Spread Foundation and Pile Design using Eurocode 7 A/P Anthony Goh [email protected] C7 (oh) 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. 4 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. £7 (Goh) 2‘SINGAPORE NATIONAL ANNEX NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010 cr (Goh) 3 SINGAPORE NATIONAL ANNEX NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design — Part 1: General rules ¢ NA.2 Nationally Determined Parameters As indicated in Table NA.1, 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. ECT (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 EC7 (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 the available information (eg. SI report) > Based on a cautious 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) ecr (Goh)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. £7 (Goh) 7 Symbols E, Design value of effect of actions : E4ast Design value of effect of destabilising actions eeeraiiepe | Esto Design value of effect of stabilising actions [Favourable | F, Design value of an action F,, Characteristic value of an action R, Design value of the resistance R, Characteristic value of the resistance y_ Partial factor (safety or serviceability) Yq Partial factor for permanent actions Yq Partial factor for variable actions Er (Goh) 8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, < design resistance R, Design Approach 1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R14 Combination 2: A2 + M2 +R1 A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance ECT (Gon) ° 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. £7 (Goh) 10GEO and STR ULS calculations (Design Approach 1) Clause 2.4.7.3.2 and 2.4.7.3.3 E, = 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 Ra =RtyrFrep Xk /yuidaf For piles and anchorages => Ry = RlrFiep! Xaaf/ YR Frag_[ Representative value of an action X,_| Characteristic value of a material (ground) property ag_[ Design value of a geometrical property 57 (Goh) a 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 E, s Cy 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). C7 (Goh) 2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. ECT (Goh) a 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, total settlements of up to 50 mm are often acceptable.” Also provides guidelines for Maximum relative rotation. ‘Amaximum relative rotation of 1/500 is acceptable for many structures | Annex F — Sample methods for settlement evaluation (based on elasticity theory) 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. £7 (60h) uSpread Foundation Design (Design Approach 1) 6 Spread foundations. 61 General 62 Limit states . 63 Actions and design situations 64 Design and construction considerations 65 Ultimate limit state design 66 Serviceability limit state design . 6.7 Foundations on rock; additional design considerations 88 Structural design of spread foundations Preparation of “ IAs Res2288 eT (Gon) 8 Limit States (Clause 6.2(1)P) > Overall stability > Bearing resistance failure, punching failure, squeezing & Sliding failure > 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 eT (Gon) 16Design methods for spread foundations (Clause 6.4(5)P) ele) eels} [Direct | Separate analysis for ULS and SLS. Indirect Use SLS loads to satisfy requirements of all relevant limit states; Use comparable experience and the results of field or lab measurements or observations.* Prescriptive *Use high “global” factor of safety to “characteristic” bearing resistance (Frank et al. 2004). Use conventional and conservative rules in the design and attention to construction control; Use charts or tables of presumed bearing resistance. ECT (Goh) ” Bearing Resistance for Spread Foundation (Clause 6.5.2.1(1)P) Va $ Ra 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 C7 (Gon) 18Sliding Resistance for Spread Foundation (Clause 6.5.3(2)P) Hy S$ Rut Roa H, = horizontal load (including active earth forces) Ry = design value of the resistance R,.a = design value of the resisting force caused by passive earth pressure Drained condition: (Clause 6.5.3(8)P,(10)) Rg = V'gtan 84 or Ry = (Vg tan 8,) / Yan for cast-insitu concrete (2/3) 6’. for smooth precast concrete c' is neglected 4’. a= critical state (constant volume) angle of shearing resistance ‘Yeon = Partial factors on sliding resistance C7 (Goh) 23 Undrained condition (Clause 6.5.3(11)P): Ra = AcCug OF Ra = (AcCui)Yin A. = total base area under compression Yr;h = Partial factors on sliding resistance interface adhesion Clause 3(12)P If it is possible for water or air to reach the interface between a foundation and an undrained clay subgrade, the following check shall be made: Ry $0.4 V, £C7 (oh)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 2.4.2; — designing the location of the foundation edge by taking into account the magnitude of construction tolerances. (2) Unless special care is taken during the works, tolerances up to 0.10 m should be considered. ter460n 2 = Location of Normal Force at Base Ry Ry re! ade. [ ai | [ ti : ars ae hens. %B AB AB %B%B*B ee THTATD cna TE cal Ir rF0 IFO | SFO EF ,=0 Gnax B= Ry ae ABOnax = Ry (3)4nax = Ry Goer Be (1B) RY 1468 B) where e = eccentricity ECT (Got) 2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. .... (8) 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. C7 (Gon) 2 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 effective overburden stress. (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. ECT (Goh) 2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. This implies that if R\/E; = 3, the serviceability limit state | may be deemed to have been verified by this ultimate |limit state calculation. | R, = characteristic bearing resistance E, = applied serviceability load £7 (Goh) Fed Design Approach 4 (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 Ry Combination 1: A1 + M1+R1 Combination 2: A2 + M2 + R14 A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance £7 (Goh 2%A3 Partial factors for structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO) limit states verification A.3,2 Partial factors for soil parameters (Ym) 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 1.0 4.25 Effective cohesion Ye 7.0 4.25 Undrained shear strength ¥ 1.0 1.4 feu = z Unconfined strength Yau 1.0 14 "’ Applied to tan 9 and tan @., although it might be more appropriate to determine the design value of tan 4, directly, 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) £7 (Goh) n A.3.3 Partial resistance factors (v2) A.3.3.1 Partial resistance factors for spread foundations Yr; Partial factor on bearing resistance Yr:n 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 Rv 1.0 Sliding rth 1.0 FC7 (oh) 28Table A.3 — Partial factors on actions (y-) or the effects of actions (ye) ET SaAT Action Symbol Set A1 A2 Permanent |Unfavourable 6 1.35 1.0 Favourable 1.0 1.0 Variable — |Unfavourable Yo 1.5 1.3 Favourable 0 0 £7 (60m) 2 Parameter Symbol GEOSTR Al | a2 | Mi | M2] RI Femanaaions [Uaivousnie Ty | 1.38 [0 Foooaite Tye | 10 | 0 Vainicaciong [Untnowatle Ty | 1.5 [A Favourable -|- Tae wy 1.0 | 1.25 @ Ye 1.0 | 1.25 & Yeu 1.0 | 1.4 Unie welahty % 1.0 | 1.0 Bearing resistance Yew 1.0 Sliding resistance Yeh 1.0SS EN 1997-1:2010 Annex D (informative) A sample analytical method for bearing resistance 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 C7 (oh) a SS EN 1997-1:2010 Annex D B plan view Notations: @, 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 ECW (Goh) 2SS EN 1997-1:2010 Annex D D.3 Undrained conditions The design bearing resistance may be calculated from: R/A’ = (rt2) ¢,,b, Si, + (0.1) base inclination factor b:b.= 1 - 2a/(n+ 2) shape factors: s. + 0.2 (B'/L’) for a rectangular shape; 2 for a square or circular shape. inclination factor j, caused by a horizontal load H: ate fF av Ae with H scale 2m uj (kPa) characteristic value ux (degrees) oO Self weight of foundation W, = 1.0 x 2.0 x 24 = 48 kN/m run Note: For simplicity, only permanent loads are considered in these footing examples. Variable loads are considered in the pile design examples. ECT (Goh) 2 : = Example 1 _Combination 1: A1 + M1 +R1_ P= SOkNim (permanent oad) atu] Ri Vests geal Yost Le Youd a! You 10 Design Action (A1) Try 1 Design actions (foundation weight) W, = Wy, x Design actions (applied load) = Py = PX Yee = 48 x 1.35 = 64.8 kNim run }0 x 1.35 = 108 kN/m run. Total vertical force V, = 64.8 + 108 = 172.8 KNim run 1 Eccentricity of bearing pressure e = (P, x e,) / (W, + Py) © = (108 x 0.25) / (64.8 + 108) = 0.16 m Since e < B/6 therefore OK Effective footing width B’ = B ~ 2e = 2.0-2 x 0.16 = 1.68m Fc7 (Goh)0 Example 4 [Material Factors (M4) | 7 Material Factors (M1) Yo Design material property (M1) Cy:g = ux ! You = 40 / 1.0 = 40 kPa [Design Resistance (R1) | Ultimate bearing capacity q, = (#+2) CurbeSei-+ q foundation base inclination factor: b)= 1.0 shape factor s.= 1+ 0.2 (BYL’) = 1.0 load inclination factor i, = 1.0 Soil pressure (surcharge) adjacent fo footing q = 20 x 1 KN/m TUN; Y¢.4y= 1s Ultimate bearing capacity q, = 5.14 x 40 + 20 x 1.0 x 1.0= 225.6 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 225.6 x area For strip footin = 225.6 x B’ = 225.6 x 1.68 = 379.0 kNim run area 1 Bearing resistance Ry = Quay = 379.0// 1.0 = 379.0 kN/m run Over-design factor F = Ry / Vy = 379.0 / 172.8 =219>1=>0K £07 (Goh) Example 1 Combination 2: A2 +M2+R1 az [ M2 | RI Yesav 10 Youn | 10 Yosie 13 ou 1 [Design Action (A2) hes 10 ——e—V—‘__ a1>0K £7 (Goh) 8 ee Example 1 Comparison with conventional FS = 0 bin (pemmanenteed) bs scm Effective footing width B' = 1.68 m 2 TAT Tron Total vertical force V, = 48 + 80 = 128 kN/m run ci Ultimate bearing capacity q, = 5.14 x 40 + 20 x 1,0 = 225.6 kPa rg 1D _ 225.6-20x1 ~ acai YD (128/B')—20x1 Note: In most situations, footing size is governed by settlement considerations and not bearing capacity Ec7\(Goh) 4“ = 3.65Example 2 (bearing resistance —_P = 200 kN/m (permanent load) for strip footing in dry sand) 1 ep=0.25m co 1 1 Unit weight concrete (kN/m?) 24 |o5 ml i le H=40kNim Soil Unit weight (kN/m?) 20 cT_ (permanent) c, (kPa) 0 $', (degrees) 35 Self weight of foundation W, = 0.5 x 2.0 x 24 = 24 kN/m run Sliding Failure will be considered in Example 3 £7 (60h) 6 an Example 2 Combination 1: A1 + M1+R1 P= 200 kim (permanent load) al_[Mi | Ri Youset 135 Yen 10 os i You 1s ts ut Design Action (A1) Yr 10 Design actions (foundation weight) Wg = Wy X Yo, = 24 X 1.35 = 32.4 kN/m run Design actions (vert load) = Py = P x Yeyay, = 200 x 1.35 = 270 kNim run Total vertical force V, = 32.4 + 270 = 302.4 kNim run Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = H X ¥e,qx; = 40 x 1.35 = 54 kN/m run Eccentricity of bearing pressure e = (P, x @,) / (Wg + Pa) e = (270 x 0.25) / (302.4) = 0.22m Since e s B/6 therefore OK Effective footing width B’ = B - 2e = 2.0-2x 0.22 = 1.56 m £7 (Goh) 4Material Factors (M1) Example 2 Design material property (M1) "4 = tan (tan35°ly,’) = 35°» 221m pemanines Drained conditions ss The design bearing resistance RIA'= CN, Be 8; Ie * 9 Nq by Sy ig + 0.5 7’ BN, b, S, i, (0.2) 0 N, =e 700’ tan? (45 + '/2) 6’ (degrees) 35 N, = (N,~ 1) cot Ny 33.30 N,= 2 (N,- 1) tan $', where 5 = #2 (rough base) N 4b8 Factors b 7 (60h) ” Inclination factor caused by horizontal load H zane ig (1 -i,)/N, tan [1-H/(V + A’c’cot @’)]™ 1 -H/(V + A’crcot «p’)]™*2 m=m,=[2+(B’/U )I/[1+(B'/U)] wien Hacts in the direction of B” mem =([2+(U/B')I/[1+(U/8] — whhnH acts in the direction of U In cases where the Horizontal load component acts in a direction forming an angle 6 with the direction of, m may be calculated by: m= mg =m, cos’q + ms si For strip footing, m = 2 Total vertical force i, = [1 — 54/(302.4 + 0)}? = 0.67 Va = 302.4 kNim run i, = [1 ~ 54/(302.4 + 0)]° = 0.55 Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = 54 kN/m run £7 (Gon) 4i n Example 2 The design bearing resistance Ne Be Se le * 4” Ng bg Sq iq + 0.5 B'N,b, S,i, (0.2) 20 For strip footing, m = 2 9’ (degrees) 35 i,= [1 — 543024 + 0)}? = 0.67 it = [1 - 54/(302.4 + O)P = 0.55 Na 33.30 N, 45.23 Ultimate bearing capacity q, = (0.5 x 20)(33.30)(1 x 1 x 0.67) + 0.5(20)(1.56)(45.23)(1 x 1 x 0.55) = 611.2 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 611.2 x B= 611.2 x 1.58 = 953.5 kN/m run Bearing resistance Ry = Q,/ypy = 953.5 / 1.0 = 953.5 kN/m run Over-design factor T= Ry /V, = 953.5 / 302.4=3.12>1 => OK e1460h) 4 —— Example 2 Combination 2: A2 +M2+R1 P= 200 kim (permanent load) {p= 025m a2 [M2 | RI a Yostes 10 L Youn | 10 osm) Lai H=40KNm Youn | 13 rs Sr ty HS) Design Action (A2) Tes 10 — Design actions (foundation weight) W, = Wy X Yeay = 24 X 1.0 = 24 kN/m run Design actions (vert load) = Pg = PX Yo,ay = 200 x 1.0 = 200 kN/m run 4 + 200 = 224 KNim run Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = H X Yo.qy = 40 x 1.0 = 40 KN/m run Total vertical force V, Eccentricity of bearing pressure e = (P, x @,) / (Wz + Py) e = (200 x 0.25) / (224) = 0.22 m Since e < B/6 therefore OK Effective footing width B’ = B - 2e = 2.0-2 x 0.22 = 1.56 m £7 (on) 50Material Factors (M2) Example 2 Design material property (M2) 6’, = tant (tan35%/y4") = 29,30 °=2001thmGunarrtins Design Resistance (R1) - ‘coed Drained conditions The design bearing resistance RIN = ®No bo Sle +4’ Ny bg Sylg + 0.5 7 B'N, b,j, (0.2) 0 29.3 N, = @ 7490" tan? (45 + '/2) 16.92 N, = (Ny 1) cot @’ 17.84 N,= 2 (N,- 1) tan @', where & 2 $'/2 (rough base) ™2 | RI Factors b, = Tamla Youn 1.0, Yous we. £7 (Gah) tre io ee Inclination factor caused by horizontal load H Example 2 ig (1-i,)/N_ tan @’ i= [1-H/V + Accot @’))™ i, =[1-HAV + arccot @’)]™ mem) =[2+(B//U )I/[1+(B'/L)] when H acts in the direction of B’ ( m=m,=[2+(L/B')I/[1+(L/8'] when Hacts in the direction of U In cases where the horizontal load component acts in a direction forming an angle 6 with the direction of U, m may be calculated by: m= m,=m_cos’q +m, sin’a, For strip footing, m = 2 i, = [1 — 40/(224 + 0)]}? = 0.67 1 — 40/(224 + 0)]° = 0.55 £7 (Goh) 82The design bearing resistance Example 2 RIA'= 6’ Ne Be Sole + 4" Ng bg Sq q+ 0-57 B'N, b, Si, (0.2) so For strip footing, m = 2 4 (degrees) 29.3 = 40/(224 + 0)] Ny 16.92 — 40/(224 + 0) N, Tu Ultimate bearing capacity q,, = (0.5 x 20)(16.92)(1 x 1 x 0.67) + 0.5(20)(1.56)(17.84)(1 x 1 x 0.55) = 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/ygy = 415.6 / 1.0 = 415.6 kN/m run Over-design factor T = Ry/ V4 = 415.6 / 224 = 1.86 >1 cnoke — Combination 2 governs £C7 (Goh) Example 2 Comparis: th conventional FS Total vertical force V, = 24 + 200 = 224 kN/m run Effective footing width B’ = 1.56 m P= 200 kNim (permanent load) 4 #97 028m Ultimate bearing capacity q, = 611.2 kPa r osm] LAL ne soxaum Ts (permanent) poe nw _611.2-0.5%20 _ ectua YD (224/B')—0.5x20 67 (Gon)Example 3 (sliding failure for strip footing in dry sand) p-200,qvmm peemenentioas) Sliding Failure - Combination 1: A1+M1+R1 gp 025m Passive resistance is neglected Assume @’eyq = 30° UT faim coiaim en = | eomanend Design Action (A4) Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = H X Y¥e,qu, = 40 X 1.35 = 54 kN/im Material Factors (M1) Design material property (M1) é'aq= tan (tan30%y,') a Design Resistance (R1) Va = Yo.seV4 (since vertical load is favourable) = 1.0(200#0,5x2x24) = 224 kNim Sliding Resistance Riya = (Va tan6' ey Magn = 224 tan{@Q") /, 2 1203 kNim Over-design factor F = Ry.q/ Hy = 129.3 / 54 = 2.39 >4 Bt => OK For cast insitu concrete the design friction angle may be assumed equal to the design value of the a effective critical state angle of shearing resistance. Ye ® Clause 6.5.3(10) £e7(60H) = 200% (permanent oac) Passive resistance is neglected eo" ample 3 _ Assume ¢’ay.4= seal _ Design Action (A2) os: = H= 40 kin [Design Action (42) | = as 2m Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = Hx Yo,ay= 40 x 1.0 = 40 kN/m Material Factors (M2) Design material property (M2) 6',,4 = tan-"(tan35e/y,) = tdqr1(tan30°/1.25) = 24.8° Design Resistance (R1) ‘Total vertical force V, = 224x7,0 kN/im Sliding Resistance Ry,g = 224 tan(24.8°) / 1.0 103.5 kNim Over-design: factor = Rig ! Hy = 103. / 40 ‘ SPOKIS GS a2 [ima [ RI io] Yow [1.0 For cast insitu concrete the design friction angle may Yous 13-] 3 be assumed equal to the design value of the effective Ye fag critical state angle of shearing resistance. Clause Yaa P10 6.5.3(10) ECT (Goh) 36Example 3 For calculation of V4, Ye:stb = 1-0 and Ya:sth = 9 In this current example, since the horizontal load is permanent. ¥6 4s = 1.0 (A2) and Yo4gt = 1.35 (A1) are used to obtain Hy. Design actions (horiz load) = Hy = HX You4 Ms = 40 x 1.35 = 54 kN/m run (Combination 1) and = 40x 1.0 = 40 kN/m run (Combination 2) If the horizontal load is variable, yq.zst = 1-5 (combination 1) and Yaus = 1.3 (combination 2) is used to obtain Hy. at | Az Permanent action @ | Unfavourable | You | 135 | 10 Favourable | Yow, | 10 | 1.0 Variable actionQ | Unfavourable | Youn | aS | 13 Feo | tea | 0 | 0 TE 9 Example 4 (bearing P = 200 kN/m (permanent load) resistance for strip footing ep=0 in sand with water table) coal ar <——> 2m Unit weight concrete (kN/m*) 24 Soil Unit weight (kN/m?) 20 (kPa) 0 0°, (degrees) 35 Self weight of foundation W, = 0.5 x 2.0 x 24 = 24 kN/m run e=0;B=B' £c7 (Goh) 38Example 4 Combination 1: A1 +M1+R1 P= 200 kNim (permanent foad) at_[mi] Ri =— Yorase 135 . Yor 10 ere ow [1S nl wr ag Design Action (A1) 2m 1 = 24 x 1.35 = 32.4 kNim run Design actions (foundation weight) Wy = Wy Y¢,4u Design actions (vert load) = Py = PX Yeigq, = 200 x 1.35 = 270 kNim run Total vertical force V, = 32.4 + 270 = 302.4 kN/m run C7 (oh) Example 4 Material Factors (M1) Design material property (M1) 6’, = tan* (tan35%p,’) = 35° Design Resistance (R1) Drained conditions The design bearing resistance RN Be Sole +4" Ny by Sy ig + 0.5 7 B'N,b, Si, (0.2) =O N, = e796’ tan? (45 + 61/2) $' (degrees) 35 N, = (Ny 1) cot Ny 33.30 N, = 2 (N,- 1) tan $’, where 5 > $'/2 (rough base) 7 FS LY Factors b, ECT (Goh)e220. ena oat aaeee Drained conditions The design bearing resistance edits w RIA'= NG be Sele * ” Ng Bg Syl + 0.57 B'N,b, Si, (0.2) =0 $’ (degrees) 35 Ny 33.30 N, 45.23 a Ultimate bearing capacity q, = (0.8 x 20)(33.30)(1 x 1x 1) + 0.5(20-10)(2)(45.23)(1 x 1x 1) = 785.3 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 785.3 x B’ = 785.3 x2 = 1570.6 kN/m run Bearing resistance Ry = Qyfigy = 1570.6 / 1.0 = 1570.6 kN/m run Over-design factor T = Ry/ V, = 1570.6 / 302.4 = 5.19 > 1 = OK £7 (Gon) eee A. ie nO 2 [Combination 2: A2 + M2 + Rt parle a [se | Ri Mesos 10 You» | 10 Yous | 13 te. a Design Action (A2) “es a Design actions (foundation weight) Wy = W, X Y¢,au = 24 X 1.0 = 24 kN/m run Design actions (vert load) = Py = P x Yg,a = 200 x 1.0 = 200 kN/m run Total vertical force V, = 24 + 200 = 224 kN/m run ECF (Goh)Material Factors (M2) Example 4 Design material property (M2) ¢', = tan" (tan35%/y,’) = 29.3° Design Resistance (R1)_| Drained conditions The design bearing resistance RIA'= C\Ne Be Scie + 4’ Ng By Sq ig + 0.5 7 B'N, b,j, (D.2) =0 (degrees) | 29.3 N, = @ "8 tan? (45 + $12) Ng 162 N, = (Nq- 1) cot ¢ N, 17.84 N,= 2 (N- 1) tan ¢’, where 5 > 9'2 (rough base) ae er Vera 10 Factors b, = b, = Sq = =1.0 Yeu | 1.0 Yous | 13 te 128 EC7 (Goh) May 10 Drained conditions Example 4 The design bearing resistance RIA’= 0'N, be Sz ic * @ Ng by Sq iq + 0.5 7 B'N, b, ,i, (0.2) #(degrees)| 29.3 Ne 16.92 Ny 17.84 Ultimate bearing capacity q, = (0.5 x 20)(16.92)(1 x 1x 1) + 0.5(20 -10)(2)(17.84)(1 x 1 x 1) = 347.6 kPa Ultimate bearing capacity per m run Q, = 347.6 x B’ = 347.6 x2 = 695,2 kN/m run Bearing resistance Ry = Qy/py = 659.2 / 1.0 = 695.2 kN/m run Over-design factor = Ry/ Vg => 0K 695.2/224=3.10>1 C7 (Goh) 647 (Goh) Pile Foundation Design (Design Approach 1) 7. Pile foundations TA Genera..n 72 Limit states.. 7.3. Actions and design situations... 7.4 Design methods and design considerations... 75 Pile load tests. 78 _Axially loaded piles -.. 77 “Transversely loaded piles 78 Structural design of piles. 7:8 Supervision of construction. BRENNS BBBB ECT (Gon) 66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 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. FCT (Goh) 6 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 ECT (Goh) 6Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P Combination 1: A1 +M1+R1 Combination 2: A2 + (M1 or M2) +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 friction 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. A= action; M = material properties; R = ground resistance C7 (Goh) 60 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 (Goh) EyDesign methods for pile foundations (Clause 7.4.1(P)) iar ea Static load tests* Validity must be demonstrated by calculations or other ‘means to be consistent with other relevant experiences. Empirical or analytical | Validity must be demonstrated by static load tests in calculations comparable situations, | Dynamic impact tests' | Validity must be demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations. Pile driving formulae or | Validity must be demonstrated by static load tests in wave equation analysis* | comparable situations, and ground stratification has been determined. ‘Observation ‘Observed performance of comparable pile foundation; must be supported by results of SI and ground testing. * Usually applies to trial (preliminary) piles and the results of tests on these piles are used to design the working piles. 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). C7 (Goh) n) 7.5 Pile load tests 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. 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) £7 (Gon) ”7.5.2.3 Working Pile (2)P 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. FCI (Goh) 7s 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 shall 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 C7 (Goh) ” Ultimate compression limit state (Clause 7.6.1.1(3)) — > It is 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.” C7 (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: Fodeseiten Fg = design axial compression load on a pile or a group of piles Rog = compressive resistance ECT (Goh) 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. FCN Goh) ea(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. £7 (Goh) a (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. Ec7 (Gon) 2Compressive Ground Resistance (Clause 7.6. 2) Fog © Rog _Eqn _ Eqn (7.1)| 1) F..4 = 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. ECT (Goh) > 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 7.8.2.3(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). C7 (Goh)R,g = compressive resistance, shall be derived either from: or Clause 7.6.2.2(14) Refer to Tables A.NA.6, 7 and 8 y, _ | Partial factor on shaft resistance “ | t Ry > _| Partial factor on base resistance Partial factor on total characteristic Ye istance Ry al The left equation is normally used when designing by calculation. The right equation is used when the shaft and base components cannot be determined separately. 760m) 85 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. £7 (Gon)The differences of the partial factor values between driven, bored and CFA piles is mainly related to the increasing probability of unexpected 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) = With no testing (relying solely on calculation), a higher level of reliability is needed in the calculations. The lower y values in R4 may be adopted 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, £7 (Goh) 7 For example, Table A.NA.7 replaces Table A.7 Table A.7 - Partial resistance factors (ya) for bored piles aE ‘Saar hat one acon Table A.NA.7 — Partial resistance factors (yq) for bored piles for the STR and GEO limit states Resistance ‘Symbol Set R1 R4 without explic Ré4 with explicit verification of SLS*) | verification of SLS*) Base Ys | 1.0 2.0 17 Shaft 1 6 1.4 (compression) Ys 7 u 7 Total/Combined 1 1.0 2.0 1.7 (compression) t ‘Shaft in tension Yes : 17 A) The lowary vais in Ré may be adopted (a) servoaabiy is verfed by load teats (preliminary andor working) Carrie out on more than 1% ofthe constructed pls to loads not ss than 1.5 times the fepresentatve lad op whieh they are designed, or) if setlementis expe predid by @ means ne ess relatle tan (a), 0) ifsetlement ath sercsabity Int sate sf no concern fsTable A.NA.6 — Partial resistance factors (yg) for driven piles for the STR and GEO limit states Resistance ‘Symbot Set Rt Ré without _ | R4 with explicit explicit verification of verification of sis") SLs’) Base Yn 1.0 17 1.5 Shai (compression) Ys 1.0 1.5 13 Totalcombined % 10 ate? 15 (compression ‘Shaft in tension Yat 1.0 2.0 4.7 TAY The lower y values in Ra may be adopted (a) I serviceabily s verted by load tests (preliminary ‘andlor working) cartied out on more than 1% of the. constructed piles to loads not less than 1.5 times the representative load for which they ere designed, of (0) if settlement is explicitly predicted by a means no less reliable than in (a), or (c) f settlement at the serviceability mit slate is of no concern, 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. ECT Goh) Ea Table A.NA.8- Partial resistance factors (yg) for continuous flight auger CFA piles for the STR and GEO limit states Rosiatance | Symbol RI Ré4 with explicit verification of SLS 4) verification of SLS *) Base ym | 4.0 20 417 Shak 1.0 16 : (compression) Ys oe Total Combined 7.0 2.0 17 (compression) ve Shatinienson | ye, | 4.0 2.0 17 The Tower 7 values in RA may be adopled (a) 7 servioesbilty 1s veried by load tests (preliminary andlor working) carries out on more than 1% ofthe constructed piles to loads not less than 1.5 times the representative loed for wich they are designed, or () if setlementis txplcty predicted by 3 means no less refable than in (a), or (2) i setement at the sercegbity it states of ro concer, SS NA permits the use of different R4 values depending on the verification of SLS Fer (Gon) %Summary of partial factors (NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010) ‘Combination 4 ‘Combination 2 Without expt ‘With explct ‘etification of SLS "| verification of SLE at [wi | Ri | Az] wa | Ra] Az] Mi] ORS Action Permanent [Uifav | 1.38 7.00 7.00 Fav | 400 7.00 7.00 Variable __[Untav | 1.50 130 1.30 Sot Tan 00 7.00 7.00. fe [06 1.60 1.00 ie 1.00 1.00 7.00 Unitwa 7.00 1.00 4.00 Driven Pies [Base 7.00 170 150 [Shaft (come) 1.00 150 1.30 Total 7.00 170 7.50 E Seis 200|— || ar ess 4 aie oe 63428 ee Pp Bored Piles [Base 1.00 2.00 1.70 Cra [Shaft (comp) 1.00 4.60 740 Fatal (comp) 7.00 2.00 170 sane le oy 7] z 170 |(fension) E epee ES "The Tower values in R4 may be adopted (a) sarvcesbliy i verifed by Toad Tels (preliminary andor working) carled Oi on more than 1% ofthe consrcted ples to loads no less than 1.5 tes the rapaeantatve load for wach they ae designed (6) seterent is exlcy predicts by a means oles rlable YE, fll ot) fsolorent atthe ericoabty brt sale Tatle ANAS, Partaresistance fer riven ies or tne DRAFT ‘STR ond GEO, MALAYSIAN ona STANDARD z ogres = Sy i Etc dts nin sdb wg feed eaten mov ton 1h ct Sree es Dad nes {ee eee Rose oy 8 Sere “Model pile” procedure (Clause 7.6.2.3(5)P) > “Alternative” procedure (Clause 7.6.2.3(8)) => C7 (Goh) 3 Ultimate compressive resistance by calculation from Ground Test results (Clause 7.6.2.3(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. ion factor &, and &, from Table A.NA.10 C7 (Goh) soClause 7.6.2.3(5) “Model pile” method Rex (Ry +Ray) = Reet Past - y= Min Sseghaen, Sento] (7.8) correlation factor &, and & from Table ANA. depending on number of profiles n (Rescat mean = (Riycat + Rscal mean = (Rovcat mean + (Re:cat mean = Table A.NA.10 ~ Correlation factors (6) to derive characteristic values of the resistance of axially. loaded piles from ground test results (n - number of profiles of tests) (Reseat min = (Rbscat + Res:cal min eforn= 7 2 3 4 5 7 1 & 55a 142 138 136 [133190 be 155439433 2a se 20 ate values ofc: and £: may be divided by 1.1, provided that ‘5 is never less than 1.0, see EN 1997-1 762.317), NOTE ~ For structures having sufciontstifness and strength to transfer loads fom "weak to “strong” ples, | C7 (Goh) 95 — Ultimate compressive resistance by calculation from Ground Test results (Clause 7.6.2.3(8)) “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 = yg.q 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. ~sc2cabs“Alternative” method Clause 7.6.2.3(8) The characteristic values may be obtained by calculating: Roe = Ab Abik ANA Rei =Z Assi siick (7.9) Where gp. 2nd dg, 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 y, 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. £07 (60h) ° NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010 A332 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 ANAS. These values are used to convert characteristic resistances to design values for ultimate limit state calculations. They apply irrespective of the process by which the characteristic resistances are derived. Characteristic resistances may be derived from static load tests using EN 1997-1 7.6.2.2 (7.6.3.2 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 = Yq Rox =A Qn and Rex =2 Asi dain (7.9) C7 (oh 98More than one profile of ground Yes _| test data? “ Ile" lo ‘Model pile” method “Alternative” method [Number of profil Calculate characteristic pile | fesistance from this single profile of ground properties. Apply model factor ya. Apply partial factors y, and 7, to determine design resistance R, 4. correlation factor , and E, from Table A.NA.10 depending on n _ Calculate characteristic pile resistance for the different profiles; Determine minimum to be characteristic resistance Recal- Apply partial factors y, and 7, to determine design resistance Rew C7 (oh) 99 “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 the 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) £7 (Goh) 200Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests (Clause 7.6.2.2(8)P) Reg = mir] Semon; Table A.NA.S - Correlation factors (e) to derive characteristic values of the resistance of ‘avally loaded piles from static pile load tests (n - number of tested piles) | NOTE ~ For structures having sufficient stifness Strength to wranafer loads fom "weak" to “strong” piles, values {ands may be divided by 1.1, provided that isnaver lags than 10, 966 EN 1997-1 7.62218) Usually applies to trial (preliminary) piles and the results of tests on these piles are used to design the working piles. EC7 Goh) 10. 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. £7 (Goh) 02(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, €C7 (60h) 108 Ultimate compressive resistance from dynamic impact tests/pile driving formulae/wave equation analysis (Clause 7.6.2.4 to 7.6.2.6) Rox = a «Resmi | bs & fable A.NA-11 — Correlation factors (§ ) to derive characteristic values of the resistance of axially loaded piles from dynamic impact tests (n - number of tested piles) Eforn= Fy] 25 % [ss T z 4.90 166 NOTE 1 The § - values may be mitpied with a model factor of 085 when using dynamic Mmpact teats wih Signal matching. NOTE 2 ~ The § values should be multiplied with a model factor of 1.10 when using a pile diving fonmula with ‘measurement ofthe quasi-olastic pile head displacement during the impact. NOTE 3 ~ The & - values should be multiptid ith a model factor of 1.20 when using a pile driving formula Without measurement of the quasi-lastic pile head displacement during the Impact. NOTE 4 ~ If cfferont riles exist inthe foundation, groups of similar piles should be considered separately when ‘selecting the number n of test piles. The blow counts used in pile driving should be obtained from driving records of at least five piles (Clause 7.6.2.5(4)). Ec1Goh) sostaticloadtests |R.,,and n profiles E,, 6, Table A.NA.11 and Table A.NA.6 alternative Apply mos method (single | factor Yq,q) to fi model pile NA.10 method > and Table A.NA.6 (n profiles) Ec7 (Goh) 105 ‘Summary of correlation factors (NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010) Suna! ee ee Pee fare | eee ed es [__— ese a een L [apse [ass sas [ase | = | [far [as [sar fae | oe | Esa ere [| inal Ta res isa Ease] z [20 [|_| 125 | ECF (oh) 106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. FC7 (Goh) 107 Example 5A (Axially loaded pile in clay — single profile of ground test data) Pile type Bored pile ps ee asia 1 R Pile width (m) 06 Skin friction a os eht (kN/ a Ro Permanent vertical load (kN) “Alternative” method Note: For simplicity, Self Weight of pile is omitted in the calculations ECT (62h) 108Combination 1:A1+M1+R1. Example 5A ie spe P [pers 7 ee 1% Design Action (A1) Ry ap = ps Design vertical action ran F.q= 1000 x 1.35% 200 x 1.5 = 1650 kN | is Te 10 econ 100 Material Factors (M1) Yeu 105 Example 5A Gores AL 135 10. 15 You Youn Youu From Table A.NA.7 (Bored piles) Base resistance R, = 9cyA = 9(100)(n x 0.67/4) RI = 254 kN Base tb TO Shaft resistanc R, = 0.5¢,A, = 0.5(100)(0.6x x 30) [Shaft % 1.0 = 2827 KN (compression) ‘Compressive Resistance Reig = Rog + Re TotaliCombined | 10 " ° " (compression) £27 (Goh) no