Pile Design NPTEL
Pile Design NPTEL
Pile Design NPTEL
Lecture 22 : Ultimate pile capacity [ Section 22.1 : Procedure for ultimate pile capacity : Static
analysis ]
Objectives
In this section you will learn the following
Static analysis
Piles in granular soils (sands and gravel)
Bored cast in situ piles
Piles in clays
1.
2.
3.
Static analysis
Dynamic formulae
Pile load test
Static analysis
hearing resistance
Unit skin friction,
----------(4)
Where K is the lateral earth pressure coefficient and d is the angle of internal friction between the pile and the
soil.
Ultimate skin friction resistance,
,
----------(5)
Pile material
Values of K
Steel
Concrete
0.75
Loose sand
0.5
1.0
Timber
0.67
1.5
20
Dense sand
1.0
2.0
4.0
Fig-5.13 Values of
Fig-5.14 Relative density obtained from N values (After Gibbs and Holtz, 1966)
. K is generally varying from 0.3 to 0.75, with a medium value of 0.5. d can be
for bored piles excavated in dry soil and reduced value of d if slurry has been used during
Fig-5.15 Average unit skin friction on driven piles in cohesion less soils
; thus,
----------(6)
N value
Bored piles
Driven cast in
situ piles
<4
4-8
8-15
>15
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.3
Recap
In this section you have learnt the following.
Static analysis
Piles in granular soils (sands and gravel)
Bored cast in situ piles
Piles in clays
Objectives
In this section you will learn the following
Pile load test
Determination of Ultimate Load of pile Pile Load Test
Single Tangent method
Double Tangent Method
Log-Log method
Rectangular Hyperbola method
Vander Veen's method (1953)
Maazurkiewicz parabola method (1972)
1.
2.
Pile load test is the most reliable of all the approaches to determine the allowable load on the pile.
3.
Pile load test are very useful for cohesion less soil. However, incase of cohesive soils, the data from the pile
load test should be used with caution on account of disturbance due to pile driving, development of pore
pressure and the in adequate time allowed of consolidation settlement.
Vertical load test
Lateral load test
Pull out test
IS: 2911 Part IV (1979) details the procedure for carrying out the load tests and assessing the allowable load.
According to the code, the test shall be carried out by applying a series of vertical downward loads on a RCC
cap over the pile. The load shall preferably be applied by means of a remote controlled hydraulic jack taking
reaction against a loaded plot form. The test shall be applied in increments of about 20% of the assumed safe
load. Settlement shall be recorded with at least three dial gauges of sensitivity 0.02 mm. each stage of
loading shall be maintained till the rate of movement of pile top is not more than 0.1 mm per hours which
ever is later.
The loading shall be continued up to twice the safe load or the load at which the total settlement of the pile
top/ cap equals the appropriate value as indicated in the criterion stated below:
1.
2.
2/3 the final load at which the total settlement attains a value of 12mm.
Fifty percent of the final load at which the total settlement equals 10% of piles diameter in case of uniform
diameter piles and 7.5% of bulb diameter in case of under reamed piles.
The allowable load on a group of piles shall be the lesser of the following:
1.
Final load at which the total settlement attains a value of 25mm, unless a total settlement different from
25mm is specified in a given case on the basis of the nature and type of structure.
2.
Two-thirds the final load at which the total settlement attains a value of 40 mm.
is due to the elastic recovery of the pile material and the elastic recovery of the
.
The total settlement of the pile, S at any load level can be written as S=
Where
Total settlement is S=
But, S=
=
=(
Since
+
)+
+
-
is given by equation
is the frictional load, L is the length of the pile, A is the average cross
sectional area of the pile and E is the modulus of elasticity of the pile material.
Log-Log method
4.
,
5.
t =1/B
----------(7)
---------(8)
pile=settlement corr. to load P, and a is the factor relates load and deformation
----------(9)
6.
----------(10)
---------(11)
Where
& H are expressed in kg. H is in cm, S is the final set in cm/blow, usually taken as average
penetration for the last 5 blows of a drop hammer, or 20 blows of a steam hammer.
---------(13)
1.77 When the driving is without dolly or helmet and cushion about 2.5cm thick.
9.05 When the driving is with short dolly up to 60 cm long, helmet and cushion up to 7.5cm thick.
----------(14)
----------(15)
where L is the length of the pile in m and A is the cross sectional area of pile.
---------(16)
---------(17)
Where P is the weight of pile, anvil, helmet and follower in tons and
e is the coefficient of restitution of the materials under impact. Values are:
For steel ram of double-acting hammer striking on steel anvil and driving reinforced concrete pile, e=0.5
For cast-iron ram of single acting or drop hammer striking on head of reinforced concrete pile, e=0
for single acting or drop hammer striking a well-conditioned driving cap and helmet with hard wood dolly while
driving reinforced concrete piles or directly on head of timber pile, e=0.25
For a deteriorated condition of the head of pile or of dolly, e=0
Ratio of
P/W
e=0.5
e=0.4
e=0.32
e=0.25
e=0
0.5
1
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4
5
6
7
8
0.75
0.63
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.72
0.58
0.50
0.44
0.40
0.36
0.33
0.31
0.27
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.70
0.55
0.47
0.40
0.36
0.33
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.69
0.53
0.44
0.37
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.25
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.67
0.50
0.40
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.11
=0,
therefore,
---------(22)
here the unit weight term is neglected because
--------(23)
Determination of
Meyerhof's method
Vesic method
Janbu Method
Determination of
-Method
-Method
-Method
is
Objectives
In this section you will learn the following
Meyerhof's Method
Vesic method to compute
Janbu's method to compute
:
:
. The unit
friction for a straight side pile depends up on the soil pressure acting normal to the pile surface & the
coefficient of the friction between the soil and the pile material in fig.
The soil pressure normal to the vertical pile surface is horizontal and is related to the effective vertical soil
pressure as
Selection of value of K & require good engineering judgment depend up on the loose sand & medium sand.
In General Dense & Loose sand depend on the initial relative density and the method of installations. The
larger the volume of the soil displacement, the higher the value of the resulting friction. For high displacement
driven piles, the soil is considered dense. For driven in cast in place piles, the soil is considered medium dense
if the casing is left in place or if the concrete is compacted as the casing is withdrawn. The sand is considered
to be loose, if the concrete is not compacted. Tapered soil develops greater unit friction than the straight
piles. Further the value of K is greater if the pile is driven in to undisturbed soil than the one for installed in a
pre drilled holes.
The effective vertical Pressure increases with depth only up to the critical depth. Below the critical depth the
Constant.
value of
The ultimate frictional resistance can be expressed as,
----------(34)
Where P = Perimeter,
the segmented length.
= Segmented Length
Determination of
1.
becomes constant and that particular value should not exceed limiting value(
=50*N*q tan
=11
B is the width of the pile or width of the pile, as shown in the fig.
H<10B,
----------(25)
Example: For an end bearing pile of cross sectional area 1.17
= 7.85 KN/
and D = 1.22m.
,
,(
(L/D) =10.
Ans:
Pile length L = 1.22 x 10 =12.2 m.
From fig. 26, for
,
,
(7x D)x
= 7.85 x 7 x 1.22 x 55
= 3687.145 KN/
= 50
*
= 50 x 55 x tan 29 0
= 1524.35 KN/
<
Design value of
is 1524.35 KN/
The variation of
=0):
given by Skempton
= 9 for clays.
values depend on ,
i) Method of installation,
ii) Stress strain relationship of soil etc.
Typical values of
are,
.
= 9 in our design.
:
----------(26)
where,
is the undrained modulus of soil from stress-strain curve,
is the undrained cohesion.
Base resistance in
where,
is the effective overburden pressure,
can be found from Meyerhoff's chart corresponding to
value.
2.
Where,
is the rigidity coefficient for reduced rigidity for the soil which depends on the elastic modulus of soil.
----------(31)
where,
is average volumetric strain,
----------(32)
here,
is the poission's ratio.
3.
= Ultimate Load
Objectives
In this section you will learn the following
-Method for cohesive soil:
- Method
- Method
Determination of
1.
) of the
Rt = qt .At
(kips).
/ Factor of Safety
-method for cohesive soil (Homogenous Layer)
where
Heterogeneous Soil:
Case1 : Sands over lying stiff cohesive clays.
Case2: soft clays/sits overlying stiff clays.
Case3: stiff cohesive soils without any overlying strata.
Cases
Penetration ratio
Case1
<20
1.25
>20
fig ( )
<20(78)
0.4
>20
0.7
<20(78)
0.4
>20
fig( )
Case2
Case3
1.
The clay around the pile is displaced both vertically and horizontally. Upward displacement results in heaving
of the ground and can cause reduction in the bearing capacity of adjacent piles.
2.
3.
The clay in the disturbed zone around the pile is completely remoulded during driving.
The excess pore water pressures set up by the driving stresses dissipates within a few months as the
disturbed zone is relatively narrow. Thus the skin friction at the end of the dissipation is normally appropriate
in design. The adhesion factor a for driven piles is generally correlated to
shear strength to the existing vertical effective overburden pressure.
1.
2.
A thin layer of clay (usually 25mm) immediately adjoining the shaft will be remoulded during boring.
Gradual softening of the clay adjacent to the pile will take place due to stress release, pore water seeping
from surrounding clay towards the shaft. Water can also be absorbed from wet concrete. This softening is
accompanied with reduction in shear strength and a reduction in skin friction. Construction should therefore
be completed as soon as possible.
The value of a for bored piles in clay is usually lower than those for driven piles. Most of the
come from experience. For example, London clay has been extensively
recommendations of the values of
studied and the recommended value of a is 0.45. For short piles in weathered London clay the value drops to
0.3. For Indian clays it is 0.5. For other clays, Weltman and Healy (1978) produced a variation of a with
reproduced in Figure
Fig. 5.33
Table: 5.5
value)
value)
Pile type
Steel
0.5
2000
Concrete
0.8
600
Wood
1.0
1000
2.
:
An alternative and entirely empirical method has been proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972) for the
estimation of the side resistance of long steel pipe piles founded in clay. This method is used fairly frequently
in the design of heavily loaded offshore foundations. Because these piles are long and slender, the great
majority of capacity is derived from the shaft and, therefore, the end bearing component can be insignificant.
This method is not commonly used for land-based piles, and should only be applied where an assumption of
normal consolidation is appropriate . The authors simply established a correlation between ultimate shaft
, determined from a large number of load tests on steep pipe piles, the mean effective vertical
resistance,
stress between ground and pile toe,
as
follows:
----------(37)
Dimensionless coefficient
=mean effective vertical stress between ground surface and pile tube.
=average undrained cohesion along the pile.
=pile surface area.
is a function of pile penetration and decreases to a reasonably constant value for very
, with
from a comparison
5.5.7.3
---------(38)
Earth pressure coefficient
=pile soil interfacial friction angle.
=mean vertical effective stress
method
Burland method
The
method developed by Burland (1973) shows comparable values to the actually measured skin
resistances. This method intensely counts on the soil-pile interaction parameters such as the angle of soil-pile
friction angle (
) and the coefficient of earth pressure (
). Burland method for predicting the pile skin
resistance tends to over predict the capacity of the piles.
is (1 - sin
) tan
Fig. 5.34 Relation between Depth Ratio D/B and Skin Friction Coefficients as predicted by Burland.
Meyerhoff method
depends on
as per Burland
Remolded angle of friction of soil
= 0.75
Recap
In this section you have learnt the following.
-Method for cohesive soil:
- Method
- Method
Congratulations, you have finished Lecture 22. To view the next lecture select it from the left
hand side menu of the page