2 HOME» BACK CHa =—=—— CHS 2 __CH6 NS + CHAPTER 1 + CHAPTER 2 * CHAPTER 3 S+ CHAPTER 4 + CHAPTER 5 S+ CHAPTER 6 + CHAPTER T + CHAPTER 8 S+CHAPTER 9 + CHAPTER 10 CH2 2 CHS CHS . Piles Settlement Prediction 9.1 Introduction "The use of piles as settlement reducers had been discussed as early as 1977, at the Tokyo ISSMFE Conference. Randolph (1994) has drawn attention to the fact that the primary reason for the choice of a piled foundation is to reduce settlements. «Design calculation methods of pile foundation concentrate on the ultimate capacity. The settlement behaviour is given less consideration. "Although many buildings have failed as a result of overstressing the underlying soil, there are also cases in which excessive settlement may cause partial collapse of the building. * The most common occurrences due to excessive settlement are wall and floor cracks which, in some cases, lead to more severe problems. From this point the need to study and accurately estimate the settlement under the effect of different types of foundations is a must. + Despite being less in value than that of other types of foundations, there is a great need to accurately estimate pile settlement to determine whether the selection and the design of the foundation is satisfactory or not. + However in this case the magnitude of the total settlement is not as important as the amount of differential settlement between different parts of the structure, This appears clearly if a part of the structure is subjected to loads larger than that of other parts. Settlement of Deep Foundations . Settlement of deep foundations, when designed based on axial load capacity considerations, is typically less than 0.5 in «Pile groups may have larger settlements, but still within acceptable limits* Therefore, in practice engineers generally do not perform settlement analysis for deep foundations . However, settlement analysis may be necessary in certain special situations + Structure is specially sensitive to settlement + Soil is highly compressible * Structural engineers needs a “spring constant” to represent response of the foundation system «= Downdrag may cause extra settlement + Methods of estimating the settlement of single piles fall into three groups: I- Load transfer (t-z) methods 2- Elasticity-based methods Numerical methods such as the finite element or finite difference methods. . Settlement estimated from the results of load tests are general considered more accurate and reliable. 9.2 Settlement of single piles is rarely used to support a structure, the calculation of the required to give an approximate estimation for that Although a single p settlement of a single pi of a group of piles. Methods of main categories: ‘stimating the settlement of single piles can be divided into four I. Empirical methods Il. Load transfer methods IIL. Elastic analytical methods IV. Numerical methods +_ Settlement of single piles in the Egyptian Code. The Egyptian Code for design and practice of foundations divides the calculation of settlement for single piles into two cases according to the pile type and diameter.1- Single bored piles of diameter smaller than 60 cm and single driven piles 2- Single bored piles of diameter larger than 60 cm 1)_Single bored piles of diameter < 60 cm and single driven piles: For single bored piles of diameter < 60 cm and single driven piles, the Egyptian Code recommends the use of a semi-empirical method in which the overall settlement of a single pile is considered to be the sum of three components: 1. The ela compression of pile shaft (S,) 2. The settlement caused by load transferred at the pile tip (Spp) 3. The settlement caused by load transferred along the pile shaft (Sp,) The total settlement is then equal to: + Spp + Sps 1. The elastic compression of pile sha In which: Q;,= Bearing load at pile tip L Qy= Friction load tins Get ay Bebysfe P L=Pile length A= Pile cross-sectional area material Ep = Elastic modulus for pil af = Skin friction distribution coefficient Skin friction distribution Coefficient (af)/ 2- Settlement carsedby load pee the pile} rv a, 406 @,=05 / a1=05 Inshiets L ij @, Cy= Factor according to table 9. Q,= Bearing load at pile tip d = pile diameter = Ultimate end bggri y 4 = Ultimate end bearing eaagy Bearing stratum under pile“tip asghigyed to extend at least 10 pile diameters below tip and soil below tip is of comparable or higher stiffness. BM) lo ah Mal Byte = Hla Gy RAI Gb cand Baas Gy JN) US! Tb 9S of bys Si) 980 Up SUE ial Lage Cy eg al Lyte i al Gl al 9S gy Table 9.1 Values of Cb: ose to dense 0.02-0.04 0.09-0.18 sand Soft to stiff clay | 0.02-0.03 0.03-0.06 Loose todense | 9 93.9.95 0.09-0.12 4 Settlement caused by load transferred along the pile shaft (Sps): Inwhich: C,: Factor from the following relation: L, : Embedded pile length q+ Ultimate end bearing capacity 2- Single boredIn the case of single piles of diameter larger than 60 cm, the Egyptian code recommends the application of a graphical procedure in which the following graph is constructed: C= (093+016 |) fen Y) sat FOS 5s all jl yAll pias sey poet a gh Suan Ay 9 ed So ae af eal Mg yt oy Cpa ag ile le GAG 9) Ay Sci pf a) gl) gail) Ha jl Aaya 5 0 hte Ub 5 alg) Saag ag 8 . - ooo: ag gf) Lie 10 Ag Cpeuall capac Saal G56) yo Fy IAN de AS Jaa OKCI Mal gilt oytidiall aay OKCS Mall plaStualy spall iy ISU C gama Lagagll Lia! aa) LS ga + Methods of estimating the settlement of pile groups can be divided into the following main categories : 1- Methods which employ the concept of interaction factors and the principle of superposition (¢.g., Poulos & Davis, 1980); 2. Methods which involve the modification of a single pile load- settlement curve, to take account of group interaction effects; 3- The settlement ratio method, in which the settlement of a single pile at the average load level is multiplied by a group settlement ratio Ry which reflects the effects of group interaction; 4- The equivalent raft method, in which the pile group is represented by an equivalent raft acting at some characteristic depth along the piles;5- The equivalent pier method, in which the pile group is represented by a pier containing the piles and the soil between them. The pier is treated as a single pile of equivalent stiffness in order to compute the average settlement of the group; 6- Numerical methods such as the FEM and the finite difference method. While earlier work employed 2-D analyses, it is now common for full 3-D analyses to be employed (e.g., Katzenbach et al., 1998). + Settlement of pile groups is generally larger in value than that of a single pile due to overlap of zones of influence in soil in which the soil is stressed due to loads from the pile shaft and pile base. . It is well recognized that the settlement of a pile group can differ significantly from that of a single pile at the same average load level. However, the settlement of piled structures must be estimated on the basis of the group action of the piles, not on a single pile test. Pile group settlements can be treated in a similar manner to those of shallow foundations. ded into bvo.typ 2 Settlements can b 2- Consolidation sett] s nism as with shallow foundations Methods : ‘aisle vile prada ceee.Settlements caused by pile driving in sand The Egyptian Code calculates pile settlement of pi depending on the type of soil. groups by one two methods Settlement * Pile groups in coh: groupe ifcohesive group n coh 4\\ \ For pile groups in colesionless following relation: Nv N io / iM y gr cle recommen the use of the In which: b = pile group width, d =pile diameter, So = Single pile settlement estimated or determined from load tests. * Pile groups in cohesive and multi layered soi According to Egyptian Code, pile group settlements can be treated in a similar manner to those of shallow foundations. The pile group is considered to act as raft foundation having dimensions as that of the group. The friction load is considered to act at 2/3 the pile length measured from the pile head whereas the end bearing load acts at the pile tip. Settlement is then calculated in the same way as that of a shallow foundation. =S§ * 6 (Equivalent Mat Method} (iitagi 17 Footing Method):1- Replace group with a mat along the embedded pile length L; this depth is 2/3 of L for friction piles and L for end bearing piles 2- Distribute the load from the mat to the underlying soil by Boussinesq theory or the 60 degree method 3- Calculate settlement of soil layers below the mat by one-dimensional consolidation theory; any soil above the mat is assumed to be incompressible 4- Multiply the calculated settlement by 0.8 to account for the rigidity of the Figure (9-6) oe a Figures 9-7|(a), 9 Fi equivalent raft fol soil layer. The setHlt settlement equatic following equatio ar ( , land 9-7 (d) may be used to determine the location of the lation and to evaluate the résulting pressure increase in a int of each layer is then Calculated using the appropriate seifed in Section 9.3.2 for ‘cohesive and from the qliesiohiless Jayers: f a S=HY7 (1 /c) log (P+ AP)/P,] In which: 'S_ = Total layer settlement, (mm). H = Original thickness of layer, (mm). determined C’= Dimensionless bearing capacity index from Figure 9-1from average corrected'SPT N’ value, N , for layer with consideration A Po = e ur p layer prior WS oe Based upon average energy variation between SPT donut and safety hammers SPT N values from safety hammer and bearing capacity index. This modification should improve the accuracy of settlement estimates with this method Figure (9-8) Values of the Bearing Capacity Index, C’, for Granular Soil (modified after Cheney and Chassie, 1993)Figure (9-7-a) Figure (9-7-b)Figure (9-7-c) Figure (9-7-4) Pile groups in cohesive and multi layered soil according to Egyptian code: According to Egyptian Code, pile group settlements can be treated in a similar manner to those of shallow foundations. The pile group is considered to act as raft foundation having dimensions as that of the group. The friction load is considered to act at 2/3 the pile length measured from the pile head whereas the end bearing load acts at the pile tip. Settlement is then calculated in the same way as that of a shallow foundation. (Equivalent Mat Method) - (Imaginary Footing Method): 1- Replace group with a mat along the embedded pile length L; this depth is 2/3 of L for friction piles and L for end bearing piles 2- Distribute the load from the mat to the underlying soil by Boussinesq theory or the 60 degree method 3- Calculate settlement of soil layers below the mat by one-dimensional consolidation theory; any soil above the mat is assumed to be incompressible 4- Multiply the calculated settlement by 0.8 to account for tl group. rigidity of theFigure (4-9) The consolidation settlement of cohesive soil is usually computed on the basis of laboratory tests. The relationships of the compression index (C,) to void ratio e and pressure are shown in Figure (9-10) which is plotted from consolidation test results. For loadings less than the preconsolidation pressure (p,) settlement is computed using a value of the compression index representing recompression (Cor). For loadings greater than the preconsolidation pressure, settlement is computed using the compression index (C,). ‘Apilid Pressure = Pye Recompression Line _—fatiatgd Preceneoiiétion (Femesp ce, B, i 1 1 Void Yioin Compression Line Ratio, © 9 - 1 ! pe 1 Be Pe erp Log Pressure, p, Figure (10-9) Imaginary Footing Method Replace pile group with an imaginary footing; then use analysis methods used for settlement of shallow foundations and then add S, ™ Friction piles: place imaginary footing at two-thirds depth (0.67D) Mm End bearing piles: place imaginary footing at pile tip elevation (at D)@ ™ When both skin friction and end bearing resistance is available, place it somewhere in between 9.4 Time-dependency of piles settlement ‘Time-dependency of settlement (under constant loading) arises from: 1. Consolidation settlements (usually in clay or silty soils); 2, Settlements arising from creep of soil under constant loading. 1.Consolidation settlement: v For ideal elastic clay, the solution was obtained from an elastic boundary element analysis (Poulos, 1989). v For a single pile, the consolidation settlement is about 7 % of the total settlement. v As the number of piles increases, the proportion of consolidation settlement also increases. v However, even for the 16-pile group, the proportion of consolidation settlement is about 15 %, Figure (12-9) (After Poulos 1989). The pervious remarks could be attributed to the followin,» For single piles, settlement is attributed to shear deformation. Time-settlement is usually insignificant (single pile loading tests support this conclusion). > For pile groups, greater proportion of load carried by the pile bases. This results in soil volumetric deformation. > In general, the consolidation settlement is likely to be significant only if : 1. the group is relatively large; 2, there is a relatively deep layer of compressible soil influenced by the group. + The presence of soft compressible layers below the pile tips can result in increases in the settlement of a pile group, despite the fact that the settlement of a single pile may be largely unaffected by the compressible layers. + To emphasize the potential significance of compressible underlying layers, a simple problem has been analyzed, using the computer program DEFPIG (Poulos, 1990). It can be seen from the results of Fig. (13-9) that: 1- The larger the group (and therefore the width of the pile group), the greater is the effect of the underlying compressible layer on settlement. If the presence of such compressible layers is either not identified, or is ignored, the pile group settlements can be several times that for group bearing on a continuous stratumFigure (13-9) (After Poulos, 1990) 9.6 Differential settlement within pile groups There are two extreme assumptions for the analysis of pile group settlement: 1. The pile cap is perfectly rigid (differential settlement AS = 0.0); 2. The pile cap is flexible (differential settlement 4S #0.0). In reality, the situation is usually between these two extremes. Q1 For perfectly flexible pile caps, Randolph (1994a) has related the ratio of differential settlement 4S to the average group settlement, Say, to the @ aspect ratio R, where: Where f= 0.3 for center-to-midside, and 0.5 for center-to-corner. For perfectly rigid pile caps, Mayne & Poulos (1999) have developed a closed- form approximation, from which a rigidity correction factor, fg can be derived: The factor fg is then applied to the maximum differential settlement estimated from Equation (9.6.2).