Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design of Axially Loaded Compression
Design of Axially Loaded Compression
The Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design is based on Limit State Design, tackling the
uncertainties as much as possible at their source through:
selection of characteristic values of variables (loads, soil properties, pile resistance, );
partial factors applied on the characteristic values;
model factors to account explicitly for uncertainties of the calculation rule if necessary.
Eurocode 7 will propose three design approaches. The selection of one of them will be by
National Determination. For pile design, the approaches are:
approach 1 is a material factoring approach at load side and a resistance factoring
approach at resistance side. The structural and geotechnical design are checked for both
of two separate sets of partial factors.
approach 2 is a load and resistance factoring approach and is in several aspects close to
a deterministic approach. The design is checked for one set of partial factors.
approach 3 is a material factoring approach, at load as well as at resistance side. The
design is checked for one set of factors.
The aim of this paper is to introduce to the design of pile foundations based on pile load tests
and on ground test results (semi-empirical and analytical methods) in the frame-work of the
three design approaches.
Detailed attention is devoted to:
the selection of the characteristic value of the pile resistance, accounting for spatial
variability and stiffness of the structure;
the reliability of the prediction of the pile resistance using analytical or semi-empirical
methods which may be accounted for through a model factor.
The results of a large test campaign on screw piles in OC Clay and a calculation example
illustrate the proposed procedure when calculation rules using CPT results are used.
Eurocode
1.0
1.5
Ground parameters
c
cu
Tan
1.25
1.25
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
Piles
Resistance
1.3-1.6
( tan &
c:1.0)
1.0
Approach 2
The design shall be checked against failure in the soil
and in the structure for one sets of partial factors. The
partial factors are applied as load and resistance factors:
the design value of the actions is obtained by multiplying
their effects by the load factors and the design value of
the resistance offered by the soil is obtained by applying
the partial factors to the resistance assessed using
characteristic values for the shear strength of the soil.
Approach 2 is thus fully a load and resistance factoring
approach. Table 2 indicates typical values as proposed
in prEN 1997-1:2001(E). They may be modified by
national determination.
Table 2: Partial factors in approach 2 according to
Annex A of prEN 1997-1: 2001(E)
Effect of actions
permanent
permanent
unfavourable
unfavourable
1.35
1.00
Ground parameters
variabel tan
c
cu
1.50
1.00
1.00
Resistance
1.00
Factor >1.0
Approach 3
The design shall be checked against failure in the soil
and in the structure for one sets of partial factors. The
effects of loads coming from the structure are multiplied
by the load factors 1.35 and 1.50 to assess their design
values. Design values of actions arising from the soil or
transferred trough it are assessed using design values of
soil strength parameters. Design values of the soil
resistance are obtained by applying the partial factors on
the shear strength parameters. This approach is fully a
material factoring approach. Table 3 indicates typical
values as proposed in Annex A of prEN 1997-1:
2001(E). They may be modified by national
determination.
Table 3: Partial factors in approach 3 according to
Annex A of prEN 1997-1: 2001(E)
Actions or action effects
Action from
The structure
From or through
the ground
permanent permanent
unfavourable favourable
1.35
1.00
1.0
1.00
Ground
parameters
variable tan
1.50
1.30
Resistance
cu
1.0
1.25 1.25 1.4 (tan ,c:1.25 ;
cu : 1.40)
Base level
Reliability of the
predicted bearing
capacity
partial factor
-
Load factors F Q
Partial factors m on soil
shear strength parameters
(when relevant)
Small deviations to be
included in calculation rule
through cal
Small
and
unexpected
deviations through b and s
Large deviations: a
Characteristic value of pile
resistance
depending
amongst other of the number
of tests (number of static
tests, in situ tested profiles,
dynamic tests) (through
factor)
Calibration factor cal
Calibration of the results
Larger deviations
than expected in
previous steps
- Effect of installation is
different than expected
- Deviations of calculation
model and of real value of
characteristic
value
of
bearing
capacity
from
calculated value
Partial factor on
resistance and on
resistance b, s or t
base
shaft
1
1.4
2
1.3
3
1.2
4
1.1
5
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.05
1.0
1.0
ULTIMATE
COMPRESSIVE
FROM
GROUND
TEST
APPROACHES 1 AND 2
RESISTANCE
RESULTS,
* 1
V.tn5%1
1
+ 1
n
Where:
V: coefficient of variation of the ratio Rc,measured /
Rcpredicted
n: number of tests considered to calibrate the
calculation rule
t n5%1 : student factor for 5% fractile, n-1 degrees of
freedom
The value of the calibration factor is:
cal = 1/ (Rc,measured / Rc,predicted)5%
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.800.85
0.850.90
0.950.95
0.951.001.051.00
1.05
1.10
Rc;measured / Rc;predicted
1.101.15
1.151.20
1.201.25
10
20
1.40
1.40
1.35
1.27
1.33
1.23
1.31
1.20
1.29
1.15
1.27
1.12
1.25
1.08
1.20
1.00
Tables;
charts
"characteristic
value" of
parameter
Measured
soil
parameter
Shear strength
parameters ,
c;cu
Characteristic
value k, ck; cu;k
Variability, # of tests
Stiffness of structure
Calculation
rule
(
l ti l)
Calibrated value
of the
characteristic
pile resistance
Reliability of
prediction; model
f t
Design value
Rc,d = Rb,k/b +
Rs,k/s
Uncertainties:
partial factors
b d
Approach 1,
b
s
1.3
1.30
1.3
1.60
1.3
1.45
set 2
t
1.30
1.45
1.35
Appr. 1, set 1
b
s
t
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.15
1.10
1.0
1.10
Approach 2
b =s=t
1.10
1.10
1.10
ULTIMATE
COMPRESSIVE
RESISTANCE
FROM GROUND TEST RESULTS, APPROACH 3
Approach 3 is fully in a material factoring approach: the
characteristic values of the strength parameters are
divided by the material factor tan c or cu before
entering the calculation rule. This provides design values
of the base and shaft resistance. The figure 5 illustrates
different steps of the procedure.
Calculation rule
(analytical)
N tested profiles
giving values of Step 1
shear strength
parameters
Design values of
Design value Rcd =
Characteristic
shear strength Step 3
Rb (d, cd; cud)/cal +
value k, ck; Step 2
parameters d, cd
cu;k
Rs(d,cd;cud)/cal
or cu;d
Variability, # of tests
Stiffness of structure
Uncertainties:
partial factors
tan c or cu
Reliability of
prediction;
model factor
Db
Ds
qci
[kN]
[kN]
Rc;predicted
Rc;
Ratio
= b.b.qb.Ab measured
+ piqciHi
[m]
[m]
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
(measured/
397.3
653
786
1.204
938.6
1261
1216
0.964
predicted)
492.5
705
743
1.054
1228
1258
1.024
1611
1722
1.069
635.5
971
1134
1.168
550.5
771
719
0.933
1210
1263
1.044
1686
1637
0.971
1069
917
0.858
Mean
1.0289
Std.
0.104
718.6
deviation
10
2000
1800
1600
measured
1400
Precast pile
1200
Screw pile
1000
Screw pile, steel
shaft
Screw pile, St.
Katelijne Waver
Measurement =
prediction
Calibration
800
600
400
200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
800
1000
600
400
200
predicted
are likely to occur when using the partial factors cal, pile,
, and F.
Reference to load-settlement curves of pile load tests is
needed. The figure 7 (Bauduin, 2001) illustrates a
possible procedure on the base of the pile load test
results obtained in Sint Katelijne Waver for piles in OC
clay: the figure shows the relative settlement as a
function of the mobilised resistance Rmobilised/Rultimate
(thus considering the values b = 0.8 and = 0.033; cal
= 1.0). The range of the equivalent deterministic safety
factors using the load and the resistance factors of
approaches 1 and 2 is also indicated. The relative
settlement is about 0.3% to 0.7% of the largest pile base
diameter Db. Such relative settlements are in line with
the SLS requirements often used in Belgium (for a
summary, see e.g. Holeyman et al. 1997).
0.8
0.7
Rmobilised/Rultimate (-)
0.6
seq = 1.8
0.5
seq = 2.2
0.4
October
part 1:
towards
CEN/TC
0.3
0.2
Screw piles
0.1
Precast concrete
piles
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
s0/Db (%)
REFERENCES
ENV 1997-1, 1994. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design,
part 1: General rules. CEN/TC 250/SC7. Bruxelles:
Comit Europen de Normalisation.
BAUDUIN, C., 2001. Design procedure according to
Eurocode 7 and analysis of the test results. Proceedings
of the symposium Screw Piles : Installation and design
in stiff clay. Rotterdam, Balkema pp. 275-303.
CALLE, E., 1987. Toepassing van statistiek en
stochastiek
in
de
grondmechanica,
Stichting
postdoctoraal onderwijs in de civiele techniek. Cursus
nieuwe ontwikkelingen in de geotechniek.
DE BEER, E., 1971-1972. Mthodes de dduction de la
capacit portante d'un pieu partir des rsultants des
essais de pntration. Annales des Travaux Publics de
Belgique, No 4 (p. 191-268), 5 (p. 321-353) & 6 (p. 351405), Brussels.
DE COCK, F., LEGRAND C., 1997 (editors). Design of
axially loaded piles. European Practice. Rotterdam,
Balkema.
FRANK, R., 1997. Some comparisons of safety for
axially loaded piles. In De Cock & Legrand, (eds),
qb
b. b.Abqb
(MPa)
(kN)
1.8
160
2.9
263
2.3
211
2.4
216
Rc
. pi.hI . qc
(kN)
(kN)
828
988 = 160 + 828
925
1188 = 263 + 925
887
1098 = 211 + 887
945
1161 = 216 + 945
Rc / cal
(kN)
823 = 133+ 690
990 = 219 + 771
915 = 176 + 739
968 = 180 + 788
1.31
1.23
min 958 . 1.1; 915 1.1 = 792 kN: the mean value
1.33
1.23
governs.
The definite choice of the first or the subdivision of the
site to select the characteristic value(s) is left to the
engineers judgement. A geotechnical analysis of the
site, including results of borings or other tests eventually
performed,
previous
experience,
considerations
regarding the structure supported by the piles may play
a role in this choice. A second test in area 1 is strongly
recommended: if it confirms the lower resistance in that
area, the design is well balanced; if it yields more
favourable results, this may lead to more economic
design (lower value in area 1).
Step 3: design value of the pile compressive
resistance
Assume that the design is continued considering two
areas. The design value of the pile compressive
resistance in each of them is:
- Area 1; Set 2:
1.4
Rck = 647 kN 4 =
from the minimum
1.1
Rd = Rbd + Rsd =
133
690
. 1 .1 +
1.1 = 498 kN
1 .3 1 .4
1 .3 . 1 .4
Rck = 792 kN 3 =
from the mean
1 .1
value
219 + 176 + 180 1
1 .1
Rbd =
.
.
= 122 kN
3
1.3 1.33
771 + 739 + 788 1
1 .1
Rsd =
.
.
= 487 kN
3
1.3 1.33
Rd = 609 kN
The design value of the load requires 4940 / 609 =
8.1, take 8 piles.
- The design values of the resistance for Set 1 are
easily found as (b = s = 1):
Area 1: 647 kN
Area 2: 792 kN
The foundation as determined for Set 1 (10 piles in area
1; 8 piles in area 2) fulfils the requirement of Set 1.
Note: the equivalent safety factor is:
Area 1: 988 / (4700 / 10) = 2.10
Area 2: compared to the mean resistance:
1149 / (4700 / 8) = 1.96
compared to the lowest resistance:
1098 / (4700 / 8) = 1.87
WORKED EXAMPLE FOR APPROACH 2
The design value of the load is: 3900 * 1.35 + 800 * 1.5
= 6450 kN
Step 1: calculation of the compressive resistance at
each of the CPT locations
The pile compressive resistance at each test location is
established on the same way as in previous. The same
value of the model factor cal is applied, although this
value may need closer consideration.
Step 2 : selection of the characteristic value of the
compressive resistance
The characteristic value of the pile resistance is the
same as in approach 1.
Step 3: design value of the pile compressive
resistance
As b = s = 1.10, the design value of the pile resistance
is readily found as
- Area 1:
Rc,d = Rc,k / 1.1 = 647/1.1 = 588 kN
The design value of the load requires 6450 / 588 = 11
piles.
- Area 2:
Rc,d = Rc,k / 1.1 = 795/1.1= 720
The design value of the load requires 6450 / 720 = 9
piles.
Note: the equivalent safety factor is:
Area 1: 988 / (4700 / 11) = 2.31
Area 2: compared to the mean resistance:
1149 / (4700 / 9) = 1.96
compared to the lowest resistance:
1098 / (4700 / 9) = 2.10