31.10.2014 Views

Volume 6 – Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Engineering ...

Volume 6 – Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Engineering ...

Volume 6 – Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Engineering ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 9 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING<br />

Table 9.3 Minimum Global Factors of Safety for Piles in Soil <strong>and</strong> Rock<br />

Notes:<br />

Mobilization Factor for Shaft Mobilization Factor for Endbearing<br />

Resistance, f b<br />

Material<br />

Resistance, f s<br />

Granular Soils<br />

1.5<br />

3 <strong>–</strong> 5<br />

Clays<br />

1.2<br />

3 <strong>–</strong> 5<br />

1. Mobilization factors for end-bearing resistance depend very much on construction.<br />

Recommended minimum factors assume good workmanship without presences of<br />

debris giving rise to a ‘soft’ toe <strong>and</strong> are based on available local instrumented loading<br />

tests on friction piles in granitic saprolites. Mobilization factors for end-bearing<br />

resistance. The higher the ratio, the lower is the mobilization factor.<br />

2. Noting that the movements required to mobilize the ultimate end-bearing resistance<br />

are about 2% to 5% of the pile diameter for driven piles <strong>and</strong> about 10% to 20% of<br />

the pile diameter for bored piles, lower mobilization factor may be used for driven<br />

piles.<br />

3. In stiff clays, it is common to limit the peak average shaft resistance to 100 kPa <strong>and</strong><br />

the mobilized base pressure at working load to a nominal value of 550 to 600 kPa for<br />

settlement considerations, unless higher values can be justified by loading tests.<br />

4. Where the designer judges that significant mobilization of end-bearing resistance<br />

cannot be relied on at working load due to possible effects of construction, a design<br />

approach which is sometimes advocated (e.g. Toh et al, 1989, Brooms & Chang, 1990)<br />

is to ignore the end-bearing resistance altogether in determining the design working<br />

load with a suitable mobilization factor on shaft resistance alone (e.g. 1.5). .Endbearing<br />

resistance is treated as an added safety margin against ultimate failure <strong>and</strong><br />

considered in checking for the factor of safety against ultimate failure.<br />

5. Lower mobilization factor for end-bearing resistance may be adopted for end-bearing<br />

piles provided that it can be justified by settlement analyses that the design limiting<br />

settlement can be satisfied.<br />

9.2.3.4 Pile Capacity<br />

a) Design of <strong>Geotechnical</strong> Capacity in soil<br />

Pile capacity can be divided into 2 main components, namely;<br />

• Shaft resistance; Qs<br />

• End bearing resistance; Qb<br />

The ultimate capacity of the pile is the sum of both the shaft resistance <strong>and</strong> the end bearing resistance;<br />

Qult = Q s + Q b (9.6)<br />

As for allowable pile capacity;<br />

Where,<br />

Q allow = Q s /F s + Q b /Fb (9.7)<br />

F s = safety factor for shaft resistance. The common F s adopted in design is 2.0<br />

F b = safety factor for end bearing. The common F b ranges from 2.0 to 3.0 subjected to<br />

availability <strong>and</strong> sufficiency of soil parameters. Higher safety factor shall be used when<br />

limited soil information is made available. As for bored pile, normally Q b is ignored.<br />

9-8 March 2009

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!