You are on page 1of 49

Guide on Determination of Characteristic Value and

CP4 vs EC7 in Bored Pile Design

Dr T G Ng
Golder Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY
GeoSS OF SINGAPORE (GeoSS)
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
1. Introduction

2. Geotechnical parameters and characteristic


values in EC7

3. CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile


Site Investigation
Structural Design
Geotechnical Design
Load Test

4. Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Introduction: Distinction between
Principles and Application Rules
C1.4(1) Distinction is made between Principles and
Application Rules, depending on the character of
the individual clauses
C1.4(2) The Principles comprises:
General statements and definitions for which there is
no alternative
Requirements and analytical models for which no
alternative is permitted unless specifically stated
C1.4(3) The Principles are preceded by the Letter P
Introduction: Distinction between
Principles and Application Rules
C1.4(4) The Application Rules are examples of
generally recognised rules, which follow the
Principles and satisfy their requirements.
C1.4(5) It is permissible to use alternatives to the
Application Rules given in this standard, provided
it is shown that the alternative rules accord with
relevant Principles and are at least equivalent
with regard to the structural safety, serviceability
and durability, which would be expected when
using the Eurocodes.
Distinction between Principles and
Application Rules (SS EN 1997-1: 2010)
Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design
Designers are responsible to ensure structural safety,
serviceability and durability of the designs.
Designers are responsible for the planning of the
geotechnical investigation
Designers are accountable for their decisions, i.e.
specification of field and laboratory tests,
determination geotechnical design parameters and
characteristic values etc.
2 briefing/dialogue sessions were held in Nov 2014 to
raise awareness to the designers on key aspects on
geotechnical investigations and recommendations on
how to determinate characteristic values
GeoSS EC7 Work Group

GeoSS Site Investigation Task Force


Chairman: Seh Chong Peng
Members: Poh Chee Kuan, Kiefer Chiam, Kyaw Kyaw Zin, Dr M. Karthieyan, Dr Cai
Jun Gang, Akira Wada, Arturo Taclob, Suresh Kumar, Gao JianSheng,
Kevin Quan, Khin Latt, Kyi Yu, Cheong Kok Leong, James Tsu, Aung
Moe, Tan Yong Beng, Ariff
DETERMINATION OF
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS AND
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
From ground
investigations
and lab tests
Derived values
Characteristic
values
Design
values
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
From ground
SPT N values
investigations
and lab tests
Derived values

cu=5N
Characteristic
values
Design
values
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
From ground
SPT N values
investigations
and lab tests
Derived values

cu=5N
Characteristic

How to obtain
values

characteristic
values?
Design
values
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE

EN 1997-1 C2.4.5.2(2)P defines the characteristic value as being


selected as cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence
of the limit state
Each word and phrase in this clause is important:
Selected emphasizes the importance of engineering
judgement
Cautious estimate some conservatism is required
Limit state the selected value must relate to the limit state
(failure mechanism)
Applicable geotechnical parameters from GeoSS EC7 Guide:
Applicable Geotechnical Parameters
tan j Effective angle of shearing resistance
c Effective cohesion value
cu Undrained shear strength
N SPT N values
qc CPT qc values
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE

SS EN1997-1 Clause 2.4.5.2(4)P states, the selection of


characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall take
account of the following:
geological and other background information, such as data
from previous projects;
the variability of the measured property values and other
relevant information, e.g. from existing knowledge;
the extent of the field and laboratory investigation;
the type and number of samples;
the extent of the zone of ground governing the behaviour of
the geotechnical structure at the limit state being considered;
the ability of the geotechnical structure to transfer loads
from weak to strong zones in the ground.
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE

SS EN1997-1 Clause 2.4.5.2(10) suggested statistical methods to


determine characteristic ground values. When applying
statistical methods, the designer should consider the following:
adequacy and quality of geotechnical investigations
distribution of sampling/testing
highly variable non-conforming nature of geomaterials
allowing the use of a priori knowledge of comparable ground
properties,
applying engineering judgement.
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE

For most limit state cases where the soil volume involved is large,
the characteristic value should be derived such that a cautious
estimate of the mean value is a selection of the mean value of the
limited set of geotechnical parameter values, with a confidence
level of 95% (moderately conservative parameters); where local
failure is concerned, a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5%
fractile (inferior parameters).
Examples of aplication using statistical methods are available in
Annex E and Annex F of the GeoSS EC7 Guide
Characteristic Values by Statistical Method
Schneider(1999) Method

Xk = mx - 0.5sX
(upper bound equivalent to 95% mean reliable)

Xk = mx 1.65sX
(lower bound equivalent to low value 5% fractile)

where

Ck = characteristic value
mC = mean value
sX = standard deviation
n = number of samples
CP4 (Current Practice) vs EC7
in Design of Bored Pile
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile

Site Investigation
Design
Structural
Geotechnical
Load Test
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Site Investigation

Current Practice EC7


BCA /IES /ACES ADVISORY NOTE 1/03 GeoSS EC7 Guide Table 2.2

(a) The number of boreholes should be SS EN 1997-2 Annex B


the greater of
(i) one borehole per 300 sq m or
(ii) one borehole at every interval
between 10m to 30m, but no less
than 3 boreholes in a project site.

(b) Boreholes should go more than 5


metres into hard stratum with SPT
blow counts of 100 or more than 3
times the pile diameters beyond the
intended founding level.
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Structural Working Load

CP4 EC7
Allowable concrete SS EN 1992-1:
compressive stress, NRd,p = Acfcd,p > NEd = 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
sc = 0.25 fcu < 7.5MPa fcd,p = cc,p fck/ gc,f
acc,p= 0.85 (reinforced); acc,p= 0.60 (un-reinforced)
Pile working load, gc,f = gc x kf = 1.5 x 1.1 = 1.65
Qst = sc . Ac fck = 0.8 fcu
Reinforced
NRd,p = Ac x 0.412 x fcu
Un-Reinforced
NRd,p = Ac x 0.291 x fcu

cast in place piles without permanent casing.


Ac should be taken as:
- if dnom < 400 mm d = dnom - 20 mm
- if 400 dnom 1000 mm d = 0.95.dnom
- if dnom > 1000 mm d = dnom - 50 mm
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Structural Working Load
Case 1: fcu = 35MPa EC7 EC7 (Service load)
WL by CP4
(Factored capacity, NRd,p) Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

dnom Anom d Ac Reinfored Un-Reinf Reinfored Un-Reinf sc = 7.5MPa


(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
800 0.503 760 0.454 6543 4619 4674 3299 3770
900 0.636 855 0.574 8282 5846 5915 4176 4771
1000 0.785 950 0.709 10224 7217 7303 5155 5890
1100 0.950 1050 0.866 12490 8816 8921 6297 7127
1200 1.131 1150 1.039 14982 10576 10702 7554 8482
1300 1.327 1250 1.227 17701 12495 12644 8925 9955
Case 2: fcu = 40MPa
EC7 EC7 (Service load)
WL by CP4
(Factored capacity, NRd,p) Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

dnom Anom d Ac Reinfored Un-Reinf Reinfored Un-Reinf sc = 7.5MPa

(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)


800 0.503 760 0.454 7478 5279 5342 3771 3770
900 0.636 855 0.574 9465 6681 6761 4772 4771
1000 0.785 950 0.709 11685 8248 8346 5892 5890
1100 0.950 1050 0.866 14274 10076 10196 7197 7127
1200 1.131 1150 1.039 17123 12087 12230 8633 8482
1300 1.327 1250 1.227 20230 14280 14450 10200 9955
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Example for 1000mm dia. pile
Case 1: fcu = 35MPa EC7 EC7 (Service load)
WL by CP4
(Factored capacity, NRd,p) Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

dnom Anom d Ac Reinfored Un-Reinf Reinfored Un-Reinf sc = 7.5MPa


(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
800 0.503 760 0.454 6543 4619 4674 3299 3770
900 0.636 855 0.574 8282 5846 5915 4176 4771
1000 0.785 950 0.709 10224 7217 7303 5155 5890
1100 0.950 1050 0.866 12490 8816 8921 6297 7127
1200 1.131 1150 1.039 14982 10576 10702 7554 8482
1300 1.327 1250 1.227 17701 12495 12644 8925 9955
Case 2: fcu = 40MPa
EC7 EC7 (Service load)
WL by CP4
(Factored capacity, NRd,p) Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

dnom Anom d Ac Reinfored Un-Reinf Reinfored Un-Reinf sc = 7.5MPa

(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)


800 0.503 760 0.454 7478 5279 5342 3771 3770
900 0.636 855 0.574 9465 6681 6761 4772 4771
1000 0.785 950 0.709 11685 8248 8346 5892 5890
1100 0.950 1050 0.866 14274 10076 10196 7197 7127
1200 1.131 1150 1.039 17123 12087 12230 8633 8482
1300 1.327 1250 1.227 20230 14280 14450 10200 9955
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement

CP4 EC7
As 0.5% Ac SS EN 1992-1: 9.8.5(3)

Arrangement of reinforcements to allow free flow of


concrete.
Min. diameter for longitudinal bars not be less than 16
mm.
At least 6 longitudinal bars.
Clear distance between bars should not exceed 200
mm measured along the periphery of the pile.
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Clear distance
between bars
should not exceed
200 mm
measured along
the periphery of
the pile.
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement
dnom Anom d Ac Dia no of As As/Ac As/Anom Clear spacing at
(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (mm) rebar (cm2) (%) (%) periphery of pile (mm)
1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 13 26.1 0.37% 0.33% 222

1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 14 28.1 0.40% 0.36% 205

1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 15 30.2 0.43% 0.38% 190


CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)
Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement
dnom Anom d Ac Dia no of As As/Ac As/Anom Clear spacing at
(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (mm) rebar (cm2) (%) (%) periphery of pile (mm)
1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 13 26.1 0.37% 0.33% 222

1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 14 28.1 0.40% 0.36% 205

1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 15 30.2 0.43% 0.38% 190

dnom Anom d Ac Dia no of As As/Ac As/Anom Clear spacing at

(mm) (m2) (mm) (m2) (mm) rebar (cm2) (%) (%) periphery of pile (mm)

800 0.503 760 0.454 16 13 26.1 0.58% 0.52% 172

900 0.636 855 0.574 16 13 26.1 0.46% 0.41% 197

1000 0.785 950 0.709 16 15 30.2 0.43% 0.38% 190

1100 0.950 1050 0.866 16 16 32.2 0.37% 0.34% 197

1200 1.131 1150 1.039 16 18 36.2 0.35% 0.32% 191

1300 1.327 1250 1.227 16 19 38.2 0.31% 0.29% 196


CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
Current Practice

Qa1 = Qs/2.5 + Qb/2.5


Qa2 = Qs/2 + Qb/3
Qa3 = Qs/1.5
Qa = Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3)
Qa > WL = = (DL + LL)

Where,
Qs - Ultimate Total Skin Friction Resistance
Qb - Ultimate End Bearing Capacity
Qa - Allowable geotechnical capacity
WL - Working load
DL - Dead load
LL - Live load
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
Current Practice Qa1 = Qs/2.5 + Qb/2.5
Qa2 = Qs/2 + Qb/3
Qa3 = Qs/1.5
Qa = Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3)
Qa > WL = = (DL + LL)

Qt = Qs + Qb Qa (1) = 0.24 Qt + 0.16 Qt


Qs = 0.6 Qt Qa (1) = 0.4 Qt
Qb = 0.4 Qt Qt = 2.5 Qa

Qa (2) = 0.3 Qt + 0.133 Qt


Qa (2) = 0.43 Qt
Qt = 2.31 Qa

Qt = Qs + Qb Qa (1) = 0.16 Qt + 0.24 Qt


Qs = 0.4 Qt Qa (1) = 0.4 Qt
Qb = 0.6 Qt Qt = 2.5 Qa

Qa (2) = 0.2 Qt + 0.200 Qt


Qa (2) = 0.40 Qt
Qt = 2.50 Qa
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
Qa1 = Qs/2.5 + Qb/2.5 Qt = Qs + Qb Qs = 0.6 Qt
Qa2 = Qs/2 + Qb/3 Qs = 0.4 Qt
Qb = 0.4 Qt
Qa3 = Qs/1.5 Qb = 0.6 Qt
Qt(1) = 2.5 Qa
Qa = Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3) Qt(1) = 2.5 Qa
Qt(2) = 2.31 Qa
Qa > WL = = (DL + LL) Qt(2) = 2.5 Qa
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
EC7 Alternative Method Model Factor
With ULT ; ;
; = +
1.2 1.2
Without ULT ; ;
; = +
1.4 1.4

EC7 Alternative Method Partial Resistance Factor

With Pile Load Test ; ;


; = +
1.2 1.2
Without Pile Load Test ; ;
; = +
1.4 1.4

gb and gs depends on which approach.


Generally,
DA1-1, no factor on resistance (factor =1)
DA1-2, some factors on resistance (refer Table A.NA.7)
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
gb and gs depends on which approach.
Generally,
DA1-1, no factor on resistance (factor =1)
DA1-2, some factors on resistance (refer Table A.NA.7)
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

Design values of actions, Fd


Fd = g G G k + g Q Q k
where gG and gQ are partial factor
Generally,
DA1-1 higher factor
DA1-2, lower factor
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
EC7 Alternative Method
Fcd (ACTION)
Assume:

Dead Load (DL) = a x Column Load (CL)

Live Load (LL) = (1-a) x CL

So:

Fcd = gG;dst x DL + gQ;dst x LL

Fcd = gG;dst x a x CL + gQ;dst x (1-a) x CL

Fcd = ( gQ;dst + (gG;dst - gQ;dst) x a ) x CL

Hence,

Fcd Rcd
(1)
; + ; ; = +

; + ; ; 2
=
= +

; + ; ;
=
+
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
EC7 Alternative Method vs CP4
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)
EC7 Alternative Method vs CP4

without ULT, MF = 1.4; With ULT, MF=1.2


without WLT, higher R4 factor; with WLT, lower R4 factor
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test
Current Practice EC7 (Alternative Method)
BCA /IES /ACES ADVISORY NOTE 1/03 NA to SS EN 1997-12010 A.3.3.2
(a) ULT - 1 number or 0.5% of the total - The value of the model factor should be
piles, whichever is greater. 1.4, except that it may be reduced to 1.2
(b) WLT - 2 numbers or 1% of working if the resistance is verified by a
piles installed or 1 for every 50 maintained load test taken to the
metres length of proposed building, calculated, unfactored ultimate
whichever is greater. resistance.
(c) Non-destructive integrity test - 2 - The lower partial resistance factor, g in
numbers or 2% of working piles R4 may be adopted (a) if serviceability is
installed, whichever is greater. verified by load tests (preliminary and/or
working) carried out on more than 1% of
CP4 proof loads, usually 2x Pile design the constructed piles to loads not less
load, in certain conditions proof load of than 1.5 times the representative load
1.5x may be used. The number of piles to for which they are designed,
be tested usually 1% to 2% of the working
piles
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test
Current Practice EC7 (Alternative Method)
Allowable settlement Representative load

CP4 7.5.4.4 For working pile load test Suggestion 1


for which the pile is usually tested to 1.5 SLS load = 1.0 Gk + 1.0 Qk
to 2.0 times working load, the allowable Allowable settlement follows CP4
maximum settlement measured at the
pile top under full test load is generally Suggestion 2
taken as 15mm or 25mm respectively. Follow DA1-2,
Fd = 1.0 Gk + 1.3 Qk
> The load test does not affect the FOS Allowable settlement adjust accordingly
on geotechnical capacity or Design
Zoning Maximum test load and allowable
settlement shall be specified clearly
on the drawing.
Load test affect geotechnical design
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test
Design Zoning by Ref BH

How ULT & WLT affect the MF & R4 for each design zone?
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test
Option 1
CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test
Option 2
ZONE A ZONE B

NO WLT 1.5xWLT
Less Favourable Resistance More Favourable Resistance
Factors (R4) Factors(R4)
MF = 1.2 MF = 1.2

ULT

1.5xWLT NO WLT
More Favourable Resistance Less Favourable Resistance Factors
Factors(R4) (R4)
MF = 1.2 MF = 1.2
ZONE C (worst profile of same geological formation) ZONE D
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The 1st Principle - Designers are responsible to ensure
structural safety, serviceability and durability of the designs for
the structures.
To fulfil the 1st Principle, Designers are responsible for the
planning of the geotechnical investigation which include
Preliminary, Design and Control Investigations
Guidelines and recommendations in Informative Annexes are
available in EC7-1 and EC7-2 for reference by Designers to
decide on specifications of field and laboratory tests, no of BH,
field and lab tests etc
Characteristic values shall be determined from derived values
for design purposes.
Guidelines on GI and Methods to determine Characteristic
values are provided in GeoSS EC7 Guide
CONCLUSION
Structural Design
o Allowable concrete compressive stress of 7.5MPa and
As>0.5%Ac in CP4 has been removed.
o More comprehensive design considerations in terms of partial
load factors on geometry, material, reinforcement spacing,
permanent casing etc shall be taken.
o Structural capacity varies for reinforced and un-reinforced
concrete section.
Geotechnical Design
o Alternative method is closer to current design practice
o The geotechnical design is governed by DA1-2
o The quantity and allowable settlement for ULT and WLT remain
the same as current practice
o With comprehensive ULT and WLT, proper GI and determination
of characteristic values, EC7 generally resulting in more
economical design as compared with CP4
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
REFERENCES

http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
THANK YOU
NG Tiong Guan
Executive Director/Principal
Golder Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd
18 Ah Hood Road, #10-51,
Hiap Hoe Building @ Zhongshan Park,
Singapore 329983
T: +65 6546 6318 | D: +65 6885 9388 | M: +65 9797 6846 | E:
ngtg@golder.com.sg | www.golder.com