Design Working Manual Part1

Civil Design Handbook
Design Working Manual

Part 1: Geotechnical Parameters and Foundations
Civil Design Department

May 2004
The Land Transport Authoritys mission is:

To provide an efficient and cost-effective land transport system for different needs.
First published in May 2004

Amendments issued since this publication
Amd. No. Date
Affected Clause(s)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Civil Design
Department, Land Transport Authority.
Although this publication is believed to be correct at the time of its printing, the Land
Transport Authority does not accept responsibility for any consequence arising from the
use of the information contained in it. People using the information should apply, and rely
upon, their own skill and judgement to the particular issue which they are considering.
Civil Design Department

Engineering Division
No. 1 Hampshire Road, Singapore 219428
Tel: (65) 1800 CALL LTA Fax: (65) 6396 1383
Civil Design Handbook Design Working Manual (May 2004)
PREFACE
This handbook is intended as a quick guide on the design of foundations and reinforced
concrete structures based on the relevant standards and codes of practice. It is a collation of
the requirements covered in the various documents for convenient and easy reference
during design. Commonly used formulae, charts and tables are complied for quick
reference. They are useful for conceptual design, preliminary sizing and detail design
check. This handbook is suitable for designers familiar with the theoretical background of
the relevant subjects. Worked examples that illustrate the full design process are included.
This design manual consists of two parts as follows:Part 1

Geotechnical parameters and foundations,
Part 2
Reinforced concrete structures.
Civil Design Handbook Design Working Manual (May 2004)
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS AND FOUNDATIONS

Table of Content
Content
Page
Geotechnical Parameters
1
Introduction and Background

1.1 Soil Correlation
3
3
Basic Soil Characterisation

2.1 Index Properties
2.2 Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour
4
4
7
Lateral Earth Pressure

3.1 At Rest Condition (Ko)
3.2 Active and Passive Conditions (Ka and Kp) in Cohesionless Soil
3.3 Lateral Earth Pressure in Soil with Cohesion
8
9
10
12
Soil Strength
4.1 Effective Stress Analysis
4.2 Total Stress Analysis
4.3 Relevance of Laboratory Strength Tests to Field Conditions
4.4 Correlations with Index Parameters for Undisturbed Clays
12
12
14
15
17
Elastic Deformability
5.1 Definition of Various Coefficient and Modulus
18
18
Time Dependent Deformability

6.1 Compression Index Cc and Modified Compression Index Cc
6.2 Effective Preconsolidation Stress (p) in Cohesive Soil
6.3 Coefficient of Consolidation cv
6.4 Coefficient of Secondary Compression
22
22
24
25
26
Permeability
27
References
28
Deep Foundations
1
Pile Foundation
1.1 Design of Piles
30
30
Geotechnical Capacity
2.1 Static Method
2.2 Empirical Method
31
32
37
Structural Capacity (Allowable Material Stress)

3.1 Bored Pile
3.2 Steel Pile
3.3 Precast Pile
3.4 Reinforced Concrete Pile
38
Dynamic Formulae
4.1 Hileys formula (Trial and error method)
4.2 ENF (modified) formula
4.3 Janbus Formula
38
39
39
41
Pile group
5.1 In Clay
5.2 In Sand
5.3 In Rock
42
42
44
44
Settlement
6.1 Friction Pile
6.2 End Bearing Pile
6.3 Non Homogeneous Soil
6.4 Soil Parameters
6.5 Pile Group Analysis
44
44
46
48
48
49
Negative Skin Friction

7.1 Distribution of Negative Skin Friction on Single Pile
7.2 Magnitude of Negative Skin Friction on Single Pile
7.3 Safety Factor For Negative Skin Friction
54
54
54
55
Pile Load Test

8.1 Static Load Test
8.2 Dynamic Load Test
55
55
56
Special Topics
9.1 Micropiles
9.2 Timber Piles
9.3 Bakau Piles
59
59
60
61
10 Typical Sizes
10.1 Bored Piles
10.2 H-piles
10.3 Precast Piles
10.4 Timber Piles
10.5 Micropiles
61
61
61
63
63
63
11 Worked Examples
64
Shallow Foundations
1
Footing
70
Bearing Capacity of Footing
71
Contact Pressure
74
Estimation of Settlement of Footing
75
Plate Test
84
Influence of Ground Water
85
Examples
86
1.
Introduction and Background
Soil is a complex engineering material, which has been formed by a combination of

various geological, environmental, and chemical processes. These processes, both
natural or man made are ongoing. Thus soil properties are not unique or constant but
vary with many environmental factors such as time, stress history, water table
fluctuation, etc.
Due to the complexity of soil behaviour, empirical correlations are used extensively in
evaluating soil parameters.
1.1
Soil correlation
Before any geotechnical activity can proceed on site, it is necessary to perform an

analysis based on the soil engineering parameters for that site. The parameters are
often obtained through field/laboratory tests conducted as part of a borehole/CPT site
investigation programme. Sometimes, the engineer may be expected to perform a
preliminary assessment/analysis at short notice and with limited soil information. In
such a situation, correlations are very useful.
However, one must avoid using correlations as a black box to obtain the required
soil properties. The source, extent, and limitation of each correlation should be
examined carefully before use.
Items to look out for when using correlation include:
1) Number of data points, n
2) Standard deviation, s.d.
3) Coefficient of determination, r2 (r2 = 0 no correlation, r2 = 1 perfect correlation)
4) r is the statistic for testing the significance of a simple two variable linear
relationship, i.e. how well the data fit a linear relationship
Local calibrations, where available, should be preferred over any generalised
correlations.
Values for various geotechnical parameters are indicated in Table 1. It should be
noted that the values are meant for preliminary design when site specific data are not
available. For final design, site specific soil investigation data should always be used
to obtain the parameters required. Also, as the LTA Design Criteria has specified the
values of various geotechnical parameters to be used, Table 1 and site specific data
will provide a verification or for knowing the design safety margin available.
Suggested correlations are available in the later sections.
Civil Design Department Design Working Manual
Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations
2.
Basic Soil Characterisation
2.1
Index Properties
Cohesive Soils
Cohesive soils are represented by simple index parameters which are expressed as water
contents at particular soil states known as Atterberg limits; they also represent boundaries
between different engineering behaviours.
The commonly used index parameters for geotechnical engineering are:
wn
= In situ natural water content
wL or LL
= Liquid limit
wp or PL
= Plastic limit
PI or Ip
= Plasticity index
LI or IL
= Liquidity index
For most soils: 0 < LL < 100 and PL < 40

Liquid limit is the minimum water content of the soil to make it behave like a viscous
liquid. Plastic limit is the minimum water content of the soil to make it assume a plastic
state.
Plasticity Index (PI)
Plasticity Index, PI (or Ip) is an index to describe the range of water content over which a
soil was plastic. Therefore, PI = LL PL (or WL WP)
High PI, i.e. > (25 30) may mean troublesome soils with low strength and high
compressibility.
Liquidity Index (LI)
The Liquidity Index, LI (or IL) tells us the likelihood for the sample to behave as a plastic, a
brittle solid or even possibly a liquid. It is defined as:
LI = (wn PL) / PI or (wn PL) / (LL PL)
The LI is also an excellent indicator of geologic history and relative soil properties, as
shown in Table 2, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
Table 2 General behaviour of soil in relation to Liquidity Index, LI.

LI < 0 i.e. wn < PL
soil will have a brittle fracture if sheared
0 < LI < 1 i.e. PL < wn < LL
soil will behave like a plastic if sheared

(rule of the thumb:- LI > 0.5: likely to be NC;
LI < 0.5: likely to be OC)
soil will be a very viscous liquid when sheared
LI > 1 i.e. wn > LL
LL
p
Sensitive
NC
wn
PL
p
HOC
LOC
Decreasing water content

Increasing OCR, Ko
Increasing strength, modulus
Decreasing compressibility
>1
<0
Decreasing LI
NC = normally consolidated
OCR = overconsolidation ratio (p/vo)
LOC = lightly overconsolidated
Ko = in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress (ho/vo)
HOC = highly overconsolidated
Figure 2 Liquidity Index Variations. (adapted from Kulhawy, 1990)
Semisolid:
Brittle
solid
State:
Plastic solid
Liquid
Water content:
SL
(Solid Limit)
Liquidity
index:
PL
LI = 0
LI < 0
0 < LI < 1
LI = 1
wn (%)
LL
LI > 1
w PL
Stress
w < PL
w LL
w > LL
Strain
Figure 3 Water content continuum showing the various states of a soil as well as
the generalised stress-strain response. (adapted from Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Cohesionless Soil
Cohesionless soil are represented by simple index parameters expressed in terms of either
unit weight or density.
The relative density or density index of sand is defined as:
Dr =
emax e
( d min )
= d max d
emax emin d ( d max d min )
where e = void ratio , = density
Note: The above definition is only limited to cohesionless soils having less than 15% fines
The relative density of sand may be described as below (note that the range definition may
vary slightly from source to source):
Table 3 Categorisation of relative density.

Sand
Dr (%)
Very loose
0 to 20
Loose
20 to 40
Medium
40 to 60
Dense
60 to 80
Very dense
80 to 100
2.2
Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour
Soil classification provides a systematic method of categorising soils according to their

probable engineering behaviour.
Soil Classification System used in LTA
The current soil classification used by LTA is the British Standard Soil Classification for
Engineering Purposes, which has been adopted since 1999. Previously, the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) was used.
Fig. 4 Casagrandes plasticity chart, showing several representative soil types.
Plasticity Chart for Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour

For plastic soils, the plasticity chart is also used (only 1 plasticity chart exists
Casagrandes Plasticity Chart), as shown in Fig. 4.
Note for Plasticity Chart:

1) Any soils plot above the U line in the plasticity chart, the data should be questioned and
verified.
2) The A line generally separates the more claylike materials from those that are silty and also the
organics from the inorganics. The exception is organic clays (OL and OH) which are below the
A-line. However, these soils do behave similarly to soils of lower plasticity.
3) The dividing line between low and high liquid limits was set arbitrarily at 50. Several different
soil types tend to be plotted in approximately the same area on the LL-PI chart, which means
that these soils tend to have about the same engineering behaviour.
4) The chart should be used as a reference and not as an absolute measure of the behaviour of soil.
From the plasticity chart, we can observe the behaviour of soil as it moves on the chart:
Table 4 Behaviour of soil in relation to plasticity.
Characteristic
Soils at Equal LL
Soils at Equal PI
with Increasing PI (LL PL)
with Increasing LL
Dry Strength
Increases
Decreases
Permeability
Decreases
Increases
Compressibility
About the same
Increases
Rate of volume change
Decreases
3.
Lateral Earth Pressures
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure K is:

K=
'h
'v
Where h = horizontal effective stress and v = vertical effective stress.

K is an indicator of the lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall.
Three important soil conditions are defined: the at rest condition (Ko), the active condition
(Ka), and the passive condition (Kp), where Ka < Ko < Kp.
3.1
At Rest Condition (Ko)
Ko is called the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (i.e. no lateral strain).
The general formula for Ko is:
Ko = (1 sin )OCR sin (1 + 0.5 tan )
or
Ko (overconsolidated) Ko (nc) OCR

where:
= friction angle of soil
OCR = overconsolidation ratio of soil
= inclination of ground surface from horizontal
Ko can be estimated using the Plastic Index (PI) where:

Ko = 0.44 + 0.42(PI/100)
Ko = 0.4 + 0.007(PI)
Ko = 0.64 + 0.001(PI)
Massarsch, 1979
for 0 < PI < 40
for 40 < PI < 80
} Brooker & Ireland (1965)

}
Table 4 Typical ranges of Ko.

Type
Ko
Sedimentary soils
0.4 0.5
Normally consolidated clay
0.5 0.9
Over-consolidated clay
>1
Loose sand
0.45 0.6
Dense sand
0.3 0.5
(extracted from various sources, see reference list)
Note for Ko:

1) Within a homogenous soil, Ko is a constant, independent of the depth and the location of ground
water table.
2) For sand, Ko = 1 sin provides reasonable estimates.
3) For clay, Ko tends to increase with PI and OCR.
4) The magnitude of Ko may be measured directly either in the laboratory using special testing
equipment, or in the field using devices such as the pressuremeter or total stress cells. However,
these direct methods may be subject to unavoidable disturbance effects during sampling and insitu testing.
3.2
The Active and Passive Conditions (Ka and Kp) in Cohesionless Soil
A small movement in soil would alter the lateral earth pressure. Fig. 5 Shows the relative
magnitude and the relative movement required to mobilise Ka and Kp in sands of differing
density.
Fig. 5 Effect of wall movement on lateral earth pressure in sand

(extract from Coduto, 1994).
The active and passive earth pressure coefficient developed by Rankine and Coulomb are
widely used. The equations are given in Table 4.
10
Table 5 Rankine and Coulomb lateral earth pressure equation.

Active
Passive
Rankine
(Fig. 6)
Ka =
cos cos 2 cos 2
Kp =
cos + cos cos

2
cos + cos 2 cos 2

cos cos 2 cos 2
or
1
Ka
if = 0, the above equation reduces to:
if = 0, the above equation reduces to:
K a = tan 2 45
2
K p = tan 2 45 +
2
Coulomb
Ka =
(Fig. 7)
cos2 ( )
sin (w + )sin ( )
cos2 cos(w + )1 +
cos( w + )cos( )
Kp =
cos2 ( + )
sin (w + ) sin ( + )
cos cos( w )1
cos(w ) cos( )
a) Formula valid only for

b) When designing concrete walls it is common practice to use w = 0.67. Steel
walls have less sliding friction, perhaps on the order of w = 0.33
Note for Ka and Kp:

1) The above coefficients of earth pressure are the value of K derived for a cohesionless soil.
2) For Ka, use either Rankine or Coulomb. For Kp, use Rankine as Coulombs theory produces
erroneously high values of Kp.
W/
W/
T/b
Pa/b
T/b
Va/
N/b
Pp/
Vp/
N/b
45 +
45 -
(a)
(b)
Figure 6 Free body diagram of soil behind a retaining wall using

Rankines solution: (a) active case; and (b) passive case.
H
Pa/b
w
Va/b
Figure 7 Parameters for Coulombs equations.

11
3.3
Lateral Earth Pressure in Soil with Cohesion
Creep in clayey soil was not considered in Rankine or Coulombs equation. If the soil
behind the wall is clayey, the value of K would be higher. Earth pressure distributions in
cohesionless soil and cohesive soil are different as illustrated in Fig 8.
Suggest: Use K between active and at-rest values and not to rely on full passive pressure.
Hc
H
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8 Distributions of earth pressures for (a) cohesionless soil in active and passive
condition, (b) cohesive soil in active condition (c 0, 0) ,and (c) cohesive soil in passive
condition (c 0, 0).
Note on cohesive soil wall:

Theoretically, if H < Hc, the earth will stand vertically without a wall. In practice, we need to apply
some factor of safety to Hc before deciding not to build a wall. The potential of surface erosion and
other modes of failure e.g. slope failure needs to be considered too.
4.
Soil Strength
The soil strength is not uniquely defined but varies with many parameters. The strength of
soils is commonly expressed by the Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion:
= c + tan
The criterion is usually used in two alternative forms, based on effective stress or total
stress analysis.
4.1
Effective Stress Analysis
The shear strength (i.e. shear stress at failure) is expressed as:

= c + tan
where c is the effective cohesion
is the effective friction angle
12
n is the effective normal stress
Effective stress laboratory test data are often interpreted incorrectly to show a moderately
high c and an unrealistically low because the true failure envelope curvature is not
Fig. 9 Strength Envelopes for a range of soil types

(fm Kulhawy, 1990).
being addressed.
Fig. 9 shows the correct interpretation of where c = 0 for a wide range of soil type.
Fig. 10 Friction angle definitions.

Linear interpolation of any of these data over a limited stress range would suggest a c and
, but these values would not be the true soil strength parameters.
For a given soil at a constant normal effective stress (), the friction angle will varies with
density state and strain, as shown in Fig. 10.
13
Table 6 Typical strain at peak strength.

Type
Typical Strain
at Peak Strength
Very dense sand or clay with high OCR
< 5%
Structured clay
4 7%
Very loose sand or weak NC clay
10 to 20%
Note on c and :
1) c = 0 (except in truly cemented soils, partially saturated soils, and heavily overconsolidated
clays). For the stability of some numercial analysis, a small value of c is assumed, e.g. c = 1.
2) At very large strain (excess of 100%), cv is reduced to the residual state. This residual state is
only considered for very large strain problems, such as in soil containing pre-existing shear
failures.
4.2
Total Stress Analysis
In total stress analysis,

= c + tan ;
= 0 and = c =cu = su*
The total stress analysis is normally adopted for simplicity. In reality, the failure of all soils
(sand, silts, and clay) occurs on the effective stress envelope. In low permeability soils
such as clays, loading generates changes in pore water stresses (u). These pore water
stresses change the effective stress envelope. Since the total stress loading path and the
magnitude of the changes in pore water stresses may not be known with confidence, a total
stress analysis provides a simple analysis alternative.
*In many older references, the term cohesion was used to designate su. In recent references, su is
referred to as the undrained shear strength or undrained shearing resistance. The older definition
has led to much confusion and misinterpretation with the effective stress cohesion intercept (c)
Note on total stress analysis:

1) all the four terms can be used interchangeably to represent the undrained shear strength of the
soil.
2) Detailed studies conducted have shown that the UU and UCT tests often in gross error because of
sampling disturbance effects and omission of a reconsolidation phase. Strictly speaking, these
tests should only be considered as general indicators or relative behaviour and not to be used
directly in design.
3) Simple hand held devices are intended primarily for field inspection purposes; not to obtain
parameters for design.
14
4.3
Relevance of Laboratory Strength Tests to Field Conditions
The strength of soils can be measured by a number of different laboratory and field strength
tests (see Fig 11 and Fig 12). Each of these tests will give different results (both c and )
because each subjects the soil to different boundary conditions and loading stress path.
Fig. 11 Common laboratory strength tests and field tests.
15
Fig. 12 Relevance of laboratory strength tests to field conditions.
To adopt various tests pertinent for a particular field condition is likely to be an excessive
requirement for common and routine design cases. It is recommended that the isotropically
consolidated, triaxial compression test for undrained/drained loading be carried out. The
results of this test can then be used as the standard reference to compare the results of all
other tests. For example, the value of (tc), as shown in Table 7.
16
Table 7 Comparison of from different laboratory tests (from Kulhawy, 1990).

Test Type
Friction Angle (degrees)

1
Triaxial compression (TC)
1.0tc
Triaxial extension (TE)
1.22tc
Plane strain compression (PSC)
1.10tc
Plane strain extension (PSE)
1.34tc
Direct shear (DS)
tan-1[tanpsccoscv]
1 isotropically consolidated, triaxial compression test for undrained/drained loading

2 Speculative, based on results from sand
4.4
Correlations with Index Parameters for Undisturbed Clays
Correlation with PI
For NC, non-fisssured, organic, sensitive, or unusual clays, the correlation by Skempton
(153)may be used.
su (vst) / vo = 0.11 + 0.0037PI
Correlation with preconsolidation stress, p
For low OCR clays and low to moderate PI, the approximation (to DSS) by Jamiolkowski
(1988) is useful:
su /p = 0.23 0.04
Correlation with CPT qc value
The theoretical relationship for the cone tip resistance in clay is given by:
qc = Nk su + vo
Different theoretical models adopted general different range of values for Nk. Thus, Nk is
usually determined empirically by calibrating CPT data with a know measured value of su.
To get a correct Nk, consistent reference su, cone type and correction for qc must be applied.
17
Correlation with PMT results

The applied stress (normalised with atmospheric pressure) is plotted against the volumetric
strain as shown in Fig. 13. The slope is su/Pa. This su should be close to the value obtained
from plane strain compression (PSC) tests.
Fig. 13 Pressuremeter results in Bartoon Clay (fm Kulhawy, 1990).
5.
Elastic Deformability
The elastic behaviour of soils governs the initial, time-independent, movement of

foundations under static loads. These deformation properties vary with many parameters
and therefore are not defined uniquely.
The deformation properties of elastic materials are described most often by Youngs
modulus (E) and Poissons ratio (v). Although these parameters are strictly defined only
for elastic materials under uniaxial loading, they are used commonly in a generic sense
with inelastic material such as soils.
It should be noted that the following properties are non-linear and stress dependent.
5.1
Definition of Various Coefficient and Modulus
Youngs Modulus, E
E = stress/strain is often obtained from the results of triaxial compression tests, i.e. the
slope of the curve.
E can be defined as the initial tangent modulus (Ei), the tangent modulus (Et) at a specified
stress level, or the secant modulus (Es) at a specified stress level as shown in Fig. 14.
18
Fig. 14 Modulus definitions.

Table 8 General ranges of E (from Bowles, 1997).
Soil
Undrained Modulus,
SPT
Eu (MPa)
(different table; same ref)
Very soft
2 to 5
0-2
Soft
5 to 15
3-5
Medium
15 to 50
6-9
Hard
50 to 100
10 - 30
Sandy
25 to 200
Clay
Sand
Silty
5 to 20
Loose
10 to 25
4 10
Dense
50 to 80
30 - 50
Sand and Gravel

Loose
50 to 150
Dense
100 to 200
The pressuremeter test provides a measurement of the horizontal modulus (EPMT) in soils.
In clays, it is commonly assumed that EPMT = Eu.
Note on E:
1) In sophisticated numerical models, the actual stress path can be followed, and the modulus can
be evaluated for each stress strain state along the stress path. In simpler closed-form solutions,
an effort must be made to estimate the overall average modulus from the initial to the final stress
states.
19
2) Factors affecting su will also affect Eu. Therefore, the value of Eu will be dependent on test type
and test specifics.
Poissons Ratio, v
Poissons ratio is defined in an analogous form for triaxial tests in which both axial and
volumetric strains are measured.
Poissons ratio = radial strain/axial strain
For drained loading, volume change occurs, and the drained Poissons ratio (vd) varies with
soil type and consistency. Typical values are give below, which are representative of
secant values at common design stress levels:
Table 9 Typical range of vd (from Kulhawy, 1990).
Soil
Drained Poissons Ratio, vd
Clay
0.2 to 0.4
Dense sand
0.3 to 0.4
Loose sand
0.1 to 0.3
Note for v:
1) The range of v is relatively small compared with the range of E
2) For isotropic elastic materials, the entire range of v is from 0 to 0.5.
3) For undrained ( = 0) loading of saturated cohesive soil, no volume change occurs. Therefore,
the undrained Poissons ratio (vu) is equal to 0.5 by definition.
4) General, vd is higher for soil with higher PI and OCR.
Shear Modulus, G
For undrained loading, the modulus of cohesive soils can be described by either the
undrained Youngs modulus (Eu) or the shear modulus (G). The shear modulus actually
describes the soil skeleton response, so it is independent of drainage conditions, all other
factors being equal. The shear modulus is the slope of the shear stress-strain curve from
tests such as the Direct shear or Direct simple shear results. As with E and v, G is nonlinear
and stress-dependent.
For undrained loading,
Eu = 3G (vu = 0.5).
For elastic materials, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio are interrelated uniquely with
the shear modulus (G) as follows:
20
G = E/2(1 + v)
Constrained Modulus, M
This modulus is defined for one-dimensional compression, where the lateral strains are
zero. From elastic theory, M is related to E and v as follows:
M =
E (1 )
(1 + )(1 2 )
Coefficient of Compressibility, av
The slope of the compression curve (void ratio versus effective stress), when the results are
plotted arithmetically, is called the coefficient of compressibility, av. Since the curve is not
linear, av is approximately constant over a small pressure range, 1 to 2; or
av =
e1 e2
' 2 '1
Coefficient of Volume Change, mv

When the results are plotted in terms of the percent consolidation or strain, then the slope of
the compression curve is the coefficient of volume change, mv
mv =
a
1
v
= v =
v' 1 + eo M
v is the vertical compression or strain

M or Eoed is the contrained or oedometric modulus
In one dimensional compression, v is equal to e/(1+eo)
Subgrade Reaction, ks
The concept of subgrade reaction is often used for evaluation the behaviour of footings,
mat/raft foundations, and laterally loaded deep foundations. In subgrade reaction models,
there is a basic parameter which is analogous to a spring constant. This parameter is
defined as the modulus of subgrade reaction (ks), given by:
ks = p/ unit is force per length cubed
p = applied stress,
= displacement under p
As with Youngs modulus, ks varies with stress level. However, unlike Youngs modulus,
ks also varies with foundation width.
The most logical procedure to evaluate ks is to present it in terms of Youngs modulus (E)
and Poissons ration (v) of the soil as given by Vesic below:
21
4
0.65 EB
ks =
B E f I f
12 E

1 v 2
Ef = foundation Youngs modulus

If = foundation moment of inertia
EfIf = foundation stiffness
6.
Time Dependent Deformability
The parameters that define the time-dependent deformability of soils are important for
evaluating the settlement of foundations.
6.1
Compression Index Cc and Modified Compression Index, Cc
When the results are plotted in terms of the void ratio versus the logarithm of effective
stress, then the slope of the virgin compression curve is called the compression index Cc, or
Cc =
e1 e2
'
log 2
'1
The degree of compressibility of clay, expressed in terms of the compression index is as

below:
Table 10 Degree of compressibility
Compressibility
Cc
Slight or low
< 0.2
Moderate or Intermediate
0.2 to 0.4
High
> 0.4
Correlation for Cc
Based on modified Cam Clay model, Wroth and Wood showed that:
Cc 0.5Gs(PI/100)
for Gs = 2.7; Cc PI/74 and;
Cr PI/370 , which is about 20% of Cc.
The table below shows some compilation of estimates of Cc using eo and wn.
Table 11 Various correlation for Cc and Cc.
22
Equation
Regions of Applicability
Cc = 1.15(eo 0.35)
All clays
Cc = 0.30(eo 0.27)
Inorganic, cohesive soil; silt,

silty clay
Cc = 1.15(10-2wn)
Organic clay
Cc = 0.75(eo 0.50)
Soils of very low plasticity
Cc = 0.156 eo + 0.0107
All clays
Modified Compression Index, Cc

The slope of the virgin compression curve when the tests results are plotted as percent
consolidation or vertical strain versus logarithm of effective stress is called the modified
compression index, Cc:
C c =
v
Cc
=
' 1 + eo
log 2
1'
Note on consolidation graphs:

There are a few advantages in using the percent consolidation or vertical strain versus logarithm of
effective stress curve to compute settlements:
1) Estimating field settlement is simple. The percent compression can be read directly from the
graph once the in situ vertical overburden stress is known.
2) The graph can be plotted during the test itself. This enables early evaluation compared to the
void ratio versus log effective stress curve which requires the determination of the dry mass of
solid to compute the initial and final void ratio. By looking at development of the curve during
the test, the load increment near the preconsolidation pressure can be reduced to obtain a better
definition of the transition between the reloading curve and the virgin compresson curve.
3) Two samples may show very different e versus log vc plots but may have similar vertical
strain versus log effective stress curves because of difference in void ratio.
23
Fig. 15 Factors affecting the laboratory determination of p:

(a) effect of sample disturbance; and (b) effect of load.
6.2
Effective Preconsolidation Stress (p) in Cohesive Soils
p can be estimated from the index parameter using the following by Stas and Kulhawy
(1984):
p/Pa = 10(1.11 1.62LI)
where Pa is the atmospheric pressure = 1 bar = 100 kPa
24
Where possible, p should be obtained from 1-D consolidation tests on undisturbed

samples.
Factors affecting determination of p, Cc and Cr

Sample disturbance will cause the transition part of the consolidation curve to be less sharp.
As a result, lower p and Cc are obtained compare to actual in-situ values while a higher Cr
is obtained.
For soft, sensitive clays, small stress change or even vibration may drastically alter the soil
structure. For such soils, the load increment ratio (/initial) should be smaller than 1.
6.3
Coefficient of Consolidation cv
The field value of the coefficient of consolidation (cv) is a difficult parameter to estimate
because common field situations include seams, lenses and boulders, etc., which laboratory
predicted values of cv different from in-situ values.
A first order estimate for cv of clays can be obtained using the liquid limit (LL) as in Fig.
16.
Fig. 16 Coefficient of consolidation vs Liquid limit

(fm Kulhawy, 1990).
25
Field estimates using CPTU

The piezocone tests have been used to give field estimates of horizontal permeability (kh)
and horizontal coefficient of consolidation (cvh) in clays. The basic equation for the
horizontal coefficient of consolidation is:
cvh = TR2/t
T = time factor
R = equivalent cavity (piezocone) radius
t = time to achieve desired degree of excess pore water stress dissipation.
The approach is based on cavity expansion theory, and therefore it depends on the rigidity
index of the soil.
Fig. 17 gives the piezocone time factors. Most commonly, the dissipation test is conducted
for a period of time (t) which will allow 50% dissipation of the original insertion excess
pore water stress (u). The time factor corresponding to this dissipation time is then
introduced to the equation above to compute the coefficient of consolidation. Cylinderical
theory would be used for a pore water sensor behind the tip, while spherical theory would
be used for a sensor at the tip.
Fig. 17 Pore water stress decay vesus Piezocone time factor (fm Kulhawy, 1990).
6.4
Coefficient of Secondary Compression
The coefficient of secondary compression (C) defines the rate of settlement with time after
primary consolidation is complete. This coefficient may be expressed either in units of
strain (C) or void ratio (Ce) per log cycle of time.
For a wide variety of clays, C has been correlated to the natural water content.
For NC clay: C 0.0001wn
For most OC clay: 0.0005 < C < 0.001
26
For NC clays, the ratio of the coefficient of secondary compression to the compression
index is relatively constant for a given soil. Table 16 lists C/Cc for a variety of soils.
Table 12 Ratio of C/Cc for various types of soil (as cited in Kulhawy, 1990)
Soil Type
C/Cc
Soft Clay
0.025
Other Clay
0.025 to 0.06
Silty Clay
0.03
Silt
0.03 to 0.06
Organic Clay and Silt
0.04 to 0.06
Note on time rate of consolidation:

In inorganic soil, primary consolidation is usually the largest component of total settlement,
whereas secondary compression constitutes a major part of the total settlement of peats and other
highly organic soils.
In engineering practice, only estimates of the time rate of settlement can be made because of the
great dependence that the rate of settlement has on the drainage path. Another factor is our inability
to accurately predict cv. If possible, estimates should be field checked, especially for important
jobs.
7.
Permeability
The coefficient of permeability (k) of soil, also known as the hydraulic conductivity,
describes the rate of water flow through soil. This soil property is often difficult to evaluate
with certainty, because it varies over many orders of magnitude and in-situ soil conditions
are highly variable. In addition to controlling the amount and rate of ground water inflow
into foundation excavations, the coefficient of permeability also governs the rate of primary
consolidation and equalisation of pore water stresses.
The value of the coefficient of permeability can vary over a wide range, as shown in Table
13. It is also clear that k is highly dependent upon the soil particle size.
27
Table 13 Range of coefficient of permeability for different soil.

Soil
Coefficient of
Relative Permeability
Permeability, k (m/sec)
> 10-3
Gravel
High
Sandy gravel, clean sand, fine

sand
10-3 to 10-5
Medium
Sand, dirty sand, silty sand
10-5 to 10-7
Low
Silt, silty clay
-7
10 to 10
-9
-9
Clay
< 10
Very Low
Practically
impermeable
In geotechnical problems, drainage can occur horizontally as well as vertically. The ratio
of horizontal to vertical permeability (kh/kv) is generally less than 1.5 for marine clays and
other massive deposits (Kulhawy, 1990). However, in varved clays and stratified fluvial
deposits, kh/kv can easily exceed 10.
k can also be obtained indirectly from the consolidation test:
k=
c v w ga v
1 + eo
where
w = density of water
g = gravitational force (10ms-2)
cv = coefficient of consolidation
av = coefficient of compressibility
eo = initial void ratio
The value of eo is the void ratio at the start of the time rate readings for a given load
increment.
8.
References
1.
Bowles, J.E. (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill International,

Singapore, 5th Edition.
2.
Coduto, D.P. (1990) Foundation Design Principles and Practices, Prentice-Hall,

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
3.
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981) An Introduction to Geotechnical

Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
4.
Kulhawy, F.H. (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation,

Research Project 1493-6, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
28
5.
LTA Design Criteria, Chapter 5 Geotechical Parameters.
6.
Guidance notes on weathering and classification, Technical Sharing Material by

Chiam, S.L., LTA-CDE.
7.
Selection of Geotechnical Design Parameters, Technical Sharing Material by Wen,

D.Z., LTA-CDE.
29
1.
Pile Foundation
Piled foundation is selected when large settlement is likely for shallow foundation or where
no stratum of sufficient bearing capacity exists close to the surface.
The main function of bearing piles is to transfer the load from the structure to the lower
levels of the grounds where are capable of sustaining the load with an adequate factor of
safety and without settling at the working loads by an amount detrimental to the structure
that they support. Piles derive their carrying capacity from a combination of friction along
their sides and end bearing at the pile toes. The former is likely to predominate for piles in
clays and silts and the latter for piles terminating in a stratum such as compact gravel, hard
clay or rock.
When friction piles are driven into a deep deposit of fairly uniform consistency in order to
transfer the foundation pressure to the lower levels, they should be long enough to ensure a
substantial advantage over a shallow foundation. In these circumstances, it should be borne
in mind that for the same superficial area of pile surface, a few long piles forming a pile
foundation are more effective and will support the load with smaller settlement than many
short piles.
The load should be applied concentrically and the axis of the pile is at the centre of gravity
of the pile group. Allowance should be made in the design for inaccuracies in positioning
the piles, particularly for isolated piles or pairs of piles. Such piles should be designed to
accommodate the resulting moments or should be restrained by an adequately designed pile
cap to resist lateral and rotational movements.
The types of piled foundation system adopted by LTA for structures are
a. Bored piles
b. Driven H-piles
c. Precast piles
d. Micropiles
The types of piles that are not commonly used like
e. Timber piles
f. Bakau piles
1.1 Design of piles

The design of piles requires specialised knowledge of the ground and the environmental
conditions, the properties of the various types of piles and the effects produced by the
applied load on the piles and the supporting soils. The type of piles to be chosen should be
carefully considered to ensure its suitability in relation to the ground and environmental
conditions. The conditions must be properly defined by means of adequate site
investigation works to permit appropriate selection of piles type and the design of the pile.
30
Where piles are installed in groups, the effects of the placing a number of piles in close
proximity to each other will need to be taken into account.
The design of pile should satisfy the following requirements
a) An adequate factor of safety against failure of the pile element or its surrounding
soil shall be adopted.
b) The settlement of the piles foundation as a whole and the differential settlements of
the piles shall be kept within permissible limits.
The design of the structural strength (commonly referred to as nominal working load) of a
pile shall be based on its required material strength with an adequate factor of safety to
ensure that the pile has necessary strength when installed to transmit the loads imposed on
it to the soil. For a driven pile, it shall be capable of withstanding without damaging the
stresses arising during handling and installation.
In designing the pile, allowance should be made for the additional weight of the pile cap
and pile. These additional weights of the pile cap and the pile can contribute up to 15% of
the column load. In addition, pile group action is taken into account. Thus, these factors
should be taken into consideration.
2.
Qu
Geotechnical capacity
= Qb + Qs
= qbAb + fsAs
Where Qb = Total base resistance
Qs = Total shaft resistance
qb = Unit base resistance
Ab = Cross Sectional area of pile
fs = Unit shaft resistance
As = Surface area of pile
A factor of safety (FOS) is used to evaluate the allowable load
Qa
Qu
FOS
The minimum geotechnical length required as practised in LTA is based on the factor of
safety imposed for skin friction and end bearing as show in the table below:
31
Loading Condition
FOS for Qs
FOS for Qb
Compression
2.5
2.5
Compression
1.5
Tension (With load test)
2.5
Tension (No load test)
3.5
2.1 Static Method

i)
(1)
Cohesionless Soil ( Method)

Shaft resistance
Qs
Where
= fsAs
fs = Ks po tan fl
Ks = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure
= Angle of friction between pile and soil

po = Vertical earth pressure
fl = Limiting friction = 100 kN/m2
Meyerhofs relationship of Ks tan versus (Angle of friction of sand) is given in Figure

1. can be estimated from N values obtained from standard penetration test of cone
penetration test (See Figure 2 ). Alternatively, may be taken as (28+15RD) where RD is
the relative density of sand.
(Note fl can be increased up to 200kN/m2 provided the value can be verified by pile load
tests numerous in the case of local soils)
32
Figure 1 Values of Kstan versus
Figure 2 Determination of angle of shearing resistance of granular soil from in-situ

tests. (a) Relationship between SPT (N values) and angle of shearing resistance of
granular soil (Peck, Hanson & Thorburn). (b) Meyerhofs correlation between static
cone penetration resistance and angle of shearing resistance of sand.
33
(2)
End bearing
Qb
= qbAb
Where
qb = poNq ql
po = Effective overburden pressure at the pile tip
Nq = Bearing capacity factor (See Figure 3)
ql = Limiting value (See Figure 4) for driven pile
= 200 to 1100 t/m2 for bored piles
Figure 3 Relationship between Nq and
34
Figure 4 Limiting static cone resistance versus

for sand (Meyerhof, 1976)
Broms et al. suggested
ii)
(1)
Nq
= 9 if the diameter of pile is <1.0m
Nq
= 5 if the diameter of pile is >1.0m
Cohesive Soil ( Method)

Shaft resistance
qs
= Cu
Where
= Adhesion/reduction factor to take into account the loss in shear strength
due to pile installation
Typical values for bored piles,
Type of Soil
Over consolidated clay
0.3-0.6
0.8-1.0
Adverse ground
0.3
35
If no previous data or experience available, use = 0.45 provided

a. There is adequate load testing
b. Cu >/ 100 KN/m2.
For driven piles,

See Figure 5 for different values in different grounds.
Figure 5 Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay

(Tomlinson, 1969)
(2)
End Bearing
qb
= qCu
The end bearing is unlikely to be in clay, more likely to be on silt or sand. This can be
evaluated from the equation given for cohesionless soil. Alternatively, this can also be
estimated by Meyerhorfs method based on SPT values.
36
2.2 Empirical Methods

iii)
Qu
Using Standard Penetration Test (Based on Meyerhorfs method)

= C1 Ns As + C2 Nb Ab
Where
C1 = 2 KN/m2 for driven pile
= 1 KN/m2 for bored pile
C2 = 40 (Db/B) for driven pile with a limiting value of 400kPa
= (40/3) (Db/B) for bored pile with a limiting value of 400/3 kPa
Db = Depth of pile in bearing stratum
B = Pile width or diameter
Ns, Nb = SPT values along pile shaft (average) and pile base (corrected)
respectively in blow/300mm.
As, Ab = Area of pile shaft and pile base respectively in m2
Bearing
Stratum
Db
Note :
C2 Nb qbl
Where qbl
= Figure 2 (for driven pile)

= 2000 11000 KN/m2 (for bored pile)
Broms et al. suggested fs = 2N for residual soil in Singapore (max 120 KN/m2).
iv)
Qu
Using Cone Penetration Test

= qcb Ab + 2 fs As
Where qcb = CPT value at base of pile
fs = Average shaft friction as measured on friction jacket
or fs
= 0.005 qcb (for displacement piles)

= 0.0025 qcb (for steel H-piles)
37
3.
Structural Capacity (Allowable Material Stress)
3.1 Bored pile

Qa
= 0.25fcuAb
Where
fcu
Ab
= Concrete cube strength at 28 days

= Cross sectional area of pile
3.2 Steel pile

Qa
= 0.3fyAb (For driven pile)

= 0.5fyAb (For jacked pile)
Where
fy
= Yield stress depending on grade of steel

= 275 N/mm2 for Grade 43A
3.3 Precast pile

Qa
= 0.25 (fcu - prestress after loss) Ab
The loss of prestress should be calculated in accordance with SS CP65.
3.4 Reinforced Concrete pile

Qa
= 0.25fcuAb
4.
Dynamic Formulae
The formulae are limited to cohesionless soil and driven pile. In its simplest form,
Energy of hammer
Wh
= Work done in overcoming resistance.

= Ru s
Where
W
h
Ru
s
= Work Done
= Height of hammer
= Soil resistance
= Set
This formula has been modified to take into account the energy losses in pile, cap and soil.
38
Commonly used dynamic formulae are

a. Hileys formula
b. ENF (Modified) formula
c. Janbus formula
4.1 Hileys formula (Trial and error method)

Energy = Work + Impact loss + Losses in cap, pile, soil
Qu
= (ef W H ) / (s + c/2)
Where
c
= c1(Pile) + c2(Cap) + c3(Soil)

= (W + n2Wp) / (W + Wp)
Values can be obtained from Tables 1-3.

Assume an initial driving resistance Q. Iterate until Q Qu
4.2 ENF (modified) formula

Qu
= [(ef W H ) / 0.025(s + 0.1)] / [(W + n2Wp) / (W + Wp)]
ef and n can be obtained from Table 1-2.

Where
ef
W
Wp
H
s
c
n
= Hammer coefficient
= Weight of hammer
= Weight of pile
= Height of hammer drop
= Efficiency of driving system
= Pile penetration for last blow or set
= Sum of temporary elastic compression
= Coefficient of restitution
39
Table 1 Values of hammer efficiency, ef
Table 2 Values of coefficient of restitution,
40
Table 3 Values of c1, c2, c3 for Hiley formula.
4.3 Janbus formula

Qu
= (1/Ku) (WH/s)
Where
Ku
Cd
e
L
Ap
Ep
= Cd [1+ (1+ e/Cd)]

= 0.75 + 0.15 Wp/W
= (WHL) / (ApEps2)
= Pile length
= Pile cross sectional area
= Modulus of elasticity of pile
There are a number of limitations to the driving formulae. They are

1. Assumptions made in the formulae pay little attention to the actual forces and
motions occurring during driving a real pile or to the nature of the soil and its
behaviour.
2. Formulae are unreliable for long piles.
41
3. Formulae are applicable to granular soil (sand, gravel) where changes with time are
very small.
4. Formulae neglect influence of pile grouping may have to modify predictions to
allow for this.
5.
Pile group
The ultimate load capacity of a pile group is not necessarily equal to the sum of the ultimate
load capacities of the individual piles in the group. The ratio of the two loads is defined as
the efficiency of the pile group. In general, the pressure bulbs of neighbouring piles tend to
overlap, creating a greater stress concentration on the surrounding soil. Such phenomenon
leads to greater settlement of the pile group and is termed as group action. With sufficient
stress overlap, either the soil will fail in shear (local failure) or pile group will settle
excessively (block failure).
Other important factors for design consideration include the influence of pile spacing and
pile cap. BS8004 recommended that
1. For friction piles, the spacing centre to centre should be not less than the perimeter
of the pile, or circular piles, three times the diameter.

2. For end bearing piles, the distance between the surfaces of the shafts of adjacent
piles should not be less than the least width of the pile.
5.1 In clay
Group action is important in the case of friction piles in clay. The ultimate load capacity of
a pile group (QG) in clay is the lesser of the two following relationships :
i)
Local failure
=mnQ
QG
Where
m
n
d
s
= Pile group efficiency (Figure 6)

= 1 /90 [{(n-1)m + (m-1)n}/m n]
= Number of rows of piles
= Number of piles in a row
= Diameter of piles
= Centre to centre spacing of piles
= tan-1 (d/s)
= Ultimate capacity of single pile
42
Figure 6 Pile group efficiency in cohesive soils
ii)
Block failure
The ultimate bearing capacity of the whole block

QG
= cb Nc Bg Lg + Cu [2 D (Bg + Lg)]
Where
D
Bg
Lg
= Depth of pile in bearing stratum

= Width of pile group
= Length of pile group
43
5.2 In sand
Action of driving piles is to compact the sand around the pile to a radius of at least 3 times
the width of the pile. In loose sand, the pile group efficiency may be greater than 1 because
of the effects of densification of the sand between the piles. In dense sand, pile driving
causes loosening and efficiency less than 1 may result.
In general, block failure is a consideration only if the pile centre to centre spacing is less
than 7 diameters. The ultimate load capacity of a pile group in sand is the lesser of (a) sum
of load capacity of individual piles and (b) load capacity of the pile group block.
5.3 In rock
The ultimate capacity of a pile group installed to rock is the sum of capacity of individual
piles in the group. Block failure is a consideration only if foundations are on a sloping rock
formation, and sliding may occur along favourable weakness planes. The possibility of
such an occurrence must be evaluated from the site geology and field exploration.
6.
Settlement
One of the most widely used approach to compute settlement of piles is the elastic theory.
Poulos provided dimensionless parametric solutions from which estimates of pile
settlement behaviour can be rapidly obtained based on given pile and soil properties. Both
friction piles and end bearing piles are considered in the analysis.
6.1 Friction pile

The pile is considered to be a cylinder of length L, shaft diameter d, and base diameter db,
and loaded with an axial force P at the ground surface. In a homogeneous soil mass having
constant Youngs modulus Es and Poissons ratio s, the settlement of the pile head is
given by
= P I / (Es d)
Where
I
Io
Rk
Rh
R
= Io Rk Rh R
= Settlement influence factor for incompressible pile in semi-infinite mass
for s = 0.5 (Figure 7)
= Correction factor for pile compressibility [Where the pile stiffness factor
k = Ep RA / Es where RA = area ratio = Ap / (d4/4) = 1 for a solid pile] See
Figure 8
= Correction factor for finite depth of layer on a rigid base. See Figure 9
= Correction factor for s. See Figure 10
44
Figure 7 Settlement influence factor, Io
Figure 8 Correction factor for pile

compressibility, Rk
45
Figure 9 Correction factor for depth for settlement, Rh
Figure 10 Correction factor for Poissons ratio for settlement, Rv
6.2 End bearing pile

The settlement of pile head is given by
= P I / (Es d)
Where
I
Rb
= Io Rk Rb R
= Correction factor for stiffness of bearing stratum. See Figure 11
46
Figure 11 Base modulus correction factor for settlement, Rb
47
6.3 Non homogenous soil

If the modulus variation between successive layers along the length of the pile is not large,
the settlement may be calculated from the expressions for a pile in uniform soil using an
average soil modulus Eav as follows
Eav
= (1/L) (Ei hi)
Where
Ei
hi
= Modulus of layer i
= Thickness of layer i
In cases where the pile passes through distinct layers of soil, having large difference in soil
modulus, the uniform soil solutions may be utilized in an approximate manner. For
example, for a simple case of a pile penetrating one layer and founded in a second layer, the
settlement may be estimated by treating the portion of the pile in the first layer as an end
bearing pile and determining the settlement of this and the amount of load in the pile at the
interface of the two layers. The settlement is added to the previously calculated settlement
of the upper portion to obtain the overall settlement of the pile head.
6.4 Soil parameters

iii)
Clay
The total settlement of pile head TF = i + CF where i is the immediate settlement and
CF is the final consolidation settlement. Drained parameters such as Es and should be
used to calculate TF . On the other hand, undrained soil parameters such Eu and u should
be used to determine i.
Eu
= 1.5 Es / (1+? )
Suggested ? values are
iv)
Soil
Stiff overconsolidated clay
0.1 0.2
Medium stiff clay
0.2 0.35
Soft normally consolidated clay
0.35 0.45
Sand
For piles in sand, the final settlement may be considered to occur immediately on
application of the load, so that drained soil parameters such as Es and ? should be used in
calculating the settlement of the pile. In general, the soil modulus at the pile base Eb is
considerably greater than the average modulus along the shaft.
48
Suggested average values of Es along the shaft of the pile

Sand density
Range of
relative
density
Range of Es
(MPa)
Loose
< 0.4
27.5 - 55
Medium
0.4 0.6
55 70
Dense
> 0.6
70 - 110
Poulos suggested that as an upper limit Eb = 10Es may be used for driven pile in dense sand
and as lower limit Eb = 5Es may be used for bored piles in loose sand. An average value of
? = 0.3 is reasonable when no test data are available.
v)
Rock
The modulus for rock mass Em is highly affected by its joint spacing,
Em
= j Mr quc
Where
j
Mr
= A mass factor related to the joint spacing in the rock mass

= Modulus ratio
Values of Poissons ratio lie between 0.1 0.4 depending on the type of rock
6.5 Analysis of pile group

To analyse the settlement behaviour of a general pile group, superposition of two pile
interaction factors may be employed. Thus for a group of n identical piles, the settlement
k of any pile k in the group is given by superposition as
k
= 1 ( Pj kj ) + 1 Pk
j=1
jk
Where
1
Pj
kj
= Settlement of single pile under unit load

= Load in pile j
= Interaction factor for spacing between piles k and j.
For groups containing piles of different size and geometry, k may be expressed as
k
= 1 ( ij Pj kj ) + 1k Pk
j=1
jk
49
Where
ij
kj
= Settlement of single pile j under unit load

= Interaction factor for spacing between piles k and j and for the
geometrical parameters of pile j.
For vertical load equilibrium, the total pile group load PG is given as
PG
n
= Pj
j=i
For a pile group of n piles, there will be n settlement and one load equations and these can
be solved for two simple conditions
vi)
Flexible pile cap
Equal load or known load on all piles i.e. all the Pj are given to solve for all the j and
hence the differential settlement between piles.
For groups with equally loaded piles, the maximum settlement occurs at the centre pile,
while the minimum settlement occurs at the corner pile. The ratio of the maximum
differential settlement to the maximum settlement is shown in Figure 12 for some typical
groups of incompressible friction piles in a semi infinite mass. The ratio increases with
increasing spacing but decreases if the layer depth is decreased or L/D is increased. The
value of K has relatively little influence.
For typical end bearing pile groups, the corresponding values are shown in Figure 13 for K
= 100. For such compressible piles, relatively large differential settlement may occur,
especially for large groups and slender piles. However, the relative differential settlement
decreases rapidly with increasing K and is zero for piles that can be considered
compressible.
50
Figure 12 Differential settlement in floating pile

groups with equally loaded piles
Figure 13 Differential settlement in end-bearing groups with equally

loaded piles
vii)
Rigid pile cap
Equal settlement for all the piles. All the j are equal and only PG is given: Pj and hence
distribution of loads in the pile group as well as group settlement are to be computed.
51
However for most practical purpose, the average settlement of a group with equally loaded
piles is found to be equal to that of a group with a rigid cap. Thus the assumption of equal
loading should be adequate in most cases, and the group settlement may be approximately
calculated from a representative pile that is neither at the centre nor at the corner of the
group.
The group settlement g can be expressed in terms of the settlement ratio Rs where
Rs
= g / Settlement of single pile at same average load as a pile in a group
Theoretical values of Rs are shown in Table 4 for friction pile group in a deep layer of
uniform soil and in Table 5 for pile groups bearing in a rigid stratum.
The exact configuration of the piles in a group does not significantly influence Rs so that
values for other numbers of piles may be interpolated from the Tables 4 & 5. For groups
containing more than 16 piles, it has been found that
Table 4 Theoretical values of settlement ratio Rs. Friction pile group, with rigid cap,
on deep uniform soil mass
52
Table 5 Theoretical values of settlement ratio Rs. End-bearing pile group, with rigid
cap, on deep uniform soil mass
Rs varies approximately linearly with the square root of the number of piles in the group.
Thus for a given value of pile spacing, K and L/d, Rs may be extrapolated from the values
for a 16 pile group and 25 pile group as follows
Rs
= (R25 R16) ( n - 5) + R25
Where
R25
n
= Value of Rs for 25 pile group

= Number of piles in group
Once Rs is determined, g can be evaluated as follows,

g
= Rs Pav 1
Where
Pav
1
= Average load on a pile in a group

= Settlement of a single pile under unit load
53
7.
Negative Skin Friction
Deep foundation elements installed through compressible materials can experience

downdrag forces or negative skin friction along the shaft which results from downward
movement of adjacent soil relative to the pile. Negative skin friction results primarily from
consolidation of a soft deposit caused be dewatering or permanent placement of fill.
7.1 Distribution of negative skin friction or single pile

The distribution and magnitude of negative skin friction along the shaft depends on
a) Relative movement between compressible soil and pile shaft.
b) Relative movement between upper fill and pile shaft.
c) Elastic compression of pile under working load
d) Rate of consolidation of compressible soils
Negative skin friction develops along the portion of the pile shaft where settlement of the
adjacent soil exceeds the downdrag displacement of the shaft. The neutral point is that
point of no relative movement between the pile and adjacent soil. Below this point, skin
friction acts to support the pile loads. The ratio of the depth of the neutral point to the
length of the pile in compressible strata may be roughly between 0.67 0.75. The position
of the neutral point may be estimated by trial and error procedure that compares the
settlement of the soil to the displacement of adjacent sections of the pile.
7.2 Magnitude of negative skin friction on single pile

The peak negative skin friction in granular soils and cohesive soils is determined as for
positive skin friction.
The peak unit negative skin friction can be estimated from
fn = Po
Where
fn = Unit negative skin friction
(to be multiplied by area of shaft in zone of subsiding soil)
Po = Effective vertical stress
= Empirical factor from full scale tests
Table 6 - values from full scale tests
Soil
Clay
0.20 0.35
Silt
0.25 0.35
Sand
0.35 0.50
54
7.3 Safety factor for negative skin friction

Since negative skin friction is usually estimated on the safe side, the factor of safety
associated with the load is usually unity.
Qa
Qu
Fs
Pn
Where
Qa
Qu
Fs
Pn
8.
= Allowable pile load

= Ultimate Pile load
= Factor of safety
= Ultimate negative skin friction load
Pile Load Test
Pile tests are conducted on site to determine whether the foundation design is adequate.
Namely they are:
a) Static Load Test
b) Dynamic Load Test
8.1 Static Load Test

A load test is carried out for the following reasons
1. To determine the load settlement relationship, particularly in the region of the
anticipated working load
2. To serve as a proof test to ensure that failure does not occur before a load is reached
which is a selected multiple of the chosen working load. The value of the multiple
is then treated as a factor of safety.
3. To determine the real ultimate bearing capacity as a check on the value calculated
from the dynamic or static formulae, or to obtain information that will enable other
piles to be designed by empirical methods.
The load test may be applied to the pile by either

a. Direct load placed on a platform bearing on the pile.
b. Kentledge heavier than the required test load of a platform supported clear of the
pile under test and brought to bear on the pile by the reaction of a jack.
55
Kentledge Pile Load Test Setup
Load cell and dial gauge
Survey equipment to measure the

settlement of pile
8.2 Dynamic load test

Dynamic load test is normally carried out on piles to evaluate the pile load capacity and
pile integrity.
56
During the hammer impact on the pile, the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) process the
records and calculate the values for the maximum hammer transferred energy, maximum
compressive force and an evaluation of the piles mobilised static bearing capacity is
calculated by Case Method.
The field records from the test are further analysed using the computer CAPWAPC (Case
Pile Wave Analysis Program Continuous Version). This method combines the wave equal
pile and soil model with the Case Method measurements. Thus the solution includes not
only the total and static bearing capacity values but also the skin friction, end bearing,
damping factors and soil stiffness. A simulated static load test using the established soil
characteristics is then performed yielding the load versus settlement curve.
A dynamic load test is deemed to have failed if the maximum resistance of pile (RMX) at
any time during blow, using a Case Damping Coefficient (J) as approved by the Engineer,
is less than 2 times the nominal working load of a working pile under test.
Test Setup
Instruments used to take measurements
57
Test in progress with reading being taken
Test completed
Checking of pile
58
viii)
Case Method
The Case Method is a closed form solution based on a few simplifying assumptions such as
ideal plastic soil behaviour in an ideally elastic and uniform pile. Given the measured pile
top force F(t) and pile top velocity v(t), the total soil resistance R(t) is
R(t)
= 0.5[ F(t) + F(t + 2L/c)] + 0.5Z[v(t) v(t+2L/c)]
Where
Z
L
c
E
rho
A
M
= Mc/L is the pile impedance (for uniform piles equal to

= Pile length below gauges
= (E/rho)0.5 is the speed of the speed wave
= Elastic modulus of the pile
= Pile mass density
= Pile cross sectional area
= Pile mass below gauges
EA/c)
The total resistance consists of a dynamic (Rd) and a static (Rs) component. Thus
Rs(t)
= R (t) Rd(t)
The static resistance component is of course the desired pile bearing capacity. The
dynamic component may be computed from a soil damping factor, J and a pile velocity, vt
(t) that is conveniently calculated for the pile toe. Using wave consideration, this approach
leads immediately to the dynamic resistance
Rd(t)
= J [ F(t) + Zv(t) R(t) ]
and finally to the static resistance by subtracting from the total soil resistance. This
solution is simple enough to evaluate in real time i.e. between hammer blows, using the
PDA.
9.
Special Topics
9.1 Micropiles
Micropiles can be defined as bored piles with small diameter which derived their strength
capacity from the structural steel core.
The conditions on which micropiles could be adopted are as follows
a) Micropiles are used as an alternative piling system to overcome boulders or to form
short piles in shallow granite outcrops which are too deep for footing.
59
b) They are also used as an alternative piling system to overcome site constraints e.g.
low headroom, restricted access or piling close to existing structures.
c) Micropiles are used for carrying high compressive loads
d) Where minimal noise and ground vibration are critical considerations, micropiles
can be an effective alternative
Allowable design load based on pile material

Qa
= 0.25fcuAc + 0.35fyAst
Where
fy
Ast
fcu
Ac
= Yield stress depending on grade of steel

= Cross sectional area of reinforcement
= Design concrete strength
= Cross sectional area of pile
9.2 Timber piles

Timber piles are made of tree trunk with branches carefully trimmed off, usually treated
with a preservative and driven with small end as a point. They are generally used as
foundation piles or in dolphins or fender systems to protect waterfront structures. The
timbers Keruing and Kempas are recommended for use as foundation piles because of the
following properties :
a) High strength in compression parallel to grain
b) Ease of treatment good permeability enabling preservative to penetrate deeply into
the pile
Allowable design load based on pile material

Qa
= Ap fa
Where
Ap
fa
= Average pile cross sectional area at pile cap

= Allowable design stress value for the type of timber.
60
9.3 Bakau Piles

Baukau piles can only be used as friction piles. The shaft friction can be calculated using
the empirical formula
F
W H N0.5
100 A
Where
F
W
H
N
A
= Average frictional value (t/m2)

= Weight of hammer (Tonnes)
= Drop height of hammer (m)
= Average number of blows per metre
= Cross sectional area of pile (m2)
10. Typical sizes

10.1 Bored Piles
The bored pile sizes adopted by LTA vary from 500mm diameter to 1500mm diameter.
Details of the sizes and nominal working loads of the piles are given in the Tables below:
Diameter
(mm)
Area of
Pile (mm2)
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
196350
282743
384845
502655
636173
785398
950332
1130973
1327322
1539380
1767146
Structural Working Load

(kN)
fcu = 35 MPa fcu = 40 MPa
1718
1964
2474
2827
3367
3848
4398
5027
5567
6362
6872
7854
8315
9503
9896
11310
11614
13273
13470
15394
15463
17671
Bar size
(mm)
No of
Bars
Area of
Steel (mm2)
20
20
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
7
9
8
11
13
10
12
14
18
20
22
2199
2827
3927
5400
6381
8042
9651
11259
14476
16085
17693
Table 1 Typical sizes of circular piles
61
Links
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
10
10
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
13
13
250
250
225
200
175
275
250
225
200
175
175
10.2 H-piles (Grade 43A, fy = 265 MPa)

Pile Type
Sectional
Zx
Zy
Structural Working
area (mm2) (cm3) (cm3)
Load (kN)
100x50x9.3 kg/m
1185
38
6
94
100x100x17.2 kg/m
2190
77
27
174
125x60x13.2 kg/m
125x125x23.8 kg/m
1684
3031
56
136
10
47
134
241
150x75x14.0 kg/m
150x100x21.1 kg/m
150x150x31.5 kg/m
1785
2684
4014
87
138
219
13
30
75
142
213
319
175x90x18.1 kg/m
175x175x40.2 kg/m
2304
5121
139
330
22
112
183
407
200x100x18.2 kg/m
200x100x21.3 kg/m
200x150x30.5 kg/m
200x200x49.9 kg/m
200x200x56.2 kg/m
200x200x65.7 kg/m
2318
2716
3901
6353
7153
8369
160
164
277
472
498
628
23
27
68
160
167
218
184
216
310
505
569
665
250x125x25.7 kg/m
250x125x29.6 kg/m
250x175x44.1 kg/m
250x250x64.4 kg/m
250x250x66.5 kg/m
250x250x72.4 kg/m
250x250x82.2 kg/m
3268
3766
5624
8206
8470
9218
10470
285
324
502
720
801
857
919
41
47
113
233
269
292
304
260
299
447
652
673
733
832
300x150x32.0 kg/m
300x150x36.7 kg/m
300x200x56.8 kg/m
4080
4638
7238
424
481
771
59
68
160
324
369
575
300x200x65.0 kg/m
8238
890
189
655
300x300x84.5 kg/m
300x300x87.0 kg/m
300x300x94.0 kg/m
10700
11080
11980
1150
1270
1360
365
417
450
851
881
952
300x300x106.0 kg/m
13480
1440
466
1072
Table 2 Typical sizes of H- piles
62
10.3 Precast Piles (fcu = 50 N/mm2)

Pile Size (mm)
Allowable Pile Capacity
(Tonnes)
Main Reinforcement (mm)
12m
10m
8m
6m
4m
Cover to main reinforcement
(mm)
Percentage of reinforcement
(%)
Distance for end links (mm)
Links Spacing (mm)
Joint Plate Size (mm)
Joint Plate Thickness (mm)
Collar Band Size (mm)
Collar Band Thickness (mm)
Anchor Bar Size, 32 (mm)
Anchor Bar Length (mm)
155
28.67
180
39.92
205
50.97
230
67.41
255
79.64
280
102.05
305
114.68
330
138.76
355
159.68
380
184.00
405
139.81
4T110
4T110
30
4T10
4T10
30
4T13
4T13
4T13
30
4T16
4T16
4T13
4T13
30
4T16
4T16
4T16
4T16
40
4T16
4T16
4T16
4T16
4T16
40
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
40
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
40
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
4T20
40
4T22
4T22
4T22
4T22
4T22
40
4T22
4T22
4T22
4T22
4T22
40
1.40
1.00
1.33
1.00
1.29
1.00
1.40
1.15
1.00
1.05
1.00
450
7R6
150
6
40
1.5
4T10
320
531
9R6
172
6
40
1.5
4T10
320
600
10R6
198
6
40
1.5
4T13
416
690
12R6
225
6
50
1.5
4T13
416
750
16R6
250
8
50
1.5
4T16
512
849
19R6
278
8
50
1.5
4T16
512
900
21R6
298
8
50
1.5
4T20
640
990
26R6
325
8
50
1.5
4T20
640
1062
29R6
350
9
75
1.5
4T20
640
1140
33R6
378
9
75
1.5
4T22
704
1170
36R6
400
9
75
1.5
4T22
704
Table 3 Typical sizes of RC piles
10.4 Timber Piles (Compression parallel to grain, fa = 10.69MPa)

Size
100
125
150
175
x
x
x
x
100
125
150
175
Area of pile
(mm2)
10000
15625
22500
30625
Structural working
load (kN)
80
140
200
270
Table 4 Typical sizes of timber piles
10.5 Micropiles (fy = 460 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa)

Pile diameter
(mm)
150
175
200
225
250
300
Area of
pile (mm2)
17671
24053
31416
39761
49087
70686
Structural
working load (kN)
430
569
843
1107
1177
1339
Reinforcement
3
3
3
4
4
4
Table 5 Typical sizes of micropiles
63
T
T
T
T
T
T
28
32
40
40
40
40
Area of steel
(mm2)
1847
2413
3770
5027
5027
5027
11. Worked Examples

Example 1
Calculation of Negative Skin Friction

NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION
NSF =
PoAs
=
Po=
EMPRIRICAL FACTOR
As=
PILE SHAFT AREA
EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS
SOIL
CLAY
SILT
SAND
BOREHOLE
DEPTH
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
0.20 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.35
0.35 - 0.5
UTR 001
THICKNESS
h
EFFECTIVE
UNIT
WEIGHT
EFFECTIVE STRESS
TOP
BOTTOM MEAN
EMPIRICAL
FACTOR
(m)
(m)
0
1
1.8
6
1
1.8
6
8
Top of pilecap
Pile COL :Fill
Fill
Sandy Clay
(m)
(kN/m )
(kN/m )
(kN/m )
(kN/m )
1
0.8
4.2
2
19
19
19
18
0
19
34.2
114
19
34.2
114
150
9.5
26.6
74.1
132
64
0
0
0.35
0.25
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION (kN)

STRESS By H-Pile Surface perimeter
Pile Type
125x125x23.8 300x300x94
perimeter (mm)
2
(kN/m )
500
1200
0
0
25.9
33
0
0
13.0
16.5
0
0
31.1
39.6
29
71
Example 2
Calculation of structural and geotechnical capacity of H-pile
H-PILE DESIGN
1. PILE DATA
PILE SECTION
Steel Grade
Properties :
kg/m
characteristic strength of reinforcement, fy
kN/mm
sectional area, Ag
flange width, B
section depth, D
flange thickness, T
web thickness, t
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
2. PILE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY

Pile Working load :
Compression Load, N
Tension Load, T
Pile Structural Capacity, Qs
=
=
=
=
H 300 x 300 x 94
43A
2
800
kN
410
kN
0.3*fy Ag kN
856
kN
265
10770
302
294
12
12
=>OK
3. PILE GEOTECHNICAL CAPACITY

Ultimate Frictional Resistance, Qs
Ultimate Capacity of Base, Qb
Ulitmate bearing Capacity, Qult
Case (i)
Case (ii)
Case (iii)
=
=
=
2* N* As
200* N* Ab
Qs + Qb
kN
kN
kN
Pile Working Load, Pw = (Qs + Qb) / 2.5

Pile Working Load, Pw = Qs/1.5
Qb=0
Qb=0
BOREHOLE REFERENCE
GROUND LEVEL OF SOIL INVESTIGATION
(m)
UTR 001
114.4
Assume mode of failure
Sectional area , Ab
Perimeter , P
Description of Soil layers
88788
1192
=
=
Depth
From
To
mm
mm
Effective
Depth
SPT
N
G.L. to C.O.L
FILL
Sandy CLAY
Sandy SILT
Very Stiff Sandy SILT
Hard Sandy SILT
0
0.5
6
8
16
24
0.5
6
8
16
24
30
qb
2
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
qs
0.5
5.5
2
8
8
6
Qs
Qs
Qb
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
0
66
19
210
496
701
0
0
0
0
0
65.56
84.63
294.42
790.30
1491.19
1491.19
1491.19
1491.19
1491.19
870.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
5
4
11
26
49
CASE (i)
CASE (ii)
CASE (ii)
Pw =
Pw =
Pw =
944.526 kN
994.128 kN
426.055 kN
=>PILE OK
=>PILE OK
=>PILE OK
USE H PILE SECTION: H 300 x 300 x 94kg/m
65
Example 3
Calculation of structural and geotechnical capacity of timber or wood pile
WOOD PILE DESIGN
1. PILE DATA
PILE SECTION
Kempas
kg/m
2
N/mm
2
mm
mm
mm
Compression parallel to grain

Properties :
sectional area, Ag
flange width, B
section depth, D
2. PILE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY

Pile Working load :
Compression Load, N
Tension Load, T
Pile Structural Capacity, Qs
=
=
=
=
135
0
fy Ag
327
Tanalised 175 x 175

10.69
30625
175
175
kN
kN
kN
kN
=>OK
3. PILE GEOTECHNICAL CAPACITY

Ultimate Frictional Resistance, Qs
Ultimate Capacity of Base, Qb
Ulitmate bearing Capacity, Qult
Case (i)
Case (ii)
Case (iii)
=
=
=
2* N* As
200* N* Ab
Qs + Qb
kN
kN
kN
Pile Working Load, Pw = (Qs + Qb) / 2.5

Qb=0
Qb=0
BOREHOLE REFERENCE
GROUND LEVEL OF SOIL INVESTIGATION
WORKING PLATEFORM LEVEL
CUT-OFF-LEVEL
Sectional area , Ab
Perimeter , P
Description of Soil layers
BH 116
103.5
103.5
102.5
(m)
(m)
(m)
Depth
From
30625
700
=
=
To
mm
mm
Effective
Depth
SPT
N
G.L. to C.O.L
Peaty CLAY
Silty CLAY
Sandy CLAY
Sandy Silt
GRANITE
0
1
9
12
15
0
1.0
9
12
15
17
0
qs
qb
2
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Assume mode of failure
1
8
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
Qs
Qs
Qb
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
0
0
67
46
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
67.20
113.40
281.40
281.40
281.40
281.40
281.40
281.40
612.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
16
11
60
100
CASE (i)
CASE (ii)
CASE (ii)
Pw =
Pw =
Pw =
357.56 kN
187.6 kN
80.4 kN
USE : Tanalised 175 x 175 kg/m
66
=>PILE OK
=>PILE OK
=>PILE OK
Example 4
Design of a pile cap for 6-pile group
Project Title :
Revision :
Designed By :
Checked By :
Approved By :
Date :
Date :
Date :
6-pile group
DESIGN OF PILECAP FOR 6-PILE GROUP
TO SS CP 65: PART 1 : 1999
THIS VERSION DATED 27TH JUNE 2001
(A) PILE DETAILS
B
Pile Type
Pile Width
Pile depth
Pile x-area
pile capacity
Pile Compression Load
Pile tension Load
pile spacing // to l
pile spacing // to b
Pile embedment
Pileedge to pilecap overhang,
H-pile = 300*300*84.5
302
B=
294
D=
10770
Ast =
265
py =
856
P=
800
Pw =
PT =
360
900
Sl =
1400
Sb =
100
e=
150
Ov =
kg/m
mm
mm
mm2
N/mm2
kN
kN
kN
mm
mm
mm
mm
P =0.3 py Ast
< 3B
> 3D
(B) COLUMN DETAILS

Column Load
Column Length
Column Width
F=
C1 =
C2 =
3230
900
900
kN
mm
mm
sl
(C)
sl
PILECAP DETAILS
Pilecap Length
Pilecap Width
Pilecap Depth
Concrete Cover
Effective depth
l=
b=
h=
c=
d=
2400
2000
800
50
637.5
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
C1
sb
C2
Length,l
d = h - c -e -bar/2
(D)
MATERIAL STRENGTH
Concrete characteristic strength
Main Bar characteristic strength
(E)
O.K.
(F)
40
460
N/mm
N/mm
PUNCHING SHEAR AROUND COLUMN PERIMETER

Column perimeter
Shear force
Shear Stress
Max concrete Stress
Pr =
V=
v=
vmax =
3600
4845
2.11
5.00
mm
kN
N/mm
N/mm
Pr = 2*(C1 + C2)
V = 1.5 * F
v = V / (d * Pr)
vc =min (5, 0.8 *sqrt(fcu))
SHEAR ALONG CRITICAL SECTION OF 0.2D INSIDE FACE OF PILE

// to pilecap length
// to pilecap width
O.K.
fcu=
fy=
Concrete stress
Enhance. factor
Enhance stress
Shear Stress
avl =
avb =
100As/bd=
400/d =
vc =
f=
allow vc =
v=
299
103
1.59
1
0.86
4.26
3.68
2.25
mm
mm
N/mm
N/mm
N/mm
67
av =Sl-B/2-C2/2
av =Sb/2-D/2-C1/2
100As/bd = 1.59
400/d =
0.63
Table 3.9
f = 2d/avb
allow vc = min (5, 2vc* f)
v = (1.5 *3Pw) / (b *h)
Width,
b
(G) MAIN REINFORCEMENT PARALLEL TO LENDTH OF PILECAP

BOTTOM STEEL
1620
0.0498
0.95
2080
6684
M=
M/(fcu*bd)=
z=
As required (min)=
As required=
Provide :
First Row
Seceond Row
Third Row
O.K.
14
0
0
M = 1.5*3 Pw *(Sl/2)/1000
CL3.4.4.4
z = 0.95 d but not greater than 0.95d
Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% bh
As required = M/ (0.87fy z)
mm
mm
mm
100As/bd = 0.54
Spacing = (b - 2c -bar)/(n-1)
Table 3.30 Max Spacing = 155 mm
kNm
< 0.157
d
mm
mm
M = 1.5*3 PT*(Sl/2)/1000
CL3.4.4.4
Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% bh
mm
mm
mm
100As/bd = 0.34
Spacing = (b - 2c -bar)/(n-1)
25
25
25
6872
140
115
As provided =
Spacing =
Clear spacing =
O.K.
T
T
T
kNm
< 0.157
d
mm
mm
TOP STEEL
M=
M/(fcu*bd)=
z=
As required (min)=
As required=
Provide :
O.K.
First Row
Seceond Row
Third Row
729
0.0224
0.95
2080
3008
14
0
0
20
20
20
4398
140
120
As provided =
Spacing =
Clear spacing =
O.K.
T
T
T
(H) MAIN REINFORCEMENT PARALLEL TO WIDTH OF PILECAP

BOTTOM STEEL
3360
0.0861
0.90
2496
14633
M=
M/(fcu*ld)=
z=
As required (min)=
As required=
Provide :
O.K.
O.K.
First Row
Seceond Row
Third Row
As provided =
Spacing =
Clear spacing =
20
0
0
T
T
T
kNm
< 0.157
d
mm
mm
M = 1.5*2 Pw *(Sb)/1000
CL3.4.4.4
z = 0.9 d
but not greater than 0.95d
Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% lh
mm
mm
mm
100As/bd = 1.05
Spacing = (l - 2c -bar)/(n-1)
32
32
32
16085
115
83
68
(H) MAIN REINFORCEMENT PARALLEL TO WIDTH OF PILECAP

TOP STEEL
M=
M/(fcu*ld)=
z=
As required (min)=
As required=
Provide :
First Row
Seceond Row
Third Row
O.K.
As provided =
Spacing =
Clear spacing =
O.K.
(I)
O.K.
1512
0.0388
0.95
2496
6238
20
0
0
T
T
T
kNm
< 0.157
d
mm
mm
M = 1.5*2 PT *(Sb)/1000
CL3.4.4.4
Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% lh
mm
mm
mm
100As/bd = 0.41
Spacing = (l - 2c -bar)/(n-1)
20
20
20
6283
120
100
HORIZONTAL BLINDERS
No. of Bars required =
Min bar =
No. of Bar provided =
bar provided =
sb =
15.64
3
16
225
CL 3.12.11.2.6
69
0.5
mm
b = (sb *b*fy)
mm
mm
Max sb = 250mm
1.
Footing
Generally, footing refers to foundations with depth/width (D/B) ratio of less than 1 to 2,
and foundations that are constructed through excavation and backfilling.
It is recommended where :a. The soil stratum near the surface has a high shear strength
b. The soil stratum has sufficient thickness
When a footing is chosen for a structure, the suggested design procedures are :a. Calculate the loads acting on the footing
b. Obtained the soil profile Field and laboratory measurements of soil properties
(Strength, compressibility, consolidation, elastic modulus, etc)
c. Determine depth and location of footing
d. Evaluate bearing capacity of supporting soil
e. Determine the footing size
f. Compute footing contact pressure and check stability against sliding and
overturning.
g. Estimate total and differential settlement
h. Design footing structure
For preliminary design, Singapore Standards Code of Practice CP 4 recommends some

allowable bearing values for rocks and soils. (See Table 1)
a) Loads
The possible loads acting on a footing are:a. Dead Load
b. Live Load
c. Wind Load
d. Earth pressure
e. Water pressure
b) Depth and location of footing
To avoid adverse effects from outside influences like :a.
b.
c.
d.
Significant soil volume change

Adjacent structure and property line
Groundwater
Underground effects
70
Table 1 Presumed Bearing Values Under Vertical Static Loading
2.
Bearing Capacity of Footing
The allowable bearing capacity of the soil is determined by dividing the net ultimate
bearing capacity by an appropriate factor of safety and adding the overburden pressure if
the excavation is backfilled.
71
a)
Terzaghis method (For quick estimate, for D<B)
Terzaghis formula can used to determine the bearing capacity for shallow footings.
QULT
= CNCSC + DNq + 0.5BN S
Where
qult
c
= Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)

= Cohesion (kN/m2)
= Unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

B
= width of footing (m)
D
= Depth of footing (m)
Nc, Nq and N ? = dimensionless bearing capacity factors depending on the value
of shear resistance, . (See Table 3)
&
Strip
Round
Square
SC
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.3
0.8
Table 2 Shape Factor (According to Terzaghi)

&
Nq = a2 / {a cos2 (45+/2)}
a = e (0.75-/2)tan
Nc = (Nq 1) cot
N = (tan) / 2 {(kpy / cos2 ) 1}
Table 3 Bearing Capacity Factor (According to Terzaghi)
72
b)
Meyerhorfs method (For design, for all cases of D/B)
Meyerhorf proposed an equation similar to Terzaghis but included a shape factor sq with
the depth term Nq. He has included depth factors di and inclination factors ii for cases
where the footing load is inclined from the vertical.
Vertical load
QULT = CNCSCDC + DNQSQDQ + 0.5BN SD
Inclined load
QULT = CNCICDC + DNQIQDQ + 0.5BN ID
For the shape, depth, inclination and bearing capacity factors, see Table 4 and Figure 1.
Where
NQ
NC
N
= ETAN TAN2 (45+/2)

= (NQ 1) COT
= (NQ 1) TAN(1.4)
Table 4 Shape, Depth, Inclination and Bearing Capacity Factor

(According to Meyerhorf)
73
c)
Skemptons method
This can be used for deep footing in cohesive soil only.

Qult
= CuNc + z
Nc
Cu
= Function of shape of the footing and z/B ratio (Table 5)

= Ultimate shear strength
Where
Figure 1 Variation of coefficient Nc with depth

(According to Skempton)
3.
Contact Pressure (Stress Distribution)
The shear and moment in critical sections are needed for footing design
q
= Q/A ? Mxy/Ix ? Myx/Iy
Where
q
= Contact pressure
Q
= Total axial vertical load
A
= Area of footing
Mx, My = Total moment about the x and y axis
Ix, Iy = Moment of inertia
x, y = Distance from centroid to point at which contact pressure is
computed.
74
Factor of safety against sliding =
Total vertical loads x Coefficient of

friction between base and soil
Horizontal forces
Moment to resist overturning
Overturning moment
Factor of safety against overturning =
4.
Estimation of settlement of footing
For sands, the allowable bearing capacity that may be applied to a footing is generally
governed by settlement consideration, rather than shear failure of the soil, unless the
footing is very narrow and located at a shallow depth on loose sands with a high ground
water table. Hence, the prediction of footing settlement on sand is of considerable practical
importance.
In principle, the immediate settlement can be calculated using elastic theory. In practice, it
is very expensive and difficult to obtain undisturbed samples on sand. Even reconstituting
disturbed samples to the same relative density as in the field will not guarantee that the
elastic parameters obtained in the laboratory will be equal to those pertaining to the field
because other important factors such as
a. Overconsolidation
b. Ageing
c. Cementation
cannot be easily reproduced. Therefore, the settlement of footings on sand is typically

estimated using measurements from in-situ tests.
a)
Using Standard Penetration Test
For granular soils, Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Peck, Hansen and Thornburn (1974) and
Meyerhorf (1965) have suggested a number of empirical relationships for estimating
settlement. The simple relationship suggested by Meyerhorf has been found to be as
accurate as any other. Comparisons between measured and predicted settlements for a
wide number of cases showed that Meyerhorfs procedures predicted settlement which
varied from 0.9 to 7 times the actual settlement, This relationship can therefore be used to
estimate the upper limit of possible settlement for a given footing.
i
Where
i
p
N
CB
= 5p / [(N-1.5) CB]
= Maximum value of immediate settlement in inches

= Bearing capacity in tons/ft2
= Minimum average SPT blow count
= Width correction (Table 6)
75
Table 6 Width Correction

Footing Width, B (ft)
CB
4
1.00
0.95
0.90
10
0.85
12
0.80
For very fine or silty sand, it is suggested that Nmeasured can be corrected by using the
formula,
Ncorrected = 15 + 0.5 (N 15)
Ncorrected = N
Nmeasured >15
Nmeasured <15
Where
Nmeasured = Actual SPT blow counts
The magnitude of settlement after various periods of time may be estimated using the
following equation
st
= si C t
Where
st
si
Ct
= Settlement after a period of time (inches)

= Immediate settlement (inches)
= Empirical time rate correction (dimensionless)
Table 7 Empirical Time Rate Correction

Time
Ct
1 month
1.0
4 month
1.1
1 year
1.2
3 years
1.3
10 years
1.4
30 years
1.5
Meyerhorf considered that the values of the bearing capacities were conservative and
suggested to increase the value by 50%.
76
b)
1)
Using Cone Penetration Test value

Settlement on sand
Schmertmann suggested a semi empirical formula to estimate the settlement of footings in

sand using the cone tip resistance (qc). This method is based on the theory of elasticity and
an empirical correlation between the drained Youngs modulus of sand and qc.
s
= 0.5 Cp p (Iz / qc) z
Where
Cp
p
po
Iz
z
= Correction Factor for initial pressure at foundation level (Dimensionless)

(Table 8)
= p po = Net bearing pressure at foundation level
= Initial effective overburden pressure at foundation level
= Settlement influence factor (Dimensionless) (Figure 2)
= Thickness of sub-layer
Figure 2 Settlement influence factor, Iz for

estimating settlement using CPT
Table 8 Pressure change correction

factor Cp
77
2)
Settlement on clay
The settlement of footing on clay consist of 3 components

s
= si + sc + ss
Where
si
sc
ss
(1)
= Immediate settlement
= Consolidation settlement
= Secondary settlement
Immediate Settlement
The immediate settlement can be estimated using Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli method.
si
= (? 0 qnet B ) (1-2) / Eu
Where
? 0
Eu
= Influence factor (Figure 3)

= Undrained Youngs modulus of clay
= Undrained Poissons ratio of clay.
= Width of footing
Figure 3 Chart for estimating immediate settlements of

foundations on clay (After Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli)
78
The settlement of the corner, the edge and the centre of the loaded area can be estimated by
using the coefficients in Table 9. This table also contains coefficient for rigid footing.
Table 9 Approximate ratios of immediate settlements at the corner,

centre and edge to the average immediate settlement
(2)
Long Term Settlement
The time dependent compressibility of saturated clay is commonly determined using

oedometer or 1-D consolidation test. The test results are typically presented in the form of
a e-log p curve (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Typical e-log p curve
79
(a)
Normally consolidated clay (po = pc) (See Figure 5)

Soed
= H Cc log10 {(po + p)/ po} / (1+eo)
Where
Soed
eo
H
Cc
po
p
= Settlement from oedometer test

= In-situ void ratio
= Thickness of clay stratum
= Compression index
= In-situ effective overburden stress
= Pressure increase in clay stratum caused by net pressure imposed at
foundation level
Figure 5 - e-log p curve for normally consolidated clay
(b)
Overconsolidated clay (po < pc) (See Figure 6)

Soed
= s1 + s2
And
s1 = H Cur log10 {(po + p1)/ po} / (1+eo)
s2 = H Cc log10 {(pc + p2)/ pc} / (1+eo)
Where
pc = Effective preconsolidation stress
Ccur = Unload-reload index
p1 = p p2
80
Figure 6 - e-log p curve for over consolidated clay
Cc and Cur can be evaluated using Schmertmanns method (See Figure 7). As an estimate,
Cur = Cc / 5
Figure 7 Determination of in-situ curve using Schmertmanns method
81
p can be estimated using Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli Chart (See Figure 8)
Figure 8 Determination of increase in vertical stress under the centre of

uniformly loaded flexible footing, after Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli (1956)
Soed needs to be corrected for lateral deformation and pore pressure effects as follows
Sc
Where
= Soed
= Settlement coefficient from Skempton and Bjerrums chart (See Figure 9)
82
Figure 9 Correction Factor for pore pressures set up under a

foundation, after Skempton and Bjerrum (1957)
For practice, the following values can be used,

Type of clay
Very soft sensitive clay (Soft alluvial, estuarine, marine

clay)
1.0 1.2
0.7 1.0
Over consolidated clay
0.5 0.7
Heavily over consolidated clay
.2 0.5
3)
Secondary Settlement
The secondary settlement can be estimated from oedometer test

Ss
= C H log10 (t/tp)
C
H
tp
= Coefficient of secondary compression

= Thickness of clay stratum
= Time taken to complete primary consolidation
Where
83
Typically,
Type of clay
Over consolidated clay with OCR >2

<0.001
0.005 0.02
Very plastic soils; organic soils
0.03 or higher
And,
tp / t100
= (dfield / doed)2
Where
t100 = Time taken to complete primary consolidation in an oedometer test
dfield = Drainage path length in the field
doed = Drainage path length in an oedometer (Half of the soil specimen height)
5.
Plate Test
The plate test can be used to determine the bearing capacity of granular soil. Figure 10
shows the test setup.
Figure 10 Plate Load Test (In accordance to ASTM D 1194)

Terzaghi and Peck proposed the following relationship between the settlement? B of a
footing of width B and the settlement b of a 0.3m square test plate, loaded to the same
intensity.
B / b = {2B/(B + 0.3) }2
84
For large B the ratio tends to a maximum of 4.

Bjerrum and Eggestad suggested the settlement ratios very much larger than 4 could occur.
The proposed correlation is shown on Figure 11
Figure 11 Comparison between settlement and dimension of loaded area as

derived from collected case records (From Bjerrum and Egpestad) (Source : P220
Soil Mechanics by T William Lambe and Robert V Whitman)
6.
Influence of ground water
c)
If the water table is > B below the bottom of the footing
The net ultimate bearing capacity (qnet) is
qnet
d)
= cNc + Z(Nq-1) + 0.5BN
If the water table is < B below the bottom of the footing
qnet
Where
sub
= cNc + Z(Nq-1) + 0.5subBN
= Unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

= Submerged unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
85
e)
If the water table rises above the bottom the founding level
qnet
= cNc + Po(Nq-1) + 0.5subBN
Po
= Effective overburden pressure removed
Where
7.
Examples
Example 1
Determine the size of a footing needed to support a gross axial load of 800kN and a turning
moment of 200kNm at the foundation base. The footing is supported on medium dense
sand with an effective friction angle of 35o and a moist unit weight of 18kN/m3. The
average SPT-N value over a depth of 2m below the footing is 25 blows/300mm. The water
table is deeper than 6m.
2m
6m
Solution
Given,
Moment, M = 200kNm
Axial force, N = 800kN
Therefore the eccentricity, e
= M/N
= 200 / 800
= 0.25m or 250mm
To prevent the uplift of the footing,

e
==>
Min L
<L/6
= 250 * 6 mm
= 1500mm
86
e
==>
Min B
<B/6
= 250 * 6 mm
= 1500mm
As a rough estimate, use Terzaghis formula,

qult
= cNcsc + DNq + 0.5BN s
Try 2 x 2 m square footing,

Where
D
B
= 0 (sand)
= 18 kN/m3
=2m
=2m
For an effective friction angle of 35o, (see Table 3)

Nq
Nc
N
sc
s
= 41.4
= 57.8
= 42.4
= 1.3
= 0.8
qult
= 0*57.8*1.3 + 18*2*41.4 + 0.5*18*2*42.4*0.8

= 2100.96 kN/m2
qall
= (qult - D)/ 3 + D
= 724.32 kN/m2
==>
==>
=L
= 2m
= B 2e
= 2 2*0.25
= 1.5m
==>
Qult
= qall*L*B
= 724.32*1.5*2
= 2172.96 kN > 800kN (OK)
A 2m x 2m square footing is sufficient for this design.

Note: Compare using Meyerhof s method to obtain the size.
87
Example 2
Bearing Capacity Check on a Footing using Meyerhofs method

AR0012 -- PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUS TERMINAL
AND MINOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORKS ALONG UPPER EAST
COAST ROAD (OPPOSITE KEW DRIVE) AT LOT 1992PT SL MK 27
y
L
Checking the Bearing Capacity of the Shallow Foundation (F1)

for Column of Office
self-weight
Upperstructure load
Fv (kN) My(kNm) ey (m) Mx(kNm) ex (m)
Q (kN)
b/6
L/6
28.92
5.042 0.1743
0.15
B
Fv
0.1667
y
y
My
Proposed depth and size of footing
3
D (m) B(m) L (m) ' (kN/m ) q0 (kPa) q (kPa)
0
0.9
1
10
0
0
3
3
2
(m ) Wy (m ) Wx (m )
0.9
0.15
Mx
0.135
min.= -1.48
max.=
Stress distribution / Contact Pressure

max
min
Average Stress
65.747 -1.48
32.13
kPa
65.75 kPa
=(Fv+Q)/A Mx/Wx My/Wy
Soil condition and bearing capacity -Meyerhof's method

Kp
Nq
Nc
Nr
sc
c (kPa)
5
30
0
3
18.401 30.13963 15.668 1.54
Ultimate bearing capacity =
Safety factor Fs=
Allowable bearing capacity qall=
max=
65.747
321.618
2.5
kPa
128.6472
kPa
kPa
sq
sr
dc
dq
dr
ic
iq
ir
1.27
1.27
ok
88
2
Table 1 Typical geotechnical parameters for preliminary design
Soil Type
Sub Type
Bulk
Density
(kN/m3)
19
Fill
Compacted
Fill
19
Marine
Clay (M)
15
cu
c
2
f
2
Eu
2
Permeability,
k (m/s)
Ko
Cc & Cr
cv
(m2/yr)
0.5
--
--
--
--
Cc = 0.4 - 1.2
2 - 3.5
(kN/m )
(kN/m )
( degree)
(kN/m )
25 (clayey)
27
10000
1 x 10-9
-9
0 (sandy)
30
20000
1 x 10
22
200cu
1x10-9
Remarks / Alternative Values for Parameters
50 (clayey)
10 (0 6m);
1.0
Cr = 0.05 to 0.175Cc
0.220.23sv
14
Peaty Clay
(E)
5 (0 5m)
22
200cu
1x10-9
1.0
Cc = 0.0088 (wn 14)
Cc: 0.54(eo-0.15), see Fig 2-12 Cr: see Fig 2-13; eo = 1 - 2

10
(see Figure 2-5)
18
Dr = 35% ( 25m)
32
10MPa
1x10-6
0.5 0.7
--
Sensitivity = 2, eo is highly varied.

--
20MPa
Dr = 50% ( 25m)
cu: depths 5m+ increasing linearly with depth to 50 kN/ m2 at 25m depth;
(see Fig 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4)
Water content can be up to 500%
0.05Cc
Fluvial
Sand (F1)
cu: increasing linearly with depth to 60 kN/ m2 at 40m depth (see Fig 2-8, 29 and 2-10) see also Section 4
25m: Eu = 10,000 kN/m2

25m: Eu = 20,000 kN/m2
10m: cu = 20.0kN/m2;
19
Fluvial
Clay
5N
24
15MPa
1x10-9
0.7 1.0
10
Cr = 0.05Cc
(F2)
10m: cu = increasing linearly with depth to 50 kN/ m2 at 25m depth; (see

Figure 2-6)
Sensitivity = 4; Pore pressure parameter, A = 0.9, eo = 0.5
N < 20
20
0 (sandy)
30 (sandy)
2 (clayey)
28 (clayey)
5N
G (VI)
0.2
20N50
20
30
-2N
(MPa)
1x10-7
0.8
--
25
--
cu: Silty CLAY

5.0m = 35.0 kN/m2; 5 to 20m = 55.0
(see Figure 2-25)
Clayey SILT:
55.0 kN/m2; 20m = 100.0 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-26)
max:
Eu: 5.0m = 5,000 kN/m2; 5 to 20m = 8,000 kN/m2; 20m =

kN/m2; (see Figure 2-27)
200MPa
Pore pressure parameter, A = 0.17

G (V)
kN/m2; 20m = 100.0 kN/m2;
20N100
20
4N
32
--
--
N100
20
4N
10
35
--
--
(max: 400 kPa)

G (IV)
--
23
qu = 30 MPa
50
40
500MPa
0.8
--
--
G (III)
--
23
qu = 50 MPa
300
45
2000MPa
0.8
--
--
G (I, II)
--
24
qu = 100 MPa
500
50
5000MPa
--
--
15,000
3
Table 1 Contd
Soil Type
Sub Type
Bulk
Density
(kN/m3)
cu (kN/m2)
c (kN/m2)
Eu
(o degree)
(kN/m2)
2N
(MPa)
S (VI),
S (V)
max:
< 3m = 45
--
20
3m to 12m = 85
30
100MPa
Cc & Cr
cv
(m2/ye
ar)
0.1 0.2
20
1x10-8
--
--
1x10-7
--
--
1x10-9
--
--
Eu: 3.0m = 7,000 kN/m2; 3 to 12m = 40,000 kN/m2;

12m = 150,000 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-20)
--
40
--
--
--
--
--
30
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Permeability,
k (m/s)
Sandstone,
Siltstone,
22
150
30
50MPa
1x10-9
0.8
Shale/Mud
stone
S (III)
Sandstone,
Siltstone,
22
200
10
28
100MPa
5x10
-9
0.8
Shale/Mud
stone
S (I, II)
O (E)
O (D)
Sandstone
23
50 MPa
200
40
300MPa
Siltstone
23
50 MPa
200
35
200MPa
Shale/Mud
stone
23
10 MPa
50
30
200MPa
35
34
2N
N10
10N30
20.5
20.5
5N
Remarks
cu: 3.0m = 45.0 kN/m2; 3 to 12m = 85.0 kN/m2;

12m = 150.0 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-19)
0.8
>12m = 150
S (IV)
Ko
25
34
(MPa)
O (C)
30N50
20.5
20
34
max:
O (A&B)
N50
20.5
15
32
200MPa
1x10
-9
-9
1x10
References include:
Selection of Geotechnical Design Parameter (Wen DZ),
Geotechnical Interpretative Report: 1) Design & Construction of Transmission Cable Tunnel from Harbour
Drive to Labrador, 2) MRT Ph I & II,
C870G Geotechnical Design Parameter Table
0.8
25
--
cu: 5m = 45.0 kN/m2; 5m to 15m = 100.0 kN/m2; 15m

kN/m2; (see Figure 2-15)
Eu: 15m = 50,000 kN/m2; 15m = 75,000 kN/m2
= 150.0

Design Working Manual Part1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Design Working Manual Part1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Civil Design Handbook

Design Working Manual

Civil Design Department

The Land Transport Authoritys mission is:

First published in May 2004

Civil Design Department

Civil Design Handbook Design Working Manual (May 2004)

This design manual consists of two parts as follows:Part 1

Civil Design Handbook Design Working Manual (May 2004)

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS AND FOUNDATIONS

Introduction and Background

Basic Soil Characterisation

Lateral Earth Pressure

Time Dependent Deformability

Structural Capacity (Allowable Material Stress)

Negative Skin Friction

Pile Load Test

Bearing Capacity of Footing

Estimation of Settlement of Footing

Influence of Ground Water

Introduction and Background

Soil is a complex engineering material, which has been formed by a combination of

Before any geotechnical activity can proceed on site, it is necessary to perform an

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

Basic Soil Characterisation

= In situ natural water content

For most soils: 0 < LL < 100 and PL < 40

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

Table 2 General behaviour of soil in relation to Liquidity Index, LI.

soil will have a brittle fracture if sheared

0 < LI < 1 i.e. PL < wn < LL

soil will behave like a plastic if sheared

LI > 1 i.e. wn > LL

Decreasing water content

OCR = overconsolidation ratio (p/vo)

LOC = lightly overconsolidated

Ko = in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress (ho/vo)

HOC = highly overconsolidated

Figure 2 Liquidity Index Variations. (adapted from Kulhawy, 1990)

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

where e = void ratio , = density

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

Table 3 Categorisation of relative density.

Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour

Soil classification provides a systematic method of categorising soils according to their

Fig. 4 Casagrandes plasticity chart, showing several representative soil types.

Plasticity Chart for Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

Note for Plasticity Chart:

with Increasing PI (LL PL)

About the same

Rate of volume change

Lateral Earth Pressures

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure K is:

Where h = horizontal effective stress and v = vertical effective stress.

Civil Design Department Design Working Manual

Geotechnical Parameters & Foundations

At Rest Condition (Ko)

Ko (overconsolidated) Ko (nc) OCR