3.design of Pile Foundations Using EC 7 - Prof - Thilakasiri

Design of Pile Foundations
using EC 7
Prof. H. S. Thilakasiri
Senior Professor / Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Sri Lanka Institute for Information Technology (SLIIT)
SLGS Workshop on Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Designs
Design methods and design considerations
• The design shall be based on one of the

following approaches:
• Empirical or analytical calculation methods whose
validity has been demonstrated by static load tests in
comparable situations;
• The results of load tests or pile driving:
• Static load tests; and
• Dynamic load testing or pile driving, which have been
demonstrated, by means of calculations or otherwise, to be
consistent with other relevant experience;
2
Design of piles from compressive

resistance from ground test results
3
Characteristic and design compressive

resistance from ground test results
• Methods for assessing the compressive resistance of a pile foundation
from ground test results shall have been established from pile load
tests and from comparable experience as defined in 1.5.2.2.
• model factor may be introduced as described in 2.4.1(9) to ensure that
the predicted compressive resistance is sufficiently safe.
4
Characteristic compressive resistance from ground test

results cont..
5
Characteristic compressive resistance from

ground test results cont..
6
Characteristic compressive resistance

from ground test results cont..
7
Characteristic pile resistance from

ground test results
• Rc,k is obtained from the calculated pile compressive

resistance at each test location (ie CPT or PMT profiles, boring
providing vertical profiles of shear strength parameters etc).
• When different areas can be identified in a global site, where
in each of these areas the tests indicate a small variability, the
global side may be subdivided into several “homogeneous
areas” which may be treated separately according to the
formulas above.
• The number of tested profiles to be considered in such an area
is the number of test in the “homogeneous” area considered
(not the total number of tests over the whole site).
• Three methods may be used:
8
Design pile resistance from ground test results

Method 1 using  - factor
• As there are large number of methods to calculate the pile

resistance from the ground test results, the accuracy of the
predicted resistance vary widely.
• Therefore, applying a single -correlation factor to the calculated
resistance may not be reasonable.
• To cover the uncertainty of the prediction, the Eurocode allows
to introduce “model factors” or “calibration factors” or “γcal”.
• The value of calibration factor is related to the calculation rule
and is obtained by comparing load tests results and
corresponding predictions performed in the past (eg. to validate
the calculation rule).
9

Method 1 – using  - factor
• The design procedure involves three main steps:

• assess the compressive resistance of an hypothetic pile at
each test location by using a calculation rule and by
calibrating the result if necessary;
• select the characteristic (Rc,k) value of the pile resistance
from the assessed compressive resistances; and
• calculate the design value (Rc,d) of the pile compressive
resistance from the characteristic value.
10
Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

11

Method 2 - Alternative approach
• Eurocode allows the use of characteristic pile resistance

based on ground test results without using a correlation
factor .
• In this method characteristic values of base resistance and
shaft friction in the various strata derived from values of
ground parameters.
• This method abandons the idea of “model pile” at the
investigation locations.
12

• The alternative procedure may be appropriate

when:
• Using tables or charts indicating qb,k and qs,k values as a
function of any measured soil parameter for
determining the characteristic resistance from any
given soil parameter;
• Using (analytical) formulas to calculate the pile bearing
capacity using characteristic values of soil shear
strength parameters (ck/ and ϕk/ or cu;k) valid over the
site considered.
13

14

Method 3 – using γm
• In this method, the shear strength parameters (φ/k, c/kor cu,k) are
factored by dividing the corresponding material parameter from
Table A.4 to obtain the design material parameters (cu,d, φ/d, γd … )
before using them in the calculation rules to estimate the pile
resistance.
• Then calculation rules are used to estimate the design pile
resistance.
• Finally the “calibration factors” or “γcal” is used to obtain the
design value from the estimated pile resistance.
15

Method 3– using γm
16
Examples
17
Allowable carrying capacity, P all

• Lets take the design example:
• The subsurface condition of a ground condition at the locations of BH 01, BH 02
and BH 03 are shown in the Figure below. The estimated undrained cohesion
values at the three borehole locations with the thickness are shown in Table
below. The structure is capable of distribution of load from a ‘strong’ pile to a
‘weak’ pile, if the failure happens
• We want to determine the design allowable carrying capacity, Pall of a 1000mm
diameter pile installed into 17 m below the ground surface level with a Dead load
is 3 times the Live load
18
Example Using EC 7
These are the code recommended values but may be changed

through national annex
19

20
General
• ICTA Manual
• Unit skin friction = α cu
• Unit end bearing = 9 * cu
• The proposed structure is stiff enough to distribute the load from ‘a
weak’ pile to ‘a strong’ pile.

• Corresponding to n = 3; from the code ξ3 = 1.33 and ξ4 = 1.23
• As the structure is capable of distributing the load from ‘a weak’ pile to
‘a strong’ pile, ξ3 and ξ4 can be divided by 1.1 provided that ξ3 is never
less than 1.0
• Modified ξ3 = 1.209 and ξ4 = 1.118
21

From the Ground investigation:
Borehole Cu(kPa) layer 1 SF (KN) of layer 1 Cu(kPa) of layer 2 SF (KN) of layer 2 EB of Layer 2 Total (kN)
BH 01 90 425 200 1177 1414 3016
BH 02 75 585 200 726 1414 2725
BH 03 80 510 200 935 1414 2859
Reliability of ‘Model prediction = γcal = 1.20 is assumed
Borehole Cu(kPa) layer 1 SF (KN) of layer 1 Cu(kPa) of layer 2 SF (KN) of layer 2 EB of Layer 2 Total (kN)
BH 01 90 354 200 981 1178 2513
BH 02 75 488 200 605 1178 2271
BH 03 80 425 200 779 1178 2382
(Rc,cal)mean= 2389 kN; (Rc,cal)min= 2271 kN

ξ3 = 1.209 and ξ4 = 1.118
Rc,k= 1975 kN
22
Design Approach 1 Comb 1

• DA 1 comb 1 A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = Rc,k /γt
• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γt = 1.15
• Rc,d = 1975/1.15 = 1717 kN

• No model factors are specified in the national annexures
• Therefore, same γt values specified in Table A7 were used
23
• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.
• Ed = E{γf Frep } for A1, γG = 1.35; γQ = 1.50

• Ptot = DL + LL = 3LL + LL; LL = Ptot / 4; DL = 3PTot/4
• Ed = E{γf Frep } = 3PTot/4 X 1.35 + Ptot / 4 x 1.50 = 1.3875 PTot
• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 1717 kN

• Ptot < 1717/1.3876; PTot < 1237 kN 24
• DA1 comb 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4

• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γt = 1.50

•
• Rc,d = 1975/1.50 = 1316 kN
• Therefore, same γs and γb values specified in Fable A7
were used
25

• PTot = DL + LL = 3LL + LL; LL = PTot / 4; DL = 3PTot/4

• Ed = E{γf Frep } = 3PTot/4 X 1.00 + PTot / 4 x 1.30 = 1.075 PTot
• Therefore, 1.075 PTot < 1316 KN

• Ptot < 1316/1.075; PTot < 1224 KN
26
Design Approach 2
• DA1 comb 2 A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = Rs,k /γt
• From Table A7, for DA 2, γt = 1.1
• Rc,d = 1975/1.1 = 1795 kN

• Therefore, same γs and γb values specified in Fable A7 were
used
27
Design Approach 2



• Ptot < 1795/1.3875; PTot < 1294 KN
28
Design Approach 3
• DA 3 (A1 or A2) “+” M2 “+” R3

• From Table A7, for DA 2, γt = 1.0

• Rc,d = 1975/1.0 = 1975 kN

used
29
Design Approach 3

• Ed = E{γf Frep } for A1 (All are structural actions), γG = 1.35; γQ = 1.50

• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 1975

• Ptot < 1975/1.3875; PTot < 1423 kN 30

31

• The characteristics value of cu of Layer 1 and Layer 2 are the average value
as the structure is capable of distributing the load from ‘a weak’ pile to ‘a
strong’ pile
• Accordingly,
• cu,k of layer 1 and layer 2 are 82 kPa and 200 kPa respectively
• The thickness of layer 1 is 8m
• Without considering reliability of the estimation
• Skin friction = Rs, k = 1482 kN
• End bearing = Rb, k = 1414 kN
• Reliability of ‘Model prediction = γcal = 1.20 is assumed
• Skin friction = Rs, k = 1235 kN
• End bearing = Rb, k = 1178 kN
32

• DA 1 comb 1 A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = Rs,k /γs + Rb,k /γb
• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γb = 1.25 and γs = 1.00
• Rc,d = 1235/1.0 + 1178/1.25 = 2177 kN

• Therefore, same γs and γb values specified in Table A7
were used
33


• Ptot < 2177/1.3876; PTot < 1569 kN 34
• DA1 comb 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4

• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γb = 1.60 and γs = 1.30

•
• Rc,d = 1235/1.30 + 1178/1.60 = 1686 kN
• Therefore, same γs and γb values specified in Table A7
were used
35



• Ptot < 1686/1.075; PTot < 1568 KN
36
Design Approach 2
• DA1 comb 2 A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

• From Table A7, for DA 2, γb = 1.1 and γs = 1.1

• Rc,d = 1235/1.1 + 1178/1.1 = 2193 kN

• Therefore, same γs and γb values specified in Fable A7 were used
37
Design Approach 2



• Ptot < 2193/1.3875; PTot < 1580 KN
38
Design Approach 3
• DA 3 (A1 or A2) “+” M2 “+” R3

• From Table A7, for DA 2, γb = 1.0 and γs = 1.0

• Rc,d = 1235/1.0 + 1178/1.0 = 2413 kN

used
39
Design Approach 3



• Ptot < 2413/1.3875; PTot < 1739 kN 40

Method 3– using γm
41

• The characteristics value of cu of Layer 1 and Layer 2 are the average
value as the structure is capable of distributing the load from ‘a
weak’ pile to ‘a strong’ pile
• Accordingly,
• cu,k of layer 1 and layer 2 are 82 kPa and 200 kPa respectively
• The thickness of layer 1 is 8m
• cu,d of layer 1 and layer 2 for ‘M1’ set 82 kPa and 200 kPa
respectively
• cu,d of layer 1 and layer 2 for ‘M2’ set 59 kPa and 143 kPa
respectively
42

• M1 set
• Without considering reliability of the estimation for ‘M1’set
• Skin friction = Rs, d = 1482 kN
• End bearing = Rb, d = 1414 kN
• RC, D = Rs, d + Rb, d = 2413 kN
• M2 set
• Without considering reliability of the estimation for ‘M1’set
• RC, D = Rs, d + Rb, d = 1723 kN
43

• Rc,d = 2413
• DA 1 comb 1 A1 “+” M1 “+” R1

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0

• Ptot < 2413/1.3876; PTot < 1739 kN
44

• DA1 comb 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4
(As there are no negative skin friction and transverse loading,
Set M1 is applicable)
• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = 2413 kN
•


• Ptot < 2413/1.075; PTot < 2244 KN 45
Design Approach 2
• DA1 comb 2 A1 “+” M1 “+” R2
• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = 2413


• Ptot < 2413/1.3875; PTot < 1739 KN
46
Design Approach 3
• DA 3 (A1 or A2) “+” M2 “+” R3
• Rc,d = Rs,d + Rb,d = 1723 kN


• Ptot < 1723/1.3875; PTot < 1241 kN 47
Ultimate Limit State value PTot

• The minimum value of the Ptot satisfying the ultimate limit state is
1224 kN
• If the serviceability limit state is satisfactory for this load, this load
can be taken as the allowable load on the pile
• To demonstrate that the geotechnical structure will support the
design load with adequate safety against failure. The following
inequality shall be satisfied for all ultimate limit state load cases and
combinations.
• Values of partial factors for serviceability limit states should

normally be taken equal to 1.0
48
Design of piles from the results of load

tests or pile driving
49
Pile load tests

• Pile load tests shall be carried out in the following situations:
• when using a type of pile or installation method for which there is no
comparable experience;
• when the piles have not been tested under comparable soil and loading
conditions; and
• when the piles will be subject to loading for which theory and experience do
not provide sufficient confidence in the design. The pile testing procedure shall
then provide loading similar to the anticipated loading.
• Pile load tests may be used to:
• assess the suitability of the construction method;
• determine the response of a representative pile and the surrounding ground to load,
both in terms of settlement and limit load; and
• to allow judgement of the overall pile foundation.
50
Compressive ground resistance

• The following inequality shall be satisfied for all ultimate limit
state load cases and load combinations:
• In principle Fc;d should include the weight of the pile itself and Rc;d
should include the overburden pressure of the soil at the
foundation base. Generally, they are assumed as cancelling each
other.
• They are need not cancelled out if:
• Downdrag is significant;
• The soil is very light; and
• The pile extends above the ground surface.
51
Characteristics compressive ground

resistance from Static load tests
• The ‘Model pile’ concept is introduced
• For structures, which do not exhibit capacity to transfer loads from "weak"
piles to "strong" piles, as a minimum, the following equation shall be satisfied:
• where 1 and 2 are correlation factors are related to the number of piles tested
(Rc;m)mean and the (Rc;m )min are the mean and the lowest measured compressive
resistance of the tested piles respectively
Rc,k is the characteristics compressive stress of the piles
• For structures having sufficient stiffness and strength to transfer loads from
"weak" to "strong" piles, the values of 1 and 2 may be divided by 1.1,
provided that 1 is never less than 1.0.
52
Characteristics compressive ground

resistance from static load test cont..
These are the code recommended values but may be changed

through national annex
53
Design resistance from characteristics

compressive ground resistance from static load
test cont..
• The characteristic compressive resistance of the ground, Rc;k,
may be derived from the characteristic values of the base
resistance, Rb;k, and of the shaft resistance, Rs;k, such that:
• The design resistance, Rc,d may be obtained either using
• OR
54
Schematic representation of estimation of

design capacity from static load test
55
Design capacity from static load test
• Once the characteristic resistance of the piles is obtained,

the design resistance, Rc,d, of the piles is obtained by
using the partial safety factors from Table A.6, A.7 and
A.8.
• If the characteristic values of base and shaft resistance
(Rb,k and Rs,k) are estimated from the previous step, the
design resistance of the pile, Rc,d, is obtained as below:
56
Design capacity from static load

test
• If the characteristic value of the total resistance, Rc,k, was
estimated from the previous step, the design of the pile, Rc,d,
is obtained as below:
• the characteristics resistance Rk can be estimated as given

below:
57
Example
58
Three 600mm diameter bored and cast in-situ piles of a homogeneous

site had been subjected to static load testing and the results are given
in Table below.
A critical single pile in this site is subjected to a permanent
characteristic vertical load of 900kN due to structural actions and
variable characteristic vertical loads of 275kN and 550kN due to
structural and geotechnical actions respectively.
The structure is having sufficient stiffness and strength to transfer
loads from "weak" to "strong" piles.
Estimate the characteristic vertical load carrying
Pile Total capacity capacity of a single pile based on the results of
No. (kN) static load tests given in the Table and check
Pile 1 3478 whether the ultimate limit state of the piles is
Pile 2 3265 satisfied considering the three design
Pile 3 3702 approaches given in the Eurocode. 59
FG, K = 900 kN due to structural actions

Loads acting
on a pile FQ, K = 275 kN due to structural actions and FQ = 550 kN due to
geotechnical actions
600 mm diameter bored pile
Questions:
Determine, characteristic ultimate
Ultimate static load test results load carrying capacity of a pile
(Rc,k); and;
Pile No. Total capacity (kN) check according to the three design
Pile 1 3478 approaches (DA 1 – Comb. 1, DA1-
Comb 2, DA 2 and DA 3) given in
Pile 2 3265 the Eurocode.
Pile 3 3702
60
The values in the Table are the code recommended values but
may be changed through national annex
As n=3, ζ factors are:
ζ1 = 1.20 and ζ2 = 1.05
As the load can be transferred from a weak pile to a strong pile, ζ1 and ζ2 can be revised:
ζ1 = 1.20/1.1 = 1.09 (okay as > 1) and ζ2 = 1.05/1.1 = 0.954
Measured minimum capacity, (Rc,m)min = 3265 kN;
Measured mean capacity, (Rc,m)mean = 3481 kN
Therefore,
Rc,k = Min [ 3481/1.09, 3265/0.954] = 3193 kN 61
Design approach 1 (DA 1 – Comb 1)
Combination 1
γt = 1.15 (The total capacity (compression) will be used as static load tests
without instrumentation will yield the total capacity only)
Rc,d = Rc,k/γt = 3193/1.15 = 2776 kN
Ed= Fd = γG FG,k + γQ FQ,k

γG =1.35; γQ = 1.5;
Ed = Fd = 900 x 1.35+(275 + 550)x1.5 = 2452.5kN
2776 kN > 2452.5; Hence, satisfactory. 62

DA 1 - Combination 2
γG =1.00; γQ = 1.3; Ed = 900 x 1.00 + (275 + 550)x1.3 = 1972.5 kN

γt = 1.5
Rc,d = Rc,k/γt = 3193/1.5 = 2128 kN
2128 kN >1972.5 kN; Hence, satisfactory.
Design approach 2 (DA 2)
γG =1.35; γQ = 1.5; Ed = 900 x 1.35 + (275 + 550)x1.5 = 2452.5 kN

γt = 1.1
Rc,d = Rc,k/γt = 3193/1.1 = 2902 kN
2902 kN > 2452.5; Hence, satisfactory. 63
Design approach 3 (DA 3)
A1: γG =1.35; γQ = 1.5;

A2: γG =1.00; γQ = 1.3;
Use A1 for structural actions and use A2 for geotechnical actions
Ed = 900 x 1.35 + (275 x1.50 + 550 x 1.3) = 2342.5 kN
γt = 1.0
Rc,d = Rc,k/γt = 3193/1.0 = 3193 kN
3193 kN > 2342.5; Hence, satisfactory.
64
Design compressive resistance

from dynamic impact tests
• Where a dynamic impact (hammer blow) pile test is used to assess
the resistance of individual compression piles, the validity of the
result shall have been demonstrated by previous evidence of
acceptable performance in static load tests on the same pile type of
similar length and cross-section and in similar ground conditions.
• The impact energy shall be high enough to allow for an appropriate
interpretation of the pile capacity at a correspondingly high enough
strain level.
65
Characteristic compressive resistance from dynamic impact
tests (PDA tests)
66
Design compressive resistance by

applying pile driving formulae
• Pile driving formulae shall only be used if the stratification of the

ground has been determined.
• The validity of the formulae shall have been demonstrated by previous
experimental evidence of acceptable performance in static load tests
on the same type of pile, of similar length and cross-section, and in
similar ground conditions.
• The pile driving Tests should have been carried out on at least 5 piles
distributed at sufficient spacing in the in order to check a suitabile
blow count for the final series of blows.
• For end-bearing piles driven into non-cohesive soil, the design value of
the compressive resistance, Rc;d, shall be assessed by the same
procedure as in 7.6.2.4 (dynamic load test…).
67
Development of NSF in typical subsurface due to

placing a fill layer at the ground surface when the
bottom of the pile is restrained Negative skin
friction
Immediately after placing the fill After consolidation due to the fill weight
68
Negative skin friction
• Downdrag (negative skin friction) shall be considered as and action in the

ultimate design
• Maximum downdrag force should be estimated considering the shear
strength parameters, at the surface between the pile surface, the amount
of movement of the ground.
• If the ground movement is small after installation of the pile a
economical design can be done by considering the interaction between
piles
• During testing positive shaft friction will act along the whole length of the
pile. When the load tests are conducted and the ‘failure’ load should be
revised if NSF is acting
• If the NSF is acting, the maximum load applied on the working pile should
be in excess of the sum of the design external load plus twice the
downdrag force 69
Thank You !!!
70

3.design of Pile Foundations Using EC 7 - Prof - Thilakasiri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3.design of Pile Foundations Using EC 7 - Prof - Thilakasiri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Pile Foundations

Design methods and design considerations

• The design shall be based on one of the

Design of piles from compressive

Characteristic and design compressive

Characteristic compressive resistance from ground test

Characteristic compressive resistance from

Characteristic compressive resistance

Characteristic pile resistance from

• Rc,k is obtained from the calculated pile compressive

Design pile resistance from ground test results

• As there are large number of methods to calculate the pile

Design pile resistance from ground test results

• The design procedure involves three main steps:

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

• Eurocode allows the use of characteristic pile resistance

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

• The alternative procedure may be appropriate

Design pile resistance from ground test results

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

Allowable carrying capacity, P all

These are the code recommended values but may be changed

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

Ultimate pile resistance from ground test results

Method 1 using  - factor

(Rc,cal)mean= 2389 kN; (Rc,cal)min= 2271 kN

Design Approach 1 Comb 1

• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γt = 1.15

• Rc,d = 1975/1.15 = 1717 kN

Design Approach 1 Comb 1

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.

• Ed = E{γf Frep } for A1, γG = 1.35; γQ = 1.50

• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 1717 kN

Design Approach 1 Comb 2

• DA1 comb 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4

• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γt = 1.50

Design Approach 1 Comb 2

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.

• PTot = DL + LL = 3LL + LL; LL = PTot / 4; DL = 3PTot/4

• Therefore, 1.075 PTot < 1316 KN

• DA1 comb 2 A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

• No model factors are specified in the national annexures

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.

• PTot = DL + LL = 3LL + LL; LL = PTot / 4; DL = 3PTot/4

• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 1795 KN

• DA 3 (A1 or A2) “+” M2 “+” R3

• From Table A7, for DA 2, γt = 1.0

• No model factors are specified in the national annexures

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.

• PTot = DL + LL = 3LL + LL; LL = PTot / 4; DL = 3PTot/4

• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 1975

Design pile resistance from ground test results

Design pile resistance from ground test results

Design Approach 1 Comb 1

• From Table A7, for DA 1 Comb 1, γb = 1.25 and γs = 1.00

• Rc,d = 1235/1.0 + 1178/1.25 = 2177 kN

Design Approach 1 Comb 1

• Effects due to geotechnical action Xk/γm is zero and ad = 0.

• Ed = E{γf Frep } for A1, γG = 1.35; γQ = 1.50

• Therefore, 1.3875 PTot < 2177 kN

Design Approach 1 Comb 2