Professional Documents
Culture Documents
transport in the United Kingdom. For more than 60 years it has provided information that has helped
frame transport policy, set standards and save lives.
TRL provides research-based technical help which enables its Government Customers to set standards
for highway and vehicle design, formulate policies on road safety, transport and the environment, and
encourage good traffic engineering practice.
As a national research laboratory TRL has developedclose working links with many other international
transport centres.
It also sells its services to other customers inthe UK and overseas, providing fundamental and applied
research, working as a contractor, consultant or providing facilities and staff. TWS customers include
local and regional authorities, major civil engineering contractors, transport consultants, industry, foreign
governments and international aid agencies.
TRL employs around 300 technical specialists - among them mathematicians, physicists, psychologists,
engineers, geologists, computer experts, statisticians - most of whom are based at Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Facilities include a state of the art driving simulator, a new indoor impact test facility, a 3.8krn test track,
a separate self-contained road network, a structures hall, an indoor facility that can dynamically test
roads and advanced computer prc)gramswhich are used to develop sophisticated traffic control systems.
TRL also has a facility in Scotland, based in Livingston, near Edinburgh, that looks after the special
needs of road transport in Scotland. ,,
The laboratory’s primary objective is to carry out commissioned research, investigations, studies and
tests to the highest levels of quali~, reliability and impartiality. TRL carries out its work in such a way
as to ensure that customers receive results that not only meet the project specification or requirement but
are also geared to rapid and effective implementation. In doing this, TRL recognises the need of the
customer to be able to generate maximum value from the investment it has placed with the laboratory.
TRL covers all major aspects of road transport, and is able to offer a wide range of expertise ranging from
detailed specialist analysis to complex multi-disciplinary programmed and from basic research to advanced
consultancy.
TRL with its breadth of expertise and facilities can provide customers with a research and consultancy
capability matched to the complex problems arising across the whole transport field. Mess such as
safety, congestion, environment and the’infrastructure require a multi-disciplinary approach and TRL is
ideally structured to deliver effective solutions.
TRL prides itself on its record for delivering projects that meet customers’ quality, delivery and cost
targets. The laboratory has, however, instigated a programme of continuous improvement and continually
reviews customers satisfaction to ensure that its performance stays in line with the increasing expectations
of its customers.
Quality control systems have been introduced across all major areas of TRL activity and TRL is working
towards full compliance with BS EN 9001:1994.
.
This report describes work commissioned by the Bridges Engineering Division of the
Highways Agency under E553C~G, Reinforcement in Piles @esk Study)
Crown Copyright 195. me contents oftisreportare tieresponsibility oftie authors mdthe ChiefExecutiveof~.
~ey do not necessarily represent tie views or policies of the Department of Transport.
1995
ISSN 0968-4107
.... ... . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . ...... .... .. . ------- ------- -
CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT 2
2.1 General 3
2.2 Data SO- 4
13
5.0 DISCUSSION 16
i
CONTENTS (cent’d)
PAGE
30
6.1 summary 30
6.1.1 Fully Embedded Piles 30
6.1.2 Free Standing Lengths of Piles&
Pile Retaining Walls 31
6.2 Recommendations 31
6.3 _ for Further Study 34
7.0 A~OWLEDGEMENTS
8.0 REFERENC~
APPENDIC~
ii
. . .. . . . . .... .. .. .. ......
Feedback obtained from two construction sites in the ~ has suggested that current
design practices for pile reinforcement may be overconservative.
This report investigates the development of the design of reinforcement in piles and
assesses the applicability of current design codes to pile design. It also gives
recommendations for amendments to the Standard BD 32/88 (DMW 2.1) for piled
foundations and suggestions for clari~ing existing British Standard requirements. Areas
for further research are hig~ighted.
For fully embedded piles nomiml requirements for links, minimum numbers of bars and
crack control steel can be ignored.
Crack control steel need ody be applied to the control of early thermal cracking and
then ody if this is required to ensure the serviceability of the pile. Some evidence
suggests that crack control steel may not be effective in reducing long term corrosion of
steel. Dense concrete, resistant to carbomtion, should be used with external sleeving or
steel coatings provided in extreme corrosion environments to achieve a durable pile.
Free standing lengths of piles and the upper portions of pile retaining walls should,
however, be designed as columns in air but ody down to a point of fmity below ground
level. A method for determining the point of fixity is suggested.
1
., ,.
ABS~CT
In July 1994, the Transport Research hboratory (TW) commissioned Trafalgar House
Technology to undertake a desk study into the design of reinforcement in piles. The
specific requirements were to identify reasons for the increase in pile reinforcement in
recent years and to establish whether the present high levels of reinforcement are
justified.
The catilyst for this work is feedback from two completed projects. The first was an
unpublished study, commissioned by the DOT, into the design of the Holmesdale and
Bell Common Tunnel retaining walls. This reviewed various methods of deriving the
lateral forces applied to the walls and considered the implications for quantities of
reinforcement. For the diaphragm walls of Hohesdale tunnel, one of the findings was
that the application of crack control criteria significantly increased the steel
reinforcement requirements.
The second project was work being undertaken for the Medway Crossing. Here, a
number of piles were exposed adjacent to a marine environment and, despite the
relatively light reinforcement, all appeared to be in good condition.
This study researches the current and historic methods of the design of the reinforcement
in piles necessary to resist the calculated design forces. It covers fully embedded piles,
piles exposed along part of their length and those acting as retaining walls.
The study deals principally with reinforcement provided to resist the forces applied to
the pile and to provide for a durable pile. me derivation of such forces, however, is not
included within this study. Pre-cast concrete piles are excluded as the reinforcement for
these is generally controlled by the handling and insertion forces and not the in-service
forces.
2
1.2 Research Strate~
2.1 Gened
This material has been analysed and the key issues itiuencing pile reinforcement design
identified. These are listed below and discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of this report.
The literature search was supplemented by a consultation process instigated to gather the
experience of a cross section of external organisations. Three consultants and three
contractors were chosen to ensure a broad cross section of experience.
Consultants Contractors
Design codes and published literature were generally obtained using standard library
database searches. Some unpublished data was obtained from ~ and external
consultees.
(a) Vertical piles which are axially loaded need not be designed as structural columns
ufless part of the pile extends above ground level (Cl 7.3.3.3). For this latter
case, ody the upper portion of the pile need be considered as a column down to a
point of fwity. Para 2 Cl 7.3.3.3 staks:-
“where part of the finished pile projects above ground, that length should be
designed as a column in accordance with BS 8110, CP114 or BS 449. The
effective length to be tien in the calculation is dependent on the lateral loading
if any and on the degree of fmity provided by the ground, by the structure which
the pile supports and by any bracing. The depth below the ground surface to the
point of contraflexure varies with the type of soil. In fm ground it maybe
tien as about lm below the ground surface; in we~ ground, such as sofi clay
or silt, it may be as much as one half of the depth of-penetration into the stratum
but not necessarily more than 3m. The degree of fuity, the position and
inclination of the pile top and the restraint supplied by any bracing should be
estimated as in normal structural calculations”.
4
(b) All forces acting on the pile are to be determined and the pile reinforced
accordingly (Cl 7.3.3.4, Cl 7.3.3.6, and Cl 7.4.4.3.2). Some or all of the pile
length may be unreinforced (Cl 7.4.4.3.2). Pre-cast concrete piles are to be
designed to BS 8110 (or CP 116).
(c) Where tensile forces are to be resisted by the pile, adequate reinforcement is
required to resist the entire tension stresses. The reinforcement should be
provided for the full length of the pile or where temile forces are small, to a
depth at which the tensile forces have been filly transmitted to the ground (Cl
7.3.3.7 and Cl 7.4.5.3.2).
(e) For raking piles, loads may be considered as axial with an applied bending force
at the top (Cl 7.3.3.5).
(a) This standard applies to both the design of driven and bored piles (Cl 2. 1) and is
mandatory on all DOT projects.
(b) Pile caps are to be designed to BS 8004 but Cl 3.1 states that the structural design
of all concrete elements of the pile is to be to BS 5400 Pt 4.
BS 8110 states that embedded piles need not be designed as columns and piles carrying
axial load ordy need not be reinforced. Some rules are provided regarding calculation of
axial forces which may be accommodated without reinforcement but no guidance is
given on calculation of shear capacity. Where reinforcement is required, BS 8110 (and
CP116 and CP1 14) is mentioned for design but is not specifically invoked, except for
pre-cast piles. No guidance is given for curtailment of longitudinal steel.
BS 5400, the design code for bridges, is widely accepted as being a more stringent
design standard than the general civil engineering concrete code BS 8110. Additioml
forces are imposed on a bridge structure such as impact and braking forces and abutment
earth pressures. Also the often exposed and relatively long and flexible mture of
bridges leads to high wind and themal expansion forces. The difficulties in deterrniting
the magnitude of these forces and their effect on the structure has required a more
conservative design approach which is reflected in the bridge code.
For piles used as earth retaining structures, (ie contiguous bored pile walls) the exposed
portion of the pile may be designed either to BS 8002, code of practice for retaining
walls or, if applicable, BD 30/87 (DM~ 2.1) for bac~llled retaining walls. However,
a new Standard, BD42/94 (DM~ 2.1) has just been released which deals
5
Table 3.1.l summaq of Code Re~irements
I
depth pH C 4.5
BS 8004 As BS811O ---- AS BS 8110 ----- ----- - ------As BS8110-- -----”-------- Not mentioned
but add 40mm
four concrete
cast against
ground
Table 3.1.1 cent/d Summag of Code Re~irements
)s 8110 Compression
at 1 0.67 fc./ym fy/ym
[1985)
Shear (Tension & 0.4 fc..b o.4.fc..& + o.75.hc.fy
and compression)
Vc + 0.6.NVh
-
h.M
Shear Tension
4
o.5.fm fy/ym ~
(Triangular
Stress
Distribution)
o.38.fm
(Uniform
Stress
Distrubtion)
o Minimum No minimum II II
Reinforcement reinforcement
required
o Links Minimum
spacing 150mm “ 1!
) Calculation of Refer to II II
Rebar BS811O. Ordy
upper part of
pile above
ground level
to be designed
as a column
8
. ..
BD 32188
Global Reinforcement BS8004 BS811O (BS5400 Pt 4)
Design Requirements
9
specifically with the design of embedded retiining walls and bridge abutments. There is
a separate Standard BD32/88 (DMRB 2.1) which covers piled foundations in general.
In all these codes, structural design of the piles is referred back to structural codes (BS
5400 Pt 4 or BS 8110).
Historically, there are very few codes relating specifically to design of piles. The otiy
documents dealing with this subject are British Standards documents CP2: 1951 “Earth
Retaiting Structures”, CP4: 1954 “Foundations” and CP101: 1972” Foundations and
Substructures for Non-Industrial Buildings of Not More than Four Storeys”. However,
as far as the design of steel reinforcement in the piles is concerned, there were no codes
which specifically dealt with it, and therefore the general design standards for reinforced
concrete were used instead. These included CP1 14:1948 “Reinforced Concrete for
Buildings”, CP1 10:1972 “The Structural use on Concrete” and BE1/73: 1973
“Reinforced Concrete for Highway Structures”. A summary of the various requirements
of these codes for pile design is presented in Table 3.2.1.
In the absence of specific pile design standards, many aspects of deriving the forces
acting on piles and therefore the required reinforcement was based on key reference
documents, such as:-
0 Temaghi (1955)
“Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction”.
0 Rowe (1957)
“Sheet Pile Walls in Clay”.
0 Broms (1964)
“The Uteral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils”
0 Tomlinson (1977)
“Pile Design and Construction Practice”
0 Harnbly (1979)
“Bridge Foundations and Substructures”
10
Table 3.2.l Summaq of Superseded Codes Re~irements
:ode/Standard
(Date) Minimum Cover Minimum Concrete
to Reinforcement (mm) Strength (Nmm2) Concrete (N/mm2) ●High Yield Steel (N/mm2) Notes
PERMISSIBLE STRESSES
I
:Pllo
~TI~TE LIMIT STATE
All of the above, except for the Piling Handbook, relate to methods of determining the
forces acting on the piles and not to the provision of reinforcement to resist these loads.
A review of codes from Europe and America was undertaken to look at current design
requirements outside the ~.
The following non-~ codes are discussed below in relation to pile design: DIN 4014,
ACI 336.3 R-72, ACI 318:1992, ACI 318.19992, ACI Committee Report 543, ENV
1992.
Reinforcement in piles is designed to structural Code DIN 1045. Piles over 0.5m
diameter need not be reinforced tiess required for structural reasons. Piles less
than 0.5 m diameter may be unreinforced if there is no structural requirement
and load dispersing features such as grating plates and pile bents are provided.
Tension piles must have reinforcement for their full length.
This document deals specifically with bored concrete piles over 0.76m in
diameter. Design of plain concrete piers (piles) are to ACI 318.1 and reinforced
concrete to ACI 318, both structural codes. Where the soil SPT N value exceeds
2, sufficient lateral support is provided by the soil to prevent buctiing of the pile.
iv) ACI 318.1:1992 “Building Code Requirements for Structural Plain Concrete”
Unreinforced concrete piles continuously supported by soil are dealt within ACI
318.1 provided compression occurs across the entire cross section under all
loading conditions. The tensile strength of the concrete is allowed in design
providing structural failure is not induced by uncontrolled cracting.
12
. . .-. ,..
This is the most comprehensive of the codes dealing with concrete pile design
and recommendations are made on all of the following:-
hteral support of ground, lateral capacities of piles, uplift, tension and shear
stresses, allowable design stresses, allowable design loads, unsupported piles,
direct tension, corrosion and reinforcement.
The requirements of DIN 4014, ACI 336.3R-72, ACI 318.1 (1992) and ACI
543R-74 are summarised in Table 3.3.1
As a result of the consultation exercise described in Section 2.2 above, it is apparent that
there is a distinct difference in pile design practice between piles designed for, or
itiuenced by the requirements in DMRB using BS 5400 and those designed to other
requirements.
Since the issue of BD 32/88 (DMRB 2.1), it is mandatory in highway projects for the
structural design of the concrete elements of piles to be designed in accordance with BS
5400 Pt 4. Current design practice therefore requires piles to be treated as columns in
air for the purposes of reinforcement design.
It is now normal practice in large civil engineering schemes to incorporate the full
requirements of the structural codes when determining the reinforcement requirements
for piles. The latest draft of Eurocode 7 (ENV1997-1) perpetuates this approach.
The use of the current structural codes for pile design requires that provision must be
made for nomiml reinforcement links, mtium numbers of bars, maximum bar
spacings and minimum bar diameters. Checks for allowable crack widths are also
required. Many of these may be inapplicable to pile reinforcement.
13
Table 3.3.1 Summary of hnt Non-m Design Codes
Methods of II It
o Flexure
determining
lateral loads
but no
guidance on
rebar
Rules for:
o Li~ Minimum “ II To be
diameter & provided
maximum where
spacing loads
given indicate
a reqmt
14
Table 3.3.1 cent/d S~ of ~nt Non-m Design
o Calculation of Limited It II
Refer to
Rebar comment structural
Refer DIN code.
1045
fl
0 Cover 7omm 40-75mrn
o Durabili~ Concrete 1! 1!
Litie
with high guidance.
chemical Aggressive
resistance environments
required require
if ground protective
is coatings,
aggressive sleeving or
cathodic
protection
15
During construction, reinforcement cages are assembled in accordance with the detail
I
drawings. For bored piles ordriven cast-in-place piles, tiereMorcement istiefied
into the preformed hole and concrete pumped around it to form the pile. Alternatively,
for cfa piles, the reinforcement is pushed or vibrated through previously placed concrete.
In either case, the insertion of large quantities of reinforcement can result in difficulties
in ensuring a satisfactory construction of the pile. For concrete pumped around the
reinforcement, it may be difficult to provide proper compaction around the steel in
heavily reinforced piles which may result in defects in the pile. Where reinforcement is
inserted through concrete, it may not be possible to achieve sufficient penetration of the
steel. Excessive vibration of the cage to aid penetration may damage the cage and cause
segregation of the concrete.
II
It is therefore necessary for the designer to speci~ the minimum reinforcement to satisfy
the structural requirements of the pile. If this is not done, erstwhile economical piling
techniques may be excluded through the specification of excessive reinforcement.
5.0 DISCUSSION
Over many years structural reinforced concrete design and concrete foundation design
has undergone a continuing development. Advances have been made in the
understanding of the behaviour of materials, mechanisms of failure, magnitude of forces
applied to structures and methods of ultimate and serviceability limit state design. This
has resulted in a greater knowledge of the nature and interaction of materials and forces.
Developments in structural and foundation analyses have continued along essentially
parallel but often separate paths. Superstructures including in many cases pile caps and
basement constructions, have been designed in accordance with the relevant structural
codes whilst foundation design for the same structure followed a separate design code.
As these developments took place, designers were provided with the tools to analyse,
with greater cotildence, the forces, deflections and reactions generated by and applied to
the structure. Over the same period, the science of geotechnics developed significantly,
making it possible to determine, at least theoretically, the response of the ground
surrounding the foundatio]~. hndmark publications giving methods of deriving the
lateral resistance of piles (Broms, 19@) and coefficients of subgrade reaction (Temghi
1955) were significant in moving pde design forward. Techniques therefore became
available for estimating the bending moments and shear forces which a laterally loaded
pile must resist.
This led to a significant change in the way piles were used. bteral forces on bridge
decks, for instance, were historically resisted by raking piles, passive pressure on the
pile caps or abutment keys. As the theoretical understanding and analytical tools
advanced it became more popular to resist lateral forces on vertical piles in flexure,
albeit with increased steel reinforcement. Publication of the BSC Steel Designers
Handbook (1963) greatiy aided the engineer’s tisk in assigning steel reinforcement
quantities for piled retiining structures. Over the same period, the introduction of more
rapid concrete piling tec~ques, (such as driven cast-in-place and cfa piling), reduced
16
the cost of concrete piling and increased the range of available pile diameters, thus
~rther encouraging the use of vertical piles to resist lateral loads.
The advances in tec~ques and reduced costs also led to an increased use of concrete
piles in retaining wall applications. Where, prior to the early 1970’s, the majority of
cantilever retaining walls would be designed using steel sheet piling, it is now common
for concrete piles to be a viable alternative. The larger cross-sections and therefore
greater stiffnesses achievable with concrete has also meant that larger and deeper
excavations in difficult ground can be completed using concrete retaining walls with
minimum prop requirements. Such uses obviously generate higher pile shaft forces
which must be resisted by increased quantities of steel reinforcement.
It has therefore become necessary for designers to develop procedures for designing pile
reinforcement to resist the induced pile forces. As previously stated, foundation design
codes offered otiy limited guidance and the designer was forced to turn to structural
codes. The applicability of the structural codes to the design of fully embedded piles
has, however, been a subject for debate amongst designers. For example, it is
questiomble whether a filly embedded pile should be provided with hoops or links in
accordance with the column codes. This issue was the subject of an adjudication on the
QEII bridge, a DOT project. The pile designer argued that the surrounding soils
provided sufficient restraint to prevent bar buctiing, and detailed widely spaced hoops
for cage rigidity ody. The checker called for hoops in accordance with BS 5400 (Part
4, Clause 5.8.4.3). The level of curtaihent of the main axial reinforcement was also a
subject of adjudication.
The adjudication concluded that BS 5400 does not address itself to pile design and BS
8004 ody addressed piles as a structural member when in free air. It was also
considered that “the subject of the design and specification of steel reinforcement cages
for bored cast-in-place piles is not addressed adequately in current Codes of Practice”.
Furthermore that it is therefore necessary to rely on traditioml practice for pile design
and the experience of specialist piling contractors in relation to their particular types of
piles. Steel reinforcement cages could be required in the upper portions of pile shafts to
resist flexural stresses from lateral loads or eccentricities of loads, but the remainder of
pile shafts, subjected ody to axial compressive stresses, may be unreinforced or
provided with nominal cages designed primarily to resist handling and insertion forces.
During the adjudication period BD 32/88 (DM~ 2. 1) was issued and calls for full
compliance with BS 5400 Pt 4, including :
The code design requirements are thus clearer but perhaps unduly conservative.
In addition to the above, other factors affecting the design of pile reinforcement include
a greater undersmnding of the effects of lateral earth pressures, increased use of design
software and the routine use of pile integrity testing techniques.
17
. .... ... .
r“” ““”
Prior to the early 1980’s, the full effect of ground movements on piles caused by loading
of adjacent ground was not well understood. Increased use of piled abutments
particularly on soft ground led to a number of cases being recorded where umcceptable
movements were occurring at pile cap level. Advice Note BA 25/88 (DMRB 2.1) was
promulgated to address this issue.
I
The recent increased availability of complex and comprehensive structural and
geotechnical design software has also had a significant effect on structural design.
Forces due to flexure and stiffness and the effects of expansion joints etc, can now be
easily calculated and then added to the forces acting on the foundations. If, however,
the interaction between soil and structure is not similarly investigated, the pile design
will be over conservative. In the past, soil/structure interaction effects would have been
ignored due to the complexity of the analyses or lack of design tools. bwer calculated
design forces may have been compensated for by the use of overall safety factors prior
to CP1 10:1972. Existing partial safe~ factors are based on CINA Report No. 63
(1977), into safety and serviceability factors in structural codes and were introduced to
achieve roughly similar effects to the previous overall factors but allow greater
flexibility in design. There may now, however, be a case for reviewing the partial load
and material safety factors used in current design to allow for the increased
sophistication of the design process.
For example, designers have recently become more aware, through the use of computer
programs, of the sensitivity of lateral forces to the design model chosen and parameters,
particularly geotechnical hput into the model. Sensitivity analyses are therefore
frequently run and designers may then perhaps use the more conservative analyses in
their final design.
I
The routine use of non destructive integrity testing of piles has lead to the discovery that
many piles suffer significant cracking after installation. This has lead to concerns over
durability and a desire to limit crack widths. Checks for crack widths as required in BS
5400 can have significant effects on reinforcement quantities. Examples for embedded
retaining walls are found h cases such as the A406 North Circular contiguous piled
walls and the Holmesdale Tunnel diaphragm walls. Although both these involve
reinforcement design, where checking for crack widths may be applicable (see Section
5.4), steel requirements are often applied over the full length of the wall. This was
certairdy the case for the A406 piles where provision of crack control steel was the
governing design critera. Crack width checks are also often specified for filly
embedded piles.
18
BS 8110 has a slightly less onerous crack width requirement than BS 5400 and is
therefore less severe in its requirements for additioml steel. Further discussion on the
relevance of structural codes including crack control requirements for buried reinforced
concrete may be found in Section 5.2 of this report.
Relatively recently, developments affecting the wider field of civil engineering have also
affected the design of piles. An increase in professioml liability, larger and more
frequent claims for negligence and the introduction of widespread internal mandatory
checking procedures under BS 5750, or similar quality assurance systems have all
affected engineers’ attitudes to design. The increased threat of litigation has meant that
companies, both consultants and contractors, are less willing to amend design code
requirements to fit their needs and since there is no comprehensive code dealing with
pile design, it is often easiest to invoke a structural code as a basis for design to speed
both internal QA and external checking.
The design of pile reinforcement has been discussed in Section 5.1 in terms of existing
and historic design practice. The following discussion, however, deals with the design
of pile reinforcement from a consideration of the fundamentals on which design is based.
The key issues identified in Section 2.1 are discussed and their relevance to pile design
highlighted.
Where applicable, existing code requirements are reviewed and amendments suggested.
These amendments are then summarised and recommendations made in Section 6.
The concrete used to construct a pile obviously has a profound effect on pile capacity
and the forces attracted to it. Concrete design for foundations is a subject in itself and is
the subject of an ongoing T~ study. For pile reinforcement, however, ifi effect can
essentially be reduced to two elements, strength and stiffness.
Concrete strengths and stiffnesses are closely interrelated and will vary with type of
aggregate, aggregate cement ratio and age of concrete. They will also vary with the
load conditions, whether short term, long tem or dynamic. For a given concrete mix
and load case, an increased concrete strength will result in an increase in stiffness.
19
Over the years, minimum concrete strength for use in foundations has increased (see
Fig. 2). This has been driven by a desire for denser, more durable concrete and has also
had the effect of increasing the load capacity of piles. As a result the pile stiffness has
increased resulting in an increase in the relative differences between soil and pile
stiffnesses. This in turn has increased the magnitude of shear forces and bending
moments which can act on a pile and these tend to act over a longer length of the pile.
For axially loaded piles, concrete strength is the governing requirement and an increase
in strength directly reduces reinforcement requirements. Stiffness ody plays a role
where small groups of piles require design for moments resulting from nominal design
eccentricities. For laterally loaded piles and retaining walls, however, stiffness is also
important in the design for providing lateral resistance. Retaining wall design in
particular is largely governed by requirements for stiffness rather than axial load
carrying capacity.
Increased concrete strength, although allowing greater axial and lateral loads to be
carried, also has drawbacks since it produces a greater tendency for tierrnal cracking to
occur. The greater the concrete strength, the higher the curing temperature due to
increased cement content. This leads to higher thermal strains and larger concrete
shrinkage. The concrete shrinkage is resisted by the surrounding soil thus generating
tensile forces within the pile. If these forces exceed the tensile strength of the concrete,
a horizontal crack will develop at some depth which in severe cases may affect the
structural integrity of the pile. A more detailed discussion of this is given in Section
5.2.6.
Permissible stresses quoted in design codes for steel rebar have increased with time
(Fig. 3). There has also been an increase in the availability and relative reduction in
cost of high yield steel. This has meant that fewer and smaller diameter bars are used to
accommodate larger bending moments and shear forces allowing for a reduction in
overall steel quantities for axially loaded piles and greater resistance to lateral forces for
laterally loaded piles.
bteral forces when applied to a pile setup bending moments within the pile.
Rcentricities of loading also apply moments to the pile. Where these moments exceed
the design bending resistance of the pile, reinforcement is required to strengthen the
concrete section.
Design charts for calculating the required area of steel for a given rectangular concrete
section and given bending moment are provided in structural design code BS 8110 Part
3. BS 8110 does not provide design charts for circular sections and design for these is
ofien based on an equivalent rectangular area. BD 44/90 (DMRB 3.4.4) allows circular
columns to be assessed using the design charts for circular sections given in CP1 10.
Dedicated computer design software is also available for design of circular sections.
20
For design of reinforcement to resist bending, therefore, the major issue is not the
method of calculating steel quantities but the method of determining the magnitude and
distribution of the bending moments to be resisted.
The effect of lateral deflections of the pile can be assessed using dedicated design
software using either non linear elastic spring model, p-y curves or ftite elements to
model the soil response. Soil parameters and factors of safety must be carefully chosen
taking account of the type of amlysis to be used. BA 25/88 (DM~ 2.1) provides a
recommended method of determining additioml forces on piles from soil movements
related to loading of adjacent ground. CIWA Technical Note 109 provides advice on
assessing the forces on a laterally loaded pile.
Until recently, design for shear in circular sections was one of the least defined aspects
of column and therefore pile design. Both BS 8110 and BS 5400 Pt 4 require columns
to be treated as beams for the purposes of shear. This requires that an equivalent
recmngular area be derived from the circular section and the shear capacity determined
accordingly. BD 44/90 (DM~ 3.4.4) and BA 44/90 (DMM 3.4.4) now specifi a
design method for circular sections based on the ACI code published in 1983 and
cotilrrned by Clarke and Birjandi (1993). Design using these codes is now, therefore,
relatively straightforward.
BS 5400 requires an increase of 15% in design load when calculating shear in columns
plus provision of an increase of 0.4 N/mm* in shear capacity above the calculated value.
The basis of these requirements appears to be an attempt to:
i) reduce the possibility of sudden brittle collapse by the provision of a larger safety
factor and
ii) to account for a reduction in the contribution to shear resistance of the concrete
under repeated loading by the provision of extra capacity.
21
., ...- - . .. ... . .. . . . .. .. ..-.
For piles not subject to repeated loading, such as filly embedded piles and many
retaining walls, Clarke suggests that the additional 15% load factor in BS 5400 appears
overly conservative. Clarke also suggests that for distributed loading, as applies along
the length of a pile, shear capacity of a given section is approximately twice that for a
concentrated load and suggested that the addition of 0.4 N/mm* extra capacity therefore
seems unnecessary. Fimlly, Clarke also suggests that the full shear resistance of the
concrete can be taken into account when calculating the necessary reinforcement but
recommends further research to confii this view. Clarke’s findings confii a general
impression that BS 5400 is overly conservative in its requirements for design for shear
particularly for foundation work.
The case ofien made for allowing for significant conservatism h shear design is the
brittle mode and possible catastrophic consequences of such a failure. Uflike the case of
beams and columns in air, buried foundations have the support of the ground to modify
their failure mode. Additionally, considerable redundancy is often incorporated into pile
group designs such that tie failure of a single pile is not catastrophic to the whole
structure. As an example many elastic computer analysis models of pile groups generate
large design forces in tie comer piles of a group. The resultant large steel requirements
are therefore, for simplicity, often provided for all piles in the group.
hteral restraint of the ground is sufficient in most practical cases to prevent buc~ing
failure of fully embedded piles. When referring to driven piles, BS 8004 requires that
buctiing need otiy be considered for piles through soil with a shear stren~ less than 20
kN/m2. At shear strengths greater than this, buc~ing is said to be u~ikely and piles
need not be designed in accordance with BS 8110. Where buc~ing is a consideration,
the work of Francis et al (1962) is referenced: this describes a series of laboratory and
field tests in Melbourne on long thin steel piles driven into sofi soils.
Hollow, rectangular (110mm x 150mm) piles 28m long were driven through soils with
shear strengths between 1 and 16 psi (7 to 110 ~/m2). It was shown that even for these
extreme dimensions failure was due to squashing of the pile and not buc~ing. Tests
were also carried out on prestressed octagonal concrete piles 710mm across, 28m long.
These were not loaded to fadure but carried more load than the short column failure load
without buc~ing.
From this research, Francis concluded that ody for cases where L/l’ < 1/(2)’, should
consideration be given to buc~ing of the pile. (L = lengti of pile h Sofi soil, 1’ =
length of half sine wave deflection of pile generated by buc~ing load and described in
Appendix 2).
A theory for calculating bucNing resistance was presented by Francis based on the
Witier spring system. Where buc~ing is a possible failure mechanism, the Wtier
approach may be used to calculate tie failure load. A summary of tis method is given
in Appendix 2. Structural frame analysis or finite element sotiare may also be used to
determine the resistance to buc~ing.
22
5.2.6 ~ly Them Cractig
Thermal cracking can be divided into two types, externally restrained and internally
restrained. Externally restrained cracking results from the concrete section being
restrained from movement during its cooling phase by external factors such as adjacent
wall sections, a base slab or, in the case of piles, the surrounding ground. Internally
restrained cracking, however, is caused by differential temperature gradients set up
within a concrete section whereby the outer edge cools faster than the core.
Fully embedded piles, restrained along their outer edges can suffer both externally and
internally restrained cracking. Soil, being a good insulator, increases the peak curing
temperature of the concrete but reduces the temperature gradient across the concrete
section. Internally restrained cracking is dependent on temperature gradient and is
therefore reduced in piles whilst externally restrained cracking is governed by peak
temperature rise. Externally restrained cracking is also dependent on the soil adhesion
and is therefore likely to be more marked in granular soils or stiff clays. In all cases,
except at the pile head where additional restraint is provided, thermal cracks occur
across rather than along the length of the pile. Externally restrained cracking penetrates
through the entire concrete section whilst internally restrained cracks are localised at the
outer edges.
Concerns relating to thermal cracking are based on structural integrity and durability.
The durability aspects are discussed in Section 5.2.7 below.
The structural integrity of a pile suffering cracks across its section needs to be assured if
the pile is subjected to lateral forces at the point of cracking or if the crack is sufficiently
near vertical to reduce the axial capacity of the pile. Thermal cracking in piles is
critically dependent on the concrete mix design as discussed in detail in CIWA Report
91. Where externally restrained cracking is expected to occur, it is necessary to ensure
that the pile remains serviceable afier cracking. One possible method of achieving this
would be to provide longitudinal reinforcement for a sufficient length of pile over which
lateral stresses exceeded the bearing capacity of the soil. The use of factored soil
strength parameters in the calculation would ensure that a reasomble safety factor was
achieved. Alternatively, various pile lengths could be amlysed to simulate cracking at
different depths.
Reinforcement would then be provided to the depth at which it was shown that a crack
would not affect the ultimate or serviceability limit state performance of the pile. More
research, however, is required into this aspect of pile design before recommendations
can be made.
23
-“ ““-”””
““ ““’”’
““”‘“”
“-
5.2.7 Corrosion and Durabfiity
Durability and corrosiorl of steel reinforcement in concrete structures has long been a
concern. Corrosion of steel below ground has, however, been observed principally in
buried metal pipes and for, instance, the upper parts of steel piles in marine conditions
just below the mud line.
Extensive resmrch has been undertaken into the corrosion of steel below ground and it is
generally accepted that, except in extreme exposure situations such as chemically
aggressive ground, buried steel below a standing water table is not subject to any
significant corrosive activity. Debate continues, however, regarding the corrosivity of
soil above the water table and the degree of protection afforded to steel reinforcement by
a cracked concrete section.
For electrolytic corrosion to be continuous, a bare metal face must be constantly exposed
at the anode, oxygen must be readily available at the cathode and an electrolyte must be
present to carry the current. If the environment surrounding the anode is akaline,
oxidised solids, hydroxides or basic salts can be formed and deposited on the metal at
the anode inhibiting the corrosion process.
For the general case of reinforcement within a fully embedded pile, ready access to
oxygen is restricted to perhaps the upper metre or so from the ground surface through
shrinkage cracks, worm holes etc. A cathodic region can ofly exist in these upper layers
where oxygen is present. An anode may be formed below ground when cracked
concrete exposes bare metil. The further the anode is from the cathode area, the longer
the path that the ions must follow and the slower the rate of corrosion. Udess the
concrete has been heavily carbonated, conditions around the reinforcement remain
strongly alkaline and protecting solids are deposited at the anode. Corrosion below
about lm below ground is therefore likely to be initially slow and, once started, quic~y
stopped by the deposition of solids.
Heavy corrosion can therefore ody occur where there is one of the following:
Protection of reinforcement in piles from corrosion under all conditions is best achieved
by good initial site investigation and the provision of dense, durable concrete. Control
of crack widths in concrete, even in corrosive environments, as shown by Beeby (1978),
has little effect on the corrosion of reinforcement.
24
. . ..- .,. . .. . . . . . .. . .- .’.
Where highly corrosive environments are identified such as higtiy acidic groundwaters,
sulphuric ground or rapidly flowing oxygenated groundwater, protection may be best
achieved using concrete resistant to carbonation attack. In addition, a protective cover
to the reinforcement or protection with a sleeve of a non corrosive or sacrificial material
may be considered.
Crack control steel, where not required to prevent thermal cracking (See Section 5.4.6)
I
appears to be merely cosmetic in its,function producing a crming of tight, closely spaced
cracks not visible except on close inspection. The tightness of the cracks may also
inhibit the leakage of unsightly rust stains onto the concrete surface. Such
considerations are rarely of significance in foundation design.
Reinforced concrete columns in air under compressive loading are required by BS 8110
and BS 5400 Pt 4 to contain nominal reinforcement even when design loads indicate no
reinforcement requirement. Nominal reinforcement takes the form of minimum numbers
and diameters of longitudiml and transverse bars with maximum allowable spacings (see
Table 3.1.1).
The requirements for the provision of nomiml reinforcement are somewhat empirical but
appear to be based on the following.
I d)
earthquakes
I a) maintain longitudinal bars straight and in position until concrete has set
For filly embedded piles, most of the above are inapplicable. Fire is not an issue below
ground except in exceptioml circumstances (ie spontaneous combustion of domestic
waste or colliery spoil). Catastrophic shear failure of a pile is not generally critical to
the safety of a structure. Unforeseen lateral loads are rarely applicable to piles and
embedded columns rarely fail in buc~ing. Restrakt of the core of a column is
demonstrated in Appendix 3 to be of minor relevance in most situations.
Of the remaining reasons for providing nominal reinforcement, design for earthquake
I
valid argument for nominal reinforcement. It is interesting to note hat ACI report
543R-74 contains no requirements for nomiml reinforcement.
An economic pile design will ensure that the minimum reinforcement is provided to
resist the applied load and that this is curtailed as quictiy as possible.
For most piled foundation, maximum bending and shear forces will occur close to
ground level. Current understanding of shear failure suggests that shear links should be
provided wherever the applied shear stress is greater than about half the design shear
strength of the concrete. Clarke and Birjandi (1993) has suggested that the full concrete
strength ‘may be allowed: however further research is required before this is adopted.
hngitudinal steel to resist bending and lateral loads should be continued until no tensile
stresses are present in the concrete section. This may most easily be done by resolving
the applied bending moment at any section into the applied vertical load on the pile
acting at an eccentricity from the centre of the pile. If this eccentricity is less than 1/8
of the pile diameter, no tension can exist in the pile section and reinforcement may be
stopped. Sudden curtailment of all longitudinal steel may, however, encourage a
horizontal crack at that level. As given in ACI Report 543R-74, no more than two bars
should be stopped off at a particular depth and a lm overlap, say, should be provided
before curtailment of the next pair of bars.
The free standing length of a pile refers to any portion which projects above gr,ound
level and is therefore not subject to support and protection by the surrounding ground.
For the purposes of this report it is also taken to refer to the upper parts of piles which
are submerged under water, for instance jetty piles above the level of the sea bed.
Free standing lengths of piles are mentioned, for example, in BS 8004 (clauses 7.3.3.3
and 7.3. 3.4) and the American ACI Committee report 543.
BS 8004 requires that the upper part of the pile be designed as a column in accordance
with BS 8110 or CP114 and that the length over which this applies extends beneath
ground level down to the point of contraflexure. This is said to vary from between lm
below ground level in fim soil to approximately 3m in soft soil. CIWA Report 103
(Elson, 1984) is also referred to for design of laterally loaded piles and free standing
lengths.
The ACI code gives a simple formula for reducing allowable design loads for a laterally
supported pile to account for the free standing section.
Sensibly, both the above consider the pile to behave as an unsupported COIU ody
above the point of f~ity of the pile. Where complex soil interaction analysis models are
26
not applicable to a particular pile design and the soil profile is simple, the point of fixity
can be determined from a formula relating pile stiffness to pile head fixity and modulus
of subgrade reaction (k) in a similar manner to the ACI code (see Appendix 4). If
typical k values are given, these should be conservative to efiure no accidental
overstressing of the pile.
Piled retaining walls in many ways form a hybrid structure between a superstructure and
a foundation. They also have many aspects unique to themselves. For the purposes of
this report it has been convenient to divide the wall into two parts:
i) the lower part of the wall, fully embedded below ground level
ii) the upper part projecting upwards from the base of the retained
section
fich of the key issues discussed above for fully embedded piles are considered below
for a piled retaining wall bearing in mind the dual mture of the wall.
For the fully embedded portion of the wall, the comments in Section 5.2.1 regarding
concrete strength and stiffness above may be applied to piled retaining walls.
The upper part of the wall in many ways is affected similarly to the lower part, but
concrete strength and stiffness is generally governed by requirements to limit deflections
of the wall or to resist prop forces. Adjustments to steel quantities due to changes in
concrete design are therefore usually insignificant when compared to the overall design
requirements. ..
Bending on a piled retaining wall is usually largely generated by lateral forces from the
retained soil. The interaction between the structure and the soil is therefore more critical
than when designing fully embedded axially loaded piles. Steel quantities required to
resist bending will be governed by the assumptions made for soil parameters, the
analysis method and the soil/structure interaction model used for the design. These
issues are covered elsewhere. However, recent experience on the Jubilee Line extension
suggests that many designers are overly conservative in their design requirements,
requiring at rest earth pressures to be considered for reinforcement design.
Designers are, rightly, asking for reinforcement to resist long term serviceability loads
which in many cases are the most critical for retaining walls. Consideration must be
given, however, to the response of the soil to wall moments. It can be envisaged that in
27
~“-””’’””” ~‘“““””
““
“- ““““““
stiff, overconsolidated s~>il,earth pressures in the long term may return to their at rest
~) values due to softening, swelling and creep of the clay. For granular soils,
however, K conditions are urdikely to re-establish themselves since ordy a small
movement of the wall will return earth pressures to the active (K) case. In this case, the
use of a partial safety factor on the friction angle of the soil may be sufficient to account
for any uncertainty in the long term L value. Other soils such as soft clays or silts may
have long term pressures intermediate between K and h conditions. The choice of
value used will have a significant effect on the required steel reinforcement.
Similar comments to the above relate to design for shear in piled retaining walls.
Comments given in Section 5.2.4 also apply. The upper part of the retaining wall may,
however, be subject to some cyclic loading such as thermal effects, impact and braking
forces etc. The additional extra capacity requirements of BS 5400 may, therefore, be
applicable. In ce~in cases, however, where the shear force is distributed along the
wall, as a result, for instince, of earth pressure rather than prop forces, concrete has an
increased shear capacity, as demonstrated by Clarke and Birjandi(1993). This suggests
that, for these cases, the increased safety factor of 1.15 in BS 5400 is perhaps
unnecessary. Further researchs needed to provide firm data for development of design
procedures.
Buckling is important ordy when a retaining wall is subjected to an axial load such as in
I
I
a bridge abutment. mere this is the case, the upper part of the wall should be treated
as a column in air and designed in accordance with BS 5400 Part 4. The lower portion
may be considered as a fully embedded pile.
Comments in Section 5.2.6 on themal cracking apply equally to piled retaining walls.
The consequence, however, of a hotiontal crack in the piles may be much more serious
due to the high lateral forces to be resisted. No recorded instance of failure of a wall
due to thermal cracking has, however, been identified. This may be due to the general
practice of overdesigning such piles as if they were columns in air even below ground
level.
Further research is needed into the formation of these cracks below ground, their depth,
location and conditions under which they fem. Until the completion of such research it
is difficult to provide guidance on the correct design approach to shear in these walls.
However, due to the large lateral forces to be resisted by these piles, checks using piles
of various lengths to simulate cracks at different depths using a ftite element or other
soil/structure interaction model appears to be the ody sensible method of ensuring a safe
design for this condition. Alternatively the full requirements of BD 28/87 “~ly
Thermal Cracking” (DM~ 1.3.2) maybe employed.
28
5.4.7 Corrosion and bbtiity
The discussion on corrosion and durability in Section 5.2.7 applies equally to piled
retaining walls. There are, however, significant differences in the geometry of a
retaining wall which directly tiuence the rate of corrosion. Principal among these are
the exposure of one or both faces of the upper part of the wall to oxygen and the seepage
of water around the wall system.
Oxygen can access either side of the retaining wall depending on the design of the
drainage system behind the wall and the facing units in front. Conditions may therefore
exist which allow the onset of corrosion once cracking has occurred. Corrosion can ordy
continue, however, if deposited solids at the anodic and cathodic regions are removed or
prevented from forming. This may most easily be envisaged where deflection of the pile
results in a crack parallel to longitudinal reinforcement or where thermal effects result in
cracks along transverse reinforcement. Under these conditions, sufficient area of
reinforcement may be exposed to prevent chemical deposits from the corrosion process
from inhibiting further corrosion. Sufficient water may also be able to penetrate and
pond within the crack to aid the corrosion process.
Seepage of water around the retaining wall may also provide a ready source of oxygen
and carbon dioxide for corrosion. The flow of water may also be sufficient to prevent
the build up of a protective layer. Conditions can therefore exist which would allow
corrosion to continue.
It has been demonstrated that the width of a crack perpendicular to reinforcement has
little effect on the rate of corrosion. The major factors appear to be the corrosivity of
the environment, the flexure of the pile, the resistance of the concrete to carbomtion and
the cover to the reinforcement. In the absence of alternative design methods for
controlling corrosion, it may be prudent to follow the recornmendatiom of Beeby (1978)
and to provide;
For the purposes of nomiml reinforcement it would seem sensible to follow existing
codes for the upper portion of the pile wall but take account of the comments in Section
5.2.8 above for the fully embedded portion.
The comments regarding curtaihnent given in Section 5.2.9 for fully embedded piles
apply equally to piled retiining walls except the distribution of forces will be modified
by the geometry, strutting etc.
29
. . . . . .. . . . . . . .-. . ... . .. .. ., ... . .
This study has provided a review of the fundamentals of pile reinforcement design. It
has also reviewed design and construction practice and the relationship of these to design
code requirements. Conclusions have been drawn regarding reinforcement design which
are now summarised. Recommendations are given later in this section for amendments
to codes and areas requiring further study.
6.1 summary
Many factors over the years have contributed to an increase in steel reinforcement for
bridge foundations and pile retaining walls. Such factors include:-
ii) The increased use of computer design sotiare for modelling structural systems
leading to higher design forces on foundations.
iii) An increased concern for corrosion of reinforcement leading to the use of crack
control steel.
iv) Increased use of quality assurance and checking procedures and increasing fear of
litigation.
Ody (i) above, however, provides a sensible argument for increasing the quantities of
steel reinforcement. It has also been shown that existing W design codes do not
provide an adequate or coherent method of design for many aspects of pile
reinforcement.
For a design method to approach reality, a computer analysis is required which models
both the pile and the soil reactions. Such analyses may use p-y curves or ftite elements
or, where applicable, elastic continuum or non-linear spring models. Except where the
ground is sufficiently soft that buctiing is a possible failure mechanism, nomiml
reinforcement need not be provided except where it is needed for stability during
insertion of the reinforcing cage. Where buctiing is important, nominal reinforcement
may be required.
30
Design for shear in a fully embedded pile should similarly take account of the supporting
effect of the ground and tie distributed loading effects. Some concrete strength should
therefore be allowed when determining shear reinforcement and providing some
redundancy exists in the design layout of the piles, no additioml shear capacity need be
catered for in the provisions of reinforcement. Except where the pile acts as a column in
air or in the upper exposed parts of retaining walls, nomiml shear reinforcement need
not be applied to pile design.
The effects of early thermal cracking should be considered particularly for laterally
loaded piles. In these si~ations, reinforcement should be provided for a sufficient
length to ensure that the pile performs satisfactorily under ultimate and limit state
conditions. It is considered adequate to cu~il this reinforcement at the point at which
the applied horizontal stresses equal the bearing capacity of the soil calculated using
factored shear strength parameters. ..
In contrast to filly embedded piles, free standing lengths of piles and the exposed
portions of pile retaining walls approximate in varying degrees to structural columns.
Design according to structural codes BS 5400 Pt 4 and BS 8110 is therefore generally
applicable. Reductions in reinforcement quantities may still be made by ignoring crack
width requirements in relation to corrosion and exposure conditions. As previously
mentioned, these have little effect on durability.
Below the point of fixity the pile may be treated as fully embedded for the design of
reinforcement.
6.2 Recommendations
The results of this study suggest that there is a need to provide clearer guidance on the
design and specification of reinforcement in piles. General comments are made on the
use of British Standard BS 8004 with suggestions for updating or clari~ing certain
31
. .,, ,. ,. ... ---- .
areas. Detailed amendments are also suggested for the BD 32/88 (DMRB 2.1) and BA
25/88 (DMRB 2.1) which deal specifically with piled foundations.
BS 8004:1986 Foundations
From consideration of the comments made in Section 3.1 there appear to be a number of
areas where BS 8004 could be amended to provide clearer and more complete guidance
on pile reinforcement. In particular, better guidance could be provided on the.
following:
iii) Minimum concrete strengths. (Those given in BS 8004 do not appear compatible
with BS 8110 or BS 5400).
After clause 3.1 (a) of BD32/88 insert “with the following modifications”, (Then insert
the following:)
A. General
ii) Reinforcement of concrete piles need ody be provided where tension exists
in the concrete section. Where tension is generated by lateral loadings or
applied moments, the moment within the pile may be resolved into the axial
load on the pile acting at an eccentrici~. Where the eccentricity of loading
is less than 1/8 of the diameter of the pile, no tension exisfi in the section
and no reinforcement need be provided.
32
Nomiml reinforcement is not required other than for the purposes of
ensuring a rigid cage during handling and insertion.
iv) Design charts such as those inCP110 parts 2 and 3 may be used for design
of symmetrically reinforced rectangular or circular sections subject to
bending moments with appropriate modifications for the value of y..
Alternatively the methods for short columns given in BD 44/90 (DMRB
3.4.4) may be used to calculate reinforcement requirements.
v) Design for shear in piles should follow the recommendations for shear in
columns given in BD 44/90 (DMRB 3.4.4).
vi) Buctiing of a pile need ordy be considered where L/l’ < l/(2)’h where L is
the length of pile in soft soil and 1’ is the length of half sine wave deflection
of the pile generated by the buctiing load and described in BA 25/88*.
Where buc~ing is a consideration, provision of additioml links may be
calculated as follows.
vii) Where piles are subjected to lateral forces, a check should be made on the
possible effects of a horhontal crack at depth. In the absence of more
sophisticated modelling tec~ques, longitudinal reinforcement should be
provided at least to a depth at which the bearing capacity of the surrounding
ground exceeds the lateral applied stresses. Factored soil shear parameters
should be used in the bearing capacity calculation.
viii) Except where otherwise indicated by the site investigation, fully embedded
piles below a depth of about lm may be considered to be within a non
aggressive environment with respect to steel reinforcement. Examples of
where corrosive underground environments may exist are given in BA
25188*.
i) The free standing length of pile shall be taken as that section of pile
extending above the point of fmity. The point of fmity may be determined
in accordance with the procedures set out in BA 25/88*.
ii) Except for the modification provided for in (iii) below, structural design of
free standing concrete piles shall be designed as columns in accordance with
BS 5400 pt 4.
33
., -.. . . ,, . ..- .... . . . . .. . . . . ... . -., .. . .
iii) Except where requirements other than the control of corrosion dictate,
reinforcement solely for controlling crack widths need not be provided.
Pile retaining walls should be designed as free standing piles over their
retained height down to the point of f~ity as given in B(i). Below this level
piles should be designed as fully embedded.
Durability of the fill length of the pile should be carefully considered taking
account of any likelihood of seepages being set up around the pile system.
Provided the ptie is embedded in clay soils, seepage is likely to be slow and
corrosion of steel insignificant. For granular soils however, seepage may be
rapid and the corrosive environment may approach severe conditions.
iii) Where shear forces are distributed along the pile length rather than
concentrated at a point, the allowable shear strength of the pile may be
increased by 15% above that provided for in BS 54~ Pt 4.
iv) BucHing of the upper part of the pile is accommodated within the overall
design of the pile. The lower, fully embedded portion of the pile should be
checked as for B(iii).
During this study it has become clear that certain aspects of the behaviour of embedded
piles require further investigation. These are identified below.
ii) The distribution of shear forces along the length of a filly or partially
embedded pile or retaining wall and the effect of the ground in modifying the
failure mode of the pile.
iii) The effect of computer aided design of concrete structures and foundations on
I iv)
calculated design forces and the relevance of existing partial load and material
factors for these design cases.
34
It is also clear that although this study deals specifically with piles and therefore piled
retaining walls, many of the issues raised relate equally to diaphragm wall and basement
constructions. It would be useful, therefore, to extend the scope of this study to include
these structures.
35
. ,,.. .. . . .. . . .... .... . . . . ...
7.0 ACKNOWDG~S
The work described in this report forms part of the research programme of the Civil
Engineering Resource Centieat TW. The Project Officer at TWwas MrPDarley and
the work is published by permission of the Chief Executive.
Grateful thanks are due to all the various contributors and respondents who significantly
helped with the production of this report. Particular thanks go to Dr W G K Fleming
and Mr R Fernie (Cementation Piling & Foundations), Mr W P Raies (Trafalgar House
Technology), Mr C Raison Keller Foundations), Mr D Beadman @achy Group), Mr
J Barr (Rendel Geotectics), Mr A Powderharn and Mr J Robb (Mott MacDonald Ltd)
and Mr D Nicholson (Ove Amp & Partners). Thanks are also due to the respective
companies of the above for cooperation in providing resources for this project.
8.0 ~cEs
BANERJEE, PJ and DAVIES TG. Amlysis of pile groups embedded in Gibson soil.
Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Fnd. Eng., Vol. 1, Tokyo 1977.
BEEBY, AW. Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete and its relation to cracking.
The Structural Engineer, Vol. 56A, No. 3, 1978.
BOOTH, GH, COOPER AW, COOPER PM, and WAKERLEY DS. Criteria of soil
aggressiveness towards buried metals. British Corrosion Journal, Vol. 2, 1967.
BROMS, B. The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J. Soil Mech. Div.
ASCE, V89, No. SM2, 1964a.
BROMS, B. The lateral resistance of piles in cohesiodess soils. J. Soil Mech. Div.
ASCE, V90, No. SM3, 1964b.
BURLAND, JB, POTTS DM, and WANH NM. The overall stability of free and
propped embedded cantilever retaining walls. Ground Engineering 1981.
CAQUOT, A. and KEWSEL, J. Tables for the calculation of passive pressure, active
pressure and the learning capacity of foundations. Gauthier, Villay, Paris 1948.
CIWA Report 63. Ratiomlisation of safety and serviceability factors in structural codes
1977.
CIWA Report 91. Early-age thermal crack control in concrete. Harrison TA. 1981.
CIWA Report 103. Design of Laterally baded Piles. Elson WK. 1985,
CIWA Technical Note 14. An experimental investigation into the effects of shear and
tension on the flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams. bwnds P. and Pamell
FN 1971.
CIWA Technical Note 36. Elimination of Shrinkage and Thermal Cracking in a water
retaining structure, Hughes BP. 1971.
CIWA Tectical Note 109. The Performance of a piled bridge abutment at Newhaven.
Reddaway AL and Elson WK. 1982.
C &CA Technical Report 559. The Effects of autogenous healing upon the leakage of
water through cracks in concrete. Clear CA Cement and Concrete Association 1985.
I
DAVIDSON MT and ROBINSON KE. Bending and BucNing of Partially Embedded
Piles, Proc 6th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. and Found. Eng. Montreal V 2: 1965.
I
FLEMING, WGK and ENGLAND, MG. Some recent insights into Foundation
Behaviour. Ground Board of Inst. Civ. Eng. Informal Discussion, July 1993.
I
FLEMING, WELTMAN, RANDOLPH and ENON; Piling Engineering. Surrey
University Press 1985.
I
FRANCIS, AJ, SAVOURY NR, STEVENS LK, and TROLLOPE DH. The Behaviour
of Slender Point-Bearing Piles in Soft Soil. Proc. Univ. Hong Kong Golden Jubilee
Congress 1962.
I
GOURLEY, JT and BIENIAK DT. Diffusion of Ctioride into Reinforced Concrete
I
JOEN, PH and PARK R. Flexural Strength and Ductility Analysis of Spirally
Reinforced Prestressed Concrete piles. PCI Journal Aug. 1990.
I
KRAMER, SL and HEAVY EJ. Amlysis of laterally loaded piles with non-linear
bending behaviour. Trmsport Research Record 1169.
I Transport 1992.
II piles with particular reference to small diameter bored cast in situ piles. ICE
Conference, Behaviour of Piles, 1970.
I and CCA.
REESE, LC, COX WR and KOOP KD. Analysis of laterally haded Piles in Sand.
REESE, LC, COX WR and KOOP KD. Field Testing and Analysis of Laterally baded
WNDOLPH,
No. 21981.
MF. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading Geotec~que V31
.
ROWE, PW. Sheet pile walls in clay. Proc-Int. Civ. Eng. V7 1957.
SASTRY, WRN and MEYERHOF GG. Behaviour of flexible piles under inclined
loads. Can Geotech. J. V27 1990.
TOMLINSON, MJ. Pile Design and Construction Practice. First edition, Palladian
Publications 1977.
TRL Research Report 359. Design of Embedded retaining walls in stiff clay. Symons
I.F. Tranport Research hboratory 1992.
TRL Project Report 23. Behaviour of a propped contiguous bored pile wall in stiff clay
at Rayleight Weir. Darley P, Carder D. R. and Alderman G.H. Transport Research
Laboratory 1994.
TRL Project Report 113. Advice on integrity testing of piles Turner M.J. 1994.
Transport Research Record 1211. Concrete Bridge Design and Maintemnce : Steel
Corrosion in Concrete. Transport Research Board, Natioml Research Council 1989.
WATSON, GVR and CARDER, DR. Comparison of the measured and computed
performance of a propped bored pile retaining wall at Waltharnstow. Proc-Inst. Civ.
Eng. Geotech. Eng., V107, 127-133, 1994.
WOOD, JH and PHILLIPS, MH. hteral stiffness of Bridge Foundations : Load Tests
on Newmans Bridge. Structures Committee Road Research Unit. National Roads
Board. Report No. ST 87/2 1987.
1
I I I
r I
mm
I I I
II
Library
Searches
m I::octors’
“ I
Cenentatlon Pillng Qnd foundations
a
I I 1
, 1 I I I
Design
Issues
mmm
t J t I 1 J I I I I
Design Codes
~ Design Publications
The following ~ design reports were considered as part of this research study,
In addition to the above, the following draft design code was consulted:
British Standards
Due to the limited time period available for the study, the consultation was restricted to
three consultants and three contractors. The choice of each company was essentially
arbitrary but was intended to encompass a cross section of companies involved in pile
design.
The consultation involved a two stage process. Firstly the companies were approached
for their agreement to participate and then sent an initial questionnaire canvassing their
views. The questionnaire asked for general comments on past and current practices
employed by the company in its day to day pile design work. Following receipt of the
various replies to the questionnaire, all responses were compiled, summarised and
subsequently re-circulated to the respondents for further comments.
Consultants Contractors
P
_. = (n’ + ~ /n*)
PE
PE = n 2 EI/L2
L = Length of pile
ie Pcr = n 2 EI/le2
Then
and P. = (EIk)”
1’ is governed by the soil properties and maybe given by
2. Example
2.1 For a typical uniform soft soil of undrained shwr stren~th, Cu = 10kN/rn2
The modulus of elasticity E = 500x C. = 5000 kN/m , p = 0.4
and a 15m long, 0.5m diameter pile
\
. .. .. . .. .. . .
t
To prevent buc~ing of the bar, a lateral restraining force of 2.5% of the axial
load on the bar is required.
445/20 = 22m
= 0.625m
Above lm, flexure of tie pile may remove any lateral support to tie pile and
nomiml Ii* could tierefore be considered.
Appendix 4: Method of dctiation of depth to Wty of & standing
length of pfle
The structural length (L) of an unsupported pile is defined as the length between
points of fixity or between hinged ends. For a pile freed at some depth (L)
below ground level, the structural length would be equal to the length of pile
above ground (L) plus the depth (L).
m is the modulus of horbontal subgrade reaction for granular soils and normally
consolidated clays and silts. For clays this may be taken as 67 times the
undrained shear strength divided by the depth averaged over the top 3m or 5m (ie
it is the slope of the k vs depth plot for the upper layers of the soft soil).
a
.
Soil Type m