5 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS FOR VERTICAL STATIC LOADS Piles are generally used in groups. However, the allowable or design load is always determined for a single pile. The design load may be determined either from considerations of shear failure or settlement and is the lower of the following two values: 1. Allowable load obtained by dividing the ultimate failure load with a factor of safety and 2. Load corresponding to an allowable settlement of the pile In most situations, behavior of a single pile is different from that of a pile group. Therefore, procedures will be developed to determine the allowable loads of a pile group from that of the single pile. This chapter discusses the methods used in practice to calculate ultimate loads and settlements of pile groups in (1) cohesionless soils, (2) cohesive soils, and (3) rock. These methods will be different for piles subjected to axial compression, pullout, and lateral loads. In this chapter, piles under axial compression and pullout are discussed. Piles under lateral loads are discussed in Chapter 6. As an aid to design engineers, theoretical concepts are explained first, followed by a design procedure. Numerical examples are included to illustrate the design procedure. 5.1 PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS Figure 5.1 shows a pile under vertical load. This load is shared between the bearing at its tip and in shaft friction around its perimeter. If (0... is the axial 18 Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.comPILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS 219 Que | Ground surface fy = q+ ojtand Grcular pile section Az FB) p= 0B 1G Square pile section Wy A=B? p= 4B 1B Figure 5.1 Basic concept of load support by pile foundations. compressive ultimate load applied on the top of a pile, it is shared by the pile tip (Q,) and by the frictional resistance (Q,) around the pile shaft. This can be represented by the following relationship. (Quan =Qp + Or (5.4) where (Q,)uu is the ultimate bearing capacity of pile, Q, is the end-bearing capacity, and Q, is the frictional capacity along the pile perimeter. ‘These terms can be further expanded as follows: 0, = A,[cN, + 1/2yBN, +yD,N,] (5.2) where ile end (point) area, johesion of the underlying soil, init weight of sail, Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.com220 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS No Ny and N,=nondimensional bearing capacity parameters and are de- pendent on the angle of internal friction of the soil, B= the pile width or diameter and D, = depth of pile tip below ground let Q,=p ¥ SAL (6.3) io where pis the pile perimeter, f, is the unit shaft friction over a length AL, and Lis the pile length over which shaft (skin) friction is assumed to have mobilized. These terms are further discussed in this chapter. There are a number of state-of-the-art design manuals and review publications that provide a good documentation and background on the bearing capacity of pile foundations. Kezdi (1975), Meyerhof (1976), Tomlinson (1977), Vesic (1977), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1978, 1985), Poulos and Davis, (1980), and Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual (1982) are some of the publications. Design-related information from these and other practice-oriented publications has been used to develop rational design methods for pile founda- tions under axial compressive loads. Various empirical and semiempirical methods are also available for evaluating the ultimate axial compression load capacity of piles. In general, the following methods estimate pile capacity: 1. Static analysis by utilizing soil strength 2. Empirical analysis by utilizing standard field tests (a) Standard penetration test values (b) Cone penetration values (c) Pressuremeter tests 3. Dynamic driving resistance (a) By pile driving formulas (b) By wave equation 4, Full-scale pile load tests In the following sections, these methods are described listing clearly the merits and demerits of each one in different types of soils and for different situations in the field. Soil-pile interaction is complex and depends on such factors as soil types, types of loads, and pile installation methods (see Chapter 1). On account of this behavior, pile load capacity can only be estimated roughly from soil tests and semiempirical methods. Full-scale field load tests should therefore be made as a check of these estimates. This also would provide information on potential construction problems, if any, during actual pile installation. Such tests are also useful for construction control of driven piles by correlating the results of such tests with dynamic driving analysis. This question is discussed in detail in Chapter 0 Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.comPILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS 221 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity of a Single Pile in Cohesionless Soils ‘As mentioned previously, an allowable load on a single pile may be determined by several methods. Their use for cohesionless soils is illustrated here. Static Analysis by Utilizing Soil Strength (Theoretical Capacity) When piles are installed in homogeneous cohesionless soils, the soil near the pile gets disturbed toa distance of a few pile diameters. In driven piles, this disturbance results into compaction and increased density of the surrounding soil. In drilled or bored piles the disturbance may result into some loosening of the surrounding soil. This has already been discussed in Chapter |. Since installation of piles results into changes in the surrounding soil density, the bearing capacity of piles should be estimated based on the changed soil properties. However, itis difficult to predict these changes in surrounding soil properties due to pile installation because of the complex interaction between the soil and pile during and after construction. The bearing capacity of piles is, therefore, estimated based on initial strength and deformation characteristics of the soil. The effect of changed soil conditions are reflected in the nondimensional empirical coefficient N, and mobilized shaft friction, f,, in cohesionless soils. In the following paragraphs, the end-bearing capacity and friction capacity based on initial soil strength and empirical coefficients are discussed separately. End-bearing Capacity(Q,) For cohesionless soils, c = 0 and the term (1/2yBN,) of equation (5.2)is small compared to yD,N,. Equation (5.2) for cohesionless soils can then be rewritten as: Q,= ApyDsNy (S.4a) or 0,= A,0.N, (8.4b) where is the effective overburden pressure at the pile tip. Large-scale experiments and field observations show that both the point resistance and skin friction increase up to a certain critical depth, D.. Beyond this depth, these values practically remain constant. This observation on critical depth was reported by Meyerhof (1976). He analyzed 33 pile load test data reported by various investigators. The tested piles were driven in sand and their depth to pile width ratio (D ,/B) varied from 2 to 40. Similar conclusions can be drawn from 16 load test data presented by Coyle and Castello (1981) where the D,/B ratio varied from 11 to 57 for driven piles in sand. For most design purposes, this critical depth may be taken as 20 times the pile width or diameter (B) although it may range between 10 to 30 times the pile diameter (Meyerhof, 1976; Coyle and Castello, 1981). The semiempirical bearing capacity factor N, depends on (1) the D/B ratio, (2) the angle of internal friction ¢ of the bearing stratum, and (3) the pile installation method. Furthermore, N, value may also change according to the theory and Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.com222 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS TABLE 5.1 Bearing Capacity Factors for Piles in Cohesionless Soils (Coyle and Castello, 1981) Approximate N, Values for Various Friction Angles, ¢, in Degrees Theories* 25 30 35 4 45 De Beer (1945) 59 1553801150 4000 Meyerhof (1953) Driven piles 38 89 2558804000 Caquot-Kerisel (1956) 26 331403501050 Brinch Hansen (1961) 2B 46° S350 1650 Skempton, Yassin, and Gibson (1953) 46 66 110-220 570 Brinch Hansen (1951) 32 5497190400 Berezantsev (1961) 16 3 75 186 = Vesic (1963) 1S 28 $8130 35 Vesic (1972): 1, = 60° 20 2 40 59 85 1, = 200° 29 46 mm 10 165 Terzaghi (1943) General shear 27s 22see ae Ol3ee 1733 Localized shear 56 83126-20835. *Various references are cited by Vesic (1972, 1977). Rigidity factor. TABLE 5.2 Values for N, and * cs 20 25 28 «030323436 8B 24S 8 12 2 2 35 45 60 80 120 160 230 ‘(riven Ny 4 5 8 12 7 22 30 40 60 80 115 (drilled) "These values have been obtained from the curves provided by Meyerhof (1976). corresponding failure surfaces assumed in the basic theoretical model. Some of these assumed failure surfaces have been presented in Chapter 1 (Figure 1.7). Table 5.1 summarizes the range of N, values according to the different investigators. A review of this table indicates that the true failure mechanism of a pile is not yet well understood. However, the analysis of the pile load test data presented by Meyerhof (1976) and Coyle and Castello (1981) indicate that, for design purposes, the N, values presented in Table 5.2 can be used. These values appear to be primarily affected by the ¢ values and the method of pile installation. Friction Capacity (Q,) In equation (5.3), the unit shaft friction f, needs to be determined to calculate Q,. As shown in Figure 5.1, and from basic soil Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.comPILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS — 223 mechanics principles, f, can be written as et o,tand (5.5a) where c, is the unit adhesion, 6 is the angle of friction between soil and pile, and oj, is the normal effective stress along the pile. For cohesionless soils c, = 0, then Sf,=o,tand (5.5b) Also, if K, = o,/0;,, where K, is an earth pressure coefficient, 0, is the effective vertical pressure on an element at a depth / along the pile, and a4, is the normal effective stress along the pile at a depth J, then So= Kycutand (8.50) Equation (5.3) may then be rewritten as: tee Q,=pK,tand Y ot,AL (5.6) io For most design purposes, 6 = 2/39. Meyerhof (1976) also analyzed the load test data to estimate K, values. (See Table 1.1 also.) The results of the analysis show that the value of K, and, hence the skin friction, increases with the volume of displaced soil. Therefore, small displace- ment piles such as H piles and nondisplacement piles such as bored piles will have lower K, values than large displacement piles (Meyerhof, 1976). Table 5.3 lists values for K, for design purposes. As discussed, it should be recognized that, like end bearing, the shaft (skin) friction also increases up to the critical depth (= 20B) beyond which it can be assumed constant. The final expression for ultimate load capacity, (Q,)yy, of a pile then becomes (Q.) bab =0,+0,=4,0,N,+pK,tand )) o,AL (5.7) 0 TABLE 5.3 Values for K, for Various Pile Types in K, 05 Driven H pile 0.5-1.0 Driven displacement pile 10-20 "These values are based on the data presented by Meyerhof (1976). ‘Similar values have been recommended in Foundations and Earth Structures Design Mannual 7.2 (1982) Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.com224 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS where A, = pile tip area o,, = effective overburden pressure at the pile tip co’, = effective vertical stress at a point along the pile length vile perimeter K, = earth pressure coefficient, determined from Table 5.3 N, = bearing capacity factor, determined from Table 5.2 6 Example 5.1 A closed-ended 12-in. (300 mm) diameter steel pipe pile is driven into sand to 30-ft (9 m), depth. The water table is at ground surface and sand has ¢ = 36° and unit weight (y) is 1251b/ft? (19.8kN/m°). Estimate the pipe pile’s allowable load. SOLUTION For circular pile, A, = 1/4(1)? = 0.785ft, p= n(1) = 3.14. N,=60 from Table 5.2 1.0 from Table 5.3 6 = 2/36 = 2/3 x 36° = 24° 1 eu = (7ux208/2\ 208) + u.208)(L— 208) This assumes that o,, increases with depth up to 20B. Below this depth, 0, remains constant. Where yyy, = 125 — 62.5 = 62.5 1b/ft?, B= 1 ft, L =30ft. Then: aL t, ZY oiyL = (62.5 x 10 x 1)(20 x 1) + (62.5 x 20 x 1)(30— 20 x 1)Ib 13 = 12,500 + 12,00 = 25 kips (111.25 kN) Then, from equation (5.7): (Qdax =O, + Oy (Qe)au = 0.785 (44420B)(60) + 3.14 x 1 x tan24 x 25 kips = 58.88 + 34.95 = 93.83 kips where Q,=5888 and Q,=3495 (oan = Qaar/FS = 93.83/3 = 31 kips (137.95KN), using a factor of safety, FS, equal to 3 Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.comPILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS 225 Empirical Analysis by Utilizing Standard Field Tests The three empirical methods that can be used to estimate bearing capacity of piles based on field soil tests are based on (1) standard penetration tests, (2) static cone penetrometer (Dutch cone with friction sleeve), and (3) pressuremeter tests. Standard Penetration Tests This method should only be considered as a guide to estimate bearing capacity of pile foundation in cohesionless soils. 1, End-bearing Capacity (Q,). According to Meyerhof (1976), the ultimate end (point or tip) resistance Q, in tons of driven piles can be estimated by the following relationships: For sand: Qt =(0.4N/B)D,A, <4NA, (5.8) For cohesionless or nonplastic silt: o* where N is the average corrected Standard Penetration Test value near the pile tip and can be obtained from the following relationship: (0.4N/B)D,A, <3NA, (59) N=C,N (5.10) where Cy is obtained from equation (4.2) and N is the average of the observed Standard Penetration Test value near the pile tip. This correction is made for the overburden pressure and has been further discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1). D, is the depth of pile into granular stratum, which is the pile length (L) in homogeneous cohesionless soils. B is the pile width or diameter, and A, is the pile tip area in square feet. 2. Friction Capacity on Perimeter Surface (Q). The friction capacity of a pile can be estimated by using the following relationship: Q, =(J,)(perimeter)(embedment length) (5.41) where f, is the ultimate unit shaft friction in tons per square fect. For driven piles, this value is given by the following relationship (Meyerhof, 1976, 1983): SP=N/50< 1st (5.12) where N is average corrected Standard Penetration Test value. *Q, value is in tons. This value should be multiplied by a conversion factor of 89 to obtain Q, in KN. *, value is in tons/ft?. This value should be multiplied by a conversion factor of 95.8 to obtain f, in EN/m? Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.com226 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS The ultimate bearing capacity of a driven pile in cohesionless soil will then be the summation of Q, and Q, from equations (5.8) and (5.12). The allowable bearing capacity can then be obtained by applying a factor of safety of 3. For drilled piles, Q, is one-third of the values given by equations (5.8) and (5.9) and Q, is one-half the values given by equation (5.12). These reductions reflect soil density reductions in the surrounding soil due to drilling. Example 5.2 Using data of Example 5.1 find allowable bearing capacity based on standard penetration data as given in Fig. 5.2. SOLUTION (@) Average N value near pile tip is 12 (= (10 + 12 + 14)/3) (see Figure 5.2) (b) Point Bearing (Q,) @, near pile tip = (125 — 62.5) 30Ib/ft? = 1875 b/it? = 0.938 tsf Stee! pipe pile cr , distance i Eee _ LT Sip pan ‘sand’. Loose. sand 120 ft oe “> Medium = 30" 30! 2 =35 > N=14 2-40 N=14 z, depth Figure 5.2 Pile dimensions and soil properties with depth (for Example 5.2). Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.comPILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS. 227 The correction for depth in N values is applied by using equation (4.2) as follows: Cy =0.77 logo (20/0.938) = 1.02 Therefore, N = CyN. Then N = 1.02 x 12~12 For driven piles from equation (5.8): Q, = (0.4N/B)D,A, <4NA, where 0.4ND;Ay/B = 0.4 x 12 x 30 x 0.785/1 = 113 tons 4NA, =4 x 12 x 0.785 = 37.7 tons The lower of these two values will be Q, = 37.7 tons (©) Shaft Friction (Q,) Average NV value along pile shalt = (4 + 5 +6 +8 + 10/5 = 6.8. Use an effective overburden pressure 0, for average depth of L/2 = 30/2{t. Then o, will be half the above value (ie., 0, = 0.938/2 = 0.469 tsf). Then Cy = 0.77 logy o (20/0.469) = 1.25. Thus, N = 68 x 1.25=85. f= N/50 = 8.5/50 = 0.17 tsf (which is less than 1 tsf (equation (5.12)) Q,=f,x px L=017x nx 1 x 30= 16 tons (d) Allowable Bearing Capacity (Q,1) (Quan = Op + Qy = 37.7 + 16 = 53.7 tons (Qu)au = (Qe)an/FS = 53.7/3 = 17.9 tons = 35.8 say 35 kips (1S6kN) Static Cone Penetration Values Ultimate bearing capacity can also be estimated by using static cone penetration values as follows: 1. End bearing (Q,) The static cone penetrometer is a model pile, The penetration resistance of a static cone, when pushed into a homogeneous cohesionless soil, can be correlated with a similarly installed full-sized pile. According to Meyerhof (1976), the ultimate tip resistance of driven piles, Q,, can also be obtained from the static cone resistance (g,) value and is given by the following relationship. Q,= Apa (5.13) where A, is the pile tip area and q, is the cone penetration resistance. Experience indicates that equation (5.13) is only applicable when pile embedment into the granular soil (i., pile length) is at least 10 times the pile width or diameter (Meyerhof, 1976; Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual 7.2, 1982), For shallower depths, this relationship can not be used, De Ruiter and Beringen (1979) provide a modified version of equation (5.13) to estimate ultimate tip Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons _ Retrieved from: www.knovel.com