Advanced Foundation Design Module PDF

LECTURE MODULE
COURSE FASCILITATOR:
ASSOC. PROF IR. DR. RAMLI NAZIR

PROF. DR. KHAIRUL ANUAR KASSIM
SECTION A
ASSOC. PROF IR. DR. RAMLI NAZIR

LECTURE 1 FOUNDATION ENG. DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
By
ASSOC. PROF. Ir. DR. HJ. RAMLI NAZIR

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
FOUNDATION ENG. DESIGN
1
PRINCIPLES
There is no glory as a Geotechnical Engineer

- Terzaghi
2
PRINCIPLES
FOUNDATION ENG. DESIGN 3
PRINCIPLES
1
PRINCIPLES
GEOTECHNICAL BRAIN FUNCTION
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
2
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
A PROFESSIONAL COMPARISON
PRINCIPLES
What is Value Engineering in Foundation Design???
Challenge The Norm Thru Innovation

To Excel
PRINCIPLES
3
PRINCIPLES
VALUE ENGINEERING.
PRINCIPLES
Stage of Design
• Normally there are 3 stages of design i.e
1. PRE DESIGN STAGE
2. CONSTRUCTION STAGE
3. POST DESIGN STAGE
PRINCIPLES
PRE DESIGN STAGE
• Accurate and reliable SI data is vital.

• Type of foundation use for the structure is based from the above.
• An overall aspect and anticipation during construction has to be
considered especially practical and economics consideration.
• During this stage, loading, foundation arrangement and location,
bearing capacity and other related practice has been identified.
• Anticipation of the problem in foundation construction work should be
recognised and overcoming the problem should be readily available.
PRINCIPLES
4
PRINCIPLES
DESIGN ANALYSES
• Which one to use???
• TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS

Or
• EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS
PRINCIPLES
TOTAL STRESS ANALYSES
• This type of analysis uses the undrained shear strength of the cohesive
soil and also known as short term analysis.
• The undrained shear strength, cu can be obtained from field such as
vane shear and laboratory such as unconfined compression test. If the
undrained shear strength is constant throughout the depth then cu = c
and =0o. The use of unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression
test is also applicable provided that it is saturated plastic soil.
• The groundwater does not have an effect in the use of total stress
parameters.
PRINCIPLES
EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS

• This type of analysis uses the drained shear strength, c’ and ’ of the
plastic soil.
• The drained shear strength could be obtained from triaxial
compression test with pore pressure measurement tested on a fully
saturated specimen of the plastic soil.
• Also known as long term analysis since the shear-induced pore water
pressure (positive or negative) from the loading has dissipated and the
hydrostatic pore pressure conditions now prevail in the field.
• Thus the location of the water table is significant in considering in the
analysis.
PRINCIPLES
5
PRINCIPLES
GENESIS OF FOUNDATION DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLE IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

• ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
• CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
SI SOIL • BASIC & INDEX PROPERTIES

PROPERTIES
INTERPRETATION
JUDGEMENT • MASS PROPERTIES
• TYPICAL & GENERALISED
SUBSOIL PROFILE &
GROUND PROPERTIES OF TYPICAL
CHARACTERIZATION GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS,
MAN MADE FILL etc..
MODELLING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

PREDICTION
CODE OF PRACTICES:-
• FOUNDATION BS 8004 SOIL & ROCK MECHANICS
•ANCHORS BS8081 • EFFECTIVE STRESS THEORY
•EARTHWORKS BS6031 GROUND • SEEPAGE THEORY
•REINFORCED FILLS BS8006 BEHAVIOUR • STRESS DISTRIBUTION
•GEOGUIDES • LATERAL PRESSURE
DEFORMATION •BEARING CAPACITY
DISPLACEMENT • COMPRESSIBILITY
STABILITY
INSTRUMENTATION FOR
• PORE WATER PRESSURE
ENGINEERING • EARTH PRESSURE
PERFORMANCE • DISPLACEMENT(SURFACE & SUBSURFACE
• INTERNAL STRESSES
PRINCIPLES
THE IMPORTANCE OF SI
• To study the general suitability of the site for an engineering project.

(FEED Program)- FRONTIER EVALUATION ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT.
• To enable a safe, practical and economic design to be prepared.
• To determine the possible difficulties that may be encountered by a

specific construction method.
• To study the suitability of construction material (soil or rock).
PRINCIPLES
6
PRINCIPLES
Cont…
• SI nowdays has become contracting exercise and we tend to forget that

SI is an INVESTIGATION.
• As in many INVESTIGATION it is an itterative process.
• For information to be reliable, adhere to the procedure is very
important.
• SI is the most procedure oriented operation within Civil Engineering
Discipline.
• This is due to the variability of the soil formation millions of years ago
• The properties of oil assessment or test carried out is affected by the
latter.
• Accuracy and correct procedure is of vital important.
PRINCIPLES
The Facts Why SI is needed
• This is a part of geotechnical processes.
• Lack of geotechnical processes will lead to a:-

• Failures where many case histories are available.
• Significant delay and increase in construction costs when the design has
to be revised or ammended.
• Generally the elimination of the SI will not safe the cost of the project
thus it only comprises from only 0.1% to 5% of the project cost.
• In fact most frequent claims in civil engineering contracts are on the

basis of inadequate SI or obstructions resulting in extra costs which
could not reasonably have been forseen by an experience contractor.
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
7
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE S.I

WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!
PRINCIPLES
Method of Site Investigation
• JKR PROBE/MACKINTOSH PROBE

• HAND AUGERING (HA)
• MOTORISED HAND BORING (MHB)
• DEEP BORING (DB)
• TRIAL PITS AND PLATE BEARING TEST
• DEEP SOUNDING (DS)
• INSITU VANE SHEAR TEST (IVST)
• STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
• PRESSUREMETER TEST
• GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION
• ROCK CORING
PRINCIPLES
8
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
9
PRINCIPLES
HAND AUGERING
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
ROTARY WASH BORING
PRINCIPLES
10
PRINCIPLES
BEARING PLATE
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
CONE PENETRATION TEST/ DEEP SOUNDING
PRINCIPLES
11
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
IN SITU VANE SHEAR TEST
PRINCIPLES
12
PRINCIPLES
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
13
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
14
PRINCIPLES
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
• This a dynamic field test usually carried out in boreholes.
• Test consists of driving a standard split barrel sampler 50.8mm in

diameter.
• The SPT is read from a 65kg drop hammer fall at a vertical height of
75cm.
• The sampler is driven to a total of 45cm into the soil and the number of
blows recorded for the last 30cm of penetration (SPT, N-value)
PRINCIPLES
Numbers of BH, POSITION and Depth
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
15
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

VALUE FOR DESIGN
• Developed in 1927 and currently the most popular method and

economical means to obtain subsurface information.
• Currently 85% - 90% of usage in conventional foundation design.
• Test consist of :-
• Driving the split barrel sample at a distance of 460mm into the soil at the
bottom of boring.
• Counting the number of blows to drive sample at last two 150mm distances to
obtain N value
• Using 63.5kg driving mass falling free from a height of 760mm.
• The boring log shows refusal and the test is halted if:-
• 50 blows are required for any 150mm increment
• 100 blows are obtained to drive the required 300mm
• 10 successive blows produce no advance.
PRINCIPLES
16
PRINCIPLES
• When full test depth cannot be obtained, boring log will show a ratio
as 70/100 or 50/100 indicating that 70 or 50 blows resulted in a
penetration of 100mm.
• The blow count is directly related to the driving energy:-
• Substituting Both Equations : m
W= weight of mass or hammer
=
H = height of fall
v= 2
2gh = Wh
For standard test:‐
E = 63.5 x 9.81 x 0.762
= 474.5 ~ 475 kJ
PRINCIPLES
• Kovac and Salomone ( 1982) found that the actual energy impact to the sampler range
about 30% to 80% while Riggs (1983) obtained energy input from 70% to 100%
• The discrepancies arises from:-
• Equipment from different manufacturers
• Driving hammer configuration
• Usage of liner inside the barrel
• Overburden pressure
• Length of drill rod
• Therefore SPT can be standardised to some energy ratio Er such that:-
Er= (Actual hammer energy to sampler (Ea)/ Input Energy (E)) x 100
PRINCIPLES
• Energy input of 70% is normally use since observation is close

to the actual energy ratio (Er)
• Therefore the standard blow count N’70 is measure from N as
follows:
N’70 = CN x N x  x  x  x 
Where i = adjustment factor from table

N’70 = Adjusted N
CN = Adjustment for effective overburden pressure
95.76
CN  po in kPa
po '
PRINCIPLES
17
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
• Note that larger Er decrease the blow count nearly linearly

i.e Er45 gives N=20 Er 1xN1  Er 2 xN2
Er90 gives N = 10 Er 1
N2  xN1
With Er70 gives N = 13 Er 2
• Energy ratio x blow count should be constant thus :-

Say Er1 = 70 thus gives N2 = (70/Er2)xN1
Say N2 for Er45 = 20 = Er2

We obtain N1 = 13
If we convert N70 to N60 than N2 = N60 = (70/60)x13 = 15
• Using the equation we can readily convert any energy ratio to any
other base.
PRINCIPLES
SPT CORRELATIONS
• It can be used in correlation for unit weight  relative density, Dr,

angle of internal friction angle , undrained compressive strength, qu,
bearing capacity and stress-strain modulus.
• Angle of internal friction:-
Base from Japanese Railway Standard:   4.5N 70  20
• Relative Density N'70
 32  0.288p' o
Base from Meyerhof(1957) : 2
Dr
where p’o is in kPa
• For OCR > 1 Skempton suggest the following adjustment has been
made:-
N '70  A  BC OCR p' o
2
Dr
PRINCIPLES
18
PRINCIPLES
Where A range between 15 to 54

B range between 0.306 to 0.204
And p ' onc

COCR 
p ' oOCR
For COCR=1 it relates to normally consolidated clay
o o
Thus Meyerhof estimate:-   28  15 Dr
• A correlation for N versus qu in general form of:-

qu = kN
Where k tend to be site dependant.
However k = 12 has been used i.e for N’70 = 10, qu = 120kPa
PRINCIPLES
DESIGN N-values
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
19
PRINCIPLES
Relationship between Angle of Internal

Friction and N-Value
(Sandy Soil)
PRINCIPLES
SPT (Standard Penetration Test)

SPT
Hammer Type
N-SPT = Total No. of Blows for spoon sampler to penetrate at a depth of

30cm c (t/m2) = 2/3 N
PRINCIPLES
Relationship between Cohesion and

N-Value (Cohesive soil)
2/3 N
PRINCIPLES
20
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRESSUREMETER TEST
PRINCIPLES
21
PRINCIPLES
ROCK CORING
• To determine the soundness of rock.
• Sound rock : Rock which ring when struck with a pick or bar. Does not integrate
after exposure to air or water, breaks with a sharp, fresh fracture, in which cracks
are unweathered and less than 3mm wide and generally not closer than 1m apart.
Core recovery is normally 85%.
• Medium rock : Characteristic as for sound rock but the cracks maybe 6mm wide
and slightly weathered, generally no closer than 60cm. Core recovery is 50% or
more.
• Intermediate rock : Give dull sound when hit by pick or bar. Does not integrate
after exposure to air or water. Broken pieces may show weathered faces. Fractures
up to 25mm wide and space no closer than 30cm. Core recovery generally is 35% or
greater.
• Soft rock : Any rock which flakes on exposure to air or water. Give a very dull
sound when struck with pick or bar. Core recovery generally is less than 35% or
greater but SPT more than 50.
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
Strength of Rock Materials
Term Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MN/m2)
Very Weak < 1.25
Weak 1.25 – 5.0
Moderately Weak 5.0 – 12.5 Depending on moisture ,

anisotrophy and test
Moderately Strong 12.5 – 50.0 procedure
Strong 50 - 100
Very Strong 100 - 200
Extremely strong > 200
PRINCIPLES
22
PRINCIPLES
SOIL SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
• 2 TYPES OF SAMPLE :-
• Undisturbed : To determine properties such as strength parameters,

consolidation, permeability and parameters which need to observed as per site
condition.
• Disturbed : Do determine physical properties such as grain size, colour, texture,

compaction properties, remoulded properties and for testing etc.
PRINCIPLES
FIELD IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL
• Soil descriptions are made from washed and disturbed samples

recovered from the boreholes.
• The soil name is based on particle size distribution and plasticity,

which can be readily estimated and measured at the laboratory.
PRINCIPLES
• According to BS 5930, soil samples are described with each element of

the descriptions having a fixed position within the overall description:-
• a) Consistency (cohesive) or RD (non cohesive)
• b) Fabric and Fissuring, if distinguishable
• c) Colour
• d) Subsidiary constituent
• e) Angularity or grading of principal soil type (for coarse grained soil)
• f) Principal soil type (in capital letter)
• g) More detailed comments on constituents or fabric.
EG.
Very Stiff (a) Dark Grey (c) CLAY (f)
Dense (a) Brown (c) Fine to Coarse (e) Angular (e) GRAVEL (f)
Very Stiff (a) Greenish blue (c) Sandy (d) CLAY (f) With some rounded gravel (g)
PRINCIPLES
23
PRINCIPLES
• When soils are desribed at field, it is important to learn how to

distinguish between clay and non cohesive soils on the basis
of estimated engineering behaviour. (10% of clay can impart
an essentially cohesive behaviour. Eg.
• A soil containing 50% of silt, 30% of clay and 20% of sand is described
as sandy silty CLAY because the soil behaves more like a clay.
• Clayey SAND – not cohesive, but contains clay
• Very clayey SAND or Very sandy CLAY – borderline
• Sandy CLAY – cohesive, but sand may be the major constituents by

weight.
PRINCIPLES
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
• Engineers should allow or apt with changes during construction of

foundation at site.
• Alternative design need to be in hand whenever there are changes
during this stage.
• At this stage a critical, fast and accurate decision need to be done as
the delay in making decision will hold or retarding the process of
construction.
• This is a stage where foundation engineers are really tested in their
knowledge integrity.
• This is also a stage where reliability of SI data is known.
PRINCIPLES
POST DESIGN STAGE
• To validate the design, load test need to be carried out. The designer
may choose to have them conducted either before or after the bids are
taken.
• The first alternative permits development or revision of design and
specifications to fit the actual conditions.
• The second saves expenses on mobilisation but may lead to delay if the
results is unsatisfactorily.
PRINCIPLES
24
PRINCIPLES
PILE LOAD TEST AND INTERPRETATION
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
25
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
26
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
27
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
LOAD TEST
 To ensure the pile workability before and after construction. It is also

as a method to determine settlement and ensuring that it does not
exceed allowable limit.
 Failure of load test according to JKR specification:-

1. Residual settlement at working load exceed 6.5mm
2. Total settlement at working load exceed 12.5mm
3. Total settlement exceed 38mm or 10% of pile diameter or width
whichever is lower at twice working load.
 Methods of statement shall be refer to JKR Specification or BS8004.
 Pile in granular soil are often tested 24 to 48 hrs when load
arrangement have been made.
PRINCIPLES
28
PRINCIPLES
• The time lapse is sufficient for excess pore water pressure to dissipates.
• Pile in cohesive soils should be tested after sufficient lapse for excess
pore water pressure to dissipates.
• This time lapse is commonly in the order of 30 to 90 days giving also
some additional strength gain from thixotropic effects.
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
NEW FAILURE INTERPRETATION

i) The total residual settlement after removal of the test load at working load
exceeds ((diameter of pile or diagonal width for non-circular pile / 120) +
4) mm or 12.50 mm whichever is the lower value.
ii) The total settlement under twice the Working Load exceeds 38.0 mm, or
10% of pile diameter / width whichever is the lower value.
PRINCIPLES
29
PRINCIPLES
LOAD
6.5mm
12.5mm
38mm
settlement
DL
2DL
PRINCIPLES
Failure Load Definition
1. NAVFAC Method
2. Van Weele
3. Chin Fung Kee Method
4. DeBeer Method
5. Mazurkiewicz Method
PRINCIPLES
NAVFAC Method
PRINCIPLES
30
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
Van Weele Method
PRINCIPLES
• From point O to ‘a’ the capacity is based on the skin resistance plus any small point contribution.
• From point ‘a’ to ‘b’ the load capacity is the sum of the limiting skin resistance plus the point
capacity.
• From point ‘b’ the curves becomes vertical as the ultimate point capacity is reached. Often the vertical
asymptote is anticipated and the test terminated before a vertical curve branch is established.
250k 1600-250 = 1350kN

N
PRINCIPLES
31
PRINCIPLES
Chin Fung Kee Method
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
De Beer Method
PRINCIPLES
32
PRINCIPLES
Load (Log Scale)
The load settlement curve is

plotted in log-log plot and the
point of intersection of the two
Settlement (Log Scale)
straight lines thus obtained is the

failure load.
PRINCIPLES
Mazurkiewicz Method
PRINCIPLES
45o He assumed that the load

Load settlement curve is parabolic after
an initial straight portion . The
ultimate load can be obtained by
geometric construction. After the
initial straight portion, draw sets
of equal settlement lines to
intersect the load settlement
Settlement
curve. Draw vertical line loads

from this intersection to intersect
the load axis. Draw 45o line to
intersect the next load line. The
intersection fall in a line which
cuts the load axis at the ultimate
load.
PRINCIPLES
33
PRINCIPLES
STARTING POINT OF FOUNDATION DESIGN
• Following steps are the minimum requirement for designing a

foundation.
1. Locate the site and the position of the load
2. Physical inspect the site for any geological or other evidence that may
indicate potential design problems
3. Establish the field exploration program for design parameters
4. Determine necessary design parameters base on integration of test
data, scientific principles and engineering judgement.
5. Design the foundation using the latter and it should be economical
and be able to be built by the available construction personnel.
PRINCIPLES
GENERAL REQUIREMENT
TWO MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR DESIGNER!!!
• WHAT LOADS ARE TO BE SUPPORTED.
• HOW FAR MAY THE FOUNDATION SETTLE IN RESPONSE TO

THESE LOAD.
PRINCIPLES
• Generally the proper design requires the following:-

1. Determine the building purpose, probable service life
loading, type of framing, soil profile, construction methods
and construction cost.
2. Determine the client owner and client needs.
3. Making the design, but ensuring that it does not successively
degrade the environment and provide a margin of safety that
produces a tolerable risk level to all parties, the public, the owner and
the engineer.
PRINCIPLES
34
PRINCIPLES
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IN FOUNDATION

DESIGN
• Adequate depth
• Depth of foundation to be below seasonal change
• Considering problematic soil
• Compressive strength consideration
• Protection of foundation against natural causes
• Sustainable to changes
• Buildable or limitation.
• Apt to local environment standard.
PRINCIPLES
CHOICE OF FOUNDATION TYPE
• Based from Neoh C.A, the choice of the foundation designs are
considered from:
1. Loads per column
2. Bearing type either end or skin
3. Bearing layer
4. Type of Intermediate layer
5. Location of water level.
PRINCIPLES
PROCEDURE FOR THE

Assess Foundation Base
CHOICE OF FOUNDATION
Assess Ground
TYPE FOR A SITE
Conditions and Type of
Structures
YES
Are pile
NO
necessary
Choose
Shallow
Technical
Foundation
Considerations
Types
for Different Pile
Types:-
1. Ground Condition
2. Loading Assess construction programme for each
Condition suitable pile type and rank them based
on program consideration
3. Environmental
Considerations
4. Site and Plant
Considerations
Make overall ranking of each pile type
5. Safety based on technical, cost and
programme considerations
List all technically feasible pile types

and rank them in order of suitability
Submit individual and overall rankings of each pile
based on technical consideration.
type to client and make recommendation on most
suitable pile type.
Assess cost of each suitable pile type and

rank them based on cost consideration.
PRINCIPLES
35
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
Myths in Piling
• Myth
• Dynamic Formulae such as Hiley’s Formula Tells us the Capacity of
the Pile
The Truth
• Pile Capacity can only be verified by using:
• (i) Maintained (Static) Load Tests
• (ii)Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Tests
PRINCIPLES
Continue
• Myth:
• Pile Achieves Capacity When It is Set.
• Truth:
• Pile May Only “Set” on Intermediate Hard Layer BUT May Still Not
Achieve Required Capacity within Allowable Settlement.
Myth:
• Pile settlement at 2 times working load must be less than certain
magnitude (e.g. 38mm)
• Truth:
• Pile designed to Factor of Safety of 2.0. Therefore, at 2 times working
load:
- Pile expected to fail unless capacity under- predicted significantly
PRINCIPLES
36
PRINCIPLES
Continue
• Myth
• Load test can opt not to be done since the pile has all set.
• Truth
• Load test need to be done since it is part of Geotechnical Design
process i.e to verify. Pile set does not mean that it has reach its
allowable capacity at designated settlement.
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
37
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES
38
PRINCIPLES
THE END
115
PRINCIPLES
39
LECTURE 2 APPLICATION OF EUROCODE IN
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
APPLICATION OF EUROCODE IN GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
ASSOC. PROF. Ir. DR. HJ. RAMLI NAZIR

DEPT. OF GEOTECHNIC AND TRANSPORTATION,
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS
Lecture 2
UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN USING EUROCODE

(EN-7 (MALAYSIAN ANNEXE))
INTRODUCTION
• The Eurocode system consists of :
1. EN1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of Design

2. EN1991 Eurocode 1 Actions on Structure
3. EN1992 Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Structures
4. EN1993 Eurocode 3 Design of Steel Structures
5. EN1994 Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures
6. EN1995 Eurocode 5 Design of Timber Structures.
7. EN1996 Eurocode 6 Design of Masonry Structures
8. EN1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design
9. EN1998 Eurocode 8 Design of Structure for Earthquake
Resistance
10. EN1999 Eurocode 9 Design of Aluminium Alloy
Structures.
Other related documents : CEN and ISO
1
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
OBJECTIVES OF THE EUROCODES
• As a mean to prove compliance of building and civil engineering works with the essential
requirements of mechanical resistance and stability and safety in case of fire.
• A basis for specifying contracts for construction works and related engineering services.
• A framework for drawing up harmonised technical specs for construction products.
• Improve the functioning of a single market for products and engineering services by
removing obstacles arising from different nationality codified practices for the
assessment of structural liabilities.
• Improve the competitiveness of the European construction industry and its professionals
and industries, in countries outside the European Union.
Eurocode Design Method
• All the Eurocodes are all based on a common design method

• The common design method is presented in EN 1990
• A common loading code for all the Eurocodes is presented in EN1991- Actions
• The Eurocodes share a common terminology and symbols
• The common design method for the verification of safety and serviceability involves
– The limit state design method
– Partial factors
– Characteristic actions and material parameters or resistances
– Reliability based
2
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Q: Why do we need a change?
• Eurocode 7 draws geotechnical design into a framework common to other aspects of

civil and structural engineering.
• In the past, differences in design approach have arisen due to the properties of soil and
rock being fundamentally different and more difficult to predict than other engineering
materials.
• In order to overcome difficulties in prediction and uncertainty of material behaviour,
designers have often adopted large factors of safety under working loads to ensure
serviceability.
• However, to avoid problems, designers need to grasp fundamental geotechnical
principles, including overall stability, hydraulic uplift and piping.
Contd…
• Eurocode 7 may be seen by some as an unnecessary complication, it introduces the

concepts of limit state design to geotechnical calculations.
• This will be second nature to most structural engineers who will not find any difficulty
with the concepts.
• The currently accepted methods of analysis of geotechnical problems remain largely
unchanged.
• The real advantage in its application lies in a common framework for design, including
overall stability, and uplift.
• The Eurocodes adopt, for all civil and building engineering materials and structures, a
common design philosophy based on the use of separate limit states and partial factors
rather than global factor of safety.
• The intended are to ensure safe structures, so they will be use both by the designers and
the checkers of the design.
COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL DESIGN AND EUROCODES
• Advantages :
Conventional Design Eurocode

Using Global FOS and simple
Using PFOS and harmonic design
applications
Type of load has different levels of
Accustomed to use
uncertainty
Uniform Level of Safety
Risk Assessment
3
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL DESIGN AND EUROCODES
• Disadvantages :
Conventional Design Eurocode

Inadequate amount of variability More Complex
Stress is not a good measure of
Old Habits
resistance
Requires availability of statistical
FOS is subjective
data
No risk assessment Resistance Factor varies
Whereabout in Eurocodes ?
The suite of primary structural Eurocodes
Numbers Name Subject

EN1990 Basis of structural design
EN1991 Eurocode 1 Action on structures
EN1992 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete stuctures
EN1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
EN1994 Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete
structures
EN1995 Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures
EN1996 Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures
EN1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design
EN1998 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
EN1999 Eurocode 9 Design of aluminium sructures.
4
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
EN1990
EN1990
• EN 1990 describes the Principles and requirements for safety, serviceability and
durability of structures.
• It is based on the limit state concept used in conjunction with a partial factor method.
• For the design of new structures, EN 1990 is intended to be used, for direct application,
together with Eurocodes EN 1991 to 1999.
• EN 1990 also gives guidelines for the aspects of structural reliability relating to safety,
serviceability and durability:
– for design cases not covered by EN 1991 to EN 1999 (other actions, structures not treated,
other materials) ;
– to serve as a reference document for other CEN TCs concerning structural matters.
EN1990
• EN 1990 is intended for use by :

– committees drafting standards for structural design and related product, testing and execution
standards ;
– clients (e.g. for the formulation of their specific requirements on reliability levels and
durability) ;
– designers and constructors ;
– relevant authorities.
• EN 1990 may be used, when relevant, as a guidance document for the design of
structures outside the scope of the Eurocodes EN 1991 to EN 1999, for :
– assessing other actions and their combinations ;
– modelling material and structural behaviour ;
– assessing numerical values of the reliability format
5
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
EN1990
• This standard gives alternative procedures, values and recommendations for classes with
notes indicating where national choices may have to be made.
• Therefore the National Standard implementing EN 1990 should have a National annex
containing all Nationally Determined Parameters to be used for the design of buildings
and civil engineering works to be constructed in the relevant country.
• National choice is allowed in EN 1990 through :
• – A1.1(1)
• – A1.2.1(1)
• – A1.2.2 (Table A1.1)
• – A1.3.1(1) (Tables A1.2(A) to (C))
• – A1.3.1(5)
• – A1.3.2 (Table A1.3)
• – A1.4.2(2)
ASSUMPTIONS
• The general assumptions of EN 1990 are :

• the choice of the structural system and the design of the structure is made by
appropriately qualified and experienced personnel;
• execution is carried out by personnel having the appropriate skill and experience;
• adequate supervision and quality control is provided during execution of the work, i.e. in
design offices, factories, plants, and on site;
• the construction materials and products are used as specified in EN 1990 or in EN 1991
to EN 1999 or in the relevant execution standards, or reference material or product
specifications;
• the structure will be adequately maintained;
• the structure will be used in accordance with the design assumptions.
TERMS USED
• ‘Principles’ are mandatory (‘Normative’) requirements; ‘Principle’ clauses in the Code

are identified by a ‘P’ after the clause number and contain the word ‘shall’.
• All other clauses are ‘Application Rules’ that indicate the manner in which the design
may be shown to comply with the Principles.
• Application Rules are ‘Informative’ (i.e. not mandatory and for Information only) and use
words such as ‘should’ and ‘may’.
6
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
EN1997
What is the structure of the new code?
• Eurocode 7 consists of two Parts: Part 1 (EN 1997-1) – Geotechnical design – General rules
and Part 2 (EN 1997-2) - Ground investigation and testing.
• It is important to appreciate that EN 1997-1 is not a detailed geotechnical design manual but
is intended to provide a framework for design and for checking that a design will perform
satisfactorily; that is, that the structure will not reach a ‘limiting condition’ in prescribed
‘design situations’.
• The Code therefore provides, in outline, all the general requirements for conducting and
checking design.
• It provides only limited assistance or information on how to perform design calculations and
further detail may be required from other texts, such as standard soil mechanics books and
industry publications.
EN1997
• Part 2 covers Ground Investigation and Testing.

• The application of the code in the Malaysia requires reference to the Malaysia National
Annexes which provide the partial factors prescribed for use in the Malaysia.
• The Malaysia National Annex for Part 1 will be available in 2012 and the National Annex
for Part 2 is expected to be published after that since it is still in progress.
• A series of geotechnical execution standards covering geotechnical processes such as
piling works and grouting also exist; these are primarily of interest to construction, but
are also of general interest to designers.
7
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
EN1997
• It describes the general ‘Principles’ and ‘Application Rules’ for geotechnical design,
primarily to ensure ‘safety’ (adequate strength and stability), ‘serviceability’ (acceptable
movement and deformation) and ‘durability’ of supported structures, that is of buildings
and civil engineering works , founded on soil or rock.
• ‘Principles’ are mandatory (‘Normative’) requirements; ‘Principle’ clauses in the Code
are identified by a ‘P’ after the clause number and contain the word ‘shall’.
• All other clauses are ‘Application Rules’ that indicate the manner in which the design
may be shown to comply with the Principles.
• Application Rules are ‘Informative’ (i.e. not mandatory and for information only) and use
words such as ‘should’ and ‘may’.
Content of EN1997-1
• BS EN 1997-1 contains the following Sections:

• Section 1 General
• Section 2 Basis of geotechnical design
• Section 3 Geotechnical data
• Section 4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
• Section 5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
• Section 6 Spread foundations
• Section 7 Pile foundations
• Section 8 Anchorages (Still not Apply in Malaysia)
• Section 9 Retaining structures
• Section 10 Hydraulic failure
• Section 11 Site stability
• Section 12 Embankments.
Annexes
• The Annex is ‘informative’ which means that the partial factors listed must be used;
however, the values of these factors are a matter for national determination and the
values shown in the Annex are thus only ‘recommended’
• Annex A
– Annex A is used with Sections 6 to 12, as it gives the relevant partial and correlation factors,
and their recommended values, for ultimate limit state design.
– Annex A is normative , which means that it is an integral part of the standard and the factors
in it must be used, although their values are informative and may therefore be modified in the
National Annex.
• Annex B
– Annex B gives some background information on the three alternative Design Approaches
permitted by EN 1990 and given in EN 1997-1
8
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
• Annex C - H
– Annexes C to G provide examples of internationally recognised calculation methods for the
design of foundations or retaining structures;
– Annexes C to J are informative , which means that in principle, they may be superseded in the
National Annex
SUMMARY OF ANNEXES
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY IN EN1997-1
9
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Traditional Design Philosophies
• FOS on the materials is applied in the choice of the stresses used in the design of the
piles and pile caps as structural members.
• When pile considered single, the working load shall not exceed the allowable bearing
capacity. The ultimate value shall be obtain from load tests whenever practicable. In
general a value of 2 to 3 is normally used.
• Settlement or differential settlement at working load shall not be greater than can be
tolerated by the structure.
• When settlement is not critical a smaller FOS can be employed.
• The basis of design will be use allowable value and check the settlement.
Limit state design
• An understanding of limit state design can be obtained by contrasting it with “working

state design”
• Working state design : Analyse the expected, working state, then apply margin of safety.
• Limit state design : Analyse the unexpected states at which the structure has reach an
unacceptable limit.
• Make sure the limit states are unrealistic or at least unlikely.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY IN EN1997-1
• EN 1997-1 is a ‘limit state design’ code; this means that a design that complies with it
will prevent the occurrence of a limit state
• A limit state could, for example, be:
– an unsafe situation
– damage to the structure
– economic loss.
• While there are, in theory, many limit states that can be envisaged, it has been found
convenient to identify two fundamentally different types of limit state, each of them
having its own design requirements:
– ultimate limit states (ULS);
– serviceability limit states (SLS).
10
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Ultimate Limit Stress
• ULSs are defined as states associated with collapse or with other similar forms of
structural failure (e.g. failure of the foundation due to insufficient bearing resistance).
• In geotechnical design, ULSs include:

– failure by excessive deformation,
– loss of stability of the structure or any part of it.
• Hence, a state in which part of a structure becomes unsafe because of foundation

settlement or other ground movements should be regarded as a ULS even if the ground
itself has not reached the limit of its strength.
Contd….
• Ultimate limit states of full ‘collapse’ or ‘failure’ of geotechnical structures are fortunately
quite rare.
• However, an ultimate state may develop in the supported structure because of large
displacement of a foundation, which has itself not ‘failed’.
• This means, for example, that a foundation may be stable, after initially settling (it hasn’t
‘exceeded a ULS’ or ‘failed’), but part of the supported structure may have failed (for
example, a beam has lost its bearing and collapsed owing to substantial deformation in
the structure).
What is the general approach to design?
• The principal emphasis of Eurocode 7 is in the definition and application of partial

factors of safety.
• Factors are applied to characteristic actions, nominal dimensions and characteristic
material properties.
• These are considered through calculation with a view to ensuring that the design effects
are less than or equal to the design resistances.
• Where relevant, the code requires a total of five different ultimate states to be
considered.
11
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Contd…
• EQU: the loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in
which the strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing
resistance;
• STR: internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements,
including footings, piles, basement walls, etc, in which the strength of structural
materials is significant in providing resistance;
• GEO: failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock
is significant in providing resistance (e.g. overall stability, bearing resistance of spread
foundations or pile foundations);
• UPL: loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure
(buoyancy) or other vertical actions;
• HYD: hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic
gradients.
12
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Contd…
• An exception to the application of partial factors is made in relation to water pressure.
• It is recognized that the application of partial factors to water pressure can, in some
circumstances, lead to unrealistically high water pressure. In this case, it is suggested
that a suitable margin of safety be applied to characteristic water levels.
• Three basic design approaches are permitted in the assessment of ultimate limit states
and are applied according to local practice.
What limit states need to be considered?
• For most simple geotechnical design situations, the GEO limit state will be critical to the
sizing of foundations and structural members.
• The sections of the code covering specific design issues, such as pile foundations and
spread footings etc., give advice on the limit states that need to be considered.
• Where groundwater is present in excavations or cuttings, the UPL and HYD limit states
need to be considered.
• The STR limit state is less well defined, but is nevertheless very important in some
design situations.
• The STR case might become critical where imposed loading causes deformation of some
part of the structure or deformation of the ground imposes deformation on a structural
member.
Which frequently used ?
• For most of the design problems likely to be encountered the STR and GEO ultimate limit
states are the ones that will apply, as they cover the routine design of shallow and pile
foundations and other ‘common’ geotechnical structures.
• The EQU ULS is intended to cater for the rare occasion when, for example, a rigid
retaining wall, bearing on a rigid rock foundation, could rotate about one edge of its
base.
• The UPL and HYD ULSs, while more common than EQU, are generally beyond the
‘routine’
13
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Unrealistic possibility
Serviceability Limit States
• SLSs are defined as states that correspond to conditions beyond which specified service
requirements for a structure or structural member are no longer met (e.g. settlement that
is excessive for the purposes of the structure).
• It is a non technical statement
• (i)P The limit states that concern :-
- The functioning of the structures or structural members under normal use;
- The comfort of people;
- The appearance of the construction works
- Shall be classified as serviceability limit states (SLS)
Inconvenience, disappointments and more manageable costs.
Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them completely.
SERVICEABILITY FAILURE
14
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Who should carry out geotechnical design?
• Part 1 provides a useful, although optional, definition of categories of geotechnical

structures.
• Geotechnical Category 1 (GC1) includes relatively straightforward structures in which

routine methods, including prescriptive methods, may be used.
• While the code makes no attempt to define levels of competency, experienced civil and
structural engineers should be capable of preparing the geotechnical design basis for
Category 1 structures.
• A designer should be capable of judging whether a design situation is not more complex
than allowed within the Geotechnical Category.
Contd…
• Structures that involve excavation below the water table, but otherwise conventional
structures without unusual risk, are defined as Geotechnical Category 2 (CG2).
• Such structures normally require some form of geotechnical characterisation based on

field or laboratory testing.
• The terms ‘geotechnical engineer’, ‘geotechnical specialist’ and ‘geotechnical advisor’

are defined.
• It was suggested that design work on CG2 structures should be carried out by an
experienced civil or structural engineer.
Contd…
• Geotechnical Category 3 (GC3) covers situations that are considered unusual or are
associated with high risk.
• GC3 projects will typically involve advanced field or laboratory testing and numerical
analysis.
• The Association of Geotechnical Specialists advocates the role of Geotechnical Advisors

in establishing the design strategy of large projects, and this would seem to be
appropriate to GC3 structures.
15
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
En1990 fundamental equation for ULSs
Fundamental limit states requirement
Design values of action
6.3.1 Design values of actions

(1) The design value Fd of an action F can be expressed in general terms as:
Fd=FFrep
with
Frep=FK
Where F = Partial Factor of Safety for the action which takes account the possibility of
unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representatives value.
Frep= The relevant representative values for the action
FK = The characteristic values of the action
 is either 1.0 or  
16
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Contd…
Contd..
Design values of material or product properties
17
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Contd..
Design values of geometrical data
Basis of geotechnical design
• Refer details to EN7: Geotechnical Design Part 1 : General Rules Section 2 page 19 onwards.
2.1 Design requirement

2.2 Design situations
2.3 Durability
2.4 Geotechnical Design by Calculation
2.5 Design by prescriptive measures
2.6 Load tests and tests on experimental models
2.7 Observational method
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report.
18
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
DESIGN APPROACH
• Generally EN1997 provides 3 Design Approach for the application of partial factor of
Safety.
• The Design Approach is know as DA-1/1, DA-1/2 (Design Approach 1),
DA – 2 (Design Approach 2) and DA-3(Design Approach 3)
• MALAYSIA PRACTICE USE ONLY DESIGN APPROACH 1 FOR STR and EQU IN THE
DESIGN.
What combinations of partial factors to use?
• Combination 1 involves the consideration of factored actions and unfactored material

properties and resistances.
• Combination 2 considers unfactored actions, except unfavourable variable actions, and

factored material properties.
• Difficulties arise with the application of numerical methods, such as finite element, in the
assessment of ultimate state.
• In this case, the factoring of soil strength or stiffness can lead to the generation of
inappropriate mechanisms in the analysis.
Contd…
• Uncertainty can also be experienced in assessing slope stability, where it can be difficult
to separate favourable and unfavourable actions, and in the design of ground anchors
where the design and execution codes provide conflicting advice.
• Serviceability states are usually assessed by adopting unfactored actions and material
properties.
• In this area, numerical analysis provides a useful tool for GC2 and GC3 projects.
19
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
DESIGN APPROACH 1 (M’SIA PRACTICE)
• National choice is permitted in the use of a Design Approach for the STR and GEO limit
states (see MS EN 1997-1:2012, 2.4.7.3.4.1(1)P).
• As indicated in Table NA1, only Design Approach 1 is to be used in Malaysia.
• Table NA1 of this national annex lists the clauses in MS EN 1997-1:2012 where national
choice may be exercised in respect of factor values for design in Malaysia.
• Where choice applies, Table NA1 indicates where values are given, or states a value to
be used, or describes the procedure for specifying the factor.
• The values given in the Tables in Annex A of this national annex replace the
recommended values in Annex A of MS EN 1997-1:2012.
DESIGN APPROACH 1 (M’SIA PRACTICE)
ONLY FOR DESIGN APPROACH 1 - STR AND GEO

Clause 2.4.7.3.4.2
• Other than pile and anchor use

Combination 1 : A1 + M1 + R1
• For Axially loaded Pile and Anchor

Combination 2 : A2 + (M1 or M2) + R4
where M2 is for calculating any

unfavourable actions such as negative skin or transverse loading.
SUMMARY FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY
• Refer only to Design Approach 1
20
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN BY

CALCULATION
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, Fk CHARACTERISTIC MATERIALS PROPERTIES
THE DESIGN IS ALL ABOUT

MULTIPLIED BY F VALUES DIVIDED BY M VALUES
Actions:(loads, forces etc.) and Material Properties (c, tan , etc)

DESIGN ACTION, Fd DESIGN MATERIALS PROPERTIES
Geotechnical Design Analysis
DESIGN EFFECT ANALYSIS, Ed DESIGN RESISTANCE, Rd
VERIFY Ed≤ Rd
DESIGN VALUES OF ACTIONS
DESIGN ACTION, Fd
CHARACTERISTIC
ACTIONS, Fk
DESIGN EFFECT OF
REPRESENTATIVE
ACTION, Ed
ACTION, Frep
Partial Factor of
Correlation Factor,  rep
Safety, rep
ENGINEERING STUDENT
21
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT
CIVIL ENGINEERS
DESIGN ENGINEER’S RATIONAL
22
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
FINALLY - HOW TO LOOK SMART FOR ENGINEERS
THE END
23
LECTURE 3 Shallow Foundation
DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
ASSOC. PROF. Ir. DR. RAMLI NAZIR

TEL : 013 7927925
OFF: 07 5531722
Lecture 3
DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Brief Revision
1
• Basic Consideration in designing the shallow footings are:-
1. Significance and use
2. Settlement limitations
3. Total Settlement
4. Differential settlement
5. Bearing Capacity
Stability Problem
Bearing Capacity Failure
• How do we estimate the maximum bearing pressure that

the soil can withstand before failure occurs?
DESIGN REQUIREMENT
• The design must meet two principle requirement of the Limit State:-
1. Capacity is sufficient to support loads
2. Avoiding excess settlement which might lead t a loss of function.
• This limit state is known as Ultimate Limit State and Serviceability Limit
State.
• Both states must always be considered in the design.
• This philosophies is the basis of Eurocode 7.
• The concept related to shallow foundation design can be shown in the
figure below.
2
Bearing Capacity and Limit Analysis
Types/Modes of Failure
• general shear failure
• local shear failure
• punching shear failure
Typical Mode of Failure
3
Mode (a)
• As the pressure increase towards failure value, qf, a state of plastic

equilibrium is reached initially in the soil around the edges of footing.
• As the soil is not perfectly level , the soil movement will accompany with
tilting and heaving to one side of the footing.
• This mode is typical for low compressibility soil where the peak value is
significant.
• Ultimately the state of plastic equilibrium is fully developed throughout
the soil above the failure surface.
• This type of failure is called a general shear failure.
Mode (b)
• There is a significant compression of the soil under the footing and only
partial development of the state of plastic equilibrium.
• The failure surfaces does not reach the ground surface and only slight
heaving occurs.
• Tilting of foundation will less been expected.
• The ultimate bearing capacity is not well defined.
• This mode is associated with high compressibility and is called Local
Shear Failure.
Mode (c)
• Relatively to high compression of soil under the footing.

• This will accompanied by shearing in a vertical direction around the
footing.
• No heaving occurs on the ground surface away from the edges of footing
and no tilting occurs.
• Large settlement is the main characteristic of this mode.
• The bearing capacity is not well defined.
• In general, he mode of failure depend on the compressibility of the soil
and the depth of foundation related to the breadth.
4
Model Tests by Vesic (1973)
General Guidelines
• Footings in clays - general shear
• Footings in Dense sands

r 67%)-general shear
( D>
• Footings in Loose to Medium dense

(30%< D <r 67%) - Local Shear
• Footings in Very Loose Sand (D<r
30%)- punching shear
• The bearing capacity problem can be considered in terms of plastic

theory.
• It can be assumed that the stress-strain behaviour of the soil can be
represented by the rigid-perfectly plastic idealization.
• Both yielding and shear failure occur

at the same state of stress.
Shear Stress
Y’
• Unrestricted plastic flow takes place
at this stress level.
• A soil mass is said to be in a state of
plastic equilibrium if the shear
stress at every point within the mass
Shear Strain reaches the value represented by Y’.
5
• The plastic collapse will occur after plastic equilibrium has reach in part of
the soil mass.
• This will result in the formation of unstable mechanism ( The par of the
soil mass slip)
• The applied load including body forces is called collapse load.
• Determination of the collapse load is achieved using the limit theorem of
plasticity known as limit analysis to calculate LOWER and UPPER
BOUND to the true collapse load.
LOWER BOUND THEOREM
• If the state of stress can be found which at no point exceeds the failure
criterion for the soil and is in equilibrium with the external load system, than
there will be no collapse.
• Therefore the external load system constitute a lower bound to the true
collapse since a more efficient stress distribution may exit, which would be
in equilibrium with higher external loads.
UPPER BOUND THEOREM
• If a kinematically admissible mechanism ( the motion of a sliding mass

must remain continuous and be compatible with any boundary restriction)
of plastic collapse is postulated and if, in an increment of displacement,
the work done by the system of external loads is equal to the dissipation of
energy by the internal stresses, then collapse will occurs.
• The external load system constitute an upper bound to the true collapse
loads since more efficient mechanism may exist resulting in collapse
under lower external loads.
6
BEARING CAPACITY IN
UNDRAINED MATERIALS
UPPER BOUND APPROACH

MECHANISM UB-1
• For undrained condition the failure
mechanism within the soil mass should
be a slip lines which are either a straight
line or a circular arcs or both.
• For simplification a straight line is used
to identify the three sliding block of a
soil under vertical loading.
• The load will push downwards and the
blocks will have to move to form a
mechanism and therefore be
kinematically admissible.
• As a result a slip line shown OA, OB,
OC,AB and BC which are the results of
energy dissipation along this line.
• The energy line is shown as in the velocity

diagram known a hodograph.
• It is use to determine the velocities along
the slip line
• Starting with the known vertical
displacement (v) of a footing, the point f is
known. Block A must move 45o horizontal
to the stationary soil. The vertical
component of this motion must equal to v
so the soil and footing will remain contact.
• Two construction line may be added to the
hodograph to represent the two limiting
conditions.
• The crossing line will meet at point a and
form velocity vOA. Similar to Block B where
it moves horizontally with respect to O and
at 45o with respect to A. the process
continuously move which is therefore a
kinematically admissible.
• The energy dissipated (Ei) due to shearing at relative velocity vi along a

slip line of Length Li is given by :
• Total energy dissipated in the soil can then be found by summing Ei for all
slip lines.
Relative Energy
Slip Line Stress, f Length, Li velocity, Dissipated,
vi Ei
OA cu 2 cuBv
2
OB cu B 2v 2cuBv
OC cu 2 cuBv
2
AB cu 2 cuBv
2
BC cu 2 cuBv
2
Total Energy, Ei 6cuBv
7
• The work done Wi by a pressure qi acting over an area per unit length Bi
moving at velocity vi is given by :-
• For qf, the pressure acting downward while for Block C as the motion
move upwards, the surcharge pressure will tend to move against gravity.
This is negative work. Therefore the work done for surcharge (q) will be:
• Summing W for all component:
• Therefore, for mechanism UB-1, for undrained materials the bearing

capacity qf is :
UPPER BOUND APPROACH,

MECHANISM UB-2
• Another mechanism approach is by

replacing Block B with a number of smaller
wedges. These wedges describe a circular
arc of Radius, R between the rigid block A
and block C which is known as shear fan.
• Block A and C will move in the same
direction and b the same magnitude.
• The velocity around the edge of the
circular arc will be constant as its rotates
around point X.
• Since Li is circular length then Li = R
• Thus giving :
• The next energy dissipated due to the

shearing occurrence between each wedge
is similarlyfound and given as:-
8
• The total amount of energy disipated is by summing all amount of energy

across all wedges.
• If the wedges angle  is small, this summation becomes an integral over
a full internal angle of the zone ().
Energy Dissipated,
Slip Line Stress, f Length, Li Relative velocity, vi
Ei
OA 2 cuBv
cu
2
Fan Zone (/2) cu R= vfan = 2 cuBv
OC 2 cuBv
cu
2
Total Energy, Ei =
• Applying the same equation as previous for UB-1 it yields :
The results in UB-2 is lower than UB-1, so UB-2 present the true collapse load by upper bound
theorem.
LOWER BOUND APPROACH –

STRESS STATE LB-1
• In undrained condition the yield criterion
are satisfied without considering mode of
deformation thus f = cu.
• For equilibrium purposes, 1 in zone 2
must be equal to 3 in zone 1.
• The major principal stress at any point in
zone 1 is :
• The minor principal stress in zone 2 is

smilarly :
• If the soil is undrained with shear strength

cu, it is in the state of plastic yielding and
the diameter of each circle is 2cu.
• At the point where the circle meet :
=
9
Lower Bound Approach, Stress State LB-2
• A more realistic stress state forming a fan

zone which gradually rotate the major
principle stress from vertical beneath the
footing to horizontal outside.
• The change in direction of major principle

stress across a frictional discontinuity depend
on the frictional strength along the
discontinuity , d.
• In crossing the discontinuity, the major

principle stress will rotate by an amount  
∆
And the radius of the Mohr circles are cu;
∆
→ ; →
• For a fan zone of frictional discontinuities

substended to an angle , the equation can be
integrated as follow across the fan angle fan:-
The principal stress rotation required in the fan is :

, giving :-
This value is higher than for LB-1 so LB-2

represent a better estimate of the true collapse load
by the lower bound theorem.
BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR

(Undrained Materials)
• General Equation : (refer

pg. 157, App. D, EN7-1)
• For the case of footing surrounded by
surcharge pressure q, Nc = 5.14 where Nc is
bearing capacity factor for strip footing under
undrained conditions (f = cu)
• Skempton (1951) provided figure by the side
with included value(solid line) suggested by
Salgado et.al. (2004) given that :-
. (Eqn 8.18)
Where d : footing depth and B : footing width.

For general rectangular footing dimension B x L,
Eurocode 7 recommends that shape factor :
. (Eqn 8.19)
Nc for circular may be obtain by taking square
footing (B/L = 1) and should not exceed 9 for
deeply embedded square (sc=1) or circular
(sc=2)foundation.
10
Footing in Layered Undrained Soil
• Values of Nc obtained previously may be used

for stratified deposits, provided the value of cu
for a particular stratum is not greater than the
average value for all strata within the
significant depth by more than 50% of the
average value.
• Merifield et al. (1999) presented upper and
lower bound values for Nc for strip footing
resting on a two cohesive layer as a function
of thickness H on upper layer of strength cu1
overlying deep deposit materials with strength
cu2.
• Proposed design value Nc as suggested in
general terms from Figure
(a) is valid if the undrained shear strngth of
the upper layer is used in the latter equation.
(cu = cu1)
• The resulting shape factor for square footing
B/L=1 is given as in Figure (b).
Footing Associated With Slopes
• For foundation constructed close to the slope,

inevitably the bearing capacity will reduced.
• Georgiaids (2010), proposed charts for Nc for
strip footing set back from the crest of the slope
with angle  by a multiple  of the foundation
width.
• These are based on upper bound analyses in
which an optimal failure mechanism was found
giving the lowest upper bound.
• Thus it is important to include both local and
global failure mechanism.
• The value of Nc reduces with the slope
increment.
• If the foundation is set far enough back from the
crest of the slope (l>2B), then the slope will have
no effect on the bearing capacity and consider as
a level ground (Nc = 2 + )
Variation of cu with Depth
• Davies and Booker(1973) conducted upper

and lower bound plasticity analyses for soil
with linear variation of undrained shear
strength with depth z below founding
plane :-
Where cu0 is the undrained shear strength at z =

0 and C is the gradient of the cu-z relationship.
The general expression is the given as:
If C=0, then Fz=1 giving Nc=5.14.
11
BEARING CAPACITY IN DRAINED

MATERIALS
Upper Bound Theorem
• The slip surface within the kinematically

admissible failure mechanism is either
straight lines or spiral log curves or both.
• Normally for drained materials it is a

cohesionless soil where c’ = 0 and will exhibit
some amount of dilatancy ( ’).
• In special case where ( ’), the direction of

movement will be perpendicular to resultant
force, Rs.
• The condition is known as normality principle

and it represent an associative flow rules.
• Figure (a) shows a failure mechanism in a

weightless cohesionless soil (=c’=0) with a
friction angle ’ which is similar to UB-2 but
log spiral replacing circular fan.
• To determine the geometry of the
mechanism, the equation describe the log
spiral must be first found.
• Thus :-

Which may be integrated from ro at =0 to r at .
12
• Appling r where ro = LAB, r = LBC and  = /2, for associative rule  = ’ ;
∅
Length of the spiral log with known foundation width B and wedge angle of
are :-
• The area per unit length over which the surcharge acts on the mechanism L can be define as :-
∅ ∅
.
• As a results of normality principle, there is no energy dissipated by shearing within soil mass
which gives ∑ = 0.
• As for undrained case, the footing and surcharges pressure still do work and the computations
for the drain case are as shown:-
∅
∅
∅
∅
Lower Bound Analysis
• The change in the direction of the major principle

stresses across a frictional discontinuity depends on
the frictional strength along the discontinuity as
before (td).
• For the drained case, the envelope bounding the
Mohr circle in zone 1 and zone 2 form:-
∅
and ′ ∅′ where ∅′ is the mobilised
friction angle along the discontinuity.
• The major principle stress will rotate at an amount

of  whereas the mean effective stress in each zone
is represented by s’ which gives:
∆
2
∆ ∅′ ∆ ∅′
∆ ∅′
∆ ∅′
13
• The radii of the Mohr circles (tA and tB) for cohesionless soil can be describe by : ∅
thus it means that .
• Substitute into the latter equations gives :-
′ ′ ∅′
′ ′ ∅′
Setting s’B = s’ as ’mob approach ’ the above equation can be written as:-
′
∅′
′
′
∅′
′
For small 
• For a fan zone of frictional stress discontinuities subtending an angle qfan, the latter equation
can be integrated from zone 1 to zone 2:-
′
∅′
′
′ ∅
′
Since ′ ∅ in zone 1 and ′ ′ ∅ in zone 2 the principle stress rotaion

required if the fan is or 90o will give the above equation as:-
∅′ ∅
.
∅′ ′
∅′ ∅
∴ ′
∅′
Bearing Capacity Factor
• Bearing capacity in drained materials is generally expressed as:-
′ ′
N : Bearing Capacity Factor related to self weight

Nc : Bearing Capacity Factor related to cohesion
s and sc : Shape factor
Value of Nq is found by limit analysis and given in closed-form by :-
∅′ ∅
∅′
14
• Parameter Nc can be derived for soil with non-zero c’ to give :
∅′
• The final bearing capacity factor N is difficult to determine analytically as it is influence by the
roughness of the base and soil interaction. In MSEN7, supersedes by N given in Annex D the
following expression is proposed :-
. ∅′
• The sample method given in MS EN 1997-1:2012, Annex D omits depth and ground inclination
factors which are commonly found in bearing resistance formulations.
• The omission of the depth factor errs on the side of safety, but the omission of the ground
inclination factor does not.
• To determine the ground inclination factor, one of the methods which may be considered is
described in Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual [NAVFAC DM 7.02 pp 7.2-135]
which will be mentioned in the next topic.
Bearing Capacity Factor Chart (MSEN7)
1000
100
Bearing Capacity Factor
Nc
10
Nq N (MSEN7)
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
' (DEGREE)
• Lyamin et al. (2007) present rectangular shape

factor derived from rigorous limit analyses.
The results is as shown in Fig. a.
• However, sq recommended by EC7 are:
∅′ for a rectangular shape

∅ for a square and circular shape
• s recommended by EC7 are:

. for a rectangular shape
. for a square and circular shape
• sc recommended by EC7 is :-
15
Water Condition
′ ′
• It is vital that the appropriate values of unit weight are used in the bearing capacity equation. In
an effective stress analysis, three different situation must be considered:-
1. If the water table is below the foundation plane, the bulk unit weight is to be used in the first
and second terms of the equation.
2. If the water table is at the foundation plane, the buoyant unit weight (’) must be used in the
second term of the equation. The bulk unit weight shall be used in the first term of the
equation.
3. If the water table is at ground surface or above, the effective unit weight must be used in the
first and second term of the equation.
Partial Factor of Safety for MSEN7-2012
DESIGN APPROACH 1
ULS PARTIAL FOS FOR STR AND GEO Symbol COMBINATION 1 COMBINATION 2
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 M2* R4 R4
With explixit verification of SLS(A)
Slopes and embankment
Unfavourable 1.35 1.00

Without explicit verification of
Other than slopes and
Permanent G
embankment
Favourable 1.00 1.00

SLS(A)
ACTION (F , E)

Unfavourable 1.50 1.30
Variables Q
Favourable 0.00 0.00
tan ' ' 1.00 1.25 1.35
Effective cohesion c' 1.00 1.25 1.35
SOIL (M) Undrained strength cu 1.00 1.40 1.50
Unconfined Strength qu 1.00 1.40 1.50
Weight density ' 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bearing R;v 1.00

Spread Footing
Sliding R;h 1.00
Calculation Procedure for Shallow Foundation on

Undrained and Drained Materials Using
Limit State Design
• Total Stress or Effective Stress analysis : Determine the shear strength

parameter or effective stress parameters and unit weight of the underlying soil
to determine the bearing capacity factors.
• Groundwater Table: For an effective stress analysis, the groundwater table will
give an impact to bearing capacity.
• Ultimate Limit State Evaluation : Depend on type of footing and analysis using
Design Approach 1 only. Determine the size of footing initially.
• Check the respond of action against the effect of action together with the model
factor of 1.4 or 1.2.
• Combination 1 : A1 + M1 + R1
• Combination 2 : A2 + M2 + R1
• Check on Serviceability Limit States : The allowable bearing capacity may have
to be downgraded due to local building code of practice or lower bearing
pressure to avoid excessive settlement allowed.
16
Shallow Foundation Under Combined Loads
Undrained Materials
• In some cases apart from vertical loads, foundation can experience

horizontal loads and moments.
• If the horizontal loads is small in comparison to vertical load, than the
horizontal load and moment may be disregard.
• For the foundation loaded by action V, H and M, the following limits state
must be met:
1. The resultant vertical action must not exceed the bearing resistance of
supported soil.
2. Sliding must not occurs due to the resultant of H
3. Overturning must not occurs due to resultant action of M.
• The foundation movement due to any settlement must not cause undue
distress or lost of function in the supported structures.
Foundation Stability from ULS
• Similar to lower bound limit analysis techniques,

the addition of horizontal load, H will induced an
additional stress f=H/Af at the footing surface as
shown.
• It is assume that the surface of footing is rough and
rotate the major principle stress direction in zone 1.
• In undrained materials, the rotation will be =
/2. from the vertical.
• Overall rotation of principal stresses across the fan
zone is now fan = /2 – /2.
• Therefore ∆
From Figure :
∆
• In zone 2, , while in
zone1 ∆
• Thus giving:
∆ ∆

17
Eqn (b)
• For all possible value of H (0 H/Afcu

it can be found from ∆ ;
and V/Afcu ( = bearing capacity Nc) can be
found from
• When H/Afcu = 0 (purely vertical load) ,
=0 and V/Afcu= 2 + .
• When H/Afcu , the shear stress u = cu.
The footing will slide horizontally,
irrespective of V.
• The resulting curves representing the yield
surface for the foundation under V-H
loading. Combination of V-H which lie
within the yield surface will be stable while
those lying outside the yield surface will be
unstable.
• If V>>H, failure will be in bearing while if
V<<H collapse will be by sliding.
• In EC7 application of an additional

inclination factor ic is used to the standard
bearing capacity equation.
• For the case of no surcharge and a strip

footing, sc = 1,
The equation above is also plotted in the

diagram shown.
• Gourvenec (2007) presented a yield surface for

the general case of V-H_M loading on
undrained soil where :-
. .
1
. .
Where R is the vertical resistance of the foundation

under pure vertical load and B is the breadth of the
foundation.
• The figure (a) compare the lower bound
solution, EN7 approach and the yield surface
(equation above) for the case of V-H (M=0)
loading.
18
• When M , the yield surface becomes 3

dimension (a function of V,H and M).
• The contour of V/R for combinations of H and
M under general loading are use in ULS design
as shown in Figure (b).
• The presence of moment allow fot rotation of the
foundation when M>>V,H.
• The yield surface assumes that tension cannot
be sustained along the soil footing interface.
This will due to uplift if the overturning effect is
strong.
• Provided that the combination of V, H and M is
within the yield surface, the foundation will
satisfy in terms of bearing, sliding and
overturning.
Drained Materials
• Using a lower bound analysis, it gives:
• From the Mohr circle, the rotation of the major

principal stress direction in zone 1 is
=(+)/2 from vertical.
• The stress condition in zone 2 are unchanged
as shown in Fig.(a).
• Overall rotation of principal stresses across the
an zone is now :
∆
∆ ∅
Thus
From Fig. (b) : ∆

∅
In zone 2, s’2 = q + s’2sin ’ while in zone 1, s’1 =

qf + s’1sin ’ cos() as in Figure (b).
• Substituting the equation previously gives:
∅ ∆ ∆ ∅
∅′
• Value of  can be found in any combination of V

and H with  and Nq from the latter equations.
• The value is plotted as in the Figure shown.
• If the footing is perfectly rough (’=’), sliding will
occur if H/V tan ’
• Similar to undrained case the EC7 apply
additional inclinaion factor in the equation by :
Valid when H/V ∅′ to account for sliding

Fot the case of strip footing on cohesionless soil (c’=0)
∅′ ∅
∅′
19
• Butterfield and Gottardi (1994) presented a

yield surface of a general case of V-H-M
loading on drained soil:
. . .
• For value of V/R at any value of H/V the

value of Nq from the latter equation will be
divided by the value of Nq at H/V=0;
∅ ∅
∅
and that H/R=(H/V) x
(V/R) thus the value of qf and Nq in latter
equation can be expressed in terms of V/R
and H/R for case M=0.
• Figure (a) compares the lower bound

solution , EC7 and the full yield stress
surface for the case of V-H loading (M=0)
• When M the yield surface will become 3

dimensiona surface which shows a contour of
V/R for combinations of H and M under general
loading for uae in ULS design from equation by
Butterfield and Gottardi (1994).
• In EC7 also accounted for the moments effect
through the use of B’=B-2e where e = M/V.
• For strip footing, the footing soil contact area is B’
per meter length under V-H-M loading and:
′
• Under pure ;oading V (where V = R at bearing
capacity failure)
Dividing the above equations and substituting for iq, B’

and e gives:
Foundation in Two way Eccentricity
20
• Considering the foundation is subjected to Vertical Loading and Moment

M.
• The moment component is determine in 2 direction namely Mx and My.
• This condition is equivalent to the load Qult placed eccentrically on the
foundation with x = eB and y = eL
• Since then : eB = and eL =

• R = q’f A’
• A’ = effective area B’ x L’
When determine effective area (A’)

four possible case may arise.
Case 1 :
Where
.
.
L’ is the larger of two
dimension that is B1 or L1.
B’ = A’/L’
Case II : eL/L <0.5 and 0< eB/B< 1/6

Magnitude of L1 and L2 can be
determine from Figure (b)
The effective width is :

The effective length is :
L’ = L1 or L2 which ever is larger.
21
Case III : eL/L < 1/6 and 0<

eB/B< 0.5

Magnitude of B1 and B2 can be
determine from Figure (b)
The effective width is :
The effective length is :

L’ = L
Case 1 :
With effective width B’ = A’/L

The effective Length L’ = L
BEARING CAPACITY FROM CPT
22
• The bearing capacity use from Terzaghi’s equation can be estimated

using:
0.8Nq ~ 0.8N ~ qc
Where qc is the average over depth interval from B/2 to 1.1B below the
footing base. The application should be use for D/B<=1.5.
• FOR COHESIONLESS SOIL
STRIP : 1
qult  28  0.0052(300  qc) 5
SQUARE :
1
Unit in kg/cm2
qult  48  0.009(300  qc) 5
• FOR CLAY
STRIP :
qult  2  0.28qc
SQUARE :
qult  5  0.34qc
Similar units apply
BEARING CAPACITY FROM SPT
23
• Widely use to obtain the bearing capacity of soil directly.

• Meyerhof use for computing the allowable bearing capacity for a 25mm
settlement.
N
qa  K d
F1
B <= F4
N  B  F3  2
qa    Kd
F2  B 
qa = allowable bearing pressure for Ho = 25mm
D
Kd  1  0.33  1.33 B > F4
B
FACTORS F AS FOLLOWS
Corrected SPT N55 N’70
F1 0.05 0.04
F2 0.08 0.06
F3 0.3 same
F4 1.2 same
24
• From equation :-
N is the statistical average value for the footing influence zone about 0.5B
above footing base to at least 2B below. This is taken into account
somewhat for mats where Meyerhof obtain qa = (N/F) x Kd
• In this equations the allowable soil pressure is for an assumed 25mm

settlement.
• In general the allowable pressure for any settlement Hj is
 Hj
qa'  qa
 Ho
Where Ho = 25mm. And Hj is the actual settlement that can be tolerated
in mm
Allowable Bearing Capacity of Sand
• Parry (1977) proposed allowable bearing capacity of sand as:
qa = 30N55 kPa (D<=B)
• Where N55 is the average SPT value at about 0.75B below the propsed base of
footing.
• Allowable bearing pressure qa is computed for settlement checking as:-
qa = N55/15B - kPa
For Ho = 20mm
25
END
26
LECTURE 4 DEEP FOUNDATION
DEEP FOUNDATION
(LECTURE 4)

TEL : 013 7927925
OFF: 07 5531722
DRIVEN PILE
1
Successful Engineering Failure
2
3
Effect of Installing Driven Pile
• Pile in clay have been classified into 4 major categories:-

a) Remoulding or partial structural alteration of the soil surrounding the pile.
b) Alteration of the stress state in the soil in the vicinity of the pile.
c) Dissipation of the excess pore pressures developed around the pile.
d) Long Term phenomena of strength-regain in soil.
ESTIMATION OF PORE
PRESSURE
• Within the failure zone of the soil surrounding the pile, the pore
pressure were at maximum and constant.
• Driving of adjacent pile will only increase the pore pressure
slightly.
• Outside failure zone, the pore pressure decrease rapidly with
distance and was negligible at about 16 diameters from the pile.
• Raduis of failure zone is about 4 pile radii.
• D’appolonia and Lambe (1971) derived the maximum excess
pore pressure during pile driving as:
 um  2cu 
 (1  Ko )  Af
' vo  ' vo 
4
Where :
um = maximum excess pore pressure
Ko = Insitu coefficient of earth pressure at rest
cu = Undrained shear strength
Af = Pore pressure coefficient at failure
’vo = Initial vertical effective stress in soil
• As a rapid, practical means of estimating the excess pore pressure distribution, the
following procedure is suggested :
a) The equation is used to obtain maximum pore pressure from the surface of the pile to
distance R. R varies from 3 pile diameter to 4 pile diameter for insensitive clay and 8
pile diameter for sensitive clays.
Assume Limit of
Failure zone
arR
b. Beyond the distance R, the excess pore pressure is assumed to vary inversely
as the square of the distance r from the pile i.e :
u m
u 
r2
 
 2
c. For group piles, pore pressure distributions around individual pile may be
superimposed, except that pore pressure cannot exceed um.
• For pile installed in sand, driving has distinct advantages compare to boring.
• Densification occurs due to displacement and vibration which resulting in
permanent rearrangement and some crushing of the particles.
• The amount of compaction near the tip is greater than the top of the pile.
• Kishida(1967) assume the diameter of compacted zone around the pile is 7 pile
diameter.
• Within the zone he assumes that the angle of friction ’ changes

linearly with distance from the original values of ’ at a radius r
= 3.5d to a maximum value of ’ at the pile tip where :-
o
'1  40
'2 
2
• When ’ = 40o , no change in relative density due to pile driving.
• Pile groups driven into a loose sand will highlt compact the soil
around and in between the pile.
• If the pile spacing is closed i.e < 6 pile diameter, the efficiency >
1.0
• However if pile is driven in very dense sand, adverse effect may
occurs.
5
LOAD TRANSFER OF SINGLE DRIVEN PILE
DEFINITION OF FAILURE LOAD

ON PILES
• Generally failure load is taken as the load causing ultimate failure of a pile.
• In engineering sense, failure may have occurred long before reading the
ultimate load since the settlement of the structure will have exceeded the
tolerable limits.
• Allowable loads on piles would be one which would enable engineer to predict
load settlement relationship up to the point of failure, for any given type of size
of pile in any soil or rock conditions.
• In most cases, the procedure is to calculate the ultimate bearing of the isolated
pile and to divide this value by a safety factor which experience has shown will
limit the settlement and the working load to a value which is tolerable to the
structural designer.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES
• The design of pile should comply with the following requirements

throughout their service life :
• There should be adequate safety against ultimate limit state failure

of the ground. The FOS depends on the important of the structure,
consequences of the 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 load test.
• There should be adequate margin against excessive pile movements

which would impair the Ultimate Serviceability Limits of the
structure.
6
SINGLE PILE ANALYSIS BASE FROM

MSEN7
MODE OF FAILURE FOR SINGLE PILE
• General Equation for axially loaded single pile:
or
Qs Qs Shaft skin friction

=
Qp = End bearing
l s = PFOS for skin
b = PFOS for base
t = PFOS for total
f = PFOS for Action
f Q Rd . .
Qb
7
Model Factor
• MS EN 1997-1:2012, 2.4.7.1(6) states that model factors may be applied to

the design value of a resistance or the effect of an action to ensure that the
results of the design calculation model are either accurate or err on the safe
side.
• Model factors required in pile design are provided in A3.3.2 and A3.3.3
• A3.3.2 Partial resistance factors for pile foundations
The values of factors provided here are considered to be generally applicable for
pile foundations. However, variation of these factors is permitted in particular
circumstances when justified by thorough consideration and documented
experience, and after being agreed, where appropriate, with the relevant
authorities. The value of the model factor should be 1.4, except that it may
be reduced to 1.2 if the resistance is verified by a maintained load test
taken to the calculated, unfactored ultimate resistance
• A3.3.3 Correlation factors for pile foundations

For the verifications of Structural (STR) and Geotechnical (GEO) limit states, the
following corelation factors ξ should be applied to derive the characteristic resistance
of axially loaded piles:
ξ1 on the mean values of the measured resistances in static load tests;
ξ2 on the minimum value of the measured resistances in static load tests;
ξ3 on the mean values of the calculated resistances from ground test results;
ξ4 on the minimum value of the calculated resistances from ground test results;
ξ5 on the mean values of the measured resistances in dynamic load tests;
ξ6 on the minimum value of the measured resistances in dynamic load tests.
END BEARING
8
End Bearing in Undrained Soil
• For piles in undrained condition where  = 0
Qbu = Ap(scNccu + q)
• However for L/D > 5, scNc 9 (base from

Skempton) thus giving:-
Qp = 9cuAp
• All the soil above the base level is treated as
surcharge where q = v at the level of pile
base.
• Circular piles are treated the same way as

square pile for shape factor sc.
Different Case of Soil Layer
• It is possible to utilised various conditions

to account for soil surrounding the pile as
shown:
• For case (a) and (b), the value of Nc and sc

is limited to scNc = 9 and can be find from
the previous Skempton correlation.
• For case (c), sc and Nc to be taken from

after.
• For case (d) and (e) use:-
Where sc = 1.2 and Fz as figure shown after.
Case (c)
9
Case (d) and (e)
End Bearing For Drained Conditions
• In drained soil, base resistance can be

simplified into :
The value of Nq is given by :-

∅′ ∅
∅′
Which is an approximate at large Lp/Do.
• Values given by Berezantsev (1961) for
circular pile should therefore use the solid
line as figure shown.
• These values of Nq implicitly include the

effect of shape.
SKIN RESISTANCE
10
SKIN RESISTANCE IN UNDRAINED

SOIL
• Three Methods normally adopted:-

  method
  method
  method
• fs = cu should be limited to 150kN/m2
-Method (fs=  su)

• API Function
For su <25 kPa   1 .0
For 25 kPa < su <75kPa
 su  500 psf 
  1.0  0.5 
 1000 psf 
For su > 75 kPa
  0 .5
Adhesion factor (a) for driven

pile in undrained condition:
1. API Method - 2, 1986
Qs = cupL
 = 0.45 for bore pile
11
-Method (fs=  su); Piles
-Method (fs=  su); Drilled Shafts
- method for driven pile in cohesive soil :
Qs  pL (' v  2cu )

• Not applicable for bore pile design
12
 - method for driven pile in Undrained soil :
f = ’v
 = K tan R
Normally consolidated clay

K = 1 – sin R
Overconsolidated clay
K= 1 – sin R(OCR)1/2
-Method (Undrained)
-Method (Drained)
For Auger-Cast Piles,

Neely (1991)
Do not divide into layers
f s      140 kPa (2800 psf )
13
-Method (Gravels)
Rollins, Clayton, and Mitchell (1997)

For 50% or more gravel size particles
  3.4 e 0.026 z 0.25    3.00 ( English)
  3.4 e 0.085 z 0.25    3.00 (SI )

For 25-50% gravel size particles
  2.0  0.061z 0.75 0.25    1.80 ( English)
  2.0  0.15 z 0.75 0.25    1.80 (SI )
-Method (Silts and Clays)
Fellenius, (1999)
For normally consolidated silts and clays
  0.27 - 0.50 ( Silts )
  0.25 - 0.35 (clays)
For heavily over consolidated clays

 could be much higher
SKIN RESISTANCE IN DRAINED

CONDITION
• Frictional resistance of pile can be written as :-

Qsu = pLf
Where : p : pile perimeter

L : pile length Bored pile or jetter pile
fs : unit friction resistance at any depth z. K=Ko=1-Sin

Low displacement driven piles
K = Ko : Lower limit
• fs can be expressed as :
K= 1.4Ko: Upper limit
fs = Kvtan
High Displacement piles
K=Ko: Lower limit
• fs will be constant at a conservative estimate
K=1.8Ko : Upper limit
of 15D
0.5 <  < 0.8
14
• The method is used to estimate the short term pile

load capacity in fine grain soil.
• The -method is used to estimate the short term and
long term pile capacity in coarse grain soil and long
term pile capacity in fine grain soil.
• The actual value for and Nq is uncertain.
• The limiting value given are not theoretical limits but
are based on experience on certain soil deposits. They
do not pertain to all situation.
End Bearing/Skin Resistance using

in-situ data
• Due to the difficulties in obtaining accurate values of the required

parameters, empirical correlations base on the results of pile loading tests
and in situ tests, are commonly used to provide alternative solutions.
SPT
Driven Pile in sand:

Qb = 400 x N (SPT) x Ap (kN)
Driven Pile in sand:
Qs = 3 x Nav (SPT) x As (kN)
Driven Pile in clay:

Qb = 100 x N (SPT) x Ap (kN)
Driven Pile in clay:
Qs = 2 x Nav (SPT) x As (kN)
where,
N(SPT) = (N1+N2)/2
N1= average N from base to 10-D above
N2= average N from base to 4-D below
15
Evaluation From EN7 from Insitu

Data
• For SPT data the following correlation is generally used:-
Where N60 is the SPT at base within the vicinity of pile and Cb is the soil dependent constant.
• For Shaft Capacity, the correlation is given by:-
Where is the average N60 along the length of the pile and Cs is a constant tnat can be taken as
2.0 (Clayton, 1995)
• For CPT the limited end bearing pressure ( ) is related to an average cone resistance
in the vicinity of pile base after:-
Where Ccpt depend on pile and soil type.

• For shaft resistance CPT gives unrealistic values thus other methods will be suggested.
Soil Dependent Constant
• The values of Qbu and Qsu determined from in situ test are characteristic resistance in terms of
limit state design frameworks.
• If n test s have been conducted , the characteristic resistance (Rk = Qbu + Qsu) is determine
using :-
Where  and  are correlation factor depending on the number of test taken. The characteristic
values may be reduce using model factor to account for uncertainties used to derived Qbu and Qsu.
16
PILE SETTING
Pile Termination.
• Pile termination can be either through setting value or length value.
• Depending on how it is being design either as an end bearing pile or skin

friction pile.
• However pile setting has does not implicates the settlement that is going
to occurs after constructions.
Final Set = ? In/10 blows
end bearing specs. = 1 in/ 10 blows
17
Method to determine Pile Setting
• There are several available methods to determine the pile setting.

• The main objective is to obtained anticipated design load capacity from the ground.
• Normally in this case pile will be said as to achieved required capacity at designated
blow for every 25mm.
• Methods available are:-
• Engineering News Record (ENR)
• New Engineering News Record.
• Hiley Formula
• Michigan Methods
• Danish Method.
• Hiley formula are most commonly used in Malaysia.
Dynamic Formula ENR
WR ×
h
Qu 
S C
or
E. H E
Qu 
S C
where:
Qu : Ultimate Bearing Capacity
WR : Ram Wt. (kN)
h : Fall Ht. of Ram (cm)
S : Pile penetration per blow (m/blow)
C : constant for drop hammer = 2.54 cm, for steam hammer= 0.254cm
Recommended FOS is 6.
Modified New ENR
 E.WR .h  WR  n W p 
2
Qu  
 S  C  WR  WP 
where:
E : Hammer efficiency
C : 0.254cm for S and h in centimeter
Wp : Pile Wt
n : Coefficient of restitution between ram
and pile cap
Recommended FOS is 6
18
Hammer Efficiency and Coefficient

of Restitution
Type Hammer Efficiency, E

Single and Double acting hammer 0.7 – 0.8
Diesel Hammer 0.8 – 0.9
Drop Hammer 0.7 – 0.9
Pile Material Coefficient of restitution, n

Cast iron hammer and concrette pile (without cap) 0.4 – 0.5
Wood cushion on steel pile 0.3 – 0.4
Wooden pile 0.25 – 0.3
HILEY FORMULA
• The formula is considered to be appropriate when the pile derives its capacity
mainly from end bearing. Modified further from ENR.
• The resistance offered to the final penetration of pile use to estimate the
ultimate capacity. The formula is derived as follows:-
Energy of blow = (resistance of pile; distance travel)
Distance travelled = penetration + function of elastic compression.
R = Ultimate Driving Resistance

W = Weight of Hammer Ram
h = Height of fall in cm
E = Hammer efficiency (0.8-1)
 = Efficiency of blow or Coefficient of restitution between ram and pile cap
S = Final set in cm per blow
C = sum of elastic compression in cm
All coefficient depends on local manufacturer product. Any design will be based upon local
manufacturer detail.
Michigan State Highway

Commission
 2 .5 H E   W R  n W p 
2
Qu   ÷ ÷
 SC   W R  W P ÷

where:
HE : Rated hammer energy (from the factory)
C : 0.254 cm
Recommended FOS is 6.
19
Dannish’s Formula
 
 ÷
 E.H E ÷

Qu  ÷
  E.H E .L ÷
S 2. Ap .E p ÷
 
where:
Ep : Young Modulus of Pile Material
L : Pile Length
Ap : Cross sectional area of pile point
Recommended FOS varies from 3 to 6.
Example
Diameter PC Spun Pile : 400 mm

Wt of pile per m : 200 kg
Wt of Hammer : 3.42 (K – 35)
Falling Height : 1.60 m
Ultimate Bearing Capacity : 300 ton.
Allowable Bearing Capacity : 50 ton.
Final set calculation :
FOS = 6.
1. Modified ENR Formula
E.WR WR  n Wp
2
Qu  
SC WR  Wp
0.8x3.42 3.42  0.5 2 x3.6
300  
S  0.254 3.42  3.6
11.82
300 
(s  0.254)x( 7.02)
11.82
300 
7.02S  1.783
2106s  534.9  11.82
2106s  ( 523.08)
s  0.248 cm
Final Set is 0.248 cm/blow  2.48 cm/10 blows.
20
2. Michigan State Highway Commision (1965)
2.5  H E WR  n W p
2
Qu  
S C WR  W p
2.5  5.5 3.42  0.5 2 x 3.6 
300  
S  0.254 3.42  3.6
13.75
300   0.6154
s  0.254
8.461
300 
s  0.254
300s  76.2  8.461
300s  ( 67.74)
s  0.2258 cm
Final Set is 0.225 cm/blow  2.25 cm/10 blows.
3. Danish Formula
EHE
Qu 
0.5  5.5 S
E.H E .L
300 
0.5  5.5  18 2A p .E p
S
2  0.0765  2.1.10 7
2,75
300 
4.95
S
3213000
2.75
300 
S  0.0392
300s  11.775  2.75
300s  9.025
s  0.03 cm / blow
Final Set is 0,03 cm/blow  0,3 cm/10 blows.
GROUP PILE
21
Pile Group Efficiency
• When the pile are placed closed together it is assumed that the stress
transmitted by the pile to soil medium will overlap and this may
reduced the load bearing capacity of the pile.
• Ideally, the pile in a group should not be less than the sum of the
bearing capacity of the individual piles.
• In practise the distance of the pile at c/c are kept to a minimum of

2.5pile diameter (D).
• Normally they are kept at about 3 to 3.5D
• Efficiency of the load bearing capacity of group pile may be defined as

:
Qg(u) = Ultimate group pile loading Capacity

Qs(u) = Ultimate single pile loading Capacity
22
• Depending on spacing piles may act as:-
1. Block with dimension Lg x Bg x Length of embedment

2. Individual piles
• If piles act as a block, frictional capacity is given by :

Qg(u) = favPgL
Where Pg : perimeter of the cross section of the block i.e

2(n1 + n2 – 2)d + 4D
fav = average unit frictional resistance i.e
K’vtan
or fav = 2Navg and Navg for low displacement pile
• If pile act as individual
Qu = pLfav
Where p is the pile cross section

Qgu fav[2(n1  n 2  2 )d  4D]L
  
Qu n1n 2pLfav
2(n1  n 2  2)d  4D

pn1n 2
Thus if d is large,  >1 : acts as individual pile
• In practise if  <1 then:

Qgu = Qu
• And if >= 1 Qgu = Qu
• Another Equation use is a CONVERSE – LABARRE equation:-
 (n1  1)n 2  (n 2  1)n1 

1   
 90n1n 2
Where deg) = tan-1(D/d)
Conclusion:
1. For driven pile in sand (group)

d > = 3D Qgu = Qu
2. For Bore Piles (group) in sand
d~ 3D; Qgu = 2/3 to ¾ Qu
23
GROUP PILES IN CLAY
• The ultimate load bearing capacity of group piles in clay can be

estimated in the following manner:-
1. Determine Qu = n1n2(Qp + Qs)

Nc = 9 for H/Bg > 5
Therefore : Qu = n1n2(9Apcu + cupL)
2. Determine the ultimate capacity assuming that the piles in the group
act as a block with dimension Lg x Bg x L
Skin resistance of block = pgcuL = 2(Lg + Bg)cuNc

Point bearing : Apqp = ApcuNc = (LgBg)cuNc
Qu = LgBgcu(p)Nc + 2(LgBg)cuL

3. Compare 1 and 2. The lowest value will govern the design criteria.
Lg/Bg
L
g
LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON GROUP PILE
• It is very difficult if not possible to determine the true distribution of

load of a pile group.
• Generally it is reliable to use methods that are simple but logical.
• A vertical load on a group of vertical piles with an axis of symmetry is
considered to be distributed according to the following equation which
is similar to that of an eccentric load on pad footing.
24
exx
X
Where
Pn : Axial load on an individual pile
N : Vertical load on group pile
n : Number of pile eyy
exx and eyy: Eccentricity of the load N about the centroidal axes XX and YY of pile
group.
Ixx and Iyy : Second moment area of the pile group about axes XX and YY.
xn and yn : Distance of the individual pile from axes YY and XX respectively.
n
∑ with respect to XX axes
∑ n with respect to YY axis
SETTLEMENT OF GROUP PILE AND

BLOCK FAILURE
• Similar to any cases of settlement, it can be classified into 2 types:-
a. Elastic settlement
b. Consolidation settlement.
25
26
Elastic Settlement of Piles Groups
 The simplest relation for settlement of groups piles is given by

Vesic(1969):-
Bg
Sg ( e ) 
Ds
Where Bg = Width or pile group section
D = Width or diameter of each pile in
group
s = elastic settlement of each pile at comparable
working load.
 For pile group in sand and gravel, Meyerhof (1976) suggested

:-
0.92q Bg
Sg (e )(mm )  I
Ncor
 Where q(kN/m2) = Qg/(LgBg)
Lg and Bg : Length and width of the pile group section in m
Ncor : Average corrected SPT within seat of settlement ( ~ Bg
deep below the tip of the piles).
I = Influence factor = 1 – L/8Bg >= 0.5
L = Length of pile embedment
• In similar manner, the pile group settlement can be related to the

cone penetration resistance as:-
qBgI
Sg ( e ) 
2qc
Where qc = average cone resistance within the seat of settlement.
27
Elastic Settlement of Piles Under Working

Load
 Caused by three factors:
s = s1 + s2 + s3
Where
s : Total pile settlement

s1 : Settlement of pile shaft
s2 : settlement of pile caused by the load at pile point.
s3 : settlement of pile caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft.
 Qwp  Qws 
s1   L
 ApEp 
• Where :
Qwp = load carried at the pile point under working load condition.
Qws : load carried by skin resistance under working load condition
Ap = Area of pile cross section
L = Length of pile
Ep = Young Modulus of the pile material.
• Magnitude of depend on the skin resistance distribution as below:-

  
f f
f
28
qwpD  2
s2   1   Iwp
 Where:- Es  s
D = width or pile diameter
qwp = point load per unit area at the pile point = Qwp/Ap
Es = Young Modulus of soil
s = Poisson’s ratio of soil
Iwp = Influence factor
Iwp can be taken as shown while s is obtained from table given.
29
 Vesic also proposed semiempirical method to obtain s2 as :-
QwpCp
s2 
 Where Dqp
qp = ultimate point resistance of pile
Cp = empirical coefficient.
Cp is as given below(Vesic-1977)
Soil Type Driven Pile Bored Pile
Sand(Dense to Loose) 0.02-0.04 0.09-0.18

Clay(Stiff to Soft) 0.02-0.03 0.03-0.06
Silt (Dense to Loose) 0.03-0.05 0.09-0.12
 Qws  D 
  1   Iws
• S3
s 3  
2
 pL  E s  s
Where
L
P : perimeter of pile Iws  2  0.35
D
L : embedded length of pile
Iws : Influence factor
Vesic (1977) proposed simple empirical relation for s3 as:
QwsCs
s3 
Lqp
where
 L
Cs   0.93  0.16 Cp
 D 
Consolidation Settlement of Group Pile.
30
END BEARING
Bearing Stratum
SKIN FRICTION
2/3D
General Consolidation Settlement of Group Piles.
31
Estimation can be made using a 2:1 stress

distribution methods as shown.
Step 1: Let depth of embedment as L with the pile group subjected

to load Qg. If pile cap is below the OGL, then Qg = Load
from superstructure – effective weight of soil remove.
Step 2: Assuming load Qg is transfer to the soil beginning at a

depth of 2L/3 from the top of the pile. This is considered as
depth z = 0. From then Qg is spreaded out in 1:2 direction
to the below of the pile tip.
Contd…
Step 3 : Calculate the stress increase cause at the middle of each soil layer cause
by load Qg:
Step 4 : Calculate the settlement of each layer caused by the stress increase
Step 5 : Total Consolidation of pile settlement is calculated by

Sc(g) = Sc(i)
It should also be noted that the settlement can be initiated by fills

nearby, adjacent floor load and lowering of water table.
32
END
33
LECTURE 5 SPECIAL CASES PILES
SPECIAL CASES PILES

(LECTURE 5)

TEL : 013 7927925
OFF: 07 5531722
Ultimate Lateral Resistance Of Pile
• Normally pile resist vertical load. However in some cases horizontal

load is more prominent such as gantries, quay, trnsmission tower,
unipole structure etc.
• In designing such foundation, two criteria must be satisfied:-
1. Adequate factor of safety against ultimate failure.

2. Acceptable deflection at working loads.
• In many practical cases, the design of piles for lateral loading will be
dependant on satisfying a limiting lateral-deflection requirement that
may result in the specification of allowable lateral loads much less than
the ultimate lateral capacity of the piles.
1
ULTIMATE SOIL RESISTANCE
• For purely cohesive soil, the ultimate

lateral resistance, Pu increases from the 2Cu
surface down to the depth of about 3 pile
diameters and remain constant for a
greater depth. 3D
• When Pu becomes constant, lateral

failure involves plastic flow of the soil
around the pile in horizontal plane only
and the value Pu can be determine by
plastic theory.
• For more general cases of a c –  soil, an

alternative derivation of the ultimate
lateral soil resistance, based essentially
on earth pressure theory has been given 8 – 12 CuD
by Brinch Hansen (1961)
2
• He considers the variation of resistance with depth along the pile. The ultimate
resistance at any depth, z below the surface is expressed as :-
Pu = qKq + c Kc
Where q = vertical overburden pressure
c = soil cohesion value
Kc and Kq = Factors that are a function of  and z/d
BROMS’ THEORY
• Essentially similar as Brinch Hansen method except that simplifications

are made to the ultimate soil resistance distribution along the pile.
• Full consideration is given to restrained or fixed head piles as well as

unrestrained or free head pile
3
Unrestrained or Free Headed Pile
• For Short Pile (Rigid Pile)

• Lateral resistant is dependant wholly on the soil resistance.
• For Long Pile (Flexible Pile)

• Lateral resistance is primarily dependant on the yield moment of the pile
itself.
• f defines the location of the maximum moment, and since the shear
there is zero,
Hu
f Eqn 1
9cud
• Also taking moments about the maximum moment location,
Mmax = Hu(e + 1.5d + 0.5f) ………………(Eqn 2)
• Also,
Mmax = 2.25dg2cu …………………………( Eqn 3)
• Since L = 1.5d + f + g , eqn (1) and (2) can be solved for the ultimate lateral
load, Hu.
• The solution is plotted in terms of L/d and H/cud2 and applies for short piles
in which the yield moment My > Mmax
• For long piles, Eqn (3) no longer holds.
• Hu is obtained from Eqn(1) and (2) by setting Mmax equal to the known value
of yield moment (My)
• The solution is plotted in terms of :
Hu/cud2 and My/cud2
4
RESTRAINED / FIXED
HEADED PILE
• The change over points from one failure mode to another depend again on
the yield moment of the pile.
• It is assumed that moment restrained equal to the moment in the pile just
below the cap is available.
• For short piles:
Hu = 9cud(L – 1.5d) ………….Eqn(4)
Mmax = Hu(0.5L + 0.75d) ……………..Eqn(5)
• For intermediate piles Eqn(3) and Eqn(1) holds and taking moments
about the surface.
My = 2.25cudg2 – 9cudf(1.5d + 0.5f)………………Eqn(6)
5
• This equation together with the relationship

L = 1.5d + f + g
May be solved for Hu.
• It is necessary to check the maximum positive moment, at depth

f + 1.5d is less than My.
• Otherwise the failure mechanism for long piles holds.
• For the later mechanism, the following relationship applies :
2M y …………..Eqn(7)
Hu 
1.5d  0.5f
PILES IN COHESIONLESS SOIL
• Following assumptions are made by Broms

1. Active pressure acting on the back of the pile is neglected.
2. Distribution of passive pressure along the front of the pile is equal to three
times the Rankine passive pressure.
3. The shape of the pile section has no influence on the distribution of ultimate
soil pressure or the ultimate lateral resistance.
4. The full lateral resistance is mobilised at the movement considered.
• The distribution of soil resistance is :

Pu = 3’vKp
Where ’v: effective vertical overburden pressure
Kp: Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient
6
UNRESTRAINED/FREE HEAD
• Pile will act as a short pile if the maximum moment is less than the
yield moment of the section.
• The rotation is assumed to be about a point close to the tip and a high
pressure acting near this point are replaced by a single concentrated
force at the tip.
• Taking moment about the toe,
3
0.5 dL Kp
……………….Eqn.(9)
Hu 
eL
• The relationship can be plotted using L/d and Hu/Kpd3.
• Maximum moment occurs at a distance of below the surface where:-
Hu = (3/2) dKpf2 …………………………..Eqn (10)
Where Hu
f  0.82 ……………………….Eqn(11)
dKp
The maximum moment is :
Mmax = Hu(e + 2/3(f)) ……………….Eqn(12)
• If after using Eqn(9), the calculated Hu results in Mmax>Myield, then

the pile is treated as long pile.
• Hu may then be calculated from Eqn(10) and (12) putting

Mmax=Myield.
• Solution of the long pile can be plotted as :
Hu/Kpd3 and My/d4Kp
7
OTHER METHODS
• Dickin and Wei’s Method.
• Limitation for pile with L/D less than 3.

3 L L 
M  D   1
Km  D 
where
e
Km  0.24  0.08 ln 
 D
• L : pile embedment length
• D : pile diameter
• M : Moment at ground level
• Dickin’s and Ramli’s method
• Using the integration of plain strain condition to three dimensional projection.

• Apply shape factor as integration coefficient.
• Limitation is for L/D < 7
• If L/D more than 7, Brom’s equation is applicable.
2 2
4eL D
M Sfm
eD Sfm : Shape factor
where M : moment at ground Level
2
Sfm  1
L Thus M = Hu x e
7
D
8
RESTRAINED OR FIXED HEAD

PILE
• For short piles horizontal equilibrium it gives:-

Hu = 1.5L2dKp ……………………………………………..Eqn(13)
• Maximum moment is :-
Mmax = 2/3 (HuL) ……………………………..Eqn(14).
• If Mmax>Myield, the intermediate pile is relevant by giving ,f (horizontal

equilibrium) as:-
f = (3/2)dL2Kp – Hu ………………………..Eqn(15)
• Taking moments about the top of the pile and substituting F from Eqn(15)
Myield = 0.5dL3Kp – HuL …………………….Eqn(16)
Hence Hu can be obtained.
• The equations only holds if the maximum moment at depth f is less

than Myield. f is calculated from the earlier equations.
• For long pile where maximum moment reaches Myield at two locations,
it is readily found that :-
2
2Myield  Hu (e   f)
3
Pile Behaviour Predictions
• Apart from determining using Mmax and Myield to determine long pile
or short pile, Matlock and Reese employed Stiffness Factors R and T
to predict whether the pile acts as long or short pile.
• Both units are in m.

 EpIp  4
1
R  
• For clay :  khB 
 EpIp  5
1
T 
• For sand :  nh 
• Where , E : Pile Young Modulus, I : moment of inertia of pile cross section,

B : Width or pile diameter, kh and nh as given.
9
Criteria in Pile Classification
• If L≤ 2T or ≤ 2R , the pile is short or rigid
• If L≥ 4T or ≥ 3.5R, the pile is long and elastic
• For the intermediate case the value is in between.
• The following length are considered sufficient to develop the

maximum resistance in the soil and there will be not much benefit in
taking piles deeper than these values.
1. For constant soil modulus, free head L = 3.5R and fixed head L = 2R
2. For linearly increase soil modulus, free head L = 4T and fixed head, L
= 2T.
• Typical value of nh and kh
nh (MN/m3) for granular soil

Loose Medium Dense
Dry or moist 2.2 6.6 17.5
Submerged 1.25 4.4 10.5
kh (MN/m2) for cohesive soil
Soft 8.0
Medium 16.0
Stiff 32.0
DETERMINATION OF DISPLACEMENT AT
TOP OF PILE
• Displacement at top of the pile can be obtained from Figure A for

cohesive soil and Figure B for cohesionless soil.
• Figure A
• Deflection has been plotted as a function of the dimensionless length
L where:-
 khB  1 ………………………Eqn (1)
 4
 EpIp 
Ep : Modulus of elasticity of pile materials

Ip : Moment of inertia of pile in bending plane
B : Pile diameter or width
kh : coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
10
• Much of the accuracy depend on kh

value.
• In absence of such information kh can
be estimated by :
kh = nhz/B
Where z is the point considered
nh is constant of horizontal
subgrade reaction for piles in
soil
• Figure B
• For cohesionless soil and the relative
stiffness of the pile and the soil are
contained in the parameter h where :-
 nh  1 ….. Eqn(2)
 5
 EpIp 
EXAMPLE
I
II
11
DETERMINATION OF
DISPLACEMENT AT TOP OF PILE
• Displacement at top of the pile can be obtained from Figure A for

cohesive soil and Figure B for cohesionless soil.
• Figure A
• Deflection has been plotted as a function of the dimensionless length L
where:-
 khB  1 ………………………Eqn (1)
 4
 EpIp 
Ep : Modulus of elasticity of pile materials

Ip : Moment of inertia of pile in bending plane
B : Pile diameter or width
kh : coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
• Much of the accuracy depend on kh

value.
• In absence of such information kh can
be estimated by :
kh = nhz/B
Where z is the point considered
nh is constant of horizontal
subgrade reaction for piles in
soil
• Figure B
• For cohesionless soil and the relative
stiffness of the pile and the soil are
contained in the parameter where :-
….. Eqn(2)
 nh  1
 5
 E p Ip 
12
• Typical value of nh and kh
nh (MN/m3) for granular soil
Loose Medium Dense
Dry or moist 2.2 6.6 17.5

Submerged 1.25 4.4 10.5
kh (MN/m2) for cohesive soil
Soft 8.0
Medium 16.0
Stiff 32.0
PULL OUT RESISTANCE OF PILE
• The gross uplift resistance of the

pile subjected to uplift forces:-
Tug
Tug = Tun + W
Where
Tug : Gross uplift capacity Tun

L
Tun : Net uplift capacity
W : Effective weight of pile W
13
Pile Embedded in Saturated Clay
• Das and Seeley (1982)

Tun = Lp’cu
L : Length of pile
P : Pile perimeter
’ : adhesion coefficient at soil-pile interface
cu : Undrained cohesion of clay
• For cast insitu piles (concrete)

’ = 0.9 – 0.00625cu (for cu <= 80 kPa)
and
’ = 0.4 (for cu > 80 kPa)
• For pipe piles

’ = 0.715 – 0.0191cu (for cu <= 27 kPa)
and
’ = 0.2 (for cu > 27 kPa)
Pile Embedded in Granular Soil
L
Tun   (fup )dz
0
• fu = Unit Skin Resistance during uplift

p = Perimeter of pile cross section
• The unit skin friction varies with depth. It increase linearly up to a
depth of z = Lcr. Beyond that it remain constant.
• For z <= Lcr

fu = Kuv’tan 
Where Ku = uplift coefficient (BREAKOUT FACTOR)
v’ = effective vertical stress at depth z.
 = soil –pile friction angle
Values of Lcr and  are dependant on relative density.
14
Procedures for calculating net uplift

capacity of piles
1. Determine the relative density

of the soil and obtain the value
of Lcr.
2. If the pile length L <= Lcr
L L
Tun  p  fu .dz  p  (v' Ku tan  ).dz
0 0
In dry soil, v’ = z
L
Tun  p  (v' Ku tan  ).dz
0
L
 p  ( zKu tan  ).dz
0
1 2
 pL Ku tan 
2
3. For case of L > Lcr

L  L cr L 
T un  p  f u dz  p   f u dz   f cu dz 
 0
0  L cr 
  L cr  L  

 p   (  v ' K u tan  ) dz   (  v '( z  Lcr ) K u tan  )dz  
  0  Lcr  
In dry soils
1 2
T un  p  L cr K u tan   p  L cr K u tan  ( L  L cr )
2
For estimation of the net allowable uplift capacity, the FOS of 2 to 3 is recommended
Therefore Tu(all) = Tug/FOS
15
RAKING OR BATTERED PILE
• When value of horizontal force acting on a group of vertical piles become too
large to accommodate a common solution; raking pile is provided along the
vertical one.
• For ease of analysis, the vertical pile resist the vertical load and inclined pile
resist horizontal load.
• This analysis is obviously extremely conservative.
• Piles are not generally inserted into ground as battered in excess of 1H : 4V.
(Usual design using 1:7 – 1:9)
• Terzaghi(1934) suggests that a graphical method describe by Lohmeyer(1934)

known as Culmann’s method to be used in analysis of a mixed pile group.
ANALYSIS R
• Often pile group design to resist

horizontal forces that can act in
either direction
• The example is made up of one set

of vertical piles and 2 set of raked
pile which are battered in opposite
direction.
16
SIMPLIFICATION
• Assuming this is an imaginary piles

acting upon by axial force only.
They are pin jointed at both ends so
it becomes possible to determine
the line of action
A C
B
FORCE DIAGRAM
R
• Let QA, QB and QC be the forces per
unit length of foundation in the
imiginary piles A, B and C.
R’
• Let Resultant QB and QC be R’.
a QC
• The R’ must pass through ‘a’, the
QB
point of intersection of QA and R
(applied load).
QA
• QA, QB,QC are obtained from the force

polygon.
R QA
• Therefore the axial force in each pile in
set A :
R’
QpA = QA/nA
Where nA = number of pile in set A
Similarly : QB
QC
QpB = QB/nB
QpC = QC/nC
The value obtain above will be used to

design in similar manner as a vertical
pile.
17
END
18
LECTURE 6 FOUNDATIONS ON DIFFICULT SOILS
FOUNDATIONS ON DIFFICULT SOILS

(LECTURE 6)

TEL : 013 7927925
OFF: 07 5531722
FOUNDATION ON 1
DIFFICULT SOILS
PILE IN SOFT LAYER

COLLAPSING SOIL
EXPANSIVE SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 2
DIFFICULT SOILS
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION
FOUNDATION ON 3
DIFFICULT SOILS
1
• Negative skin friction is a downdrag force on the pile by the soil surrounding
it.
• Happening conditions:-
1. Fill clay overlying granular soil layer into which pile is driven.
2. Granular soil overlying the soft clay
3. Lowering of groundwater table.
• In some cases the downdrag force could be excessive and cause foundation
failure.
FOUNDATION ON 4
DIFFICULT SOILS
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION CALCULATION :
FOUNDATION ON 5
DIFFICULT SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 6
DIFFICULT SOILS
2
CALCULATION METHOD OF NEGATIVE

SKIN FRICTION :
FOUNDATION ON 7
DIFFICULT SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 8
DIFFICULT SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 9
DIFFICULT SOILS
3
FOUNDATION ON 10
DIFFICULT SOILS
Example
FOUNDATION ON 11
DIFFICULT SOILS
COLLAPSING SOIL
• Also known as metastable soils.

• These are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change
upon saturation.
• Foundation that are constructed in this kind of soil may undergo a
sudden large deformation if the soil tend to saturated due to several
circumstances such as : -
• Broken water pipe line
• Leaky sewers
• Drainage from reservoir or swimming pool
• Slow increase in ground water table.
FOUNDATION ON 12
DIFFICULT SOILS
4
 This type of settlement generally will create major structural damage.

 Thus identification of the soil during the early stage of field
exploration is critical.
 Type of soil normally behave this way is such that it has a low density
with high void ratio and deposited as dust eg. Volcanic ash, aeolin.
 Cohesion in this soil may be resulted from the existence of clayey
materials.
 As the soil is saturated the clayey materials will loose it binding
properties and thus collapsing the soil.
 Many of the collapsing soils originated from the residual soils.
 Soluble and colloidal materials are leached out by weathering, resulting
in large void ratio and unstable.
 Sometimes the collapsible soil is also the remaining of soil deposits left
by flash flood and mud flow.
FOUNDATION ON 13
DIFFICULT SOILS
Collapsible Soil
Void Ratio Versus Pressure Variations
• The branch ‘a’ to ‘b’ is due to the

consolidation during natural moisture
content.
• At pressure level of w’ the equivalent void

ratio is e1.
• As water is added into the specimen for

saturation the soil will collapse at the same
pressure level but the equivalent void ratio is
e2
• Line ‘c’ to ‘d’ refers to as the curve under

additional load after saturation
FOUNDATION ON 14
DIFFICULT SOILS
Collapse Potential
 The collapse potential are taken

from the Undisturbed sample.
 The specimen will be applied with

pressure at 200kPa (’w).
 At this pressure the specimen will

be flooded and left for 24hrs.  Where e is the
o
natural void ratio of

 Thus e1 and e2 are the void ratio
before and after flooding the soil.
respectively.
FOUNDATION ON 15
DIFFICULT SOILS
5
IDENTIFICATION
• Jennings and Knight(1975) describe a procedure to identify

collapsible soil using double oedometer test as explained earlier.
• Collapsible
Cp soil
(%) can be determine usingofCollapsible
Severe Problem Potential (Cp.)
0-1 No Problem
1-5 Moderate Trouble
5-10 Trouble
10-20 Severe Trouble
20 Very severe Trouble
FOUNDATION ON 16
DIFFICULT SOILS
• Holtz and Hilf (1961) suggested that

an aeolian type of soil can be
determine it collapse potential with
repect to dry unit weight.
• It should be borne in mind that using

this technics a dry bore holdrilling
should be use or block samples cut
by hand.
FOUNDATION ON 17
DIFFICULT SOILS
Procedure for Calculation of Collapse Settlement
FOUNDATION ON 18
DIFFICULT SOILS
6
FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOUNDATION ON 19
DIFFICULT SOILS
 For actual design purposes, some standard field load tests may be
conducted.
 If enough precautions is taken to prevent field moisture from
increasing under the structure, spread footing and mat foundations
may be built.
 The foundation should be proportionate that the pressure never exceed
critical stress (w’)
 FOS should be between 2.5 and 3.0
 Differential and total settlement of these foundations should be similar
to those design on sandy soils.
 Continuous footing will be of more advantages in comparison with
isolated footing.
 If settlement is too large than drilled shaft or pile foundation may be
considered.
FOUNDATION ON 20
DIFFICULT SOILS
• If the expected depth of weeting is between 1.5m to 2m from the ground

surface, the soil may be moistened and recompacted by heavy roller.
Spread footings and mats may be constructed over the compacted soil.
• In conditions permitted, ground improvement especially in foundation
trench may be apply.
• If the soil layer is susceptible to wetting up to 10m deep, precollapsing
should be done by using vibroflotation or ponding. Or else opt for deep
foundation.
EXAMPLE
FOUNDATION ON 21
DIFFICULT SOILS
7
EXPANSIVE SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 22
DIFFICULT SOILS
• Many plastic clays swell when water is added to them and then
shrink with loss of water.
• This condition will subject the foundation to uplift forces when
swell.
• The depth in which the soil profile experience periodic changes in
moisture content is know as active zone.
• The depth of active zone will vary depending on soil profile.
• It can be easily determine by plotting the LI and the depth of soil
profile over several seasons.
FOUNDATION ON 23
DIFFICULT SOILS
FOUNDATION ON 24
DIFFICULT SOILS
8
LABORATORY
MEASUREMENT OF SWELL
FOUNDATION ON 25
DIFFICULT SOILS
• TWO COMMON TEST:-
• Unrestrained swell test

• Swelling Pressure Test
FOUNDATION ON 26
DIFFICULT SOILS
Unrestrained Swell Test
• Specimen is place in an
oedometer under a small
surcharge of 6.9kPa.
• Water is added and the expansion
volume of specimen is measured
(Height of specimen[H]) until
equilibrium is reached.
FOUNDATION ON 27
DIFFICULT SOILS
9
• The free swell surface can be calculated using the chart where:-
Sf = 0.0033Zsw(free)
Where Z : Depth of active zone
FOUNDATION ON 28
DIFFICULT SOILS
Swelling Pressure Test
• Specimen is taken into consolidating

ring and pressure apply equal to
overburden pressure(’o ) plus the
approximate anticipated surcharge
cause by the foundation(’s.)
• As the specimen start to swell, pressure
is applied in small increment to prevent
swelling.
• This is continue until full swelling
pressure is developed.
• At this time the total effective pressure
on specimen is:-
’T = ’o + ’s + ’1
’1 = Additional pressure added to prevent swelling after
addition of water.
’T = Total effective pressure to prevent
swelling, or zero swell pressure.
FOUNDATION ON 29
DIFFICULT SOILS
• Where :-
Sw(1)% = swell in percent, for layer i under a pressure of ’o + ’s
Hi = Thickness of layer i
FOUNDATION ON 30
DIFFICULT SOILS
10
Foundation Consideration
• Replacing expansive soil

• Changing the nature of expansive soil such as compaction, pre-wetting,
moisture barriers and soil stabilization.
• Strengthening the structures to withstand heave, construction of structure
that are flexible enough to withstand differential soil heave without failure
or isolated deep foundation below active zone.
• One particular method might not cure all the situation, thus a
combination of several techniques should be taken into consideration.
Potential Swell Potential Swell
Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index
(%) Classification
<50 <25 <0.5 Low
50 - 60 25 - 35 0.5 – 1.5 Marginal
>60 >35 >1.5 High
Potential Swell – Vertical Swell under a pressure equal to overburden

pressure EXAMPLE
FOUNDATION ON 31
DIFFICULT SOILS
11
SECTION B
PROF. DR. KHAIRUL ANUAR KASSIM

Advanced Foundation Design Module PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Advanced Foundation Design Module PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Advanced Foundation Design Module PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE MODULE

ASSOC. PROF IR. DR. RAMLI NAZIR

ASSOC. PROF IR. DR. RAMLI NAZIR

ASSOC. PROF. Ir. DR. HJ. RAMLI NAZIR

There is no glory as a Geotechnical Engineer

GEOTECHNICAL BRAIN FUNCTION

What is Value Engineering in Foundation Design???

Challenge The Norm Thru Innovation

• Normally there are 3 stages of design i.e

1. PRE DESIGN STAGE

3. POST DESIGN STAGE

PRE DESIGN STAGE

• Accurate and reliable SI data is vital.

• Which one to use???

• TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS

TOTAL STRESS ANALYSES

EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS

GENESIS OF FOUNDATION DESIGN

PRINCIPLE IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

SI SOIL • BASIC & INDEX PROPERTIES

MODELLING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

• To study the general suitability of the site for an engineering project.

• To enable a safe, practical and economic design to be prepared.

• To determine the possible difficulties that may be encountered by a

• To study the suitability of construction material (soil or rock).

• SI nowdays has become contracting exercise and we tend to forget that

The Facts Why SI is needed

• This is a part of geotechnical processes.

• Lack of geotechnical processes will lead to a:-

• In fact most frequent claims in civil engineering contracts are on the

YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE S.I

Method of Site Investigation

• JKR PROBE/MACKINTOSH PROBE

ROTARY WASH BORING

CONE PENETRATION TEST/ DEEP SOUNDING

IN SITU VANE SHEAR TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

• This a dynamic field test usually carried out in boreholes.

• Test consists of driving a standard split barrel sampler 50.8mm in

Numbers of BH, POSITION and Depth

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

• Developed in 1927 and currently the most popular method and

• Therefore SPT can be standardised to some energy ratio Er such that:-

• Energy input of 70% is normally use since observation is close

Where i = adjustment factor from table

• Note that larger Er decrease the blow count nearly linearly

• Energy ratio x blow count should be constant thus :-

Say N2 for Er45 = 20 = Er2

• It can be used in correlation for unit weight  relative density, Dr,

Where A range between 15 to 54

And p ' onc

• A correlation for N versus qu in general form of:-

Relationship between Angle of Internal

SPT (Standard Penetration Test)

N-SPT = Total No. of Blows for spoon sampler to penetrate at a depth of

Relationship between Cohesion and