CE 632 CE-632

Foundation Analysis and Design

Pile Foundations
1

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 cast in situ 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 N D t ti I t it T ti of Pil (NDT) Non-Destructive Integrity Testing f Piles Guidelines

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

When is it needed
Top layers of soil are highly compressible for it to support structural loads through shallow foundations foundations. Rock level is shallow enough for end bearing pile foundations provide a more economical design design. Lateral forces are relatively prominent. In I presence of expansive and collapsible soils at th site. f i d ll ibl il t the 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.
3

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Types of Piles

Steel Piles
Pipe piles Rolled steel H-section piles H section

Concrete Piles
Pre-cast Piles Cast in situ Cast-in-situ Piles Bored-in-situ piles

Timber Piles Composite Pil C it Piles

4

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Steel Piles: Facts

Usual length: 15 m 60 m Usual Load: 300 kN 1200 kN Advantage: g
Relatively less hassle during installation and easy to achieve cutoff level. High d i i f Hi h driving force may be used for fast installation b d f f t i t ll ti Good to penetrate hard strata Load carrying capacity is high

Disadvantage:
Relatively expensive Noise pollution during installation Corrosion Bend in piles while driving
5

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Concrete Piles: Facts

Pre-cast Piles:
Usual l U l length: 10 m 4 m h 45 Usual Load: 7500 kN 8500 kN

Cast-in-situ Piles:
Usual length: 5 m 15 m Usual Load: 200 kN 500 kN

Advantage:
Relatively cheap It can be easily combined with concrete superstructure Corrosion resistant It can bear hard driving

Disadvantage:
Difficult to transport p Difficult to achieve desired cutoff
6

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Types of Piles Based on Their Function and Effect of Installation

Piles based on th i f Pil b d their function ti

End Bearing Piles Friction Piles F i ti Pil Compaction Piles Anchor Piles Uplift Piles

Effect of Installation
Displacement Pil Di l t Piles Non-displacement Piles
7

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Displacement Piles
In loose cohesionless soils
Densifies the soil upto a distance of 3.5 times the pile diameter p p (3.5D) which increases the soils resistance to shearing The friction angle varies from the pile surface to the limit of compacted soil

In dense cohesionless soils

The dilatancy effect decreases the friction angle within the zone of p pile (3.5D approx.). pp ) influence of displacement p ( Displacement piles are not effective in dense sands due to above reason.

In cohesive soils
Soil is remolded near the displacement piles (2.0 D approx.) leading to a decreased value of shearing resistance. Pore pressure Pore-pressure is generated during installation causing lower effective stress and consequently lower shearing resistance. Excess pore-pressure dissipates over the time and soil regains its g strength.

Example: Driven concrete piles, Timber or Steel piles

8

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

NonNon-displacement Piles
Due to no displacement during installation, there is no heave in the ground. g Cast in-situ piles may be cased or uncased (by removing casing as concreting progresses). They may be provided with reinforcement if economical with th i reduced di i f t i l ith their d d diameter. t 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 y or during boring itself. This may lead to loss of its shear strength. Concreting under water may b challenging and may resulting C ti d t be h ll i d lti in waisting or necking of concrete in squeezing ground. Example: Bored cast in-situ or pre-cast piles
9

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

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 p end. At certain load the soil at the p end fails, pp y pile pile usually in punching shear, which is defined as the ultimate load capacity of pile.

10

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

The frictional resistance per unit area at any depth Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile Ultimate point load

Qz qsz = S .z
S = perimeter of pile

Qsu

Q pu = q pu . Ap
q pu = bearing capacity of soil Ap = bearing area of pile

z Qs

Ultimate load capacity in compression Ultimate load capacity in tension

Qu = Q pu + Qsu

Qu = Qsu

Qup p

Qus

Qu

11

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: General Bearing p y g 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 + qN q + 0.5 DN*

Since pile diameter is relatively small, third term may be dropped out
* q pu = cN c* + qN q

Hence Pile load capacity

* Q pu = q pu . Ap = cN c* + qN q . Ap

12

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Meyerhofs ( p y y (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 = 0.5Pa N q tan

Pa = Atmospheric p p pressure

(L/D)cr value typically ranges from 15D for loose to medium sand to 20D for dense sands. Correlation of limiting point resistance with SPT value

qul = 0.4 ( N )

L 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

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Vesics (1977) Method p y ( )

Pile point bearing capacity based on the theory of expansion of cavities

* Q pu = Ap .qup = Ap . c.N c* + o N
Mean effective normal stress at pile end
* N =

1 + 2Ko = o 3

f ( I rr )

Ir I rr = 1 + Ir

avg vol strain at pile end Reduced rigidity index of soil

I r = rigidity index =
* Nc =

Gs Es = ( c + q tan ) 2 (1 + s )( c + q tan )

4 ln I rr + 1) + + 1 ( 3 2
Ir 75-150 50-75 150-250 Baldi t l (1981) B ldi et al. (1981): For mechanical cone resistance For electric cone resistance

Type of soil Sand Silt Clay

Ir =

3 q f qc

Ir =

1.7 17 q f qc

14

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

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

* Q pu = Ap c.N c* + q.N q

N = tan + 1 + tan
* q 2

)(
2

e 2 tan

60o 90o
Clay Sand
* * N c = N q 1 cot

15

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Coyle and Costellos (1981) Method for Granular Soils
* Q pu = Ap .q.N q

L ratio N is a function of D L is length of pile below G.L.

* q

16

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load Capacity of Pile resting on Rock y g

Goodman (1980):

Q pu = Ap .qu ( N + 1)
N = tan 2 ( 45 + 2 )
qu = unconfined compression strength of rock

= effective friction angle of rock

To consider the influence of distributed fractures in rock which are not reflected b the compression tests on small hi h fl d by h i ll samples, the compression strength for design is taken as

( qu )design =

( qu )lab
5

17

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

The frictional resistance of pile may be computed as

Qsu = S .L. f sz
The unit frictional resistance increases with the depth and reaches its maximum at the depth of approximately 15D to 20D, as shown in the adjacent figure.

f sz = K . v .tan f sL
Soil-Pile interface f i ti angle varies f S il Pil i t f friction l i from 0.5' to 0.8.Earth pressure coefficient depends on both soil type and pile installation.

K v

18

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

Bhushan (1982) suggested that the ( ) gg value of K and K.tan for large displacement piles can be computed as
Coyle and Castello C t ll (1981)

K = 0.50 + 0.008Dr K .tan = 0.18 + 0.0065Dr t 0 18 0 0065

Coyle and Castello (1981) proposed that ultimate skin frictional resistance of pile can be computed as

Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L

= K . v .tan .S .L tan
Avg effective overburden
19

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

Zeitlen and Paikowski (1982) suggested that limiting fs is automatically accounted for by the decrease in with effective confining pressure which may be used to compute K and .

Failure Envelope

= o 5.5log

v o

Effective vertical stress at the depth of interest Effective confining stress during triaxial test g g

Friction angle obtained through triaxial testing at some confining pressure o.

Typical values of K from a number of pile tests:

20

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: -method

Proposed by Tomlinson (1971):

f s = .cu
Empirical adhesion factor

21

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: -method

Randolph and Murphy (1985):

Randolph and Murphy (1985)

Qsu = .cu .S .L
Sladen (1992):

f s = .cu = h .tan
and

h = K o , NC v
correction factor for soil disturbance on sides

With the above relationships, can be determined as a function of effective overburden and undrained shear strength t th n

= C1. v cu

C1 and n are constants depending on soil properties and type of pile installation

22

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: -method

Proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972):

( f s )av = ( v + 2cu )

Mean undrained shear strength M d i d h t th varies with the length of embedded pile

Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile

Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L

Value of 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

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: -method

In saturated clays displacement piles induce excess pore pressure near p pile surface during installation which eventually dissipates within a month g y p 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 = . v = K tan R . 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 R )

For Normally Consolidated Clay For Over Consolidated Clay

K = (1 sin R ) OCR
Total frictional resistance of pile:

Qsu = f s .S .L

24

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911

Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

25

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 S 9

Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils

26

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

For Driven Piles

For Bored Piles

27

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 S 9

Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils

28

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 S 9

Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils

It seems logical that K value shall be close to the coefficient of earth p pressure at rest Ko as described in earlier methods. However, type of , yp installation has a major impact on how the earth pressure may vary from Ko, as shown in the figure below.

Driv Circu Pile ven ular

Driven Con nical Pile e

Soil movement

Bored Pile P

29

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911

Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

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 pile. ratio between K and Ko are listed below.

30

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911

Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils

For v cu 1 = 0.5 v cu For v cu < 1 = 0.5 v cu

0.5

, but > 1 /

0.25

, but < 0.5 and > 1 / /

31

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911

Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils

32

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Meyerhofs Formula for Driven Piles based on SPT value y For Sand:
For L/D > 10

A limiting value of 1000 t/m2 for point bearing and 6 t/m2 is suggested

For Non-plastic silt and fine sand: Non-

For Clays:

33

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Non-Cohesive NonSoils Based on CPT data

The ultimate point bearing capacity:

34

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Non-Cohesive NonSoils Based on CPT data

The ultimate skin friction resistance:

Correlation of SPT and CPT:

35

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Other Correlations with p y SPT value

36

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load Capacity of Pile: Correlation with CPT data by LCPC Method q pu = ( qc )eq .kb
Get the average qc value for f a zone 1.5D above to 1 D b 1.5D below the pile tip. Eliminate the qc values that are higher than 1.3(qc)avg or lower than 0.7(q 0 7(qc)avg. Compute the (qc )eq as g an average of the remaining qc values. Equivalent avg avg. cone resistance D Empirical bearing capacity factor

Briaud and Miran (1991):

kb = 0.6 for clay and silt

kb = 0.375 for sand and gravel
37

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

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 as the minimum value of above (qc)avg. Average the value of qc for a zone p p, get of 8D above the pile tip, and g qc2. Ignore sharp peaks during averaging. Calculate D

qp

( qc1 + qc 2 ) k 150. p =
2
b

Atmospheric p Pressure
a

kb = 1.0 for OCR = 1 kb = 0.67 for OCR = 2 to 4

38

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT by Dutch Method

q p = R1 R2

( qc1 + qc 2 ) k 150. p
2
b

R1 = Reduction factor as function of cu R2 = 1 f electrical cone penetrometer for l t i l t t R2 = 0.6 for mechanicsl cone penetrometer

39

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in Sand by Dutch Method

Electric Cone

Mechanical Cone
Frictional cone resistance
40

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in Clays by Dutch Method

Frictional cone resistance

41

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Allowable Pile Capacity

Factor of Safety shall be used by giving due consideration to the following points
Reliability of soil parameters used for calculation Mode of transfer of load to soil Importance of structure Allowable total and differential settlement tolerated by structure

Factor of Safety as per IS 2911:

42