Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Spread Fondation & Pile Foundation (EC7)

    Uploaded by

    Utaya Kumar Veelmurugan
    576 views82 pages
    EC7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    EC7

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    576 views82 pages

    Spread Fondation & Pile Foundation (EC7)

    Uploaded by

    Utaya Kumar Veelmurugan
    EC7

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 82
    waa co Geotechnical Design using Eurocode 7 Spread Foundation and Pile design using EC7 and SS EN 1997-1:2010 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 7 y/ UNIVERSITY For (Goh) a References + Bauduin, C.M. (2001). Design procedure according to Eurocode 7 and analysis of the test results. Proc. Symposium on Screw Piles — Installation and design in stiff clay, Brussels, Balkema, pp.275-303. Bond, A. and Harris, A. (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor & Francis. + Dept of Communities and Local Government, UK (2006). A designers’ simple guide to. BS EN 1997, + Driscoll R., Scott, P. and Powell J. (2008). EC7 — implications for UK practice. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design. CIRIA C641 ¢ Frank, R., Bauduin C., Driscoll, R., Kawadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T. and Schuppener, B. (2004). Designers’ guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - General rules. Thomas Telford. + Simpson B. and Driscoll, R. (1998) Eurocode 7 a commentary. BRE. + Tomlinson M, and Woodward, J. (2008). Pile design and construction practice. 5° edition. Taylor & Francis. Er (Goh) 2 C7 (Goh) 2 SINGAPORE NATIONAL ANNEX: _ NA to SSEN 1997- 1:2010 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 7: bi lilo design — Part 1: General rules + NA.2 Nationally Determined.Parameters As indicated in Table NA.1, only Design Approach. is to be used in Singapore. The values given in the Tables in Annex A of this National Annex replace the recommended values in Annex A of SS EN 1997-1 : 2010. er (Goh) Definitions Actions on the foundations (Clause 2.4.2(4)) — > Earth and groundwater pressures > Weight of soil, rock and water » Dead and imposed loading from structure > Imposed loading from ground movements (eg. swelling, shrinkage, down-drag) Ground properties (Clause 2.4.3) - > from field or laboratory tests (directly or by correlation, theory or empiricism) > Takes into account effects of time, stress level and deformation etc. cr (coh) Definitions Geometrical data (Clause 2.4.4(1)P) — > Include slope of the ground surface, groundwater levels and structural dimensions Characteristic values of Geotechnical parameters (Clause 2.4.5.2) — » Selected from t Wailable_information (eg. SI report) > Based on a €auti estimate of the data made within the zone influenced by stresses transmitted to the ground » Less than most probable values (most situations) > Higher than most probable where higher values have an unfavourable effect on the foundation behaviour (eg. down-drag) EET (on) Definitions Ultimate Limit States (Clause 2.4.7.1) for foundations — > STR: internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure > GEO: failure or excessive deformation of the ground Model Factors (Clause 2.4.7.1(6)) Model factors may be applied to the design value of a resistance or the effect of an action to ensure that the results of the design calculation model are either accurate or err on the safe side. =c7 (Goh) Design Approach 1 (Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(1)P).: STR limit state — failure or excessive deformation of the structure GEO limit state — failure or excessive ground deformation Ensure that: Design effects of actions E, S design resistance Ry Design Approach 1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R14 Combination 2: A2 + M2 +R1 A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance C7 (Goh) Design Approach 1 (Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(1)P) Combination 1: A1+M1+R1 Combination 2: A2 + M2+R1 Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P Note 2 — If it is obvious that one combination governs the design, it is not necessary to perform full calculations for the other combination. Often Combination 2 will govern the geotechnical “sizing” and Combination 1 will govern the structural design. €C7 (Goh ° GEO and STR ULS calculations (Design Approach 1) Clause 2.4.7.3.2 and 2.4,7.3.3 eS Ey $ Ry E, = design value of the effects of all the actions Eg = ElyeFrep: Xk /ymiaat Rg = design value of the corresponding ground and/or structure Rg =RlyeFiep Xk /ymi@a For piles and anchorages => Ry =RiyeFrep:Xxi@af/7R Freg_| Representative value of an action X, | Characteristic value of Esa acaliame a £2 (oh) 10 Serviceability Limit State (Clause 2.4.8) - >» Partial factors normally taken as 1.0 (Clause 2.4.8(2)) > Verification for serviceability limit states shall require that Ca d where Cy, = the limiting design value of the relevant serviceability criterion (Clause 2.4.8(1)P) or be done through the method given in 2.4.8(4). ECr(Goh) n 2.4.8(4). It may be verified that a sufficiently low fraction of the ground strength is mobilised to keep deformations within the required serviceability limits, provided this simplified approach is restricted to design situations where: — a value of the deformation is not required to check the serviceability limit state; — established comparable experience exists with similar ground, structures and application method. £7 {Goh} 2 Limiting values of movements of foundations (Clause 2.4.9(4)P Note) > In the absence of specified limiting values, Annex H (informative) may be used. ( Annex H \ “For normal structures with isolated foundations, otal settlements of up ‘og.mm are often acceptable.” Also provides guidelines tor Maximum relative rotation. Gonex > Sample methods for settlement evaluation (based on élasficity jiheory) 7.6.4, Vertical displacements of pile foundations (serviceability of supported structures) 7.6.4.1 NOTE For piles bearing in medium-to-dense soils and for tension piles, the safety requirements for the ultimate limit state design are normally sufficient to prevent a serviceability limit state in the supported structure. ECT Goh) 8 Spread Foundation Design (Design Approach 1) ign 4 Design and construction considerations 6.5 _Ulimate limit state design 68 Sorviceabilty mit stato design - a ete 8.7 Foundations on rock; additional design considerations an 6.8 Structural design of Spread foundations 69 Preparation of the subsoil C7 eeh) “ nnn | ont Limit States (Clause 6.2(1)P) > Overall stability i >» Bearing resistance failure, punching failure, squeezing } > Sliding failure ——— Se eeerenhs- sues » Combined failure in the ground and in the structure > Structural failure due to foundation movement » Excessive settlements » Excessive heave due to swelling etc » Unacceptable vibrations ECT(Goh) 5 vines a Indirect Use SLS loads to satisty reatremene of all relevant: limit states; Use comparable 5 experience and the results of field or lab # Use high “global” factor of safety to “characteristic” bearing resistance (Frank et al. 2004). Fc7 (Goh) 26 Bearing Resistance for Spread Foundation (Clause 6.5.2.1(1)P) R d V4 = vertical design value of the actions (includes weight of any backfill and all earth pressures, either favourable or unfavourable. It includes water pressures not caused by the foundation load) Clause 6.5.2.1(3)P R, = design value of the resistance Fer (Goh) v Sliding Resistance for Spread Foundation (Clause 6.5.3(2)P) S RytR,, Hg = horizontal load (including active earth forces) R4= design value of the resistance Ry. = design value of the resisting force caused by passive earth pressure Drained condition: (Clause 6.5.3(8)P,(10)) Ry= Vig tan 8g or Ry= (Vg tan 6) ! Yen for cast-insitu concrete 8g = (2/3) 6’oyq for smooth precast concrete cis neglected 4’. Critical state (constant volume) angle of shearing resistance partial factors on sliding resistance ECT (Goh) 18 Undrained condition (Clause 6.5.3(11)P): Ry =A.Cyq OF Ra = (AcCun)/Yrh Yen = partial factors on sliding resistance / A,= total base area under compression interface adhesion check shall be made: Ry $0.4 Vg For (Goh) s 6.5.4 Loads with large eccentricities (1)P Special precautions shall be taken where the eccentricity of loading exceeds 1/3 of the width of a rectangular footing or 0.6 of the radius of a circular footing. Such precautions include: — careful review of the design values of actions in accordance with 2.4. — designing the location of the foundation edge by taking into account the magnitude of construction tolerances. 2) Uni special care is taken during the works, (tolerances. m should be considered. ECT (Goh) 2 es Location of Normal Force at Base ECT (Goh) FO Al3a}dmex = Ry where = eccentricity 6.6 Serviceability limit state design 6.6.1 General (3)P For soft clays, settlement calculations shall always be carried out. (4) For spread foundations on stiff and firm clays in Geotechnical Categories 2 and 3, calculations of vertical displacement (settlement) should usually be undertaken. .... (6) Calculations of settlements should not be regarded as accurate. They merely provide an approximate indication. (7)P Foundation displacements shall be considered both in terms of displacement of the entire foundation and differential displacements of parts of the foundation. Fer (Goh) 6.6.2 Settlement (5) The depth of the compressible soil layer to be considered when calculating settlement should depend on the size and shape of the foundation, the variation in soil stiffness with depth and the spacing of foundation elements. (6) This depth may normally be taken as the depth at which the effective vertical.stress. due to the foundation load is 20% of the (7) For many cases this depth may also be roughly estimated as 1 to 2 times the foundation width, but may be reduced for lightly-loaded, wider foundation rafts. NOTE: This approach is not valid for very soft soils. C7 (Goh) B Simplified verification of Serviceability (Clause 6.6.2(16)) For conventional structures founded on clays, the ratio of the bearing capacity of the ground, at its initial undrained shear strength, to the applied serviceability loading should be calculated (see 2.4.8(4)). If this ratio is less than 3, calculations of settlements should always be undertaken. If the ratio is less than 2, the calculations should take account of non-linear stiffness effects in the ground. R, = characteristic bearing resistance E, = applied serviceability load Ec1 Goh) a Design Approach 1 (Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(1)P) GEO limit state — failure or excessive ground deformation STR limit state — failure or excessive deformation of the structure Ensure that: Design effects of actions E, $ design resistance Rg Combination 1:A1+M1+R1 Combination 2: A2+M2+R1 : A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance C7 (Goh) 2% A.3 Partial factors for structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO) limit states verification A.3.2 Partial factors for soil parameters (yy) Table A.NA.4 — Partial factors for soil parameters (y,,) for the STR and GEO limit state Soil parameter Symbol Set M1 M2 ‘Angle of shearing resistance Ye 4.0 1.25 Effective cohesion Ye 1.0 41.25. Undrained shear strength You 1.0 4.4 Uneonfined strength You 1.0 1.4 ™ Applied to tan @ and tan ¢, although it might be more appropriate to determine the design value of tan ¢.,directy, Note ~ The value of the partial factor should be taken as the reciprocal of the specified value if such a reciprocal value produces a more onerous effect than the specified value (but see also the Note to 2.4.2(9)P of SS EN 1997-1 : 2010) cr (Gon) % A.3.3 Partial resistance factors (yp) A.3.3.1 Partial resistance factors for spread foundations ‘rw Partial factor on bearing resistance ‘rin Partial factors on sliding resistance Table A.NA.5 - Partial resistance factors (y,) for spread footings for the STR and GEO limit states Resistance Symbol Set R1 Bearing YR 1.0 Sliding Rh 1.0 £27 (60h) » Table A.3 — Partial factors on actions (y-) or the effects of actions (ye) Action Symbol Set Al A2.. Permanent | Unfavourable Yo 1.35 | 1.0 i Favourable 1.0 1.0 Unfavourable Ya 4.5: 1824.35 Favourable 0 O- ECT (Goh) Parameter Symbol GEOIsTR At | a2 Mi | M2 | RI Permanent scion G | Untevourable ai oe Youast 155 Favounbie Yost | 1° ‘Variable action Q | Unfavourable Yous | 15 Favourable Tina Ww 1.0 e Yo 1.0 a You 1.0 nit weighey ¥ Lo y Bearing resistance rev Siding existence Rin 10 eer » \ SS EN 1997-1:2010 Annex D (informative) A sample analytical method for bearing fésistanies calculation Design of vertical bearing resistance should take into consideration the effects of the following: » strength of the ground (c,, c’ and ¢’) > eccentricity and inclination of design loads » shape, depth and inclination of the foundation > inclination of the ground surface » ground-water pressures and hydraulic gradients > variability of the ground, especially layering £7 (Goh) 30 Notations: plan view @, and e, = eccentricity effective width B' = B — 2e, effective length L' = L— 2e, effective area A’ = B'x L' Special precautions shall be taken where the eccentricity of loading exceeds 1/3 of the width of a rectangular footing or 0.6 of the radius of a circular footing. Clause 6.5.4(1)P. FE IGoh) a D.3 Undrained conditions The design bearing resistance may be calculated from: RIA’ = (+2) 6, b, Soig + on base inclination factor b: b= 1+ 2a/(n+ 2) shape factors: 8.8 14.0.2 (B'/L’) for a rectangular shape; 51.2 for a square or circular shape. inclination factor i, caused by a horizontal load H: the be tl ny) 2 fhe with H = 0.55 For (Gohh “8 The design bearing resistance Example 2 RIA'= Neb Si, # 4°Ny By 8h, * 0. 5//B'N,b,s,i, (0.2) 20 For strip footing, m = 2 p= ic i, = [1 -40/(224 + OV = 0. Ultimate bearing capacity q, = 0.5(20)(1.56)(17.84)(1 x 1x 0.5: 0.5 x 20)(16,92)(1 x 1 x 0.67) + = 266.4 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 266.4 x B’ = 266.4 x 1.56 = 415.6 KN/m run Bearing resistance Ry = Qy/ypy = 415.6 / 1.0 = 415.6 kN/m run a ai Es ~>+ Combination 2 governs cr (Goh) 50 Example 2 Comparison with conventional FS Total vertical force Vy = 24 + 200 = 224 kN/m run Effective footing width B’ = 1.56 m ee oor ee (Pomme act _)iseroase Ultimate bearing capacity q, = 611.2 kPa ’ osm [Lt H=40 Kum aoaet {permanent FS- q-yD _ 611.2-0.5x20 =45 actuar YD (224/B')-0.5x20 ~ a £7 (60h) s Example 3 (sliding failure for strip footing P= 200188m (pemenenteae) in dry sand) : 3 025m ml Passive resistance is neglected onl Design Aétion (A1) Design actions (horiz load) = Hy =H X quay = 40 x 1.35 = 54 kN/m run Material Factors (M4) _ Design material property (M1) é'y.4 = tar (tan35°y4’) = 38° / eee ; [Design Resistance (R1) ‘Yes (since vertical lad is favourable) For cast insitu concrete the design friction angle Youn [LS may be assumed equal to the design value of the w 10 | effective critical state angle of shearing resistance. Yen 10 Clause 6.5.3(10) ECG) alluiBis Combination 22) Passive resistance is neglected Design Action (A2) Material Factors (M2) P= 200m permanent oad 1 92 025m Example 3 con 2m H=40ieym (permanent) Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = HX Yo,age = 40. 1.0 = 40 kN/m run For cast insitu concrete the design friction angle may be assumed equal to the design value of the effective critical state angle of shearing resistance. Clause 6.5.3(10) EC7 (Goh) 43 For calculation of V4, Ye:sth = 1.0 and Yo;stp = 0 Example 3 In this current example, since the horizontal load is permanent, yeas: = 1.0 (A2) and yo,44 = 1.35 (A1) are used to obtain Hy. If the horizontal load is vi .3 (combination 2) ble, Yozast = 1.5 (combination 1) and used fo obtain Hy. al | az Permanent action G Unfavourable Youu Favourable Yous ‘Varieble action Q Unfavourable Yo Favourable Yess TH Example 4 (bearing P= 200 kNim (permanent load) resistance for strip footing ep=0 in sand with water table) 0.5m] wv WT —_—> : 2m Unit weight concrete (kn/m!) | 24 Soil Unit weight: (kN/m?) 20 ey lkPap ch 258 Biota! 0 4 (degrees) Self weight of foundation W, = 0.5 x 2.0 x 24 = 24 KN/m run e=0;B=B' cr (Got) 5s Example 4 P= 200 kN (permanent load) a pe Le fe Yeu | 40 [= ( toe | 18 oqo = we We 10 Design Action (A1). Bae es is Design actions (foundation weight) Wy =W X Yo,gu = 24 X 1.35 = 32.4 KNim run Design actions (vert load) = Py = PX Yeugu = 200 x 1.35 = 270 kNim run ECT Soh) 55 Material Factors (M1) Example 4 Design material property (M1) $’, = tan"! (tan35°%y,) = 35° Design Resistance (R1) Drained conditions The design bearing resistance RIM Ne Be e+ 4’ Ny By Sy * 0.5 7 B’Nyb, ly (0.2) =0 tard tan? (45 + g'/2) 35 le ii 1) cot ¢” 33.30- N,=2 (Ny 1) ‘an @, where 5 > #2 (rough base) qeoaee Factors b, cr (6oh) s Drained conditions eter Example 4 The design bearing resistance a ce # A Na bay O57 BN, b, 5h (0.2) ‘$i (degrees) 0.5(20-10)(2)(45.23)(1 x 1x1 Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 785.3 x B’ = 785.3 x2 = 1570.6 kN/m run Bearing resistance Ry = Quay = 1570.6 / 1.0 = 1570.6 kNim run Fr (Goh Example 4 a? [M2] RE ous | 10 1 Lo ‘ows | 13 ra 125 Design Action (A2) Yay Er Design actions (foundation weight) Wy = W, XYoee= 24 x 1.0 = 24'kNim run Design actions (vert load) = Py = PX Yg,a = 200 x 1.0 = 200 KN/m run Er (Goh) 9 Seer Seer eeee eee | Material Factors (M2) Example 4 | Design material property (M2) 4’, = tan (tan35°%y,’) = 29.3° | Design Resistance (R1) RIA'= Ne be Selo 4’ Ny By Sy ie + 0.5 7 B'N,bySyiy (D.2) “0 / (degrees). N, =e "#6 tan? (45+ p'2) N= (N,- 1) cot N, = 2 (Ng 1) tan @%, where 5 = $72 (rough base) a2 [2] Ri Your | 1.0 Youw | 10. Factors b, = b, Ye 128 EC7 (Goh) Yay 10 | Lg) Drained conditions The design bearing resistance { Drained conditions Example 4 The design bearing resistance RIA'= C! Ne be Sz fe + Nq Dg Sq iq + 0.5 y B'N,b, 8, i, (0.2) # (degrees) | 29.3 Ny 16.92 SN, 17.84" Ultimate bearing capacity qy = (0.5 x 20)(16.92)(1 x1 x 1) + 0.5(20 -10)(2)(17.84)(1 x 1x 1) = 347.6 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 347.6 x BY = 695.2 kN/m run =347.6x2 Bearing resistance Ry = Nae = 659,2/ 1.0 = 695.2 kN/m run FCI (Goh) Fer (Goh) Pile Foundation Design (Design Approach 1) 7 Pile foundations .. TA GONE nrsennns 72 Limitstates 73 Actions and design situations... 7.4 Design methods and design considerations. nemo 7.5 Pile load tests... 78 Axally loaded plies 17 “TanNaraay Teed ples 78 Structural design of piles. 79 Supervision of construction. t ECT (Goh) a 7.2 Limit states (1)P The following limit states shall be considered — loss of overall stability; — bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation; ~ Uplift or insufficient tensile Tesistance of the pile foundation; — failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation; — structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or shear; — combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation; — combined failure in the ground and in the structure; — excessive settlement; — excessive heave; — excessive lateral movement; — unacceptable vibrations. ECr (Goh) e 7.3.1 Actions and design situations > Axial loading > Transverse (horizontal) loading 7.3.2 Actions due to ground displacement > consolidation (negative skin friction) > swelling or heave (tension pile) > lateral loading from adjacent surcharge or embankment Analysis of Geotechnical action (Clause 7.3.2.1(3)P): > pile-soil interaction analysis (t-z or p-y analysis); or » upper-bound force exerted on the pile by the ground movement is calculated and treated as an action For (Goh) Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P Combit ation Als 1 ation 2: A2 + (M1 or ia) +@4) In combination 2, set M1 is used for calculating resistances of piles (or anchors) and set M2 for calculating unfavourable actions on piles eg. owing to negative skin riction Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) Note 2 —- if it is obvious that one combination governs the design, it is not necessary to perform full calculations for the other combination. Com A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance £7 (Gob) 7.4.1 Design methods (1)P The design shall be based on one of the following approaches: — the results of static load tests, which have been demonstrated, by means of calculations or otherwise, to be consistent with other relevant experience; — empirical or analytical calculation methods whose validity has been demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations; — the results of dynamic’ load tests whose validity has been demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations; — the observed performance of a comparable pile foundation, provided that this approach is supported by the results of site investigation and ground testing. £c7 (Gor) o Design methods for pile foundations (Clause 7.4.1(P)) fee jlidity must be demonstrated by static.load tests in comparable situations:: abe e le driving formulae or wave equation analysis" l* Usually applies to trial (preliminary) piles and the ‘results of tests on these piles are used to design the working piles. sore 7.4.1(3) Static load tests may be carried out on trial piles, installed for test purposes only, before the design is finalised, or on working piles, which form part of the foundation. > Trial piles (installed for test purposes only, before the design is finalised); “preliminary” pile. > Working piles (which form part of the permanent foundation works); Test load must be at least equal to the design load (Clause 7.5.2.3(2)P). UK experience — “Most contracts tests on_tral piles are impractical as there is insufficient lead time between the main.piling-works-and-the test programmes...Preliminary tests are seldom carried out on piles with similar widths. and lengths, which makes ‘it difficult to derive a sensible mean test result. In many tests, the: ultimate load is. obtained from extrapolation “of the load-displacement curve, adding further to the uncertainty in any calculated mean” (Bond and Harris, 2008). FTG) cs 7.5 Pile load tests 7.5.1(1)P 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; —— 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; — when observations during the process of installation indicate pile behaviour that deviates strongly and unfavourably from the behaviour anticipated on the basis of the site investigation or experience, and when additional ground investigations do not clarify the reasons for this deviation. C7 ech) 1% (2) 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; — to allow judgement of the overall pile foundation. Clause 7.5.1(4)P and (5)P) — > if one pile load test is carried out — located where the most adverse ground conditions are believed to occur. If this is not possible, an allowance shall be made when deriving the characteristic value of the compressive resistance. > If more than one pile load test is carried out — locations must be representative of the site of the pile foundation and one of the test piles shall be located where the most adverse ground conditions are believed to occur. ECT (Goh) n 7.5.2 Static load tests 7.5.2.1 Loading procedure » (1)P Measurements during static load tests must allow conclusions about deformation, creep and rebound of the piled foundation. ... Trial piles - measurements must be able to draw conclusions* about the ultimate failure load. > (4)Tensile pile — test should be carried out to failure (as brittle failure can occur). “However, it should be understood that it is not always necessary to bring trial piles to failure: the common practice of deriving the ultimate. failure load by extrapolating the load-displacement curve can be used.” (Frank et al. 2004) ECT (Goh) n 7.5.2.2 Trial piles (1)P The number of trial piles required to verify the design shall depend on the following: —the ground conditions and their variability across the site; — the Geotechnical Category of the structure, if appropriate; previous documented evidence of the performance of the same type of pile in similar ground conditions; — the total number and types of pile in the foundation design. (2)P The ground conditions at the test site shall be investigated thoroughly. The depth of borings or field tests shall be sufficient to ascertain the nature of the ground both around and beneath the pile tip. All strata likely to contribute significantly to pile behaviour shall be investigated. (3)P The method used for the installation of the trial piles shall be fully documented in accordance with 7.9. C7 (coh) 2 7.5.2.3 Working Pile (2)? Test load must be at least equal to the design load for the foundation. 7.5.3 Dynamic load tests (1)Dynamic load tests may be used to estimate the compressive resistance provided an adequate site investigation has been carried out and the method has been calibrated against static load tests on the same type of pile, of similar length and cross-section, and in comparable soil conditions, (see 7.6.2.4 to 7.6.2.6). (2)P If more than one type of dynamic test is used, the results of different types of dynamic test shall always be considered in relation to each other. (3) Dynamic load tests may also be used as an indicator of the consistency of the piles and to detect weak piles. For (Gon) ™ 7.5.4 Load test report (1)P It shall be specified that a factual report shall be written for all load tests. Where appropriate, this report shalll include: — a description of the site; — the ground conditions with reference to ground investigations; — the pile type: — description of the pile installation and of any problems encountered during the works; —a description of the loading and measuring apparatus and the reaction system; — calibration documents for the load cells, the jacks and the gauges; — the installation records of the test piles; — photographic records of the pile and the test site; — test results in numerical form; — time-displacement plots for each applied load when a step loading procedure is used; — the measured load-displacement behaviour; — reasons for any departures from the above requirements . ECT (Goh) % Limit states (axially loaded piles) Clause 7.6.1.1(1)P » ULS of compressive or tensile failure of a single pile > ULS of compressive or tensile failure of the pile foundation as a whole > ULS of collapse or severe damage to a supported structure caused by excessive displacement or differential displacements of the pile foundation > SLS in the supported structure caused by displacement of the piles cr (cot) 6 Ultimate compression limit state (Clause 7.6.1.1(3)) — > itis often difficult to define an ultimate limit state from a load settlement plot. Settlement of the pile head = 10% of pile base diameter is used as the “failure” criterion. Serviceability Limit State (Clause 2.4.8(2)) — > Partial factors normally taken as 1.0 Serviceability of supported structure - Clause 7.6.4.1 (2) Note “For piles bearing in medium-to-dense soils and for tension piles, the safety requirements for the ultimate limit state design are normally sufficient to prevent a serviceability limit state in the supported structure.” eI (Goh) 7 7.6.2 Compressive ground resistance 7.6.2.1 General (1)P To demonstrate that the pile foundation will support the design load with adequate safety against compressive failure, the following inequality shall be satisfied for all ultimate limit state load cases and load combinations: ‘cd 5 Ry Fg = design axial compression load on a pile | or a group of piles Rog = compressive resistance C7 (Gon) 8 (3)P For piles in groups, two failure mechanisms shall be taken into account: — compressive resistance failure of the piles individually; — compressive resistance failure of the piles and the soil _contained between them acting as a block. The design resistance shall be taken as the lower value caused by these two mechanisms. (4) The compressive resistance of the pile group acting as a block may be calculated by treating the block as a single pile of large diameter. £c7 (Goh) (5)P The stiffness and strength of the structure connecting the piles in the group shall be considered when deriving the design resistance of the foundation. (6) If the piles support a stiff structure, advantage may be taken of the ability of the structure to redistribute load between the piles. A limit state will occur only if a significant number of piles fail together; therefore a failure mode involving only one pile need not be considered. (7) If the piles support a flexible structure, it should be assumed that the compressive resistance of the weakest pile governs the occurrence of a limit state. er (Goh) » (8) Special attention should be given to possible failure of edge piles caused by inclined or eccentric loads from the supported structure. (9)P If the layer in which the piles bear overlies a layer of weak soil, the effect of the weak layer on the compressive resistance of the foundation shall be considered. (10)P The strength of a zone of ground above and below the pile base shall be taken into account when calculating the pile base resistance. NOTE This zone may extend several diameters above and below the pile base. Any weak ground in this zone has a relatively large influence on the base resistance. ECT (Goh) a Compressive Ground Resistance (Clause 7.6.2) Foa S Roa F..g = design axial compression load on a pile or a group of piles R,.g = compressive resistance F,,q should include the weight of the pile. Weight of piles is considered as permanent action. R,.q Should include the overburden pressure of the soil at the | foundation base. However, these two items may be disregarded if they cancel approximately. ec7 Goh) os » They may not cancel if: (a) downdrag is significant, (b) the soil is very light, or (c) the pile extends above the ground surface. (Clause 7.6.2.1(2)) > For structures having sufficient stiffness and strength to transfer loads from ‘weak’ to “strong” piles, a reduction factor of 1.1 may be introduced. Clauses 7.6.2.2(9) and 7.6.2.3(7). See Tables A.NA.9 and A:NA.10. > Pile base resistance shall take into account the strength above and below the pile base. Clauses 7.6.2.1(9) to (11). Cr (Goh) 8 Reg = compressive resistance, shall be derived either from: Ree Rix — Rek + Rox or ods aE Yt eo Ne 3 E Clause 7.6.2.2(14) Refer to Tables A.NA.G, 7 and 8 by calculation. The right equation is used when the shaft and base components cannot be determined separately. ECT (Goh) a | Ry The left equation is normally used when designing \ R..g = compressive resistance Roa = Rox Ys Rok Yo or Roa = Ye Rue _ Rex + Rox Ve by ~ pei ht be. Lifferord gee : J The differences ofthe partial factor values between av, bored and CFA piles is mainly | related to thie increasing probability of unexpected t R, effects during pile installation adversely affecting the pile bearing capacity (Bauduin 2001). SS NA permits the use of different R4 values depending on the verification of SLS (Tables A.NA.6 to 8) d —( Rp vey ard bord % b C7 (Goh) 8s Only Design Approach 1 is to be used in Singapore. The values given in the Tables in Annex A of this National Annex replace the recommended values in Annex A of SS EN 1997-1 : 2010. Er (Gehy a For example, Table A.NA.7 replaces Table A.7 Table A.7 ~ Partial resistanck factors (yg) for bored piles Resistance ‘Symbol Base Yo Shaft Ys (compression) FTotal/Combined % (compression) ‘Shaft in tension Yet 1.25 row C7 (60h) a Table A.NA.7 — Partial resistance factors (7a) for|bored pil es\or the STR and GEO limit states Resistance, ‘Symbol Set RI | Ré without explicit [f Verification of SLS") Base Tp 1.0 2.0. Shaft seed 4 1 (compression) _|-_YS 4 & TotaliCombined |", 1.0 2.0 (compression) |. ft Shaft in tension Yer | 4.0 2.0 1) The loner vals in R& nay be adopted (a) sreabily evr by lod test preiminary andor wertna) Cored ut on more than 1% ofthe castle ples to Iba nt ss thn 15 tines the represented which they are designed, or (b) if setement fs expicty predicted by a means no less refable than in (a), oF (e) lEsettement atthe sericeabty Imi state ls ofno concer, SS NA permits the use of different R4 values depending on the verification of SLS ECT|(Goh) @ Table A.NA.6 — Partial resistance factors (ja) tor on es for the STR and GEO limit states Resistance ‘Symbol Set Ri Ré without explicit verification of SSA) Base i 1.0. 17. ‘Shaft (compression) Ys rh) 15 Total/Combined % 1.0 17 (compression) Shaft in tension sit 1.0 2.0 AY The lowe values ih Ra may be adopted (a) W cervGeaaily 1s verified by load tests (preiminary andor working) carried out on more than 1% of the constructed ples to loads not less than 1.5 times the representative loed for which they ete cesigned, or (0) if settlement is explicitly predicted by a means no less relable than in (a), or (c)f setiement at the serviceability limit State is of no concer. ‘SS NA permits the use of different R4 values depending on the verification of SLS = With no testing (relying solely on calculation), a higher level of reliability is needed in the calculations. Fer (Goh) 89 Table A.NA.8- Partial resistance factors (7,) for continuous flight auger CFA piles for the STR and GEO limit states Resistance | Symbal RI R4 without expii vortfcation of SL" Base yo Lio 2.0 Shalt % | 10 16 (compression) Toialombned | y | 4.0 20 (compression) t Shatiniension [oy [4.0 2.0 Eos oe ‘* The lower y values in R4 may be adopted (a) if serviceability is verified by load tests (Greiminary andlor working) carl out on more than 1% of the constructed piles to loads not | ass than 4.6 times the representative load for nhc they ere designed, or ()setiement is explictly predicted by a means no less reliable than in (2), or (@) it settement at the sericeablty mitsate is of no concom, SS NA permits the use of different R4 values depending on the verification of SLS For (Goh) 30 ‘Summary of partial factors (NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010) Combination 4 Shaft (come) Total Bored Pies [Base (oa BCFA [Shaft (come) 7100 1.60 740 od Fetal (comp) 100 200 770 PT v7 un Re ry De EOEIGG a) eeeeaby vrTao By Wad Te GTevly AVY wOiag) ctiad 3 op ‘mo tan 1 oh cnet ies bd en an 13s he resent sf eh ey ae cigs of) ovemersexlety arses © ears nse ede teh no or Former te serve kt Po Ec7(6oh 2 TWANG. paris emimer opAsior anes po re DRAFT MALAYSIAN nen ar STANDARD . Tae reset seeps wees | ECE or : < ts Ta {gy oF i : za} a esta he « rer ere a Sect tan {[Stnes Oe reese ed wah Bey as Mtomomant a ten peas semana ot aa an QQ Sl tbe seca mtatas = rr cmos ‘Toble ANAT. Paral resistance factors fy.) for bored pes for the ‘STR an GEO Ent ela Draft Malaysian’ newer ; Standard (2011) a Sata Taarenered (nes neon 6 £7 course (Goh) 2 Ultimate compressive resistance by calculation from Ground Test results Clause 7.6.2.3. Two calculation methods: > “Model pi ile”: procedure (Clause 7.6.2.3(5)P) >» “Alternative” procedure (Clause 7.6.2.3(8)) EC7 (Gob) 2 Ultimate compressive resistance by calculation from Ground Test results (Clause7.6.2.3(5)P) “Model Pile” method — assumes a fictitious pile of the same cross-section and length as proposed for the project is installed at the location of each borehole or in-situ test. The shaft resistance _and the base resistance are calculated for the mean and minimum soil parameters for each borehole or test profile. The two components of the resistance are then divided by a correlation factor & which depends on the number of ground test profiles on the site. correlation factor &, and &, from Table A.NA.10 ECP (Goh) oa Clause 7.6.2.3(5) “Model pile” method Rg = Rg +Rey) = Bi +c = Reeag = Mir] Pee nn (Rea 7.8) bs ao correlation factor &€ and & from Table A.NA.10 depending on number of profiles n | (Re;cat mean = (Ro;cat +Re;cai mean = (Roca mean + (Rs:cat mean (Rescat min = (Ro;cat +Rs:cat min Table A.NA.10 ~ Correlation factors (E) to derive characteristic values of the resistance of axially Toaded piles from ground test results (n - number of profiles of tests) Eforn= 1 2 3 4 a 7 10 & 155 1a 1a 138 136/138‘ 1.30, ( be 1.55 1.39 1.33 7.29 726 [1.20 | 1.15 NOTE - For structures having sufficient stifness and strength to transfer loads from “weak to "strong" ples, values of 3 and E« may be divided by 1.1, provide that fis never lass than 1.0, s90 EN 1907-1 7.8.2.3(7) ET (GoH) °5 Ultimate compressive resistance from Ground Test results “Alternative” method — Ground test results (shear strength, cone resistance etc) for all test locations are first combined | (assessed) to derive the characteristic values _of the base resistance and shaft resistance in the various strata based on a cautious assessment of the test results and without applying the factors &. (Clause 7.6.2.3(8)) A model factor is introduced to account for uncertainty of the calculation results Model factor = yp.4 The value of the model factor should be 1.4, except that it may be reduced to 1.2 if the resistance is verified by a maintained load test taken to the calculated, unfactored ultimate resistance. C7605) anes _—__. “Alternative” method Clause 7.62.58) The characteristic values may be obtained by calculating: Ro = Ap Qbx aNd Rs =EZ Ags Asitk (7.9) where qj, aNd qq, are characteristic values of base resistance and shaft friction in the various strata i, obtained from values of ground parameters. NOTE If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors y, and 7, recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model factor larger than 1.0. The value of the model factor may be set by the National annex. This is the most common method for pile design in UK. £7 (Goh) ” NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010 33.2 Partial resistance factors for pile foundations “For verifications of the structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO) limit states of pile foundations, the values of the partial factors on resistance (y,) should be those given in Table A.NA.6; Table A.NA.7 and ‘Table A.NA.. These values are used to convert characteristic resistances to design values for uitimate limit state calculations. They apply respective of the process by which the cheracteristic resistances are derived, Characteristic resistances may be derived from static load tests using EN 1997-1 7.6.2.2 (7.8.3.2 for tensile loading), or from ground test results using EN 1997-1 Equations 7.8 or 7.9 (7.17 or 7.18 for tensile loading). When the approach of Equations 7.9 or 7.18 is used to derive the characteristic resistances, a model factor should be applied to the shaft and base resistance calculated using characteristic values of soil properties by a method complying with EN 1997 -1, 2.4.1(6). The value of the model factor should be 1.4, except that it may be reduced to 1.2 if the resistance is verified by a maintained load test taken to the calculated, unfactored ultimate resistance.” Model factor = Yaa Roa = Ab Qk and Rox =2 Asi dai 7.8) For (Gen) 98 More than one profile of ground Yes | test data? lo “Alternative” method “Model pile” method | Number of profiles = n Calculate characteristic pile | resistance from this single | "profile of ground properties. | pply model factor 7, "Apply partial factors y, and. ~y, to determine desi resistance Rog. ¥. = correlation factor é, and &, from Table A.NA10. | depending on n Calculate characteristic ‘Apply partial fa ya to deter resistance Re Fcr(Goh) “An important requirement stated in Eurocode. 7 is that the interpretation of the, results of the pile load tests must take into account the variability: of the ground over. he site and the variability due to deviation from the. normal method of pile installation. In other words, there must be a. careful examination of the results of the ground investigation and of the pile load tests results. The results of the pile load tests | might lead, for example, to different ‘homogeneous’ parts of the site being identified, each with its own particular characteristic pile compressive resistance.” (Frank et. al: 2004) Fr (Goh) 200 | Comparison with conventional FS (CP4 2003) — Bored Pile Q® Q = + Qattowable Fae SEIT “Alternative” method Compressive Resistance with SLS verification Reg = Qyl(1.7 x 1.4) + Q,/(1.4 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.38) + Q,/(1.96) Compressive Resistance without SLS verification ] Reg = Qi/(2.0 x 1.4) + O(1.6 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.8) + Q/(2.24) 7 (Goh) sot Comparison with conventional FS (CP4 2003) — Driven piles Q Qs 2~3 2~3 “Alternative” method Qatlowable = Compressive Resistance with SLS verification Reg = Qy/(1.5 x 1.4) + QH(1.3 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.10) + Q/(1.82) Compressive Resistance without SLS verification Reg = Qyl(1.7 x 1.4) + Q(1.5 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.38) + QY(2.10) £27 (60H) 302 Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests (Clause 7.6.2.2(8)P) (Rom)mean .( , Rok = Min: ‘Table ANAS ~ Correlation factors () to derive characteristic values of the resistance of ‘axially loaded piles from static pile load tests (n = numberof tested piles) [NOTE — For ctrcturee having euficint stffnase and strength to transfer loads rom “woak" to “evong™ ples, valuos &) and g2may be divided by 1.1, providod tha! is never lose than 1.0, see EN 1007-1 7.62210) Usually applies to trial (preliminary) piles and the results of tests on these piles are used to design the working piles. ECV (60) 03 7.6.2.2 Compressive ground resistance from static load tests (2)P Trial piles to be tested in advance shall be installed in the same manner as the piles that will form the foundation and shall be founded in the same stratum. (3) If the diameter of the trial pile differs from that of the working piles, the possible difference in performance of piles of different diameters should be considered in assessing the compressive resistance to be adopted. FC7(Goh) 108 (4) In the case of a very large diameter pile, it is often impractical to carry out a load test on a full size trial pile. Load tests on smaller diameter trial piles may be considered provided that: — the ratio of the trial pile diameter/working pile diameter is not less than 0.5; — the smaller diameter trial pile is fabricated and installed in the same way as the piles used for the foundation; — the trial pile is instrumented in such a manner that the base and shaft resistance can be derived separately from the measurements. This approach should be used with caution for open-ended driven piles because of the influence of the diameter on the mobilisation of the compressive resistance of a soil plug in the pile. FCT (Goh) 1208 (5)P In the case of a pile foundation subjected t(downetag) the pile resistance at failure, or at a displacement that Equals the criterion for the verification of the ultimate limit state determined from the load test results, shall be corrected. The correction shall be achieved by subtracting the measured, or [ le stratum__and.. fegative skin friction develops, from the loads measured at thie ‘pile head. (6) During the load test of a pile subject to downdrag, positive shaft friction will develop along the total length of the pile and should be considered in accordance with 7.3.2.2(6). The maximum test load applied to the working pile should be in excess of the sum of the design external load plus twice the downdrag force. C7 (Go) 108 Ultimate compressive resistance from dynamic impact tests/pile driving formulae/wave equation analysis (Clause 7.6.2.4 to 7.6.2.6) (Rem )ean (Rom nin Roy Rog. : : profile) obtain R, : ECT Icon) 08 rs (NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010) ECT (Goh) 103 lan The SS NA (and BS NA) provide larger correlation factors to those given in Annex A of SS EN 1997-1 : 2010. According to Bauduin (2001), the correlation factors £ are \ based on a reference value of about 10% for the COV of the pile compressive resistance. For the COV less than 10%, the mean of the resistance should govern the design, whereas for COV greater than 10%, the lowest resistance should govern. See Example 6. £7 (Goh) a0 \ f Example 5A (Axially loaded pile in clay — single profile of ground test data) Pp. Pile type Bored pile E palin t® Pile width (m) Skin friction a Ry [SOUR DeIaNE LN Ee en 20 Permanent vertical load (kN) 1000 as eanrisdisng Note: For simplicity, Self Weight of pile is omitted in the | _calculations i “Alternative” method Er (Gon) a Example 5A SESE ee fl calms Design Aétion (A) ‘ML Tas 10 15. 10. FC7 (Goh) a2 Example 6A Material Factors (M1) Yea = 1.0) Cy = Cyr. om Ta rmemch i) 7 cobartith Skinftesone 2 Permanentvaral ied) Design Resistance (R1) Pile base resistance = 9c, Pile shaft friction = ac, = 0.5¢, From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) Base resistance Ry, = 9cyAy = 9(100)(x x 0.644) Ri = 254 kN Base | _10 Shaft resistane R, = 0.5c,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 30) | Shatt % | 40 = 2827 kN (compression) Compressive Resistance Reg = Rig + Res Total/Combined |, | 1.0 : H (compression) tonteon) 1 Example 5A Base resistance R, = 9c,A, = 9(100)(m x 0.62/4) = 254 kN Shaft resistane R, = 0.5¢,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 30) = 2827 kN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by a Model Factor Ypig = 1.4 Compressive Resistance R, 4 = Rosa + Resa = (254/1.4 x 1.0) + (2827/1.4 x 1.0) = 2201 kN From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) Ri Base Yo 4.0 Shaft % | 10 (compression) Total/Combined | | 10 (compression) TOT a Example 5A rane Towte Pp (eceReneeinne onan Tew) om sk eson gj I R, Permanent vera! ead) +3000 ees Design Action (A2) Ry at| Mi Yoda 10 Yosm | 10 toga 13 io tes Plies | ee7 (Goh) us | | Material Factors (M1) Yon = 1.05 64 = Cus Ao | Mt You Li: rane one Yous [10 fo 3 % 13 le with % aes Pi { Shenton From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) ‘Ra with explicit Se Eanes Base rs ‘Shaft ‘Ye (compression) Design Resistance (Ra) {compression 1 — Pile base resistance = 9c, (compression) Pile shaft friction = ae, = 0.5, *) The lower y values in R4 may be adopted (a) if serviceability is verified by load tests (preliminary and/or working) carried out on more than 1% of the constructed piles to loads not less ‘than 1.5 times the representative load for which they are designed, or (b) if settlement is explicitly predicted by a means no less reliable than in (a), or (c) if settlement at the Example 5A serviceability limit state is of no concern. ecrteoh) 7a 9c,A, = 9(100)(r x 0.62/4) = 254 KN Example 5 Base resistance R, = 5A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 20) = 2827 KN Shaft resistance R, (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by a Model Factor ypg = 1¥ Compressive Resistance Reig = Rpg + Rea = 254/(1.7 x 1.4) + 2827/( 1.4 x 1.4) 4 with oxplicit Bass % Shaft Ye (compression) TotaliCambined | —% 17 (compression) a7 Example 84 Base resistance R, = 9c,A, = 9(100)(x x 0.6/4) = 254 KN Shaft resistanc R, = 0.5¢,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 20) = 2827 KN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to | be corrected by a Model Factor ypiq = 1.4 Compressive Resistance without SLS verification Compressive Resistance R,.g = Ry + Rea = 254/(2.0 x 1.4) + 2827/( 1.6 x 1.4) '54/(2.8) + 2827/(2.24) = 1353 kN Base YW ‘Shaft % {compression} ‘TotalCombined | ym | (compression) be er (Gon) us Ee Example 6A. conventional FS Base resistance Ry, = 9¢,A, = 9(100)(r. x 0.6/4) = 254 KN Shaft resistance R, = 0.50,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6n x 20) = 2827 kN Applied vertical load = 1000 + 200 = 1200 kN 254+ 2827 FS =<" = 2.57 1200 2 Qalowable = 2 ET =1969>1200 kN or — Qatiowable = oo ar =1498>1200 kN C7 (Goh) us Comparison with conventional FS (Bored piles) 4 & 15~2.0 Compressive Resistance with SLS verification Rog = Q(1.7 x 1.4) + Q,/(1.4 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.38) + Q,/(1.96) Q Qattowable = "3 _Compressive Resistance without SLS verification Rea = Qy(2.0.x 1.4) + Q(1.6 x 1.4) = Qy/(2.8) + Q,/(2.24) EI (Goh) 120 Example 5B (Axially loaded pile in clay - single profile of ground test data) Pile type Bored pile Pile width (mn) 06 Skin fricton ee 05. Permanent vertical load (kN) Note: Self Weight of pile is omitted in the calculations Effects of Load Combinations (Only Combination 2 is considered in this example) C7 (coh) na Example 5B a [Mi i 1 13 “Lo Er (Goh) aa Material Factors (M1) 1.0, €4 = Cy er iMe Yom | 10 Tee toate Tee [a8 Yaar | 23 ae Yeo 10 Baie m From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) Base % Shaft % Design Resistance (R4) (compression) “otaliCombined | Pile base resistance = 90, (compression) Pile shaft friction = ac, = 0.¢, The lower values in Ra may be adopted (a) I serviceabily Is verified by load tests (preliminary andlor working) carried out on more than 1% | (~ of the constructed pies to loads not lese than 1.5 times the representative load for which they are designed, or (b) if settlement is explicitly predicted by @ means no less rellable than in (a), or (c} if satlement atthe servicesbilty imi state ie ofno concer, Example 5B cr ( Goh) Fry Base resistance R, = 9cy/\y, = 9(100)(n x 0.67/4) = 254 KN Example 58 Shaft resistance R, = 0.5¢,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 20) = 2827 kN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by a Model Factor Yp.q = 1.4 Compressive Resistance with SLS verification ; Compressive Resistance Reig = Rpg + Rea 254/(1.7 x 1.4) + 28271 1.4 x 1.4) = 254/(2.38) + 2827/(1.96) = 1549 kN i ane . for Ra with explicit verification of SLS Base. % a ‘Shaft Ye 44 (compression) ‘TotaliCombined | % 7 (compression) For (Goh) aa Comparison of Example 5A and 5B (Combination 2) Effects of Load Combinations (Only Combination 2 is considered in this example) Example 5A Permanent vertical 1000 load (kN) Variable vertical load 200 (kN) : Over-design factor I 1.23 ( Design Length (m) for 23.98 cr=10 Er (Goh) 5 Example 5C (Axially loaded pile in sand — single profile of ground test data) : ( Pile type Bored pile “elim [suena ile width (m) Note: Self ‘Weight of pile is omitted in the calculations at [Mi Yoon | 138 Yor bial Youn | 15 a io Pile type, Bored pile sin [Ko=(1—sind) | Example 5C — ae Es a ep im ae eS Pile interface friction 8 1% Design Resistance (R1) Pile base resistance = qy = No6’yp(Ax) = Pile shaft friction = q, = 0’, ae tand(A,) From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) R41 Base Yb 1.0 ©'yy = 20X1 + 17(20 ~/hy) = 190 kPa [Shaft te | 10 {compression) CO haverage= 9.50'y,(1 — sind’) Total/Combined | % 70 {compression) Base resistance R, = 49(0'y,)(n x 0.67/4) Shaft resistance R, = 0.50',,(1 — sing’)tan8(0.6n x 18) Fer (Gon) ur Base resistance R, = 49(a',,)(x x 0.6/4) = 2632 kN Example. 06: Shaft resistanc R, = 0.50',(1 — sing’)tand(0.6 x 18) = 962 kN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by a Model Factor ypq = 1.4 Compressive Resistance R,.q = Rpg + Rsia = (2632/1.4 x 1.0) + (962/1.4 x 1.0) = 2567 kN Saas From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) — Z Asie RT Base | 10 Yea Shaft % | 40 RR. (compression) R.g = ok 4 sk Total/Combined | ~y, 10 a ty Ye (compression) C7 (Goh) 8 Example &C Fastoe aaa eee Tom | LO rile = Mee Le Desigh Adi te 13 jesign Action (A2) "i Yo io 7 (oh) Fre Example 5C Base resistance R, = 49(o',)(r x 0.6/4) = 2632 KN Shaft resistanc R, = 0.50',,(1 — sing’)tan3(0.6x x 18) = 962 kN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by.a Model Factor yp.q = 1.4 Com Compressive Resistance R,.4 = Ry:q + Reig = 2632(1.7 x 1.4) + 962i( 1.4 x 1.4) = 2632/(2.38) + 962/(1.96) = 1597 kN Ra with expliolt vorification of SLS “) _ DA Gexs YRd 47, Base. th 14 ‘Shaft te (compression) ‘TotalCombined | % (compression) 17 Base resistance Ry, = 49(0',,)(z x 0.644) = 2632 kN Example 8C Shaft resistanc R, = 0.50'y,(1 — sing’)tan8(0.6x x 18) = 962 kN (A.3.3.2) For pile design from ground parameters, partial factors have to be corrected by a Model Factor yaig = 1.4 | Compressive Resistance without SLS verification Compressive Resistance R,.4 = Ry.4 + Rea = 2632/(2.0 x 1.4) + 962/( 1.6 x 1.4) 632/(2.8) + 962/(2.24) = 1369 kN 4 without explicit verification of SLS *? ( (ay tase eeu aD 2 ‘Shar te [eee (compression) ae FTotaCombined | [a 20 (compression) ae (Goh) a Example 6¢ Comparison with conventional FS Base resistance R, = 49(o')(7 x 0.62/4) = 2632 KN Shaft resistanc R, = 0.50'y,(1 — sing')tan8(0.6r x 18) = 962 KN | ; | Applied vertical load = 1000 + 200 = 1200 KN : zg — 2632 +982 = ss = 3.00 4200 Qulowable = oon? + 962 = 1519 > 1200 kN 3°15 or Qatowable = 2022 + 282 - 1358 > 1200 kN 3 2.0 Cr (Got) 1 Example 6 (Axially loaded pile in clay — data from 3 boreholes) : P Pile type Bored pile cn —— te Pile width (m) . c, (kPa) BH TR, ‘skin friction o : : Note: Self Weight of pile is Gil uF i ae i omitted in the calculations Permanent vertical load (kN) “Model pile” method eral ica UN HSS ieee e7 6a) 233 |Combination 1 Example 6 Pp Design Action (A1) 1 Di etieeececattt AL [Mt You | 138 Meesn 10: a Stee EES EEE Youn | TSP e Material Factors (M1) Yen = 1.0, €y = Cyn Yow 10 eT {Goh ro Clause 7.6.2.3(5) “Model pile” method Example 6 Perahne, Col] | 4 correlation factor and &, from Table A.NA.10 depending on number of profiles n (Rejeai mean = (Roseal +Rs;cal mean = (Reical mean + (Rsical mean (Recat min = (Roca +Rgscal min Table A.NA.10 — Correlation factors (t) to derive characteristic values of the resistance of axially loaded piles from ground test results(n- number of profiles of tests) 7 [iss [ass [130 Cg [2s [120 NOTE — For structures having suificlent sitness and strength to transfer loads from "weak to “strong” plies, values of & and &« may be divided by 1.1, provided that és is never less than 1.0, see EN 1997-1 7.6.2.3(7). FCT (Goh) 135 , (kPa) BHT too | Example § Pile base resistance = Se, cy (kPa) BH 730 Pile shaft friction = ac, ees cee Base resistance Ry = 9¢y = 9(¢,)(z x 0.6%/4) Ri Shaft resistane R, = 0.50,A, = 0.5(0,)(0.62x30) igs wie ‘Shaft Ye 10 (compression) Peter abe? TotalCombined} y, | 1.0 Reveal Row Rea (compression) BH |c, (kPa) _|R, (KN) _|R, (kN) Recat (KN) ae 280 3110 3390 C7 (60h) 235 Example 6 ¢,(kPa)_[R,(kN)_| R, (kN) Ree (KN) 110 280 | 3110 = = : (Rejcat)mean = (308143390+4007)/3 = 3483 kN (Rejcai)min = 3081 kN Rosai + Re; | [ (Rejcat mean , (Rescal) Rox =(Rige# Rex) = mat #2 Rea “MI ica mean -(Rea!)min & Sa cr (Goh 137 Example 6 Design Resistance (R1) ee ne (Reeamean = 3483 KN 7 tat Ca (Reca)min = 3081 KN ts spas Kiss Rog Rag Ray) = Sa Ray: ([S ea Segre = Min {(3483/1.42) ; (3081/1.33)} = Min (2436; 2317} = 2317 kN BH | SulkPa) Ry (KN) Ry (kN) Resaa (KN) re a ae Sq] BHI gives minimum BH 110 280 3110 RI Ryy = 2827/4.33 KN Ry, = 254/1.33 kN Base | 40 Shaft Ye 4.0 Rog = Realty + Reylts = 2317 kN (compression) ere e eee ‘TotaliCombined | 10 C7 (Goh) (compression) iad Example 6 Note: The lowest value is the lowest of the total compressive resistance, and not a combination of the lowest base compressive resistance and the lowest shaft friction deduced from another test. Roe=(Pag Ray) = Bete ag = we Bee ln Ro bn] Rea = Reilt + Reylts = 2317 KN Fen (Goh) 139 Example 6 Pp Design Action (A2) 1® Rp a2 | Mi E cere You [nae Material Factors (M4) Yeu = 1005 Cy = Cy Yous | 10. Voie 13: Yeu to Cr (Goh) 0 Example 6 aM Yeu = 1.0, C= Cay Youu | 10 { Yea | 10 | lew Yous | 13 ie Yeu. - Te a 5 From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) reenter BD RE with expiiee z verification of SLS 4) = Base rr i Design Resistance (R4) ‘Shaft 7 1 Pile base resistance = 9c, eocression 7 Pile sha‘t friction = ac, = 0.80, (compression) by load tests (preliminary andlor working) carried out on more than 1% of the constructed plies to loads not less than 1.5 times the representative load for which they are designed, or (b) if settierpent is explicitly predicted by a means no less reliable than in (a), oF (6) if settlement at the serviceabilty limit state is of no concer. For (Got a The lower y values in R4 may be adopted (2) if serviceabilty is verified Example 6 Design Resistance (R4) Rca = Ri, + Ry BHl a] m | R (kPa) | (kN) | (kN) oder eal 3110 3390 ad (Rejcat)mean = (3081+3390+4007)/3 = 3493 KN (RejcatImin = 3081 KN Roca +Rsy Rox = Rox +Rex) = z sal TR Reva al = Mi] Sez, Ese) £07 [eon a Example 6 Design Resistance (R4) Real Ros*Res Table ANA.10 mle a Sforn= \4 2 3 (Recaidmeen = 3493 KN & 165 a7 | 42. za 1313s fa (Roca min = 3081 KN Ray = (Roy +Ryy) = Rett Ra << win eamn, faa] 1 = Roy tRax)= =i Ee 7 = Min {(3493/1.42) ; (3081/1.33)} = Min {2443; 2317} = 2347 kN BH [e(kPa) | R,(KN) | R, (KN) Roca (KN) poe Hat : SE S08] BH1 gives minimum eH | uo | 280 | 3110 3390 'R4 with explicit Rex = 2827/4.33KN Ry = 254/4.33 KN testlipation of SEG HI =r Rog ® Rexlty * Rowe ee ae B27ICL.83 x 1.4) + 254/(1.33 x 4.7) | Somes | 7 = 1631 kN (compression) ecco = Example 6 Compressive Resistance with SLS verification | Design Resistance (R4)_ Rea = Rel¥> + RoylYe = 2827/(1.33x1.4) + 254/(1.33x1.7) 28271(1.86) + 254/(2.26) = 1631 kN Ra with explicit verification of SLS*) Base % 17, Shaft % 14 (compression) “TotalCombined | 7% 17 (compression) £c7 (Got Tar essa —______________________ Example 6 [Compressive Resistance without SLS verification tance (R4) Realy + Rests = 2827/(1.33x1.6) + 254/(1.33x2.0) = 2827/(2.13) + 254/(2.66) = 1423 kN trout explicit la verification of SL“ Base % 20 Shaft % i6 (compression) “TtaliCombined | yp 7 (compression) Eca169iF 7 { According to Bauduin (2001), the correlation factors & are) tt based on a reference value of about 10% for the COV of the\| the mean of the resistance should govern the design, ~;whereas for COV greater than 10%, the lowest resistance \, | should govern. C7 (Goh) 6 \. pile compressive resistance. For the COV less than 10%, \ Example 7 (Axially loaded pile in clay — data from 4 static pile load A tests, tested to failure) Pile type Bored pile {* Pile width (m) 0.6 P E Ry Pile Test #2 R,, (kN) 4200 os Fi Note: Self Weight of pile is omitted in 7 — the calculations Pile Test #4 R,,, (kKN} long Variable vertical load (kN) C7 Goh) 7 Example 7 P Design Action (A1) ie Tr, AL [Mi pee ~- Neuan 135") Material Factors (M1) % 1 Youn | 1S tea | 10, £7 (Goh) ua Example 7 Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests (Clause 7.6.2.2) ia (Rem)mean (Rem min Rey =Min| (rem mean {Sem min. - tt a &2 Table ANAS ~ Correlation factors (t) to derive characteristic values ofthe resistance of ‘axially loaded piles from static pile load tests (n - number of tested piles) NOTE - For srucures having sucientstess and sirongt to transfor toads trom "weak" to "strong pls, alles ands may be dvd by 11, provided that fis never less tian 10, oe EN 1987-1 76.2.2), £7 (Goh) 9 Example 7 [Design Resistance (R1)_| xample (Resm)mean = (4000+4200+4500+5000)/4 = 4425 kN (Rojm)min = 4000 kN - =e Sema (Remi ] bid & & | = 3207 kN = Min {(4425/1.38) ; (4000/7.15)} = Min {3207; 3478} lL 2 SPE EHE EEE EEE EEE BEBE PEPER EEE PEPER EEE Table AN) tiene 7 z a a 3s Le sat |e fas a 1 tras as 78 NOTE — Fer srucnres hay Ps ones er ke eff kod fon “wes i la, {oun aay be cy 1 oye ove es 0, eb 067 T020, EC (Goh) 150 Design Resistance (R1) Example 7 Ri Base % | 10 os Shaft Ye 70 ag (compression) ‘TotaliCombined | | 1.0 (compression) 07 (0h) at Example 7 Design Action (A2) ’ MI ieee an Yeas | 10 faterial Factors (11) tee ae Yow | 13. Yo 10 cron 152 — Example 7 Design Resistance (Ra) Pile Test #1 R,,(KN) | 4000 Pile Test #3 Rj, (kN) 4500 (Rem)nean = (4000+4200+4500+5000)/4 = 4425 kN (Remrnin = 4000 KN et eal Foal 1 2 = 3207 kN : Min {(4425/1.38) ; (4000/1.15)} = Min (3207; 3478} Table A.NA.9 Teme i z z 7 fd & 1s iat a 138 te 35 rasp Las tor] NOTE — Fat srs ving len ate eee wnat os | son ice ‘ale gana ty Se ond) ot a enn ase ote) 72a £7 (Goh) a3 Resistance with SLS verification Frempls 2 Roa = 3207 KN Compressive Resistance R,.g = Ra with explicit verification of SLS*) Base 17, ‘Shatt % 14 (compression) Total/Combined | yy 7 (compression) rer (eon) 1s ation Example 7 Rex = 3207 KN Compressive Resistance R,.4 = 3207/(2.0) = 1604 kN Ra without oxpiicit verification of SLS“ Base us 20 Shaft Ye 16 (compression) “TotaCombined | yi 20 (compression) C7 (Goh) 55 Pile subjected to Downdrag (Negative skin friction) Clause 7.3.2.1(3)P. Two approaches: (a) the ground displacement is treated as an action. An interaction analysis (e.g., t-z method) is then carried out to determine the forces, displacements and strains in the pile; (6) an upper bound to the force, which the ground could transmit to the pile shall be introduced as the design action. FCT (Goh) 155 Example 8 (Pile subjected to Downdrag) Example @ surcharge owndrag skin Friction pg 20 (kPa) characteristic value Permanent vertical load (kN) 300 A surcharge is placed at ground level after pile installation, causing settlement of the soft clay and downdrag Fp (negative skin friction) on the pile. The base resistance R, is assumed to be negligible Note: For-simplicity, Self: Weight of pile is omitted in the calculations ‘Any variable action may usually be ignored (Clause 7.3.2.2(7)) > In most cases, downdrag is only relevant for SLS- Example Modified from Simpson & Driscoll (1998) Eurocode 7a commentary _| £C7 (Goh) a7 Example 8 Pile type Bored pile | P surcharge = uy

    You might also like