1 Nicholson Construction Company 12 McClane Street Cuddy, PA Telephone: Facsimile: Pent Up Load and Its Effect on Load Test Evaluation by T.D. Richards Jr., P.E. Nicholson Construction Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Presented at: GEO 3 Dallas, Texas November 6-9,
2 PENT UP LOAD AND ITS EFFECT ON LOAD TEST EVALUATION Thomas D. Richards, Jr., P.E. 1 ABSTRACT Pent up load is the load versus depth that remains in a pile or anchor after unloading. This affects the evaluation of pile or anchor testing in terms of net settlement/residual movement and the resulting apparent effective length. The theory and actual measurements of these effects are presented. Evaluation of load tests of piles or anchors must consider the effects of this pent up load. INTRODUCTION Pent up loads are loads/stresses that remain in the pile or anchor during unloading. This topic is rarely discussed in the literature; however, the author has routinely discussed this topic at ADSC and DFI Micropile Seminars. This paper presents: the terms used the theory of pent up loads actual strain gauge measurements confirming the existence of pent up load impact of pent up load on load test evaluation For readability, the term pile throughout the paper should be understood to mean pile or anchor, except in the Clarification of Terms section. The same concept also applies to drilled shafts. THEORY/CONCEPT OF PENT UP LOAD Figure 1 shows a typical load versus depth curve for a pile during testing. When the pile is unloaded and tries to rebound, friction develops and does not allow complete rebound. This friction (or bond) does not allow the load along the length of the pile to reduce to the load at the top of the pile. The resulting pent up load versus depth after unloading is conceptually shown in Figure 2. Pent up load is similar to negative friction or drag load (Fellenius, 2003) in the relative movement of the pile and soil. 1 Chief Engineer, Nicholson Construction Company, 12 McClane St., Cuddy, PA
3 Figure 1. Typical Load versus Depth in a Pile or Anchor during Loading Figure 2. Typical Load versus Depth in a Pile or Anchor after Unloading = Pent up Load CLARIFICATION OF TERMS Pent up Load This is defined in the previous paragraph and Introduction. Residual Movement (Anchors) Residual movement is a term used in anchor testing and is described in the Post- Tensioning Institute s Recommendations for Soil and Rock Anchors, PTI (1996 and 2004). It is the measured movement at the head of an anchor after the load has been removed, as shown in Figure 3. Net Settlement Net settlement is a pile load testing term and is the pile load test acceptance criterion in many US building codes. It is the measured movement of a pile after the load has been removed and therefore is essentially the same as residual movement.
4 Figure 3. Residual Movement ( δ r ) from PTI (2004) Residual Stress Typically residual stress refers to the stress in an element after it is made or installed. In foundations, residual stress is typically considered to be the stress remaining in a pile after pile driving. This is similar to pent up load where the load is created from the driving equipment and process instead of the testing procedure. FIELD MEASUREMENTS SHOWING PENT UP LOAD Figures 4 and 5 show load versus depth calculated from strain measurements using vibrating wire strain gauges (Deschamps and Richards, 2005) from two pile load tests at different sites. Figure 4 was a pile bonded in soil and Figure 5 was a pile bonded in rock. In both Figures, the pent up load is shown as dashed lines with the same symbols as the previous maximum loads. In Figure 4, the pile was loaded to 280 kips at the top of pile resulting in a load versus depth curve show as a solid line with squares. Then the pile was unloaded to an alignment load of 24 kips resulting in the load versus depth curve shown as dashed lines with squares. A final cycle of loading was performed to 555 kips resulting in the solid line with triangles. Then unloading to 24 kips resulted in the dashed line with triangles. Figure 5 was loaded and unloaded similarly. Again dashed lines represent readings after unloading the pile in this case to zero top of pile load. C in the legend indicates compression and T represents tension. Tension is shown as a negative load.
5 Figure 4. Load versus Depth for a Micropile in Soil Figure 5. Load versus Depth for a Micropile in Rock
6 In both Figures, the pent up load (shown as dashed lines with the same symbols as the previous maximum loads) is significant magnitude ranging from 75 kips to 175 kips. This phenomena has been seen in several other load tests. Gomez et al (2003) reported similar load in the pile after unloading which they termed locked in load. The magnitude of pent up load in a pile or anchor will be affected by geology, design, structural materials, and construction methods. EFFECTS ON MEASUREMENTS DURING PILE OR ANCHOR TESTS From basic mechanics of materials, ε = δ or δ = ε * L Eq. 1 L where δ is deflection ε is axial strain, and L is length. If a pile or anchor is divided up into increments, then L δ = ε ( z) * l Eq. 2 0 where ε (z) is strain variation with depth and l is the length of the increments. Therefore, deflections are the area under the strain versus depth curve. Since strain is most often measured on the structural elements (casing, strand, bar, or grout), this deflection is the elastic deflection of the pile or anchor. From basic mechanics of materials, σ = ε * E Eq. 3 and σ = P / A Eq. 4 where: E is modulus of elasticity, P is load, and A is cross section area. Combining Eqs 2, 3, and 4 and considering load and area as a function of depth, L P(z) δ = * l Eq. 5 0 A(z) * E The area under the strain versus depth curve after unloading is the elastic deflection from the pentup load. This area and thus unrecovered elastic deflection are included in the measured net settlement or residual movement.
7 Figure 6 shows how apparent elastic length relates to load versus depth (strain versus depth). This figure is conceptual; however, the figures above confirm that pent up load exists to a significant magnitude. Figure 6.A shows the load versus depth at a test load of 300 kips. Figure 6.B shows the pent up load after unloading to zero. The dotted line in Figure 6.C is Figure 6.A curve minus 6.B curve. Figure 6.C also shows the apparent elastic length. Apparent elastic length is often calculated in the literature as: δe * A* E Lapparent = Eq. 6 P Where: δ e is measured elastic movement = measured total deflection measured residual movement (see Figure 3) = total deflection measure net settlement (for piles) A is cross sectional area of pile or anchor E is modulus of elasticity P is the change in load = maximum from previous load cycle minus alignment load In PTI (1996 and 2004), this apparent elastic length is referred to as the apparent free tendon length when applied to anchors. The measured elastic rebound δ e is equal to the area under the load versus depth curve shown in Figure 6.C divided by A*E. Therefore, the apparent elastic length is the equivalent rectangle with the same area, which is also shown in Figure 6.C. This is also presented in PTI 2004, page 74. Figure 6.D shows the apparent elastic length compared to the load versus depth. Apparent elastic length is substantially less than the depth that the load reached and not even the depth where half of the load is transferred. This must be recognized when evaluating load tests and when studying previous literature discussing the apparent elastic length.
8 Figure 6. Load versus Depth and Apparent Elastic Length
9 CONCLUSIONS Pent up loads occur during unloading of a foundation element during testing and affect the interpretation of test results as follows: 1. Net settlement or residual movement each include some amount of deflection from the pent up load and thus overestimate the movement of the bottom of the pile or anchor. 2. This causes elastic movement or rebound to be an underestimate of true elastic elongation. 3. Due to 1 and 2, apparent elastic length underestimates the depth of load transfer. Therefore, the acceptability of pile load tests using net settlement should consider the effects of pent up load. This is especially true for relatively flexible micropiles with higher strength steels and high strength grout. The magnitude of pent up load in a pile or anchor will be affected by geology, design, structural materials, and construction methods. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks Nicholson Construction Company for the opportunity to perform, analyze and report these tests. REFERENCES Deschamps, R. and Richards, T.D. (2005). Planning for Strain Gauges. Proceedings of the GeoCubed ADSC Conference, ADSC, November 2005 Fellenius, B.H. (2002). Determining the True Distribution of Load in Piles. Proceedings of the International Deep Foundations Congress 2002, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, Vol. 2, M.W. O Neill and F.C. Townsend eds., February 14 16, Orlando, Florida, pp Gómez, J., Cadden, A., Bruce, D.A. (2003). Micropiles founded in rock. Development and evolution of bond stresses under repeated loading. Proceedings of 12th Pan- American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (Soil Rock America 2003). P.J. Culligan, H.H. Einstein, and A.J. Whittle, eds. June 22-26, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Pp Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) (1996). Recommendations for Soil and Rock Anchors, Third Edition, Post-Tensioning Institute. Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) (2004). Recommendations for Soil and Rock Anchors, Fourth Edition, Post-Tensioning Institute.
Using Slab-on-Ground Elevation Measurements in Residential Foundation Engineering Performance Evaluations By R. Michael Gray, P.E. 1, Member, ASCE Abstract: This paper critically examines the use of foundation
Copyright by W. Tom Witherspoon All Rights Reserved LOAD CAPACITY TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL UNDERPINNING IN EXPANSIVE CLAY by WILLIAM THOMAS WITHERSPOON Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate
Evaluation of In-Place Strength of Concrete By The Break-Off Method By Tarun Naik Ziad Salameh Amr Hassaballah Evaluation of In-Place Strength of Concrete By The Break-Off Method By Tarun R. Naik Associate
Prestressed Pavement Rehabilitation FINAL REPORT June 23, 2009 By Shelley M. Stoffels, Andrea J. Schokker, Hao Yin, Vishal Singh, Lin Yeh and Maria Lopez de Murphy The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation
CHAPTER III GRAVITY DAMS (Revised October 2002) Chapter III Gravity Dams 3-0 Contents Title Page 3-1 Purpose and Scope 3-1 3-1.1 General 3-1 3-1.2 Review Procedures 3-1 3-2 Forces 3-2 3-2.1 General 3-2
All rights reserved. No parts of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval
Chapter - E ROCK MECHANICS & GEOTECHNICAL APPLICATIONS 454 23 rd Effect of the Stress State on Waterjet Performance in Rock Slotting R. Ciccu, B. Grosso Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
1. Report No. FHWA NHI 05-036 4. Title and Subtitle Guidelines for the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals Technical
NIST GCR 11-917-11REV-1 NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 6 Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Special Structural Walls and Coupling Beams A Guide for Practicing Engineers Jack P. Moehle Tony
Big Data, Socio- Psychological Theory, Algorithmic Text Analysis, and Predicting the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index Rickard Nyman *, Paul Ormerod Centre for the Study of Decision Making Under Uncertainty,
BUYER S GUIDE TO SLAB-ON-GROUND FOUNDATIONS R. Michael Gray, P.E. Matthew T. Gray, EIT 281-358-1121 832-527-6351 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com TREC 895 TREC 5904 authors and
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DNV-RP-F111 INTERFERENCE BETWEEN TRAWL GEAR AND PIPELINES OCTOBER 2010 FOREWORD (DNV) is an autonomous and independent foundation with the objectives of safeguarding life, property
Draft Final Report Volume 2 to the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM (NCHRP) on Project 12-70 Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments Recommended
Formatted as in InternationalJournal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 1075 Oblique impact testing of bicycle helmets N.J. Mills* and A. Gilchrist Metallurgy and Materials, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2, No. 1 (2007) 1-20 School of Engineering, Taylor s University College ROADSIDE BARRIER AND PASSIVE SAFETY OF MOTORCYCLISTS ALONG EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE
Microsoft Axapta Inventory Closing White Paper Microsoft Axapta 3.0 and Service Packs Version: Second edition Published: May, 2005 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT INTERNAL USE ONLY Contents Introduction...1 Inventory
CHAPTER IV METHODS FOR EVALUATING RECOVERABILITY OF FREE PRODUCT CHAPTER IV METHODS FOR EVALUATING RECOVERABILITY OF FREE PRODUCT The primary objectives of a free product recovery system are to recover
t h e G re a t C h i c a g o F l o o d Analysis of Chicago s 2 nd Great Disaster By Jon Wren, Ph.D., P.E In the early morning of April 13, 1992, dozens of downtown Chicago buildings started to mysteriously
Comparative Study on Frequency and Time Domain Analyses for Seismic Site Response Ciro Visone, Filippo Santucci de Magistris University of Molise Structural and Geotechnical Dynamic Laboratory STReGa via
TIME-VARIANT TRAVEL TIME DISTRIBUTIONS AND RELIABILITY METRICS AND THEIR UTILITY IN RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS Patricio Alvarez, Universidad del Bío Bío, firstname.lastname@example.org Mohammed Hadi, Florida International
Field Estimation of Soil Water Content A Practical Guide to Methods, Instrumentation and Sensor Technology VIENNA, 2008 TRAINING COURSE SERIES30 TRAINING COURSE SERIES No. 30 Field Estimation of Soil Water
INTRODUCTION Ground Failure in Adapazari, Turkey J. D. BRAY, Professor, University of California, Berkeley R. B. SANCIO, Doctoral Candidate, University of California, Berkeley H.T. DURGUNOGLU, Professor,
Tipping point failure and robustness in single development projects Tim Taylor a and David N. Ford a * T. Taylor and D. N. Ford: Tipping Point Failure and Robustness 51 Tim Taylor is a PhD Candidate in
MET project Research Paper The Reliability of Classroom Observations by School Personnel Andrew D. Ho Thomas J. Kane Harvard Graduate School of Education January 2013 ABOUT THis report: This report presents
Technical Bulletin 10-01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program FEDERAL EMERGENCY
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE LOSS MECHANISMS ASSOCIATED WITH A PUSHING METAL V-BELT CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION Submitted by Sam Akehurst For the degree of PhD of the University of Bath 2001 COPYRIGHT
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk Research Report No. ROSE-/ Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames ed with Direct Displacement-Based by J. Didier Pettinga Graduate