Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEOtrendz

December 1618, 2010

IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay

Uplift Load Carrying Capacity of Piles in Sand

Verma, A.K.

Joshi, Ronak K.

Head
e-mail: akvbvm@yahoo.co.in

M.E. Student

Structural Engineering, B. V. M. Engineering College, V. V. Nagar

ABSTRACT
Experimental investigation of single piles, group of piles and enlarged based piles (anchored piles) is carried out
using model piles of circular solid concrete pile (M20 grade), hollow PVC and Galvanised Iron pipe pipes, having
25.4 mm diameter and length 600 mm. Pile groups of 2x1 and 2x2 are used in the experimental investigation.
Square mild steel plate of thickness 4 mm is used as base enlargement of size 2d and 3d. L/d ratio has been kept 24
in all the cases. All types of piles and pile groups are tested under vertical uplift loading. Spacing between two
piles is kept as 3d constant in case of pile groups. Based on the experimental results, behaviour of uplift capacity
for different materials, effect of base enlargement, effect of grouping of piles are discussed in this paper. An
attempt has been made to modify the value of Earth pressure coefficient Ks for single piles and pile groups with
respect to the experimental results.
1. INTRODUCTION
Foundations of some structures like transmission towers,
mooring systems for ocean surface or submerged platforms,
tall chimneys, jetty structures etc. are subjected to uplift
loads.
Ramasamy et.al. (2004) have shown the pull out shaft
friction is significantly less than the push in shaft friction.
Few theories have been developed to find the net uplift
capacity of a bored pile (Meyerhof et.al. 1986;
Chattopadhyay and Pise 1986) and validated through
experimental measurements. The above theories differ
mainly in their assumptions with regard to the shape and
extent of the failure surface. Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986)
assumes a curved failure surface within the soil, but the
predicted extent of failure surface at the ground level is
unreasonably high for deep piles in dense soil.
A number of model tests have been conduced by Das
(1975), Sharma and Pise (1994) and some other methods
of analysis have been proposed by Meyerhof and Adams
(1968), Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986), Rao and Kumar
(1994), for the piles or anchors separately and that too in
homogeneous media. Information on piles with enlarged
bases in stratified soil is limited.
Therefore, experimental investigations have been
carried out to study the behaviour of uplift load to uplift
displacement behaviour with single piles of various
materials and also anchored with various base to diameter
ratios plates as anchorage in sand

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Tests on model piles were carried out in a steel tank of size 650
mm x 600 mm x 700 mm. The tank was sufficiently large to
take care of the effect of the edges of the tank on the test results
as the zone of influence of the pile or pile group due to loading
is reported to be in a range of 3-8 times pile diameter.
Model piles were prepared from 25.4 mm diameter solid
concrete pile, hollow PVC and hollow G.I. Pipe piles. Tests
were carried out for single pile, 2 x 1 and 2 x 2 pile groups,
and anchored piles for base to diameter ratio (B/d) as 2 and 3.
The length of embedment of pile, L in sand bed was 600 mm
and L/d ratio was 24 as constant for all the tests. In case of
anchored piles 4 mm thick mild steel plate was used as
anchorage at piles base of sizes 2d and 3d. in case of pile
groups spacing between two piles was kept 3d. the model piles
were embedded in dry sand bed composed of uniformlygraded
sand having uniformity coefficient 2.44 and specific gravity
2.62.
Table 1: Details of Soil Properties
Relative Density, Dr (%)
Unit Weight, (kN/m3)
Angle of Intern al Friction,
Angle of Soil Pile Friction,

32
15 .38
41 0
29 0

Piles were subjected to tensile loading through a pulley

arrangement with a flexible wire whose one end is attached
with the pile cap and the other end with a loading pan over
which dead loads are gradually placed.

858

A.K. Verma and K. Ronak Joshi

Table 2: Comparison of Enlarged Base Piles With Single Pile

Pile Material

Pile Configuration

69.59

Ratio
Qu (Anchored ) / Qi
(Sin gle)

% Increa se in
Ultimate Uplift
Capacity

171.1 6

2.46

1 46%

Anchored

287.5 7

4.13

3 13%

Single

23.31

230.5 9

9.89

4 30%

Anchored

230.5 9

9.89

8 89%

Single

83.61

210.9 3

2.52

1 52%

474.7 9

5.68

4 68%

Single
Concrete

PVC

G.I

Anchored

Ratio Base
Enlargement
Diameter

Ultima te Uplift
Capacity, Qu (N)

Table 3: Illustrative Comparison of Pile Groups with Single Piles

Pile Material

Concrete

PVC

G.I.

Pile Co nfiguration

Ultimate uplift capacity,

Qu (N)

$% Increase in ultimate
uplift capacity

Sin gle

69.59

Ra tio
Qu (Group) / Qu
(Sin gle)
-

2 x 1 Pile Group

118.06

1.70

70%

2x2 Pile Group

295.49

4.25

325%

Sin gle

23.31

2x1 Pile Group

58.33

2.50

150%

2x2 Pile Group

114.42

4.91

391%

Sin gle

83.61

2x1 Pile Group

104.26

1.25

25%

2x2 Pile Group

226.82

2.71

171%

Table 4: Comparison Between Ks and Ks (Suggested)

Pile Material and Configuration

Concrete

PVC

G.I.

Experimental Earth Pres sure

Coefficient, K s

Suggested Value of Earth

Pressure Coefficient,
KS(suggest ed)
0 .9554

% Difference

Single Pile

0.8741

2x1 Pile Group

0.8260

0 .9554

13.54%

2x2 Pile Group

1.1669

0 .9554

18.12%

Single Pile

0.2928

0 .3946

25.80%

2x1 Pile Group

0.4080

0 .3946

3.28%

2x2 Pile Group

0.4518

0 .3946

12.66%

2x1 Pile Group

0.7295

0 .8723

16.37%

2x2 Pile Group

0.8957

0 .8723

2.61%

8.51%

859

Uplift Load Carrying Capacity of Piles in Sand

Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Piles

The ultimate uplift capacity of piles under uplift load is
determined from the uplift load v/s uplift axial displacement
response. The ultimate load is taken as the load
corresponding to the point where the pile (or pile group)
fails to the load ie pile came out of sand bed.
Table 2 shows the comparison of single piles with
enlarged based piles in tabulated form, While Table 3 shows
comparison of single piles with group of piles.
Coefficient of Earth Pressure (KS) for Single Pile
For the piles embedded in sandy soil, the ultimate uplift
capacity of a vertical pile is assumed to depend on the skin
resistance developed between the pile shaft and the soil.
The ultimate uplift capacity, Qu of a pile of diameter d and
length L is given by the expression,
Qu = Ks v tan d Zc + Ks v tan (L-Zc) (1)
Or
KS = Qu / [1/2 v tan d Zc + v tan d (L Zc)] (2)
Where Ks = coefficient of earth pressure
v = effective vertical stress at a depth of Zc
= d Zc
d = dry unit weight of soil
= soil pile friction angle
Zc or Lcr = critical depth of embedment
The unit skin friction during uplift, fs (where, fs = Ks
v tand) usually varies as shown in the Figure 1. It increases
linearly to a depth of zcritical beyond that it remains constant.
By substituting value of Q u as obtained from
experiment, actual value of Ks can be calculated from
ultimate uplift load of corresponding single piles are given
in Table 5.
Table 5: Calculated Coefficient of Earth Pressure,
Ks for Single Piles
Pile material
Ultimate uplift load Coefficient of earth
(N)
pressur e
(Ks)
Concrete
69.59
0.8741
PVC
23.31
0.2928
G.I.
83.61
1.0502

Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ks) for Pile Groups

For the pile group embedded in sand, the ultimate uplift
capacity of pile group is assumed to depend on the skin
resistance developed between the pile shaft and the soil.
Further it depends upon type of failure, whether it fails
due to individual shears failure or block shear failure. It is
seen that during pull-out pile test, individual shear will
prevail upon and therefore block shear failure must not be
considered. The ultimate uplift capacity of pile group during
individual shear failure is given by the expression
Qu = [1/2 Ks v tan d Zc + Ks v tan d
(L Zc) ] N g
(3)
Or
Ks = Qu / {N g [1/2 v tan Zc + v tan d
(L-Zc]}
(4)

Where Ks = coefficient of earth pressure

v = effective vertical stress at a depth of z = Zc
d = dry unit weight of soil
= Soil pile friction angle
Zc or Lcr = critical depth of embedment
N = Number of piles
g = group efficiency factor
= tan-1(d/s)
S = spacing between two piles
m = number of rows
n = number of piles in a row
Table 6 and Table 7 gives values of KS for 2 1 pile
group and 2 2 pile groups respectively.
Table 6: Calculated Coefficient of Earth Pressure,
Ks for 2 1 Pile Group
Pile Material
Ultimate Uplift
Coefficient of Earth
Load
Pressu re
(N)
Concrete
118.06
0.8260
PVC
58.33
0.4080
G.I.
104.26
0.7295
Table 7: Calculated Coefficient of Earth Pressure,
Ks for 2 2 Pile Group

Pile Material

Concrete
PVC
G.I.

Ultimate Uplift
Load
(N)
295.49
114.42
226.82

Coefficient of
Earth Pressure
Ks
1.1669
0.4518
0.8957

Equation Suggested
Net uplift capacity of piles embedded in sand can be
given by the equation (1) as:Qu = KS V tan d Zc + Ks v tan (L-Zc)
In this equation value of coefficient of earth pressure,
Ks falls into a large range of 0.3 to 4.0, so there are many
implications given by researchers about the value of KS.
In uplift of piles in sand, active earth pressure will be
developed in the soil. Active earth pressure Ka can be
calculated by,
Ka =

1 sin
1 + sin

(5)

For present experimental work, value of f is 41

therefore value of Ka is known
Earth pressure coefficient, K s suggested can be
expressed as,
Ks(suggested) = Fm Ka
(6)
Where Fm = Factor of modification
Ka = active earth pressure coefficient
Value of Fm can be given by,
Fm= 4.6 (for Concrete piles)
= 1.9 (for PVC Piles)
= 4.2 (for G.I. Piles)

860
These values can be applied directly to find earth
pressure coefficient under present investigation conditions
in sandy soil. Table 4 shows the comparison between Ks
obtained by the experimental values and Ks(suggested) by the
equation suggested. However, the maximum percentage
difference is 26% for single PVC pile and the least
percentage difference is 2.6% for 2x2 pile group of G.I.
Piles.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Single Piles and Anchored Piles
(1) G.I. Pipe resists higher amount of uplift load than
concrete pile and PVC pipe pile. PVC piles having
least resistance against uplift due to smoother
surface characteristics.
(2) Value of earth pressure coefficient, Ks is very near
to active earth pressure coefficient. It shows the
soil goes under active earth pressure coefficient.
It shows the soil goes under active earth pressure
condition, which is obvious.
(3) Ultimate uplift capacity can be enhanced in greater
extent with anchored piles.
(4) With increase in base to diameter ratio (B/d),
ultimate uplift capacity can be increased
exponentially
(5) 3d base enlargement causes more than 300%
increment in ultimate uplift capacity with respect
to single pile for G.I. and concrete piles and it
causes more than 800% increase for PVC piles. It
suggests prime need of base anchorage for smooth
surface piles.
Pile Groups
1) The ultimate uplift load vs. uplift displacements
characteristics is non linear in nature. It is
curvilinear with concave upward during initial
loading and it turns into fairly straight line, after
reaching ultimate load, same as in the case of
single piles
2) In group of piles, concrete pile shows enhanced

A.K. Verma and K. Ronak Joshi

ultimate uplift capacity than G.I. piles and PVC

piles, unlike to single piles where G.I. Piles takes
the higher.
3) In case of group of piles, individual shear will
prevail upon and therefore block shear failure must
not be considered for uplift tests of piles. Therefore
Ks values have been calculated as per equation 1.
Somehow, equation suggested varies highly for
group of piles with respect to Ks obtained from
experimental data.
REFERENCES
Chattopadhyay, B.C. And Pise, P.J. (1986): Uplift capacity
of piles in sand, journal OF GTE Div., ASCE, Vol.
112, No. 9, pp. 888-903.
Chattopadhayay, B.C. and Pise, P.J. (1986): Ultimate
resistance of vertical piles to oblique pulling loads,
The First East Asian Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction, Bangkok, Jan 15-17, pp.
1632-1641.
Das, B.M. (1975): Pull out resistance of vertical
anchors, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, No. GTI Proc. Paper 11040, pp. 8791.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Adams, J.I. (1968) : The ultimate uplift
capacity of Foundations, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 64.70.
Ramasamy, G., Dey, B. and Indrawan, E. (2004): Studies
on skin friction in piles under tensile and compressive
load, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.
276-289.
Rao, K.S. and Kumar, J. (1994) : Vertical Uplift capacity
of horizontal anchors, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 1134-1147.
Sharma, B.V.R. and Pise P.J. (1994): Uplift capacity
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 181-203.