Pile Design & Analysis of Single Piles. Examples

9/08/2022
EXAMPLES
• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILES IN CLAY)
1
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)
SPT
1.0 m
1.5 m 10
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3
4.5 m 9 9.0 m
7.5 m 11
9.0 m 31
Very stiff clay

SPT = 30 (average) 1.0 m
γ = 18 kN/m3
10.5 m 30

• Design assumptions:
• Pile length: 10.00m
• Pile shaft diameter: 0.90m
• Pile base diameter: 0.90m
• Cus (average along pile shaft): ?
• Cub at base: ?
• Phi-g: ?
• Qtotal: ?
• Load-settlement curve (simplified)
2
9/08/2022

• Cus (average along pile shaft): 50kPa
• Cub at base: 150kPa
• Phi-g: 0.5

• Assessment of undrained shear strength cu from average SPT
• Firm/ stiff clay cu = 50 kPa
• Very stiff clay cu = 150 kPa
3
9/08/2022

• Simplified way to assess load-settlement curve

• Qs = α * cu * A s
• Qs = 0.35 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 446 kN
• Qs = 0.45 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 574 kN
• Qs = 0.70 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 892 kN
• Qb = Nc * cub * Ab
• Qb = 9 * 150kPa * 0.636m2 = 859 kN
• Qtotal = Qs + Qb
• Qtotal = 1305 kN / 1433 kN / 1751 kN
• Apply phi-g of 0.5 * 1751 kN = 876 kN
4
9/08/2022
load settlement behaviour
The load-settlement behaviour of piles can be approximated based on the

assumption that the ultimate shaft resistance can be fully mobilised at very small
relative displacements of about 1-2% of the pile diameter. The mobilisation of the
ultimate end bearing requires much larger displacements of about 10% of the pile
diameter.
after Raison & Egan, 2016
load settlement behaviour
(876kN)
(446kN)
(430kN)
(9mm) (90mm) after Raison & Egan, 2016
10
5
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE IN GRAVEL)
11
• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)
SPT 2.0 m
1.5 m 8
Medium Dense sand

4.5 m 19 SPT = 14 (average)
γ = 18 kN/m3 9.0 m
ϕ = 33 deg
7.5 m 15
9.0 m 48
Very dense gravel

SPT > 50 (average) 1.0 m
10.5 m 55 γ = 21 kN/m3
ϕ = 39 deg
12
6
9/08/2022

• Phi-g: ?
• Qtotal: ?
• Load-settlement curve (simplified)
13

• Task:
• Calculate the ultimate pile capacity
• Draft a simplified load – settlement curve
• Assess the impact of negative skin friction
• Assess what a potential reduction shaft friction due to the use

of bentonite would have on the pile capacity
• Assess a potential reduction in base capacity
14
7
9/08/2022

• Assessment of pile design parameters from average SPT values
• Loose sand DR > 35%

• γ = 18kN/m3
• φ’ = 33deg
• Very dense gravel DR = 85%
• γ = 21kN/m3
• φ’ = 39deg
15

• Effective stress calculation:
• σ’v01 = (((4.5m * 18kN/m3) – (3.5m * 10kN/m3)
• = 81kPa – 35kPa = 46kPa
• σ’v02 = ((9m * 18kN/m3) + (0.5m * 21kN/m3)) -
• = ((8m * 10kN/m3) + (0.5m * 10kN/m3))
• = (173kPa) – (85kPa)
• = 88kPa
16
8
9/08/2022

• Shaft friction medium dense sand (Meyerhof)
• Qs1 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As
• Qs1 = 0.1 * 46kPa * 2.83 m * 9m = 117kN
17

• Shaft friction medium dense sand (B1/VM4 NZ)
• Qs1 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As
• Qs1 = 1.0 * 0.46 * 46kPa * 2.83 m * 9m = 539kN
18
9
9/08/2022

• Shaft friction dense gravel (Meyerhof)
• Qs2 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As
• Qs2 = 0.35 * 88kPa * 2.83m * 1m = 87kN
19

• Shaft friction dense gravel (B1/VM4)
• Qs2 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As
• Qs2 = 2 * 0.56 * 88kPa * 2.83m * 1m = 278kN
20
10
9/08/2022

• Shaft capacity:
• Qs = 117kN + 87kN = 204kN – Meyerhof Method
• Qs = 539kN + 278kN = 817kN – B1/VM4 method
• Base capacity:
• Qb = Nq x σ’v0 x Ab
• σ’v0 = (9m*18kN/m3+21N/m3)–(9m*10kN/m3)=93kPa
• Qb = 170 * 93 kPa * 0.636 m2 = 10,055kN
• Qb = 5,000kPa * 0.636 m2 = 3,180kN
• Qtotal = 817kN + 3,180kN = 3,997kN*0.5 = 1,999kN
21
Pile design - granular soils
End bearing capacity:
Qb = Nq * σ’v0 * Ab + cb’ * Nc ≤ fb
Values of Nq and fb:
22
11
9/08/2022
load settlement (no downdRAG)
(1923kN)
(333kN)
(211KN)
(1590kN)
Considering potential
installation effects and
base resistance
reductions to 4MP
(1272kN)
(9mm) (90mm) after Raison & Egan, 2016
23

• Suggestions to ensure pile performance is met:
• Ensure optimal pile construction
• Cleanliness of pile base and use of sufficient drilling tools
• Use of polymer could reduce base due to sedimentation of

fines (use bentonite)
• Base grouting to ensure design base capacity can be

achieved
• Bitumen coating of the casing to reduce negative skin friction

(also shaft resistance)
24
12
9/08/2022

• CFA piling would be an option but with inconsistent penetration
rates, skin friction should be reduced.
• For pile diameter > 750mm, the base capacity should be carefully
considered as the concrete fills the cavity at a slower rate.
• Belled piles are NOT recommended in granular ground conditions

due to potential instability of the bell under drilling support fluid.
25
• EXAMPLE 3 (BORED PILES IN ROCK)
26
13
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 3 (BORED PILE in ROCK)
1.0 m
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3
9.0 m
Weak SW Sandstone
3.0 m UCS = 2 MN/m2
RQD = 53%
27

• Pile length 12.00 m
• Rock socket length: 3.00 m
• Pile shaft and base diameter 0.90m
• Shaft friction above rock not considered
• Concrete strength 40 Mpa
• Axial design load (N*) 2,000 kN
28
14
9/08/2022

• Task
• Calculate the stress on the pile shaft
• Assess the ultimate shaft and base capacity of the bored pile
(rock socket)
• Assess the pile head settlement
• What could be effects of rock socket roughening?
29

• Stress on the pile shaft:
• σ’ = P / As = 2 MN / 0.63 m2 = 3.2 MPa
• Suitable for 40 MPa concrete
• Rock socket shaft friction:
• fs = a * (qu)b
• fs = 0.3 * (2)0.5 = 424 kPa (Zhang & Einstein)
• Assuming a 3 m long rock socket:
• 424 kPa * 2.83 m * 3 m = 3,600 kN
• Shaft resistance: 3,600 kN * 0.5 = 1,800 kN < 2,000 kN
30
15
9/08/2022

• Rock socket base resistance:
• fb = a1 * (qu)b1
• fb = 4.8 * (2)0.5 = 6,788 kPa (Zhang/ Einstein)
• Total pile resistance:
• Q = fs + fb = 3,600 kN + (6,788kN * 0.63 m2) = 7,876kN
• Total ULS pile resistance:

7,876 kN * 0.5 = 3,938 kN
• The pile head settlement will be caused through compression of

the rock socket and the base.
31

• Pile head settlement:
• ρ = (Q * Ip) / (B * Ed) (Pells & Turner, 1978)
• Well-cemented sandstone:
- Modulus ratio of 300 (BS8004) – ratio of

E-modulus of intact rock to its UCS
- Mass factor for RQC up to 50% = 0.2
- Deformation modulus: 0.2*300*2MPa = 120MPa
- Econcrete / Erock: 31,000MPa / 300Mpa = 103
- L / B = 3 m / 0.9 m = 3.33
32
16
9/08/2022
Ip = 0.3
33

• Pile head settlement:
• ρ = (Q * Ip) / (B * Ed) (Pells & Turner, 1978)
• Ρ = (2,000 kN * 0.3) / (0.9 m * 120 MPa) = 5.6 mm
• Roughening the rock socket would provide improved shaft

resistance and the entire axial pile load could be transferred by
shaft friction.
• Construction verification for roughening must proof size, pitch

and cleanliness of grooves.
34
17
9/08/2022
35
• EXAMPLE 4 (HILEY – TIMBER PILES)
36
18
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 4 (TIMBER PILE in CLAY)

N* = 100 kN
SPT
10 1.0 m
1.5 m
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3
4.5 m 9
9.0 m
7.5 m 11
9.0 m 31
Very stiff clay

SPT = 30 (average)
30 γ = 18 kN/m3
10.5 m
37

• Prediction of the resistance of a driven timber pile (circular)
using the ‘Hiley formula’
• Specifications:
• Pile embedment depth: 9.00m
• Pile type: Timber
• Pile diameter: 0.25m
• Cub at base if pile: 150kPa
• Phi-g: 0.33
• Single acting 3ton hammer with 0.4m drop
38
19
9/08/2022

• Task:
• Assess geotechnical load reduction factor
• Calculate the ultimate pile capacity
• Assess the temporary compression and final set of the pile
• Check driving stresses
• Assess a potential reduction in hammer efficiency with respect

to the pile capacity
39
• DRIVEN PILES (HILEY FORMULA)

• Hiley Formula (1925) – ASG Piling Specification
40
20
9/08/2022

• Hiley Formula (1925) – ASG Piling Specification
41

• Civil Engineering Code of Practice No. 4 (1954) U.D.C. 624.15
42
21
9/08/2022

• If W > Pe and the pile has not reached refusal
• n = (W + Pe2) / (W + P)
• If W < Pe and the pile has not reached refusal
• n = ((W + Pe2) / (W + P)) – ((W - Pe2) / (W + P))
• Where
• n = efficiency of the blow [dimensionless]
• W = weight of the hammer [kN]
• P = weight of the pile, anvil, helmet, follower [kN]
• e = coefficient of restitution of materials subject to impact [dimensionless].
43

• Single (left) versus double (right) acting hammers
• Single acting hammers:
- In single acting pile driving hammers, the ram is moved by

compressed air or steam up to the specified drop height before
the pressure is released and the ram falls under gravity.
• Double acting hammers:
- They are similar to single acting hammers but air or steam

pressure is applied to the ram during its decent to make the
hammer faster.
44
22
9/08/2022

• Single (left) versus double (right) acting hammers
(Examples)
45

• For piles driven with a double-acting hammer
the following blow efficiencies can be assumed:
• Steel piles without driving cap: 0.5
• RC piles without helmet but with packing on top of piles: 0.5
• RC piles with short dolly, helmet, packing: 0.4
• Timber piles: 0.4
46
23
9/08/2022

• Piles driven with single-acting or drop hammer show the
following blow efficiencies:
• RC piles without helmet but with packing

on top of piles: 0.4
• Steel or steel tube piles with driving cap

and short dolly covered with steel plate: 0.32
• RC piles with helmet, packing and dolly in

good condition: 0.25
• timber piles in good condition: 0.25
• timber piles in poor condition: 0.0
47

• PILE STRESSES AND HARDNESS OF DRIVING
• The comparative hardness of driving is expressed in terms of the

compressive stress in the pile or shoe. Indicative values are shown
below:
48
24
9/08/2022

• FACTORS OF SAFETY
• The ultimate axial compressive pile capacity, determined either

by test loadings or as the ultimate driving resistance derived from
the
Hiley formula, shall be divided by a factor of safety appropriate to
the circumstances prevailing, particularly the reliability of the
available data and the consequences of failure
of the structure being considered.
49

• ASG recommendations
50
25
9/08/2022

• Civil Engineering Code of Practice No. 4 (1954) U.D.C. 624.15
In this
example,
select FOS = 3
51

• Firm/ stiff clay cu = 50kPa
• Very stiff clay cu = 150kPa
52
26
9/08/2022

• For preliminary design calculations, it is necessary to estimate the
value of R as followed:
• Assuming a compressive stress in the pile,
• Obtaining a hardness of driving,
• Obtaining the corresponding value of C
• Calculating R from the Hiley formula,
• Calculating the compressive stress in the pile
• Comparing that stress with the assumed value,
• If necessary, repeating the calculation, and until agreement is

reached.
53

using Hiley formula:
• Allowable stress in pile (medium driving) 7.0MPa
54
27
9/08/2022

55

• Qs = α * cu * A s
• Qs = 0.8 * 50kPa * 0.79m * 9 m = 284 kN
• Qb = Nc * cub * Ab
• Qb = 9 * 150kPa * 0.049m2 = 66 kN
• Qtotal = Qs + Qb
• Qtotal = 284kN + 66kN = 350 kN * 0.33 = 116 kN
• Stress in the pile: 350 kN / 0.049m2 = 7.14 MPa
56
28
9/08/2022

• Hiley formula and ASG specifications:
57

• Hiley formula and Civil Engineering Code of Practice No. 4 (1954)
U.D.C. 624.15
• :
58
29
9/08/2022

using Hiley formula and ASG specifications:
• Total temporary compression C is derived from:
• C = Cc + Cp + Cq
• C = 2.0 mm + 7.0 mm + 3.0 mm = 12.0 mm (ASG)
• C = 2.5 mm + 6.7 mm + 2.5 mm = 11.7 mm (CEC)
• (Pile shaft is 10m long with 9m pile embedment)
59

• If W > Pe, and the pile has not reached refusal
• W = 30kN > (8.4 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.525 kN)
• n = (W + Pe2) / (W + P)
• n = (30 + 0.525) / (30 + 8.4) = 0.79
• where:
• n = efficiency of the blow
• W = 30 kN
• P = 7kN/m3 *10m* 0.049m2 = 3.4kN + 5kN = 8.4kN
• e = 0.25 (single acting hammers for good timber)
60
30
9/08/2022

• R = (W * h * n) / (s + c/2)
• R = (30kN * 400mm* 0.79) / (21 + 12/2 mm)
• R = 9480 kNmm / 27mm = 351kN * 0.33 = 117 kN
• where:
• R = ultimate driving resistance [kN]
• W = 30 kN
• s = 21.0 mm (specify 200-250mm per 10 blows)
• c = 12.0 mm
• n = efficiency of blow [/]
• h = 400 mm
61

• Stress in the pile: 351kN / 0.049m2 = 7.1MPa
• Allowable stress in pile (medium driving) 7.0MPa
62
31
9/08/2022

• If W > Pe, and the pile has not reached refusal
• W = 25kN > (8.4 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.525kN)
• n = (W + Pe2) / (W + P)
• n = (25 + 0.525) / (25 + 8.4) = 0.76
• where:
• n = efficiency of the blow
• W = 25kN (REDUCED DUE TO DEFECT)
• P = 7kN/m3 *10m* 0.049m2 = 3.4kN + 5kN = 8.4kN
• e = 0.25 (single acting hammers for good timber)
63

• R = (W * h * n) / (s + c/2)
• R = (25kN * 400 mm* 0.76) / (21 + 12/2 mm)
• R = 7600 kNmm / 27 mm = 281kN * 0.33 = 94 kN
• where:
Instead of 117 kN
• R = ultimate driving resistance [kN]
• W = 25 kN (REDUCED DUE TO DEFECT)
• s = 21.0 mm (specify 200-250mm per 10 blows)
• c = 12.0 mm
• n = efficiency of blow [/]
• h = 400 mm
64
32
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 5 (SCREW PILE IN CLAY)
65
• EXAMPLE 5
P
Ignore top 0.5 m
2 MPa / 17 = 118 kPa

1.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3 0.8 MPa / 17 = 47 kPa
9.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
6 MPa = 1,100 kPa EB
Weak 16
SWMpa
Sandstone
= 5,000 kPa
End bearing
3.0 m UCS = 2 MN/m2
RQD = 53%
66
33
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 5
P
Ignore top 0.5 m
2 MPa / 17 = 118 kPa

1.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3 0.8 MPa / 17 = 47 kPa
9.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Weak 16
SWMpa
Sandstone
= 5,000 kPa
End bearing
3.0 m UCS = 2 MN/m2
RQD = 53%
67

• Screw pile shaft 114 x 6.75 mm
• Screw pile helix 400 x 12 mm
• Number of helices 1
• Spacing between helices N/A
• Average shaft friction 56 kPa
68
34
9/08/2022
Pile design - correlations
Generic correlations for granular soils
Relative density Dr (%) Cone resistance qc Typical φ

[Mpa]
Very loose Dr < 15 < 2.5 < 30°
Loose Dr = 15 – 35 2.5 – 5.0 30°- 35°
Medium dense Dr = 35 – 65 5.0 – 10.0 35° - 40°
Dense Dr = 65 – 85 10.0 – 20.0 40° - 45°
Very dense Dr > 85 > 20.0 > 45°
69
Pile design - granular soils
End bearing capacity:
Qb = Nq * σ’v0 * Ab + cb’ * Nc ≤ fb
Values of Nq and fb:
70
35
9/08/2022
Pile design - Screw piles
The bearing capacity of screw piles based on individual

bearing failure is given by the following equation:
Rd, ug = Σ Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd
n
- Rd, ug = design ultimate helix strength

- Ah = area of the helix
- fb = ultimate soil bearing pressure at deeper helix level
- N = number of helical bearing plates
- fm,x = ultimate shaft friction
- d = diameter of screw pile shaft
- H’ = effective shaft length
Individual failure typically occurs for helix spacings in
excess of 3 times the helix diameter.
71

• Individual bearing mechanism:
• Rd, ug = Σ Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd
• Ah = area of the helix
• fb = ultimate soil bearing pressure below helix
• N = number of helical bearing plates
• fm,x = ultimate shaft friction
• d = diameter of screw pile shaft
• H’ = effective shaft length
72
36
9/08/2022

• Assess pile resistance:
• Rd, ug = ((0.126 m2 * 1,000 kPa)) +

(0.114 m * πd * 4.5 m * 56 kPa)
• (126 kN) + (90 kN) = 216 kN
• Rg* ≥ ø * Rd (Geotechnical design strength)
• No load testing: Rg* = 216 kN * 0.5 = 108 kN
• Static load testing: Rg* = 216 kN * 0.8 = 173 kN
73
• EXAMPLE 5
P
Ignore top 0.5 m
2 MPa / 17 = 118 kPa

1.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3 0.8 MPa / 17 = 47 kPa
9.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Weak 16
SWMpa
Sandstone
= 5,000 kPa
End bearing
3.0 m UCS = 2 MN/m2
RQD = 53%
74
37
9/08/2022

• Screw pile shaft 114 x 6.75 mm
• Screw pile helix 400 x 12 mm
• Number of helices 2
• Spacing between helices 1.2 m
75

• Task
• Calculate the ultimate pile resistance
• Cylindrical failure mode
• Individual bearing failure
• What difference would make a static load test in estimating the

geotechnical pile resistance
• Ignore structural design in this example (e.g. welding

connections, structural capacity of shaft and helices, pile head
connection)
76
38
9/08/2022
The bearing capacity of screw piles based on individual

bearing failure is given by the following equation:
Rd, ug = Σ Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd
n

- N = number of helical bearing plates
Individual failure typically occurs for helix spacings in
excess of 3 times the helix diameter.
77

• Individual bearing mechanism:
• N = number of helical bearing plates
78
39
9/08/2022

How much load will be
• Assess pile resistance: transferred by the upper
helix? In this example, the
• Rd, ug = Σ Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd upper helix is ignored.
• Rd, ug = ((0.126 m2 * 58 kPa * 9) * 1) +

(0.114 m * πd * 2.5 m * 56 kPa)
• (66 kN) + (50 kN) = 116 kN

• Please be very careful about founding end bearing piles in firm/
soft clay without reliable settlement assessments!
79
The bearing capacity of multiple helix screw piles based on

cylindrical shear failure is given by the following equation:
Rd, ug = Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd + Σ(π * Dh * S * τ)

- Dh = diameter of the cylindrical shaft
- τ = shear strength of the soil between helical plates
- S = spacing of helical plates (typically ≤ 3Dh)
80
40
9/08/2022

• Cylindrical shearing mechanism:
• Rd, ug = Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd + Σ(π * Dh * S * τ)
• Dh = diameter of the cylindrical shaft
• τ = soil shear strength between helical plates
• S = spacing of helical plates (typically ≤ 3Dh)
81
This approach heavily relies

• EXAMPLE 5 on soil plugging between the
helices, ensure adequate soil
• Assess pile resistance: shear strength for plugging
• Rd, ug = Ah * fb + fm,x * H’πd + Σ(π * Dh * S * τ)
• Rd, ug = (0.126 m2 * 58 kPa * 9) +

(0.114 m * πd * 1.3 m * 55 kPa) +
• (π * 0.4 m * 1.2 m * 49 kPa)
• (66 kN) + (26 kN) + (74 kN) = 166 kN
• Use lowest value unless verified by load testing.
82
41
9/08/2022

• Discussion (use lower value for initial design)
• Cylindrical failure mode
• 83 kN (no testing) or 133 kN (static load test)
• Individual bearing failure
• 58 kN (no testing) or 92 kN (static load test)
• Static load testing will provide verification and real test data
about the pile performance. Founding in the sandy bearing layer
almost doubles the geotechnical pile resistance.
83
• EXAMPLE 5
P
Ignore top 0.5 m
2 MPa / 17 = 118 kPa

1.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3 0.8 MPa / 17 = 47 kPa
9.0 m
1 MPa / 17 = 58 kPa
Weak 16
SWMpa
Sandstone
= 5,000 kPa
End bearing
3.0 m UCS = 2 MN/m2
RQD = 53%
84
42
9/08/2022

• Assess pile resistance:
• Rd, ug = ((0.126 m2 * 1,000 kPa)) +

(0.114 m * πd * 4.5 m * 56 kPa)
• (126 kN) + (90 kN) = 216 kN
• USE LONGER PILES EMBEDDED IN BEARING LAYER
85
• EXAMPLE 6 (LATERAL PILE RESISTANCE - TIMBER PILES)
86
43
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 6 (TIMBER PILE in CLAY) – Lateral pile

resistance
? kN 100kN
0.1 m
SPT
10 1.0 m
1.5 m
4.5 m 9 9.0 m
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3
7.5 m 11
9.0 m 31
Very stiff clay
SPT = 30 (average)
30 γ = 18 kN/m3
10.5 m
87

• Firm/ stiff clay cu = 50kPa
• Very stiff clay cu = 150kPa
88
44
9/08/2022

• Prediction of the lateral resistance of a timber pile (circular)
using Broms method:
• Pile embedment: 9.00m
• Pile type: timber
• Stiffness of pile (EI) 13MPa
• with E = 10,000MPa
• I = 0.0013m4
89

• Prediction of the lateral resistance of a driven timber pile
(circular) using Broms’ method.
Chart
Chart for for
short piles long
piles
90
45
9/08/2022
βh = (Khb/EI)1/4
kh = 0.4 (k/b)
kh = 0.4 (8/0.25)=6.3
Outside of chart
USE LARGER PILE
6.3
91

• Prediction of the lateral resistance of a driven timber pile
(circular) using Broms’ method.
• The assessment of the lateral displacements is not possible as

the displacement might be too large for the long pile or the
method is unsuitable to assess the displacement. The input value
was outside the
design chart.
• Use a larger pile diameter

or ‘over-boring’.
92
46
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 6A (CONCRETE PILE in CLAY) – Lateral

pile resistance
? kN 100kN
0.1 m
SPT 600mm steel sleeve filled

10 1.0 m
1.5 m with 40MPa concrete and
3m depth
4.5 m 9 9.0 m
Firm/ stiff clay
SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 16 kN/m3
7.5 m 11
9.0 m 31
Very stiff clay

SPT = 30 (average)
30 γ = 18 kN/m3
10.5 m
93
• EXAMPLE 6A (CONCRETE PILE in CLAY)

• Prediction of the lateral resistance of a concrete pile (circular)
using Broms method:
• Pile type: Concrete
• Stiffness of pile (EI) 205MPa
• I = 0.0064m4
94
47
9/08/2022

using Broms method:
Chart
Chart for for
short piles long
(free head) piles
95

using Broms method:
Chart
Chart for for
short piles long
(fixed head) piles
96
48
9/08/2022

• Prediction of lateral movement of a concrete pile
• Estimation of lateral pile deflections
97

Estimation of lateral pile deflections free head:
y0 * kh * D * L / Qa = 5.1
y0 * 5.3 * 0.6 m * 3 m / 63 kN = 5.1
0.15 y0 = 5.1
y0 ≈ 34 mm
Estimation of lateral pile deflections fixed head: (be clear

about the applied load)
y0 * 5.3 * 0.6 m * 3 m / 270 kN = 1.5
0.04 y0 = 1.5
y0 ≈ 37 mm (about 10 mm for 63 kN lateral loading)

We should compare deflections under similar loads
98
49
9/08/2022

using Broms’ method:
• The lateral resistance after Broms method provided about 63 kN

lateral resistance (free head), with a geotechnical reduction factor
= 0.5.
• The assessment of the lateral displacements for the 600 mm

diameter concrete section provided estimates of 34 mm (free
head) and 10 mm (fixed head) with 63 kN lateral loading at the pile
head.
• Considering the depth of the maximum moment, the 3 m depth

seems to be appropriate.
99
• EXAMPLE 7 (LATERAL PILE RESISTANCE - BORED PILES)
100
50
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 7 (BORED PILE in SAND) Lateral pile

resistance
? kN 100kN
0.1 m
SPT 600mm steel sleeve 2.0 m

1.5 m 4
filled with 40MPa
concrete and 3m depth
4.5 m 4 Loose sand 9.0 m

SPT = 4 (average)
γ = 17 kN/m3
7.5 m 5 ϕ = 27 deg
9.0 m 48
Very dense gravel

SPT > 50 (average)
55 γ = 21 kN/m3
10.5 m
ϕ = 39 deg
101
• EXAMPLE 7 (BORED PILE in SAND)

• Loose sand DR = 15%

• γ = 17kN/m3
• φ’ = 27deg
102
51
9/08/2022

• Prediction of the lateral resistance of a bored pile (circular) using
B1/VM4 method:
• Pile type: concrete
• (Stiffness of pile (EI) 205MPa
• I = 0.0064m4
Consider temporary support of the 3m deep

hole up to 1m below ground water level in
loose sands!
103

Broms method.
Chart Chart
for for
short long
piles piles
(free
head)
104
52
9/08/2022

105

• Estimation of lateral pile deflections free head:

Lateral
• (y0 * (EI)0.6 * nh0.4))/ QaD = 20
movements
are usually
• (y0 * (205)0.6 * 0.40.4)) / (68 * 3) = 20
limited to
50mm (TBC)
• y0 ≈ 240 mm (values at the boundary of chart)
• Estimation of lateral pile deflections fixed head:
• (y0 * (EI)0.6 * nh0.4))/ QaD = 1.3
• (y0 * (205)0.6 * 0.40.4)) / (68 * 3) = 1.3
• y0 ≈ 16 mm Similar load applied as for free head
106
53
9/08/2022

using Broms’ method:

= 0.5.
• The assessment of the lateral displacements for the 600mm

diameter concrete section provided estimates of 240mm (free
head) and 16mm (fixed head) with 68 kN lateral loading at the pile
head.
• Considering the depth of the maximum moment, the 3m depth

107
• EXAMPLE 7A (BORED PILE in SAND) Lateral pile

resistance
? kN 100kN
0.1 m
SPT 600mm steel sleeve 1.0 m

1.5 m 10
filled with 40MPa
concrete and 3m depth
4.5 m 9 Medium Dense sand 9.0 m

SPT = 10 (average)
γ = 18 kN/m3
7.5 m 11 ϕ = 32 deg
9.0 m 48
Very dense gravel

SPT > 50 (average)
55 γ = 21 kN/m3
10.5 m
ϕ = 39 deg
108
54
9/08/2022
• EXAMPLE 7A (BORED PILE in SAND)

• Medium Dense sand DR = 35%

• γ = 18kN/m3
• φ’ = 32deg
109

B1/VM4 method:
• Pile type: concrete
• (Stiffness of pile (EI) 205MPa
• I = 0.0064m4
Consider temporary support of the 3m deep

hole up to 2m below ground water level in
loose sands!
110
55
9/08/2022

Broms method.
Chart Chart
for for
short long
piles piles
(free
head)
111

112
56
9/08/2022

• Estimation of lateral pile deflections free head:

Lateral
• (y0 * (EI)0.6 * nh0.4))/ QaD = 10
movements
are usually
• (y0 * (205)0.6 * 1.50.4)) / (89 * 3) = 10
limited to
50mm (TBC)
• y0 ≈ 70 mm (y0 ≈ 240 mm in loose sand)
• Estimation of lateral pile deflections fixed head:
• (y0 * (EI)0.6 * nh0.4))/ QaD = 1.0 Similar load applied as

for free headed case
• (y0 * (205)0.6 * 1.50.4)) / (89 * 3) = 1.0
• y0 ≈ 7 mm (y0 ≈ 16 mm in loose sand)
113

using Broms’ method (MD sand):

= 0.5.
• The assessment of the lateral displacements for the 600 mm

diameter concrete section provided estimates of 70mm (free head)
and 7mm (fixed head) with 89 kN lateral loading at the pile head.
• Considering the depth of the maximum moment, the 3m depth

114
57
9/08/2022
• SUMMARY (BORED PILE in SAND)

• Consider methodology related limitations of some ground
investigation methods, e.g. DCP testing. Such test is commonly
used up to 3 m depth but due to increased soil resistance along the
DCP rods, the blow count could be higher as it reflects both, cone
resistance and friction along the shaft.
• Such practice could lead to the over-estimation of soil layers,

which can have significant impacts on the design and the actual
performance of the pile (e.g. 240 mm versus 70+ mm lateral
deflections for free headed piles in this example)
115
DISCLAIMER
Engineering New Zealand and/or the author do not guarantee or warrant the accuracy,
reliability, completeness or currency of the information in this presentation nor its
usefulness in achieving any purpose.
The recipients of this presentation are responsible for assessing the relevance and
accuracy of the content of this presentation.
This presentation should not be substituted for your own engineering judgement.
Engineering New Zealand and/or the author will not be liable for any loss, damage,
cost or expense incurred or arising out of or in connection with any unauthorised use
of this presentation.
The work and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author.
116
58
9/08/2022
THANKS. • Dr Martin Larisch

• Jacobs New Zealand Ltd
• Martin.Larisch@jacobs.com
117
59

Pile Design &amp; Analysis of Single Piles. Examples

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Pile Design &amp; Analysis of Single Piles. Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/08/2022

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILES IN CLAY)

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

Very stiff clay

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

• Pile length: 10.00m

• Pile shaft diameter: 0.90m

• Pile base diameter: 0.90m

• Cus (average along pile shaft): ?

• Load-settlement curve (simplified)

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

• Pile length: 10.00m

• Pile shaft diameter: 0.90m

• Pile base diameter: 0.90m

• Cus (average along pile shaft): 50kPa

• Cub at base: 150kPa

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

• Firm/ stiff clay cu = 50 kPa

• Very stiff clay cu = 150 kPa

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

• EXAMPLE 1 (BORED PILE in CLAY)

• Qs = 0.35 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 446 kN

• Qs = 0.45 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 574 kN

• Qs = 0.70 * 50kPa * 2.83m * 9m = 892 kN

• Qb = 9 * 150kPa * 0.636m2 = 859 kN

• Qtotal = 1305 kN / 1433 kN / 1751 kN

• Apply phi-g of 0.5 * 1751 kN = 876 kN

load settlement behaviour

The load-settlement behaviour of piles can be approximated based on the

after Raison & Egan, 2016

load settlement behaviour

(9mm) (90mm) after Raison & Egan, 2016

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE IN GRAVEL)

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

Medium Dense sand

Very dense gravel

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Pile length: 10.00m

• Pile shaft diameter: 0.90m

• Pile base diameter: 0.90m

• Load-settlement curve (simplified)

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Calculate the ultimate pile capacity

• Draft a simplified load – settlement curve

• Assess the impact of negative skin friction

• Assess what a potential reduction shaft friction due to the use

• Assess a potential reduction in base capacity

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Loose sand DR > 35%

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• σ’v01 = (((4.5m * 18kN/m3) – (3.5m * 10kN/m3)

• = 81kPa – 35kPa = 46kPa

• σ’v02 = ((9m * 18kN/m3) + (0.5m * 21kN/m3)) -

• = ((8m * 10kN/m3) + (0.5m * 10kN/m3))

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Qs1 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As

• Qs1 = 0.1 * 46kPa * 2.83 m * 9m = 117kN

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Qs1 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As

• Qs1 = 1.0 * 0.46 * 46kPa * 2.83 m * 9m = 539kN

• EXAMPLE 2 (BORED PILE in GRAVEL)

• Qs2 = K * tanδ * σ’v0 * As

• Qs2 = 0.35 * 88kPa * 2.83m * 1m = 87kN

Pile Design & Analysis of Single Piles. Examples

Pile Design & Analysis of Single Piles. Examples

- Deformation modulus: 0.23002MPa = 120MPa