Session 3

Calculation Models

EQU, UPL and HYD

Design of Pile Foundations

(Killiney Bay)
1
SLS and Settlement Calculations

(Dalkey Island)

2
 Summary of ULS Designs

Undrained Drained ULS

width (m) width (m) Design Width

DA1.C1 (1.32) (1.62)

DA1.C2 1.39 2.08 2.08
DA2 1.57 1.87 1.87
DA3 1.56 2.29 2.29

For this example

• Drained conditions give the larger design widths
Considering undrained and drained conditions (design width):
• DA1.C2 is larger than DA1.C1
• DA3 gives largest width for ULS (2.29m)
• DA2 gives smallest width for ULS (1.87m)
Considering just undrained conditions:
• DA2 gives the largest width for ULS (1.57m)
• DA1 gives smallest width for ULS 3
 SLS Design
• Is it always necessary to calculate the settlement to check the SLS?
• In SLS Application Rules, Eurocode 7 states that:
– For spread foundations on stiff and firm clays … calculations of vertical
displacements (settlements) should usually be undertaken
– For conventional structures founded on clays, the ratio of the bearing capacity
of the ground, at its initial undrained shear strength, to the applied
serviceability loading (OFSu) should be calculated … If this ratio is less than 3,
calculations of settlements should always be undertaken. If the ratio is less
than 2, the calculations should take account of non-linear stiffness effects in
the ground
• i.e. if OFSu < 3, one should calculate settlement
• If OFSu < 2, one should calculate settlement accounting for non-linear stiffness
• For undrained designs of foundations with permanent structural loads only
– DA1 give OFSu = 1.4 while DA2 and DA3 give OFSu = 1.89. Hence settlement
calculations are needed

4
 OFSu Ratios
ULS design OFSu using drained width ULS OFSu using undrained
(drained) = Ru,k / Vk = 0.833 B2 undrained width
width (m) width (m) = Ru,k / Vk = γF x γM/R
DA1 2.08 3.60 1.39 1.57
DA2 1.87 2.91 1.57 1.99
DA3 2.29 4.37 1.56 1.97

Calculating the undrained OFS ratio using the design width – i.e. the drained
design width:
OFSu = Ru,k / Vk = A’ ( (p + 2) cu,k bc sc ic + qc ) / Vc
= B2 x ( 5.14 x 200 x 1.0 x 1.2 x 1.0 + 20.0 x 0.8) / ( 900 + 600 )
= B2 x ( 1234.0 + 16.0 ) / 1500 = 0.833 B
In this example, using design (i.e. drained) widths:
• For DA1, OFSu = 3.60 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated
• For DA2, OFSu = 2.91 ( < 3 ) Settlement should be calculated
• For DA3, OFSu = 4.37 ( > 3 ) Settlement need not be calculated
But using the undrained widths OFSu values are all less than 2.0,
5
- much lower than value of 3 often used in traditional designs
 Settlement Calculations
• Components of settlement to consider on saturated soils:
– Undrained settlements (due to shear deformation with no volume change)
– Consolidation settlements
– Creep settlements
• The form of an equation to evaluate the total settlement of a foundation on
cohesive or non-cohesive soil using elasticity theory, referred to as the adjusted
elasticity method, is given in Annex F:
s = p B f / Em
where:
• Em = design value of the modulus of elasticity
• f = settlement coefficient
• p = bearing pressure
Assume Em = E’ = 1.5N = 1.5 x 40 = 60 MPa
• f = (1 – ν2) I where ν = 0.25 and I = 0.95 for square flexible uniformly loaded foundation
• Then f = (1 – 0.252) x 0.95 = 0.891
• p = (Gk + Qk)/B2 = (900 + 600) / B2 = 1500 / B2
Hence settlement:
• s = p B f / Em = (1500 / B2 ) x B x 0.891 x 1000 / 60000 = 22.28 / B mm
where B is in m 6
 Calculated Settlements

ULS design OFSu Settlement ( mm )

width (m) s = 22.28 / B

DA1 2.08 3.60 10.7

DA2 1.87 2.91 11.9

DA3 2.29 4.37 9.7

• In this example, using adjusted elasticity method and ULS design widths, the
calculated settlements, s for all the Design Approaches are less than 25 mm

• The SLS design requirement Ed ≤ Cd is fulfilled as for each DA, s < 25 mm

• Note words of caution in EN 1997-1:

Settlement calculations should not be regarded as accurate but as merely
providing an approximate indication”
7
 Conclusions

In the example considered:

• ULS design: For each Design Approach, the drained condition determines
the foundation width

• SLS design: The calculated settlements are less than the allowable
settlement of 25mm, so that the SLS condition is satisfied using the design
widths obtained using all the Design Approaches

• The ratio Ru,k / Vk for the ULS drained design widths is greater than 3 for DA1
and DA3 so settlement calculations are not required

8
Any Questions?

9
 Session 3a

Calculation Models

(Killiney Hill and Dalkey Island)

10
 Need for Calculation Models
• Equations: ULS Ed ≤ Rd SLS Ed ≤ Cd
• For a ULS, calculation models are generally not needed to determine Ed e.g. the design
load on a foundation is obtained by multiplying the characteristic applied load by the
partial factor:
Ed = Fd = γF Fk
• An exception is where the action is due to the soil, e.g. the earth pressure on a retaining
structure. In such situations a calculation model involving the soil strength as well as the
applied load is required to obtain the earth pressure
e.g. Fd = γF f{c’k, φ’ k, Fk}
• Calculation models are always required to determine the design resistance, Rd, e.g. the
bearing or sliding resistance of a spread foundation
• For an SLS, calculations are always required to determine Ed, e.g. the settlement of a
foundation
• Values of Cd, the limiting design value of the effect of an action, e.g. the maximum
allowable settlement, are provided and so no calculation model is required

11
 Calculation Models in Eurocode 7

• Since it was decided that the code text of Eurocode 7 should focus on
the principles and not be prescriptive, the calculation models have been
placed in the following informative Annexes
– Annex C: Samples procedures to determine limit values of earth
pressures on walls
– Annex D: A sample analytical method for bearing resistance
calculation
– Annex E: A sample semi-empirical method for bearing resistance
estimation
– Annex F: Sample methods for settlement evaluation
– Annex G: A sample method for determining presumed bearing
resistances for spread foundations on rock

12
Status of Calculation Models in Eurocode 7

• As the calculation models in Eurocode 7 are in Annexes, they

are optional, not mandatory
• Each country has to decide if:
– The calculation models in the Annexes are to be used in its
jurisdiction
– Or if alternative calculation models, more suited to its soil
conditions, climate and testing methods, are to be used
• However, if a design is carried out using an alternative
calculation rule it cannot claim to be fully in accordance with
Eurocode 7

13
 Annex C: Earth Pressures
• Two methods are provided to determine the earth pressures on walls
• The first method is a graphical method giving graphs of horizontal components of Ka
and Kp for different φ’ values, wall friction and slope angles, β of ground behind the
wall
• These are taken from BS 8002 (BSI 1994) and are based on work by Kerisel and
Absi (1990), e.g. Ka values in figure below:

14
 Analytical Earth Pressures
• Since graphical earth pressures require the visual selection of a value and since
numerical methods, such as finite element analyses, require analytical values of
the earth pressure, it was decided also to provide an analytical method to
determine the earth pressure
• Following general equation for Ka and Kp is provided based on the method of
characteristics with slip line fields
e = c’ Kc + q Kq + γ’ d Kγ
• Equations for the earth pressure factors Kc, Kq, and Kγ in Eurocode 7 are the
same as those in the Danish Code DS 415 (1984)
• Eurocode 7 equation is based on equations by Kötter (1903) in Berlin for the
stress on curved slip surfaces

15
 Annex D: Bearing Resistance Calculation

• Annex D provides equations for calculating the

bearing resistance of spread foundations for
undrained and drained conditions
• Bearing resistance acts over effective foundation
area A’, which in the case of eccentric loads is
defined as the reduced area of the foundation base
through the centroid of which the resulting loads act
• Factors are given for foundation base inclination (b),
shape (s) and load inclination (i), but not for
embedment depth (d)
• Factors based on equations in DIN 4017: Parts 1
and 2:1979
• Only difference is that DIN has Nb instead of 0.5Nγ
• Exact solutions for Nc and Nq factors were originally
derived by Prandtl (1920 and 1921) and published in
German 16
 Undrained Bearing Resistance

Undrained bearing resistance

R/A’ = (π + 2)cubcscic + q
where the dimensionless factors for:
– Inclination α of the foundation base bc = 1 – 2α / (π + 2)
– The shape of the foundation
sc = 1+ 0/2 (B’/L’) for a rectangular foundation
sc = 1.2 for a square or circular shape
– The inclination of the load, caused by a horizontal load H
1 2

H '
ic

(
1

)
A
cu

= + −

with H ≤ A’cu

17
 Drained Bearing Resistance
Drained bearing resistance
R/A’ = c' Ncbcscic + q 'Nqbqsqiq + 0.5γ'B 'Nγbγsγiγ
with the values of the dimensionless factors for:
– the bearing resistance:
Nq = eπ tanϕ' tan2(45 + φ'/2)
Nc = (Nq - 1) cot φ‘
Nγ = 2 (Nq- 1) tanφ', where δ ≥ φ'/2 (rough base)
– the inclination of the foundation base:
bc = bq - (1 - bq) / (Nc tanφ’ )
bq = bγ = (1 - α ⋅tanφ’)
– the shape of foundation:
sq = 1 + (B' / L' ) sinφ', for a rectangular shape
sq = 1 + sinφ', for a square or circular shape
sγ = 1 – 0,3 (B'/L‘ ), for a rectangular shape
sγ = 0,7, for a square or circular shape
sc = (sqNq -1)/(Nq - 1) for rectangular, square or circular shape 18
Characteristic and Factored Nc Values

120

100
Bearing resistance factor, Nc,
80

60
Nck
40

Nc,DA1.C2
Nc,DA2
20

0
20 25 30 35 40
o
Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, φ 'k ( )

19
Characteristic and Factored Nq Values

120

100

Bearing resistance factor, Nq 80

60
Nq,k
40

Nq,DA2
20
Nq,DA1.C2
0
20 25 30 35 40
o
Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, φ 'k ( )

20
Characteristic and Factored Nγ Values

120

Bearing resistance factors, Nc, Nq, Nγ 100

Nγ,k
80

60

Nγ,DA2
40

20
Nγ,DA1.C2
0
20 25 30 35 40
o
Characteristic angle of shearing resistance, φ'k ( )

21
 Comparison of Nγ Values
• Exact solutions are not available for Nγ
and a number of different equations have 120.0

been proposed: Nγ
Brinch Hansen
– Caquot and Kerisel (1953): 100.0
Salgado

Nγ = 2(Nq + 1) tan φ’ 80.0 Meyerhof

– Meyerhof (1963): Eurocode 7

Nγ = (Nq - 1) tan (1.4φ’) 60.0

Caquot & Kerisel

– Brinch Hansen (1970): 40.0

Nγ = 1.5 (Nq - 1) tan φ’

20.0

• Equation for Nγ adopted in Eurocode 7:

Nγ = 2 (Nq - 1) tan φ’ 0.0
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

• EC7 eqn. was obtained by Vesic (1973) Effective angle of shearing resistance, φ '

and adopted in Eurocode 7 as an

updating of Brinch Hansen’s eqn. on basis
of tests carried out Muhs (1973) in Berlin
• Recently Martin in Oxford has obtained
exact solutions for Nγ to which Salgado
(2008) has fitted the following eqn:
Nγ = (Nq - 1) tan (1.32 φ’)
ƒ Salgado’s eqn. is closest to
Brinch Hansen’s eqn. and
appears to indicate that the
Eurocode 7 equation for Ng may
be unconservative (i.e. unsafe)
22
 b, s and i factors

• The source of the b, s and i factors in Eurocode 7 are:

• For undrained conditions:
– The shape factor was proposed by Skempton (1951)
– The load inclination factor is an algebraic fit to an exact solution by Green
(1954)

• For drained conditions:

– The base inclination factors, b for drained conditions were proposed by
Brinch Hansen (1970)
– The shape factors are taken from DIN 4017. They are less conservative by
about 10 – 20% than the values proposed by de Beer (1970)
– The load inclination factors, i for drained conditions were proposed by
Vesic (1975)

23
 Bearing Resistance Estimation

• Annex F provides the following semi-empirical equation for estimating

the bearing resistance of a spread foundation from pressuremeter test
results:
R’ / A = σv0 + k p*le

– where k is the bearing resistance factor, and

– p*le is the net effective limit pressure from a pressuremeter test

• This equation is taken from the French rules, MELT 1993

• No values for the k factors are given in Eurocode 7

24
 Settlement Evaluation

• Annex F has 5 sections outlining the principles and methods for

evaluating the settlement of a foundation

• Section F.2, titled “Adjusted Elasticity Method”, states that the total
settlement of a foundation on cohesive or non-cohesive soil may
be evaluated using elasticity theory and an equation of the form:

s = ( p b f ) /Em

25
 Bearing Resistance for Foundations on Rock

• Annex G provides a sample method for

deriving presumed bearing resistance
for spread foundations on rock
• It has four figures, taken from BS 8004
(BSI, 1986), with contours of presumed
bearing resistance plotted against the
uniaxial strength of rock, qc on the
abscissa and discontinuity spacing, dc
on the ordinate
• Contours are plotted for four groups of
rock, ranging from Group 1 rocks,
defined as pure limestones and
carbonate sandstones of low porosity,
to Group 4 rocks, defined as
uncemented mudstones and shales 26
 Conclusions
• Eurocode 7 developed to provide the principles for geotechnical design
• Emphasises that knowledge of ground conditions and control of workmanship
have greater significance to fulfilling the fundamental requirements than applying
sophisticated calculation models
• Variety of calculation models used for geotechnical design in different countries
due to different soil types, climatic conditions and testing methods
• Calculations models are informative not mandatory and placed in Annexes
• Calculation models in Annexes from many sources, times and countries
• The various models in Eurocode 7 have been reviewed by many geotechnical
engineers during the 29 years since the first EC7 meeting
• They represent a synthesis of geotechnical knowledge, design practice and
experience
• Should provide a sound basis for harmonised geotechnical design in Europe using
Eurocode 7
27
Time for Discussion

Any questions

28
 Session 3b

EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit States

(Dalkey Island)

29
 EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit Sates

• All involve stability of structures subjected to forces with no or very

little soil or structural resistance
• Relevance of EQU for geotechnical and structural design a topic for
discussion at present
• UPL and HYD are only relevant for geotechnical designs and can be
very important
• Example of a design situation:

Fulcrum Beam

T
Tension pile

• For what ULS do you design the pile – EQU or GEO?

– For DA1 T = 0 !
30
 Section 10 – Hydraulic Failure

• Eurocode 7 is mainly concerned with GEO ULS failure modes

involving the strength of the ground and SLS involving soil
stiffness or compressibility e.g.
– Bearing resistance failure of spread foundations
– Failure by rotation of embedded retaining walls, and
– Excessive settlement of spread foundations
• Section 10 of Eurocode 7 is concerned with hydraulic failure
where the strength of the ground is not significant in providing
resistance and where failure is induced by excessive pore-water
pressures or seepage
• The hydraulic modes of failure include:
1. Failure by uplift (buoyancy)
2. Failure by heave
3. Failure by internal erosion
4. Failure by piping
31
 UPL and HYD Ultimate Limit States
• In Eurocode 7 the hydraulic failure ULSs are divided into UPL and HYD and
recommended partial factor values are provided for each

• A UPL ultimate limit state is “loss of equilibrium of a structure or the ground

due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions”
– A typical UPL situation is uplift of a deep basement due to hydrostatic
static groundwater pressure

• An HYD ultimate limit state is “hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in
the ground caused by hydraulic gradients”
– A typical HYD situation is heave of the base of a deep excavation due to
seepage around a retaining wall

• Since the strength of the ground is not significant in UPL or HYD situations,
only one set of recommended partial factors is provided for each of these
ULSs, not three Design Approaches as for GEO ULSs
32
 Hydraulic Failures
• Figures from EN 1997-1 showing Hydraulic Failures

Conditions that may cause Uplift Conditions that may cause heave

33
Conditions that may cause piping
 Stabilising Forces in UPL and HYD

• For both UPL and HYD ultimate limit states one needs to check there is not
loss of equilibrium with regard to stabilising and destabilising forces

• The stabilising force in UPL is mainly due to the self-weight of structure, but
some stabilising force is provided by the ground resistance on the side of
structure due to the strength of the ground

• HYD failure occurs when, due to the hydraulic gradient, the pore water
pressure at a point in the soil exceeds the total stress or the upward
seepage force on a column of soil exceeds the effective weight of the soil

• Stabilising force in HYD is provided entirely by the weight of the soil

• The strength of the ground is not considered to be involved at all in HYD in

resisting the force of the seeping water

34
 UPL Equilibrium Equation

UPL Equilibrium
One equation given:
Vdst;d ≤ Gstb;d + Rd 2.8
where:
Vdst;d = design vertical disturbing load
= Gdst;d (design perm. load) + Qdst;d (design var. load)
Gdst;d = b x udst;d (design uplift water pressure force)
Rd = Td (design wall friction force) 35
 HYD Equilibrium Equations
Hydraulic head Groundwater level at ground
surface
surface
∆h

Design effective soil weight, G'stb,d

Standpipe
d Design seepage force, Sdst,d

Design total vertical stress, σstb,d

Relevant soil
column
Design total pore water pressure, udst,d

• Two equations are given for HYD equilibrium

• First eqn: udst;d ≤ σstd;d 2.9a
(total stress eqn. - only equation in Eurocode 7 in terms of stress)

• Second eqn: Sdst;d ≤ G’stb;d 2.9b

(seepage force and submerged weight eqn.)
• i.e. (γw i Vol)d ≤ (γ’ Vol)d where i = ∆h / d
• (γw ∆h/d)d ≤ (γ’)d
• (γw ∆h)d ≤ (γ’d)d
∆udst;d ≤ σ’stb;d (effective stress eqn.) 36
∆udst;d = design seepage pore water pressure
 Recommended UPL and HYD Partial Factors
Partial factors UPL HYD
Actions, γF
γG;dst 1.0 1.35
γG;stb 0.9 0.9
γQ;dst33 1.5 1.5

Material properties, γM plus pile tensile

resistance and anchorage resistance
γφ’ 1.25 -

γc’ 1.25 -

γcu 1.4 -

γs;t’ 1.4 -

γa 1.4 -

Note:
• In UPL, a factor of 1.0 is recommended for destabilising permanent actions, e.g. uplift
water pressures. The required safety is thus obtained by factoring stabilising permanent
actions by 0.9 and the soil strength or resistance
• In HYD, no partial material factors are provided as no soil strength is involved 37
 Overall Factor of Safety (OFS) for Uplift

• Equation 2.8:
• Vdst;d ≤ Gstb;d + Rd

• For no Rd (i.e. soil resistance on side of buried structure ignored)

• γG;dst Vdst;k = γG;stb Gstb;k

• Overall factor of safety (OFS) = Gstb;k / Vdst;k = γG;dst / γG;stb

• Applying recommended partial factors

• γG;dst/γG;stb = 1.0/0.9 = 1.11

• Hence OFS = 1.11

38
 OFS against Heave using EC7 Equations

Groundwater level at ground

ydraulic surface
∆h
Potential head
Design effective soil weight,
Standpipe
G'stb;d
d Design seepage force, Sdst;d

Design total vertical stress, σstb;d

Relevant soil column
Design total pore water pressure, udst;d

Equation 2.9b Equation 2.9a

Sdst;d ≤ Gstb;d
γG;dst Sdst;k ≤ γG;stb G’stb;k
γG;dst γw i V ≤ γG;stb γ’ V
OFS(b) = Gstb;k / Sdst;k = γG;dst / γG;stb
= γ’/ (γwi) = ic/i = critical hydraulic
gradient / actual hydraulic gradient
OFS(b) = γdst/γstb = 1.35/0.9 = 1.5
udst;d ≤ σstb;d
γG;dstγwd + γG;dstγw∆h ≤ γG;stbγ'd + γG;stbγwd
OFS(a) = γG;dst / γG;stb = (γ’d + γwd) / (γw∆h + γwd)
= (ic + 1)/(i + 1) = 1.5
ic/i = 1.5 + 0.5/i
if i = 0.5 then ic/i = OFS(b) = 2.5
i.e. more cautious than using Eqn. 2.9b because
γwd occurs on both sides of equation and is
multiplied by different γF values
39
 Comment on HYD

• HYD ultimate limit states include internal erosion and piping as well as heave
• The OFS value traditionally used to avoid piping is often very much greater than
the 1.5 provided by the HYD partial factors; e.g. 4.0
• Hence, EN 1997-1 gives additional provisions to avoid the occurrence of internal
erosion or piping
• For internal erosion, it states that:
– Filter criteria shall be used to limit the danger of material transport by internal erosion
– Measures such as filter protection shall be applied at the free surface of the ground
– Alternatively, artificial sheets such as geotextiles may be used
– If the filter criteria are not satisfied, it shall be verified that the design value of the
hydraulic gradient is well below the critical hydraulic gradient at which soil particles
begin to move. ic value depends on the design conditions
• EN 1997-1 states that piping shall be prevented by providing sufficient resistance
against internal soil erosion through by providing:
- Sufficient safety against heave
- Sufficient stability of the surface layers 40
 Uplift Design Example
(Issued for Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode 7
in Dublin in 2005)
Design situation given:
- Long basement, 15m wide
- Sidewall thickness = 0.3m
Structural loading gk = 40kPa - Characteristic structural loading = 40 kPa
- Groundwater can rise to ground surface
- Soil is sand with φ’k = 35o, g = 20 kN/m3
- Concrete weight density = 24 kN/m3
5.0m R
G Base thickness, D requested
T Forces

U U = Uplift water pressure force = γw15 (5 + T)

G = Weight of basement plus structural load
15.0m
R = Resisting force from soil on side walls

A wide range of design values obtained for D = 0.42 – 0.85m

Why?
41
 Model for UPL Equilibrium Calculation

• Model Assumptions
– Include or ignore R ?
– R = Aτ = Aσh’tanφ’ = AKσv’tanδ’ where A = sidewall area

• What value for K?

– K is a function of φ’ and δ. Should K = K0 or Ka ?

• What value for wall friction δ?

– Is δ a function of φ’? Should δ = φ’ or 2/3φ’ ?

• How should partial factors be applied to obtain Rd?

– No UPL resistance factors are provided in EN 1997 to obtain Rd from Rk
– i.e. there is no UPL equivalent to DA2

• Could design according to EN 1997-1 and assume σh’ = Kaσv’

1) With Rk = AKa;kσv’tanδ’k apply partial factor γM to φ’k to obtain Ka;d
and δd as for DA1.C2 and hence get Rd (Clause 2.4.7.4(1))
2) Treat Rκ as a permanent stabilising vertical action and apply γG;stb to Rk
to obtain Rd (Clause 2.4.7.4(2))
42
 Determination of Design Value of Rd

• Assume K = Ka and is obtained from EN 1997-1 for δ = 2/3φ’

• 1) Clause 2.4.7.4(1): Apply partial factor γM to φ’k to obtain Ka;d and δd and hence Rd
• No factors applied: φ’k = 35o and δ = 2/3φ’ → Ka;k = 0.23
• δk = 2/3φ’k = 23.3o Rk = AKa;kσv’tanδk = 0.099Aσv’
• a) γM = 1.25 applied to obtain φ’d and δd by reducing φ’k and hence δk
• φ’d = 29.3o and δ = 2/3φ’ → Ka;d = 0.29
• δd = 2/3φ’d = 19.5o → Rd = AKa;dσv’tanδd = 0.103Aσv’
• Since R is a resistance, need Rd < Rk: Rd = (0.103/0.099)Rk Rd = 1.04 Rk – unsafe
b) γM applied to increase φ’k but to reduce δ
φ’d = 41.2o and δd = 19.0o δd/φ’d = 19.0/41.2 = 0.46 → Ka;d = 0.18
Rd = AKa;dσv’tanδd = 0.062Aσv’
Rd = (0.062/0.099)Rk Rd = 0.69 Rk – safe
• 2) Clause 2.4.7.4(2): Treat Rκ as a permanent stabilising vertical action and apply γG;stb to
Rk to obtain Rd
Rd = γG;stbRk Rd = 0.9 Rk – safe
43
 Comments on Uplift Design Example

Reasons for Range of Solutions Obtained for Uplift Design Example:

• Whether R Ignored or included

• Model chosen for R = A σh’ tanδ = A Kσv’ tanδ

– K = K0 or Ka
– δ = 0.5φ’ or (2/3)φ’

• How Rd is obtained
– Treated as a resistance or a stabilising action
– How partial factors are applied
– What partial factors are applied

44
 Heave Design Example
(Issued for Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode 7
in Dublin in 2005)
Design Situation
- 7m deep excavation
GWL - Sheet pile wall
7.0m - Pile penetration 3m below excavation
level
H=? Water - 1.0 m water in excavation
1.0m
- Weight density of sand = 20 kN/m3
Sand γ = 20kN/m3 3.0m Require H
- Height of GWL behind wall above
excavation level

A very wide range of design values obtained: H = 1.7 – 6.6m

Why?
45
Reasons for Range of Solutions to Heave Example

• Assumption Regarding PWP distribution around the wall (i.e. pwp at toe
of wall)
– Some used equation for pwp at toe from EAU Recommendations
– Some obtained pwp at toe from flownet
– Some assumed a linear dissipation of pwp around wall - this gives least
conservative designs

• Choice of Equilibrium Equation

– Some used Equation 2.9a with partial factors applied to total pwp and total
stress. This involves applying different partial factors to hydrostatic pwp on
either side of equation and gave an overall factor of safety that is 1.5d/∆h
greater than Equation 2.9b
– Most design solutions were based on Equation 2.9b – i.e. comparing seepage
force and effective soil weight

• Treatment of Seepage Force

– Some treated seepage force as a variable action
– Most considered it a permanent action
46
 Conclusions on EQU, UPL and HYD Ultimate
Limit States

• EQU, UPL and HYD are all ultimate limit states involving the equilibrium of
forces (actions) with little or no resistance forces
• EQU is rarely relevant for geotechnical designs
• EQU is being debated within the Eurocodes at present
• Uplift and heave ultimate limit states involving failure due to water pressures
and seepage are important in geotechnical design and are different from
geotechnical designs involving soil strength
• Need to clearly identify the stabilising and destabilising actions
• This is best achieved by working in terms of actions (forces) rather than
stresses
• Need to apply partial factors appropriately to get the design stabilising and
destabilising actions for both uplift and heave design situations
• Designs against uplift and heave failure are clarified using the equilibrium
equations and partial factors provided in Eurocode 7
47
 Discussion

Any Questions?

48
 Session 3c

Design of Pile
Foundations

(Killarney Waterfall)

49
 Scope

• Applies to end-bearing piles, friction piles, tension piles and

transversely loaded piles installed by driving, jacking, and by
screwing or boring with or without grouting

• Not to be applied directly to the design of piles that are intended to

act as settlement reducers

50
 Relevant CEN Standards

• Reference is made in Eurocode 7 to other CEN standards that are

relevant to the design of pile foundations
– Eurocode 3, Part 5: Design of steel Structures – Piling

(EN 1993-5)

– Execution standard – Execution of Special Geotechnical Works

• EN 12699:2000 – Displacement piles
• EN 12063:2000 - Sheet pile walls
• EN 1536:1999 - Bored Piles
• EN 14199:2005 - Micro-piles

51
 Limit State Checklist for Pile Design

Limit states to be considered Checked

Loss of overall stability
Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation

Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation

Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation

Structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or shear

Combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation

Combined failure in the ground and in the structure – Note change from handout

Excessive settlement

Excessive heave

Excessive lateral movement

Unacceptable vibrations

52
 Actions due to Ground Movements

• Effects on piles of ground movements due to consolidation, swelling,

adjacent loads, creeping soil, landslides, earthquakes are treated as actions
• Give rise to downdrag (negative skin friction), heave, stretching, transverse
loading and displacement
• Usually design values of strength and stiffness are upper values
• Two approaches
– Ground displacements considered as an action and an interaction
analysis carried out to determine the forces
– An upper bound force, which the ground could transmit to the pile, is
introduced as a design action
• Downdrag – An upper bound on a group of piles may be calculated from the
weight of surcharge causing the movement
• Transverse loading is normally evaluated by considering the interaction
between piles, treated as stiff or flexible beams, and the moving soil mass
53
 Pile Design Methods

• Static load tests – which have been demonstrated to be consistent

with other relevant experience

• Empirical or analytical calculation – whose validity has been

demonstrated by static tests in comparable situations

• Dynamic tests - whose validity has been demonstrated by static

tests in comparable situations

• Observed performance of a comparable foundation – provided this

approach is supported by the results of site investigations and
ground testing

54
 Design considerations

• Stiffness and strength of the structure connecting the piles

• Duration and variation in time of the loading when selecting the

calculation method and parameter values and in using load test
results

• Planned future changes in overburden or potential changes in the

ground water level

55
 Checklist for Selection of Pile Type

SELECTION OF PILE TYPE Checked

The ground and ground-water conditions, including the presence or

possibility of obstructions in the ground.
The stresses generated in the pile during installation
The possibility of preserving and checking the integrity of the pile being
installed
The effect of the method and sequence of pile installation on piles, which
have already been installed and on adjacent structures or services.

The tolerances within which the pile can be installed reliably

The deleterious effects of chemicals in the ground

The possibility of connecting different ground-water regimes

The handling and transportation of piles

56

Table 9 2
 Special Features of Pile Design to Eurocode 7

• Gives method of determining characteristic values directly from the

results of pile load tests or from ‘profiles of tests’ etc. using ξ values

• DA1 is a resistance factor approach

• DA3 not used for design from pile load tests

57
 Pile Load Tests

• Can be on TRIAL PILES or on WORKING PILES

• If one pile test is carried out, normally located in the most adverse
ground conditions

• Adequate time to ensure required strength of pile material and that

pore-water pressures have regained their initial values

58
 Axially Loaded Piles in Compression
• Equilibrium equation:
Fc;d < Rc;d
where:
Fc;d is the ULS design axial compression load
Fc;d is determined using partial factors applied to the characteristic loads relevant
to the DA being used
Self weight of pile should be included, along with downdrag, heave or
transverse loading, however the common practice of assuming that the
weight of the pile is balanced by that of the overburden allowing both to be
excluded from Fc;d and Rc;d is permitted, where appropriate
The pile weight may not cancel the weight of the overburden if
– a) downdrag is significant
– b) the soil is light
– c) the pile extends above the ground surface.

Rc;d is ULS design bearing resistance and is the sum of all the bearing
resistance components against axial loads, taking into account the effect of
any inclined or eccentric loads
59
Recommended
Partial Factor
Values

60
 Design of a Compression Pile
from Pile Load Tests

• Fc;d is calculated in the normal way with γF factors applied to applied

loads

• Rc;d must be determined from the measured pile resistance Rc;m

• Rc;m can be based on the total resistance or can be separated into

Rb;m (base) and Rs;m (shaft)

• DA3 not used for pile design from load tests

61
 Determination of Characteristic Resistance

• Characteristic resistance for DA1 & DA2

• Rc;k = Min {(Rc;m) mean /ξ1; (Rc;m) min /ξ2 }
• Characteristic values determined directly – not estimated

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 ≥5

ξ1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0

ξ2 1.4 1.2 1.05 1.0 1.0

Table A.9

62
 Note

• For structures which have sufficient stiffness to transfer loads from

‘weak’ to ‘strong’ piles, ξ may be divided by 1.1 provided it is not less
than 1.0

63
 Example 1
Pile Design from Pile Load Tests

Characteristic Loads
F
Gk= 1200 kN
Qk = 200 kN
Loose fill 2.0m

Pile Load Test Results

Glacial till
9.0m No of test = 2
CFA pile
600 mm diameter
Max Applied Load = 4000kN
(same on both piles)
Max load on base = 600kN

64
 DA1.C1
DA1.C1 (A1 + M1 + R1)

• Fc;d = 1.35*1200+1.5*200 = 1920 kN

Note weight of pile not included)

• Rc;m = 4000 kN for both

• Rc;k= lesser of 4000/1.3 or 4000/1.2 = 3077 kN

Use measured toe force to give shaft force from ratio of total load to base load
• Rb;k= (600 / 000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k / 1.0 = 462 / 1.10 + 2615 / 1.0 = 3035 kN

Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (3035kN)

DA1.C1 is satisfied. 65
 DA1.C2

DA1.C2 (A2 + M1 or M2 + R4)

• Fc;d = 1.0*1200+1.3*200 = 1460 kN

Note weight of pile not included

• Rb;k = 462 kN; Rs;k = 2615 kN as before for DA1.C1

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.45 + Rs;k / 1.3 = 462 / 1.45 + 2615 / 1.3 = 2615 kN

Fc;d (1460 kN) < Rc;d (2615kN)

DA1.C2 is satisfied

DA1.C1 and DA1.C2 are both satisfied, therefore DA1 is satisfied

66
 DA2
DA2 (A1 + M1 + R2)

• Fc;d = 1.35*1200+1.5*200 = 1920 kN

Note weight of pile not included

• Rc;m = 4000 kN for both

• Rc;k= lesser of 4000 / 1.3 or 4000 / 1.2 = 3077kN

Use measured toe force to give ratio
• Rb;k= (600 / 4000) Rc;k = 462 kN; Rs;k= 2615 kN as before

Rc;d = Rb;k / 1.1 + Rs;k/ 1.1 = 462 / 1.1 + 2615 / 1.1 = 2797 kN

Fc;d (1920 kN) < Rc;d (2797kN)

DA2 is satisfied
67
 Dynamic Pile Load Tests

• Provided an adequate site investigation has been carried out and

the method has been calibrated against static load tests on same
type of pile, of similar length and cross-section and in comparable
ground conditions

• Dynamic load tests may be used as an indicator of the consistency

of piles and to detect weak piles

68
 Design of a Compression Pile
from Ground Test results

• Fc;d is determined in the normal way by factoring the loads

• Rb;k and Rs;k or Rt;k must be determined from:

• ‘Number of profiles of tests’ and applying ξ factors
(different to values of ξ factors for design from pile load tests)
or
• an alternative procedure – see next slide

• Then as for design from pile load tests

Rb,d = Rb,k / γb and Rs,d = Rs,k / γs

where the γb , γb and γt values are given in Table A.6, A.7 and A.8
(same as for design from pile load tests)

69
 Alternative Procedure to Determine Rs,k and
Rb,k from Ground Strength Parameters
• Calculate the characteristic base resistance (qb;k) and shaft
resistances (qs;k) using characteristic values of ground parameters
[C7.6.2.3(8)] and hence:
Rb;k = Abqb;k and Rsk = Σqsi;kAsi
where
Ab = the nominal plan area of the base of the pile
Asi = the nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer i

• A Note in Eurocode 7 states: If this alternative procedure is applied,

the values of the partial factors γb and γs recommended in Annex A
may need to be corrected by a model factor larger than 1,0. The
value of the model factor may be set by the National annex
• In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is applied to γb and γs or γt when
using this approach
70
 Example 2
Pile Design using Ground Tests

Loose fill 2.0m

Glacial till
9.0m
CFA pile
600 mm diameter

71
 Pile Design from Ground Test Results

• The piles and ground conditions for this example are the same as those for
Example 1, where the pile design is based on pile load tests. It is required in this
example to verify that, on the basis of the ground properties, 600mm diameter
CFA piles will support the characteristic permanent and variable vertical loads of
1200kN and 200kN, respectively
• The cuk value for the very stiff glacial till increases linearly from 100kPa at 2m
depth (top of the till) to 600kPa at 11m (bottom of the pile). The properties of the
glacial till are γ = 22kN/m3, c‘k = 0, φs,k = 36o for shaft resistance and φb,k = 34o for
the base resistance (the reduction in φ' is to allow for the higher stress levels at
the base). The unit weights of the fill and concrete are 18kN/m3 and 24kN/m3,
respectively. The water table is at a depth of 2.0m, which coincides with the top
of the till

• As the characteristic values of the soil properties are given, the characteristic
resistances are to be determined using these values. In Ireland a model factor of
1.75 is applied to γb and γs or γt (γR values)
72
 Ground Parameters

• Only undrained conditions considered

• Assume
– qb = 9cu + σv0
– qs = α cu where α = 0.4

• WP (weight of pile) = π * 0.62 * 11.0 * 24.0 / 4 = 74.6 kN

73
 DA1

qb;k = (9cu + σv) = (9*600 + 2*18 + 9*22) = 5634 kPa

qs;k = αcu = 0.4*{(100 + 600)/2} = 140 kPa
Rb,k = Abqb,k = (π * 0.62 / 4) * 5634 = 1593 kN

Rs,k = ΣAsqs,k = (π * 0.6 * 9 * 140 = 2375 kN

DA1.C1: (A1+M1+R1)
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN
Rc;d = Rb,k /(1.0*1.75) + Rs,k /(1.0*1.75) = 910.3 + 1357.1 = 2267.4 kN OK

DA1.C2 (A2+(M1 or M2) +R4)

Fc;d = 1.0(1200 + 74.6) + 1.3*200 = 1534.6 kN
Rc;d = Rbk /(1.45*1.75) + Rsk /(1.3*1.75) = 700.2 + 1044.0 = 1744.2 kN OK

74
 DA2

• Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN

• Rb;k = 1593.0 kN ; Rs;k = 2375.0 kN as for DA1

• Rc;d = Rb;k /(1.1*1.75) + Rs;k /(1.1*1.75)

= 827.5 + 1233.8 = 2061.3 kN

• Fc;d < Rc;d (2020.7 < 2061.3) so inequality is satisfied for DA2

75
 DA3

• Fc;d as per DA1.C2 but partial factors on structural actions are 1.35
and 1.5

• Design value of resistance obtained by using γm (Table A4)

parameters on soil properties and in Ireland a model factor of 1.75 is
applied on γb and γs

76
 DA3
Fc;d = 1.35(1200 + 74.6) + 1.5*200 = 2020.7 kN
Note: increased partial factors compared with DA1:C2

qb;d = (9cu / γm + σv) = (9*600/(1.4*1.75) + 2*18 + 9*22) = 2438.1 kPa

qs;d = α cu / γm = 0.4*{(100/(1.4*1.75) + 600/(1.4*1.75))/2} = 57.1 kPa

Rb;d = Abqb;d = (π*0.62/4)*2438 = 689.4 kN

Rs;d = ΣAsqs;d = π*0.6*9*57.1 = 968.7 kN

Fc;d = 2020.7 kN
Rc;d = 689.4 + 968.7 = 1658.1 kN

Inequality Fc;d ≤ Rc;d Not satisfied

77
 Piles in Tension

• Design of piles in tension is same as the design of piles in compression

except a greater margin of safety required and there is no base resistance
Ft;d ≤ Rt;d
• Must consider
– Pull-out of piles from the ground mass
– Uplift of block of ground (or cone)

• Group effect shall consider reduction in vertical effective stress

• The severe adverse effect of cyclic loading and reversal of loading shall be
considered

78
 Design of a Pile from Tension Load Tests

• Extrapolation of the load-displacement curve from pile load tests should

not be used for tension tests

• Rt;d = Rt;k/γs;t

• Rt;k is determined from Rt;m using ξ values in same manner as for a

compression test

• ξ values from Table A.9 as before

• γs,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8

• Normally it should be specified that more than one pile should be tested,
or 2% if a large number of piles

79
Design of a Tension Pile from Ground Test Results

Established from pile load test and from comparable experience

• Rt;d = Rt;k/γs;t where Rt;k = Rs;k

• Rt;k obtained from:

– Rt;k = Min {(Rs;calc)mean / ξ3; (Rs;calc)min / ξ3}

– or using the alternative procedure from Rt;k = Σqsi;k Asi

• ξ values from Table A.10

• γs,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8

• In Ireland a model factor of 1.75 on γs,t from Tables A.6, A.7 & A.8 if
alternative procedure is adopted
80
 Discussion

Any Questions

81