406 views

Uploaded by Thusiyanthan Ponnampalam

NSF Design for EC7

- 03-EC7 and Its Impact on Existing Design (Dr ChianSC)
- Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction Slides
- 3 a Review of Requirements on Ground Investigation and Load Test for Foundation Piles in Singapore by Er Dr Yet Nai Song
- (GEOSS) - Guidelines on Good Practices for Pile Load Test
- 07-Cp4 vs Ec7 (Dr t g Ng)
- NA to SS EN 1991-1-1-2008
- NA to SS en 1998-1-2013
- Goh_EC7_Pile_CPG_July2013.pdf
- CP 7 1997(2014) Code of practice for the structural use of timber
- GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19Nov2014).pdf
- Singapore National Annexure to Eurocode 8
- NA to SS EN 1997-14ty-2010
- Pilling Requirement to EC 2
- Requirements on GI (Dr Poh TY)
- Guide on Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values to EC7 24 Apr 2015
- NA to SS EN 1991-1-4-2009.pdf
- Lecture 2 by Chiew Sing Ping FOR CIVIL AND STRUCTURE
- ConcreteCentre - EC2 Bridges Extract
- NIGG-Pile Design to BS en 1997-1 2004 (EC7) and the National Annex
- geotechnical water pressures in relation to structures

You are on page 1of 66

(NSF ISSUES)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

National University of Singapore

GeoSS/BCA EC7 Seminar

24 April 2015

4/27/2015

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

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

subjected to dragload

Summary

4/27/2015

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

(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

7.3.1 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

7.4.1 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

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

(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

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 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.

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

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

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

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 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

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

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.

4/27/2015

13

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

subjected to dragload

Summary

4/27/2015

15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q al

where

4/27/2015

Qb Qsp

Fs

Pc Qsn

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

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

Summary

4/27/2015

25

based on EC7

Example 1

4/27/2015

Pile type

Bored pile

Pile diameter

300 mm

characteristic value

20 kPa

characteristic value

50 kPa

300 kN

26

Example 1

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

factor, is ignored

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

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

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

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

subjected to dragload

Summary

4/27/2015

31

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

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

DRAGLOAD*1.0

CAPACITY

2,500

DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

LOAD (KN)

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

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

FACTORED RESISTANCE

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)

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.

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

interaction between forces and movements.

4/27/2015

36

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.

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

"

Determining the Allowable Load

4/27/2015

38

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.

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

in the following three diagrams

Net Pile Toe Movement

4/27/2015

40

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

of toe resistance but also the length of the Transition Zone

4/27/2015

41

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

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

subjected to dragload

Summary

4/27/2015

43

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)

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

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

Concrete modulus = 30GPa

Rinterface = 1.0

Rinterface = 0.10 (with bitumen

coating at fill and soft clay layer)

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

times smaller than real pile

Soil constitutive model:

Hardening Soil (HS)

4/27/2015

25 m

45

0

2000

4000

Load (kN)

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

Head load - Head Mvmnt

40

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

Load (kN)

0

2000

4000

Settlement (mm)

6000

200

400

600

800

-100

100

200

300

distribution

Subjected to

dragload

Working load

condition

10

(2) DRAG LOAD

Neutral plane

15

20

(1) + (2)

Long-term

load transfer

25

geotechnical capacity

4/27/2015

Net toe

penetration

0

Toe movement (mm)

Depth (m)

soil

settlement

Pile

2000

4000

6000

0

50

100

150

200

settlement, pile load-movement and

47

pile load transfer

Load (kN)

0

2000

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

settlement results in deeper NP,

larger drag load and larger

mobilized toe resistance.

4/27/2015

Depth (m)

10

12

14

16

48

Load (kN)

0

2000

4000

Settlement (mm)

6000

8000

200

400

600

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

pile head load results in shallower

NP, smaller drag load and larger

mobilized toe resistance.

4/27/2015

0

Toe movement (mm)

Depth (m)

2000

4000

6000

0

50

100

150

200

49

Load (kN)

0

2000

Settlement (mm)

4000

6000

200

400

600

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

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

significantly and smaller settlement. However, at the same

time, pile capacity also reduces.

4/27/2015

51

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

Surcharge

Toe Load Toe Penetration

[kPa]

[kN]

[mm]

10 kPa

1704

44.38

20 kPa

1951

53.42

40 kPa

2241

65.27

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

40

variable working load cases (with dragload)

variable surcharge load cases (with dragload)

80

120

160

4/27/2015

200

52

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

Qd

0

2,000

SETTLEMENT (mm)

LOAD (KN)

4,000

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

match the toe load induced by the toe movement

(penetration), which match is achieved by a trialand-error procedure.

0

1,000

q-z relation

2,000

3,000

4,000

0

50

100

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

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

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

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)

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

6x6m

(36 piles)

Surcharge 40 kPa

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

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

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

interior

centre

4/27/2015

57

2x1m

(2 piles)

Surcharge 40 kPa

1x1m

(1 pile)

30 m

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

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)

side

corner

Dense sand (15m thick)

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

4/27/2015

30 m

single

centre

58

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

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

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

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

Experiments (1973)

61

Centrifuge Experiments

62

Pile Design using EC7

Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload

Design example using EC7

Unified pile design concept

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.

in reducing the dragload.

Pile design subjected to dragload using single pile scenario is quite

conservative.

4/27/2015

64

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

- 03-EC7 and Its Impact on Existing Design (Dr ChianSC)Uploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction SlidesUploaded byJudy Kamalodeen
- 3 a Review of Requirements on Ground Investigation and Load Test for Foundation Piles in Singapore by Er Dr Yet Nai SongUploaded byFCW
- (GEOSS) - Guidelines on Good Practices for Pile Load TestUploaded byPeter Kyaw
- 07-Cp4 vs Ec7 (Dr t g Ng)Uploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- NA to SS EN 1991-1-1-2008Uploaded byL YO Pin
- NA to SS en 1998-1-2013Uploaded bygkouretz3855
- Goh_EC7_Pile_CPG_July2013.pdfUploaded byHT Binh
- CP 7 1997(2014) Code of practice for the structural use of timberUploaded byNanshan Li
- GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19Nov2014).pdfUploaded byjohnkoh99
- Singapore National Annexure to Eurocode 8Uploaded byromanch2204
- NA to SS EN 1997-14ty-2010Uploaded byPierre Gan
- Pilling Requirement to EC 2Uploaded byraymond sabado
- Requirements on GI (Dr Poh TY)Uploaded by俞仰鸿
- Guide on Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values to EC7 24 Apr 2015Uploaded by俞仰鸿
- NA to SS EN 1991-1-4-2009.pdfUploaded byChong Wee Lin
- Lecture 2 by Chiew Sing Ping FOR CIVIL AND STRUCTUREUploaded byAUNGPS
- ConcreteCentre - EC2 Bridges ExtractUploaded bymrzap5007
- NIGG-Pile Design to BS en 1997-1 2004 (EC7) and the National AnnexUploaded bynumspy
- geotechnical water pressures in relation to structuresUploaded bygugi
- Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design-General Rules-Guide to en 1997-1Uploaded bylnanescu
- Analysis of Piles for Negative Skin FrictionUploaded bySanjay Raj
- NA to SS en 1991-1!4!2009 - PreviewUploaded byjasekan.dc
- Worked Example to Eurocode 2 Vol. 1Uploaded byvbisketi
- Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Worked examplesUploaded byPanagiotis Xanthos
- CP4. 2003 Code of Practice for FoundationsUploaded bykiller_pro
- EC 7 Part 1 SeminarUploaded byjohnkoh99
- DESIGN OF PILES USING EURO CODE-7Uploaded byGEOMAHESH
- GeologyOfSingapore OcrUploaded byAndrew Sway
- Chin Plot PaperUploaded byNajib Ali

- Filler slabUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- Bored Pile Cost Study_6DRUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- Interface ShearUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- unit 1Uploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- DESIGN OF PILES USING EURO CODE-7Uploaded byGEOMAHESH
- Design of Axially Loaded CompressionUploaded byPeyman Mzn
- IFEM.ch18.SlidesUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- SRUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- lump massUploaded bypkshrawal1976
- Bondeck Formwork DesignUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- PPE_2015Uploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam
- SeminarUploaded byThusiyanthan Ponnampalam

- Ansys Polyflow BrochureUploaded byCesar Ap Barbosa
- Resumo Alargado.pdfUploaded byPMGL
- Present Brake SystemUploaded byAshraf Zulkafli
- Decline In The American Industrial HeartlandUploaded byszivot
- casusluk ekipmanıUploaded byBreen Saygın
- Preventive HealthcareUploaded byAnonymous 0EtkcFn
- DonaldUploaded byEmilio Emi
- Dental SUPPLIES PRICE SHEETUploaded byasasupplies
- Drug Study OrthoUploaded byKrisia Castuciano
- ~ HP z400 Workstation - DataSheet (2011.06-Jun)Uploaded byJSSmith
- Drizo IranUploaded byDiego1980b
- 6 Comparative Protein ModellingUploaded bydragoncyto
- Montana Modeling Guideline For Air Quality PermitsUploaded byfranny73p
- 2010-Arbutin in Marjoram and OreganoUploaded byAna Calmîș
- 2011 Cjas Summer FlyerUploaded byAuriane Stremel
- Guideline 10 Torch Testing in Obstetrics and NeonatologyUploaded byRaditiatri Prasetyo
- MTH316LectureNote.pdfUploaded byAaron Ng
- Guntoro (1998) the Effect of Collision of Banggai SulaUploaded byRendyEffendi
- CLC Main Workbench User ManualUploaded byvregtrs
- Belovedness, God, and Morality Without FoundationsUploaded byBrendan Jones O'Connor
- Aceite de Oliva_Salud CardiovascularUploaded bymdsanchezo8373
- north face marketing planUploaded byapi-264782078
- NYS Math Test Review Units 5Uploaded byjohnsontan1985
- neurocisticercosis actualizado 2018Uploaded byRoberth Sanchez
- coating on magnesium alloyUploaded bymdsaifulquddus
- Husquarna 235 RUploaded byarni68gr
- Atrial Fibrillation and ComorbiditiesUploaded byDalmo Moreira
- The Gross Appearance of Spinal Cord-lec by EmmaUploaded byJen Passilan
- UK SostreneGrene OfficeAndSchool2017Uploaded byebesam
- AbstractUploaded byjecky tekkim01