AUSTRALIAN STANDARD FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF

PILE FOUNDATION
DESIGNATIONCODE:- AS 2159 -2009
Design Requirements
Design for ultimate strength and for serviceability
1- Load factors for actions from ground movements for structural design
(i) 1.2 x negative skin friction (Fnf) action
(ii)1.5 x compression, tension from vertical ground movement (Fes)
(iii)1.5 x moment, shear and axial forces from lateral ground movement
(Fem)
(iv)1.5 x moments shears and axial forces from heave due to unloading
from excavation (Feh)
(v)For geotechnical strength design, loads due to soil movements (e.g.
down drag) do not need to be taken into account.
(vi)For geotechnical serviceability design, loads due to soil movements
(e.g. down drag) shall be taken into account using unfactored loads
Geotechnical Design
1- A completely new section on the assessment of geotechnical design
parameters
2- A detailed process for the explicit determination of the geotechnical
strength reduction factor Φg
3- Tangible benefits for conducting load testing through the testing benefit
factor
4- A revised treatment of negative skin friction at serviceability loads and a
requirement for capacity in the stable zone to be verified
5- Guidance for design of combined piled raft foundations
Selecting the right geotechnical strength reduction factor
Underlying philosophy:
1- Reduce ad-hoc judgment in the fg selection process available under
previous code
2- Reduced maximum value of fg selection available from 0.9 to 0.76
3- You must now consider all of the site risks more specifically
4- There is an incentive for pile load testing by using the testing benefit

Page 1 of 23
factor to increase fg
5- Can also allow for the benefits arising from the design of a redundant
foundation system. Single piles are not redundant and now attract a
reduced fg value – for a low risk site rating fg is 0.67 for a non redundant
system versus 0.76 for a redundant system.
Design Geotechnical Strength
Design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) is calculated as the design ultimate
geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by a geotechnical strength
reduction factor (fg)
Rd,g = fg . Rd,ug
fg, = fg,b + (ft,f – fg,b).K fg,b
where fg,b = basic geotechnical strength reduction factor
ft,f = intrinsic test factor – 0.9 for static test, 0.85 Osterberg cell, 0.8
for PDA test on preformed piles, 0.75 for Statnamic and for PDA on
other than preformed piles
K = testing benefit factor
Basic Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor fg,b
The value of fg,b depends upon the assessed site risk factors & the
weighted sum of individual risks x risk weighting factors
„ Risk factors to be considered are divided into 3 categories:
„ Site Factors
„ Design Factors
„ Installation Factors
Individual Risk Ratings (IRR)
Table 4.3.2B
INDIVIDUAL RISK
RISK LEVEL RATING
(IRR)
Very Low 1
Low 2
Moderate 3
High 4
Very High 5

Page 2 of 23
Basic risk factors
TABLE 4.3.2 (A)
Risk Weighting
Risk Factor
Category factor
Geological complexity
Site 2
of the site
Extent of Ground
2
Investigation
Amount & quality of
2
geotechnical data
TABLE 4.3.2 (A) (cont.)
Risk Weighting
Risk Factor
Category factor
Experience with
similar
Design 1
foundations &
conditions
Methods of assessing
design 2
parameters for design
Design Method
1
Adopted
Methods of utilizing
in-situ test
2
data and installation
data
TABLE 4.3.2 (A) (cont.)
Risk Weighting
Risk Factor
Category factor
Level of construction
Installation 2
control
Level of performance
monitoring (during & 0.5
after construction)
Average risk rating
„ To calculate the Site Average Risk Rating (ARR)
„ ARR = S (wi. IRRi )/ S wi
„ Where wi = weighting factor for the individual risk factor considered

Page 3 of 23
„ IRR = Individual risk rating which is selected based on 1 = very low risk
through to 5 = very high risk.
„ Example: A site investigation for piling where the bores stop above
expected pile toe level = very high risk geotech data then IRR = 5 for
site quality of data and possibly also for extent of investigation as well.
„ Geological complexity of site. IRR 1 = horizontal well defined strata,
IRR 3 = some variability, IRR 5 highly variable profile steeply dipping rock
„ Design Method Adopted. IRR 1 = well established and soundly based
methods, IRR 3 = simplified methods with a well-established basis, IRR 5
simple empirical methods or sophisticated methods that are not well
established.
„ Installation. IRR 1 = detailed construction control with professional
geotechnical engineering supervision with well-established processes,
IRR 3 = limited professional supervision with conventional procedures,
IRR 5 = very limited or no involvement of designer with construction
processes that are not well established or complex.
Risk Factor (wi) I RR Wi . IRR
Geological Site
2 3 6
Complexity
Extent of Site
2 4 8
Investigation
Amount & Quality
2 4 8
of Geotech Data
Experience with
1 2 2
similar foundations
Method of
Parameter 2 3 6
assessment
Design Method
1 3 3
Adopted
Method of using
2 3 6
Insitu/Install data
Level of
Construction 2 3 6
Control

Page 4 of 23
 Level of
Performance 1 4 4
Monitoring
Sums 15 49
ARR = S (wi.
3.27
IRRi)/ S wi

Selection of basic geotechnical strength reduction factor fg,b

Range of Overall Risk fg,b for low fg,b for high
ARR Category redundancy redundancy
ARR<= 1.5 Very low 0.67 0.76
1.5<ARR<2.0 Very low-low 0.61 0.70
2.0<ARR<2.5 Low 0.56 0.64
2.5<ARR<3.0 Low – mod 0.52 0.60
3.0<ARR<3.5 Moderate 0.48 0.56
3.5<ARR<4.0 Mod –High 0.45 0.53
4.0<ARR<4.5 High 0.42 0.50
ARR>4.5 Very High 0.40 0.47
Geotechnical reduction factor - Benefit of pile load testing
fg = fg,b + (ft,f – fg,b).K fg,b
where fg,b = basic factor (0.56 in this example)
ft,f = intrinsic test factor depends of type of testing
K = testing benefit factor which depends on the
amount of load testing carried out
Intrinsic Test Factor
„ The intrinsic test factor (ft,f) is determined by the type of load testing
proposed
„ ft,f = 0.9 for static load proof testing
„ = 0.85 for Osterberg cell testing
„ = 0.8 for dynamic proof load testing (PDA) on
preformed piles
„ = 0.75 for rapid proof load testing (Statnamic)
„ = 0.75 for PDA testing of other than preformed piles
„ = fg,b for no load testing

Page 5 of 23
Testing Benefit Factor K
„ For static, O cell, or rapid load testing
K= 1.33 p / (p + 3.3) <= 1
„ For dynamic load testing
K = 1.13 p /(p + 3.3) <=1
„ where p = percentage of the total number of project piles that are
tested and meet the specified acceptance criteria
Testing Benefit Factor

Improvement in fg,d with percentage of piles tested

Page 6 of 23
NEW ZELAND STANDARD FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF
PILE FOUNDATION (IPENZ ENGINEERS NEWZELAND)
ISSN 1176-0907
October 2015
What is a screw pile?
Screw piles are a type of piled foundation, or retaining wall anchor, that
have been in use since the 1830s. They are made of circular hollow steel
sections with one or more helices welded to the shaft that provide
a self-tapping mechanism during installation. The hollow stem may be flled
with reinforced concrete following installation and is structurally connected
to the building substructure. Shaft diameters range from 50mm up to
600mm and helix diameters range from 150mm up to 1200mm depending
on capacity requirements.

Geotechnical Investigation Requirements for Screw Pile Foundations

Appropriate geotechnical investigations must be carried out on all sites to
determine the ground conditions and enable identification of potential
issues such as the presence of obstructions, hard rock, liquefaction,
instability, and corrosiveness of soil/groundwater. The number of
investigation locations will vary and will be greater where ground conditions
are expected to be highly variable or when there are larger, more complex
foundation requirements. Any investigations for screw pile design should

Page 7 of 23
extend below proposed founding depths to confirm the adequacy of the
proposed founding material. See Appendix A: Considerations for
Geotechnical Investigations for Screw Piles for a summary of
considerations when determining the scope of site investigations for screw
pile design. Field classification and description of soil and rock should be
undertaken in accordance with the New Zealand Geotechnical Society
(NZGS) Guideline for Field Description of Soil and Rock.
At the time of writing this Practice Note (October 2015) the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the NZGS are preparing
practice advisory notes and specific guidance on geotechnical
investigations. These documents should be referred to when published.
Geotechnical Factors in determining Screw Pile Capacity
Screw piles can be used in compression to support structures transferring
loads through weak or liquefiable soils to harder soils or rock, and in
tension to resist uplift loads from structures and provide support to retaining
structures. In most situations the installed screw pile will have both
compression and tension loads. Figure 6.1 shows various load paths in a
layered soil profile
• A screw pile carrying both compression and tension loads needs to be
founded deeper below weaker/softer/ liquefiable soils
• A screw pile under only compression loading needs to have adequate
thickness of hard soil beneath the helix to prevent punching failure (see
Section 6.2) and pile deflection (see Section 6.6)
• A screw pile under only tension loading requires an adequate thickness of
hard soil above the helix to reduce risk of pull-out (see Section 6.3).
Figure 6.1: Simplified Load Paths
There are a number of key geotechnical factors that need to be taken into
consideration when designing for screw pile capacity:
• Seismic actions
• Compression capacity in coarse grained (cohesion less) and fine grained
(cohesive) soils
• Tension capacity
• Lateral capacity
• Capacity derived from installation torque
• Pile deflection

Page 8 of 23
• Pile spacing
• Strength reduction factors.

Seismic considerations
New Zealand is a high earthquake hazard region and, as such, the effects
of earthquake shear loads are an integral consideration in the design of the
built environment. Factors for effective seismic design include:
• classification of Site Subsoil Class in accordance with AS/NZS 1170
Structural Design Actions
• assessment of the potential for, and effects of, liquefaction, cyclic
softening, lateral spreading and land sliding. Guidance on liquefaction
assessment is given in the NZGS Guideline “Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Practice – Module 1 – Guideline for the identification,
assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards” and in MBIE’s
”Guidance: Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury
Earthquakes.
Residual soil strengths which affect compression capacity (Section 6.2),
tension capacity (Section 6.3) and lateral capacity (Section 6.5) of the
shafts, should be assessed in accordance with the guidance in and
where potentially liquefiable layers exist the suitability of screw piles will
need to be assessed. Further particular considerations needs to be given to
the suitability of screw piles being used at an inclination (rake) in such
ground conditions.
Compression capacity
Figure 6.2 illustrates the elements used in determining theoretical screw
pile capacity. Due to the composite parts of a screw pile compression
capacity is comprised of two elements:
• Cylinder Friction Capacity
• Helix bearing capacity
Page 9 of 23
The primary origin of screw pile capacity is the bearing capacity of each
helix plate. Where there is more than one helix, the spacing of the helices
on the shaft is fundamental to the total capacity of the screw pile. For
maximum capacity this will occur at helix spacing’s greater than 3D.
Clayton, Basic Helical Screw Pile Design ).
Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 show how theoretical compression capacities of
screw piles for coarse grained and fine-grained soils are derived.
(Theoretical capacities based on ’effective stress methods‘ as suggested
below may only apply for pile lengths of up to 20D, Tomlinson and
Woodward, Pile Design and Construction.)
Coarse Grained Soils
The theoretical ultimate capacity should be the smaller of:
• The sum of the helix bearing capacities (if widely spaced helices) plus
shaft friction capacity (from 4D above the helix)1; or
• The sum of the base helix capacity plus helix cylinder friction capacity (if
closely spaced helices) plus the shaft friction capacity.
Tension capacity
Tension capacity factors are similar to those discussed for compression
loads but have an additional element – a “conical” or “cone” pull-out
capacity. Cone pull-out failure occurs when shear forces are reduced to
zero along the ‘failure plane’. At this critical point the pile and some
surrounding soil is pulled out in the shape of a truncated inverted cone or
pyramid. The angle of pull-out will vary depending on soil type and is
typically between 0.45 to 0.55 times the soil angle of friction. Total tension
or “Uplift” capacity should be the smallest of:
• The sum of the helix bearing capacities (if widely spaced helices) plus
shaft friction capacity; or
• The sum of the upper helix capacity plus helix cylinder friction capacity (if
closely spaced helices) plus shaft friction capacity, or
• The cone pull out capacity. Where tension capacity is critical to the design
and given the more potentially catastrophic mode of failure, a lower
strength reduction factor is recommended.

Page 10 of 23
Lateral capacity
Lateral capacity-related failure mechanisms are overturning failures and
translational/sliding failures. Analyses such as Brom’s methods or software
such as LPILE or GROUP can be used where design for lateral loading is
critical. Some recommendations to minimize the likelihood of lateral
capacity failures are provided in New Zealand Building Code, Structure
Foundations, Verification Method (B1/VM4).
The lateral capacity of a screw pile will depend on the:
• Soil strength
• In liquefiable soils, residual soil strengths should be designed for in
accordance with . Further guidance on designing for shallow and deep pile
foundations in liquefied soils can be found
• Where a non-liquefied crust sits above a liquefied soil large lateral passive
soil pressures can occur resulting in pile shaft deformation.
• Amount of soil disturbance during installation
• During installation the ground over the upper part of the shaft, generally to
a depth of 4D, can be disturbed and loosened. A reduction in lateral
resistance over the upper 4D of any screw pile installation should be
applied during the design phase (the use of a “true helix“ is recommended
as this will minimize soil disturbances and increase lateral resistance).
• Degree of pile head fixity
• rotation of the pile head will be greater in weaker soils leading to a
reduction in lateral capacity
• Diameter, length and strength of the shaft.
• Concrete infilling and reinforcement of the pile shaft (where the ground
allows) can improve lateral capacity.

Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23
 EUROPEAN STANDARD FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF
PILE FOUNDATION EUROPEAN CODE
STANDARD DESIGNATION (EN 1997-1 Section 7)
 DESIGN SITUATION
 Actions should be considered when selecting the design situation
 Piles can be loaded axially and/or transversely
 Piles can also be loaded due to displacement of the surrounding soil
This may be due to:
−Consolidation
−Swelling
−adjacent loads
−creeping soil
−Landslides, or
−Earthquakes.
These need to be considered as they can affect piles by causing
downdrag (negative skin friction), heave, stretching, transverse loading
and displacement
 LIMIT STATES
Code states the following limit states shall be considered and an
appropriate list shall be compiled:
− Loss of overall stability;
− Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation;
− Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation;
− Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation;
− Structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling
or shear;
− Combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation;
− Combined failure in the ground and in the structure;
− Excessive settlement;
− Excessive heave;

Page 13 of 23
− Excessive lateral movement;
− Unacceptable vibrations
 SELECTION OF PILE TYPE
Checklist of factors affecting selection of pile type
i. The ground and ground-water conditions, including the presence or
possibility of obstructions in the ground.
ii. The stresses generated in the pile during installation.
iii. The possibility of preserving and checking the integrity of the pile being
installed.
iv. The effect of the method and sequence of pile installation on piles,
which have already been installed and on adjacent structures or
services.
v. The tolerances within which the pile can be installed reliably.
vi. The deleterious effects of chemicals in the ground.
vii. The possibility of connecting different ground-water regimes.
viii. The handling and transportation of piles.
 DESIGN APPROACHES
Code states that the design of piles shall be based on one of the following
approaches:
− The results of static load tests, which have been demonstrated, by
means of calculations or otherwise, to be consistent with other relevant
experience.
− Empirical or analytical calculation methods whose validity has been
demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations.
− The results of dynamic load tests whose validity has been demonstrated
by static load tests in comparable situations.
− The observed performance of a comparable pile foundation, provided
that this approach is supported by the results of site investigation and
ground testing.
The importance of static pile load tests is emphasized in Eurocode 7 as the
first three methods refer to static load test

Page 14 of 23
  PILE GROUPS
i. Piles in a group should be checked for failure of the piles individually
and
ii. acting as a block
iii. The design resistance shall be taken as the lower value caused by
these two mechanisms
iv. Generally, a pile block can be analyzed as a single large diameter pile
v. The strength and stiffness of the structure connecting the piles shall be
considered. For a stiff structure, advantage may be taken of load
redistribution. A limit state will occur only if a significant number of piles
fail together; so, failure involving only one pile need not be considered.
vi. In the case of flexible structures, the weakest pile governs the
occurrence of a limit state in the structure.
vii. Special attention needs to be given to failure of edge piles by inclined
or eccentric loads.
 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE DESIGN
Direct method
• The small amount in Eurocode 7 on the SLS design of compression
piles is provided in 7.6.4 which is called Vertical displacement of pile
foundations (Serviceability of supported structure)
• The principle 7.6.4.1(1) P states that:
Vertical displacements under serviceability limit state conditions shall
be assessed and checked against the requirements given
• This is a direct design method – i.e. the serviceability limit state is
checked by calculating the pile displacements
• Application Rule 7.6.4.1(2) makes the comment:
It should not be overlooked that in most cases calculations will
provide
only an approximate estimate of the displacements of the pile
foundation
Indirect method
• 7.6.4.1(2) has the important Note that:
For piles bearing in medium-to-dense soils and for tension piles, the
safety requirements for the ultimate limit state design are normally
sufficient to prevent a serviceability limit state in the supported
structure.
• This is an indirect design method – ensuring that a serviceability
limit state is sufficiently unlikely is achieved by adopting safety

Page 15 of 23
 requirements (i.e. partial factors) in ultimate limit state (failure)
calculations.
• It is for this reason that many countries have increased the ξ values
for the design of pile based on ULS calculations or have included a
model factor so as to satisfy SLS as well as ULS requirements.

DESIGN SITUATION
Design situation for a pile designed from a CPT test profile
The piles for a building are each required to support the following loads:
• Characteristic permanent vertical load Gk = 300 kN
• Characteristic variable vertical load Qk = 150 kN
• The ground consists of dense sand beneath loose sand with soft clay and
peat to 16.5m as shown in figure on next slide
• It has been decided to use 0.45m diameter bored piles
• The pile foundation design involves determining the length of the piles
B’hole log/CPT profile

Page 16 of 23
Unit pile resistances

Page 17 of 23
BRITISH STANDARD FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE
FOUNDATION EUROPEAN CODE
STANDARD DESIGNATION BS 8004 (BSI, 1986)

GENERAL

In British Standard, permissible soil and material stresses are

prescribed in regulations
and codes for the design of piles. In traditional local building practice,
the settlement of the pile foundation is customarily not checked, with
the implicit assumption that the settlement of a building with piles
provided in accordance with the design rules will be tolerable.
Empirical pile design rule works well within the database on which it
has been developed. When new design requires extrapolating past
experience beyond the database, such empirical design may be
either needlessly over-conservative or unsafe.
Methods based on engineering principles of varying degrees of
sophistication are
available as a framework for pile design. All design procedures can
be broadly divided into four categories:
(a) empirical 'rules-of-thumb',
(b) semi-empirical correlations with insitu test results,
(c) rational methods based on simplified soil mechanics or
rock mechanics theories, and
(d) advanced analytical (or numerical) techniques.

A judgement has to be made on the choice of an appropriate design

method for a
given project. In principle, in choosing an appropriate design
approach, relevant factors that should be considered include:
(a) the ground conditions,
(b) nature of the project, and
(c) comparable past experience.

Page 18 of 23
 PILE DESIGN IN RELATION TO GEOLOGY
Geological input is crucial in foundation works and should commence
at an early
stage of planning of a project. The geology of Hong Kong has been
briefly described in
Section 2.2.3. The importance of a representative geological model in
the design of pile
foundations is highlighted in Section 2.8.

Theoretical methods of pile design have been developed for simple

cases such as piles
in granular soils, or piles in rock. Judgement should be exercised in
applying the simplified pile design methods, having regard to past
experience with the use of these methods in specific local geological
conditions.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES
The design of piles should comply with the following requirements
throughout their
service life:
(a) There should be adequate safety against failure of the ground.
The required factor of safety depends on the importance of the
structure, consequence of failure,
reliability and adequacy of information on ground conditions,
sensitivity of the structure, nature of the loading, local experience,
design methodologies, number of representative preliminary pile
loading tests.
(b) There should be adequate margin against excessive pile
movements, which would impair the serviceability of the
structure.
Global Factor of Safety Approach

The conventional global factor of safety approach is based on the use

of a lumped
factor applied notionally to either the ultimate strength or the applied
load. This is deemed to cater for all the uncertainties inherent in the
design.
The conventional approach of applying a global safety factor provides

Page 19 of 23
 for variations
in loads and material strengths from their estimated values,
inaccuracies in behavioral
predictions, unforeseen changes to the structure from that analyzed,
unrecognized loads and ground conditions, errors in design and
construction, and acceptable deformations in service.
Limit State Design Approach

A limit state is usually defined as 'any limiting condition beyond which

the structure
ceases to fulfil its intended function'. Limit state design considers the
performance of a
structure, or structural elements, at each limit state. Typical limit
states are strength,
serviceability, stability, fatigue, durability and fire. Different factors are
applied to loads and material strengths to account for their different
uncertainty.
Both ultimate and serviceability limit states should be considered
when undertaking a
limit state design for foundations. The ultimate limit state governs the
safety of a structure against collapse or excessive deformation of a
foundation leading to the collapse of the structure it supports. It
should have a very low probability of occurrence. Different failure
mechanisms are considered in a limit state design as given below
(BSI, 2004) :
(a) loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in
providing resistance,
(b) excessive deformation of foundations, in which the strength of
soils are significant in providing resistance,
(c) excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, in
which the structural strength is significant in providing resistance,
(d) loss of equilibrium of the structure due to uplift pressure of water
or other vertical forces, in which the strength of materials or the
ground is not significant in providing resistance, and
(e) hydraulic failure, internal erosion or piping caused by hydraulic
gradients.

Page 20 of 23
 The serviceability limit state governs situations beyond which
specified functions of a
structure or structural elements can no longer be satisfied, e.g.
deformation, settlement or
vibration exceeding specific values under normal working conditions.
The analysis usually involves estimation of deformation.
There are broadly two limit state design methods in geotechnical
engineering, viz, the
load and resistance factor design method and the load and material
factor design method.
In principle, both design methods require the estimation of predicted
actions (e.g.
dead load, live load, superimposed load or prescribed deformation
imposed on structures) and resistance. Uncertainties on the
prediction of resistance include factors such as site
characterization, soil behavior, design methodology and construction
effects. Estimation in actions is very often based on structural
analysis. The uncertainty in estimating actions is usually less than
that in estimating resistance.
The load and resistance factor design method is becoming popular in
North America,
e.g. Standard Specifications for Highways & Bridges (AASHTO,
2002). In this design
approach, resistance factors are applied to ultimate resistance
components. The ultimate
resistance components are computed based on unfactored material
strengths or results of
insitu tests. Resistance factors also depend on analytical models
used and construction
effects. Orr & Farrell (2000) considered that this approach is more
reasonable in
geotechnical design.
Recommended Factors of Safety

The following considerations should be taken into account in the

selection of the
appropriate factors of safety:

Page 21 of 23
 (a) There should be an adequate safety factor against failure of structural
members in accordance with appropriate structural codes.
(b) There must be an adequate global safety factor on ultimate bearing
capacity of the ground. Terzaghi et al (1996) proposed the minimum
acceptable factor of safety
to be between 2 and 3 for compression loading. The factor of safety
should be selected with regard to importance of structure,
consequence of failure, the nature and variability of the ground,
reliability of the calculation method and design parameters, extent of
previous experience and number of loading tests on preliminary piles.
The factors as summarized in Table 6.1 for piles in soils should be
applied to the sum of the shaft and endearing resistance.
(c) The assessment of working load should additionally be checked for
minimum 'mobilization' factors fs and fb on the shaft resistance and
end-bearing resistance respectively as given in Table 6.2.
(d) Settlement considerations, particularly for sensitive structures, may
govern the allowable loads on piles and the global safety factor
and/or 'mobilization' factors may need to be higher than those given
in (b) & (c) above.
(e) Where significant cyclic, vibratory or impact loads are envisaged or
the properties of the ground are expected to deteriorate significantly
with time, the minimum global
factor of safety to be adopted may need to be higher than those in
(b), (c) and (d) above. ultimate pile uplift resistance and should not be
less than the values given in Table 6.1.

Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23