Kll/2

Predicting Forces and Margins of Safety of Pile Foundations

P.P. Christiano
Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA,

L-N. Levadoux
D’Appolonia S,AJl,L„ 35-41 rue Capitaine Guynemer, F-92090 Paris la Defense, Cedex 28, France

F. Henning
Tractionel, 31 rue de la Science, B-1040 Bruxelles, Belgium

SUMMARY
The prediction of forces and the associated margins of safety for foundations subjected to
combinations of dead loads and seismic excitation presents an important problem for nuclear
power plant structures. It is the purpose of this paper to:

o Describe a practical and sufficiently accurate method, using a linear analysis,

for determining the forces in individual piles within a group,

® Present a methodology for estimating the margin of safety of the pile group
against either sliding or overturning; the methodology takes into account the
interaction among axial load, shear force and bending moment, each of which may
attain different values i n each pile, and

© Illustrate the analytical approach as it applies to a particular reactor building

founded on more than 650 piles.

The margins of safety against shear failure and overturning of the entire foundation are
related to the load-carrying capacities of the piles acting as an aggregate; i.e., the
capacity of the system is governed by the combination of all individual pile capacities.
However, because the strength of a concrete member in combined compression and bending is
dependent on the combination of axial forces and bending moment, the capacity of an individual
pile in the presence of other piles (some of which may have already realized their capacity)
may be determined either by performing a complete nonlinear analysis or by invoking certain
assumptions regarding the loading history of each pile. The latter approach is employed
herein whereby, based on the results of the linear analysis described above, a conservative
load path ( o n the ultimate axial-load /bending-moment curve for reinforced concrete piles) is
established and is used to derive global margins of safety for the foundation against shear
failure and overturning.

— 259 —
1. Introduction
Evaluating the margin of safety for large groups of reinforced concrete piles poses a
difficult problem; indeed, a rigorous analysis is impracticable when considering time
dependent loading- Beyond the usual difficulties associated with determining internal forces
due to static and seismic loads in complex soil-structure systems, such as a reactor building
founded on a large number of piles, the problem is further complicated by one's inability to
know at the outset the theoretical ultimate resistance of the piles- More specifically,
because of the interdependence that exists among ultimate axial resistance, ultimate bending
moment, and ( t o a somewhat 'lesser extent) ultimate shear resistance, the load-carrying
capacity of a reinforced concrete pile may assume an infinite number of values, depending on
the relative magnitudes of the components of internal stress resultants -

If, i n an actual situation, one were assured that all piles would reach their capacity at
the same time (i-e., at the same stage of loading), then it would be appropriate to compare
the combinations of force components (say axial load and bending moment) related to the
applied load with the same combination of the components pertaining to the ultimate state,
where for both combinations the ratio of force components would be the same. The
"proportional-load" assumption is, of course, implied i n most rational designs that are based
on a single loading condition. However, where multiple loading conditions are to be
considered such that upon continual increase of the loads the capacities of different piles
are reached at different stages of loading, only a nonlinear approach will yield a
theoretically exact assessment of ultimate resistance.

For the type of situation considered herein, i n which combinations of static loads and
seismically induced loads exist, one may choose to treat the problem through either an "exact"
nonlinear analysis or an approximate linear analysis- The former approach, which is generally
considered impracticable, would include a time-step analysis i n which the nonlinear effects
created by different piles yielding at ' different times (as well as any other nonlinear
effects) are taken into account- A margin of safety could be determined on various bases, one
of which would require multiple analyses incorporating increasingly large acceleration levels
until overall failure is achieved, say by shearing or by overturning; a factor of safety might
then be defined as the ratio of the peak acceleration required for failure to the design-basis
acceleration.

In a linear analysis, the computations are greatly simplified and are far less expensive
than those for a nonlinear treatment. However, the above cited difficulties associated with
determining the ultimate capacity of the foundation then exist. Yet, because a linear
analysis is the only one practically feasible, it becomes essential to estimate the ultimate
capacity in a rational (and conservative) manner- I n the following paragraphs, an approach is
presented first for analyzing the interaction of a structure founded on piles and the
surrounding soil; it is followed by a description of the rational use of interrelationships
among force components in concrete members for determining the margin of safety for the
foundation.

— 260 — K 11/2
2. Method for Determining Forced and Moments In Piles
2 . 1 Illustrative Case Study
The method of analysis is, for the sake of illustration, described briefly as it applies
to a particular reactor building founded on reinforced concrete piles. The foundation shown
in Figure 1 , consists of an almost circular, three-meters- thick slab supported by 658 piles.
At the center of the foundation, a pit has been constructed at a level approximately eight
meters below the surrounding slab. Two types of reinforced concrete piles support the mat.
The majority of the piles (487 piles shown outside the shaded area i n Figure 1 ) are 66-
centimeters i n diameter, while those piles in the vicinity of the pit (171 piles shown in the
shaded area in Figure 1) have a 70™centimeter diameter and are more heavily reinforced- The
spacing between adjacent piles varies from 1,6 to 2.9 meters. The piles outside the pit are
18.4 meters long, whereas the short piles under the pit are 10.4 meters long.

The soil profile beneath the upper mat level comprises a 2 ,5-meter- thick layer of silty
clay, underlain by 2-0 meters of loose to medium dense sand, 4.8 meters of peaty clay, 35.1
meters of medium dense to very dense sand, and finally by 76 meters of stiff clay. The piles
are thus founded approximately nine meters into the lower sand layer.

2 .2 Analytical Model
Owing to the multiple layers comprising the soil profile and the presence of the
foundation pit, it was considered essential to establish a three-dimensional finite element
model to determine both the overall stiffness of the pile group and the distribution of
loading, laterally and with depth.

However, in order to keep the problem to a manageable size, the following simplifications
were made:

® The protrusion on the southeast side of the circular mat (see Figure 1) was
neglected and the piles beneath it were included in the main foundation,

* The pit was idealized as a n equal-area, circular pit, and

« The piles were lumped in groups of four and modelled by means of equivalent piles.
The total number of piles analyzed was, therefore, reduced by a factor of four.

2 .3 Analytical Procedure
A flow chart is shown i n Figure 2 , indicating the steps i n the analysis. These steps are
described briefly below:

2 .3. 1 Development of Artificial Time Histories

The seismic input was defined i n terms of artificial time histories of acceleration
whose response spectra match those specified by the USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 [ 1 ] for the
site SSE. For the particular site considered here, the horizontal record was scaled to a
maximum of 0.10 g and the vertical record to a maximum of 0-067 g and applied at a rock
outcrop, in the free-fleld, away from the reactor building.

— 261 — K 11/2
 2.3.2 Wave Propagation Analyses
The response of the subgrade to SSE excitation in the absence of both the piles and
the structure was determined by establishing a one-dimensional free-field analytical SHAKE [2]
model incorporating shear and dilational wave velocities obtained from field cross-hole and
down-hole measurements and relationships of both shear modulus and damping values with strain
that are typical of the site soils. The SSE acceleration time histories were input to the
base of the model to determine the accelerations throughout the depth.

2.3.3 Determination of Static Stiffness of Foundation

The static stiffness of the foundation was determined, using the computer code
SAP V [3], by subjecting the idealized mat-pile-soil system to unit forces and moments applied
to the top of the mat i n each of the three coordinate directions. The resulting six-by-six
flexibility matrix was then inverted to obtain the stiffness matrix for the global foundation.
In addition, influence coefficients were determined for relating the internal loads in each
pile to the loads applied at mat level. As mentioned previously, each of the lumped piles
uaed i n this analysis represented a group of four actual piles. To calibrate the stiffness
properties of the lumped piles, it was therefore necessary to conduct closed-form and
numerical analyses on a group of four actual piles prior to conducting the stiffness analysis
of the global foundation.

2.3.4 Computation of Foundation Impedance

The impedance matrix (dynamic stiffness matrix) was determined by correcting the
aforementioned static stiffness matrix for frequency dependence. This was done i n an
approximate manner by calculating the complex impedance matrix of the mat in the absence of
the piles, using a computer program based on work by Kausel [4] which treats a rigid
foundation bearing on the surface of a visco-elas tic, horizontally layered soil profile. The
correction coefficients, which provide equivalent damping as well as stiffness, were then
applied to the static stiffness matrix that accounted for the presence of the piles. The
slight effect of embedment was also included using the method of Johnson et al. [5].

2-3.5 Dynamic Analysis of Foundation

With the knowledge of the foundation impedance and the free-field SSE response at the
elevation of the mat, displacement time histories of the structure were found. This
structure-foundation interaction was determined through modal synthesis and a time-integration
scheme, in which both structural (hysteretic) and composite soil (radiation and hysteretic)
damping were taken into account, using the computer code DAPSYS [6].

The forces and bending moments that develop at the top of the piles as a result of
the structure-foundation interaction were computed by multiplying the foundation impedance
coefficients by the difference between the free-field response and the seismic response of the
structure. These interaction forces were then used as input to the finite element model for
the pile system to compute forces and moments over the lengths of the piles.

— 262 — K 11/2
 2.3.6 Dynamic Analysis of Single Pile in the F r e e F i e l d
The forces a n d moments r
incurred by the piles due to the passage of vertically
propagating shear and compresslonal waves were obtained by a p p l y i n g the free-field ground
motion obtained f r o m t h e SHAKE a n a l y s i s t o the vicinity of a f i n i t e element representation
(DAPSYS) f o r an I n d i v i d u a l pile. The c o m p l i a n c e of t h e s o i l was t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t u s i n g a
m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o m p u t e r c o d e DEFPIG [ 7 ] . T h u s , t h e computed p i l e s t r e s s e s are associated
w i t h t h e p a s s a g e of m o d i f i e d s e i s m i c waves through t h e p i l e s .

2.3.7 Combined P i l e S t r e s s e s
The s t r e s s e s incurred b y t h e p i l e s a r e t h e sum of t h o s e r e l a t e d t o t h e d e a d loads and
the structure-foundation interaction forces due t o wave p a s s a g e . Perhaps the only practical
way o f determining stresses d u e t o combined s t a t i c loading and seismic excitation in multiple
directions is t h a t s u g g e s t e d by H a l l e t a l . [8], This procedure requires t h a t 1 0 0 p e r c e n t of
t h e r e s p o n s e d u e t o one component o f e x c i t a t i o n b e combined w i t h 40 p e r c e n t of the response
d u e t o e a c h of t h e remaining two components of e x c i t a t i o n . The r e s u l t a n t seismic force is
t h e n combined w i t h a l l o t h e r l o a d s t h a t a c t on t h e s t r u c t u r e . Each component o f e x c i t a t i o n is
taken in turn as providing the primary (100 percent) m o t i o n and a n a l y s i s is b a s e d on t h e
e n v e l o p e of r e s u l t s . This procedure requires t h a t o n l y t h e p e a k r e s p o n s e f o r each component
of e x c i t a t i o n be used t o evaluate internal forces and moments* Typical results are shown in
Figure 3 .

2.3.8 Evaluation of Pile Strength

The u l t i m a t e b e n d i n g moment t h a t can b e d e v e l o p e d by a p i l e is a function of the
axial load acting on the p i l e . Similarly, t h e shearing resistance t h a t c a n be m o b i l i z e d a l s o
d e p e n d s on t h e axial force and o n t h e bending moment as w e l l . These relationships, which
follow t h e B e l g i a n and U n i t e d S t a t e s d e s i g n c o d e s [ 9 , 10 ] , may be r e p r e s e n t e d as follows. The
interaction between the ultimate axial compression (Nu ) and the ultimate moment (Mu ) may
be e x p r e s s e d most conveniently in g r a p h i c a l f o r m a s shown i n Figure 4 , where i t can be s e e n
that the maximum v a l u e of Nu is d e v e l o p e d when Mu equals zero. The maximum value o f Mu
is developed at a positive value of Nu , and M u d e c r e a s e s t o a l o w e r v a l u e when N Q e q u a l s
zero. If, as is usually the case i n typical design situations, the design values of axial
l o a d a n d bending moment a r e p r e s c r i b e d t h e n t h e d e s i g n e r i s required to choose a cross s e c t i o n
for the structural member whose u l t i m a t e capacity envelope lies above the d e s i g n p o i n t (Nd,
M(j) . Generally, the closer the point (Nd, M ) i s t o t h e envelope, t h e more e f f i c i e n t is
the d e s i g n .

However, the problem of determining the capacity of the piles, each of which
interacts with the other a s p a r t of t h e f o u n d a t i o n system, is considerably more c o m p l i c a t e d
than the foregoing approach. It should also be mentioned t h a t the s h e a r s t r e n g t h provided by
the concrete is a function of t h e axial f o r c e a n d bending moment; f o r the sake of brevity,
however, t h i s point i s not discussed further. The envelopes of u l t i m a t e capacity i n t e r m s of
axial- f o r c e / bending-moment were computed f o r the long and s h o r t piles, and are presented in
Figure 5. This figure also presents the initial dead load conditions f o r each p i l e , as well
a s the most critical level ( t h e b a s e of t h e m a t ) . The combined l o a d s remain w e l l i n s i d e the
ultimate capacity envelope for Quadrant I , although i n Quadrant I I ( n o t shown) a f e w p i l e s

“263 — K 11/2
reach' more t h a n 9 0 p e r c e n t of their capacities u n d e r SSE l o a d i n g conditions

The computed shear capacity and loading conditions of the piles are presented
schematically in Figure 6* The h i g h e s t shear forces w o u l d be e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e s h o r t piles
under the reactor building pit, whereby the most severely loaded pile In shear is at 97
percent of i t s capacity*

3• Design Fhylosophy and M a r g i n s o f S a f e t y

In assessing the safety of the structure-foundation system, it is necessary to establish
an a p p r o p r i a t e comparison between the forces that the piles must r e s i s t under the postulated
load combinations and the resistance which the piles are able to provide at the limit of
translational and rotational stability of the overall foundation* It Is noted a t the outset
that, owing t o the high redundancy of the pile foundation, the proximity of the load in the
single most severely stressed pile to the ultimate capacity of that pile is an erroneous
measure of the margin of safety of the foundation system against overall yielding* Rather,
should the magnitude of loading be increased beyond t h e p o s t u l a t e d values, yielding o f one or
more p i l e s would lead t o the additonal applied load being carried by piles whose capacity had
not y e t been realized. Accordingly, it is appropriate to establish margins of safety for the
foundation s y s t e m which account for the aggregate capacity of the p i l e s . Without conducting
a n analysis of progressive nonlinear failure, it is not possible t o establish a unique s e t of
ultimate a x i a l - f o r c e / bending-moment values which are associated with a prescribed failure
mechanism* It is feasible, however, to estimate t h e ultimate shear a n d moment c a p a c i t y of
each pile by i n v o k i n g a reasonable assumption on t h e path of loading that the pile follows
towards its ultimate stress state* With the knowledge of the load capacity of each p i l e , it
is a comparatively straightforward matter t o determine the overall capacity o f the foundation
system. A factor of safety which may t h e n be defined as the global resisting force (or
moment) divided by the overall driving force ( o r m o m e n t ) , c a n be e v a l u a t e d along the following
lines .

One may view the progression of loading i n a single pile in terms o f a "loading p a t h " on
the axial-force/bending-moment interaction d i a g r a m shown i n Figure 4. Suppose that, initial-
ly, due to the dead load, the combination of axial force and resultant bending moment a r e
represented by (N , M ), on the diagram. If the loading, considered to be quasi-static,
increases to a design value ( o n e o f the p o s t u l a t e d load combinations in the present case), the
force and moment would change along a linear load path to (Nd, M ), assuming linear
behavior of the s t e e l and concrete. T h e s a m e t y p e o f change would occur i n all piles except,
of course, that the particular path may be d i f f e r e n t for each pile. If all piles were s o
proportioned as t o allow the ultimate capacity t o be r e a c h e d simultaneously, then the ultimate
capacity of the overall foundation would be directly related to (Nu , Mu ) which represents
for each pile the combination of ultimate compression and b e n d i n g moment d e f i n e d by i n t e r
section of the l i n e a r loading path with the u l t i m a t e capacity envelope.

In reality, however, the loading path for each elastic pile w o u l d change as c e r t a i n other
piles attain their ultimate capacity. Additional applied loading would thus be a p p o r t i o n e d
differently among a l l remaining elastic piles as additional piles continue t o realize their

— 264 — K 11/2
capacity* Thus, for any generic pile, the actual loading path would be curved rather than
straight, and it could be determined exactly only by a nonlinear analysis of the foundation
system over the complete loading history.

It appears, however, that for reasons described below, the use of ( Nu , M u ) associated
with the linear loading path for each pile provides a reasonable, yet conservative, estimate
of the global factor of safety for the foundation. Here, one factor of safety for the
foundation is defined as the ratio of overall resisting moment furnished by the piles to the
overall driving moment. (A similar factor of safety is defined subsequently for shear.)
Because the system derives its rotational stability primarily from axial forces in the piles
acting through moment arms, it is reasonable to expect that most of those piles which might
experience Increased compression i n the range between (Nj_, Mi) and (Nj, M ) would
continue to incur at least the same rate of change in compression, as neighbouring piles yield
and more load is carried by the elastic piles. Similarly, if the load would be reduced and
all piles would remain elastic, the linear loading path would have a negative rather 'than the
positive slope shown i n Figure 4. Accordingly, upon yielding of some piles, most of those
which were initially unloading would continue to unload at an increased rate- Thus, the
actual change from the design axial force (N ) to the ultimate force ( Nu ) would be
underestimated by the change from N to N u .

Since, for most piles, the ultimate compressive force plays a much larger role than does
the ultimate moment in resisting overturning
of the foundation mat, an underestimate of the
change i n axial force would probably lead to an underestimate of the factor of safety against
overturning. One could obviously claim that the most conservative estimate of the factor of
safety would be associated with the ultimate moment capacity of' the piles at the design
compression load, i.e. considering Nu* - N * Such an assertion would imply, however, that
as loading increases and the foundation approaches its limiting load-carrying capacity,
the
increased capacity beyond the design value would be attributable solely to the bending moment
capacity of the piles- For the foundation geometry considered herein, such a position would
be contrary to sound engineering judgement*

The global factor of safety against shear failure is defined as the resultant shear
capacity of all piles in the direction of applied resultant horizontal force divided by the
magnitude of the resultant horizontal force. As noted above, the shear capacity of a pile is
a function of the state of loading, particularly the axial load developed in the pile* The
shearing capacity of each pile was determined with the knowledge of (Nj, Mfl).

For the illustrative case described above, it was determined that the global factors of
safety against overturning and shear were 2.0 and 4.0, respectively, under the most severe
loading combination. These factors of safety are considered to be entirely adequate, despite
the fact that some piles evidently would reach their ultimate state under loads just a few
percent greater than those postulated for SSE conditions.

— 265 — K 11/2
4. Conclusions

A m e t h o d b a s e d on c o n d i t i o n s o f l i n e a r i t y h a s been presented f o r p r e d i c t i n g t h e f o r c e s and

m o m e n t s I n pile f o u n d a t i o n s s u b j e c t e d t o c o m b i n e d s t a t i c and seismic loading. A global margin

of s a f e t y p e r t a i n i n g t o o v e r a l l o v e r t u r n i n g is t h e n determined b y assuming that the direction

of the load path o n t h e axial- f o r ce/bending-moment interaction d i a g r a m i s maintained during

progressive failure o f the piles. A similar a s s u m p t i o n is made as regards the margin of

safety against sliding. The a s s u m p t i o n on load p a t h is considered t o be c o n s e r v a t i v e ; the

degree of conservatism i s presently being studied by c o m p a r i n g , for some simplified cases

having r e l a t i v e l y few piles, results associated with the present method t o those based o n a

n o n l i n e a r analysis.

References

[1] UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C O M M I S S I O N (USNRC), " R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e 1.60, Revision 1,

D e s i g n R e s p o n s e S p e c t r a f o r S e i s m i c D e s i g n of N u c l e a r Power Plants", Washington D . C . ,
( D e c e m b e r 1973).

[2] S C H N A B E L , P . B . , J . LYSMER and H . B . S E E D , "SHAKE - A Computer Program f o r Earthquake

Response A n a l y s i s of H o r i z o n t a l l y L a y e r e d S i t e s " , EERC R e p o r t No. 72-12, Berkeley,
(December 1972).

[3] SAP USER'S G R O U P , " S A P - V . 2 - A S t r u c t u r a l Analysis P r o g r a m f o r S t a t i c and Dynamic

Response of Linear S y s t e m s , U s e r ' s M a n u a l " , U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , D e p a r t m e n t
of Civil E n g i n e e r i n g , Los Angeles, ( O c t o b e r 1977).

[4] K A U S E L , E . , " F o r c e d V i b r a t i o n s of C i r c u l a r F o u n d a t i o n s o n L a y e r e d M e d i a " , Research Report

R74-11, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
C a m b r i d g e , (1974).

[5] JOHNSON, G.R. , P.P. CHRISTIANO and H.I. EPSTEIN, "Stiffness Coefficients f o r Embedded
F o o t i n g s " , J o u r n a l of t h e G e o t e c h n i c a l Engineering Division, A S C E , V o l . 101, No. GT8 ,
p p . 789-800, (1975).

[6] D'APPOLONIA S.A., "DAPSYS: A Computer Code f o r Analysis of Soil-Water-Structure

I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s " , Revision 4.1 P r o p r i e t a r y , B r u s s e l s , (1982).

[7] P O U L O S , H . G . , " U s e r ' s G u i d e t o P r o g r a m DEFPIG - D e f o r m a t i o n A n a l y s i s of P i l e Groups",

( A u g u s t 1978)

[8] HALL, W - J . , B . MOHRAZ and N.M. NEWMARK, " S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses of E a r t h q u a k e Response

S p e c t r a " , T r a ns a c t ion o f t h e Th i rd I n terna t i ona 1 Conf e r e nc e o n S tr uc tur al M e c h a n i c s 1 n
R e a c t o r Te c h ho 1 ogy , (SHIRT j , P a per K 17 6 , Load on , ( S e p t ember 1975).

[9] Normes Beiges, NBN-B15, 101 a 105, " B e t o n , B&ton Arm£ e t B&ton Pr&contraint" , (1975).

[10] AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE ( A C T ) , "Code Requirements f o r Nuclear Safety Related Concrete
S t r u c t u r e s " , ACI-349-76, D e t r o i t , (1976).

— 266 ™ K 11/2
 1 LEGEND
SECTION A - A

wirtt uho
H— **<•» puMcrrwmjti

122 + ni xuu*rn

4
44-*
DEVELOPMENT OF
ARTIFICIAL
TIME HISTORIES
*4

WAVE PROPAGJriON
ANALYSES
(SHAKE)

21
STATIC STIFFNESS
OF FOUNDATION
(5AP3E)

REACTOf DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

FOUNDATION OF single pile
IMPEDANCE IBJILOIHS
MODEL IN FREE -FIELD
(OEFPIG, DAPSYS )

FIGURE I
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
P L A N AND SECTION OF FOUNDATION
(DAPSYSJ
OF REACTOR BUILDING FOUNDATION

COMBINATION PILE STRENGTH

OF PILE LOADS EVALUATION

FIGURE 2
FLOW CHART FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF PILES EVALUATION
OF SAFETY

AXIAL FORCE (MN) SHEAR FORCE (MN) BENDING MOMENT ( M N . m )

sort soil
PROFILE PROFILE
0.4 0.6 1-6 2.0 2.4 008 O.IG 0.24 032 0.40 0.48 004 003 012 0,16 0 20 0 24
Pilt WoJOS P i l e Ng, 103 0.52
P r h Mo 1 0 3
’OLDER
CLAY CLAY
Pile Nod 22
Pile Mo, 1 2 2 FlKC Pile NcJ22 FlHE
SAHO MHO

LONG PILES ■LONG PILES ■ LONG PILES

•2

pCatt PEATY
CLAY CLAY
SHORT PILE -SHORT PILE SHORT PILE'
ELEVATION

■Pile No. 89 Pile Mo, 89 Pile ko.89

-8

CE
-io -10 SAHO -10

-12

-14

NOTE
SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATORS OF PILES Q9, 103 AND 12£

FIGURE 3
TYPICAL FORCE P A T T E R N S IN P I L E S

— 267 — K 11/2
 Envelope of Ultimate
Capacity

Nd . N d
Nu max forM u = 0

FIGURE 4
GENERIC AXIAL- FORCE / BENDING- MOMENT
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
Axial Farce, N

LEGEND
IniHal Dead Loads
Dead Loads t SSE Loads

capacities
Ni.Mu

2.4

2.0
Quadrant I

Envelope a f Ultimate Capacity

oe

04 Long Piles
Moment

Short Piles

Axial Force, N
FIGURE 5
NOTES
t LOADS ARE EXPRESSED IN MEGANEWTONS AND METERS
LOADING PATHS ON INTERACTION DIAGRAM
VALUES OF LOADS PERTAIN TO THE CRITICAL LOAD
COMBINATION AT HASE OF MAT
3 SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATION OF QUADRANT 1

SHORT
LONG PILES
PILES
SHEAR FORCE (MN)

PILE NUMBER IN QUADRANT I

FIGURE 6
PILE SHEAR LOADS LEGEND NOTE

AND ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITIES 0 ULTIMATE capacity VALUES OF LOADS PEfiTAlN TO THE CRITICAL
a DEAD LOAD * SSE LOAD COMBINATION AT A DEPTH OF ONE PILE
a DEAD LOAD DIAMETER BELOW THE MAT.

— 268 — K 11/2