A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles
-
Upload
denielleung -
Category
Documents
-
view
24 -
download
6
description
Transcript of A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles
![Page 1: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A discussion on the design of U-type
sheet piles for cofferdams
Victor LiDirector
Victor Li & Associates Ltd
![Page 2: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Sheetpiles commonly used for supporting deep excavations in Hong Kong
![Page 3: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Common Types of Sheetpiles
• U-type sheetpiles
![Page 4: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Z-type sheetpile
![Page 5: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
• Hat-type sheetpiles
Lam (2010)
![Page 6: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Lam (2010)
![Page 7: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Basic Beam Theory
Lam (2010)
![Page 8: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• Implication:
– Max. shear occurs at mid-point – U-type sheetpile may not act a fully
composite section due to possible joint slippage
![Page 9: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• Fully uncoupled U-type sheetpile (frictionless joint)
Lam (2010)
![Page 10: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• Comparison for U-type sheetpile
23350905772002270FPSIV
11100557.5336001340FSPIII
620038017480875FSPII
EI (cm3/m)Zxx (cm3/m)EI (cm3/m)Zxx (cm3/m)
Smooth jointFully composite sectionSheetpile
![Page 11: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Method for Enhancing Shear Resistance of Interlock
• Technique
– Crimping (in factory)– Welding (on site or in factory)
![Page 12: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• Crimped/welded doubles
(source: ArcelorMittal brochure)
![Page 13: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
(source: ArcelorMittal catalog)
![Page 14: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
• Crimped/welded triples
– can be treated as fully composite section
Continuous wall
u u
c c c c
Triple Uu
![Page 15: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Continuous wall (βB = 100%)
Single U (βB = 30 to 50%)
Double U (βB = 60 to 80%)
Triple U (βB = 95 to 100%)
(Kort, 2004)
u u u u u
u u u u
u
c c c
u u
c c c c
u
![Page 16: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• Problems with crimping/pre-welding
– connected sheetpiles becomes wider– more difficult to handle and install– more vibration– shortage of experienced welders
![Page 17: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Code Recommendations
• Reduction factor to moment capacity, βB
M = βB Z fy
where Z = section modulus for fully composite section
![Page 18: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• Reduction factor to wall stiffness, βw
I = βD Io
where Io = second area of moment for fully composite section
![Page 19: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
BS EN 1993-5:2007 National Annex Recommendations
![Page 20: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
• Additional enhancement (limited to 1.0)
– interlock not treated with sealant or lubricant:
βB up 0.05βD up 0.05
![Page 21: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
– welding at wall top before excavation
![Page 22: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
0.250.20.15βD
0.20.150.1βB
Favourable conditions
Unfavourable conditions
Highly unfavourable conditions
Reduction factor
![Page 23: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
500> 6.5
5005.5 to 6.5
4004.5 to 5.5
3003.5 to 4.5
2002.5 to 3.5
100≤2.5
min. weld length (mm)Depth of excavation (m)
![Page 24: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• Example 1: Uncrimped sheetpile
– Favourable condition, > 1 layer of strut– no sealant or lubricant– no crimping or pre-welding
βB = 0.8 + 0.05 = 0.85βD = 0.55 + 0.05 = 0.6
![Page 25: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
– If welding at top also carried out:
βB = 0.8+ 0.05 + 0.2 = 1.05 (take 1.0)or βB = 0.8+ 0.2 = 1.0 (??)
βD = 0.55 + 0.05 + 0.25 = 0.85 or βD = 0.55 + 0.25 = 0.8 (??)
![Page 26: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Implication on Design
Traditionally, βB = βD = 1 used for design for decades.
![Page 27: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
• Worked example 1: 6m deep excavation
![Page 28: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
36.71 (fully composite)38.70.8 (welding at top)42.30.55 (no treatment)190FSPIV44.71 (fully composite)47.10.8 (welding at top)52.50.55 (no treatment)150FSPIII 53.51 (fully composite)57.90.8 (welding at top)66.30.55 (no treatment)120FSPII
Wall deflection(mm)
βDUnit weight (kg/m3)
Sheetpile
In all case, bending moment not critical.
![Page 29: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
• Worked example 2 : 12m deep excavation
![Page 30: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
1131 (fully composite)
116.50.8 (welding at top)
122.60.55 (no treatment)190FSPIV
127.11 (fully composite)
132.10.8 (welding at top)
143.60.55 (no treatment)150FSPIII
146.11 (fully composite)
157.30.8 (welding at top)
185.5 (yielded)0.55 (no treatment)120FSPII
wall deflection (mm)
βDunit weight (kg/m3)
Sheetpile
![Page 31: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
• Findings:
– Upgrade one sheetpile size to achieve similar wall deflection if no special treatment is intended
– Increase weight (waste?) by about 25%
![Page 32: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Experimental Results :
• most experiments performed using unfilled joint with no applied pressure
• presence of earth pressure and soil infill in joints increases shear resistance of interlock
• Hence, reduction factor not realistic
![Page 33: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Experiments by Mawer & Byfield (2010)
![Page 34: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Bending Stress
![Page 37: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
• Comments
– Even Byfield’s experiment not realistic enough
– Sands in interlocks pulverized and jam-pack the interlock during driving, causing significant locked-in stress and frictional resistance
– connections of struts/waling to sheetpile restrain sheetpile movement
![Page 38: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
– fusing of steel during driving
![Page 39: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
A Field Experiment
![Page 40: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
• Findings:
– No noticeable relative movement of sheetpiles
– Slippage not a problem
![Page 42: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Final Remarks
• Deficiency of theoretical and experimental studies leads to conservative reduction factors
• Design based on fully composite sheetpiles used for decades in Hong Kong without much problem.
![Page 43: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
• Interlock slippage seldom observed in reality due to various enhancement factors
– earth pressure and hence friction– sand filling and hence more friction
(μ = 1.65 or δ = 59o reported by Mawer & Byfield, 2010)
![Page 44: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
- friction up to 80 kN/m reported
![Page 45: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
– horizontal and vertical restraint by waling, brackets and short stud
– jamming due to deviation from verticality– restrain of vertical movement by long
embedment depth
![Page 47: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
• Design controlled by settlement. Stability usually not an issue.
• Design for cofferdam is already very conservative in Hong Kong.
• Use of reduction lead to even more conservative design
• No reduction factor needed generally when U-type sheetpiles driven in sand to avoid wastage of natural resources
![Page 49: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
• If reduction factor is to be applied:
– Current practice: βB , βD ≤ 1, βB > βD.
![Page 50: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
– Suggested practice: βB ≤ 1, βW ≈ 1
with contingency measure to weld interlocks when slippage observed during excavation
![Page 51: A Discussion on U-Type Sheetpiles](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022013122/55cf9af1550346d033a42055/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
References:• Kort, A. (2004). On the Use of Z and U Piles.
Presentation at NSF-NGF meeting. (http://www.ngf.no/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=G8l4BDri080%3D&tabid=412)
• Lam, J. (2010). “The Use of Hat-Type Sheetpiles in Hong Kong”, HKIE Geotechnical Division Annual Seminar – Geotechnical Aspects of Deep Excavation, 61-66.
• Mawer, R.W. and Byfield, M.P. (2010). “Reduced modulus action in U-section steel sheet pile retaining walls”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE, Vol. 136, No.3, 439 – 444.