Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

UPLIFT CAPACITY OF PILE BY T-Z METHOD

V. B. Deshmukh, Associate Professor, V.J.T.I., Mumbai, vbdeshmukh@vjti.org.in

A. P. Paranjpe, M.Tech Student V.J.T.I., Mumbai, amitparanjpe1984@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Evaluation of the load-settlement response and the ultimate load is of critical importance for piles
subjected to uplift loading in cohesion-less soil. Many studies have been carried out for the prediction of uplift
response of a single pile by t-z method, with the assumption that the shaft resistance of the pile is same for tensile
as well as compressive loading. However Nicola and Randolph [6] successfully demonstrated that the shaft
response of pile is not same for both tensile and compressive loading, owing to the effect of Poissons ratio
expansion/contraction of the pile shaft. In the present paper the above mentioned phenomenon has been
incorporated in the existing t-z method and the results obtained by the proposed t-z method are then compared with
the available field test data.

INTRODUCTION
Pile foundations are a common type of foundations
for resisting compressive as well as tensile loading.
Structures such as transmission line towers,
chimneys etc are subjected to large lateral loads,
and the associated moments cause tension in some
of the piles supporting the structure. Few studies
have been carried out on the prediction of load-
settlement response for piles subjected to tensile
loading in cohesion-less soil by t-z method. In the
following section, some of the available studies are
discussed in brief.
Sulaiman and Coyle[1] presented a method for
computing the load settlement curve for a pile
subjected to tensile loading in cohesion-less soil.
The method presented by them did not consider the
elastic extension of pile shaft in the estimation of
shaft resistance. Further, the curves relating the
local movement of pile shaft to the mobilized shear
stress were obtained by conduction tests in
laboratory on miniature piles.
Reddy et al [2] improved the method suggested by
Sulaiman and Coyle [1] by taking into account the
elastic extension of the pile shaft . Further the
radial stress along the pile shaft was estimated
using the expression given by Lehane [3]. However
the method still depends on the use of lab obtained
curves for relating the local movement of the pile
shaft to the mobilized shear stress.
Goel and Patra [4] proposed a method considering
the elastic extension of the pile shaft in the
estimation of the mobilized shaft resistance. The
use of Vijayvergiyas [5] curve was made for
relating the local movement of the pile shaft to the
mobilized shaft resistance.
Nicola and Randolph [6] conducted a study for
investigating the differences between the tensile
and compressive shaft capacities for piles
embedded in cohesion-less soil. The chief finding
of the investigation was that the difference in the
tensile and compressive shaft capacities was
primarily due to the Poissons ratio expansion/
contraction of the pile shaft. This effect depends on
the pile (E,u,L, d,d) and soil (G) properties.
From the review of literature it was seen that the
earlier studies on the t-z method have not
considered the effect of Poissons ratio expansion/
contraction of pile shaft on the mobilized shear
stress along the pile shaft. Further, the shear
modulus of soil (G) has not been considered in the
estimation of the mobilized shear stress.
PROPOSED METHOD
In the next sections the modifications to the
mobilized shear stress and the method for
computing the load settlement curve are discussed
in detail.
Shaft Capacity of Pile Element With Poisson's
Ratio Effect
Conventionally it is assumed that the shaft capacity
of pile is same for both tensile as well as
compressive loading. But majority of field test

Page 1 of 5
results show that the tensile and compressive shaft d ( ) 8 p tan 8 p tan
capacity deviates for piles embedded in sand. The + + mz = tmz 2
dz
deviation in the tensile and compressive shaft z dE p dE p
capacities is significant particularly for long (4)
slender piles. The reason is primarily due to the At pile tip the boundary condition is z = L (where,
lateral expansion or contraction of the pile shaft as L= Length of pile) and the corresponding change in
suggested by Randolph and Nicola [6]. The shear stress (L ) .
change in the pile diameter also cause change in
2 p tan
the stresses in the surrounding soil mass which (L ) = mL q
depends on the nature of loading. Randolph and Ep
(5)
Nicola [6] presented the theoretical capacity ratio Substituting Eq (5) and z =L in Eq (4) the change
for quantifying the Poisson's ratio effect on the in shear stress is given below as,
shaft resistance. The effect on the shaft capacity
d q 8 (1 Z +1 )
due to Poisson's ratio effect is quantified as shown = ( 0 )L Z 1 + 2 ( + 1) e 1
below. L ( 0 )L

The change in shear stress ( ) due to Poisson's (6)

ratio effect as suggested by Fleming et al [7] is Where,
P Z = z/L
= 2G p tan
( AE ) p (1) ( )
G
= p tan L d avg E

p
Where, Gavg = Average shear modulus over the depth of
P = Axial load. pile embedment.
G = Shear modulus of soil. ( 0 )L = K 'v tan at z = L.
p = Poisson's ratio of pile. Now, for tensile loading the base resistance will be
(AE)p= Axial stiffness of pile. zero. Also the value of will be 1 for linear
= Soil-pile friction angle. variation of soil shear modulus.
Rearranging Eq. (1) relating the axial load (P) to Hence, substituting =1 and q = 0 in Eq. (5) and
the change in end bearing resistance, q and the simplifying as.
shaft friction 0 + gives {
= z e 8 (1Z ) 1
2
} (7)
P Ep The shear stress at any depth z is
=
d 2 p tan G
2 z = ( 0 )L Z
(2)
Hence, the shear stress considering the effect of
4
L
expansion/contraction of pile shaft, the total shear
P
= q + ( 0 + )dz
4 stress is given as,
d
2
d z = z

4 z z (
= e 8 (1Z ) 1
2
) (8)
Differentiating Further simplifying as,
Eq.(2) with respect to z.
d ( ) d 1 8 p tan 8 p tan
{ [
= z 1 e 8 (1Z ) 1
2
]} (9)
+ G + = 0G =z
dz G dE p
{ [ ]}
dz dE p
Where, = 1 e 8 (1Z ) 1 is a factor for
2

(3)
Where 0 = tz , G = mz and 0 < 1 , after
accounting the effect of Poisson's ratio
simplification Eq. (3) becomes expansion/contraction on the mobilized shaft
resistance.

Page 2 of 5
 Uplift capacity of pile by t-z method

Estimation of Load Displacement Curve for8. From the Qmid(n) the elastic extension at the
Uplift Loading midpoint of the segment is calculated as,
The load displacement curve for the pile is
generated by using a numerical procedure. The Qtop (n) + Qtip (n) H n
steps involved in the estimation of load
displacement curve are summarized below. S mid (n ) = 2 2 (14)
1. Discretize the pile into number of segments and An E n
assign the various geometrical and soil properties Where,
to each segment. An=Cross section area of segment n.
2. Consider the lowermost segment n, assume an En=Young's modulus of segment n.
upward tip movement Stip(n) and the corresponding 9. The new midpoint movement is calculated as,
load at tip Qtip(n) will be zero as soil takes no S mid (n) = S tip (n) + S mid (n) (15)
tension. 10. Compare the new midpoint movement with the
3. Compute the midpoint movement Smid(n) for the assumed midpoint movement in step 3.
bottom most segment. For the first trial, Smid(n) is 11. The total upward movement at the top of
assumed as Stip(n). segment n is obtained as,
4. Estimate the unit shaft resistance fn mobilized Qtop (n) + Qmid (n) H n
corresponding to zs=Smid(n)using the following
equation, S top = S mid (n) + 2 2 (16)
An E n
zs zs 12. Proceed to the next upper segment [i.e (n-1)th,
f n = K u v tan 2 for which tip load and tip displacement are
z z
c c given as,
(10)
z z Qtip (n 1) = Qtop (n) (17)
f n = z 2 s s
z z c Stip (n 1) = Stop (n) (18)
c

Where, 13. In this way proceed to the pile top to get a value
Ku= Uplift co-efficient according to Meyerhof [8]. of tensile load Qt and the displacement for the
sv= Effective vertical pressure which may be taken first segment.
to be linear. 14. Similarly a number of pile tip displacement
zc= Average critical displacement value (7.5mm) as values are assumed to get the corresponding
suggested by Kulhawy [9]. tensile loads and pile head displacement values.
=Factor according to Eq (9). These values are then plotted on a graph and the
5. The shaft resistance Sn mobilized by the segment is load displacement curve for the pile is
calculated as, generated.
S n = f n H n Cn (11)
COMPARISON WITH FIELD TEST
Where,
RESULTS
Hn = Length of segment.
The results of the field test conducted by Sulaiman
Cn = Perimeter of segment.
and Coyle [1] and the predictions of the proposed t-
6. Load at the top of segment is given as,
z method are compared. The variation of shear
Qtop (n) = S n +Q tip (n) (12) modulus is considered as suggested by Hardin and
7. Considering a linear variation of load within the Black (1968) [10]. The load-settlement curve is
segment, the load at mid-point level is obtained as, presented for Pile P1 in Fig.1. The comparison of
Qtop (n) + Qtip (n) shaft capacities for pilesP1,P2,P3 and P4 are shown
Qmid (n) = (13) in Table 1.
2

Page 3 of 5
 Table 2 Comparison of tensile shaft capacities
obtained by proposed t-z method and field test
results of Krabbenhoft et al [12]
Field Propose
Pile Length test d t-z
% error
designation (m) results method
(kN) (kN)
P2a 2.96 39.1 35.43 -9.38
P5b 6 110 140.85 27.8
P1b 2.15 16.8 18.81 11.9
P4a 4.85 85.9 93.33 8.65
Fig. 1 Field and predicted load - settlement curve
P3b 4 68.7 64.07 -6.73
for pile P1
The computed tensile shaft capacities obtained by
the proposed t-z method show close agreement for
Table 1 Comparison of tensile shaft capacity
4 out of 5 test piles.
obtained by proposed t-z method and field test
Ismael and Klym [13] conducted pile load tests on
results by Sulaiman and Coyle [1]
drilled concrete piers 6.4m long and 1.1 m in
diameter. The soil properties reported are =340,
Field Proposed
=340,'=10.8 kN/m3. In all three piers were tested,
Diameter Length test t-z %
Pile two in tension and one in compression. The uplift
(m) (m) result method error
capacity for the piers was reported as 100 tons (980
(kN) (kN)
kN). The tensile shaft capacity computed by the
P1 0.324 16.17 690 681.05 -1.30 proposed t-z method is 945.7 kN which is close to
P2 0.406 16.08 910 921.6 1.27 the reported value of 100 tons (980kN).
P3 0.508 16.14 900 1107 23.00
CONCLUSION
P4 0.406 16.17 870 970 11.49 The existing t-z method was successfully modified
by incorporating the effect of Poisson's ratio
From the above table it is seen that the proposed expansion/contraction and the soil shear modulus
method gives closer ultimate load predictions. in the estimation of mobilized shaft resistance. The
Vesic [11] conducted a full scale test on a steel predictions obtained by the proposed method show
pipe pile 0.453m in diameter and 15.01m long very good agreement with the available field test
driven in a dense cohesion-less deposit on the data.
banks of Ogechee river. The physical properties
reported in the investigation are field density, = REFERENCES
20 kN/m3,=270,=270,E=2xe5 N/mm2.The tensile 1) Coyle, H.M., and Sulaiman, I.H. (1967). "Skin
shaft capacity is reported as 1537.6 kN. The friction for steel piles in sand." Journal of the
computed tensile shaft capacity obtained by the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
proposed t-z method is 1590.92 kN. The computed ASCE, 93 (SM6), pp. 261-278
tensile shaft capacity obtained by the proposed t-z 2) Reddy, E.S., OReilly, M. and Chapman, D.
method agrees well with the field test result. (1997). " A software to predict the behaviour of
Krabbenhoft et al [12] conducted tests on bored tension piles."Comput Struct 64(2):653658
concrete piles installed in sand at Esbjerg and a. Row, New York.
Oksbol in Denmark. The test piles range from 1.5 3) Lehane, B.M. (1992)"Experimental
to 6m in length, further the water table was found investigation of pile behaviour using
to exist at a far depth. The field test results and the instrumented field piles."Ph.D. thesis.
predictions obtained by the proposed t-z method University of London, 1992.
for piles at Esbjerg are shown in Table 2.

Page 4 of 5

4) Goel, S. and Patra, N. R. (2007). Prediction of
load displacement response of single piles
under uplift load. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 25, 57-64
5) Vijayvergiya, V.N. (1977)."Load movement
characteristics of piles", Proceedings 4th
Symposium of Waterway, Port,Coastal and
6) Nichola, A.D., and Randolph M.F.
(1993)."Tensile and compressive shaft capacity
of piles in sand." J Geotech Eng 119(12):1952
1973.
7) Fleming, K. , Weltman, A. , Randolph, M.,
Elson, K. (1992) "Piling engineering." CRC
press
8) Meyerhof, G.G. (1973)."Uplift resistance of
inclined anchor and piles." In: Proceedings of
the 8th international conference on soil
mechanics foundation engineering, Moscow,
pp 167173
Uplift capacity of pile by t-z method
9) Kulhawy, F.H. (1985)."Drained Uplift
Capacity of Drilled Shafts." Proceedings 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Rotterdam,
10) Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V. (1969)."Soil
mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, USA
11) Vesic, A.S. (1970)."Tests on instrumented
piles, Ogeechee River site." J Soil Mech Found
Div ASCE 96(2):561584
12) Krabenhoft, S, Andersen, A, and Damkilde, L.
(2007)."The tensile capacity of bored piles in
frictional soil." Can Geotech J. 45:17151722
13) Ismael, N.F. and Klym, T.W. (1979)."Uplift
Capacity of Short Piles in Sands." J Geotech
Eng Divis ASCE 105(GT5):579594
Page 5 of 5