Chapter 7 Static Analysis of Pile Load-Transfer

7.20 An example of settlement of a large pile group

A large pile group consists of a number of individual piles, of course. However, the design of a large pile
group is not a summation of so many single piles. As indicated in Section 7.20, considering usual spacing
between piles, the shaft resistance per pile is small or non-existing. The design is simply best taking the
foundation as a pile-reinforced block of soil with a proportioned stiffness and then to calculate the
settlement of the soil below this block. Capacity is not an issue, which will be illustrated in the following.

Measurements of settlement of a large pile group piled foundation for a grain terminal in Ghent, Belgium,
are presented by Goossens and VanImpe (1991) (Fellenius 2011), as illustrated in Fig. 7.31. A series of
circular silos are placed on a 1.2 m thick concrete raft with length of 85 m and width of 34 m. The soil
profile at the site is indicated by the cone stress diagram (qc) to 26 m depth shown in Fig. 7.31A. The
soils consist of clayey sand to 15 m depth followed by a 5 m thick clay layer and a 3 m thick sand layer
underlain by clay. A very dense sand layer is found at 36 m depth.

Ghent Grain Terminal — Settlement of a large pile group

85 m
(Data from Goossens and VanImpe, 1991)

34 m
CONE STRESS, qc (MPa) 41 x 17 = 697 PILES
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
GW P
I
5 L
CLAYEY E
SAND
10
B
SAND
15
DEPTH (m)

2,500
Stiff CLAY

20
2,000
Dense SAND
LOAD (KN)

25 1,500

Stiff CLAY
1,000
30

500
Dense SAND Pile #585
35
Pile #085
0
Very dense SAND 0 2 4 6 8 10
A 40 C MOVEMENT (mm)

Fig. 7.31 Soil profile (A), pile group (B), and load-movement (C) in two static loading tests

The stress applied over the raft footprint from the fully loaded silos is about 300 kPa, which was
distributed on 41 rows and 17 columns of piles, a total of 697 piles, as shown in Fig. 7.28B. The piles
consisted of 520 mm diameter expanded base piles (Franki piles) with a 680 mm shaft diameter expanded
base placed at a depth of 13.4 m. The pile center-to-center spacing, c/c, is 2.00 m. The results of two
static loading tests, Fig. 7.24C, were used to decide on an allowable load of 1,500 kN/pile. However, the
actual load is indicated to be closer to 1,300 kN/pile. The results of the two static loading tests show that
at the load of 1,300 kN, the pile head moved a mere 3 mm.

February 2014 Page 7-51

Basics of Foundation Design, Bengt H. Fellenius

The settlement of the raft was measured at five benchmarks located along the longer side of the raft as
indicated in Fig. 7.32. The monitoring of the settlement started when the raft was cast and continued
for 10.5 years as the silo was getting full load. Benchmark BM 4 (the benchmark nearest a lightly loaded
tower building at one gable side of the raft) was only monitored for the first 1,245 days. The figure also
shows the settlements measured on seven occasions up to 3,880 days after start. The diagram indicates
that the settlements at the center and corner of the long side of the building was about 180 mm and
110 mm. The 70-mm differential settlement corresponds to a slope of about 0.2 %, or 1 in 500.

BM 1 BM 2 BM 2A BM 3 BM 4

Tower
Footprint of Silo Foundation 28 m by 28 m
84 m by 34 m

50
SETTLEMENT (mm)

770 days

1,080 days
100 1,245 days

150
1,960 days
2,637 days
3,471 days
3,808 days
200

Fig. 7.32 Soil settlement monitored at five benchmarks along the side of the raft.

The observed settlements at the middle of the raft side can be used to calibrate the soil compressibility.
One can assume that the compressibility of the upper clayey sand within the piled zone derives its
stiffness from a combined soil and concrete, which makes its compressibility very small, indeed. Then,
carrying out a settlement calculation matched to the 180-mm value for an equivalent raft placed at the pile
toe depth returns a 110-mm value for the settlement at the raft corner (BM 1), that is, a value in
approximate agreement with the measured value. The same load and stress input results in 290 mm
settlement calculated for the center of the raft.

The case history shows clearly, as also pointed out by Goossens and VanImpe (1991), that the load-
movement of the static loading test bears little relation to the settlement of the raft. Indeed, the raft
settlement is best calculated as the settlement of an equivalent raft placed at the pile toe depth.

Moreover, the bearing capacity of the individual pile is not governing the response of the raft to the
applied load. It is obvious that the pile spacing could have been widened to, say, 3.00 m from the 2.00 m
value used without resulting in any larger settlement or inadequate response of the foundation. This
change would have resulted in a halving of the number of piles and considerable savings of costs and
construction time.

February 2014 Page 7-52

Chapter 7 Static Analysis of Pile Load-Transfer

Indeed, the foundation could have been turned into a piled pad foundation (See Section 7.5) by not
connecting the piles to the raft. The densification of the upper 13.4 m zone would have been the same
and the settlement below the piles would have been unchanged. The case history demonstrates
conclusively that the design of a large pile group is not the same as the design of single piles or small pile
groups.

7.21. A few related comments

7.21..1 Pile Spacing
Determining the size of the pile cap is a part of the design. The size is decided by the pile diameter, of
course, and the number of piles in the pile group. The decisive parameter, however, is the spacing
between the piles. Pile caps are not cheap, therefore, piles are often placed close together at center-to-
center spacings of only 2.5 to 3 pile diameters. A c/c spacing of 2.5 diameters can be considered O.K.
for short toe-bearing piles, but it is too close for long shaft-bearing piles. The longer the pile, the
larger the risk for physical interference between the piles during the installation, be the piles driven or
bored. Therefore, the criterion for minimum pile spacing must be a function of the pile length. A
suggestion is given in Eq. 7.28. See also Section 7.20.

(7.28) c / c  2.5b  0.02D

where c/c = minimum center-to-center pile spacing

b = pile diameter (face to face for non circular pile section)
D = pile embedment length

The pile spacing for a group of long piles can become large and result in expensive pile caps. For
example, Eq. 7.25 requires a spacing of 1.75 m (3.5 diameter) for a group of nine 0.5 m diameter, 50 m
long piles. (For the group of 35 0.5 m diameter, 30 m long piles depicted in Figure 7.20, the equation
indicates a minimum spacing of 1.65 m, close to the 1.6 m average spacing applied to the case). If
necessary, the spacing at the pile head can be appreciably reduced, if the outer row(s) of piles are inclined
outward by a small amount, say, 1(V):10(H) or even 1(V):20(H).

7.21..2 Design of Piles for Horizontal Loading

Because foundation loads act in many different directions, depending on the load combination, piles are
rarely loaded in true axial direction only. Therefore, a more or less significant lateral component of the
total pile load always acts in combination with an axial load. The imposed lateral component is resisted
by the bending stiffness of the pile, the degree of pile fixity, and the shear resistance mobilized in the soil
surrounding the upper length of the pile.

An imposed horizontal load can also be carried by means of inclined piles, if the horizontal component of
the axial pile load is at least equal to and acting in the opposite direction to the imposed horizontal load.
Obviously, this approach has its limits as the inclination cannot be impractically large. It should,
preferably, not be greater than 4(vertical) to 1(horizontal). Also, only one load combination can provide
the optimal lateral resistance.

In general, it is not correct to resist lateral loads by means of combining the soil resistance for the piles
(inclined as well as vertical) with the lateral component of the vertical load for the inclined piles. The
reason is that resisting an imposed lateral load by means of soil shear requires the pile to move against the

February 2014 Page 7-53