Ultimate Capacity of Pile Foundations

257
1
1
3
3
ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF
PILE FOUNDATIONS

13.0 CAPACITY OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

In this chapter methods of estimating the ultimate capacity of single piles, both vertical
and lateral, and the ultimate capacities, for vertical load, horizontal shear and moment,
of pile groups are presented. Estimation of the vertical capacity of piles is limited
mainly to methods based on CPT data. There are also available first principles, or
the so-called geotechnical calculation, approaches which rely heavily on empirical
correlations (an interesting review of these methods is given by Burland (2012)).
However, the many CPT methods available are also based on empiricism but, with the
wealth of information now available, it can be argued that these have a more robust
empirical basis. One limitation on CPT based methods are ground profiles with gravels
rather than sand, silt and clay in these cases empirical methods based on the SPT are
needed.

13.1 Vertical capacity

13.1.1 Preliminary comments

It is usual to distinguish between piles in sands and piles in clays. This suggests the
distinction between short term and long term behaviour, in particular the difference in the
response of a pile to a long term static load and that to a short term dynamic load such as
earthquake or wind. This subdivision between the type of soil in which a pile is embedded
can be further divided by the method of pile installation: driven or cast in situ.

Design of Earthquake Resistant Foundations
258

Figure 13.1 Development with head settlement of shaft and base resistance for a
pile with straight sides.

The design of a pile foundation requires that the base resistance and the shaft resistance
be evaluated. This can be done on the basis of some estimate of the soil type and soil
properties. The properties being determined either by taking specimens and laboratory
testing or by inference from some in situ test, most commonly a penetrometer test. An
alternative is the use of the cone penetration test (CPT) for the direct assessment of pile
capacity in sands and silts; methods developed initially in Holland and Belgium from
about the middle of the twentieth century.

The ultimate vertical load capacity of a pile is realised when all the shaft resistance and all
the base resistance have been mobilised. Load tests can be done in which the load carried
by the pile base is measured separately from the load carried by the shaft. A typical set of
results is shown in Figure 13.1.

The important feature in Figure 13.1 is the very stiff response of the shaft resistance in
comparison with the relatively soft response of the base; this understanding is well
established having been measured many times. Typically the shaft resistance is mobilised
at vertical displacements of 1% per cent or so of the shaft diameter, whereas considerably
larger displacements, up to 10%, are needed to mobilise the base resistance. The relative
contributions of the base and shaft resistance to the ultimate vertical capacity of a pile in
homogeneous soil depend on the length to diameter ratio. If the pile is end bearing the
base resistance will be more significant. This will also be the case for a pile with an
enlarged base, a so-called belled pile.

The ultimate capacity of a pile, V
u
, is the sum of these two components less the pile
weight:

u su bu
= + - W
V V V
13.1
Chapter 13: Ultimate capacity of pile foundations
259

where: V
su
is the ultimate shaft resistance,
V
bu
is the ultimate base resistance,
and W is the pile weight.

When evaluating pile base resistance by geotechnical calculation it is not
uncommon to neglect the weight of the pile and not to include the BN

term in the base bearing strength calculation.

13.1.2 Pile vertical capacity estimated from CPT profiles

The cone penetration test (CPT) was originally developed in Holland, but is
now widely used internationally not only for estimating pile capacities but
also as a site investigation tool. Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) represent
an approach at correlation between pile capacity and CPT data which is still
often referred to. Verbrugge(1986) gives a summary of usage in Holland
and Belgium of the CPT for estimating pile capacity in sands and silts.
Eslami and Fellenius (1997) evaluate data from a large number of case
histories and conclude that data from the piezometric cone gives the best
estimate of pile capacity. Further examples of the CPT approach are
described briefly by Kempfert et al (2003). The Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society (2007)), presents
methods for predicting the base and shaft capacities of a range of pile types
in different soil types. These and many other papers indicate how the cone
penetration test can be used to estimate pile capacity. In addition, there are
methods based on the Standard Penetration test.

Underlying all these approaches is the admission that the process by which
a pile achieves vertical capacity is complicated and involves several different
mechanisms. CPT probing can be viewed as a model for the installation of
a driven pile. This must be a reasonable starting point for the pile base
resistance, but we will see that it is a little more complex. However, pile
capacity also includes the contribution from the pile shaft; this is dependent
on what happens to the soil adjacent to the shaft during the subsequent to
pile installation. Given these complications an empirical approach linking
CPT resistance to pile capacity is followed, but making some allowance for
the difference in size between the pile and CPT and for the effect of
subsequent driving on the shaft resistance.

In this section we will concentrate on three recent approaches: Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (2007), Randolph (2003) and Jardine et al
(2005), all of which are based on CPT data.

13.1.2.1 Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2007)

In this method there is a pair of simple equations linking pile base
resistance and shaft resistance with the CPT q
c
. Note that this method is
intended to cover both bored and driven piles. The equations are:

258
Table 13.1 Factor kc for pile vertical capacity for equation 13.2 (from Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (2007))

Table 13.2 Factor o for pile vertical capacity for equation 13.3 (from Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (2007))

q
c

q
s
(MPa)
261
t c ca
q k q = 13.2
c
s
q
q =
o
13.3
where: q
c
is the cone penetration resistance corrected if necessary for
pore pressure effects
q
t
is the unit base resistance
q
s
is the unit shaft resistance
q
ca
is the average CPT resistance at the depth of the pile base
averaged over a distance of 1.5 pile diameters above and
below the pile tip
k
c
is a bearing capacity factor based on soil type and pile type
given in Table 13.1
o is a friction coefficient given in Table 13.2.

To estimate the vertical capacity of the pile one needs, first, to find the unit
base resistance, q
t
, this is then multiplied by the pile base area to give V
bu
.
The shaft resistance is evaluated with depth along the pile shaft and the
total shaft resistance, V
su
, obtained by integration of the shaft shear stress
distribution.

Belled piles
Belled piles are handled by evaluating the end resistance in the downward
direction using the base area, and for estimates of uplift resistance the area
of the annulus defined by the diameters of the pile shaft and the enlarged
base.

13.1.2.2 Randolph (2003) driven piles in sand

The Rankine lecture of Professor Randolph reviewed recent research and
presented a procedure for estimating the capacity of driven piles in sand.
There are two things to consider the base resistance and shaft resistance.
Randolph suggests that the base resistance be taken as 0.4 q
ca
(averaged,
over a depth of about 1 to 2 pile diameters above and below the pile tip
(similar to the method given in the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual). The reason for the use of 0.4q
c
is that the vertical capacity of the
pile base will be regarded, from a design point of view, as having been
developed when the downward displacement is about 10% of the pile base
diameter. At this displacement the full penetration resistance of the soil will
not have been mobilised. This means that our idea of pile base failure is not
actually the same as the CPT penetration resistance, despite the comments
made above that a penetrometer is often thought of as a model of the pile.

Understanding of the mechanism of pile shaft resistance for driven piles is
an important breakthrough which has occurred in the last decade or so.
Consider some point at a depth z beneath the ground surface adjacent to a
pile shaft, Figure 13.2. During the driving process, when the pile tip is at a
depth z, we can think of the conditions there being similar to those when
the CPT cone is at that depth. Subsequently the pile shaft is driven some

258

Figure 13.2 Definitions of parameters for estimating shaft resistance of
driven piles. (after J ardine et al (2005)).

distance past this point. This means that soil immediately adjacent to the
pile shaft at depth z continues to experience very severe shearing as the pile
penetrates further, the effect of which is accentuated by the cyclic nature of
the pile driving process. The exact mechanism is a little complex but it is an
interaction between the lateral confining effect of the soil remote from the
pile shaft (depends on the small strain soil modulus) and the volume
decrease of the soil adjacent to the pile shaft induced by repeated cyclic
shearing during the driving. Measurements with specially instrumented pile
shafts have confirmed this mechanism, which has been called friction
fatigue (White and Lehane (2004)).

Randolphs (2003) equation for estimation of the pile shaft shear stress is:

( ) { }
2 h/ R
s vo cv min max min
tan K K K e
' t = o o + 13.4

where: o
cv
is the constant volume angle of shearing resistance of the soil
adjacent to the pile shaft (determined by a ring shear test)
K
max
is typically 1 to 2% of q
c
/o'
vo

K
min
lies in the range 0.2 to 0.4.
is about 0.05 for typical pile diameters (this is related to
the pile shaft roughness).

Using equation 13.4 we can find the distribution of shear stress along the
pile shaft, integration then gives the pile shaft capacity.

263
13.1.2.3 J ardine et al (2005) estimates of vertical pile capacity of
driven piles.

A series of very well executed full scale, thoroughly instrumented, pile load
tests was the main impetus behind the development of the ICP (Imperial
College Pile) method, Jardine et al (2005), for the design of driven piles.
The approach developed has many similarities with the approach outlined
by Randolph in his 2003 Rankine lecture. The method covers driven piles
in silica sand and clay.

As with Randolph there are two basic mechanisms; one for the base
resistance and the other for the shaft resistance. The base resistance is a
fraction of the cone tip penetration resistance, justified with arguments that
are similar to but not identical to those of Randolph. The shaft resistance
recognises the effect of repeated shearing of the material adjacent to the
pile shaft leading to a progressive reduction of the shear stress between the
pile shaft and the surrounding soil after the base of the pile passes a given
position.

Driven piles in clay
The base capacity is given by (from Table 6 in Jardine et al (2005)):

08
b ca
q . q Undrained loading = 13.5

13
b ca
q . q Drained loading = 13.6
where: q
ca
is the average CPT resistance near the pile tip defined as for
equation 13.2.

Several steps are required to obtain the shaft shear stress (from Table 5 in
Jardine et al (2005)):

f
f rc f
c
K
tan
K
' t = o o 13.7
where: K
f
/K
c
is known as the loading factor (= 0.8 regardless of
whether the direction of loading or drainage
conditions)
o'
rc
is the long term effective radial stress acting on the
pile shaft
o
f
is the angle of shearing resistance between the pile
shaft and the adjacent clay (somewhere
between the peak and residual values).
{ }
042 020
10
22 0016 0870

' ' o = o
= + A
A =
rc c vo
. .
c vy
vy t
K
and
K . . YSR . I YSR (h/R)
with
I log S
13.8
258

Figure13.3 Variations with time of the radial effective stress against the
shafts of driven piles in four clay soil profiles. (after J ardine et al
(2005)).

and: S
t
is the sensitivity of the clay
YSR is the yield stress ratio (=o'
vy
/o'
vo
) a ratio

similar to the
conventional overconsolidation ratio, but with the expectation that
the yield stress is determined more accurately than is possible in the
conventional oedometer.

The use of this yield stress ratio means that the application of this approach
to residual clays is not clear as these materials do appear to have a yield
stress or preconsolidation pressure (cf sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.5).

After driving, the clay adjacent to the pile shaft consolidates. Some data for
this is shown in Figure 13.3. London clay is a highly overconsoldated
material and is apparent from Figure 13.3 that the long term lateral effective
stress against the pile shaft is less than the in situ value for clays with an
undrained shear strength of about 100 kPa or more. On the other hand for
the soft Bothkennar clay, low yield stress ratio, the lateral effective stress
against the pile shaft is greater than the in situ lateral effective stress before
the pile is installed. It is of note that the consolidation process comes to
completion in a few days for all four clays.

265
Driven piles in sand
The base capacity is given by (from Table 3 in Jardine et al (2005)):

( ) { }
1 05
b ca CPT
q q . log D/ D = 13.9

where: D is the pile shaft diameter and D
CPT
is the diameter of
the cone penetrometer (0.036 m).

A lower limit of 0.30q
ca
is suggested for piles with D > 0.9 m.

Several steps are required to obtain the shaft shear stress (from Table 2 in
Jardine et al (2005)):

( ) ( )
013 038
0029
2
' t = o o
' ' ' o = o + Ao
' ' o = o
' Ao = A
f rf cv
rf rc rd
. .
rc c vo a
rd
tan
with :
and :
. q /P h/R
and :
G r /R
13.10a

where: Ar is the radial expansion that must occur to allow the pile
shaft to slip past a given level, about equal to the
average peak to trough roughness of the pile surface
P
a
is atmospheric pressure
G is the shear modulus of the sand remote from the pile
shaft (independent of the direction of loading
or drainage conditions)
o
cv
is the constant volume angle of shearing resistance of
the sand adjacent to the pile shaft. It should be
measured in interface shear tests.

G is obtained from the correlation of Baldi et al (1989):

{ }
( )
1
2
05
6
00203
000125
1216 10
c
.
c a vo
G q A B C
where :
q P
A .
B .
C . x
= + q q
' q = o
=
=
=
13.10b

For piles subject to tension loading:

( ) 08
f rc rd cv
. tan ' ' t = o + Ao o 13.10c
258

Figure 13.4 Increase with time of the shaft capacity for driven piles in sand. (after
J ardine et al (2005)).

After driving the shaft capacity of piles in sand has been observed to increase. Some
data on this are shown in Figure 13.4. It is apparent that over a period of about three
years there is a three-fold increase in capacity.

13.1.3 Effect of cyclic vertical loading on pile vertical capacity

When designing pile foundations for earthquake resistance cyclic axial loading needs to
considered. Under gravity loading the pile is expected to sustain some vertical load. An
earthquake superimposes on this a cyclic vertical load which increases and decreases the
actions applied to the pile. Intuitively one would expect that this cyclic loading will
decrease ultimate vertical load capacity of the pile; laboratory and field testing confirm that
this is the case. This effect is important not only for earthquake loading but also for
foundations of offshore structures and wind turbines, which may be subject to many
thousands of cycles of loading. A typical earthquake can be expected to apply up to tens
of cycles so one might expect that cyclic degradation would appear not to be so severe;
however, it has been observed that the maximum rate of degradation of shaft capacity
occurs in the first few tens of cycles. Experimental and computational work on this has
been reported by, among others, Lee and Poulos (1993), Poulos (1981, 1988 and 1989),
Turner and Kulhawy (1990), and Abel-Raman and Achmus (2011).

In summary the effect of the cyclic loading leads to a decrease in pile capacity, a decrease
in pile stiffness, and an accumulation of pile displacement. The effects are more severe
when the amplitude of the cyclic load is a larger fraction of the static pile capacity, and as
the static load applied to the pile increases. Poulos (1988) gives a diagrammatic
representation of these effects, which is shown here in Figure 13.5a. Notice that the
Poulos diagram also includes the case where the pile is subject to static tensile load. The
straight line boundaries give conditions which lead to failure under monotonic loading,
that is without cycling.
267
The mechanism by which the cyclic loading decreases the pile capacity revolves around
the manner in which the interface between the pile shaft and surrounding soil responds to
cyclic shear stress. Figure 3.31 gives some insight into the mechanism and shows how
cyclic shearing at constant normal stress leads a reduction in volume. However, adjacent
to a pile shaft the boundary conditions are better modelled as constant normal stiffness, so
during cyclic shearing there is a reduction in the normal stress at the pile shaft interface
and hence a reduction in frictional resistance. Many investigations, for example Ooi and
Carter (1987) and Fakharian and Evgin (1997), have made of cyclic soil-shaft interface
friction using constant normal stiffness laboratory test rigs. This information shows how
sensitive the normal stress at the interface is to cyclic shear stress and normal stiffness.
One surprising conclusion is that, as the relative density of the soil in which the pile is
installed increases, the rate of reduction in normal effective stress is more severe. This
means that the mechanism which leads to the cyclic degradation in pile shaft capacity is
the same as that used by Randolph and Jardine et al for estimating the static shaft capacity
of a driven pile in cohesionless soil.

Figure 13.5b gives some data of cyclic shaft capacity for driven piles in clay. The
amplitude of the cyclic load is denoted by P
c
normalised with respect to the static load
capacity of the pile, Q
c
. Looking at the data for 10 cycles it is apparent that the
degradation of pile axial capacity during cyclic loading will be a significant consideration in
the design of earthquake resistant pile foundations. The mean load P
o
, that is the static
load carried by the pile, is likely to be one third or less of the static capacity Q
c.
From
Figure 15.5.b we can see that failure would occur in 10 cycles if P
c
/Q
o
is about 0.5. Poulos
emphasises that the rate of degradation is very sensitive to the degradation properties for
the soil in which the pile is embedded for clays, sands and compressible sands. The
conclusion from these comments is that the cyclic axial capacity of piles requires careful
consideration when designing pile foundations to resist earthquake loads as the capacities
obtained from section 13.1.2 are for static, not cyclic, loading.

Figure 13.5 (a) The Poulos stability diagram for cyclically loaded piles, (b) Cyclic load
data for driven piles in clay (after Poulos (1988)).
a b
258

Figure 13.6 Pile axial load cyclic data on 76 mm diameter model drilled shafts in dry
sand (after Turner and Kulhawy (1990)).

Figure 13.6 gives some data from Turner and Kulhawy (1990). This indicates the
accumulation of permanent displacement for the cyclic loading of laboratory models of
drilled shafts in sand; again emphasising that this is an important effect even when the
amplitude of the cyclic force is small in relation to the static capacity.

13.2 Lateral capacity

13.2.1 Background

Now we need to evaluate pile head lateral load and moment combinations which will
mobilise the ultimate resistance of the pile-soil system.

There are two possibilities for consideration which depend on the length of the pile.
Firstly, in the case of a relatively long pile at some depth the ultimate moment of the pile
section will be reached and a plastic hinge formed. When this happens any further attempt
to increase the lateral load will simply cause unlimited rotation at the plastic hinge. Thus
the ultimate capacity of a long pile is limited by the moment capacity of the pile section.
For a reinforced concrete pile this is affected by the axial load carried by the pile.

Secondly, in the case of a short pile the depth of local failure along the pile shaft reaches
the pile depth before the ultimate moment capacity of the pile section is reached. In this
case the ultimate lateral capacity of the system is determined by the soil properties. To
distinguish the two cases herein the second is sometimes referred to as a pole rather than a
pile.

269

Figure 13.7 Ultimate pressure distribution against a laterally loaded pile in cohesive
soil after Broms; (a) free head and (b) fixed head pile.
Figure13.8 Ultimate pressure distribution against a laterally loaded pile in
cohesionless soil after Broms; (a) free head and (b) fixed head.

The above discussion is in terms of a horizontal shear being applied at the top of the pile.
No mention has been made of any constraint so this applies to a free head pile. The
possibility that the pile head is restrained against rotation must also be considered. Head
fixity increases the ultimate lateral capacity of a pile as a negative fixing moment equal to
the yield moment of the pile section must be mobilised to generate the ultimate capacity.
In the case of a short pole shear failure of the ground adjacent occurs before the plastic
moment of the pile section is reached. The transition between a pole and a pile occurs for
the length at which the fixing moment reaches the plastic moment of the section at the
same load as the capacity of the soil is reached. For a long pile the ultimate capacity of the
system is not reached until the head moment as well as the maximum moment along the
pile shaft reach the yield moment of the pile section.

13.2.2 The Broms and Budhu and Davies methods

The best known approach to estimating the ultimate lateral capacity of a pile is that of
Broms (1968a and b). Broms distinguishes between piles in cohesive soils and those in
cohesionless soils. In each case he proposes a convenient simple method of estimating
the maximum lateral pressure that the soil can mobilise. The approach is intended to
H
u
plastic
hinges
f
c
"elastic"
soil
bending moment soil reaction
9s
u
D
e
o
M
yield
M
yield
b
H
u
plastic
hinge
e
f
c
M
yield
M =H
u
e
D
soil at
failure
"elastic"
soil
9s
u
D
e
o
a
H
u
plastic
hinge
e
f
s
M
yield
M =H
u
e
D
soil at
failure
"elastic"
soil
z
3K
p
D
v
a
H
u
plastic
hinges
f
s
"elastic"
soil
3K
p
D
v
M
yield
M
yield
b
g not e for these two diagrams
258
account for three dimensional effects. The capacity of a given pile can be assessed from
the charts given in the Broms papers. However Budhu and Davies (1986 and 1987) and
Budhu and Davies (1988) have developed simple equations which cover these cases.

Piles in cohesive soils
Broms' proposed pressure distribution for a pile in cohesive soil is given in Figure 13.7 for
the free head and fixed head cases. Brom's recognizes that the actual distribution of lateral
pressure against the pile shaft will be complex when all the soil pressure is mobilised, he
simplifies this by assuming that there will be zero pressure for distance of 1.5 diameters
from the ground surface below which it is 9s
u
D; the notation for this distance is e
o
(Figure
13.7). Broms gives a chart for estimating the lateral pile capacity based on the soil reaction
distribution given in Figure 13.7.

Davies and Budhu (1986) also give expressions which give the ultimate lateral capacity of
piles. We discuss only those for long piles here. The ultimate lateral capacity of a free head
pile embedded in saturated clay is given by:
(

2 0.5
2
c
u u
f ) = (2 + 100 - 10f n
s H D
13.11

where: f is e/D, with e = M/H + e
o
+ g.
and
y
c
3
u
10
M
=
n
s D
13.12
The position of the yield moment (and the length of pile shaft over which failure occurs)
is given by:
u
o
c
u
H
e = +
f
9 D
s
13.13

For the fixed head case the ultimate lateral capacity will be given by:

2 0.5
u
u c
= 2s
H D n
13.14

The above four equations are based on the same assumptions as Broms with the
exception the e
o
for Budhu and Davies is 0.6 m rather than 1.5D for Broms.

The length of pile shaft required for this solution to be valid is:

0.5
c
eff c
n = 0.4D
L
13.15

The above equations give essentially the same prediction for the ultimate lateral capacity as
those of Broms (1964a).

_____________________________________________________

Example 13.1 Consider a reinforced concrete pile 0.75 m in diameter and 20 m in
length. Estimate the ultimate lateral resistance of a pile assuming that the ratio of the
applied ground level pile head actions, horizontal shear to applied moment, is 2.3, that the
yield moment of the pile section is 1575 kNm, and that the undrained shear strength of
the soil is 50 kPa.

271
e = 1/2.3 = 0.43.

To this we add the 0.6 m that Budhu and Davies recommend.

Thus e = 1.03 m and f = 1.03/0.75 = 1.37.

n
c
= 10x1575/50x0.75
3
= 746.7

The effective length of the pile shaft for the valid application of equation 13.9 is:

L
c
= 0.4x0.75x746.7
0.5
= 8.2 m, thus length OK.

H
u
= 50x0.75
2
(41.0 - 10x1.37) = 768 kN ((2x746.7 + 100x1.37
2
)
0.5
= 41.0 )

The depth to the maximum moment is:

f
c
= 768/9x50x0.75 + 0.6 = 2.88 m.
_____________________________________________________

Budhu and Davies (1988) also give a set of equations for ultimate lateral capacity of piles
embedded in normally consolidated clay which has a linear increase in undrained shear
strength with depth, a case not covered by Broms. The ultimate lateral capacity of a free
head pile embedded in normally consolidated saturated clay is:

3 0.67 0.75 -0.25
l l u
( )
exp = 0.5c -2 D n f n H
13.16

where: c is the rate of increase in undrained shear strength with depth (kPa/m).

The ratio n
l
is defined by:

y
l
4
M 10
=
n
c D
13.17

is given by:

u
l
2H
=
f
9cD
13.18

For the fixed head case the ultimate lateral capacity is given by:

3 0.67
l u
= 0.8c D n H
13.19

Piles in cohesionless soils
Broms' proposed pressure distribution for a pile in cohesionless soil is given in Figure 13.8
for both the free head and fixed head cases. Brom's recognizes that the actual distribution
of lateral pressure against the pile shaft will be complex and of a three dimensional nature
when all the soil pressure is mobilised, he simplifies this by assuming that the soil reaction
along the pile shaft is controlled by 3K
p
as shown in the diagram. Broms gives a chart for
258
estimating the lateral pile capacity based on the soil reaction distribution given in Figure
13.8.

The Budhu and Davies (1987) expressions for the ultimate lateral capacity of a free head
pile embedded in cohesionless soil are:

3 0.67 0.75 -0.25
u p s s
= 0.35 exp(-1.6 )
H K D n f n
13.20

where: K
p
is the coefficient of passive earth pressure = (1 + sin|')/(1 - sin|')
and f is M/HD.

The ratio n
s
is defined by:
y
s
4
p
M 10
=
n
K D
13.21

is given by:

u
s
p
H 2
=
f
3 D
K
13.22

where: is the unit weight of the sand chosen to give the effective vertical
stresses (' for a saturated sand).

For the fixed head case the ultimate lateral capacity will be given by:

3 0.67
p c u
= K D n 0.56 H
13.23

0.33
eff s
= 0.8Dn
L
13.24

The length of pile shaft required for this solution to be valid is:

The above equations give essentially the same predictions of pile lateral capacity as those
of Broms (1964b).

____________________________________________________
Example 13.2 Consider a reinforced concrete pile 0.75 m in diameter and 20 m in
length. Assume that the ratio of the applied pile head actions, horizontal shear to applied
moment, is 2.3, that the yield moment of the pile section is 1575 kNm, and that the pile is
embedded in saturated sand with an angle of shearing resistance of 35 degrees.

e = 1/2.3 = 0.43 and f = 0.43/0.75 = 0.57.

K
p
= (1 + sin35)/(1 - sin35) = 3.69

n
s
= 10x1575/3.69x10x0.75
4
= 1349

The effective length of the pile shaft for the valid application of equation 13.18 is:
273

L
c
= 0.8x0.75x1349
0.33
= 6.5 m, thus length OK.

(-1.6x0.57
0.75
x1349
-0.25
) = -0.17 exp(-0.17) = 0.84

H
u
= 0.35x1349
0.67
x3.69x10x0.75
3
x0.84 = 572 kN

The depth to the maximum moment is:

f
c
= (2x572/3x3.69x10x0.75)
0.5
= 3.71 m.

_____________________________________________________

13.3 Pile group capacity

13.3.1 Vertical capacity of a pile group

There are two cases: a free standing group, which has a cap having no interaction with the
underlying soil, and the pile raft in which the group cap is in contact with the underlying
material. The pile raft case is not considered herein.

There are two modes of failure for a group. When there are a large number of closely
spaced piles the soil is so heavily reinforced that it fails as a block. With fewer more
widely spaced piles the capacity of the group is determined by the individual pile
capacities. The concept of group efficiency arises; Poulos and Davis (1980) discuss a
number of ways in which the efficiency is defined. Their preferred definition requires the
evaluation of the ultimate capacity of the block of soil reinforced by the pile group
assuming that it acts as a unit:

G G G G B u c a
= + 2( + )L
V s N c B L B L
13.25

where: V
B
is the ultimate capacity of the block,
L
G
is the length (between pile extremities) of the pile group,
B
G
is the width (between pile extremities) of the pile group,
L is the length of the piles,
N
c
is the deep foundation bearing strength factor (about 9.0 rather than 5.14
for a shallow foundation),
and c
a
is the adhesion along the block boundary.

A similar expression could be developed for an effective stress analysis.

The group efficiency is defined as:

ult . capacity of group

=
sum of ult . caps. of individual piles
13.26

Poulos and Davis suggest the following formula for obtaining the ultimate capacity of the
group:

258

2 2 2 2
G 1 B
1 1 1
= +
V V V n
13.27

where: V
G
is the ultimate capacity of the group,
V
1
is the ultimate capacity of the individual piles,
and n is the number of piles in the group.

The group efficiency is then obtained from:

2 2
1
2
2
B
1
V n
= 1 +
V
13.28
Note that using this approach of Poulos and Davis that the concept of group efficiency is
not needed. They introduce it as other more traditional methods need to evaluate before
the group capacity can be evaluated.

Model tests of pile groups in sand show that the group efficiency may be greater than
unity, Poulos and Davis (1980, p. 36-37).

13.3.2 Combined load capacity of a pile group

We have considered the ultimate vertical capacity of a pile group now we need to look at
the capacity of a group when subject of vertical, shear and moment loading. The challenge
for this is to find a way in which the various mechanisms can contribute to the overall
group capacity without overlooking some mechanism that gives a smaller capacity than
the one chosen. The complication is that the vertical capacity of the piles contributes to
both the vertical and moment capacity of the group and that the piles also contribute to
the shear capacity of the group. Thus we need to find some way of partitioning the way
the capacity of the piles contributes to the various mechanisms.

Figure 13.9 Free body diagram for a 2 x 2 pile free-standing free-head group.

M
V
H
2(H/4) 2(H/4)
[2(V/4) - 2(M/2s)] [2(V/4) +2(M/2s)]
s
275
In Figure 13.9 free body diagrams show how the various applied loads might be split
between the various mechanisms. The free body diagram for the free-standing free-head
group is clear enough. For the fixed-head free-standing case the diagram is very similar
except that the yield moment, M
y
, of the pile section is mobilised at the top of each pile,
this in effect means that the moment applied to the pile group is: M - 4M
y
(in the general
case the factor 4 is replaced by n, where n is the number of piles in the group). In both of
these mechanisms the pile shafts contribute to the moment resistance, the vertical load
resistance as well as the shear capacity of the mechanism. Thus we need to place some
restriction on the way the soil along the pile shaft contributes to these various
mechanisms. It is proposed that no element of soil can contribute resistance to more than one
mechanism. In the case of the horizontal shear this means that a certain length of the pile
shaft should be dedicated to providing horizontal resistance and so it makes no
contribution to the vertical and moment resistance. Referring to section 13.2.2 we have
expressions (equations 13.7 and 13.18) for the length of pile shaft that is required to
develop the ultimate lateral pile capacity.

Note from equations 13.5, 13.10 and 13.14 that the ultimate lateral capacity of the pile is a
function of the yield moment of the pile section. This means that there will be some
possibility for adjusting the relative contributions of the various mechanisms by adjusting
the pile section.

Moment capacity of pile groups
Firstly we need to consider the vertical capacity of the individual piles. We will assume
that they are embedded in a cohesive soil and that a short term total stress assessment is
required. The ultimate downward capacity is denoted as V
D
and the uplift capacity as V
u
.
These are given, using the equations 13.1 to 13.4, by:

b D a u
= LC + 9
V c s A
13.29

where: A
b
is the area of the pile base.

b s U a u
= LC + 9 ( - )
V c s A A
13.30

where: A
s
is the cross-sectional area of the pile shaft.

As the length of the piles increases these two capacities will tend to converge if the soil has
uniform properties. On the other hand if the pile base is founded on a much stronger
layer the two vertical capacities will be substantially different.

For the 2x2 pile group as illustrated in Figure 13.9 we need to consider two limiting cases -
the applied moment acting parallel to the side of the group and across the diagonal of the
group. We will consider the moment parallel case first. From Figure 13.10 we note that
there are three possible capacity mechanisms available for the group when the moment is
applied about an axis parallel to the side of the group. We will look at each of these in
turn.

258

Figure13.10 Moment resistance mechanisms for a 2x2 free-head free-standing pile
group.

Mechanism 1. Moment and force equilibrium give:

=
=
1
2
2
2
cap p D
L D
s
M s V V
V
R V


( )
( )
= +
=
2
2
cap p D U
D U
M s V V
V V V

Note that this mechanism is available only for one value of V.


= +
= +
3
2
2
2
cap p u
R D
s
M s V V
V
R V

These moment relationships are plotted in Figure 13.11, with a little manipulation it is
found that M
cap(1p)
= M
cap(3p)
when V = 18s
u
A
s
.

From Figure 13.10 there are three additional capacity mechanisms when the moment is
applied about a diagonal axis. As above we examine each of these mechanisms in turn.


( )
=
=
4
4
2
3
cap d D
L D
s
M V V
R V V

M
V
M
V
M
V
1
2
3
s
s
R
L
x2
V
D
x2
V
U
x2 V
D
x2
V
U
x2
R
R
x2
Point of rotation
M
V
s
s
s/ 2
4
5
6
R
L V
D
x2 V
D
V
U
V
U
V
U
x2
R
R
R
C
x2
V
D
277

Figure 13.11 Combined vertical load and moment capacity for a free-standing free-
head 2x2 pile group.


( )
( )
= +
+
=
5
2
2
cap d D U
D U
C
s
M V V
V V V
R


( ) = +
= +
6
4
2
3
cap d U
R U
s
M V V
R V V

The moment relationships for mechanisms 4, 5 and 6 are plotted in Figure 13.11 along
with those for mechanisms 1, 2 and 3. If we ask what value of V gives M
cap(4d)
= M
cap(6d)

we get V = 18s
u
A
s
, which is the same value as that obtained for the equality of mechanism
1 and 3. Figure 13.9 shows that the diagonal moment case M
cap(5d)
gives the smallest
moment capacity for values of V up to about 50% of the maximum vertical capacity of
the pile group, 4V
D
, and for larger values of V it is M
cap(1p)
that is critical. In practice this
means that M
cap(5d)
will control design as one would not expect to have a 2x2 pile group
under static conditions carrying a vertical load as great as 50% of the ultimate vertical
capacity of the group.

V
4V
D
4V
U
4
6
3
5
1
2
vertical
failure
uplift failure
2V
D
18s
u
A
s
[4V
D
- 1.4(V
D
+V
U
)]
M/s
258
All these moment capacity relations are plotted in Figure 13.11. It is apparent that the
diagonal case M
cap5d
gives the critical moment capacity for the likely range of vertical
loads.

Similar calculations can be done for the ultimate moment capacity of a 3x3 group. It is
found that once again the diagonal mechanism is critical but that the range of vertical
loads for which it is critical is increased. If the dimensions of the pile cap are the same
then the pile spacing for a 3x3 group will be about half that of a 2x2 group. This would
give the 3x3 group about 40 to 50% more ultimate moment capacity than the 2x2 group
for the same size of pile. On the other hand the efficiency of each pile in a 3x3 group will
be smaller, so the difference between the two will be less.

Free-standing fixed head groups
The free-standing fixed-head pile group is very similar to the above case except that the
moment equilibrated by asymmetric axial loading of the piles is M - nM
y
, n is the number
of piles in the group.
Lateral capacity of pile groups
The lateral load capacity of a group is developed, as explained at the beginning of section
13.3, by assigning the length of the pile shaft given in equations 13.12 and 13.16 to
providing lateral resistance only. This in effect reduces V
D
and V
U
for each pile.

_____________________________________________________

Example 13.3 A simple "building" is shown below. Investigate the ultimate capacity of
the pile group foundation. Take the yield moment of the pile shafts to be 1575 kNm.
Assume that the shaft shear stress assessed from CPT test data is 75% of the undrained
shear strength of the clay. Use 25 kN/m
3
for the unit weight of concrete.

The weight of the structure (assuming the roof loading is equivalent to that of a floor) is:

W = 6x8x8.5
2
= 3468 kN.

The seismic mass is 247.5 tonnes. The spectral acceleration was 0.45g so the base shear is
1093 kN. (These details come from a related example in Chapter 20.)

The base moment is generated by the concentrated mass acting at 0.7 of the building
height. Thus:

M = 0.7x(5x3.5)x1093 = 13389 kNm.

We will evaluate the ultimate lateral capacity of the pile group first. For a fixed head pile
we have from equation 13.12:

n
c
= 10x1575/50x0.75
3
= 746.7

From equation 13.14 the ultimate lateral capacity is:

H
u
= 2x50x0.75
2
x(746.5)
0.5
= 1537 kN

279

Details of the building supported by a 2x2 pile group foundation (more details given
in example 20.3)

The length of pile shaft required to generate this, from equation 13.13, is:

f
c
= 1537/9x50x0.75 + 0.6 = 5.15 m

Note from example 15.2 that a lateral force of about 900 kN generated the yield moment
in the pile shaft. Thus we will restrict our ultimate lateral capacity to 900 kN, rather than
1537 kN, but we will dedicate 5.15 m of each pile shaft to generating this with the
consequence that the length of pile shaft available for axial loading is 14.85 m.

This gives an ultimate lateral capacity for the pile group of 3600 kN (assuming no group
action between the piles as the pile spacing, 7.5 m, is rather greater than the length of pile
shaft required to generate the lateral capacity). Thus the lateral capacity of the group is
easily able to accommodate the applied base shear of 1093 kN.

The weight of each pile is (length 20 m from example 18.3)

5 floors @ 3.5m
2x2 fixed-head free-standing pile group
piles 20 mlong by 0.75 mdiameter
pile spacing 10 diameters
20 m
0.75 m
8.5 m
loading 8 kN/m
2
clay: s
u
=50 kPa, E
s
=500s
u
E
p
=25 GPa
s =10D =7.5 m
s
=
1
0
D
2 3
1
4
=0
o
=45
o
=90
o
8.5 m
258
W
p
= 25x20x3.1416x0.75
2
/4 = 221 kN

The downward vertical capacity of each pile is:

V
ud
= 50x0.75x14.85x3.1416x0.75 + (9x50 + 18x20)x3.1416x0.75
2
/4 221
= 1448 kN

The upward vertical capacity of each pile is:

V
ud
= 50x0.75x14.85x3.1416x0.75 + 221 = 1533 kN

The moment capacity of the group for the diagonal mechanism is M
cap5d
is:

M
u
= 7.5x(1448 + 1533)/1.414 = 15811 kNm.

This moment capacity is generated by axial force increments in two diagonally opposite
piles. Under the applied moment the force increments are:
AF = 13389/1.414x7.5 = 1262.5 kN.

Assuming that each pile in the group continues to carry the one quarter of the weight of
the building the forces in the diagonally opposite piles are:

F
1
= 3468/4 + 1262.5 = 2129.5 kN

F
2
= 3468/4 - 1262.5 = -395.5 kN.

Thus one pile would be subject to a tensile force at the head. For the other a vertical
downward force of 2130 kN is carried. However this downward force is greater than the
downward capacity of 1448 kN estimated above for the reduced pile shaft length (even
with the full 20 m of pile shaft active the downward capacity is still less than the force
generated). Thus the pile group does not have capacity matching or exceeding the applied
actions. As there will be cyclic axial loading of the piles the realizable shaft adhesion is
likely to be less than the 0.75s
u
assumed. This suggests that the free-standing pile group
foundation might exhibit the plunging failure mode inferred by Zeevaert (1991) to have
occurred during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. As discussed in section 2.1.2
Zeevaert's suggestion for avoiding this problem is to have a pile-raft foundation and
mobilise the soil bearing capacity beneath the structure.

As an alternative to the pile-raft solution the pile shafts could be belled to provide greater
base area and hence greater vertical capacity.
_____________________________________________________

281
References

Abdel-Raman, K. and Achmus, M. (2011) Behaviour of foundation piles for offshore
wind energy plants under axial cyclic loading. Proceedings of the 2011 SIMULIA
Customer Conference.
Broms, B. B. (1964a) "Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils", Proc. ASCE, Jnl. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 90 SM3, pp. 27-63.
Broms, B. B. (1964b) "Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils", Proc. ASCE, Jnl.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 90 SM3, pp. 123-156.
Budhu, M. and Davies, T. G. (1987) "Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded piles in
cohesionless soils", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 289-296.
Budhu, M. and Davies, T. G. (1988) "Analysis of laterally loaded piles in soft clays", Jnl.
Geotech. Eng., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Burland, J. B. (2012) Behaviour of single piles under vertical loads. Chapter 22, ICE
Manual of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 231-245. ICE.
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. (1982) Pile bearing capacity by means of static
penetrometer CPT, Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, pp. 493-499.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (2007) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4
th
edition,
pp. 269-272. Bitech, Richmond, British Columbia.
Davies, T. G. and Budhu, M. (1986) "Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded piles in
heavily overconsolidated clays", Geotechnique Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 527-538.
Eslami, A. and Fellenius, B. H. (1997) Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods
applied to 102 case histories, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 886
904.
Fakharian, K. and Evgin, E. (1997) Cyclic simple shear behaviour of sand-steel interfaces
under constant normal stiffness condition. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123 (12), pp. 1096-1105.
Jardine, R., Chow, F., OVery, R and Standing, J (2005) ICP design methods for driven piles in
sands and clay, Thomas Telford, London.
Kempfert, H-G., Eigenbrod, K. D. and Smoltczyk, U. (2003) Pile foundations in:
Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Vol. 3, pp. 84 227. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Lee, C. Y. and Poulos, H. P. (1993) Cyclic analysis of axially loaded piles in calcareous
soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30, pp. 82-95.
Ooi, L. H. and Carter, J. P. (1987) A constant normal stiffness direct shear device for
static and cyclic loading, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 10(1), pp. 3-12.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley.
Poulos, H. P. (1981) Cyclic axial response of a single pile. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 107 (GT1), pp. 41-58.
Poulos, H. G. (1982) "Single pile response to cyclic lateral load", Jnl. Geotech. Eng., Vol.
108 GT 3, pp. 355-377.
Poulos, H. G. (1988) "Some recent developments in pile design and determination of
design parameters", Proc. NZ Geomechanics Society Symposium on Pile
Foundations for Engineering Structures, Hamilton, pp. 1-17.
Poulos, H. G. (1988) "Cyclic stability diagram for axially loaded piles", Jnl. Geotech.
Eng., Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 877-897.
Poulos, H. G. (1989) "Cyclic axial loading analysis of piles in sand", Jnl. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 115 No. 6, pp. 836-852.
Randolph, M. F. (2003) Science and empiricism in pile foundation design,
Geotechnique, Vol. 53, No. 10, pp. 847 877.
258
Turner, J. P. and Kulhawy, F. H. (1990) "Drained uplift capacity of drilled shafts under
repeated axial loading", Jnl. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 470-491.
Verbrugge, J. C. (1986), "Pile foundations design using CPT results", Structural
Engineering Practice, Vol. 3, pp. 93-112.
White, D. J. and Lehane, B. M. (2004) Friction fatigue on displacement piles in sand,
Geotechnique, Vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 645 658.

File: Chapter 13 Ultimate capacity of pile foundations 11/09/2012

Ultimate Capacity of Pile Foundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultimate Capacity of Pile Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

257

ult . capacity of group

You might also like