Piling design

Forum for the book 'Decoding Eurocode 7' by Andrew Bond and Andrew Harris

Piling design

Postby jhcahm » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:02 am

When talking to colleagues in the industry some have said the piling design to EC7 often results in more conservative, ie expensive, designs. Having worked through some worked examples for ULS in Smith Elements of Soil Mechanics - the hypothetical designs fail when the UK National Annex (partial and correlation) factors are used.

The problem arises that in a competetive tender situation he who follows the Eurocode could lose out if a competitor is designing to the traditional ie FOS method. Now you can argue that the use of EC7 is compulsory, so this shouldn't happen.

Nonetheless on paper there could be a problem. It appears that the EC7 preferred method for piling assumes you can mobilise a rig and do pile tests then go back and design based on pile load test results before re-mob to site for construction. In reality though with UK practice the prelim design will be done using site investigation data (EC7 'alternative' method), which could later be refined based on pile load tests once the rig is mobilised to site.

From memeory the technical issues are dealt with in decoding EC7. However I'd appreciate any comments and opinions on the above regarding the implications in practice, and what if anything could be done in future about it? It may be for instance that if SLS governs for design then there isn't really a problem?
I'd be interested to hear of any experience/opinions from recent UK practice.
Jonathan Cahm
Opus Consultants
jhcahm
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:41 am

Return to Decoding Eurocode 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron