Session 3 Calculation Models EQU, UPL and HYD Design of Pile Foundations

(Killiney Bay)

SLS and Settlement Calculations

(Dalkey Island)

Summary of ULS Designs

Undrained width (m) DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 (1.32) 1.39 1.57 1.56 Drained width (m) (1.62) 2.08 1.87 2.29 2.08 1.87 2.29 ULS Design Width

For this example Drained conditions give the larger design widths Considering undrained and drained conditions (design width): DA1.C2 is larger than DA1.C1 DA3 gives largest width for ULS (2.29m) DA2 gives smallest width for ULS (1.87m) Considering just undrained conditions: DA2 gives the largest width for ULS (1.57m) DA1 gives smallest width for ULS

SLS Design
Is it always necessary to calculate the settlement to check the SLS? In SLS Application Rules, Eurocode 7 states that: For spread foundations on stiff and firm clays calculations of vertical displacements (settlements) should usually be undertaken For conventional structures founded on clays, the ratio of the bearing capacity of the ground, at its initial undrained shear strength, to the applied serviceability loading (OFSu) should be calculated If this ratio is less than 3, calculations of settlements should always be undertaken. If the ratio is less than 2, the calculations should take account of non-linear stiffness effects in the ground i.e. if OFSu < 3, one should calculate settlement If OFSu < 2, one should calculate settlement accounting for non-linear stiffness For undrained designs of foundations with permanent structural loads only

DA1 give OFSu = 1.4 while DA2 and DA3 give OFSu = 1.89. Hence settlement calculations are needed

OFSu Ratios
ULS design (drained) width (m) DA1 DA2 DA3 2.08 1.87 2.29 OFSu using drained width = Ru,k / Vk = 0.833 B2 3.60 2.91 4.37 ULS undrained width (m) 1.39 1.57 1.56 OFSu using undrained width = Ru,k / Vk = F x M/R 1.57 1.99 1.97

Calculating the undrained OFS ratio using the design width i.e. the drained design width:
OFSu = Ru,k / Vk = A ( (p + 2) cu,k bc sc ic + qc ) / Vc = B2 x ( 5.14 x 200 x 1.0 x 1.2 x 1.0 + 20.0 x 0.8) / ( 900 + 600 ) = B2 x ( 1234.0 + 16.0 ) / 1500 = 0.833 B

In this example, using design (i.e. drained) widths: For DA1, OFSu = 3.60 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated For DA2, OFSu = 2.91 ( < 3 ) Settlement should be calculated For DA3, OFSu = 4.37 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated But using the undrained widths OFSu values are all less than 2.0, - much lower than value of 3 often used in traditional designs

Settlement Calculations
Components of settlement to consider on saturated soils:
Undrained settlements (due to shear deformation with no volume change) Consolidation settlements Creep settlements

The form of an equation to evaluate the total settlement of a foundation on cohesive or non-cohesive soil using elasticity theory, referred to as the adjusted elasticity method, is given in Annex F:
where: Em = design value of the modulus of elasticity f = settlement coefficient p = bearing pressure s = p B f / Em

f = (1 2) I where = 0.25 and I = 0.95 for square flexible uniformly loaded foundation Then f = (1 0.252) x 0.95 = 0.891 p = (Gk + Qk)/B2 = (900 + 600) / B2 = 1500 / B2

Assume Em = E = 1.5N = 1.5 x 40 = 60 MPa

Hence settlement:
s = p B f / Em = (1500 / B2 ) x B x 0.891 x 1000 / 60000 = 22.28 / B mm where B is in m

Calculated Settlements
ULS design width (m) DA1 DA2 DA3 2.08 1.87 2.29 OFSu 3.60 2.91 4.37 Settlement ( mm ) s = 22.28 / B 10.7 11.9 9.7

In this example, using adjusted elasticity method and ULS design widths, the calculated settlements, s for all the Design Approaches are less than 25 mm

The SLS design requirement Ed Cd is fulfilled as for each DA, s < 25 mm

Note words of caution in EN 1997-1: Settlement calculations should not be regarded as accurate but as merely providing an approximate indication

Conclusions
In the example considered: ULS design: For each Design Approach, the drained condition determines the foundation width SLS design: The calculated settlements are less than the allowable settlement of 25mm, so that the SLS condition is satisfied using the design widths obtained using all the Design Approaches The ratio Ru,k / Vk for the ULS drained design widths is greater than 3 for DA1 and DA3 so settlement calculations are not required

Any Questions?

Session 3a Calculation Models

(Killiney Hill and Dalkey Island)

10

Need for Calculation Models

Equations: ULS Ed Rd SLS Ed Cd For a ULS, calculation models are generally not needed to determine Ed e.g. the design load on a foundation is obtained by multiplying the characteristic applied load by the partial factor: Ed = Fd = F Fk An exception is where the action is due to the soil, e.g. the earth pressure on a retaining structure. In such situations a calculation model involving the soil strength as well as the applied load is required to obtain the earth pressure e.g. Fd = F f{ck, k, Fk} Calculation models are always required to determine the design resistance, Rd, e.g. the bearing or sliding resistance of a spread foundation For an SLS, calculations are always required to determine Ed, e.g. the settlement of a foundation Values of Cd, the limiting design value of the effect of an action, e.g. the maximum allowable settlement, are provided and so no calculation model is required

11

Calculation Models in Eurocode 7

Since it was decided that the code text of Eurocode 7 should focus on the principles and not be prescriptive, the calculation models have been placed in the following informative Annexes
Annex C: Samples procedures to determine limit values of earth pressures on walls Annex D: A sample analytical method for bearing resistance calculation Annex E: A sample semi-empirical method for bearing resistance estimation Annex F: Sample methods for settlement evaluation Annex G: A sample method for determining presumed bearing resistances for spread foundations on rock

12

Status of Calculation Models in Eurocode 7

As the calculation models in Eurocode 7 are in Annexes, they are optional, not mandatory Each country has to decide if: The calculation models in the Annexes are to be used in its jurisdiction Or if alternative calculation models, more suited to its soil conditions, climate and testing methods, are to be used However, if a design is carried out using an alternative calculation rule it cannot claim to be fully in accordance with Eurocode 7

13

Annex C: Earth Pressures

Two methods are provided to determine the earth pressures on walls

The first method is a graphical method giving graphs of horizontal components of Ka and Kp for different values, wall friction and slope angles, of ground behind the wall These are taken from BS 8002 (BSI 1994) and are based on work by Kerisel and Absi (1990), e.g. Ka values in figure below:

14

Analytical Earth Pressures

Since graphical earth pressures require the visual selection of a value and since numerical methods, such as finite element analyses, require analytical values of the earth pressure, it was decided also to provide an analytical method to determine the earth pressure Following general equation for Ka and Kp is provided based on the method of characteristics with slip line fields e = c Kc + q Kq + d K Equations for the earth pressure factors Kc, Kq, and K in Eurocode 7 are the same as those in the Danish Code DS 415 (1984) Eurocode 7 equation is based on equations by Ktter (1903) in Berlin for the stress on curved slip surfaces

15

Annex D: Bearing Resistance Calculation

Annex D provides equations for calculating the bearing resistance of spread foundations for undrained and drained conditions Bearing resistance acts over effective foundation area A, which in the case of eccentric loads is defined as the reduced area of the foundation base through the centroid of which the resulting loads act Factors are given for foundation base inclination (b), shape (s) and load inclination (i), but not for embedment depth (d) Factors based on equations in DIN 4017: Parts 1 and 2:1979 Only difference is that DIN has Nb instead of 0.5N Exact solutions for Nc and Nq factors were originally derived by Prandtl (1920 and 1921) and published in German

16

Undrained Bearing Resistance

Undrained bearing resistance R/A = ( + 2)cubcscic + q where the dimensionless factors for: Inclination of the foundation base bc = 1 2 / ( + 2) The shape of the foundation sc = 1+ 0/2 (B/L) for a rectangular foundation sc = 1.2 for a square or circular shape The inclination of the load, caused by a horizontal load H
i
c

= 2

( 1

A ' c
u

with H Acu

17

Drained Bearing Resistance

Drained bearing resistance
R/A = c' Ncbcscic + q 'Nqbqsqiq + 0.5'B 'Nbsi with the values of the dimensionless factors for: the bearing resistance: Nq = e tan' tan2(45 + '/2) Nc = (Nq - 1) cot N = 2 (Nq- 1) tan', where '/2 (rough base) the inclination of the foundation base: bc = bq - (1 - bq) / (Nc tan ) bq = b = (1 - tan) the shape of foundation: sq = 1 + (B' / L' ) sin', for a rectangular shape sq = 1 + sin', for a square or circular shape s = 1 0,3 (B'/L ), for a rectangular shape s = 0,7, for a square or circular shape sc = (sqNq -1)/(Nq - 1) for rectangular, square or circular shape

18

Characteristic and Factored Nc Values

120

100

Bearing resistance factor, Nc,

80

60

Nck
40

Nc,DA1.C2
20

Nc,DA2

20

25

30

35
o

40

Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, 'k ( )

19

Characteristic and Factored Nq Values

120

100

Bearing resistance factor, Nq

80

60

Nq,k
40

Nq,DA2
20

Nq,DA1.C2
0

20

25

30

35
o

40

Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, 'k ( )

20

Characteristic and Factored N Values

120

Bearing resistance factors, N, Nq, N c

100

N,k
80

60

N,DA2
40

20

N,DA1.C2
20 25 30 35
o

40

Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, 'k ( )

21

Comparison of N Values
120.0

Exact solutions are not available for N and a number of different equations have been proposed:
Caquot and Kerisel (1953): N = 2(Nq + 1) tan Meyerhof (1963): N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.4) Brinch Hansen (1970): N = 1.5 (Nq - 1) tan N = 2 (Nq - 1) tan

N
100.0

Brinch Hansen Salgado

80.0

Meyerhof Eurocode 7

60.0

Caquot & Kerisel

40.0

Equation for N adopted in Eurocode 7:

20.0

0.0 15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

EC7 eqn. was obtained by Vesic (1973) and adopted in Eurocode 7 as an updating of Brinch Hansens eqn. on basis of tests carried out Muhs (1973) in Berlin

Effective angle of shearing resistance, '

Recently Martin in Oxford has obtained exact solutions for N to which Salgado (2008) has fitted the following eqn:
N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.32 )

Salgados eqn. is closest to Brinch Hansens eqn. and appears to indicate that the Eurocode 7 equation for Ng may be unconservative (i.e. unsafe)

22

b, s and i factors
The source of the b, s and i factors in Eurocode 7 are: For undrained conditions:
The shape factor was proposed by Skempton (1951) The load inclination factor is an algebraic fit to an exact solution by Green (1954)

For drained conditions:

The base inclination factors, b for drained conditions were proposed by Brinch Hansen (1970) The shape factors are taken from DIN 4017. They are less conservative by about 10 20% than the values proposed by de Beer (1970) The load inclination factors, i for drained conditions were proposed by Vesic (1975)

23

Bearing Resistance Estimation

Annex F provides the following semi-empirical equation for estimating the bearing resistance of a spread foundation from pressuremeter test results:
R / A = v0 + k p*le where k is the bearing resistance factor, and p*le is the net effective limit pressure from a pressuremeter test

This equation is taken from the French rules, MELT 1993 No values for the k factors are given in Eurocode 7

24

Settlement Evaluation

Annex F has 5 sections outlining the principles and methods for evaluating the settlement of a foundation Section F.2, titled Adjusted Elasticity Method, states that the total settlement of a foundation on cohesive or non-cohesive soil may be evaluated using elasticity theory and an equation of the form:
s = ( p b f ) /Em

25

Bearing Resistance for Foundations on Rock

Annex G provides a sample method for deriving presumed bearing resistance for spread foundations on rock It has four figures, taken from BS 8004 (BSI, 1986), with contours of presumed bearing resistance plotted against the uniaxial strength of rock, qc on the abscissa and discontinuity spacing, dc on the ordinate Contours are plotted for four groups of rock, ranging from Group 1 rocks, defined as pure limestones and carbonate sandstones of low porosity, to Group 4 rocks, defined as uncemented mudstones and shales

26

Conclusions
Eurocode 7 developed to provide the principles for geotechnical design Emphasises that knowledge of ground conditions and control of workmanship have greater significance to fulfilling the fundamental requirements than applying sophisticated calculation models Variety of calculation models used for geotechnical design in different countries due to different soil types, climatic conditions and testing methods Calculations models are informative not mandatory and placed in Annexes Calculation models in Annexes from many sources, times and countries The various models in Eurocode 7 have been reviewed by many geotechnical engineers during the 29 years since the first EC7 meeting They represent a synthesis of geotechnical knowledge, design practice and experience

Should provide a sound basis for harmonised geotechnical design in Europe using Eurocode 7

27

Time for Discussion Any questions

28

Session 3b EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit States

(Dalkey Island)

29

EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit Sates

All involve stability of structures subjected to forces with no or very little soil or structural resistance Relevance of EQU for geotechnical and structural design a topic for discussion at present UPL and HYD are only relevant for geotechnical designs and can be very important Example of a design situation:
Fulcrum T Tension pile For what ULS do you design the pile EQU or GEO? For DA1 T = 0 ! Beam

30

Section 10 Hydraulic Failure

Eurocode 7 is mainly concerned with GEO ULS failure modes involving the strength of the ground and SLS involving soil stiffness or compressibility e.g.
Bearing resistance failure of spread foundations Failure by rotation of embedded retaining walls, and Excessive settlement of spread foundations

Section 10 of Eurocode 7 is concerned with hydraulic failure where the strength of the ground is not significant in providing resistance and where failure is induced by excessive pore-water pressures or seepage The hydraulic modes of failure include:
1. Failure by uplift (buoyancy) 2. Failure by heave 3. Failure by internal erosion 4. Failure by piping

31

UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit States

In Eurocode 7 the hydraulic failure ULSs are divided into UPL and HYD and recommended partial factor values are provided for each A UPL ultimate limit state is loss of equilibrium of a structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions A typical UPL situation is uplift of a deep basement due to hydrostatic static groundwater pressure An HYD ultimate limit state is hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients A typical HYD situation is heave of the base of a deep excavation due to seepage around a retaining wall Since the strength of the ground is not significant in UPL or HYD situations, only one set of recommended partial factors is provided for each of these ULSs, not three Design Approaches as for GEO ULSs

32

Hydraulic Failures
Figures from EN 1997-1 showing Hydraulic Failures

Conditions that may cause Uplift

Conditions that may cause heave

Conditions that may cause piping

33

Stabilising Forces in UPL and HYD

For both UPL and HYD ultimate limit states one needs to check there is not loss of equilibrium with regard to stabilising and destabilising forces The stabilising force in UPL is mainly due to the self-weight of structure, but some stabilising force is provided by the ground resistance on the side of structure due to the strength of the ground HYD failure occurs when, due to the hydraulic gradient, the pore water pressure at a point in the soil exceeds the total stress or the upward seepage force on a column of soil exceeds the effective weight of the soil Stabilising force in HYD is provided entirely by the weight of the soil The strength of the ground is not considered to be involved at all in HYD in resisting the force of the seeping water

34

UPL Equilibrium Equation

UPL Equilibrium One equation given:

Vdst;d Gstb;d + Rd where: Vdst;d = design vertical disturbing load = Gdst;d (design perm. load) + Qdst;d (design var. load) Gdst;d = b x udst;d (design uplift water pressure force) Rd = Td (design wall friction force) 2.8

35

HYD Equilibrium Equations

Hydraulic head h Groundwater level at ground surface surface Design effective soil weight, G'stb,d Standpipe d Design seepage force, Sdst,d Design total vertical stress, stb,d Design total pore water pressure, udst,d

Relevant soil column

First eqn:

Two equations are given for HYD equilibrium udst;d std;d Sdst;d Gstb;d (w i Vol)d ( Vol)d where i = h / d (w h/d)d ()d (w h)d (d)d udst;d stb;d (effective stress eqn.)

2.9a

(total stress eqn. - only equation in Eurocode 7 in terms of stress) Second eqn: i.e.

2.9b

(seepage force and submerged weight eqn.)

36

Recommended UPL and HYD Partial Factors

Partial factors Actions, F
G;dst G;stb Q;dst33 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.35 0.9 1.5

UPL

HYD

Material properties, M plus pile tensile resistance and anchorage resistance

c cu s;t a 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.4 1.4 -

Note: In UPL, a factor of 1.0 is recommended for destabilising permanent actions, e.g. uplift water pressures. The required safety is thus obtained by factoring stabilising permanent actions by 0.9 and the soil strength or resistance In HYD, no partial material factors are provided as no soil strength is involved

37

Overall Factor of Safety (OFS) for Uplift

Equation 2.8: Vdst;d Gstb;d + Rd

For no Rd (i.e. soil resistance on side of buried structure ignored) G;dst Vdst;k = G;stb Gstb;k

Overall factor of safety (OFS) = Gstb;k / Vdst;k = G;dst / G;stb Applying recommended partial factors G;dst/G;stb = 1.0/0.9 = 1.11 Hence OFS = 1.11

38

OFS against Heave using EC7 Equations

ydraulic Potential head
Standpipe h

Groundwater level at ground surface Design effective soil weight, G'stb;d

d Design seepage force, Sdst;d Design total vertical stress, stb;d Design total pore water pressure, udst;d

Relevant soil column

Equation 2.9b
Sdst;d Gstb;d G;dst Sdst;k G;stb Gstb;k G;dst w i V G;stb V OFS(b) = Gstb;k / Sdst;k = G;dst / G;stb = / (wi) = ic/i = critical hydraulic gradient / actual hydraulic gradient OFS(b) = dst/stb = 1.35/0.9 = 1.5

Equation 2.9a
udst;d stb;d G;dstwd + G;dstwh G;stb'd + G;stbwd OFS(a) = G;dst / G;stb = (d + wd) / (wh + wd) = (ic + 1)/(i + 1) = 1.5 ic/i = 1.5 + 0.5/i if i = 0.5 then ic/i = OFS(b) = 2.5 i.e. more cautious than using Eqn. 2.9b because wd occurs on both sides of equation and is multiplied by different F values

39

Comment on HYD
HYD ultimate limit states include internal erosion and piping as well as heave The OFS value traditionally used to avoid piping is often very much greater than the 1.5 provided by the HYD partial factors; e.g. 4.0 Hence, EN 1997-1 gives additional provisions to avoid the occurrence of internal erosion or piping For internal erosion, it states that:
Filter criteria shall be used to limit the danger of material transport by internal erosion Measures such as filter protection shall be applied at the free surface of the ground Alternatively, artificial sheets such as geotextiles may be used If the filter criteria are not satisfied, it shall be verified that the design value of the hydraulic gradient is well below the critical hydraulic gradient at which soil particles begin to move. ic value depends on the design conditions

EN 1997-1 states that piping shall be prevented by providing sufficient resistance against internal soil erosion through by providing:
- Sufficient safety against heave - Sufficient stability of the surface layers

40

Uplift Design Example

(Issued for Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode 7 in Dublin in 2005)
Design situation given: - Long basement, 15m wide - Sidewall thickness = 0.3m - Characteristic structural loading = 40 kPa - Groundwater can rise to ground surface - Soil is sand with k = 35o, g = 20 kN/m3 - Concrete weight density = 24 kN/m3 Base thickness, D requested Forces U 15.0m

Structural loading gk = 40kPa

5.0m T

U = Uplift water pressure force = w15 (5 + T G = Weight of basement plus structural load R = Resisting force from soil on side walls

A wide range of design values obtained for D = 0.42 0.85m Why?

41

Model for UPL Equilibrium Calculation

Model Assumptions
Include or ignore R ? R = A = Ahtan = AKvtan where A = sidewall area

What value for K?

K is a function of and . Should K = K0 or Ka ?

What value for wall friction ?

Is a function of ? Should = or 2/3 ?

How should partial factors be applied to obtain Rd?

No UPL resistance factors are provided in EN 1997 to obtain Rd from Rk i.e. there is no UPL equivalent to DA2

Could design according to EN 1997-1 and assume h = Kav

1) With Rk = AKa;kvtank apply partial factor M to k to obtain Ka;d and d as for DA1.C2 and hence get Rd (Clause 2.4.7.4(1)) 2) Treat R as a permanent stabilising vertical action and apply G;stb to Rk to obtain Rd (Clause 2.4.7.4(2))

42

Determination of Design Value of Rd

Assume K = Ka and is obtained from EN 1997-1 for = 2/3 1) Clause 2.4.7.4(1): Apply partial factor M to k to obtain Ka;d and d and hence Rd No factors applied: k = 35o and = 2/3 Ka;k = 0.23 k = 2/3k = 23.3o Rk = AKa;kvtank = 0.099Av a) M = 1.25 applied to obtain d and d by reducing k and hence k d = 29.3o and = 2/3 Ka;d = 0.29 d = 2/3d = 19.5o Rd = AKa;dvtand = 0.103Av Since R is a resistance, need Rd < Rk: Rd = (0.103/0.099)Rk Rd = 1.04 Rk unsafe b) M applied to increase k but to reduce d = 41.2o and d = 19.0o d/d = 19.0/41.2 = 0.46 Ka;d = 0.18 Rd = AKa;dvtand = 0.062Av Rd = (0.062/0.099)Rk Rd = 0.69 Rk safe 2) Clause 2.4.7.4(2): Treat R as a permanent stabilising vertical action and apply G;stb to Rk to obtain Rd Rd = G;stbRk Rd = 0.9 Rk safe

43

Comments on Uplift Design Example

Reasons for Range of Solutions Obtained for Uplift Design Example: Whether R Ignored or included Model chosen for R = A h tan = A Kv tan K = K0 or Ka = 0.5 or (2/3) How Rd is obtained Treated as a resistance or a stabilising action How partial factors are applied What partial factors are applied

44

Heave Design Example

(Issued for Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode 7 in Dublin in 2005)
Design Situation - 7m deep excavation
GWL 7.0m

- Sheet pile wall - Pile penetration 3m below excavation level

Water 1.0m

H=?

- 1.0 m water in excavation - Weight density of sand = 20 kN/m3 Require H - Height of GWL behind wall above excavation level

Sand = 20kN/m3

3.0m

A very wide range of design values obtained: H = 1.7 6.6m Why?

45

Reasons for Range of Solutions to Heave Example

Assumption Regarding PWP distribution around the wall (i.e. pwp at toe of wall)
Some used equation for pwp at toe from EAU Recommendations Some obtained pwp at toe from flownet Some assumed a linear dissipation of pwp around wall - this gives least conservative designs

Choice of Equilibrium Equation

Some used Equation 2.9a with partial factors applied to total pwp and total stress. This involves applying different partial factors to hydrostatic pwp on either side of equation and gave an overall factor of safety that is 1.5d/h greater than Equation 2.9b Most design solutions were based on Equation 2.9b i.e. comparing seepage force and effective soil weight

Treatment of Seepage Force

Some treated seepage force as a variable action Most considered it a permanent action

46

Conclusions on EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit States

EQU, UPL and HYD are all ultimate limit states involving the equilibrium of forces (actions) with little or no resistance forces EQU is rarely relevant for geotechnical designs EQU is being debated within the Eurocodes at present Uplift and heave ultimate limit states involving failure due to water pressures and seepage are important in geotechnical design and are different from geotechnical designs involving soil strength Need to clearly identify the stabilising and destabilising actions This is best achieved by working in terms of actions (forces) rather than stresses Need to apply partial factors appropriately to get the design stabilising and destabilising actions for both uplift and heave design situations Designs against uplift and heave failure are clarified using the equilibrium equations and partial factors provided in Eurocode 7

47

Discussion Any Questions?

48

Session 3c Design of Pile Foundations

(Killarney Waterfall)

49

Scope
Applies to end-bearing piles, friction piles, tension piles and transversely loaded piles installed by driving, jacking, and by screwing or boring with or without grouting

Not to be applied directly to the design of piles that are intended to act as settlement reducers

50

Relevant CEN Standards

Reference is made in Eurocode 7 to other CEN standards that are relevant to the design of pile foundations Eurocode 3, Part 5: Design of steel Structures Piling (EN 1993-5)
Execution standard Execution of Special Geotechnical Works EN 12699:2000 Displacement piles EN 12063:2000 - Sheet pile walls EN 1536:1999 - Bored Piles EN 14199:2005 - Micro-piles

51

Limit State Checklist for Pile Design

Limit states to be considered
Loss of overall stability Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation Structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or shear Combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation Combined failure in the ground and in the structure Note change from handout Excessive settlement Excessive heave Excessive lateral movement Unacceptable vibrations

Checked

52

Actions due to Ground Movements

Effects on piles of ground movements due to consolidation, swelling, adjacent loads, creeping soil, landslides, earthquakes are treated as actions Give rise to downdrag (negative skin friction), heave, stretching, transverse loading and displacement Usually design values of strength and stiffness are upper values Two approaches Ground displacements considered as an action and an interaction analysis carried out to determine the forces An upper bound force, which the ground could transmit to the pile, is introduced as a design action Downdrag An upper bound on a group of piles may be calculated from the weight of surcharge causing the movement Transverse loading is normally evaluated by considering the interaction between piles, treated as stiff or flexible beams, and the moving soil mass

53

Pile Design Methods

Static load tests which have been demonstrated to be consistent with other relevant experience Empirical or analytical calculation whose validity has been demonstrated by static tests in comparable situations Dynamic tests - whose validity has been demonstrated by static tests in comparable situations Observed performance of a comparable foundation provided this approach is supported by the results of site investigations and ground testing

54

Design considerations

Stiffness and strength of the structure connecting the piles Duration and variation in time of the loading when selecting the calculation method and parameter values and in using load test results Planned future changes in overburden or potential changes in the ground water level

55

Checklist for Selection of Pile Type

SELECTION OF PILE TYPE The ground and ground-water conditions, including the presence or possibility of obstructions in the ground. The stresses generated in the pile during installation The possibility of preserving and checking the integrity of the pile being installed The effect of the method and sequence of pile installation on piles, which have already been installed and on adjacent structures or services. The tolerances within which the pile can be installed reliably The deleterious effects of chemicals in the ground The possibility of connecting different ground-water regimes The handling and transportation of piles Checked

56

Special Features of Pile Design to Eurocode 7

Gives method of determining characteristic values directly from the results of pile load tests or from profiles of tests etc. using values DA1 is a resistance factor approach DA3 not used for design from pile load tests

57

Pile Load Tests

Can be on TRIAL PILES or on WORKING PILES If one pile test is carried out, normally located in the most adverse ground conditions Adequate time to ensure required strength of pile material and that pore-water pressures have regained their initial values

58

Axially Loaded Piles in Compression

Equilibrium equation: Fc;d < Rc;d
where: Fc;d Fc;d is the ULS design axial compression load is determined using partial factors applied to the characteristic loads to the DA being used relevant

Self weight of pile should be included, along with downdrag, heave or transverse loading, however the common practice of assuming that the weight of the pile is balanced by that of the overburden allowing both to be excluded from Fc;d and Rc;d is permitted, where appropriate The pile weight may not cancel the weight of the overburden if
a) downdrag is significant b) the soil is light c) the pile extends above the ground surface.

Rc;d is ULS design bearing resistance and is the sum of all the bearing resistance components against axial loads, taking into account the effect of any inclined or eccentric loads

59

Recommended Partial Factor Values

60

Design of a Compression Pile from Pile Load Tests

Fc;d is calculated in the normal way with F factors applied to applied loads Rc;d must be determined from the measured pile resistance Rc;m Rc;m can be based on the total resistance or can be separated into Rb;m (base) and Rs;m (shaft) DA3 not used for pile design from load tests

61

Determination of Characteristic Resistance

Characteristic resistance for DA1 & DA2 Rc;k = Min {(Rc;m) mean /1; (Rc;m) min /2 } Characteristic values determined directly not estimated
for n = 1 2 1 1.4 1.4 2 1.3 1.2 3 1.2 1.05 4 1.1 1.0 5 1.0 1.0

Table A.9

62

Note
For structures which have sufficient stiffness to transfer loads from weak to strong piles, may be divided by 1.1 provided it is not less than 1.0

63

Example 1 Pile Design from Pile Load Tests

Characteristic Loads
F

Gk= 1200 kN Qk = 200 kN

2.0m

Loose fill

Glacial till CFA pile 600 mm diameter

Pile Load Test Results

9.0m

No of test = 2 Max Applied Load = 4000kN (same on both piles) Max load on base = 600kN

64

DA1.C1
DA1.C1

(A1 + M1 + R1)

Fc;d = 1.35*1200+1.5*200 = 1920 kN

Note weight of pile not included) Rc;m = 4000 kN for both Rc;k= lesser of 4000/1.3 or 4000/1.2 = 3077 kN Rb;k= (600 / 000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN

Use measured toe force to give shaft force from ratio of total load to base load

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k / 1.0 = 462 / 1.10 + 2615 / 1.0 = 3035 kN Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (3035kN) DA1.C1 is satisfied.

65

DA1.C2
DA1.C2 (A2 + M1 or M2 + R4)

Fc;d = 1.0*1200+1.3*200 = 1460 kN Note weight of pile not included Rb;k = 462 kN; Rs;k = 2615 kN as before for DA1.C1

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.45 + Rs;k / 1.3 = 462 / 1.45 + 2615 / 1.3 = 2615 kN Fc;d (1460 kN) < Rc;d (2615kN) DA1.C2 is satisfied

DA1.C1 and DA1.C2 are both satisfied, therefore DA1 is satisfied

66

DA2
DA2

(A1 + M1 + R2)

Fc;d = 1.35*1200+1.5*200 = 1920 kN

Note weight of pile not included Rc;m = 4000 kN for both Rc;k= lesser of 4000 / 1.3 or 4000 / 1.2 = 3077kN Rb;k= (600 / 4000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN as before

Use measured toe force to give ratio

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k/ 1.1 = 462 / 1.1 + 2615 / 1.1 = 2797 kN Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (2797kN) DA2 is satisfied

67

Dynamic Pile Load Tests

Provided an adequate site investigation has been carried out and the method has been calibrated against static load tests on same type of pile, of similar length and cross-section and in comparable ground conditions

Dynamic load tests may be used as an indicator of the consistency of piles and to detect weak piles

68

Design of a Compression Pile from Ground Test results

Fc;d is determined in the normal way by factoring the loads Rb;k and Rs;k or Rt;k must be determined from: Number of profiles of tests and applying factors
(different to values of factors for design from pile load tests) or an alternative procedure see next slide

Then as for design from pile load tests

Rb,d = Rb,k / b and Rs,d = Rs,k / s

where the b , b and t values are given in Table A.6, A.7 and A.8 (same as for design from pile load tests)

69

Alternative Procedure to Determine Rs,k and Rb,k from Ground Strength Parameters
Calculate the characteristic base resistance (qb;k) and shaft resistances (qs;k) using characteristic values of ground parameters [C7.6.2.3(8)] and hence:
Rb;k = Abqb;k and Rsk = qsi;kAsi where Ab = the nominal plan area of the base of the pile Asi = the nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer i

A Note in Eurocode 7 states: If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors b and s recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model factor larger than 1,0. The value of the model factor may be set by the National annex In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied to b and s or t when using this approach

70

Example 2 Pile Design using Ground Tests

F

Loose fill

2.0m

Glacial till CFA pile 600 mm diameter

9.0m

71

Pile Design from Ground Test Results

The piles and ground conditions for this example are the same as those for Example 1, where the pile design is based on pile load tests. It is required in this example to verify that, on the basis of the ground properties, 600mm diameter CFA piles will support the characteristic permanent and variable vertical loads of 1200kN and 200kN, respectively The cuk value for the very stiff glacial till increases linearly from 100kPa at 2m depth (top of the till) to 600kPa at 11m (bottom of the pile). The properties of the glacial till are = 22kN/m3, ck = 0, s,k = 36o for shaft resistance and b,k = 34o for the base resistance (the reduction in ' is to allow for the higher stress levels at the base). The unit weights of the fill and concrete are 18kN/m3 and 24kN/m3, respectively. The water table is at a depth of 2.0m, which coincides with the top of the till As the characteristic values of the soil properties are given, the characteristic resistances are to be determined using these values. In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied to b and s or t (R values)

72

Ground Parameters

Only undrained conditions considered Assume

qb = 9cu + v0 qs = cu where = 0.4

WP (weight of pile) = * 0.62 * 11.0 * 24.0 / 4 = 74.6 kN

73

DA1
qb;k = (9cu + v) = (9*600 + 2*18 + 9*22) = 5634 kPa qs;k = cu = 0.4*{(100 + 600)/2} = 140 kPa Rb,k = Abqb,k = ( * 0.62 / 4) * 5634 = 1593 kN Rs,k = Asqs,k = ( * 0.6 * 9 * 140 = 2375 kN DA1.C1: (A1+M1+R1)

Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Rc;d = Rb,k /(1.0*1.75) + Rs,k /(1.0*1.75) = 910.3 + 1357.1 = 2267.4 kN OK

DA1.C2

(A2+(M1 or M2) +R4)

Fc;d = 1.0(1200 + 74.6) + 1.3*200 = 1534.6 kN Rc;d = Rbk /(1.45*1.75) + Rsk /(1.3*1.75) = 700.2 + 1044.0 = 1744.2 kN OK

74

DA2
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Rb;k = 1593.0 kN ; Rs;k = 2375.0 kN as for DA1

Rc;d = Rb;k /(1.1*1.75) + Rs;k /(1.1*1.75) = 827.5 + 1233.8 = 2061.3 kN

Fc;d < Rc;d (2020.7 < 2061.3) so inequality is satisfied for DA2

75

DA3
Fc;d as per DA1.C2 but partial factors on structural actions are 1.35 and 1.5 Design value of resistance obtained by using m (Table A4) parameters on soil properties and in Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied on b and s

76

DA3
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN Note: increased partial factors compared with DA1:C2 qb;d = (9cu / m + v) = (9*600/(1.4*1.75) + 2*18 + 9*22) qs;d = cu / m = 0.4*{(100/(1.4*1.75) + 600/(1.4*1.75))/2} Rb;d = Abqb;d = (*0.62/4)*2438 = 689.4 kN Rs;d = Asqs;d = *0.6*9*57.1 = 968.7 kN = 2438.1 kPa = 57.1 kPa

Fc;d = Rc;d = 689.4 + 968.7 =

2020.7 kN 1658.1 kN

Inequality Fc;d Rc;d Not satisfied

77

Piles in Tension
Design of piles in tension is same as the design of piles in compression except a greater margin of safety required and there is no base resistance Ft;d Rt;d Must consider Pull-out of piles from the ground mass Uplift of block of ground (or cone) Group effect shall consider reduction in vertical effective stress The severe adverse effect of cyclic loading and reversal of loading shall be considered

78

Design of a Pile from Tension Load Tests

Extrapolation of the load-displacement curve from pile load tests should not be used for tension tests Rt;d = Rt;k/s;t Rt;k is determined from Rt;m using values in same manner as for a compression test values from Table A.9 as before s,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 Normally it should be specified that more than one pile should be tested, or 2% if a large number of piles

79

Design of a Tension Pile from Ground Test Results

Established from pile load test and from comparable experience Rt;d = Rt;k/s;t where Rt;k = Rs;k Rt;k obtained from:
Rt;k = Min {(Rs;calc)mean / 3; (Rs;calc)min / 3} or using the alternative procedure from Rt;k = qsi;k Asi

values from Table A.10 s,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 on s,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 if alternative procedure is adopted

80

Discussion Any Questions

81