Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7

FRANK R. (2005). "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples".
Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7,

Trinity College Dublin, 31 March-1 April 2005
Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation

design examples
R. Frank
CERMES (ENPC-LCPC), Paris, France
ABSTRACT
Two example of design of piles under compressive loadings are examined : one from ground
test results and one from pile static load test results. The solutions which are compared follow
Eurocode 7 - Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004), as well as a number of National codes. The reasons
for discrepancy or for consistency are analysed.
EXAMPLES
At the occasion of the workshop for the evaluation of Eurocode 7, held in Dublin on
31st March and 1st April 2005, held jointly by ERTC 10 of ISSMGE and by WorkPackage 2 of
the GeoTechNet network (funded by EC), 10 design examples have been prepared by Orr
(2004). Examples 3 and 4 deal with the design of pile foundations under compressive
loadings from ground test results (Example 3) and from pile static load tests results (Example
4). They are the subject of the present report.
1.1 Pile design from ground test results (Example 3)

The problem to be solved, as sent to the participants, is given in Figure 1.
Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values
Gk = 1200kN
Qk = 200 kN • Design situation
- Bored pile for a building, 600mm diameter
- Groundwater level at depth of 2m below the ground
GWL 2.0m surface
• Soil conditions
- Sand: c'k = 0, φ 'k = 35o, γ = 21kN/m3
SPT N = 25
• Actions
- Characteristic permanent load Gk = 1200kN
L=? - Characteristic variable load Qk = 200kN
- Weight density of concrete = 24kN/m3
Sand • Require
φ 'k = 35o - Pile length, L
γ = 21kN/m3
Figure 1. Data for example of pile design from ground test results (Example 3 of ERTC10-WP2
Workshop)
1
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC10 and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Trinity College, Dublin, 31st March & 1st April 2005
1.2 Pile design from static load test results (Example 4)

The problem to be solved, as sent to the participants, is given in Figure 2.
Pile Foundation designed from pile load

Pile Load (MN)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tests
Pile Load Test Results
0
Load Settlement Settlement

20
Load Test 1 (MN) Pile 1(mm) Pile 2 (mm)
Settlement (mm)
40
0 0 0
0.5 2.1 1.2
60 Load Test 2 1.0 3.6 2.1
1.5 5.0 2.9
80 2.0 6.2 4.1
3.0 10.0 7.0
100 4.0 18.0 14.0
5.0 40.0 26.0
120 5.6 63.0 40.0
6.0 100.0 56.0
6.4 80.0
• Design Situation
-Pile foundation, driven piles, pile diameter D = 0.4m and length = 15m. The building supported by
the piles does not have the capacity to transfer the load from weak to strong piles. The allowable
pile settlement is 10mm
• Pile Resistance
- 2 static pile load test results provided on driven piles of same diameter and length as design
piles. Piles were loaded beyond a settlement of 0.1D = 40mm to give the limit load.
• Characteristic values of actions
- Permanent vertical load Gk = 20,000kN
- Variable vertical load Qk = 5,000kN
• Require number of piles needed to satisfy both ULS and SLS
Figure 2. Data for example of pile design from static load test results (Example 4 of ERTC10-WP2
Workshop)
EUROCODE REQUIREMENTS
The general requirements for ultimate limit states applicable to pile foundations (compressive
or tensile resistance) are given in clauses 2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P for Design Approach 1,
2.4.7.3.4.3(1)P for DA 2 and 2.4.7.3.4.4(1)P for DA 3.
The corresponding recommended values of the partial factors γ are given in Table A.3 for
the actions, Table A.4 for the ground parameters and Tables A.6 through A.8 for the
resistances for piles.
Clause 7.6.2.2 applies to the 'Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests'.
Clause 7.6.2.3 applies to the 'Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results', in
particular, clause 7.6.2.3(5)P and Equation 7.8 for the 'model pile' method, and clause
7.6.2.3(8) for the 'alternative' method (see Frank et al., 2004).
Clause 7.6.4 deals with the vertical displacements of pile foundation (Serviceability of
supported structures).
2
ANALYSIS OF THE SOLUTIONS
3.1 Example of pile design from ground test results
For the design example of Figure 1, ten contributions were received from Europe (Denmark,
France, Germany (x2), Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland). Four
contributions were received from Japan, among which one uses Eurocode 7.
The solutions were derived using the following design approaches :
- Eurocode 7-Part 1 together with its recommended values (Annex A) or national
application of Eurocode 7 ;
- other National standards usually based on limit state design (LSD);
- traditional.
For three cases using Eurocode 7, two solutions were given by the same author, either
because two calculation models were used (design from N values and from φ 'k values), or
because the 'alternative' method of Eurocode 7 was used with and without recourse to a
model factor (the latter are the reporter's solutions given in the Appendix to this report).
Thus, 14 different (sets of) solutions are available for comparison.
3.1.1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations)
Eleven solutions were received using Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004) with its
recommended values or values used at national level. The range of the results is from
L = 10.0 m to L = 42.8 m (with 8 solutions between 10 m and 20 m). The Design Approach
used (DA1, DA2 or DA3) does not play any significant role (see below).
It is to be stressed that the calculation models used are mainly responsible for this very
large range of values obtained. This can be illustrated by comparing the calculated values of
base resistance qb,cal and of shaft friction qs,cal, on the one hand, and the correlation factors ξ
and/or partial factors γ subsequently applied to the calculated values, on the other hand.
The following calculation models have been used
- Tomlinson (1995) and Berezantzev et al. (1961) rules from φ 'k values
- Fleming et al. (1992) for shaft friction from base resistance q b,cal and of shaft friction
qs,cal, and Japanese experience for base resistance from N (SPT)
- Romanian code STAS 2561/3-90 from φ 'k values
- Danish standards DS409/DS415
- Meyerhof (1976) rules with N (SPT) (2x)
- correlation between N (SPT) and qc (CPT) and then DIN 1054 rules (x2)
- correlation between N (SPT) and pl (PMT) and then French 'Fascicule 62-V' rules (see
Frank, 1999) (x3)
(Other solutions using a National standard including also the Tomlinson-Berezantzev
model, the Russian SNIP 2.02.03-85 model and the Polish standard model).
The ranges of calculated values, when stated, are the following :
- base resistance qb,cal : from 1,32 MPa to 5 MPa
- shaft friction qs,cal : from 25 kPa to 100 kPa when using a correlation with N (SPT),
qc (SPT) or pl (PMT); β s = Kstanδ vary from 0.20 to 0.49 when using φ 'k values (together
with qs = β σ 'v). These ranges are indeed very large.
To derive the design values of base and shaft resistances, the solutions usually apply one
or several of the following factors :
- correlation factor ξ = 1.4 (when assuming one soil profile, i.e. n = 1, and using
equation (7.8) of EN 1997-1)
- partial factors γ b and γ s (see equation (7.7) in EN 1997-1)
- model factor γ Rd
It is interesting to check for each solution, when feasible, the ratio of R d/Rcal which is a
'summary' (composition) of the various factors applied on the calculated resistance. The
comparison is interesting, because the factors on the actions are similar for all the solutions
and design approaches (i.e. γ G = 1.35 and γ Q = 1.5, which leads to a mean load factor
3
γ F = 1.37) , except for DA1-Combination 2 (for which the partial factors on the actions are,
in principle, near 1.0). The ratio Rd/Rcal varies from to 1.1 to 1.54, which is a relatively narrow
range. No link between large values of the γ and ξ factors and low (conservative) values of
calculated resistance, or vice versa, seems to exist… The minimum value of R d/Rcal (1.1) is
obtained, for instance, for DA2 (with γ Rd = 1.0 and ξ = 1.0); the maximum value (1.54) is
obtained for DA2 and using ξ = 1.4 (as if the soil test results were obtained from one soil
profile).
In some cases, for Eurocode 7 – Part 1, two or three of the design approaches have been
compared (i.e. DA 1, DA2, and DA3). The following results are obtained :
- DA 2 appears to be slightly more conservative than DA1 (but never more than 8 %),
except in one case ;
- for DA1, combination 1 is more conservative than combination 2 and rules the design
(this comes directly from the fact that the overall partial factor on the actions for combination
1 is greater than the partial factor on the resistance for combination 2) ;
- the most conservative approach is DA3 (note that there are only 2 answers).
When other national LSD standards have been used, the range is from L = 10.2 m to
17.6 m (5 solutions from Europe and 3 from Japan). Only in 3 cases, it has been compared to
a Eurocode 7 design and no real trend appears.
Finally, only one solution with the traditional design (i.e. using a global factor of safety)
has been proposed. The value obtained is L = 14.8 m, which is near the LSD solutions given
in the same contribution.
3.1.2 Serviceability limit states
The check of serviceability limit states (SLS) was not explicitly asked for and no allowable
settlement had been indicated in the example.
Nevertheless, the reporter indicated the solution according to the French code 'Fascicule
62-V', which requires to check SLS by means of a bearing capacity calculation, even if no
settlement criteria are specified (see Appendix).
3.2 Pile design from static load test results
For the design example of Figure 2, eleven contributions were received from Europe
(Denmark, France, Germany (x2), Ireland (x2), Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and
Switzerland). Five contributions were received from Japan, among which one uses
Eurocode 7.
The solutions were derived using the following design approaches :
- Eurocode 7-Part 1 together with its recommended values (Annex A for ULS) or
national application of Eurocode 7 (10 solutions);
- other National standards, usually based on LSD (10 solutions).
3.2.1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations)
The application of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004) with its recommended values
(Annex A) or values used at national level, leads to :
- 9 piles for DA1 for all solutions ;
- 9 or 10 piles for DA2 (always 10 piles when the recommended values are used).
Note that DA3 is not applicable (the partial factors being applied to the ground strength
parameters, and not to the total, base or shaft resistance provided for by pile load tests).
The very satisfactory consistency of these results comes from the fact that Eurocode 7 –
Part 1 gives quite precise rules for deriving the characteristic resistance R c,k from measured
resistances Rc,m in pile static load tests (equation 7.2 together with recommended values of
Table A.9). For 2 pile static load tests (n = 2), the correlation factors for deriving Rc,k from
measured Rc,m are ξ 1 = 1.3 (on Rc,m,mean) and ξ 2 = 1.2 (on Rc,m,min). These values seem to have
been used in most contributions. The following assumptions are also mentioned in the
contributions :
4
- Rc,m values are read on the load-settlement curves for settlement s = 40 mm ;

- no group effect is taken into account.
The reporter's solution given in the Appendix to this report is an example of application of
Eurocode 7 – Part 1 following these lines.
On the other hand, the following national codes have been used :
- Danish standard DS415
- French code 'Fascicule 62-V'
- Russian SNIP 2.02.03-85
- Polish standard
- Romanian code STAS 2561/3-90
- Swisscode SC7
- RLSDB, SHB4, RSDS and TSPH Japanese codes
The number required is also 9 or 10 piles for four of the six solutions from Europe. For the
Japanese codes, the number is between 11 and 15 piles.
3.2.2 Serviceability limit states
Most of the solutions deal explicitly with the SLS checks. For the 10 mm allowable pile
settlement criterion, the number of piles needed is also found equal to 9 or 10.
When Eurocode 7 - Part 1 is used here again the solutions are quite consistent one with
each other :
- the serviceability load is Gk + Qk = 25 MN;
- the two load-settlement curves are analysed to check that the settlement for the load carried
per pile is lower than 10 mm ;
- the group effect is ignored, except in one solution (which leads to a larger number of piles) ;
- usually, the two load-settlement curves are 'combined' in the same manner as for the limit
loads for ULS, in order to obtain a characteristic load for the SLS criterion (s < 10 mm).
Only four solutions from Europe mention the use of a National code for checking SLS.
The results are also 9 or 10 piles. The four Japanese codes have specific provisions for SLS
checks, which lead to the same number or a slightly greater number of piles than for ULS
checks.
CONCLUSION
The solutions given for two pile design examples have been examined. The solutions come
from 9 European countries and from Japan. Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004) is used, as
well as a number of National codes.
For the ULS design example from ground test results the range of the results is very large.
The discrepancy is attributed to the models used for calculating the base and shaft resistances
from the test results, rather than to the ULS verification format and values of partial factors
used.
In the case of the design from pile static load test results, the solutions are remarkably
consistent both for ULS and SLS verifications. This is attributed to the precise guidelines
given by Eurocode 7 – Part 1 for ULS and to the straightforward analysis of the load-
settlement curves for SLS.
REFERENCES
Berezantzev V.G., Khristoforov, V.S. & Golubkov V.N. (1961). "Load-bearing capacity and
deformation of piled foundation", Proc. 5th Int Conf Soil Mechanics and Found Engng, Paris, vol. 2,
11-15.
EN 1997- 1 (2004). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1 : General rules, EN 1997-1:2004(E),
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, November, 168 p.
Fleming , W.G.K, Weltman, A..J., Randolph, M.F. & Elson, W.K. (1992). Piling Engineering. Surrey
University Press, London.
5
Frank, Roger (1999). Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes, Presses de l’École Nationale
des Ponts et Chaussées, 141 p.
Frank, R., Bauduin, C., Driscoll, R., Kavvadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T., Schuppener, B. (2004).
Designer's guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - General rules, Thomas Telford,
London, 216 p.
Meyerhof G.G.(1976). "Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations", J Geot Engng Div, Am.
Soc. Civil Engrs, 102, No. GT3, March.
Orr, T. (2004). Design Examples for Eurocode 7 Workshop at Trinity College on 31 March and 1 April
2005, ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 document, 23/12/2004, 7 p.
Tomlinson M.J. (1995). Foundation design and construction, 6th ed., Longman, Harlow.
APPENDIX : SOLUTIONS OF THE REPORTER
Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values
I. Introduction : calculation of compressive resistance from soil parameter values

The compressive resistance is determined below from the pressuremeter (PMT) rules used in France,
after using a correlation between the PMT limit pressure pl and SPT blow count N, i.e. :
for sands pl = N/20 (in MPa), thus for N = 25, pl = 1.25 MPa
a) The unit base resistance is
qb = kp pl(at z= L), where kp is taken equal to 1.1 (bored pile in medium dense sand B), thus:
qb = 1.1x1.25 = 1.37 MPa
The total base resistance is :
Rb,cal = Π (B²/4)qp = 3.14x(0.36/4)x1.37 = 387 kN
b) The unit shaft friction at all depths z is :
qs = 70 kPa
(line Q2 for bored piles under bentonite mud or temporary casing, in medium dense sand B)
The total shaft friction is (B = 0.6 m is the pile diameter) :
Rs,cal = Π Β ∫ qsdz = 1.885x70 L = 132 L (in kN and m)
c) The total compressive resistance is : Rc,cal = Rb,cal + Rs,cal = 387 + 132 L (in kN and m)
II. Eurocode 7
Eurocode 7-Part 1 (EN 1997-1, 2004) requires checking ultimate and serviceability limit states. In this
example, as no limitation is set on the settlement of the pile, nor any accidental action is to be taken
into account, the following is restricted to ULS for persistent and transient design situations.
Design Approaches 1 and 2 for ULS in persistent and transient design situations
In the case of ultimate limit states (ULS) for persistent and transient design situations, Design
Approaches 1 or 2 may be used. Design Approach 3 is not relevant to semi-empirical models like the
PMT rules, as it means factoring ‘at the source’ the parameters of shearing resistance by γ M > 1.0 (and
not the base and shaft resistances themselves, i.e. γ b = 1.0 and γ s = 1.0); these models use, on the
contrary, γ M = 1.0, together with γ b ≥1.0 and γ s ≥ 1.0).
The relevant recommended values are given in Tables A.3, A.4 and A.7 of Annex A in EN 1997-1.
For Design Approaches 1 and 2, the 'alternative' procedure of clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1 has
to be used, because we only have the soil parameter values, with no indication of the number of soil
profiles (the 'model pile' procedure of clause 7.6.2.3(5) is not applicable).
In the following two different assumptions will be made:
A. qs and qb calculated above can be considered to be characteristic values, because they are
derived from a cautious estimate of N (and pl) and some conservatism has been input in the
calculation rules. Therefore, it is believed that the recommended values of Annex A of EN
1997-1 are applicable, without recourse to a resistance model factor larger than 1.0, see Note
below clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1;
B. qs and qb calculated above cannot be considered to be characteristic values, because they are
derived from N (and pl) values which are not meant to be cautious and no real conservatism
has been input in the calculation rules . Therefore, it is believed that the recommended values
of Annex A of EN 1997-1 are applicable, but with recourse to a resistance model factor larger
6
than 1.0 (see Note below clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1): for the purpose of this example the
value γ Rd = 1.25 is selected.
Thus, for the purpose of using EN 1997-1, the two following sets of calculations will be
performed (kN and m are used):
Assumption A. Rc,k = Rc,cal = Rb,k + Rs,k = 387 + 132 L, and
Assumption B. Rc,k = Rc,cal/γ Rd = Rb,k + Rs,k = (387 +132 L)/1.25 = 309.6 + 105.6 L
Assumption A : Rc,k = Rc,cal

Design Approach 1
Combination 1:
According to clause 2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P, sets A1, M1 and R1 of Tables A.3, A.4 and A.7 are used.
The design load is :
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q. Qk = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :
Rc,d = Rb,k / γ b + Rs,k / γ s = 387/1.25 + 132 L/1.0 = 309.6 + 132 L
The condition Fc,d ≤ Rc,d leads to L ≥ 12.2 m .
Combination 2:
Sets A2, M1 and R4 are used.
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q.1,5 Qk = 1.0 x 1200 + 1.3 x 200 = 1460 kN
Rc,d = Rb,k / γ b + Rs,k / γ s = 387/1.6 + 132 L/1.3 = 241.9 + 101.5 L
The condition Fc,d ≤ Rc,d leads to L ≥ 12.0 m.
In conclusion, for Design Approach 1, the result is L ≥ 12.2 m (the larger of the two lengths, given
by Combination 1).
Design Approach 2
Only one combination is relevant, with sets A1, M1 and R2 (see clause 2.4.7.3.4.3 (1) P and Tables
A.3, A.4 and A.7).
Rc,d = Rb,k / γ b + Rs,k / γ s = 387/1.1 + 132 L/1.1 = 351.8 + 120 L
Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model
Assumption B : Rc,k = Rc,cal/γ Rd

Design Approach 1
Combination 1:
According to clause 2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P, sets A1, M1 and R1 of Tables A.3, A.4 and A.7 are used.
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q. Qk = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
Rc,d = Rb,k / γ b + Rs,k / γ s = 309.6/1.25 + 105.6 L/1.0 = 247.7 + 105.6 L
Combination 2:
Sets A2, M1 and R4 are used.
In conclusion, for Design Approach 1, the result is L ≥ 15.8 m (the larger of the two lengths, given
by Combination 1).
Design Approach 2
A.3, A.4 and A.7).
7

Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model
Conclusion for Assumptions A and B : when using Eurocode 7-1 (EN 1997-1) for ULS in
persistent or transient design situations, Design Approach 2 is the most conservative, for this example
(with dominant shaft friction), as it leads respectively to L ≥ 13.1 m (assumption A) and to L ≥ 17.1 m
(assumption B). With regard to Design Approach 1, combination 1 is more conservative than
combination 2.
III. Present French practice

In present French practice both ULS and SLS are derived from a condition on the bearing capacity of
the pile, if no limit on the settlements of the structure is specified.
ULS in persistent and transient design situations

Present French practice is very near DA-2 of EN 1997-1, with the 'alternative' method of clause
7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1, and uses a direct determination of qsk and qbk from soil test result (like
Assumption A above).
Rc,k = Rc,cal = Rb,k + Rs,k = 387 + 132 L
The load factors are the same as Set 1 of Table A.3 (in Annex A of EN 1997-1). The resistance
factor for ULS in persistent or transient design situations is applied on the total resistance (Rb,k + Rs,k)
and its value is γ t = 1.40.
Rc,d = Rc,k / γ t = (387 + 132 L)/ 1.4 = 276.4 + 94.3 L
The result is very near the results for DA-2 and assumption B with EN 1997-1. This is not
surprising since the value of the factor applied to the calculated resistance is 1.4 in French practice and
is 1.25 x 1.1 = 1.375 for DA-2-Assumption B (including the value of the model factor chosen equal to
1.25). The high value of the resistance factor (1.4) in French practice assumes that reasonably 'true'
values of qb,cal and qs,cal are used as characteristic values.
SLS- Serviceability Limit States

The SLS load is determined through the creep load Qc which is linked to the bearing resistance through
the following correlation for bored piles:
Qc = 0.5 x Rb,cal + 0.7 Rs,cal = 193 + 92.4 L
The condition is Fc,d (SLS) ≤ Qd (SLS) = Qc/γ SLS with γ SLS = 1.1 for characteristic (rare)
combinations and 1.4 for quasi-permanent combinations.
Characteristic combinations
Fc,d(rare) = Gk + Qk = 1200 + 200 = 1400 kN
Qd(SLS) = 193/1.1 + 92.4 L/1.1 = 175.4 + 84 L
The condition Fc,d ≤ Qd yields L ≥ 14.6 m.
Quasi-permanent combinations
Fc,d(rare) = Gk = 1200 kN
Qd(SLS) = 193/1.4 + 92.4 L/1.4 = 137.9 + 66.0 L
The condition Fc,d ≤ Qd yields L ≥ 16.1 m.
Conclusion
Both ULS and SLS checks are fulfilled with L ≥ 17.4 m.
Pile Foundation designed from pile load tests
I. Using EN 1997-1 and recommended values in Annex A

Determination of characteristic compressive resistance :
The measured ultimate compressive resistances are (from readings at settlement s = 0.1D = 40 mm) :
8
Rc,m1 = 5.0 MN , and

Rc,m2 = 5.6 MN
Clause 7.6.2.2(8)P is applied. Equation (7.2) reads :
 (R ) (R ) 
Rc;k = Min c;m mean ; c;m min 
 ξ1 ξ2 
with (Rc,m)mean = 5.3 MN and (Rc,m)min = 5.0 MN.
From Table A.9, for n = 2 pile load tests : ξ 1 = 1.30 and ξ 2 = 1.20 ; thus,
 5.3 5.0 
R c;k = Min  ;  = Min { 4.08 ; 4.17 } = 4.08 MN
1.30 1.20 
ULS in persistent and transient situations – Design Approach 1
Combination 2 is usually leading the geotechnical design. Sets A2, M1 and R4 are used (clause
2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P and Tables A.3, A.4 and A.6).
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q.1,5 Qk = 1.0 x 20 + 1.3 x 5 = 26.5 MN
The design resistance for one pile is :
Rc,d = Rc,k / γ t= 4.08 / 1.3 = 3.14 MN.
Thus, according to DA1-Comb 2, 26.5/3.14 = 9 piles are needed.
Combination 1: Sets A1, M1 and R1 are used. The design load is :
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q. Qk = 1.35 x 20 + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
Rc,d = Rc,k / γ t = 4.08/ 1.0 = 4.08
According to DA1-Comb 1, 34.5/4.08 = 9 piles are also needed.
ULS in persistent and transient situations – Design Approach 2
A.3, A.4 and A.6).
Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q.1,5 Qk = 1.35 x 20 + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
Rc,d = Rc,k / γ t = 4.08/ 1.1 = 3.71 MN
The number of piles is 34.5/3.71 = 10 piles.
SLS – Serviceability check
The characteristic load Gk + Qk = 25 MN is relevant for the characteristic combination, which is the
most severe one (used for irreversible limit states, see EN 1990).
When examining the two measured load-settlement curves, the settlement is 10 mm for measured
loads Fm equal to 3.0 MN and 3.5 MN (approximately), respectively. The characteristic value for
10 mm can be assessed in the same manner as the characteristic bearing resistance, i.e. Fm,k = 2.5 MN
approximately. Hence, 10 piles must be used in order to keep the pile settlement lower or equal to
10 mm.
Conclusion
According to ULS + SLS : 10 piles are needed, whatever the Design Approach used for ULS
requirements.
II. Present French practice

ULS in persistent and transient situations
For ULS under persistent and transient combinations, the calculations are identical to DA2, except for
the values of ξ 'and γ t .
ξ '
The characteristic value is Rc,k = Rc,min (Rc,min/Rc,max) , with ξ ' = 0.55 for two pile load tests.
Hence, Rc,k = 5.0 (5.0/5.6)0.55 = 4.70 MN
The design value is :
Rc,d = Rc,k /γ t with γ t = 1.4 for persistent and transient combinations. Thus,
Rc,d = 4.70/1.4 = 3.36 MN
On the other hand, Fc,d = γ G.Gk + γ Q.1,5 Qk = 1.35 x 20 + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
Thus 10 piles are needed.
SLS – Serviceability check
9
In present French practice, SLS are checked by comparing the creep load Qc to the applied load, if there
is no limiting value for the vertical displacement of the structure (i.e. no displacement calculation is
explicitly required).
For driven piles Qc = Rc/1.5, i.e. Qc = Rc,k /1.5. Thus, Qc = 4.70/1.5 = 3.13 MN. The applied load per
pile is Gk + Qk = 25 MN/10 = 2.5 MN . It can be concluded that SLS requirements are satisfied.
Conclusion : According to ULS + SLS : 10 piles are needed. This result is the same as for EN 1997-1.
10

Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRANK R. (2005). "Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples".

Proceedings ISSMGE/ERTC10 and GeoTechNet/WP2 Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7,

Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation

1.1 Pile design from ground test results (Example 3)

1.2 Pile design from static load test results (Example 4)

Pile Foundation designed from pile load

Load Settlement Settlement

ANALYSIS OF THE SOLUTIONS

3.1 Example of pile design from ground test results

3.1.1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations)

3.1.2 Serviceability limit states

3.2 Pile design from static load test results

3.2.1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations)

- Rc,m values are read on the load-settlement curves for settlement s = 40 mm ;

3.2.2 Serviceability limit states

APPENDIX : SOLUTIONS OF THE REPORTER

Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values

I. Introduction : calculation of compressive resistance from soil parameter values

Assumption A : Rc,k = Rc,cal

Assumption B : Rc,k = Rc,cal/γ Rd

The design resistance of the pile is :

III. Present French practice

ULS in persistent and transient design situations

SLS- Serviceability Limit States

Pile Foundation designed from pile load tests

I. Using EN 1997-1 and recommended values in Annex A

Rc,m1 = 5.0 MN , and

II. Present French practice

You might also like