THE DESIGN OF PILES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE H.G. Poulos Coffey Geosciences Pry. Lid. The University of Sydney ABSTRACT ‘This paper discusses the application of limit state design philosophy to pile design in Australia, with specific reference to the revised Australian Standard Piling Code. The main broad issues that must be addressed in design are summarized and the general design criteria are outlined. No attempt is made to describe in detail methods of analysis ‘and design; these are not prescribed in the code and may be selected by the designer. Rather, some issues following on from the code provisions are discussed, in particular, the design of piles for negative friction, the design of pile groups, the design of piled raft foundations, and he structural design of ples. 1 INTRODUCTION ‘The design of pile foundations, like other foundation types, requires consideration firstly of overall stability or failure, and then consideration of movements under the design loadings. The design objectives are quite clear: 1 tohave an adequate margin of safety against overall failure 2 tohave movements which do not execed those assessed (0 be tolerable to the structure being supported. ‘The waditional approach to pile design has tor approach for the consideration of ‘overall stability, such that {0 adopt an overall safety f Factor of Safety FS = Ultimate Resistance / Design Loading a It has been traditional for FS to be typically between 2 and 3.5 for pile foundations, depending on the level of uncertainty and the consequences of failure. In recent years, there has been a move towards a limit state design approach, which, in application, is effectively a partial safety factor approach. Such an approach is not new in geotechnical engineering, having been proposed by Brinch Hansen (1965) and Simpson et al (1981), among others. However, the adoption of limit state design philosophy by structural engineers has forced the geotechnical fraternity to put aside the traditional approach and adopt a procedure which is unfamiliar, albeit logical from many viewpoints. ‘There are two broad approaches to Timit state desiga: ‘© the partial factor of safety approach: In this case. the design criterion for stability is R 2 Lak @ where R’ = resistance calculated using the design suength parameters obtained by reducing the characteristic strength values with partial factors of safety (4, = load factors Fi applied loadings the Load and Resistance Factored Approach (LRED): ‘The design criterion in this case is ‘Ausvallan Gecmecharics Dec 1999 25AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS @.R2E0F @) where @ = strength reduction factor. ‘This paper discusses the application of limit state design philosophy to pile design in Australia, with specific reference to the revised Australian Standard Piling Code, which adopts the LRFD approach. No attempt is made to describe methods of analysis and design, which are not prescribed in the code and may be selected by the designer. Rather, some issues following on from the code provisions are discussed, in particular, the design of piles for negative friction, the design of pile groups, the design of piled raft foundations, and the structural design of piles. 2. THE AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE - AS 2159 - 1995 ‘The “new” Australian Piling Code was published in 1995, and superseded the previous code published in 1978. That code had been framed in the traditional overall safety factor format, and had been used widely and successfully by a large number of engineers engaged in pile design. The 1995 Code is frased in limit state format, to be consistent with other civil engineering codes published by Standards Australia. 21g 1G ENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ‘There are three broad requirements for design in the piling code: 1 Design for Ultimate Strength (both structural and geotechnical) 2 Design for Serviceability 3. Design for Durability. ‘Attention will be focussed here on the first wo aspects, which generally require quantitative evaluation, ‘The code uses the LRFD approach, so that, in simple terms, the design requirement for the ultimate limit state is as follows: Factored - down pile strength > Factored - up loadings (or “design action effects”) cy ‘Various combinations of loadings are specilied in the section dealing with design requirements. These combinations reflect those in the Australian Standard dealing with structural loadings (AS 1170.1). For serviceability, the design criterion is simply: Movement at Serviceability Loading < Allowable Movement oo ‘Although it is customary to consider direct structural loadings on piles, the Piling Code specifies that the design must ‘consider the “design action effects” arising from the following sources: 1. Ioads and other actions specified in the loading code 2 dead loads of pile and pile cap 3 soil movement, negative friction, expansive soils and earth movements. 4 handling 5 installation 6 any other additional loads and actions that may be applied, such as impact, dynamic loading, water pressures, ‘and scour. 22 DESIGN FOR STRUCTURAL STRENGTH. ‘The design criterion for structural strength can be stated as follows: Ree st © 28 Australian Geomechanics ~ Dec 1993AUSTRALIAN PILING CODE HG POULOS where R,* = design structural strength SH = design action effect. R.* may be obtained as follows: Re = ® Ry oO where, = structural strength reduction factor Ry= ultimate structural strength. Values of ©, may be obtained from appropriate codes for the pile material in question. Equations 6 and 7 apply, as appropriate, to the axial, bending and shear strengths of a pile. For concrete piles, the relevant code is AS 3600, Further reduction factors are applied for piles, in the range 1.0 to 0.75, depending on installation conditions. Moreover, for grouted piles, an additional reduction factor applies, ‘depending on the soil type. The additional reduction factor ranges from 0.5 to 0.65 for clays and fine rock, to 0.65 0.75 for sandy soils and coarse rock. For steel piles, ©, is obtained from AS 4100, Allowance is also made for loss of section due to corrosion. For timber piles, a problem exists at present, in dhat the relevant code (AS 1720.1) is not written in limit state format. In this case, R,* is obtained as: Ry* = 1.68 * permissible stress * Strength reduction factor** cross - sectional aren (8) 23. DESIGN FOR GEOTECHNICAL STRENGTH ‘The criterion for geotechnical strength design is as follows Rye S* o where Ret = design geotechnical strength S# = design action effet. (the factored-down pile resistance, in effect) is obtained as follows: Rye =. Ry a0) where @, = geotechnical strength reduction factor Ru, = ultimate geotechnical stength. Equation 10 has two interesting features: L the sora! ultimate geotechnical strength (i.e, the ultimate pile load capacity), is factored, rather than the individual shaft and base capacity components 2 the ultimate geotechnical strength is computed from values of unit shaft and base resistance computed from tunfactored soit strength parameters. This LRFD approach (sometimes termed the “American Approach” to Timit state design) is in contrast to other applications such as retaining structures, where the soil strength parameters are factored prior to the calculations being carried out (.c. the partial factor approach). ‘The Australian Piling Code specifies ranges of values of ®, as indicated in Table 1, The factors influencing the value of the geotechnical strength reduction factor include: 1 the method of assessing Rug 2 the confidence in the geotechnical data Austaian Geomechanics —Dec 189927