Design of piles in non-cohesive soil

Statens Geotekniska Institut SGI Varia 95

DESIGN OF PILES IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL

Nguyen Truong Tien

SGI Linkoping Sweden

December 1981

1

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

1 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES

11 Methods based test (SPT)

on the standard penetration

1 11 The C~nadian FouManual method

ndation Engineering

112 The Schmertmann method

113 Experiences from United Kingdom

114 Swedish experiences

115 The Norwegian Pile Committe method

12 Methods based on the theory of plasticity and empirical formula

121 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

122 The API method

1 2 3 The Vesic method

1 2 4 The Meyerhof method

1 bull 2 5 The Broms method

1 2 6 The Berggren method

1 2 7 The Australien Standard

1 bull 2 8 Swedish experiences

1 2 9 The Braatvedt method

1210 The Touma and Reese method

1211 Discussion

1 3 Method based on cone penetration test (CPT)

1 3 1 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual



1 3 4 The Thorburn method

1 3 5 The Tekam method

1 bull 3 6 The Begemann method

1 3 7 The Nottingham method

1 bull 3 8 The Norwegian Pile Committee method

2

1 3 9 Experiences from United Kingdom

1310 Discussion

14 Relation between the method based on static formula and static cone penetration

1 bull 4 1 Determination of Kstano from CPT-test

1 bull 4 2 Relation between Qs

and Qp

1 bull 4 3 Examples

15 Method based on pressuremeter test

1 bull 6 Method based on pile driving formula

1 7 Method based on stress wave measurement

1 7 1 The Case-method

1 bull 7 2 The CAPWAP method

1 7 3 Another application of stress wave measurement

18 Method based on the load test

1 bull 8 1 Method of load testing

1 8 2 Reporting of load testing results

1 bull 8 3 Failure criteria

1 8 4 Distribution of bearing capacity between the tip and the sides of the piles

1 bull 8 5 Safety factor

1 bull 8 6 Comparison between different methods of load tests

1 bull 8 7 Comparison between the creep load and the ultimate load of piles

2 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUP

3 SETTLEMENT OF A SINGLE PILE AND A PILE GROUP

3 1 Settlement of a single pile

3 1 bull 1 Empirical method

3 1 bull 2 Settlement from load test

3 1 3 Method based on theory of elasticity

3 1 bull 4 The Vesic method

3 1 5 Method based on FEM

32 Settlement of a pile group

321 The method of Skemton

3

3 2 2

3 2 3

324

325

326

327

33

4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

The Brezantsev method

Method based on theory of elasticity

Recommendations by Meyerhof

The Parry method

The De Beer method

The Schmertmann method

Summary of the methods for calculation of the settlement

CONCLUSION

A Relationship between of penetration test

the results

B Empirical methvalue of cp

ods to obtain the

C Safety factor

D References

4

SUMl-1ARY

The studies on the behaviour of piles in non-cohesive

soil have increased during the last ten years Different

methods to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity and

the settlement have been proposed This report makes

a review of the most common methods for design of

piles in non-cohesive soil The comparison between

different methods is discussed The relationship beshy

tween the CPT-method and the static formula can be used

for preliminary estimation of the bearing capacity of

the piles and the ratio between total skin friction and

total point resistance

The conclusions and recommendations for practical design

purposes are summarized

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was made at my visit at SGI during 1981

according to SARECs (SIDA) program to which appreciation

is expressed

The writer greatly thanks Dr Jan Hartlen Director of

SGI for his recommendations on the program of the work

his assistance and encouragement

Specially thanks is expressed to Dr Bo Berggren at SGI

for giving recommendations invaluable discussions and

supervision to the work

The writer also gratefully thanks Mr Bergdahl Mr Hellman

of SGI and other members of SGI CTH and KTH for valuable

discussions

Gratitude is given to Mrs Eva Dyrenas for her expert

typing of the manuscript and Mrs Rutgerd Abrink for

drawing the figures

Thanks is also expressed to other members of SGI for

their kindness and their assistance during my time at

SGI

Linkoping December 1981

Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION

Pile foundations are frequently economical in many

countries The research on methods for prediction of

the bearing capacity and the settlement of piles has

increased considerably during the last 10 years Difshy

ferent methods to calculate the ultimate bearing cashy

pacity and settlement have been proposed Methods based

on static and dynamic penetration tests are commonly

used for non-cohesive soil Based on experiences and

theoretical studies empirical expressions and methods

based on the theory of plasticity or elasto-plastic

theories have also been recommended New methods based

on the results from pressuremeter tests and stress wave

measurements have been developed The reported results

show good agreement between calculated and measured

values However up to now a general solution for

computation of the ultimate load and settlement of

pile foundations is not yet available Because of many

uncertainties it is recommended to perform full scale

pile load tests

The methods used for prediction of the ultimate bearing

capacity and settlement of piles depend on soil conshy

ditions available equipments the characteristics of the

structure similar experiences and other factors

This report makes a review of all common methods for

design of pile foundations in non-cohesive soil In

the report diagrams tables typical values empirical

expressions for design purposes have been collected

A discussion and relationships between different methods

have been summarized The method based on static penshy

etration test and the method based on theoretical and

empirical expressions are suitable for Vietnam conditions

so they are concentrated in this study Further studies

in Vietnam to compare different prediction methods and

complementary load testing in the object to get suitable

methods for our conditions will be very valuable

7

1 BEARING CAPACITY

This chapter covers the calculation of the bearing

capacity of piles founded in granular soils gravel

sand and silt where the granular soil extends to a

significant depth beneath the foundation level Several

methods based on different theories and experiences are

summarized here

1 bull 1 Method based on the standard penetration test (SPT)

111 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1978)

The ultimate bearing capacity of the pile is calculated

from SPT results according to the method suggested by

Meyerhof (1956)

where = ultimate pile load kN

N = average number of SPT at the tip level blow30 cm

-N = average number of SPT along the pile shaft blow30 cm

m2= cross sectional area of pile tip

= surface area of pile shaft m2

unit resistance at the point and along the pile shaft kPa

Factor of safety FS = 4

Meyerhof (1976) has suggested

= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s

-where f = 2 N (kPa)s qp = 40 N Qblt 400 N (kPa)

B -

where Db = embedment depth of the pile

B = diameter of the pile

and if the pile is driven in non-plastic silt q = 300 N p

(kNm 2) as an upper limit

8

An empirical relationship between N and q is shown in

Fig 1 Meyerhof (1956) has recommended

f = 01 MPa as an upper limit value for the s unit skin friction of driven piles

f = 0006 N (MPa) or maximum 004 MPa for bored s piles

1 bull 1 bull 2 The Schmertmann method

Schmertmann (1967) made suggestions for both end-bearing

capacity and side friction capacity estimated from SPT

data and the relationship between SPT and CPT data for

evaluation of the unit side friction on precast concrete

piles in Florida

Table 1 Usually conservative ultimate values for unit side friction and end-bearing correlated to SPT N-values (N-value range 560)

Type of soil Unified SCS description

q NC

Friction ratio Rf ()

Side friction (tsf) (kPa)

End-bearing

kN

Clean sand above and below GW all denshysities

GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32

Clay silt sand mixed very silty sand silts and marls

GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16

Plastic CH OH 10 50 05 07

clays 056

Soft limeshystone lime rock very shelly sand

10 025 0 1

11

36

-For N less than -For N more than

5 use zero

60 use 60

Limitation As the SPT is subjected by many errors a high

factor of safety is recommended However many authors have

suggested not to use SPT as the only method for prediction

of the bearing capacity of the pile

9

1 bull 1 bull 3 Experiences from United Kingdom (Rodin et al 1974)

According to Gibbs and Holtz (1957) the penetration reshy

sistance increases with increasing relative density and

or overburden pressure Since the principal object of

standard penetration tests in non-cohesive soil is to

evaluate relative density the effect of overburden pressure

at the depth of the test must be taken into account The

correction chart (Fig2) was presented by Thorburn (1963)

and is widely adopted in the UK

With the value of N corrected the bearing capacity of

the pile can be evaluated by using the relation between

N and qc or alternatively the angle of internal friction

cp I bull

1 bull 1 bull 4 Swedish experiences (Broms 1981 Bergdahl 1980)

The bearing capacity and the length of driven reinforced

concrete piles are generally estimated in Sweden by ram

rounding The circular or square point is driven into

the soil using 32 mm diameter rods and a drop hammer

weighing 635 kg The number of blows N required to20 drive the penetrometer 020 miscounted The method has

an advantage that it is normally possible to reach much

deeper soil layers compared to weight sounding or cone

penetration test The relative density of non-cohesive

soils (sand and gravel) can be estimated from the following

table

Table 2 Ram penetration test Relationship between relative density and penetration resistance

Relative density Penetration resistance N20 blows02 m

Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O

The penetration resistance is thus about 11-20 larger

than that determined by Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The relationship between N and N is also shown in20 30 Appendix A

The maximum depth to which a precast concrete pile can

be driven corresponds normally to a penetration resistance

of 200-300 blows02 mN20

1 bull 1 bull 5 The Norwegian Pile Commmitteemethod (1973)

According to Norwegian experiences the bearing capacity

of driven friction piles of wood and precast concrete

can be estimated by the Swedish ram sounding method A

(free falling weight=635 kg pressometer with square

point the penetrometer is rotated every 0 2 m to reduce

the skin friction along the rods The number of blows

required to drive the penetrometer 02 miscounted)

Fig 3 shows the relationship between the unit skin fricshy

tion resistance the surface area of the pile A skin and

the dynamic penetration resistance The indicated relationshy

ship has been evaluated from pile load tests The ultimate

bearing capacity was found to be higher for timber piles

than for precast concrete piles at the same penetration

resistance because of the conical shape of timber piles

The diagram is valid for timber and concrete piles with 2 a cross sectional area of 500-1000 cm and a pile length

between 12 and 15 m The equivalent skin friction is equal

to the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile divided by

the total shaft area

The bearing capacity of the pile can also be evaluated by

Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where

Q = ultimate bearing capacity of the pile MN 2A = total area of the shaft m s

and = average number of blows per 02 m of penetra-Pdy tion

1 1

It is also possible to calculate the ultimate bearing

capacity from the relationship between ram sounding

type A and SPT-test Test results indicate that the penshy

etration resistance from ram sounding type A (blows02 m)

corresponds to the N-value (blows03 m) from SPT The

same calculation methods can thus be used for ram sounding

type A as for Standard Penetration Tests

12 Method based on the theory of plasticity and empirical formula

General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p

where f = unit shaft resistance kPa s

= unit point resistance kPaqp 2

A = pile shaft area m s 2

A = pile point area m p

= ultimate bearing capacity of the pile kNQf

1 2 1 The Canadian Manuals recommendation

a) Critical depth The bearing capacity of piles in granular

soils is not a continuous linear function of the overshy

burden pressure Vesic (1970) has demonstrated that the

skin friction and the point resistance become constant

below a critical depth D For practical pruposes D = C C

8-20 B (B=pile diameter)

b) Ultimate point resistance

The length of the pile L lt critical depth D p C

= L Nqfp p q

where

= ultimate unit point resistance kPaqfp 3

= effective unit weight of the soil kNm

L = the length of the pile in soil m p N = bearing capacity factor q

1 2

According to Brezantzev et al (1961) values of N are q

as listed in table 3

Table 3 Values of N according to the angle of friction~shyq

~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q

The values of N~ can also be taken from Fig 4

For pile lengths exceeding D C

qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction

f = K 0 tano lt f1 S S V

K = average coefficient of earth pressure on the s pile shaft (see App B)

0 I = average effective overburden pressure alongV the shaft

= angle of friction of the sand-pile contact (see App B)

f 1 = maximum value off at and below the critical depths

Ks tano is influenced by the angle of friction~ the

method of installation the pile size and shape It inshy

creases with density For bored piles the values are equal

to 14 of the values of the displacement piles

d) Safety factor

Allowable load can be evaluated considering FS = 3

1 The length of the pile (L ) is less than the critical p depth (D )

C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p

q f are calculated corresp_onding to thefp s pile length L

p

1 3

2 The length of the pile (L) is longer than the p

critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -

qfp and fs are calculated at the critical depth

D C

122 The American Petroleum Institute (ATP) method (1977)

a) Skin friction

In compression f = a Ktano K = 07 s V

In tension f = a Ktano K = 05 s V

a = vertical effective stress V

K = ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress

0 = angle of wall friction between pile and soil o=cp-5 0

cp = angle of soil internal friction (limited to cp=35deg)

b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q

= bearing capacity factor Caquot Kerisel (1956) or

Vesic (1967) (see Fig 4)

1 bull 2 3 The method of Vesic (1975 and 1977)

a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q

where K is the ratio of at-rest horizontal to vertical0

effective stress N = bearing capacity factor (Fig 5)

When good information on the relative density is availshy

able Fig 6 or Table 4 can be used as a guid for evaluating

N q

b) Skin friction Fig 7 can be used as a guid for detershy

mination of the skin resistance

14

1 bull 2 4 The method of Meyerhof (1976)

qp = Po Nq 2- ql

= effective overburden pressure at the pile point

bearing capacity factor (Fig 8)

limit value of unit point resistance for D De B ~ B

De o DeAccording to Meyerhof B = 7 for~= 30 and B = 22 for

~ = 45deg Fig 8 shows that the bearing capacity factor

N varies with~ and the ratio between the bearing depthq

DB and the pile diameter B A relationship between the

critical depth De and the pile diameter is also presented

1 bull 2 5 The method of Broms (1978)

a) Skin friction

The skin friction resistance will increase linearly with

increasing depth down to 20B (5-10 m) when the relative

density of the sand is low Below this depth the skin

friction will be constant and the skin friction f down s

to a depth of about 20B can be calculated from the relation-

ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V

K = coefficient depending on the shape of the pile0 and the relative density (Table 5)

Table 5 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure K for friction piles in cohesionless soil~

Pile type Low relative High relative densitvDr=0 density Dr=1

Small displacement pile 05 1 0

Displacement piles 10 20

Conical piles 15 40

15

For small displacement piles (steel H piles) willK0

approach the coefficient of lateral pressure at rest

and increase with increasing relative density

For displacement piles the value of K0 is high because

of local arching around the pile

If a linear relationship between D and ~ is assumedr the values of K0 are given in Fig 14 a Recommended

values of~ are given in Table 6 a

Table 6 The friction angle~ as a function of the angle of internal friction of the soil (~)

Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg

Concrete piles 07 ~middot Timber piles 07 ~ I

For rough estimates K tan ~a= 030 can be used 0

b) Point resistance

The unit point resistance is calculated by

As L gtgtBand Ny ~ N the first term will generally be q

neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q

where a~ is the effective overburden pressure at the level

of pile point The unit weight (p) of the soil correspondsa

to the apparent unit weight below water if the ground

water level is located at the ground surface

16

The net bearing capacity of the pile point will be equal

to net= p g L N - p g L

qp a q pile

If it is considered that the unit weight of the pile

corresponds to the unit weight of the soil

q = p g L(N -1)p a q

N can be obtained from Meyerhof (1953) (see Fig 4b)q

A safety factor equal to 3 is recommended

1 bull 2 6 The method of Berggren (1978)

The method is proposed for large diameter bored piles

in non-cohesive soils Based on test results Berggren

has stated

- In medium dense dense and very dense sand the ultimate

bearing capacity of the pile will be reached at a settleshy

ment of 5 of the diameter of the pile (5B) and the

settlement is equal to 10 Bin the case of loose and

very loose soil

- Maximum shaft resistance is reached at small displaceshy

ment of the pile (~5 mm) so a lower FS should be applied

to the shaft resistance than the point resistance Fig 9

is constructed with a safety factor of 5 on the point

bearing capacity psf thus giving the permissible point

pressure Psmiddot

- The permissible shaft resistance p is determined bym

Fig10 and the allowable skin friction resistance is

determined by

where A is the cross section of the pilep

- Based on the relationship between the angle of friction

~ and the bearing capacity factor N taking into account q

17

the critical depth according to Meyerhof (1976)

Fig11 has been drawn The unit point resistance

can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~

N = f(~ and L 1 B) where L1 = pile length in the q

bearing stratum and B = pile diameter

Note that for bored piles the bearing capacity factor

is 3 times lower than for driven piles

1 bull 2 7 The Australian Standard 2159-1978

a) Shaft resistance

The Australian Standard also considers the effect of

critical depth

for the depth z 0 lt z f = F 0lt Dc s V

for the depth z gt D f = F 0c s vc

0 1where is the effective vertical stress at the critical vc depth D The values of D and Fare given in Table 7

C C

b) Point resistance

The same consideration about the critical depth is taken

into account

q = N CJ p q vb

where CJ~b at the pile tip if L lt Dc

and 0 1 at the critical depth if L gt Dcvb and Lis the length of the pile

Values of N are given below q

Table 7 Values of D F and N C q

Soil condition Rela~ive rDcB F N q

density I I driven bored I driven bored I pile pile pile pile

25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18

Comment The critical depth is between 6B and 15B for

loose and dense sand These values are smaller than the

values proposed by Meyerhof (1976)

1 bull 2 8 Swedish experiences (Hultsjo amp Svensson 1969)

Based on 32 load test results from different places in

Sweden good correlation was found between the measured

ultimate bearing capacity and the bearing capacity deshy

termined from a static bearing formula L

Q = No A + J Ktano o ~ du p p z~z z 0

where

N = point bearing capacity factor (N=8)

0 I = effective overburden pressure at the p pile point

A = cross sectional area of the pile pointp L = total length of the pile -a = effective overburden pressure at the z depth z

= circumference of the pileltp z Ktano = 035

The limit value of the unit skin friction is in general

equal to 5 MPa For the case of a steel pile in loose

sand the value of Ktano = 025 is recommended (Bergdahl

1980)

1 bull 2 9 The Braatvedt method (1976)

General bearing capacity formula

Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q

for sand Qp = (04 ByNy+ a N ) A q p

0 1= (ac + K tano) AQs s V s

N N bearing capacity factors depending on ltp I (Fig 1 2) Nq c

1 9

~ = average effective angle of friction of the soil over a length of 1B below and 4B above the tip of the pile obtained from laboratory tests or deep sounding May be reduced by s0 for bored piles and increased by 40 for driven piles

o = angle of friction between pile and soil

23 for timber piles

34 for concrete piles

20deg for concrete piles

K s = Coefficient depending or disturbance

on the degree of densification

05 for bored piles with no temporary support of the sides

1 bull 0 for bored piles with adequate support of the sides

20 for driven piles in sand

B = pile diameter at the pile toe

AbAs = area of the base and the pile shaft

0~ = effective stress at the pile toe

a = average effective overburden stress V

c = cohesive strength at the pile tip

c = average cohesive strength over the embedded length

Fig 12 also shows a correlation between N of SPT and~shy

Fig 13 shows the indicative ultimate pressure at the

base or the tip of piles in clean sand derived from the

above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0

The settlement should be checked against allowable settleshy

ment

1210 The Tuoma and Reese method (1974)

A method to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of

bored piles in sand is proposed based on the comparison

between calculated and measured load transfer in sand

Tuoma and Reese (1974) observed that the failure load

20

corresponds to a displacement equal to 5 of the pile

diameter The skin friction failure load Qf appears at

25 mm of downward movement of the shaft

1 Skin friction Qs

The ultimate resistance Q in sand is obtained as s

L a e f (5 tancp dl avg

0

where a = 07 for the length of the pile in sand avg not exceeding 8 m aavg may decrease with greater penetration of the pile

8 = perimeter of the pile

(5 = effective overburden pressure

cp = effective friction angle

dl = differential distance along the length of the pile

2 Point resistance Qp

The failure tip resistance in sand is obtained at 25 mm

downward movement of the pile

Ap QP = 50 (SI unit)13 qp

where B == diameter omiddotf the pile B ~ 0 6 m (expressed in m)

= cross sectional area of the pile

tip resistance at 5 B movement

0 for loose sand

15 kPa for medium sand

38 kPa for very dense sand

For sand of intermediate density linear intershy

polation can be used

The values of tip resistance is limited to

L gt 10B

21

1211 Discussion and conclusions about the static

method for calculation of ultimate bearing

capacity of piles in non-cohesive soil

(1) The critical depth should be considered in the evalushy

ation of the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile The

critical depth depends on the relative density of the soil

the internal friction angle and the diameter of the pile

The critical depth varies from 6 to 20 times the diameter

of the pile The critical depth values recommended by

Meyerhof (Fig 4) or the Australian Standard (Table 7) can

be used The values recommended by the Australian Standard

are more conservative The unit skin friction and unit point

resistance should be evaluated with the critical depth if

the length of the pile is greater than the critical depth

Below the critical depth the unit skin friction is conshy

stant The curves Figs 10 and 11 based on Meyerhofs

recommendation (Berggren 1978) are valuable for practical

purpose

(2) The unit point resistance is evaluated by

q = 0 1 N p V q

where 0 1 is the effective overburden pressure at the pointV

tip or the critical depth N is the bearing capacity factor q and can be evaluated by the plasticity theory and is

depending on the pattern of failure In general Berezantzevs

theory and Vesics theory have more support than other

theories in practical design The values of N can be ob-q

tained from Table 3 Fig 4 or Fig 5 It is useful to

take into account the values of Table 4 as a guide in

practical purpose

The expression for calculating the unit point resistance

is the same for cohesive soil but as the values of N q are greater the point resistance takes a more important

role in the evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity

of the pile The values of N have a wide range of variation q and are very sensitive to the variation of the values of

22

internal friction angle On the other hand the point

resistance requires a greater displacement to mobilize

the ultimate bearing capacity in comparison with the

shaft resistance Therefore it is recommended to use a

safety factor equal to 3 for the point resistance

In the case of silty soil since high excess pore pressure

can develop when it is loaded it is recommended to use

~bull = 20-25deg to calculate the point resistance

(3) The unit skin friction is evaluated by

f = K tano aS S V

where a is the average of effective overburden pressureV

along the pile length or from the pile length to the

critical depth The factor Ks tano has the same meaning

as the factor Sin the effective analysis of piles in

cohesive soils It is interesting to note that the value

Kstano = 03-035 reported by Hultsjo et al (1969) and

used as a rough estimate of unit skin friction (Broms

1981) corresponds to the value of S reported by Burland

(1973) for normally consolidated clays

Table 8 contains a summary of values of Ks and Kstano

according to the recommendation of different references

The values of K and K tano have a wide range of~variations s and are depending on the relative density of the soil (or

angle of internal friction) material of the pile method

of installation and the length of the piles

Based on the recommendation of Broms (1978) the Australian

Standard (1978) and the relationship between the relative

density and the internal angle of friction~ (Terzaghi

and Peck 1948) a relationship between Ks and~ is presented

in Fig 14 together with data of Meyerhof (1976) Berggren

(1978) and the values measured by Christoulas (1981) and

Armishow (1980) The values of Ks of Armishow (1980) are

calculated based on the value of Ks tano measured and the

values of N from SPT

23

Table 8 Values of Kand Ktano for calculation of the unit skin friction

Reference K 0 K tano Remark s s

driven pile bored pilE

API ( 1977) 07 05 for tension

Australian 08 03 loose sand Standard (1978) 10 05 medium sand (SAA) 15 08 dense sand

Berggren (1978) (0 3) 0 1 cp = 30deg (0 6) 30 cp = 60deg

Braatvedt (19 76) 2 1 0 7cl timber pile Ks=05 for the cases 05 075clconcrete pilE of bored pile withoui

20deg steel pile support side

Brom ( 1978) 05-1 (Dr = 0-1) 20deg steel pile For rough estimation 1-2 (Dr = 0-1) 075 concrete pile Kstano = 03 15-4 (Dr = 0-1) 070cl timber pile

conical pile

Christoulos (9181) 15 06 cp gt 30deg K is measured

Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p

Hultsjo et al 035 From load tests of

( 1969) driven piles

Meyerhof (19 76) 10 025 cl= 33deg 25 075 cl= 375deg

Tuoma amp Reese 07 Define as value (1974) decrease with Lgt8 m

Meyerhof (1951) 05 loose sand 10 dense sand

Kezdi (1957 Theory analysis~ Ireland ( 1957) 1 75-3 Pull out tests

Lambe-Whitman 2( 1969)

24

The values of Ks reported by Meyerhof have a big range

of variation with small variation of internal friction

angle The similar variation of Ks with angle of internal

friction can be observed from the recommendation of Broms

the Australian Standard and the values reported by Armishow

and Christoulos The values reported by Armishow are smaller

than values recommended by Broms and the Australian Standard

due to the different assumptions in the calculation and

that the values measured are carried out during the driving

of the pile

For practical purposes the values recommended by Broms

can be used

Values of friction between various construction materials

and sand have been reported by Potyondy (1961) and are

presented in Table 9 Ifmicro is defined as the ratio between

the friction between the pile material and sand and the

drained internal frictionmicro is in the range 06 i micro lt 10

and steel material has the lowest value of friction

API (1977) and Broms (1978) have recommended that o = s0

which is conservative in comparison with the values reported

in Table 9 except for the case of steel piles However

the criterium o = ~ 1 -5deg can be used in practical purpose

for concrete and timber piles because it differs very

little from the values given by Podyondy For steel piles

micro = 06 and o can be calculated from~bull given or

8 = 20deg the later criterium may be very conservative

Fig 15 shows the relationship between K tano and the s internal angle of friction~bull considering the values of

K from the recommendation of Broms and o = ~-5deg (API)s With given value of angle of internal friction the value

of Kstano can be obtained from the curve for concrete and

timber piles The values of Kstano measured during driving

of piles after Armishow (1981) and from test results after

Hultsjo (1969) are also plotted in Fig 15

25

The variation of Kstano for steel piles according to the

above criteria (o=20deg and M=06) and the values of Ks

according to Broms are also presented in Fig 15 In the

case of steel piles with o = 20deg K tano varies verys little with the values of angle of internal friction

Since o can be greater than 20 0 (Table 9) micro = 06 can

be chosen in the evaluation of o for steel piles

The rough estimation Kstano = 03 (Hultsjo 1969) reshy

commended in practice can be very conservative in practical

design This value can be used only in the case of loose

sand or in silty soil where high excess pore pressures

can develop when it is loaded

As the shaft resistance requires very small displacement

to mobilize the ultimate resistance therefore a smaller

safety factor can be applied in this case in comparison

with the case of point resistance It is recommended that

the safety factor is equal to 15-2 to obtain allowable

shaft resistance from the ultimate value calculated

(4) In general small variations of the friction angle

~bull of sand considerably influence the values of Ks and

N It is therefore generally preferable to use the q

results of subsurface sounding by means of penetration

tests for preliminary estimations of the point resistance

and the skin friction of piles in non-cohesive soil

The relation between two methods will be discussed later

26

Table 9 Coefficient of friction between various construction material and sand (Potyondy 1961)

qgt I 0 ITest material tano micro= tanlt)

Polished smooth steel 37deg 23deg30 057in saturated dense sand

Rough steel in dense sand 43deg30 33deg40 07

Pine wood in saturated dense sand test run parallell to 37deg 33deg 086 the grain

Ditto but test run in perpendicular to the grain 37deg 34deg20 1 091

Smooth concrete (made in wood form) in saturated 37deg 33deg20 1 087 dense sand

Rough concrete in dry 43deg30 42deg30 097dense sand

27

13 Methods based on cone penetration tests

Static sounding is used extensively in the Netherlands

France and Germany to estimate the bearing capacity of

friction piles in sand Examples of static penetrometers

are the Dutch cone penetrometer penetrometers type

Barros Nilcon and the Swedish weight sounding device

Different criteria on using results of static penetration

are summarized below

1 bull 3 1 The Canadian Manual (1978)

The ultimate load capacity is evaluated by

where Qf = ultimate pile load (kN)

q = unit point resistance from cone test kPa p

For a pile with a diameter Bgt050 m q is equal to the minim~m measured qp P

f = average skin friction measured by cone test kPa s 2A = cross-sectional area of the pile tip m

2Ap = surface area of the pile shaft m s

The safety factor is equal to 25 to 3 depending on the

number of cone tests performed and on the observed varishy

ability of the test results

1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)

When the pile is driven into a stratified cohesionless

soil the ultimate point resistance and the skin friction

can only be calculated by semi-empirical methods from

static cone When the pile point is above the critical

depth in the bearing stratum the unit point resistance

has to be reduced from the limiting static cone resistance

q in proportion to the embedment ratio DBB

qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql

where qp = the unit point resistance of the pile

= limiting unit point resistanceq 1

The values of q 1 derived from the limiting static cone reshy

sistance q are shown in Fig 16 C

C

28

For bored piles roughly one third to one half of the

static cone point resistance and friction resistance

applicable to driven piles may be used for preliminary

estimations in cohesionless soil

For penetration of piles shorter than about 10B into

the bearing stratum the value q may roughly be estimated p by

in which q and q are the limiting unit point resistance 0 1

in upper weak and lower firm stratum respectively (Fig17)

When piles longer than about 15 to 20 pile diameter are

penetrated through a weak stratum into a thick firm deshy

posit the ultimate point resistance is increased with

DbB in this stratum but below the critical depth (10B)

the point resistance remains practically constant at the

limit value q 1 for this stratum If the pile point rests

in a relatively thin firm stratum underlain by a weak

deposit the ultimate unit point resistance in the bearing

stratum may be governed by the resistance to punching of

the piles into the underlying weak soil (Fig18) and


in the lower weak stratum and the upper firm stratum reshy

spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)

The shaft friction can be determined by qc using the

following relationship

f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan

and ~=angle of internal friction expressed in terms of total stress

29

In case the penetration resistance is lower than 05 MPa

p can be determined by

3 p = --

Irr

where Irr is the reduced rigidity index (Vesic 1967)

and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change

Ir = rigidity index (relative compressibility of the sand mass)

If no volume change (undrained condition) or little volume

change takes place

E ( 1 +v) (c+qtancp)

1 bull 3 4 The Thorburn method

Thorburn (1980) has recommended that the ultimate shaft

resistance can be determined by

Q = As qcs s 200

where = the embedment area of the pile shaft

the average static cone penetration resistance within the depth of embedment of the pile in the sand stratum

The ultimate base resistance is calculated for two cases

a) Deep embedment The pile penetration is at least 8B

into bearing stratum

Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2

where = average static cone resistance over a distance of 2B below the pile base

= minimum cone resistance over the same distance below the pile base

= average of the minimum cone resistance over a distance of 8B above the pile base neglecting any value greater than q

C1

30

b) Shallow ernbedrnent The pile penetration is only 1-2B

into a fine grained non-cohesive soil

Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p

= average q over a distance of 35B below the pile 5ase

qc +qc + qcnqcb = 2n +nqcn

= the cone resistance at regular intervals of 35B below the pile base and q is the lowest resistance en

= average cone resistance over 8B above the pile base neglecting any value greater than q bull en

1 bull 3 5 Te Karn WGB method (1977)

a) Skin friction In compression

q in MPa C

The resulting friction values are limited to 012 MPa

The method is based on the observed constant ratio beshy

tween q and the local sleeve friction measured in the C

cone penetration test L

and Q = TID 2 f f dx S O S

b) End-bearing

where I II and III are illustrated in Fig19

Generally in normally consolidated sands the CPT conshy

siders a limiting unit pile end-bearing capacity of 15

MPa However in overconsolidated sands a further limitation

might be applied (see Fig20) There are observations that

qcfloc ~ const floe is difficult to measure thus

according to Begernann f = q 1301OC C

31

In the case of the pile in tension L4 TID 3L4 L

Q = TID f fs dx + J fs dx + TID J f dx3s o o 3L4 s

The relationship between the point resistance q and the C

friction resistance f for a penetrometer measured with s

a separate friction sleeve is shown in Fig21 after

Begemann (1965) From the relationship shown in Fig21

it is possible to estimate the grain or particle size

when the point resistance and the skin friction resistance

are measured separately It is furthermore possible to

estimate the skin friction resistance from the point reshy

sistance if the average grain of the soil (gravel sand

silt or clay) is known Broms (1981) has reported the

ratio f q = 05-10 for sand and gravel and aboutS C

4-6 for clays

1 bull 3 7 The Nottingham and Schmertmann (19751977) method

a) Ultimate skin friction L

fsloc dx + J fslocnolO

82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )

S SC sloe s slos sl=0 8B

where 1 = depth to the f value considered s

A = pile soil contact area per f depth interval s s

Resulting skin friction values are limited to 012 MPa

f = unit local friction sleeve resistancesloe K = correction factor of the unit local friction s f in a sand layersloe K = correction factor of the unit local friction

C f in a clay layersloe K = function of the soil type pile material typesc

of cone tip etc see Fig 22

Beringen et al (1979) have suggested K-values as follows

In compression fsloc = 0007 qc (1143 qc)

In tension fsloc = 0005 qc (1200 qc)

32

Side friction calculation can be simplified if the

sleeve friction resistance does not vary significantly

with depth provided that L gt 8B

QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2

If two or more sand layers are invloved the above equation

can be used by considering each layer individually as shown

in Fig 23 The K-value should be the same for each layer

b) End-bearing

Fig 24 gives the basis for the calculation of the ultimate

pile end-bearing capacity using penetration data from a

Fugro-type penetrometer The procedure remains the same

for piles embedded in sand clay or mixed soil

138 The Norwegian Pile Committee (1973)

1381 Cone penetration test

The bearing capacity of friction piles in sand can be

calculated from CPT

fs = shaft friction factor depending on the soil density = 0005 q at q about 10 MPa = 001 q cat q cabout 25 MPa

C C

qcs= average static cone penetration resistance along the pile

point resistance factor= 05

static cone penetration resistance close to the pile point

1 382 Weight sounding

The bearing capacity of piles in sand can also be estimated

from Swedish weight sounding Fig 25 shows the relationshy

ship between the ultimate bearing capacity Qf the surface

area of the pile and the penetration resistance of th~ soil

expressed by the number of halfturns02 m of the Swedish

weight sounding The indicated relationship is based on

33

results from pile load tests In the evaluation of th~

test results the point resistance of the piles has been

neglected Normally the point resistance accounts for

almost half of the total bearing capacity The relationshy

ship shown in Fig 25 indicates that the ultimate bearing

capacity will be about 20 higher for timber piles than

for precast concrete piles of the same surface area of

the piles and the same initial relative density of the

soil As a guide in practice the following values can

be taken

When Dr is low (lt5 halfturns02 m) fs ~ 20 kPa for concrete piles

when Dr is medium (5-15 halfturns02 m) f ~ 35 kPa s and when D is high (gt15 halfturns02 m) fs ~ 50 kPa r

The diagram in Fig 25 is valid for ordinary timber and 2concrete piles with a cross sectional area of 500-1000 cm

and a length of 12-15 m

The ultimate bearing capacity of concrete piles in sand

can also be determined from the formula

= Af(00138 + 00016 P )Qu we = bearing capacity MNQu

2 = total shaft area mAf p = average number of halfturns per 02 m penetrationwe of the Swedish weight sounding penetrometer


capacity from the relationship between penetration reshy

sistance of the Swedish weight sounding and penetration

resistance of the static cone penetration test (Nht=3qc)

139 The United Kingdom experiences (Rodin et al 1974)

The ultimate bearing capacity of piles is calculated

34

Point resistance

1 Gravel for preliminary calculations piles in gravel

are designed as end-bearing and the following formula

is used as a guideline

Q = A n N (kN)p p

A = area of the pile base p

n = ratio of q to N C

N = standard penetration resistance at the pile base corrected using the Thorburn chart (Fig2)

2 Sand and silty sands

Using the Meyerhof (1956) formula

Qp = Apqc

q = average static cone penetration resistance c near the base as follows

for loose sand 35 B above pile base (acc to Van der Ven)

and 1 B below pile base

for medium sand80 B above pile base (acc to

35 B below pile base Begemann)

The skin friction is calculated

1 Total friction measured use the same formula as has

been recommended in Thorburns method (see 134)

and for fine grained non-cohesive soils (acc to

Thorburn et al 1970)

Q = s

2 LocaJ friction measured use the recommendations by

Begemann (136)

1310 Discussion and conclusions about the methods based on results from CPT

According to the review on the design of piles using reshy

sults from static cone penetration tests the following

points can be summarized

35

(1) The static cone penetration test is a useful tool

for prediction of bearing capacity of piles in nonshy

cohesive soils The CPT compared to the SPT has the

following advantages it is more reliable more reshy

peatable giving valuable information on soil stratishy

graphy The results from cone penetration tests can be

related to many properties of the soil (density friction

angle Youngs modulus bull )

(2) The result of cone resistance is uncertain for silty

soils especially in the case that the soil is below the

ground water It is recommended to take samples in those

cases

(3) The result from static cone penetration resistance can

be used directly in the calculation of the point resistance

of the pile if qc lt 10 MPa and it is equal to 05 qc if

qc gt 10 MPa (see table 10)

(4) The value of q is calculated from the average value p

of q over a specific depth (see Table 11) For practicalC

purposes the criteria of Begemann and Van der Ven can

be taken into account for medium sand and loose sand

(Table 10) the same criteria is recommended by Broms (1978)

(5) For piles with a diameter greater than 05 m the value

q is less than q It is recommended to make a reduction p C

q in those cases For instance the minimum value of C

for calculation of q can be used p

(6) Experiences show that the values of qp is different

from q when q is greater than 15 MPa Thus an upperC C

limit value of q 15 MPa should be considered for p

practical purposes (see Table 12)

(7) It is recommended to use the static cone penetrometer

with local measurement of the skin friction Based on

Begemanns diagram the grain particle size can be deshy

termined and serve as a double check of the result from

36

the cone penetration test if the average grain size of

the soil is known

(8) The value of the unit skin friction can be evaluated

from the point cone resistance The value of f is 03-s 20 of the q value (Table 13) In general

C

f = 05 qc for dense sand (qc 1 0 MPa)s f = 1 qc for loose sand (qc ~25 MPa)s

where q is the average value along the pile lengthC

(9) The value of the unit skin friction is 025-05 of

q for piles in tension C

(10) If the local friction is measured by a sleeve the

unit skin friction is 05-10 of the value of the sleeve

resistance For practical purposes f = 07 f as s s 1oc

recommended by Begemann can be taken

(11) For bored piles the unit skin friction is 13 of the

values considered for driven piles

(12) The limit value of the unit skin friction is equal

to 012 MPa for silty soils For fine sand this value is

010 MPa

(13) The ultimate bearing capacity of piles can be evalushy

ated from results from the Swedish weight sounding penetro~

meter tests The methods based on cone penetrometer can be

used if the relationship between penetration resistance

from CPT and weight sounding tests is known In general

Nht = 3 qc where Nht is the number of halfturns and qc

is the point cone resistance MPa


ated from SPT test results and the relationship between

SPT and CPT (see Appendix A)

37

(15) It is important to carry out further comparisons

between CPT tests and loading tests The following

conditions have been fulfilled

- The CPT test has to be carried out before the pile

test and in the same position

- The type of CPT test and the tip geometry must be clearly

defined

- The geometry of the pile and its way of production must

be clearly described

- The failure criterion adopted for interpreting the test

load result shall be given

(16) The disadvantage of CPT is limited capacity to penshy

etrate dense layers For estimating the bearing capacity

of the pile it is necessary to carry out the penetration

test at least to a depth 4B below the pile tip It is

recommended to make a combination between CPT and SPT in

those cases A new type of static-dynamic penetration

equipment developed at SGI will be a good tool for this

purpose

(17) The CPT is not widely used in Sweden for calculation

of the bearing capacity of piles This is due to the fact

that 80 of the piles in Sweden are driven to a very hard

till or to the rock surface

(18) The factor of safety to apply to Qf should be 25

to 30 depending on the number of cone tests performed and

on the observed variability of the test results The minishy

mum factor of safety corresponds to a larger number of

results with a variability of less than plusmn10 from the

average

38

Table 10 Summary of the criteria for calculation of the unit point resistance q from the average value of cone penetration r~sistance

t

Reference qp Note

Norwegian Pile Committee 05 qc(1973)

Begemann (1965 05 qc Vesic (1977) qp=qc if qc lt 1 0 MPa

Broms (1978 1981) 05 q if qc gt 1 0 MPa C

Table 11 The depth to consider in the calculation of qp from the average value of static cone penetration resistance qc

Reference Depth above Depth below Note pile tip pile tip

Van der Ven 35B 1B Loose sand

Begemann 8 B 35B Dense sand

Te kam (1977) 8 B 07-4B 07B if qc in-creases with depth 4B if qcvaries

Broms (1978) 35B 1B lt 10 kPaqp Thorburn (1979) 8 B 2B Considers other

values and the minimum of qc


39

Table 12 Limit values of unit point resistance and unit skin friction

Author Limit value Limit value Note of qp of fs

Broms (1978) 1 0 MPa

Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa

Begemann ( 1965) Q f 12 MPa

Beringen ( 1979) 15 MPa 025 MPa

Ton et al 0 1 0 Silty and fine ( 1 981) sand

Table 13 Values of unit skin friction

Reference Values of fs Note

Meyerhof (1956) f = 05 qcs

Meyerhof(1976) f = f (with sleeve)s sloe

Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025

in compression in tension

s

Begemann (1977) f fs

s

= 08 qC

= 07 f l s oc (with sleeve)

After Beringen (1979)

Nottingham (1975) f fs

s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen

Thorburn ( 1975) f s = 05 qc

Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc

Tong (1981) f = 2 q If q lt 5 MPa fs = 01 MPa If qc c gt 5 MPa

s

Broms (1978 1981) f = 05 q Dense sand the s C

relative densitJ is high

f = 0 1 MPa Loose sand s

40

1 4 Relation between methods based on static formula and static cone penetration test

1 bull 4 1 Determination of Kstano by CPT-test

The relation between two methods can be derived based on

the following assumptions

The point resistance of th~ pile qp is equal to the

point cone resistance q q = qC p C

- The local shaft resistance f from the cone penetrations

test can be used directly for calculation of the unit

shaft resistance of the pile fsl = fs

or in other words the CPT represents a pile model test

the same failure pattern in the two cases

The unit skin friction can be evaluated by

f = K tano a s s V

or af K tano JI= s s 2

where a~ is the effective vertical overburden pressure

at the pile tip considering that the length of the pile

is equal or less than the critical depth The unit point

resistance can be calculated by

q = N a p q V

The ratio between f and isqps

f Kstano s fs = or K tano = 2 N

2 N s qqp qcq

The value of Kstano can be derived if N and f q are q S C determined

The values of N can be defined if the relative densityq or the angle of internal friction are knownmiddot The value

off q can be de~ived as followsS C

41

(1) Empirical ratio off qS C

In case of dense sand f q = 005 Thus K tano = 001 N S C S q

and in case of loose sand f q = 0001 thus K tano = S C S

002 N bullq

( 2) Determination of K tano from CPT test with measurings

of friction

The ratio off q can be defined from the CPT test S C

(3) Determination off q by CPT test with measuring of S C

q and using Begemanns curve (Fig22) or Figs 31-33 C

1 bull 4 2 Relation between Qs and Qp

From the relation between CPT and static formula the

ratio of Qs and Qp can be written as

9s = 4 Js Ngs ( 2L-Dcr)Qp B qp Nqr

where B = diameter or width of the pile

N N = bearing capacity factor of the shaft qs qrand the pile point

L = total length of the pile

= critical depth

= fs = R = ratio of skin friction andzrc- f point resistance

If the soil is homogeneous N = N and qs qp

If the length of the pile is less than the critical depth

The accuracy of the ratio~ depends on the accuracy of Rf

Those can be obtained from CPT test or estimated from

empirical expressions or empirical diagrams

42

The ratio Q Q can be used for rough extimation of the s p length of the pile and the load displacement curve

As a demonstration of the relation between the two

methods some examples and case records are presented

in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples

Example No 1 Using the same data presented by Beringen

et al (1979) to evaluate the skin friction of two piles

The diameter of the first pile is cp = 356 mm and the length

of the pile is 7 m Fig 28 shows the result of the soil

investigation From the CPT values the ratios between fsl

and q are summarized in Table 14 for different depthsC

Table 1 4 bull Ratio between local friction and point resistance

Depth (MPa) f (MPa)qc fslqcsl

2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001

The ratio f q = 001 is used for calculation of the S C O

skin friction With cjl = 38 (from soil data) N = 127 q

(Berezantsev 1961) the value of K tano is calculated bys

K tano = 2bullN bull s_ s q qc

or

K tano = 2bull127middot001 = 254 s

The effective overburden pressures are calculated and

presented in Fig29

The skin frictionmiddotis evaluated by

-= K tano CJ I AQs s V s 0 3 5254middot1T 0356-35(~ +70+ ~- )Qs =

1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs

is approximately equal to 1310 kN whieh

is the value observed in the load test by Beringen et al

(1979) The value of Qp

is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1

V = 1085 kPa at the pile tip N

q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN

The measured value in the load test is somewhat smaller

1130 kN

Pile No 2 has the same diameter as pile No 1 356 mm but

the length of the pile is 65 m The pile is close-ended

A comparison of the measured and calculated pile capacities

is shown in Table 15

~xample No 2 (After Bergdahl and Wennerstrand 1976)

Two series of pile load tests have been performed at Albyshy

sjon The soil consists of cohesionless material mainly

sand the static cone penetrometer resistance is 2 to 3 MPa

down to 5 m and increases below that almost linearly with

depth and reaches 10 MPa at about 27 m below ground surface

The piles were steel pipe segments with~= 89 mm The

piles were pushed into the soil to different lengths and

after that they were pulled out the soil The results of

the test are presented in Fig 30 The ratio between the

specific skin friction resistance for the pile and the

point resistance of the static cone penetrometer gives

an average value of 00055

The shaft resistance of the pile is evaluated by two

methods

Pile Observed test Predicted value (kN) and predicted valueobserved test results test results

No Fugro-CPT method APT-method Begemann-method Nottingham-methoc Vesic method New method

kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80

Table 15 Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacities

i

i

45

1 The Hultsjo and Svensson formula L

Q =AK tano fa dz S S S O Z

where K tano = 035 y = 10 kNm 3

s

A = TTBL s

The results are plotted in Fig 30

2 The relationship between the CPT and static formula

is

K tano = N fs s q qc

where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s

0 Vunit skin friction f = 019 2 and Q = A f

s 8 s s


Note The results from the load tests (push) are similar

to the values calculated if K tano = 025 s

Example No 3 (After data of Bergdahl 1979)

The length of the pile= 152 m

Area of the point tip= 01middot01 = 001 m2

Shaft area of the pile= 4bull01middot152 = 608 m2

Submerged unit weight of the soil= 98 kNm 3

The ground water level is 05 m below ground surface

(1) Calculation according to the pile driving formula

(SBN 75) (see 15) the ultimate bearing capacity

of the pile is eavluated by

nh bull Q (1-01 Qp)e+c r Qrz

46

n = 10 (drop fall hammer)

h = height of fall of the hammer = 05 m

= weight of the hammer = 2 kNQr = weight of the pile = 1 9 kNQp

e = remaining penetration for the last blow = 3 mm

C = rebound of the soil = 4 mm

Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2

(2) Calculation according to Hultsjo et al (1969) L

Qf =NA bullO + K tano f ~ o dz p V O O Z V

A = area of the point tip = 001 m2 p

~2 = perimeter of the pile = 4 bull 0 1 = 04 m

N = K tano= 0358 0

o = effective overburden pressure at the pile tipV

o = yz = 152middot98 = 149 kPa V

221Qf = 8middot001middot149 + ~middot middot98middot04middot032

Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN

If the value of Ktano is reduced to 025 according to

Bergdahl et al (1979) the value of Qf is

Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN

(3) Calculation according to the relation between CPT and

static formula

Bergdahl and Wennerstrand (1976) have reported that the

ratio between the skin friction resistance of the pile

and the point resistance of the CPT is equal to 0005

The value is obtained from the two series of load test

piles at Albysjon Assuming this ratio for the relationshy

ship between the unit skin friction and the cone point

resistance or the relationship between the skin friction

of the pile and the point resistance of the pile the

value of Kstano can be derived In loose sand~ = 25deg

47

and according to Berezantzev et al (1961) N = 17 q

KstancS = 13 = 2middotN bull s_ = 2bull17bull00055 = 019 q qc

The ultimate bearing capacity is evaluated by

= N 0 1 A + frac12 0 1 bull K tancS A

q V p V S S

Qf = 17bull149middot001 + frac12 149middot017bull608

Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN

(4) The load test gives Qf = 110 kN

Table 16 shows a comparison between measured and calculated

capacity of the pile

Table 16 Comparison between measured and calculated piles capacity

Results from Driving Hultsjo Bergdahl CPT and loat tests formula (1969) static

formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c

QEred~cted 100 132 152 11 4 100 Qmesaured

1 4 4 Conclusion

Some examples above have shown the possibility to use

the relation between the CPT test and the static formula

to predict the pile capacity For this purpose some intershy

pretation charts after Searle (1979) are collected below

as a quide-line Relations between the two methods can

also be developed for cohesive soils

48

15 Method based on pressuremeter tests

When calculating the bearing capacity of friction piles

using results from pressuremeter tests the shaft reshy

sistance and the point resistance are added as usual

(Baguelin et al 1978)

1 bull 5 1 The point resistance

qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p

= measured limite pressureP1 = initial total horizontal pressurePo

p = net limit pressure determined by pressuremeter test1 k = bearing capacity factor

A = area of the point pointp

The bearing capacity factor k is dependent on a number

of different variables type of soil depth of embedment

shape of pile and method of installation The k factor

for driven piles is given by Baguelin et al (1978) see

Figs 34-37 or Table 17

The influence of method of installation on k is also shown

in Fig 38

152 Skin friction

The skin friction is also determined as a function of

the net limit pressure according to Baguelin et al (1978)

It is also dependent on the type of soil pile material

and method of installation The unit skin friction f s

for driven concrete and steel piles is given in Fig 39

Research in Sweden Sellgren (1981) shows a good agreeshy

ment between measured and predicted pile capacities

according to Baguelins method

49

Table 17 Bearing capacity factor (From Hansbo 1981)

Type of soil Net limit DB k max pressure Driven Bored(MPa)P pile pile

05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33

16 Method based on pile driving formula

Pile driving formulas are often used for point bearing

piles or friction piles in sand During the driving work

it is important to check that all piles in a pile group

have been driven to the same resistance and that the piles

have not been damaged The ultimate bearing capacity of

a pile can be evaluated by the formula in SBN 75

Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r

= ultimate bearing capacity should be at least 3 times larger than Qa 11ow

n = correction coefficient for drop hammer

= 1 free falling hammer = 08 hammer of single line

= height of drop of hammer m

= weight of the hammer t

= remaining penetration for the last blow

C = rebound of the soil (see Fig40)

50

If it is not possible to measure the rebound it can

be assumed for concrete piles that pule

C = AE p p

1 e = Qrqp independent of the length of the pile

qp = the weight of pile per meter

lf = length of follower

ApAf = average cross sectional and the follower

area of the pile

EpEf = modulus of elasticity of follower

the pile and the

The formula can be used for concrete piles if Qall~450 kN

the penetration should exceed 2-3 mmblow and for timber

piles with Qall~150 kN and the penetration is about 4-5

mmblow

Limitation

The main limitation of these formulae is the calculation

of energy transmitted to the pile and the change of the

bearing capacity that takes place after the driving

- Indicates only the load distribution from the pile

and the resistance of the soil during the driving

- Can only be used for limited allowable load and limited

penetration

17 Method based on stress wave measurement

171 The Case method

The Case method developed at Case Western Reserve University

by Goble et al (1980)

The bearing capacity of a pile can be determined from

top measurements of force (from strain) and velocity

(from integration of acceleration) The soil resistance

R was first computed from the rigid body equation

51

R = F(t) - m a(t)

F(t) a(t) = the pile tip force and the acceleration

m = the pile mass

Later studies of the elastic pile produced

R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where

F(t 1 ) = the force at the pile top at time t1

v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=

the velocity at the pile top

t1 + 2L C

some selected times during that the first maximum of force

at time t1

e blow (usually and velocity)

L = the pile length below the poiment

nt of measure-

c = velocity of wave propagation measured at the record or calthe relation

c can be culated from

C =

E = Youngs modulus

p = the mass density of the pile

The resistance R is made up from a static portion R and s

a dynamic portion Rd It is assumed that Rd is propor-

tional to the pile bottom velocity

EAR = J Vd c c bmax

where J is the damping constant depending on the soil C

type at the bottom of the pile recommended values are

(see also Hermanson amp Gravare 1978)

for sand 0-0 1 5

for sandy silt 015-025

for silty clay 045-070

for clay 090-120

The exact value for a special site can be obtained from

a static load test

52

From wave theory

V = 2 V - __ Rbmax top me

V = pile top velocity at time t 1top

The static resistance can be derived to

R = R - J 2Fti) -R I s max c maxJ

The correlation between the static capacity as obtained

in a static load test and the Case method is given in

Fig 41 bull Fig 4 2 shows the schematdc of instrumentation

A typical record of pile top force and velocity is shown

in Fig 43

1 7 2 The CAPWAP method

(Case Pile Wave Analysis Program)

The method is used in the laboratory schanatic of the

processing system is shown in Fig 44 Either pile top

force or pile top velocity can be used in a dynamic analyshy

sis as a boundary value This method divides the pile

into a number of mass points and springs (Fig 45) bull In the

computation a reasonable assumption is made regarding

the soil parameters and then the motion of the pile is

input using the measured top acceleration as a boundary

value The agreement between the measured and the calshy

culated forces can be improved iteratively by changing

the assumed soil resistance parameters (See Fig46)

The method provides a direct estimate of bearing capacity

and of skin resistance distribution No soil constant

needs to be assumed in order to make the analysis Fig

47 shows the result of a static load test (with and

without creep) compared to the CAPWAP computation

53

1 7 3 Other applications of stress wave measurements

(1) Integrity control

The force F and the velocity v caused by a stress wave

are related by constant FAc Resistance effects cause

the force to increase relative to the velocity A cross

sectional reduction causes the opposite effect The

impedance is defined by

I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I

If the pile changes its impedance from I 1 to I 2 the

impact wave having the force F will generate F l U

The corresponding velocity is

Given F and V through measurements one may also de-u u termine the lower cross section or impedance from

I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu

Figs 48-50 give an example of a pile which is breaking

during redriving

(2) Stresses Tension stresses occuring at a distance

below the point of measurement is given by

T (x) =frac12I (t2)-F(t2)-I (t3)-F(t3)V V

54

(3) Driving system performance

The energy transferred to the point of measurement can

be determined by using t

E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0

where v(t) is the integrated acceleration The maximum

of the E(t) function occurs just before the pile reshy

bound starts

18 Methods based on load tests

The design of piles on the basis of theoretical or

empirical methods are subjected with some uncertainties

- The soil proterties cannot be measured with great

accuracy and are always variable within a building

site

- The correlation between the soil parameters and the

bearing capacity of a pile includes a margin of error

- The actual driving or placing condition varies from

pile to pile

Therefore the best method of assessing the bearing

capacity of the piles is to load test typical units

181 Methods of load testing

1811 Load testing with a constant rate of penetration

The method is usually employed to determine the ultimate

load and mode of operation of a pile

End-bearing piles should be loaded until failure or until

the maximum available load has been applied

Friction piles should normally be loaded to achieve at

least 60 mm of settlement

55

The rate of penetration is normally chosen at approxishy

mately 05 mmmin It is advisable to record the force

required and the magnitude of the movement every second

minute

Unloading is interrupted for 1-2 min ie the time

required for the rebound to be stationary and to permit

reading of the dial gauges when the load has fallen to

approximately 75 50 25 10 and 5 of the maximum

applied load Typical working curves are shown in Fig51

1812 Load testing with stepped load increments (the ML method)

This method is designed to permit determination of the

ultimate load and the creep load of the pile

The load is increased every 15 minutes by a constant

amount approximately 5 of the estimated ultimate load

generally rounded of 10 20 50 or 100 kN Dial gauges

are read 3 6 9 12 and 15 min after application of a

new load

To be able to evaluate the creep load the load measureshy

ment and the maintenance of a constant load must be

carried out with great accuracy

1813 Cyclic load testing

This method is designed to permit the determination of

the creep load of the pile The load test is carried out

by alternating the load between a high load and a low

load Each load is maintained for 10 minutes One cycle

comprises a period with a high load directly followed

by a period of a low load and is thus of 20 minutes

duration The high load is generally twice the lower

one It is advisable to measure and record the pile settleshy

ment at the head of the pile very two minutes

56

1814 Long-term load testing

Long-term load testing is designed to check the creep

of the pile Load durations of the magnitude of one day

up to six months or a year may be required

1 8 15 Combination of methods of load testing

18151 Stepped load increment combined with constant

rate of penetration loading

This combination is often used in Sweden The constant

rate of penetration loading is carried out in the vicinity

of the ultimate load This provides a continuous and

detailed load settlement curve

The load testing is carried out in accordance with 1812

until the load under which the head of the pile sinks

approximately 01-02 mmmin during the later part of a

15-minutes period is reached The pile is then loaded to

achieve a constant rate of penetration of 05 mmmin

1 bull 8 2 Reporting of load testing results

The scale which is chosen for the presentation of the

results will also in many cases influence the calculated

ultimate strength as illustrated in Fig52 The recommenshy

dation of the Commission on Pile Research (Report 59

1980) is as follows

The load should be set out along the horizontal axis

and the settlement of the pile head (and pile tip)

along the vertical axis using a load scale of 10 kN =

1 mm and a linear settlement scale of 1 mm measured=

2 mm on the graph The scales may be varied but the

relationship between them must be maintained Example

of results (working curves) are shown in Fig53 and

Fig54

The creep load (using 1812) should be plotted under the

later part of the load steps (for example the settlement

taking place between the readings taken 9-15 or 12-15 min)

One example is shown in FigSS

57

The Canadian Manual (1978) recommends that the scale

for the load and the settlement should be selected so

that the line representing the elastic deformation 6

of the pile will be inclined at an angle of about 20deg

to the load axis The elastic deformation 6 is computed

from


1831 The Canadian Manual (1978)

The failure load Qf of a pile is the load which produces

a settlement of the pile head equal to

Bs=6+3()

s = settlement at failure m

B = diameter of a pile m

6 = elastic deformation m

Fig 56 presents the failure criterion

1832 Kezdi (1975)

Some rules to determine the design load from pile test

diagrams are summarized in Fig57 Kezdi (1975) reshy

commends the criterion (3)

1833 Vesic (19751977)

Some failure criteria summarized by Vesic (19751977)

are presented in Table 18 Vesic (1977) recommends the

criterion 16 to be used in the following corrected form

- Unless the load settlement curve of a pile does not

show a definite peak load the ultimate load is defined

as the load causing total pile settlement equal to 10

of the point diameter for driven piles and 25 of the

point diameter for bored piles

58

1834 90-criterion

The ultimate load is often defined in Sweden and Denmark

from a criterion where the deformation of the pile head

at 09 Qult is half the axial deformation at the ultimate

load

1835 The Commission on Pile Research (1980)

A new definition of the ultimate bearing capacity is

+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE

where settlement of the pile head at the0ult = ultimate load (mm)

B = deiameter of the pile (mm) (For square cross section B = 113 x the side of the cross section of the pile)

PLAE= Compression ofthe pile when it is loaded as a column

The simplest method of determining the ultimate load is

shown in Fig54 where

B a= 20 + 20 (mm)

1836 Values form practical experiences

Tuoma and Reese (1974) Andreasson (1976) Berggren (1981)

have reported that the deformation at the bearing of the

failure is 5 of the pile diameter For loose non-cohesive

soils the settlement is about 10 according to Berggren

(1981)

1 bull 8 4 Distribution of the bearing capacity between

the tip and the sides of the piles

A reliable determination of the distribution between the

bearing capacity of the tip of a pile and its sides is

only possible if the pile is fitted with a tip-force

gauge and if a load testing with subsequent test pullingshy

out of the pile is carried out

59

Table 18

Rules for determination of ultimate load

1) Limiting total settlement

a) absol 0-1te 10 in (Holland New York Code) b) relative 10 of pile tip diameter (England)

2) Limiting plastic settlement

025 in (AASHO) 033 in ( Magne 1 19 4 8) 050 in (Boston Code)

3) Limiting ratio plastic settlementelastic settlement

15 (Christiani anJ Nielsen)

elastic settlement increment4) Maximum ratio plastic settlement increment

(Szechy 1961 Ref 15)

5) Limiting ratio settlementload

a) total 001 inton (California Chicago) b) increment al 003 inton - Incremental (Ohio)

005 inton - Incremental (Raymond Co)

6) Limiting ratio plastic settlementload

a) total 001 inton (New York Code) b) increment al 003 inton (Raymond Co)

settlement increment7) Maximum ratio load increment

( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )

8) Maximum curvature of le w log Q lire

(De Beer 1967 Ref 17)

9) Van der Veen postulate (1953) (

~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60

By measuring the compression of the pile during load

testing it is possible to assess at which load the

entire load increment is carried by the pile tip

(Fig 58)

When the ratio i~ (compression of the pile in relation

to applied load increment) becomes almost constant the

load increments are transferred directly to the pile tip

Weele (1957) stated based on observations that

- after a certain settlement of the pile the total skin

friction remains constant and the increase in load at

the pile point is the same as the pile top (see Fig54)

- If only the displacement of the pile top is measured

the elastic compression of the pile together with the

elastic compression of the soil can be obtained by means

of the recovery of the pile top during unloading (Fig59a)

As the elastic compressions have a linear relation to the

pile load after the skin friction reaches its ultimate

value The skin friction corresponding to every pile load

can be obtained drawing a straight line through the origin

parallel to the linear part of the load elastic compression

(Fig 59b)


SBN 75 recommends that load tests are carried out at a

constant rate of penetration (CPR) and that the allowable

load corresponds to 25 of the ultimate load with respect

to soil failure

1 8 6 Comparison between different methods of load tests

Bergdahl and Hult (1981) made the following conclusions

- The ultimate bearing capacity determined by CRP tests is

about 10 higher than that by ML tests

- The cyclic load test reduces the ultimate bearing capacity

by about 15

61

1 bull 8 7 Comparison between the creep load and the

ultimate load of piles

According to the Commission on Pile Research (Report 59)

the bearing capacity of a pile in soil may be expressed

as an ultimate load or as a creep load

- The ultimate load of a pile is the load at which failure

is reached along the sides of the pile and under the tip

- The creep load of a pile is the maximum load that can

be applied without greatly increased deformation under

continuous loading or cyclic loading

The creep load is normally assumed to be 80 of the ultimate

load determined from constant rate of penetration test

A large difference between these values may indicate that

the pile is bent

- Berggren (1981) and Sellgren (1981) have recommended

the creep load (Fig 55) as the interpretation of a

failure because it is in general best defined

62

2 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUPS

Piles in a group in granular soil develop a larger load

capacity than isolated piles their group efficiency is

greater than 100

Influence of spacing and pile cap (the Canadian Manual)

Piles in group

- Act as individual piles if s gtgt B

- Act as a group at 25B lt s lt 7B

- Should not be installed at s lt 25B

SBN 75 Spacing center to center

L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB

Fig 60 shows the relation between the pile group efficiency

and the pile spacing according to different authors

Fig 61 after Kezdi (1975) also presents the relation

between the efficiency n and the spacing of the piles in

group The results of different authors confirm that the

efficiency factor for a pile group in sand is greater than 010 (except for ~=45) For practical purpose it is re-

commended to taken= 10

63

3 bull SETTLEMENT OF A SINGLE PILE AND A PILE GROUP

3 bull 1 Settlement of a single pile

3 1 bull 1 Empirical method the Canadian Manual

For normal load levels the settlement of a displacement

pile may be estimated from the empirical formula (Vesic

1970)

S = settlement of the pile head cm

B = pile diameter cm

o = elastic deformation of the pile shaft cm

= 100 QLp_0 AE

A= average cross sectional area of the pile m2

E = modulus of elasticity of the pile material in kPa

The ultimate or failure load produces a settlement approxshy

imately 3 times greater

For a bored pile S 1 = 35

3 1 bull 2 Settlement from load tests

Settlement during a load test (ML) can be considered as

representative of the long term behaviour of the pile

This method is recommended by the Canadian Manual

3 1 3 Method based on the theory of elasticity

3131 Mattes and Poulo s method

The settlements of a single pile in an elastic medium

can be estimated from the following relationship as

proposed by Mattes and Roulos (1969) and Poulos (1972)

s = Q I EsL s

where Q is the applied load Es is the elastic modulus of

the soilLis the pile length and Is is an influence factor

that depends on the length and diameter of the pile

64

Poissons ratio of the soil and the stress distribution

along the pile (see Fig62) For rough estimates I = s

18 can be used The most difficult of these factors to

evaluate is E and the stress distribution along the s

pile

For the case of an end-bearing pile on rigid stratum

PLs = EA MR p p

where MR is the movement ratio (see Fig63) depending

on the pile stiffness factor K determined by E

K = l RE a

s

E = Youngs modulus of the pilep E = Youngs modulus of the soil

s

Table 19 Typical values of E (driven piles) (From Poulos 1977 ~ustralian Standard 1978)

Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2

Ra= Area of the pile section - 4-

The method based on the theory of elasticity is recomshy

mended by the Australian Standard (1978) Vesic (1975)

and Broms (1981)

65

3132 The method of Berggren

Berggren (1981) had proposed a relationship between the

pressure and the settlement for a circular rigid foundshy

ation on non-cohesive soils

S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement

B = diameter of the foundation

p = contact pressure MPa

m = compression modulus number

v = Poissons ratio (030-035 according to Barkan et al)

0 1 = initial effective overburden pressure MPa 0

a= pressure factor (varies with SB from model tests)

S = pressure exponent

The equation can by model scale tests be used to establish

the relationship between the pressure and the settlement

for foundations of different diameters and different foundshy

ation depths Values of Sand m can be evaluated by the

empirical expressions (Andreasson 1973)

m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0

S = 029 log (i~ 1middot)-0065 log Cu

where C = uniformity coefficient dso u d10

e = void ratio 0

dso= grain size in mm (diameter corresponds to 50 of the soil)

The expressions are valid for dsolt5 mm

A good agreement between measured and computed contact

pressure and settlement has been obtained by Berggren

(1981)

66

3 1 bull 4 Vesics method (1977)

s = s + s + s e s p

s = elastic compression of the pilee

= settlement of the pile caused by loadSS transmitted by shaft friction to the soil

s = settlement of the pile due to the point load p

s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo

where = pile settlement coefficient dependingCscp on soil type and method of installing the pile


D = depth of pile embedment

= actual point and skin loads transmitted by the pile in the working stress range

= ultimate point resistance

The value of C is given in Table 6 for total long-termp settlement of the pile where the bearing stratum under

the pile tip extends at least 10 pile diameters below the

pile point

L = length of the pile shaft

A= cross sectional area

a= factor depending on the distribution of skin friction 06 in sand

E = modulus of elasticity of the pilep

The value of C can be evaluated from s

C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p

The values of C are listed below p

67

Table 20 Typical values of the coefficent C p

Soil type Driven pile Bored pile

Sand (dense to loose) 002-004 009-018

Silt (dense to loose) 003-005 009-012

Clay (stiff to soft) 002-003 003-006

315 Method based on the Finite Element Method (FEM)

Stress distribution along a loaded pile can be determined

by FEM using the non-linear stress~strain relationship

The settlement of a single pile can be determined with a

given condition of the load the geometric of the pile

boundary and stress-strain relationship of the soil

The accuracy of the method depends on the degree of accuracy

of the parameters of the soil



The settlement of a pile group is often calculated by the

method proposed by Skemton et al (1953) This method is

based on settlement observations of actual structures

The observations indicate that the settlement will increase

with increasing size of pile group and the settlement of a

pile group S is always larger than that of the in-group dividual piles forming the group

s _ ags group

S = settlement of a single pile under its allowable load

a = group settlement ratio a function of the g dimension of the group and of the pile spacing or of the ratio BD of the width of the pile group to the diameter of the piles as follows

68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g

322 The method of Berezantsev

In the USSR and Poland the method proposed by Berezantsev

et al (1961) is used The settlement is assumed to inshy

crease linearly with the width of an equivalent area

located at the base of the piles The stress distribution

within the pile group is assumed to correspond to an angle

cp 4

323 Method based on theory of elasticity

The Australian Standard recommended Poulos method for

evaluation of the settlement

S = R S group s

S = settlement of a single pile

Rs = settlement ratio (see table 22)

For a number of piles different from 16 R can be s

extrapolated

R25 = settlement ratio for a group of 25 piles

R1 s = settlement ratio for a group of 15 piles

n = number of piles in a group

--

-- ----

--

69

TABLE 22 a THEORETICAL VALUES OF SETTLEMENT RATIO R FOR

FRICTION PILE GROUPS WITH RIGID CAP ON DEEP UNIFORM SOIL lIASS

Settlement ratio R Length Spacing

dia dia Number of piles in group n ratio ratio

4 9 16 25

Lid sd Pile stiffness factor K

10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788

TABLE 22 b THEORETICAL VALVES OF SETTLEMENT RATIO R FOR

END-BEARING PILE GROUPS WITH RIGID CAP BEARING ON A RIGID STRA TCM



4 9 16 25

Ld sd Pile stiffness factor K

10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70

324 Meyerhofs recommendation (1976)

Using the concept of an equivalent pier foundation the

settlement of a pile group in a homogeneous sand deposit

not underlain by more compressible soil can be determined

from the result of the standard penetration test

s = 2p VB I N

S = settlement in inches

p = net foundation pressure in tons per square foot

B = width of the pile group in feet

N = average corrected standard penetration resistance (blowsfeet)

I = influence factor of effective group embedment

DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05

The settlement can also be evaluated from the result of

static cone penetration test

BI ps = 2q

C

q = average static cone resistance C

Both methods appear to give roughly reasonable estimates

for practical purposes Fig64 shows a comparison between

calculated settlements from these methods and observed

settlements of foundations supported by driven and bored

piles

325 Parrys method (1977)

S = 300 pBN

(mm) m

p = net pressure at the level of the footing (MPa)

B = width of the footing (m)

N = number of blows for 20 cm penetration with m the Swedish ram sounding or number of blows with SPT

71

326 The method of De Beer

The settlement can be evaluated by 0 1 0 1z

s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V

point resistance from CPT test

effective overburden pressure at the level considered

60 1 = additional load V

327 The method of Schmertmann (19701978)

The settlement is evaluated from the expression 2B

s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E

where E = 20 q (Schmertmann 1970)C

influence factor

1-05 ( t) = effective initial pressure at the level

of foundation

6p = net foundation pressure increase (p-p =6p)0

Note C1 takes account to the strain relief due to embedment

C2 = influence factor of the time rate in deshyvelopment of settlment in sand (creep effect)

The procedure of the calculation is the following

1 Obtain the static cone resistance (qc) profile over a

depth interval from the proposed foundation level to a

depth 2B below this B = pile diameter

2 Note the data of the pile foundation design (width

depth of embedment average foundation contact pressure)

3 Obtain the unit weight of surcharging soil

4 Divide the qc profile into a number of leayers each

with constant qc

72

5 Obtain E from qS C

6 Draw the assumed (sB06) triangular distribution for

the strain influence factor Iz (see Fig65) Calculate

(Ii 6z)

7 Calculate C1 C2 and the settlement

Experience shows that Schmertmanns method is better than

the method of Buisman and De Beer and is recommended by

many authors and codes

Recently (1978) Schmertmann et al based on results from

research by the Finite Element Method and model tests

(Fig66) recommended a new distribution of the strain

(Fig67) and the values of E calculated as follows

E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c

This method has also been used to some extent in Sweden

Bergdahl (1980) and the experiences are so far rather

good but calculated settlements are on the safe sideIt

is interesting to note that Trofimenkov (1974) has reported

the value of E = 3 q according to experiences in the USSR C

33 Summary of the methods for calculation of settlement

1 Four common methods have been used for evaluation of the

settlement of single piles The empirical method (Vesic

1970) recommended by the Canadian Manual assumes that

the pile compresses elastically as a supported column

with no load transfer due to skin friction and the

settlement of the tip is constant for any normal pile

and is equal to 10 of the diameter of the pile The

method can be used as a guideline in practical purposes

The methods based on the theory of elasticity and FEM

requires good information about the properties of the

soil The accuracy of these methods for prediction of

73

the settlement will be very good because the variation

of different layers and boundary conditions can be taken

into account

The method recommended by Vesic (1977) and the method

based on load tests can be used for design purposes

Those methods will be in agreement with practical obshy

servations and dont need special information about the

data of the soil

2 Two approaches are generally used for evaluation of the

settlement of pile groups The method based on the settleshy

ment of the single pile or the equivalent area located

at the base of the pile group and the method based on

results from SPT or CPT The Schmertmann method is conshy

sidered as useful Practical experience shows good

agreement between the valvulated and measured settlements

74

4 CONSLUSIONS

(1) The SPT method can be subject to many errors during

the test It is recommended to use SPT in combination

with other methods In silty soil SPT will produce

high pore pressure it is therefore suggested to take

soil samples and carry out laboratory tests

(2) The critical depth could be taken into account for

evaluation of the bearing capacity of the soil The

point resistance is more important than the skin friction

in a non-cohesive soil than in a cohesive soil The

bearing capacity factor after Berezantsev (1961) Vesic

(1969) or Berggren (1981) can be used for evaluation of

the point resistance For calculation of the skin fricshy

tion the value of Kstano in Fig15 after Broms and the

recommendation of API can be used It is obvious that

a small variation of the values of angle of internal

friction will produce a big variation in the value of

bearing capacity of the pile Evaluating the skin

friction of bored piles K -values after Berggren (1978)s can be used (Fig 14)

(3) The use of CPT for the prediction of the bearing capacity

and the settlement of the pile is recommended As CPT

can be looked upon as a model test of a pile it will

be expected that the stress-strain behaviour of the

soil surrounding the pile is similar to that when the

cone is penetrating the soil Different methods have

been recommended for the evaluation of the bearing

capacity of the pile based on CPT test results

(4) The methods based on the results of pressuremeter tests

and the stress wave equation show very good agreement

with the values measured However those methods reshy

quire special equipments and specialists

(5) The load test is the best method for prediction of the

bearing capacity of piles The constant rate penetration

75

test (CRP) is recommended for this purpose To define

the ultimate load the following expression can be used

B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE

It is interesting to take into account that the settleshy

ment of the pile at failure is 005 Bin medium dense

dense and very dense sand and 01B in loose and very

loose sand

(6) It is important to separate the shaft friction and the

point resistance in the load test results and in the

calculations Different safety factors for shaft load

and end-bearing load are recommended It is common

practice to take FS = 3 for point resistance and FS = 15 for shaft friction

(7) Methods based on pile driving formulae can only be used

for piles with limited allowable load According to

SEN 75 Q lt 450 kN for concrete piles and timber pilesa -

Q lt 130 kN for timber pilesa -

(8) The relationship between the CPT method and static

formula for prediction of the bearing capacity of piles

may be interesting for practical purposes Some examples

with case histories show a good agreement between the

measured and calculated pile capacities

(9) The bearing capacity of a pile group can be evaluated

by the efficiency factor n = 1

(10)The calculation of the settlement of a single pile and

a pile group can be made by the use of Vesics method

(1977) Poulos method (19721977) and Schmertmanns

method (197 0 1978)

(11)For practical purposes it is useful to take into account

relationships between the results of different methods

of penetration tests

APPENDIX A

Relationship betwen results of penetration tests

1 Meyerhof (1956)

q = 04 N where q is the cone resistance in C CPT tesfs (MPa) and N is the number

of blows from SPT tests

2 Schmertmann (1970) gave the expression q N = n C

where n varies with type of soilp see Table A1

Table A1 Values of n

Soil type n

Silts sandy silt and slightly cohesive silt sand mixture 02

Clean fine to medium sand and slightly silty sand 03-04

Coarse sand and sand with little gravel 05-06

Sandy gravel and gravel 08-10

Sanglerat (1972) recommended this relationship enabling

the usage of theories from CPT tests to calculate bearing

capacity and settlement

3 Dahlberg (1975) Based on the results obtained from

penetration tests the relation between q (SGI mechanical)C

and N of SPT is established as follows

log(q) = 0999 log(N)-0131 plusmn0037 C

and

log(N ) = 0919 log(qc)+0212 plusmn0003630

The relationship is presented in Fig A1 n = q N is 06-07C

which is about the same (05-06) as Schmertmann (1970)

suggested for sand and sand with little gravel

4 Moe et al (1981) In accordance with results from soil

investigations the following relationship between qC

and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)

Based on the results of Dahlberg (1975) recommended the

following simple relationships between different penetrashy

tion tests

= 070 or = 1 4 (5 1 ) qc N20 N20 qc M = 212 or = 047 M (52)N20 N20w w

09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30

whre number of blows per 020 m ram soundingN20= (Swedish method A)

= cone resistance in MPa

= number of halfturns per 020 m weight sounding penetration

N = number of blows for 03 m of penetration30

The above relationships will give

q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C

that is the same value recommended by Dahlberg (1975) for

coarse sand of low gravel content

However if taking the relationship between N and N30 20

according to load test results on bored piles on silty

sand by Tuoma and Reese (1974)

(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C

The range of variation of q N is from 027-077 that is C

similar to the range of variation reported by Schmertmann

(1970) The relationships 51 52 and 55 are presented

in FigA2 For practical purposes it is recommended to

take the following relationships

A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc

where is measured in MPaqc

6 Relations between N q and some parameters of the C

soil according to Terzaghi and Peck (1948) Sanglerat

(1972) and Bergdahl (1980)

Table A2

SPT Relative Description of Static cone Angle of density compactness resistance internal

N Rd MPa friction

lt2 02 Very loose lt2 (lt25) lt30

5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg

gt50 08-10 Very dense gt20 ( gt 20) gt45deg

These values are approximate the values inside the parenthesis are according to Bergdahl (1980)

The ration= q N is almost constant and is approximatelyC

equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)

Sanglerat has been collecting the relationship between qC

and N according to various authors and presented the re-

sults as in Fig A3 The range of variation of the value

n = q N is about 025-08 which is about the same as C

suggested by Schmertmann (1970)

8 Thorburn (1971)

According to results of various authors n (q N) depends on C

the particle size of the soil The range of variation of n

is about 02 for silt to 06 for gravel The result of the

comparison is presented in Fig A4

A4

9 Penetration testing in Greece (Tassios ESOP 1974)

As a cross-check of site data the following values are

frequently used (q =MPa) Table A3 C

Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02

silty clay and sand 03

Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08

The values of n are similar to those of Schmertmann (1970)

but it is interesting to note that the value of n = 02

is used for clay

10 Schmertmanns research (1977)

Fig AS presents a semi-theoretical correlation between N

and qc The use of Fig AS requires a knowledge of Rf as

obtained from a Begemann type of cone tip If only SPT

data available then the ratio NOGinN12 _ 18 in andor

N6_12 inN12 _ 18 in can provide a measure of Rf (Table AS)

Summary

There is no unique relation between qc from cone penetration

tests and the N-value from standard penetration test The

ratio between qc and N is dependent on the type of soil

The range of variation of n (q N) is from 02 to 10 the C

largest value for a coarse soil

For practical purposes the ration can be obtained from

Table A1 or Fig A4 The angle of friction can be obtained

from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B

Empirical methods to obtain the value of angle of internal

friction

B1 Brinch Hansen (1950)

~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)

ID= relative density of the soil

C = uniformity coefficient (should not be chosen u higher than 15)

dm = average grain sice (mm)

The new code of practice for foundation engineering

(Danish institute 1978) recommended the similar expression

o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D

B2 The angle of internal friction can also be derived

from CPT test according to Meyerhof (1976) see Fig 16

B3 Estimating the angle of internal friction from the

relative density Schmertmann (1977) recommended a modified

chart from Burmister (1948) as in Fig B1

B4 Estimating the angle of internal friction from CPT test

Trofimenkov (1974) shows in Fig B2 the relation between the

angle of internal friction of sands and the results of

static sounding The diagram takes into account the value

of effective overburden pressure

B5 Estimating the angle of internal friction from pressureshy

meter test Baguelin et al (1978) recommended to use the

Centre dEtudes Menards equation

~-24Pi= 25middot2 4

and the results are shown in Fig B3

C1

APPENDIX C

Values of safety factor

C1 Broms (1981)

FS = 2 is frequently used ot calculate Q bull a 11ow However it is common to use

FS = 3 with respect to point resistance

FS = 15 with respect to shaft resistance

C2 Berggren (1978)

For bored piles FS = 5 for the pile point

and FS = 1-2 for the shaft

C3 De Beer (1979) recommended FS for very dense sand

where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13

C4 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1978)

recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References

American Petroleum Institute (1977) Recommended practice

for planning designing and constructing fixed off

shore platforms APT Also see Beringen et al 1979

Andreasson L Kompressibilitet hos friktionsjord Laborashy

toriestudier Chalmers 1973

Andreasson L Hansbo s and Hartlen J (1976) Results

of loading tests on bored piles Proc of 6th Europ

Conf on Soil Mechanics and Found Engn Wien 1976

Vol 1 2

Australian Standard or SAA Piling Code (1978) Rules for

design and installation of piling

Armishow JW and Cox DW The effect of change in pore

water pressure on the carrying capacities and settleshy

ment of driven piles end-bearing in sand and gravel

stratum Recent Development in the Design and Conshy

struction of Piles London 1979

Baguelin F Jezequel JF and Shields DH (1978)

The pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering Trans

Tech Pub

Barkan DD (1962) Dynamic of bases and Foundation

Mc Graw Hill Book Comp p 13

Begemann The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining

the soil profile 6th ICSMFE Vol

Begemann (1977) Foundation Building Research Soil Mechanic

Aspect on Pile Foundation Samson Alphel (Also see

Beringen 1979)

Beringen FL Windle D and Vanhooydonk WR Results

of loading tests on driven piles in sand Recent deshy

velopment in the Design and Construction of piles Proc

of the Conf in London

D2

Berggren B Large diameter bored piles Commission on

Pile Reserach Report No 58

Berggren B Gravpalar pa friktionsjord Sattningar och

barformaga Department of Geotechnical Engineering

Chalmers University of Technology

Bergdahl U (1979) General discussion Proc of Recent

Development in Design and Construction of Pile London

Bergdahl u and Wennerstrand J Bearing capacity of driven

friction piles in loose sand Proc of VIEVSMEF 1976

Wien

Bergdahl u and Moller B The static and dynamic penetroshy

meter Proc of X ICSMFE 1981

Bergdahl u (1980) The use of penetrometer in Sweden

Bergdahl u Hult G Load test on friction piles in sand

Field tests with different test procedures Report No

56 Commission on Pile Research 1979

Bozozuk M 1979 Bridge foundation move Trans Research

Record G78 Washington

Braatvedt I 1976 Franki pile

Berezantzev VG Khristoferov VS and Golukov VN (1961)

Load bearing capacity and deformation of pile foundation

Proc 5 ICSMFE Vol 2 Paris

Broms B (1966) Methods of calculating the ultimate bearing

capacity of pile Summary Soil and soil No 18 1966

Broms B (1978) Precast piling practice

Broms B (1981a Pile foundation General report X ICSMFE

Broms B (1981b Field and laboratory method in Sweden

Bustamante MG 1981 Reajustement des Parametres de

Calcul des Pieux Proc of X ICSMFE

D3

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual Part 3 Deep

foundation CGS March 1978

Caquot A and Kerisel J (1956) Traite de Mecanique

des sol 2nd edition Paris

Christoulos A Tassement de Fondations sur Pieux Proc

of X ICSMFE Stockholm 1981

Commission on Pile Research Recommendation for pile drivshy

ing test with subsequent load testing Report 59

Stockholm 1980

Danish Geotechnical Institute Code of practice for foundshy

ation engineering Bulletin No 32 1978

Dahlberg R and Bergdahl U (1974) Investigation on

Swedish ram sounding method Proc ESOPT Stockholm

Dahlberg R (1975) Settlement characteristic of preshy

consolidated natural sands D11975

De Beer EE (1967) Bearing capacity and settlement of

shallow foundation in sand Proc of Symposium on

bearing capacity and settlement of foundations Duke

University pp 15-33

De Beer (1979) New development on design and construction

of piles London (1979)

Franke E Point pressure vs length and diameter of pile

Proc X ICSMFE Stockholm 1981

Gibbs HH and Holtz WG (1957) Research on determining

density of sand by spoon penetration testing Proc

4 ICSMFE Vol1 London

Gravare CJ and Hermansson I Practical experiences of

stress wave measurement Application of stress wave

theory on piles Edited by Bredenberg 1981

D4

Goble GG Rauche F and Linkins GE 1980 The

Analysis of pile driving A state of art Int

Seminar on the application of stress wave theory

on piles Stockholm June 4-5 1980 pp 131-162

Hermansson I Static bearing capacity of piles from

dynamic measurements Vag- och vattenbyggaren 8-9

1978

Hultsjo S and Svensson The bearing capacity of friction

piles in sand Swedish Commission on Pile Research

Report No 16 1969

Hansbo s 1981 Grundlaggning av byggnader och maskinshy

fundament

Ireland HO Pulling tests on piles in sand Proc 4

ICSMFE Vol 2 London

Jamiolskowski M and Pasqualini E Discussion Proc

Conf on Recent Development in Design and Const Pile

London 1979

Kezdi A Pile Foundation Foundation Engineering Handbook

1975

Mattes NS and Poulos HG (1969) Settlement of a single

compressible pile Proc ASCE Journal of SMFE Vol95

SM 1

Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration test and bearing capacity

of cohesionless soils Proc ASCE Vol 82 SM 1

Meyerhof GG (1959) Compaction of sand and bearing

capacity of piles ASCE 85 SM 6

Meyerhof GG (1960) The design of Franki Pile with

special reference to group in sand Proc of Sym

on design of pile found Stockholm

Meyerhof GG (1963) Some recent research on the bearing

capacity foundation Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Vol 1

D5

Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of

foundation Proc of ASCE Vol 102 GT3

Michel JK and Burgunoglu HT (1973) In situ strength

by static cone penetration test Proc 8 ICSMFE Moscow

1973

Moretto o (1971) Cimientos profundos Revista Latinoshy

americana de Geotecnia 1 No 2

Moe D et al (1981) Friction bearing pipe piles at

Calabar Port X ICSMFE Stockholm

Norwegian Pile Committee (1973) Recommendation for pile

foundation See also Broms 1978 Bergdahl 1980

Parry RHG (1977) Estimating bearing capacity in sand

from SPT values Journal of SMFD ASCE GT9

Potyody JG (1961) Skin friction between cohesive granular

soils and construction material Geotechnique Vol11

No 4 pp 339-353

Poulos HG (1972) Load settlement prediction for piles

and piers Proc ASCE Journal of SMFD Vol98

Poulos HG (1977) Estimation of pile group settlements

Ground Engineering March

Rodin et al 1974 Penetration testing in UK ESOPT 1974

Stockholm Vol 1

Schmertmann J 1967 Guidelines for use in soil inshy

vestigation and design of foundation for bridge structures

in the state of Florida Also see Schmertmann 1975

Schmertmann J 1977 Guidelines for cone penetration test

US department of transportation

Schmertmann J 1975 The measurement of in situ shear

strength State of the art report to ASCE conference

on in situ measurement of soil properties Raleigh

North Carolina Vol 2

D6

Sanglerat G 1972 The penetrometer and soil exploration

Amsterdam Elsevier

Skemton AW et al (1953) Theorie de la force portante

des pieux dans le sable Annales de Institute Tech du

Batiment des Travaux Public March-April

Senneset K Penetration testing in Norway ESOPT Stockholm

1974

Sellgren E The pressuremeter and pile foundation Proc


Sellgren E Friction piles in non-cohesive soil evaluation

by pressurmeter test Thesis CTH 1981

Searle IW The interpretation of Begemann friction jacket

cone result Proc 7 ECSMF Brighton 1979

Swedish Building Code 1975 Chapter 236 Pile Foundation

Tassios TP and Anagnostopoulos AG Penetration testing

in Greece Proc of ESOPT Stockholm 1974

Te kam WGB 1977 Static cone penetration testing

and foundations on piles in sand Also see Beringen

1979

Terzaghi K and Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in

engineering practice Wiley New York

Thorburn S Tentative correction chart for standard

penetration in non-cohesive soil Civile Engineering

and Public Work Review Vol SB No 683 See also

Rodin et al

Thorburn S and Buchanan N-W Pile embedment in fine

grained non-cohesive soil Proc of Recent development

in the design and construction of piles London 1979

Tong YX et al (1981) Pile foundation in soft soil Proc

of X ICSMFE Stockholm

D7

Tuoma FT and Reese LC (1974) Behaviour of bored

piles in sand Journal of GE ASCE Vol100 GT7

Trofimenkov JG Penetration testing in the USSR ESOPT

1974 Stockholm

Van Weele AF A method of separating the bearing capacity

of a test pile into skin friction and point resistance

IV ICSMFE London 1957

Vesic AS (1967) Ultimate load and settlement of deep

foundation in sand Proc Syrop on Bearing Capacity

and settlement of foundation Duke University

Vesic AS (1970a) Test on Instrumented piles Ogeechee

river site J SMFD ASCE 96 SM2

Vesic AS (1970b) Load transfer in pile soil system

Design and installation of pile foundation and cellular

structure Pennsylvania

Vesic AS (1975) Principles of pile foundation design

Soil Mechanics Serie No 3B Duke University

Vesic AS (1977) Design of pile foundation Transportation

Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o

bull150 t----+----+----+-- X Sill ~10o Sofedp1tes1nsari

References ~~lOunltss-to~

Cie~sen~al11373) llalch Jnd Ste1nac fl971) McCWgt$Qn arid Codel 11970) ______________

lle1(tfl97l) ~~t2 v 1153 lt-~lt~(_ Slitutaetalfl913l deg1ri

~1a~~~mn bull ~t toodwardttJt11)

Fu1the1 teferttices 1n F12 J

bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg

Slmtd ptnet11hoo 1es1stmce N in blows per loot

Fig 1 Empirical relation between ultimate point reshy

sistance of piles and standard penetration

resistance in cohesionless soil (1 tsf = 958

kNm 2 1 blowft= 1 blow03 m) (After

Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00

Fig 2 Relationship between N-value overburden pressure

and relative density for non-cohesive soils

(After Rodin et al 1974)

RAM SOUNDING Rods diam 32mm Rom weight 635kg

0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________

0 7 3 4 5~H =- (tvpmm)s Average

0 v

D

va Iue over pile Iength Wood pile Wood pile spliced Concrete pile

Fig 3 Equivalent skin friction derived from penetration

tests (After Senneset 1974)

1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL

gtshy_ 0 lt a lt u ~ z a lt UJ co

100

10 25deg 30deg 35deg 40deg 45deg 50deg

ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION -

Fig 4 Bearing capacity factors for circular deep founshy

dations (After Vesic 1975)

600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE qgt

Fig 5 Variation of bearing capacity factor N q with

Irr and cp (After Vesic 1975)

1000 loctt1on 0 Sourlaquo

0 18bull stttl pfpe Ogeechce 861 bullo Yuff (1967)800 A 12 stttl H I

9 6 11bull p~~~ con-I St CMllts 591 25 Ttnnu (1971)

600 II abull precut con- RoorkH Ag9lt1~1 ( 1966) crtte J bullekelt bull 24bull st1 pfplt Arro Llke 631 45 McC Goldltr (1970) 13 30-36 concrete Kirr1sbortd

lt) B 30 concrtte y-__9y Kirr1s

bored Rffs (1974)

a z430bull concrete Live Ok300 bored i32 0 SS concrete Abidjn so rfs1 (1957) Jbullcked

driven200 i) 40 concrete HarlCiibo 100 Qrfsel (1961)bored

ltBgt 59 concr-ett bored

o 8S penetrometer Chevreu~ n- ~ laquots1 (196lt)~er 0 emiddot steel pfpe Tokyo 781 SCP C(lflllllitte-e (1971)z

bull 8 stee 1 pipe Tokyo 651 t a 0 100 I-()

80it -----bull Chattahoochee - - - -

gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220

NUMBERS INDICATE DB RATIO

10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131

VERTICAL GROUND STRESS ( TSF)

Fig 6 Experimental values of N in sand from different q

investigations (After Vesic 1977)

Table 4 Experiemental values of N in sand q

Fig 7

Ns

SAND RELATIVE BORED COMPACTNESS DENSITY() DRIVEN PILES PILES

Very dense gt80 60-200 40-80 Dense 60-80 40-80 20-40 Medium 40-60 25-60 10-30 Lpose lt40 20-30 5-15

2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~

tJ)iii 10 01 iii ~ lampI

0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR

y-Floridbull (lrlaquoI~ ls-7) A- alaquoeh Aivr (Selby 170)

- Pbr9yen1U (~llt1r __ 1SI) 6- St Charles kiver (hvetin 111)

reg-~ru (Yull 1611) -Piftlretih (hrry 171) 0- 1oorlcN (~bullnql 14) e- Slbullyerry (teo WilllllgtCY ltd)

e- Oguchu kiver Vuic 167) - Wuhi9ton DC SdviaHI Anoca) -middot-ChemiddotHWU (~rlul 1amp-l - Corgibull Tech (Vupound 14i7)

S-Toko ~P CO-lttM 171) bull -uiwoer Arrow Lbullkbull lcC-gttl degbull 1570)

Variation of skin resistance of piles

with relative density (After Vesic

in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Angle of internal friction bull In degrees

Fig 8 Bearing capacity factor and critical depth ratio

for driven piles (After Meyerhof 1976)

so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst

Fig 9 Relationship between pressure settlement and

pile diameter ps is the permissible pressure at

the pile point (After Berggren 1978)

200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L

Fig 10 Relation between pressure pile diameter pile

embedment length and angle of friction~ (~Ns)

p is the permissible shaft stress expressedm

as load per aren of pile cross section

(After Berggren 1978)

45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ

- 2c lt c f if c z a UJ z 0 (j

z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15

Fig 11 Relationship between pressure pile diameter

pile embedment length and angle of friction

psf is the failure at the pile point (After

Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~

soJ--4----+---+--+---t--+----1rl~-1----+--- o - middotv LO+---+---+---+-- -- - -ltlt--V--+---i----- -lt~ ~-

JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---

10 i===l=~~==l==-middot-=-tiC-t-- - - - - - - - - o middot o 1

t-=_middot-t----t---_1-zttj K-- - - - _ -- obull2s ~ ~ 0 _bull _L_ I i------txi-u s ___ ___ ___-+-v_-+- 1 H middot JO 60

L ___ ___ _____~middot___ _____ I ~ - - -1- - -_ ___v__ bullbull

1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)

I I I-- - - - SOmiddotll

i I I 1 - bullMo I I i I -j--10V 11I 1 I Ii

10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY

f = Avlaquorag ttttet1v d soil rtsulting from pHe instaHation owr Ht19ht B below and LB above toe of ptc~middot

Wtt Cast Bore Pile with Standard FRANKi PILE ftmporary sluvmg but with with cnlorgcd Base ckgru of BOILING-during bOftng

22bull_

Fig 12 Values of bearing capacity factors (After

Braatvedt 1976)

~bull = average effectice ~ soil resulting from

pile installation over height B below and 4 B

above toe of pile

INDICATIVE ULTIMATE PRESSURE AT BASE CR TIP OF PILE

IN CLEAN SAND DERIVED FROM EXPRESSION

10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t

I ~ I I I _ I II I I I 1 I V J

I ltiI I 12 I ---I I I A

w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I

I I I w II I ~ I I I AI i

~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO

ULTIMATE POINT PRESSURE

~ t gmiddot Average d1et1vc (J sod resulting from pde mstallal10( over h1ght B

olow and LB JbOIC toe of pile 2 Figures are based on clean sand and Natural SpWt Any reductoo in

1 0 th ~~~~ f1oe~hi~e ~~~~tbull~~ cJ~~erto~ ~

0~an~~~~H r~0u~h in ~uJ~tonal

rrcJuchon of intlicated figures (Su Consistency Chart tor Appoiumote Specific Wughts)

3 If embedded Length 1s less than 100 ttwn the abollt point pressuru must have the following tact0lt applied

Em~dded length x 1

P1 le dam at Bast fa

Fig 13 Ultimate pressure at base or tip of the pile

(After Braatvedt 1976)

Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull

~ 11----------- _________ j-------~en(1978 ) OJ t bull Bored piles 0 4-

I -~ +-c ~ QJ

() I Meyerhof ( 1976 ) Bored piles

35 40 Angle of friction (fJ

Fig 14a Values of coefficient of earth pressure K for s

driven and bored piles

I I e Driven cylindrical piles

H Driven H-piles I - + Jacked piles

o Bored pries ISee Fig 3 for references

I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40

Angle of internal friction bull rn degrees

Fig 14b Coefficient of earth pressure on shaft of piles

above critical depth in sand (After Meyerhof

19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API

Steel piles(6=20deg) tO C a

U1

~ 030 35 40 45 Angle of friction (Ji

Fig 15 Variation of K tano with internal friction angle5

400

I I I bull Kltlrl ll181 J o Kmselll11 7 ~ 6 lluhsmdirnsil91l -I-JIO X lt1wllal~ 0

-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6

IO bulldVMyloo~ i j gt-- 06--middot I 0

JO JS 40

1[

Fig 16 Approximate relation between limiting static cone

resistance and friction angle of sand (After

Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1

Fig 17 Relation between ultimate point resistance of

pile and depth in sand stratum beneath weak soil

layers (After Meyerhof 1976)

Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil


pile and depth in thin sand layer overlying

weak soil (After Meyerhof 1976)

I

Clp bull f f + 11 ) 2 + Ill 2

K 0 O~ofthopi I Awwago cone rustanco ~ tho tlp of the pi- ovw a CMpth

whkh may wry blaquowffn 070 and 40 II Minimum ~ ianot rtcOrded ~ tM pUbull dp o tho

_ dopth of 07D to 40 UI A~ of the ~ of minNffum coN rocistancoc rtltOfdocl

MgtOH the piM Op owr bull hotifht which ITWY VMY b4ttwMn 60 and 80 In dttlaquommint thia n lopo ~ abo tho minimum fflu-e sctad uncSr II are to b4 diiw~

tip Utdrnate u~_PltgtMt rUnoe of thct pUo

Fig 1 9 Application of CPT-method (After Beringen 1979)

20 Limit value It 15 MNm2

for all cohnionltH 1 z E 15

() z lt ~ ij 10 a ~ z ~ ~ 5 ltE i= OCR bull OyenlaquoCOltUltgtlidatlon ratio

0 10 15 20 25 30 35

THEORETICAL POINT RESISTANCE It ( MNm2 I 0 5

Fig 20 Limit values of point resistance for driven piles

(After Beringen 1979)

15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65

2 75 bull middot ISbull _ 100 1------11---- -------middot----~-=--middot- --c=---1 95 bull p__~~-= 100 bull 0 C

u-_-- lt16 tU

tocQl friction f1 in bar

Fig 21 Graph showing the relationship between qc f s

and soil type (After Begemann 1965)

K for Steel Pipe Piles K for Square Concrete Piles

0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40

II I -- pound1cctricil II I l enetronetcr+L- middot--middot1middot middot-middotmiddotmiddot - middotmiddot-----middot middotmiddot--r - tbullechinicalPenetrometer

I middot1- middot-middotmiddot-middotmiddot ---~+ I I I I I1--t- I

I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe

Fig 22 Penetrometer design curves for pile side friction

in sand (After Schmertmann 1977)

qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill

~ F = Kf 1A(8B) +f AT - 8B) +middot5 s s 2 s1 s 1 B

~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n

where r J c n = layer number c

lt 0 gt

gt Te layer thickness f = average unit sleeve friction

5

lt A= pile soil contact area per unit depth

~i

-

lt For T lt 8B --1--

Use Eq to a depth of 8B and theL__~ average sleeve friction concept below 8~

Fig 23 Side friction computation method for layered

soils (After Schmertmann 1977)

qcl + qc2 q =---p 2

qcl = Average qc over a distance of yd below the pile tip (path abullbbullc Sum qc values in both the downward (path amiddotb) and upward (path b-c)

directions Use actual qc values along path abullb and the minimum path

rule along path bbullc Compute qc for y-values from 07 to 40 and use 1

the minimum Qct value obtained

qc2 = Average qc over a distance of 8d above the pile tip (path c-e)

Use the minimum path rule as for path b-c in the qc1 computations

Ignore any minor x peak depressions if in sand but include in minimum path if in clay

Fig 24 Dutch procedure for predicting pile tip capacity

(After Schmertmann 1977)

WEIGHT SOUNDING 1 JO 1-------------------+---t-----1

-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I

I Jr o --middot- -middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot-~------_____L

0 20 t) ffJ 80 100 120 Number of half turns per meter average over pi I e Iength

Fig 25 Skin friction (After Senneset 1974)

- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~

WATER VOIDS CONTENT RATIO (1

04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull

Fig 26 Combined boring log

UPPER LAYERS 10 bull 25ml PARTICLE SIZE O lmml

sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~

INE MEOH U NAASpoundCLAY SILT

LOWER LAYERS (25-95m) PARTICLE flZE O fmml

fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-

i =l---1---l--l-H-H+4--l--l---l--l-~ l---+-+--I---H-++H--1--1--1-l-

i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT

Fig 27 Particle size distribution

CONE RESISTANCE IMNm2)

02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS

UNITSLEEVE FRICTION (MNm21

Fig 28 CPT-profiles at test locations

bullbull 2I_

~ lS =20 kNm3 a= tZ =20 middot 35 =70 kPa

70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I

a= a +11middot 35 =1085 kPa

1085 kPa

Fig 2 9 Distribution of effective overburden pressure

Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100

o Push down test o Pull out test 0 CPT bull Hulsjos formula

E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~

Fig 30 Comparison between measured and calculated pile

capacity (After Bergdahl amp Wennerstrand 1976)

-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)

C 3 stiff I H- - 0 ~ u ~~ Stiff in u

_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf

Fig 31 Interpretation chart based on the work of Begemann

(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010

Friction Ratio Rt ( )

Fig 32 Interpretation chart based on the work of

Schmertmann (After Searle 1979)

10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii

Very Sensitive Soils

01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100

Friction Ratio Rf ( )

Fig 33 Proposed interpretation chart for normal soils

(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3

k IClay SiltpkPa~ I i I

I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35

k-values for driven piles (After Baguelin et al

1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig 36 k-values for driven piles

(After Baguelin et al 1978)

k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9


D = depth of ernbedrnent B = width of the pile


10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12

Fig 38 Influence of method of installation on k


~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I

I i soi bull~a(--~I i i ~~

l i 1- I te100 lI coomi -11

I I ~i tion procedures slt-a a I I i ~r degI I i olt- ~ o I (I ir ltcohesive soil _e I elle

0V gt ~svfJ-n l50 I i iv j--j j J t piles in bullnv soil

I oisl3~~ - I (onmiddot middoti- 1 - IIYV1

Y I IP( I I ~ 0 500 IOOO 1500 Pt (kPa)

Fig 39 Adhesion or friction on the sides of a pile


DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE

-==-J [ ~~---HGLOSSY PAPER

- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ

Fig 40 Principle for measuring pile rebound

(After Swedish Commission on Pile Research Report 59 1980)

CASE METHOD CAPACITY PREDICTION IN MN 0 CJI o CJI

0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X

--1 X X~ Igt o lgt--1 X0 x X

) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X

I) YX Xn 0m X gt X() l

C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI

Fig 41 Case method and static load test capacity

correlation (After Goble et al 1981)

r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt

ST STRAIN TRANSDUCER ACC ACCELEROMETER PDA PILE DRIVING ANALYZER TR TAPE RECORDER (ANALOG 4-CHANNEU

Fig 42 Schrnatic of instrumentation (After Goble et al

1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot

Fig 43 Typical records of pile top force and velocity

Pile 235 x 235 mm length 46 m

Hammer Hydraulic free falling

(After Hermansson 1978)

TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s

TR TAPE RECORDER SYSTEM middot1 middotiUL T PLEXER tJD rlLOG-TO-DGTAL COINERTER CiU bull 3K lmiddotIORD MINICOMPUTER DS DISC STORAGE R PRirJfER L ~)LOTTER S SCOPE

Fig 44 Schematic of laboratory processing system

(After Goble et al 1981)

(A) ACTUAL SYSTEM (B) MODEL

Fig 45 Hammer - pile soil model of wave equation

MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS

Fig 46 Pile top force matches for four different sets

of soil resistance parameters

1 Measured force curve 2 Low damping 3 High static resistance 4 High skin friction low end-bearing 5 Final solution


F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40

DISPLACEMENT mm Fig 47 Result of static load test (with and without

creep) compared to CAPWAP-computation


eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc

Fig 48 Force and velocity records from a bearing pile

The proportionality is broken before the time

2 Lc Pile length 195 m c = 3000 ms

Blow No1 of redriving (After Gravare et al

19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40

Fig 49 Same pile as above Blow No 42 (After Gravare

et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30

Fig 50 Same pile as above Blow No 45 The pile is

broken (After Gravare et al 1981)

LOAD

a COLUMN IN AIR b END-BEARING PILE

c FRICTION PILE IN SANO d FRICTION PILE IN SAND

e FRICTION PILE IN CLAY

Fig 51 Typical working curves for piles with different

modes of operation (tested as a constant rate of

penetration) (After Swedish Commission on Pile

Research Report 59 1980)

LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J

Fig 52 Load-displacement diagram of a test pile drawn

in two different scales (After Vesic 1977)

LOAD kN

EALOAD TESTED 17-10-1978

Q

25 -1---

1 --~-

50 LOAD TESTED 1J-J-1979__j

75

PILE Top segment of precast concrete 200 m C450 Bottom segment of timber 181 m Osp = 134 mm Total length 381 m

PILE DRIVEN 15-06-1978 PILE LOAD TESTED 17-10-1978 and 13-03-1979

SOIL PROFILE 0 - 2 m Dry crust 2 - 55 m Firm clay E6 HIGHWAY MALMO - GOTHENSURG

55 - 60 m Friction soil SECTION ASKLOSTER - FRILLESAS

ULTIMATE 4 months after driving 1230 kN Load testing of piles at LOAD 9 months after driving 1380 UI bridge N 582 Test pile 2

Fig 53 Example of results (working curves) reported from

load testing with a constant rate of penetration

(After Swedish Commission on Pile Research Report

59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75

PILE TIP SIDES TOTAL 100

PILE Precast concrete 270 x 270 rrm L = 110 m PILE DRIVEN 10-02-1978 PILE LOAD TESTED 28-03-1978

SOIL PROFILE 0 - 4 m Organic silt 4 - 21 m Sand

BRIDGE OYER NYA KARLVIKSVXGENEVALUATED ULTIMATE LOAD 1440 kN LULE4 MUNICIPALITY

Fig 54 Example of results (working curves)reported from

load testing with stepped load increments


59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10

0 w c w a E u Llt 0 I

N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN

PILE Precast concrete 270 x 270 nm L = 110 m PILE DRIVEN 10-02-1978 PILE LOAD TESTED 28-03-1978

SOIL PROFILE 0 - 4 m Organic silt 4 - 21 m Sand BRIDGE OVER NYA KARLVIKSVAGEN

LULEK MUNICIPALITY EVALUATED CREEP LOAD 1250 kN

55 Example of reported 11 creep load curve from

testing with stepped load increments

(After Swedish Commission on Pile Research

59 1980)

load

Report

0 omiddot ELASTIC COMPRESSION

------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u

I- 06 FAILURE 15 I-z uJ

f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI

Fig 56 Example of recommended failure criterion

(After Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd

Ollt---P-_bullP_f_1_-i-

012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr

Lou1S-1a11i mn001 PJ HI -t hr

bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y

Fig 5 7 Rules to determine design load from the pile

test diagrams (After Kezdi 1975)

E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN

~middot LEA__a________ -middot--~____

0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~

SETTLrnENT OF THE 30~ lJJ

20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20

P LOAD AT THE PILE HEAD MN

Fig 58 The elastic compression of a pile in relation

to the applied load increment and the settlement

of the pile tip as a function of the applied load


Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J

ComWIOgttgtrlwtft1nbull-d ca01om1 1 tlgt110

Jemmlt1bullbull~ubullbulllaquol-d I

motllttlt(lCohtltOPlttUlaquoj Lbulltxbullbulltc-va1mrgttdtJdbullbullbullbulld c(SltnbullmiddotWtt bull JE-S~t

c11110d111dtltgtt middot JOOO H~ 2400 bull N 11 l0ltlt11

I I

ArMI OOmThGL

I oo FmMQttllaquol(lbullv I

ffom10luuo1111gtbulltt

61 middot Sltfv(l1vvd9bullhbullf I

Sm Blm rm11vc1v

110 101m 1-ldibullVbulllblto U

Fig 59a A elastic recovery (After Weltman 1978)

6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_

Fig 59b Separating the skin friction and point resistance

(After Van Weele 1957)

20 0 z lt

f (I)

gt- (J)u 0z 0w u J 15Li

lL 0 w z a ~ ) w0 (J)a z l w a w 10 a _J w 0 I

2 3 4 5 6 7

PILE SPACING IN DIAMETERS

NO OF PENETRATION PILES IN PILE IN BEARING

SYHBOL GROUP DIAMETER STRATUH(OIA) SOIL TYPE SOURCE

c 4 4 20 LOOSE SANO KEZDI (1957)

bull 4 HED DENSE VESIC (1968)4 15Ill 9 SAND

DENSE SAND bull 4 4 3 OVERLAIN BY VESIC (1968)

LOOSE SANO

0 4 I 4 15 LOOSE SANO TEJCHHAN (1973)9

0 4 HEO DENSE1411 15 TEJCHHAN (1973)(] 9 SAND

0 4 12 11 20 LOOSE SANO KISHIDA (1967)IZJ 9

Fig 60 Observed efficiencies of square pile group in

sand (After Vesic 1975)

3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid

Fig 61 Group efficiency in sand (After Kezdi 1975)

p 200 lf

4 d

100 er 0 f--u ltl u w50 u z w -- u ~ f--z w

~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex

PILE STIFFNESS FACTOR K

Fig 62 Displacement factors for top of single comshy

pressible floating pile (After Mattes amp Poulos

1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E

1000 10000 PILE STIFFNESS FACTORK

Fig 63 Movement ratio for end-bearing pile on rigid base

(After Mattes amp Poulos 1969)

o Standard penetration test

bull Static cone penetration test

i Jl-----1-----+1----------- References Blessey (1970)= bull OeBeer (1975)

~ Eide (1956) la Koerner and Partos (1974) ~ 21-----1--------P------II---- Leonards (1972)

I bull a Malich and Stermac (1971) g 0 Meyerhof (1953)

0 bullbull Meyerhof and Fraikin 11957)J11--~-~---f----1f--- Meyerhof and Sebaslyan (1970)

bullo ur Shibata et al (1973)degImiddot 0 Vargas (1948)

o_______________________

0 Observed maximum settlement S in inches

Fig 64 Comparison of estimated and observed settlements

of pile foundations in cohesionless soil

(After Meyerhof 1976)

C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08

vertical strain influence factor f z

Fig 65 Some theoretical and experimental distribution

of vertical strain below center of loaded area

a = I 2 elastic theory (v=04) b = Iz elastic theory (v=05) C = DAppolonia stress-strain path test on overshy

consolidated dune sand d = Eggestads tests (Dr=44) e = Eggestads tests (Dr=85) f = assumed simplified Iz distribution recommended

by Schmertmann (1970)

C(Hf[ill LIN[ V(1TftA snu- II 06 o

i ~ bullt--__~lY--t---1 g ~ ~ J i ~ ~ -bullbull--bullbull6

llbull161bull200f11((h

lfl ~~-=~b~~bull~~f t

Fig 66 Comparisons of vertical strain distribution

from FEM studied and from rigid model tests


Rigid footing vertical strain influence factor= 12

B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)

B = least width foundation L = length foundation

(a) Simplified strain influence

factor distributions

depth to Izp

(b) Explanation of pressure

terms in Eq

Fig 67 Modified strain influence factor diagrams for

use in Schmertmann method for estimating settleshy

ment over sand (After Schmertmann 1978)

15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10

w u LEGEND z ltI r= 0959 0 Tr5middot6-SPT2 (f) n=12 o T r S 11 - SPT 3 (f)

bull T r S 4 - SPT 4 ~ 5

z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20

POINT RESISTANCE N30 SLOWS30 cm

Fig A Relationship between cone resistance (SGI penetroshy1

meter) q and standard penetration resistance CS

(N ) (After Dahlberg 1975)30

I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I

I 10~ I verf4~nse __

Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I

() ~middot ~middot-middot -middotmiddot-middot- l ampl

Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i

1amp-1J mediumI dense 22 Cl Cl C CC Cl deg C o o

I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)

I ~ C I- E ~ t2 Q) Q ~Ill--middot-

~Q () 5 1 very loose I ~i I

30deg 40deg 50deg 60deg

angle of friction q

middot middot Mw Qcvery densa

dense Q) () C co () -middot Q)

C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60

I angle of friction q

Relationship between penetration resistance and

angle of friction ~- (After Berggren 1978)

3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70

N SPT ( blows per ft)

Comparision between static penetrometer resistance

q and SPT by various authors (After SangleratC

19 7 2)

o ~~~r-r-rr-rrrr-r-r------------r-r--r-r--i-rr-rr-r-r--rrrrrrr---i-r-1--rrrrrrr--III

i I 1

I II il 1

Ji II II iYj micro+U-+-I-IH--++t-HiHH--l-+I-H-H1-H-l-+H-f+tt-++++++ti+t-+t-r-H-t+tt+--+-i

h I++++-11

-++-+-H++++I---Hf--+-++H-i-1--i-+--i1-H+++H-IH---jftt-f+t-+t--i1r-H+++tt-1___ 1

~ l 1 I I ~ 1 i = ii I I 1- )I I sH-i-H-++-f-H+f+H-l-+--4----+41f+li-1f I ibullC-f-+tl-Hlri-1-++-H+ttt-++-1i--H+t+-t-li-jll-1I I -+I+-t--1 1 i ~ ~ bull i I I Ult I I

I -H1i - u1 Ii i I i--1-1-+-+++++++ltI~i +---+H-HI++1-f-+-l----i+tttt--+-+-+-++-++t-H--H-+-++tttt1t-H1 I I Ii 11

I I 1111 I I I Il I I i Ii 111 i bulll-++-+-1-1-++t+tti--i-+--+-ri-t++t+--+--t--+--+-tttt+--t-t-H+ttttt-tt-r-t-H-ti+t-

i i I 1111 I j I I iiI

O OL4-__0_middot002L--l-LJOmiddotLdegJUL-LOLmiddot02_JO-middotO~---OJmiddotl------OW Jc--l-l-ltgt---bull-Lltgt---c__~l0-------0~~--l00

Values of n and type of soil (After Thorburn

197 0)

100 For case of 50 bull of maximum hammer energy (4200 in-lb) entering SPT sampler rods

80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200

qc from Begemann mech friction-cone (kgfcm2)

Fig AS Experiemental theoretical relationship between

q and N using liner SPT sampler without liners C

and Delft mechanical cone (After Schmertmann

1977)

Table A bull3 Method for estimating Rf from 6 incremental

SPT data using the same equipment as in Fig

Asmiddot (After Schmertmann 1977)

Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071

BEARING CAPACITY ON COHESION LESS SOILS

Chart for the approximate evaluation of the peak angle of internal friction after the relative density has been evaluated Modified from Burmister Donald M The Importance and Practical Use of Relative Density in Soil Mechanics ASTM Proc Vol 48 1948

X

E e

1 0

middotx Q E ~ l 36 s

0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution

In problems where the sand may strain past the peak strength value before a general failure occurs then a reduced value of P must be used (particularly in the denser cohesion less soils)

peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain

Estimating sand~ from estimate of

density (After Schmertmann 1977)

-shy

relative

()01_ 4o 6o flO f60 200 21o 280 uo 360 4co Jcmc

-middot __ __ -- middot-

0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~

N r-r- r- i-k k4 f 1 -oz r-- r--~ - - r-y- --r- r-- ~-03 r- ~ h

~ ~~ -middot-r1-1 t -~ middot-middotr--K - -middot )04 _ fs ~ -- - -N- ~-

[le- fD I k05

L-~ middot I i-I --~ 1-fi- 1

06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09

H-Hmiddot- 7-~~ i-middot r ) ~

cm 2

Relation between the angle of internal friction

of sands and the results of static sounding

(After Trofirnenkov 1974)

j cp(O)

401------------------------( from Centre ciEtude5 Menard D 3863) 7 7

V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)

Fig Menards graph to determine~bull from PibullB3 (After Baguelin et al J978)

1

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

1 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES

11 Methods based test (SPT)

on the standard penetration

1 11 The C~nadian FouManual method

ndation Engineering

112 The Schmertmann method

113 Experiences from United Kingdom

114 Swedish experiences

115 The Norwegian Pile Committe method

12 Methods based on the theory of plasticity and empirical formula

121 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

122 The API method



1 bull 2 5 The Broms method

1 2 6 The Berggren method

1 2 7 The Australien Standard

1 bull 2 8 Swedish experiences

1 2 9 The Braatvedt method

1210 The Touma and Reese method

1211 Discussion

1 3 Method based on cone penetration test (CPT)

1 3 1 The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual



1 3 4 The Thorburn method

1 3 5 The Tekam method

1 bull 3 6 The Begemann method

1 3 7 The Nottingham method

1 bull 3 8 The Norwegian Pile Committee method

2


1310 Discussion




and Qp

1 bull 4 3 Examples

























3

3 2 2

3 2 3

324

325

326

327

33

4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX




The Parry method

The De Beer method



CONCLUSION


the results


ods to obtain the

C Safety factor

D References

4

SUMl-1ARY














5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



is expressed









discussions



drawing the figures



SGI


Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


2


1310 Discussion




and Qp

1 bull 4 3 Examples

























3

3 2 2

3 2 3

324

325

326

327

33

4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX




The Parry method

The De Beer method



CONCLUSION


the results


ods to obtain the

C Safety factor

D References

4

SUMl-1ARY














5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



is expressed









discussions



drawing the figures



SGI


Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


3

3 2 2

3 2 3

324

325

326

327

33

4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX




The Parry method

The De Beer method



CONCLUSION


the results


ods to obtain the

C Safety factor

D References

4

SUMl-1ARY














5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



is expressed









discussions



drawing the figures



SGI


Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


4

SUMl-1ARY














5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



is expressed









discussions



drawing the figures



SGI


Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



is expressed









discussions



drawing the figures



SGI


Nguyen Truong Tien

6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


6

INTRODUCTION



















pile load tests

















7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


7

1 BEARING CAPACITY






summarized here





Meyerhof (1956)









= 40 N Db A + 2 NA B p s


B -





8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


8










piles in Florida



q NC



End-bearing

kN


GW SW

GP SP

GM SM

35 06 019

21

32


GC ML

FC CL 20 20 04

44

16


clays 056


10 025 0 1

11

36


5 use zero

60 use 60





9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


9













cp I bull











table



Very loose lt5

Loose 5-12

Medium 12-35

Dense 35-60

Very dense gt60

1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


1 O






of 200-300 blows02 mN20





















Q = A (00021+00022 Pd)s y

where



1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


1 1









General formula

= 0 +Q = f A + q A -s p s s p p















= L Nqfp p q

where




1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


1 2




~ 25 30 35 40

N 15 30 75 150 q



qfp = yDc N~

c) Skin friction










d) Safety factor



C

1 TTD 2 fs = rD L )Qa 3(qfp -4- + 2 p


p

1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


1 3


critical depth (D)C

f 21 TTD

Qa = 3 (qfpL -


D C


a) Skin friction







b) End bearing

Q p

= A p

crN V q

N q




a) End-bearing

Q = A (1+2 Ko)a N p p 3 V q





N q



14


qp = Po Nq 2- ql










a) Skin friction






ship

f = K tan~ 0 1

S O a V






Conical piles 15 40

15









Pile type ~a

Steel piles 20deg



b) Point resistance



neglected and

qp = pag L Nq = a V

N q





16



qp a q pile









has stated





very loose soil






pressure Psmiddot



determined by




17



can be evaluated

qp = p sf = Nq CJ~






a) Shaft resistance


critical depth




C C

b) Point resistance


into account

q = N CJ p q vb







25

Medium 04-075 8 10 05 100

iLoose 02-04 6 08 03 60

60

Dense 075-09 15 15 08 180 100

B = pile diameter

18










where








1980)



Qf = Qp + Qs

0 1Qp = (13 c N )+(04 ByNy)+ N Ab C V q




1 9



23 for timber piles

















above expression

Safety factor

Qs q = -- +

a 1 0


ment






20




1 Skin friction Qs



0













0 for loose sand






L gt 10B

21


















purpose


q = 0 1 N p V q








practical purpose





22










f = K tano aS S V
























23










conical pile


Armishow ( 1980) 09 NPS = 18 13 NPS = 54

Cooke (29 78) 07 L lt 75

05 120Lp gt p








24










of the pile


can be used





















25

























26









27



















1 3 2 Meyerhof (1976)








qc DB qp = 10B ~ ql





C

28





















spectively

1 bull 3 3 Vesic (1975)



f S

= pqC

where P = 0 11 ( 1 0) -1 3tan


29



3 p = --

Irr


and defined by

I rr =

~ = volume change



change takes place





Q = As qcs s 200






Q = (025 q +025 q +05 qc )App Co C1 2




C1

30



Q = (05 q b+05 q ) A p c ea p







q in MPa C






b) End-bearing








31














4-6 for clays




82-8B

Qs =KSC 8B

or 8B L Q = K ( I f A + I f A )











32




QS

= K frac12(f AS1

)0 8B +(fS

A )8B-

LS - S2




b) End-bearing








calculated from CPT


C C











33










be taken















34

Point resistance




Q = A n N (kN)p p






Qp = Apqc











Q = s


Begemann (136)





35












cases






















36


the soil is known



C













010 MPa











37







defined












purpose










average

38


t

Reference qp Note












39




Te Kam (1977) 15 MPa 0 12 MPa








Norwegian Committee

Pile (1973)

f fs

s

= 05 = 1

qC

qC

for for

dense loose

sand sand

qc qc

~

10 25

MPa MPa

Te kam (1977) f fs

= 033 = 025


s


s

= 08 qC




s

= 07 = 05

qc qc

for for

compression tension

After Beringen


Vesic (1977) f s = 0 11 (19)-13 tan~

qc


s




40













f = K tano a s s V






q = N a p q V



2 N s qqp qcq




41




002 N bullq


of friction











= critical depth







42




in 1 bull 4 3

1 4 3 Examples









2 2 007 004

4 24 020 001

6 40 032 001

7 20 0 15 001





or



presented in Fig29



1235 kNQs =

43

The value of Qs




is calculated by

= 0 1 N A V q p

where

0 1


q = 127 A

p =01 2m

Qp = 1085deg127middot01 = 1371 kN


1130 kN



















methods




Skin frictior 1 1310 600 46 1 70 13 605 46 600 46 1235 94

2 1530 500 33 170 11 610 40 580 38 1084 71

Point 1 1130 1045 92 380 34 1000 89 13 71 120

resistance 2 1470 1500 102 370 25 990 67 1302 89

1 2440 1645 67 550 23 1650 68 1645 67 2606 107Total

2 3000 2000 67 540 18 2110 70 2080 69 2386 80


i

i

45




s

A = TTBL s



is


where N = 17(~~25deg) fs = 00055 q qc

K tano = 019 s


s 8 s s














46






Qf = 08 10 middot~00 bull 2(1-01 ~) = 145 kN203 + 2





N = K tano= 0358 0




Qf = 12+145 = 167 kN



Qf = 12+113 = 125 kN


static formula










47





q V p V S S


Qf = 2533 + 8606 = 1114 kN






formula

Load (kN) 1 1 0 145 167 125 1 1 1 9c


1 4 4 Conclusion







48







qp = qo + k(pl-po)

+ kqp = qo pl

AQp = kpl p










in Fig 38

152 Skin friction









49



05 5 33 27Sand and gravel 1 6 48 42

2 8 68 57

4 83 70

6 1 0 90 73

Silt 01-03 2 22 18

05 3 27 24

1 4 30 27

2 45 34 3 1

3 5 36 33

Clay 01-02 2 2 18

1 35 29 26

2 4 34 30

4 5 38 33








Q = 08nh Q (1-01 Q Q )(e+cs)u r p r








50



C = AE p p





area of the pile


the pile and the




mmblow

Limitation







penetration


171 The Case method







51

R = F(t) - m a(t)


m = the pile mass


R = frac12 (F(t1)+F(t2) + ~~ v(t1)- v(t2)

where


v(t 1 )

t2

t1

=

=

=


t1 + 2L C


at time t1



nt of measure-



C =

E = Youngs modulus





EAR = J Vd c c bmax




for sand 0-0 1 5



for clay 090-120


a static load test

52

From wave theory









in Fig 43



















53








I = me L

= EA -

C

and F(t) = v(t)I





I2 = I Fi+Fnlpi-Fu


during redriving




54




E(t) = f F(T) V (T) dT 0



bound starts






site




pile to pile











55




minute













new load














56






















1980) is as follows








Fig54





57






from





Bs=6+3()





1832 Kezdi (1975)




1833 Vesic (19751977)









58

1834 90-criterion




load



+ PL + 20 (mm)0ult = B

20 AE






B a= 20 + 20 (mm)






(1981)








59

Table 18
















( Ve s i c 1 9 6 3 Re f 16 )




~ ( - _-__)w = 1bull ln 1 Qmax

(From Vesic 1977)

60




(Fig 58)

















(Fig 59b)





to soil failure






by about 15

61














the pile is bent




62




greater than 100


Piles in group





L (m) S

lt10 3B

1025 4B

gt25 SB








63






1970)




= 100 QLp_0 AE















s = Q I EsL s




64





pile


PLs = EA MR p p



K = l RE a

s


s


Soil E (MPa)s

Loose sand 42

Medium sand 70

Dense sand 80

Medium gravel 200

nd 2




and Broms (1981)

65





S-1 s TT E (1-V) 2 1 1+)= -- -- a + a(p-0 1

)B 04 m (1-2v) 03 1-V O 0

s = settlement













m = 295 C -078 e -264 U 0



e = void ratio 0





(1981)

66


s = s + s + s e s p




s = (Q + Qs) L

e p AEp Qs Qss

s =

B qo

and C C s = p p

p D qo








pile point






C =(093+016 Vr57B)cs p


67






















s _ ags group



68

Table 21

BD 1 5 1 0 20 40 60

a 1 35 5 75 1 0 1 2 g







cp 4




S = R S group s




extrapolated




--

-- ----

--

69





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 if

2 183 225 254 262 278 380 442 448 376 549 640 653 475 720 848 868 10 5 140 173 188 190 183 249 282 285 226 325 374 382 268 398 470 475

to 121 139 148 150 142 176 197 99 163 214 246 246 185 253 295 295

2 199 214 265 287 301 364 484 529 422 538 744 810 540 725 1028 l 125 25 5 147 174 209 219 198 261 348 374 246 354 496 534 295 448 650 703

10 125 146 174 l78 149 195 257 273 174 246 342 363 198 298 428 450

2 256 231 226 316 443 405 411 615 642 614 650 992 848 840 925 1435 100 5 188 188 201 264 280 294 338 487 374 405 498 754 468 518 675 1055

10 147 156 l76 228 195 217 273 393 245 280 381 582 295 348 500 788





4 9 16 25


10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00 10 100 1000 00

2 152 l14 100 100 202 131 100 100 239 149 100 100 270 163 100 100 10 5 l15 108 100 100 123 112 102 100 130 114 102 100 133 115 103 100

10 102 101 100 100 104 102 100 100 104 102 100 100 103 102 100 100

2 188 162 105 100 284 257 116 100 370 328 133 100 448 413 150 ICO 25 5 136 136 108 100 167 170 116 100 194 200 123 100 215 223 128 100

lO 114 115 104 100 123 126 J06 100 130 133 107 100 133 138 J08 100

2 254 226 181 100 440 395 304 100 624 589 461 100 818 793 640 100 100 5 185 184 l67 l00 271 277 252 J00 354 374 347 l00 433 468 445 100

10 144 149 t46 100 l84 199 l98 100 221 248 253 100 253 298 310 100

70






s = 2p VB I N






DI= 1 - 8I3 gt 05



BI ps = 2q

C






piles


S = 300 pBN

(mm) m




71



s = ~ 236z log( v ~ v V

where qc E

C = 15 (1 = CJ (E=15 q) kPa C

V V






s = C1C26P L (z_ 6z)o E


influence factor


of foundation












with constant qc

72




(Ii 6z)









E = 25 qs(axisym) c

E = 35 qs(plane) c


















73



into account





data of the soil








74

4 CONSLUSIONS

































75



B PL0ult = 20 + 2p + AE




loose sand




















method (197 0 1978)




APPENDIX A


1 Meyerhof (1956)






Soil type n












and







and N is suggested

A2

as

q = 05 N or n = 05 C

5 Berggren (1978)



tion tests


09 or = 1 11 (5 3)N30= N20 N20 N30






q N = 077 (MPa) ( 5 4)C






(5 5)

which will give

q N = 027 (5 6)C






A3

= 37 qcN30 M = 30 qcw

= 1 4 N20 qc





Table A2


N Rd MPa friction


5-10 02-04 Loose 2-4 (25-5) 30-35deg

11-30 04-06 Medium dense 4-12(5-10) 35-40deg

31-50 06-08 Dense 12-20(10-20) 40-45deg




equal to 04

7 Sanglerat (1972)






8 Thorburn (1971)





A4




Table A3

Soil type n=q NC

Clay 02


Silty fine sand 04

Sand 05-08

Sandy gravel 08



is used for clay







Summary








from Fig A2

B1

APPENDIX B


friction


~ = 26deg + 10 ID+ 04 Cu+ 16 lg (dm)






o 3 4 ~ = 30 - - + (14--) I

Cu Cu D














~-24Pi= 25middot2 4


C1

APPENDIX C


C1 Broms (1981)




C2 Berggren (1978)




where F1 = 14 n1 = 15 and n2 = 13


recommended FS = 3

APPENDIX D

References









Vol 1 2










Tech Pub







Beringen 1979)





D2










Wien




















D3









Stockholm 1980










University pp 15-33











D4







1978



Report No 16 1969


fundament


ICSMFE Vol 2 London



London 1979


1975



SM 1










Vol 1

D5





1973











No 4 pp 339-353






Stockholm Vol 1










D6


Amsterdam Elsevier





1974












1979






Rodin et al






D7




1974 Stockholm















Research Board

JOOr-----r----~--------~---~---~ 0nw11 p1ts uI

A Giavt o







bull6

bullJ 6

2--10 5021) JO deg






Meyerhof 1976)

I

~ z r 0

I gtO

~ r ~

0ii

0 l

~ 101 z

0 0 0 20 gtO 00





0 Wood

10

J 8

0 I

C o o 00

C

c ltI)

0 gt oshy

w

0 __ __________________


0 v

D




1000

bull C z

0_ u lt lL


100





600 ~ +qNq400

200

100 80 60

z O 40 a 0 t-u 20 ~ gt-t-u 10 ~ 8 lt( u 6 (9

a z

4 Ir lt( w l+IrllCD

2 GI

= c +q tan qgt

1 --------------------____1-_1-_ ___ _1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45









bored Rffs (1974)







gt- 14 Dr =80 60 15 145 ()

14~ 52

Ef 2 lt( 10 132 bull 213 () i

40 35 0 125 52 ] () 12 ] 125z iE 46 ~ lt( 30 78 w (Il 42~6 bull

B3220


10________-__-~2~0~181-------------~-=---- 0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18131





Fig 7

Ns



2 I

100 - E Iamp 5 05z ~

t lampI () lampI

()z 20 02 z ~ tJ) ~


0 z

5 lii tJ)

tJ)

2 0 02 04 06 os

RELATIVE DENSITY DR








in sand

1977)

1000 16 e__

j 12 c

~~

~t Y

[f- 1-1 o r7

I 100 J 7_ 7~ w 7

J

j1 __ 11

Nc---s_r -- t=-Nq_

~ V

20

1 - V

_ V v V~ c-lt~

ye--- ~ D---~p 4

B

1

L V 1 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




so

0 0 01 O -

Ps Pst




200--------------------------+---i 60

---+----55

-1--- 40 LU __ ~

lt( a r1

P m -middot -----+--7 35 o (J)

v z er LU z 0

5---+---r---+---~----+-----+--~ (J)

30 f5---+---7 25 2

----+--7 2C o

2 5 10 20 50 100

L






45

~ v -

--C z

Ps1v~ a UJ or f-

( No UJ


z UJ 2c ci

0 5 10 15




Berggren 1978)

V V

I

I ~


JJ +--4----+---+------t ~

I v P d 20 _______--+-gt----middot - ~--1t---+---+---i---




1 l ____1 I I -r- L0-7)



10 40 50 I

I I 0 I V 0 I

CLEAN $AHO OENSHY



22bull_


Braatvedt 1976)



above toe of pile



10L D~lbullIPd Nq)

2 --r711-~--r-l -Ii t

21 - xf middot1-1---f- -- e-- -- _ t



w 0 0

0

f Jw It V CD II I

I


~ 1 I i 10 000 2C 000 JO 000 c 00)

100 200 JOO LOO








Em~dded length x 1




Meyerhof (1976)

SAA(1978)- 2 i--------

~ - -------+~ - -------+- -- -- __ + ~ ---- +--

~ ---~~+--- Broms(19661~-o ___+ I bull


I -~ +-c ~ QJ








I - 2i + v+II

middotv I

+

H

+

V

0 30 35 40




19 76)

2~----------------r-----~

Broms+API


U1



400


-ii V -

~ -bull----i JOO

I I

I I

I X xllo

I x ~

il i 100

7 cl X6


JO JS 40

1[



Meyerhof 1976)

Wrik cn1




Weak soil

Dense ~ind

Weak soil




I











0 10 15 20 25 30 35




15 bull

25 bullbull

a 3S bull

200 i-------+------+--~ir---h-C----c+---c---Jcc--c--~-l 45 u

ltT

g SSbull 65


u-_-- lt16 tU





0 0

10 i I

20 30 00 10 20

I

10 11 (

1i

i

i I

10

Q)

I

c)

- 20

I l

I I I I

I - c) - 20

()

5

tJ C I

C

30

40



I I I

C)

30

40

Q) c

u

C

c u CJ = I L-

CJ C (lJ c

umiddot-i u CJ

w

I r-I I r-- i I

Ktimber = 125 Kpipe



qc

lt r 86

ro r Ti2Jill


~ Kff A (T1 - 4B) + ~ f AT ~ 51 5 sr s n


lt 0 gt


5


~i

-





qcl + qc2 q =---p 2











-

f ~ 8 Q- Q Wood ---

1 0 61------------+---+----~--~

C 0 u 41--~1~-11-c---c+---c~I

I PQ

c 2 -~~t bull__-+-i---gt--+-----11----+ v I




- -

g

t bull

I

10

11

NATURAL UNIT

WEIGHT (kNm3)

15 20 ~

~


04 0608 1 02 0 20

I

Ilt

bull



sect 0

0 -lgtlt gt ~i

~Kf ltIgtI

rq

i

lgt)0

~ 1~ -t ~

IO P jgtlt~ gt ~

Lgtlt ~



fi

l--+--1-4-l-+-l-l-+--l-+--I-__

0 degf--+--++H-H++-++--+-1-

~ f---+-+--+++t+H--l-1--1--1-


i~ 1--+--1-4-1-+-1-1-+--l-+--I--+-~

f--l--l--+-14+-+-l--l--1--1-1-+---+--1--l-l-+-+--+-___

CLAY SILT



02 0 06 08 10 12 1 1 1tS



bullbull 2I_


70 kPa

35m 1s11kNm3 I


1085 kPa


Shaft load kN

00 20 40 60 80 100


E

0 tJJ

0

0 0 151----+----+----+-----f---4

lt-0

c Ol C

-5 20~--~--~--~--~~-~



-- 10- u 0

~

bull Hard

~ -~ Very= ~

i ltI)


_ in -- -5 0 u Firm

-Soft

-Very wit

o 2 10 100

()Friction Ratio Rf


(After Searle 1979)

(Oenbullbull or

c~tedJ

10

i vty aheHy

bullIi -middot I

Sood limofOcka

c

E (lOOH I

I

Soft

Voy

soft

01

01 1 ) 4 10010




10

u O

i u

e a

C e () = C

lti () C E

() e

I iii


01 ------~---------------------J--l-------~---~1-

01 10 100



(After Searle 1979)

4 4

300

ppound-kPaltI 1000

1000 3


I i30021 I I I200 I 2

I i 3 4 5 G 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

Fig 34 Fig 35


1978)

21-+---+-+---t--+--t-i--1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



k

z 3 4 6 7 8 9




10 I

I -- I Sand i I -e

8 ~ ]

-- pf bull6000 kPav

k v

v

V k

4

Driven lay --i----~-- -- --- C

[=1000 kPa1PV Cast

0 0 2 6 8 10 12



~(kPa)

150 i I Ir

i i I I I I









DETAIL

HAMMER

PILE

I SUITA3LE TAPE


- ~~~- ---~- -----=- ----=- - - r--~ _-

lJ




0 o I

X)tX Y

X

X

0 X

X

X X

(JI gth ~x

xx )xlten XX gt-X X


) X Xr X

0 gt

X X

X

--middot-0 CJI X

X i X--1

X tlt Xm )(() = I X--1 X

X


C r gt

--1 () l

I) X

z CJI X X

s z

cgt o

cgt (JI



r 2 ST PDA

J ACC CJ 51i_ I

bull

TR

07[0

l ltCJ MIC

16a I SCOPE

L-lt



1981)

F I MpJ vt -middoti

I 100

eo 2Lc bull 26 ms

60

15

10

20 os

lmx

-~-----------------~middot





TR

OSOOO

MP PR

AD

CPU 1-----------1 l-I s






MN 3 ----------------------------

2-+-----

3

10 40 MN

I 2----

10 20 3G 40

TIME IN MS





F Mp)

200

no

creep

100

0 L------------------------ 0 10 20 30 40




eT F

l~~-------0

10

il1Lc





19 81 )

F (l2pl

120

BO

40


et al 1981)

F (Mp)

n t I I f -

~ 120 ~

I bull _

BO

I 40

F __

10 20 30



LOAD








LGAO ( TOi~ 5 i

351--+-+---+---t-middot-+---+---i---l--l---t--l

EEFJ I I ttfLl I J



LOAD kN


Q

25 -1---

1 --~-


75









59 1980)

LOAD kN

Q

~ 25 a lt w c w _

-w

_

50

75








59 1980)

----

Fig

15 gt-z w w 0 u z

Cl c 0 - 10


N w I-c z a w

w a gt-w 5 co

i s rmin

0 0 500 1500 2000

QKRLOAD kN







59 1980)

load

Report


------_jOF PILE QLP 02 ----- _ 8 = ----- M 05

-----04 10

z D30

E u


f

CRITERION z w w

uJ J I-I-uJ VI

08 J20 I-I-w ()

LU 1 0 25 w J

J Cl a

l 2 30

l 4 35 0 25 50 75 l 00 125 15 0

APPLIED LOAD TON

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

APPLIED LOAD kNI



1978)

--0

[k~n ltVJd


012 111h m Z-t hr

I JinH4111dl

Im -t hr


bull y Y y

01PbullP1~ p

y y



E E

t 20 ____

amp 2SP

mmMN


0 1 f-j Lu

_J bull-ltl 0

I 1JJ c f-

Lt

10 5)0

i()~


20-1f-

10 ~ V)

0 05 10 5 20






Report 59 1980)

0 - - - - - -0 c===s--------------------------------

I 10 J





I I

ArMI OOmThGL




Sm Blm rm11vc1v



6__-~--J---JL----I--L-------_



20 0 z lt

f (I)



2 3 4 5 6 7







LOOSE SANO






3

0 2 4 6 8

ad

3

d~a=h

2 +middotgt

~

~

0 2 4 6 8

aid


p 200 lf

4 d


~ 20 -- f--f--w VJ

5

10

2

05

10 100 1000 10000 ex




1969)

0 ~ 0 6 1---+lt---+~lt+--+--lt--+--+--l

f-shyz w ~ o 4 f----t----L----1-------1--+---+--+--l gt 0 E











o_______________________





C 0

C 0-2 ~

0-0

L -Q

IO

I I M - I L 0 J

L -- I M

~-------------------~----~ 0 02 OJ 05 08















B2

B

gt ~ 0

s ] ~ 2B 0

1 c a O middot gt

3Ba

4B

gt]

4 plane strain

LIBgt10

(sae (b) below)




depth to Izp


terms in Eq




15 ----

0

0 log qd0999 tog (N3ol-0131 0037 00 0 ~

() ~10



z w log N30) =0919 log qc5+0212 0036 0 u

0 _____J_______________

0 5 10 15 20





I

N30 N20 Mw Qci )111 I l

-I 1

g )1 ifI I I


Q) ()

C - = Ill i41se- I 50 I


Q) ~ ~ ~- I JQ ~i


I I

I 0 9 o sect - C

-JQ

1C ---111 - - - o 0

-Ill_ lt)0 - loose

Q) lt)




angle of friction q



C 0

--co Q)

IshyC QQ) ()

I Q 30deg 40deg 50 60




3 50

JOO

C

u (T

abull 250 u C

0

~ 200

C 0 C u

a 0 150

100

50

50 60 70




19 7 2)


i I 1

I II il 1


h I++++-11








197 0)


80

~ c 0 C

co

co 60

~ ~

C

a zmiddot c 0

40 u 0

0 f--a

20

0------~----~----~----~ 0 50 100 150 200





1977)




Rf 6_ N0-6 6N12-18 fN6-12 fN12-18

frac12 085 093 1 076 088 2 065 083 4 053 077 6 046 073 8 0425 071



X

E e

1 0


0 Q)

0 34 C

laquoI ltgt 32cc

30

Relative Density in

Note of caution


peak ifgt

odeg I

I strain



-shy

relative



0 ( [ t

-c--

- ~



[le- fD I k05


06 middot-

~

~__ 0 I J

07 middoto-

iLc k I

~ - f~ J 0

rlt (gt~ 1 ~ -lo ~o

08 a l I

09


cm 2




j cp(O)


V

I

250 500 1000 2000 4000 Pi ( k Pa)


Documents

Design of piles in non-cohesive soil