A Comparison between Russian and Western Approach for Deep Foundation Design

Authors: Saeed Delara, Kendra MacKay

Abstract:

Varying methodologies are considered for pile design for both Russian and Western approaches. Although both approaches rely on toe and side frictional resistances, different calculation methods are proposed to estimate pile capacity. The Western approach relies on compactness (internal friction angle) of soil for cohesionless soils and undrained shear strength for cohesive soils. The Russian approach relies on grain size for cohesionless soils and liquidity index for cohesive soils. Though most recommended methods in the Western approaches are relatively simple methods to predict pile settlement, the Russian approach provides a detailed method to estimate single pile and pile group settlement. Details to calculate pile axial capacity and settlement using the Russian and Western approaches are discussed and compared against field test results.

Keywords: Pile capacity, pile settlement, Russian approach, western approach.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2702687

References:

[1] AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
[2] ANSI/API “Recommended Practice, Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations”, Addendum 1, 2014, American Petroleum Institute.
[3] BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1: 2013 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design: General Rules.
[4] British Standard BS 8004:2015 Code of Practice for Foundations.
[5] British Standard Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part1: General Rules, BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013.
[6] British Standard BS NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013 UK National Annex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part1: General Rules.
[7] Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition, 2006, Canadian Geotechnical Society.
[8] FHWA NHI-05-042, “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations”, Reference Manual, 2006, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
[9] FHWA-NHI-10-016 “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods”, 2010, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
[10] Fleming W. G. K., “A New Method for Single Pile Settlement Prediction and Analysis”, Géotechnique, Volume 42 Issue 3, September 1992, pp. 411-425.
[11] GOST 25100-2011, “Soils Classification”, Issued on 2013-01-.01.
[12] GOST 20522-2012, “Methods of statistical processing of test results”, Issued on 2013-07-01.
[13] Nidowicz B., Shur Y. L., “Russia and North American approaches of pile design in relation to frost action,” Permafrost – Seventh International Conference (proceedings), Yellowknife (Canada), Collection Nordicana No 55, 1998, pp. 803–809.
[14] Oswell J. M., Doorduyn A., Costin A., and Hanna A., 1995. “A Comparison of CIS and ASTM Classification Systems”, 48th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, September 25-27, Vancouver, BC., Vol. 2, pp. 573-582.
[15] SP 22.13330.2011, “Foundations of buildings and structures”, Updated version of SNiP 2.02.01-83, Issued on 2011-05-20.
[16] SP 24.13330.2011, “Pile foundations design”, Updated version of SNiP 2.02.03-85 (with Change No. 1), Issued on 2011-05-20.
[17] SP 25.13330.2012, “Foundations and foundations on permafrost soils”, Updated version of SNiP 2.02.04-88 (with Change No. 1), Issued on 2013-01-01.
[18] TM-5-825-4 / AFM 88-19, 1983. “Arctic and Subarctic Constructions for Structures”, Technical Manual, Department of the Army and the Air Force.