U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
 |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
| breadcrumb |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-04-043 |
A Laboratory and Field Study of Composite Piles for Bridge SubstructuresPDF Version (16.4 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader® |
This report presents the results of a laboratory and field study of composite piles for use as foundation elements for bridges. Two types of composite piles were studied, a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) concrete-filled shell, and a plastic pile reinforced with a welded steel cage. Both axial and lateral short-term load displacement behavior was studied, as well as interfaced mechanical properties. Axial and lateral load-displacement behavior was similar for the concrete control pile and the FRP pile, and the plastic pile was significantly less stiff in both loading modes.
Gary Henderson
Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or the use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.
QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
| 1. Report No
FHWA-HRT-04-043 |
2. Government Accession No.
N/A |
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
N/A |
|
| 4. Title and Subtitle A Laboratory and Field Study of Composite Piles for Bridge Substructures |
5. Report Date
March 2006 |
||
|
6. Performing Organization Code
N/A |
|||
|
7. Authors(s)
Miguel A. Pando, Carl D. Ealy, George M. Filz, J.J. Lesko, and E.J. Hoppe |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
N/A |
||
|
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Virginia Transportation Research Council |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
N/A |
||
|
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-99-X-00023 |
|||
|
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Infrastructure R&D |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report |
||
| 14. Sponsoring Agency Code | |||
|
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative: Carl Ealy, HRDI-06 |
|||
|
16. Abstract
The most commonly used pile materials are steel, concrete, and wood. These materials can degrade, and the degradation rate can be relatively rapid in harsh marine environments. It has been estimated that the U.S. spends over $1 billion annually for repair and replacement of waterfront piling systems. This high cost has spurred interest in alternative composite pile materials such as fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), recycled plastics, and hybrid materials. Because only minimal performance data have been collected for composite piles, a research project was undertaken to investigate (1) soil-pile interface behavior of composite piles, (2) the long-term durability of concrete-filled FRP shell composite piles, and (3) the driveability and axial and lateral load response of concrete-filled FRP composite piles and steel-reinforced recycled plastic piles by means of field tests and analyses. In addition, a long-term monitoring program was implemented at a bridge over the Hampton River in Virginia. According to laboratory rest results, values of residual interface friction angle between three pile surfaces and a subrounded to rounded sand were 27, 25, and 28 degrees for a FRP composite pile, the recycled plastic pile, and the prestressed concrete pile respectively, while the values of residual interface friction angle between these piles and a subangular to angular sand were 29, 29, and 28 degrees for the FRP composite pile, the recycled plastic pile, and the prestressed concrete pile, respectively. Regarding durability of FRP composite piles, it was found that moisture absorption caused degradation of strength and stiffness of the FRP shells, but that freeze-thaw cycles had little effect. Analyses indicate that FRP degradation due to moisture absorption should have minimal impact on axial capacity of the FRP composite piles because most of the axial capacity is provided by the concrete infill; however, FRP degradation has a larger effect on lateral capacity because the FRP shell provides the capacity on the tension side of the pile. The field tests demonstrated that there were not major differences in driveability of the FRP composite pile, the recycled pile, and the prestressed concrete pile. In static load tests, the FRP composite pile and prestressed concrete pile exhibited similar axial and lateral stiffness, and the plastic pile was significantly less stiff. Conventional static analyses of axial load capacity, axial load versus settlement, and lateral load versus deflection provided reasonable predictions for the composite piles, at least to the levels of accuracy that can be achieved for more common pile materials. The long-term monitoring program has been implemented for an FRP composite pile and a prestressed concrete pile so that their load-transfer performance can be compared over time. The long-term monitoring is being done by Virginia DOT. |
|||
|
17. Key Words
Composite piles, driven piles, dynamic analysis of piles, FRP piles, recycled plastic piles, CAPWAP |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the Public through the National Technical Information Service; Springfield, VA 22161 |
||
|
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified |
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages
384 |
22. Price
N/A |
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized (art. 5/94)
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.2 OBJECTIVES
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND AND
LITERATURE REVIEW.
2.1 INTRODUCTION.
2.2 COMPOSITE PILE
BACKGROUND.
2.2.1 Types of Composite
Piles.
2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE
COMPOSITE PILES SELECTED.
2.3.1 Structural Behavior.
2.3.2 Long-Term Durability
Behavior.
2.3.3 Geotechnical
Behavior.
2.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF
INTERFACE BEHAVIOR BETWEEN COMPOSITE PILES AND TWO
SANDS.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 SOIL MATERIALS.
3.2.1 Index Properties.
3.2.2 Direct Shear Tests of
Sands.
3.3 PILE SURFACES.
3.3.1 Introduction.
3.3.2 Surface Topography
Characterization.
3.3.3 Interface Hardness.
3.4 INTERFACE SHEAR TESTS.
3.5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.
3.5.1 Multiple Linear Regression for
Density Sand tan 
peak
Values.
3.5.2 Multiple Linear Regression for
Density Sand tan cv
Values.
3.5.3 Multiple Linear Regression for
Model Sand tan peak
Values.
3.5.4 Multiple Linear Regression for
Model Sand tan cv
Values.
3.5.5 Observations from the Linear
Regression Analyses Results.
3.5.6 Influence of Angularity of
Sand.
3.6 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL DURABILITY
STUDY OF FRP COMPOSITE PILES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 BACKGROUND ON DEGRADATION OF
GLASS FRP COMPOSITES.
4.3 LABORATORY STUDY OF
DURABILITY.
4.3.1 Description of Test
Specimens.
4.3.2 Test Equipment and
Procedures.
4.3.3 Baseline Mechanical
Properties.
4.3.4 Properties as a Function of
Submergence Time and Moisture.
4.3.5 Freeze-Thaw Degradation of
Saturated FRP Samples.
4.3.6 SEM Imaging.
4.4 LONG-TERM STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF
FRP COMPOSITE PILES.
4.4.1 Long-Term Structural Capacity
of Composite Pile.
4.4.2 Comments Related to the Axial
Strain Levels in Piles.
4.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5. FIELD LOAD TESTS AT THE
ROUTE 40 BRIDGE.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE
BRIDGE.
5.2.1 The Former Bridge.
5.2.2 The New Bridge.
5.3 DESCRIPTION OF TEST
PILES.
5.3.1 Composite Test Pile.
5.3.2 Prestressed Concrete Test
Pile.
5.4 SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE TEST
SITE.
5.5 PILE FABRICATION AND
INSTALLATION.
5.5.1 Fabrication of the
Piles.
5.5.2 Pile Installation.
5.6 STATNAMIC FIELD TESTING OF TEST
PILES.
5.6.1 Instrumentation.
5.6.2 Axial Load Tests.
5.6.3 Lateral Load Tests.
5.7 COMPOSITE PILES IN THE NEW ROUTE
40 BRIDGE.
5.7.1 Connection of Piles with Pile
Cap Beam.
5.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
CHAPTER 6. FIELD LOAD TESTS AT THE
ROUTE 351 BRIDGE.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE
BRIDGE.
6.2.1 The Original Bridge.
6.2.2 The New Bridge.
6.3 DESCRIPTION OF TEST
PILES.
6.3.1 Prestressed Concrete Test
Pile.
6.3.2 FRP Composite Test
Pile.
6.3.3 Polyethylene Composite Test
Pile.
6.4 SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE TEST
SITE.
6.4.1 Geology.
6.4.2 Subsurface
Conditions.
6.4.3 Hampton River.
6.5 TEST PILE INSTRUMENTATION AND
FABRICATION.
6.5.1 Test Pile
Instrumentation.
6.5.2 Fabrication of Prestressed
Concrete Test Pile.
6.5.3 Fabrication of FRP Composite
Test Pile.
6.5.4 Fabrication of Plastic
Composite Test Pile.
6.6 PILE INSTALLATION AND DYNAMIC
TESTING.
6.6.1 Pile Driving.
6.6.2 Dynamic Testing.
6.7 PILE INTEGRITY TESTING OF TEST
PILES.
6.8 FIELD TESTING OF TEST
PILES.
6.8.1 Axial Load Tests.
6.8.2 Lateral Load Tests.
6.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
CHAPTER 7. ANALYSES OF THE AXIAL LOAD
TESTS AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 AXIAL PILE CAPACITY.
7.2.1 Methods to Estimate Axial Load
Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand.
7.2.2 Predicted Axial
Capacities.
7.2.3 Summary of Axial Pile Capacity
Predictions.
7.3 LOAD-SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR, AXIALLY
LOADED SINGLE PILES.
7.3.1 Introduction.
7.3.2 Background, Load-Transfer
Method for Pile Settlement Predictions.
7.3.3 Predictions Using Empirical
Load-Transfer Curves.
7.3.4 Predictions Using Theoretical
Load-Transfer Curves.
7.3.5 Residual Stresses.
7.4 CONCLUSIONS.
CHAPTER 8. ANALYSES OF THE LATERAL LOAD
TESTS AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 GOVERNING DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION
FOR THE LATERALLY LOADED PILE PROBLEM
8.2.1 Assumptions and Limitations of
the Governing Differential Equation.
8.3 METHODOLOGY USED TO ANALYZE THE
LATERALLY LOADED TEST PILES.
8.3.1 P-y Curves.
8.3.2 P-y Method of
Analysis.
8.4 NUMERICAL ANALYSES
RESULTS.
8.4.1 General Input
Information.
8.4.2 P-y Analyses Results.
8.4.3 Comparison of the Initial p-y
Modulus Curves for the Three Test Piles.
8.5 LIMITATIONS OF P-Y
ANALYSES.
8.6 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 9. LONG-TERM MONITORING AT THE
ROUTE 351 BRIDGE.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 INSTRUMENTED PRODUCTION
PILES.
9.2.1 Prestressed Concrete Production
Pile.
9.2.2 FRP Composite Production
Pile.
9.3 SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE
INSTRUMENTED PRODUCTION PILES.
9.4 PILE INSTALLATION AND DYNAMIC
TESTING.
9.4.1 Pile Driving.
9.4.2 Dynamic Testing.
9.5 PILE INTEGRITY TESTING OF TEST
PILES.
9.6 MONITORING DATA GATHERED TO
DATE.
9.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 10. COST INFORMATION FOR
COMPOSITE PILES.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 COST INFORMATION FOR THE ROUTE
40 BRIDGE PROJECT
10.3 COST INFORMATION FOR THE ROUTE
351 BRIDGE PROJECT.
10.3.1 Hardcore FRP Composite
Pile.
10.3.2 Plastic Pile.
10.3.3 Prestressed Concrete
Pile.
10.3.4 Summary of the Route 351
Bridge Cost Information.
10.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 11. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS.
11.1 INTRODUCTION.
11.2 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AND
CONCLUSIONS.
11.2.1 Literature Review.
11.2.2 Interface Study.
11.2.3 Durability Study.
11.2.4 Field Tests at the Route 40
Bridge.
11.2.5 Field Tests at the Route 351
Bridge.
11.2.6 Axial Analyses.
11.2.7 Lateral Analyses.
11.2.8 Long-Term
Monitoring.
11.2.9 Cost Information for Composite
Piles.
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
WORK.
11.3.1 Geotechnical
Studies.
11.3.2 Durability Studies.
11.3.3 Structural Tests.
11.3.4 Cost Analyses.
APPENDIX A. INTERFACE TEST RESULTS.
APPENDIX B. MOISTURE DIFFUSION INTO A CYLINDRICAL FRP COMPOSITE
APPENDIX C. STRUCTURAL TESTS RESULTS
FROM COMPOSITE PILE CUTOFF SECTIONS FROM THE ROUTE 40 BRIDGE
PROJECT.
C.1 PUSHOUT TEST RESULTS.
C.2 CREEP BENDING TEST
APPENDIX D. GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE TEST SITE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Photos. Degradation of conventional piles (Iskander and Hassan 1998).
Figure 2. Illustration. Common types of composite piles.
Figure 3. Graph and Photos. Confinement effect of FRB tube on concrete (Fam and Rizkalla 2001a, b).
Figure 4. Graph. Experimental versus predicted load-strain behavior using Fam and Rizkalla's model.
Figure 5. Illustration. Strip elements for sectional analysis (Mirmiran and Shahawy 1996).
Figure 7. Graph. Interaction diagrams, concrete-filled FRP tubes (Mirmiran 1999).
Figure 8. Graphs. Moisture absorption-related durability model.
Figure 9. Images. SEM images showing FRP damage (McBagonluri, et al., 2000).
Figure 10. Illustration. Influence of soil-pile friction on pile capacity.
Figure 11. Graph. Grain size curves to test sands.
Figure 12. Photos. Microscopic views of the test sands.
Figure 13. Graphs. Direct shear
test results for Density sand (average r = 70 %).
Figure 14. Graphs. Direct shear
test results for Density sand (average r = 100 %).
Figure 15. Graphs. Direct shear
test results for Model sand (average r = 75%).
Figure 16. Illustration. Stylus profilometer sketch (Johnson 2000).
Figure 17. Chart. Graphical representation of roughness parameters Rt, Sm, and Ra.
Figure 18. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of Lancaster FRP composite pile.
Figure 19. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of Hardcore FRP composite pile.
Figure 20. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of Hardcore FRP plate.
Figure 21. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of Hardcore surface-treated FRP plate.
Figure 22. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of Plastic Piling plastic composite pile.
Figure 23. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 24. Photo and Graph. Surface characteristics of steel sheet pile.
Figure 25. Illustration. Sketch of modified interface shear test setup.
Figure 26. Graphs. Typical interface shear test results for Density sand (s'n ˜ 100 kPa).
Figure 27. Graphs. Typical interface shear test results for Model sand (s'n ˜ 100 kPa).
Figure 28. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for Lancaster Composite FRP shell.
Figure 29. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for Hardcore Composites FRP shell.
Figure 30. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for untreated Hardcore FRP plate.
Figure 31. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for treated Hardcore FRP plate.
Figure 32. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for PPI plastic.
Figure 33. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for concrete.
Figure 34. Graph. Interface shear strength envelopes for steel.
Figure 35. Graph. Multiple linear
regression on Density sand tan peak values.
Figure 36. Graph. Multiple linear
regression on Density sand tan cv values.
Figure 37. Graph. Multiple linear
regression on Model sand tan peak values.
Figure 38. Graph. Multiple linear
regression on Model sand tan cv values.
Figure 39. Photos. Burnoff testing.
Figure 40. Photo. Typical tension test setup.
Figure 41. Photos. Typical split disk test setup.
Figure 42. Photo. Freeze-thaw chamber.
Figure 43. Photo and Illustration. Freeze-thaw fixture.
Figure 44. Graph. Average freeze-thaw cycle undergone by FRP samples.
Figure 45. Graph. Representative baseline longitudinal tension stress-strain curves.
Figure 46. Graph. Representative baseline hoop tension stress-strain curves.
Figure 47. Graph. Absorption curves for Lancaster 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 48. Graph. Absorption curves for Lancaster 24-inch FRP tube.
Figure 49. Graph. Absorption curves for Hardcore 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 50. Graph. Absorption curves for Hardcore 24-inch FRP tube.
Figure 51. Graphs. Selected diffusion analyses for Lancaster 12-inch FRP samples.
Figure 52. Graphs. Selected diffusion analyses for Lancaster 24-inch FRP samples.
Figure 53. Graphs. Selected diffusion analyses for Hardcore 12-inch FRP samples.
Figure 54. Graphs. Selected diffusion analyses for Hardcore 24-inch FRP samples.
Figure 56. Graph. Hoop tensile properties versus submergence time for Lancaster 24-inch FRP tube.
Figure 58. Graph. Hoop tensile properties versus submergence time for Lancaster 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 60. Charts. Hoop tensile properties versus moisture content for Lancaster 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 64. Graph. Hoop tensile properties versus submergence time for Hardcore 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 66. Charts. Hoop tensile properties versus moisture content for Hardcore 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 71. Photo. SEM images of Lancaster 24-inch FRP tube.
Figure 72. Photo. SEM images of Lancaster 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 73. Photo. SEM images of Hardcore 24-inch FRP tube.
Figure 74. Photo. SEM images of Hardcore 12-inch FRP tube.
Figure 75. Graph. Estimated long-term axial capacity of the 12-inch Lancaster pile.
Figure 76. Graph. Estimated long-term flexural capacity of the 12-inch Lancaster pile.
Figure 78. Photo. Former Route 40 Bridge.
Figure 79. Photos. Signs of deterioration of the former Route 40 Bridge (Fam, et al., 2003).
Figure 80. Illustration. Schematic of the new Route 40 Bridge.
Figure 81. Photo and Illustration. Concrete-filled tubular piles.
Figure 82. Graph. Stress-strain response of concrete used in the composite pile.
Figure 83. Illustration. Reinforcement details of prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 84. Illustration. Simplified soil stratigraphy near test pile area.
Figure 85. Photo. Fabrication of prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 86. Photos. Fabrication of concrete-filled FRP Piles.
Figure 87. Photos. Driving of test piles.
Figure 88. Graph. Driving records for test piles.
Figure 89. Graphs. End-of-driving PDA recordings.
Figure 90. Illustration. Test Pile Instrumentation.
Figure 91. Photo. Axial load test using the Statnamic device.
Figure 92. Graph. Pile head displacement versus equivalent axial static load.
Figure 93. Graph. Axial load-axial strain behavior of test piles.
Figure 95. Photos. Lateral Statnamic setup at the Route 40 project.
Figure 98. Graph. Calculated static and dynamic (static + damping) resistances for both test piles.
Figure 99. Graph. Moment-curvature responses for composite and pretressed concrete piles.
Figure 102. Ilustration. Connection of composite piles to cap beam at Pier No. 2.
Figure 103. Photos. Pier No. 2 including the composite piles and reinforced concrete cap beam.
Figure 104. Photo. The new Route 40 Bridge over the Nottoway River in Virginia.
Figure 105. Map. Location map of the Route 351 Bridge in Hampton, VA.
Figure 106. Photo. Aerial view of the Route 351 Bridge in Hampton, VA.
Figure 107. Photos. Wide-angle views of the original Route 351 Bridge.
Figure 108. Photo. Signs of deterioration of the original Route 351 Bridge.
Figure 109. Illustration. Schematic of the new Route 351 Bridge.
Figure 110. Illustration. Test pile cross section details.
Figure 111. Graphs. Test pile material properties.
Figure 112. Graph. Axial load-axial strain behavior of test piles.
Figure 113. Graphs. Flexural characteristics for the three test piles.
Figure 114. Map. Location of test pile site at the Route 351 Bridge.
Figure 115. Charts. Simplified soil stratigraphy near test pile area.
Figure 116. Illustration. Pile load test layout.
Figure 117. Illustration. Instrumentation layout for prestressed concrete test pile.
Figure 118. Illustration. Instrumentation layout for FRP composite test pile.
Figure 119. Illustration. Instrumentation layout for plastic composite test pile.
Figure 120. Photos. Fabrication of prestressed concrete test pile.
Figure 121. Photos. Fabrication of concrete-filled FRP piles.
Figure 122. Photos. Setup used for concrete filling of FRP composite piles.
Figure 123. Photos. Concrete filling of FRP composite piles.
Figure 124. Photos. Rebar cage of the plastic composite test pile.
Figure 125. Photos. Manufacturing process for the plastic composite test pile.
Figure 126. Graph. Driving records for test piles.
Figure 127. Photos. Installation of prestressed concrete test pile.
Figure 128. Photos. Installation of FRP composite test pile.
Figure 129. Photos. Installation of plastic composite test pile.
Figure 130. Graphs. PDA recordings during restrike.
Figure 131. Photos. PIT tests on test piles.
Figure 132. Graph. PIT sounding on the prestressed concrete test pile before installation.
Figure 133. Graph. PIT sounding on the prestressed concrete test pile after installation.
Figure 134. Graph. PIT sounding on the FRP composite test pile before installation.
Figure 135. Graph. PIT sounding on the FRP composite test pile after installation.
Figure 136. Graph. PIT sounding on the plastic composite test pile before installation.
Figure 137. Graph. PIT sounding on the plastic composite test pile after installation.
Figure 138. Photos. Axial load test of prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 139. Graph. Axial load test results.
Figure 140. Graph. Distribution of residual loads.
Figure 141. Graph. Distribution of residual stresses.
Figure 142. Graph. Load distribution for the three test piles at the Davisson failure loads.
Figure 144. Graph. Apparent strength gain with time in the three test piles.
Figure 145. Graphs. Deformed shapes of piles at different lateral loads.
Figure 146. Graph. Measured lateral deflections at ground surface for the three test piles.
Figure 147. Illustration. Load transfer in an axially loaded pile.
Figure 148. Graphs. Interpreted average CPT and SPT design profiles for Route 351 test site.
Figure 149. Graph. Accuracy of Nordlund's method predictions using d values from Nordlund's charts.
Figure 151. Graph. Accuracy of API method predictions using d values from table 36.
Figure 152. Graph. Accuracy of API method predictions using d values from interface shear tests.
Figure 153. Graph. Accuracy of LCPC method predictions using steel pile assumption.
Figure 154. Graph. Accuracy of LCPC method predictions using concrete pile assumption.
Figure 155. Graph. Accuracy of IC method predictions using d values from interface shear tests.
Figure 156. Illustration. Idealized model used in T-Z load-transfer analyses.
Figure 157. Graph. Pile tip load-pile tip displacement curve (Q-Z) (API 1993).
Figure 158. Graph. Maximum shear stress distribution along pile shaft, according to API (1993).
Figure 159. Graph. Settlement predictions for the prestressed concrete pile using API (1993).
Figure 160. Graph. Settlement predictions for the FRP pile using API (1993).
Figure 161. Graph. Settlement predictions for the plastic pile using API (1993).
Figure 162. Graph. Normalized T-Z curves according to API (1993) and Vijayvergiya (1977).
Figure 163. Graph. Normalized Q-Z curves according to Vijayvergiya (1977) and API (1993).
Figure 164. Graph. Maximum shear stress distributions used in predictions using Vijayvergiya (1977).
Figure 165. Graph. Settlement predictions for the concrete pile using Vijayvergiya (1977).
Figure 166. Graph. Settlement predictions for the FRP pile using Vijayvergiya (1977).
Figure 167. Graph. Settlement predictions for the plastic pile using Vijayvergiya (1977).
Figure 169. Graph. Linear T-Z curve obtained using Randolph and Wroth (1978).
Figure 170. Graph. Linear Qb-Z curve obtained using Boussinesq's theory.
Figure 171. Graph. Hyperbolic T-Z curve.
Figure 172. Graph. Variation of secant shear modulus for different hyperbolic-type models.
Figure 175. Graph. Route 351 initial shear modulus profile from CPT correlations.
Figure 179. Illustration. Laterally loaded pile problem.
Figure 181. Graphs. Typical p-y curve and resulting p-y modulus (Reese and Van Impe 2001).
Figure 184. Illustration. Schematic showing p-y model used for analysis of laterally loaded piles.
Figure 185. Graphs. In situ test data for the upper soils at the northern end of the test pile site.
Figure 186. Graphs. In situ test data for the upper soils at the southern end of the test pile site.
Figure 191. Graph. Calculated load-deflection curve for the prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 192. Graph. Calculated load-slope curve for the prestressed concrete pile.
Figure 197. Graph. Calculated load-deflection curve for the FRP pile.
Figure 198. Graph. Calculated load-slope curve for the FRP pile.
Figure 203. Graph. Calculated load-deflection curve for the plastic pile.
Figure 204. Graph. Calculated load-slope curve for the plastic pile.
Figure 205. Illustration. Location of instrumented production piles at the Route 351 Bridge.
Figure 207. Illustration. Instrumentation layout for FRP composite production pile.
Figure 209. Graph. Simplified stratigraphy along the Route 351 Bridge alignment.
Figure 212. Graph. Driving records for instrumented production piles.
Figure 213. Graph. PDA recordings during restrike (Spiro and Pais 2002b).
Figure 214. Graph. PIT sounding on the prestressed concrete production pile before installation.
Figure 216. Graph. PIT sounding on the FRP composite production pile before installation.
Figure 217. Graph. PIT sounding on the FRP composite production pile before installation.
Figure 218. Photo. Route 351 Bridge under construction on December 30, 2002.
Figure 221. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Density sand-to-Lancaster FRP shell interface.
Figure 222. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Density sand-to-Hardcore FRP shell interface.
Figure 225. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Density sand-to-plastic interface.
Figure 226. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Density sand-to-concrete interface.
Figure 227. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Density sand-to-steel interface.
Figure 228. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Model sand-to-Lancaster FRP shell interface.
Figure 229. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Model sand-to-Hardcore FRP shell interface.
Figure 232. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Model sand-to-plastic interface.
Figure 233. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Model sand-to-concrete interface.
Figure 234. Graphs. Interface shear test results, Model sand-to-steel interface.
Figure 235. Graph. FRP moisture concentration profile, inner radius dry, outer radius saturated.
Figure 236. Graph. FRP moisture concentration profile, inner and outer radii saturated.
Figure 237. Photo. VTRC pushout test setup.
Figure 238. Photo. VT pushout test setup.
Figure 239. Photo. Creep bending test setup.
Figure 240. Graph. Creep deflection test results.
Figure 241. Map. Location of field tests.
Figure 242. Chart. Boring B-1 (SPT-1).
Figure 243. Chart. Boring B-2 (SPT-2).
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Selected projects involving installation of composite piles.
Table 3. Available structural information for steel-reinforced plastic composite piles.
Table 4. Comparison of pile impedance.
Table 5. Interface behavior test matrix.
Table 6. Index parameter values of the sands used in this study.
Table 7. Internal friction angles obtained from direct shear tests. (1)
Table 8. Summary of surface roughness measurements.
Table 10. Summary of interface shear test results on Density sand.
Table 11. Summary of interface shear test results on Model sand.
Table 12. Summary of interface friction angles.
Table 13. Multiple linear
regression results for tan peak of Density sand.
Table 14. Multiple linear
regression results for tan cv of Density sand.
Table 15. Multiple linear
regression results for tan peak of Model sand.
Table 16. Multiple linear
regression results for tan cv of Model sand.
Table 17. Characterization data for Lancaster Composite 12-inch FRP tube.
Table 18. Characterization data for Lancaster Composite 24-inch FRP tube.
Table 19. Characterization data for Hardcore Composites 12-inch FRP tube.
Table 20. Characterization data for Hardcore Composites 24-inch FRP tube.
Table 21. As-received longitudinal tensile properties.
Table 22. As-received hoop tensile properties.
Table 23. Fickian diffusion parameters for the Lancaster 12-inch FRP.
Table 24. Fickian diffusion parameters for the Lancaster 24-inch FRP.
Table 25. Fickian diffusion parameters for the Hardcore 12-inch FRP.
Table 26. Fickian diffusion parameters for the Hardcore 24-inch FRP.
Table 27. Mechanical properties of FRP shell of composite pile.
Table 28. Pile-driving measurements for the prestressed and composite piles.
Table 29. Summary of signal-matching analyses at end of driving (from Muchard, et al., 1999).
Table 31. Summary of CASE and CAPWAP analyses results (Spiro and Pais 2002a and b).
Table 32. Test dates for the test pile program at the Route 351 Bridge project.
Table 33. Comparison of failure loads for the three test piles.
Table 34. Load distributions from static load tests at the Davisson failure loads.
Table 35. Unit shaft and toe resistances from static axial load tests.
Table 36. API recommendations for side friction in siliceous soil (API 1993).
Table 37. API recommendations for tip resistance in siliceous soil (API 1993).
Table 39. LCPC bearing capacity factors for driven piles in sands (Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982).
Table 40. Predicted axial capacities for the test piles at Route 351.
Table 41. Relationships commonly used for elastic piles in flexion.
Table 42. Recommended criteria for p-y curves in different soils (adapted from Reese, et al., 1997).
Table 43. Properties of test piles.
Table 44. Parameters used to define default p-y curves in LPILE for the prestressed concrete pile.
Table 45. Parameters used to define default p-y curves in LPILE for the FRP pile.
Table 46. Parameters used to define default p-y curves in LPILE for the plastic pile.
Table 48. Summary of CASE and CAPWAP analyses results (Spiro and Pais 2002b).
Table 49. Test dates for the instrumented production pile program at the Route 351 Bridge.
Table 50. Monitoring dates for prestressed concrete pile at the Route 351 Bridge.
Table 51. Monitoring dates for FRP composite pile at the Route 351 Bridge.
Table 52. Detailed project objectives.
