## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

:

1.0 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 2.0 2.0.1 2.0.2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 3.0 4.0 5.0 Introduction Choice of pile type Driven (displacement) piles Bored (replacement) piles Analysis Driving formulae Soil mechanics Piles in cohesive soil Bored piles Driven piles Under-reamed piles Piles in non-cohesive soil Driven piles Bored piles Negative Skin Friction Working Load Summary

REFERENCES

A pile carries the applied load via: 1. Fleming (1985) and Whitaker (1970).1. structural member used to transmit loads applied at its top to the ground at lower levels”. Bored or replacement piles – which first require a hole to be bored into which the pile is then formed.00 Oct2010 . For structures transmitting significant horizontal or inclined loads. On sites where the soil strata. For structures transmitting very high concentrated loads. A shear stress mobilised (developed) on the surface of the shaft of the pile. 2. called end bearing. Where the soil layer(s) immediately underlying a structure are moderately or highly variable in nature. screwed or hammered into the ground. A single pile can be defined as “a long slender. For structures which structurally or functionally may be sensitive to differential settlement. Poulos (1980). jacked.0 INTRODUCTION Piles are used where a structure cannot be supported satisfactorily on a shallow foundation. refer to the books by Tomlinson (1987). Examples of where piled foundations may provide a solution are: Where a soil layer of adequate bearing capacity lies too deep for the economic use of conventional footings. From the point of view of both design and construction. Bearing capacity at the base of the pile. For more detailed treatment of piling methods. b) -2Pile Foundations v1. usually of reinforced concrete. and in some cases the ground surface are steeply inclined. pile types and design. On river or shoreline sites where tidal or wave action or scouring may vary the amount of material near the surface. Where the soil layer(s) immediately underlying a structure are soft or poorly compacted. piles are classified into two types: a) Driven or displacement piles – which are usually preformed before being driven. This is called skin friction in sands and adhesion in clays.

noise and vibration during driving . Eurocode 7 emphasises that pile design must be based on static load tests or on calculations that have been validated by these tests. end bearing piles or friction piles.uneconomic if the design is governed by driving stresses rather than working stresses .00 Oct2010 .may break during driving . (useful in marine structures) . In the majority of cases however.unjointed types cannot easily be varied in length .can withstand high bending and tensile stresses -can be driven in long lengths Disadvantages: .displacement of soil may affect adjacent structures .can be left protruding above G. the load carrying capacity is dependent on both the end bearing and shaft friction.construction not affected by ground water . Types of pile foundations 1.1 Choice of pile type 1.may be inspected for quality and soundness before driving . NOTE:Pile design must be accompanied by in situ load testing.not liable to squeezing or necking .L.cannot be driven in situations of low head room -3Pile Foundations v1.Piles may also be classified according to how they achieve their load carrying capacity.1 Driven or Displacement piles a) Preformed piles: Advantages:.1.

drilling tools can break up boulders and other obstructions .removed soil can be compared with design data .displacement may damage adjacent structures . Calculate the carrying capacity from soil mechanics expressions.length can easily be adjusted .noise and vibration may be unacceptable 1.design governed by working conditions .cannot be easily extended above ground .boring may cause instability and settlement of adjacent structures 2.little noise and vibration during construction .pile is designed to working stresses .length may be limited if tubes are to be extracted . -4Pile Foundations v1.enlarged base possible .very large bases can be formed in favourable ground .special techniques required for concreting in water bearing ground . Estimate the carrying capacity from driving formulae and load tests (only suitable for sands/gravels or stiff clay) 2.concrete cannot be inspected after installation .very long lengths possible .necking is possible where temporary tubes are used .noise and vibration reduced by internal drop hammer Disadvantages: .00 Oct2010 .penetration tests can be carried out in boreholes .no ground heave Disadvantages: .0 ANALYSIS OF PILES Analysis of piles is quite complex and there are two main approaches: 1.b) Cast in place piles Advantages: .concrete cannot be inspected after installation .piles liable to squeezing and necking in soft soils .2 Bored or replacement piles a) Cast in place piles: Advantages: .length can be varied .enlarged bases cannot be formed in collapseable soil .1.ground water can be excluded by driving with a closed end .

Hiley Formula.0. 2.0.1 Driving Formulae There are many different expressions – all try to relate the energy needed to drive the pile to the penetration of the pile (for which there is no theoretical justification).2 Analysis using soil mechanics Load capacity of single piles There are two forms of resistance provide by the pile to the applied vertical loads: shaft resistance base resistance At failure the ultimate values of both these resistances are mobilised to give: Qu = Qs + Qb where : Qu = ultimate pile capacity Qs = ultimate shaft resistance Qb = ultimate base resistance and Qb = qb x Ab = base bearing capacity x area of base Qs = surface area of shaft in contact with the soil x shear strength of the soil Qs = ca d L (clays) .00 Oct2010 where .2. found from graph s = set or penetration/blow c = total temporary compression of pile Driving formulae take no account of soil type or conditions and are therefore generally disapproved of by foundation engineers.g. e. where ca = adhesion Qs = fs d L (sands) . The only sure way is to drive some test piles and then carry out load tests – thereby finding the carrying capacity – time and cost are big disadvantages. Ru = Where. Whn s + c/2 Ru = ultimate driving resistance W = weight of hammer h = fall of hammer n = efficiency of blow. where fs = skin friction d = diameter of pile L = length of pile in contact with the soil -5Pile Foundations v1.

75 (fissured) clays = c a As = adhesion = cu = adhesion factor [usually taken as 0. each providing different shaft resistances and the total shaft resistance is the summation of the individual values. Qb (kN): Qb Where qb Ab cu Nc Shaft resistance.0 for soft clays to 0.45.1 Bored piles Base resistance. Qs(kN): Where Qs ca = qb Ab = cu Nc Ab = = = = Qb base bearing capacity = cu Nc cross sectional area of pile base (m2) undrained shear strength at base of pile bearing capacity factor = 9. Qu = Qb + Qs Qs Qs 2. =0 ) Qu Ultimate pile capacity. o 2. but may vary from 1. The weight of the pile is usually ignored in the above equations.00 Oct2010 cu d L .3 for overconsolidated clays] = average undrained shear strength over length of pile.0 (intact clays) or = 6. since it is approximately equal to the weight of soil removed or displaced. L = diameter of pile = length of pile in contact with soil stratum -6Pile Foundations v1.1.Piles usually penetrate several different soil types.1 Piles in cohesive soil (clay/silt .

7 for firm clay and 0.0kN/m2. determine the length of pile required to support a working load of 1200 kN.96m. Nc = 9 a) b) A factor of safety of 3. [14. Class example 3 A large under-reamed bored pile is to be installed in stiff clay with undrained shear strength of 125kN/m2.5m diameter and the base of the under ream is 4. [9. 750mm diameter and 12. undrained shear strength = 120.0m long.0 kN/m2. is to be installed on a site where two layers of clay exist: Upper firm clay.5m diameter with a height of 3. Nc = 9 ii) Factors of safety of 1. say 15m] 2.0m thick.5 and 3. Determine the working load of the pile in MN.0m of the firm clay is ignored due to clay/concrete shrinkage. 12.Class example 1 A bored pile.00 Oct2010 .498MN] -7Pile Foundations v1. The main shaft of the pile is 1.3 .0m thick. undrained shear strength = 50. assuming the following: = 0.0m and the total length of the pile from the ground level to the base of the under ream is 27m.2 Under-reamed piles Often used in cohesive soils to increase the base area of the pile. Determine the working load the pile could support assuming the following: i) = 0. For under-reamed piles the adhesion should be ignored over the: a) height of the under-ream.0 should be applied to the base load but full mobilisation of shaft adhesion can be assumed. b) main shaft of the pile up to 2 shaft diameters above the top of the under-ream and c) top 1m of the pile (zone of seasonal shrinkage).0 are applied to the shaft load and base load respectively iii) The top 1. 8.1.5 for stiff clay . thereby increasing the base resistance. Lower stiff clay. [921 kN] Class example 2 For the ground conditions and assumptions described in Example 1.

= cu Nc Ab (as above) = = c u As cu dL cu d L = adhesion factor dependent on depth of penetration and type of overburden.3 Driven piles Base resistance Qb: Qb Shaft resistance Qs: Qs where.00 Oct2010 .0m into a stiff clay. 600mm diameter is driven to a depth of 15.0kN/m2. Assume = 0.2.1.5. value found from graph (see next page) = average undrained shear strength over pile length L = diameter of pile = length of pile in contact with soil stratum Class example 4 A closed end pipe pile.43 Determine the working load (kN) the pile could support with an overall factor of safety of 2. The undrained shear strength of the clay is 140.0 kN] -8Pile Foundations v1. [778.

1987) -9Pile Foundations v1.Adhesion factors for short piles(L<10d) driven into stiff clay Adhesion factors for long piles(L>20 to 40d) driven into stiff clay (Tomlinson.00 Oct2010 .

see chart below ‛ = vertical effective stress at the base v of the pile Qb = Nq v‛ Qs Qs Qb Ab (From Berezantsev et al 1961) -10Pile Foundations v1. Ab Where. Qu = Qb + Qs 2.1 Driven piles Base resistance Qb: Qb = qb .2. c = 0) Qu Ultimate pile capacity.00 Oct2010 .2 Piles in non-cohesive soil (sand/gravel .2. Ab = cross sectional area of pile base qb = base bearing capacity = Nq v‛ and Nq = bearing capacity factor.

The value of zc is determined from charts relating depth to ‛ . the values for zc and below). Field stress have shown. below which shaft and base resistance are considered to be constant (i.e. however.The internal angle of friction ‛. before the installation of the pile. is not easy to determine since disturbance will occur during piling. The ‛ value used is obtained from correlations with the SPT ‘N’ values as shown below: Critical depth.00 Oct2010 . Shaft resistance Qs: where Qs fs As = fs As = skin friction on pile surface = Ks tan v‛ = area of pile in contact with the soil = d L (cylindrical pile) = coefficient of horizontal effective stress = angle of friction between pile surface and soil = average effective vertical stress = Ks tan v‛ and Ks v‛ Qs dL and they are usually The method of installation affects the values of Ks and presented as one factor as shown below. This has lead to the concept of critical depth zc . the vertical effective stress increases and therefore the end bearing should increase. zc As the depth of pile penetration increases.these are somewhat tentative. that end bearing does not increase continually with depth. A possible explanation is that as ‛ increases the bearing capacity factor decreases. -11Pile Foundations v1.

0kN/m3 [949.5m long concrete pile.Class example 5 A 10. 400mm square. Meyerhof (1976) suggests designing as if for a driven pile. Poulus(1980) suggests analysing as if for a driven pile but using reduced values of v‛.5m below ground level. The water table lies at 2.2kN] 2. Consequently bored piles in dense sands can be expected to have low bearing capacity. Casting concrete in situ will produce rough surfaces but this effect is diminished by the loosening of the sand. but using one third of the base resistance and one half of the shaft resistance. is to be driven into a thick deposit of medium dense sand.5 and the sand has a saturated unit weight of 20. -12Pile Foundations v1. with an SPT ‘N’ value of 25 and a bulk unit weight of 20. Estimate the working load this length of pile will support assuming an overall factor of safety of 2.00 Oct2010 .0 kN/m2.2.2 Bored piles Boring holes in sands loosens an annulus of soil around the hole and reduces horizontal stresses.

A water table is present at a constant depth of 5.0 kN/m2 at a depth of 7. it is necessary to apply factors of safety in order to limit the settlement to a permissible value. [1256.0 kN/m3.0 kN/m2 at 5.5m below ground level.00 Oct2010 . -13Pile Foundations v1.3 kN] 4.e.5m. Consequently the values of friction or adhesion for the consolidating soil must be added to the applied load.0 kN/m3. N = 18) ( sat = 22. Fill (recent) Medium SAND Soft CLAY Compact SAND driven pile driven 12.0m 9. FILL Soft CLAY Dense GRAVEL (Recently placed) Compresses under own weight Consolidates due to weight of fill.0m into a layered soils as 2. against the pile resistance. N = 33) The strength of the soft clay increases linearly from 18.0 kN/m3.0m thick thick thick thick ( = 26. Determine the safe working load of this pile by adopting factors of safety of 1.0 NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION This term refers to the action (friction or adhesion) of soil layer/s acting with the applied loading i.5m below ground level to 36. Treat skin friction values as load on the pile and are not factored. FILL (recently placed) Compresses under own weight. ‛ = 37o) ( = 17.0 kN/m3) ( sat = 22. Clay soil undergoing consolidation settlement or Fill material compacting over time Negative skin friction is caused by a dragging down effect by the consolidating / compacting layer plus any overlying strata.5 and 2.0 WORKING LOAD OF PILES In order to determine the working or safe load that a pile can carry. see diagrams below. It is usually caused by either. Does not compress Dense GRAVEL Does not compress Class example 6 A 300m square concrete follows.3.5m 3.5 for the shaft and end bearing resistance respectively.0m 2.

an adhesion factor.0 on the shaft load and base load respectively.5 The first expression governs the design of straight shafted piles and the second governs the design of large under reamed piles. Burland (1966) suggests that providing an overall factor of safety of 2 is obtained. the top 1. partial factors on the shaft and base of 1 and 3 respectively should be applied. 1200mm diameter.0 c. factors of safety of 1.5 OR Qa = Qs Qb + 1. ground conditions etc. to support a working load of 4500kN in a thick deposit of clay with an undrained shear strength increasing linearly with depth from 55.g. For piles up to 600mm diameter An overall factor of safety of 2. higher factors of safety should be used so that the working load Qa is smaller of : Qa = Qs + Qb 2. say 30m] -14Pile Foundations v1.0m of the pile does not support load due to clay/concrete shrinkage b. Glacial Till (boulder clay).00 Oct2010 . to give a settlement which is unlikely to exceed 10mm.5 should be adopted. However the following values are generally accepted. For soils other than London Clay.5m.0kN/m2 at ground level and at 5.5 3.5 and 3. where there is uncertainty about the effects of installation.0kN/m2 per metre depth. so that the working load.5. Nc = 9.5 Class example 7 Determine the length of a pile.Different authors apply various factors of safety to different pile conditions. a. e. Assume. = 0. working load = For piles larger than 600mm diameter It is necessary to apply partial factors of safety to the ultimate base and shaft resistance values For London Clay. Qa is the smaller of : Qa = Qs + Qb 2 OR Qa = Qs Qb + 1 3 ultimate load 2. [29.

Qs = Kstanδ σv' As where. Qb = cu Nc Ab as above Shaft resistance.3 for overconsolidated clays cu = average undrained shear strength over length of pile As = surface area of pile in contact with soil stratum DRIVEN PILES Base resistance.75 for fissured clays Shaft resistance.5. Kstanδ = installation factor from graph σv' = average effective vertical stress -15Pile Foundations v1. Ab = cross sectional area of pile base Nq = bearing capacity factor. = Nq σv' Ab where.0 SUMMARY Driven or displacement piles Bored or replacement piles Types of pile: Piles in cohesive soil (clay/silt.0 for soft clays to 0. found from graph σv' = vertical effective stress at the base of the pile Shaft resistance. Piles in non-cohesive soil (sand/gravel.00 Oct2010 Qb . Qs = α cu As where. Qb = cu Nc Ab where.0 for intact clays or = 6. c = 0) DRIVEN PILES Base resistance. usually taken as 0. thereby increasing the base resistance. value found from graph cu = average undrained shear strength over pile length As = surface area of pile in contact with soil stratum Under-reamed piles Increase of the base area of the pile.45. Qs = α cu As where. 1. Φ = 0o) BORED PILES Base resistance. Ab = cross sectional area of pile base cu = undrained shear strength at the base of the pile Nc = bearing capacity factor = 9. α = adhesion factor. The adhesion should be ignored for a distance of two diameters above the top of the under ream. α = adhesion factor dependent on depth of penetration and type of overburden. but may vary from.

-16Pile Foundations v1.0 is obtained.5 Note: For negative skin friction. For soils other than London Clay. where there is uncertainty about the effects of installation. with partial factors on the shaft and base of 1 and 3 respectively.5 1. For London Clay. so that the working load.AS = surface area of pile in contact with the soil BORED PILES Boring holes in sands loosens an annulus of soil around the borehole. For piles =<600mm diameter Use an overall F of S of to give a settlement of <10mm. Working load of piles Apply factors of safety in order to limit the settlement to a permissible value.e. or use 1/3 of the base resistance and 1/2 of the shaft resistance. Do NOT factor down skin friction values. higher factors of safety should be used Qa is the smaller of: Qs + Qb Qs Qb OR Qa = + Qa = 2. Analyse as if for a driven pile but using reduced values of σv'. ground conditions etc.5 3. against the pile resistance. For piles >600mm diameter Apply partial factors of safety to the base resistance and the shaft resistance. the above factors of safety are NOT applied to the element of load acting against the pile resistance.00 Oct2010 . an overall F of S of 2. Qa is the smaller of: Qs + Qb Qs Qb OR Qa = + Qa = 2 1 3 The first expression governs the design of straight shafted piles and the second governs the design of large under reamed piles. hence low bearing capacity. Consequently the values of friction or adhesion for the consolidating soil must be added to the applied load. Negative skin friction The action of fiction or adhesion acts WITH the applied loading i.

M J (1987) Pile design and construction practice 3rd Ed.11 . J B et al (1966) The behaviour and design of large-diameter bored piles in stiff clay Proceedings. G G (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations. London Fleming. American Society of Civil Engineers 102(GT3). 5th Int Conf Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Tomlinson. E H (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design John Wiley & Sons. Palladian Publications Ltd. vol. Viewpoint Publications.2 pp. T (1970) The design of piled foundations Oxford : Pergamon -17Pile Foundations v1.REFERENCES Berezantsev et al (1961) Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations Proc. Symposium on large bored piles ICE. New York.00 Oct2010 . Proceedings. Whitaker. pp 195-228 Poulos H G and Davis.12 Burland. W G K et al (1985) Piling engineering Surrey University Press / Halstead Press Meyerhof. Paris.

- bearcap565.pdf
- CE 632 Pile Foundations Part-1 Handout
- Khan Shatyr Project
- 3DAE Tutorial Lesson03
- A Brief Guide to Design of Bored Piles Under Axial Compression
- Final Report Rev. 1.0 Bh Sv-6x (Platform)
- Pile Foundations v1.00 Oct2010
- EngineeringHandbook Low
- Ec7 Embedded Wall Design Nigg
- 219 Delusion of Bearing Capacity
- Soil
- R5410101 Foundation Engineering
- Soil Engineering
- Ground Imp.
- Cpt Based Design of Driven Piles in Sand for Offs
- r05410101 Foundation Engineering
- A Review on the Driving Performance of FRP Composite Piles
- pdi capwap
- State of the Art
- 9D12101 Advanced Soil Mechanics
- 6.1 Pile Foundations 2013
- CH-6-153-002
- 04we Schuppener Worked Example Characterstic Values
- Drilled Shaft Calculation
- Integrated Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure-Foundation Sy
- Piles Design
- Design of Pile Cap
- LEE Nonlinear 3D Analysis of Piled Raft on Soft Soil
- AuGeo Piling System
- Samte Pe Sala

- 501 Olive - LaSalle Building National Register of Historic Places application
- NASA Facts Building KSC's Launch Complex 39 2002
- CREW
- Mockingbird Pedestrian Bridge presentation
- The Clyde Mysterya Study in Forgeries and Folklore by Lang, Andrew, 1844-1912
- Caisson Corporation v. Ingersoll-Rand Company, 622 F.2d 672, 3rd Cir. (1980)
- An Approximate Analysis Procedure for Piled Raft subjected to Vertical Loading
- As 1181-1982 Method of Measurement of Civil Engineering Works and Associated Building Works
- Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXX, Dec. 1910Reinforced Concrete Pier Construction by Klapp, Eugene
- Oct 2013 Mtg Presentation_102513.pdf
- F. H. McGraw & Co. v. New England Foundation Co., Inc, 210 F.2d 62, 1st Cir. (1954)
- T.L. James & Company, Inc. v. Traylor Bros. Inc., Traylor Brothers, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, Defendant-Third Party, 294 F.3d 743, 3rd Cir. (2002)
- tmp53F3.tmp
- Union Wharf, Leamouth
- BUILDING A FIRM FOUNDATION
- tmp554A.tmp
- Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad.The East River Tunnels. Paper No. 1159 by Brace, James H.
- Cleveland Terminal RR v. Steamship Co., 208 U.S. 316 (1908)
- Additional material bridge replacements
- Marbury-Pattillo Construction Company, Inc. v. Bayside Warehouse Company, Defendant-Third Party v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Third Party Defendant-Fourth Party v. D. H. Marbury, Iii, and A. F. Pattillo, Fourth Party, 490 F.2d 155, 3rd Cir. (1974)
- Caltrans Audit
- Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572 (1916)
- CREW
- Alaskan Way Viaduct stakeholders' meeting presentation, December 2014
- Simpson v. United States, 172 U.S. 372 (1899)
- Oct 2013 Mtg Presentation_102513.pdf
- Doullut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 33 (1925)
- As 2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation
- Sanctuary magazine issue 9 - Prestige prefab - Modscape green home profile
- Design of a T-Beam Bridge and Analysis of Subgrade Soil Strength

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading