Piles in sands and gravel strata can be bored, in-situ cast in place driven type, precast or

steel driven or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles. Generally the preferred system is the
driven pile, which in driving increases the density of the granular strata. In addition the
risk of having a poorly formed pile is ruled out when steel sections or precast concrete
piles cast in a factory are used.
Bored piles and CFA piles can be very useful on sites where there are existing
buildings and vibrations need to be kept to a minimum. CFA piles are generally used
when water-bearing or very soft strata are encountered and a bored type of pile is needed.
4.6.1 Bored piles
These can be formed using a conventional three-leg tripod rig. For large-diameter piles a
special rig design is generally required, especially if the piles are to be under-reamed, to
enlarge the pile base.
Where the piles have to pass through very weak soils or water-bearing strata, the piling
contractor may need to use temporary or permanent casings. If the casing is temporary
and the pile is an in-situ concrete system in which the casing is extracted during the
construction of the pile shaft, it is important to ensure that a sufficient head of concrete is
maintained in the pile shaft to prevent ‘necking’ of the pile during withdrawal of the
casing.
Great care must be exercised when withdrawing the pile casings to avoid lifting the
Foundations in sands and gravels 157
pile reinforcement cage and surrounding concrete up with the casing. To prevent this
from being a problem the concrete should be a rich mix and have a high workability.
In extreme situations where groundwater inflows are high it may be desirable to form
the pile shaft using a tremie pipe operation. Concrete placed by tremie operation should
be easily workable, have a slump between 100 and 175 mm, and should have a high
cement content of at least 400 kg/m3.
In some situations the casing can be replaced by using a bentonite slurry. The use of a
tremie pipe in these situations requires that an adequate head of concrete is kept in the
tremie pipe to overcome the pressure of the bentonite mud which has to be displaced by
the outflowing concrete.
4.6.2 Continuous flight auger piles
These piles are very useful in soils such as soft alluvium, wet sands and peat soils. They
should only be used when a good site investigation is available. The auger on the piling
rig has a central core down which a cementitious mortar or fine concrete can be pumped
prior to and during removal of the pile spoil on the auger. If, on removal of the auger, it is
evident from the soils on the auger tip that the pile has not been formed in suitable
bearing strata, then it is necessary to replace the auger and reform a deeper pile.
4.6.3 Design of bored piles
In 1976 Meyerhof determined bearing capacity factors for deep foundations. Similar
work was carried out by Berezantsev in 1961 and by Hansen and Vesic, and these factors
are listed in Table 4.7.
Ultimate load capacity Qu=Qb+Qs
where Qb=ultimate end bearing component, and Qs= ultimate skin friction component.
Now
where σ′v=the effective overburden pressure at the pile toe; Nq=the bearing capacity
factor (Table 4.7); Ab=area of pile at base. Now
Table 4.7. Bearing capacity factors (after Meyerhof)
ø (degrees) Nc
Nq
Nγ
0 5.14 1.0 0.0
5 6.49 1.60 0.1
10 8.34 2.50 0.40
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 158
where fs=average value of skin friction developed over the embedded length of the pile
shaft; As=surface area of the embedded pile length of the pile shaft. The average value of
fs is given by
where Ks=the coefficient of lateral earth pressure; δ=angle of friction between the pile
shaft and the surrounding soils. Values for Ks and δ are listed in Table 4.8 (derived by
Broms in 1966).
The values of fs are limited for pile lengths between 10 and 20 times the pile diameter or
pile width. For practical usage fs maximum is taken as 100 kN/m2. Meyerhof determined
15 10.97 3.90 1.10
20 14.83 6.40 2.90
25 20.71 10.70 6.80
26 22.25 11.80 8.0
28 25.79 14.70 11.20
30 30.13 18.40 15.70
32 35.47 23.20 22.0
34 42.14 29.40 31.10
36 50.55 37.70 44.40
38 61.31 48.90 64.0
40 75.25 64.10 93.60
45 133.73 134.70 262.30
50 266.50 318.50 871.70
Table 4.8. Typical values for δ and Ks (Broms, 1966)
Pile material δ
Ks
Relative density of soil
Loose Dense
Steel 20° 0.50 1.0
Concrete 0.75 ø′ 1.0 2.0
Timber 0.67ø 1.50 4.0
ø′= Angle of shearing resistance in respect of effective stress values
Foundations in sands and gravels 159
that qb is approximately equal to 14 N D/B where N=SPT blow count; B=pile diameter or
pile width; D=embedded length of pile in the end bearing strata; fs is approximately equal
to , =the average uncorrected N value over the shaft length considered.
When constructing bored piles in sands and gravels the granular strata will be loosened
during removal of the core material. In view of this it is prudent to adopt a cautious
approach and use values of and Nq based on loose soil conditions to determine the
ultimate end bearing and skin friction values. Adopting this approach will result in an
ultimate bearing capacity lower than that achieved by a driven pile in the same strata but
the loosening effect of the boring operations on the base and pile shaft in granular soils
can be quite significant.
Example 4.5 Bored piles
A dwelling is to be supported on bored piles which are required because of the closeness
of an old existing building. The maximum unfactored line load for the three storey
dwelling is 60 kN per metre run. The soil conditions below the site consist of
approximately 4.0 m of very loose to loose ash fill which is still undergoing consolidation
settlement and, below the fill, a medium dense sand with recorded SPT values of 22. The
density of the ash fill is 1300 kg/m3 and all the boreholes revealed dry conditions down to
15.0 m depth. The density of the sand is 1850 kg/m3.
With piles at 4.0 m centres, and using continuously designed ring beams, the maximum
working load on each pile will equal 4×1.20 ×60=288 kN. Ultimate skin friction on pile
shaft, fs=Ks γd tanδ. Since boring will loosen the sands, use Table 4.8 for Ks and δ.
Ks=1.0, =33° and δ=0.75×33=24.75. Therefore
If we assume piles will be approximately 10 m long:
Assuming 400 mm diameter concrete piles:
Assuming that during the boring the medium dense sands will be loosened and the value
of will be reduced to 32°. Using the Berezantsev chart (Fig. 4.12):
Nq for D/B=6.0/0.40=15 is 33
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 160
Fig. 4.12 Values of Nq for pile formula (after Berezantsev, 1961).
Therefore
Ultimate resistance=662.50+366=1028.50 kN
Adopting a combined factor of safety of 3.0, the maximum allowable working
load=1028.50/3.0=342 kN.
Because the fills are still settling under their own weight, the effect of negative skin
friction must be allowed for in the pile design. This value of negative skin friction must
be added to the pile working load.
Assume the negative skin friction acts over the top 4.0 m of the pile. The peak value of
negative skin friction will not at any time act over the whole length of the pile shaft
embedded in the fill and it will therefore be necessary to make a reasoned assessment of
the magnitude of the drag-down forces to be used in the design.
where σ′v=effective vertical stress, and K tan is assumed to be constant for the pile’s
length.
Unit skin friction at the top of the sand was calculated at 23.49 kN/m2. This value can
be used as the peak value of the negative skin friction at the base of the fill, as it will be
approximately equal. Therefore total negative skin friction on the top 4.0 m of the pile
shaft equals
Therefore
Foundations in sands and gravels 161
This is slightly less than the recommended value of 3.0 but is acceptable because of the
low values adopted for the density of the sands.
Using a driven pile
Using a 275 mm×275 mm precast concrete pile driven through the fills into the medium
dense sands (N=25 blows) to a calculated set, a factor of safety of 2.50 can be adopted.
Maximum pile working load=288+59=347 kN.
Therefore ultimate load capacity requires to be 347×2.50 = 867.50 kN. For a SPT blow
count of 25, =36°. Using the Berezantsev chart (Fig. 4.12), for a 10 m pile length:
Therefore
and
where Pb is the effective overburden pressure at the base of the pile, and Ab is the area of
the pile base=0.275×0.275=0.075 m2. Therefore from the Berezantsev chart
Though this is slightly less than 867.50 kN, the pile will be driven to a calculated set and
will most likely penetrate the sands for less than the 6.0 m available.
4.6.4 Set calculations
Using the modified Hiley formula for precast piles,
Ru=ultimate load=347×2.50=867.50 kN;
E=Transfer energy at pile top=0.70×104,
c=temporary compression of pile and ground per blow, say 12 mm;
s=set blow count.
Therefore
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 162
Therefore adopt a set of 20 mm for 10 blows or less. In practice, fs is taken as 100 kN/m2
maximum.
For driven piles in granular soils there are approximate formulae derived by Meyerhof
in 1976 to calculate pile capacities.
where N=SPT blow count, D=embedded length of pile in bearing strata, and B=diameter
or width of the pile.
Consider example 4.5:
and fs=N kN/m2=the average uncorrected N value over the embedded length of the pile in
the bearing stratum. Therefore
For a bored pile in granular soils
Example 4.6 Working load of precast concrete piles
A 3.0 m thick layer of loose sands and gravels overlie a thicker deposit of dense sands
and gravels. SPT tests in the dense sands produced values of 35 from the base of the
loose sands to a depth of 12.0 m below ground level at 1.0 m intervals. Using a 275 mm×
275 mm precast concrete pile and adopting a factor of safety of 2.50 determine the
maximum allowable working load for the pile.
Ultimate bearing capacity=Qu=Qb+Qs
For Qb, ignore the loose sands and use qb=40ND/B or 400NkN/m2. Therefore
Therefore
Foundations in sands and gravels 163
Qs in loose sands is discounted. Qs in dense sands=fs×As, where fs=N=35 kN/m2.
Therefore
In granular strata the end bearing component is much greater than the skin friction
component on the sides of the pile. To mobilize this skin friction a significant movement
has to occur at the pile toe. In dense granular strata this movement is very small and
because of this the factor of safety for a driven pile can be 1.50 for skin friction and 3.0
for end bearing. Applying these factors to Example 4.6 the allowable working load would
be
4.6.5 Dynamic pile formula
The ultimate static resistance of a driven pile can be predicted from the dynamics of the
driving operation itself. The kinetic energy imparted by the piling hammer is equated to
the work done by the pile in penetrating into the ground. Therefore
Net kinetic energy=Work done during penetration of pile
For a hammer of weight W tonnes falling a drop height of h and causing a penetration
or set of s mm, the pile resistance load Rs can be obtained from the formula
Rs=Wh−energy losses
The energy losses are due to the pile and pile cap compression, hammer rebound, and
frictional losses in the equipment.
Driving a pile into sands and gravel strata will increase the relative density of the sands
and gravels and this has a significant effect on the predictions of load-carrying capacity.
For concrete piles the modified Hiley formula is often applied but the Dutch formula is
also often used. The Hiley formula should only be applied to piles which obtain their
support in sands and gravels, stiff-to-hard clays or rock. It is not applicable to frictional
piles which obtain their support in soft clays by adhesion along their length.
Specialist piling contractors who rely on piling to make their living generally put their
trust in the simple drop hammer. These hammers are often considered to be crude and
old-fashioned but they are very reliable and just as effective as sophisticated hammers at
less cost. Some piling firms have developed their own equipment and use purpose-built
hammers not readily available on the open market.
The Hiley formula can also be adopted for steel bearing piles and a factor of safety of
2.0 can be used, where
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 164
For practical purposes the ultimate load on a pile can be defined as that load which causes
a settlement of one tenth of the pile diameter or pile width (Terzaghi and Peck, 1968).
The accuracy of a given dynamic formula can be improved by recalibrating it for a
given site against the test load data obtained from static load tests. The formula can then
be more confidently used as a guide for selecting final penetrations of those piles which
are neither near any tested piles or near ay borehole locations.
Dynamic formulae can be grossly inaccurate: using the Hiley formula, the actual
ultimate load obtained by test loading may be between 0.70 and 3.0 times the figure
obtained by applying the formula. Pile testing should always be carried out to verify the
dynamic formula.
4.6.6 Re-drive tests
These should be carried out on one or more piles at a reasonable frequency rate with a
minimum time interval of 12 h. Only if the re-drive final set (mm/blow) is equal to or less
than the set of the initial drive can the dynamic formula be adopted. If the re-drive set is
greater than the set obtained on the initial drive the formula does not apply, and it will be
essential to re-drive the piles until a tighter set is achieved, or to carry out a static load
test.
4.6.7 Base-driven steel tube piles
where Ru=ultimate driving resistance in tonnes; W=weight of internal drop hammer in
tonnes; h=actual drop of hammer at final set in metres; s=final set (mm/blow). This
formula is applicable for:
• drops between 1.20 m and 2.0 m;
• sets less than 5 mm/blow, i.e. 5 blows to 25 mm.
4.6.8 Top-driven steel piles
where W=weight of hammer in newtons;
p=weight of pile (unit weight×length) in newtons;
H=effective hammer drop in metres;
R=penetration resistance or ultimate load capacity in newtons;
s=set (penetration per hammer blow) in mm.
Allowing for 30% loss of efficiency:
Foundations in sands and gravels 165
where WH=kinetic energy. Therefore
Example 4.7 Steel piles
Working load on pile=295 kN with pile length=9.0 m. Factor of safety=2.50. Therefore
R=2.50×295=737.50 kN
Mass of hammer, m=3.06 kN;
weight of hammer, w=30 kN;
weight of pile, p=0.648 L kN where L=pile length;
effective hammer drop, H=0.35 m.
Velocity of hammer at impact=2gH=2×9.81×0.35=2.62 m/s
Reduce this value by 30% for losses=0.70×10 500.0=7351 Nm.
Therefore
Therefore, use three blows of 350 mm for a set of 25 mm.
Example 4.8 Driving precast concrete piles
A 275 mm×275 mm precast concrete pile is to be used to carry safe working loads of
350–500 kN. The pile is reinforced with eight 12 mm high tensile bars in pairs bundled in
each corner. Concrete strength is 50 N/mm2. Fy=590 N/mm2; Fcu=50; A ′
s=452; As=452.
Ultimate axial compression load:
For working load of 350 kN, using modified Hiley formula
Transfer energy at pile top, E=0.85×104 kN m; temporary compression of pile and
ground, c=10 mm. Set per blow in mm, s, is given by:
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 166
Ten blows of hammer give a 58 mm set; therefore use a 4.0 t banut hammer with a 400
mm drop. For working load of 350–500 kN:
Therefore ten blows of hammer give a 26 mm set; therefore use a 4.0 t banut hammer
with a 400 mm drop, see Table 4.9.
DUTCH FORMULA
This formula provides an alternative method of determining a pile set using a dynamic
formula.
where s=set in mm/blow;
W=weight of hammer=35 kN;
K=hammer efficiency=0.70;
H=hammer drop=450 mm;
Ru=working load×10, 350×10=3500 kN;
p=weight of pile=18 kN.
Therefore
For ten blows this equals 22.70 mm set.
Table 4.9. Hammer transfer energy×104 (Rig: hydraulic Banut type)
Hammer weight (tonnes) Transfer energy (tonne metres)
Hammer drop (mm)
300 400 500 600 700
1.50 0.25 0.35 0.45 – –
3.00 0.55 0.70 0.90 –
4.00 0.85 1.10 –
5.0 1.05 1.40
Foundations in sands and gravels 167
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berezantsev, V.G. (1961) Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations.
Proc. Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 11–12.
Broms, B. (1966) Methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of piles: a
summary. Sols (Soils), 5(18/19), 21–31.
BSI (1986) BS 8004: British Standard code of practice for foundations, British Standards
Institution.
Carter, M. (1983) Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Pentech Press, London.
De Beer, E.E. (1965) Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations on sand.
Proc. Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke
University, pp. 15–33.
Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G. (1957) Research on determining the density of sands by
spoon penetration testing. Proc. Fourth ICSMFE Conference, London, Vol. 1, pp. 35–
39.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1952) The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechnique, 2
(4), 301–332.
Parry, R.H.G. (1971) A direct method of estimating settlements in sands from SPT
values. Midlands SMFE Society.
Powell, M.J.V. (1979) House-Builder’s Reference Book, NewnesButterworth, London.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1968) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd edn,
John Wiley, New York.
Vesic, A.S. (1966) Tests on instrumented piles. Ogeechee River site. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 96, SM 2.
Structural foundations manual for low-rise buildings 168
Chapter 5
Building in mining localities
The following guidance is given for builders and engineers involved with the planning
and construction of housing on sites previously undermined by mineral extraction and on
sites where future extraction of coal or other minerals will take place after the
development has been completed.
There are various techniques for investigating and consolidating old mine workings,
securing of old mine shafts, adits etc., and various foundation design options are available
to cater for any ground movements likely to arise. Past and current coalmining is the most
common cause of subsidence but there are other minerals, such as fireclay, sandstone
(Elland flags), chalk, ironstone, salt and gypsum, which can give stability problems
below a site. The effects of subsidence from modern longwall extraction methods now in
use in the British coalfield can be predicted fairly accurately whereas movements
resulting from old shallow mineral workings are not so easily defined and require sound
judgements by engineers and geologists experienced in this field based on the available
mining and geological data collected.
Building houses on land which is underlain by known shallow coal workings or other
mineral workings can result in very expensive development costs. The total costs are
difficult to quantify prior to consolidation being carried out because of the lack of
information on the volume of material extracted. On some sites it may well be cheaper
not to develop certain areas of the site and place public open space over the no-build
zones. If shallow workings are discovered in the final phases of a development there will
be less properties available to spread the costs.
In known mining areas it is prudent to consult British Coal or other bodies such as the
Brine Boards, mineral valuers, and British Geological Survey, before purchasing any land
for development. In some localities, planning authorities may lay down conditions in
regard to old or future mineral extraction. This has become more frequent since the
closure of many mines has allowed mines to flood which results in a diaphragm effect in
pushing mine gases such as methane and carbon dioxide to the ground surface. This alone
could render a site undevelopable.
Coal, lead, tin, ironstone, fireclay, sandstone, gypsum, salt, chalk, sand, anhydrite and
other minerals have been extracted by various methods over the years, but many of the
industries related to the minerals have gone into decline. At present the minerals most
frequently extracted are coal, gypsum, anhydrite and salt.
Gypsum and anhydrite mines are extensively