Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 88

# CE5107 Pile Foundations

Lecture 2b
Axial capacity of pile group
Dr Helen Cheng
Jan 2011

Failure mechanism
Capacity of pile group may not be equal to the sum of
capacities of individual piles.
The ratio of the two capacity is termed the efficiency of the
pile group.
Pressure bulbs of neighbouring piles
tend to overlap, creating greater stress
concentration on the surrounding soil.
This leads to greater settlement of the pile group and is
termed group interaction.
Soil will fail in shear (local failure) or the pile group will
settle excessively (block failure)
2

## PILE GROUP EFFECTS ON AXIAL CAPACITY

Efficiency:
= Group Capacity / Individual Pile
Capacities.
For groups in clay, usually < 1
For groups driven in sand, usually > 1
For groups (bored) in sand, ~ 0.67
For end bearing groups, usually ~ 1

## BS 8004 recommends that

Friction piles
pile centre to centre spacing (s) > perimeter of square piles; or
> 3 times pile diameter of circular piles
End bearing piles
distance between surface of shafts of adjacent piles
> least width of the pile
4

## PILE GROUP EFFECTS ON AXIAL CAPACITY

Local failure:
Pile group capacity QG = h m n Q
For clay, (after Converse-Labarre):

## PILE GROUP EFFECTS ON AXIAL CAPACITY

Group capacity (PG) is lesser of:
Sum of individual pile capacities (P1)
Capacity of block containing piles + soil (PB)
Poulos & Davis (1980)

## PILE GROUP EFFECTS ON AXIAL CAPACITY

Load transfer to soil from pile group (Tomlinson):

## PILE GROUP EFFECTS ON AXIAL CAPACITY

Block failure:
Estimated using conventional theory:
For sand:

For clay:

B and L are the breath and Length of the pile group in plan
h is the embedded depth (Skempton 1951)

## OTHER CASES FOR PILE GROUPS

GROUP WITH CAP ON SURFACE
Group capacity (PG) is lesser of:
Sum of individual pile capacities + capacity of net area of cap
Capacity of block containing piles & soil, + capacity of
portion of cap outside block perimeter.
GROUP ON PROFILE WITH UNDERLYING WEAK
LAYER
Take capacity as lesser of individual pile capacities, or
capacity of block.
EFFECT OF WEAKER UNDERLYING LAYERS CAN BE
VERY IMPORTANT!!
OPTIMISING PILE SUPPORT USE OF PILED RAFTS
(If interest, see Randolph M.F. (2003), Science and empiricism in
pile foundation design. Geotechnique 53, No. 10, 847-875.

10

11

Piled Rafts

## Share load between raft and piles

Focus more on stiffness design
Piles as settlement reducers
Favourable circumstances
Where raft can provide reasonable
stiffness & load capacity e.g. Stiff clay, dense sands
Where induced soil movement do not occur

## Unfavourable circumstances for piled rafts

Soft clay or loose sands near surface
Compressible layers at depth
Where consolidation settlement or swelling
movements of soil may occur

12

## CE5107 Pile Foundations

Lecture 3 Settlements of Piles
and Pile Groups
Dr Helen Cheng
Jan 2011

13

## Lecture 3 Learning Objectives

Elastic settlement of single piles
Analysis of pile-soil interaction
Settlement of pile groups
Settlement ratio method
Equivalent raft method
Equivalent pier method

Estimation of parameters
14

RA

Ap

d / 4
2

## RA = area of pile section Ap

bounded by outer
circumference of pile

15

## THE BASIC PROBLEMS

Equivalent Solid Cylindrical Pile:

16

## SETTLEMENT OF SINGLE PILES

ELASTIC ANALYSIS
Closed Form Solutions
Randolph & Wroth (1979) uniform &
Gibson soil profiles, friction & end-bearing
piles

Chart Solutions
Poulos & Davis (1980) uniform soil profile
Poulos (1979) Gibson soil profile

17

## Randolph & Wroth (1979)

Equations (Model)
Pt
wt

18

## Randolph Method (1979)

Basic assumption is that shaft
and base settlements can be
considered separately.
Modification to assumption to
account for interaction between
upper and lower layers of soil
(AB), reducing the deformations
to negligible size at some radius
rm

19

## Randolph Method (1979)

Deformation of Pile Shaft
The settlement of pile shaft is:

ws 0r0 / G

(1)

## where ln(rm / r0 ) = ln0.25 (2 (1 ) 0.25 L / r0

The ratio of total shaft load to pile displacement is:
Ps
2 r0 L 0 2 L

Gr0 ws
Gr0 ws
r0

(2)

## This ratio is non-dimensionalized by shear modulus (G) and pile

radius r0.
The values of ws and 0 are average values down the pile shaft.
20

## Randolph Method (1979)

Deformation of Pile Base
The pile base acts as a rigid punch on the lower layer soil (Fig.1b).
The load-settlement ratio is from Boussinesq solution:
Pb
4

Gr0 wb (1 )

(3)

## Combination of Shaft and Base Displacement

For rigid pile, the settlement of pile shaft is uniform and equal to that
at the pile base. The combined load-settlement ratio is:
Pt
P
P
4
2 L
b s

(4)
21

22

## Randolph Method (1979)

The solution for compressible piles and non-homogeneous soils
with stiffness increasing linearly with depth is:

Pt
4
2 L tanh(L)
4
1 L tanh(L)

/ 1

Gr0 wt h (1 )
r0
L h (1 ) r0
L

(5)

Where:
Soil Poisson ratio
h r0 / rb (ratio of radius of pile shaft / radius of pile base)
GL / Gb (ratio of Shear Modulus of soil at depth L / below soil
base)
ln(rm / r0 ) ln(influence radius/pile radius)
GL / 2 / GL (ratio of shear modulus at mid-pile depth to pile depth)

L 2 / 0.5 L / r0
23

## Randolph Method (1979)

1/ 2
For rigid piles, (that is wt / wb 1.2 and L / r0 (0.5 )

Pt
4
2 L

Gr0 wt h (1 )
r0

(6)

## For compressible piles, the variation of settlement down the pile is

approximately:

w( z ) wb cosh[ ( L z )]

(7)

The ratio of settlement between top (z=0) and base of pile is:

wtop / wb cosh(L)

(8)
24

## Randolph Method (1979)

For end bearing piles, with very stiff base ( 0.01) , The terms
containing (1 / h ) dominate in Eqn.(5), and the load-settlement ratio
reduces to:
Pt

Gr0 wt L / r0 tanh(L)

(9)

## For stiff piles, tanh(L) L , and the load-settlement ratio is the

elastic compression of the pile:
wt

Pt
L
P
t L
GL r0 r0 E p Ap

(10)

25

## Test of Eqn.(5) for Compressible

Piles
Test of Eqn.(4 and 6) for Rigid
Piles
26

27

## Design Chart from Eqn.(5) from Randolph Method

Floating Pile in Soft Clay

Contours of P/w become parallel to L-axis for large L/ro; this implies
inefficient design

For Floating piles, increasing length of long (compressible) pile show little
reduction in the P/w ratio
Limits of efficient design shown by dashed line

28

## Design Chart from Eqn.(5) Randolph Method

End-bearing Pile in laterite

Contours of P/w become parallel to Ep-axis for Ep; this implies inefficient
design
For End-bearing piles, beyond a certain Ep, little shaft compression occurs,
thus nothing is gained by increasing Ep further
Limits of efficient design shown by dashed line

29

DesignChartforSinglePilebasedon
Randolf andWroth(1978)theory

SETTLEMENTS

30

## Essentially Rigid pile:

Very compressive pile:
31

## What is minimum shaft settlement to mobilize full shaft friction?

From Eqn.(1), the shaft settlement is given by:

wt / r0 0 / G; typically 3
The ultimate shaft friction is: ( 0 ) f cu
Thus, the shaft settlement to cause full shaft friction may be taken as:

( wt / r0 ) f 3

G / cu

(11)

## Typical values for Soft NC Clays: 1.0; G / cu 50

Typical values for Stiff OC Clays: 0.5; G / cu 150
Therefore the reasonable limits for shaft settlement to mobilize full
shaft friction are:
STIFF CLAYS 0.01 (wt / r0 ) f 0.06 SOFT CLAYS
32

ANALYSIS OF PILE-SOIL
INTERACTION

## Simplified analytical solutions (Randolph)

Load-transfer (t-z) methods
Boundary element methods
Finite element methods

## For given set of data, all these methods give similar

results.
Attention here is focused on solutions from finite
element method, using elastic continuum theory to
characterize soil behaviour.
Allowances can be made readily for non-linear soil
plastic behaviour.
33

## ADVANTAGES OF ELASTICBASED ANALYSES

Continuous soil model; allows stress
transmission
Consistent model parameters understood
Can analyze group behaviour
Can modify to allow for non-linear and cyclic
loading effects.
Can use:
Parametric solutions (Poulos & Davis, Randolph &
Wroth, Butterfield & Banerjee)
Computer programs for problems involving layered
soils or non-uniform pile
34

## WHEN MAY A COMPUTER

ANALYSIS BE NECESSARY?
When problem falls outside range of available
parametric solutions
When detailed information on load transfer is
desired
When soil profile is layered
When pile section is non-uniform
When require load-settlement curve to failure
For pile groups, when load and settlement
distributions are required
For examination of mechanisms of deformation
35

LOAD TRANSFER
CHARACTERISTICS

## Effect of pile compressibility on

shear stress distribution along pile

## Load distribution along pile effect

of stiffness of bearing stratum
36

## Load Transfer to Pile Tip

0CK CV
Friction piles

(friction
pile)

0CK CV Cb
End bearing piles

37

## PROPORTION OF BASE LOAD

ON PILE FACTORS CK, C

38

## PROPORTION OF BASE LOAD

ON PILE FACTOR Cb

39

## FEM Validation of Load Transfer

Load P=1000 kN
D=1m
L=25m
Es=10000 kPa
Use Dummy Plate to get
Axial Forces Distribution

Ep=1000Es ie K=1000

## Plate has EA and EI 1E6

times smaller than real pile
solid properties

ns=0.49

40

Eb/Es=10000

Eb/Es=100

d=2.85 mm

d=3.40 mm

Eb/Es=10

Eb/Es=1

d=5.74 mm

d=8.45 mm

41

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10000

Eb/Es=100

d = 2.85 mm

d = 3.40 mm

db = 0.001 mm

db = 0.66 mm

Compr = 2.85 mm

Compr = 2.74 mm

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10

Eb/Es=1

d = 5.74 mm

d = 8.45 mm

db = 3.51 mm

db = 6.73 mm

Compr = 2.23 mm

Compr = 1.72 mm

42

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10000

Eb/Es=100

Pb=820 kN

Pb=740 kN

Pb/P=0.82

Pb/P=0.74

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10

Eb/Es=1

Pb=370 kN

Pb=100 kN

Pb/P=0.37

Pb/P=0.10

43

## FEM Validation of Load Transfer

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10000

Eb/Es=100

s = 2.3 kN/m2
Ps = sPiDL = 180 kN
Ps/P=0.18
Pb/P=0.82

s = 3.3 kN/m2
Ps = sPiDL = 260 kN
Ps/P=0.26
Pb/P=0.74

P=1000 kN

P=1000 kN

Eb/Es=10

Eb/Es=1

s = 8.0 kN/m2
Ps = sPiDL = 630 kN
Ps/P=0.63
Pb/P=0.37

## Skin Friction Shear Stress Distribution

s = 11.5 kN/m2
Ps = sPiDL = 903 kN
Ps/P=0.90
Pb/P=0.10

44

K=Ep/Es=50

K=Ep/Es=1000

K=Ep/Es=5000

d = 22.28 mm

d = 8.45 mm

db = 2.51 mm

d = 7.51 mm

db = 6.73 mm

db = 7.15 mm

Compr = 19.77 mm

Compr = 1.72 mm

Compr = 0.36 mm

45

K=Ep/Es=50

K=Ep/Es=1000

K=Ep/Es=5000

d = 22.28 mm

d = 8.45 mm

d = 7.51 mm

db = 2.51 mm

db = 6.73 mm

db = 7.15 mm

Compr = 19.77 mm

Compr = 1.72 mm

Compr = 0.36 mm

46

K=Ep/Es=50

K=Ep/Es=1000

K=Ep/Es=5000

P = 1000 kN

P = 1000 kN

P = 1000 kN

Pb = 30

Pb = 100

Pb = 120

Pb/P = 0.03

Pb/P = 0.1

Pb/P = 0.12

47

K=Ep/Es=50

K=Ep/Es=1000

K=Ep/Es=5000

s = 12.5 kN/m2

s = 12.6 kN/m2

## P/PiDL = 12.7 kN/m2

sP/PiDL = 1.0

sP/PiDL = 1.0

s = 40 kN/m2
P/PiDL = 12.7 kN/m2

sP/PiDL = 3.1

s = 4 kN/m2
P/PiDL = 12.7 kN/m2
sP/PiDL = 0.31

## Skin Friction Shear Stress Distribution

48

Summary of Findings
Ratio of Load Transfer to pile base is strongly
dependent on ratio of Eb/Es; ie the relative
stiffness of soils around pile base compared to
soils around pile shaft
The shape of skin friction distribution is more
dependent upon Ep/Es; ie the relative stiffness
of pile material to soils around pile shaft
Soil strengths serve to limit the values of
maximum skin friction and end bearing that can
be mobilized
49

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF
BEHAVIOUR
Major part of settlement is IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
(typically >80%)
Effect of compressibility is important for long slender
piles. For long compressible piles, settlement is little
influence by soil stiffness at pile tip.
For piles of normal proportions in clay, the loadsettlement behaviour is largely linear at normal working
loads. Thus, elastic theory can be used directly.
Nonlinear effects are important when piles derive much
of their capacity from base resistance,
Examples are: Piles in sand
Piles with enlarged base
Large diameter bored piles

50

## SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

METHODS OF ANALYSIS -Hand

## Interaction factor method

Settlement ratio method
Equivalent raft method
Equivalent pier method

51

INTERACTION FACTOR
METHOD

52

parameters

53

## Decreases as s/d increases

Decreases as K decreases
Decreases as L/D decreases
Less for end bearing than friction piles
Less for non-homogeneous than homogeneous
profiles
Increases as s increases
Increases if base enlarged
Decreases if soil between piles is stiffer
54

between piles

55

56

57

## Solution of group settlement for typical pile

head conditions
Known loads (flexible pile cap)
Settlement of each pile is calculated directly.
Will have differential settlements within the group

## Settlement of all piles equal

Pile loads unknown
Form equations for each pile in group
Solve equations for unknown loads & group settlement

Analysis requires:
Interaction factors
Settlement of single pile
58

59

## SETTLEMENT RATIO METHOD

FOR GROUP SETTLEMENT

60

61

## SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

-EQUIVALENT RAFT METHOD

62

## Settlement Analysis by the

Equivalent Raft/Footing Method
FILLS, etc.

G.W.

Equivalent Footing
placed at the Location
of the Neutral Plane

2:1 distribution

## The compressibility in this

zone must be of soil and pile
combined

## Settlement of the piled foundation is caused

by the compression of the soil due to increase
of effective stress below the neutral plane
from external load applied to the piles and, for
example, from fills, embankments, loads on
adjacent foundations, and lowering of
groundwater table.

Ecombined

Apile E pile

Asoil Esoil

Apile Asoil

2:1 distribution

63

64

## SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

-EQUIVALENT PIER METHOD

65

66

## Settlements due to underlying compressible

layers
Interaction factor approach
Require interaction factors for the appropriate soil
profile

Approximate Approach
S = settlement of group in founding layer + additional
settlement due to underlying layers (S)
Compute S from:
1-D analysis
Equivalent pier analysis, via calculation of settlement of
underlying layers from elastic theory

67

## Settlement of pier due to underlying

compressible layers

68

GROUP SETTLEMENT

69

## Lessons from comparisons

Assessment of soil modulus values is critical
The method of analysis is less critical (provided
it is sound)
Beware of analyzing very large groups of piles
with the interaction factor method. There is a
potential for significant over-estimation of
settlements
Equivalent raft and pier analyses are useful
checks on the order of group settlement and
should always be carried out in addition to
computer analyses
70

## ESTIMATION OF SOIL PARAMETERS

Soil modulus (Es) is the key parameter.
Laboratory Testing
Not usually useful because of Differences between
stress paths in lab and field
Difficulty of accounting for installation effects

## Interpretation of Load Tests

Fit theory to observed behaviour
Usually the most satisfactory method
Most correlations are for SECANT MODULUS at a typical design load
level
Can also correlate initial tangent modulus and degrade with stress level
71
e.g. hyperbolic curve

in clay

72

in sand

73

## Estimation of soil parameters crude

correlations with CPT

74

75

## Back-analysis of Pile Load Tests

Method is very useful for getting Elastic Soil Stiffness from Pile Load Tests Data
76

GROUP SETTLEMENT
Program

Originator

Features

PIGLET

Randolph

## Simplified linear analysis

with interaction factors

PGROUP

Banerjee

## Linear boundary element

analysis

DEFPIG

Poulos

Simplified boundary
element analysis with
interaction factors; nonlinear capability

PGROUP

ONeill

## Hybrid: t-z (&p-y)

analyses for single pile,
elastic theory for group
interaction

Coffey Geosciences

## PILE GROUP CASES ANALYSED

PG

PG

h = 1.5L
s

E1

E1
E2

E2
(a) Floating pile group
Coffey Geosciences

## COMPARISON BETWEEN SOLUTIONS FOR

GROUP SETTLEMENT
1.4
1.2

Values of E 2 /E 1
0.2

SG E 1 d/PG

1.0

DEFPIG analysis
Equivalent pier analysis
Equivalent raft analysis

0.8
0.6

1.0

0.4
L/d
s
K
s/d

0.2
0
Coffey Geosciences

=
=
=
=

25
0.3
1000
3
2

5.0

3
n

## APPLICATION TO CASE IN JAPAN

Coffey Geosciences

## SENSITIVITY STUDY- CASE OF

ONEILL (1982)
Factors for decision:
Method of analysis & associated soil model
Idealization of soil profile
Geotechnical parameters

Coffey Geosciences

## SENSITIVITY STUDY- EFFECT OF

ANALYSIS METHOD

Coffey Geosciences

## SENSITIVITY STUDY- EFFECT OF

SOIL PROFILE IDEALIZATION

Coffey Geosciences

## SENSITIVITY STUDY- EFFECT OF

SOIL MODULUS CORRELATION

Coffey Geosciences

CASE OF GOOSENS & VAN IMPE (1991) SOIL PROFILE & PARAMETERS

Depth (m)

10

20

30

Fill

Average cone
resistance. M Pa
<1
10

Youngs M odulus
E s M Pa
3
100

Clayey
sand

60

80

Medium stiff
clay
Rel. dense sand

1.5

11

12

42

Tertiary
clay

3.5

26

Very dense
sand

200
(assum ed)

40

50

Coffey Geosciences

## COMPARISON BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS

0

Measurement Point
2
2A
3

Settlement (mm)

100

200

300

400

Coffey Geosciences

500

## Com puted S TF for equivalent raft

M easured at 25-2-87
Com puted from DEFPIG group
interaction calculations
Com puted by M andolini
& Viggiani (1997)

## Assessment of soil modulus values is critical

The method of analysis is less critical (provided it
is sound)
Beware of analyzing very large groups of piles
with the interaction factor method. There is a
potential for significant over-estimation of
settlements
Equivalent raft and pier analyses are useful
checks on the order of group settlement and
should always be carried out in addition to
computer analyses

Coffey Geosciences