Appendix G

Other Methods of Estimating Ultimate Axial

Capacity of Piles and Drilled Shafts, and Design
Charts for Settlement

G.1 METHOD BASED ON THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (CANADIAN

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL):
This method is based on N-values obtained from Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This method has been
described in Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual published by Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS, 1985).
The capacity of a single pile in granular soils can be estimated from the results of SPT using the following
expression as suggested by Meyerhof (1976).

𝑅 = 𝑚𝑁𝐴𝑡 + 𝑛𝑁 ′ 𝐷𝐴𝑠 (6.G.1)

Where,
𝑅 = pile capacity (N)
𝑚, 𝑛 = constants depending on type of pile (driven or cast-in-situ bored piles)
𝑁 = SPT index at the pile toe
𝐴𝑡 = pile toe area
𝑁′ = average SPT index along the pile
𝐷 = pile embedment length
𝐴𝑠 = pile unit shaft area
The Standard Penetration Test is subject to a multitude of errors, and a lot of care must be exercised when using
test results. For this reason, in this method a minimum factor of safety of 4 should be applied to calculate
allowable capacity of a drilled shaft or bored pile.

G.2 METHOD BASED ON THE THEORY OF PLASTICITY (CANADIAN FOUNDATION

ENGINEERING MANUAL)
In this method the capacity of a single pile may be determined from the friction angle of the soil by use of the
theory of plasticity (or bearing-capacity theory).
The capacity of a pile in a soil of uniform density increases in a linear manner with increase in effective
overburden pressure at least to a certain depth called the critical depth. Investigations of single piles indicate
that there is very little increase in toe resistance or unit shaft resistance below the critical depth. The ratio of the
critical depth to the pile diameter increases with increase in the angle of shearing resistance. For most
applications, the ratio ranges between a value of 7 at 𝜙 ′ = 30𝑜 to a value of 22 at 𝜙 ′ = 45𝑜 .
The ultimate static resistance, R of a single pile is a function of the sum of the toe and shaft resistance, 𝑅𝑡 and
𝑅𝑠 , as follows:
𝑅 = 𝑅𝑡 + 𝑅𝑠 (6.G.2)

Part 6
Structural Design 6-791
Part 6
Structural Design

Where for toe resistance:

𝑅𝑡 = 𝐴𝑡 𝑟𝑡 = 𝐴𝑡 𝜎𝐷′ 𝑁𝑡 (6.G.3)
Where,
𝐴𝑡 = cross-sectional area of pile at toe
𝑟𝑡 = unit toe resistance = D 𝑁𝑡
𝜎𝐷′ = unit effective vertical stress at the pile toe = D (below the critical depth, D = Dc)
𝛾 ′ = submerged unit weight of soil
𝐷 = embedment length of the pile in soil
𝑁𝑡 = bearing-capacity coefficient as recommended by Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
The expression for shaft resistance is as follows:
D D D
Rs   As rs   As  ' z   As MK s tan ' 'z (6.G.4)
Z 0 Z 0 Z 0

Where,
𝐴𝑠 = shaft area per unit length of pile
𝑟𝑠 = unit shaft resistance along the pile
𝜎𝑍′ = effective vertical stress at depth z (below the critical depth, z =DC, use z)
𝛽 = shaft resistance coefficient = Ks M 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 ′
𝐾𝑠 = ratio between the horizontal effective soil stress to the vertical effective soil stress at the pile
shaft
𝑀 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿′ /𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 ′
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 ′ = soil friction
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿 ′ = soil-pile friction

The value of 𝐾𝑠 is influenced by the angle of shearing resistance, the method of installation, the compressibility
and original state of stress in the ground, and the size and shape of the pile. It increases with the in-situ density
and angle of shearing resistance of the soil and with the amount of displacement. It is higher for displacement-
type piles than for low-displacement-type piles such as H-piles. For bored piles, the value of 𝐾𝑠 is usually
assumed equal to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, 𝐾𝑜 . For driven displacement-type piles, the value of
𝐾𝑠 is normally assumed to be twice the value of 𝐾𝑜 . The value of M ranges from 0.7 to 1.0, depending on the
pile material (steel, concrete, wood) and method of installation (Bozozuk et al., 1978). The combined shaft
resistance coefficient, 𝛽, is generally assumed to range from 0.3 to 0.8, where the lower value is used in clay and
silt, and the higher value in coarse and dense soils (Burland, 1973).
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) reported typical values of angle of internal friction for different types of sands which
are shown in Table 6.G.1. In the absence of test loading, this method recommends a factor of safety of at least
3 in order to calculate the allowable capacity.
Table 6.G.1: Typical Values of Angle of Internal Friction for Different Types of Sand (after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
Type of Sand Angle of Internal Friction, 𝝓′
Loose Dense
Uniform sand, rounded particles 27 35
Well graded sand, angular particles 33 45
Sandy gravels 35 50
Silty sands 27 to 30 30 to 34
Inorganic silts 27 to 30 30 to 35

6-792 Vol. 2
Other Methods of Estimating Ultimate Axial Capacity of Piles and Drilled Shafts, and Design Charts for Settlement Appendix G

G.3 TOMLINSON METHOD

This method of estimating ultimate axial load capacity of a single pile has been described by Tomlinson (1995).
In this method, the design ultimate unit skin friction of an individual pile is given by the following expression:
′
𝑞𝑧 = 𝐾𝑠 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿 (6.G.5)
Where, 𝐾𝑠 = coefficient of horizontal soil stress,
′
𝜎𝑣𝑜 = average effective overburden pressure over the length of the soil layer
𝛿 = angle of wall friction
The value of coefficient 𝐾𝑠 is related to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (𝐾𝑜 ) and also to the method of
installation of the piles. Values of coefficient of horizontal soil stress (𝐾𝑠 ) are shown in Table 6.G.2 while values
of the angle of pile to soil friction (𝛿) for various interface conditions are shown in Table 6.G.3.

Table 6.G.2: Values of Coefficient of Horizontal Soil Stress, 𝑲𝒔 (after Kulhawy,1984)

Installation method 𝑲𝒔 /𝑲𝒐
Driven piles, large displacement 1-2

Driven piles, small displacement 0.75-1.75

Bored and cast-in-place piles 0.71-1.0

Jetted piles 0.5-0.7

Table 6.G.3: Values of Soil Pile Friction Angle (𝜹) for Various Interface Conditions
(after Kulhawy, 1984)
Pile/soil interface condition Angle of pile to soil friction (𝜹)
Smooth (coated) steel/sand 0.5𝜙 ′ to 0.7𝜙 ′
Rough (corrugated) steel/sand 0.7𝜙 ′ to 0.9𝜙 ′
Precast concrete/sand 0.8𝜙 ′ to 1.0𝜙 ′
Cast-in-place concrete/sand 1.0𝜙 ′
Timber/sand 0.8𝜙 ′ to 0.9𝜙 ′

The equation for estimating ultimate skin friction implies that in a uniform cohesionless soil the unit skin friction
continues to increase linearly with increasing depth. This is not the case. Vesic (1970) showed that at some
penetration depth between 10 and 20 pile diameters, a peak value of unit skin friction is reached which is not
exceeded at greater penetration depths. Research has not yet established whether the peak value is a constant
in all conditions, or is related to factors such as soil grain size or angularity. A peak value of 110 kN/m2 has been
recommended by Tomlinson (1995) for straight-sided piles.
The base resistance is obtained from the following equation:
′
𝑄𝑏 = 𝑞𝑏 𝐴𝑏 = 𝑁𝑞 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝐴𝑏 (6.G.6)
Where, 𝑁𝑞 = bearing capacity coefficient
′
𝜎𝑣𝑜 = average effective overburden pressure over the length of the soil layer
𝐴𝑏 = base area of pile
Comparisons of observed base resistances of piles by Nordlund (1963) and Vesic (1964) have shown that Nq
values established by Berezantsev (1961) which take into account the depth to width ratio of the pile most
nearly conform to practical criteria of pile failure.

Bangladesh National Building Code 2015 6-793

Part 6
Structural Design

G.4 DESIGN CHARTS FOR ESTIMATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR DRILLED SHAFTS

Reese and O’Neill (1988) developed the following charts, (Figures 6.G.1 to 6.G.4), to estimate the settlement of
drilled shaft under service loads. These charts express the settlement in terms of the ratio of the mobilized
resistance to the actual resistance. If the computed settlement is too large, these charts may be used to modify
the design accordingly. It is important to mention that the notation used in these charts, in several instances,
differ from that mentioned in the Code. They are indicated as under and should be carefully considered.

Figure 6.G.1 Normalised Curves for Load Transfer in Skin Friction vs Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (after Reese
and O’Nell, 1988)

Figure 6.G.2 Normalised Curves for Load Transfer in End Bearing vs Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (after Reese
and O’Nell, 1988)

6-794 Vol. 2
Other Methods of Estimating Ultimate Axial Capacity of Piles and Drilled Shafts, and Design Charts for Settlement Appendix G

Figure 6.G.3 Normalised Curves for Load Transfer in Skin Friction vs Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils (after
Reese and O’Nell, 1988)

Figure 6.G.4 Normalised Curves for Load Transfer in End Bearing vs Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils (after
Reese and O’Nell, 1988)

Bangladesh National Building Code 2015 6-795