Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Ignatius P.O. Lam, Earth Mechanics, Inc., Fountain Valley, CA. USA
This paper presents information on design analyses of large diameter piles using
conventional p-y curves as recommended by the American Petroleum Institute
(API RP2A, 1993). API RP2A adopted the soft clay criterion developed by
Matlock (Matlock, 1970) based on 12.75-inch piles. API RP2A also adopted the
API sand criteria originally introduced by Reese, Cox, and Koop (Reese et. al.,
1974) based on 24-inch piles. Since Matlock and Reese published their original
papers, there have been several publications recommending changes to their p-y
criteria, especially regarding the need to adjust the Matlock p-y curves for pile
diameter effects. The following sections attempt to clarify the issue of diameter
effects on p-y curves.
REVIEW OF THE API p-y CURVE
PROCEDURES
It would be appropriate to review the API RP2A
p-y curve procedures and to clarify some of the
definitions defining p-y curves.
Figure 1
summarizes the API benchmark static p-y curve
procedures for sands and clays. The sand p-y
curve method was originally developed by
Reese et al. (1974).
Subsequently, API
sponsored a study conducted by ONeill and
Murchison, (1983) which resulted in the currently
described sand p-y criterion. The ONeill and
Murchisons sand p-y curve procedure is merely
intended to simplify the original Reeses
procedure and not meant to introduce
fundamental changes to the Reeses p-y criteria.
The proposed change largely relates to
changing the hyperbolic curve shape from the
parabolic curve shape originally used by Reese.
Otherwise, the ONeill and Murchisons
procedure is identical to the Reeses p-y
procedure. The two anchoring parameters for
the hyperbolic curve: (1) the initial tangent
stiffness and (2) the ultimate capacity are
identical to Reeses original recommendations.
Therefore, this paper will continue to refer to the
API sand p-y curve as the Reeses p-y curve
procedure in this paper.
The definition defining soil reaction, p on the p-y
curves varied in the literature and has been a
source of confusion. For example, in API RP2A,
there is an inconsistency in the definition for p
between referencing the Reeses sand versus
the Matlocks clay p-y procedure. In discussing
Reeses sand p-y criteria, API RP2A defined p
as the integrated soil reaction over the pile
r2 = Cq n D / M
F1 = q n B
Es =
0.65 E soil
2
1 soil
12
E soil D 4
EI
(1)
Es
0.65 E soil
2
1 soil
Es E
soil
(2)
ratio closest to 0.5 for
(a good approximation for
offshore soils), the above
be simplified by the more
(3)
STEVENS
for
AND
for e 50 = 0.01
3.0
yc
2.5
Matlock yc
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
EI 0.125
)
E soil
(4)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
EFFECTS
ON
DIAMETER
B2
B1
(5)
Soil
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a comprehensive review of
available literatures postulating pile diameter
effects and proposed various forms for
modification of the Matlocks and Reeses p-y
curves for larger diameter piles. This paper also
reviewed the extensive theoretical background
embodied in the Matlocks and Reeses p-y
curve theories including detailing the inherent
theory to account for size (diameter) effects
based on well proven modulus of subgrade
theories. The Matlocks and Reeses method for
adjusting for diameter effect is not dissimilar with
the classical Terzaghis theory of modulus of
subgrade reaction in projecting settlement
measured from smaller plate load tests for
designing larger foundations.
The apparent increase in soil resistance for
large diameter piles cited in many of the
diameter effect publications is probably due to
additional component of soil reactions
introduced by pile rotation in addition to the
simple lateral translational mode of deformation
implicit in the Matlocks and Reeses p-y curve
theory. This issue was recognized by Matlock in
his original paper on Correlations for Design of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. The p-y
criterion postulated by Matlock was intentionally
developed for designing offshore jacket-leg
platforms where the pile head is restrained from
rotation. For jacket-leg platforms, the Matlocks
and Reeses p-y criteria still provide the best
basis for design.
Despite the fact that diameter effects have been
postulated by various publications since 1979,
and more recently discussed in the API funded
report reviewing the clay p-y curve criteria, the
offshore design industry (API), apparently has
elected to base the API code essentially on the
original Matlock and Reeses p-y curve criteria.
This is probably a sound decision on the API
committee in this regard. All the cited methods
for modifying the Matlocks p-y curve criteria for
pile diameter effects have significant technical
flaws and probably incomplete for replacing the
Matlocks p-y curve criterion for treating potential
variations in clay shear strength profiles, and
consideration for designing for gapping and
degradation effects for cyclically loaded piles. It
is noteworthy that there have been numerous
papers presented in past Offshore Technology
(OTC) conferences and more recently in various
geotechnical journals presenting both full-scale
discussed earlier, one might elect to develop ymultipliers less than unity for large diameter
piles using the Carter and Ling equation Eq. (5).
A reference pile diameter at say 24-inch might
be reasonable as the reference diameter for
anchoring the standard p-y curves considering
that many of the pile load test database included
pile diameters up to 24-inches in the literature as
well as some of the Matlocks and Reeses pile
load tests actually included 24-inch diameter
piles. P-multipliers of say up to a factor ranging
from 1.5 to 2.0 may be appropriate for the
discussed pile loading problem to substitute for
the rotational resistance not explicitly modeled in
the analysis. Such a factor of up to 2 would be
within the range of uncertainty in geotechnical
engineering and soil properties.
From the authors experience, if the design
process accounts for uncertainty in the p-y
curves rationally, one often realizes that the
resultant design is not very sensitive to large
variations in the p-y curves. The key for rational
treatments for uncertainty in p-y curves in design
analyses is to be consistent in the p-y curve
characterization throughout the design analysis
process, especially consistency in demand
versus capacity analysis processes.
It is the authors experience that the overall pile
solution is much less sensitive to varying the ymultiplier, as opposed to varying the pmultipliers on the p-y curves. Also, uncertainty
in p-y curves often merely imply a wider range in
the deflection solutions as oppose to pile
moment, especially in the context of the more
common load-controlled design analyses.
REFERENCES
API RP2A (1993), American Petroleum Institute
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsWorking Stress Design, API Recommended
Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD) Twentieth
Edition, July 1, 1993.
Ashford, Scott and Juirnarongrit, Teerawut,
2003, Evaluation of Pile Diameter Effect on
Initial Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Journal
of
Geotechnical
and
Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 129, No. 3, March,
2003.