Geotechnical Engineering

Refresher Course
Prof C F Leung
Ph D, C. Eng., PE (Geo)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
National University of Singapore
e-mail: ceelcf@nus.edu.sg
As EuroCode has been fully implemented since April
2015, the 2017 FEE examination will be the first time
that EuroCode is the only code allowed.
 References
J A Knappett and R F Craig. Craigs Soil Mechanics, 8th
Edition, Spon Press, London, 2012.
Ian Smith, Smith's Elements of Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Earlier editions of the above books follow British Code.
Any other Soil Mechanics or Geotechnical Engineering
text adopting EuroCode.

Do take note that the concept in old texts remain valid and
useful for understanding.
 Course contents
Soil mechanics
Euro Code (For this part of course, some British
Code examples are presented merely to enhance
understanding)
Slope stability
Retaining structures
Site investigation
Shallow foundation
Deep foundation
 Attention
This part of the course aims to refresh your
know-how on geotechnical engineering for you
to prepare PE fundamental of Engineering
examination (FEE) CE104 and CE203
Worked examples for different topics
Further questions to help your preparation
 CE104 Soil Mechanics
Basic geology
Unified soil classification system
Mechanical properties
Effective stress principle
Shear strength
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
Compressibility, seepage and consolidation
Settlement calculations, rate of consolidation

40 multiple questions in morning section (3 hrs = about 4

minutes/question). Estimated about 8 questions in soil
mechanics.
 1. Soil Mechanics
Basic geology
Unified soil classification system
Mechanical properties
Effective stress principle
Shear strength
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
Compressibility, seepage and consolidation
Settlement calculations, rate of consolidation
 1.1 Geology of Singapore

2 2
4

3 5

Geologic age from old to young, 5 formations:

1. Sajahat Formation of metamorphic quartz sandstone and mudstone
2. Bukit Timah granite & Gombak norite [G]
3. Jurong Formation of sedimentary rocks [S]
4. Old Alluvium (cemented soil or semi-rock) [OA]
5. Kallang Formation [marine clay]
 Geology of Singapore
Bukit Timah granite formation
Located in north and centre of Singapore
Residual soil of granite overlying fresh granite
Thin dense sand layer at soil-rock interface. This highly
permeable sand layer will be significantly weakened upon
exposure with great water seepage causing soft toe problem at
bored pile base and large soil settlement behind basement
excavation.
The layer is so thin that it may not be detected from soil
investigation at some locations , see next slide.
The very dense silty sand layer is typically very thin and not easily detected.
Occurrence mostly in Thomson and Bukit Batok areas.
Jurong formation (sedimentary)
[West and south of Singapore]
Residual soil of sedimentary origin overlying great depths of
weak sedimentary rocks
The rocks are typically highly fractured and weathered down to
100 m depth or more at some locations (see next slide)
A pile installed at such formation does not have good base
resistance and requires long socket length in the weak rock
 Kallang formation
[South and along rivers]
Soft marine deposit (transported soils)
Can be down to 50 m depth in some places (e.g. Nicoll Highway)
Upper and lower marine clay with a thin stiff clay layer in-
between
Upper marine clay (more recent deposits) is soft and mostly
under consolidated or just normally consolidated
Lower marine clay is firmer and typically slightly over
consolidated (deposited much earlier than the upper marine
clay)
See next slide

The part on soil consolidation will be covered later.

 Soft

Soft

It is common to have soft marine clay of over 40 m thick

(consisting of upper and lower marine clay) in many
parts of Singapore
 Old alluvium OA [East]
Old deposits with layered clay and cemented sands
Generally no problem for construction except in areas where the
standard penetration resistance N value < 10 where water
seepage can be severe during excavation/tunneling

Fault lines (see next slide)

It has been reported in Hong Kong that very significant seepage
(hence ground settlement extending kilometers away from
tunnel) had occurred during tunneling due to fault lines
This problem appears not as severe in Singapore.
Pepys Road Fault
 SPT
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Folds 0

10

BH20
West part of
20
Singapore

Depth below ground level (m)

30
This can affect the
pile capacity. A pile
may plunge after 40

reaching a certain Possible occurrence of folds

load during load 50

testing or under
working condition. 60

70
 Bouldery clay
Fort Canning and Bukit Batok
areas
Formed by landslide with rocks
rolling down failed slope
embedded into clay
In many instances, bouldery clay
is mistakenly recognized as
bedrock in soil investigation and
construction
Many construction problems in
such formation!
 Limestone with cavities
Western part of Singapore
So far cavities detected are relatively small in
size and length (see next slide)
The cavity problem appears not as severe as
those detected in Malaysia
 Borehole camera photos

Weak
zones or
cavities
(void or in-
filled)

Good rock with some

fractures at the lower part
1.2 Soil index properties and
classification
(A) Phase Relationship

Soil consists of 3 phases: solid, water and air

 Moisture content (w) = MW/Ms
Degree of saturation (s) = Vw/Vv
[Dry soil s = 0 and Saturated soil s = 1]
Void ratio (e) = Vv/Vs
Porosity (n) = Vv/V
Thus e = n/(1-n), and
n = e/(1+e)
Sr e = m Gs
Specific gravity (Gs) = Ms/(Vs w ) = s/ w
Typical value Gs = 2.65 or 2.7
Unit weight () = W/V = Mg/V
= (Gs + Sre) w/(1 + e)
Example on phase relationship from Craig

[Note: You need NOT remember the equations by heart. Using the definitions,
you can always derive the formulations using phase relationship diagrams.]
Example on phase relationship (cont.)

s in EuroCode
EuroCode
 (B) Particle Size Fractions

< Fine grain soils Coarse grained soils >

[Note: d60 refer to 60% passing the particular particle size]

28
Sieve analysis for coarse grain soil
Gravel and boulder > 2 mm
Sand particles between 0.2 mm to 2 mm

Hydrometer test for fine grain materials

Silt between 0.02 mm to 0.2 mm
Clay smaller than 0.02 mm
(C) Plasticity of fine grain soils
The upper and lower limits of the range of
water content over which a soil exhibits
plastic behaviour are defined as the
liquid limit (WL) and the plastic limit
(WP), respectively.

Plasticity index IP = WL - WP

Note: The above symbols follow EuroCode which are

different from British Code.
 (D) Unified soil classification system
Primary letter Secondary letter
Gr: Gravel W: Well graded
Sa: Sand P: Poorly graded
Si: Silt M: With non-plastic fines
Cl: Clay C: With plastic fines
L: Of low plasticity
O: Organic clay I: Of intermediate plasticity
Pt: Peat H: Of high plasticity
V: Of very high plasticity
E: Of extremely high plasticity
Note: The above symbols follow EuroCode which are different from
British Code.
Plasticity chart (after Craig)
A-line

Note: Clay C should be Cl; Silt M should Si in EuroCode

 1.3 Effective stress principle
Total vertical stress (v) at a given elevation is
the intensity of loading due to the total weight of
all the materials above the elevation
= (Hi i)
where Hi is the thickness of soil layer i
and i is the unit weight of soil layer i
Pore water pressure u = HW W
where HW is the height of water table above the given
elevation & W is unit weight of water.
 Effective vertical stress (v)
= total vertical stress - pore water pressure

Effective stress principle:

All measurable effects of a change of
stress such as compression, distortion and
a change of shearing resistance are
exclusively due to changes in the effective
stresses.
 Example on effective stress

Ground level For the soil at 7 m below ground

level:
Upper soil 2m v = 16 x 4 + 3 x 17
1 = 16 kN/m3 Water table = 115 kPa
2m u = 5 x 9.81 = 49.05 kPa
v = 115 - 49.5
Lower soil 3m = 65.95 kPa
2 = 17 kN/m3
If there is a surcharge q = 10 kPa
(this is nominal traffic loading)
w = 9.81 kN/m3 at the ground level,
v = 65.95 + 10 = 75.95 kPa
 Question
For a given soil at 4 m below seabed
With sea water at 10 m deep
With sea water at 100 m deep
The soil effective stress is the same for both
cases? Why?
Exercise
If the soil below the seabed has a unit weight of 20
kN/m3, what is the effective stress at 4 m below
the seabed?
 Effect of capillary rise
Above the water table, water is held under
negative pressure and, even if the soil is
saturated above the water table, does not
contribute to hydrostatic pressure below the
water table. The only effect of the capillary rise is
to increase the total unit weight of the soil. Thus
the total and effective vertical stresses below 3
m depth are therefore increased by the same
amount while pore pressure remains
unchanged.
Example on capillary rise from Craig
Short questions may be asked on this issue. Discuss blow out and
permissible excavation depth.
 1.4 Shear strength
Total stress situation (short term condition
i.e. end of construction period and pore
pressure has no time to dissipate yet)
Undrained friction angle (u)
Undrained cohesion (cu)
Effective stress situation (long term
condition) [ = - u]
Drained friction angle ()
Drained cohesion (c)
 Triaxial compression test
BS1377:1990
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
(UU)
A 38 mm diameter 76 mm high sample taken
from the sampling tube obtained from site
investigation is tested in a triaxial cell (see next
slide for figure) to failure in less than 15 minutes.
Such quick test does not have time for the pore
pressure to dissipate and therefore undrained
shear strength is obtained from this series of
tests.
Right (white colour) Thin-wall soil sampler for soft clay.
Left: Thick wall soil sampler for firm and stiff clay.
It is very difficult to collect sand samples in a sampler.
Soil sample extruder

Trimming of soil sample for triaxial testing

Triaxial compression test
Measurements:
(1) Axial load on
sample [stress is equal
to load/cross-sectional
area]
(2) Vertical
deformation of sample
Notes:
(a) Volume
of sample is
unchanged as
water has no
time to be
squeezed out.
(b) Sample cross-
sectional area becomes
larger as the sample is
compressed vertically.
 3 is the minor principal stress, and
1 is the major principal stress

3 1 - 3 1

Same
3 Vertical
Combined 3
all + =
round loading
pressure pressure

Before Loading Final

test stress

Stress diagrams
 Example on triaxial test
The following results were obtained from a
series of UU tests:
Cell pressure (kPa) Additional axial
load at failure (N)
200 291
400 331
600 396
Each sample, originally 70 mm long and 35 mm in
diameter, experienced a vertical deformation of 5.1
mm. Draw the strength envelope and determine the
shear strength of the soil in terms of total stresses.
Solution:
Volume of sample (unchanged during test)
=(/4)(352)(70) = 67348 mm3
Cross-sectional area at failure (increases with
reducing sample height)
= 67348/(70-5.1) = 1036 mm2
 Cell pressure Deviator stress Major
3 (kPa) 1 - 3 (kPa) principal stress
1 (kPa)
6
200 0.291x10 /1036 481
= 281
6
400 0.331x10 /1036 719
= 319
6
600 0.396x10 /1036 982
= 382
[Note: cross-sectional area of the 3 samples at failure may not
necessary be the same.]
Shear stress

3 1
Normal stress
Results: u = 7o
cu = 100 kPa
This is stiff clay
Mohr-Coulomb Equation = cu + tan u
in terms of total stress (short term)
Saturated clay u = 0
 Drained triaxial compression test
Drained shear strength , c (in terms of
effective stresses) can be obtained from
(a) consolidated drained triaxial tests with a very
slow rate such that pore pressure has time to
completely dissipate (i.e. sample always under
effective stress )
(b) consolidation undrained triaxial tests with pore
pressure measurement ( = - u)
Mohr-Coulomb Equation = c + ( - u) tan
in terms of effective stress (long term)
Example 4.2 from Craig
Example 4.3 from Craig
 Unconfined compression test on rock

Need core length 2 times core diameter

For a standard NX size core of 53 mm diameter,
the required core length is 106 mm
Not suitable for weak rocks which are often
highly fractured and do not have long enough
samples
Very expensive to conduct triaxial tests on rocks
Unconfined compression strength qu = 2cu
Sound rock core long enough for
unconfined compression test
Diamond saw
to flatten
ends of rock
core
Unconfined
compression
test
(Unconfined
compressive
strength is
the failure
load divided
by cross-
sectional area)
Unconfined compressive strength qu
Strength of rock qu value (MPa)
Very weak < 1.25
Weak 1.25 to 5
Moderately weak 5 to 12.5
Moderately strong 12.5 to 50
Strong 50 to 100
Very strong 100 to 200
Extremely strong > 200
 Effect of geology on soil/rock strength

Weathering and
fracturing of rock
would decrease
the rock/soil
strength
Orientation of
fissures in soils or
weakness plane
in rock affect the
strength, see
figures on the
right.
Weakest strength if fissure/joint is at 30o to vertical!
 1.5 Seepage
Water flow from high pressure zone to low
pressure zone following Darcys Law
Discharge velocity V = q/A = ki
where q = volume of water flowing per unit time,
A = cross-sectional area of soil corresponding to
the flow q,
k = coefficient of permeability,
i = hydraulic gradient
 Flow net
Quantity of seepage flow from flow net
q = khNf/Nd
See next page for definition and example.

Major characteristics of flow net, flow line

and equi-potential lines.
Example of application: estimation of water
seepage into an excavation site (e.g. cut
and cover excavation across river)
Example on seepage from Craig
 Effect of geology on seepage
For excavation/tunneling, significant seepage can occur
if there are only narrow stretches of highly permeable
materials present in a large site (see case study next few
slides). This results in large differential settlement
hundreds of meters or even kilometer away from the site.
Laboratory tests on soil permeability is not accurate due
to best soil/rock samples collected. Field permeability
tests are recommended.
A good number of field permeability tests (covering all
the major components of soil/rock formation) is
necessary for a large site.
Cracks in Bukit Timah homes near MRT worksite
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has started temporary
work to fix damage to several houses in Bukit Timah's
Watten Estate, believed to be linked to nearby construction
of the Downtown Line.
Sunday Times Headline 16 Sep 2012
LTA: Structurally safe

Likely cause: Water seepage through flow channel

Sunday Times 16 Sep 2012
Photos (this and next few slides)
The main structure is supported on piles and
hence no severe damage. The cracks show
in last few photos are non-structural cracks
and hence less critical.
Strait Times
18 Sep 2012

The houses are

quite far away from
the MRT
construction site.
The first row of
houses suffered
little damage while
the second row of
houses experience
large cracks and
tilting.
Retaining wall

Note: The toe of the retaining wall is likely to be deeper to cut off the water
Note: Recharge wall can stop further soil movement but cannot
reverse soil movements that have already taken place
 1.6 Consolidation of soil
Under load (e.g. soil underneath a newly built
embankment), soil experiences built up of excess
pore pressure (higher than the static water pressure).

The soil is deemed to consolidate as the positive

excess pore pressure dissipates with time (i.e. water
is squeezed out of the soil) resulting in consolidation
settlement of soil. Primary consolidation is deemed
to complete when pore pressure reaches the static
water pressure.
Oedometer test
BS1377: 1990 (Part 5)
Typical sample dimension:
75 mm diameter and 19 mm high
The sample is loaded for 24 hours under
each loading pressure (see next slide) and
the consolidation settlement of the soil
sample is measured regularly.
Oedometer
consolidation
test
Oedometer apparatus
Consolidation theory only applies to fully saturated soil (i.e. the
soil has no air voids). It is assumed that the solids are incompressible
and only water is squeezed out during consolidation.
 Two important issues
Ultimate (final) consolidation settlement

Rate of settlement (how long does it take

to reach the final settlement)
 Parameters for the determination
Swelling of soil settlement
index Ce Preconsolidation
pressure c The soil has been
subjected to pressure
c sometime before

Compression
index Cc
e-log plot for
end stage of each
loading from
oedometer test
Over-consolidation ratio OCR of soil = c/o

(1) Overconsolidated clay OC clay OCR > 1

Example: Soil currently is at 10 m below ground surface but was at 100 m
below ground level thousands of years ago due to gradual weathering of
soil over time. This soil is generally stiff as it has been subjected to higher
overburden before. E.g. residual soil of rock

(2) Normally consolidated clay NC clay OCR = 1

Example: Soil is currently at 10 m below ground surface and this depth is
highest of all times. It has completed its consolidated. The soil is generally
not as stiff as OC clay. E.g. marine clay with primary consolidation
completed.

(3) Under consolidating clay OCR < 1

Example: Marine clay beneath newly placed reclaimed fill and is still
consolidating. The soil is generally soft. E.g. 50-m thick marine clay at
Nicoll Highway is still consolidating though reclaimed over 50 years ago.
 Ultimate primary consolidation
settlement sc
Sc =

where Ce, c and Cc are obtained from oedometer test

(different for various soils, see previous slide), eo = initial
void ratio and H is the thickness of each clay layer.
[1st part disappears if the soil is normally consolidated, i.e.
c < o. Also replace c by o].
 Alternatively
Sc = mv H
where mv is the coefficient of compressibility
obtained from oedometer test (e- plot),
note value is not a constant but depends
on pressure range
= stress increment = final stress (after
loading) minus initial stress (before
loading) on soil.
 Time factor Tv

For degree of consolidation Uv = 90%, Tv = 0.848.

 The coefficient
of consolidation,
Test results
obtained under a
cv, which is the
given loading parameter
indicating the
rate of
consolidation
of soil settlement,
is determined
from this plot.

Note:
cv generally
decreases with
increasing
loading pressure
 Coefficient of consolidation Cv
Cv = Tv90 d2/t90

where Tv90 = 0.848,

d = distance of drainage path =
thickness of clay for single drainage and
half thickness of clay for double drainage
(sand above and below clay)
and t90 is obtained from the pervious slide
 Time for soil consolidation
Once cv is determined from consolidation test, it can be
used to predict the time required for soil consolidation in
the field.
Example: 10-m thick of soft clay with cv = 3 m2/yr. Time to
reach 90% consolidation:
Single drainage = 0.848x102m2/3m2/yr
= 28.3 yr [Double drainage, time of consolidation will be
decreased by 4 times. Why?]
For the Nicoll Highway area, the soft clay is at least 40 m
deep and was reclaimed 50 years ago. Has the clay
completed its primary consolidation settlement?
 Example on ultimate consolidation settlement

The original seabed is at -10 mCD and consists of 10 m thick soft

marine clay with density 16 kN/m3. Land reclamation with sand fill (
= 17 kN/m3 above water table and 18 kN/m3 below water table) was
placed to +5 mCD. Oedometer test conducted on the marine clay
reveals
Ce = 0.2 , c = 25 kPa and Cc = 1.0.
Estimate the ultimate consolidation settlement under the reclaimed
sand fill.
Clay is fully saturated (Sr = 1) with
= 16 kN/m3 = (Gs + Sre) w/(1 + e).
Taking Gs = 2.65 and w = 10 kN/m3,
initial void ratio eo = e = 1.75
 Initial effective stress (before sand fill) at mid-depth of
clay (i.e. 5 m) o = 5 x (16-10) = 30 kPa
Final effective stress (after sand fill) at mid-depth of clay
(take water table at 0 mCD)
f = o + (5 x 17 + 10 x (18-10) = 195 kPa

Ultimate consolidation settlement Sc

[1st part of equation disappears as c < o. Also replace c by o in

the second part of equation.]
 H = 10 m
Sc = [1/(1+1.75)][1x log(195/30)]x10
= 2.956 m
This is massive (30% of original thickness) as the clay is
very soft.
Strictly speaking, you should divide the soil into layers of
not more than 3 m thick (each layer may have its own
consolidation properties).

Discuss Sc = mv H (note = 195 30 = 165 kPa).

Refer to rate of consolidation in earlier slides.

Discuss single and double drainage (soil beneath marine
clay).
 Possible questions
1 long question (refer to later part of notes)
may consist of a combination of the
following short questions with practical
aspects
Short questions
Given e-log curve from oedometer test,
determine Cc, c and Ce
Determine ultimate settlement given the
above parameters
Possible short questions (cont.)
Given settlement-time plot, determine Cv
Determine time required to reach full primary
consolidation for given Cv of soil
Settlement estimated after certain time (e.g. 1
year)
Surcharge required to accelerate soil
settlement (refer to notes later)
Last 2 parts likely for long question (tedious)!
 Secondary consolidation
Commonly termed as creep or secondary
compression.
Settlement beyond primary consolidation
stage and not related to dissipation of pore
pressure.
Severe for organic clay e.g. peat
Properties from long term oedometer test
(at least 1 week for a given loading, see
next slide)
Further questions for you to
practice
 Question 1.1
(a) Calculate the dry unit weight, the saturated unit
weight and the buoyant (effective) unit weight
of a soil having a void ratio of 0.7 and a value
of Gs of 2.72.

(b) Calculate also the unit weight and water

content at a degree of saturation of 75%.
 Question 1.2
(a) The North Sea is 200 m deep. The seabed
consists of soft clay deposit of saturated unit
weight of 17 kN/m2. What is the effective
vertical stress 10 m below the seabed?

(b) The sea level rises up and down with the tides.
Does the effective vertical stress change
correspondingly at 10 m below the seabed?
 Question 1.3
In a series of unconsolidated undrained (UU)
triaxial compression tests on a soil specimen, the
following results were obtained at failure.
Determine the values of undrained shear strength
parameters cu and u.

Cell pressure (kPa) Additional axial stress at failure (kPa)

200 70
400 86
600 104
 Question 1.4
In an oedometer test, a specimen of saturated clay
19 mm thick reaches 50% consolidation in 20 min.

(a) How long would it take a layer of this clay 5 m

thick to reach the same degree of consolidation
under the same stress and drainage condition?
(b) How long would it take the layer to reach 30%
consolidation?
 Slope stability and
Earth retaining structures

Professor C F Leung
Ph D, C Eng, P Eng (Geo)
e-mail: ceelcf@nus.edu.sg
 CE 203 Geotechnical Engineering

Slope stability and Earth retaining structures

Introduction to slope stability
Slope and embankments
Active and passive earth pressure
Rigid and flexible retaining structures
Deep excavation
 2. SLOPE STABILITY

2.1 Saturated homogeneous clay

slope (u = 0 analysis)
Temporary excavation of clay slope (e.g.
soil excavation to lay pipes and then
backfill)
 Undrained friction angle of
saturated clay u = 0

Results of unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests on saturated

clay.
Clay has apparent cohesion in the short term. This is termed undrained
(apparent) cohesion cu (equal to radius of the above Mohr circle).
Thus unconfined compressive strength qu = cu x 2.
 Assume circular slip
Below is just one trial slip surface
Moment equilibrium (about centre of slip O)
(1) Disturbing
moment (due to
weight of soil W
inside slip circle)
= Wd
(2) Resisting
(1) moment (due to
shear strength cu
(2) along slip arc)
= cu La R
= cu R2
La is the slip arc length AB
R is the radius of slip circle
Euro Code on Soil Investigation

Note: Eurocode specifies

new SI and test
requirements as well as
interpretation of soil/rock
test results in arriving at
the soil/rock parameters. If
there are only pre-
Eurocode SI reports are
available for design using
Eurocode, engineers need
to interpret/calibrate the
soil parameters for design
using Eurocode.
Soil parameters

If there are insufficient data, use the given soil parameters and make
manual downward adjustment based on experience.
If there are relatively large soil parameter data set (e.g. more than 10
undrained strength data for the same soil at the site), EC7
recommends the adoption of characteristic values, see next slide for
example. These should be the cautious estimate (moderately
conservative) of the soil/rock parameters. These values should be
available in Eurocode compliant GiBR.
 Bulk Unit Weight (Mg/m3)
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
Characteristic value
80

90
e.g. 95% confidence limit.
100 EC7: For the same soil
Depth of Sample (m b.g.l.)

110 parameter, the characteristic

120 value may be different (higher or
130
lower than the mean) depending
140

150
on consequence.
160

170

180

190

200
 Eurocode 7 EC7
(fully implemented in Singapore from Apr 2015)

Partial safety factor approach!

 EC7 terminologies
Design Approach 1 (DA1)
Combination 1 (Comb 1)
Combination 2 (Comb 2)
Must pass both DA1 Comb 1 and DA1 Comb 2.
Following UK, Singapore adopts DA1.
Singapore Annex largely follows UK Annex with
some changes.
DA2 and DA3 are adopted by some other European
countries.
 EC7 terminologies (cont.)
Action (A) dead and live loadings
Material (M) Material strength (soil
strength)
Resistance (R) Resistance (soil resistance)
One need to consider A + M + R.
Fortunately for DA1, partial factor for R = 1 for
most cases (i.e. no need to factor R as long as M is
factored; except for pile design). Hence one needs to
consider A + M only for most cases.
 EC7

Principle of partial safety factor:

(a) Decrease the magnitude of soil strength and hence

resisting moment [Refer to slide on Material later]
(b) Increase the magnitude of disturbing moment [Refer to
slide on Action later].
(c) Require safety factor = factored resisting
moment/factored disturbing moment = at least 1
Warning: The various EC7 scenarios and partial factors can be
complex and confusing!
 Singapore standards
Singapore Standard SS EN 1997-1:2010
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
(reproduced with permission from Eurocode)
Singapore National Annex: NA to SS EN
1997-1:2010 (currently following most of UK
National Annex and likely to be amended once
Singapore engineers gather the experience of
implementing the code in local practice)
Note: UK adopts Design Approach 1 (DA1).
 Do not need to factor

Two combinations (Comb 1 and Comb 2 given above) of DA1 are specified and
the design must be shown to accommodate both combinations. [Simpson 2013]
Pile design has it own partial factors, see above! This will be covered in the pile
section.
 Action A
EC7 Design Approach 1 (DA1) Combination 1 (Comb 1)
Action (loadings) A
Design value Fd
= Characteristic value Fk x Partial factor F
Value of F
(1) Permanent (dead load) unfavourable = 1.35
(2) Permanent favourable = 1
(3) Variable (live load) unfavourable = 1.5
(4) Variable favourable = 0
See next slide!
 Please think about the rationale of adopting different values of F

(4) Variable Favourable (live load at base of slope) [F = 0 for both Combs 1 and 2]

(3) Variable unfavourable

(live load on top of slope)
[F = 1.5 for Comb 1 and 1.3
for Comb 2]

(1) Permanent unfavourable (soil mass

right of vertical red line)
[F = 1.35 for Comb 1 and 1 for Comb 2]

(2) Permanent favourable (soil mass left of vertical red line) [F = 1 for both Combs 1 and 2]
 Material M
For resistance in slope stability analysis, it is mainly due to
soil (material) strength.
DA1 Comb 1
Material M
Design value Xd
= Characteristic value Xk / Partial factor M
Value of M
Friction angle tan = 1
Effective cohesion c =1
Undrained friction angle u = 1
Undrained shear strength cu = 1
Unit weight of soil = 1
i.e. all unfactored
 DA1 Comb 2
Action A (loadings): Value of F
(1) Permanent (dead load) unfavourable = 1
(2) Permanent favourable = 1
(3) Variable (live load) unfavourable = 1.3
(4) Variable favourable = 0

Materials M (Soil strength): Value of M

Friction angle tan = 1.2
Effective cohesion c =1.25
Undrained friction angle u = no recommendation (small magnitude
anyway)
Undrained shear strength cu = 1.4
Unit weight of soil = 1
Craig Example
 Area by geometry

Arc angle and radius by geometry

DA1 Comb 1:

The weight of soil mass is permanent deadload (i.e. permanent unfavourable

action) [F = 1.35]. Thus factored W = 1.35 x 1330 kN/m = 1796 kN/m. [Discuss
simplification!]
cu = 65 kPa [F = 1, i.e. unfactored]

Factor of safety = factored resisting moment/factored disturbing moment

= cu R2 /Wd = (65 kPa x 18.9 m x 12.1 m)/(1796 kN/m x 4.5 m)
= 1.84 > 1 OK for this trial failure slip
DA1 Comb 2

The weight of soil mass is permanent deadload (i.e. permanent unfavourable

action) [F = 1]. Thus factored and unfactored disturbing force is the same.

: Factored cu = 65/1.4 = 46.4 kPa

Factor of safety = factored resisting moment/factored disturbing moment

= cu R2 /Wd = (46.4 kPa x 18.9 m x 12.1 m)/(1330 kN/m x 4.5 m)
= 1.77 > 1 also OK for this trial failure slip

Think of the rationale why Comb 2 safety factor is lower!

Traditional single safety factor
approach

F = unfactored resisting
moment/unfactored disturbing
moment

Required safety factor for temporary slope = at least

1.3 (at least 1.5 for permanent slope)
Traditional single safety factor approach to help you to understand the concept
 Effect of tension cracks

1. La reduced to arc length AC as BC offers no resistance (the

soil has cracked up and hence no contact)
2. Additional disturbing force from cracks filled with water.
Using parameters (cu = 65 kPa, = 19 kN/m3) from the early example,
possible maximum depth of tension crack Zo = 2cu/ = 2x65/19 =
6.84 m. If this is valid, then 6.84 m over the 8 m high slope (massive
85.5% height) would crack up. This normally does not occur (see
next slide). [Note cu has not been factored in this formulation as this
would produce a smaller Zo. Judgment is required from time to time.]

Let us assume the tension crack depth = 2 m (say) and assume BC = 2

m also, re-calculate the safety factor for
(a) Tension cracks without water
(b) Tension cracks filled with water
[Note: Do not apply partial factor to water unit weight. Only apply partial factor
to the resultant water pressure?]

Which of the above is more severe? Are the safety factor still OK?
 Discussions on tension crack
After Bromhead
Important indicator of onset of slope
instability
Tension crack depth Zo (= 2cu/) is
questionable (too deep for stiff soil with
high cu)
Tension crack may only penetrate to water
table and stop there
 Factor of safety F of a slope

Entry point at slope

(1) Along slope face (slope failure)
(2) At slope toe (toe failure)
(3) Along slope base (deep-seated
failure involving larger soil
mass)

It is the absolute minimum of all the safety factors for all potential
failure slips (hundreds of them)
 Procedure to determine F
For each grid point (see next slide) representing the
centre of slip circles, determine values of F for different
entry points (see previous slide). Record the minimum
safety factor value for this grid point.
Repeat the step for other grid points.
Draw contours of F to obtain the minimum F which is the
factor of safety against failure for a given slope. Note
that the minimum F should not appear in the boundary
grid points (Why?).
For EC7, the required absolute minimum safety factor is
at least 1.0. When the safety factor is below 1, the slope
just does not have sufficient safety margin according to
EC7.
There are hundreds or even thousands of slip circles involved to
determine F for a given slope.
 2.2 Taylors (1937) chart
For all geometrically similar slopes (same
slope angle ), the force diagrams are
similar regardless slope height H. Thus
C/W = constant
where C is proportional to (cu/F)H, and
W is proportional to H2
Therefore the dimensionless quantity
cu/(FH) is a constant and termed as
Taylors stability coefficient Ns.
 Taylors chart
Applicable to quick and approximate
estimation for temporary slope excavation
(i.e. total stress analysis involving cu and u)
Factor of safety (of all possible slip
surfaces) F = cu/(Ns H)
where Ns is obtained from the Taylors
chart, is the unit weight of soil and H is
height of slope (see next slide)
Taylors chart
 Example on Taylors chart
Example on Taylors chart (using traditional approach)
Sewerage pipes will be placed in a vertical trench.
Estimate the maximum temporary excavation height
for the pipe installation by adopting a minimum F of
1.3. (Given = 17 kN/m3, u = 0 and cu = 30 kPa, i.e.
firm clay).
(1) Vertical trench implies slope angle = 90o
(2) No information on bedrock so take D as infinity
(3) Ns = 0.26 from Taylors chart
(4) F = 1.3 = 30/(0.26 x 17 x H)
Hence maximum excavation depth H = 5.22 m
[Note: H will decrease significantly with time when
negative excess pore pressure (i.e. suction) has time
to dissipate.]
 ** EC7 DA1 Comb 2
H = cu/(Ns F)
where cu = 30/1.4 = 21.43 kPa
Ns = 0.26 as before
= 17 kN/m3 (partial factor =1)
Required F = 1
Hence H = 4.85 m (smaller than traditional
approach! Why?)
** Redo example using DA1 Comb 1
 Limitations of Taylors chart
Homogeneous soil only
F in terms of cu only (hence not for sand)
Tension crack ignored
Total stress analysis (only for temporary
slope such as the example in previous
slide)
Very Important: To discuss dangers of
temporary vertical and steep cuts! Some
countries ban unsupported steep cuts.
2.3 Infinite slopes
(1) End effect ignored
for a sufficiently long
slope.
(2) Failure plane
(depth z) and water
table (at mz above
failure plane) are
assumed parallel to
the slope surface.
(3) Water flows
parallel to the slope
surface with a simple
flow net (CE2112).
(4) Taking an inclined
slope length of 1 m
as shown, the pore
pressure u (anywhere
on the failure plane)
and weight of soil can
be determined by
geometry (see left).
 Factor of safety F
F = available shear strength f/ mobilized shear
strength
Mohr-Coulomb concept (CE2112)
In terms of total stress (short term/end of
construction) f = cu + tan u
In terms of effective stress (long term)
f = c + ( - u) tan
By geometry (previous slide) [ is slope angle]
= W cos
= W sin
 EC7 approach
Apply partial factor to c, (or cu) and
weight of soil for Comb 1 and Comb 2 as
before
Required F = 1

If geometry (in this case slope angle) has

uncertainties, EC7 recommends
adjustment (upward or downward; in this
case slope angle slightly increases).
 Example
A long natural slope in clay is inclined at = 20o to the
horizontal. The relevant soil parameters are = 18 kN/m3
above water table and sat = 20 kN/m3, c = 20 kPa, =
28o. The depth of the stiff soil layer is z = 4 m. The water
table is observed to be at mz = 2 m below the surface.
Hence evaluate the stability of the slope using
EuroCode. [Take w = 10 kN/m3]
Solution [using equations from previous slides]
m = 2m/4m = 0.5
= W cos = [(1-m)+msat]z cos cos = 67.11 kPa
u = mzw cos2 = 1 x 10 x cos2 (20) x 2 = 17.66 kPa
f = c + ( - u) tan = 20 +(67.11-17.66)tan28 = 46.29 kPa
= W sin = [(1-m)+msat]z cos sin = 24.43 kPa
DA1 Comb 1
Action (loadings): Design value Fd = Characteristic value Fk
x Partial factor F

Value of F
Permanent (dead load) unfavourable = 1.35

(no other loadings in this example)

F = available shear strength f/ mobilized shear

strength
Hence F = 46.29/(24.43 x 1.35) = 1.40
(above unity, OKAY)
 DA1 Comb 2
Action (loadings): Value of F
(1) Permanent (dead load) unfavourable = 1
(2) Permanent favourable = 1
(3) Variable (live load) unfavourable = 1.3
(4) Variable favourable = 0

Resistance (materials): Value of M

Friction angle tan = 1.25
Effective cohesion c =1.25
F = available shear strength f/ mobilized shear strength
Hence F = (46.29/1.25)/24.43 = 1.515
(above unity, OKAY)
Please verify the answers for both parts!
 2.4 Bishops simplified method
To handle a more general analysis involving
different soils, total or effective stress analysis
etc., Bishop simplified method is the most
commonly used.
Assumptions:
Circular slip analysis
Limit equilibrium analysis
Slip surface is divided into a number of slides
An iteration approach by assuming an initial F until the
left hand and right hand F coincides
 Equations
In terms of total stress (temporary excavation)
Factor of safety of a trial slip surface F
= {(cub + W tan u) sec /(1 + tan tan
u/F)}/(W sin )

In terms of effective stress (permanent excavation)

F = {(cb + [W - ub]tan ) sec /(1 + tan
tan /F)}/(W sin )
 Symbols
b = width of individual slice,
W = weight soil within each slice,
= angle of inclination of base of each slice with
respect to horizontal
u = pore pressure at mid-base of each slice
Use the shear strength parameters of the soil that
is in contact with the base of the given slice
[Note: water greatly affects slope stability as it
increases W and u and reduces soil strength.]
Example on Bishop method, see previous slide for slope configuration

The above are given parameters and also be obtained by geometry or computer.

========
======================
From C R Scott
 DA1 Comb 2 is illustrated first as this is more straight
forward due to no unfavourable variable action. Hence
only c and tan needs to be factored by 1.25.
Upper Soil (in contact with the base of slides 6 and 7)
Factored c = 15/1.25 = 12 kPa
Factored tan = (tan 20)/1.25 = 0.291
Factored = 16.20
Lower Soil (in contact with the base of slides 1 to 5)
Factored c = 8/1.25 = 6.4 kPa
Factored tan = (tan 25)/1.25 = 0.373
Factored = 20.50

Calculations are illustrated next page. Please check the calculations!

Also refer to EXCEL file provided.
DA1 Comb 2 pore pressure coefficient
(1) ru=ub/W (2) (3)
Slide no. W w sin c' b c'b tan ' u ru W(1-ru)tan'
kN/m degree kN/m kPa m kN/m kPa kN/m (1) + (2)

1 27.7 -28.0 -13.0 6.4 2 12.8 0.373 2.1 0.152 8.77 21.57
2 96.5 -13.5 -22.5 6.4 2 12.8 0.373 7.1 0.147 30.70 43.50
3 148.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 2 12.8 0.373 11.1 0.150 46.92 59.72
4 188.7 13.5 44.0 6.4 2 12.8 0.373 13.8 0.146 60.09 72.89
5 199.8 28.0 93.8 6.4 2 12.8 0.373 14.8 0.148 63.48 76.28
6 148.0 44.5 103.7 12 2 24 0.291 11.2 0.151 36.55 60.55
7 37.0 61.5 32.5 12 1 12 0.291 5.7 0.154 9.11 21.11
SUM 238.6

1st try F = 1 first 2nd try F= 1.572

(4) (4)
Slide no. m=sec/( 1 + tan tan '/F) m=sec/( 1 + tan tan '/F)
m (3) x (4) m (3) x (4)

1 1.413 30.47 1.296 27.95

2 1.130 49.13 1.091 47.44
3 1.000 59.72 1.000 59.72
4 0.944 68.80 0.973 70.92
5 0.945 72.10 1.006 76.72
6 1.090 66.01 1.186 71.83
7 1.364 28.80 1.563 32.99
375.04 387.56
First trial F = 1.57 Second trial F = 1.62
The answer is to going to converge soon. Try this yourself.
 DA1 Comb 1 is illustrated next. c and tan needs not
be factored for both upper and lower soil.
There is no live load.
Permanent action
Favourable ones are slices with negative values (why?) e.g.
slices 1 and 2 (W needs not be factored for these slices)
Slice 3 has = 0 (neither favourable nor unfavourable), multiply
W of slice 3 (for denominator only) by 1.35 times (OK?)
Unfavourable ones are slices with positive values. That is
slices 4 to 7. Multiply W of each slice (for denominator only) by
1.35.
Water pressure u should not be multiplied, i.e. factor = 1 (Is this
conservative?)
Discuss problem associated with Comb 1! [Why F of Comb 2 result
is much lower than that of Comb 1?]
Calculations are illustrated next page. Please check the calculations!
DA1 Comb 1
Factored Unfactored (1) Unfactored
Slide no. W Factor W w sin c' b c'b tan ' u
kN/m kN/m degree kN/m kPa m kN/m kPa

1 27.7 1 27.7 -28.0 -13.0 8 2 16 0.466 2.1

2 96.5 1 96.5 -13.5 -22.5 8 2 16 0.466 7.1
3 148.0 1.35 199.8 0.0 0.0 8 2 16 0.466 11.1
4 188.7 1.35 254.7 13.5 59.5 8 2 16 0.466 13.8
5 199.8 1.35 269.7 28.0 126.6 8 2 16 0.466 14.8
6 148.0 1.35 199.8 44.5 140.0 15 2 30 0.364 11.2
7 37.0 1.35 50.0 61.5 43.9 15 1 15 0.364 5.7
SUM 334.5
pore pressure coefficient 1st try F = 1 first 2nd try F= 1.376
ru=ub/W (2) (3) (4) (4)
IMPORTANT
Slide no. ru W(1-ru)tan' m=sec/( 1 + tan tan '/F) m=sec/( 1 + tan tan '/F) NOTE:
kN/m (1) + (2) m (3) x (4) m (3) x (4) Do not factor
1 0.152 10.95 26.95 1.506 40.58 1.381 37.23 up the W in
2 0.147 38.35 54.35 1.158 62.94 1.119 60.84 the
3 0.150 58.62 74.62 1.000 74.62 1.000 74.62
numerator
4 0.146 75.07 91.07 0.925 84.24 0.951 86.62
5 0.148 79.31 95.31 0.908 86.51 0.960 91.47 as it is a
6 0.151 45.72 75.72 1.033 78.19 1.113 84.25 resisting
7 0.154 11.39 26.39 1.255 33.11 1.409 37.19
460.19 472.23
force.
First trial F = 1.38 Second trial F = 1.41
The answer is to going to converge soon. Try this yourself.
Traditional approach

Using unfactored load and

strength
F > 1.3 for temporary slope
F > 1.5 for permanent slope
Example is in terms of effective stress
Note: ru = pore pressure coefficient = ub/W;
m = sec /(1 + tan tan /F)

Solution is by trial and error

 Factor of safety F
The above example only gives a factor of safety against
slope failure for a given trial slip surface. Many trials
need to be carried out to obtain F of all possible trial
slices and the factor of safety of a slope is the absolute
minimum F of all F values determined.
Hence computer program is required to handle the
analysis.
Number of slices required:
Minimum 7 to 10 number of slices
Accuracy would not improve much if > 30 nos of slices are used
Use effective soil parameters c, and water pressure u
(long term is more critical) except for temporary cuts.
 Discussions

Circular and non-circular failure slips

Effect of water table
High water table implies higher pore water
pressure. Hence slope is more critical!
Submerged slopes
Slope is more stable if there is water in front of
slope (e.g. seaside or waterside slopes. Thus
need to evaluate lowest tide condition!)
 Embankment (short term is critical)
uo = original pore
Embankment pressure (before
construction)

u = excess pore
pressure built up due to
embankment
construction

tc = time at end of
construction

Factor of safety of slope F increases with time, use total stress analysis!

time After Craig

 Cut slope (long term is usually more critical)
uo = original pore pressure (before construction)
u = excess pore pressure built up (negative due to
slope excavation, i.e. soil is swelling)
uf = final long term steady state pore pressure
tc = time at end of excavation

Slope excavation

After Craig
Factor of safety of slope F
Generally adopt effective stress analysis. If not sure, conduct both
total and effective stress analysis to evaluate the critical case.
 Tell-tale signs of slope failure
Development of cracks especially near the
edges
Abrupt changes in a short period of time
soil settlement
lateral soil movement
pore water pressure
[Note: quickly stabilize slope base area if
there are danger signs]
 2.5 Remedial measures for unstable
slopes
Cut and fill approach
Cut at slop crest or fill at the slope base
External support approach
Bored piles, sheet piles, retaining wall, soil
nails, ground anchors
Soil improvement approach
Vegetation, drainage improvement,
geosynthetics, shotcrete
 Slope
failed &
house had
moved
down
Drainage channels
Shotcrete
on slope
protection
on slope
Contiguous bored pile
to stabilise slope

Cut back
of slope Piles
crest
Slope stability software
Slope-W computer program
 2A Derbyshire Road

1.555

Description: Fill
Unit Weight: 17.5
103 Cohesion: 25
101
Description: Peaty clay
99 Unit Weight: 14
97 Cohesion: 20
95
93 Description: Marine clay
91 Unit Weight: 15
89 Cohesion: 20
87
85
83
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Fig. 11
Effects of geology on slope stability
Weathering of soils and rocks (slope becomes not
so stable)
Rock joints (rock is hard but slide may occur
along weakness plane such as rock joint; water
seepage through joint also weakens the slope)
Unsaturated soil slope can stand steep due to
suction in unsaturated soil. The slope may become
unstable when saturated after heavy downpours.
 2.6 Embankment
Slope stability concern at both edges under
embankment loading
Preloading using an embankment

The purpose is to accelerate consolidation settlement using

preloading/surcharge such that the remaining settlement under
working condition is relatively small. This is a continuation of
Section 1.6 on soil consolidation.
 2.7 Earth pressures
Permanent Retaining structures:
use effective stress soil parameters drained
cohesion c and friction angle plus water
pressure

Temporary Retaining Structures:

use total stress soil parameters undrained
cohesion cu and friction angle u
 Earth pressure at rest
Earth pressure at rest situation:
Wall is fixed and therefore soil cannot move
Fixed
wall
 Earth pressure at rest
Vertical pressure at a given elevation
= v = z
where is the unit weight of the soil, and
z is the depth of soil below ground level

Lateral pressure = po = Ko z
where Ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest
= OCR0.5 (1 - sin )
where OCR = overconsolidation ratio
[=1-sin for normally consolidated (soft) clay; >1 for
overconsolidated (stiff) clay.]
 Active earth pressure
Soil pushes wall (soil behind a retaining wall situation)
 Active earth pressure coefficient Ka
There is stress relief in the lateral direction
due to soil moving out towards wall.
Thus the major principal stress 1 is in the
vertical direction and minor principal stress
3 is in the horizontal direction
Active earth pressure pa at a given elevation
= Ka z - 2c sqrt(Ka)
where Ka = tan2(45 - /2)
 Passive earth pressure

Wall pushes soil (soil in front of retaining wall situation)

Passive earth pressure coefficient Kp
There is stress built-up in the lateral
direction as soil is squeezed by wall.
Thus the major principal stress 1 is in the
lateral direction and minor principal stress
3 is in the vertical direction
Passive earth pressure pp at a given
elevation = Kp z + 2c sqrt(Kp)
where Kp = tan2(45 + /2)
What you have learned so far is the Rankine earth pressure theory

At
rest

Active pressure: pa < po and only small wall outward movement

(of the order 0.1% of retaining wall height) is necessary to
mobilize pa.
Passive pressure: pp >> po and large wall inward movement
(of the order of 3% of wall height) is necessary to mobilize pp.
 Earth pressure thrust
For a single soil with no water table, the pressure
distribution is triangular (see earlier figures).
The total pressure against the wall is termed as the
earth pressure thrust.
Thus active pressure thrust PA
= 0.5 Ka H2 - 2c sqrt(Ka)H (unit kN/m run)
where H is the height of retaining wall.
 Earth pressure thrust
Passive earth pressure thrust PP
= 0.5 Kp H2 + 2c sqrt(Kp)H (unit kN/m run)

Soil parameters --
For permanent wall, use effective stress soil parameters
c and
For temporary wall (e.g. temporary sheet pile wall for
excavation), use total stress soil parameters cu and u
 Effects of surcharge, water and soil layers

This is the general situation (note: need to take care

of zi or H to arrive at kN/m run of wall)
PA = Kai (q + izi) - 2ci sqrt(Kai) + wHw
PP = Kpi (q + izi) + 2ci sqrt(Kpi) + wHw
Use (1) c, Ka and Kp of present soil layer
(2) of respective soil layer
(3) for soil above water table and effective soil
unit weight (= - w) for soil below water table
(4) Hw is height of water table above wall base.
 Critical effect of water pressure
From the previous slide, you may note that water has
no Ka (i.e. its K = 1 because it is a liquid). Thus
water pressure can be a major component of the
pressure thrust on a wall especially for sandy
backfill (with Ka << 1). Thus it is good to let the
water behind a retaining wall to drain away as
quickly as possible. That is
Place sand between wall and impermeable
cohesive backfill
Provide weep holes at the wall and maintain
them properly during service life of wall
Craig Example 6.1
Craig Example 6.2
Comments:
(1) For retaining wall, backfill is used. Thus soil profile is simple and
earth pressure calculations are easier.
(2) For sheet pile wall, in-situ soils are involved. The soil profile can
be complex and earth pressure calculations are very tedious.
 2.8 Rigid retaining walls
Stability of wall relies on the weight of wall
and soil above the wall.
Soil above wall base
increases wall stability

soil
Gravity Soil
Wall (active
pressure) soil Cantilever
Soil
wall
(passive
pressure)
 Sequence of rigid wall construction

(b) Base reinforcement

(a) Cutting of (c) Stem
back slope reinforcement

(d) Construction in progress (e) Completed wall

 Weep hole
Old fashion rigid to drain away Reinforced earth
retaining wall water wall (AYE Ayer
Rajah Crescent)

Crib wall at Close-up view

Hillview Ave of crib
 Design checks
Reinforcement of cantilever wall by
structural engineers
(Caution: wrong re-bar design and placement
had caused many wall failures)

Global slope stability check -- the whole

slope including the retaining wall may fail
 Design check against sliding
Wall may fail by sliding laterally
Factor of safety against sliding failure
F = (Horizontal resistance)/( Horizontal force)
where horizontal resistance = W.tan,
W is total weight of wall and soil above wall base
and is the angle of friction between wall base
and soil (typically about 0.5 to 0.67)
and horizontal force is the active pressure thrust on
the wall.
 Sliding check (cont.)
Sliding check follows Comb 1 and Comb 2
(similar to slope)
In many instances, sliding is the most critical case
for wall stability. If F against sliding is
insufficient, a key may be provided at the base to
enhance stability.

wall Additional passive resistance

is provided in the form of a key
at the wall base to resist sliding
key
Design check against overturning
Wall may fail by overturning and design is by
examining moment about the wall toe.
F = ( resisting moment about toe)
/( overturning moment about toe)
wall
PA
W
Moment arm
toe
Moment
arm
 EC7 DA1 for overturning check
EC7: Equilibrium (EQU) check.
Just do one check (i.e. no need to go
through Comb 1 and Comb 2)
Material strength reduction factor (use Comb 2
material partial factors), plus
Action partial factors
Permanent unfavourable 1.1
Permanent favourable 0.9
Variable unfavourable 1.5
Variable favourable 0
 Bearing capacity design check
R = resultant of wall e = eccentricity
W and PA = B/2 - (moment due to
B = wall base width W - moment due to
PA at mid-wall base)/W
R
W

PA
Pmax = (W/B)(1+6e/B) e Pmin = (W/B)(1-6e/B)
O.5B
should be < allowable & should be > 0
bearing capacity pmin I.e. e < B/6
pmax [middle third rule]
Base pressure distribution
 Summary of EC7 checks
GEO checks (Geotechnical stability checks)
Sliding
Bearing capacity
This follows the same approach as slope stability
Comb 1 and Comb 2 checks
EQU check (Equilibrium check)
Overturning
Please refer to example later
Example on rigid wall (from Craig)

Traditional single safety factor approach

Discuss lever arm due to EC7!

Traditional approach
For sliding check For overturning check

Moment arm in terms of heel.

 Traditional appro

This F is below the required 1.75

F would be much lower if there is no 40kPa on top of wall.

 Sliding check (EuroCode)
The example appears to imply that the 40 kPa surcharge is a
permanent load. Let us assume this to start with.
DA1 Comb 1 (refer to calculations last slide)
F=(1.0)[(stem)+(base)+(soil)+(load)](tan)/1.35[(1)+(2)]
={(1.0)(35.3+28.2+148.8+70)tan30o}/{(1.35)(47.5+54.6)}
= 163.0/137.8 = 1.181 > 1; OK
DA1 Comb 2
tan/1.25 = 0.462
F = [(stem)+(base)+(soil)+(load)](tan/1.25)/1.0[(1)+(2)]
= {(35.3+28.2+148.8+70)0.462}/{(1.0)(47.5+54.6)}
= 130.4/102.1 = 1.277 > 1; OK
In practice, the 40kPa is likely a live load (variable action).
As such, the 40kPa on top of the wall cannot be relied upon
as it is a favourable variable action for sliding. However,
active pressure (1) should still be there as it is unfavourable
variable load. That is no surcharge on top of wall but it is
there behind the wall for the worst case. For such case
DA1 Comb 1
F= (1.0)(35.3+28.2+148.8+0)tan30o/{1.5x47.5+1.35x54.6}
= 122.6/145.0 = 0.846 < 1; Not OK
DA1 Comb 2 {tan/1.25 = 0.462}
F= {(35.3+28.2+148.8+0)0.462}/{1.3x47.5+1x54.6}
= 98.1/116.4 = 0.843 < 1; Not OK
Hence it is important to identify the favourable/unfavourable and
permanent/variable action correctly! Question: If we want to achieve
F >1, how much surcharge needs to be reduced?
 Overturning check
Just do one check (i.e. no need to go through Comb 1 and
Comb 2)
Material strength reduction factor (use Comb 2 material
partial factors), plus
Action partial factors
Permanent unfavourable 1.1
Permanent favourable 0.9
Variable unfavourable 1.5
Variable favourable 0
Note: Moment (last column rather than second
column of the earlier slide) is involved for
overturning check.
No 40 kPa surcharge on top of wall (variable
action) and 40 kPa surcharge behind wall
F={([(stem)+(base)+(soil)+(load)](tan/1.25)}/{1.5(1)+1.1(2)]
={(67.0+42.3+130.2+0)0.462}/{(1.5x128.2+1.1 x 98.3)}
= 110.8/300.4 = 0.369 < 1; Not OK

Overturning is a big problem!

Let us use the traditional unfactored method to
examine the middle third rule (see next page).
 e = eccentricity = B/2 - (moment due to
unfactored W - moment due to PA at mid-
wall base)/unfactored W
Refer to table several slides earlier
Moments for PA do not change = 128.2 + 98.3 =
226.5 kNm/m
Moment due to W (moment arm to mid-wall base)
stem 35.5 kN/m x 0.4 m = 14.2 kNm/m
base (moment arm = 0) = 0
Soil 148.8 kN/m x (-0.625 m) = -93 kNm/m
As before, 40 kPa on top of wall cannot be
counted
 Unfactored W = 35.3+28.2+148.8+0 =
212.3
e = 3/2 {[226.5 - (14.2 - 93)]/212.3}
= 1.5 m 1.438 m = 0.062 m which is
within the middle third.
 Bearing capacity check
You will learn this during the shallow
foundation part. The soil must be able to
resist the maximum loading pressure at the
wall toe Pmax = (W/B)(1+6e/B)

The traditional factor of safety method is

given in the next slide.
Craig 8th Edition EC7 example
BCA on slope protection structure
2.9

Sheet pile
wall
Sheet piles are commonly used for
(a) temporary excavation [as they can be re-used again)
(b) permanent water front structure
Sheet pile cofferdam
Sheet pile wall anchored by ground anchors
(for deeper excavation)
Ground anchor

Waler

Close-up view
of ground
anchor
 Cantilever Sheet pile wall

Steel
sheet
pile

Simplified design approach

 Cantilever sheet pile wall
Design approach (see fig. (c) of last slide)
Dredged level h is given
Determine PA (behind wall) and PP (in front of
wall) in terms of depth of penetration d [Some
engineers divide Pp by 1.5 for extra safety]
Take moment about C to avoid R and to obtain
depth of penetration required d
Increase d by 20% to account for the
simplification in design
 Anchored sheet pile wall

Net of water
pressure for
both sides

If h is large, it is necessary to install an anchor to help stability.

 Anchored sheet pile wall
Design:
Take moment about A to avoid T and hence d is
obtained
Once d is obtained, determine T by horizontal
force equilibrium. I.e. T = Pp - Pa
Increase d by 20% and T by required factor of
safety (typical value 2)
Sheet pile section design (for cantilever wall also)
Work out bending moment from pressure diagram
and choose pile section that can resist the moment.
Choose pile section that can resist the bending moment
Example on sheet pile wall (from Craig)
Traditional single safety factor approach
 Craigs Soil Mechanics 8 th Edn
EC examples on sheet pile wall
DA1a = DA1 Comb 1
DA1b = DA1 Comb 2
 2.10 Deep excavation
Retaining wall type Support type
Soldier pile & lagging Lateral strut
Sheet pile wall Raker (inclined strut)
Contiguous bored piles Berm
Diaphragm wall Ground anchors
Nil support or single support walls. Applicable for stiff soils and/or
shallow excavation. Previous sheet pile wall analysis is valid.
 Refer to
case studies
later

Multiple support walls: analysis is empirical.

 2
5

4 (strut)

3 (King post)
Connection details between strut and king post
 Deep excavation construction sequence

First stage excavation Placing of waler on bracing King post

Placing of strut on
king post and waler
Proceed to second stage excavation
 Tanjong Pagar Station under
construction in 1980s

Weak
rock:
Only lean
concrete
required
for such a
deep
excavation

Stiff soils: Timber lagging with ground anchors

 Typical modes of failures

Wall and support

too weak

Soil too soft

Design against base heave

F > 1.5 for temporary excavation

F > 2 for permanent excavation
Earth pressure on supports

Pecks apparent
pressure diagram
 Settlement behind wall
(Distance from excavation)/(Maximum depth of excavation)
 Settlement behind wall
Zone I: Sand and soft to hard clay average
workmanship
Zone II: a) Very soft to soft clay
1) Limited depth of clay below bottom of
excavation
2) Significant depth of clay below bottom of
excavation but N < 5.14
b) Settlements affected by construction difficulties
Zone III: Very soft to soft clay to a significant depth
below bottom of excavation and with N > 5.14
[Stability number N = H/cb]
 Ground settlement
Excessive ground movements when
excavation is allowed to proceed too deep
before uppermost strut is placed
layer of stiff clay for sheet pile embedment
is located at great depth
strength of sheet piles and struts inadequate
For the empirical methods covered
in deep excavation section
Traditional single safety factor
approach is presented first.
Example on temporary deep excavation
Base heave check:
F = Nbc/(H + q)
where Nb = 5.5 for a strip
excavation with H/B = 7/20 =
0.35,
c = cu = 15 kPa,
Average
Cu = 15 kPa H=7m
= 16 kN/m3
Thus F = 0.67
grossly inadequate as
expected for excavation in
soft clay. The retaining wall
needs to penetrate deeper into
Width of excavation B = 20 m
sound formation to prevent
base heave.
 For temporary excavation in soft clay, it is not
necessary to consider water pressure but use full .

Earth
pressure

Assuming soft clay below excavation depth, take m = 0.4

Settlement behind wall: Stability number N = H/cb
= 16 x 7/15 = 7.5 > 5.14. Worst scenario Zone III soil.
Settlement is expected to be very large.
 EuroCode compliant
CIRIA 760 (published in 2017)
Guidance on embedded retaining wall
design
by A Gaba et al. Arup London

The document has just been published.

Not expected to appear in FEE Exam.
 Ground movements can be
minimized
Adequate strutting especially at the lower
strut levels
providing sufficiently large section modulus
for the sheet pile
driving the sheet pile to sufficient depth in
stiffer soil
 Practical considerations to minimize
ground movement
good monitoring program
reduce storage of materials adjacent to
excavation
excavation of soft soil in small and alternate
stages
cross-strutting and attachment to king post must
be done as soon as possible
wedging or jacking to maintain tight contact for
all bracing members
preloading of struts to remove Preloading
slackness of support system jack
Chicken feet to
spread load at
waler and corner

Cut and cover

while excavation proceeds
below
 Basement slab
(usually very thick
and heavily reinforced
to resist uplift)

Water proofing basement slab, side wall and column base

 Effects of geology on deep excavation

As mentioned in Section 1, the thin dense sand

layer between soil and rock may cause severe
water seepage into excavation site
Some soils/rocks may be susceptible to swelling
when exposed upon excavation
The retaining wall must cut through the permeable
sand layer. This may not be feasible in some cities
such as Berlin with very deep sand layer.
Significant efforts are required to keep the water
seepage low and the soil movements behind wall
manageable. Case study, see next slide.
 Sand (which is highly permeable)
below sheet pile wall base caused
large amount of water inflow into
site during excavation

Excessive settlement
results in the
neighborhood
(due to rapid
drawdown of water
behind wall)
 Important points
Water is a major culprit in retaining
structures and water behind retaining walls
should be drained away quickly
Deep excavation analysis: base heave,
pressure acting on strut and ground
settlement
Ground settlement is a major concern for
deep excavation in soft soil and needs to be
monitored frequently.
2.11 Assignment
 Question 2.1
(a) Re-do Craig Example 2.1 using Taylors chart.
After determining the safety factor for the slope,
comment whether the temporary slope
excavation is sufficiently safe or not.
(b) Discuss the limitations of Taylors chart. Hence
comment on whether the safety factor obtained
(a) is on the conservative or unconservative side.
Is the temporary slope excavation is still
sufficiently safe in view of your comment.
 Question 2.2
A long slope is to be formed in a soil of unit weight of 19
kN/m3 for which the shear strength c = 0 and = 36o.
(a) If it is to be assumed that the water table may
occasionally rise to the surface, determine the maximum
slope angle to ensure a safety factor of 1.5, assuming a
potential failure surface parallel to the slope.
(b) What would be the safety factor of the slope, formed at
this angle, if the water table were well below the surface?
 Question 2.3
The figure on next slide shows details of a reinforced
concrete retaining wall. The unit weight of the concrete is
23.5 kN/m3. Owing to adequate drainage, the water table has
risen to the level indicated. Above the water table the unit
weight of the retained soil is 17 kN/m3 and below the water
table, the saturated unit weight is 20 kN/m3.The shear
strength of the soil is c = 0 and = 38o. The angle of friction
between the base of the wall and the foundation is 25o.
Determine the maximum and minimum pressures under
the base and the safety factor against sliding. Would the
wall overturn?
Question 2.3 (cont.)
 Question 2.4
A water front sheet pile cantilever retaining wall is to
be built with the seabed in front of the wall dredged
to 6 m depth. The soil is stiff clay with unit weight of
20 kN/m3, c = 30 kPa and = 28o. The water table
is 1 m below the ground behind the wall and 3 m in
front of the wall at low tide. Determine the sheet
pile penetration depth required below the
dredged level.
 Question 2.5
A deep excavation is to be carried out in a soil
profile with top 10 m of soft marine clay with unit
weight 16 kN/m3 and undrained shear strength of 12
kPa underlain by stiff clay with unit weight of 20
kN/m3 and undrained shear strength of 80 kPa. A 3-
storey basement construction requires the excavation
depth to be at 10 m. Is there any base heave
problem for this deep excavation?
Geotechnical Engineering
Foundation

Prof C F Leung
e-mail: ceelcf@nus.edu.sg
 CE 203 Geotechnical Engineering
Foundation Engineering
Site investigation and interpretation of soil
reports
Shallow foundation
Deep foundation
Selection of appropriate foundation type
Capacity and settlement requirements
3.1 Site investigation

Purpose of site investigation is

to determine the subsurface
profile and properties
Euro Code within BS

Note: When
EuroCode is
implemented,
engineers may
need to
interpret/calibrate
the soil parameters
for design using
EuroCode from
existing site
investigation
reports conducted
using British Code.
Further comparisons on soils and rocks are given in the GeoSS Guide.
BS EN ISO 17882:2014
Geotechnical investigation and testing
Laboratory testing of soils

Part 1: Determination of water content

Part 2: Determination of bulk density
Part 3: Determination of particle density
Part 4: Determination of particle size distribution
Part 5: Incremental loading oedometer test
Part 6: Fall cone test
Part 7: Unconfined compression test on fine-grained soils
Part 8: Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
Part 9: Consolidated triaxial compression tests on water-saturated soils
Part 10: Direct shear tests
Part 11: Determination of permeability by constant and falling head
Part 12: Determination of Atterberg limits
Glimpse of EuroCode SI requirements

(From Craigs Soil Mechanics 8th Edn)

Class 1: Best sample quality and most useful
Classes 1 and 2 must be from undisturbed soil samples.

(From Craigs Soil Mechanics 8th Edn)

Boring
machine
Correct ground water
table measurement is
important
Site investigation using a pontoon (shallow water)
 Offshore soil investigation

Jack-up barge to
conduct soil
investigation
Boring methods:
(1) Percussion
boring
(a) Percussion boring rig (b) Shell [to collect soft soil]
(c) Clay cutter (d) chisel to break stiffer soil
Short- Hand
flight auger Continuous Bucket auger
flight auger
auger
(2) Auger boring
(3) Wash (4) Rotary
boring drilling
technique technique

Soil/rock
Soil cut by
cut by hydraulic
hydraulic pressure
pressure & coring
bit
(for stiff soil)
(for soft soil)
(less sample disturbance)
Sampling tubes
Sample extruder

Undisturbed soil
samples
Core box containing highly fractured rocks
Core box containing sound rock
Rock Quality Designation RQD

Note:
The core
run can be
100 cm or
200 cm
length
Often RQD is the only rock data available!

Fracture state RQD value

Very poor 0 % to 25%
Poor 25% to 50%
Fair 50% to 75%
Good 75% to 90%
Excellent 90% to 100%
Sample borehole log
Recommended symbols for soils and rocks
 In-situ tests
Tests conducted in the field during
site investigation to obtain soil/rock
type, strength and stiffness
(Must do in cases where undisturbed
soil/rock samples cannot be
obtained for laboratory tests)
(A)
Standard penetration test
(SPT)

[BS1377:1990 Part 9]
Close-up
view of
65-kg
SPT hammer

1 blow =
63.5 kg hammer
drop of 76 cm
SPT
Process:
(1) 1st 150 mm penetration ignored
(2) N value (standard penetration resistance)
is defined as the number of blows required to
penetrate the last 300 mm
(3) Test terminated at
(a) full penetration of 450 mm (i.e. 150+300) or
(b) 100 blows (penetration after the initial
penetration of 150 mm is recorded).
Extrapolated N value e.g. 100 blows for a
penetration of 100 mm implies that
the extrapolated N value is 300.
Results:
(1) Sand --
N values Relative density
0 to 4 Very loose (low friction angle)
4 to 10 Loose
10 to 30 Medium
30 to 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense (high friction angle)

Loose sand -- friction angle ~ 30o

Dense sand -- friction angle ~ 40o
(2) Clay --
Undrained shear strength
cu = 5 to 6 times N values (unit kPa)

Marine clay N = 0 to 2;
Stiff clay (e.g. silty clay) N values 15 onwards

(3) Rock --
Extrapolated N values up to 1000 for weak rock.
Strength of weak rock > 1 MPa.
Tests cannot be conducted on stronger rock
because of penetration refusal.
(B) Cone Penetration Test
(CPT)
[BS5930: 1981]

Today, CPTU (CPT with pore

pressure measurement) is
commonly carried out.
20 ton CPT rig
Piezocone
(CPTU)

Cone
Penetrometer
plus
piezometer
 BS5930:1981 recommendations:
1. Cone cross-sectional area should be 1000 mm2
and cone apex angle should be 60o
2. Friction jacket surface area should be 15,000 mm2
3. Rate of penetration should be 20 mm/s (+/- 5 mm/s)
4. Force and pressure measurements
should be accurate to within 5%
5. Tests not suitable for stiff soils
Measurements:
1. Cone (point) resistance and sleeve resistance will give
soil strength and type (see following figure).
2. Pore pressure will give further information on clay
such as degree of consolidation etc.
CPT
data
interpretation
(C) Vane shear test setup [BS1377:1990 (Part 9)]
The undrained
shear strength
cu is calculated
from the
expression:

T (measured
torque)
= cu(D2H/2
+ D3/6)

where
D = vane
diameter &
H = vane
height
(D) Pressuremeter

Expansion of cylinder
(= contraction of soil)
is measured against
applied pressure
Typical
pressure-
meter
test
record
Typical data
plot of pressure
versus radius
of cylinder

The pressuremeter
modulus is related
to the gradient
of the linear
portion of the
pressure/radius
response and is an
indication of the
stiffness of the
soil/rock.
(E) Plate load test (generally for shallow foundation design)
 Plate settlement
is measured
against applied
load to measure
stiffness
Plate of soil/rock
load at test
test elevation

Deadweight
loading system
Limitation of plate load test
September 2016

Update of 2003 advisory note.

EC7 requirements on SI report
GeoSS Guide
 Bulk Unit Weight (Mg/m3)
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
Characteristic value
80

90
e.g. 95% confidence limit.
100 EC7: For the same soil
Depth of Sample (m b.g.l.)

110 parameter, the characteristic

120 value may be different (higher or
130
lower than the mean) depending
140

150
on consequence.
160

170

180

190

200
 Interpretation of soil reports
Are the soil profile and properties
interpreted correctly?
Are the properties obtained from various
laboratory and field tests consistent?
Any unreasonable/unexpected properties
for a given soil!
Any severe sample disturbance!
Overview of probable foundation type.
 Effects of geology
How does one conduct an accurate soil
investigation to detect (not knowing it before hand)
Correct identification of soil/rock types
(need good experience)
Bouldery clay
Limestone and its cavities
Folds
Identify potential water seepage problems
 3.2 Shallow Foundation
Bearing capacity theory
Modes of bearing capacity failure include (a)
general shear, (b) local shear, and (c) punching
shear (see figures on next slide).
The ultimate bearing capacity, qf, is defined as
the least pressure which would cause shear
failure of the supporting soil immediately below
and adjacent to a foundation.
General shear

Local shear (soft soil)

Punching shear (very soft soil)

 Using plasticity theory, the ultimate
bearing capacity of the soil under a
shallow strip footing of width B can be
expressed by the following general
equation (due to Terzaghi)
qf = O.5BN + cu Nc + DNq
where is the soil unit weight,
D is the depth of foundation from ground
surface,
cu is undrained cohesive strength of soil,
and N, Nc and Nq are bearing capacity
factor (see figure on next slide).
Soil friction angle

Bearing capacity factors

 Circular footing
Using the empirical shape factor approach sc
(=1.2 for circular footing), the ultimate bearing
capacity qf for a circular footing of
diameter B

qf = 0.3 B N + 1.2 cu Nc + D Nq
 Rectangular footing
The ultimate capacity of a rectangular
footing is given by

qf = 0.5(1 0.2B/L) B N
+ (1 + 0.2 B/L) cu Nc + D Nq

where L is length of foundation

 Foundation on saturated clay
(u = 0)
For saturated clay with undrained friction
angle u = 0, the ultimate bearing capacity
can be reduced to a simplified form:

qf = cu Nc + D
where Nc is Skemptons bearing capacity
factor (see figure on next slide)
Skemptons bearing capacity factor
 Effect of water table
All the above solutions apply only when the
water table are below the potential rupture zone
of the footing. qf may be greatly reduced due to
the presence of water within the rupture zone.
The general rule for bearing capacity
calculations is to use for soil above water table
and submerged unit weight = - w
for soil below water table.
If unsure, use for a conservative solution.
 Eccentric loading
In the case of eccentric loading due to
moment ML along the axis of foundation
length and moment MB along the axis of
foundation width, ultimate bearing capacity
qf may be computed using the general
formula based on effective foundation
dimensions B and L.
 The effective dimensions are obtained based on
the actual foundation dimension as well as the
corresponding eccentricity effect as follows:
B = B - 2e
and L = L - 2e
where eB =ML/V
eL =MB/V
and V = vertical load.
 Factor of safety
Factor of safety against bearing capacity
failure

F = (qf - D)/(q - D)

where qf is ultimate bearing capacity, q is

allowable loading pressure.
 Selection of foundation
dimensions
For a new project, the soil strength cu and u,
unit weight and position of water table must be
determined from site investigation. A desired
factor of safety (typically at least 3) is chosen.
By varying B, L and possibly D by trial and error,
the allowable loading pressure q must be
greater than the foundation loading pressure.
I.e. The applied vertical load V < allowable
vertical load PV = qa BL for a rectangular
foundation.
Craig 8th Edition EC7 examples

Solution next page

Example 1 on shallow foundation (from Craig, Traditional
single factor safety approach)
 Example 2 on shallow foundation
(from Craig, Traditional approach)
 Example 3 on shallow foundation
(from Craig, Traditional approach)
 Shallow foundation settlement
Ultimate settlement = immediate
settlement + consolidation settlement +
secondary consolidation settlement
(creep)
Shallow foundation on sand: immediate
settlement only (see next 2 slides)
Standard penetration resistance
N value (blow count)
Use average N value for within 3B below
footing base for strip footing and within
1.5B for square or circular footing.
Clay -- use Cu = 5N and proceed to use
the above calculations.
Sand -- use chart from next slide. Choose
the foundation width based on average N
value and loading pressure.
Immediate
settlement si
for
foundation
on saturated
clay

where q = loading
pressure, B =
foundation width, E
= Youngs modulus
of soil.
Stress in
soil
(Fadums
chart)
The increase in
stress at depth z
due to foundation
(dimension mz by
nz) loading
pressure q
= qIr

Discuss spread of
load approach!
Stress bulb
Strip foundation:
Stress bulb to
depth 3B

Square foundation:
Stress bulb to depth
of 1.5B below
foundation
Consolidation settlement and creep
Refer to Section 1 notes
Settlement limit
25 to 45 mm for buildings
Larger magnitudes allowed (e.g. oil tanks)
Differential settlement and tilt
Tilt not more than 1:300 for buildings
[More stringent for sensitive buildings e.g.
Power Point]
 Effects of geology
Foundation on slope (lack on soil on one
side)
Foundation on rock with major fault
Combination of both above
Water table
Foundation resting on mixed ground (1
side weak soil and the other side stiff soil)
resulting in differential settlement
3.3 Deep foundation
(Piles)
Types of piles
After BS8004:1986
 Pile design according to EC7

Comb 2

Do not need to factor

Two combinations (Comb 1 [termed R1] and Comb 2 [termed R4] given above) of
DA1 are specified and the design must be shown to accommodate both
combinations. [Simpson 2013]
Note: Pile design has its own partial factors for Comb 2 [termed R4], see above!
 Action A
EC7 Design Approach 1 (DA1) Combination 1 (Comb 1)

Action (loadings) A
Design value Fd
= Characteristic value Fk x Partial factor F
Value of F
(1) Permanent (dead load) unfavourable Gk =
1.35
(2) Permanent favourable = 1
(3) Variable (live load) unfavourable Qk = 1.5
(4) Variable favourable = 0
 Soil resistance R
DA1 Comb 1
Soil resistance R
Design value Xd
= Characteristic value Xk / Partial
factor M
Value of M
All soil parameters not factored.
All shaft and base resistance not factored
except for pile shaft tension (uplift) resistance
with partial factor M of 1.25.
 DA1 Comb 2
Action A (loadings): Value of F
(1) Permanent (dead load)
unfavourable = 1
(2) Permanent favourable = 1
(3) Variable (live load)
unfavourable = 1.3
(4) Variable favourable = 0
Soil resistance R: Value of M
All soil parameters not factored.

Refer to next slides for partial factors!

 Pile design based on one
borehole
Each country is allowed to set its own
partial factors for all the design
methods in its country annex code.
Singapore generally follows the UK
partial factor with minor adjustments.
 Bored piles
or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles

Resistance R R1 R4 without explicit R4 with explicit

verification of SLS verification of SLS*
Base b 1.0 2.0 1.7
Shaft 1.0 1.6 1.4
(compression) s
Total/combined 1.0 2.0 1.7
(compression) t
Shaft in tension s,t 1.0 2.0 1.7
* SLS (Serviceability limit state) verified by static pile load tests (ultimate or working) of
minimum 1% of piles tested up to at least 1.5 working load at site or similar soil profile (or
pile settlement has been determined separately, or pile settlement is not a concern).
Note: Values may be changed in Singapore!
 Driven piles
Resistance R R1 R4 without explicit R4 with explicit
verification of SLS verification of SLS*
Base b 1.0 1.7 1.5
Shaft 1.0 1.5 1.3
(compression) s
Total/combined 1.0 1.7 1.5
(compression) t
Shaft in tension s,t 1.0 2.0 1.7

* SLS (Serviceability limit state) verified by static pile load tests of minimum 1% of piles tested
up to at least 1.5 working load at site or similar soil profile (or pile settlement has been
determined separately, or pile settlement is not a concern).
Note: Values may be changed in Singapore!
Discussion: Why driven piles have lower partial factors?
 Important notes
EC7 allows the use of lower partial factors if
ultimate static pile load test has been carried out
before pile design. [This may not be practical for
Singapore.]
The R4 values in Malaysia Annex is 1.1 times
higher than those in Singapore (previous 2
tables)
With the proposed change of values confirmed
in the updated Singapore Annex next year, the
end results for pile design using Singapore and
Malaysia Annexes are closer.
 Model factor
Additional model factor should be applied for
single borehole case
= 1.4
= 1.2 with soil resistance verified by a
maintained load test to the calculated,
unfactored ultimate resistance (e.g.
ultimate pile load test)
Advised to use 1.4 if ultimate pile load test
has NOT been carried out prior to design.
 Pile design based on
Static pile load tests
GiBR, Multiple bored holes or in-
situ tests (ground test results)
Dynamic pile load tests
 Correlation factors
Correlation factors should be applied to
derive the characteristic resistance.
Definition of symbols in next few slides
1 on the mean values of the measured resistance in static load tests
2 on the minimum values of the measured resistance in static load tests
3 on the mean values of the calculated resistance from ground test results
4 on the minimum values of the calculated resistance from ground test
results
5 on the mean values of the measured resistance in dynamic load tests
6 on the minimum values of the measured resistance in dynamic load tests
 Static load tests (values of 1
and 2)
n = number of tested piles
n 1 2 3 4 5 or more
1 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.35
2 1.55 1.35 1.23 1.15 1.08

Note: For structures having sufficient stiffness and strength

to transfer loads from weak to strong piles, values of 1
and 2 may be divided by 1.1 but magnitude of factor must
be at least 1. [Can be useful. Discussion on mean versus minimum.]
Ground test results (values of 3
and 4)
n = number of profiles of tests
n 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
3 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.36 1.33 1.30
4 1.55 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.26 1.20 1.15

Note: For structures having sufficient stiffness and strength

to transfer loads from weak to strong piles, values of 3
and 4 may be divided by 1.1 but magnitude of factor must
be at least 1. [Can be useful]
 Dynamic impact tests (values of
5 and 6)
n = number of tested piles
n 2 or more 5 or more 10 or more 15 or more 20 or more
5 1.94 1.85 1.83 1.82 1.81
6 1.90 1.76 1.70 1.67 1.66

Notes: (1) multiplied by 0.85 when tests with signal matching. (2) multiplied
by 1.1 when using a pile driving formula with measurement of quasi-elastic pile
head displacement during impact. (3) multiplied by 1.2 for (2) above without
measurement of quasi-elastic pile head displacement. (4) If there are different
piles at the site, groups of similar piles should be considered separately when
selecting the number n of test piles. [Notes (2) and (3) not recommended.]
Pile subject to vertical load

Compression load
Load transfer mechanism
Structural capacity (material
stress) of pile
Eurocode EC2
 EC2 requirements (current)

Partial safety factor for materials

Loading Concrete c Steel s
Persistent and 1.5 1.15
transient (this
usually governs)
Accidental 1.2 1.0
Notes:
(1) For bored piles without casing, c further increased by 1.1 times.
(2) For concrete, concrete strength fcu to be multiplied by
(a) 0.85 for reinforced concrete and (b) 0.6 for unreinforced concrete.
Structural capacity Q according to EC2
Steel piles
Q = (Ap)(fy/1.15) = 0.87(fy)(Ap)
where fy is the steel strength and Ap is the pile cross-sectional area
Unreinforced concrete bored pile
Partial factor for concrete material fck = 0.8 fcu
Q = (Ap)[0.6x0.8 fcu/(1.5 x 1.1)] = 0.291(fcu)(Ap)
Reinforced concrete bored pile with reinforcement
throughout [EC2 recommends minimum % full pile length reinforcement,
see next slide]
Q = (Ac)(0.85x0.8 fcu/1.5) + (Ay)(fy/1.15)
= 0.453(fcu)(Ac) + 0.87(fy)(Ay)
where Ac is the area of concrete and Ay is the area of steel
EC2 Requirement:

Q calculated from previous slides must be larger than design action

load.

That is Q > F Gk + F Qk

[Refer to symbols in earlier slides under DA1 Comb 1. Notes:

Permanent unfavourable and Variable unfavourable action has
different F.. There may be cases with favourable permanent load that
needs to be considered.]

** EC2 recommends that the reinforcement for bored piles should be

(a) At least 0.5% for pile diameter 0.5 m or smaller
(b) At least 0.25% for pile diameter larger than 1 m
(c) Intermediate % (i.e. 0.25% to 0.5%) for diameter between 0.5 m to
1m
Lateral or tension (uplift) loadings
Appropriate reinforcement needs to be provided to
resist the bending moment on the pile

In EC2, there are other recommendations on bored

piles without permanent casing, size, number and
clearance of re-bars etc.

Discussions: EC2 versus old CP4 (see next slide)

CP4 requirements (superseded)
Bored Cast In-Situ Piles (Qa = allowable working load)
Qa = 0.2 fcu A or 0.25 fcu A
(depending on specifications, limiting stress 7.5 MPa)
Precast Reinforced Concrete Driven Piles
Qa = 0.25 fcu A
Prestressed Concrete Spun Piles:
Qa = 0.25 (fcu - prestress after losses) A
Steel Piles:
Qa = 0.3 fy A (driven piles)
Qa = 0.5 fy A (jacked-in piles)
 Geotechnical capacity (soil
resistance)
[For most cases, the weight of pile is equal to the weight of soil displaced and
hence the weight of pile needs not be considered. Exceptions: pile subject to
negative skin friction, jetty piles with extra portion of pile above seabed.]

DA1 Comb 1
Ultimate bearing capacity of pile (Qu):
Qu = QS + Qb
where Qs = shaft capacity = fs As
Qb = end bearing capacity = qb Ab
fs = unit shaft resistance
As = total shaft area of pile
qb = unit end bearing pressure
Ab = base area of pile
 DA1 Comb 1
Qu calculated must be larger than design action load.
Qu > F Gk + F Qk

[Refer to symbols in earlier slides under DA1 Comb 1. Notes:

Permanent unfavourable and Variable unfavourable action has
different F.. There may be cases with favourable permanent load
that needs to be considered.]
 DA1 Comb 2
Soil resistance of pile Q
Q = QS/s + Qb/b
Refer to earlier slides for magnitudes of s and b for driven piles or
bored piles, with or without pile load tests. [This is based on single
borehole and model factor also needs to be applied.] For multiple
boreholes (or GiBR), static or dynamic pile load tests, use
correlation factors without model factor.

Requirement
Q > F Gk+ F Qk
Note that magnitudes of F is different from those of DA1 Comb 1.
 Cohesive soils (clay)
Unit End Bearing Pressure
qb = Nc Cu,
where Nc = bearing capacity factor (= 9)

Unit Shaft Friction

fs = Cu
where Cu = undrained shear strength
= adhesion factor
(generally correlated with Cu)
 Driven piles:
from the work of Tomlinson (1986)
[refer to Figures on next 2 slides]

Bored piles:
= 0.3 to 0.6 (overconsolidated clays)
= 0.8 to 1.0 (normally consolidated clays)
= 0.45 (if no previous data available)
Values of adhesion factor for driven piles
(this and next slide)
1. The highest adhesion factors are obtained for the case shown in
Fig. (a) in which the piles are driven through sands or sandy
gravels into clay. The gap which tends to form between the pile
and clay is filled with dragged-down granular material and no shaft
friction is lost. The greater the penetration into the clay the less
becomes the effect of the granular material with consequent
reduction in adhesion factor.
2. The reverse is true for the case shown in Fig. (b) with soft clay
over stiff clay where the dragged-down soft clay has a weakening
effect on shaft friction. The smaller the penetration depth into the
stiff clay the greater is the proportionate reduction in skin friction.
3. For the case shown in Fig. (c) with piles driven into a firm to stiff
clay without different overlying strata, a gap forms around the
upper part of the pile and no shaft friction is mobilized. The smaller
the penetration and the stiffer the clay the greater is the effect of
the gap.

For all cases, the adhesion factor reduces with

increasing undrained shear strength of clay.
Cohesionless soils (Sand)
Unit end bearing pressure
qb = Nq v
where Nq = bearing capacity factor for sand,
see figure on next slide

qb < 11000 kN/m2 (Tomlinson, 1986)

Need to check against limiting value from
second figure

Note that these high limiting values are only

applicable to driven piles. For bored piles
where base cleaning is difficult, they are
unlikely to develop these high values.
 v = Effective vertical stress (or
effective overburden pressure)
v at a given elevation is the
intensity of loading due to the
weight of all the materials above
the elevation
= (Hi i)
where Hi is the thickness of soil layer i
and i is the unit weight of soil layer i.
Use i (= i - w) instead of i for soil below
water table.
Soil friction angle
Limiting
unit base
resistance
value for sand
 Unit shaft friction (sand)

fs = Ks v tan
Values of Ks tan
Sand Driven piles Bored piles
Loose ( < 33o) 0.8 0.3
Medium (33o < < 38o) 1.0 0.5
Dense ( > 38o) 1.5 0.8
 Rock
Unit Shaft friction [Horvath et al., 1983]
fs = 0.2 to 0.3 (qu)0.5
where qu is the unconfined compression of
rock

Unit base resistance [Zhang & Einstein,

1998]
qb = 4.8 (qu)0.5
 Example 1
600 mm diameter bored pile
Pile length 30 m
Cu = 100 kPa (adhesion factor = 0.5)
Soil unit weight = 20 kN/m3
Permanent unfavourable load (dead load) = 1000 kN
Variable unfavourable load (live load) = 200 kN

Structural capacity, DA1 Comb 1 and DA1 Comb 2 (partial factor

with model factor 1.4 [no static load test] for soil resistance)
geotechnical capacity checks
 Structural capacity
F Gk + F Qk = 1.35x1000 + 1.5x200 = 1650 kN
Use concrete strength fcu = 30 MPa say
Old practice: reinforcement does not extend to full pile length
Q = 0.291(fcu)(Ap) = 0.291x30x1000x(0.62/4) = 2470 kN
Q > F Gk + F Qk (Hence OK)
EC7: Bored pile with full length reinforcement
Q = 0.453(fcu)(Ac) + 0.87(fy)(Ay)
As steel area Ay is very small,
Q = 0.453x30x1000x(0.62/4) = 3842 kN
Q > F Gk + F Qk (Hence OK)
[much bigger as compared to no full pile reinforcement!]
 Comparison with CP4 structural capacity

Allowable Q = 0.25fcuAp =
0.25x30x1000x(0.62/4) = 2120 kN >
(1000+200 kN) OK
The pile diameter can be reduced from
structural capacity view point for both EC7
and CP4 methods.
Let us check the geotechnical capacity
using DA1 Comb 1 and DA1 Comb 2
 Bored piles
or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles

Resistance R R1 R4 without explicit R4 with explicit

verification of SLS verification of SLS*
Base b 1.0 2.0 1.7
Shaft 1.0 1.6 1.4
(compression) s
Total/combined 1.0 2.0 1.7
(compression) t
Shaft in tension s,t 1.0 2.0 1.7
* SLS (Serviceability limit state) verified by static pile load tests (ultimate or working) of
minimum 1% of piles tested up to at least 1.5 working load at site or similar soil profile (or
pile settlement has been determined separately, or pile settlement is not a concern).
Note: Values may be changed in Singapore!
 Geotechnical capacity
DA1 Comb 1
Action: F Gk + F Qk = 1.35x1000 + 1.5x200 = 1650 kN
Assume soil weight is about the same as pile weight and 1% pile
load tests will be carried out
Characteristic shaft resistance = Perimeter area x adhesion
factor x undrained strength/(partial factor x model factor) =
30m(0.6m)x0.5x100kPa/(1.0x1.4) = 2020 kN
Characteristic base resistance = pile base area x 9cu/(partial
factor x model factor) = (0.62/4)x9x100/(1.0x1.4) = 182 kN
Characteristic soil resistance = 2020+182 = 2202 kN > 1650 kN OK
 Geotechnical capacity

DA1 Comb 2
Action: F Gk + F Qk = 1.0x1000 + 1.3x200 = 1260 kN
Characteristic shaft resistance = Perimeter area x adhesion
factor x undrained strength/(partial factor x model factor) =
30m(0.6m)x0.5x100kPa/(1.4x1.4) = 1443 kN
Characteristic base resistance = pile base area x 9cu/(partial
factor x model factor) = (0.62/4)x9x100/(1.7x1.4) = 107 kN
Characteristic soil resistance = 1443+107 = 1550 kN > 1260 kN OK
[Pile penetration length can be reduced. Redo example to
determine minimum pile length required to satisfy EC7.]
 CP4 approach
Q = shaft resistance + base resistance
= 30m(0.6m)x0.5x100kPa + (0.62/4)x9x100 =
3082 kN
Factor of safety = 3082/(1000+200) = 2.57 OK
Discussions:
For smaller projects, pile load test(s) will NOT be
carried out. In such case, the partial factors for
EC7 increase considerably to 2.0 (base) and 1.6
(shaft). Re-do Example 1 and see how much
deeper pile penetration length required!
EC7 examples from Craig 8th Edition
Traditional single safety factor examples
Example A : Piles in clay
Given: Working column load = 6000 kN
Soil condition
Depth Soil Av. N value Av. cu (kPa)
(m)
0 -5 Firm silty clay 10 50
5 25 Stiff silty clay 20 100
25 - 35 Hard silty clay 100 500
Determine the number of piles and penetration
required to support the column.
Redo Examples A and B using EC7 approach.
 Solution
(A) Try precast RC pile
fcu = 40 N/mm2 , X-section 320 mm x 320 mm,
desired factor of safety, F = 2.5

(1) Structural material strength

Qa = allowable load = 0.25 fcu Ap
= 0.25 x 40 x 0.322 x 103 kN
= 1024 kN
Thus 6 number of piles required
for working load of 6000kN
Working load on each pile = 1000 kN
(2) Geotechnical considerations
Try penetration depth of 25m (Consider Why?!)
Total stress () approach
Base resistance at 25 m (cu = 500 kPa & Nc = 9),
Qb = 9 x 0.32 x 0.32 x 500 = 460 kN (conservative)
Qs = 320 + 2176 = 2496 kN see next slide
This is a friction pile with most resistance from
the shaft!
Qa = Q/F = (2496 + 460)/ 2.5 = 1182 kN > 1000 kN
Okay!!
 Calculation of shaft friction
Shaft cu Fig. Unit shaft Shaft
friction (kPa) 2.1 friction, friction, Qs
fs (kPa) (kN)

05 50 1.0 50 320
m
5 -25 m 100 0.85 85 2176
(B) Try bored pile
fcu = 25 N/mm2 , Diameter = 0.8 m

(1) Structural material strength

Qa = 0.25 fcu Ap
= 0.25 x 25 x x 0.42 x 103 kN
= 3142 kN
Use 2 number of 800-mm
diameter bored piles for
working load of 6000 kN
Working load on each pile = 3000 kN
(2) Geotechnical considerations
For a desired factor of safety of 2.5,
Ultimate load = 2.5 x 3000 kN = 7500 kN

Base resistance = Nc cb Ab = 9 x 500 x x 0.42 kN

= 2262 kN
Shaft resistance from 0 to 5 m = cu As
= 0.45 x 50 x x 0.8 x 5
= 283 kN
Shaft resistance from 5 to 25 m = 0.45 x 100 x x 0.8 x 20
= 2262 kN

For bored piles, one can try to achieve an optimum

design by penetrating deeper to arrive at the same
geotechnical and structural capacities.
 Shaft resistance required from below 25 m
= 7500 2262 283 2262 = 2693 kN
Unit shaft friction fs for hard silty clay = cu = 0.45 x
500 = 225 kPa
A maximum fs = 200 kPa may be used but such value
needs to be confirmed by pile load test. Say use fs =
200 kPa

Contact length required

= 2693 kN / (200 kPa x x 0.8 m) = 5.357 5.4 m
Total penetration required = 25 + 5.4 m = 30.4 m
(say 31 m)

Poser: Why bored pile is usually lower than driven pile?

 Example B : Piles in sand
(from Tomlinson)
An isolated 350 mm x 350 mm reinforced
concrete pile (fcu = 35) in a jetty structure is
required to carry a maximum compression
load of 400 kN and a net uplift load of 320
kN. The soil consists of a loose to medium-
dense saturated fine sand (average N = 12)
extending to a depth of 9 m below sea bed
followed by dense sand and gravel (average
N = 40). Determine the required depth of
penetration of the pile to resist the
compression load. No erosion is expected.
 Solution
Seabed to 9 m (N = 12)
= 31 from next figure; = 7.36 kN/m3 (estimated)
Ks tan = 0.8 for driven piles
(v)av = [ 0 + 7.36 x 9] / 2 = 33.1 kPa
Shaft friction = 0.8 x 33.1 x 4 x 0.35 x 9 = 334 kN
Try penetration of 4 m into dense sand and gravel
N = 40 = 38.5o Ks tan = 1.5 (Next figure &
earlier table)
= 11.77 kN/m3 (estimated)
(v)av = [ 7.36 x 9] + [ 11.77 x 4] /2 = 89.74 kPa
Unit shaft friction = Ks tan (v)av > 134 kPa
Shaft friction = 100 x 4 x 0.35 x 4 = 750 kN
Sand

Friction angle,
 Base resistance
For = 38.5o, earlier figure gives Nq = 120
b = 7.36 x 9 + 11.77 x 4 = 113.2 kPa

Unit base resistance = b Nq = 113.2 x 120 = 13.6 MPa

Earlier figure gives limiting qc = 15 MPa and thus use 13.6
MPa
Base resistance = 13.6 x 0.352 = 1.666 MN = 1666 kN
Total geotechnical capacity = 334 + 750 + 1666 = 2750 kN
F = 2750/400 = 6.4 >> 2.5
This indicates that the pile penetration may be
reduced from geotechnical capacity viewpoint. You
are encouraged to try shorter pile penetrations until
you reach F = 2.5.
Pile group stress zone

The stress zone at the base of a

large pile group may extend
deeper. If there is a weaker soil
layer within the stress zone, the
pile group base resistance may
be reduced and/or severe
settlement of the pile group.

Side view
 Pile group block failure
For friction pile group, the
decrease in shaft friction due to
block failure may not be
compensated by the increase in
pile group block base area.
Check this by taking the pile
group block as a very large
single pile.
If pile centre-to-centre spacing
is 3 or more, this should not be
an issue.
Compressible soil layer beneath
pile base
If the compressible soil has not completed its consolidation, the
settling soil beneath the pile base will pull down the pile group.
This can have very severe consequence.
EC7 recommends that punching shear should be checked if
there is weak soil within 4 pile diameter below pile base.
Such soil may not be detected from SI. It is better to have some
boreholes go very deep to detect this situation.
Case studies:
A shopping centre in Indonesia
Tested pile suffered plunging failure (see pile load test section)
 EC7 recommendations
Special attention should be given to
possible failure of edge piles caused by
inclined or eccentric loads from the
supported structure
Pile subject to vertical
compression load and
negative skin friction
EC7 recommends that the negative skin friction
taken as unfavourable permanent load.
 Loading from the
superstructure
Settling
soil
Soft drags
Negative
consolidating down
friction soil pile
Pile

Positive Pile and soil

friction Stiff
Soil move in
opposite
direction
Bed Rock
End Bearing

Pile subject to negative skin friction

Above neutral plane, soil
settles more than the pile
inducing negative skin friction

At neutral plane, soil and pile

settlement equals and there is
no load transfer

Below neutral plane, pile settles

more than the soil, thus positive
skin friction as in normal case
 Causes of soil settlement
Settlement of soil under new fill
Soft soil still undergoing consolidation
Drawdown of groundwater level
Dissipation of excess pore water pressure
created during pile driving in soft soils
Oedometer
Oedometer apparatus
 Parameters for the determination
Swelling of soil settlement
index Cs Preconsolidation
pressure c

Compression
index Cc
Settlement of each clay layer
= H = Ho e/(1 + eo)
Typical e-log p curve from Singapore
site investigation reports
 Soil samples from Singapore site
investigations are often heavily disturbed
 (1) If preconsolidation
pressure c < effective
overburden pressure v, soil
v is under consolidated and
will settle.
(2) If c = v, soil is
normally consolidated and
primary consolidation
settlement has completed.
(3) If c > v, soil is
overconsolidated.
** Negative skin friction
must be considered for (1).
Negative skin friction needs
not be considered if there is
no new fill for (2) & (3).
Examples of negative skin friction problems

(1) Timber or RC piles

The magnitude of negative

skin friction is larger
than the relatively
small load bearing
capacity of timber or
RC pile
 (2) Piles supporting embankment

Large differential settlement due to downdrag on embankment piles

 Embankment
s

Settling
soil may
s0
Large
Inclined
Inclined piles
piles also induce
Large size
size
pile
pile caps
caps severe
Vertical piles
bending on
Firm soil or bedrock inclined
piles
(a) Conventional pile supported embankments

Embankment s0
Geosynthetics
Geosynthetic reinforced
earth platform

s0
Small
Small size
size
pile
pile caps
caps
Vertical piles

Firm soil or bedrock

(b) Geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported embankments

(a) Friction pile
Example of friction pile:
timber pile with base resting
on soft clay
Soil at pile base is not so
competent. The
resulting large pile
settlement is a
concern.
Negative skin friction is
not a major problem
because the neutral
plane moves up the
pile shaft as the pile
settles.
Pile punching failures
(excessive settlement)
had been reported!
(b) End-bearing pile
Rock at pile base is competent.

Load Pile cannot settle due to rigid

pile base. The neutral plane
(NP) is at the pile base. The
soft soil
pile

highest stress elevation at the

pile base location consisting of
applied load plus negative skin
NP
rock friction.

Hence, the dragload Qsn

(negative skin friction) is the
most severe.
(c) Socketed pile

In most cases in the

Load field, the pile is socketed
into stiff soils/weak
soft soil rocks by some extent.
pile

NP
The neutral plane (NP)
socket stiff soil for socketed piles lies in-
length between that of (a)
friction and (b) end-
bearing pile. Pile
settlement and negative
skin friction are
intermediate.
 EC7 Clause 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, its value shall be the maximum, which could be generated
by the downward movement of the ground relative to the pile.
2. Calculation of maximum downdrag loads should take into 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 change in ground water pressure due to ground water lowering
consideration or pile driving.
P = Engineers must follow the philosophy of this statement in design.
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 action and carrying out an interaction analysis.
5. P The design settlement of the ground shall be derived taking account of
material weight densities and compressibility in accordance with Clause
2.4.3.
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 considered
simultaneously in load combinations.
To discuss all the above.

Notes: EC7 takes negative skin friction as

(i) DA1 Comb 1: permanent action (partial factor = 1.35).
(ii) DA2 Comb 2: M2 = 1.25 (material factor for soil strength)
Singapore Standard CP 4: 2003 (superseded)
Code of Practice on Foundations
The code highlights that NSF involves a mechanism
complicated by the following 2 main factors:
(1) As the axial load in the pile increases, pile
compression will increase and the neutral plane will
move upward.
(2) The mobilized unit friction along the pile located above
the neutral plane varies with the relative downward
movement between the pile and the surrounding soil,
and its value is not always equal to the fully mobilized
unit friction particularly near the neutral plane. This
leads to the adoption of degree of mobilization factor
. [See EC7 recommendation later.]
CP 4 states that the location of the neutral plane is
significantly affected by the thickness of the
consolidating soil (Ls), the end-bearing condition,
and the axial load.
Recommended elevation of neutral plane for
design by CP4 [But this is silent in EC7 as
they expect engineers to estimate the relative
pile versus soil movement, for example using
t-z curve.]:
(a) 0.6Ls for friction piles in a consolidating
stratum
(b) 1.0Ls for end-bearing piles.
 EC7 Clause 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, its value shall be the maximum, which could be generated
by the downward movement of the ground relative to the pile.
2. Calculation of maximum downdrag loads should take into 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 change in ground water pressure due to ground water lowering
consideration or pile driving.
P = Engineers must follow the philosophy of this statement in design.
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 action and carrying out an interaction analysis.
5. P The design settlement of the ground shall be derived taking account of
material weight densities and compressibility in accordance with Clause
2.4.3.
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 considered
simultaneously in load combinations.
To discuss all the above.
Notes: EC7 takes negative skin friction as
(i) DA1 Comb 1: permanent action (partial factor = 1.35).
(ii) DA2 Comb 2: M2 = 1.25 (material factor for soil strength)
 Magnitude of NSF above neutral plane

(1) approach
Same as positive friction calculation
fs = cu
but
NSF is treated as a permanent action
Use high value for conservatism e.g. =1 for soft clay to estimate the
most severe NSF (discuss value for stiffer soils)
(2) approach

Again use
higher value
e.g. 0.3

(discuss value
for thick soft
clay/sand fill)
 Degree of mobilization factor (CP4)

The NSF along the pile section above the neutral plane may vary
between the fully mobilized value on the top and a small value close
to the neutral plane. Thus, a degree of mobilization factor, , can be
applied to the calculated dragload, Qsn, based either by total stress
method ( approach) or effective stress method ( approach).

CP4 recommends = 0.67 as a general value.

EC7 is silent on the above as they expect engineers to analyse
the relative pile-soil movement (e.g. using t-z curves).

However, 1.0 should be used in certain cases

(e.g. low capacity piles in highly compressible clay stratum).

 Geotechnical capacity (CP4)
The competent soil beneath the settling soil should
have sufficient resistance to restrict the pile
settlement such that
Qb Qsp
Pc Qsn
Fs
where
Qb = ultimate end-bearing resistance;
Qsp = ultimate positive shaft resistance between the
neutral plane;
Fs = geotechnical factor of safety
The above Fs is not for ultimate pile condition with pile
plunging through the soil, but for restricting the
pile settlement. CP 4 recommends 2.0 to 2.5 for
this factor.
Structural capacity consideration (CP4)

For concrete piles, CP 4 recommends:

0.25 f cu Ac Pc Qsn
Note: CP 4 appears to be silent that
(a) bored pile, 0.25fcu should be < 7.5 MPa or
(b) spun pile fcu should be < 60 MPa
for NSF consideration.
The above can be very useful for certain cases.
Example
on NSF
500 mm external
and 320 mm
internal diameter
spun piles with fcu =
80 MPa and
prestress of 5.1
MPa with pile top at
6 m depth. The
spun piles are
driven with shoe at
base to 23 m depth
with soil having N
of 100 close to BH1
location. (Not
bored Pile A
which penetrates
much deeper)
 Spun Pile (500-mm diameter, fcu = 80 MPa)

Depth Soil N value Cu (kPa) fs (kPa)

Negative skin friction (neutral plane at 0.8Ls for socketed pile, = 1)

-6 to -15.6 m Marine clay 0 to 1 10 fNSF= 10

Positive shaft friction ( = 0.45)
-15.6 to -18 m Marine clay 0 to 1 10 4.5
-18 to -20 m Silty clay 8 40 18
-20 to -23 m Silty clay 30 180 81

Ultimate end bearing qb = 12 MPa from Singapore driven pile experience

 EC7 pile design
Structural capacity (material stress) check
Net pile cross sectional area, Ac = 0.116 m2
(external pile diameter d 500 mm; internal pile diameter 320 mm)
fcu = 80 MPa; Concrete pre-stress, fcp = 5.1 MPa
Structural capacity = Ac x (0.453 x fcu - fcp) = 3610 kN
NSF = cu d H
= 1 x 10 x (3.1415 x 0.5) x (15.6 6)
= 151 kN
Unfavourable permanent action (load) = 1000 kN
Unfavourable variable action (load) = 200 kN
Factored up load based on DA1 COM1
= (1000x1.35 + 200x1.5 + 151x1.35) = 1854 kN
<< 3610 kN OK
 Geotechnical capacity checks
Model Factor (1.2 with ultimate pile load test ULT; 1.4
without ULT) = 1.4
For DA1 COM1:
Partial factor for Shaft, s = 1.0
Partial factor for End-bearing, b = 1.0
Shaft perimeter = d = 3.1416x0.5=1.57m
Positive shaft friction = [(18-15.6)(4.5)+(20-18)(18)+(23-
20)(81)]/1.4 = 207 kN
Pile base area (with shoe) = d2/4 = 0.196 m2
Base resistance = (0.196 x 12,000)/1.4 = 1680 kN
 Geotechnical resistance = 207 + 1680 = 1887 kN
Factored up load based on DA1 COM1
= (1000x1.35 + 200x1.5 + 151x1.35) = 1854 kN
< 1887 kN OK
For DA1 COM2:
Partial factor for Shaft, s = 1.3
Partial factor for End-bearing, b = 1.5
Positive shaft friction = [(18-15.6)(4.5)+(20-18)(18)+(23-
20)(81)]/(1.4x1.3) = 159 kN
Base resistance = (0.196 x 12,000)/(1.4x1.5) = 1120 kN
Factored up load based on DA1 COM2
= (1000x1.0 + 200x1.3 + 151x1.25) = 1449 kN
> 1279 (=1120+159) kN Not OK
Does not satisfy DA1 COM2, need to redesign!!
[Note: Material partial factor for NSF = 1.25]
 Pile group against NSF
Group interaction effects are beneficial as negative skin friction
on individual piles will be reduced (up to 30% reported).
Distribution of negative friction among piles is not the same
(centre piles has the least negative skin friction due to the most
severe interaction among piles in the group).
Little benefits for small pile group (number of pile < 5) in very soft
soils due to full pile slip.
The magnitude of free field soil movement for pile
group is reduced especially for inner piles.

Pile
Pile cap
cap

Settlin Pile
g soil group

Pile

More efforts are required to drag the entire pile

group including the pile cap. The pile-pile cap-soil
interaction helps to reduce negative skin friction
on a pile group.
3.6 Pile Driving Formula
Monitoring of pile penetration for every 10 hammer
blows.
Each hammer blow causes (i) permanent pile
penetration (set) and (ii) temporary pile penetration
during pile driving, see Fig. (a).
Typical record of blow counts for pile penetration
with depth is shown in Fig. (b).
Pile is deemed to be driven to set (refusal) if the set
is < 2 mm per blow or 20 mm per 10 blows.
Estimated required set can be determined using
Hiley formula (1925).
 Hydraulic
Hammer
1.10 m drop

Temporary
Compression (T/C)
10 hammer blows
Permanent set
10 mm for 10 blows

Fig. (a)
Soft soil
Easy pile penetration

Fig. (b)

Stiff soil
Difficult pile penetration
 Hiley formula (1925)
Assume Energy in = Work + Impact loss +
losses in (driving assemble + pile + soil)
The ultimate pile capacity Qu is given as

where ef = hammer efficiency (Table 1)

W = hammer weight
H = hammer drop height
n = coefficient of restitution (Table 2)
Wp= weight of pile
S = set (pile penetration in mm/hammer blow)
C1, C2, C3 = temporary compression due to pile head
and cap, pile and soil compression, respectively (Table 3)
Table 1 Values of Hammer Efficiency, ef, (from Chellis 1969)
Table 2 Values of Coefficient of Restitution, n, (after Whitaker 1970)
 Table 3
Values of
C1, C2, C3
for Hiley
Formula
(after
Chellis
1961)
Limitations of Hiley and other pile
driving formula {Important!!}
Although Qu can be determined by trial and
error using Hiley formula. Pile capacity Qu
so obtained needs to be re-checked based
on geotechnical capacity for the given pile
penetration.
The use of actual measured temporary
compression at a given site may be used to
recalculate the required set.
 Example on Pile Driving Formula
Precast RC pile 320 mm x 320 mm Same as example 1
Qa = Working Load = 1000kN
Try Kobe K 35 diesel hammer W = 3500 kg 35
kN
Drop height H = 3 m Pile capacity Q = 3000 kN
F >> 3 preferred

where ef = 1 (Table 1) Depending on helmet

n = 0.4 (Table 2)
Wp = conc x Ap x length
= 25 kN/m3 x 0.322 m2 x 27 m
= 69.1 kN L = 25 m in Example 1.
Add 2 m for driving
 C1 = 0.05 in = 1.27 mm (Table 3 for medium
driving)

C2 = QL / AEp = (3000 x 27) / (0.322 x 32 x 106 )

= 0.0247 m = 24.7 mm [This is the major
component!]

C3 = 0.1 in = 2.54 mm

Temporary compression C = C1 + C2 + C3 =
28.51 mm

After calculation, set s = 1.23 mm for last blow.

or 12.3 mm for last 10 blows
 Pile selection and design
Based on loading, select pile type and
material.
Work out number of piles and cross-sectional
area of pile required based on allowable
material stress.
Determine pile penetration required based on
geotechnical considerations. If geotechnical
capacity is a problem, increase the number of
piles or re-design.
September 2016

Update of 2003 advisory note.

This is new!
See next slide.
 Pile load test failure
Ultimate pile load test Pile meant to be tested to failure and
data used to fine tune pile design
Working pile load test If pile fails or experiences excessive
settlement under load, 2 additional piles selected by the
consultant need to be tested.
If both piles pass, it is acceptable and only compensation pile(s) are
required for the failed pile.
If one or both pile fails, it may be necessary to carry out many load tests
to evaluate the foundation system!! In such case, dynamic pile load
tests may be desirable.
 Effects of geology
Pile installed in ground with steep bedrock
profile
Pile toe can be damaged and pile may slip during
pile driving
Very hard to form flat base for bored piles
Driven piles installed in soil profile with folds
Pile may achieve set at elevation with weaker soil
below
Pile may plunge due to weak soil below
Bored pile in granite with thin dense sand above
Water seepage carrying the sand into bored hole
resulting in soft pile toe
 Assignment

Be aware of EC requirements!
 Question 3.1
A load of 425 kN/m is carried on a strip footing 2 m
wide at a depth of 1 m in a stiff clay of saturated
unit weight of 21 kN/m3, the water table being at
ground level. Determine the safety factor against
bearing capacity failure for
(a) Short term using undrained shear strength of cu
= 105 kPa and u = 0.
(b) Long term using drained shear strength of c =
10 kPa and =28o.
Comment on the above results.
Question 3.2 (Past NUS
examination question)
Question 3.3 (Past NUS
examination question)
Fig. 2
Question on retaining structure
Fig. Q2