DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED COMPRESSION PILES ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 7 Bauduin C. Besix, Brussels; V.U.B. University of Brussels, Belgium ‘The Eurocode 7 “Geotechnical Design’ is based on “Limit State Design’, tackling the uncertainties as much as possible at their source through: = selection of characteristic values of variables (loads, soil properties, pile resistance, ...); = partial factors applied on the characteristic values; = model factors to account explicitly for uncertainties of the calculation rule if necessary, Eurocode 7 will propose three “design approaches”. The selection of one of them will be by National Determination. For pile design, the approaches are: = approach 1 is a “material factoring approach’ at load side and a “resistance factoring approach’ at resistance side. The structural and geotechnical design are chacked for both (of two separate sets of partial factors. ~ approach 2 isa "load and resistance factoring approach” and is in several aspects close to ‘deterministic approach, The design is checked for one set of partial factors. + approach 3 is a material factoring approach, at load as well as at resistance side. The {design is checked for one set of factors. ‘The alm of this paper isto introduce to the design of ple foundations based on pile load tests ‘and on ground test resulls (semi-empirical and analytical methods) in the frame-work of the three design approaches. Detailed attention is devoted to: - the selection of the characteristic value of the pile resistance, accounting for spatial variability and stifness of the structure; ~ the reliability of the prediction of the pile resistance using analytical or semi-empirical ‘methods which may be accounted for through a “model factor”. ‘The results of a large test campaign on screw piles in OC Clay and a calculation example illustrate the proposed procedure when calculation rules using CPT results are used. MAIN FEATURES OF THE EUROCODE Safety framework according to the Eurocode system and application to Eurocode 7 Eurocode 0 “Basis of Design” establishes principles and requirements for safety, serviceability and durabilty of structures. It deals with the “action” values of loads and: their partial factors, etc. Eurocode 7 gives additional basis rules for geotechnical design and rules for ‘checking common geotechnical structures, The Eurocode requires a semi-probabilistic safety framework: the rules for checking the design show much resemblance with deterministic methods but the variables are introduced in the calculation rules as design values, The idea behind semi-probabilistic safety systoms is that the unoeraintias ara treated right at sources by introducing the “characteristic value” and the “design value" of the variables. The characteristic and design values have a statistical background. Such a safety system is different of the classical deterministic systems which treats all sources of Uncertainties through a single (global) safety factor. In a semi-probabiistic framework, the design fulfs the ultimate limit states requirements ifthe calculated design value of the action (or action effect) Ey is lower than the calculated design value ofthe resistance Re Es Am + Da Where A, takes account ofthe possibility of unfavourable deviations from the characteristic (nominal) value. A, is fonly introduced when the influence of deviations is critical; otherwise they are covered by the partial factors, APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EUROCODE TO THE DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED. PILES ‘The Eurocode 7 allows the design of pile foundations Using the following methods: + The results of static pile load tests; = From ground test results using semi-empirical or analytical methods; ~ Dynamic pile load test and wave equation analysis (not further discussed in this paper) When assessing the validity of a calculation method (semi-empirical model or analytical), the folowing items shauld be considered! ~ Soil type: = Method of installation ofthe pile, including the method ‘of boring or driving: = Length, diameter, material and shape of the shaft and the base of the pile; = Method of ground testing, ‘A model factor may be needed to ensure that the predicted resistance is sufficiently safe, ‘The table 4 below summarises the main factors affecting the reliability of the design of the pile foundation and the way the uncertainties are covered in the semi- probabilistic framework according to Eurocode 7. When designing foundations, advantage should be taken for the effect of stifiness of the structure carried by the pile and the ability ofthe foundation to transfer loads from “weaker” to “stronger” piles. Table 4: Overview of main sources of uncertainty in ultimate limit state design of pile foundations and corresponding partial factors See ‘ipa coe aa ofa trom roprsenitha voi | Paral facto ens eae ‘har erg pres - Seen mtr | ote eens conaone teas SS SSS ee ae Sterne ate tod Strong er oth me ‘ovary en naar aa free mat) mh RE Se | PE STS mad Sabre of be wil by | ONT Bose tet stron ft reeSeca 6] Moen cree "| nce ant So Se Sei Sgt ton ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE FROM Design of pile foundations based on static load tests may be unusual in some countries. However, the procedure according to prEN1997 (2001) is explained in this section as design procedures based on calculations always need to be related to the results of pile load tests. The procedure for design of piles from the results of static pile load tests is according to following scheme: [=] taqts)4 7 determination (values in prEN 1997 are slightly diferent from the values quoted in ENV 1997), Table 5: values of &; and for pile load test, ples under structure allowing no load transfer Run a es [gaia te tome wef TPT] | Ve © sed te bed of to] 4] 2 | tS] wo To The favourable effect of the stiffness of the structure (which is independent of the variability of the pile resistance over the site considered, but allows to a certain extent to transfer loads from "weaker" piles to ‘stronger’ piles) is introduced by dividing the values £1 and & by a factor 1.1 ‘Some more theoretical considerations on the values of are given in section “Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results Assessment_of the design value _of the pile (yinteeinte 00 ee Figure 1: Procedure for the design of piles from static pile load tests and partial factors, nt of the, istic value of the istani The N pile load tests deliver N values Ra (or Ro and Ra) of ultimate bearing capacity, (being recommended by rEN1997-1:2001 as the value at a settlement of 10% of, the pile diameter) out of which the characteristic value of the pile compressive resistance Ru. (oF Rix and Ras) has to be selected. It should account for: 1, The number of tests: as more lest become available the uncertainty of the variation of the bearing capacity at the site considered reduces; 2.The vatiabilty of the measured beating capacity when a large variability is observed, lowest value of the measured values which should govern tho foundation design; when the variability is small (small variation coefficient), than a value close to the mean value should govern the design; 3. The stifness of the structure and its abilty to transfer loads from “weak” to ‘strong’ piles, The characteristic value of the pile compressive resistance Rey is assessed using the equation: Rox = min{(Remrcr!=y, (Rem noléa) Where: (Remreas: the mean value of the measured pile resistances; (Remini the lowest measured pile compressive resistance; Eyand E correlation factors relating the mean and the lowest valve to the characteristic value of the pile compressive resistance, Table 5 indicates values of &) and & propased in prEN 1997-4: 2001(E); they may be modified by national resistance ‘The design value of the pile compressive resistance is deduced from the characteristic value using the following equation: ~ When the characteristic values of the base and shaft resistance are known separately Reo = Revi + Reals = When the characteristic values of the base and shaft resistance are not known separately, but the characteristic value of tolal resistance is known Rea= Ratt Typical values for the partial factors as proposed in ENV 1997-1:2001(E) are indicated in table 7. Clearly, approach three is not suited for establishing design ‘values of the pile resistance on base of the results of pile load tests. iP marks: Usually only the total load acting on the pile is measured (and not the shaft and base resistance separately). In this case, one may apply the partial factor yon the total resistance or one may distinguish between base and shaft resistance, eg by calculations based on the results of the ground investigation. Of course, the values of base and shaft resistance assessed in this way will not be exact, but the effect of the error on the design value of the pile resistance is rather small 2.The difference of the values of the partial factors between driven, CFA and bored piles is mainly related to the increasing probability of unexpected effects during pile installation affecting adversely the pile bearing capacity. These adverse effects are considered to be more likely to affect plle base than the shaft bearing capacity. It might be considered as strange that prEN 1997-1 is not consistent in this respect between approaches 1 and 2. ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE APPROACHES 1 AND 2 This section is devoted to the assessment of the design value of the pile compressive resistance according toprEN 1997-1:2001, clauses 7.6.2.3 (1) to (9). They are the core of the design of piles using ground test results in approaches 1 and 2. An alternative method, starting directly from global characteristic values of base and shaft resistance (indicated in clause (10)) will be explained later on this paper. Approach 3 requires slightly different procedure. “The proposed procedure is similar to the procedure used when pile load tests are available, excepted that the pile resistance is calculated at each test location. The characteristic and design values have to be deduced from all these calculated values, in a similar way as done for static load tests (see fig. 2). Due to this similarity, the method will be referred to as "model pile procedure". As the bearing capacity of a “model pile” is derived at each tested profile, clearly the design value of the bearing capacity is obtained by dividing the characteristic resistance by a partial factor: it is a resistance factoring approach and is thus restricted to approaches 1 and 2. The procedure is very well suited when the design is based on the results of in-situ tests ‘combined with calculation rules allowing to derive the pile resistance from any measured “resistance” (CPT, PMT... methods), although it might be as well applied to analytical methods for pile design. ‘The design procedure involves three main steps: ‘)assess the compressive resistance of an hypothetic at each test location by using a calculation rule Pi ‘and by calibrating the result if necessary; 2)select the characteristic value of the pile resistance {rom the assessed compressive resistances; 3)calculate the design value of the pile compressive resistance from the characteristic value Figure 2: design procedure using semi-empirical ‘methods and the "model pile procedure” The different sources of uncerlainty will be treated at their source in the relevant step. Galculation rule and calibration factor Calculation rule The calculation rule aims to predict as accurately as possible the ullimate pile compressive resistance, taking account of = The ground conditions = The effects of pile instalation = The dimensions and the shape of the pile (base and shaft) - Effects which may affect the results of the test and the compressive resistance of the pile in different ways Lot of calculation rules were developed parallel to the corresponding in situ testing method in the past. De Cock et al, 1997 provide a detalled review of the calculation rules most widely used in Europe. When ground tests are used, the compressive R: resistance is obtained as the sum of the base resistance Re and the shaft resistance Ra: Ra= Ry + Ry The calculation rule (lor base as well as for shaft compressive resistance) always involves some account for the effects of pile installation, This may be done either directly in the calculation (eg charts for base and shaft resistance for PMT or through bearing capacity factors when using analytical methods) or in two steps using explicit “installation factors" (eg when using CPT ‘method according to De Beer 1971-1972 or prEN1997-3 annex 4): = A first step starts from the measured in-situ cone resistance and translates it into unit base and shaft resistances for a cylindrical full displacement (riven) pile = A-second step corrects the results for obtained in the first one by taking account for the shape, the installation method... ofthe real pile though “shape” ‘and “installation factors Calibration of the calculation rule: model factor Calculation rules and installation factors shall have been validated by static pile load tests. Of course, no calculation rule is perfect: no calculation rule exists Which give for each prediction, whatever the soil conditions etc @ 100% exact prediction of the pile bearing capacity. To cover the uncertainty of the prediction, the Eurocode allows to introduce “model factors’ or “calibration factors’. The need of a ‘calibration’ arises from the inaccuracy and the variability of the predicted bearing capacity. When checking the reliabiity a calculation rule with pile load tests consideration is to be given to: = The mean value of the predictions compared to the ‘mean value ofthe predictions ~ The variabiliy of the prediction The value of calibration factor is thus related to the calculation rule and is obtained by comparing load tests, results and corresponding predictions performed in the ‘past (ag to validate the calculation rule). The calibration factors may aim to provide a required reliabilly to the prediction: for instance, one may wish to make such predictions that if load tests are performed, 95 % of the ‘measured bearing capacities will be higher than the predictions (a 95% reliable prediction is consistent with the partial factors of approach 1). Eurocode 7 gives no procedure to assess the value of a calibration factor. ‘The procedure proposed below is in line with the semi probabilistic safety approach and is borrowed from Eurocode 0. The calibration or model factor may be determined by establishing a histogram of the ratio Rejrdind J Renessued- ON basis of this histogram, one makes an assumption about the distribution, eg normal or log- normal. Assuming that enough representative test results are available so that complementary test will not affect the distribution, one establishes the fractile Corresponding to the required reliability of the prediction: if one wishes that only 5% of the measurements will be ower than the predicted value, one establishes the 5% fractile of the distribution (Rejnesuns / Repasad 9 ‘accordance to the following statistical formula’(Remmoared Regedit i sreway Jo44 L ne | Where: Vi ovefficient of variation of the ratio Renesas / Represiced fm number of tests considered to calibrate the calculation rule fi. rstudent factor for 5% fractile, n-1 degrees of freedom (Remanuea Reseed nan The value of the calibration factor is: Year = (Re meas! Reread Figure 3: Example of histogram (Remwasues! Remsen) The “calibrated pile compressive resistance” is. the Product of predicted compressive resistance as Calculated using the semi-empirical rule by the calibration factor. If the histogram is representaive, each later prediction will be somewhere on it, but on an unknown place (i the ratio Rimes raRyent if any load test should be performed) the only what is achieved by the calibration factor is that thera is 95 % chance that the real value of the compressive resistance will be higher than the predicted and calibrated value. ‘The calibration factor (or model) has to be introduced in the calculations together with the further the partial factors, Discussion Three main “phiosophies’ may be compared when selecting a method for calibrating the calculation rule {and especially the values of the installation factors}: = The first one is to work at a very high level of details; the extreme of this being that each type of pile (or ‘even each way of performing a pile) is calibrated for the main relevant types of soil conditions (normally ‘consolidated and averconsolidated sand: normally ‘consolidated and overconsolidated clay; loam; sand- clay mixes...). This approach allows the highly . REFERENCES ENV 1997-1, 1994. Eurocode 7 ~ Geotechnical design, part 1: General rules, CEN/TC 250/SC7. Bruxelles: ‘Comité Européen de Normalisation, BAUDUIN, C., 2001. Design procedure according to Eurocode 7 and analysis of the test results. Proceedings of the symposium Screw Piles : Installation and design in stiff clay. Rotterdam, Balkema pp. 275-303, CALLE, E, 1987. Toepassing van statistiek en stochastiok” in de grondmechanica, Stichting postdoctoral onderwis in de civiele techniek. Cursus rieuwe ontwikkelingen in de geotechniek. DE BEER, E., 1971-1972, Méthodes de déduction de la capacité portante dun pieu & partir des résultants des essais de pénétration. Annales des Travaux Publics de Belgique, No 4 (p. 191-268), 5 (p. 321-353) & 6 (p. 351- 405), Brussels. DE COCK, F., LEGRAND C., 1997 (editors). Design of axially loaded piles. European Practice. Rotterdam, Balkema. FRANK, R., 1997. Some comparisons of safety for axially loaded piles. In De Cock & Legrand, (eds), APPROACH _1_AND__2,_SEMI-EMPIRICAL CALCULATION RULE ON CPT APPLYING THE “MODEL PILE” PROCEDURE File foundation in overconsolidated clay supports a sti structure. The piles are supposed to be screw piles, with Dp = 400mm, D, = 360 mm (these sections are hypothetical) length 11m below soil level. Four CPT tests have been performed: A2, AS, B4 and CA WORKED EXAMPLE FOR APPROACH 1 ‘The loads to be carried by the foundation are permanent load q: = 3900 KN, variable load Q, = 800 KN. The design values beoome: Approach 1, set 2: 390 * 1 + 800* 1.3 = 4940 kN ‘Approach 1, set 1: 390 * 1.35 + 800 * 1.5 = 6450 kN ‘Stop 1: calculation of the compressive resistance at ‘each of the CPT locations Using De Beer's method, one calculates 3 for piles with base diameter of 400'mm, The base compressive resistance is obtained as R= Gh. An. cn which = p= 0.8 (value hereabove suggested for screw piles inOc clay) 1-0.01(Oulde— 1) = 1 ~ 0.01(400/97 ~ 1) = Ay= 04? nid = 0.125 m? ‘The shaft compressive resistance is calculated using Re= no. G1 where, 09 (0.360) 13 mem calibration factor yas is assumed to be 1.20 (see previous).The calculation results are summarised in the table below. Table 9: Calculation results of predicted and calibrated The design value of the load requires 4940 / 498 = 10 piles. + Area 2; Set 2: Ree = 792 RN [2 ~133) from the mean compressive resistance at each CPT tea zea Roz 21941761100 1 14 yoo ce fest 26] oe a0 wis ea oe ‘Stop 2: solection of the characteristic value of the Resa aa aaa ON ‘compressive resistance The mean value of the (calibrated) pile compressive resistance out of the 4 tests is 924 kN; the lowest is 823 kN. The characteristic value ofthe pile resistance is the minimum of (use & for four tests: E = 1.31 and & 41,20) Min (924 11.91 ; 828 / 1.20} = 686 kN The characteristic value of the pile compressive resistance is govemed by the lowest value of tho calculated resistances. The stifness of the structure ts accounted for through the coefficient 1.1, so the charactoristc valuo becomes 686 * 1.1 = 754 KN. The geotechnical engineer however observes that only one CPT governs the characteristic value over the whole site, and thatthe other CPTs provide significantly higher values of compressive resistance. It may be worth to consider a subdivision ofthe site in two areas: the fist in which CPT A2 is used, and the second where the other CPT are used. Of course, such a subdivision has to be supported by geotechnical considerations, not only by manipulating numbers. This subdivision leads. to following characterise values: ‘Area 1: 823/14 1.1 = 647 kN: the minimum (single) value governs: ~ Aree 2 min 8028182888) 14 HE w a Tat S423 792 KN: the mean value governs. ‘The definite choice of the first or the subdivision of the site to select the characteristic value(s) is left to the engineer's judgement. A geotechnical analysis of the site, including results of borings or other tests eventually performed, previous experience, considerations regarding the structure supported by the piles may play ‘a Tole in this choice. A second test in area 1 Is strongly recommended: if it confirms the lower resistance in that yea, the design is well balanced; if It yields more favourable results, this may lead to more economic design (lower & value in area 1), p_value of ie vessiv resistance ‘Assume that the design is continued considering two areas. The design value of the pile compressive resistance in each of them is = Area 1; Set 2: Ra, AN [E,= 4) from the minimum 1 133 690 Raat hee a aa 080 1.1 = 498 kN Rs= 609 KN The design value of the load requires 4940 / 609 8.1, take 8 piles. + The design values of the resistance for Set 1 are easily found as (y ): ~~ Area 1: 647 KN ‘Area 2: 792 kN ‘The foundation as determined for Set 1 (10 piles in area 41; 8 piles in area 2) fulfs the requirement of Set 1 ‘Note: the equivalent safety factor is: Area 1: 988 /(4700/ 10) = 2.10 ‘Area 2: compared to the mean resistance: 1149 / (4700/8) = 1.96, ‘compared to the lowest resistance: 1098 1 (4700 / 8) = 1.87 WORKED EXAMPLE FOR APPROACH 2 The design value of the load is: 3900 * 1.35 + 800° 1.5 6450 KN ‘22ch of the CPT locations The pile compressive resistance at each test location is esiablished on the same way as in previous. The same value of the model factor ay is applied, although this value may need closer consideration the che value of compressive resisiance The characteristic value of the pile resistance is the ‘same as in approach 1 ‘Step 3: design value of the pile compressive 41.10, the design value ofthe pile resistance 's readily found as > Area 1 Rog = Reg! 1.1 = 647/1.4 = 588 kN The design value of the load requires 6450 / 588 = 11 piles. ~ Area 2 Rog = Reg! 1.1 = 79511.1= 720 The design value of the load requires 6450 / 720 = 9 piles. ‘Note: the equivalent safety factor is: ‘Area 1: 988 / (4700/11) = 2.31 ‘Area 2: compared to the mean resistance: 1149 / (4700/9) = 1.98 compared to the lowest resistance: 1098 J (4700 / 9) = 2.10