You are on page 1of 180

University of Nottingham

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COMPARISON OF EUROCODE 7 (EC7) & BRITISH STANDARD (BS 8004)


CODE ON DESIGN OF SINGLE PILE UNDER AXIAL LOADING

By

YOON CHAN YIP

APRIL 2015

A dissertation submitted in part consideration of the degree of MEng (Honours) in


Civil Engineering

Part III: Module H24A04


ABSTRACT

European Standard for geotechnical engineering design, Eurocode 7 (EC7) replaced


the old National Standards and their use became mandatory across Europe in 2010
and even non-European countries are slowly implementing EC7 as a national
standard. The code is based on the principles of limit state design and uses
a partial factor format while a distinction is made between Serviceability Limit
State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State (ULS).

This final year project aims to explore pile design in collaboration of EC7. The three
main design approaches proposed by EC7 which are Design Approach 1, 2 and 3
(DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2 & DA3) will be compare and examine with the help of
illustrative design examples of an axially loaded pile founded in either single or
multiple layer of soil. A comparison between EC7 and British Standard (BS8004)
will be drawn to highlight the degree of conservativeness in terms of required
optimum pile length and allowable actions.

Parametric studies is conducted to investigate the pile capacity for specific pile
diameters and pile lengths required for a specific working load using both analytical
or direct method and semi empirical or indirect method for bearing resistance
estimation. Correlation between SPT-N value and un-drained shear strength for
cohesive soil whereas correlation between SPT-N value and soil friction angle for
non-cohesive soil is employed to compare both design of pile capacity which
computed from direct method and indirect method respectively. The parametric
studies is carried out by varying the dead and live load ratio (Gk:Qk) and variation
of soil properties.

A case study is conducted by referring to soil profiles of in-situ dynamic penetration


test (SPT). The differences in pile design between EC7 and BS8004 is discussed and
compared. Hence, developed spreadsheet is validated based on the case study
results.

i | Page
A numerical analysis is carried out in 2D by using finite element program PLAXIS.
Based on the geotechnical description of the site from case study and the
justification of the choice of parameters introduced, a simulation of a static load
test is modelled.

A comparison based analysis is presented between the parametric studies, case


study and numerical analysis. This investigative project presents a reasonable
favourable agreement between the analyses thus the overall results were quite
satisfactory.

ii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The timely and successful completion of the book could hardly be possible without
the helps and supports from a lot of individuals. I will take this opportunity to thank
all of them who helped me either directly or indirectly during this investigative
project.

First of all I wish to express my sincere gratitude and due respect to my supervisor
Dr. Sien Ti Kok. I appreciate her confidence placed on me by permitting me to
develop each chapter according to my will. I am immensely grateful for her
valuable guidance, continuous encouragements and positive supports which helped
me a lot during the period of my work. I would like to thank her for always showing
keen interest in my queries and providing important suggestions.

Secondly, I want to thank Dr. Chan Swee Huat for answering my every question so
promptly and thoroughly. He taught me how important the verification of an
assumption is and guided me throughout parametric studies in this investigative
project.

Thirdly, I would like to thank Dr. Song Myung Kyu for patiently explain the
distribution of skin friction along the pile with depth and theories and concepts in
the pile settlement studies.

Last but not least, I appreciate the guidance from Ir. Puspanathan Subramaniam, a
senior engineer from G&P Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd. and his effort in providing all the
information that I required in conducting case study for this investigative project.

iii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................ ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS ........................................................................................ xiv

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 1
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................. 1
1.4 INTRODUCTION TO GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CODE OF PRACTICE ............ 2
1.4.1 EUROCODE 7 (EC7) ....................................................................... 2
1.4.1.1 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS) DESIGN OF PILES.......................... 2
1.4.1.1.1 EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION ...................................................... 2
1.4.1.1.2 VERIFICATION OF STRENGTH................................................ 2
1.4.1.1.2.1 ACTIONS ...................................................................... 2
1.4.1.1.2.2 GROUND PROPERTIES .................................................... 4
1.4.1.1.2.3 RESISTANCE ................................................................. 5
1.4.1.1.3 CHARACTERISTIC PILE RESISTANCE ...................................... 6
1.4.1.1.4 DESIGN COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE ...................................... 8
1.4.1.1.5 DESIGN APPROACHES .......................................................... 9
1.4.2 BRITISH STANDARD (BS8004:1986) .............................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................. 12

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 12

2.1 A COMPARISON BETWEEN BS8004 & EC7 ........................................... 12


2.1.1 A COMPARISON OF EC7 & CONVENTIONAL FACTOR OF SAFETY ......... 12
2.1.2 A COMPARISON OF EC7 & TRADITIONAL GERMAN CODE ................... 13
2.2 SUMMARY OF REVIEW...................................................................... 14

iv | P a g e
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................. 15

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 15

CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................. 18

AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE DESIGN IN CLAY SOIL ......................................... 18

4.1 HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION A: A SINGLE BORED PILE IN A HOMOGENEOUS


CLAY LAYER ................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD) ................. 19
4.1.2 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (INDIRECT METHOD)
............................................................................................... 28
4.1.3 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON ALLOWABLE ACTION (INDIRECT
METHOD) .................................................................................. 40
4.1.4 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD) .................... 53
4.1.5 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD) . 58
4.2 HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION B: A SINGLE BORED PILE IN DOUBLE
NON-HOMOGENEOUS CLAY LAYER .................................................... 66
4.2.1 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD) ................. 67
4.2.2 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (INDIRECT METHOD)
............................................................................................... 71
4.2.3 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD) .................... 82
4.2.4 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD) . 82
4.2.5 A COMPARISON OF DIRECT SPT METHOD & INDIRECT SPT METHOD ... 89
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................. 94

AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE DESIGN IN SANDY SOIL ...................................... 94

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 94


5.2 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD) .................... 95
5.2.1 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (INDIRECT METHOD)
............................................................................................. 102
5.3 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD) ..................... 109
5.3.1 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD) 111
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................ 113

CASE STUDY OF AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE IN SILTY CLAY .......................... 113

6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 113


6.2 CASE STUDY: COMPARISON ON PILE LENGTH: EC7 & AS BUILT (BS8004)
114

v | Page
6.3 CASE STUDY: COMPARISON ON SHAFT RESISTANCE: EC7 & AS BUILT
(BS8004) .................................................................................... 120
CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................ 123

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SOIL-PILE SYSTEM........................................... 123

7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 123


7.2 SIMULATION OF STATIC LAOD TEST BY PLAXIS................................. 124
7.2.1 GEOMETRY ................................................................................ 124
7.2.2 BOUNDARIES CONDITONS & MODEL LIMITS ................................... 125
7.2.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES................................................................ 127
7.2.4 INTERFACE ELEMENT ................................................................... 130
7.2.5 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS ............................................................ 131
7.3 VALIDATION & VERIFICATION ........................................................ 140
7.3.1 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF PILES ..................................................... 140
7.3.2 MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT CALCULATION AT ULTIMATE VERTICAL
RESISTANCE ........................................................................... 143
7.3.3 A COMPARISON BETWEEN NUMERICAL & ANALYTICAL METHOD .......... 144
CHAPTER 8 ................................................................................................ 146

CONCLUDING REMARKS .............................................................................. 146

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................. 150

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 152

APPENDIXES .............................................................................................. 153

vi | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.1 Partial factors on actions (γ ) 3


1.2 Partial factors for soil parameters (γ ) 5
1.3 Partial resistance factors (γ ) for bored piles 6
1.4a Model factor to apply on calculated base and shaft resistance
using characteristic value of soil properties by a method
complying with EN1997-1, 2.4.1 (6) 7
1.4b Reduced model factor to apply on calculated base
and shaft resistance verified by static load tests taken
to the calculated, unfactored ultimate resistance
(To follow NA to BS EN1997-1:2004) 7
4.1 Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method) 31
4.2 Pile Capacity of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method) 43
4.3 Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Direct Method) 59
4.4 Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method) 73
4.5 Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Direct Method) 83
4.6a Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of
Circular Bored Pile in EC7 (60% Gk) 90
4.6b Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of
Circular Bored Pile in EC7 (100% Gk) 91
4.6c Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of
Circular Bored Pile in BS8004 92
∗ ′
5.1 Interpolated values of N for various Ф (Meyerhof, 1976) 96
5.2a Empirical values for based on SPT-N
(Bowels, Foundation Analysis) 97
5.2b Empirical values for based on SPT-N
(Bowels, Foundation Analysis) 97

vii | P a g e
5.3 Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method) 105
5.4a Correlation between Ф′& SPT (Meyerhof, 1956) 109
5.4b Correlation between Ф′& SPT (Meyerhof, 1956) 109
6.1 Ratio of Permanent Action & Variable Action (0.8Gk:0.2Qk) 118
6.2 Design Pile Length (EC7) 118
6.3 Design Pile Length (EC7 Vs BS8004) 119
7.1a Soil data sets parameters 127
7.1b Material properties – Pile 127
7.2 Typical values of modulus of elasticity (Es) for different types
of soils (Bowles, 1988) 128
7.3 Soil properties based on the SPT 129
7.4 Typical values of unit weight for soils 129
7.5 Typical values of Poisson's ratio (υ) for soils (Bowles, 1988) 130
7.6a Total settlement under 100% Working Load 137
7.6b Total settlement under 200% Working Load 138
7.6c Residual Settlement per load cycle 139

viii | P a g e
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

4.1 Hypothetical Situation A 18


4.2 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Main Sheet - Indirect Method) 22
4.3 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Individual Sheet – Case Properties) 23
4.4 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Individual Sheet – EC7 Design Approaches) 27
4.5a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile) 32
4.5b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile) 33
4.5c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile) 34
4.6 Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform
clay layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 35
4.7a Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform
clay layer for 1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 36
4.7b Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform
clay layer for 900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 37
4.7c Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform
clay layer for 800mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 38
4.8 Derivation of % difference in pile length of single uniform
clay layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 39
4.9a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile) 44
4.9b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile) 45

ix | P a g e
4.9c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile) 46
4.10 Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer
for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 47
4.11a Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer
for 1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design
Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 48
4.11b Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer
for 900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design
Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 49
4.11c Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer
for 800mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design
Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 50
4.12 Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer
for 1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design
Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 51
4.13 Derivation of % difference in allowable load of single uniform
clay layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 52
4.14 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Main Sheet - Direct Method) 56
4.15 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Borehole Sheet - Direct Method) 57
4.16a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(Hard Clay) 60
4.16b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(Very Stiff Clay) 60
4.16c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(Stiff Clay) 61
4.16d Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(Medium Stiff Clay) 61
4.16e Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation (Soft Clay) 62
4.17 Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay
layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Direct Method 63

x | Page
4.18 Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform
clay layer for all three design approaches in EC7 based on
Direct Method 64
4.19 Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length
of single uniform clay layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on
Direct Method 65
4.20 Hypothetical Situation B 66
4.21 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Main Sheet - Indirect Method) 68
4.22 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Individual Sheet – Case Properties) 69
4.23 Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Individual Sheet – BS8004 & EC7) 70
4.24a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile) 74
4.24b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile) 75
4.24c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile) 76
4.25 Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil
system for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 77
4.26a Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil
system for 1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 78
4.26b Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil
system for 900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 79
4.26c Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil
system for 800mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three
Design Approaches in EC7 based on Indirect Method 80
4.27 Derivation of % difference in pile length of 2 layer clay soil
system for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 81
4.28a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(Very Stiff Clay Overlying Hard Clay) 84

xi | P a g e
4.28b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(Stiff Clay Overlying Hard Clay) 84
4.28c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(Medium Siff Clay Overlying Hard Clay) 85
4.28d Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B
(Soft Clay Overlying Hard Clay) 85
4.29 Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 non-
homogeneous layers of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004 based
on Direct Method 86
4.30 Derivation of required bored pile length in 2
non-homogeneous layers of clay soil for all three design
approaches in EC7 based on Direct Method 87
4.31 Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length in 2
non-homogeneous layers of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004
based on Direct Method 88
4.32 Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length in 2
clay layer of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004 based on
Direct Method 93
5.1 Hypothetical Situation For Sand 94
∗ ′
5.2 Variation of the maximum values of N with Ф

(Meyerhof, 1976) 95
5.3 Unit frictional resistance for pile in sand 99
5.4a Excel Spreadsheet
(Individual Sheet – Case Properties & BS8004) 100
5.4b Excel Spreadsheet
(Individual Sheet – EC7 Design Approaches) 101
5.5a Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile) 106
5.5b Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile) 106
5.5c Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A
(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile) 107
5.6 Derivation of % difference in pile length of single uniform
sand layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method 108
5.7 Excel Spreadsheet (Borehole Sheet - Direct Method) 112

xii | P a g e
6.1 SPT soil profile for borehole AABH16 113
6.2 Design Bored Pile Design (EC7 & BS8004) 115
6.3a Summary of As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet) 116
6.3b Proposed As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet) 117
6.4 Comparison of shaft resistance based on EC7 & BS8004 121
6.5 As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet) 122
7.1 Global Geometry Of The Axisymmetric Model 123
7.2 Geometry of the model 126
7.3 Generated Mesh Before Analysis 132
7.4a Vertical Displacement Field For Prescribed Vertical Load 133
7.4b Vertical Displacement Field For Prescribed Vertical Load
(Zoomed View) 133
7.5a Cartesian Effective Stress Field (sig’y-y) For Prescribed
Vertical Load 134
7.5b Cartesian Effective Stress Field (sig’y-y) For Prescribed
Vertical Load (Zoomed View) 134
7.6a Total Stress Field For Prescribed Vertical Load 135
7.6b Figure 7.6b: Total Stress Field For Prescribed Vertical Load
(Zoomed View) 135
7.7 Deformed Mesh (1WL) 136
7.8 Effective Stress Distribution 136
7.9a Load – Settlement Curve (1WL) 137
7.9b Load – Settlement Curve (2WL) 138
7.9c Pile Unloading-Reloading Curve 139

xiii | P a g e
LIST OF SYMBOLS

Latin Alphabet

A : Cross-sectional area of pile

C : Undrained shear strength

f : Characteristic cube strength at 28 days

F , : Design axial compressive load / Design value of actions

F : Representative values of action

: Ultimate unit skin resistance

: Ultimate unit base resistance

G : Permanent Action

L’: Critical Depth

P: Unfactored imposed load

Q : Allowable working load

Q : Toe Resistance

Q : Variable Action

Q : Shaft Resistance

q′: Effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip

q : Ultimate unit skin resistance

q : Ultimate unit base resistance

R , : Pile compressive design resistance

R ; : Characteristic compressive resistance

R ; : Characteristic value for base resistance

xiv | P a g e
R ; : Characteristic value for shaft resistance

R : Characteristic value for total resistance

X : Characteristic value for geotechnical parameter

xv | P a g e
Greek Alphabet

α: Empirical adhesion factor

η: Eta

 Unit weight

γ : Partial factors on actions

γ : Partial factor for soil parameters

γ : Model Factor

’: Soil-pile friction angle

Ф′: Soil friction angle

xvi | P a g e
ACRONYMS

BS8004: British Standard Code

CFA: Continuous Flight Auger

DA1: Design Approach 1

DA1.C1: Design Approach 1, Combination 1

DA1.C2: Design Approach 1, Combination 2

DA2: Design Approach 2

DA3: Design Approach 3

EC7: Eurocode 7

FoS: Factor Of Safety

MY-NA: Malaysia National Annex

N: Standard Penetration Test N Value

ODF: Overdesign Factors

SLS: Serviceability Limit State

SPT: Standard Penetration

ULS: Ultimate Limit State

xvii | P a g e
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Eurocode 7 (EC7), BS EN 1997-1 is a limit stated design method which introduced


various partial factors in terms of soil parameter, resistance and action. On the
contrary, British Standard Code (BS8004) applies factors of safety (FoS) in
estimating the designed ultimate axial pile capacity which is based on calculation.
In traditional pile design, the actual FoS (varied between 2.0 and 3.0 for
compression loads and ≥ 3.0 for tension) is depending on quality of ground
investigation (GI) and prior knowledge of ground conditions. The ultimate axial
capacity consists of shaft resistance (Q ) and toe resistance(Q ) which related to
soil parameters and installation methods is estimated based on in-situ test soil
profiles by applying experimental model factors to the test results.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this study is to familiarize with the philosophy behind the pile
foundation design in EC7 and BS8004 by improving the understanding of pile
performance designed by EC7 and BS8004. In this scope of study, this project has
the following specific objectives:

i. To compare the design of single axially loaded pile in clay soil using EC7 and
BS8004
ii. To develop a spreadsheet for a axially loaded single pile under clay and sand
by using Microsoft Excel.
iii. To verify the developed spreadsheet by modeling using PLAXIS 2D software.
iv. To verify pile design according to EC7 based on a case study.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work in this investigative project mainly focused on design of axially
loaded compression piles in compliance with EC7. Comparisons were drawn
between EC7 and BS8004 in geotechnical design code of practice.

1 | Page
1.4 INTRODUCTION TO GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CODE OF PRACTICE

1.4.1 EUROCODE 7 (EC7)

EC7 is a comprehensive limit state design code by addressing limit state design
through verification of ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceable limit state (SLS)
which based on the use of partial factors with three design approaches.

1.4.1.1 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS) DESIGN OF PILES

1.4.1.1.1 EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION

Set of partial safety factors is used to reduce the risk of failure by increasing loads
effects for ULS design action effect and decreasing strength or resistance
parameters of ground for ULS design resistance, Rd. In designing axially loaded pile
where the following inequality which stated in the section of Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) must be satisfied by equation 1.1 (EN1997-1-2003);

F ; ≤ R ; (1.1)

Where;
F , Design axial compression load

R , Pile compressive design resistance

1.4.1.1.2 VERIFICATION OF STRENGTH

1.4.1.1.2.1 ACTIONS

Actions are classified as permanent or variable or accidental which refer as forces


(structural and environmental loading to structure or ground) and both
displacement and acceleration that imposed by ground on structure. To
compensate every uncertainties in modeling actions and time effects of imposed
loading for ULS design, different partial factors, γ are applied to the characteristic
value of actions, F in obtaining actions design value, F ; as below;

2 | Page
F ; = γ .F (1.2)

Where;
γ Partial factor > 1, account of unfavourable situations for actions
F Representative values of an action which is generally equal to F
(permanent action) or equal to φ. F (imposed action)

F = ψ .F (1.3)

For permanent action,

F = G , γ = γ

For imposed action,

F = Q , γ = γ

Where;
F Characteristic value of action
φ Commonly used as 1.0

For verifications of STR & GEO limit states, set A1 and A2:

Table 1.1: Partial factors on actions (γ )

Set
A1 A2
Action Symbol DA1.C1, DA2 DA1.C2
DA3 (Structural Action) DA3 (Geotech. Action)
Permanent Unfavourable γ 1,35 1,0
Favourable 1,0 1,0
Variable Unfavourable γ 1,5 1,3
Favourable 0 0

3 | Page
Partial factors on actions γ reflect an important distinction between favourable
(stabilizing) and unfavourable (destabilizing) actions in EC7. Favourable actions
decreased by partial factor or remain unchanged (γ ≤ 1) whereas partial factor
increase unfavourable actions (γ > 1). Hence, the design axial compressive load
F ; is obtained by multiplying the representative permanent and variable loads, G
and Q by the corresponding partial action factors.

F ; = γ G +γ Q (1.4)

In this study, self-weight of the pile is excluded in computation of design axial


compressive load F ; since it is common practice of assuming the weight of pile is
balanced by weight of the overburden. Before pile installation, the overburden
pressure at the base of footing is equivalent to the weight of earth fill over the
footing. Since both of them have the same density which are 2400kg/m , both pile
self-weight and overburden pressure may disregard if they approximately cancel
each other.

However, the self-weight could be ignored as long as:

i. Soil is not light weighted


ii. Non-significant downdrag
iii. Pile extension is below the ground

Hence, the exclusion of pile weight and overburden weight from F ; and R ; is
permitted.

1.4.1.1.2.2 GROUND PROPERTIES

Characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter is defined as “a cautious estimate


of the value affecting the occurrence of limit state” - mean value over the relevant
volume of ground (British Standards Institution, 2003) in clause 2.4.5. (2)P of
EN1997-1:2003 which calculated from derived values and measured values.
Correlation or empiricism from theory (Orr and Farrell, 1999) and measured results
are used to determine derived values whereas measured values are obtained

4 | Page
through field tests and laboratory works. Design values of geotechnical
parameters, X is obtained from equation 1.5:

X = X /γ (1.5)

Where;

X Characteristic value for geotechnical parameter


γ Partial factor for material / ground property (soil parameter)

For verifications of STR & GEO limit states, set M1 and M2:

Table 1.2: Partial factors for soil parameters (γ )

Soil parameter Symbol Set


M1 M2
Angle of shearing resistance γØ′ 1,0 1,25
Effective cohesion γ′ 1,0 1,25
Undrained shear strength γ 1,0 1,4
Unconfined strength γ 1,0 1,4
Weight density γ 1,0 1,0
This factor is applied to tan Ø

1.4.1.1.2.3 RESISTANCE

Resistance is defined as capacity of a member (component), or cross-section of a


member (component) of a structure (ground regarded as a structure component),
to withstand actions without mechanical failure. Resistances are a typical function
of dimensions, material strength and actions including self-weight of ground which
depend on actions in verification for STR and GEO limit states.

Different sets of recommended partial resistance factor values for bored, driven
and continuous flight auger (CFA) piles are proposed by EC7. Since this study only
concentrate on bored pile, driven and CFA pile will not be discussed in this section.

5 | Page
Table 1.3: Partial resistance factors (γ ) for bored piles

Resistance Symbol Set


R1 R2 R3 R4
Base γ 1,25 1,1 1,0 1,6
Shaft (compression) γ 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,3
Total/combined (compression) γ 1,15 1,1 1,0 1,5
Shaft in tension γ ; 1,25 1,15 1,1 1,6

1.4.1.1.3 CHARACTERISTIC PILE RESISTANCE

Three procedures in obtaining the characteristic compressive resistance R ; of a


pile are proposed by EC7 as following:

i. Directly from static pile load tests


ii. By computation from profiles of ground test results
iii. By computation from ground parameters

In this study, only case of procedure c is considered thus case of procedure a and
b will not be discussed further. In the case of procedure c, ground parameters are
used in computing the characteristic pile resistance which this referred to
“alternative calculation method”. In determining the ultimate pile compressive
résistance, EC7 proposed two calculation methods:

i. Model Pile Method


ii. Alternative Calculation Method

Due to the fact that only case of procedure c is considered, characteristic pile
resistance computed from profiles of static load test and ground test results is not
discussed in this study. EC “Alternative” procedure laid out in Clause 7.6.2.3(8),
(British Standards Institution, 2004), is to designate conservative representative
parameters representing any specific soil which similar to BS approach.
Characteristic values of soil parameters which obtained from laboratory or field
testing are directly used in calculating R ; &R ; as following:

R ; = A q , (1.6a)

6 | Page
R ; = ∑A ,q , , (1.6b)

Where;

q , Characteristics value of base resistance per unit area


q , Characteristics value of shaft resistance per unit area in different soil strata
A Pile base area
A Pile shaft area

Similar to “Model Pile” procedure, design compressive resistance R ; as below:

; ;
R ; = + (1.6c)

However, correlation factors ξ are not applied unlike the “Model Pile” procedure
but model factor is applied to correct q , &q , of “Alternative” procedure. Ultimate
pile capacity can be accessed by static load tests, dynamic impact tests and from
ground test results. Additional uncertainty of calculation methods are taken into
consideration by introducing model factor, γ but it is left open for national
determination since EC7 did not provide any recommendations for the model
factor. The value of model factor, γRd based on Suggested Malaysian National
Annex (MY-NA) is shown in Table 1.4;

Table 1.4a: Model factor to apply on calculated base and shaft resistance using
characteristic value of soil properties by a method complying with
EN1997-1, 2.4.1(6)

Type of Pile Model Factor


Bored Pile 1.4

Table 1.4b: Reduced model factor to apply on calculated base and shaft resistance
verified by static load tests taken to the calculated, unfactored
ultimate resistance (To follow NA to BS EN1997-1:2004)

Type of Pile Model Factor


Bored Pile 1.2

7 | Page
In this study, model factor of 1.4 is applied instead of 1.2 due to assumption of load
test is not completed to unfactored ultimate resistance. In other words, pile
resistance is not verified by preliminary load test since testing on preliminary piles
to ultimate resistance is not carried out on site in verification of the load capacity.

1.4.1.1.4 DESIGN COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE

EC7 introduced two methods in computing design compressive resistance of a pile


which are either by separating it into components of shaft and base or treating the
pile resistance as a total resistance. The design compressive resistance R ; is
expressed in Equation 1.7 (EN1997-1, 2003). The design resistance is obtained by
applying relevant partial factors γb & γs to R ; &R ; respectively if the pile
resistance is separated into into components of shaft and base.

; ;
R ; =R ; + R ; = + (1.7a)
b s

However, design resistance is obtained by applying relevant partial factor γ to


characteristic total resistance R ; if the pile resistance is treated as a total
resistance.

;
R ; = (1.7b)
t

Where;

γb Partial resistance factor for base resistance


γs Partial resistance factor for shaft resistance
γt Partial resistance for total resistance

8 | Page
1.4.1.1.5 DESIGN APPROACHES

EC7 proposed three design approaches which consist of Design Approach 1


(DA1.C1 & DA1.C2), Design Approach 2 (DA2) and Design Approach 3 (DA3). A
certain design approach contains partial factors in sets denoted by:

i. A (for actions or effects of actions)


ii. M (for soil parameters)
iii. R (for resistances)

Each design approach is classified as follows:

i. DA1 requires two design combinations (DC) to be examined:

a. DA1.C1 Factors on actions (loads)


Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
b. DA1.C2 Factors on material strength
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4

ii. DA2 Factors on actions and resistances:


Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

iii. DA3 Factors on actions and material strength


Combination: (A1∗or A2ƚ ) “+” M2 “+” R3

∗ On structural actions
ƚ
On geotechnical actions

Where “+” implies “to be combined with”

These design approaches are to limit state design to ensure low risk of ground and
structure failure for different combinations of loads and ground properties by
satisfying all design combinations—DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2, DA3 and accounts all
uncertainties of actions (F), material strengths (X) and resistances (R). Different
set of partial factors are apply on uncertainties in verifying geotechnical design
situation and ensuring no relevant limit state is exceeded.

9 | Page
It is worthy to note that DA1 is partial resistance factor rather than a material factor
approach since set M2 >1.0 is only applied for DA1.C2 to compute the unfavourable
design actions on piles. Due to the fact that DA1.C1 yield higher allowable
geotechnical capacity compared to DA1.C2 which usually determines the
geotechnical sizing will be compute first then DA1.C1 is used to verify the structural
safety (Frank et al., 2004) since larger factors applied on both variable and
permanent actions.

As far as all the values of R3 are unity is concerned, DA3 should not be used for piles
designed from pile load tests or from resistances computed from profiles of ground
test results as no safety on the resistance are provided by DA3 in EC7.

1.4.2 BRITISH STANDARD (BS8004:1986)

BS8004 (British Standards, 1986), formerly known as Code of Practice for


Foundations CP2004 (British Standards Institution, 1972) adopts permissible
stress method by considering the most unfavorable combinations of imposed loads
in conjunction with actual dead loads from supporting structure applied to the
ground.

Definition of allowable working load in BS8004-1986 is working load that may be


safely applied to a pile after account of negative skin friction, allowable settlement,
ultimate bearing capacity and overall bearing capacity of the ground below the
piles. Factor of safety were applied to ultimate bearing capacity or ultimate load in
calculating applied bearing pressure or applied load. These safety factors were
gross factors, which only applied to the calculated ultimate resistance.

Ultimate bearing capacity, the value of gross loading intensity only when soil
resistance to foundation displacement is fully mobilized could be estimated based
on the soil profile obtained from in situ tests in boreholes by interpreting borehole
information. In order to minimize the possibility of shear failure and to endure
handling and installation stress, adequate safety factors in the range of 2 to 3 are
required to apply (BSI 1986). An overall factor of safety between 2 and 3 is adopted
to consider for ground properties variations and calculation model uncertainties
(British Standards, 1986). Safety factor is applied to factor down the pile capacity

10 | P a g e
in obtaining allowable working load, Qall to prevent pile failure which shown in
following equation:

Q = = .
(1.8a)

Alternatively, different safety factors may apply to base and shaft capacity
separately, (Tomlinson, 1995) as shown in the equation below:

Q = + = + (1.8b)
. .

Where;

Q Allowable working load


Q Ultimate end bearing resistance
Q Ultimate shaft friction
F Partial factor of safety for shaft resistance
F Partial factor of safety for base resistance
F Global factor of safety for total resistance (Shaft + Base)

The allowable working load will be the smallest value computed from equations 1.8
as above. In conventional design practice in Malaysia, the lower geotechnical
capacity obtained from both equations 1.8 will be adopted for bored piles under
compression load. Since different displacement is required for shaft and base
mobilization, different partial FoS should be adopted.

11 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 A COMPARISON BETWEEN BS8004 & EC7

Foundation loads in BS8004 are unfactored loads instead of factored loads in EC7.
Unlike EC7, BS8004 included pile self-weight into the dead load whereas EC7
disregarded pile self-weight in most cases. The requirement of SLS is satisfied in
BS8004 by applying a reasonably large FoS where ULS and SLS are not
distinguished in BS8004. However EC7, a limit state design considers every
uncertainty by applying several of partial factors on material, actions and
resistance.

2.1.1 A COMPARISON OF EC7 & CONVENTIONAL FACTOR OF SAFETY

A case study was done by G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (Tan et al., 2009) in comparing
Malaysian practice with EC7 on axially loaded pile foundations. Partial factors for
actions, resistance, soil parameters and model factors of EC7 were converted to the
conventional FoS. However, the conversion will be indirect due to the assumption of
the ratio of permanent load and variable load is taken as (8:2). On this matter, the
author suggests that this study should take respective contribution of each
components of action into consideration which is employed in this investigative
project.

In this case study, it is observed that both DA1 and DA2 in EC7 adopt the same
partial factors for shaft and base for driven pile and the same is observed for DA2.
As the required displacement to mobilize shaft and base varies significantly, this is
against the fundamental understanding of soil mechanics. According to G&P
Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (Tan et al., 2009), large displacement is required to mobilize
the sufficiently low base capacity of bored piles in Malaysia. However, EC7 assume
the base capacity of all bored pile is able to mobilize effectively. Hence, a lower
value of partial factors for total/combined capacity (R4) of bored pile was
suggested by G&P where the suggested value of the partial factor is reduced to 1.3
instead of 1.4 which proposed by EC7 if base is ignored in the calculation of the

12 | P a g e
total/combined capacity. G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (Tan et al., 2009) only referred
to DA1 and DA2 and ignored DA3 for comparison.

On this matter, the author suggest that this study should consider all design
approaches (DA1, DA2 & DA3) for bored pile since different partial factors applied
on structural and geotechnical actions even though DA3 is similar to DA1.C2 which
might improve the “indirect” FoS for bored pile in this study.

2.1.2 A COMPARISON OF EC7 & TRADITIONAL GERMAN CODE

A case study was done by (Abdelazim et al., 2013) shows that a reduction of 24%
of number of piles was achieved using EC7 in designing pile foundation compared to
traditional German code taking global FoS (= 2.0). Based on the results, higher
allowable design value was allowed for driven piles compared to bored piles in
determining the pile compressive strength using EC7 since installation method
which will adversely affects the pile bearing capacity was take into consideration in
driven pile. This study only considered DA1 and DA2 in EC7 in the comparison of
pile foundation design. In results, this study shows that EC7 is one of the most
economical codes in calculation and design equations.

Becker (1996) put the case for resistance factors due to derivation of resistance
factor reflects not only uncertainty in strength but also uncertainties associated
with the construction tolerances, site conditions, analytical models and failure
mechanisms. However, Simpson (2007) considered the significance of a material
strength approach in geotechnical design which in particular material strength
approach facilitates consistent analysis of combined problems.

For completeness, the author suggests that DA3 should not be left out in this study
where this matter will be discussed further in this investigative project.

13 | P a g e
2.2 SUMMARY OF REVIEW

In general, the design approaches in EC7 does not specific about which analytical
models are to be used in design. Whether DA1, DA2 or DA3 is to be used has to be
specified in the National Annex since each design approach has its advantages and
disadvantages.

In this investigative project, it will be look thoroughly on checking designs with


factors of safety applied to the basic strength parameters of soil which also known
as partial factors for soil parameters (γ ) in EC7 due to the fact that strength of soil
is derived from non-linear or disproportionate relationships between soil
parameters and resistances. However, the author suggests that both DA3 and DA1
should consider as well due to the fact that DA1.C2 generally governs the
geotechnical design and DA1.C1 may govern the structural design of piles.

Hence, this investigative project will be focus on the significance of soil properties
in pile design and it is suggested that not only the strength of interface between pile
and soil govern the pile design but properties of soil should consider as well.

14 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Various combination sets of partial factors are associated with each design
approach that left up to national determination which indicated in the National
Annex. Combination sets of design approaches in EC7 which considered in this
study are shown below;

i. DA1.C1 adopts A1 “+” M1 “+” R1


ii. DA1.C2 adopts A2 “+” M1 “+” R4
iii. DA2 adopts A1 “+” M1 “+” R2
iv. DA3 adopts A1 “+” M2 “+” R3

Broadly, factors are applied to actions but not to soil strengths in DA1.C1 thus
DA1.C1 approach generally governs the STR limit state. In DA1.C2, alternative
material factors M1 used for structural actions or M2 applied for unfavourable
geotechnical actions which usually defines the critical geotechnical sizing (GEO
state). The philosophy of EC7 DA2 is to check the foundation’s reliability by
applying partial factors to actions or action effects and to resistance simultaneously
although only relatively small factor applied to variable actions while ground
strengths are left unfactored. Thus, partial factors from sets A1, M1, and R2 are
employed in the parametric study suggested (From “Decoding Eurocode 7,” By
Andrew Bond & Andrew Harris, 2008).

Even though total stress analysis is applied in this axially loaded pile design, the
application of the M2 partial factors are not used to modify the adopted soil
parameters for the design of axially loaded piles or when using effective stress
calculation. In most fine-grained soils, it is preferable to use the actual
characteristic undrained strength directly. (From “Pile Design & Construction
Practice, Sixth Edition,” By Michael Tomlinson & John Woodward, 2014). An
important feature of DA3 is the distinction between structural and geotechnical
actions. In the parametric study, DA3 factors are applied simultaneously to
structural actions (A1) and soil strengths or material properties to check the
foundation’s reliability, while geotechnical actions (A2) and resistances are left
mainly unfactored since EC7 defines the actions on the foundations comprising

15 | P a g e
structural actions, that is the loads transmitted from a structure directly to the pile
head or through a raft. However, geotechnical actions which have to be assessed
separately where [EN 1990; 1.5.3.7] & [EN1997-1; 1.5.2.1] define geotechnical
actions as an action transmitted to the structure by the ground, fill, standing water
or groundwater. Hence, partial factors from sets A1, M2, and R3 are adopted in
DA3. In the parametric study, actions resulting from downdrag are ignored since
downdrag provides over-conservative designs since consideration is not given to
variations in frictional forces over the depth of the pile shaft. Hence, partial factors
from sets A2, M1, and R4 are employed in DA1.C2 since M2 is applied to
unfavourable geotechnical actions caused by ground movements, such as
downdrag and transverse loading which is not taken into consideration in this
study. It is worthy to note that DA1 is partial resistance factor rather than a
material factor approach.

The prediction of the axial capacity of piles has been a challenge since the
beginning of the geotechnical engineering profession. Several methods had
developed to overcome the uncertainty in the analysis and design in the prediction
by the engineering practice. However, due to simplifying assumptions regarding
soil stratigraphy, distribution of shaft resistance along a pile, and soil-pile structure
interaction, the method provide qualitative results rather than truly quantitative
values directly useful in the pile design. In recent years, Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) has become the preferred in-situ test for pile design and analysis due to its
simplicity, relatively economical, and provides continuous records with depth that
are interpretable on both empirical and analytical bases. Application of Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) data to pile design has evolved into two main approaches
which are indirect method and direct method. An indirect design approach is based
on theoretical formulations and semi empirical methods which employ soil
parameters, such as friction angle and cohesion estimated from the SPT data. Unit
end bearing capacity of the pile (q ) and the unit skin friction of the pile (q ) can be
evaluated from these strength parameters. In the parametric study, the employed
indirect method takes no account of the horizontal stress and neglect strain
softening and soil compressibility. Unlike indirect methods, no laboratory tests and
computation of intermediate values such as bearing capacity coefficient and earth
pressure coefficient are required in direct methods approach. Indirect SPT methods
employ a friction angle and un-drained shear strength values estimated from

16 | P a g e
measured data based on different theories. In indirect methods, only soil
parameters are obtained from SPT results and the methodology of the pile bearing
capacity estimation is the same as for the static methods. Direct method such as
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) which correlates with engineering properties such
as undrained shear strength and soil friction angle is only considered in this study.

In comparison between EC7 and BS8004, the author emphasise the importance of
indirect methods in engineering practice. Thereby, comparison between direct
method and indirect method will be made in this investigative project due to the
pile capacity is determined based on soil properties by correlating with field
penetration test which is Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in the study. The author
proposed that the methodology of determining the characteristic resistance from
pile tests is incorrect as the pile tests are used to confirm or validate the pile design
which based on ground strength parameters. The author emphasise that pile test is
used to confirm the pile design using ground strength parameters since piles are
not generally designed from pile tests alone.

17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE DESIGN IN CLAY SOIL

4.1 HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION A: A SINGLE BORED PILE IN A


HOMOGENEOUS CLAY LAYER

Figure 4.1: Hypothetical Situation A

In this hypothetical situation A, a circular bored pile with a specific pile diameter of
800mm, 900mm and 1000mm embedded fully in single uniform clay layer with
assumed average characteristic value of soil cohesion or unconfined compressive
strength which corresponds to soil consistency. Minimum grade of concrete for
bored pile design which is C30 according to the ICE specifications for piling in 1988
is assumed in this parametric study. (From “Specification For Piling & Embedded
Retaining Walls: Specification, Contract Documentation & Measurement, Guidance
Notes,” By Thomas Telford, 1996). The bored pile is subjected to an appropriate
working load which is assumed as 90% of each bored pile structural capacity which
is a function of diameter of bored pile where a range of 85% to 100% of limiting pile
working load is a common practice in Malaysia. The soil profile of hypothetical
situation A is a single homogeneous clay layer where soil consistency ranges from
soft clay to hard clay is taken into consideration. The water table is assumed to be
at the ground surface where undrained behaviour of clay is assumed.

18 | P a g e
In this parametric study, a tailored Excel spreadsheet is developed to examine the
critical pile length required to support the design load with an adequate safety
against compressive failure and to investigate the significant trends which
signifying which Design Approach is the most critical in EC7 and the difference of
pile design between EC7 and BS8004.

4.1.1 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD)

In this bored pile design spreadsheet, Alternative Calculation Method which


described in EC7 and conventional method (BS8004) are employed in computation
for design compressive resistance. By introducing an optimization tool which
available in Microsoft Excel known as Solver, critical pile length (L) which required
to support a specific pile working load (WL) is able to determine. In order to ensure
all three design approaches in EC7 and conventional method (BS8004) is able to
satisfy ultimate limit state (ULS) requirements, overdesign factors is set equal to
one. Frank et. al. (2004) defines overdesign factors (ODF) as the ratio of design
resistance to the corresponding design value of the action or action effect which
shown in Equation 4.1. In other words, amount of resistance which required
neutralizing the destabilizing action imposed on the pile. Thus, ODF is employed in
both EC7 and BS8004 in making comparisons.

/
ODF = ≥ 1.0 (4.1)

The factor of safety, as per BS8004 codes of practice is given in its general form by

FoS = where no safety or partial factors are applied. However,

EC7 applies specified partial factors where the resulting ratio of resisting actions
effect to the disturbing actions effect is denoted as the ODF as shown in Equation
4.1. In simplification, both partial and global factors of safety are applied onto shaft
and base capacities and total ultimate capacities respectively before introducing
ODF in BS8004 in design aspect of developed spreadsheet. “Factor of Ignorance” is
a multiplier being applied in design to account of uncertainties which also being
applied in the name of “Safety Factors” in BS8004 or “Partial Factors” in EC7. Thus,
the author suggested both EC7 and BS8004 is able to compare each other by
setting ODF equal to 1.0 in order to prevent over design issues in both methods

19 | P a g e
instead of applying probabilistic methods to eliminate the existing overdesign or
underdesign which suggested by (“Safety Factors & Reliability: Friends Or Foes?,”
By Issac Elishakoff, 2004). The main sheet of indirect method for hypothetical
situation A shows tables with the optimum pile length required to support imposed
working load which equal to 90% of allowable structural capacity of bored pile
obtained from Equation 4.2 (BS8004, Clause 7.4.4.3.1). The structural capacity of
bored pile correspond to its diameter for various proportions of permanent action
and variable action (Gk : Qk ) respectively.

Allowable Structural Capacity of Bored Pile = 0.25f A (4.2)

Where;

f Characteristic cube strength at 28 days


A Cross-sectional area of pile

This allows the users to have a quick overview on the critical pile lengths of all three
design approaches in EC7 (Column G to Column J) and compare the governed pile
length from EC7 (Column K) with BS8004 (Column L) according to each clay soil
consistency as indicated in Figure 4.2. In correspondence to soil consistency,
individual sheets for a bored pile with a specific diameter are available in computing
design value of compressive resistance and overdesign factors (ODF) as indicated
at Figure 4.3. Partial factors on actions, resistance and materials which introduced
in EC7 is input into individual sheet of Column M whereas pile information is input
into those input cells in Column C as indicated at Figure 4.3.

Circular bored pile base area is calculated using Equation 4.3;

( )
A = (4.3)

Action in EC7 is categorized into two categories, Permanent Action ( G ) and


Variable Action (Q ) where different partial factor of actions are applied according
to design approaches which contain different combinations of partial factors
suggested in EC7. In order to take respective contribution of each action
component into consideration, Eta (η) which ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 is applied to

20 | P a g e
pile working load in expressing various proportions of Gk : Qk in main sheet Cells
H10:H14 and Cells J10:J14 as indicated at Figure 4.2. The corresponding
characteristic value or unfactored imposed load (P) is given in Equation 4.4 and
Equation 4.5;

G = η(p) (4.4)

Q = (1 − η)(p) (4.5)

21 | P a g e
Figure 4.2: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Main Sheet - Indirect Method)

22 | P a g e
Figure 4.3: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Individual Sheet: BS8004)

23 | P a g e
The characteristic value of undrained shear strength, C , indicate the soil cohesion
for computation of shaft resistance whereas C , indicate the undrained cohesion of
the soil below the tip of the pile which is used in calculating base resistance (Cells
C29:33 & Cells D29:D33) as indicated at Figure 4.3. For each design approach,
design value of undrained shear strength ( C , /γ ) is obtained by dividing
characteristic value of undrained shear strength with corresponding material partial
factor which shown in individual sheet (Column N & Column O) as indicated at
Figure 4.4. Characteristic value of shaft resistance (R ) is determined by alpha
method where empirical adhesion factor (α) is determined from interpolated values
based on Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri, 1996. According to α method, the unit skin
resistance in clayey soils can be represented by the Equation 4.6;

f = α( ) (4.6)

Hence, the formulation of base resistance (R ) is given by using Equation 4.7;

R = f(A ) = α( )( πdl) (4.7)

Based on Meyerhof’s method for piles in saturated clays under undrained conditions
(Ф = 0), point bearing capacity (R ) is given by the Equation 4.8;

(d2 )
R = N c A = 9c (4.8)

Characteristic value total resistance (R ) is computed by using Equation 4.9;

R =R + R (4.9)

In BS8004, the allowable working load Cell (E39:E43 & G39:G43) is computed by
using both global and partial approaches as indicated at Figure 4.3. For total
ultimate capacity (Q , ), global factor of safety of 2.5 is applied as shown in
Equation 1.8a. Vardanega et al. (2012) have shown that typical global factor of
safety FoS that implied by many codes is around 2.5. For shaft and base capacities,
partial factors of safety is applied to allowable working load (Q , ) by adopting
Equation 1.8b. Hence, a lower of the Q values is used as the allowable load (Q ).

24 | P a g e
In EC7, the design value of compressive resistance (Column G & Column I) is
computed by dividing characteristic values of shaft and base resistance (Column R
& Column S) by respective partial factor of resistance (Column D & Column E) as
indicated at Figure 4.4. The formulation for design value of compressive resistance
is given by Equation 4.10a and Equation 4.10b.

R , =R + R = + (4.10a)

R , = (4.10b)

A conservative estimate of compressive resistance is achieved by comparing both


of the compressive resistance from Equation 4.10a and Equation 4.10b which
represented by R , and R , respectively (Column J & Column K) which indicated
at Figure 4.4 and selecting the minimum value as the compressive resistance
(Column L) indicated at Figure 4.4. A model factor (γ ) of 1.4 is applied to the
design value of compressive resistance in order to ensure the computed design
compressive resistance (R ) is conservative and sufficiently safe, a model factor
(γ ) of 1.4 is applied to the design value of compressive resistance as shown in
Figure 4.3 (Cell K23). The design value of axial compressive load or in other words
factored imposed working load (F ) of each design approaches (Column I to
Column P) of Figure 4.3 is calculated by applying the respective action partial
factors γ and γ to permanent action (G ) and variable action (Q ) respectively
by using the and Equation 4.11;

F =γ G + γ Q (4.11)

The design situation of this study is assumed as the ground strength acts in an
unfavourable manner such as downdrag or heave on piles. In other words, the
imposed pile working load is destabilising action instead of stabilising action in this
parametric study. In order to satisfy the requirements of Ultimate Limit State
(ULS), combinations of all ultimate load cases are satisfied by Equation 4.12;

≥ 1.0 (4.12)

25 | P a g e
As stated in Equation 1.1, the design compressive action ( F ) includes pile
self-weight and design compressive resistance (R ) includes overburden pressure
at the foundation base. Before pile installation, original overburden pressure at the
foundation base is equal to soil weight above the base point. After installation of
pile, self-weight of concrete pile and the original soil overburden pressure will
cancel each other or self-weight of pile will be reduced until too small that is
negligible since both of clay soil and concrete has the same density which is
approximately 2.4 g/cm - 2.5 g/cm . Hence, downdrag on piles is not significant as
long as the soil is not light weighted. Besides that, there is no pile extension above
the ground in this study therefore pile self-weight is not taken into consideration in
this parametric study.

26 | P a g e
Figure 4.4: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Individual Sheet – EC7 Design Approaches)

27 | P a g e
4.1.2 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (INDIRECT
METHOD)

In EC7, action is divided into Permanent Action and Variable Action which is Dead
Load (G ) and Live load (Q ) respectively. In order to consider the contributions of
each load component, ratio of Gk : Qk is imposed to analyse how different proportion
of Gk : Qk may affect the design outcomes. In simplicity, both maximum and
minimum load case which are Gk : Qk ratios of 1:0 and 0.6:0.4 were considered.
Due to the fact that none of the partial factors are applied in BS8004 approach, pile
working load will not affect by different Gk : Qk proportions thus critical pile length
for BS8004 approach will remain constant for all load cases (Yellow Cells) as
indicated at Figure 4.5. Based on Figure 4.5, DA3 shows the longest pile length
among all design approaches in EC7 (Green Cells). Optimum pile length based on
DA1 is quite close to DA3 but the gap between both of design approaches increases
as soil getting weaker where undrained shear strength of soil decrease. However
in DA1, there is transition of governing design approach from load case 2 where
DA1.C1 shifted to DA1.C2. (Red Cells, Bold Font) as indicated at Figure 4.5. In
comparison between EC7 and BS8004, BS8004 provides the longest pile length.

In this study, piling length was taken as dependent variable whereas pile diameter
(800mm, 900mm and 1000mm) taken as independent variable. Based on the
results shown in Figure 4.6, required pile length is inversely proportional to soil’s
cohesion. As soil consistency improving which become stiffer and denser, the piling
length gap among all three design approaches (DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2 and DA3) is
getting narrower. As expected, greater pile length is required to support higher pile
working load as usual and transfer loads from a structure above ground through
upper weak strata of soil to a more competent one at depth. By varying proportions
of permanent actions and variable actions, the increased in variable action
corresponds to an increase in the action which is then compensated by greater
shaft resistance and hence larger pile length is required. Application of material
factor (M2 = 1.4) to soil parameters in obtaining the design resistance based on
DA3 approach, results in DA3 providing the longest design pile length and hence
the least economical design approach in EC7 as indicated at Figure 4.7.

28 | P a g e
In comparing both EC7 and BS8004, longer pile length is required based on BS8004
approach in hard, very stiff, stiff and medium stiff clay whereas transition from
BS8004 to EC7 occur where EC7 shows longer pile length required in soft clay as
indicated at Table 4.1 where font in green in colour indicate the governing pile
length. According to the column chart from Figure 4.8, the gap of percentage
difference in pile length getting wider from hard clay to stiff clay and become
narrower from stiff clay to medium stiff clay where BS8004 is still governed. More
interestingly, the governing approach shifted from BS8004 to EC7 from medium
stiff clay to soft clay. The varying proportion of Permanent Action and Variable
Action (Gk : Qk ) had a significant effect on gap difference in pile length where the
results shows that the percentage difference in pile length for load case of
0.6Gk :0.4Qk is bigger compared to load case of 100% Permanent Action (1.0Gk )

which this is only true when BS8004 is still governing. Another observation that can
be made is that, maximum percentage difference in pile length is around 11%
which occur at very stiff clay and stiff clay where BS8004 is governing for 100% Gk
whereas 10% for soft clay where EC7 is governing for 60% Gk . The lowest
percentage difference in pile length is around 1.5% which occurs at hard clay and
medium stiff clay where BS8004 is governing for 60% Gk. Another interesting trend
is observed where 100% Gk shows the biggest percentage difference when BS8004
is governing whereas 60% Gk shows the biggest percentage difference when EC7 is
governing. This is due to none of the partial factor on actions is used in BS8004
where total imposed load is used in place of G : Q ratio.

Based on the results from Figure 4.8, there are three significant trends is observed
which is the governing approach for soft clay is EC7 whereas governing approach
for denser clay which is medium stiff to hard clay is BS8004. The another significant
trend observed is percentage difference in pile length between EC7 and BS8004 of
6% to 11% occur at soft clay, stiff clay and very stiff clay whereas percentage
difference around 1.5% to 6.5% occur at medium stiff clay and hard clay. The last
significant trend observed is diameter of bored pile does not affect the percentage
difference in pile length. Thus, it depends on soil cohesion and proportion of
permanent and variable actions.

29 | P a g e
In comparison of required pile length between EC7 and BS8004, pile design
according to criteria of BS8004 consistently returns a slightly greater compared to
EC7 but reduces as cohesion of soil reduces based on Indirect SPT Method. In
results, EC7 which governed by Design Approach 3 (DA3) will be less conservative
but is more economical design compared to BS8004 for bored pile embedded in a
uniform single clay layer except for soft clay.

30 | P a g e
Table 4.1: Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method)

Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Load Case Pile Length EC7 Vs
Consistency Cu Penetration Diameter Working (m) BS8004
(kPa) ( ) (mm) Load
Gk Qk EC7 BS8004 %
(kN)
Difference
HARD 200 40 800 3300 100% 0% 39.19 41.73 -6.48
60% 40% 41.13 -1.45
900 4200 100% 0% 44.37 47.24 -6.49
60% 40% 46.56 -1.46
1000 5300 100% 0% 50.51 53.80 -6.51
60% 40% 53.01 -1.49
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 3300 100% 0% 46.64 51.47 -10.36
60% 40% 48.89 -5.29
900 4200 100% 0% 52.79 58.26 -10.36
60% 40% 55.33 -5.29
1000 5300 100% 0% 60.06 66.30 -10.38
60% 40% 62.95 -5.31
STIFF 75 15 800 3300 100% 0% 67.58 74.91 -10.85
60% 40% 70.70 -5.95
900 4200 100% 0% 76.47 84.77 -10.85
60% 40% 80.00 -5.96
1000 5300 100% 0% 86.92 96.36 -10.86
60% 40% 90.94 -5.96
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 3300 100% 0% 106.57 112.76 -5.81
60% 40% 111.40 -1.22
900 4200 100% 0% 120.58 127.59 -5.81
60% 40% 126.04 -1.22
1000 5300 100% 0% 137.00 144.97 -5.81
60% 40% 143.21 -1.23
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 3300 100% 0% 197.23 186.24 5.57
60% 40% 206.08 9.63
900 4200 100% 0% 223.14 210.70 5.57
60% 40% 233.15 9.63
1000 5300 100% 0% 253.47 239.35 5.57
60% 40% 264.85 9.63

31 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 45.93 44.16 43.66 50.51 50.51 53.80 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 46.51 45.68 44.21 51.14 51.14 53.80 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 47.10 47.20 44.77 51.76 51.76 53.80 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 47.68 48.72 45.33 52.39 52.39 53.80 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 48.26 50.23 45.88 53.01 53.01 53.80 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 56.89 54.77 54.16 60.06 60.06 66.30 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 57.58 56.58 54.83 60.79 60.79 66.30 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 58.28 58.40 55.49 61.51 61.51 66.30 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 58.97 60.22 56.16 62.23 62.23 66.30 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 59.67 62.03 56.83 62.95 62.95 66.30 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 83.25 83.25 79.46 86.92 86.92 96.36 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 84.22 84.22 80.38 87.93 87.93 96.36 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 85.19 85.19 81.31 88.93 88.93 96.36 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 86.16 86.16 82.24 89.93 89.93 96.36 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 87.13 87.13 83.17 90.94 90.94 96.36 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 125.65 121.30 120.06 137.00 137.00 144.97 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 127.08 125.03 121.42 138.55 138.55 144.97 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 128.50 128.75 122.79 140.11 140.11 144.97 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 129.93 132.48 124.16 141.66 141.66 144.97 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 131.36 136.21 125.52 143.21 143.21 144.97 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 207.78 200.67 198.64 253.47 253.47 239.35 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 210.11 206.76 200.87 256.32 256.32 239.35 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 212.45 212.86 203.11 259.16 259.16 239.35 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 214.78 218.95 205.34 262.00 262.00 239.35 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 217.12 225.04 207.57 264.85 264.85 239.35 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.5a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile)

32 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 40.32 38.76 38.31 44.37 44.37 47.24 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 40.83 40.10 38.80 44.92 44.92 47.24 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 41.34 41.43 39.29 45.47 45.47 47.24 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 41.86 42.77 39.78 46.01 46.01 47.24 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 42.37 44.11 40.27 46.56 46.56 47.24 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 49.98 48.11 47.58 52.79 52.79 58.26 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 50.59 49.71 48.16 53.43 53.43 58.26 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 51.20 51.31 48.75 54.06 54.06 58.26 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 51.81 52.91 49.34 54.70 54.70 58.26 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 52.43 54.51 49.92 55.33 55.33 58.26 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 73.22 70.63 69.88 76.47 76.47 84.77 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 74.08 72.85 70.70 77.35 77.35 84.77 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 74.93 75.08 71.52 78.24 78.24 84.77 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 75.79 77.31 72.33 79.12 79.12 84.77 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 76.64 79.54 73.15 80.00 80.00 84.77 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 110.57 106.75 105.65 120.58 120.58 127.59 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 111.83 110.03 106.85 121.95 121.95 127.59 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 113.09 113.31 108.06 123.31 123.31 127.59 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 114.35 116.59 109.26 124.68 124.68 127.59 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 115.61 119.87 110.47 126.04 126.04 127.59 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 182.90 176.64 174.85 223.14 223.14 210.70 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 184.96 182.01 176.82 225.64 225.64 210.70 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 187.01 187.37 178.79 228.14 228.14 210.70 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 189.07 192.74 180.76 230.65 230.65 210.70 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 191.13 198.10 182.72 233.15 233.15 210.70 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.5b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile)

33 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 35.61 34.23 33.84 39.19 39.19 41.73 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 36.06 35.41 34.27 39.68 39.68 41.73 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 36.52 36.59 34.70 40.16 40.16 41.73 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 36.97 37.78 35.14 40.65 40.65 41.73 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 37.42 38.96 35.57 41.13 41.13 41.73 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 44.15 42.50 42.03 46.64 46.64 51.47 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 44.69 43.91 42.55 47.20 47.20 51.47 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 45.23 45.33 43.07 47.77 47.77 51.47 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 45.77 46.74 43.58 48.33 48.33 51.47 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 46.32 48.15 44.10 48.89 48.89 51.47 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 64.71 62.41 61.75 67.58 67.58 74.91 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 65.46 64.38 62.48 68.36 68.36 74.91 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 66.22 66.35 63.20 69.14 69.14 74.91 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 66.97 68.32 63.92 69.92 69.92 74.91 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 67.73 70.29 64.64 70.70 70.70 74.91 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 97.73 94.34 93.38 106.57 106.57 112.76 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 98.84 97.24 94.44 107.78 107.78 112.76 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 99.95 100.14 95.50 108.99 108.99 112.76 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 101.06 103.05 96.57 110.19 110.19 112.76 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 102.18 105.95 97.63 111.40 111.40 112.76 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 161.66 156.13 154.55 197.23 197.23 186.24 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 163.48 160.87 156.29 199.44 199.44 186.24 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 165.30 165.61 158.03 201.65 201.65 186.24 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 167.11 170.35 159.76 203.86 203.86 186.24 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 168.93 175.10 161.50 206.08 206.08 186.24 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.5c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile)

34 | P a g e
Figure 4.6: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer for
EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

35 | P a g e
Figure 4.7a: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer
for 1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in
EC7 based on Indirect Method

36 | P a g e
Figure 4.7b: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer
for 900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in
EC7 based on Indirect Method

37 | P a g e
Figure 4.7c: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer for
800mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7
based on Indirect Method

38 | P a g e
Figure 4.8: Derivation of % difference in pile length of single uniform clay layer for
EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

39 | P a g e
4.1.3 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON ALLOWABLE ACTION
(INDIRECT METHOD)

Optimization tool of Microsoft Excel which known as Solver is invoked in


determining maximum pile working load. However, computed allowable load is
ensured not exceeding structural capacity of corresponding bored pile. In this case,
piling length is taken as independent variable which assumed as 30 meter length.
Based on Figure 4.9, DA3 shows the lowest allowable load among all design
approaches in EC7 (Green Cells) whereas DA2 shows the highest optimum pile
working load. In DA1, there is transition of governing design approach from load
case 3 where DA1.C1 shifted to DA1.C2. (Red Cells, Bold Font) as indicated at
Figure 4.9. In comparison between EC7 and BS8004, BS8004 shows the lowest pile
working load thus the governing approach based on allowable load is BS8004. For
a given pile diameter, good soil consistency results in an increased in pile working
load capacity which mainly due to higher undrained shear strength of soil which
increased shaft friction of pile. Similarly, for a given pile length, increasing pile
diameter will increase working load capacity.

According to the results as indicated at Figure 4.11, highest pile working load able
to carry if pile design is computed based on DA2 whereas DA3 design approach
shows the lowest pile working load capacity among all three design approaches in
EC7. This shows that DA3 is the most conservative design approach in EC7. By
varying proportions of permanent actions and variable actions, the increased in
variable action corresponds to an increase in the axial compression loads and hence
decreased allowable load. In results, the governing design approach will be Design
Approach 3 regardless the ratio of G k: Qk applied. In comparing both EC7 and
BS8004, BS8004 approach shows lower allowable load in hard, very stiff, stiff and
medium stiff clay whereas transition from BS8004 to EC7 occur where EC7 shows
lower allowable load in soft clay. According to the column chart from Table 4.2, the
gap of percentage difference in allowable load getting wider from hard clay to stiff
clay and become narrower from stiff clay to medium stiff clay where BS8004 is still
governed. More interestingly, the governing approach shifted from BS8004 to EC7
from medium stiff clay to soft clay. The varying proportion of Permanent Action and
Variable Action (G : Q ) had a significant effect on gap difference in maximum
allowable imposed load where the results shows that the percentage difference in

40 | P a g e
allowable load for load case of 0.6Gk:0.4Qk is bigger compared to load case of
100% Permanent Action (1.0 Gk) which this is true when BS8004 is still governing.
Another observation that can be made is that, maximum percentage difference in
allowable load is around 8% to 9% which occur at very stiff clay and stiff clay where
BS8004 is governing for 100% Gk whereas around 6% for soft clay where EC7 is
governing for 60% Gk . The lowest percentage difference in allowable load is around
0.7% to 0.8% which occurs at hard clay and medium stiff clay where BS8004 is
governing for 60% Gk . Another interesting trend is observed where 100% Gk shows
the biggest percentage difference when BS8004 is governing whereas
60% Gk shows the biggest percentage difference when EC7 is governing. This is due
to none of the partial factor on actions is used in BS8004 where total imposed load
is used in place of G k: Qk ratio.

Based on the results, there are three significant trends is observed which is the
governing approach for soft clay is EC7 whereas governing approach for denser
clay which is medium stiff to hard clay is BS8004. The another significant trend
observed is percentage difference in allowable load between EC7 and BS8004 is 4%
to 5% for 60% Gk and 8% to 9% for 100% Gk which occur at stiff clay and very stiff
clay, 1.5% for 100% Gk and 6% for 60% Gk which occur at soft clay and 0.7% to
1.2% for 60% Gk and 4.5% to 5.1% for 100% Gk that occur at medium stiff clay
and hard clay. Unlike the results based on percentage difference in pile length, the
last significant trend observed is diameter of bored pile affect the percentage
difference in maximum allowable imposed load. Reduced of percentage difference
in allowable load corresponds to increase in diameter of bored pile regardless the
proportions of actions which is true only for medium stiff clay to hard clay where
governing approach is BS8004. However, increased in diameter of bored pile
increases the percentage difference in allowable load for soft clay where EC7 is
governing. In results, this shows that increased diameter of bored pile will improve
the gap of allowable imposed load between EC7 and BS8004 which is only
applicable for medium stiff clay onwards until hard clay.

41 | P a g e
In comparison of allowable imposed load between EC7 and BS8004, pile design
based on BS8004 consistently returns a slightly lower compared to EC7 but reduces
as cohesion of soil reduces. In results, EC7 which governed by Design Approach 3
(DA3) will be less conservative but is more economical design compared to BS8004
for bored pile embedded in a uniform single clay layer which applicable to all soil
consistency except for soft clay.

42 | P a g e
Table 4.2: Pile Capacity of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method)

Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Load Case Allowable Load EC7 Vs
Consistency Cu Penetration Diameter Length (kN) BS8004
(kPa) ( ) (mm) (m)
Gk Qk EC7 BS8004 %
Difference
HARD 200 40 800 30 100% 0% 2606.30 2474.06 5.07
40 60% 40% 2502.05 1.12
40 900 30 100% 0% 2980.20 2834.23 4.90
40 60% 40% 2860.99 0.94
40 1000 30 100% 0% 3364.78 3205.71 4.73
40 60% 40% 3230.19 0.76
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 30 100% 0% 2217.44 2036.57 8.16
30 60% 40% 2128.75 4.33
30 900 30 100% 0% 2530.71 2329.33 7.96
30 60% 40% 2429.48 4.12
30 1000 30 100% 0% 2851.99 2630.57 7.76
30 60% 40% 2737.91 3.92
STIFF 75 15 800 30 100% 0% 1536.32 1402.97 8.68
15 60% 40% 1474.87 4.87
15 900 30 100% 0% 1746.40 1597.44 8.53
15 60% 40% 1676.55 4.72
15 1000 30 100% 0% 1960.49 1796.14 8.38
15 60% 40% 1882.07 4.57
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 30 100% 0% 975.03 927.77 4.85
7.5 60% 40% 936.03 0.88
7.5 900 30 100% 0% 1105.93 1053.29 4.76
7.5 60% 40% 1061.69 0.79
7.5 1000 30 100% 0% 1238.84 1180.93 4.67
7.5 60% 40% 1189.28 0.70
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 30 100% 0% 552.07 560.06 -1.45
3.75 60% 40% 529.99 -5.67
3.75 900 30 100% 0% 625.59 634.84 -1.48
3.75 60% 40% 600.57 -5.71
3.75 1000 30 100% 0% 700.11 710.68 -1.51
3.75 60% 40% 672.11 -5.74

43 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 1000 3687.27 3816.33 3854.88 3364.78 3364.78 3205.71 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 1000 3650.40 3728.26 3816.33 3331.13 3331.13 3205.71 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 1000 3613.53 3640.19 3777.78 3297.48 3297.48 3205.71 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 1000 3576.65 3552.12 3739.23 3263.84 3263.84 3205.71 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 1000 3539.78 3464.05 3700.68 3230.19 3230.19 3205.71 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 1000 3025.73 3131.63 3163.27 2851.99 2851.99 2630.57 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 1000 2995.48 3059.37 3131.63 2823.47 2823.47 2630.57 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 1000 2965.22 2987.10 3100.00 2794.95 2794.95 2630.57 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 1000 2934.96 2914.83 3068.37 2766.43 2766.43 2630.57 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 1000 2904.70 2842.56 3036.74 2737.91 2737.91 2630.57 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 1000 2065.96 2138.26 2159.86 1960.49 1960.49 1796.14 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 1000 2045.30 2088.92 2138.26 1940.89 1940.89 1796.14 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 1000 2024.64 2039.58 2116.67 1921.28 1921.28 1796.14 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 1000 2003.98 1990.23 2095.07 1901.68 1901.68 1796.14 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 1000 1983.32 1940.89 2073.47 1882.07 1882.07 1796.14 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 1000 1358.33 1405.87 1420.07 1238.84 1238.84 1180.93 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 1000 1344.74 1373.43 1405.87 1226.45 1226.45 1180.93 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 1000 1331.16 1340.98 1391.67 1214.06 1214.06 1180.93 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 1000 1317.58 1308.54 1377.47 1201.67 1201.67 1180.93 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 1000 1303.99 1276.10 1363.27 1189.28 1189.28 1180.93 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 1000 817.44 846.05 854.59 700.11 700.11 710.68 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 1000 809.26 826.52 846.05 693.11 693.11 710.68 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 1000 801.09 807.00 837.50 686.11 686.11 710.68 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 1000 792.91 787.47 828.95 679.11 679.11 710.68 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 1000 784.74 767.95 820.41 672.11 672.11 710.68 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.9a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile)

44 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 900 3259.98 3374.08 3408.17 2980.20 2980.20 2834.23 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 900 3227.39 3296.22 3374.08 2950.40 2950.40 2834.23 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 900 3194.79 3218.36 3340.00 2920.60 2920.60 2834.23 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 900 3162.19 3140.49 3305.92 2890.79 2890.79 2834.23 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 900 3129.59 3062.63 3271.84 2860.99 2860.99 2834.23 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 900 2679.24 2773.01 2801.02 2530.71 2530.71 2329.33 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 900 2652.45 2709.02 2773.01 2505.40 2505.40 2329.33 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 900 2625.65 2645.03 2745.00 2480.09 2480.09 2329.33 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 900 2598.86 2581.03 2716.99 2454.79 2454.79 2329.33 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 900 2572.07 2517.04 2688.98 2429.48 2429.48 2329.33 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 900 1837.40 1901.71 1920.92 1746.40 1746.40 1597.44 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 900 1819.03 1857.82 1901.71 1728.94 1728.94 1597.44 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 900 1800.65 1813.94 1882.50 1711.47 1711.47 1597.44 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 900 1782.28 1770.05 1863.29 1694.01 1694.01 1597.44 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 900 1763.90 1726.17 1844.08 1676.55 1676.55 1597.44 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 900 1211.51 1253.92 1266.58 1105.93 1105.93 1053.29 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 900 1199.40 1224.98 1253.92 1094.87 1094.87 1053.29 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 900 1187.28 1196.04 1241.25 1083.81 1083.81 1053.29 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 900 1175.17 1167.11 1228.58 1072.75 1072.75 1053.29 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 900 1163.05 1138.17 1215.92 1061.69 1061.69 1053.29 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 900 730.20 755.76 763.39 625.59 625.59 634.84 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 900 722.90 738.32 755.76 619.34 619.34 634.84 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 900 715.60 720.88 748.12 613.08 613.08 634.84 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 900 708.30 703.44 740.49 606.82 606.82 634.84 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 900 700.99 686.00 732.86 600.57 600.57 634.84 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.9b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile)

45 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 800 2845.70 2945.30 2975.05 2606.30 2606.30 2474.06 200.00 40.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 800 2817.25 2877.34 2945.30 2580.24 2580.24 2474.06 200.00 40.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 800 2788.79 2809.37 2915.55 2554.18 2554.18 2474.06 200.00 40.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 800 2760.33 2741.40 2885.80 2528.11 2528.11 2474.06 200.00 40.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 800 2731.88 2673.43 2856.05 2502.05 2502.05 2474.06 200.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 800 2342.50 2424.49 2448.98 2217.44 2217.44 2036.57 150.00 30.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 800 2319.08 2368.54 2424.49 2195.27 2195.27 2036.57 150.00 30.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 800 2295.65 2312.59 2400.00 2173.10 2173.10 2036.57 150.00 30.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 800 2272.23 2256.64 2375.51 2150.92 2150.92 2036.57 150.00 30.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 800 2248.80 2200.69 2351.02 2128.75 2128.75 2036.57 150.00 30.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 800 1613.72 1670.20 1687.07 1536.32 1536.32 1402.97 75.00 15.00
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 800 1597.59 1631.66 1670.20 1520.96 1520.96 1402.97 75.00 15.00
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 800 1581.45 1593.12 1653.33 1505.60 1505.60 1402.97 75.00 15.00
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 800 1565.31 1554.57 1636.46 1490.23 1490.23 1402.97 75.00 15.00
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 800 1549.17 1516.03 1619.59 1474.87 1474.87 1402.97 75.00 15.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 800 1067.14 1104.49 1115.65 975.03 975.03 927.77 37.50 7.50
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 800 1056.47 1079.00 1104.49 965.28 965.28 927.77 37.50 7.50
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 800 1045.80 1053.51 1093.33 955.53 955.53 927.77 37.50 7.50
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 800 1035.13 1028.02 1082.18 945.78 945.78 927.77 37.50 7.50
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 800 1024.45 1002.54 1071.02 936.03 936.03 927.77 37.50 7.50

Soil Consistency Soft Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Working Load, P (kN) Governed Pile Working Load (kN) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk (%) 1-η Qk (%) (mm) kN/m2 N
1 1.0 100 0.0 0 800 644.19 666.74 673.47 552.07 552.07 560.06 18.75 3.75
2 0.9 90 0.1 10 800 637.75 651.35 666.74 546.55 546.55 560.06 18.75 3.75
3 0.8 80 0.2 20 800 631.30 635.96 660.00 541.03 541.03 560.06 18.75 3.75
4 0.7 70 0.3 30 800 624.86 620.58 653.27 535.51 535.51 560.06 18.75 3.75
5 0.6 60 0.4 40 800 618.42 605.19 646.53 529.99 529.99 560.06 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.9c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile)

46 | P a g e
Figure 4.10: Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer for EC7
& BS8004 based on Indirect Method

47 | P a g e
Figure 4.11a: Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer for
1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in
EC7 based on Indirect Method

48 | P a g e
Figure 4.11b: Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer for
900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7
based on Indirect Method

49 | P a g e
Figure 4.11c: Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer for 800mm
diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7 based
on Indirect Method

50 | P a g e
Figure 4.12: Derivation of allowable actions in single uniform clay layer for
1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7
based on Indirect Method

51 | P a g e
Figure 4.13: Derivation of % difference in allowable load of single uniform clay layer
for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

52 | P a g e
4.1.4 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD)

Similar to Indirect Method, a tailored Excel spreadsheet is developed for


computation of design compressive resistance by employing Alternative Calculation
Method which proposed in EC7 and BS8004 approach in this section. The only
difference between Direct Method and Indirect Method is no varying proportions of
Permanent Actions ( Gk ) and Variable Actions (Qk ) is considered in Direct Method
which based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Hence, the imposed pile working
load will be equal to 90% of structural capacity of the bored pile which is similar to
Indirect Method. In this section of parametric study, the ratio of permanent action
(Gk ) to variable action (Qk ) is taken as 1:5 (0.8Gk :0.2Qk ) to simulate a standard

structure where this is generic ratio of permanent to variable load ratio (From
“Bored Pile Design In Stiff Clay I: Codes Of Practice”, By Simpson, 2012). Due to
different load factors are used for permanent and variable action, the designs will
be more or less conservative depending on the permanent action to variable action
ratio.

The author suggests that varying proportions of actions is not recommendable in


this parametric study section. The reason behind this is that the design method
used in practice which is Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is to determine pile
working load as to be close to the pile actual bearing capacity by employing
established semi-empirical correlation thus providing data for direct use in pile
design. However, it is worthy to note that the bearing capacity of foundations
estimated by means of empirical methods is higher than the predicated bearing
capacity using other methods.

To allow the main sheet which indicated at Figure 4.14 to show the governed pile
length for comparison between EC7 and BS8004, borehole sheets which
corresponding to various soil consistency and pile diameters are developed. The
characteristic values from boreholes are the SPT-N value (Column H, L, S, Z & AG)
and soil cohesion, Cu (Cell C45) which indicated at Figure 4.15. The dimensions of
pile and soil properties is input at (Cells C31:C48) whereas the loading input is
input at (Cells I32:I33) in the borehole sheets. Optimization tool, Solver is
employed in computation of resistance based on each soil layers is done by setting
overdesign factors (ODF) equal to 1.0 which indicated at green shaded cells which

53 | P a g e
indicated at Figure 4.15. This is to ensure EC7 and BS8004 satisfy requirements of
ULS. In all boreholes sheets, the results of governed pile length are shown at (Cells
O48:O49).

Due to the fact that the standard penetration alone is not direct use for geotechnical
design in cohesive soil material, a correlation between SPT-N value and undrained
shear strength, Cu is assumed (Cell C50) as indicated at Figure 4.15. Based on
Stroud’s (1974), correlation of SPT-N and Cu is shown in Equation 4.13;

Cu = 5N (4.13)

Hence, Equation 4.13 is applied in direct method in converting SPT-N values to


equivalent shear strengths to facilitate the Alternative Calculation in EC7 for design
compressive resistance computation. To evaluate the shaft resistance (Q ) and end
bearing (Q ), the following Equation 4.14 and Equation 4.15 relationships with
SPT-N values for bored piles embedded in cohesive soil (Cell I38:I39) which
indicated at Figure 4.15 as suggested by Meyerhof (1976) are applied in this
section.

q = K N = 2.5N (4.14)

q = K N = 250N (4.15)

Based on the empirical approach of ultimate unit skin resistance ( ) and ultimate

base resistance ( ) as suggested by Meyerhof (1976), the formulation for

characteristic value of shaft resistance and base resistance is shown at following


Equation 4.16 and Equation 4.17;

R = q A = K N( πdl) (4.16)

(d2 )
R =q A =K N (4.17)

However, many researchers reported that values of base resistance (K ) varies


significantly which indicating difficulties in obtaining proper and consistent base

54 | P a g e
cleaning during construction of bored piles. In results, it is very dangerous and
risky if the base resistance is relied upon when the proper cleaning of the base
cannot be assured. According to Gue et al. (2003), the contribution of end bearing
in bored piles should be ignored due to difficulty of proper base cleaning. Hence, the
contribution of end bearing in bored piles is ignored in this parametric study in
order to ensure the design is conservative.

The design value of compressive resistance (Column Q, R, X, Y, AE, AF, AL & AM)
is computed by dividing characteristic values of shaft and base resistance (Column
O, P, V, W, AC, AD, AJ & AK) by respective partial factor of resistance (Cells
I42:I57) as indicated at Figure 4.15. The formulation for design value of
compressive resistance is given by Equation 4.10a and Equation 4.10b. A
conservative estimate of compressive resistance is achieved by selecting minimum
value of compressive resistance from Equation 4.18a and Equation 4.18b (Cells
N33:N36 & Cells O33:036) which indicated at Figure 4.15. A model factor (γ ) of
1.4 is applied to the design value of compressive resistance (Cells Q33:Q36) from
borehole sheets as indicated at Figure 4.15.

Similar to approached applied in Indirect Method, it is assumed as the design


situation acting in an unfavourable manner in order to provide safe design against
unfavourable deviations of the actions, or their effects, from their characteristic
values. ULS requirement is full filled in this section by satisfy Equation 4.12 which
applied in EC7 design approaches and BS8004.

55 | P a g e
Figure 4.14: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Main Sheet - Direct Method)

56 | P a g e
Figure 4.15: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
(Borehole Sheet - Direct Method)

57 | P a g e
4.1.5 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD)

Unlike Indirect Method, no varying proportions of Permanent Actions ( Gk ) and


Variable Actions ( Qk ) is considered in Direct Method which based on Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) as indicated at Figure 4.16. This section involved 800mm,
900mm and 1000mm of bored pile fully embedded in a single homogeneous clay
layer soil with several of undrained shear strength which corresponds to soil
consistency. According to the results from Table 4.3 and Figure 4.17, required pile
length is inversely proportional to soil’s cohesion as usual. EC7 approach requires
longer pile length compared to BS8004 regardless un-drained shear strength, Cu of
clay soil and bored pile diameter. Among all three design approaches in EC7 as
indicated at Figure 4.18, Design Approach 3 (DA3) provides the longest design pile
length thus the governing approach in EC7 is DA3. As soil consistency improving
which become stiffer and denser, the piling length gap among all three design
approaches (DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2 and DA3) is getting narrower. Based on the
column chart as indicated at Figure 4.19, the gap of percentage difference in pile
length between EC7 and BS8004 remain constant regardless the un-drained shear
strength of clay soil. None of the factor is affecting the percentage difference in pile
length is diameter of bored where the percentage difference in pile length is 7.57%
regardless diameter of bored pile and soil consistency. This section concludes that
pile design based on EC7 consistently returns a slightly greater compared to
BS8004 based on Direct SPT Method. Hence, EC7 which governed by Design
Approach 3 (DA3) will be more conservative but is the least economical design
compared to BS8004 for bored pile embedded in a uniform single layer of clay soil.

58 | P a g e
Table 4.3: Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Direct Method)

Soil Cohesion, SPT Pile Pile Pile Length (m) EC7 Vs BS8004
Consistency Cu (kPa) Penetration Diameter Working
( ) (mm) Load
(kN) EC7 BS8004 (% Difference)
HARD 200 40 800 3300 35.50 32.81 7.57
900 4200 40.16 37.12 7.57
1000 5300 45.61 42.16 7.57
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 3300 47.33 43.75 7.57
900 4200 53.55 49.49 7.57
1000 5300 60.82 56.21 7.57
STIFF 75 15 800 3300 94.67 87.50 7.57
900 4200 107.10 98.99 7.57
1000 5300 121.63 112.42 7.57
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 3300 189.34 175.00 7.57
900 4200 214.20 197.98 7.57
1000 5300 243.27 224.85 7.57
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 3300 378.67 350.00 7.57
900 4200 428.40 395.96 7.57
1000 5300 486.54 449.70 7.57

59 | P a g e
Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 1000 200.00 40.00
3360.0 840.0 1000 200.00 40.00
4240.0 1060.0 1000 37.47 37.54 35.84 45.61 45.61 42.16 200.00 40.00
1000 200.00 40.00
1000 200.00 40.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 900 200.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 900 32.99 33.05 31.56 40.16 40.16 37.12 200.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 900 200.00 40.00
4 900 200.00 40.00
5 900 200.00 40.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 800 29.16 29.22 27.89 35.50 35.50 32.81 200.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 800 200.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 800 200.00 40.00
4 800 200.00 40.00
5 800 200.00 40.00

Figure 4.16a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A (Hard Clay)

Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 1000 150.00 30.00
2 3360.0 840.0 1000 150.00 30.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 1000 49.96 50.05 47.78 60.82 60.82 56.21 150.00 30.00
4 1000 150.00 30.00
5 1000 150.00 30.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 900 150.00 30.00
2 3360.0 840.0 900 43.99 44.07 42.07 53.55 53.55 49.49 150.00 30.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 900 150.00 30.00
4 900 150.00 30.00
5 900 150.00 30.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 800 38.88 38.96 37.19 47.33 47.33 43.75 150.00 30.00
2 3360.0 840.0 800 150.00 30.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 800 150.00 30.00
4 800 150.00 30.00
5 800 150.00 30.00

Figure 4.16b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A (Very Stiff Clay)

60 | P a g e
Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 1000 75.00 15.00
2 3360.0 840.0 1000 75.00 15.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 1000 99.91 100.10 95.57 121.63 121.63 112.42 75.00 15.00
4 1000 75.00 15.00
5 1000 75.00 15.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 900 75.00 15.00
2 3360.0 840.0 900 87.97 88.14 84.15 107.10 107.10 98.99 75.00 15.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 900 75.00 15.00
4 900 75.00 15.00
5 900 75.00 15.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 800 77.76 77.91 74.38 94.67 94.67 87.50 75.00 15.00
2 3360.0 840.0 800 75.00 15.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 800 75.00 15.00
4 800 75.00 15.00
5 800 75.00 15.00

Figure 4.16c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A (Stiff Clay)

Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 1000 37.50 7.50
2 3360.0 840.0 1000 37.50 7.50
3 4240.0 1060.0 1000 199.83 200.21 191.14 243.27 243.27 224.85 37.50 7.50
4 1000 37.50 7.50
5 1000 37.50 7.50

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 900 37.50 7.50
2 3360.0 840.0 900 175.95 176.28 168.30 214.20 214.20 197.98 37.50 7.50
3 4240.0 1060.0 900 37.50 7.50
4 900 37.50 7.50
5 900 37.50 7.50

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 800 155.53 155.82 148.76 189.34 189.34 175.00 37.50 7.50
2 3360.0 840.0 800 37.50 7.50
3 4240.0 1060.0 800 37.50 7.50
4 800 37.50 7.50
5 800 37.50 7.50

Figure 4.16d: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A (Medium Stiff Clay)

61 | P a g e
Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 1000 18.75 3.75
2 3360.0 840.0 1000 18.75 3.75
3 4240.0 1060.0 1000 399.65 400.41 382.28 486.54 486.54 449.70 18.75 3.75
4 1000 18.75 3.75
5 1000 18.75 3.75

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 900 18.75 3.75
2 3360.0 840.0 900 351.90 352.56 336.60 428.40 428.40 395.96 18.75 3.75
3 4240.0 1060.0 900 18.75 3.75
4 900 18.75 3.75
5 900 18.75 3.75

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
Gk Qk (mm) kN/m2 N
1 2640.0 660.0 800 311.05 311.64 297.53 378.67 378.67 350.00 18.75 3.75
2 3360.0 840.0 800 18.75 3.75
3 4240.0 1060.0 800 18.75 3.75
4 800 18.75 3.75
5 800 18.75 3.75

Figure 4.16e: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation (Soft Clay)

62 | P a g e
Figure 4.17: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer for
EC7 & BS8004 based on Direct Method

63 | P a g e
Figure 4.18: Derivation of required bored pile length in single uniform clay layer for
all three design approaches in EC7 based on Direct Method

64 | P a g e
Figure 4.19: Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length of single
uniform clay layer for EC7 & BS8004 based on Direct Method

65 | P a g e
4.2 HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION B: A SINGLE BORED PILE IN DOUBLE
NON-HOMOGENEOUS CLAY LAYER

Figure 4.20: Hypothetical Situation B

In this hypothetical situation B, a circular bored pile with a specific pile diameter,
embedded fully in 2 layers of clayey soils with assumed characteristic value of
un-drained shear strength. The soil profile of hypothetical situation B is double non-
homogeneous clay layer which comprising of weaker clay overlying a relatively
stronger clay layer. The depth of weaker clay, L1 was set to 10 m for all cases. The
pile is subjected to an axial compressive load which is 90% of each bored pile
structural capacity which is a function of diameter of bored pile. The water table is
assumed to be at the ground surface where undrained behaviour of clay is
assumed. Similar to Hypothetical Situation A, a tailored Excel spreadsheet is
developed to examine the critical pile length required to support the design load
with an adequate safety against compressive failure and to investigate the
significant trends which signifying which Design Approach is the most critical in EC7
and the difference of pile design between EC7 and BS8004.

66 | P a g e
4.2.1 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD)

Similar approach which implemented for hypothetical situation A will adopted in


this section. Basically, all formulations of spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation A
are repeated in Hypothetical Situation B. The only difference between these two
spreadsheets is there are two different undrained shear strength due to different
soil layer in Hypothetical Situation B which are Cu1a , Cu2a and Cu2b (Column C &
Column D) which indicate at Figure 4.22 where Cu1a and Cu2a indicate the soil
cohesion for computation of shaft resistance for soil layer 1 and soil layer 2
respectively whereas Cu2b indicate the undrained cohesion of the soil below the tip
of the pile which is used in calculating base resistance. Different bored pile design
for different soil profile of 2 clay layers of soil will be explored. In order to
acknowledge the respective contribution of both permanent and variable action for
each imposed working load, different proportions of actions (Gk :Qk ) is considered.
Dependent variable for this section of study will be piling length by taking 800mm,
900mm and 1000mm pile diameter as independent variable.

67 | P a g e
Figure 4.21: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Main Sheet - Indirect Method)

68 | P a g e
Figure 4.22: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Individual Sheet – Case Properties)

69 | P a g e
Figure 4.23: Excel Spreadsheet for Hypothetical Situation B
(Individual Sheet – BS8004 & EC7)

70 | P a g e
4.2.2 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (INDIRECT
METHOD)

There are various combinations of undrained shear strength applicable for a weaker
clay layer overlying a stronger clay stratum which indicated at Figure 4.24. Thus,
various soil consistency of clay layer which is from soft to very stiff overlying a hard
clay stratum will be explored in a similar manner in this study. Based on the results
from Figure 4.25, the required pile length is inversely proportional to soil’s
cohesion. However, the plot of pile length which corresponds to SPT-N value of first
layer of clay is less narrow compared to the plot for bored pile embedded in a
uniform single clay layer, hypothetical situation A. By right due to correspondence
of imposed actions and different soil parameters, similar results should obtained for
both hypothetical situation. In order to provide sufficient pile axial capacity which
mainly governed by shaft resistance, pile soil interaction at second layer of clay
which is hard clay must compensate the difference of shaft resistance provided in
first clay layer which correspondent to its soil consistency. However, same hard
clay soil is assumed as second clay layer for all cases thus pile length – SPTN plot is
less narrow for single bored pile design in two layered system of clay soil due to
high cohesion (shear strength of soils) in hard clay where the dependent variable is
pile length embedded in second soil layer which is the function of shear strength of
hard clay soil. As soil consistency improving which become stiffer and denser, the
piling length gap of all three design approaches (DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2 and DA3)
remain constant regarding soil consistency as indicated at Figure 4.26. This
behaviour which different from single homogenous clay layer is mainly due to the
second layer of hard clay that assumed in this section of study. Due to the fact that
second layer of soil which assumed as hard clay which is same for all four cases, this
explains why there is no gap difference of pile length among all three design
approaches for all four cases.

Based on the results from Table 4.4, BS8004 (Green Font) shows higher required
pile length compared to EC7 regardless various proportions of Permanent Action
(Gk ) and Variable Action (Qk ) and cohesion of first clay layer soil. According to the

column chart from Figure 4.27, the gap of percentage difference in pile length
reduces as Standard Penetration Test N (SPT-N) values of clay layer 1 reduce.
Another observation that can be made is that, the varying proportion of Permanent

71 | P a g e
Action and Variable Action (Gk : Qk ) has a significant effect on percentage difference
in pile length where percentage difference in pile length for load case of
0.6Gk:0.4Qk is bigger compared to load case of 100% Permanent Action (1.0Gk ).
Maximum percentage difference in pile length is around 7% for 100%Gk whereas
2.1% for 60% Gk for case where very stiff clay overlying hard clay stratum. The
lowest percentage difference in pile length is around 0.83% which occurs at soft
clay. In results, proportion of action 0.6Gk :0.4Qk will be governing due to none of
the partial factor on actions is used in BS8004 which based on service limit state
design. There are two significant trends is observed which is the governing
approach for axially loaded pile design in two layered soil system where weaker
clay layer overlying a stronger clay stratum is BS8004. The last significant trend
observed is reduced in diameter of bored pile reduced percentage difference in pile
length between EC7 and BS8004.

By adopting Indirect SPT Method, pile design based on BS8004 consistently returns
a slightly greater compared to EC7 but reduces as soil cohesion reduces. In results,
EC7 which governed by Design Approach 3 (DA3) will be less conservative but is
more economical design compared to BS8004 for bored pile embedded in a 2 non-
homogeneous layer of clay soil.

72 | P a g e
Table 4.4: Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method)

CASE Soil Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Load Case Pile Length EC7 Vs
Layer Consistency Cu Penetration Diameter Working (m) BS8004
(kPa) ( ) (mm) Load
Gk Qk EC7 BS800 %
(kN)
4 Difference
1 1st Very Stiff 150 30 800 3300 100% 0% 40.53 43.38 -7.02
60% 40% 42.47 -2.12
900 4200 100% 0% 45.71 48.89 -6.96
2nd Hard 200 40 60% 40% 47.90 -2.05
1000 5300 100% 0% 51.85 55.44 -6.92
60% 40% 54.35 -2.01
2 1st Stiff 75 15 800 3300 100% 0% 42.97 45.73 -6.42
60% 40% 44.92 -1.82
900 4200 100% 0% 48.15 51.24 -6.43
2nd Hard 200 40 60% 40% 50.35 -1.79
1000 5300 100% 0% 54.29 57.80 -6.46
60% 40% 56.79 -1.77
3 1st Medium Stiff 37.5 7.5 800 3300 100% 0% 45.17 47.66 -5.52
60% 40% 47.11 -1.17
900 4200 100% 0% 50.34 53.17 -5.62
2nd Hard 200 40 60% 40% 52.54 -1.20
1000 5300 100% 0% 56.49 59.73 -5.73
60% 40% 58.99 -1.26
4 1st Soft 18.75 3.75 800 3300 100% 0% 46.89 49.24 -5.00
60% 40% 48.84 -0.83
900 4200 100% 0% 52.07 54.75 -5.15
2nd Hard 200 40 60% 40% 54.27 -0.89
1000 5300 100% 0% 58.22 61.31 -5.31
60% 40% 60.71 -0.98

73 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 47.58 45.81 45.30 51.85 51.85 55.44 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 48.16 47.32 45.86 52.48 52.48 55.44 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 48.74 48.84 46.41 53.10 53.10 55.44 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 49.32 50.36 46.97 53.73 53.73 55.44 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 49.90 51.88 47.53 54.35 54.35 55.44 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 49.93 48.16 47.66 54.29 54.29 57.80 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 50.51 49.68 48.21 54.92 54.92 57.80 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 51.10 51.20 48.77 55.54 55.54 57.80 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 51.68 52.72 49.33 56.17 56.17 57.80 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 52.26 54.23 49.88 56.79 56.79 57.80 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 51.86 50.09 49.59 56.49 56.49 59.73 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 52.44 51.61 50.14 57.11 57.11 59.73 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 53.03 53.13 50.70 57.74 57.74 59.73 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 53.61 54.64 51.25 58.36 58.36 59.73 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 54.19 56.16 51.81 58.99 58.99 59.73 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Soil Consistency Soft Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 53.44 51.67 51.17 58.22 58.22 61.31 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 54.02 53.19 51.72 58.84 58.84 61.31 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 54.61 54.71 52.28 59.46 59.46 61.31 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 55.19 56.22 52.83 60.09 60.09 61.31 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 55.77 57.74 53.39 60.71 60.71 61.31 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Figure 4.24a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile)

74 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 41.96 40.40 39.96 45.71 45.71 48.89 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 42.47 41.74 40.45 46.26 46.26 48.89 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 42.99 43.08 40.94 46.81 46.81 48.89 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 43.50 44.41 41.43 47.35 47.35 48.89 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 44.01 45.75 41.92 47.90 47.90 48.89 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 44.32 42.76 42.31 48.15 48.15 51.24 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 44.83 44.10 42.80 48.70 48.70 51.24 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 45.34 45.43 43.29 49.25 49.25 51.24 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 45.86 46.77 43.78 49.80 49.80 51.24 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 46.37 48.11 44.27 50.35 50.35 51.24 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 46.25 44.69 44.24 50.34 50.34 53.17 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 46.76 46.02 44.73 50.89 50.89 53.17 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 47.27 47.36 45.22 51.44 51.44 53.17 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 47.78 48.70 45.71 51.99 51.99 53.17 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 48.30 50.03 46.20 52.54 52.54 53.17 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Soil Consistency Soft Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 47.83 46.27 45.82 52.07 52.07 54.75 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 48.34 47.61 46.31 52.62 52.62 54.75 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 48.85 48.94 46.80 53.17 53.17 54.75 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 49.36 50.28 47.29 53.72 53.72 54.75 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 49.88 51.61 47.78 54.27 54.27 54.75 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Figure 4.24b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile)

75 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Very Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 37.25 35.87 35.48 40.53 40.53 43.38 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 37.71 37.06 35.91 41.02 41.02 43.38 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 38.16 38.24 36.35 41.50 41.50 43.38 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 38.61 39.42 36.78 41.99 41.99 43.38 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 39.06 40.60 37.21 42.47 42.47 43.38 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 39.61 38.23 37.84 42.97 42.97 45.73 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 40.06 39.41 38.27 43.46 43.46 45.73 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 40.52 40.59 38.70 43.94 43.94 45.73 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 40.97 41.78 39.14 44.43 44.43 45.73 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 41.42 42.96 39.57 44.92 44.92 45.73 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Soil Consistency Medium Stiff Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 41.54 40.16 39.77 45.17 45.17 47.66 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 41.99 41.34 40.20 45.65 45.65 47.66 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 42.44 42.52 40.63 46.14 46.14 47.66 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 42.90 43.70 41.07 46.63 46.63 47.66 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 43.35 44.89 41.50 47.11 47.11 47.66 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Soil Consistency Soft Clay OVERLYING Hard Clay

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 43.12 41.74 41.35 46.89 46.89 49.24 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 43.57 42.92 41.78 47.38 47.38 49.24 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 44.02 44.10 42.21 47.87 47.87 49.24 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 44.48 45.28 42.65 48.35 48.35 49.24 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 44.93 46.47 43.08 48.84 48.84 49.24 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Figure 4.24c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile)

76 | P a g e
Figure 4.25: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil system for
EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

77 | P a g e
Figure 4.26a: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil system for
1000mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in
EC7 based on Indirect Method

78 | P a g e
Figure 4.26b: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil system for
900mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7
based on Indirect Method

79 | P a g e
Figure 4.26c: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 layer clay soil system for
800mm diameter of Bored Pile of all three Design Approaches in EC7
based on Indirect Method

80 | P a g e
Figure 4.27: Derivation of % difference in pile length of 2 layer clay soil system for
EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

81 | P a g e
4.2.3 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD)

Similar approach which implemented for hypothetical situation A based on Direct


SPT Method was adopted in this section. 800mm, 900mm and 1000mm diameter
pile design which fully embedded in a 2 non- homogeneous layer of clay soil where
piling length is dependent variable will be explored in this section. Second clay layer
is assumed as hard clay stratum whereas weaker clay layer will be overlying it for
all cases.

4.2.4 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD)

As previous results Table 4.5 and Figure 4.28, pile design based on EC7 approach is
governing in terms of pile length compared to BS8004 regardless soil consistency
or soil cohesion of clay and bored pile diameter. Among all three design approaches
in EC7 from Figure 4.30, Design Approach 3 (DA3) provides the longest design pile
length thus the governing approach in EC7 is DA3 due to application of material
partial factors (M2) to the ground parameters where unfavourable geotechnical
actions caused by ground movement is take into consideration.

In comparison between EC7 and BS8004, required pile length decrease linearly as
soil consistency improves where undrained shear strength of soil increase. This
behaviour is different from hypothetical situation A based on Direct SPT Method
which inversely proportional relationship between percentage difference in pile
length and SPT-N value. This is mainly due to the assumption that made in this
section where design value of pile compressive resistance is mainly governed by
shaft friction especially interaction between soil and pile occur at hard clay layer
instead of first clay layer due to thickness of clay layer 1 is assumed as 10 meter for
all cases. An interesting trend that observed from the results as indicated at Figure
4.30 is the piling length gap of all three design approaches (DA1.C1, DA1.C2, DA2
and DA3) remains constant based on the plotted graph. Gap of percentage
difference in pile increases within 0.4% as soil become stiffer and denser as
indicated at the column chart, Figure 4.31. However, pile length percentage
difference between EC7 and BS8004 reduces at the range of within 0.3% as bored
pile diameter increase. The percentage difference in pile length is around 6.0% to
7.2% for all cases. This behaviour is different from hypothetical situation A which

82 | P a g e
based on Direct SPT Method where no gap percentage difference is shown
throughout all four cases. The last significant trend observed is case 4 which is soft
clay layer overlying hard clay stratum provided the lowest percentage difference
between EC7 and BS8004.

By adopting Direct SPT Method, pile design based on EC7 consistently returns a
slightly greater compared to BS8004 based on Direct SPT Method. Hence, EC7
which governed by Design Approach 3 (DA3) is the least economical design
compared to BS8004 but is the most conservative approach for bored pile
embedded in a 2 non- homogeneous layer of clay soil.

Table 4.5: Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Direct Method)

CASE Soil Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Pile Length EC7 Vs
Layer Consistency Cu Penetration Diameter Working (m) BS8004
(kPa) ( ) (mm) Load EC7 BS8004 %
(kN) Difference
1 1st Very Stiff 150 30 800 3300 38.00 35.31 7.1
2nd Hard 200 40 900 4200 42.66 39.62 7.1
1000 5300 48.11 44.66 7.2
2 1st Stiff 75 15 800 3300 41.75 39.06 6.4
2nd Hard 200 40 900 4200 46.41 43.37 6.6
1000 5300 51.86 48.41 6.7
3 1st Medium 37.5 7.5 800 3300 43.63 40.94 6.2
Stiff
2nd Hard 200 40 900 4200 48.29 45.25 6.3
1000 5300 53.74 50.28 6.4
4 1st Soft 18.75 3.75 800 3300 44.56 41.87 6.0
2nd Hard 200 40 900 4200 49.22 46.18 6.2
1000 5300 54.68 51.22 6.3

83 | P a g e
Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 1000 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 1000 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 1000 39.97 40.04 38.34 48.11 48.11 44.66 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 1000 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 1000 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 900 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 900 35.49 35.55 34.06 42.66 42.66 39.62 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 900 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 900 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 900 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 800 31.66 31.72 30.39 38.00 38.00 35.31 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 800 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 800 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
4 800 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00
5 800 150.00 200.00 30.00 40.00

Figure 4.28a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(Very Stiff Clay Overlying Hard Clay)

Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 1000 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 1000 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 1000 43.72 43.79 42.09 51.86 51.86 48.41 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 1000 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 1000 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 900 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 900 39.24 39.30 37.81 46.41 46.41 43.37 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 900 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 900 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 900 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 800 35.41 35.47 34.14 41.75 41.75 39.06 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 800 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 800 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
4 800 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00
5 800 75.00 200.00 15.00 40.00

Figure 4.28b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(Stiff Clay Overlying Hard Clay)

84 | P a g e
Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 1000 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 1000 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 1000 45.59 45.66 43.96 53.74 53.74 50.28 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 1000 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 1000 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 900 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 900 41.12 41.18 39.68 48.29 48.29 45.25 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 900 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 900 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 900 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 800 37.29 37.34 36.02 43.63 43.63 40.94 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 800 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 800 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
4 800 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00
5 800 0.00 37.50 200.00 7.50 40.00

Figure 4.28c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(Medium Stiff Clay Overlying Hard Clay)

Diameter: 1000 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 1000 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 1000 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 1000 46.53 46.60 44.90 54.68 54.68 51.22 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 1000 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 1000 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Diameter: 900 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 900 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 900 42.05 42.12 40.62 49.22 49.22 46.18 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 900 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 900 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 900 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Diameter: 800 mm

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Total Load, Qt Diameter Cu1 Cu2 SPT-N (1) SPT-N (2)
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
(kN) (kN) ((kN) (mm) kN/m2 kN/m3 N N
1 2640.0 660.0 3300.0 800 38.22 38.28 36.96 44.56 44.56 41.87 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
2 3360.0 840.0 4200.0 800 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
3 4240.0 1060.0 5300.0 800 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
4 800 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00
5 800 0.00 18.75 200.00 3.75 40.00

Figure 4.28d: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation B


(Soft Clay Overlying Hard Clay)

85 | P a g e
Figure 4.29: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 non-homogeneous layers
of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004 based on Direct Method

86 | P a g e
Figure 4.30: Derivation of required bored pile length in 2 non-homogeneous layers
of clay soil for all three design approaches in EC7 based on Direct
Method

87 | P a g e
Figure 4.31: Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length in 2
non-homogeneous layers of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004 based on
Direct Method

88 | P a g e
4.2.5 A COMPARISON OF DIRECT SPT METHOD & INDIRECT SPT METHOD

Direct SPT method applies specifically to the parameter of interest but it is very
expensive and time consuming. However, indirect SPT method is able to acquire
information without actually boring and sampling but these results cannot stand on
their own. Therefore, the author suggests that direct and indirect methods should
use in conjunction with one another in order to acquire much more accurate results.
Hence, the difference of both direct and indirect SPT method which applied on
Hypothesis A is discussed in this section.

In order to make a distinct comparison between direct method and indirect method,
the 100% G k and 60% Qk which is load case 1 and load case 4 respectively is
carried out analysis based on direct SPT method due to no varying proportions of
imposed working load is considered in direct method. Very stiff clay showed the
least percentage difference in terms of pile length based on the results which shown
in Table 4.6. However, the gap between direct and indirect method is getting wider
as soil becomes weaker and less dense where this pattern is obvious when the clay
soil consistency is from very stiff to soft. Hence, the results as indicated at Figure
4.32 conclude that direct SPT method and indirect SPT method shows reliable
results in terms of pile length in very stiff clay only regardless the contribution of
imposed actions. Besides that, the results also shows that SPT is less reliable
especially in weaker clays which due to the SPT barrel remolds the clays and the
penetration resistance is more a measure of remolded strength. This parametric
study concludes that DA3 of EC7 is the governing approach in direct SPT method
whereas conventional method (BS8004) is the governing approach for indirect SPT
method.

89 | P a g e
Table 4.6a: Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of Circular
Bored Pile in EC7 (60%Gk)

Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Working Pile Length EC7 Vs


Consistency Penetration Diameter Load (m) BS8004
(kPa) ( ) (mm) (60% ) EC7
(kN) Indirect Direct %
Difference
HARD 200 40 800 3300 39.19 34.73 11.38
200 40 900 4200 44.37 39.29 11.45
200 40 1000 5300 50.51 44.62 11.66
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 3300 46.64 46.31 0.71
150 30 900 4200 52.79 52.39 0.76
150 30 1000 5300 60.06 59.49 0.95
STIFF 75 15 800 3300 67.58 92.61 -37.04
75 15 900 4200 76.47 104.77 -37.01
75 15 1000 5300 86.92 118.99 -36.90
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 3300 106.57 185.22 -73.80
37.5 7.5 900 4200 120.58 209.54 -73.78
37.5 7.5 1000 5300 137.00 237.98 -73.71
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 3300 197.23 370.44 -87.82
18.75 3.75 900 4200 223.14 419.08 -87.81
18.75 3.75 1000 5300 253.47 475.96 -87.78

90 | P a g e
Table 4.6b: Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of Circular
Bored Pile in EC7 (100%Gk )

Soil Cohesion, SPT Pile Pile Working Pile Length Direct Vs


Consistency Penetration Diameter Load (m) Indirect
(kPa) ( ) (mm) (100%G ) EC7 EC7
(kN) Indirect Direct %
Difference
HARD 200 40 800 3300 41.13 36.27 11.83
200 40 900 4200 46.56 41.04 11.86
200 40 1000 5300 53.01 46.60 12.09
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 3300 48.89 48.36 1.08
150 30 900 4200 55.33 54.71 1.13
150 30 1000 5300 62.95 62.14 1.29
STIFF 75 15 800 3300 70.70 96.73 -36.81
75 15 900 4200 80.00 109.43 -36.78
75 15 1000 5300 90.94 124.28 -36.67
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 3300 111.40 193.45 -73.65
37.5 7.5 900 4200 126.04 218.85 -73.63
37.5 7.5 1000 5300 143.21 248.56 -73.56
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 3300 206.08 386.90 -87.74
18.75 3.75 900 4200 233.15 437.71 -87.74
18.75 3.75 1000 5300 264.85 497.11 -87.70

91 | P a g e
Table 4.6c: Direct Method Vs Indirect Method - Required Pile Length of Circular
Bored in BS8004

Soil Cohesion SPT Pile Pile Pile Length Direct Vs


Consistency Penetration Diameter Working (m) Indirect
(kPa) ( ) (mm) Load BS8004 BS8004
(kN) Indirect Direct %
Difference
HARD 200 40 800 3300 41.73 32.81 21.37
200 40 900 4200 47.24 37.12 21.42
200 40 1000 5300 53.80 42.16 21.64
VERY STIFF 150 30 800 3300 51.47 43.75 15.00
150 30 900 4200 58.26 49.49 15.04
150 30 1000 5300 66.30 56.21 15.22
STIFF 75 15 800 3300 74.91 87.50 -16.81
75 15 900 4200 84.77 98.99 -16.77
75 15 1000 5300 96.36 112.42 -16.67
MEDIUM 37.5 7.5 800 3300 112.76 175.00 -55.20
37.5 7.5 900 4200 127.59 197.98 -55.17
37.5 7.5 1000 5300 144.97 224.85 -55.10
SOFT 18.75 3.75 800 3300 186.24 350.00 -87.93
18.75 3.75 900 4200 210.70 395.96 -87.93
18.75 3.75 1000 5300 239.35 449.70 -87.88

92 | P a g e
Figure 4.32: Derivation of % difference in required bored pile length in 2 clay layer
of clay soil for EC7 & BS8004 based on Direct Method

93 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5
AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE DESIGN IN SANDY SOIL

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 5.1: Hypothetical Situation For Sand

In this parametric study, only a hypothetical situation is considered where a circular


bored pile with a specific pile diameter, embedded fully in a single homogeneous
sand layer soils with assumed characteristic value of soil friction angle. The bored
pile is subjected to an axial compressive load which is assumed as 90% of each
bored pile structural capacity which is a function of diameter of bored pile. The
water table is assumed to be at the bottom of sand layer where drained behaviour
of sand is assumed. Due to the limitations of spreadsheets and constraints of
assumed design situation and characteristics of ground properties, double non-
homogeneous layer of sandy soil is not discussed in this study. Formulations and
approaches of BS8004 and EC7 that applied in clay soil are repeated in this section.

94 | P a g e
5.2 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (INDIRECT METHOD)

In estimating point bearing capacity of a pile in sand, Meyerhof’s method is


employed in this parametric study. Hence, the formulation of point bearing capacity
based on Meyerhof’s method is simplified into Equation 5.1 since zero cohesion of
the sandy soil is supporting the pile tip.

Q = A q = A q′N∗ (5.1)

The variation of the maximum values of N ∗ with soil friction angle (Ф′) is shown
in Figure 5.2 (Meyerhof, G.G., 1976). Based on Meyerhof’s theory, interpolated
values of N ∗ for various soil friction angles are used according to Table 5.1 which
indicated at Figure 5.4 (Column Q & V) for BS8004 and EC7 approaches
respectively.

Figure 5.2: Variation of the maximum values of N ∗ with Ф′ (Meyerhof, 1976)

95 | P a g e
Table 5.1: Interpolated values of N ∗ for various Ф′ (Meyerhof, 1976)

Soil Friction N*q


Angle Ф' (deg)

20 12.4
21 13.8
22 15.5
23 17.9
24 21.4
25 26.0
26 29.5
27 34.0
28 39.7
29 46.5
30 56.7
31 68.2
32 81.0
33 96.0
34 115.0
35 143.0
36 168.0
37 194.0
38 231.0
39 276.0
40 346.0
41 420.0
42 525.0
43 650.0
44 780.0
45 930.0

96 | P a g e
In computation of effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip (q′), empirical
values for unit weight of granular soils based on standard penetration number,
SPT-N value from Bowels, Foundation Analysis is used in this section as indicated in
Table 5.2a.

Table 5.2a: Empirical values for based on SPT-N (Bowels, Foundation Analysis)

SPT Penetration, N-Value Bowels


SPT-N 
(blows/foot) ( / )
0-4 70 - 100
4 - 10 90 - 115
10 - 30 110 - 130
30 - 50 110 - 140
> 50 130 - 150

Hence, average of SPT-N value and unit weight is used in order to simplify the
computation of developed spreadsheet which indicated in Table 5.2b. The applied
unit weight is shown in Figure 5.4a (Cell C6).

Table 5.2b: Empirical values for based on SPT-N (Bowels, Foundation Analysis)

SPT Penetration, N-Value Bowels


SPT-N 
(blows/300mm) ( / )
4 13.36
7 16.11
20 18.86
40 19.64
50 22.00

97 | P a g e
However, Qp should not exceed the limiting value A q which using following
Equation 5.2;

Q = A q = A q′N∗ ≤ A q (5.2a)

q = 0.5p N∗ tanФ′ (5.2b)

The formulation of frictional or skin resistance of a pile is estimated based on


Broms’s Method which shown in Equation 5.3;

Q = ∑p∆L (5.3)

The unit skin friction increases with depth more or less linearly to a depth L’ and
remains constant thereafter based on the nature of variation of in the field as
indicated in Figure 5.3.

The range of critical depth magnitude (L’) is around 15 to 20 pile diameters thus a
conservative estimate that assumed in this study is shown in Equation 5.4;

L′ = 15D (5.4)

In following Equation 5.5, approximate relationship for is implemented in this


study.

For z = 0 to L’;

= Kσ′ tan ’ (5.5a)

For z = L’ to L;

= ′ (5.5b)

98 | P a g e
Where recommended average value of K for bored piles is;

K ≈ K = 1 − sinФ′ (5.5c)

The values of soil-pile friction angle (’) from various investigations are appearing
to be in the range from 0.5 Ф′ to 0.8 Ф′. Hence, 0.67 Ф′ which recommended by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is assumed in this study as indicated at
Figure 5.4a (Cell Q12).

Figure 5.3: Unit frictional resistance for pile in sand (after Meyerhof, 1961)

99 | P a g e
Figure 5.4a: Excel Spreadsheet (Individual Sheet – Case Properties & BS8004)

100 | P a g e
Figure 5.4b: Excel Spreadsheet (Individual Sheet – EC7 Design Approaches)

101 | P a g e
5.2.1 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH
(INDIRECT METHOD)

Piling length was taken as dependent variable whereas pile diameter (800mm,
900mm and 1000mm) taken as independent variable as indicated at Figure 5.5 in
this parametric study. Among the design approaches in EC7, DA3 provides the
longest pile length in single homogeneous medium sandy soil. However, transition
occurs in loose sand where 60% of imposed permanent action (0.6Gk:0.4Qk) is
applied. The governing approach shifted from DA3 to DA1.C2 in loose sand. When
soil consistency of sand reduced to very loose, DA1 is the governing approach
instead of DA3. The governing approach within DA1 shifted from DA1.C1 to DA1.C2
at 80% of permanent action (0.8Gk:0.2Qk) is applied as imposed working load. In
comparison between BS8004 and EC7, EC7 which governed by DA3 provides much
more conservative design in medium sand but the governing approach shifted to
BS8004 in both loose and very loose sand regardless the various proportions of
permanent actions and variable actions.

By combining the results from Table 5.3 and column chart as indicated at Figure
5.6, medium sand shows the highest percentage difference between EC7 and
BS8004 in terms of pile length whereas very loose sand shows the lowest
percentage difference of approximately 6.6%. An interesting trend observed is
imposed working load of 100% permanent action shows a lower percentage
difference in medium sand where EC7 is the governing approach whereas ratio of
actions (0.6Gk:0.4Qk) shows lower percentage difference in loose and very loose
sand where BS8004 provides the most conservative pile design. This indicates that
increased in imposed working load reduce the gap difference in pile design between
EC7 and BS8004 in loose and very loose sand which is the opposite results which
obtained from single homogeneous clay layer of soil.

There is a limitation in this spreadsheet due to the constraint of assumptions in this


study. It appeared that soil consistency of dense sand provides negative shaft
resistance in order to satisfy overdesign factors (ODF) equal to 1.0. According to
the calculations in individual spreadsheet as indicated in Figure 5.4, the design
compressive resistance based on indirect SPT method for sand depends a lot on
point bearing capacity where the bearing capacity factor is the function of internal

102 | P a g e
friction angle. Hence, negative shaft resistance is required to reduce the
compressive resistance that provide by point bearing capacity in order to provide
equal amount of compressive resistance to carry the imposed working load. Such
limitation is occurred due to the assumption of the ground condition is only
composed of single homogenous layer of sand. Hence, this parametric study only
able to consider up to soil consistency of medium sand due to such constraint of
assumption.

The author pointed out that the applied theory in estimating base resistance in this
study involved a rather approximate Ф′-Nq relationship coupled with the difficulty
of determining a reliable and representative in-situ value of the soil friction angle.
Hence, this creates doubts about relying on the bearing capacity theory in pile
foundation design. Design guidelines based on static analysis often recommend
using the critical depth concept in estimating shaft resistance. However, the critical
depth is an idealization that has neither theoretical nor reliable experimental
support since it is the common practice that to consider the residual load is so small
that its effect is insignificant to the analysis. Nordlund (1963) pointed out the
importance of the existence of residual load in piles and the consequences of not
recognizing that there is no existence of load in the pile before the start of the test
by “zeroing” all the gages where the soil mechanics literature make erroneous
assumptions such as critical depth and fallacies conclusions of shaft resistance is
approximately constant with depth and equal to the value of the critical depth in a
homogeneous soil.

In this study, the residual load is assumed to be negligible both during testing and
after the application of the structural actions. Hence, compressive structural load is
anticipated to be opposed mainly by the shaft resistance with no mobilization of pile
base resistance. According to the analytical solutions performed by Poulos (1987)
and the model tests of long extensively instrumented piles in deep beds of sand
conducted by Hanna and Tan (1973), the results concluded that the behaviour of
piles is dependent in its previous load history where the residual stress influencing
the shape and magnitude of the load settlement curve of the piles.

The author emphasizes the importance of the existence of residual load and it
should be considered in the study for completion in order to prevent measure load

103 | P a g e
distribution is the false distribution of the soil resistance. Due to the fact that
stress-free pile is assumed in this study, serious errors in the division of load
between side and base resistances are present due to ignoring the residual loads.
This explains the limitations of the developed spreadsheet where the results of
dense sand provide negative shaft resistance. This is mainly due to the reduction of
soil friction angle at high stress levels beneath the pile tip prior to failure. At high
stresses, crushing of particle dominates the deformations thus the rate of
decreasing of soil friction angle increases with the crushability of soil particles.
Hence, the applied initial value of soil friction angle will results in serious
overestimation of the pile base resistance especially in dense sand. This parametric
study shows that the effects of residual stress on piles are the most significant in
sand but its influence on the response of piles in clay is very insignificant.

104 | P a g e
Table 5.3: Required Pile Length of Circular Bored Pile in EC7 & BS8004
(Indirect Method)

Soil Ф′ SPT Pile Pile Load Case Pile Length (m) EC7 Vs
Consistency (Degrees) Penetration Diameter Working BS8004
( ) (mm) Load
Gk Qk EC7 BS8004 %
(kN)
Difference
MEDIUM 37.5 20 800 3300 100% 0% 54.49 45.75 16.03
20 60% 40% 57.13 19.92
20 900 4200 100% 0% 55.57 46.95 15.51
20 60% 40% 58.23 19.37
20 1000 5300 100% 0% 57.64 49.95 13.35
20 60% 40% 60.36 17.25
LOOSE 32.5 7 800 3300 100% 0% 72.91 82.05 -12.53
7 60% 40% 76.61 -7.09
7 900 4200 100% 0% 74.07 83.32 -12.49
7 60% 40% 77.85 -7.03
7 1000 5300 100% 0% 76.42 86.11 -12.68
7 60% 40% 80.52 -6.94
VERY LOOSE 30.0 4 800 3300 100% 0% 92.09 106.70 -15.87
4 60% 40% 100.08 -6.62
4 900 4200 100% 0% 93.38 108.08 -15.74
4 60% 40% 101.42 -6.57
4 1000 5300 100% 0% 96.30 111.32 -15.60
4 60% 40% 104.51 -6.52

105 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Medium

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 35.43 33.11 32.44 54.49 54.49 45.75 37.50 20.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 36.20 35.10 33.18 55.15 55.15 45.75 37.50 20.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 36.96 37.09 33.91 55.81 55.81 45.75 37.50 20.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 37.72 39.08 34.64 56.47 56.47 45.75 37.50 20.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 38.49 41.07 35.37 57.13 57.13 45.75 37.50 20.00

Soil Consistency Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 70.06 67.36 66.59 72.91 72.91 82.05 32.50 7.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 70.95 69.67 67.44 73.71 73.71 82.05 32.50 7.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 71.83 71.99 68.28 74.51 74.51 82.05 32.50 7.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 72.72 74.30 69.13 75.31 75.31 82.05 32.50 7.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 73.61 76.61 69.98 76.11 76.61 82.05 32.50 7.00

Soil Consistency Very Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 3300 0.0 0 800 92.09 88.80 87.86 91.15 92.09 106.70 30.00 4.00
2 0.9 2970 0.1 330 800 93.17 91.62 88.89 92.15 93.17 106.70 30.00 4.00
3 0.8 2640 0.2 660 800 94.25 94.44 89.93 93.14 94.44 106.70 30.00 4.00
4 0.7 2310 0.3 990 800 95.33 97.26 90.96 94.13 97.26 106.70 30.00 4.00
5 0.6 1980 0.4 1320 800 96.41 100.08 91.99 95.12 100.08 106.70 30.00 4.00

Figure 5.5a: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 800 mm Bored Pile)

Soil Consistency Medium

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 36.57 34.23 33.56 55.57 55.57 46.95 37.50 20.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 37.34 36.23 34.30 56.23 56.23 46.95 37.50 20.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 38.10 38.24 35.03 56.90 56.90 46.95 37.50 20.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 38.87 40.24 35.77 57.56 57.56 46.95 37.50 20.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 39.64 42.24 36.50 58.23 58.23 46.95 37.50 20.00

Soil Consistency Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Ф
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004 (Degrees
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) Value
)
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 71.26 68.54 67.77 74.07 74.07 83.32 32.50 7.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 72.15 70.87 68.62 74.87 74.87 83.32 32.50 7.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 73.04 73.20 69.47 75.67 75.67 83.32 32.50 7.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 73.93 75.52 70.33 76.48 76.48 83.32 32.50 7.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 74.82 77.85 71.18 77.28 77.85 83.32 32.50 7.00

Soil Consistency Very Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Ф
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004 (Degrees
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) Value
)
1 1.0 4200 0.0 0 900 93.38 90.08 89.13 92.40 93.38 108.08 30.00 4.00
2 0.9 3780 0.1 420 900 94.47 92.91 90.17 93.40 94.47 108.08 30.00 4.00
3 0.8 3360 0.2 840 900 95.56 95.75 91.21 94.40 95.75 108.08 30.00 4.00
4 0.7 2940 0.3 1260 900 96.64 98.58 92.25 95.40 98.58 108.08 30.00 4.00
5 0.6 2520 0.4 1680 900 97.73 101.42 93.29 96.40 101.42 108.08 30.00 4.00

Figure 5.5b: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 900 mm Bored Pile)

106 | P a g e
Soil Consistency Medium

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Ф
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004 (Degrees
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) Value
)
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 38.85 36.46 35.78 57.64 57.64 49.45 37.50 20.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 39.63 38.51 36.53 58.32 58.32 49.45 37.50 20.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 40.42 40.55 37.28 59.00 59.00 49.45 37.50 20.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 41.20 42.60 38.03 59.68 59.68 49.45 37.50 20.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 41.99 44.65 38.78 60.36 60.36 49.45 37.50 20.00

Soil Consistency Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 73.78 71.01 70.22 76.42 76.42 86.11 32.50 7.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 74.70 73.39 71.09 77.24 77.24 86.11 32.50 7.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 75.61 75.77 71.96 78.06 78.06 86.11 32.50 7.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 76.52 78.14 72.83 78.88 78.88 86.11 32.50 7.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 77.43 80.52 73.70 79.71 80.52 86.11 32.50 7.00

Soil Consistency Very Loose

Pile Working Load, P (kN) Pile Optimum Pile Length, L (m) Governed Pile Length (m) Correlation
Case Dead Load, Gk Live Load, Qk Diameter Ф SPT-N
DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 EC7 BS8004
η Gk = η*P 1-η Qk = (1-η)*P (mm) (Degrees Value
1 1.0 5300 0.0 0 1000 96.30 92.92 91.95 95.14 96.30 111.32 30.00 4.00
2 0.9 4770 0.1 530 1000 97.41 95.82 93.02 96.16 97.41 111.32 30.00 4.00
3 0.8 4240 0.2 1060 1000 98.52 98.71 94.08 97.18 98.71 111.32 30.00 4.00
4 0.7 3710 0.3 1590 1000 99.63 101.61 95.14 98.20 101.61 111.32 30.00 4.00
5 0.6 3180 0.4 2120 1000 100.74 104.51 96.20 99.22 104.51 111.32 30.00 4.00

Figure 5.5c: Optimum Pile Length for Hypothetical Situation A


(ø = 1000 mm Bored Pile)

107 | P a g e
Figure 5.6: Derivation of % difference in pile length of single uniform sand layer
for EC7 & BS8004 based on Indirect Method

108 | P a g e
5.3 BORED PILE DESIGN SPREADSHEET (DIRECT METHOD)

In this section, the developed spreadsheet is based on an approach that is being


used based on the logical assumption where the correlation used to relate N-Values
and the sand properties which is soil friction angle in facilitating the Alternative
Calculation in EC7. Based on Hatakanda and Uchida Equation, a correlation
between SPT-N values and the friction angle is applied for computation of design
compressive resistance in this study which shown in Equation 5.6;

Ф′ = 3.5(N) + 22.3 (5.6)

The SPT blow count correlated to friction angle is used based on correlation by
Meyerhof (1956) as indicated at Table 5.4a. Hence, friction angle is computed
based on the correlation on SPT-N value according to each soil consistency of sand.

Table 5.4a: Correlation between Ф′ & SPT (Meyerhof, 1956)

Relationship Between Ф′ & SPT For Sand Meyerhof (1956)

Density of Sand Ф′ (Degrees) SPT-N Value

Very Loose < 30 <4


Loose 30 - 35 4 - 10
Medium 35 - 40 10 - 30
Dense 40 - 45 30 - 50
Very Dense > 45 > 50

In simplification, average of SPT-N value according to each soil consistency is used


in the parametric study as indicated in Table 5.4b.

Table 5.4b: Correlation between Ф′ & SPT (Meyerhof, 1956)

Relationship Between Ф′& SPT For Sand Meyerhof (1956)

Density of Sand Ф′ (Degrees) SPT-N Value

Very Loose 30 4
Loose 32.5 7
Medium 37.5 20
Dense 42.5 40
Very Dense 45 50

109 | P a g e
To evaluate the shaft resistance (Q ) and end bearing (Q ), the following Equation
5.7 and Equation 5.8 suggested by Meyerhof (1976) are applied in this section.

q = K N = 2.0N (5.7)

q = K N = 250N − 400N (5.8)

Based on the empirical approach of ultimate unit skin resistance (q ) and ultimate
base resistance ( q ) as suggested by Meyerhof (1976), the formulation for
characteristic value of shaft resistance and base resistance is shown at following
Equation 5.9 and Equation 5.10 respectively;

R = q A = K N( πdl) (5.9)

(d2 )
R =q A =K N (5.10)

However, the contribution of bored pile end bearing capacity is ignored which
suggested by Gue et al. (2003) in this study. Other than the stated equations in this
section, similar formulations and approaches applied in clayey soil is repeated in
the computation design value of compressive resistance of this section.

110 | P a g e
5.3.1 COMPARISON OF EC7 & BS8004 ON PILE LENGTH (DIRECT METHOD)

Based on the results from Figure 5.6, DA3 provides the longest pile length among
all three design approaches in EC7. The provided pile length based on DA3 is
approximately twice the pile length provided by BS8004 and other design
approaches in EC7. This is mainly due to the material factoring approach of DA3
where material partial factors (γ ) that applied on the soil parameters. Hence,
this reduced the friction angle of soil which greatly reduced shaft resistance. Since
base resistance (R ) is ignored in the computation of compressive resistance (R )
in EC7, longer pile length is required to provide sufficient shaft resistance (R ).
Thus, this explained DA3 provide such unrealistic long pile. In results, further
parametric study is not required in this section due to the limitations of this
spreadsheet and constraints of assumptions which discussed in the previous
section of this chapter. The author suggests that DA3 should ignored for bored pile
design embedded in sandy soil due to the fact that “Real” soil is not consider in DA3
material factoring approach.

111 | P a g e
Figure 5.7: Excel Spreadsheet (Borehole Sheet - Direct Method)

112 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6

CASE STUDY OF AXIALLY LOADED BORED PILE IN SILTY CLAY

6.1 INTRODUCTION

A case study of a bored pile design, “The Robertson” project by G&P Geothechnics
Sdn. Bhd is performed in this section. Standard penetration tests were conducted in
this project where the site is located at Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. This case
study only analysed borehole AABH16 where the ground was found to be comprised
predominantly silty clay to a depth around 36 to 37 meters. Based on borehole
AABH6, a soil profile from standard penetration test (SPT) in this project is plot as
indicated at Figure 6.1. In this section, the as built bored pile length which based on
BS8004 approach as indicated at Figure 6.3 is compared with all three design
approaches in EC7. The main objective of this case study is to analyse the actual
bored pile design results obtained from G&P Geothechnics Sdn. Bhd in order to
verify the bored pile design which based on design approaches in EC7.

Figure 6.1: SPT soil profile for borehole AABH16

113 | P a g e
6.2 CASE STUDY: COMPARISON ON PILE LENGTH: EC7 & AS BUILT
(BS8004)

SPT soil profile data from borehole AABH16 was input as the soil property into
developed spreadsheet (Direct SPT Method) as indicated at Figure 6.2. The
developed spreadsheets (Indirect SPT Method) in parametric studies were
developed for the case of homogeneous soil layers. Hence due to such constraint,
only Direct SPT Method spreadsheet is applicable in this case study which has a
progressively increasing soil cohesion or SPT-N value with depth profile. Alternative
calculation method in EC7 is implemented in this section by using the same pile
dimensions and site investigation (S.I.) data which indicated at Figure 6.3. Similar
to the parametric studies, an overdesign factor (ODF) is introduced in verifying
bored pile design based on EC7 against the imposed pile working load (Cells
R33:R36) by setting ODF (Cells T33:T36) equal to 1.0 and ensuring the difference
between design compressive resistance and imposed load equal to zero (Cells
S33:S36) as indicated at Figure 6.2.

114 | P a g e
Figure 6.2: Design Bored Pile Design (EC7 & BS8004)

115 | P a g e
Figure 6.3a: Summary of As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet)

116 | P a g e
Figure 6.3b: Proposed As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet)

117 | P a g e
Similar to parametric study for Direct SPT Method, the ratio of permanent action
(Gk) to variable action (Qk) is taken as 1:5 (0.8Gk:0.2Qk) in stimulating a standard
structure as indicated at Table 6.1. It is worth to note that pile designs based on
EC7 will be more or less conservative depending on the permanent action to
variable action ratio applied. However, varying proportions of permanent action
and variable action will not affect the outcome based on the results that obtained
from parametric studies. By referring to Figure 6.3, pile design spreadsheet from
G&P Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd is using global safety factor of 2.0 instead of 2.5 for total
ultimate capacity. Hence, global factor of safety is changed to 2.0 in developed
spreadsheet (Direct SPT) in order to compare with the as built pile design which
using BS8004 approach.

Table 6.1: Ratio of Permanent Action & Variable Action (0.8Gk:0.2Qk)

Load
Loading (Unfactored)
Permanent Load 10000 kN
Variable Load 2500 kN
Total Load 12500.00 kN

Based on the results from Table 6.2, DA3 (Green Font) shows the highest design
pile length among all design approaches in EC7. Hence, DA3 is the governed design
approach in EC7.

Table 6.2: Design Pile Length (EC7)

Rcd,1 Rcd,2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Fcd ∆ L


EC7 ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m)
DA1.C1 27199.74 24150.02 24150.02 17250 17250 0 1.0 29.52
Design DA1.C2 20990.80 18550.02 18550.02 13250 13250 0 1.0 29.57
Approach DA2 24150.02 24150.02 24150.02 17250 17250 0 1.0 28.38
DA3 24150.00 24150.00 24150.00 17250 17250 0 1.0 33.11

118 | P a g e
In comparing both EC7 and BS8004, pile design according to criteria of EC7 which
governed by DA3 provides longer pile length compared to BS8004 based on Table
6.3.

Table 6.3: Design Pile Length (EC7 Vs BS8004)

Pile
Pile Load Case Pile Length (m) EC7 Vs BS8004
Working
Soil Diameter
Load
(mm) Gk Qk EC7 BS8004 (% Difference)
(kN)
Silty
1350 12500 80% 20% 33.11 27.90 15.75
Clay

In results, the governing approach for bored pile design is EC7 (DA3) which is more
conservative but less economical design compared to BS8004. Hence, the results of
this section is similar to the results obtained from parametric study on axially
loaded bored pile embedded in clayey soil. Even though global factor of safety is
changed back to 2.5 in BS8004 approach, EC7 (DA3) is still the governing approach
thus results will not be affected.

119 | P a g e
6.3 CASE STUDY: COMPARISON ON SHAFT RESISTANCE: EC7 & AS BUILT
(BS8004)

The design resistances are computed based on Alternative Calculation Method in


EC7 by using the same pile length as the as built piles reported in the case study as
indicated at Figure 6.3a. The design resistances of piles are computed based on
SPT-N values which indicated at Figure 6.4. DA1.C1 provides the same amount of
shaft resistance as BS8004 which is the highest among all three design approaches
in EC7 even though both of the shaft resistance which based on DA1.C1 and DA3 is
left unfactored. This is mainly due to real soil or actual characteristic undrained
strength is not considered in DA3 where applied material factors factoring at the
source of the parameters of shearing resistance. Based on the results from Figure
6.4, DA1.C2 provides the lowest shaft resistance where highest resistance factors
are applied in DA1.C2. Due to the fact that structural action is not considered in
DA1.C2, DA3 is the governing approach in this case study. Hence, the author
suggest that it is worth to check DA1.C2 first which might be the governing
approach in EC7 since longer pile length is required in order to provide design
resistance which is large enough to support the imposed working load. This case
study concludes that bored pile design based on EC7 yield a better in other words
a much more conservative result compared to BS8004 based design despite the
differences in approach.

G&P spreadsheet is not implementing ODF in the pile design which only referring to
global factor of safety (FoS =2.0) instead of applying FoS into the calculation as
indicated at Figure 6.5. However, the developed spreadsheet is verified by case
study results by showing the same result as the as built pile length which based on
BS8004 approach since the only difference between the spreadsheets is the
presentation of the results. Thus, the design aspect of developed spreadsheet
(Direct SPT Method) is verified and validated in this case study.

120 | P a g e
Figure 6.4: Comparison of shaft resistance based on EC7 & BS8004

121 | P a g e
Figure 6.5: As Built Bored Pile Design (G&P Spreadsheet)

122 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SOIL-PILE SYSTEM

7.1 INTRODUCTION

In this study, load settlement behavior of a large diameter pile under vertical load
applied is analyzed. The considered cast-in situ bored pile is diameter of 1.35 m,
concrete grade of C35 and bored pile length which computed based on EC7
approach is 33.11 m. The ground condition of site is composed of clay and silts.

Hence, PLAXIS simulation is introduced to model a bored pile based on the case
study ground condition as indicated at Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1: Global Geometry Of The Axisymmetric Model

123 | P a g e
In this numerical analysis, piling design based on the criteria of EC7 is checked on
the settlement according to the Malaysia Practice (JKR/ SPJ/ 1988). The pile so
tested by static load tests is considered failed if:-

a. The residual settlement after removal of the test load exceeds 6.50 mm; or
b. The total settlement under the working load exceeds 12.50 mm; or
c. The total settlement under twice the working load exceeds 38.0 mm or 10%
of pile diameter/width whichever the lower value.

7.2 SIMULATION OF STATIC LOAD TEST BY PLAXIS

Behaviour of the axially loaded single bored pile is analysed in PLAXIS V8.2+ by
implementing 2D axisymmetric model. Due to the fact that only single pile is
considered, the pile-soil system was modelled in axisymmetric condition by using
15-node triangular elements in order to have a better prediction of skin resistance
distribution. The geological profile in the model as indicated in Figure 7.1 is identical
to the Site Investigation (S.I.) report that discussed in case study, Chapter 5. The
model consists of 13 materials: the pile and 12 layers of soil where the soil
properties vary from layer to layer and every soil layer is based on the criteria of
Mohr-Coulomb where the soil and the soil-pile interface were assumed to have
elastoplastic behaviour whereas the pile is modelled as linear elastic.

7.2.1 GEOMETRY

The axisymmetric model representing only half of the design situation consists of
two materials: the pile and the soil. The pile was modelled with a length (L) of 33.11
m and a radius (r) 675 mm at the axis of symmetry. The soil was modelled based
on data obtained from case study where soil properties is discussed in Chapter 6. In
Randolph & Wroth (1978), the recommended distance between the vertical outer
boundary and the symmetry axis is at least equal to or higher than 2L in order to
ensure the analysis of pile settlement is performed without the influence of the
proportion of load that reaches the base of pile. Hence, the distance between the
vertical outer boundary and the symmetry axis is set to 2L whereas the distance
between rigid layer and the surface is set to 3L in this analysis due to the proximity
of the rigid layer has a great influence on results of pile settlement. Ground water

124 | P a g e
is located at the soil surface due to assumption of undrained condition was made.
Hence, water influence is considered in this analysis.

An interface line is defined along the length of pile in modelling the pile-soil
interaction as recommended by PLAXIS manual (Brinkgreve and Broere, 2010).
This interface was extended to 0.5 m below the pile inside the soil body to prevent
stress oscillation in this stiff corner area by enhancing the flexibility of the finite
element mesh in these areas which able to prevent non-physical stress results. Two
clusters at the length of 3r as indicated at Figure 7.2 were added close to the pile in
order to enrich the mesh in this more moving area.

7.2.2 BOUNDARIES CONDITONS & MODEL LIMITS

Boundaries conditions were defined by using standard fixities PLAXIS tool where
vertical geometry lines obtain a horizontal fixity ( = 0). In other words, side
boundaries act like rollers. Horizontal geometry lines obtain a full fixity ( = = 0)
where the bottom boundary is rigid. Hence, it is important to fix the horizontal and
vertical boundaries of the model as indicated at Figure 7.1 which recommended by
(Mestat and Prat, 1997, 2010). Based on the Figure 7.2, boundary dimensions of 2L
X 3L was optimum as decreased in dimensions resulted in poor results whereas
increased in boundary dimensions give no influence on the results.

125 | P a g e
Figure 7.2: Geometry of the model

126 | P a g e
7.2.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

A linear elastic material set was applied for the concrete pile. Mohr Coulomb model
which considered as a first order approximation of real soil behaviour is used for all
soil layers behaviour. The parameters of all materials which involved in Mohr
Coulomb model are summarized in the following Table 7.1;

Table 7.1a: Soil data sets parameters

PLAXIS DEPTH EFFECTIVE Es POISSON DENSITY


SPT-N Cu SOIL
THICKNESS FROM GL TO DEPTH 1000*SPT-N 1500*SPT-N 2000*SPT-N SOIL Es (LIMIT) RATIO Sat. Dry
LEVEL CONSISTENCY
(m) (m) (m) (m) N (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (V) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
0 8.783 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
8.783 8.783 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
1 8.783 11.25 2.467 23 23000 34500 46000 115 STIFF CLAY 34,500 0.30 22 21
2 7.39 11.25 17.25 6 120 120000 180000 240000 600 HARD CLAY 100,000 0.35 22 21
3 1.5 17.25 18.75 1.5 94 94000 141000 188000 470 HARD SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
4 1.5 18.75 20.25 1.5 83 83000 124500 166000 415 HARD CLAY 100,000 0.35 22 21
5 9.5 20.25 24.75 4.5 120 120000 180000 240000 600 HARD SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
6 1.5 24.75 26.25 1.5 32 32000 48000 64000 160 VERY STIFF SILT + GRAVEL 48,000 0.35 21 17.5
7 1.5 26.25 27.75 1.5 36 36000 54000 72000 180 VERY STIFF SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
8 1.5 27.75 29.25 1.5 68 68000 102000 136000 340 HARD CLAY 100,000 0.35 22 21
9 9 29.25 30.75 1.5 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
10 3 30.75 32.25 1.5 65 65000 97500 130000 325 HARD SILT + GRAVEL 97,500 0.35 21 17.5
11 3 32.25 33.75 1.5 75 75000 112500 150000 375 HARD SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
12 1.5 33.75 35.25 1.5 71 71000 106500 142000 355 HARD SILT + GRAVEL 100,000 0.35 21 17.5
13 35.25 36.683 1.433 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD SILT 20,000 0.35 20 18
36.683 36.683 0 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD 100,000
36.683 36.683 0 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD 100,000
36.683 36.683 0 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD 100,000
36.683 36.683 0 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD 100,000
36.683 36.683 0 100 100000 150000 200000 500 HARD 100,000

Table 7.1b: Material properties - Pile

Material Concrete Pile


(Depth) (33.11 m)
Model Linear Elastic
Weight, γ (kN/m3) 25.00
Elastic Modulus, Es (kN/m2) 3.00E+07
Poisson's ratio, υ 0.2

The pile in this analysis was modelled as a rigid non-porous material and the
behaviour of concrete was modelled as Linear Elastic. The pile was defined as a
column of concrete and axisymmetric model of the pile was considered by taking
advantage of the symmetric feature of the problem about the vertical axis.
Poisson’s ratio varies between 0.1 for high strength concrete and 0.2 for weak
mixes. Hence, Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 was used for serviceability criteria in this

127 | P a g e
analysis. According to the case study, the designed bored pile is cast in-situ with
reinforced concrete. Hence, the unit weight of reinforced concrete is 25kN/m3 as
specified by IS:456. The modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete pile has a
range of 17-30GPa according to “Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book” (Coub,F.
2009) thus elastic modulus of material reinforced concrete pile in this study is
assumed as 30GPa.

To be in the conservative side, typical ranges of values of modulus of elasticity (Es)


is referred to ensure elastic modulus of all soil layers that correlated from SPT-N are
within the typical range of elastic modulus which shown in Table 7.2;

Table 7.2: Typical values of modulus of elasticity (Es) for different types of soils
(Bowles, 1988)

Type of Soil Es (N/mm2)


1. Clay
Very soft 2-15
Soft 5-25
Medium 15-50
Hard 50-100
Sandy 25-250
2. Glacial till
Loose 10-153
Dense 144-720
Very dense 478-1440
3. Loess 14-57
4. Sand
Silty 7-21
Loose 10-24
Dense 48-81
5 Sand and Gravel
Loose 48-148
Dense 96-192
6. Shale 144-14400
7. Silt 2-20

128 | P a g e
Based on several empirical methods, SPT-N values were correlated to numerous
soil properties which are soil cohesion and elastic modulus in the analysis as
indicated in following Table 7.3. Due to the fact that undrained behaviour of soil is
assumed, the friction angle for clays and silt is approximately 0 in undrained
conditions.

Table 7.3: Soil properties based on the SPT

Soil Type SPT-N Soil Strength Elastic Modulus,


Cohesion, c' (kPa) Angle of Friction, Ф' Es (kPa)
Clay 0 - 10 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Clay 10 - 30 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Clay N > 30 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Silt 10 - 20 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Silt 20 - 50 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Silt 50 - 80 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N
Silt N > 80 5*SPT-N 0 1500*SPT-N

Saturated and un-saturated unit weight of Mohr-Coulomb soil model in PLAXIS is


referred to Table 7.4. Considerably high SPT-N values which indicated comparable
good soil condition of site resulting in a high unit weight of soil. Thus, upper bound
of ranges of typical values of soil unit weight is assumed in the analysis. Besides
that, the Poisson's ratio (υ) of Mohr-Coulomb soil model is referred to following
Table 7.5 where upper bound of ranges of typical values of Poisson’s ratio is also
assumed in the study.

Table 7.4: Typical values of unit weight for soils

Type of Soil γsat (kN/m3) γdry (kN/m3)


Gravel 20 - 22 15 - 17
Sand 18 - 20 16 - 16
Silt 18 - 20 14 - 18
Clay 16 - 22 14 - 21

129 | P a g e
Table 7.5: Typical values of Poisson's ratio (υ) for soils (Bowles, 1988)

Type of Soil Poisson's ratio (υ)


Clay (saturated) 0.4 - 0.5
Clay (unsaturated) 0.1 - 0.3
Sandy clay 0.2 - 0.3
Silt 0.3 - 0.35
Sand (dense) 0.2 - 0.4
Course (void ratio = 0.4 - 0.7) 0.15
Fine grained (void ratio = 0.4 - 0.7) 0.25
Rock 0.1 - 0.4 (depends on type of rock)
Loess 0.1 - 0.3
Ice 0.36
Concrete 0.15

7.2.4 INTERFACE ELEMENT

The interaction between soil and pile structure was modelled by using the linear
elastic perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb model in describing the behaviour of
interfaces. The properties of interface element are linked to the strength properties
of the soil layers. For interaction between clayey soil and concrete structure, a
strength reduction factor (Rinter) of 1.0 - 0.7 is suggested by (Dennis Waterman,
May 15-181, 2006). Hence, Rinter of 0.7 is applied on soil layer 1 to soil layer 8
along the interface of concrete pile where maximum amount of mobilization of skin
friction is decreased along the pile. The interface between soil-pile is rigid for the
subsequent soil layer (Soil layer 9-12) which indicates no slip or relative
displacement or gapping between the two materials, pile structure and soil when
the load is applied. The pile is only fully embedded in first 8 layer of soil which
results in full interaction between pile and soil in these 8 layers of soil. Since the pile
is only sitting on the surface of soil layer 9, the soil-pile interaction in this soil layer
is negligible. Rough pile-soil interaction is assumed in soil layers of 9 to 12 thus
parameter of Rinter of 1.0 (rigid) is applied in these four soil layers.

130 | P a g e
7.2.5 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

The imposed load is applied in the form of a uniform distributed load of 2780
kN/m2. According to PLAXIS manual, value of Force-Y (kN/rad) which obtained
from PLAXIS output should be multiplied with 2π in order to obtain the total loading
in axisymmetric analysis since the idea of axisymmetric is one section is cut out of
2
2π radians. Hence, the computed stress ( kN/m ) is divided by 2π to give one slice of
the computed stress in applying compressive stress in this analysis. The generated
mesh for single pile in axisymmetric condition before analysis is shown in Figure
7.3.

The resulting vertical displacement field within the model boundaries is shown in
Figure 7.4. The field of vertical displacement concentrated around the pile with a
vertical displacement of approximately 4.06 mm. A formation of a bulb around the
pile which displaced in Figure 7.4 is characterized by vertical displacements which
directing downwards. As far as the settlement is concerned, the pile head shows the
maximum value of vertical displacement occurring and gradually decreasing with
increasing depth along the pile. This vertical displacement field implies that the
model behaves as expected. The vertical stress field as indicated in Figure 7.5
shows high gradient of stress concentrate below the pile tip which is approximately
2
1150kN/m . The author suggests that deviatoric shadings should use to view the
total stress field as indicated in Figure 7.6 since deviatoric stress is what actually
causes distortion of the body. Based on Figure 7.6, the existence of stress bulb is
evident. Figure 7.7 shows the deformed mesh of pile-soil interaction corresponding
to the maximum settlement whereas Figure 7.8 shows the distribution of effective
stress around the pile at the same settlement which respective to the imposed WL.
The soil is shown to be effected the most at the pile tip which as closer to the pile.

The total pile top settlement (S ) for a single pile based on Figure 7.9 shows that
the continuous settlement at constant working load indicates that the maximum
settlement of 4.06 mm occurred at the test load (1WL) and 7.79 mm occurred at
the failure load (2WL) where the ultimate end-bearing load (Qb) is mobilized at a
pile tip displacement approximately equal to 0.3% and 0.6% of the pile diameter of
1350 mm repectively. Based on the Figure 7.9c, the blue colour line indicated the
loading curve whereas the red colour line indicated the unloading curve. Based on

131 | P a g e
the table 7.6c, the maximum settlements recorded at 200%WL are 7.78 mm in the
1st cycle with a residual settlement of 0.406 mm whereas the maximum
settlements recorded at 230%WL are 8.9 mm with a residual settlement of 0.422
mm in the 2nd cycle. The pile recovery for each cycle is 94.78% for the 1st cycle and
95.26% for 2nd cycle.

This concludes that the settlment results provided by static load test which
simulated from PLAXIS 2D fullfilled the criteria of Malaysia Practice (JKR/SPJ/1988)
where the pile design is based on EC7 Design Approach 3 (DA3).

Figure 7.3: Generated Mesh Before Analysis

132 | P a g e
Figure 7.4a: Vertical Displacement Field For Prescribed Vertical Load

Figure 7.4b: Vertical Displacement Field For Prescribed Vertical Load


(Zoomed View)

133 | P a g e
Figure 7.5a: Cartesian Effective Stress Field (sig’y-y)
For Prescribed Vertical Load

Figure 7.5b: Cartesian Effective Stress Field (sig’y-y)


For Prescribed Vertical Load (Zoomed View)

134 | P a g e
Figure 7.6a: Total Stress Field For Prescribed Vertical Load

Figure 7.6b: Total Stress Field For Prescribed Vertical Load


(Zoomed View)

135 | P a g e
Figure 7.7: Deformed Mesh (1WL)

Figure 7.8: Effective Stress Distribution

136 | P a g e
Table 7.6a: Total settlement under 100% Working Load

WL (kN) Total Settlement (mm)


0 0.000
1250 0.405
2500 1.130
3750 2.010
5000 2.830
6250 3.440
7500 3.810
8750 3.980
10000 4.040
11250 4.060
12500 4.060

Figure 7.9a: Load – Settlement Curve (1WL)

137 | P a g e
Table 7.6b: Total settlement under 200% Working Load

WL (kN) Total Settlement (mm)


0 0.000
2500 0.775
5000 2.170
7500 3.850
10000 5.430
12500 6.610
15000 7.310
17500 7.640
20000 7.760
22500 7.780
25000 7.790

PLAXIS 2D Curve (2WL)


Imposed Pile Working Load (kN)
0 10000 20000 30000
0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000
PLAXIS 2D Curve
4.000
Settlement (mm)
5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

Figure 7.9b: Load – Settlement Curve (2WL)

138 | P a g e
Table 7.6c: Residual Settlement per load cycle

Cycle Imposed WL Settlement Maximum Load Residual Maximum Overall


(kN) (mm) Tested (kN) Settlement Settlement Recovery
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0
695 2.200
1390 4.060
1st 2085 5.920
2780 7.780 2780kN 0.406 7.78 94.78
2085 5.930 (200% WL)
1390 4.080
695 2.230
0 0.406
695 2.230
1390 4.080
2085 5.930
2nd 2780 7.790
3197 8.900 3197kN 0.422 8.90 95.26
(230% WL)
2780 7.790
2085 5.940
1390 4.090
695 2.240
0 0.422

Figure 7.9c: Pile Unloading-Reloading Curve

139 | P a g e
7.3 VALIDATION & VERIFICATION

The performance and accuracy of PLAXIS regarding the pile settlement that
obtained is verified by analytical method on the case study that conducted in
Chapter 5. Conventional method based on elastic theory is applied in computation
of pile settlement.

7.3.1 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF PILES

Based on the Vesic’s (1977) recommendation, the total settlement at the top of the
pile consists of three components as follows:

The total settlement of a pile is under a vertical working load (Qu) is obtained as
below;

S =S ( ) + S ( ) +S ( ) (7.1)

Where;

S ( ) Elastic settlement of pile


S ( ) Pile settlement caused by the load at the pile tip
S ( ) Pile settlement caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft

The deformation of the pile shaft can be evaluated based on the fundamental
principles of mechanics of materials if the pile material is assumed to be elastic, as;

( )
S ( ) = (7.2)

Where;

Q Load carried at the pile point under working load condition

Q Load carried by frictional (skin) resistance under working load condition


A Area of cross section of pile
L Length of pile
E Modulus of elasticity of the pile material

140 | P a g e
Depending on the nature of the unit friction (skin) resistance f distribution along the
pile, the magnitude of ξ varies between;

ξ=0 For no shaft friction (end bearing pile)


ξ = 0.5 For parabolic or uniform distribution of shaft friction
ξ = 0.67 For triangular distribution of shaft friction starting from zero friction at
pile head to a maximum value at pile point
ξ = 0.33 For triangular distribution of shaft friction starting from maximum at
pile head to zero at pile point

In this analysis, parabolic skin friction distribution along the pile shaft is assumed
( ξ = 0.5) for normal pile design. According to Shelke and Patra (2011), the
maximum shaft friction occurs at the middle of the pile and shaft friction decreased
sequentially from middle of the pile towards the pile end. Hence, the distribution of
shaft friction is parabolic along the pile. This statement is supported by research
performed by Kempfert [12] and Vesic [13]. Sharma and Joshi (1988) indicated
that the total settlements which determined based triangular or uniform
distribution of shaft friction are not sensitive to the values of ξ thus either value of
ξ is able to provide reasonable estimation of settlement for practical purposes.

The form of expression for settlement of a pile caused by the load carried at the pile
point is given as follows;

S ( ) = (1 − μ )I (7.3)

Where;

D Width or diameter of pile

q Point load per unit area at the pile point =

E Elasticity modulus of soil at or below the pile point


μ Poisson’s ratio of soil
I Influence factor ≈ 0.85

141 | P a g e
Based on the pile design spreadsheet developed by G&P which shown in Figure
6.3b, the pile shaft resistance is higher compared to the allowable working load
thus this indicated that end bearing is not mobilized. Hence, Equation 7.3 is not
applied in the computation of pile settlement due to there is no ultimate load which
resisted by bearing at the base of pile (Q = 0). This is similar to the assumption
that made which regarding to 100% of the imposed working load is resisted by
friction along the shaft in the parametric studies (Q = 12500kN).

The relation of pile settlement caused by the load which carried by pile shaft is
similar to Equation 7.3, namely;

S ( ) = (1 − μ )I (7.4)

Where;

p Perimeter of pile
L Embedded length of pile
I Influence factor

Based on the simple empirical relation which proposed by Vesic (1977), the
influence factor (I ) is determined as follows;

I = 2 + 0.35 (7.4a)

142 | P a g e
7.3.2 MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT CALCULATION AT ULTIMATE VERTICAL
RESISTANCE

7.3.2.1 SETTLEMENT DUE TO AXIAL DEFORMATION OF PILE SHAFT

(Q + ξQ )L
S ( ) =
A E

0 + (0.5 x 12500kN)
S ( ) = x 33.11m
1.43m x (3x10 kN/m )

∴S ( ) = 4.824 mm

7.3.2.2 SETTLEMENT OF PILE POINT CAUSED BY LOAD TRANSMITTED AT A


POINT

S ( ) =0

End bearing is not mobilized hence no load is carried at the pile point under working
load condition. Hence, zero settlement due to axial deformation of pile shaft.

7.3.2.3 SETTLEMENT OF PILE POINT CAUSED BY LOAD TRANSMITTED


ALONG THE PILE SHAFT

Q D
S ( ) = (1 − μ )I
pL E

L 33.11m
I = 2 + 0.35 = 2 + 0.35 = 3.733
D 1.35m

1.35m
p = 2πr = 2π = 4.241 m
2

12500kN 1.35m
S ( ) = x x (1 − 0.35 ) x 3.733
4.241m x 33.11m 97500kN/m

∴S ( ) = 4.038 mm

143 | P a g e
Hence, total settlement is;

S =S ( ) + S ( ) +S ( ) = 4.824 + 0 + 4.308 = 8.862 mm

The computed total settlement based on analytical analysis fullfilled the pile testing
criteria of Malaysia Practice (JKR/SPJ/1988).

7.3.3 A COMPARISON BETWEEN NUMERICAL & ANALYTICAL METHOD

The main purpose of this section is to investigate the effect of applying more
advanced soil model in computation of settlement and investigate the limitation of
using the elastic theory in the computation and a comparison is made between both
numerical and analytical analysis. A numerical analysis which carried out by using
PLAXIS is based on linear elastic perfectly plastic model where the soil material is
based on Mohr-Coulomb idealisation where constant rate of dilation is implied
whenever the soil is sheared which is unrealistic whereas analytical analysis is
performed by conventional method based on theory of elasticity. Hence, different
behaviour of soil is assumed where soil model used in PLAXIS was assumed to have
elastoplastic behaviour whereas analysis method assumed soil behaviour is linear
elastic.

The total settlement that computed by PLAXIS is 4.06 mm whereas total settlement
of 8.862 mm is obtained from analytical analysis. Based on the obtained results,
both of the numerical and analytical analysis provides different magnitudes of
settlement. This is mainly due to different approaches and concepts are
implemented in both of these analyses. Mohr-Coulomb constitutive models, the
material models which based on the relationship between rates of strain and
effective stress are applied in PLAXIS. Mohr-Coulomb makes use of five input
parameters consists of strength parameters to include friction, dilatancy and
cohesion as well as stiffness parameters including Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s
Ratio which defined the linear elastic model represents Hooke’s Law of isotropic
linear elasticity. The author comments that there is no way to know whether the
Mohr-Coulomb model in PLAXIS is in either elastic, plastic or yield condition which
this is depending mainly on the magnitude of imposed pile working load and the
strength parameters of soil.

144 | P a g e
The conventional settlement analysis which performed in this chapter is assuming
the ground is homogeneous by account for soil elasticity modulus at or below the
point only. Besides that, there is no accurate way to determine the proportion of
working load which carried by skin friction and pile base. The assumption of pile
settlement caused by the load at the pile tip is ignored due to end bearing is not
mobilized thus 100% working load is carried by skin friction is greatly influence the
settlement results which based on theory of elasticity. The behaviour of soil is not
only follow linear elastic but also the plastic behaviour since the resulted settlement
which lead by the plasticity of soil is much higher than the settlement resulted by
elastic theory.

The author comment that conventional settlement analyses unable to account for
the benefits provided by the interaction between soil and structure unlike PLAXIS
which is able to overcome the limitations of conventional method by take into
account for the material properties of the soil as well as the heterogeneity of the
ground. Hence, it is not wise to verify the settlement results obtained from PLAXIS
by applying conventional method which mainly based on elastic theory. In general,
the distributions of settlement generated by PLAXIS agreed with the distribution
predicted by conventional analyses. However, the magnitude settlement in PLAXIS
were approximately of the values from conventional analysis and it is worthy to

note that most of the settlement observations in the field are only around to of

predicted settlement during the design stage implementing conventional analyses


(From “2009 Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference Proceedings”, By Gary
Almeraris & Bill Mariucci). Hence, this explains the difference magnitude settlement
obtained between numerical and analytical analysis in this study.

145 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUDING REMARKS

8.1 CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this investigative project was to determine the significant change of
EC7 in pile design philosophy from traditional geotechnical design practice where
the pile design method has evolved into Indirect and Direct SPT methods. The
effect of design approaches in EC7 on design pile length based on the Alternative
Procedure in EC7 as well as the relation of load-settlement of single pile were
discussed in this study.

As it is important to understand the pile performance designed by EC7 and BS8004,


the first step of this study was to conduct parametric studies in comparing EC7 and
BS8004 by assuming a model ground which comprising of Hypothetical Situation A
and B which is homogeneous single layer and non-homogeneous two layer of soil
respectively.

The parametric study in Chapter 4 was primarily focused on analysing pile design
according to EC7 and BS8004. The working feature of developed excel spreadsheet
is fully demonstrated by the use of Hypothetical Situation A and B which correspond
to homogeneous and non-homogeneous clay layer respectively. Hence, the
governing design approach in EC7 is thus examined. The scope of this study
focused mainly on bored cast in situ single pile in cohesive soil, limiting the soil
profile to clayey soil. Subsequently, the following general conclusion can be drawn:

i. Based on Indirect SPT method, DA3 is the governing approach in EC7.


EC7 provides more economical pile design but less conservative
compared to BS8004 for bored pile embedded in a uniform single clay
layer and 2 non-homogeneous layer of clay soil which applicable to all soil
consistency except for soft clay.
ii. Based on Direct SPT method, pile design based on EC7 which governed
by DA3 is the most conservative approach but is the least economical
design compared to BS8004 for bored pile embedded in a uniform single
layer of clay soil and 2 non-homogeneous layer of clay soil.

146 | P a g e
Hence, the parametric study in Chapter 4 concludes that DA3 in EC7 is the
governing approach in direct SPT method whereas conventional method (BS8004)
is the governing approach for indirect SPT method for bored cast in situ single pile
in clayey soil. Pile capacity based on soil properties govern the design is shown
beyond doubt in the parametric study despite the fact that material factors that
introduced in DA3 is factoring at the source of the parameters of shearing
resistance and not the base and shaft resistance themselves which indicates that
importance of resistance factors is not consider in of DA3. Hence, this parametric
study concluded that DA3 is the governing design approach on pile design in EC7.

As far as the objective of this investigative project is concerned, the parametric


study on bored cast in situ single pile in non-cohesive soil where the soil profile
limited to sandy soil in Chapter 5 is conducted. However, unfavourable result is
obtained due to assumption of stress-free pile which ignoring the existence of
residual load. The author suggests that further parametric study is not required
hence no conclusion can be drawn in Chapter 5.

The second step of this investigative project was to validate the design of pile
foundation based on EC7 against field measurements by conducting a case study.
Thus, the following conclusion was drawn:

i. The governing approach for bored pile design in EC7 is remains as DA3
which yield more conservative result but the least economical pile design
compared to BS8004.

Hence, the design aspect of developed spreadsheet (Direct SPT Method) as well as
the result of parametric study on axially loaded bored pile embedded in clayey soil
was verified and validated according to the case study.

The last step of this investigative project is to study the soil behaviour. Numerical
method was applied in performing inelastic analyses when the soil is no longer
linear elastic by using PLAXIS. Analytical method was applied to perform
cconventional which based on elastic theory. Hence, both numerical and analytical
method is applied to determine load-settlement relation in accessing the reliability
of pile design in EC7.

147 | P a g e
Based on the PLAXIS simulation performed in Chapter 7 which led to satisfactory
results, the following conclusions were drawn:

i. The purpose of this numerical analysis is not to obtain the same results
as the Static Load Test (SLT) due to most of the geological parameters is
determined by correlations and typical ranges of values for unavailable
information were applied. However, favourable results were provided by
PLAXIS.
ii. The settlement results provided by simulation of SLT from PLAXIS 2D
corresponded very well with the criteria of Malaysia Practice
(JKR/SPJ/1988).

According to analytical method where conventional analysis (Vesic, 1977) which


based on elastic theory is performed in Chapter 7, the following conclusion was
drawn:

i. The settlement results based on analytical method satisfy the


requirements for pile testing of Malaysia Practice (JKR/SPJ/1988).

This investigative project concluded that the pile testing on bored pile according to
Design Approach 3 (DA3) in EC7 was comply with standard specifications for pile
testing of Malaysia Practice (JKR/SPJ/1988).

8.2 FURTHER RESEARCH

In this investigative project, the entire parametric study was conducted by


assuming a model ground comprising up to two non-homogeneous soil clay layers
where in reality most of the clayey soils comprised of increasing undrained shear
strength with depth. Hence, programming of Visual Basic Application (VBA) in
Microsoft Excel should utilize to enhance and expand the capability of the working
feature of developed spreadsheet in order to be suitable for realistic soil profile.
Further studies is recommended on comparing “Alternative” and “Model Pile”
procedure which proposed by EC7 in determining the ultimate pile compressive
résistance.

148 | P a g e
In numerical analysis, the soil was modelled based on the criteria of Mohr-Coulomb
thus it is more appropriate to apply other material models such as Hardening Soil
Model, Modified Cam Clay and Soft Soil Model to verify the result obtained from
PLAXIS against each material model. It is recommended to compare both 2D
Modelling and 3D modelling to study the behaviour of piles with non-circular cross
sections.

149 | P a g e
LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Almeraris, Gary, and Bill Mariucci. 2009. Rapid Excavation And Tunneling 2009
Conference Proceedings. Littleton, Colo.: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration.

Bauduin, C. 2002. “Design of Axially Loaded Compression Piles according to


Eurocode 7.” Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations. ENPC.

Bond, Andrew, and Andrew Harris. 2008. Decoding Eurocode 7 [Electronic


Resource]. London: Taylor & Francis.

Das, Braja M. 1990. Principles Of Foundation Engineering. Boston: PWS-Kent Pub.


Co.

Fellenius, B.H., 2002a. Determining the Resistance Distribution in Piles Part 1 .


Notes on Shift of No-Load Reading and Residual Load. , 20(2), pp.35–38.

Fellenius, B.H., 2002b. Determining the True Distributions of Load in Instrumented


Piles. , 2(116), pp.1455–1470.

Frank, Roger. 2004. Designers' 10 Guide To EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical


Design - General Rules. London: Thomas Telford.

Frank, R. 2006. “Design of Pile Foundations Following Eurocode 7”, no. May:
577–86.

Orr, T.L.L., 2004. Implications of Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design in Ireland.

Powrie, William. 1997. Soil Mechanics. London: E & FN Spon.

Prakash, Shamsher, and Hari D Sharma. 1990. Pile Foundations In Engineering


Practice. New York: Wiley.

Rajapakse, Ruwan. 2008. Geotechnical Engineering Calculations And Rules Of


Thumb. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

150 | P a g e
Simpson, B. et al., 2012. Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of practice.
Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, 165(4), pp.213–232.

Terzaghi, Karl, and Ralph B Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics In Engineering Practice.
New York: Wiley.

Tomlinson, M. J, and John Woodward. Pile Design And Construction Practice.

Vardanega, P.J., Williamson, M.G. & Bolton, M.D., 2012. Bored pile design in stiff
clay II : mechanisms and uncertainty j. , 165(1948), pp.233–246.

Winterkorn, Hans F, and Hsai-Yang Fang. 1975. Foundation Engineering


Handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Zhang, Feng, Yusuke Honjo, Makoto Suzuki, and Takashi Hara. 2009. Geotechnical
Risk And Safety. Abingdon: CRC Press [Imprint].

151 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONSULTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bond, A.J. et al., 2013. Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical Design Worked examples,

Chee-meng, C. & Yean-chin, T., 2009. JACK-IN PILE DESIGN – MALAYSIAN


EXPERIENCE AND DESIGN APPROACH TO EC7. , (July).

Ibrahim, A., Malik, I. & Omar, O., 2013. Pile design using Eurocode 7: A case study.
Journal of Civil Engineering …, 4(March), pp.70–80.

Iv, T., Ba, M. & Libri, L., 2013. Estimation of bored pile capacity and settlement in
soft soils. , 65, pp.901–918.

Makki, A. et al., 2013. Comparison Study of Pile Foundation Using Eurocode 7 and
Working Stress Design Approach. , 3(8), pp.4–10.

Oka, Fusao. 2015. Computer Methods And Advances In Geomechanics. Leiden:


CRC Press.

Stability, S. et al., 2013. Bored Pile Capacity by Direct SPT Methods Applied to 40
Case Histories. , 5(November), pp.27–30.

Taerwe, Luc. 2007. Proceedings Of The 5Th International Probabilistic Workshop.


[Dresden, Goetheallee 35]: [D. Proske].

Tan, Y. et al., 2009. Comparison of Malaysian Practice with EC7 on the Design of
Driven Pile and Bored Pile Foundations under Axial Compression Load. IEM
Course on Eurcode, (July), pp.1–32.

Warrington, Don C. 2007. Pile Driving By Pile Buck. [Vero Beach, FL]: Pile Buck
International.

152 | P a g e
APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: BOREHOLE AABH6 FROM BORELOG PROFILE OF CASE STUDY

153 | P a g e
APPENDIX B: DIMENSION OF THE MODEL USED IN PLAXIS 2D V8.2+

X Y
Point
[m] [m]
0 0 -30
1 70 -30
2 70 70
3 0 70
4 0.675 70
5 0.675 36.89
6 0 36.89
7 4.725 70
8 2.7 70
9 0.675 36.39
10 70 62.61
11 0.675 62.61
12 4.725 62.61
13 2.7 62.61
14 70 61.11
15 0.675 61.11
16 4.725 61.11
17 2.7 61.11
18 70 60.11
19 0.675 60.11
20 4.725 60.11
21 2.7 60.11
22 70 50.61
23 0.675 50.61
24 4.725 50.61
25 2.7 50.61
26 70 49.11
27 0.675 49.11
28 4.725 49.11
29 2.7 49.11
30 70 47.61
31 0.675 47.61
32 4.725 47.61
33 2.7 47.61
34 0.675 46.11
35 70 46.11
36 4.725 46.11
37 2.7 46.11
38 70 37.11
39 0.675 37.11
40 4.725 37.11
41 2.7 37.11
42 70 34.11
43 0 34.11
44 70 31.11
45 0 31.11
46 70 29.61
47 0 29.61
48 2.7 34.865
49 0 34.865
50 4.725 32.84
51 4.725 34.11
52 0 32.84

154 | P a g e
APPENDIX C: DEVELOPED SPREADSHEETS

155 | P a g e
INDIRECT METHOD (ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE) - SINGLE SOIL LAYER (CLAY)

Soil
γsat 19 kN/m3 0
Unit Weight of Soil γd 17.5 kN/m3 Permanent 1.35
A1
γ' 9.19 kN/m3 Variable 1.5
Unfavourable
Unit Weight of Water γ 9.81 kN/m3 Permanent 1.0 Methods
A2
Variable 1.3 Meyerhof's (1976) Method Qp Bearing Capacity Factor Nc 9
Input Base 1.25 Alpha Method Qs Terzaghi, Peck & Mesri (1996) α Graph
R1 Shaft (Compression) 1.0
Design Length L1 30.45 m
Total (Compression) 1.15
Cu1 200 kPa Base 1.1
Undrained Shear Strength
Cu2 200 kPa R2 Shaft (Compression) 1.1
Partial Factors
Pile Diameter d 1000 mm Total (Compression) 1.1
Pile Area Ap 0.79 m2 Base 1.0
Pile Perimeter p 3.14 m R3 Shaft (Compression) 1.0
Total (Compression) 1.0
Base 1.6
R4 Shaft (Compression) 1.3
Total (Compression) 1.5
M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.4
Alternative Method Model Factor 1.4

Properties for case 1 to 5


DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 Characteristic Value
Pile Diameter Cu1 Cu2 Gk Qk α
Case Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
(m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Sladen (1992) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 1 200 200 5300 0 7155 0 5300 0 7155 0 7155 0 0.35 6699.00 1414.29 8113.29
2 1 200 200 4770 530 6439.5 795 4770 689 6439.5 795 6439.5 795 0.35 6699.00 1414.29 8113.29
3 1 200 200 4240 1060 5724 1590 4240 1378 5724 1590 5724 1590 0.35 6699.00 1414.29 8113.29
4 1 200 200 3710 1590 5008.5 2385 3710 2067 5008.5 2385 5008.5 2385 0.35 6699.00 1414.29 8113.29
5 1 200 200 3180 2120 4293 3180 3180 2756 4293 3180 4293 3180 0.35 6699.00 1414.29 8113.29

Conventional Approach
Total Loads, Qt Qs Qp Qall1 Qall2 Qall - Qt σo’ L1
Case α ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.35 494.41 53.80 1.00
2 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.35 494.41 53.80 1.00
3 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.35 494.41 53.80 1.00
4 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.35 494.41 53.80 1.00
5 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.35 494.41 53.80 1.00

Overdesign factors using DA1.C1 (A1+M1+R1)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
α σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Strength, Cu2/γcu L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2)
1 7155 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10105.26 11236.69 10017.00 10017.00 7155.00 200.00 200.00 45.93 1.00 10105.26 1414.29 11519.55 422.12
2 7234.5 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10233.27 11364.70 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 200.00 200.00 46.51 1.00 10233.27 1414.29 11647.56 427.47
3 7314 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10361.27 11492.69 10239.61 10239.61 7314.01 200.00 200.00 47.10 1.00 10361.27 1414.29 11775.55 432.82
4 7393.5 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10489.26 11620.69 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 200.00 200.00 47.68 1.00 10489.26 1414.29 11903.55 438.17
5 7473 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10617.26 11748.68 10462.21 10462.21 7473.01 200.00 200.00 48.26 1.00 10617.26 1414.29 12031.54 443.51

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M1+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
α σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Strength, Cu2/γcu L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2)
1 5300 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7473.63 8357.56 7420.01 7420.01 5300.01 200.00 200.00 44.16 1.00 9715.73 1414.29 11130.01 405.85
2 5459 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7730.48 8614.41 7642.61 7642.61 5459.01 200.00 200.00 45.68 1.00 10049.63 1414.29 11463.91 419.80
3 5618 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7987.33 8871.26 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 200.00 200.00 47.20 1.00 10383.53 1414.29 11797.81 433.75
4 5777 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 8244.17 9128.10 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 200.00 200.00 48.72 1.00 10717.43 1414.29 12131.71 447.70
5 5936 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 8501.02 9384.95 8310.41 8310.41 5936.01 200.00 200.00 50.23 1.00 11051.33 1414.29 12465.61 461.64

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M2+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
α σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Strength, Cu2/γcu L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2)
1 5300 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 7784.47 8415.84 7420.01 7420.01 5300.01 142.86 142.86 56.75 1.00 10119.81 1010.20 11130.01 521.58
2 5459 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8041.31 8672.69 7642.61 7642.61 5459.01 142.86 142.86 58.63 1.00 10453.71 1010.20 11463.91 538.79
3 5618 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8298.16 8929.54 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 142.86 142.86 60.50 1.00 10787.61 1010.20 11797.81 555.99
4 5777 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8555.01 9186.38 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 142.86 142.86 62.37 1.00 11121.51 1010.20 12131.71 573.20
5 5936 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8811.84 9443.22 8310.40 8310.40 5936.00 142.86 142.86 64.25 1.00 11455.40 1010.20 12465.60 590.41

Overdesign factors using DA2 (A1+M1+R2)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
α σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Strength, Cu2/γcu L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2)
1 7155 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8731.30 10017.01 10017.01 10017.01 7155.01 200.00 200.00 43.66 1.00 9604.43 1414.29 11018.71 401.20
2 7234.5 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8842.60 10128.31 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 200.00 200.00 44.21 1.00 9726.86 1414.29 11141.14 406.32
3 7314 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8953.89 10239.60 10239.60 10239.60 7314.00 200.00 200.00 44.77 1.00 9849.27 1414.29 11263.56 411.43
4 7393.5 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 9065.20 10350.91 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 200.00 200.00 45.33 1.00 9971.72 1414.29 11386.00 416.55
5 7473 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 9176.49 10462.20 10462.20 10462.20 7473.00 200.00 200.00 45.88 1.00 10094.13 1414.29 11508.42 421.66

Overdesign factors using DA3 (A1+M2+R3)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
α σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Strength, Cu2/γcu L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2)
1 7155 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9006.80 10017.00 10017.00 10017.00 7155.00 142.86 142.86 50.51 1.00 9006.80 1010.20 10017.00 464.21
2 7234.5 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9118.11 10128.31 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 142.86 142.86 51.14 1.00 9118.11 1010.20 10128.31 469.95
3 7314 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9229.41 10239.61 10239.61 10239.61 7314.01 142.86 142.86 51.76 1.00 9229.41 1010.20 10239.61 475.68
4 7393.5 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9340.71 10350.91 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 142.86 142.86 52.39 1.00 9340.71 1010.20 10350.91 481.42
5 7473 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9452.01 10462.21 10462.21 10462.21 7473.01 142.86 142.86 53.01 1.00 9452.01 1010.20 10462.21 487.16
TITLE: DIRECT METHOD - EUROCODE 7 (EC7) Vs BS8004 (SINGLE SOIL PROFILE)

Project: FYP Design by: ALEX YOON


Project NO.: 8009397 Checked by: ALEX YOON
Site Location: Shah Alam Approved by: ALEX YOON
Borehole: BH-4 Date:

Soil Data BS8004 Resistance Calculations (DA1.C1) Resistance Calculations (DA1.C2) Resistance Calculations (DA2) Resistance Calculations (DA3)
Characteristic Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value
Pile Optimal Average Optimal Optimal Optimal
To Base Level Soil Layer End End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End Total Skin End
Layer Embedment to SPT N Value Average Unit Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Unit Skin Total Skin Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile
Depth of Layer Thickness Bearing Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Friction Bearing
Soil Layer Skin Friction qs Friction Rsk Length Friction Friction Rsk Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length
Rbk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rsd Rbd
qs
Type (m) (mRL) (m) (m) N (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ground Level 0 74.22
1 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 2.00 72.22 2.00 2.00 40.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 502.86 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 386.81 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 457.14 0.00 142.86 2.00 71.43 359.18 0.00 359.18 0.00
2 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 4.00 70.22 2.00 2.00 40.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 502.86 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 386.81 0.00 200.00 2.00 100.00 502.86 0.00 457.14 0.00 142.86 2.00 71.43 359.18 0.00 359.18 0.00
3 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 5.00 69.22 1.00 1.00 40.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 251.43 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 193.41 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 228.57 0.00 142.86 1.00 71.43 179.59 0.00 179.59 0.00
4 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 6.00 68.22 1.00 1.00 40.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 251.43 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 193.41 0.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 251.43 0.00 228.57 0.00 142.86 1.00 71.43 179.59 0.00 179.59 0.00
5 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 7.50 66.72 1.50 1.50 40.00 100.00 377.14 0.00 200.00 1.50 100.00 377.14 0.00 377.14 0.00 200.00 1.50 100.00 377.14 0.00 290.11 0.00 200.00 1.50 100.00 377.14 0.00 342.86 0.00 142.86 1.50 71.43 269.39 0.00 269.39 0.00
6 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 9.00 65.22 1.50 25.31 40.00 100.00 6364.28 0.00 200.00 21.66 100.00 5446.23 0.00 5446.23 0.00 200.00 21.72 100.00 5460.09 0.00 4200.07 0.00 200.00 20.39 100.00 5127.45 0.00 4661.32 0.00 142.86 28.00 71.43 5028.67 0.00 5028.67 0.00
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 32.81 8249.99 0.00 29.16 7331.95 0.00 7331.95 0.00 29.22 7345.80 0.00 5650.62 0.00 27.89 7013.17 0.00 6375.61 0.00 35.50 6375.61 0.00 6375.61 0.00

Input Load
Pile Type BORED PILE Loading (Unfactored) Rcd,1 Rcd,2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Fcd ∆ L
EC7 ODF
Pile Shape CIRCULAR Permanent Load 2640 kN (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m)
Pile Diameter 800 mm Variable Load 660 kN DA1.C1 7331.95 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 29.16
Pile Cut Off Level 74.22 mRL Total Load 3300.00 kN Design DA1.C2 5650.62 4897.20 4897.20 3498 3498 0 1.00 29.22
Pile Toe Level 44.22 mRL Approach DA2 6375.61 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 27.89
Proposed Pile Length 30.00 m G&P Practice; Gue (2007) DA3 6375.61 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 35.50
Pile Perimeter, p 2.51 m Ult. Shaft Load, Ks 2.5
Empirical Design Factor
Pile Area, Ap 0.50 m2 Ult.End Bearing, Kb 0 Conventional Approach
Constant Gravity 9.81 m/s2 qs = Ks*(N) 2.5 N Total Load (Unfactored) Qt 3300.00 kN
Specific Weight of Water 9.81 kN/m3 qb = Kb*(N) 0N Shaft Resistance Qs 8249.99 kN
Bulk Unit Weight 20.60 kN/m3 Base Resistance Qp 0.00 kN
Dry Unit Weight 18.25 kN/m3 Partial Factors Qall1 3300.00 kN
Allowable Working Load
Effective Unit Weight 10.79 kN/m3 Base 1.25 Qall2 5499.99 kN
Moisture Content 22 % Shaft (Compression) 1.00 Qall - Qt ∆ 0.00 kN
R1
Apparent Cohesion 200 kN/m2 Total/Combined (Compression) 1.15 Overdesign Factor ODF 1.00
Shearing Resistance Angle, Ф' 11 degree Shaft in Tension 1.25
16.70 m Base 1.10 Results (Optimum pile length required)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
12.20 MN/m2 Shaft (Compression) 1.10 Eurocode 7 (EC7) 35.50 m
R2
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.10 Conventional Method (BS8004) 32.81 m
CorrelationsSPT-N value & Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) 5N Shaft in Tension 1.15
Base 1.00
Shaft (Compression) 1.00
R3
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.00
Shaft in Tension 1.10
Base 1.60
Shaft (Compression) 1.30
R4
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.50
Shaft in Tension 1.60
Permanent 1.35
A1
Variable 1.5
Unfavourable
Permanent 1.0
A2
Variable 1.3
M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.4

Alternative Method Model Factor 1.40


INDIRECT METHOD (ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE) - DOUBLE SOIL LAYER (CLAY)

Input
γsat 19 kN/m3
Unit Weight of Soil γd 17.5 kN/m3 Permanent 1.35
A1
γ' 9.19 kN/m3 Variable 1.5
Unfavourable
Unit Weight of Water γ 9.81 kN/m3 Permanent 1.0 Methods
A2
Variable 1.3 Meyerhof's (1976) Method Qp Bearing Capacity Factor Nc 9
Soil Layer 1 Base 1.25 Alpha Method Qs Terzaghi, Peck & Mesri (1996) α Graph
Depth from Gound Level D1 10 m R1 Shaft (Compression) 1.0
Design Length L1 10 m Total (Compression) 1.15
Cu1 150 kPa Base 1.1
Undrained Shear Strength
Cu2 150 kPa R2 Shaft (Compression) 1.1
Partial Factors
Pile Diameter d 1000 mm Total (Compression) 1.1
Pile Area Ap 0.79 m2 Base 1.0
Pile Perimeter p 3.14 m R3 Shaft (Compression) 1.0
Total (Compression) 1.0
SOIL LAYER 2 Base 1.6
Depth from Gound Level D2 100 m R4 Shaft (Compression) 1.3
Soil Layer Thickness T2 90 m Total (Compression) 1.5
Cu1 200 kPa M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
Undrained Shear Strength
Cu2 200 kPa M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.4
Pile Diameter d 1000 mm Alternative Method Model Factor 1.4
Pile Area Ap 0.79 m2
Pile Perimeter p 3.14 m
Embedment Pile Length L2 30 m

Properties for case 1 to 5


DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 Characteristic Value
Pile Diameter Cu1a Cu1b Gk Qk α1
Case Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
(m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 1 150 150 5300 0 7155 0 5300 0 7155 0 7155 0 0.39 1838.57 1060.71 2899.29
2 1 150 150 4770 530 6439.5 795 4770 689 6439.5 795 6439.5 795 0.39 1838.57 1060.71 2899.29
3 1 150 150 4240 1060 5724 1590 4240 1378 5724 1590 5724 1590 0.39 1838.57 1060.71 2899.29
4 1 150 150 3710 1590 5008.5 2385 3710 2067 5008.5 2385 5008.5 2385 0.39 1838.57 1060.71 2899.29
5 1 150 150 3180 2120 4293 3180 3180 2756 4293 3180 4293 3180 0.39 1838.57 1060.71 2899.29

Properties for case 1 to 5


DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 Characteristic Value
Pile Diameter Cu2a Cu2b Gk Qk α2
Case Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
(m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 1 200 200 5300 0 7155 0 5300 0 7155 0 7155 0 0.35 6600.00 1414.29 8014.29
2 1 200 200 4770 530 6439.5 795 4770 689 6439.5 795 6439.5 795 0.35 6600.00 1414.29 8014.29
3 1 200 200 4240 1060 5724 1590 4240 1378 5724 1590 5724 1590 0.35 6600.00 1414.29 8014.29
4 1 200 200 3710 1590 5008.5 2385 3710 2067 5008.5 2385 5008.5 2385 0.35 6600.00 1414.29 8014.29
5 1 200 200 3180 2120 4293 3180 3180 2756 4293 3180 4293 3180 0.35 6600.00 1414.29 8014.29

Conventional Approach
Total Loads, Qt Qs Qp Qall1 Qall2 Qall - Qt α1 α2 Avg σo’ L1 L2 Length of Pile
Case ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (m)
1 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.39 0.35 45.95 10.00 45.44 1.00 55.44
2 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.39 0.35 45.95 10.00 45.44 1.00 55.44
3 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.39 0.35 45.95 10.00 45.44 1.00 55.44
4 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.39 0.35 45.95 10.00 45.44 1.00 55.44
5 5300 11835.73 1414.29 5300.01 8361.91 0.01 0.39 0.35 45.95 10.00 45.44 1.00 55.44

Overdesign factors using DA1.C1 (A1+M1+R1)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Length Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value Pile
α α Avg σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1a/γcu Cu2a/γcu Cu2b/γcu L1 L2 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk Length
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 7155 0.39 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10105.26 11236.69 10017.00 10017.00 7155.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 37.58 1.00 10105.26 1414.29 11519.55 45.95 47.58
2 7234.5 0.39 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10233.27 11364.70 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 38.16 1.00 10233.27 1414.29 11647.56 91.90 48.16
3 7314 0.39 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10361.27 11492.69 10239.61 10239.61 7314.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 38.74 1.00 10361.27 1414.29 11775.55 91.90 48.74
4 7393.5 0.39 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10489.26 11620.69 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 39.32 1.00 10489.26 1414.29 11903.55 91.90 49.32
5 7473 0.39 0.35 1.25 1.00 1131.43 10617.26 11748.68 10462.21 10462.21 7473.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 39.90 1.00 10617.26 1414.29 12031.54 91.90 49.90

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M1+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Length Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value Pile
α α Avg σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Cu2a/γcu Cu2/γcu L1 L2 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk Length
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 5300 0.39 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7473.63 8357.56 7420.01 7420.01 5300.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 35.81 1.00 9715.73 1414.29 11130.01 91.90 45.81
2 5459 0.39 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7730.48 8614.41 7642.61 7642.61 5459.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 37.32 1.00 10049.63 1414.29 11463.91 91.90 47.32
3 5618 0.39 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 7987.33 8871.26 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 38.84 1.00 10383.53 1414.29 11797.81 91.90 48.84
4 5777 0.39 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 8244.17 9128.10 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 40.36 1.00 10717.43 1414.29 12131.71 91.90 50.36
5 5936 0.39 0.35 1.60 1.30 883.93 8501.01 9384.94 8310.40 8310.40 5936.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 41.88 1.00 11051.31 1414.29 12465.60 91.90 51.88

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M2+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Length Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value Pile
α α Avg σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Cu2a/γcu Cu2/γcu L1 L2 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk Length
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 5300 0.46 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 7784.47 8415.84 7420.01 7420.01 5300.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 48.09 1.00 10119.81 1010.20 11130.01 91.90 58.09
2 5459 0.46 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8041.31 8672.69 7642.61 7642.61 5459.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 49.97 1.00 10453.71 1010.20 11463.91 91.90 59.97
3 5618 0.46 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8298.16 8929.54 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 51.84 1.00 10787.61 1010.20 11797.81 91.90 61.84
4 5777 0.46 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8555.01 9186.38 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 53.71 1.00 11121.51 1010.20 12131.71 91.90 63.71
5 5936 0.46 0.40 1.60 1.30 631.38 8811.85 9443.23 8310.41 8310.41 5936.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 55.58 1.00 11455.41 1010.20 12465.61 91.90 65.58

Overdesign factors using DA2 (A1+M1+R2)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Length Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value Pile
α α Avg σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Cu2a/γcu Cu2/γcu L1 L2 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk Length
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 7155 0.39 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8731.30 10017.01 10017.01 10017.01 7155.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 35.30 1.00 9604.43 1414.29 11018.71 91.90 45.30
2 7234.5 0.39 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8842.60 10128.31 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 35.86 1.00 9726.86 1414.29 11141.14 91.90 45.86
3 7314 0.39 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 8953.90 10239.61 10239.61 10239.61 7314.01 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 36.41 1.00 9849.29 1414.29 11263.57 91.90 46.41
4 7393.5 0.39 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 9065.20 10350.91 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 36.97 1.00 9971.72 1414.29 11386.00 91.90 46.97
5 7473 0.39 0.35 1.10 1.10 1285.71 9176.49 10462.20 10462.20 10462.20 7473.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 10.00 37.53 1.00 10094.13 1414.29 11508.42 91.90 47.53

Overdesign factors using DA3 (A1+M2+R3)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Undrained Shear Strength, Length Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value Pile
α α Avg σo’
Case Fcd Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Cu1/γcu Cu2a/γcu Cu2/γcu L1 L2 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk Length
ODF
(kN) Terzaghi (1996) Terzaghi (1996) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m)
1 7155 0.46 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9006.81 10017.01 10017.01 10017.01 7155.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 41.85 1.00 9006.81 1010.20 10017.01 91.90 51.85
2 7234.5 0.46 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9118.11 10128.31 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 42.48 1.00 9118.11 1010.20 10128.31 91.90 52.48
3 7314 0.46 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9229.40 10239.60 10239.60 10239.60 7314.00 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 43.10 1.00 9229.40 1010.20 10239.60 91.90 53.10
4 7393.5 0.46 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9340.71 10350.91 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 43.73 1.00 9340.71 1010.20 10350.91 91.90 53.73
5 7473 0.46 0.40 1.00 1.00 1010.20 9452.01 10462.21 10462.21 10462.21 7473.01 107.14 142.86 142.86 10.00 44.35 1.00 9452.01 1010.20 10462.21 91.90 54.35
TITLE: DIRECT METHOD - EUROCODE 7 (EC7) Vs BS8004 (DOUBLE LAYER SOIL PROFILE)

Project: FYP Design by: ALEX YOON


Project NO.: 8009397 Checked by: ALEX YOON
Site Location: Shah Alam Approved by: ALEX YOON
Borehole: BH-4 Date:

Soil Data Resistance Calculations (DA1.C1) Resistance Calculations (DA1.C2) Resistance Calculations (DA2) Resistance Calculations (DA3)
Characteristic Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value
Pile Optimal Average Optimal Optimal Optimal
Base Level Soil Layer End End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End Total Skin End
Layer To Depth Embedment to SPT N Value Average Unit Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Unit Skin Total Skin Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile
of Layer Thickness Bearing Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Friction Bearing
Soil Layer Skin Friction qs Friction Rsk Length Friction Friction Rsk Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length
Rbk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rsd Rbd
qs
Type (m) (mRL) (m) (m) N (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ground Level 0 100
1 Very stiff silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 10.00 90.00 10.00 10.00 30.00 75.00 1885.71 0.00 150.00 10.00 75.00 1885.71 0.00 1885.71 0.00 150.00 10.00 75.00 1885.71 0.00 1450.55 0.00 150.00 10.00 75.00 1885.71 0.00 1714.29 0.00 107.14 10.00 53.57 1346.94 0.00 1346.94 0.00
2 Hard silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 90.00 10.00 80.00 25.31 40.00 100.00 6364.29 0.00 200.00 21.66 100.00 5446.23 0.00 5446.23 0.00 200.00 21.72 100.00 5460.09 0.00 4200.07 0.00 200.00 20.39 100.00 5127.45 0.00 4661.32 0.00 142.86 28.00 71.43 5028.67 0.00 5028.67 0.00
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 35.31 8250.00 0.00 31.66 7331.95 0.00 7331.95 0.00 31.72 7345.81 0.00 5650.62 0.00 30.39 7013.17 0.00 6375.61 0.00 38.00 6375.61 0.00 6375.61 0.00

Input Load
Pile Type BORED PILE Loading (Unfactored) Rcd,1 Rcd,2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Fcd ∆ L
EC7 ODF
Pile Shape CIRCULAR Permanent Load 2640 kN (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m)
Pile Diameter 800 mm Variable Load 660 kN DA1.C1 7331.95 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 31.66
Pile Cut Off Level 100 mRL Total Load 3300.00 kN Design DA1.C2 5650.62 4897.20 4897.20 3498 3498 0 1.00 31.72
Pile Toe Level 70.00 mRL Approach DA2 6375.61 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 30.39
Proposed Pile Length 30.00 m Chang & Broms (1991) DA3 6375.61 6375.61 6375.61 4554 4554 0 1.00 38.00
Pile Perimeter, p 2.51 m Ult. Shaft Load, Ks 2.5
Empirical Design Factor
Pile Area, Ap 0.50 m2 Ult.End Bearing, Kb 0 Conventional Approach
Constant Gravity 9.81 m/s2 qs = Ks*(N) 2.5 N Total Load (Unfactored) Qt 3300.00 kN
Specific Weight of Water 9.81 kN/m3 qb = Kb*(N) 0N Shaft Resistance Qs 8250.00 kN
Bulk Unit Weight 20.60 kN/m3 Base Resistance Qp 0.00 kN
Dry Unit Weight 18.25 kN/m3 Partial Factors Qall1 3300.00 kN
Allowable Working Load
Effective Unit Weight 10.79 kN/m3 Base 1.25 Qall2 5500.00 kN
Moisture Content 22 % Shaft (Compression) 1.00 Qall - Qt ∆ 0.00 kN
R1
Apparent Cohesion (Soil Layer 1) 150 kN/m2 Total/Combined (Compression) 1.15 Overdesign Factor ODF 1.00
Apparent Cohesion (Soil Layer 2) 200 kN/m2 Shaft in Tension 1.25
Shearing Resistance Angle, Ф' 11 degree Base 1.10 Results (Optimum pile length required)
16.70 m Shaft (Compression) 1.10 Eurocode 7 (EC7) 38.00 m
Unconfined Compressive Strength R2
12.20 MN/m2 Total/Combined (Compression) 1.10 Conventional Method (BS8004) 35.31 m
Shaft in Tension 1.15
Correlations SPT-N value & Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) 5N Base 1.00
Shaft (Compression) 1.00
R3
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.00
Shaft in Tension 1.10
Base 1.60
Shaft (Compression) 1.30
R4
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.50
Shaft in Tension 1.60
Permanent 1.35
A1
Variable 1.5
Unfavourable
Permanent 1.0
A2
Variable 1.3
M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.4

Alternative Method Model Factor 1.40


INDIRECT METHOD (ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE) - SINGLE PROFILE GROUND TEST (SAND)

Soil
γsat 19 kN/m3
Unit Weight of Soil γdry 14.5 kN/m3 Permanent 1.35 Methods
A1
γ 18.86 kN/m3 Variable 1.5 Ap*ql 6409.30 kN
Unfavourable Limiting Point Resistance
Unit Weight of Water γ 9.81 kN/m3 Permanent 1.0 Meyerhof's Method Qp ql 8157.30 kPa
A2
Variable 1.3 Bearing Capacity Factor Nq 212.5
Input Base 1.25 Unit Frictional Resistance f 51.90 kPa
R1 Shaft (Compression) 1.0 Effective Earth Pressure Coefficient K 0.391
Design Length L1 30.4 m
Total (Compression) 1.15 Soil Friction Angle Ф' 0.655 rad
Brom's Method Qs
Undrained Shear Strength Cu1 200 kPa Base 1.1 Soil-Pile Friction Angle d' 0.439 rad
Eff. Vertical Stress (Pile Tip) q' 573 kPa R2 Shaft (Compression) 1.1 Effective Vertical Stress σo’ 282.9 kPa
Partial Factors
Pile Diameter d 1000 mm Total (Compression) 1.1 Critical Depth L' 15 m
Pile Area Ap 0.79 m2 Base 1.0
Pile Perimeter p 3.14 m R3 Shaft (Compression) 1.0
Atmospheric Pressure Patm 100 kN/m2 Total (Compression) 1.0
Soil Friction Angle Ф 37.5 degree Base 1.6
R4 Shaft (Compression) 1.3
Total (Compression) 1.5
M1 Angle of Shearing Resistance 1.0
M2 Angle of Shearing Resistance 1.25
Alternative Method Model Factor 1.4

Properties for case 1 to 5


DA1.C1 DA1.C2 DA2 DA3 Characteristic Value
Pile Diameter Gk Qk
Case Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Factored Gk Factored Qk Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk
(m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 1 5300 0 7155 0 5300 0 7155 0 7155 0 3735.46 6405.81 10141.27
2 1 4770 530 6440 795 4770 689 6439.5 795 6439.5 795 3735.46 6405.81 10141.27
3 1 4240 1060 5724 1590 4240 1378 5724 1590 5724 1590 3735.46 6405.81 10141.27
4 1 3710 1590 5009 2385 3710 2067 5008.5 2385 5008.5 2385 3735.46 6405.81 10141.27
5 1 3180 2120 4293 3180 3180 2756 4293 3180 4293 3180 3735.46 6405.81 10141.27

Conventional Approach
Total Loads, Qt Qs q'Nq*Ap Ap*ql Qp Qall1 Qall2 Qall - Qt L1 Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case ODF K Nq
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 5300 6844.19 155730.33 6405.81 6405.81 5300.00 6698.06 0.00 49.45 1.00 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
2 5300 6844.20 155730.54 6405.81 6405.81 5300.00 6698.07 0.00 49.45 1.00 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
3 5300 6844.20 155730.54 6405.81 6405.81 5300.00 6698.07 0.00 49.45 1.00 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
4 5300 6844.20 155730.54 6405.81 6405.81 5300.00 6698.07 0.00 49.45 1.00 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
5 5300 6844.20 155730.54 6405.81 6405.81 5300.00 6698.07 0.00 49.45 1.00 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81

Overdesign factors using DA1.C1 (A1+M1+R1)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case Fcd q'Nq*Ap Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk K Nq
ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 7155 1.25 1.00 122327.67 5124.65 5113.75 10238.40 10017.01 10017.01 7155.01 38.85 1.00 5113.75 6405.81 11519.56 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
2 7234.5 1.25 1.00 124798.36 5124.65 5241.74 10366.39 10128.31 10128.31 7234.51 39.63 1.00 5241.74 6405.81 11647.55 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
3 7314 1.25 1.00 127268.89 5124.65 5369.73 10494.38 10239.60 10239.60 7314.00 40.42 1.00 5369.73 6405.81 11775.54 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
4 7393.5 1.25 1.00 129739.73 5124.65 5497.73 10622.38 10350.91 10350.91 7393.51 41.20 1.00 5497.73 6405.81 11903.54 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
5 7473 1.25 1.00 132210.42 5124.65 5625.73 10750.38 10462.21 10462.21 7473.01 41.99 1.00 5625.73 6405.81 12031.54 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M1+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case Fcd q'Nq*Ap Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk K Nq
ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 5300 1.60 1.30 114808.23 4003.63 3634.00 7637.63 7420.01 7420.01 5300.01 36.46 1.00 4724.20 6405.81 11130.01 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
2 5459 1.60 1.30 121253.50 4003.63 3890.85 7894.48 7642.61 7642.61 5459.01 38.51 1.00 5058.10 6405.81 11463.91 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
3 5618 1.60 1.30 127698.77 4003.63 4147.69 8151.32 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 40.55 1.00 5392.00 6405.81 11797.81 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
4 5777 1.60 1.30 134144.04 4003.63 4404.54 8408.17 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 42.60 1.00 5725.90 6405.81 12131.71 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
5 5936 1.60 1.30 140589.31 4003.63 4661.39 8665.02 8310.41 8310.41 5936.01 44.65 1.00 6059.80 6405.81 12465.61 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81

Overdesign factors using DA1.C2 (A2+M2+R4)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case Fcd q'Nq*Ap Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk K Nq
ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 5300 1.60 1.30 71229.77 1124.41 7177.66 8302.07 7420.01 7420.01 5300.00 64.43 1.00 9330.96 1799.05 11130.01 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
2 5459 1.60 1.30 73481.99 1124.41 7434.51 8558.91 7642.61 7642.61 5459.00 66.47 1.00 9664.86 1799.05 11463.91 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
3 5618 1.60 1.30 75734.20 1124.41 7691.35 8815.76 7865.21 7865.21 5618.01 68.51 1.00 9998.76 1799.05 11797.81 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
4 5777 1.60 1.30 77986.41 1124.41 7948.20 9072.61 8087.81 8087.81 5777.01 70.55 1.00 10332.66 1799.05 12131.71 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
5 5936 1.60 1.30 80238.54 1124.41 8205.04 9329.44 8310.40 8310.40 5936.00 72.58 1.00 10666.55 1799.05 12465.60 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05

Overdesign factors using DA2 (A1+M1+R2)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case Fcd q'Nq*Ap Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk K Nq
ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 7155 1.10 1.10 112659.60 5823.46 4193.54 10017.00 10017.00 10017.00 7155.00 35.78 1.00 4612.89 6405.81 11018.70 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
2 7235 1.10 1.10 115022.64 5823.46 4304.83 10128.29 10128.29 10128.29 7234.49 36.53 1.00 4735.31 6405.81 11141.12 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
3 7314 1.10 1.10 117386.13 5823.46 4416.14 10239.60 10239.60 10239.60 7314.00 37.28 1.00 4857.75 6405.81 11263.56 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
4 7394 1.10 1.10 119749.16 5823.46 4527.43 10350.89 10350.89 10350.89 7393.49 38.03 1.00 4980.17 6405.81 11385.98 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81
5 7473 1.10 1.10 122112.42 5823.46 4638.73 10462.19 10462.19 10462.19 7472.99 38.78 1.00 5102.60 6405.81 11508.41 37.5 0.65 0.44 0.39 51.91 212.5 6405.81

Overdesign factors using DA3 (A1+M2+R3)


Compression Load Partial Factors Design Value Design Value Length Overdesign Factor Characteristic Value
Ф' Ф' d' f Ap*ql
Case Fcd q'Nq*Ap Rbd Rsd Rcd1 Rcd2 Rcd Rcd/γRd L1 Shaft Resistance, Rsk Base Resistance, Rbk Total Resistance, Rtk K Nq
ODF
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (degree) (radians) (radians) (kN/m2) (kN)
1 7155 1.00 1.00 63722.35 1799.05 8217.95 10017.00 10017.00 10017.00 7155.00 57.64 1.00 8217.95 1799.05 10017.00 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
2 7235 1.00 1.00 64473.08 1799.05 8329.25 10128.30 10128.30 10128.30 7234.50 58.32 1.00 8329.25 1799.05 10128.30 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
3 7314 1.00 1.00 65223.82 1799.05 8440.55 10239.60 10239.60 10239.60 7314.00 59.00 1.00 8440.55 1799.05 10239.60 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
4 7394 1.00 1.00 65974.55 1799.05 8551.85 10350.90 10350.90 10350.90 7393.50 59.68 1.00 8551.85 1799.05 10350.90 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
5 7473 1.00 1.00 66725.29 1799.05 8663.15 10462.20 10462.20 10462.20 7473.00 60.36 1.00 8663.15 1799.05 10462.20 31.5 0.55 0.37 0.48 52.15 74.6 1799.05
TITLE: DIRECT METHOD PILE DESIGN - EUROCODE 7 (EC7) Vs BS8004

Project: FYP Design by: ALEX YOON


Project NO.: 8009397 Checked by: ALEX YOON
Site Location: Shah Alam Approved by: ALEX YOON
Borehole: BH-4 Date:

Soil Data Resistance Calculations (DA1.C1) Resistance Calculations (DA1.C2) Resistance Calculations (DA2) Resistance Calculations (DA3)
Characteristic Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value
Soil Soil
Pile Soil Friction Optimal Average Total Optimal Soil Friction Optimal Optimal
Base Level Soil Layer End End End Friction Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End End Friction Average Total Skin End Total Skin End
Layer To Depth Embedment to SPT N Value Average Unit Total Skin Angle Pile Unit Skin Skin Total Skin Pile Total Skin Angle Pile Total Skin Pile
of Layer Thickness Bearing Bearing Bearing Angle Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Angle Unit Skin Friction Bearing Friction Bearing
Soil Layer Skin Friction qs Friction Rsk Ф' Length Friction Friction Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Ф' Length Friction Rsd Length
Rbk Rbk Rbd Ф' Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Ф' Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rsd Rbd
qs Rsk
Type (m) (mRL) (m) (m) N (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (radians) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (radians) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (radians) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (radians) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ground Level 0 74.22
1 Medium sandy soil SAND 2.00 72.22 2.00 2.00 20.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 201.14 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 154.73 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 182.86 0.00 31.96 2.00 15.24 76.65 0.00 76.65 0.00
2 Medium sand SAND 4.00 70.22 2.00 2.00 20.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 201.14 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 154.73 0.00 37.95 2.00 40.00 201.14 0.00 182.86 0.00 31.96 2.00 15.24 76.65 0.00 76.65 0.00
3 Medium sand SAND 5.00 69.22 1.00 1.00 20.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 100.57 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 77.36 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 91.43 0.00 31.96 1.00 15.24 38.33 0.00 38.33 0.00
4 Medium sand SAND 6.00 68.22 1.00 1.00 20.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 100.57 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 77.36 0.00 37.95 1.00 40.00 100.57 0.00 91.43 0.00 31.96 1.00 15.24 38.33 0.00 38.33 0.00
5 Medium sand SAND 7.50 66.72 1.50 1.50 20.00 40.00 150.86 0.00 37.95 1.50 40.00 150.86 0.00 150.86 0.00 37.95 1.50 40.00 150.86 0.00 116.04 0.00 37.95 1.50 40.00 150.86 0.00 137.14 0.00 31.96 1.50 15.24 57.49 0.00 57.49 0.00
6 Medium sand SAND 9.00 65.22 1.50 74.53 20.00 40.00 7495.71 0.00 37.95 65.40 40.00 6577.65 0.00 6577.65 0.00 37.95 65.54 40.00 6591.51 0.00 5070.40 0.00 37.95 62.23 40.00 6258.87 0.00 5689.88 0.00 31.96 158.85 15.24 6088.13 0.00 6088.13 0.00
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 82.03 8249.99 0.00 72.90 7331.94 0.00 7331.94 0.00 73.04 7345.80 0.00 5650.62 0.00 69.73 7013.15 0.00 6375.59 0.00 166.35 6375.57 0.00 6375.57 0.00

Input Load
Pile Type BORED PILE Loading (Unfactored) Rcd,1 Rcd,2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Fcd ∆ L
EC7 ODF
Pile Shape CIRCULAR Permanent Load 2640 kN (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m)
Pile Diameter 800mm Variable Load 660 kN DA1.C1 7331.94 6375.60 6375.60 4554 4554 0 1.00 72.90
Pile Cut Off Level 74.22mRL Total Load 3300.00 kN Design DA1.C2 5650.62 4897.20 4897.20 3498 3498 0 1.00 73.04
Pile Toe Level 44.22mRL Approach DA2 6375.59 6375.59 6375.59 4554 4554 0 1.00 69.73
Proposed Pile Length 30.00m Chang & Broms (1991) DA3 6375.57 6375.57 6375.57 4554 4554 0 1.00 166.35
Pile Perimeter, p 2.51m Ult. Shaft Load, Ks 2
Empirical Design Factor
Pile Area, Ap 0.50m2 Ult.End Bearing, Kb 0 Conventional Approach
Constant Gravity 9.81m/s2 qs = Ks*(N) 2N Total Load (Unfactored) Qt 3300.00 kN
Specific Weight of Water 9.81kN/m3 qb = Kb*(N) 0N Shaft Resistance Qs 8249.99 kN
Bulk Unit Weight 20.60kN/m3 Base Resistance Qp 0.00 kN
Dry Unit Weight 18.25kN/m3 Partial Factors Qall1 3300.00 kN
Allowable Working Load
Effective Unit Weight 10.79kN/m3 Base 1.25 Qall2 5499.99 kN
Moisture Content 22% Shaft (Compression) 1.00 Qall - Qt ∆ 0.00 kN
R1
Apparent Cohesion kN/m2 Total/Combined (Compression) 1.15 Overdesign Factor ODF 1.00
Shearing Resistance Angle, Ф' 37.5 degree Shaft in Tension 1.25
16.70 m Base 1.10 Results (Optimum pile length required)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
12.20 MN/m2 Shaft (Compression) 1.10 Eurocode 7 (EC7) 166.35 m
R2
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.10 Conventional Method (BS8004) 82.03 m
Correlations SPT-N value & Soil Friction Angle (Ф') 18.86 N Shaft in Tension 1.15
Base 1.00
Shaft (Compression) 1.00 Relationship between Ф & SPT for sandMeyerhof (1956) Bowels
R3
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.00 Ф SPT-N
Density of Sand g (kN/m3)
Shaft in Tension 1.10 (Degrees Value
Base 1.60 Very Loose 30 4 13.36
Shaft (Compression) 1.30 Loose 32.5 7 16.11
R4
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.50 Medium 37.5 20 18.86
Shaft in Tension 1.60 Dense 42.5 40 19.64
Permanent 1.35 Very Dense 45 50 22.00
A1
Variable 1.5
Unfavourable
Permanent 1.0
A2
Variable 1.3
M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.25
Alternative Method Model Factor 1.40
TITLE: PILE DESIGN CASE STUDY - EUROCODE 7 (EC7) Vs BS8004 (DIRECT METHOD)

Project: FYP Design by: ALEX YOON


Project NO.: G&P Checked by: ALEX YOON
Site Location: THE ROBERTSON Approved by: ALEX YOON
Borehole: AABH6 Date:

Soil Data Resistance Calculations (DA1.C1) Resistance Calculations (DA1.C2) Resistance Calculations (DA2) Resistance Calculations (DA3)
Characteristic Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value Characteristic Value Design Value
Pile Optimal Optimal Optimal Optimal
Base Level Soil Layer End End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End End Average Total Skin End Total Skin End
Layer To Depth Embedment to SPT N Value Average Unit Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Average Unit Total Skin Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile Total Skin Cu/γcu Pile
of Layer Thickness Bearing Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Bearing Unit Skin Friction Bearing Friction Bearing
Soil Layer Skin Friction qs Friction Rsk Length Skin Friction qs Friction Rsk Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length Friction Rsd Length
Rbk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rbd Friction qs Rsk Rbk Rsd Rbd
Type (m) (mRL) (m) (m) N (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ground Level 0 0 0
silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 8.783 37.108 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 11.250 25.86 2.467 2.467 23 57.50 602 115.00 2.47 57.50 601.86 601.86 115.00 2.47 57.50 601.86 462.97 115.00 2.47 57.50 601.86 547.15 82.14 2.47 41.07 429.90 429.90
2 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 17.250 19.86 6.000 6.000 120 250.00 6364 600.00 6.00 250.00 6364.29 6364.29 600.00 6.00 250.00 6364.29 4895.60 600.00 6.00 250.00 6364.29 5785.71 428.57 6.00 214.29 5455.10 5455.10
3 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 18.750 18.36 1.500 1.500 94 235.00 1496 470.00 1.50 235.00 1495.61 1495.61 470.00 1.50 235.00 1495.61 1150.47 470.00 1.50 235.00 1495.61 1359.64 335.71 1.50 167.86 1068.29 1068.29
4 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 20.250 16.86 1.500 1.500 83 207.50 1321 415.00 1.50 207.50 1320.59 1320.59 415.00 1.50 207.50 1320.59 1015.84 415.00 1.50 207.50 1320.59 1200.54 296.43 1.50 148.21 943.28 943.28
5 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 24.750 12.36 4.500 4.500 120 250.00 4773 600.00 4.50 250.00 4773.21 4773.21 600.00 4.50 250.00 4773.21 3671.70 600.00 4.50 250.00 4773.21 4339.29 428.57 4.50 214.29 4091.33 4091.33
6 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 26.250 10.86 1.500 1.500 32 80.00 509 160.00 1.50 80.00 509.14 509.14 160.00 1.50 80.00 509.14 391.65 160.00 1.50 80.00 509.14 462.86 114.29 1.50 57.14 363.67 363.67
7 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 27.750 9.36 1.500 1.500 36 90 573 180.00 1.50 90.00 572.79 572.79 180.00 1.50 90.00 572.79 440.60 180.00 1.50 90.00 572.79 520.71 128.57 1.50 64.29 409.13 409.13
8 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 29.250 7.86 1.500 1.500 68 170 1082 340.00 1.50 170.00 1081.93 1081.93 340.00 1.50 170.00 1081.93 832.25 340.00 1.50 170.00 1081.93 983.57 242.86 1.50 121.43 772.81 772.81
9 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 30.750 6.36 1.500 1.500 100 250 1591 500.00 1.50 250.00 1591.07 1591.07 500.00 1.50 250.00 1591.07 1223.90 500.00 1.50 250.00 1591.07 1446.43 357.14 1.50 178.57 1136.48 1136.48
10 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 32.250 4.86 1.500 1.500 65 163 1034 325.00 1.50 162.50 1034.20 1034.20 325.00 1.50 162.50 1034.20 795.54 325.00 1.50 162.50 1034.20 940.18 232.14 1.50 116.07 738.71 738.71
11 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 33.750 3.36 1.500 1.500 75 188 1193 375.00 1.50 187.50 1193.30 1193.30 375.00 1.50 187.50 1193.30 917.93 375.00 1.50 187.50 1193.30 1084.82 267.86 1.50 133.93 852.36 852.36
12 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 35.250 1.86 1.500 1.500 71 178 1130 355.00 1.50 177.50 1129.66 1129.66 355.00 1.50 177.50 1129.66 868.97 355.00 1.50 177.50 1129.66 1026.96 253.57 1.50 126.79 806.90 806.90
13 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 1.433 1.433 100 250 1520 2864 500.00 3.06 250.00 3240.95 2863.93 3240.95 2291.14 500.00 3.10 250.00 3293.45 2863.93 2533.42 1789.96 500.00 1.92 250.00 2033.45 2863.93 1848.59 2603.57 357.14 6.65 178.57 5036.38 2045.66 5036.38 2045.66
14 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 0.000 0.000 100 250 0 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 357.14 0.00 178.57 0.00 0.00
15 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 0.000 0.000 100 250 0 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 357.14 0.00 178.57 0.00 0.00
16 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 0.000 0.000 100 250 0 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 357.14 0.00 178.57 0.00 0.00
17 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 0.000 0.000 100 250 0 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 357.14 0.00 178.57 0.00 0.00
18 silty clays / clayey silts CLAY 36.683 0.42 0.000 0.000 100 250 0 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 357.14 0.00 178.57 0.00 0.00
22 27.90 23187.65 2863.93 29.52 24908.60 2863.93 24908.60 2291.14 29.57 24961.10 2863.93 19200.84 1789.96 28.38 23701.10 2863.93 21546.45 2603.57 33.11 22104.34 2045.66 22104.34 2045.66

Input Load
Pile Type BORED PILE Loading (Unfactored) Rcd,1 Rcd,2 Rcd Rcd/γRd Fcd ∆ L Pile
EC7 ODF Load Case Pile Length (m) EC7 Vs BS8004
Pile Shape CIRCULAR Permanent Load 10000 kN (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (m) Soil Diameter Pile Working Load (kN)
Pile Diameter 1350 mm Variable Load 2500 kN DA1.C1 27199.74 24150.02 24150.02 17250 17250 0 1.0 29.52 (mm) Gk Qk EC7 BS8004 (% Difference)
Pile Cut Off Level 37.108 mRL Total Load 12500.00 kN Design DA1.C2 20990.80 18550.02 18550.02 13250 13250 0 1.0 29.57 Silty Clay 1350 12500 80% 20% 33.11 27.90 15.75
Pile Toe Level 37.11 mRL Approach DA2 24150.02 24150.02 24150.02 17250 17250 0 1.0 28.38
Proposed Pile Length m G&P Practice DA3 24150.00 24150.00 24150.00 17250 17250 0 1.0 33.11
Pile Perimeter, p 4.24 m Ult. Shaft Load, Ks 2.5
Empirical Design Factor
Pile Area, Ap 1.43 m2 Ult.End Bearing, Kb 20 Conventional Approach
Constant Gravity 9.81 m/s2 qs = Ks*(N) 2.5 N Total Load (Unfactored) Qt 12500.00 kN
Specific Weight of Water 9.81 kN/m3 qb = Kb*(N) 20 N Shaft Resistance Qs 23187.65 kN
Bulk Unit Weight 20.60 kN/m3 Base Resistance Qp 2863.93 kN
Dry Unit Weight 18.25 kN/m3 Partial Factors Qall1 13025.79 kN
Allowable Working Load
Effective Unit Weight 10.79 kN/m3 Base 1.25 Qall2 16413.08 kN
Moisture Content 22 % Shaft (Compression) 1.00 Qall - Qt ∆ 525.79 kN
R1
Apparent Cohesion 18.75 kN/m2 Total/Combined (Compression) 1.15 Overdesign Factor ODF 1.0
Shearing Resistance Angle, Ф' 11 degree Shaft in Tension 1.25
16.70 m Base 1.10 Results (Optimum pile length required)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
12.20 MN/m2 Shaft (Compression) 1.10 Eurocode 7 (EC7) 33.11 m
R2
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.10 Conventional Method (BS8004) 27.90 m
Correlations SPT-N value & Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) 5N Shaft in Tension 1.15
Base 1.00
Shaft (Compression) 1.00
R3
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.00
Shaft in Tension 1.10
Base 1.60
Shaft (Compression) 1.30
R4
Total/Combined (Compression) 1.50
Shaft in Tension 1.60 SPT Profile - Borehole AABH16 Variation of Shaft Resistance with Depth
Permanent 1.35
A1 SPT-N Shaft Resistance (kN/m2)
Variable 1.5
Unfavourable 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Permanent 1.0
A2 0 0.000
Variable 1.3
M1 Undrained Shear Strength 1.0
M2 Undrained Shear Strength 1.4 5.000
20
Alternative Method Model Factor 1.40
10.000
40
BS8004
15.000 EC7 (DA1.C1)
60 AABH6 EC7 (DA1.C2)

Depth (m) Depth (m) 20.000 EC7 (DA2)


EC7 (DA3)
80
25.000

100
30.000

120 35.000

140 40.000