MultiLock Plastic Pile Specifications Capping beam ...

Pile MultiLock Softwood Post Hardwood Post Steel Tube

Quantity per metre wall 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4

Allowable Bending Moment (M) Short / Long term kNm/m 3.94 2.24 / 1.92 4.47/3.83 4.27/ 3.66 8.54/7.32 7.91 15.81 12 23.99

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 175 196 393 146 293 33.6 67.3 51.1 102.1

Moment of Inertia (I) cm4/m 1050 982 1963 556 1112 150 299 227 454

Flexural Stiffness EI Serviceability / Ultimate Limit State kNm2/m 24 88/39 177/79 68 137 314 628 477 953

Flexural Strength f m,kar Mpa 60

Design Flexural Strength f u;d Mpa 22.5

Modulus of Elasticity (Erep) Serviceability / Ultimate Limit

State

Mpa 2300 6000 / 9000 11800 / 14000 2.1 E+8 2.1 E+8

Effective Pile Width mm 500

Depth/Diameter of Section mm 120 100 100 76 square 76 square 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9

Thickness (if Section or Tube) mm 5 3 3 4.85 4.85

Material (Strength Class) PVC C18 C18 D50 Angelim D50 Angelim Steel FeE235

Weight per m (product) Kg 6.2

MultiLock Plastic Pile Specifications

The MultiLock product can be used on its own as a conventional sheet pile or can use used as a king panel with timber or steel inserts. The use of timber or

steel will increase the bending moment of the piled wall. Information on how to establish the combined bending moment is shown overleaf. In the table

below the data has been structured to indicate the number of piles, plastic timber or steel required or permissible over a linear distance of 1 metre. This is

important as the bending moments and section modulus stated are relate to units per metre.

Unit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business Park Staffordshire WS7 3FS

Tel: 01543 677290 | Mob: 07775 710648 | Tel: 0845 5195197

Twitter: @plasticpiling www.plasticpiling.ninja

Capping

beam

available and

now capping

plugs

Bending Moments and Hybrid

MultiLock alone has a bending moment of 3.94 kNm/m, the manufacturers and their design engineers Geoconsult Noord, have

based the product concept on an additive method, when used as a hybrid system with timber or steel; where both pile and post

or tube are present. Note in a king panel design, there are clearly regions of the wall which are solely the tube or post. With

two hexagonal tubes built into its design, either or both of these can be used, so long as the space between post/tube does not

exceed 50cm. See below for examples

Independent Analysis by the Caparo Innovation Centre, commissioned by THE Plastic Piling Co, has stated where a design needs to

be considered as conservatively as possible, the bending moments of hybrids should be based upon the stiffer of the two elements

alone, as this will be supporting the loads, rather than a distribution between pile and post. In this more conservative approach the

bending moment is based on a single element and so hybrid benefits are not taken into account.

Pile Options MultiLock MultiLock plus 1 C1 8timber

post

MultiLock plus 2 C1 8timber

post

MultiLock plus 1 88.9mm OD

3mm Steel Tube

MultiLock plus 288.9mm OD

3mm Steel Tube

Bending Moment 3.94 3.94 + 2.24 3.94 + 4.47 3.94 + 7.91 3.94 + 15.81

Total Bending Moment 3.94 6.18 8.41 11.85 19.75

The New MultiLock Selfseal

The first plastic pile of our

range that incorporates a

mechanical seal within the

pile construction.

Ideally suited to water,

chemical and root barriers

Pile ProLock Softwood C1 Post Steel Tube

Quantity per metre wall 2 2 2 2 2

Allowable Bending Moment (M) kNm/m 7.09 6.96 24 35.7 58

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 315 663 102

Moment of Inertia (I) cm4/m 3950 4970 713

Stiffness EI kNm2/m 91 447 1498

Flexural Strength f m,kar Mpa 60

Design Flexural Strength f u;d Mpa 22.50

Modulus of Elasticity (E) Serviceability Limit

State

Mpa 2300 9000 2.1 E+11

Effective Pile Width mm 500

Depth/Diameter of Section mm 175 150 139.7

Thickness (if Section or Tube) mm 6 3.6 5.6 10.0

Material PVC C1 Steel FeE235

Weight per m (product) Kg 8.4

ProLock Plastic Pile

Specifications as of

2/9/2008

Unit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business Park Staffordshire WS7 3FS

Tel: 01543 677290 | Mob: 07775 710648 | Tel: 0845 519519 7

Skype: apeplasticpiling Twitter: @plasticpiling www.plasticpiling.ninja

Bending Moments and Hybrid

ProLock alone has a bending moment of 7 kNm/m, the manufacturers and their design engineers Geoconsult Noord, have based

the product concept on an additive method, when used as a hybrid system with timber or steel; where both pile and post or

tube are present. Note in a king panel design, there are clearly regions of the wall which are solely the tube or post. With two

hexagonal tubes built into its design, either or both of these can be used, so long as the space between post/tube does not

exceed 50cm. See below for examples

Independent Analysis by the Caparo Innovation Centre, commissioned by APE, has stated where a design needs to be considered as

conservatively as possible, the bending moments of hybrids should be based upon the stiffer of the two elements alone, as this will

be supporting the loads, rather than a distribution between pile and post. In this more conservative approach the bending moment

is based on a single element and so hybrid benefits are not taken into account.

Pile Options ProLock ProLock plus 1x 150 C1 timber

post

ProLock plus 1 139.7mm OD 3mm

Steel Tube

ProLock plus 1 x 139 mm x 5-

6mm Steel Tube

Bending Moment 7 7 + 7 7 + 24 7+ 35

Total Bending Moment 7 14 31 42

Engineering SpecificationsGeneral — Metric Units

www.plasticpiling.co.uk ©2014 Truline LLC. Truline is a

Registered Trademark of Truline LLC. US Patent No.7628570, 8033759.

Other patents pending. All rights reserved. page 1 of 5

Material Benefits

Proven, durable co-extruded rigid PVC material formulated for exterior weatherability and high impact resistance, UV-resistant against fading and discoloration in harsh marine environments, non-chalking, chemical resistant, non-corrosive—will not rust or rot, will not spall or fracture, virtually maintenance free and not affected by marine borers, 50-year limited warranty, environmentally-friendly material made of post-industrial recycled PVC.

UV Protection/ Outer Layer: Yes, UV-resistant virgin PVC compound Stock Lengths: 5.95m stock, other lengths bought to order

Inner Layer: Post-industrial recycled PVC (92.5% for 800 series) Colors Available: Three standard colours light gray stock , sand and beige to order

Parts:

* Based on full scale performance test by Architectural Testing, Inc. Report #70174.01-122-44, not theoretical calculations.

** All pile sections must be filled with gravel or other material such as soil, sand, pebble, etc. to ensure the web is fully supported and the shear load is transferred

from flange to flange by the fill material. Shear load must be applied by continuous beam or whaler on the face of the wall.

t I (theoretical) is moment of inertia as calculated for the shape

a I (apparent) is moment of inertia determined experimentally by a full scale test and measuring the deflection of the wall. This is the value for moment of inertia that would predict the deflections that were measured across a range of known loads.

*** Based on published data by US Army Corps of Engineers Report #ERDC/CRREL LR-03-19**** For comparative purposes, the total material wall thickness listed should be doubled due to the Truline double wall design.

No warranty of any kind is made as to the suitability of Truline for a particular application or the results obtained there from. Consult a professional engineer.

U-Channel Female End Cap Male End Cap 22.5° RadiusCross Tie 5° Radius

No Fill — Specifications Units 800 Series

U-Channel Section Depth mm 203.2

U-Channel Section Width mm 304.8

Nominal Thickness**** mm 6.9

Weight kg/m 10.6

Modulus of Elasticity MPa 2,620

Tensile Strength MPa 43.4

Design Strength*** MPa 22.1

Impact Strength kJ 0.1

Gravel Fill** — Specifications Units 800 Series

Allowable Moment theoretical apparent* kNm/m

40.3 19.7

Allowable Shear** kN/m 92.1

Section Modulus theoretical apparent* cm3/m

1,828.0 892.5

Moment of Inertia It theoretical Ia apparent* cm4/m

18,573 9,013

Reinforced Concrete Fill— See next 4 pages for data

Telephone 01543 677290 / 0845 519 519 7 / 07775 710648Skype apeplasticpiling Email [email protected]

Web www.plasticpiling.co.uk Twitter @plasticpiling

RECOMMENDED STRUCTURAL CAPACITIES OF TRULINE/REINFORCED CONCRETE COMPOSITE WALL SECTIONS

Engineering Specifications Concrete Fill Option — Metric Units

page 2 of 5

The tables that follow are the recommended values for factored structural moment capacities and corresponding bending stiffnesses of Truline sheet pile sections filled with reinforced concrete. The tabulated values were computed for a range of concrete compressive strengths and reinforcement options. The placement of rebar is shown in the drawings.

For complete reports, please visit www.plasticpiling.co.uk or email us [email protected]

The factored moment capacities were determined from nonlinear moment vs. curvature behavior computed using LPile 2012 software. The nominal moment capacities were determined when the maximum compressive strain in the concrete reached .003 in/in. The reported ultimate (factored) moment capacities were computed by multiplying the nominal moment capacity by a strength reduction factor of .65. The reported bending stiffnesses are for moment levels equal to the ultimate moment capacity and are for cracked sections.

The strength reduction factor of 0.65 is conservative. The rationale for this value is the similarity in construction methods for placement of concrete into the Truline sections to that used for drilled shaft foundations where the .65 reduction factor is used. In construction, concrete is placed from the top section by free-fall if placed in dry or by tremie if placed in wet. In many cases, vibration cannot be used due to the depth of concrete placement. And, no opportunity exists for direct visual inspection because construction is not above ground and the formwork is permanent.

In most cases, retaining walls experience only a flexural load and the moment capacity is controlled by tension reinforce-ment. Under these conditions a strength reduction of 0.90 is permitted by ACI 318-08. However due to the rationale above, Truline has chosen to publish the more conservative number. Qualified structural engineers may choose to use a less conservative strength reduction factor at their discretion when site conditions permit reasonable confidence that problems resulting from the above conditions can be avoided.

This method for determining moment capacities for the Truline/Reinforced Concrete sections was validated in laboratory testing. The testing involved placing full scale specimens in 4 point loading and measuring the center point deflection for given loads. An analysis showed that the predicted moment-curvature behavior closely matched the observed results. With the computational method validated, it could then be used with confidence to determine the moment capacities for the sections under many variations of concrete strength and reinforcing steel design.

Details of the testing, analysis and computations done in establishing these factored moment capacities and bending stiffnesses are available in a separate document and can be provided for review.

OTHER REINFORCMENT DESIGNS Alternately, qualified structural engineers may elect to do their own reinforced concrete design to customize the walls structural capacity to meet a specific requirement. Each cell can be treated as a simple concrete member and may be designed using the standard ACI Committee 318 design protocols.



Other patents pending. All rights reserved.

Telephone 01543 677290 / 0845 519 519 7 / 07775 710648 Skype apeplasticpiling Email [email protected]


Bar Size Concrete Compressive Strength, f’c Mpa

21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 15,307 15,751 16,085 16,381 16,567

No. 5 15,974 16,530 16,900 17,197 17,456

No. 6 19,384 20,792 21,533 22,089 22,534

No. 7 21,088 23,534 25,610 27,204 28,093

No. 8 22,163 25,054 27,685 30,020 32,096

No. 9 23,090 26,129 29,020 31,725 34,245

No. 10 24,090 27,352 30,391 33,319 36,136

No. 11 25,017 28,464 31,614 34,690 37,655

No. 14 27,129 30,725 34,208 37,581 40,768

800 Series — Bending S ffness (Nm^2/m width of wall) — Reinforced Sec ons 1 Rebar


21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 609,646 632,653 651,528 667,492 681,391

No. 5 642,607 667,680 688,434 705,900 721,113

No. 6 764,968 797,742 827,886 853,616 875,966

No. 7 904,796 941,044 974,475 1,005,746 1,036,266

No. 8 1,045,938 1,088,948 1,127,919 1,163,604 1,196,847

No. 9 1,176,469 1,228,118 1,273,569 1,315,546 1,353,578

No. 10 1,320,523 1,381,938 1,437,250 1,486,457 1,531,908

No. 11 1,450,866 1,521,484 1,586,093 1,643,845 1,696,246

No. 14 1,705,918 1,797,572 1,879,459 1,953,645 2,021,916

800 Series — Factored Moment Capaci es (Nm/m width of wall) — Reinforced Sec ons 1 Rebar

800 Series — Rebar Placement — Reinforced Sections 1 Rebar

page 3 of 5

800 S - R 1 R





Centre Line

Centre Line




21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 23,905 24,424 24,758 25,017 25,202

No. 5 31,911 32,948 33,727 34,320 34,801

No. 6 38,730 41,510 42,992 44,067 44,956

No. 7 42,177 47,069 51,220 54,333 56,149

No. 8 44,363 50,071 55,334 60,041 64,155

No. 9 46,179 52,295 58,076 63,487 68,528

No. 10 48,144 54,630 60,782 66,675 72,271

No. 11 50,034 56,742 63,228 69,380 75,310

No. 14 54,296 61,486 68,417 75,125 81,574



21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 1,023,588 1,054,578 1,079,933 1,102,471 1,121,252

No. 5 1,283,711 1,333,482 1,374,801 1,409,547 1,439,597

No. 6 1,528,809 1,594,544 1,654,645 1,705,355 1,750,430

No. 7 1,808,653 1,880,961 1,947,635 2,010,553 2,071,593

No. 8 2,091,313 2,176,769 2,254,712 2,326,081 2,392,755

No. 9 2,352,375 2,455,673 2,546,763 2,630,341 2,706,405

No. 10 2,640,670 2,764,628 2,874,499 2,972,163 3,063,253

No. 11 2,901,732 3,044,471 3,172,185 3,287,691 3,391,928

No. 14 3,411,649 3,594,768 3,759,105 3,907,479 4,043,644


800 Series — Rebar Placement — Reinforced Sections 2 Rebar

page 4 of 5

800 S - R 2 R





Centre Line



800 Series — Rebar Placement — Reinforced Sec ons 4 Rebar


21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 35,543 37,396 38,878 40,064 40,731

No. 5 47,106 49,219 51,183 53,036 54,741

No. 6 59,744 62,227 64,525 66,638 68,676

No. 7 74,717 77,497 80,128 82,574 84,872

No. 8 91,988 95,101 98,029 100,772 103,366




21 24 28 31 34

No. 4 2,205,129 2,244,382 2,281,006 2,312,324 2,342,985

No. 5 2,909,104 2,980,633 3,040,480 3,098,938 3,140,257

No. 6 3,596,852 3,701,117 3,799,917 3,878,367 3,944,102

No. 7 4,310,340 4,466,771 4,598,635 4,709,446 4,805,701

No. 8 5,042,817 5,247,675 5,418,380 5,567,467 5,695,472

page 5 of 5

800 S ‐ R 4 R







Date: December 2017

Product Specifications GRpvc Sheet Piling SuperLock

Unit Value

Section width mm 350 Section depth mm 250 Thickness mm 9 Section modulus cm3/m 1685 Moment of inertia cm4/m 21203

Max. allowable stiffness kNm2/m 913,0

Allowable sheet piling deflection under load

of span 1,5 %

Norm Unit Value

Density (material - warp) PN-EN ISO 1183-

3:2003 kg/m3 1450-1530

Charpy impact test (material - warp) PN-EN ISO 179-1:2004

kJ/m2 ≥30

Shore durometer (material - warp) PN-EN

ISO 868:2005 Shore’a D ≥75

Softening point Vicat method (material - warp)

PN-EN ISO 306:2004

oC ≥82

Modulus of elasticity – MOE, flexural modulus (tested on whole sheet piling profiles)

ASTM D6109 MPa ≥4300

The Hammerman Equipment Plastic Piling Company LimitedUnit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business ParkBurntwoodStaffs WS7 3FSTel01543 677290 or 01543 277680

Twitter @plasticpiling @APEhammerman @JETFiltereurope

mailto:[email protected]

European Regional Development Fund 2014-2020 Programme

Implementation Report

Implementation Report Form B v1.docx Page 2 of 11

Section 1: Agreed Scope of Support (taken from Form A Section 6)

FE Analysis on reinforced and unreinforced piling sections to determine validity of quoted figures Investigate issue of web buckling Compile basic report

Section 2: Review of proposed Product or Technology The Plastic Piling Company Ltd market a civil engineering piling product produced by Pietrucha of Poland. The product seen in figure 1 is a glass fibre reinforced PVC section. The glass fibres are only reinforce the flanges of the section, leaving the web unreinforced:

Figure 1 – Pietrucha Super Lock Piling

Pietrucha publish a brochure with the table as seen in figure2. The table compares equivalent reinforced and unreinforced sections. Plastic Piling Company have been left a little confused by some of the parameters used in figure 2. Clearly, as the material used in the reinforced section is neither isotropic nor uniform, a single value for Young’s Modulus or Tensile Strength seems inappropriate.




Figure 2 – Pietrucha Super Lock Piling Properties Table

The Plastic Piling Company has asked the IPSS team to investigate the validity of this table and to explain the parameters given in the table. Plastic Piling Company is also concerned by the issue of web buckling and has also requested a basic investigation into this issue by FEA. Finite Element Analysis As the geometry and fibre reinforcement of the section is so complex, only FEA is able to quickly and efficiently analyse the mechanical properties of the section. It was decided to recreate as closely as practicable the field test shown in Pietrucha literature shown in figures 3 and 4:




Figure 3 – Pietrucha Field Test

Figure 4 – Pietrucha Field Test




Some simplifications to the FE model were necessary including shortening the height to 2m and reducing the width from 4 sections to 2. This was in order to reduce computer processing time. Firstly the unreinforced piling was analysed to give a benchmark. A rigid bar was used to distribute the load with causing local deformations (we are concerned more with bending at the base of the piling rather than near the top). An arbitrary load of 1000N was applied. As the analysis was linear in nature, any results in terms of stress and deflection may be factored by the ratio of the actual load over 1000N to produce an accurate predicted result. Figure 5 shows the result for deflection:

Figure 5 – Unreinforced Section FEA Deflection Plot The analysis shows a maximum deflection of 8.7mm The analysis was repeated with the reinforced section. The material properties used in the analysis were taken from Pietrucha’s brochure as shown in figure 6. The FE analysis was again linear but used anisotropic properties as shown in figure 6. Using flexural bending equations, calculations in the accompanying calculations sheet confirm the PVC’s Young’s Modulus E in the unreinforced section is 2.2 GPa (compared to 2.4GPa actual input figure).




PVC Rigidity

Density [kg/m3] 1440 1790

EX [Pa] 2.40E+09 5.60E+10

EY [Pa] - 2.40E+09

EZ [Pa] - 2.40E+09

PRXY 0.41 0.41

PRYZ - 0.27

PRXZ - 0.41

GXY [Pa] 8.50E+08 8.50E+08

GYZ [Pa] - 2.20E+10

GXZ [Pa] - 8.50E+08

Figure 6 – Pietrucha Materials Data




Figure 7 – Reinforced Section FEA Deflection Plot

The analysis for the reinforced section shows a maximum deflection of 1.4mm An equivalent Young’s Modulus for the reinforced section may also be calculated. Of course this is equivalent and only valid for bending in the transverse direction as shown. It would not be valid for bending in any other direction. The figure calculated is 13.25GPa. This compares favourably with the 14GPa as quoted by Pietrucha. Pietrucha’s quoted figures for equivalent Young’s Modulus are considered to be valid. Pietrucha have also quoted figures for ultimate tensile strength and ultimate bending moment per unit width of piling wall for both reinforced and unreinforced sections. These two properties are closely related as tensile stress will be induced by the ultimate bending moment. PVC is an isotropic material. The given figure of 40MPa is a realistic and appropriate figure and needs no confirmation. An equivalent figure for the UTS of the reinforced section is tricky to work out. Typically in composite materials, strain and ultimate tensile strain are more commonly used as stress throughout the composite will not be evenly distributed. Fibres will typically see much higher stresses than the matrix. However, strain will tend to far more even throughout the section and it is therefore an easier property to work with. Again using flexural bending equations and using the quoted figures for ultimate bending moment for both unreinforced and reinforced sections, the figures for maximum strain due to bending work out at approximately 0.001 for both sections.




A maximum calculated bending stress in the unreinforced section works out at approx. 20MPa. This gives a safety factor against UTS of 2. The ultimate tensile strain (ductility) of E glass fibres (the strain at which UTS occurs) is 0.027. This gives a safety factor at the quoted ultimate bending moment of 2.5. This seems appropriate. Pietrucha quotes figures for “Allowable Stiffness” to be five times greater with reinforcement than without reinforcement. As the calculated figure for Young’s Modulus is approximately 5 times greater, this would appear to be valid. Buckling The issue of buckling is potentially extremely complicated to address. Civil engineers will typically use Eurocode limit state calculations for the design of structures and foundations. Eurocode 7 is the part that deals with the design of foundations. There are other Eurocodes that deal with structures made from steel, from wood and from concrete. Unfortunately there are no Eurocodes yet that deal with polymers or fibre composites and therefore the buckling characteristics of materials such as PVC are not so well understood and cannot be properly validated. Typically, piles are produced from rolled steel. The buckling characteristics of rolled steel sections are very well understood and are covered by Eurocode 3. Most Eurocode buckling calculations are derived from empirical data gathered from testing. The procedure for validating a steel structure with regard to buckling can be extremely onerous. A steel beam may buckle in a number ways that could also apply to Super Lock piling. These include:

Direct web buckling at supports Direct web buckling due to point loads Web buckling due to shear stresses in the web Compression flange buckling due to compressive bending stresses. Lateral torsional buckling (unlikely to occur in piling as sections tend to be mutually supported)

Although there are equations that may possibly give insight, FE buckling analyses are currently the best way of designing polymer sections for buckling. It is acknowledged that further research may throw added light on these issues. The FE models shown in figures 5 and 7 were subjected to buckling analyses at the same loads and with the same boundary conditions. Figure 8 shows the buckling plot for the unreinforced section:




Figure 8 – Unreinforced Section FEA First Buckling Mode Plot

The buckling mode shown in figure 8 can be described as compressive flange plate buckling. This was the first buckling mode and calculations have shown this would not be the primary failure mode in this particular load case. I.e. the section would fail in yielding before the buckling occurs. Most of the buckling modes analysed involve various types of flange buckling. Web buckling appears not to be such a problem. Multiple attempts have been made to run the reinforced piling sections through an FE buckling analysis but without success. The reasons for the lack of success are unclear. Further attempts and a thorough investigation into buckling of the reinforced section can be undertaken as part of IPSS form C work. Buckling of the reinforced section is of particular concern. As the maximum bending moment is so much greater, the likelihood for buckling to occur before yield or ultimate tensile stress is reached, particularly in the web (which remains unreinforced even in the reinforced section) becomes very much greater. It is noted that the image of Pietrucha’s field test in figure 4 seems to include a buckling failure mode near the ground similar to that predicted in the unreinforced pile seen in figure 8.

Supporting Calculations for The Plastic Piling Company

Load ≔P 1000

Wall height ≔l 1950

Section second moment of area of 2 sections as shown in FEA plots

≔I 138164

Max deflection (unreinforced)

≔δmax.un 8.15

Material Young's Modulus ≔Eun =――――⋅P l

3

⋅3 I δmax.un

2.2

Max deflection (reinforced) ≔δmax.re 1.35

Equivalent material Young's Modulus (reinforced)

≔Ere =――――⋅P l

3

⋅3 I δmax.re

13.25

Width ≔w 690

Bending moment ≔M =⋅P l 1.95 ⋅

Bending moment per unit width of wall

≔m =――⋅P l

w2.83 ―――

⋅

Depth of section ≔d 250

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.

16/11/2017Written by James G P Jones BEng CEng MIET

Page 1 of 3

Section Modulus for both reinforced and unreinforced sections

≔Z =――I

⎛⎜⎝―d

2

⎞⎟⎠

1105.33

Max calculated bending stress in either section

≔σ =――M

⋅2 Z0.882

Max bending strain in unreinforced section

≔εun =――σ

Eun

⋅4.019 10−4

Max strain in reinforced section

≔εre =――σ

Ere

⋅6.657 10−5

Recommended maximum bending moment per unit wall width for PVC wall

≔mrec.PVC 64 ―――⋅

Recommended maximum bending moment per unit wall width for reinforced wall

≔mrec.re 450 ―――⋅

Calculated max strain in PVC wall at recommended max bending moment

≔εrec.PVC =⋅――εun

mmrec.PVC 0.0091

Calculated max stress in PVC wall at recommended max bending moment

≔σrec.PVC =⋅εrec.PVC Eun 19.98

Calculated max strain in reinforced wall at recommended max bending moment

≔εrec.re =⋅――εre

mmrec.re 0.0106

Ultimate Tensile Strength of PVC

≔UPVC 40

Ultimate tensile strain of E glass fibres

≔εu 0.027

Reinforced section safety factor

≔Fs.re =――εu

εrec.re

2.55



Page 2 of 3

Unreinforced section safety factor

≔Fs.un =―――UPVC

σrec.PVC

2

Unreinforced section buckling factor

≔Bun 27.6

Buckling safety factor in relation to recommended max bending moment

=――――Bun

⎛⎜⎝―――σrec.PVC

σ

⎞⎟⎠

1.219



Page 3 of 3

THE Economy Rib Pile Specifications

Unit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business Park

Staffordshire WS7 3FS

Tel: 01543 677290 | Mob: 07775 710648 | Twitter:

@plasticpiling www.plasticpiling.ninja

Format Units EcoZ rib Lite EcoZ rib DuoRib

Ultimate Moment kNm/m 2.52 3.8 3.8

Allowable Moment (FOS=3) (M) kNm/m 0.84 1.27 1.27

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 65 87.3 86.6


Effective Pile Width mm 309 309 608

Depth of Section mm 88 88 88

Thickness mm 3.5 5.5 5.5

Material Recycled PVC

Weight per m (product) Kg 2.55 3.05 5.8

Modulus of Elasticity MPa 2600

Density PN-EN ISO 1183-3:2003 Kg/m3 1400-1480

Charpy Impact test PN ENI SO 179-1:2004 Kj/M2 ≥30

Shore durometer PN-EN ISO 868:2005 Shore’a D ≥75

Softening point Vicat Method PN-EN ISO °C ≥77

Tensile Strength PN-EN-ISO 527-2:1998 MPa ≥44

Tensile Modulus of elasticity PN-EN-ISO 527-2:1998 MPa ≥2600

Bending Modulus of elasticity PN-EN ISO 178:2006 MPa ≥2600

Bending Strength PN-EN ISO 178:2006 MPa ≥65

Resistance of climate ageing after energy 2.6GJ/

m2 radiation:

Resistance of changing dye

Change of Charpy Impact

%

Not less than 4 in grey scale

≥30

Format Units EcoZ Box 3.5 EuroPile EcoZ Box 5.5

Ultimate Moment kNm/m 11.2 14.1 16.3

Allowable Moment (FOS=3) (M) kNm/m 3.73 4.7 5.43

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 254 320 369.5


Effective Pile Width mm 270 300 270

Depth of Section mm 150 115 150

Thickness mm 3.5 5.5 5.5

Material Recycled pvc

Weight per m (product) Kg 2.55 4.3 3.05



Charpy Impact test PN ENI SO 179-1:2004 Kj/M2 ≥30

Shore durometer PN-EN ISO 868:2005 Shore’a D ≥75

Softening point Vicat Method PN-EN ISO

306:2004

°C ≥77

Tensile Strength PN-EN-ISO 527-2:1998 MPa ≥44


Bending Modulus of elasticity PN-EN ISO 178:2006 MPa ≥2600


Resistance of climate ageing after energy 2.6GJ/

m2 radiation:



%


≥30

Box Rib EcoZ and Europile Plastic Pile Specifications

Clearly the deeper profile—so the Z pile

Ultra U460 U610/6.4 U610/7.2 U610/9

Ultimate Moment kNm/m 15.3 23.1 31.2 44.1

Allowable Moment kNm/m 5.1 7.7 10.4 14.7

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 380 580 780 1100

Moment of Inertia (I) cm4/m 2413 5174 7895 12576

Effective Pile Width mm 460 606 ± 15 606 ± 15 606 ± 15

Depth of Section mm 130 180 200 230

Thickness mm 5.5 6.4 7.2 9

Material U = mono extruded

Weight per m Kg 6 8 9.8 12.5


Economy Mono extruded U Piles Plastic Pile Specifications

Unit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business Park

Staffordshire WS7 3FS

Tel: 01543 677290 | Mob: 07775 710648

Twitter: @plasticpiling www.plasticpiling.ninja

Ultra Z7 Ultra Z9 Ultra Z11 Mega Z

Ultimate Moment kNm/m 54 64.3 75.3 45.8

Allowable Moment (FOS=3) (M) kNm/m 18 24.43 25.1 15.27

Section Modulus (Z) cm3/m 1228.3 1462 1711 1042

Moment of Inertia (I) cm4/m 15429 18739 21851 12768

Effective Pile Width mm 290 565

Depth of Section mm 245

Thickness mm 7 9 11 9

Material Recycled PVC

Weight per m (product) Kg 6 8 9.8 10.5



Charpy Impact test PN ENI SO 179-1:2004

Kj/M2 ≥30

Shore durometer PN-EN ISO 868:2005

Shore’a D ≥75

Softening point Vicat Method PN-EN ISO 306:2004

°C ≥77

Tensile Strength PN-EN-ISO 527-2:1998

MPa ≥44


Bending Modulus of elasticity PN-EN ISO 178:2006

MPa ≥2600


Resistance of climate ageing after energy 2.6GJ/m2 radiation:



%


≥30

240

Economy Ultra and Mega Z Pile Specifica ons

Unit 19 Cinder Road Zone 3 Burntwood Business

Park Staffordshire WS7 3FS

Tel: 01543 677290 | Mob: 07775 710648

Twi er: @plas cpiling www.plas cpiling.ninja

MultiLock Plastic Pile Specifications Capping beam ...

Documents

Transcript of MultiLock Plastic Pile Specifications Capping beam ...