You are on page 1of 66

EC7 for Deep Foundations

(NSF ISSUES)

Prof. Harry Tan


Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
National University of Singapore
GeoSS/BCA EC7 Seminar
24 April 2015
4/27/2015

Motivations of the Lecture


Brief Introduction to pile design based on EC7
Correct understanding of piled foundation design
subjected to dragload. Dragload (negative skin friction)
does not diminish pile geotechnical capacity; therefore
the factor of safety will not reduce

Pile design with NSF is a settlement issue rather than


capacity issue
Demonstration of dragload cases using Unified Pile
Design concept and finite element analysis

4/27/2015

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, CP4, and EC7 on dragload
Design example of dragload using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles


subjected to dragload
Summary

4/27/2015

Pile Design based on EC7 (EN1997-1:2004)


Section 7 Pile Foundations
7.1 General
7.2 Limit states
7.3 Actions and design situations
7.4 Design methods and design
considerations
7.5 Pile load tests
7.6 Axially loaded piles
7.7 Transversely loaded piles
7.8 Structural design of piles
7.9 Supervision of construction

4/27/2015

7.2 Limit States


(1)P The following limit states shall be considered and an appropriate list shall
be compiled:
loss of overall stability;
bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation;
uplift or insufficient tensile resistance 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.

4/27/2015

7.3 Actions and design situations


7.3.1 General
axial load
transverse (horizontal) load (7.3.2.4)
7.3.2 Actions due to ground displacement
consolidation Downdrag (negative skin friction) (7.3.2.2)
downdrag load as an action [7.3.2.2(1)P]
calculated based on upper bound (max. downdrag load) [7.3.2.2(3)]
this is the big issue: Should NSF force be treated as an ACTION
or otherwise???
swelling heave (7.3.2.3)
treated as an action
landslides or earthquakes
ground displacement due to adjacent construction

4/27/2015

7.4 Design methods and design considerations


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 (PDA and CAPWAP) 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
Other methods
Dynamic impact tests (7.6.2.4); Pile driving formulae (7.6.2.5); wave equation
analysis (7.6.2.6); Re-driving (7.6.2.7)
4/27/2015

7.6 Axially loaded piles


Clause 7.6 is the core of the section of EN 1997-1 on pile foundations

7.6.1.1 Limit state design


(1)P the design shall demonstrate that exceeding the following limit states is
sufficiently improbable:
ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of a single pile;
ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of the pile foundation as a
whole (pile group);
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
Ultimate resistance or failure of compression piles [7.6.1.1(4)P]
For piles in compression it is often difficult to define an ultimate limit state from
a load settlement plot showing a continuous curvature. In these cases,
settlement of the pile top equal to 10% of the pile base diameter should
be adopted as the failure criterion.
4/27/2015

7.6.2.3 ULS from ground test results (insitu tests)


Two calculation methods:
Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]
Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]

4/27/2015

Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]


Model Pile method the values of the ground test
results at each individual tested profile are used to
calculate the compressive resistance of a model pile at the
same location.

The procedure is, in fact, similar to that used with the


results of static load tests, e.g. it involves applying a
correlation factor to the calculated resistance to account
for the variability of the pile resistance and obtain the
characteristic compressive resistance.

4/27/2015

10

Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]


Design compressive resistance, Rc;d = Rbd + Rs;d
Rb;d = Rb;k/b
Rs;d = Rs;k/s
The characteristic value Rb;k and Rs;k shall either be determined by:
Rc ;cal mean Rc ;cal min
Rc;k Rb;k Rs ;k

Min
;

3
4

where 3 and 4 are correlation factors depend on the number of profile


of tests, n, and are applied respectively to:
(Rc;cal)mean = (Rb;cal + Rs;cal)mean = (Rb;cal)mean + (Rs;cal)mean
(Rc;cal)min = (Rb;cal + Rs;cal)min
Rb;cal Rs ;cal

Rc;cal

Correlation factors for n ground test results (Singapore NA Table A.NA.10)


For n =

10

1.55

1.47

1.42

1.38

1.36

1.33

1.30

1.55

1.39

1.33

1.29

1.26

1.20

1.15

4/27/2015

11

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.8(8)]


Alternative method the ground test results (shear
strength, cone resistance, etc) of all tested locations are
brought together before evaluating the characteristic values
of base resistance and shaft resistance in the various strata
based on a cautious assessment of the test results and
without applying the factors.

4/27/2015

12

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]


(8) The characteristic values may be obtained by calculating:

Rb;k = Ab qb;k and Rs;k = As;i qs;i;k


where qb;k and qs;i;k are characteristic value of base resistance and
shaft friction in the various strata, obtained from the values of ground
parameters.
NOTE If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors
b and s recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model
factor larger than 1.0 (1.4 or 1.2). The value of the model factor may be set by
the National annex.

This is the most common method for pile design in UK (Singapore)


4/27/2015

13

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]


SS EN 1997-1:2010 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 7
A model factor is introduced to account for uncertainty of the
calculation results.
Model factor = R;d
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.

4/27/2015

14

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example of dragload using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles


subjected to dragload
Summary

4/27/2015

15

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload


1.2 Definitions
1.2.33 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
A downwards frictional force applied to the shaft of a pile caused by
the consolidation of compressible strata, e.g. under recently placed fill
NOTE. Downdrag has the effect of adding load to the pile and
reducing the factor of safety
4.5.6 Effect of settling ground and downdrag forces
On sites underlain by recent or lightly over-consolidated clays The
drag force should be added to the net additional vertical load
applied to the base of the deep foundation in the assessment of
allowable bearing pressure caused by downdrag in the bearing
capacity of the foundation. Donwdrag can also occur where the
groundwater level is substantially lowered or where backfill is placed
around the foundation

4/27/2015

16

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload


7.3.6 Negative skin friction
The downdrag drag on the pile may throw enough additional load on
the pile point or base to make the total settlement excessive
When piles are driven through sensitive clays the resulting remoulding
may initiate local consolidation. The negative friction force due to this
consolidation may be estimated as the cohesion of the remoulded clay
multiplied by the surface area of the pile shaft.
Where it is expected that the soil around the shafts of end bearing piles
will consolidate, the skin friction exerted by the downdrag moving soil
should be estimated in accordance with the properties of materials. The
downward force will need to be taken into account when the allowable
load on the pile is calculated...
4/27/2015

17

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload


7.5.3 Calculation from soil tests
.
Q = f As + q Ab
The special case of negative skin friction or downdrag has been
mentioned in 7.3.6. Soil strata imposing negative friction forces will
introduce negative components into the fAs term. If all the strata above
the level of the pile base are liable to settlement, the term fAs will be
negative. It should then be treated as part of the design load and not be
divided by the factor of safety.

4/27/2015

18

EC7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules


Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
Section 11
Section 12
Annex A - J
4/27/2015

General
Basic of geotechnical design
Geotechnical data
Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
Spread Foundations
Pile Foundations
Anchorages
Retaining Structures
Hydraulic failure
Overall stability
Embankments

19

EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for


correct analysis of NSF as settlement action)
7.3.2.2 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
(1)P If ultimate limit state design calculations are carried out with the
downdrag load as an action (called the dragload), its value shall be
maximum, which could be generated by the downward movement of the
ground relative to the pile
(2) Calculation of maximum downdrag loads should take account of the shear
resistance at the interface between the soil and the pile shaft and downward
movement of the ground due to self-weight compression and any surface load
around the pile.
(3) An upper bound to the downdrag load on a group of piles may be calculated
from the weight of the surcharge causing the movement and taking into
account any changes in ground-water pressure due to ground-water lowering,
consolidation or pile driving.
(4) Where settlement of the ground after pile installation is expected to be
small, an economic design may be obtained by treating the settlement of
the ground as the action and carrying out an interaction analysis.**
4/27/2015

20

EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for


correct analysis of NSF as settlement action)
7.3.2.2 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
(5)P The design value of settlement of the ground shall be derived taking
account of material weight densities and compressibility in accordance with
2.4.3. (i.e. use appropriate characteristic values of soil layers to give good
estimates of settlements)
(6) Interaction calculations should take account of the displacement of
the pile relative to the surrounding moving ground, the shear resistance
of the soil along the shaft of the pile, the weight of the soil and the
expected surface loads around each pile, which are the cause of the
downdrag.
(7) Normally, downdrag and transient loading need not be considred
simultaneously in load combinations.

4/27/2015

21

EC7 on Dragload
7.6.2.2 Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests

(5)P In the case of a pile foundation subjected to downdrag, 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 the most
unfavourable, positive shaft resistance in the compressible stratum and in the
strata above, where negative skin friction develops, from the loads measured at
the 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.)

4/27/2015

22

CP4 on Dragload
7.3.6 Negative skin friction

The allowable geotechnical capacity of a pile subject to negative skin friction in


the long term (Qal) is given by the following general equation:

Q al
where

4/27/2015

Qb Qsp
Fs

Pc Qsn

Qb is the ultimate end bearing resistance


Qsp is the ultimate positive shaft resistance below the neutral plane
Fs is the geotechnical factor of safety
Pc is the dead load plus sustained load to be carried by each pile
Qsn is the negative skin friction load
is the degree of mobilization typically 0.67, although 1.0 may be
used in specific cases

23

Concluding remarks from BS and EC7


BS 8004, CP4 and EC7 treat dragload as an
unfavourable design load that diminishes pile
geotechnical capacity
The pile design can appear to have inadequate safety
factor, or, worst, negative capacity
Piled foundation cost will increase significantly and
unnecessary
This is grossly incorrect. The codes do not address the
issue of dragload holistically.
Sounds unconvincing
Well the following notes will, hopefully, convince you that
draglod is not a capacity problem but a downdrag
(settlement) issue
4/27/2015

24

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of piled foundation subjected to dragload


Summary

4/27/2015

25

First, Lets look at example for pile subject to dragload


based on EC7
Example 1

(modified from Simpson & Driscoll, 1998)

4/27/2015

Pile type

Bored pile

Pile diameter

300 mm

Soft clay unit NSF, qD;k


characteristic value

20 kPa

Stiff clay unit shaft resistance, qs;k


characteristic value

50 kPa

Permanent vertical load, Gk

300 kN

(Frank et al., 2005)

26

Pile subject to dragload based on EC7


Example 1

Characteristic and design value of loads


Permanent load, Gk = 300 kN
Total drag load, FD;k = x 0.3 x 5 x 20 = 94.2 kN
Positive shaft resistance, Rs;k = x 0.3 x LR x 50 = 47.1LR kN
Total design load, Fc;d = GGk + FD;k Design resistance, Rc;d = Rs;k/s + Rb;k/b
DA1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 + 1.35 x 94.2 = 532.2 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = 47.1LR/1.0 = 47.1LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 532.2/47.1 = 11.30 m

Note: the correlation


factor, is ignored

DA1 Combination 2: A1 + (M1 or M2) + R4


Total design load, Fcd = 1.0 x 300 + 1.25 x 94.2 = 417.8 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = 47.1LR/1.3 = 36.2LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 417.8/36.2 = 11.54 m
4/27/2015

27

Pile subject to dragload based on EC7


Example 1

DA2: A1 + M1 + R2
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 + 1.35 x 94.2 = 532.2 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = 47.1LR/1.1 = 42.8LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 532.2/42.8 = 12.43 m
DA3: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 + 1.25 x 94.2 = 522.8 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = 47.1LR/1.25 = 37.7LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 417.8/37.7 = 13.87 m
Conclusion
DA-3 requires the longest pile length of the three Design Approaches: LR = 13.87 m, compard with LR
= 11.54m for DA-1 and LR = 12.43m for DA-2. This is due to the fact that for DA-3 the values of the
three partial factors are equal to 1.25 or 1.35. It can also be argued that the application of the
correlation factor to the estimated values of shaft friction qs in DA-1 and DA-2 (see clauses
7.6.2.2(8)P and 7.6.2.3(5)P) would have led to lower values for qs;k than in DA-3 (for which they are
not used).

4/27/2015

28

Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce


capacity
Example 1

DA1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 = 405 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = (94.2 + 47.1LR)/1.0 = 94.2 + 47.1LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 310.8/47.1 = 6.70 m (cf. 11.30m)
DA1 Combination 2: A1 + (M1 or M2) + R4
Total design load, Fcd = 1.0 x 300 = 300 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = (94.2 + 47.1LR)/1.3 = 72.5 + 36.2LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 227.5/36.2 = 6.28 m (cf. 11.54m)
DA2: A1 + M1 + R2
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 = 405 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = (94.2 + 47.1LR)/1.1 = 85.6 + 42.8LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 319.4/42.8 = 7.46 m (cf. 12.43m)
DA3: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 = 405 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = (94.2 + 47.1LR)/1.25 = 75.4 + 37.7LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 329.6/37.7 = 8.74 m (cf. 13.87m)
4/27/2015

29

Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce


capacity
Example 1

Imagine that the project requires 1000 piles, the cost saving will be
1000 x 5.13 m = 5,130 m pile length!
Assuming that the thickness of the soft clay layer is now 15m instead of
5m (in Singapore, typical Marine clay thickness is 10-30 m). The
dragload force becomes 282.7 kN.
Using 13.87m embedded pile length in stiff clay (from DA-3), the pile
design will have a negative capacity (Fc;d = 1.35 x 300 + 1.25 x 282.7 =
758.4 kN cf. Rc;d = 37.7LR = 522.9 kN).
Therefore, in order to satisfy the total design load based on EC7, the
embedment length in stiff clay need to be LR = 758.4/37.7 = 20m.
In order words, to sustain 300 kN permanent load, the total pile length
required is 25 + 20 = 45m.

4/27/2015

30

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles


subjected to dragload
Summary

4/27/2015

31

The Unified Pile Design method


The following slides are extracted from pile
design courses given by Dr. Fellenius.
For more detail information, please refer to
Fellenius B.H. (2012). Basics of Foundation
Design. Available freely from www.fellenius.net

4/27/2015

32

dragload is treated as an unfavourable action


Drag load must neither be subtracted from
the pile capacity nor from the allowable load
ALLOWABLE
LOAD - (Fs = 2.5)

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

ALLOWABLE LOAD minus


DRAGLOAD*1.0

CAPACITY

2,500

DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

LOAD (KN)

Effect of subtracting the drag load


from the allowable load -- only!

10

1,000

1,500

2,000

CAPACITY

2,500

10

15

15
DRAG LOAD

20

500

LOAD (KN)

DRAG LOAD

20

INCREASE !
If the pile capacity had first been
reduced with the amount of the drag
load, there would have been no room
left for the working load!
4/27/2015

33

Similarly for the EC7 and LRFD:

Do not include the drag load when determining the factored resistance!

Drag load not subtracted from the factored resistance


FACTORED RESISTANCE

LOAD (KN) CAPACITY


500

1,000

1,500

2,000

FACTORED RESISTANCE
minus FACTORED DRAGLOAD
Factors = 0.6 and 1.5, respectively

2,500

10
DRAG LOAD

15

DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

Drag load factored and subtracted!

500

FACTORED RESISTANCE

LOAD (KN)
1,000

1,500

2,000

CAPACITY

2,500

10

15
DRAG LOAD

20

4/27/2015

20

34

SETTLEMENT
Load placed on a pile causes downward movements of the pile head due to:
1. 'Elastic' compression of the pile.

2. Load transfer movement -- the movement response of the soil at the pile toe..
3. Settlement below the pile toe due to the increase of stress in the soil. This is
only of importance for large pile groups, and where the soil layers below the piles
are compressible.
A drag load will only directly cause movement due to Point 1, the
'elastic' compression. While it could be argued that Point 2 also is at
play, because the stiffness of the soil at the pile toe is an important
factor here, it is mostly the downdrag that governs (a) the pile toe
movement, (b) the pile toe load, and (c) the location of the neutral
plane in an interactive "unified" process.
The drag load cannot cause settlement due to Point 3, because there
has been no stress change in the soil below the pile toe.

4/27/2015

35

Therefore, negative-skin-friction/dragload
does not diminish geotechnical capacity.

Drag load (and dead load) is a matter for the pile


structural strength, and
The main question is "will settlement occur around
the pile(s) that can cause downdrag.
The approach is expressed in The Unified Design

Method, which is a method based on the


interaction between forces and movements.

4/27/2015

36

The Unified Design Method is a


three-step approach
1.

The dead plus live load must be smaller than the pile capacity
divided by an appropriate factor of safety. The drag load is not
included when designing against the bearing capacity.

2.

The dead load plus the drag load must be smaller than the
structural strength divided with a appropriate factor of safety. The live
load is not included because live load and drag load cannot coexist.

3.

The settlement of the pile (pile group) must be smaller than a


limiting value. The live load and drag load are not included in this analysis.
(The load from the structure does not normally cause much settlement, but
the settlement due to other causes can be large. The latter is called
downdrag).
4/27/2015

37

"

Construting the Neutral Plane and


Determining the Allowable Load
4/27/2015

38

The distribution of load at the pile cap is governed by the


load-transfer behavior of the piles. The design pile can
be said to be the average pile. However, the loads can
differ considerably between the piles depending on toe
resistance, length of piles.

The location of the neutral plane is the result of Natures


iterations to find the force equilibrium. If the end result
by design or by mistake is that the neutral plane
lies in or above a compressible soil layer, the pile group
will settle even if the total factor of safety appears to be
acceptable.
4/27/2015

39

The principles of the mechanism are illustrated


in the following three diagrams

The mobilized toe resistance, Rt, is a function of the


Net Pile Toe Movement
4/27/2015

40

Pile toe response for where the settlement is small (1)


and where it is large (2)
LOAD and RESISTANCE
0

SETTLEMENT

1,500

200

Utimate
Resistance

DEPTH

NEUTRAL PLANE 1
NEUTRAL PLANE 2

1 2
Toe Penetrations = Movement into the soil

Note, the magnitude of settlement affects not only the magnitude


of toe resistance but also the length of the Transition Zone
4/27/2015

41

Pile toe response for where the settlement is small (1)


and where it is large (2), showing toe penetration
LOAD and RESISTANCE
-500

SETTLEMENT

1,000

200

Utimate
Resistance

DEPTH

NEUTRAL PLANE 1
NEUTRAL PLANE 2

TOE PENETRATION
0

Toe Resistances

Toe Penetrations

TOE RESISTANCE

12

2
3

Note, the magnitude of settlement affects not only the magnitude of


toe resistance but also the length of the Transition Zone:
4/27/2015
42

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles


subjected to dragload
Summary

4/27/2015

43

FE simulation of piled foundation subjected to


dragload (Single Pile Interaction Analysis)
Verification of unified design pile concept using FE

Hypothetical site with three soil layers: fill, soft clay and dense sand
Simulation of short-term pile load test (undrained situation)
Ground settlement due to surcharge loading at various magnitude
(10, 20 and 40 kPa)
Pile load transfer due to dragload at different working load (2000,
4000 and 6000 kN)
Consolidation analysis to simulate the development of dragload as
the soils settle with time
Effect of bitumen coating
Results comparison
4/27/2015

44

Hypothetical site
Head load (P)
2, 4 and 6 MN

Surcharge loading
(10, 20 and 40 kPa)

Fill (3m thick)


s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o

Soft clay (12m thick)


s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s

Axi-symmetric model
Pile diameter, D = 1.128 m
Pile length, L = 20 m
(pile cross-sectional area = 1 m2)

25 m

Pile concrete properties:


Concrete modulus = 30GPa
Rinterface = 1.0
Rinterface = 0.10 (with bitumen
coating at fill and soft clay layer)

Dense sand (10m thick)


s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o

Dummy plate pile with EA 1E6


times smaller than real pile
Soil constitutive model:
Hardening Soil (HS)

4/27/2015

25 m

45

Load movement curve (short term)


0

2000

4000

Load (kN)
6000

8000

10000

12000

0
Head load - Head Mvmnt

40

Toe load - Toe Mvmnt

Movement (mm)

Elastic comprs

80
120

160
200

4/27/2015

Head Load
[kN]
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000

Toe Load
[kN]
0
344
595
931
1269
1714
2228
2779
3445
4053
4752

Shaft Load
[kN]
0
656
1405
2069
2731
3286
3772
4221
4555
4947
5248

Head mvmnt
[mm]
0
3.785
9.914
20.273
32.066
48.3
68.757
93.178
121.227
150
182.28

Toe mvmnt
[mm]
0
3.135
8.708
18.519
29.752
45.411
65.266
89.074
116.491
144.647
176.289

Elastic compr
[mm]
0
0.65
1.206
1.754
2.314
2.889
3.491
4.104
4.736
5.353
46
5.991

Typical results at 40 kPa surcharge with WL = 4MN


Load (kN)
0

2000

4000

Settlement (mm)
6000

200

400

600

Unit resistance (kPa)


800

-100

100

200

300

(1) Initial load


distribution

Subjected to
dragload
Working load
condition

10
(2) DRAG LOAD

Neutral plane

15

20

(1) + (2)
Long-term
load transfer

25

Drag load does not reduce pile


geotechnical capacity
4/27/2015

Net toe
penetration

0
Toe movement (mm)

Depth (m)

soil
settlement

Pile

Toe load (kN)


2000
4000

6000

0
50
100
150

200

Interdependence between soil


settlement, pile load-movement and
47
pile load transfer

Pile responses due to various surcharge load (WL=4000kN)


Load (kN)
0

2000

Unit resistance (kPa)

Settlement (mm)

4000

6000

200

400

600

800

-100

100

200

300

Working load
condition

Depth (m)

Initial load
distribution

10
Large
transition
zone

Small
transition
zone

15

20

soil settlement at
10, 20 and 40 kPa
Unit resistance at
10,20 and 40kPa
pile settlement at
10, 20 and 40 kPa

Long-term load
transfer for 10,20
and 40 kPa

Settlement (mm)
100
200

300

25

For the same head load, larger soil


settlement results in deeper NP,
larger drag load and larger
mobilized toe resistance.
4/27/2015

Depth (m)

10
12
14
16

48

Pile responses at various level of WL (surcharge 40kPa)


Load (kN)
0

2000

4000

Settlement (mm)

6000

8000

200

400

600

Unit resistance (kPa)


800

-100

100

200

300

0
2MN

4MN

6MN
soil
settlement

10
NP:
3436KN

Unit resistance at
WL=2, 4 and 6MN

NP:
NP:
7224KN
5324KN

15

pile settlement at
WL=2, 4 and 6 MN

20
WL=2000kN

Net toe
penetration

WL=4000kN
25

WL=6000kN

For the same soil settlement, larger


pile head load results in shallower
NP, smaller drag load and larger
mobilized toe resistance.
4/27/2015

0
Toe movement (mm)

Depth (m)

Toe load (kN)


2000
4000

6000

0
50
100
150
200

49

Consolidation analysis at WL=4MN and surcharge 40kPa


Load (kN)
0

2000

Settlement (mm)

4000

6000

200

400

600

Unit resistance (kPa)


800

-100

100

200

300

0
1 yr
5 yr

15 yr

Working load
condition

Depth (m)

final soil
settlement

10
Neutral Plane

Unit resistance at
1, 5, 15 yr
consolidation and
fully drained

15

20

25

4/27/2015

Initial
1 year
5 year
15 year
Fully Drained

50

Effect of bitumen coating (R=0.1 for fill and soft clay layers)
Load (kN)
0

2000

4000

Settlement (mm)
6000

200

400

600

Unit resistance (kPa)


800

-100

100

200

300

0
Short-term load
transfer without
bitumen

10

Depth (m)

with
bitumen
Working load
condition
without
bitumen

without
bitumen
soil
settlement

with bitumen
NP=4285 kN

with
bitumen

Neutral
Plane
without
bitumen

15

without
bitumen
N=5324 kN

20

25

30

Bitumen coating of pile shaft reduces drag load


significantly and smaller settlement. However, at the same
time, pile capacity also reduces.
4/27/2015

51

Importance of toe load toe penetration curve


Variable working load cases
Head Load Toe Load Toe Penetration
[kN]
[kN]
[mm]
2000
1180
27.99
4000
2241
65.27
6000
3431
111.58

1000

Variable surcharge load cases


Surcharge
Toe Load Toe Penetration
[kPa]
[kN]
[mm]
10 kPa
1704
44.38
20 kPa
1951
53.42
40 kPa
2241
65.27

Toe load (kN)


2000
3000
4000

5000

6000

Toe movement (mm)

40

Toe load - Toe Mvmnt


variable working load cases (with dragload)
variable surcharge load cases (with dragload)

80
120
160

4/27/2015

200

52

Force and settlement (downdrag) interactive design.


The unified pile design for capacity, drag load, settlement, and downdrag
Qd
0

2,000

SETTLEMENT (mm)
LOAD (KN)
4,000

Pile Cap Settlement

6,000
Silt
Sand

200

Clay

DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

150

10

10
15

100

0
5

50

Soil Settlement

15
20

20
O-cell

25

25

Till

30

30

Pile toe load in the load distribution diagram must


match the toe load induced by the toe movement
(penetration), which match is achieved by a trialand-error procedure.

TOE LOAD (KN)

0
1,000

q-z relation
2,000
3,000
4,000
0

50

100

PILE TOE PENETRATION (mm)

The final solution is based on three "knowns": The shaft resistance distribution, the toe load-movement response, and the
overall
settlement distribution. Which all comes from basic site and project knowledge.
4/27/2015
53

Simulated Load Tests Results


Pile movement [mm]

10

30

50

2000

4/27/2015

4000

6000

LOAD [kN]

SUMMARY RESULTS
NSF do not affect Ultimate Pile Resistance (about 6500 kN in above cases)
Soil settlements (So) produce drag-loads (NSF) on piles
Larger So showed softer pile response; and larger pile settlements

54

Results of load tests on bitumen coated piles


Pile movement [mm]

10

30

Uncoated Pile
Bitumen coated piles
50

2000

4000

6000

LOAD [kN]

Bitumen Coating reduces total resistance (geotechnical capacity) of pile from 6500 kN to
5300 kN
But the external ground settlements influence on pile movement is almost insignificant
compared to uncoated pile
4/27/2015

55

FE analysis of groups of piles Interaction Analysis


Hypothetical cases (1, 2, 4, 9 and 36 piles) as per Fellenius (2012)

3x3m
(9 piles)
6x6m
(36 piles)

4/27/2015

2x2m
(4 piles)

2x1m
(2 piles)

1x1m
(1 pile)

Driven concrete pile, D = 318 mm (circumference area,


A = 1 m2/m), pile length, L = 20 m
Each pile in the group has a 1.0m2 portion of the total
group area.
c/c spacing = 1.0 m, i.e., 3.14D
Soil layers are similar to that of previous slides
No working load applied, 40 kPa surcharge
Pile cap thickness= 1m, except for 36 piles (2m thick)
56

FE analysis of groups of piles


6x6m
(36 piles)
Surcharge 40 kPa

Pile cap thickness = 2m

Fill (3m thick)


s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o

Soft clay (12m thick)


s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s

corner
side

Dense sand (15m thick)


s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o

interior
centre
4/27/2015

57

FE analysis of groups of piles


2x1m
(2 piles)

Surcharge 40 kPa

1x1m
(1 pile)

30 m

Fill (3m thick)


s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o

Soft clay (12m thick)


s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s

2x2m
(4 piles)

3x3m
(9 piles)

Pile cap thickness = 1m for all groups


side

corner
Dense sand (15m thick)
s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o

4/27/2015

30 m

single

centre

58

Group of 36 piles results


0

200

Load (kN)

400

600

Settlement (mm)
200
400
600

800

0
soil
settlement

5
single

Pile
settlement

centre

Interior

15

20

25

Single pile
corner
Side
Interior
Centre

10

15

Neutral
Plane
0

Settlement (mm)
5
10
15

20

12

20

single

25

Group of piles is beneficiary in reducing drag load. The innermost


piles see smaller drag load. For group of piles to settle uniformly, the
group must have the same neutral plane location.
4/27/2015

Depth (m)

10

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

corner
side

piles in
group

14

16

soil

59
18

Group of 2, 4, and 9 piles results


0

200

Load (kN)

400

600

600

single

10

15

20

25

400

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

200

Load (kN)

10

single

centre

side
corner

15

20
Single pile
2 piles group
4 piles group

25

Group of piles is beneficiary in reducing drag load.


Therefore, designing piled foundation using single pile case
is quite conservative
4/27/2015

Single pile
9 piles group (corner)
9 piles group (centre)
9 piles group (side)

60

Measured group response Okabe Field


Experiments (1973)

61

Centrifuge Experiments

62

Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example using EC7
Unified pile design concept

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles


subjected to dragload
Summary

4/27/2015

63

Summary
Pile design according to EC7 design approaches has been
presented
EC7, BS8004 and CP4 do not address the dragload (or NSF)
correctly.
It has been shown here using FE analysis of single pile and groups
of piles that dragload does not reduce pile geotechnical capacity.
The key point in pile design is settlement not capacity.
FE analysis can easily predict the location of NP with no iterations
required.

Group of piles connecting to a rigid pile cap has a beneficiary effect


in reducing the dragload.
Pile design subjected to dragload using single pile scenario is quite
conservative.
4/27/2015

64

EC7 Provision for NSF Design


In essence EC7 do allow us to do
specialized FEM analysis to design for
NSF
This will enable us to take advantage of
the actual expected NSF force over the
period of design life
It will also allow us to include pile group
effects where much reduced NSF will be
observed in the inner piles of large pile
groups or piled-raft foundations

4/27/2015

65

EC7 ALLOWS FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN FOR NSF BY USING GOOD FEM PILE-SOIL
INTERACTION ANALYSIS TO ACCOUNT FOR CORRECT CONSOLIDATION
SETTLEMENTS (TREATED AS ACTION)

4/27/2015

66