Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pile Foundations
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
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
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
2
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
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
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
10
(
Q pu = q pu . Ap = cN c* + qN q* . Ap )
12
4
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Saturated Clays:
Q pu = N c* .cu . Ap = 9.cu . Ap
13
(
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
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Q pu = Ap .q′.N q*
L
N q* is a function of ratio
D
L is length of pile below G.L.
16
17
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′
18
6
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
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
Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L
(
= K .σ ′v .tan δ .S .L )
Avg effective overburden 19
20
f s = α .cu
Empirical adhesion factor
21
7
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Frictional Resistance
of Pile In Clays:
α-method
Randolph and
Randolph and Murphy (1985): Murphy (1985)
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
( )
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
f s = β .σ v′ = K tan φR′ .σ v′
Effective friction angle of remolded clay at certain depth
Qsu = ∑ f s .S .ΔL
24
8
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
25
26
For For
Driven Bored
Piles Piles
27
9
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
28
Bored Pile
Soil movement 29
30
10
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
( )
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
32
For Sand:
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
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
34
35
36
12
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
( qc1 + qc 2 )
Pressure
qp = kb′ ≤ 150. pa
2
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
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Pile Load
Capacity:
Correlation
with CPT data
in Sand by Electric Cone
Dutch Method
Mechanical Cone
Frictional cone
resistance
40
Frictional cone
resistance
41
42
14