Foundation Eng Part 1
Uploaded by
Law Jia WeiFoundation Eng Part 1
Uploaded by
Law Jia WeiCV3013– Foundation Engineering
Semester 1, 2013/2014
Course Outline
LECTURERS/TUTORS:
A/P Leong Eng Choon* (Rm N1-1c-80, ext. 4774)
A/P Teh Cee Ing (Rm N1-1c-88, ext. 5305)
Week Topic Lecturer Tutorial
1 Overview of shallow and deep foundations LEC -
2 Bearing capacity of shallow foundations LEC 1
3 Settlement of shallow foundations LEC 2
4 Pile types and axial capacity LEC 3
5 Pile under tensile load and load tests LEC 4
6 Pile groups and negative skin friction LEC 5
7 Earth retaining structures - overview TCI 6
Break
8 Lateral earth pressure – limiting states TCI 7
9 Gravity retaining walls TCI 8
10 Embedded Walls TCI 9
11 Braced excavations TCI 10
12 Ground investigation TCI 11
13 Design Soil parameters TCI 12
* Course Co-ordinator
Lectures
Mon – 1.30pm LT7, Wed – 9.30am LT7
Text
Knappett, J.A. and Craig, R.F., “Craig’s Soil Mechanics” 8th edition, Spon Press, 2012.
References
Coduto, D.P., Foundation Design, Principles and Practices, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
2001.
Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
Braja M. Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 7th edition, Thomson, 2010.
Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design and Construction, Prentice Hall, 2001.
CV3013-Foundation Engineering
Associate Professor E.C. Leong
Office: N1-1C-80
Tel: 6790 4774
Email: cecleong@ntu.edu.sg
Learning Outcome
Upon completion of the course, students should be
able to understand the importance of site
investigation and proper evaluation of design soil
parameters, and will develop an appreciation of
the modes of failure of retaining walls and
foundation supports, the design philosophy and
the process involved in a foundation project, and
be able to design simple foundation systems.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 2
5BWeek Topic 6BLecturer 7BTutorial
Overview of shallow and deep
1 LEC -
foundations
2 Bearing capacity of shallow foundations LEC 1
3 Settlement of shallow foundations LEC 2
4 Pile types and axial capacity LEC 3
5 Pile under tensile load and load tests LEC 4
6* Pile groups and negative skin friction LEC 5
7 Earth retaining structures - overview TCI 6
Break
8 Lateral earth pressure – limiting states TCI 7
9 Gravity retaining walls TCI 8
10 Embedded Walls TCI 9
11 Braced excavations TCI 10
12 Ground investigation TCI 11
13 Design Soil parameters TCI 12
*Week 6 is designated e-Learning Week
ULectures: Mon – 1.30pm LT7, Wed – 9.30am LT7
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 3
Recommended Text
Knappett, J.A. and
Craig, R.F., “Craig’s
Soil Mechanics” 8th
edition, Spon Press,
2012.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 4
References
• Coduto, D.P., Foundation Design, Principles
and Practices, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 2001.
• Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design,
5th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
• Braja M. Das, Principles of Foundation
Engineering, 7th edition, Thomson, 2010.
• Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design and
Construction, Prentice Hall, 2001.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 5
Assessment
2 Continuous Assessments
1 Exam
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 6
Exam (2.5 hours)
4 Questions
CLOSED-BOOK
Formulas and charts provided
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 7
Continuous Assessment (part 1)
Electronic Quiz consisting of
short calculations and MCQ
OPEN-BOOK
Week 5
Date to be announced later
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 8
Week 1
OVERVIEW OF SHALLOW
AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 9
What are foundations?
Why do we need foundations?
What are the types of foundations?
What are shallow foundations?
What are deep foundations?
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 10
What are foundations?
A foundation is part
of a structure
which transmit
loads directly to
the underlying soil,
a process known
as soil-structure
interaction.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 11
Why do we need foundations
Foundations transmit building loads to the soil safely.
Structural elements in buildings are typically made of
steel or concrete. These materials have high strength,
about 100 or 1000 times that of soils.
P = 200 kN
A = 0.5 m2
s = P/A = 200/0.5 = 800 kPa
Grade 30 Concrete – 30 MPa
Steel ~ 400 MPa
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 12
Table 3.8 Relationship between consistency of cohesive
soils and undrained shear strength (from Coduto 2001)
Consistency Undrained shear Visual Identification
strength (kPa)
Very soft <12 Thumb can penetrate more than 25 mm
Soft 12-25 Thumb can penetrate about 25 mm
Medium 25-50 Penetrated with thumb with moderate effort
Stiff 50-100 Thumb will indent soil about 8 mm
Very stiff 100-200 Thumb will not indent soil, but readily indented
by thumbnail
Hard >200 Indented by thumbnail will difficulty or cannot
indent with thumbnail
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 13
Why do we need foundations
Foundations transmit building loads to the soil safely.
To perform in a satisfactory way, the foundation must
meet two principal performance requirements (known
as limit states), namely:
1.such that its capacity or resistance is sufficient to
support the loads (actions) applied (i.e. so that it doesn’t
collapse) - strength
2.to avoid excessive deformation under these loads,
which might damage the supported structure or lead to
a loss of function - serviceability
Other performance requirements: cost and constructibility
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 14
What are the types of foundations?
Foundations Types
Shallow Deep
Foundations Foundations
Spread Mat Driven Piles Drilled Shafts
Footings Foundations
Examples
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 15
Figure 10.1 Foundation systems: (a) pads/strips, (b) raft, (c) piled, (d) piled raft
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 16
What are shallow foundations?
If a soil stratum near the surface is capable of
adequately supporting the structural loads it is
possible to use shallow foundations.
Arbitrary definition: Shallow foundations
refer to those where d/B < 1 or when d < 3m
(according to CP4).
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 17
What are shallow foundations?
Examples of shallow foundations:
Spread footings Small
Combined footings Medium
Raft/Mat foundations Large
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 18
What are shallow foundations?
Examples of shallow foundations:
Spread footings
A footing
supporting a
single column
is referred as A strip footing
an individual supports a load
footing or bearing wall.
pad.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 19
What are shallow foundations?
Examples of shallow foundations:
Combined footings
A combined footing
support more than
one load bearing
structural elements.
They are used
where there is
space constraint or
near a property
line.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 20
What are shallow foundations?
Examples of shallow foundations:
Raft/mat foundations
A mat foundation is a
large spread footing used
to support more than one
load bearing structural
elements in several lines.
Usually it encompasses
the entire footprint of the
structure.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 21
What are shallow foundations?
Examples of shallow foundations:
Raft/mat foundations
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 22
What are deep foundations?
If the soil near the surface is incapable of
supporting the structural loads, piles, or other
forms of deep foundations such as piers or
caissons, are used to transmit the applied loads to
suitable soil (or rock) at greater depth where the
effective stresses (and hence shear strength) are
larger.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 23
What are deep foundations?
Examples of deep foundations:
(a) Precast RC pile
(b) Steel H-pile
(c) Steel tubular pile (d) Shell pile (e) CFA pile (d) Under-reamed bored pile
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 24
Shallow vs Deep Foundations
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 25
Foundation Design Process
Establish requirements for structural
conditions and site characterization
Preliminary Study: Obtain general site
geology, Collect foundation experience from
the area
Plan and execute subsurface investigation
Evaluate information and select foundation
system: Deep Foundation or Shallow
Foundation (see performance requirements)
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 26
Shallow Foundations (Chapter 8)
Bearing Capacity (Section 8.2 to 8.4)
Settlement (Sections 8.5 to 8.9, 10.2)
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 27
Bearing Capacity
Bearing capacity (qf) is defined as the pressure
which would cause shear failure of the
supporting soil immediately below and adjacent
to a foundation.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 28
Bearing Capacity
Three distinct modes:
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 29
Bearing Capacity Typical of soils of low
compressibility i.e.
dense coarse-grained
General Shear: or stiff fine-grained
soils.
qf
Continuous failure surfaces develop between the edges
of the footing and the ground surface. As the pressure is
increased towards the value qf a state of plastic
equilibrium is reached initially in the soil around the edges
of the footing, which subsequently spreads downwards
and outwards. Ultimately, the state of plastic equilibrium is
fully developed throughout the soil above the failure
surfaces. Heave of the ground surface occurs on both
sides of the footing, although in many cases the final slip
movement occurs only on one side, accompanied by
tilting of the footing, as the footing will not be perfectly
leveled and hence will be biased to fail towards one side.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 30
Bearing Capacity
Local Shear:
qf = ?
There is significant compression of the soil below
the footing, and only partial development of the state
of plastic equilibrium. The failure surfaces, therefore,
do not reach the ground surface and only slight
heaving occurs. Tilting of the foundation would not
be expected.
Local shear failure is associated with soils of high
compressibility and is characterized by the
occurrence of relatively large settlements (which
would be unacceptable in practice) and the fact that Acceptable
qf is not clearly defined. settlement
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 31
Bearing Capacity
Punching shear:
Punching shear failure occurs when there is
relatively high compression of the soil under the
footing, accompanied by shearing in the vertical
direction around the edges of the footing. There is qf = ?
no heaving of the ground surface away from the
edges, and no tilting of the of the footing. Relatively
large settlements are also characteristic of this
mode and again qf is not well defined.
Punching shear failure will also occur in a soil of low
compressibility if the foundation is located at
considerable depth.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 32
Leaning Tower of Pisa
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 33
Construction of Tower of Pisa
Tower begin to Construction resumed and 7th floor was completed
sink during to compensate for the tilt, in 1319 and bell
construction of upper floors were built with chamber was added in
2nd floor one side taller than the 1372
other
Republic of Pisa Republic of Pisa was
battles with Genoa, defeated by Genoa in
Lucca and Florence the Battle of Meloria
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 34
Leaning Tower of Pisa
Height: ~56 m
Weight: ~14,500 tons
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 35
Original tilt angle: 5.5o
Now tilt angle: 3.99o
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 36
Common cause of foundation problems
Lack or
inadequate site
investigation
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 37
Foundation Design Process
Establish requirements for structural
conditions and site characterization
Preliminary Study: Obtain general site
geology, Collect foundation experience from
the area
Plan and execute subsurface investigation
Evaluate information and select foundation
system: Deep Foundation or Shallow
Foundation (see performance requirements)
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 38
Leaning Tower of Pisa
Height: ~56 m
Weight: ~14,500 tons
Diameter of base: ~ 15.5 m
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 39
Gross bearing pressure, q
For leaning Tower of Pisa, P + Wf = 14,500,000 kg x 9.81 m/s2
P = 142,245 kN
Wf Fy 0
P Wf
q q
A
P Wf 142245
q 754 kPa
15.5
2
A
4
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 40
Evaluate information and select
foundation type.
What are the design criteria?
To perform in a satisfactory way, the foundation must
meet two principal performance requirements (known
as limit states), namely:
1.such that its capacity or resistance is sufficient to
support the loads (actions) applied (i.e. so that it doesn’t
collapse) - strength
2.to avoid excessive deformation under these loads,
which might damage the supported structure or lead to
a loss of function - serviceability
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 41
Is shallow foundation suitable?
Gross bearing pressure of 754 kPa is excessive.
Both strength and serviceability performance
requirements will not be satisfied.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 42
Is deep foundation suitable?
Deep foundation can transfer the load to the
deeper stronger soil layers e.g. the sand layer.
Both strength and serviceability performance
requirements will be satisfied.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 43
What happens if the leaning Tower of
Pisa is embedded at a depth of 40 m?
d = 40 m
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 44
Net bearing pressure, qn
= 17 kN/m3
sz0 d
P+ Wf
d = 40 m
q n q sz 0
754 - 4017 74 kPa
qn
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 45
Net Bearing Pressure and
Compensated Foundations
If weight of the soil removed totally offset the
weight of the building, qn = 0.
The foundation is said to be a fully compensated
foundation. Sometimes these foundations are also
called “floating” foundations.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 46
Ultimate Bearing Pressure/Capacity, qf
- Maximum bearing pressure that the soil can
sustain before bearing capacity failure.
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 47
Plasticity Theory
The bearing capacity problem can be considered in terms
of plasticity theory by assuming that the stress strain
behavior of the soil is represented by the rigid-perfectly
plastic idealisation in which both yielding and shear failure
occurs at the same state of stress: unrestricted plastic flow
takes place at this stress level.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 48
Plasticity Theory
Plastic collapse occurs after the state of plastic equilibrium
has been reached in part of a soil mass, resulting in the
formation of an unstable mechanism: that part of the soil
mass slips relative to the rest of the mass.
The applied load system, including body forces, for this
condition is referred as the collapse load.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 49
Plasticity Theory
Determination of the collapse load is achieved using limit
theorems of plasticity (also known as limit analysis) to
calculate lower and upper bounds to the true collapse
load.
When lower bound = upper bound, we have the exact
collapse load.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 50
Lower Bound (LB) Theorem
If a state of stress can be found which at no point exceeds
the failure criterion for the soil and is in equilibrium with a
system of external loads, then collapse cannot occur; the
external load system thus constitutes a lower bound to the
true collapse load.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 51
Upper Bound (UB) Theorem
If a kinematically admissible mechanism of plastic collapse
is postulated and if, in an increment if displacement, the
work done by a system of external loads is equal to the
dissipation of energy by the internal stresses, then
collapse must occur; the external load system thus
constitutes an upper bound to the true collapse load.
CV3013 - LEC (2013) Week 1 52
Shallow Foundations -
Bearing Capacity and Limit Analysis
Bearing Capacity in Undrained Materials
Undrained material – considers only undrained shear
strength of soil i.e. cu or su.
Analysis using the upper bound theorem
For undrained conditions the failure mechanism within the
soil mass should consist of slip lines which are either
straight lines or circular arcs (or a combination).
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 2
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Proposed mechanism UB1
(Plane strain)
Slip velocities
Dimensions
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 3
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Energy dissipated due to shearing at relative
velocity vi along slip line of length Li :
E i f Li v i
Work done Wi by a pressureq i acting over an
area per unit length Bi moving at velocity vi :
Wi q i Bi vi
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 4
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Hodograph
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 5
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Energy dissipated:
Slip line Stress fi Length Li Relative velocity vi Energy dissipated Ei
OA cu B/2 2v cuBv
OB cu B 2v 2cuBv
OC cu B/2 2v cuBv
AB cu B/2 2v cuBv
BC cu B/2 2v cuBv
Total Energy Dissipated, Ei = 6cuBv
Work done:
Component Pressure pi Area Bi Relative velocity vi Work done Wi
Footing qf B V qfBv
pressure
Surcharge sq B -v -sqBv
Total Work Done, Wi = qfBv-sqBv
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 6
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Wi E i
q f sq Bv 6c u Bv
q f 6c u sq (8.4)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 7
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB2
A more efficient mechanism:
Energy dissipated for shearing between
each wedge of the fan and soil :
E i c u R vfan (8.5)
Energy dissipated for shearing between
each wedge and next wedge of the fan :
E i, j c u R vfan (8.6)
Total energy dissipated due to fan :
E fan E i E i, j 2c u Rvfan
i i
02c u Rvfan 2c u Rvfan
(8.7)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 8
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB2
Slip line Stress fi Length Li Relative velocity vi Energy dissipated Ei
OA cu B/2 2v cuBv
Fan zone cu R=B/2 vtan = 2v cuBv
OC cu B/2 2v cuBv
Total Energy Dissipated, Ei = (2+)cuBv
Wi E i
q f sq Bv 2 c u Bv
q f 2 c u sq (8.8)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 9
Bearing Capacity in Undrained Materials
Analysis using the lower bound theorem
In the lower bound approach, the conditions of equilibrium
and yield are satisfied without consideration of the mode of
deformation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 10
Lower bound approach, stress state LB1
For equilibriu m, s1 in zone 2 is
equal to s3 in zone1
The major principal stress at
any point in zone1 is
s1 q f z (8.9)
In zone 2, the minor principal stress is
s3 sq z (8.10)
At thepoint where the circle meets
q f z 2cu sq z 2cu
q f 4cu sq (8.11)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 11
Lower bound approach, stress state LB2
A more realistic stress state can be found
by considering a series of frictional stress
discontinuities along which a significant
proportion of the soil strength can be
mobilised, forming a fan zone which
gradually rotate the major principal stress
from vertical beneath the footing to the
horizontal outside.
In crossing the discontinuity the major
principal stress will rotate by an amount :
(8.12)
2
From Figure (c),
s A s B 2c u cos (8.13)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 12
Lower bound approach, stress state LB2
Substituting Eq. 8.12 into Eq. 8.13 and
in the limit sA – sB s, sin :
s 2c u cos
2
2c u sin 2c u
Integrating from zone 1 to zone 2:
/2
s 0 2cu 2cu
2
Considering s1 in zone 1, s3 in zone 2
and the fan:
qf z cu sq z cu 2cu
2
q f 2 cu sq (8.16)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 13
Comparing Upper and Lower Bounds qf
Upper Bound Lower Bound
1 6cu sq 4cu sq
2 2 cu sq 2 cu sq
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 14
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
General form of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
on an undrained material may be written as:
qf sc Nccu sq (8.17)
Where sc = shape factor, for strip footing = 1.0
Nc = bearing capacity factor = (2 + )
d sq d
Founding plane
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 15
Bearing Capacity Factors(Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode 7 :
B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 16
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Formula
for undrained material
qf sccu Nc sq
Footing shape sc
Continuous 1.0
Square 1.3
Circular 1.3
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 17
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode 7 :
B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 18
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For two layer soil,
Merifield et al. (1999) Merifield and Nguyen (2006)
Solid lines for UB, dashed lines for LB for square footings
Note: in calculating qf, cu = cu1
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 19
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For strip footing close to a slope,
Georgiadis (2010)
Lowest upper bound solution
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 20
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For Gibson’s soil: c u ( z) c u 0 Cz (8.20)
Davis and Booker (1973)
CB
q f 2 cu Fz
4
(8.21)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 21
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Bearing capacity factor Nc is affected by:
(a) Equation used
(b) Depth of embedment
(c) Layered soil
(d) Proximity of slope
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 22
Example 8.1
A strip foundation 2.0 m wide is located at a depth of 2.0
m in a stiff clay of saturated unit weight of 21 kN/m3. The
undrained shear strength is uniform with depth, with cu =
120 kPa. Determine the undrained bearing capacity of the
foundation under the following conditions:
(a) The foundation is constructed in level ground;
(b) A cutting at a gradient of 1:2 is subsequently made
adjacent to the foundation, with the crest 1.5 m from
the edge of the foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 23
Example 8.1(a)
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
d 2.0
1.0
B 2.0
Using Skempton's values, N c 6.4
For strip footing, sc 1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 24
Bearing Capacity Factors(Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode 7 :
6.4 B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 25
Example 8.1(a)
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
d 2.0
1.0 q f s c N c c u sq
B 2.0 1.0 x 6.4 x 120 42
Using Skempton's values, N c 6.4
810 kPa
For strip footing, sc 1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 26
Example 8.1(b)
B = 1.2 m
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
1
2 Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
1 .5
0.75
2 .0
1 Interpolating, N c 4.7
tan 1 26.6o
2
cu 120
2 .9
B 212.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 27
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For strip footing close to a slope,
Georgiadis (2010)
Lowest upper bound solution
4.7
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 28
Example 8.1(b)
B = 1.2 m
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
1
2 Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
1 .5
0.75
2 .0 q f s c N c c u sq
1
tan 1 26.6o 1.0 x 4.7 x 120 42
2 606 kPa
cu 120
2 .9
B 212.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 29
Bearing Capacity in Drained Materials
Drained material – considers effective shear strength
parameters of soil i.e. c’ and f’.
Analysis using the upper bound theorem
For drained conditions, the slip surfaces within a
kinematically admissible failure mechanism should consist
of slip lines of either straight lines or curves of a specific
form known as log spirals (or a combination).
Log spiral, r r0e tan
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 30
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB-1
How to obtain the log spiral equation?
dr
tan
rd
r dr
r 0tan d
Plane strain 0 r
r
ln tan
r0
r r0e tan
In Figure (a), r0 L AB , r L BC and
2
B
From geometrey, L AB
f'
2 cos
4 2
tan
Be 2
L BC
f'
2 cos
4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 31
The Direct Shear Test
= dilation angle
Associative flow rule
For the special case, = f’ (normality principle)
tan tan f '
Be 2 Be 2
L BC
f' f'
2 cos 2 cos
4 2 4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 32
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Work done:
Component Pressure pi Area Bi Relative velocity vi Work done Wi
Footing qf B V qfBv
pressure
Surcharge sq
tan f' f'
ve 2
tan f' f'
f'
s'q Bve tan f' tan2
Bve 2
tan tan
4 2 4 2 4 2
As a result of the normality principle, E i 0.
Wi 0.
f'
q f Bv s'q Bve tan f' tan 2 0
4 2
f'
q f e tan f' tan 2 s'q N q s'q (8.25)
4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 33
Lower bound approach, stress state LB1
qf
1 - sinf' e tan f'
1 sinf' s'q
1 sin f' tan f'
qf e s'q
1 sin f'
f'
2 tan 2 e tan f' s'q
(8.26) 4 2
N q s'q
Same qf as upper bound approach!
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 34
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
qf sc Ncc'sq Nqs'q 0.5Bs N
d
s’q
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 35
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
qf scdc Ncc'sqdq Nqs'q 0.5Bs d N
Nq
1 sin f' tan f' B
e s q 1 sin f'
1 sin f' L
Nq 1 sq Nq 1
Nc As f' 0, N c 2 sc
tan f' Nq 1
N N q 1 tan1.32f' (Salgado 2008)
s 1 0.3
B
N 2 N q 1 tan f' (EC 7) L
dc, dq, d – depth factors. EC 7 does not recommend the use of depth factors i.e.
dc = dq =d =1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 36
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
d
Case 1: s’q
Case 2:
Case 3:
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 37
Unit weight to be used
Case 1: dw d ' w
Case 2: d < dw < d+B d w d
' w 1
B
Case 3: d+B dw '
dw = depth of groundwater table
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 38
Example 8.2
A footing 2.25 m x 2.25 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in
a sand for which c’ = 0 and f’ = 38o. Determine the bearing
resistance for (a) if the groundwater table is well below the
foundation level, and (b) if the groundwater table is at the
ground surface. The unit weight of the sand above the
groundwater table is 18 kN/m3; the saturated unit weight is
20 kN/m3.
For f' 38o ,
B
Nq
1 sin f' e tan f' 49 sq 1
L
sin f' 1.62
1 sin f' sq Nq 1
Nq 1 sc (not used as c' 0)
Nc (not used as c' 0) Nq 1
tan f'
N 2 N q 1 tan f' 75 s 1 0 .3
B
L
0 .7
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 39
Example 8.2(a)
(a) if the groundwater table is well below the foundation level
q f s q N q s'q 0.5Bs N Case 3
s q N q d 0.5Bs N
1.62 49 18 1.5 0.5 18 2.25 0.7 75
3206 kPa
(b) if the groundwater table is at the ground surface
q f s q N q s'q 0.5Bs N Case 1
s q N q ' d 0.5 ' Bs N
1.62 49 20 - 9.81 1.5 0.5 20 9.81 2.25 0.70 75
1815 kPa
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 40
Shallow Foundations -
Bearing Capacity and Limit Analysis
Bearing Capacity in Undrained Materials
Undrained material – considers only undrained shear
strength of soil i.e. cu or su.
Analysis using the upper bound theorem
For undrained conditions the failure mechanism within the
soil mass should consist of slip lines which are either
straight lines or circular arcs (or a combination).
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 2
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Proposed mechanism UB1
(Plane strain)
Slip velocities
Dimensions
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 3
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Energy dissipateddue to shearingat relative
velocity vi along slip line of length Li :
E i f L i v i
Work done Wi by a pressureq i acting over an
area per unit length Bi moving at velocity vi :
Wi q i Bi vi
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 4
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Hodograph
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 5
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Energy dissipated:
Slip line Stress fi Length Li Relative velocity vi Energy dissipated Ei
OA cu B/2 2v cuBv
OB cu B 2v 2cuBv
OC cu B/2 2v cuBv
AB cu B/2 2v cuBv
BC cu B/2 2v cuBv
Total Energy Dissipated, Ei = cuBv
Work done:
Component Pressure pi Area Bi Relative velocity vi Work done Wi
Footing qf B V qfBv
pressure
Surcharge sq B -v -sqBv
Total Work Done, Wi = qfBv-sqBv
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 6
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Wi E i
q f sq Bv 6c u Bv
q f 6c u sq (8.4)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 7
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB2
A more efficient mechanism:
Energy dissipatedfor shearingbetween
each wedgeof the fan and soil :
E i c u R v fan (8.5)
Energy dissipatedfor shearingbetween
each wedgeand next wedge of the fan :
E i, j c u R v fan (8.6)
Total energydissipateddue to fan :
E fan E i E i, j 2c u Rv fan
i i
02c u Rv fan 2c u Rv fan
(8.7)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 8
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB2
Slip line Stress fi Length Li Relative velocity vi Energy dissipated Ei
OA cu B/2 2v cuBv
Fan zone cu R=B/2 vtan = 2v cuBv
OC cu B/2 2v cuBv
Total Energy Dissipated, Ei = (2+)cuBv
Wi E i
q f sq Bv c u Bv
q f 2 c u sq (8.8)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 9
Bearing Capacity in Undrained Materials
Analysis using the lower bound theorem
In the lower bound approach, the conditions of equilibrium
and yield are satisfied without consideration of the mode of
deformation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 10
Lower bound approach, stress state LB1
For equilibrium, s1 in zone 2 is
equalto s3 in zone 1
The major principal stressat
any point in zone 1 is
s1 q f z (8.9)
In zone 2, the minor principal stressis
s3 sq z (8.10)
At thepoint where the circle meets
q f z 2cu sq z 2cu
q f 4cu sq (8.11)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 11
Lower bound approach, stress state LB2
A more realistic stress state can be found
by considering a series of frictional stress
discontinuities along which a significant
proportion of the soil strength can be
mobilised, forming a fan zone which
gradually rotate the major principal stress
from vertical beneath the footing to the
horizontal outside.
In crossing the discontinuity the major
principal stress will rotate by an amount :
(8.12)
2
From Figure (c),
sA sB 2cu cos (8.13)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 12
Lower bound approach, stress state LB2
Substituting Eq. 8.12 into Eq. 8.13 and
in the limit sA – sB s, sin :
s 2cu cos
2
2cu sin 2cu
Integrating from zone 1 to zone 2:
/2
s 0 2c u 2c u
2
Considering s1 in zone 1, s3 in zone 2
and the fan:
q f z 2cu sq z 2cu 2cu
2
q f 2 c u sq (8.16)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 13
Comparing Upper and Lower Bounds qf
Upper Bound Lower Bound
1 6c u sq 4cu sq
2 2 cu sq 2 cu sq
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 14
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
General form of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
on an undrained material may be written as:
q f s c N c c u sq (8.17)
Where sc = shape factor, for strip footing = 1.0
Nc = bearing capacity factor = (2 + )
d sq d
Founding plane
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 15
Bearing Capacity Factors(Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode7 :
B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 16
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Formula
for undrained material
q f s c c u N c sq
Footing shape sc
Continuous 1.0
Square 1.3
Circular 1.3
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 17
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode7 :
B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 18
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For two layer soil,
Merifield et al. (1999) Merifield and Nguyen (2006)
Solid lines for UB, dashed lines for LB for square footings
Note: in calculating qf, cu = cu1
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 19
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For strip footing close to a slope,
Georgiadis (2010)
Lowest upper bound solution
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 20
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For Gibson’s soil: cu (z) cu0 Cz (8.20)
Davis and Booker (1973)
CB
q f 2 c u Fz
4
(8.21)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 21
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Bearing capacity factor Nc is affected by:
(a)Equation used
(b)Depth of embedment
(c)Layered soil
(d)Proximity of slope
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 22
Example 8.1
A strip foundation 2.0 m wide is located at a depth of 2.0
m in a stiff clay of saturated unit weight of 21 kN/m3. The
undrained shear strength is uniform with depth, with cu =
120 kPa. Determine the undrained bearing capacity of the
foundation under the following conditions:
(a)The foundation is constructed in level ground;
(b)A cutting at a gradient of 1:2 is subsequently made
adjacent to the foundation, with the crest 1.5 m from the
edge of the foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 23
Example 8.1(a)
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
d 2.0
1.0
B 2.0
Using Skempton's values,N c 6.4
For strip footing,sc 1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 24
Bearing Capacity Factors(Undrained)
Salgado et al. (2004) :
N c 2 1 0.27
d
B (8.18)
Eurocode7 :
6.4 B
s c 1 0.2 (8.19)
L
BL
In practice, Nc is limited at a value
of 9.0 for a deeply embedded
square or circular foundation.
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 25
Example 8.1(a)
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
d 2.0
1.0 q f s c N cc u sq
B 2.0 1.0 x 6.4 x 120 42
Using Skempton's values,N c 6.4
810 kPa
For strip footing,sc 1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 26
Example 8.1(b)
B = 1.2 m
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
1
2 Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
1 .5
0.75
2 .0
1 Interpolating, Nc 4.7
tan1 26 .6o
2
cu 120
2 .9
B 212.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 27
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For strip footing close to a slope,
Georgiadis (2010)
Lowest upper bound solution
4.7
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 28
Example 8.1(b)
B = 1.2 m
d = 2.0 m
sq d 21 kN / m3 2.0m
42 kN / m 2
1
2 Founding plane
cu = 120 kPa B = 2.0 m
1 .5
0.75
2 .0 q f s c N c c u sq
1
tan1 26 .6o 1.0 x 4.7 x 120 42
2 606 kPa
cu 120
2 .9
B 212.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 29
Bearing Capacity in Drained Materials
Drained material – considers effective shear strength
parameters of soil i.e. c’ and f’.
Analysis using the upper bound theorem
For drained conditions, the slip surfaces within a
kinematically admissible failure mechanism should consist
of slip lines of either straight lines or curves of a specific
form known as log spirals (or a combination).
Log spiral, r r0e tan
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 30
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB-1
How to obtain thelog spiral equation?
dr
tan
rd
r dr
r 0tan d
Plane strain 0 r
r
ln tan
r0
r r0e tan
In Figure (a), r0 L AB , r L BC and
2
B
From geometrey,L AB
f'
2 cos
4 2
tan
Be 2
L BC
f'
2 cos
4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 31
The Direct Shear Test
= dilation angle
Associative flow rule
For the special case, = f’ (normality principle)
tan tan f'
Be 2 Be 2
LBC
f' f'
2 cos 2 cos
4 2 4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 32
Upper bound approach, mechanism UB1
Work done:
Component Pressure pi Area Bi Relative velocity vi Work done Wi
Footing qf B V qfBv
pressure
Surcharge sq
tan f ' f'
tan f ' f'
tan
f'
s'q Bve tan f' tan2
Bve 2 tan ve 2
4 2 4 2 4 2
As a result of the normality principle, Ei 0.
Wi 0.
tan f' 2 f'
q f Bv s'q Bve tan 0
4 2
f'
q f e tanf' tan2 s'q N q s'q (8.25)
4 2
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 33
Lower bound approach, stress state LB1
qf
1 - sinf' e tan f'
1 sinf' s'q
1 sin f' tan f'
qf e s'q
1 sin f'
f'
2 tan2 e tan f' s'q
(8.26) 4 2
N q s'q
Same qf as upper bound approach!
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 34
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
q f sc Ncc'sq Nq s'q 0.5Bs N
d
s’q
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 35
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
q f scd c Ncc'sq d q Nq s'q 0.5Bs d N
Nq
1 sin f' tanf' B
e sq 1 sin f'
1 sin f' L
Nq 1 sq N q 1
Nc As f' 0, N c 2 sc
tan f' Nq 1
N N q 1 tan1.32f' (Salgado 2008)
s 1 0.3
B
N 2 N q 1 tan f' (EC 7) L
dc, dq, d – depth factors. EC 7 does not recommend the use of depth factors i.e.
dc = dq =d =1.0
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 36
General Bearing Capacity for Drained
Materials
d
Case 1: s’q
Case 2:
Case 3:
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 37
Unit weight to be used
Case 1: dw d ' w
Case 2: d < dw < d+B d w d
' w 1
B
Case 3: d+B dw '
dw = depth of groundwater table
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 38
Example 8.2
A footing 2.25 m x 2.25 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in
a sand for which c’ = 0 and f’ = 38o. Determine the bearing
resistance for (a) if the groundwater table is well below the
foundation level, and (b) if the groundwater table is at the
ground surface. The unit weight of the sand above the
groundwater table is 18 kN/m3; the saturated unit weight is
20 kN/m3.
For f' 38o ,
B
Nq
1 sin f' e tanf' 49 sq 1
L
sin f' 1.62
1 sin f' sq N q 1
Nq 1 sc (not used as c' 0)
Nc (not used as c' 0) Nq 1
tan f'
N 2 N q 1 tan f' 75 s 1 0.3
B
L
0.7
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 39
Example 8.2(a)
(a) if the groundwater table is well below the foundation level
q f s q N q s'q 0.5Bs N Case 3
s q N q d 0.5Bs N
1.62 49 18 1.5 0.5 18 2.25 0.7 75
3206 kPa
(b) if the groundwater table is at the ground surface
q f s q N q s'q 0.5Bs N Case 1
s q N q ' d 0.5 ' Bs N
1.62 49 20 - 9.81 1.5 0.5 20 9.81 2.25 0.70 75
1815 kPa
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 40
Shallow Foundations
Settlement
Stresses beneath shallow foundations
Under typical working loads, the applied vertical bearing
pressure applied by a shallow foundation to the underlying
soil will be much less than the bearing capacity.
If the stresses
beneath the
foundation are
known for an
applied bearing
pressure (q) then
the movements of
the foundation can
be determined from
the elastic material
properties.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 2
Point load
Boussinesq(1885) :
2.5
3Q 1
z
2z 2 r 2 (8.40)
1
z
Q 3r 2 z 1 2
r
2 r 2 z 2 2.5 r 2 z 2 z r 2 z 2
(8.41)
1 2
Q z 1
2
r 2 z 2 1.5 r 2 z 2 z
r z
2
2 (8.42)
3Q rz 2
rz
2 r 2 z 2
2.5
(8.43)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 3
Point load
Boussinesq(1885) :
2 .5
3Q 1
z
2z 2 r 2
1 (8.40)
z
Q
z 2 IQ (8.45)
z
where
3 1
IQ
2 r 2 (8.44)
1
z
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 4
Point load Q
z 2 IQ whe re IQ
3 1
z 2 r
2
1
z
Table 8.5 Influence factors (IQ) for vertical stress due to point load
r/z IQ r/z IQ r/z IQ
0.00 0.478 0.80 0.139 1.60 0.020
0.10 0.466 0.90 0.108 1.70 0.016
0.20 0.433 1.00 0.084 1.80 0.013
0.30 0.385 1.10 0.066 1.90 0.011
0.40 0.329 1.20 0.051 2.00 0.009
0.50 0.273 1.30 0.040 2.20 0.006
0.60 0.221 1.40 0.032 2.40 0.004
0.70 0.176 1.50 0.025 2.60 0.003
The stresses at a point due to more than one surface load are obtained by superposition.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 5
Line load
2Q z3
z
(8.46)
x 2 z2 2
2Q x 2 z
x
(8.47)
x 2 z2 2
2Q xz 2
xz
(8.48)
x 2 z2 2
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 6
Strip area carrying uniform pressure
z sin cos 2
q
(8.49)
x sin cos 2
q
(8.50)
xz sin cos 2
q
(8.51)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 7
Rectangular area carrying uniform
Fadum’s chart
pressure
z qIqr (8.52)
z qIqr
Iqr
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 8
Bulb of pressure
Square area
Strip area
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 9
Example 8.3
A rectangular foundation 6 m x 3 m carries a uniform
pressure of 300 kPa near the surface of a soil mass.
Determine the vertical stress at a depth of 3m below a
point A on the centre line 1.5 m outside a long edge of the
foundation.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 10
Example 8.3
Using the principle of superposition, solution is given by
(1) – (2):
For the two rectangles (1) carrying +300 kPa, m = 1.00
and n = 1.50, therefore Iqr = 0.193
For the two rectangles (2) carrying -300 kPa, m = 1.00 and
n = 0.50, therefore Iqr = 0.120
Hence,
z qIqr 2 300 0.193 2300 0.120 44 kPa
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 11
Rectangular area carrying uniform
Fadum’s chart
pressure
z qIqr (8.52)
z qIqr
Iqr
m and n can be interchanged !
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 12
Settlements from elastic theory
Clay Sand
Flexible
Rigid
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 13
Settlements from elastic theory
Settlement profile depends on:
1.Soil type
2.Rigidity of foundation
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 14
Settlements from elastic theory
s
qB
E
1 I (8.53) 2
s
Table 8.6 Influence factors (Is) for vertical displacement under flexible and
rigid areas carrying uniform pressure
Shape of area Is (flexible) Is (rigid)
Centre Corner Average Average
Square (L/B = 1) 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82
Rectangular L/B = 2 1.52 0.76 1.30 1.20
Rectangular L/B = 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
Rectangular L/B = 10 2.54 1.27 2.25 2.10
Rectangular L/B = 100 4.01 2.01 3.69 3.47
Circle 1.00 0.64 0.85 0.79
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 15
Example
A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carries a uniform pressure of 150 kPa
near the surface of a soil mass with E = 40 MPa and = 0.5.
Determine the settlement at the centre the average settlement the
foundation.
L 4
For 2,
B 2
At centre,Is (flexible ) 1.52
AverageIs (flexible ) 1.30
Settlement at centre of foundation, s
qB
E
1 2 Is
150 2
40000
1 0.52 1.52 8.55 x10 3 m 8.55 mm
Averagesettlement, s
qB
E
1 2 Is
150 2
40000
1 0.52 1.30 7.17 x10 3 m 7.17 mm
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 16
Settlements from elastic theory
For the special case of
= 0.5 (fully undrained
condition) and average
settlement under a
flexible area, Eq. 8.53
may be simplified to:
qB
s 01 (8.54)
E
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 17
Example 8.4
A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carrying a uniform pressure of 150 kPa
is located at a depth of 1m in a layer of clay 5m thick for which the
value of Eu is 40 MPa. This layer is underlain by a second clay layer 8
m thick for which the value of Eu is 75 MPa. A hard stratum lies below
the second layer. Determine the average immediate settlement si
under the foundation.
d = 1m
H1 = 4m Clay 1, Eu = 40 kPa
H2 = 12m Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa
Hard stratum
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 18
Example 8.4
Using principle of superposition:
Clay 1, Eu = 40 kPa Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa
Hard stratum Hard stratum
Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa
Hard stratum
d 1 d 1 d 1
0.5 0 0.94 0.5 0 0.94 0.5 0 0.94
B 2 B 2 B 2
H 4 L 4 H 12 L 4 H 4 L 4
2, 2 1 0.60 6, 2 1 0.85 2, 2 1 0.60
B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2
qB qB qB
si1 01 si 2 01 si3 01
Eu Eu Eu
150 2 150 2 150 2
0.94 0.60 4.2 mm 0.94 0.85 3.2 mm 0.94 0.60 2.3 mm
40e3 75e3 75e3
By superposition, si = si1+si2-si3 = 4.2 + 3.2 – 2.3 = 5 mm
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 19
Settlements from consolidation theory
1-D consolidation settlement can be predicted using oedometer tests.
In the oedometer tests, the lateral strain is zero and for this condition
the initial excess pore-water pressure is theoretically equal to the
increase in total vertical stress. In practice, many situations involve
significant lateral strain and the initial excess pore-water pressure is
dependent on the in-situ stress conditions.
Consideran element of soil under principal stresses,1 , 2 , 3 .
If the major principal stress(1 ) is increasedby an amount 1
due to a shallow foundation, there will be an immediate increase
in pore - water pressureu1. The increasesin effective stressesare
'1 1 u1
'3 '2 u1
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 20
Settlements from consolidation theory
If the soil behavedas an elastic material during application of load,
reductionin volume of soil skeletonis given by
Cs V'1 '2 '3 Cs V1 3u1
1 1
3 3
The reductionin pore spaceis
C v nVu1
Under undrainedcondition,this two volumes are equal,i.e.
Cs V1 3u1 C v nVu1
1
3
1 1 1 B
u1
Cv
1 1
3 3
1 n
Cs
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 21
Settlements from consolidation theory
However soil is not elastic and a more generalform is given by
u1 AB1 (8.55)
where A is a pore pressurecoefficient to be determined experimentally.
Note both A and B are more commonly known as Skempton's pore pressurecoefficients.
For a fully saturatedsoil, B 1,
u1 A1 (8.56)
For a 3 - D situation, the generalequationfor pore - water pressureresponseu to an
isotropicstressincrease3 togetherwith a deviatoricstressincrease( 1 3 )
is given by :
u u 3 u1
B3 AB1 3
B3 A 1 3 (8.57)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 22
Settlements from consolidation theory
If lateral strain is zero, immediate settlementis zero under undrainedsituation.
In caseswhere lateral strain is not zero, there will be immediate settlementin
addition to consolidation settlement. In the Skempton - Bjerrum method, the
totalsettlement(s) of a clay foundationis given by
s si s c
For a fully saturatedsoil,
3
u i u 1 A 1 A (8.58)
1
Note :
Types of clay A
u i 3 if A 0
Highly sensitive clays >1
u i 1 if A 1
Normally consolidated 0.5 to 1
Lightly overconsolidated 0 to 0.5
Heavily overconsolidated -0.5 to 1
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 23
Settlements from consolidation theory
In the oedometertest,
V e0 e1
V0 1 e0
dsoed e0 e1
dz 1 e0
e e ' '
dsoed 0 1 1 0 dz
'1 '0 1 e0
m v ' dz
soed 0H m v 1dz
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 24
Settlements from consolidation theory
By theSkempton - Bjerrum method,the consolidation settlementis given by
s c 0H m v u i dz
3
0H m v u i 1 A 1 A dz
1
s c cs oed (8.59)
where
3
H
0 v i 1 A
m u 1 A dz
1
c
0 m v 1dz
H
If m v and A are assumedconstant with depth,
c A 1 A (8.60)
where
0 3dz
H
H
0 1dz
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 25
Settlements from consolidation theory
Figure 8.29 Settlement coefficient c (after Scott, 1963)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 26
Example 8.5
A footing 6 m square carrying a net pressure of 160 kPa is located at a
depth of 2 m in a deposit of stiff clay 17 m thick; a firm stratum lies
immediately below the clay. From oedometer tests on specimens of
the clay the value of mv was found to be 0.13 m3/MN, and from triaxial
tests the value of A was found to be 0.35. The undrained Young’s
modulus for the clay is estimated to be 55 MPa. Determine the total
settlement under the centre of the footing.
In this problem, there will be considerable lateral strain and therefore
there are immediate and consolidation settlement, i.e. si + sc. Use
Skempton-Bjerrum method.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 27
Example 8.5
Immediate settlement:
d 2
0.33 0 0.95
B 6
H 15 L
2.5, 1 1 0.55
B 6 B
qB 160 6
Hence,si 0i 0.95 0.55 9 mm
Eu 55e3
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 28
Example 8.5
Consolidation settlement:
Divide stiff clay into 5 sub - layers of thicknessh 3 m beneath the footing and use Fadum's chart :
' qIqr 4 160 Iqr (kPa )
soed m v ' h 0.13 '3 0.39 ' (mm )
Layer z (m) m,n Iqr ’ (kPa) soed (mm)
1 1.5 2.00 0.233 149 58.1
2 4.5 0.67 0.121 78 30.4
3 7.5 0.40 0.060 38 14.8
4 10.5 0.285 0.033 21 8.2
5 13.5 0.222 0.021 13 5.1
Ssoed 116.6
Using Scott (1963) chart :
D2 4 B2 4 62
Equating area B 2
D 6.77 m
4
H 15
2.2 c 0.55
D 6.77 Consolidation settlement, sc cs oed 0.55 116 .6 64 mm
Total settlement, s si s c 9 64 73 mm
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 29
Settlement from in-situ test data
Due to extreme difficulty of obtaining undisturbed sand
samples for laboratory testing and to inherent
heterogeneity of sand deposits, foundation settlements on
coarse-grained soils are normally estimated by means of
correlations based on the results of in-situ tests such as
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration
Test (CPT).
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 30
SPT
63.5 kg drop hammer.
Need to correct to a reference energy
efficiency due to different hammer used
(N60).
Split –barrel
sampler
(hollow tube)
Seating Load 0.15m 1st Increment
0.15m 2nd Increment
N = No. of blows
over 0.3m 0.15m 3rd Increment
CPT
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 32
Analysis using SPT data
Burland and Burbidge (1985) carried out a statistical
analysis of over 200 settlement records of foundations on
sands and gravels. A relationship was established
between compressibility of the soil, width of the
foundation and average SPT blowcount ( N ) over the
depth of influence (zI) of the foundation.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 33
Analysis using SPT data
The depth of influence (zI)
of the foundation can be
estimated using Figure
8.31.
The compressibility index is related to
the averagevalue of the corrected
standardpenetration resistance N 60 :
1.71
Ic
Figure 8.31 Relationship between
depth of influence and width of
N 60
1.4
foundation (Burland and Burbidge
1985)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 34
Analysis using SPT data
In the caseof fine sandsand silty sandsbelow the ground water table, need to correct
N if N 15 for the increasedresistancedue to negativeexcess pore - water pressure
set up during driving and unable to dissipateimmediately :
N' 15
1
N 15
2
For gravels and sandygravels,
N 1.25N
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 35
Analysis using SPT data
Settlement Fs Fl Ft s
where
s qB0.7 Ic for normally consolidated sand
2 'max preconsolidation pressure
s q - 'max B0.7 Ic if q 'max
3
I
s qB0.7 c if q 'max for overconsolidated sand
3
2
L
1.25 H H
Fs B , Fl 2 if H z I
L 0.25 zI zI
B
t
Ft 1 R 3 R t log if t 3 years
3
R 3 0.3, R t 0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for static loading)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 36
Analysis using CPT data
The estimate of settlement is
based on a simplified
distribution of vertical strain
under the centre, or centre-
line, of a shallow foundation 0 .5
expressed in the form of qn
I zp 0.5 0.1
strain influence factor Iz 'p
(Schmertmann 1970, 1978).
Lee et al. (2008):
zf 0 L
0.95 cos min ,6 1 3
B 5 B
zf 0 L
0.11min ,6 1 0.5 1
B B
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 37
Analysis using CPT data
The settlement is based of a footing carying net pressure qn is given
as: Z
f 0 Iz
s C1C2q n z
0 E
where
'q
C1 correction factor for depth 1 - 0.5
qn
t
C 2 correction factor for creep 1 0.2log Note : t in years
0.1
For normally consolidated sands,
E = 2.5qc for square foundations (L/B = 1)
E = 3.5qc for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10)
For overconsolidated sands,
E = 5qc for square foundations (L/B = 1)
E = 7qc for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 38
Example 8.6
A footing 2.5 m x 2.5 m
supports a net foundation
pressure of 150 kPa at a
depth of 1.0 m in a deep
deposit of normally
consolidated fine sand of
unit weight 17 kN/m3. The
variation of cone resistance
with depth is shown in the
figure. Estimate the
settlement of the footing.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 39
Example 8.6
(1) Draw the strain influence
diagram
Peak value of strain Izp occurs at
B/2 below foundation level i.e.
at depth of 2.25 m
0.5
qn
I zp 0.5 0.1
'p
0.5
150
0.5 0.1 0.70
17 2.25
(2) Idealise the qc profile and
divide into layers from 0 to
zf0 = 2B
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 40
Example 8.6
(3) Calculate Izz/E for sublayers (E = 2.5qc):
Layer z (m) qc (MPa) E (MPa) Iz Izz/E
1 0.90 2.3 5.75 0.32 0.050
2 0.50 3.6 9.00 0.68 0.038
3 1.60 5.0 12.50 0.50 0.064
4 0.40 7.5 18.75 0.33 0.007
5 1.20 3.3 8.25 0.18 0.026
6 0.40 9.9 24.75 0.04 0.001
SIzz/E = 0.186
(4) Calculate correction factors: (5) Calculate settlement:
'q 1 17
C1 1 - 0.5 1 0.5 0.94 2B I
qn 150 s C1C2q n z
z 0.94 1 150 0.186 26 mm
0 E
t
C2 1 0.2log 1
0.1
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 41
Design for shallow foundation
To perform in a satisfactory way, the foundation must
meet two principal performance requirements (known
as limit states), namely:
1.such that its capacity or resistance is sufficient to
support the loads (actions) applied (i.e. so that it doesn’t
collapse) – strength - ULS
2.to avoid excessive deformation under these loads,
which might damage the supported structure or lead to
a loss of function – serviceability - SLS
Limit State Design
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 42
CP4: 2003 Foundation Design
(BS 8004:1986 Code of practice for foundations)
Eurocode Part Title Publication Singapore
Date National Annex
Publication
Date
SS EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Dec 2010
Geotechnical design.
General rules
SS EN 1997-2 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Mar 2011
Geotechnical design.
Ground investigation
and testing
CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 43
SS EN 1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of design
CV3301-LEC (2012)
SS EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Action on
structures
SS EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Design of
concrete structures
SS EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel
structures
SS EN 1994 Eurocode 4 Design of
composite steel and concrete structures
Lecture 2
SS EN 1995 Eurocode 5 Design of
timber structures
SS EN 1996 Eurocode 6 Design of
masonry structures
SS EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical
design
2 PARTS
SS EN 1998 Eurocode 8 Design of
structure for earthquake resistance
SS EN 1999 Eurocode 8 Design of
aluminium alloy structures
44
44
Design:
SS EN
1997-1
SS EN
1997-2
Ground
Execution Properties
Standards Geotechnical TC341
TC288 Standards
Projects
Other
structural ISO/CEN
Eurocode Standards
s e.g. SS
EN1993-
Part 5
CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 45
Basis of Geotechnical Design
Design Approaches
Design Approach 1
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or
anchors
Design Approach 2
Combination : A1 “+” M1 “+” R2
Design Approach 3
Combination : (A1 or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3
A1 :on structural actions
A2 :on geotechnical actions
CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 46
EC 7 – Limit state design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings & piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or M2 R4
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tan f ' 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c' 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Unconfined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight g 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread footingsBearing 1.0 1.0
Sliding 1.0 1.0
Driven piles Base 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.5/1.3
Total/combined 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.7
Bored piles Base 1.0 2.0/1.8
Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.6/1.4
Total/combined 1.0 2.0/1.7
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.8
Characteristic value
CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 47
Design at ULS
To satisfy ultimate limit state, the sum of the applied
actions (loads) Q on the foundation must be less than or
equal to the available resistance R which is dependent
on the material properties X:
Q R X
To provide some margin of error associated with Q, R
and X, partial factors g (> 1.0) are applied:
X
R
gX Design values
g AQ
gR
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 48
Example 8.7
A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in a layered
clay of saturated unit weight 21 kN/m3. The characteristic undrained
shear strength is 160 kPa in the upper 2.5 m thick, and 80 kPa below.
The foundation supports existing dead load of 1000 kN, and is
subjected to a variable load of 500 kN. Additional floors are to be
added to the support structure which will increase the dead load
acting on the foundation. Determine the maximum allowable
additional dead load which can be supported by the foundation under
undrained conditions if it is to satisfy EC7 design approach 1 at ULS.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 49
Example 8.7
Let the unknown increase in dead load be QI, the total applied action
on the foundation is given by:
Qg A 1000 QI g A1 500 g A 2
permanent variable
unfavourable unfavourable
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 50
Example 8.7
The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:
R q f A f s c N cc u q A f
s N c u1 g d A f
c c g
g
cu g
R
gR gR
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 51
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For two layer soil,
Merifield et al. (1999) Merifield and Nguyen (2006)
Solid lines for UB, dashed lines for LB for square footings
H 2.5 1.5 c 160
For 0.5 and u1 2.0,
Note: in calculating qf, cu = cu1 B 2.0 cu2 80
Nc 3.53 and sc 1.41
CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 52
Example 8.7
The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:
R q f A f s c N cc u q A f
s N c u1 g d A f
c c
g cu g g
R
gR gR
160 21
1.41 3.52 1.5 2 2
g g
cu g
gR
3176.4 126
g cu gg
gR
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 53
Example 8.7
To satisfy ULS:
3176.4 126
g cu gg
1000 QI g A1 500 g A 2
gR
Partial Factors Design Approach 1a Design Approach 1b
gA1 1.35 1.00
gA2 1.50 1.30
gcu 1.00 1.40
gg 1.00 1.00
gR 1.00 1.00
Maximum QI (kN) 891 745
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 54
Design at SLS
To satisfy serviceability limit state, the effect of the
applied actions EA (action effect) giving a settlement
must be less than or equal to a limiting value of the
action effect, CA (limiting settlement) :
EA CA
After a foundation has been sized to satisfy ULS, the
settlement of the foundation (s = EA) is found and this
has to be less than the limiting settlement CA.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 55
Design at SLS
Normally limiting settlement CA is specified. In the event that
no CA is given, the following may be used:
For normal structures with isolated foundations – 50 mm
For normal structures with isolated foundations
in sands – 25 mm
Zhang and Ng (2005) suggested total settlements for
Building foundations – 125 mm
Bridge foundations – 135 mm
(Based on probabilistic study of a large number of
structures suffering various levels of serviceability damage)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 56
Design at SLS
Generally the guidelines should be applied to normal,
routine structures and should not be applied to buildings or
structures which are out of the ordinary for which the
loading intensity is markedly non-uniform.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 57
Design at SLS
Larger settlements may be acceptable provided the total
settlements do not cause problems with services entering
the structure or causing tilt.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 58
Design at SLS
Figure 10.2 Differential settlement, angular distortion and tilt.
CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 59
Design at SLS
Table 10.1 Angular distortion limits for building structures
1/150 Structural damage of general building expected
1/300 Cracking in panel walls expected
Difficulties with overhead cranes
1/500 Limit for building in which crack is not permissible
1/600 Overstressing of structural frames with diagonals
1/750 Difficulties with machinery sensitive to settlement
CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 60
Design at SLS
Table 10.2 Tilt limits for building structures
1/50 Building is likely to be structurally unsound, requiring re-
levelling or demolition
1/100 Floor drainage may not work, stacking of goods dangerous
1/250 Tilting of high-rise buildings (e.g. chimneys and towers) may
be visible
1/333 Difficulties with overhead cranes
1/400 Design limit value for low-rise housing
1/500 Maximum limit for monolithic concrete tanks
1/2000 Difficulties with high racking warehouses
1/5000 Maximum limit for machine foundations (e.g. power station
turbines)
CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 61
Example 8.9
A square footing carrying an applied pressure of 250 kPa is to be
located at a depth of 1.5 m in a sand deposit, the ground water table
being 3.5 m below the surface. Values of standard penetration
resistance were determined as detailed in Table 8.14. Determine the
minimum width of the foundation if the settlement is limited to 25 mm.
Depth (m) N60 ’v (kPa) CN (N1)60
0.75 8 - - -
1.55 7 26 2.0 14
2.30 9 39 1.6 14
3.00 13 51 1.4 18
3.70 12 65 1.25 15
4.45 16 70 1.2 19
5.20 20 - - -
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 62
Analysis using SPT data
The depth of influence (zI)
of the foundation can be
estimated using Figure
8.31.
The compressibility index is related to
the averagevalue of the corrected
standardpenetration resistance N 60 :
1.71
Ic
Figure 8.31 Relationship between
depth of influence and width of
N 60
1.4
foundation (Burland and Burbidge
1985)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 63
Analysis using SPT data
In the caseof fine sandsand silty sandsbelow the ground water table, need to correct
N if N 15 for the increasedresistancedue to negativeexcess pore - water pressure
set up during driving and unable to dissipateimmediately :
N' 15
1
N 15
2
For gravels and sandygravels,
N 1.25N
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 64
Analysis using SPT data
Settlement Fs Fl Ft s
where
s qB0.7 I c for normally consolidated sand
2
s q - ' max B0.7 I c if q ' max 'max preconsolidation pressure
3
I
s qB0.7 c if q ' max for overconsolidated sand
3
2
L
1.25 H H
Fs B , Fl 2 if H z I
L 0.25 zI zI
B
t
Ft 1 R 3 R t log if t 3 years
3
R 3 0.3, R t 0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for staticloading)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 65
Example 8.9
1. Assume a value for B, say B = 3.00 m.
2. Based on B and Figure 8.31, determine depth of influence ZI gives
ZI =2.2 m
3. Determine average value of N60 between 1.5 m (foundation depth)
to 1.5+ZI =3.7 m.
N60 = (7+9+13+12)/4 = 10
4. Determine the compressibility index Ic
1.71 1.71
Ic 0.068
N
60
1.4
10
1.4
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 66
Example 8.9
5. Determine action effect EA (= s)
Settlement Fs Fl Ft s
where
s qB0.7 I c for normally consolidated sand 250 B0.7 0.068 17 B0.7 mm
2
L
1.25 H H
Fs B 1, Fl 2 if H z I 1
L 0.25 zI zI
B
t
Ft 1 R 3 R t log if t 3 years 1
3
R 3 0.3, R t 0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for staticloading)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 67
Example 8.9
6. Applying equation for SLS
E A CA
17 B0.7 25
B 1.73 m
7. Repeat steps 2 to 6 with new B
new B
Iteration B (m) zI (m) N60 Ic
(m)
1 3.00 2.2 10 0.068 1.73
2 1.73 1.5 9 0.079 1.40
3 1.40 1.2 8 0.093 1.11
4 1.11 1.1 8 0.093 1.11
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 68
Deep Foundations
Pile Types and Axial Capacity
Deep Foundation are used because:
Use of shallow foundations is uneconomical or impractical.
These include:
When actions applied to the foundation are large (e.g.
large concentrated loads);
When near surface soils have low strength and or
stiffness (i.e. low resistance);
Where large structures are situated on very
heterogeneous deposits, or where the soil layers are
inclined;
For settlement-sensitive structures where displacment
must be kept small;
In marine environments where tidal, wave or flow actions
may erode material from around a foundation near the
ground surface (this process is known as scour)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 2
Shallow and Deep Foundations
In shallow In deep foundations, side
foundations, load resistance becomes the
transfer is by dominant load transfer
lateral spreading mechanism compared to
i.e. end bearing end bearing.
through passive
resistance of soil
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 3
Types of Deep Foundations
Lp > D 0
Lp >> D0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 4
Types of Piles
Figure 9.4 Principal types of pile: (a) precast RC pile, (b) steel H pile, (c)
steel tubular pile (plugged), (d) shell pile, (e) CFA pile, (f) under-reamed
bored pile (cast-in-situ)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 5
Types of Piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 6
Shaft resistance or skin friction
Lp
Qsu D0 int dz (circular cross - section) (9.1a)
0
Lp
Qsu 4Bp int dz (squarecross - section) (9.1b)
0
For tapered pile,
D 0 and Bp are functionsof z,
i.e.
D 0 (z) and Bp (z)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 7
Pile Material
Timber – Up to 25 tons
Concrete – Up to 100 tons
Steel – Over 25 tons
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 8
Timber Piles
CP4:
Bakau is commonly used in Singapore for
small diameter piles and as piles for light
structures. Typically of 5 m length and 75
mm to 100 mm diameter tapering to
between 50 mm and 75 mm.
Kempas and Keruing are commonly used
for permanent works. Typically of 8 m
length and 100 mm to 175 mm square
sections. They are usually treated with
preservatives for durability.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 9
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 10
Concrete Piles
Conditions Minimum Concrete
Grade
Hard and very hard driving conditions 40
for all piles and in marine works
Normal and easy driving conditions 30
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 11
Steel Piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 12
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 13
Pile handling
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 14
Pile installation – Driven piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 15
Pile installation – Driven piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 16
Piles can be damaged during driving
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 17
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 18
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 19
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 20
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 21
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 22
Piles penetrate through path of least resistance!
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 23
Pile installation– Drilled Shaft
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 24
Pile installation – Drilled Shaft
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 25
Pile installation – Drilled Shaft
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 26
Pile installation
Generally piles can be divided into two categories:
1. Displacement piles – involve displacement and
disturbance of the soil around the pile
2. Non-displacement piles or bored piles or cast-in-situ
piles – soil is removed by boring or drilling to form a
shaft first and then concrete is being cast in the shaft to
form the pile.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 27
Advantages and disadvantages of
displacement piles
Advantages Disadvantages
• Material of pile can be • May break during hard driving causing
inspected before installation delays and replacement changes, or
• Stable in ‘squeezing’ ground worse still may suffer major unseen
• Not damaged by ground damage in hard driving conditions.
heave when driving adjacent • Uneconomical if amount of material in
ground pile is governed by handling and driving
• Construction procedure stresses rather than by stresses from
unaffected by ground water. permanent loading.
• Can be readily carried above • Noise and vibration during driving may
ground level, especially cause nuisance or damage.
marine structures. • Cannot be driven in conditions of low
• Can be driven in very long headrooms.
lengths.
• Does not produce surplus
spoil.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 28
Advantages and disadvantages of non-
displacement piles
Advantages Disadvantages
• Length can be readily varied to suit • Susceptible to ‘necking’ in ‘squeezing’ ground.
varying ground conditions. • Concrete is not placed under ideal conditions and
• Soil removed in boring can be cannot be subsequently inspected.
inspected and if necessary sampled or • Water under artesian pressure may pipe up pile shaft
in-situ tests made. washing out cement.
• Cab be installed in very large • Enlarged ends cannot be formed in coarse materials
diameters. without special techniques.
• End enlargements up to two or three • Cannot be readily extended above ground level
diameters are possible in clays. especially in river and marine structures.
• Material of pile is not dependent on • Boring methods may loosen sandy or gravelly soils
handling or driving conditions. requiring base grouting to achieve economical base
• Can be installed without appreciable resistance.
noise or vibration. • Sinking piles may cause loss of ground in coarse
• Can be installed in conditions of very soils, leading to settlement of adjacent structures.
low headroom. • Surplus spoil produced with attendant costs of
• No risk of ground heave. transporting from site.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 29
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Base resistance
Base resistance of piles and other deep
foundations can be determined analytically by
treating them as very deeply embedded shallow
foundations.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 30
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Base resistance in undrained materials Qbu
Qbu A p sc Nccu q (9.2)
Q bu A pq bu
D02
where A p or B2p for circular or squarepiles, respectively
4
q v at pile base
Nc factors described in shallow foundations can be applied
in Equation 9.2
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 31
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Base resistance in undrained materials Qbu
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 32
Pile resistance under compressive loads
For deep foundations, limit scNc to 9.0
Fig. 8.10
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 33
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Fig. 8.11
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 34
Pile resistance under compressive loads
CB
Qbu A psc 2 cu Fz A pq (8.21), (9.3)
4
sc 1.2
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 35
Example
A 600 mm diameter solid end pile is driven to a depth of 15 m into a
firm, becoming stiff, clay with an average cu1 of 75 kPa along the shaft
and a cu2 of 100 kPa at the base. The unit weight of the clay is 18
kN/m3 and GWT is at the surface. Determine the base resistance of
the pile.
d L p 15
25
B D 0 0.6
For deep foundations, limit scNc to 9.0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 36
Example
A 600 mm diameter solid end pile is driven to a depth of 15 m into a
firm, becoming stiff clay with an average cu1 of 75 kPa along the shaft
and a cu2 of 100 kPa at the base. The unit weight of the clay is 18
kN/m3 and GWT is at the surface. Determine the base resistance of
the pile.
Q bu A p sc N cc u q
D02
4
sc N cc u 2 L p
0.62
9 100 18 15 330 .8 kN
4
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 37
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For Gibson’s soil: cu (z) cu0 Cz (8.20)
Davis and Booker (1973)
CB
q f 2 c u Fz
4
(8.21)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 38
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Base resistance in drained materials Qb
Qb A p N q 'q (9.4)
Q b A pq b
D02
where A p or B2p for circular or squarepiles, respectively
4
'q 'v at pile base
Note: Nq for shallow foundations (Eq. 8.33) are only approximate if
used in Eq. 9.4 because of the large Lp/D0.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 39
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Fig. 9.6 Bearing capacity
factors Nq for pile base
capacity of circular piles
(Berezantsev et al. 1961)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 40
Pile resistance under compressive loads
Shaft resistance
To determine shaft resistance int, we need to determine
the interface shear strength between the pile and soil.
The interface shear strength is dependent on:
1.Soil Type (clay, sand, rock etc.)
2.Pile type (timber, steel or concrete)
3.Pile installation method (displacement vs non-
displacement)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 41
Shaft resistance or skin friction
Lp
Qsu D0 int dz (circular cross - section) (9.1a)
0
Lp
Qsu 4Bp int dz (squarecross - section) (9.1b)
0
For tapered pile,
D 0 and Bp are functionsof z,
i.e.
D 0 (z) and Bp (z)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 42
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
int acu (9.5)
where a 1 representsperfectly rough interface
a 0 representsperfectly smooth interface
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 43
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
0.5
c cu
a 0.5Fp u 1 for 1
' v 0 ' v 0
cu
0.25
c
(9.6)
a 0.5Fp
for u 1
' v 0 ' v 0
Lp
Fp is related to pile slenderness ratio ,
D0
Lp
Fp 1.0 for 50
D0
Lp
Fp 0.7 for 120
D0
Lp
Interpolate Fp if 50 120
D0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 44
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
Alternatively,
0.2
40 cu
0.3 (9.7)
a 0.55
'
Lp v0
D
0
Proposed by Kolk and van der Velde (1996)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 45
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
Fig. 9.7
Determination of
adhesion factor
a in undrained
soil for (a)
displacement
piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 46
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
For non - displacement piles,
a 1 for c u 30 kPa
cu
a 1.16 for 30 c u 150 kPa (9.8)
185
a 0.35 for c u 150 kPa
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 47
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
Fig. 9.7
Determination of
adhesion factor
a in undrained
soil for (b) non-
displacement
piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 48
Example
A 600 mm diameter solid end pile is driven to a depth of 15 m into a
firm, becoming stiff clay with an average cu1 of 75 kPa along the shaft
and a cu2 of 100 kPa at the base. The unit weight of the clay is 18
kN/m3 and GWT is at the surface. Determine the shaft resistance of
the pile.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 49
Shaft Resistance – Undrained soil (a.k.a.
Total Stress Method or a Method)
0.5
c cu
a 0.5Fp u 1 for 1
' v 0 ' v 0
cu
0.25
c
(9.6)
a 0.5Fp
for u 1
' v 0 ' v 0
Lp
Fp is related to pile slenderness ratio ,
D0 c u1 75
0.61 1.0
'v 0 1518 9.81
Lp
Fp 1.0 for 50
D0
Lp 15
Fp 0.7 for
Lp
120
25 Fp 1.0
D0 D0 0.6
Lp
Interpolate Fp if 50 120
D0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 50
Example
A 600 mm diameter solid end pile is driven to a depth of 15 m into a
firm, becoming stiff clay with an average cu1 of 75 kPa along the shaft
and a cu2 of 100 kPa at the base. The unit weight of the clay is 18
kN/m3 and GWT is at the surface. Determine the shaft resistance of
the pile.
0.5
cu cu
a 0.5Fp
1 for 1
'v 0 ' v 0
0.51.0 0.61
0.5
0.64
int ac u1 0.64 75 48 kPa
Qsu A s int D0 L p int 0.6 15 48 1357 kN
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 51
Shaft Resistance – Drained soil (a.k.a.
Effective Stress Method or b Method)
P 'h 0
int 'h 0 tan ' , K
'v 0
’h0
int K'vo tan ' (9.9)
int b 'z - b Method
i.e. b K tan '
P+DP ' ' representsperfectly rough interface
' 0 representsperfectly smooth interface
Typically 0 ' '
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 52
Shaft Resistance – Drained soil (a.k.a.
Effective Stress Method or b Method)
’ is a function of pile roughness and soil properties. It’s
value can be determined using the direct shear test.
Fig. 9.8
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 53
Shaft Resistance – Drained soil (a.k.a.
Effective Stress Method or b Method)
K depends on soil type and stress history (quantified by f’
and OCR). For sands and gravels, K usually expressed as
K/K0.
int K'vo tan '
b 'v0 (9.10)
K
i.e. b K tan ' K 0 tan '
0
K
For cast-in-place piles, 0.7 < K/K0 < 1.0
For displacement piles, K/K0 may be as high as 2.0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 54
Shaft Resistance – Drained soil (a.k.a.
Effective Stress Method or b Method)
For fine-grained soils, Burland (1993) showed that b
correlates linearly with the yield stress ratio (cu/’v0):
cu
b 0.52 0.11
(9.11)
v0
'
Equation 9.11 provides reasonable estimates of shaft
capacity for displacement and non-displacement piles.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 55
Shaft Resistance – Drained soil (a.k.a.
Effective Stress Method or b Method)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 56
Example
A 600 mm diameter solid end pile is driven to a depth of 15 m into a
firm, becoming stiff clay with an average cu1 of 75 kPa along the shaft
and a cu2 of 100 kPa at the base. The unit weight of the clay is 18
kN/m3 and GWT is at the surface. Determine the shaft resistance of
the pile using the b method.
cu
b 0.52 0.11
v0
'
75
0.52 0.11 0.745
15 18 - 9.81
2
int b 'v 0 0.745 18 9.81 45.8 kPa
15
2
Qs A s int D 0 L p int 0.6 15 45.8 1295 kN
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 57
Pile compression capacity for under-
reamed piles
Do
For under-reamed piles, no
skin friction should be taken
below a level of 2D0 from
the top of the under-ream
and base resistance should
be determined as if the base
is not embedded (d = 0,
2Do scNc = 6.2 in Eq. 9.2 )
int = 0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 4 58
Deep Foundations
Limit State Design, Tensile Load and
Load Tests
Pile resistance and limit state design
The resistance of a pile, R, is the sum of the base and shaft
resistances.
In EC 7, the resistance R may be factored using gRC to
obtain the design resistance i.e.
Q bu Qsu
R (9.12a)
g RC
or
Q bu Qsu
R (9.12b)
g Rb g Rs
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 2
Basis of Geotechnical Design
Design Approaches
Design Approach 1
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or
anchors
Design Approach 2
Combination : A1 “+” M1 “+” R2
Design Approach 3
Combination : (A1 or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3
A1 :on structural actions
A2 :on geotechnical actions
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 3
Basis of Geotechnical Design
Design Approaches
Design Approach 1
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or
anchors
For axially loaded piles, Design Approach 1 Combination 2 (DA1b)
A2 “+” M1 “+” R4 is used for calculating the design resistance
A2 “+” M2 “+” R4 is used for calculating unfavourable design actions
owing to negative skin friction (downdrag) or transverse loading.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 4
Lower values for R4 if
serviceability is verified or
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 serviceability is not a concern 5
Example 9.1
A single steel tubular pile of outside diameter 0.3 m, wall thickness 10
mm and length 10 m is driven into dry loose sand. The soil has unit
weight, g = 15 kN/m3, f’ = 32o and c’ = 0. Along the pile-soil interface, it
may be assumed that K = 1 and d’ = 0.75 f’. Assuming that the pile is
plugged and the weight of the soil inside the pile is negligible,
determine the allowable (permanent) design load on the pile under
EC7 DA1b.
Soil is dry, u 0.
For DA1b, the design val ues are :
tan f ' tan 32 o
f'des tan 1 tan 1
1.0
32o
g tan f'
d'des 0.75f'des 24o
g ' 15
g 'des 15 kN / m3
g g 1.0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 6
Example 9.1
Q bu A p N q 'q
Lp 10
For 33 and f'des 32o , Fig. 9.6 gives N q 25
D0 0.3
Q bu A p N q g desL p 0.0707 25 15 10
Q bu,des 156 kN
g Rb g Rb 1.7
Qsu D0 0 Kg desz tan d'des dz
10
Qsu, des (see Eq. 9.1a and 9.9)
g Rs g Rs
10
2 z
0.3 1 15 tan 24o
2 0
1.5
210 kN
R Q bu , des Qsu , des 156 210 366 kN
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 7
Example 9.1
For ULS to be satisfied for EC 7 DA1b,
Q R
For permanent unfavourable action, g A 1.0,
Q 366 kN is the maximum allowable characteristic load
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 8
Example 9.2
A 0.75-m diameter bored concrete pile (weight density = 24 kN/m3) is
to be formed in a two-layer deposit of clay with the water table at the
ground surface. The upper layer of clay has saturated unit weight, g =
18 kN/m3, and constant undrained shear strength cu = 100 kPa. Below
this lies a thick lower layer of strong clay starting at a depth of 15 m
below the ground surface. This clay layer has g = 20 kN/m3, and cu =
200 kPa. All calculations are to be completed to EC7 DA1b.
a.Determine the maximum allowable design load (permanent) which
the pile can support under undrained conditions if it is 15 m long.
b.Determine the total length of pile required to support a (permanent)
characteristic load of 3 MN under undrained conditions.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 9
Example 9.2
(a) (b)
100 kPa 100 kPa
Lp - 15
200 kPa 200 kPa
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 10
Example 9.2
For EC 7 DB1b, design material parameters are :
c 100
c u1,des u1 100 kPa
g c 1.0
u
g 18
g1,des 18 kN / m3
g g 1.0
c 200
c u 2,des u 2 200 kPa
gc 1.0
u
g 20
g 2, des 20 kN / m3
g g 1.0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 11
Example 9.2a
For a 15 m long pile, the shaft is in the upper clay while the base is on
the lower clay with d 0.
Q bu , des
A p sc N cc u 2, des gL p
gRb
For d/B 0, sc N c 6.2 from Figure 8.10
0.752
6.2 200 18 15
Q bu , des 4 334 kN
2.0
c
For non - displacement piles, 1.16 - u for 30 c u 150
185
D0 L pc u1, des 0.75 15 0.62 100
Qsu, des 1370 kN
g Rs 1.6
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 12
Example 9.2a
R Q bu , des Qsu, des 334 1370 1704 kN
To satisfy ULS :
g A Q A self - weight of pile R
g A Q g concA p L p R
0.752
1.0 Q 24 15 1704
4
Q 1545 kN
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 13
Example 9.2b
If the pile is to carry a permanent characteristic load of 3 M N,
the pile has to be longer than 15 m, i.e.
g A Q g concA p L p R g A 3M N g concA p L p R
Assuming large d/B, s c N c 9.0
0.752
4
9.0 200 18 15 20 L p 15
Q bu ,des 391 4.42L p kN
2 .0
c u1
For non - displacement piles, 1 1.16 - 0.62 for 30 c u1 150
185
2 0.35 for c u2 150
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 14
Example 9.2b
Qsu, des
D0 151c u1, des L p 15 2c u 2, des
g Rs
0.75 15 0.62 100 L p 15 0.35 200
1.6
1370 103 L p 15
103L p 205
3000 10.6L p 391 4.42L p 103L p 205
3000 10.6L p 186 107.42L p
96.8L p 2814
L p 29 m
Check : d/B (29 - 15)/0.75 18.7, s c N c 9.0 is O.K.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 15
Pile resistance from in-situ tests - SPT
Empirical correlations based on the results of pile loading tests and in-
situ tests are commonly used to provide alternative methods of obtaining
pile resistance.
From SPT data :
Q bu A pC b N 60 ( kN ) (9.13)
where N 60 SPT value in the vicinity of the pile base.
Pile type Soil Cb
Displacement (driven) Sand 400-450
Silt 350
Glacial till 250
Clay 75-100
Driven cast-in-situ Cohesionless 150
Bored Sand 100
Clay 75-100
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 16
Pile resistance from in-situ tests - SPT
For shaft resistance :
Qsu AsCs N 60 ( kN ) (9.14)
where N 60 average SPT value along the length of the pile.
As perimeter area of pile
For unknown soil conditions , Cs 2.0 (Clayton 1995)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 17
Pile resistance from in-situ tests - CPT
The results of CPT can be used directly in pile design, particularly for
driven piles because of the similarity between CPT and the method of
pile installation.
The bearing resistance is :
q b Ccpt q c ( kN ) (9.15)
where q c average cone resistance over 1.5D 0 above and below the base of the pile.
Pile type Soil Cb
Driven (closed) Sand 0.4
Clay (undrained) 0.8
Clay (drained) 1.3
Bored Sand 0.2
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 18
Pile resistance from in-situ tests - CPT
Correlations of CPT with shaft friction parameters are
notoriously unreliable and are not recommended for use.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 19
Pile resistance from in-situ tests
The values of Qbu and Qsu determined from in-situ tests are
characteristic resistances in EC 7 framework. If n tests
have been conducted, the characteristic resistance (Rk =
Qbu + Qsu) is determined using:
R avg R min
R k min ,
3 4
Table A.NA.10 – Correlation factors ( to derive characteristic values
of the resistance of axially loaded piles from ground test results
For n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
3 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.36 1.33 1.30
4 1.55 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.26 1.20 1.15
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 20
Piles under tensile loads
While piles are most commonly used to carry compressive
loadings, there are a number of situations where piles may
carry tensile loads. These include:
When used as part of a pile group supporting a structure to
which horizontal or moment loading is applied;
When used as reaction piles to provide reaction in a pile
load tests;
To provide anchorage against uplift forces.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 21
Piles under tensile loads
(a) Moment
Compression
Tension
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 22
Piles under tensile loads
(c)
Uplift
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 23
Piles under tensile loads
Compression Tension
For piles under
tension, the
same method to
determine shaft
resistance for
compression of
piles can be
used.
No base resistance!
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 24
Piles under tensile loads
However for piles under tension, field test data for non-
displacement piles show that the shaft resistance is
reduced by 30%.
Fig. 9.15 Shaft friction in tension: (a) a for non-displacement piles in fine-grained soil,
(b) shaft resistance for non-displacement piles in coarse-grained soil.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 25
Load Testing
It is common practice in the design of piles to verify the
capacity of a pile design using a pile load test. The
reasons are:
1. The uncertainty associated with using empirical
properties in calculations (e.g. a and b) is reduced;
2. It can be verified that the proposed construction
technique is acceptable and allows the integrity of the
cast-in-place piles formed using the proposed method to
be checked;
3. It can be verified that the ULS and SLS will be met by
the proposed design.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 26
Load Testing
Load tests may be carried out on trial piles (a.k.a. test
piles) and working piles (a.k.a. contract piles).
Trial piles are piles which are constructed solely for the
purposes of load testing, usually before the main piling
work commence. If sufficient load can be applied, these
piles can be tested to the ULS to verify the pile capacity.
Working piles are piles that will be part of the foundation,
and as such are not tested to failure. A typical maximum
load in such a test would be 150% of the working load that
the pile will ultimately carry, allowing for the SLS to be
verified with an allowance for possible redistribution from
other piles within the foundation.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 27
Load Testing
Fig. 8.1(b) foundation performance and limit state design.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 28
Load Testing
Load tests can be broadly classified into:
1.Static load tests
2.Dynamic load tests
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 29
Static load test
Static load tests is the most common form of pile testing,
and the method is most similar to the loading regime in
the completed foundation.
The load can be applied using a kentledge or reaction
piles.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 30
Static load test
Fig. 9.16 Static load testing of piles: (a) using kentledge, (b) using reaction piles.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 31
Static load test
If kentledge is used,
the weight must be at
least equal to the
maximum load, though
this is normally
increased by 20% to
account for variability
in the predicted
capacity.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 32
Static load test
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 33
Static load test
Pull-out test can also be
conducted to determine the
tensile resistance. Tension
piles and anchor system
should be proof tested up to
130% of the required test
load. An in-line load cell is
used to measure the force
applied to the pile head, while
the displacement of the pile
head may be measured using
local displacement
transducers or by remote
measurement using precision
leveling equipment.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 34
Static load test
Using Osterberg Cell
Hydraulic fluid is pumped into
the jack and both pressure
and volume are noted. The
jack expands and pushes up
the shaft. The shaft
movement is measured by a
dial gauge. Thus, a plot of
side friction capacity vs axial
movement is obtained.
If a telltale rod is included at
the bottom of the jack, the
downward movement at the
bottom can be used to obtain
a plot of toe-bearing pressure
vs axial movement.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 35
Static load test
Static load tests can be tested in two modes: constant rate of
penetration (CRP) tests or maintained load tests (MLT). Usually
constant rate of penetration test is used for trial piles and maintained
load test is for working pile.
In CRP test, a penetration rate of 0.5- 2 mm/min in compression is used
to displace the pile until either steady ultimate load is reached or the
settlement exceeds 10% of the pile diameter (or width for a square
pile). CRP test can be conducted on tension piles in which case the
rate of pull is reduced to 0.1 to 0.3 mm/min as the pile will mobilise its
tension capacity at much smaller displacements than in tension.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 36
Static load test
Maintained load tests (MLT) are used for working piles. This involves
applying load to the pile through a jack which is then maintained for a
period of time. The procedure is as follows:
1.Load to 100% of the design (working) load, also called the design
verification load in 25% increments;
2.Unload fully in 25% increments;
3.Reload directly to 100% design verification load, then load to 150% of
the working load (also called proof load) in 25% increments;
4.Unload fully in 25% increments
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 37
Static load test
For piles which are long, of large diameter, in strong soil, having an
under-ream, or any combination of these features, pile load test may
not be continued to failure due to the cost involved or the relatively
large settlement required.
In such cases, a number of methods are available to extrapolate the
test data to the ultimate capacity. One such method is orginally
proposed by Chin (1970).
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 38
Static load test Plot s/Q versus s
Chin (1970) assumed that
the load-settlement curve
can be approximated by a
hyperbola.
Fig. 9.17 Interpretation of pile capacity using Chin’s method
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 39
Example 13.3 – The load-settlement data shown in the figure 13.11
were obtained from full-scale static load test on a 400-mm square, 17-
m long concrete pile (fc’ = 40 MPa). Use Chin’s method to compute the
pile load capacity in compression. (Adapted from Coduto 2001)
0.012
Settlement / Applied Load (mm/kN)
0.01
1/Pult =0.000375
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Settlement (mm)
Chin' s method :
1
Pult 2665 kN
0.000375
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 40
Static load test in design by EC 7
In EC 7, the load test result is not used directly, instead the Rk is
determined by dividing by a correlation factor which depends on the
number of tests:
R avg R min
R k min ,
1 2
Table A.NA.9 – Correlation factors ( to derive characteristic values
of the resistance of axially loaded piles from static pile load tests
For n = 1 2 3 4 ≥5
1 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.35
2 1.55 1.35 1.23 1.15 1.08
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 41
Example: Static pile load tests were conducted on three
identical piles at a site. The estimated ultimate pile
capacities are 305, 296 and 315 kN. Determine the
characteristic resistance Rk of the pile according to EC 7.
305 296 315
R avg 305 kN
3
R min 296 kN
For 3 pile load tests, 1 1.42 and 2 1.23
305 296
R k min , min 215,240 215 kN
1.42 1.23
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 42
Dynamic load test
For piles which are long, of large diameter, in strong soil,
having an under-ream, or any combination of these
features, pile load test may not be continued to failure due
to the cost involved or the relatively large settlement
required.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 43
Dynamic load test
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 44
Dynamic load test - PDA
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 45
Dynamic load test
Statnamic Test
A combustion chamber filled with
solid propellant fuel is placed
between the top of the pile and a
reaction mass.The test consists
of igniting the fuel, which leads to
explosive combustion, the high
pressure gases drive the mass
upwardsand the pile downwards.
The acceleration is about 10-20g
i.e. 10-20 times the load used in
conventional testing and hence
only 5-10% of the maximum pile
load is required as a reaction
mass.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 5 46
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups and Negative Skin Friction
Pile group
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 2
Pile group
A pile foundation may consist of a group of piles
installed fairly close together (at a spacing S
which is typically 2D0 to 4 D0) and joined by a
slab, known as the pile cap, cast on top of the
piles. The cap is usually in contact with the soil, in
which case part of the structural load is carried
directly on the soil immediately below the surface.
If the cap is clear of the ground surface, the piles
in the group are referred to as freestanding.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 3
Pile group
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 4
Pile group
A single pile usually does not have enough capacity
Piles are located with low degree of precision and
can easily be 150 mm or more from the desired
location. The eccentricity would generate unwanted
moments and deflections in both pile and column.
Multiple piles provide redundancy, and thus can
support the structure even if one pile is defective.
The lateral compression during pile driving is greater
and therefore side friction capacity can be greater
than that of a single pile.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 5
If each pile has an
allowable load
capacity of 100 kN,
how many piles are
needed to support a
column load of 1000
kN?
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 6
Pile group
In general, the ultimate load which can be
supported by a group of n pile (Qpg) is not equal to
n times the ultimate load of a single isolated pile of
the same dimensions in the same soil (Qp), i.e.
Qpg =hg.n.Qp
where hg = efficiency of the pile group
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 7
Pile group
hg depends on several factors, including:
The number, length, diameter, arrangement, and spacing
of piles
The load transfer mode (side friction vs end bearing)
The construction procedures used to install the piles
The sequence of pile installation
The soil type
The elapsed time since the piles were driven
The interaction, if any, between the pile cap and the soil
The direction of applied load
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 8
Pile group
Tests in clays suggest :
Generally, hg < 1 and decreases with no. of
piles in the group.
hg can be as low as 0.5.
hg increases with time.
In most fine-grained soils under undrained
conditions, the hg will be close to 1.0. In some
sensitive clays, hg may be slightly lower than 1.0.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 9
Pile group
Tests in sands suggest (O’Neill 1973):
In loose sands, hg ≥ 1 and reaches a peak at
s/D0 2. It also seems to increase with no. of
piles in the group.
In dense sands with 2 s/D0 4, hg is usually
slightly greater than 1 so long as pile was
installed without predrilling or jetting.
Piles installed by predrilling or jetting, and drilled
shafts have lower hg, as low as 0.7.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 10
Pile group
Displacement piles in all soils will generally have
efficiencies greater than 1.0 due to the compactive
effort imparted to the soil during installation, which
will tend to increase the shaft capacity around the
piles (though the base capacity is likely to remain
unchanged). For example, the driving of a group of
piles into loose or medium-dense sand causes
compaction of the sand between the piles, provided
that the spacing is less than about 8D0;
consequently, the efficiency of the group is greater
than 1.0. A value of 1.2 is often used in design.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 11
If each pile has an
allowable load
capacity of 100 kN,
how many piles are
needed to support a
column load of 1000
kN if the efficiency of
the pile group is 0.8?
Q pg 1000
n
hg Q p 0.8 100
12.5 13 piles
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 12
Pile group
It is generally assumed that the distribution of load
between piles in an axially loaded group is uniform.
However, experimental evidence indicates that
under working load conditions for a group in sand,
the piles at the centre of the group carry greater
loads than those on the perimeter; in clay, on the
other hand, the piles on the perimeter of the group
carry greater loads than those at the centre.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 13
Pile group-ULS
Verification of ULS for a pile group
can be achieved by ensuring that
each individual pile satisfies ULS
under the load which is distributed
to it from the pile cap. This is
mode 1. It is generally assumed
that at the ULS the piles all carry
the same amount of load (=Qpg/n,
where Qpg is the load carried by
the group) as this distribution
satisfies the lower bound theorem
(provided that the pile cap is
Fig. 9.18 failure mode for pile groups
ductile enough to allow load at ULS: (a) mode 1
redistribution).
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 14
Pile group-ULS
The alternative failure
mechanism for a pile group
is known as block failure
(Mode 2). This is when the
whole block of soil beneath
the pile cap and enclosed
by the piles failed as one Lp
large pier.
The capacity of the block is
determined by treating it as
a single pier with length Lp
Fig. 9.18 failure mode for pile groups
and cross-sectional area at ULS: (b) mode 2
BrxLr.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 15
Pile group-ULS
When determining the shaft capacity of the pier, a = 1
should be used in undrained conditions while d’=f’ should
be used in drained conditions, in each case as the
interface shear along the walls of the block is almost
entirely soil-soil.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 16
Pile group-ULS
Generally, Qbu > Qsu, block failure is more likely for closely
spaced groups of long, slender piles (high Lp/D0) than for
widely spaced groups of stocky piles (low Lp/D0).
Block failure is also more likely for pile groups in fine-
grained soils, rather than coarse-grained soils, as Qbu/Qsu
is generally smaller in the former case.
Tests of model pile groups in clays by Whitaker (1957)
and De Mello (1969) suggest that the failure mode does
not transition to block failure until S < 2-3D0.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 17
Pile group - Settlement
(Tomlinson 2001)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 18
Pile group - Settlement
Imaginary footing method
(Equivalent raft method) Zi = 2/3 D
(Coduto 2001)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 19
Example 9.4 (modified)
A 4 x 2 pile group is formed from eight piles, each of 21.5
m long bored pile and 1.5 m in diameter constructed in a
deep homogeneous clay of E =10 MPa and n = 0.2. The
pile group carries a total load of 40 MN and the piles are
spaced at 5D0 (centre-to-centre). Determine the
immediate settlement of the pile group.
Br = s +D0 = 6D0
Lr = 3s +D0 = 16D0
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 20
Example 9.4 (modified)
Br 6 1.5 9 m, L r 16 1.5 24 m
Equivalent footing at 2L p /3 :
B Br 7.17 16.17 m, L L r 7.17 31.17 m
L/B 1.64
s
qB
E
1 n 2 Is
AverageIs for flexible rectangular (L/B 1.64)
2Lp/3
is 1.174 4
1
40
s 16.17 31.17 1 - 0.2 2 1.174 8.9 mm
10
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 21
Negative Skin Friction
Negative skin friction can
occur on the perimeter of a
pile driven through a layer
of clay undergoing
consolidation (e.g. due to a
fill recently placed over the
clay) into a firm bearing
stratum. The consolidating
layer exerts a downward
drag on the pile, and
therefore the direction of
skin friction in this layer is
reversed.
Fig. 9.21 Negative skin friction
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 22
Negative Skin Friction
It is conservative to
assume that the whole
consolidating layer
applies negative skin
friction and only the soil
below contributes to
the positive shaft
resistance of the pile,
though in reality the
cross-over occur within
the consolidating soil,
where the settlements
of the soil and the pile
(Coduto 2001)
are equal.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 23
Negative Skin Friction
Both b and a
Ps1
P+Ps1 methods may be
Ps2
P+Ps1+Ps2 used to compute
negative skin
friction
Negative friction load,
Pt’+Ps1 Psn f sn A sn
Ps1
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 24
Negative Skin Friction
It is conservative to
assume that the whole
consolidating layer
applies negative skin
friction and only the soil
below contributes to
the positive shaft
resistance of the pile,
though in reality the
cross-over occur within
the consolidating soil,
where the settlements
of the soil and the pile
(Coduto 2001)
are equal.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 25
Negative Skin Friction
Negative skin friction increases gradually as consolidation
of the clay proceeds, the effective overburden pressure
s’v0 gradually increasing as the excess pore water
pressure disssipates.
In normally consolidated clays, a value of b of 0.25
represents a reasonable upper limit to negative skin
friction for preliminary design purposes. It should be noted
that there will be a reduction in effective overburden
pressure adjacent to the pile in the bearing stratum due to
the transfer of part of the overlying soil weight to the pile; if
the bearing stratum is sand, this will result in a reduction in
bearing capacity.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 26
Negative Skin Friction Reduction
Techniques
Coat the pile with bitumen. This method is very effective so long as the
pile is not driven through an abrasive soil, such as sand, that might
scrape off the bitumen coating.
Drive the piles before placing the fill, wrap the exposed portions with
lubricated polyethylene sheets or some other low-friction material and
place the fill around the piles.
Use a large diameter predrill hole, possibly filled with bentonite, thus
reducing K.
Use a pile tip larger in diameter than the pile, thus making a larger hole
as the pile is driven.
Drive an open-end steel pipe pile through the consolidating soils,
remove the soil plug, then drive a smaller diameter load-bearing pile
through the pipe and into the lower bearing strata. This isolates the
inner pile from the downdrag loads.
Accelerate the settlement using surcharge fills or other techniques, and
then install the foundations after the settlement is complete.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 27
Example Steel shell
A 0.4 m diameter pile is 4m Recent fill, g = 18.5 kN/m3
installed in a recent fill as
shown in the figure. To Soft NC clay
reduce negative skin 6m g = 17.5 kN/m3
cu = 30 kPa
friction, a steel shell is
proposed around the pile
within the fill. The ground
water table is 1 m below the Sand
15m g = 18 kN/m3
fill but is expected to rise to f’ = 30o
the surface. Estimate the
maximum possible negative
skin friction that will be
experienced by the pile.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 28
Example Steel shell
4m Recent fill, g = 18.5 kN/m3
Conservative estimate of
negative skin friction is given
by assuming that it is acting in Soft NC clay
the consolidating layer of soft 6m g = 17.5 kN/m3
cu = 30 kPa
NC clay:
For NC clay, assumeb 0.25
The averageeffective vertical
Sand
stresscan be computedat the 15m g = 18 kN/m3
f’ = 30o
centre of the consolidating NC clay,
s'v 4 18.5 3 17.5 9.81 7 57.8 kPa
int bs'v 14.45 kPa
Q neg As int D0 Lint 0.4 6 14.45 109 .0 kN
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 6 29
You might also like
- CE6102 - 5 - Application of Newton Raphson Techniques To Elasto-Plastic Model With Constant Yield SurfacesNo ratings yetCE6102 - 5 - Application of Newton Raphson Techniques To Elasto-Plastic Model With Constant Yield Surfaces9 pages
- UGS2005 Finite Element Analysis of Shield Tunnelling On Adjacent Pile FoundationNo ratings yetUGS2005 Finite Element Analysis of Shield Tunnelling On Adjacent Pile Foundation10 pages
- Phytoremediation of Trace Metals in Shadawanka Stream of Bauchi Metropolis, NigeriaNo ratings yetPhytoremediation of Trace Metals in Shadawanka Stream of Bauchi Metropolis, Nigeria6 pages
- CV3013-Foundation Engineering: Associate Professor E.C. Leong Office: N1-1C-80 Tel: 6790 4774 Email: Cecleong@ntu - Edu.sg100% (1)CV3013-Foundation Engineering: Associate Professor E.C. Leong Office: N1-1C-80 Tel: 6790 4774 Email: Cecleong@ntu - Edu.sg52 pages
- Shallow Foundations - : Bearing Capacity and Limit AnalysisNo ratings yetShallow Foundations - : Bearing Capacity and Limit Analysis40 pages
- 272003-C-StructuralComponents-structural Capasity of PileNo ratings yet272003-C-StructuralComponents-structural Capasity of Pile5 pages
- Behavior of Piles With Raft Foundation Using Safe Software: Reshma T.V, Bhavya B S, Rashmi Mishra, Sankalpasri S SNo ratings yetBehavior of Piles With Raft Foundation Using Safe Software: Reshma T.V, Bhavya B S, Rashmi Mishra, Sankalpasri S S5 pages
- 9-4 Keynote 5 - Ir. Dr. Toh Cheng Teik - Ground Movements Due To Bored Piles and Basement Construction - 1No ratings yet9-4 Keynote 5 - Ir. Dr. Toh Cheng Teik - Ground Movements Due To Bored Piles and Basement Construction - 16 pages
- CG - A Introduction To Plaxis 2D Connect (WC)No ratings yetCG - A Introduction To Plaxis 2D Connect (WC)17 pages
- 2021 - Panahi - Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams Trough EB FRP and NSM FRP BarsNo ratings yet2021 - Panahi - Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams Trough EB FRP and NSM FRP Bars22 pages
- Deep Excavation - Design and Construction - ACES Course Notes100% (1)Deep Excavation - Design and Construction - ACES Course Notes328 pages
- 8 - Design and Construction of The New NLB BuildingNo ratings yet8 - Design and Construction of The New NLB Building15 pages
- 2012 C3 EC2 Workshop at Vienna Tan Kang HaiNo ratings yet2012 C3 EC2 Workshop at Vienna Tan Kang Hai8 pages
- Section 3.5 Use of The Oedometer Test To Derive Consolidation ParametersNo ratings yetSection 3.5 Use of The Oedometer Test To Derive Consolidation Parameters31 pages
- Multi - Storey Buildings - III AnalysisNo ratings yetMulti - Storey Buildings - III Analysis35 pages
- Performance and 3D Numerical Analysis of 11m Deep Strut-Free Wide Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation - K.H.LawNo ratings yetPerformance and 3D Numerical Analysis of 11m Deep Strut-Free Wide Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation - K.H.Law4 pages
- 7 - CE6101 More On Cam Clay & MCC - PPT HandoutsNo ratings yet7 - CE6101 More On Cam Clay & MCC - PPT Handouts12 pages
- 2-Design For Action Effects - M & P (2011)No ratings yet2-Design For Action Effects - M & P (2011)34 pages
- Interaction Between Structural and Geotechnical Engineers - Slides PDF100% (1)Interaction Between Structural and Geotechnical Engineers - Slides PDF83 pages
- SAFE Appendix B - Deflection CalculationsNo ratings yetSAFE Appendix B - Deflection Calculations9 pages
- EC7 Slopes NIGS Seminar 11th Apr 2013 AP FINALNo ratings yetEC7 Slopes NIGS Seminar 11th Apr 2013 AP FINAL33 pages
- 2 - Ce6101 An Introduction To Plasticity-20092020No ratings yet2 - Ce6101 An Introduction To Plasticity-2009202088 pages
- Defining EC8 Seismic Analysis in Robot - ExampleNo ratings yetDefining EC8 Seismic Analysis in Robot - Example5 pages
- ELS Sample Questions For 2010 HKPU T3 Top Up Course PDFNo ratings yetELS Sample Questions For 2010 HKPU T3 Top Up Course PDF2 pages
- Seismic Strengthening and Repair of RC Shear Walls PDFNo ratings yetSeismic Strengthening and Repair of RC Shear Walls PDF8 pages
- A Catalogue of Details on Pre-Contract Schedules: Surgical Eye Centre of Excellence - KathFrom EverandA Catalogue of Details on Pre-Contract Schedules: Surgical Eye Centre of Excellence - KathNo ratings yet
- Numerical Methods and Implementation in Geotechnical Engineering – Part 1From EverandNumerical Methods and Implementation in Geotechnical Engineering – Part 1No ratings yet
- A Review On Kalman Filter Models: Masoud Khodarahmi Vafa MaihamiNo ratings yetA Review On Kalman Filter Models: Masoud Khodarahmi Vafa Maihami21 pages
- Two-Way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics Laerd Statistics Premium0% (1)Two-Way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics Laerd Statistics Premium1 page
- 4b - SEJARAH Perkembangan KOTA Dan Gerakan Perencanaan - Online - 3 PDFNo ratings yet4b - SEJARAH Perkembangan KOTA Dan Gerakan Perencanaan - Online - 3 PDF52 pages
- CES Case Studies - Process Selection Case Studies100% (1)CES Case Studies - Process Selection Case Studies26 pages
- Topic 6: Workplace Environment & Ergonomic Principles of ErgonomicNo ratings yetTopic 6: Workplace Environment & Ergonomic Principles of Ergonomic16 pages
- La Salle College Mid-Year Examination 2009-2010 Form 2 MathematicsNo ratings yetLa Salle College Mid-Year Examination 2009-2010 Form 2 Mathematics13 pages
- Calculation of Azimuth, Elevation and Polarization For Non-Horizontal Aligned AntennasNo ratings yetCalculation of Azimuth, Elevation and Polarization For Non-Horizontal Aligned Antennas54 pages