A PRESENTATION ABOUT

Estimating Bearing Capacity and

Settlement of Pile Foundations
Reference:
Foundation Design: Principles and Practices, Second Edition.
By Donald P. Coduto.
2000-2001 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 Static Analytic Methods

Methods to be
Methods for Drilled
presented for driven Shafts
piles
Toe

Toe
Sand

Sand
O'Neill and Reese

Vesi

Clay


Tomlinson (Modified by
O'Neill and Reese)

     
     
Shaft


Sand

 
 


 

Clay


O'Neill and Reese

API ()

Tomlinson ()
 ١
Load Transfer
Two Mechanisms
Side Friction, Ps
(skin friction)

Toe-bearing Resistance, Pt
(point-bearing resistance,end
bearing resistance, tip
bearing resistance)
 ٢
Downward Load Capacity

Pult Pt + Ps − W f
Pa = =
F F
Pult Pt′ + Ps
Pa = =
F F

qt′ At + ∑ f s As
Pa =
F
 Estimating Toe Bearing
• Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
• q´t in Sands
• Piles
• Drilled Shafts
• Auger Cast Piles
• q´t in Clays
 Toe Resistance in Sands
q' t
B  N  ' zD N
* *
 q

q't = net unit toe-bearing resistance

B = pile diameter

N*      

       
         
   

 !" #    #    
 Vesi
's Method
(Driven Pile Toes in Sand)
q' t
B  N  ' zD N
*

*
q

N 
0.6 N 1 tan  '

* *
q
12 K o  N 
N q

*
3
90' 4 sin '
3 tan  ' 31sin ' 
N 
tan 45  I
180 2
e
3sin  ' 2 r

E
I r

21  ' zD tan  ' 
 Variables for Vesi
's Method

Ir = Rigidity index

E = Modulus of elasticity of soil in vicinity of toe

$ = Poisson's Ratio of soil in vicinity of toe

'zD = Vertical effective stress at the toe elevation

%' = effective friction angle of soils in vicinity of
toe

N*, N*q, N* = Bearing capacity factors

Ko = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
 Variables for Vesi
's Method

Ko = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest

Jaky's Equation (normally consolidated soils)

K o
1sin '

Modified Jaky's Equation (overconsolidated soils)
sin 
K o
1sin ' OCR

Poisson's Ratio – use table
 Variables for Vesi
's Method

E = Modulus of elasticity of soil in vicinity of toe
Vesic’s Nγ*
Vesic’s , Nq*
Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Sands
• Drilled Shafts
qt′ = 1200 N 60 ≤ 60,000 psf
qt′ = 57.5 N 60 ≤ 2900 kPa
If base diameter of shaft >1900mm (75in):

75in 1900mm
qtr′ = qt′ or qtr′ = qt′
Bb Bb
Large diameter foundations require
correspondingly more settlement to achieve the
ultimate toe-bearing resistance.

If the base diameter (Bb) is greater than

1900mm (75in), the value of qt' could produce
settlements greater than 1 in (25 mm), which
would be unacceptable for most buildings. To
keep settlements within tolerable limits, reduce
the value of qt' to qtr', and use this value
(O'Neill and Reese, 1999):
q tr′ = Fr .q t′
2.5
Fr = ≤ 1.0
Ψ 1 B b +2.5Ψ 2
⎛ D⎞
Ψ 1 = 0.008B b + 0.083⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ English Units
⎝ Bb ⎠
⎛ D⎞
Ψ 1 = 0.28B b + 0.083⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ SI Units
⎝ Bb ⎠
Ψ 2 = 0.014 S u English Units
Ψ 2 = 0.065 S u SI Units
Where:

qtr’ : reduced net unit toe-bearing resistance

qt’ : net unit toe-bearing resistance
Bb : diameter at base of foundation (ft, m)
D : depth of embedment (ft, m)
Su : undrained shear strength in the soil
between the base of the foundation
and a depth 2Bb below the base (Ib/ft2,
kPa)
Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Sands

• Auger-cast Piles

qt′ = 3800 N 60 ≤ 150,000 psf

qt′ = 190 N 60 ≤ 7500 kPa

Unit toe bearing resistance, q´t
in Clays "O'Neill and Reese"
*
qt′ = N c su

N*c = 6.5 at Su = 25 kPa (500 psf)

= 8.0 at Su = 50 kPa (1000 psf)
= 9.0 at Su ≥ 100 kPa (2000 psf)

Use reduction factor, Fr if Bb >1900mm (75in)

From Schmertmann's Method for Settlement
analysis based on in situ tests.

E s = β 0 OCR + β1 N 60

Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to

evaluate the OCR in sands because we cannot
obtain suitable undisturbed samples.

OCR = 1 in sand.
 Es/qc
Soil type USCS Group E/qc
Symbol
Young, normally
consildated clean silica
SW or SP 2.5 - 3.5
sands (age <100 years)
Aged, normally
consildated clean silica
SW or SP 3.5 - 6.0
sands (age>3000years)
Overconsildated clean
silica sands
SW or SP 6.0 - 10.0
Normally consolidated
silty or clayey sands
SM or SC 1.5
Overconsildated silty or
clayey sands
SM or SC 3
 Correlation Factors

Soil type βo β1
clean sands (SW 5000 kPa 1200 kPa
and SP)
100000 lb/ft2 24000 lb/ft2

Silty sands and 2500 kPa 600 kPa

clayey sands
(SM and SC)
50000 lb/ft2 12000 lb/ft2
 Shaft Friction in Sand
f s
 ' x tan  f

fs = unit shaft friction resistance

'x = horizontal effective stress (i.e.,
perpendicular to the foundation axis)

tan %f = & = coefficient of friction between the
soil and the foundation

%f = soil-foundation interface friction angle
(some notations use ')
 ⎛ K ⎞ ⎡ ⎛φf ⎞⎤
f s = σ v′ K o ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ tan ⎢φ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
⎝ o⎠ ⎣
K ⎝ φ ⎠⎦

σ ′x
K=
σ v′
Approximate Φf/ Φ’ values for the interface
between deep foundation and soil
Pile and Soil Types Φf/ Φ’
Sand/rough concrete (i.e., cast in place concrete) 1.0
Sand/smooth concrete (i.e., precast concrete) 0.8 – 0.9
Sand/ rough steel (i.e., Corrugated steel) 0.7 – 0.9
Sand/ smooth steel (i.e., Steel coated with bitumen) 0.50 – 0.7
Sand/wood 0.8 – 0.9
Drilled shaft built using dry method or with 1.0
temporary casing and good construction
techniques
Drilled shaft built with slurry method (higher 0.80 – 1.0
values correspond to more careful construction
method)
Ratio of coefficient of lateral earth pressure after
construction to that before construction

Foundation type and method of K/Ko

construction
Pile-jetted 0.5 – 0.7
Pile-small displacement, driven 0.7-1.20
Pile-large displacement, driven 1.0-2.0
Drilled shaft-built using dry method with 0.9-1.0
minimal sidewall disturbance and prompt
concreting
Drilled shaft-slurry construction with good 0.90-1.0
workmanship
Pile driving induces significant changes in the
surrounding soils.
Therefore, the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, is
generally not equal to Ko, the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure in the ground before construction.

The ratio K/ Ko depends on many factors, including the

following:

High displacement vs. low displacement piles – High

displacement piles, such as closed end steel pipes, displace
much soil than do low displacement piles, such as a steel
H-piles, and therefore have a much higher K/ Ko ratio.
However, some of this gain may be lost over time as
creep effects tend to relax the locally high horizontal
stresses.

Soil consistency- Dense soils provide more

resistance to distortion, which results in greater K/ Ko
ratio.

Special construction techniques – Pre-drilling or

jetting loosens the soil, thus reducing the K/ Ko ratio.
 Estimating Unit-Side Friction
Resistance, fs
„ Effective Stress Analysis (β-Method)
f s = β σ ′z
– Sands
– Gravels
– Silts and Clays
„ Total Stress Analysis (α-Method)
f s = α su
 f s= β σ v′
β = K tan φ f
The most difficult factor to assess in the previous
equations is Ko. In a truly normally consolidated soil, we
could compute Ko as Ko=1-sinΦ, but such soils are
rare.
Most soils that appear to be normally consolidated
actually have an overconsolidated crust.
This crust often extends from the ground surface to a
depth of 10 to 20 ft (3 - 6 m) or more.
It is relatively easy to detect in cohesive soils by
examining consolidation test results or ratios, but it is
very difficult to detect in cohesionless soils.
As a result, Ko in "normally consolidated" soil deposits
is typically quite high near the ground surface and
gradually become smaller with depth, as shown in the
following Figure (Kulhawy, 1984, 1991).
 Kulhawy's Method
Pile Shafts in Sand
K f
f s
K o  ' z   
Ko '

Factors in parentheses given in tables
In more classical overconsolidated soil deposits (i.e.,
those precompressed by removal of overburden), the
overconsolidation ratio, OCR, decreases with depth, so
Ko also decreases with depth. Ko is higher in
overconsolidated soils.
The most satisfactory way to assess Ko is to measure it
in-situ using tests such as the pressuremeter (PMT),
dilatometer (DMT), or Ko stepped blade.
Unfortunately, none of these tests is widely available.
Another way is to use a correlation with the friction
angle and over consolidation ration, such as Ko = (1-
sinΦ)OCRsinΦ.
Unfortunately, the OCR also is very difficult to evaluate
in cohesionless soils, so we must rely on more empirical
methods

Method
f s
 ' z
K f

K o   
Ko '

Consolidates variables into one

Allows the possibility of empirically derived
values of


(            
 β-Method (Gravels)

Rollins, Clayton, and Mitchell (1997)

For 50% or more gravel size particles
β = 3.4 e −0.026 z 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 3.00 (English)

β = 3.4 e −0.085 z 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 3.00 (SI )

For 25-50% gravel size particles

β = 2.0 − 0.061z 0.75 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.80 (English)

β = 2.0 − 0.15 z 0.75 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.80 (SI )

 β-Method (Sands)

For large displacement piles, Bhushan(1982)

β = 0.18 + 0.65Dr
 ⎛ φf ⎞ ⎛ K ⎞
β = 0.18 + 0.65 × D r for⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0.7, ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1
⎝ φ′ ⎠ ⎝ Ko ⎠
⎛ φf ⎞ ⎛ K ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ φ ′ ⎠ ⎝ Ko ⎠
β= × × (0.18 + 0.65 × Dr )
0.7 1
⎛ φf ⎞ ⎛ K ⎞
for⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ other than 0.7 and ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ other than 1
⎝ φ′ ⎠ ⎝ Ko ⎠
 β-Method (Sands)

For drilled shafts with N60≥15, O’Neill & Reese

(1999)

β = 1.5 − 0.135 z 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.20 (English)

β = 1.5 − 0.245 z 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.20 ( SI )

Subject to maximum value of fs of 4000 psf (190

kPa)
If N60<15 then multiply above β by N60/15
 β-Method (Sands)

For Auger-Cast Piles,

Neely (1991)

Do not divide into

layers

f s = β σ ′ ≤ 140 kPa (2800 psf )

 β-Method (Silts and Clays)

Fellenius, (1999)
For normally consolidated silts and clays
β = 0.27 - 0.50 ( Silts )
β = 0.25 - 0.35 (clays)

For heavily over consolidated clays

β could be much higher (See Figure 14.11)
β-Method (Clays)
  Methods
Pile Shafts in Clay

Based on a "total stress" concept (as opposed to
the "effective stress" concept of
methods)

Usually simpler to apply and more widely used
than effective stress methods

Governing equation for  methods:
f s
s u

fs = unit shaft friction resistance

    

      )  
Analyses Based on Undrained Strength
Although a drained strength analysis is theoretically
more correct, it also is possible to analyze skin friction
resistance based on empirical correlations with the
undrained strength, Su.
These correlations implicitly "convert" the undrained
strength to the drained strength.
This may seem to be a roundabout way to compute
skin friction, and indeed it is. Nevertheless, it continues
to be widely used because of the large base of
experience and because the tests required to obtain Su
(typically, unconfined compression tests, vane shear
tests, or UU triaxial tests) are inexpensive.
Although this is currently the most popular way to evaluate
skin friction in cohesive soils, it may eventually be replaced
with analyses based on drained strength.

This type of analysis is known as the a method because it

defines the unit skin friction resistance using the adhesion
factor, α:
fs=αSu
Many factors affect a, including:
•Remolding of the clay during construction
•Consolidation of the clay during construction
•Dragdown of one soil strata into another during pile driving
•The method of determining Su
•Type, diameter, length, and taper of pile
•Predrilling
•Jetting
The best way to determine a for a given soil is to conduct on-
site pile load tests and compare measured pile capacity with
the average Su value from laboratory or in-situ tests.
Then, use this information to extrapolate the pile load test
results to piles of other lengths or diameters.
When no site-specific load test data are available, determine a
from generic a functions. They usually are expressed solely as
a function of Su (Sladen, 1992), as shown in the following
Figure.

Note the wide scatter between these functions and the

experimental data.
  Methods f s
s u
Pile Shafts in Clay
α-Method (fs= α su); Drilled Shafts
 API Method

Developed by the American Petroleum Institute

Originally developed to estimate the shaft
friction of offshore piles for conventional oil
platforms

Is best suited for large diameter pipe piles

Can be unconservative in some situations
 API Method

1
su 25 kPa500 psf
1 su 1

1   
2 1000 psf 2
500 psf su 1500 psf
1 su 1

1   
2 50 kPa 2
25 kPa su 75 kPa
1


2
su75 kPa1500 psf
The API (1981) α function is one of the most common.
According to Dennis and Olson (1983), it computes
capacities that, on average, are correct, but the scatter is
wide, sometimes being as low as 1/3 or as high as 3 times
the actual capacity.
Tomlinson (1987) studied the load-transfer behavior of piles
in clays and suggested that engineers also consider the
dragdown of soils during driving.
In stratified soil profiles, the upper strata may be drawn well
into lower strata, as shown in the following Figure.
If the upper strata is weaker than the lower, this dragdown
effect reduces the capacity of the pile, so the a factor in the
lower strata also must be reduced.
Conversely, the α factor in the lower strata must increase if
the upper soils are stronger. Tomlinson developed the α
functions in the following Figures to account for this effect.
Tomlinson's
Method

The "classic"
method for
onshore piles in
clay

Used in the
DRIVEN
program
 Upward Load Capacity

W f + ∑ f s As
( Pupward ) a =
F

O’Neill and Reese (1999)….. Use 75% of fs

used for downward load capacity
Upward Load Capacity; Belled Piers
Upward Load Capacity; Belled Piers

• Add extra upward capacity from the bell

( su N u + σ zD )(π / 4)( Bb2 − Bs2 )

( Pupward ) a =
F

For unfissured clay: N u = 3.5 Db / Bb ≤ 9

For fissured clay: N u = 0.7 Db / Bb ≤ 9

Settlement of Deep Foundations
„ Settlement of deep foundations, when
designed based on axial load capacity
considerations, is typically less than 0.5 in
„ Pile groups may have larger settlements, but
still within acceptable limits
„ Therefore, in practice engineers generally do
not perform settlement analysis for deep
foundations
„ However, settlement analysis may be
necessary in certain special situations
Perform Settlement Analysis when
……...
„ Structure is specially sensitive to
settlement
„ Soil is highly compressible
„ Structural engineers needs a “spring
constant” to represent response of the
foundation system
„ Downdrag may cause extra settlement
Load-Settlement Response

„ Load-Settlement Response
– Fellenius, 1999 
– O’Neill and Reese (1999) 
„ Imaginary Footing Method 
„ t-z Method

Methods discussed in detail

Fellenius, 1999
g
(qt′ ) m ⎛ δ ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
qt′ ⎝ δu ⎠
h
( f s )m ⎛ δ ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
fs ⎝ δu ⎠

Pzi
δe =
AE
q ′t = Unit toe bearing resistance
(q ′t )m = Mobilized net unit toe bearing resistance
δ = Settlement
δ u = Settlement required to mobilize ultimate resistance
B
δu = for toe bearing
10
δu = 10 mm for side fricion
g = 0.5 for clay
g =1 for sand
f s = unit side friction resistance
(f s ) = Mobilized unit side friction resistance
h = 0.02 → 0.5
δ e = Settlement due to elastic compressio n of foundation
P = Downward load on each foundation
Z i = Depth to centroid of soil resistance typically about 0.75D
D = Depth of empedement
A = Cross sectional area of the pile
E = Modulus of elasticity of pile material
Example 14.7 (Settlement)

A forty ft long HP 14*73 pile driven into a sandy clay

has a computed ultimate side friction capacity [∑ As f s ] of
170 K, and an ultimate toe bearing capacity [qt′ At ] of 90K.
Develop a load settlement curve using Fellenius
equations, and then determine the settlement when the
foundation is subjected to the allowable load when a F.S
of 3 is used
FOR SIDE FRICTION
10
δ u = 10 mm = = 0.3937 in
25.4
h = 0.1
∑ Asfs = 170 kips
A s = 2 × (B1 + B 2 )D = 2(13.61 + 14.58 )× 40 × 12 = 27062.4 in 2
⎛ ( f s )m ⎞ ⎛ ( f s )m ⎞
(fs As )m = ∑ A sf s × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 170 × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ fs ⎠ ⎝ fs ⎠
FOR TOE BEARING
B 14.58 + 13.61
δu = = = 1.41 in g = 0.75
10 2 × 10
⎛ (q′t )m ⎞ ⎛ (q′t )m ⎞
(q′t A t )m = (q′t A t ) × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 90 × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ q′t ⎠ ⎝ q′t ⎠
⎛ (f s )m ⎞ ⎛ (q ′t )m ⎞
P = (f s A s )m + (q ′t A t )m = 170 × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 90 × ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ fs ⎠ ⎝ q ′t ⎠
P × Zi
δe =
A×E
Example 14.7
Table 12.1 (page 444)
 REFERENCE:

Foundation Design: Principles and

Practices, Second Edition.
By Donald P. Coduto.

2000-2001 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Example 14.1
A 400 mm square prestressed concrete pile is to be driven
16 m into the soil profile shown in figure below, Compute
the net ultimate toe bearing capacity.

1
2
3
σ′ZD = ∑ γH − u = 17.8 * 3 + 18.2 *13 − 9.81*13 = 163 Kpa
E s = β o OCR + β1 × N 60
E s = 5000 1 + 1200 × 25 = 35000 Kpa
Es
Ir =
2 × (1 + ν) × (σ′ZD tanφ′)
35000
Ir = = 114
2 × (1 + 0.3) × (163) × (tan 36)

Figure 14.4 ⇒ N∗ γ = 14, N∗q = 76

q′t = B × γ × N∗ γ + σ′ZD × N∗q

q′t = 0.4(18.2 − 9.81) *14 + 163 * 76 = 12400 Kpa
q′t A t = 12400(0.4)2 = 1990 KN

Notes : N∗σ = 97.51 for vesic method ⇒

(Das) table 8.8 ⇒ N∗q = 59.30

From Excel sheet N∗σ = 98.38, N∗q = 59.83, N∗ γ = 25.65

(not considering critical depth)

From Excel sheet N∗σ = 299.90, N∗q = 182.83, N∗ γ = 79.07

(Considering critical depth)

4
Example 14.2
Using a F.S of 2.75, Compute the allowable downward
capacity of the pile described in example 14.1, this pile is
to be driven without the use of jetting.

5
β = 0.18 + 0.65D r
φf K
β = 0.18 + 0.65(0.5) = 0.5 based on = 0.7 and =1
φ′ Ko
φf K
For the given soil conditions ≈ 0.9 and =1
φ ′ Ko

Layer Depth σ′ZD fs (Kpa) As (m2) fs A s

(m) (Kpa) (KN)
1 0-3 26.7 17.1 4.80 82
2 3 - 10 82.8 53 11.2 594
3 10 - 16 137.4 87.9 9.60 844
∑ 1520

q′t A t + ∑ fs As 1990 + 1520

pa = = = 1276 KN
F.S 2.75

6
Example 14.3
The drilled shaft shown in the figure below is to be
designed without the benefit of any onside static load test.
The soil conditions are uniform and the site
characterization program was average. Compute the
allowable downward load capacity.

7
Solution
The unit weight of these soils have not been given,
probably because it was not possible to obtain a suitably
undisturbed sample of these sandy soils, we can not
compute the load capacity without this information, so, we
must estimate the unit weight for each strata, using typical
values from table 3.2.

* Silty sand above GWT γ = 17 KN/m2

* Silty sand below GWT γ = 20 KN/m2
* Sand below GWT γ = 20 KN/m2

β = 1.5 − 0.245 z 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2

σ ′ZD fs As Ps
Strata Z (m) β
(Kpa) (Kpa) (m2) (KN)
Silty sand above
GWT (0-2 m) 1 1.20 17 20.4 3.77 77
Silty sand below
GWT (2-3.5 m) 2.75 1.09 41.5 45.2 2.83 128
Sand below
GWT(3.5-9 m) 6.25 0.88 77.3 68 10.37 705
Sand below
GWT (9-16 m) 11.50 0.68 130.9 89 9.42 838
∑ 1748

Note that z and σ′ZD at mid point of each strata.

8
Although no N60 values are available within a depth of 2B
below the bottom of the shaft, it appears that N60 = 22
would be a reasonable value for design.

q′t = 57.5 × N 60 = 57.5 * 22 = 1265

πD 2 π(0.6) 2
At = = = 0.283 m 2
4 4
F.S = 3
1265 × 0.283 + 1748
Pa = = 702 KN
3

9
Example 14.4

A sixty ft long drilled shaft is to be built using open whole

method in the soil shown in figure 14.16. the shaft will be
24 in. in diameter and the bottom will be belled to a
diameter of 60 in. this foundation is to be designed without
the benefit of an onsite static load test, the soil conditions
are uniform and the subsurface investigation program was
extensive. Compute the allowable downward load capacity.

10
q ′t = 9 × S u = 9 × 4000 = 36000 Ib/ft 2
πB 2 π(5) 2
At = = = 19.60 ft 2
4 4
F.S = 2.5

α is calculated using O'Neill and Reese, 1999

α = 0.55 for su ≤ 150 kPa (3000 lb/ft2)
α = 0.45 for su ≥ 250 kPa (5000 lb/ft2)

Linearly Interpolate for 150 < su < 250

11
 Thick-
Dept Su fs As fs As
Layer ness α
h (ft) ( Ib/ft2) (Ib/ft2) (ft2) (Kips)
(ft)
1 0-5 5 -- 0 0 -- 0

2 5-12 7 1600 0.55 880 44 39

3 12-37 25 1400 0.55 770 157 121

37-
4 19.5 4000 0.5 2000 122.5 145
56.5
56.5-
5 1.5 -- -- 0 -- 0
60
∑ 404

36 × 19.6 + 404
Pa = = 444 KN
2.5

12
Example 14.5
Compute the allowable upward load capacity of the drilled
shaft described in example 14.4

13
Use a F.S = 5

Neglect side friction below a point of 2Bb above the bottom

of the bell.

2Bb = 2*5 = 10 ft.

Thus layer 4 change; depth = (37-50) ft.

As = 82 ft2, fsAs = 157 Kips

Thick
Lay Dept Su fs As fs As
ness α
er h (ft) (Ib/ft2) (Ib/ft ) (ft2) (Kips)
2
(ft)
1 0-5 5 -- 0 0 -- 0
2 5-12 7 1600 0.55 880 44 39
3 12-37 25 1400 0.55 770 157 121
4 37-50 13 4000 0.5 2000 82 164
∑ 324

The soil near the bell is described as very stiff clay and thus
is probably fissured

14
 0.7 × D b 0.7 × 60
Nu = = = 8.4 Kn
Bb 5
σ zD = ∑ γH = 105 *12 + 108 * 25 + 109 * 23 = 6467 Ib/ft 2

(Ss N u + σ zD ) × ( π )(B2b − Bs2 )

Pu,a = 4
F.S
(4000 * 8.4 + 6467) × ( π )(52b − 2 s2 )
Pu,a = 4 = 132 Kips
5 *1000
⎡ π π ⎛ 2 + 5 ⎞
2
⎤
W f = ⎢( ) * 2 * 58.5 + ( ) * ⎜
2
⎟ *1.5⎥ *1.5
⎢⎣ 4 4 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
Wf = 30 Kips

No adjustment for buoyancy is made because the GWT is

below the bottom of the shaft.

Compute the uplift capacity exclusive of the bell. With 0.75

factor.

30 + 324 * 0.75
Pu,a = = 54.6 Kips
5 * 1000
The total upward load capacity is = 132 +54.6 = 186.6 Kips

15