Chapter1 Introduction

SEISMIC DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION
Chapter1 Introduction
1.1 General
Foundation is the most important structure of the building. In this project report dealing
with the most important structure of the building that is the foundation. In this project the
focus on the seismic design of the pile foundation for the building.
(i) Any structure is generally considered to have two main portions.

(ii) The superstructure and
(iii) The substructure
The substructure transmits loads of the superstructure to the supporting soil and is
generally termed as a foundation. The footing is that portion of the foundation which
ultimately delivers the load to the soil, and is thus in contact with it. The load of the
superstructure is transmitted to the foundation or structure through either columns or
walls. The object of providing the foundation to a structure is to distribute the load to the
soil in such a way that the maximum pressure on the soil does not exceed its permissible
bearing value, and at the same time the settlement is within the permissible limits.
A foundation may be broadly classified under two heads: shallow foundation and deep
foundation. According to Terzaghi's, a foundation is shallow if its depth is equal to or less
than the width. In the case of deep foundation, the depth is greater than the width.
Piles are the most commonly adopted deep foundations to support massive
superstructures like multi-storeyed buildings, bridges, towers, dams, etc. when the
founding soil is weak and result bearing capacity and settlement problems. In addition to
carrying the vertical compressive loads, piles must also resist the uplift loads (loads due
to wind or hydrostatic pressure) and the dynamic lateral loads which are common in the
offshore structures, retaining walls and the structures in the earthquake-prone regions.
With increasing infrastructure growth and seismic activities, and the devastation
witnessed, designing pile foundations for seismic conditions is of considerable
importance.
1.2 Introduction to pile foundation
1. Piles are structural members that are made of steel, concrete, and/or timber. They
are used to build pile foundations, which are deep and which cost more than
shallow foundations. Despite the cost, the use of piles often is necessary to ensure
structural safety. The following list identifies some of the conditions that require
pile foundations (Vesic, 1977).
M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 1 Department of CIVIL

2. When the upper soil layer(s) is (are) highly compressible and too weak to support
the load transmitted by the superstructure, piles are used to transmit the load to
underlying bedrocks or a stronger soil layer, as shown in figure 1.1a. When
bedrock is not encountered at a reasonable depth below the ground surface, piles
are used to transmit the structural load to the soil gradually. The resistance to the
applied structural load is derived mainly from the frictional resistance developed
at the soil-pile interface (figure 1. 1b).
Fig 1.1 Conditions for use of pile foundation

3. When subjected to horizontal forces (see figure 1.1c), pile foundations resist by
bending while still supporting the vertical load transmitted by the superstructure.
This type of situation is generally encountered in the design and construction of
earth-retaining structures and foundations of tall structures that are subject to high
wind and/or earthquake forces.
4. In many cases, expansive and collapsible soils may be present at the site of a
proposed structure. These soils may extend to a great depth below the ground
surface. Expansive soils swell and shrink as the moisture content increases and
decreases, and the swelling pressure of such soils can be considerable. If shallow
foundations are used in such circumstances, the structure may suffer considerable
damage. However, pile foundations may be considered as an alternative when pies
are extended beyond the active zone, which swells and shrinks (figure 1.1d).
5. Soils such as loess are collapsible in nature. When the moisture content of these
soils increases, their structures ay break down. A sudden decrease in the void ratio
of soil induces large settlements of structures supported by shallow foundations.
In such cases, piles foundations may be used in which piles are extended into
stable soil layers beyond the zone of possible moisture change.
6. Foundations of some structures, such as transmission towers, offshore platforms,
and basement mats below the water table, are subjected to uplifting forces. Piles
are sometimes used for these foundations to resist the uplifting force (figure 1. 1e)
7. Bridge abutments and piers are usually constructed over pile foundations to avoid
the possible loss of bearing capacity that a shallow foundation might suffer
because of soil erosion at the ground surface (figure 1.1f).
1.3 Types of Piles and their Structural Characteristics
Piles can be classified on the basis of following characteristics:
1. Mechanism of Load Transfer
2. Method of Installation
3. Type of Materials
1.3.1 Classification of Piles on the basis of load transfer
1.3.1 (a) End/Point Bearing Piles
If a bedrock or rock-like material is present at a site within a reasonable depth, piles can
be extended to the rock surface. In this case, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile
depends entirely on the underlying material, thus the piles are called end or point bearing
piles. In most of these cases, the necessary length of the pile can be fairly well
established. Instead of bedrock, if a fairly compact and hard stratum of soil is encountered
at a reasonable depth, piles can be extended a few meters into the hard stratum.
1.3.1 (b) Friction Piles:
In these types of piles, the load on the pile is resisted mainly by skin/friction resistance
along the side of the pile (pile shaft). Pure friction piles tend to be quite long, since the
load-carrying. Capacity is a function of the shaft area in contact with the soil. In cohesion,
less soils, such as sands of medium to low density, friction piles are often used to increase
the density and thus the shear strength. When no layer of rock or rock-like material is
present at a reasonable depth at a site, point/end bearing piles become very long and

uneconomical. For this type of subsoil condition, piles ate driven through the softer
material to a specified depth
1.3.1 (c) Friction cum end bearing piles
In the majority of cases, however, the load-carrying capacity is dependent on both end-
bearing and shaft friction.
1.3.2 Classification of Piles according to the Method of Installation
1.3.2 (a) Driven or displacement piles
Pile Driving Equipment They are usually pre-formed before being driven, jacked,
screwed or hammered into the ground. This category consists of driven piles of steel or
precast concrete and piles formed by driving tubes or shells which are fitted with a
driving shoe. The tubes or shells which are filled with concrete after driving. Also
included in this category are piles formed by placing concrete as the driven piles are
withdrawn.
1.3.2 (b) Bored or Replacement piles
They require a hole to be first bored into which the pile is then formed usually of
reinforced concrete. The shaft (bore) may be eased or uncased depending upon the type of
soil.
1.3.3 Types of Piles based on Materials
1.3.3 (a) Timber piles
Timber piles are tree trunks that have had their branches and bark carefully trimmed off.
The maximum length of most timber piles is 30-65 ft (10-20 m). To qualify for use as a
pile, the timber should be straight, sound, and without any defects. The American Society
of Civil Engineers' Manual of Practice, No. 17 (1959), divided timber piles into three
classifications
1. Class A piles carry heavy loads. The minimum diameter of the butt should be 14 in.
(356 mm). 2. Class B piles are used to carry medium loads. The minimum butt diameter
should be 12-13 in. (305-330 mm).
3. Class C piles are used in temporary construction work. They can be used permanently
for structures when the entire pile is below the water table. The minimum butt diameter
should be 12 in. (305 mm).

Timber piles cannot withstand hard driving stress; therefore, the pile capacity is generally
limited to about 25-30 tons (220 − 270 kN). Steel shoes may be used to avoid damage at
the pile tip (bottom). The tops of timber piles may also be damaged during the driving
operation. The crushing of the wooden fibers caused by the impact of the hammer is
referred to as brooming. To avoid damage to the pile top, a metal band or a cap may be
used.
. .The allowable load-carrying capacity of wooden piles is
Call = Apfw
Where
Ap= average area of cross-section of the pile
fw= allowable stress for the timber
Fig 1.2 Wooden piles
Timber piles are made of tree trunks driven with small end as a point
Maximum length: 35 m; optimum length: 9 - 20m
Max load for usual conditions: 450 kN; optimum load range = 80 - 240 kN
Disadvantages of using timber piles:
Difficult to splice, vulnerable to damage in hard driving, vulnerable to decay unless

treated with preservatives (If timber is below permanent Water table it will apparently last
forever), if subjected to alternate wetting & drying, the useful life will be short, partly
embedded piles or piles above Water table are susceptible to damage from wood borers
and other insects unless treated.
Advantages:
Advantages: Comparatively low initial cost, permanently submerged piles are resistant to
decay, easy to handle, best suited for friction piles in granular material.

1.3.3 (b) Steel piles
Steel piles generally are either pile piles or rolled steel H-section piles. Pipe piles can be
driven into the ground with their ends open or closed. Wide-flange and I-section steel
beams can also be used as piles. However, H-section piles are usually preferred because
their wed and flange thicknesses are equal. In wide-flange and I-section beams, the wed
thicknesses are smaller than the thicknesses of the flange.
The allowable structural capacity for steel piles is
Qall = Asfs
Where
As= cross − sectional area of the steel
fs= allowable stress of steel
Based on geotechnical considerations (once the design load for a pile is fixed)
determining whether Q (design) is within the allowable range as defined by equation) is
always advisable
When hard driving conditions are expected, such as driving through dense gravel, shale,
and soft rock, steel piles can be fitted with driving points or shoes. Figure 1.2d and 1.2e
are diagrams of two types of shoe used for pipe piles.
Steel piles may be subject to corrosion. For example, swamps, peats, and other organic
soils are corrosive. Soils that have a pH greater than 7 are not so corrosive. To offset the
effect of corrosion, an additional thickness of steel (over the actual design cross-sectional
area) is generally recommended. In many circumstances, factory-applied epoxy coatings
on piles work satisfactorily against corrosion. These coatings are not easily damaged by
pile driving. Concrete encasement of steel piles in most corrosive zones also protects
against corrosion.

Fig 1.3 Steel Piles
 Maximum length practically unlimited, optimum length: 12-50m

 Load for usual conditions = maximum allowable stress x cross-sectional area
 The members are usually rolled HP shapes/pipe piles. Wide flange beams & I
beams proportioned to withstand the hard-driving stress to which the pile may be
subjected. In HP pile the flange thickness = web thickness, piles are either welded
or seamless steel pipes, which may be driven either open-ended or closed end.
Closed-end piles are usually filled with concrete after driving.
 Open end piles may be filled but this is not often necessary.
Advantages of steel piles:
Easy to splice, high capacity, small displacement, able to penetrate through light
obstructions, best suited for end bearing on a rock, reduce allowable capacity for
corrosive locations or provide corrosion protection.
Disadvantages:
 Vulnerable to corrosion.
 HP section may be damaged/deflected by major obstruction
1.3.3 (c) Concrete Piles
Concrete Piles Concrete piles may be divided into two basic categories:
((a) Precast piles and
(b) cast-in-situ piles.
Precast piles can be prepared by using ordinary reinforcement, and they can be square or
octagonal in cross-section (figure 1.3). Reinforcement is provided to enable the pile to
resist the bending moment developed during pickup and transportation, the vertical load,

and the bending moment caused by the lateral load. The piles are cast to desired lengths
and cured before being transported to the work sites.
Fig1.4: Precast piles with ordinary reinforcement
Figure 1.3 Precast piles with ordinary reinforcement Precise piles can also be prestressed
by the use of high-strength steel prestressing cables. The ultimate strength of these steel
cables is about 260 ksi (≈ 1800 MN/m2). During casting of the piles, the cables are
pretensioned to about 130 − 190 ksi (≈ 900 − 1300 MN/m2), and concrete is poured
around them. After curing, the cables are cut, thus producing a compressive force on the
pile section. Cast-in-situ, or cast-in-place, piles are built by making a hole in the ground
and then filling it with concrete. Various types of the cast-in-place concrete pile are
currently used in construction, and most of them have been pat ended by their
manufactures.
Fig 1.5 Concrete Piles

 Concrete piles may be precast, prestressed, cast in place, or of composite

construction
 Precast concrete piles may be made using ordinary reinforcement or they may be
prestressed
 Precast piles using ordinary reinforcement are designed to resist bending stresses
during picking up & transport to the site & bending moments from lateral loads
and to provide sufficient resistance to vertical loads and any tension forces
developed during driving. Prestressed piles are formed by tensioning high strength
steel prestress cables, and casting the concrete about the cable. When the concrete
hardens, the prestress cables are cut, with the tension force in the cables now
producing compressive stress in the concrete pile. It is common to higher-strength
concrete (35 to 55 MPa) in prestressed piles because of the large initial
compressive stresses from prestressing. Prestressing the piles, tend to counteract
any tension stresses during either handling or driving.
 Max length: 10 - 15 m for precast, 20 - 30 m for prestressed
 Optimum length 10 - 12 m for precast. 18 - 25m prestressed
 Loads for usual conditions 900 for precast. 8500 kN for prestressed
 Optimum load range: 350 - 3500 kN
Advantages:
High load capacities, corrosion resistance can be attained, hard-driving possible
Cylinder piles, in particular, are suited for bending resistance.
Cast in place concrete piles is formed by drilling a hole in the ground & filling it with
concrete. The hole may be drilled or formed by driving a shell or casing into the ground.
Disadvantages:
1. Concrete piles are considered permanent, however, certain soils (usually organic)
contain materials that may form acids that can damage the concrete.
2. Salt water may also adversely react with the concrete unless special precautions
are taken when the mix proportions are designed. Additionally, concrete piles
used for marine structures may undergo abrasion from wave action and floating
debris in the water.
3. Difficult to handle unless prestressed, high initial cost, considerable displacement,
prestressed piles are difficult to splice.
4. Alternate freezing-thawing can cause concrete damage in any exposed situation.

1.3.3 (d) Composite piles
In general, a composite pile is made up of two or more sections of different materials or different
file types. The upper portion could be eased cast-in-place concrete combined with a lower portion
of timber, steel H or concrete filled steel pipe pile. These piles have limited application and are
employed under special conditions.
The upper and lower portions of composite piles are made of different materials. For example,
composite piles may be made of steel and concrete or timber and concrete. Steel and concrete
piles consist of a lower portion of steel and an upper portion of cast-in-place concrete. This type
of pile is the one used when the length of the pile required for adequate bearing exceeds the
capacity of simple cast-in-place concrete piles. Timber and concrete piles usually consist of a
lower portion of timber pile below the permanent water table and an upper portion of concrete. In
any case, forming proper joints between two dissimilar materials is difficult, and, for that reason,
composite piles are not widely used.

Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 General
A Review of Literature pertinent to the subject matter of this project is presented below. Relevant
papers are studied and abstracted to decide the line of action of project
2.2 Review of previous work
1) Maharaj D.K, Gayatri J and Jayanthi D in his paper studied a single pile and group of piles of
varying cross-section have been analyzed by nonlinear finite element method under plane strain
condition. Each row of the group of piles in the transverse direction has been converted into the
equivalent strip of volume equal to the total number of a pile. The top of the piles has been
considered to be connected with a rigid pile cap such that when under uplift load each of the pile
undergoes the same vertical displacement. The cap, pile, and soil have been discretized into four
nodded isoparametric elements. The soil has been modeled as the elastoplastic medium by
Drucker-Prager yield criterion. The load-deflection curves have been provided for an individual
pile and a single pile taken from the group of piles. The effect of varying cross-section on the
load-deflection curve has also been analyzed. The load carrying capacity of the pile of varying
cross-section is more than that of the straight shaft pile of the same volume of concrete. The
interaction between the piles has been found more at closer spacing and least at higher spacing
resulting in more deflection of a pile in a group. The load carrying capacity of an individual pile
has been found more than that of a pile in a group in case of piles under uplift load and of varying
cross-section. The load carrying capacity of the group of piles has been found more than an
individual pile.
2) A. Murali Krishna, A. Phani Teja in his paper studied Pile foundations are commonly adopted
for various types of multi-storied and industrial structures, bridges and offshore structures. Their
seismic design is very important to ensure efficient functioning of various structures even under
severe seismic loading conditions. In the design process, ground conditions (soil type) play an
important role in terms of seismic loads transferred to foundation and foundation capacity. This
paper presents the seismic design of pile foundations for different ground conditions. Estimation
of seismic loads, for a typical multi-storeyed building considered being located in different
seismic zones, for different ground conditions according to the Indian and European standard are
presented. Design considerations based on various theories evolved on pile foundation
performance concepts under seismic conditions are discussed. Two different ground conditions (C
and D type) are selected as exemplary cases in demonstrating the evaluation of seismic loads and
seismic design of pile foundations as per codes of practice. For an efficient seismic design of the
foundation, it is important to estimate the loads that are being transferred to the foundation during

an earthquake. These loads depend on the seismic loads that act on the superstructure during an
earthquake. Different codes around the world propose different methods of estimation of these
seismic loads on the superstructure. The methods proposed by the Indian standard (IS 1893) and
the Eurocode (EN 1998) are reviewed and used to estimate the seismic loads. A case study of a
typical multi-storied structure is considered as a model superstructure for the purpose.
3) Dongmei Chu, Kevin Z. Truman in his paper studied Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SPSI) has
an important effect in the dynamic analysis and seismic design of massive or stiff structures and
pile foundations. Because of soil stiffness degradation under earthquake excitations, pile
foundation configurations affect the seismic response of soil-pile-structure systems. This paper
develops an efficient computational method to quantify the seismic response of a soil-pile
foundation system. A comprehensive study is presented to consider the effects of pile foundation
configurations on the seismic soil-pile-structure interaction (SPSI). Using a three-dimensional
finite element model of a soil pile foundation system, both linear and nonlinear analyses are
performed in the time domain to provide a method for assessing the seismic performance of the
soil-pile system with different pile foundation configurations included. An infinite element
boundary condition is used to simulate radiation damping. Both harmonic and specific seismic
excitations are considered. Material nonlinearity is represented by Drucker-Prager soil plasticity
model and the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the soil-pile foundation system is performed using
SAP2000, a general purpose finite element analysis package. The effects of pile spacing to
diameter ratios and pile-soil stiffness ratios on the seismic responses of the soil-pile system are
studied. The proposed model is validated against experimental data and existing results of
numerical analyses. The proposed method reliably predicts the essential features of seismic
responses and provides insight into the nonlinear response characteristics. This study shows that
soil properties affect the seismic interaction of the soil-pile system greatly and the effects of pile
spacing ratios on pile head responses are not significant. A systematic research is suggested to
study the effects of a number of piles on seismic performance of the soil-pile system.
4) K. Tomisawa, S. Nishimoto and S. Miura in his paper studied Earthquake resistance of pile
foundations, established in the composite ground which was formed using the deep mixing
method for the purposes of improving shear strength in the soft ground was verified by a two-
dimensional nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis. As a result, it was revealed that the
displacement of pile foundations and the strain of pile bodies were restrained by composite
ground around piles and that the earthquake resistance of pile foundations was improved. It was
also found that the earthquake resistance of pile foundations depends on the improved strength,
improved width and improved depth of composite ground. The composite ground pile method is
applicable for both Level 1 and Level 2 earthquake loadings. Although methods of ground
improvement around piles are being used for seismic strengthening of pile foundations, design
methods have not been systematically established yet. There are, in particular, still many unclear
points concerning the seismic performance of piles in the improved ground. A composite ground
pile method, in which ground improvement is carried out around piles constructed in soft ground
or ground subject to liquefaction, was studied for the purpose of reducing construction costs, and
a design method reflecting the ground strength increased by improvement mainly on the
horizontal resistance of piles was proposed and put into practical use. This method uses a
combination of pile foundations with commonly used ground improvement methods, such as deep

mixing, preloading, and sand compaction pile. In this method, the horizontal subgrade reaction of
piles is determined from the shear strength of the improved ground and the necessary range of
ground improvement is established as a range of the horizontal resistance of piles, based on an
engineering assessment. The validity of this method has already been verified using in-situ static
horizontal loading tests of piles and static finite element analysis. Earthquake resistance at the
boundary between the improved and original ground has also been confirmed by the seismic
intensity method and the dynamic linear finite element method (equivalent linear method). There
are, however, still some unclear points concerning the seismic performance of pile foundations
depending on earthquake levels and ground conditions. While several studies have been
conducted on composite foundations combining piles and improved columns it is necessary to
establish analytical and application methods for such foundations.
5) Geoffrey R. Martin, Ignatius Po Lam in his paper Research on soil-pile-structure interaction

under dynamic loading over the past 20 years has led to a variety of analytical approaches of
varying complexity to address a range of dynamic problems. Many of these analysis approaches
have been adapted for use for the seismic design of pile foundations. In this paper, the various
analysis methods are only briefly reviewed. The focus of discussion is on design concepts and
issues more routinely used or encountered by structural engineers during the seismic design of
new or retrofitted pile foundation systems representative of those used for bridges and buildings.
The intent of this paper is to focus on design concepts and issues related to the seismic design of
pile foundation systems representative of those typically used for bridges and buildings. Pile
foundations for such structures are normally required in the presence of softer more compressible
soils, where design concerns relate to bearing capacity and allowable settlement. However, from a
seismic design point of view, several other design aspects must be considered.
6) Lee C.Y. Have studied the discrete layer analysis of laterally loaded piles embedded in
homogeneous and non-homogeneous soil is presented. The soil mass is divided into uncoupled
discrete soil layers. Basically, the formulation of the analysis is similar to the subgrade reaction
theory but the response of the discrete soil layers is evaluated by a semi-analytical solution, which
is related to the actual soil properties and the pile geometry instead of the conventional subgrade
reaction modulus. The nonlinear response of the soil around the pile is represented by a simple
hyperbolic soil model. The linear elastic solutions computed by the discrete layer and the more
rigorous continuum approaches are compared and are found to be in satisfactory agreement. The
computed non-linear response of two pile embedded in stiff clay compares favorably with field
measurements.
7) T. Ilyas, Leung C.F., Chow Y.K. and Budi S.S A series of centrifuge model tests have been
conducted to examine the behavior of laterally loaded pile groups in normally consolidated and
overconsolidated kaolin clay. The pile groups have a symmetrical plan layout consisting a center
to center spacing of pile The piles are connected by a solid aluminum pile cap placed just above
the ground level. The pile load test results are expressed in terms of lateral load-pile head display
cement response of the pile group, load experienced by the individual pile in the group, and

bending moment profile along individual pile shafts. It is established that the pile group efficiency
reduces significantly with increasing number of piles in a group. The tests also reveal the
shadowing effect phenomenon in which the front piles experience the larger load and bending
moment than that of the tailing piles. The shadowing effect is most significant for the lead row
piles and considerably less significant for subsequent rows of tailing piles. The approach adopted
by many researchers of taking the average performance of piles in the same row is found to be
inappropriate for the middle rows, of piles for large pile groups as the outer piles in the row carry
significantly more load and experience considerably higher bending moment than those of the
inner piles.
8) Philip S.K, Brian K.F. Chang, and Wang. studied the characteristic load method (CLM) can be
used to estimate lateral deflections and maximum bending moments in single fixed head piles
under lateral load. However, this approach is limited to cases where the lateral load on the pile top
is embedded, as in most piles that are capped, the additional embedment results in an increased
lateral resistance. A simple approach to account for embedment effects in the CLM is presented
for single fixed head piles. In practice, fixed head piles are more typically used in groups where
the response of an individual pile can be influenced by the adjacent soil by the response of other
nearby piles. This pile-soil-pile interaction results in larger deflections and moments in pile
groups for the same load per pile compared to single piles. A simplified procedure to estimate
group deflections and moments was also developed based on the p- multiplier approach. Group
amplification factors are introduced to amplify the single pile deflection and bending moment to
reflect pile-soil-pile interaction. The resulting approach lends itself well to simple spreadsheet
computations and provides good agreement with other generally accepted analytical tools and
with values measured in published lateral load tests on groups of fixed head piles.
9) Farzad Abedzadel and Ronald Y.S. studied a rigorous mathematical formulation is presented
for a flexible tubular pile of finite length embedded in a semi-infinite soil medium under lateral
loading. In the framework of three-dimensional elastostatics and classical beam theory, the
complicated structure medium interaction problem is shown to be reducible to three coupled
Fredholm integral equations. Through an analysis of the associated Cauchy singular kernels, the
intrinsic singular characteristics of the radial, angular, and vertical interfacial load transfer are
rendered explicit and incorporated into a rigorous numerical procedure. Detailed results of the
three-dimensional load transfer process, as well as their resultant one-dimensional analogs, are
also provided for benchmark comparison and practical applications.
10) Anderson J.B, Townsend F.C and Grajales B. In their studies paper examine seven case
histories of load tests on piles or drilled shafts under lateral load. Since the current design
software to estimate lateral load resistance of deep foundations requires p-y curves. The first
approach used was correlative whereby soil parameters determined from in situ tests (standard
penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration tests (CPT) were used as input values for standard p-y
curves. In the second approach, p-y curves were calculated directly from the stress deformation
data measured in dilatometer (DMT) and cone pressuremeter tests. The correlative evaluation
revealed that on the average predictions based upon the SPT were conservative for all loading

levels, and using parameters from the CPT best-predicted field behavior. Typically, predictions
were conservative, except at the maximum load. Since traditionally SPT and CPT correlation
based p-y curves are for sands or clays. This study suggests that silts, silty sands, and clayey sands
should use cohesive p-y curves. For the directly calculated curves, DMT derived p-y curves
predict well at low lateral loads, but at higher load levels the predictions become unconservative.
The p-y curves derived from pressuremeter tests predicted well for both sands and clays where
pore pressures are not anticipated.
Chapter 3 Estimation of loads on the structure
3.1 General
As a case study, a model of a typical multi-storied residential building is considered and the
seismic action on it is determined for the different seismic zones in India and the different ground
types. The procedures, as per IS 1893 is followed to estimate the seismic loads on the structure.
The structure is then analyzed with the structural and seismic loads using the computer program
SAP2000 to determining the loads that are transferred to the foundations. Among different
foundation loads, the maximum loaded foundation was considered for the foundation design. For
an efficient seismic design of the foundation, it is important to estimate the loads that are being
transferred to the foundation during an earthquake. These loads depend on the seismic loads that
act on the superstructure during an earthquake. Different codes around the world propose different
methods of estimation of these seismic loads on the superstructure. The methods proposed by the
Indian standard (IS 1893) reviewed and used to estimate the seismic loads. A case study of a
typical multi-storied structure is considered as a model superstructure for the purpose.
3.2 Model of the Building and Various Parameters Considered

As a case study, to estimate the seismic loads that act on a structure during an earthquake, a
typical multi-storied building frame model is considered. The building frame is a moment
resisting frame with reinforced concrete members. The plan and elevation of the concrete building
frame considered are shown in Fig. 5.1. The parameters used for the modeling of the building
were based on the values used in general practice during the construction of a residential complex.
Suitable cross-sectional dimensions of beams and columns, as well as the thickness of slabs and
unreinforced brick masonry infill walls, were assumed (all in accordance with the Indian
standards). The grade of concrete and the grade of steel were considered to be M25 and Fe415
respectively. The modeling of the building without the staircase was done in the computer
program SAP2000 with the assumed geometry and material properties.
Grade of Concrete: M25
Grade of Steel: Fe415
Live Load on Roof: 1.5 kN/m2

Live load on Floor: 3 kN/m2
Roof finish: 1 kN/m2
Floor finish: 1 kN/m2
Brick wall on internal Beams: 150 mm
Density of concrete: 25 kN/m2
Density of brick wall including plaster: 20 kN/m3
Thickness of slab: 125 mm
Table 3.1 : Size of Column and Beams
Column Beam
C1 400x600 RB1,FB1 300x600
C2 500x500 RB2,FB2 300x500
C3 500x600 PB1 300x400
PB2 300x350
Fig: 3.1 Plan of building

Fig 3.2: Elevation of the G+8 Building in X -Direction
Fig 3.3: Elevation of G+8 Building in Y- Direction

3.3. Seismic Loads as per IS 1893
The Indian Standard (IS 1893) identifies three types of soils as foundation soil, based on N values
obtained from the standard penetration test (SPT). Type I, Type II and Type III being the rock or
hard soils, medium soils and soft soils respectively.
Seismic weight of the structure =40725.39 kN
3.3.1. Calculating the Base Shear

The total lateral force that acts at the base of the structure during an earthquake is called the
design seismic base shear (VB). As per IS 1893, base shear is calculated using the Eqn.3. 1
VB= Ah. Ws (3.1)
The seismic weight of the structure (Ws) is as calculated above. The design horizontal seismic
coefficient (Ah) is a function of the soil type (its stiffness and damping), the time period of the
structure and the zone. Equation 3.2 is being used to calculate the design horizontal seismic
coefficient
Ah=(Z.I.Sa)/(2.R.g) (3.2)
The Zone factor ‘Z’ which is indicative of the effective peak ground acceleration of a particular
zone is given in Table 2 of IS-1893. The values for the Importance factor ‘I’, which depends on
the functional use of the structure, are given in Table 6 of IS-1893. Considering the present
structure as an important service and community building, the value of ‘I’ adopted is I = 1. The
Response Reduction factor ‘R’, depends on the perceived seismic damage performance of the
structure, characterized by brittle or ductile deformations. From Table 7 of the code, the value of
R for a special moment resisting frame is taken as R = 5. The value of the average spectral
acceleration coefficient ‘Sa/g’ depends on the soil type, the time period (T) of the structure and
the damping ratio. The acceleration response spectra for the different soil types and five percent
damping are shown in Fig. 2. The time period of the structure is calculated for an RC frame
building using the Eqn. 3 as per IS code.
T = 0.075 x h0.75 (3.3)
The time period of the building frame considered with a height of 13.5m is calculated to be
T = (0.09 h)/(√d) (3.4)
Tx =0.588 sec
Ty= 0.662sec
Assuming the damping to be five percent, the base shear acting on the structure in different zones
and different soil types is calculated and the values are tabulated in Table 2.

Fig 3.4.Response Spectra for Rock and Soil sites as per IS 1893 for 5% Damping
Results By SAP2000 :
Base Shear in x-direction (Vb)x = 795.95 kN
Base Shear in y-direction (Vb)y = 879.12 kN
3.4 Load Transferred to pile

Column Groups Column Grid no
Group I A1, A4, F1, F4
Group II B1, B4, E1, E4
Group III C1, C4, D1, D4
Group IV A2, A3, F2, F3
Group V B2, B3, E2, E3
Group VI C2, C3, D2, D3
Table:3.2 Joint Reaction at foundation level for Group 1
Joint F1 F2 M1 M2 M3
Load combination F3 (kN)
no (kN) (kN) kN-m kN-m kN-m
121 1.5(DL+LL) 12.314 18.985 2023.17 -7.9945 5.538 0.024

5
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 2172.06 210.246 3.162
121 X) 98.174 36.281 9 39.3886 4 2
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 2032.22 163.593 0.109
121 Y) 10.396 92.122 6 2 5.7095 4
122.58 262.316 3.946
121 1.5(DL+RSAX) 9 45.406 2452.44 49.7701 9 1
115.20 2277.63 205.025 0.130
121 1.5(DL+RSAY) 12.866 6 6 9 6.6457 1
117.71 1748.22 260.298 3.939
121 0.9 DL +1.5 RSAX 5 37.79 9 52.7541 2 2
0.9 DL + 1.5 107.59 1573.42 208.009 0.123
121 RSAY 7.992 1 5 9 4.627 2
1.2(DL+LL- 2171.06 208.246 2.162
121 RSAX) 92.174 35.281 9 37.3886 4 2
1.2(DL+LL- 2031.22 162.593
121 RSAY) 7.396 91.122 6 2 4.7095 0.118
115.58 261.316 3.946
121 1.5(DL-RSAX) 9 44.406 2451.44 47.7701 9 1
113.20 2276.63 203.025 0.130
121 1.5(DL-RSAY) 13.866 6 6 9 5.6457 1
111.71 1746.22 258.298 3.939
121 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 5 35.79 9 51.7541 2 2
105.59 1571.42 206.009 0.123
121 0.9DL-1.5RSAY 4.992 1 5 9 3.627 2
Design Loads for Group 1 :
 (Pu) = 2452.44 kN
 (Mu3) = 262.32 kN-m
 (Mu2) = 64.69 kN-m
Table:3.3 Joint Reaction at foundation level for Group 2
Joint load combination F1 (kN) F2 (kN) F3 (kN) M1 M2 M3

no kN-m kN-m kN-m

123 1.5(DL+LL) 0.437 13.42 2571.679 -7.0361 0.3555 0.0252
123 1.2(DL+LL+RSAX) 85.45 26.037 2132.136 30.071 143.151 2.4487
123 1.2(DL+LL+RSAY) 0.888 108.653 2536.139 223.6031 1.1792 0.0994
123 1.5(DL+RSAX) 106.456 32.425 2247.207 38.9472 178.6465 3.0541
- -
123 1.5(DL+RSAY) -0.591 109.097 1555.222 292.2176 -1.0554 -0.0806
123 0.9 DL +1.5 RSAX 106.423 27.105 1385.72 41.2183 178.6212 3.0467
123 0.9 DL + 1.5 RSAY 0.721 130.376 1890.725 283.1334 1.1564 0.1101
123 1.2(DL+LL-RSAX) 82.15 22.017 2122.136 25.01 133.51 1.487
123 1.2(DL+LL-RSAY) 0.7 101.693 2526.139 216.031 1.12 0.194
123 1.5(DL-RSAX) 101.356 29.025 2227.207 32.94 167.65 2.0541
123 1.5(DL-RSAY) -0.45 -104.09 1234.222 -272.76 -1.14 -0.16
123 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 101.623 21.115 1345.62 42.2183 167.12 2.057
123 0.9DL-1.5RSAY 0.511 110.66 1830.145 183.14 1.64 0.11
Design Loads for Group 2:
Pu = 3142.397kN (Design)
(Mu3) = 16.089 kN-m
(Mu2) = -340.967 kN-m
Table 3.4 : Joint Reaction at foundation level for Group 3
Joint M1 M2 M3
load combination F1 (kN) F2 (kN) F3 (kN)
no kN-m kN-m kN-m
124 1.5(DL+LL) -4.909 13.326 2447.454 -6.7717 -2.1575 -0.0033
124 1.2(DL+LL+RSAX) 89.213 14.938 2139.683 4.542 144.9907 2.4088
124 1.2(DL+LL+RSAY) -3.318 104.943 2447.75 220.294 -0.7883 0.0919
124 1.5(DL+RSAX) 111.163 18.559 2274.807 6.9443 181.0717 3.0124
124 1.5(DL+RSAY) -4.5 131.065 2659.892 276.6342 -1.1521 0.1162
124 1.5(DL+RSAY) -6.024 -104.64 1435.425 -287.6441 -3.4964 -0.1201

124 0.9 DL + 1.5 RSAY -2.395 125.78 1840.828 278.8362 -0.2224 0.117
124 1.2(DL+LL-RSAX) 79.13 12.38 2131.83 2.42 124.07 1.88
124 1.2(DL+LL-RSAY) -2.18 101.43 2437.5 220.94 -0.83 0.019
124 1.5(DL-RSAX) 104.63 16.59 2254.07 4.43 162.17 2.24
124 1.5(DL-RSAY) -4.24 -101.64 1431.25 -267.41 -2.64 -0.01
124 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 107.68 11.74 1425.44 7.63 162.14 2.32
124 0.9DL-1.5RSAY -1.395 121.8 1820.28 268.62 -0.24 0.07
Design loads for Group 3 :
 Pu = 2659.892 kN
 (Mu3) = -287.6441 kN-m
 (Mu2) = -1.152 kN-m
Table 3.5: Joint Reaction at foundation level for Group 4
load combination F3 (kN)
2791.70 -
127 1.5(DL+LL) 8.476 0.174 6 0.07 4.6694 0.0067
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 120.68 2807.63 290.204
127 X) 5 21.236 4 32.391 7 2.3805
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 2260.30 119.970
127 Y) 7.057 77.237 6 8 4.4553 0.0635
150.60 3069.92 361.757
127 1.5(DL+RSAX) 1 26.121 3 40.7567 5 2.9781
2385.76 150.231
127 1.5(DL+RSAY) 8.566 96.122 1 4 4.5708 0.0818
0.9 DL +1.5 147.31 2129.08 360.289
127 RSAX 3 26.221 8 40.6215 1 2.9798
0.9 DL + 1.5 1444.92 150.096
127 RSAY 5.278 96.222 7 3 3.1024 0.0835
127 1.2(DL+LL- 115.85 15.6 2601.64 22.91 270.47 1.05

RSAX)
1.2(DL+LL-
127 RSAY) 4.57 67.7 2160.06 115.08 3.53 0.013
127 1.5(DL-RSAX) 145.01 21.1 3057.23 30.67 356.75 1.81
127 1.5(DL-RSAY) 6.66 76.2 2208.61 143.14 4.5708 0.08
127 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 141.3 21.1 2125.88 32.15 356.91 1.98
127 0.9DL-1.5RSAY 3.8 91.22 1424.27 145.63 2.24 0.063
Design Loads for Group 4
 Pu = 3069.923 kN (Design)
 (Mu3) = 361.757 kN-m
 (Mu2) = 40.757 kN-m
load combination F3 (kN)
3803.61
129 1.5(DL+LL) 0.967 1.764 4 -0.7367 0.8456 0.0036
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 128.21 3097.36 267.347
129 X) 8 23.382 6 45.7051 6 4.1373
1.2(DL+LL+RSA 141.93 3070.84 296.644
129 Y) 1.092 9 4 7 1.3527 0.1371
159.55 3084.49 333.567
129 1.5(DL+RSAX) 8 28.138 7 57.8913 1 5.1709
176.33 3051.34 371.565
129 1.5(DL+RSAY) 0.651 3 5 8 1.0736 0.1706
0.9 DL +1.5 159.45 1877.93 333.475
129 RSAX 7 27.868 5 57.882 9 5.1698
0.9 DL + 1.5 176.06 1844.78 371.556
129 RSAY 0.549 4 3 5 0.9823 0.1694
1.2(DL+LL-
129 RSAX) 112.18 21.82 3076.66 42.51 257.476 3.13
129 1.2(DL+LL- 1.01 134.39 3050.44 276.447 1.27 0.131

RSAY)
129 1.5(DL-RSAX) 145.58 21.38 3081.97 47.13 323.71 4.09
129 1.5(DL-RSAY) 0.551 171.33 3041.45 367.58 1.01 0.116
129 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 151.47 22.68 1825.35 47.82 323.59 4.168
1834.78
129 0.9DL-1.5RSAY 0.441 167.64 3 361.65 0.923 0.164
Critical Load
 Pu = 3084.497kN (Design)
 (Mu3) = 57.891 kN-m
 (Mu2) = 333.567 kN-m
Joint M1 M2 M3
load combination F1 (kN) F2 (kN) F3 (kN)
no kN-m kN-m kN-m
130 1.5(DL+LL) -2.52 1.628 3571.237 -0.6241 -1.1428 0.0026
130 1.2(DL+LL+RSAX) 134.916 7.293 3102.45 12.2917 270.7318 4.1286
130 1.2(DL+LL+RSAY) -1.655 133.755 2890.99 289.5163 -0.2074 0.164
130 1.5(DL+RSAX) 167.932 8.073 3142.397 16.0893 338.148 5.1599
-
130 1.5(DL+RSAX) -174.396 -6.903 2528.748 -15.888 340.9672 -5.1565
130 1.5(DL+RSAY) -2.782 166.151 2878.073 362.6201 -0.526 0.2042
130 0.9 DL +1.5 RSAX 169.225 7.839 2008.168 16.049 338.7118 5.1593
130 1.2(DL+LL-RSAX) 124.6 5.93 3021.5 11.917 260.18 3.86
130 1.2(DL+LL-RSAY) -1.55 131.55 2840.9 281.63 -0.104 0.14
130 1.5(DL-RSAX) -171.96 -5.03 2518.48 -11.88 -330.72 -3.65
130 1.5(DL-RSAY) -1.82 161.51 2868.73 341.201 -0.526 0.102
130 0.9DL-1.5RSAX 161.25 6.39 2001.68 11.49 331.118 2.193
130 0.9DL-1.5RSAY -1.1 161.17 1643.44 312.798 0.0178 0.103
Design Loads for Group 6 :
 Pu = 3142.397kN (Design)

 (Mu3) = 16.089 kN-m

 (Mu2) = -340.967 kN-m
Axial load on the pile:
Fig 3.5: Axial load on the Pile
Chapter 4 Estimation of pile capacity
4.1 General
The pile load capacity calculation is done to find the ultimate load the pile foundation can support
when loaded. It is also known as the bearing capacity of piles. The pile load capacity calculation
is done for single pile or a group of piles based on the requirement of a number of piles for the
given load or size of foundation. We will discuss here the load carrying capacity of both single
pile and group of piles.

4.2.Estimating Pile Length
Selecting the type of pile to be used and estimating its necessary length are fairly difficult tasks
that require good judgment. In addition to the classification given in section 2, piles can be
divided into three major categories, depending on their lengths and the mechanisms of load
transfer to the soil: (a) point bearing piles, (b) friction piles, and (c) compaction piles.
4.2.1 Point Bearing Piles
If soil-boring records establish the presence of bedrocks or rock-like material at a site within a
reasonable depth, piles can be extended to the rock surface. (Figure 4.1 a). In this case, the
ultimate capacity of the piles depends entirely on the load-bearing capacity of the underlying
material; thus the piles are called point bearing piles. In most of these cases, the necessary length
of the pile can be fairly well established.
Fig 4.1 (a) and (b) Point bearing piles; (c) friction piles
If instead to bedrock, a fairly compact and hard stratum of soil is encountered at a reasonable
depth, piles can be extended a few meters into the hard stratum (figure 4.1b). Piles with pedestals
can be constructed on the bed of the hard stratum, and the ultimate pile load may be expressed as
Qu = Qp + Qs (4.1)
Where
Qp= load carried at the pile point
Qs= load carried by skin friction developed at the side of the pile (caused by shearing resistance
between the soil and the pile)
If Qs is very small,
Qu≈ Qp (4.2)

In this case, the required pile length maybe estimated accurately if proper subsoil
exploration records are available
4.2.2 Friction Piles
When no layer of rock or rock-like material is present at a reasonable depth at a site, point bearing
piles become very long and uneconomical. For this type o subsoil condition, piles are driven
through the softer material to specified depths (figure 4.1 c). The ultimate load of these piles may
be expressed by equation (4.3). However, if the value is relatively small,
Qu≈ Qs (4.3)
These piles are called friction piles because most of the resistance is derived from skin friction.
However, the term friction pile, although used often in the literature, is a misnomer: in clayey
soils, the resistance to the applied load is also caused by adhesion.
The length of friction of piles depends on the shear strength of the soil, the applied load, and the
pile size. To determine the necessary lengths of these piles, an engineer needs a good
understanding of soil-pile interaction, good judgment, and experience.
4.2.3 Compaction Piles
Under certain circumstances, piles are driven in granular soils to achieve proper compaction of
soil close to the ground surface. These piles are called compaction piles. The length of
compaction piles depends on factors such as
(a) Relative density of the soil before compaction,
(b) Desired relative density of the soil after compaction, and
(c) The required depth of compaction. These piles are generally short; however, some field tests
are necessary to determine a reasonable length
Table 4.1: Type of soil with respect to depth
Layer Depth (m) Type of soil N values SCPT Value

(kg/cm2 )
1 0 to 5 Clay fill 4 16
2 5 to 11 Medium sand 20 120
5 Beyond 15 Bed Rock 50 300

The length of pile is 15m
4.3 Estimation Of Pile Capacity
The ultimate load-carrying of a pile is given by a simple equation as the sum of the load carried at
the pile point plus the total frictional resistance (skin friction) derived from the soil-pile interface
Qu = Qp + Qs
L = Length of embedment
Lo = Length of embedment in bearing stratum
Where
Qu= ultimate pile capacity
Qp= load − carrying capacity of the pile point
Qs= frictional resistance
4.3.1 Method 1- Static Formula
1. The zone affecting the base bearing capacity is usually taken as a zone 8D
above and 4D below the pile tip. Hence the value of ∅ should correspond to that
region. The major contribution will by the large value of Nq due to strength of soil
near the pile point
2. Research by Vesic the base resistance, as well as shaft resistance of piles in
sand first, increases rapidly with depth due to the weight of overburden but after a
depth called the critical depth of 10 to 20 times the pile diameter depending on the
denseness of sand further increase in capacity is very small. Hence, IS2911
specifies that PD should not exceed critical depth as represented by following
conditions.
3. Critical depth 15D for∅≤ 30o
4. Critical depth 20 D for ∅≥ 40o
5. IS 2911 gives the formula for calculation of the side friction and end bearing of bored
cast in-situ, precast driven as well as for the driven cast in-situ piles. However, special
mention should be made of the effect of the method of installation on bearing capacity of
piles. The following method is commonly used by many designers. The basis of the
method is that in the case of medium and loose sands (with SPT values less than 8 to 15)
it is known that there will be the considerable increase in friction and bearing capacity
due to densification when precast piles are driven into such stratum. Accordingly,
corrections are recommended separately for end resistance and side friction.
6. The following corrections, are to be made in ∅ for calculation of Nq.
7. For driven cast in-situ piles, the value of ∅ is kept unchanged.

8. For driven precast piles the value ∅ is changed to (∅ + 40)/2 to take care of compaction
due to pile driving. (Thus, if for ∅ = 30o, ∅ is taken as 35o for driven piles).
9. For bored cast in –situ piles where the bottom of the hole is cleaned thoroughly by
continuous mud circulation, value ∅ is assumed as unchanged.
4.3.1 (a) Structural capacity of piles
The working load on the pile should not exceed its structural capacity
Qst = (0.25fck) Ac
Where
fck = cube strength of concrete
Ac = area of cross-section of concrete pile
4.3.1 (b) Factor of safety for static formula based on soil properties
Factor of safety to be used in static formula should depend on many factors
Reliability of soil parameter used for calculations
The manner in which load is transferred to the soil
The importance of the structure
Allowable total and differential settlement tolerated by the structure.
IS 2911 recommends a minimum factor of safety of 2.5 for piles founded in soil using
reliable soil parameter in static formula. Factor of safety of 3 are to be used for
socketed piles in rock.
Table 4.2 Factor of safety for static formula for piles
S.No Case Factor of safety

1 On total capacity 2.5
2 On shaft resistance 1.5
3 On base resistance 3
4.3.2 Calculation of Pile capacity from field data
Estimating the load carrying capacity of precast pile of diameter 800 mm with chamfer 25mm at
corner, the length of pile is 15m

Layer Depth (m) Type of soil N values SCPT Value

(kg/cm2 )
1 0 to 5 Clay fill 4 16
5 Beyond 15 Bed rock 50 300
Step 1: Determination of soil properties from SPT values
Layer Thickness (m) Type N c,∅ values

1 5 Clay 4 C= 0.2 kg/cm2
2 6 Sand 20 ∅=33o
3 2 Sand 25 ∅=35o
4 2 Sand 35 ∅=37o
5 - Rock 50 ∅=41o
Step 2: Finding the properties of pile section
( L)/( D) = 15/0.8 = 18.75; > critical depth 20D= 16 m
Pile extends beyond critical depth
Assume submerge wt. of soil = 10 kN/m3 =1t/m3
Max. Effective overburden, PD = 10t (for friction)
Ap = π/4(0.8)2-2 x (0.025)2 =0.5014 m2
Perimeter = 2 x π x r = 2.51 m
Step 3: Determine components of top layer (-ve friction)
Thickness = 5m
Ai = Perimeter x thickness = 2.51 x 5 = 12.56 m2
qsi = -Aic = - 12.56 x 2 = -25.13 tons (-ve friction)

As the layer is at the top and the pile is precast we can reduce this drag by bitumen coat
Step 4: Estimate friction 2nd to 4th layer
Qs = ∑▒KPD tanδAp ;
Ap = perimeter = 2.51 m
For driven piles in medium sand, ∅=40o (assumed)
K = 1.5; Assume δ = (3/4) ∅
The following values can be used
(Note: K for driven piles is assumed > K for bored piles.)
Layer Thickness (m) Mean ∅o 𝛿 = (3/4) ∅

depth(PD)
2 6 8 33o 25
3 2 12 35o 26
4 2 14 37o 27
5 41o
Calculate frictional resistance of each layer
(Assume K = 1.5 and γ= 1 t/m2
qs1 =1.5 x 8 x tan25o = 5.59 t/m2
qs2 =1.5 x 12 x tan26o = 8.77 t/m2
qs3=1.5 x 14 x tan27o = 10.77 t/m2
Allowable maximum = 11 t/m2 (All values < 11 t/m2)
Qs = ∑▒〖q_s x A_p x t〗
Qs = 5.59(2.51x6) + 8.77(2.51x2) + (10.77x2.51x2)
= 182.27 tons
Step 5: Calculate bearing strength
Qb =Ap (0.5 D γN γ+PDNq) – Wt. of pile (W)
∅ = 41o , Nγ = 142; Assume γ = 1 t/m3
Qb = PDNq

For Nq, we use Berezantev’s curves (IS2911)
For Nq; ∅ = (( 37+41)/2 ) =39o
Nq = 120 and PDNq =1200
Qb = 0.249 ((0.5 x 0.4 x 1 x 142) + (10 x 120)) – W
= 0.249 (35.5 + 1200) ≈ 1200 t /m2
Limiting PDNq to 1100 tons/m2 , which is < 1200 t/m2
Qb = 0.5014 x 1100 = 551.54 tons
Step 6: Total bearing capacity
Qu = Qb + Qs = 551.54 + 182.27 = 733.84 tons
Qallowable = Qu/(F.S) – Negative skin friction
= 733.84/2.5 – 25.13= 268.4 tons
Step 7: Check for structural capacity
Based on concrete only; FC = 0.25 fck
Assuming fck = 25 N/mm2
Qst = 0.25 x 25 x π/4 x 8002 = 314.15 tons
Assume safe load = 314.15 tons only
4.3.3 Method 2- Meyerhof’s formula
Meyerhof’s formula is given in IS2911 for driven piles in sands. The capacity of piles in the sand
is to be calculated from results of SPT values of the soil. In 1959, Meyerhof’s proposed the
following formula for the ultimate bearing capacity of driven piles in cohesion fewer soils. (In this
formula the value of N used should be the corrected SPT values.)
Qu = 4NPAP + NAs/50
Np = SPT value of tip
N = average SPT in the region of the shaft
4.3.3 (a) Calculation of pile capacity from Meyerhof’s Formula
Step 1: Meyerhof’s formula for concrete piles
Friction in sand = N / 5 (in t/m2 )
Friction in clay = N/2 (in t/m2 )
End bearing in sand = 40 N (in t/m2 ) for L/D> 10

Qu = 40 NAp + ∑▒N/5 As = Qp + Qs (ultimate in tons)
Step 2: Determine frictional capacity
First strata clay negative skin friction = 20 tons
Second strata sand N = 20 (qs = 20/5 = 4t /m2 )
Third strata sand N = 25 (qs = 25/5 = 5t /m2 )
Fourth strata sand N = 35 (qs = 35/5 = 7t /m2 )
(as maximum allowed is 11 t/m2 use above value)
Perimeter of pile = 2 x π x r = 2.51 m
Qs = (4 x 6 x 2.51) + (5 x 2 x 2.51) + (7 x 2 x 2.51) = 120.63 tons
Step 3: Determine capacity in bearing
N = Assume mean value = 39
L/D = 15/0.8 = 18.75 > 16 (pile depth > critical depth)
Qb = 40 x 39 = 1560 t/m2
Max. Allowed end bearing for driven piles = 1500 t/m2
Qb = Ap x 1500 = 0.5014 x 1500 = 752.107 tons
Step 4: Calculate the total capacity
Qu = Qb + Qs = 752.107 + 120.63 = 872.744 tons
Qallowable = 872.744/(2.5 ) - 25.13 = 323.96 tons
Step 5: Calculate the structural capacity
Based on concrete only; fc = 0.25 fck
Assuming fck = 25 N/mm2
Qst = 0.25 x 25 x π/4 x 8002 = 314.159 tons
Assume safe load = 314.159 tons only
4.4 Results: Capacity of piles
Table 4.3 : Comparison of capacity of pile
S.NO Diameter of the pile Capacity of the pile in (kN)

(mm) Static formula Meyerhof's

Method
1 500 1157 1315
2 600 1596.9 1862.3
3 800 2684.03 3239.65
4 900 3331.24 4069.66
Table 4.4 : Diameter of pile for respective column
Lateral Load Load Size of

Dia. No.
SAP Axial carrying Column
Governing of of
Joint Load Fx Fz capacity
Load case Pile Piles B D
No. of piles
kN kN kN mm Nos kN mm Mm
121 2452.44 122.58 45.41 13 800 1 2681.83 500 500
123 2571.68 107.09 131.15 13 800 1 2681.83 400 600
124 2659.89 110.75 124.89 13 800 1 2681.83 400 600
127 3069.92 141.10 93.65 13 900 1 3218.62 400 600
129 3084.49 161.15 177.20 13 900 1 3218.62 500 600
130 3142.39 172.52 165.81 13 900 1 3218.62 500 600

Chapter 5 Laterally Loaded Piles
5.1 General
Piles in a group are often subjected to both axial and lateral loads. Designers in the mid-
1960s usually assumed piles could carry only axial loads; lateral loads were carried by
batter piles, where the lateral load was a component of axial load in those piles. Graphical
methods were used to find the individual pile loads in the group, and the resulting force
polygon could close only if there were batter piles for the lateral loads.
Signposts, power poles, and many marine pilings represented a large class of partially
embedded piles subjected to lateral loads that tended to be designed as “laterally loaded
poles.”
5.2 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
For the analysis of laterally loaded pile, we need to find out spring constant by using the code
IS2911 (Part 1/Sec 3):2010 for SAP 2000 input data we have to calculate subgrade modulus. The
modulus of subgrade reaction is seldom measured in laterally loaded pile test. Instead, loads and
deflection are usually obtained as well as, sometimes bending moment in the top 1 to 3 m of the
embedded pile
Lateral stiffness of pile-

Fig. 5.1 Foundation spring system for Horizontal Deformation

Consider the Foundation block-spring system as shown in Fig.5.1
Horizontal stiffness of pile is given by –
〖 k〗_ph=R/∆
A group of 3 or more pile connected to a rigid pile cap shall be considered as a fixed headed pile
(IS 2911:2010 clause 6.5.2.1)
Lateral stiffness of a fixed headed pile is given by-
Fig.5.2 Horizontal Deformation of fixed headed pile
K_h=(12*Ep*Ip)/L^3

Acc. to Barkan 1962 elastic resistance of pile to lateral load depends upon X-section & lengths of
fixity ‘L’ of pile Fig 5.2. Which is defined as the length of the pile in the soil where it is assumed
fixed when subjected to the lateral load.
5.3 Determination of Length of Fixity

The procedure of determining the depth of fixity of laterally loaded pile is given in IS 2911(part-
1) – 2010 Annex- c. The procedure is given as under-
For Piles in Sand and Normally Loaded Clays
Stiffness factor, T in m =√(5&EI/η_h )
Where, E = Young’s modulus of pile material, in MN/m2
I = moment of inertia of the pipe cross-section, in m4
η_h = modulus of subgrade reaction, in MN/m3 (see Table 3, IS 2911).
Now from Fig.5.2 given below determine the depth of fixity Lf.
5.4 Problem considered for Free head pile
1). A concrete pile 800 mm dia. And 15 m length is installed in a deposit of sand. Its
coefficient of subgrade reaction 𝜂h = 5 x 106 N/m3. Find the deflection of the pile head
considering it as free head pile under a horizontal force of 100 kN
Step 1: Find whether a pile is long or short
I= (π x D^4)/64 = (3.14 x (0.8)^4)/64 = 0.02011 m4
E = 5000 x √(f_ck ) =5000 x √25 = 25 x 109 N/m2
Step 2: Calculate T. Check pile is short or long
T = (EI/η_h )^(1⁄5) = 2.5146
Length of pile L = 15 m
Length > 5 x T = 5 x 2.51 = 12.55 m .
The pile is long IS method is applicable.
Step 3: Find length of fixity Lf (free head pile)
L1 = 0 m
L_1/T = 0

From IS 2911 part 1 section 3 clause C-4.2
L_f/T = 1.91
Lf = 4.802 m
Step 4: Calculate deflection as a cantilever fixed at 4.802 m
Δ= (H L^3)/3EI= (100x1000〖(4.802)〗^3)/(3 x 25 x 〖10〗^9 x 0.02011) = 7.34 mm
Step 5: Lateral stiffness of a free headed pile
Kh = (3 x E_p x I_p)/〖L_f〗^3
= 13.62 MN/m3
2). A concrete pile 900 mm Dia. And 15 m length is installed in a deposit of sand. Its coefficient
of subgrade reaction η_h= 5 x 106 N/m3. Find the deflection of the pile head considering it as free
head pile under a horizontal force of 100 kN
I = (π x D^4)/64 = (3.14 x (0.9)^4)/64 = 0.0322 m4
E = 5000 x √(f_ck ) =5000 x √25 = 25 x 109 N/m2
T = (EI/η_h )^(1⁄5) = 2.763
Length > 5 x T = 5 x 2.763 = 13.815 m .
Step 3: Find length of fixity Lf (free head pile)
L1 = 0
L_1/T = 0
L_f/T = 1.91
Lf = 5.277 m
Δ= (H L^3)/3EI= (100x1000〖(5.3)〗^3)/(3 x 25 x 〖10〗^9 x 0.0322) = 6.085 mm
Step 5: Lateral stiffness of a free headed pile

Kh = (3 x E_p x I_p)/〖L_f〗^3
= 16.43 MN/m3
5.5 Problem considered for fixed head pile
1). A concrete pile 500 mm Dia. And 15 m length is installed in a deposit of sand. Its coefficient
of subgrade reaction η_h= 5 x 106 N/m3. Find the deflection of the pile head considering it as
fixed head pile under a horizontal force of 100 kN
I= (π x D^4)/64 = (3.14 x (0.5)^4)/64 = 0.0030679 m4
E = 5000 x √(f_ck ) =5000 x √25 = 25 x 109 N/m2
T = (EI/η_h )^(1⁄5) = 1.726
Length > 5 x T = 5 x 1.726 = 8.63 m .
Step 3: Find length of fixity Lf (fixed head pile)
L1 = 0
L_1/T = 0
L_f/T = 2.2
Lf = 3.798 m
Δ= (H L^3)/12EI= (100x1000〖(3.798)〗^3)/(12 x 25 x 〖10〗^9 x 0.0030769) = 5.953

mm
Step 5: Lateral stiffness of a fixed headed pile
Kh = (12 x E_p x I_p)/〖L_f〗^3
= 16.8488 MN/m3
5.6 Geometric modeling of pile group in any FEM software

The pile can be directly modeled in any FEM software by providing its geometry and material
property as input. The effect of soil can be considered by assuming it as a number if un-damped
individual springs.
The elastic foundation beam method presented by Winkler is extensively used in analyzing the
pile subjected to lateral loads. The pile is investigated in terms of (1) Horizontal stiffness of soil
surrounding the pile, and (2) soil to pile vertical stiffness interaction (Adhikari et al.). The FEM
model used in the pile group analysis is presented in Fig. 5.3.The pile can be modeled as beam
element and surrounding soil is modeled as an array of the uncoupled spring element.
Fig. 5.3 Finite Element Model for single pile
1) Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth is given as-
K_sh= k_s*Δ_z*L*D/D^*
Where, k_s= Modulus of subgrade reaction of soil
Δ_z= Spacing between springs.
L= Length of pile.
D= Diameter of pile.
D*= Nominal pile diameter corresponding to k_s
2) Vertical End Bearing Stiffness of soil -

The Vertical end bearing stiffness of soil is a function of Modulus of subgrade reaction of soil and
the geometry of pile and is given by (Pender 1978, Poulos 1971) as-
K_sv=k_s*D/2*L*D/D^*
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction-
The modulus of subgrade reaction, K is the ratio between the soil pressure, P, at any given point
of the surface of contact and the corresponding displacement, y, produced by the load application
at that point.
Mathematically,
K=p/y
Vesic (1961)provided a relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction, K, used in the
Winkler spring problem and the material properties in the elastic continuum problem as
K=(0.65 Es)/((1-〖μ_s〗^2)) [(Es*D^4)/(Ep*Ip)]
Where, Es= soil modulus of elasticity
μs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
D = pipe diameter
Ep * Ip= flexural rigidity of the pile
By knowing the soil modulus of elasticity from the laboratory or field testing, as well as
the pile property, the modulus of subgrade reaction can be estimated
5.7 Calculation of horizontal soil stiffness
Calculate Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth of a Piles of Diameter 800 mm and 900mm,
modulus of subgrade reaction k_s = 5000 kN/m3 is for nominal diameter of 800 mm and the
length of the pile is 15 m
Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth is -
Table : 5.1 Soil spring stiffness For Diameter 800 mm and 900 mm

Height Soil spring

from top stiffness(Ksh) in kN/m
Pile Segment (m)
Pile segment
NO For For
Height (m)
Z Diameter Diameter of
of pile pile 0.9m
0.8m
1 0.5 1250 1406.25
2 1 2500 2812.5
3 1.5 3750 4218.75
4 3 2 5000 5625
5 2.5 6250 7031.25
6 3 7500 8437.5
7 3.75 14062.5 15820.3
8 4.5 16875 18984.4
9 3 5.25 19687.5 22148.4
10 6 22500 25312.5
11 3 7.5 56250 63281.3
12 9 67500 75937.5
13 3 10.5 78750 88593.8
14 12 90000 101250
15 3 15 225000 253125
Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth is given as-
K_sh= k_s*Δ_z*Z*D/D^*
= 5000 kN/m3 (IS 2911 (Part 1/sec 3) clause C-2.1 (Table 5)
Z= Length of pile from top
D= Diameter of the pile.

= 0.8 m
16
14
12
Depth of pile (m)
10
8
For Diameter D= 0.8 m
6
For Diameter D= 0.9 m
4
0
0 100000 200000 300000
Soil stiffenss (kN/m)
Fig 5.4: Soil stiffness variation along the depth of the pile for diameters 0.8m and
0.9m
5.8 SAP2000 output results:
Deflection along the depth of the pile for Diameter of 0.8 m and lateral load of 100 kN and 150
kN
Table 5.2: Comparison of deflection
Length (m) from Deflection (m)

top For 100 kN For 150 kN
0 0.0079 0.0118
0.5 0.0068 0.0103
1 0.0058 0.0087
1.5 0.0049 0.0073
2 0.004 0.0059

2.5 0.0031 0.0047

3 0.0024 0.0036
3.75 0.0015 0.0023
4.5 0.0008 0.0012
5.25 0.0003 0.0005
6 0.000028 0.000042
7.5 -0.0002 -0.0004
9 -0.0002 -0.0003
10.5 -0.0001 -0.0002
12 0 0
15 0 0
Deflection (m)
-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
0
4
Length of the pile (m)
6 For 100 kN
For 150 kN
8
10
12
14
16
Fig 5.5: Deflection Curve by SAP 2000 for 800mm diameter pile
Table 5.3: Comparison of deflection for 900 mm diameter pile
Length (m) from top Deflection (m)

For 100 kN For 150 kN

0 0.0061 0.0091
0.5 0.0053 0.0080
1 0.0046 0.0069
1.5 0.0039 0.0059
2 0.0032 0.0049
2.5 0.0026 0.0040
3 0.0021 0.0031
3.75 0.0014 0.0021
4.5 0.0008 0.0013
5.25 0.0004 0.0006
6 0.0001 0.0002
7.5 -0.0001 -0.0002
9 -0.0002 -0.0003
10.5 -0.0001 -0.0002
12 0 0
15 0 0

Deflection (m)
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
0
4
Pile length (m)
6 For 100 kN
For 15o kN
8
10
12
14
16
Fig 5.6: Deflection Curve by SAP 2000 for 900mm diameter pile
5.9 Results Comparison:
Table 5.4 : Deflection Comparison by SAP2000 and Hand calculation
S.NO Diameter of the Pile (D) Deflection of the Pile at Ground level
By SAP200 By Hand calculation
1 0.8 m 7.9 mm 7.34 mm
2 0.9 m 6.1 mm 6.085 mm

Fig 5.7: 3D Extrude view for single piles without SSI
5.10 Design of pile
Axial load on pile = 2452.44 kN
Length of pile = 15 m
Diameter of pile = 0.8 m
Main Reinforcement
Let the length of pile including pile cap = 0.6 m
Total length of pile = 15.6 m
l/d ratio = 15.6/0.8 = 19.5
since this is greater than 12 m . the pile behaves like long column
Hence reduction coefficient

Cr = 1.25 - leff / 48D
= 1.25 - 15.6/(48x0.8)
= 0.84
Design load for short column = 2452.44 kN
As per IS code length of pile less than 30 times D
= 30 x 0.8 = 24 > 15 m
provide minimum R/F @ 1.25% gross c/s area (IS 2911(part 1/sec 3):2010) clause 6.12.1
𝜋
= 1.25/100 x 4 x 8002
= 6283.185 mm2
Hence providing 13 no of bars of 25 mm dia bar
providing effective cover of 60 mm
Lateral R/F In The Body Of Pile
Lateral R/F in the body of pile is provided @ 0.2% of gross volume
Volume needed per mm length
𝜋
= 0.2/100 x 4 x 8002
= 1005 mm3
Clear cover to main R/F = 60 - 12.5 = 47.5
Using 12 mm Dia ties volume of each ties = 𝜋 x 712 x 113.09
= 252.97 x 103
Pitch = 252.97 x 103 /1005 = 251. 719 mm
hence provide the 12 mm Dia ties @ 250 mm c/c throughout the length of pile
Lateral R/F Near The Pile Head

near the pile head special spiral reinforcement is to be provided for a length 3 x 800 =
2400 mm volume of spiral is 0.6% gross volume.
Volume of spiral
𝜋
= 0.6/100 x 4 x 8002
= 3015.93 mm3
Using 16 mm dia spiral having Ao = 201.062 mm2
Volume of each ties = 449.738 x 103
Pitch is given by
S = 449.738 x 103 /3015.93
= 150 mm
hence Provide the 16 mm dia spirals @ 150 mm c/c for a length of 2400 mm from top of
the pile
Lateral R/F Near The Pile End
Volume of ties per mm length @ 0.6% gross volume = 3015.93 mm3
volume of each tie is = 449.738 x 103
Pitch is given by
S = 150 mm
hence Provide the 16 mm dia spirals @ 150 mm c/c for a length of 2400 mm from bottom
of the pile

Fig 5.8: Reinforcement detailing on pile with axial load of 2452.44 kN
Axial load on pile = 3069.92 kN
Length of pile = 15 m
Diameter of pile = 0.9 m
Main Reinforcement
Let the length of pile including pile cap = 0.6 m
Total length of pile = 15.6 m
l/d ratio = 15.6/0.9 = 17.33
since this is greater than 12 m . the pile behaves like long column
Hence reduction coefficient
Cr = 1.25 - leff / 48D
= 1.25 - 15.6/(48x0.9)
= 0.88
Design load for short column = 3069.92 kN
As per IS code length of pile less than 30 times D
= 30 x 0.9 = 27 > 15 m
provide minimum R/F @ 1.25% gross c/s area (IS 2911(part 1/sec 3):2010) clause 6.12.1
𝜋
= 1.25/100 x 4 x 9002
= 7952.156 mm2
Hence providing 17 no of bars of 25 mm dia bar
providing effective cover of 60 mm
Lateral R/F In The Body Of Pile
Lateral R/F in the body of pile is provided @ 0.2% of gross volume
Volume needed per mm length
𝜋
= 0.2/100 x 4 x 9002

= 1272.34 mm3
Clear cover to main R/F = 60 - 12.5 = 47.5
Using 12 mm Dia ties volume of each ties = 𝜋 x 812 x 113.09
= 288.489 x 103
Pitch = 288.489 x 103 /1272.34 = 251. 719 mm
hence provide the 12 mm Dia ties @ 220 mm c/c throughout the length of pile
Lateral R/F Near The Pile Head
near the pile head special spiral reinforcement is to be provided for a length 3 x 900 =
2700 mm volume of spiral is 0.6% gross volume.
Volume of spiral
𝜋
= 0.6/100 x 4 x 9002
= 3817.03 mm3
Using 16 mm dia spiral having Ao = 201.062 mm2
Volume of each ties = 512.9 x 103
Pitch is given by
S = 512.9 x 103 /3817.03
= 150 mm
hence Provide the 16 mm dia spirals @ 150 mm c/c for a length of 2700 mm from top of
the pile
Lateral R/F Near The Pile End
Volume of ties per mm length @ 0.6% gross volume = 3817.03 mm3
volume of each tie is = 512.9 x 103
Pitch is given by

S = 150 mm
hence Provide the 16 mm dia spirals @ 150 mm c/c for a length of 2700 mm from bottom
of the pile
Fig 5.9: Reinforcement detailing on pile with axial load of 3069.92 kN

Fig 5.10 : 3D Extrude view for single piles with SSI
5.11 Results for Single piles:
Table 5.5: Loads Comparison for intermediate members with and without SSI
Beam Column
Load Combination With ssi Without With ssi Without ssi
ssi
Axial (kN) 0 0 1030.202 1273.683
Shear (kN) 230.471 184.087 120.919 78.183
1.5 (DL-RSAX) 127.478 83.842
Moment (kN-m) -276.5 -206.321 61.691 43.570
175.345 104.916 134.253 99.408
Axial (kN) 0 0 548.594 733.321
Shear (kN) 204.802 158.402 120.919 78.183
0.9 DL -1.5 RSA 127.478 83.842
Y Moment (kN-m) -33.365 -32.864 123.392 87.060
0 0 18.076 17.362

Chapter 6 Group of piles
6.1 General
The basic approach to calculating the resistance of pile to compressive load is the static approach
or soil mechanics approach. The skin friction on pile shaft can be determined by a simple
relationship between the coefficients of earth pressure at rest, the effective overburden pressure
and the drained angle of shearing resistance of the soil, where the coefficient of earth pressure
must be modified by a factor for a method of pile installation.
Piles are frequently required for supporting structures that are sited in areas of deep fill. The piles
are taken through the fill to a suitable bearing stratum in the underlying natural soil or rock. No
support for compressive loads from skin friction can assume over the length of fill as it
compresses under its own weight or under the weight of further soil or surcharged placed over the
fill area. The downward moment results in drag down forces generally known as negative skin
friction on the pile shaft, where fill is placed over a compressible natural soil latter consolidates
and moves downwards relative to the pile. Thus the negative skin friction occurs over the length
of pile shaft within the natural soil as well as within the fill.
The magnitude of the negative skin friction depends on
1) The relative movement between the fill and the pile shaft.
2) The relative movement between any underlying compressive soil and pile shaft.
3) The elastic compression of the pile under the working load.
4) The rate of consolidation of the compressible layer.
The supporting capacity of the group of vertically loaded pile in many situations is considerably
less than the sum of the capacities of individual piles comprising the group. In all cases, the
elastic and consolidation settlement of the group are greater than those of single pile carrying the
same working load as that of each pile within the group. This is because the zone of soil or rock
which is stressed by the entire group extends to a much greater width and depth than the zone
beneath the single pile. Even when a pile group is bearing on the rock, the elastic deformation of
the body of rock within the stressed zone can be quite appreciable if the piles are loaded to their
maximum safety.
Group piles: Load capacity of a pile group is not necessarily equal to the sum of the capacity of
the individual pile. If piles are spaced closely, because of stress overlap, the group capacity will
be reduced
6.2 Efficiency of Pile Group: The efficiency of pile group depends on the following
factors:
1. Spacing of piles

2. Total number of piles in a row and number of rows in a group, and
3. Characteristics of pile (material, diameter, and length)
The reduction in total bearing value of the group of piles is more in case of friction piles,
particularly in clayey soils. No reduction in grouping occurs in end bearing piles. The pile groups
which are resisting the load by the combined action of friction and end bearing, only the load
carrying capacity of friction is reduced. The efficiency η_g of the pile group can be calculated by
using the following formula:
η_g= Q_gu/(NQ_u ) x 100
Thus, the pile group efficiency is equal to the ratio of the average load per pile in the group at
which the failure occurs to the ultimate load of a comparable single pile.
Efficiency of a pile group can also be obtained by using Converse – Lebarre formula:
η_g=1-θ ((n-1)m+(m-1)n)/90mn
Where
m = number of columns
n = number of rows
θ= tan^(-1) ( d/S )
d = diameter of pile end
s = spacing of piles.
Generally, centre to canter spacing between piles in a group is kept between 2.5 d and 3.5d
Problem Considered
Fig 6.1: 2 x 2 pile Arrangement
S = 2.5 x d

d = 0.5 m
m = 2 ( no of columns)
n= 2 ( no of rows)
0.5
θ = tan−1 (2.5 x 0.5) = 21.8o
(2−1)2+(2−1)2
ηg = 1-21.8 x 90 x 2 x 2
= 0.7577 or 75.77 %
6.3 Group capacity of piles (Qg) :
Two modes of failure :
a) Individual failure
b) Block failure
6.3 (a) Individual failure criteria:
Group capacity, Qgi = n x Qui
where
n = Number of piles
Qui = Ultimate load capacity individual isolated piles
6.3 (b) Block failure criteria:
Fig 6.2 : Block failure criteria

Group capacity Qgb = AB fb + As fs
where
AB = Block area,
= Lo x Bo
fb = Bearing capacity at base
As = Surface area of block
= 2(Lo + Bo)L
fs = skin friction at sides of piles
= Length of piles
Bo = 2s + d ; Lo = 3s + d
s = centre to centre spacing of piles;
d = diameter of piles;
Piles in sand:
1. fb = σ_v' Nq
σ_v' = Effective vertical stress at pile tip level
= L, if L< Dc
= γ Dc, if L ≥ Dc
Dc = Critical depth depends upon the soil type.
Critical depth is the depth up to which the effective vertical pressure increases linearly. After the
critical depth, the vertical pressure remains constant
Dc = 10 xd (for loose sands )
Dc = 20 xd (for dense sands )
2. fs = K.σ_a'.tanδ
σ_a' = Average effective vertical pressure for the depth considered
K = Lateral earth pressure coefficient
δ = angle of friction between the pile and the soil
Note: Group capacity is taken as the smaller of the above two (Qgi or Qgb)
Safe Group capacity, Qgsafe = Qg / F

6.3.1 Calculation of efficiency of group piles
Calculate the efficiency 2 x 2 pile Arrangement the diameter of the each pile is 500 mm
Step 1:
S= 2.5 x d = 2.5 x 0.5 = 1.25 m
a = 250 + d/2 = 250 + 500/2 = 0.5 m
Bo = Lo = 2a + S = 2 x 0.5 + 1.25 = 2.25 m
Step2: Individual Failure criteria
Group capacity = n x Qui
where
n = 4 ( number of piles)
Qui = 328.54 tons
Group capacity (Qgi) = 4 x 328.54 = 1314 tons
Step 3: Block failure criteria
Group capacity (Qgb) = ABfb + Asfs
AB = block area = Lo x Bo = 5.06 m2
As = Surface area of block
= 2(Lo + Bo)L = 2(2.25+2.25)15 = 135 m2
fb = γ x Dc x Nq = 1 x 8 x 39 = 312 t/m2
fs = 5.59 + 8.77 + 10.77 = 25.13 t/m2
Qgb = 5.06 x 312 + 135 x 25.13
= 1988.508 tons

Step 4: Efficiency of the pile group
η_g= Q_gu/(NQ_u )
η_g= 1988.51/1314.16 = 1.51
For the number of piles in group Individual failure criteria is considered for design
Table 6.1: Number of piles for respective columns
Lateral Load No.

SAP Axial Dia. Size of Column
Governing of
Joint Load Fx Fz of Pile
Load case Piles B D
No.
kN kN kN mm Nos mm Mm
121 2452.44 103.72 97.47 13 500 4 500 500
123 2571.68 107.09 131.15 13 500 4 400 600
124 2659.89 110.75 124.89 13 500 4 400 600
127 3069.92 141.10 93.65 13 600 4 400 600
129 3084.49 161.15 177.20 13 600 4 500 600
130 3142.39 172.52 165.81 13 600 4 500 600
Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth is -
Table 6.2: Horizontal soil spring stiffness for Diameter 500 mm and 600 mm
Height from Soil spring stiffness(Ksh)

top in kN/m
Pile Segment Pile
(m)
No segment
For For
Height (m)
Z Diameter of Diameter of
pile 0.5m pile 0.6m
1 0.5 781.25 937.5
2 1 1562.5 1875
3 1.5 2343.75 2812.5

4 3 2 3125 3750
5 2.5 3906.25 4687.5
6 3 4687.5 5625
7 3.75 8789.06 10546.9
8 4.5 10546.9 12656.3
9 3 5.25 12304.7 14765.6
10 6 14062.5 16875
11 3 7.5 35156.3 42187.5
12 9 42187.5 50625
13 3 10.5 49218.8 59062.5
14 12 56250 67500
15 3 15 140625 168750
Horizontal soil spring stiffness at any depth is given as-K_sh= k_s*Δ_z*Z*D/D^*
= 5000 kN/m3 (IS 2911 (Part 1/sec 3) clause C-2.1 (Table 5)
Z= Length of pile from top
D= Diameter of the pile.
= 0.8 m

Fig 6.3: 3D Extrude view model for group piles

6.4 Result For Group piles:
Table 6.3 : Loads Comparison for intermediate members with and without SSI
Load Beam Column

Combination Loads With ssi Without With ssi Without
ssi ssi
Axial (kN) 0 0 1421.08 1386.97
Shear (kN) 99.336 113.393 36.239 40.344
1.5 (DL-RSAX) 48.254 55.621
Moment (kN-m) -62.935 -71.317 46.962 38.054
0 0 37.601 43.494
Axial (kN) 0 0 847.779 843.656
Shear (kN) 68.775 82.829 36.239 40.344
0.9 DL-1.5 RSAY 48.254 55.621
Moment (kN-m) -20.719 -21.039 29.493 23.739
0 0 19.305 19.123

6.5 Design of Pile Cap
A reinforced concrete column is supported on 4 piles and carries a load of 2452.44 kN and
moment of 262.32 kN-m in the x-direction. There is a seismic moment of 500 kN-m in any one
direction at a time, σ_ck = 25 N/mm2 and σ_y = 415 N/mm2.
Fig6.4 : Plan of pile footing
A reinforced concrete column is supported on 4 piles and carries a load of 2452.44 kN and
moment of 262.32 kN-m in the x-direction. There is a seismic moment of 500 kN-m in any one
direction at a time, σ_ck = 25 N/mm2 and σ_y = 415 N/mm2.
Factored load on two piles P_u= 2203.29 kN
BM in pile cap at section a-a as shown in fig
= 2203.29 x 0.59 = 1299.94 kN-m
Effective depth d is given by BM = 0.138σ_ckbd2
Or, d = √((1299.94 x 〖10〗^6)/(0.138 x 25 x 2250)) = 409.22

mm
< 1180 mm
Area of tension steel is given by,
BM = 0.87σ_y A_t (d-(σ_y A_t)/(σ_ck b))
1299.94 x 106 = 0.87 x 415 x At x (1180 – (415 A_t)/(25 x 2250) )
A_t=3111.765 mm^2

Use 20 mm bars @ 100 mm c/c both ways ( At = 3141.159 mm2 > 3111.765 mm2).
Percent tension steel p = (2x3141.16 x 100)/(2250 x 1180) = 0.2366 %
Hence more than minimum(0.13% ) provided.
Shear one way action
Section for diagonal tension will be tested at a distance of 0.5 d from the face of pedestal, that is,
at section b-b.
Shear force by linear interpolation = (2203.29 x 185)/500 = 815.22 kN
Shear strength of M25 concrete for 0.236 % steel
τ_c = 0.36 N/mm2
Nominal Shear stress τ_v = (815.22 x 1000)/(2750 x 1180) = 0.251 N/mm2
τ_(v )< τ_c
Shear two way action
The critical section lies at d/2 around the pedestal of the column.
Shear force Vu = 1.5 x 2452.44 = 3678.66 kN
Nominal shear stress τ_v = V_u/(b_o d)
bo = 700 + 2 x 590 = 1880 mm
τ_v = (3678.66 x 1000)/(4 x 1880 x 1180) = 0.4145 N/mm2
Shear strength of M25 Concrete τ_c' = ks x τ_c
ks = 0.5 + βc = 1.5 ( βc =1 )
but ks < 1
τ_c = 0.25 x √(σ_ck ) = 1.25 N/mm2 = τ_c'
> τ_v (Hence safe in shear )
Development length for 20 mm bar
Ld = (0.87 x σ_y x ∅ )/(4 x τ_bd )
= (0.87 x 415 x 20)/(4 x 1.6 x 1.2) = 940.23 mm
Straight length available beyond the face of pedestal
= 1025 – 50 (cover ) = 975 mm

>940.23 mm
Therefore provide U hook in 20 mm main bars so that adequate development length is available.
The details of reinforcement is
Fig6.5 : Reinforcement Details in the pile cap

CHAPTER 7 Conclusion
The following conclusions are derived from the study.
With the increasing seismic activities in the recent times, an efficient design of the pile
foundations to resist the estimated earthquake loads is a major concerned issue. In this interest,
this study deals with the estimation of the seismic loads on a superstructure as per the
international code selected, IS 1893. Different cases are considered assuming the location of the
structure to be in seismic zone IV of India and on different ground types. The estimated seismic
loads are applied to the SAP2000 model of the structure and analyzed to find the maximum
(design) foundation loads.
It is to conclude that ground conditions should be considered much prior in the analysis of any
structure to evaluate the seismic loads acting on the structure which will further influence the
foundation design loads and foundation capacity.
Single pile
Comparison of forces on column for 1.5 (DL-SAX) case, considering with and without soil-
structure interaction
1) There is difference in the axial force to the effect of soil structure interaction consider while
calculating axial force
2) It is observed that the Shear force is increased by more than 55%
3) It is observed that Bending moment along major axis is increased by more than 40% and also
the Bending moment along minor axis increased by more than 30%
Comparison of forces on column for 0.9 DL-1.5 RSA case, considering with and without soil-
1) There is difference in the axial force to the effect of soil structure interaction consider the
effect of soil structure interaction while calculating axial force
2) It is observed that the Shear force is increased by more than 55%
the Bending moment along minor axis is not much difference
Group of Pile
Comparison of forces on column for 1.5 (DL-SAX) case, considering with and without soil-

1) There is not much difference in the axial force to the effect of soil structure interaction is not
consider while calculating axial force
2) It is observed that the Shear force is decreased by more than 10%
the Bending moment along minor axis decreased by more than 10%
Comparison of forces on column for 0.9 DL-1.5 RSA case, considering with and without soil-
1) There is not much difference in the axial force to the effect of soil structure interaction not
consider while calculating axial force
2) It is observed that the Shear force is decreased by more than 10%
the Bending moment along minor axis is not much difference
References

1) A. Murali Krishna, A. Phani Teja (2012) “Seismic Design of Pile foundation for different
ground condition” Tenth world conference ©2012
3) T. Ilyas, C. F. Leung, Y. K. Chow, and S. S. Budi, “Centrifuge model Study of Laterally

Loaded Pile groups in clay", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE /
March 2010/283
4) Philip S.K. Ooi, M. Brian K.F. Chang, A.M, and Shuo Shang Wang, " Simplified lateral load
analysis of fixed -head piles and pile groups'' Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering ASCE / November 2011/1151
5) Farzad Adedzadeh and Ronald Y.S Pak, "Continuum mechanics of lateral soil-pile
Interaction", Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE / November 2013/1309
6) Kevin Z Truman, Dong-mei chu “Effect of pile foundation configuration in seismic analysis”
13th World configuration Canada
7) R R Chaudhry, Dr. K N Kadam “Effect of piled raft design on High rise building” volume 2,
June 2013
8) Geng dong Cheng, Bo Wang “Optimum Design of pile foundation” Research paper (2012)
9) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002
10) IS 2911(Part 1/Sec 3): 2010 "Indian Standard Design and Construction of Pile foundation"
Indian Standard Institution, New Delhi.
11) IS 456 (2000), "Indian Standard code of practice for Plain and Reinforced", Indian Standard
Institution, New Delhi.
12) Joseph E.Bowles, "Foundation Analysis and Design" McGraw Hill International Edition.
13) Punmia B.C, Ashok Kumar Jain "Soil Mechanics, and Foundation", Laxmi Publications Ltd.
14) P.C Varghese ”Foundation Engineering” PHI Learning Pvt Ltd. New Delhi
Annexure
Determination of stiffness of single pile
a) Vertical Stiffness of pile
The vertical stiffness of the piles (kV), is simply the load divided by the deformation r
〖 k〗_pv=R/∆

Since the pile is supported over soil by end bearing the total stiffness of a single pile will be the
sum of the axial stiffness of pile and the stiffness provided by soil (Fig.1)
Fig 8.1 Vertical stiffness of single pile
Since the stiffness are in series therefore equivalent vertical stiffness of the system is given by –

K_v= 1/((1/Ka+1/Ks) )
Axial Stiffness of pile (Ka)-
Ka= AE/L
End Bearing Stiffness of soil (Ks)- The Vertical end bearing stiffness of soil is a function of
Modulus of subgrade reaction of soil and the geometry of pile and is given by (Pender 1978,
Poulos 1971) as-
Ks=k_s x D/2 x L x D/D^*
Where k_s= Modulus of subgrade reaction of soil.
D = Diameter of pile.
L= Length of pile
D^*= Nominal pile diameter corresponding tok_s.
𝐷 𝐷
𝐾𝑠 = 𝑘𝑠 x x𝐿x ∗
2 𝐷
Where, 𝑘𝑠 = Modulus of subgrade reaction of soil.
D = Diameter of pile.
L= Length of pile
𝐷∗ = Nominal pile diameter corresponding to𝑘𝑠 .
For pile of Diameter 800 mm and length of 15 m and modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil 5
MN/m3 from IS2911(Part 1/sec 3) Clause C-2.1 Table 5
Since the stiffness are in series therefore equivalent vertical stiffness of the system is given by –
K_v= 1/((1/Ka+1/Ks) )
Axial Stiffness of pile (Ka)-
Ka= AE/L
A= π/4 x 0.82 = 0.5026 m2
E = 5000 x √25 = 25 x 106 kN/m2
L = 15 m
Ka = 837666.66 kN/m
The Vertical end bearing stiffness of soil

Ks=k_s*D/2*L*D/D^*
where
ks = 5 MN/m3 (IS2911(Part 1/sec 3) Clause C-2.1 Table 5)
D = D* = 0.8 m
L = 15 m
Ks = 5000 x 0.4 x 15 x 1
= 30000 kN/m
K_v= 1/((1/Ka+1/Ks) )
= 1/((1/837666.66+ 1/30000) )
= 28962.735 kN/m
b) Lateral stiffness of pile-
Lateral stiffness of a free headed pile is
〖 K〗_h=(3 x Ep x Ip)/L^3
I= (π x D^4)/64 = (3.14 x (0.8)^4)/64 = 0.02011 m4
Lf = 4.802 m
Kh = (3 x E_p x I_p)/〖L_f〗^3
= 13.62 MN/m3

Chapter1 Introduction

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Chapter1 Introduction

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

SEISMIC DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION

(i) Any structure is generally considered to have two main portions.

1.2 Introduction to pile foundation

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 1 Department of CIVIL

Fig 1.1 Conditions for use of pile foundation

1.3 Types of Piles and their Structural Characteristics

Piles can be classified on the basis of following characteristics:

1. Mechanism of Load Transfer

1.3.1 Classification of Piles on the basis of load transfer

1.3.1 (a) End/Point Bearing Piles

1.3.1 (b) Friction Piles:

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 3 Department of CIVIL

1.3.1 (c) Friction cum end bearing piles

1.3.2 Classification of Piles according to the Method of Installation

1.3.2 (a) Driven or displacement piles

1.3.2 (b) Bored or Replacement piles

1.3.3 Types of Piles based on Materials

1.3.3 (a) Timber piles

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 4 Department of CIVIL

. .The allowable load-carrying capacity of wooden piles is

Ap= average area of cross-section of the pile

fw= allowable stress for the timber

Fig 1.2 Wooden piles

Maximum length: 35 m; optimum length: 9 - 20m

Disadvantages of using timber piles:

Difficult to splice, vulnerable to damage in hard driving, vulnerable to decay unless

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 5 Department of CIVIL

1.3.3 (b) Steel piles

The allowable structural capacity for steel piles is

As= cross − sectional area of the steel

fs= allowable stress of steel

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 6 Department of CIVIL

Fig 1.3 Steel Piles

 Maximum length practically unlimited, optimum length: 12-50m

Advantages of steel piles:

1.3.3 (c) Concrete Piles

((a) Precast piles and

(b) cast-in-situ piles.

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 7 Department of CIVIL

Fig1.4: Precast piles with ordinary reinforcement

Fig 1.5 Concrete Piles

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 8 Department of CIVIL

 Concrete piles may be precast, prestressed, cast in place, or of composite

High load capacities, corrosion resistance can be attained, hard-driving possible

Cylinder piles, in particular, are suited for bending resistance.

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 9 Department of CIVIL

1.3.3 (d) Composite piles

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 10 Department of CIVIL

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.2 Review of previous work

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 11 Department of CIVIL

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 12 Department of CIVIL

5) Geoffrey R. Martin, Ignatius Po Lam in his paper Research on soil-pile-structure interaction

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 13 Department of CIVIL

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 14 Department of CIVIL

Chapter 3 Estimation of loads on the structure

3.2 Model of the Building and Various Parameters Considered

Grade of Concrete: M25

Grade of Steel: Fe415

Live Load on Roof: 1.5 kN/m2

M.Tech(Structural ENGINEERING) 15 Department of CIVIL

Live load on Floor: 3 kN/m2

Roof finish: 1 kN/m2

Floor finish: 1 kN/m2

Brick wall on internal Beams: 150 mm

Density of concrete: 25 kN/m2

Density of brick wall including plaster: 20 kN/m3