CE 632 Pile Foundations Part-1 Handout

CE-632
Foundation Analysis and

Design
Pile Foundations
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Indian Standards on Piles

IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 1 : 1979 Driven cast in-situ concrete piles
IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 2 : 1979 Bored cast-in-situ piles
IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 3 : 1979 Driven precast concrete piles
IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 4 : 1984 Bored precast concrete piles
IS 2911 : Part 2 : 1980 Timber piles
IS 2911 : Part 3 : 1980 Under reamed piles
IS 2911 : Part 4 : 1985 Load test on piles
IS 5121 : 1969 Safety code for piling and other deep foundations
IS 6426 : 1972 Specification for pile driving hammer
IS 6427 : 1972 Glossary of Terms Relating to Pile Driving Equipment
IS 6428 : 1972 Specification for pile frame
IS 9716 : 1981 Guide for lateral dynamic load test on piles
IS 14362 : 1996 Pile boring equipment - General requirements
IS 14593 : 1998 Bored cast-in-situ piles founded on rocks - Guidelines
IS 14893 : 2001 Non-Destructive Integrity Testing of Piles (NDT) -
Guidelines
2
When is it needed
Top layers of soil are highly compressible for it to support
structural loads through shallow foundations.
Rock level is shallow enough for end bearing pile
foundations provide a more economical design.
Lateral forces are relatively prominent.
I presence off expansive
In i and
d collapsible
ll ibl soils
il att th
the site.
it
Offshore structures
Strong uplift forces on shallow foundations due to shallow
water table can be partly transmitted to Piles.
For structures near flowing water (Bridge abutments, etc.)
to avoid the problems due to erosion.
1
Types of Piles
Steel Piles
¾ Pipe piles
¾ Rolled steel H-section piles
Concrete Piles
¾ Pre-cast Piles
¾ Cast-in-situ Piles
¾ Bored-in-situ piles
Timber Piles
Composite Piles
4
Steel Piles: Facts

Usual length: 15 m – 60 m
Usual Load: 300 kN – 1200 kN
Advantage:
¾ Relatively less hassle during installation and easy to achieve
cutoff level.
¾ Hi h d
High driving
i i fforce may b
be used
d ffor ffastt iinstallation
t ll ti
¾ Good to penetrate hard strata
¾ Load carrying capacity is high
Disadvantage:
¾ Relatively expensive
¾ Noise pollution during installation
¾ Corrosion
¾ Bend in piles while driving
5
Concrete Piles: Facts

Pre-cast Piles:
¾ Usual length: 10 m – 45 m
¾ Usual Load: 7500 kN – 8500 kN
Cast-in-situ Piles:
¾ Usual length: 5 m – 15 m
¾ Usual Load: 200 kN – 500 kN
Advantage:
¾ Relatively cheap
¾ It can be easily combined with concrete superstructure
¾ Corrosion resistant
¾ It can bear hard driving
Disadvantage:
¾ Difficult to transport
¾ Difficult to achieve desired cutoff
6
2
Types of Piles Based on Their Function and Effect

of Installation
Piles based on their function

¾ End Bearing Piles
¾ Friction Piles
¾ Compaction Piles
¾ Anchor Piles
¾ Uplift Piles
Effect of Installation
¾ Displacement Piles
¾ Non-displacement Piles
Displacement Piles
In loose cohesionless soils
¾ Densifies the soil upto a distance of 3.5 times the pile diameter
(3.5D) which increases the soil’s resistance to shearing
¾ The friction angle varies from the pile surface to the limit of
compacted soil
In dense cohesionless soils
¾ The dilatancy effect decreases the friction angle within the zone of
influence of displacement
p p
pile ((3.5D approx.).
pp )
¾ Displacement piles are not effective in dense sands due to above
reason.
In cohesive soils
¾ Soil is remolded near the displacement piles (2.0 D approx.) leading
to a decreased value of shearing resistance.
¾ Pore-pressure is generated during installation causing lower
effective stress and consequently lower shearing resistance.
¾ Excess pore-pressure dissipates over the time and soil regains its
strength.
Example: Driven concrete piles, Timber or Steel piles
8
Non--displacement Piles
Non
Due to no displacement during installation, there is no heave in
the ground.
Cast in-situ piles may be cased or uncased (by removing
casing as concreting progresses). They may be provided with
reinforcement if economical with their reduced diameter.
Enlarged bottom ends (three times pile diameter) may be
provided in cohesive soils leading to much larger point bearing
capacity.
Soil on the sides may soften due to contact with wet concrete
or during boring itself. This may lead to loss of its shear
strength.
Concreting under water may be challenging and may resulting
in waisting or necking of concrete in squeezing ground.
Example: Bored cast in-situ or pre-cast piles
3
Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

With the increasing load on a pile initially the resistance is offered by side friction
and when the side resistance is fully mobilized to the shear strength of soil, the
rest of load is supported by pile end. At certain load the soil at the pile end fails,
usually in punching shear, which is defined as the ultimate load capacity of pile.
10
Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

The frictional resistance ΔQz
per unit area at any qsz =
depth S .Δz z
S = perimeter of pile
Ultimate skin friction
resistance of pile Qsu
Δz
ΔQs
Ultimate point load Q pu = q pu . Ap
q pu = bearing capacity of soil
Ap = bearing area of pile
Ultimate load capacity Qu = Q pu + Qsu

in compression
Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qsu Qup Qus

in tension
Qu
11
Point Load capacity of Pile: General Bearing

Capacity approach
Ultimate bearing capacity of soil considering general bearing
capacity equation. Shape, inclination, and depth factors are
included in bearing capacity factors
q pu = cN c* + q′N q* + 0.5γ DNγ*
Since pile diameter is relatively small, third term may be dropped

out
q pu = cN c* + q′N q*
Hence Pile load capacity
(
Q pu = q pu . Ap = cN c* + qN q* . Ap )
12
4
Point Load capacity of Pile: Meyerhof’s (1976)

Method
Granular soils:
Point bearing capacity of pile increases with depth in sands and
reaches its maximum at an embedment ratio L/D = (L/D)cr.
Therefore, the point load capacity of pile is
Q pu = Ap .q′.N q* < Ap .qul
qul = 0.5 Pa N q* tan φ ′ Pa = Atmospheric
p ppressure
¾ (L/D)cr value typically ranges from 15D for loose to medium sand to
20D for dense sands.
¾ Correlation of limiting point resistance with SPT value
L
qul = 0.4 ( N ′′ ) ≤ 4 Pa ( N ′′ )
D
N“ value shall be taken as an average for a zone ranging from 10D
above to 4D below the pile point.
Saturated Clays:
Q pu = N c* .cu . Ap = 9.cu . Ap
13
Point Load capacity of Pile: Vesic’s (1977) Method

Pile point bearing capacity based on the theory of expansion of cavities
Q pu = Ap .qup = Ap . c.N c* + σ o′ Nσ*( )
⎛ 1 + 2 Ko ⎞
Mean effective normal stress at pile end σ o′ = ⎜ ⎟ q′
⎝ 3 ⎠
Ir
Nσ* = f ( I rr ) I rr = avg vol strain at pile end
1 + Ir Δ
Reduced rigidity index of soil
Gs Es
I r = rigidity index = =
( c′ + q′ tan φ ′) 2 (1 + μ s )( c′ + q′ tan φ ′ )
4 π
N c* = ( ln I rr + 1) + + 1
3 2
Baldi et al. (1981):
Type of soil Ir For mechanical For electric cone
Sand 75-150 cone resistance resistance
3 1.7
Silt 50-75 Ir = Ir =
q f qc q f qc
Clay 150-250 14
Point Load capacity of Pile: Janbu’s (1976) Method
(
Q pu = Ap c.N c* + q′.N q* )
( ) (e )
2
2η ′ tan φ ′
N q* = tan φ ′ + 1 + tan 2 φ ′
60 ≤ η ′ ≤ 90
o o
Clay Sand
(
N c* = N q* − 1 cot φ ′ )
η′
15
5
Point Load capacity of Pile:

Coyle and Costello’s (1981)
Method for Granular Soils
Q pu = Ap .q′.N q*
L
N q* is a function of ratio
D
L is length of pile below G.L.
16
Point Load Capacity of Pile resting on Rock

Goodman (1980): Q pu = Ap .qu ( Nφ + 1)
Nφ = tan 2 ( 45 + φ ′ 2 )
qu = unconfined compression strength of rock
φ ′ = effective friction angle of rock
To consider the influence of distributed fractures in rock ( qu )lab

which
hi h are not reflected
fl dbby the
h compression i tests on smallll ( qu )design =
samples, the compression strength for design is taken as 5
17
Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

The frictional resistance of pile may be
computed as
Qsu = ∑ S .ΔL. f sz
The unit frictional resistance increases with L′
the depth and reaches its maximum at the
depth of approximately 15D to 20D, as shown
in the adjacent figure.
f sz = K .σ v′ .tan δ ≤ f sL′ Kσ v′
Soil-Pile interface friction angle δ varies from

0.5φ' to 0.8φ‘.Earth pressure coefficient
depends on both soil type and pile installation.
18
6
Frictional Resistance of
Pile: In Sand
Coyle and
Bhushan (1982) suggested that the
Castello
value of K and K.tanδ for large (1981)
displacement piles can be
computed as
K = 0.50 + 0.008Dr
t δ = 0.18
K .tan 0 18 + 0.0065
0 0065 Dr
Coyle and Castello (1981) proposed

that ultimate skin frictional resistance
of pile can be computed as
Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L
(
= K .σ ′v .tan δ .S .L )
Avg effective overburden 19
Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

Zeitlen and Paikowski (1982) suggested τ
that limiting fs is automatically accounted
Failure
for by the decrease in φ’ with effective Envelope
confining pressure which may be used to
compute K and δ.
σ
σ′
φ ′ = φo′ − 5.5log v Effective vertical stress at the depth of interest
σ o′ Effective confining
g stress during
g triaxial test
Friction angle obtained through triaxial testing at some confining pressure σ o′ .
Typical values of K from a number of pile tests:
20
Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: α-method

Proposed by Tomlinson (1971):
f s = α .cu
Empirical adhesion factor
21
7
Frictional Resistance
of Pile In Clays:
α-method
Randolph and
Randolph and Murphy (1985): Murphy (1985)
Qsu = ∑ α .cu .S .ΔL
Sladen (1992):
f s = α .cu = σ ′h .tan δ
and σ ′h = κ K o, NC σ ′v
correction factor for soil disturbance on sides
With the above relationships, α can be determined as a

function of effective overburden and undrained shear
( )
strength n
α = C1. σ ′v cu C1 and n are constants depending on soil
properties and type of pile installation 22
Frictional Resistance of
Pile In Clays: λ-method
Proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972):
( f s )av = λ (σ ′v + 2cu )
Mean undrained shear strength
λ varies with the length of embedded pile
Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile

Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L
Value of σ ′v and cu are computed as
weighted average over the embedded
depth of pile
This method usually overpredicts the

capacity of piles with embedded
length less than 15 m. 23
Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: β-method

In saturated clays displacement piles induce excess pore pressure near
pile surface during installation which eventually dissipates within a month
or so. Hence, the frictional resistance of pile may be estimated on the
basis of effective stress parameters of clay in a remolded state.
f s = β .σ v′ = K tan φR′ .σ v′
Effective friction angle of remolded clay at certain depth
Earth pressure coefficient may be estimated as the earth pressure at rest:
K = (1 − sin φR′ ) For Normally Consolidated Clay
K = (1 − sin φR′ ) OCR For Over Consolidated Clay
Total frictional resistance of pile:
Qsu = ∑ f s .S .ΔL
24
8
IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils
25
26
For For
Driven Bored
Piles Piles
27
9
28

It seems logical that K value shall be close to the coefficient of earth
pressure at rest Ko as described in earlier methods. However, type of
installation has a major impact on how the earth pressure may vary from
Ko, as shown in the figure below.
e
Driven Conical Pile
Driven Circular Pile
Bored Pile
Soil movement 29
IS code recommends K-value to be chosen between 1 and 2 for

driven piles and 1 and 1.5 for bored piles. However, it is advisable
to estimate this value based on the type of construction and fair
estimation of the disturbance to soil around pile. Typical values of
ratio between K and Ko are listed below.
30
10
IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils
( )
0.5
For σ ′v cu ≥ 1 → α = 0.5 σ ′v cu , but >/ 1
( )
0.25
For σ ′v cu < 1 → α = 0.5 σ ′v cu , but </ 0.5 and >/ 1
31
IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils
32
Meyerhof’s Formula for Driven Piles based on SPT value
For Sand:
For L/D > 10
A limiting value of 1000 t/m2 for point bearing and 6 t/m2 is suggested
For Non-
Non-plastic silt and fine sand:
For Clays:
33
11
IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Non-

Non-Cohesive
Soils Based on CPT data
The ultimate point

bearing capacity:
34
IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Non-

Non-Cohesive
Soils Based on CPT data
The ultimate skin friction resistance:
Correlation of SPT and CPT:
35
Pile Load Capacity: Other Correlations with

SPT value
36
12
Point Load Capacity of Pile: Correlation with CPT

data by LCPC Method
q pu = ( qc )eq .kb
Get the average qc value
Equivalent avg. Empirical bearing
for a zone 1.5D above to
cone resistance capacity factor
1.5D below the pile tip.
D
Eliminate the qc values
that are higher than
1.3(qc)avg or lower than
0 7(qc)avg.
0.7(q
Compute the (qc )eq as

an average of the
remaining qc values.
Briaud and Miran (1991):

kb = 0.6 for clay and silt
kb = 0.375 for sand and gravel
37
Pile Load Capacity:

Correlation with CPT by
Dutch Method
Compute the average qc value for
a zone yD below the pile tip for y
varying from 0.7 to 4. Define qc1 D
as the minimum value of above
(qc)avg.
Average the value of qc for a zone
of 8D above the ppile tip,
p, and g
get
qc2. Ignore sharp peaks during
averaging.
Calculate Atmospheric
( qc1 + qc 2 )
Pressure
qp = kb′ ≤ 150. pa
2
k′b = 1.0 for OCR = 1

k′b = 0.67 for OCR = 2 to 4 38
Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT by Dutch

Method
q p = R1 R2
( qc1 + qc 2 ) k ′ ≤ 150. p
b a
2
R1 = Reduction factor as function of cu
R2 = 1 ffor electrical
l t i l cone penetrometer
t t
R2 = 0.6 for mechanicsl cone penetrometer
39
13
Pile Load
Capacity:
Correlation
with CPT data
in Sand by Electric Cone
Dutch Method
Mechanical Cone
Frictional cone
resistance
40
Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in

Clays by Dutch Method
Frictional cone
resistance
41
Allowable Pile Capacity
Factor of Safety shall be used by giving due consideration to the

following points
¾ Reliability of soil parameters used for calculation
¾ Mode of transfer of load to soil
¾ Importance of structure
¾ Allowable total and differential settlement tolerated by structure
Factor of Safety as per IS 2911:
42
14

CE 632 Pile Foundations Part-1 Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE 632 Pile Foundations Part-1 Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE-632

Foundation Analysis and

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Indian Standards on Piles

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Steel Piles: Facts

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Concrete Piles: Facts

Types of Piles Based on Their Function and Effect

 Piles based on their function

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

 Ultimate load capacity Qu = Q pu + Qsu

 Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qsu Qup Qus

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: General Bearing

q pu = cN c* + q′N q* + 0.5γ DNγ*

 Since pile diameter is relatively small, third term may be dropped

 Hence Pile load capacity

Point Load capacity of Pile: Meyerhof’s (1976)

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Vesic’s (1977) Method

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Janbu’s (1976) Method

Point Load capacity of Pile:

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load Capacity of Pile resting on Rock

To consider the influence of distributed fractures in rock ( qu )lab

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

 Soil-Pile interface friction angle δ varies from

Coyle and Castello (1981) proposed

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

Typical values of K from a number of pile tests:

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: α-method

Qsu = ∑ α .cu .S .ΔL

With the above relationships, α can be determined as a

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

λ varies with the length of embedded pile

Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile

This method usually overpredicts the

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: β-method

Earth pressure coefficient may be estimated as the earth pressure at rest:

K = (1 − sin φR′ ) For Normally Consolidated Clay

K = (1 − sin φR′ ) OCR For Over Consolidated Clay

Total frictional resistance of pile:

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

IS code recommends K-value to be chosen between 1 and 2 for

Piles based on their function

Ultimate load capacity Qu = Q pu + Qsu

Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qsu Qup Qus

Since pile diameter is relatively small, third term may be dropped

Hence Pile load capacity

Soil-Pile interface friction angle δ varies from

Compute the (qc )eq as

Factor of Safety shall be used by giving due consideration to the