04-NSF Design and EC7 (Prof Harry Tan)

EC7 for Deep Foundations
(NSF ISSUES)
Prof. Harry Tan

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
National University of Singapore
GeoSS/BCA EC7 Seminar
24 April 2015
4/27/2015
Motivations of the Lecture

Brief Introduction to pile design based on EC7
Correct understanding of piled foundation design
subjected to dragload. Dragload (negative skin friction)
does not diminish pile geotechnical capacity; therefore
the factor of safety will not reduce
Pile design with NSF is a settlement issue rather than

capacity issue
Demonstration of dragload cases using Unified Pile
Design concept and finite element analysis
4/27/2015
Outline
Pile Design using EC7
Problems with BS 8004, CP4, and EC7 on dragload
Design example of dragload using EC7
Unified pile design concept
FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles

subjected to dragload
Summary
4/27/2015
Pile Design based on EC7 (EN1997-1:2004)

Section 7 Pile Foundations
7.1 General
7.2 Limit states
7.3 Actions and design situations
7.4 Design methods and design
considerations
7.5 Pile load tests
7.6 Axially loaded piles
7.7 Transversely loaded piles
7.8 Structural design of piles
7.9 Supervision of construction
4/27/2015
7.2 Limit States

(1)P The following limit states shall be considered and an appropriate list shall
be compiled:
loss of overall stability;
bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation;
uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation;
failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation;
structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or
shear;
combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation;
combined failure in the ground and in the structure;
excessive settlement;
excessive heave;
excessive lateral movement;
unacceptable vibrations.
4/27/2015
7.3 Actions and design situations

7.3.1 General
axial load
transverse (horizontal) load (7.3.2.4)
7.3.2 Actions due to ground displacement
consolidation Downdrag (negative skin friction) (7.3.2.2)
downdrag load as an action [7.3.2.2(1)P]
calculated based on upper bound (max. downdrag load) [7.3.2.2(3)]
this is the big issue: Should NSF force be treated as an ACTION
or otherwise???
swelling heave (7.3.2.3)
treated as an action
landslides or earthquakes
ground displacement due to adjacent construction
4/27/2015
7.4 Design methods and design considerations

7.4.1 Design methods
(1)P The design shall be based on one of the following approaches
The results of static load tests, which have been demonstrated, by means
of calculations or otherwise, to be consistent with other relevant experience;
Empirical or analytical calculation methods whose validity has been
demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations;
The results of dynamic load tests (PDA and CAPWAP) whose validity has
been demonstrated by static load tests in comparable situations;
The observed performance of a comparable pile foundation, provided that
this approach is supported by the results of site investigation and ground
testing
Other methods
Dynamic impact tests (7.6.2.4); Pile driving formulae (7.6.2.5); wave equation
analysis (7.6.2.6); Re-driving (7.6.2.7)
4/27/2015
7.6 Axially loaded piles

Clause 7.6 is the core of the section of EN 1997-1 on pile foundations
7.6.1.1 Limit state design

(1)P the design shall demonstrate that exceeding the following limit states is
sufficiently improbable:
ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of a single pile;
ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of the pile foundation as a
whole (pile group);
ULS of collapse or severe damage to a supported structure caused by
excessive displacement or differential displacements of the pile
foundation;
SLS in the supported structure caused by displacement of the piles
Ultimate resistance or failure of compression piles [7.6.1.1(4)P]
For piles in compression it is often difficult to define an ultimate limit state from
a load settlement plot showing a continuous curvature. In these cases,
settlement of the pile top equal to 10% of the pile base diameter should
be adopted as the failure criterion.
4/27/2015
7.6.2.3 ULS from ground test results (insitu tests)

Two calculation methods:
Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]
Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]
4/27/2015

Model Pile method the values of the ground test
results at each individual tested profile are used to
calculate the compressive resistance of a model pile at the
same location.
The procedure is, in fact, similar to that used with the

results of static load tests, e.g. it involves applying a
correlation factor to the calculated resistance to account
for the variability of the pile resistance and obtain the
characteristic compressive resistance.
4/27/2015
10

Design compressive resistance, Rc;d = Rbd + Rs;d
Rb;d = Rb;k/b
Rs;d = Rs;k/s
The characteristic value Rb;k and Rs;k shall either be determined by:
Rc ;cal mean Rc ;cal min
Rc;k Rb;k Rs ;k
Min
;
3
4
where 3 and 4 are correlation factors depend on the number of profile

of tests, n, and are applied respectively to:
(Rc;cal)mean = (Rb;cal + Rs;cal)mean = (Rb;cal)mean + (Rs;cal)mean
(Rc;cal)min = (Rb;cal + Rs;cal)min
Rb;cal Rs ;cal
Rc;cal
Correlation factors for n ground test results (Singapore NA Table A.NA.10)

For n =
10
1.55
1.47
1.42
1.38
1.36
1.33
1.30
1.55
1.39
1.33
1.29
1.26
1.20
1.15
4/27/2015
11

Alternative method the ground test results (shear
strength, cone resistance, etc) of all tested locations are
brought together before evaluating the characteristic values
of base resistance and shaft resistance in the various strata
based on a cautious assessment of the test results and
without applying the factors.
4/27/2015
12

(8) The characteristic values may be obtained by calculating:
Rb;k = Ab qb;k and Rs;k = As;i qs;i;k

where qb;k and qs;i;k are characteristic value of base resistance and
shaft friction in the various strata, obtained from the values of ground
parameters.
NOTE If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors
b and s recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model
factor larger than 1.0 (1.4 or 1.2). The value of the model factor may be set by
the National annex.
This is the most common method for pile design in UK (Singapore)

4/27/2015
13

SS EN 1997-1:2010 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 7
A model factor is introduced to account for uncertainty of the
calculation results.
Model factor = R;d
The value of the model factor should be 1.4, except that it may be
reduced to 1.2 if the resistance is verified by a maintained load test
taken to the calculated , unfactored ultimate resistance.
4/27/2015
14
Outline
Problems with BS 8004, EC7, and CP4 on dragload
Design example of dragload using EC7

Summary
4/27/2015
15
BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload

1.2 Definitions
1.2.33 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
A downwards frictional force applied to the shaft of a pile caused by
the consolidation of compressible strata, e.g. under recently placed fill
NOTE. Downdrag has the effect of adding load to the pile and
reducing the factor of safety
4.5.6 Effect of settling ground and downdrag forces
On sites underlain by recent or lightly over-consolidated clays The
drag force should be added to the net additional vertical load
applied to the base of the deep foundation in the assessment of
allowable bearing pressure caused by downdrag in the bearing
capacity of the foundation. Donwdrag can also occur where the
groundwater level is substantially lowered or where backfill is placed
around the foundation
4/27/2015
16

7.3.6 Negative skin friction
The downdrag drag on the pile may throw enough additional load on
the pile point or base to make the total settlement excessive
When piles are driven through sensitive clays the resulting remoulding
may initiate local consolidation. The negative friction force due to this
consolidation may be estimated as the cohesion of the remoulded clay
multiplied by the surface area of the pile shaft.
Where it is expected that the soil around the shafts of end bearing piles
will consolidate, the skin friction exerted by the downdrag moving soil
should be estimated in accordance with the properties of materials. The
downward force will need to be taken into account when the allowable
load on the pile is calculated...
4/27/2015
17

7.5.3 Calculation from soil tests
.
Q = f As + q Ab
The special case of negative skin friction or downdrag has been
mentioned in 7.3.6. Soil strata imposing negative friction forces will
introduce negative components into the fAs term. If all the strata above
the level of the pile base are liable to settlement, the term fAs will be
negative. It should then be treated as part of the design load and not be
divided by the factor of safety.
4/27/2015
18
EC7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
Section 11
Section 12
Annex A - J
4/27/2015
General
Basic of geotechnical design
Geotechnical data
Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
Spread Foundations
Pile Foundations
Anchorages
Retaining Structures
Hydraulic failure
Overall stability
Embankments
19
EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for

correct analysis of NSF as settlement action)
7.3.2.2 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
(1)P If ultimate limit state design calculations are carried out with the
downdrag load as an action (called the dragload), its value shall be
maximum, which could be generated by the downward movement of the
ground relative to the pile
(2) Calculation of maximum downdrag loads should take account of the shear
resistance at the interface between the soil and the pile shaft and downward
movement of the ground due to self-weight compression and any surface load
around the pile.
(3) An upper bound to the downdrag load on a group of piles may be calculated
from the weight of the surcharge causing the movement and taking into
account any changes in ground-water pressure due to ground-water lowering,
consolidation or pile driving.
(4) Where settlement of the ground after pile installation is expected to be
small, an economic design may be obtained by treating the settlement of
the ground as the action and carrying out an interaction analysis.**
4/27/2015
20
EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for

correct analysis of NSF as settlement action)
7.3.2.2 Downdrag (negative skin friction)
(5)P The design value of settlement of the ground shall be derived taking
account of material weight densities and compressibility in accordance with
2.4.3. (i.e. use appropriate characteristic values of soil layers to give good
estimates of settlements)
(6) Interaction calculations should take account of the displacement of
the pile relative to the surrounding moving ground, the shear resistance
of the soil along the shaft of the pile, the weight of the soil and the
expected surface loads around each pile, which are the cause of the
downdrag.
(7) Normally, downdrag and transient loading need not be considred
simultaneously in load combinations.
4/27/2015
21
EC7 on Dragload
7.6.2.2 Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests
(5)P In the case of a pile foundation subjected to downdrag, the pile resistance
at failure, or at a displacement that equals the criterion for the verification of the
ultimate limit state determined from the load test results, shall be corrected.
The correction shall be achieved by subtracting the measured, or the most
unfavourable, positive shaft resistance in the compressible stratum and in the
strata above, where negative skin friction develops, from the loads measured at
the pile head.
(6) During the load test of a pile subject to downdrag, positive shaft friction will
develop along the total length of the pile and should be considered in
accordance with 7.3.2.2(6). (The maximum test load applied to the working pile
should be in excess of the sum of the design external load plus twice the
downdrag force.)
4/27/2015
22
CP4 on Dragload
7.3.6 Negative skin friction
The allowable geotechnical capacity of a pile subject to negative skin friction in

the long term (Qal) is given by the following general equation:
Q al
where
4/27/2015
Qb Qsp
Fs
Pc Qsn
Qb is the ultimate end bearing resistance

Qsp is the ultimate positive shaft resistance below the neutral plane
Fs is the geotechnical factor of safety
Pc is the dead load plus sustained load to be carried by each pile
Qsn is the negative skin friction load
is the degree of mobilization typically 0.67, although 1.0 may be
used in specific cases
23
Concluding remarks from BS and EC7

BS 8004, CP4 and EC7 treat dragload as an
unfavourable design load that diminishes pile
geotechnical capacity
The pile design can appear to have inadequate safety
factor, or, worst, negative capacity
Piled foundation cost will increase significantly and
unnecessary
This is grossly incorrect. The codes do not address the
issue of dragload holistically.
Sounds unconvincing
Well the following notes will, hopefully, convince you that
draglod is not a capacity problem but a downdrag
(settlement) issue
4/27/2015
24
Outline
Design example using EC7
FE simulation of piled foundation subjected to dragload

Summary
4/27/2015
25
First, Lets look at example for pile subject to dragload

based on EC7
Example 1
(modified from Simpson & Driscoll, 1998)
4/27/2015
Pile type
Bored pile
Pile diameter
300 mm
Soft clay unit NSF, qD;k

characteristic value
20 kPa
Stiff clay unit shaft resistance, qs;k

characteristic value
50 kPa
Permanent vertical load, Gk
300 kN
(Frank et al., 2005)
26
Pile subject to dragload based on EC7

Example 1
Characteristic and design value of loads

Permanent load, Gk = 300 kN
Total drag load, FD;k = x 0.3 x 5 x 20 = 94.2 kN
Positive shaft resistance, Rs;k = x 0.3 x LR x 50 = 47.1LR kN
Total design load, Fc;d = GGk + FD;k Design resistance, Rc;d = Rs;k/s + Rb;k/b
DA1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 + 1.35 x 94.2 = 532.2 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = 47.1LR/1.0 = 47.1LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 532.2/47.1 = 11.30 m
Note: the correlation

factor, is ignored
DA1 Combination 2: A1 + (M1 or M2) + R4

4/27/2015
27
Pile subject to dragload based on EC7

Example 1
DA2: A1 + M1 + R2
DA3: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3
Conclusion
DA-3 requires the longest pile length of the three Design Approaches: LR = 13.87 m, compard with LR
= 11.54m for DA-1 and LR = 12.43m for DA-2. This is due to the fact that for DA-3 the values of the
three partial factors are equal to 1.25 or 1.35. It can also be argued that the application of the
correlation factor to the estimated values of shaft friction qs in DA-1 and DA-2 (see clauses
7.6.2.2(8)P and 7.6.2.3(5)P) would have led to lower values for qs;k than in DA-3 (for which they are
not used).
4/27/2015
28
Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce

capacity
Example 1
DA1 Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Total design load, Fcd = 1.35 x 300 = 405 kN
Design resistance, Rc;d = (94.2 + 47.1LR)/1.0 = 94.2 + 47.1LR kN
Condition Fc;d Rc;d leads to LR 310.8/47.1 = 6.70 m (cf. 11.30m)
DA1 Combination 2: A1 + (M1 or M2) + R4
DA2: A1 + M1 + R2
DA3: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3
4/27/2015
29
Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce

capacity
Example 1
Imagine that the project requires 1000 piles, the cost saving will be
1000 x 5.13 m = 5,130 m pile length!
Assuming that the thickness of the soft clay layer is now 15m instead of
5m (in Singapore, typical Marine clay thickness is 10-30 m). The
dragload force becomes 282.7 kN.
Using 13.87m embedded pile length in stiff clay (from DA-3), the pile
design will have a negative capacity (Fc;d = 1.35 x 300 + 1.25 x 282.7 =
758.4 kN cf. Rc;d = 37.7LR = 522.9 kN).
Therefore, in order to satisfy the total design load based on EC7, the
embedment length in stiff clay need to be LR = 758.4/37.7 = 20m.
In order words, to sustain 300 kN permanent load, the total pile length
required is 25 + 20 = 45m.
4/27/2015
30
Outline

Summary
4/27/2015
31
The Unified Pile Design method

The following slides are extracted from pile
design courses given by Dr. Fellenius.
For more detail information, please refer to
Fellenius B.H. (2012). Basics of Foundation
Design. Available freely from www.fellenius.net
4/27/2015
32
dragload is treated as an unfavourable action

Drag load must neither be subtracted from
the pile capacity nor from the allowable load
ALLOWABLE
LOAD - (Fs = 2.5)
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
ALLOWABLE LOAD minus

DRAGLOAD*1.0
CAPACITY
2,500
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
LOAD (KN)
Effect of subtracting the drag load

from the allowable load -- only!
10
1,000
1,500
2,000
CAPACITY
2,500
10
15
15
DRAG LOAD
20
500
LOAD (KN)
DRAG LOAD
20
INCREASE !
If the pile capacity had first been
reduced with the amount of the drag
load, there would have been no room
left for the working load!
4/27/2015
33
Similarly for the EC7 and LRFD:
Do not include the drag load when determining the factored resistance!
Drag load not subtracted from the factored resistance

FACTORED RESISTANCE
LOAD (KN) CAPACITY

500
1,000
1,500
2,000
FACTORED RESISTANCE
minus FACTORED DRAGLOAD
Factors = 0.6 and 1.5, respectively
2,500
10
DRAG LOAD
15
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
Drag load factored and subtracted!
500
FACTORED RESISTANCE
LOAD (KN)
1,000
1,500
2,000
CAPACITY
2,500
10
15
DRAG LOAD
20
4/27/2015
20
34
SETTLEMENT
Load placed on a pile causes downward movements of the pile head due to:
1. 'Elastic' compression of the pile.
2. Load transfer movement -- the movement response of the soil at the pile toe..
3. Settlement below the pile toe due to the increase of stress in the soil. This is
only of importance for large pile groups, and where the soil layers below the piles
are compressible.
A drag load will only directly cause movement due to Point 1, the
'elastic' compression. While it could be argued that Point 2 also is at
play, because the stiffness of the soil at the pile toe is an important
factor here, it is mostly the downdrag that governs (a) the pile toe
movement, (b) the pile toe load, and (c) the location of the neutral
plane in an interactive "unified" process.
The drag load cannot cause settlement due to Point 3, because there
has been no stress change in the soil below the pile toe.
4/27/2015
35
Therefore, negative-skin-friction/dragload
does not diminish geotechnical capacity.
Drag load (and dead load) is a matter for the pile

structural strength, and
The main question is "will settlement occur around
the pile(s) that can cause downdrag.
The approach is expressed in The Unified Design
Method, which is a method based on the

interaction between forces and movements.
4/27/2015
36
The Unified Design Method is a

three-step approach
1.
The dead plus live load must be smaller than the pile capacity
divided by an appropriate factor of safety. The drag load is not
included when designing against the bearing capacity.
2.
The dead load plus the drag load must be smaller than the
structural strength divided with a appropriate factor of safety. The live
load is not included because live load and drag load cannot coexist.
3.
The settlement of the pile (pile group) must be smaller than a

limiting value. The live load and drag load are not included in this analysis.
(The load from the structure does not normally cause much settlement, but
the settlement due to other causes can be large. The latter is called
downdrag).
4/27/2015
37
"
Construting the Neutral Plane and

Determining the Allowable Load
4/27/2015
38
The distribution of load at the pile cap is governed by the

load-transfer behavior of the piles. The design pile can
be said to be the average pile. However, the loads can
differ considerably between the piles depending on toe
resistance, length of piles.
The location of the neutral plane is the result of Natures

iterations to find the force equilibrium. If the end result
by design or by mistake is that the neutral plane
lies in or above a compressible soil layer, the pile group
will settle even if the total factor of safety appears to be
acceptable.
4/27/2015
39
The principles of the mechanism are illustrated

in the following three diagrams
The mobilized toe resistance, Rt, is a function of the

Net Pile Toe Movement
4/27/2015
40
Pile toe response for where the settlement is small (1)

and where it is large (2)
LOAD and RESISTANCE
0
SETTLEMENT
1,500
200
Utimate
Resistance
DEPTH
NEUTRAL PLANE 1
NEUTRAL PLANE 2
1 2
Toe Penetrations = Movement into the soil
Note, the magnitude of settlement affects not only the magnitude

of toe resistance but also the length of the Transition Zone
4/27/2015
41
Pile toe response for where the settlement is small (1)

and where it is large (2), showing toe penetration
LOAD and RESISTANCE
-500
SETTLEMENT
1,000
200
Utimate
Resistance
DEPTH
NEUTRAL PLANE 1
NEUTRAL PLANE 2
TOE PENETRATION
0
Toe Resistances
Toe Penetrations
TOE RESISTANCE
12
2
3
Note, the magnitude of settlement affects not only the magnitude of

toe resistance but also the length of the Transition Zone:
4/27/2015
42
Outline

Summary
4/27/2015
43
FE simulation of piled foundation subjected to

dragload (Single Pile Interaction Analysis)
Verification of unified design pile concept using FE
Hypothetical site with three soil layers: fill, soft clay and dense sand
Simulation of short-term pile load test (undrained situation)
Ground settlement due to surcharge loading at various magnitude
(10, 20 and 40 kPa)
Pile load transfer due to dragload at different working load (2000,
4000 and 6000 kN)
Consolidation analysis to simulate the development of dragload as
the soils settle with time
Effect of bitumen coating
Results comparison
4/27/2015
44
Hypothetical site
Head load (P)
2, 4 and 6 MN
Surcharge loading
(10, 20 and 40 kPa)
Fill (3m thick)

s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o
Soft clay (12m thick)

s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s
Axi-symmetric model
Pile diameter, D = 1.128 m
Pile length, L = 20 m
(pile cross-sectional area = 1 m2)
25 m
Pile concrete properties:

Concrete modulus = 30GPa
Rinterface = 1.0
Rinterface = 0.10 (with bitumen
coating at fill and soft clay layer)
Dense sand (10m thick)

s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o
Dummy plate pile with EA 1E6

times smaller than real pile
Soil constitutive model:
Hardening Soil (HS)
4/27/2015
25 m
45
Load movement curve (short term)

0
2000
4000
Load (kN)
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
Head load - Head Mvmnt
40
Toe load - Toe Mvmnt
Movement (mm)
Elastic comprs
80
120
160
200
4/27/2015
Head Load
[kN]
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Toe Load
[kN]
0
344
595
931
1269
1714
2228
2779
3445
4053
4752
Shaft Load
[kN]
0
656
1405
2069
2731
3286
3772
4221
4555
4947
5248
Head mvmnt
[mm]
0
3.785
9.914
20.273
32.066
48.3
68.757
93.178
121.227
150
182.28
Toe mvmnt
[mm]
0
3.135
8.708
18.519
29.752
45.411
65.266
89.074
116.491
144.647
176.289
Elastic compr
[mm]
0
0.65
1.206
1.754
2.314
2.889
3.491
4.104
4.736
5.353
46
5.991
Typical results at 40 kPa surcharge with WL = 4MN

Load (kN)
0
2000
4000
Settlement (mm)
6000
200
400
600
Unit resistance (kPa)

800
-100
100
200
300
(1) Initial load

distribution
Subjected to
dragload
Working load
condition
10
(2) DRAG LOAD
Neutral plane
15
20
(1) + (2)
Long-term
load transfer
25
Drag load does not reduce pile

geotechnical capacity
4/27/2015
Net toe
penetration
0
Toe movement (mm)
Depth (m)
soil
settlement
Pile
Toe load (kN)

2000
4000
6000
0
50
100
150
200
Interdependence between soil

settlement, pile load-movement and
47
pile load transfer
Pile responses due to various surcharge load (WL=4000kN)

Load (kN)
0
2000
Settlement (mm)
4000
6000
200
400
600
800
-100
100
200
300
Working load
condition
Depth (m)
Initial load
distribution
10
Large
transition
zone
Small
transition
zone
15
20
soil settlement at
10, 20 and 40 kPa
Unit resistance at
10,20 and 40kPa
pile settlement at
10, 20 and 40 kPa
Long-term load
transfer for 10,20
and 40 kPa
Settlement (mm)
100
200
300
25
For the same head load, larger soil

settlement results in deeper NP,
larger drag load and larger
mobilized toe resistance.
4/27/2015
Depth (m)
10
12
14
16
48
Pile responses at various level of WL (surcharge 40kPa)

Load (kN)
0
2000
4000
Settlement (mm)
6000
8000
200
400
600

800
-100
100
200
300
0
2MN
4MN
6MN
soil
settlement
10
NP:
3436KN
Unit resistance at
WL=2, 4 and 6MN
NP:
NP:
7224KN
5324KN
15
pile settlement at
WL=2, 4 and 6 MN
20
WL=2000kN
Net toe
penetration
WL=4000kN
25
WL=6000kN
For the same soil settlement, larger

pile head load results in shallower
NP, smaller drag load and larger
mobilized toe resistance.
4/27/2015
0
Toe movement (mm)
Depth (m)
Toe load (kN)

2000
4000
6000
0
50
100
150
200
49
Consolidation analysis at WL=4MN and surcharge 40kPa

Load (kN)
0
2000
Settlement (mm)
4000
6000
200
400
600

800
-100
100
200
300
0
1 yr
5 yr
15 yr
Working load
condition
Depth (m)
final soil
settlement
10
Neutral Plane
Unit resistance at
1, 5, 15 yr
consolidation and
fully drained
15
20
25
4/27/2015
Initial
1 year
5 year
15 year
Fully Drained
50
Effect of bitumen coating (R=0.1 for fill and soft clay layers)
Load (kN)
0
2000
4000
Settlement (mm)
6000
200
400
600

800
-100
100
200
300
0
Short-term load
transfer without
bitumen
10
Depth (m)
with
bitumen
Working load
condition
without
bitumen
without
bitumen
soil
settlement
with bitumen
NP=4285 kN
with
bitumen
Neutral
Plane
without
bitumen
15
without
bitumen
N=5324 kN
20
25
30
Bitumen coating of pile shaft reduces drag load

significantly and smaller settlement. However, at the same
time, pile capacity also reduces.
4/27/2015
51
Importance of toe load toe penetration curve

Variable working load cases
Head Load Toe Load Toe Penetration
[kN]
[kN]
[mm]
2000
1180
27.99
4000
2241
65.27
6000
3431
111.58
1000
Variable surcharge load cases

Surcharge
Toe Load Toe Penetration
[kPa]
[kN]
[mm]
10 kPa
1704
44.38
20 kPa
1951
53.42
40 kPa
2241
65.27
Toe load (kN)

2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Toe movement (mm)
40
Toe load - Toe Mvmnt

variable working load cases (with dragload)
variable surcharge load cases (with dragload)
80
120
160
4/27/2015
200
52
Force and settlement (downdrag) interactive design.

The unified pile design for capacity, drag load, settlement, and downdrag
Qd
0
2,000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
LOAD (KN)
4,000
Pile Cap Settlement
6,000
Silt
Sand
200
Clay
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
150
10
10
15
100
0
5
50
Soil Settlement
15
20
20
O-cell
25
25
Till
30
30
Pile toe load in the load distribution diagram must

match the toe load induced by the toe movement
(penetration), which match is achieved by a trialand-error procedure.
TOE LOAD (KN)
0
1,000
q-z relation
2,000
3,000
4,000
0
50
100
PILE TOE PENETRATION (mm)
The final solution is based on three "knowns": The shaft resistance distribution, the toe load-movement response, and the
overall
settlement distribution. Which all comes from basic site and project knowledge.
4/27/2015
53
Simulated Load Tests Results

Pile movement [mm]
10
30
50
2000
4/27/2015
4000
6000
LOAD [kN]
SUMMARY RESULTS
NSF do not affect Ultimate Pile Resistance (about 6500 kN in above cases)
Soil settlements (So) produce drag-loads (NSF) on piles
Larger So showed softer pile response; and larger pile settlements
54
Results of load tests on bitumen coated piles

Pile movement [mm]
10
30
Uncoated Pile
Bitumen coated piles
50
2000
4000
6000
LOAD [kN]
Bitumen Coating reduces total resistance (geotechnical capacity) of pile from 6500 kN to
5300 kN
But the external ground settlements influence on pile movement is almost insignificant
compared to uncoated pile
4/27/2015
55
FE analysis of groups of piles Interaction Analysis

Hypothetical cases (1, 2, 4, 9 and 36 piles) as per Fellenius (2012)
3x3m
(9 piles)
6x6m
(36 piles)
4/27/2015
2x2m
(4 piles)
2x1m
(2 piles)
1x1m
(1 pile)
Driven concrete pile, D = 318 mm (circumference area,

A = 1 m2/m), pile length, L = 20 m
Each pile in the group has a 1.0m2 portion of the total
group area.
c/c spacing = 1.0 m, i.e., 3.14D
Soil layers are similar to that of previous slides
No working load applied, 40 kPa surcharge
Pile cap thickness= 1m, except for 36 piles (2m thick)
56
FE analysis of groups of piles

6x6m
(36 piles)
Surcharge 40 kPa
Pile cap thickness = 2m
Fill (3m thick)

s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o

s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s
corner
side

s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o
interior
centre
4/27/2015
57
FE analysis of groups of piles

2x1m
(2 piles)
Surcharge 40 kPa
1x1m
(1 pile)
30 m
Fill (3m thick)

s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 10MPa; c = 0; = 30o

s = 16 kN/m3; Cc = 1.0; Cr = 0.1; eo = 2.0, c = 0; = 20o
k = 1 x 10-9 m/s
2x2m
(4 piles)
3x3m
(9 piles)
Pile cap thickness = 1m for all groups

side
corner
s = 20 kN/m3; E50;ref = 30MPa; c = 0; = 40o
4/27/2015
30 m
single
centre
58
Group of 36 piles results

0
200
Load (kN)
400
600
Settlement (mm)
200
400
600
800
0
soil
settlement
5
single
Pile
settlement
centre
Interior
15
20
25
Single pile
corner
Side
Interior
Centre
10
15
Neutral
Plane
0
Settlement (mm)
5
10
15
20
12
20
single
25
Group of piles is beneficiary in reducing drag load. The innermost

piles see smaller drag load. For group of piles to settle uniformly, the
group must have the same neutral plane location.
4/27/2015
Depth (m)
10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
corner
side
piles in
group
14
16
soil
59
18
Group of 2, 4, and 9 piles results

0
200
Load (kN)
400
600
600
single
10
15
20
25
400
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
200
Load (kN)
10
single
centre
side
corner
15
20
Single pile
2 piles group
4 piles group
25
Group of piles is beneficiary in reducing drag load.

Therefore, designing piled foundation using single pile case
is quite conservative
4/27/2015
Single pile
9 piles group (corner)
9 piles group (centre)
9 piles group (side)
60
Measured group response Okabe Field

Experiments (1973)
61
Centrifuge Experiments
62
Outline

Summary
4/27/2015
63
Summary
Pile design according to EC7 design approaches has been
presented
EC7, BS8004 and CP4 do not address the dragload (or NSF)
correctly.
It has been shown here using FE analysis of single pile and groups
of piles that dragload does not reduce pile geotechnical capacity.
The key point in pile design is settlement not capacity.
FE analysis can easily predict the location of NP with no iterations
required.
Group of piles connecting to a rigid pile cap has a beneficiary effect

in reducing the dragload.
Pile design subjected to dragload using single pile scenario is quite
conservative.
4/27/2015
64
EC7 Provision for NSF Design

In essence EC7 do allow us to do
specialized FEM analysis to design for
NSF
This will enable us to take advantage of
the actual expected NSF force over the
period of design life
It will also allow us to include pile group
effects where much reduced NSF will be
observed in the inner piles of large pile
groups or piled-raft foundations
4/27/2015
65
EC7 ALLOWS FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN FOR NSF BY USING GOOD FEM PILE-SOIL
INTERACTION ANALYSIS TO ACCOUNT FOR CORRECT CONSOLIDATION
SETTLEMENTS (TREATED AS ACTION)
4/27/2015
66

04-NSF Design and EC7 (Prof Harry Tan)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

04-NSF Design and EC7 (Prof Harry Tan)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EC7 for Deep Foundations

Prof. Harry Tan

Motivations of the Lecture

Pile design with NSF is a settlement issue rather than

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles

Pile Design based on EC7 (EN1997-1:2004)

7.2 Limit States

7.3 Actions and design situations

7.4 Design methods and design considerations

7.6 Axially loaded piles

7.6.1.1 Limit state design

7.6.2.3 ULS from ground test results (insitu tests)

Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]

The procedure is, in fact, similar to that used with the

Model Pile procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(5)P]

where 3 and 4 are correlation factors depend on the number of profile

Correlation factors for n ground test results (Singapore NA Table A.NA.10)

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.8(8)]

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]

Rb;k = Ab qb;k and Rs;k = As;i qs;i;k

This is the most common method for pile design in UK (Singapore)

Alternative procedure [clause 7.6.2.3(8)]

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload

BS 8004 (CP4) on Dragload

EC7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules

EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for

EC7 on Downdrag (actually allow flexibility for

The allowable geotechnical capacity of a pile subject to negative skin friction in

Qb is the ultimate end bearing resistance

Concluding remarks from BS and EC7

FE simulation of piled foundation subjected to dragload

First, Lets look at example for pile subject to dragload

(modified from Simpson & Driscoll, 1998)

Soft clay unit NSF, qD;k

Stiff clay unit shaft resistance, qs;k

Permanent vertical load, Gk

(Frank et al., 2005)

Pile subject to dragload based on EC7

Characteristic and design value of loads

Note: the correlation

DA1 Combination 2: A1 + (M1 or M2) + R4

Pile subject to dragload based on EC7

Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce

Now Lets consider that dragload does not reduce

FE simulation of single pile and groups of piles

The Unified Pile Design method

dragload is treated as an unfavourable action

ALLOWABLE LOAD minus

Effect of subtracting the drag load

Similarly for the EC7 and LRFD:

Drag load not subtracted from the factored resistance

LOAD (KN) CAPACITY

Drag load factored and subtracted!

Drag load (and dead load) is a matter for the pile

Method, which is a method based on the

The Unified Design Method is a

The settlement of the pile (pile group) must be smaller than a

Construting the Neutral Plane and

The distribution of load at the pile cap is governed by the

The location of the neutral plane is the result of Natures

The principles of the mechanism are illustrated