THE DESIGN OF PILES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE H.G. Poulos Coffey Geosciences Pry. Lid. The University of Sydney ABSTRACT ‘This paper discusses the application of limit state design philosophy to pile design in Australia, with specific reference to the revised Australian Standard Piling Code. The main broad issues that must be addressed in design are summarized and the general design criteria are outlined. No attempt is made to describe in detail methods of analysis ‘and design; these are not prescribed in the code and may be selected by the designer. Rather, some issues following on from the code provisions are discussed, in particular, the design of piles for negative friction, the design of pile groups, the design of piled raft foundations, and he structural design of ples. 1 INTRODUCTION ‘The design of pile foundations, like other foundation types, requires consideration firstly of overall stability or failure, and then consideration of movements under the design loadings. The design objectives are quite clear: 1 tohave an adequate margin of safety against overall failure 2 tohave movements which do not execed those assessed (0 be tolerable to the structure being supported. ‘The waditional approach to pile design has tor approach for the consideration of ‘overall stability, such that {0 adopt an overall safety f Factor of Safety FS = Ultimate Resistance / Design Loading a It has been traditional for FS to be typically between 2 and 3.5 for pile foundations, depending on the level of uncertainty and the consequences of failure. In recent years, there has been a move towards a limit state design approach, which, in application, is effectively a partial safety factor approach. Such an approach is not new in geotechnical engineering, having been proposed by Brinch Hansen (1965) and Simpson et al (1981), among others. However, the adoption of limit state design philosophy by structural engineers has forced the geotechnical fraternity to put aside the traditional approach and adopt a procedure which is unfamiliar, albeit logical from many viewpoints. ‘There are two broad approaches to Timit state desiga: ‘© the partial factor of safety approach: In this case. the design criterion for stability is R 2 Lak @ where R’ = resistance calculated using the design suength parameters obtained by reducing the characteristic strength values with partial factors of safety (4, = load factors Fi applied loadings the Load and Resistance Factored Approach (LRED): ‘The design criterion in this case is ‘Ausvallan Gecmecharics Dec 1999 25AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS @.R2E0F @) where @ = strength reduction factor. ‘This paper discusses the application of limit state design philosophy to pile design in Australia, with specific reference to the revised Australian Standard Piling Code, which adopts the LRFD approach. No attempt is made to describe methods of analysis and design, which are not prescribed in the code and may be selected by the designer. Rather, some issues following on from the code provisions are discussed, in particular, the design of piles for negative friction, the design of pile groups, the design of piled raft foundations, and the structural design of piles. 2. THE AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE - AS 2159 - 1995 ‘The “new” Australian Piling Code was published in 1995, and superseded the previous code published in 1978. That code had been framed in the traditional overall safety factor format, and had been used widely and successfully by a large number of engineers engaged in pile design. The 1995 Code is frased in limit state format, to be consistent with other civil engineering codes published by Standards Australia. 21g 1G ENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ‘There are three broad requirements for design in the piling code: 1 Design for Ultimate Strength (both structural and geotechnical) 2 Design for Serviceability 3. Design for Durability. ‘Attention will be focussed here on the first wo aspects, which generally require quantitative evaluation, ‘The code uses the LRFD approach, so that, in simple terms, the design requirement for the ultimate limit state is as follows: Factored - down pile strength > Factored - up loadings (or “design action effects”) cy ‘Various combinations of loadings are specilied in the section dealing with design requirements. These combinations reflect those in the Australian Standard dealing with structural loadings (AS 1170.1). For serviceability, the design criterion is simply: Movement at Serviceability Loading < Allowable Movement oo ‘Although it is customary to consider direct structural loadings on piles, the Piling Code specifies that the design must ‘consider the “design action effects” arising from the following sources: 1. Ioads and other actions specified in the loading code 2 dead loads of pile and pile cap 3 soil movement, negative friction, expansive soils and earth movements. 4 handling 5 installation 6 any other additional loads and actions that may be applied, such as impact, dynamic loading, water pressures, ‘and scour. 22 DESIGN FOR STRUCTURAL STRENGTH. ‘The design criterion for structural strength can be stated as follows: Ree st © 28 Australian Geomechanics ~ Dec 1993AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS where R,* = design structural strength SH = design action effect. R.* may be obtained as follows: Re = ® Ry oO where, = structural strength reduction factor Ry= ultimate structural strength. Values of ©, may be obtained from appropriate codes for the pile material in question. Equations 6 and 7 apply, as appropriate, to the axial, bending and shear strengths of a pile. For concrete piles, the relevant code is AS 3600, Further reduction factors are applied for piles, in the range 1.0 to 0.75, depending on installation conditions. Moreover, for grouted piles, an additional reduction factor applies, ‘depending on the soil type. The additional reduction factor ranges from 0.5 to 0.65 for clays and fine rock, to 0.65 0.75 for sandy soils and coarse rock. For steel piles, ©, is obtained from AS 4100, Allowance is also made for loss of section due to corrosion. For timber piles, a problem exists at present, in dhat the relevant code (AS 1720.1) is not written in limit state format. In this case, R,* is obtained as: Ry* = 1.68 * permissible stress * Strength reduction factor** cross - sectional aren (8) 23. DESIGN FOR GEOTECHNICAL STRENGTH ‘The criterion for geotechnical strength design is as follows Rye S* o where Ret = design geotechnical strength S# = design action effet. (the factored-down pile resistance, in effect) is obtained as follows: Rye =. Ry a0) where @, = geotechnical strength reduction factor Ru, = ultimate geotechnical stength. Equation 10 has two interesting features: L the sora! ultimate geotechnical strength (i.e, the ultimate pile load capacity), is factored, rather than the individual shaft and base capacity components 2 the ultimate geotechnical strength is computed from values of unit shaft and base resistance computed from tunfactored soit strength parameters. This LRFD approach (sometimes termed the “American Approach” to Timit state design) is in contrast to other applications such as retaining structures, where the soil strength parameters are factored prior to the calculations being carried out (.c. the partial factor approach). ‘The Australian Piling Code specifies ranges of values of ®, as indicated in Table 1, The factors influencing the value of the geotechnical strength reduction factor include: 1 the method of assessing Rug 2 the confidence in the geotechnical data Austaian Geomechanics —Dec 189927AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS ‘Method of assessment of ultimate geotechnical strength ‘Statie load testing to failure Static proof (not to failure) load testing (NOTE 1) Dynami load testing to failure supported by signal matching (NOTE 2) Dynamic load testing to failure not supported by signal matching Dynamic proof (aot to feilure) load testing supported by signal matching (NOTES 1 and 2) Dynamic proof (not to failure) load testing not supported by signal Range of values of @ 0.70-0.90 07-090 0.65-0.85 0.50-0.70 0.65-0.85 0.50-0.70 ‘matching (NOTE 1) Static analysis using CPT dats Static analysis using SPT data in cohesionless soils Static analysis using laboratory data for cohesive soils, Dynamic a lysis using wave equation method Dynamic analysis using driving formulae for piles in rock Dynamic analysis using driving formulae for piles in sand Dynamic analysis using driving formulae for piles in clay Measurement during installation of proprietary displacement piles, using well established in-house formulae NOTES: 1.6, should be applied to the maximum load applied. 045-065 0.40-0.55 0.45-0.55 0.45-0.55 0.50-0.65 0.45-0.55 Note 2 050-065 2 Signal matching of the recorded data obtained from dynamic load testing should be undertaken on representative test piles using a full wave signal matching process. 3. Caution should be exercised in the sole use of dynamic formulae (e.g. Hiley) for the determination of the ultimate geotechnical strength of piles in clays. In pavticular, the dymamic measurements will not measure the ‘set-up’ which occurs afer completion of driving. It is preferable that assessment be first made by other methods, with correlation then made with dynamic methods oo @ sit these later are to be used for site driving control, specific basis if 4 For cases not covered in Table 4.1. values of @, should be chosen using the stated values as a guide. ‘Table 1 Range of valves for geotechnical strength reduction factor @, (AS 2159 — 1995) Circumstances in which lower end of range may be appropriate Circumstances in which upper end of range may be appropriate Limited site investigation Comprehensive site investigation Simple method of calculation More sophisticated design method Average geotechnical properties used Geotechnical properties chosen conservatively Use of published correlations for design parameters Use of site-specific correlations for design parameters Limited construction control Careful construction control Less than 3% piles dynamically tested 15% or more piles dynamically tested Less than 1% piles statically tested 3% or more piles statically tested ‘Table 2 Guide for assessment of geotechnical sirength reduction factor (AS 2159 ~ 1995) 28 Austrian Geomechanies ~ Dee 1998AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS. 3. the extent of testing to be carried out prior to final design. ‘The Code does not specify or recommend methods of computing the ultimate geotechnical strength Rag, in contrast to the earlier code. Instead, it leaves the choice of method open (o the designer, although an extensive list of references is provided in the supplementary commentary volume. ‘To assist in the assessment of the effects of the latter (wo aspects on the appropriate value of ®,, the guide shown in ‘Table 2 is provided as an aid to judgement. ‘The values of © in Table 1 would ideally be obtained from a careful statistical analysis of a great deal of data on pile performance. However, it must be admitted that they have been based primarily on experience and calibration with traditional values of overall factor of safety given in the now-superseded Piling Code of 1978, 24 DESIGN FOR SERVICEABILITY Design for serviceability generally involves the assessment of foundation movements under the serviceability loadings, ‘with the design criterion being that the deflections should not exceed the deflection limits (equation 5). These values are selected to be appropriate to the structure and its intended use. No specific requirements are stated in the Piling Code, but there are several sources of guidance in the literature, especially with respect to allowable settlements and differential settlements for various types of structure (e.g. Wahis, 1994), In assessing the geotechnical parameters for calculating the expected deflections, no reduction factor is applied to the parameters, which should be “appropriately selected”. ‘Allowance should be made for a number of factors, including group effects, the influence of compressible underlying layers, and the additional pile deflections arising from extemnally-imposed ground movements. The most common Source of such ground movements is settlement arising from consolidation of clay soils, which gives rise to negative friction in piles, This subject is considered further in Section 3.1 below. 2.5 THE PROBLEM OF NON-LINEAR ANALYSES ‘Most traditional design methods are relatively simplistic and separate the consideration of ultimate limit state design from serviceability design, The former is usually handled with a simple calculation involving the summation of shaft and base resistances, while the latter is often treated via a linear settlement or lateral deflection analysis. However, there is an increasing trend towards the use of nonlinear analyses (for example, the computer code FLAC) which ‘compute the entire load-detlection behaviour of piles and pile groups, perhaps as part of a larger structure-foundation system.. In this case, a problem arises because the consideration of the ultimate limit state requires that the resistances be factored by an appropriate geotechnical reduction factor, whercas, for the serviceability limit state, reduction factors do not need to be applied If the loadings are complex, and the mode of failure is not well-defined, it may not always be possible to carry out a single analysis and then factor down the ultimate resistances, since the ultimate resistances for all loading modes may not be identified or reached in the analysis. An altemative approach would be to adopt the partial safety factor approach, in which the fundamental strength parameters of the soils are reduced. While this may be appropriate for the ultimate limit state analysis, it is not appropriate for the serviceability analysis, in which unfactored soi parameters are used, ‘An example of the effects of applying or not applying geotechnical reduction factors in a nonlinear analysis is illustrated in the simple example shown in Figure I. For a 12.m long bored pile in clay, an estimate is required of the pile head deflection under the serviceability loading of 200 KN. A boundary element computer program has been used for the calculations. Figure 2 shows the computed load-deflection curves for wo cases! 1a geotechnical reduction factor of 0.5 applied to the assessed ultimate lateral pressures, and a structural reduction factor of 0.8 applied to the ultimate moment capacity a factor applied to the assessed ultimate lateral pressures of the ultimate moment capacity. ‘Australian Geomechanics —Dec 199929AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS For serviceability condition H=200kN —H Stiff Clay: cy = 80 kPa Pu = 720 kPa (unfactored) 120 & 360 kPa (factored) E, =20MPa Vs =03 coe LL Pile: Ey =30,000 MPa ‘My = 0.36 MNm (unfactored) & 0.28 MNm (factored) Figure 1 Example of laterally loaded pile 500 Analysis using Unfactored Geotechnical and Structural Strength Parameters 2 30 = § 5 200 SS Analysis using Factored 100 Geotechnical and Structural Strength Parameters 0 10 20 30 40 50 Pile Head Deflection (mm) Figure 2 Comparison of computed load-deflection curves 20 Austrian Geomechanics - Dec 1998AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS It wall be seen from Figure 2 that the computed deflections for case 1 are larger than for case 2, especially at higher loads. At the serviceability load of 200 KN, the computed deflection from the analysis using factored parameters (case 1) is about 26 mm, compared to about 16 mm for the unfactored parameters (case 2). This represents an over-estimate of about 60 % when factored parameters are used, and could lead to over-conservative design in order to satisfy the serviceability requirements. ‘Such an apparent anomaly therefore has significant consequences in pile design. It is clear that a single analysis ‘cannot properly serve both the ultimate limit state and the serviceability state design purposes. Therefore, it appears that 1wo analyses need (0 be carried out, the first using factored geotechnical and structural strength parameters 10 assess the design requirements for the ultimate limit state, and the second using unfactored geotechnical and structural strength parameters to assess the performance of the piles for the serviceability state. The rational interpretation of the results in Figure 2 is then that, from the analysis with the factored parameters, the design geotechnical strength for lateral loading is 250 KN, while for the analysis with the unfactored parameters, the lateral pile head deflection at the serviceability load is 16 mm. White double analyses may not require a great dcal of additional effort for relatively simple cases such as that shown in Figure 1, more complex analyses employing the finite element method or the computer code FLAC (Itasca, 1991) ray require significant extra cost and effort, The costing of such analyses should reflect the additional effort and time involved in undertaking two sets of calculations. 3 SOME SPECIAL PROBLEMS 3.1 PILE DESIGN FOR NEGATIVE FRICTION ‘There is a widespread misconception that negative friction leads (o a reduction in the ultimate geotechnical capacity of piles. Consequently, some methods of design attempt to compute a reduced axial loud capacity in which the downdrag, Toad caused by negative friction is subtracted from the original load capacity, Such a concept is not valid for the ‘geotechnical ultimate limit state since a pile can only tail geotechnically if the pile moves past the soil, whereas negative friction requires the soil to move past the pile. Negative friction is in fact a serviceability problem, and also a structural ultimate limit state problem. The main ‘concerns for design are therefore two-fold: 1 the additional downdrag forces induced in the pile by negative ftietion, and their effect on the structural ultimate Fimit state 2 the additional settlement of the pile head, and the consequent effect on the serviceability limit state ‘A simple design approach is suggested below for making both assessments. For the purposes of explanation, the simplified problem shown in Figure 3 is considered. A pile of length L is located in a soil profile consisting of a ‘consolidating layer of thickness L, underlain by a “stable” (ie. non-setling) layer. It is assumed that the settlement of the soft soil decreases linearly with depth, from Sp at the surface to zero at depth L). The neutral plane, that is, whe location along the pile where the pile friction changes trom negative to positive, is at a depth 2p fit assumed that the ultimate negative skin friction is mobilized along the portion of the pile in the settling soil, and that the positive and negative friction values in the settling soil are the same, the depth of the neutral plane may be shown t0 be as follows: OS Ly # fade Jt + (sy = POD / BC) ay erage ultimate skin friction in upper layer wverage ultimate skin friction in lower stable layer jength of pile in setting layer length of pile in stable soil layer 4, = ultimate end bearing capacity of pile base pile base ar ipplicd load at pile head circumference of pile shatl where fy ‘Australian Geomechanics -Dec 1999 31AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE Po Pile ultimate shaft and base resistances Figure 3 Consolidating “Stable” layer Po ete HG POULOS Distribution of soil movement with depth nplified negative Iriction problem Py +P | Neutral plane Pile head = elastic compression of free-standing movement length Ly + settlement of pile of length Ly subjected to load (Fy + Fy) (@) Option 1 ~ Pile movement stabilizes with increasing soil movernent @2Ly) q ----} Layer 1 Esp fst Layer2 Esp feo sabe Founding layer Egy fy ‘Soil Movement Distribution Pile head movernent Sp = Sq (b) Option 2 - Pile movement continues to increase with increasing soil movement (2, <1) Figure 4. Simplified approaches to estimating pile bead movement 82 —_Austalan Geomechsnis ~ Dec 1999AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS It may be shown that, in order to limit the settlement of the pile head undergoing negative friction, itis necessary to hhave the neutral plane at or below the depth of soil movement ie. eh a2 If this condition is satisfied, then the settlement of the pile will not increase indefinitely, regardless of the settlement of the soil surface. For design purposes, the downward force Fp at the neutral plane may be calculated as follows: Fp =Po + Ow. fy Cote a3) where y= load factor for downdrag load ‘The Australian Piling Code specifies that ¢y, should be 1.2. When the neutral plane is atthe base of the settling layer i.e. 2 = Li, Fy = Pu ty fy Cob a4) = Py + Oy. Py where fy = average ultimate negative skin friction in setting layer Pje= maximum downdrag force at top of slable soil layer ‘The maximum design tes tance of the pile below the neutral plane can be expressed as follows: R= ®, + Py as) where @,= reduction faetor for shalt resistance in the stable soil ;eduction factor for end bearing resistance in the stable soil, total shaft resistance in the stable ‘mobilized end bearing resistance in the stable zo ® ®, E P Both reduction factors are less than 1, and from the Australian Piling Code, can be taken as the same value, assessed from Tables 1 and 2, By equating equations (12) and (13), the following expression may be derived for ue maximum value of the applied Toad on the pile head such drat Uie neutral plane ies at or below the top of the stable soil Paaus = By Fy + OsPy = Oy Pr 16) maximum applied load for settlement to become stable. In summary, 1 Equation 14 gives the maximum load for whieh the sisuctural limit state needs 10 be checked for applied loadings 2 Equation 16 gives the maxiinum load which can be applied to the pile head and have the settlement stabilize and not increase indefinitely with increasing soil movement. It therefore represents an upper limit to the serviceability load. ‘The aetual settlement needs to be estimated by the approach outlined in the Piling Code, or alternatively, via a computer analysis Figure 4 illustrates simple approaches to the estimation of the pile head settlement, depending on whether the neutral plane lies above or within the stable zone. Aystelian Geomachanics ~Dec 1898 33AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS 32 PILE GROUP DESIGN ‘There is a widespread view that the geotechnical design of a pile group requires all piles in the group to have a margin of safety at least equal to that for the group as a whole, For example, for axial loading only, the criterion for such an ‘approach may be expressed as follows: Pons® < Ry an where Prox = the computed maximum axial force in any pile within the group due to the applied limit state Toads acting on the group Ry = geotechnical design suenguh of «pile in the group. Put simply, the maximum axial load in any pile in the group should be less sian the design geotechnical resistance of the pile, When an elastic-based analysis is used (o estimate the pile load distribution, this approach may be very conservative, as it allows only the piles with the maximum loads to reach uieir design geotechnical capacity, All we other piles carry lesser loads, and hence the overall group margin of safety may be considerably greater than is really required for the ultimate limit state design criterion (equation 9) Figure 5 illustrates the consequences of adopting such an approach to pile group design. For the simple example of a 9-pile group shown, the maximum ultimate limit state axial vertical load whieh ean be applied to the group is computed for two design criteria ‘© the ultimate axial pile strength can be mobilized in all 9 piles in the group ‘© the ultimate axial pile strength can only be mobilized in the most-heavily loaded piles, as assessed from ap elastic computer analysis using the program DEFPIG. For the parameters specified in Figure 5, tne calculated ultimate geotechnical strength ofa single pile is 3.67 MN. Ifa geotechnical reduction factor of 0.5 is applied, the design geotechnical strength is 1.83 MN, Assuming that group effects do not reduce this strength, the maximnumn axial force which may be applied to the group is 9*1.83 = 16.47 MN forthe ease in which al ples are allowed to develop their ull design capacity Considering now the second approach, an elastic DEFPIG analysis gives tne maximum Toad in the group (at the ‘corner piles) as 1.22 times the average load. Thus, when these piles reach their full design capacity, the average applied load will only be 16.47/1.22 = 13.50 MN. Thus, the maximum ultimate limit state load which ean be applied in the second case is only about 82 % of the value for the first (and more rational) case. This simple example serves t0 highlight the unnecessarily conservative approach adopted by some pile designers, For lurger pile groups, uke difference between the loads from the two cxses becomes even greater, as the load distribution tends then to become ‘more non-uniform, ‘The extent of conservatisin increases as the number of piles increases, and the load distribution becomes more non- form, Assuming a rigid pile cap and piles in a square configuration, Figure § shows the percentage of the ultimate capacity of a group mobilized when the most heavily-loaded pile reaches its ultimate resistance. This percentage clearly reduces as the number of piles increases, and may be about 50% or less when the group contains more than about 25 pil tis suggested that the group be considered as a complete foundation system, whieh is capable of re-distributing load among the piles. Ifa pile reaches ity ullimate yeotechnical capacity, any additional load applied (o the group may be shared by the remaining piles, until all the piles have reached their design capacity. Thus, provided that the piles do ‘not lose capacity once their wltimate loud és reached, equation 9 should be applied to the group as a whole, and not 10 each individual pile within the group. For structural design however, it would appear prudent to apply the structural design criterion (equation 6) to each vidual pile, since piles may suffer a loss of capacity once Uneir peak structural load capacity is reached 34 Australian Geomechanics - Dec 1999AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS: Figure $. Example for pile group design comparison 100, ‘SQUARE GROUPS WITH RIGIO PILE CAP Sq 2333 % OF ULTIMATE GROUP CAPACITY MOBILIZED WHEN MOST HEAVILY LOADED PILE REACHES ULTIMATE t e = * 5 6 (No OF PILES IN GROUPS figure 6. Mooiised group capacity when wiost eavily-loaded pile reaches us ulumate load capacity Australian Geomechanics - Dec 1999 95AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS: 33 PILED RAFT DESIGN Piled raft foundations provide an economical foundation alternative under a number of circumstances, including the following: 1 situations in which the bearing capacity of the raft is relatively large, but settlements and/or differential settlements may be excessive for the raft alone 2 situations in which heavy loadings exist in relatively localized areas 3° soil profiles where the soils beneath the raft are relatively stiff oF dense 4 soil profiles where externally-imposed vertical ground movements are unlikely to occur. ‘Under such circumstances, the piles may often be designed as settlement reducers, rather than as the sole foundation support. In this case, it is possible to utilize much or all of the pile capacity in the design. Such concepts have been applied successfully in a number of cases e.g. Somumer (1991), Franke etal (1994). The concept of the piled raft foundation is illustrated in Figure 7. Here, four load-settlement curves are shown: 1 raft only (Curve 4), for which the settlement at the design load exceeds the allowable value 2 piles designed under a conventional approach in which they are assumed to carry all the loads (Curve 1) 3 piles designed for a lower margin of safety, but still carrying most of the Load (Curve 2) 4 araft with the piles designed to fully utilize their capacity and act primarily as settlement reducers (Curve 3). A suitable design for the piled raft requires that the three Jn design criteria still be met: 1 the geotechnical strength criterion 2 the structural strength criterion 3. the serviceability criterion The Australian Piling Code specilically considers piled ralt foundations, and states that the geotechnical strength may be calculated as follows: RA = Ray + OLR cr) where R,* = design geotechnical strength of piled raft foundation 4, = geotechnical strength reduction factor for raft Rug = ullimate geotechnical strength of ratt , = geotechnical strength reduction factor for piles Rug = ultimate geotechnical strength of piles, ‘The value of ,. can be assessed in the same way us ,, via Tables 1 and 2, Methods of calculation of the ultimate geotechnical strengths of the raft and piles are not specified, and it is felt to the designer to decide upon an appropriate method. It is important to emphasize that equation 18 does not preclude the design of the piles as settlement reducers (1. where the Full geotechnical capacity of the piles is mobilized). It merely states that the sum of the two components of strength can be taken as the total geotechnical strength; this value must equal or exceed the design action effect ‘The structural strength criterion requires that both the piles and the rail have adequate structural strength (0 resist the tion effect. The structural design therefore requires an assessment of the sharing of load between the piles the method of analysis is not using the limit state design approach are discussed in Section 3.4 below. The sune methods used to assess load sharing and bending moments in Ue raft may also be used to assess the settlement and differential settlement distribution within the piled raft foundation, so that the serviceability 38 Australian Geomechanics ~ Dec 1999AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS Load CurveO - raft only (settlement excessive) Curve 1 - raft with pile designed for conventional safety factor Curve 2 - raft with piles designed for lower safety factor Curve 3 - raft with piles designed for full utilization of capacity Allowable Settlement Settlement Figure 7. Load - settlement eur e for piled foundations 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 Settlement (m) 0.04 0.02 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Number of Piles Figure 8 Typical relationship between settlement and number of piles for a piled catt ‘Australian Geomechanics - Osc 1999 87AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS requirements are satisfied, A typical computed relationship between average settlement and the nuinber of piles in the piled raft foundation is shown in Figure 8. ‘The code warns that, where the stratum beneath the raft is likely to settle away trom the raft, the settlement required (0 mobilize Ruy may be very large, and the serviceability requirement may govern the design. It sbould also be pointed ‘out that, if the soil below the raf is likely wo swell, additional forces may be developed in the piles because of the action of the soil movements on the raft, In such cases, it is possible that the structural strength criterion may then be critical 3.4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ‘While the geotechnical engineer may focus on the geotechnical design of the foundations, they must of course also be designed from a structural strength viewpoint, and here, there may be a difficulty in the application of the limit state design approach. To illustrate this potential problem, the simple case in Figure 9 is considered, in which a section of a pile ~ supported raft is to be designed structurally. In a (ypical section of the raft, a column load is applied directly over a pile, and there are other piles adjacent which are not loaded directly by columns. If the factored design load on the column is P*, and the ultimate geotechnical resistance of each pile is R,,, and te geotechnical reduction factor is , then the design axial loadings acting on the raft section are as shown in Figure 9. In the geotechnical design, the value of , ‘would normally be about 0.5 to 0.7, and thus, the inaximumm axial design force under the column would tend increase as @, decreases. ‘Thus, the use of he waditionl geotechnical approach would probably be appropriately ‘conservative for the design of the raft below the column, Conversely, away fom the column, dhe maximum axial force ‘would decrease as ®, decreases, and henee the structural design would be unconservative if We usual value of ®, was used. Because ®, is a factor expressing the uncertaimy of the pile resistance, it should be taken as the most ‘unfavourable value for design purposes, and in the case of the sections of the raft away from the columns, this would ‘mean adopting a value of , in excess of 1.0. Thus, when an analysis is being carried for the ultimate limit state, it may theretore be necessary to carry OUL WO sets of calculations * One in which the aditional values of , tess than I (e.g. 0.5 ) are used «The other in which values of , greater than unity (e.g. 1.5) are used, ‘The larger of the axial forces and bending moments from these two of the raft uyses are then adopted for the structural design. ‘Therefore, if this approach is adopted, it would appear necessary to carry out double the number of analyses For a Limit state design, as compared with the conventional overall safety factor approach, ‘A more rational approach would appess to be to carry out the analyses with x geotechnical reduction factor of unity, and then (0 apply an appropriate factor (greater thant 1) 10 the computed bending moments and shears, in order to obtain the design action effects S* (see Eyuation 6) for structural desig. 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ‘The new Australian Piling Code is written in limit state format, and is therefore a departure from previous cominon practice in piling design in Australia, However, in application, it is not greatly different from the previous code, although philosophically, itis different from the old overall Lxctor of safety design concept. Of note with respect to tne new Piling Code are the following points: 1 pile designers must become Euniliar with the unCuniliar terminology (or jargon) of limit state desiga 2 calculations can be made as belore for the ultimate geotechnical capacity and the settlement and ta deflection of piles and pile groups 28 Australian Geomechanics ~ Dec 1809AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS 3. methods of carrying out such calculations are not specified or recommended in the Code; the designer is Uerefore at liberty to select a method of analysis and design which he/she considers appropriate 4 reduction factors are applied to the computed ultimate strength (capacity) values, and not to the individual ‘components, or (o the strength parameters used to derive the ultimate values 5. itmay be necessary to carry out considerably more calculations than in the past because of ‘© the greater number of load cases which need to be analyzed ‘© the need to assess the design action effects (moments, shears, axial forees) for structural design, which ‘ay require consideration of geotechnical reduction factors both less than 1 and greater than 1 6 in general, more judgement will be required with the new code, and some of the clauses may require care in their interpretation and application, JUCTIMATE COLUMN LOAD ®* MAXIMUM DESIGN AXIAL FORCE BELOW Away FROM couMN COLUMN ~%y Pag Figure 9 Structural design of pile ~ supported raft or cap Ausalian Geomechanics Dec 1999 88AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS 5 REFERENCES Brinch Hansen, J. (1965). “The Philosophy of Foundation Design: Design Criteria, Safety Factors and Settlement Limits". Proc. Symp. on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke Univ, Durham, N.C., 9-13. Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B. and de Mello, V.F.B. (1977). “Behaviour of Foundations and Structures", Proc. 9th Int Conf. Soil Mechs. and Foundn. Eng., Tokyo, Vol. 2, 495-546, Franke, E., Lutz, B. And El-Mossallamy, Y. (1994). “Measurements and Numerical Modelling of High-Rise Building Foundations on Frankfurt Clay”. Vert. and Horizl, Deformations of Foundns. and Embankments, ASCE Spee. Geot. Pub, No, 40, Vol. 2, 1325-1336 Itasca (1991). “FLAC ~ Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Version 3.0 User's Manual”. Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis, USA. Poulos, H.G. (1994), “Alternative Design Strategies for Pled Raft Founda ‘on Deep Foundn. Practice, Singapore, 239-244. Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design Methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts”. Proc. 12th Int.Conf, Soil Mechs. and Foundn, Eng., New Delhi, Vol. 5, 61-82. ‘Simpson, B. et al (1981). “An Application to Limit States Calculations in Geotechnies”, Ground Ei September. Sommer, H, (1991). “Load-Settlement of the Fairtower (Messeturm) in FrankfuryMain”. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Ground Movements and Structures, Carditt, Pentech Press, 612-627, Wabls HE. (1994). “Tolerable Deformations”. Vert. and Horizl, Deformations of Foundas, and Embankments, ASCE Spec. Geot. Pub, No. 40, Vol. 2, 1611-1628. dons”, Keynote Paper, Proc. 3rd Int. Cont. jineering, 40 Australian Geomechanics ~ Dec 1999