Foundation design

Present by Mr. Sieng PEOU

Master science of geotechnical
engineering

Tel
Tel--011 874 974

email: [email protected]

Type of foundation

Shallow foundation
1-Spread footing : support the load from
building by column
2-Strip footing : support the load from
building by walls
3-Mat foundation: combined all footing

1
 Type of foundation

Deep foundation
1- End bearing pile : pile stand on
rocks or very dense soils, so we
have only end bearing capacity
2- Combined bearing pile : pile stand
on normal soils, so we have end
bearing capacity and skin friction
3- Floating pile : pile stand on very
loose or very soft soil, so we have
only skin friction

Spread footing

2
 Strip footing

Mat foundation

3
 End bearing pile

Soft soil layer

Pile

Rock layer

Combined bearing pile

Soft soil layer

Pile

Stiff soil layer

4
 Floating pile

Soft soil layer

Pile

Bearing capacity for Shallow

foundation

Type of failure
1-General shear failure for dense soil,we
can use C & φ for design soils bearing
capacity
2-Local shear failure for loose soil, we can
use C’=2/3 C & φ’=arctg(2/3tg
arctg(2/3tgφ) φ) for
design soils bearing capacity
3-Punching shear failure for very loose
soil,not recommended

5
General shear failure
Q

Shear line

Local shear failure

Q

Shear line

6
 Punching shear failure
Q

Failure mechanisms and derivation of

equations

7
 Failure mechanisms and derivation of
equations

A relatively undeformed wedge of soil below the foundation
forms an active Rankine zone with angles (45º + φ'/2).

The wedge pushes soil outwards, causing passive Rankine
zones to form with angles (45º - φ'/2).

The transition zones take the form of log spiral fans.

(φ = 0) the transition zones become
For purely cohesive soils (φ
circular for which Prandtl had shown in 1920 that the solution
is qf = (2 + π) Cu = 5.14 Cu

This equation is based on a weightless soil. Therefore if the
soil is non-
non-cohesive (c=0) the bearing capacity depends on
the surcharge qo. For a footing founded at depth D below the
surface, the surcharge qo = γD. Normally for a shallow
foundation (D<B), the shear strength of the soil between the
surface and the founding depth D is neglected.

Semi--circular slip mechanism

Semi

Moment causing rotation

= load x lever arm
= [(q - qo) x B] x [½B]

Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [π.B] x [B]

At failure these are equal:
(q - qo ) x B x ½B = s x π.B x B

Net pressure (q - qo ) at failure
= 2 π x shear strength of the soil

This is an upper-
upper-bound solution.

8
 Circular arc slip mechanism

Moment causing rotation
= load x lever arm
= [ (q - qo) x B ] x [B/2]

Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
[2α R] x [R]
= [s] x [2α

At failure these are equal:
(q - qo) x B x B/2 = Cu x 2 α R x R

Since R = B / sin α :
4α /(sin α)²
(q - qo ) = Cu x 4α

The worst case is when

tan
tanαα=2
=2αα at α = 1.1656 rad = 66.8 deg

The net pressure (q - qo) at failure

= 5.52 x shear strength of soil

Ultimate bearing capacity

qu
σ

Settlement

9
 Bearing capacity for strip footing
general equation
After Terzaghi (1943)
qd = CNc + γs DNq +0.5 γBNγγ

φ
N q = tan 2 ( 45 + )eπ tan φ Re issner1924
2
φ Prandtl 1921
Nc = (Nq – 1 ) . Cotgφ

Nγγ = 2(Nq + 1)tgφ

φ Caquot and Kerisel 1953 Vessic 1973

Bearing capacity for footing

From TSA equation
After Vessic (1973)

qd = 5.14 Cu(1+0.2B/L) + γs D

Cu:Undrained cohesion
B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing

10
 Bearing capacity for footing
From TSA equation
After Skemton (1951)

qd = 5 Cu(1+0.2B/L)(1+0.2D/B) + γs D

D/B<2.5

Cu:Undrained cohesion
B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing
D: Depth of footing

Bearing capacity for footing

From TSA equation
After Meyerhof (1951 to 1963)

qd = 5.14 Cu(1+0.2B/L)(1+0.2D/B) + γs D

D/B<2.5

Cu:Undrained cohesion
B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing

11
 Bearing capacity for footing
From ESA equation
After Vessic (1973)

qd = γs D Nq(1+B/L.tgφ
φ)+0.5γγBNγ(1-0.4B/L)

φ: Internal friction angle

B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing

Bearing capacity for footing

From ESA equation
After Meyerhof (1951 to 1963)
qd = γs D Nq.Sq.dq+0.5γγBNγSγdγ

Sq=Sγ=1+0.1ΚPB/L ; Kp= tg2(45+φ/

φ/2)
φ/
dq=dγ=1+0.1Kp0.5D/B
φ)
Nq the same Nq Terzaghi ; Nγ=(Nq-1)tg(1.4φ)

φ: Internal friction angle

B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing

12
 Bearing capacity for footing
From general equation
After Meyerhof (1963)
qd = C.Nc.Fcs.Fcd.Fci+γγs D Nq. Fqs.Fqd.Fqi +0.5γγBNγ Fγs.Fγd.Fγi

qnet =C.Nc.Fcs.Fcd.Fci+γγs D (Nq-1). Fqs.Fqd.Fqi +0.5γγBNγ Fγs.Fγd.Fγi

Nq by Reissner1924 ; Nc by Prandtl1921 ; Nγ by Caquot and

Kerisel 1953 and by Vessic 1973
φ: Internal friction angle
B: Width of footing
L: Length of footing

Bearing factor

Shape factor by De Beer 1970
Fcs=1+B/L.Nq/Nc
Fqs=1+B/L.tg
=1+B/L.tgφφ
Fγs=1-0.4.B/L

Depth factor by Hansen 1970
Condition D/B<1

Fcd=1+0.4D/B

Fqd=1+2.tg
=1+2.tgφφ(1-
(1-sin
sinφφ)2D/B

Fγd=1

13
 Bearing factor

Depth factor by Hansen 1970
Condition D/B>1
Fcd=1+0.4.arctg(D/B)
Fqd=1+2.tg
=1+2.tgφ φ(1-
(1-sin
sinφφ)2.arctg(D/B)
Fγd=1

Inclined factor by Meyerhof 1963 Meyerhof and
Hanna 1981
=(1--α/
Fci=Fqi=(1 α/90)
90)2
=(1--α/φ
Fγi=(1 α/φ))2

Bearing capacity of mat foundation

The gross ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation can be determined by the same
equation used for shallow foundation.

A suitable factor of safety should be used to
calculate the net allowable bearing capacity.For
rafts on clay, the factor of safety should not be
less than 3 under dead load and maximum live
load.However, under the most extreme
conditions,the factor of safety should be at least
1.75 to 2. For rafts constructed over sand,a
factor of safety of 3 should normally be used.

14
 Ultimate bearing capacity equation
for mat foundation on saturated clay

0.195B Df
qnet(u ) = 5.14Cu (1 + )(1 + 0.4 )
L B

Allowable bearing capacity

Net ultimate bearing capacity
qnet=qd-γs.D

Net allowable bearing capacity
qnetall=qnet/FS

Gross allowable bearing capacity
qall=qnetall+γs.D

15
 Verify the stable of footing

Qs
Qf

Qtotal=Q+Qf+Qs
B&L
Q- load apply by column
Qf –load of footing
Qs –load of soil above footing

Verify stable of footing

Q
all
q net = We find value of B
BL
And verify the stable of
footing from equation

Q total
q all >
BL

16
 When effect water table

D1
D Water level case I
D2

d B
Water level case II

When effect water table

1-In case I if the water table is located so that
0<D1<D, so we will change the factor
γs.D γ.
γ.D
D1+D2(γsat
sat--γw)
Also value γ in the last term of the equation has
to be replaced by γ’= (γ (γsat
sat--γw)
2-In case II for a water table located so 0<d<B
value γ in the last term of the equation has to be
replaced by γcal= γ’+d/B.(
’+d/B.(γγ−γ’)

17
 Stable of footing when effect
inclined load
qall>V/(BL) Q
H
Tall>H α

V=Q.Cos α T Q V
B
Η=Q.Sin
Η= α
φ)+2/3.C.B.L.
T=V.tg(2/3φ
Tall=T/1.5

When effect 0ne way bending

moment
We change B to B’ for calculate bearing capacity
Q
B’=B-2eB
MB
eB=MB/Q

18
 Verify stable of footing when
effect one way bending moment
When eB<B/6 qall > qmax
Q
MB
Q 6e Q 6e
qmin = (1 − B ) qmax = (1 + B )
BL B BL B

Verify stable of footing when

effect one way bending moment
When eB>B/6 qall > qmax
Q
MB
4Q
qmax =
3L( B − 2eB )

Not recommended

19
 Foundation with two way
Eccentricity
For calculate bearing capacity we have to change:
Q
B to B’=B-2eB ML

L to L’=L-2eL MB

A’=B’*L’ L

eB=MB/Q
eL=ML/Q B

Verify stable of footing when

effect two way bending moment
Qult= qu’.A’
Case eL/L>1/6
eB/B>1/6
B1=B(1.5-3eB/B)
L1=L(1.5-3eL/L)
B’=A’/L

20
Verify stable of footing when effect
two way bending moment

Qult= qu’.A’
Case 1/6<eL/L<0.5
0<eB/B<1/6
A’=0.5(L1+L2)B
B’=A’/L1

Verify stable of footing when effect

two way bending moment

Qult= qu’.A’
Case eL/L< 1/6
1/6<eB/B< 0.5
A’=0.5(B1+B2)L
B’=A’/L

21
 Verify stable of footing when effect
two way bending moment

Qult= qu’.A’
Case eL/L< 1/6
eB/B< 1/6
A’= L2B+0.5(B+B2)(L-L2)
B’=A’/L

Footing on two layer

D γs

c1 γ1 φ1 d1
B

c2 γ2 φ2

22
 Bearing capacity of footing
on two layer
1- Determine influenced thickness
H=0.5Btg(45+φ
H=0.5Btg(45+ φ1/2)
If H<d1 : our footing not effect on second layer,
so we calculate the soils bearing capacity by
using values C1,γ1,φ1
If H>d1 : our footing effect on second layer, so
we calculate the soils bearing capacity by using
condition as follows:

Bearing capacity of footing on

two layer
From TSA condition
1- Design CR=CU2/CU1
1,5d1
If CR<1 : Nc = + 5,14CR < 5.14 for strip footing
B
3d1
Nc = + 6,05CR < 6.05 for spread footing
B

so we calculate the soils bearing capacity by using

equation
qnet=C u1NC
If CR>0.7 the value of NC is decrease 10%

23
 Bearing capacity of footing
on two layer
If CR>1 :
0,5 B 1,1B
for strip footing N1 = + 4,14 N2 = + 4,14
d1 d1

for spread footing N1 =

0,33B
+ 5,05 N2 =
0,66B
+ 5,05
d1 d1
N1 × N 2
Nc = ×2
N1 + N 2
so we calculate the soils bearing capacity by
using equation
qnet=C u1NC

Bearing capacity of footing

on two layer
From general equation 1
1- Determine the average values of soils
parameter
d1φ1 + ( H − d1 )φ 2 d1c1 + ( H − d1 )c 2
φ'= c' =
H H

2- Determine the soils bearing capacity by

using values
C’ and φ’

24
 Bearing capacity of footing
on two layer
From general equation 2
1- Determine the bearing capacity for first layer
qnet1 = C1.Nc.Fcs.Fcd.Fci+γγs D (Nq-1). Fqs.Fqd.Fqi +0.5γγ1BNγ Fγs.Fγd.Fγi

2- Determine the soils bearing capacity for

second layer

qnet2= C2.Nc.Fcs.Fcd.Fci+(γγs D+γγ1d1) (Nq-1). Fqs.Fqd.Fqi +0.5.γγ2.BNγ Fγs.Fγd.Fγi

Bearing capacity of footing

on two layer
From general equation 2
3- Determine the bearing capacity
P × PV K s tan φ1 Pd1C1 < q
qnet = qnet 2 + + net1
Af Af

P = 2(B+L)
Pv = 0.5 γ1 d12+ γs D d1
Ks =1
=1--sin
sinφφ1
Af =BL

25
 Bearing capacity from in situ
test

From static cone penetration test
qc
1- for B<1.22m q allowable =
15

qc 3,28 B + 1
2- for B>1.22m qallowable = ( )2
25 3,28 B

From dynamic cone penetration test

qallowable = Rd
20

Bearing capacity from in situ test

From standard penetration test SPT
1- for B<1.22m and settlement 25mm
q all ( KPa ) = 11 , 98 N cor
but after Bowles 1977  D  S 
q all = 19 ,16 N cor  1 + 0 ,33  
 B   25 

2- for B>1.22m and settlement 25mm

2
 3, 28 B + 1 
q all ( KPa ) = 7 ,99 N cor  
 3, 28 B 
but after Bowles 1977 2
 3, 28 B + 1   D  S 
q all = 11,98   N cor  1 + 0,33   
 3, 28 B   B   25 

 D 
 1 + 0 , 33  < 1 , 33
 B 

26
 Combined footing
Rectangular combined footing
Q1 Q1+Q2 Q2
L1 X L3 L2

Section
q

Plan B

Design dimension of rectangular

combined footing
Q1 + Q 2

Determine the area of the footing A =
q all ( net )

Determine the location of the resultant of the

column loads Q 2 .L 3
X =
Q1 + Q 2

For uniform distribution of soil pressure under
the foundation, the resultant of the column
loads should pass through the centroid of the
foundation.Thus,
L = 2(L1 + X )

27
 Design dimension of rectangular
combined footing

Once the length L is determined,obtain the

value of L1
L1 = L − L 2 − L 3

Note that the magnitude of L2 will be known and

depends on the location of the property line

The width of the foundation then is A
B=
L

Combined footing
Trapezoidal combined footing
Q1 Q1+Q2
Q2
X
L2 L3 L1
Section

Plan
B1 B2
L

28
 Design dimension of trapezoidal
combined footing
Q1 + Q 2

Determine the area of the footing A =
q all ( net )

B1 + B2

And we have relation A= L
2

Determine the location of the resultant of the

column loads Q 2 .L 3
X =
Q1 + Q 2

Design dimension of trapezoidal

combined footing

From the property of a trapezoid, we have

 B + 2 B2  L
X + L 2 =  1 
 1B + B 2  3

With Known values of A,L,X and L2 we can find

values of B1 and B2, Note that for a trapezoid,

L L
< X + L2 <
3 2

29
 Combined footing
Cantilever footing
Q1 Q2

Section

R2
e R
1
L1 B2

Plan

Design dimension of
Cantilever footing

Design arm moment for soils reaction
strength R1
S’=S--e (value of e is proposed by designer)
S’=S

Design soils reaction strength

R1 = Q1
S
S'
R2 = Q2 −
Q1.e
S'
R2 = Q1 +Q2 − R1

30
 Design dimension of
Cantilever footing

Design the dimension of first footing
R1  C A1
A1 = all
L1 = 2  e +  B1 =
q net  2 L1

C is length of column

Design the dimension of second footing

R2 A2
A2 = all B2 =
q net L2

Rock quality

Rock quality designation(RQD) is an index or
measure of the quality of a rock mass(Stagg and
Zienkiewicz 1968) used by many engineers.RQD
is computed from recovered core samples as
∑ length of intact pieces of core > 100mm
RQD =
Length of core advance

A core advance of 1500mm produced a sample

length of 1310mm consisting of dust,gravel,and
intact pieces of rock.The sum of length of pieces
100mm or larger in length is 890mm.The recovery
ratio Lr=1310/1500=0.87 and RQD=890/1500=0.59

31
 Allowable Bearing capacity of
rock

The allowable bearing capacity is
depending on geology,rock type,and
quality(as RQD).

If RQD>0.8 would not require as high an
FS as for RQD=0.4.

We take FS from 6 to 10 for RQD less
than about 0.75

Bearing capacity for sound

rock
φ
N q = tan 6 ( 45 + )
2 Φ=45 degree for most rock except
φ limestone or shale where values
N c = 5 tan 4 (45 + ) between 38 to 45 degree.
2
Similarly we could in most cases
Nγ = N q + 1 estimate Cu=5MPa as a conservative
value.
And finally we may reduce the ultimate
For calculate bearing capacity bearing capacity base on RQD as:
we use equation Terzaghi qult=qult(RQD)2

32
 Rang of properties for selected rock
groups;data from several sources
Type of Unit wt.(KN/m3) E(MPa.103) µ qu((Mpa)
rock
Basalt 28 17
17--103 0.27-
0.27-0.32 170-
170-415
Granite 26.4 14
14--83 0.26-
0.26-0.30 70
70--276
Schist 26 7-83 0.18
0.18--0.22 35
35--105
Limestone 26 21
21--103 0.24-
0.24-0.45 35
35--170
Porous - 3-83 0.35
0.35--0.45 7-35
limestone
Sandstone 22.8--23.6
22.8 3-42 0.20
0.20--0.45 28
28--138
Shale 15.7
15.7--2.2 3-21 0.25
0.25--0.45 7-40
concrete 15.7--23.6
15.7 variable 0.15 15
15--40

Settlement of shallow
foundation

There are two types of settlement
1-Immediate settlement or elastic settlement Se
for sandy soils
2-Consolidation settlement Sc for fine grained
soils
2-1-Primary consolidation settlement for soils
normal
2-2-Secondary consolidation settlement for
organics soils

33
 Immediate settlement on sandy soils

Foundation could be considered fully flexible or
fully rigid
1-A uniformly loaded, perfectly flexible
foundation resting on an elastic material such
as saturated clay will have a sagging profile as
shown in figure 1,because
1,because of elastic
settlement.
2-If the foundation is rigid and is resting on an
elastic material such as clay,it will undergo
uniform settlement and the contact pressure will
be redistributed as shown in figure 2. 2.

Type of foundation settlement

Settlement profile
Figure 1

Settlement profile
Figure 2

34
 Calculate immediate
settlement
Q

D
q0

µ−Poisson’s ratio
H
E-Modulus of elasticity
Soil

Rock

Calculate immediate
settlement

At corner of the flexible foundation Se = Bq0 (1 − µ 2 ) α
E 2
Bq0

At center of the flexible foundation Se = (1 − µ 2 )α
E
1   1 + m 2 + m   1 + m 2 + 1  L
α =  ln + m ln   m=
π   1 + m 2 − m   1 + m 2 − 1 
  B


Average settlement for flexible foundation
Bq0
Se = (1− µ 2 )αav
E

Settlement for rigid foundation
Bq0
Se = (1− µ 2 )αr
E

35
 Value of α
Shape of Flexible foundation Rigid
foundation Center Corner Average foundation

Circular 1 0.64 0.85 0.79

Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82
Rectangular
L/B=1.5 1.36 0.68 1.15 1.06
L/B=5.0 2.1 1.05 1.83 1.7
L/B=10 2.54 1.27 2.25 2.1

Immediate settlement of
foundation on saturated clay

Janbu et al.(1956)proposed an equation
for evaluating the average settlement of
flexible foundations on saturated clay soils
(Poisson’s ratio µ=0.5)

q0 B
S e = A1. A2
E

36
Variation of A1 With H/B by Christian and
Carrier(1978)
H/B A1
Circle L/B
1 2 3 4 5
1 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
2 0.47 0.53 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.64
4 0.58 0.63 0.82 0.94 0.94 0.94
6 0.61 0.67 0.88 1.08 1.14 1.16
8 0.62 0.68 0.90 1.13 1.22 1.26
10 0.63 0.70 0.92 1.18 1.30 1.42
20 0.64 0.71 0.93 1.26 1.47 1.74
30 0.66 0.73 0.95 1.29 1.54 1.84

Variation of A2With D/B by Christian

and Carrier(1978)
D/B A2
0 1
2 0.9
4 0.88
6 0.875
8 0.87
10 0.865
12 0.863
14 0.86
16 0.856
18 0.854
20 0.85

37
 Consolidation settlement

For normally consolidated clay σ’0 ≥ σ’p
Cc × H σ + ∆σ
S= . log . o W (%) 
Cc = 0.2343 L .∫s
1 + eo σo  100 
1
∆σ = (σ t + 4σ m + σ b )
6

σ 'P = 22 I P −0.48Cu By Mayne & Mitchell

σ 'P = 7.04Cu 0.83 By Mitchell(1988)

0.689
N
σ 'P = 0.193σ 0 '.  By Mayne & Kemper(1988)
σ 0 ' 

Consolidation settlement

For over consolidated clay σ’0<σ’p
1- σ'O + ∆σ ≤ σ'P
Cs . H σ + ∆σ W (%) 
S = log o Cs = 0,0463 L .∫s
1 + eo σo  100 

2- σ'O + ∆σ > σ'P

Cs.H σ' Cc.H  σ ' + ∆σ 
S= . log P + . log o 
1 + eo σ o 1 + eo  σ 'P 

38
 Tolerable Settlement of
building

Settlement analysis is an important part of
the design and construction of foundation

Large settlement of various component of
structure may lead to considerable
damage or may interfere with the proper
functioning of the structure.

Settlement of foundation
δi-total displacement at
point i
δij-different settlement
between point i and j
∆− relative deflection
δ
ηij= − ω angular
ij

l ij
distortion
∆/L=deflection ratio

39
Limiting angular distortion as recommended
by Bjerrum(Compiled from Wahls,1981)
damage Category of potential η
Danger to machinery sensitive to settlement 1/750
Danger to frames with diagonals 1/600
Safe limit for no cracking of building 1/500
First cracking of panel walls 1/300
Difficulties with overhead cranes 1/300
Tilting of high rigid building becomes visible 1/250
Considerable cracking of panel and brick walls 1/150
Danger of structure damage to general building 1/150
Safe limit for flexible brick walls L/H>4 1/150
Safe limit include a factor of safety

Allowable settlement criteria:1955 U.S.S.R

Building code(compiled from walhls,1981)
Type of structure Sand and hard clay Plastic clay
η
Civil and industrial building column foundation
For steel and reinforced concrete structure 0.002 0.002
For end rows of columns with brick cladding 0.007 0.001
For structure where auxiliary strain does not arise during
Nonuniform settlement of foundation 0.005 0.005
Tilt of smokestacks,tower,silos,and so on 0.004 0.004
Crane ways 0.003 0.003
∆/L
Plain brick walls
For multistory dwelling and civil building
At L/H<3 0.0003 0.0004
At L/H>5 0.0005 0.0007
For one-
one-story mills 0.0010 0.0010

40
 Allowable average settlement for different building
type(compiled from Wahls,1981)
Type of building Allowable average
settlement(mm)
Building with plain brick walls

L/H>2.5 80

L/H<1.5 100

Building with brick walls,reinforced with 150

reinforced concrete or reinforced brick
Framed building 100

Solid reinforced concrete foundation of 300

smokestacks,silos,towers,and so on

Deep foundation

Need for pile foundation
1-When the upper soils layers are highly compressible
and too weak to support the load transmitted by the
superstructure, piles are used to transmit the load to
underlying bedrock or stronger soil layer.
2-When subjected to horizontal force, pile foundations
resist by bending while still supporting the vertical load
transmitted by superstructure.This situation is
generally encountered in the design and construction
of earth-
earth-retaining structures and foundations of tall
structures that are subjected to strong wind and/or
earthquake forces.

41
 Deep foundation
3-The expansive and collapsible soils may extend to a
great depth below the ground surface.These soils
swell and shrink as the water content increase and
decrease.If shallow foundations are used, the
structure may suffer considerable damage.The pile
have to extend into stable soil layer beyond the zone
of possible moisture change.
4-The foundation of some structures, such as
transmission towers,offshore platforms, and basement
mats below the water table, are subjected to uplifting
forces.Pile are sometime used for these foundations to
resist the uplifting force.

Deep foundation
5-Bridge abutments and piers are usually constructed
over pile foundations to avoid the possible loss of
bearing capacity that a shallow foundations might
suffer because of soil erosion at the ground surface.
Although numerous investigations, both theoretical
and experimental, have been conducted to predict the
behavior and the load-
load-bearing capacity of piles in
granular and cohesive soils,the mechanisms are not
yet entirely understood and never be clear.The design
of pile foundations may be considered somewhat of
an”art”as a result of the uncertainties involved in
working with some subsoil condition.

42
 Types of piles

Different types of piles are used in construction
work,depending on the type of load to be
carried, the subsoil conditions,and the water
table.Pile can be divided into these categories:
-Steel piles
-Concrete piles
-Wooden(timber)piles
-Composite piles

43
 Comparisons of piles made of different materials
Pile type Usual Maximum Usual load Approximate
length of length of (KN) maximum
pile(m) pile(m) load(KN)
Steel 15--60
15 Practically 300--1200
300 -
unlimited
Advantages: a-Easy to handle with respect to cutoff and extension to the
desired length
b-Can stand high driving stresses
c-Can penetrate hard layer such as dense gravel,soft rock
d-High load-
load-carrying capacity
disadvantages: a-Relatively costly material
b-High level of noise during pile driving
c-Subject to corrosion
d-H-piles may be damaged or deflected from the vertical
during driving through hard layers or past major obstructions

Comparisons of piles made of different materials

Pile type Usual length Maximum Usual Approximate
of pile(m) length of load maximum
pile(m) (KN) load(KN)
Precast precast::10-
precast::10-15 precast::30 300-
300- precast::800-
precast::800-
concrete Prestressed: Prestressed: 3000 900
10--35
10 60 Prestressed:
7500--8500
7500
Advantages: a-Can be subjected to hard driving
b-Corrosion resistant
c-Can be easy combined with concrete superstructure
disadvantages: a-Difficult to achieve proper cutoff
b-Difficult to transport

44
 Comparisons of piles made of different materials
Pile type Usual Maximum Usual load Approximate
length of length of (KN) maximum
pile(m) pile(m) load(KN)
Cased cast-
cast- 5-15 15
15--40 200-
200-500 800
in place
concrete

Advantages: a-Relatively cheap

b-Possibility of inspection before pouring concrete
c-Easy to extend
disadvantages: a-Difficult to splice after concreting
b-Think casings may be damages during driving

Comparisons of piles made of different materials

Pile type Usual Maximum Usual load Approximate
length of length of (KN) maximum
pile(m) pile(m) load(KN)
uncased 5-15 30
30--40 300-
300-500 700
cast--in place
cast
concrete
Advantages: a-Initially economical
b-Can be finished at any elevation
disadvantages: a-Voids may be created if concrete is placed rapidly
b-In soft soils,the sides of the hole may cave in thus
Squeezing the concrete

45
 Comparisons of piles made of different materials
Pile type Usual Maximum Usual load Approximate
length of length of (KN) maximum
pile(m) pile(m) load(KN)
Wood 10--15
10 30 100-
100-200 270

Advantages: a-Economical
b-Permanently submerged piles are fairly resistant to decay
c-Easy to handle
disadvantages: a- Decay above water table
b-Can be damaged in hard driving
c-Low load
load--bearing capacity
d-Low resistance to tensile load when splices

Typical concrete pile

Design bearing
Area of Minimum capacity (kN)
cross Number of strands effective Section Concrete strength
Pile D section Perimeter 12.7-mm 11.1-mm prestress modulus (MN/m²)
Shape* (mm) (cm²) (mm) diameter diameter force (kN) (m³ x 10-3)
34.5 41.4
S 254 645 1016 4 4 312 2.737 556 778
O 254 536 838 4 4 258 1.786 462 555
S 305 929 1219 5 6 449 4.719 801 962
O 305 768 1016 4 5 369 3.097 662 795
S 356 1265 1422 6 8 610 7.489 1091 1310
O 356 1045 1168 5 7 503 4.916 901 1082
S 406 1652 1626 8 11 796 11.192 1425 1710
O 406 1368 1346 7 9 658 7.341 1180 1416
S 457 2090 1829 10 13 1010 15.928 1803 2163
O 457 1729 1524 8 11 836 10.455 1491 1790
S 508 2581 2032 12 16 1245 21.844 2226 2672
O 508 2136 1677 10 14 1032 14.355 1842 2239
S 559 3123 2235 15 20 1508 29.087 2694 3232
O 559 2587 1854 12 16 1280 19.107 2231 2678
S 610 3658 2438 18 23 1793 37.756 3155 3786
O 610 3078 2032 15 19 1486 34.794 2655 3186

46
 Practical list of typical air and steam hammers
Maker of Model Type of Rated energy Blows per Ram weight
hammer* no. hammer (kN-m) minute (kN)
V 3100 Single acting 407 58 449
V 540 Single acting 271 48 182
V 060 Single acting 244 62 267
MKT OS-60 Single acting 244 55 267
V 040 Single acting 163 60 178
V 400C Differential 154 100 178
R 8/0 Single acting 110 35 111
MKT S-20 Single acting 82 60 89
R 5/0 Single acting 77 44 78
V 200-C Differential 68 98 89
R 150-C Differential 66 95-105 67
MKT S-14 Single acting 51 60 62
V 140C Differential 49 103 62
V 08 Single acting 35 50 36
MKT S-8 Single acting 35 55 36
MKT 11B3 Double acting 26 95 22
MKT C-5 Double acting 22 110 22
V 30-C Double acting 10 133 13

Practical list of typical diesel hammers

Maker of Model Rated energy Blows per minute Piston weight

hammer* no. (kN-m) (kN)
K K150 379.7 45-60 147
M MB70 191.2-86 38-60 71
K K-60 143.2 42-60 59
K K-45 123.5 39-60 44
M M-43 113.9-51.3 40-60 42
K K-35 96 39-60 34
MKT DE70B 85.4-57 40-50 31
K K-25 68.8 39-60 25
V N-46 44.1 50-60 18
L 520 35.7 80-84 23
M M-14S 35.3-16.1 42-60 13
V N-33 33.4 50-60 13
L 440 24.7 86-90 18
MKT DE20 24.4-16.3 40-50 9
MKT DE-10 11.9 40-50 5
L 180 11.0 90-95 8

47
 Pile driven formulas

To develop the desired load-
load-carrying capacity,a point bearing
pile must penetrate the dense soil layer sufficiently or have
sufficient contact with a layer of rock.This requirement cannot
always be satisfied by driving a pile to a predetermined depth
because soil profile vary.For that reason, several equations
have been developed to calculate the ultimate capacity of a pile
during driving.These dynamic equations are widely used in the
field to determine whether the pile has reached a satisfactory
bearing value at the predetermined depth.One of the earliest of
these dynamic equations-
equations-commonly referred to as the
Engineering News Record (ENR) formula-
formula-is derived from the
work--energy theory;that is : Energy imparted by the hammer
work
per blow =(pile resistance)(penetration per hammer blow)

ENR equations
WRh
Qu =
S +C

Where WR-Weight of the ram
h-height of fall of ram(Cm)
S-penetration of the pile per
hammer blow(Cm)
C-a constant
C=2.54 Cm for drop hammer
C=0.254Cm for steam hammer
Factor of safety FS=6

48
 ENR equations for single and double acting
hammer
E.H E
Qu =
S +C

Where E-
E-hammer efficiency
HE-rated energy of the hammer
S-penetration of the pile per hammer
blow(Cm)
C-a constant
C=0.254 Cm
Factor of safety FS=4 to 6

Modified ENR equations

EW R h W R + n 2W P
Qu =
S + C WR + WP

Where E-
E-hammer efficiency
h-height of fall of the ram(Cm)
S-penetration of the pile per hammer
blow(Cm)
WP-weight of the pile
n-coefficient of restitution between
the ram and the pile cap
C=0.254 Cm
Factor of safety FS=4 to 6

49
Michigan state highway commission equations

1,25H E WR + n 2WP

After testing on 88 pile(1965) Qu =
S + C WR + WP

Where WR-weight of the ram
WP-weight of the pile
HE-rated energy of the hammer
S-penetration of the pile per hammer
blow(M)
C-a constant
C=2.54.10–3M
Factor of safety FS= 6

Danish equations
EH E
Qu =
EH E L
S+
2 AP EP

Where E-
E-hammer efficiency
EP-modulus of elasticity of the pile
HE-rated energy of the hammer
S-penetration of the pile per hammer
blow(M)
L-length of the pile
AP-area of the pile cross section
Factor of safety FS= 6

50
Pacific Coast Uniform Building Code equations
After International Conference of building
officials,1982  W + nW 
( EH )   R P
E  W +W 
Qu =  R P 
QuL
S +
AP E P

Where E-
E-hammer efficiency
HE-rated energy of the hammer
S-penetration of the pile per hammer
blow(M)
L-length of the pile
EP-modulus of elasticity of pile
n=0.25 for steel piles and n=0.1 for another
piles
Factor of safety FS= 4 to 5

Value of E & n
Hammer type Efficiency,E

Single and double acting hammers 0.7

0.7--0.85

Diesel hammers 0.8

0.8--0.9

Drop hammers 0.7

0.7--0.9

Pile material Coefficient of restitution

n
Cast iron hammer and concrete pile 0.4
0.4--0.5
without cap
Wood cushion on steel pile 0.3
0.3--0.4

Wooden pile 0.25--0.3

0.25

51
 Equation for estimation of pile
capacity

QU=QP+Qs
Where QU is ultimate load carrying capacity
of pile
QP is load carrying capacity of the pile
point
QS is frictional resistance

Pile foundation
Qu= Qp Qu= Qp+Qs Qu= Qs

Qs
Qs
Weak L Weak
L Weak L soil soil
soil

Lb

Qp
Qp Qp

Strong soil layer Strong soil layer

Rock

52
 Minimum pile embedment depth
into founding soil strata

From civil engineering association forum the
minimum pile embedment depth into bearing
stratum is 3 times diameter of pile.

Replace the pile with one having a different helix
configuration. The replacement pile must not
exceed any applicable maximum embedment
length and either (A) meet the minimum effective
torsion resistance criterion and all applicable
embedment criteria shown in Table for the
design load type (s), or (B) pass proof testing.

Replacement pile embedment

criteria
Design Load type Replacement Pile Embedment Criterion

Tension The last helix must be embedded at

least three times its own diameter
beyond the position of the first helix
of the replaced pile.
Compression The last helix must be embedded
beyond the position of the first helix
of the replaced pile.
Shear/Overturning Embedment must satisfy the specified
minimum.

53
 Load--carrying Capacity of the pile point,QP
Load
from Terzaghi’s equation

QP=AP.qP=AP(CN *c+q’N *q)
Where AP-area of pile tip
C-cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip
qP-unit point resistance
q’
q’--effective vertical stress at the level of the pile
tip
N*C,N*q-bearing capacity factor after Caquot &
Kerisel

N *q = e 7 tgφ N C* = ( N q* − 1) cot φ

Load-carrying Capacity of the pile point,QP

Load-
from Eric Gervreau in Euro code 2000

QP=AP.qP=AP(1.3CN *c+50N *q)
Where AP-area of pile tip
C-cohesion of the soil supporting the pile
tip
qP-unit point resistance
N*C,N*q-bearing capacity factor after
Caquot & Kerisel

N *q = e 7 tgφ N C* = ( N q* − 1) cot φ

54
 Critical depth

In the case of calculation of q’
q’,, the normal
practice is to assume that q’ increases
linearly with depth from zero at ground
level to a maximum value q’(max) at the tip
of pile.

However, extensive research carried out
by Vessic(1967) has indicated that q’
varies linearly from the ground surface up
to a limited depth only beyond which q’
q’,,
remains constant irrespective of the depth
of embedment of pile.

Critical depth

This phenomenon was attributed to arching of
SAND.
SAND.

This depth within which q’ varies linearly with
depth may be called as the critical depth Dc.

From the curves given by Poulos (1980), we
may write

For 28<φ<36.5 we have Dc/B=5+0.24(φ-28)

For 36.5<φ<42 we have Dc/B=7+2.35(φ-36.5)

55
 Critical depth

From Caquot & Kerisel Dc=B/4.N*q(2/3)

In Bearing Capacity Technical Guidance by Career
Development and Resources for Geotechnical
Engineers
-Dc = 10B, for loose silts and sands
-Dc = 15B, for medium dense silts and sands
-Dc = 20B, for dense silts and sands
-loose when N<10 or φ<30
-medium dense when 10<N<30 or 30<φ<36
-dense when 30<N or 36<φ

Critical depth

This critical concept implies that fs for cohesionless
soil for a driven pile varies linearly with depth up to
depth Dc only and beyond this depth fs remains
constant.

Note that the application concept Dc in case the soil is
homogeneous for the whole depth of embedment D.

Since no information is available on the layered
system of soil, this approach has to be used with
caution. Tomlinson(1986) Bowles(1988) has not use
of this concept .This
.This indicates that this method has
not yet found favor with the designer.

56
 Load-carrying Capacity of the pile point in sand
Load-
from ESA condition after Meyerhof (1976)
QP=AP.qP=APq’N *q
Where AP-area of pile tip
qP-unit point resistance
q’
q’--effective vertical stress at the level of
the pile tip
7 tgφ
N*q-bearing capacity factor N q = e
*

QP=Apq’N*q<Apqi
tgφ(KN/M2)
qi=50N*qtgφ
As per Tomlinson, the maximum base resistance
qp is normally limited 11000KPa.

Load-carrying Capacity of the pile point in

Load-
sand from ESA condition after Meyerhof
(1976)

The angle φ to be use for determination

Nq* are

For driven pile φ = φ1

For bored pile φ = φ1-3
Where φ1 is angle of internal friction prior to
installation of pile.

57
 Load-carrying Capacity of the pile point in
Load-
saturated clay from TSA condition

QP=AP.qP=ApCU N *c= 9CUAP

Where AP-area of pile tip

qP-unit point resistance
N*c-bearing capacity factor for φ=0 N*C=9

Carrying capacity of piles in layered soil

from meyerhof equation

58
 Carrying capacity of piles in layered soil

If the pile toe terminates in a layer of dense sand or
stiff clay overlying a layer of soft clay or loose sand
there is a danger of it punching through to the weaker
layer.

To account for this, Meyerhof's equation is used.

The base resistance at the pile toe is
qp = q2 + (q1 -q2)H / 10B but < q1

where
-B is the diameter of the pile
-H is the thickness between the base of the pile and
the top of the weaker layer
-q2 is the ultimate base resistance in the weak layer
-q1 is the ultimate base resistance in the strong layer.

Relation between ultimate point resistance of pile

and depth in sand stratum beneath weak soil layer
from Terzaghi 1982

59
Relation between ultimate point resistance of pile
and depth in sand stratum beneath weak soil layer
from Terzaghi 1982

Frictional Resistance QS

Qs = ∑ P.∆L. f
Where P-
P-perimeter of the pile section
∆L-incremental pile length over
which P and f are taken constant
f-unit friction resistance at any
depth Z

60
 Skin friction from β Method
From Meyehof 1976
φ<28 we have β=0.44
28<φ<35 we have β=0.75
35<φ<37 we have β=1.20

f=βσ’0

σ’0-effective vertical stress at center of layer

As Tomlinson, the maximum frictional resistance is
limited 110KPa

Skin friction from β Method

61
 Skin friction from β Method

The angle φ to be use for determination β are

For driven pile φ = 0.75φ1+10

For bored pile φ = φ1-3
Where φ1 is angle of internal friction prior to
installation of pile.

Skin friction from α Method

Skin friction for clayey soil for driven pile
f=αxCu α=1 for Cu=<25KPa
α=0.5 for Cu=>70KPa
α=1-(Cu-25)/90 for 25KPa<Cu<70KPa API(1984)

α=1 for Cu<=35KPa

α=0.5 for Cu=>80KPa
α=1-(Cu-35)/90 for 35KPa<Cu<80KPa Semple and Rigden(1984)

Skin friction for clayey soil for Bored pile or drilled shafts
f=αxCu α=0.45 for London clay Skempton(1959)
α=0.7 time value for driven diplacement pile Flaming et al(1985)
α=0 for Z<1.5 Reese and Oneill(1985)

62
 Tomlinson α method

Case 1:pile driven through sands or sandy
gravels into stiff clay strata.

Case 2:pile driven through soft clay into
stiff clay strata.

Case 3:pile driven into a firm to stiff clay
without any overlying strata.

The value of α vary with Cu and L/B ratio

Tomlinson α method

63
 Negative skin friction

Negative skin friction is a downward drag force exerted
on the pile by the soil surrounding it.This action can
occur under conditions such as the following:
1-if a fill of clay soil is placed over a granular soil layer
into witch a pile is driven, the fill will gradually
consolidate. This consolidation process will exert a
downward drag force on the pile during the period of
consolidation.
2-if a fill of granular soil is placed over a layer of soft
clay,it will induce the process of consolidation in the clay
layer and thus exert a downward drag on the pile
3-lowering of the water table will increase the vertical
effective stress on the soil at any depth,which will induce
consolidation settlement in clay.If a pile is located in the
clay layer,it will be subjected to a downward drag force.

Clay fill over granular soil Granular soil fill over clay

Clay Sand
Hf Hf
fill fill
L L
L1
Neutral
Sand
plane Clay

64
 Clay fill over granular soil

Where: f n = K 'σ 0 ' tan δ

K’=earth pressure coefficient =Ko=1-
=Ko=1-sin φ
sinφ
σ’o=vertical effective stress at any depth Z
= γ’f.Z.
γ’f =effective unit weight of fill Clay
δ=soil 0.5φ to 0.7φ
=soil--pile friction angle = 0.5φ 0.7φ
H
PK ' γ ' f H 2 tan δ
Qn = ∫ ( PK ' γ ' f tan δ ) Zd z =
0
2

Granular soil fill over clay

In this case, the evidence indicates that the
negative skin stress on the pile may exist from
Z=0 to Z=L1,which is referred to as the neutral
depth.The neutral depth may be given as
(Bowles 1982)
L − H f  L − H f γ 'f H f  2γ ' f H f
L1 =  +  −
L1  2 γ'  γ'

Hence,the total drag force is

L PK ' γ ' tan δ
L1 2
Qn = ∫ PK ' (γ ' f H f + γ ' Z ) tan δd Z = PK ' L1γ ' f H f tan δ + 1
0
2

65
 Determine End bearing capacity of
pile foundation from SPT test
Driven Method
C
Sand qp=CN(Mpa) 0.45 N=average SPT value in By Martin et al(1987)
qp=CN(Mpa) 0.4 local failure zone By Decourt(1982)
qp=CN(Mpa) 0.04 Ls/D Ls=Length of pile in sand Mayerhof(1976)
D=width of pile C<=0.4
Silt, sandy silts qp=CN(Mpa) 0.35 N=average SPT value in Matin et al.(1987)
Glacial Coarse to fine siltqp=CN(Mpa) 0.25 local failure zone Thorburn and Mac Vicar(1987)
Residual sandy silt qp=CN(Mpa) 0.25 Decourt(1982)
Residual Clayey silt qp=CN(Mpa) 0.2 Decourt(1982)
Clay qp=CN(Mpa) 0.2 Matin et al.(1987)
Clay qp=CN(Mpa) 0.12 Decourt(1982)
All soil qp=CN(Mpa) 0.3 ForL/D>=5 Shioi and Fukui(1982)
If L/D<5,C=0.1+0.04L/D
for closed end pile
and C=0.06L/D
for open end pile

Determine End bearing capacity of

pile foundation from SPT test

Cast in place method

Coarse grained soil qp=CN(Mpa) 0.15 qp<3.0MPa Shioi and Fukui(1982)

qp=CN(Mpa) 0.15 qp<7.5MPa Yamashita et al(1987)

Fine grained soil qp=CN(Mpa) 0.15 qp=0.09(1+0.16Lt) Yamashita et al(1987)

Lt=pile length

Bored pile
Sand qp=CN(Mpa) 0.1 Shioi and Fukui(1982)
Clay qp=CN(Mpa) 0.15 Shioi and Fukui(1982)

66
 Determine skin friction from SPT
test
Driven Methode A B
Coarse grained soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 2 N=average SPT Mayerhof(1956)
along Shaft Shioi and Fukui(1982)
Coarse grained &fine soilqf=A+BN(Kpa) 10 3.3 3<N<50 Decourt(1982)
Fine grained soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 10 Shioi and Fukui(1982)
Cast in place methode
Coarse grained soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 30 2 qf<200Kpa Yamashita et al(1987)
qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 5 Shioi and Fukui(1982)
Fine grained soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 5 qf<150Kpa Yamashita et al(1987)
qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 10 Shioi and Fukui(1982)
Bored pile
Coarse grained soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 1 Findlay(1984)&Shioi & Fukui(1982)
qf=A+BN(Kpa) 0 3.3 Wright &Reese(1979)
Fine graned soil qf=A+BN(Kpa) 10 3.3 qf<170Kpa Decourt(1982)

Load--Carrying capacity of pile point resting on

Load
rock

The ultimate unit point resistance in
rock(Goodman,1980) is approximately
qp=qu-R(Nφ+1)
Where Nφ=tg2(45+ φ/2)
(45+φ
qu-R=unconfined compression strength of rock
φ=drained angle of friction of rock
The allowable load-
load-carrying capacity of the pile
point.thus

Qp( all) =
[q u−R ( Nφ + 1) AP ] FS=3
FS

67
Typical unconfined compressive strength of rock
Rock type qu-R(Mpa)
Sandstone 70-
70-140
Limestone 105
105--210
Shale 35-
35-70
Granite 140-
140-210
Marble 60-
60-70

qu − R (lab )
qu − R ( design ) =
5

Drilled Shafts Extending into

Rock

Based on the procedure developed by Reese and
O’Neill(1988-1989),we can estimate the bearing load
O’Neill(1988-
capacity of drilled shafts extending into Rock as
follows:
1-Calculate the ultimate unit side resistance as:
f=6.564qu0.5≤0.15qu
Where qu=unconfined compression strength or Rock
core
2-Calculate the ultimate capacity based on side
resistance only:
Qu=π
Qu= πDsLf

68

Calculate the settlement Se of the shaft at the top of the Rock
socked:
Se=Se(s)+Se(b)
Where Se(s)=elastic compression of the drilled shaft within the
socket, assuming on side resistance
Se(b)=settlement of the base
QU L
However Se(s)=
AC EC
QU I f
And Se(b)=
DS Emass

69
Where Qu=Ultimate friction load
Ac=Cross
=Cross--section area of the drilled shaft
in the socked
Ds=Diameter of the drilled shaft
Ec=Young’s modulus of the concrete
Emass=Young’s modulus of the rock mass
If=Elastic influence coefficient (read on
chart)
L=Depth of embedment in rock
If Se is less than 10mm, then the ultimate load-
load-
carrying capacity from this way is correct.

If Se≥ 10mm, there way be rapid, progressive side

shear failure in the rock socket ,resulting in a
complete loss of side resistance. In that case the
ultimate capacity is equal to the point resistance :

 CS 
 3+ 
 DS 
Qu = 3qU Ac  0.5 
101 + 300 δ  

  CS  

70
Where Cs=Spacing of discontinuities
δ=Thickness of individual discontinuity
qu=unconfined compression strength of
the rock beneath the base of the socket or
drilled shaft concrete, whichever is smaller.
Note that applies for horizontally stratified
discontinuities with Cs>305 mm and δ<5mm

Typical values of angle of friction of rocks

Rock type Angle of friction

φ(deg)
Sandstone 27-
27-45
Limestone 30-
30-40
Shale 10-
10-20
Granite 40-
40-50
Marble 25-
25-30

71
 Group pile
Pile cap
d d

d
L Bg
d

Lg

d d

Group pile efficiency

Determination of the load bearing capacity of group
piles is extremely complicated and has not yet been
fully resolved.When the piles are placed close to each
other,a reasonable assumption is that the stress
transmitted by the piles to the soil will overlap,thus
reducing the load bearing capacity of the
pile.Ideally,the piles in a group should be spaced so
that the load bearing capacity of the group should be
no less than the sum of the bearing capacity of the
individual piles.In practice,the minimum center to
center pile spacing d is 2.5D and in ordinary situations
is actually about 3D to 3.5D
3.5D..

72
 Efficiency factor

Many structural engineers used a simplified
analysis to obtained the group efficiency for
friction piles (ratio between Qs & Qu is over
80%),particularly
80% ),particularly in sand.The piles may act in one
of two way:
1-as a block with dimension Lg*Bg*L
2-as individual piles
If the piles act as the block, the frictional capacity is
Qg(u)=favPgL note Pg=2(n1+ n2-2)d+4D
For each pile acting individually
Q(u)=favLP

Efficiency factor
Qg ( u )
η=
∑ Q( u )

Where η=group efficiency
Qg(u)=ultimate load bearing capacity of
group pile
Q(u)=ultimate load bearing capacity of
each pile
2(n1 + n2 − 2)d + 4 D
η=
Pn1n2

73
 Converse Labarre equation

 (n1 − 1)n2 + (n2 − 1)n1 

η = 1−  θ
 90 n n
1 2 

θ (deg) = arctg ( D / d )

Pile in sand

Model test results on group piles in sand have shown
that group efficiency can be greater than 1 because
soil compaction zones are created around the piles
during driving.Based on the experimental observations
of the behavior of group piles in sand to date,two
general conclusions may be drawn:
1-for driven group piles in sand with d>3D, Qg(u)=ΣQ(u)
2-for bored group piles in sand at conventional
spacing
d=3D,Qg(u) may be taken 2/3 to 3/4 time ΣQ(u)

74
 Pile in clay

The ultimate load bearing capacity of group piles in clay
may be estimated with the following procedure:
1-Determine ΣQu=n1n2(QP+Qs) ;
ΣQu=n1n2[9CuAp+ΣαPCuL]
2-determine the ultimate capacity by assuming that the
piles in the group act as a block with dimension
Lg*Bg*L.The skin resistance of the block is:
Qs(g)=Σ2αCu(Lg+Bg)L
Calculate the point bearing capacity from
QP(g)=N*cCuLgBg , N*C=5.14(1+0.2Bg/Lg)(1+0.2L/Bg)<9
ΣQ(u)=Qs(g)+QP(g)
3-Compare the 2 results,The lower of the two value is
Qg(u)

Piles in rock

For point bearing piles resting on
rock,most building codes specify that
Qg(u)=ΣQ(u),provided that the minimum
center to center spacing of pile is
D+300mm.For
D+300mm .For H-
H-piles and piles with
square cross sections,the magnitude of D
is equal to the diagonal dimension of the
pile cross section

75
 Settlement of piles and groups in
sands and Gravels

The present Knowledge is not sufficient to
evaluate of pile and pile groups. For most
engineering structures, the loads to be applied
to a pile group will be governed by consideration
of consolidation settlement rather than by
bearing capacity of the groups divided by an
arbitrary factor of safety of 2 or 3. It has been
found from field observation that the settlement
of a pile groups is many times the settlement of
a single pile at the corresponding working load.

Settlement of piles and groups in

sands and Gravels

The settlement of a group is affected by the
shape and size of group, length of pile, method
of installation of pile and possibly many other
factors.

There are no equations that would
satisfactorily predict the settlement of pile in
SAND. It is better to rely on load tests for
piles in SAND.

In this chapter we try to show some equations
for estimation the settlement of pile in SAND.

76
 Settlement of pile shaft
(Q pall + ξQ all
f )L
Se1 =
Ap E p

Where : L-
L-pile length
EP-elastic modulus of pile
material,for concrete pile EP=21000MPa
ζ =0.5
AP-area of pile tip

Settlement of pile cause by load at

the pile point
q all
p B
Se2 = 0.85 (1 − µ 2 )
E

Where : B-
B-Width of pile
E-elastic modulus of soil
µ-Poisson ratio

77
 Settlement of pile cause by the load
transmitted along the pile shaft
Q all B L
Si3 = f (1 − µ 2 ) I f I f = 2 + 0.35
PL E B

Where : B-
B-Width of pile
E-elastic modulus of soil
µ-Poisson ratio
L-pile length
P-perimeter of the pile section

Consolidation settlement of group piles

The settlement of pile group in clay can be estimated
by assuming that the total load is carried by an
equivalent raft located at depth of 2L/3 where L is the
length of the piles.It may be assumed,that the load is
spread from the perimeter of the group at a slope of 1
horizontal to 4 vertical to allow for that part of the
load transferred to the soil by skin friction.The vertical
stress increment at any depth below the equivalent
raft may be estimated by assuming in turn that the
total load is spread to the underlying soil at slope of 1
horizontal to 2 vertical.The
vertical.The consolidation settlement
is than calculated as the shallow foundation.

78
 Equivalent raft concept
Q
Q
q=
B' L'
1:4 2L/3 d d
q L
d Bg

Lg
1:2

d d B’=D+d+L/3

B’&L’ L’=D+2d+L/3

Thank you for your attention

Mr. Sieng
PEOU

Master
science of
geotechnical
engineering

79