CE 632

CE-632
Foundation Analysis and
Design

Pile Foundations

1
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Indian Standards on Piles

ƒ IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 1 : 1979 Driven cast in-situ concrete piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 2 : 1979 Bored cast-in-situ
cast in situ piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 3 : 1979 Driven precast concrete piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 1 : Sec 4 : 1984 Bored precast concrete piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 2 : 1980 Timber piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 3 : 1980 Under reamed piles
ƒ IS 2911 : Part 4 : 1985 Load test on piles
ƒ IS 5121 : 1969 Safety code for piling and other deep foundations
ƒ IS 6426 : 1972 Specification for pile driving hammer
ƒ IS 6427 : 1972 Glossary of Terms Relating to Pile Driving Equipment
ƒ IS 6428 : 1972 Specification for pile frame
ƒ IS 9716 : 1981 Guide for lateral dynamic load test on piles
ƒ IS 14362 : 1996 Pile boring equipment - General requirements
ƒ IS 14593 : 1998 Bored cast-in-situ piles founded on rocks - Guidelines
ƒ IS 14893 : 2001 NNon-Destructive
D t ti IIntegrity
t it T Testing
ti off Pil
Piles (NDT) -
Guidelines
2
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

When is it needed
„ Top layers of soil are highly compressible for it to support
structural loads through shallow foundations
foundations.
„ Rock level is shallow enough for end bearing pile
foundations provide a more economical design
design.
„ Lateral forces are relatively prominent.
„ I presence off expansive
In i and
d collapsible
ll ibl soils
il att th
the site.
it
„ Offshore structures
„ Strong uplift forces on shallow foundations due to shallow
water table can be partly transmitted to Piles.
„ For structures near flowing water (Bridge abutments, etc.)
to avoid the problems due to erosion.

3
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Types of Piles
„ Steel Piles
¾ Pipe piles
¾ Rolled steel H-section
H section piles

„ Concrete Piles
¾ Pre-cast Piles
¾ Cast
Cast-in-situ
in situ Piles
¾ Bored-in-situ piles

„ Timber Piles
„ C
Composite
it Pil
Piles
4
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Steel Piles: Facts

„ Usual length: 15 m – 60 m
„ Usual Load: 300 kN – 1200 kN
„ Advantage:
g
¾ Relatively less hassle during installation and easy to achieve
cutoff level.
¾ Hi h driving
High d i i force
f may be
b used
d for
f fast
f t installation
i t ll ti
¾ Good to penetrate hard strata
¾ Load carrying capacity is high
„ Disadvantage:
¾ Relatively expensive
¾ Noise pollution during installation
¾ Corrosion
¾ Bend in piles while driving
5
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Concrete Piles: Facts

„ Pre-cast Piles:
¾ Usuall llength:
U h 10 m – 45
4 m
¾ Usual Load: 7500 kN – 8500 kN
„ Cast-in-situ Piles:
¾ Usual length: 5 m – 15 m
¾ Usual Load: 200 kN – 500 kN
„ Advantage:
¾ Relatively cheap
¾ It can be easily combined with concrete superstructure
¾ Corrosion resistant
¾ It can bear hard driving
„ Disadvantage:
¾ Difficult to transport
p
¾ Difficult to achieve desired cutoff
6
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Types of Piles Based on Their Function and Effect

of Installation

„ Pil b
Piles based
d on th
their
i ffunction
ti
¾ End Bearing Piles
¾ F i ti Piles
Friction Pil
¾ Compaction Piles
¾ Anchor Piles
¾ Uplift Piles

„ Effect of Installation
¾ Displacement
Di l t Pil
Piles
¾ Non-displacement Piles

7
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Displacement Piles
„ In loose cohesionless soils
¾ Densifies the soil upto
p a distance of 3.5 times the p pile diameter
(3.5D) which increases the soil’s resistance to shearing
¾ The friction angle varies from the pile surface to the limit of
compacted soil
„ In dense cohesionless soils
¾ The dilatancy effect decreases the friction angle within the zone of
p
influence of displacement p
pile ((3.5D approx.).
pp )
¾ Displacement piles are not effective in dense sands due to above
reason.
„ In cohesive soils
¾ Soil is remolded near the displacement piles (2.0 D approx.) leading
to a decreased value of shearing resistance.
¾ Pore
Pore-pressure
pressure is generated during installation causing lower
effective stress and consequently lower shearing resistance.
¾ Excess pore-pressure dissipates over the time and soil regains its
g
strength.
„ Example: Driven concrete piles, Timber or Steel piles
8
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Non--displacement Piles
Non
„ Due to no displacement during installation, there is no heave in
the ground.
g
„ Cast in-situ piles may be cased or uncased (by removing
casing as concreting progresses). They may be provided with
reinforcement
i f t if economical
i l with
ith th
their
i reduced
d d di
diameter.
t
„ Enlarged bottom ends (three times pile diameter) may be
provided in cohesive soils leading to much larger point bearing
capacity.
„ Soil on the sides mayy soften due to contact with wet concrete
or during boring itself. This may lead to loss of its shear
strength.
„ Concreting
C ti under
d water
t may b be challenging
h ll i and d may resulting
lti
in waisting or necking of concrete in squeezing ground.
„ Example: Bored cast in-situ or pre-cast piles

9
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

„ With the increasing load on a pile initially the resistance is offered by side friction
and when the side resistance is fully mobilized to the shear strength of soil, the
rest of load is supported
pp by
yppile end. At certain load the soil at the p
pile end fails,
usually in punching shear, which is defined as the ultimate load capacity of pile.

10
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Transfer Mechanism of Piles

„ The frictional resistance ΔQz
per unit area at any qsz =
depth S .Δz z
S = perimeter of pile
„ Ultimate skin friction
resistance of pile Qsu
Δz
ΔQs
„ Ultimate point load Q pu = q pu . Ap
q pu = bearing capacity of soil
Ap = bearing area of pile

„ Ultimate load capacity Qu = Q pu + Qsu

in compression

„ Ultimate load capacity Qu = Qsu Qupp Qus

in tension
Qu
11
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity

p y of Pile: General Bearing
g
Capacity approach
„ Ultimate bearing capacity of soil considering general bearing
capacity equation. Shape, inclination, and depth factors are
included in bearing capacity factors

q pu = cN c* + q′N q* + 0.5γ DNγ*

„ Since pile diameter is relatively small, third term may be dropped

out
q pu = cN c* + q′N q*

„ Hence Pile load capacity

( )
Q pu = q pu . Ap = cN c* + qN q* . Ap

12
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity

p y of Pile: Meyerhof’s
y ((1976))
Method
„ Granular soils:
Point bearing capacity of pile increases with depth in sands and
reaches its maximum at an embedment ratio L/D = (L/D)cr.
Therefore, the point load capacity of pile is
Q pu = Ap .q′.N q* < Ap .qul
qul = 0.5Pa N q* tan φ ′ Pa = Atmospheric
p ppressure
¾ (L/D)cr value typically ranges from 15D for loose to medium sand to
20D for dense sands.
¾ Correlation of limiting point resistance with SPT value
L
qul = 0.4 ( N ′′ ) ≤ 4 Pa ( N ′′ )
D
N“ value shall be taken as an average for a zone ranging from 10D
above to 4D below the pile point.

„ Saturated Clays:
Q pu = N c* .cu . Ap = 9.cu . Ap
13
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity

p y of Pile: Vesic’s ((1977)) Method
„ Pile point bearing capacity based on the theory of expansion of cavities
(
Q pu = Ap .qup = Ap . c.N c* + σ o′ Nσ* )
⎛ 1 + 2Ko ⎞
Mean effective normal stress at pile end σ o′ = ⎜ ⎟ q′
⎝ 3 ⎠
Ir
Nσ* = f ( I rr ) I rr = avg vol strain at pile end
1 + Ir Δ
Reduced rigidity index of soil
Gs Es
I r = rigidity index = =
( c′ + q′ tan φ ′) 2 (1 + μs )( c′ + q′ tan φ ′)
4 π
N c* = ( rr ) + 1
ln I + 1 +
3 2
Baldi
B ldi ett al.
l (1981):
(1981)
Type of soil Ir For mechanical For electric cone
Sand 75-150 cone resistance resistance
3 11.7
7
Silt 50-75 Ir = Ir =
q f qc q f qc
Clay 150-250 14
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile: Janbu’s

Janbu s (1976) Method

(
Q pu = Ap c.N c* + q′.N q* )
( ) (e )
2
2η ′ tan φ ′
N = tan φ ′ + 1 + tan 2 φ ′
*
q

60o ≤ η ′ ≤ 90o
Clay Sand

( )
N c* = N q* − 1 cot φ ′

η′

15
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load capacity of Pile:

Coyle and Costello’s (1981)
Method for Granular Soils

Q pu = Ap .q′.N q*

* L
N is a function of
q ratio
D
L is length of pile below G.L.

16
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load Capacity

y of Pile resting
g on Rock
Goodman (1980): Q pu = Ap .qu ( Nφ + 1)
Nφ = tan 2 ( 45 + φ ′ 2 )
qu = unconfined compression strength of rock
φ ′ = effective friction angle of rock

To consider the influence of distributed fractures in rock ( qu )lab

which
hi h are not reflected
fl dbby the
h compression i tests on smallll ( qu )design =
samples, the compression strength for design is taken as 5

17
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

„ The frictional resistance of pile may be
computed as

Qsu = ∑ S .ΔL. f sz
„ The unit frictional resistance increases with L′
the depth and reaches its maximum at the
depth of approximately 15D to 20D, as shown
in the adjacent figure.

f sz = K .σ v′ .tan δ ≤ f sL′ Kσ v′

„ Soil-Pile
S il Pil iinterface
t f ffriction l δ varies
i ti angle i ffrom
0.5φ' to 0.8φ‘.Earth pressure coefficient
depends on both soil type and pile installation.

18
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of
Pile: In Sand
Coyle and
Bhushan ((1982)) suggested
gg that the
C t ll
Castello
value of K and K.tanδ for large (1981)
displacement piles can be
computed as
K = 0.50 + 0.008Dr
t δ = 0.18
K .tan 0 18 + 0.0065
0 0065Dr

Coyle and Castello (1981) proposed

that ultimate skin frictional resistance
of pile can be computed as

Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L

(
= K .σ ′v .tan
tan δ .S .L )
Avg effective overburden 19
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile: In Sand

Zeitlen and Paikowski (1982) suggested τ
that limiting fs is automatically accounted
Failure
for by the decrease in φ’ with effective Envelope
confining pressure which may be used to
compute K and δ.
σ
σ v′
φ ′ = φo′ − 5.5log Effective vertical stress at the depth of interest
σ o′ Effective confining
g stress during
g triaxial test
Friction angle obtained through triaxial testing at some confining pressure σ o′.

Typical values of K from a number of pile tests:

20
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: α-method

Proposed by Tomlinson (1971):

f s = α .cu
Empirical adhesion factor

21
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance
of Pile In Clays:
α-method
Randolph and
Randolph and Murphy (1985): Murphy (1985)

Qsu = ∑ α .cu .S .ΔL

Sladen (1992):

f s = α .cu = σ ′h .tan δ

and σ ′h = κ K o , NC σ ′v
correction factor for soil disturbance on sides

With the above relationships, α can be determined as a

function of effective overburden and undrained shear

( )
strength
t th n
α = C1. σ ′v cu C1 and n are constants depending on soil
properties and type of pile installation 22
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of
Pile In Clays: λ-method
Proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972):

( f s )av = λ (σ ′v + 2cu )
M
Mean undrained
d i d shear
h strength
t th

λ varies with the length of embedded pile

Ultimate skin friction resistance of pile

Qsu = ( f s )av .S .L
Value of σ ′v and cu are computed as
weighted average over the embedded
depth of pile

This method usually overpredicts the

capacity of piles with embedded
length less than 15 m. 23
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Frictional Resistance of Pile In Clays: β-method

In saturated clays displacement piles induce excess pore pressure near
pile surface during
p g installation which eventually
y dissipates
p within a month
or so. Hence, the frictional resistance of pile may be estimated on the
basis of effective stress parameters of clay in a remolded state.

f s = β .σ v′ = K tan φR′ .σ v′
Effective friction angle of remolded clay at certain depth

Earth pressure coefficient may be estimated as the earth pressure at rest:

K = (1 − sin φR′ ) For Normally Consolidated Clay

K = (1 − sin φR′ ) OCR For Over Consolidated Clay

Total frictional resistance of pile:

Qsu = ∑ f s .S .ΔL
24
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

25
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

S 9 Æ Pile
IS:2911 e Load
oad Capac
Capacity
ty in Co
Cohesionless
es o ess So
Soils
s

26
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

For For
Driven Bored
Piles Piles

27
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

S 9 Æ Pile
IS:2911 e Load
oad Capac
Capacity
ty in Co
Cohesionless
es o ess So
Soils
s

28
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

S 9 Æ Pile
IS:2911 e Load
oad Capac
Capacity
ty in Co
Cohesionless
es o ess So
Soils
s
It seems logical that K value shall be close to the coefficient of earth
pressure at rest Ko as described in earlier methods. However,, type
p yp of
installation has a major impact on how the earth pressure may vary from
Ko, as shown in the figure below.

nical Pile
e
ular Pile

Pile
Driven Con
ven Circu

Bored P
Driv

Soil movement 29
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesionless Soils

IS code recommends K-value to be chosen between 1 and 2 for

driven piles and 1 and 1.5 for bored piles. However, it is advisable
to estimate this value based on the type of construction and fair
estimation of the disturbance to soil around pile
pile. Typical values of
ratio between K and Ko are listed below.

30
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils

( )
0.5
For σ ′v cu ≥ 1 → α = 0.5 σ ′v cu , but >/ 1

( )
0.25
For σ ′v cu < 1 → α = 0.5 σ ′v cu , but </ 0.5 and >/ 1

31
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Cohesive Soils

32
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Meyerhof’s
y Formula for Driven Piles based on SPT value

For Sand:

For L/D > 10

A limiting value of 1000 t/m2 for point bearing and 6 t/m2 is suggested

For Non-
Non-plastic silt and fine sand:

For Clays:

33
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Non-

Non-Cohesive
Soils Based on CPT data

The ultimate point

bearing capacity:

34
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

IS:2911 Æ Pile Load Capacity in Non-

Non-Cohesive
Soils Based on CPT data
The ultimate skin friction resistance:

Correlation of SPT and CPT:

35
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity:

p y Other Correlations with
SPT value

36
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Point Load Capacity of Pile: Correlation with CPT

data by LCPC Method
q pu = ( qc )eq .kb
„ Get the average qc value
Equivalent avg
avg. Empirical bearing
f a zone 1.5D
for 1 D above
b to
cone resistance capacity factor
1.5D below the pile tip.
D
„ Eliminate the qc values
that are higher than
1.3(qc)avg or lower than
0 7(qc)avg.
0.7(q

„ Compute the (qc )eq as

g of the
an average
remaining qc values.

Briaud and Miran (1991):

kb = 0.6 for clay and silt
kb = 0.375 for sand and gravel
37
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity:

Correlation with CPT by
Dutch Method
„ Compute the average qc value for
a zone yD below the pile tip for y
varying from 0.7 to 4. Define qc1 D
as the minimum value of above
(qc)avg.
„ Average the value of qc for a zone
of 8D above the ppile tip,
p, and g
get
qc2. Ignore sharp peaks during
averaging.
„ Calculate Atmospheric
p

( qc1 + qc 2 )
Pressure

qp = k ′ ≤ 150. p
b a
2

kb′ = 1.0 for OCR = 1

kb′ = 0.67 for OCR = 2 to 4 38
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT by Dutch

Method

q p = R1 R2
( qc1 + qc 2 ) k ′ ≤ 150. p
b a
2
R1 = Reduction factor as function of cu
R2 = 1 ffor electrical
l t i l cone penetrometer
t t
R2 = 0.6 for mechanicsl cone penetrometer

39
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load
Capacity:
Correlation
with CPT data
in Sand by Electric Cone
Dutch Method

Mechanical Cone
Frictional cone
resistance
40
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pile Load Capacity: Correlation with CPT data in

Clays by Dutch Method

Frictional cone
resistance

41
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Allowable Pile Capacity

„ Factor of Safety shall be used by giving due consideration to the

following points
¾ Reliability of soil parameters used for calculation
¾ Mode of transfer of load to soil
¾ Importance of structure
¾ Allowable total and differential settlement tolerated by structure

Factor of Safety as per IS 2911:

42