Predesign Pile Foundation EGYPT STERLING WILSON Draft v10.1 August 2018

Predesign pile foundation for a Solar Farm in
Egypt Sterling Wilson Project
Mechanical Engineering Department
Catalonia Technological University
Barcelona-Tech
Version 10. August 22th 2018

Predesign pile foundation for a Solar Farm in Egypt STERLING WILSON Project
1 Content
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 5

1.1 Sterling Wilson Project, location in Egypt.................................................... 6
1.2 Pile Design Parameters ............................................................................. 7
2. Geotechnical Main Characteristics from Geotechnical Reports ............................. 8
3. Applicable Standards....................................................................................... 9
4. Test Pile Rejection / Acceptance Criteria .......................................................... 11
4.1 For Tension Pile Test ............................................................................... 11
4.2 For Compression Pile Test ........................................................................ 11
4.3 For Lateral Pile Test ................................................................................ 11
5. Methodology. ................................................................................................ 12
5.1 Ultimate Load Compression Capacity (Qu ) ................................................ 12
5.2 Ultimate Load Tension Capacity................................................................ 12
5.3 Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent Moment. ......................... 13
6. Pile computing for Driven piles........................................................................ 14
6.1 Lateral Load Computing ........................................................................... 14
6.2 Traction and Compression Computing ....................................................... 17
7. Ultimate Horizontal Soil Resistence by Broms: .................................................. 22
7.1 HEA 160 L= 2.57 m................................................................................. 22
7.2 IPE 160 L= 2.65 m.............................................................................. 23
7.3 HEA 140 L= 1.88 m................................................................................. 24
7.4 Cp170x70x20x3 L= 1.75 m .................................................................... 25
8. Steel Shape Typology..................................................................................... 26
9. Observations: ................................................................................................ 28
2. First consideration ....................................................................................... 29
2.1 Reference Code ...................................................................................... 31
2.2 Sample calculation ................................................................................. 32
10. Methodology. ............................................................................................ 36
10.1 Ultimate Load Compression Capacity ................................................... 36
10.2 Ultimate Load Tension Capacity .......................................................... 36
10.3 Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent Moment. .................. 37
11. Pile computing for Driven piles.................................................................. 38
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
Terrassa, 08222 (Barcelona) Spain
www.upc.edu 3
11.1 Ultimate Compression Soil Resistance ................................................. 38

11.2 Ultimate Traction Soil Resistance by Das & Seely theory ....................... 39
11.3 Ultimate Horizontal Soil Resistance by Broms ...................................... 40
12. Observations: ........................................................................................... 40
3 ........................................................................................................................ 42
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 4
1. Executive Summary
This report defines the pile foundations characteristics for Solar Plant in Egypt for Sterling
Wilson Project.
To design a technical advisory of deep foundation for a Solar Plant in Egypt for Sterling
Wilson Project, we have analyzed the next load case determined by our client, PV
Hardware send us on August 2018:
Fig. 1. Load Case
The design of piles is based on “Driven” steel piles. The steel shape is inserted in the
soil directly.
We summarize all pile lengths in 1.2 “Pile Design Parameters” chapter.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 5
1.1 Sterling Wilson Project, location in Egypt
The investigated area is located in:
Fig. 2. Location Sterling Wilson Project, Egypt
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 6
1.2 Pile Design Parameters
To determine pile lengths, we have calculated:
1. Ultimate Load Compression Pile Capacity at current work load.

2. Ultimate Load Tension Pile Capacity at current work load.
3. Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent moment.
for mentioned load case:
Zone 1 “Driven steel pile” 100% area
Horizontal Ultimate Compression Ultimate Tension Ultimate Soil Ultimate Soil Length (m)
Zone Location Section Material Fshear (N) Soil Resistance (N) Fcomp (N) Soil Resistance (N) Ftension (N) Resistance (N) Mx (Nm) Moment (Nm)
HEA160 S355 11059 22330 14849 165505 92 74959 23915 34388 2.57
Central
I
IPE 160 S355 9397 12307 14411 97363 478 36647 14565 18953 2.65
HEA 140 S355 3272 9191 9765 89933 2336 36489 9966 14154 1.88
Central
II
CP170x70x20x3 S355 2517 4514 10195 55624 2879 20836 3985 6952 1.75
Lateral
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 7
2. Geotechnical Main Characteristics from Geotechnical

Reports
Taking in account the geotechnical report “Geo technical study”, we define our
geotechnical soil model:
Depth (m) Soil Type Gamma (kN/m3) c (kPa) Fi Compacity UCS (Mpa)
0 6 Medium Sand 16.8 0 37 60
Stage 1 (Driven)
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 8
3. Applicable Standards.
a) Piles Design: Eurocode 7, UNE –EN 1997-1, Geotechnical Design. Chapter 7.

Pile Foundations.
b) Piles Test: AS 2159-2009 Pilling Design and installation. Section 8. Testing.
This standard is the clearest in terms of acceptability post piles test.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 9
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 10
4. Test Pile Rejection / Acceptance Criteria

According to Applicable Standards (Section 3) and serviceability conditions, we define a
Test Pile Rejection/Acceptance Criteria.
4.1 For Tension Pile Test

N= axial load (tension or compression)
L= Pile length
E= Young Modulus of the steel shape
A= Area of the steel shape
A Pile will be considered failed when:
a) When for small increments of effort, great vertical displacements are obtained
b) When the vertical displacements at 100% of the load are greater than (N x L /
(EA)) + 8mm
c) When the vertical displacements at discharge load until 0% are greater than 5
mm
d)
4.2 For Compression Pile Test

a) When for small increments of effort, great vertical displacements are obtained.
b) When the vertical displacements at 100% of the load are greater than (N x L /
(EA)) + 5 mm
c) When the vertical displacements at discharge load until 0% are greater than 5
mm
4.3 For Lateral Pile Test

a) When for small increments of effort, great vertical displacements are obtained.
b) When the lateral displacements at 100% of the load are greater than 10 mm
c) When the lateral displacements at discharge load until 0% are greater than 5
mm
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 11
5. Methodology.
5.1 Ultimate Load Compression Capacity (Qu )
The Ultimate Load Compression Capacity or load-carrying capacity have been
calculated by the equation:
Qu = Q p + Q s
Where:
Qp = load-carrying capacity of the pile bottom point by Meyerhoof method
Qs = frictional resistance (skin friction) Ultimate Load Tension Capacity (Tug ) by
Meyerhoof method
5.2 Ultimate Load Tension Capacity

The Ultimate Load Tension Capacity (Tug) or Ultimate Uplift Capacity have been
Tug = Tun + W
Where:
Tun = Total Uplift capacity
W = Pile Weight
By Das & Seely Method for cohesionless soil and Test Pile results on geotechnics
report and on site Test.
We compute this method by a spreadsheet based on next schema for our soil model:
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 12
5.3 Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent Moment.
The Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity have been calculated by Brinch Hansen Method.
The Brinch Hansen method parameters are:
c= Cohesion of each layer ; ϒ = specific weight of each layer; Փ= friction angle ;

D= Pile Top Flange Width ; L= pile length
To compute that we use BHSPIle Program where:
All compute calculations for pile resistance meet CTE standard.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 13
6. Pile computing for Driven piles
6.1 Lateral Load Computing
Glossary of terms:
CSF: Pile resistance reduce factor

Zr : Depth where pile twist
H: Horizontal Load at de top of the pile
M: Bending Moment at the top of the pile
I CENTRAL HEA 160
MEd= 31.82·1.50=47.73 mkN
S355 MRd= 78.13 mkN ok
I LATERAL IPE 140
MEd= 22.35·1.50=33.52 mkN
S355 MRd= 27.44 mkN no ok
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 14
I LATERAL IPE 160
MEd= 22.04·1.50=33.06 mkN
II CENTRAL HEA 140
MEd= 11.41·1.50=17.11 mkN
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 15
II LATERAL CP 170
MEd =5.22·1.50=7.83 mkN
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 16
6.2 Traction and Compression Computing
Based on Das Seely Method for extraction in cohesionless soils.
Based on Meyerhoff method for tip strength and vertical effective pressure for shaft friction in compression for cohesionless soils
Fcomp(N) Fup(N) L BH
HEA 160
14849 92 2,57
STEEL PROFILE UNCOHESIVE SHAFT FRICTION (N) COHESIVE SHAFT FRICTION (N) WEIGHT W (N) UPLIFT CAPACITY (N) SAFETY FACTOR
UPLIFT Depth Depth Gamma (kN/m3) c (kPa) Fi Comp rel (%) UCS (MPa) Width (m) A tip (m2) Perimeter (m) A steel (m2) L (m) Ku delta/fi L/D Lcr (m) Tun 1 Tun 2 Tun (N) α' Tun (N)
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,16 0,02432 0,906 0,00388 2,57 2,15 0,9575 13,05 2,09 76880,69 74176,45 74176,45 0,00 782,77
2,570 Tun total 74176,45 Tun total 0,00 Wtotal 782,77 Tug 74959,22 814,77 74959,22
STEEL PROFILE UNCOHESIVE SHAFTand TIP (N) COHESIVE SHAFT FRICTION (N) COHESIVE TIP RESITANCE (N) ROCK SHAFT FRICTION (N) ROCK TIP RESISTANCE (N) SAFETY FACTOR
COMPRESSION Depth Depth Gamma (kN/m3) c (kPa) Fi Comp rel (%) UCS (MPa) Width (m) A tip (m2) Perimeter (m) A steel (m2) L (m) Tun(N) α qp(N) qud(MPa) qs (N) qud (MPa) Nphi qp (N)
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,16 0,02432 0,906 0,00388 2,57 165505,00
2,570 Tun total 165505,00 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 11,15 165505,00
IPE 160
14411 478 2,65
STEEL PROFILE SAND SHAFT FRICTION (N) COHESIVE SHAFT FRICTION (N) WEIGHT W (N) UPLIFT CAPACITY (N) SAFETY FACTOR
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,082 0,01312 0,623 0,00201 2,65 2,15 0,9575 13,05 1,07 56208,58 36229,75 36229,75 418,13
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,082 0,01312 0,623 0,00201 2,65 97363,00
2,650 Tun total 97363,00 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 6,76 97363,00
HEA 140
9765 2336 1,88
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,14 0,01862 0,794 0,00314 1,88 2,15 0,9575 13,05 1,83 36054,46 36025,81 36025,81 463,40
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,14 0,01862 0,794 0,00314 1,88 89933,00
1,880 Tun total 89933,00 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 9,21
CP170x3
10195 2879 1,75
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,07 0,0119 0,682 0,0009728 1,75 2,15 0,9575 13,05 0,91 26833,87 20702,76 20702,76 133,64
soil1 0 6 16,8 0 37 60 0 0,07 0,0119 0,682 0,0009728 1,75 55624,00
1,750 Tun total 55624,00 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 Tun total 0,00 Tun total 0 5,46
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 17
Compressive strength for cohesionless soils:
I Central HEA 160

RESISTANCE TO SINKING OF PILES BY TIP AND SHAFT
FOR COHESIONLESS SOILS -COMPRESION
PILE
Shaft perimeter pf 0,91 m

Tip area Ap 0,0243 m²
Depth of pile head Pc 0,00 m
Length pile L 2,57 m
Type of pile Steel

kf 1,00
f 0,80
Soil 1
Depth of the soil 1 P1 2,57 m
Top height 0,00 m
Depth head's pile in soil 1 Pe 0,00 m
Depth base's pile in soil 1 2,57 m
Specific soil weight gt1 16,80 kN/m³
Vertical pressure of the ground at the top of the pile s'1,1 0,00 kN/m²
Vertical pressure of the ground at the base of the pile s'1,2 43,18 kN/m²
Friction angle Ø'1 37,00 º
Friction angle Ø'1 0,6458 rad
Unit resistance per shaft at pile head tf ,1,1 0,00 kN/m²
Unit resistance per shaft at pile head tf ,1,1 0,00 kN/m² <=120 kPa
Unit resistance by shaft calculated at base of the pile tf ,1,2 26,03 kN/m²
Unit resistance by shaft calculated at base of the pile tf ,1,2 26,03 kN/m² <=120 kPa
Length soil 1 L 2,57 m
Rfk1 30,3025 kN (5.10)
Soil 2
Top height 2,57 m
Base height 2,57 m
Rfk2 0,00 kN (5.10)
Tip resistance in soil 1
fp 3,00
s'v p 43,18 kN/m²
Nq 42,92
qp 5559,33 kN/m²
Ap 0,0243 m²
Rpk 135 kN (5.9)
Total Resistance
Characteristic resistance by shaft Rf k 30,3025 kN
Characteristic resistance by tip Rpk 135,20 kN
Characteristic total resistance Rck 165,5054 kN (5.8)
Partial safety factor for tip g 2,00
Partial safety factor for shaft g 2,00
Design resistance Rcd 82,75 kN (5.7)
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 18
I Lateral IPE 160

PILE

Type of pile Steel

kf 1,00
f 0,80
Soil 1
Top height 0,00 m
Rfk1 22,1546 kN (5.10)
Soil 2
Top height 2,65 m
Base height 2,65 m
Rfk2 0,00 kN (5.10)
fp 3,00
s'v p 44,52 kN/m²
Nq 42,92
qp 5732,38 kN/m²
Ap 0,0131 m²
Rpk 75 kN (5.9)
Total Resistance
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 19
II Central HEA 140

PILE

Type of pile Steel

kf 1,00
f 0,80
Soil 1
Top height 0,00 m
Rfk1 14,2108 kN (5.10)
Soil 2
Top height 1,88 m
Base height 1,88 m
Rfk2 0,00 kN (5.10)
fp 3,00
s'v p 31,58 kN/m²
Nq 42,92
qp 4066,75 kN/m²
Ap 0,0186 m²
Rpk 76 kN (5.9)
Total Resistance
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 20
II Lateral CP 170

PILE

Type of pile Steel

kf 1,00
f 0,80
Soil 1
Top height 0,00 m
Rfk1 10,5766 kN (5.10)
Soil 2
Top height 1,75 m
Base height 1,75 m
Rfk2 0,00 kN (5.10)
fp 3,00
s'v p 29,40 kN/m²
Nq 42,92
qp 3785,54 kN/m²
Ap 0,0119 m²
Rpk 45 kN (5.9)
Total Resistance
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 21
7. Ultimate Horizontal Soil Resistence by Broms:
7.1 HEA 160 L= 2.57 m
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 22
7.2 IPE 160 L= 2.65 m
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 23
7.3 HEA 140 L= 1.88 m
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 24
7.4 Cp170x70x20x3 L= 1.75 m
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 25
8. Steel Shape Typology
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 26
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 27
9. Observations:
Confidential information owned by UPC, to be used by recipient only. This is an advisory

report oriented to make an economical evaluation of the total pile cost. This document,
or any part of it, may be not reproduced, copied, circulated and/or distributed nor quoted
without prior written approval from UPC.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 28
ANNEXED- Response to your letter of 14th August 2018
2. First consideration
Regarding the comments that you send us on 14th August 2018, we can attach the
following justifications, although these documents are internal between our academic
institution, UPC and our PH HARDWARE client, in accordance with our contractual
conditions and as specified in point 9 of our document.
2 Load cases evaluated
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 29
PH Hardware has sent for evaluation several alternatives that have been evaluated. In
each of these versions, various types of profiles and load cases have been evaluated,
which in each version have been updated as they have been delivered to us.
Last version sent on August 13, 2018 corresponds to version 9, last up to now.
We include the load cases and steel shapes evaluated then:
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 30
2.1 Reference Code
From this academic institution, and after an extensive study on the proposed structural
solution, we have come to the conclusion that there is no universal norm that resolves
the problem in all its variables. That is why we are guided as a design criterion in the
Australian regulation, given that according to the comparative study, it is the one that
gives a more satisfactory solution. We consider the Australian code only to evaluate the
results of field test campaigns.
On the other hand, the norm Egyptian follows the indications of the European norm EC-
7 and EC-8, all based on the mechanics of the soil according to the principles of
mechanics rational, according to the guidelines of the laws of Winkler and Brinch Hansen
Method.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 31
2.2 Sample calculation

All our spreadsheets are subject, by university regulations to copyright, for which we are
not allowed to publicly broadcast, giving only the results.
On the other hand, the values of the parameters used, are the result of a long experience
of collaboration between our institution and our client PH Hardware, values validated in
numerous tests in various solar parks around the world, forming part of our know-how.
The calculation of the piles is based on the principles of soil mechanics according to the
principles of rational mechanics, according to the guidelines of the laws of Winkler and
Brinch Hansen Method. Our software follows these guidelines.
In geotechnical engineering, bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads
applied to the ground. The bearing capacity of soil is the maximum average contact
pressure between the foundation and the soil which should not produce shear failure in
the soil. Ultimate bearing capacity (qf) is the theoretical maximum pressure which can
be supported without failure; allowable bearing capacity (qa) is the ultimate bearing
capacity divided by a factor of safety. Sometimes, on soft soil sites, large settlements
may occur under loaded foundations without actual shear failure occurring; in such
cases, the allowable bearing capacity is based on the maximum allowable settlement.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 32
Brinch Hansen's bearing capacity theory
Brinch Hansen (1970) provided equations to estimate limit bearing capacity for two
separate cases of strength parameters: (1) f> 0, and (2) f= 0 (undrained clay).
In addition, for each of these cases there are two separate subcases:
(a) Either no horizontal component of load or there is a horizontal component of load

and it is in the direction of the width of the footing only; or
(b) there is a horizontal component of load in the direction of the length of the footing,
or in both directions (width and length of the footing). Equations to estimate limit bearing
capacity are provided in the following sections for each of these situations.
In all cases, the limit load that can be carried at the bearing level is given by the following
equation
• QbL = qbL · Af
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 33
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 34
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 35
10. Methodology.
10.1 Ultimate Load Compression Capacity
The Ultimate Load Compression Capacity or load-carrying capacity have been
Qu = Q p + Q s
Where:
Qp = load-carrying capacity of the pile bottom point by Meyerhoof method
Qs = frictional resistance (skin friction) Ultimate Load Tension Capacity (Tug ) by
Meyerhoof method
10.2 Ultimate Load Tension Capacity

The Ultimate Load Tension Capacity (Tug ) or Ultimate Uplift Capacity have been
Tug = Tun + W
Where:
Tun = Total Uplift capacity
W = Pile Weight
By Das & Seely Method for cohesionless soil and Test Pile results on geotechnics
report and on site Test.
We compute this method by a spreadsheet based on next schema for our soil model:
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 36
10.3 Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent

Moment.
The Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity have been calculated by Brinch Hansen Method.
The Brinch Hansen method parameters are:
c= Cohesion of each layer ; ϒ = specific weight of each layer; Փ= friction angle ;

D= Pile Top Flange Width ; L= pile length
To compute that we use BHSPIle Program where:
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 37
11. Pile computing for Driven piles
11.1 Ultimate Compression Soil Resistance
In relation to the method of calculation of the values of the lengths of the piles to
evaluate the friction between the metal profile and the terrain for compressive loads, we
enclose the theoretical formulation used, with the values that appear in our spreadsheet.
For cohesionless soils and considering the geotechnical parameters for soil:
Shaft Resistance:
- According with the specific weight of soil and the length of pile, we define the vertical
pressure “σ” (kN/m2) at the top and base of pile “z”:
𝜎 =𝛾·𝑧
- With this vertical pressure we found the unit shaft resistance “τ” (kN/m2) at top and
base of pile, according with the angle of friction of soil “θ” and type of pile:
𝜏 = 𝜎 · 𝑘𝑓 · 𝑓 · tan⁡(𝜃)
- Finally the total shaft resistance “Rshaft” will be the unit shaft resistance affected by the
perimeter “P” and length of pile “L”:
𝑅𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 = 𝜏 · 𝑃 · 𝐿
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 38
Tip Resistance:
- The tip resistance for cohesionless soils is function of:
1) Vertical pressure at base level of pile “σ”.
2) Type of pile. Parameter “fp”
3) Angle of friction at base level of pile “θ”. Parameter Nq.
4) Area of tip pile “Ap”.
With all these variables, we have:
𝑅𝑡𝑖𝑝 = 𝜎 · 𝑓𝑝 · 𝑁𝑞 · 𝐴𝑝 ⁡
11.2 Ultimate Traction Soil Resistance by Das & Seely

theory
The reference standard EC-7 only mentions design of pile for uplift loads in points 7.6.3.1
sections 5 and 6, but does not indicate the calculation method.
According to the mechanics of soil, according to the technical bibliography, the method
of Das Seely is the most indicated to evaluate the capacity of cohesionless soils for uplift
loads. Braja M.Das for example.
This method consider the geotechnical parameters of soil to evaluate the traction
capacity of soil:
1) Vertical pressure at base level of pile “σ”. It depends of specific weight “γ”.
2) Angle of friction of soil in contact with pile “θ”.
3) Unit shaft friction resistance for uplift loads “fu”.
4) Compactness of soil.
4) Pile geometry. Basically perimeter “P” and own weight.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 39
11.3 Ultimate Horizontal Soil Resistance by Broms
According to the mechanics of soil, according to the technical bibliography, the method
of Broms is the most indicated to evaluate lateral capacity of soil. See Braja M.Das for
example. The process of this method is included in our documents in detail.
12. Observations:
Confidential information owned by UPC, to be used by recipient only. This is an advisory

report oriented to make an economical evaluation of the total pile cost. This document,
or any part of it, may be not reproduced, copied, circulated and/or distributed nor quoted
without prior written approval from UPC.
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 40
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 41
UPC- ETSEIAT
Despatx 211, TR45
C/Colom nº 11,
www.upc.edu 42

Predesign Pile Foundation EGYPT STERLING WILSON Draft v10.1 August 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predesign Pile Foundation EGYPT STERLING WILSON Draft v10.1 August 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predesign pile foundation for a Solar Farm in

Egypt Sterling Wilson Project

Mechanical Engineering Department

Catalonia Technological University

Version 10. August 22th 2018

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 5

11.1 Ultimate Compression Soil Resistance ................................................. 38

Fig. 1. Load Case

We summarize all pile lengths in 1.2 “Pile Design Parameters” chapter.

1.1 Sterling Wilson Project, location in Egypt

The investigated area is located in:

Fig. 2. Location Sterling Wilson Project, Egypt

1.2 Pile Design Parameters

To determine pile lengths, we have calculated:

1. Ultimate Load Compression Pile Capacity at current work load.

Zone 1 “Driven steel pile” 100% area

2. Geotechnical Main Characteristics from Geotechnical

a) Piles Design: Eurocode 7, UNE –EN 1997-1, Geotechnical Design. Chapter 7.

b) Piles Test: AS 2159-2009 Pilling Design and installation. Section 8. Testing.

This standard is the clearest in terms of acceptability post piles test.

4. Test Pile Rejection / Acceptance Criteria

4.1 For Tension Pile Test

E= Young Modulus of the steel shape

A= Area of the steel shape

A Pile will be considered failed when:

4.2 For Compression Pile Test

4.3 For Lateral Pile Test

5.2 Ultimate Load Tension Capacity

5.3 Pile behavior under Lateral Load and subsequent Moment.

The Brinch Hansen method parameters are:

c= Cohesion of each layer ; ϒ = specific weight of each layer; Փ= friction angle ;

To compute that we use BHSPIle Program where:

All compute calculations for pile resistance meet CTE standard.

6. Pile computing for Driven piles

6.1 Lateral Load Computing

CSF: Pile resistance reduce factor

I CENTRAL HEA 160

MEd= 31.82·1.50=47.73 mkN

S355 MRd= 78.13 mkN ok

I LATERAL IPE 140

MEd= 22.35·1.50=33.52 mkN

S355 MRd= 27.44 mkN no ok

I LATERAL IPE 160

MEd= 22.04·1.50=33.06 mkN

S355 MRd= 38.58 mkN ok

II CENTRAL HEA 140

MEd= 11.41·1.50=17.11 mkN

S355 MRd= 55.16 mkN ok

MEd =5.22·1.50=7.83 mkN

S355 MRd= 17.93 mkN ok

6.2 Traction and Compression Computing

Based on Das Seely Method for extraction in cohesionless soils.

Compressive strength for cohesionless soils:

I Central HEA 160

Shaft perimeter pf 0,91 m

Type of pile Steel

Design resistance Rcd 82,75 kN (5.7)

I Lateral IPE 160

RESISTANCE TO SINKING OF PILES BY TIP AND SHAFT

Shaft perimeter pf 0,62 m

Type of pile Steel

Design resistance Rcd 48,68 kN (5.7)

II Central HEA 140