Ch.

14: Deep Foundations-Axial

Load Capacity based on Analytical
Methods
• Chapter 13: Full Scale Load Tests
• Chapter 14: Analytical Methods -
Based on Laboratory of In-Situ Test
Data
• Chapter 15: Dynamic Methods –
Based on the dynamics of Pile Driving
or Wave Propagation
Ch. 14: Deep Foundations-Axial Load
Capacity based on Analytical Methods

• Section 14.1: Changes in the Soil

• Section 14.2: Toe Bearing
• Section 14.3: Side Friction
• Section 14.4: Upward Load Capacity
• Section 14.5: Analyses based on CPT
• Section 14.6: Group Effects
• Section 14.7: Settlement
 Sec 14.1 Changes in Soil
• Piles
• Changes in Clays
• Changes in Sands
• Drilled Shafts
• Impact on Analytical Methods
 Piles: Changes in Clays
• Distortion
• Compression-Excess Pore Water Pressures
• Loss of Contact

ue
Piles: Changes in Clays
Piles: Changes in Clays
 Piles: Changes in Sands
• Loose Sands
• Particle re-arrangement
• Particle crushing
• Densification
• Dense Sands (may require pre-
drilling/jetting)
• Loosen soils
 Drilled Shafts: Changes in Soil
• Excavation; Release of Stress; Soil
Expansion; reduction in load capacity
• Impact on load capacity may depend
on construction procedure
• How long the hole is kept open
• Whether drilling fluid is used or not
• Whether casing is used or not
 Estimating Toe Bearing
• Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
• q´t in Sands
• Piles
• Drilled Shafts
• Auger Cast Piles
• q´t in Clays
• q´t in Intermediate Geomaterials and
Rock
Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Sands

• Piles

qt  B N   zD N q
* *

E
Ir 
2(1   )( zD tan  )
Vesic’s N*
Vesic’s , Nq*
Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Sands
• Drilled Shafts
qt  1200 N60  60,000 psf
qt  57.5N60  2900 kPa
If base diameter of shaft >1200mm (50in):

50in 1200mm
qtr  qt or qtr  qt
Bb Bb
Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Sands

• Auger-cast Piles

qt  3800 N60  150,000 psf

qt  190 N60  7500 kPa

Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Clays

qt  N c su
*

N*c = 6.5 at Su = 25 kPa (500 psf)

= 8.0 at Su = 50 kPa (1000 psf)
= 9.0 at Su  100 kPa (2000 psf)

Use reduction factor, Fr if Bb >1900mm (75in)

 Unit Toe Bearing Resistance, q´t
in Intermediate Geomaterials & Rock
• Intermediate Geomaterials
Cohesive materials with
250 kPa (5000psf) < Su <2500kPa (50,000psf)
Or
Non-cohesive materials with
N60 > 50
 Unit Toe Bearing Resistance, q´t
in Intermediate Geomaterials & Rock
• Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials & Rock
If RQD is 100% qt  2.5 qu
If 70%<RQD<100% and qu>500 kPa


qt  7970 (qu ) 0.51

For jointed material

 
qt  t 0.5  (mt 0.5  t )0.5 qu
 Unit Toe Bearing Resistance, q´t
in Intermediate Geomaterials & Rock
 Unit Toe Bearing Resistance, q´t
in Intermediate Geomaterials & Rock
 Estimating Unit-Side Friction
Resistance, fs
 Effective Stress Analysis (-Method)
f s    z
– Sands
– Gravels
– Silts and Clays
 Total Stress Analysis (-Method)
f s   su
 -Method (Sands)

For large displacement piles, Bhushan(1982)

  0.18  0.65Dr
 -Method (Sands)

For drilled shafts with N6015, O’Neill & Reese

(1999)

  1.5  0.135 z 0.25    1.20 (English)

  1.5  0.245 z 0.25    1.20 (SI )

Subject to maximum value of fs of 4000 psf (190

kPa)
If N60<15 then multiply above  by N60/15
 -Method (Sands)

For Auger-Cast Piles,

Neely (1991)

Do not divide into

layers

f s      140 kPa (2800 psf )

 -Method (Gravels)

Rollins, Clayton, and Mitchell (1997)

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

  3.4 e0.085z 0.25    3.00 (SI )

For 25-50% gravel size particles

  2.0  0.061z 0.75 0.25    1.80 (English)

  2.0  0.15z 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 (See Figure 14.11)
-Method (Clays)
-Method (fs=  su); Piles
 -Method (fs=  su)
 API Function
For su <25 kPa (500 psf)   1.0

For 25 kPa (500 psf) < su <75kPa (1500psf)

 su  500 psf 
  1.0  0.5 
 1000 psf 

For su > 75 kPa (1500 psf)   0.5

-Method (fs=  su); Drilled Shafts
-Method (fs=  su); Drilled Shafts
Example 14.3
Example 14.4
 Sec 14.4 Upward Load Capacity

• From Chapter 13
W f   f s As
( Pupward) a 
F

O’Neill and Reese (1999)….. Use 75% of fs

used for downward load capacity
Upward Load Capacity; Belled Piers
Upward Load Capacity; Belled Piers

• Add extra upward capacity from the bell

( su N u   zD )( / 4)( Bb2  Bs2 )

( Pupward) a 
F

For unfissured clay: Nu  3.5 Db / Bb  9

For fissured clay: Nu  0.7 Db / Bb  9

Sec 14.6 Group Effects
 Piles/Auger-cast piles may be installed in
groups
 Why?
– Single pile does not give sufficient capacity
– Low degree of precision in “spotting”
– Multiple piles provide redundancy
– Lateral soil compression produced by pile
groups is greater-therefore total capacity
higher
Sec 14.6 Group Efficiency
Load Capacity of Pile Group (Pag)
=  x N x Capacity of single pile (Pa)

 depends on:
– soil type (sands or clays)
– pile diameter/pile spacing ratio
– construction procedures (pre-drilling,
jetting etc.)
– elapsed time since pile driving
– mode of failure
Group Efficiency, 
 Converse-Labarre Formula

 (n  1)m  (m  1)n 
  1  
 90 m n

S m=4
n= 6
B
Individual vs. Block Failure
When Block Failure Governs…

2 s ( m  n)  4 B
 1
mnB

 Note that the above equations have

been widely used but are not based on
any hard data
Full Scale Load Tests on Pile
Groups in Sands (O’Neill, 1983)
 In loose cohesionless soils,  is always
greater than 1 and is maximum around
s/B =2
 In dense cohesionless soils with 2<S/B<4,
 is slightly greater than 1, provided that
there is no pre-drilling or jetting
 When pre-drilling and jetting is used  is
lower than 1.0 (may be as low as 0.7)
Full Scale Load Tests on Pile
Groups in Clays (O’Neill, 1983)
 Short-term group efficiency is nearly
always less than 1.0. Some of the
measured values are as low as 0.5
 Group efficiency gradually increases
with time and approaches 1.0
  for larger pile groups take a longer
time to reach 1.0
Full Scale Load Tests on Pile
Groups in Clays (O’Neill, 1983)
Guidelines for Practice (Sands)
 Install piles at center-to-center spacings of at
least 3 x pile diameter
 Avoid pre-drilling and jetting
 When S/B3 and no pre-drilling and jetting is
used use =1
 When pile group is founded on a firm bearing
stratum of limited thickness overlying weak
soil, group capacity is equal to the lesser of
– sum of individual pile capacities and
– group capacity against block failure
Guidelines for Practice (Clays)
 Install piles at center-to-center spacings
of at least 3 x pile diameter
 For clays with Su < 95 kPa (2000 psf)
and pile cap not in contact with ground
– Use =0.7 when S/B = 3
– Use =1.0 when S/B  6
– Linearly interpolate between 0.7 and 1.0
for intermediate spacings
Guidelines for Practice (Clays)
 For clays with Su < 95 kPa (2000 psf)
and pile cap is in firm contact with
ground
– Use =1.0
 For clays with Su > 95 kPa (2000 psf)
– Use =1.0
Guidelines for Practice (Clays)
 Compute the Group Capacity
Pag  2D( Bg  Lg )su1  Bg Lg su 2 N *
c

 D  B
N  51 
*
c 1    9
 5B  5L 
 Use the lower of capacity calculated by
using Pag=N Pa and above equation
 Capacities calculated above are Long-
term values.
Settlement of Deep Foundations
 Settlement of deep foundations, when
designed based on axial load capacity
considerations, is typically less than 0.5 in
 Pile groups may have larger settlements, but
still within acceptable limits
 Therefore, in practice engineers generally do
not perform settlement analysis for deep
foundations
 However, settlement analysis may be
necessary in certain special situations
Perform Settlement Analysis when
……...
 Structure is specially sensitive to
settlement
 Soil is highly compressible
 Structural engineers needs a “spring
constant” to represent response of the
foundation system
 Downdrag may cause extra settlement
Load-Settlement Response

 Load-Settlement Response
– Fellenius, 1999 
– O’Neill and Reese (1999) 
 Imaginary Footing Method 
 t-z Method

Methods discussed in detail

Fellenius, 1999
g
(qt ) m   
  
qt  u 
h
( f s )m   
    1.0
fs  u 

Pz i
e 
AE
Example 14.7
Table 12.1 (page 444)
Settlement Chart I: Drilled Shafts
in Clays (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)

Figure 14.26
Settlement Chart II: Drilled Shafts
in Clays (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)

Figure 14.27
Settlement Chart I: Drilled Shafts
in Sands (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)

Figure 14.28
Settlement Chart II: Drilled Shafts
in Sands (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)

Figure 14.29
t-z Method
 More precise method
 Considers:
– load-displacement relationships for skin
friction and end bearing method
– form of the above load-displacement
relationships
– elastic compression of piles
 Numerical method; commercial software
available
 Imaginary Footing Method
 Replace pile group with an imaginary footing;
then use analysis methods discussed in
Chapter 7 and then add e
 Friction piles: place imaginary footing at two-
thirds depth (0.67D)
 End bearing piles: place imaginary footing at
pile tip elevation (at D)
 When both skin friction and end bearing
resistance is available, place it somewhere in
between
Imaginary Footing Method