Z-type sheetpile
Hat-type sheetpiles
Lam (2010)
Lam (2010)
Lam (2010)
Implication: Max. shear occurs at mid-point U-type sheetpile may not act a fully composite section due to possible joint slippage
Lam (2010)
FSPIII
1340
33600
557.5
11100
FPSIV
2270
77200
905
23350
Method for Enhancing Shear Resistance of Interlock Technique Crimping (in factory) Welding (on site or in factory)
Crimped/welded doubles
Triple U
u c c u c c u
(Kort, 2004)
Double U (B = 60 to 80%)
u c u c u c
Triple U (B = 95 to 100%)
u c c u c c u
Problems with crimping/pre-welding connected sheetpiles becomes wider more difficult to handle and install more vibration shortage of experienced welders
Reduction factor B D
0.15
0.2
0.25
Depth of excavation (m) 2.5 2.5 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.5 4.5 to 5.5 5.5 to 6.5 > 6.5
If welding at top also carried out: B = 0.8+ 0.05 + 0.2 = 1.05 (take 1.0) or B = 0.8+ 0.2 = 1.0 (??) D = 0.55 + 0.05 + 0.25 = 0.85 or D = 0.55 + 0.25 = 0.8 (??)
Sheetpile FSPII
Wall deflection(mm) 66.3 57.9 53.5 52.5 47.1 44.7 42.3 38.7 36.7
FSPIII
150
FSPIV
190
Sheetpile FSPII
wall deflection (mm) 185.5 (yielded) 157.3 146.1 143.6 132.1 127.1 122.6 116.5 113
FSPIII
150
FSPIV
190
Findings: Upgrade one sheetpile size to achieve similar wall deflection if no special treatment is intended Increase weight (waste?) by about 25%
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
Bending Stress
Comments
Even Byfields experiment not realistic enough Sands in interlocks pulverized and jampack the interlock during driving, causing significant locked-in stress and frictional resistance connections of struts/waling to sheetpile restrain sheetpile movement
A Field Experiment
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.
Interlock slippage seldom observed in reality due to various enhancement factors earth pressure and hence friction sand filling and hence more friction
( = 1.65 or = 59o reported by Mawer & Byfield, 2010)
horizontal and vertical restraint by waling, brackets and short stud jamming due to deviation from verticality restrain of vertical movement by long embedment depth
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
Suggested practice: B 1, W 1
with contingency measure to weld interlocks when slippage observed during excavation
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.