You are on page 1of 42

CE 632 CE-632

Foundation Analysis and Design

Pile Foundations
1

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Indian Standards on Piles
IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 1 : 1979 Driven cast in-situ concrete piles IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 2 : 1979 Bored cast-in-situ piles cast in situ IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 3 : 1979 Driven precast concrete piles IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 4 : 1984 Bored precast concrete piles IS 2911 : Part 2 : 1980 Timber piles IS 2911 : Part 3 : 1980 Under reamed piles IS 2911 : Part 4 : 1985 Load test on piles IS 5121 : 1969 Safety code for piling and other deep foundations IS 6426 : 1972 Specification for pile driving hammer IS 6427 : 1972 Glossary of Terms Relating to Pile Driving Equipment IS 6428 : 1972 Specification for pile frame IS 9716 : 1981 Guide for lateral dynamic load test on piles IS 14362 : 1996 Pile boring equipment - General requirements IS 14593 : 1998 Bored cast-in-situ piles founded on rocks - Guidelines IS 14893 : 2001 N D t ti I t it T ti of Pil (NDT) Non-Destructive Integrity Testing f Piles Guidelines

2

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

When is it needed
Top layers of soil are highly compressible for it to support structural loads through shallow foundations foundations. Rock level is shallow enough for end bearing pile foundations provide a more economical design design. Lateral forces are relatively prominent. In I presence of expansive and collapsible soils at th site. f i d ll ibl il t the it Offshore structures Strong uplift forces on shallow foundations due to shallow water table can be partly transmitted to Piles. For structures near flowing water (Bridge abutments, etc.) to avoid the problems due to erosion.
3

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Types of Piles

Steel Piles
Pipe piles Rolled steel H-section piles H section

Concrete Piles
Pre-cast Piles Cast in situ Cast-in-situ Piles Bored-in-situ piles

Timber Piles Composite Pil C it Piles
4

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Steel Piles: Facts Usual length: 15 m – 60 m Usual Load: 300 kN – 1200 kN Advantage: g Relatively less hassle during installation and easy to achieve cutoff level. High d i i f Hi h driving force may be used for fast installation b d f f t i t ll ti Good to penetrate hard strata Load carrying capacity is high Disadvantage: Relatively expensive Noise pollution during installation Corrosion Bend in piles while driving 5 .

Amit Prashant Concrete Piles: Facts Pre-cast Piles: Usual l U l length: 10 m – 4 m h 45 Usual Load: 7500 kN – 8500 kN Cast-in-situ Piles: Usual length: 5 m – 15 m Usual Load: 200 kN – 500 kN Advantage: Relatively cheap It can be easily combined with concrete superstructure Corrosion resistant It can bear hard driving Disadvantage: Difficult to transport p Difficult to achieve desired cutoff 6 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Types of Piles Based on Their Function and Effect of Installation Piles based on th i f Pil b d their function ti End Bearing Piles Friction Piles F i ti Pil Compaction Piles Anchor Piles Uplift Piles Effect of Installation Displacement Pil Di l t Piles Non-displacement Piles 7 .

5 times the pile diameter p p (3. Amit Prashant Displacement Piles In loose cohesionless soils Densifies the soil upto a distance of 3. Timber or Steel piles 8 . Pore pressure Pore-pressure is generated during installation causing lower effective stress and consequently lower shearing resistance.0 D approx.).) leading to a decreased value of shearing resistance.5D) which increases the soil’s resistance to shearing The friction angle varies from the pile surface to the limit of compacted soil In dense cohesionless soils The dilatancy effect decreases the friction angle within the zone of p pile (3.5D approx.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. pp ) influence of displacement p ( Displacement piles are not effective in dense sands due to above reason. Excess pore-pressure dissipates over the time and soil regains its g strength. In cohesive soils Soil is remolded near the displacement piles (2. Example: Driven concrete piles.

They may be provided with reinforcement if economical with th i reduced di i f t i l ith their d d diameter. g Cast in-situ piles may be cased or uncased (by removing casing as concreting progresses). Example: Bored cast in-situ or pre-cast piles 9 . This may lead to loss of its shear strength. there is no heave in the ground. Amit Prashant NonNon-displacement Piles Due to no displacement during installation. Soil on the sides may soften due to contact with wet concrete y or during boring itself. Concreting under water may b challenging and may resulting C ti d t be h ll i d lti in waisting or necking of concrete in squeezing ground. t Enlarged bottom ends (three times pile diameter) may be provided in cohesive soils leading to much larger point bearing capacity.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Amit Prashant Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles With the increasing load on a pile initially the resistance is offered by side friction and when the side resistance is fully mobilized to the shear strength of soil.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. pp y pile pile usually in punching shear. the rest of load is supported by p end. 10 . At certain load the soil at the p end fails. which is defined as the ultimate load capacity of pile.

Δz S = perimeter of pile z Qsu Q pu = q pu .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles The frictional resistance per unit area at any depth Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile Ultimate point load ΔQz qsz = S . Ap q pu = bearing capacity of soil Ap = bearing area of pile Δz ΔQs Ultimate load capacity in compression Ultimate load capacity in tension Qu = Q pu + Qsu Qu = Qsu Qup p Qus Qu 11 .

5γ DNγ* Since pile diameter is relatively small. Shape. third term may be dropped out * q pu = cN c* + q′N q Hence Pile load capacity * Q pu = q pu . Ap = cN c* + qN q . Ap ( ) 12 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Point Load capacity of Pile: General Bearing p y g Capacity approach Ultimate bearing capacity of soil considering general bearing capacity equation. and depth factors are included in bearing capacity factors * * q pu = cN c + q′N q + 0. inclination.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.qul * qul = 0.q′.4 ( N ′′ ) L ≤ 4 Pa ( N ′′ ) D N“ value shall be taken as an average for a zone ranging from 10D above to 4D below the pile point. Saturated Clays: Q pu = N c* .cu . Ap = 9. Therefore. Amit Prashant Point Load capacity of Pile: Meyerhof’s ( p y y (1976) ) Method Granular soils: Point bearing capacity of pile increases with depth in sands and reaches its maximum at an embedment ratio L/D = (L/D)cr. the point load capacity of pile is * Q pu = Ap . Ap 13 .N q < Ap . Correlation of limiting point resistance with SPT value qul = 0.cu .5Pa N q tan φ ′ Pa = Atmospheric p p pressure (L/D)cr value typically ranges from 15D for loose to medium sand to 20D for dense sands.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.N c* + σ o Nσ Mean effective normal stress at pile end * Nσ = ( ) ⎛ 1 + 2Ko ′ =⎜ σo ⎝ 3 ⎞ ⎟ q′ ⎠ f ( I rr ) Ir I rr = 1 + Ir Δ avg vol strain at pile end Reduced rigidity index of soil I r = rigidity index = * Nc = Gs Es = ( c′ + q′ tan φ ′) 2 (1 + μs )( c′ + q′ tan φ ′) 4 π ln I rr + 1) + + 1 ( 3 2 Ir 75-150 50-75 150-250 Baldi t l (1981) B ldi et al. (1981): For mechanical cone resistance For electric cone resistance Type of soil Sand Silt Clay Ir = 3 q f qc Ir = 1. Amit Prashant Point Load capacity of Pile: Vesic’s (1977) Method p y ( ) Pile point bearing capacity based on the theory of expansion of cavities ′ * Q pu = Ap .7 17 q f qc 14 .qup = Ap . c.

N q ( ) N = tan φ ′ + 1 + tan φ ′ * q 2 ( )( 2 e 2η ′ tan φ ′ ) 60o ≤ η ′ ≤ 90o Clay Sand * * N c = N q − 1 cot φ ′ ( ) η′ 15 . Amit Prashant Point Load capacity of Pile: Janbu’s (1976) Method Janbu s * Q pu = Ap c.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.N c* + q′.

* q 16 . Amit Prashant Point Load capacity of Pile: Coyle and Costello’s (1981) Method for Granular Soils * Q pu = Ap .N q L ratio N is a function of D L is length of pile below G.L.q′.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Point Load Capacity of Pile resting on Rock y g Goodman (1980): Q pu = Ap .qu ( Nφ + 1) Nφ = tan 2 ( 45 + φ ′ 2 ) qu = unconfined compression strength of rock φ ′ = effective friction angle of rock To consider the influence of distributed fractures in rock which are not reflected b the compression tests on small hi h fl d by h i ll samples. the compression strength for design is taken as ( qu )design = ( qu )lab 5 17 .

5φ' to 0.8φ‘. ′ Kσ v 18 .tan δ ≤ f sL′ Soil-Pile interface f i ti angle δ varies f S il Pil i t f friction l i from 0. L′ ′ f sz = K . f sz The unit frictional resistance increases with the depth and reaches its maximum at the depth of approximately 15D to 20D.ΔL.σ v . Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand The frictional resistance of pile may be computed as Qsu = ∑ S .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.Earth pressure coefficient depends on both soil type and pile installation. as shown in the adjacent figure.

tanδ for large displacement piles can be computed as Coyle and Castello C t ll (1981) K = 0.008Dr K .L = K .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.tan δ .tan δ = 0.L tan Avg effective overburden 19 ( ) .S .S .0065Dr t 0 18 0 0065 Coyle and Castello (1981) proposed that ultimate skin frictional resistance of pile can be computed as Qsu = ( f s )av .18 + 0.50 + 0. Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand Bhushan (1982) suggested that the ( ) gg value of K and K.σ ′v .

τ Failure Envelope φ ′ = φo′ − 5. Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand Zeitlen and Paikowski (1982) suggested that limiting fs is automatically accounted for by the decrease in φ’ with effective confining pressure which may be used to compute K and δ. Typical values of K from a number of pile tests: 20 .5log ′ σv ′ σo σ Effective vertical stress at the depth of interest Effective confining stress during triaxial test g g ′ Friction angle obtained through triaxial testing at some confining pressure σ o.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: α-method Proposed by Tomlinson (1971): f s = α .cu Empirical adhesion factor 21 .

NC σ ′v correction factor for soil disturbance on sides With the above relationships.cu = σ ′h .S . σ ′v cu ( ) C1 and n are constants depending on soil properties and type of pile installation 22 . α can be determined as a function of effective overburden and undrained shear strength t th n α = C1.tan δ and σ ′h = κ K o . Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: α-method Randolph and Murphy (1985): Randolph and Murphy (1985) Qsu = ∑ α .cu .ΔL Sladen (1992): f s = α .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

23 .L Value of σ ′v and cu are computed as weighted average over the embedded depth of pile This method usually overpredicts the capacity of piles with embedded length less than 15 m. Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: λ-method Proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972): ( f s )av = λ (σ ′v + 2cu ) Mean undrained shear strength M d i d h t th λ varies with the length of embedded pile Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile Qsu = ( f s )av .S .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

σ v Effective friction angle of remolded clay at certain depth Earth pressure coefficient may be estimated as the earth pressure at rest: ′ K = (1 − sin φR ) For Normally Consolidated Clay For Over Consolidated Clay ′ K = (1 − sin φR ) OCR Total frictional resistance of pile: Qsu = ∑ f s .S . ′ ′ ′ f s = β .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. the frictional resistance of pile may be estimated on the basis of effective stress parameters of clay in a remolded state.σ v = K tan φR .ΔL 24 . Amit Prashant Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: β-method In saturated clays displacement piles induce excess pore pressure near p pile surface during installation which eventually dissipates within a month g y p or so. Hence.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils 25 .

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant IS:2911 S 9 Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils 26 .

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant For Driven Piles For Bored Piles 27 .

Amit Prashant IS:2911 S 9 Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils 28 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

However. yp installation has a major impact on how the earth pressure may vary from Ko. Driv Circu Pile ven ular Driven Con nical Pile e Soil movement Bored Pile P 29 . as shown in the figure below. Amit Prashant IS:2911 S 9 Pile Load Capac ty in Co es o ess So s e oad Capacity Cohesionless Soils It seems logical that K value shall be close to the coefficient of earth p pressure at rest Ko as described in earlier methods.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. type of .

it is advisable to estimate this value based on the type of construction and fair estimation of the disturbance to soil around pile Typical values of pile. ratio between K and Ko are listed below. Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils IS code recommends K-value to be chosen between 1 and 2 for driven piles and 1 and 1.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. 30 . However.5 for bored piles.

5 and > 1 / / 31 .5 σ ′v cu For σ ′v cu < 1 → α = 0. but < 0.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.25 .5 σ ′v cu ( ) 0. but > 1 / ( ) 0. Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils For σ ′v cu ≥ 1 → α = 0.5 .

Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils 32 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Amit Prashant Meyerhof’s Formula for Driven Piles based on SPT value y For Sand: For L/D > 10 A limiting value of 1000 t/m2 for point bearing and 6 t/m2 is suggested For Non-plastic silt and fine sand: Non- For Clays: 33 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Non-Cohesive NonSoils Based on CPT data The ultimate point bearing capacity: 34 .

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant IS:2911 Pile Load Capacity in Non-Cohesive NonSoils Based on CPT data The ultimate skin friction resistance: Correlation of SPT and CPT: 35 .

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Pile Load Capacity: Other Correlations with p y SPT value 36 .

375 for sand and gravel 37 . Eliminate the qc values that are higher than 1.7(q 0 7(qc)avg.Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.5D below the pile tip.kb Get the average qc value for f a zone 1. Compute the (qc )eq as g an average of the remaining qc values. Equivalent avg avg.6 for clay and silt kb = 0. cone resistance D Empirical bearing capacity factor Briaud and Miran (1991): kb = 0. Amit Prashant Point Load Capacity of Pile: Correlation with CPT data by LCPC Method q pu = ( qc )eq .3(qc)avg or lower than 0.5D above to 1 D b 1.

67 for OCR = 2 to 4 38 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Calculate D qp ( qc1 + qc 2 ) k ′ ≤ 150. Average the value of qc for a zone p p. Define qc1 as the minimum value of above (qc)avg. get of 8D above the pile tip. Ignore sharp peaks during averaging.7 to 4. and g qc2. Amit Prashant Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT by Dutch Method Compute the average qc value for a zone yD below the pile tip for y varying from 0. p = 2 b Atmospheric p Pressure a ′ kb = 1.0 for OCR = 1 ′ kb = 0.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. p 2 b a R1 = Reduction factor as function of cu R2 = 1 f electrical cone penetrometer for l t i l t t R2 = 0.6 for mechanicsl cone penetrometer 39 . Amit Prashant Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT by Dutch Method q p = R1 R2 ( qc1 + qc 2 ) k ′ ≤ 150.

Amit Prashant Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in Sand by Dutch Method Electric Cone Mechanical Cone Frictional cone resistance 40 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Amit Prashant Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in Clays by Dutch Method Frictional cone resistance 41 .Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant Allowable Pile Capacity Factor of Safety shall be used by giving due consideration to the following points Reliability of soil parameters used for calculation Mode of transfer of load to soil Importance of structure Allowable total and differential settlement tolerated by structure Factor of Safety as per IS 2911: 42 .