Module 2 - Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
MODULE 2
PILE FOUNDATIONS
NPTEL course 1 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Department of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras-36
Pile Foundations
Axial capacity Lateral capacity
❑ Pile Group Arrangement ❑ Pile – Soil Interaction Analysis
❑ Load Transfer Mechanism ❑ Depth of fixity method
❑ Main Piles ❑ Linear soil spring method
❑ Skirt Piles ❑ Non-linear soil spring method
❑ Axial Load Transfer ❑ Analysis methods
❑ Axial Capacity of Driven Pipe Piles ❑ Closed form solutions
❑ Pile Plugging behavior ❑ Numerical methods
❑ Plug Capacity by Randolph ❑ Empirical methods
❑ Plug Capacity with scour ❑ Broms Theory
❑ Plug Capacity without scour ❑ Brinch Hansen Method
❑ Ultimate Axial Capacity ❑ Subgrade Modulus theory
❑ Estimation of unit skin friction ❑ Subgrade modulus
❑ Cohesive soils (a method) ❑ Coefficient of subgrade reaction
❑ Cohesionless soils (b method) ❑ Empirical methods
❑ Estimation of unit end bearing ❑ API recommended method
❑ Limiting skin friction values ❑ Sand
❑ Limiting end bearing values ❑ Clay
❑ Allowable axial capacity ❑ Load – deflection curves (P-y)
❑ End bearing corrections ❑ Soft and stiff clay
❑ CPT based methods ❑ Sand
❑ Load –deflection curves (T-z and Q-z) ❑ Effect cyclic load
Pile Foundations
Pile group arrangements

Pile Foundations
AXIAL CAPACITY OF
DRIVEN PILES

Pile Foundations
Load Transfer Mechanism
Main Piles : The load from the jacket
is transferred to the pile through
grout steel interface (for grouted
piles) or through the shim connection
at the top.
Skirt Piles : The load from the jacket

is transferred through the shear plate
connection to the skirt sleeve and to
the pile.
In both cases, the soil below the

seabed is subjected to complex
stresses from vertical and horizontal
loads resulting in bending moment
and shear.
Skirt Piles Main Piles
Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer
The way that the load from a column transfers into the soil through the pile
has evolved during the past fifty years, from Terzaghi at the extreme left
figure, Prieto (1978) on the extreme right, and on going research.

Pile Foundations
Axial Capacity of Driven steel pipe piles
Driven steel pipe piles can be considered as partial displacement piles. The
axial resistance of the soil along the outer and inner surface of the steel –
soil interface contributes to the resistance. In addition, the bearing
resistance contributed by the end area shall also be taken in to account.
The estimation overall axial capacity involves the following.
a) Estimation of skin friction resistance between steel pipe and soil (sand
or clay)
b) Estimation of bearing resistance (sand or clay)
c) Determination of plug formation (Plugged or Unplugged)
d) Estimation of the axial capacity using the pile dimensions and
penetration
e) Application Factor of safety

Pile Foundations
Pile plugging behaviour
UNPLUGGED CASE PLUGGED CASE

Pile Foundations
Pile plugging Behaviour
It can be seen from the figure that the soil plug inside the pile has a pile
soil interface and thus frictional resistance against load applied at the top
of the pile. Hence the internal frictional resistance added to the external
friction resistance form part of the total resistance. The plug soil inside the
pile including its weight is directly supported on the soil. This is true if the
weight of the soil inside the pile is greater than the internal resistance.
Otherwise the soil becomes part of the pile as if the pile is fully closed. This
is called pile plugging or plugged behaviour.
This will happen when the internal frictional resistance is greater

than the weight of the soil plug and the end bearing is less than
the sum of weight of soil plug and the internal skin friction.
When the pile is plugged, only external skin friction shall be taken in to account in
computation of the axial capacity together with the end bearing based on total are of
the pile at the base.
For plugged pile, weight of pile and soil inside shall be considered as load.

Pile Foundations
PLUG Capacity by Randolph (1991)
Randolph used the following equation to define the state of stress within the soil plug.
d ' 4
= '+  '
dz Di
Where  '
= effective vertical stress within the soil plug
Di= internal pile diameter
z = depth from the top of the soil plug
 = effective unit weight of soil plug
 = ratio of shear stress between the plug and the pile
inner surface to  ' .
Integrating the above equation, the stress (   )within the soil plug
'
and the total soil plug resistance (qplug) can be obtained as
  'Di   4  D
' =  p 'o +  exp  z- i  '
 4   B1  4
L  D  1   4  Lwp   Di  1
q plug =  ' Lwp  up +  i   exp   −  
  
 wp  wp 
L L 4   D i   Lwp  4 
Where po = surcharge from the unwedged soil plug

Lwp & Lup = wedged and unwedged plug length.
If the values of Lwp (or Lup),  and  are known the soil plug
resistance qplug can be calculated.
Pile Foundations
PLUG Capacity by Equilibrium (No scour)
Plug Capacity can be estimated by
equilibrium of vertical forces.
Q plug = Wwp +Wup + Di f i L wp
Where
Wwp = Weight of lower wedged pile plug
Wup = Weight of upper loose pile plug
Di = Internal diameter of pile (D-2T)
Lwp = Length of lower wedged pile plug
fi = internal friction = 0.8fo
Lplug = Length of pile plug = 0.9Lp
Lp = Length of penetration
Lwp/Lplug = 0.7 (Assuming 30% loose soil)

Pile Foundations
PLUG Capacity by Equilibrium (with scour)
Plug Capacity can be estimated by
equilibrium of vertical forces.
Q plug = Wwp +Wup + Di f i L wp

Where
Wwp = Weight of lower wedged pile plug
Wup = Weight of upper loose pile plug
Lwp = Length of lower wedged pile plug
fi = internal friction = 0.8fo
Lplug = Length of pile plug = 0.9(Lp+Lscour)
Lp = Length of penetration
Lscour = Length of scour
Lwp/Lplug = 0.7 (assuming 30% loose soil)

Pile Foundations
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
The ultimate bearing capacity of pile, including belled piles, Qd should be
determined by the equation.
Compression plugged Q cp =Q fo + Qep =f o A so +qA pp
Compression unplugged Qcu = Qfi + Qfo + Qeu =f i A si + f o A so +qA pu
For tension plugged Q tp = Q fo =f o A so

For tension unplugged Qtu = Qfi + Qfo =f i Asi + fo Aso
Qfi, Qfo =skin friction internal & external.
Qep, Qeu, = total end bearing plugged & unplugged
fi, fo = unit skin friction capacity
q = unit end bearing
Asi, Aso = side surface area of pile internal & external
App, Apu = gross end area of pile plugged & unplugged
Pile Foundations
Estimation of Unit Skin Friction (f)
 method – for Cohesive soils
The skin friction between steel pipe piles and clayey soil can be
estimated using the following
f = C u
where
 = a dimensionless factor,
Cu = undrained shear strength of the soil at the point in question
The factor, , can be computed by the equations:
 =0.5 −0.25 for   1.0

 = 0.5 −0.5 for   1.0
With the constraint that, α ≤ 1.0,
Ψ = Cu/p’0 for the point in question
Cu/p’0 effective overburden pressure at the point in question
Pile Foundations
Typical Values of Cu for cohesive soils
Cohesive marine sediments vary in nature considerably and can be
described as noted below. The undrained shear strength values range
from as low as 2 kPa to 400 kPa. The values shown in the table is only a
guideline and should be used with care.
Description Cu (kPa) SPT N
Very Soft Clay < 10 0-2
Soft Clay 10 to 96 2-10
Stiff Clay 96 to 150 20-25
Very Stiff Clay 150 to 250 25-50
Hard Clay 250 to 400 > 50

Pile Foundations
Variation of adhesion factor with depth – constant cu

Pile Foundations
Variation of adhesion factor with depth – linearly varying cu

Pile Foundations
 method – for cohesionless soils
The skin friction between steel pipe piles and sandy soil can be estimated
using the following relationship as per API RP 2A earlier versions
f = Kp 'o tan d
However due to uncertainty in estimation of soil pile friction angle (d) API
RP2A has recommended the use of  factor as tabulated in 6.4.3.1. The
skin friction between steel pipe piles and sandy soil can be estimated
using the following relationship as per API RP 2A latest version.
f =  p'0
where
 = dimensionless shaft friction factor
p´0 = effective overburden pressure at the depth in question
K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to
vertical normal effective stress)
d = friction angle between the soil and pile wall
Pile Foundations
Comparison of  value and K tan (d)

Pile Foundations
Estimation of Unit End Bearing (q)
Cohesive soils:
The end bearing in clayey soils for steel pipe piles can be
estimated using the following relationship
q= 9Cu
Cohesionless soils:
The end bearing in sandy soils for steel pipe piles can be
estimated using the following relationship
q= Nq po'
Where
Nq=dimensionless bearing capacity factor
p´0 = effective overburden pressure at the depth in question
Pile Foundations
Limiting values of skin friction
As it can be seen from the proposed empirical formula used for the
estimation of the skin friction values depends on the overburden pressure
Po’. The overburden pressure increases linearly with the depth except for
the variation of the soil density for a multilayered soil. The skin friction
values will also increase corresponding to the increase in the overburden
pressure. However, studies indicate that these values needs to be limited.
a) The skin friction values for sand shall be limited to values of 115 kPa
for very dense sand. See table for medium and loose sand.
b) The skin friction for the clay soil shall be limited to the maximum of
undrained shear strength. ie.  = 1.
Basically, the skin friction may not increase further as the effect of
overburden pressure is not effective after a certain depth as indicated in
plot.

Pile Foundations
Limiting values of end bearing
CLAY
Limiting end bearing values for clay is directly related to the undrained
shear strength and empirical coefficient. There is no limiting values
required as the end bearing in clay will be very limited.
SAND
The end bearing values for the sandy soil is related to the overburden
pressure and limiting values shall be applied.
The limiting value of 12 MPa (1200 Tonnes/m2) is placed for a very dense
sand.
This limit will be reached at a depth of 20m with Nq=50, and submerged
density ’= 12 kN/m3. (q=NqPo’)

Pile Foundations
old
API 2A
Recommended
Practice

Pile Foundations
New
API 2A
Recommended
Practice

Pile Foundations
Cone penetration test (CPT) based methods
CPT tests offer continuous record of side Cone resistance
friction through layered soils and hence (MPa)
can be used to estimate the axial pile
capacity.
Following methods are now recognized by

API RP 2A using CPT results.
Method 1: Simplified ICP-05 method

Method 2: Offshore UWA-05 method
Method 3: Fugro-05 method Sleeve friction (MPa)
Method 4: NGI-05 method
ICP – Imperial College Pile

UWA – University of Western Australia
NGI – Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

Pile Foundations
CPT BASED METHODS FOR PILE CAPACITY
Friction and end bearing contributions to pile capacity are assumed
to be uncoupled. The ultimate axial pile capacity in compression (Quc)
and tension (Qut) of a open ended driven steel piles can be estimated
using the following relationship.
Quc = Q f ,c + Q p =  D  f ( z ) dz + qAp
Qut = Q f ,t =  D  f ( z ) dz
In which  f ( z ) dz is the skin friction to be integrated from CPT

records and q is the end bearing to be estimated from point bearing
records.

Pile Foundations
ESTIMATION OF SKIN FRICTION FROM CPT RECORDS
 p ( z) 
a −c
 L − z   L−z 1 
e

'
f ( z ) = u  qc ( z ) 
o
  Ab
r   max  , v    tan d cv d
 min   ,1
 pa    D   D v 
Where
f(z) is the unit shaft friction, qc(z) is the CPT cone tip resistance, po(z) is the
effective vertical stress and pa is the atmospheric pressure at depth z.
2
Aw  Di 
Ar = pile displacement ratio Ar = A = 1 −  D 
p

Aw = pile annular area Aw =
4
(D 2
− Di 2 )
Di = pile inside diameter, Di = D - 2Tw

Tw = pile wall thickness
L = embedded length of the pile
dcv = sand constant volume friction angle at the interface between the sand and
the pile wall.
a, b, c, d, e, u and v are parameters to be taken from table for each method

Pile Foundations
Unit shaft friction parameter values for various method
Method Parameter
a b c d e u v
Simplified ICP-05 method
Compression 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0 0.023 4 Ar
Tension 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0 0.016 4 Ar

Offshore UWA-05 method
Compression 0 0.3 0.5 1 0 0.030 2
Tension 0 0.3 0.5 1 0 0.022 2
Fugro-05 method
Compression 0.05 0.45 0.90 0 1 0.043 2 Ar
Tension 0.15 0.42 0.85 0 0 0.025 2 Ar

Pile Foundations
Factor of Safety
Factor of safety against the computed ultimate axial capacity depends on
the type of pile and soil conditions. Similar to IS 2911 for bored concrete
piles require a FOS of minimum 2.5 where as API RP 2A suggests
otherwise. API RP 2A suggests a minimum factor of safety for each
loading condition for offshore platforms.
Load Condition Tension Compression

Operating Condition 2.0 2.0
Storm Condition 1.5 1.5
Seismic Condition 1.2 1.2

Pile Foundations
3/19/2021 30 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
Allowable Pile Capacity

Weight of Pile (Wpile)
Weight of pile below the seabed shall be treated as the part of the load.
This shall either be added to the load or deducted from the computed
compression capacity.
However, this can be taken as advantage for the tension capacity by
adding to the capacity as it acts against the pull out load.
Weight Soil Plug (Wplug)

Weight of soil plug shall be added to the load or deducted from the
compression capacity if the pile is plugged.
For the tension capacity, the plug weight can be added if the pile plugged.

Pile Foundations
Allowable Pile Capacity
Allowable pile capacity is required as the design method uses the working
stress design and to allow for the uncertainties in the estimation of the
axial capacity, a suitable factor of safety is applied on the ultimate
capacity.
Plugged unplugged
 Qcp − Wplug − W pile Qcu − W pile 
Qallow,compression = Minimum  , 
 FS FS 
 Qtp + W plug + W pile Qtu + W pile 
Qallow,tension = Minimum  , 
 FS FS 
Wpile – Weight of pile below mud-line

Wplug – Weight of soil plug

Pile Foundations
Generation of Pile Capacity Curves

Usually the axial capacity in compression and tension for the pile of
different diameters will be calculated and plotted against the depth of
penetration of the pile. This will be very helpful in determining the pile
termination level during the design of the pile foundation.
Following points to be noted while generating such curves for use in

design.
a) The transition from weaker to stronger layer and stronger to weaker

layer shall be smoothened with appropriate transition
b) The end bearing values at the sand layer shall be adjusted for 3D
correction to avoid pile punch through.

Pile Foundations
Typical Pile Capacity
Curves
The curve corresponds to a

sandy soil throughout the
foundation
The chart includes capacity in

tension and compression for
both plugged and unplugged
conditions

Pile Foundations
Axial Pile Capacity Curves with and without end bearing
correction

Pile Foundations
WEAKER TO DENSER SAND LAYER
When a pile is to be terminated in a dense sand
layer to achieve full end bearing, it shall be driven
into the dense layer by at-least 10D.
If the pile is terminated less than 10D, the end

bearing shall be reduced as per correction below
(after Lacasse, 1990).
q =q w +
( q s -q w )
d e
Where 10 D
q = unit end bearing at the pile toe
qw = unit end bearing of the weaker sand above
qs = unit end bearing of the stronger sand layer
de = depth of penetration in to stronger sand layer
D = Diameter of pile
Note : qs and qw shall be less than the limiting unit

end bearing given by API RP 2A.
However, the API RP 2A, allows full end
bearing capacity of the stronger sand layer,
if the depth of penetration is at-least 3D.
Pile Foundations
WEAKER LAYER TO DENSER CLAY LAYER
When a pile is to be terminated in a stiff clay
layer to achieve end bearing, it shall be
driven into the stiff clay layer by at-least 3D.
If the pile is terminated less than 3D, the end

bearing shall be reduced as per correction
below (after Lacasse, 1990).
q =6C u +
( 9C u -6C u )
d e
3D
Where

qw = unit end bearing of the weaker clay or
sand layer above with a unit end bearing
less than 6Cu
qs = unit end bearing of the stronger clay
layer = 9Cu
de = depth of penetration in to stronger sand
layer

Pile Foundations
Stronger layer to weaker layer (punch through - h > 20d)
When a pile is to be terminated in a stronger layer
followed by a weaker clay or sand layer, it shall be
terminated such that the distance to the bottom weaker
layer is greater than 10D to avoid punch through.
If the pile is terminated less than 10D, the end bearing

shall be reduced as per correction below (after Lacasse,
1990).
q =q w +
( q s -q w )
d b
Where 10 D
db = depth of penetration in to stronger sand layer
Note : qs and qw shall be less than the limiting unit
end bearing given by API RP 2A.
The above correction is acceptable, if the
thickness of the layer is greater than 20D,
However, the API RP 2A, allows the above even if
the thickness of the layer is 5-6D
Pile Foundations
Stronger layer to weaker layer (Punch through - h < 20d)
When a pile is to be terminated in a stronger layer
followed by a weaker clay or sand layer, it shall be
terminated such that the distance to the bottom weaker
layer is greater than 10D to avoid punch through.
If the pile is terminated less than 10D, the end bearing

shall be reduced as per correction below (after Lacasse,
1990).
q =q w +
( q s -q w )
d b
Where 10 D
db = depth of penetration in to stronger sand layer
Note : qs and qw shall be less than the limiting unit end
bearing given by API RP 2A.
The above correction is acceptable, if the
thickness of the layer is greater than 20D,
However, the API RP 2A, allows the above even
if the thickness of the layer is 5-6D
Pile Foundations
EXAMPLE
Calculate the Factor of Safety for a
jacket pile foundation of diameter
1824mm and wall thickness 50mm
driven into seabed for a penetration of
100m in a three layer soil as shown
below. The maximum pile load in
compression for operating and
extreme storm conditions is 19MN and
28 MN respectively. The maximum pile
load in tension for operating and
extreme storm conditions is 16MN and
24 MN respectively. Assume effective
internal friction as 80% of external
friction and use API RP 2A guidelines.

Pile Foundations
Pile Data
Pile Diameter and wall thickness D = 1824 mm TP = 50 mm
D − ( D − 2 TP) 
 2 2
Annular end bearing area Aa = Aa = 0.279 m
2
4
Total end bearing area At =


( 2)
 D 2
At = 2.613 m
4
Pile penetration Lp = 100 m
kN
Weight density of water w = 10.25 
3
m
Maximum Pile Loads PC1 = 19 MN PC100 = 28 MN
PT1 = 16 MN PT100 = 24 MN

Pile Foundations
Layer 1 - Silty Clay
Undrained shear strength Cu1 = 40 kPa
kN
Bulk density 1 = 16 
3
m
Layer Depth h1 = 25 m
Effective overburden pressure po1 = 0.5 h1(  1 −  w) po1 = 71.875 kPa
Cu1
1 = 1 = 0.557
po1
Adhesion factor 1 = ( − 0.5  1.0 ) if  1  1.0

min 0.5  1
min( 0.5  1  1.0 ) if  1  1.0

− 0.25
1 = 0.67
Unit skin friction for layer 1 f1 =  1Cu1 f1 = 26.81 kPa
External skin friction in layer 1 Qfe1 =  Dh1f1
Qfe1 = 3840.6 kN
Internal skin friction in layer 1 Qfi1 = 0.8  ( D − 2 TP) h1f1 Qfi1 = 2904.1 kN

Pile Foundations
Layer 2 - Medium dense Sand
Angle of internal friction 2 = 30 deg
kN
3
m
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ko = 0.8

2
Soil pile friction angle d2 =  2 d2 = 20 deg
3
Limiting skin friction flim2 = 81 kPa
Effective overburden pressure po2 = h1 (  1 −  w) + 0.5 h2(  2 −  w) po2 = 387.5 kPa
Unit skin friction for layer 2 f2 = min( Ko po2 tan( d 2)  flim2) f2 = 81 kPa
External skin friction in layer 2 Qfe2 =  Dh2f2
Qfe2 = 23207.6 kN
Internal skin friction in layer 2 Qfi2 = 0.8  ( D − 2 TP) h2 f2 Qfi2 = 17548.2 kN

Pile Foundations
Layer 3 - Hard Clay
Undrained shear strength Cu3 = 100 kPa
kN
3
m
End bearing factor for clay Nc = 9
Effective overburden pressure po3 = h1 (  1 −  w) + h2(  2 −  w) + 0.5 h3(  3 −  w)
po3 = 728.125 kPa
Cu3
3 =
po3 3 = 0.137

min 0.5  3
min( 0.5  3  1.0 ) if  3  1.0

− 0.25
3 =1

Pile Foundations
Unit skin friction for layer 3 f3 =  3 Cu3 f3 = 100 kPa
Unit end bearing q3 = Nc Cu3 q3 = 900 kPa

External skin friction in layer 3 Qfe3 =  Dh3 f3
Qfe3 = 14325.7 kN
Internal skin friction in layer 3 Qfi3 = 0.8  ( D − 2 TP) h3 f3 Qfi3 = 10832.2 kN
Annular end bearing in layer 3 Qqa3 = Aa q3

Qqa3 = 250.8 kN
Total end bearing in layer 3 Qqt3 = At q3 Qqt3 = 2351.7 kN

Pile Foundations
Pile Capacity Calculation

Ultimayte Capacity in compression Quu = Qfe1 + Qfi1 + Qfe2 + Qfi2 + Qfe3 + Qfi3 + Qqa3
(unplugged)
Quu = 72909.1 kN
Ultimate Capacity in compression Qup = Qfe1 + Qfe2 + Qfe3 + Qqt3 Qup = 43725.6 kN
(plugged)
Weight of soil plug inside the pile Wsp = At h1 (  1 −  w) + h2 (  2 −  w) + h3 (  3 −  w)
Wsp = 2155.7 kN
Total internal friction Qfi = Qfi1 + Qfi2 + Qfi3 Qfi = 31284.5 kN
Ultimate Capacity in Qut = Qfe1 + Qfi1 + Qfe2 + Qfi2 + Qfe3 + Qfi3

tension
Qut = 72658.3 kN
Pile FOS Calculation (Compression loads)

Pile Foundations
Qut = 72658.3 kN
Pile FOS Calculation (Compression loads)
min( Quu  Qup )
Operating Condition FOS C1 =
PC1 FOS C1 = 2.301
min( Quu  Qup )

Extreme Condition FOS C100 =
PC100 FOS C100 = 1.562
Pile FOS Calculation (Tension loads)

Qut
Operating Condition FOS T1 =
PT1 FOS T1 = 4.541
Qut
Extreme Condition FOS T100 = FOS T100 = 3.027
PT100

Pile Foundations
AXIAL LOAD DEFLECTION

CHARACTERISTICS

Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer
Axial load transfer from pile to soil happens by soil – pile friction. This
friction value as computed earlier using several empirical values achieves
its maximum value only after reaching the required displacement. That
means, for a pile with zero vertical displacement, the soil frictional
resistance may not have reached the maximum values. Hence the
characteristic relationship between the axial load and displacement is
very much essential.
The axial load transfer consists of two components.
a) Through skin friction noted as t-z where t is the skin friction

resistance and z is the vertical displacement
b) Through end bearing noted as q-z where q is the end bearing
resistance and the z is the vertical displacement at the tip.

Pile Foundations
t-z curve for deformation of
a pile under vertical axial
loading (Old API RP 2A)

Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer curve (t-z) for SAND
Sandy soils exhibit a linear elastic load displacement characteristics up to

0.1inch displacement and after which the displacement becomes
plastic. The relationship is given by three points as shown in the table.
Where
z – displacement in inch
t – unit skin friction (kPa)
tmax – ultimate skin friction (kPa)
(tmax = f = po’)
API RP 2A PROVISIONS

Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer for SAND (t-z Curve)
SAND
Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer curve (t-z) for CLAY
Soft clayey soils exhibit a nonlinear elastic load displacement
characteristics up to 1% of pile diameter as displacement and after
which the displacement becomes plastic. The relationship is given by seven
points as shown in the table.
Where
D – diameter of pile
t – unit skin friction (kPa)
tmax – ultimate skin friction (kPa)
(tmax = f = Cu)

Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer for CLAY (t-z Curve)
Pile Foundations
AS PER API RP 2GEO – Provisions
API RO 2GEO has replaced the

existing provisions of API RP 2A
from 2011.
Most provisions are same

except the t-z curve for sand
and clay.

Pile Foundations
AS PER API RP 2GEO – Both sand and Clay

Pile Foundations
End bearing Load Transfer curve (Q-z) for SAND and CLAY
Sand and Clay soils exhibit a nonlinear elastic load displacement
characteristics up to 10% of pile diameter as displacement and after
which the displacement becomes plastic. The relationship is given by seven
points as shown in the table.
Where
D – diameter of pile
Q – end bearing (kN)
Qmax – ultimate end bearing (kN)
(Qmax = minimum of Qcu or Qcp)

Pile Foundations
Axial Load Transfer End Bearing (Q-z Curve)

Pile Foundations
t-z Curve for Clay
Diameter and wall thickness of pile D = 1320 mm Tp = 25 mm
t-z Curve
Undrained shear strength Cu = 50 kPa 50
43.8
Depth at which Q-z is required Hz = 50 m
kN 37.5
Effective unit weight  = 10 
3 31.3
m
kPa
Effective overburden pressure Po =  Hz ti 25
Cu 18.8
Overburden parameter  =
Po 12.5
Friction factor  = ( − 0.5 1.0) if   1.0

min 0.5  6.3
min( 0.5   1.0) if   1.0

− 0.25 0
0 9 18 27 36 45
Ultim ate unit skin friction tmax =  Cu zi
tmax = 50 kPa
mm
i = 1  8 ti = 0 zi = 0
z1 = 0.0 D t1 = 0.00 tmax z5 = 0.0080 D t5 = 0.90 tmax
z2 = 0.0016 D t2 = 0.30 tmax z6 = 0.01 D t6 = 1.00 tmax
z3 = 0.0031 D t3 = 0.50 tmax z7 = 0.02 D t7 = 0.70 tmax
z4 = 0.0057 D t4 = 0.75 tmax z8 = 0.03 D t8 = 0.70 tmax

Pile Foundations
t-z Curve for Sand
t-z Curve
Diameter and wall thickness of pile D = 1320 mm Tp = 25 mm 300
262.5
Angle of internal friction  = 35 deg
225
End bearing factor  = 0.56
187.5
kPa
ti 150
kN
Effective unit weight  = 10  112.5
3
m
75
Effective overburden pressure Po =  Hz
37.5
Ultim ate unit skin friction tmax =  Po tmax = 280 kPa 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
zi
i = 1  3 ti = 0 zi = 0
mm
z1 = 0.0 in t1 = 0.00 tmax z2 = 0.1 in t2 = 1.00 tmax
z3 = 1 in t3 = 1.00 tmax

Pile Foundations
Q-z Curve for Sand / Clay
Diameter and wall thickness of pile D = 1320 mm Tp = 25 mm Q-z Curve
35000
Angle of internal friction  = 35 deg
30625
End bearing factor Nq = 50
26250
21875
kN
kN
3 Qi 17500
m
Effective overburden pressure Po =  Hz 13125
Unit end bearing qmax = Nq Po 8750
4375
End bearing area  2
Ae = D
4 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Ultim ate end bearing Qe = qmaxAe 4
Qe = 3.421  10 kN zi
i = 1  7 Qi = 0 zi = 0 mm
z1 = 0.0 D Q1 = 0.00 Qe z4 = 0.042 D Q4 = 0.75 Qe z7 = 0.20 D
z2 = 0.002 D Q2 = 0.25 Qe z5 = 0.073 D Q5 = 0.90 Qe Q7 = 1.00 Qe
z3 = 0.013 D Q3 = 0.50 Qe z6 = 0.10D Q6 = 1.00 Qe

Pile Foundations
EFFECT OF SEABED SCOUR
Scouring of seabed happens due
to obstruction to flow by the
piles and steady current near
the seabed. Scour can be
classified into two types.
a) General scour
b) Local scour
The definition of local and
general scour is shown in figure.
The calculation of effective
overburden pressure and the
frictional resistance inside the
pile needs to be considered
carefully.

Pile Foundations
PILE PENETRATION CALACULATION
Calculate axial capacity for a steel pipe pile
driven through soft to stiff clay layers and
terminated in dense sand layer as shown in
figure below. Determine the depth of
penetration required in dense sand if the
ultimate axial capacity requried is 30MN
Pile Data
Pile Diameter and wall thickness D = 2314  mm TP = 50  mm

Aa =  D2 − ( D − 2  TP) 2
4 
Annular end bearing area
Aa = 0.356 m2


4
( 2)
 D
At = 4.205 m
2
Pile penetration Lp = 35  m
kN kN
Weight density of water  w = 10.25   steel = 78.5 
m3 m3

Pile Foundations
Layer 1 - Clay
Undrained shear strength Cu11 = 5 kPa Cu12 = 200 kPa
kN
3
m
Effective overburden pressure po1 = 0.5 h1 (  1 −  w) po1 = 124 kPa
Cu11 + Cu12
1 = 1 = 0.827
2po1

min 0.5  1
min( 0.5  1  1.0 ) if  1  1.0

− 0.25
1 = 0.55
 Cu11 + Cu12 
Unit skin friction for layer 1 f1 =  1  
 2  f1 = 56.369 kPa
External skin friction in layer 1 Qfe1 =  Dh1 f1
Qfe1 = 13113.1 kN
Internal skin friction in layer 1 Qfi1 =  ( D − 2 TP) h1 f1 Qfi1 = 12546.4 kN
Capacity required from Layer below Qr = Pu − Qfe1 Qr = 16.9 MN
Hence the length of pile to be embedded in to the sand layer needs to be determined iteratively.
Pile Foundations
Layer 2 - Sand
Assume the depth of penetration in to h2 = 3 D (Minimum pnetration)

sand layer
Angle of internal friction Nq = 50
kN
3
m
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ko = 0.8
Limiting skin friction flim2 = 115 kPa qlim = 12000 kPa
Effective overburden pressure po2 = po1 + 0.5h1 (  1 −  w) + 0.5 h2(  2 −  w)
 = 0.56 po2 = 295.726 kPa
Unit skin friction for layer 2 f2 = min(  po2  flim2) f2 = 115 kPa
External skin friction in layer 2 Qfe2 =  Dh2f2 Qfe2 = 5803.6 kN
Internal skin friction in layer 2 Qfi2 =  ( D − 2 TP) h2 f2 Qfi2 = 5552.8 kN

Pile Foundations
Effective overburden pressure poe = po1 + 0.5h1(  1 −  w) + h2(  2 −  w)
for end bearing poe = 343.452 kPa
Unit end bearing q = min( qlim  Nq poe) q = 12000 kPa
Annular end bearing in layer 2 Qqa2 = Aa q Qqa2 = 4267.5 kN
Total end bearing in layer 2 Qqt2 = At q Qqt2 = 50465.9 kN

Cumulative Capacity
Cumulative Skin friction (internal) Qui = Qfi1 + Qfi2
Qui = 18099.2 kN
Cumulative Skin friction (external) Que = Qfe1 + Qfe2

Que = 18916.7 kN
Ultimate compression capacity Qucu = Qui + Que + Qqa2 Qucu = 41.3 MN
(unplugged)
Ultimate compression capacity Qucp = Que + Qqt2 Qucp = 69.4 MN
(plugged)
Ultimate capacity Qu = min( Qucu  Qucp )
Qu = 41.3 MN
Hence Qu > Qr and Penetration is adequate

Pile Foundations
t-z Curve for Clay
Undrained shear s trength Cu1 = 5 kPa h1 = 0 m
Cu2 = 200 kPa h2 = 32 m
Depth at which T-z is required H1 = 5 m H2 = 25 m
kN
3
m
Effective overburden pressure Po1 =  H1 Po2 =  H2

for depth H1 & H2
( Cu2 − Cu1)  H − h
( h2 − h1) ( 1 1)
Effective undrained shear strenght C1 = Cu1 + C1 = 35.5 kPa
at depth H1
( Cu2 − Cu1)
( h2 − h1) ( 2 1)
Effective undrained shear strenght C2 = Cu1 +  H −h C2 = 157.3 kPa
at depth H2

Pile Foundations
C2
C1 2 =
Overburden param eter 1 = Po2
Po1
min 0.5 1  1.0 if 1  1.0

− 0.5
Friction factor for depth H1 1 =
 
min 0.5 1  1.0 if 1  1.0
− 0.25
1 = 0.531
 
min 0.5 2  1.0 if 2  1.0

− 0.5
Friction factor for depth H2 2 =
 
min 0.5 2  1.0 if 2  1.0
− 0.25
2 = 0.564
 
Ultim ate unit skin friction for depth H

1 tmax1 = 1 C1 tmax1 = 18.833 kPa
Ultim ate unit skin friction for depth H

2 tmax2 = 2 C2 tmax2 = 88.697 kPa

Pile Foundations
i = 1  8 t1i = 0 t2i = 0 zi = 0
z1 = 0.0 D t11 = 0.00 tmax1 z5 = 0.0080 D t15 = 0.90 tmax1
z2 = 0.0016 D t12 = 0.30 tmax1 z6 = 0.01 D t16 = 1.00 tmax1
z3 = 0.0031 D t13 = 0.50 tmax1 z7 = 0.02 D t17 = 0.70 tmax1
z4 = 0.0057 D t14 = 0.75 tmax1 z8 = 0.03 D t18 = 0.70 tmax1
t21 = 0.00 tmax2 t25 = 0.90 tmax2
t22 = 0.30 tmax2 t26 = 1.00 tmax2
t23 = 0.50 tmax2 t27 = 0.70 tmax2
t24 = 0.75 tmax2 t28 = 0.70 tmax2

Pile Foundations
t-z Curve
90
78.8
67.5
56.3
t1i
kPa
45
t2i
33.8
22.5
11.3
0
0 14 28 42 56 70
zi
mm

Pile Foundations
LATERAL CAPACITY OF
PILE FOUNDATIONS

Pile Foundations
Lateral Capacity
The offshore structures are subjected to large lateral loads
from wave, current and wind in addition to the gravity
loads. Hence the lateral loads needs to be transmitted to
the foundation soil through the pile foundations.
The estimate of the soil lateral load carrying capacity

needs to be obtained and related to the soil response in
terms of displacement.
This is required to assess the lateral displacement of piles

and supported structure on it since these lateral
displacements may hinder the operational aspects of the
offshore platform.
In order to satisfy the operational aspects of the platform,

the lateral displacement of the structure shall be limited to
certain serviceability limit. Hence the establishment of the
load displacement relationship is essential to the whole
process.

Pile Foundations
Soil Behavior to lateral loads
The pile is supporting the jacket
structure at the top called “Pile Head”.
The horizontal load or lateral load

applied to the pile head, the pile
transfer the load to the soil adjacent
to it. Depending on the relative
stiffness of the soil, the pile may also
deflect.
This may also affect the soil and pile

below the seabed, though effect may
diminish!.
Hence the pile soil interaction is a two

way problem and solved by structure –
soil model with appropriate load
displacement characteristics of both
the structure and soil.

Pile Foundations
Nonlinear Soil Springs Equivalent Pile Stub Linearised Pile head Springs
Pile Foundations
Pile – soil interaction analysis
 CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS
Closed for solutions derived from mechanics for simpler cases. The
soil and pile stiffness calculated using assumed variations. Typically,
 Brinch Hansen Theory
 Broms Theory
 NUMERICAL METHODS
Numerical methods are based on iterative techniques of equilibrium
of forces and moments based on relative stiffness of pile – soil
system. Typically,
 Linear Soil Spring Analysis
 Nonlinear P-Y Analysis (Finite Difference, Finite Element)
 EMPIRICAL METHODS
Empirical method is are based on assumed depth of pile achieving
fixity using pile-soil relative stiffness. Typically,
 Depth of Fixity Method

Pile Foundations
Method of analyses
 Brinch Hansen Theory
Brinch Hansen proposed a method based on effective overburden pressure
and lateral earth pressure coefficients in cohesive and cohesionless soils
 Broms Theory
Broms theory is based on soil reaction for cohesive and cohesionless soil
 Linear Spring Analysis
The soil layer is divided into sublayers and each layer is represented by a
linear spring. The analysis is carried out using Newmark’s spring distribution
 Depth of Fixity Method
The pile-soil relative stiffness is taken as a measure of finding the depth of
fixity of pile below which the soil has minimum displacement
 Finite Element or Difference Methods
3Dimensional finite element analysis nonlinear springs. Commonly used
method

Pile Foundations
Soil Reaction Analysis
 Passive Lateral Earth Pressure Method
Soil reaction is assumed to be proportional to the passive
earth pressure and is calculated using the effective
overburden pressure along the depth
 Lateral Subgrade Reaction Theory

Soil reaction is assumed to be proportional to the soil subgrade
modulus and is calculated using empirical methods or using elastic
soil modulus.

Pile Foundations
SOIL REACTION

Pile Foundations
General principles of analysis
Hu ➢ Consider:
e M=Hue ▪ Horizontal load
equilibrium
▪ Moment equilibrium
➢ Need to specify:
▪ Mode of failure
Zr
▪ Distribution of
ultimate lateral pile
L soil pressure
D - Pile diameter
Zr – Depth of rotation
L – Pile Penetration
Hu – Applied horizontal load
M - Moment
SOIL REACTION
Pile Foundations
Ultimate Lateral Pile-Soil Pressure-Clays:
Lateral Load 2Cu D
Usually adopt
Approximately
p y = N c .c
3D N c varies from 2 at the surface
Soil
Move to 8 - 12 at z/D greater th an 3D
ments (typically , 9 is used)
where D is the diameter of pile
and z is the depth below surface
8CuD to 12CuD
Distribution of Lateral Resistance

Pile Foundations
BRINCH HANSEN THEORY

Pile Foundations
BRINCH HANSEN METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Pile Foundations
BRINCH HANSEN METHOD OF ANALYSIS
➢ This method is suitable for short rigid piles.
➢ Can be applied to piles in layered soils.
➢ Applicable for both sand and clay soils.
➢ Based on effective overburden pressure and
coefficients kq and kc provided by Brinch Hansen
The unit Passive resistance at any depth below surface is
calculated from the following relationship.
pz = poz kq + Cu kc
Where
Poz Effective overburden at depth z.
Cu Undrained shear strength.
Kq, kc Brinch Hansen passive pressure coefficients for frictional and
cohesive components respectively.
Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
Passive resistance on each element is calculated as
L
pR = pz .D
n
Where
L Length of pile below soil
n Number of divisions
D Diameter of pile
Taking moment about the point at the load (top of pile).

z=x z =L
L L
M = 
z =0
pz (e + z ) D −  pz (e + z ) D
n z=x n
The above equation indicates that the location of point of rotation shall
be found by trial and error by equation
M = 0
Pile Foundations
The ultimate lateral resistance of pile can be found by taking moment
about B. (Point of rotation).
z=L z=x
L L
H u (e + x ) −  p z D ( z − x ) =  p z D ( x − z )
z=x n z =0 n
z=x z =L
L L
 pz D( x − z ) +  pz D( z − x)
n n
Hu = z =0 z=x
e+ x
Safe allowable capacity shall be determined considering the ultimate
moment of resistance of pile Mu
i.e., M max  M u of pile

Suitable factor of safety shall be applied to Hu and usually taken
as 2.0.
Pile Foundations
Brinch Hansen passive pressure coefficients

Pile Foundations
BROMS’ THEORY

Pile Foundations
BASIS OF BROMS THEORY
CLAYEY SOIL
▪ Lateral soil reaction assumed uniform along the depth
▪ Value of soil reaction assumed as 9CuD
▪ Top 1.5D depth of soil is taken as ineffective
SANDY SOIL
▪ Lateral soil reaction proportional to the depth and is
increasing with depth linearly
▪ Value of soil reaction taken as 3KpPozD
SHORT OR RIGID PILE

▪ Soil failure leads to pile rotation or pile displacement
depending on long or short pile
LONG OR SLENDER PILE
▪ Soil failure at top leads to pile failure by yielding or
bending. Ultimate pile moment of resistance governs the
capacity

Pile Foundations
Clay: Short Pile Restrained Head
M max
Hu
M max
1.5D
L
9CuD
Soil Reaction Bending moment

Pile Foundations
Clay: Intermidiate Pile Restrained Head
Hu
Myield
1.5D
Mmax
9CuD
Pile Foundations
Clay: Long Pile Restrained Head
Hu
M yield M yield
1.5D
9CuD

Pile Foundations
Clay: Short Pile Unrestrained Head
Hu 1.5D
e
L g
2
g
2
Mmax
9CuD
Deflection Soil Reaction Bending moment

Pile Foundations
Clay: Long Pile Unrestrained Head
Hu
e
1.5D
Plastic f
Hinge
M max
9CuD
Deflection

Pile Foundations
Sand : Short Pile Unrestrained Head
Hu
3γDLkp M max
Deflection Soil reaction Bending movement

Pile Foundations
Sand : Long Pile Unrestrained Head
Hu
e 3γDfkp
Myield

Pile Foundations
Sand : Short Pile Fixed Head
Hu
(M max)
3γLDkp

Pile Foundations
Sand : Long Pile Fixed Head pile
Hu
(M yield) (M yield)
3γfDkp

Pile Foundations
PILE - SOIL SPRING MODEL

Pile Foundations
PILE - SOIL SPRING MODEL

Pile Foundations
LINEAR AND NONLINEAR LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES
P in kN
y in mm
Pile Foundations
LINEAR SPRING STIFFNESS METHOD
Modulus of subgrade reaction is determined
using the following equation (Vesic – 1961)
0.65 Es D 4 Es
kh = 12
D E p I p 1 − s 2
Where
Kh Modulus of subgrade reaction
Es Modulus of soil
D Diameter of pile
Ep Modulus Elasticity pile material
Ip Moment of inertia of pile
s Poisson’s ratio

Pile Foundations
Based on Newmark’s distribution the spring stiffness is given as follows
First spring K s1 =
24 
(
Dl  n
) ( ) (
7kh + 6k hn+1 − khn+ 2 
 )
Intermediate spring K sn−1 =

Dl  n−1
12 
( ) ( ) (
kh + 6k hn + khn+1 
 )
Bottom spring K sn =
24 
(
Dl  n
) ( ) (
7kh + 6k hn−1 − khn−2 
 )
where
D Diameter of the pile
l Spacing between two adjacent springs
n
k h
Modulus of subgrade reaction of n th spring

Pile Foundations
SUBGRADE REACTION THEORY

Pile Foundations
SUBGRADE REACTION THEORY
This is based on Winkler soil model, the pressure (p) and the lateral soil
deflection (y) is related through the modulus of subgrade reaction (kh)
Lateral Pressure p = kh y where kh has the units of kN/m3

kN/m2/m
Soil reaction / w = Ky where K has the units of kN/m2
unit length of pile
K = kh D
And K is called
“Subgrade Modulus reaction”

Pile Foundations
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION THEORY
Governing equation
d4y
E p I p 4 = − pD
dz
d4y
E p I p 4 = − k h yD
dz

Pile Foundations
Closed form solution for Constant kh
Lateral 2 F   sinh  L cos  z cosh  ( L − z ) − sin  L cosh  z cos  ( L − z ) 

y=
deflection
kh D  sinh 2  L − sin 2  L 

Moment  F   sinh  L sin  z sinh  ( L − z ) − sin  L sinh  z sin  ( L − z ) 

M = −   

  sinh 2
 L − sin 2
 L 
where
z - vertical coordinate
D - Diameter of pile
L - length of embedment
F - Applied horizontal force
1
 kh D  4
= 
 4E p I p
 
Pile Foundations
Limiting solutions for Constant kh
1
 kh D  4
=
 4 E p I p 
 
Long Pile (L > 2.5) - Free Head
2F  (e + 1)
Lateral
deflection y0 =
kh D
2 F  2 (2e + 1)
Rotation 0 =
kh D
Long Pile (L > 1.5) - Fixed Head
F
Lateral
deflection y0 =
kh D
Pile Foundations
Limiting solutions for Constant kh
1
 kh D  4
= 
 4E p I p
 
Short Pile (L < 1.5) - Free Head
4 F (1 + 1.5e / L)
Lateral
deflection y0 =
kh DL
6F (1 + 2e / L)
Rotation 0 =
kh DL2
Short Pile (L < 0.5) - Fixed Head
F
Lateral
deflection y0 =
kh DL
Pile Foundations
1
Limiting solutions for  h  5
Linearly Varying kh  = 
 Ep I p
 
Long Pile (L > 4) - Free Head
2.4 F 1.6 Fe
yo = +
( Ep I p ) ( Ep I p )
3 2 2 3
5 5 5 5
kh kh
1.6 F 1.74 Fe
o = +
(E I ) (E I )
2 3 1 4
5 5 5 5
kh p p kh p p
Long Pile (L > 4) - Fixed Head
0.93F
Lateral
yo =
(E I )
deflection 3 2
h 5
p p
5

Pile Foundations
1
Limiting solutions for  h  5
 = 
Linearly Varying kh  Ep I p
 
Short Pile ( L < 2) - Free Head
18F (1 + 1.33e / L)
Lateral
deflection y0 =
h L2
24 F (1 + 1.5e / L)
Rotation 0 =
h L3
Short Pile (L < 2) - Fixed Head
2F
Lateral
deflection y0 =
h L2

Pile Foundations
VARIATION OF MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (kh)
Variation of kh along the length of pile essential to predict the
displacement of the long pile. Several distributions has been used in the
past and the following is general expression developed by Palmer and
Thompson (1948)
n
z
kh = k L  
L
where kL is the value of kh at the pile tip (z=L)
and n is the empirical value set equal to or greater than zero
For clay type of soil n is generally assumed to be zero and for sand type
soil, n is taken as 1 and usually the equation written in the following form
z
kh = h  
 D
Where h is the coefficient of subgrade reaction and has the units of
kN/m3

Pile Foundations
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION
Modulus of subgrade reaction can be estimated by any one of
the following methods
 Full scale pile load tests

Full scale pile load test will give the correct load displacement
characteristics of the soil but it is time consuming and
expensive
 Plate loading tests
Horizontal plate load tests can be carried out to determine the
load deflection characteristics and this can be extrapolated for
lateral direction
 Empirical correlations
Various empirical formulae proposed by researchers can be
used. This is possible only when other properties are known

Pile Foundations
TERZAGHI METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION
Terzaghi proposed the following relationship to extrapolate the

value of modulus of subgrade reaction from horizontal plate
load tests.
 1 
kh =  ( )
 ks1
 1.5D 
Where ks1 is the modulus from the horizontal plate load test
(1ft x 1ft size) and D is the diameter of pile in ft

Pile Foundations
EMPIRICAL FORMULAE
Following formulae can be used to estimate
 12 S  ES 
4
0 . 65 E D
kh =   Vesic (1961)
 D  E P I P  1 −  S 
2
 Cu 
kh = (80 to 320)  Skempton (1951)
D
 Cu  Davisson (1970)
kh = 67 
D
A Terzaghi (1951)
h = (Tons/ft 2 )
1.35
Pile Foundations
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (k1)
(OVER CONSOLIDATED CLAY)
Consistency Firm to Stiff Stiff to very stiff Hard
Undrained shear 50-100 100-200 >200
strength (cu)kN/m2
Range of k1MN/m3 15-30 30-60 >60
 K0
kh =
D
K0
 = 0.52 4 E p I p
12
B
k0 = 0.305k1 k0 = 1.67 E50
E50 – Secant modulus obtained from plate load test at 50% of the pressure.

Pile Foundations
Coefficient of subgrade modulus variation h (MN/m3)
Very
loose
loose Medium
dense
Dense Very Submerged
Dense
sand
45
Coefficient of subgrade modulus
40
35
variation h (MN/m3)
30
Reese et al
25
20
15
10 Terzaghi
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Relative density (%)
NPTEL course Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Indian Institute of Technology Madras-36 118
Pile Foundations
Coefficient of subgrade modulus variation (h)
Soft Organic silt : 150 kN/m3
Soft normally consolidated clay : 350-700 kN/m3

Pile Foundations
PILE FLEXIBILITY
Piles can be classified as Short or Rigid and Long or Slender
based on relative pile stiffness with the soil.
Constant kh (Hard clay) Linearly varying kh (Sand or soft clay)
z
 EpI p 
1
4 kh = h  
R =    D
 kh D   EpI p 
1
5
T =  
L < 2.0R Short or Rigid  h 
L > 3.5R Long or Slender L > 4.0T Long or Slender
L – Length of pile L < 2.0T rigid
EpIp – Pile Stiffness

Pile Foundations
PILE BENDING AND BUCKLING
A partly embedded pile may require
to carry axial and bending loads and
need to check against the buckling
using Euler buckling capacity as
stated below
 2EpI p
Pcr =
4(e + Z f )
2
For constant modulus (clayey soils)
Zf = 1.4R (if L/R > 4)
For varying modulus (Sandy soils)
Zf = 1.8T (if L/T > 4)

Pile Foundations
PILE DEFLECTION
Free headed pile
F (e + Z f )
3
Lateral
deflection y=
3E p I p
Fixed headed pile
F (e + Z )
3
Lateral
y=
f
deflection
12 E p I p
EpIp – Pile Stiffness

Pile Foundations
ESTIMATION OF SOIL MODULUS (Es)
Clay
Es = (300  100 )Cu Vesic (1961)
Sand
Es = 1.6 N MPa Kishida and Nakai
Where N is the SPT Value

Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
API RP 2A GUIDELINES

Pile Foundations
Lateral Bearing Capacity for Soft Clay
pu increases from 3Cu to 9Cu as X increases
from 0 to xR according to:
Cu X
pu = 3Cu +  ' X + J for X  X R
D
and
6D
pu = 9Cu for X  X R XR =
 'D
+J
Cu
where
pu = ultimate resistance, (kPa)
Cu = undrained shear strength for undistrubed clay
soil samples, (kPa)
D = pile diameter, (mm),
 ' = effective unit weight of soil, (MN/m3 )
J = dimensionless empirical constant with values ranging
from 0.25 to 0.5 having been determined by field testing.
A value of 0.5 is appropriate for Gulf of Mexico clays.
Pile Foundations
Load-deflection (p-y) curves for soft clay
Lateral soil resistance-deflection relationships for piles in soft
clay are generally non-linear. The p-y curves for the short-term
static load case may be generated from the following table.
Static Loading
Where
P = actual lateral resistance, (kPa)
Y = actual lateral deflection, (m),
Yc = 2.5 εc D, (m),
εc = strain which occurs at one half
the maximum stress on laboratory
unconsolidated undrained
compression tests of undisturbed
soil samples.

Pile Foundations
Cyclic Loading

Pile Foundations
P-Y Curve for Soft Clay

Pile Foundations
Lateral Bearing Capacity for sand
The ultimate lateral bearing capacity for sand has been found to vary
from a value at shallow depths. At a given depth the equation giving the
smallest value of pu should be used as the ultimate bearing capacity.
pus = (C1 H + C2 D) γ H
pud = C3 D γ H
Where,
pu=ultimate resistance (kN/m) smaller of Pus and Pud
(s= shallow, d= deep)
γ = effective soil unit weight, (kN/m3)
H = depth, (m).
ø´= angle of internal friction of sand, deg.,
C1,C2,C3= coefficients determined from Figures as
function of ø´.
D = average pile diameter from surface to depth, (m).

Pile Foundations
Load-Deflection (p-y) curves for Sand
The lateral soil resistance-deflection (p-y) relationships for sand are also
non-linear and in the absence of more definitive information may be
approximated at any specific depth H, by the following expression:
 kH 
P = Apu tanh  y
 APu 
A = factor to account for cyclic or static loading condition
A = 0.9 for cyclic loading
 H
A =  3.0-0.8   0.9for static loading
 D
p u = ultimate bearing capacity at depth H, (kN/m)
k = initial modulus of subgrade reaction, (kN/m3 )
y = lateral deflection, inches (m)
H = depth, (m)
Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
Coefficients C1, C2, C3 as Function of 
' ' 1-sin ( ' )
 = 45deg+ = Ka =
2 2 1 + sin ( ' )
tan (  ) tan ( )  tan ( ' ) sin (  ) 

2
C1 = + Ko  + tan (  ) ( tan ( ' ) sin (  ) − tan ( ) )

tan (  −  ' )  cos ( ) tan (  −  ' ) 
tan (  )
C2 = − Ka
tan (  −  ' )
( )
C3 = K a tan (  ) − 1 + K o tan ( ' ) ( tan (  ) )
8 4

Pile Foundations
Rate of increase of initial modulus of subgrade
reaction
 kh
MN/m3 (lb/in)3
25 5.4 (20)
30 11 (40)
35 22 (80)
40 45 (165)

Pile Foundations
P-Y Curve for Silicious Sand (API RP 2A, 2000)

Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
P-Y curve for stiff clay (Reese et al,1975)
(a) Static Loading (a) Cyclic Loading

Pile Foundations
(a) Static Loading

Pile Foundations
(a) Cyclic Loading

Pile Foundations
Where
As = coefficient to be read from chart for static loading = 0.6
Ac = coefficient to be read from chart for cyclic loading = 0.3
Cu = undrained shear strength (kPa)
D = pile diameter (m)
ks, kc = initial subgrade reaction constant for static and cyclic loading (MN/m3)
y50 = deflection at one-half the ultimate soil resistance (m)
X = depth below soil surface (m)
50 = strain at one –half the ultimate soil resistance (0.004 – 0.007)
 = effective soil unit weight (kN/m3)

Pile Foundations
Static and dynamic empirical

co-efficient for stiff clay
(Reese et al, 1975)

Pile Foundations
P-Y curve Comparison by Reese- 1975 and Soft clay - API RP 2A

Pile Foundations

Pile Foundations
P-Y Curve for Sand
Coefficients C1 = 3 C2 = 3.4 C3 = 54
MN kN
Rate of increase of modulus of kh = 40   = 12 
subgrade reaction and unit wt 3 3
m m
Depth at which P-Y is required H1 = 35 m H2 = 75 m
Ultim ate lateral resistance for depth H

1 ( ) (
pu1 = min C1 H1 + C2 D  H1  C3 D H1  D )
pu1 = 109693.8 kN
Ultim ate lateral resistance for depth H

2 ( ) (
pu2 = min C1 H2 + C2 D  H2  C3 D H2  D )
pu2 = 260233.4 kN
im
k = 1  350 P1k = 0 P2k = 0 i = k Yi =
100
  mkhH1 Yk     mkhH2 Yk  

P1k =  0.9 pu1tanh  P2k =  0.9 pu2tanh 
0.9 pu1 0.9 pu2
     
Pile Foundations
P-Y Curve
6
30010
6
24010
6
18010
P1k
kN
P2k
6
12010
6
6010
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Yk

Pile Foundations
Refer to the sketch with soil and pile
details, answer the following.
a) Calculate the axial capacity

b) Develop t-z, Q-z and p-y curve at
0m, 5m, 10m, 15m, 25m, 30m,
40m, and 50m.
c) Calculate the allowable lateral load
at the pile top if the lateral
deflection at the seabed is to be
limited to 50mm.

Pile Foundations
Pile Data
Pile Diameter and wall thickness D = 1320  mm TP = 25  mm

Annular end bearing area Aa =  D2 − ( D − 2  TP) 2 Aa = 0.102 m2
4


4
( 2)
 D 2
At = 1.368 m
Pile penetration Lp = 50  m
kN kN
Weight density of water  w = 10.25   steel = 78.5 
m3 m3

Pile Foundations
Layer 1 - Medium dense sand
Angle of internal friction 1 = 30  deg
kN
m3
Layer Depth h1 = 20  m
Skin friction factor 1 = 0.37
Limiting skin friction flim1 = 81  kPa
Effective overburden pressure po1 = 0.5  h1  (  1 −  w) po1 = 87.5  kPa
Unit skin friction for layer 3 f1 = min (  1 po1  flim1) f1 = 32.4  kPa
External skin friction in layer 1 Qfe1 =   D h1  f1 Qfe1 = 2685.1  kN
Internal skin friction in layer 1 Qfi1 = 0.8   ( D − 2  TP)  h1  f1 Qfi1 = 2066.7  kN
Layer 2 - Stiff Clay

Pile Foundations
Qfi1 = 2066.7  kN
Layer 2 - Stiff Clay
Undrained shear strength Cu2 = 100  kPa
kN
m3
Effective overburden pressure po2 = h1  (  1 −  w) + 0.5  h2  (  2 −  w)
po2 = 233.125  kPa
Cu2
2 =
po2 2 = 0.429
Adhesion 2 = ( − 0.5  1.0) if  2  1.0

min 0.5   2
min ( 0.5   2 − 0.25  1.0 ) if  2  1.0

factor
2 = 0.763
Unit skin friction for layer 2 f2 =  2  Cu2 f2 = 76.342  kPa
External skin friction in layer 2 Qfe2 =   D h2  f2

Qfe2 = 4748.8  kN
Internal skin friction in layer 2 Qfi2 = 0.8   ( D − 2  TP)  h2  f2
Qfi2 = 3655.1  kN

Pile Foundations
Layer 3 - Dense Sand
Angle of internal friction 3 = 38  deg Nq = 50
kN
Bulk density 3 = 19.5 
m3
Skin friction factor 3 = 0.56
Limiting skin friction flim3 = 115  kPa qlim = 12000  kPa
Effective overburden pressure po3 = h1  (  1 −  w) + h2  (  2 −  w) + 0.5  h3  (  3 −  w)
po3 = 360.625  kPa

Effective overburden pressure po3e = h1  (  1 −  w) + h2  (  2 −  w) + h3  (  3 −  w)
po3e = 430  kPa
Unit skin friction for layer 3 f3 = min (  3 po3  flim3) f3 = 115  kPa

Pile Foundations
Layer 3 Dense Sand – Contd..
External skin friction in layer 3 Qfe3 =   D h3  f3
Qfe3 = 7153.4  kN
Internal skin friction in layer 3 Qfi3 = 0.8   ( D − 2  TP)  h3  f3
Qfi3 = 5506  kN
Unit end q3 = Nq  po3e q3 = 2.15  10 4  kPa
bearing
Annular end bearing in layer 3 Qqa3 = Aa  min ( q3  qlim)
Qqa3 = 1.2  10 3  kN
Total end bearing in layer 3 Qqt3 = At min ( q3  qlim)
Qqt3 = 1.6  10 4  kN

Pile Foundations 4
Qqt3 = 1.6  10  kN
Ultimayte Capacity in compression Quu = Qfe1 + Qfi1 + Qfe2 + Qfi2 + Qfe3 + Qfi3 + Qqa3
(unplugged)
Quu = 27035.6  kN
Ultimate Capacity in compression Qup = Qfe1 + Qfe2 + Qfe3 + Qqt3 Qup = 31009  kN
(plugged)
Weight of soil plug inside the Wsp = At h1  (  1 −  w) + h2  (  2 −  w) + h3  (  3 −  w)
pile
Wsp = 588.4  kN
Weight of pile below seabed Wpile = Aa   steel ( h1 + h2 + h3) Wpile = 399.208  kN
Total internal friction Qfi = Qfi1 + Qfi2 + Qfi3 Qfi = 11227.8  kN
Ultimate Capacity in Qut = Qfe1 + Qfi1 + Qfe2 + Qfi2 + Qfe3 + Qfi3

tension
Qut = 25815.1  kN

Pile Foundations
Pile Lateral Capacity
MN
Variation of Subgrade Modulus  h = 11 
of reaction m3
Limiting lateral deflection at seabed Ybed = 50mm
Factor safety against lateral load FOS = 2
Length of cantilever from seabed Le = 5  m
Pile Classification
Modulus of Yield strength of steel Es = 2  10 5  MPa Fy = 345  MPa

Moment of inertia of pile Ip =  D4 − ( D − 2  TP) 4 Ip = 0.021 m4
64
5
Pile flexibility Es  Ip
Tf =
h Tf = 3.294  m
Depth of fixity Lf = 1.8  Tf
Total length Lt = Le + Lf Lt = 10.929 m
Lp
Limiting Lp/Rf ratio = 15.179
Tf

Pile Foundations
Lateral Capacity using P-Y Curve
The limiting deflection is given as 50mm at the seabed and Considering top 1m of soil as representing
the seabed approximately and hence
Representative Depth X = 0.5  m Ko = 0.4
1 1 1 − sin (  1)
 = 45  deg +  = Ka =
2 2 1 + sin (  1)
tan(  ) 2  tan(  )  tan(  1)  sin (  ) 

C1 = + Ko   + tan(  )  ( tan(  1)  sin (  ) − tan(  ) )
tan(  −  1)  cos (  )  tan(  −  1)  C1 = 1.912
tan(  )
C2 = − Ka
tan(  −  1) C2 = 2.667
( )
C3 = Ka  tan(  ) 8 − 1 + Ko  tan(  1)  ( tan(  ) ) 4 C3 = 28.745

Pile Foundations
kN
Ultimate lateral resistance of pus = ( C1  X + C2  D)   1  X pus = 42.5 
soil at seabed m
pud = C3  D  1  X pud = 360.5 

kN
m
kN
pu = min ( pus  pud) pu = 42.5 
m
Ac = 0.9
  h X 
Ultimate Lateral load limited Hu1 = Ac  pu tanh  Ybed   D Hu1 = 50.5  kN
by 5mm lateral displacement in  Ac  pu 
top 1m of soil from seabed
Hu1
Allowable lateral load Ha1 = Ha1 = 25.3  kN
FOS

Pile Foundations
Lateral Capacity by depth of fixity Method
Lp/T f is greater than 4 and hence the pile is considered to be long pile and hence the pile moment of
resistance may govern the lateral capacity
Ip
Moment of resistance of pile MR = Fy 2  MR = 11149.3  kN m
D
Ybed 3
Limiting Lateral Load Hu = Hu = 1.7  10  kN
Lt  Lf 2 Lf 3 
 − 
Es  Ip  2 3  Lt 
Moment applied on the pile Mu = Hu Lt Mu = 19009.4  kN m
Pile yield capacity is greater than the the moment due to ultimate lateral load applied on the pile limited
by 50mm lateral deflection at the seabed
Hu
Allowable lateral load Ha2 =
FOS Ha2 = 869.7  kN
Maximum Allowable Lateral Capacity
Maximum Allowable lateral load Hall = min ( Ha1  Ha2 ) Hall = 25.3  kN

Pile Foundations
PILE PENETRATION DESIGN QUIZ I - 2017
Pile Data
Pile Diameter and wall thickness D = 3000 mm TP = 50 mm
D − ( D − 2 TP) 
 2 2
Annular end bearing area Aa = Aa = 0.463 m
2
4


( 2)
 D At = 7.069 m
2
4
kN kN
Weight density of water w = 10.25   steel = 78.5 
3 3
m m
Mooring load PM = 800 Tonne  = 60 deg
Vertical component of mooring load Pv = PM sin(  ) Pv = 6796.6 kN
Horizontal component of mooring load Ph = PM cos (  ) Ph = 3924 kN

Pile Foundations
(a) Vertical Penetration Calculation
Undrained shear strength Cu = 80 kPa

kN
Bulk density  = 16 
3
m
Layer Depth d = 30 m
Effective overburden pressure po = 0.5 d (  −  w) po = 86.25 kPa
Cu
 =  = 0.928
po
Adhesion factor  = ( − 0.5  1.0 ) if   1.0

min 0.5 
min( 0.5   1.0 ) if   1.0

− 0.25
 = 0.519
Unit skin friction f =  Cu f = 41.5 kPa
External skin friction Qfe =  Dd f Qfe = 11743.2 kN
Internal skin friction Qfi = 0.8  ( D − 2 TP) d f Qfi = 9081.4 kN
Pile Foundations
Weight of soil plug inside the pile Wsp = At d (  −  w)
Wsp = 1219.3 kN
3
Weight of pile below seabed Wpile = Aa  steel( d) Wpile = 1.1  10 kN
Verify plugged condition Result1 = "Plugged"
Ultimate Capacity in tension Qut = Qfe + Qfi

(Unplugged)
Qut = 20824.6 kN
Ultimate Capacity in tension Qutp = Qfe Qutp = 11743.2 kN

(Plugged)
min( Qut  Qutp) + Wsp + Wpile
Factor of Safety FOS T = FOS T = 2.068
Pv
Pile Foundations
MN
Modulus of subgrade reaction kh = 0.5  kh = 500 
kN
3
m m
3
Modulus of eleasticity of pile 5 8 kN

Es = 2 10 MPa Es = 2  10 
2
m
D − ( D − 2 TP) 
 4 4
Moment of inertia of pile Ip = Ip = 0.504 m
4
64
4
Es Ip
Fixity Parameter Rf = Rf = 16.1 m
kh D
d=30m is less than 2Rf (32.2m) and hence the pile will be short.
d
Point of Rotation X = X = 21.213 m
2
Maximum load that can be applied PH = 9 Cu Dd ( 2 − 1) PH = 26841 kN
at the top
PH
Allowable lateral capacity FOS = FOS = 6.8
Ph
Pile Foundations

Module 2 - Pile Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 2 - Pile Foundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 2 - Pile Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some methods discussed for analyzing pile-soil interaction?

What are some methods discussed for analyzing pile-soil interaction?

What factors affect the axial capacity of a pile?

What factors affect the axial capacity of a pile?

Pile Foundations

NPTEL course 1 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 3 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 4 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Skirt Piles : The load from the jacket

In both cases, the soil below the

NPTEL course 6 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

The estimation overall axial capacity involves the following.

NPTEL course 7 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

UNPLUGGED CASE PLUGGED CASE

This will happen when the internal frictional resistance is greater

NPTEL course 9 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

and the total soil plug resistance (qplug) can be obtained as

Where po = surcharge from the unwedged soil plug

Q plug = Wwp +Wup + Di f i L wp

NPTEL course 11 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Q plug = Wwp +Wup + Di f i L wp

NPTEL course 12 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

For tension plugged Q tp = Q fo =f o A so

 =0.5 −0.25 for   1.0

Description Cu (kPa) SPT N

Very Soft Clay < 10 0-2

Soft Clay 10 to 96 2-10

Stiff Clay 96 to 150 20-25

Very Stiff Clay 150 to 250 25-50

Hard Clay 250 to 400 > 50

NPTEL course 15 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 16 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 17 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 19 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 21 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 22 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 23 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

NPTEL course 24 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Following methods are now recognized by

Method 1: Simplified ICP-05 method

ICP – Imperial College Pile

NPTEL course 25 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

In which  f ( z ) dz is the skin friction to be integrated from CPT

NPTEL course 26 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Di = pile inside diameter, Di = D - 2Tw

NPTEL course 27 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Tension 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0 0.016 4 Ar

Tension 0 0.3 0.5 1 0 0.022 2

NPTEL course 28 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Load Condition Tension Compression

NPTEL course 29 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

3/19/2021 30 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

3/19/2021 31 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Allowable Pile Capacity

Weight Soil Plug (Wplug)

NPTEL course 32 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Wpile – Weight of pile below mud-line

NPTEL course 33 Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Generation of Pile Capacity Curves

Following points to be noted while generating such curves for use in