Design of Piles

in Europe

How did Eurocode 7

change daily practice ?

International Symposium
28 and 29 April 2016
Leuven, Belgium

Volume II :
National Reports

Organised by :

Belgian Member Society

ETC3 - Piles of ISSMGE

Edited by :

M. De Vos, N. Huybrechts and M. Bottiau

 Design of Piles in Europe
How did Eurocode 7 change daily practice ?

International Symposium
28 and 29 April 2016
Leuven, Belgium

Volume II : National Reports

Edited by

Monika De Vos
Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI-CSTC-WTCB), Belgium

Noël Huybrechts
Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI-CSTC-WTCB), Belgium
KU Leuven, Belgium

Maurice Bottiau
Franki Foundations Belgium
Chairman ISSMGE-European Technical Committee 3 – Piles
 Organised by

Belgian Member Society

ETC3 - Piles of ISSMGE
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table of contents of VOLUME II

National reports on Design of Piles in Europe

Design of pile foundations according to Eurocode 7 -1 in Austria 1
R. Hofmann

Design of piles – Belgian practice 7

N. Huybrechts, M. De Vos, M. Bottiau, L. Maertens

Design of piles – Danish practice 45

O. Møller, J. Kærgaard Frederiksen, A. Hust Augustesen, N. Okkels, K. Kataoka Sørensen

Design of piles according to Eurocode 7 – Dutch practice 75

K. Reinders, A. van Seters, M. Korff

Pile foundations in Estonia 101

M. Mets, V. Leppik

Design of piles – Finnish practice 117

J. Kinnunen, T. Riihimäki, P. Tolla, V.-Matti Uotinen, T. Länsivaara

Design of piles – French Practice 139

S. Burlon, F. Szymkiewicz, A. Le Kouby, J.P.Volcke

Design of piles – German Practice 161

Chr. Moormann

Practical briefing for pile design and testing – Hungarian practice 199
R. Szepesházi & S. István, F. Scheuring

Pile Design Practice in Ireland 213

David J.P. Igoe

Design of piles: Italian practice 225

A. Mandolini

Report of Eurocode 7 application for pile foundation design in Poland 249

K. Gwizdała, A. Krasiński

Past and present pile design practice in R. Macedonia 271

J. Josifovski, B. Susinov

Design of piles – Russian practice 285

A.B. Ponomarev, M.A. Bezgodov, A.S. Grishina, A.V. Mashenko, S.A. Sazonova,
R.I. Shenkman, D.N. Sursanov, E.N. Sytchkina, D.A. Tatiannikov

Design of piles – Outline of the Spanish practice 309

C. Fernández Tadeo, J. Estaire

Design of piles – Swedish practice 317

G. Axelsson
 Design of pile foundations according to Eurocode 7 -1 in Austria
Robert Hofmann, Geotechnical Engineering Hofmann, Perchtoldsdorf, Austria, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The National Annex (NA) to EC 7-1, called ÖNORM B 1997-1-1:2013-09-01, gives guidance how to
apply EC 7-1 in Austria. For the design of pile foundations an additional standard ÖNORM B1997-1-3:
2015-08-01 is published. In this national standard Box-shaped foundations are also shown concerning
the design.

1. INTRODUCTION
A national standard ÖNORM B 1997-1-3 for the design of pile foundations, successfully applied for
bored piles is now being transferred to a Eurocode-compatible version. After a lot of calculations for
comparison it was decided to follow the “German way” and to adopt the design approach 2 (in short DA
2) of clause 2.4.7, EN 1997-1, for the design for pile foundations. For the design of pile foundations the
partial resistance factors γ and correlation factors ξ given in the tables of the Austrian National Annex
ÖNORM B1997-1-1.

γ b = 1,1, γ s = 1,1, γ t = 1,1, γ st = 1,15, γ M = 1,0 η P;c = 1,3, η P;t = 2,5

Differences to the values proposed in Annex A of EN 1997-1 exist in so far as the partial safety factors on
the effects of actions were split for three design situations (BS 1 to BS 3) and that the correlation factors
ξ 3 andξ 4 needed another definition related to the extent of soil investigation and soil testing according to
a national standard ÖNORM B 1997-2. The model factors (η P;c = 1,3, η P;t = 2,5) are only valid for the
determination of pile baring capacity of bored piles based on values of tables of the national standard
ÖNORM B 1997-1-3.

Table 1: Partial factors for actions or the effects of actions

Set
Action Symbol
DS 1 (BS 1) DS 2 (BS 2) DS 3 (BS 3)
unfavourable γG 1,35 1,20 1,00
Permanent favourable γG 1,00 1,00 1,00
unfavourable γQ 1,50 1,30 1,00
Variable favourable γQ 0 0 0

Table 2: Partial resistance factors (γ R )

Resistance Symbol Set (R2)
Base γb 1,1
Shaft (compression) γs 1,1
Total/combined (compression) γt 1,1
Shaft in tension γ st 1,15

2. DETERMINATION OF SINGLE PILE RESISTANCE DERIVED FROM

PILE LOAD TESTS
When determining pile resistance from pile load test results for a single project preferably from load
controlled pile tests axially loaded in compression and with separate measurement of base and skin
resistance ultimate values of pile resistance may be derived both for ultimate limit state design and for
serviceability limit state design and for any acceptable value of pile head displacement.

R c;k = min [ (R c,m ) mitt / ξ 1 , (R c,m ) min / ξ 2 ] (1)

R c;d = R c;k / γ t (2)

1
Table 3: Correlation factors ξ to derive characteristic values from static pile load tests (n-number of
tested piles)
ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 ≥5
ξ1 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00
ξ2 1,40 1,20 1,05 1,00 1,00

3. DETERMINATION OF PILE BARING CAPACITY OF BORED PILES

BASED ON VALUES OF TABLES
The tables below according to the standard for ÖNORM B 1997-1-3, Annex C contain characteristic
values of pile base and skin resistance for bored piles depending on the properties of coarse and fine
grained soils. Additionally a minimum embedded length in a “bearing stratum” of d to 3 d (d pile shaft
diameter) is required in this draft standard.
The values of pile base resistance given in these tables are very similar to those values given in the of EA-
Pfähle, however in this DIN standard depending on results qc of cone penetration tests for coarse grained
soils and on the undrained shear strength c u,k for fine grained soils.
The characteristic pile resistance according to base and skin resistance has to be calculated using formula
(7.9) and (7.10) of clause 7.6.2.3 of EN 1997-1. The design values of the pile resistance are the
characteristic values divided by the relevant partial safety factors. Generally values of base and skin
resistance may be summed up.

F c;d ≤ R c;d (3)

R b;k = A b x q b;k (4)

R s;k = ΣA s,i x q si;k (5)

R c;d = (R b;k / γ b + R s;k / γ s ) / η P;c = ((R b;k + R s;k )/γ t ) / η P;c (6)

R c;d = R c;k / (γ t x η P;c ) (7)

Table 4: Characteristic compressive skin resistance for bored piles q s; k (MN/m²) in coarse grained/non-
cohesive soils, depending on N30-values (SPT)
Coarse grained soils Mean values of skin resistance q s; k (MN/m²)
Relativ density N 30 -value (SPT) Permissible value 1) Ultimate value 2)
loose 4 0,030 0,045
medium dense ≥ 10 0,050 0,075
dense ≥ 30 0,070 0,105
very dense ≥ 50 0,120 0,180
1
) to be applied for serviceabilty limit state design (“SLS”), 2) to be applied for ultimate limit state design
(„ULS“),linear interpolation is permitted

Table 5: Characteristic compressive skin resistance for bored piles q s; k (MN/m²) in fine grained/cohesive
soils, depending on the consistency (Ic) or on the unconfined compressive strength qu (MN/m²)
Fine grained soils Mean values of skin resistance q s; k (MN/m²)
Consistency Unconf.compr.str.
(Index of cons. I c ) q u (MN/m²) Permissible value 6) Ultimate value 7)
1)
soft 0,03 0,010 0,015
stiff 2) 0,06 0,020 0,030
very stiff 3) 0,10 0,035 0,052
semi-solid 4) 0,15 0,050 0,075
hard 5) ≥ 0,20 0,070 0,105
1
) I c < 0,75, 2) I c > 0,75, 3) I c > 0,90, 4) I c > ca. 1,00, 5) I c > ca. 1,25
6
) to be applied for serviceability limit state design („SLS“)
7
) to be applied for ultimate limit state design („ULS“),linear interpolation is permitted

2
Table 6: Characteristic compressive base resistance for bored piles q b;k (MN/m²) in coarse grained/non-
cohesive soils, depending on N30-values (SPT)

Relative pile head Multi-graded sands and sandy gravels

Displacement s/D b Medium dense 1) Dense 2) Very dense 3)
0,005 0,30 0,40 0,50
0,01 0,55 0,80 1,00
0,02 1,05 1,40 1,75
0,03 1,35 1,80 2,25
0,05 1,90 2,50 2,95
0,075 2,50 3,10 3,55
0,10 (= s g ) 3,00 3,50 4,00
1
) N 30 -value ≥ 10, 2) N 30 -value ≥ 30, 3) N 30 -value ≥ 50; linear interpolation is permitted

Table 7: Characteristic compressive base resistance for bored piles q b;k (MN/m²) in fine grained/cohesive
soils, depending on the index of consistency Ic
Relative pile head Silts, clayly silt and clays
Displacement s/D b Stiff 1) Very stiff 2) Semi-solid 3) Hard 4)
0,005 0,10 0,15 0,25 0,3
0,01 0,15 0,30 0,45 0,6
0,02 0,35 0,60 0,90 1,2
0,03 0,45 0,80 1,15 1,5
0,05 0,60 1,10 1,60 2,1
0,075 0,70 1,40 2,00 2,6
0,10 (s = sg) 0,80 1,50 2,20 3,0
1
) Ic > 0,75, 2) Ic ≥ 0,90 , 3) Ic > 1,00, 4) Ic > 1,25 linear interpolation is permitted

The values of these tables shown above have to be applied on the basis of the national specifications
concerning EC 7-1 (ÖNORM EN 1997-1) and national supplements, given in the Austrian NA (ÖNORM
B1997-1-1) in its section 4.5 for pile foundations as follows:

• Design Approach 2 resp. 2* (clause 2.4.7.3.4.3 of EC 7-1) has to be applied with the
combination of partial factors A1 “+” M1 “+” R2.
• The partial factors specified for Austria, which are taken unchanged from the tables of Annex A
of EC 7-1 are given in the tables no. 1 and 2
• The partial factors for the effects of actions are subdivided according to the tradition in Austria
into three design situations (“Bemessungssituationen”) BS 1 (persistent), BS 2 (transient) and BS
3 (accidental) just like the way used by DIN in Germany.
• Table no. 2 contains partial factors on the pile resistance for all types of piles and is a summary
of the tables no. A.6 to A.8 of Annex A of EC 7-1 were all partial factors in column R2 are the
same, that is γ R = 1.10 for piles in compression and γ R = 1.15 for pile in tension.
• Table no. 3 is identical with table no. A.9 of Annex A of EC 7-1 with correlation factors for pile
resistance derived from the results of static pile load tests.
• However table no. A.10 of Annex A of EC 7-1 with correlation factors ξ 3 andξ 4 are not
applicable in Austria because of a lack of experience in cone penetration testing. Therefore it
was necessary of close the gap of safety by a model factor according to EC 7-1, which was
determined to η P;c = 1,3.

4. DESIGN EXAMPLE
Bored pile – single pile:

Determination based on values of tables

Embedded length of pile: 13 m
pile shaft diameter: 0.88 m

layer 1:
gravel, medium-graded, dense, length = 7.0 m

3
layer 2:
fine soil, very stiff, length = 6.0 m

F c;d ≤ R c;d
R b;k = A b x q b;k
R s;k = ΣA s,i x q si;k
Design approach DA 2:
γ G = 1,35, γ Q = 1,5,
γ b = 1,1, γ s = 1,1, γ t = 1,1, γ M = 1,0
A b = 0,88² x π x 0,25 = 0,608 m²
A s1 = 7 x 0,88 x π = 19,35 m²,
A s2 = 6 x 0,88 x π = 16,59 m²

Ultimate bearing capacity (ULS):

R c;d = R b;k / γ b + R s;k / γ s
η P;c = 1,3
layer 1:
q s1;k = 105 kN/m²
layer 2:
q s2;k = 52 kN/m²
q b;k = 1500 kN/m²

R c;k = R b;k + R s;k

R c;k = A b x q b;k + ΣA s,i x q si;k
R c;k = 0,608 x 1500 + 19,35 x 105 + 16,59 x 52
R c;k = 912 + 2032 + 863 = 3807 kN
R c;d = (R b;k / γ b + R s;k / γ s )/ η P;c = ( (R b;k + R s;k )/γ t ) / η P;c
R c;d = R c;k / (γ t x η P;c )
R c;d = 3807/(1,1x1,30) = 2662 kN

Serviceability limit state (SLS):

R c;d = A b x q b;d + ΣA s,i x q si;d
layer 1:
q s1;d = 70 kN/m²
layer 2:
q s2;d = 35 kN/m²
q b;d (s=1,0 cm, s/D = 0,011) = 300 + 30 = 330 kN/m²
R c;d = 0,608 x 330 + 19,35 x 70 + 16,59 x 35
R c;d = 201 + 1354 + 581
R c;d = 2136 kN

Results of the pile-loading tests

The results of the pile load tests (piles P1 to P5) are represented in Figure 1. The evaluations are carried
out under the assumption that a vertical pile head displacement s max = 1.0 cm is acceptable.

Interpretation of a pile-loading test (P3):

R c,u = 4100 kN
R c;k = min [ (R c,m ) mitt / ξ 1 , (R c,m ) min / ξ 2 ]
ξ 1 = 1,4, ξ 2 = 1,4
R c;k = min [ 4100/ 1,4 , 4100/ 1,4 ] = 2929 kN
R c;d = R b;k / γ b + R s;k / γ s
R c;d = R c;k / γ t
R c;d = 2929 / 1,1 = 2662 kN

4
Figure1 : Pile-loading tests P1-P5

Interpretation of the 5 pile-loading tests:

R c;k = min [ (R c,m ) mitt / ξ 1 , (R c,m ) min / ξ 2 ]
ξ 1 = 1,0, ξ 2 = 1,0
R c;k = min [ 4100/ 1,0 , 4100/ 1,0 ] = 4100 kN
R c;d = R b;k / γ b + R s;k / γ s
R c;d = R c;k / γ t
R c;d = 4100 / 1,1 = 3727 kN

REFERENCES

Brandl, H., Hofmann, R., (2002): Conventional and Box-Shaped Piled Rafts, Ninth International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Nice, June 2002; Deep Foundation Institute.

Fross, M., Hofmann, R. (2006): Design of pile foundations according to Eurocode 7 -1 in Austria based
on experience of National Standards. XIV European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. 2007 Madrid.

Fross, M., Hofmann, R., Adam, D. (2010): Pile foundations for river bridges according to EC 7- 1. XIVth
Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Engineering. From Research to Design in European
Practice, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, June 2 – 4, 2010.

5
6
 Design of piles – Belgian practice
Noël Huybrechts, BBRI & KU Leuven, [email protected]

Monika De Vos, BBRI, [email protected]

Maurice Bottiau, Chairman Belgian Member Society of ISSMGE, [email protected]

Luc Maertens, Chairman Belgian standardization committee EC7, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This national report gives an overview of the actual practice with regard to the design of piles in
Belgium. Some of the content has been taken over from the report that was published by Holeyman et al.
at the occasion of the 1st ETC3-symposium in 1997, but it contains a lot of new elements, as in the
meantime Eurocode 7 was introduced in Belgium. Above that, quite a lot of new instrumented pile load
tests have been carried out since 1997, adding supplementary and even new insights to the existing
experimental pile load testing database in Belgium. In 2009 a first edition of the Belgian guidelines
assessing pile design according to the principles of EC7, which had been elaborated under the auspices
of the Belgian standardization committee of EC7, was published by WTCB-CSTC (2009). Meanwhile the
content of this design guide has been revised and extended and the 2nd edition will be published in 2016
by WTCB-CSTC (2016). The design principles reported in this contribution are mainly based on the
content of this new revised version of the Belgian pile design guide.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Belgian territory is rather flat with a continuous transition from a plain at the North Sea and the
Dutch border to the highlands of the Ardennes, the highest point being situated at Botrange (694 m above
sea level). The geology of the Tertiary and Quaternary formations in Belgium is characterized by an
approximately SouthEast NorthWest oriented epirogenetic axis (Silence, 1992), which follows the valleys
of the rivers Haine, Sambre, Meuse and Vesdre (Figure 1) and which divides Belgium into approximately
two equal parts.
In the North part, the stratigraphy was governed by fluctuations in the coastal line. Consequently the
bedrock is covered by alternating Tertiary clay, sand and (occasionally) gravel sediments, with thickness
up to hundreds of meters. The Quaternary Pleistocene formations have been heavily influenced by the
glacial periods, giving rise to the formation of marine, coastal, river, lake or wind deposits of sand, clay,
peat and silt (loess). Holocene erosion and river sedimentation, as well as human activities, have further
influenced the actual subsurface. In the South of the epirogenetic axis, the bedrock is often found at
rather shallow depths, overlain by colluvium layers consisting of weathered rock and river sediments.
As a result of the geological history, one can find in the North a wide variety in stratigraphy, with
complicated and heterogeneous soil layer patterns. It is not therefore surprising that the North of Belgium
(like the Netherlands) has to face serious foundation problems, requiring particular foundations such as
piling or ground improvement. In accordance with those geological conditions, depths for deep
foundations generally range between 10 and 25 meters, and more typically between 13 and 18 meters.

7
Figure 1: Geological map of Belgium

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
The execution of soil investigation in Belgium has to be carried out according to the principles set out in
the NBN EN 1997-2 (EC7 part 2). The scope, the extent and the type of soil investigation program for a
given site depends of course on a large number of project and site dependent factors as well as the
requirements of the owner. In general three phases can be distinguished: the preliminary investigation
phase, the project-oriented soil investigations and the control-oriented soil investigations.
With regard to the preliminary investigations, public accessible libraries, publications or databases with
geological and geotechnical data can be consulted. Official sources of information that are noteworthy
are:
- the library of the Belgian Geological Survey which contains logs of borings (copies of bore logs
legally required from boring companies)
- the published Geotechnical Maps. The geotechnical maps currently cover parts of the most developed
areas of the country (Cities of Antwerp, Brussels, Charleroi, Ghent, Mons, and Liege)
- the geological maps covering the Belgian territory
- the historical Ferraris-maps (online available)
Since the last decade geological and geotechnical data can also be consulted online. Most important are
the “Databank Ondergrond Vlaanderen” and “Geopunt” (for the Flemish Region and Brussels) and the
“Portail environnement de Wallonie” (for the Walloon region).

Based on the wealth of information in the previous mentioned databases and the experience allowing for
correlations, the project-oriented soil investigations performed for piling projects mostly consist
exclusively in cone penetration tests (CPT) where feasible, i.e. where the CPT tests can be performed to a
depth allowing the piling project to be designed. This is particularly the case for the very heterogeneous
quaternary soil layers encountered in large areas in Belgium, where soil profiling is essential. For the
reasons explained in Section 1, Regional Geology, sites located in the northern part of Belgium, where
piles are often required, generally fulfil those conditions. Nuyens et al. (1995), give an overview of the
history, the equipment and use of CPT in Belgium.
Although the CPT with mechanical cones (M4 and M1) have a strong historical background in Belgium
and are still extensively used, the application of the CPT-E (with electrical cone) has increased
considerably in the last decade, probably because it is considered as the reference cone in the national
documents of Belgium (see §4), and because conversion factors between CPT-M and CPT-E have been

8
integrated in these same national documents (see table 1). These conversion factors are based on a
comparative analysis by Whenham et al. (2004).

Table 1: Reduction factor ω to be applied on the measured cone resistance q c from CPT performed with
a mechanical cone (M1, M2 or M4)

ω Tertiary clay Other soil types

M1 1.30 1.00
M2 1.30 1.00
M4 1.15 1.00

Investigations methods other than CPT testing are performed as a complement to CPT tests where
warranted or where CPT testing is deemed unfeasible. The major components of those alternative
investigation tests will still include in situ testing (mostly the pressure meter test), leaving a minor role to
laboratory testing. Information complementary to the normal CPT practice is warranted when
investigation is performed far away from prior developments or when settlements must be specifically
evaluated.
Requirements with regard to the set up and execution of a soil investigation program in Belgium (number
of CPT, the minimal depth of penetration, requirements for other in situ or laboratory soil investigation
tests, …) have been specified in recent publications of the Task Force 2- Soil Investigation of the BGGG-
GBMS (2012 and 2016). These documents are coherent with the NBN EN 1997-2 and the recent
execution standards for CPT-testing.
An important change with regard to the past is that the number of CPT on a given job site might influence
the design value of the calculated pile resistance. As further explained in §5 this is integrated in the design
methodology by means of the correlation factors ξ 3 and ξ 4 .

Finally, in some cases control investigations are performed after pile installation in order to evaluate the
installation effect of the pile on the ground resistance near the piles shaft and pile base. Mostly these
control investigations exist out of CPT executed at a limited distance from the pile shaft, sometimes
dilatometer tests are used for this purpose.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Table 2 provides the classification of the piling technologies in Belgium according to Belgian pile design
guide (WTCB-CSTC, 2009/2016). This classification has been formalized by the Belgian standardization
commission of EC7.
The evolution of the piling technologies used in Belgium has been originally mainly influenced by the
historical development of the Franki-type rammed driven pile with dry concrete. The original system has
evolved with the years while its Belgian and foreign competitors have developed alternative systems of
impact driven piles with a shaft concreted with plastic concrete and with or without enlarged base. These
systems are still widely used in Belgium, among the driven piles.
Cast-in-situ piles are the predominant type. Precast piles are used where the soil geotechnical conditions
are homogeneous enough and usually for limited bearing capacities or special applications. Since major
concerns started to arise more and more in the 1980’s with regard to the problems of noise and vibrations,
vibration-free systems were extensively developed. One of the particularities of Belgium is the
coexistence of different types of soil-displacement screwed piles which are well suited to our soil
conditions. Thanks to many scientific load testing programs that were performed since the 1990’s, the
confidence in this piles system increased, resulting in a significant market share in Belgium of about 30 to
40 % (Legrand & Poorteman, 2003).
Driven piles (Category I in the classification below, and Category II to some extent) and soil
displacement screw piles (Category I) are thus preferred in many cases, especially in weak subsurface
conditions where soil failure governs the design.
When a hard layer is encountered (intermediate or bearing layer), piles with partial or total soil excavation
(Category II and III) are generally preferred, especially when pile embedment into the hard layer is
required. However, the last decade soil displacement screw pile rigs integrating grout injection during
installation that can deal to a certain extent with hard intermediate or bearing layers were developed, and
are regularly used in these conditions as well.

9
Micropiles (Category IV) are applied in particular conditions, e.g. in zones that are not or in a difficult
way accessible for large pile rigs. They are typically applied for the underpinning of existing foundations,
as tension piles for basement slabs, for the extension of existing railway infrastructure,…
The other pile types that are listed in table 2 are used in a less regular way or for special purposes.
With regard to the most recent pile classification in Belgium (Table 2), it is important to remark that:
- in the category II a sub-category screw piles has been integrated, in order to deal with new non-proven
so-called “displacement” screw pile systems that appear on the Belgian market. As long as for such
new screw pile systems it has not been proved that they have soil displacement characteristics, they
have to be considered as piles of category II. One can only deviate from that if it has formally been
approved by the Belgian standardization committee of EC7.
- jet grout piles and soil mix piles are not covered by the classification in table 2, although they are
regularly used in practice to develop vertical bearing capacity, often in combination with a retaining
function. With regard to the vertical bearing capacity of soilmix-walls a methodology has been
proposed in the recent handbook soil mix walls published by SBRCURnet & BBRI (2016).

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
Historically, no Belgian standards were available to officially regulate the national piling practice. In the
absence of truly relevant national documents, several owners and engineers did develop in the past their
own specifications or recommendations (see Holeyman et al, 1997).
The situation changed with the publication of the Eurocode 7 as Belgian Standard in 2005, the NBN EN
1997-1: 2005, which created a formal framework in which a harmonised Belgian methodology could be
elaborated.
This process has taken several years and it was in 2009 that a first guideline for the application of the EC7
for the ultimate limit state design of axially loaded compression piles based on CPT was published by
WTCB-CSTC (2009). This pile design guideline is also referenced in the Belgian national annex of the
Eurocode 7 (NBN EN 1997-1 ANB: 2014) as the Belgian reference method.
For the moment the 2009 guideline has been revised and further elaborated. It covers a.o. also axially
loaded piles under tension, the effect of negative skin friction, etc. The content of this new guideline has
formally been approved by the Belgian standardization committee of EC7 and will be published by
WTCB-CSTC in 2016. In parallel the ANB will be adapted as well and the new version will probably be
available in 2017. The design methods reported in §5 are based on this revised pile design guide.
With regard to the execution of piles, the standards that have been elaborated by CEN TC288 are in
Belgium published as NBN EN 12699 (displacement piles), NBN EN 1536 (bored piles) and NBN EN
14199 (micropiles). In addition to these standards the establishment of a series of datasheets describing
the characteristics of different pile systems is initiated by the Belgian standardization commission of EC7
and WTCB-CSTC. The aim of these data sheets is to link the installation characteristics of a pile system
with the Belgian pile design guide described here before.
These data sheets give for example a detailed description of the installation characteristics of a pile
system, the (sub)category to which its belongs, its nominal dimensions that need to be used in the pile
design method as detailed further in §5, the minimal requirements with regard to the concrete quality, pile
reinforcement and quality control, etc. For the moment data sheets of 5 soil displacement screw piles have
been published by WTCB-CSTC (2014).

Table 2: Pile classification in Belgium according to WTCB-CSTC (2016)

CATEGORY I: PILES WITH HIGH SOIL DISPLACEMENT
DRIVEN & JACKED PILES
- Precast concrete piles without enlarged base
- Cast in situ piles, without enlarged bottom plate, shaft in plastic concrete
- Cast in situ piles, with enlarged bottom plate, shaft in plastic concrete
- Cast in situ piles with enlarged base formed in the ground , shaft in rammed semi-dry concrete
- Steel tube pile close-ended, without enlarged bottom plate
- Steel tube pile close-ended, with enlarged bottom plate
- Steel tube pile open-ended, situation with soil plugging

SCREW PILES CATEGORY I

- With temporary tube and shaft in plastic concrete
- With lost tube
- With lost or temporary tube and grout injection during installation

10
CATEGORY II: PILES WITH LOW SOIL DISPLACEMENT OR LOW SOIL RELAXATION
DRIVEN PILES
- Steel pile open ended, situation without soil plugging
- Steel profiles and sheet piles

SCREW PILES CATEGORY II

- With temporary tube and shaft in plastic concrete
- With lost or temporary tube and grout injection during installation

CFA PILES WITH PROVISIONS TO LIMIT SOIL RELAXATION

- With large diameter of the hollow stem and small flanges
- With concrete overpressure
- With temporary casing

CATEGORY III: PILES WITH SOIL EXCAVATION

CFA PILES WITHOUT PROVISIONS TO LIMIT SOIL RELAXATION

BORED PILES
- Executed with temporary casing
- Executed under thixotropic fluid
- Executed without casing or thixotropic fluid (dry boring)

CATEGORY IV: MICROPILES

- With grout placement under gravity (no pressure)
- With mono-phase or stepwise grout placement under a global pressure higher than gravity pressure
- With multi-phase selective and repetitive grout injection via TAM and double packer

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

5.1.1. Geotechnical Categories (GC)

Pile foundations are in general considered as constructions of Geotechnical Category 2 (GC2), which
means that pile design must be based on quantitative geotechnical data and calculations. As mentioned
before, Task Force 2 of the BGGG-GBMS (2016) specifies requirements with regard to the soil
investigation that has to be performed, and this in function of the GC and the type of construction.
It is also important to notice that the design guideline for pile foundations in Belgium (WTCB-CSTC,
2016) is valid for constructions belonging to GC2.
For constructions of Geotechnical Category 3, the pile design guideline can be used but supplementary
measures are necessary. Constructions of GC3 are for example constructions with abnormal risk or
unusual or extreme difficult soil conditions and loads, constructions in areas susceptible to earthquakes or
mass movements, …

5.1.2. Design approach (DA)

As specified in NBN EN 1997-1: ANB (2014), Design Approach 1 (DA1) must be applied in Belgium.
This means that basically two combinations of partial factors have to be verified (see further), named
DA1/1 and DA1/2.
For the design of axially loaded piles however, DA1/1 will in all cases be the determining combination.
Consequently, the geomechanical and structural pile capacity need only to be verified for the combination
DA1/1.

5.1.3. Methodology
In Belgium a semi-empirical design method to deduce the pile base resistance and the shaft friction from
CPT measurements is mostly applied. The influence of the pile type and the installation effects on the pile
bearing capacity is introduced in the design method by means of installation factors as explained further.
These installation factors have been derived from many scientific pile load tests in the past, allowing to

11
calibrate/fit the semi-empirical relations. To deduce the “real” pile resistance from static pile load tests
the conventional settlement criterion of 10 % D b is applied.
In order to deduce a design value of the pile resistance, model factors, correlation factors and safety
factors are introduced (see further).

5.2. Definitions and symbols

5.2.1. Definitions

General definition:
For the general definitions reference is made to NBN EN 1990 and NBN EN 1997 – 1.

Pile base level and pile base diameter:

The level of the pile base is defined as the lowest level where the pile base reaches its full section. This
principle is illustrated in figure 2.
The pile base diameter D b equals the maximum outer diameter of the pile base.

Paalpuntniveau

Db Db

Figure 2: Example of the definitions of the pile base level and the pile base diameter

For piles with an enlarged bottom plate, the strength and stiffness of this bottom plate needs to be
sufficient in order to resist the forces during the installation of the pile as well as the loads during the
design life of the pile.

Pile base section:

The pile base section A b is determined as follows:
- for a circular section: Ab =
π ⋅ Db2
4
- for a square or rectangular section: A b = a * b with a and b respectively the short side and the long
side of the rectangular section
- for an I-beam or sheet pile: A b = the steel section
- for an open-ended tubular pile, situation without plugging : A b = the steel section
π ⋅ Db2
- for an open-ended tubular pile, situation with plugging: A b =
4

Equivalent pile base diameter:

The equivalent pile base diameter D b,eq , which is needed to determine q b , e b and λ (see §5.3.2), is defined
as follows:
- for a circular section D b,eq = D b
- for a square or rectangular section: D = 4 ⋅ a ⋅ b if b ≤ 1.5 a
b,eq
π
6 ⋅ a2 if b > 1.5 a,
Db,eq =
π
with a and b respectively the short side and the long side of
the rectangular section

12
 2
- for an I-beam or sheet pile: Db,eq = 6 e , with e representing the thickness of the flanges
π

e
2
- for an open-ended tubular pile, situation without plugging: Db,eq = 6 e , with e representing the
π
thickness of the steel

- for an open-ended tubular pile, situation with plugging: D b,eq = D b

For other sections D b,eq needs to be determined based on the rules explained above and on “engineering
judgement”

Pile perimeter:
The perimeter of the pile χ s is determined as follows:

- for precast concrete piles: the perimeter of the nominal section of the pile shaft
- for driven cast in situ piles: the outer diameter of the temporary tube
- for steel profiles and sheet piles: the total perimeter of the steel section

pile shaft perimeter

- for an open-ended steel tube piles, situation without plugging: the sum of the inner and outer
perimeter of the tube
- for an open-ended steel tube piles, situation with plugging: the outer perimeter of the tube
- for close-ended steel tube piles: the outer perimeter of the tube
- for screw piles with temporary tube and shaft in plastic concrete: the maximum outer diameter of
the system that is withdrawn (temporary tube or displacement auger). The maximum width of the
screw flanges that may be taken into account equals 10 cm (e.g. 36/56)
- for screw piles with lost tube: the outer perimeter of the lost tube
- for screw piles with lost tube and with grout injection during installation: the perimeter is based on
the average of the diameter of the lost tube and the diameter of the pile base
- for screw piles with temporary tube and with grout injection during installation: the perimeter is
based on the average of the maximum outer diameter of the system that is withdrawn (temporary
tube or displacement auger) and the diameter of the pile base
- for CFA piles without casing: the maximum outer diameter of the auger
- for CFA piles with temporary casing or bored piles with temporary casing; the maximum outer
diameter of the temporary casing
- for bored piles without casing: the maximum outer diameter of the drilling tool

5.2.2. Symbols
With regard to general used symbols reference is also made to NBN EN 1990 and NBN EN 1997 – 1.

A b (m²) the pile base section

a (m) the short side of a rectangular pile base
b (m) the long side of a rectangular pile base
D b (m) the pile base diameter
D b,eq (m) the equivalent pile base diameter
D c (m) the diameter of the cone of a CPT
D s (m) the diameter of the pile shaft
e (m) the thickness of the flanges of steel profiles or the thickness of open-ended tubular piles
F (kN) Load

13
F c (kN) axial compression load
F d (kN) design value of an action
F k (kN) characteristic value of the load
F nk (kN) load due to negative skin friction
F rep (kN) representative value of the load
F t (kN) axial tension load
G (kN) permanent load
G d (kN) design value of the permanent load
G dst (kN) destabilizing permanent load
G stb (kN) stabilizing permanent load
h i (m) thickness of soil layer i
q b (kPa) unit pile base resistance
q c (MPa) cone resistance
q c,corr (MPa) corrected cone resistance in the case that excavations have been carried out after execution of
the CPT
q s (kPa) unit pile shaft friction
Q (kN) variable load
Q d (kN) design value of the variable load
Q dst (kN) destabilizing variable load
R (kN) pile resistance
R b (kN) pile base resistance
R c (kN) compressive resistance of the pile
R cal (kN) calibrated pile resistance
R d (kN) design value of the pile resistance
R i (kN) pile resistance calculated on base of CPT i, with i the identification of the CPT
R k (kN) characteristic value of the pile resistance
R m (kN) measured value of the pile resistance
R s (kN) shaft friction
R t (kN) resistance op a pile subjected to tension loads
V dst,d (kN) design value of the vertical destabilizing loads

α b (-) installation factor fort the pile base resistance

α s (-) installation factor for the shaft friction of a pile subjected to compressive loads
α t (-) installation factor for the shaft friction of a pile subjected to tension loads
b (−) shape factor for non-circular nor square-shaped pile bases
γ’ (kN/m³) effective volumetric weight of the soil
γ b (-) partial factor for the pile base resistance
γ F (-) partial factor for the loads
γ Gdst (-) partial factor for permanent destabilizing loads
γ Gstb (-) partial factor for permanent stabilizing loads
γ Qdst (-) partial factor for variable destabilizing loads
γ Rd (-) model factor
γ s (-) partial factor for the shaft friction of piles subjected to compressive loads
γ st (-) partial factor for the shaft friction of piles subjected to tension loads
e b (-) factor for the influence of the fissured state of a soil on the pile base resistance
η∗ p (-) factor giving the soil dependent ratio between the cone resistance q c and the unit shaft
friction q s (independent from the pile type)
ϕ’ (°) effective friction angle
λ (-) reduction factor for piles with an enlarged base
σ' v (kPa) effective vertical stress
ω (-) conversion factor to be applied on q c in the case of CPT with mechanical cone
ξ (-) correlation factor
χ s (m²) perimeter of the pile shaft

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
In Belgium, the ULS design is in most cases based on the cone resistance diagram measured with in situ
cone penetration tests. The design methodology to perform ULS design for axially loaded piles based on

14
CPT results is described in the Belgian pile design guide (WTCB-CSTC, 2009/2016), which is referenced
in the Belgian national annex of the EC 7 as the reference method. This methodology is summarized in
§5.3.2 and §5.3.3.
In some soil types however it is difficult to execute CPT (e.g. weak rock), and one have to apply
alternative in situ test methods like the pressure meter test (PMT). For the moment no methodology to
perform the ULS design on the base of PMT has been elaborated in Belgium, although some comparative
exercises have recently been published by Allani et al. (2015). As long as no Belgian methodology has
been integrated in the pile design guide, French reference documents are used for the moment. In practice
the former French guidelines of the DTU 13.2 or the Fascicule 62 are still applied, although they have
recently be replaced by an harmonised standard for the design of deep foundations, namely the NF P91-
262 (AFNOR, 2012).
With regard to micropiles, a design methodology is for the moment under discussion in the Belgian
standardization committee of EC7 and will probably be available by the end of 2016. In practice the same
French reference documents as mentioned before or the methodology of Bustamante et al. (1985) are still
regularly applied for the design of micropiles. Also the outcome of the anchor test campaign of BBRI
(2008) is applied regularly for the design of micropiles.

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

General
In order to prove that the pile foundation is capable to sustain the load with sufficient safety against
geomechanical failure, the following condition has to be fulfilled [NBN EN 1997-1 §7.6.2.1 (1)]. This is
the “GEO”-verification according to Eurocode 7

F c,d ≤ R c,d , (1)

with:

F c,d (kN): the design value of the axial compression load on the pile
R c,d (kN): the design value of the compressive resistance of the axially loaded pile

Design value of the load F c,d

As mentioned before, F c,d is obtained by multiplying the representative values of the loads F c,rep with the
partial load factor γ F :

F c,d = ∑ F c,rep,i * γ Fi . (2)

The partial load factors are determined in NBN EN 1990 ANB. The values for permanent and variable
design situations are given in table 3. For accidental design situations all load factors are set to 1.00.
The own weight of the pile is not taken into account, unless it has specifically been requested.

Table 3: Partial load factors γ F

Load γ F (DA1/1)

Unfavourable (1) 1.35

Permanent
Favourable (2) 1.00

Unfavourable (1) 1.50(3)

Variable Favourable (2) 0.00

(1)
Destabilizing.
(2)
Stabilizing.
(3)
For bridges an adapted value is valid according to Annex A2 of NBN EN 1990: for road traffic γ F =
1.35 and for railway traffic γ F = 1.45.

15
Design value of the pile resistance R c,d

Figure 3 gives a schematic overview of the different steps to calculate the design value of the compressive
resistance of the pile R c,d .

Figure 3: Schematic overview of the different steps to calculate the design value of the pile bearing
capacity

In step 1 the compressive resistance of the pile R c , existing out of the pile base resistance R b and the
shaft friction R s , is calculated starting from the results of each individual CPT that has been carried out on
the job site with the help of the semi-empirical methods, including the installation factors.

The pile base resistance R b is determined according to the formula:

Rb = αb . e b . b . λ . Ab . q b , (3)

with:

q b (kPa) the unit pile base resistance calculated with the De Beer Method out of the cone resistance (q c )
diagram of the CPT. In case that the CPT has been performed with a mechanical cone, q c needs
to be reduced with the values of table 1. When the soil is excavated after execution of the CPT,
the q c -values under the excavation level need in certain cases to be reduced (see WTCB-CSTC,
2016).
The pile base diameter that has to be introduced in the calculation model is D b,eq as defined in
§5.2.1.
The basic principles of the De Beer method are explained further.

α b (-) an empirical factor taking into account the installation method of the pile and the soil type.
These values are summarized in table 5.

16
e b (-) a parameter referring to the scale dependent soil shear strength characteristics (e.g. in the case
of stiff fissured clay):
  Db,eq   in tertiary OC-clay
e b = max1 − 0.01  − 1 ; 0.476 
  cD  
eb = 1 in all other soil types.
D b,eq represents the equivalent pile base diameter and D c the diameter of the CPT-cone (in
general D c = 0.0357 m for a standard cone).

b (-) a shape factor, introduced for non-circular nor square-shaped bases:

1 + 0.3 a / b for a rectangular pile base, with a and b the dimensions of respectively the short
b=
1.3
and the long side of the pile base
b = 0.77 for walls
b = 1 for circular or square shaped pile bases.

A b (m²) the section of the pile base as defined in §5.2.1.

λ (-) a reduction factor for enlarged pile bases that generate soil relaxation around the pile shaft
during installation of the pile. The value of λ is determined as follows:
- for piles with an enlarged base that has been formed at depth, not causing soil relaxation
around the pile shaft during installation: λ = 1.00
- for piles with a prefabricated enlarged base, with D b,eq < D s + 0.05 m: λ = 1.00
- for all other piles with a prefabricated base, the reduction can be deduced from figure 4.

Figure 4: Reduction factor λ for piles with enlarged pile base that generates soil relaxation during
installation

The De Beer method

One fundamental aspect of the Belgian pile design for axially loaded piles under compression is the
introduction of the so-called "scale effect" for the pile base resistance. The scale effect aims to take into
account that the base resistance of a pile is defined by the failure pattern, which extends over a certain
height below and above the pile toe, this height being related to the pile base diameter. In other words, the
approach aims at transforming the CPT diagram (generally obtained with a 3.6 cm diameter cone) into the
CPT diagram that would be obtained with a sounding rod having a diameter equal to that of the pile base.
While in foreign countries this scale effect is calculated by rather simple mathematical approaches
(smoothing and averaging the qc-values over a certain range such as in France and The Netherlands), a
more analytical method has been developed in Belgium in the 1970's by De Beer (1971) and then been
widely introduced in the Belgian design practice. The De Beer method is based on a thorough application
of the principles of the scale effect, when transitioning from a soft to a hard soil layer as shown in figure
5.

17
Figure 5: Scale effect principle

This application of the scale effect is done in 4 steps, designated by the terms (a) homogeneous values,
(b) descending or downward values, (c) upward values and (d) mixed or blended values. These final
mixed values q b are the basis values for the further base resistance calculation of the pile.
To demonstrate the procedure, step by step results of a De Beer calculation are given in figure 6 for a
simplified soil profile.

Figure 6: Step by step illustration of the De Beer procedure: (a) homogeneous values, (b) downward
values, (c) upward values and (d) blended values; for 0.6 and 1.0 m diameter base, respectively

A practical calculation example to illustrate the scale effect for different pile base diameters is given in
figure 7.

The method and later modifications of the De Beer method have also been reported in ECSMFE and
ICSMFE (BGGG-GBMS, 1985) proceedings by De Beer and Van Impe among others.
In the Belgian design pile guide the original De Beer method has been retained.

18
 qc en qb-De Beer [MPa]
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0

8
Db 0.2m
Diepte [m]

Db 0.4m
Db 1.0 m
10

12

14

16

Diepte 9.6m
18 Db= 0.2m -> qb = 16.7 MPa
Db= 0.4m -> qb = 14.9 MPa
qc
Db= 1.0m -> qb = 11.0 MPa
qb - De Beer
20

Figure 7: Example of the De Beer method to determine q b for pile diameters 0.2 m; 0.4 m and 1.0 m

The shaft resistance R s is determined according to the following formula:

R s = χ s . Σ (α s,i . h i . q s,i ), (4)

With:

q s,i (kPa): the unit shaft friction: q s ,i = 1000 ⋅ η *p ,i ⋅ qc ,m ,i

ηp* ,i (-): an empirical factor, giving the ratio between the unit shaft friction q s,i and the cone
resistance q c for a given soil type. These values are summarized in table 4.
q c,m,i (MPa): the average cone resistance (q c ) for layer i.
In the case that the CPT has been performed with a mechanical cone, q c needs to be
reduced with the values of table 1.
Only relevant layers (in general with q c > 1 MPa) may be considered.

χ s (m): the perimeter of the pile shaft as defined in §5.2.1.

α s,i (-): an empirical factor for layer i, taking into account the installation method of the pile and the
roughness of the pile shaft in a given soil type. These values are summarized in table 5.
For piles that are subjected to an alternating load (which means that in SLS the pile is also
subjected to a tension load), the effect of the factors affecting the shaft resistance (number
of cycles, amplitude,...) need to be verified. If lack of data or proof of this effect, the values
of α s,i in table 5 need to be reduced with a factor 1.33.

19
h i (m): the thickness of layer i.

Table 4: Values of the empirical facto η* P and q s

Soil type q c (MPa) η* p (-) or q s (kPa) R f (%) (*)

Clay 1 – 4.5 η* p = 1/30 3–6 %

> 4.5 q s = 150
Loam (silt) 1-6 η* p = 1/60 2–3 %
>6 q s = 100
Sandy clay / loam (silt) 1 – 10 η* p = 1/80 1-2 %
Clayey sand / loam (silt) > 10 q s = 125
Sand 1 – 10 η* p = 1/90 <1%
10 – 20 q s = 110 + 4 * (q c – 10)
> 20 q s = 150
(*)
determined by means of CPT-E.

In this way a calculated value of the total pile bearing capacity R c = R b + R s is obtained for each
individual CPT.

Table 5: Values of the empirical factors α b and α s

Base α b Shaft α s (g)
Pile type Tertiary Other soil Tertiary Other soil
Clay types Clay types
CATEGORY(a) I:
PILES WITH HIGH SOIL DISPLACEMENT
DRIVEN & JACKED PILES
Precast concrete piles without enlarged base 1 1 0.9 1
Cast in situ piles, without enlarged bottom plate(b), 1 1 0.9 1
shaft in plastic concrete
Cast in situ piles, with enlarged bottom plate(b), shaft 1 1 - (e) - (e)
in plastic concrete
Cast in situ piles with enlarged base formed in the 1 1 1.15 1.15
ground , shaft in rammed semi-dry concrete
Steel tube pile close-ended, without enlarged bottom 1 1 0.6 0.6
plate(b)
Steel tube pile close-ended, with enlarged bottom 1 1 - (e) - (e)
(b)
plate
Steel tube pile open-ended, situation with soil 1 1 0.6 0.6
plugging(c)
SCREW PILES CATEGORY I(d)
With temporary tube and shaft in plastic concrete(i) 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0
With lost tube 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6
With lost or temporary tube and grout injection 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0
during installation(i)
CATEGORY(a) II:
PILES WITH LOW SOIL DISPLACEMENT OR LOW SOIL RELAXATION
DRIVEN PILES
Steel pile open ended, situation without soil 1 1 0.6 0.6
plugging(c)
Steel profiles and sheet piles 1 1 0.6 0.6
SCREW PILES CATEGORY II(d)
With temporary tube and shaft in plastic concrete(i) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6
With lost or temporary tube and grout injection 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6
during installation(i)
CFA PILES WITH PROVISIONS TO LIMIT SOIL RELAXATION
With large diameter of the hollow stem and small 0.8 0.5/0.6(j) 0.6 0.6/0.7(j)

20
 Base α b Shaft α s (g)
Pile type Tertiary Other soil Tertiary Other soil
Clay types Clay types
flanges(h)
With concrete overpressure 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6
With temporary casing 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5
CATEGORY(a) III:
PILES WITH SOIL EXCAVATION
CFA PILES WITHOUT PROVISIONS TO LIMIT SOIL RELAXATION
0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4
BORED PILES
Executed with temporary casing 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5
Executed under thixotropic fluid 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5
Executed without casing or thixotropic fluid (dry 0.8 -(f) 0.5 -(f)
boring)
CATEGORY IV:
MICROPILES
With grout placement under gravity (no pressure) -(k) -(k) -(k) -(k)
(k) (k)
With mono-phase or stepwise grout placement under - - -(k) -(k)
a global pressure higher than gravity pressure
With multi-phase selective and repetitive grout -(k) -(k) -(k) -(k)
injection via TAM and double packer
(a)
The pile category is related to the effect of the pile installation method on the surrounding soil
(displacement, relaxation,…)– not to be confounded with the geotechnical category (GC) of a construction.
(b)
With regard to the effect on the shaft friction (reduced α s factors) the pile base is considered as”enlarged”
if it concerns a prefabricated enlarged base with D b,eq > D s + 0.05 m. The influence on the pile base
resistance is assessed by the reduction factor λ.
(c)
For open-ended tubular steel piles plugging at the lower end of the tube might occur during installation.
For the design two situations have to be considered:
- situation without plugging: shaft friction on the inner and outer side of the tube, pile base resistance
only over the steel section of the base
- situation with plugging: shaft friction only on the outer side of the tube, pile base resistance over the
complete section of the pile base.
The minimum value of both needs to be retained for the design.
(d)
Only for screw piles with flanges of maximum 0.10 m (e.g. 36/56)
(e)
The shaft friction may not be taken into account, unless it is demonstrated by means of SLT on the job site.
(f)
The pile base resistance and the shaft friction have to be determined by means of instrumented SLT on the
job site
(g)
Reduction in case of alternating load.
(h)
The diameter of the central stem is at least 50 % from the pile base diameter
(i)
to be formally decided by the Belgian standardization committee of EC7 if the pile system belongs to
category I or II
(j)
maximum value only for pile systems that have formally been approved by the Belgian standardization
committee of EC7
(k)
under discussion

The empirical factors in table 5 have been deduced by fitting the results of scientific static pile load test to
the semi-empirical calculation models explained above. As for some pile types no scientific load test are
available, their installation factors have been assessed based on engineering judgement
In particular circumstances (specific soil type, new or adapted pile type or installation method,…) or in
the case of important constructions, specific installation factors can be deduced by means of instrumented
static pile load tests. Guidelines to deal with such an approach are given in the Belgian pile design guide.
This guide provides also a procedure for pile systems that wish to obtain other installation factors as those
published in table 5.

In a second step the calculated values of the compressive resistance of the pile are divided with the model
factor γ Rd [NBN EN 1997-1 §2.4.1 (6), §2.4.1 (8), §2.4.7.1 (6), §7.6.2.3 (2)]. In this way a calibrated
value of the pile resistance R c,cal is obtained for each individual CPT:

R c,cal = R c / γ Rd , (5)

21
with:

R c,cal (kN): the calibrated bearing capacity of the pile

γ Rd (-): the model factor (γ Rd1 , γ Rd2 or γ Rd3 – see table 6).

The values of the model factors are based on statistical analysis, and aim to obtain in 95 % of the cases a
calculated value of the bearing capacity that is higher than the “real” (or measured) bearing capacity.
The values of the model factors have been determined per group of pile types and are summarized in table
6. For screw piles and CFA piles, γ Rd depends on the fact if a pile system has (not) been subjected to
static pile load testing in comparable geotechnical site conditions or on the job site itself. The reduced
model factors (γ Rd1 or γ Rd2 ), may only be applied if the static pile load tests satisfy the requirements of the
pile design guide WTCB-CSTC (2009-2016) and have formally been approved by the Belgian
standardization committee of EC7.

Table 6: Values of the model factor γ Rd

Group of pile types Without SLT: With SLT: With SLT on the job site:
γ Rd1 (-) γ Rd2 (-) γ Rd3 (-)

Driven and jacked piles 1.00 1.00 1.00

Screw piles 1.30 1.10 1.00
CFA-piles 1.35 1.20 1.10
Bored piles 1.20 1.20 1.10

In step 3, one characteristic value of the pile resistance R c,k is deduced by applying the correlation factors
ξ 3 and ξ 4 on the average and the minimum value of the calibrated pile resistances respectively, and by
retaining the smallest value of both:

�𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �

𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � ; � (6)
𝜉𝜉3 𝜉𝜉4

The correlation factors are applied in order to take the variation on the soil characteristics and the
uncertainty on this variation into account. As this uncertainty depends on the amount of soil investigation,
ξ 3 and ξ 4 depend on the CPT density on the job site, as illustrated in table 7 and table 8.
For pile foundations existing out of more than 3 piles the reduced ξ 3 and ξ 4 values of table 7 and 8 may
only be applied for structures with sufficient stiffness and strength that allows for a redistribution of the
load on a weak pile to the neighbouring piles. According to the Belgian pile design guide, a structure can
be considered as stiff, if the removal of one pile leads to a calculated settlement of not more than 5 mm.

Table 7: Values of the correlation factor ξ 3

CPT DENSITY
NUMBER 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT
of PILES 10 m² 50 m² 100 m² 300 m² 1000 m²
1-3 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.40
4-10 1.15 1.19 1.21 1.25 1.29
> 10 1.14 1.17 1.20 1.24 1.27

Table 8: Values of the correlation factor ξ4

CPT DENSITY
NUMBER 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT 1 CPT
of PILES 10 m² 50 m² 100 m² 300 m² 1000 m²
1-3 1.08 1.17 1.23 1.31 1.40
4-10 1.00 1.07 1.13 1.21 1.29
> 10 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.20 1.27

22
In step 4, the design value of the pile resistance Rc,d is finally obtained by applying the partial safety
factors γb ad γs from table 9 on the characteristic pile base and shaft resistances:

Rc,d = Rb,k / γb + Rs,k / γs. (7)

The values of the partial factors depend on the guarantee that can be given on the quality of the pile
installation. For the moment, the reduced factors can be applied when the piling contractor proves that the
pile installation takes place according to a well-established quality plan, often inspired on common
quality standards as e.g. ISO 9001. In the future it is however the aim of the Belgian standardization
committee of EC7 to set-up an independent process certification system for pile systems that will be
mandatory for allowing to apply the reduced partial safety factors.

Table 9: Values of the partial safety factors γb and γs

DA1/1
Group of pile types Without quality assurance With quality assurance
γb γs γb γs
Driven and jacked piles 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Screw piles 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFA-piles 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bored piles 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

General

A pile can be subjected to a tension load due to external actions (e.g. wind, eccentric loading, pylons,…)
and/or ground-water pressure acting on the structure. In that case two failure mechanisms or situations, a
GEO and an UPL situation, need to be assessed (see §7.6.3.1 (3) of NBN EN 1997-1).

In a first situation the pile itself is pulled out of the ground, which requires a verification of the friction
resistance along the shaft-soil interface. According to Eurocode 7 this is a GEO-verification and the
following condition (8) needs to be satisfied [NBN EN 1997-1 §7.6.3.1 (2)]:
Ft,d ≤ Rt,d, (8)

with:

Ft,d (kN): the design value of axial tension load on the pile
Rt,d (kN): the design value of the resistance of the pile subjected to a tension load (=shaft friction
under tension load)

A second situation that can occur is that the pile and a certain volume of soil sticking to the pile are pulled
out of the ground. This is an uplift (UPL) situation according to Eurocode 7, and the following inequality
(9) needs to be verified [NBN EN 1997-1 §2.4.7.4 (1)]:
Vdst,d ≤ Gstb,d + Rd, (9)

with:

Vdst,d (kN): the design value of the vertical unfavourable (destabilizing) load
Gstb,d (kN): the design value of the permanent favourable vertical load
Rd (kN): the design value of the resistance against uplift

Axial tension load

The axial tension load on a pile can result from external actions and/or ground-water pressure acting on
the structure.
Pile loads resulting from ground-water pressures are to be considered as permanent loads. Guidelines for
the determination of the ground-water level that can be taken into account to deduce upward pressures are
summarized in table 10.

23
Permanent favourable (stabilizing) loads result from the weight of the structure and, possibly from the
effective weight of the soil (e.g. on a tunnel or a reservoir). The latter may only be considered if no
excavation will be carried out during the design life time.
The own weight of the pile may be taken into account as permanent favourable (stabilizing) load at the
condition that it is mentioned explicitly in the design report.

Table 10: Values of the ground-water level Zw to be taken into account to assess the upward ground-
water pressure
Type of ground-water Available measurements of the
Zw (m) (c)
layer ground-water level (a)
Free – no ground-water no Ground surface
lowering 1 measurement Zw,m + 1.50 m
Measurement period(b) ≥ 6 months Zw,m,max + 1.00 m
Measurement period (b) ≥ 1 year Zw,m,max + 0.50 m
Artesian – no ground- Out of hydrogeological study
water lowering
With ground-water Out of the ground-water
lowering lowering design/study
(a)
Measurements executed by means of a piezometric device installed on the job site.
(b)
Minimum 1 measurement a month.
(c)
Zw is the ground-water level that needs to be taken into account; Zw,m is the measured ground-
water level; Zw,m,max is the highest measured ground-water level

Shaft resistance – GEO verification

As explained before the inequality (8) Ft,d ≤ Rt,d, need to be verified. The calculation method to determine
the pile resistance (shaft friction) under tension load Rt,d is quite similar to the one for axially loaded piles
under compression. The steps are summarized here below.

Step 1: determination of the pile resistance Rt under tension load according to the following equation:

Rt = χs . Σ (αt,i . hi . qs,i), (10)

With:

qs,i, χs and hi: see §5.3.2.

αt,i (-): an empirical factor for layer i, taking into account the installation method of the pile and the
roughness of the pile shaft in a given soil type. These values are summarized in table 11. For
piles that are subjected to an alternating load (which means that in SLS the pile is also subjected
to a compression load), the effect of the factors affecting the shaft resistance (number of cycles,
amplitude,...) need to be verified. If lack of data or proof of this effect, the values of αt,i need to
be reduced with a factor 1.33.

Table 11: Values of αt

Load αt
Only tension load αs ÷ 1.25
Alternating load αs ÷ (1.25 * 1.33)
= αs ÷ 1.66

Step 2: determination of a calibrated pile resistance under tension load Rt,cal by introducing a model factor
γRd [NBN EN 1997-1 §2.4.1 (6), §2.4.1 (8), §2.4.7.1 (6), §7.6.2.3 (2)]:

Rt,cal = Rt / γRd, (11)

with

Rt,cal (kN): calibrated pile resistance under tension load

γRd (-): the model factor (γRd1, γRd2 of γRd3).

24
The values of the model factor are given in table 6.

Step 3: determination of the characteristic value of the pile resistance by applying the correlation factors
ξ3 and ξ4 on the average and the minimum value of the calibrated pile resistances respectively, and by
retaining the smallest value of both:

 (Rt , cal )average (Rt , cal )min  (12)

Rt , k = min  ; 
 ξ3 ξ4 

ξ3 and ξ4 are given in table 7 and table 8.

Step 4: determination of the design value of the pile resistance under tension Rt;d by introducing the
partial factor γs,t. In Belgium, γs,t = γs (see table 9).

The design value of the axial tension load acting on the pile Ft,d (kN) is obtained by multiplying the
representative value of the load with the partial factor γF from table 3:
Ft,d = Ft,rep * γF, (13)

Uplift (UPL) verification for a single pile

The UPL verification implies that the inequality (9) Vdst,d ≤ Gstb,d + Rd is satisfied.
The weight of the soil volume sticking to the pile is considered as a resistance against uplift. The friction
along the surface of the soil volume is generally not taken into account. The shape of the volume of soil
that is considered in this verification can be deduced from figure 8. The value of the angle α is given in
table 12.
In order to calculate the weight of this soil volume, the volumetric weight of the soil according to table
2.1 of the Belgian National Annex of NBN EN 1997-1 is used.

Table 12: Value of the angle α ((a) for the category of piles: see table 5)
qc Piles(a) α (°)
< 1 MPa Cat. I, II, III 0
≥ 1 MPa Cat. I 2/3 ϕ’
Cat. II, III 1/2 ϕ’

qc < 1 Mpa V V

qc ≥ 1 Mpa

α α

single pile
single pile in a pile group
Figure 8: Shape of the volume of soil sticking to the pile in an uplift verification

25
 Other uplift failure mechanisms than the one represented in figure 8 are possible as well, e.g. in the case
of piles with an enlarged base, which will rather behave as a plate anchor (Holeyman et al., 1997).

The design values of the axial loads are determined by multiplying the representative values of the load
with the partial load factors for the UPL-verification [NBN EN 1997-1 ANB A.4].

By neglecting the shear resistance along the surface of the soil volume and by introducing a model factor
γRd on the weight of the soil volume, inequality (9) becomes:

Gdst * γGdst + Qdst * γQdst - Gstb,d * γGstb ≤ γ’kluit * Vkluit / γRd (14)

The partial load factors that need to be applied for the UPL-verification are given in table 13.

Table 13: Partial load factors for the UPL-verification

Load Symbol Factor

Permanent Unfavourable (1) γGdst 1.0

Favourable (2) γGstb 0.9

Variable Unfavourable (1) γQdst 1.1 (3)

(1) Destabilizing.
(2) Stabilizing.
(3) This value deviates from the informative value in table A.15 of the standard NBN EN 1997-1 [1].

In the UPL-verification a model factor γRd that equals 1,40 is introduced in Belgium. This model factor
accounts for the uncertainty on the shape of the soil volume and the fact that the volumetric weight of the
soil from table 2.1 the ANB of NBN EN 1997-1 is a high characteristic value.

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

Until now, no guidelines have been elaborated for the design of laterally loaded piles in Belgium. For
such cases, the design is mostly applied with the help of design methods available in the international
literature, e.g. the methods published and referenced in Tomlinson (2008) and Reese & Van Impe (2001),
or design methods available in foreign standards, such as the French standard (NF P94-262) or the former
Dutch standard NEN 6724.
Some numerical programs for retaining structures that simulate the soil as elasto-plastic springs (Winkler
model) allow also for the design of laterally loaded piles (e.g. D-sheet) and are regularly applied as well
in practice.
For important foundation structures that are subjected to important lateral loading, preliminary lateral
load tests are sometimes carried out, as illustrated recently by Verstraelen et al. (2015).

5.3.5. Specific issues

Negative skin friction (downdrag)

The Belgian pile design guide contains a procedure to deal with negative skin friction. The methodology
exists in quantifying the settlement of the soil around the pile due to the effect a surcharge, ground-water
lowering, etc. The settlement of the soil (and the ground surface) around the pile is determined with
characteristic values of the soil parameters (C, A, volumetric weight,…) and representative values of the
load. Depending on the calculated settlement of the ground surface, (part of) the effect of negative skin is
introduced as a supplementary load in the pile design:
- when the settlement of the soil surface is higher than 10 cm or in the case that no settlements are
calculated, the calculated negative skin friction is to be considered as supplementary load acting on
the pile
- when the settlement of the soil surface is between 4 and 10 cm, only half of the calculated negative
skin friction is to be considered as supplementary load acting on the pile
- when the settlement of the soil surface amounts between 2 and 4 cm, negative skin friction does not
need to be taken into account, but no positive shaft friction may be taken into account for the
concerned soil layer

26
- when the settlement of the soil surface is lower than 2 cm, negative skin friction does not need to be
taken into account and the designer may decide if positive shaft friction is taken into account or not in
the pile design.

settlement force in the pile

increase of the force due

to negative skin friction
compressible
neutral point
soil layer

soil

decrease of the force

due to positive friction
pile

pile base
level

depth depth

Figure 9: Negative skin friction over the zone along the pile shaft where a relative downward movement
of the soil with regard to the pile occurs

The negative skin friction can be calculated with the slip method or with a method analogue to the
method to determine the shaft resistance (or the positive skin friction) of a pile.
With the slip method, the representative value of the pile load due to negative skin friction is summated
over the layers for which a relative downward movement of the soil with regard to the pile (see figure 9)
occurs:

Fnk, rep = χs . Σ (hi . Ko,i . tan δi . σ’v,i ) (15)

With:

Fnk, rep (kN): the representative value of the pile load due to negative skin friction
χs (m): the perimeter of the pile as defined in§5.2.1
hi (m): the thickness of layer i
Ko,i (-) = 1 – sin ϕ’i
δi (°) = ϕ’i for cast in situ concrete piles
δi (°) = 0.75 ϕ’i for precast concrete piles and steel piles
but Ko,i . tan δi equals minimum 0.25
σ’v,i (kPa) = the average effective vertical stress in layer i
For all these parameters characteristic values are introduced in the formula

With the method analogue to the method to calculate the positive skin friction, Fnk,rep can be evaluated as
follows:

Fnk, rep = χs . Σ (αs,i . hi . qs,i) (16)

with
χs (m): the perimeter of the pile as defined in§5.2.1
hi (m): the thickness of layer i
αs,i (-): an empirical installation factor for layer i as defined in §4.3.3
qs,i (kPa): the unit shaft friction as defined in §4.3.3

27
The negative skin friction can also be calculated with the method of Zeevaert -De Beer, published by De
Beer (1966), De Beer et al. (1968) and Zeevaert (1969). This method includes the reduction of the
negative skin friction by the interaction between pile and soil, as well as simplified rules to define the
neutral point.

Finally, the design value of the negative skin friction is obtained by applying a partial factor of 1.0 to
Fnk,rep. In the pile design, the negative skin friction does not need to be combined with transient loads.
When the pile is subjected to transient loads, only the most disadvantageous of the following
combinations needs to be assessed:
Permanent loads + variable loads (long term) + negative skin friction
Permanent loads+ variable loads (long term) + transient loads

Group effect
Until now, no guidelines have been elaborated to take the group effect into account in the ULS design of
piles in Belgium. In practice it is in general assumed that for pile inter-distances higher than three times
the pile diameter, the effect on the ULS design of the pile foundation can be neglected.
When beneath the base level of the pile foundations compressible layers occur in the zone of influence,
the settlement of the pile group is commonly assessed (see §5.4).

Cyclic loading
Until now, no guidelines have been elaborated to take the effect of cyclic loading into account in the ULS
design of piles in Belgium. In the case that cyclic loading becomes of importance, the methods that need
to be adopted are often specified by the client. Otherwise, methods available in the literature are applied.
In the case that piles are subjected to alternating loads, which means that in the SLS verification the pile
is subjected to tension loads and compression loads, the Belgian pile design guide introduces for the ULS
verification of axially loaded piles, as highlighted in §5.3.2 and §5.3.3, a reduction factor of 1.33 on the
installation factor for the shaft friction in compression αs and in tension αs,t. One can only deviate from
this reduction factor in the case that the effect of the factors affecting the shaft resistance (number of
cycles, amplitude,...) is verified with proven methods.

Seismic design
Seismic design of foundations in Belgium is assessed by the Eurocode 8, in particular by NBN EN 1998-
1 and NBN EN 1998-5 and its national annexes. Figure 10 illustrates the seismic zones and the
corresponding reference peak ground acceleration agR that have been defined in Belgium. The
combination of agR, the importance class of the construction and the ground type (stratigraphic profile)
determines the seismic risk. For common buildings with no particular risk for public safety, the seismic
risk will be very low (no specific measures) to low (simplified measures) in a large part of Belgium. In
zones with a higher agR (the east and the west of the country) and/or in the case that the construction
represents a considerable to high risk with regard to public safety, seismic design needs to be performed
according to the principles of the Eurocode 8. With regard to pile foundations this signifies in particular a
verification of transverse load resistance of the pile foundations under the action effects of the inertia
forces from the superstructure and the kinematic forces arising from the deformation of the surrounding
soil due to the passage of seismic waves.
In the case of pile foundations for common constructions, it can be stated that in Belgium seismic design
of piles is not often assessed and only exceptionally considered, mostly for important or high-risk
structures such as power plants, nuclear plants, high-risk chemical installations, high-rise structu:res,…

28
Figure 10: Seismic zones in Belgium and the reference peak ground accelerations agR according to NBN
EN 1988-1: ANB

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

As mentioned before the Belgian national annex of the Eurocode 7, refers to the pile design guide
(WTCB-CSTC (2009/2016) as reference method. This pile design guide considers the ULS design of
axially loaded piles based on CPT.
The main aspects that for the moment are not covered by the Belgian national annex and the pile design
guide are the following:
- the design of micropiles (to be expected by the end of 2016)
- the design of piles based on pressure meter tests for soils where CPT are not applicable
- the design of piles in rock
- the design of piles subjected to lateral loads, dynamic loads, …
- the design of pile groups and piled raft foundations
- the verification of punching.

Another aspect with regard to the design of piles that is not covered by national documents or guidelines
is the SLS verification (see §5.4).

5.4. SLS design

For common constructions with pile foundations, serviceability conditions are not usually explicitly
analysed in Belgium, as experience has shown that the ULS-design covers often serviceability. One of
the reasons is the fact that the semi-empirical calculation methods as explained in §5.3 are fitted to the
measured pile resistances of SLT and that for this latter the conventional failure criterion, being the load
corresponding with a settlement of the pile of 10 % Db, is applied.
The Belgian pile design guide does not give particular guidelines with regard to SLS design, and specifies
only, in the case that serviceability is an issue, to assess it, e.g. for pile groups located above potentially
compressible layers, for end-bearing piles that mobilize their base resistance only sufficiently with
increasing settlements (bored piles), for settlement sensitive structures, or for marginal and challenging
subsurface conditions.
Serviceability analysis for single piles is then mostly conducted using mobilization curves for the shaft
and the end bearing reactions derived from pile load tests performed under similar conditions, and later
refined using the results of control load tests performed on the site.
A database of well-documented load-displacement curves in Belgium as well the use of hyperbolic
transfer function to estimate the displacement of single piles in practical cases were published by De
Cock (2001 & 2008). In De Cock (2008) a range of settlements is given of the relative displacement of
different pile types that can be expected at service load (for single piles). This is illustrated in table 14 and
table 15.

29
Table 14: Relative displacement at service load for screw piles according to (De Cock, 2001 & 2008)
Pile type Shaft bearing Shaft+end bearing End bearing
Atlas 0.5 - 0.75 % 0.75 – 1.50 % 1.5 – 1.75 %
Fundex No data 0.75 – 1.0 % 0.75 – 1.25 %
Omega 0.5 – 0.75 % No data 2.0 – 2.5 % (*)
(*)
the relevance of the data - resulting from 1 short pile (O2) in heterogeneous soil and from 1 pile (O7) with only
partial mobilization of the resistances – may be moderate.

Table 15: Relative displacement at service load based BBRI database according to (De Cock, 2008)
Pile type Shaft bearing End bearing
Driven Precast concrete 0.5 – 0.75 % 1.0 – 2.0 %
Screw piles 0.5 – 1.0 % No data 0.75 – 1.5 %
Bored and CFA 0.5 % bentonite 0.5 – 1.5 % *
1.0 – 1.5 % casing

When relevant (e.g. in the case of compressible layers beneath the pile bases and depending on the length
and the distance between the piles, the amplitude of the construction area and construction load), the
settlement of a pile group can be estimated with the equivalent raft method or equivalent block method as
described in Tomlinson (2008). In some cases advanced numerical models are applied.

5.5. Design based on load tests

Although, the Belgian National Annex of Eurocode 7 provides a methodology and correlation factors
[NBN EN 1997-1 ANB:2014, Annex A table A.9ANB & table A10ANB] to deduce the design resistance
from the measurements of static load tests or from dynamic load tests on the job site, this method is in
general not applied in Belgium.
When design load tests are performed on the job site, the results of these tests are mostly linked to the
semi-empirical design method based on CPT as explained in §5.3 (see table 6), in order to have the
allowance to apply a reduced model factor γRd.
Only in exceptional cases the results of preliminary static pile load tests are used to locally calibrate the
semi-empirical design method (=determination of the installation factor) and/or to adapt the original pile
design based on CPT.
When dynamic load tests are used, calibration with regard to static load testing on the same job site is
required.

5.6. Design based on experience

In general not applied in Belgium for structures of GC2.

5.7. Structural safety

The structural resistance of piles needs to be verified according to the structural Eurocodes and their
Belgian National annexes. The following standards apply in Belgium:
NBN EN 1992-1-1 and its national annex (ANB) for piles existing out of reinforced concrete,
NBN EN 1993-1-1 and NBN EN 1993-5 and their respective ANBs for steel piles and profiles,
NBN EN 1994-1-1 and its ANB for composite steel and concrete piles.

For the structural design of axially loaded piles, DA1/1 will in all cases be the determining combination.
Consequently, the structural pile capacity needs only to be verified for the combination DA1/1.

30
6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

6.1. Introduction

As already mentioned in §5.3, the values of the partial factors γb and γs that need to be introduced in the
semi-empirical method based on CPT to deduce the design resistance of the pile capacity, depend on the
guarantee that can be given on the quality of the pile installation. For the moment, the reduced factors can
be applied when the piling contractor proves that the pile installation takes place according to a well-
established quality plan, often inspired on common quality standards as e.g. ISO 9001. In the future it is
however the aim of the Belgian standardization committee of EC7 to set-up an independent process
certification system for pile systems that will be mandatory in order to apply the reduced partial safety
factors.

6.2. Monitoring of pile installation

In addition to controlling the quality of the used materials such as concrete and reinforcement, one can
also monitor the different parameters during the installation of the pile. To ensure the reliability of the
monitoring, some basic data must always be recorded, such as: date and time of installation, coordinates
of the pile location, etc. The execution standards of pile foundations elaborated by CEN TC288 and
mentioned in §4 and in addition the series of data sheets of piling systems that has been initiated in
Belgium (WTCB-CSTC, 2014), specify minimum requirements.
The following paragraphs address specific aspects of the monitoring of impact driven piles on one hand
and drilled and screwed piles on the other hand.
To prevent the piles (precast piles, steel tubes, steel beams,…) from being damaged during driving, one
should guard carefully, among other things, against excessive tensile stress waves. So, it is judged
important to obtain, during the driving process, information on driving stresses, energy, as well as
dynamic skin friction and toe resistance. The blow count against the penetration of the pile, which is
normally recorded by the piling foreman, can also be registered by a monitoring device. Monitoring
devices (such as Pile Driving Analyser (PDA) or blow count recorders versus depth) are not always
specified, but are sometimes used by the piling contractors. The end of driving monitoring (final blow
counts) can be used to check the adequacy of and fine-tune the penetration required by design as follows.
During driving the 1st pile at the very location or at least in the close vicinity of a CPT test, the set is
measured at the proposed level. This set is then imposed within a narrow margin (typically 30 %) when
driving the neighbouring piles. Driving is thus to be continued until each pile is placed in the same layer
as the test pile and at such a depth that the same set is obtained. For calculating the set (or the penetration
per blow), the mean value over the last 10 or 25 cm or the mean value of 5 consecutive observations of 10
blows is taken.
Drilled and screwed piles are monitored with regard to the drilling or screwing process as well as the
concreting process. Depending on the piling system and monitoring system, several of the following
parameters are generally recorded: speed of penetration, speed of rotation, depth, and rotational torque
(usually inferred from the hydraulic oil pressure of the drill table). For screwed pile types of category II
and CFA piles, the scraping effect is an important parameter, especially in non-cohesive soils. The
scraping factor is the number of rotations needed to penetrate the screw/auger over a depth equal to the
pitch of the screw blades, and might be a measure to evaluate the relaxation of the soil around the pile
shaft.
The concreting which is most often performed using a pump must be controlled by a monitoring device
measuring the volume of the used concrete, the pressure applied to the concrete and the pull-out speed.
For some pile types used in Belgium, a computer-based monitoring system has already been
implemented. When demonstrated to be reliable, that type of monitoring is requested more and more
often by the quality control department of the owners and consultants.
Soil relaxation resulting from the installation process can be evaluated on the basis of soundings
performed alongside the pile and comparison with the soundings before pile installation. An example
published by Bottiau (2014) is given in figure 11.

31
Figure 11: Comparison of the CPT before (blue) and after (green) pile installation – CFA with large
hollow stem (Bottiau, 2014)

6.3. Visual inspection, non-destructive testing and core sampling

Although visual inspection gives limited information on the top surface and the small portion of the shaft
which may be exposed, it is always performed.

Information on pile integrity is obtained using cross-hole sonic logging or gamma-gamma logging, the
sonic echo method, and the mechanical admittance method.
Cross-hole sonic logging and gamma-gamma logging is usually performed on large diameter bored piles
using access tubes mounted on the reinforced cage to evaluate the quality of concrete between emitter and
receiver.
Depending on the extent and the success of the testing program, see e.g. De Jaeger, et.al (1988),
Huybrechts (2001) and Huybrechts et al. (2003), the evaluations expected from the sonic echo method
and the mechanical impedance method are the length of the pile, its cross-section, the extent to which
these dimensions vary, the density of the concrete, the propagation velocity of stress waves in the pile and
the soil, the pile toe condition in the bearing layer, etc…
Belgian experience of the sonic echo method has evidenced several limitations in the case of cast-in-situ
concrete piles (driven, screwed, vibrated, injected or bored) which often have a very irregular lateral
surface. A limitation has been found when one encounters several discontinuities in a particular pile: the
number of echoes which may be partially superimposed is thereby increased and can make the
interpretation of the graphs more difficult. Another limitation has been identified when heavy damping of
the signal due to the corrugated texture of the shaft prohibits in some cases the interpretation of the test.
It has also been observed that the wave speed travelling in piles with a screw shaped shaft is lower than
the concrete bar wave speed.
The mechanical admittance method is used when quantification of the pile cross-sectional area and of the
pile-soil interaction parameters is needed, in addition to information regarding the integrity of the pile.
Although most pile types that are installed on the Belgian market nowadays show some of the above
mentioned inconveniences with regard to the interpretation of integrity testing, one notices an increased
application of the sonic echo method in practice.

Especially for large diameter bored piles, vertical core sampling is sometimes carried out. The sampling
provides a continuous control concerning the quality of concrete in the pile shaft. Continuing the
sampling through and beyond the toe of the pile allows one to examine the contact between the base of
the pile and the bearing soil layer.
The static loading test (see §6.3) is still in Belgium the most widely accepted method to test the integrity
and to verify the bearing capacity.

32
6.4. Static load testing

6.4.1. Control tests

For large projects and/or in case of doubt or discussion about the installation or the performance of the
piles, control tests can be required. Piles submitted to control tests are mostly loaded up to 1.5 times the
design load in serviceability limit state. In many cases the acceptance criteria based on the “Technical
Specification TB/CT 104 - Index 21/A” of the Federal Public Building Agency are referenced in practice.
These specifications require that the pile base settlement is smaller than 3 mm or 6 mm for a load of
respectively 100 % and 150 % of the design load in serviceability limit state. As these acceptance criteria
have been derived from load test on mainly driven cast in situ piles with enlarged pile bases in the past,
they seem however too severe for many pile types that are installed nowadays, and in particular for pile
systems that mobilize their bearing capacity with somewhat larger pile settlements, e.g. like screw piles of
Category I and Category II, as well as CFA piles. It seems more reasonable to adopt for these pile types
acceptance criteria based on the values in tables 14 and 15 and/or on the settlements that are acceptable
for the superstructure.

6.4.2. Design tests

As explained in §5.5 design as such based on the results of static load tests is not the common practice in
Belgium.
Design tests, whereby specific (preliminary) test piles are loaded up to at least 200 % of the design load in
serviceability limit state, are sometimes realized on specific job sites in order to calibrate locally the semi-
empirical relations, especially in the case of new/adapted pile systems and/or specific soil conditions.
Since the publication of the Belgian pile design guide in 2009, the number of design tests that are
executed is however increasing, as it allows to apply a reduced model factor γRd in the semi-empirical
design method based on CPT(see table 6).
Especially the Belgian Railways have performed many design tests on instrumented piles for that purpose
in the last decade.

6.4.3. Test procedures

In Belgium the maintained load test procedure is applied. Details of the test procedure on axially loaded
piles that has been applied for most design tests in the last 2 decades is extensively described in Maertens
et.al (2001 and 2003). This test method procedure, which can be considered as the Belgian practice, is
based on the procedures of ISSMFE (1985); NF P94-150-1, NF P94-150-2 and De Cock et al (2003).
For laterally loaded piles the NF P94-151 is applied.

6.5. Dynamic load tests

Dynamic load tests with measurement of the strain and velocity of the pile head are used sometimes to
evaluate the behaviour of the pile.

The application of dynamic load tests, with measurement of the strain and velocity of the pile head, has
been studied extensively in Belgium in the framework of several research programs, where the output and
analysis of dynamic load tests on mainly displacement piles (driven and screwed) has been compared
with the results of static load testing. One can refer to Holeyman (1984 & 1987), Holeyman et al. (1988),
Holeyman et al. (2001) and Holeyman et al. (2003). With regard to the 2 last references kinetic load
testing has been included as well in the test programs.
Deductions from dynamic load testing are made using available methods based on the wave equation,
including the Case and Capwap type approaches. Studies of the Case method in Belgium (Holeyman,
1984) tend to show that the result depends strongly on the shape of the impacting force diagram (role of
helmet) and on the level of energy.
For the Capwap-type procedure, Belgian experience has found a reasonable degree of reliability for the
prediction of the ultimate skin friction and of the loading curve at the base, up to the mobilized load
(Holeyman, 1984). The ultimate failure load, if required, is then a matter of extrapolation as in the case
of a loading test not carried out to failure. The output of prediction events in Holeyman et al. (2001 &
2003) show however that extrapolation can lead to significant differences with the static pile capacity
measured in static load tests.
For that reason dynamic load testing is not allowed in Belgium as design test, unless it is locally
calibrated with static load testing. This methodology is rather exceptionally applied (e.g. for big piling
projects).

33
Dynamic load testing is however sometimes accepted for control tests.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

At the occasion of the first ETC3 symposium that took place in 1997, an extended overview of pile load
test campaigns that were performed in Belgium in the period 1968 – 1995 was given in the Belgian
report. For more details of these individual test campaigns reference is made to Holeyman et al. 1997.
Since 1995, many other pile load test campaigns have been carried out on different pile types, most of
them instrumented. A general overview and the references are given in Table 16.
Particular reference is made to the scientific research programs in Sint-Katelijne Waver (1999-2001) and
Limelette (2001-2003) were about 48 piles, 5 different types of displacement screw piles and driven
precast piles, have been load tested (static, dynamic and kinetic tests). The detailed results and analysis of
these tests have been published by Holeyman (2001) and Maertens & Huybrechts (2003).
In combination with the former experimental database presented in Holeyman et al. (1997), the results of
these scientific test campaigns have been important to elaborate the first version of the Belgian pile
design guide in 2009 (WTCB-CSTC, 2009).
All the other tests mentioned in table 16 were design tests executed at real job sites, many of them of the
Belgian Railways, on (preliminary) test piles. These design tests were executed in order to calibrate the
semi-empirical design methods for pile types or soil type were no load tests were available and/or in order
to have the allowance to apply a reduced model factor γRd in the semi-empirical design method. The
results of these design tests have been considered in the 2016 revision of the Belgian pile design guide,
but require undoubtedly further analysis in order to refine the semi-empirical design method based on
CPT in the future. It is to be expected that many of these tests, for which exists for the moment only
internal reports, will be published in the coming years.

34
 Table 16: Overview of Test sites with pile load tests in the period 1997 – 2015 in Belgium
TEST SITES STRATIGRAPHY PROGRAM INFORMATION
Site name & period References Number Type of piles tested Objectives - results
Feluy – 1997 Bottiau et al. 1998 (sandy) silt and tertiary 4 displ. screw piles 4 SLT
Van Impe et al. 1998 Ypresian sandy clay
Peiffer et al. 1998
Antwerp I – 1999 Maertens et al. 2003c Silt-sand and tertiary Boom clay 2 2 drilled piles with temporary 2 SLT
steel casing
Antwerp II - 1999 Watt et al. 2000 sand and tertiary Boom clay 1 1 diaphragm wall element 1 SLT
St.-Katelijne-Waver - 1999 Holeyman 2001 tertiary Boom clay 24 20 displ. screw piles 12 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
– 2001 Huybrechts et al. 2008 4 precast driven 6 DLT & 6 STN

Limelette II - 2001- 2003 Maertens et al. 2003b silt (loam) and sand 24 20 displ. Screw piles 12 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
Huybrechts et al. 2008 4 precast driven 6 DLT & 6 STN
Loenhout – 2002 Theys et al. 2003 silt/clay and sand 2 1 displ. screw pile 2 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
1 CFA with temporary casing

Ekeren – 2003 Internal report – not dense sand 2 Tubular screw piles with grout 2 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection,
Kortrijk – 2007 Internal report – not tertiary ypresian clay 4 Drilled piles, 2 with temporary 4 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published steel casing, 2 under support
fluid
Gent Kantienberg – 2007 Internal report – not sand and clayey sand 2 Soil mix piles 2 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published Structural resistance
Cerfontaine – 2009 Internal report – not slay and rock 2 Bored piles 1 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published 1 instrumented SLT: αst
Limelette III – 2009 Internal report – not silt (loam) and sand 4 Soil mix piles 4 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published Structural resistance
Haren I – 2009 Internal report – not weak clay and clayey sand 3 CFA with large hollow stem 3 SLT (2 instrumented): αb & αs
published
Anderlecht – 2011 Internal report – not Weak clay and clayey sand 2 Tubular screw piles with grout 2 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection,
Anderlecht - 2012 Internal report – not Fill-weak clay-sand and silty 2 CFA with large hollow stem 2 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published clay

35
 TEST SITES STRATIGRAPHY PROGRAM INFORMATION
Site name & period References Number Type of piles tested Objectives - results
Merksem I – 2012 Internal report – not sand-clay-silt and sand 2 Jet grout piles 2 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published
Merksem II – 2012 Internal report – not sand-silt and sand 4 2 screw piles with grout 4 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection
2 tubular screw piles with
grout injection
Oostende – 2012 Van Impe P.O. et al fill and sand 1 Displ. screw pile 1 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
2013 Load-settlement behaviour pile group
Van Impe P.O. et al.
2015
Anderlecht – 2012 Internal report – not Clay-sand and clay 1 CFA with large hollow stem 1 Instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published
Anderlecht - 2012 Internal report – not Sand-silt and sand 2 tubular screw piles with grout 2 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection
Merksem III – 2013 Internal report – not sand-silt and sand 6 screw piles with grout 4 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection 2 lateral load tests: p-y curves
Haren II – 2013 Internal report – not clayey sand 1 screw piles with grout 1 instrumented alternated SLT: αb & αs
published injection Load-settlement behaviour pile group
Mechelen – 2013 Verstraelen 2015 Silt/clay and sand 6 4 cast in situ driven 4 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
2 CFA with large hollow stem 2 lateral load tests (on c.i.s. driven piles: p-
y curves
Mechelen - 2014 Internal report – not Silt/sand and sand 2 tubular screw piles with grout 2 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published injection
Melle - 2015 Internal report – not Sand-Clay and sand 2 Displ. screw piles 4 instrumented SLT: αb & αs
published

36
8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
In this paragraph an example is given of the semi-empirical calculation method as specified in the Belgian
pile design guide WTCB-CSTC (2016). Only the geomechanical design in ULS of a single pile is
assessed. No group effect, nor the SLS is assessed in the example.
Project data:
- Type of building: residence (apartments)
- Building surface: 15 x 40 m²
- Representative load: 46 kN/m² (80 % permanent and 20 % variable)
- Stiff construction (redistribution of loads is possible)
- Type of piles: precast driven – square section 35 x 35 cm²
- Soil investigation: 3 CPT with electrical cone (Figure 12), distributed over the building surface
- Excavation after soil investigation 1 m
- The pile base level is supposed at a depth of 11 m with regard to the original soil surface

CPT 1 qc (MPa) CPT 2 qc (MPa) CPT 3 qc (MPa)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 leem 3 leem 3 leem

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7
zandh. klei
zandh. klei zandh. klei
8 8 8

9 9 9

10 10 10

11 11 11
zand
12 12 12

13 13 13
zand
14 14 14
zand
15 15 15

16 16 16

17 17 17

18 18 18

diepte (m) diepte (m) diepte (m)

Figure 12: Results of the 3 CPT-E: cone resistance with depth and identification of soil layers

Design value of the load

Formula (2): Fc,d = Fc,rep * γF,
Fc,rep = 46 kN/m² * 15 m * 40 m = 27 600 kN
γF = 0.8 * 1.35 + 0.2 * 1.5 = 1.38 (table 3, DA1/1)

⇒ Fc,d = 27 600 * 1.38 = 38 088 kN

Pile base resistance of a single pile

Formula (3): Rb = αb . eb . b . λ . Ab . qb,

Ab = 0.35 m * 0.35 m = 0.1225 m²

λ = 1.00 (no enlarged base)
b = 1.00 (square section)
eb = 1.00 (no tertiary clay)
αb = 1.00 (see table 5, Category I – Driven piles - precast driven without enlarged pile base)
qb calculated with the De Beer method; pile base diameter to be introduced in the method is Db,eq = 0.395
m (see §5.2.1)

Pile base resistance, calculated with the De Beer method:

CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3
qb 16.17 MPa 16.90 MPa 17.46 MPa
⇒Rb 1.98 MN 2.07 MN 2.14 MN

37
Shaft resistance of a single pile

Formula (4): Rs = χs . Σ (αs,i . hi . qs,i)

Determination of qsi:
- qs,i = η*p,i * qc,i
- based on average qc,i over the layer (or individual values)
- only layers with qc > 1 MPa are considered
- only relevant layers are considered, in this case 3 layers: silt (loam) – clayey sand – sand: see table 4

hi = 0.2 m
αsi = 1.00
χs = 4 * 0.35 m = 1.40 m

CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3

qs,i * hi * αs,i Loam layer 0.371 MN/m 0.294 MN/m 0.307 MN/m
Clayey sand layer 0.239 MN/m 0.202 MN/m 0.215 MN/m
Sand layer 0.336 MN/m 0.368 MN/m 0.353 MN/m
∑ (αs,i * hi * qs,i) 0.945 MN/m 0.864 MN/m 0.875 MN/m
⇒ Rs 1.32 MN 1.21 MN 1.22 MN

Total compressive resistance of a single pile

Rc = Rb + Rs
Calibration of the calculation method Rc,cal = Rc * γR,d (formula 6), with γR,d = 1.00 (see table 6)

CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3

Rb 1.98 MN 2.07 MN 2.14 MN
Rs 1.32 MN 1.21 MN 1.22 MN
Rc 3.30 MN 3.28 MN 3.36 MN
⇒ Rc,cal 3.30 MN 3.28 MN 3.36 MN

Characteristic value of the pile resistance

�𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Formula (6): 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � ; �
𝜉𝜉3 𝜉𝜉4

CPT density: 3 CPT’s/600 m² = 1 CPT/200 m²

⇒ determination of ξ3 (Table 7) and ξ4 (Table 8) by interpolation between values for 1 CPT/100 m² and 1
CPT/300 m².
ξ3 = 1.22 (stiff structure and number of piles estimated as > 10 piles)
ξ4 = 1.16 (stiff structure and number of piles estimated as > 10 piles)
From the previous table:
Rc,cal,average = 3.32 MN ⇒ Rc,cal,average / 1.22 = 2.72 MN
Rc,cal, min = 3.28 MN ⇒ Rc,cal, min / 1.16 = 2.83 MN
⇒ Rc,k = 2.72 MN (the average pile resistance is determining)

Design value of the pile compressive resistance

Formula (7): Rc,d = Rb,k / γb + Rs,k / γs.
Rb,k = Rb,average / ξ3 = 1.69 MN
Rs,k = Rs,average / ξ3 = 1.03 MN
γb = 1.00 and γs = 1.00 (table 9, DA1/1)
⇒Rc,d = 2.72 MN

Determination of the number of piles

Fc,d = 38 088 kN
Rc,d = 2720 kN

Rc,d ≥ Fc,d ⇒ 15 Piles

38
REFERENCES

AFNOR. 1993. NF P94-151. Sols: Reconnaissance et essais - Essai statique de pieu isolé sous un effort
transversal.

AFNOR. 1999. NF P94-150-1. Sols: Reconnaissance et essais - Essai statique de pieu isolé sous un effort
axial Partie 1: En compression

AFNOR. 1999. NF P94-150-2. Sols: Reconnaissance et essais - Essai statique de pieu isolé sous un effort
axial Partie 1: En traction

AFNOR. 2012. NF P94-262. Justification des ouvrages géotechniques - Normes d'application nationale
de l'Eurocode 7 - Fondations profondes (indice de classement: P94-262).

Allani, M. & Huybrechts, N. 2015 .Comparison of ultimate pile design based on CPTs and PMTs.
Proceedings of ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Edited by Wissem Frikha, Serge Varaksin and Michel Gambin..
Hammamet, Tunisie.

BBRI. 2008. Proceedings of the international symposium “Ground anchors – Limelette test field results”,
Brussels, 14.05.2008 (proceedings volume 1, 2 and 3 available on www.tis-sft.wtcb.be)

BGGG-GBMS. 1985. Belgian Geotechnical Volume published for the 1985 Golden Jubilee of the
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE), by Belcotec and
Belgian Member Society of ISSMFE. Brussels.

BGGG-GBMS. 2012. Standaard procedures voor grondonderzoek – Sonderingen Deel 1: Planning,

uitvoering, rapportering/Procédures standard pour la reconnaissance géotechnique – Sondages Partie 1:
planification, exécution et consignation des résultats. Document elaborated by Task Force 2 of BGGG-
GBMS, www.bggg-gbms.be

BGGG-GBMS. 2016. Standaardprocedures voor grondonderzoek – Algemene bepalingen/Procédures

standard pour la reconnaissance géotechnique – Dispositions générales. Document elaborated by Task
Force 2 of BGGG-GBMS, www.bggg-gbms.be (to be published in 2016)

Bottiau, M., Van Impe, P.O., Meyus, I., Russo, G. 1998. Load testing at Feluy test site: introducing the
Omega B+ pile, Proceedings of the 3rd int. conference on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles
(BAP III - Ghent), Van Impe & Haegeman (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam

Bottiau, M. 2014. Installation parameters, pile performance and importance of testing. Global
Perspective on Sustainable Execution of Deep Foundation Works. Proceedings of the DFI-EFFC
International Conference on Piling & Deep Foundations, Stockholm.

Bustamante, M. & Doix, B. 1985. Une méthode pour le calcul des tirants et des micropieux injectés.
Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, n° 140, p. 75-92, Paris.

De Beer, E. 1966. Berekening van de negatieve wrijving op palen. Tijdschrift van Openbare Werken van
België, n° 6

De Beer, E. & Wallays, M. 1968. Quelques problèmes concernant les fondations sur pieux dans des zones
portuaires. Proceedings of the 5th International Harbour Congres, Antwerp.

De Beer, E. 1971-1972. Méthodes de déduction de la capacité portante d’un pieu à partir des résultats
des essais de pénétration. Annales des Travaux Publics de Belgique, No 4 (p 191-268), 5 (p321-353) & 6
(p 351-405), Brussels.

De Cock, F. & Legrand, C. (ed.). Design of axially loaded piles. European practice. Proceedings of the
ERTC3 Seminar. Brussels, 17-18 April 1997.

De Cock F. 2001. A database approach to overview pile loading tests on displacement screw piles in
Western Europe – 1970-2000. In Holeyman A. (Ed.) Screw Piles – Installation and Design in Stiff Clay.
Proceedings of the symposium on screw piles. Brussels. Balkema

39
De Cock, F., Legrand, C. & Huybrechts, N. 2003. Axial Static Pile Load Test (ASPLT) in compression or
in tension - Recommendations from ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee. Proceedings of the ECSMGE
Prague.

De Cock, F. 2008. Sense and sensitivity of pile load-deformation behaviour. Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on Bored an Auger Piles – BAP V, Ghent

De Jaeger, J., Van den Broeck, M., Holeyman, A., Legrand, C. Integrity tests of various types of piles.
1988. Proceedings of the 1rst International Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles
(BAP I), p 577-586, Ghent, 1988/06/7-10.

Holeyman, A. 1984. Contribution à l’étude du comportement dynamique non-linéaire des pieux lors de
leur battage. Doctoral thesis presented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles to obtain the degree of
doctor in applied sciences, ICC, Brussels.

Holeyman, A. 1987. Théorie des essais dynamiques. Proceedings of the Journées d’études du
Groupement Belge de l’ISSMFE, Brussels, pp. II-50 to II-98.

Holeyman, A., Legrand, C., Lousberg, E. & D’Haenens, A. 1988. Comparative dynamic pile testing in
Belgium. 3rd International conference on “Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles. P 542-554,
Ottawa, Canada.

Holeyman, A. (ed.). 2001. Screw piles – Installation and design in stiff clay. Proceedings of the 1st
symposium on screw piles, Brussels 15 March 2001. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Holeyman, A., Bauduin, C., Bottiau, M., Debacker, P., De Cock, F., Dupont, E., Hilde, J.L., Legrand, C.,
Huybrechts N., Mengé P., Simon G. 1997. Design of axially loaded piles – Belgian practice.
Proceedings of the ERTC3 seminar, Brussels.

Holeyman, A., Couvreur, J.-M. & Charue, N . 2001. Results of dynamic and kinetic pile load tests and
outcome of an international prediction event. Screw Piles – Installation and Design in Stiff Clay,
Holeyman (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st symposium on screw piles, Brussels 15 March 2001. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Holeyman, A. & Charue, N. 2003. International pile capacity prediction event at Limelette. Belgian
screw pile technology – design and recent developments, Maertens, J. & Huybrechts, N. (eds).
Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on screw piles, Brussels 7 May 2003. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Huybrechts N. 2001. Test campaign at Sint-Katelijne-Waver and installation techniques of screw piles.
Screw Piles – Installation and Design in Stiff Clay, Holeyman (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st symposium on
screw piles, Brussels 15 March 2001. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Huybrechts, N. & Whenham, V. 2003. Pile testing campaign on the Limelette test site & Installation
techniques of screw piles. Belgian screw pile technology – design and recent developments, Maertens, J.
& Huybrechts, N. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on screw piles, Brussels 7 May 2003. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Huybrechts, N and Maertens, J. 2008. Some new insights with regard to load distribution in piles, based
on a detailed interpretation of a large number of instrumented pile load tests. Proceedings of the Vth
International Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles (BAP V),Ghent.

ISSMFE Subcommittee on Field and Laboratory testing. 1985. Axial Pile loading test – Part 1: Static
Loading. ASTM geotechnical Testing Journal, pp. 79-90.

Legrand, C. & Poorteman, F. 2003. Deep foundations and the need for research on screw piles in
Belgium. Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Screw piles, p. 3-10. , Brussels.

Maertens, J. & Huybrechts. 2001. Results of the static pile load tests. Screw Piles – Installation and
Design in Stiff Clay, Holeyman (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st symposium on screw piles, Brussels 15 March
2001. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

40
Maertens, J. & Huybrechts, N. 2003a. Results of the static pile load tests at the Limelette test site.
Belgian screw pile technology – design and recent developments, Maertens, J. & Huybrechts, N. (eds).
Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on screw piles, Brussels 7 May 2003. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Maertens, J. & Huybrechts, N. (eds). 2003b. Belgian screw pile technology – design and recent
developments. Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on screw piles, Brussels 7 May 2003. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Maertens, J., Theys, F. and Maekelberg, W. 2003c A full-scale test on large diameter bored pils for the
construction of the HST-tunnel in Antwerp (Belgium). Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Van
Impe (ed.), Millpress, Rotterdam.

NBN EN 1536. 2010. Uitvoering van bijzonder grondwerk – Boorpalen / Exécution de travaux
géotechniques spéciaux – pieux forés.

NBN EN 12699. 2015. Uitvoering van bijzonder grondwerk – Verdringingspalen / Exécution de travaux
géotechniques spéciaux – pieux à refoulement.

NBN EN 14199. 2015. Uitvoering van bijzonder grondwerk – micropalen / Exécution de travaux
géotechniques spéciaux – micropieux.

NBN EN 1990. 2002 Eurocode 0 – Grondslagen van het constructief ontwerp/ Eurocode 0 - Bases de
calcul des structures.

NBN EN 1990 ANB. 2013. Eurocode 0 – Grondslagen van het constructief ontwerp – Nationale bijlage /
Eurocode 0 – Bases de calcul des structures – Annexe Nationale.

NBN EN 1992-1-1. 2005. Eurocode 2: Ontwerp en berekening van betonconstructies – Deel 1-1:
Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen (+AC: 2010) / Eurocode 2: Calcul des structures en béton -
Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments (+AC: 2010)

NBN EN 1992-1-1 ANB. 2010. Eurocode 2: Ontwerp en berekening van betonconstructies – Deel 1-1:
Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen – Nationale bijlage / Eurocode 2: Calcul des structures en
béton - Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments – Annexe Nationale.

NBN EN 1993-1-1. 2005. Eurocode 3: Ontwerp en berekening van staalconstructies - Deel 1-1:
Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen (+ AC:2009) / Eurocode 3: Calcul des structures en acier -
Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments (+ AC:2009).

NBN EN 1993-1-1 ANB. 2010. Eurocode 3: Ontwerp en berekening van staalconstructies - Deel 1-1:
Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen – Nationale Bijlage / Eurocode 3: Calcul des structures en
acier - Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments- Annexe Nationale.

NBN EN 1993-5. 2007. Eurocode 3 - Ontwerp en berekening van staalconstructies - Deel 5: Palen en
damwanden (+ AC:2009) / Eurocode 3 - Calcul des structures en acier - Partie 5: Pieux et palplanches
(+ AC:2009)

NBN EN 1993-5 ANB. 2011. Eurocode 3 - Ontwerp en berekening van staalconstructies - Deel 5: Palen
en damwanden – Nationale bijlage / Eurocode 3 - Calcul des structures en acier - Partie 5: Pieux et
palplanches – Annexe nationale.

NBN EN 1994-1-1. 2005. Eurocode 4: Ontwerp en berekening van staal-betonconstructies - Deel 1-1:
Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen (+ AC:2009) / Eurocode 4: Calcul des structures mixtes acier-
béton - Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments (+ AC:2009)

NBN EN 1994-1-1 ANB. 2010. Eurocode 4: Ontwerp en berekening van staal-betonconstructies - Deel 1-
1: Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen – Nationale bijlage / Eurocode 4: Calcul des structures
mixtes acier-béton - Partie 1-1: Règles générales et règles pour les bâtiments – Annexe Nationale)

41
NBN EN 1997-1. 2005. Eurocode 7: Geotechnisch ontwerp – Deel 1: Algemene regels (+AC:2009)/
Eurocode 7: Calcul géotechnique - Partie 1: Règles générales(+AC:2009).

NBN EN 1997-1/A1. 2014. Eurocode 7: Geotechnisch ontwerp – Deel 1: Algemene regels/ Eurocode 7:
Calcul géotechnique - Partie 1: Règles générales.

NBN EN 1997-1 ANB. 2014. Eurocode 7: Geotechnisch ontwerp – Deel 1: Algemene regels - Nationale
bijlage / Eurocode 7: Calcul géotechnique - Partie 1: Règles générales - Annexe nationale.

NBN EN 1997-2. 2007 Eurocode 7: Geotechnisch ontwerp – Deel 2: Grondonderzoek en beproeving (+

AC: 2010) / Eurocode 7 - Calcul géotechnique - Partie 2: Reconnaissance des terrains et essais (+
AC:2010).

NBN EN 1997-2 ANB. 2013 Eurocode 7: Geotechnisch ontwerp – Deel 2: Grondonderzoek en

beproeving – Nationale bijlage / Eurocode 7 - Calcul géotechnique - Partie 2: Reconnaissance des
terrains et essais – Annexe Nationale.

NBN. 2015. NBN EN 1998-1+A1: Eurocode 8: Ontwerp en berekening van aardbevingsbestendige

constructies - Deel 1: Algemene regels, seismische belastingen en regels voor gebouwen (incl. AC:2009
en A1:2013) / Eurocode 8: Calcul des structures pour leur résistance aux séismes - Partie 1: Règles
générales, actions sismiques et règles pour les bâtiments (AC:2009 et A1:2013 compris)

NBN, 2011. NBN EN 1998-1 ANB: Eurocode 8: Ontwerp en berekening van aardbevingsbestendige
constructies - Deel 1: Algemene regels, seismische belastingen en regels voor gebouwen Nationale
bijlage / Eurocode 8 - Calcul des structures pour leur résistance aux séismes - Partie 1: Règles
générales, actions sismiques et règles pour les bâtiments - Annexe nationale

NBN, 2014. NBN EN 1998-5: Eurocode 8: Ontwerp en berekening van aardbevingsbestendige

constructies - Deel 5: Funderingen, grondkerende constructies en geotechnische aspecten / Eurocode 8:
Calcul des structures pour leur résistance aux séismes Partie 5: Fondations, ouvrages de soutènement et
aspects géotechniques

NEN. 2001. NVN 6724 Voorschriften Beton - In de grond gevormde funderingselementen van beton of
mortel

Nuyens, J., De Cock, F., Legrand, C., Maertens, J., Menge, P., Van Alboom, G., Van Den Broeck, M. and
Welter, P. National Report 10 - CPT in Belgium. 1995. International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing (CPT95), vol.1, p. 17-28 , Linköping.

Peiffer, H., Van Impe, W.F., Van Impe, P.O. and Haegeman, W. 1998. Soil parameters relevant to screw
pile research testing at Feluy test site. Proceedings of the 3rd int. conference on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles (BAP III - Ghent), Van Impe & Haegeman (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam

Reese, L.C. & Van Impe, W.F. 2001. Single piles and pile groups under lateral loading. Rotterdam:
Balkema.

Silence, P. 1992. Keynote Paper: Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland. Proceedings of the Conference
“Piling - European practice and worldwide trends”, p.1-5, ICE, London.

SBRCURnet & WTCB. 2016. Handboek Soilmix-wanden: ontwerp en uitvoering, SBRCURnet, Delft

Theys, F. Maertens, J., Maekelberg, W. 2003. Practical experience with screw piles used for the high-
speed railway in Belgium. Belgian screw pile technology – design and recent developments. Proceedings
of the 2nd symposium on screw piles, Brussels 7 May 2003. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Tomlinson, M. & Woodward, J. 2008. Pile design and construction practice. Taylor & Francis, London

Van Impe, W.F., Van Impe, P.O., Viggiani, C., Russo, G. and Bottiau, M. 1998. Load-settlement
behaviour versus distinctive Omega-pile execution parameters. Proceedings of the 3rd int. conference on
Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles (BAP III - Ghent), Van Impe & Haegeman (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam

42
Van Impe, P.O., Van Impe, W.F. & Seminck, L. 2013. Discussion of an instrumented screw pile load test
and connected pile group load-settlement behaviour. Journal of Geo-Engineering Sciences 1(1), 13-36.

Van Impe, P.O., Van Impe, W.F., Manzotti, A. and Seminck, L. 2015. Load-settlement behaviour of three
pile groups: a case study. Proceedings of the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Edinburgh

Verstraelen, J. & Maekelberg, W. 2015. Ontwerpen op basis van resultaten van laterale
paalbelastingsproeven. Geotechiek, jaargang 19, nr. 5, december 2015 - Speciale uitgave n.a.l.v. de
Geotechniekdag ‘Proef op de Som”, 03.11.2015, Breda.

Whenham, V., Huybrechts, N., De Vos, M., Maertens, J., Simon, G. & Van Alboom, G. 2004. Results of a
comparative study on cone resistance measurements. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Site Characterization ISC’2, Porto.

WTCB-CSTC, 2009. WTCB Rapport nr. 12. Richtlijnen voor de toepassing van de Eurocode 7 in België –
Deel 1: het grondmechanische ontwerp in de uiterste grenstoestand van axiaal op druk belaste
funderingspalen/ CSTC Rapport n° 12. Directives pour l’application de l’Eurocode 7 en Belgique –
Partie 1: Dimensionnement Géotechnique à l’état limite ultime de pieux sous charge axiale de
compression. WTCB-CSTC, Brussels.

WTCB-CSTC, 2016. WTCB Rapport nr. XX (Revisie WTCB Rapport 12). Richtlijnen voor de toepassing
van de Eurocode 7 in België – Deel 1: het grondmechanische ontwerp in de uiterste grenstoestand van
axiaal belaste funderingspalen / CSTC Rapport n° XX (Revision CSTC Rapport 12). Directives pour
l’application de l’Eurocode 7 en Belgique – Partie 1: Dimensionnement Géotechnique à l’état limite
ultime de pieux sous charge axiale. WTCB-CSTC, Brussels (to be published in 2016).

WTCB-CSCT, 2014. Infofiches serie 67.5.1.2.1: Uitvoeringsfiches voor palen met grondverdringing
(categorie I). Schroefpalen met een schacht in plastisch beton / fiches d'exécution pour les pieux à
refoulement (catégorie I). Pieux vissés avec un fût en béton plastique. www.wtcb.be or www.bbri.be

prEN ISO 22477-1: Geotechnical investigation and testing – Testing of geotechnical structures – Part 1:
Pile load test by static axially loaded compression

NF P94-150-1: Essai statique de pieu isolé sous un effort axial – partie 1: en compression & partie 2: en
traction

ISSMGE 1985: ISSMFE Subcommittee on Field and Laboratory testing – Suggested method “Axial Pile
Load test – part 1: Static loading” (reprint from Geotechnical Testing Journal, June 1985)

Regie der Gebouwen 1999. Typebestek 104 index 21/A. Funderingspalen vervaardigd door
grondverdringing.

Watt, A., D’hoore, S., Vandemeulebroecke, S. 2000. Proefbelasting op diepwandelement (baret) bij
station Antwerpen-Centraal, Cement 2000, n°5.

Zeevaert, L. 1969. Reduction of point capacity of piles because of negative friction. Proceedings of the
first Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. III Mexico.

43
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank F. De Cock (Geo.be), J. Maertens (Jan Maertens bvba) and W. Maekelberg &
J. Verstraelen (TUC RAIL) for their valuable contributions to this national report.

BELGIAN STADARDIZATION COMMITTEE FOR EUROCODE 7 (NBN E25007)

Chairman
Maertens, L.

Secretariat
De Vos, M (WTCB-CSTC-BBRI)
Condé, P. (SECO)

Members
Basunga Ngelesi, C. (FPS Economy),
Bauduin, C. (Besix / KU Leuven),
Bottiau, M. (ABEF & Franki Foundations Belgium),
Deceuster, J. (CFE),
De Cock, F. (Geo.be),
François, B. (ULB),
Gérard, P. (ULB),
Haelterman, K. (Flemish region, MOW, Geotechnical Division)
Holeyman, A. (UCL),
Huybrechts, N. (WTCB-CSTC-BBRI / KU Leuven),
Jaspar, G. (Walloon region, SPW),
Leemans, E. (ABEF & Soetaert),
Madarasz, A. (NBN),
Maekelberg, W. (Tuc Rail),
Maertens, J. (Jan Maertens bvba),
Mariën, I. (Flemish region, MOW, Concrete & Steel expertise Division),
Meireman, P. (Geo Design),
Rens, O. (ABEF & De Waal Palen),
Treve, C. (CFE),
Van Alboom, G. (Flemish region, MOW, Geotechnical Division),
Vandenbosch, P. (Federal Public Building Agency),
Verstraelen, J. (Tuc Rail),
Welter, P. (Walloon region, SPW)

44
 Design of piles – Danish practice
Ole Møller, Aarsleff, Denmark, [email protected]

John Kærgaard Frederiksen, Rambøll, Denmark, [email protected]

Anders Hust Augustesen, COWI, Denmark, [email protected]

Nik Okkels, GEO, Denmark, [email protected]

Kenny Kataoka Sørensen, Aarhus University, Department of Engineering, Denmark, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
How did Eurocode 7 change daily practice? In Denmark: not much, if at all. The principle of partial
factors (limit state design) was already well established in Denmark before the introduction of the Euro-
codes. The choice of a suitable design approach (DA) has caused much confusion and work for Danish
geotechnical – and structural – engineers. However, in the latest national annex (2013 and 2015 ver-
sions) a big step towards a single DA has been taken by introducing a material factor approach (MFA)
for spread foundations and problems involving stability and earth pressure analysis incl. transversally
loaded piles, whereas a resistance factor approach (RFA) is used for axial loaded piles and anchors. For
axially loaded piles only one partial coefficient (γ R = 1.3) is used, irrespective of pile type and installa-
tion. However, the characteristic value and hence the design value of the resistance is further controlled
by the correlation- or model factor ξ, which depends on the type of determination of the resistance: cal-
culated or measured – and how: by driving formula, dynamic or static load test. ξ does not depend on the
number of investigations or tests.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Denmark is situated close to the Scandinavian mountain range, which is built up by Precambrian rocks,
but below the Danish area the old substratum has almost continuously been subsiding since the Precam-
brian, leaving room for deposition of a several kilometres thick layer of sediments created by erosion of
the rocks. Over time movement has taken place, soil layers have been eroded and re-deposited and finally,
the landscape as we see it today was formed in the Quaternary period by glaciation and deglaciation pro-
cesses in at least 4 glacial periods, of which the glaciers in the last one only covered a part of Denmark. If
the Quaternary deposits had been evenly distributed over the country, they would have formed an app. 60
m thick upper layer, but this is by far not the case. Instead they vary in thickness from less than one meter
up to more than 300 m, and this is the reason why also the Pre-quaternary deposits are of interest in some
parts of the country in connection to pile foundations.

Piles in Denmark are typically installed into:

• Quaternary till- and/or meltwater deposits
• Neogene sand or clay
• High or very high plasticity Palaeogene clay, possibly strong fissured
• Limestone of early Palaeogene and Cretaceous age

In connection to pile installation it is important to be aware of:

• The till deposits can be strongly pre-consolidated, and they can contain big boulders
• The Palaeogene and Neogene clays can be strongly pre-consolidated
• The limestone can be highly indurated; having the character of soft rock, and it can contain up to
app. 1 m thick bands of flint (chert)

Figure 1 shows a map of the surface just below the Quaternary layers in Denmark.

45
Figure 1: Map illustrating the deposits situated just below the Quaternary deposits in Denmark, modified
by S. A. S. Pedersen (GEUS 2011) from Håkansson & Pedersen (1992).

46
2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Exploratory boreholes carried out as part of the site investigation for piled foundations are usually per-
formed according to Geotechnical Category 2 (GC2) to a depth which ensures knowledge of ground con-
ditions well below the level of the pile base, and to an extent sufficient to permit a design evaluation of
bearing capacity, negative skin friction and settlement prediction for larger pile groups.

For cohesive (fine grained) soils like clay and silt the undrained shear strength c u is used to determine the
skin friction and base resistance by a geostatic calculation based on an alfa-method, i.e. an undrained
analysis. Usually c u is determined from the field vane strength c fv . For many soils c u is taken to equal c fv ,
but in special cases c u can be lowers than c fv , e.g. for soft clays and peats, fissured high plasticity clays or
in cases where c u is reduced due to unloading (large excavation). Different rules are given in these cases.
One is illustrated in the design example in section 8.

In Danish design practice the density is the only relevant parameter to consider in the geostatic calcula-
tion of the skin friction in non-cohesive (coarse grained) soil like sand and gravel.

Although the base resistance for driven piles in sand is only allowed to be based on a measured resistance
obtained by use of the Danish Driving Formula or static or dynamic load test, a preliminary estimate is
normally carried out based on the effective angle of friction ϕ’ based on lab tests, e.g. triaxial tests or
from empirical rules based on the particle size distribution found by a sieve analysis. Field tests like CPT
and SPT are also useful for a preliminary estimate of the base resistance.

The extent of the soil investigation depends on the Geotechnical Category (GC1, 2 or 3), previously
termed foundation class (relaxed, normal or intensified). Guidance for the selection of relevant geotech-
nical category is found in DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA, Annex K.

A pile foundation can be carried out in GC1, provided the soil investigation reveals information of the
soil to the full depth of upper soft and potentially settling soil layers, and thus allows for determination of
the possible development of negative skin friction (downdrag), even if the pile toe is installed below the
depth of the investigation. But there is a price to pay: the partial safety factor on the pile resistance is
increased by 25 %. Further the bearing resistance must be based solely on the driving resistance, which
may be rather moderate in case of melt water clay. So the cost of deeper borings taken below the targeted
pile toe level to justify GC2 may very well pay off.

Pile foundations in limestone with cavities and in high plasticity Palaeogene clay are to be analysed and
assigned to Geotechnical Category 3. Often GC3 implies static load test, especially when new pile types
are used or in case of heavily loaded piles or very large pile foundations.

The degree of induration is relevant for design as well as execution of pile foundation in limestone. The
induration is categorised from H1 to H5 as described in the DGF Bulletin 1: A guide to engineering geo-
logical soil description. A link to the ISRM Rock Grade and compression strength is given in the DK NA
for EC7-2, c.f. Table 1.

Table 1: Complementary information for the application of EN ISO 14689-1in the DK NA for EC7-2

ISRM Compressive strength

Degree of induration
Rock Grade σ c (MN/m2)
H1 R0 0.25-1
H2 R1 1-5
H3 R2 5-25
H4 R3+R4 25-100
H5 R5+R6 100-500

Among others the bearing resistance depends on the duration of load; long term or short term. Piles in H1
and H2 chalk are often treated like piles with the base in cohesive soil and piles in H3-H5 limestone are
treated like piles with the base in non-cohesive soil. If there is no other information for piles installed in
H1 and H2 chalk, a cautious estimate of the skin friction of 20-30 kN/m2 can be used, but the bearing
capacity may also be determined from the driving resistance. For piles in H3-H5 limestone the driving

47
resistance will normally get very high (end bearing piles), and the bearing resistance can be determined
from the “Danish Pile Driving Formula”. It is recommended to use dynamic and/or static load tests for
piles in limestone to document the bearing capacity. Due to setup effects the bearing capacity in limestone
may increase considerably with time after installation, which can be verified by subsequent dynamic load
tests and corresponding pile driving analysis (PDA).

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Prefabricated mild steel reinforced concrete piles have been the most used pile type in Scandinavia during
the latest 50 years and make out a total of more than 90 % of all piles used in Denmark. The piles are
installed as displacement piles by driving. Standard dimensions are square sections with dimensions from
25 cm to 45 cm, with increments of 5 cm.

Pile fabrication as well as pile driving has gradually undergone industrialisation and standardisation dur-
ing this period, and they are now being CE marked and manufactured to European Standard EN 12794.
This development ensures a high and uniform quality and a cost effective solution, competitive to other
pile systems. The high control and documentation of raw materials, manufacturing and installation en-
sures durable piles with a reliable bearing capacity, which is obviously important as it will be extremely
difficult and costly to correct any errors made in the foundation after the structure above is established.

Piles in clay are often driven to a specified toe level based on a static calculation while piles with the toe
in sand often are stopped based on a driving criteria derived from the Danish Driving Formula. Over the
last 37 years pile capacities in both non-cohesive and cohesive soils are increasingly verified by dynamic
load tests which are obvious to use in connection with driven piles to provide documentation.

Driven steel piles are mainly used when ground condition includes obstructions that could break a con-
crete pile during installation or in case of high demands on bending and lateral load capacity. H-profiles
are furthermore used for increased structural tension capacity of the piles and to minimise the displaced
soil volume.

Bored piles have in recent years been used more frequently, primarily due to more restrictive require-
ments in urban areas to noise and vibration during installation. However, predrilling is often carried out in
the upper layers to facilitate driving with reduced noise and vibration level.

Geotechnical advantages of precast piles compared to cast in situ pile systems are numerous, especially in
soft soils. The cross-section of the precast pile is strictly controlled and known, while the cast in situ pile
will be challenged and demands extra measures like casing to avoid deviations in the cross-sectional area
along the length of the pile. In soil conditions with ground water flow, possibly not even identified, the
risk of purging/flushing the body of wet in situ concrete is avoided when using precast piles.

Figure 2: Joining of upper and lower pile by class A coupling, type CPG-4 lock

48
The maximum pile length of a single element is 18 metres. Where longer piles are required one or more
pile couplings may be used. Class A pile couplings, according to the pile standard EN 12794, are de-
signed to resist the same bending moment and tension forces as the precast pile itself. See Figure 2 above.

Precast piles are mainly manufactured automatically. Reinforcement cages can be manufactured to any
length. These are produced using welding robots which utilizes steel wires on coils and minimizes the
waste in steel material. See Figure 3.

Figure 3: Automated reinforcement cage manufacturing

The longest concrete pile used in Denmark is approximately 50 meters. Typical concrete strength is
C50/60 MPa. Basically the reinforcement is designed to allow for lift, transport and hoist of the piles by
the rig. Supplementary reinforcement can be provided in cases where there is a requirement to limit the
crack widths for piles in tension or a need to increase bending resistance for partly transversally loaded
piles. The reinforcement ratio (A s /A c ) in standard piles vary from 0.72 % to 2.17 % depending on rein-
forcement type (nos. of Y12) and concrete cross-sectional area, adjusted according to the particular pile
length. See Figure 4 below.

49
Figure 4: Standard types of reinforcement in precast piles

The most common equipment used for driving piles is a hydraulic pilling rig (Banut, Uddcomb/Hitachi,
Junttan, Liebherr and Bauer). The hammer weight typically ranges from 40 to 90 kN. Leaders usually
have a length sufficient to enable driving of an 18 m pile in one piece.

Environmental considerations are also important. Many pilling rigs have a drill attached to one side of the
leader in case it is necessary to predrill through upper hard soil layers to reduce vibrations on neighbour-
ing structures. Vibration monitoring is often carried out on neighbouring houses during pile installation to
ensure that acceptable limits of vibration are complied with. Noise damped hammers are now offered as a
standard feature. See Figure 5.

50
 Figure 5: Driving of raking pile using a Junttan PMx piling rig with a noise damped Shark hammer

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
The Danish National Annexes for Eurocodes:
• DS/EN 1990 DK NA:2013 Basis of design
• DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA:2013 Concrete structures
• DS/EN 1993-1-1 DK NA:2015 Steel structures – General rules and rules for buildings
• DS/EN 1993-5 DK NA:2015 Steel structures - Piling
• DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA:2015 Geotechnical design

A background paper for the major 2013 revision of the DK NA for EC7, published as part of the DGF
Bulletin 17: Ultimate limit states, design approaches and their partial coefficients.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EURO-

CODE 7

5.1. General principles

The basic requirement by ultimate limit state design for STR/GEO is

Ed ≤ Rd (2.5, EN 1997-1)

where

E d is the design effect of action:

{
Ed = E γ F Frep ; X k / γ M ; ad } (2.6a, EN 1997-1)

often just expressed as the design load F d or F ULS,d with an index c for compression or t for tension, i.e.
F c;d or F t;d

and

51
R d is the design resistance, R c;d the compression and R t;d the tension resistance – taken as the minimum of
the geotechnical (external) and structural (internal) resistance.

Formally Denmark uses solely Design Approach 3 (DA3): (A1* or A2T) “+” M2 “+” R3.

However, for axially loaded piles a Resistance Factor Approach (RFA) is actually used, as the geotech-
nical design resistance is determined as either a geostatic calculated resistance R cal based on characteristic
soil parameters or from a measured resistance R m from a static or dynamic load test. The Danish Driving
Formula is considered to provide a valid measurement of the dynamic resistance. In both cases the design
value is found by dividing the determined resistance by a correlation factor ξ and a (resistance) partial
factor γ R. The partial factor γ R is the same for all types of piles and irrespectively of base, shaft, or to-
tal/combined resistance:

γ R = γ b = γ s = γ t = 1.3

The partial factor is in some load combinations multiplied by a K FI factor to control the factor of safety
depending on the reliability level, i.e. consequences class. See Table 2 below. The design resistance is
determined from:

Rk Rcal Rm
Rd = , where Rk = or Rk =
γR ξ ξ

According to EC7, section 7.6 the characteristic resistance of axially loaded piles should be the minimum
of the mean value of the calculated or measured resistance divided by one correlation factor and the min-
imum value of the calculated or measured resistance divided by another correlation factor:

R R 
Rk = Min mean ; min 
ξ
 a ξb 

where ξ a and ξ b depend on the number of static load tests, soil investigation tests or dynamic load tests,
for which recommended values are given in EN 1997-1, Annex A.3.3.3 . This approach is not recognised
in Denmark. Consequently only one value of ξ is stated in the DK NA, but it varies depending on how the
resistance is determined: calculated or measured, and if measured, it further depends on method: by driv-
ing record, dynamic or static load test. The number of soil tests or measurements just has to be “enough”
from an engineering judgement point of view – without explicitly stating how many this is. The necessary
number of tests depends on the variability in the ground conditions and soil “response”, e.g. scatter in the
measured driving resistance.

In Denmark ULS design loads from load combinations are defined according to EN 1990, section 6.4.3.2
by equation (6.10) considering EQU and UPL limit states:

∑γ
j ≥1
G , j Gk , j "+" γ P P "+" γ Q ,1Qk ,1 "+" ∑γ
i >1
Q , iψ 0, i Qk , i (6.10, EN 1990)

and equation (6.10a) and (6.10b) considering STR/GEO:

∑γ
j ≥1
G , j Gk , j "+" γ P P "+" γ Q ,1ψ 0,1Qk ,1 "+" ∑γ
i >1
Q , iψ 0, i Qk , i (6.10a, EN 1990)

∑ξ γ
j ≥1
j G , j Gk , j "+" γ P P "+" γ Q ,1Qk ,1 "+" ∑γ i >1
Q , iψ 0, i Qk , i (6.10b, EN 1990)

(6.10a) covers the situation when the dead load (G) is dominating, whereas (6.10b) covers the situation,
where the variable load (Q) is dominating.

Differentiation of reliability is controlled by the consequences class (CC1, 2 or 3), previously termed
safety class (low, normal or high), by use of a K FI factor, which is applied to the partial factors on the
actions (A) OR the materials (strength) (M) and resistances (R).

52
The K FI factor depends on the classes of consequences as defined in EN 1990, annex B, table B3:
– high consequences class (CC3): K FI = 1.1
– medium consequences class (CC2): K FI = 1.0
– low consequences class (CC1): K FI = 0.9 (1,0 by EQU and UPL).

However, CC1 is not used for geotechnical structures.

Table 2: Partial factors for EQU and UPL limit design

Limit state EQU / UPL UPL

Combination of actions 1 2

Reference formula in EN 1990 (6.10) (6.10)

Unfavourable γ Gj,sup 1.1· K FI 1.0· K FI

1)
Self-weight, general
Favourable γ Gj,inf 0,9 1,0
Permanent action

Self-weight of soil and Unfavourable γ Gj,sup 1.1· K FI 1.05· K FI

(ground) water, geotech-
nical structures 2) Favourable γ Gj,inf 0.9 1.0

Leading Unfavourable γ Q,1 1.5· K FI 1.5· K FI

Variable
actions

Accompanying Unfavourable γ Q,i 1.5·ψ 0 · K FI 1.5·ψ 0 · K FI

NOTE
1) Structural actions, which include all types of permanent actions: cf. clause 2.1 in DS/EN 1991-1-1
2) Geotechnical actions, which comprise the self-weight of soil and (ground) water interacting with the geotech-
nical structure: cf. clause 1.5.2.1 in DS/EN 1997-1 and clause A.3.1(2)P, NOTE, in DS/EN 1997-1 DK
NA:2015

For EQU and UPL limit states the K FI factor is always and only applied to the action.

UPL Load Combination 2 is applied only for geotechnical structures where the maximum water pressure
is limited by overflow arrangements; see EN 1997-1 DK NA.

For STR/GEO limit states a γ 0 factor is introduced to control the application of the K FI factor on the ma-
terial strength and resistance depending on load combination, c.f. table 3.

53
Table 3: Partial factors for STR/GEO limit state design of axially loaded piles

Limit state STR/GEO STR

Combination of actions 1 2 3 4 5

Reference formula in EN 1990 (6.10a) (6.10b) (6.10a) (6.10b) (6.10a)

Partial factors for actions

Unfavour-
γ G;sup ·K FI 1.2 K FI 1.0 K FI 1.2 1.0 1.0
able
Self-weight,
general 1)
Favour-
γ G;inf 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
able
Permanent action

Self-weight of Unfavour-
γ G;sup 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
soil and able
(ground) water,
geotechnical Favour-
γ G;inf 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0
structures 2) able

Unfavour-
γ Q,1 ·K FI
Variable ac-

Leading 0 1.5 K FI 0 1.5 0

able
tions

Unfavour-
Accompanying γ Q,i ·K FI 0 1.5ψ 0 K FI 0 1.5ψ 0 0
able

Coefficient applied to partial factors for strength

by axially loaded piles
parameters and resistance
Structural materials,
1.0 K FI 1.2 K FI
cf. EN 1992 - 1996 and 1999
γ0
Geotechnical resistance,
1.0 K FI 1.0
cf. EN 1997-1

1) Structural actions, which include all types of permanent actions: cf. clause 2.1 in DS/EN 1991-1-1
2) Geotechnical actions, which comprise the self-weight of soil and (ground) water interacting with the geotech-
nical structure: cf. clause 1.5.2.1 in DS/EN 1997-1 and clause A.3.1(2)P, NOTE, in DS/EN 1997-1 DK
NA:2015

By STR Load Combination 5 γ M = γ R = 1.0 for soil parameters and resistances. LC5 is meant to cover the
structural design in situations with dominating water pressure.

For laterally loaded piles the geotechnical resistance is determined by a Material Factor Approach
(MFA), in which the partial factors are applied to the soil parameters, c.f. Table 4.

Table 4: Partial factors for STR/GEO limit state design of laterally loaded piles

Design approach 3

Limit state STR/GEO STR

Load combination 1 2 3 4 5

Partial factors for soil parameters

γM M2 by transversally loaded piles
incl. γ 0
Angle of shearing resistance, on tan(ϕ) γφ 1.2 1.2 K FI 1.0
Effective cohesion γ c’ 1.2 1.2 K FI 1.0
Undrained shear strength γ cu 1.8 1.8 K FI 1.0
Unconfined strength γq 1.8 1.8 K FI 1.0

54
 Design approach 3

Limit state STR/GEO STR

Load combination 1 2 3 4 5

Weight density γγ 1.0 1.0 1.0

Coefficient applied to partial factors

for strength parameters and re-
γ0 1.0 K FI 1.2·K FI
sistance for structural materials, cf.
EN 1992 - 1996 and 1999

No resistance factors (R3) involved.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

Definitions and symbols which are not explicitly explained in this paper have same meaning as stated in
EN 1997-1.

Regarding the terms of piles: test pile, trial pile and preliminary pile reference is made to the definitions
in EN 12699:2015, which however, for ease of use is stated below:

Test pile
A pile to which a load is applied to determine the resistance deformation characteristics of the pile and
surrounding ground

Trial pile
A pile installed to assess the practicability and suitability of the construction method for a particular ap-
plication

Preliminary pile
A pile installed before the commencement of the main piling works or section of the works for the pur-
pose of establishing the suitability of the chosen type of pile, driving equipment and/or for conforming the
design, dimensions and bearing capacity

Working pile
A pile installed after preliminary piles, also by some termed a production pile. The term is not mentioned
or defined in EN 12699, but used in this paper.

DK NA means the Danish National Annex – with no extension implicit for the EC7.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
As mentioned above the number of soil investigation test results does not influence the design resistance
determined by geostatic calculation in Denmark. Hence the value of the correlation factor ξ is fixed and
according to the DK NA is given by:

ξ = 1.5

An analytical method for calculating the bearing resistance is given in the DK NA Annex L. A summary
is given below.

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

The calculation of the bearing resistance is depending on, whether the pile toe (base) is standing in cohe-
sive soil or non-cohesive soil.

For driven (displacement) piles with the base in cohesive soil a geostatic calculation (undrained analysis)
is used:

55
 Rb; cal + Rs; cal
Rc; k = with ξ = 1.5 according to the DK NA
ξ

where

Rb; cal = 9 cu Ab in cohesive soil in general

Rb;cal = 18 cu Ab for driven piles in clay till with c u > 150 kN/m2 according to DK NA
n
Rs; cal = ∑mr c
i =1
u Asi in cohesive soil

n
Rs;cal = ∑N
i =1
m q m Asi in non-cohesive soil

Ab pile base area

A si pile surface area in ground layer i

m is a material surface factor

= 1.0 for wood
= 1.0 for concrete
= 0.7 for steel

r is a regeneration factor, which depends on the strength of the clay and decreases with increasing
strength. In case where further documentation is not available, the regeneration factor for cohe-
sive soils may be taken as r = 0.4 when the undrained shear strength used in the calculations does
not exceed c u = 500 kN/m2. According to Danish practice r ⋅ c u is limited to 200 kN/m2 when c u
> 500 kN/m2.

Nm friction coefficient = 0.6 for compression piles

qm the average effective overburden pressure along the pile in the ground layer i

In fissured palaeogene clay, c u is often taken as 1/3 of c fv when calculating the geostatic base resistance,
whereas c u = c fv is assumed for calculation of the shaft resistance.

For driven piles with the base in non-cohesive soil, the geostatic calculation is so unreliable that it should
not be used to determine the design value of the base resistance.

However, for a preliminary estimate the following equation can be used:

Rb; cal = 2 Ab qb N q
qb = effective overburden pressure at the pile base
1 + sin ϕ 'k π tan ϕ 'k
Nq = e
1 − sin ϕ 'k
If field test results from CPT and/or SPT are available, these may give another (possibly better) initial
estimate of the base resistance.

For piles driven into non-cohesive soil, the characteristic ultimate resistance can be determined from the
measured dynamic resistance R dyn;m derived from the “Danish Pile Driving Formula”:
Rdyn;m
Rc;k = Rdyn;k = with ξ = 1.5 acc. to the DK NA
ξ
where
hhG
Rdyn; m =
s + 0,5s0

56
 2hhGL p
s0 = = the elastic compression of the pile per blow
Ab E

h efficiency factor = h 0 (1- µ ⋅ tanθ)

h0 efficiency factor for vertical leader
µ friction coefficient between hammer and leader
θ inclination of the leader to vertical
G weight of the drop hammer
h vertical component of the drop height
s the permanent set of the pile per blow
Lp pile length
Ab cross-sectional area of the pile material, assumed constant over the length
E modulus of elasticity of the pile

Figure 6: Illustration of parameters used in the “Danish Pile Driving Formula”

The formula assumes the use of the following values of the moduli of elasticity:
Concrete piles E = 20·106 kN/m2
Wooden piles E = 10·106 kN/m2
Steel piles E = 210·106 kN/m2

It should be noted, that the driving resistance determined using the “Danish Pile Driving Formula” gives a
reliable value of the resistance in non-cohesive soil, provided the soil investigations positively identifies
the soil as non-cohesive at and below the pile toe, as required in GC2.

However, in GC1 it is allowable to use the “Danish Pile Driving Formula” if the pile toe is driven to a
depth below the compressible (settling) soil layers. Since the soil investigation in GC 1 only requires
information to be revealed down to the underside of the settling soil layers, no further knowledge of the
bearing soil layers are obtained. Hence, in this case the partial factor is increased by 25 % to take account
of the increased uncertainty in the ground conditions, i.e. γ R = 1.25 ⋅ 1.3 = 1.625.

The ξ factor can be reduced according to the DK NA if the assessment of the resistance is supported by
PDA (Pile Driving Analyzer):
ξ = 1.50 where the resistance is based on a pile driving formula solely
ξ = 1.25 where stress wave measurement with PDA has been used to assess the resistance of the pile
considered
ξ = 1.40 for the (other) piles for which the dynamic load test with PDA may be considered representative.
The necessary number of dynamic load tests with PDA to justify this reduction of ξ is not (yet) stated in
the DK NA.

For bored in-situ cast piles, the resistance may be considerably lower than for the corresponding driven
piles. A shaft resistance greater than 30 % of the shaft resistance of a corresponding driven pile and a
design base resistance greater than 1000 kN/m2 should not be assumed, unless recognised documentation
allowing a larger bearing resistance is available.

57
5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile
The axial capacity of a single driven pile subjected to tension yields:
n
Rs; cal = ∑mr c
i =1
u Asi in cohesive soil

n
Rs;cal = ∑N
i =1
m q m Asi in non-cohesive soil

N m = 0.2 for tension piles

A shaft resistance for bored in situ cast piles greater than 30 % of the shaft resistance of a corresponding
driven pile should not be assumed, unless recognised documentation allowing a larger bearing resistance
is available.

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

No standardized method is given for ULS design of a laterally loaded pile in the DK NA. The summary
given below presents normal practice used in Denmark for single piles subjected to lateral loads.

According to EC7 the ULS must be analysed for both the drained and undrained case, and the lateral
capacity is investigated by use of Design Approach 3 (DA3) where partial factors are applied to the soil
parameters.

The ULS is traditionally investigated by use of the methodology described by Brinch Hansen, c.f. Ref
[12]. Alternatively the p-y curve method described in section 5.4.2 can be applied. The Brinch Hansen
method is based on stiff piles and theory of plasticity, whereas the p-y curve method is more applicable
for flexible piles. Criterion for flexible or stiff behaviour is given by e.g. Poulus and Hull (1989).

Figure 7 below shows, geometry, resulting earth pressure (passive minus active) and loads applied for the
design. The objective is to determine maximum moment and necessary embedment length based on a
fixed diameter. Level of rotation and embedment length is determined by iteration.

H Design load [kN]

a Height of load above ground surface [m]
zm Embedment length [m]
B Width of pile (diameter), perpendicular to the direction of the load [m]
z0 Depth to level of zero shear force [m]
zr Depth to level of rotation [m]
M max Maximum moment [kNm]

Figure 7: Geometry and resulting earth pressure according to Brinch Hansen (1961)

58
Resulting earth pressure (passive minus active) ez on the pile is at a given depth, z:

𝑒𝑒 𝑧𝑧 = 𝑞𝑞 ′ ∙ 𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞𝑧𝑧 + 𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐𝑧𝑧

𝑧𝑧
𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞0 + 𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞∞ ∙ 𝛼𝛼𝑞𝑞 ∙
𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞𝑧𝑧 = 𝐵𝐵
𝑧𝑧
1 + 𝛼𝛼𝑞𝑞 ∙
𝐵𝐵

𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞0 𝐾𝐾0 ∙ sin 𝜑𝜑

𝛼𝛼𝑞𝑞 = ∞ 0
∙
𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞 − 𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞 sin(45 + 0.5 ∙ 𝜑𝜑)

𝐾𝐾0 = 1 − sin 𝜑𝜑
𝑧𝑧
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐0 + 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐∞ ∙ 𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐 ∙
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐𝑧𝑧 = 𝐵𝐵
𝑧𝑧
1 + 𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐 ∙
𝐵𝐵

𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐0
𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐 = ∙ 2 ∙ sin(45 + 0.5 ∙ 𝜑𝜑)
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐∞ − 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐0

where

c cohesion [kN/m²]
φ plane friction angle [°]
q' effective overburden pressure at depth z [kN/m²]
Upper index 0 and ∞ refers to "at surface" and "at large depth", respectively.
Lower index q and c refers to contribution from overburden pressure and cohesion, respectively.

Earth pressure coefficients (difference between passive and active) "at surface" are:

𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞0 = 𝐾𝐾𝑝𝑝0 − 𝑒𝑒 −(0.5∙𝜋𝜋−𝜑𝜑) tan 𝜑𝜑 ∙ cos 𝜑𝜑 tan(45 − 0.5 ∙ 𝜑𝜑)

𝐾𝐾𝑝𝑝0 − 1
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐0 =
tan 𝜑𝜑

𝐾𝐾𝑝𝑝0 = 𝑒𝑒 (0,5∙𝜋𝜋+𝜑𝜑) tan 𝜑𝜑 ∙ cos 𝜑𝜑 ∙ tan(45 + 0.5 ∙ 𝜑𝜑)

Earth pressure coefficients (difference between passive and active) "at large depth" are:

𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐∞ = 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐∞

𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞∞ = 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐∞ ∙ 𝐾𝐾0 ∙ tan 𝜑𝜑

𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐∞ = 1.58 + 4.09 ∙ tan4 𝜑𝜑

𝑒𝑒 𝜋𝜋∙tan 𝜑𝜑 ∙ tan2 (45 + 0.5 ∙ 𝜑𝜑) − 1

𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 =
tan 𝜑𝜑

Piles are often subject to combined axial and lateral loading. In case a plastic design approach, usually
applied for ULS, is adopted the designer can decide what part of the pile that sustains the different load
components. The designer can choose to separate the two load components (vertical and horizontal) and
sustain the horizontal load by the upper part of the pile and the vertical load by the lower part. This is a
conservative approach since a pile fully utilized with respect to one direction is capable of resisting some
load in the perpendicular direction.

Research on the effects of combined loading is on-going and available results show that full axial capaci-
ty can be obtained for lateral loads up to 50% of the horizontal capacity. For a lateral utilisation above
50% reference must be made to specialist literature.

59
In case of considerable vertical as well as lateral load on a pile (group), very often the optimal solution is
to arrange a pile group (pile frame) consisting of one of more vertical piles combined with one or more
raking piles, by which any load can be transformed to axial loads, possibly pure compression or - in case
of dominating horizontal loads - tension and compression in the pile frame. In fact this is another ad-
vantage of the precast driven piles, as these can be driven with inclination up to 1:1 (45°), whereas this is
not possible for bored piles.

5.3.5. Specific issues

Downdrag

In connection to downdrag the neutral point is defined as the point of the theoretical zero relative dis-
placement between the pile and the settling soil, considering total possible settlement (e.g. primary and
secondary consolidation).

Figure 8: Illustration of negative skin friction, after Briaud and Tucker 1996

The neutral point will move upwards, when the structural pile load is increased, provided the pile toe is
still able to continue settling. This is illustrated on Figure 9 below, where the increase in structural load
from SLS to ULS is considered.

Figure 9: Induced axial force by downdrag depending on structural load on pile head, from SC7/EG7,
inspired by the German Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle).

60
In principle, when the soil below the pile base experience failure in (true) ULS, the pile is considered to
get infinite displacement. This will result in a neutral point at the ground level. However, this is where the
compatibility comes in, because the ultimate geotechnical (failure) resistance of the pile base may be
mobilised at (significantly) less displacement of the pile toe than the potential displacement of the settling
ground above the pile toe, e.g. with the pile toe on/in rock or stiff/strong clay till.

Thus it is quite complicated to determine the neutral point and the corresponding downdrag. It requires
information on pile settlements and soil strata settlements with depth, and mobilisation functions of posi-
tive as well as negative skin friction which may be (are) different.

For this reason a simplification is adopted in Danish design practice when considering ULS. In ULS only
positive skin friction from the layers below the settling layers is included, which to certain extend com-
pensates for disregarding the downdrag in ULS. In SLS it is Danish practice to consider the neutral point
at the bottom of the settling layers – often taken as the top of the bearing strata (OSBL) - and by this max-
imising the downdrag force.

In the SLS analysis deformations shall be considered for all foundation, incl. pile foundations, especially
in case of piles when used to “reduce settlement” in layers of soft clays that continue to considerable
depth (below the pile tip) in Sweden and Norway. But in Denmark on sites with moderate depth to the
bearing strata, and where highly compressible strata do not exist below the pile tip, the SLS deformation
analysis can be substituted by an equivalent equilibrium failure analysis described in section 5.4.1. Alter-
native, the t-z curve methodology (similar to the p-y curve methodology described in Section 5.4.2) can
be adopted, cf. ANSI/API (2011).

In case of large pile groups a deformation analysis should be performed, which includes an evaluation of
both the amount of settlement, and of the distribution of the pile forces in the state of actual use (service
load) considering the settlement of the piles and the rigidity of the superstructure. An evaluation should
also be made of the influence of soil displacements (due to pile driving) both on piles already driven and
on existing structures.

Swelling

No detailed code requirements for pile foundations subjected to swelling load have ever been formulated
in former Danish Codes or in the National Annex for EC7-1. Structures subjected to swell loads have
been treated in Geotechnical Category 3.

Load from swelling clay arises, when the clay is relieved by unloading from e.g. excavation AND water
is allowed to gain access to the clay. You may prevent swelling from unloading by e.g. superficial sur-
charge from pre-stress by ground anchors or by limiting access for water.

Swell induces upwards loads by skin friction and adhesion to piles and the vertical surfaces of structures
as well as upwards swelling pressures upon the base of structural elements, supported by the piles. By this
the compression forces in the piles are reduced and eventually turned into tension. The analysis of swell is
fundamentally an SLS analysis, but may turn into (require) a ULS (STR) analysis, as the piles must have
adequate design tension resistance for the particular possible load.

The first step is to determine the neutral point similarly to the downdrag situation, now just with focus on
the upwards movements of the soil.

The analysis is complicated and really an iterative process, as the swelling pressure – transferred directly
by skin friction to the pile – or indirectly by swelling pressure at the base of the foundation structure, and
by this through bending an shear in the base plate transferred to (tension in) the piles – will decrease with
the actual swelling of the soil, by which the neutral point is moving upwards.

For a preliminary and safe approach a swelling force corresponding to the amount of unloading (by exca-
vation) can be assumed. A more detailed analysis should be carried out by FEM analysis to determine the
possible maximum swelling tension load in the piles taking into account the effect of the possible swell
by tensioning (stretching) the (tension) piles, which will reduce the swelling load compared to the prelim-
inary approach. In case of pre-stressed anchors, such relief may be disregarded.

61
5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments
Downdrag also termed negative skin friction that introduces compression in the pile and swelling of clay
that introduces tension in piles are both governed by the compatibility between strains and stresses. Both
phenomena are related to soil deformation or rather differential deformation between pile and soil and
thus related to the SLS. However, as the piles must be able to resist these possible induced forces with a
certain safety against failure, i.e. require an ultimate structural design resistance ULS STR, the analysis of
downdrag and swell is a (true) mix of the SLS and ULS.

According to EC7-1, clause 7.8(5) normally a check for buckling is not required when the piles are con-
tained (surrounded) by soils with a representative, undrained shear strength, c u , that exceeds 10 kN/m2.
This practice is reflected in the former Danish Standard DS 415, stating a supplementary criterion for
disregarding the slenderness effect: a limitation of the compressive concrete stress to 10 MPa.

However, lately due to the Nordic corporation through NMGEC7, it is recognised, that initial curvature of
piles during driving (or misalignment in pile couplings) may induce bending in the piles, which can only
be analysed by use of second order theory. I.e. even a c u > 10 kN/m2 may not eliminate the need for a
second order analysis – even if this does not mean a buckling problem.

5.4. SLS design

5.4.1. Axially loaded piles

There is no observational method for SLS design of axially loaded piles in Denmark.

According to the NOTE for clause 7.6.4.1 (2) in EC-7: For piles bearing in medium–to –dense soils and
for tension piles, the safety requirements for the ultimate limit state design are normally sufficient to
prevent a serviceability limit state in the supported structure. This is (also) the case for Danish pile de-
sign.

However, the development of downdrag resulting from the settlement of soft soil layers and soil above
these may increase the (service) load on the pile considerably. In that perspective it is relevant to fine tune
the terms: downdrag also denoted negative skin friction is an action, a load from the surrounding soil
settling relatively to the pile, whereas shaft resistance is a resistance, positive per definition, in soil layers,
in which the pile settles relatively to the surrounding soil.

For smaller pile foundations, the serviceability limit state analysis can normally be reduced to a substitute
equilibrium analysis taking into account the influence of downdrag (negative skin friction) using the
ULS-equations for the shaft resistance and base resistance, provided there are no highly compressible
deposits below the pile base. The analysis may be performed as a substitute calculation, subject to the
following conditions:

Rb;cal + Rs;cal
Fc;d + Fneg ≤ still with ξ = 1.5 and γ R = 1.3
ξ gR

F c;d design axial compression load in the ultimate limit state with the square root of partial factors for
load combination STR/GEO without contribution from downdrag.

F neg design downdrag of the pile using partial factor γ R = 1.0 and correlation factor ξ = 1.0 deter-
mined as the lower value of:

a) the shaft resistance from the compressible strata, very often considered equal to layers above
the bearing layer (OSBL), using the formulas for R s;cal – however with the regeneration factor r
= 1.0 (in case of cohesive soil) or

b) the load that generates settlements, e.g. from fill overlay on previous ground level or increased
density for soil layers drained due to ground water lowering etc. In case the compressible stratum
has not yet consolidated, i.e. settlements have not stopped even without overlay or ground water
lowering, the entire cone of soil is loading the piles – and not only the hatched part indicating
(new) fill on the previous ground level, as shown in Figure 10b below.

62
Figure 10a: F neg = R s;cal above OSBL Figure 10b: F neg = load generating settlements

For bored piles there is no reduction of the calculated downdrag similarly to the reduction of the shaft
resistance.

In Denmark it is recognised that the negative skin friction can be reduced by applying bitumen coating on
the part of the pile located within the settling soil layers: a 1 mm thick layer of asphalt bitumen with 80-
100 penetrant allows for a reduction in the calculated negative skin friction to 10 kN/m2, however it
should not be reduced to less than 25 % of the full value of F neg as determined above. The 75 % reduction
of F neg by bitumen coating has lately been supported by the findings from a R&D-project carried out by
Aarhus University, School of Engineering. Ref. [9]

Determination of the settlement of a pile group can be done analogue to a spread foundation:

Figure 11: pressure distribution below pile group for settlement analysis

5.4.2. Laterally loaded piles

No standardized method is given in the DK NA for SLS design of a laterally loaded pile. According to
EC7 and DK NA there are no specific criteria for displacements and rotations. Therefore, the specific
criteria should be defined from project to project and they depend on the construction under considera-
tion. The analyses are undertaken with characteristic loads and characteristic soil parameters. The sum-
mary given below presents normal Danish practice for vertical single piles subject lateral loads.

SLS is traditionally investigated by use of the Winkler foundation involving p-y curves. The stiffness E py
of the springs is assessed as the secant stiffness of the empirically determined p-y curves, cf. Figure 12
below, in which p is the pressure on the pile from the soil and y is the lateral displacement of the pile. The
p-y curves presented below assumes homogeneous soil profiles. However, the method can easily be ad-
justed to involve layered soil according to Georgiadis (1983).

63
Figure 12: Calculation model for a horizontal loaded pile by use of p-y curves

For coarse-grained materials the non-linear p-y curves are according to ANSI/API (2011) and DNV
(2014) given by:

𝑘𝑘 ∙ 𝑧𝑧
𝑝𝑝 = 𝐴𝐴 ∙ 𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 ∙ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡ℎ � ∙ 𝑦𝑦�
𝐴𝐴 ∙ 𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢

p Pressure on the pile from the soil, [kN/m]

z Depth [m]
y Horizontal displacements [m]
pu Horizontal resistance in depth z [kN/m]
k Initial modulus of subgrade reaction [kN/m³]
A Factor accounting for the load cases, either static or cyclic:
𝑧𝑧
�3 − 0.8 ∙ � ≥ 0,9 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝐴𝐴 = � 𝐷𝐷
0.9 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
D Equivalent pile diameter [m]

The initial modulus of subgrade reaction depends on the relative density, the friction angle and whether
the soil is submerged or not. k can tentatively be estimated as
2
𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 165 ∙ 𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 8240 ∙ 𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 + 108300
2
𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 322 ∙ 𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 16260 ∙ 𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 + 210400

ϕ tr Triaxial friction angle [degrees]

The horizontal resistance p u differs between "moderate" and "deep" seated failures:

(𝐶𝐶1 ∙ 𝑧𝑧 + 𝐶𝐶2 ∙ 𝐷𝐷) ∙ 𝛾𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑧 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0 < 𝑧𝑧 ≤ 𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � �
𝐶𝐶2 ∙ 𝐷𝐷 ∙ 𝛾𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑧 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑧𝑧 ≥ 𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

z ms Transition between moderate and deep depth [m]

γ' Submerged soil unit weight [kN/m³]
Ci Dimensionless factors [-]
k Initial modulus of subgrade reaction [kN/m³]

The dimensionless factors can tentatively be estimated as

𝐶𝐶1 = 0.115 ∙ 100.041𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

𝐶𝐶2 = 0.571 ∙ 100.022𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

64
𝐶𝐶3 = 0.646 ∙ 100.056𝜑𝜑𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

The backbone monotonic p-y curves for soft clay yield:

1
𝑦𝑦 3
𝑝𝑝 = �0.5𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 �𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 � for 𝑦𝑦 ≤ 8𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 for 𝑦𝑦 > 8𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐

yc Reference displacement 𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 = 2.5𝐷𝐷𝜀𝜀50

ε 50 Strain according to the undrained shear strength defined as 50 % of the deviator stress (σ 1 -
σ 3 )/2 from undrained triaxial tests

The ultimate lateral soil resistance has been found to vary from shallow to deep depths corresponding to a
difference in failure modes. The ultimate lateral soil resistance is thus determined as:

3𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝐷𝐷 + 𝛾𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 + 𝐽𝐽𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝑧𝑧 - for shallow depth

𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 �
9𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝐷𝐷 - for deep depth

cu Undrained shear strength

Cyclic loading is accounted for in different ways depending on whether shallow or deep seated failure
modes are considered. The transition from shallow to deep depth is determined by solving the equation
below for 𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅 :

3𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝐷𝐷 + 𝛾𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅 𝐷𝐷 + 𝐽𝐽𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅 = 9𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝐷𝐷

yielding:

6𝐷𝐷
𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅 =
𝛾𝛾 ′ 𝐷𝐷
+ 𝐽𝐽
𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢

J Dimensionless parameter varying between 0.25 and 0.50. The low and upper values are valid for
over consolidated and normally consolidated clay.

For shallow depth failure mode the p-y curves yield:

1
⎧ 𝑦𝑦 3
0.5𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 � � for 𝑦𝑦 ≤ 3𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
⎪
⎪ 𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
𝑝𝑝 = 0.72𝑝𝑝 �1 − �1 − 𝑧𝑧 � 𝑦𝑦 − 3𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 � for 3𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 < 𝑦𝑦 ≤ 15𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
⎨ 𝑢𝑢
𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅 12𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
⎪
⎪ 𝑧𝑧
0.72𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 for 𝑦𝑦 > 15𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
⎩ 𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅

whereas for deep depth failure mode:

1
𝑦𝑦 3
𝑝𝑝 = �0.5𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 �𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 � for 𝑦𝑦 ≤ 3𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐
0.72𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢 for 𝑦𝑦 > 3𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐

Typically values of ε c as function of undrained shear strength c u can be seen in the table below. For un-
drained shear strengths exceeding 200 kN/m2, ε 50 equals 0.004.

65
Table 5: Representative values for ε 50 for clay
Clay consistency c u [kN/m2] ε 50 [-]
Soft clay < 50 0.020
Medium stiff clay 50-100 0.010
Stiff clay 100-200 0.005
For other p-y curves there is referenced to the literature.

Piles are often subject to combined axial and lateral loading and research on the effects of combined load-
ing is on-going. Available results on cohesive soils show that no change in predicted displacements is
expected for lateral loads up to 50 % of capacity, where-as for non-cohesive soils compression piles is
stiffer and tension piles are softer.

5.5. Design based on load tests

5.5.1. Static load test

When static load tests have been carried out, the correlation factor can be reduced from the ξ = 1.5 re-
quired by determination by geostatic calculation (in cohesive soil) and the Danish Driving Formula (in
non-cohesive soil):
R R
Rd = k , where Rk = m
γR ξ
ξ = 1.1 for the actual test loaded piles
ξ = 1.25 for other piles for which the pile load tests are representative.

There are no rules on how many static load tests to be carried out in order to justify the reduction of the
correlation factor. It just has to be enough from a geotechnical engineering point of view.

Static load tests are normally carried out 2 – 4 weeks after installation.

The failure criterion is defined as the load measured at a settlement equal to 10 % of the equivalent pile
base diameter, however with a decreasing or constant deformation speed, not exceeding 20 mm per hour.

5.5.2. Dynamic load tests with PDA

When dynamic load tests have been carried out with PDA, the correlation factor can be reduced from the
ξ = 1.5, as required when the resistance is determined using geostatic calculation (in cohesive soil) and
the Danish Driving Formula (in non-cohesive soil), provided an adequate site investigation has been car-
ried out. Furthermore, the method (PDA) shall be calibrated against static load tests on the same type of
pile, of similar length and cross-section, and in comparable soil conditions, c.f. EN 1997-1, 7.5.3:
R R
Rd = k , where Rk = m
γR ξ
ξ =1.25 where stress wave measurement with PDA in addition (to the driving formula) has been used to
assess the resistance of the pile considered.

ξ =1.4 for the piles for which the dynamic load tests with PDA is representative.

It is not prescribed how many dynamic load tests should be carried out in order to justify the reduction of
the correlation factor. It just has to be enough from a geotechnical engineering point of view.

The dynamic load tests (PDAs) are typically augmented by subsequent CAPWAP-analyses for a selected
number or all of the trial or preliminary piles to quantify the amount of skin friction and toe resistance and
further the distribution of the skin friction along the pile shaft, either to verify the design assumptions or
optimise the final pile design.

As piles, whether driven into non-cohesive or cohesive soils, are subject to setup effects over time, one
must consider the time of testing after installation. In non-cohesive soils it may be performed relatively
short (a day or a few days) after installation while for cohesive soils a waiting time of a week or more will
lead to more representative measurement of the long term pile capacity. The cohesive soil is normally
expected to have regenerated to a great extent after a period of 4 weeks. Typically the time of testing is

66
selected as a trade-off between project progress and allowing time for setup effects to occur hence a
commonly used approach is to drive preliminary piles on a Friday and test them on the following Mon-
day. But – the longer you wait, the more you get.

The setup is recognised to be a log-function, c.f. ref. no [11] Denver and Skov, 1988:
R  t 
− 1 = A log10  
R0  t0 
where R 0 is the capacity measured at time t 0 , the time elapsed from initial driving, from which the in-
crease of capacity is linear in a logarithmic time scale.

The cases investigated by Skov and Denver suggested values for t 0 and A depending on soil type as
shown in table 6 which may be used in other cases with caution.

Table 6: preliminary values for t 0 and A depending on soil type, c.f. ref no.[11]
Soil type t 0 (days) A
sand 0.5 0.2
clay 1.0 0.6
chalk 5.0 5.0

The authors emphasize that:

• If only a few values of R and t are determined, then only A should be adjusted
• As the general knowledge about setup behaviour of chalk is limited, any extrapolations should be
based on actual test points rather than the table values of t 0 and A
• t 0 is the lower limit for prediction of pile capacity increase over the time elapsed from end of driving
and. The stated values may be useful for designing restrike programmes.

Driveability analyses are rarely used to determine pile capacities in Denmark. Instead they are typically
used to assess driveability of a particular combination of hammer, pile material/-dimensions and soil
resistance to driving prior to the actual installation. The analyses may also potentially be used for back-
analysing e.g. difficult pile driving conditions and providing valuable information about pile material
stresses.

5.6. Design based on experience

No design based on experience in Denmark.

5.7. Structural safety

The structural design of piles is carried out according to the structural codes for concrete (EC2) and steel
(EC3) incl. the respective Danish National Annexes.

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

It is common practice to document the pile driving with a driving record of the individual piles where the
hammer weight/-type, hammer energy (drop height) and the number of blows per 200 mm penetration is
recorded. The level of detail might differ depending on whether it is preliminary piles or working piles. In
the former case a full record of the driving from platform to target level may be provided, while in the
latter case e.g. only the last two meters of driving above target level is provided.

A pile job is commenced by driving app. 5 to 10 % of the piles as preliminary piles. The amount depends
on the variability of the ground conditions.

The use of preliminary driving is a central part of the control of the bearing capacity of the piles and is
considered as a supplement to the geotechnical soil investigation. This is especially true in the case of
Geotechnical Category 1, where the preliminary piles are a prerequisite to determine the bearing capacity
satisfactory in ULS as well as SLS.

Selected preliminary piles are placed as close to the exploratory boreholes as possible. The rest of the
preliminary piles are spread over the entire base area.

67
The driving sequence (full record) of the preliminary piles at the exploratory points is compared to the
driving progress of the remaining preliminary piles to evaluate whether the conditions at the exploratory
points are representative.

Figure 13: Example of a driving record from electronic pile logger

Significant deviation of the driving sequence and driving resistance calls for a reconsideration of the
bearing capacity and/or supplementary investigations to clarify the cause of the divergence.

68
Further driving of preliminary piles serves to clarify:
• Driveability
• Risk of damaging piles
• Discomfort and possible damage from vibrations
• Heave of neighbouring piles

In the case of piles with the pile toe in non-cohesive soils the applied hammer energy, pile characteristics
and the end-of-driving blow count can be applied in the “Danish Driving Formula” to calculate the driv-
ing resistance. In the case of piles with the pile toe in cohesive soils the “Danish Driving Formula” is
likely to underestimate the pile resistance due to the remoulding effects and should merely be used as a
sounding where neighbouring piles can be compared qualitatively for identification of possible anomalies
in the driving sequence.

Should a driving record, whether in non-cohesive or cohesive soil, indicate anomalies in the driving se-
quence e.g. indicating a broken or damaged pile then additional pile(s) can be installed or the pile in ques-
tion can be further inspected by e.g. high strain dynamic load testing (PDA) to qualify and quantify any
damages to the pile and verify the residual pile capacity. Application of low strain dynamic testing (PIT)
will qualify and only partly quantify damages to the pile but not provide any information about the pile
capacity. It also has limitations in terms of the length of piles that can be tested as retrieving information
from below any pile joints can be difficult due to the impact energy from the hand-held hammers. If at all
possible high strain dynamic load testing is preferred.

The installation (driving) of a pile is a load case which should be considered with same attention as the
load combinations stated for STR/GEO in EC0 and EC7-1, c.f. section 5.1. Too many blows (hard driv-
ing) as well as too few blows (soft driving) should be prevented.

“Hard” driving also termed refusal of precast concrete piles defined as a permanent settlement of the
pile less than 10 % of the elastic compression per blow: s < 0.1 s 0 should be prevented in order not to
damage the pile (material) as well as the driving equipment: hammer and driving cap. By hard driving the
pile may be damaged due to heavy compression stresses due to the compressive wave but also due to
tension when the reflected wave hits the pile top.

From above criteria the refusal can be determined as:

hhG hhG 5 hhGAb E 2hhGL p

Rdyn;m = = = using s0 = , c.f. section 5.3.2
s + 0.5s0 0.6s0 3 2L p Ab E

As guidance the max effective drop height hh should not exceed app. 1 m, and the ratio of the hammer to
pile weight G/G p should not be less than app. 0.8. However, there is also a (fatigue) limit of the total
number of blows on a pile – even with a small drop height: typically 1000 – 1500 blows for 25 x 25 cm
and 1500 – 2000 blows for 30 x 30 cm piles. If this condition cannot be fulfilled, the solution may
(should) be a reduction of the pile load and thus the required bearing capacity, e.g. by increasing the
number of piles.

In EN 12699 Execution of special geotechnical works – Displacement piles comprises a section 7 Con-
siderations related to design. In section 7.6 Design for impact driving of prefabricated piles it is recom-
mended to choose a driving system to limit the transferred energy so that the maximum stress (including
prestress) during driving does not exceed 0.8⋅f ck in compression at the time of driving and 0.9 f yk minus
prestress force. This condition can (only) be evaluated by use of wave equation analysis from dynamic
load tests on preliminary or working piles. A way to reduce pile material stress is to increase the self-
weight of the hammer G and/or to decrease the drop height h.

“Soft” driving may happen, when the pile toe penetrates down into a soft layer with less or no support to
“turn” the stress wave, by which tension forces are induced in the pile toe and possibly may tear the pile
apart. To prevent this, the drop height should be reduced, typically down to 0.2 – 0.3 m, to obtain at least
2 – 3 blows per 20 cm.

By driving of end bearing piles in non-cohesive, but still relatively fine grained soil (sand) with large
content of fines, considerable excess pore pressure may arise with a significant reduction of driving re-
sistance as a result. In such case the bearing capacity can be verified by a restrike procedure, during

69
which the set is measured for a few blows after a short driving pause, which allows the excess pore pres-
sure to dissipate.

According to EN 12699, 7.7.3.3 when driving prefabricated concrete piles or steel piles into hard rock,
onto a sloping rock surface, suspected hard rock or when driving in soil with suspected contents of boul-
ders, the pile toe shall be designed for this. In Denmark this is taken care of by an increase of the spiral
helical stirrups (shear reinforcement) locally at the pile ends, c.f. drawing of reinforcement in section 3. In
the (remaining) Nordic part of Scandinavia pile shoes, also termed rock shoes, are recommended or even
required for every driven precast pile. Rock shoes are not - and should not be - a requirement in Denmark,
even on sites with glacial till, which may contain (big) boulders. The savings from leaving out the rock
shoes and relying on the intensified reinforcement more than pays off the possible extra cost for extra
piles ultimately broken due to unforeseen obstacles (incl. big boulders) in the soil. And even with rock
shoes you may not prevent a broken pile in case of big boulders.

Prestressed concrete piles are not used very much in Denmark, probably due the high utilisation of the
concrete compressive strength when driven into very dense layers of sand, limestone or stiff and strong
layers of clay till. The prestress “eats” or “occupies” some (a great deal) of the concrete compressive
strength and thus leaves less for resisting of the design load – and aggravate a potential second order
problem. Further by tension loads, the prestressed wires cannot be lap joined to the non-prestressed steel
in the super structure.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

A study has been carried out to investigate the development of the regeneration factor in high plasticity
clays from results of dynamic and static load tests, c.f. Ref [7]: The results support that a regeneration
factor of 0.4, as suggested in DK NA, achieved approximately 4 weeks after pile driving, is a plausible
lower bound value. However, the study also highlighted that the regeneration factor will continue to in-
crease with time after the initial 4 weeks, and that in many cases a regeneration factor greater than 0.4 can
be achieved within a short time after pile driving.

The 75 % reduction of F neg by bitumen coating has lately been supported by the findings from an on-
going R&D-project carried out by Aarhus University, School of Engineering Ref. [9] (findings are not yet
published). The study has furthermore indicated that the negative skin friction may be significantly over-
estimated if calculation is carried based on an undrained analysis (α-method), as is current Danish prac-
tice. The results suggest that a drained analysis may be more appropriate.

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE

8.1. Design Basis

Foundation of a roof for a stand on a stadium.

High Consequences class (CC3) ⇒ K FI = 1.1

Floor direct on the ground: 0.2 m reinforced concrete, γ = 24 kN/m3

Load on the floor: 10 kN/m2, 50 % of this influencing settlement.

4 nos. of 25 x 25 cm piles supporting each column.

Original ground level raised and thus loaded by sand fill after removal of 0.4 m topsoil.

Characteristic pile loads for 4 piles:

Permanent action G = 800 kN incl. plinth and sand fill above plinth
Variable action: Q = 400 kN

70
 0.4 m of top soil: γ = 16 kN/m3

Sand: γ = 18 kN/m3 above GWL

γ’ = 10 kN/m3 below GWL
GWL

Soft clay:
γ’ = 9 kN/m3, cfv = 85 kN/m2, Ip = 45 %
1.2
cu = c fv = 70 kN/m2
1 + 0.01 ⋅ I p
OSBL

Clay till: cu = 300 kN/m2

or
Meltwater sand: γ’ = 10 kN/m3, ϕ =38°

Figure 14: Soil profile for design example

8.2. Design loads

CC3 ⇒ K FI = 1.1

Table 7: Design loads per pile for ULS and SLS

CC3 charact. LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5 SLS
G (kN) 200 264 220 240 200 200 200
Q (kN) 100 0 165 0 150 0 122
F cd (kN) 264 385 240 350 200 322

LC2 is most critical by ULS. However, LC4 will render same necessary toe level, as the resistance factor
in LC4 is increased with K FI = 1.1. (F cd (LC2) / F cd (LC2) = 385/350 = 1.1 = K FI )

8.3. ULS
Contributions to shaft resistance from layers above OSBL disregarded for compatibility reasons.

8.3.1. Toe in clay till

R b,cal = 18 c u A b = 18 ⋅ 300 kN/m2 ⋅ (0.25 m)2 = 338 kN
Toe: z meter below OSBL (top of clay till in -5.5)
R s,cal = m r c u A s = 1.0 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅ 300 kN/m2 ⋅ z ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 m = 120 z kN

LC2 (K FI on action, not on resistance)

71
 Rb;cal + Rs;cal
Fc;d ≤ Rc;d = = (338 + 120 z)/(1.5 ⋅ 1.3) ⇒
ξ γR
z ≥ (1.95 F cd – 338)/120 = (1.95 ⋅ 385 – 338)/120 = 3.4 m

i.e. 8.9 m below driving level (0.0).

LC4 would render same result.

8.3.2. Toe in meltwater sand

The bearing resistance is based on the driving resistance.

Assume that the shaft resistance during driving is negligible, so that the measured resistance during driv-
ing comes from entirely from the base.

i.e. R c;d = R dyn;m / (ξ γ) ≥ F c;d ⇒ R dyn;m ≥ ξ γ F c;d = 1.5 ⋅ 1.3 ⋅ 385 kN (from LC2) = 750 kN

Assume:
Hydraulic hammer: 5 tonnes ~ 50 kN with efficiency factor h = 1.0
Length of piles, L p = 11 m
Drop height of hammer, h = 0.5 m
E = 20 ⋅ 106 kN/m2

2hhGL p 2 ⋅ 1.0 ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 50 ⋅ 11

s0 = = = 21.0 mm
Ab E (0.25) 2 ⋅ 20 ⋅ 10 6
hhG hhG 1.0 ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 50
Rdyn;m = ≥ ξ γ Fc;d ⇒ s ≤ − ½s0 = − ½ ⋅ 0.021 = 0.0228 m = 22.8 mm
s + 0,5s 0 ξ γ Fc;d 750
i.e.200/22.8 = 8.8 ~ 9 blows per 20 cm set.

8.4. SLS
Negative skin friction

a) Calculated shaft resistance in soil strata above OSBL (-5.5)

Sand above GWL: from 0.0 to -1.8

q m ’ = q’(-0.9 m) = 5 + 0.2 ⋅ 24 + 1.5 ⋅ 18 + 0.9 ⋅ 18 = 53 kN/m2
R s,cal = N m q m ’ A s = 0.6 ⋅ 53 ⋅ 1.8 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 = 57 kN

Sand below GWL: from -1.8 to -3.0

q m ’ = q’(-2.4 m) = 5 + 0.2 ⋅ 24 + 1.5 ⋅ 18 + 1.8 ⋅ 18 + 0.6 ⋅ 10 = 75 kN/m2
R s,cal = N m q m ’ A s = 0.6 ⋅ 75 ⋅ 1.2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 = 54 kN

Soft clay: from -3.0 to -5.5

R s,cal = m r c u A s = 1.0 ⋅ 1.0 ⋅ 70 kN/m2 ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 m = 175 kN
F neg;a = ∑i
Rsi;cal = 286 kN

b) Settlement producing actions after the piles have been installed

Increase of load during construction:

Relief: 0.4 ⋅ 16 = -6.4 kN/m²
Sand fill: 1.5 ⋅ 18 = 27.0 kN/m²
Floor: 0.2 ⋅ 24 = 4.8 kN/m²
Floor load: (50 % of 10 kN/m2) = 5.0 kN/m²
Total ∆q = 30.4 kN/m²

F neg;b = (8.252 – 2.32) ⋅ 30.4 / 4 = 477 kN

72
Final F neg = min {286 kN; 477 kN} = 286 kN

8.4.1. Toe in clay till

Resistance in clay till from ULS:
R b,cal = 338 kN
R s,cal = m r c u A s = 1.0 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅ 300 kN/m2 ⋅ z ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 m = 120 z kN

Rb;cal + Rs;cal
Fc;d + Fneg ≤ ⇒
ξ gR
z≥ ( ξg R )
( Fc;d + Fneg ) − Rb;cal / 120 = ( 1.5 ⋅ 1.3 ⋅ 1.1(322 + 286) − 338)/ 120 = 4.6 m

I.e. 10.1 m below driving level.

Conclusion: the SLS is most critical.

However, if bitumen coating is applied on the pile on 5.5 m aiming at placing this part of the pile from
level 0.0 to -5.5 the negative skin friction can be reduced to:

F neg = max {10 kN/m2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 0.25 m ⋅ 5.5 m; 25 % of 286 kN} = 72 kN

which will change (reduced) the necessary embedment length in clay til to
z≥ ( ξg R )
( Fc;d + Fneg ) − Rb;cal / 120 = ( 1.5 ⋅ 1.3 ⋅ 1.1(322 + 72) − 338)/ 120 = 2.0 m
i.e. only 7.5 m below driving level, by which the ULS is most critical. In the particular case this (bitumen
coating) will just save app. 1 m pile length, but in case of more negative skin friction (thicker layer of
settling soil), i.e. where the negative skin friction is considerable compared to the structural pile load, this
may save considerable meters of pile length.

8.4.2. Toe in meltwater sand

Similar assumptions regarding hammer and driving resistance from the layers above OSBL.
Rdyn;m
Fc;d + Fneg ≤ ⇒
ξ gR
Rdyn;m ≥ ξ g R ( Fc;d + Fneg ) = 1.5 ⋅ 1.3 ⋅ 1.1(322 + 286) = 890 kN

i.e. more than the ULS requirement.

hhG hhG 1.0 ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 50

R dyn;m = ≥ ξ γ Fc;d ⇒ s ≤ − ½s0 = − ½ ⋅ 0.021 = 0.0176 m = 17.6 mm
s + 0,5s 0 ξ γ Fc;d 890
i.e.200/17.6 = 11.3 ~ 12 blows per 20 cm set

However, if bitumen coating is applied on the pile on 5.5 m aiming at placing this part of the pile from
level 0.0 to -5.5 the negative skin friction can be reduced to 72 kN, the SLS is not decisive for the neces-
sary driving resistance.

REFERENCES
Skov, R., 2005, Pæle installeret ved ramning eller vibrering, DGF-bulletin 18, Manual for Foundation
Enginering (DK: Funderingshåndbogen), DGF.

Denver, H and Lagoni, P., 1982, Kompendium i Pælefundering, 2. udgave, Geoteknisk Institut, Køben-
havn.

Krebs Ovesen, N., Fuglsang, F. and Bagge, G., 2007, Lærebog i Geoteknik, Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby.
[1] DS 415:1984 regarding guidance on execution and design of piles.

73
Suikkanen, B., Buhr Jensen, B., Feddersen, B. and Lorin Rasmussen, J., 2008, Prefabricated foundation
piles in concrete, DGF Bulletin 21, Lyngby.

Bjerregaard Hansen, P., Sørensen, C. S. and Møller, O., 2013, Ultimate limit states, design approaches
and their partial coefficients, DGF Bulletin 17, Ch. 2.

Sørensen, K. K. og Okkels, N. (2012)”Time-dependent capacity of driven piles in high plasticity clay”.

DGF bulletin 27. Proceedings of the Nordic Geotechnical Meeting. Copenhagen

DGF Bulletin 1: A guide to engineering geological soil description.

Sørensen, K. K, 2015, Fuldskala pæleforsøg på Randers havn/Full scale pile testing at Randers Habour,
presentation, www.danskgeotekniskforening.dk, DGF meeting no. 4/2015

Reductions of negative friction on bearing piles by bitumen slip layers, Claessen, A.I.M. and Horvat E.
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, 1972

Skov, R. & H. Denver 1988. Time-dependence of bearing capacity of piles. In B. Fellenius (ed), Proc.
Third Inter. Conf. on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, 25-27 May: 879-888, Van-
couver: BiTech Publisher.

Brinch Hansen, J., 1961, Bulletin 12, The Ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces,
Geoteknisk Institut, Copenhagen

74
 Design of piles according to Eurocode 7 – Dutch practice
Ir. Kristina Reinders, Fugro Geoservices B.V., The Netherlands,[email protected]

Ir. Adriaan van Seters, Fugro Geoservices B.V., The Netherlands, [email protected]

Dr. ir. Mandy Korff, Deltares, The Netherlands,[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Since 2012 Eurocode 7 (EN-1997) has been implemented in The Netherlands. The existing regulations
have been incorporated in the National Annex (N.A.) and in the Non-Conflicting Complementary
Information (NCCI). The Eurocode 7 text, Dutch National Annex and the NCCI are included in the Dutch
NEN-standard NEN9997-1.
The regional geology consists of clays, peat and sand. Therefore, pile design in The Netherlands is based
on the Cone Penetration Test.
In this article the calculation method for ULS Pile design in compression and tension is outlined, for
single piles and for pile groups. Furthermore methods for SLS pile design and laterally loaded pile
analyses are discussed. The article concludes with an example for an axially loaded single pile.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. Introduction
The Netherlands is a predominantly flat country, with surface levels at or below sea level. About 60% of
the Dutch shallow subsurface consists of fluvial and coastal lowlands of Holocene age (see Figure 1). The
remaining part of the country consists almost entirely of Pleistocene terrains: sandy soils sloping upwards
to the south and the east, with an average elevation of between 10 and 20 m above Dutch ordnance level
NAP (roughly mean sea level). Only in the extreme southeast elevation levels exceed 100 m. In the
central part of the country ice-pushed ridges are marked morphological features. (van der Meulen et al.
2013)
A typical cross section over the country is shown in Figure 2).
Details can be found on Dino loket (www.dinoloket.nl), the digital archive of the subsoil in The
Netherlands by the Dutch geological survey at TNO.

1.2. Geological history

Throughout the last 10,000 years, the geological development of the Netherlands has largely been
determined by a rise in sea level, which was about 65 centimetres for each century. In the coastal areas, a
constant battle between land and sea has been taking place. The area just behind the the coastal area
developed rapidly. 8000 years ago, the sea level reached a level that is 20 meters below the level it is
today. Different kinds of (‘old’ and ‘young’) seaclay were moved onto already existing layers of peat.
Dunes have only developed within the last 3,000 years. The vast peat areas in the Northern provinces also
originate from the Holocene.

Before the Holocene period, two periods stand out in which ice covered the Netherlands. The first time
was during the Elsterien period, and the second time was during the Saalien period. During the Saalien,
lateral moraine and boulder clay were deposited. Enormous boulders were also transported into the
Netherlands. After the second ice age, the sea gradually withdrew. Loam and peat sediments originate
from the period after the Netherlands' ice ages. A third ice age, the Weichselien, never reached the Dutch
border. However, strong cold winds shifted large quantities of sand around the country.
(Deltawerken.com)

1.3. Hydrogeology
Most of the western half of the country is below sea level and consists of a patchwork of polders, each
with its own artificially controlled level of surface water and groundwater. This has resulted in a complex
system of infiltration into relatively elevated polders and in discharge by diffuse
upward leakage of fresh and brackish water into deep polders. The eastern half of the country
comprises (i) shallow aquifers in level areas, which are drained by seasonally contracting and

75
expanding stream systems, and (ii) deep aquifers in more elevated areas with hardly any
surface drainage and a groundwater table that reacts predominantly on annual variations in
rainfall. (Wong, Batjes and de Jager, 2007)

The ground water table in the Western part of the country is found very close to the surface and only in
the higher parts of the country (south and east) deeper levels are generally present.

1.4. Geotechnical implications for pile foundations

Foundations in the Western part of the country are typically made with piles of 12-25 m long, with the
piles reaching through the soft Holocene clay and peat deposits into the first meters of the Pleistocene
sand, see Figure 3. The upward flow of ground water in the (deep) polders may affect the quality of in
situ pile systems, for example piles made with grout injection or mixing.

In the Eastern (higher) part of the country, typically shallow foundations are used for structures with
lower loads and pile foundations are reserved for deeper or heavier structures. In these conditions the
presence of gravel and boulders (from previous ice ages) plays a role.

Within the depth used for foundations in The Netherlands no other soils than soft or stiff clays, peats and
sand are found, so piling to bedrock is absent.

Figure 1: Surface topography of the Netherlands; elevation relative to NAP = Normaal Amsterdams Peil = Dutch
ordnance datum, approximately mean sea level (source: Dufour, 2000).

76
Figure 2: Typical cross section from Rotterdam to Doetinchem (dinoloket.nl based on the GeoTop model)

Figure 3: top of the Pleistocene

77
2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Pile design in the Netherlands is based on the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) with measurement of cone
resistance and local shaft friction. Generally, CPT’s are performed in a relatively dense grid to calculate a
pile foundation. A maximum centre to centre distance of 25 m between CPT’s is recommended for
buildings and required in building regulations for limited variability to 15m in case of high variability.
The depth of the CPT should be at least 5 m below the pile tip level. At least 1 CPT should reach 10 times
the pile tip diameter below the pile tip level. In case of CC3 buildings (higher than 70 m), CPT’s should
reach to at least 3 times the smallest width of the building (maximum 25 m) below the pile tip level. In
the majority of the cases CPT’s are performed with electrical cones (10 cm2 and 15 cm2), while
mechanical cones are occasionally still used in the eastern and southern part of the country. Measurement
of the pore pressures is included in about 30% of the cases.
For each project site, at least 1 or 2 borings (typically cable percussion type with some undisturbed
sampling in the cohesive layers) are usually made for soil classification purposes.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Commonly used pile types include:

• Precast square concrete driven piles (>50% of total)

• Cast in situ concrete piles (approximately. 30%)

- Driven with a steel casing, at the final penetration and after pouring concrete into the casing, the
casing is retrieved by upward driving or upward vibrating. (Vibro-pile)
- Screwed casing with screw plate at the tip. At final penetration and after pouring concrete into the
casing, the casing is retrieved.
- Continuous flight auger piles
- Bored piles. The borehole stability is achieved using bentonite support fluid. After achieving the
required depth, concrete replaces the bentonite. Bored piles are not often used in The Netherlands.

• Steel piles or profiles

- Closed ended tubular driven pile
- Open ended tubular driven pile
- Steel H-pile or steel sheetpile profile
- Steel H-pile with grouting
- Steel screwed closed ended tubular pile
- Steel screwed closed ended tubular pile with grouting along the perimeter
- Open ended tubular pile, installed by percussion drilling.
• Micropiles
- Cast in-situ with drilling system
- Cast in-situ with anchor tubes and drill bit
- Cast in-situ with anchor tubes and flight auger blades
- Cast in-situ with temporary casing
In Table 1 an overview is given for the most common pile types. For each pile the pile class factor is
given and the applicable load displacement figure.

78
 Table 1: Pile types
Load-
Pile type Pile class factor a settlement
graphs
Figure 9
Type Typical specification Installation method αp αs αt and
Figure 10
Concrete-pile Precast; with constant cross Driven 1.0 0.010 0.007 1
section

Cast in situ with constant Driven; the casing is 1.0 0.014 0.012c 1
casing diameter and lost removed by reverse
bottom plate, concrete in driving in combination
direct contact with with static redrawal from
surrounding soil. the ground; the bottom
plate remains in the
ground.

Cast in situ with constant Driven; the casing is 1.0 0.012 0.010c 1
casing diameter and lost removed by vibrating the
bottom plate, concrete in casing in combination
direct contact with with static redrawel from
surrounding soil. the ground; the bottom
plate remains in the
ground.

Cast in situ with constant Screwed; during 0.9 0.009 0.009 1

casing diameter and drilling redrawal of the
tip, in which concrete is in temporary casing the
direct contact with drilling tip remains in
surrounding soil. the soil.

Cast in situ with Screwed 0.8 0.006 0.0045 2

Continuous-Flight-Auger.

Cast in situ fluid stabilized Excavated or bored 0.5 0.006 0.0045 3

excavation.

Steel pile Constant cross section; pipe Driven 1.0 0.010 0.007 1
pile closed ended b

Constant cross section; steel Driven 1.0 0.006 0.004 1

profile or open ended pipe
pile

With cast in situ grout Driven; with grout 1.0 0.014 0.012 1
around the profile with foot injection
plate

Constant cross section above Screwed 0.8 0.006 0.0045 1

screw tip

Cast in situ grout around the Screwed without 0.9 0.009 0.009 1
pipe pile with screw tip(shaft alternating up - and
diameter ≥ 300 mm) down movements during
installation; permanent
in-situ soil mixing with
grout

Constant cross section Cable tool drilled 0.5 0.005 - 3

Micro-pile d e Cast in-situ with double drilling Straight flush cased drilling 0.5 0.008 f 0.008 f 2
system, the grout is in direct system with grout
contact with surrounding soil. injection, no pressure
grouting

79
 Load-
Pile type Pile class factor a settlement
graphs
Figure 9
Type Typical specification Installation method αp αs αt and
Figure 10
Straight flush drilling cased 0.5 0.011 g 0.011 g 1
system with grout
injection, with pressure
grouting

Cast in-situ with single drilling Straight flush drilling 0.5 0.008 f 0.008 f 2
system, the grout is in direct uncased system with grout
contact with surrounding soil. injection, no pressure
grouting

Straight flush drilling 0.5 0.011 g 0.011 g 1

uncased system with grout
injection, with pressure
grouting

Cast in-situ with anchor tubes Self-boring with grout 0.5 h 0.008 f 0.008 f 2
and drill bit, the grout is in injection
direct contact with surrounding
soil.

Cast in-situ with anchor tubes Screwed; in-situ soil with 0.5 h 0.008 f 0.008 f 2
and flight auger blades, the grout
grout is in direct contact with
surrounding soil.

Cast in-situ with temporary Vibrated with grout 0.5 0.006 0.006 2
casing, the grout is in direct injection
contact with surrounding soil.

a
From 1/1/2017 all α p values will be reduced to 70% of the values presented in the table.
b
The foot plate of the close ended pipe pile cannot extend more than 10 mm from the pipe.
c
For tension piles, the footplate cannot extend more than 25 mm from the casing .
d
Values valid for micropiles with diameter < 200 mm for drilled systems and vibrated piles and <400 mm for self-boring and
screwed systems.
e
High values may be used if pile load tests are performed after pile installation, see f and g.
f
With pile load tests the value is 0.012.
g
With pile load tests the value is 0.017.
h
If the casing is not moved up and down over the deepest part of the pile (from 8x pile diameter above the tip to
tip level) AND the grout is pressed in with high pressure at the tip AND the pile is fixed in place by screwing, the value is 0.9.

80
4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
NEN 9997-1, being the Eurocode 7 EN1997-1 and the Dutch National Annex and Non-Conflicting
Complementary Information.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

In the Netherlands analyses of the pile bearing capacity are carried out in accordance with Eurocode 7
(EC7) Design Approach 3. EC7 design approach 3 requires analysis of combination “A1” + “M2” +
“R3”. This implies load factors, material factors and resistance factors.

For ULS pile bearing capacity calculations in compression and tension the material factors M2 are set
equal to 1.0. Only the load factors and resistance factors are used. This would strictly appear as DA2.

For horizontal pile calculations the resistance factors are equal to 1.0. Only the load factors and material
factors are used.

The ultimate bearing capacity for compression piles is generally performed using the 4D/8D Koppejan
method, which is a CPT based method for pile calculations. This is explained further in this chapter.

For tension piles, the ultimate bearing capacity is based on the calculation method, published in CUR
2001-4 (2003), which is a CPT oriented method. This method has also been included in NEN9997-1.

The following condition must be fulfilled: design value of the design load has to be smaller or equal to the
design value of the pile resistance (Unity check).

Calculations for laterally loaded piles are generally performed using a beam-column analysis using non-
linear elastic springs for the soil support.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

R c,d = design value of the pile resistance in compression in kN.
R b,d = design value of the pile base resistance in kN
R s,d = design value of the pile shaft resistance in kN
F nk = negative skin friction in kN.
F c,d = is the design value of the vertical load in compression
R c,k = characteristic value of the pile resistance in compression in kN.
R b,cal = calculated value of the pile base resistance in kN
R s,cal = calculated value of the pile shaft resistance in kN
R t,d = design value of the pile resistance in tension in kN.
F t,d = is the design value of the vertical load in tension
ξ = correlation factor
γt = partial factor for total resistance of the pile
γ f;nk = partial load factor for negative shaft friction

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Axial compression of a single pile

In the Netherlands the maximum bearing capacity in compression of a single pile is determined on the
basis of q c values from an electrical CPT. This method is called the 4D/8D method because it takes into
account the cone resistance in the area of 4 * pile diameter below the pile tip to 8 * pile diameter above
the pile tip for the calculation of the pile base resistance. The pile shaft resistance is calculated with the
average cone resistance over the length of the pile in the layer in which the base of the pile is placed.

Because the top soils in the Netherlands are often soft compressible soils, negative skin friction is taken
into account in many cases.

81
The total bearing capacity in compression is the sum of the end bearing resistance and the shaft
resistance.

To verify the pile in ultimate Limit State the design load on the pile has to be smaller than the bearing
capacity of the pile: F c;d ≤ R c;d .

As design approach 3 is used, the design loads (F c,d ) have to be determined with the following partial
factors on the loads:
- 1.35 on permanent (unfavourable) loads
- 1.5 on variable (unfavourable) loads

To perform a SLS calculation to determine the vertical displacements, the loads and bearing capacity are
unfactored. The characteristic values are used.

Total Bearing Capacity

The characteristic value of the bearing capacity is calculated according to:

𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 �𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �

𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑘𝑘 = =� ; � (1)
ξ 𝜉𝜉3 𝜉𝜉4

The design value of the bearing capacity is then calculated according to:
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑘𝑘
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑑𝑑 = (2)
𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡

The values of ξ 3 and ξ 4 are given in the Dutch National Annex and are summarised in Table 2 and Table
3 below:

Table 2: (EN1997-1-Dutch NA-A.10a) — Correlation factors ξ for determining characteristic values of pile bearing
capacity from CPT’s for a flexible structure (n is number of tests).

Correlationfactors ξ for flexible structure

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
ξ3 1.39 1.32 1.30 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.25

ξ4 1.39 1.32 1.30 1.03 1.03 1.01 1.00

Table 3: (EN1997-1-Dutch NA-A.10a) — Correlation factors ξ for determining characteristic values of pile bearing
capacity from CPT’s for a rigid structure (n is number of tests).

Correlationfactors ξ for rigid structure

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
ξ3 1.26 1.20 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.15 1.14

ξ4 1.26 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91

When using a correlation factor for n≥2 the variation coefficient for this group of CPT’s may not be
larger than 12%. If the variation coefficient is larger, the project should be split into subgroups with a
smaller number of piles n, resulting in a higher correlation factor per subgroup. The variations should be
kept within these limits in each subgroup. In chapter 8.4 an example is given how to check the correlation
factor.

82
End Bearing
The calculated value of the end bearing capacity is calculated according to:

𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 × 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (3)

Where
Ab is the cross sectional area of the base in m2
q b;max is the maximum point resistance

q b;max is calculated as follows (figure 4):

𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚+𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0,5 × 𝛼𝛼𝑝𝑝 × 𝛽𝛽 × 𝑠𝑠 × ( + 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) < 15 MPa (4)
2

Where
q c;I;mean is the mean of the q c;I values over the depth running from the pile base level to
a level which is at least 0,7 times and at most 4 times the equivalent pile base diameter
D eq deeper in [MPa].
q c;II;mean is the mean of the lowest q c;II values over the depth going upwards from the critical
depth to the pile base in [MPa]
q c;II;mean is the mean value of the q c;III values over a depth interval running from pile base level to
a level of 8 times the pile base diameter higher, or, in case b > 1,5 × a to 8 × a higher.
This procedure starts with the lowest q c;II value used for the computation of q c;II;mean in
[MPa]
αp empirical pile base factor taking into account the type of pile
β is the factor that takes into account the shape of the pile base
s is the factor which accounts for the shape of the pile base. In
Figure 5 the determination of s is presented.

83
 Figure 4:
Determination q cI , q cII and q cIII

1 is piletip level

Boundary line (1) β = 1,0 Boundary line (4) β = 0,7

Boundary line (2) β = 0,9 Left corner (5) β = 0,6
Boundary line (3) β = 0,8

Figure 5: Determination of s

84
Positive Shaft Friction
The calculated value of the shaft friction capacity is calculated according to:

∆𝐿𝐿
𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑂𝑂𝑠𝑠;∆𝐿𝐿;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × ∫0 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚;𝑧𝑧 × 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (5)

Where
O s;∆L;mean is the circumference of the part of the pile shaft in the layer in which the base of the pile
is placed, in m.
q s;max;z is the maximum shaft resistance

q s;max;z is calculated as follows:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚;𝑧𝑧 = 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 × 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑎𝑎 (6)

Where
αs empirical shaft factor taking into account the pile type
q c;z;a is the cut-off value of q c at depth z, in [MPa]. If q c;z ≥ 12 MPa over a
continuous depth interval of 1 m or more, then q c;z;a ≤ 15 MPa over this interval. If the
depth interval with q c;z > 12 MPa is less than 1 m thick, then q c;z;a ≤ 12 MPa over this
interval,

In the derivation of the cone resistance for the shaft and end bearing, the following reductions A and/or B
shall be considered:

A: When the pile is installed in overconsolidated soil and the installation is not by driving or vibration,
the cone resistance must be reduced according:

1
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 × � (7)
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂

Where
q c;z;NC reduced cone resistance due to overconsolidation in [MPa]
q c;z;OC measured cone resistance in overconsolidated soil in [MPa]
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio

B: In case that the CPT’s have been executed from original ground level and subsequently an excavation
takes place, the cone resistance has to be reduced due to the decrease of the vertical effective stress.

Two cases are considered:

1. Piles are installed by driving or vibrating after the excavation took place:
𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣;𝑧𝑧;𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧 × (8)
𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣;𝑧𝑧;0

2. Piles are installed not by driving or vibrating OR all type of piles are installed before the excavation
was executed

𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣;𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧 × � (9)
𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣;𝑧𝑧;0

Where
q c;z;ontgr corrected cone resistance at depth z, including effects of excavation in [MPa]
q c;z cone resistance before excavation at depth z in [MPa]
σ’ v;z;excav reduced vertical effective stress at depth z after excavation in [kPa]
σ’ v;z;0 initial cone resistance at the time of executing the CPT, before excavation in [kPa]

Negative skin friction

In the Netherlands, the negative skin friction for a single is calculated based on the effective stresses and
internal friction angle. The negative skin friction per soil layer i is calculated according to:

85
𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛;𝑘𝑘;𝑖𝑖 = 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 × 𝜎𝜎′𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚;𝑖𝑖 × 𝐾𝐾0;𝑖𝑖 × 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 × 𝑂𝑂𝑠𝑠;𝑖𝑖 (10)
Where
F nk;k;i characteristic value for the negative skin friction in layer i in [kN]
di thickness of layer I in [m]
σ’ mean;I average vertical effective stress in layer i [kPa]
K 0;i coefficient of earth pressure at rest in layer i
K o;i = 1 – sin ϕ i ’ where ϕ i ’ is the effective friction angle in layer i
δi friction angle between soil and pile in layer i.
𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 = 0.75𝑥𝑥𝜑𝜑′𝑖𝑖 for prefabricated piles or 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 = 𝜑𝜑′𝑖𝑖 for in situ piles
The value of 𝐾𝐾0;𝑖𝑖 × 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 should be at least 0.25
O s;i is the circumference of the part of the pile shaft in layer i in [m]

All layers above pile tip where negative skin friction occurs have to be added to determine the total
negative skin friction.

The design value of the negative skin friction is calculated according:

𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛;𝑑𝑑 = 𝛾𝛾𝑓𝑓;𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 × 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛;𝑘𝑘 (11)

Where
F nk;d design value for the negative skin friction in [kN]
F nk;k characteristic value for the negative skin friction in [kN]
γ f;nk partial factor for negative skin friction. This factor is 1.0 for a single pile if all layers
where negative skin friction can occur are included. If only a part of the layers are
included (interaction calculation) a factor of 1.4 should be used.

For pile groups a different method is described in NEN9997-1 to determine the negative skin friction. For
pile groups γ f;nk is 1.2.

5.3.2. Axial tension capacity

5.3.2.1. Single pile in tension

In the Netherlands the maximum bearing capacity in tension is determined on the basis of q c values from
an electrical CPT.

To verify the pile in ultimate Limit State the design load on the pile has to be smaller than the bearing
capacity of the pile: F t;d ≤ R t;d .

As design approach 3 is used, the design loads (F t,d ) have to be determined with the following partial
factors on the loads:
- 1.35 on permanent (unfavourable) loads
- 1.5 on variable (unfavourable) loads

To perform a SLS calculation to determine the vertical displacements, the loads and bearing capacity are
unfactored. The characteristic values are used.

The design value of the bearing capacity in tension is calculated according to:

∆𝐿𝐿
𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡;𝑑𝑑 = 𝑂𝑂𝑠𝑠;∆𝐿𝐿;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × ∫0 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 × 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (12)

q s;z;d is calculated as follows:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓1 × 𝑓𝑓2 × 𝛼𝛼𝑡𝑡 × 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 (13)

Where
f1 factor that takes into account the densification in sand layers if a pile group is installed.
For a single pile or for clay this value is 1.0
f2 factor that takes into account the effect of relaxation in sand layers if a pile group is
installed. For a single pile or for clay this value is 1.0

86
αt pile class factor
q s;z;d design value of the shaft friction at a depth z in in [MPa]
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑎𝑎
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 = (14)
𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠;𝑡𝑡 ×𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚;𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣;𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 ×𝜉𝜉

Where
γ s;t is the resistance factor = 1.35
γ m;var;qc is a factor that takes into account variable loads (see figure 2)
q c;z;a is the cut-off value of q c at depth z, in [MPa]. If q c;z ≥ 12 MPa over a
continuous depth interval of 1 m or more, then q c;z;a ≤ 15 MPa over this interval. If the
depth interval with q c;z > 12 MPa is less than 1 m thick, then q c;z;a ≤ 12 MPa over this
interval.
q c;z;d is the design value of the cone resistance in [MPa]

In these calculations the reduction of the cone resistance q c;z;a due to overconsolidation or due to
excavation shall be taken into account (see 5.3.1).
The upper 1 m soil shall be considered not to contribute to the shaft friction in computing the tension
bearing capacity due to possible disturbances of the subsoil or inaccuracies of the ground level.

The value of γ m;var;qc varies between 1.0 and 1.5 and depends on the minimum and maximum load of the
pile. In Figure 6 F t;max;k is the maximum characteristic value of the axial load on the pile and F t;min;k is the
minimum characteristic value of the axial load on the pile (tension – positive value, compression:
negative value). In case of a constant tension load F t;min;k / F t;max;k equals 1.0, and γ m;var;qc is 1.0.
In case of a purely alternating load F t;min;k / F t;max;k equals - 1.0, and γ m;var;qc is 1.5. A special case is an
initial tension load in the pile and only compression loads at later stages. It that case a value for γ m;var;qc
equal to 1.0 can be applied.
Ft;min;k / Ft;max;k

γ m;var;qc

Figure 6: Determination of γ m;var;qc

5.3.2.2 Pile groups in tension

For piles in a group, the bearing capacity in tension is the lowest of 2 mechanisms:
1. Formula from section 5.3.2.1, which represents geotechnical failure of the friction along the pile
shafts, including the factors f1 and f2 for groups of piles
2. Failure of a block of soil surrounding the pile group

The method described here is only valid for piles that derive >50% of their resistance from sand layers
and have a length between 7 and 50 m and a length over diameter ratio of at least 13.5.

Geotechnical failure along the pile shafts

Determination of the factor f 1.

87
For piles in a group the factor f 1 is a favourable factor taking into account the densification of sand within
a pile group.

The factor f 1 is determined by:

f1 = e 3×ΔRe (15)

where:
n

∑ ∆e
∆Re = 1
(16)
(emax − emin )
n
(r − 6) × (1+ e0 )
∑ ∆e = −
1
5,5 50
and r ≤ 6 (17)

e0 = - Re × (emax - emin ) + emax (18)

 q c;z 
Re = 0,34 × ln  (19)
 61× ( σ ’ ) 0,71 
 v;z;0 

Where:
∆R e increase of relative density due to densification of the sand when installing the piles. This
factor is determined from the decrease of void ratio and is derived by the sum of the
densification effects ∆e of the surrounding piles as a function of their c-c distance.
e void ratio
∆e decrease of void ratio due to installation of displacement piles within a distance
of 6 × D eq
e max maximum void ratio, i.e. in case of the most loose state of the sand. This parameter can be
roughly estimated. In The Netherlands, a value of 0.8 is generally used.
e min minimum void ratio, i.e. in case of the most dense state of the sand. This parameter can be
roughly estimated. In The Netherlands, a value of 0.4 is generally used.
n number of piles within a distance of 6 × D eq of the pile considered
r centre to centre distance in D eq of group pile to pile considered with a maximum of r = 6, No
densification, when r > 6.
eo initial void ratio of the soil
Re initial value of the relative density of the soil
q c;z measured cone resistance at depth z in [kPa]
σ′ v;z;0 initial effective vertical stress at depth z at time of executing the CPT in [kPa]

Determination of the factor f 2.

The factor f 2 takes into account that a tension load on a closely spaced pile group causes unloading of the
soil and a decrease of vertical effective stress. The factor f 2 should be considered for piles in sand only.

The factor f 2 for a pile in a pile group must be determined according to eq. (20) using design values of the
parameters:

 i −1 
( ) ∑
− M i + M i2 + 2 × σ ' v ; j;0 ;d +γ ' i;d ×d i ×  2 × σ ' v ; j;0;d +γ ' i ;d ×d i − 2 × q t;n;d 
 
 n =0 
=
f 2 ;i
( )
2 × σ 'v; j;0;d +γ ' i;d ×d i
(20)

88
Where:
f1; i × Os;gem;i × α t × qc;i ;d × d i
Mi = (21)
A
q t;i ;d = M i × f2; i (22)

For a pile grid with constant distances between the piles, the following is valid:

Where:
Mi help parameter for layer i in [kPa];
q t;i;d design value of the part of the tensile resistance in the layer i in [kPa]
σ′ v;j;0;d design value of the vertical effective stress after excavation (when applicable) at
layer change j in [kPa]
O s;gem;i average circumference of the pile in layer i in [m]
q c;i;d design value of the average cone resistance in layer i in [kPa]
di layer thickness of layer i [m]
A area of influence of the pile, in a rectangular pile grid, this is the area limited to 0.5 of the
centre to centre distance to the adjacent pile, see Figure 7.
γ′ d;i design value of the effective volume weight in layer i in [kN/m3]
Y1 centre to centre distance to next pile row, see Figure 7. [m]
Y2 centre to centre distance to other next pile row, see Figure 7 in [m]
X centre to centre distance perpendicular to Y1 and Y2, see Figure 7 in [m]
A paal cross sectional area of the pile [m2], see Eq (23) and Figure 6.
γ′ d;n design value of the effective volume weight in layer n in [kN/m3]
γγ partial factor for volume weight of soil

The value of γ γ is equal to 1.0, when a large value of the volume weight is unfavourable, otherwise the
value of γ γ equals 1.1.

For the calculation of f 2 the soil block over the entire length of the pile is divided in layers of maximum
1 m thick with more or less constant cone resistance q c;z

For a regular square pile grid (see Figure 7), the value of A is determined according:

1 1 
A =  Y2 + Y1  × X − Apaal (23)
2 2 

It is noted that this formula is only valid when the ratio of X and Y does not exceed 2.

Figure 7: Area of influence for a pile

89
The vertical effective stress shall be determined according:
i −1
σ ' v; j ;0;d = ∑γ '
n =0
n;d ⋅ dn (24)

Failure of the soil block

The
R t;d ≤ R t;kluit;d (25)

Where
R t;kluit;d design value of the weight of the soil block, excluding the weight of the pile in [kN]
(kluit is Dutch for soil block)

The weight of the soil block shall be determined according:

Rt;kluit;d =(Vcone + Vcilinder ) ⋅ γ 'd (26)

Where:
V cone volume of the cone type volume of soil at the pile tip (excluding the pile
volume) in [m3]
V cylinder volume of a schematised cylinder of soil around the pile, excluding the volume of the
pile in [m3]
γ′ d design value of the volume weight of the soil in [kN/m3] In case of layered
soils, the weight per layer shall be taken into account.

Soil block

Figure 8: Determination of weight of soil blocks based on the half top angle α

The half top angle of the cone α shall be determined from Table 4.

Table 4: Half top angle of the soil cone at pile tip

Half top angle α Half top angle α
Pile type Inside the pile group outside the pile group
degrees degrees
Displacement piles 45 30

Other piles 2/3 × ϕ’ 1/2 × ϕ’

ϕ’ = angle of internal friction at pile tip level

It should be mentioned that the application of the above deviates from equation 7.15 in EC7. The factor
γ s;t is used in combination with the cone resistance and not with the pile resistance Rt;k. This is done to
obtain an even safety level for both mechanisms in pile group analyses, or more specific, to differentiate

90
piles that derive their resistance from shaft friction versus piles, where the soil block weight in the group
is governing.

5.3.3. Lateral loading of a single pile

Laterally loaded piles can be calculated using several methods: analytical methods, horizontal spring
based methods and numerical methods. Nowadays in the Netherlands usually non/linear spring based
methods or numerical methods are being used.

To determine the moments and forces in the piles an ULS calculation is performed. In this calculation the
load factors and material factors are included. According to NEN9997-1 the following factors have to be
used for design at Ultimate Limit State.
γ m;g is the material factor for the volumetric weight of the soil = 1.1
γ m;ω is the material factor for the tangent of the friction angle = 1.15
γ m;cu is the material factor for the undrained shear strength = 1.35
γ m;E is the material factor for the soil stiffness = 1.3

As design approach 3 is used, the engineer has to determine his design loads (F c,d ) with the following
partial factors on the loads:
- 1.35 on permanent (unfavourable) loads
- 1.5 on variable (unfavourable) loads

The resistance factor is 1.0.

To verify the pile in Ultimate Limit State the calculated ULS values of the moments and shear forces
have to be smaller than the design yield bending moments and shear forces.

To determine the horizontal displacements a SLS calculation is performed. In this calculation loads and
soil properties (materials) are unfactored (characteristic values).

To verify the pile in Serviceable Limit State the horizontal displacements have to be checked againstthe
maximum allowable displacements. Usually the allowable displacements are given by the structural
engineer.

5.3.4. Specific issues

The piles factors α p ,α s and α t are given in the Dutch annex of the Eurocode. In a recent report CUR 229
(2010) it was concluded that the pile class factors for the end bearing resistance α p are too optimistic.
Therefore is was decided that from January 1st 2017 onwards the pile factor α p will be reduced to 70% of
the value presented in Table 1.

A higher value can only be used if piles test are performed and if the results of the piles tests show higher
value for α p .

5.3.5. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

Presently, a CUR-publication on Mooring and Breasting Dolphin piles is in preparation. Furthermore,
CUR 2001-8 (2001) on Steel Pipe Piles was written in 2001.

5.4. SLS design

The settlements of single pile can be calculated with the following formula:
𝑠𝑠 = 𝑠𝑠𝑏𝑏 + 𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (27)
Where
s is the total settlement of the pile top
s b is the settlement of the pile tip due to load on the pile
s el is the settlement of the pile top relative to the pile tip, due to elasticity of the pile. This value
depends on the loads, the length of the pile, the diameters of the pile and the pile material.
s b is determined with Figure 9 and Figure 10. In these figures the displacement behaviour for a
displacement pile, a continuous flight ager pile and a bored pile is given. These curves are based on actual
pile load tests.

91
A driven displacement pile (curve 1) shows a stiffer behaviour than a continuous flight ager pile (curve 2)
and a bored pile (curve 3).
The two figures have to be combined to determine the load settlement curve of the pile. This has been
done in the example in the end of this article.

Rb;cal ;i
[%]
Rb;cal ;max;i

1= Displacement pile
2 = Continuous flight auger pile
3 = Bored pile

Figure 9: Relationship between R b;cal expressed as a percentage of R b;cal;max and the settlement s b expressed as a
percentage of D eq

Rs ;cal ;i
[%]
Rs ;cal ;max;i

1= Displacement pile
2 = Continuous flight auger pile
3 = Bored pile

Figure 10: Relationship between R s;cal expressed as a percentage of R s;ca;maxl and the settlement s b

Pile group settlements need to be calculated with traditional settlement analyses where the total load of
the pile group and the influence area of the pile group is taken into account.

92
For large pile groups, for example under high rise buildings, interaction numerical analyses are necessary
where the stiffness of the soil and the stiffness of the structures are incorporated.

5.5. Design based on load tests

Pile design based on load tests is seldom performed in the Netherlands because of the good relation
between CPT results and bearing capacity and the relative dense grid of CPT locations (25 m x 25 m).

Exceptions are anchor piles or piles where the expected pile bearing capacity is much higher than the
value derived from NEN 9997-1. The latter is the case for grouted pile types or piles with pile tip
improvement.

For anchor piles the design bearing capacity is checked on basis of load test (tension). According to CUR
236 (2011) the minimum number of load tests is 3. With the results of these tests the design parameters
are checked.

It is expected that in the future, with the development of new cast in situ piles, the amount of pile load
tests will increase.

5.6. Design based on experience

Not used in the Netherlands.

5.7. Structural safety

The structural design of the pile should be done according to EN1992:Design of concrete structures and
EN1993:Design of steel structures and is done by the structural engineer.

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

Quality control by Integrity testing is generally done for cast in situ piles (CFA piles).

To proof that a foundation fulfils the specified requirements, load tests can be performed. In general three
types of tests are available.
• Static load test
• Rapid Load Test (Statnamic) test, according to (Hölscher and van Tol, 2009)
• PDA test

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

No nationally maintained database.

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
8.1. Starting points

Used CPT : CPT 2-10

Pile type : Prefabricated concrete pile
Pile dimensions : / 250 mm
Pile tip level : NAP -16 m
Top of positive shaft friction : NAP -12.5 m
Negative shaft friction zone : from surface level to NAP -12.5 m
Tension zone : from NAP -12.5 m tot NAP -16.0 m
Surface level : NAP -1.5 m
Ground water level : NAP -2.5 m

Load from construction on : 200 kN permanent compression SLS value

compression pile 75 kN variable compression SLS value
F c;k = 200 kN + 75 kN = 275 kN
F c;d = 200 * γ F + 75 * γ F
F c;d = 200 * 1,35 + 75 * 1,5 = 382 kN

93
Load from construction on : 50 kN variable compression
Tension pile F t;k = 50 kN
F t;d = 50 * γ F
F t;d = 50 * 1,5 = 75 kN

In Table 5 the generalized stratigraphy is presented and in Figure 11 the CPT is given.

Table 5: Generalized stratigraphy

From To
Layer Soil Layer Description
[m NAP] [m NAP]
1 -1.50 -2.50 SAND
2 -2.50 -4.75 PEAT
3 -4.75 -5.25 CLAY
4 -5.25 -10.00 PEAT
5 -10.00 -11.75 CLAY
6 -11.75 -12.25 SAND
7 -12.25 -12.50 CLAY
8 -12.50 -21.50 SAND

Figure 11: CPT

94
8.2. Compression Pile
In Table 6 the calculation of the negative skin friction is presented.

Table 6: Negative Skin Friction

From To di γ' i σ' mean;i K 0;i tan δ i Os F nk;k;i

Layer
[m NAP] [m NAP] [m] [kN/m3] [kPa] [-] [m] [kN]
1 -1.50 -2.50 1.00 18.0 9.0 0.25 1.00 2.3
2 -2.50 -4.75 2.25 1.0 19.1 0.25 1.00 10.8
3 -4.75 -5.25 0.50 4.0 21.3 0.25 1.00 2.7
4 -5.25 -10.00 4.75 1.0 24.6 0.25 1.00 29.2
5 -10.00 -11.75 1.75 4.0 30.5 0.25 1.00 13.3
6 -11.75 -12.25 0.50 10.0 36.5 0.25 1.00 4.6
7 -12.25 -12.50 0.25 4.0 39.5 0.25 1.00 2.5
TOTAL F nk;k 65.4

Where
F nk;k;i Characteristic value for the negative skin friction in layer i in [kN]
di Thickness of layer i in [m]
γ' i Effective volumetric weight of soil of layer i in [kN/m3]
σ’ mean;i Average vertical effective stress in layer i in [kPa]
K 0;I Coefficient of earth pressure at rest in layer i
K o;i = 1 – sin ωi ’ where ωi ’ is the effective friction angle in layer i.
δi Delta friction angle in layer i.
𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 = 0,75 × 𝜑𝜑′𝑖𝑖 , prefab pile
The value of 𝐾𝐾0;𝑖𝑖 × 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 should be at least 0.25
O s;I is the circumference of the part of the pile shaft in layer i in [m].

The maximum point resistance is:

𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚+𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0,5 × 𝛼𝛼𝑝𝑝 × 𝛽𝛽 × 𝑠𝑠 × ( + 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) = 7.98 MPa
2

Where
q c;I;mean = 8.51 MPa
q c;II;mean = 8.03 MPa
q c;II;mean = 7.69 MPa
αp = 1.0 for a precast concrete pile. From 1/1/2017, this factor is 0.7.
β = 1.0 for a precast concrete pile
s = 1.0 for a precast concrete pile

The calculated value of the end bearing capacity is:

𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 × 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.499 MN = 499 kN

Where
Ab = 0.0626 m²
q b;max = 7.98 MPa

The calculated value of the shaft friction capacity is:

∆𝐿𝐿
𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝑂𝑂𝑠𝑠;∆𝐿𝐿;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × ∫0 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚;𝑧𝑧 × 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0.277 MN = 277 kN

Where
O s;∆L;mean =1m
q s;max;z = 0.079 MPa
dz = 3.5 m (from NAP -12.5 to NAP -16 m)

q s;max;z is calculated as follows:

95
𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚;𝑧𝑧 = 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 × 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑎𝑎 = 0.0789 MPa

Where
αs = 0.01 for a precast concrete pile
q c;z;a = 7.89 MPa

The characteristic value of the bearing capacity is calculated according to:

𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 499 + 277

𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑘𝑘 = = = 558 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
ξ 1.39

For a single CPT and a flexible building, the value of ξ 3 and ξ 4 is equal to 1.39.

The design value of the bearing capacity is then calculated according to:

𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑘𝑘 558
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑑𝑑 = − 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛;𝑘𝑘 ∗ 𝛾𝛾𝑓𝑓;𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = − 65 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 ∗ 1.0 = 400 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡 1.2

To verify the pile in ultimate Limit State the design load on the pile has to be smaller than the bearing
capacity of the pile: F c;d ≤ R c;d .

In this case F c;d = 382 kN and R c;d = 400 kN. Thus F c;d ≤ R c;d and the pile meets the requirement.

Vertical Pile displacement in compression:

To determine the displacement for the given load the negative skin friction has to be added to the
characteristic value of the load.

The characteristic compression load including negative skin friction is F c;k;tot = F c;k + F nk;k =275 kN + 65
kN = 340 kN.

First the pile tip settlement s b is determined based on the load displacement curves given in
NEN 9997-1. For the prefabricated concrete pile  / 250 mm with pile tipe level at NAP -16 m the
load displacement curves are made and then combined in one curve to determine the base displacement.
In Figure 12 and Figure 13 the load displacement curves are given for the calculated end bearing and shaft
friction. Then the curves are transformed into curves with the characteristic loads, where the correlation
factor ξ is included. In the next step the s b /D eq of the load displacement curve of the pile base is turned
into a s b by multiplying with D eq . Finally, both figures are combined in one figure, see Figure 14. The
latter is then used to determine s b .

Figure 12: Relationship between R b;cal expressed as a Figure 13: Relationship between R s;cal expressed as a
percentage of R b;cal;max percentage of R s;ca;maxl
and the settlement s b expressed as a percentage of D eq and the settlement s b for a precast pile 
/ 250 mm
for a precast pile / 250 mm and pile tip level at NAP -16 m
and pile tip level at NAP -16 m

96
 Figure 14: Combination of Figure 12 and Figure 13 gives s b = 4 mm for a F c;k;tot = 340 kN

Figure 15: elastic settlement s el is approx. 4 mm for F c;k;tot = 340 kN

The displacement of the pile top will be 4 mm + 4 mm = 8 mm.

97
Figure 16: Pile head displacement in compressions s = s b +s el = 7.8 mm

8.3. Maximal bearing capacity in tension for a single pile

The design value of the bearing capacity in tension is calculated according to:

∆𝐿𝐿
𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡;𝑑𝑑 = 𝑂𝑂𝑠𝑠;∆𝐿𝐿;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × � 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 × 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
0

For a single pile, the “soil-block” criterion is not governing! The check on this mechanism has therefore
not been executed.

q s;z;d is calculated as follows:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓1 × 𝑓𝑓2 × 𝛼𝛼𝑡𝑡 × 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑

Where
f1 = 1.0 for a single pile
f2 = 1.0 for a single pile
αt = 0.007 for a precast concrete pile
q s;z;d = see table below

𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑎𝑎
𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐;𝑧𝑧;𝑑𝑑 =
𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠;𝑡𝑡 × 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚;𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣;𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 × 𝜉𝜉

Where
γ s;t = 1.35
γ m;var;qc = 1.0 if no variable load
q c;z;a = see table below
q c;z;d = see table below

For a single CPT and a flexible building, the value of ξ 3 and ξ 4 is equal to 1.39.

98
Table 7: Bearing capacity in tension per layer
q c;z;d
from / to q c;z;a 𝜸𝜸𝒔𝒔;𝒕𝒕 𝜸𝜸𝒎𝒎;𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 𝝃𝝃 f 1 and f 2 αt q s;z;d ∆L i O s;∆L;mean R t;d
Layer [MPa
[m NAP] [Mpa] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [MPa] [m] [m] [kN]
]
1 -12.5 / -13.0 4.0 1.35 1.0 1.39 2.13 1.0 0.007 0.015 0.5 1.0 7.5

2 13.0 / -13.5 8.0 1.35 1.0 1.39 4.26 1.0 0.007 0.030 0.5 1.0 14.9

3 13.5 / -14.0 9.0 1.35 1.0 1.39 4.80 1.0 0.007 0.034 0.5 1.0 16.8

4 14.0 / -14.5 8.0 1.35 1.0 1.39 4.26 1.0 0.007 0.030 0.5 1.0 14.9

5 14.5 / -15.0 8.0 1.35 1.0 1.39 4.26 1.0 0.007 0.030 0.5 1.0 14.9

6 15.0 / -15.5 8.5 1.35 1.0 1.39 4.53 1.0 0.007 0.032 0.5 1.0 15.9

7 15.5 / -16.0 9.5 1.35 1.0 1.39 5.06 1.0 0.007 0.035 0.5 1.0 17.7

Total 102.6

To verify the pile in ultimate Limit State the design load on the pile has to be smaller than the bearing
capacity of the pile: F c;d ≤ R c;d .

In this case F t;d = 50 kN and R c;d = 102 kN. Thus F t;d ≤ Rt ;d and the pile meets the requirement.

8.4. Example determining the correlation factor

In Table 8 an example is given for checking the correlation factor for a flexible foundation with 5 CPT’s.

Table 8: Example for determining the correlation factor

R b;cal + R s:cal
CPT
[kN]
1 600
2 500
3 573
4 490
5 566

Mean value µ 546 kN ξ 3 = 1.28 for 5 CPTs R c;k = 546 / 1.28 = 426 kN
Min value 490 kN ξ 4 = 1.03 for 5 CPTs R c;k = 490 / 1.08 = 476 kN
Standard deviation σ 43.1
Variation coefficient
0.08 <12% and therefore
ν = σ/µ

The mean value is lower than the minimum value and therefore the mean value is the worst case. The
design value of the pile resistance in compression is:
R c;d = R c;d / γ t = 426 / 1.2 = 355 kN

The variation coefficient is smaller than 12% and therefore the correlation factors of ξ 3 = 1.28 and ξ 4 =
1.03 may be used.

REFERENCES
Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, 2003. CUR-Rapport 2001-4
Ontwerpregels voor trekpalen. Gouda, CUR.

Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, 2001. CUR-Rapport 2001-9 Bearing

Capacity of Steel Pipe Piles. Gouda, CUR.

99
Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, 2010. CUR-Rapport 229 Axiaal
Draagvermogen van Palen. Gouda, CUR.

Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, 2011. CUR-Rapport 236 Ankerpalen.

Gouda, CUR.

Hölscher P. and van Tol A.F, 2009. Rapid Load testing of piles, interpretation. London, Taylor & Francis
Group.

Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut, 2011. NEN9997-1 Geotechnisch ontwerp van constructies deel 1;
Algemene regels. Delft, NEN.

Van der Meulen M.K., doornenbal, J.C, Gunnink, J.L., Stafleu J. and others, 2013. 3D Geology in a 2D
country: perspectives for geological surveying in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences –
Geologie en Mijnbouw. p 217-241.

Wong Th. E, Batjes D.A.J. and J. de Jager J., eds. 2007. Geology of the Netherlands. Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences. p 295–315.

https://www.dinoloket.nl/ondergrondmodellen

100
 Pile foundations in Estonia
Mait Mets, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia, [email protected]

Villu Leppik, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Article will give overview about Estonian geology and soil properties. There are different ways to use pile
foundations in typical geological sections. Boring piles, displacement piles and CFA piles are most
commonly used in Estonia. There are up to 30 different technologies used for micropiles alone. Short
overview gives design methods for pile foundations. The possibilities of fixing the dynamics of piles
elasticity limit by formulas were investigated. The formation of pile shaft resistance and pile base
capacity has been investigated with special pile tests. Settlement monitoring on ten buildings on pile
foundation allow discerning 4 groups according to the settlement type. Pile-raft foundation was
monitored

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. History of pile foundations

Archaeologists believe that piles were first used in Estonia already 6000 years ago, to build in swamps. A
village at Lake Valgjärv in Koorküla, Valgamaa county was probably built already during the prehistoric
era and destroyed in the 13th century by the Crusaders. In the Middle Ages timber piles were used to
build the center of Tartu on the Emajõe river flood plain. The main building of the Tartu University was
constructed on wooden piles and such piles have been used also in harbor constructions. In the Soviet era,
reinforced concrete piles and wedge piles came to be used very widely. After Estonia became
independent in 1990, all known pile types and techniques have been appropriated here: driven piles,
displacement piles, slurry wall, micro piles etc

1.2. Soil properties

Estonia is located within the boundaries of the southern slope of the Fennoscandian Shield. Devonian
granite and gneiss lie 150 m deep in North Estonia and 500 m deep in South Estonia. They are covered by
Paleozoic sediments that consist of sandstone, overconsolidated clays and limestone. On these, in turn, lie
layers of Pleistocene/Holocene sediments: silt, gravel, sands, weak clays and peats.

Of the Paleozoic sediments, the most problematic for designing pile foundations are weak Estonian
sandstones (pressure strength 0,1-10MPa) and overconsolidated Cambrian and Devonian clays. It is
difficult to get samples out of weak sandstone, so it is more common to use DPT tests, pile load tests and
the determination of pile load bearing capacity by using driving data (the so-called dynamic tests).

The results of load bearing capacity tests and dynamic tests on sandstone correlate on a satisfactory level.
The use of DPD tests alone has not rendered good results thus far, so the results are usually tied in with
experience on pile load bearing capacity in similar cases.

Cambrian and Devon clays are usually overconsolidated. Their properties have been influenced by their
long geological history, especially the glacial periods that have densened their consistency, but also
developed micro fissures in them that strongly affect the formation of their load bearing capacity.

The strength of overconsolidated clays depends on the amount of microfissures in them, characterized by
water content w n . Table 1 below shows the load bearing capacity parameters of overconsolidated clays
that have been determined on the bases of pile load tests.

101
Table 1: The strength of overconsolidated clays
wn % 8…10 12…14 15…18 18…22
wL % 38 39 38 40
Ip % 14 13 13 15
c u kPa 200 120 80 50
Q b MPa 18-25 7-10 5-6 3
Q s kPa 100-150 70-90 40-60 30

The soil with water content levels of w n =8-10% is practically free of microfissures.
The most common soil type in Estonia is silt. It contains coarse fraction and its color depends on the rock
layer it lies on. In Cambrian areas the silt is bluish gray and contains a lot of bedrock, gravel and
limestone. Ordovician and Silurian till is gray and its coarse fraction mostly consists of limestone.
Devonian till is reddish brown and low in coarse fraction content. The bearing capacity of piles in till
differs on a large scale. Table 2 shows the indicators of load bearing capacity depending on the water
content of Devonian till.

Table 2: The strength of Devonian till

wn % 10 12 14 16 18
WL % 14 15 16 15 14
IP % 5 4 4 5 5
c u kPa 180 80 50 35 25
Q b MPa 7 5 4 3 2
Q s kPa 100 60 40 25 20

Sands in Estonia represent a highly differentiated granular condition. Research shows that the bearing
capacity of piles in sand does not depend almost at all on the granular condition of sand – due to its
density and geological history, silty sand often shows a much higher bearing capacity than coarse sand.
Using CPT tests often gives a satisfactory result for assessing the bearing capacity of sands and silts. The
bearing capacity of different pile parts can be determined based on qc. The best method for assessing side
resistance is the old system of continuously evaluating the sum of the bearing capacities of all the
different layers. The determined pile resistance, when based on the friction skirt, depends on the
geological section and at times the side friction is assessed higher from its actual value, sometimes lower.
A common occurrence in Estonia is sand with organic content. A 1 % content of colloidal organic matter
in silty sands decreases the bearing capacity of the pile end 6000…2000kN/m2 and the side resistance
30…40kN/m2 to 10…15kN/m2.
Estonia has a relatively high occurrence of weak clay soils – Pleistocene glacial clays and Holocene
marine clays. Their properties and the bearing capacity of piles in them are quite diverse, depending on
their geological history.

Table 3: The strength of Pleistocene glacial clays and Holocene marine clays.
wn % 10 12 14 16 18
Type of soil wn % WL % c u (kPa) Q b (kPa) Q S (kPa)
Limneoglacial 40…80 30…50 15…40 1500 10
clay
Limnioglacial 22…28 20…30 30…60 2000...4000 16…25
silt
Marine clay 40…80 30…45 7…12 800 5
Marine silt 28…33 25…30 10…20 1000 8

With the decrease of hydrodynamic pressure, weak clays cause settlements. With the creation of silt the
clays become denser; the decrease in their water content has minimal effect on their strength. Because of
long-term decrease in water levels, the bearing capacity of the pile end decreased by 1000kN/m2 before
water decrease and 5000kN/m210 years later.

102
1.3. Typical geological sections that use pile foundations

1.3.1. Geological section no 1

Under the soil there is a 1—10 m layer of sand, beneath it a 5 to 20 m thick layer of weak clay laying on
either sand or silt. This type of a geological section calls for 3 different versions of the foundation base.
Most commonly, the piles are driven through the sand and the weak soil into silt or sand and the pile end
is the factor determining the load bearing capacity. Another way is the cohesion piles method in which
the bearing capacity of the pile depends on the resistance of the pile side – if that does not get exceeded
and then the settlements of the building will be 2…3 cm. It is also possible to use short piles that are
driven into sand. In that case the settlements depend on the rigidity of the construction and the
compactibility of the weak soil, but the solution does have some benefits:
- the settlements are more even – the ends will not settle deeper than the center
- the settlement of the building will not cause the near-by constructions to settle, something that is
characteristic to the low foundation
- differently loaded parts will not influence one another and will thus settle in blocks
In places the lower layer of silt or sand may be thinner and without much bearing capacity. If underneath
lie overconsolidated fissured clays with a higher bearing capacity than silt has, then it makes more sense
to drive the piles into overconsolidated clay.

a sand b sand

weak clay
weak clay

moraine

sand, moraine cambrium clay

Figure 1: Geological sections 1a and 1b

1.3.2. Geological section no 2

The second typical geological section is characteristic to South Estonian Devon outcrops in which sand or
silt is covered by Devonian sandstone of clays. The section usually has one of the two variants:
1) thick (10…20 m) and fairly weak silt (qc=1…3 MPa). Calls for the use of piles that form their bearing
capacity on the bases of the resistance from the pile side. With heavier buildings, the piles are driven
into Devonian sediments.
2) medium strong/strong silt that is 2…6 m thick, calling for the use of short piles or wedge piles. If the
loads are very heavy, the piles are driven into sandstone or clay.

a b moraine

moraine
sandstone,
cambrium clay
strong moraine,
devonian
sediments

Figure 2: Geological sections 2a and 2b

103
1.3.3. Geological section no 3
The third section is a common solution in the center of Tartu, where flood plain sediments (covered by
infill) lie on varved clay, that in turn covers silt, Devonian sandstone and clays. In the period from the
16th to the 20th century such a geological section was built on with wooden piles, which were driven
through the infill and the weak flood plain sediments covering a thin layer of plastic varved clays and silt.
The buildings have behaved in a satisfactory manner, but as the ground water levels have decreased due
to communications, the timbers have started to rot, causing new issues. The changes that occur to the
quality of timber have been investigated a lot lately. With buildings where the decline in the quality of
timber has created a need to reinforce the foundations, jackable pipe piles or injection piles have been
used that then get driven as deep as the original wooden piles. In recent times, heavier buildings have
been constructed on drilled piles or displacement piles driven into Devon sediments.

a filling b filling

peat, soft lime

peat

sand weak clay

varved clay
sand, moraine
devonian sandstone

Figure 3: Geological sections 3a and 3b

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
In order to use pile foundations, soil investigations should be carried out in 2 stages. The first stage
includes establishing the geological section of the region with drilling works (vibro and auger drilling),
and CPT, DTT and WPT tests. When it is clear that the building will be constructed on piles, the particle
size distribution, water content and limits of plasticity need to be determined in the laboratory. The
properties of soil will be determined by CPT and correlations using the values of w n and w t .

The second stage includes pile tests - dynamic tests, loading piles with static loads. Depending on the
building and the geological makeup, 3 to 9 dynamic pile tests and 1 to 5 static load tests need to be
performed.

A high number of pile model experiments with steel pipes have been done in Estonia. Pipes with a
diameter of 146 and 219 mm were made up of 1 m long parts connected with a threaded joint. These were
driven with a 5…10 kN drop hammer. During the dropping process, the number of hits for driving the
pile in 10 cm was recorded and the dynamic bearing capacity calculated. The piles were loaded after a
resting period.

Using the method of characteristic points the N a , N y and N u the tension bearing capacity N t in the course
of the tension test. Proceeding from those results, the special resistance values are τ a , τ t , σ y and σ t . It is
possible to assess fairly accurately the actual bearing capacity of the piles. When comparing the test
results of steel pipes and concrete pipes, it became obvious that the values of τ a , σ y , σ t did not really
differ.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Until the middle of the 20th century, driven timber piles were common in construction. In the 1960s a
boom of building on pile foundations started in the Soviet Union, so driven reinforced concrete piles
quickly became the main pile type. There were almost no other piling technologies. In Estonia, the
common pile type to use was 12 m friction piles - buildings constructed on such piles would settle 2…3
cm and behave in a satisfactory manner. The price of friction pile foundations was too high due to the low
bearing capacity of such piles. In 1965, connected piles with pin joints were taken into use. The lengths
grew to 20…25 m and the piles were allowed loads of up to 1200 kN. In 1968 the use of pin joints was
forbidden in the Soviet Union and it was allowed to use only welded rigid joints.

104
30…50 % of the rigid joints would break during the driving process and pin joints were taken back into
use in Estonia. Special attention was paid to the issue of buckling for 30 m driven piles; it was concluded
that this was not an issue in case E>0,5 MPa.
In the 1970s, short wedge piles were taken into use for building lighter structure (esp agricultural
structures) in Estonia (see Table 4)

Table 4: Short wedge piles

Drawing Measurements Weight Consumption of materials
b a L a b tons Steel Concrete
mm mm mm kg m3
2000 600 0,5 5,31 0,20
2500 730 300 0,75 6,31 0,30
L

3000 860 1,05 7,27 0,42

2000 600 0,5 20,5 0,2
2500 730 300 0,75 22,83 0,3
80
3000 860 1,05 25,50 0,42

Wedge piles were notable cheaper than low foundations. Driving data and CPT tests were used to assess
their bearing capacity, which correlated well with pile load tests. The latter gave and interesting result: the
bearing capacity of a small pile (per 1 m3 of concrete) is higher in the same soil as that of bigger piles
(see Figure 4)

V,m3

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 200 400 Q=T/m3

Figure 4: Wedged pile bearing capacity per cubic meter of concrete

After Estonia gained its independence, the whole existing variety of pile types came into use; nowadays,
boring piles, displacement piles and CFA piles are most commonly used in Estonia. There are up to 30
different technologies used for micropiles alone. Micropiles are used for reinforcing old buildings and
creating new lighter buildings. Micropiles are often cheaper than building shallow foundations.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
For designing pile foundations, Estonian engineers use EVS-EN 1997-1:2005+A1:2013+NA:2014 that
essentially is based on EC7. During the Soviet era, Estonia was forced to use Soviet SNiPs. To determine
the bearing capacity of piles, the method of characteristic points was used that allowed for the assessment
of the behaviour of the pile base and its settlements.
If one compares the bearing capacity of piles determined with pile load tests, then the largest loads are
allowed by SNiP and the smallest by EC7; the results from using the method of characteristic points

105
remain somewhere in the middle. SNiP allows for fairly substantial, though still safe settlements levels
for buildings.

5. DESIGN METHODS

5.1. Method of characteristic points

The allowable bearing capacity of piles in current building practice basically means the pressure that is
determined by the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety, ensuring the stability of the
building in exploitation and a settlement that does not surpass the permitted limit (in contemporary
construction practice, the settlement has to remain below 5 cm and the allowed load remains below the
creep point of the pile).
To assess the work of the pile base in the non-linear state and the cooperation between the piles and the
grillage, the behavior of piles must be determined at loads from 0 to the ultimate load – the side resistance
of the pile must be determined, as well as the behavior of the pile end in linear and non-linear areas.
One possibility here is to recommend using the method of characteristic points that, based on pile load
tests, can determine the loads under which changes in pile behavior occur due to the influence of pressure.
These loads are best characterized by the interdependency between the piles settlement and the load
S=f(P) (Figure 5).

N0 Na Ny Nu Nf
N

Figure 5: The interdependency between the piles settlement and the load S=f(P)

Five representative points can be distinguished on the presented curve

S=a(t/t 0 )b (1)

a - initial settlement t 0
b - factor characterizing settlement velocity

N 0 characterizes the load that the pile cap never reaches in time. The load that equals the stiff part of the
cohesion of the surrounding soil layer is received by the piles side friction.
The load N a equals in extent with the side friction of the pile and if passing that, the main load is shifted
to the pile end.
The load N y – creep point – represents the end of linear dependency between the load and the settlement
under the pile end. The settlement of the pile up is to this load is connected with the compaction of soil
under the pile end. With loads over N y there begins the squeezing out of soil from under the pile end and
there is a remarkable increase in the intensity and duration of the settlement.
N u is the ultimate load – the last load Grande before the disintegration of the pile base. N u is a more
subjective agent and is dependent on many side factors (the amount and duration of the load grade, the
nature of the division of load between the shaft and the end of the pile; the geotechnical conditions at the
base of the pile).
At the load N f the pile fails. Frequently, it proves to be difficult to determine the characteristic loads N 0 ,
N a and N y on the curve. To simplify that, time method can be used for predicting settlement. For every
load there is designer a log scale graph

106
lnS=b ln t+A (2)

Factors b and A are determined with the help of this graph, also the settlements during the period of one
year are calculated on Figure 6.

N0 Na Ny Nu Nf

Figure 6: The interdependency between the piles settlement velocity and the load b=f(N)

On the graph N 0 equals 0 and no deformations in time can occur. The loading step from N 0 -N a is
characterized by the linear growth of the load, which can be explained with the increasing intensity of
shear deformation on the pile shaft and the re-entering of recovering cohesion into the working process.
Between N a ad N y b does not actually alter; soil under the pile end is deformed as a linearity deformation
medium.
At load over the N y there begins the squeezing out of soil from under the pile end, which is accompanied
by a sudden increase of b upon N y on the next load level. Following the sudden rise, the value of b
remains constant at all the subsequent load levels (the area of secondary linearity). A few load levels
before N u it starts to rise again, sometimes equaling 1 at N f . For the calculated settlement during an
interstice of one year and for the graph b=f(N), the characteristic points are easily determinable.
At all stages of the load, e is lower than 1 and the settlements are damping.

The determination of the piles bearing capacity is complicated by the fact that in reality, we are bound to
solve 2 questions; the pile shaft bearing capacity and the pile end bearing capacity. For determine the
overall bearing capacity, there is a need to consider their reciprocal influence that varies in different
geotechnical conditions. Taking all that in account, in the following discussion we will be looking at these
factors separately and also in combination.

5.2. Design based on dynamic load tests

The dynamic method of determine the bearing capacity of piles in one of the oldest. Until the present day
more than 200 formulas have been worked out to this end. All of them can be divided into empirical and
theoretical ones. The last mentioned take into account the conditions of energy balance necessary for
driving. Some authors eliminate from balance equation the energy going to constant deformations of
soils, others the energy spent to elastic deformations. The third ones do not account any of them.
Nowadays such formulas are widely used take all the components of balance equation into account.

N.M. Gersevanov´s investigations were an essential contribution in this issue, being the first taking into
consideration the piles behavior in the soil. N.M. Gersevanov noted at the beginning of last century
already that by dynamic methods it would be possible to fix only the load of the piles proportionality limit
N y (elasticity limit). The formula of Gersevanov himself should be used up till now on the grounds of
standard documents used for fixing the piles ultimate load.

In Estonia the possibilities of fixing the dynamics of piles elasticity limit by formulas were investigated.

Special attention was paid to Gersevanov´s formula as the most wide-spread in Estonia. For analyses the
test data of 70 concrete piles and 50 steel pipe piles, loaded 1…3 month after the driving were used

107
Gersevanov´s formula for fixing N D can be used at equivalent – set of 2…15mm, in case of smaller
equivalents the formula overestimates, but in case of bigger equivalents it underestimates the actual value.

ND/Ny
3

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
0,01 0,1 1 e,mm 10

Figure 7: The interdependency between N D /N y and the pile set e

On the basis of previous investigation results it can be concluded that piles static test loading with the
loads exceeding side friction and elastic limit, the accompanying settlements will be in the interval of
1,5…2,5 mm and 5…15mm. Accordingly at equivalents of below 2 mm – the side friction is not
exceeded and therefore it takes more energy to drive the pile, as compared to bigger equivalents, causing
the overestimation of the bearing capacity of the pile. At the equivalents 15…20 mm bigger the structure
of the soil will break, the pressing out if the equivalent will increase.

According to the previous investigation results for fixing N D Gate`s formula is the best

25 , (3)
N D = N y = k ⋅ 0,7 ⋅ H ⋅ Q ⋅ log
e

where: Q - weight of hammer in tons,

H- falling height in cm,
e - set of one blow in cm.

If to fix the factor k represented in the formula, taking into account only the equivalent, we get correlation
factor 0.9, but if to take into account the energy of blows and the relation between the weights of pile and
the hammer, the values of N D fixed at the piles static test loading and calculated by Gate`s formula are
similar in case of concrete as well as steel pipe piles. If equivalent of concrete piles e<5mm, then the k=3,
but if e>5 mm, then k=2. At steel pipe piles in the interval of equivalents 5…40mm k=4, at equivalents
2…5 mm k=5 and equivalents 1…2mm, k=6

5.3. Design based on CPT tests

Using CPT for the evaluation of the bearing capacity of the pile, has shown that the use of the equipment
enabling to fix the shaft friction of the whole sound, gives better results. The use of friction muff is not
justified in Estonia. Using CPT rather good correlations between the special resistance of the pile`s toe
(by N y ) and q c have been gained. The correlations between the relevant special resistance of N u and q c
are worse.
Recommended dependences are the following:

q y =0,2 q c (r=0,9) (4)

t c =0,8q a (r=0,85) , (5)

where q y - the special resistance of the pile toe by N y ,

t a – the pile`s special side friction,
q a – the special side friction of the CPT,

108
 q c – the cone`s special resistance.

5.4. Design based on soil properties

In Estonia, there are tables from Soviet Union norm, which will give pile bearing capacity depend on the
soil properties. Pile side and end bearing capacity depend on the depth, on clays from the consistency, on
sand from the sieve test results. Tables will appreciate clay soils satisfactory level the pile end resistance,
and underestimates piles side resistance. Sandy soils bearing capacity based on the particle size
distribution and will give unrealistic results. Changing on the tables the granulometry with degree of
density, the tables will be usable.

6. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

6.1. Pile shaft resistance

The formation of pile shaft resistance has been investigated with special pile tests. The aim of the
investigation was to find out the influence of geological conditions, the loading type and pile parameters
on the formation of pile side friction.
Piles loaded in varying geotechnical conditioned showed that resistance virtually does not depend on the
length, the material and the diameter of the pile. As tests have shown, pile skin friction does not depend
on the resting time of the pile in weak soils.
The absents of pile side friction increase during the resting time in weak soils is due to the fact that the
properties of the soil at the pile shafts do not practically change during pile driving; it is also due to the
lack of stiff binders in weak soils and to the relatively low sensitivity of the investigated weak soils.
The resting time of the pile strongly influences the skin friction of the pile in clayey soils of hard
consistency – skin friction grows many times over. The skin friction of piles driven in the till in front of
Tallinn’s clift was 0,02 MPa after the driving and grew to 0,1 MPa in one month. The skin friction of
piles driven into Cambrian Clay was 0,01MPa immediately after driving; 0,05 after week resting time and
0,1MPa after a month. During the tests, skin friction grew especially at load N 0 – it equalled 0 after the
driving was 0,04-0,06 MPa a month later.
Comparing the skin friction that was measured during the pile tests to the creep point determined during
the shear test proved that in weak soils these two practically coincide (Figure 8) In varved clay, mariner
clayey silt, and the difference does not exceed 10%. Mariner clay and loam are of a more disintegrative
nature, as their properties in the geological cut are less stable. The creep point is less characteristics of the
skin friction in plastic till; this is connected with certain damages in the preparation of samples and also
probably with the consolidation of soil at pile shaft in the course of pile driving.

109
 τk
MPa
0,04

0,035

0,03 I
II
0,025 III
IV
0,02 V
VI
0,015 VII
VIII
0,01

0,005

τr
0 MPa
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03

Figure 8: The independency of skin friction tk and the creep point tr: I – varved caly, II – mariner clay;
III – silt; IV – liminoglacical silt; V – soft till; VI – plastic till; VII sands with oceanic matter; VIII –
sands of medium strength.

In the case of soils where shear strength at creep point is distinctive to the friction angle and cohesion, the
friction angle influences skin friction to a certain critical depth that is relatively accurately determinable
with static penetration – starting from this depth, conic resistance (that by then was increasing= becomes
a constant in this soil and does not grow in accordance with the increase of depth. In weak soils, critical
depth usually equals 0.
The standpoint expressed above concerns steel pipes and precast reinforced concrete piles. In recent
years, this data has been tested with Fundex, Vibrex and cast-in–place piles. The tests made with classic
Fundex and Vibrex piles proved the adequacy of this data. The creep point determined by the UU tests
with 28m piles in Venspils was 30-38 kPa. The average side friction determined at 8 pile tests was 35
kPa. The same can be said about the friction of piles driven into weak soils in Pärnu and Riga that
practically equaled the creep point of the UU test (In Pärnu the result was 10-12kPa, in Riga 22-30kPa).
The tests showed that there was no difference in the friction of drive piles, Vibrex piles and Fundex piles.
The skin friction of piles is dependent on the geological base of piles. In the course of tests carried out at
Kadaka tee in Tallinn, piles that had been driven 4,8m deep into mariner clayey silt were put under the
pressure of a load. Irrespective of the depth, the diameter and the resting time of the piles, their skin
friction was 9 kPa. After loading, the piles were driven 20 to 50 cm deep into liminoglacial clayey silt,
with the bearing capacity of the pile end being multiplied 2-3 times. This was accompanied by a growth
in skin friction till 16 kPa. All of the above indicates the diverse working conditions of piles depending
on if the pile end is driven into weak or strong soil layers. In the latter case, the occurrence of creep
processes on the shaft of the pile is complicated due to the smaller settlement of the pile that has been
conditioned by the higher bearing capacity of the pile end; the value of pile skin friction increases.
If in the pile base weak soils are situated under soils with a stronger bearing capacity, the skin friction of
the pile depends on the creep point of the deeper, weaker soil. In the center of Tallinn, under a 10 to 12 m
thick silty layer, there lies a layer of sift clay that is 20 to 25 m thick. The skin friction in 8m piles is 16
kPa. After driving the piles 16 m deep (12 m in sands and 4 m weak clays), the pile skin friction
decreased to 10 kPa that is typical of creep point of these clayly soils. In Pärnu, the skin friction of piles
in silt was 20-30 kPa; after driving the piles into soft varved clays, In weak soils the creep occurs at

110
smaller shear stress, which initiates the occurrence of creep deformations in the upper sands and also a
decrease in pile side friction.

As the maximum side friction of piles does not imply the exceeding of the maximum shear strength, but
rather the occurrence of creep processes on the pile shaft (that depend on the shear strength of pile base
and the load bearing capacity of the pile end), it is more correct to consider the side friction as the
maximum power that the pile is able to carry from the shaft to the ground surface. After the occurrence of
creep processes at the pile shaft the whole load is transferred to the pile end.

6.2. Capacity of pile end

Loads N y and N u characterize changes under pile end. Till the load N y the work of the pile base is
characterized by a linearly deforming environment, where the settling of the pile is caused by the
compaction of the soil under the pile end. The exceeding of load N y is accompanied by the squeezing out
of the soil and the quickening of the settlement process. The surpassing of N u results in the failure of the
pile base and full change in the condition of the soil. In the following paragraphs we will survey the
influence of geotechnical circumstances and pile parameters on the load bearing capacity of the pile loads
N y and N u .

Pile tests made in varying geotechnical settings showed that the bearing capacity of the pile end loads N y
and N u practically does not depend on the loading velocity. The strength of the investigated soil does not
decrease and they do not consolidate to any remarkable extent under the pile end. Depending on the
permeability coefficient of clayey soil, the settlement that is typical of the permeability consolidation
takes place either in the course of pile driving ( softs silts and soft till). At the following pile load test the
settlement of the pile in silt is caused by skeleton creep in the compacted prism under the pile end. On
weak clays the process is influenced by the post-driving pore pressure and the loading time is usually too
short for the occurrence of any notable consolidation compaction. The squeezing out of soil at bigger
loads does not always cause the compaction of the soil under the end of the pile.

The run tests proved that the bearing capacity of the pile end is conditioned by the depth of the drive,
where the influence of the depth depends on the friction angle of the soil under the pile end and the best
way to determine it is the Mayerhoff´s calculation system.

While comparing the pile tests with the calculation formulas it appeared that σ y and σ u where both
determinable with G. Mayerhoff´s formula. To calculate σ y , the calculation must be based on shear
parameters that characterize the yield point in shear test. Calculating σ u should be based on shear
parameters, which characterize maximal shear strength.

The comparison of the bearing capacity of pile ends driven into clayey soils with their undrained shear
strength gave a surprising result. Namely, the pressure to the soil under the pile end equaled σ y =40-50
Cu. This result was valid in all the cases: in weak clays, silt till and even in over consolidated clay.

In general the calculation coincides much better with the test at the creep point rather than at failure. This
is especially the case with silt, till and with the sands containing some organic matter. While determining
the maximum shear strength of the mentioned soil types with the help of the drained – unconsolidated
shear, τ max is usually underestimated. Silt and sand usually become consolidated in the course of the tests.
At maximum shear strength, the internal friction of soil does not characterize the natural soil type, but
rather the soil that has come about in the course of the test. This problem does not arise at the creep point,
which makes the shear parameters that have been determined at creep point, more reliable.

At the ultimate load N u the settlement of the pile head S u is dependent on the geological cut of the pile
base, the geotechnical properties of the soil and the length of the pile. Still, as can be seen from Figure 9,
there exists a certain interdependency (η=0,55) between S u and N u and in most cases, the rise in N u is
accompanied with a rise of the load at this pressure. Here can also be clearly noticed the influence of the
geotechnical structure of the pile base on the mentioned agents and this enables us to distinguish 4 groups
on the figure.

111
 0 250 500 750 1.000 1.250
0
Nu

1 CP
10
I
2 FP Sand

3 FP Moraine
20
4 HP
II
30
Ib
III
40

50

60

70
Su mm

Figure 9: The interdependency between N u and the according settlement S u , 1 – cohesion piles; 2 –
friction piles in sand; 3 – friction piles in till; 4 – point bearing pile

Group 1 is made up by the cohesion piles driven into soft clays and loam. The liminal position of these
piles is reached at the 10-15 mm settlement. Group 1b consist of the cohesion piles that are driven into
soft tilt; their settlement level is much higher 25-70 mm; inside this group there can also be noted the
interdependency of N u and S u . Group 2 consist of point bearing piles with their settlement at N u reaching
15-35mm; their settlement increases with the increase of the load. In Group 3, there are friction piles that
have been driven into till and sands; these represent very big settlement levels -35 to 64 mm at N u .

In the majority of pile norms, the bearing capacity of piles is found out from the load N u with the help of
the assurance factor. To evaluate its size, the connection between N u and N y can be compared in the
course of pile tests carried out in different geotechnical settings. The data from such a comparison is
presented on Figure 9, which shows that there is a good correlative relationship between the above-
mentioned agents N y =0,6N u (η=0,75). Group 1 on the figure consists of piles driven into clay and loam.
The group is characterized by a relatively small difference between these two agents (N y =0,8N u ). In
Group 2 there are cohesion piles driven simultaneously into silt; in their case, the difference between N y
and N u is much bigger. The varying behavior of piles in clay and silt can be explained with differences in
shear strength at creep point and the maximum shear strength that is small in clays and high in silt. In the
case of the silts in which the growth of shear strength at maximal shear strength is based on side friction,
the realization of the shear strength needs much bigger deformations, which thus triggers the larger
growth of N u . Group 3 on this figure is made up by point bearing and friction piles.

112
700 Ny
1 CP
600 III
2 FP Sand
3 FP Moraine
500
4 HP
400

300

200 II

100
I Nu kN
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1.000 1.100 1.200

Figure 10: The interdependency between N y and N u . 1- cohesion piles; 2 – friction piles in sand; 3 –
friction piles in till; 4 – point bearing pile.

6.3. Pile lateral capacity

The lateral bearing capacity of piles has been minimally researched. Tests have shown that the upper soil
layers are central in its formation, while investigations rarely take those layers into account. The method
of characteristic points can be used for determining the lateral bearing capacity of piles. In these tests the
following criteria need to be established: creep point N yh , ultimate load N uh and N fh - the load that causes
the pile to disintegrate. N yh depends solely on soil properties and in evenly strong soils, the bearing
capacities of 3-8 m piles are more or less the same. The values of N u do vary though, and usually N u
grows with the length of the pile.

The impact of the upper layers can be illustrated with the investigations carried out in varved clays. A
steel pile (ø 219mm) driven into fluid varved clay (wn=70-80%) has the creep point at N yh =2kN. In three
days the varved clay dried and the layer was covered by a 10 cm crust with w n =40-50%. This was
accompanied by a rise in N yh 16…20kN. A similar result was reached in weak silt (q c =2,5 MPa) when
the pile was reinforced with cement. The 30x30 cm “collar” allowed for the N yh to grow almost 7 times.

Loading direction-changing piles with lateral loads showed that in such circumstances a cone develops
around the pile. If the direction-changing load remains lower than N yh the load will develop in the course
of 15 to 25 cycles. At higher loads the development of deformations continues and due to large
displacements, that may force the soil to reach the system’s ultimate condition. If pile tests are not
performed, the pile’s lateral bearing capacities can be assessed with the B. Broms method.

6.4. Pile tension capacity

The bearing capacity of tension piles has mostly been investigated in Estonia by testing 210 mm diameter
steel pipe piles. The piles were driven in and their dynamic bearing capacity established, then the static
bearing capacity was determined with a pile load test and their tension bearing capacity was determined
during pile extraction. Figure 11 shows the side resistance during the load bearing tests and the side
resistance established in the course of tension tests. The results shown on the Figure prove that side
resistance is much lower in tension tests than in the static load test. Group I is an exception – these are
piles that were driven into weak soils through dense sand. These piles have a much higher tension bearing
capacity. In practice, tension bearing capacity is usually assessed with the help of Russian norm tables
which are far more suited for that than determining static load bearing capacities.

113
0,020
τt MPa

0,015
I

0,010

0,005

τ a MPa
0,000
0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025 0,030

Figure 11: Pile tension capacity, τ a – shaft resistance on compression test, τ t – shaft resistance on
tension test

7. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

7.1. Settlement monitoring

Settlement monitoring on 10 building on pile foundation allow us to discern 4 groups according to the
settlement types (Figure 12)

N<Ny  N<Ny   N>Ny  N<Ny  N<Na

L=2…6m sand L=10…30m sand L=3…8m

soft clay

till; sand; overconsolidated clay

Figure 12: Types of pile foundations
1. Buildings on 3-6 m piles driven into sand and silt. This includes piles in weak soils if N 0 <N a . The
load on the pile is smaller than N y . Settlements 2-3 cm.
2. Buildings on 12-36 m piles driven through silt and sand. The load on the pile is smaller than N y .
Settlements 4-7 cm.
3. Buildings on 10-25 m piles driven into silt and sand through weak soil layers. The pressure on the pile
is bigger than N y . Settlements 12-20cm, The settlement are predictable ( ±10-15%).
4. Building founded on 3-6m piles driven into the upper layers of sand. Weak soils lie beneath the sand
layers. These piles decrease the sand layer-caused settlements and the interaction between the building
and the base is better than in the case of low foundations. Settlements 12-30cm.

114
 0 5 10 15
years
0

5
 s=2...3 cm

10
 s=4...7 cm

15
 s=12...20 cm
20

25

30
 s=12...30 cm

Figure 13: Settlements of pile foundations

7.2. Interaction between piles and raft

The problem has been investigated in the course of the past 10 years. The first serious solution was
reached in 2010 in the construction process of the Lida brewery. The project was designed on the bases of
the pile end bearing capacity reaching 10000kN/m2. Tests proved that the bearing capacity of the pile end
would be 4000kN/m2. As adding more piles would have complicated the whole process, it was decided to
widen the grillage instead. Based on calculations, the expected settlement was 8 cm. To monitor the
situation, each pile was installed with a reaper and settlements were measured every week (see Figure
14).

Month in 2010-2011
08

09

10

11

12

01

02

03

04

05

10
Setllement (mm)

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 14: Settlements of pile-raft foundations

The figure shows that in the beginning, piles start working in the linear zone. With the growing of the
load, the pile settlement became non-linear and the piles were in the state of bearing the ultimate load
when the grillage started to work, the pin effect occurred and the settling stopped. The measured
settlements were smaller than the predicted settlements had been.

In 2013, the cooperation between pile and grillage was monitored in modelling tests. The piles were steel
pipes with closed ends, 33 mm in diameter and 600mm in length. The grillage was a 20 mm thick steel
plate, with the measurements 400x400 mm.

115
100
kN
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Na Ny number of
il
Figure 15: Correlation between the number of piles without raft and values of the creep level, piles side
friction and the ultimate load
Figure 15 shows the tests made with a high grillage. In the course of tests, the ultimate side friction, the
creep level and the ultimate load of the piles were determined. All these values rise linearly with the rise
in the number of piles; in the case of 9 piles the growth of the ultimate load is slightly higher. In order for
the plate to work, the piles had to reach the ultimate load bearing situation. Figure 16 shows the
correlation between the number of piles under the grillage and values of the creep level and the ultimate
load.
250
kN

200

150
Ny
100 Nf

50

Number of piles
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 16: Correlation between the number of piles under the grillage and values of the creep level and
the ultimate load

As can be seen in the drawing, the bearing capacity of one pile in the combination of piles and grillage is
lower than that of the grillage. With higher pile numbers, the creep level and the ultimate load grow and
in the scenario of 9 piles they are higher than the sum of the bearing capacity of grillage-less pile
foundations and that of the grillage.

REFERENCES
Mets.M, 1977,Vaiade kandevõime, Ehitusgeoloogia kogumik IV, Tallinn, Valgus
Mets.M, 1991, Iseloomulike punktide meetod, Ehitusgeoloogia kogumik V, Tallinn, Valgus
Mets.M, Leppik.V, 2013, Lida brewery pile foundation, Baltic piling, Taylor and Francis Group, London

116
 Design of piles – Finnish practice
Jussi Kinnunen and Teemu Riihimäki, Inspecta Oy, Finland, [email protected]
[email protected]

Panu Tolla and Veli-Matti Uotinen, Finnish Transport Agency, Finland, [email protected], [email protected]

Tim Länsivaara, Tampere University of Technology, Finland, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The superficial deposits in Finland were formed during the last glaciation (ended at 10 000 BC) and
thereafter. The distribution of soil deposits is remarkably uneven. Glacial moraines commonly overlay
very hard Precambrian bedrock. Soft and very soft silt and clay deposits up to 20…40 m in thickness are
common in South and West Finland. 15% of the land area is covered by young peat deposits that lay on
glacial and post glacial formation for pile design DPSH is found as the most reliable method. Due to
geological conditions driving end bearing driven piles, made of precast concrete or steel pipes,
dominates the piling market. National design guide lines follow Eurocode 7 principals. Dynamic loading
test with pile driving formulas are applied of QC on site. Bored steel pipe piles have become popular for
heavy structures. Their capacity is determined by structural resistance only when very strong bedrock
does not practically limit geotechnical resistance.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The superficial deposits in Finland were formed during the last glaciation and after that as a result of
geological processes. Pre-glacial soil layers exist only very sparsely. The material either derives from the
bedrock (till, gravel, sand and clay) and plant remains (peat), or is made up of precipitates of compounds
dissolved in water (gyttja). Till is the most common soil type in Finland and moraines cover over 50 % of
the total surficial deposits. Peat forms 15 % of the total surficial deposits, rocky terrain is 13 % and clay
and fluvial deposits 10 %. The distribution of soil deposits is remarkably uneven and depends on land
forms, the elevation of an area above sea level, local and regional characteristics of the activity of the
former continental ice sheet and its meltwaters, the rate of ground uplift and climatic factors.

The average thickness of moraines is about 4 meters. In south and west Finland soft silt and clay deposits
mean thickness is typically only 10 meters, but thickness of 20–40 meters are not uncommon.
Predominately till compose from silt, sand, gravel and cobbles/boulders and composition varies
considerably. In inland and in hillside terrains the silt and clay deposits are thinner. In the middle of the
country deposits are normally small and thin because the central part of Finland was submerged for a
relatively short time. In valleys, the thickness of sedimentary deposits can vary considerably: a ridge of
bedrock or till can rise to the surface in the middle of a valley. Glacial and post glacial soil layers lay
predominately directly on Precambrian crystalline bedrock which is typically very hard with compressive
strength of 100–300 MPa.

The marine and lacustrine deposits of silt to clay have great importance from a geotechnical point of view
because the densely populated areas are situated mostly in the low-lying coastal areas of southern and
south-western Finland. The geologic stratigraphy is geotechnically challenging in Finland. There is
usually a stiff layer of till under the fine-grained and soft sediments. Very often the layer between clay
and till contains stones and boulders which complicate pile installation. (Source: Heinonen & Hartikainen
1997)

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION

2.1. Principle
The aim of soil investigations is to provide all necessary information about thickness and properties of
soil layers, ground water level and rock surface location at the building site. Soil investigations should be
done deep and wide enough so that all layers and formations could be identified which could have an
influence on pile installation, pile design and dimensioning.

117
The experiences from similar soil conditions and nearby building sites are taken into account when the
scope of soil investigations is specified. The responsible geotechnical engineer defines soil investigation
methods to be applied and locations of investigation points. He monitors and supervises geotechnical
investigations and based on preliminary results he adjust the investigations during the work on the site.
Adequate soil investigations should be done before starting the foundation works as the pile installation.

General requirements of soil investigations are presented in Standards SFS-EN 1997-1 and SFS-EN
1997-2. In addition national guidelines are published. Geotechnical investigations are adapted to the stage
of design and geotechnical category. GC2 is typically applied for buildings founded with piles. Most of
bridges and pile supported embankment slabs fall into this category too. Responsible geotechnical
engineer determines the Geotechnical Category in each case.

2.2. Soundings
Due geological conditions the site investigations are executed mainly with weight sounding test (WST),
dynamic probing (DPSH-A) and percussion drilling (MWD (A). DPSH-A is the most recommended
sounding method for driven piles. In GC 1 blow count from pile installation can be regarded
approximately same as blow count of DPSH-A. Soil samples and in-situ testing provides additional data
for pile foundation design. Soundings are performed according to EN ISO Standards and Technical
Specifications. National guides instruct the work method on site. Guidelines are used until corresponding
European standards are available. There must be at least four sounding points at the base area of the
upcoming building.

In Geotechnical Category 2 detailed soil investigations are performed, so that foundation structures could
be designed and built safely. For pile design DPSH-A and MWD (A), are used along with WST.
Conventionally at least two different sounding methods are recommended to being used. Sounding
method is chosen so that an objective pile toe level could be reached.

Sounding points are placed to each corner point of the planned building and on every 5-15 meters along
the wall line. Soundings should be finished at least 1-2 meters below the target/estimated toe level.
Percussion drillings are drilled 3 meters to the bedrock and 2 meters below the objective toe level of the
pile. Percussion drilling is obligatory method when drilled piles are used. Dynamic probing could be also
used to evaluate the drilling properties of soil layers. It is recommended to take disturbed samples from
one point per each four sounding points to define the layer properties and surfaces if WST or DPSH-A are
not applied.
Vane shear tests are usually used to define the undrained shear strength in fine grained or organic soils.
Vane test is also used to estimate horizontal subgrade reaction on piles. It is recommended to do
oedometer and/or triaxial tests for soil samples to define the compressibility and strength properties of
soil layers when relevant. In Geotechnical Category 2 ground water level is determined at least from one
observation stand pipe, which is located at the building site or in proximity.

In Geotechnical Category 3 same principal requirements as in Category 2 are followed, but the
investigations are more detailed. In Category 3 sounding points are placed to every corner of a larger
footing and one point per smaller footing. Soil properties above rock surface should be defined. Soil
samples are taken for defining soil types and layer properties. Suggested sounding methods in
Geotechnical Categories 1, 2 and 3 for different pile installation methods are presented in table 1. Also
the working principle of pile, objective pile toe level, pile type and possible grouting has an influence on
choosing the sounding methods.

Table 1: Recommend sounding methods (RIL 254-2011).

Installation Geotechnical Geotechnical Geotechnical
method Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Driven pile DPSH-A, WST DPSH-A, WST, DPSH-A, WST,
MWD(A) MWD(A)
Jacked pile DPSH-A, WST DPSH-A, WST, CPT DPSH-A, WST,
MWD(A),
CPT
Drilled pile MWD(A) DPSH-A, WST, DPSH-A, WST,
MWD(A) MWD(A)
Bored pile WST, MWD(A) DPSH-A, WST, DPSH-A, WST,

118
 Installation Geotechnical Geotechnical Geotechnical
method Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
MWD(A) MWD(A)
Screw pile WST, CPT WST, CPT WST, DPSH-A

DPSH-A = Dynamic Probing (super heavy type A), WST = Weight Sounding Test, CPT = Cone
Penetration Test, MWD(A) = Percussion Drilling (class A)

Grain size distribution is determined in laboratory using disturbed samples or based on observation made
during sounding. It is often necessary to take undisturbed samples to assure sufficient tests in a
laboratory.

Ground investigations and geotechnical design is reported according to Eurocode 7 principals in the
geotechnical design report.

2.3. Soil Investigations Using Different Types of Piles

Soil investigations must be performed using such methods that reliable ground properties for piles'
geotechnical and structural design can be defined and construction method statement is able to be
prepared.

2.3.1. End Bearing Piles

Soundings should reach the rock surface or dense coarse grained bearing layer when end bearing piles are
used. Typically soft and loose soil layers and bearing layer underneath them are investigated with
dynamic probing or weight sounding test. The rock surface elevation should be investigated using
percussion drilling if piles are designed to be supported by the bedrock or they are estimated to reach the
rock surface. Percussion drilling is a reliable method for determining the rock surface location, thickness
and structure of the bottom layer. In some cases it is necessary to investigate the structure of the rock
using rock core sampler.

With investigations geotechnical designer must be able to ensure that below the supporting level of the
end bearing piles, exist no soft soil layers. Soft layer close below the toe of end bearing pile could lead
penetration failure or to a large settlement of the piles.

2.3.2. Friction Piles

Friction piles are usually used in foundations of pedestrian bridges and other light weight structures. The
friction piles are also used for heavy structures in thick glacio fluvial sand and silt formations that are not
very uncommon in Finland. Soil layers and their properties should be investigated when friction piles are
used. Layer properties such as density and grading are usually determined in laboratory from soil
samples. WST, DPSH-A and CPTU can be used when determining the layer boundaries and the length of
friction piles. Soil layer properties can be derived approximately from the sounding resistances.

Trial piles and load tests for friction piles are recommended when experience from similar soil conditions
is not available. Pile lengths for trial piles are usually determined from sounding resistances. The length
of test piles should vary so that the target level for construction piles can be defined from the loading test
results. Normally loading tests for friction piles should not be carried out before 14 days waiting period.

Special attention must be paid to the soft cohesive layers that may be between non-cohesive layers.
Cohesive layers settle more than the pile and cause negative skin friction.

2.3.3. Cohesion Piles

The use of cohesion piles is very rare in Finland due to common soft normally consolidated clays and
favourable conditions for the end bearing piles. However cohesion piles have been used for house
building in South-West Finland up to 1960’s and also as transition structures from end bearing piles to
embankment on soft soil without ground improvement or foundation structures up to 1970’s. The use of
cohesion piles is not recommended in any circumstances for bridges due to risk of consolidation
settlement. Usually cohesion piles are used in foundations of temporary structures (Finnish Transport
Agency 2013). In some cases cohesion piles can be used in foundations of light weight structures.

119
When cohesion piles are used the ground conditions as well as strength and deformation properties of
cohesive layer are determined. Deformation properties are investigated in order to determine the expected
settlements of the piles. Vane shear test or cone penetration test is used to determine the undrained shear
strength of cohesive layers. Typically the undrained shear strength in Finnish cohesive soil deposits varies
in range of 10 to 20 kPa.

2.4. Special Requirements for the soil investigations

According to the building code the soil investigation report shall meet requirements given in SFS-EN
1997-1 addition to the requirements presented in the general geological description of the building site
SFS-EN 1997-1. The documentation shall be based on EN 1997-2. (RIL 254-2011).

Considering the corrosiveness of subsoil shall to be considered. The recommendations of EN1993 are
applied for the corrosion rates. National guidelines are applied for ground condition corrosiveness
assessment. (RIL 254-2011).

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

3.1. Pile Types

Piles are divided into two main groups based on European standards.
1. displacement piles
2. replacement piles

In Finland pile types are commonly divided into three groups based on their geotechnical capacity:
1. end bearing piles
2. friction piles
3. cohesion piles

The end bearing pile is the most common pile type in Finland. In Finland piles are typically relatively
short and piles are supported by hard bottom layer of till or bedrock. The use of friction or cohesion piles
is not profitable, because the depth of bearing stratum is often only 10 meters in many areas.

Friction piles are used at the glacio fluvial eskers and ridges of margin formation and regions where thick
and loose non-cohesive soil layers exist. The use of friction piles is scarce due to geotechnical
circumstances. Frictions piles are mainly used in foundations of relatively light weight structures.
Cohesion piles are very rare in Finland.

Pile types can also be determined based on the installation and manufacturing methods of the piles.
According to this determination pile types in Finland are:
1. prefabricated driven, vibrated and jacked piles
2. driven piles cast in place
3. bored piles cast in place
4. drilled piles

3.2. Piling technology

3.2.1. Prefabricated Driven Piles

Prefabricated driven piles are made of reinforced concrete or steel pipes. Reinforced concrete piles are the
most commonly used pile type in the foundations of light and medium weight structures and buildings. In
Finland the cross-sections of the reinforces concrete piles are commonly 250 x 250 mm², 300 x 300 mm²
and 350 x 350 mm². Reinforced concrete piles shall have CE-mark according to SFS-EN 12794. Piles are
equipped with pile shoe or rock shoe. The reinforced concrete piles are typically installed using a
hydraulic hammer where the weight of the hammer is 30–50 kN and drop height 0,2–0,6 meters. The
design load of the piles is about 500–1500 kN (Rakennusteollisuus RT 2011).

Steel piles are most commonly pipe piles with diameter 75–1220 mm and thickness of the pipe wall is
normally 6,3 - 20 mm depending on diameter. Commonly the steel grade of steel pipe pile is according to
SFS-EN10219 or SFS-EN 10210 steel grades S355J2H, S420J2H or S460J2H, or special steel grades
developed for piling as S440J2H, S550J2H and sometimes API 5L- steel grades X60 or X70 are used.

120
Small diameter (diameter less than 300 mm) piles are installed either with driving, vibrating or jacking.
Small diameter steel piles are widely used for foundations of small and medium-size buildings because
piles can be installed with light piling rigs and disturbances to environment e.g. vibrations remain in low
level. High capacity piles which are used in foundations of heavy structures such as bridges and wharfs
are usually steel pipe piles. Diameter of high capacity steel pipe piles is normally 508–1220 mm. Design
load of this type of piles is about 3–14 MN and therefore the piles are supported by the bedrock or by
very dense moraine. The piles are equipped with a rock shoe to protect the pile against breakage and to
facilitate the attachment of the pile toe to the rock. Steel pipe piles can also be open ended, but that is
uncommon application due high risk structural damages caused by boulders during penetration. Close
ended piles are concreted and reinforced but in some cases small diameter piles are not concreted.

High capacity piles are installed with hydraulic (accelerated or non-accelerated) or drop hammer. The use
of diesel hammers is very rare and hydraulic hammers have replaced them almost totally. The weight of
hydraulic or drop hammer is commonly about 40–100 kN.

Timber piles are rarely used in Finland in permanent structures. Diameter of timber pile is usually more
than 150 mm. Timber piles are used for support casting form structures of bridges and in foundation of
retaining walls or sound barriers. Timber piles are allowed to be used in Geotechnical Categories 1 and 2.
Earlier timber piles were used in foundations of buildings in south-west Finland and for bridges before
1960’s. Piles were installed in clay and piles were below the ground water level all the time, which
prevented decaying.

3.2.2. Driven Piles Cast in Place

Cast in piles are rarely used in Finland.

3.2.3. Bored Piles Cast in Place

The use of cast in place bored piles were common application in heavy loaded foundations (as bridges)
from 1960’s to 1980’s in Finland, but they use is quite limited today. The diameters of bored piles are
typically about 700–1200 mm. Maximum load in operation conditions is about 3–17MN. The piles are
bored using piling machine which digs the soil inside the casing pipe and simultaneously presses and
grinds the casing equipped with drilling bits. Boring can be done continuously or episodically. Bored
piles are reinforced and concreted after the target level has been reached.

3.2.4. Drilled Piles

The use of drilled piles is relatively common in Finland. The drilled pile types are steel core pile, shaft
grouted pile, drilled steel pipe pile whose casing becomes part of the structure and drilled steel pipe pile
whose casing is withdrawn. The diameters of drilled steel piles is typically from 30 mm up to 1016 mm
and the length is up to 30- 60 m. Maximum load in operation conditions is about 0,217MN. The special
advantage for the drilled piles is common very strong bedrock. The axially loaded piles can be design
according their structural capacity, when geotechnical resistance is not limiting the pile capacity in solid
rock.

Pile drilling is generally effected by percussion drilling method which is based on four main components:
feed force, rotation, percussion and flushing. Drilling can be done with top hammer or DTH hammer
applying a concentric or an eccentric drilling method.

In Finland drilled piles are usually end-bearing piles supported by rock. Piles are drilled into the rock in
depth of 3D (D=pile diameter) and with small diameter drilled piles at least 0,5 m. This should ensure the
attachment of pile and rock. Drilled piles shaft are sometimes grouted. Grouting is done same time as the
drilling.
During drilling shaft grouted pile (e.g. Titan Ischebeck) has recently been the only drilled friction pile in
common use, especially for projects were vibrations to neighbourhoods’ structures need to be reduced.

3.2.5. Research and Development of Piling Technology

The piling technology research and development has predominately focused on steel pipe piles in Finland
during last 30 years. At first driven steel pipe design, pile joints, work methodology and quality assurance
was on the focus. This technology has applied successfully and it has dominated the piling market where
ground conditions are favourable for end bearing piles and structures are heavy. With small diameter steel

121
piles focus has been in developing high strength steel grades and easy-to-use pile joints which meet
technical requirement presented in Finnish National Annex of EN1993-5. During last 15 10 years steel
pipe pile drilling technology has developed very quickly and today drilled steel piling from micro pile to
D=1016 mm are common solutions. During last 5-6 years a new application drilled pipe wall where piles
are attached to each other by special interlocking sections has been successful in projects where there are
high requirements for water impermeability and ground conditions are challenging (Ihler, H. et al. 2007).
The other subjects have been in last years:
- Determine geotechnical resistance of vibratory driven steel piles
- The rotational stiffness and tension resistance of drilled steel pipe as rock socketed
- Open profile steel pile (C-pile)
- Piling platform design
- Pile design against lateral loading
- Structural requirements of rock shoes for precast concrete piles and driven steel pipe piles.
- Structural requirements of pile joints for precast concrete piles
- Ground thermal modeling and analysis of energy pile foundations
- Design of friction piles applying model piles for testing

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS

4.1. General Documents

In Finland foundation engineering and piles design is done by following the Eurocode 7 and National
Annexes. There are two different National Annexes in Finland. One is applied to roads, railways and
bridges under the administration of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The other one is for
projects under the administration of the Ministry of Environment according to National Building Code.
National Annexes are used together with Standard SFS-EN 1997-1:2004 + A1:2013

Finnish Transport Agency has published NCCI documents (in Finnish) to be applied with Eurocodes and
the National Annex in design of roads, railways and bridges. Guides are listed below:
• Siltojen kuormat ja suunnitteluperusteet – NCCI 1 5.9.2014 LO 24/2014 (Design basis for bridges)
• Betonirakenteiden suunnittelu – NCCI 2 16.9.2014 LO 25/2014 (Design of concrete structures)
• Teräs –ja liittorakenteiden suunnittelu – NCCI 4 (in progress)(Design of steel and composite
structures)
• Puurakenteiden suunnittelu – NCCI 5 17.6.2013 LO 25/2013 (Design of wooden structures)
• Geotekninen suunnittelu – NCCI 7 7.11.2013 LO 35/2013 (Geotechnical design)
• Standardin SFS-EN 1090-2 soveltamisohje Teräsrakenteiden toteutus – NCCI T 1.11.2014 LO
28/2014 (Execution of steel structures)

Eurocodes are principally used in projects when building a new, but it can also be used in renovation
projects.

4.2. Documents Concerning Pile Design

The Association of Finnish Civil Engineers has published Design and execution guide for Piles (RIL 254-
2011), which is used in pile design. Design Code for Piles is applied to type of piles. The guide follows
the principles of Eurocode 7.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

In Finland pile design is based on in one of the four alternatives:
- the results of static load tests whose validity has been demonstrated by calculations or other ways
- the results of dynamic load tests. Dynamic load tests are able to be used in Finland without static load
tests
- the observed performance of a comparable pile foundation, provided that this approach is supported
by the results of site investigation.
- empirical or analytical calculation methods whose validity has been demonstrated by static or
dynamic load tests in similar soil conditions or commonly approved analytical calculation method
without load tests.

122
Load tests can be conducted to test or trial piles or construction piles. Pile design methods are presented
in Design Code for Piles (RIL 254-2011).

In Finland the Design Approach 2* is used in pile design. Design value for pile’s compressive resistance
is either the structural resistance or geotechnical resistance depending on which one is lower.
Geotechnical Category for pile foundations is GC2 or GC3. There are also own Piling Works Execution
Category classification. Piling Works Execution Category is based on Geotechnical Category and
Consequence Class. Pile Working Classes are presented in table 2.

Table 2: Piling Works Execution Classes PWC1, PWC2 and PWC3 (RIL 254-2011).
Geotechnical Consequence Class
Category CC1 CC2 CC3
GC1* PWC1…(PWC3) PWC2…(PWC3) PWC2…(PWC3)
GC2 PWC1…(PWC3) PWC2…(PWC3) PWC3
GC3 PWC2…(PWC3) PWC2…(PWC3) PWC3
*Structures with pile foundations usually fall in GC2 or GC3.

In Piling Execution Category PWC3 a certain proportion of driven piles are always load tested to verify
the geotechnical resistance.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

Ab = cross-sectional area of the pile base area

Ac = cross-sectional area of the concrete pile base area
Amin = minimum cross-sectional area of the timber pile
As = cross-sectional area of the steel pile base area
As;i = area of the pile shaft in soil layer i
cu = undrained shear strength of soil
D = diameter of the pile
EI = pile bending stiffness
Es = horizontal elastic modulus of cohesive soil
fck = characteristic value of concrete compression resistance
fc;0;k = characteristic value of timber compression resistance parallel to the grain
fyk = characteristic value of steel compression resistance
𝐹𝐹c;impact = maximum allowed impact force (compression stress) during installation of driven pile
𝐹𝐹t;impact = maximum allowed impact force (tension stress) during installation of driven pile
Ks tanφa = shaft resistance factor
n = number or percentage of total amount of tests in similar soil conditions
nh = horizontal modulus of subgrade in non-cohesive soil
Nq = bearing capacity factor of the pile base
qb = calculated value of the pile base resistance per unit area
qs:i = calculated value of the pile shaft resistance per unit area
R = laterally loaded pile parameter for cohesive soil
Rb:cal = calculated value of the pile base resistance
Rb:d = design value of pile base resistance
Rb:k = characteristic value of pile base resistance
Rc:d = design value of pile bearing capacity in compression
Rc:k = characteristic value of pile bearing capacity in compression
Rc:m = measured value of pile bearing capacity
Rk;geo;max = maximum characteristic value of geotechnical resistance
Rs:cal = calculated value of the pile shaft resistance
Rs:d = design value of pile shaft resistance
Rs:k = characteristic value of pile shaft resistance
Rt:k = characteristic value of pile bearing capacity in tension
T = parameter in non-cohesive soil
α = adhesion factor
σ'v;b = effective vertical stress at the level of the pile base

123
σ'v;i = effective vertical stress on the pile shaft
γb = partial factor of safety for base resistance
γs = partial factor of safety for shaft resistance
γs;t = partial factor of safety for shaft resistance in tension
ξ 1 = correlation factor on mean value measured from static load test
ξ 2 = correlation factor on minimum value measured from static load test
ξ 3 = correlation factor on mean value
ξ 4 = correlation factor on minimum value
ξ 5 = correlation factor on mean value measured from dynamic load test
ξ 6 = correlation factor on minimum value measured from dynamic load test

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
The pile resistance against compressive or tensile load is calculated with static bearing capacity formula
or it is derived from dynamic probing resistance. The use of other methods is also permissible, but
methods that are used in design based on soil investigation test results must be generally well-known and
the designer must have experience to use them.

Calculated value of the compressive or tensile resistance can be computed using the following equations

Rb;cal = qb Ab (1)

n
Rs ;cal = ∑ q s ;i ;k As ;i (2)
i =1
Static bearing capacity formula

When the bearing capacity of the pile is estimated with static bearing capacity formula, the internal
friction angle of the soil must be determined for the pile shaft and in the bearing layer of the pile. The
estimation can be made using triaxial tests results, in-situ methods or the sounding resistance.
Use of static bearing capacity formula requires experience of the method in each soil condition.
The calculated value of the pile base resistance per unit area in non-cohesive soil layer is obtained from
equation

qb = σ v' ;b ⋅ N q (3)

The average friction angle in the bearing layer is used in the selection of the bearing capacity factor Nq .
The bearing layer of the pile includes the soil layer extending 5 D (at least 1 meter) above and 3 D (at
least 1 meter) below the pile base (D is the diameter of the pile). When friction angle larger than 40 ° is
applied, the value must be determined in a geotechnical laboratory using triaxial or in-situ tests on site.
The bearing capacity factor Nq as a function of the internal friction angle of the soil is presented in figure
1.

The effective vertical stress at the base level σ'v;b is computed by taking into account the effective load of
the soil layers extending 10 D above the pile base in maximum. When estimating the bearing capacity of
piles which diameter is less than 400 mm, the effective vertical stress at the base level is computed by
taking into account the effective load of all soil layers extending above the pile base. Though, the value of
base resistance is limited in 15 MN/m². Static bearing capacity formula is not recommended to be used
when estimating the base resistance of end bearing piles in dense non-cohesive soil layers because the
effect of pile driving to compressing the soil in base zone could not be taken into account.

124
Figure 1: The bearing capacity factor Nq as a function of the internal friction angle of the soil (RIL 254-
2011).

The calculated value of the pile shaft resistance per unit area is obtained from the equation

q s ;i = s v' ;i ⋅ K s tan ϕ a (4)

Shaft resistance factor Ks tanφa value depends on the pile material, installation method and internal
friction angle. Shaft resistance factor Ks tanφa for displacement piles is presented in figure 2 and for
replacement piles in figure 3. The shaft resistance factor Ks tanφa for grouted piles is shown in table 3.
The effective vertical stress on the pile shaft is determined by taking into account the load of soil layers
extending 10 D above the inspected level. For piles, which diameter is less than 400 mm, the effective
stress is determined by taking into account the load of all soil layers above the inspected level.

Figure 2: The shaft resistance factor Ks tanφa for displacement piles (RIL 212-2001).

125
Figure 3: The shaft resistance factor Ks tanφa for replacement piles (RIL 212-2001).

Table 3: The shaft resistance factor for shaft grouted piles (RIL 254-2011).
Internal friction angle for soil [°]
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Ks tanφa 1,2 1,3 1,5 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,4

In cohesive soil layers, the calculated value for shaft resistance per unit area can be estimated using the
undrained shear strength and the adhesion factor. Adhesion factor is obtained from figure 4. Shaft
resistance in cohesive soil layer is the adhesion between the pile and soil.

q s = α ⋅ cu (5)

Figure 4: The adhesion factor between pile and cohesive soil (RIL 254-2011).

Dynamic probing resistance

Pile’s bearing capacity can be estimated using dynamic probing resistance. Calculated value of pile base
resistance per unit area is determined in the bearing layer. The bearing layer is determined same way as in
static bearing capacity formula. Shaft resistance is the cumulative shaft resistance geotechnical layers pile
embedded. For displacement piles base and shaft resistance are obtained from figure 5 and for
replacement piles from figure 6.

126
Figure 5: Base and shaft resistance estimated using dynamic probing resistance for displacement piles
(RIL 212-2001).

Figure 6: Base and shaft resistance estimated using dynamic probing resistance for replacement piles
(RIL 212-2001).

In figures 5 and 6 the curves reach only dynamic probing resistance 50 blows/0,2 m, but curves can be
extrapolated linearly when estimating base and shaft resistances for higher dynamic probing resistances.

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

Design value of geotechnical resistance based on soil investigation test results can be determined using
one of the two alternative procedures, which are called as “Model pile procedure” and “Alternative
procedure”.

In the Model pile procedure the characteristic value of geotechnical bearing capacity in compression is
computed using the following equation:

Rb;cal + Rs ;cal Rc;cal (R ) (R ) 

Rc;k = ( Rb;k + Rs ;k ) = = = Min c;cal mean ; c;cal min  (6)
ξ ξ  ξ3 ξ4 

127
Values of correlation factors as a function of the pile tests n are presented in table 4.

Table 4: Correlation factors for obtaining characteristic values from soil test profiles (SFS-EN 1997-1
NA 2015).
n 1 2 3 4 5 7 ≥10
ξ3 1,85 1,77 1,73 1,69 1,65 1,62 1,60
ξ4 1,85 1,65 1,60 1,55 1,50 1,45 1,40

The values given in table 4 can be divided by factor of 1,10 when load transfer from weak to strong piles
is possible. Number of soil test profiles must be equal or bigger than number of inspected piles (SFS-EN
1997-1 NA 2010).

In the alternative procedure the characteristic value of geotechnical bearing capacity against compressive
load is computed dividing calculated values with the model factor. For end bearing and friction piles the
model factor is equal or bigger than 1,60. For cohesion piles model factor is equal or bigger than 1,95 in
long term loading and 1,40 in short term loading.

Design values for base and shaft resistance are obtained dividing the characteristic values by the partial
factors of safety

Rb;d = Rb;k / γ b ⋅ Rs ;k / γ s (7)

The partial factor of safety value for base, shaft and total resistance is 1,2 in compression. The design
value of geotechnical bearing capacity in compression is the sum of base and the shaft resistance

Rc;d = Rb;d + Rs ;d (8)

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

Against a tension load the design value of geotechnical bearing capacity is based on soil investigation test
results. It can be determined using same methods as for compression piles, which are the Model pile
procedure and the alternative procedure. The procedures are identical against a compression and a tension
loading, but the partial factors of safety and the model factors are different.
Pile shaft resistance per unit area gains a tension load is computed using the static bearing
capacity formula, derived from dynamic probing resistance or other generally well known calculation
method. A calculated value of pile shaft resistance is obtained from the equation 2.
In the Model pile procedure the characteristic value is determined using the following equation

(R ) (R ) 
Rt ;k = Min s ;cal mean ; s ;cal min  (9)
 ξ3 ξ4 
The correlation factors depending on the pile tests number are given in Table 4. Correlation factors are
same in compression and in tension.

According to the alternative procedure the characteristic value is determined dividing the calculated value
by the model factor, which is ≥1,50 in permanent and variable design situations. Design value of pile
bearing capacity in tension is obtained from the equation

Rt ;d = Rt ;k / γ s ;t (10)

In equation 10 Rt;k = Rs;k and partial factor of safety on permanent loading γs;t is 1,35 and 1,5 on
variable loading.

128
5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile
Geotechnical resistance of lateral loaded pile is computed based on effects of loads, soil resistance and
settlements. Pile structural capacity must be checked in analyses of lateral loaded piles. Behaviour of
lateral loaded pile depends on soil and pile relative stiffness as well as pile jointing to the structure.
Behaviour of lateral loaded pile can be tentatively estimated with parameter R for cohesive soil and with
parameter T for non-cohesive soil.

EI
R=4 (11)
Es

EI
T =5 (12)
nh

When embedding depth of the pile and parameter R or T stiffness ratio is not more than 2.0, pile is treated
as a rigid object which spins in soil and deformations of pile are not taken into account. Soil failure
occurs before pile structural failure. When the stiffness ratio is 4.0 or more pile structural failure occurs
before soil failure. When the stiffness ratio is 4.0 or more, increasing pile’s embedding length does not
have effect on working principles of pile. Stiffness ration values 2–4 are interpolated with sufficient
accuracy. Effects of stiffness ratio on pile failure mechanism are presented in figure 7.

Figure 7: Effect of stiffness ratio on pile failure mechanism (RIL 254-2011).

Ultimate lateral resistance determination is based on earth pressure theory. In non-cohesive soil the
ultimate lateral resistance is assumed to increase linearly with depth. In cohesive soil the ultimate lateral

129
resistance is assumed to be constant with depth. In cohesive soil, surface layer to the 1,5 d depth is not
taken into account when computing ultimate lateral resistance. Ultimate lateral resistances and ultimate
lateral loads in different soil conditions are presented in figure 8.

Figure 8: Ultimate lateral resistance in a) Non-cohesive soil, b) Cohesive soil and ultimate lateral load in
c) Non-cohesive soil, d) Cohesive soil. (RIL 254-2011).

5.3.5. Specific issues

In Finland negative skin friction is taken into account in design as a pile load, not by reducing pile
bearing capacity (Finnish Transport Agency guides 35/2013). In Finland seismic activity effect is not
relevant design situation.

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

The National Annex is updated in 2015 mainly due to EN 1997-1 Amendment 1. Some clarifications
were made for pile design too. There is need for immediate update for the NA.

5.4. SLS design

In service limit state structural settlements, deformations and durability of materials are considered.
Characteristic values of load and soil properties are used in service limit state design. Allowable
settlements for structures and environment are considered when determining maximum settlements for
supporting structures. Structural engineer determines allowable total settlement, differential in settlement

130
and deflection of a footing. Limit values for total settlements and deflections for house building design
are given in table 5. Settlements and deflections are demonstrated in figure 9.

Table 5: Limit values for total settlement and deflection for house buildings (RIL 121-1988).
Limit Value for Limit Value Range for the Angular
the Total Displacement δ/l
Type of Structure Settlement
𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎[mm] Non-cohesive soil Cohesive soil
Solid rigid structures 100…150 1/250…1/200 1/250…1/200
Statically determined structures 100…150 1/400…1/300 1/300…1/200
Statically not determined structures
-Timber structures 100…150 1/400…1/300 1/300…1/200
-Steel structures 80…100 1/500…1/200 1/500…1/200
-Mansoried structures 40…80 1/1000…1/600 1/800…1/400
-Reinforced concrete structures 60…100 1/1000…1/500 1/700…1/350
-Reinforced concrete element structures 40…80 1/1200…1/700 1/1000…1/500
-Reinforced concrete framed structures 30…60 1/2000…1/1000 1/1500…1/700

Figure 9: Demonstration of settlements and deflections of house building (RIL 121-1988).

5.5. Design based on load tests

Static load tests as well as dynamic load tests should be carried out as instructed in ISSMFE 1985, Axial
Pile Loading Test, Suggested Method - Journal.

5.5.1. Static load test

Pile geotechnical resistance can be determined from static load tests. The characteristic value is computed
from measured values with equation

(R ) (R ) 
Rc;k = Min c;m mean ; c;m min  (13)
 ξ1 ξ2 

Correlation factors for compression piles are presented in table 6. In tension values given in table
6 are multiplied by the model factor 1,25. The values given in table 6 can be divided by 1,1 if transfer
from weak to strong piles is possible, providing that 𝜉𝜉1 , 𝜉𝜉2 ≥ 1,0

131
Table 6: Correlation factors for obtaining characteristic values from static load test (SFS-EN 1997-1 NA
2015)
n 1/2% 2 / 10 % 3 / 50 % 4 / 75 % 5 / 100 %
ξ1 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00
ξ2 1,40 1,20 1,05 1,00 1,00

The Correlation factors presented in table 6 are applied for maintained static load tests. In a rapid static
load tests correlation factors given in table 6 are multiplied by 1,2. In a rapid load tests at the highest load
displacement measuring should last ≥ 5 minutes. Settlement velocity during the last 5 minutes should be
lower than a half of settlement velocity during first 5 minutes.

The design value for pile geotechnical resistance is obtained with equation 7. Partial factors of safety are
same as in design based on soil investigation test results for compression piles.

5.5.2. Dynamic load test

Pile geotechnical resistance can be determined with dynamic load test without static load tests.
Characteristic value of pile bearing capacity is computed from measured values with equation 14.
Correlation factors for dynamic load test are given in table 7.

(R ) (R ) 
Rc;k = Min c;m mean ; c;m min  (14)
 ξ5 ξ6 

Table 7: Correlation factors for obtaining characteristic values from dynamic load test (SFS-EN 1997-1
NA 2015).
n 2-4 / 1-4 % 5-9 / 5- 39 % 10-14 / 40-64 % 15-19 / 65-89 % ≥ 20 / 90-100 %
ξ5 1,60 1,50 1,45 1,42 1,40
ξ6 1,50 1,35 1,30 1,25 1,25

The correlation factors can be multiplied by 0,9 if signal matching is done for measured test data. The
correlation factors can be multiplied also by 0,9 if end-bearing piles are realibly supported by verified
bedrock and then pile capacity is depending on structural resistance only, though it’s not permitted to use
both mentioned 0,9 factors at same time. For friction piles and if pile length varies considerably,
correlation factors are multiplied by 1,05. Values given in table 7 can be divided by 1,1 if transfer from
weak to strong piles is possible.

Allowed maximum stress for timber and concrete piles can be increased by 10 % during dynamic load
test. For steel piles, allowed maximum stress can be increased by 20 %.

5.6. Design based on experience

Pile design based on experience can be used but results must be verified by commonly approved
analytical calculation method or by static or dynamic load tests. Also observed performance of a
comparable pile foundation can be used in design but the results must be supported by the results of site
investigation and ground testing.

Bedrock supported cast-in situ bored piles geotechnical resistance is given as a table value when bed rock
is solid igneous or metamorphic rock. These rock types compressive strength is typically in range 150 to
300 MPa. The basic characteristic pile toe resistance is 8 MPa, but higher values than this can be obtained
based on more detailed ground investigation results.

In Finland wave equation analysis is commonly applied to to estimate the geotechnical bearing resistance
of a pile. Correlation factors in table 7 can be then multiplied by 1,05 .. Wave equation analysis can be
applied is for friction piles.when the soil layers are investigated in detailed For end bearing piles the
minimum requirement is that bearing layer is verified with soundings.

Pile manufacturers have prepared the end of driving criteria tables for different pile sizes and types, pile
lengths, hammers to be applied in various Pile Working Classes. The end of driving criteria tables are

132
based on wave equation -analyses (GRLWEAP-program) according to rules set in RIL254-1011.
Calculated characteristic value of pile resistance is divided by factor 1,47 (=1,05 x 1,4) and by partial
factor of safety (1,2) to get the design value. House building pilings are usually dimensioned and
conducted in PWC 1 and 2 based on the end of drive criteria tables.

Before 2011 dynamic pile driving formulas were used to calculate the end of driving criterias for
prefabricated driven piles. Correlation factors for dynamic piling formulas are table 7 values multiplied
by 1,1 when permanent set and elastic compression are measured.

5.7. Structural safety

Piles’ structural design is based on Eurocodes. Steel pipe piles’ structural capacity is either buckling
resistance or compression resistance. Pile buckling resistance is calculated either as a steel structure or as
a composite structure.

The allowed impact force during installation of driven piles limits the design load of piles. Compression
stresses and tension stresses during installation of driven piles must meet the requirements of table 8 and
9.

Table 8: Maximum allowed impact force (compression) during installation of driven piles and maximum
characteristic value of geotechnical resistance (RIL 254-2011).

Maximum impact force Maximum characteristic value of

Pile material
during installation 𝑭𝑭𝒄𝒄;𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 geotechnical resistance 𝑹𝑹𝒌𝒌;𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈;𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
Steel piles ≤ 0,9 ∙𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ∙𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 PWC3: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
PWC2: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,8 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
PWC1: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,6 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Concrete piles ≤ 0,8 ∙𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ∙𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐 PWC3: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
PWC2: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,8 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
PWC1: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,6 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Timber piles ≤ 0,8 ∙𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐,0,𝑘𝑘 ∙𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 PWC3: Not used
PWC2: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,8 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
PWC1: 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘;𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔;𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0,6 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐;𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

Table 9: Maximum allowed impact force (tension) during installation of one element driven piles (RIL
254-2011).
Maximum impact force during installation,
Pile material
tension stress 𝑭𝑭𝒕𝒕;𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
PWC1-3Steel piles 𝐹𝐹𝒕𝒕;𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 ≤ 0,9 ∙𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ∙𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠
PWC1-3 Concrete piles 𝐹𝐹𝒕𝒕;𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 ≤ 0,9 ∙𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ∙𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

6.1. Quality control

Pile integrity is commonly tested with dynamic low strain method. Integrity testing is done to piles which
may have been damaged during installation. With pile integrity testing the long term durability quality of
bored concrete pile could not usually be detected. Ultrasound wave measurements and drilled samples are
used to determine concrete quality.

The contractor follows his approved quality assurance system. According the system materials and
equipment are verified to design and documented.

Quality control of precast concrete piles and steel piles is based on manufactures procedures and
according to relevant harmonized European product standards. There are also national requirements for
pile joints and rock shoes which effect on manufacturer’s quality control. Straightness of piles, cracks and
perpendicularity of pile heads are checked visually on site. Supervisor marks rejected piles and marked
piles are removed from the working site when the contractors own quality control fails.

133
6.2. Monitoring
Monitoring is often focused on adjacent buildings, infrastructures and unstable slopes. Observing
methods are measurements of vibration, pore pressure, deformation and inclination. Observation
frequency must be determined before piling starts and observation record must be maintained.
All devices used in monitoring must be calibrated and fit for the purpose. All detected deviations must be
reported. When end bearing piles are driven to the end of drive settlement, used energy and permanent
settlement are documented. Usually driving resistances of test and trial piles are documented from the
whole embedding depth.

Straightness of steel pipe piles are inspected and documented after installation. Usually straightness
inspections could be done with the aid of flashlight and measuring tape. More accurate measurements
could be done with inclinometer. If pile does not meet the straightness requirements it must be reported to
the foundation engineer for the design revision.

Location, level and inclination of pile are measured and documented after installation. Displacement of
previously installed piles is continuously observed during piling works. After pile installation is
completed, the deviation of location is determined. If deviation of location is greater than allowable value
the design is re-assessed.

6.3. Testing practice

Pile testing may composed of: static load test, dynamic load test, integrity test and inspection test. Pile
tests are needed to: evaluate design parameters, prove the compliance with the requirements, indicate pile
integrity and check the load-deformation behaviour at designed operating range.

Load tests, integrity testing and inspections are done to piles in Piling Execution Category 3. Purpose of
those tests is to confirm the bearing resistance of the pile and structural integrity. Pile testing is conducted
to the test piles, trial piles or production piles.

Static load test are applied only for special cases e.g. for drilled micropiles or jacked piles. Geotechnical
designer specify the test and the piles to be tested. Installation method and pile material must be similar
for tested piles and production piles. Static load tests can be conducted as a maintained load test or as a
constant rate of penetration test.

Devices used in dynamic load tests and integrity tests must be approved and the results must be
interpreted by a qualified engineer who has enough experience of dynamic pile testing. Dynamic load
tests are conducted after an adequate time, so that the shaft friction has developed and pore pressure has
dissipated. Drop or hydraulic hammer is used in dynamic load tests. Pile permanent settlement in dynamic
load tests must be at least d / 120 to reach full mobilization of toe resistance.

In integrity tests the shock wave is made with a sledge hammer. Devises with trademarks PET, PIT and
SIT are used in Finland. In demanding piling projects, the driven piles are equipped with control pipes
which are used to control the integrity and straightness of piles. Only large-scale damages could be
detected with dynamic low strain integrity tests, and the method is recommended for pre-fabricated one
element piles and for cast-in place piles.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

For high capacity steel pipe piles (typical diameter > 700 mm) dynamic load testing is performed with
different hammer than the actual installation. Hydraulic hammers, typically 5 to 9 tons, are used in pile
driving, but they rarely provide sufficient energy to mobilize the full geotechnical bearing resistance of
high capacity steel pipe piles. Dynamic load testing is then performed with a separate drop hammer,
typically 10 t in weight and adjustable drop height to enable to apply the structural capacity of the pile
(Riihimäki et al 2012).

According to research in 1990’s made by Technical Research Centre of Finland , dynamic pile loading
tests have very good correlation to static pile load tests for prefabricated end bearing piles in typical
Finnish soil conditions. When there is also good correlation between dynamic piling formulas and
dynamic load tests and between wave equation analysis and dynamic load tests, the combination of these
methods has become practise. The applicability has been verified in numerous projects (Korkeakoski
2002).

134
National data base of pile testing does not exist. In city of Turku underpinning projects have executed
intensively recently. Database DATU (The Database on Turku Underpinning Projects) consists of
approximately 100 underpinning projects conducted at the Turku area. (Lehtonen, 2011)

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
This example illustrates commonly used design methods in Finland although the soil condition are not
necessarily the most common. The geotechnical ultimate load of the pile is determined using a method
based on dynamic probing and dynamic load tests. The piles are designed using the ultimate limit state
method. The data is based on an actual project.

The bridge is founded on four RR813/12,5 close ended steel pipe piles. The characteristic values for the
permanent and variable loads are 2500 kN and 1550 kN. Consequence class is 2, so 𝐾𝐾𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 1. The design
load of the pile in the ultimate limit state is:

Fc;d = K FI ⋅1,15 ⋅ 2500 + K FI ⋅1,5 ⋅1550 = 5200 kN

8.1. Bearing resistance based on dynamic probing resistance

Some of dynamic probing resistance diagram is presented in figure 10. Sounding method is modified
DPSH-A, where ramming is replaced by static push, when pushing force no exceed 4 tons. Pile bearing
capacity was calculated on basis of dynamic probing resistance. Base and shaft resistance were
determined from the figure 5. Base and shaft bearing resistance were calculated with equations (1) and
(2). Computation of pile shaft bearing resistance in soil layers is shown in table 10.

Figure 10: Dynamic probing (DPSH-A) resistance diagram. Scale: 1cm=blow count per 0,20m.

135
Table 10: Computation of pile shaft bearing resistance in soil layers
Height Driving resistance Shaft resistance Shaft bearing resistance
Soil layer
[m] [blows/0,2 m] [MN/m2] [MN]
1 6,1 10 0,032 0,499
2 3,7 20 0,056 0,529
3 5,2 35 0,079 1,049
4 5,0 15 0,045 0,575
5 2,0 100 0,121 0,616

The average dynamic probing resistance at the pile base is 73 blows/0,2 m. Pile base resistance is 14,603
MN/m2 and pile base bearing resistance is 7,581 MN. In model pile method pile characteristic value of
geotechnical bearing resistance in compression is computed using the equation (6). Correlation factors are
obtained from table 4. Minimum value was not determined for this example.

7,581MN + 3,268MN 10,849 MN 10,849 MN NA*) 

Rc;k = ( Rb;k + Rs ;k ) = = = Min ;  = 6,78 MN
ξ ξ  1,60 1,40 

Design value for pile bearing resistance is obtained by dividing the characteristic value by partial factor of
safety

Rc;d = Rc;k / γ t = 6,78 / 1,2 = 5,65MN(> Fc;d )

8.2. Bearing resistance based on dynamic load tests and signal matching
The piles have been installed using Junttan HHK 7S device and 10 tons drop hammer was used in
dynamic load tests. In this case shaft resistance covers 40-70 % of the total bearing resistance and the rest
comes from the toe. Dynamic load test and signal matching was done to all four piles.

Bearing resistance values for piles from signal matching are presented in table 11.

Table 11: Measured values for bridge foundation piles.

Pile Measured value
Support Number LE [m] RMX [kN]
T1 P10 30,3 7841
P11 30,2 7069
T2 P20 20,0 9320
P21 20,1 9520

Mean value obtained from dynamic load tests is (𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑚𝑚 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 8438 kN and minimum value is (𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑚𝑚 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
= 7069 kN. Dynamic load tests were conducted to all four piles, so correlation factors 𝜉𝜉5 , 𝜉𝜉6 are 1,4 and
1,25. Correlation factors are multiplied with model factor 0,9 because signal matching is done. The
characteristic value for pile bearing resistance is

 (R ) (R )   8438 kN 7069 kN 
Rc;k = Min c;m mean ; c;m min  = Min ;  = 6284 kN
 ξ 5 ξ 6   1, 4 × 0,9 1, 25 × 0,9 
Design value for pile bearing resistance is

Rc;d = Rc;k / γ t = 6284 kN / 1,2 = 5237 kN

Rc;d ≥ Fc;d - ok

The bearing capacity of piles is higher than design load, so there is no need for further action or
calculations.

136
REFERENCES
Association of Finnish Civil Engineers RIL. 2011. RIL 254-2011 Paalutusohje 2011. Suomen
Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto RIL ry

Association of Finnish Civil Engineers RIL. 2001. RIL 212-2001 Suurpaalutusohje 2001. Suomen
Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto RIL ry

Association of Finnish Civil Engineers RIL. 1988. RIL 121-1988 Pohjarakennusohjeet. Suomen
Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto RIL ry

CEN. 2013. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules, EN 1997-1:2004/A1:2013.

European Committee for Standardization.

CEN. 2010. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing, EN 1997-
2:2007/AC:2010. European Committee for Standardization.

Finnish Transport Agency. 2013. Eurokoodin soveltamisohje Geotekninen suunnittelu – NCCI 7.

Liikenneviraston ohjeita 35/2013.

Finnish Transport Agency. 2012. Sillan geotekninen suunnittelu. Liikenneviraston ohjeita 11/2012.

Heinonen, J. & Hartikainen, J. 1997. Design of axially loaded piles – Finnish practice. Design of Axially
Loaded Piles – European Practice. De Cock & Legrand.

Ihler H, Uotinen V-M, Sarvell F., Miettinen L-V. 2014. Development and experiences on versatile
applications of RF pile wall. International Conference on Piling & Deep Foundations, DFI&EFFC,
Stockholm 2014.

ISSMFE. 1985. Axial Pile Loading Test, Suggested Method. Subcommittee on Field and Laboratory
Testing. ASTM Journal.

Korkeakoski, P. 2002. RR-teräspaaluperustus: lisensiaatintutkimus. Tampere Technical University.

(Licentiate of Technology Thesis)

Lehtonen, J. 2011. Underpinning project; owners´ views on technology, economy and project
management. Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 80/2011. Aalto
University, School of Engineering.

Rakennusteollisuus RT. 2011. Tuotelehti PO-2011 mukaiseen paalutustyöhön. Rakennennusteollisuus RT

ja Betoniteollisuus ry.

Riihimäki T, Repo T. Dynamic load testing of medium diameter steel pipe piles, cases studies. Proceeding
of the 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Copenhagen 2012.

SFS-EN 1997-1 NA 2010. 2010. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules, NA 2015.
Ministry of Transport and Communications.

SFS-EN1993-5/AC. 2009. Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Part 5: Piling. European Committee for
Standardization.

SFS-EN 12794 + A1/AC. 2008. Precast concrete products. Foundation piles. European Committee for
Standardization.

SFS-EN10219-1. 2006. Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels.
European Committee for Standardization.

SFS-EN 10210-1. 2006. Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grains steels.
European Committee for Standardization.

137
138
 Design of piles – French Practice
S.Burlon, F.Szymkiewicz, A.Le Kouby, University Paris-Est, IFSTTAR, GERS Department, France,
[email protected]

J.P.Volcke, Franki Fondation Fayat, France, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the design of piles in France according to the French national standard NF P 94-
262 compatible with Eurocode 7. The regional geology and the pile classification are firstly introduced in
order to better contextualize the design rules. The main principles of pile design for axial and lateral
loads are then addressed in detail and other specific aspects of pile design such as negative skin friction,
group effects, etc) are presented. Quality control, monitoring and testing practice are described. For
axially loaded piles, calculation models based on Ménard limit pressure p LM and cone resistance q c are
detailed.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
France covers an almost hexagonal territory, approximately 1000 km long in any direction, with a total
surface of about 550 000 km2. The country comprises five main types of geological and
geomorphological units (Figure 1) (Frank and Magnan, 1996, Bustamante and Frank, 1997):

− three main chains of hercynian mountains: the Armorican Massif, the Vosges-Ardennes Massif and
the Central Massif, which was partially covered by volcanic rocks during the tertiary and early
quaternary periods,
− two large tertiary massifs (Pyrenees and Alps), which culminate at 3404 m and at 4807 m
respectively,
− two large sedimentary basins (Paris Basin and Aquitaine Basin) covered with secondary formation,
− two main troughs corresponding to the Rhône-Saône valley and to the Rhine valley in Alsace, filled
with sediments from the neighbouring mountains,
− numerous river valleys and coastal plains, mostly covered with quaternary sediments, including soft
clays, sands and gravels, peat, etc.

The tertiary and quaternary deposits are the most important grounds for civil engineering structures
foundations. Arnould (1968) describes the main types of soils that can be found in France:

− eolian sands in the form of dunes on the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Channel coasts. The eolian
Landes sand covers thousands of square kilometres of land along the Atlantic coast, north of the
Pyrenees, with thicknesses up to 20 metres;
− marine sands, found both on recent shore deposits and in tertiary deposits such as the Beauchamp and
Fontainebleau horizons in the Paris Basin;
− fluvial sand and gravel deposits frequent in the main river valleys, often encountered in the form of
terraces;
− surface layers of residual (eluvial) sands, existing in all the regions, described as feldspathic rocks on
geological maps (mainly in the hercynian mountains);
− silty and loess soils of various origins in all parts of France: for example brown eluvial silts produced
by the decalcification of chalk or limestone found in most parts of the Paris Basin, and loess deposits
found in layers up to 30-40 m in Alsace, up to 20 m near Lyon, up to several metres in the North of
France, in the Paris Basin and Normandy;
− clayey overconsolidated stiff soils of marine, lacustrine or fluvial origin common in the sedimentary
basins;
− clayey muds and soft organic clays found along the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of France and
in the valleys of the main rivers. The thickness of these soft deposits is currently of the order of 5 to
10 m, with 20-30 m or even more than 50 m in the Adour valley and on the Côte d’Azur;
− more or less hard marls common in most parts of the country in secondary and tertiary deposits;
− glacial and fluvio-glacial deposits, less frequent in France than in the northern Europe, since the
inlandsis halted at some distance of the country. However, ice covered the Alps and the Pyrenees

139
 leaving typical marks in the landscape and in the soil properties, such as lines of morainic deposits,
glacial and fluvio-glacial sands and gravels, heavy overconsolidated by the ice-cover. The whole
Rhône-Alpes region is therefore covered with stiff soils, which are suitable for the construction of
buildings and structures, but sometimes quite hard to penetrate;
− peat is relatively rare in France. Except for the large Normandy Carentan marsh and some smaller peat
bogs, peat can mostly be found in the estuarine deposits of the main rivers or in same places north of
the Seine river.

The above description shows that the bedrocks and surface layers of France are extremely rich and varied.
Due to this variety a significant part of the piling experience had to be derived from foundations in
complex materials such as weathered rock, hard materials often coupled with a great spatial variability,
for example with the presence of boulders in medium-grained to coarse-grained matrices, karstic
limestones and dissolutions of gypsum , etc.
Special attention should be paid to the groundwater regime in all the regions of France, since it can be as
varied as the stratigraphy. Artesian water pressures are frequently encountered all over the country. Close
to the seafronts, the nature of the water as well as the range of the tidal variations (especially along the
Atlantic coast) require careful investigation to ensure they will not affect the piles during construction
works. In sloping and mountainous grounds the groundwater regime, frequently erratic, requires hydraulic
gradient measurements since significant flow can affect pile integrity.

0° 4°

CHANNEL Ardennes

PARIS

BASIN
Armorican Massif Vosges
48°

Jura

ATLANTIC
Central
OCEAN Massif
Mt-Blanc
4807 m
AQUITAINE Alps
BASIN
44°

Pyrenees
Littoral plains 3404m MEDITERRANEAN
Pic de Aneto
Alluvial valleys SEA
Hercynian massifs Alpine chains 4° 8°
Tectonic faulting Subsidence valleys 150 km
Volcanic rocks Sedimentary basins
Figure 1: Main geological units of France

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
The French practice of soil investigation reflects necessarily the richness and the complexity of the soil
conditions all over the country. As a basic approach it is accepted that the programme of ground
investigation should be flexible and based on various existing field and laboratory techniques (Table 1).
The choice of the investigation techniques depends both on the type of ground and the type of
geotechnical structure and the general approach is similar to the one followed in most countries. At first,

140
an attempt is always made to use simple and low cost investigation techniques, such as test pits dug by a
backhoe for shallow depths or auger borings for deeper investigations. These methods allow the retrieval
of representative but usually severely disturbed samples.
The investigation of deeper formations and recovery of ‘disturbed’, ‘slightly disturbed’ or ‘undisturbed’
samples are systematically required when deep foundations are planned. In these cases samples are taken
from boreholes sunk using powerful and more sophisticated drilling rigs. Deep boreholes can be sunk
using:

− rotary-core drilling with air or water flush;

− rotary tricone drilling with air or water flush;
− double or triple-tube core barrels;
− percussion drills, down hole hammers, etc.

The well known piston sampling is used for ‘research’ class sampling, in association with special
problems encountered in the research field.
Since the early eighties, classical boreholes techniques have been supplemented by destructive drilling
performed with data acquisition systems, recording drilling parameters such as: oil pressure, torque,
weight on bit, etc. This technique has become very popular in France. Where properly used, it can provide
instantaneous geotechnical information to confirm or amend the project (Reiffsteck et al., 2012).
In addition to classical boreholes aimed at recovering disturbed or undisturbed samples for laboratory
examination and investigations (shear strength and compressibility, chemical properties of soil and
water), the range of field tests includes:

− pressuremeter tests with Ménard (PMT) or self-boring pressuremeters (SBP), though the Ménard
instrument is the standard and more commonly used;
− cone penetration (CPT) or piezocone tests;
− standard penetration tests (SPT), less frequently;
− dynamic penetration (sometimes used but never alone and only in order to get a greater
number of investigation points);
− dilatometer;
− plate bearing tests;
− vane shear tests;
− in situ permeability tests.

For the design of deep foundations the two most popular field tests, are by far the CPT and the Ménard
pressuremeter test (PMT), usually carried out together. Although considered in France as totally unsuited
to investigate hard layers, weathered and fractured rock strata, or formations with complex structures, SPT
tests cannot be ignored for essential reasons:

− because it can be performed in a rather wide range of soils where piles can be installed ;
− because in many countries, at the time of the preliminary soils investigation, it is the only test
available.

For practical reasons, and because PMT and CPT tests are considered as the right references, a correlation
chart have been established for current practice (Figure 2).

Where appropriate and for major projects (dams, very large bridges or industrial plants, tunnels, harbours
facilities, etc.) or for peculiar geological conditions, geophysical methods may be used to supplement the
field or laboratory tests mentioned above. The main recognised techniques are:

− electrical resistivity;
− seismic refraction or reflection;
− magnetic method;
− and, more recently, radar and tomographic techniques.

141
Table 1: Usual site investigation techniques in France for deep foundation projects (from Bustamante and
Frank, 1997)

Type of structures
Type of soil
Small & medium Large size structures (bridges, tall buildings,
structures water-fronts, etc)
CPT
Organic soils CPT Pressuremeter (PMT or self-boring)
and soft clays (1) Pressuremeter (PMT) Vane tests
Laboratory tests
Auger CPT
Clayey soils CPT Pressuremeter
(firm to hard) Pressuremeter Laboratory tests (identification, strength and
SPT (sometimes) stiffness)
Auger (identification)
CPT
Sandy soils CPT
Pressuremeter
(loose to very dense) Pressuremeter (slotted tube)
Laboratory tests (gradation)
SPT (sometimes)
Auger (identification)
Pressuremeter (slotted tube)
Gravels CPT (static or static-dynamic)
CPT (static or static-dynamic)
(medium to very dense) Pressuremeter (slotted tube)
Laboratory tests (gradation)
SPT (sometimes)
CPT
Pressuremeter (high pressure tube, slotted
Auger (identification) tube)
Marl, chalk, gypsum CPT Laboratory tests (identification, unconfined
Pressuremeter tests (slotted tube) compressive strength)
Deep sounding and geophysical testing for
cavity detection
Rotary-core drilling
CPT (static-dynamic)
Auger (for decomposed material) Pressuremeter (high pressure probe, slotted
Rocks CPT (static-dynamic) tube)
(weathered to fractured) Pressuremeter (high pressure probe, Dilatometer (rarely)
slotted tube) Destructive sounding and geophysical testing
Laboratory tests (identification, unconfined
compressive strength)
(1) for upper part of the pile

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 p LM * [MPa]

Clayey and 0 3 6 9 12 15 q c [MPa]
silty soils 0 15 30 45 60 N/0.3 m
Sands and 0 8 16 24 32 q c [MPa]
gravels 0 20 40 60 80 N/0.3 m
0 4 8 12 16 q c [MPa]
Chalk
0 6-12 12-24 18-36 24-48 N/0.3 m
0 3.5 7 10.5 15 q c [MPa]
Marl
0 20 40 60 80 N/0.3 m
Figure 2: Chart for converting p LM* and/or q c to SPT blow count N, for current piling practice
(Bustamante & Gianeselli, 1993)

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

The range of deep foundations used in France nowadays is particularly varied (more than 20 basic
techniques available) and it should be noted that the design methods try to reflect this fact. Deep
foundation can be pre-manufactured or cast-in-place. They can be driven, jacked, jetted, screwed, bored
or excavated. All these installation techniques can be supplemented by grouting, a technique to which
contractors and designers often resort to in France (Bustamante and Gouvenot, 1976). Piles with a
cylindrical section are the most commonly used deep foundations, but H-section steel piles and sheet
piles, as well as bored bearing elements (barrettes) of any shape are also frequently used. The constitutive
materials are: concrete, grout, mortar, steel, or combinations thereof. The timber piles have a historical
meaning but their use has been increasing for some years considering environmental issues. Now, the

142
French national standard NF P 94-262 (AFNOR, 2012) compatible with Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004)
includes these various techniques (Table 2) and mention the European standard to be used for their
execution.

Table 2: Pile classification

Pile class Pile category Reference execution standard
1: No support
2: With slurry
3: Permanent casing
C1: Bored piles 4: Recoverable casing EN 1536
5: Dry Bored Pile / or Slurry
Bored Pile with Grooved
Sockets
C2: CFA piles 6: CFA pile EN 1536
7: Screw cast in place pile
C3: Screw piles EN 1537
8: Screw piles with casing
9: Pre-cast or Pre-stressed
Concrete Driven Pile
C4: Closed-ended driven 10: Coated Driven Steel Pile
EN 12699
piles (coating: concrete, mortar, grout)
11: Driven cast-in-place Pile
12: Driven steel pile, closed-ended
C5: Open-ended driven
13: Driven steel pile, open-ended EN 12699
piles
14: Driven H pile
C6: Driven H piles EN 12699
15: Driven grouted H Pile
C7: Driven sheet pile walls 16: Driven Sheet Pile EN 12699
17: Micropile I (gravity pressure)
18: Micropile II (low pressure)
C8: Micropiles 19: Micropile III (high pressure) EN 1536/14199/12699
20: Micropile IV (high pressure with
TAM)

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
In France, pile design is based on the national standard NF P 94-262 (AFNOR, 2012) compatible with
Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004).This standard is used both for buildings and bridges whereas in the past, two
different standards existed: The code Fascicule 62-V: ‘Règles Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des
Fondations des Ouvrages de Génie Civil’ ('Technical Rules for the Design of Foundations of Civil
Engineering Structures') adopted by the French government in March 1993 (MELT, 1993) and ‘DTU’
(Documents Techniques Unifiés) applicable for buildings and private works (AFNOR, 1992). Concerning
pile execution, the standard NF P 94-262 refers to European standards from CEN TC288, especially EN
1536, EN 12063, EN12699, EN 14199 and EN 1538.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

The standard NF P 94-262 includes the main design procedures for axially and laterally loaded piles as
well as other aspects dealing with the group effects both for axial and lateral loads, the tensile piles, the
negative skin friction, the pile settlements, etc. Other recommendations concern the limitations of the
concrete resistance for cast-in-place piles. The design is performed according to the design approach 2:
the partial factors are applied on the actions coming from the supported structures or the ground and on
the total resistance (pile bearing capacity in the case of an axially loaded pile). Some recommendations
are given for the seismic design.
Pile design has to be performed for axial and transversal load both for Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and
Serviceability Limit State (SLS). The design concerns geotechnical and structural aspects.
For geotechnical ULS, design principles are quite different according to the load type: axial or
transversal. Indeed, for axially loaded piles, it is possible to measure the ultimate resistance of the pile: in
compression, it is related to the bearing capacity of the pile and in tension, it is related to the tensile
resistance. For laterally loaded piles, it is not possible to measure explicitly an ultimate resistance

143
especially for flexible piles that represent the major part of the executed piles. The design is mainly based
on the use of the net limit pressure measured during a Menard pressuremeter test which is considered to
account for the local resistance of the ground.
For geotechnical SLS, design principles requires calculations in terms of displacements, which is the case
for laterally loaded piles. For axially loaded piles, design is conducted to limit the load transferred to the
ground by defining a creep load. When the supported structure requires high level of serviceability,
calculations in terms of displacements must be performed in order to check if the displacements do not
induce some disorders.
For structural ULS and SLS, the design is based on Eurocode 2 for concrete and Eurocode 3 for steel. For
cast-in-place piles, some recommendations are added to take into account the specificities linked to the
pile execution.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

Axially loaded pile design concerns both ULS and SLS and is based on the assessment of several values
describing the pile behaviour:

− the bearing capacity R c , corresponding to the ultimate compressive load;

− the creep resistance R c;cr , corresponding to the maximal load applied on the pile for which the strains
linked to creep are negligible;
− the tensile resistance R t ;
− the creep tensile resistance R t;cr .

Each value defined above can be represented by its characteristic values with the subscript “;k” or its
design values with the subscript “;d”. For example, it is possible to define the characteristic value of the
bearing capacity R c;k or the design value of the bearing capacity R c;d .
It is generally considered that the tensile resistance R t is equal to the shaft resistance R s. This last value is
combined with the base resistance R b to obtain the bearing capacity R c . This assumption comes from the
fact that there is no evidence to consider that the shaft friction is different in compressive piles and tensile
piles. Nevertheless, it is checked that the shaft friction mobilised at the soil-pile interface is compatible
with ground resistance around the pile to avoid that a failure mechanism occurs.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
The assessment of the characteristic values for the ultimate or creep resistances in compression or in
tension is based on four types of analysis:

1/ the results of static load tests, which have been demonstrated, by means of calculations or otherwise,
to be consistent with other relevant experience;

2/ empirical or analytical calculation methods whose validity has been demonstrated by static load tests
in comparable situations. Two procedures are available:
− the “model pile” procedure;
− the “ground model” procedure called in Eurocode 7 the “alternative” procedure (see clause 8 of
section 7.6.2.3);

3/ the results of dynamic load tests whose validity has been demonstrated by static load tests in
comparable situations;

4/ the observed performance of a comparable pile foundation, provided that this approach is supported
by the results of site investigation and ground testing.

In this paper, only the procedures 1 and 2 are described.

At ULS, the Eurocode 7 and the French standard NF P 94-262 allow to perform links between design and
characteristic values according to the following equations:

Rc;k Rb;k + Rs ;k Rt ;k Rs ; k
Rc;d = = and Rt ;d = =
γt γt γ st γ st

144
The main topic for axially loaded piles is the calculation of the characteristic values: R c ;k , R b ;k et R s ;k .

Table 3: Partial factors used for the pile design at ULS

Limit Values of partial factors γ t and γ cr
Combinations
states Compression Tension

Persistent and transient situations 1.1 1.15

ULS
Accidental situations 1.0 1.05
Seismic situations 1.1 1.15

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

“Model pile” procedure
The “model pile” procedure consists in calculating N values of the bearing capacity R c;i (i=1 to N) from N
test profiles. The spatial variability of the soil properties is taken into account, either through the use of
predetermined correlation factors ξ as advocated by Eurocode 7, which leads to the “ξ – model pile”
method, or through a direct statistical analysis coming from EN 1990, which leads to the “k N – model
pile” method.
For the “ξ – model pile” method, the following relationship can be used:
1  Rc / t ;moy Rc / t ;min 
Rc / t ;k = min  ; 
γ R ;d 1  ξ3 ξ4 

where the partial factor γR ;d1 is defined in Section 2.3.5.

The values of the correlation factors ξ 3 et ξ 4 are obtained from the following equations:

ξ i (N , S ) = 1 + [ξ ' i (N ) − 1]
S
with 100 m2≤ S ≤ 2500 m2.
S réf
For values S greater than 2500 m2, the following relationship may be considered if the site is
homogeneous:
ξ i (N , S ) = ξ ' i (N )
Table 4 includes the values of the correlation factors ξ 3 ’ et ξ 4 ’.
The surface S is a zone including both profile tests and piles to be built. The ratio between the length and
width of this zone cannot exceed 2.0.

Table 4: Values of the correlation factors ξ 3 ’ et ξ 4 ’

ξ’ pour N= 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
ξ3’ 1.40 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.27 1.25
ξ4’ 1.40 1.27 1.23 1.20 1.15 1.12 1.08

For the base resistance and the shaft resistance, the characteristic values are obtained as follows:
Rb ; k Rb; moy
=
Rc;k Rc; moy

R s;k R s ; moy
=
Rc;k Rc; moy
For the “k N – model pile” method, it is needed to perform a statistical analysis of the N calculated values
R c/t;i from the N test profiles. The procedure is the following:

Rc / t ; moy − ln =
1
∑ ln(R c / t ;i ) and sc / t ;ln =
1
∑
N i
[
Rc / t ;moy −ln − ln (Rc / t ;i )
2
]
N i

Rc / t ;k =
1
e
Rc / t ; moy − ln − k N sc / t ; ln
=
1
Rc / t ; geom e
− k N sc / t ; ln
andt k N = t (N − 1;0,95) 1 + 1 N
g R ;d 1 g R ;d 1

145
where R c/t ;geom is the geometric mean of the N values R c/t ;i and t(N ;0.95) corresponds to the 5 % fractile
of the Student distribution with N-1 degrees of freedom. It is interesting to note that the value s c/t ;ln is
close to the value of the coefficient of variation of the N values R c/t ;i which is equal to the ratio of the
standard deviation of the N values R c/t ;i of their arithmetic mean R c/t ;moy .

“Ground model” procedure

For the “alternative” procedure (called the “ground model” procedure in the recent French standard for
pile design NF P 94-262, AFNOR, 2012), the ground is divided into different layers j with representative
values of their properties. Then, the values of the base resistance q b and the shaft friction q s;j in each layer
j are obtained from the calculation model. Note that for this procedure the determination of the
representative values of the layers, which should be cautious estimates, is left to engineering judgement.
This brings another source of dispersion (Bond and Harris, 2008). The spatial scatter is also taken into
account by a representative, but cautious, estimate of the values of ground test results such as q c or p LM .
The determination of the values of the base resistance q b and of the shaft friction q s;j in each layer j from
the calculation model leads to the following equation:

Rb; k = Ab qb; k and Rs ;k = ∑A s ;i q s ;i ;k

i

qb qs ;i
qb ;k = and qs ;i ;k =
γ R;d 1γ R;d 2 γ R ;d 1γ R ;d 2

Values of the partial factors γ R ;d1 and γ R ;d2

The partial factor γ R;d1 is related to scatter of the calculation model and is proper to each calculation
model. In the French standard NF P 94-262, two new calculation models respectively based on
pressuremeter and cone resistance parameters have been proposed. They come from the analysis of the
IFSTTAR pile database (Burlon et al., 2014). For each calculation model, a partial factor is defined. Table
2 includes the pile technique allowable by the standard NF P 94-262 and divided into several classes and
categories. Table 5 presents the partial factor values used for each pile technique according to the loading
nature (compressive or tensile).
The partial factor γ R;d2 is only used in the “ground model” procedure and is equal to 1.1

Synthesis
Figure 1 shows a flowchart including the partial factors used for SLS and ULS both for the “ground
model” procedure and the “model pile” procedure. It can be mentioned that cyclic effects are not taken
into account explicitly in the standard NF P 94-262. Anyway, partial factors both on the actions and on
the resistances cover a large range of transient actions and avoid too high displacements of the piles.
From another point of view, many experimental tests show that very few displacements can be observed
if the load applied on the piles is smaller than the creep resistance R c;k . Other documents give some
methods to account for the behaviour of a pile subjected to cyclic loading (for example, the
recommendations provided by the French National Project SOLCYP).

Table 5: Classes and categories of piles

γ R ;d1 γ R ;d1
Compressive piles Tensile piles
Cone Cone
Pressuremeter Pressuremeter
penetration penetration
Group 1 excluded chalk 1.15 1.18 1.4 1.45
Group 1 in chalk 1.4 1.45 1.7 1.75
Group 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

146
Figure 2: Design principles of piles for ULS and SLS

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

Tensile piles are allowable for the French standard NF P 94-262 both for ULS and SLS. Nevertheless,
tensile tests have to be performed if the force applied at the pile head is greater than 0.15R s .
For a single tensile pile, the ultimate resistance is usually calculated by considering that the failure
mechanism may only occur at soil-pile interface. The calculation of the tensile resistance is performed
according to the rules presented in Section 8 for pressuremeter tests and cone penetration tests.
In some cases according to the soil properties and the pile geometry, a failure mechanism may occur in
the ground and is usually called “cone mechanism”. The ultimate resistance R t in a homogeneous soil is
also obtained by considering the following relationship deduced from the yield theory:

Rt = min πBqs x + γ ' π
(D − x )3 tan(ϕ )2 + π (D − x )2 c tan (ϕ )
k k k 
 3 
x

where c k and ϕ k are the representative (characteristic) values for the cohesion and the friction angle
(Figure 3). The “cone mechanism” can only be considered when the shear resistance of the soil-pile
interface is very high. In these conditions, the “cone mechanism” may occur in the ground volume located
around the pile. When the “cone mechanism” is considered for a pile group, interactions between each
pile have to be taken into account.

147
Figure 3: Conventional cone mechanism for a single pile

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

Principles
Laterally loaded piles design is based on verifications both for ULS and SLS. For this kind of
solicitations, assessment of the limit resistance of the ground is difficult to achieve, making it difficult to
compare actions and resistances. The procedure proposed in the standard is based on the determination of
soil-structure interactions relying on p-y reaction curves linking the pressure of the ground around the pile
(p) to the horizontal displacement of the pile (y). The resulting mobilisation of the soil reaction is taken
into account by choosing an appropriate value of the mobilisable net limit pressure around the pile. Thus,
for ULS and SLS, given the considered situation, the choice of the reaction curve is modified (Section
5.2).
For ULS, the calculation principle is based on the calculation approach regarding the persistent and
transient situations. Therefore, actions will be multiplied by appropriate partial factors whether the loads
are persistent or transient. For seismic and accidental situations, loads are calculated without any
references to the calculation approaches: for ULS, in any cases, the calculated values are not weighted by
any partial factors.
For SLS, neither the actions nor the resistances will be weighted by any partial factors, as they have been
modified while choosing the appropriate reaction curve.

p-y curves
Figure 4 presents the overall shape and presentation format of the p-y reaction curves. The slopes k and
k/2 (reaction coefficients in Pa/m) are usually determined from existing relations with the Menard
pressuremeter E M .
Adaptations are needed in the following cases:

− soils layers are not thick enough;

− soil volume in front of the pile is limited due the presence of a slope (bank or excavation);
− combinations of short and long time actions;
− group effects.
p

r2

k/2
r1

k
y

Figure 4: Construction principle of a reaction curve p-y

148
Table 6 presents the values to be given to the k, r 1 and r 2 parameters for ULS ans SLS.

Table 6: Parameters piloting reaction curves p-y

Limit
Combination Limit Slope
states
Persistent and transient k (for short time actions) ou k/2 (for long time
r 1 =r 2 =p f *
situations actions)
r 1 =p f *
ULS Seismic situations 3k (to be precised)
r 2 =p LM *
r 1 =p f *
Accidental situations 2k
r 2 =p LM *
Characteristic – Quasi-
SLS permanent r 1 =r 2 =p f * k/2
situations

5.3.5. Specific issues

Negative skin friction
Negative skin friction is considered as an action and is calculated by summing the negative frictions
above the null point where the soil settlement is greater than the pile settlement. Below this null point, the
pile bearing capacity is assessed according to the conventional procedures. More precised methods
including the soil-pile interaction with the use load transfer curves (t-z curves) are allowable and can be
used when structures requirements in terms of displacements are high.
The negative skin friction is considered as an action but is not usually added to the transient actions. It is
added to the persistent part of the transient action by means of the factor ψ 2 . This choice can be justified
since the transient actions induce maximal axial forces at the pile head whereas negative skin friction
induces maximal axial forces deeper in the pile. For this reason, the sum of these two actions is not
considered.

Group effects
Regarding pile group effects, two main mechanisms have to be checked:
− one mechanism concerns the entire pile group which is conserved as a fictive deep or shallow
foundation;
− another mechanism where the bearing capacity of each pile is calculated according to the following
equation:
n n
R g = ∑ Rb ;i + C e ∑ R s ;i
i =1 i =1

where R g is the ultimate resistance of the n piles, R b ;i is the base resistance of the pile i in a group of n
piles, R s ;i is the shaft resistance of the pile i and C e is a factor taking into account the interactions
between each pile :

C e = 1 if d ≥ 3 ;
B
   1 1  1 d  d
C e = 1 − C d  2 −  +    with: Cd = 1 − 1 +  if 1 ≤ < 3
   m n  4 B B
where d is the distance between the pile axes and m and n are respectively the numbers of lines and
columns of the pile group.

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

Two main aspects of the pile design are not covered by the standard NF P 94-262: the first one deals with
ground improvement and the second one concerns the cyclic effects induced by cyclic loadings.
Regarding ground improvement, the future developments will address the design for SLS and ULS. For
cyclic loadings, the objective is to provide a framework to account for cyclic effects with Eurocodes, both
for the actions and the resistances. Calculation models will be presented according to the conclusions of
the French National Project SOLCYP.

149
5.4. SLS design
At SLS, the Eurocode 7 and the French standard NF P 94-262 allow to perform links between design and
characteristic values according to the following equations:
Rc;cr ;k η b Rb;k + η s Rs ;k Rt ;cr ;k η s Rs ; k
Rc;cr ;d = = and Rt ;cr ;d = =
γ cr γ cr γ cr γ cr
The values of the parameters η b and η s depend on the pile execution: η b =0.5 and η s =0.7 for bored piles
η b = η s =0.7 for displacement piles. Partial factors γ t and γ cr depend on the combinations of each limit
state (Table 7). The main topic for axially loaded piles is the calculation of the characteristic values: R c ;k ,
R b ;k et R s ;k (see Section 5.2).

Table 7: Partial factors used for the pile design at ULS

Limit Values of partial factors γ t and γ cr
Combinations
states Compression Tension
Quasi-permanent combination 1.1 1.5
SLS
Characteristic combination 0.9 1.1

A method of determination of the load-displacement curve of a single pile under axial loading is given
and is based on the concept of t-z curves (curves linking the mobilised shaft friction at a given depth with
the corresponding axial displacement). It suggests that, in cases where a settlement estimate must be
made, the t-z curves and q-zb curve (point pressure - point displacement curve) proposed by Frank and
Zhao (1982) be used, as shown in Figure 5, with kt and kb given as functions of the PMT pressuremeter
modulus, E M , and the diameter B of the pile:
− for fine grained soils:

2.0 E M 11.0 E M
kt = and kb =
B B
− for granular soils:

2.0 E M 11.0 E M
kt = and kb =
B B
Other t-z curves from pressuremeter tests are also proposed (Abchir et al., 2016).

τ q

qs qb
kt 5 kb 5
qs 5 qb 5

kt kb

Figure 5: t-z curves and q-zb curve (Frank and Zhao, 1982)

5.5. Design based on load tests

5.5.1. Use of static load tests

From N static load tests (in compression or in tension) giving N values R c/t;i , this procedure allows to
calculate the mean R c/t;mean of the N values R c/t;i (i=1 to N) and the minimal values R c/t;min . The
characteristic value of the bearing capacity and the tensile resistance are obtained from the use of the
correlation factor ξ 1 and ξ 2 :

150
 R R 
Rc / t ;k = min  c / t ;moy ; c / t ;min 
 ξ1 ξ2 
The values of the correlation factors ξ 1 et ξ 2 are obtained from the following equations:

ξ i (N , S ) = 1 + [ξ ' i (N ) − 1]
S
with 625 m2 ≤ S ≤ 2500 m2
S réf
For values S greater than 2500 m2, the following relationship may be considered if the site is
homogeneous:
ξ i (N , S ) = ξ ' i (N )
Table 8 includes the values of the correlation factors ξ 1 ’ et ξ 2 ’.
The surface S is a zone including both static load tests and piles to be built. The ratio between the length
and width of this zone cannot exceed 2.0.

Table 8: Values of the correlation factors ξ 1 ’ et ξ 2 ’

ξ’ pour N= 1 2 3 4 ≥5
ξ1’ 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00
ξ2’ 1.40 1.20 1.05 1.00 1.00

5.6. Design based on experience

Deisgn based on experience is rarely used in France except for very small projects. Soundings are always
done in order to have a view of the soil mechanical properties and bearing capacity values are also
assessed using the calculation models presented in Section 8.

5.7. Structural safety

For cast in place reinforced concrete piles, verifications are completing the Eurocode 2 design methods.
For the determination of the unconfined compression strength of the concrete, relations to be used are as
follow :

(
f ck* = Min f ck (t ); Cmax ; f ck ) k 1k ;
1 2
 f (t ) C f*  ;
f cd = Min α cc ck ; α cc mαx ; α cc k3 ck 
 γc γc γc 
Where k 1 and k 2 are two parameters taking into account respectively the pile technique execution and the
pile geometry (Table 9). The coefficient α CC is equal to 1.0 for the length of the part of the pile where the
concrete is reinforced and equal to 0.8 otherwise.
For SLS, the design is based on the determination of a mean stress and a maximal stress not to be
exceeded:

σ c;moy = 0,3k3 f ck* ;

σ c; max = Min(0,6k3 f ck* ;0,6 f ck )
Where σ c;moy and σ c;max are the mean normal stress and the maximal normal stress calculated into the pile
section.
The C max value is limited to 35 MPa except for bridges foundations, where it is limited to 25 MPa.
Regarding the Class 2 piles, C max is limited to 30 MPa. This value depends on the pile technique to be
used, too. Moreover, the coefficient k 1 is linked to the pile technique, too. The geometry of the pile
(especially its length to diameter ratio) is taken into account in the coefficient k 2 . Finally, the coefficient
k 3 takes into account the realisation (k 3 = 1,2) or not (k 3 = 1,0) of integrity controls.

151
Table 9: Values of the parameters C max , k 1 and k 2
C max
Pile class k1 k2
MPa
k 2 =1.05 for bored piles where the smallest length is less than
C1: Bored piles 35 1.3
B/20;
C2: CFA piles 30 1.35
k 2 =1.3-B/2 for bored piles where the smallest length is less
C3: Screw piles 35 1.3 than 0.6 m;

C4: Closed-ended k 2 =1.35-B/2 for bored piles respecting the two previous
35 1.3 conditions.
driven piles

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

It is commonly accepted in France, both by public authorities and by the private sector that once the piles
are completed, the quality controls can concern:
− integrity tests (destructive or non-destructive),
− performance under load (static or dynamic).

These two basic tests can be carried out separately or in conjunction, depending on the type of piles, the
ground conditions, the importance and the size of the project, the anticipated construction defects and
workmanship of the piling contractor.
The most direct test of pile integrity is coring over the whole pile length or, in some cases, only over the
bottom part. This is a costly method, but is nearly systematically prescribed for bored piles of large
diameter and heavy loads. Coring at the tip of these piles, and more precisely over the last fifty
centimetres of concrete and below the tip, over at least the same length, allow the quality of the concrete
to be determined (homogeneity or segregation and discontinuity) and the quality of the soil/concrete
contact at the tip.
In special cases, the coring can be supplemented by a down-hole television camera observation. This
permits in some conditions views of the sides and the bottom of a core hole.
The most commonly used methods of non-destructive integrity testing in France are the following:

− sonic-logging (often referred to as sonic coring),

− vibration tests (referred to as impedance or transient dynamic response),
− dynamic pile tests (PDA),
− parallel sonic method (MSP).

Among these methods the first three are the most frequently used, the last (MSP) being recommended in
special cases when actual length of pile embedment is in dispute.
However, for major projects, the French administration (highway and bridges, railways, harbours, etc.)
prescribes almost exclusively sonic coring: based on acoustic principles, one measures the propagation
time of sonic transmission between two piezo-electric probes placed in access tubes (plastic or more
usually steel) cast in the pile or diaphragm wall. The impedance and dynamic methods are preferred by
the private sector (housing, small and medium-sized industrial plants, etc.).
Some other methods, more popular in the seventies, are still applied to some particular problems and as
supplementary tests. These are:
− echo method (usually limited to short piles, not exceeding 20 m),
− gamma ray method (for detecting defects in bored piles and diaphragm walls and controlling
proposed remedial works).

For major or complex projects, it is commonly accepted that, in addition to integrity tests, full scale
(static) load tests have to be carried out. Pile load tests can have two distinct functions:
− to check whether the ground will support the loads transmitted by a pile of imposed size, length and
type;
− to check whether workmanship is satisfactory, the pile being chosen at random.

152
When the pile load test is performed for checking the bearing capacity of the soil, the trial pile is usually
not incorporated into the permanent foundation design. The assessment of workmanship is always done
on a pile incorporated in the finished work.
There are two main methods for carrying out pile tests: the Maintained Load (ML) and the Constant Rate
of Penetration (CRP). Only the first, ML, is recognised in France by the profession (public or private
sectors). The ML method, fully described in the French standard (AFNOR 1991), is applied both when
checking the bearing capacity and when estimating the work quality.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

Since the early seventies, more than two hundreds full static load tests have been performed by IFSTTAR
(former LCPC – Central Laboratory for Bridges and Roads) and the results are compiled into a database.
This database contains the results of full scale static load tests on piles, performed following the
maintained load procedure. Each load step is maintained for one hour. The bearing capacity of the pile is
defined by convention when the settlement of the head of the pile reaches 10 % of its diameter. Moreover,
in most of the tests, the pile shaft is instrumented with strain gauges in order to determine the shaft
frictions in the various layers, as well as the load reaching the base of the pile (Baguelin et al., 1978,
Bustamante & Gianeselli, 1981). This database has been used to define the various generations of design
codes for axially loaded pile: DTU 13.2, Fascicule 62 Titre V and NF P 94-262 (see for example, Burlon
et al., 2014, Abchir et al., 2015).

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE

8.1. “PMT2012” model

This model is an improvement of the model developed for many years by LCPC (Bustamante and
Gianeselli, 1981; Bustamante et al., 2009). The corresponding relations are the following:

qb = k p p LM
*
;e

(
q s = κ .g i p LM
*
)
p *
LM = p LM − p h 0
where p h0 is the total horizontal stress estimated at the depth where p LM is measured (p h0 is roughly
estimated), p* LM;e is the equivalent net limit pressure, k p the bearing resistance factor depending on soil
type and pile class (Tables 5 and 10), g i (i=1 to 5) are 5 functions of the net limit pressure p* LM depending
only on soil type (Figure 6) and κ is an installation factor depending on soil type and pile category (Table
11). For steel driven piles other than closed-ended (classes 5, 6 and 7 – see Table 4), the base area and the
developed perimeter for the calculation are illustrated on Figure 7.

Table 10: Bearing resistance factor k p (for D ef /B≥5)

Soil type
Pile class Silt and clay
Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO 3 < 30%
1 1.15 1.1 1.45 1.45 1.45
2 1.3 1.65 1.6 1.6 2
3 1.55 3.2 2.35 2.1 2.1
4 1.35 3.1 2.3 2.3 2.3
5 1 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.2
6 1.2 3.1 1.7 2.2 1.5
7 1 1 1 1 1.2
8 1.15 1.1 1.45 1.45 1.45

153
Table 11: Values of installation factor κ
Soil types
Pile
category Silt and clay Sand and Marl and Weathered
Chalk
% CaCO 3 <30% gravel calcareous marl rock
1 1.1 1 1.8 1.5 1.6
2 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9
4 1.25 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.6
5 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
6 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.6
7 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7
8 0.6 0.6 1 0.7 0.7
9 1.1 1.4 1 0.9 0.9
10 2 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6
11 1.2 1.4 2.1 1 1
12 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.9
13 1.2 0.7 0.5 1 1
14 1.1 1 0.4 1 0.9
15 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4
16 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.2
17 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
18 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
19 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4
20 3.4 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1
Note: For categories 9 to 16, the above values are multiplied by 0.75 when the piles are vibro-
driven instead of being driven.

The calculation of the shaft friction with this model is an attempt to partly separate the influence of the
ground type from the influence of the pile installation (BBRI, 2009).
The mathematical expressions for g i are defined by three parameters a i , b i and c i (given in Table 12):

( *
g i p LM ) (
= ai + bi p LM
*
)(
1 − e − ci pLM
*
)
The shape of the functions g i comes from the work of Bustamante et al. (2009). The three parameters a i ,
b i and c i and the installation factor κ are adjusted in order to optimize the distribution functions of the
ratio of the calculated values to the measured values for the three quantities: R b , R s and R c . Ideally, the
mean of these distributions should tend to unity and the standard deviation to zero.

Figure 6: Definition of functions g i for cone net limit pressure values p* LM

154
Table 12: Definition of function g i for Ménard limit pressure values p* LM
Soil types
Marl and
Silt and clay Sand and Weathered
Chalk calcareous
% CaCo3 < 30% gravel rock
marl
g 1 [MPa] g 2 [MPa] g 3 [MPa] g 4 [MPa] g 5 [MPa]
a i [MPa] 0.003 0.01 0.007 0.008 0.01
b i [MPa] 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08
c i [MPa-1] 3.5 1.2 1.3 3 3

Figure 7: Area and perimeter used for pile classes 5, 6 and 7

Table 13: Maximal values for unit shaft friction

Values in kPa

Silt and
Pile category Sand Marl and
clay Heterogeneous Weathered
and Chalk calcareous
% CaCO 3 soil rock
gravel marl
< 30%
1 90 90 90 200 170 200
2 90 90 90 200 170 200
3 50 50 50 50 90 ___
4 90 90 90 170 170 ___
5 90 90 ___ ___ ___ ___
6 90 90 170 200 200 200
7 130 130 200 170 170 ___
8 50 50 90 90 90 ___
9 130 130 130 90 90 ___
10 170 170 260 200 200 ___
11 90 90 130 260 200 ___
12 90 90 90 50 90 ___
13 90 90 50 50 90 90
14 90 90 130 50 90 90
15 200 200 380 320 320 320
16 90 90 50 50 90 90
17 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

18 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

19 200 200 380 320 320 320
20 200 200 440 440 440 500

The equivalent limit pressure p* LM;e and the effective embedded depth D ef are defined as follows:
D + 3a

∫ p (z )dz
1
;e =
* *
pLM
b + 3a
LM
D −b
D

∫ p (z )dz
1
Def = *
*
LM
p LM ; e D − h D

155
 B 
a = max  ; 0,5 m
2 
b = min{a; h}
hD = 10 B
where z is the current depth, D the total embedded pile length, h its length in the resisting layer and B the
diameter of the pile (Figure 8).
In order to take into account the influence of pile embedment, the bearing resistance factor k p depends on
the effective embedded depth D ef as follows:
( )
- if Def B > 5 : k p Def B = k p ; max
(k p ; max − 1) Def
( )
- if Def B ≤ 5 : k p Def B = 1 +
5 B
Where k p;max is the maximum value for k p and depends on the soil type and the pile class (Table 10) and
D ef is defined in Equation presented above.

B *
pLM − qc
Ground

Soft layer
D
Resisting layer

hD Pile

Figure 8: Geometry of a pile

8.2. “CPT2012” model

This model is an improvement of the model developed for many years by LCPC (Bustamante and
Gianeselli, 1981; Bustamante et al., 2009). The corresponding relations are the following:

qb = kc qce

q s = κ .g i (qc )
where q ce is net cone resistance value and k c the bearing resistance factor depending on soil type and pile
class (Tables 4 and 14), g i (i=1 to 3) are 3 functions of the cone resistance q c depending only on soil type
(Figure 14) and κ is an installation factor depending on soil type and pile category (Table 15). For steel
driven piles other than closed-ended (classes 5, 6 and 7 – see Table 4), the base area and the developed
perimeter for the calculation are illustrated on Figure 7.

156
Table 14: Bearing resistance factor q c (for D ef /B≥5)

Soil type
Pile
class Silt and clay Heterogeneous Sand and Marl and Weathered
Chalk
% CaCO 3 < 30% soil gravel calcareous marl rock
1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
2 0.45 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.3
3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.35
4 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15
6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.2 0.2
7 0.35 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
8 0.45 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.25

Table 15: Values of installation factor κ

Soil types
Pile Marl and
category Silt and clay Heterogeneous Sand and Weathered
Chalk calcareous
% CaCO 3 <30% soil gravel rock
marl
1 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.80 1.40 1.50
2 0.65 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.50
3 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.85 ___
4 0.65 0.80 1.00 0.75 0.13 ___
5 0.70 0.85 ___ ___ ___ ___
6 0.75 0.90 1.25 0.95 1.50 1.50
7 0.95 1.15 1.45 0.75 1.60 ___
8 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.65 ___
9 0.55 0.65 1.00 0.45 0.85 ___
10 1.00 1.20 1.45 0.85 1.50 ___
11 0.60 0.70 1.00 0.95 0.95 ___
12 0.40 0.50 0.85 0.20 0.85 ___
13 0.60 0.70 0.50 0.25 0.95 0.95
14 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.20 0.95 0.85
15 1.35 1.60 2.00 1.10 2.25 2.25
16 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.20 1.25 1.15
17 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
18 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
19 1.35 1.60 2.00 1.10 2.25 2.25
20 1.70 2.05 2.65 1.40 2.90 2.90
Note : For categories 9 to 16, the above values are multiplied by 0.75 when the piles are vibro-driven instead of
being driven.

The calculation of the shaft friction with this model is an attempt to partly separate the influence of the
ground type from the influence of the pile installation (BBRI, 2009).
The mathematical expressions for g i are defined by three parameters a i , b i and c i (given in Table 16):

( )(
g i (qc ) = ai + bi qc 1 − e − ci qc )
The shape of the functions g i comes from the work of Bustamante et al. (2009). The three parameters a i ,
b i and c i and the installation factor κ are adjusted in order to optimize the distribution functions of the
ratio of the calculated values to the measured values for the three quantities: R b , R s and R c . Ideally, the
mean of these distributions should tend to unity and the standard deviation to zero.

157
Figure 9: Definition of functions ‘ g i ’ for cone resistance values q c

Table 16: Definition of function g i for cone resistance values q c

Soil types
Silt and clay Marl and
Heterogeneous Sand and Weathered
% CaCo3 < Chalk calcareous
soil gravel rock
30% marl
g1 [MPa] g2 [MPa] g3 [MPa] g2 [MPa] g2 [MPa] g2 [MPa]
ai [MPa] 0.0018 0.0015 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
bi [MPa] 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
ci [MPa-1] 0.4 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25

The net cone resistance qce and the effective embedded depth Def are defined as follows:
D +3a

∫ q (z )dz
1
qce =
b + 3a
cc
D −b

∫ q (z )dz
1
Def = cc
qce D − hD

B 
a = max  ; 0,5 m
2 
b = min{a; h}
hD = 10 B
where z is the current depth, qcc is the corrected cone resistance profile obtained by neglecting values
greater than 1.3qcm where qcm is the mean value of cone resistance profile, D the total embedded pile
length, h its length in the resisting layer and B the diameter of the pile (Figure A.4).
In order to take into account the influence of pile embedment, the bearing resistance factor kp depends on
the effective embedded depth Def as follows:

- if Def B > 5 : kc (Def B ) = kc; max

158
 (kc; max − 1) Def
- if ( )
Def B ≤ 5 : kc Def B = 1 +
5 B
Where kc;max is the maximum value for kc and depends on the soil type and the pile class (Table 4) and Def
is defined in Equation A.xy.

REFERENCES
Abchir, Z., Burlon, S., Frank, R., Habert, J. and Legrand. S. (2016) t-z curves for piles from
pressuremeter test results. Géotechnique, Accepted for publication (DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.097).

Arnould M. (1968) Origine, formation et distribution des sols en France et en Europe occidentale.
Chapter 1 in Les fondations, by G.A. Leonards (Ed.) et al., translated into French by a group of engineers
of the Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées. Dunod, Paris.

AFNOR (1991) Essai statique de pieu isolé sous compression axiale. Norme Française NF P 94-150, .
AFNOR, Paris.

AFNOR (1992) DTU 13-2 : Travaux de fondations profondes pour le bâtiment - Partie 1 : Cahier des
clauses techniques – P 11-212-1 (French Standard).

AFNOR (2012) Calcul des Fondations Profondes – NF P 94 282 (French standard).

Baguelin, F., Bustamante, M., Frank, R. and Jezequel, J. F. (1978) Bearing Capacity of Piles. Materials
and Building Research, 41, Annales Inst. Tech. Bat.

BBRI – Belgian Building Research Institute (2009) Directives pour l’application de l’Eurocode 7 en
Belgique – Partie 1 : dimensionnement géotechnique à l’état limite ultime de pieux sous charge axiale de
compression. Rapport n°12.

Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. (1981) Prévision de la capacité portante des pieux isolés sous charge
verticale. Règles pressiométriques et pénétrométriques. Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch. 113: 83-108 (in
French).

Bustamante, M. and Gouvenot, D. (1976) Essais de pieux de haute capacité scellés par injection sous
haute pression. Proc. 6th Eur. Conf. Soil Mechs & Fdn Engng, Vienna, vol. 1-2: 443-449 (in French).

Bustamante, M. and Frank, R. (1997) Design of axially loaded piles – French practice. Design of axially
loaded piles – European Practice. De Cock & Legrand (eds), 1997 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN
9054108738.

Bustamante, M., Gambin, M. and Gianeselli, L. (2009) Pile Design at Failure Using the Ménard
Pressuremeter: an Up-Date, IFCEE 2009. Proc. Int. Foundation Congress & Equipment Expo, Orlando,
ASCE Geotechnical Publication, 186, 127–134.

Bond AJ and Harris A (2008) Decoding Eurocode 7. 1st edn. New-York: Taylor Francis.

Burlon, S., Frank, R., Baguelin, F., Habert, J. and Legrand. S. (2014) Model factor for the bearing
capacity of piles from pressuremeter test results A Eurocode 7 approach. Géotechnique, 64(7), 513-525.

CEN (2004) Eurocode 7 – Part 1: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules, EN 1997-1. European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.

Frank, R. and Magnan, J.P. (1996) Cone penetration testing in France: National Report. Proceedings
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’95), Linköping, 4-5 October 1995, vol. 3:
147-156. Swedish Geotechnical Society (Report 3:95), Linköping.

159
MELT 1993. Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de génie civil,
CCTG, Fascicule N°62 - Titre V. N° 93-3 TO, Ministère de l'Equipement du Logement et des Transports :
Paris.

Reiffsteck, P., Lossy, D. and Benoit, J. (2012) Forages, sondages et essais in situ géotechniques – Les
outils pour la reconnaissance des sols et des roches. Ponts Formation Conseil, 800 pages, ISBN : 978-2-
85978-466-9

160
ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Design of piles – German practice

Christian Moormann, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, Germany,
[email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Germany has a long tradition of standardization with regard to the execution and design of pile
foundations and other pile systems. With the introduction of Eurocode 7 the principle of partial safety
factor approach have replaced the global safety factor approach so far used for pile design as well as for
other geotechnical design since many decades. In consequence the existing standards and recommend-
ations were revised and adapted to the new European regulations. After a transition period with German
codes adapted to the partial safety factor approach, Eurocode 7-1 in combination with the National
Annex and with DIN 1054:2010-12 including national supplementary rules to EC7-1 – all three together
called ´German Handbook EC 7 - Part 1´, are the basis for geotechnical design and as well for execution
and design of pile foundations in Germany; they are implemented as binding building regulations since
2012. Additional guidance for pile design and execution is provided by the ´Recommendations on Piling
(EA-Pfähle)´ which were elaborated by the German Piling Committee. These recommendations firstly
published in 2007 are now well-established as best practice regulations and provide comprehensive
support for all aspects of pile design covering also specific issues like negative skin friction, group
effects, cyclic and dynamic loading etc. This combination of standards and recommendations reflects also
the German basic understanding that standards should focus on the principles of design and safety
concepts whereas recommendations might provide more detailed support for engineering practice e.g.
with different calculation methods, background information, continuative literature etc. In this context the
´EA-Pfähle´ offers a specific approach to design axially loaded piles whereby this approach used as
standard method bases on the empirical evaluation of comprehensive databases with pile load test
results. Due to the geological diversity in the subsurface of Germany the soil and rock conditions vary in
a wide field and therefore a wide spectrum of pile types is used in Germany comprising nearly all kinds of
bored piles, displacement piles and micro piles.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. Geological overview

The geology of Germany is heavily influenced by several phases of orogeny in the Paleozoic and the
Cenozoic, by sedimentation in shelf seas and epicontinental seas and on plains in the Permian and
Mesozoic as well as by the Quaternary glaciations.
The Geological sketch map of Germany (Figure 1) reflects the amazing diversity in the subsurface of
Germany. It is the result of many, for hundreds of millions years ongoing processes that have shaped the
geological underground in this part of Central Europe: sedimentation, mountain building, intrusive and
volcanic eruptions of magma, metamorphism, erosion and glaciation.
The oldest rocks in the Precambrian of Germany arised more than 540 million years ago. They are found in
Bohemian, Bavarian and Upper Palatinate Forest, the Erzgebirge, Lusatian Mountains, in the Saxon
Granulitgebirge, the Münchberg Gneissmasse, the Black Forest and parts of the Odenwald and Spessart.
These crystalline regions which consist of both metamorphic converted sedimentary rocks and granitic
intrusive rocks have changed strongly since their creation by pressure, temperature and changing chemistry.
In the Cambrian up to Silurian (540-410 million years ago) shallow seas flooded the Germany space
indicated today by shale and sandstone in Saxony and North-East Bavaria.
In the Devonian period (410-355 million years ago) these seas deepened to large basins in which
sediments accumulated to powerful beds. This is proved by the shales, sandstones and limestones in the
Rhenish Slate Mountains, Hunsrück and Taunus and in the Harz as well as in the Thuringian-Saxon-
Frankish-slate mountains.
During the subsequent Carboniferous (355-295 million years ago) the ocean basins filled with sandy-clay
and calcareous sediments. At the same time the Cambrian sedimentary rocks were folded gradually.
Generally, this Variscan mountain belt strike from southwest to northeast such as in the Rhenish Slate
Mountains. At the end of this geological period large parts of Germany were covered by jungle and
swamps. Dead trees and other organic material collected in sinks and turned over millions of years by the
pressure of overlying sediments to coal, wellknown from Ruhr area.

161
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

The following time of the Permian period was marked by a warm, dry desert climate. The reddish desert
sand deposits of the Cisuralian and Guadalupian (Rotliegend) (295-260 million years ago) are often
associated with volcanic rocks such as in the Saar-Nahe region. In the Lopingian (Zechstein) (260-250
million years ago) shallow seas pushed forward from the north. They gradually evaporated, leaving
behind limestone, dolomite and salt, which today are mined as rock salt and potash in Northern Germany
and in the area of Hessen - Thuringia.
Also in the subsequent Triassic Germany consisted mainly of land. Especially during the periods of Early
(Buntsandstein) (250 to 240 million years ago) and Late Triassic (Keuper) (230-203 million years ago), in
rivers and lakes sandstones and claystones were constituted. In the Middle Triassic (Muschelkalk) the area
was flooded, leaving limestone and shell limestone in the German mountain range.
In the Jurassic (203-135 million years ago) Germany was again maritime area. During this period massive
layers of limestone, sandstone and claystone were deposited which built together with those of the
Triassic stage and hogbacks of the Swabian and Franconian Alb in southern Germany and in the Weser-
and Leine-Bergland.
In the north the floods stayed until Cretaceous (135 to 65 million years ago). Besides the well known
chalk cliffs on Rügen limestone and shales were built. Near the coast sandstones arised, eg at Teutoburg
Forest and Egge Range, Deister and at the edge of the Harz as well as in the Saxon Switzerland and
nearby Zittau, which today are often washed out bizarrely shaped rock formations. In the Cretaceous the
formation of the Alps began to arise in southern Europe. This geologically young mountain range is
comparatively high and not so far eroded than the older mountain ranges. The Alps are typical fold
mountains characterized i.e. by the formation of extended rock bodies, torn from their formation, moved
and stacked like blankets.
In the central and southern Germany in the Tertiary (about 65 to 1.75 million years) many active
volcanoes exists. The volcanic rocks at the Vogelsberg, Knüll, Rhön, Habichtswald and Meissner in
Hessen, in Lusatia and in Northern Bavaria, in the Westerwald and the Siebengebirge beside the Rhine,
the Kaiserstuhl at Breisgau and the Hohentwiel in Swabia testify, as are the crater lakes of the Eifelmaare,
which origin take up to Quaternary.
In the Tertiary brown coal was formed of the Lower Rhine, East German, and Lusatian and Helmstedter
grounds. At the same time the Rhine Valley lowered and filled with sediments that were deposited in the
foothills of debris from the rising Alps as molasses. In the Late Tertiary (about 14.7 million years ago) in
Nördlingen a meteorite alighted and altered rocks and landscape of the area proposed sustainable.
The recent and still ongoing geological period, the Quaternary period began 1.75 million years ago. In the
Pleistocene, until 10,000 years ago, Germany was characterized by deposits and landforms of the ice,
such as Moraines, ground moraines and glacial valleys. In Northern Germany, the glaciers from
Scandinavia outreached across the Baltic Sea up to south of the mountain ranges. The main glaciations in
the north German lowlands are named after rivers, indicating the scope of its ice sheets: Elster glaciation,
Saale glaciation and Weichsel glaciation.
At the same time glaciers reached out from the Alps into the Alpine foothills. The main glaciations in
alpine areas are named Günz, Mindel, Riss and Würm glaciation.
The deposits of the Quaternary can be differentiated also on genetic factors: Particulary beside the North
Sea coast areas are found which have been formed by processes occurring in the sea. The North German
Plain is dominated by large peat bogs. High-and low-moors are closely associated. In wide floodplains
fluvial layers which are caused by the influence of flowing waters are differentiated according to their
temporal development during the various hot and cold periods. Last but not least in Northern Germany,
large areas are found caused by the influence of the wind.

1.2. Consequences for application of pile foundations in Germany

Due to diversity of the geological conditions in Germany the soil and rock conditions vary in a wide field
and therefore a wide spectrum of pile types is used in Germany comprising nearly all kinds of bored piles,
displacement piles and micro piles. Also it is hardly possible to describe ´typical´ conditions piles in
Germany are quite often installed as follows:
 bored piles in all soil conditions varying from quarternarry and terrtiary granular and cohesive
deposits to soft and hard rock conditions like sandstones, lime- and claystones etc.
 all kind of displacement piles in granular and cohesive soil conditions especially when an
underlying stiffer soil layer can be reached by the piles,
 micro piles used in a wide field of application (tension piles, improvement of foundations etc.) in
all soil conditions.

162
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 1: Geological sketch map of Germany and adjacent areas, based on Henningsen & Katzung
(2006), Pawlewicz et al. (2003), BGR (2008) and Freudenberger & Schwerd (1996): Simplified map of
the surface geology of Germany. The Central European Depression (Mitteleuropäische Senke) (light
yellow) is almost completely covered by Quaternary deposits (Quartär). The Central European Blocks

163
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

area appears mainly in violet (Mesozoic + Zechstein + Ruhr Carboniferous (Silesian)) and brown (before
late Carboniferous). In the far south are the Alps.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
The structure and properties of the soil and rock and the groundwater conditions must be known in
sufficient detail for any piling project. This is necessary to reliably assess the stability and serviceability
of the pile foundations and of the overall structure as required by EC 7 and DIN 1054 and to assess the
effects of pile foundations on their surroundings. This information must also be sufficient to allow
technically the competent pile installation or construction, e.g. based on DIN EN 1536, DIN EN 12699
and DIN EN 14199, taking the German classification standard DIN 18301 (VOB/C) into consideration.
To this end, project-specific geotechnical investigations shall be carried out in accordance with the EC 7-
2 Handbook (DIN 2011b). The results shall be summarised in the Geotechnical Investigation Report and
be evaluated in the Geotechnical Design Report regarding the technical consequences for the
construction.
The German EC 7-2 Handbook (DIN 2011b) stipulates that the type and scope of geotechnical
investigations depend on the geotechnical categories (see section 5.1) and shall be specified in detail by
the geotechnical expert.

Figure 2: Minimum ground investigation depths for pile foundations, from EC 7-2 Handbook (DIN
2011b); Note: if the pile resistances of compression pile foundations are determined based on data from
proven experience acc. to ´EA-Pfähle´, the ground investigations should extend to a depth below the pile
base of at least za ≥ 4Db

The geotechnical investigations must extend to sufficient depth to record all ground formations and strata
influencing the structure and its execution, and to identify the load-bearing and deformation properties of
the ground as mentioned in EC 7-2 Handbook [45] and Figure 2. In addition to the stipulations in
Figure 2, the ground investigations should extend to a depth of at least za ≥ 4 Db below the pile base, if the
pile resistances are determined based on empirical data according to ´EA-Pfähle´ (see section 5).
In German design practice the undrained shear strength cu for piles in cohesive soils and the CPT cone
resistance qc in non-cohesive (granular) soils are the relevant parameter mostly used as relevant
parameters to consider in calculation the skin friction and base resistance.
Soil investigations for pile foundations usually combine explaratory boreholes requesting a full recovery
of soil and rock cores with soundings and laboratory tests on soil and rock samples. As soundings heavy
dynamic probing (DPH) and cone penetration tests (CPT) are most frequently used, whereas the use of
CPTs is increasing. Pressuremeter tests and other borehole tests are still relatively seldom used
additionally. Laboratory tests often focus on classification tests, on tests to determine the cu-value for
cohesive soils and on uniaxial compression tests (qu) for rock conditions.
It is permissible to correlate empirical data, if similarity can be demonstrated by means of suitable
investigations, e.g. penetration tests, vane tests, pressiometer and similar tests.

164
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

The German ´Recommendation on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´ defines requirements on the extent of soil
investigation for pile foundations as well as on the content of a Geotechnical Investigation Report and a
Geotechnical Design Report.
EA-Pfähle does also provide some correlation data e.g. for correlations between different types of
investigation for pile foundations (see Table 1 for non-cohesive soils and Table 2 for cohesive soils). The
applicability of the tabled data for the respective, specific application must be confirmed by the
geotechnical expert.

Table 1: Orientation values for relationships between relative densities and penetration resistances in
non-cohesive soils (U  3) above the groundwater for use with pile foundations (´EA-Pfähle´)
Penetration resistances
Relative Density D Density Index ID Description qc [MN/m²] N30 N10
CPT BDP DPH
< 0.15 < 0.15 Very loose < 5.0 <7 <4
0.15 ... 0.30 0.15 ... 0.35 Loose 5.0 ... 7.5 7 ... 15 4 ... 9
0.30 ... 0.50 0.35 ... 0.65 Medium-dense 7.5 ... 15.0 14 ... 30 8 ... 18
0.50 ... 0.70 0.65 ... 0.85 Dense 15.0 ... 25.0 23 ... 50 14 ... 30
> 0.70 > 0.85 Very dense > 25 > 50 > 25

Table 2: Orientation values for conversion from CPT cone resistances qc in MN/m² and blow count N30
of borehole dynamic probing (BDP) (´EA-Pfähle´)
Soil type qc/N30 [MN/m²]
Fine to medium sands or slightly silty sand 0.3 to 0.4
Sand, or sand with some gravel 0.5 to 0.6
Widely-graded sand 0.5 to 1.0
Sandy gravel or gravel 0.8 to 1.0

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Due to diversity of the geological conditions in Germany a wide spectrum of pile types is used
comprising nearly all known kinds of bored piles, displacement piles and micro piles.
The available pile systems, highly variable in their structure and their application options, differentiate
between three groups in accordance with the respective execution standards:
a) Bored piles according to DIN EN 1536 and DIN SPEC 18140,
b) Displacement piles according to DIN EN 12 699 and DIN SPEC 18538,
c) Micropiles according to DIN EN 14199 and DIN SPEC 18539.
Figure 3 taken from ´EA-Pfähle´ classifies the pile types used in Germany into these three main groups
and provides a more detailed definition and description of the execution of the different pile types.
There are no reliable data available on the piling market in Germany; therefore it is not possible to
quantify the use of the different pile types. It is anticipated that bored piles might be the most often used
pile type (for foundations as well as bored pile walls for excavations) followed by displacement piles
(especially driven prefabricated reinforced concrete piles and cast-in-place displacement piles) and micro
piles (especially cast-in-place piles). Due to offshore-activities the use of tubular steel piles has been
increased during the last years.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
Since the implementation of DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09: ´Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1:
General Rules´, pile analysis and design in Germany is governed by
 Section 7 of Eurocode EC 7-1 (DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09), in conjunction with
 DIN 1054:2010-12: Subsoil - Verification of the Safety of Earthworks and Foundations -
Supplementary Rules to the German version DIN EN 1997-1, and the

165
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

 National Annex to EC 7-1, namely DIN EN 1997-1/NA:2010-12: National Annex - Nationally

Determined Parameters - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1: General Rules.
These three coordinated documents are summarised in the so called German ´Eurocode 7
Handbook,Volume 1´ (DIN 2011b). Only this Handbook makes these documents applicable as the
German standard
DIN 1054:2010-12 is quite comprehensive and contains many rules specifying the application of EC7-1

Figure 3: Pile types – Classification and pile types used in Germany

166
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

in Germany. The standards EC 7-1 (DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09), National Annex to EC 7-1 (´DIN EN
1997-1/NA:2010-12´) and DIN 1054:2010-12 were implemented as binding building regulations in
Germany since July 2012.

Figure 4: Overview of European and national standards and recommendations for pile design in
Germany

Germany has a long tradition of standardization with regard to the execution and design of pile
foundations and other pile systems. The German standardisation committee in ´Piles´ (DIN NA 005-05-
07 AA) and the Working Group 2.1 of the German Geotechnical Society (DGGT), both hereafter called
as the German Piling Committee, have cooperated on these topics for many years, with members sitting
in both bodies. To compile the specific experiences and rules for pile design and to supplement the
application of the new European standardisation the German Piling Committee has elaborated a
summarizing recommendation for pile design and analysis of which the first edition was published in
2007 called ´EA-Pfähle´ (in German: “Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises Pfähle”) (DGGT 2007). The
second edition of ´EA-Pfähle´ (DGGT 2012a) finished in 2012 was also published in English
(´Recommendation on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´) (DGGT 2012b) (Figure 5). On 498 pages the
recommendation provides a quite comprehensive support for all aspects of pile design and analysis
covering also specific issues like negative skin friction, group effects, cyclic and dynamic loading etc. as
well as recommendations on static and dynamic pile load testing, quality assurance guidelines and
methods etc. Table 3 gives an indication on the content of ´EA-Pfähle´ (2nd edition).
These recommendations are now well-established as best practice regulations. As the German standard
DIN 1054 refers at various points dealing with pile design to the recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´ this
recommendation have also an ´official´ meaning in the German design regulations for piles (Figure 4).
This combination of standards and recommendations reflects also the German basic understanding that
standards should focus on the principles of design and safety concepts whereas recommendations might
provide more detailed support for engineering practice e.g. with different calculation methods,
background information, continuative literature etc.

167
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 5: Recommendation on Piling (EA-Pfähle) –

Recommendations by the German Piling Committee
on design, analysis and excecution of piles (DGGT 2012a,b)

Table 3a: Content of ´Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´

1 Introduction to the Recommendations and their Applications Principles

1.1 National and International Regulations for Piling Works
1.2 Types of Analysis and Limit States using the Partial Safety Factor Approach
1.3 Planning and Testing Pile Foundations
2 Pile Systems
2.1 Overview and Classification into Pile Systems
2.2 Pile Construction
2.3 Foundation elements similar to piles
3 Pile Foundation Design and Analysis Principles
3.1 Pile Foundation Systems
3.2 Geotechnical Investigations for Pile Foundations
3.3 Classifications of Soils for Pile Foundations
3.4 Pile Systems for the Execution of Excavations and for Retaining Structures
3.5 Piles for the Stabilization of Slopes
3.6 Use of sacrificial Linings
4 Actions and Effects
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Pile Foundation Loads Imposed by the Structure
4.3 Installation Effects on Piles
4.4 Negative Skin Friction
4.5 Lateral Pressure
4.6 Additional Effects on Ranking Piles resulting from Ground Deformations
4.7 Foundation Piles in Slopes and at Retaining Structures
5 Bearing Capacity and Resistance of Single Piles
5.1 General
5.2 Determining Pile Resistance from Static Pile Load Tests
5.3 Determining Pile Resistance from Dynamic Pile Load Tests
5.4 Axial Pile Resistance Based on Empirical Data
5.5 Bored Piles with Enlarges Bases
5.6 Additional Methods using the EC7-1 and EC7-2 Handbooks
5.7 Pile Resistance for Grouted Shafts and Bases
5.8 Resistances of Piles under Lateral Loads
5.9 Pile Resistances under Dynamic Actions
5.10 Internal Pile Capacity
5.11 Numerical Analyses of the Capacity of Single Piles
6 Stability Analysis
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Limit State Equations
6.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis
6.4 Serviceability Analyses
6.5 Pile Groups and Grillages
6.6 Piled Raft Foundations

168
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

7 Grillage Analysis
7.1 Analysis Models and Procedures
7.2 Non-Linear Pile Bearing Behaviour in Grillage Analysis
8 Analysis and Verification of Pile Groups
8.1 Actions and Effects
8.2 Bearing Capacity and Resistances of Pile Groups
8.3 Bearing Capacity Analyses
8.4 Serviceability Analyses
8.5 Higher Accuracy Pile Group Analysis
9 Static Pile Load Tests
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Static Axial Pile Load Tests
9.3 Static Lateral Load Tests
9.4 Static Axial Pile Load Tests on Micro Piles (Composite Piles)
10 Dynamic Pile Load Tests
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Range of Application and General Conditions
10.3 Theoretical Principles
10.4 Description of Testing Methods, Test Planning and Execution

Table 3b: Content of ´Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´ (continued)

10.5 Evaluation and Interpretation of Dynamic Load Tests
10.6 Calibrating Dynamic Pile Load Tests
10.7 Qualifications of Testing Institutes and Personnel
10.8 Documentations and Reporting
10.9 Testing Driving Rig Suitability
11 Quality Assurance during Piling Execution
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Bored Piles
11.3 Displacement Piles
11.4 Grouted Micro Piles (Composite Piles)
12 Pile Integrity Testing
12.1 Purposes and Procedures
12.2 Low Strain Integrity Tests
12.3 Ultrasonic Integrity Testing
12.4 Testing Piles by Core Drilling
12.5 Other Specific Testing Methods
13 Bearing Capacity and Analyses of Piles under Cyclic, Dynamic and Impact Actions
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Cyclic, Dynamic and Impact Actions
13.3 Supplementary Geotechnical Investigations
13.4 Bearing Behaviour and Resistances under Cyclic Loads
13.5 Bearing Behaviour and Resistances under Dynamic Loads
13.6 Bearing Behaviour and Resistances under Impact Loads
13.7 Stability Analyses of Cyclic Axially Loaded Piles
13.8 Stability Analyses of Cyclic Laterally Loaded Piles
13.9 Stability Analyses of Dynamic- or Impact-loaded Piles
Annex A Terms, Partial Safety Factors and Principles for Analysis
A.1 Definitions and Notations
A.2 Partial Safety Factors F and E for actions and effects from EC 7-1 Handbook
A.3 Partial Safety Factors for Geotechnical Parameters and Resistances from EC 7-1 Handbook
A.4 Correlation Factors i for Determining the Characteristic Pile Resistances
A.5 Procedure for Determining the Resistance of Piles against Buckling Failure in Soil Strata
with Low Lateral Support
A.6 Bonding Stress in Grouted Displacement Piles
Annex B Example Calculations for Pile Resistance Analysis and Verifications
B.1 Determining the Axial Pile Resistances from Static Pile Load Tests, Ultimate and Serviceability
Limit State Analysis
B.2 Characteristic Axial Pile Resistances from Dynamic Pile Load Tests
B.3 Determining the Characteristic Axial Pile Resistances from Empirical Data for a Bored Pile
B.4 Determining the Characteristic Axial Pile Resistances from Empirical Data for a Prefabricated
Driven Pile

169
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

B.5 Determining the Characteristic Axial Pile Resistances from Empirical Data for a Fundex Pile
B.6 Principle of the Evaluation of Static Pile Load Test Using a Prefabricated Driven Pile and
Comparison with Empirical Data
B.7 Preliminary Design and Analysis of the Ultimate Limit State of Franki Piles Based on Empirical
Data and Comparison to a Pile Load Test Result
B.8 Negative Skin Friction for a Displacement Pile as a Result of Fill
B.9 Determining the Effect on a Laterally Loaded Pile (Perpendicular to the Pile Axis) and
Analysis of Structural Failure
B.10 Laterally Loaded Piles
B.11 Pillar Foundation on 9 Piles – Ultimate and Serviceability Limit State Analysis Taking the Group
Effect into Consideration
B.12 Tension Pile Group Analyses on the Ultimate Limit State
B.13 Laterally Loaded Pile Group: Determining the Distribution of Horizontal Subgrade Moduli
Annex C Examples of Dynamic Pile Load Testing and Integrity Testing
C.1 Dynamic Pile Load Test Evaluation: Example using the Direct Method
C.2 Dynamic Pile Load Test Evaluation: Example using the Extended Method
with Complete Modelling
C.3 Rapid Load Tests Evaluation Example Using the Unloading Point Method
C.4 Low Strain Integrity Test Case Studies
C.5 Integrity Tests during Driving and/or High Strain Integrity Tests
C.6 Example: Ultrasonic Integrity Testing

Table 3c: Content of ´Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´ (continued)

Annex D Analysis Methods and Examples for Cyclically Loaded Piles

D.1 Guidance Notes
D.2 Piles Subjected to Cyclic Axial Loads
D.3 Piles Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loads
D.4 Procedure to Determine an Equivalent Singe-Stage Load Spectrum
Literature

In addition, the individual pile systems are governed by the following execution standards:
 DIN EN 1536: Execution of special geotechnical works – Bored piles.
DIN SPEC 18140: German national supplementary provisions to DIN EN 1536.
 DIN EN 12699: Execution of special geotechnical works – Displacement piles.
DIN SPEC 18538: German national supplementary provisions to DIN EN 12699.
 DIN EN 14199: Execution of special geotechnical works – Micropiles.
DIN SPEC 18539: German national supplementary provisions to DIN EN 14199.
 DIN EN 12794: Precast concrete products – Foundation piles.
 DIN EN 1993-5: Design of steel structures - Part 5: Piling.
Because diaphragm wall elements are often employed in the same way as pile foundations, the respective
execution standard must also be considered:
 DIN EN 1538: Execution of special geotechnical works - Diaphragm walls
in conjunction with:
 DIN 4126: Stability analysis of diaphragm walls.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

In Germany pile foundations are classified as either Geotechnical Category GC 2 or Geotechnical
Category GC 3. The German Handbook EC 7-1 (DIN 2011a) classifies pile foundations into the
following geotechnical categories:
 Geotechnical Category GC 1:
in Germany pile foundations shall not normally be assigned to the Geotechnical Category GC 1.
 Geotechnical Category GC 2:
a) pile foundations for which the pile resistances are determined on the basis of empirical data, e.g. as
described in section 5.4 of ´EA-Pfähle´, in cases where ´simple´ ground conditions exist;
b) common cyclic, dynamic and impact actions;

170
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

c) piles subjected actively to lateral actions with respect to the pile axis, e.g. resulting from structural
loads;
d) piles with negative skin friction.
 Geotechnical Category GC 3:
a) substantial cyclic, dynamic and impact actions and seismic actions;
b) raked tension piles with inclinations less than 45° to the horizontal;
c) tension pile groups;
d) grouted pile systems (micropiles to DIN EN 14199 and grouted displacement piles to
DIN EN 12699) as anchorage elements;
e) determination of tensile pile resistances;
f) loading lateral to the pile axis or bending resulting from lateral ground pressure or settlements;
g) highly utilised piles in conjunction with special serviceability requirements;
h) piles with shaft and/or base grouting;
i) piled raft foundations.
For ultimate limit state analysis (ULS), Eurocode EC 7-1 provides three options. With one exception
(slope stability considerations), the supplementary rules of DIN 1054 for use in Germany are based on
Design Approach DA 2 of EC 7-1. The partial safety factors are applied to both, effects and resistances.
To differentiate this from the other permitted scenario, in which the partial safety factors are not applied
to the effects but to the actions, this procedure is designated as DA 2*.
Only for failure of the ground in conjunction with the analysis of the overall stability, i.e. when utilising
the shear strength for analysis of the safety against slope failure and global failure including consideration
of structural elements, e.g. piles Design Approach DA 3 is applied in Germany.
Therefore the following subordinate limit states of the ultimate limit state (ULS) are relevant for pile
design in Germany:
a) EQU: Loss of equilibrium of the structure, regarded as a rigid body, or the ground.
b) UPL: Loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to buoyancy or water pressure.
c) STR: Internal failure, where the strength of the materials governs the resistance.
d) GEO-2: Failure or very large deformation of the ground in conjunction with the calculation of the
action effects and the dimensions, i.e. when utilising shear strength for passive earth pressure, for
sliding resistance and bearing resistance, and when analysing deep slide surface stability for anchored
retaining walls, and for base resistance and skin friction of pile foundations. The GEO-2 limit state
calculation follows Analysis Method 2* as outlined in the German Handbook EC 7-1.
e) GEO-3: Failure or very large deformation of the ground in conjunction with the analysis of the overall
stability, i.e. when utilising the shear strength for analysis of the safety against slope failure and global
failure and, normally, when analysing slope stabilisation measures, including consideration of
structural elements, e.g. anchors or piles. The GEO-3 limit state calculation follows Analysis Method
3 as outlined in the German Handbook EC 7-1.
In addition to actions, design situations are also taken into consideration for pile analyses, similar to other
structural elements. The previous German loading cases LC 1, LC 2 and LC 3, adopted for use in analysis
according to DIN 1054:2005-01, have been converted to design situations for use in analyses after DIN
EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1) and DIN 1054:2010-12, and DIN EN 1990 as follows:
 DS-P: persistent (design) situation;
 DS-T: transient (design) situation and
 DS-A: accidental (design) situation.
In addition, there is the seismic design situation BS-E.
The following procedure applies for analysing the 'external' capacity (load transfer to the ground) of an
axially loaded, single pile of a pile foundation for the governing design situation in the ultimate limit state
GEO-2 applying design approach DA 2*:
a) The characteristic, axial actions Fk, t the pile head are determined as foundation loads of the chosen
system. The foundation loads comprise the loads imposed by the structure and, as applicable, negative
skin friction, and are separately determined as persistent and transient situations.
b) The design values Fd are determined from the characteristic axial actions Fk on the pile:
E d  E G,k  γ G  E Q,rep  γ Q (1)

171
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

where G and Q are adopted from the German Handbook EC 7-1, Table A2.1, here documented as
Table 4.
c) Adopting the characteristic axial pile resistances the design values of the pile resistances in the
ultimate limit state result from:
R c,d = R c,k γ t for compression pile resistance (2)

R t,d = R t,k γs,t for tension pile resistance (3)

where t or s,t, are adopted from the German Handbook EC 7-1, Table A2.3, here documented as
Table 6. The partial factors apply equally to both the base and the shaft resistance.
Using the determined axial design actions and resistances, it must be demonstrated that the piles fulfil the
limit state conditions for all governing load cases and load combinations, as follows
Fc,d  R c,d or F c, d   R c,d for compression pile resistances (4)

Ft,d  R t,d or F t, d   R t,d for tension pile resistances (5)

For grouted tension pile systems (grouted micropiles to DIN EN 14199 and grouted displacement piles to
DIN EN 12699) in accordance with the EC 7-1 Handbook [44], a model factor ηM shall be taken into
consideration for the calculation of the design values and Eq. (3) becomes:
R t, d  R t, k (γ s, t   M ) (6).
The model factor is ηM = 1.25, regardless of the pile inclination. Eq. (6) also applies if, in well-founded,
exceptional cases, no pile load test data are available and the pile resistances of grouted pile systems are
derived from empirical data.
Table4 documents the partial safety factors G and Q for actions and effects from German Handbook
EC 7-1.

Table4: Partial safety factors G and Q for actions and effects from German Handbook EC 7-1,
Table A 2.1

Design situation
Action or effect Notation
DS-P DS-T DS-A
HYD and UPL: Limit state of failure by hydraulic heave and buoyancy
Destabilising permanent actionsa) G,dst 1.,05 1.05 1,00
Stabilising permanent actions G,stb 0.95 0.95 0,95
Destabilising variable actions Q,dst 1.50 1.30 1,00
Stabilising variable actions
Seepage force in favourable subsoil Q,stb 0 0 0
Seepage force in unfavourable subsoil H 1.35 1.30 1,20
H 1.80 1.60 1,35

EQU: Limit state of loss of static equilibrium

Unfavourable permanent actions G,dst 1.10 1.05 1.00
Favourable permanent actions G,stb 0.90 0.90 0.95
Unfavourable variable actions Q 1.50 1.25 1.00

STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failure of the structure, structural elements and the ground
Effects of permanent actions G 1.35 1.20 1.10
in generala)
Effects of favourable permanent G,inf 1.00 1,00 1.00
actionsb)
Effects of permanent actions from G,E0 1.20 1,10 1.00
at-rest earth pressure
Effects of unfavourable Q 1.50 1,30 1.10
variable actions
Effects of favourable Q 0 0 0
variable actions

GEO-3: Limit state of failure by loss of overall stability

Permanent actionsa) G 1.00 1.00 1.00

172
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Design situation
Action or effect Notation
DS-P DS-T DS-A
Unfavourable variable actions Q 1.30 1.20 1.00

SLS: Serviceability limit state

G = 1,00 for permanent actions or effects
Q = 1,.00 for variable actions or effects
a)
Including permanent and variable water pressure
b)
Only in the special case dealt with in Handbook EC 7-1, 7.6.3.1 A (2).

Note 1: In contrast to DIN EN 1990 the partial safety factors G and Q for the effects of permanent and
unfavourable, variable actions for the DS-A design situation have been increased from G = Q =
1,00 to G = Q = 1,10 in order to retain the proven previous level of safety.
Note 2: The partial safety factors G,E0 are reduced compared to the factors G, because the at-rest earth
pressure already decreases to a lower value for minor relaxing movements, and to the considerably
smaller active earth pressure in the limit case.
Note 3: DIN EN 1990 prescribes no partial safety factors for the DS-E design situation.
Tables 5 and 6 document the partial safety factors M for geotechnical parameters and Q for geotechnical
resistances from German Handbook EC 7-1.

Table 5: Partial safety factors M for geotechnical parameters acccording to German Handbook EC 7-1,
Table A 2.2

Design situation
Soil parameter Notation
DS-P DS-T DS-A
HYD and UPL: Limit state of failure by hydraulic heave and buoyancy
Friction coefficient tan  of the drained soil and friction φ, u 1.00 1.00 1.00
coefficient tan u of the undrained soil
Cohesion c of the drained soil and
shear strength cu of the undrained soil c, cu 1.00 1.00 1.00

GEO-2: Limit state of failure of the structure, structural elements

and the ground
Friction coefficient tan  of the drained φ, u 1.00 1.00 1.00
soil and friction coefficient tan u of the undrained soil
Cohesion c of the drained soil and shear strength cu of the
undrained soil c, cu 1.00 1.00 1.00

GEO-3: Limit state of failure by loss of overall stability

Friction coefficient tan  of the drained soil and friction φ, u 1.25 1.15 1.10
coefficient tan u of the undrained soil
Cohesion c of the drained soil
and shear strength cu of the undrained soil c, cu 1.25 1.15 1.10
1)
The coefficient γM is a generic for the partial safety factors relative to the respective, individual cases.

Table 6: Partial safety factors R for geotechnical resistances acccording to German Handbook EC 7-1,
Table A 2.3

Design situation
Resistance Notation
DS-P DS-T DS-A
STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failure of the structure, structural elements
and the ground
Pile resistances from static and dynamic pile testing
– Base resistance b 1.10 1.10 1.10
– Skin resistance (compression) s 1.10 1.10 1.10
– Overall resistance (compression) t 1.10 1.10 1.10
– Skin resistance (tension) s,t 1.15 1.15 1.15

Pile resistances based on empirical data

173
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Design situation
Resistance Notation
DS-P DS-T DS-A
– Compression piles b, s, t 1.40 1.40 1.40
– Tension piles (in exceptional cases only) s,t 1.50 1.50 1.50

GEO-3: Limit state of failure by loss of overall stability

Shear Strength
– See Table 5
Pull-out resistances
– See STR and GEO-2
1)
The coefficient γR is a generic for the partial safety factors relative to the respective, individual resistance cases.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

Definitions and symbols are used in accordance to EN 1997-1.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
The German Handbook EC 7-1 allows axial pile resistances to be derived from empirical data, in addition
to determining pile resistances from both static and dynamic pile load tests.
Of the methods described in EC 7-1, 7.6.2.3, under the heading 'Ultimate compressive resistance
determined from ground test results', only the method using Eq. (7) below should be adopted in Germany,
see German Handbook EC 7-1, Nationally Determined Parameters (NDP) to 7.6.2.3 (5)P and NDP to
7.6.3.3 (4). The method is known in Germany as 'Determining axial pile resistances based on empirical
data' and is explained in the following. The 'ground tests' (geotechnical investigations) shall be performed
such that it is possible to reliably assign the characteristic empirical data, which have been derived from
load tests, for the pile end bearing capacity qb,k and pile skin friction qs,k results. The number of test
results or extent of soil investigation does not influence the design resistance hence a correlation factor
will not be applied (see below).
To this end the following fundamental equations were used to calculate the characteristic pile resistance
by this approach:
R b ,k  A b  q b,k (7a)

R s , k   A s , i  q s ,i , k (7b)
i

R c,k  R b, k  R s, k (7c)

However, in principle, the German Handbook EC 7-1 allows all data derived from experience to be used,
in addition to the empirical data dealt with below, assuming their utility for the proposed case can be
appropriately demonstrated.

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

Evaluation of empirical data for skin friction and base resistance
Empirical pile end bearing capacity and pile skin friction data for the various pile systems are summarised
in the German recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´, Section 5.4, as a function of the respective ground
conditions. The numerical values listed in the tables refer to the CPT cone resistances qc in non-cohesive
soils and the undrained shear strength cu of cohesive soils.
The German Handbooks EC 7-1 and EC 7-2 state that soil parameters scatter considerably as a result of
the geological formation conditions and history. This applies especially to pile capacity and pile
resistances in the ultimate and serviceability limit states, because in addition to the ground-related spatial
variability, considerable influences can result from the piling execution. When specifying characteristic
soil properties, normally ‘conservative mean values’ are adopted.
The empirical pile base resistance qb and pile skin friction qs data ranges summarised in the tables of ´EA-
Pfähle´, Section 5.4, are based on numerous and predominantly static pile load test results, which were

174
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

analysed for this purpose. The evaluation strategies and principles are described in Elborg (1993),
Kempfert & Becker (2007), Lüking (2010) and Witzel (2004). As outlined by Kempfert & Becker (2007),
empirical pile load test evaluations were made and related to statistical values, differentiated into 10%,
20% and 50% quantiles as input for the tables. This allows the user to also assess the probability and the
risk of pile resistance deviations below of the tabled values for a specific project application.
The tables as documented in ´EA-Pfähle´, Section 5.4, contain a range of empirical values for quantiles
from 10% to 50% as shown in Figure 6. This means that, as a result of scatter, around 10% of the in-situ
pile resistances can be below the lower value in the tables, and around 50% below the upper value (mean
value).
Concerning the magnitude of the range of table values it is expressly pointed out that the quantile range in
Figure 6 represents an orientation only. The stated boundaries of around 10% to 50% can vary depending
on the adopted load test results and the resulting distribution and scatter, because they are based on the
adopted load test result population and the boundary conditions of the ground.
Normally and under condition that the site investigation has been carried out in line with the Handbook
EC 7-2 the lower table values (minimal values) should be adopted.

Figure 6: Fractiles for the ranges of pile resistance table data from empirical data, compared to load test
results

Pile resistances above the lower (minimal) values, interpolated between the lower and the upper table
values, may only be selected for the specific application by the designer if they are expressly confirmed
by a geotechnical expert. Local conditions and experience, and the actual situation on the ground must be
taken into consideration. The local conditions and experience, and the proposed application, must also be
taken into consideration.
If, in terms of pile type and ground conditions, comparable load test results are available, they can be
adopted to determine pile resistances as outlined in the Handbook EC 7-1. Comparability must be
confirmed by a geotechnical expert or geotechnical designer.
The soil strength range given in the table data includes mean CPT cone resistances qc = 7.5 to 25 MN/m²
for non-cohesive soils and undrained shear strengths cu,k = 100 to 250 kN/m² for cohesive soils related to
the end bearing capacity, and cu,k = 60 to 250 kN/m² related to skin friction.
Guidance on comparing the empirical table data to measured data from static and dynamic pile load tests:
the tabled characteristic values of pile base resistance and skin friction were derived from pile load test
results by statistical application of the quantiles mentioned above to the measured data. Correlation
factors  were not applied. They are instead already incorporated in the partial factors for empirical values
as stipulated in the Handbook EC 7-1, Table A2.3 and Annex A3.2. This is done by a model factor ηE in
accordance with the Handbook EC 7-1, NDP to 7.6.2.3 (8) and NDP to 7.6.3.3 (6), which is a fact to be
realised when comparing the characteristic table data to characteristic values derived from data measured
during pile load tests.
Based on this approach ´EA-Pfähle´, Section 5.4, provides such empirical data for skin friction and base
resistance for the following pile types:
 Prefabricated driven piles, i.e.:
- prefabricated, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete driven piles where Deq = 0,25 to
0,50 m;
- closed-ended steel tube piles with diameters up to 800 mm;
- open-ended steel tube and hollow box piles with diameters between 300 mm and 1 600 mm;
- steel sections with flange widths between 300 mm and 500 mm, and section heights between
290 mm and 500 mm, and
- steel box piles.

175
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

 Driven Cast-in-place concrete piles

- Simplex piles
- Franki piles

 Bored piles (also values for soft rock and rock conditions)

 Partial displacement piles

 Screw piles

 Grouted displacement piles and micropiles

- pressure-grouted piles
- vibro-injection piles
- grouted micropiles
- tubular grouted piles
- grouted displacement piles

In the following as an example the approach is documented for bored piles in cohesive and cohesive soils.
Example 1: Prefabricated driven piles
The elements of the characteristic resistance-settlement curve for bored piles are shown in Figure 7 for
settlement up to sult = sg, whereby sult = settlement in the ultimate limit state and sg = limit settlement or
failure settlement (Normally, sult and sg are regarded as equal; sult formally designates the ultimate limit
state analysis method in accordance with Handbook EC 7-1; sg designates the settlement on pile failure).
The settlement-dependent pile base resistance Rb(s) and the pile shaft resistance Rs(s) are differentiated.
The limit settlement applies for Rb,k (sult = sg):
sg = 0,10 · Db (8)
where:
Db diameter of the pile base in m.

Figure 7: Elements of the characteristic resistance-settlement curve for bored piles

The governing reference variable for settlement in the serviceability limit state is the pile shaft diameter
Ds. On piles without an enlarged base the pile diameter D (here: D = Ds = Db) is adopted as the reference
variable for settlement at the ultimate limit state. The pile diameter Db is the governing reference variable
for piles with an enlarged base.
The limit settlement applies for the characteristic pile shaft resistance Rs,k(ssg) in MN in at ultimate limit
state:
ssg cm  0,5  R s,k ssg  MN  0,5 cm  3 cm (9)

The characteristic axial pile resistance is determined from

R c ,k (s)  R b,k (s)  R s,k (s)  q b,k  A b   q s,k,i  A s,i (10)
i

176
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

where:
Ab nominal value of the pile base area;
As,i nominal value of the pile shaft area in stratum i;
qb,k characteristic value of the base resistance, derived from Tables 7 and 9;
qs,k,i characteristic value of the skin friction in stratum i, derived from Tables 8 and 10;
Rc,k(s) settlement-dependent, characteristic compressive pile resistance;
Rb,k(s) settlement-dependent, characteristic base resistance;
Rs,k(s) settlement-dependent, characteristic shaft resistance;
ssg limit settlement for the settlement-dependent characteristic shaft resistance.

The empirical data for pile base resistance and skin friction given in Tables 7 to 10 apply to bored piles
from Ds or Db = 0,30 to 3.0 m, which embed at least 2.50 m into a load-bearing stratum and depend on:
 the mean cone resistance qc of the CPT with depth in non-cohesive soil and
 the shear strength of the undrained soil cu,k for cohesive soils.
When specifying the governing mean cone resistance qc of the CPT or the characteristic undrained shear
strength cu,k differentiation shall be made between:
 the zone governing the base resistance from 1 · Db above and 4 · Db below the pile base for pile
diameters up to Db = 0.6 m, and 1 · Db above and 3 · Db below the pile base for diameters greater than
Db = 0.6 m and
 the zone governing the skin friction (mean value for the affected stratum);
If ground stratification has a great influence on the CPT cone resistance or the undrained shear strength,
two or more mean pile skin friction zones must be specified separately.
Condition for the application of the values of Tables 7 and 9 are:
 the thickness of the load-bearing layer below the pile base is not less than 3 times the pile base
diameter, but at least 1.50 m and
 qc  7,5 MN/m² or cu,k  100 kN/m² is confirmed in this zone.
Regardless of this, founding the pile bases in zones where qc  10 MN/m² is recommended.
If the above geometrical values are not met, analysis of safety against a punching failure is required. In
addition, it must then be verified that the underlying ground does not substantially impair settlement
behaviour.
An example for determining the characteristic resistances of bored piles is included in section 8 of this
paper.

Table 7: Empirical data ranges for the characteristic base resistance qb,k for bored piles in non-cohesive
soils
Pile base resistance qb,k [kN/m²]
Relative settlement
of the pile head mean CPT cone resistance qc [MN/m²]
s/Ds or s/Db
7,5 15 25
0,02 550 – 800 1 050 – 1 400 1 750 – 2 300
0,03 700 – 1 050 1 350 – 1 800 2 250 – 2 950
0,10 ( =
ˆ sg) 1 600 – 2 300 3 000 – 4 000 4 000 – 5 300
Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated.
For bored piles with enlarged base the values shall be reduced to 75 %.

Table 8: Empirical data ranges for the characteristic skin friction qs,k for bored piles in non-cohesive
soils
Mean CPT cone resistance qc Ultimate limit state value qs,k of pile skin friction
[MN/m²] [kN/m²]
7,5 55 – 80
15 105 – 140
≥ 25 130 – 170
Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated.

177
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table 9: Empirical data ranges for the characteristic base resistance qb,k for bored piles in cohesive soils
Pile base resistance qb,k [kN/m²]
Relative settlement
of the pile head Shear strength cu,k of the undrained soil [kN/m²]
s/Ds or s/Db
100 150 250
0,02 350 – 450 600 – 750 950 – 1 200
0,03 450 – 550 700 – 900 1 200 – 1 450
0,10 ( =
ˆ sg) 800 – 1 000 1 200 – 1,500 1 600 – 2 000
Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated.
For bored piles with a flared base the values are reduced to 75 %.

Table 10: Empirical data ranges for the characteristic skin friction qs,k for bored piles in cohesive soils

Shear strength cu,k of the undrained Ultimate limit state value qs,k
soil [kN/m²] of pile skin friction [kN/m²]
60 30 – 40
150 50 – 65
≥ 250 65 – 85
Intermediate values may be linearly interpolated.

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

According to Handbook EC 7-1 pile load tests should always be performed when dealing with tension
piles. Handbook EC 7-1 allows the estimation of tension pile resistances from empirical data in
exceptional cases only.
If, in well-founded, exceptional cases, tension piles resistances based on empirical data are adopted, the
derived characteristic skin friction values must be confirmed by a geotechnical expert or geotechnical
designer for the specific situation. In this case it shall also be checked if the empirical data given in the
tables of ´EA-Pfähle´, Abs. 5.4, should be further and considerably reduced for deriving tension pile
resistances, e.g. by applying appropriate calibration factors.
When determining a characteristic resistance-heave curve based on empirical data, the limit heave ssg,t
may be approximately determined using:
sgt = 1.,30 · ssg (11)
where ssg is adopted after Eq. (9), or accordingly for other pile types.

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

For laterally loaded piles the German recommendations like the ´EA-Pfähle´ provides little additional
information.
In engineering practice often simplified models were used where the soil resistances lateral to the pile
axis is simulated as a subgrade reaction moduli, in particular for long, flexible piles. The subgrade
reaction modulus is often assumed to be a constante values determined from the relationship: ks,k = Es,k/Ds
as outlined in the German Handbook EC 7-1 for simple cases where only the effects within the pile, e.g.
bending moments should be caculated. Not regulated in the Handbook EC 7-1 is, however, the effect of
the shape of progression with depth of the modulus of subgrade reaction which can be decisive, even
when using the simplified approach.
More advanced calculation models like the p-y curves are applied in national practice especially for more
demanding structures like pile foundations for bridges, wind turbines etc., but are not coverey by national
standards or ´EA-Pfähle´ so far.
It is mentioned by ´EA-Pfähle´ that for more accurate analysis, the modulus of subgrade reaction should
be determined from horizontal pile load tests as a function of deflections and be adopted corresponding to
the deflections resulting from the effects on the complete structure.

178
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

5.3.5. Specific issues

General
The German recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´ covers many specific issues like
 negative skin friction,
 lateral thrust on piles due to horizontal soil movements,
 pile group behaviour for axial and lateral loading
 behaviour and design concept for piles due to cyclic, dynamic and impact actions
 resistance of piles against buckling failure in soft soil
 and others
providing additional guidance to engineering practice in terms of calculation methods, design concepts
etc..
No specific rules are provided for seismic design of piles.
In the following exemplarily the recommendations for negative skin friction (downdrag) are summarized.

Negative skin friction

According to ´EA-Pfähle´, Section 4.4, Negative skin friction in piles has to be regarded as a permanent
action Fn, originating from relative axial movement between the ground and the pile, when the ground
settles more than the pile. This relative movement is generally initiated by settlement of a soft stratum,
which can be the result e.g. of surcharges, consolidation processes or groundwater table fluctuations. The
self-weight of the settling stratum and of the overlying strata act on the pile via skin friction. This skin
friction acts counter to the skin friction from the pile settlement and is therefore known as negative skin
friction.
The pile continues to settle until the actions from negative skin friction n, together with the actions imposed
on the pile by the superstructure, and the pile resistances resulting from the pile end bearing capacity and
supporting skin friction qs, are in equilibrium. Figure 8 shows these relationships for two cases:
 For small effects Fa resulting from structural loads and thus small pile settlement sa, and large negative
skin friction effects Fn, the depth influenced by n is great.
 Reciprocally, a large effect Fb leads to large pile settlements and thus to activation of positive skin
friction qs as a result of relative movement between the ground and the pile.
The boundary between numerically positive and negative skin friction is known as the neutral point, see
Figures 8.

Figure 8: Qualitative relationships between pile resistances and effects from structural loads, and
negative skin friction in homogeneous ground, and the definition of the neutral point.

In the partial safety factor approach the negative skin friction is generally defined as a permanent action
on pile foundations, leading to an additional effect on the piles.

179
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

An appropriate estimate of the pile's negative skin friction n,k requires information on:
 pile settlements with depth;
 soil strata settlements with depth;
 the resulting relative movements and;
 any mobilisation functions of n,k and qs,k.
Two principle approaches for deriving the characteristic negative skin friction n,k are given in the literature
dealing with negative skin friction:
 Using total stresses for cohesive soils
τ n,k  α  c u,k (12)
where:
 factor for specifying the value of the characteristic negative skin friction for cohesive soils;
cu,k characteristic value of the shear strength of the undrained soil.
Depending on the soil type and pile type the factor  generally ranges between 0.15 and 1.60,
whereby  = 1 is often adopted in approximation, which is generally recommended for cohesive
soils.
 Using effective stresses for non-cohesive and cohesive soils:
τ n,k  K 0  tan k  σv  β  σv (13)

where:
v effective vertical stress;
K0 coefficient of at-rest earth pressure;
k characteristic value of the friction angle;
 factor for specifying the value of the characteristic negative skin friction for non-cohesive and
cohesive soils.
According to the literature the factor  generally ranges between 0.1 and 1.0, depending on soil
type.For non-cohesive soils  = 0.25 to 0.30 is often used.

To determine the depth of the neutral point, and thus the value of the characteristic action Fn,k(SLS) in the
serviceability limit state it is recommended to normally determine the deformations of the ground
surrounding the pile for the final situation and using characteristic values, i.e. taking consolidation and
creep deformations sn into consideration,.
Comparing the deformations resulting from pile settlement s and the settlement of the surrounding soft
stratum sn gives the location of the neutral point.
In order to determine the neutral point, and thus the characteristic action Fn,k(ULS) in the ultimate limit
state (“external” pile capacity), it is recommended to specify the pile settlement sg = sult in the ultimate
limit state in accordance with Section 5, depending on the method selected to determine pile capacity.
Comparing the deformations for sg = sult with the settlement of the surrounding soft strata sn gives the
location of the neutral point for the ultimate limit state, which can be located at a different depth than in
the serviceability limit state.
When allocating the action of negative skin friction to a load case it is recommended to allocate it to the
persistent design situation DS-P, if the negative skin friction continues to exist throughout the pile's
functional lifetime and the deformed soft stratum remains as a permanent action around the pile, even
after settlements of the soft stratum have ceased.
To proof the “External” pile capacity the following to situation have to be checked:
a) Serviceability limit state (SLS): the characteristic action Fn,k(SLS) and the location of the neutral point
have to be calculated by the deformation behaviour associated with the pile settlement s and the
settlements in the soft stratum sn. The design value of the effects is:
Fd = Fk = FG,k + Fn,k(SLS) + FQ,rep (14)
b) Ultimate limit state (ULS): the characteristic action Fn,k(ULS) and the location of the neutral point
have to be calculated by comparing the deformations associated with the pile settlement sg = sult and
the settlements in the soft stratum sn. The location of the neutral point is normally higher than in the
serviceability limit state, because the imaginary pile settlement sult is greater than s(SLS) (except for
piles on rock, for example). The design value of the effects is:

180
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Fd = (FG,k + Fn,k(ULS)) · γG + FQ,rep · γQ (15)

To proof the “Internal” pile capacity (structural analysis) an analysis is usually done for the ultimate limit
state (ULS) adopting the actions resulting from negative skin friction in the serviceability limit state
Fn,k(SLS) for pile settlement s(SLS).

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

The German rules for pile design are subject of continuously revision and extension. Subjects of further
development are presently e.g.
 improved recommendation for laterally loaded piles,
 extension of pile design with empirical data for CPT-values qc > 25 MN/m²,
 seismic design of pile foundations,
 improved calculation models for pile groups,
 simplified calculation models for piled rafts.

5.4. SLS design

5.4.1. Axially loaded piles

If an appropriate examination reveals that the deformations of the pile foundation are relevant to the
structure, an analysis of the serviceability limit state (SLS) must be performed for the governing design
situations. Serviceability is demonstrated if the following condition is met:
Fd (SLS)  Fk  R d (SLS)  R k (SLS) (16)

Partial factors of  = 1.0 are normally adopted for actions and resistances.
Analysis may also be performed using a value for the allowable settlements (´allow. sk´) as provided by
the structural designer, assuming characteristic effects on the pile foundation in the serviceability limit
state, as follows:
sk ≤ allow. sk (17)
Where pile systems only show minor settlements under service loads, the serviceability limit state
analysis can be covered in the analysis of the ultimate limit state according to the Note for clause
7.6.4.1(2) of EC 7-1.
According to ´EA-Pfähle´ (Section 6.4.1) it is assumed in a first step that single pile performance is
prevalent for the pile foundation structure as a whole. Regardless of this, differential settlements sk
between the piles of a piled foundation structure can occur, even when single pile behaviour is
anticipated. Such effects can result e.g. of heterogeneous ground conditions and/or influences from pile
execution. After Figure 9 differentiation is to be made between anticipated
 minor differential settlements and
 substantial differential settlements within the pile group.
If only minor differential settlements are anticipated between individual piles in a structure, then the
characteristic pile resistance shall be derived from an assessment of pile load test results or from a
calculation with the empirical data of ´EA-Pfähle´ using a specified, allowable characteristic settlement sk
as shown in Figure 9 a). For the consideration of the ground-foundation-structure interaction, spring
constants may be adopted for the piles, which are derived from the secant on the characteristic resistance-
settlement or -heave curve, or from empirical data.
If substantial differential settlements are anticipated between the individual piles of a structure
additionally possible upper sk,max and lower bounds sk,min of the settlements sk after Figure 9 b) shall be
determined in the range of the resulting pile resistance R(SLS), adopting the following equation:
Δsk = κ ·sk (18)
The factor  depends on pile installation, ground stratification and the locations of the piles within the
foundation structure, and should be specified in agreement with the geotechnical expert and
recommendations by Kempfert 2009. It has to be checked whether as a result of these possible differential
settlements between the piles or within a pile group for the characteristic pile resistance R(SLS), an ultimate
limit state (ULS) or serviceability limit state (SLS) might result as a consequence of imposed effects in the
pile head slab or the superstructure.

181
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

a) b)

Figure 9: Possible method for derivation of characteristic resistances of isolated piles R(SLS) in the
serviceability limit state from test data and data from resistance-settlement curves a) for anticipated
minor differential settlements between isolated piles; b) for anticipated substantial differential settlements
between isolated piles

For the evaluation of the settlments of axially loaded compression pile groups an approach that bases on
nomogramms derived from numerical simulation of bored pile groups is provided by ´EA-Pfähle´ (section
8.2) which enables to calculate the settleemnt the average settlement of the pile group by:
sG = sE · Gs (19)
where:
sG mean settlement of a pile group;
sE settlement of a comparable single pile;
Gs settlement-related group factor for the mean settlement of a pile group.
The settlement-related group factor Gs for determining the mean settlement of a pile group subject to a
centrallyacting, vertical action is given by:
Gs = S1 · S2 · S3 (20)
where:
S1 factor concerning the influence of the soil type and the group geometry (pile length L, pile
embedment depth in load-bearing ground d, pile centre distances a,
S2 group size influence factor,
S3 pile type influence factor.
For the factors nomogrmms can be found in ´EA-Pfähle´ (section 8.2).
The obeservational method might be applied additionally to measure e.g. the settlement behaviour in the
easiest case or even the pile loads distribution within a pile group or a piled raft in a more complex case.
In any case the observational method would be used in Germany to validate the analytical or numerical
predicition but not for SLS design of axially loaded piles.

5.4.2. Laterally loaded piles

For laterally loaded piles no specific rules or recommendation are provided by the German standards.
´EA-Pfähle´ states that analytical approaches like using a lateral subgrade modulus / p-y-curves might be
not accurate enough to predict the lateral displacements reliably. Therefore it is recommended that for
more accurate analysis, the modulus of subgrade reaction should be determined from horizontal pile load
tests as a function of deflections and be adopted corresponding to the deflections resulting from the
effects on the complete structure.

5.5. Design based on load tests

The German ´Handbook Eurocode 7, Part 1´ requests that generally the load-settlement behaviour of
axially loaded piles respectively the lateral load-displacement behaviour of laterally loaded piles should
be evaluated on the results of static pile load tests.

182
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

For tension piles the execution of static axial pile load tests is considered to be mandatory, whereas a
calculation should be the exception.
For micropiles under compression the execution of static pile load tests on at least 3 % of all executed
piles, at the least at n = 2 piles is requested according to DIN EN 14199.
In consequence the pile design based on load tests still plays an important role for pile design in
Germany. Beside static pile load test dynamic tests are executed quite frequently for onshore and offshore
conditions. Generally the reliability of dynamic load tests is considered to be lower than for static pile
load tests and therefore higher correlation factors have to be applied for dynamic pile load tests. Results
of a round robin test on bored piles in sandy soil near Berlin (Baeßler et al. 2012; Herten et al. 2013) also
indicated that for cast-in-place bored and driven piles a quite large scattering of the analysis of the results
of dynamic pile load tests may occur, which makes dynamic pile load tests predominately applicable for
prefabricated driven piles (made of concrete or steel) only.

5.5.1. Static pile load tests

Recommendations for the planning and execution of static pile tests

The recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´ (Section 9) contains detailed recommendations on the planning and
execution of static pile load tests covering all details like:
 Installation of test piles,
 Test planning including number of piles, test load, instrumentation etc.,
 Loading system including reaction system, hydraulic jacks etc.,
 Instrumentation and monitoring,
 Testing procedure,
 Evaluation of test data,
 Documentation and reports.
Such recommendations are provided by ´EA-Pfähle´
 for static axial pile load tests,
 for static lateral pile load tests,
 for static pile load tests on micropiles (composite piles).
If the ultimate bearing resistance is not obvious from the form of the measured resistance-settlement
curve for compression piles, then
sg = sult = 0.10 · Db (21)
can, in approximation and for all pile systems, be adopted for the limit settlement sg or sult, where sult =
settlement in the ultimate limit state and sg = limit settlement or failure settlement.

Correlation factors from static pile tests

The characteristic pile resistances Rc,k (compression) and Rt,k (tension) are determined from the data
measured in static pile tests by dividing by the correlation factors i given in Handbook EC 7-1 ,
Table A7.1. The German nationally determined parameters 1 and 2 are very close to the values proposed
by EC 7-1, Table A.9, but are not identical.
For the ultimate compressive resistance the following equation must be fulfilled for structures incapable
of redistributing loads from “flexible” to “stiff” compression piles.
; ;
; ; (22)
 

In the German approach the correlation factors 1 and 2 depend according to Table 11 (only) on the
number of pile tests performed, and are applied to the mean (Rc,m)mean or the smallest value (Rc,m)min of
R c,m .
If structures possess sufficient stiffness to redistribute loads from “weaker” to “stiffer” compression piles,
the numerical values of 1 and 2 may be divided by 1.1, assuming that 1 never becomes smaller than
1.0. There is no clear criterion for a “sufficient stiff” structure. There is the same approach but no such
differentiation between piles of “weak” and “stiff” structures for tension piles.

183
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table 11: Correlation factors ξ i for deriving characteristic pile resistances from static pile testing on
compression and tension piles
n 1 2 3 4 ≥5
1 1.35 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.00
2 1.35 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00
n is the number of tested piles.

5.5.2. Dynamic pile load tests

General comments on dynamic pile testing

In accordance with the Handbook EC 7-1 under certain circumstances the compressive pile resistances
may also be derived from dynamic pile load tests. Calibration against static pile tests is required to ensure
that the damping factors for determining the dynamic component of the total resistance using direct
methods are correctly selected. Use of the extended method with complete modelling is considered to
represent current best practice for determining pile resistances. This method shall preferentially be
adopted.
If predominantly non-cohesive soils are prevalent in the load-bearing strata in which the piles are
embedded, and the testing institute can prove that extensive experience from, dynamic pile tests is
available for the region, the characteristic pile resistances Rk, may be derived even if no static pile load
tests have been carried out on the site. In this case Rk may be deducted from the tested or measured data
from dynamic pile tests Rm with the correlation factors ξ5,6 and Δξ for the case 'calibration of dynamic
pile load tests with static pile load tests carried out on similar construction projects'. The reason for this is
the number of comparative dynamic and static pile load tests available for non-cohesive ground
conditions in the whole of northern Germany and, resultantly, the availability of reliable calibrations and
experience. These provisions only apply to prefabricated driven piles
For dynamic load tests on piles in cohesive soils, in accordance with the Handbook EC 7-1, ´EA-
Pfähle`asks for the following procedure to be followed:
a) For piles in soils sensitive to creep and in unsaturated cohesive soils, the results of dynamic pile load
tests shall always be calibrated against static pile load tests from the same site.
b) In saturated cohesive soils excessive porewater pressures can increase the capacities measured in
dynamic pile load tests. Dynamic pile load tests may therefore not be adopted to determine the
characteristic pile capacity if the pile base is situated in or the governing skin friction is mobilised in
such soils.
c) In deviation to the provisions in a) and b), dynamic pile load tests may be carried out in cohesive soils
only if reliable, regional, empirical data are available and their applicability is expressly confirmed by
a geotechnical expert for the respective case.
When deriving characteristic pile resistances from dynamic pile load tests the following steps should
normally be followed:
a) The testing institute employed for the dynamic pile load testing provides the test results in a test report
containing the test or measured data Rc,m,i = Rc,stat differentiated into (Rc,m)mean and (Rc,m)min.
b) A plausibility check of the measured values is necessary in order to minimise uncertainties connected
with the dynamic load testing procedure. To this end, the geotechnical expert or geotechnical designer
shall compare the mean dynamic pile load test values (Rc,m)mean to the upper bounds of the calculated
empirical data for the pile system or with local experience. After carrying out the plausibility check
the geotechnical expert or the geotechnical designer shall confirm or modify the mean value (Rc,m)mean.
c) The geotechnical expert or geotechnical designer then converts the test data or the modified values in
accordance with a) and b) into characteristic pile resistances Rc,k on a project-specific basis for use in
stability analyses. In this process, he shall take the stipulations in the Handbook EC 7-1 and Annex
4.2 into consideration.
d) If the plausibility check after c) reveals significant differences and considerable assessment
uncertainties, it is recommended that the test data (raw data) be independently examined and
evaluated again, e.g. by means of a separate evaluation employing complete modelling. The
independent examination and evaluation is of particular importance for conditions falling into
Geotechnical Category GC 3.
The procedure for deriving characteristic pile resistances from dynamic pile load tests is in principle
shown in Figure 10.

184
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 10: Steps to determine characteristic pile resistances from measured or test data of dynamic pile
load tests

Table 12 Base values 0,i with corresponding increase factors and model factors for correlation factors 5
and 6 used to derive characteristic values from impact or dynamic pile tests
0,i for n = 2 5 10 15 ≥ 20
0,5 1,60 1,50 1,45 1,42 1,40
0,6 1,50 1,35 1,30 1,25 1,25
– n is the number of tested piles;
– Intermediate values of ξ0,5 and ξ0,6 for n = 2 to 20 may be linearly interpolated;

a) To calculate the correlations factors ξi :   ,

∆ ∙  , also see Figure 11.
b) For the surcharge value Δξ :
→ Δξ = 0: for calibrating dynamic evaluation methods with static
pile test results on the same site;
→ Δξ = 0.10: for calibrating dynamic evaluation methods with static
pile test results on a comparable construction project;
→ Δξ = 0.40: for calibrating dynamic evaluation methods based on
documented or common empirical data for pile resistances.
Adoption of a direct method such as the Case or TNO method is not permitted.
c) The following apply to the model factor ηD for consideration of the evaluation method
→ ηD = 1.00: for direct evaluation methods;
→ ηD = 0.85: For extended methods with complete modelling.
d) If structures possess sufficient stiffness and strength to redistribute loads from “weaker” to “stiffer” piles, the
numerical values of ξ 5 and ξ 6 may be divided by 1.1.
c) The following apply to the model factor ηD for consideration of pile driving formulae:
→ ηD = 1.05: if the wave equation method is adopted;
→ ηD = 1.10: if a pile driving formula with measurement of the quasi-
elastic pile head movement under driving impact is adopted;
→ ηD = 1.20: if a pile driving formula without measurement of the quasi-
elastic pile head movement under driving impact is adopted.
f) If different piles are used in the foundation, groups of similar piles should be considered separately when
selecting the number n of test piles. This also applies to areas of similar ground conditions within the same site.

185
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 11: Procedure for deriving the correlation factors ξ5 and ξ6 for dynamic pile load tests as a
function of the calibration based on Table 12

Recommendations for the planning and execution of dynamic pile tests

The recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´ (Section 10) contains detailed recommendations on the planning and
execution of dynamic pile load tests covering all details like:
 Range of Application and General Conditions
 Theoretical Principles
 Description of Testing Methods, Test Planning and Execution
 Evaluation and Interpretation of Dynamic Load Tests
 Calibrating Dynamic Pile Load Tests
 Qualifications of Testing Institutes and Personnel
 Documentations and Reporting
 Testing Driving Rig Suitability
Beside ´conventional´ dynamic tests also Rapid Load Tests are considered.

Correlation factors from dynamic pile tests

The characteristic pile resistance Rc,k is determined from the data tested or measured in impact or
dynamic pile tests by dividing by the I correlation factors. The base values of the 0,i correlation factors
are used to calculate the i correlation factors, together with the associated ´surcharge factors´ Δ and
model factors ηD from Table 12 (Handbook EC 7-1, Table A7.2) and Figure 11 (Handbook EC 7-1,
Figure A7.1).
For the ultimate compressive resistance the following equation must be fulfilled for structures incapable
of redistributing loads from “weaker” to “stiffer” compression piles.
; ;
; ; (23)
 

5 and 6 are correlation factors which as for the static pile load tests depend (only) on the number of pile
tests performed, and are applied to the mean (Rc,m)mean or the smallest value (Rc,m)min of R c,m .
If structures possess sufficient stiffness to redistribute loads from “weaker” to “stiffer” compression piles,
the nume1rical values of 5 and 6 may be divided by 1.1.

5.6. Design based on experience

There are no specific rules for “design based on experience” in Germany although the findings from pile
foundations realized and tested under similar geotechnical and geometrical conditions is often considered
as additional information for a current piling project.

186
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

5.7. Structural safety

The structural design of piles is carried out according to the structural codes for concrete (EC 2) and steel
(EC 3) and their national annexes.
The German ´Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´ provides additional recommendations on the
structural design (section 5.9: ´Internal pile Capacity´) as well as on the execution of piles e.g. concerning
the reinforcement and the required concrete cover for bored piles etc.
Additionally the ´EA-Pfähle´ contain recommendations to evaluate the resistance of piles against
buckling failure in soil strata with low lateral support providing a simplified approach for buckling
analysis and to determine the characteristic resistance against pile buckling (Vogt & Vogt 2013).

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

With regard to quality assurance during execution, the requirements of the European execution standards
issued for the individual pile types and the German prestandards (DIN SPEC) published to facilitate their
use in Germany has to be considered in Germany. Therefore it is common practice to document the piling
execution with a record for each individual pile.
´EA-Pfähle´ (Section 11) provides additional recommendations for the quality assurance during pile
execution, especially for bored piles, displacement piles and grouted micro piles, and give hints for
avoiding common mistakes.
As mentioned in sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of this paper the recommendation ´EA-Pfähle´ contains also
detailed information and recommendations for the planning and execution of both static and dynamic pile
load tests.
Section 12 of the ´EA-Pfähle´ provides an overview of pile integrity testing methods which serve to
control pile quality and geometry after pile installation. In this context
 non-destructive “low strain” tests,
 non-destructive ultrasonic method for testing the concrete in the pile shaft (“cross-hole” method or
“single hole” ultrasonic logging) and
 core drilling in the pile with core recovery and core testing and/or video borehole surveys or “single
hole” tests
were discussed and recommendation for the execution of such tests are given.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

The particular national experience with a wide spectrum of different pile types and with databases
considering a huge number of results from static and dynamic axial pile load tests and their stochastic
evaluation mentioned in section 5.3.2.

8. DESIGN EXAMPLES
The most commonly used design methods for single standing, axially loaded piles are illustrated in the
following by three examples:
 Example 1: Determining the axial pile resistances from static pile load tests with ultimate and
serviceability limit state analyses (section 8.1),
 Example 2: Determining the characteristic axial pile resistances from empirical data for a
bored pile (section 8.2),
 Example 3: Determining the Characteristic Axial Pile Resistances from Empirical Data for a
Prefabricated Driven Pile (section 8.3).
All three examples are taken from a collection of application and design examples which are added as an
annex to the ´Recommendations on Piling (EA-Pfähle)´.

8.1. Example 1: Determining the axial pile resistances from static pile load tests
with ultimate and serviceability limit state analyses

187
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

8.1.1. Objectives
Figure 12 shows a foundation situation with a pile of diameter D = 1.2 m and a permanent load
FG,k = 1,5 MN, in addition to a variable load FQ,rep,k = 1,0 MN. Two static pile load tests were executed,
the results of which are included in Figure B1.1b and Table B1.1 as Rm1 and Rm2. The ultimate settlement
is defined as sg = sult = 0,1  120 cm = 12 cm using Eq. (8). As the static pile load tests were only executed
up to a settlement s = 10 cm, the ultimate settlement was extrapolated.

a) b)

Pile D = 1.20

Figure 12 a) System and effect; b) Logged Rm values for both static pile load tests

The analysis comprises the evaluation of the characteristic pile resistances in the ultimate limit state
(ULS) and of the characteristic boundary lines in the serviceability limit state (SLS) as well as the
external capacity and serviceability for the specified pile load. The evaluation is done for both situations
according to section 5.5.1 of this paper, i.e. structures incapable to redistribute loads from ´weaker´ to
´stiffer´ piles als well as structure possesing sufficient stiffness to restribute loads from ´weaker´ to
´stiffer´ piles. An allowable pile settlement allow. sk = 2,0 cm is specified by the structural design for the
serviceability limit state (SLS).
The static pile load tests can be taken from Weiß & Hanack (1983).

8.1.2. Deriving the characteristic pile resistances in the ultimate and serviceability limit
states
The characteristic, ultimate pile resistance Rc,k is given by the lesser of either the mean value (Rc,m)mean or
the minimum value (Rc,m)min of the pile load test results using Equation (A4.1) as follows:

; ;
; ;
 

The correlation factors 1 and 2 depend on the number of static pile load tests performed and are selected
after section 5.5. The correlation factors given there apply to ´less stiff´ structures (called “flexible”). If
“stiff” structures are used, the correlation factors may be divided by 1.1, assuming that 1 does not
become smaller than 1.0.
For the range of small pile settlements, after section 5.4.1, Eq. (17), characteristic boundary lines were
derived for the serviceability limit state analysis using the values (based on Kempfert 2009). For the
present case  = 0.15 was adopted to relate to the average of the measured values.

188
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

a) b)

Figure 13 a) Characteristic pile resistances in the ultimate limit state (ULS) for piles of “flexible” and
“stiff” structures derived from the Rm,i values recorded in static pile load tests; b) Section of the
resistance-settlement curves in the serviceability limit state (SLS) and derivation of characteristic
boundary curves

Note: The method adopted here for the characteristic boundary lines in the service load range
represents only one possible option. Other reasoned procedures are also possible.

Figure 13 and Table 13 show the results for the determination of Rc,k (SLS) and Rc,k = Rc,k (ULS).

Table 13: Results of two static pile load tests and derivation of the characteristic resistance-settlement
curves for piles of “flexible” and “stiff” structures

Settlement Rm1 Rm2 (Rc,m)mean (Rc,m)min sk =  · sk

s sk,min sk,max
[cm] [MN] [MN] [MN] [MN] [cm] [cm]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.51 1.483 1.424 1.454 1.424 0.4 0.6
0.83 1.891 1.831 1.861 1.831 0.7 1.0
1.28 2.458 2.321 2.390 2.321 1.1 1.5
2.06 3.015 2.830 2.922 2.830 1.8 2.4
3.05 3.427 3.230 3.329 3.230 2.6 3.5
3.83 3.750 3.469 3.610 3.469
5.42 4.301 3.924 4.112 3.924
7.26 4.803 4.354 4.579 4.354 Flexible Stiff
9.71 5.222 4.881 5.051 4.881 1 2 1 2
12.0 5.347 5.060 5.204 5.060 1.25 1.15 1.14 1.05

Using the results from Table 13, the characteristic pile resistance Rc,k in the serviceability limit state
(ULS) can be determined for piles of “flexible” and “stiff” structures in Table 14.

189
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table 14: Deriving the characteristic pile resistance Rc,k in the ultimate limit state for piles of “flexible”
and “stiff” structures

; ;
Piles of [MN] [MN] Rc,k [MN]
 

“flexible” structures 4.163 4.400 4.163

“stiff” structures 4.565 4.819 4.565

8.1.3. Bearing capacity analysis

The limit state condition (Section 5.1):
Fc,d  Rc,d
must be adhered to for ultimate limit state (ULS) analysis.
a) For single piles acting independently (piles of a “flexible” structure):
Fc,d = FG,k  G + FQ,rep,k  Q = 1.500  1.35 + 1.,000  1.50 = 3.525 MN
Rc,d = Rc,k/t = 4.163/1,10 = 3.785 MN
Fc,d = 3.525 MN < Rc,d = 3.785 MN
b) For load distribution by means of a rigid capping slab (piles of a “stiff” structure):
Fc,d = 3.525 MN
Rc,d = Rc,k/t = 4.565/1.10 = 4.150 MN
Fc,d = 3,525 MN < Rc,d = 4.150 MN

8.1.4. Serviceability analysis

When determining the pile resistances R(SLS) in the serviceability limit state, differentiation after 5.4 is
required whether minor or major (adopted here) differential pile settlements are to be expected. To this end,
the characteristic boundary curves in the service load range were derived from the recorded pile load test
data in Table 13 and Figure 13 b.

a) b)

Figure 14 a) Analysing serviceability via the characteristic pile forces; b) Analysing serviceability via
existing and allowable settlements

The specified allowable settlement (e.g. specified in the structural design) in the example is
allow. sk = 2 cm.
Using Figure 14 a, serviceability is demonstrated via pile forces after 5.4.1, Eq. (16) as:
Fd (SLS) = Fk = 2.5 MN < Rd (SLS) = Rk (SLS) = 2.7 MN.
Analysis by comparing settlements in accordance with Figure 14 b after 6.3, Eq. (17) results to:
exist. sk,max = 1.8 cm < allow. sk = 2.0 cm

190
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

8.2. Example 2: Determining the characteristic axial pile resistances from

empirical data for a bored pile

8.2.1. Objectives
Figure 15 (example taken from DIN 4014:1990-03) summarises the information on soil type, ground
strength and pile geometry necessary for the determination of the axial pile resistance Rc,k(s) based on
empirical data.

Figure 15: Ground profile, penetration test diagram and dimensions for an example calculation of the
resistance-settlement curve; D = 0.9 m, U = 2.83 m, A = 0.64 m2

The characteristic resistance-settlement curve shall be determined using the table data after 5.3.2 (Tables
9 to 10).

8.2.2. Analysis for lower and upper table values

Note: Reference is made to the application principles and limitations in 5.4.3, in particular with
regard to the upper table values. In the example presented here both the lower and the upper
table values are used as examples (not as a rule).

Determining the pile shaft resistance Rs,k

The ultimate limit state skin friction values for the sand and the clay are given in Tables 8 and 10 in 5.3.2.
By adopting the associated pile skin areas, the ultimate limit state pile shaft resistances Rs,k,i are provided
in Table 15.
The settlement ssg , in [cm], is calculated as follows, adopting the ultimate limit state pile shaft resistance
Rs,k in [MN]:
ssg = 0.50  Rs,k + 0.50.
Using the figures from the example the pile head settlement is:
ssg = 0.50  1.243 + 0,50 = 1.1 cm for the lower table values and
ssg = 0.50  1.726 + 0.50 = 1.4 cm for the upper table values.

191
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table 15: Ultimate pile shaft resistance for the lower and upper table values
Stratum i As,i cu,k,i or qc,i qs,k,i Rs,k,i
[m] [m²] [MN/m²] [MN/m²] [MN]
2.20 to 5.20 8.48 0.10 0.039 – 0.051 0.331 – 0.432
5.20 to 7.70 7.07 7.00 0.051 – 0.075a) 0.361 – 0.530
7.70 to 10.20 7.07 11.00 0.078 – 0.108 0.551 – 0.764
a)
Extrapolated data Rs,k = 1.243 – 1.726 MN

Determining the pile base resistance Rb,k

A mean soil strength is adopted in a region from 1  D (0,9 m) above and 3  D (3  D = 2.70 m) below the
pile base to determine Rb,k. For this zone a mean cone resistance qc,m = 17.5 MN/m² is shown in the
penetration test diagram in Figure 15.
The pile base capacity can be calculated by adopting the figures from Table 8 in 5.3.2 and taking the
previously determined value of qc,m into consideration. Table 16 reproduces the calculated figures.

Table 16: Pile base resistance for the lower and upper table values
Relative settlement qb,k Rb,k(s)
s/D [MN/m²] [MN]
0.02 1.225 – 1.625 0.784 – 1.040
0.03 1.575 – 2.088 1.008 – 1.336
0.10 3.250 – 4.325 2.080 – 2.768

Characteristic resistance-settlement curve

The pile resistances calculated from the pile base and pile shaft resistances are listed in Tables 17 and 18
as a function of the pile head settlement and are given for the lower and upper values. The settlement of
the pile head for each value of the pile resistance Rc,k is given by the characteristic resistance-settlement
curve in Figure 16.

Table 17: Pile resistance as a function of pile head settlement (lower values)
Relative settlement Pile head settlement Rs,k(s) Rb,k(s) Rc,k(s)
s/D [cm] [MN] [MN] [MN]
ssg 1.1 1.243 0.479 1.722
0.02 1.8 1.243 0.784 2.027
0.03 2.7 1.243 1.008 2.251
0.10 9.0 1.243 2.080 3.323

Table 18: Pile resistance as a function of pile head settlement (upper values)
Relative settlement Pile head settlement Rs,k(s) Rb,k(s) Rc,k(s)
s/D [cm] [MN] [MN] [MN]
ssg 1.4 1.726 0.809 2.535
0.02 1.8 1.726 1.040 2.766
0.03 2.7 1.726 1.336 3.062
0.10 9.0 1.726 2.768 4.494

192
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 16: Resistance-settlement curve; a) Lower values, b) Upper values

8.3. Example 3: Determining the characteristic axial pile resistances from

empirical data for a prefabricated driven pile

8.3.1. Objective
Figure 17 summarises the information on soil type, ground strength and pile geometry required to
determine the axial pile resistance Rc,k(s) based on empirical data.

The characteristic resistance-settlement curve shall be determined using the table data after ´EA-Pfähle´,
Section 5.3.2 (Tables 5.1 to 5.4).

8.3.2. Characteristic axial pile resistance from empirical data for lower and upper table
values
Note:
Reference is made to the application principles and limitations in 5.3.2, in particular with regard to the
upper table values. In the example presented here both the lower and the upper table values are used as
examples (not as a rule).

Determining the pile shaft resistance Rs,k

The empirical skin friction values in the zones of the load-bearing non-cohesive soil and the weak
cohesive soil are given by ´EA-Pfähle´, 5.2 and 5.4 in Section 5.4.4. Together with the corresponding pile
skin areas, taking the correlation factor for the skin area from ´EA-Pfähle´, Table 5.5 in Section 5.4.4 into
consideration, the pile shaft resistance upon mobilisation of the ultimate limit state state Rs,k (ssg*) is given
in Table 19 and the pile shaft resistance Rs,k (sg) at failure in Table 20.

193
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Figure 17 Ground profile, penetration test diagram and dimensions for an example calculation for the
resistance-settlement curve

Table 19: Pile shaft resistance upon mobilisation of the ultimate limit state for the lower and upper table
values

Stratum i As,i qc,i qs,k,i (ssg*) s Rs,k,i (ssg*)

[m] [m²] [MN/m²] [MN/m²] [–] [MN]
1.0 to 20.3 10.22 17.50 0.070 – 0.098 1.0 0.715 – 1.002
Rs,k (ssg*) = 0.715 – 1.002 MN

Table 20: Shaft resistance at failure for the lower and upper table values

Stratum i As,i qc,i qs,k,i (ssg*) s Rs,k,i (ssg*)

[m] [m²] [MN/m²] [MN/m²] [–] [MN]
13.0 to 20.3 10.22 17.50 0.103 – 0.134 1.0 1.053 – 1.370
Rs,k (sg) = 1.053 – 1.370 MN

Upon mobilisation of the failure state the settlement in [cm] for the skin friction ssg*, adopting Rs,k(ssg*) in
[MN], is determined using the following equation for the pile shaft resistance Rs,k(ssg*):
ssg* = 0.50  Rs,k(ssg*).
Using the figures from the example the pile head settlement is:
ssg* = 0.50  0.715 = 0.4 cm for the lower table values and
ssg* = 0.50  1.002 = 0.5 cm for the upper table values.

Determining the pile base resistance Rb,k

For determination of Rb,k a mean soil strength is adopted from 4  Deq below to 1  Deq above the pile
base.
The equivalent pile diameter of a square prefabricated driven pile is determined using:
Deq = 1.13 · as.
Using the dimensions of the example the equivalent pile diameter is:
Deq = 1.13 · 0,35 = 0.40 m.
The nominal value of the square pile base area in this case is:

194
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Ab = as2 = 0.352 = 0.123 m².

The penetration test diagram in Figure 17 displays a mean characteristic cone resistance along the
respective length of:
1 ∙ 17,5 4 ∙ 15,0
, 15.5 / ²
5
Using the figures in ´EA-Pfähle´, Table 5.1 ,and referring to the previously determined value of qc,m and
the correlation factor for the pile base area in ´EA-Pfähle´, Table 5.5 (5.4.4), the pile base resistance can
be calculated. Table 21 contains the determined numerical values.

Table 21: Pile base resistance for the lower and upper table values

Relative settlement qb,k b Rb,k(s)

s/D [MN/m²] [–] [MN]
0.035 4.025 – 6.550 1.0 0.495 – 0.806
0.100 7.658 – 10.265 1.0 0.942 – 1.263

Characteristic resistance-settlement curve

Tables 22 and 23 contain the pile resistances calculated for the lower and upper values from the pile base
and shaft resistances as a function of the pile head settlement. The settlement of the pile head for each
value of the pile resistance Rc,k is given by the characteristic resistance-settlement curve in Figure 18.

Table 22: Pile resistance as a function of pile head settlement (lower values)

Relative settlement Pile head settlement Rs,k(s) Rb,k(s) Rc,k(s)

s/D [cm] [MN] [MN] [MN]
ssg* 0.4 0.715 0.141 0.856
0.035 1.4 0.809 0.495 1.304
0.100 4.0 1.053 0.942 1.995

Table 23: Pile resistance as a function of pile head settlement (upper values)

Relative settlement Pile head settlement Rs,k(s) Rb,k(s) Rc,k(s)

s/D [cm] [MN] [MN] [MN]
ssg* 0.5 1.002 0.288 1.290
0.035 1.4 1.097 0.806 1.903
0.100 4.0 1.370 1.263 2.633

Figure 18: Resistance-settlement curve; a) Lower values, b) Upper values

195
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

REFERENCES
Baeßler, M., Niederleithinger, E., Georgi, S., Herten, M. (2012): Evaluation of the dynamic load test on
bored piles in sandy soil. 9th Int. Conf. on testing and design methods for deep foundations - IS
Kanazawa 2012, (Matsumoto ed.), 2012, 155-162.

BGR, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (2008): Geologische Karte der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland 1:1.000.000 (GK 1000). Revised ed., Hannover (online).

DGGT (2004), AK 2.1: Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises „Pfähle“, EA-Pfähle, 1. Auflage, Ernst & Sohn
Verlag, Berlin, 2004.

DGGT (2012a), AK 2.1: Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises „Pfähle“, EA-Pfähle, 2. Auflage, Ernst & Sohn
Verlag, Berlin, 2012.

DGGT (2012b), AK 2.1: Recommendation on Piling (EA-Pfähle) 2. Auflage, Ernst & Sohn Verlag, Berlin,
2012.

DIN (2011a): Handbuch EC 7-1: Handbuch Eurocode 7 – Geotechnische Bemessung, Band 1,

Allgemeine Regeln. 1. Auflage, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2011.

DIN (2011b): Handbuch EC 7-2: Handbuch Eurocode 7 – Geotechnische Bemessung, Band 2,

Erkundung und Untersuchung. 1. Auflage, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2011.

Elborg, E.-A. (1993): Verbesserung der Vorhersagbarkeit des Last-Setzungsverhaltens von Bohrpfählen
auf empirischer Grundlage, Dissertation: Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, D 17, 1993.

Freudenberger, W. & Schwerd, K. (eds., 1996): Erläuterungen zur Geologischen Karte von Bayern 1:500
000. Bayerisches Geologisches Landesamt, Munich (online).

Katzenbach, R., Moormann, Ch. (1997): Design of axially loaded piles and pile groups in Germany,
Actual practice and recent research results. Design of axially loaded piles  European practice,
International Seminar, ISSMFE  ERTC3, Brüssel, 17.-18. April 1997, Balkema, Rotterdam, 177-201

Kempfert, H.-G., Becker, P. (2007): Grundlagen und Ergebnisse der Ableitung von axialen
Pfahlwiderständen aus Erfahrungswerten, Bautechnik 84, 2007, S.441–449.

Kempfert, H.-G. (2009): 3.2: Pfahlgründungen. In: Grundbautaschenbuch, 7. Auflage, Teil 3, Kapitel 3.2.
Verlag Ernst & Sohn, 2009, S. 73–277.

Henningsen, D. & Katzung, G. (2006): Einführung in die Geologie Deutschlands. 7th ed., Spektrum
Akademischer Verlag, Munich, ISBN 3-8274-1586-1.

Herten, M.; Baeßler, M.; Niederleithinter, E.; Georgi, S. (2013) Bewertung dynamischer Pfahlprobe-
belastungen an Bohrpfählen. Pfahl-Symposium 2013, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Grundbau und
Bodenmechanik Technische Universität Braunschweig, Heft 96, 2013, 79–98.

Lüking, J. (2010): Tragverhalten von offenen Verdrängungspfählen unter Berücksichtigung der

Pfropfenbildung in nichtbindigen Böden. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Universität Kassel, 2010, Heft 23

Moormann, Ch. (2015): Ansatz von Streuungsfaktoren bei statischen und dynamischen Pfahlprobe-
belastungen. Bautechnik, Vol. 92, Heft 4, 2015, 295-311.

196
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Moormann, Ch. & Kempfert, H.-G. (2015): Jahresbericht 2014 des Arbeitskreises „Pfähle der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Geotechnik (DGGT). Bautechnik 91(12), 922-932.

Moormann, Ch. (2015): Jahresbericht 2015 des Arbeitskreises „Pfähle“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für
Geotechnik (DGGT).Bautechnik, Vol. 92, Heft 12, 2014, 895-900

Pawlewicz, M.J., Steinshouer, D.W., Gautier, D.L. (2003): Map Showing Geology, Oil and Gas Fields,
and Geologic Provinces of Europe including Turkey. USGS Open File Report 97-470I. U.S. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO (online).

Vogt, N.; Vogt, S. (2013): Biegeknickwiderstand von Mikropfählen gemäß den Eurocodes. Bautechnik
90(9), 550 – 558.

Weiß, K., Hanack, S.: Der Einfluss der Lagerungsdichte des Bodens und der Herstellung von
Großbohrpfählen auf deren Tragfähigkeit. Mitteilung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Bodenmechanik
(DEGEBO) an der TU Berlin, Heft 35, 1983.

Witzel, M. (2004): Zur Tragfähigkeit und Gebrauchstauglichkeit von Verdrängungspfählen in bindigen

und nichtbindigen Böden, Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Universität Kassel, Heft 15, 2004

197
198
 Practical briefing for pile design and testing – Hungarian practice
Róbert Szepesházi, Széchenyi István University, Hungary, [email protected]

Ferenc Scheuring, Fugro Consult Kft, Hungary, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This document aims to summarize the Hungarian practice in pile design and pile testing in light of
Eurocode 7. After a short introduction about regional geology, which strongly influences the choice of
soil investigation and piling technology, we highlight the specifics of pile technologies and market
influences in Hungary. Then we discuss the most relevant parts of the Hungarian National Annex which
differs, in an acceptable way, from the original Eurocode 7 suggestions. We sum up the difficulties and
the inconveniences incurred during implementation of Eurocode 7 in Hungary. Our design methods for
axial compression are described in detail. Our local experience about decreased base resistance in dense
coarse soils below the groundwater table relative to the suggested Dutch method in Eurocode 7-2 is also
shown. The lack of guidance for screwed soil displacement piles is emphasized as well. Following that is
a brief description about future needs for determining effects from instantaneous actions (wind, seismic
action and vehicle braking force). Finally, we present the most commonly used quality control, testing
and monitoring techniques in our practice, usually consisting of different kinds of loading tests and the
sonic integrity test.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Hungary is located in Central-Europe on the Carpathian Basin surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains.
The Pannonian Sea determined the general soil environment over the largest part of the country. There are
some mountains with heights of 500-1000 m but nothing higher. The mountains consist of mostly
limestone, dolomite and marl, others are volcanic formations. The most common covering layers in
Hungary are sediments of fluvial or aeolian origin during the Quaternary Period. Generally, these
sediments are usually thick, and consist of soft, fine soils with high compressibility and low shear
strength (e.g.: silty clay, sandy silt). Eastward from the Danube along the Great Plain, thick, loose sandy
soils are found.
Due to the low bearing capacity of these soils, pile foundations are often proposed for infrastructure
projects as new construction in free fields. The high groundwater level, which is also typical, makes pile
foundations more economic by not requiring drainage, as well. Quaternary loess sediments are also
regional specialities that cover large areas in Hungary. This formation causes several geotechnical
problems due to its susceptibility to collapse. The ground is somewhat different beneath the largest old
cities located along hills and large rivers. E.g. in Budapest you can find over-consolidated clays near to
the surface on the Buda side and at 10-20 m depth on the Pest side where it is covered by Danube terrace
gravel. To illustrate this short overview, Figure 1 shows the geological map of Hungary and Figure 2
presents typical CPTu profiles. More details can be studied in Haas (2013).

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Regarding pile design practice, the CPTu has recently become the most widespread soil investigation
technique. Most of the (Hungarian) geotechnical engineers in Hungary use CPT-based calculation
methods for pile bearing capacity. There are around 6 companies in the country equipped for this test with
some of them having multiple rigs. They can achieve 40 m depth in soft soils, but usually 25 m deep
sounding is enough. It should be noted that the reliability of pore pressure measurements is sometimes
questionable and that is why the basis for pile capacity calculation is usually the measured cone resistance
(q c ) and not the corrected cone resistance (q t ).

199
Figure 1: Geological map of Hungary (Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary)

Along with the CPT investigations, depending on the type, size and risk of the actual project, we perform
drillings with disturbed samples and/or core samples from the significant layers to verify the stratification
and to supply additional soil characteristics from laboratory tests. However, these parameters are rarely
used for direct calculation of the axial pile resistance, but rather serve for calculation of lateral bearing
resistances or other issues. Sometimes by request other special tests such as DPH test or SPT are
performed, as well.

q c [MPa] f s [%] q c [MPa] f s [%]

typical landy layering: soft clay covered by loose silty sands typical Pest underground: sandy gravel on OC-clay bedrock

Figure 2: Typical cone resistance and friction ratio profiles (Fugro Consult Kft, Hungary)

200
3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION
Hungary has experienced a significant change in its piling industry in the last decades. This was mainly
governed by the usual intent to improve old technologies, to try new technologies, and to decrease the
time for execution and to reduce costs. There are three companies dealing with pile installation which
belong to multinational groups and around five firms owned by Hungarian individuals.
As a result of this alteration, the market is mostly occupied by different types of cast-in-situ piles (95 %)
while the remaining 5 % is driven piles, mostly precast concrete and some steel tubes. The main reasons
for the driven precast pile’s marginalisation are: weaker cost-effectiveness of these piles, lack of
inventory of prefabricated concrete piles, continual timing difficulties for project organization, and fear of
subsurface obstacles (very dense/cemented sand/gravel layers) during pile driving which occur often.
The 70 % of the cast-in-situ piles are CFA (SOB) piles. 20 % are screwed soil displacement piles, mainly
ScrewSol piles made by Soletanche Bachy and FDP piles made by Bauer or Atlas piles made by other
smaller firms. Slurry supported bored piles account for only 5% and the application of partially or fully
cased piles is rare (Figure 3).

CFA piles

screwed soil displacement piles

precast driven piles

bored piles with fluid support

other pile types

Figure 3: Distribution of pile types in Hungary in 2015

The percentage of CFA piles is larger than in other countries. The piling companies explain this situation
generally by its time efficiency. The commonly used diameters of CFA piles are 60-100 cm and their
typical length is 12-18 m. Application of screwed soil displacement piles has rapidly developed because
of its advantage in loose silty sands which are typical in Hungary. Their diameter is generally 40-60 cm
with the ScrewSol piles by Soletanche Bachy Group having 33/50, 43/60 and 53/70 core/outer diameters
and somewhat different forms (Figure 4). Only large bridges are founded on piles with 120-150 cm
diameter and drilled with slurry support. It is worth mentioning that jet-grouting technology is rarely used
for supporting new structures, but underpinning of old structures are often solved by jet grouting in
Budapest.

SS33/50

SS43/60

SS53/70

Figure 4: ScrewSol augers and an opened borehole, and an excavated pile shaft

201
4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
The Hungarian National Standards Institute has worked a great deal to implement the European
geotechnical standards during the last decades. Eurocode 7 and almost each part of the standard series
“Geotechnical Investigation and testing”, and “Special geotechnical works” are available in the
Hungarian language. There are some books (Szepesházi, 2008; Dalmy, Szilvágyi, 2013; Ray, 2014)
providing further help to the geotechnical engineer on use of these standards by showing application of
common and proven methods.
The National Annex to the application of Eurocode 7-1 was implemented in 2007. The document details
and specifies the most relevant issues which contain some differences in pile design compared to other
countries. The following issues are detailed later:

− design approach DA2* is accepted for ULS calculation of spread and pile foundations,
− correlation factors are used according to the system of the original EC 7 giving different values for
different calculation methods and taking into account the number of soil profiles or pile load tests,
− model factors are recommended for calculation from ground test results depending on the reliability of
the calculation method used,
− different partial resistance factors are applied for different pile types and to the pile resistance
components in order to compensate for the effects of different levels of uncertainty in the resistances
caused by possible faults in pile installation.

These features will be explained in detail in the next sections.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EC 7

5.1. General principles

In Hungary, there is no standard method to determine the Geotechnical category of a specific project.
There are some papers and handbooks that give a brief description about the categories and show
examples. However, the responsibility of the classification was left to the Geotechnical Engineers and its
basis was only the engineer’s judgement. However, the Geotechnical Section of the Hungarian Chamber
of Engineers prepared a Technical Guideline in 2015 that aims to help distinguish between Geotechnical
categories (see in Hungarian language at www.geotechnikaitagozat.hu). It uses a scoring system to
evaluate the circumstances of a project by considering the features of ground conditions and building
construction or infrastructure project. This classification is then the basis for the soil investigation
program, including its cost. At that time there were only few experiences about this method. So far, most
of the piling projects belong to Geotechnical category 2 in Hungarian practice. Only a few, very unique
and special pile foundation structures such as tall bridges, Danube bridges or piles in very unfavourable or
special soil or loading conditions are placed under category 3.
Actions on piles are generally calculated with software used for structural design without considering any
movements of the pile foundation. (In Hungary AXIS VM is the most popular one). More attention is
given to this question for piled raft foundation where the proportion of piles and raft in load bearing is
calculated by a model considering the interaction of subsoil, piles and raft. Similarly for large bridges, the
actions on piles are determined by modelling the soil-structure interaction. In these calculations the
subsoil is modelled by linear springs. The best designers then recalculate the superstructure with
improved spring constants based on geotechnical design of the piles.
Actions from ground movements are taken into account in bridge design. Downdrag is generally handled
in a conservative way and only in particular cases with a more accurate analysis, as it will be shown later.
Unfortunately, lateral loading due to adjacent fill is often neglected, even in bridge design. For high-rise
buildings, the actions from ground movements are generally ignored except where these are obviously
significant.
Pile design focuses on calculation of the ULS axial bearing capacity of single piles in compression. This
contradicts somewhat Eurocode 7's approach which prefers to calculate pile group capacity if they are
connected by a stiff structure. The bearing capacity of a group is generally checked only with draft
calculation based on single pile calculation or on analogy of a spread foundation assumed at pile tip.
Generally, the clear distance between piles is taken as 2.0 times the pile diameter with a minimum of 1.5
times. This rule was prescribed in the former national standard and it has remained in the design practice.
As it was mentioned, the calculation of the axial pile resistance is based on the CPTu profile using a
software package. The methods are verified by static pile load tests to give general validity or on a project
level, but it is not always documented perfectly. Of course, engineering offices performing pile design are

202
gaining more and more experience in using these calculation methods. Model factors suggested in
National Annex of Eurocode 7 are used to compensate for uncertainty.
For private investments (e.g.: malls, plants or warehouses) the calculation from CPT results are often
accepted without an actual static load test on site for verification. Static pile load tests are required only
for large projects and especially if they are managed by engineers from abroad having no experience in
CPT-based calculation and Hungarian pile design practice. On the other hand, static pile load tests are
almost always required on public projects because of the use of intelligent risk management. About 80
static pile load tests are carried out yearly in Hungary, which enables the improvement of calculation
methods. In some cases, static pile load tests could be replaced by dynamic pile load test (Schell,
Szilvágyi, Wolf, 2015).
Piles designed only for tension or whose critical design situation is tensioning are seldom in Hungary.
Generally, it is enough to check approximately the tension bearing capacity of the piles designed for
compression. It is made by calculation from ground test results, load tests are almost never executed.
Lateral bearing behaviour is analysed at bridge projects and in seismic design. Lateral load tests are
seldom performed with calculations based on soil test results and focus on the structural design.
Concerning SLS design, it is often thought that pile settlement can be accepted without detailed analysis
due to the pile dimensions mentioned and the safety ensured in the ULS design. If the base resistance is
dominant within the total pile resistance, the settlement is checked with simple methods. In structural
design the required length of reinforcement is often discussed because of the different knowledge level
and interests of the project participants.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

The definitions and symbols from EC 7 are merged one-to-one into Hungarian practice; we use only
Eurocode conformant codification and terminology. During translation there was intent to leave in our old
terms if they do not fully cover the content of the Eurocode 7 terms to avoid mistakes in interpretation of
the new ones. It should be noted that translation into the Hungarian language a new term such as
“compressive resistance of the ground against a pile at the ultimate limit state” instead of the old term
“failure load” was quite difficult due to the different structure of the Hungarian language compared to
English. The obligatory use of these new terms did not made EC 7 popular among elder geotechnicians.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
Aforementioned paragraphs referred to our calculation practice based on CPT test. We rarely use design
methods based on laboratory tests or other field investigations. Their results are only complementary to
verify the CPT test in the aspects of soil classification. As far as we apply CPT-based calculation
methods, we take into account a model factor γ M =1.10 if the resistances are directly determined from
measured q c cone resistance and not from characteristic values derived from measured ones. If we have
pile load test results from the surrounding area of the site or even from a load test performed for the
project, we can refine the calculation method and the model factor may be reduced to γ M =1.0.
Otherwise, the combination of pile load tests and CPT-based calculation is often used for large projects.
We seek an optimal design considering the dependence of correlation factors on the design method (based
on CPT or load test), the number of tests (CPT profiles or test numbers), and analysing how many design
units should be separated. The few pile load tests are sometimes used as local verification of the
calculation method based on CPT results and the large number of CPTs is utilized by taking smaller
correlation factors according to Eurocode 7.
The DA-2* design approach in our practice is slightly modified on the resistance side for “R2” factors
compared to the original Eurocode suggestion. According to our pile load experience and research using
reliability method for pile design (Szepesházi, 2014), we found that it is reasonable to account for piling
technology in the partial resistance factors, especially base resistance. Although Eurocode’s suggestion to
distinguish the factor for unit base resistance for different piling technologies in the R1 set used in DA-1
design approach, the R2 set used in DA-2 design approach does not deal with the uncertainties of the
technology. We have introduced the partial factors for DA-2* as shown in Table 1.

203
Table 1: Partial resistance factors for piles in ULS design using DA-2* design approach in Hungary
Partial factors Set R2 for pile type
Resistance Symbol
driven bored CFA
Base γb 1.10 1.25 1.20
Shaft in compression γs 1.10 1.10 1.10
Total/combined in compression γt 1.10 1.20 1.15
Shaft in tension γ s;t 1.25 1.25 1.25

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

The axial compression resistance is calculated from CPT tests in Hungary with the following methods
− the former Dutch standard suggested by Eurocode 7-2 as well, using software Deltares-Dfoundation,
− Fellenius-Eslami calculation method with software Unicode (Fellenius, Infante, 2002);
− Szepesházi (2011) method using Excel spreadsheet.
In the first two methods, unit shaft resistance (q s ) is calculated from the corrected cone resistance
(q t =q c -u) assuming a linear relationship with use of α s factors (q s =α s ∙q t ). For coarse soils, Eurocode 7-2
suggests α s factors depending on the piling technology. But, they are reduced with increasing q t which
strictly negates the linear relationship. (Otherwise, the Eurocode 7-2 gives only a range of α s factors for
fine soils.) Similar problems can be recognized in the well-known α-method where the shaft resistance in
clay is determined from the undrained shear strength (c u ) but the α factor is reduced with c u . Unicode
uses constant α s factors between 0.005 for sand and 0.08 for soft clay without taking into account the pile
type. The third method eliminates these contradictions using q s =α sg ∙√q c formula where α sg is a
technology factor determined from pile load tests and analysis of former national standards.
The base resistance (q b ) is calculated in a similar way. The Deltares-Dfoundation software and
Szepesházi spreadsheet follow the Dutch method for coarse soils. According to our experience this
handles the influence of weak layers beneath the base very well. (The formula calculates a q cb value from
(1) the mean value of the measured q c values beneath the base for a crtitical depth, (2) a so-called
minimum value for this depth, and (3) a value which features the 8∙D zone above the base. The critical
depth should be found between 0,7∙D and 4∙D so that q cb will be a minimum. The technology is taken
into account with a α b factor as for the shaft resistance.) The original Dutch version suggested to limit the
base resistance calculated that way, taking into account the overconsolidation ratio. This suggestion was
omitted in the Eurocode 7-2 Annex D-7 without any explanation. However, our comparisons of
calculated and measured pile resistances showed that the calculation according to the Eurocode 7-2
suggestion gives too high base resistance for dense, saturated sandy soils with q c >10-15 MPa. For this
case, we use an additional reduction factor (λ b ≈0.6-0.7) for bored, CFA and screwed cast-in-situ piles to
obtain reasonable base resistances. This value gives a similar reduction to the Dutch suggestion. UniCode
calculates the base resistance from the mean q t value determined for the length of 4∙D beneath and 8∙D
above the pile base, where the latter length could be decreased if very good layers are in this zone. The
minimum values are also taken into account less enhanced, and the effect of pile type is ignored. On the
other hand, the effect of pile base diameter is introduced with inverse proportionality.
It is well-known that unit base resistances in fine soils can be calculated with satisfying reliability by
Skempton formula (q b =9∙c u ), and this basic value is sometimes modified considering the technology. In
Szepesházi method, c u values were determined from q c cone resistance divided by 15.5. So the whole pile
calculation could be based on CPT for fine soils, as well.
Table 2 summarises the Szepesházi method. 63 load tests verified this method for CFA piles as it can be
studied on Figure 5. The α b factors for other pile types were determined by thorough analysis of former
national standards as in the case of α sg values. The shortcoming of this method is the use of q c instead of
q t mentioned earlier.

Table 2: Technology factors for different pile types in Szepesházi method

Fine soils Course soils
Pile Base Shaft Base Shaft
αb α sg αb α sg
driven precast concrete 0.60 1.25 1.00 0.90
Soil driven steel tube 0.60 0.95 1.00 0.75
displacement driven cast in place 0.60 1.30 1.00 1.10
screwed cast in place 0.55 1.50 0.80 0.75

204
 Fine soils Course soils
Pile Base Shaft Base Shaft
αb α sg αb α sg
CFA 0.55 1.20 0.70 0.55
bored with fluid
Soil replacement 0.55 1.20 0.50 0.55
support
bored with casing 0.50 1.20 0.50 0.45
q b = λ b . αb .
calculation equations q b = αb . q c q s = α sg .√q c q s = α sg ·√q c
q cb

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

If required, the axial tension resistance of a single pile is calculated in Hungarian practice as the shaft
resistance of the compression pile from CPTu test results. However, increased partial resistance factors
are involved for tension resistance as shown in Table 1. In case of a tension pile it is necessary to check
the so-called cone-effect of the pile. It means that we calculate the pull-out resistance of the pile together
with the surrounding soil whose geometry can be approximated by a cone. The cone angle is generally
taken equal to the shear angle of the soil around the pile shaft. It is particularly reasonable to control this
possible failure mode if relatively short piles are under discussion. In that case the pull-out resistance of
the cone might be lower than the tension resistance calculated by the shaft resistance of the pile.

8000

R c,meas=1.00∙R c,cal
R c,meas [kN]

7000
N =63

6000 R 2=0.77
measured pile failure resistance

5000

4000

R c,meas=0.80∙R c,cal
3000

2000

1000
90 %-os confidence interval
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

calculated pile failure resistance R c,cal [kN]

Figure 5: Correlation of the total pile resistances using Szepesházi method

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

The lateral loading of a single pile is mainly considered from a structural point of view rather than
geotechnical. According to our experience, in most cases the resistance of the surrounding soil is more
than enough to support the pile laterally. The weak points of this aspect are the acting shear force and
bending moment + axial load combination of the pile and the resistances against them.
Some engineers use spring-based Winkler model approaches to obtain the bending moments and shear
forces acting along the pile. Favourite software for this analysis used by geotechnical engineers is the
well-known Geo5, which offers equations for determining spring constant (modulus of soil reaction) on a
soil mechanics basis. The structural engineers are fond of other software (e.g. AXIS WM in Hungary) and
they put subgrade reaction coefficients into the program based on a less established origin. This SSI

205
calculation produces the acting stresses (bending moment and shear force) which are the inputs for
structural calculation to design the necessary reinforcement in the concrete pile according to Eurocode 2.
The lateral movement determined with this type of modelling is generally considered as a draft
approximation.
3D FEM models, generally using Plaxis software, are also used for laterally loaded pile design. For
bridges, the full foundation structure (pile group) or even the full substructure (abutment or pillar) are
modelled with the surrounding subsoil with the forces coming from the superstructure (Szép, 2011). For
buildings, only single piles are generally modelled with the subsoil and the loading. Thus, the magnitude
of the bending moments, normal and shear forces acting along the pile and the horizontal pressures in
surrounding soil can also be determined (Figure 5). The movements calculated this way are considered to
be more realistic than the ones obtained by spring model.
In any case, the bending moment + axial force data pairs are finally compared with the cross section
interaction curve of reinforced concrete determined according to the Eurocode 2. The acting shear force is
compared with the shear resistance of cross section, too.

soil layering and abutment geometry FEM grid total displacements

normal forces shear forces bending moments horizontal movements vertical movements

Figure 6: Plaxis model for a piled abutment

5.3.5. Specific issues

Downdrag caused by the backfill next to a pile-supported bridge abutment often becomes a critical point
for construction. The widely used conservative solution is to avoid the superposition of structural and
transport loading with downdrag. However, early placement of the earth fill and the long duration of
consolidation often cause deadline problems. The other conservative approach is to design the piles to
resist the sum of the dead and live loads and downdrag. For some projects, a more sophisticated analysis
using experts helps to find a more economical solution to the problem based on the following
considerations. Surely, live loads cannot act with their full representative value during the construction
period, especially not with a 1.35 x representative value which would be an extreme load, even during the
design life of a bridge. Such a load condition during construction could be assumed as highly unlikely.
Thus, it is often thought that, during construction, the pile bearing capacity is sufficient even when
considering downdrag. By the end of construction, when design loads can act the embankment settlement
is completed hence we can neglect downdrag in most cases. If construction progresses very quickly, a
superposition of the forces may occur for a small time period. However, that would cause only slightly
larger settlement because downdrag forces would decrease immediately (The downward pile movement
reduces the length where downdrag action can act.) This approach was often used after considerable FEM
modelling, pile load tests and settlement measurements at critical times. Nevertheless, it is beneficial to
pay more attention to handling the downdrag effects to mitigate not only costs but also risks.
Other questions have arisen with regard to actions, e.g. how to account for cyclic loading with respect to
Eurocode 7. Another question is how to handle high braking forces of trains given in Eurocodes and

206
experienced in the field. There are similar problems in seismic design performed more frequently in
Hungary since Eurocode 8 was implemented. Nonetheless, the load combination of seismic action is
hardly ever the critical combination for piles. When considering the lateral action and tension forces, the
combination with wind action generates the ultimate design situation. Seismic action is handled with
sufficient reinforcement and bracing in the superstructure rather than modifications in the substructure.
The problem of full pile length reinforcement has been mentioned. From calculation of seismic design
situations the need for full length reinforcement is not generally established if we consider inertia forces.
But we know that seismic effects act firstly from the ground into the piles even if the piles should not be
checked for kinematic actions. There are uncertainties in handling pile resistances in soil zones where
liquefaction potential is critical, as well. The latter is analysed in Hungary based on CPTu results using
spreadsheets to compare the critical seismic shear stress and the resistance in the subsoil according to
Eurocode 8-5.
Pile group effects in ULS design was considered in our former practice by checking the bearing resistance
of a spread foundation at the depth of the pile tip and this method is still used today. The footprint of the
spread foundation equals the footprint of the pile group increased with 5° or φ/4 (in deg) force distributed
all around the pile group. The method suggested in Eurocode 7 is to analyse the pile group working as a
block of piles with the enclosed soil and is not quite accepted in Hungary. In this model, assuming the
block as a single pile of large diameter it is problematic when considering how to take into account the
effects of the piling method. As mentioned earlier, to solve this problem, the Hungarian geotechnicians
maintain the old tradition as for the pile distance.

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

One of the most crucial issues is the screwed displacement pile which is used more and more in Hungary
and could soon be used in other countries, as well. Until now, there are no suggestions in the standard
about partial resistance factors for these pile types (aforementioned ScrewSol, FDP and Atlas).
The other issues that we strongly recommend for including in the new version of Eurocode 7 are how to
handle the instantaneous loads from wind, train and seismic action. The Eurocode instruction is that wind
load (wind pressure acting on external surfaces) is determined by a peak velocity pressure. According to
our understanding, these loads act with the calculated magnitude only instantaneously (wind gusts) rather
than continuously (sustained wind). The guidelines used today lead to overestimation of wind load and
lead to uneconomical structures. Similar thinking could applied to vehicle braking forces, seismic
loading, and more guidelines are needed to solve these problems. On the other hand, it is known that
better stiffness parameters could be put in the design for this short term loading, but that question requires
more study on a standards basis as well.
It shall be also emphasized that more guidelines are needed for combined piled-raft foundation design, an
issue becoming more and more important, as well (Bak at all, 2010).

5.4. SLS design

SLS design focuses only on settlements and rarely on other movements. It is mostly based on the
settlement assessment of a single pile. We calculate the single-pile displacement based on the former
German Code because we have had good experience with it. The other possibility is to rely on pile load
tests executed on the actual project or taken from a database for comparable pile type and soil condition.
A more general experience is that if the pile works in SLS dominantly for shaft resistance, the settlement
does not exceed 5 mm. In special cases where a higher percentage of the bearing capacity is produced
from the base resistance, 15-20 mm single pile settlement could be expected.
Settlements of pile groups are calculated by the well-known simple formulas (e.g. by Skempton) or
diagrams (e.g. by Poulos). We rarely get higher group effects than 2.0 and the settlement measurements
verify this expectation. If the single pile settlement is more than 1.5 cm, a settlement analysis for pile
groups is performed, assuming it to be a spread foundation similar to the ULS design. Let us repeat our
basic approach: it is generally thought that the reasonable safety factor against ULS and the pile distance
(3 times pile diameter for pile axes) can ensure that the settlements remain within the acceptable range.

5.5. Design based on load tests

For public investments it is almost mandatory to perform load tests while private projects often omit
them, except for very large ones. However, even if we make axial compression load tests at the beginning
of the project it is only made to verify and refine the CPT-based calculation method and not to use them
as a design basis. To lend greater support for this approach, we try to separate the shaft and base
resistances based on analysis of the load-settlement curve. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to measure
the change of pile force with an extensometer. According to our experience, the separation based on

207
force-settlement curve is reliable for piles with large shaft resistance while it is less certain for piles with
large base resistance.
The axial static compression load test performed on trial pile is typical in Hungary. Load test on working
pile almost never takes place. Counterweight is supplied by an anchoring system using 4 anchor piles.
The highest capacity system in Hungary makes it possible to perform pile load tests up to 15 MN.
As far as layout, measurement techniques, and loading sequence is concerned, we fulfil all the
requirements listed in prEN/ISO 22477-1. Maintained loading test (MLT) is always used until the pile
head settlement reaches 0,025mm/5min rate with a minimum time of 30 minutes. The proof load is set
slightly above the calculated ultimate bearing capacity that may be reached in 8-10 loading steps.
Generally we set an unloading-reloading cycle at the half of the proof load to get more information about
the pile behaviour (residual settlement, effect of repeated loading). In order to avoid the underestimation
of ultimate bearing capacity, the load increment may be reduced to 5-10 % of the proof load as we
approach the proof load. Since evaluation of CFA piles generally show no clear ultimate limit state, we
adopt the "failure" criterion suggested by Eurocode 7, i.e., the force when settlement of the pile head
equals 10% of the pile base diameter is considered ultimate compressive resistance.
For bored piles with fluid support having larger compressive resistance we use the so called VUIS pile
load test (Figure 6). That is similar to the Osterberg-cell load test, except that a hydraulic jack works at
the pile head. (Osterberg-cell test was performed only a few times in our practice.) The lower part of the
pile is pushed by a tube with smaller diameter within the outer tube which is the upper part of the pile
pulled outwards by the jack. The force-settlement data of the two parts are measured and after some
corrections the force-settlement curve of designed working pile produced.
Dynamic pile load tests are also applied in Hungary sometimes even at private projects to control the
design. They are performed by two companies in Hungary both use the latest technology of PDI Inc.
(USA). Smart sensors are mounted on the test pile and data transmission is made by wireless transmitters
(or wired system). The data acquisition is performed by PAX (pile driving analyser) computer.
Data evaluation is prepared by the signal matching method based iCAP and CAPWAP software. If the
aim is to check the bearing capacity, its reliability is generally accepted if parallel static and dynamic test
results produced in comparable circumstances are presented. As it was mentioned, dynamic pile load test
was also used in some public projects instead of static load test. However, in these cases their reliability
should be verified on project level with parallel static load tests on similar piles in similar soil condition.
It should be noted that simple pile driving formulas have not been used in Hungary for 30-40 years.
As it was mentioned, tension pile load test is very seldom in the Hungarian practice. The general
arrangement of this test is similar to the compression test. The difference is to use two piles with enough
base resistance or two plates to supply the reaction force. Generally two hydraulic jacks are applied to
avoid bending stresses in the test pile. It is worth mentioning that anchoring piles used to compression
pile load tests are sometimes analysed to get a lower limit of bearing capacity for tension.

Figure 7: VUIS pile load test arrangement

Thanks to the recent years’ investments in Hungary's infrastructure, we managed to perform a few lateral
load tests. These helped to explain the behaviour of the piles under lateral loading and provided valuable
data to optimize pile reinforcement as well. Research results with respect to modelling lateral pile bearing
behaviour aims to connect geotechnical FEM 3D modelling or lateral pile load tests to structural
modelling using a nonlinear spring model (Ray, 2015).

208
5.6. Design based on experience
Design based on experience is not practiced in Hungary. The design is confirmed and supported by some
kind of calculation in each case or by a load test, as detailed in the previous sections. Of course,
experienced geotechnicians at design offices or executive companies have private data bases but
documented and generally accepted pile bearing capacity collections or software using artificial
intelligence or expert systems are not available in Hungary.

5.7. Structural safety

The design for structural safety in our practice is generally in conformity with requirements given in
Section 7.8 of Eurocode 7-1. Structural design was discussed earlier and the issue on reinforcement length
was mentioned. Cost pressures always push for less reinforcement however the reinforcement density is
sometimes too high due to the cautious design of the structural engineer which causes technological
problems. Structural engineers know the Eurocodes but some of them have not studied the standards for
special geotechnical work.
There are some difficulties with concrete quality that can result in structural safety problems. The
specification regarding to concrete properties to ensure flowability in the borehole can often be
problematic. The compatibility of concrete components (cement, additions, admixtures, aggregates and
water) emerge sometimes at concrete mixing plants who are more experienced in mixing concrete for
superstructures than for foundations. The new European standard (EN 206:2015) regarding concrete and
the initiatives of the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group,
2015) deal with this problem. Next version of Eurocode 7 shall adopt their main ideas.

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

Piling projects may be performed in Hungary only after acceptance of a technical plan and a technical
statement. The preliminary one made by the designer is sometimes not detailed enough as required in
Eurocode 7-1. If the plan is made by a structural engineer without involving a geotechnical engineer there
may be insufficient knowledge regarding proper application of pile technology. The technical statement is
made by the piling contractor and during its acceptance process questions not covered in the plan can be
clarified. This often brings controversy over such problems as: quality of the working platform,
installation sequence, and content of records made by piling equipment etc. Piling contractors are able to
measure all the data required in relevant execution standards and they make the measurements for
themselves but they do not want to give out their protocols.
The preparation of a piling work would sometimes require a piling investigation including a concrete
mixing evaluation which can help to avoid the problems mentioned in last section. Based on experience
provided by this investigation, the technical statement can be finalised. However, this effort is often
omitted and the participants focus only on the execution of trial piles for load test. These activities are
sometimes poorly prepared and evaluated regarding technological issues. Pile load tests are carefully
analysed only if the measured bearing capacity differs greatly from the calculated value.
In our practice, the quality of installed working piles is usually evaluated by sonic integrity tests (Figure
8). 1-10 % of the piles are tested for privately funded sites but almost 100 % of them must be checked at
public sites. Generally, if any problem is diagnosed regarding to the integrity of a pile additional piles are
constructed to replace the faulty pile.
For quality control of deep, large diameter cast-in-situ bored piles, the cross-hole integrity test is used.
But these piles are not common in Hungarian piling practice so this test is also rare.
Monitoring consists mainly of settlement measurements of the foundation. However, for piled structures
this does not often occur because it is generally thought that piles decrease settlements to an extent which
makes measurements unnecessary. But, this approach sometimes does not work and if signs of
unexpected structure behaviour are recognized, initial measurements are lost causing difficulties in the
back-analysis and prediction. For example, at abutments, the settlement of the fill is often measured but
the abutment structures are not, thus the evaluation of downdrag problem is problematic.

209
Figure 8: Sonic integrity test

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

Before the 90’s there were several large public engineering offices in Hungary. They provided services
for different kinds of engineering from design to monitoring, from testing to consulting. These public
offices collected test data such as pile load tests and they generated an enormous database during that
time. It was obligatory to send the data into these offices. Unfortunately after the regime change in 1990,
these public offices were sold out, broke up or disappeared. Some of them still exist and operate as
private engineering office but with much fewer employees and possibilities. So most of the databases
have disappeared and are no longer available for public use, and they have not been updated lately.
Nowadays, as mainly private offices and contractor firms are operating in the market, there is no database
that collects pile load test data, soil investigation results or other valuable information. Each office or
construction company collects and utilises the experience and data for themselves.
As the CPT test became more and more popular and widespread in the last decade, experience has been
increasing gradually with its application and use in different projects from soil classification to pile
design. At the beginning, it was questionable which soil classification fits best to the Hungarian soils. By
now there is no more hesitation among the geotechnical engineers and there is an agreement about
Robertson’s classification with 12 different soil types (Robertson, et al., 1986). According to local
experience, Robertson’s classifications correlate quite well to lab test results. This time we will put this
classification method into the additional national standard for soil classification harmonised with the
European ones (EN ISO 14588).
The following issues belong to the CPT-based calculation method and to the CPT classification, as well.
As it was mentioned, we have loess soils in some areas and it was considered earlier in the Hungarian pile
design practice as a fine silty sandy soil causing underestimation of pile bearing capacities. (They have
generally q c =3-5 MPa cone resistance, which is poor for a sandy silt but good for a clayey silt.) Luckily
Robertson’s CPT classification determines the loess as sandy-clayey silt in general. Thus the CPT-based
calculations provide very good estimations of pile bearing capacity in loess.
According to our experience particular attention must be paid to bearing capacity calculations if the pile is
in fine stratified soil: silt or clay with thin sandy layer or lenses. Due to the several peaks in cone
resistance we calculate a higher value for average cone resistance than is typical for cohesive soils (see
Figure 2). If we calculate the unit pile resistances using these average values, we may overestimate the
values. In case of fine stratified soils, it is better to remove the peaks in cone resistance to prevent this
mistake.
As described before, it is reasonable to use a reduction factor (λ≈0.6-0.7) for bored, CFA and screwed
piles if pile tip stands in dense, saturated sandy soil. We assume that the drilling technology destroys the
existing structure of the sandy soil and causes some loosening in it. Pulling out the piling rod may cause
some vacuum to occur and loosen the sand as well. Thus in reality, after installing the pile, the vicinity of
the pile tip is no longer as dense as it was during the CPT test.

210
REFERENCES
Bak, E., Koch, E., Palotás, B., Szepesházi, R., 2010, Kombinált (cölöp és lemez) alapozás modellezése,
1-2. rész, Közlekedésépitési szemle, 60: (3) – (6)
EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group, 2015, Best practice guide to tremie concrete for deep foundations.

Dalmy D., Szilvágyi L. (ed., 2013, Alapozások és földmegtámasztó szerkezetek tervezése az MSZ EN 1997
szerint, Magyar Mérnöki Kamara, Budapest

Fellenius B.H, Infante, J.A., 2002, UniCone program for the analysis of results from cone penetrometer
tests: CPT and CPTU and analysis of pile capacity using CPTU Data. User Manuel, Unisoft Ltd. Calgary

Haas, J., 2013, Geology of Hungary, Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary, Budapest

Ray, P.R., 2014, Geotechnika kézikönyv földrengére való méretezéshez, Magyar Mérnöki Kamara,
Budapest

Ray, P. R., 2015, An optimized elasto-plastic subgrade reaction for modeling the response of a nonlinear
foundation for a structural analysis, Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering, 23.3: 21-27.

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, Use of piezometer cone data,
Proceedings of Conference on Use in Situ Test Data in Geotechnical Engineering,’86, Blacksburg,
Virginia, June 23-25, 1986, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 6, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, pp. 1263-1280

Schell P., Szilvágyi L., Wolf Á., 2015, Case study on a static-dynamic pile load test programm in
Hungary, Proceedings of the XVIth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Edinburgh

Szepesházi R., 2008, Tervezés az Eurocode 7 és a kapcsolódó európai geotechnikai szabványok alapján,
Business Média Magyarország, Budaörs

Szepesházi, R., 2014, Pile design based on CPT according to the requirements of Eurocode
7, Geosciences and Engineering, Vol. 3. No. 5. Miskolc University
Szép J., 2011, Modelling of abutments, 10th Slovak Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Bratislava

211
212
 Pile Design Practice in Ireland
David J.P. Igoe, Gavin and Doherty Geosolutions, Ireland, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The EN 1997-1 or Eurocode 7: Part 1 – Geotechnical Design: General Rules was implemented in Ireland
in 2010 and has since resulted in significant changes to the practice of pile design in Ireland. Prior to the
implementation of EC7, pile design was almost exclusively confined to working / allowable stress design
with designers having very little experience with limit state design. A summary of piling design practice
in Ireland is presented in this report. The report focuses on bearing piles and does not include
information on piles for retaining structures. Pile design using the Irish National Annex of EC7 is
discussed and a design example using the three EC7 design approach is provided.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The regional geology in Ireland can broadly comprise of glacial materials and post glacial sediments.
Pleistocene (1.6m – 10,000 years ago) deposits are typical of material laid down during heavy glaciation
and consist of a wide variety of deposits and grain sizes, while more recent Holocene deposits (last
10,000 years) are often realtively well sorted and course grained. The majority of Irish soils are unsorted
and unbedded glacial tills, but other subsoils include sands, gravels, glaciolacustrine deposits, alluvium
and peat (Meahen et al., 2010). The subsoil distribution accross Ireland is shown in Figure 1. Tills (often
referred to as Boulder Clay) cover more than 43% of area of the surface. These tills are typically over-
consolidated and comprise many different paricle sizes. Glaciofluvial Sands and Gravels are deposited by
running water only from melting glaciers and ice sheets and are typically losely packed. Alluvial deposits
generally consist of sand and gravel with minor fractions of Silt and Clay, and are ususally well sorted
and bedded, consisting of many complex strata. Glaciolacustrine deposits were deposited into a large
number of meltwater-fed lakes during and shortly after deglaciation and consist of sorted gravel, sand, silt
and clay. The warmer conditions during the Holocene Epoch resulted in the growth of peat bogs. Peat
consists mainly of vegetation which is only partially decomposed and cover ≈20% of the surface area. In
the lowlands in
Ireland, peat usually overlies badly drained glaciolacustrine silts and clays.

A large portion of the piling works in Ireland occur around the greater dublin area where the primary
superficial material is reffered to as Dublin Boulder Clay, which is underlain by bedrock. Long and
Menkiti (2007) summarised the geotechnical characteristics of Dublin Boulder Clay (DBC). DBC boulder
clay was deposited by ice sheets more than 1km thick and as a result is very heavily over-consolidated.
They found that DBC was significantly stiffer than other well characterized tills. High undrained triaixal
compression strengths were measured although significant strength anisotrpy was suggested by much
lower triaxial extension strengths. Field values of intact clayey till units had a mean permeability of 10-9
m/s. While work is ongoing to define the distribution of DBC, it can be broadly classified into four
different units:

(i) Upper Brown Boulder Clay

This uppermost formation is weathered and is typically 2 – 3m stiff to very stiff, brown slightly
sandy clay, with rare silt / gravel lenses and some rootlets. This material has been shown to the be
the weathered zone of the underlying Upper Black DBC (Farrell et al., 1995).

(ii) Upper Black Dublin Boulder Clay

This is a very stiff, dark grey, slightly sandy clay with some gravel and cobbles and is typically 4 -
12m thick. Some sub vertical, rough and tightly closed fissures have been observed.Considerable
mechanical effort is required to excavate the material.

(iii) Lower Brown Dublin Boulder Clay

This is a hard, brown, slity clay with gravel and is typically 5 – 9m thick. It is similar to the Upper
Black DBC but with a higher silt content and can often contain large silt/gravel lenses and cobble
lines.

(iv) Lower Black Dublin Boulder Clay

213
The lower black DBC is a hard slightly sandy gravelly clay with many boulders. It is generally less than
2m thick.

While the engineering parameters for DBC are suitable for many construction projects, the high stiffness
and presence of cobbles / boulders means that non-displacement / replacement pile types are generally
favoured, although driven piles have been used in a number of cases. Useful information on the geology
and geotechnical characteristics for different regions is available from the Geological Survey of Ireland
(GSI) at www.gsi.ie.

Figure 1: Subsoils map showing different subsoil types across the Ireland - Geological Survey of
Ireland/Teagasc (after Meehan et al. 2010). (1)

214
2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Quigley et al. (2015) described recent trends from Ground Investigation (GI) contracts in Ireland. Trial
pitting, cable percussive boreholes and rotary bores remain the most common investigation methods,
while Dynamic Probing and the Standard Penetration Test remain the most common form of in-situ
testing. In addition to traditional GI techniques, the economic development in Ireland pre-2007 led to
growth in the use of specialist geophysical survey techniques such as Multichannel Analysis of Surface
Waves (MASW), Ground Penetrating Radar, Seismic Refraction, Resistivity and the expansion of GI
techniques such as Geobor S, Vibro Core and CPT testing. The Irish annex of EC7 for geotechnical
design has introduced some mandatory changes to the design process, including production of a Ground
Investigation Report and Geotechnical Design Report. While GI processes involve ensuring that
equipment like the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) are calibrated, certification is not always requested as
part of the project requirements (Quigley, 2011). The Irish annex for the Eurocode (IE EN 1997)
introduced requirements for high quality sampling for triaxial and consolidation testing. A comparison of
the frequency of exploration with values suggested in EC7 (Table 1) found that while the majority of road
projects satisfied the requirement in terms of quantity but noted that the quality, nature and frequency of
soil testing can be insufficient. The frequency of boreholes for building projects was compared to the
building footprint area as shown in Figure 2. The figure shows the trend to increase the spacing of
investigation as the size of the project increases, resulting in larger projects failing to meet the suggested
spacing from EC7. In general, while numerous GI techniques are available in Irish practice, the majority
of GIs suffer from either insufficient data (frequency of exploration) or more commonly lack of quality
data. Long and Menkiti (2007) and others have highlighted the effects of sample disturbance on
deficiencies in ground investigation can result in conservative or inappropriate design assumptions,
leading to increased risk and greater likelihood of project delays and increased costs. The problems and
costs associated with poor ground investigations have been highlighted by Chapman (2008) and many
others.

Table 1: Suggested intensity of ground investigation points according to EuroCode 7

Structure Spacing Arrangement

High-rise and industrial 15 – 40m Grid
Large area ≤60m Grid
Linear – Roads, railways, channels, pipelines, dikes, tunnels, retaining 20 – 200m
walls
Dams and weirs 25m– 75m Vertical sections
Special – Bridges, stacks, 2 – 6 per foundation
machinery foundations

Figure 2: Comparison between building area and number of boreholes (from Quigley et al. 2015)

215
3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION
The most commonly used pile types in Ireland are square precast concrete driven piles (displacement) and
CFA Continuous Flight Auger, CFA, (non-displacement) piles. Driven precast concrete piles are available
in 250 – 350mm square sections and typically driven with 3- 5 tonne hydraulic impact hammers. They are
favoured for their high production capability, ability to perform immediate follow on works and minimal
spoil production. CFA piles usually range between 300 – 900 mm in diameter and are favoured due to
their design flexibility, ability to achieve design penetrations and suitability to difficult ground conditions.
Other pile types which are also commonly used include Rotary Bored piling, Bored Displacement piling,
Odex piling, Driven Steel Pipe piles and bottom driven mini-piles.

Figure 3: (a) Precast Concrete Driven Pile and (b) CFA piles (from Quinn-Piling)

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
The Irish Standard Version of Eurocode 7 is published as:

• I.S. EN 1997-1:2005+AC:2009 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules (including

Irish National Annex 2007)
• I.S. EN 1997-2:2007: Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground investigation and testing

The Irish Annex to EC7 – Part1 includes Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) and provides values
for partial and correlation factors to be used for design in Ireland. The document states that annexes are
informative not mandatory and does not provide comment on specific design situations. It should be
noted that the EC7 part 2 is a design standard and not a standard for laboratory or field testing, which is
referred to CEN standards for ground investigation and testing. There is no Irish National Annex for EC7
- Part 2. Other relevant sections of Eurocode for pile design are:

• EN 1993-5: Eurocode 3: Part 5: Design of Steel Structures: Piling

• EN 12794:2005 – Precast concrete products. Foundation piles

The European Standards also incorporates provisions for other publications. The European Standards
related to pile design are summarised below:

• EN 1536:1999 Execution of special geotechnical work: Bored piles

• EN 12699:2000 Execution of special geotechnical work: Displacement piles
• EN 14199 Execution of special geotechnical work - Micropiles

216
5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
EUROCODE 7

5.1. Definitions and symbols

A si area of the pile shaft in stratum i
F c,d ULS design axial compression action (i.e. load), and
G rep representative permanent action
R c,d design value of the pile’s ultimate limit state compressive resistance.
q b,k characteristic base resistance
q s,k characteristic shaft resistance
R c,k characteristic total pile resistance in compression
R t,k characteristic total pile resistance in tension
R c,m ultimate pile resistance based on static load tests
Q rep representative variable action
γG partial factor for a permanent action
γQ partial factor for a variable action
γM partial material factor
γR partial resistance factor
γ Rd model factor
γb partial resistance factor for pile base resistance
γs partial resistance factor for pile shaft resistance
γt partial resistance factor for total compression pile resistance
γ s,t partial resistance factor for piles in tension
ψ combination factor
ξ correlation factors

5.2. General principles

5.2.1. Axial compression of a single pile

The Irish National Annex allows for any one of the three design approaches (DA1-C1, DA1-C2, DA2 or
DA3) to be applied for geotechnical design. For pile design the Irish National Annex (NA 2.9) states that
should DA3 should only be used if the soil parameters are determined from laboratory or field tests. It is
most common to apply DA1 or DA2 for pile design, although engineers may often choose to perform
calculations using all three design approaches and select the most conservative approach for design.

For the design of piles loaded in compression, EC7 requires following inequality to be satisfied for all
ultimate limit state load cases and load combinations:
F c,d ≤ R c,d
where F c,d is the ULS design axial compression action and R c,d is the design value of the pile’s ultimate
limit state compressive resistance. The design action (F c, d) is obtained by multiplying the representative
permanent and variable actions (G rep and Q rep) by their appropriate partial factors γ G and γ Q such that:
R

F c,d = γ G . G rep + γ Q. Q rep

In geotechnical design practice, Eurocode combination factors (ψ, used to obtain the representative values
of actions from the characteristic values) are often not relevant and the characteristic values are the
representative values (Orr 2012). The partial factors used on actions for pile design in Ireland are the
same as the Eurocode main text and defined in Table 2.

Table 2: Recommended partial factors on actions and on the effects of actions (from Orr 2012)

217
The pile characteristic resistance (R c,k ) can be attained from:

(a) Static Load Tests

(b) Profiles of ground test results
(c) Soil shear strength parameters (alternative procedure)

In Ireland the so called ‘alternative’ procedure (method c) of design based on soil shear strength
parameters is most commonly used (Orr 2012). Due to the difficulties involved in accurately calculating
the characteristic pile resistance, EC7 allows for a model factor (γ Rd ) to be applied to account for this
uncertainty, which is generally applied when calculating the characteristic pile resistance. The Irish
National Annex (NA.2.19) states a model factor of 1.75 should be applied to base, shaft or total pile
capacity calculations. The pile design resistance (R c,d ) is calculated by dividing characteristic pile
resistance by relevant partial resistance factors (for DA1 or DA2), or the characteristic soil strength by the
partial material factors (DA3). The relevant partial material and resistance factors for the design of
different types of piles in Ireland are provided in table 4 below. Thus, if designing the pile under axial
compression loading by calculation using design approaches DA1 or DA2 the characteristic resistance is
calculated as follows:
∑ 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠,𝑖𝑖 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑘𝑘
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 = + 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 1.75
𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
where A b is the area of the pile base A si is the area of the pile shaft in stratum i, and q b,k and q sk,i are the
characteristic base and shaft resistances in stratum i.

For large projects, it is common to determine the characteristic pile resistance from profiles of ground test
results (method b). The Irish National Annex has increased the set of correlation factors for determining
the characteristic pile resistance from profiles of tests by a factor of 1.5 from the values recommended in
EC7. The values in the Irish NA are provided in table 3 and the justification given is ‘to allow for
uncertainties deriving appropriate parameters from ground test results’. This adjustment also results in an
overall factors of safety close to the values obtained in previous ‘allowable stress’ designs. In this case the
characteristic pile resistance in compression is calculated as follows:
(𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 � ; �
𝜉𝜉3 𝜉𝜉4

Table 3: Correlation factors in the Irish NA to determine the pile characteristic resistance from profiles of
tests

The design load is then calculated using the partial (resistance or material) factors from EC7 Appendix A
(except in the case of pre-stressed anchorages or piles designed against uplift). For completeness the
values have been provided in table 4 below.
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏,𝑘𝑘 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 = = +
𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡 𝛾𝛾𝑏𝑏 𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠

218
Table 4: Recommended partial soil parameter and partial resistance factors for driven, bored and
continuous flight auger (CFA) piles, Sets M and R (from Orr 2012)

5.2.2. Axial tension of a single pile

Similar to pile design in compression, the following inequality must be satisfied:
F t,d ≤ R t,d
where F t,d is the ULS design axial tensile action and R c,d is the design value of the pile’s ULS tension
resistance. The tension partial resistance factors, γ s,t , are generally larger than those for compression, γ t
(see table 2), owing to the greater uncertainty regarding tension loading. In addition, it should be noted
that if using DA3, double factoring is applied where a resistance factor of 1.1 applies in addition to the
material factors. When designing for tension piles only the shaft resistance is considered and the tensile
action on the pile should include the pile self-weight. Like the design of piles in compression, the Irish
NA states a model factor γ Rd of 1.75 should be used for tension loading on piles designed using shear
strength parameters.

5.3. SLS design

In Ireland, particularly for smaller projects, serviceability design is rarely carried out. In the Irish NA the
large model factor (γ Rd = 1.75) for design using shear strength values and higher correlation factors (1.5
times higher than values suggested in EC7) for design using ground test profiles were selected in the
knowledge that serviceability checks are rarely conducted and to ensure to that the overall factors of
safety approach values that were previously used in design. If serviceability design is carried out, the Irish
National Annex (NA.2.12) states that serviceability checks should be unfactored - ‘the values partial
factors for serviceability limit states to be used should be taken as 1.0’. For larger projects, the
serviceability limit state is often verified using static load tests on a sample of representative piles. The
number of tests performed will depend on the variability of the site and the information available but
typically 1 in 100 to piles may be tested. For larger road projects where there is significant variability in

219
ground conditions and uncertainty regarding the pile capacity up to 1 in 40 piles may be statically load
tested.

5.4. Design based on load tests

In Ireland, trial piles are rarely used in design. On smaller contracts pile testing is typically avoided by
using the design based on shear strength values and using the associated larger partial and model factors.
In practice, static load testing is typically only used to verify pile capacity and serviceability
requirements. The values of the correlation factors used for design based on static load testing in Ireland
are the same as those in EC7. In the rare cases where trial piles may be conducted, the correlation factors
are based on the number of load tests or profiles of test data and the characteristic pile resistance in
compression is calculated as follows:
(𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑚𝑚 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑚𝑚 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑘𝑘 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 � ; �
𝜉𝜉1 𝜉𝜉2

Table 5: Recommended correlation factors to determine pile characteristic resistance from static load tests
(from table A.9 of Eurocode)

Where R c,m is the ultimate pile resistance.

5.5. Design based on experience

Piling contractors in Ireland will often design piles based on experience of local soil conditions and
typical working loads. Despite the implementation of EC7 in 2010, many piling contractors still base their
design on old British or Irish standards (e.g. BS 5930 : 1999 – Site Investigation, BS 8004 : 1986 –
Foundations, BS 8500 : 2002 – Concrete) using allowable / working stress design. It is assumed that by
using a large factor of safety (usually FOS = 3), the pile designs will generally comply with EC7 although
this is not always the case.

Looby et al. (1995) described pile design and practice for driven piles in DBC. While this paper is more
than 20 years old, many of the practices described within are still commonplace today. Many contractors
design driven piles based on a ‘design set’ to achieve the required working load. The design sets are
typically derived using the pile driving formulae with the benefit of experience from other piling works.
They are based on the principal that the resistance of the piles to further penetration under working loads
has a direct relationship to the resistance of the piles to the hammer impacts. These methods are highly
empirical and reliant on the contractors’ experience in different soil types. They are highly sensitive to
assumptions regarding the hammer efficiency and the magnitude of elastic compression of the hammer,
pile and soil system but are still common practice due to their ease of use and the widely held view that
the factors controlling the pile capacity are too complex to accurately predict. Despite the shortcomings of
these simple approaches, experience of the use of driving formulae for driven precast piles in Ireland
generally appears to be satisfactory. Typical values of working loads for precast piles driven to a set
criteria for different contractors was presented in Looby et al. (1995) and is shown in table 6. Piles driven
to sets defined in table 6 are for typical (allowable) working loads of 600 – 1500 kN based on traditional
working / allowable stress design (FOS ≈ 3).

220
Table 6: Pile dimensions, working loads and set criteria used by Irish contractors (after Looby et al. 1995)

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

Section 7 of EN 1997-1 requires a pile installation plan to form the basis of the piling works. Piles should
be monitored and records made as they are installed. It is common practice in Ireland for CFA piles to
have computerised logs of the pile information which provides information with depth. The logs typically
provide information with depth on:
- Penetration per auger revolution (mm/rev)
- Torque
- Bore rate (m/min)
- Extraction Rate (m/min)
- Oversupply of concrete
- Flow profile

Integrity testing for replacement piles has now become common practice in Ireland. Numerous testing
contractors offer integrity testing services based on the sonic echo techniques or (less frequenetly) cross
hole sonic logging techniques for drilled shafts. Integrity testing is typically carried out to the
requirements of non-destructive testing set down in the ICE specification for piling and embedded
retaining walls (2007). It is now common practice to use Pile Driving Analysis during the installation of
driven piles and Dynamic Load Testing for assessing the post driving capacity of both bored and driven
piles. For large road projects, where challenging ground conditions are encountered, a large proportion of
the piles are tested both statically and dynamically. For the N7 Nenagh bypass, which had large sections
traversing peat bogs, up to 800 piles were tested dynamically (10%) and a further 185 piles (≈2.4%) were
tested under static loading. Static load testing is usually performed to the ICE specification for piling and
embedded retaining walls (2007). Due to safety concerns there has been a trend in recent years to move
away from ‘kentledge type tests’ to tests using sacrificial ground anchors and cradle beams.

Figure 4: Tension static load testing in Ireland

221
7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES
To date there is no widely used database of pile load tests for pile design in Ireland. There are however
numerous technical papers available in the literature, which provide information on pile design or pile
load tests from projects across Ireland. Some useful references are provided in table 7 below:

Table 7: Technical papers on pile testing and design practice in Ireland

Authors Year Title and publication
Doherty P 2010 “Field investigation of the undrained base resistance of pipe piles in clay”. Institute of
Gavin K Civil Engineers, Geotechnical engineering Division Journal. 163 (GE1)
Gallagher D
Farrell E 2008 “CFA pile behaviour in very stiff lodgement till” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Lawlor M Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 161, No. 1, 49–57
Gavin, K 2008 “Axial Resistance of CFA piles in Dublin Boulder Clay” Geotechnical Engineering,
Cadogan, D ICE, Vol. 161, No. 4, pp 171-180
Twomey, L
Gavin, K 2013 “The effect of ageing on the axial capacity of piles in sand”, Geotechnical Engineering,
Igoe, D ICE, Vol. 166, No. 2, pp 122-130
Kirwan, L
Gavin, K 2007 “Effect of friction fatigue on piles in dense sand”, Journal of Geotechnical and
O’Kelly, B Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 1, 63 – 71
Gavin, K 2013 “The base resistance of non-displacement piles in sand. Part I: field tests”, Geotechnical
Cadogan, D Engineering ICE, Volume 166 Issue 6, pp. 540-548
Tolooiyan, A
Casey, P
Looby, M 1995 “Driven pile in boulder clay – design and practice”, The Institute of Engineers Ireland –
Farrell, E meeting of the Civil Division and Geotechnical Society of IEI, 6th November.
Lehane, B
Farrell E 1998 “Instrumented driven pile in Dublin Boulder Clay” Proceedings of the Institution of
Lehane, B Civil Engineers—Geotechnical Engineering, 131, No. 4, 233–241
Looby M
Long. M 2000 “Skin friction for piles socketed in hard rock”, ISRM International Symposium, 19-24
November, Melbourne, Australia
Long, M 2003 “Difficulties with ground anchorages in hard rock in Dublin, Ireland”, Geotechnical and
Murphy, B Geological Engineering, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 87-111
Long, M 1995 “The behaviour of driven tubular steel piles in the laminated mudstones of south-west
Ireland”, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp 242-252

Long, M 2007 “Comparing dynamic and static test results of bored piles”, Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 160, No. 1, pp 43-49
McCabe, B 2006 “Behaviour of axially loaded pile groups driven in clayey silt”, Journal of Geotechnical
Lehane, B and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp 401 - 410

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
The following is an example of pile design in Ireland by calculation from ground parameters. Take the
case of a 600mm diameter bored pile in clay with an characteristic undrained shear strength c u,k of 150
kPa. It is required to design the pile to support a 750 kN permanent load. The shaft adhesion factor, α =
0.5 and N c = 4.

The design action, F c,d is given by:

F c,d = γ G G rep = γ G . 750 not including pile self-weight

Using DA1 or DA2 the design resistance is given by:

𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢,𝑘𝑘 (𝜋𝜋𝐷𝐷2 /4)𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢,𝑘𝑘 𝜋𝜋 × 0.6 × 𝐿𝐿 × 0.5 × 150 (𝜋𝜋 × 0.62 /4) × 4 × 150
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 = + = +
𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑏𝑏 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑏𝑏 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
141 × 𝐿𝐿 169
= +
𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑏𝑏 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

Applying F c,d ≤ R c,d gives the following equations for the design of the pile:

222
Using DA1-C1
From table 1 and table 2 for bored piles γ G = 1.35, γ s = 1, γ b = 1.25, γ rd = 1.75 (from Irish NA)
1.75 1 169
𝐿𝐿 = �1.35 × 750 × 1 × �−� × � = 11.6𝑚𝑚
141 1.25 141

Using DA1-C2
From table 1 and table 2 for bored piles γ G = 1, γ s = 1.3, γ b = 1.6, γ rd = 1.75 (from Irish NA)
1.75 1.3 169
𝐿𝐿 = �1 × 750 × 1.3 × �−� × � = 11.2𝑚𝑚
141 1.6 141

Using DA2
From table 1 and table 2 for bored piles γ G = 1.35, γ s = 1.1, γ b = 1.1 and γ rd = 1.75 (from Irish NA)
1.75 1.1 169
𝐿𝐿 = �1.35 × 750 × 1.1 × �−� × � = 12.6𝑚𝑚
141 1.1 141

Using DA3 the design resistance is given by:

𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢,𝑘𝑘 (𝜋𝜋𝐷𝐷2 /4)𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢,𝑘𝑘 𝜋𝜋 × 0.6 × 𝐿𝐿 × 0.5 × 150 (𝜋𝜋 × 0.62 /4) × 4 × 150
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 = + = +
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
141 × 𝐿𝐿 + 169
=
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

From table 1 and table 2 for bored piles γ G = 1, γ cu = 1.4 and γ rd = 1.75 (from Irish NA)
1.75 169
𝐿𝐿 = �1 × 750 × 1.4 × �−� � = 11.9𝑚𝑚
141 141

REFERENCES
Chapman, T.J.P., (2008) “The relevance of developer costs in geotechnical risk management,
Foundations” Proc. Second BGA International Conference on Foundations, ICOF2008.

Long, M. and Menkiti, C.O., (2007), “Geotechnical properties of Dublin Boulder Clay”, Geotechnique,
Vol 57, Issue 7, pp 595-611

P. Quigley, F. Buggy, J. Clancy, M. Condron, C. Finnerty, D. Gill, D. Luby, and M. Ryan (2015), “Some
trends from recent ground investigation contractsin Ireland”, Proceedings of the XVI ECSMGE
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development

Orr, T. (2012), “Eurocode 7 and Pile Design in Ireland and the UK”, Unpublished technical paper

223
224
ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Design of piles: Italian practice

Alessandro Mandolini, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Design Edilizia Ambiente, Seconda Università degli Studi
di Napoli, Italia [email protected]

ABSTRACT
In January 2008 the Italian Ministry for Infrastructures has released the “Norme Tecniche per le
Costruzioni” that recognizes the principles established by EN 1997-1 - Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical
Design – General rules as well as most of the partial factors there included. Later on (2013) the so-called
National Application Document (NAD) was released by the same Authority.
In the paper, after some brief information about regional geology, common soil investigation methods
and local pile market situation, some peculiar aspects of “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni” will be
illustrated and discussed. Moreover, some relevant local experiences are briefly reported. In the end, a
design example is reported where some positive aspects of the new Code are highlighted.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
From the general point of view, most of the Italian peninsula is included in the Alpine Orogenic Belt
which underwent heavy folding and uplifting processes; due to lithostratigraphic and structural
complexities connected with tectonics, Italian geological features are difficult to schematise. Anyway, a
rough but comprehensive idea can be derived from Figure 1:

a) intrusive and metamorphic rocks outcrop in the Alps and Pre-Alps mountain chains along the east-
west axis, in eastern Sardegna, in Calabria and in north-eastern Sicilia. In the latter two these rocks are
deeply altered and weathered;
b) the so-called structurally complex formations (AGI 1979a) are found in the Apennines mountain
chains, along the north-south axis. These formations are essentially made by flysch, turbidic deposits,
indurated clay and clay-shales with chaotic structure;
c) moraine deposits, originated during quaternary glaciations, are rather common on the Alps and on the
northern border of the Po River Plain;
d) volcanic soils (lava, cemented tuff and loose pyroclastic materials) are present in the middle part of
the Peninsula, as well as in Sardinia and in Sicily Islands;
e) alluvial plains and lowlands sediments are mainly formed by soft normally consolidated fine grained
sediments (AGI 1979b).

Alps, Pre-Alps and Appenninan mountain chains cover about 55% of the total surface of the country. The
remaining 45% is covered mainly by alluvial plains (about 20%) and lowlands like Po River Plain, Pisa
Valley in Tuscany and Fiumicino near Rome (about 25%).

Earthquake, landslides and floods are natural phenomena which are rather common in Italy.
The geographic position of Italy make favourable a Mediterranean climate characterised by two rainfall
maximum (in Autumn and Spring) and by a dry and hot long summer period. Due to the orientation of the
long mountain ridges almost normal to the prevailing westerly winds, rainfalls turn often to storms
causing severe flood damages.

Landslides occur in natural slopes of hilly regions throughout Italy, creating severe problems of
maintenance of the transport network, and of stability of important towns and villages.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
The extension (in plan and in depth) of the soil investigation programme depends on the type of the
structure, its importance as well as the design stage at which is referred.

Table 1 reports a schematic list of the most common investigation methods adopted in Italy. It must be
stressed that, recently, in situ tests have received a great deal of attention in Italy, essentially due to an
improvement of the capability of the existing techniques, to the introduction of new devices, to
development of more appropriate theoretical approaches and, especially for common structures, to their
promptness and economy.

225
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Based on a number of case histories recorded in Southern Italy (Napoli and suburbs), Mandolini (1997)
reported a correlation existing between the size of the project - assumed, generally speaking, proportional
to the importance - and the number of boreholes and/or CPT carried out during the different design stage.

Looking at the preliminary design stage of buildings, for instance, an average number of 2 boreholes with
SPT are carried out for a plan area of the building of about 1.000 m2; the number increases to about 5 if
the plan area approaches 10.000 m2. At final design stage, the number is approximately doubled.

Figure 1: Geological Map of Italy (source: (http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/)

226
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

With reference to pile foundations, soil investigations must be aimed to verify feasibility and suitability of
a specific pile type in relation to soil properties and groundwater regime.

Table 1: Common soil investigation methods adopted in Italy

Target Common soil investigation methods

Direct Indirect
Soil profile Borehole CPT, CPTU, DMT
Excavation (pit, trench, .....) Geophysical (CH, DH, SASW, MASW)

Laboratory In situ
CPT, CPTU
Soil SPT, DPSH, DPL
properties tests on undisturbed DMT
samples Permeability tests
Geophysical (CH, DH, SASW, MASW)

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Due to the remarkable variable subsoil conditions, a vast spectrum of pile technology is considered when
the decision of using piles as foundation system is taken; evidently, sometimes the choice of the pile type
must be adapted to the requirements of the supported structure (i.e. high load concentration) as well as the
local market.

At the present time, it can be said that non-displacement piles (bored, CFA) cover about 90% of the total
pile market in Italy, that is about two times the average in the world. If the required pile length and
diameter are not excessive and the subsoil conditions are favourable, CFA piles are typically preferred,
resulting in an overall increased rate of use against bored piles (about 55%).

Use of displacement piles (driven, jacked, screw) is typically restricted to those area where thick soft to
medium soft soils are found. In the last five years, an increased use of screw piles is observed due to both
the speed of installation and the highest performance when compared with non-displacement piles.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
In January 2008 the Italian Ministry for Infrastructures has released the “Norme Tecniche per le
Costruzioni” (in the following referred as NTC 2008) that recognizes the principles established by EN
1997-1 - Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – General rules as well as most of the partial factors there
included.
In September 2010 the Council of Public Works approved the so-called National Application
Document (NAD) where all the national choices are reported. NAD was officially introduced by the same
Ministry in March 2013.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

Contrarily to what considered in EC7, NTC 2008 does not require any preliminary classification of a
structure in order to establish a Geotechnical Category (GC) prior to the geotechnical investigations. Even
if not specifically classified as GC1, in the case of small and relatively simple structures located in area
where geotechnical site conditions are rather known it is allowed, under the full responsibility of the
designer, to adopt design procedures based on routine methods for foundation design and construction
Specific.

NTC 2008 requires that the selection of the foundation system (shallow, piles, piled raft) must be made at
the same time and congruently with the design choices relevant to the superstructure.

227
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

The selected foundation system must be durable and guarantee that Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and
Serviceability Limit States (SLS) are not exceeded.

Checks against geotechnical ULS must be made with reference at least to one of the following design
situations, if the case:
- bearing capacity failure of the overall pile foundations (not the single pile) under vertical loads;
- bearing capacity failure of the overall pile foundations (not the single pile) under transversal loads;
- bearing capacity failure of the overall pile foundations (not the single pile) under tension loads;
- overall stability.

Checks against structural ULS must be made with reference at least to one of the following design
situations, if the case:
- attainment of the structural resistance of the piles;
- attainment of the structural resistance of the element connecting pile heads.

Other design situations, considered as relevant by the designer, can also be considered.
In general, for all the geotechnical systems or structures NTC 2008 recovers only two (DA.1 and DA.2)
out of three Design Approaches as considered in EC7. For this reason, different symbols are used for the
sets of partial factors: R3 is used instead of R2 and R2 is used instead of R4, yielding to:

- Design Approach 1 (DA.1)

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 (typically considered relevant for structural checks)
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R2 (typically considered relevant for geotechnical checks)

- Design Approach 2 (DA.2)

Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R3

where “+” implies: “to be combined with”.

Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 collect the partial factors established by NAD for ULS checks, the latter two being
specific for piles under vertical and transversal loads, respectively.

When DA.2 is adopted, structural checks must be made without considering the partial resistance factors
R.

Concerning with sets A, while EC7 adopts only one value for the coefficient G (1.35 for unfavourable
actions and 1.00 for favourable actions), NTC 2008 introduces two sets of coefficient (G1 and G2) for
structural and non structural permanent actions, respectively. For any ULS check, it must be considered
as structural all those actions deriving from the presence of structural elements and/or materials that, in
the adopted structural modelling, are contributing with their strength and stiffness to the overall
performance of the structure. For those cases where non structural permanent actions (for instance, infill
panels) are completely defined, the same partial factors as for structural permanent actions can be
adopted.

Concerning with sets M, the only difference with respect to EC7 is due to the coefficient qu (1.60 for
NTC 2008 against 1.40 for EC7).

Concerning with sets R, differences can be found for all pile types. In particular, with the obvious
exception of coefficients R1, NTC 2008 adopts R2 and R3 coefficients approximately 1020% larger
than those suggested by EC7.

A number of single aspects could be highlighted in this report about differences between EC7 and NTC
2008. Among them, it is believed that two aspects are worth of mentioning.

The first one is that NTC 2008 clearly consider pile foundations more generally as a foundation system
that comprises piles and not made by only piles. In other terms, the presence of the structural element(s)
connecting pile heads (always in contact with the ground, with the only exception of very few structures
like off-shore structures) makes possible to consider it as contributing to directly transfer part of the
applied load to the soil beneath, thus allowing for a reduction of the load to be transferred to the same soil
by only the piles. It can be therefore said that NTC 2008 explicitly considers the so-called “piled-raft

228
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

concept” taking, if the case, possible advantage from the “raft-soil” contact in order to optimize the
foundation design.

Two design situations are considered:

a) when the raft alone satisfies ULS checks according to the set of partial factors R3 listed in Table 4
(that means Rd,raft  Ed), piles can be used to only reduce settlements (average and differential); it
follows that piles (type, number, length, diameter) are selected to only increase overall stiffness of the
foundation systems for satisfying SLS requirements (that means Ed,piled raft ≤ Cd);
b) when the piles are required to increase the overall resistance of the foundation system (that means, the
raft alone does not satisfy ULS checks as described above: Rd,raft < Ed), the design resistance Rd of the
piled raft foundation can be obtained by one of the two following approaches: i) by specific
interaction analysis aimed to define the amount of load transferred by the raft and by the piles; (ii) by
summing up the relevant characteristic values (for the raft alone, Rk,raft, and the pile group alone,
Rk,piles) and applying the same R3 partial factors as for case a) to the characteristic value of the total
resistance (that means, Rd,piled raft = (Rk,raft + Rk,piles)/2.3).

The second one is that related to transverse loads on piles. Although EC7 clearly requires ULS checks
also under these load conditions, no partial resistance factors are given. NTC 2008 fill this “hole”
assigning the value listed in Table 6.

Table 2: NTC 2008 partial factors on actions or the effects of actions

Set
Action Symbol
A1 A2
G1 = 1.30 G1 = 1.00
Unfavourable
G2 = 1.50 G2 = 1.30
Permanent G
G1 = 1.00
Favourable
G2 = 0.00
Unfavourable 1.50 1.30
Variable Q
Favourable 0.00

Table 3: NTC 2008 partial factors for soil parameters

Set
Soil parameter Symbol
M1 M2
Angle of shear
resistance(1)

1.25
Effective cohesion c
Undrained shear strength cu 1.00 1.40
Unconfined strength qu 1.60
Weight density  1.00
(1) This factor is applied to tan.

Table 4: NTC 2008 partial resistance factors for spread foundations

Set
Resistance Symbol
R1 R2 R3
Bearing 1.80 2.30
R 1.00
Sliding 1.10

229
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Table 5: NTC 2008 partial resistance factors for piles under vertical loads

Displacement Non-displacement CFA

Symbol
Resistance Set Set Set
R R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Base b 1.70 1.35 1.60 1.30
Shaft in
s 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15
compression
1.00 1.00 1.00
Total(2) t 1.30 1.55
Shaft in 1.60 1.25
st 1.60 1.25 1.25 1.60
tension
(2) To be applied to the characteristic value of the resistance derived from design load tests on trial pile.

Table 6: NTC 2008 partial resistance factors for piles under transverse loads

Symbol R1 R2 R3
T 1.00 1.60 1.30

5.2. Definitions and symbols

With very few exceptions, definitions and symbols adopted for NTC 2008 are the same as those listed in
EC7 Section 1.6.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

No installation and model factors are included in NTC 2008. The only factors to be considered are the
correlation factors related to the number of soil profiles as listed in Table 7.

Table 7: NTC 2008 correlation factors ξ to derive characteristic values from ground test results (n =
number of profiles of tests)

 for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
3 1.70 1.65 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.45 1.40
4 1.70 1.55 1.48 1.42 1.34 1.28 1.21

It is important to highlight that NTC 2008 gives a precise definition for the profile of tests to be
considered in selecting the proper value for : it is that profile obtained by a single soil investigation
(boreholes with undisturbed sampling; in situ tests like CPT, SPT, etc.) at depth larger than the pile length
and over which a complete description of the geotechnical subsoil model is possible on the basis of the
collected data. Moreover, NTC 2008 states that the number of profiles to be considered is that falling
within the influenced soil volume of a single foundation system (for instance, for a viaduct with a given
number of piers, the number of profiles is selected on the basis of the investigations carried out below the
single pier).

As it can be seen, the NTC 2008 3 and 4 values are approximately 12% (for n = 10) to 21% (for n = 1)
larger than those suggested by EC7. The decision to assume higher  values has to be attributed to the
undeniable minor reliability of the prediction of pile resistance from ground test results if compared with
that coming from static load test results (Table 8).

5.3.1. Axial compression of a single pile

The axial compressive resistance of a single pile can be based on one of the following approaches:
a) analytical calculation methods where the characteristic value of the resistance is evaluated by the
characteristic values of the soil parameters;

b) empirical calculation methods directly using the results of in situ tests (CPT, SPT, PMT, etc.).

230
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

NTC 2008 does not give any specific indications about the method for determining axial and transverse
resistance for single pile, thus leaving the designer free to adopt, under his/her full responsibility, the
preferred one.

5.3.2. Axial tension of a single pile

As for pile under compressive load, no specific indications are given about design methods.

5.3.3. Lateral loading of a single pile

As for pile under compressive and tension load, no specific indications are given about design methods. It
is however strongly recommended to plan soil investigations where shallower soil layers are properly
investigated in order to define a sufficiently reliable geotechnical model for subsequent SLU and SLS
checks.

5.3.4. Specific issues

Italy is a country with a high seismic risk, as demonstrated by over 30000 earthquakes of medium and
high intensity occurred in the last 2500 years. In the last century, 7 earthquakes with a magnitude M  6.5
have struck the country with thousands of deaths and collapse of entire villages and towns.

For these reasons, NTC 2008 pays particular attention to seismic design, according to the seismic hazard
map reported in Figure 2. As it can be seen, all the territory is classified as seismic by four different
zones:
- Zone 1, very high seismicity, peak acceleration ag > 0.25g (red colour)
- Zone 2, high seismicity, peak acceleration 0.15g < ag ≤ 0.25g (brown colour)
- Zone 3, medium seismicity, peak acceleration 0.05g < ag ≤ 0.15g (yellow colour)
- Zone 4, low seismicity, peak acceleration ag ≤ 0.05g (grey colour)

It follows that all the structures must be designed to resist to earthquake actions taking into account for
soil strength reduction due to the seismic motion (i.e., excess of pore pressure generated during an
earthquake) as well as for the influence of earthquake induced strain level on soil stiffness and damping.

Figure 2: Seismic Hazard Map of Italy (source: http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/)

231
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

With reference to the design of piles, it is required that the pile resistance (axial and transverse) must be
evaluated by neglecting those soil layers where liquefaction phenomenon could occur.

In addition to inertial design actions coming from the oscillation of the superstructure, piles must also
resist to kinematic actions coming from soil motion. Although not mandatory, it is strongly recommended
to evaluate kinematic effects when the following conditions are contemporarily fulfilled:
- structures classified as class III or IV by NTC 2008, that can be in some way assimilated to structures
belonging to Geotechnical Category 3 for EC7;
- poor subsoil conditions (soil type D, VS,30 < 180 m/s or NSPT,30 < 15 or cu,30 < 70 kPa) or worse;
- very high seismicity (ag > 0.25g);
- large differences in the stiffness of soil layers crossed by the pile.

Once again, no specific methods are suggested to estimate the effects produced by kinematic interaction.
It is however required that the estimation of pile displacement and stress must take into account for pile
structural stiffness as well as for the dependency of the soil stiffness from the stress or strain level.

5.3.5. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

Seven years have passed since NTC 2008 were introduced in Italy and at present time its revision is
running. The release of the updated version is planned before summer 2016.

5.4. SLS design

NTC 2008 requires that at least the following SLS must be considered, if the case:
- excessive vertical displacements (settlement and/or heave)
- excessive angular distortion
- excessive lateral displacements

In detail, the estimated values must be compared with limiting values (not specified in the Code, thus
freely assumed by the designer under his/her full responsibility or established by the client) in order to
prevent damages to the structure and limitation to its proposed use.

The pile layout (number, length, diameter, spacing) must be established taking properly into account
interaction effects among piles as well as the different mechanisms for the mobilization of th shaft and
base resistances (especially for large diameter piles).

5.5. Design based on load tests

NTC 2008 encourages the design based on static or dynamic load test, with a clear preference for the
former since the validity of the results of dynamic load tests has to be demonstrated by comparing the
results against static load tests in comparable situations.

Static load tests useful for the design must be carried out on trial pile having the same installation method,
length and diameter of the piles to be designed. The minimum load to be applied during the test is equal
to 2.5 times the design action for SLS check. It is assumed that the pile has reached failure if the
measured pile head displacement is not lesser than 10% of the pile diameter for small to medium pile
diameter (d < 80 cm) and not lesser than 5% of the pile diameter for large pile diameter (d  80 cm).

For large diameter piles, it is allowed to perform static load test on a ‘model’ pile having the same length
but a smaller diameter (dmodel  50%d) provided that the model pile is fully instrumented in order to
separately obtain the mobilization curves for the shaft and the base resistances.

In Tables 8 and 9 are reported the values of the correlation factors to be applied to the measured
resistance Rc;m. As it can be seen, differently from EC7 no additional model factors are given about
different dynamic tests.

5.6. Design based on experience

As reported in Section 5.1 of the present report, NTC 2008 does not includes Geotechnical Categories.
Nevertheless, small and relatively simple structures located in area where geotechnical site conditions are
rather known can be assimilated to structures belonging to Geotechnical Category 1 according to EC7.

232
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

For these structures, under the full responsibility of the designer it is allowed to adopt design procedures
based on routine methods for foundation design and construction.

5.7. Structural safety

A minimum quantity of reinforcement cage is required (0.3% of the nominal pile section) along the entire
length if the pile is made by concrete (prefabricated or cast in situ).

Plastic hinges should be prevented. If not possible, piles must be designed to have a ductile response and
in any case reinforced with a 8 mm continuous spiral along all the pile portion potentially affected by a
plastic hinge. In these portions, assumed extending for a length equal to 3 times the pile diameter, the
reinforcement steel cage must have a total section not lesser than 1% of the pile diameter. The same
reinforcement must be placed for a length of 10 diameter from the pile head.

Table 8: NTC 2008 correlation factors ξ to derive characteristic values from static pile load tests (n -
number of tested piles)

 for n = 1 2 3 4 5
1 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00
2 1.40 1.20 1.05 1.00 1.00

Table 9: NTC 2008 correlation factors ξ to derive characteristic values from dynamic pile load tests (n -
number of tested piles)

 for n = 2 5  10  15  20
5 1.60 1.50 1.45 1.42 1.40
6 1.50 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.25

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

Proof load tests on the piles belonging to the foundation system are mandatory. The main purpose of
these tests is to check the correct execution of the piles; secondarily, to verify their response under a load
equal to 1.5Ed,SLS. In the case of instrumented piles, the maximum load test can be conveniently reduced
to 1.2Ed,SLS.

The number and the location of the piles to be tested must be selected on the basis of the importance of
the project as well as the spatial soil homogeneity. In any case, the number of load tests must not be lesser
than:
- 1 if the total number of the piles is no larger than 20,
- 2 if the total number of the piles is ranging between 21 and 50,
- 3 if the total number of the piles is ranging between 51 and 100,
- 4 if the total number of the piles is ranging between 101 and 200,
- 5 if the total number of the piles is ranging between 201 and 500,
- INT (5+N/500) if the total number of the piles is larger than 500.

The number of proof load tests can be conveniently reduced if dynamic load tests (whose validity has to
be demonstrated by comparing the results against design static load tests) are carried out and non-
destructive tests are carried out on not lesser than 50% of the total number of the piles.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

In the occasion of the construction of Business Centre in the eastern part of Napoli area, where
relatively uniform soil conditions are found (volcanic pyroclastic soils originated from
Vesuvio’s eruptions), several design static load tests (20) on trial piles and proof static load tests
(125) on production piles were carried out. All the piles belong to the three main categories
listed in NTC 2008 (non-displacement, displacement, CFA) and were cast in situ concrete piles
(bored, driven and CFA).

233
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

7.1. Axial pile resistance under compressive load

7.1.1. Background
The bearing capacity of a single pile under compressive load Rc may be written as:

 d2
Rc   q b,lim    d L q s,lim (7.1.1)
4
where qb,lim and qs,lim represent the unit base resistance and the average skin friction, respectively; L = pile
length and d = pile diameter.

The dimensionless ratio between the bearing capacity and the weight of the pile W is:
Rc 1  L 
   q b, lim  4   q s, lim  (7.1.2)
W L  p  d 

where γp is the unit weight of the pile material. The ratio depends on qb,lim and qs,lim, and hence on soil
properties, but also on pile size (L and d). For a given pile geometry and subsoil conditions, the ratio
Rc/W is therefore strictly related to the specific pile installation technique.

7.1.2. Experiences
With reference to trial piles, the diameter d ranges between 0.35 m and 2 m; the length L between 9.5 m
and 42 m; the ratio L/d between 16 and 61. During all the design load tests, the maximum pile head
displacement measured under the maximum load was sufficiently large (not lesser than 6% of the pile
diameter) to allow for a reliable extrapolation of the measured resistance Rc;m at a nominal failure
settlement of 10%d. In many cases, the pile head settlement was larger than this nominal value, thus not
making necessary any extrapolation.

All the results are summarized in Table 1 in terms of the ratio Rc/W. As it can be seen, non-displacement
(bored) piles give the smallest value (Rc;m on average 12 times greater than the weight of the pile) and the
larger scatter (COV = 26%); displacement (driven) piles give the largest value (73 times the weight of the
pile) and the smallest scatter (COV = 8%); CFA piles have an intermediate behaviour.

Table 10: Bearing capacity of piles in the soils of eastern Naples area

 R c,m   R c,m 
  COV 
Pile type  W  
  av  W 
Non-displacement 12.1 0.26
CFA 37.5 0.25
Displacement 73.1 0.08

Results of this type are considered particularly useful for assessing quantitatively the effects of different
installation procedures in relatively uniform subsoil conditions (like those prevailing in the eastern Naples
area), giving rise to the possibility of developing the so-called “regional design method” where local
piling market, local operator skills, local design methods and procedures and local subsoil conditions are
summarized in a very simple but effective “rule of thumb for local design”.

7.2. Axial pile stiffness under compressive load

7.2.1. Background
Randolph (1994) modelled the installation effect on the axial stiffness of a pile by assuming:
- a linear radial variation of the shear modulus from a value G at the interface between pile and soil (r =
d/2) to the “undisturbed value” G0 (r = R),
- at a low load level, the load applied to a properly designed pile is transmitted to the surrounding soil
primarily by skin friction along the shaft.

234
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Calling K0 the axial stiffness of the pile without installation effects and K the stiffness affected by the
installation, the ratio K0/K is reported in Figure 3 as a function of R* = R/r and G* = G/G0. The diagrams
refer to the set of values of the relevant parameters reported in the insert. The range of values G* > 1 is
representative of displacement piles, for which a higher soil stiffness in the zone immediately around the
shaft may be expected; values of G* < 1, on the contrary, represent non-displacement piles.

On the basis of the available experimental evidence, Mandolini et al. (2005) found out that G* and R* may
be expected to fall in the range 0.5 to 3 and 3 to 5, respectively. In this range, the effect on the pile
stiffness is less than  20%.

7.2.2. Experiences
The findings mentioned above have been checked against the results of 125 proof static load tests carried
out on the following pile types:
- non.displacement (bored, with temporary casing or bentonite mud, CFA),
- small to large displacement (screw),
- driven (Franki).
2,0

a)
1,5
K0 / K

1,0

0,5
0,50
values of G*
3,00
0,0
1,0 10,0
extension of the disturbed zone, R*

2,0

b)
1,5
K0 / K

1,0

0,5
3,00
values of R*
5,00
0,0
0,1 1,0 10,0
change of soil stiffness along pile shaft, G*

Figure 3: Influence of (a) the extension R* of the disturbed zone; (b) the change G* of the soil stiffness

All the piles were cast in situ and installed in zones where the small strain shear stiffness G0 had been
deduced from shear waves velocity measurements.

In order to process the data in an objective and repeatable way, the initial axial pile stiffness K was
determined as the initial tangent of a hyperbola fitted to the first three points on the experimental load-
settlement curve. The results obtained are shown in Figure 4. The value of K has been normalised against
the axial stiffness Kc = d2Ep/(4Lc) of a column with a length equal to the critical length Lc =
1.5d(Ep/GL)1/2 (Fleming et al., 1992), beyond which any increase of the pile length causes little or no
increase of the pile stiffness. GL is the value of the soil shear modulus at a depth Lc; it follows that some
iterations are required in order to determine Lc.

235
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

As it can be seen, the values of the ratio K/Kc falls in the range 0.94 to 1.90 for all the piles (average
value ~ 1.4) with 16% < COV < 63%, average value ~ 35%). These findings convey essentially the same
message of Figure 3.

For a long time it has been claimed that the installation technique affects the axial stiffness of the piles
much less than their bearing capacity (Poulos, 1989; Viggiani, 1989, 1993; Randolph, 1994; Van Impe,
1994). The data collected in Table 10 and in Figures 3 and 4 seem to support this view and confirm that
the initial stiffness of the piles depends primarily on the small strain shear modulus of the soil (Mandolini,
1994; Randolph, 1994).

7.3. Rational procedure for the selection of proof piles

7.3.1. Background
Monitoring of the installation parameters is a common practice in some fields. An obvious example for
driven piles is the use of set measurements in driving formulas, and its evolution in the dynamic analyses
of pile driving.

An interesting developments about a rational use of the installation parameters recorded during the
installation of CFA piles is described below.
  2,0

1,5
K / KC

1,0

0,5

0,0
DRIVEN
DRIVEN
BORED
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA

80
COV(K / KC) [%]

60

40

20

0
DRIVEN
DRIVEN
BORED
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA

Figure 4 : Variability among piles belonging to the same foundation systems

As well known, during the insertion of the auger, the ratio between the rate of penetration (VP) and the
rate of revolution (n) is generally less than the pitch of the screw (p). The penetration thus involves both a
displacement and a removal of soil. If the volume of the soil removed during penetration is less than the
displaced volume, the net effect is a compression of the soil surrounding the pile; the resulting stress state
within the soil is somewhat intermediate between that of a bored pile and that of a driven one.

Viggiani (1989) defined a critical rate of penetration:

 d2 
VPcrit  n p  1  0  (7.3.1)
 d2 
 

where d is the overall diameter of the auger and d0 the outer diameter of the central hollow stem. If VP
and n satisfy eq. (7.3.1), during penetration the displaced volume equals the removed volume and the soil

236
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

surrounding the pile is not decompressed. If VP > VPcrit, that means if the index velocity Iv = VP/VPcrit later
introduced by Mandolini et al. (2002) is larger than 1, the removed volume is less than the displaced one
(net compression effect, similar to that of a displacement pile); if Iv = VP/VPcrit < 1, the opposite is true
(net decompression effect, similar to that of a non-displacement pile).

Viggiani (1989) found that, in order to satisfy condition (7.3.1) whatever torque MT is available, a
substantial vertical thrust is needed up to a certain depth; at increasing depth the thrust needed to advance
the auger tends to decrease and eventually vanishes. This finding agrees with the common experience of
screwing a screw into the wood: at the beginning a substantial thrust on the screwdriver is needed,
otherwise the wood is stripped, but once the screw has penetrated a sufficient depth, only a torque is
needed to continue the penetration.

If the equipment lacks sufficient thrust capacity, then VP falls below VPcrit. The auger acts partially as an
Archimedean pump, the soil surrounding the auger loosens and the penetration becomes possible; the
behaviour of the pile, however, approaches that of a non-displacement (bored) pile. Caputo & Viggiani
(1988) reported examples of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory behaviour. Later on, Viggiani (1993) and
Kenny et al. (2003) successfully interpreted those and other examples in the light of the above analysis.

Mandolini et al. (2002) analysed what happens during the extraction of the auger. Since the concrete is
pumped through the hollow stem at a prescribed rate VC, while the auger is retrieved at a rate VR, in a
given time interval t a volume of concrete QC = VCt is installed; while raising the auger, a nominal
volume (dN2VRt)/4 is left on place. The ratio between the volume of concrete and the nominal
volume is equal to 1.27VC / (dN2VR); if it is above unity, the effect is a lateral compression of the soil and
hence a better behaviour of the pile, but also over-consumption of concrete and cost increase (d > dN).

7.3.2. Experiences
In the occasion of the construction of a very huge treatment plant in an area close to Napoli, 3300 CFA
piles (60% with a nominal diameter dN = 0.80 m; 40% with a nominal diameter dN = 0.60 m; all piles with
a nominal length L = 24 m, for a total pile length to be installed of about 80 km and a gross concrete
volume of about 33000 m3) had to be installed in realtively uniform subsoil conditions. Starting from the
ground surface the following soils are found: (a) topsoil,  1 m thick; (b) alluvial soils of pyroclastic
origin tightly interbedded with organic silt layers,  20 m thick; (c) base formation of pozzolana to the
maximum investigated depth (50 m). The groundwater table fluctuates between 1.2 m and 1.6 m below
ground surface.

Within the context of a research programme established at Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
(Mandolini et al. 2002), apart from a very detailed geotechnical soil invenstigations (boreholes, CPTs,
cross-hole tests, laboratory tests on undisturbed sample), it was decided to develop an intense
experimental activity that included, among other:
- 3 static load tests on trial piles fully instrumented along the shaft in order to determine separately the
mobilization of the shaft and base resistances (Figure 5, Table 11); during their construction, all the
installation parameters were recorded (Figure 6, where also 3 representative CPT profiles are
included), both during the penetration (rate of revolution n, rate of penetration VP and torque MT) and
during the extraction of the screw (concrete flow QC and retrieval rate VR);
- 10 static load tests on production piles; as for trial piles, all the installation parameters were recorded;
- recording of the installation parameters for all the remaining production piles.

237
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

pile n° 1 pile n° 2 pile n° 3

5,0 5,0 5,0

4,0 4,0 4,0

load [MN]

3,0 3,0 3,0

total load
2,0 2,0 2,0 shaft load
base load
1,0 1,0 1,0

0,0 0,0 0,0

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

settlement, w [mm] settlement, w [mm] settlement, w [mm]

axial load, N [MN] axial load, N [MN] axial load, N [MN]

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
0 0 0

5 5 5

10 10 10
depth, z [m]

15 15 15

20 20 20

25 25 25

30 30 30

Figure 5: Load tests results: load-settlement curve (above) and axial load distribution along total pile
length (below).

Table 11: Main results of the three design static load tests on trial piles

Pile n° dN (m) L (m) Qmax (MN) wmax (mm) Pmax (MN) Smax (MN)
1 0.80 24.0 4.08 75.6 1.55 2.81
2 0.60 22.5 3.26 81.9 0.89 2.59
3 0.80 24.1 5.30 22.8 1.36 3.94

238
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

qc [MPa] n [r.p.m.] MT [kNm] V P [m/h] QC [m3/h] V R [m/h] d [m]

0,75

0,85

0,95
250

500

100
150

150
250
350
10
20
30

10

20

20

40

50

50
0

0
0
pile n° 1

10
depth [m]

20

V Pcri dN
30

qc [MPa] n [r.p.m.] MT [kNm] V P [m/h] QC [m3/h] V R [m/h] d [m]

0,55

0,65

0,75
250

500

100
150

150
250
350
10
20
30

10

20

20

40

50

50
0

0
0
pile n° 2

10
depth [m]

20

V Pcri dN
30

qc [MPa] n [r.p.m.] MT [kNm] V P [m/h] QC [m3/h] V R [m/h] d [m]

0,75

0,85

0,95
250

500

100
150

150
250
350
10

20

20

40

50

50
10
20
30

0
0

0
pile n° 3

10
depth [m]

20

V Pcri dN
30

Figure 6: Cone resistance (qc) profiles and parameters measured during the installation of three piles: n°
1 (total length LT = 25.5 m; embedded length L = 24 m; nominal diameter dN = 0.8 m), n° 2 (LT = 24 m;
L = 22.5 m; dN = 0.6 m) and n° 3 (LT = 25.1 m; L = 24.1 m; dN = 0.8 m)

All the collected experimental load test data on trial piles were interpreted in terms of maximum
measured values for unit shaft and base resistances (qs,max and qb,max, Table 12) by referring the
corresponding shaft and base loads (Table 11) to the actual pile diameter (Figure 6) as deduced form the
installation parameters recorded during the extraction of the auger (Mandolini et al., 2002):

0.5
Q 
d  1.13   C  (7.3.2)
 VR 

The validity of this simple equation was checked against the pile diameter as measured by extracting
drom the soil 10 trial piles.

Table 12: Empirical pile design coefficients

VP/VPcrit VP/VPcrit
Pile n° qs,lim (kPa) qb,lim (MPa) s (-) b (-)
shaft base
1 0.66 0.22 45 2.8 0.021 0.180
2 0.96 0.81 60 3.0 0.029 0.246
(1) (2)
3 1.05 0.29 68 2.9 0.031 0.184

239
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

(1): extrapolated value at w=4%d; (2): extrapolated value at w=10%d

The unit shaft resistance qs,lim and unit base resistance qb,lim in granular soils were then related to the
values of the cone penetration resistance qc by the following expressions:

q s, lim   s  q c, s (7.3.3)

q b,lim   b  q c,b (7.3.4)

where: s , b are empirical coefficients; qc,s is the average value of qc along the pile shaft down to a
depth z = L – 4d; qc,b is the average value of qc between the depths (L – 4d) and (L + d). The obtained
values of s and b are listed in Table 12 together with the values of the index velocity Iv = VP/VPcrit
averaged along the same depths.

In Figure 7 the obtained s and b coefficients are plotted against the corresponding values of Iv. As it
was to be expected, the larger is Iv (either along the shaft or at the base), the larger is the corresponding
coefficient . In the case under examination, an increase of nearly 50% has been observed on s and of
nearly 40% on b by simply adopting installation parameters leading to Iv  1.

Similar considerations were made with reference to the shear soil stiffness. In particular, by using the
method proposed by Randolph (1994) already mentioned in section 7.2.1, it was found a close
relationship among the index velocity Iv and the operative soil stiffness to be used in order to reproduce
the settlement under working loads. The results, expressed in terms of ratio between the operative soil
shear stiffness and the initial undisturbed value G0, yield to an index of stiffness IG = Gop/G0  0.180.30.

Results of this type suggest the possibility of moving from simply monitoring the installation of CFA
piles (a sort of ‘passive’ approach) to properly selecting installation parameters to get the desired
performance or target (‘active’ approach).

+40%
+50%

Figure 7: Relationships between  coefficients and the ratio VP/VPcrit

It has been also found that the volume of concrete supplied in the extraction stage plays a significant role
too: a proper graduation of concrete pumping rates can compensate soil loosening occurred in the
penetration stage and improve the performance of the piles, by increasing the pile diameter along the shaft
and/or at the base and the horizontal soil pressure on the shaft.

Based on all above, for the specific site it was established a clear and rational procedure to select
production piles to be tested for quality control. In particular:
a) all the recorded installation parameters were used to evaluate the probable failure load for each
production pile by using charts of Figure 7 and the actual pile diameter as deduced by eq. (7.3.2);
b) on the basis of the analogous relationship between the IG and Iv, the expected stiffness of each
production pile was estimated;
c) 10 out all piles with lower expected stiffness were then selected for proof static load tests.

240
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

In Figure 8 are reported the obtained values for the ratio between the measured and the predicted axial
pile stiffness (Q/w)m/Q/w)p. It is believed that the agreement is rather satisfactory: all the ratios range
between 0.67 and 1.15 with an average value  0.90.

1,4

1,2

1,0
[Q/w]m/[Q/w]p [‐]

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
159 331 405 451 468 532 670 882 916 929
production pile n°
Figure 8: Proof static load tests – ratio between the measured axial pile stiffness [Q/w]m and the precited
axial pile stiffness [Q/w]p

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
Let us consider the case of a square raft (width B = 10 m) at a depth D = 1.5 m, subjected to:
- unfavourable structural permanent load, G1 = 30 MN,
- unfavourable non structural permanent load, G2 = 10 MN,
- unfavourable variable load, Qk = 10 MN.

All the loads are centred, thus resulting in a total design action for ULS check (see Table 1):
E d, ULS   G1  G1k   G 2  G 2k   k  Q k  1.3  30  1.5  10  1.5  10  69 MN (8.1)

In order to not attain a serviceability limit state, it is required that under the quasi-permanent loads
combination the maximum settlement should not exceed an admissible value wadm = 65 mm.

The subsoil was investigated by a single borehole to a depth of 30 m from ground surface during which a
number of SPT were carried out. The collected information revealed that the subsoil is made by
cohesionless dry sand with unit soil weight  = 17 kn/m3 and friction angle  = 33° (assuming a
representative value for NSPT = 15).

According to EC7 Annex D.4, the calculated bearing capacity of the square raft Rcal,raft is:
B 10
R cal,raft  s q  N q   vD  s   N      1.65  26.09  17  1.5  0.70  32.59  17   303.7 MN (8.2)
2 2
where Nq and N are the bearing capacity factors, sq and s are the shape factors, vD is the effective
vertical stress acting at foundation depth D.

If DA.2 is adopted, ULS check against bearing capacity failure must be made by selecting R = 2.3 from
Table 3, thus yielding to a design value of the resistance for the raft Rd,R = Rcal,R/R = 303.7/2.3 = 132
MN. It follows that Rd,R > Ed,ULS.

The evaluation of the expected settlement can be made by using the well known method suggested by
Burland and Burbidge (1985) based on SPT results.

241
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

According to NTC 2008, SLS checks must be made by considering the quasi-permanent loads
combination (Ed,SLS = G1 + G2 + 21Qk = 46 MN, with 21 = 0.6). Assuming a lifetime for the structure t
= 50 years, for a uniform load q = 460 kPa the method gives an estimated settlement w = 132 mm > wadm.

This value corresponds to the settlement of a square raft resting on an homogeneous elastic half space
with an operative constant shear stiffness G = 11.3 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio  = 0.31.

From all above derives that the raft alone is able to satisfy ULS requirements but not SLS requirements.
Piles are therefore needed to only increase the overall foundation stiffness from that of the raft alone (KR
= Ed,SLS/w = 46/0.132 = 348 MN/m) to the target value Ed,SLS/wadm = 46/0.065 = 708 MN/m.

If non-displacement pile (bored cast in situ) is adopted with length L = 22 m and diameter d = 0.50 m, the
resulting shaft and base unit resistance can be evaluated as follows:

'
q s,lim  k  tg '   v  0.46  0.65  187  55.3 kPa (8.3)

q b,lim  N q   'vL  31.5  374  11768.7 kPa (8.4)

where k represents the value at failure of the ratio between the effective normal stress at pile shaft (n)
and the vertical effective stress (v), Nq is the pile bearing capacity.

For loose normally consolidated sandy soil and relatively good execution of a bored pile (no soil
disturbance) it is generally assumed k = k0 = 1 – sin; for Nq, the value suggested by Beretzantzev et al.
(1961) was selected after having reduced the friction angle by 3° according to Kishida (1967).

By integrating the unit resistance over the relevant surface, the following calculated axial pile resistance
is found:

R c;cal  R s;cal  R b;cal  1911  2311  4222 kN (8.5)

Since the correlation factor 3 = 4 = 1.70 (number of profiles n = 1), the characteristic values for the shaft
and base resistances are:

R s;cal 55.3    0.50  22 1991

R s; k     1124 kN (8.6)
 1.7 1.7
R b; cal 11768.7    0.502 / 4 2311
R b; k     1359 kN (8.7)
 1.7 1.7

The design value of the axial resistance Rc;d is then obtained (Table 5):

R s; k R b; k 1124 1359
R c;d      977  1007  1984 kN (8.8)
s b 1.15 1.35

Assuming that the axial resistance of a single pile is not affected by the proximity of other piles
(efficiency at failure  = 1  design axial resistance of pile group Rc;d,G = NRc;d) and that all the load is
transferred to the soil by only piles (no contribution of the raft-soil contact  pile group behaviour), the
minimum number Nmin of piles is given by:

 E d, ULS 
  INT
69000 
N min  INT   35 (8.9)
 R cd   1984 

If a regular square pile arrangement is considered at constant pile-pile spacing, 36 piles have to be
installed at a spacing s = 1.8 m (Figure 9).

242
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

s = 1.8 m

B = 10 m

Figure 9: Layout of the foundation neglecting the contribution of the raft-soil contact (pile group)

The axial stiffness of a single pile Kax,s can be estimated by using the well known method proposed by
Randolph and Wroth (1978). As a first order approximation, by considering the pile as rigid the following
formula can be used:
 2 2 L 
K ax ,s  G  d       328.4 MN/m (8.10)
1   d 

where  = ln[5(1 – )L/d] = 5.02 is the load transfer flexibility factor.

For a pile subjected to an average load derived from the quasi-permanent loads combination (Qav =
Ed,SLS/N = 46/36 = 1.28 MN), the settlement of the single pile is ws = Qav/Kax,s = 3.9 mm.

Due to pile-pile interaction, the axial stiffness of the group Kax,G will be smaller than that of single pile.
For its evaluation, reference can be made to the solution given by Butterfield and Douglas (1981):

K ax , G  K ax ,s  N 1 a  (8.11)

where the coefficient a depends on the total number of piles (N), slenderness ratio (L/d = 44), Poisson’s
ratio ( = 0.31), spacing ratio (s/d = 3.6), pile-soil relative stiffness ( = Ep/GL = ) and homogeneity
factor ( = GL/2/GL = 1). For the case under examination, a = 0.627 and Kax,G = 1249 MN/m, thus
resulting in a pile group settlement wG = Ed,SLS/Kax,G = 46/1249 = 36 mm < wadm (SLS verified).

If the decision is taken to consider raft contribution, preliminary evaluation can be made by the simple
PDR method (Poulos, 2000) resulting from those methods proposed by Poulos and Davis (1980) and by
Randolph (1994). In its original form, PDR method is based on a tri-linear load-settlement relationship
(Figure 10) because of the following assumptions:
load
B
RPR

QA A

piles + raft
"elastic"
pile resistance fully mobilized pile and raft resistances
raft "elastic" fully mobilized

settlement

Figure 10: Tri-linear curve for PDR method

243
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

- piles and raft behave linearly elastic until failure;

- the raft is subjected to a vertical centred load and is very stiff, hence only a uniform vertical
displacement occurs.

The point A represents the point at which the pile group resistance Rc,cal,G is fully mobilized: for load Q ≤
QA the settlement of the piled raft wPR will be given by:

Q
w PR  (8.12)
K ax , PR

while, for Q > QA

QA Q  QA
w PR   (8.13)
K ax , PR K ax , R

with Kax,PR = axial stiffness of the piled raft, and Kax,R = axial stiffness of the raft alone.

According to Randolph (1994), for Q ≤ QA the stiffness Kax,PR and the proportion pr = QG/Q of the load
carried by piles can be evaluated as follows:
 K ax , R 
1  0.60   
 K ax , G 
X   (8.14)
 K ax , R 
1  0.64   
 K ax , G 
 

0.20 K ax , R
  (8.15)
 K ax , R  K ax , G
1  0.80   
 K ax , G 
 
K ax , PR  X  K ax , G (8.16)

1
 pr  (8.17)
1 

From the latter equation is possible to obtain QA = Rc;cal,G/pr = N Rc;cal/pr. If a 9 pile group is considered
(pile spacing s = 4.5 m, Figure 11), the axial pile group stiffness will differ from that previously evaluated
because of the change in pile spacing ratio s/d = 9. It follows that:

E d ,SLS 46
Q av    5.11 MN  Q av  R c;cal (8.18)
N 9
a  0.484  K ax , G  1021 MN/m (8.19)

X  1.02  K ax , PR  X  K ax , G  1039 MN/m (8.20)

1 N  R c;cal 9  4.322
  0.094   pr   0.91  Q A    41.6 MN (8.21)
1   pr 0.91

Since QA is smaller than the considered load for SLS check (46 MN), the settlement of the piled raft must
be evaluated by eq. (8.13):

QA Q  Q A 41.6 4.4
w PR      40  13  53 mm (8.22)
K ax , PR K ax , R 1039 348

244
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

If it is believed that a better solution is that with piles not exceeding their calculated axial resistance, it is
preferable to consider 16 piles at spacing s = 3 m (s/d = 6). In this case:
E d ,SLS 46
Q av    2.88 MN  R s;cal  Q av  R c;cal (8.23)
N 16
a  0.514  K ax , G  1171 MN/m (8.24)

X  1.01  K ax , PR  X  K ax , G  1188 MN/m (8.25)

1 N  R c;cal 16  4.322
  0.078   pr   0.93  Q A    72.8 MN (8.26)
1   pr 0.93

Q 46
w PR    39 mm (8.27)
K ax , PR 1188

s = 4.5 m

B = 10 m

Figure 11: Layout of the foundation considering the contribution of the raft-soil contact (piled raft)

If it is believed that a better solution is that with piles not exceeding their calculated shaft resistance, it is
preferable to consider 25 piles at spacing s = 2.25 m (s/d = 4.5). In this case:
E d,SLS 46
Q av    1.84 MN  Q av  R s;cal (8.28)
N 25
a  0.590  K ax ,G  1229 MN/m (8.29)

X  1.01  K ax ,PR  X  K ax ,G  1246 MN/m (8.30)

1 N  R c;cal 25  4.322
  0.073   pr   0.93  Q A    113.3 MN (8.31)
1   pr 0.93

Q 46
w PR    37 mm (8.32)
K ax ,PR 1246
As it can be seen, in all the examined cases the addition of piles underneath a raft with adequate margin
against bearing capacity failure (Ed,SLU < Rd,R  piles as ‘settlement reducers’) decreases the settlement
below the admissible value (65 mm). Depending on the designer’s assumption in terms of degree of
mobilization for shaft and base resistance, different solutions can be found, ranging from the traditional
one (pile group design approach  no contribution of the raft-soil contact  36 piles  wG = 36 mm,
average load on piles < Rc;d) to innovative ones based on the ‘piled raft concept’ (9 piles  wPR = 53 mm,
pile resistance fully mobilized; 16 piles  wPR = 39 mm, shaft resistance fully mobilized; 25 piles  wPR
= 37 mm, shaft resistance partially mobilized), thus allowing for a substantial saving.

245
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

REFERENCES
AGI (1979a). Some Italian experiences on the mechanical characterization of structurally complex
formation. Proc. 4th Int. Cong. Rock Mech., vol. 1, p. 827

AGI (1979b). Experiences on the time-settlement behaviour of some Italian soft clays. Proc. 7th
E.C.S.M.F.E., vol. 1, 1

Berezantzev, V.C., Khristoforov V. and Golubkov V. (1961). Load bearing capacity and deformation of
piled foundations. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 11–15.

Burland, J.B. and Burbidge, M.C. (1985). Settlement of Foundations on Sand and Gravel. Proc.
Institution of Civil Engineers, part I, vol. 78, 1325-1381

Butterfield, R. and R.A. Douglas (1981). Flexibility coefficients for the design of piles and pile groups.
CIRIA Technical Note 108

Caputo, V. and Viggiani, C. (1988). Some experiences with bored and auger piles in Naples area. Proc. I
International Geotech. Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, 273-
282

D.M. 14.01.2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Suppl. Ord. alla G.U. 04-02-2008 n. 29
Kenny, M.J., Guasti, S. and Zsak, P. (2003). Continuous flight auger boring in sandy soils. BGA Int.
Conf. on Foundations: Innovations, observations, design and practice. Thomas Telford, London, 434-441

Kishida, H. (1967). Bearing capacity of piles driven in loose sand. Soil and Foundations, 7(3) 20-29
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph M.F. and Elson W.K. (1992). Piling Engineering. 2nd edition,
Blackie A&P

Mandolini, A. (1994). Cedimenti di fondazioni su pali. Ph. D. Thesis. Consorzio tra le Università di Roma
La Sapienza e Napoli Federico II

Mandolini A. (1997). Design of axially loaded piles – Italian practice. Proc. ERTC3 International
Seminar, Brussels 17-18 april 1997, F. de Cock & C. Legrand Editor, 219-242, A.A. Balkema Rotterdam
Mandolini, A., Russo, G. and Viggiani, C. (2002). Full scale loading tests on instrumented CFA piles.
Deep Foundation Congress, GeoInstitute of the ASCE, Orlando, Florida, 1088-1096

Mandolini A., Russo G., Viggiani C. (2005). Pile foundations: experimental investigations, analysis and
design. Proc. XVI ICSMFE, vol. 1, 177-213, Osaka, Japan

National Application Document (2013). Appendice Nazionale Italiana alla UNI EN 1997-1:2005 –
Parametri adottati a livello nazionale per la progettazione geotecnica. Suppl. Ord. alla G.U. 27-03-2013
n. 21

Poulos, H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour – theory and application. Géotechnique, 39(3), 365-415

Poulos, H.G. (2000). Practical design procedures for piled raft foundations. Design applications of raft
foundations, Hemsley J.A. Editor, Thomas Telford, 425-467

Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons, New York

Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. XIII Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, 5, 61-82

Randolph, M.F. and Clancy, P. (1993). Efficient design of piled rafts. Proc. II International Geotech.
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, 119-130

Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. Journal of the
Geotech. Eng. Div., 104, GT 12, 1465 – 1488

246
 ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Van Impe, W.F. (1994). Influence of screw pile installation parameters on the overall pile behaviour. Int.
Workshop on Piled Foundations: Experimental investigations, Analysis and Design, Naples, 13-56

Viggiani, C. (1989). Influenza dei fattori tecnologici sul comportamento dei pali. XVII Convegno di
Geotecnica AGI, Taormina, 2, 83-91

Viggiani, C. (1993). Further experiences with auger piles in Naples area. Proc. II International Geotech.
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, 445-455

247
248
 Report of Eurocode 7 application for pile foundation design in Poland
Kazimierz Gwizdała, Gdansk University of Technology, Poland, [email protected]

Adam Krasiński, Gdansk University of Technology, Poland, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The EC7 rules of geotechnical design are in use in Poland for several years, even though there is no
National annex. With regard to pile foundations, there are valid EC7 recommendations concerning
design approaches, load partial coefficients, correlation coefficients and capacity partial coefficients.
Polish designers can be quite flexible when it comes to choose a method for static bearing capacity and
settlement calculations. However, all these methods have to meet the Eurocode 7 requirements, be based
on physic, soil mechanics and general mechanics laws and come from a recognized source (revised
publications, books, codes e.t.c.) or have a strong experimental documentation.
In this report, main general rules and methods of pile foundation design, construction and examination
were discussed.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Most of the Polish territories were several times covered with glaciations during the Pleistocene era. Most
extensive and the oldest glaciation – South Poland (Cracow), reached the foothills of the Carpathians and
the Sudeten. The younger glaciation – Central Poland and Baltic, included smaller areas (Fig.1) The mass
of ice passing through Poland had a significant impact on the shape of ground surface and the sludge
properties. The quaternary cover more than 90% of Poland. There are Holocene and Pleistocene
sediments reaching out to different depths - from 10 m to over 100 m.

Figure 1: Geological map of Poland

Holocene formations occur mainly in river and lakes valleys and lowland plains. They are made of:
- sediment of marine accumulation (sands),
- sediment of aeolian accumulation (sands),
- sediment of river and lake accumulation in the form of dust, silt, sand and organic soil (peat, silts,
gyttjas and land caries).
Pleistocene sediments are commonly found on the surface and locally under the Holocene formations at a
depth of 10 m to 30 m below the surface. These formations are made of:

249
- sediment of river and fluvioglacial accumulation (sand and gravel)
- sediment of dammed lake accumulation (clays, silts, sands)
- front moraine formations (boulders, gravels, clays)
- bottom moraine formations (clays and silts)
- aeolian accumulation formations (loess and loess-based).
In large areas of central and southern parts of Poland characteristic sediments are present – Pleistocene
clays, which in most cases are highly consolidated and show expansive properties (eg. Poznan,
Bydgoszcz, Warsaw clays). While in the southern parts of the country, clays have a lower degree of
consolidation and various expansive properties (Krakowiec clays – expansive and Wrocław clay – non
expansive properties).

In the south, in upland and at the foot of mountain areas on the ground surface are exposed older massive
Tertiary rocks - Miocene and Oligocene (marl, limestone, sandstone, shale) and Mesozoic and Paleozoic
igneous and metamorphic rocks, together with aeolian clay and silty rubble and marl rubble).

In Poland, pile foundations are mainly used in the areas where the upper layers consist of Holocene
formations, especially organic soils and unconsolidated mineral soils. Such areas in the country is quite
a lot. Pile and piled raft solutions are also applied for heavy objects, high-rise buildings and bridges,
where Pleistocene soils (mainly clays) are present. There are some difficulties with the large diameter
bored piles application in expansive Krakowiec clays.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
In Poland, boreholes and probing are still the dominant method for subsoil recognizing. In recent years,
static penetration tests (CPT, CPTU, SCPTU) became more popular. They gradually displace dynamic
probe testing. Dilatometric tests DMT are also increasingly performed. Pressuremeter tests (PMT) did not
get so far a significant recognition in Poland and SPT also gets less popular. Mechanical soil parameters
(M, E, c', ϕ', c u ), are most often obtained from empirical correlations of CPT(U) and DMT tests, less on
the basis of laboratory tests (triaxial and oedometer). This takes place especially for pile foundation
design, where the accuracy of soil parameters determination is not that important. For the first and second
geotechnical category, soil properties are very often taken from tables and recommendations prepared and
determined on the basis of many years experiences. A serious drawback in Poland is too little range of
ground investigation during the design and construction stages, as well as inadequate methodology of
such investigation for a chosen foundation type.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY
Currently only modern pile technologies are generally used in Poland, mostly due to their economic
competitiveness and technical advantages. The choice of piles technology is mainly determined by
ground and terrain conditions, as well as the type and parameters of designed building.
Commonly used in Poland are following pile technologies:
a) driven displacement piles, concrete precast and monolithic or steel and wooden,
b) Continuous Flight Auger (CFA),
c) screw displacement piles, formed in the ground,
d) bored large diameter piles (cased or drilled in bentonite suspension),
e) jet grouting piles,
f) micropiles.
Ad a) Precast concrete driven piles are still very popular in Poland and used for foundation of cubature
and engineering structures (eg. residential buildings, bridges, wind turbines). Instead of concrete
driven piles in hydrotechnical marine and inland structures, more often steel pipe or box piles with
closed or open end (according to ground conditions) are applied. Driven piles formed in the
ground (Vibro-Fundex or Franki) due to greater competitiveness of other technologies are
increasingly less used in Poland.
Ad b) Popularity of CFA piles in Poland is growing systematically, together with development of
techniques for their execution and knowledge of the nature of their work in the ground. Experience
has showed that CFA piles work well in cohesive soils and in such conditions are most often used,
even for the bridge foundations. While avoiding the usage of CFA piles in saturated fine sands and
silts due to the high risk of loosening the soil around the pile.
Ad c) Screw displacement piles are highly competitive and therefore very widespread in Poland, as in
other countries in Europe and the world. However, they are used mainly for foundation of small

250
 cubature constructions, especially in urban areas and primarily as columns to improve the subsoil
beneath road embankments and storage yards. Due to problems with the performance of this type
of piles as inclined and to obtain larger depth in the bearing ground, they are not used in bridges
constructions. The most popular types in Poland are SDP, FDP and Screwsol. On the other hand
‘Atlas’ piles recently loose popularity.
Ad d) Bored piles are now performed almost exclusively as large diameter piles, from 1000 mm to 1500
mm (1800 mm). They are still very popular as bridge foundations, particularly large bridges over
rivers and in rocky subgrades (soft and cracked rocks), also as piled raft foundations for high-rise
buildings. In most cases, large diameter piles come with grouting under the pile base, what
effectively reduces their settlements.
Ad e) Jet grouting technology is rarely used as a typical pile foundation technology. They are applied in
specific ground conditions and in places inaccessible to other equipment. Most often they are used
to stabilize the foundations of existing buildings in the vicinity of deep excavations.
Ad f) Micropiles are frequently performed as steel rods drilled in the grout slurry. They are commonly
used in Poland for small engineering objects, for example retaining walls and power poles, where
piles are predicted to be highly uplifted. Very often applied as nailing for slopes, excavation walls
and anchors for constructions loaded with water buoyancy.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
So far, for the Eurocode 7 there has been no National Annex developed. The basic European version
principles and recommendations apply, it also has been published in Polish language.

In 2012, from the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy came out a regulation
determining geotechnical conditions for buildings foundation. The regulation sets out criteria for
determining the types of soil condition and geotechnical category of buildings in comply with the EC7. It
also introduces a principle of three-stage geotechnical documentation preparation (Stage I – geotechnical
opinion, stage II - documentation of ground exploration with possible geological engineering
documentation, stage III - geotechnical project), specifying the requirements for contents of each
document. In relation to the first geotechnical category it is sufficient to realize only the first stage - the
preparation of geotechnical opinion. However, usage of pile foundation technology is classified in Poland
for the second or third geotechnical category.

With regard to the regulation of pile technologies, there are the following standards in Poland:
- PN-EN 1536:2010E. Execution of special geotechnical works. Drilled piles.
- PN-EN 12699:2015-06. Execution of special geotechnical works. Displacement piles.
- PN-EN 14199:2015-07. Execution of special geotechnical works. Micropiles.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7
The EC7 rules of geotechnical design are in use in Poland for several years, even though there is no
National annex. With regard to pile foundations, there are valid EC7 recommendations concerning design
approaches, load partial coefficients γ G and γ Q , correlation coefficients ξ 1 to ξ 6 and capacity partial
coefficients γ b , γ s , γ t , γ s;t (Kłosiński, 2012; Sobala, 2012).
According to the Polish Codes Committee (PKN) for geotechnical design calculation (including pile
foundations) the design approach 2 (DA2, DA2*) is used with A1"+"M1"+"R2 coefficients combination.

Polish designers can be quite flexible when it comes to choose a method for static, bearing capacity and
settlement calculations. However, all these methods have to meet the Eurocode 7 requirements, be based
on physic, soil mechanics and general mechanics laws and come from a recognized source (revised
publications, books, codes e.t.c.) or have a strong experimental documentation.

For pile capacity determination, the method based on the Polish Code PN/B-02482 is still mainly used,
however it is adopted to the EC7 and always verified by static pile load tests (SPLT). At the same time,
new methods, mostly based on “in situ” data (e.g. CPTU) are being developed and published. For larger
structures also observation method is commonly applied.

251
With regard to static calculation of pile foundations, more attention is paid to static scheme that would
reflect a real structure behavior, to do so, advanced computer and numerical tools are being used (i.e.
FEM). Analytical methods, such as rigid cap method, are used only in a very simple cases.
Recently a new way to design and calculate of pile foundations is being analysed in Poland, where the
pile capacity is considered as a nonlinear load-settlement characteristic.

5.1. Calculation of pile bearing capacity (ULS)

In the analytical methods, typical equations are used:
- for a compression pile:
Rc;cal = Rb;cal + Rs ;cal = Ab ⋅ qb + ∑ As ;i ⋅ qs ;i (1)

- for a tension pile:

Rt ;cal = ∑ As ;i ⋅ qst ;i (2)

All the symbols used are in compatibility with the EC7.

Characteristic value of pile bearing capacity is determined by using the correlation coefficients:
Rc;k = Rb;k + Rs ;k (3)

(R ) (R )  (R ) (R ) 
where: Rs ;k = min  s ,cal mean ; s ,cal min  ; Rb;k = min  b,cal mean ; b,cal min  (4)
 ξ3 ξ4   ξ3 ξ4 
Design value of bearing capacity of piles is determined by using partial coefficients:
Rs ; k Rb;k Rc ;k Rt ;k
Rc ;d = + or Rc ;d = and Rt ;d = (5a, 5b)
γs γb γt γ t ;s

5.1.1. Pile bearing capacity determination according to PN-83/B-02482 in compa-tibility

with EC7
After modification of the Polish Code, bearing capacity of compressing pile can be determined from:
Rc;cal = Rb;cal + Rs ;cal = S b ⋅ Ab ⋅ qb + ∑ S s ;i ⋅ As ;i ⋅ qs ;i (6)

And for a tension pile, from:

Rt ;cal = ∑ S st ;i ⋅ As ;i ⋅ qs ;i (7)

In the above equations S b , S s;i , S st;i are a technology coefficients, which depend on a chosen pile
technology and the soil type and density. Values of these coefficients are given in detail in the Codes
table (see also Gwizdała, 1997). Generally, for bored piles coefficients S b , S s;i take values of 0,5-0,8 and
for driven piles of 1,0-1,4. Coefficient S st;i for tension piles take values of 0,5-0,8. Some of the new pile
technologies, like CFA and screw displacement piles (SDP) are not presented in the Polish Code.
Unit values of soil base and shaft resistances q b and q s are given in the Code tables, according to the soil
type and density. These values correlate to the pile settlement equal to 2-3% of its diameter. To adapt the
EC7 recommendation (where ultimate bearing capacity of pile correlates to the settlement equal to 10%
of a pile diameter), q b and q s values were 25% increased (Sobala, 2012, 2014). Values of q b and q s are
given in the Tables 1 and 2. The values of q b and q s taken in equations (6) and (7) must be interpolated
with depth, according to the scheme given in Fig. 2.

Table 1: Unit base resistance q b (kPa)

Type of soil I D = 1.00 I D = 0.67 I D = 0.33 I D = 0.20

Gr, saGr 9700 6400 3750 2450
CSa, MSa 7300 4500 2700 1800
FSa 5150 3400 2050 1300
siSa 4200 2650 1450 850
I L < 0, w = 0 I L = 0, w = w p I L = 0.50 I L = 0.75
clsiGr, clsisaGr, clGr 5200 3450 2050 1050

252
 Type of soil I D = 1.00 I D = 0.67 I D = 0.33 I D = 0.20
clsiSa, saclSi, clSi 3450 2450 1050 550
sasiCl, siCl, saCl, Cl 3500 2450 1000 500
saSi, Si 2300 1550 650 300

Table 2: Ultimate shaft resistance q s (kPa)

Type of soil I D = 1.00 I D = 0.67 I D = 0.33 I D = 0.20

Gr, saGr 205 135 95 74
CSa, MSa 165 95 60 43
FSa 125 78 39 28
siSa 94 56 31 20
I L < 0, w = 0 I L = 0, w = w p I L = 0.50 I L = 0.75
clsiGr, clsisaGr, clGr 165 120 84 55
clsiSa, saclSi, clSi 120 63 39 18
sasiCl, siCl, saCl, Cl 120 63 31 14
saSi, Si 81 38 20 9
Mud 60 22 0 0

Figure 2: Interpolation of the q b and q s resistances with depth

The interpolation level h z presented in Fig.1 can be estimated from:

hz = 0.65 ⋅
∑h ⋅γi i (8)
γn
where: ∑h ⋅γ i i
– total weight of soils above the first bearing layer,
γ n – unit weight of the first bearing layer, transferring load from the pile.
When there is no weak soils (causing a negative skin friction), the interpolation level can be adopted as
a ground level (h z = 0).
Critical depth h c for q b resistance can be estimated from:
D [m]
a) for driven piles in non-cohesive soils: hc = 10 ⋅ (9)
D0

253
 D [m]
b) for bored piles in non-cohesive soils: hc* = 1.3 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (10)
D0

c) for piles in cohesive and loose non-cohesive soils: h c = 10 m, regardless the pile diameter and
technology.
In the given equations D 0 is a reference diameter of pile, equal to D 0 = 0.4 m.
Critical depth h s for q s resistance is assumed as h s = 5 m in all cases.
Characteristic values of bearing capacity R b;k and R s;k are given from the following formulas:

1 (R ) (R )  1 (R ) (R ) 
Rs ;k = ⋅ min  s ,cal mean ; s ,cal min  ; Rb;k = ⋅ min  b ,cal mean ; b ,cal min  (11)
γ Rd  ξ3 ξ4  γ Rd  ξ3 ξ4 

where model coefficient has a value of γ Rd = 1,25 for a signle-pile foundation, γ Rd = 1,12 for two-pile
foundation and γ Rd = 1,00 for foundation supported on minimum 3 piles.
Design value of pile bearing capacity is estimated from the equations (5a, 5b).

5.1.2. Vibro and large diameter piles capacity determination based on CPT(U)
A solution for Vibro and large diameter piles capacity determination based on the CPT(U) results was
presented by Gwizdała & Stęczniewski (2007). They suggested that the ultimate capacity for compressive
pile can be calculated from equation (6), where the unit resistances q b and q s;i are:
qcs ;i
qb = ψ 1 ⋅ qc ; qs ;i = (12, 13)
ψ 2;i
where:
qc , qcs ;i - representative CPT cone resistance values equivalent to the base and shaft of the pile at the "i"
soil layer,
ψ 1 , ψ 2;i – capacity coefficients for the base and shaft of the pile at the "i" soil layer.

The representative value of qc is determined by a weighted average of the depth range (l 1 + l 2 ), where l 1
is a section measured from the pile base up and a l 2 – section measured from the pile base down.
The length of each section should be taken as follows:
- scheme I: l 1 = 4D b , l 2 = 1D b – when the pile base is located in a uniform soil,
- scheme II: l 1 = 2D b , l 2 = 4D b – when the pile base is located in a non-uniform soil and the soil
underneath the base is weaker than above,
- scheme III: l 1 = 4D b , l 2 = 4D b – when the pile base is located in a non-uniform soil, the base is located
in a strong soil and in the section (-4D b , +4D b ) from the base level, weaker soils exist.
D b is a pile base diameter.
The value of qcs ;i is determined by a weighted average of the "i" soil layer with the height h i .
Bearing capacity coefficients ψ 1 i ψ 2 are taken from the table 3 i 4.

Table 3: Bearing capacity coefficients ψ 1 i ψ 2 for the Vibro piles

Coefficient ψ 1 Coefficient ψ 2
Soil type Range of qc Formula Soil type Range of qcs Formula
All ≤ 4 MPa ψ 1 = 1.0 clSi, saclSi, 0.5 ÷ 12 MPa  qcs 
clsiSa ψ 2 = 18.0 ⋅   + 9.4

 pref 
All 4 ÷ 40 MPa  q 
−0 , 455 siSa 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
ψ 1 = 1.9 ⋅  c  ψ 2 = 10.3 ⋅   + 82.6

 pref   pref 
FSa 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
ψ 2 = 7.0 ⋅   + 86.3

 p ref 

254
 Coefficient ψ 1 Coefficient ψ 2
Soil type Range of qc Formula Soil type Range of qcs Formula
MSa, CSa 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
ψ 2 = 5.9 ⋅   + 58.6

 pref 
p ref = 1.0 MPa

Table 4: Bearing capacity coefficients ψ 1 i ψ 2 for the large diameter bored piles

Coefficient ψ 1 Coefficient ψ 2
Range of qcs
Soil type Range of qc Formula Soil type Formula
and D
All 10 ÷ 40 MPa qc siSa 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
ψ 1 = 0,177 − 0,001 ⋅ ψ 2 = 12.4 ⋅   + 110
pref p 
 ref 
FSa 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
ψ 2 = 9.4 ⋅   + 88

 pref 
MSa, 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
CSa D < 1.5 m ψ 2 = 6.3 ⋅   + 69

 p ref 
MSa, 4 ÷ 40 MPa  qcs 
CSa D ≥ 1.5 m ψ 2 = 10.3 ⋅   + 126

 pref 
p ref = 1.0 MPa, D - pile diameter

5.1.3. Bearing capacity of screw displacement piles in non-cohesive soils based on CPT
results
A proposal for bearing capacity determining of screw displacement piles (SDP) in non-cohesive soils
based on CPT(U) results was presented by Krasiński (2012). The method was developed on over 20 static
load tests of instrumented piles, which were carried out together with CPT tests of soils. It is
recommended for glacial fine and medium, fully saturated sands. Obtained correlations between the unit
soil resistances q b and q s and equivalent cone resistances q cb and q cs are given in Fig.3.

Figure 3: Relations q s;ult /q cs i q b;ult /q cb in function of equivalent values of cone resistances q cs i q cb

Same as before, the ultimate capacity of a screw displacement pile can be estimated from equation (6),
where the unit resistance q b and q s;i are given as below:
0 ,16 0 , 23
q  q 
qb;ult = 2475 ⋅  cb  [kPa] ; qs;ult ;i = 65 ⋅  cs ;i  [kPa] (14, 15)
p  p 
 ref   ref 
where:
q cb , q cs - equivalent values of the cone resistance of CPT obtained from the penetration graph according
to the scheme in Fig. 4.
p ref – reference value of stress equal to 1.0 MPa.

255
In equations (14) and (15) the values of q cb and q cs;i should be given in MPa and in the ranges of:
qcs ∈ (10 ÷ 25) [MPa] and qcb ∈ (10 ÷ 30) [MPa] (16)

When the depth of pile installation in a bearing soil h N (Fig. 4) is lower than 5D, a reduction of capacity
has to be taken into account by using coefficient h hN :
h
Rc;cal = h hN ⋅ ( Rb;cal + Rs ;cal ) ; where h hN = 0.4 + 0.6 ⋅ N ≤ 1.0 (17, 18)
5D

Figure 4: Calculation scheme of the equivalent cone resistances q cs i q cb

Due to more aligned work characteristic of screw displacement piles (when compared to the other pile
technologies) and the possibility of soil conditions control (by recording the installation resistance), the
values of correlation coefficients are taken slightly lower than the values given in the Tab. A.10 of
Eurocode 7.

Table 5: Correlation coefficients ξ 3 and ξ 4 values (n – number of CPT profiles)

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
ξ3 1.30 1.25 1.21 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.13
ξ4 1.25 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.05 1.00 1.00

5.2. Negative skin friction

Negative friction is taken into account in the calculation if there are circumstances of its occurrence.
These include three basic situations:
- piles pass through a layer of fresh unconsolidated embankments,
- it is expected to be a significant ground burden near the pile foundation
- it is expected or there is a risk of lowering the groundwater table.
In the case of pile foundations under the raft or beam-grids with the floor supported by the grids, the
negative friction in piles is usually neglected.

In the weak soils (organic or loose embankments), negative skin friction can be assumed as
f n = 5 ÷ 10 kPa, regardless the depth. In the high resistant soils negative skin friction is calculated the
same way as for the positive friction with coefficient equal to 0.6 and with the interpolation from the
ground level up the depth of 5 m. Characteristic value of negative friction in a single pile can not exceed
the weight of its share volume of ground causing negative friction.

5.3. Bearing capacity of pile group

In the case of piles driven into loose sand (I D < 0.33) bearing capacity of pile group is equal to the sum of
individual piles bearing capacity when the pile spacing r ≥ 4D. When the spacing r has a value between
3D ÷ 4D bearing capacity of pile group can be increased by 15% in relation to the sum of individual piles
bearing capacity. The increase can be taken as 30% when r < 3D.

The bearing capacity of pile group can not exceed the capacity of an alternative block foundation, which
dimensions are defined by the pile outer contour and the depth is on the pile bases level.
In other cases, bearing capacity of pile group is equal or less than the sum of individual piles capacity.

256
Bearing capacity of pile group is less than the sum of individual piles capacity, when the impact zones of
adjacent piles overlap (Fig. 5).
Radius R of the pile impact zones in the soil in case of:
D
- compression pile is: R = + ∑ hi ⋅ tgα i (19)
2
D
- tension pile is: R = + 0.1 ⋅ ∑ hi (20)
2
The values of α i depend on the soil type, as usually equal to 4° - 7° (given in the Code’s table).

Figure 5: Soil impact zones of piles

Bearing capacity of single pile in a group in case of:

- compressive pile is: Rcg ;cal = Rb;cal + m1 ⋅ Rs ;cal (21)

- tension pile is: Rtg ;cal = m1 ⋅ Rt ;cal (22)

where: reduction coefficient m 1 is taken from the Code’s table, depending on the r/R ratio and it takes
values from 0.45 to 1.0.
For the boundary piles in the group, coefficient m 1 should be adjust:
- for the edge piles: m1;e = 0.75 ⋅ m1 + 0.25 (23)
- for the corner piles: m1;c = 0.5 ⋅ m1 + 0.5 (24)

5.4. Settlement of piles and pile foundations (SLS)

Due to the main assumption that settlement of pile foundations are usually small, the determination of pile
settlement at designing process is generally performed only in special cases. In Poland however,
importance of such a calculations for the whole static analysis of pile foundations becomes more and
more conscious. Piles displacement, together with the deformation of foundation structure (slab or cap
structure) has a significant influence on the force and bending moments distribution in the upper
structure. Thus, the description and prediction of load-settlement behavior and then use it in
a construction design becomes more popular.

257
5.4.1. Load-transfer functions method
To predict a single pile settlement characteristic most commonly transfer functions method is used
(Gwizdała, 1996). In the calculation procedure, pile is considered as a bar, divided into a number of
sections, usually with a constant longitudinal stiffness EA. Soil is represented by a springs distributed
along the pile shaft and one single spring underneath the pile base (Fig. 6).
Springs are described by non-linear transfer functions q s -z and q b -z. When the load-settlement
characteristic is being determined only in reference to the bearing soil, the springs should be placed only
in the bearing soil layers in lower part of the pile.

Figure 6: Pile–soil interaction scheme in the load-transfer functions method

Calculation process involves the application of pile head displacement increments and iterative
determination of forces in each of the springs. Iteration is continued until the assumed convergence is
reached. As a final result a full load-displacement curve Q-s is obtained. It can be divided into two
separate graphs, regarding the pile base resistance Q b -s b and the pile shaft resistance Q s -s s (Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Load–settlement curves obtained from the transfer functions method

In the case when the pile core shortening is neglected, calculation does not require any iteration.
Transfer functions can be adopted as given by Gwizdała (1996) and expressed by relations:

β α
s  for q b ≤ q b;f s  for q s ≤ q s;max
qβ = qβ; f  β  and qs = qs ;mαx  s  (25, 26)
z 
 f   zv 

258
where: α – exponent of q s -z function, which takes the values of 0.3÷0.5;
z v – pile shaft displacement, for which the maximum soil friction resistance q s;max is mobilized;
z v usually takes the values of 5mm or 0.01D;
β – exponent of q b -z function, usually equal to 0.25÷0.6;
z f – pile base displacement, for which the ultimate soil resistance under the base q b;f is
mobilized; it takes the values of 0.05D to 0.10D.
The maximum q s;max and ultimate q b;f resistances can be defined for example by the methods described in
the Paragraph 5.1.
As for the function parameters, these can be taken from the Tab. 6.

Table 6: Proposed transfer function parameters (Gwizdała, 1996; Krasiński, 2012)

zv α zf β
- precast driven piles 0.01D 0.50 0.05D 0.25
- bored and CFA piles:
♦ in non-cohesive soils 0.01D 0.50 0.05D 0.50
♦ in cohesive soils 0.01D 0.25 0.05D 0.50
- Vibro piles 0.01D 0.25 0.05D 0.25
- screw displacement piles SDP, FDP 15 mm 0.38 0.10D 0.38

For some soils of more sensitive structure, the ξ and µ coefficients should be applied in order to
determine the residual friction resistance q s;r of the pile shaft (Fig. 6b). However, for most cases, the
residual resistance problem is neglected and the transfer functions are adopted as shown in the Fig. 6c.
The load – settlement characteristic Q-s of the pile can be approximately determined by ignoring the pile
core shortening (δ t ) and by using the total shaft and base resistances:
b a
 s   s
(Qb − s ) cal = Rb;cal   ≤ Rb;cal ; (Qs − s ) cal = Rs ;cal   ≤ Rs ;cal ; (27, 28)
z   zv 
 f 
(Q-s) cal = (Q b -s) cal + (Q s -s) cal (29)

Load – settlement characteristics of pile in group

It is well known that to determine the load – settlement characteristics of piles in group is a complex task.
In Poland it is assumed that the settlement of pile group consist of sum of the individual piles settlement
s 1;i and the settlement of soil underneath the pile bases s g;i . The values of settlements s 1;i i s g;i are
determined for the average characteristic load on a single pile:

Q1;k =
∑G + ∑Qk v ;k [kN] (30)
np

where n p is a number of piles in the foundation.

The value of s 1;i is determined from the single pile settlement curve (Q-s) 1;cal , that includes the neighbor
pile influence and is estimated from Fig. 7:
(Q-s) 1;cal = (Q b -s) cal + m 1 ⋅(Q s -s) cal (31)
where the coefficient m 1 can be adopted as described in the Paragraph 5.2. with additional consideration
of the edge (m 1;e ) and corner (m 1;c ) piles - equations (23) and (24).
The value of settlement s g;i can be determined using the equivalent foundation method, according to the
scheme given in Fig. 8.

259
Figure 8: Scheme for the estimation of soil settlement underneath the pile bases

The distribution of settlement s g can be estimated by any method, for example uniaxial deformation,
however the settlement distribution is described by a function s g (x, y), so that it is possible to determine
the settlement s g;i underneath any of the pile.
The (Q-s) i;cal characteristic (adopted to the group of piles) is estimated from the scheme given in the
Fig. 9.

Figure 9: The scheme of Q-s characteristic determination for an individual pile in a group of piles

In the next step a calculation model for the pile foundation is prepared, where each of the piles is
represented by an individual elastic support with a nonlinear characteristic (Q-s) i;cal (Fig. 10).

Figure 10: Calculation scheme for a pile foundation

As the final solution a force distribution in piles, foundation settlement, deformation and internal forces in
the foundation cap are given.

260
5.4.2. A hybrid approach for the group of piles settlement determination
The settlement of the group of piles is larger than for a single pile at the same conditions. The settlement
of the pile group may reach a magnitude of several centimetres. It depends on soil conditions, foundation
dimensions, number of piles, their spacing, the installation method etc.
According to EC 7 "for piles that undergo significant settlements, ultimate limit states may occur in
supported structures before the resistance of the piles is fully mobilised. In these cases a cautious estimate
of the possible range of the settlements shall be adopted in design".

There exist a lot of various approaches for calculation of pile foundation settlements, from very simple
ones to very complex, which make use of numerical codes. All of the analysed methods are based on
various simplifications and assumptions.

One of the methods of settlement assessment used in Poland is the method based, in general, on the
hybrid approach according to Chow (1986). Some additional solutions has been introduced, as equation
for non-linear behaviour of single pile and interaction between piles for low-strain shear modulus
(Gwizdała & Dyka, 2002).

The non-linearity is caused by both a characteristics of the subsoil work as well as the phenomena
occurring within the contact zone between the pile and the soil. One can observe a change of shear
modulus of the soil with the strain development. This variability should be considered in analysis at least
in the zone of contact between the pile and the soil. However, due to small deformations, the interaction
between the piles is still treated as for linearly elastic medium.

Non-linear characteristic of pile work has been described by hyperbolic function representing the change
of shear modulus G as a function of mobilised soil resistance. Making use of numerical codes, the pile
being treated as elastic medium and described by Young’s modulus, is digitised by small elements with
elastic supports in its nodes, as in the load transfer functions method, Fig. 6. For pile in-group, additional
movement caused by interaction of other piles is determined using Mindlin’s solution for the force acting
inside uniform, isotropic and elastic half-space.
1
G/Gmax [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4
Duncan & Chang, 1970
Fahey & Carter, 1993
0.2
Van Impe & de Clercq, 1994
Darendeli, 2001
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
γ [%]

Figure 11: Comparison of some models of soil modulus degradation

After division of the piles’ system onto small elements the rigidity matrix is constructed. The settlements
of particular nodes are a solution of global set of equations:
{Q} = [K ]{s} , (32)

where rigidity matrix [K] is a sum of respective matrices of the soil and the piles, {Q} denotes vector of
external loads of system nodes and {s} is the vector of searched nodal settlements.

The calculations are conducted for following load increments with next new value of soil modulus G
calculated with adopted scheme of degradation of modulus, see Fig 11 (Dyka, 2012).
The numerical procedure enables the determination of load-settlement curve for a single pile as well as
for an arbitrary pile in the group for wide range of loads, complex soil conditions and arbitrary system of
piles.

261
Figure 12: Scheme of the consideration of the raft (slab) stiffness

Such method can be next used for structural design with consideration of the raft (slab) stiffness (Fig. 12)
according to the procedure as below:
(I) calculation of pile group settlement s g,i for specified pile loads Q i , flexible slab;
(II) static calculations for stiff slab on linear spring bearing instead of piles - k i from step (I);
(III) calculation of pile group settlement s g,i for pile loads Q i as the response of spring bearing
evaluated in step (II).
(IV) static calculations for stiff slab on linear spring bearing instead of piles - k i from step (III).

5.4.3. Finite Element Method

Nowadays in Poland for static calculations of pile foundations it becomes more and more popular to use
numerical methods (FEM) that require a suitable geotechnical software. However, still the main and
complex problem is to simulate numerically some of the pile technologies, especially in the case of
displacement piles. In order to receive a reliable results it is necessary to calibrate the numerical model
with a real data from the field tests (static load tests).

With regard to pile foundation, the best results are obtained from a 3D analysis. For some of the pile
systems, a 2D analysis can be applied, however it is necessary to adopt an appropriate resolvers and
a substitute elements in order to transform a real 3D system into a 2D plan. FEM pile foundation analysis
are rarely used for a design process in Poland, only for big and complex structures designing and usually
in cooperation with research centers.

5.3. Transversely loaded pile foundation – calculation procedure

Pile foundations with a complex load, with a significant part of horizontal forces, are calculated according
to the "generalized method" (Kosecki, 2006). In that method piles are modeled as elastic bars interacting
with a series of horizontal elasto-plastic supports that represent the soil condition (Fig.13).
For the estimation of elastic supports stiffness, a horizontal reaction modulus K x is determined:
K x = n1 ⋅ n 2 ⋅ S n ⋅ κ ⋅ ϕ ⋅ E 0 [kPa] (33)

where:
n 1 , n 2 – coefficients based on the piles diameter and spacing (n 1 , n 2 ≤ 1.0);
Sn – coefficient based on the piles technology, equal to 0.8-1.2;
κ – coefficient based on the pile cross section shape, equal to 1.0-1.4;
ϕ – coefficient based on the load sustainability and repeatability (ϕ = 0.3 ÷ 1.0);
E0 – modulus of soil deformation [kPa]

262
Figure 13: Pile modeled in the "generalized method"

Coefficients n 1 and n 2 are given as follows:

R1 (1 − β ) ⋅ ( R2 − D )
n1 = 0.2 + 0.4 ≤ 1.0 ; n2 = β + ≤ 1.0 (34)
D 1.8 ⋅ D0
where:
R 1 – pile spacing in the plane perpendicular to the horizontal load direction;
R 2 – pile spacing in the plane parallel to the horizontal load direction;
D – pile diameter;
D 0 – equivalent pile diameter: D 0 = D+1.0 [m] when D ≥ 1.0 m and D 0 = 1.5D+0.5 [m] when D < 1.0
m,
β – coefficient based on the number of the pile rows perpendicular to the horizontal load direction, equal
to 0.45÷1.0.
K x modulus increases linearly to the critical depth z c of 1.0 to 5.0 m, depending on the type of soil. Below
the critical depth z c , the K x modulus remains constant within a given layer.
On the basis of the K x modulus distribution, the individual elastic supports stiffness can be determined
according to the following formula:
k x ;i = K x ;i ⋅ ai [kN/m] (35)

Usually, after the static calculation, the pile bearing capacity for horizontal load is not determined.
However, the axial forces and bending moments in piles together with total displacement of the structure
are analysed as a main criterion for the whole design project verification.

5.4. A concept for pile foundation calculation and design

Recently, a designing method is being developed, where the classical pile bearing capacity analysis is
neglected and instead the load – settlement (Q-s) characteristic is considered.
After the (Q-s) cal curve determination (for example using the method from Paragraph 3.1), the pile
characteristic curve (Q-s) k and design curve (Q-s) d are estimated (Fig.14).

Figure 14: Load-settlement curves of pile: calculated, characteristic and design

263
The characteristic curve is determined according to the EC7:
 (Q − s ) cal ;min (Q − s ) cal ,mean 
(Q − s ) k = min  ;  (36)
 ξ3 ξ4 
while the design curve is determined from:
(Q − s ) k
(Q − s ) d = (37)
γt
The characteristic curve (Q-s) k is used in static calculations (the scheme in Fig. 9) in order to determine
the Serviceability Limit State (SLS), but the design curve (Q-s) d is used for the Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) analyses. In the results the correctness verification is based on displacement, deformation and
effort of the cap structure analysis. There is no need the ULS GEO verification of piles, however the
forces and bending moments are required to verify the ULS STR for the pile cores. In our opinion, the
described design concept is more rational and more convenient than the classical approach.

6. PILE TESTING AND MONITORING

With regard to bearing capacity tests, in Poland still the most popular method is the static pile load test
(SPLT), because of its well know reliability. Since 2008, a static instrumented pile tests in order to
determine the shaft and base load distribution are also being carried out. That kind of tests become more
and more popular and even obligatory for some complex projects. In the measurements mainly the
vibrating wire technique is used (Gwizdala & Krasinski, 2013), however there are some trials with the
fiber technique. As well as the test techniques, the measurement result interpretation methods are getting
improved gradually.

Additionally, dynamic tests are commonly used as well (CASE, TNO, CAPWAP, TNODLT) and
integrity tests (SIT and PIT). In the case of dynamic pile load tests it is required to validate their results by
at least one static load test carried out on the same construction site.

7. DESIGN EXAMPLE
For ground conditions in the region of Zuławy Wiślane (Fig.15) calculate the load capacity and determine
the characteristics of load-settlement (Q - s) in relation to the three types of piles:
(1) Precast concrete driven pile 40×40 cm, L = 14.0 m
(2) Driven Vibro pile ∅500 mm (∅ b =600 mm), L = 14.0 m
(3) Screw Displacement Pile SDP ∅400 mm, L = 11.0 m

Figure 15: Geometry and geotechnical data for the calculated example.

264
Assumptions for the calculation:
- calculation of precast driven pile (1) according to PN-83/B-02482
- calculation of the Vibro pile (2) according to Gwizdała-Stęczniewski (2007)
- calculation of SDP (3) according to Krasiński (2012)
- required for piles calculations CPT interpretation is shown in Fig. 16
- assumed that n = 5 CPT probing was made, so ξ 3 = 1.29 (for SDP ξ 3 = 1.17)
- adopted design approach DAD2* → γ b = γ s = γ t = 1,1
- negative friction value was determined
- in evaluation of the Q-s characteristics pile core shortening was ignored.

Figure 16: Interpretation of CPT test

7.1. Calculation of driven precast pile (1)

Determination of the resistances q s and q b interpolation level :
1.4 ⋅ 16.0 + 0.4 ⋅ 17.5 + 1.2 ⋅ 10.0 + 0.9 ⋅ 9.0 + 2.7 ⋅ 4.0 + 1.0 ⋅ 9.0 + 1.0 ⋅ 4.0
hz = 0,65 ⋅ ≈ 4.8 m
10.0
Interpolation level depth: zint = 8.6 − 4.8 = 3.8 m ppt.

Critical depths for shaft and base resistances:

h s = 5 m → z s;cr = 3.8 + 5.0 = 8.8 m ppt.

0.451
Deq = 4 / π ⋅ 0.4 = 0.451 m → hc = 10.0 ⋅ = 10.6 m → z c;cr = 3.8 + 10.6 = 14,4 m
0.4
Pile shaft and base areas: A s (1m) = 4⋅0.4 = 1.6 m2 ; A b = 0.4⋅0.4 = 0.16 m2

Table 7: Calculation of precast driven pile bearing capacity

q' s;i
Depth Soil hi ID q s;i S t;i F n;i S s;i R s;cal;i qb S b;i R b;cal R c;cal
[m bgl.] [kPa
[-] [m] [-] [kPa] [-] [kN] [-] [kN] [kPa] [-] [kN] [kN]
]
1.0-1.4 Or 0.4 10.0 10.0 1.0 6.4
1.4-3.0 FSa 1.6 0.60 70.0 30.8 0.6 47.3
3.0-3.9 FSa+Or 0.9 0.35 41.3 28.5 0.6 24.6
3.9-6.6 Or+FSa 2.7 10.0 10.0 1.0 43.2

265
 q' s;i
Depth Soil hi ID q s;i S t;i F n;i S s;i R s;cal;i qb S b;i R b;cal R c;cal
[m bgl.] [kPa
[-] [m] [-] [kPa] [-] [kN] [-] [kN] [kPa] [-] [kN] [kN]
]
6.6-7.6 FSa+Or 1.0 0.45 52.8 52.8 0.6 50.7
7.6-8.6 Or 1.0 10 10.0 1.0 16.0
8.6-8.8 FSa 0.2 0.60 70.0 68.6 1.1 24.1
8.8-9.6 FSa 0.8 0.60 70.0 70.0 1.1 98.5
9.6-11.0 FSa 1.4 0.80 96.5 96.5 1.0 216.2
11.0-12.6 FSa 1.6 0.83 100.8 100.8 1.0 258.0
12.6-15.0 FSa 2.4 0.75 89.4 89.4 1.0 343.3
15.0 FSa 0.75 F n;cal = 188.2 R s;cal = 940.1 3824 1.0 611.9 1552.0

Characteristic value of bearing capacity:

1552.0
Rc ;k = = 1203 kN
1.29
Design value of bearing capacity:
1203.0
Rc;d = = 1094 kN
1.1
Negative friction:
- characteristic: Fn ;k = Fn ;cal = 188.2 kN
- design: Fn ;d = γ G ⋅ Fn ;k = 1.35 ⋅ 188.2 = 255 kN

Load-settlement curves:
Transfer functions:
Parameters according to Tab. 6: z v = 0.01D = 4.5 mm, α = 0.50 ; z f = 0.05D = 22.5 mm, β = 0.25;
0.50 0.25
 s  ; (Qb − s ) cal = 612.0 ⋅  s  ; (Q − s ) cal = (Qs − s ) cal + (Qb − s ) cal
(Q s − s ) cal = 940.1 ⋅  
 4.5   22.5 

Table 8: Q-s of precast driven pile

Q [kN]
s Qs Qb Q
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
[mm] [kN] [kN] [kN] 0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 443.0 281.0 724.0 5
2 627.0 334.0 961.0
s [mm]

10
3 768.0 370.0 1137.0
4.5 940.0 409.0 1349.0 15
6 940.0 440.0 1380.0 Qb Qs Qc
9 940.0 487.0 1427.0 20
12 940.0 523.0 1463.0
25
15 940.0 553.0 1493.0
18 940.0 579.0 1519.0
22.5 940.0 612.0 1552.0
Figure 17: Q-s characteristic of driven prefabricated pile
25 940.0 612.0 1552.0

266
7.2. Calculation of Vibro pile (2)
The resistance q s and q b values were determined according to equations (12, 13) and Tab. 3.
Pile shaft and base areas: A s (1m) = π⋅0.50 = 1.57 m2 ; A b = 0,25⋅π⋅0.62 = 0.283 m2

Table 9: Calculation of the Vibro pile bearing capacity

q s;i
Depth Soil hi qcs ;i ψ 2;i F n;i R s;cal;i qcb ψ1 qb R b;cal R c;cal
[kPa
[m bgl.] [-] [m] [MPa] [-] [kN] [kN] [MPa] [-] [kPa] [kN] [kN]
]
1.0-1.4 Or 0.4 1.0 10 6.3
1.4-3.0 FSa 1.6 5.5 124.8 11.6 29.2
3.0-3.9 FSa+Or 0.9 3.0 107.3 11.6 16.4
3.9-6.6 Or+FSa 2.7 1.0 10 42.4
6.6-7.6 FSa+Or 1.0 5.0 121.3 24.7 38.8
7.6-8.6 Or 1.0 1.0 10 15.7
8.6-9.6 FSa 1.0 12.0 170.3 70.5 110.6
9.6-11.0 FSa 1.4 22.0 240.3 91.6 201.2
11.0-12.6 FSa 1.6 25.0 261.3 95.7 240.3
12.6-15.0 FSa 2.4 18.0 212.3 84.8 319.5
15.0 FSa 148.8 872.0 18.0 0.510 9181 2598.0 3470.0

Characteristic value of bearing capacity:

3470.0
Rc;k = = 2690 kN
1.29
Design value of bearing capacity:
2690.0
Rc ;d = = 2445 kN
1.1
Negative friction:
- characteristic: Fn ;k = Fn ;cal = 148.8 kN
- design: Fn ;d = γ G ⋅ Fn ;k = 1.35 ⋅ 148.8 = 201 kN

Load-settlement curves:
Transfer functions:
Parameters according to Tab. 6: z v = 0.01D = 5.0 mm, α = 0.25 ; z f = 0.05D b = 30.0 mm, β = 0.25;
0.25 0.25
 s 
(Qs − s ) cal = 872 ⋅   ; (Qb − s ) cal = 2598 ⋅  s  ; (Q − s ) cal = (Qs − s ) cal + (Qb − s ) cal
 5.0   30.0 

Table 10: Q-s of the Vibro pile

s Qs Qb Qc Q [kN]
[mm] [kN] [kN] [kN] 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
0 0.0 0 0
1 583.0 1110.0 1693.0 5
2 693.0 1320.0 2014.0
10
3 767.0 1461.0 2228.0
s [mm]

5 872.0 1660.0 2532.0 15

7 872.0 1806.0 2678.0 20
9 872.0 1923.0 2795.0 Qs Qb Qc
12 872.0 2066.0 2938.0 25

15 872.0 2185.0 3057.0 30

20 872.0 2348.0 3220.0
35
25 872.0 2482.0 3354.0
30 872.0 2598.0 3470.0
Figure 18: Q-s characteristic of the Vibro pile
35 872.0 2598.0 3470.0

267
7.3. Calculation of SDP pile (3)
The resistance q s and q b values were determined according to equations (14, 15).
Pile shaft and base areas: A s (1m) = π⋅0.40 = 1.26 m2 ; A b = 0,25⋅π⋅0.402 = 0.126 m2

Table 11: Calculation of the SDP bearing capacity

Depth Soil hi q cs;i q s;i F n;i R s;cal;i q cb qb R b;cal R c;cal
[m bgl.] [-] [m] [MPa] [kPa] [kN] [kN] [MPa] [kPa] [kN] [kN]
1.0-1.4 Or 0.4 1.0 10 5.0
1.4-3.0 FSa 1.6 5.5 25.4 51.2
3.0-3.9 FSa+Or 0.9 3.0 34.6 39.3
3.9-6.6 Or+FSa 2.7 1.0 10 34.0
6.6-7.6 FSa+Or 1.0 5.0 56.5 71.2
7.6-8.6 Or 1.0 1.0 10 12.6
8.6-9.6 FSa 1.0 12.0 115.1 180.7
9.6-11.0 FSa 1.4 22.0 132.3 290.9
11.0-12.0 FSa 1.0 25.0 136.3 214.0
12.0 FSa 213.3 686.0 23.0 4087 515.0 1201.0

Characteristic value of bearing capacity:

1201.0
Rc ;k = = 1026 kN
1.17
Design value of bearing capacity:
1026.0
Rc;d = = 933 kN
1.1
Negative friction:
- characteristic: Fn ;k = Fn ;cal = 213.3 kN

- design: Fn ;d = γ G ⋅ Fn ;k = 1.35 ⋅ 213.3 = 288 kN

Load-settlement curves:
Transfer functions:
Parameters according to Tab. 6: z v = 15.0 mm, α = 0.38 ; z f = 0.1D b = 40.0 mm, β = 0.38;
0.38 0.38
 s 
(Q s − s ) cal = 686 ⋅   ; (Qb − s ) cal = 515 ⋅  s  ; (Q − s ) cal = (Qs − s ) cal + (Qb − s ) cal
 15.0   40.0 

Table 12: Q-s of SDP pile

s Qs Qb Qc Q [kN]
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
[mm] [kN] [kN] [kN]
0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5
1 245.0 127.0 372.0
10
2 319.0 165.0 484.0
3 372.0 192.0 565.0 15
s [mm]

5 452.0 234.0 686.0 20

7 514.0 266.0 779.0 25
Qc
Qb Qs
10 588.0 304.0 892.0 30
15 686.0 355.0 1041.0 35
20 686.0 396.0 1082.0 40
25 686.0 431.0 1117.0
45
30 686.0 462.0 1148.0
40 686.0 515.0 1201.0 Figure 19: Q-s characteristic of the SDP
45 686.0 515.0 1201.0

268
8. SUMMARY
The data in EC7 are not enough for pile design and it is necessary to use other documents (Kłosiński,
2012). In Poland the calculations of pile foundations are based mainly on recommendations and methods
included in Polish Code PN-83/B-02482 and additionally supported by the local experiences. Calculation
rules were described among other in proceedings of Seminar in 1997 (Gwizdała, 1997). The values of
base and skin resistances in Polish Code are conservative, therefore when applying the EC7 rules it is
necessary to use a correction factor increasing these resistances.
The results of EG3 works confirmed, on the bases of about 40 design examples, that influence of various
DAs is not important. The pile lengths designed to EC7 and to national standards: a new German, an old
Polish Code and the Dutch NA, are in the same range. The examples are to be published soon in the JRC
website for open use.

In the case of axial pile bearing capacity calculations, a typical static formula is generally applied in
Poland, but the results are obligatory verified and confirmed by static load tests (SPLT) and/or by
dynamic load tests (PDA, DLT) of piles on site.

Settlements of piles are determined mostly on the bases of load tests on site (SPLT, PDA). Analytical
prediction of full load-settlement curve of pile is carried out mainly by using transfer functions method
q-z i t-z.

In recent years, a calculation methods for pile bearing capacity and settlement prediction, based directly
on the results of the in situ tests (CPT, DMT and PMT) are being introduced gradually. These methods
contain the dependencies and relationships between results of soil in situ tests and pile load tests, which
have been developed by using statistical methods.

In the case of serious and responsible objects, a numerical FEM analyses are being used for calculations
with different and advanced soil models applying. Also the observation method is being used for pile
foundation design, in special cases.

In EC7 requirements there are many unclear points regarding pile designing. The EG7 Group discussed
and evaluated Section 7 of EN 1997-1:2004. The comprehensive proposals of amendments and new text
fragments of this section were drafted (Orr at al., 2015).

Polish experts participated in TC 250/SC7 Evaluation Groups EG3 Model solutions (B. Kłosiński,
A. Dąbska) and EG7, Pile Design (B. Kłosiński, K. Sahajda).

269
REFERENCES

Chow Y.K. 1986. Analysis of Vertically Loaded Pile Groups, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 10, pp. 59-72.
De Cock F., Legrand C., Huybrechts N. 2003. Overview of design methods of axially loaded piles in
Europe - Report of ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee. Proc. XIII ECSMGE, Prague, 25-28 August,
Vol. 3, pp. 663-715.
Dyka I. 2012. Use of the laboratory tests of soil modulus in modelling pile behaviour, Studia Geotechnica
et Mechanica, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 53-61.
Gwizdała K. 1996. The analysis of piles settlements employing load-transfer function. (In Polish).
Technical University of Gdansk, Zesz. Nauk. PG Nr 532.
Gwizdała K. 1997. Polish design methods for single axially loaded piles. Proc. of the ERTC3 Seminar.
Design of Axially Loaded Piles - European Practice. Brussels, 17-18 April p. 291-306. De Cock &
Legrand (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam.
Gwizdała K., Dyka I. 2002. Estimation of settlements of piles in group. Proceedings of the 9th Conference
on Piling and Deep Foundations, Nice, 3/4/5 June.
Gwizdała K., Stęczniewski M. 2007. Determination of the bearing capacity of pile foundations based on
CPT test results. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. 29 (1-2), pp. 55-67.
Gwizdala K., Krasinski A. 2013. Bearing capacity of displacement piles in layered soils with highly
diverse strength parameters. Proc. of the 18th ICSMGE, Paris.
Kłosiński B. 2012. Pile foundation design in PN-EN 1997 „Geotechnical design”.(In Polish). Inżynieria i
Budownictwo no 4, pp. 177-182.
Orr T.L.L., Kłosiński B., Lees A. 2015. Recommended changes to Eurocode 7., Proc. of 16th ECSMGE,
Edinburgh.
Kosecki M. 2006. Static of pile structures. (In Polish). PZIiTB O/Szczecin. PPH ZAPOL, Szczecin. p. 166.
Krasiński A. 2012. Proposal for calculating the bearing capacity of screw displacement piles in non-
cohesive soils besed on CPT results. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. 34 (4), pp. 41-51.
Sobala D. 2012. Design of piles by EC7 - methods and examples of practical application. (In Polish).
Materiały Seminarium "Podłoże i Fundamenty Budowli Drogowych", Autostrada Polska, Kielce.
Sobala D. 2014. Methods of calculating geotechnical capacity of compressed piles - calculation
procedures and examples according to Eurocode 7. (In Polish). Journal of Civil Engineering,
Environment and Architecture, t. XXXI, z. 61 (1/14), pp. 287-310.
Polish Code PN-83/B-02482. Foundations. Bearing capacity of piles and pile foundations (In Polish).

270
 Past and present pile design practice in R. Macedonia
Assoc. Prof. Josif Josifovski, „Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University, Faculty of Civil Engineering-Skopje, Macedonia,
[email protected]

Bojan Susinov, „Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University, Faculty of Civil Engineering-Skopje, Macedonia,
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
The pile design practice in R. Macedonia dates from early 50-ies of the last century. At that time they
were rarely calculated often design roughly or using past experience. After the 50-ies in Ex-Yugoslavia
an effort has been made to regulate this subject, which produced a Rulebook for design of foundation
with specific section on pile foundations. In the 70-ies a material factor design approach was introduced
for all foundations types, at the time popular, hence the tradition was mostly to relay on laboratory test
data, where sampling was not possible a CPT or other field test were executed. Additionally, the national
standard obliged that static pile load test has to be performed to proof the design load. With the time the
Rulebook was constantly upgraded until May 2015 when the Eurocodes were officially accepted as
technical regulation in Macedonia, although they were used in many occasions previously. For the time
being, the national decision allows to design the foundations according all available design approaches
offered in EN 1997-1. This is considered as transitional step from the old practice for the period until
new generation of Eurocodes come out. Regarding the NDP’s at this stage it was decided to accept the
proposed values. In the next period, they will be used in parallel to the old regulation (Rulebook) at least
in the next 2-years as cohabitation period.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The territory of R. Macedonia has very specific geological structure. This is above all, result of the
tectonical setting of South-Eastern Europe, and especially of the Balkan Peninsula. There are five main
geotectonical units in Macedonia. The main geotectonical units are formed in different geological times,
but they all are extended in NNW-SSE direction with clearly marked borders between the zones,
presented by deep regional faults. The contacts are locally covered with tertiary, and especially neogene
sediments (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Simplified geological map of R. Macedonia (Yellow zones present theneogene and quaternary
basins; Grey and brown – old metahamorphic rocks; Pink – marble and limestone; Red – gneiss-granitic
rocks)

271
In the neotectonic development stage, the territory of R. Macedonia has been exposed to intense
destructive processes, presented by fault displacements. These processes have been characteristically for
the entire Balkan Peninsula. Neotectonic faults are from gravitational type, and only some are of
transform nature. One such fault is the infamous regional fault extending from Kustendil (Bulgaria) –
Kriva Palanka – Kumanovo – Skopje – Debar – Elabasan (Albania). As a result of neotectonic processes,
there exist 27 tectonic depressions (grabens) filled with neogene and quaternary sediments. Pile
foundations are designed throughout these grabens or at their flanges, where the depth of unbounded
weak soil deposits rarely exceeds over 20 m. The upper soil media is usually presented with well-
compacted gravels, conglomerates, and rarely marlstones. In some instances, in landslide prone hilly and
mountainous terrains, where hard rocks are covered with soil debris with relatively great depth, there is
also need for use of embedded pile constructions (as landslide stabilization method). In such cases, the
embedding medium is usually hard rock from the metamorphic complex, presented by various types of
schists, marbles, serpentinites, etc.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Traditionally for foundation design the information gathered from boreholes are used, wherefrom
representative samples are taken if possible for laboratory tests in order to determine the material
properties. The Oedometer, Direct shear or Triaxial tests are the standard ones performed. For granular
materials there is a practice to perform SPT while in other areas with cohesive soil CPT dominates over
DPT. In the newer practice, last ten years, the PMT is more often used especially for week rock materials.
The static load test are standard and they are performed to confirm the theoretical prediction.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

In our practice, the piles are executed usually as bored rarely as driven with diameter varying from 0.6 m
to 1.2 m. From the construction point of view, the bucket and barrow excavation method is mostly used
rarely CFA. The end-bearing piles dominate over the frictional piles with depth usually not exceeding 15
m.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
For many years dating from the 60-ies of the last century, the national regulation a Rulebook for design of
foundations exists. In the 70-ies, a significant step was made when material factor approach (MFA) for
design of foundations was introduced. With the year this Rulebook was constantly upgraded until May
2015 when EN 1997-1 officially became a national regulative for foundation design in R. Macedonia.
In the next 2-years a transition (cohabitation) is planned where the pile design is allowed to be performed
by both, provisions in Rulebook and Eurocode. For the time being the national decision allows to design
of the foundations according all design approaches (DA) proposed using the national determinate
parameters (NDP’s) offered in EN 1997. This is temporary solution until new generation of Eurocode 7
comes out.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

The past practice uses the material factor approach with empirical relation, such as the one of Brinch–
Hansen or modified (national) version for calculation of mobilized soil resistance. Interesting fact is that
the Rulebook provides prescribes piles to be design in two steps; (1) as prediction of the pile capacity
using empirical relation; (2) as confirmation through static load test.
Today the designers could use both methodologies without any restrictions, but the DA 2 is generally in
the focus of the more experience designers.
Wherever ground conditions dictate the field tests are performed, such as: SPT or CPT. In the case of
frictional piles, the pile design is performed according to the static load test. The design procedure is such
that a single pile bearing capacity is calculated then the total number is determined from the total action
on the foundation. Generally, the group or interaction effects are rarely analysed only with structures of
highest class. The elastic models are sometimes employed while the interaction effects are seldom
accounted usually when numerical models are used.

272
 5.2. Definitions and symbols
All definitions and symbols are integral part of the elaboration in the following text.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

Although all DA are allowed, the preference in R. Macedonia would be the DA 2 for pile design using the
alternative method of calculation with proposed values of NDP’s. In most cases the ULS design is set to
use of material parameters determined from laboratory test. For MFA the following factors of safety to
the strength parameters are proposed: to cohesion ( γ= c 2.0 − 3.0 ) and to internal angle of friction
(γ=φ )
1.2 − 1.8 . In contrast, the newer practice (with DA2) uses the partial factors of actions

= (
γ G 1.35
= and γ Q 1.5 and ( γ=
b γ= )
s 1.1 ) on the base and shear resistance. The model factor is set to

γ Rd = 1.8 .

5.3.1. Introduction
As explained earlier the calculation of end-bearing piles in rock and weak rock materials is most common
design situation, thus the procedure for calculation will be presented in parallel according to Macedonian
Rulebook [5] and EN 1997-1 [1].

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

First, the formulation for pile design according the old practice according to the Macedonian Rulebook is
presented. A single pile capacity is calculated as follows:

=
Rd Rd ,b + Rd , s - Total design resistance force (kN)
Rd ,b= q ⋅ Aq ,b - Base design resistance force (kN)
Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s - Shaft design resistance force (kN)

where: q – Base resistance (kPa)

A q – Base area of pile (m2)
p – Shaft resistance (kPa)
A p – Surface area of pile shaft (m2)

The pile base resistance is calculated as

Rd ,b= q ⋅ Aq ,b
d 2π
Aq ,b = with d as a pile diameter (m)
4
q = γ ⋅ r ⋅ Nγ r + d d ⋅ ks ⋅ N qr + cm ⋅ N cr (kPa)
Where: γ – Soil bulk density of the base material (kN/m3)
r – Pile radius (m)
δ d – Normal stress on pile base (effective overburden pressure over the embedment pile length) (kPa)
k s – Earth preassure coefficient at rest on pile base (/)
c m – Mobilized cohesion on pile base (kPa)
N cr , N γr , N qr – Bearing capacity factors as function of φ m
k s = s ⋅ k0 with s = 0.5 for cohesionless soils or s = 1.0 for cohesive soils
k02 = 1 − sin φ2 for layer (m=2)
k s 2 = s ⋅ k02
d d =γ ⋅ ( D + L)

273
The cohesion and internal friction of layer (m=2) is factored as follows:
c2
c2m = with γ=
c 2.0 − 3.0
γc
tan φ2
tan φ2 m = with γ=
φ 1.2 − 1.8
γφ
φ 2,m = °
from the following chart

Figure 2: Chart with definition of Nγ r , N qr and N cr factors for φ2m

The pile shaft resistance is calculated as

Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s
p = am + δδ
o ⋅ K s ⋅ tg m

where: a m – Mobilized adhesion between pile and surrounding media

α – Coefficient of the relationship between cohesion and adhesion (α=0.45-0.6)
δ о – Normal stress on elevation of half of the layer which is part of skin friction bearing capacity
transfer
δ m – Mobilized friction angle on the soil-pile contact
a ⋅c'
am =
γc
ks = s ⋅ k0 with s =0.5 for cohesionless soils or s=1.0 for cohesive soils
L
δ o =γ ⋅ ( D + )
2
tan φ
tan δ m =
γφ
Ap , s = d ⋅p ⋅ L
Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s =p1 ⋅ Ap , s1 + p2 ⋅ Ap , s 2

Furthermore, the present practice with DA 2 according EN1997-1 is presented, where only the differences
with respect to the previous formulation are highlighted. A major difference is in the pile base resistance
is calculated after the following relation:
q=cN c sc dc ic qc bc + q0 N q sq d q iq qq bq + 0.5γ dNγ sγ dγ iγ qγ bγ

where: c – Cohesion on pile base material (kPa)

q 0 – Normal stress on pile base (effective overburden pressure over the embedment pile length)
(kPa)
d – Pile diameter (m)
N c N q N γ – Bearing capacity factors in function of φ
s c ,s q , s γ – Shape factors
d c ,d q , d γ – Depth factors

274
 i c ,i q , i γ – Factor of load inclination
q c ,q q , q γ – Factor of terrain inclination
b c ,b q , b γ – Factor of base inclination
According to Anex D of EN 1997-1 the factors of inclination are neglected.

 φ
Nq =eπ tan φ ⋅ tan 2  45 + 
 2  N c= ( N q − 1) ⋅ cot φ Nγ ( )
= 2 ⋅ N q − 1 ⋅ tan φ

d 
sq = 1 +   sin φ sγ = 1 − 0.3
d 
s =
( sq N q − 1)
d  c
d    Nq −1
−1
Df
1 + 2 tan ff
dq = (1 − sin ) 2 tan for D f > d
d
1 − dq
d= dq − for φ ≠ 0 dγ = 1.0
N c tan φ
c

q ⋅ Aq ,b Rk ,b
Rk ,b = Rd ,b =
γ Rd γb

The relations for pile shaft resistance are practicly the same, only the partial factors are put on resistance
instead on the adhesion (a m ) and friction (d m ):

Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s
p = a + δδo ⋅ K s ⋅ tg
a = a ⋅c'
1 2
=
tan δ tan  ÷  φ
3 3
Ap , s = d ⋅ p ⋅ L
Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s =p1 ⋅ Ap , s1 + p2 ⋅ Ap , s 2
Σp ⋅ Ap , s p1 ⋅ Ap , s1 + p2 ⋅ Ap , s 2 Rk , s
=
Rk , s = Rd , s =
γ Rd γ Rd γs

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

The tension piles are rarely constructed, thus there is no standardized calculation procedure. In practice a
global factor of safety approach is used where often conservative values are assumed.

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

The lateral pile capacity of the pile is calculated as follows:
EI ⋅ d max ⋅ λ 3
H Rd =
χW
d ⋅ cu
λ=4
4 EI
l 0.2
c=
u kh' ⋅ for cohesionless soils; c=
u kh' ⋅ for cohesive soils;
d d
where: k h – Horizontal compressibility modulus (kPa)
d – Pile diameter (m)
Е – Elasticity modulus of pile (kPa)
I – Inertai moment of the pile (m4)
d max – Maximal pile deformation (e.g. 0.01m)
d – Pile lenght (m)
χ W – Coefficient dependent of c u (from table for λ ⋅ D − > χW )

275
H=
d Hk ⋅γ G
H Rd > H d

where: H k - Horizontal characteristic force (kN)

H d - Horizontal design force (m)
H Rd – Horizontal resistance force (kN)

5.3.5. Specific issues

Concerning the special design situation like negative skin friction in our country there are no standardized
design procedure. As for the pile group effects they are covered by the following calculation of pile
group bearing capacity is calculated when multiplying the single pile bearing capacity with the coefficient
η determined as:
2 ⋅ (m + n − 2) ⋅ l
η=
m ⋅ n ⋅ d ⋅π
where: m– No. of piles in every row
n – No. of rows in pile group
d – Pile diameter (m)
l – Pile spacing (m)

The single pile capacity as a pile in a group effects is determined as a product of the coefficient η and the
single pile capacity,
VRd , gr= η ⋅ Rd , sp
VRd , gr > Vd

where : V Rd,gr – Single pile bearing capacity as a part of group

V Rd,sp – Single pile bearing capacity
V d – Vertical design pile force

5.4. SLS design

The SLS design is covered through a settlement calculation of axially loaded end-bearing pile which is
standing in rock or rocklike mass is as follows:
S d = S e + S s < Cd
Vk ⋅ H s
Se =
Aeff ⋅ Eb Elastic deformation of concrete
Vk ⋅ I p
Ss =
d eff ⋅ Es Base pile settlement

where: V k –Vertical characteristic load (kN)

H s – Pile lenght (m)
A eff – Effective area (m2)
E b – Elasticity modulus of concrete (kPa)
I p – Impact factor (from chart)
d eff – Effective pile diameter (m)
E s – Elasticity modulus of the rock (kPa)

276
The parameters of the rock material are

Е rm =(GPa) – Deformability modulus

q u =(MPa) – Compressive strength
RQD min =(%)
=
E s K E ⋅ Erm is reduced modulus
(Bieniawski, 1984) for RQD is given in table 1.

Table 1. Reduction coefficient K E

Reduction
RQD [%]
coefficient K E
0-50 0.15
60 0.18
70 0.20
80 0.40
85 0.55
90 0.65 Figure 3: Elastic settlement - Influence
95 0.80 factor as a function of embedment ratio and
100 1.00 modulus ratio (after Donald, Sloan and
Chiu, 1980 as presented by Reese and
O’Neill, 1988)
5.5. Design based on load tests
<If not used in your country : please mention this. Don’t delete the paragraph.>

5.6. Design based on experience

<If not used in your country : please mention this. Don’t delete the paragraph.>

5.7. Structural safety

For the structural safety usually a simple check is performed to confirm that the concrete strength is not
reached for specific type of concrete,

Vd= γ c ⋅ Vk
Vd
σc =
Ap
f ck
λc =
σc

where: γ c - Partial factor of safety for concrete

σ c - Compression stress in the concrete section (kPa)
f ck - Strength of the concrete (kPa)

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

<Including if and how quality control influences the design>

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

<Particular national experiences and databases with pile load tests>

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
In Figure 4 an design example of pile foundation is illustrated, chosen by the author as a standard design
situation, to describe the design method used in R. Macedonia.

277
Figure 4. Design example of pile foundation

a) Static single pile load

Vk = 8338.54kN , Vd = γ Q ⋅ Vk = 1.35 ⋅ 8338.54 = 11257.03kN ,

H k = 395.36kN , H d =γ Q ⋅ H k =1.35 ⋅ 395.36 =533.74kN

b) Soil parameters

Layer 1. Characteristic values Design values

Proluvium
h1 = 13.6m
γ 1 = 20.0kN / m3 γ 1 = 20.0kN / m3
γ 1' = 10.0kN / m3 γ 1' = 10.0kN / m3
φ=
1 32° φ1,d= 25°
c1 = 0.0kPa c1,d = 0.0kPa

Layer 2. Characteristic values Design values

Marbled limestone
h2 = 3.6m
RMR=79 – hard rock
γ 2 = 27.5kN / m 3
γ 2 = 27.5kN / m3
γ 2' = 17.5kN / m3 γ 2' = 17.5kN / m3
φ2= 52° φ2,d= 40°
c2 = 1900 kPa c2, d = 140.0kPa

c) Pile (group) geometry

d = 0.8m Pile diameter

L = 17.2m Pile length
n=6 Number of piles
D = 3.0m Pile cap height
d) Axial pile bearing capacity

- Design example calculated according Rulebook

278
 The pile base resistance is calculated as
d 2π
Rd = Rd ,b= q ⋅ Aq ,b where=
Aq = 0.5m 2
4
q = γ ⋅ r ⋅ Nγ r + d d ⋅ K s ⋅ N qr + cm ⋅ N cr
k 02 = 1 − sin φ2 = 1 − sin 40° = 0.357
k s 2 =⋅
s k02 =
1.0 ⋅ 0.357 =0.357
d d =γ ⋅ ( D + L) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + 13.6) + 17.5 ⋅ 3.6 =255.3kN / m 2
c2 140
c= = = 56.00kN / m 2
γc
2m
2.5

tan φ2 tan 40°

φ 2m
tan= = = 0.559
γφ 1.5

φ=
2 m 29.22° from chart in Fig.3 N cr = 310 ; N qr = 55 ; N γ r = 15

q = γ 2' ⋅ r ⋅ Nγ r + d d ⋅ K s ⋅ N qr + cm ⋅ N cr

q = 17.5 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅15.0 + 255.3 ⋅ 0.375 ⋅ 55.0 + 56.0 ⋅ 310.0 = 22730.56kN / m 2

Therefore, the allowed pile end bearing capacity is

Rd ,b =q ⋅ Aq ,b =22730.56 ⋅ 0.5 =11365.28kN

The pile shaft resistance iscalculated as follows:

=
c1 ' 0;= =
c2 ' 140kPa; a 0.5;
= γ c 2.5
0.5 ⋅ 0.0 0.5 ⋅140.0
=
am1 = 0.0kP = a am 2 = 28.0kPa
2.5 2.5
The earth pressure coefficients are calculated as:
k s1 = s ⋅ k01 = 0.5 ⋅ (1 − sin φ1 ) = 0.5 ⋅ 0.577 = 0.289

k s 2 = s ⋅ k02 = 1.0 ⋅ (1 − sin φ2 ) = 1.0 ⋅ 0.357 = 0.357

The mobilized friction between the pile and soil is calculated as
L 13.6
δ o1 =γ 1 ⋅ ( D + ) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + ) =124.3kN / m 2
2 2
L 3.6
δ o 2 =γ 1 ⋅ ( D + ) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + 13.6) + 17.5 ⋅ = 223.8kN / m 2
2 2
tan φ1 tan 25°
δ m1
tan= = = 0.311
γφ 1.5

tan φ2 tan 40°

δ m2
tan= = = 0.559
γφ 1.5

The pile shaft resistance is calculated as:

p1 = am1 + δδ
o1 ⋅ K s1 ⋅ tg m1 = 0.00 + 124.3 ⋅ 0.289 ⋅ 0.311 = 11.17 kN / m
2

p2 = am 2 + δδ
o 2 ⋅ K s 2 ⋅ tg m 2 = 28.00 + 223.8 ⋅ 0.357 ⋅ 0.559 = 72.66kN / m
2

The shaft area is

Ap , s1 = 0.8 ⋅ p ⋅13.6 = 34.16m 2

279
 Ap , s 2 = 0.8 ⋅ p ⋅ 3.6 = 9.04m 2

Finally, the shaft resistance force is

Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s =p1 ⋅ Ap , s1 + p2 ⋅ Ap , s 2 =11.17 ⋅ 34.16 + 72.66 ⋅ 9.04 =1038.41kN

Finally, the total design pile bearing capacity is

Rd = Rd ,b + Rd , s = 11365.28 + 1038.41 = 12403.69kN > Vd = 11257.03kN

Vd 11257.03
λ
with = = = 0.9 as utilization factor
Rd 12403.69

- Design example calculated according to DA2

Rd = Rd ,b + Rd , s = q ⋅ Aq ,b + p ⋅ Ap , s

The pile base resistance is calculated as:

d 2π
Rd ,b= q ⋅ Aq ,b where =
Aq ,b = 0.5m 2
4

q=cN c sc d c ic qc bc + q0 N q sq d q iq qq bq + 0.5γ dNγ sγ dγ iγ qγ bγ

q0 =γ ⋅ ( D + L) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + 13.6) + 17.5 ⋅ 3.6 =255.3kN / m 2

 φ  40 
Nq =eπ tan φ ⋅ tan 2  45 +  =2.7183.14⋅tan 40 ⋅ tan 2  45 +  = 64.2;
 2  2 
N c= ( Nq − 1) ⋅ cot φ= ( 64.19 − 1) ⋅ cot 40°= 75.3; ( )
Nγ = 2 ⋅ N q − 1 ⋅ tan φ =106
d  d 
1 +   sin φd ,2 =
sq = 1 + sin 40 =
1.642; sγ =
1 − 0.3  =0.7;
d  d 

=sc
(=
sq N q − 1) 1.642 ⋅ 64.19 − 1
= 1.652;
Nq −1 64.19 − 1

−1
Df  17.2 
d q =1 + 2 tan ff
d ,2 (1 − sin d ,2 ) tan
2
=1 + 2 tan 40 ⋅ (1 − sin 40) 2 ⋅ tan −1   ; d q = 1.32;
d  0.8 
1 − dq 1 − 1.32 −0.32
dc =dq − =
1.32 − =
1.32 − =
1.325; dγ = 1.0
N c tan φd ,2 75.3 ⋅ tan 40 63.18

q=140 ⋅ 75.3 ⋅1.652 ⋅1.325 + 255.3 ⋅ 64.19 ⋅1.642 ⋅1.32 + 0.5 ⋅17.5 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅106.05 ⋅ 0.7 ⋅1.0 =59116.6kN / m 2

Hence, the pile base capacity is

q ⋅ Aq ,b 59116.6 ⋅ 0.5
=
Rk ,b = = 16421.27 kN
γ Rd 1.8

Rk ,b 16421.27
R= = = 14928.43kN
d ,b
γb 1.1

The pile shaft resistance is calculated as follows:

Rd , s =Σp ⋅ Ap , s

280
 The mobilized adhesion between pile and soil is

am= a ⋅ c ; am1 = 0.5 ⋅ 0.0 = 0.0kPa ; am 2 =0.5 ⋅140.0 =70.0kPa

The earth pressure coefficients are
ks1 = s ⋅ k01 = 0.5 ⋅ (1 − sin φd ,1 ) = 0.5 ⋅ 0.47 = 0.235

ks 2 = s ⋅ k02 = 1.0 ⋅ (1 − sin φd ,2 ) = 1.0 ⋅ 0.357 = 0.357

The mobilized friction between the pile and soil is

L 13.6
δ 01 =γ 1 ⋅ ( D + ) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + ) =124.3kN / m 2
2 2

L 3.6
δ 02 =γ 1 ⋅ ( D + ) =10.0 ⋅ (2.63 + 3.0 + 13.6) + 17.5 ⋅ = 223.8kN / m 2
2 2
=
tan δ1 tan 2=
3 ⋅ φ1 tan 21.3
= ° 0.39

=
tan δ 2 tan 2 =
3 ⋅ φ2 tan 26.7
= ° 0.50
The pile shaft resistance is

p1 = a1 + δδ
o1 ⋅ k s1 ⋅ tg 1 = 0.00 + 124.3 ⋅ 0.235 ⋅ 0.39 =11.39kN / m
2

p2 = a2 + δδ
o 2 ⋅ k s 2 ⋅ tg 2 = 70.00 + 223.8 ⋅ 0.357 ⋅ 0.50 =109.94kN / m
2

The shaft area Ap , s1 = 0.8 ⋅ p ⋅13.6 = 34.16m 2 ; Ap , s 2 = 0.8 ⋅ p ⋅ 3.6 = 9.04m 2

The shaft resistance force is

Σp ⋅ Ap , s p1 ⋅ Ap , s1 + p2 ⋅ Ap , s 2 11.39 ⋅ 34.16 + 109.94 ⋅ 9.04
=
Rk , s = = = 768.3kN
γ Rd γ Rd 1.8

γ Rd = 1.8 γ s = 1.1

Rk , s 768.3
R= = = 698.45kN
γs
d ,s
1.1
Total design pile bearing capacity is

Rd = Rd ,b + Rd , s = 14928.43 + 698.45 = 15626.88kN > Vd = 11257.03kN

Vd 11257.03
with λ = = = 0.72 as utilization factor
Rd 15626.88

Comparing both past and present practice it can be concluded that the old practice with MFA (similar to
DA 3) is more conservative with the higher shaft resistance by 49% but lower base resistance by 24%. In
total DA 2 calculates higher pile capacity by 37 %.
Next, the single pile capacity Rd = 15626.88kN is corrected with the effect of the group.

e) The pile group effect

2 ⋅ (m + n − 2) ⋅ l 2 ⋅ (3 + 2 − 2) ⋅ 2
=η = = 0.79
m ⋅ n ⋅ d ⋅π 3 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ π
where: m = 3
n=2
d = 0.8 m
l = 2.0 m
V Rd , gr = η ⋅ V Rd , gr = 0.79 ⋅ 15626.88 = 12345.23kN > Vd = 11257.03kN

281
 Vd 11257.03
with λ gr = = = 0.91 as utilization factor
V Rd , gr 12345.23

f) Lateral pile capacity

For first layer:

k h = 10.80 MN/m3 from the table

l 13.6
cu = kh' ⋅ = 10.8 ⋅ = 183.6 MN / m 2
d 0.8
d 4 ⋅π
= 0.02m 4 ; EI = 602.88MN / m
2
=
Eb = 30000 MPa ; I
64
d ⋅ cu 0.8 ⋅183.6
=λ 4= 4 = 0.496m −1
4 EI 4 ⋅ 602.88
D= l = 13.6m From table for λ ⋅ D = 0.496 ⋅13.6 = 6.75 − > χW = −1.25
EI ⋅ d max λ 3 602.88 ⋅ (−0.01) ⋅ 0.4963
=H Rd = = 0.269
χW −1.25
H=
Rd = 585.3kN > H
0.5853MN = d 533.74kN

g) Settlement calculation of axially loaded pile which is embedded in rock

Rock parameters

Е rm =22 GPa – Deformation modulus

q u =100MPa – Compressive strength
RQD = 90% - Rock-quality designation
Thus, the reduced modulus after Table 1.(Bieniawski, 1984) for RQD = 90% is K E = 0.60
Es =K E ⋅ Erm =0.6 ⋅ 22.0 =13.2GPa
Е b =30 GPa
U p = h2 ⋅ d ⋅ p = 3.6 ⋅1.2 ⋅ 3.14 = 9.04m 2

for H s /D eff =3.6/0.8=4.5 and E b /E s =30/13.2=2.27 From the chart in Fig.3 > Ip=0.42
N k ⋅ H s 8338.54 ⋅ 17.2 143422.88
=Se = = = 0.95cm
Aeff ⋅ Eb 0.5 ⋅ 30 ⋅ 106 15000000

Nk ⋅ I p 8338.54 ⋅ 0.42 3585.57

=Ss = = = 0.033cm
Deff ⋅ Es 0.8 ⋅ 13.2 ⋅ 106 10560000

Sd = Se + S s = 0.95 + 0.033 = 0.983 cm < Sc = 1.0 cm

h) Structural safety
For concrete type C 30/37
Vd = γ c ⋅ Vk = 1.5 ⋅11257.03 = 16885.5kN
Vd 16885.5
σ
= c = = 33.77 MPa
Ap 0.5
f ck 37.00
λc
= = = 0.91
σ c 33.77

282
REFERENCES

МКS EN 1997-1:2012 Geotechnical design, Part 1

Bond, A. & Harris, A. Decoding Eurocode 7, Taylor &Francis Group, 2008.

Frank, R. Bauduin, C. Driscoll, R. Kavvadas, M. Krebs Ovesen, N. Orr, T. Schuppener, B. Designers’

Guide to EN 1997‐1 Eurocode 7: Geotehnical design‐ General rules, Thomas Telford Ltd, 2004.

Simpson B. & Driscoll, R. ‐ Eurocode 7 a commentary, BRE, 1998

Rulebook for technical norms for design of foundation, Belgrade. 1990.

283
284
 Design of piles – Russian practice
A.B. Ponomarev, M.A. Bezgodov, A.S. Grishina, A.V. Mashenko, S.A. Sazonova, R.I. Shenkman, D.N. Sursanov,
E.N. Sytchkina, D.A. Tatiannikov
Perm National Research Polytechnic University (PNRPU), Russia, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with Russian practice of pile foundation design. Since the last national report in 1997, it
took almost 20 years and the main regulatory documents changed. In place of the SNiP 2.02.03-85 and
SNiP 2.02.01-83* came the same named SP 24.13330.2011 “Pile foundations” and SP22.13330.2011
“Soil bases of buildings and structures”, actualized and harmonized (according to developers) with EC7.
The article is not intended to assess the degree of harmonization, and talks about the current practice of
pile foundations design in Russia.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Russian Federation territory occupies 12% of the Earth's land. It is notable for wide diversity of natural
conditions, economical development, kinds of anthropogenic load and its intensity. Various geological-
genetic complexes (marine, alluvial, glacial, eluvial, eolian and others) were formed as a result of
geological processes. That also causes variety of geological conditions in some regions.
Following types of soil (according to “GOST 25100-2011 Soils. Classification”) occur in Russia territory:
• rocky grounds (magmatic, metamorphic, sedimentary, volcano-sedimentary, eluvial, anthropogenic);
• dispersed soils(non-cohesive, cohesive);
• frozen soils (rocky frozen, dispersed frozen, glacial).

Geological maps of Russian regions are shared on http://www.vsegei.ru/ru/info/gisatlas/. Quaternary

deposits map of Russia is represented in Appendix A.

2. CURRENT PRACTICE FOR SOIL INVESTIGATION

Soil investigation test methods are represented by following kinds of tests:
• Laboratory tests of soils
• Field tests of soils
Wide range of laboratory and field tests for soil investigation is represented in Fig. 1. and Fig. 2. List of
soil investigation methods used for pile foundation design according to SP 24.13330.2011 is represented
in Table 1.

Figure 1: Laboratory tests scheme

285
Figure 2: Field tests scheme

Table 1: Soil investigation methods used for pile foundation design

Category of complicacy of soil conditions
Survey type
I II III
3-rd Importance level (low) of buildings and constructions
Well-drilling On grid 70x70 m., but not On grid 50x50 m., but not On grid 30x30 m., but not
less than 1 well per less than 2 wells per less than 3 wells per
building building building
Laboratory tests Not less than 6
estimations of every
characteristic within one - -
geological-engineering
element
Probing (CPT) On grid 35x35 m., but not On grid 25x25 m., but not On grid 15x15 m., but not
less than 2 points per less than 3 points per less than 6 points per
building building building
2-nd Importance level (normal) of buildings and constructions
Well-drilling On grid 50x50 m., but not On grid 40x40 m., but not On grid 30x30 m., but not
less than 2 wells per less than 3 wells per less than 4 wells per
building building building
Laboratory tests Not less than 6 estimations of every characteristic within one geological-
engineering element
Probing (CPT) On grid 25x25 m., but not On grid 20x20 m., but not On grid 15x15 m., but not
less than 6 points per less than 7 points per less than 10 points per
building building building
Pressuremeter test Not less than 6 estimations of every characteristic
-
(PMT) within one geological-engineering element
Soil test with test
Not less than 6 tests on every selected depth
pile
Soil test with full- Not less than 2 tests on Not less than 2 tests on
scale pile every selected depth if every selected depth if
-
there is more than 1000 there is more than 100
piles piles
1-st Importance level (high) of buildings and constructions
Well-drilling On grid 40x40 m., but not On grid 30x30 m., but not On grid 10x10 m., but not
less than 3 wells per less than 4 wells per less than 10 wells per

286
 Category of complicacy of soil conditions
Survey type
I II III
building building building
Laboratory Not less than 6 estimations of every characteristic within one geological-
research of soils engineering element
Probing (CPT) On grid 25x25 m., but not On grid 15x15 m., but not On grid 10x10 m., but not
less than 6 points per less than 8 points per less than 10 points per
building building building
Pressuremeter test Not less than 6 estimations of every characteristic within one geological-
(PMT) engineering element
Stamping test Not less than 2 tests within one geological-engineering element with spreads of
results from average not more than 30%
Soil test with test
Not less than 6 tests on every selected depth
pile
Soil test with full-
Not less than 2 tests on every selected depth if there is more than 100 piles
scale pile

Principal properties of soils such, as water saturation factor, eolation factor, porosity factor etc. are
specified in appendix to GOST 25100-2011 “Soils. Classification”. Methods for determination of soils
physical characteristics, characteristics of strength and strain, frost-heave degree etc. are specified in
following standard specifications:
• Soils. Laboratory methods for determination of physical characteristics
• Soils. Laboratory methods for determining the strength and strain characteristics
• Soils. Laboratory method for determination of frost-heave degree
• Peat. Determination of the disintegration degree.
• Soils. Methods of laboratory granulometric (grain-size) and microaggregate distribution
• Soils. Laboratory method for determination of subsiding characteristics
• Soils. Methods of laboratory determination of organic composition

Official editions of above-listed and other standard specifications are shared on http://docs.cntd.ru/ (open
access).

3. CLASSIFICATION OF PILES
Piles classifications are represented in Fig.3-5.

Figure 3: Piles classification by material

Figure 4: Piles classification under the terms of the interaction with the soil

287
Figure 5: Piles classification under the terms of the interaction with the soil
In Russian design practice there are more than 150 types of piles, which are classified:
1. By material (reinforced concrete, concrete, ceramic-concrete, wooden, steel, compaction pile, stone
pile);
2. By structure (solid and constituent sections square, round, right and polygonal, with broadening and
without, with spearhead and without, prismatic and pyramidal, hollow, solid cross-section, screw pile and
column pile);
3. By type of reinforcement (with prestressed and nonprestressed axial reinforcement, with transverse
reinforcement of body and without);
4. By fabrication method and pile sinking (prefabricated and cast-in-block, screwing, bar-movable, bored,
including with packed bottomhole, drilled-in caisson в piercing bore, vibro-pressed pile).
5. By the terms of the interaction with the soil there are end-bearing and friction pile (see Fig. 6).
As end-bearing piles should be assigned all kinds of piles, based on rocky ground, and friction piles, in
addition, - in the low compressible soils. Coarse soils and clay solid and semi-solid consistency at E ≥ 50
MPa refers to the low compressibility. Soil resistance force should not be included on the surface of the
driving-side racks in their calculations of the bearing capacity of the foundation soil to a compressive
load, except for the negative friction forces.
As friction piles should be assigned all kinds of piles, based on compressible soils and transfers the load
to the ground by base side surface and the lower end.

288
Figure 6: Scheme of pile-soil interaction: a) end-bearing pile, b) friction pile

4. NATIONAL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, HARMONIZED WITH EC7

The main national document regulating the design of pile foundation is a SP 24.13330.2011 “Pile
foundations”.

4.1. Main harmonized provisions

SP 24.13330.2011 “Pile foundations” was made in accordance with the Federal Law 384-FZ “Technical
Regulations on the safety of buildings and structures”.
As an international standard analog, in relation to which runs the harmonization of SP 24.13330.2011
“Pile foundations”, adopted by the European standard EN 1997-1: 2004 (E) “Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
design - Part 1: General rules”. All the mandatory provisions of the SP 24.13330.2011 “Pile foundations”
not contrary to the mandatory provisions of EN 1997-1: 2004 (E).
In the event that any kind of piles is not reflected in the SP 24.13330.2011, methods of design,
manufacturing technology and test methods piles of data is carried out by the standards organizations and
companies involved in their manufacture; while standards organizations must comply with the federal law
N 384-FZ “Technical Regulations on the safety of buildings and structures”.

5. NATIONAL DESIGN METHODS, HARMONIZED WITH EC7

5.1. General principles

Pile foundation design according to SP 24.13330.2011 consists two major categories: strength and
serviceability; this approach matches with EC7 design paradigm.
GOST 27751 “Reliability of constructions and foundations. Principal rules of the calculations” according
to pile foundation design process provides two groups of limit states and calculations.
First limit states group - strength calculations (ULS design):
a) ultimate bearing capacity of foundation structures - piles and pile rafts, caps, ground beams,
based on pile materials properties;
b) ultimate bearing capacity based on soils characteristics;
c) ultimate bearing capacity based on general stability of pile foundation under lateral loadings,
seismic loadings and etc.
Second limit states group - serviceability calculations (SLS design):
a) settlements of single pile and group of piles;
b) pile-soil system displacements caused by lateral forces and bending moments;
c) reinforced concrete crack opening of pile foundation structures.
All these calculations are performed using design values of soils and material characteristics.

There are few methods estimates bearing capacity of piles:

a) bearing capacity using analytical methods / based on experience;
b) bearing capacity using CPT;

289
c) bearing capacity from field static load tests of test pile;
d) bearing capacity from field dynamic load tests of full-scale pile;
e) bearing capacity from field static load tests of full-scale pile .
f) bearing capacity from field load O-cell test;
g) bearing capacity from pile driving analysis (PDA) test.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

F dm – bearing capacity based on pile materials, kN;
F d – bearing capacity based on soils strength, kN;
γ с – safety factor of conditions;
φ – buckling coefficient;
γ сb , γ′ сb – construction technology safety factors;
R b – design value of compressive strength of concrete, кПа;
A b – cross-section area of the pile concrete, m 2;
R sc – design value of compressive yield strength of rebar, kPa;
A s – cross-section area of the pile rebar, m 2;
R bt – design value of tensile strength of concrete, kPa;
R s – design value of tensile yield strength of rebar, kPa;
А – cross-section area of the pile, m 2;
R – design value of soil strength at the tip of the pile, kPa;
R m – design value of rock strength at the tip of the pile;
R c,m,n – characteristic value of axial tension resistance of full saturated rock sample, kPa;
R c – design value of axial tension resistance of full saturated rock sample, kPa;
K s – RQD safety factor;
R c,n – characteristic value of axial compressive strength of full saturated rock sample, kPa;
y g – soil safety factor;
F dR – bearing capacity of the pile tip, kN;
F df – bearing capacity of the pile skin, kN;
и – cross-sectional perimeter of the full-scale pile, m;
f i – design value of pile skin resistance, kPa;
h i – thickness of the soil layer, m;
F и – design value of the ultimate pile resistance, kN;
F u,n – characteristic value of the ultimate resistance of the full-scale pile, kN;
F u,sp – characteristic value of the ultimate resistance of the full-scale pile, kN;
R sp – design value of soil resistance at the tip of the model pile, kPa;
f sp – average design value of model pile skin resistance, kPa;
u sp – cross-sectional perimeter of the model pile, m;
β I , β 2 – scale coefficients;
q s – average value of cone point resistance, kPa,
f s – average value of cone side friction, kPa
n – number of piles, pc.

5.3. Ultimate limit state design

5.3.1. Calculation according to strength of pile material and pile rafts, caps and ground
beams
Calculation depending on the pile material is performed in accordance with the requirements of SP
16.13330.2011 “Steel structures”; SP 63.13330.2012 “Concrete and won concrete construction. Design
requirements”, SP 64.13330.2011 “Timber structures”.
Piles are calculated by compressive strength of pile material (compression load) as central compression
bar according to the formula
Fdm = γ cϕ (γ cbγ 'cb Rb Ab + Rsc As ) (1)
Piles are calculated by tensile strength of pile material (tensile load) as central tension bar according to
the formula
Fdm = γ c (γ cbγ 'cb Rbt Ab + Rs As ) (2)
When a pile is subjected to longitudinal stress and moment it must be examined by strength of material as
the eccentric-compressed element.

290
When the raft of pile foundation is low, calculation is carried out without buckling of pile, except in cases
of occurrence of thick layers of very weak soil (peat, mud) on the ground surface, and when the raft of
pile foundation is high buckling of pile is taken into account on the pile section not surrounded by soil.
When steel screw piles are considered weld strength is checked at the intersection of the blade and the
pile shaft, etc.

5.3.2. Bearing capacity of end-bearing piles

Bearing capacity of end-bearing pile is determined by the formula:
Fd = γ c RA (3)
R value for cast-in-place piles, drilled piles and hollow-shell piles is determined by the formula:
Rc, m, n
R = Rm = (4)
gg
Expressions that take into account index RQD are used for preliminary calculations
Rm = Rc K s (5)
Rc, m, n = Rc, n K s (6)
The procedure of taking into account the index RQD is currently under criticism from both the designers
(significantly low values of bearing capacity calculations in comparison with the high results of in-situ
testing of bearing capacity), and the surveyors (there is no clear methodology for determining the RQD).

5.3.3. Bearing capacity of friction piles

Calculation formulas to determine the bearing capacity of friction piles vary depending on the pile types
(precast pile, drilled pile, cast-in-place pile), but the general approach is to find the parts of bearing
capacity received by pile top and by pile skin.
(
Fd = FdR + Fdf = γ c γ cR RA + γ cf u ∑ f i hi ) (7)
R values are accepted from the tables summarizing the experience of field testing and Berezantsev
analytical approaches, values fi are also taken from the tables summarizing basically the experience of
field testing.

5.3.4. Bearing capacity of piles based on field tests

Static load test of full-scale and test piles
The methods of determining the bearing capacity of piles based on the results of field tests («field tests»)
are in situ tests such as: cone penetration tests, loading test of full-scale and test (model) piles, as well as
piles test by dynamic or static loads (Fig. 7). GOST 5686-2012. “Soils. Field test methods by piles”
regulates the methods of testing, the formulation of the test results.
The bearing capacity of full-scale piles by static load is determined by the formula:
g c Fu , n
Fd = (8)
gg
The piles of two types are used in model piles tests by static load. The design of model pile type I can
measure the total resistance of model pile in tests , Fu,sp. The design of model pile type II can measure
separately the resistance on lateral surface of pile, fs, and on the tip of pile, Rsp, during the test. The
bearing capacity of the model test piles type I and II by static load is determined accordingly:
u
Fu = γ sp Fu , sp (9)
u sp
Fu = γ cR Rsp A + γ cf f sp uh (10)

291
 a) b)

Figure 7: The curves of full-scale pile tests results by compressive load: a) – curve of relation pile
settlement S with load P; b) – curve of change pile settlement S in time t (on the steps of loading)

Field tests of piles by dynamic load

In this method, the bearing capacity of the pile is determined by value of refusal of the pile in the free fall
of the hammer (Fig.8).

Figure 8: Scheme of dynamic tests; G - the weight of the hammer, H - height of drop of the hammer, S a -
settlement caused by hammer
Ultimate resistance of piles is determined by formula based on N.M. Gersevanov method (1917):

ηAM  4 Ed m1 + ε 2 (m2 + m3 ) 
Fu =  1+ ⋅ − 1 (11)
2  ηAsa m1 + m2 + m3 
 
The bearing capacity of piles is determined by considering safety factors (γ c, γ g )

Fd = g c
∑ Fu, n (12)
ng g

292
 Determination of the bearing capacity of piles using the cone penetration test
GOST 19912-2012 “Soils. Field test methods: cone penetration test and dynamic probing” regulates cone
penetration tests.
In Russian practice are used two types of penetrometers (probes), represented at Fig.9.
Type I penetrometer is a mechanical penetrometer, which measures the resistance of the cone and the
total force pressing (Fig.9a)
Type II penetrometer is an electrical penetrometer, which measures the resistance of the cone and friction
sleeve (Fig.9b)
Ultimate resistance of piles is determined by the formula:
Fu = Rs A + fhu (13)
where Rs = β I q s ;
for type I penetrometer f = β2 fs ;

for type II penetrometer f =

∑ β i f si hi
h
The bearing capacity of piles is determined by considering safety factors (γ c, γ g )

Fd = g c
∑ Fu, n (14)
ng g

Figure 9: Type of penetrometers: а — type I penetrometer; b- type II penetrometer; 1 —cone; 2 —

casing; 3 — rod; 4 — friction sleeve

293
Figure 10: Sample graphic design results of the CPT: а —type I penetrometer; b- type II penetrometer

5.3.5. Lateral loading of a single pile

There are no special calculation cases of lateral loading of a single pile in the SP 24.13330. This loading
considered commonly with axial loading and bending moment (see section 5.4.4.).

5.3.6. Special cases of calculation

In the SP 24.13330 includes the following special cases of pile foundation calculations:
- (negative) ground friction on the lateral surface of piles
- design during reconstruction of buildings and structures
- design in subsiding soils
- design in swelling soils
- n undermined areas
- in seismic regions
- design in karst areas
In the SP 24.13330 also included recommendations about application of modern methods bearing
capacity control of the piles.
- method witch based on computer processing of dynamic tests results on bored piles by large mass
hammers followed by the wave theory of impact (PDA)
- estimating of bearing capacity method for bored piles, by the processing results of the CPT.

5.4. Serviceability limit state design

Several calculation methods of pile foundation settlements s are represented in SP 24.13330.2011:
- settlement of single pile and pile group (for n <25 in the group)
- settlement computation of pile foundation as a tentative foundation
- settlement of settlement of combined pile raft foundations (CPRF);
- deformation of pile due to the combined effect of vertical and horizontal forces and moments.
Limit values for the combined deformation of the pile foundation and structures s u , are established in
accordance with SP 22.13330.2011 “Soil bases of buildings and structures”:
s ≤ su (15)

5.4.1. Settlement calculation of single piles and pile groups

When settlement of single pile is calculated, the ground mass is seen as linearly deformable half-space
characterized by the shear modulus G and Poisson's ratio by the formula:
N
s=β (16)
GI l
When settlement of pile group is calculated additional interference of piles is considered which leads to
the extra settlement.
N
sad = d (17)
GI l

294
 Nj
si = s( N ) + ∑ δ ij (18)
j ≠i GI l

5.4.2. Settlement calculation method of pile groups as imaginary footing

Calculation method of pile groups as imaginary footing or layers settlement summation method uses next
assumptions:
- pile group is represented as imaginary footing
- pressure caused by loadings on imaginary footing should not exceed design value of soils
resistance under the imaginary footing R.
Schemes to determination of sizes of imaginary footing presented at Fig.11.

Figure 11: Determination of sizes of imaginary footing: a) for vertical driven piles; b) for inclined driven
piles; c) in case of weal soil layer

295
Figure 12: Settlement calculation of pile group
Method consists of few steps. At first step pile group is represented as imaginary footing. Pressure p II
caused by loading on imaginary footing is calculated. Design value of soils resistance under the
imaginary footing according to SP 22.13330.2011
( )[ ( ) ]
R = γ c1γ c 2 / k M γ k z b y γ ' II + M q d1γ ' II + M q − 1 d bγ ' II + M c c II (13)
p II < R (14)
Next step consists determination of additional loadings р о and additional pressures σ zр at the tip of
imaginary footing.
σ zp = αp0 (15)
σ zp ≤ 0,2σ zg (16)
Settlement calculation of pile group (as settlement of each layer within compressible stratum) is
s zp , i hi
s = β∑ (17)
Ei
Schemes to calculation method presented at Fig.12.

5.4.3. Calculation of settlement of combined pile raft foundations

Calculation of settlement of pile-slab foundation can be carried out like for a slab on the elastic base with
variable coefficient of soil reaction. The average value of the elastic coefficient of soil reaction can be
assigned directly from the spatial non-linear analysis and by solving the axisymmetric problem for the
unit cell which includes the pile and the surrounding soil mass (see. Fig. 13).

296
Figure 13: Сalculation by the unit cell method
Spatial work of foundations should be taking into account for determination of the elastic coefficient of
soil reaction in the edge zones of foundations and other areas of stress concentration. Distribution of
stiffness characteristics is determined on the basis of numerical modeling using geotechnical programs or
other solutions. One of the design schemes for definition of settlement of pile-slab foundation (method
Gotman N.Z.) is shown in Fig. 14.

Figure 14: Calculation of settlement of pile-slab foundation

5.4.4. Calculation of deformation of piles due to the combined effect of vertical and
horizontal forces and moments
Analytical methods for calculating the impact of the horizontal load can be divided into two groups
depending on the nature of deformations in the ground. The first group of methods designed for short

297
rigid piles, which are rotated in the ground without bending around some point under the influence of
horizontal load, as shown in Fig. 15 a).

Figure 15: The scheme of work of horizontally loaded piles of varying rigidity: a) - short rigid piles b) -
pile of average rigidity and long flexible
The second group of methods is designed for piles which under the action of horizontal loads are rotated
in the ground with a bend or bend without moving the lower end of pile, Fig. 15 b). Methods for
calculating deformations of the second group are generally based on the use of model of local elastic
deformations (Winkler base). SP 24.13330.2011 using calculation method, developed by Zavriev K.S.
According to this method the vertical pile is considered as a beam on elastic foundation loaded at one end.
The soil is represented linearly deformable space which is characterized by elastic coefficient of soil
reaction which is growing in proportion to the depth. Under these conditions and on the base of the
decisions of structural mechanics were obtained formulas for determining the horizontal displacement and
rotation angle of the head of the pile (и р and ψ р ), as well as to determine the bending moments and lateral
forces in any cross-section along length of the pile.
Solutions are obtained for piles of loose head and for the piles clamped in the raft foundation. According
to the developed Zavriev K.S. methodology calculations of single flexible piles on the combined effect of
vertical, horizontal forces and moments are carried out in accordance with the scheme shown in Fig. 16.
The calculation includes:
a) calculation of the deformation of the piles;
b) checking the stability of the foundation soil;
c) definition of the efforts in the pile (compressive force, bending moment and shear force);
d) check of the cross-sections of the piles at material resist to the limiting conditions of the first and
the second group (strength, formation and disclosure of cracks).

298
Figure 16: The scheme of calculation according to the method Zavriev K.S.

5.5. Constructional safety

In the design of the pile foundations constructions requirements in SP 16.13330.2011 “Steel
constructions”; SP 63.13330.2012 “Concrete and reinforced concrete constructions” and other must be
observed.
In general, the requirements for structure design of pile foundations listed in Section 8 SP 24.13330.2011.

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

In Russia all quality requirements for different geotechnical structures are given in SP 45.13330.2012
“Earthworks, Grounds and Footings”. All quality control actions for piles and pile foundations listed in
part 12 of this document.
Geotechnical monitoring of pile foundation performed according to part 12 of SP 22.13330.2011 “Soil
bases of buildings and structures”, and appendixes of this document.
Wide range of testing practice requirements is given in GOST 5686-2012 “Soils. Field test methods by
piles”.

7. NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

In Russian national experience in pile design and pile testing practice accumulated in different scientific
studies, especially in Ph.D thesises. Studies sponsored by different researches grants also exists, but there
are more rare cases.
National database also does not exist, but archives of TISIZes (TISIZ – Trest Injenerno-Stroitelnyh
Izyskaniy/ StroyTrest of engineering surveys for construction), based in every region of country
(approximately more than 80). This companies consist 50-70-year-old database of different kind of
surveys and testing practice, also pile testing, in this area.

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE
Hereby 2 design examples of pile foundations for civil buildings located in Perm (this city is located on
the banks of the Kama River in the European part of Russia near the Ural Mountains) are presented. First
design example deals with friction pile, analyzed results of calculation based on experience, CPT results
and field pile test. Second example deals with end-bearing pile, also analyzed results of calculation based
on experience, CPT results and field pile test. All calculation performed according to SP 24.13330.2011
and formulas from section 5. Results presented in tables and charts.

299
8.1. Design example 1. Quaternary Clays (аQIV) and friction pile
Dimensions of construction site - 18 m x 18 m. Geological profile (see also Fig. 17) consists of next
layers:
- 0 m – 1.1 m : clay (1);
- 1.1 m – 9.8 m : clay (2);
- 9.8 m – 10.1 m : clay (3);
- 10.1 m – …. : gravel soil with interlayers of clay.
Groundwater were registered at a depth of 3.7 m. Physical parameters of soil layers presented in the Table
2, laboratory test results presented in the Table 3.

Figure 17: Geological profile.

Table 2: Physical characteristics of the soil

Sample depth
Parameters 0 m-1.1 m 1.1 m-9.8 m 9.8 m-10.1 m 10.1 m-12.1 m
Clay (1) Clay (2) Clay (3) Gravel
γ d (kN/m3)* 15.8 15.3 15.1 14.4
γ n (kN/m3)* 18.8 19.4 19.2 17.5
w (%)* 0.187 0.268 0.135 0.130
Sr * 0.730 0.949 0.933 -
w L (%)* 0.390 0.324 0.390 0.190
w p (%)* 0.192 0.188 0.202 0.120
I p (%)* 0.198 0.135 0.188 0.070
I L (%)* 0-0.150 0.600 0.000-0.446 0.100-0.670
* - the average value for the layer of soil

Table 3 : Results of shear tests and odometer tests

300
 Sample depth
Parameters 0 m -1.1 m 1.1 m -9.8 m 9.8 m -10.1 m 10.1 m -12.1 m
Clay (1) Clay (2) Clay (3) Gravel
φ' (°)* 17 10 17 18
c' (kPa)* 49 14 47 9
E oed (MPа)* 4.1 1.9 2.8 5.1
* - the average value for the layer of soil
Parameters of designed pile foundation are presented in the Table 4.

Table 4: Pile foundation parameters

Parameter Value
General single pile; vertical compression load
Type of pile driven pile
Material precast concrete C16 (B20)
Dimensions, m 0.3x0.3x10
Cross-section type square
Cross-section area, m2 0.09
Perimeter, m 1.2
Design load, kN 250

For pile foundation design next surveys were performed (see also Fig.18-19):
- 2 cone penetration tests (CPT);
- 1 CPTU;
- 2 boreholes;
- 2 static loading tests of piles.

Figure 18: CPT and CPTU data plots

301
Figure 19: Static load test of driven pile data
Results of calculation presented in the Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5: Calculation of the pile capacity (ULS)

Ultimate compressive resistance, kN Load design
Design method
Shaft Ttoe Full value, kN
Based on experience (s.5.3.3) 80 200 280 174
CPT (s. 5.3.4) 105 170 275 191
Static load test (s. 5.3.4) - - 350 254
Strength of pile material (s. 5.3.1) - - - 1000

Table 6: Determination of the pile displacement (SLS)

The allowable value of settlement
Design method Settlement, mm
(according to SP 22.13330.2011), mm
Imaginary footing (s.5.4.2) 15
120
Static load test settlement 20

8.2. Design example 2. Quaternary Sand (аQIV), Upper Permian clay deposits
(P) and end-bearing pile
Dimensions of construction site - 30 m x 30 m. Geological profile (see also Fig. 20) consists of next
layers:
- 0.0 m – 1.0 m : organic soil;
- 1.0 m – 5.8 m : clay sand;
- 5.8 m – 7.9 m : sand;
7.9 m – 16.5 m : gravelly sand;

302
16.5 m – …. m : clay stone, very loose (Upper Permian deposits (P)).
Groundwater were registered at a depth of 16 m. Physical parameters of soil layers presented in the Table
7, laboratory test results presented in the Table 8.

Figure 20: Geological profile.

Table 7: Physical characteristics of the soil

Sample depth
Parameters 1.0 m-5.8 m 5.8 m-7.9 m 7.9 m-16.5 m 16.5 m-…
Clayey sand Sand Gravelly sand Clay stone
γ d (kN/m3)* 19.9 17.9 19.9 14.5
γ n (kN/m3)* 21.3 19.9 21.3 17.9
w (%)* 8.8 11.1 6.2 15.7
Sr * 0.694 0.628 0.520 0.811
e* 0.395 0.482 0.325 0.714
w L (%)* 17 - - 44.3
w p (%)* 13.3 - - 26.9
I p (%)* 3.6 - - 21.7
I L (%)* 0 - - <0
* - the average value for the layer of soil

303
Table 8: Results of shear tests and odometer tests
Sample depth
Parameters 1.0 m-5.8 m 5.8 m-7.9 m 7.9 m-16.5 m 16.5 m-…
Clayey sand Sand Gravelly sand Clay stone
φ' (°)* 29 33 40 22
c' (kPa)* 10 4 1 19
E oed (MPа)* 4.9 10.5 13 8
* - the average value for the layer of soil
Parameters of designed pile foundation are presented in the Table 9.

Table 9 : Pile foundation parameters

Parameter Value
General single pile; vertical compression load
Type of pile bored pile
Material concrete pile С20 (B25)
Dimensions, m 0.63x20
Cross-section type circle
Cross-section area, m2 0.31
Perimeter, m 1.98
Design load, kN 3800

For pile foundation design next surveys were performed (see also Fig.21-22):
- 7 cone penetration tests (CPT);
- 5 boreholes;
- 1 static loading test of pile.

Figure 21: CPT data plot

304
Figure 22: Static load test of driven pile data
Results of calculation presented in the Table 10 and Table 11.

Table 10: Calculation of the pile capacity (ULS)

Ultimate compressive resistance, kN Load design
Design method
Shaft Ttoe Full value, kN
Based on experience (s.5.3.3) 645 2045 2690 1950
Static load test (s. 5.3.4) - - 5400 3913
Strength of pile material (s. 5.3.1) - - 5450 4400

Table 11: Determination of the pile displacement (SLS)

The allowable value of settlement
Design method Settlement, mm
(according to SP 22.13330.2011), mm
Imaginary footing (s.5.4.2) 25
150
Static load test settlement 6

REFERENCES

SP 24.13330.2011: Pile foundations

SP 22.13330.2011: Soil bases of buildings and structures

GOST 5686-2012: Soils: Field test methods by piles

GOST 30416-2015: Sоils. Laboratory testing. General requirements

GOST 19912-2012: Soils. Field test methods: cone penetration test and dynamic probing

305
Il'ichev, V. A. and Mangushev, R. A. (2014) Handbook of geotechnical engineering. The bases,
foundations and underground structures. 736 p, ISBN: 978-5-93093-952-1.

Mangushev, R. A., Gotman, A. L., Znamensky,V.V., Ponomarev, A. B. Piles and pile foundations : design
and technology.2015. 312 p. ISBN: 978-5-4323-0099-7.

Field measurments investigating the stress strain behavior of driven pile foundations on hard soil,
Sursanov D. ,Ponomaryov A., proceedings of 23rd European Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference,
Barcelona, 2-5 September 2014. ISBN-13: 978-84-697-1036-4

Soft rock of perm as the base of pile foundation soils, Ponomarev A., Sursanov D., Sytchkina E.,
proceedings of the ‘Baltic Piling Days 2012’ (Tallinn, Estonia, 3-5 September 2012), ISBN-13: 978-1-
315-87954-3.

Settlement prediction of foundations on argillite-like soils (as exemplified by the Perm region),
Ponomarev A. B. ,Sychkina E. N., Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 2014. Vol. 51. № 3,

Ponomaryov, A. B. Research into time effect influence on pile bearing capacity/. A. B. Ponomaryov, A. V.
Zakharov, M. A. Bezgodov // Geotechnics of Roads and Railways. - 2014.- Vol. 2. - P.885-891.

Seminatural experimental studies of geotextile encased stone columns, Shenkman R. I., Ponomaryov A.
B., proceedings of 23rd European Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference, Barcelona, 2-5 September
2014. ISBN-13: 978-84-697-1036-4

Application of geotextile encased stone columns in geological conditions of perm region of the Russian
Federation, Shenkman R., Ponomaryov A., IGGI 2012

306
9. APPENDIX A. QUATERNARY DEPOSITS MAP OF RUSSIA

307
308
 Design of piles – Outline of the Spanish practice
Carlos Fernández Tadeo, CFT & Asociados SL, Spain, [email protected]

José Estaire, Laboratorio de Geotecnia – CEDEX, Spain, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the current situation in Spain relative to the design of piles. There are two main
factors that govern the situation: the fact that there is not a single authority on geotechnical issues in
Spain so there are three normative geotechnical documents (one for buildings, one for roads and one for
ports) and there has not been an official delivery of the Spanish National Annex to EC7 so EC7 is
scarcely used in geotechnical design in Spain.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. Iberian Peninsula

The Iberian Peninsula includes Spain, Portugal and Andorra. The peninsula contains rocks from every age
from Ediacaran to Holocene, and almost every kind of rock is represented. World class mineral deposits
can also be found there.
The core of the Iberian Peninsula consists of a Hercynian cratonic block known as the Iberian Massif. On
the northeast this is bounded by The Pyrenean fold belt, and on the southeast it is bounded by the Betic
Foldchain. These twofold chains are part of the Alpine belt. To the west, the peninsula is delimited by the
continental boundary formed by the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. The Hercynian Foldbelt is mostly
buried by Mesozoic and Cenozoic cover rocks to the east, but nevertheless outcrops through the Iberian
Chain and the Catalonian Coastal Ranges.

Figure 1: The Geology of Iberian Peninsula (from Wikipedia)

More information on the Spanish Geology can be found in IGME website (www.igme.es), the website of
the Geological and Minning Spanish Institute.

309
1.2. Canary Islands
Seven islands of volcanic origin in the Atlantic Ocean.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION
Soil investigation is composed of site exploration and laboratory tests. Site exploration is performed
basically by boreholes and penetrometers. Large constructions involve usually also geophysical
exploration. Boreholes are performed mainly by rotary drilling with coring bit. Most used drilling
diameter is 86 mm. The most used in situ test is Standard Penetration Test (SPT) with automatic hammer
inside boreholes. Dynamic continuous penetrometers are used also as routine exploration. DPSH type is
the most extended. Static penetrometers are used in soft soils and piezocone CPTU has become usual.
Pressiometers and dilatometers are used in large projects.
Push tube samplers are used at the bottom of boreholes, usually driven by percussion. Drilling cores are
routinely stored in cardboard or plastic boxes. Laboratory testing include: basic soil identifications tests,
unconfined compression, direct shear, triaxial, oedometer and other rock tests.
Geotechnical codes define intensity and type of investigation depending on work category and
geotechnical conditions.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

Driven piles and cast-in-situ piles are used in deep foundations. Most of driven piles are precast
reinforced concrete piles, square section from 20 cm to 40 cm side, with mechanical splices each 12 m
length or less. Driven prestressed concrete piles are less used. There are only three piling contractors
driving concrete piles in Spain. They do the whole process: precast, driving using their own hydraulic
hammers, trimming and, many times, design and testing. Driven steel tube piles are used by other
companies in small docks inside ports.
Augercast piles (or CFA) are the most common cast-in-situ piles for diameters below 1 m. Large piles are
bored usually with help of steel casings and slurry fluids. Diameters over 2 m and lengths greater than 50
m are rare.
Some of the larger piling contractors are associated in the technical association AETESS
(www.aetess.com). Their website contains interesting documents on the state of the art of piling in Spain.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
There are three main geotechnical codes or guides:
• Guía de Cimentaciones en Obras de Carreteras. Dirección General de Carreteras del Ministerio de
Fomento (2003). [Foundations Guide for Road Works] This guide complies recommendations for
foundations in the field of road constructions, delivered by the Ministry of Public Works in 2003.
• Recomendaciones de Obras Marítimas y Portuarias (ROM 0.5-05), Puertos del Estado, Ministerio de
Fomento (2005). This document compiles geotechnical recommendations for maritime and port
constructions, delivered by the Ministry of Public Works in 2005.
• Código Técnico de la Edificación (CTE- Building Technical Code), Documento Básico SE-C:
Seguridad Estructural, Cimientos. Mandatory for building construction. Approved by Ministry of
Housing in 2006.

On other hand, the Spanish National Annex to EC7 was approved by the Spanish AENOR corresponding
committee (AEN/CTN 140/SC7) in 2014 and it is scheduled to be officially delivered by AENOR (the
Spanish Normalization Body) in the first half of 2016.

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles

There is not a single authority on geotechnical issues in Spain so, as a consequence of that, there are three
normative geotechnical documents (one for buildings, one for roads and one for ports), as listed in
Chapter 4.
The building code (CTE) is the only one which is mandatory, while the other two documents (“Guía de
cimentaciones” for roads and ROM 0.5-05 for ports) are only recommendations or guides. However, the
last two documents become mandatory, in many occasions, mainly in projects of constructions for the
Spanish Estate Government.

310
 CTE is the only of the three codes which includes the partial factor method. The two others were
published before EC7 was approved so they use the global safety factor method. In this respect, the
National Annex, approved by AENOR in 2014 but still not published, bridges this gap and assigns partial
factors for all kinds of geotechnical activities. The calibration of such partial factors was done to achieve
the same level of safety than obtained with the use of the different methods currently used in Spain.

5.2. Definitions and symbols

Definitions and symbols used in the text are explained after its reference.

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Introduction
This is the more common method used in Spain which implies, as a previous step, the determination of
the representative values of the geotechnical strength parameters (mainly the ones derived from Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion).

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile

a.- Design based on Spanish geotechnical documents

The following table contains the expressions set in the three geotechnical documents listed above to
calculate the unit base resistance (q p ) and the unit shaft friction (q f ).

Table 1: Expressions to calculate the unit base resistance and shaft friction according to the Spanish
geotechnical documents

Geotechnical
Unit base resistance Unit shaft friction
document
Granular Soils (drained behaviour) Granular Soils (drained behaviour)

q p = 3.σ vp' .N q . f D ≤ 20 MPa q φ = σ v' .K . φ .tgφ

being: being:
1 + senf p .tgf K = 0,75 for driven piles
Nq = .e
1 − senf K = 0,5 for cast in-situ piles
f = 1 for cast in-situ piles
D
ROM 0.5-05 f D = 1 − > 0,7 f = 1 for driven piles
3
(Recommendations for f = 0,9 for steel piles
g .L → ( H ≤ Lcrítica )
 
'
Maritime Works) s vp' =  ' 
g .( H + Lcrítica ) → ( H > Lcrítica )
Lcrítica = D. N q
Fine Soils (undrained behaviour)
Fine Soils (undrained behaviour)
q p = (9 − 3.D).cu > 6.cu
100.cu
qf =
100 + cu

q p = N q*.σ v' 0 + N c*.c ' Granular and fine soils in drained

Guía de conditions
being:
Cimentaciones
q f = c + K 0 .tgδ .σ v' ≤ 90 kPa
en Obras de Carretera
If no information is available on K 0 and/or δ =>
(Foundations Guide for
K 0 .tg δ σ v ´= 0,3
Road Works)

311
 Geotechnical
Unit base resistance Unit shaft friction
document
1 + senf π .tgf
N q* = 1,5. .e . f D
1 − senf
Nq − 1
N c* =
tgf
Fine Soils (undrained behaviour)
D 2
fD = 1 − ≥ 100.cu
3 3 qf = ≤ 70 kPa
100 + cu
σ v' 0 ≤ σ v' 0, 20 m at 20 m deep

Fine Soils (undrained behaviour)

N c* = 9 f D
Granular and fine soils in drained Granular and fine soils in drained
conditions conditions

q p = f p .σ vp' .N q* ≤ 20 MPa q φ = σ v' .k φ . φ .tgφ ≤ 120 kPa

being: being:
Código Técnico de la f p = 3 for driven piles k f = 1 for driven piles

Edificación f p = 2,5 for cast in-situ piles k f = 0,75 for cast in-situ piles

(CTE- Building Technical 1 + senφ π .tgφ f = 1 for cast in-situ piles

N q* = .e f = 0,9 for driven piles
Code) 1 − senφ
f = 0,8 for steel piles

Fine Soils (undrained behaviour) Fine Soils (undrained behaviour)

q p = N p .cu 100.cu
qf = ≤ 100 kPa
Np = 9 100 + cu

As it can be seen, there are some differences in the three documents that, in many occasions, lead to
significant differences in the pile design.

Besides those expressions collected above, there are other expressions to design pile foundations based on
the results of SPT and static and dynamic penetrometers

The global safety factors that design must fulfil are collected in the following tables.

Table 2: Global safety factors used to design pile foundations by analytical expressions according to the
Spanish geotechnical documents
Load combinations
Geotechnical document
quasi-permanent characteristic accidental
ROM 0.5-05
(Recommendations for Maritime 2,5 2,2 2,0
Works)
Guía de Cimentaciones
en Obras de Carretera 3,0 2,6 2,2
(Foundations Guide for Road Works)
Código Técnico de la
Edificación 3,0 3,0 2,0
(CTE- Building Technical Code)

312
Table 3: Global safety factors used to design pile foundations by different calculation methods for the
characteristic load combination according to the Spanish geotechnical documents
Guía de Cimentaciones
ROM 0.5-05
Calculation Method (Recommendations for en Obras de Carretera
Maritime Works) (Foundations Guide for Road
Works)
Based on SPT 2,2 2,6
Based on static penetrometer 1,8 2,2
Based on dynamic penetrometer 2,3 3,0
Based on analytical expressions 2,2 2,6

As it can be seen the global safety factors to be used with those in-situ test results are lower (for the static
penetrometer), equal (for SPT test) and higher (for dynamic penetrometer) compared with those one valid
for the analytical expressions.

b.- Spanish National Annex

Spain has chosen Design Approach 2 to design all the geotechnical constructions except for slope stability
calculations that shall be done with Design Approach 3.

The following table collects the partial factors included in National Annex to design piles, according to
the different structures involved and the different type of piles:

Table 4: Values of partial factors to be used in pile design according the Spanish National Annex
Value
Resistance Symbol Building Other structures
structures Driven piles Bored piles CFA piles
Base gb 1,55 1,25 1,35 1,45
Shaft (compression) gs 1,55 1,05 1,10 1,15
Total/combined (compression) gt 1,40 1,15 1,25 1,30
Shaft (tension) g s;t 1,80 1,05 1,10 1,15

When analytical models are applied, it is necessary to use an additional model factor with a value of 1,40.

5.3.3. Axial tension of a single pile

The Spanish documents set that the axial tension of a single pile is equal to its shaft friction plus its own
weight. On other hand, the experience shows that compression shaft friction is higher than tension shaft
friction, so the following expression is given:

T = Wp + α . qs

Where T is the axial tension of a single pile, W p is the pile weight, q s is the compression shaft resistance
and α is a factor between 0,5 and 0,7 to take into account the difference between compression and tension
shaft friction.

5.3.4. Lateral loading of a single pile

The well-known abacuses by Broms are proposed as the model to calculate the lateral resistance of piles
in cohesive and cohesionless soils.

5.3.5. Specific issues

There are not special calculation models different from the usual ones found in literature to take into the
following specific issues: Negative skin friction, group effect, cyclic loading and seismic design.

5.3.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

There is not a list of problems expected to be included in the National Annexes or in future developments
of EC-7.

313
5.4. SLS design
This issue rarely governs the pile design is Spain.
Besides, the settlement of a single pile is recommended to be calculated based on an empirical data: the
settlement of a single pile subjected to its service load is usually around 1% of its diameter if the
serviceability load situation is quite far from the maximum bearing capacity.

5.5. Design based on load tests

This way of designing piles is very scarcely used in Spain.

5.6. Design based on experience

As a normal rule, piles are not designed based on experience in Spain but, of course, experience is used to
set the representative values of the different geotechnical parameters that define the mechanical behaviour
of the different materials involved in calculations.

5.7. Structural safety

The structural pile design must satisfy the so called “structural limit” (“tope structural”, in Spanish) that
can be defined as the maximum average compression stress that can be applied to a pile for the quasi-
permanent load combination.
The values of such “structural limit” are collected in the following table for different pile types.

Table 5: Values of the “pile structural limit” according to the Spanish geotechnical documents for
different pile types
Pile type Structural limit (MPa)
Withdrawable tube driven and cast in-situ piles 6,0
Bored and cast in-situ piles: Dry technique
Bored and cast in-situ piles: Using bentonite slurry
5,0
Rotary auger bored piles, with control of parameters 4,5
Rotary auger bored piles, without control of parameters 4,0

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

Pile design quality control depends on the type of owner of the project. In private buildings, design
quality control is done by consultants working for assurance companies, always conservative. In public
works, projects are bided with less QC and there is nearly always much litigation and changes in the
foundation design at the beginning of the construction.
Architect is the only responsible for building construction in Spain, so usually there is not any
geotechnical engineer supervising pile construction, only in big building projects. Monitoring of pile rigs
with onboard electronic instruments is possible in newer rigs, but usually nobody is interested in it, nor
piling contractors nor architects or engineers supervising, by different reasons. Many times, the only QC
practice is the moulding of concrete cylinders. In big projects, the piling contractor uses to do QC
checklist reports and test the slurry fluid.
Non destructive or integrity testing of piles is common in Spain. Geotechnical codes recommend them in
many cases. Big piles are routinely tested with cross-hole sonic logging or sonic transparency inside
embedded tubes (CSL). Piles in building foundations are tested sometimes by sonic or echo test method
with a handheld hammer. There are few specialized consultants and many general testing laboratories
doing integrity testing of piles.
Load test of piles is not common in Spain. Perhaps the reason is that many piles are bearing on rock. Just
some static load tests of piles in compression in projects with high loads. Dynamic load test in driven
piles are routinely done by drivers, only a few by specialized independent consultants. Dynamic load test
is not standard in bored piles.

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

There are not public databases that can be consulted.

314
REFERENCES

Wikipedia. “Geology of the Iberian Peninsula” by PePeEfe, translated by Graeme Bartlett - derivative of
File:Geological units of the Iberian Peninsula.

Código Técnico de la Edificación (CTE), Documento Básico SE-C: Seguridad Estructural, Cimientos.
Ministerio de la Vivienda (2006). Free download on the Internet
http://www.codigotecnico.org/images/stories/pdf/seguridadEstructural/DBSE-C.pdf.

Guía de cimentaciones en obras de carreteras. Dirección General de Carreteras del Ministerio de

Fomento (2003). Free download on the Internet
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/63A5CC1B-E7B9-4638-AE45-8BA22A580223/69188/0710401.pdf.

Recomendaciones Geotécnicas para Obras Marítimas y Portuarias (ROM 0.5-05), Puertos del Estado,
Ministerio de Fomento (2005). Free download on the Internet http://www.puertos.es/es-
es/BibliotecaV2/ROM%200.5-05%20%28EN%29.pdf.

315
316
 Design of piles – Swedish practice
Gary Axelsson, ELU Konsult, Sweden, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
More than 95% of the piles installed in Sweden are made up of driven displacement piles or drilled end-
bearing piles to hard till or into hard crystalline rock. The piles are either concrete pre-cast piles or
small diameter steel pipe piles. The most common in-situ investigation methods with regard to piling are
super-heavy dynamic probing and percussion drilling to into rock. All the end-bearing piles are driven to
a termination criterion. The geotechnical design capacity (GEO) is often determined by dynamic testing
and Design approach 2 is used. Because of the very high end-bearing capacities, the structural capacity
of the piles can often be critical for design as it is not uncommon with very soft normal consolidated clay
overlaying the till or rock. The structural capacity (STR) is checked for buckling and material yield using
2nd order theory and Design approach 3 is used.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. The main geology of Sweden

Sweden is part of the geological Fennoscandia Shield which includes Sweden, Norway, Finland and part
of north-western Russia. Approximately 75 % of the bedrock in Sweden is covered with very dense
moraine (till) and for 10 % of the area there is no soil (or less than 0,5 m) overlaying the bedrock. In the
remaining areas the bedrock is directly covered with various glacial or post-glacial sediments such as
clay, silt and sand, or by peat. The last ice age ended around ten thousand years ago, so the Swedish
geological soil history is very young. On the other hand, our bedrock is one of the oldest in Europe and
the most common rocks are crystalline, such as granite and gneiss.

Nearly all of Sweden, except the southern part (Skåne and the large islands Öland and Gotland) consist of
very hard rock, with uniaxial compression strength in the region of 100-300 MPa. It is common that the
bedrock surface varies (undulates) significantly within short distances. In the south, where sedimentary
rock dominates (limestone and sandstone), hard clay-till is often encountered. The geology here is similar
to what is found across the Öresund in Denmark.

During the melting period of the ice-mass, moraine of variable thickness was deposited on top of the
bedrock. When the moraine was subjected to extremely high pressure from the large ice-mass it became
very dense, so called till. Overlaying the till in some places are deposits of loose moraine, which were not
subjected to high pressure. The moraine is often very well-graded and the dominant fractions vary
between silt and gravel, except in the south where clayey till predominates. It is not uncommon to
encounter larger boulders in moraine.

Loose deposits of alluvial sediments of clay silt or sand generally cover the moraine. The clay in Sweden
is predominately post-glacial. Normally under a thin layer of dry crust the undrained shear strength of the
clay is very low (10-20 kPa) or even extremely low (< 10 kPa). Furthermore, the clay is normally
consolidated or only very lightly over-consolidated. This means large settlements can occur even for a
slight ground-water lowering or placement of a thin layer of fill on top of the clay. The thickness of the
clay can exceed more than 100 m as it does in Gothenburg, Sweden’s second largest city.

A special geological feature commonly found in Sweden is the glacial esker, see figure 1. This geological
formation was formed by a river running beneath the great ice-mass, often situated over a fault in the
bedrock where the water could easily flow. The soil material in a typical esker consists of relatively
rounded washed particles of mainly loose coarse soils, such as sand, gravel and stones. Moreover,
boulders are often found in this type of formation. Normally, the esker is partly covered with glacial and
post-glacial clay. The city centres of large cities like Stockholm, Uppsala and Södertälje are founded on
top of an esker formation.

317
Figure 1: A schematic section through a typical glacial esker (Knutsson & Morfeldt, 1995)

1.2. Implications on piling

In Sweden, the geological conditions are mostly very favorable for driven end-bearing piles. Soft clay
overlaying very dense moraine or hard rock is ideal for driven displacement piles. The geotechnical end-
bearing capacity is normally very high on either till or crystalline rock. However, the very low shear
strength of the clay means that the structural capacity with regard to buckling has to be checked.

2. SOIL INVESTIGATION

2.1. General description

Generally, the soil investigation with regard to piling is mainly focused on finding the hard till or the
bedrock and to determine the undrained shear strength of the soft clay. The most common in-situ
investigation methods used in Sweden are (not in priority order):
• Swedish weight sounding, WST (penetration resistance in clay and silt)
• Cone penetration, CPTU (cone resistance in clay and non-cohesive soil)
• Super-heavy dynamic probing, DPSH-A (ramming resistance in non-cohesive soil)
• Percussion drilling with continuous measuring, MWD (location of boulders in soil, the bedrock
surface and a rough estimate of the rock quality)
• Field vane test, FVT (undrained shear strength)
• Soil tube sampling (undisturbed, for laboratory testing)
• Screw sampling (disturbed, for soil classification)

The most common laboratory testing methods with regard to piling are:
• Fall cone test, FCT (undrained shear strength)
• Oedometer test with constant rate of strain, CRS (compressibility characteristics)

2.2. Investigation methods with regard to pile function

2.2.1. End-bearing piles

Design of end-bearing piles is based on either dynamic pile load test or on a pile termination criteria (stop
set) based on experience (i.e. a max allowed set per blow).

End-bearing piles are either driven to hard till or bedrock or drilled piles into the rock (rock-socket). The
super-heavy dynamic probing (DPHS-A) with a 63 kg ram and 50 cm fall height is often used as an
indication of pile termination into the till. Percussion drilling (MWD) is used as a complement to find

318
large stones or boulders, to locate the bedrock surface and to obtain a rough estimate of how much the
rock is fissured. Furthermore, if there is soft clay in the profile, the undrained shear strength is
determined for use in structural design (buckling).

2.2.2. Friction piles (cohesionless soil)

Friction piles are mostly designed by pile load testing; driven piles by dynamic testing and in-situ
manufactured piles by static testing. Calculation methods provide an estimate of the pile length and
capacity.

Driven friction piles are often pre-cast concrete piles (figure 2). The same methods used for end-bearing
piles i.e., DPSH-A and MWD, are also used for friction piles. Here, the DPSH-A is mainly used to get an
indication of the pile drivability and MWD is to locate possible boulders in the profile. The cone
resistance, q c, obtained from CPT is often used as an input for calculating the estimated bearing capacity
that can be expected from dynamic pile load tests. Unfortunately, the CPT-rigs in Sweden are generally
lightweight. They do not provide adequate tip resistance and the sounding often terminates
at 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐 ~20 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎. Heavier CPT-rigs are required in Sweden to get satisfactory input results for design of
friction piles.

2.2.3. Cohesion piles

Cohesion piles in soft clay are the only pile types where the design is based on calculation; it is very rare
that static load testing is undertaken.

Cohesion piles are predominately driven pre-cast concrete piles or combi-piles (i.e. wooden and concrete
combined). The design of cohesion piles in soft clay is based on calculation by the α-method where the
undrained shear strength is the main parameter. The soil investigation mostly consists of in-situ FVT
and/or soil sampling and laboratory FCT. Furthermore, piezocones sometimes are installed at different
levels in the clay for obtaining pore pressure measurements. From undisturbed soil samples the
compressibility parameters of the clay is determined. The laboratory results provide, together with the
pore pressure measurement, the input for settlement and negative skin friction calculations, and also an
evaluation if ongoing settlements are occurring.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION

3.1. Common pile types

The following pile types are most commonly used in Sweden by falling order of importance (source: Pile
Commission statistics 2014):
1. Driven pre-cast concrete piles (60%) (figure 2); the two main dimensions are 235 mm square and
270 mm square, but up to 400 mm square can be made. The pile can be used as end-bearing, friction
or as a cohesion pile.
2. Driven steel pipe piles (23%) (figure 3); dimensions vary between 76 mm up to 219 mm and further
from 270 mm up to 1220 mm (large diameter piles). Used as an end-bearing pile. The piles will
preferably be filled with concrete for increased stiffness, corrosion strength and for internal corrosion
protection.
3. Drilled steel pipe piles (13%) with the same dimensions as above. However the maximum practical
diameter is 813 mm. Used as end-bearing piles in rock (rock socket). Filled with concrete.
4. Timber piles (4%). The piles are used as cohesion piles. Permanent piles are always combined with a
concrete pile section (combi-pile) above the groundwater table.
5. Steel core piles (<1%) (figure 4). A steel casing is drilled down and left to rest on the bedrock. A
drilling continues down into the rock to create a socket. A massive steel bar (core), normally between
70-150 mm in diameter is placed in the casing and down into the socket. The space between the steel
bar and casing is filled with concrete. The pile can be either end-bearing on rock or, in case of tension
piles or bad rock quality, shaft-bearing in rock (common length in rock 3-6 m). Execution standard
EN 14199 is used for this pile.
6. Other pile types occasionally used are:
• Shaft grouted drilled piles (e.g. TITAN Ishcebeck).
• Cast in-situ piles, where normally the soil is excavated inside a casing tube, which is at the same
time pushed down.
• CFA-piles.

319
Figure 2: Standard pre-cast concrete pile, with mechanical joint and a rock tip (shoe).

Figure 3: Driven steel pipe pile.

Figure 4: Steel core pile (Bredenberg).

320
4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS

4.1. Pile design and installation

In Sweden two national annexes are used, one for infrastructure and one for buildings:
• VVFS 2004:43 (with changes in TRVFS 2011:12) provided by Trafikverket (The Swedish Transport
Administration)
• BFS 2015:6 EKS 10, provided by Boverket (The Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and
Planning).

Today (January 2016) pile design in Sweden is the same using either of the two annexes.
In the previous annexes by Boverket, EKS1 through EKS 9, all the partial coefficients γ R were a factor
0,1 higher than the annex provided by Trafikverket. Furthermore, no reduction of the correlation
coefficients for dynamic testing, ξ 5 and ξ 6 , for stiff foundations was allowed. This gave a 19 % higher
total factor of safety (TFS) for dynamic testing and 8 % higher TFS for static testing and design based on
soil investigation.

With regard to pile installation the following execution standards are normative with regard to pile
installation:
• SS-EN 12699, Displacement piles
• SS-EN 1536, Bored piles
• SS-EN 14199, Micro piles

4.2. Technical specifications and complementary documents

For the purpose of The Swedish Transport Administration procurements, use is normally made of a tender
enquiry document model that concurs with AMA Anläggning 13 (a general description of material and
works). Furthermore, Trafikverket has a document for specification of technical design; TK Geo 13
regarding GEO and TRVK Bro 11 regarding STR.

Complementary documents that are normally referred to with regard to pile design are:
• IEG Tillämpningsdokument Pålgrundläggning, Rapport 8:2008. A design Guide to SS-EN 1997-1.
• Pile Commission reports, e.g. for concrete piles, small slender pipe piles, friction piles, cohesion piles,
steel core piles, drilled steel pipe piles etc. (all in Swedish).

5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EUROCODE 7

5.1.1. Actions
When comparing different nations with regard to the total safety on the resistance side, it is important to
bear in mind changes made on the safety on actions in EN 1990. Sweden has introduced three “safety
classes” on actions, SK1, SK2 and SK3. The classes only reflect the possibility of human injury/fatality
and how substantial the effect of a collapse will be. The lowest class with respect to safety, SK1, may be
used when large deformations of the foundation cannot bring about a sudden collapse of the overlaying
structure, or if people are very seldom in the vicinity of the structure. On the other hand, SK3 requires
that large deformations will lead to a sudden collapse of the structure and that many people are frequently
in the proximity of the structure. SK2 is applicable for all other cases and is the safety class that is mostly
used in Sweden. A partial coefficient 𝛾𝛾𝑑𝑑 on actions is introduced for the different classes:
• SK1: 𝛾𝛾𝑑𝑑 = 0,83
• SK2: 𝛾𝛾𝑑𝑑 = 0,91
• SK3: 𝛾𝛾𝑑𝑑 = 1 (no reduction)

The result of the safety classes is a reduction in the safety on actions with regard to EN 1990, except for
SK3. Moreover, the reduction factor ξ in equations 6.10b (EN 1990) is set to 0,89. Overall this means that
the Swedish safety factor on actions is generally smaller than for most of the other countries using the
Eurocode.

Since DA3 is used for STR, geotechnical actions are calculated according to equation 6.10 instead of
6.10a/6.10b as for DA2 and GEO. The main implication of this is how the action from negative skin

321
friction is calculated. For GEO only the derived mean value of c u is used. For STR, however, the
characteristic value c uk is used (high value).

5.1.2. Geotechnical category

In Sweden geotechnical category GK 1 and 2 should be used for well-established piling methods with
regard to the geotechnical conditions. For GK2, the bearing capacity should be verified by calculation
and/or load testing. In GK3 an independent reviewer should be appointed by the builder and have third
party interests as the main focus. GK2 is considered to be the normal category.

Example of pile foundations in GK1:

• Footings or cast in-situ piles on low fissured rock above the groundwater table and low relative
compression stress.
• Conventional driven pre-cast concrete (figure 2) piles or steel pipe piles (figure 3) with small relative
loads with regard to the end-bearing capacity and the structural capacity.
• Furthermore, the risk of stability problems or damaging soil movement should be negligible.

Example of pile foundations in GK3:

• Large possibility of stability problems or damaging soil movement.
• Very complex ground conditions which require monitoring during installation
• In-situ manufactured piles, e.g. CFA-piles, in untested conditions.
• Exceptional loading conditions, e.g. piles subjected to large tension forces or a large degree of
dynamic loading.

5.1.3. Design approach

DA2 is used for GEO. DA 2 with the “model pile” procedure is the primary design
approach. When using the the “alternative” procedure an extra model factor, γ Rd,e, of 1,4 is
applied since no correlation factors are used.

DA3 is used for STR when calculating the structural capacity for the pile, i e. partial factors
is used on the soil´s strength and stiffness parameters. Structural capacity should be
calculated taking into account deformations/deflections caused by the loading (2nd order
theory).

5.1.4. Partial coefficients

Partial resistance factors for pile foundations for GEO according to Tables A.6, A.7 and
A.8 in EN 1997-1. The following changes are made for R2 (DA2) according to the national
annexes:
• Table A6 (driven piles): γ b, γ s, γ t = 1,2 and γ s;t = 1,3 (0,1 higher value than
EN 1997-1)
• Table A7 and A8 (bored/CFA piles): γ b, γ s, γ t = 1,3 and γ s;t = 1,4 (0,1 higher
value)

Partial resistance factors for pile foundations for STR according to Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8
in EN 1997-1. No changes are made for R3 (DA3), γ b, γ s, γ t = 1,0 and γ s;t = 1,1 are left
unchanged. However, changes are made in table A.4 in EN 1997-1 as follows:
• 𝛾𝛾𝜙𝜙´ = 1,3 (0,05 higher value)
• 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐´ = 1,3 (0,05 higher value)
• 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1,5 (0,1 higher value)
• 𝛾𝛾𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1,5 (0,1 higher value)

5.2. Definitions and symbols

η = Correction factor taking into account the uncertainties related to both the soil and the structure.
𝑋𝑋� = Mean value
ξ = Correlation factor
δ 0 = Initial pile defection
γ M = partial factor of safety for material parameters
γ ce =partial factor of safety concrete elasticity modulus

322
γ c =partial factor of safety concrete elasticity modulus
c ud = Undrained shear strength of clay
d = Pile diameter
f ck = Characteristic yield strength of concrete
f cd = Design value of yield strength of concrete
k d = Design value of bedding modulus
q u = Uniaxial compression strength
y 0 = Pile deflection due to loading
y B = Limiting soil deflection at yield
A = Cross sectional area
E cm = Average value of elasticity modulus for concrete
E cd = Design value of elasticity modulus for concrete
E d =Design value of elasticity modulus for the pile
F cd = Buckling load, design value
I = Moment of inertia
R k =Characteristic pile resistance
R ck =Characteristic pile resistance in compression
R cal = Calculated pile resistance
R m = Estimation of measured pile resistance
R m,max = Maximum pile resistance from dynamic testing due to pile material strength
R mean = Measured pile resistance (mean value)
R min = Measured pile resistance (minimum value)
R d = Design value of pile resistance

5.3. ULS Design based on soil investigation test results

5.3.1. Design values GEO

The design value for the “model pile” procedure (DA2):

1 Rk
Rd = ⋅
γR γR
d
(1)
where
𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘 = (2)
𝜉𝜉

The design value for the “alternative” procedure (DA2):

1 1 Rk
Rd = ⋅
γ Rd ,e γ R γR
d
(3)
where

𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘 = 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (4)

For the “alternative” procedure an extra modelfaktor γ Rd,e =1,4 is used to provide for the lack of
correlation factor when calculating R k .

5.3.2. Axial compression of a single pile (GEO)

In Sweden, design based on calculation from soil investigation results is predominately only undertaken
for cohesion piles. For friction piles, design by calculation is very seldom undertaken. However,
calculation is used for estimating the pile length for friction piles as part of the planning for dynamic pile
testing. Model factors for calculation are shown in table 1 and 2.

In contrast to EN 1997-1, wave-equation analysis (WEAP) for determining the termination criterion of
end-bearing piles is considered a calculation and design is performed according to the “alternative”
procedure. Model factors are shown in table 3. Pile driving formula is not allowed in Sweden for
determining the termination criterion (stop set).

323
Table 1: Model factors for friction piles
Calculation method type Accepted methods (example) 𝜸𝜸𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
Geostatical method based on friction angle - API-RP-2A 1,6
(alternative procedure) - Toolan (1990)
Method directly correlated to SPT or DPSH-A - Decourt (1982) 1,5
Method directly correlated to CPT - Bustamente & Giansellis (1982)
1,4
- ICP-method

Table 2: Model factors for cohesion piles

Calculation method type Accepted methods (example) 𝜸𝜸𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
Alpha-method, undrained parameters(c u ) - Pile Commission report no 100 1,1
Beta-method, drained parameters (alternative - Flaate & Selnes (1977)
1,2
procedure) - ICP-method

Table 3: Model factors for end-bearing piles.

Pile type Accepted method 𝜸𝜸𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
Driven end-bearing piles Wave equation analysis 1,3
Drilled end-bearing rock-socket piles Wave equation analysis 1,1

Axial tension of a single pile (GEO)

According to Pile Commission report 103, the reduction factor for friction piles in tension (compared to
compression) can be calculated according to the expression presented by Nicola & Randolph (1993). The
reduction factor normally varies between 0,7-0,9. In the national annexes a reduction factor of
0,7 should be used if it is not determined by calculation.

For cohesion piles there is no reduction for tension required.

5.3.3. Specific issues

As mentioned previously, the design load from negative skin friction is calculated slightly differently for
GEO and STR respectively. Hence, the design loads are also different for the same load combination.

Seismic design is not needed to be accounted for because of the very low seismic activity in Sweden.

5.3.4. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developments

The EN 1997-1 does not provide any guidance how to calculate the design load from negative skin
friction based on soil-structure interaction and with regard to the neutral plane. The Swedish Pile
Commission has started a project group which will provide guidelines for this purpose. Furthermore,
another project group is working to see if DA 2 can also be used for STR, i.e. partial coefficients on the
structural material parameters combined with a safety factor on the overall resistance.

5.4. SLS design

Normally the structural engineer provides the allowable total and differential settlement for the structure.
SLS design with regard to settlement is predominately undertaken for cohesion piles. For end-bearing
piles the settlement is very small and mainly consists of elastic deformation of the piles..

A check should be made that neither the pile material nor the surrounding soil reaches the plastic state
when loaded in SLS due to pile deflection.

The observational method for piling is mainly used with regard to monitoring soil movement for stability
of clay slopes or for monitoring ground settlement. The measures undertaken are often changing the pile
installation order and/or by excavating the clay before installing the piles.

5.5. Design based on load tests

Dynamic load testing is the main design method in Sweden since an overwhelming majority of our piles
are either driven end-bearing piles or drilled end-bearing piles. The bearing capacity is evaluated using

324
the Case-method. For the driven friction piles, the dynamic testing together with signal matching
(CAPWAP) is always performed. The characteristic value is calculated as follows:
Rmean
Rck = (5)
ξ5
Rmin
Rck = (6)
ξ6
No changes have been made to the correlation factor values presented in table A.11 in EN 1997-1.
However, three more columns have been added; one for 4 piles, one for more than 40 piles and one if all
the piles are measured, see table 4. Furthermore, at least 3 piles instead of 2 should be tested within an
area of max 25x25 m. In table 5, all the model factors for dynamic testing are presented; most are found
in the Swedish annexes as minimum allowed values. The last two values in the table can only be found in
the Swedish Pile Commission report no. 106.

Table 4: Correlation factors for dynamic testing according to the Swedish annexes.
n 3 4 ≥5 ≥10 ≥15 ≥20 ≥40 all
ξ5 1,6 1,55 1,5 1,45 1,42 1,4 1,35 1,3
ξ6 1,5 1,45 1,35 1,3 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25

Table 5: Model factors for dynamic testing.

Pile function Method of analysis 𝜸𝜸𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
Friction piles Case-method. 1,2
Friction piles Case-method and CAPWAP-analysis. 0,85
Friction piles loaded in tension CAPWAP-analysis. A reduction factor
1,3
of 0,7 should also be used.
Cohesion piles CAPWAP-analysis. Correlation should
1,0
be made with static load tests.
End-bearing piles Case-method. 1,0
End-bearing piles Case-method and CAPWAP-analysis. 0,85
End-bearing piles on hard till or rock Case-method. Set per blow less than 2 0,85
mm and a quake less than 60/d
End-bearing rock-socket piles Case-method or set per blow less than
0,80
1 mm.
Shaft bearing rock-socket piles (grouted) Wave-up 1 method. 0,80

5.6. Design based on experience

The use of prescriptive measures for piles design is limited to the following cases:
• Driven concrete end-bearing piles of standard dimension 235 and 270 mm square respectively. The
piles are terminated at maximum 10 mm per 10 blows on till or at maximum 3 mm per 10 blows on
rock using a free-fall hammer. In table 6, as an example, design bearing capacities for 270 mm square
piles with regard to fall height and hammer weight are presented.
• Driven steel pipe piles of dimensions from 76-219 mm in diameter. The piles are terminated at 5 mm
per 10 blows by a free-fall hammer or at 5 mm per minute by hydraulic or pneumatic hammer.
• Footings or cast in-situ piles on rock. The maximum design compression stress is limited to 10 MPa
for crystalline rock.

Table 6: Design values of bearing capacity for driven end-bearing concrete piles (270x270 mm).
Termination Fall height 4 tonnes 5 tonnes
Till: 0,3 m 620 kN 670 kN
10 mm/ 10 blows 0,4 m 730 kN 800 kN
0,5 m 825 kN 850 kN
Rock: 0,3 m 680 kN 740 kN
3 mm/ 10 blows 0,4 m 800 kN 830 kN
0,5 m 855 kN NA

1
The grouted bearing capacity is evaluated from the returning stress wave, i.e. the wave-up.

325
5.7. Structural design
5.7.1. Design values STR

Pile material

According to both EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1 the calculation of the bearing capacity should be based
on a characteristic value accompanied by a partial safety factor. For steel, the partial coefficient when the
calculation is based on the yield stress is 1,0, see section 6.1 in EN 1993-1-1. No partial coefficient is
defined for the elastic modulus of steel but the modulus itself is defined to be 210 GPa, which would
make the partial safety coefficient 1,0.

For concrete the design elastic section modulus is calculated according to EN 1992-1-1:
𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = (7)
𝛾𝛾𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

and 𝛾𝛾𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 1,2

The design compressive strength of concrete is calculated according to EN 1992-1-1:

𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = (8)
𝛾𝛾𝐶𝐶

and 𝛾𝛾𝐶𝐶 = 1,5

Soil material

The design value for geotechnical parameters when calculating the pile structural capacity (DA3, STR):

1
Xd = ⋅η ⋅ X
γM (9)
where:

η is a correction factor taking into account the uncertainties related to both the soil and the structure
(normal values range between 0,8-0,95). The product 𝜂𝜂 ∙ 𝑋𝑋� is considered the characteristic value.

η can be divided into 8 parts, η = η1 ⋅ η 2 ⋅ ... ⋅ η 8 where:

• η 1 and η 2 have to do with the number of ground tests and the coefficient of variation, V, see figure 5.
• η 3 -η 5 have to do with the quality of ground tests and geotechnical conditions
• η 6 and η 7 have to do with the ground structure, e.g. if the failure will be ductile and if load transfer
can take place between piles.
• η 8 is used as a statistical correction when necessary.

In contrast, when calculating the negative skin friction (a load), the mean value of c u is divided (instead of
multiplied) by η to get the characteristic value, i.e. 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 ⁄𝜂𝜂 .

326
Figure 5: The product of the correction factors, η 1 ·η 2 , as a function of the number of tests, n (IEG
Rapport 8:2008, rev 2).

5.7.2. Buckling and compression resistance

Pile buckling and material yield are calculated according to 2nd order theory which means that the pile
deflection during loading is accounted for. The calculations are performed with design values for the
yield stress of the pile material as well as the elastic section modulus. Design values also apply to the soil
bedding modulus.

When calculating the buckling load of piles the bedding modulus, k, of the soil is required. It is assumed
that the bedding modulus for clay is directly proportional to the undrained shear strength with 𝑘𝑘 = 200𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢
for short term loading and 𝑘𝑘 = 50𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 for long term loading. Buckling will not occur in cohesionless soils
because of the large bedding modulus. However, material yield due to an additional bending moment
because of pile imperfection and second order effects have to be checked. The bedding modulus for
cohesionless soil according to empirical values by Reese (1974) is normally used.

Note that Eurocode does not have a partial coefficient on soil modulus for ULS, which raises the
question, what safety factor to use if the bedding modulus is determined directly from pressuremeter tests.

Buckling (instability problem, 2nd order theory)

When calculating the piles structural capacity, both buckling and yielding of the pile material is taken into
account. When the capacity for buckling is calculated, it is assumed that the soil can behave ideally
plastic when the critical deflection is reached. First the buckling load is calculated based on first order
theory:

𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 2 ∙ �𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑 ∙ 𝑑𝑑 ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑 𝐼𝐼 (10)

Where E d I is the design flexural stiffness of the pile and d is the diameter or side length of the pile. This
formula is based on 3 assumptions:
1. Completely straight pile
2. The pile is elastic
3. The soil medium is elastic.

To account for the initial deflection the 2nd order effects are introduced via a sinusoidal shape. The
buckling load (design value) with regard to 2nd order effects are calculated as (Pile Commission report
84a):

2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑦𝑦0
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝑦𝑦0 ) = 2 ∙ �𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑 ∙ 𝑑𝑑 ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑 𝐼𝐼 ∙ (11)
𝑦𝑦0 +𝛿𝛿0

327
where y 0 is the deflection due to actual loading and δ 0 is the initial deflection. δ 0 is normally L c /300 for
concrete piles without a joint and L c /150 with a joint. For steel pipe piles the initial deflection can be
measured using an inclinometer.

The buckling length along the pile is calculated from:

4 𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑 ∙𝐼𝐼
𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 = 𝜋𝜋 � (12)
𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑 ∙𝑑𝑑

To account for the plastic behavior of the soil, the limiting soil deflection y B has to be calculated. For
long term loading it is calculated as:
6𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 50𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 6𝑑𝑑
= → 𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵 = = 0,12𝑑𝑑 (13)
𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵 𝑑𝑑 50

For short term loading the 6 is replaced by a 9 and 50 is replaced by 200.

Material yield (2nd order theory)

The moment in the pile during loading due to 2nd order theory can be calculated as:
2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ∙(𝛿𝛿0 +𝑦𝑦0 )
𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 = (14)
2

To account for yielding of the pile material (steel in this example) the following interaction is used:
2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑
+ ≤1 (15)
𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

where:
𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 is presented above,
𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is the bearing capacity in compression of the steel cross-section according to EN 1993-1-1,
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is the bending moment capacity of the steel cross-section according to EN 1993-1-1.

5.7.3. Transverse loading of piles

In Sweden, the pile foundations are very seldom entirely lateral loaded, normally the vertical load is the
main load. Pile foundations subjected to high lateral loads will be designed using inclined piles as shown
in figure 6b and where the main pile load will be axial. If the lateral load is relatively small the piles may
be installed vertically as shown in figure 6a. The bending moment due to the lateral load is normally
deducted from the moment capacity when calculating the axial capacity of the pile. A common problem
in Sweden is settling ground on inclined piles, often giving rise to large additional moments as depicted in
figure 6c.

Calculation models for transverse loading are presented in the Pile Commission report no. 101. Design
values for the bedding modulus and material properties are the same as outlined for buckling and material
yield compression.

328
Figure 6: Three principle cases where the piles are transversally loaded (Pile Commission report
no.101).

5.7.4. Allowable stresses during installation and piles testing

Recommendations for maximum design load with regard to allowable stresses in the pile during
installation and dynamic testing are presented in the Swedish Pile Commission report no.106.

6. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE

In Sweden all end-bearing piles, both driven and drilled (bored), should be verified for end-bearing
resistance by a termination criterion. This criterion is determined or verified either via dynamic testing,
WEAP-analysis or using a fixed termination criterion according to prescriptive measures (as outlined
above).

7. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASES

7.1. National experience regarding end-bearing piles

As mentioned earlier, the design value of pile resistance in Sweden is determined predominately by
dynamic testing. However, for preliminary design of the pile group and for planning the load testing,
values for the end-bearing resistance based on experience are needed. Recommended values for end-
bearing resistance on rock based on Coates & Gyenge (1973) and on hard till based on Axelsson et al.
(2004) are presented in the Pile Commission report no. 106, see table 7. The uniaxial compression
strength q u of non-fissured crystalline rock of granite or gneiss is normally in the region of 150-250 MPa.
The mean end-bearing resistance that is possible to measure by dynamic load testing can be estimated
using (see also table 7):

𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚 = 𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 ∙ 𝐴𝐴 (16)

Furthermore, the following empirical equation can be used to estimate the maximum measured bearing
capacity without exceeding the strength of the concrete piles during dynamic testing:

𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑘𝑘1 ∙ 𝑘𝑘2 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝐴𝐴 (17)

where:

k 1 =0,75 on rock (experience value from dynamic testing).

k 1 =0,70 on hard till (experience value from dynamic testing).

and:

k 2 =0,8 according to SS-EN 12699.

k 2 =0,8·1,1=0,88 if dynamic testing is performed on working piles, i.e the stresses are monitored during
driving.

329
In the Pile Commission report no. 106 there is also k 1 values for steel pipe piles. The stress in the pile can
also be calculated using wave-equation analysis (WEAP).

Table 7: End-bearing resistance on rock and hard till (Pile Commission report no. 106)..
Soil/rock 𝝈𝝈𝒃𝒃 (MPa)
Pile drilled into rock1 5 ∙ 𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢
Rock shoe dowel D<150 mm, on rock1 4 ∙ 𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢
Pile on rock1 3 ∙ 𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢
Pile on hard coarse till 25-30
Pile on hard silty/fine sandy till 20
1
Intact, non-fissured

7.2. Pile database

In Sweden, dynamic testing is generally accepted without performing any static load tests at the same site
for the following cases:
• Driven end-bearing piles. Bearing capacity is determined by Case-method (or CAPWAP)
• Driven friction piles. CAPWAP-analysis is normally a requirement.
• Drilled steel pipe piles or steel core piles on rock, end-bearing. Bearing capacity is determined by
Case-method (or CAPWAP).
• Drilled steel core piles, shaft bearing rock-socket piles (grouted). Bearing capacity is determined by
the Wave-up method.

The database outlined in Likins (1996) is an accepted general reference for the correlation between static
and dynamic load tests for the first two cases listed above. The latter two cases are piles in hard
crystalline rock where a low set (< 1 mm/blow) is a requirement. In that respect, mobilization of the
whole resistance has not occurred and therefore the measured capacity is considered to be conservative.

In a national database presented by Axelsson et al. (2004) the correlation between the Case-method and
CAPWAP-analysis for driven end-bearing concrete piles is shown in figure 7. The correlation is very
strong and explains the Swedish choice of using the same model factor for both CAPWAP–analysis and
the Case-method with regard to end-bearing piles on hard till or rock, as shown in table 5 above.

Figure 7: Correlation between CAPWAP and the Case-method for driven end-bearing piles according to
Axelsson et al. (2004).

330
7.3. Cohesionless soil
In Sweden there are accepted correlations for CPT, dynamic probing DPSH-A (hejarsondering) and
weight sounding WST (viktsondering) with regard to friction angle as shown in figure 8.

Figure 8: Correlation between penetration resistances obtained from CPT, DPSH-A and WST
respectively and the friction angle of the soil (Trafikverket, TK GEO 13).

8. DESIGN EXAMPLE

8.1. Design of driven concrete end-bearing piles for limit state, GEO and STR
Design GEO

Four 270 mm square concrete piles (see fig. 2) were dynamic load tested for a bridge foundation
consisting of a total of 16 driven end-bearing piles. The axial design load (design action) is E d = 1200 kN
according to the structural engineer. In Sweden pile foundations for bridges are normally treated as
separate sites (piles within an area corresponding to 25x25 m). All the piles were driven by a Junttan pile
driving crane with a 5 tonnes free-fall hammer. The piles were driven using a fall-height of 0,4 m until
termination (refusal) and the last settlement (set) per 10 blows was measured. The piles were terminated
in hard till.

The four test piles were dynamic load tested at restrike with a fall-height of 0,8 m at 18 hours after
installation. The bearing capacity was determined by the Case-method (using RMX with an assumed
Case-damping factor of 0,7). No signal matching (CAPWAP) was performed since the set per blow was
≤ 2 mm and the quake was evaluated to be less than d/60= 5 mm. Table 8 provides the results from the
dynamic testing. The concrete according to the specifications should have strength of at least grade
C40/50 at the time of installation. This means that the maximum compression stress during driving and

331
restrike should not exceed 0,8x40 = 32 MPa according to execution standard SS-EN12699 (displacement
piles).

Table 8: Results from dynamic load testing.

Pile Pile length Termination, Test blow, Max compression Bearing capacity
no (m) set per 10 blows set stress Case-method
4 14,1 7 mm 1 mm 26,6 MPa 2037 kN
6 17,5 9 mm 1,5 mm 25,5 MPa 2010 kN
9 13,8 10 mm 2 mm 24,2 MPa 1920 kN
12 12,9 7 mm 1,5 mm 26,3 MPa 1995 kN

The mean value from the dynamic load tests is R mean = 1990 kN, with a minimum value of R min =
1920 kN. Using the correlation factors and model factor from table 4 and table 5 respectively, the
characteristic bearing capacity of the piles is calculated as:

𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1990 1920

𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � ; � = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � ; � = 1510 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝜉𝜉5 ∙ 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝜉𝜉6 ∙ 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 1,55 ∙ 0,85 1,45 ∙ 0,85

The design value of pile bearing capacity is then calculated as:

𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) = 𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡 = 1510⁄1,2 = 1258 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

The termination criterion for the other piles in the group (not load tested) should be max 7 mm/10 blows
as this was the smallest observed set for the tested piles.

Design STR

The average undrained shear strength (from two vane shear test profiles) over the buckling length
L c =5,7 m according to eq. (12) is c u =9,0 kPa. The coefficient of variation (COV) is normally assumed to
be 15 % for homogeneous normal consolidated clays. The initial deflection for a standard concrete pile
with a joint is assumed to be 𝛿𝛿0 = 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 ⁄150 = 0,033 𝑚𝑚.

The design value of the undrained shear strength is calculated using equation (9), with 𝜂𝜂1 ∙ 𝜂𝜂2 = 0,9
according to figure 5 and 𝜂𝜂6 = 1,05 since the foundation structure can, to a degree, redistribute load
between weak and strong piles (all other η-factors are chosen as 1,0):

𝜂𝜂 ∙ 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 0,9 ∙ 1,05 ∙ 9

𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 = = = 5,7 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 1,5

Approximately 30 % of the load is variable (short time) and 70 % is permanent load. A weighted average
bedding modulus is calculated as:

𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑 = (0,7 ∙ 50 + 0,3 ∙ 200) ∙ 5,7 = 542 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘/𝑚𝑚3

Using the equations (11) through (15) the structural capacity can then be calculated by an iterative
process (not shown here):

2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1353 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Overall pile capacity

The overall pile capacity is the smallest value obtained from GEO and STR:

2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚�𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) , 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 � = {1258, 1353} = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝐤𝐤𝐤𝐤 (> E d = 1200 kN, OK)

332
REFERENCES

AMA Anläggning13, Svensk Byggtjänst

Axelsson G., Dangré M., Elvin L. (2004),”Toe resistance of piles driven into dense moraine”, Proc. 7th
int. conf. on the appl. of stress wave theory to piles, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Boverket, national annex BFS 2015:6 EKS 10

Bredenberg H.”Steel core piles”, http://www.bredenbergteknik.se

Coates D.F and Gyenge M. (1973), “Incremental design in rock mechanics”, Mines Branch monograph;
no 880.

IEG Rapport 8:2008, rev 2. “Tillämpningsdokument EN 1997-1 Kapitel 7, Pålgrundläggning”

Likins G. (1996), “CAPWAP correlation studies”, proc. 5th int. conf. on the appl. of stress-wave theory to
piles. Orland, Florida.

Knutsson G. and Morfeldt C-O, (1995) “Grundvatten – teori & tillämpning”, ISBN 91-7332-740-0.

Reese et al (1974),“Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand”, Offshore Tech. conf., Houston, Texas.

Trafikverket TK Geo 13, “Trafikverkets tekniska krav för geokonstruktioner”

Trafikverket, national annex VVFS 2004:43(with changes in TRVFS 2011:12)

Pile Commission report 84a, “Beräkning av dimensionerande lastkapacitet för slagna pålar med hänsyn
till pålmaterial och omgivande jord” (eng. ”Structural capacity of driven piles with regard to the
surrounding soil”)

Pile Commission report 100, “Kohesionspålar” (eng. ”Cohesion piles”)

Pile Commission report 101, ”Transversalbelastade pålar- statiskt verkningssätt och

dimensioneringsanvisningar”(eng. ”Transversally loaded piles – static function and design guidelines”)

Pile Commission report 103, “Slagna Friktionspålar”(eng. “Driven friction piles”).

Pile Commission report 106, “Verifiering av geoteknisk bärförmåga för pålar enligt Eurokod” (eng.
“Verifying the bearing capacity of piles according to Eurocode”)

333
334
 GOLD Sponsors

Organising Secretariat