25.12.2012 Views

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Resistance of piles to compressive loads 177<br />

Table 4.12 Relationships between pile shaft friction <strong>and</strong> cone resistance<br />

(after Meigh (4.25) )<br />

<strong>Pile</strong> type Ultimate unit<br />

shaft friction<br />

Timber 0.012 q c<br />

Precast concrete 0.012 q c<br />

Precast concrete enlarged base a 0.018 q c<br />

Steel displacement 0.012 q c<br />

Open-ended steel tube b 0.008 q c<br />

Open-ended steel tube driven into fine to medium s<strong>and</strong> 0.0033<br />

Notes<br />

a Applicable only to piles driven in dense groups otherwise use 0.003 where shaft<br />

size is less than enlarged base.<br />

b Also applicable to H-section piles.<br />

Although engineers in the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> others elsewhere base shaft friction values on<br />

the measured local sleeve friction (f s), the authors prefer to use established empirical correlations<br />

between unit friction <strong>and</strong> cone resistance (q c). This is because the cone resistance values are<br />

more sensitive to variations in soil density than the sleeve friction <strong>and</strong> identification of the soil<br />

type from the ratio of q c to f s is not always clear-cut. Empirical relationships of pile friction<br />

to cone resistance are shown in Table 4.12.<br />

A limiting value of 0.12 MN/m 2 is used for the ultimate shaft friction. The values shown<br />

in Table 4.12 are applicable to piles under static compression loading <strong>and</strong> a safety factor of<br />

2.5 is used for q c values obtained from the electrical cone <strong>and</strong> 3.0 for the mechanical cone<br />

(see Chapter 11). A somewhat higher safety factor would be used for piles subjected to<br />

cyclic compression loading to allow for degradation of the assumed siliceous s<strong>and</strong> (see<br />

Section 6.2.2 for piles carrying uplift loading).<br />

Cone-resistance values should not be used to determine the shaft friction of bored piles.<br />

This is because of the loosening of the soil caused by drilling as described in the preceding<br />

section.<br />

The end-bearing resistance of piles is calculated from the relationship:<br />

q ub � q c<br />

q c<br />

(4.18)<br />

where is the average cone resistance within the zone influenced by stresses imposed by<br />

the toe of the pile. This average value can be obtained by plotting the variation of qc against<br />

depth for all tests made within a given area. An average curve is then drawn through the<br />

plots either visually or using a statistical method. The allowable base pressure is then<br />

determined from the value of the average curve at pile toe level divided by the appropriate<br />

safety factor (Figure 4.18). The value of the safety factor will depend on the scatter of<br />

results. It is normally 2.5 but it is a good practice to draw a lower bound line through the<br />

lower cone-resistance values, ignoring sharp peak depressions provided that these are not<br />

clay b<strong>and</strong>s in a s<strong>and</strong> deposit. The allowable base pressure selected from the average curve<br />

should have a small safety factor when calculated from the lower bound qc at the toe level<br />

(Figure 4.18a).

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!