Geotechnical Analysis of Heat Exchanger Piles

Christoph Knellwolf1; Hervé Peron2; and Lyesse Laloui3

Abstract: There is currently a lack of established calculation methods for the geotechnical design of heat exchanger piles, although the
technology is experiencing a fast expansion. Instead of quantifying the effects of temperature changes on the static behavior of heat exchanger
piles, the common geotechnical practice is to apply a large overall security factor. This is done to be on the side of safety with respect to
thermal effects. The few existing in situ experiments show that applying a thermal load induces a significant change in the stress-strain state of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a pile. This paper presents a geotechnical numerical analysis method based on the load-transfer approach that assesses the main effects of
temperature changes on pile behavior. The method is validated on the basis of in situ measurements of the loads and deformations experienced
by heat exchanger test piles. The occurrence of critical design situations is further discussed. Some conclusions are formulated on concrete
failure and the full mobilization of the pile shaft friction and base resistance during the operation of the heat exchange system. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000513. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Design; Pile foundations; Temperature effects; Heating; Cooling; Thermal stress; Skin friction.
Author keywords: Foundation design; Pile foundations; Temperature effects; Heating; Cooling; Thermal stress; Skin friction.

Introduction The heat exchanger pile technology, although very successful in

Europe (see Table 1, which shows a fast expansion in the United
This paper considers a new sustainable technology for the intermit- Kingdom), faces a lack of rational knowledge of thermal effects on
tent storage of energy in soils; namely, heat exchanger piles. Heat the behavior of foundations. No design method that considers the
exchanger piles take advantage of the ground as an energy storage complex interactions between thermal storage and the mechanical
system. The heat exchange system consists of absorbing and trans- behavior of these geostructures is yet available.
porting ground thermal energy to buildings via fluid that circulates Therefore, for years, the dimensioning of heat exchanger piles
in pipes placed within the piles. Most commonly, heat exchanger has been based on empirical considerations (Boënnec 2009). In or-
piles can be precast or cast-in-place piles. In the case of a hollow der to err on the safe side, the safety factors usually employed for
precast pile, the pipes are placed within the hollow part in contact classical piles are considerably increased. Contractors may argue
with the inner wall of the concrete. In the case of cast-in-place piles, that such systems, although displaying very high energy efficiency,
the pipes are fixed to the inner side of the metallic reinforcement lead to considerable extra costs during construction and require
of the concrete. The key factor in the sustainability of these systems nonstandard construction skills.
is the use of building elements that are already needed to fill struc- In situ experience shows that the application of a thermal load
tural reasons. Any kind of foundation (such as retaining walls, induces a significant change in the static behavior of a foundation
slabs, or anchors) can be used as a heat exchanger with the ground. pile. In this paper, we first explain how thermal stresses and strains
The parallel combination of several heat exchanger piles, hydrauli- develop in heat exchanger piles and existing in situ data to quantify
cally connected and linked to a heat pump, permits the extraction of them. Then we describe a new geotechnical analysis method for
warmth from the ground to satisfy the need for heat in winter and heat exchanger piles on the basis of the load-transfer approach. This
to expel excess heat resulting from air conditioning in summer method is validated on the basis of in situ data. Finally, we discuss
(Fig. 1). With this geothermal use of geostructures, buildings can representative cases for which thermal change could lead to failure.
be cooled and heated at minimal cost by using the available geo-
thermal energy in the ground and the natural thermal properties of
the concrete. In any case, freezing of the piles is avoided by con- Influence of Temperature on the Static Behavior of
tinuous monitoring and control systems to prevent thaw-induced Heat Exchanger Piles
defects.
1
Thermal Load in the Pile
Research Assistant, Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Swiss Federal In-
stitute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. In service conditions, the pile is heated or cooled by the circulation
2
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Swiss of the heat exchanger fluid within the pipes that are cast in the con-
Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, crete. The temperature is generally between 4°C (to avoid freezing
Switzerland. of the pile and of the ground) and 30°C. In the United Kingdom,
3
Professor, Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Swiss Federal Institute of energy piles are designed to temperatures of
1°C to þ35°C. How-
Technology Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland (corre- ever, in some situations (bad operation or even external thermal
sponding author). E-mail: environmental.geomechanics@epfl.ch
recharge from solar panels), an increase in the temperature up to
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 4, 2009; approved
on January 25, 2011; published online on January 28, 2011. Discussion 40°C or 50°C is conceivable (SIA 2005). The heating of a pile in-
period open until March 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted duces expansion, whereas the cooling induces contraction. If the
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and pile is unrestrained, the change in temperature, ΔT, induces a uni-
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 10, October 1, 2011. form free strain, εth;f ¼ α · ΔT, in which α is the coefficient of
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2011/10-890–902/$25.00. thermal expansion of the pile. In the general case, a part of the

890 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 Building
Heat pump

Layer 1

Layer 2

Heat exchanger pile

Soil

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a heat exchanger pile system (Laloui et al. 2003, © 2008 Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Reproduced with permission)

0.0 0.0
Table 1. Number of Energy Piles Built Per Year in the United Kingdom
(T. Amis, personal communication, January 2009) Soil A 1
z Alluvial soil Optical fibers
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008
5.0 5.0 (SMARTEC)
Energy piles per year 150 440 1495 1596 Extensometer
Soil A 2
Alluvial soil
(TELEMAC)
10.0 10.0
strain, εth;f , is blocked by the surrounding soil and the structure, so Radial optical fibers
that only the observed strain, εth;o , is finally produced. The fact that (SMARTEC)
Pile
the soil and the structure restrain the pile in its movements intro- 15.0 15.0
duces some additional stresses in the pile. Load cell
Soil B
Sandy gravelly
(TELEMAC)
Degree of Freedom of the Pile and Induced Stresses 20.0
moraine
20.0
A convenient way to cope with the process and to assess the addi-
Soil C
tional stresses in the pile is to use the degree of freedom of the pile Bottom moraine 25.0
25.0
(denoted as n). The degree of freedom of the pile is defined by the
Soil D
ratio between the free and observed axial strains, εth;f and εth;o Molasse
(Bochon 1992; Laloui et al. 2003): 30.0 Channel system 30.0
εth;o
n¼ ð1Þ Fig. 2. Soil profile and instrumentation of the EPFL pile (Laloui et al.
εth;f
2003, © 2008 Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors. Repro-
The degree of freedom is theoretically zero when the pile is com- duced with permission)
pletely blocked and 1 when the pile is completely free to move.
Generally, n ranges from zero to 1 as a result of the variable shaft
pile was found to depend on the type of surrounding soil. The re-
friction mobilization and restraint at the two extremities of the pile.
lated additional thermally induced axial load in the concrete pile
The observed strain reads εth;o ¼ n · α · ΔT. The blocked strain,
was rather large. It also turned out that, as a result of the rather
εth;d , is the difference between the observed strain and the free
strain: uniform nature of the thermal effects, axial stresses at the pile base
during heating were much larger than the stresses (almost zero) cre-
εth;d ¼ ðn
1Þ · εth;f ð2Þ ated by the dead weight of the building alone (Laloui et al. 2006).
The expansion of the pile tended to relieve the shaft friction, except
Assuming a linear elastic behavior, the additional stress, σth , caused in the lower part of the pile, in which it was increased.
by thermal loading is proportional to εth;d : Bourne-Webb et al. (2009) presented another in situ test cam-
paign involving an instrumented heat exchanger pile (Fig. 3). From
σth ¼ εth;d · E pile ¼ ðn
1Þ · α · ΔT · Epile ð3Þ
the test data, the writers concluded that, in the specific test situation,
in which E pile = Young modulus of the pile. the pile was floating in the ground with little constraint on its move-
One of the difficulties of assessing stress and strain in heat ment at both ends, contrary to the situation that occurred in Laloui
exchanger piles lies in the evaluation of an appropriate value for et al. (2003). As a consequence, the load increase in the pile was
the degree of freedom and, more generally, of the way the thermal much less uniform. On this basis, Bourne-Webb et al. (2009) pro-
strains are restrained by the ground and the supported structure. A posed a simplified scheme to assess the response of the pile to ther-
priori, only an in situ strain measurement along the pile while it is mal loading with uniform lateral friction along the pile shaft. It was
heated or cooled down would provide an exact value of n. Laloui assumed that the degree of freedom was maximal (equal to unity) at
et al. (2003) measured the observed strains along an instrumented the extremities of the pile and minimal in the middle of the pile at
heat exchanger pile subjected to varying mechanical loads and tem- the null point, where no thermal induced displacement is observed.
perature changes (Fig. 2). The writers were able to derive the values In the following sections, we present an original method that
of the degree of freedom with respect to depth for different uses the load-transfer concept (Coyle and Reese 1966). The
mechanical and thermal loads. The intensity of strains in the test proposed method allows the calculation of heat exchanger pile

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 891

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 P P

1 1
z1 Ts,mec,1
h1

2 2
z2 Ts,mec,2
h2

3 3
z3 Ts,mec,3

n-1 n-1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

zn-1 Ts,mec,n-1
hn-1

n zn n
Ts,mec,n
Tb,mec

(a) (b)

Th,th

z1 Ts,th,1
1 1
h1
Ts,th,2
z2
2 2
h2
Ts,th,3
3 z3 3

n-1 n-1
Ts,th,n-1
hn-1

n zn n
Fig. 3. Soil profile and instrumentation of the Lambeth College pile Ts,th,n
(reprinted from Bourne-Webb et al. 2009, with permission from ICE Tb,th
Publishing)
(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Finite-difference model for heat exchanger pile load and dis-
displacements and mobilized efforts when the pile is subjected to placement computation: (a) model for mechanical load (zi: displace-
both mechanical (structure weight) and thermal (heat carrying fluid ment of pile segment i); (b) external forces Ts; mec; i and Tb; mec
circulation) loads, considering the soil/pile mechanical interactions. mobilized by mechanical loading; (c) model for thermal loading
(zi: displacement of pile segment i); (d) external forces T h;th , T s;th;i ,
and T b;th mobilized by thermal loading
New Geotechnical Analysis Method for Heat
Exchanger Piles
2. The properties of the pile, namely its Young modulus, Epile ,
and coefficient of thermal expansion, α, remain constant along
Basic Assumptions the pile and do not change with temperature. The weight of the
The method relies on the following basic assumptions pile is neglected.
(simplifications): 3. The relationships between the shaft friction/shaft displace-
1. The pile displacement calculation is done with a one- ment, head stress/head displacement, and base stress/base dis-
dimensional finite difference scheme. Only the axial displace- placement are known.
ments are considered. The radial displacements and their 4. The soil and soil-pile interaction properties do not change with
mechanical interactions with the soil are neglected (such inter- temperature.
actions are considered small with regards to the effects of the Upward movements are taken as positive; downward move-
axial displacements). ments are negative. Tensile stresses are taken as positive.

892 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 For the sake of clarity, the following notation conventions are The slope of the first linear branch of the load-transfer curves is
given: capital letters are for forces, whereas lower case letters are related to the Menard pressuremeter modulus, E M . The following
for stresses. The letter T is used for the forces applied by the soil empirical expressions, elaborated for fine-grained soils and weak
along the pile shaft and at the pile base and the force induced by the rocks (clays, marls, and limestones), are used here (Frank and Zhao
upper structure at the pile head. Q stands for the ultimate values of 1982; Amar et al. 1991):
lateral friction and bearing capacity at the pile base. P stands for the
weight of the building. The indexes “mec” and “th” indicate the 2EM 11E M
mechanical and thermal origins of the reaction forces, respectively. Ks ¼ and Kb ¼ ð4Þ
D D
Another set of indices is used to specify where a reaction acts:
index b is for the pile base, index h is for the pile head, and index D = pile diameter; K s and K b = slopes of the shaft and base load-
s is for the pile shaft. transfer functions for the first linear branches, respectively (i.e., the
stiffness of the shaft and base springs in Fig. 4).
Pile Displacement Calculation
This behavior is assumed to be valid until a stress value equal to
The pile displacement for a mechanical load P is done by the load- half the ultimate shaft friction value qs (which is half the ultimate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

transfer method (Seed and Reese 1957; Coyle and Reese 1966). In bearing capacity value at the pile base, qb ). From these stress values
this method, the pile is subdivided into several rigid elements, on, the slopes of the load-transfer curves take a value equal to K s =5
which are connected by springs representing the pile stiffness. Each (pile shaft friction) and K b =5 (pile base reaction), respectively, until
rigid element experiences an elastoplastic interaction with the sur- the ultimate values are reached.
rounding soil along its side. The pile base element is supported by In the present study, an unloading branch has been added, ac-
the reaction of the substrate with the pile/soil interaction being elas- counting for the irreversible behavior of the soil. The slopes of the
toplastic, as well [Fig. 4(a)]. The relation between the shaft friction unloading branch are K s and K b , for shaft friction and the reaction
and pile displacements, along with the relation between the normal at the base, respectively. Therefore, only the first branch of the
stresses and the pile displacements at the base, are described by load-transfer curves defines a linear elastic behavior.
load-transfer functions. This discretization of the system allows The ultimate shaft friction, qs , and the ultimate bearing capacity,
us to consider various soil layers with distinct properties and the qb , define the plateau of the load-transfer curves. They can be em-
variation of the soil properties with depth. pirically or analytically related to the soil parameters via classical
In the case of thermal loading, the heat exchanger pile moves, methods (Lang and Huder 1978; Legrand et al. 1993).
whereas the weight P of the upper structure remains unchanged. The load-transfer curves describe the mobilized stress of a given
The originality of the present approach is to introduce an additional displacement. Fig. 5 shows the load-transfer curves used for the
spring linked to the pile head element [Fig. 4(c)] to represent the soil-pile interaction, ts;i
z and tb;i
z. The pile-supported structure
restraining effect of the upper structure. This additional spring is interaction is considered linear elastic as well and is represented
considered only when a thermal loading is applied. by the spring constant K h , so that t h ¼ K h z1 . K h ultimately de-
A number of load-transfer functions are available in the litera- pends on many factors, such as the supported structure rigidity, the
ture (Randolph and Wroth 1978; Frank and Zhao 1982; Armaleh type of contact between the pile and the foundation raft, and the
and Desai 1987; Frank et al. 1991). In this paper, the curves pro- position and the number of heat exchanger piles. K h is chosen, with
posed by Frank and Zhao (1982) are used. The shapes of the curves the unit stress/displacement, over the pile section. This allows us to
for the mobilized shaft friction and base reaction, respectively, ver- use the same units for all springs, in particular those at the pile
sus pile displacements are illustrated in Fig. 5. The shape of the extremities. The sensitivity of the model to variations of K h and
curves, with two linear parts and a plateau equal to the ultimate K b is of the same order [see the discussion in a later section of
value, conforms to the behavior often observed in pile in situ load- the example of the EPFL (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
ing tests (Frank and Zhao 1982). These load-transfer functions are Lausanne) case study].
chosen for convenience, without a loss of generality with respect to The mobilized external forces T s;i , T h;i , and T b;i , as illustrated in
the thermomechanical response of the heat exchange pile. Other Figs. 4(b) and 4(d), are obtained by multiplying the considered
forms are indeed possible. stress by the surface on which it is acting.

ts

qs
Ks/5 tb

qs/2
Ks qb
Ks zedge1 zedge2 Kb/5
z
qb/2
-zedge2 -zedge1 Ks Kb
Ks Kb
- qs/2 -z
-zedge2 -zedge1
Ks/5
- qs

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Load-transfer curves proposed by Frank and Zhao (1982); (a) evolution of the mobilized shaft friction ts with respect to pile displacements;
(b) evolution of the mobilized reaction on the base of the pile tb with respect to pile displacements

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 893

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 The springs between two adjacent pile elements represent the hi Dπ
F M;i ¼ F B;i þ · t s;i ðzM;i Þ ð7Þ
rigidity of the pile. The pile behavior is considered linear and 2
elastic. The rigidity, K pile;n , of a given spring connecting two
elements of the pile of length, hn , is therefore (one-dimension The force F H;i , at the head of the element, is finally
hypothesis) K pile;n ¼ E pile =hn . F H;i ¼ F B;i þ 2ðF M;i
F B;i Þ ð8Þ
On the basis of the previously defined soil-pile interaction laws,
the calculation of the thermomechanical response of the heat whereas zH;i , the corresponding displacement, is
exchanger pile is made as follows. First, we calculate the stress state
and the pile displacements induced by the imposed mechanical F M;i
zH;i ¼ zB;i þ h ð9Þ
loading; this state is further referred to as the initialization state AE i
and corresponds to effects caused by the weight of the building.
Then, from the initialization state, we calculate the pile response The displacement at the head of an element is then used as the bot-
caused by the thermal loading (heating or cooling occurring during tom displacement of the upper element. The procedure is repeated
heat exchange). for each successive element up to the head of the pile.
The initial displacement, Δzn , at the base of the pile has to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Initialization by Mechanical Loading chosen so that the axial force, F H;1 , of the element at the head of the
pile is equal to the weight, P, transferred by the building. The equi-
The displacement of the pile under a given mechanical load, P, is librium of external forces T b , T s;i , and P [see Fig. 4(b)] is therefore
computed with the load-transfer method, as described by Coyle and verified as
Reese (1966). The element i, of length hi , diameter D, and section X n

A, is sketched in Fig. 6. F B;i is the axial force acting at the element Tb þ T s;i þ P ¼ 0 ð10Þ
i¼1
base, F M;i is the axial force acting in the middle, and F H;i is the
axial force acting at the element head; the axial displacements Knowing the value of the axial forces from the previous calculation,
are zB;i , zM;i , and zH;i , respectively. t s;i is the average side friction the strain caused by mechanical loading, εmec , can be derived.
of the element.
Knowing the value of F B;i and assuming a constant shear stress Thermal Loading
along the lower half side of the element, the direct application of
Hooke’s law yields a relative displacement, Δz, in the middle of When a pile is heated or cooled, it expands or contracts about a
element i: null point (Bourne-Webb et al. 2009). For instance, in Figs. 4(c)
and 4(d), this specific point is located between elements 3 and
n
1. Actually, the null point is situated at that depth, NP, where
F B;i þ F M;i 1 hi
Δzi ¼ · · the sum of the mobilized friction along the upper part plus the re-
2 AE 2

 action of the structure is equal to the sum of the mobilized friction
1 h Dπ 1 hi along the lower part plus the reaction at the base. According to the
¼ F B;i þ · i · ts;i ðzM;i Þ · · ð5Þ
2 2 AE 2 notations in Fig. 4, this can be expressed by
X X
NP X
n
With Δzi ¼ zM;i
zB;i , one obtains T th;NP ¼ T s;th;i þ T h;th þ T s;th;i þ T b;th ¼ 0 ð11Þ

 i¼1 i¼NPþ1
1 hi Dπ 1 hi
zM;i
zB;i
F B;i þ · · ts;i ðzM;i Þ · · ¼0 ð6Þ
2 2 AE 2 Case without Mechanical Loading
We first consider the particular case of heating and cooling without
To obtain the value of zM;i , Eq. (6) is solved iteratively until the any mechanical load. In this case, there is no strain prior to temper-
required precision is reached. Once zM;i is known, one can deduce ature change, and the initialization state remains at the origin of
the axial force in the middle of the element F M;i : the load-transfer curves. In order to assess the blocked strain, an
iterative procedure is applied following the method described
subsequently.
1. Choice of a starting value for the observed deformation.
FH,i To compute a first set of mobilized resistance (mobilized
shaft friction and resistance at the extremities), the pile is ini-
tially assumed to be totally free to move. The first displace-
ment calculations are therefore done with εth ¼ εth;f ¼ αΔT.
2. Displacement calculation.
FM,i hi By definition, there is no displacement at the null point
ts,i
(thus, zth;NP ¼ 0). The displacements zth;i of the upper elements
NP
1 to 1 are zth;i ¼ zth;iþ1 þ hi · εth;i , whereas those of the
lower elements NP þ 1 to n are zth;i ¼ zth;i
1
hi · εth;i
By using the t-z curve, we obtain a first set of mobilized
reaction stresses. The axial stress in the pile σth;i , induced
FB,i by the thermal free displacement of the pile, is the sum of
all the external forces divided by the pile section A. The sum-
Fig. 6. Sketch of a pile element (after TERRASOL 2009); FB; i is the mation begins at the base of the pile from n to i:
axial force acting at the bottom, FM; i the is the axial force acting in
X
i 
the middle, and FH; i is the axial force acting at the pile head; ts; i is the 1
σth;i ¼ T th;b þ hi Dπ t th;s;j ð12Þ
average shaft friction j¼n
A

894 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 3. From the mobilized stress, one obtains the blocked thermal the side of the building. The drilled pile diameter was 88 cm on
strain εth;b : average, and its length was 25.8 m. Pile integrity tests revealed
σth a slightly marked bulge in the bottom part of the pile. The Young
εth;d ¼ ≤ εth;f ð13Þ modulus of the pile was estimated from laboratory tests and
E
cross-hole ultrasonic transmission tests, yielding the value Epile ¼
4. By subtracting the blocked from the free strain, we obtain the 29:2 GPa. The coefficient of thermal expansion of the pile was
observed strain εth;o ¼ εth;f
εth;d . estimated to be α ¼ 1 × 10
5 °C
1 . A schematic foundation soil
Steps 2–4 must be repeated with the new set of observed strains, profile is presented in Fig. 2. The soil geotechnical parameters were
εth ¼ εth;o . By repeating steps 2–4, the observed strain will con- obtained on the basis of various geotechnical investigations and
verge to the actual values of the blocked and observed strain. two static pile loading tests. The groundwater table was found
We then deduce related parameters, such as pile displacement, to be very close to the ground surface.
internal axial stresses, mobilized shaft friction, and mobilized The behavior of the pile was measured for seven different
reaction at the base and head of the pile. mechanical loads, corresponding to seven successive construction
stages. Test 1 was done before the construction of the building. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Case with Mechanical Loading strains were therefore only attributable to the thermal load. In
In this case, the thermal displacement calculation (step 2) is calcu- Test 7, the whole building was built and acting on the pile. Varying
lated from a nonzero initialized displacement and strain state changes in temperature were applied (up to 21.8°C in Test 1 and
induced by the mechanical loading. In the case of unloading 14.3°C for Test 7).
(uplift), the stress path in Fig. 5 follows the unloading branch. The measured temperatures were not constant along the pile
depth, showing a maximal deviation of 2°C around the average
Numerical Implementation
value. The experimental data for strain and degree of freedom are
The previously mentioned numerical method has been coded in shown at the interface among the five soil layers. The test showed
the Java programming language. The obtained numerical code has that strains in the pile are thermoelastic in nature. Their intensity
been validated against an analytical calculation of the deformations clearly depends on the surrounding soil type.
of the pile for a mechanical loading. In the present case, the values of K s and qs are not directly acces-
In the code, several soil layers can be considered. For each layer, sible from the available reconnaissance tests. For soil layers A, B,
specific soil proprieties can be defined. The bearing capacity can and C, the elastic slope, K s , of the load-transfer function is directly
either be calculated by the code from analytical expressions follow- determined from in situ testing by using the mobilized friction as a
ing Lang and Huder (1978) or Legrand et al. (1993) or set directly function of the measured displacements. This is justified by the fact
by the user. In order to set the load-transfer function proposed by that the measured response was elastic. It is assumed that, with
Frank and Zhao (1982), one can enter the Menard pressuremeter respect to the curve given in Fig. 5, the highest measured displace-
modulus and the ultimate shear stress and bearing capacity at the ment corresponds to the specific displacement zedge1 . This con-
base. The interaction between the pile and the supported structure is strains a value for the ultimate shear stress, qs . For soil layer D
modeled by an elastic law, the stiffness of which is directly defined (molasse), the value of qb ¼ 11 MPa corresponds to the one used
by the user. for the geotechnical design (Laloui et al. 2003). No precise infor-
Pile geometry and material parameters (Young modulus and mation for the value K b for layer D (molasse) is available. K b for
thermal expansion coefficient) are set to be constant with depth.
the molasse varied between one and two times the K b value for the
The weight of the building (i.e., the mechanical load) and the
moraine (layer C), knowing that molasse is the stiffest stratum of
change in temperature (i.e., the thermal load) are both defined
the geological profile. The complete set of soil parameters are listed
by the user.
in Table 2.
The verification of the static behavior of the pile is further done
In the following numerical validation, the measured varying
by comparing the total axial stress to the resistance of the concrete
temperature profile along the pile shaft is applied. The pile section
pile on the one hand, and the total mobilized bearing forces to the
is considered to be constant. Both experimental and modeled
ultimate bearing capacity on the other hand.
pile axial strains for Test 1 are shown in Figs. 7(a)–7(d) for suc-
cessive average temperature increments up to the final value
Validation of the Method (ΔT ¼ 21:8°C). As previously mentioned, Test 1 was performed
before the construction of the building; the mechanical load and
In order to validate the method, we require experimental data on pile head structure contact stiffness (K h ) are therefore set to zero.
the stresses and strains experienced by a heat exchanger pile. As Fig. 8 shows the experimental and numerical results for Test 7 in
already stated, such results are quite rare. The validation of the the form of the degree of freedom. The degree of freedom is directly
present method is undertaken by using the results of two compre- deduced from the strains following Eq. (1). The soil parameters are
hensive full-scale in situ tests: one carried out at the EPFL in the same as in Test 1. Because the building is completely con-
Lausanne, Switzerland (Laloui et al. 2003, 2006) and another structed (representing a mechanical load of P ¼ 1000 kN), a stiff-
undertaken at Lambeth College in London, United Kingdom ness, K h ¼ 2 GPa=m, is further imposed at the contact pile head
(Bourne-Webb et al. 2009).

In Situ Energy Pile at EPFL (Switzerland) Table 2. Soil Parameters Used for Modeling the EPFL Pile

A heat exchanger pile that was part of a pile raft supporting a four- Soil layer A1 A2 B C D
storey building was equipped with load cells, extensometers (both K s (MPa=m) 16.7 10.8 18.2 121.4 —
fiber-optic and vibrating-wire), and temperature sensors (Laloui qs (kPa) 102 70 74 160 —
et al. 2003, 2006). This pile was subjected to a thermal load gen-
K b (MPa=m) — — — — 667.7–1335.4
erated by a heat carrying fluid circulating in polyethylene pipes
qb (MPa) — — — — 11
embedded in the concrete pile. The pile tested was located at

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 895

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 0 0
Experimental
Model: Kb (D)=Kb (C)
−5 −5 Model: Kb (D)=1.5Kb (C)
Model: Kb (D)=2Kb (C)

Depth [m] −10 ∆T = 14.3°C

Depth [m]
−10
K = 1.5 GPa/m
−15 ∆T = 7.5°C −15
Experimental
−20 Model: Kb (D)=Kb (C) −20
Model: Kb (D)=1.5Kb (C)
Model: Kb (D)=2Kb (C)
−25 −25
50 100 150 200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-6
(a) Strain x 10 [-] Degree of freedom [−]

0 Fig. 8. Modeled degree of freedom of the pile versus measured one,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test 7; ΔT ¼ 14:3°C (experimental data from Laloui et al. 2003);

−5 K b ðXÞ stands for K b of layer X
Depth [m]

−10 ∆T = 14.2°C that the proposed approach is able to reproduce the observed behav-
Experimental
Model: Kb (D)=Kb (C)
ior, either in the case of thermal loading alone (Fig. 7) or in the case
−15
Model: Kb (D)=1.5Kb (C) of both thermal and mechanical loading (Fig. 8). The difference
Model: Kb (D)=2Kb (C)
−20
between the applied average temperature and the actual tempera-
ture profile, previously mentioned, leads to an absolute error in
−25
the free thermal strain equal to 20 × 10
6 . Taking a degree of
50 100 150 200 freedom n equal to 0.5 (the lower bound of the n value in this case),
(b) Strain x 10 [-]
-6
the absolute error becomes equal to 10 × 10
6 . Such error values
are in the range of the difference between the experimental and
0
Experimental
numerical values, shown in Fig. 7.
Model: Kb (D)=Kb (C)
−5 Model: Kb (D)=1.5Kb (C) In Situ Energy Pile at Lambeth College (United
Model: Kb (D)=2Kb (C) Kingdom)
Depth [m]

−10
∆T = 17.4°C
Bourne-Webb et al. (2009) undertook a full-scale test on a pile lo-
−15 cated in a construction site at Lambeth College, London. The soil
profile and the pile instrumentation are given in Fig. 3. Most of the
−20 pile is installed in the London Clay formation, which extends well
below the toe level of the pile. The mechanical load was applied on
−25 the pile head with a loading frame. The strains were measured with
50 100 150 200 vibrating-wire strain gauges (VWSG) at six different depths and
-6
(c) Strain x 10 [-] with fiber-optic sensors (OFS) continuously with depth. The test
0 stages of interest were as follows: an initial mechanical loading
Experimental stage (two loading–unloading cycles at 1,200 and 1,800 kN, re-
Model: Kb (D)=Kb (C) spectively), a cooling stage (with a 1,200 kN mechanical load
−5 Model: Kb (D)=1.5Kb (C)
Model: Kb (D)=2Kb (C) and ΔT ¼
19°C), and a heating stage (maintaining the
1,200 kN mechanical load when ΔT ¼ þ10°C). Note that residual
Depth [m]

−10 ∆T = 21.8°C
strains were observed after the initial mechanical loading stage. The
−15 test data also showed significant strain variations in the upper 6 m
of the pile, partly because of eccentric loading at the pile head,
−20 suggesting that little resistance was mobilized in this zone
(Bourne-Webb et al. 2009).
−25 The coefficient of thermal expansion of the pile, α, is equal to
50 100 150 200 8:5 × 10
6 °C
1 , and the Young modulus, E, is equal to 40 GPa
(d) -6
Strain x 10 [-] (Bourne-Webb et al. 2009). For this numerical validation, a typical
London Clay value for the Menard pressuremeter modulus is used
Fig. 7. Modeled versus measured strains for successive changes in tem- (Marsland and Randolph 1977). The ultimate shear resistance var-
perature, Test 1: (a) ΔT ¼ 7:5°C; (b) ΔT ¼ 14:2°C; (c) ΔT ¼ 17:4°C; ied between 60 and 80 kPa. The latter values are deduced from the
(d) ΔT ¼ 21:8°C (experimental data from Laloui et al. 2003); K b ðXÞ
limit pressure obtained by Menard pressuremeter tests on London
stands for K b of layer X
Clay (Marsland and Randolph 1977; Amar et al. 1991).
As suggested by the experimental results, the shear resistance of
structure. K h , as the only parameter for which no information is the upper 6.5 m is not considered. The mechanical load Pz¼6:5 m
available, is chosen to match the measured degree of freedom. is therefore adapted to equal the strain εz¼6:5 m as a result of the
The excellent fit of the method results with the experimental initial mechanical loading at this depth, as measured by VWSG
data for varying changes in temperature (see Figs. 7 and 8) shows instrumentation:

896 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 Table 3. Soil Parameters Used for Modeling the Lambeth College Pile span values). In tension, K h is set to 0:1 GPa=m; this case is ex-
Layer 1 2 3 4 perienced during cooling, and thus the beam rigidity should not
interfere. The ultimate bearing capacity, qb , is taken equal to
Depth (m) 0–6.5 6.5–10.5 10.5–16.5 16.5–22.5
460 kPa (data from Bourne-Webb et al. 2009). The complete set
E M (MPa) 0 45 45 45
of soil parameters are listed in Table 3.
qs (kPa) 0 60 70 80 The measured strain and the lateral shear stresses profiles (ac-
qb (kPa) — — — 460 tually deduced from the measured strain by Bourne-Webb et al.
2009) are considered for validation purposes. The initial mechani-
πD2 cal loading test (loading/unloading to 1,200 kN and 1,800 kN) is
Pz¼6:5 m ¼ E ·ε ð14Þ first reproduced [Fig. 9(a)]. After discharging the pile from
4 Pile z¼6:5 m
mechanical loading, residual strain is observed. To avoid any con-
In compression, the rigidity on the head, K h , includes the rigidity of fusion between residual and blocked strains as a result of thermal
the beam of the loading frame and the rigidity of the soil–pile inter- loading, before a change in temperature is applied, the pile is re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

face along the neglected upper 6.5 m. The value is taken as equal to loaded to 1,200 kN during the in situ test.
K h ¼ 10 GPa=m (on the basis of estimates of the beam profile and The strain represented at the end of the temperature loading in
Figs. 9(b) and 9(c) is not the directly measured strain but the sum of
0
0
VWSG: 1200kN
−5 OFS: 1200kN
−5 Model: 1200kN
Depth [m]

−10

Depth [m]
−10
−15 VWSG: 1200kN
OFS: 1200kN
Model: 1200kN −15
VWSG: 1800kN
−20 OFS: 1800kN
Model: 1800kN
−20
−250 −200 −150 −100 −50 0
-6
(a) Strain x 10 [-] −100 −50 0 50 100
0
(a) Shear stress [kPa]
VWSG: 1200kN
OFS: 1200kN 0
Model: 1200kN
VWSG: end of cooling
−5 VWSG: end of cooling
OFS: end of cooling
OFS: end of cooling
Model: end of cooling −5 Model: end of cooling
Depth [m]

−10
Depth [m]

−10
−15
−15
−20
−20
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100
-6
(b) Strain x 10 [-] −100 −50 0 50 100
(b) Shear stress [kPa]
0
VWSG: 1200kN
OFS: 1200kN 0
Model: 1200kN
−5 VWSG: end of heating
OFS: end of heating
Model: end of heating −5
Depth [m]

−10
Depth [m]

−10
−15
−15
−20
VWSG: end of heating
−20 OFS: end of heating
−200 −100 0 100 Model: end of heating
(c) -6
Strain x 10 [-] −100 −50 0 50 100
(c) Shear stress [kPa]
Fig. 9. Modeled versus measured strains for (a) initial loading test,
(b) thermal test at end of cooling, and (c) thermal test at end of heating Fig. 10. Measured and predicted profiles of mobilized shear stress:
(experimental data from Bourne-Webb et al. 2009; OFS stands for optic (a) for a mechanical load P ¼ 1; 200 kN; (b) during pile cooling; and
fiber sensors and VWSG for vibrating-wire strain gauges); (a) loading (c) during pile heating (OFS: fiber-optic sensors, VWSG: vibrating-
to 1,200 and 1,800 kN; (b) cooling; (c) heating wire strain gauges)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 897

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 the strain caused by the mechanical loading plus the blocked strain Mechanical Loading and Heating
caused by the thermal loading.
The comparison of the measured and modeled strain profiles of The initial mechanical load is actually chosen so that the mobilized
friction is already near the ultimate value (this would mean that the
the Lambeth College pile demonstrates that the method is able to
initial design is improper, or that the pile supports unexpected
quantitatively reproduce the effects of mechanical and thermal
mechanical loads). Figs. 11(a)–11(d) illustrate the changes in dis-
loadings. The occurrence of tensile axial strain (and axial stress)
placements, shear stresses along the interface, axial stresses, and
during the cooling phase in the bottom part of the pile is well pre-
forces within the pile as a result of temperature increase after
dicted [Fig. 9(b)]. In addition, the noticeable increase in additional
compressive axial strain (and axial stress) observed within the
whole pile during the heating phase is well assessed [Fig. 9(c)]. 0
Fig. 10 shows the measured and predicted mobilized shear Floating pile
−2
stresses along the pile shaft during cooling and heating, respec-
tively. During cooling, the decrease of shaft friction in the bottom

Depth [m]
−4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

part of the pile and increase in shaft friction in the upper part are After Heating
accurately reproduced. In the case of heating, the increase in shaft −6
friction mobilization is well reproduced below 6 m in depth.
Because the shaft resistance is set to zero in the upper 6 m, the −8 Building Weight
decrease in friction mobilization in this zone is not captured.
The good agreement between measured and predicted friction is −10
−3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1
also an a posteriori confirmation of the load-transfer curve charac- (a) Displacement [mm]
teristics adopted for the simulation.
0
Floating pile
Study of Representative Examples −2

Depth [m]
In this section, we examine critical situations in which the temper- −4
ature changes in the pile could lead to structural failure of the pile
−6
element or serviceability limit state failure and ultimate bearing After Heating
resistance failure. Three types of piles are distinguished: floating
−8 Building Weight
pile, semifloating pile, and end-bearing pile. A pile with a given
geometry is considered; the pile is 10 m in length and 0.5 m in −10
diameter. The coefficient of thermal expansion of the pile is 35 40 45 50 55
(b) Shear stress [kPa]
α ¼ 1 × 10
5 °C
1 , and the Young’s modulus is Epile ¼ 30 GPa.
The soil is homogenous (one layer). The other model parameters 0
(namely, the load-transfer function parameters qs , qb , K s , K b , K h , After Heating
and P) are adapted for each case. −2
Building Weight
If a pile is heated or cooled down, it will expand or contract
Depth [m]

about a null point, and friction will be mobilized to oppose move- −4 Resistance
ment. Maximum forces are reached when all parts of the pile move
in the same direction; the null point then lies on an extremity of the −6
pile. The model parameters are chosen in such a manner that this
−8
last situation prevails in the following calculations. In order for the
Floating pile
ultimate shaft friction capacity to be reached, the pile should move
−10
down. In the case of heating, the null point is situated at the head of −20 −15 −10 −5 0
(c) Axial stress [MPa]
the pile. In case of cooling, the pile contracts, but the null point is
also located at the head. Indeed, the pile head-supported structure 0
interaction does resist tensile stresses, whereas the pile base–soil Floating pile
interaction does not. −2
Building Weight
Depth [m]

Example 1: Floating Pile −4 After Heating

In a floating pile, almost the entire weight of the building is trans- Bearing Capacity
−6
ferred to the ground through friction along the pile shaft; little or no
weight is supported by the base of the pile. For this case, the model −8
parameters are listed in Table 4.
−10
0 200 400 600 800
Table 4. Model Parameters for Case 1: Floating Pile (d) Forces [kN]

qs (kPa) 50 EM (MPa) 20 Fig. 11. Changes in (a) displacements, (b) shear stresses along the in-
qb (MPa) 0 K h (GPa=m) 10 terface, (c) axial stresses, and (d) forces within the pile for a floating
P (kN) 650 ΔT (°C) 15 heat exchanger pile subjected to heating (ΔT ¼ 15°C)

898 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 the mechanical loading. The heating increases the mobilized shear to reach soil bearing capacity) if a soil with a larger friction resis-
stress, initiated by the weight of the building, up to the bearing tance is considered.
capacity. However, the relatively small imposed friction resistance,
qs , only slightly constrains the dilation of the pile. The additional Mechanical Loading and Cooling
compression in the pile remains limited, well below the structural The model parameters are also found in Table 4. Fig. 12 shows the
resistance [see Fig. 11(c)]. The pile response would actually be dif- simulation results. In Fig. 12(b), there is evidence of negative shear
ferent (with more significant compressive stresses but less chance stress for the lower 6 m of the pile. This situation is favorable for
bearing capacity, as shown in Fig. 12(d), but it may generate ten-
sion stresses in the pile [Fig. 12(c)]. The pile therefore needs to be
0 designed to resist traction. In Fig. 12(d), one can see that the cool-
Floating pile
ing reduces the mobilized bearing forces down to less than 200 kN
−2 instead of the requested 650 kN, which corresponds to the building
weight. The difference should be transmitted via the raft to the ad-
Depth [m]

−4 jacent piles. In the case of increased cooling, the tension could act
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

After Cooling up to the head of the pile; this would mean that the pile pulls on the
−6
building.
Building Weight
−8 Example 2: Semifloating Pile
−10 A semifloating pile is defined as a pile that supports the weight of
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0
(a) Displacement [mm] the building both at its base and through friction along its lateral
surface. This situation is, in fact, encountered in most practical
0 cases, so this situation is worthy of study.
Floating pile In the previous case (floating pile), the pile experienced failure
−2 by reaching the ultimate bearing capacity (heating) and possibly
tensile structural failure (cooling). In the present case, conditions
Depth [m]

−4 After Cooling
by which the structural resistance in compression is reached are
examined. For this purpose, a stiff soil is considered, with a rela-
−6 tively high strength (qs ¼ 250 kPa and qb ¼ 38:2 MPa); moreover,
both large mechanical and thermal loads are applied (see Table 5).
−8 Building Weight In particular, the applied temperature variation is beyond the
classical functioning range.
−10
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
(b) Shear stress [kPa] Mechanical Loading and Heating

0 A noticeable increase in mobilized shear stress is observed after

heating. More importantly, the displacement of the pile being sig-
After Cooling nificantly restrained, an additional compression develops within the
−2
pile. In Fig. 13(d) the axial compression exceeds a typical pile re-
sistance of f cd ¼ 20 MPa. Because of the high end-bearing resis-
Depth [m]

−4
Building Weight
tance, the ultimate bearing capacity is not problematic.
−6 In the same situation, and for the same soil characteristics, hol-
low precast piles would be much more likely to experience struc-
−8 tural failure than cast-in-place concrete piles because the same axial
Floating pile load would be applied on a smaller section.
−10
−4000 −3000 −2000 −1000 0 1000 Mechanical Loading and Cooling
(c) Axial stress [kPa]
Fig. 14 illustrates that in this case, by using the parameters of
0
Table 5 and with a decrease of temperature to 50°C, the pile head
structure interaction and the stiff soil-pile shaft interaction com-
−2
pletely constrain the displacements in the upper 5 m (n ¼ 0).
Building Weight The behavior is close to the one of a floating pile. Below the depth
Depth [m]

−4
After Cooling of 5 m, when the pile starts to move, the unloading of shear stresses
Bearing Capacity is first observed, and the direction of shear stresses is reversed in the
−6
lowest part of the pile, as well. The development of negative shear
−8
stresses is supplemented with tensile axial stresses. Here, the same
Floating pile
phenomena of the reduced bearing forces, already discussed for the
−10
floating pile example, are observed.
−200 0 200 400 600 800
(d) Forces [kN] Table 5. Model Parameters for Case 2: Semifloating Pile

Fig. 12. Changes in (a) displacements, (b) shear stresses along the in- qs (kPa) 250 EM (MPa) 60
terface, (c) axial stresses, and (d) forces within the pile for a floating qb (MPa) 38.2 K h (GPa=m) 45
heat exchanger pile subjected to cooling (ΔT ¼
15°C) P (kN) 2500 ΔT (°C) 50

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 899

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 0 0
Semi-floating pile Semi-floating pile
−2 −2
After Cooling
Depth [m]

Depth [m]
−4 −4

−6 −6 Building Weight
After Heating

−8 Building Weight −8

−10 −10
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
(a) Displacement [mm] (a) Displacement [mm]

0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Semi-floating pile Semi-floating pile

−2 −2

Depth [m]
Depth [m]

−4 −4 After Cooling

After Heating
−6 −6

Building Weight
−8 −8 Building Weight

−10 −10
100 150 200 250 −200 −100 0 100 200 300
(b) Shear stress [kPa] (b) Shear stress [kPa]
0 0

Building Weight After Cooling

−2 −2
Depth [m]

Depth [m]

−4 −4

−6 After Heating Building Weight

−6
Resistance
−8 −8
Semi-floating pile Semi-floating pile
−10 −10
−25 −20 −15 −10 −5 5
(c) −20 −15 −10 −5 0
Axial stress [MPa] (c) Axial stress [MPa]
0
0

−2
Building Weight −2 Building Weight
Depth [m]

−4
Depth [m]

−4
After Cooling
−6 After Heating
Bearing Capacity −6
Bearing Capacity
−8
−8
Semi-floating pile
−10 Semi-floating pile
0 5000 10000 15000 −10
(d) Forces [kN] 0 5000 10000 15000
(d) Forces [kN]
Fig. 13. Changes in (a) displacements, (b) shear stresses along the
shaft, (c) axial stresses, and (d) forces within the pile for a semifloating Fig. 14. Changes in (a) displacements, (b) shear stresses along the
heat exchanger pile subjected to heating (ΔT ¼ 50°C) shaft, (c) axial stresses, and (d) forces within the pile for a semifloating
heat exchanger pile subjected to cooling (ΔT ¼
50°C)

Example 3: End-bearing Pile

stress caused by the thermal loading, are constant in depth and only
In this case, the load-transfer is done via axial stress down to the depend on the stiffness of the bedrock and the upper structure. Two
base. The friction resistance is considered as null along the whole ultimate states, one for n ¼ 1 (pile totally free in its movements)
pile shaft. The degree of freedom, and thus the strain and axial and one for n ¼ 0 (totally restrained pile), can be imagined.

900 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 For the design of a conventional pile that rests on a hard sub- The latter effects could be included in the modeling approach
strate at its base, it is conservative to neglect the shaft friction. previously presented; for example, by setting ad hoc evolution laws
However, if a heat exchanger pile is designed, doing so can be for the shaft friction mobilization.
problematic. The axial stresses caused by thermal loading directly
depend on the friction resistance. There is the risk that pile struc-
tural failure will be reached because of the contribution of ignored Conclusion
shear stresses (in particular tensile stresses).
Heat exchanger piles offer a good opportunity for the use of sus-
tainable energy for building heating and cooling. In spite of the
Further Analysis existence of hundreds of installations of this type, no design
method is available to consider the complex interactions between
The safety of the pile needs to be determined for thermal storage and the mechanical behavior of geostructures. This
• Additional compression in the pile, paper presents a new method of geotechnical analysis, which as-
• Possible tensile stresses in the pile, and sesses the main effects of thermal loading on heat exchanger pile
• Changes in mobilized shear stresses and base reaction. stress and strain response. The proposed method is based on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A simplified verification of the mechanical behavior of the pile load-transfer method, and considers the shear resistance of the sur-
when subjected to temperature changes could be based on the rounding soil and the tip resistance of the soil at the bottom of the
assumption that the pile degree of freedom is zero and that the null pile. The interaction between the pile and the supported structure,
point is located at the head of the pile. decisive in the case of thermal loading, is also taken into account. A
The verification of the structural resistance of the pile would be discretization of the pile in a number of segments enables us to
as follows, with the terms in Eqs. (15) and (16) as absolute values: consider various soil layers with distinct properties and the varia-
tion of the soil properties with depth. An iterative procedure allows
Rcompression ≥ ΔT · α · EPile · A þ P and the thermal strains and the associated additional efforts, when the
ð15Þ pile is subjected to both axial mechanical loading and temperature
Rtension ≥ ΔT · α · EPile · A
P changes, to be quantified. The method is validated on the basis of in
situ measurements of the loads and deformations experienced by
Rcompression and Rtension = pile resistance to compressive and tensile heat exchanger test piles.
forces, respectively. In the verification of the bearing capacity, the The method is further applied to representative situations
temperature-induced forces have to be added to the building (floating pile, semifloating pile, and end-bearing pile). A simplified
weight: scheme can be drawn; the heating of the pile induces additional
compression in the pile and increases the mobilized shear stress.
X
head The cooling can induce a release of mobilized shear stress, possibly
Qp þ Qs ≥ P þ ΔT · α · EPile · A ð16Þ leading to the reversal of shear stress signs and the development of
base tensile stress in the pile.
We must stress that there is interplay between the changes in
However, a zero degree of freedom is unlikely. On the contrary, the friction mobilization and the additional efforts within the pile,
pile is more or less restrained. It is important to stress that there is caused by the changes in temperature and the prevailing soil-pile-
interplay between the changes in friction mobilization and the addi- supported structure interactions. This deserves a careful analysis
tional efforts within the pile; this interplay is caused by the changes in each case. The proposed method is believed to furnish adequate
in temperature and the prevailing soil-pile-supported structure in- analyses for user-defined problems.
teractions. This deserves a careful analysis in each case, and the
method proposed in this paper allows such an analysis. The permit-
ted mechanical and thermal loads are more realistic than the ones Acknowledgments
that could have been determined by limiting values through, for
instance, the separate verifications of the ultimate bearing capacity, The writers would like to thank the reviewers for their very con-
the internal stresses, and pile head displacements. structive comments, and Mrs Alice Di Donna for her contribution
The present approach does not consider directly changes in tem- to the validation of the numerical code. This work was partly
perature within the soil and its consequences (i.e., possible ther- funded by Swisselectric Research.
mally induced soil deformations or temperature effects on the
soil and interface properties causing changes in the soil bearing
capacity). In service conditions (i.e., for temperature roughly rang-
References
ing from 0°C to 40°C), variations in soil friction angle (both peak Amar, S., Clarke, B. G. F., Gambin, M. P., and Orr, T. L. L. (1991).
and critical state) as a result of temperature are on the order of a few “The application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design
degrees (Hueckel et al. 2009; Cekerevac and Laloui 2004). A tem- in Europe, Part 1: Predrilled pressuremeters/self-boring pressure-
perature increase would also tend to increase the soil confinement, meters.” International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation
therefore increasing its strength. In addition, some additional soil Engineering, European Regional Technical Committee, No. 4, A. A.
settlements could occur, caused by temperature-induced thermo- Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
plastic irreversible strains, which are compressive upon heating. Armaleh, S., and Desai, C. S. (1987). “Load-deformation response of
These phenomena may increase by cyclic thermal loadings (Laloui axially loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 113(12), 1483–1500.
Bochon, A. (1992). “Les mesures de déformation des structures hypersta-
and Cekerevac 2008). In the same way, these extreme temperature
tiques: Le témoin sonore.” Rev. Fr. Geotech., 60, 41–50 (in French).
loadings are likely to irreversibly modify the contact conditions be- Boënnec, O. (2009). “Piling on the Energy.” Geodrilling Int., (150), 25–28.
tween the pile and the soil, as the strains in the pile are essentially Bourne-Webb, P. J., Amatya, K., Soga, K., Amis, T., Davidson, C., and
thermoelastic, whereas the strains in the soil are thermoelastoplastic Payne, P. (2009). “Energy pile test at Lambeth College, London: Geo-
(Silvani et al. 2009). This may further lead to a decay of the technical and thermodynamic aspects of pile response to heat cycles.”
mobilized friction. Géotechnique, 59(3), 237–248.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 901

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902

 Cekerevac, C., and Laloui, L. (2004). “Experimental study of thermal Anal. Meth. Geomech., 30(8), 763–781.
effects on the mechanical behaviour of a clay.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Legrand, J., Millan, A., and Renault, J. (1993). “Règles techniques de con-
Methods Geomech., 28(3), 209–228. ception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de génie civil.” Cahier
Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C. (1966). “Load transfer for axially loaded des clauses techniques générales applicables aux marchés publics de
piles in clay.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 92(2), 1–26. travaux, Fascicule No 62—Titre, V, Ministère de l’équipement du loge-
Frank, R., Kalteziotis, N., Bustamante, M., Christoulas, S., and Zervogiannis, ment et des transports, France (in French).
H. (1991). “Evaluation of performance of two piles using pressuremeter Marsland, A., and Randolph, M. F. (1977). “Comparisons of the results
method.” J. Geotech. Eng., 117(5), 695–713. from pressuremeter tests and large in situ plate tests in London Clay.”
Frank, R., and Zhao, S. R. (1982). “Estimation par les paramètres press- Géotechnique, 27(2), 217–243.
iométriques de l’enfoncement sous charge axiale de pieux forés dans Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P. (1978). “Analysis of deformation of
des sols fins.” Bull. Liaison Lab. Ponts Chaussees, 119, 17–24 (in
vertically loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 104(GT12), 1465–1488.
French).
Seed, H. B., and Reese, L. C. (1957). “The action of soft clay along friction
Hueckel, T., François, B., and Laloui, L. (2009). “Explaining thermal
piles.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 122, 731–754.
failure in saturated clays.” Géotechnique, 59(3), 197–212.
Silvani, C., Nuth, M., Laloui, L., and Peron, H. (2009). “Understanding the
Lang, H. J., and Huder, J. (1978). “Bodenmechanik und Grundbau: Das
thermomechanical response of heat exchanger piles.” Proc., 1st Int.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 03/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Verhalten von Böden und die wichtigsten grundbaulichen Konzepte.”

Springer, Berlin (in German). Symp. on Computational Geomechanics (COMGEO I), Juan-les-Pins,
Laloui, L., and Cekerevac, C. (2008). “Non-isothermal plasticity model for France, 589–596.
cyclic behaviour of soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 32(5), Swiss Association for Architects and Engineers (SIA) (2005). “Nutzung der
437–460. Erdwärme mit Fundationspfählen und anderen erdberührten Betonbau-
Laloui, L., Moreni, M., and Vulliet, L. (2003). “Comportement d’un pieu teilen.” Dokumentation D 0190, Swiss Association of Engineers and
bi-fonction, fondation et échangeur de chaleur.” Can. Geotech. J., Architects, SIA, Bern, Switzerland (in German).
40(2), 388–402 (in French). TERRASOL. (2009). “Software User’s Manual, Programme FoXta
Laloui, L., Nuth, M., and Vulliet, L. (2006). “Experimental and numerical Partie F: Module Taspie.” 〈http://www.terrasol.com/Softwares/Foxta/
investigations of the behaviour of a heat exchanger pile.” Int. J. Numer. manuels/FoXta-PartieF_v2.0.pdf.〉 (Mar. 2009).

902 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 890-902