Indian Geotechnical Conference 2017 GeoNEst

14-16 December 2017, IIT Guwahati, India

Optimization of Pile Foundation

Ajay Kumawat
A. K. Singh
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur 831014
E-mail: ajaykumawat10@gmail.com; aksingh.civil@nitjsr.ac.in

ABSTRACT: Piling is expensive but often necessary for building of large structures, for example bridges and high rise
buildings, therefore it becomes necessary to find the best Pile Foundation design in terms of performance and economy.
The foundation cost, of real-world structural systems, can vary from 5% to 10% of the construction cost of the
superstructure while the number of piles required might exceed several hundreds or even thousands. Over the past
decades, many optimization algorithms have been developed for various engineering problems such as structural
design, transportation planning and so forth. Very few attempts, however, have been made in developing an effective
optimization methodology for foundation design. This study presents the optimization of pile foundation using
computer program in C++ that can minimize the construction cost and save time. Two different design code
procedures are considered in this study in order to assess the performance of the designs obtained during the
optimization process, namely IS: 2911 (Part I) and IS: 2911 (Part III). In this study, length of pile is reduced keeping
constant load carrying capacity by varying the parameters like shaft diameter, number of piles, bulb diameter for under-
reamed etc., and volume of earthwork and concrete has been calculated.

Keywords: Computer programming; Concrete pile; Under-reamed pile; Pile group; Optimization
1. Introduction
Piling is expensive but often necessary for building of
large structures, for example bridges and high rise
buildings, therefore it becomes necessary to find the best
Pile Foundation design in terms of performance and
economy. The foundation cost, of real-world structural
systems, can vary from 5% to 10% of the construction
cost of the superstructure while the number of piles
required might exceed several hundreds or even
thousands. At any site, if engineer is facing problems in
providing designed length of pile then he will get
alternative solution such as larger diameter pile of smaller
length, more number of piles of lesser diameter which
make the pile foundation economical without
compromising the load carrying capacity. The program
for design of pile foundation allows the user to input data
that includes: parameters of pile and properties of soil.
Different analytical equations for both cohesive and non-
cohesive soil as given in IS: 2911 (Part I) and IS: 2911
(Part III) have been used for computer programming. For
certain value of reduced length, stem diameter has been
changed for obtaining same load and then volume of the
concrete in both cases (original length and reduced length
of pile) has been calculated. Similarly, for reduced length
of pile, no. of piles, no. of bulbs, bulb diameter, etc. has
been increased and studied at constant pile load and then
volume of earthwork and concrete have been computed.
In this way cost effective alternative can be selected.
This study presents the optimization of pile foundation
using computer program in C++that can minimize the
construction cost and save time. Two different design
code procedures are considered in this study in order to
assess the performance of the designs obtained during the
optimization process. In this study, length of pile is
reduced keeping constant load carrying capacity by
varying the parameters like shaft diameter, number of
piles, bulb diameter for under-reamed, etc, and volume of
earthwork and concrete has been calculated. In present
work, program has been developed for checking load
carrying capacity by varying the parameters and then
1
optimized its cost on reduced volume obtained for same
load (Hill, 1981; Hurd, and Truman, 2006; Poulos, and
Davis, 1980).
2. Theoretical Analysis
Different theoretical equations used for analysis and
design of piles have been studied. Piles are design in such
a way that the load coming from the structure, can be
transmitted to the soil without causing failure of soil or
failure of pile material and without causing settlement
(total & differential) under loading as may result in
structure damage.
2.1 Ultimate load bearing capacity of cast-in-situ
concrete pile
2.1.1 Piles in granular soil
The ultimate load bearing capacity ( ) which the pile
can support through the combined resistance of skin
friction and point bearing for granular soils is given by
the following formula:
(1)
2.1.2 Piles in cohesive soil
In clay soils the contribution of point bearing is small
compared to that of shaft skin frictional resistance. The
ultimate load bearing capacity ( ) of piles, in cohesive
soils is given by the following formula:
(2)
2.2 Ultimate load bearing capacity of under-reamed
pile
2.2.1 Piles in cohesive soil
The ultimate load bearing capacity of an under-reamed
pile for cohesive soil is given by the following
expressions:
(3)
Optimization of Pile Foundation

2.3 Estimation of earthwork and volume of concrete least cost will give the most optimum choice for the given
for cast-in-situ pile and under-reamed pile load.

In boring the holes, Cost of Earthwork for cast-in-situ 3. Result

pile and under-reamed pile is estimated in terms of depth In the present work, a number of computer programs
of hole. Cost per meter cube of concrete and earthwork have been developed for analysis of Pile Foundation
for cast-in-situ concrete pile and under-reamed pile is based on IS: 2911 (Part I/ Sec I) and IS: 2911 (Part III),
estimated in terms of depth of bore hole including the the program allows the user to input data that includes
bulbs and labour charges. parameters of pile and properties of soil. The value
obtained is then compared with the solution given in
literature and cost is optimized in respect of volume of
2.3.1 Cast-in-situ concrete pile concrete. Comparative study is carried out in which,
length of pile is reduced keeping constant load on pile by
Volume of concrete for the shaft portion is given by varying the parameters like shaft diameter, diameter of
bulb and number of piles for under-reamed pile, and the
(4) volume of concrete and earthwork has been checked.
Cost of pile has been analyses in respect of volume of
Volume of Pile cap is given as concrete and volume of earthwork. If these two volume is
For (np = 1) reducing means cost of pile will also reduce.

(5) Computer programming language C has been used in

order to perform the analysis and design of pile
For (np = 2) foundation which allows the user to input the parameters
of pile and properties of soil to get economical solution.
( ( )) (6)
3.1 Result of cast-in-situ concrete pile (non-cohesive
Total volume of concrete for cast-in-situ pile is given as - soil)
(7)
Table - 1 Output of computer program for pile in non-
cohesive soil ( = 400)
2.3.2 Under-reamed pile
Initial Length of Pile = 12 m
Volume of shaft is calculated as given in equation (4) and
for remaining portion of bulb, the bulb is considered as a
solid of revolution of a trapezoidal section as 1.5 D at the No. Volume
Sl. Length Diameter Qsafe
base where it is attached to the shaft and 5 cm at the tip. of of
of Pile of Pile
For uniform under-reaming of bulb by the under reamer, No. (kN) Concrete
(m) (m) Piles
depth of trapezoid is given by: (m3)
Initial Diameter of Pile = 0.4 m (400 mm)
12 0.4 1 1307.5 1.652
Area of trapezoid is considered equal at any section,
9 0.426 1 1310.9 1.440
Area of trapezoid = ( ) (8)
8 0.331 2 1316.2 1.630
The average circumference of the solid of revolution
formed by the trapezoid is equal to

1.8
Remaining volume of concrete for n number of bulb is
Volume of concrete (m3)

thus given as 1.7

( ) (9)
1.6
Total volume of concrete for under-reamed pile is given
1.5
as
(10) 1.4
6 8 10 12 14
If the length is restricted then other parameters may vary
Length of Pile (m)
for a constant load coming through the super-structure.
Corresponding to each safe design, different volumes of
concrete are obtained which directly affects the cost of Fig. 1 Variation in volume of concrete with length of pile
pile foundation. The safe design corresponding to the (D = 400 mm, = 400)

2
 Indian Geotechnical Conference 2017 - GeoNEst
14-16 December 2017, IIT Guwahati, India
Table 2 Output of computer program for pile in non- 0.8
cohesive soil ( = 350)

Volume of concrete (m3)

0.7
Initial Length of Pile = 12 m 0.6
0.5
No. Volume
Sl. Length Diameter Qsafe 0.4
of of
of Pile of Pile
No. (kN) Concrete 0.3
(m) (m) Piles
(m3) 5 6 7 8 9
Initial Diameter of Pile = 0.7 m (700 mm) Length of Pile (m)
12 0.7 1 2766.9 4.942
Fig. 3 Variation in volume of concrete with length of pile
9 0.76 1 2771.5 4.451 (D = 300 mm, c = 30 kN/m2)
8 0.585 2 2770.8 4.914
3.3 Result of under-reamed pile

5.4 Table 4 Output of computer program for pile in

Volume of concrete (m3)

5.2 cohesive soil (c = 35 kN/m2)

5
4.8 Initial Length of Pile = 7 m np = 1 n=2
4.6 Qsafe = 151.739 kNVolume of Concrete = 1.287 m3
4.4
4.2 Volume
Sl. Stem Bulb Qsafe
4 of
Diameter Diameter
6 8 10 12 14 No. (kN) Concrete
(m) (m)
(m3)
Length of Pile (m)
Reduced length of Pile = 6 m
Fig. 2 Variation in volume of concrete with length of pile 0.415 0.830 151.997 1.257
(D = 700 mm, = 350)
0.375 0.844 151.924 1.089
3.2 Result of cast-in-situ concrete pile (cohesion soil)
1. 0.342 0.855 151.913 0.957
Table 3 Output of computer program for pile in 0.315 0.866 152.516 0.855
cohesive soil (c = 30 kN/m2)
0.291 0.873 152.197 0.766
Initial Length of Pile = 8 m Reduced length of Pile = 5 m
0.429 0.858 151.865 1.206
No. Volume
Sl. Length Diameter Qsafe 0.387 0.871 151.808 1.049
of of
of Pile of Pile
No. (kN) Concrete
(m) (m) Piles 2. 0.352 0.880 151.952 0.923
(m3)
0.323 0.888 151.275 0.823
Initial Diameter of Pile = 0.3 m (300 mm)
0.298 0.894 151.195 0.739
8 0.3 1 89.06 0.665
Reduced length of Pile = 4 m
1. 7 0.335 1 89.08 0.731
6 0.202 2 89.17 0.514 0.446 0.892 151.945 1.158

Initial Diameter of Pile = 0.4 m (400 mm) 0.399 0.898 152.067 0.998

8 0.4 1 122.14 1.149 3. 0.362 0.905 151.741 0.880

2. 7 0.444 1 122.17 1.249 0.331 0.910 151.829 0.784

6 0.27 2 122.29 0.876 0.305 0.915 152.020 0.706

3
Optimization of Pile Foundation
1.4
Volume of concrete
1.2
1 basis of work done, results obtained and rigorous
(m3)
0.8
0.6
0.4
3 4 5 6
Length of Pile (m)
Fig. 4 Variation in volume of concrete with length of pile
(c = 35 kN/m2, np = 1, n =2)
4. Discussion
In case of non-cohesive soil, equal or greater load
carrying capacity of pile has been found for length of pile
decreases from 12 m to 9 m for stem diameter 300 mm to
1000 mm and for variation of angle of internal friction
400 to 300 but volume of earthwork and concrete is less
than the initial volume as shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2
and Figures 3.1 and3.2. But in case of = 250, this trend
has not found.
If two number of piles of smaller diameter of length 8 m
for = 400, same trend had been observed for stem
diameter 400 mm to 1000 mm, except 300 mm. If
= 350, this pattern is followed for stem diameter
700 mm to 1000 mm. If = 300, this trend is not
followed.
If = 250, above observed trend had not obtained. It is
happening due to reduction of frictional resistance acting
between soil and concrete pile as is reducing.
In case of cohesive soil, equal or greater load carrying
capacity of pile has been found for length of pile
decreases from 8 m to 7 m for stem diameter 300 mm to
1000 mm and for variation of cohesion 30 kN/m2 to
50 kN/m2 but volume of earthwork and concrete is
greater than the initial volume as presented in Table 3 and
Fig 3.
If length of pile decreases from 8 m to 6 m for stem
diameter 300 mm to 1000 mm and for variation of
cohesion 30 kN/m2 to 50 kN/m2, using two numbers of
piles, the volume of concrete and earthwork is less than
the initial volume for equal or higher load carrying
capacity of pile.
In case of under-reamed pile, equal or greater load
carrying capacity of pile has been found for length of pile
decreases from 7 m to 4 m for stem diameter 200 mm to
500 mm, bulb diameter 2 to 3 times of stem diameter,
number of piles 1 to 2, number of bulbs 2 to 3 and for
variation of cohesion 20 kN/m2 to 35 kN/m2 but volume
of earthwork and concrete is less than the initial volume
as shown in Table 4 and Fig 4.
Same trend has been observed for variation of cohesion
20 kN/m2 to 35 kN/m2 and best economical solution
observed when number of piles is 2 and number of bulbs
is 2 for 4 m length of pile.
5. Conclusions
At any site, if engineer is facing problems in providing
designed length of pile then he will get alternative
solution such as larger diameter pile of smaller length or
more number of piles of lesser diameter or more no. of
bulbs which make the pile foundation economical
without compromising the load carrying capacity. On the
discussion made, important conclusions may be drawn as
follows:
Non-cohesive soil
In a situation where designed pile length cannot
7 8
provided and engineer are compelled to reduce
the length of pile even then pile foundation can
make economical by slightly increasing the
diameter of stem without compromising the load
carrying capacity for angle of internal friction
greater than 300.
Pile foundation can also make it economical by
providing more no. of piles of smaller diameter
of less length for pile diameter 600 mm or
higher value without compromising the load
carrying capacity for angle of internal friction
greater than 300.
Cohesive soil
Pile foundation cannot make economical for
larger diameter of pile of smaller length as
obtained in case of cohesion-less soil.
It can be made economical satisfying load taking
capacity by adopting more no. of piles of
smaller diameter and lesser length.
Under-reamed pile
In case of under-reamed pile, equal or greater
load carrying capacity of pile can be achieved
by decreasing the length of pile, by reducing the
stem diameter and increasing the bulb diameter.
Pile can also be made economical for more no.
of piles of smaller diameter and more no. of
bulbs even after reduced length of pile.
References
Hill, J. L. (1981), Users Guide: Computer Program for
Optimal Design and Analysis of Pile
Foundations (PILEOPT). Instruction Report K-
81-5,US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hurd, A. J. and Truman, K. Z. (2006), Optimization
method of Pile Foundations, Springer 2006, Printed in
Netherland.
IS: 2911 (Part I / Sec I) (2010) Driven Cast In-situ
Concrete piles Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
IS: 2911 (Part III) (1980) Under Reamed Piles
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980), Pile foundation
analysis and design. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Inc.