Stephen Kwan - Pile Design in EC

Bored Pile Foundations to EC7
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
Acknowledgements
Material for this presentation is adopted from:
1) Seminar on ground investigation, design parameters & pile design

in compliance with EC7 organized by GEOSS & BCA on 23 Apr 15,
2) EC7 part 1 & Spore NA to EC7 part 1

(geotechnical design general rules)
3) EC0 & Spore NA to EC0

(basis of structural design)
4) EC2 & Spore NA to EC2

(design of concrete structures)
this pertains mainly to structural design of bored piles
5) Consultation slides by BCA on structural capacity for bored piles
The material is presented on the basis of my current understanding
The presentation is adapted from an internal presentation at AECOM
Bored Pile Foundation

to EC7
to EC7
1a) Partial Factors
for
Actions
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
1b) Partial Factors
for
Geotechnical Resistance
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
Empirical Formula for Geotechnical Cap
Modified Meyerhof

to EC7
It is my understanding that the following design approach which is
prior to EC7 as well as after EC7 is similar:
-> a) empirical formula based on modified Meyerhofs formula,
b) design zoning,
Bored Pile Foundation are valid.
to EC7
1c) Work Example
Bored Pile
(Compression Load, No NSF)
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
2) Work Example & Notes
Bored Pile
(Compression Load, with NSF)
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
2a) Downdrag Force as Action
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
Unfortunately this example side-steps the issue of
NSF (considered as permanent load) &
transient variable load do not co-existing together,
where a decision on partial load factors
for the two are different.

to EC7
to EC7
should be 1.4 for bored pile
in Spore NA

to EC7
in Spore NA

to EC7
2b) Soil Settlement as Action
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
in Spore NA
To note
To note partial resistance factor

for downdrag as settlement

to EC7
To note
NSF does not attract any

partial load factor here
DA1-LC1
-> action

to EC7
Downdrag in DA1-LC12
-> resistance To recall ->
Downdrag in DA1-LC2
-> resistance
in Spore NA
DA1-LC2
-> resistance

to EC7
to EC7
In this example, treating downdrag force as action (A)
leads to shorter design pile length
as compared to
treating settlement due to downdrag as action (B)

to EC7
to EC7
1)
Generally, I would suggest treating NSF as downdrag action (A) rather than,
NSF as settlement taken as action (B) -> we are more familiar
with approach (A) which is also the approach under BS code
(note that CP4 treats NSF as a downdrag load)
2)
There is an issue of different partial load factor for
downdrag as action (which is considered as permanent load) &
transient variable load
and
my current view is that the numerical values of downdrag action offset the
numerical value of transient variable load and then partial load factor is applied
thereafter accordingly
3)
FEM analysis which models NSF as ground settlement as an Action
(this is allowed under EC7 code) may help to address some of the NSF design matters
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
3) Representative Load for
Pile Load Test
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
to EC7
Pile head settlement criteria based on criteria prior to EC7
-> marry the past with present

to EC7
R4 partial factor at 1.7
-> essentially end-bearing

to EC7

to EC7

to EC7
-> essentially shaft friction

to EC7

to EC7

to EC7
Conclusion ->
the overall FOS for geotechnical cap is lower than the era of CP4,
i.e. much less than 2.5, leading to higher utilization of geo cap during
pile load test. As such, criteria for acceptable pile head settlement
to be specified for:
a) 1 x representative load,
b) 1.5 x representative load,
should be higher than during the era of CP4.
Note ->
The above does not consider allowance for long pile (pile head settlement
due to higher level of elastic shortening which would lead to greater
pile head settlement under same test load

to EC7
4) Structural Capacity
of Bored Pile
Pile Sizing
By Stephen Kwan
24 May 16
to EC7
On alphacc

to EC7
Structural capacity under previous code is OK but under EC2
may risked to be considered inadequate for test load at 1.5 x representative load
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
Ac at 0.5m2 is about 800mm dia bored pile;
Ac at 1m2 is about 1,100mm dia bored pile

to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
to EC7
Min steel reinforcement in bored piles

to EC7
Conclusion ->
Equivalent allowable working stress under EC7 for unreinforced concrete

Is slightly less than under the era of CP4
There is no longer a cap on acceptable working stress at 7.5 N/mm2 for

reinforced concrete
Would think that min re-bars to be provided at:

a) at least 6m to 12m length,
b) to depth of soft soils + 1m (good practice),
for unreinforced concrete for bored piles
Testing to 1.5 x representative load exceed structural capacity under conditions

prescribed in EC2 (even when based on nominal cross section area (i.e. dnom)
& not the reduced cross-sectional area (based on d) of the bored pile), but is OK
prior to Eurocode Implementation
-> in my view, it is structurally OK but arguments between
engineers (who insist on EC2 structural capacity for bored pile)
would arise at times;
May have to consider alphacc = 0.85 instead of alphacc,pl for pile load test,
considering it is short-term loading

to EC7
Questions?

to EC7

Stephen Kwan - Pile Design in EC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Stephen Kwan - Pile Design in EC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bored Pile Foundations to EC7

Material for this presentation is adopted from:

1) Seminar on ground investigation, design parameters & pile design

2) EC7 part 1 & Spore NA to EC7 part 1

3) EC0 & Spore NA to EC0

4) EC2 & Spore NA to EC2

5) Consultation slides by BCA on structural capacity for bored piles

The material is presented on the basis of my current understanding

The presentation is adapted from an internal presentation at AECOM

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

To note partial resistance factor

Bored Pile Foundation

NSF does not attract any

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

should be higher than during the era of CP4.

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

Ac at 1m2 is about 1,100mm dia bored pile

Bored Pile Foundation

Equivalent allowable working stress under EC7 for unreinforced concrete

There is no longer a cap on acceptable working stress at 7.5 N/mm2 for

Would think that min re-bars to be provided at:

Testing to 1.5 x representative load exceed structural capacity under conditions

Bored Pile Foundation

Bored Pile Foundation

S-ar putea să vă placă și