Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. 37, No.

4, 2015
DOI: 10.1515/sgem-2015-0048

PILE LOAD CAPACITY – CALCULATION METHODS

BOGUMIŁ WRANA

Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Structures Mechanics, Soil-Structure-Interaction Branch,

Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Kraków, Poland,
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The article is a review of the current problems of the foundation pile capacity calculations. The article considers the main
principles of pile capacity calculations presented in Eurocode 7 and other methods with adequate explanations. Two main methods
are presented: α – method used to calculate the short-term load capacity of piles in cohesive soils and β – method used to calculate
the long- term load capacity of piles in both cohesive and cohesionless soils. Moreover, methods based on cone CPTu result are pre-
sented as well as the pile capacity problem based on static tests.

Key words: pile load capacity calculation, Eurocode 7, α – method and β – method, direct methods based on CPTu data

1. INTRODUCTION The pile load capacity on compression (Fig. 1a–1c)

is considered in the article, in particular the sufficient
compressing resistance case (Fig. 1a).
Piles can be either driven or cast in place. Pile
driving is achieved by: impact dynamic forces from
hydraulic and diesel hammers; vibration or jacking.
Concrete and steel piles are most common. Driven
piles which tend to displace a large amount of soil due
to the driving process are called full-displacement
piles. Cast-in-place (or bored) piles do not cause any
soil displacement, therefore, they are non-displace-
ment piles.
Piles may be loaded axially and/or transversely.
The limit states necessary to be considered in the
design of piles are the following (EN-1997-1,
§7.2.(1)P):
• Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation,
• Insufficient compression resistance of the pile
(Fig. 1a), Fig. 1. Piles load capacity:
• Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile (a)–(c) on compression, (d), e) on tension,
(Fig. 1d), (f)–(h) on transverse loading
• Failure in the ground due to transverse loading
(Fig. 1f), Figure 2a shows the following main parameters
• Structural failure of the pile in compression (Fig. used in the pile capacity problem:
1b), tension (Fig. 1e), bending (Fig. 1g), buckling • s(Q) – load-settlement top pile data recorded in the
(Fig. 1c) or shear (Fig. 1h), in-situ test on compression,
• Combined failure in the ground, in the pile foun- • sk – characteristic settlement, generally calculated
dation and in the structure, using the assumption on soil behavior as: semi-
• Excessive settlement, heave or lateral movement, infinite elastic, isotropic and homogenous area
• Loss of overall stability, (Boussinesq theory), which gives such larger set-
• Unacceptable vibrations. tlement than the measured one,

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 3/8/16 7:28 PM
86 B. WRANA

tween their surface and the surrounding soils. On the stress and undrained shear strength but decreases for
other hand, end-bearing piles rely on the bearing long piles.
capacity of the soil underlying their bases. Usually, Niazi and Mayne [24] presented 25 methods of
end-bearing piles are used to transfer most of their estimating pile unit shaft resistance within α-method
loads to a stronger stratum that exists at a reasonable and compared them. They showed main differences
depth. with respect to parameters: length effect, stress his-
Design bearing capacity (resistance) can be de- tory, Ip, su, σ v′ , progressive failure, plugging effect.
fined as Belowthe main methods estimating skin friction in
claysare shown:
Rc , d = Qb + Qs = Ab ⋅ qb + ∑A s ,i ⋅ qs ; i ; d . (7) (a) American Petroleum Institute (API, 1984, 1987)
The equation by API (1984, 1987) suggests values
for α as a function of cu as follows
⎧ cu − 25
⎪1 − 90 for 25 kPa < cu < 70 kPa,
⎪
α = ⎨1.0 for cu ≤ 25 kPa, (9)
⎪0.5 for cu ≥ 70 kPa.
⎪
⎩
(b) NAVFAC DM 7.2 (1984). Proposition for α coef-
ficient depends on type of pile (Table 1)

Table 1. α vs. undrained shear strength (NAVFAC DM 7.2)

Soil Undrained shear

Pile type α
consistency strength su [kPa]
Fig. 3. Pile’s side friction (shaftor skin friction)
and end bearing Very soft 0–12 1.00
Soft 12–24 1.00–0.96
Timber and
Medium stiff 24–48 0.96–0.75
concrete piles
5. α-METHOD, SHORT-TERM LOAD Stiff 48–96 0.75–0.48
CAPACITY FOR COHESIVE SOIL Very stiff 96–192 0.48–0.33
Very soft 0–12 1.00
Soft 12–24 1.00–0.92
5.1. UNIT SKIN FRICTION qs(z) Steel piles Medium stiff 24–48 0.92–0.70
Stiff 48–96 0.70–0.36
Very stiff 96–192 0.36–0.19
The method is based on the undrained shear
strength of cohesive soils; thus, it is well suited for
As in the API method, effective stress effects are
short-term pile load capacity calculations. In this
neglected in the DM 7.2 method.
method, the skin friction is assumed to be propor-
(c) Equation based on undrained shear strength and
tional to the undrained shear strength su, of the cohe-
effective vertical stress, Kolk and Van der Velde
sive soil as follows and the interface shear stress qs
method [18]. Coefficient α is based on the ratio
between the pile surface and the surrounding soil is
of undrained shear strength and effective stress.
determined as
A large database of pile skin friction results was
qs ( z ) = α ( z ) su ( z ) (8) analyzed and correlated to obtain α value (Table 2).
(d) Simple rules to obtain coefficient α based on
where
su/ σ v′ proposed standard DNV-OS-J101-2007
su – undrained shear strength,
α – adhesion coefficient depending on pile mate- ⎧ 1
rial and clay type. ⎪2 or su / σ v′ ≤ 1,
⎪ su / σ v′
It is usually assumed that ultimate skin friction is α =⎨ (10)
1
independent of the effective stress and depth. In real- ⎪ 4 or su / σ v′ > 1.
ity, the skin friction is dependent on the effective ⎪⎩ 2 su / σ v′

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 3/8/16 7:28 PM
88 B. WRANA

between them with respect to parameters: σ r′ , δ, φ ′,

OCR, K, σ v′ , L, d, su, ID, Ip. The main methods esti-
mating skin frictionare shown below:
(a) according to NAVFAC DM 7.2(1984), β =
μ (z)K(z) = tan δ (z)K(z), Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Pile skin friction angle (δ)

Pile type Pile-soil interface friction angle (δ)

Steel piles 20o
Timber piles 3/4 φ′
Concrete piles 3/4 φ′

Table 4. Lateral earth pressure coefficient (K)

Fig. 5. Chart for determination of β-values
K (piles under K (piles
Pile type dependent on OCR and Ip, Karlsrud [16]
compression) under tension)
Driven H-piles 0.5–1.0 0.3–0.5
Driven displacement piles 6.2. UNIT BASE RESISTANCE qb
1.0–1.5 0.6–1.0
(round and square)
Driven displacement tapered Using Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation, the
1.5–2.0 1.0–1.3
piles
unit base resistance at the base of the pile can be cal-
Driven jetted piles 0.4–0.9 0.3–0.6
culated
Bored piles (less than 60 cm
0.7 0.4
in diameter) qb = (σ v′ )b N q + cb′ N c (15)

where
(b) proposition value of β = μ (z)K(z) can be estimated (σ v′ ) b – vertical effective stress at the base of the
according to the following propositions:
pile,
Author Proposition of β value cb′ – cohesion of the soil under the base of the pile,
McClelland [21] β = 0.15 to 0.35 for compression, Nc = (Nq – 1)cotφ ′.
for driven piles β = 0.10 to 0.25 for tension (for uplift piles)
β = 0.15, 0.75, 1.2 for φ ′ = 28°, 35°, 37°, Values of bearing capacity factor Nq
for driven piles
Meyerhof [22] (a) Janbu [13] presented equations to estimate capacity
β = 0.1, 0.2, 0.35 for φ ′ = 33°, 35°, 37°,
for bored piles coefficients Nq and Nc for various soils
β = Ctan(φ′ – 5)
Kraft and Lyons
[19] C = 0.7 for compression, C = 0.5 for tension
(uplift piles)

(c) Average K method

Earth pressure coefficient K can be averaged from
Ka, Kp and K0: K = (K0 + Ka Kp)/3 where: K0 = (1 –
sinφ ′), Ka = tan2(45 – φ ′/2), Kp = tan 2(45 +φ ′/2)
(d) Karlsrud [16]
Karlsrud [16] proposed to take into account the
plasticity index Ip in β-method. Figure 5 shows dia-
gram of β-values from as low as 0.045 for low-
plastic NC clays to about 2.0 to very stiff clays with
OCR of 40, which is the upper range of available pile Fig. 6. Shear surface around the base of a pile:
data. definition of the angle η (Janbu [13])

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 3/8/16 7:28 PM
 Pile load capacity – calculation methods 93

REFERENCES [18] KOLK H.J., VAN DER VELDE A., A Reliable Method to
Determine Friction Capacity of Piles Driven into Clays,
Proc. Offshore Technological Conference, 1996, Vol. 2,
[1] American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice Houston, TX.
for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Off-shore [19] KRAFT L.M., LYONS C.G., State of the Art: Ultimate Axial
Platforms, API, Washington, DC, 1984. Capacity of Grouted Piles, Proc. 6th Annual OTC, Houston
[2] ARDALAN H., ESLAMI A., NARIMAN-ZAHED N., Piles shaft ca- paper OTC 2081, 1990, 487–503.
pacity from CPT and CPTu data by polynomial neural networks [20] KULHAWY F.H. et al., Transmission Line Structure Founda-
and genetic algorithms, Comput. Geotech., 2009, 36, 616–625. tions for Uplift-Compression Loading, Report EL, 2870,
[3] BOND A.J., SCHUPPENER B., SCARPELLI G., ORR T.L.L., Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto 1983.
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Worked examples, Worked [21] MCCLELLAND B., Design of deep penetration piles for ocean
examples presented at the Workshop “Eurocode 7: Geotech- structures, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
nical Design” Dublin, 13–14 June 2013. ASCE, 1974, Vol. 100, No. GT7, 705–747.
[4] BUDHU M., Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Wiley, Hoboken, [22] MEYERHOF G.G., Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile
New York 1999. Foundations, ASCE J. of Geotechnical Eng., 1976, GT3,
[5] CAI G., LIU S., TONG L., DU G., Assessment of direct CPT 195–228.
and CPTu methods for predicting the ultimate bearing ca- [23] NAVFAC DM 7.2 (1984): Foundation and Earth Structures,
pacity of single piles, Eng. Geol., 2009, 104, 211–222. U.S. Department of the Navy.
[6] CAI G., LIU S., PUPPALA A.J., Reliability assessment of [24] NIAZI F.S., MAYNE P.W., Cone Penetration Test Based Di-
CPTu-based pile capacity predictions in soft clay deposits, rect Methods for Evaluating Static Axial Capacity of Single
Eng. Geol., 2012, 141–142, 84–91. Piles, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2013, (31),
[7] DNV-OS-J101-2007: Det Norske Veritas. Design of offshore 979–1009.
wind turbine structures. October 20007. [25] RANDOLPH M.F., WROTH C.P., A simple approach to pile
[8] HIRANY A., KULHAWY F.H., Conduct and interpretation of design and the evaluation of pile tests, Behavior of Deep
load tests on drilled shaft foundations, Report EL-5915, Foundations, STP 670, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Penn-
1988,Vol. 1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, sylvania, 1979, 484–499.
CA, www.epri.com [26] RANDOLPH M.F., Design considerations for offshore piles,
[9] FELLENIUS B.H., Basics of Foundation Design, Electronic Proc. of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore
Edition, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2G 4J3, 2009. Engineering, Austin, Texas, 1983, 422–439.
[10] FLEMING W.G.K. et al., Piling Engineering, Surrey Univer- [27] RANDOLPH M.F., DOLWIN J., BECK R., Design of Driven Piles
sity Press, New York 1985. in Sand, Geotechnique, 1994, Vol. 44, No. 3, 427–448.
[11] GWIZDAŁA K., Fundamenty palowe. Technologie i oblicze- [28] RUWAN RAJAPAKSE, Pile Design and Construction Rules of
nia. Tom 1, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2010. Thumb, Elsevier, Inc., 2008.
[12] GWIZDAŁA K., Fundamenty palowe. Badania i zastosowania. [29] SKEMPTON A.W., Cast-in-situ bored piles in London clay,
Tom 2, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2013. Geotechnique, 1959, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 153–173.
[13] JANBU N., (ed.), Static bearing capacity of friction piles, Pro- [30] TOMLINSON M.J. Pile Design and Construction Practice,
ceedings of the 6th European Conference on Soil Mechanics Viewpoint Publications, London, 1977, 1981 edition, 1987
and Foundation Engineering, 1976, Vol. 1.2, 479–488. edition, 1991 edition, 1994 edition, 1995 edition, 1998 edi-
[14] HELWANY S., Applied soil mechanics with ABAQUS appli- tion, 2008 edition.
cations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. [31] WHITE D.J., BOLTON M.D., Comparing CPT and pile base
[15] KARLSRUD K., CLAUSEN C.J.F., AAS P.M., Bearing Capacity of resistance in sand, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng.,
Driven Piles in Clay, the NGI Approach, Proc. Int. Symp. on 2005, 158(GE1), 3–14.
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, 1. Perth 2005, 775–782. [32] WRANA B., Lectures on Soil Mechanics,Wydawnictwo
[16] KARLSRUD K., Prediction of load-displacement behavior and Politechniki Krakowskiej, 2014.
capacity of axially loaded piles in clay based on analyses and [33] WRANA B., Lectures on Foundations, Wydawnictwo
interpretation of pile load test result, PhD Thesis, Trondheim, Politechniki Krakowskiej, 2015.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012. [34] WYSOKIŃSKI L., KOTLICKI W., GODLEWSKI T., Projektowanie
[17] KEMPFERT H.-G., BECKER P., Axial pile resistance of differ- geotechniczne według Eurokodu 7. Poradnik, Instytut Tech-
ent pile types based on empirical values, Proceedings of Geo- niki Budowlanej, Warszawa 2011.
Shanghai 2010 deep foundations and geotechnical in situ [35] PN-EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1:
testing (GSP 205), ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010, 149–154. General rules. Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 3/8/16 7:28 PM