Calculation of Load Capacity of

Circular Friction-cum-Bearing
Pile by Static Method
A Project Report
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
In
CIVIL ENGINEERING
By
Adarsh Kumar (1805200007)
Anuj Yadav (1805200017)
Saurav Singh (1805200050)
Shivani Agrahari (1805200054)

Under the Supervision of

Prof. M.Z KHAN (Professor CED, IET Lucknow)
Er. AMIT YADAV (Assistant Professor CED, IET Lucknow)

To
Civil Engineering Department
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH (226021)
(An Autonomous Constituent Institute of Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, UP)

1
 DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the Project of the U.G. entitled “Calculation of
Load Capacity of Circular Friction-cum-Bearing Pile by Static
Method” which is being submitted to Civil Engineering Department,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LUCKNOW,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering is a bona fide Project report
carried out by us. The material contained in this project has not been
submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of any
degree.

DATE: - ……………

Name: Adarsh Kumar Name: Saurav Singh

Roll no: 1805200007 Roll no: 1805200050

Name: Anuj Yadav Name: Shivani Agrahari

Roll no: 1805200017 Roll no: 1805200054

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to Certify that Adarsh Kumar (Roll NO. 18205200007), Anuj Yadav
(Roll NO. (1805200017), Saurav Singh (Roll NO. 1805200050), Shivani
Agrahari (Roll NO. 1805200054), have carried out work presented in this
Project entitled- “Calculation of Load Capacity of Circular Friction-cum-
Bearing Pile by Static Method” for the award of Bachelor of Technology in
Civil Engineering at Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow (An
Autonomous Institute of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh) under my supervision.

The Project work embodies results of original work, and studies carried out
by the student themselves and the contents of the Project are not from this or
any other University.

Er. Amit Yadav Prof. M.Z. Khan

Co-Guide Project Guide

Prof. A.K Shukla

Head of Department

…………………

External Examiner

Date: ……………….

Place: Institute of Engineering and Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Lucknow

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We extend our deep sense of gratitude to Dr. VINEET
KANSAL, Director Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Lucknow for allowing us to undertake this project and be a
constant source of motivation during the whole tenure of this
project.

We would like to thank Professor A.K. SHUKLA, Head of the

Department of Civil Engineering for his cooperation in
providing facilities for the successful guidance for the project.

We are indebted to our Project Co-Guide Er. AMIT YADAV

& our Guide Prof. M.Z. Khan of Civil Engineering
Department for their valuable advice, resourceful guidance,
active supervision and constant encouragement without which
it would not have been possible to give this project report such
a shape in time.

We also have an obligation to all the faculty members in the

Department of Civil Engineering for their cooperation towards
this and providing major suggestions throughout. We would
also like to thank all our friends who have supported and
encouraged us by providing helpful insights.

4
 CONTENTS

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE

1. Introduction 08

2. Literature Review 09

3. Work Scope 10

4. Study Area, Sample Collection and Methodology 12

5. Tests and Procedures 14

 Standard Penetration Test

 Sieve Analysis
 Atterberg Limit (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit)
 Specific Gravity
 Bulk Density
 Moisture Content
 Direct Shear Test

6. Pile Foundation 55

7. Calculation of Load Carrying Capacity of Pile 61

8. Result and Conclusion 63

9. References 64

5
 List of Figures

Fig 4.1 Auger Boring

Fig 4.2 Collected Samples (Undisturbed)
Fig 4.3 Collected Samples (Disturbed)
Fig 4.4 Actual site
Fig 5.1 Standard Penetration Test actual site
Fig 5.2 Standard Penetration
Fig 5.3 Sieve Analysis
Fig 5.4 Liquid Limit (Casagrande Apparatus)
Fig 5.5 State of soil at different water content
Fig 5.6 Plastic limit
Fig 5.7 Weighing of Density Bottle
Fig 5.8 Oven Drying Machine
Fig 5.9 Mohr Failure Envelope
Fig 5.10 Mohr Failure Envelope for Non- cohesive and Cohesive Soils
Fig.5.11 Direct Shear Test Box
Fig 5.12 Failure Plane
Fig 5.13 Direct Shear Machine configuration
Fig 6.1 End Bearing Pile
Fig 6.2 Friction Pile
Fig 6.3 Friction- cum- Bearing Pile

6
 List of Tables
Table 5.1 Standard Penetration test
Table 5.2 Sieve Analysis of Sample 1m depth
Table 5.3 Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 m depth
Table 5.4 Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 m depth
Table 5.5 Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 m depth
Table 5.6 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 m depth
Table 5.7 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5.45 m depth
Table 5.8 Liquid Limit of 1 m depth sample
Table 5.9 Liquid Limit of 2 m depth sample
Table 5.10 Bulk Density
Table 5.11 Specific gravity of various soils
Table 5.12 Specific Gravity using Density Bottle
Table 5.13 Moisture Content at field
Table 5.14 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (sample 1)
Table 5.15 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (Sample 2)
Table 5.16 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (sample 3)
Table 5.17 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 1)
Table 5.18 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 2)
Table 5.19 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 3)
Table 5.20 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 1)
Table 5.21 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 2)
Table 5.22 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 3)
Table 5.23 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (1.00 m depth)
Table 5.24 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (2.50 m depth)
Table 5.25 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (4.00 m depth)
Table 6.1 Adhesion factor for different soil type

7
 List of Graphs

Graph 5.1 Sieve Analysis of Sample 1m depth

Graph 5.2 Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 m depth
Graph 5.3 Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 m depth
Graph 5.4 Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 m depth
Graph 5.5 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 m depth
Graph 5.6 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5.45 m depth
Graph 5.7 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.
Graph 5.8 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.
Graph 5.9 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.
Graph 5.10 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.
Graph 5.11 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.
Graph 5.12 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.
Graph 5.13 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.
Graph 5.14 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.
Graph 5.15 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.
Graph 5.16 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (1.00 m depth)
Graph 5.17 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (2.50 m depth)
Graph 5.18 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (4.00 m depth)

8
 Chapter 1
Introduction

This project is aimed for Calculation of Load Capacity of circular

friction-cum-bearing Pile by Static Method which is widely used method.

Foundations provide support to the structure, transfers the loads from the
structure to the soil. But the layer at which the foundation transfers the
load shall have an adequate bearing capacity and suitable settlement
characteristics.

Shallow footings are usually used when the bearing capacity of the
surface soil is adequate to carry the loads imposed by a structure. On the
other hand, deep foundations are usually used when the bearing capacity
of the surface soil is not sufficient to carry the loads imposed by a
structure. So, the loads have to be transferred to a deeper level where the
soil layer has a higher bearing capacity.

Pile foundation, a kind of deep foundation, is actually a slender column

or long cylinder made of materials such as concrete or steel which are
used to support the structure and transfer the load at desired depth either
by end bearing or skin friction.

To calculate load carrying capacity of pile we have performed field work,

exploration of subsoil by Auguring in IET campus near Main gate,
conducting Standard Penetration Test as per IS 2131-1981, collection of
Undisturbed samples (UDS) and Disturbed soil samples (DS), followed
by Lab Testing (Sieve Analysis, Specific Gravity, Bulk Density, Direct
Shear Test, Moisture Content, Atterberg Limits Test) and to calculate load
capacity based on these results.

9
General requirements for satisfactory behaviour of pile foundations are
the same as for other foundations, mainly adequate safety against shear
failure and excessive settlement.

The load capacity of the pile can be estimated by several methods which
may be grouped into the following categories-

 Static Pile load formulae

 Pile load test
 Pile driving formulae
 Correlation with penetration test data

When a compressive load Q is applied at the top of pile, the pile will tend
to move vertically downward relative to the surrounding soil. This will
cause shear stresses to develop between the soil and the surface of the
shaft.

As a result the applied load is distributed as friction load along a certain

length of the pile measured from the top.

As the load at the top is increased the friction load distribution will
extend more and more towards the tip of the pile till at a certain load
level, the entire length of the pile is involved in generating the frictional
resistance this is the ultimate skin friction resistance of the pile.

When the load at the top of the pile exceeds that the load in excess begins
to be transferred to the soil at the base of the pile.

This load known as the point load goes on increasing till the soil at the
base of the pile fails by punching share failure the load in bearing at this
stage is the ultimate point load.

10
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

The Pile Foundation is in use for decades around the globe hence many
works have been done till now. This project is based on thesis and studies
performed by various authors and researchers as follows:

Experimental study of piled raft foundation” by A. K. Singh and A. N

Singh (2011). Their study was focused on the experimental investigation
on performance of piled raft foundation on sand where a raft foundation
alone does not satisfy the design requirement. The use of a limited
number of piles, may improve both the ultimate load carrying capacity
and the settlement and differential settlement. The analysis of piled raft is
a complex problem even more than that of a soil supported raft. The
experimental results have shown that number of piles below the rafts and
its locations play vital role in improving the load carrying capacity of the
piled rafts and the elastic settlement response of the soil.

“Influence of vertical loads on lateral response of pile foundations in

sands and clays” by Lassaad Hazzar, Mahmoud N. Hussien and Mourad
Karray (2017). This study concluded that the effect of vertical loads on
the lateral response of piles embedded in two layered strata depends on
the characteristics of soil not only surrounding the piles but also located
beneath their tips.

“Testing and Modelling of Concrete Pile Foundation” by Burkovic

Kamil, Smirakova Martina and Mateckova Pavlina (2018). This paper
discusses results from experimental measurements and Mathematical
Simulations of Load transfer into the subsoil through various types of
Foundation base.

11
“Assessment of load-carrying capacity of bored pile in clay soil using
different methods” by Abdelazim Makki Ibrahim, Ibrahim Malik and
Omar Ataj Omar (2012). It is very difficult to predict the load carrying
capacity of bored piles because of the Complications that may arise such
as difficult ground conditions, presence of ground water, method of
boring, method of concreting, quality of concrete, expertise of the
construction staff, the ground conditions and the pile geometry. Therefore
the Pile design must be accompanied by in situ load testing.

“Theoretical and Actual Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles Using Model

Piles in Sand” by Ameer Aziz, Yusoff BIN Nor Azizi, Zaihasra a.talib
(2015). In general, increasing of penetration rate may result in an
increased of pile capacity. Occasionally, there were differences between
theoretical and actual bearing capacity of the piles. Rate of penetration of
pile influenced the pile bearing capacity. The bearing capacity of model
pile increased as the rate of loading increased based on pile driving
formula. Therefore, the study was conducted to determine the bearing
capacity of model piles with different penetration forces based on
theoretical method and experimented analysis.

Apart from it, two books entitled 1. Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics,
by Gopal Ranjan and A S R Rao and 2. Soil Mechanics and Foundations
by Dr. B.C. Punmia, Er. Ashok K. Jain, Dr. Arun K. Jain. have been
referred for complete analysis and calculations throughout the project
work.

Various Indian Standard Codes have been referred for all the Lab Tests
and Samples Collection.

12
 Chapter 3

Work Scope

When the load of the building at founding level and/or the sub soils are
weak such that the imposed stresses exceed the permissible bearing
pressure in such cases the foundation would fail under shear or
foundation settlement.

Hence open foundation cannot be adopted. The alternate method is to

adopt the deep footing such as Piles. The pile foundation takes up the
imposed load by way of frictional resistance through its outer surface as
well as through the bearing.

The total load carrying capacity thus would be the sum of the frictional
resistance through pile surface and through the bearing.

Out of several methods for estimation and assessment of load carrying

capacity of circular friction cum bearing pile, one of the widely used
method is static method as per I.S:2911 Part: II Section: 1.

In this method the index properties of sub soil are determined based on
the sample collected from the site.

The scope of this project includes the collection of the soil samples at
1.00m, 2.50m and 4.00m depth from NGL from IET playground.

These three samples were put to test and the evaluated test results are
adopted for the estimation and assessment of load carrying capacity of the
pile.

13
 Chapter 4

Study Area, Sample Collection and

Methodology
In this project we have to calculate Load Carrying Capacity of Circular
Friction- cum- Bearing Pile for which it is required to calculate various
properties of soil present in the work area.

To calculate the values of these properties we have hired external agency

to perform the Auger boring and for the collection of Undisturbed and
Disturbed samples at different depths.

We also have performed Standard Penetration Test using Split Spoon

Sampler which is used to calculate geotechnical engineering properties
for foundation design purposes. The test is carried out within a borehole.
The results can be used to determine the relative density, bearing capacity
and can also be used to correlate the approximate strength of cohesive
soil.

On the collected Disturbed Samples we have performed different tests in

the laboratory to calculate index properties of soil.

 Sieve Analysis to find out the Particle Size Distribution and to

classify the type of soil.
 Moisture Content using Oven Drying method
 Specific Gravity using Density Bottle method
 Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit using Casagrande Apparatus and
Plastic Limit using Plastic Limit Apparatus)

We have collected Undisturbed Samples at depth of 1.00m, 2.50m and

4.00m. We have calculated Bulk Density for all these samples and also
performed Direct Shear test for the calculation of cohesion and internal

14
angle of friction. Which is required for the calculation of Load capacity
of Pile foundation.
After collecting all the required data from the disturbed and undisturbed
samples, we have calculated Load Carrying Capacity of pile foundation
using Static Method by taking different diameter and height of the pile.

We have collected Undisturbed and Disturbed samples at different depths

from IET campus (playground) near Main gate.
Location co-ordinates are –

Longitude 80.941825
Latitude 26.912727

Fig 4.1. Auger Boring

Fig 4.2. Disturbed Sample Fig 4.3. Undisturbed Sample

15
Auger Boring-

An earth auger, earth drill, or post-hole auger is a drilling tool or machine

used for making holes in the ground. It typically consists of a rotating
vertical metal rod or pipe with one or more blades attached at the lower
end, that cut or scrape the soil.

Large mechanized earth augers, called drilling rigs, are used to make
holes for piles destined to be deep foundations or retaining wall. Auger
boring is used in fields where it is not necessary to bore a hole deep more
than 6 m.

Fig 4.4. Actual Site

16
 Chapter 5

Tests and Procedures

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The test measures the resistance of the soil strata to the penetration
undergone. A penetration empirical correlation is derived between the
soil properties and the penetration resistance.
The test is extremely useful to determine the relative density and the
angle of shearing resistance of cohesionless soils.
It can also be used to determine the unconfined compressive strength of
cohesive soils.
Before the SPT values are used in empirical correlations and in design
charts, the field ‘N’ values have to be corrected as per IS 2131–1981.
The corrections are:
1. Overburden Pressure Correction
2. Dilatancy Correction

Fig 5.1 Standard Penetration test

(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Standard-Penetration-Test-
Arrangements_fig3_280572148)

17
 Fig 5.2. Standard Penetration test at site

Table 5.1. Standard Penetration test

Sample Depth N1 N2 N3 SPT No. Corrected

No. (N0) SPT No.
(N)
1 0.55-1.00 3 4 5 9 9

2 2.05- 2.50 5 6 6 12 12

3 3.55-4.00 5 6 7 13 13

18
Calculations-

 Overburden Pressure Correction-

N= N0(350/ (σ’+70)) (for σ’< 280 KN/m2)

 Dilatancy Correction (Water Table Correction)-

N’= 15+0.5(N-15)
Water table is not found till boring depth so this correction is not
required.

Sieve Analysis

The sieve analysis test is performed to determine the percentage of each

size of grain that is contained within a soil sample, and the results of the
test can be used to produce the grain size distribution curve. This
information is used to classify the soil and to predict its behavior. The
two methods generally used to find the grain size distribution are:

 Sieve analysis which is used for particle sizes larger than 0.075
mm in diameter and
 Hydrometer analysis which is used for particle sizes smaller than
0.075 mm in diameter

Sieve analysis is a method that is used to determine the grain size

distribution of soils that are greater than 0.075 mm in diameter. It is
usually performed for sand and gravel but cannot be used as the sole
method for determining the grain size distribution of finer soil. The sieves
used in this method are made of woven wires with square openings.

We have taken 6 Disturbed Samples of the site and performed Sieve

Analysis, Tables are given below.

19
 Fig 5.3. Sieve Analysis

Table 5.2. Sieve Analysis of Sample 1m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage Cumulative %age % finer

Number or Retained in on each sieve retained on each
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.750 0 0 0 100

2.000 0 0 0 100

0.425 11 11 11 89

0.075 53 53 64 36

Pan 36 36 100 0

20
 120

100

80
%finer

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)- logarithmic Scale

Graph 5.1. Sieve Analysis of Sample 1m depth

Table 5.3. Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage Cumulative %age %
Number or Retained in on each sieve retained on each finer
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.00 0 0 0 100

0.425 3 3 3 97

0.075 63 63 66 34

Pan 34 34 100 0

21
 Graph 5.2. Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 m depth

Table 5.4. Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage on Cumulative %age % finer

Number or Retained in each sieve retained on each
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.00 0 0 0 100

0.425 1 1 1 99

0.075 76 76 77 23

Pan 23 23 100 0

22
 Graph 5.3. Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 m depth

Table 5.5 Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage Cumulative %age % finer

Number or Retained in on each sieve retained on each
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.00 0 0 0 100

0.425 1 1 1 99

0.075 72 72 73 27

Pan 27 27 100 0

23
 Graph 5.4. Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 m depth

Table 5.6. Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage Cumulative %age % finer

Number or Retained in on each sieve retained on each
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.00 0 0 0 100

0.425 1 1 1 99

0.075 81 81 82 18

Pan 18 18 100 0

24
 Graph 5.5. Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 m depth

Table 5.7. Sieve Analysis of Sample 5.45 m depth

I.S sieve Wt. Percentage Cumulative %age % finer

Number or Retained in on each sieve retained on each
size in mm each sieve sieve
(gm)

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.00 0 0 0 100

0.425 0 0 0 100

0.075 82 82 82 18

Pan 18 18 100 0

25
 Graph 5.6. Sieve Analysis of Sample 5.45 m depth

Liquid Limit (wl)

Depending on its water content, a soil may appear in one of four states:
sold, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state, the consistency and
behavior of a soil is different and consequently so are its engineering
properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based
on a change in the soil's behavior.

The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and
to distinguish between different types of silts and clays. The water
content at which the soils changes from one state to the other are known
as consistency limits or Atterberg's limit.

The Liquid Limit, also known as the upper plastic limit, is the water
content at which soil changes from the liquid state to plastic state OR It is
the minimum moisture content at which a soil flows upon the application
of very small shear force.

26
 Casagrande Method

The Soil which is passing through 425-micron sieve was used to conduct
the test. About 200 gm of soil is taken in a tray. Some amount of water
was mixed to the soil. Soil paste was taken into the Casagrande
apparatus.by the help of groove a cut was made in middle of the soil.

The groove divides the soil paste into two parts along the diameter. After
that handle of the device was turned. After the some turns the two parts
will join together. Take some amount into container for knowing the
moisture content. Note down the corresponding blows.

Repeat the test two to three times. Draw a graph between blows vs
moisture content. Measure the moisture content corresponding to 25
blows. It is reported as liquid of the soil.

Fig 5.4 Liquid Limit by Casagrande Apparatus

27
 Fig 5.5. State of soil at different water content
(https://www.globalgilson.com/Content/Images/uploaded/blog/
soils/state-of-soils-graph.jpg)

Table 5.8. Liquid Limit of 1 m depth sample

S. No. Sample No. 1 2 3 4

1 No. of Blows 32 27 16 22
2 Container No. 9 13 2 14
3 Weight of Container 23.00 23.30 25.32 22.24
4 Weight of Container+ Wet 48.52 45.30 43.64 42.52
Soil
5 Weight of Container +Oven 44.48 41.71 40.65 39.30
Dry Soil
6 Weight of Water 4.04 3.59 2.99 3.22
7 Weight of Oven Dry Soil 21.48 18.41 15.33 17.06

8 Water Content 18.81 19.50 19.50 18.87

Calculation-

28
 Liquid Limit Chart
19.6

19.4
f(x) = − 0.0393367346938777 x + 19.9778571428571
Water Content

19.2

19

18.8

18.6

18.4
1 10 100
No. of Blows(in Log scale)

Liquid Limit = 18.995%

Table 5.9. Liquid Limit of 2 m depth sample

S. No. Sample No. 1 2 3

1 No. of Blows 24 30 31

2 Container No. 10 15 7

3 Weight of Container 23.16 23.24 23.55

4 Weight of Container + Wet Soil 50.34 44.30 39.86

5 Weight of Container +Oven 45.68 40.82 37.17

Dry Soil
6 Weight of Water 4.66 3.48 2.69

7 Weight of Oven Dry Soil 22.50 17.58 13.62

8 Water Content 20.69 19.80 19.75

Calculation-

29
 Liquid LImitChart
20.8
20.6 f(x) = − 0.139186046511628 x + 24.0236046511628

Water Content
20.4
20.2
20
19.8
19.6
1 10 100
No. of Blows (in Log scale)

Liquid Limit = 20.544%

Plastic limit(wp)

For determination of plastic limit of a soil, sieved through 425 IS sieve.

About 30 gm of soil is taken, is mixed thoroughly with distilled water.
Take 10 gm of water mixed soil into hand and form a ball.

Now the ball was rolled against glass plate with fingers. The ball shape
turns into thread shape to do the process until the thread is of size 3 mm
size. The rate of rolling was about 80 to 90 strokes per minute. Take the
soil into the container to know the moisture content.

The water content at which soil thread showing cracks that moisture
content was known as plastic limit of the soil.

Plasticity Index (IP)-

30
The plasticity index (PI) is defined as the water content range over
which the material remains plastic. the PI determines the amount and
type of clay present in a soil. In general,
• Soils with a high PI tend to be clay,
• Those with a lower PI tend to be silt, and
• Those with a PI near zero tend to have little or no silt or clay (fines)
present.

Plasticity Index was also calculated with the help of liquid limit and
plastic limit;
Ip = wL - wP
Where, wL is Liquid limit and wP is Plastic limit.

Fig 5.6 Plastic Limit Apparatus

Bulk Density

31
 Bulk density is the mass of the soil sample per unit volume including
voids, or the weight of soil sample for a given volume.

ρ =M/V

Bulk density is the density of a volume of soil as it exists naturally, it

includes air space, organic matter, and soil solids. Natural root growth is
restricted as bulk density becomes greater than 1.5 g/cm 3 in fine-textured
(clay and silt) soil and at 1.7 g/cm3 in course-textured soil (sandy).

Bulk density provides information about the water storage capacity,

structural conditions, and compactness of the soil.

The calculated bulk density at different depth mentioned in the table.

Table 5.10. Bulk Density

S. Sample No. 1 2 3

No. (1.00 m depth) (2.50 m depth) (4.00m depth)

1 Weight of mould +soil sample 167.98 g 323.13 g 293.41g

(w1)
2 Weight of mould (w2) 159.13 g 203.51 g 200.53 g

3 Weight of soil(w3=w1-w2) 108.85 g 119.62 g 92.88 g

4 Volume of soil (volume of 56.54 cm3 56.54 cm3 56.54 cm3

mould, V=πr2h)
5 Bulk density(w3/V) 1.925 2.115 1.642

Specific Gravity

32
It can be defined as the ratio of a substance’s density to that of water at a
particular given temperature. It is important to note that temperature plays
a vital role in determining the specific gravity of any substance.

Therefore, specific gravity is a property of the substance at a particular

temperature. Besides, pressure also affects the specific gravity of any
substance.

Specific gravity is also known as relative gravity. It does not have any
dimension which implies that it is a dimensionless quantity.

According to the definition of specific gravity, it can be mathematically

expressed as:

Specific gravity = ρsubstance/ρwater

In general, the specific gravity of any substance is defined relative to

water at 4⁰C. This temperature is considered because the water density at
that temperature is 1000kg/m³ or 1g/cm³.

Type of soil Specific gravity value (Gs)

Sand 2.65-2.67

Silty sand 2.67-2.70

Inorganic clay 2.70-2.80

Soil with mica or iron 2.75-3.00

Organic soil < 2.00

Table 5.11. Specific gravity of various soils

33
 Table 5.12. Specific Gravity using Density Bottle
S. No. Observation Number 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

1 Weight of density bottle 51.97 52.61 51.83 52.06 51.89

(W1 g)

2 Weight of density bottle 66.97 67.60 66.83 67.06 66.85

+ dry soil (W2g)

3 Weight of bottle + dry 165.69 164.83 163.34 165.63 163.24

soil + water (W3 g)

4 Weight of bottle + water 156.19 155.23 153.88 156.20 153.77

(W4 g)

5 Specific Gravity 2.72 2.78 2.70 2.69 2.65

G= (W2-W1)/ (W4-W1-
W3+W2)

Fig 5.7 Weighing of Density Bottle

34
 Moisture Content

Moisture content (MC) is a reference to the amount of moisture present in

the soil. This value is often represented as a percentage of the soil mass
(such as X% MC). The water content of a sample can be determined by
following methods:

 Oven-drying method
 Pycnometer method
 Rapid method

Oven-drying method-

This is the most accurate method and is recommended as the standard

method for determining water content in the laboratory.

Oven-dry method measure moisture content by weight—a piece of soil is

weighed and then placed in an oven at a set temperature 105°-110°C for
24 hours (sandy soil 4 hours and for clayey soil 15 hours) it takes for the
soil to stop changing weight.

Once dry, the soil is weighed again, and the difference in pre-drying
weight and post-drying weight is used to determine how much moisture
was in the soil being tested.

In case of soils containing Organic matter or calcareous compounds a

lower temperature 60-80°C will have to be used and the soil dried for a
longer period.

Mass of soil solids , Ms = (M3-M1)

Mass of water , Mw = (M2-M3)

Water content, w = Mw/Ms = (M2-M3)/(M3-M1)×100

35
 Where,

M1= mass of container with lid

M2= mass of dry soil sample + mass of container

M3= mass of moist soil sample + mass of container

S No. Sample No. 1 2 3

(1.00 m depth) (2.50 m depth) (4.00 m depth)

1 Weight of container with lid 14.22 25.82 26.33

W1 gm

2 Weight of container with lid 35.68 75.86 76.47

+wet soil W2 gm

3 Weight of container with lid 34.80 72.76 73.20

+dry soil W3 gm

4 Water/Moisture content (in 4.27 6.60 6.97

percentage)
W = [(W2−W3)/(W3−W1)]
100

Table 5.13 Moisture Content at field

36
 Fig 5.8 Oven Drying Machine

Direct Shear Test-

The direct shear is an experimental procedure that aims to determine the

shear strength of soil.

Shear Strength is defined as the maximum resistance that a material can

withstand when subjected to shearing.

Direct shear is considered one of the most common and simple tests to
derive the strength of a soil and can be performed on undistrubed or
remoulded samples.

37
 Fig 5.9 Mohr Failure Envelope
(https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/
f225c21036aa7e9b89eef289c0f3679d/image-8.jpg)

The shear strength is evaluated using the Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) Failure

Criterion. The M-C Criterion assumes that the shear strength depends on
three factors:
1. The normal effective stress (σn)
2. The friction angle of the material (φ)
3. The cohesion of the material (c)
The qualitative correlation of those components is expressed as:

t = c + σn * tan(φ)

Typically, sandy soils are considered cohesion-less. On the contrary,

clayey soils are cohesive when they are over-consolidated. Typical failure
envelopes for sand and over-consolidated clays are presented in Figures.

38
 Fig 5.10 Mohr Failure Envelope for Non- cohesive and Cohesive Soils
(https://www.geoengineer.org/storage/education/2375/editor_photos/
9334/Picture1.jpg)

Testing Equipment and Procedure

The soil specimen is placed in an apparatus known as shear box which

consists of two metallic plates, two porous stones, two screws, a gripper
disk and a loading cap where the normal stress is applied.
The shear box, that may be circular or square-shaped, restricts the
specimen’s horizontal strain but enables shearing on a horizontal plane.

Fig.5.11 Direct Shear Test Box

(https://www.geoengineer.org/storage/education/2375/editor_photos/
9335/Picture3.jpg)

39
The shear box is then placed in the shearing device. Initially, a direct
normal pressure is applied at the top of the sample using a leverage
weight or via a pneumatic system. This phase is known as the
consolidation stage and proceeds in an incremental manner similarly to
that of a typical consolidation test. At this stage, the metallic plates are
screwed together.

Before the shearing stage begins, one metallic plate is slightly raised to
ensure the separation of the two halves of the apparatus and secure that
the normal and shear loads are transmitted only through the specimen.

Afterwards, a shearing stress is applied along the pre-determined

horizontal plane until the specimen fails. The shearing device applies a
constant displacement rate with 5% accuracy tolerance.

This rate depends on the soil characteristics and should be relatively

small to prevent pore pressure built up thus providing sufficient drainage.

Ιt is controlled by a servomotor device and a gear box assembly. The

vertical and horizontal deformation are calculated via dial gauges.

Common errors that occur during direct shear testing include disturbing
the sample before the test, not allowing it to fully consolidate or selecting
a shearing rate that is too high.

Disturbance usually affects the sample’s structure and reduces its

strength. Therefore, the results of the test are not representative of the
actual soil’s behaviour.

40
 Fig 5.12 Failure Plane

Fig 5.13 Direct Shear Machine configuration

(https://www.geoengineer.org/storage/education/2375/editor_photos/
9347/1707261538110_dsc07395_sro2w.jpg)

41
The testing procedure can be summarized in the following stages:

1. Weigh the initial mass of the soil

2. Measure the height and diameter of the shear box
3. Place the shear box inside the shearing device
4. Stabilize the bottom part of the shear box by fixing the 2 screws
5. Assemble the shear box (put porous stone and the gripper disk
together)
6. Put the sample inside the box and place a filter paper, a porous stone
and the loading cap on top of it
7. Weight the mass of the remaining soil to derive the mass of the sample
8. Null the shear force
9. Null the initial dial gauges (horizontal, vertical)
10. Place the vertical load
11. Measure the vertical displacement due to consolidation
12. Set a selected rate at the shearing device
13. Start the shearing stage
14. Take reading measures frequently depending on the shearing rate
until the shear stress peaks and falls, or until the horizontal
deformation reaches 10-15% of the initial diameter.

42
 Table 5.14 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (sample 1)
Direct Shear Test Results
Sample No. :1(1m depth)
Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= 0.002mm) Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=
Normal Stress Applied = 0.05 N/mm2 0.01 mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould(g) = 317.41
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 179.86
Horizonta Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
2
l Gauge Ring Deformation Correction Area(cm ) Force Stress
Reading reading (mm) (1-d/3) (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 24 0.048 0.984 35.424 124.56 0.035
100 45 0.090 0.970 34.361 233.55 0.068
150 48 0.096 0.968 33.261 249.12 0.075
200 48 0.096 0.968 32.197 249.12 0.078
250 48 0.096 0.968 31.167 249.12 0.081

43
 Graph 5.7 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.
(Sample1)

Sample No. :2 (1m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= 0.002mm)
Sample Horizontal
1 2(1.00 m) Dial Gauge
Normal Stress0.09
Applied = 0.10 N/mm Constant=0.01 mm
Mass of sample
0.08
+ Shear Box Mould (g) = 308.19
Mass of Shear0.07Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil 0.06
sample (g) = 170.64
Shear Stress

0.05
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
0.04
Gauge 0.03
Ring Deformation Correctio Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading 0.02
reading (mm) n (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) 0.01 (Div.) (1-d/3)
0 0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
50 14 0.028Shear Displacement
0.990 35.640 80.92 0.023
100 37 0.074 0.975 34.749 213.86 0.062
150 48 0.096 0.968 33.630 277.44 0.083
200 50 0.100 0.967 32.527 289.00 0.090
250 50 0.100 0.967 31.453 289.00 0.094
Table 5.15 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (Sample 2)

Sample 2 (1.00 m)
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
Shear Stress

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.8 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.

44
 (Sample 2)

Table 5.16 Test result of direct shear at 1.00 m depth (sample 3)

Sample No. :3(1m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=0.01
0.002mm) mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.15
2
N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 322.65
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 185.10
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge Ring Deformation Correctio Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) n (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.) (1-d/3)
0 0 0.00 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 50 0.10 0.967 34.812 165.30 0.047
100 95 0.19 0.936 32.584 311.47 0.095
150 95 0.19 0.936 30.498 311.47 0.102
200 95 0.19 0.936 28.546 311.47 0.121

Sample 3 (1.00 m)
0.14
0.12
0.1
Shear Stress

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Shear Displacement

45
 Graph 5.9 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 1.00 m depth.
(Sample 3)

Table 5.17 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 1)

Sample No. :1(2.5 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=0.01
(1Div= 0.002mm) mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.05
2
N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 278.11
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 140.56
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge Ring Deformation Correctio Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) n (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.) (1-d/3)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 20 0.040 0.987 35.520 106.20 0.030
100 23 0.046 0.985 34.975 122.13 0.035
150 28 0.056 0.981 34.322 148.68 0.043
200 32 0.064 0.979 33.590 169.92 0.051
250 34 0.068 0.977 32.829 180.54 0.055
300 34 0.068 0.977 32.085 180.54 0.056

46
 Sample 1(2..50 m)
0.06

0.05

0.04
Shear Stress

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.10 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.

(Sample 1)

Table 5.18 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 2)

Sample No. :2(2.5 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=0.01
(1Div= 0.002mm) mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.10
2
N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 282.14
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 144.59
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge Ring Deformation Correctio Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) n (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.) (1-d/3)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 20 0.040 0.987 35.520 88.20 0.025
100 28 0.056 0.981 34.857 123.48 0.035
150 35 0.070 0.977 34.044 154.35 0.045
200 40 0.080 0.973 33.136 176.40 0.053
250 44 0.088 0.971 32.164 194.04 0.060
300 48 0.096 0.968 31.135 211.68 0.068
350 48 0.096 0.968 30.138 211.68 0.070

47
 Sample 2(2.50 m)
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
Shear Stress

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.11 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.

(Sample 2)

Table 5.19 Test result of direct shear at 2.50 m depth (Sample 3)

Sample No. :3(2.5 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= Horizontal Dial Gauge
0.002mm) Constant=0.01 mm
2
Normal Stress Applied = 0.15 N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 282.65
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 145.10
Horizontal Proving Ring Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge reading Deformation Correctio Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading (Div.) (mm) n (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (1-d/3)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 25 0.050 0.983 35.400 60.75 0.017
100 46 0.092 0.969 34.314 111.78 0.033
150 57 0.114 0.962 33.010 138.51 0.042
200 64 0.128 0.957 31.602 155.52 0.049
250 72 0.144 0.952 30.085 174.96 0.058
300 76 0.152 0.949 28.561 184.68 0.065
350 79 0.158 0.947 27.057 191.97 0.071

48
 400 80 0.160 0.947 25.614 194.40 0.076
450 80 0.160 0.947 24.248 194.40 0.080

Sample 3 (2.50 m)
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
Shear Stress

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.12 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 2.50 m depth.

(Sample 3)

Sample No. :1 (4 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=0.01
0.002mm) mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.05
2
N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 266.26
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 128.71
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
2
Gauge Ring Deformation Correction Area(cm ) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) (1-d/3) (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.000 0.000
50 10 0.020 0.993 35.760 86.570 0.024
100 14 0.028 0.991 35.426 121.198 0.034
150 16 0.032 0.989 35.048 138.512 0.040
200 18 0.036 0.988 34.628 155.826 0.045
250 18 0.036 0.988 34.212 155.826 0.046
300 18 0.036 0.988 33.802 155.826 0.046
Table 5.20 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 1)

49
 Sample 1 (4.00 m)
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
Shear Stress

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.13 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.

(Sample 1)

Table 5.21 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 2)

Sample No. :2(4 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = (1Div= Horizontal Dial Gauge
0.002mm) Constant=0.01 mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.10 N/mm2
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 267.49
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 129.94
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge Ring Deformation Correction Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) (1-d/3) (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.00 0.000
50 40 0.080 0.973 35.040 103.20 0.029
100 42 0.084 0.972 34.059 108.36 0.032
150 46 0.092 0.969 33.014 118.68 0.036
200 52 0.104 0.965 31.870 134.16 0.042
250 55 0.110 0.963 30.701 141.90 0.046
300 58 0.116 0.961 29.514 149.64 0.051
350 60 0.120 0.960 28.334 154.80 0.055

50
 400 61 0.122 0.959 27.181 157.38 0.058
450 61 0.122 0.959 26.076 157.38 0.060

Sample 2 (4.00 m)
0.07

0.06

0.05
Shear Stress

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.14 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.

(Sample2)
Table 5.22 Test result of direct shear at 4.00 m depth (Sample 3)

Sample No. :3(4 m depth)

Dimension of Shear Box- 60*60 mm
Proving reading Constant = Horizontal Dial Gauge Constant=0.01
(1Div= 0.002mm) mm
Normal Stress Applied = 0.15
2
N/mm
Mass of sample + Shear Box Mould (g) = 271.46
Mass of Shear Box Mould (g) =137.55
Mass of Soil sample (g) = 133.91
Horizontal Proving Shear Area Corrected Shear Shear
Gauge Ring Deformation Correction Area(cm2) force Stress
Reading reading (mm) (1-d/3) (N) (N/mm2)
(Div.) (Div.)
0 0 0.000 1.000 36.000 0.000 0.000
50 23 0.046 0.985 35.448 50.715 0.014
100 41 0.082 0.973 34.479 90.405 0.026
150 50 0.100 0.967 33.330 110.250 0.033
200 56 0.112 0.963 32.085 123.480 0.038
250 59 0.118 0.961 30.823 130.095 0.042

51
300 63 0.126 0.958 29.529 138.915 0.047
350 65 0.130 0.957 28.249 143.325 0.051
400 67 0.134 0.955 26.987 147.735 0.055
450 69 0.138 0.954 25.746 152.145 0.059
500 71 0.142 0.953 24.527 156.555 0.064
550 73 0.146 0.951 23.334 160.965 0.069
600 73 0.146 0.951 22.198 160.965 0.073

Sample 3 (4.00 m)
0.08
0.07
0.06
Shear Stress

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Shear Displacement

Graph 5.15 Shear displacement vs Shear stress graph at 4.00 m depth.

(Sample 3)

52
 Fig 5.14 Failure Surface

Table 5.23 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (1.00 m depth)

S. No. Normal Stress Shear Stress

1 0.05 0.075
2 0.1 0.09
3 0.15 0.095

0.1
0.09 f(x) = 0.2 x + 0.0666666666666667
0.08
0.07
0.06
Shear Stress

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Normal Stress

Graph 5.16 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (1.00 m depth)

53
 Table 5.24 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (2.50 m depth)

S. No. Normal Stress Shear Stress

1 0.05 0.055
2 0.1 0.068
3 0.15 0.076

0.08
f(x) = 0.21 x + 0.0453333333333333
0.07

0.06

0.05
Shear Stress

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Normal Stress

Graph 5.17 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (2.50 m depth)

54
 Table 5.25 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (4.00 m depth)

S. No. Normal Stress Shear Stress

1 0.05 0.046
2 0.1 0.058
3 0.15 0.069

0.08

0.07
f(x) = 0.23 x + 0.0346666666666667
0.06

0.05
Shear Stress

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Normal Stress

Graph 5.18 Normal Stress Vs Shear Stress (4.00 m depth)

55
 Chapter 6

Pile foundations
Pile foundations are the part of a structure used to carry and transfer the
load of the structure to the bearing ground located at some depth below
ground surface. The main components of the foundation are the pile cap
and the piles.

Piles are long and slender members which transfer the load to deeper soil
or rock of high bearing capacity avoiding shallow soil of low bearing
capacity.

The main types of materials used for piles are Wood, steel and concrete.
Piles made from these materials are driven, drilled or jacked into the
ground and connected to pile caps. Depending upon type of soil, pile
material and load transmitting characteristic piles are classified
accordingly.

Classification of piles-
Classification of pile with respect to load transmission and functional
behaviour-

1. End bearing piles (point bearing piles)

2. Friction piles (cohesion piles)
3. Combination of friction and cohesion piles

End Bearing Piles-

End bearing piles are those which terminate in hard, relatively

impenetrable material such as rock or very dense sand and gravel. They
derive most of their carrying capacity from the resistance of the stratum at
the toe of the pile.

56
 Fig 6.1 End Bearing Pile
(http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/gifs/endbear.gif)

Friction Piles-
Friction piles obtain a greater part of their carrying capacity by skin
friction or adhesion. This tends to occur when piles do not reach an
impenetrable stratum but are driven for some distance into a penetrable
soil. Their carrying capacity is derived partly from end bearing and partly
from skin friction between the embedded surface of the soil and the
surrounding soil.

Fig 6.2 Friction Pile

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/19/74/
e6/1974e610b6287bf2d57fb72f030c9c55.png)

57
Combination of friction piles and cohesion piles-

An extension of the end bearing pile when the bearing stratum is not hard,
such as a firm clay. The pile is driven far enough into the lower material
to develop adequate frictional resistance.

Fig 6.3 Friction- cum- Bearing Pile

(https://vincivilworld120501691.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/bandicam
2020-06-06-11-40-10-883.jpg?w=134)

Static formula Method-

This is an Analytical method which is based on the assumption that the
Ultimate bearing capacity of Pile is sum of the total Ultimate End Bearing
resistance and total Ultimate Skin Friction Resistance.

When load is applied on the top of Pile, pile will starts moving
downward. As a result the applied load is resisted by the skin friction
mobilized along certain length of pile measured from the top.

Diameter of Pile is d and Length of Pile is L.

58
Qu = Qb + Qsf

Qb = qb × Ab

Qb= Total Ultimate End Bearing resistance

qb = Unit End Bearing Resistance

Ab= Base or Bearing Area

Qsf= qs × As

Qsf= Total Ultimate Skin Friction Resistance

qsf = Unit Skin Friction Resistance between Pile and Soil

As= Surface Area of Pile

qb = CNc + σ’Nq

σ’= effective Overburden Pressure at the tip of pile

γ= Effective Unit Weight

where σ’ = γL

59
 Nc, Nq, and Nγ are Bearing Capacity factors

(B is very small in case of Pile Foundation. So neglected

Ab = πd2/4 (For Circular Pile)

Qb= (CNc + σ’Nq) πd2/4

As= πdL (For Circular Pile)

qsf= Ca + σ tan δ

Qsf = (Ca + σ tan δ ) πdL

Ca= αC

Ca= Unit Adhesion between pile and soil

α = Adhesion factor, depends upon soil and pile type

C= Average cohesion over depth of pile

δ = Frictional Angle between pile and soil

σ = Average vertical pressure over the depth of pile

Table 6.1 Adhesion factor for different soil type

S. No. Type of Soil Range of α

1 Loose Cohesive Soil 0.6-0.9

2 Medium Dense Cohesive Soil 0.4-0.6

3 Dense Cohesive Soil 0.3-0.5

60
61
 Chapter 7

Load Calculation

62
63
 Chapter 8

Results and Conclusions

64
 Chapter 9

References

Determination of water content (moisture content) IS:2720 (Part.

II)1973

Determination of specific gravity of fine-grained soil IS: 2720 (Part.

III) 1980 Sect/1

Determination of specific gravity of fine, medium & coarse-grained

soil. IS: 2720 (Part. III) 1980 Sect/2

Grain size analysis IS:2720 (Part.4) 1985

Determination of Liquid and plastic limit IS:2720 (Part.5) 1985

Direct shear test IS: 2720 (Part. XIII) 1986

IS 2131 (1981): Method for standard penetration test for soils

IS 2911 Part1: Section 1 (2010) Indian standard code of practice for

design and construction of pile foundations. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.

IS 2911 Part1: Section 4 (1984) Indian standard code of practice for

design and construction of pile foundations. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.

65
THANK
YOU

66