To test or not to test – that is the (design) question

Dr Andrew Bond (Geocentrix)

Eurocode 7 approach to pile design
z Eurocode 7 Part 1 §7 ‘Pile foundations’
z Emphasizes design based on field testing
z Design using ground parameters is presented as an
‘alternative’ (yet is main approach in UK)
z Base and shaft factors vary with method of installation
(bored or CFA or driven)
z Design from field test results
z Design resistance related to number of tests
z Correlation factors for static load tests, ground tests (e.g.
CPTs), and dynamic impact tests
z Design using ground parameters
z UK National Annex adjusts base, shaft, and model factors
according to the amount and type of static load testing
Design using ground parameters
To test or not to test – that is the (design) question
 Pile design using ground parameters

Combination
factor
Action
factor

Model
factor

Resistance
factor
Pile resistance factors for DA1-2
(from UK NA to BS EN 1997-1)
Static load tests on Model Resistance factors from Set R4
piles loaded to… factor Bored/CFA Driven Total Tens
(γRd) Base Shaft Base Shaft (γt) -ion
(γb) (γs) (γb) (γs) (γst)
Eurocode
ENV 1997-1: 1994 1.5 1.6/ 1.3 1.3 1.3- 1.6
EN 1997-1: 2004 ? 1.45 1.5
UK National Annex to BS EN 1997-1
Default values 1.4 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.5 As 2.0
> 1% constructed 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.3 base 1.7
piles taken to 1.5 x
representative load
(or settlement no
concern)
Maintained load 1.2
test to calculated
unfactored ultimate
load
 Case study – piles in sand
z Ground test results from site in Richmond
(courtesy CL Associates, 2004)
z 4 CPTs in dense (becoming loose gravelly) SAND
z Design of 4 x 6m long piles x φ400mm bored piles
z Actions
z Permanent Gk = 1400 kN + Variable Qk = 500 kN
CPT Average qc Angle of shearing qs (kPa) qb (kPa)
number (MPa) resistance φ (°)
1-4m 4-8m 1-4m 4-8m
02 30 14 38-42 36-38 90 2650
03 21 15 (say 40) (say 37) (assuming (assuming
Ks = 2.0) qb/qc ≈
05 27 9
0.2)
08 15 (15)
 Verification of ULS (DA1-2)
– with no explicit verification of SLS

Fd = γ G × (VG + WG ) + γ Q × VQ Action factors

= 1.0 × (1400 + 79) + 1.3 × 500 = 2129kN from Set A2

Action factors
⎛ π × 0.42 m2 ⎞ Conventional
Rb,calc = qb Ab = 2650kPa × ⎜ ⎟ = 333kN
⎝ 4 ⎠ soil mechanics
theory
Rs,calc = qs As = 90kPa × (π × 0.4m × 6m ) = 678kN

Rb,calc Rs,calc
Rd = +
γ Rd × γ b γ Rd × γ s Resistance factors
⎛ 333 678 ⎞ from Set R4
=⎜ + ⎟ × 4 = 1686kN
⎝ 1.4 × 2.0 1.4 × 1.6 ⎠
Model factor Resistance factors Fd > Rd → ULS NOT verified!
Reliability of calculated resistance depends
on amount of testing
z With no static pile load tests
z Factors on base = 1.4 x 2.0 = 2.8
z Factors on shaft = 1.4 x 1.6 = 2.24
z Fd = 2129 kN > Rd = 1686 kN (not verified)
z With 1% working static pile load tests
z Factors on base = 1.4 x 1.7 = 2.38
z Factors on shaft = 1.4 x 1.4 = 1.96
z Fd = 2129 kN > Rd = 1943 kN (just not verified)
z With preliminary static pile load test
z Factors on base = 1.2 x 1.7 = 2.04
z Factors on shaft = 1.2 x 1.4 = 1.68
z Fd = 2129 kN < Rd = 2267 kN (verified)
Traditional lumped factors of safety
Global factor of safety for replacement piles

4.0

3.5
Lord
(for chalk)
3.0 Ignore base
F = Qult / Qa

Tomlinson
2.5

2.0
Burland et al.
1.5

1.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Qs/Qult
Eurocode 7 vs traditional
Global factor of safety for replacement piles
(with 25% variable action)

4.0

3.5

3.0
No explicit SLS check
F = Qult / Qa

2.5
Tests on 1% working piles
2.0

Preliminary load tests

1.5

1.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Qs/Qult
Design using field test results
To test or not to test – that is the (design) question
 Pile design from field test results

Combination
factor
Action Correlation
factor factor

Resistance
factor
Correlation factors
from UK NA to BS EN 1997-1
Static load tests Ground tests Dynamic impact tests

No Mean Min. No Mean Min. No Mean Min.

ξ1 ξ2 ξ3 ξ4 ξ5 ξ6
1 1.55 1 1.55† ≥2 1.94 1.90
2 1.47 1.35 2 1.47† 1.39 ≥5 1.85 1.76
3 1.42 1.23 3 1.42† 1.33 ≥ 10 1.83 1.70
4 1.38 1.15 4 1.38 1.29 ≥ 15 1.82 1.67
≥5 1.35 1.08 5 1.36 1.26 ≥ 20 1.81 1.66
For structures that (6) (1.34) (1.23) Figures in (brackets)
can transfer loads 7 1.33 1.20 provide values
from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ ‘missing’ from EN
(8) (1.32) (1.18)
piles, ξ1 to ξ4 may be 1997
divided by 1.1 (9) (1.31) (1.17) †Values chosen to
provided ξ1 ≥ 1.0 and ≥ 10 1.30 1.15 match static load
ξ3 ≥ 1.0 tests
Case study – piles in sand
z Data from site in Richmond (courtesy CL
Associates, 2004)
z 4 CPTs in dense (becoming loose gravelly) SAND
z Design of 4 x 6m long piles x φ400mm bored piles
z Actions: Gk = 1400 kN + Qk = 500 kN

CPT Average qc ps (kPa) pb Calculated resistance

number (MPa) (kPa) (kN)

1-4m 4-8m Shaft Base Total

02 30 14 120 2800 754 352 1106
03 21 15 120 3000 754 377 1131
05 27 9 100 2000 628 251 879
08 15 (15) 120 3000 754 377 1131
 Verification of ULS (DA1-2)
– with 1% working pile load tests

Fd = γ G × (VG + WG ) + γ Q × VQ Action factors

= 1.0 × (1400 + 79) + 1.3 × 500 = 2129kN from Set A2

⎛ Rcalc ,mean ⎞ ⎛ Rcalc ,min ⎞

Rk = ⎜ ⎟ or ⎜ ⎟
ξ
⎝ mean ⎠ ⎝ min ⎠ ξ Correlation
factors for 4
⎛ 1062 ⎞ ⎛ 879 ⎞ test results
=⎜ ⎟ or ⎜ ⎟ = 770 or 681 = 681kN
⎝ 1.38 ⎠ ⎝ 1.29 ⎠
Minimum governs
Rb,calc Rs,calc
Rd = + Resistance factors
ξ4 × γ b ξ4 × γ s from Set R4
(1% working
⎛ 251 629 ⎞
=⎜ + ⎟ × 4 = 1851kN tests)
⎝ 1.29 × 1.7 1.29 × 1.4 ⎠
Correlation factor Resistance factors Fd > Rd → ULS NOT verified!
Conclusion
To test or not to test – that is the (design) question
Conclusion
“…Much of the design of pile foundations is
still dominated by estimation of axial
capacity…where the critical issue is more
likely to be magnitude of displacements
under operating conditions…”

Mark Randolph (2003 Rankine Lecture)

‘Decoding the Eurocodes’ blog
z For a limited period,
you can download this
presentation from my
‘Decoding the
Eurocodes’ blog

z Blog started May 2006

z Aim to post articles
monthly

z www.eurocode7.com