See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269077538

Optimum Design of Pile Foundations

Conference Paper · January 2008

DOI: 10.4203/ccp.89.180

CITATIONS READS

2 3,196

3 authors:

Letsios Christos Nikos Lagaros

Hellenic Aerospace Industry SA National Technical University of Athens
2 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS    223 PUBLICATIONS   3,647 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Papadrakakis Manolis
National Technical University of Athens
341 PUBLICATIONS   6,325 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dean of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens View project

Geomiso View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nikos Lagaros on 15 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ©Civil-Comp Press, 2008
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
Paper 180 on Engineering Computational Technology,
M. Papadrakakis and B.H.V. Topping, (Editors),
Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, Scotland

Optimum Design of
Pile Foundations
Ch. Letsios, N.D. Lagaros and M. Papadrakakis
Institute of Structural Analysis & Seismic Research
National Technical University Athens, Greece

Abstract
Given the magnitude and the importance of piled foundations that support high-
performance structures such as bridges, high-rise buildings, power stations and
offshore platforms, it becomes a necessity to find the best pile foundation design in
terms of economy and performance. The foundation cost, for this type of structural
systems, can vary from 5% to 20% of the construction cost of the structure while the
number of piles required might exceed several thousands. In this study the
formulation of an optimization problem is proposed, aiming at achieving the most
economical (optimum) design of the pile foundation layout. Two different design
procedures are adopted to assess the performance of each candidate design obtained
during the optimization process and one real-world structure is considered for
testing the proposed formulation.

Keywords: pile foundation, design codes, optimization.

1 Introduction
The foundation of a structure is defined as that part of the structure in direct contact
with the ground, which transmits the load of the structure to the ground. There are a
number of types of plies [1], in this work bearing piles will be implemented. Bearing
piles are required where the soil at normal foundation level cannot support ordinary
pad, strip, or raft foundations or where structures are sited on deep filling which is
compressible and settling under its own weight. Piled foundations are a convenient
method of supporting structures built over water or where uplift loads must be
resisted. Inclined or raking piles are provided to resist lateral forces. Combinations
of vertical and horizontal loads are carried when piles are used to support retaining
walls, bridge piers and abutments, and machinery foundations. Pile-supported
structures are known to have existed in pre-historic times, and references to cedar
timber piles in Babylon can be found in the Bible. In the Middle Ages, pile

1
foundations supported a wide assortment of structures in Venice and in Holland.
Today, the main types of pile in general use are driven piles, driven and cast-in-
place piles, jacked piles, bored and cast-in-place piles and composite piles. The first
three of the above types are sometimes called displacement piles since the soil is
displaced as the pile is driven or jacked into the ground. In all forms of bored piles,
and in some forms of composite piles, the soil is first removed by boring a hole into
which concrete is placed or various types of precast concrete or other proprietary
units are inserted. The basic difference between displacement and non-displacement
piles requires a different approach to the problems of calculating carrying capacity.
Having decided that piling is necessary, the engineer must make a choice from a
variety of types and sizes. Usually, there is only one type of pile which is
satisfactory for any particular site conditions [2].
The foundation cost, of real world structural systems of increased scale, can vary
from 2% to 20% of the construction cost of the structure while the number of piles
required might exceed several thousands. In the first part of this study the modeling
of the soil-pile structure interaction using the finite element method is described
while in the second part a formulation of an optimization problem is proposed,
aiming at achieving the most economical (optimum) design of the pile foundation
layout. Two different design procedures are adopted to assess the performance of
each candidate design obtained during the optimization process. The German
Foundation Code DIN 4014 [3] and the Eurocode 7 (EC7) [4] design procedures.
Because of the nature of the problem, a mesh generator is used in order to create
automatically the finite element mesh both for pile members and soil. One real-
world structure is considered for testing the proposed formulation. A 31-storey
building is employed, for the comparative study and a significant reduction of the
pile foundation cost is achieved.

2 The Design Procedure

Two different design procedures are adopted in this work in order to assess the
performance of each candidate design obtained during the optimization process:
German Foundation Code DIN 4014 [3] and Eurocode 7 (EC7) [4] design
procedure. Both standards are analytically described in previous chapters. Both
standards are based mainly, on four pile design criteria: (i) Axial bearing Capacity,
(ii) Acceptable settlements, (iii) Strength of pile as a structural element and (iv)
Lateral bearing capacity and acceptable horizontal displacements. The equation used
to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile, according to DIN 4014 is
the following:

Qu=Qsu+Qpu (1)

where, Qu is the ultimate bearing resistance of the pile, Qsu is the skin friction
resistance load of the single pile, Qpu is the point resistance load of the single pile

Qsu = πDΣfsuΔz (2)

2
 Qpu = Apqpu (3)

and fsu is the ultimate skin friction resistance stress, qpu is the ultimate point
resistance stress, Ap is the pile base area, D is the pile shaft diameter, Δz is the
effective length of the pile. The total allowable compressive load:

Qall = Qu/FS (4)

where: FS=2, a Safety Factor according to DIN 1054 [5]. The ultimate bearing
capacity of a pile group is given by the equation:

Qu,g = N(Qpu+fQsu) (5)

where N = m×n is the number of piles of the group, m: number of pile rows, n is the
number of pile columns, f is reduction factor of the side friction resistance of the
single pile

f=1-(θ/90)(2-1/m-1/n) (6)

θ=arctan(D/s) (7)

where s is the axial distance between the piles.

In the case of Eurocode 7, the design value of the ultimate pile resistance is given
by the following equation:

Ru,d = Rpu,k/γpR + Rsu,k/γsR (8)

where γpR = 1.6 and γsR = 1.3. For an application of an axial loading Vk, the design
value of the action, would be Fd=1.0x0.8Vk+1.3x0.2Vk.
Design Constraints: 1) The pile diameter D: 0.80 ≤ D ≤ 2.20, 2) The axial
distance between the piles s: 2.5D ≤ s ≤ 6D, 3) The length of piles L: min{5.00m,
5D} ≤ L ≤ 40.00m, 4) The maximum settlement of the pile-head δx(max) = 2cm.

3 The Soil-Pile Model

The main scope of the present study is to develop a computer-automated
optimization procedure that will provide optimal pile-group design in a particular
soil type and for a given axial load (e.g. the weight of a structure). The optimal pile-
group design involved a compromise between the number of piles, their diameter,
their length and an optimal distance between them, corresponding to the most cost-
efficient foundation solution. In the past a number of studies have been published
where it is examined the finite element simulation [6-9]. For the numerical
simulation of this problem, with reduced computational effort 2 D plane-strain
analysis was performed.

3
 Sand and clay were the two main types of soil used for the simulations that were
carried out. For both soil types, four-node quadrilateral elements (Figure 1) were
used. These objects use a bilinear isoparametric formulation.

Figure 1: A soil model example of 60×40=2400 quad elements

For clays, an elastic–plastic material in which plasticity exhibits only in the

deviatoric stress – strain response was employed. The volumetric stress – strain
response is linear – elastic and is independent of the deviatoric response. This
material is implemented to simulate monotonic or cyclic response of materials
whose shear behavior is insensitive to the confinement change. Such materials
include, for example, organic soils or clay under fast (undrained) loading conditions.
During the application of gravity load (and static loads if any), material behavior
is linear elastic. In the subsequent dynamic (fast) loading phase(s), the stress – strain
response is elastic plastic. Plasticity is formulated based on the multi-surface (nested
surfaces) concept, with an associative flow rule. The yield surfaces are of the Von
Mises type.
For sands, an elastic-plastic material used for simulating the essential response
characteristics of pressure sensitive soil materials under general loading conditions,
was employed. Such characteristics include dilatancy (shear-induced volume
contraction or dilation) and non-flow liquefaction (cyclic mobility), typically
exhibited in sands or silts during monotonic or cyclic loading
During the application of gravity load (and static loads of any), material behavior
is linear elastic. In the subsequent dynamic (fast) loading phase(s), the stress – strain
response is elastic – plastic. Plasticity is formulated based on the multisurface
(nested surfaces) concept, with a non – associative flow rule to reproduce dilatancy
effect. The yield surfaces are of the Drucker – Prager type.
Fibre theory-based beam elements were used to simulate the reinforced concrete
(RC) pile – members.

4
 Figure 2: The pile-group supporting a superstructure of a given width

The exact type of element used for modeling a pile, is a two-dimensional

nonlinear Beam-Column element, which is based on the non-iterative (or iterative)
forced based formulation, and considers the spread of plasticity along the elemen1t
(Figure 2).
Spring elements were implemented in the model between piles and the
surrounding soil, in order to simulate the soil-pile interface. Without the use of
springs the soil and pile elements move together when subjected to any loading or
ground motion. Now, with the use of these springs a more realistic model is
achieved and the relative displacements between the soil and the structure and each
pile can be observed. This way, even the liquefaction phenomenon is captured, that
is the flow of liquefied soil around the piles causing differential settlements, which
in turn induce cracks and breaks in the structure above. T-z and Q-z springs were
used for the vertical components of the pile interface and P-y springs for the
horizontal components [10].

Figure 3: Boundary Constraints

5
 All the nodes of the ground base are fully constrained in both x (horizontal) and y
(vertical) directions, while the side boundaries are constrained in the x (horizontal)
direction (Figure 3).

4 Numerical Tests
4.1 Formulation of the optimization problem
In order to avoid a trial and error procedure and to obtain rational designs the
proposed methodology for pile foundation design an optimization problem is
formulated defined as follows:

min s∈F CIN (s)

where CIN (s) = Cpile (s) + Csteel (s) (9)
subject to g j (s) ≤ 0 j = 1,..., k

where s represents the design vector corresponding to the dimensions of the

columns’ cross-sections, F is the feasible region where all the constraint functions gj
are satisfied for the PBD formulations. The objective function considered is the
initial construction cost CIN. CIN(s) refers of the total initial construction cost for the
structure, while Cpile(s) and Csteel(s) refer of the total initial construction cost for the
piles their reinforcement respectively. The term initial cost of a new structure refers
to the cost during its construction stage. The initial cost is related to the material and
the labour cost for the construction of the building which includes concrete, steel
reinforcement, labour cost and the non-structural components cost. The design
variables of the optimization problem are the pile length (Lpile), the pile diameter (D)
and the number of piles (T).

4.2 Mesh Generation

Because of the nature of the problem, a mesh generator is required in order to create
a finite element mesh both for pile members and soil. This is because a different
number of piles is assigned to each candidate optimum design that is encountered
during the optimization procedure. For this reason, a mesh generator was developed,
that creates the two dimensional mesh automatically.
For a given superstructure of a particular width, Lstruct, a number of piles is
assigned beneath the superstructure. The length of each pile Lpile changes repeatedly
along with its diameter D and the number of piles until the optimization process
converges to an optimal design. This way, both horizontal and vertical dimensions
of the mesh, change for each new design.
The total width Lx (horizontal direction) of the mesh is given by the equation:

Lx=Lstruct+4*Lpile, Lpile≥ Lstruct (10)

6
 Lx=5*Lstruct, Lpile< Lstruct (11)
(i.e. for each side of the structure, the mesh is extended by two times the piles’
length) and the total height Ly (vertical direction) of the mesh is two times the piles’
length (see also Figure 4):
Ly=2*Lpile (12)

Figure 4: Mesh dimensions

Figure 5: pile-superstructure representation (8 piles)

Figure 6: Full mesh representation (8 piles)

7
 Figure 7: Solid representation (8 piles)

In Figures 5 to 7 the performance of the mesh generator is depicted when 8 piles are
assigned for the foundation of the structure in question.

Standard Design Cost (Euro)

DIN (optimization) D=1,50m, T=49, L=7,00m 244.264,00
EC7 (optimization) D=1,70m, T=49, L=8,00m 341.856,00
Designer D=0,90m, T=51, L=25,00m 366.907,00
Table 1: Comparison of the optimization vs standard design procedures

4.3 Case Studies

The test case considered is the 31-storey building of the Hyde Park Cavalry
Barracks in London. The building is of 90m height and its weight (including
imposed load but excluding wind load) was calculated to be 228MN. It was
estimated that at the end of construction 60% (0.60×228MN=136.80MN) of the
building load was carried by the piles and 40% by the underside of the raft.
The solution of the optimization problem desicibed in Eq. (9) is performed with
Evolutionary Algorithms [11]. The optimum designs that were achieved through the
two standards are described in Table 1 and they are compared in terms of the cost of
the foundation with the cost of the original design. As it can be seen the design
obtained through EC7 standard seems to be more conservative in this test case
compared to DIN. Thus the cost of the foundation corresponding to the EC7
optimum design is almost 7% less expensive compared to the original one while the
DIN design is almost 33% less expensive.

4.4 Piles Prices

The prices of piles were obtained by the “General Secretariat of Public Works” of
the “Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, Land Planning & Public Works”
(October 2007). The following table 2 includes bored cast-in-place pile prices for
three different categories of public works according to the total budget of the
project.

8
 The price of steel/kg is given to the table 2 above, because the reinforcement
cage’s price of the pile is calculated separately from the rest works of the piling
construction process. The prices mentioned above, do not include additional costs
like “VAT” which is 19% of the initial price, the “General Expenses + Contractor’s
Profit” at 18%, plus a possible “Cost Revision” of the project estimated usually at
3%. A possible contractor’s discount for the project, which usually varies from 10%
until 50% of the initial prices, was not also included for the final cost assessment.

Project Budget: C in EURO

5.000.000,00€≤C
C≤5.000.000,00€ C≥10.000.000,00€
C≤10.000.000,00€
Pile’s
Pile Price in €/m
Diameter (m)
0,60 78,00 73,00 70,00
0,80 89,00 84,00 80,00
1,00 107,00 104,00 100,00
1,20 144,00 137,00 130,00
1,50 185,00 175,00 165,00
1,80 200,00 190,00 180,00
*Intermediate values may be obtained by linear interpolation
Steel Price in €/kg
Steel S500s 0,95 0,90 0,85
Table 2: Bored Cast-in-place Pile Prices (in € per pile length (m))

5 Conclusions
Nowadays structural optimization is becoming a significant ingredient of the designs
procedure. In this work the problem of defining the best pile foundation is
formulated as an optimization problem with the aim at achieving the most
economical design of the pile foundation. The design variables considered are
related both to the dimensions and the number of the piles assigned to the
foundation. For this reason two real world problems have been considered as test
cases to implement the proposed formulation. The main findings of this thesis can be
summarized as follows:
ƒ There are cases that DIN standard can become more conservative compared to
the EC7 and others that EC7 becomes more severe.
ƒ Through the formulation of the optimization problem pile foundation designs
are achieved which are more economic compared to the foundation solutions
implemented in the original design. The benefit in terms of construction cost of
the optimum designs compared to original solutions varies from 7% to 33%.
Taking into account earthquake and wind loading along with the influence of the
superstructure can be a future work in this field of study

9
 Acknowledgement
The support of the “John Argyris International Centre for Computer Applications in
Engineering” is greatly acknowledged.

References
[1] Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design and Construction, 7th edn, Pearson
Education Ltd, Essex, 38-39, 2001
[2] Ulitskii, V.M., History of pile foundation engineering, Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 32(3), 35-58, 1995.
[3] DIN 4014. Bored piles; construction procedure, design and bearing behaviour.
Berlin: German code; 1990.
[4] Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules, (ΕΝ 1997-1), CEN
European Committee for standardization, Brussels.
[5] DIN 1054 Subsoil - Verification of the safety of earthworks and foundations.
Berlin: German code; 1990.
[6] Maki, T., Maekawa, K., Mutsuyoshi, H., RC pile-soil interaction analysis
using a 3D-finite element method with fibre theory-based beam elements,
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.; 35:1587–1607, 2006.
[7] Jeremic B., Yang Z., Numerical study of group effects for pile groups in
sands, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.; 27, 1255–1276, 2003.
[8] Jeremic B., Yang Z., (2002). Numerical analysis of pile behavior under lateral
loads in layered elastic plastic soils, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.; 26,
1385-1406, 2002.
[9] Chouzouris I., (2006). Static and Dynamic soil-pile foundation interaction
with the use of Finite Elements Method. Diplom Thesis, NTUA, Athens
Supervisor Papadrakakis M.
[10] Sherif K., Elgamal A., Modeling of the Humboldt-Bay Bridge, Cal Poly, San
Luis Obispo, UCSD, 2003.
[11] Lagaros, N.D., Papadrakakis, M., Kokossalakis, G., 2002. Structural
optimization using evolutionary algorithms, Computer & Structures, 80 (7-8),
571-587.

10

View publication stats