Arab Academy for Science and Technology and maritime transport

A State-of-Art Study

Construction Foundation Piles

Students
Amr Mohamed Mohamed elamer 16105244
Mahmoud ayman Hamad 16104681
MennaTallah Sayed 16104773
Mariam Mostafa 16104843
Fady Adel Masoud 16106402

Supervised By
Dr/Sameh abou El-Soud
Eng/Kareem Adel
Abstract
Foundations are a critical element of any structure. They must carry the desired loads safely both
structurally and geotechnically. If there is a structural weakness the pile foundation might fail
catastrophically. If the soil cannot support the applied loads with a sufficient margin of safety
then significant settlements of the structure will occur, rendering the structure unsafe and causing
either expensive remediation or possibly even demolition of the structure. The risk of failure is
therefore unacceptable. In general, the piles are also buried so direct inspection of the in-place
element is impossible. Fortunately, in recent decades a growing list of test methods has been
made available to indirectly evaluate the structural integrity and load bearing capacity of piles.
These test methods are now routinely applied. The relatively modest cost of testing, compared to
the cost of the foundation, is justified in reducing risk of foundation failure and in many cases
results in an overall reduction in cost of the total foundation.

1-Introduction
Pile foundations are the part of a structure used to carry and transfer the load of
the structure to the bearing ground located at some depth below ground
surface. The main components of the foundation are the pile cap and the piles.
Piles are long and slender members which transfer the load to deeper soil or
rock of high bearing capacity avoiding shallow soil of low bearing capacity The
main types of materials used for piles are Wood, steel and concrete. Piles made
from these materials are driven, drilled or jacked into the ground and connected
to pile caps. Depending upon type of soil, pile material and load transmitting
characteristic piles are classified accordingly. In the following chapter we learn
about, classifications, functions and pros and cons of piles.
Foundations provide support for structures, transferring their load to layers of soil or rock that
have sufficient bearing capacity and suitable settlement characteristics. There are a very wide
range of foundation types available, suitable for different applications, depending
on considerations, such as:
-The nature of the load requiring support.
-Ground conditions.
-The presence of water.
-Durability of the materials.
-Cost.
-Accessibility.
-Sensitivity to noise and vibration.
-Proximity to other structures.
-Load exerted on the piles
Very broadly, foundations can be categorized as shallow foundations or deep
foundations. Shallow foundations are typically used where the loads imposed by a structure are
low relative to the bearing capacity of the surface soils. Deep foundations are necessary where
the bearing capacity of the surface soils is insufficient to support loads imposed and so they are
transferred to deeper layers with higher bearing capacity.
Pile foundations are deep foundations. They are formed by long,
slender, columnar elements typically made from steel or reinforced concrete, or
sometimes timber. A foundation is described as 'piled' when its depth is more than three times its
breadth
Pile foundations are principally used to transfer the loads from superstructures, through weak,
compressible strata or water onto stronger, more compact, less compressible and
stiffer soil or rock at depth, increasing the effective size of a foundation and resisting horizontal
loads. They are typically used for large structures, and in situations where soil is not suitable to
prevent excessive settlement.

2-Literature Review
- Fleming et al (1992) provide details on the design of pile groups. They state that in the
case of block failure, soil between the piles may move with the piles.
-Whitaker (1957) carried out a series of experiments on groups of model piles
investigating the effect that neighboring piles have on each other.
-Barden and Monckton (1970) advanced the work undertaken by Whitaker and
included tests in soft and stiff clay, with undrained shear strengths of 7 and 106 kPa
respectively.
-Cooke (1974) discusses the subject of pile spacing and group efficiency. It is noted that
piles forming a group are frequently installed at close pile spacing.
-Turek and Katzenbach (2003) investigated the bearing behavior of a
combined pile-raft foundation on sand. A number of small scale model test at
1g level were performed.

-Frank (1991) concluded that the raft contact pressure would

increase only when the base resistance of the piles was relatively smaller
when compared to the shaft friction
3-Problem Assumption and Performance Measures

-For Fleming: resulting in failure planes that follow the periphery of the group, or in some cases,
localized rows of failure may occur. In general, block failure is associated with close spacing of
piles, although quite what constitutes a 'close spacing' is mostly undefined in literature, or at
least, cannot be agreed upon. Fleming instructs that independent calculations should be made of
both the block capacity and the individual pile capacities, to ensure that there is an adequate
factor of safety against both modes of failure.
Whitaker: The experiments were carried out in soft remolded London Clay, with a shear strength of between
4 and 9 kPa and groups of piles in a grid layout, 3x3, SxS,7x7 and 9x9 were tested. Two modes of failure
of the pile groups were observed; block failure where the central soil is incorporated and the group appears
to behave as one large foundation; and individual failure where the piles fail as separate entities. It was
found that the transition from block failure to individual pile failure occurred at a spacing of 1.7S d for
piles 24 d long in a SxSgroup; whereas the transition occurred at 2.2S d for piles 48 d long in a 9x9 group.
Graphs of all these results are shown in Figures 2.04 and 2.0S. This behavioral transition (the pile spacing
where block failure shifts to individual failure) was at progressively closer spacing for shorter piles and
smaller groups.

-Barden and Monckton (1970) The tests involve the consolidation of powdered clay (at a water
content of 1.5 x WL) using a Rowe consolidation cell and the installation of groups of driven
piles. Steel rods of 3.2 mm diameter and 102 mm in length were driven 63 mm into the clay in
square groups of 3x3 and 5x5. The piles were connected by a rigid cap, which was well clear of
the clay and the groups were left 24 hours between driving and starting the tests. The results
indicated that block failure occurs for pile spacing less than 2.0 d in both soft and stiff clay,
which is slightly less, although concurrent, with the results of Whitaker (1957) & Cooke (1974)

-Cooke (1974) Cooke specifically defines the efficiency as the ratio of the average load per pile
in a group when failure occurs (continued settlement at constant load), to the ultimate bearing
capacity of a comparable single pile. The settlement ratio is best defined as the settlement of a
pile group divided by the settlement of a single pile when both carry the same proportion of their
ultimate load. Cooke's model experiments concluded with the following observations:
• Increased efficiency with increased spacing
• Maximum settlement ratio at 2.5 d, falling with increased spacing (for a
constant number of piles)
• Block failure common where spacing is less than 2.5 d
• Rigid cap on ground surface increases capacity at pile spacing of more than
2.5 d (at the expense of greater settlement)

-Turek and Katzenbach (2003)Tests were carried out not only with piled rafts but also with pile
groups without raft-soil contact and raft foundations. A total of 12 tests were performed, two for
each foundation on loose sand and two on dense sand. Comparison of test results of piled raft and
plain raft showed a settlement reduction of 30% in loose sand and 50% in dense sand. However,
much higher settlement was reported for the pile group. The load shared between the bearing
elements (piles and raft) of piled raft was a function of settlement of piled raft. It was also found
that the central pile of the five pile group they had used behaved slightly stiffer than the outer piles.

The study showed that at a settlement level of 4mm the pile group mobilized its ultimate shaft
resistance in the case of loose sand. The increase in the stress level below the raft influenced the
shaft resistance of pile group more in the case of dense sand than in the case of loose sand. Also
it was found that the piles of piled raft in loose sand did not reach the ultimate shaft resistance
due to the increase in the stress level under the raft. Although the number of tests reported was
limited, the study established that the performance of piled raft in settlement reduction was better
in dense sand than in loose sand.

Frank (1991): The study further concluded that a balancing of load share must be done in such a
way that the raft and piles share the load equally for a given settlement. This was achieved in the
West end tower. This would warrant a repeated analysis to fix the length of the pile after
selecting the diameter. Frank (1991) further gave more importance for the load shared by the raft
and
indicated that finite element and boundary element methods must take into account the bilinear
elastic / plastic shaft resistance behavior, and simple design calculation must be developed for
the design office. Poulos (1991) used the computer program GASP (Geotechnical Analysis of
Strip with Piles) and analyzed various foundation options for the printing press building,
Sydney. As a result of these analyses, it was decided to use a strip foundation of 5m wide and
0.8m thick, with pairs of bored piles of 0.9m diameter, typically extending about 7.5m into
moderately weathered shale.

4-In Conclusion
There is only one perimeter group and one target group arrangement where it is
possible to compare directly the influence of group shape and both results indicate it is
more efficient to utilize circular groups. It would be expected that a circular group is
favorable in comparison to square groups where the load distribution is likely to be
unequal, particularly for the corner piles. Also, the area of soil encompassed by the
piles are greater for circular groups, than the comparative square groups.
Eight perimeter groups had a low efficiency and six of these have a pile spacing of less than 2.0
d. The three groups with favorable efficiencies have very similar cross sectional ratios and
efficiencies, yet the number of piles is different as is the pile spacing, and more crucially, the
failure mechanism. All that can be concluded is that the target groups generally have favorable or
high efficiencies where they fail individually (five out of seven cases) and they generally have
low or normal efficiencies where they fail as a block (four out of five cases). All group types
converge towards an efficiency of unity beyond a pile spacing of approximately 3.0 d.
4-Refrences

Rose, A. V. (2012). Behavior and efficiency of perimeter pile groups (Doctoral dissertation, City
University London).

Allin, R., Likins, G., & Honeycutt, J. (2015). Pile driving formulas revisited. In IFCEE 2015 (pp.
1052-1063).

Sabatini, P. J., Pass, D. G., & Bachus, R. C. (1999). Geotechnical engineering circular no. 4:
ground anchors and anchored systems (No. FHWA-IF-99-015).

Hajduk, E. L., Paikowsky, S. P., Mullins, A. G., Ealy, C. D., Lewis, C., & Hourani, N. M.
(1998). The Behavior of Piles in Clay during Statnamic and Different Static Load Testing
Procedures. In Proceedings, 2nd International Statnamic Seminar (pp. 28-30).

Likins, G. E., Fellenius, B. H., & Holtz, R. D. (2012). Pile driving formulas: Past and present.
In Full-Scale Testing and Foundation Design: Honoring Bengt H. Fellenius (pp. 737-753).

Matsumoto, T., Tsuzuki, M., Michi, Y., (1994), Comparative Study of Static Loading Test and
Statnamic on a
Steel Pipe Pile Driven to Soft Rock, Proc. 5th Int’l. Conference and Exhibition on Piling and
Deep Foundations,
Bruges, Belgium.
Middendorp, P., Bermingham, P. & Kuiper, B., (1992), Statnamic load testing of foundation
piles, 4th Int

Conf. on the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles, The Hague 21–24 September 1992, pp.
265–272.

Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., & Thomas, C. M. (2015). Environmental emissions of
construction equipment usage in pile foundation construction process—a case study.
In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction
Management and Real Estate (pp. 327-339). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

El-Banna, S. (2012). Divided, they win? a case study of the new political generation in Egypt
since 25th January 2011.

Seidel, J., Rausche, F., (1984), Correlation of Static and Dynamic Pile Tests on Large
Diameter Drilled
Shafts. Second International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles:
Stockholm,
Sweden; 313-318.
Smith, E.A.L., (1960), Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation, American Society of Civil
Engineers
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 86(4), 35-61.