INTRODUCTION TO

STATIC ANALYSIS

PDPI 2013
 What is “Pile Capacity” ?
When we load a pile until IT
Fails – what is “IT”
 Strength Considerations
Two Failure Modes
1. Pile structural failure
controlled by allowable driving stresses

2. Soil failure
controlled by factor of safety (ASD)
resistance factors (LRFD)

In addition, driveability is evaluated by wave

equation
 STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS
Foundation designer must know design loads and
performance requirements.

Many static analysis methods are available.

- methods in manual are relatively simple
- methods provide reasonable agreement with full scale tests
- other more sophisticated methods could be used

Designer should fully know the basis for, limitations

of, and applicability of a chosen method.
 BASICS OF STATIC ANALYSIS
Static capacity is the sum of the soil/rock
resistances along the pile shaft and at the pile toe.

Static analyses are performed to determine ultimate

pile capacity and the pile group response to applied
loads.

The ultimate capacity of a pile and pile group is the

smaller of the soil rock medium to support the pile
loads or the structural capacity of the piles.
 ASD for Driven Piles /Drilled
Shafts: Axial Loading

Traditional allowable stress design:

Q ult
Fdes < Q all 
FS
In plain English:
the design load may not exceed the allowable load,
taken as the ultimate capacity divided by a factor
of safety
 LRFD: Load and Resistance Factor Design

The following inequality must be

satisfied

  Q  
i i i Ri
 where:
 R = sum of nominal side resistance & base resistance
 Q = applied axial force
 γ = load factors > 1.0
 φ = resistance factors < 1.0
 ULTIMATE CAPACITY, ASD
Qu = (Design Load x FS) + “other”
“Other” could be the resistance provided by
scourable soil

“Other” could be the resistance provided by

Liquefiable soil

“Other” is soil resistance at the time of driving

not present later during the design life of the pile
 ULTIMATE CAPACITY, LRFD
Qu =(Σγi Qi)/φ i + “other”
Qi = various load components
γi = load factors
φ = resistance factors
ASD, LRFD, regardless-a “target”
capacity for contractor is shown on
plans
LRFD
 Geotechnical Engineer
Structural Engineer

Professor's Driven Pile Institute, Utah State University

Estimates soil resistance and
Estimates, magnitude and calculates size, length and quantity
direction of loads: of piles to resist the given loads.

Any SCOUR ??
Any SET UP

The factored resistance must be greater

than the factored applied loads !
 TWO STATIC ANALYSIS
ARE OFTEN REQUIRED
1. Design stage soil profile with sourable and/or
unsuitable soils removed – establish a pile tip
elevation to accommodate the appropriate load
(LRFD, ASD)

2. Construction stage soil profile, establish the

soil resistance provided by soil profile at time of
pile installation. This is the “target” resistance
and includes scourable and unsuitable soils. This
value should be shown on the plans.
 TWO STATIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED

Professor's Driven Pile Institute, Utah State University

Bridge
Pier

1. Calculate the required

pile length to accommodate
the factored load. Ignore
resistance provided by
scourable material.

Estimated Maximum
Scour Depth

2. Given the required length

now include the resistance of
scourable soils when estimating
Contractor’s “Target” soil resistance at time of
Driving. (show on plans)
 LOAD TRANSFER
The ultimate pile capacity is typically expressed as
the sum of the shaft and toe resistances:

Qu = Rs + Rt

This may also be expressed in terms of unit

resistances:

Qu = fs As + qt At

The above equations assume that the ultimate shaft

and toe resistances are simultaneously developed.
 LOAD Qu
Axial Load Soil Resistance

TRANSFER
vs Depth vs Depth

Rs = 0
Rs

Rt
Rt

Uniform
Rt Rs

Triangular
9-9 Rt Rs
 DESIGN SOIL STRENGTH
PARAMETERS

Most of the static analysis methods in cohesionless

soils use the soil friction angle determined from
laboratory tests or SPT N values.

In coarse granular deposits, the soil friction angle

should be chosen conservatively.

What does this mean ??

 DESIGN SOIL STRENGTH
PARAMETERS

In soft, rounded gravel deposits, use a maximum

soil friction angle, , of 32˚ for shaft resistance
calculations.

In hard, angular gravel deposits, use a maximum

friction angle of 36˚ for shaft resistance
calculations.
 DESIGN SOIL STRENGTH
PARAMETERS
In cohesive soils, accurate assessments of the soil
shear strength and consolidation properties are
needed for static analysis.

The sensitivity of cohesive soils should be known

during the design stage so that informed
assessments of pile driveability and soil setup can
be made.
 DESIGN SOIL STRENGTH
PARAMETERS

For a cost effective design with any static analysis

method, the foundation designer must consider
time dependent soil strength changes.

Ignore set up --- uneconomical

Ignore relaxation --- unsafe

 Static Analysis
- Single Piles

Methods for estimating axial static

resistance of soils
 Soil Mechanics Review

• Angle of friction

• Undrained shear strength

• Unconfined Compression Strength

 Cohesionless Soils, Drained Strength
Normal Force, N

F=Nμ
Friction Force, F
1 μ = coefficient of friction between
material 1 and material 2

F
Tan () = F/N
F = N TAN ()

N
Soil on Soil, we use   phi = angle such that TAN () is
coefficient of friction between
Soil on Pile, we use δ
materials 1 and 2
 Cohesive Soils, Undrained Strength

 = zero
c

F = Friction resistance (stress) N = Normal force (stress)

C is independent of overburden pressures (i.e. N)

c = cohesion, stickiness, soil / soil

a = adhesion, stickiness, soil / pile

 Unconfined Compression
Strength
σ1

σ3
zero

C = cohesion = ½ qu
σ3 Maximum σ1 = unconfined
compression strength, qu
 STATIC CAPACITY
OF PILES IN
COHESIONLESS SOILS
 METHODS OF STATIC ANALYSIS FOR PILES IN COHESIONLESS SOILS
Method Approach Design Advantages Disadvantages Remarks
Parameters
Meyerhof Empirical Results of Widespread use of Non Due to non
Method SPT tests. SPT test and input reproducibility of reproducibility of N
data availability. N values. Not values and
Experience N Simple method to as reliable as the simplifying
use. other methods assumptions, use
presented in this should be limited to
chapter. preliminary
estimating
purposes.
Brown Empirical Results of Widespread use of N60 values not Simple method
Method SPT tests SPT test and input always based on
based of N60 data availability. available. correlations with 71
values. Simple method to static load test
use. results. Details
provided in Section
9.7.1.1b.
Nordlund Semi- Charts Allows for No limiting value Good approach to
Method. empirical provided by increased shaft on unit shaft design that is
Nordlund. resistance of resistance is widely used.
Estimate of tapered piles and recommended Method is based on
Part Theory soil friction includes effects of by Nordlund. field observations.
FHWA Part angle is pile-soil friction Soil friction Details provided in
Experience needed. coefficient for angle often Section 9.7.1.1c.
different pile estimated from
materials. SPT data.
9-19
 METHODS OF STATIC ANALYSIS FOR PILES IN COHESIONLESS SOILS
Method Approach Design Advantages Disadvantages Remarks
Parameters
Effective Semi- Soil β value considers Results effected Good approach for
Stress empirical classification pile-soil friction by range in β design. Details
Method. and estimated coefficient for values and in provided in Section
friction angle different pile particular by 9.7.1.3.
for β and Nt materials. Soil range in Nt
selection. resistance related chosen.
to effective
overburden
pressure.
Methods Empirical Results of Testing analogy Limitations on Good approach for
based on CPT tests. between CPT and pushing cone into design. Details
Cone pile. Reliable dense strata. provided in Section
Penetration correlations and 9.7.1.7.
Test (CPT) reproducible test
data. data.

9-19
 Nordlund Data Base
Timber, H-piles, Closed-end Pipe,
Pile Types Monotube, Raymond Step-Taper

Pile Sizes Pile widths of 250 – 500 mm (10 - 20 in)

Ultimate pile capacities of 350 -2700 kN

Pile Loads (40 -300 tons)

Nordlund Method tends to overpredict capacity

9-25 of piles greater than 600 mm (24 in)
 Nordlund Method
Considers:
1. The friction angle of the soil.

2. The friction angle of the sliding surface.

3. The taper of the pile.

4. The effective unit weight of the soil.

5. The pile length.

6. The minimum pile perimeter.

7. The volume of soil displaced.
9-25
 d=D
sin ( + )
9-27 Qu =  K  CF pd Cd  d +  t N ’q A t pt
d= 0 cos 
 Nordlund Method
For a pile of uniform cross section (=0) and
embedded length D, driven in soil layers of
the same effective unit weight and friction
angle, the Nordlund equation becomes:

Qu = (K δ CF pd sinδ Cd D) + (αt N ’q A t pt )
9-26
RS RT
 Nordlund Shaft Resistance

Rs = Kδ CF pd sinδ Cd D
K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure Figures 9.11 - 9.14
CF = correction factor for K when  ≠  Figure 9.15
pd = effective overburden pressure at center of layer
 = friction angle between pile and soil Figure 9.10
Cd = pile perimeter
D = embedded pile length
 Nordlund Toe Resistance

RT = T N’q pT AT
Lesser of

RT = qL AT
T = dimensionless factor Figure 9.16a
N’q = bearing capacity factor Figure 9.16b
AT = pile toe area
pT = effective overburden pressure at pile toe ≤ 150 kPa
qL = limiting unit toe resistance Figure 9.17
 Nordlund Method Procedure
Steps 1 through 6 are for computing shaft resistance and steps
7 through 9 are for computing the pile toe resistance (cookbook)

STEP 1 Delineate the soil profile into layers and determine the 
angle for each layer

a. Construct po diagram using procedure described in Section 9.4.

b. Correct SPT field N values for overburden pressure using Figure 4.4
from Chapter 4 and obtain corrected SPT N' values. Delineate soil
profile into layers based on corrected SPT N' values.

c. Determine  angle for each layer from laboratory tests or in-situ data.

d. In the absence of laboratory or in-situ test data, determine the average

corrected SPT N' value, N', for each soil layer and estimate  angle
from Table 4-5 in Chapter 4.
9-28
 Nordlund Method Procedure
STEP 10 Compute the ultimate capacity,
Qu. Qu = Rs + Rt

STEP 11 Compute the allowable design

load, Qa.

Qa = Qu / Factor of Safety (ASD)

9-31
STATIC CAPACITY
OF PILES IN
COHESIVE SOILS
 METHODS OF STATIC ANALYSIS FOR PILES IN COHESIVE SOILS
Method Approach Method of Advantages Disadvantages Remarks
Obtaining
Design Parameters

α-Method Empirical, Undrained shear Simple calculation Wide scatter in Widely used
(Tomlinson total stress strength estimate from laboratory adhesion versus method
Method). analysis. of soil is needed. undrained shear undrained shear described in
Adhesion strength values to strengths in Section
calculated from adhesion. literature. 9.7.1.2a.
Figures 9.18 and
FHWA 9.19.

Effective Semi- β and Nt values Ranges in β and Range in Nt Good design

Stress Empirical, are selected from Nt values for values for hard approach
Method. based on Table 9-6 based on most cohesive cohesive soils theoretically
effective drained soil soils are relatively such as glacial better than
stress at strength estimates. small. tills can be large. undrained
failure. analysis.
Details in
Section
9.7.1.3.
Methods Empirical. Results of CPT Testing analogy Cone can be Good
based on tests. between CPT and difficult to approach for
Cone pile. advance in very design.
Penetration Reproducible test hard cohesive Details in
Test data. data. soils such as Section
glacial tills. 9.7.1.7.

9-42
 Tomlinson or α-Method

Unit Shaft Resistance, fs:

fs = ca = αcu

Where:
ca = adhesion (Figure 9.18)
α = empirical adhesion factor (Figure 9.19)

9-41
 Tomlinson or α-Method

Shaft Resistance, Rs:

Rs = fs As

Where:
As = pile surface area in layer
(pile perimeter x
length)
Tomlinson or α-Method (US)

Figure 9.18
Concrete, Timber, Corrugated Steel Piles D = distance from ground surface to bottom of
clay layer or pile toe, whichever is less
Smooth Steel Piles
b = Pile Diameter
 Tomlinson or α-Method

Unit Toe Resistance, qt:

qt = cu Nc

Where:
cu = undrained shear strength of the soil at pile toe

Nc = dimensionless bearing capacity factor

(9 for deep foundations)
 Tomlinson or α-Method

Toe Resistance, Rt:

Rt = qt At

The toe resistance in cohesive soils is sometimes ignored

since the movement required to mobilize the toe resistance
is several times greater than the movement required to
mobilize the shaft resistance.
Tomlinson or α-Method

Ru = RS + RT
and

Qa = RU / FS
 DRIVEN COMPUTER PROGRAM
DRIVEN uses the FHWA recommended Nordlund
(cohesionless) and α-methods (cohesive).

Can be used to calculate the static capacity of

open and closed end pipe piles, H-piles, circular or
square solid concrete piles, timber piles, and
Monotube piles.

Analyses can be performed in SI or US units.

Available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/geosoft.htm

9-56
 The Pile Design is not
complete until the pile
has been driven –
that’s when we can estimate
the “capacity” (E.O.D)
STATIC ANALYSIS –
SINGLE PILES
LATERAL CAPACITY
METHODS
Reference Manual Chapter 9.7.3

9-82
Lateral Capacity of Single Piles
• Potential sources of lateral loads include
vehicle acceleration & braking, wind
loads, wave loading, debris loading, ice
forces, vessel impact, lateral earth
pressures, slope movements, and
seismic events.
• These loads can be of the same
magnitude as axial compression loads.
 Lateral Capacity of Single Piles
Soil, pile, and load parameters significantly
affect lateral capacity.
– Soil Parameters
• Soil type & strength
• Horizontal subgrade reaction
– Pile Parameters
• Pile properties
• Pile head condition
• Method of installation
• Group action
– Lateral Load Parameters
• Static or Dynamic
• Eccentricity
Lateral Capacity of Single Piles
Design Methods
– Lateral load tests

– Analytical methods
• Broms’ method, 9-86, (long pile, short pile)

• Reese’s COM624P method

• LPILE program

• FB-PIER

9-85
Short pile – soil fails
Long pile – pile fails
 Figure 9.36 Soil Resistance to a Lateral Pile Load (adapted from Smith, 1989)
9-83
NIM
 Figure 9.44 LPILE Pile-Soil Model
9-101
NIM
We have n equations and (n+4) unknowns

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (long pile)

@ Pile Bottom

Moment = 0

Shear = 0

@ Pile Top

??
 Figure 9.45 Typical p-y Curves for Ductile and Brittle Soil (after Coduto, 1994)

9-102
 Integrate

Differentiate

Figure 9.36 Graphical Presentation of LPILE Results (Reese, et al. 2000)

9-92
LET’S EAT !!