members that is considered to be the upper bound on the loading of the member. This structural capacity is given by the AASHTO LRFD (2010), with two methods. These two methods are based on a composite or non-composite section. Many state agencies and corporations use the non-composite equation because it is requires much less computation and is known to be conservative. However with the trends of the time, more and more structural elements are being investigated to determine ways to better understand the mechanics of the members, which could lead to more efficient and safer designs. In this project, a set of these piling are investigated. The way the cross section reacts to several different loading conditions, along with a more detailed observation of the material properties is considered as part of this research. The evaluation consisted of testing stub sections of pile with varying sizes (10-¾”, 12-¾”), wall thicknesses (0.375”, 0.5”), and testing methods (whole compression, composite compression, push through, core sampling). These stub sections were chosen as they would represent a similar bracing length to many different soils. In addition, a finite element model was developed using ANSYS to predict the strains from the testing of the pile cross sections. This model was able to simulate the strains from most of the loading conditions and sizes that were tested. The bond between the steel shell and the concrete core, along with the concrete strength through the depth of the cross section were some of the material properties of these sections that were investigated.

Comparison of three methods for driven pile capacity

A significant cost for foundations is the design and installation of piles when they are required due to poor ground conditions. Not only is it important that piles be designed properly, but also that the installation equipment and total cost be evaluated. To assist in the evaluation of piles a number of methods have been developed. In this research three of these methods were investigated, which were developed by the Federal Highway Administration, the US Corps of Engineers and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The results from these methods were entered into the program GRLWEAPTM to assess the pile drivability and to provide a standard base for comparing the three methods. An additional element of this research was to develop EXCEL spreadsheets to implement these three methods. Currently the Army Corps and API methods do not have publicly available software and must be performed manually, which requires that data is taken off of figures and tables, which can introduce error in the prediction of pile capacities. Following development of the EXCEL spreadsheet, they were validated with both manual calculations and existing data sets to ensure that the data output is correct. To evaluate the three pile capacity methods data was utilized from four project sites from North America. The data included site geotechnical data along with field determined pile capacities. In order to achieve a standard comparison of the data, the pile capacities and geotechnical data from the three methods were entered into GRLWEAPTM. The sites consisted of both cohesive and cohesionless soils; where one site was primarily cohesive, one was primarily cohesionless, and the other two consisted of inter-bedded cohesive and cohesionless soils. Based on this limited set of data the results indicated that the US Corps of Engineers method more closely compared with the field test data, followed by the API method to a lesser degree. The DRIVEN program compared favorably in cohesive soils, but over predicted in cohesionless material.