Pile Design Using Euro Code

2017‐10‐28
Design of Piles using Eurocodes
H. S. Thilakasiri
Faculty of Engineering
SLIIT
Geotechnical Design
• Designs are mainly done following two
approaches:
– Limit state design;
– Permissible stress design
• BS 8004 follows the permissible stress design
method while the Eurocode 7 follows the limit
state design.
1
2017‐10‐28
Permissible stress method
• In the permissible stress approach
– Load effect < allowable resistance of the ground
– Allowable resistance of the ground = Ultimate
resistance/ Factor of safety (FS)
• The ultimate working load that can be applied
to a given pile depends on the resistance that
the pile can produce in terms of side friction
and point bearing
Ultimate carrying capacity of piles
• Ultimate carrying
capacity, Pu is the
summation of the
ultimate point
bearing, Pb,u and the
summation of
ultimate skin friction,
Ps,I
2
2017‐10‐28
Displacement at ultimate SF and EB
• Settlement required
to develop the
ultimate point
bearing capacity is
much higher than
the deformation
required to develop
the ultimate skin
frictional capacity
Ultimate carrying capacity of piles
• Sometimes, Pu is defined as summation of the
ultimate skin friction and the developed end
bearing capacity when the skin friction
reaches the ultimate value.
3
2017‐10‐28
Allowable carrying capacity, Pall
• Pall = Pult/FoS, Generally FoS for piles vary from 2 to 3.
• According to the ICTAD guidelines:
Pallowable = qu . Ab/Fb + fu . As/Fs
• Pallowable should be taken as the lesser of the values
computed using
(i) Fb = Fs = 2.5 ; and
(ii) Fb = 3 Fs =2
• In design approach, we divide the site into
zones having ‘same or similar’ subsurface
conditions (‘Homogeneous zones’).
• We want to determine the ‘design allowable
carrying capacity’ of a pile within a
homogeneous zone.
• How can we do this?
4
2017‐10‐28
• Lets take an example:
– We want to determine the design allowable
carrying capacity, Pall of a 1000mm diameter pile
socketed one pile diameter to the bedrock based
on 4 boreholes.
– We estimated the ultimate carrying capacity
based on the ground conditions from four
boreholes using certain ‘calculation models’.
• For the above example the estimated values
are as follows:
5
2017‐10‐28
• What is the design allowable carrying capacity?
– Minimum or the mean?
– The value with 95% probability of exceeding?
• If the locations of the boreholes were changed,
will the design value vary?
• If the number of boreholes were different, would
the design capacity vary?
• If the ‘calculation model’ is different, would the
design capacity vary?
• If the answer to the above questions is ‘yes’,
– Did we actually estimate the design allowable
carrying capacity of the pile?
6
2017‐10‐28
Eurocode
• This lecture not is prepared based on
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design ‐ Part
1:General rules, SLS EN 1997‐1:2014.
• It is noted that complete code clauses are not
given and only some of the code clauses are
used for explanation purposes.
• The user is referred to the code for further
studies and carrying out designs.
Eurocode
• Euro codes are design codes based on Limit
State Design (LSD) approach in conjunction
with the use of partial factors.
• They consists of 10 sets of codes 1 to 9
referred as EN1990 to EN 1999 (EN stands for
‘European Norms).
• These codes had been adopted by Sri Lanka
Standard Institute and therefore referred as
‘SLS EN’.
7
2017‐10‐28
Eurocode
• Eurocodes 2, 3, 4,5 ,6 and 9 are ‘material
codes’ relevant to different types of materials
such as reinforced concrete, steel etc.
• EN 1990 is for basis of design,
• Eurocode 1 is on actions,
• Eurocode 7 is for geotechnical design and
• Eurocode 8 is for Earthquake resistance.
Eurocode
• Eurocode 7 has two parts:
– SLS EN 1997‐1 Geotechnical design – Part 1:
General rules; and
– SLS EN 1997‐2 Geotechnical design – Part 2:
Ground investigation and testing.
8
2017‐10‐28
Eurocode 7 part 1
• Eurocode 7 part 1 consists of the following section:
– Section 1 General
– Section 2 Basis of geotechnical design
– Section 3 Geotechnical data
– Section 4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
– Section 5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
– Section 6 Spread foundations
– Section 7 Pile foundations
– Section 8 Anchorages
– Section 9 Retaining structures
– Section 10 Hydraulic failure
– Section 11 Overall stability
– Section 12 Embankments
Eurocode 7 part 1
• Annex A Partial and correlation factors for ultimate limit states and recommended
values are normative (mandatory) whereas following Annexes are informative:
• Annex B ‐ Background information on partial factors for Design Approaches 1, 2 3
• Annex C ‐ Sample procedures to determine limit values of earth pressures on
vertical walls
• Annex D ‐ A sample analytical method for bearing resistance calculation
• Annex E ‐ A sample semi‐empirical method for bearing resistance estimation
• Annex F ‐ Sample methods for settlement evaluation
• Annex G ‐ A sample method for deriving presumed bearing resistance for spread
foundations on rock
• Annex ‐ H Limiting values of structural deformation and foundation movement
• Annex ‐ J Checklist for construction supervision and performance monitoring.
9
2017‐10‐28
Eurocode 7 – Part 2

• Includes the following Sections:
– Section 1 – General
– Section 2 – Planning of ground investigations
– Section 3 – Soil and rock sampling and
groundwater measurements
– Section 4 – Field tests in soil and rock
– Section 5 – Laboratory tests on soil and rock
– Section 6 – Ground investigation report
Eurocode 7 – Part 2

• It consists of some informative Annexes
• Annexes D.6 & D.7, for CPT tests, and E.3, for
PMT are used for determining the
compressive resistance of a single pile.
10
2017‐10‐28
Limit states
• Limit states are defined as the states beyond
which the structure no longer satisfies the design
performance requirements.
• Ultimate limit state is associated with collapse, or
with other similar forms of structural failure.
• Serviceability limit state corresponds to
conditions beyond which specific service
requirements for a structure or structural
element are no longer met.
Check against limit states
• Limit states should be verified by one or a
combination of following:
– use of calculations as described in 2.4;
– adoption of prescriptive measures, as described in
2.5;
– Design by prescriptive measures may be used where
comparable experience makes design calculations
unnecessary
– experimental models and load tests, as described in
2.6;
– An observational method, as described in 2.7.
11
2017‐10‐28
Design by calculations
• Design by calculation involves:
– actions, which may be either imposed loads or
imposed displacements, e.g. from ground
movements;
– properties of soils, rocks and other materials;
– geometrical data;
– limiting values of deformations, crack widths,
vibrations etc.;
– calculation models
Actions
• In geotechnical design, the following should be considered
for inclusion as actions:
• the weight of soil, rock and water;
• stresses in the ground;
• earth pressures and ground‐water pressure;
• free water pressures, including wave pressures;
• ground‐water pressures;
• seepage forces;
• dead and imposed loads from structures;
• surcharges;
• mooring forces;
• removal of load or excavation of ground;
12
2017‐10‐28
Actions cont..
• traffic loads;
• movements caused by mining or other caving or tunnelling
activities;
• swelling and shrinkage caused by vegetation, climate or moisture
changes;
• movements due to creeping or sliding or settling ground masses;
• movements due to degradation, dispersion, decomposition, self‐
compaction and solution;
• movements and accelerations caused by earthquakes, explosions,
vibrations and dynamic loads;
• temperature effects, including frost action;
• ice loading;
• imposed pre‐stress in ground anchors or struts;
• downdrag
Ground properties
• Properties of soil and rock masses, as
quantified for design calculations by
geotechnical parameters, shall be obtained
from test results, either directly or through
correlation, theory or empiricism, and from
other relevant data.
• Values obtained from test results and other
data shall be interpreted appropriately for the
limit state considered.
13
2017‐10‐28
Ground properties cont..
• Account shall be taken of the possible
differences between the ground properties
and geotechnical parameters obtained from
test results and those governing the behaviour
of the geotechnical structure.
Geometric data
• The level and slope of the ground surface,
• water levels,
• levels of interfaces between strata,
• excavation levels and
• the dimensions of the geotechnical structure
14
2017‐10‐28
Calculation model
• an analytical model;
– For example standard bearing capacity equations for
the checking the ultimate limit state of shallow
foundations
• a semi‐empirical model;
– Many of the empirical relationships to check the
ultimate limit state of shallow foundations
• a numerical model.
– A numerical model such as Finite Element to model
ultimate limit state of shallow foundations
Characteristic values
• Characteristic and representative values of actions
– Characteristic and representative values of actions shall be
derived in accordance with
– EN 1990:2002 and the various parts of EN 1991.
• Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
– The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical
parameters shall be based on results and derived values
from laboratory and field tests, complemented by well‐
established experience.
– Characteristic values can be lower values, which are less
than the most probable values, or upper values, which are
greater.
15
2017‐10‐28
Characteristic values of geotechnical
parameters cont….
• For each calculation, the most unfavourable
combination of lower and upper values of independent
parameters shall be used
• when considering a bearing resistance ultimate limit
state for a building resting on several footings:
– the governing parameter should be the mean strength
over each individual zone of ground under a footing, if the
building is unable to resist a local failure; and
– If, however, the building is stiff and strong enough, the
governing parameter should be the mean of these mean
values over the entire zone or part of the zone of ground
under the building
Characteristic values of geotechnical
parameters cont….
• If statistical methods are used, the
characteristic value should be derived such
that the calculated probability of a worse
value governing the occurrence of the limit
state under consideration is not greater than
5%.
16
2017‐10‐28
Design Values
• Design values of actions
– The design value of an action shall be determined in
accordance with EN 1990:2002.
– The design value of an action (Fd) shall either be
assessed directly or shall be derived from
representative values using the following equation:
• Design values of geotechnical data
• Design values of geotechnical parameters (Xd)
shall either be derived from characteristic
values using the following equation:
17
2017‐10‐28
Limit state design
• Ultimate Limit state
– Loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground,
considered as a rigid body, in which the strengths
of structural materials and the ground are
insignificant in providing resistance (EQU);
– Internal failure or excessive deformation of the
structure or structural elements, including e.g.
footings, piles or basement walls, in which the
strength of structural materials is significant in
providing resistance (STR);
Limit state design cont..
• failure or excessive deformation of the
ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
• loss of equilibrium of the structure or the
ground due to uplift by water pressure
(buoyancy) or other vertical actions (UPL);
• hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in
the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).
18
2017‐10‐28
Limit state design cont..
• Verification of the resistance for structural (STR)
and ground (GEO) limit states in persistent and
transient situations are outlined in cl 2.4.7.3.
• To demonstrate that the foundation will support
the design load with adequate safety against
bearing resistance failure. The following
inequality shall be satisfied for all ultimate limit
state load cases and combinations.
Design action effects
19
2017‐10‐28
20
2017‐10‐28
Design Resistance
21
2017‐10‐28
22
2017‐10‐28
Design Approaches
• Design effects of actions (2.4.7.3.2) and design
resistance (2.4.7.3.3) should be based on the
design approach used.
• There are three design approaches specified in
the code.
• The design approaches differ in the way they
distribute partial factors between actions, the
effects of actions, material properties and
resistances.
Design Approach 1 (DA 1)
• Two sets of factors are used in design
approach 1.
• In combination 2, factors ‘M1’ are applied to
the resistance and ‘M2’ are applied to
unfavourable actions on piles such as negative
skin friction or transverse loading.
23
2017‐10‐28
Design Approach 1 (DA 1)
• Approach 1 is a “material factoring approach”
at load side and a “resistance factoring
approach” at resistance side.
• The structural and geotechnical design are
checked for both of two separate sets of
partial factors
Design Approach 2
• Only one set of factors and hence, a single
calculation is required in Design Approaches 2
and 3 and the way in which the factors are
applied is varied according to the calculation
considered.
• In Design approach 2, factors are applied either
to actions or the effects of actions and to
resistances.
• Approach 2 is a “load and resistance factoring
approach”
24
2017‐10‐28
Design Approach 3
• In Design Approach 3, factors are applied to
actions or the effects of actions from the
structure and to ground strength (material)
parameters.
• Approach 3 is a material factoring approach.
Other ultimate limit states
• Verification of static equilibrium (EQU),
• Verification of resistance to failure by heave
due to seepage of water in the Ground (HYD),
and
• Verification procedure and partial factors for
uplift (UPL)
• are given in 2.4.7.2, 2.4.7.5 and 2.4.7.4
respectively.
25
2017‐10‐28
Serviceability Limit State
• Verification for serviceability limit states in the
ground or in a structural section, element or
connection, shall either require that
• Values of partial factors for serviceability limit
states should normally be taken equal to 1.0.
Serviceability Limit State
• A limiting value for a particular deformation is
the value at which a serviceability limit state,
such as unacceptable cracking or jamming of
doors, is deemed to occur in the supported
structure.
• This limiting value shall be agreed during the
design of the supported structure.
26
2017‐10‐28
Design by prescriptive measures
• In design situations where calculation models
are not available or not necessary, exceeding
limit states may be avoided by the use of
prescriptive measures.
• These involve conventional and generally
conservative rules in the design, and attention
to specification and control of materials,
workmanship, protection and maintenance
procedures.
Load tests and tests on experimental
models
• When the results of load tests or tests on large
or small scale models are used to justify a
design, or in order to complement one of the
other alternatives mentioned in 2.1(4), the
following features shall be considered and
allowed for:
• Tests may be carried out on a sample of the
actual construction or on full scale or smaller
scale models.
27
2017‐10‐28
Load tests and tests on experimental
models cont..
• scale effects, especially if small models are
used. The effects of stress levels shall be
considered, together with the effects of
particle size.
Observational method
• When prediction of geotechnical behaviour is
difficult, it can be appropriate to apply the
approach known as "the observational
method", in which the design is reviewed
during construction.
– Construction of embankment on soft ground.
28
2017‐10‐28
Section 7 ‐ Pile Foundations
• The provisions of this Section apply to end‐
bearing piles, friction piles, tension piles and
transversely loaded piles installed by driving,
by jacking, and by screwing or boring with or
without grouting.
• The provisions of this Section should not be
applied directly to the design of piles that are
intended as settlement reducers, such as in
some piled raft foundations.
Limit states
• The following limit states shall be considered and
an appropriate list shall be compiled:
• loss of overall stability;
• bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation;
• uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile
foundation;
• failure in the ground due to transverse loading of
the pile foundation;
• structural failure of the pile in compression,
tension, bending, buckling or shear;
29
2017‐10‐28
Limit states cont..
• combined failure in the ground and in the pile
foundation;
• combined failure in the ground and in the
structure;
• excessive settlement;
• excessive heave;
• excessive lateral movement;
• unacceptable vibrations.
Design methods and design
considerations
• The design shall be based on one of the
following approaches:
– the results of static load tests, which have been
demonstrated, by means of calculations or
otherwise, to be consistent with other relevant
experience;
– empirical or analytical calculation methods whose
validity has been demonstrated by static load tests
in comparable situations;
30
2017‐10‐28
Design methods and design
considerations cont..
• the results of dynamic load tests whose
validity has been demonstrated by static load
tests in comparable situations;
• the observed performance of a comparable
pile foundation, provided that this approach is
supported by the results of site investigation
and ground testing.
Pile load tests
• Pile load tests shall be carried out in the following
situations:
– when using a type of pile or installation method for
which there is no comparable experience;
– when the piles have not been tested under
comparable soil and loading conditions;
– when the piles will be subject to loading for which
theory and experience do not provide sufficient
confidence in the design. The pile testing procedure
shall then provide loading similar to the anticipated
loading;
31
2017‐10‐28
Pile load tests cont..
• when observations during the process of
installation indicate pile behaviour that
deviates strongly and unfavourably from the
behaviour anticipated on the basis of the site
investigation or experience, and when
additional ground investigations do not clarify
the reasons for this deviation.
• Pile load tests may be used to:
– assess the suitability of the construction method;
– determine the response of a representative pile
and the surrounding ground to load, both in terms
of settlement and limit load;
– to allow judgement of the overall pile foundation.
32
2017‐10‐28
• If one pile load test is carried out, it shall normally be
located where the most adverse ground conditions are
believed to occur. If this is not possible, an allowance
shall be made when deriving the characteristic value of
the compressive resistance.
• If load tests are carried out on two or more test piles,
the test locations shall be representative of the site of
the pile foundation and one of the test piles shall be
located where the most adverse ground conditions are
believed to occur.
Axially loaded piles
Limit state design
• The design shall demonstrate that exceeding the
following limit states is sufficiently improbable:
• ultimate limit states of compressive or tensile
resistance failure of a single pile;
• ultimate limit states of compressive or tensile
resistance failure of the pile foundation as a whole;
• ultimate limit states of collapse or severe damage to a
supported structure caused by excessive displacement
or differential displacements of the pile foundation;
• serviceability limit states in the supported structure
caused by displacement of the piles.
33
2017‐10‐28
Compressive ground resistance
• the following inequality shall be satisfied for
all ultimate limit state load cases and load
combinations:
• In principle Fc;d should include the weight of
the pile itself and Rc;d should include the
overburden pressure of the soil at the
foundation base.
• However these two items may be disregarded if
they cancel approximately. They need not cancel
if:
– downdrag is significant;
– the soil is very light,
– the pile extends above the surface of the ground.
• For piles in groups, two failure mechanisms shall
be taken into account:
– compressive resistance failure of the piles individually;
– compressive resistance failure of the piles and the soil
contained between them acting as a block.
34
2017‐10‐28
Compressive ground resistance from
Static load tests
• For structures, which do not exhibit capacity to transfer
loads from "weak" piles to "strong" piles, as a minimum,
the following equation shall be satisfied:
• where 1 and 2 are correlation factors related to the

number of piles tested and are applied to the mean (Rc;m)
mean and the lowest (Rc;m )min of Rc;m respectively.
• For structures having sufficient stiffness and strength to
transfer loads from "weak" to "strong" piles, the values of
1 and 2 may be divided by 1.1, provided that 1 is never
less than 1,0.
from static load test cont..
• The characteristic compressive resistance of
the ground, Rc;k, may be derived from the
characteristic values of the base resistance,
Rb;k, and of the shaft resistance, Rs;k, such
that:
• OR
35
2017‐10‐28
from static load test cont..
Application of the EUROCODE in
design
• Ultimate compressive resistance from pile load test results
• Assume that the ultimate carrying capacity of n number of
piles Rc,i or (Rb,i and Rs,i) are obtained from static load test
results and it is required to obtain the design resistance,
Rc,d, (carrying capacity of the pile).
• In most cases only the total carrying capacity not the skin
friction and end bearing are available from the static pile
load tests. The first step would be to obtain the
characteristic resistance, Rc,k, of the piles using Eq[7.2].
• Once the characteristic resistance of the piles is obtain, the
design resistance, Rc,d, of the piles is obtained by using the
partial safety factors from Table A.6, A.7 and A.8.
36
2017‐10‐28
Schematic representation of
estimation of design capacity from
static load test
Design capacity from static load test
• Once the characteristic resistance of the piles
is obtained, the design resistance, Rc,d, of the
piles is obtained by using the partial safety
factors from Table A.6, A.7 and A.8.
• If the characteristic values of base and shaft
resistance (Rb,k and Rs,k) are estimated from
the previous step, the design resistance of the
pile, Rc,d, is obtained as below:
37
2017‐10‐28
• If the characteristic value of the total
resistance, Rc,k, was estimated from the
previous step, the design of the pile, Rc,d, is
obtained as below:
• the characteristics resistance Rk can be
estimated as given below:
• The design value of the applied load, Fd may be
obtained by the characteristic load, Fk as given below:
• The basic condition for ULS is Fd ≤ Rd and hence:
• The above indicates that the design approach in the
Eurocode is same as the traditional deterministic
approach in the working (or permissible stress)
method.
38
2017‐10‐28
• The idea behind semi‐probabilistic safety systems
is that the uncertainties are treated right at
sources by introducing the “characteristic value”
and the “design value” of the variables.
• The characteristic and design values have a
statistical background.
• Such a safety system is different to the classical
deterministic systems which treats all sources of
uncertainties through a single (global) safety
factor.
Ultimate compressive resistance from
ground test results
• Methods for assessing the compressive
resistance of a pile foundation from ground
test results shall have been established from
pile load tests and from comparable
experience as defined in 1.5.2.2.
• model factor may be introduced as described
in 2.4.1(9) to ensure that the predicted
compressive resistance is sufficiently safe.
39
2017‐10‐28
ground test results
ground test results cont..
40
2017‐10‐28
ground test results cont..
41
2017‐10‐28
Ultimate pile resistance from ground
test results
• Rc,k is obtained from the calculated pile compressive
resistance at each test location (ie CPT or PMT profiles, boring
providing vertical profiles of shear strength parameters etc).
• When different areas can be identified in a global site, where
in each of these areas the tests indicate a small variability, the
global side may be subdivided into several “homogeneous
areas” which may be treated separately according to the
formulas above.
• The number of tested profiles to be considered in such an
area is the number of test in the “homogeneous” area
considered (not the total number of tests over the whole
site).
• Three methods may be used:
test results
Method 1 – using  ‐ factor
• The design procedure involves three main steps:
• assess the compressive resistance of an
hypothetic pile at each test location by using a
calculation rule and by calibrating the result if
necessary;
• select the characteristic value of the pile
resistance from the assessed compressive
resistances; and
• calculate the design value of the pile compressive
resistance from the characteristic value.
42
2017‐10‐28
test results
Method 1 using  ‐ factor
test results
Method 1 using  ‐ factor
• As there are large number of methods to calculate the
pile resistance from the ground test results, the
accuracy of the predicted resistance vary widely.
• Therefore, applying a single ‐correlation factor to the
calculated resistance may not be reasonable.
• To cover the uncertainty of the prediction, the
Eurocode allows to introduce “model factors” or
“calibration factors”.
• The value of calibration factor is related to the
calculation rule and is obtained by comparing load
tests results and corresponding predictions performed
in the past (eg to validate the calculation rule).
43
2017‐10‐28
on 4 boreholes.
are as follows:
44
2017‐10‐28
test results
Method 2 ‐ Alternative approach
• Eurocode allows the use of characteristic pile
resistance based on ground test results
without using a correlation factor .
• In this method characteristic values of base
resistance and shaft friction in the various
strata derived from values of ground
parameters.
• This method abandons the idea of “model
pile”.
test results
• The alternative procedure may be appropriate
when:
– Using tables or charts indicating qb,k and qs,k values
as a function of any measured soil parameter for
determining the characteristic resistance from any
given soil parameter;
– Using (analytical) formulas to calculate the pile
bearing capacity using characteristic values of soil
shear strength parameters (ck/ and ϕk/ or cu;k) valid
over the site considered.
45
2017‐10‐28
test results
test results
Method 3 – using γm
• In this method, the shear strength parameters (φ,
c or cu) are factored by dividing the
corresponding material parameter from Table A.4
before using them in the calculation rules to
estimate the pile resistance.
• Then calculation rules are used to estimate the
pile resistance.
• Finally the ‘model factor’ is used to obtain the
design value from the estimated pile resistance.
46
2017‐10‐28
test results
Method 3– using γm
dynamic impact tests
• Where a dynamic impact (hammer blow) pile test
is used to assess the resistance of individual
compression piles, the validity of the result shall
have been demonstrated by previous evidence of
acceptable performance in static load tests on
the same pile type of similar length and cross‐
section and in similar ground conditions.
• The impact energy shall be high enough to allow
for an appropriate interpretation of the pile
capacity at a correspondingly high enough strain
level.
47
2017‐10‐28
dynamic impact tests cont..
48
2017‐10‐28
Ultimate compressive resistance by
applying pile driving formulae
• Pile driving formulae shall only be used if the
stratification of the ground has been determined.
• the validity of the formulae shall have been
demonstrated by previous experimental evidence
of acceptable performance in static load tests on
the same type of pile, of similar length and cross‐
section, and in similar ground conditions.
• For end‐bearing piles driven into non‐cohesive
soil, the design value of the compressive
resistance, Rc;d, shall be assessed by the same
procedure as in 7.6.2.4 (dynamic load test…).
Ultimate compressive resistance by
applying pile driving formulae cont..
• When a pile driving formula is applied to verify
the compression resistance of a pile, the pile
driving test should have been carried out on at
least 5 piles distributed at sufficient spacing in
the piling area in order to check a suitable blow
count for the final series of blows.
• The penetration of the pile point for the final
series of blows should be recorded for each pile.
49
2017‐10‐28
test results
• Rc,k is obtained from the calculated pile compressive
resistance at each test location (ie CPT or PMT profiles, boring
providing vertical profiles of shear strength parameters etc).
• When different areas can be identified in a global site, where
in each of these areas the tests indicate a small variability, the
global side may be subdivided into several “homogeneous
areas” which may be treated separately according to the
formulas above.
• The number of tested profiles to be considered in such an
area is the number of test in the “homogeneous” area
considered (not the total number of tests over the whole
site).
• Two methods may be used:
Eurocode Design Ex
50
2017‐10‐28
on 4 boreholes.
are as follows:
51

Pile Design Using Euro Code

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pile Design Using Euro Code

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2017‐10‐28

Pallowable = qu . Ab/Fb + fu . As/Fs

(i) Fb = Fs = 2.5 ; and

Eurocode 7 – Part 2

Eurocode 7 – Part 2

• where 1 and 2 are correlation factors related to the

• The basic condition for ULS is Fd ≤ Rd and hence:

Você também pode gostar