Geotechnical Engineering in the XXI Century: Lessons learned and future challenges 603

N.P. López-Acosta et al. (Eds.)

© 2019 The authors and IOS Press.
This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0).
doi:10.3233/STAL190090

Determination and Comparison of the N'q

Factor of Pile Capacity
Sergio Antonio MARTÍNEZ-GALVÁNa,1, Neftalí SARMIENTO-SOLANOa and
Juan Fernando TOVAR-FLORESb
a
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Profesor SEPI, ESIA UZ, México
b
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Postgraduate, SEPI, ESIA UZ, México. Geotechnical
coordinator, LIEC SA de CV, Mexico

Abstract. The present article disseminates the evaluation of the N'q factor to
calculate tip load capacity of individual piles, obviously as a function of the internal
friction angle of the support soil of the pile tip. The evaluation of the factor is by
means of numerical analysis with the finite element method. The numerical model
considers the pile axisymmetric geometry, the pile embedding in a granular deposit
and pile-soil interface. The pile is modeled with solid elements and linear elastic
behavior. The analysis considers a single hypothetical stratigraphy: cohesive soil 12
m thick, which overlies granular material. The behavior of the soils is elastoplastic
with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The parameters of soil strength are: a)
cohesive soil, cohesion of 50.0 kPa and zero internal friction angle; b) granular soil,
zero cohesion and internal friction angle variable between 25 to 45 degrees. The
objective of this study is to determine the influence of the resistance of the
supporting soil on the magnitude of the N'q factor and to compare the calculated
factor with previous solutions commonly used in the geotechnical design of piles.
The proposed factor is the result of a parametric-numerical analysis, where prior to
the evaluation of the N'q factor, the influence of the effective embedment depth is
considered.

Keywords. Single pile, bearing capacity, numerical method, failure mechanism.

1. Introduction

Combining the techniques of the finite element method and the superior theorem of the
theory of plasticity, it generates a powerful tool to evaluate mainly stability problems
and in particular to determine collapse loads or failure mechanisms [1-3].
The general use of foundation piles is to save weak soil strata, to support the pile in
a hard soil deposit (cohesive-frictional soils). The transfer mechanism of pile load to the
subsoil is by shaft and by tip, Figure 1b [4]. The choice of pile length (L) depends mainly
on the depth at which the hard ground is, the pile diameter predefined (D), of the load
applied by the superstructure, of soil strength that confines the pile and of soil located in
pile tip. Another variable that affects the resistance offered by the pile is the effective
embedment depth (Lb) in the hard soil deposit, Figure 1b.
Figure 1a (pile head curve) shows the load-displacement curve of a full-scale test of
an isolated pile with axial load applied on pile head, described by [4] as a curve with
three parts. To point A, the main contribution of resistance pile is by shaft; in A-B section,

1
[email protected] o [email protected].
604 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity

both resistances shaft and tip, offer resistance to pile penetration; and in B-C section only
pile tip offers resistance and whole shaft is plasticized by shear stresses. By separating
this behavior, tip and shaft curves show both contributions.

Figure 1. Individual pile behavior. Modified from [4].

The transfer of axial load applied in pile head (Qc) to the subsoil, is through the pile-
soil interaction, in generation order, first the pile shaft resistance (Qsc) that develops the
adjacent soil to the pile and then, the resistance to the pile tip penetration (Qpc) offered
by support soil, the own weight (W) of the same pile increases the axial load, Figure 1b.
By shaft and by tip, subsoil shear strength (τ, Figure 1c) counteracts the axial load. For
any Qc magnitude, including the collapse load (Qu), the magnitudes Qsc and Qpc vary,
Figure 1d shows the distribution of the shaft and tip resistance offered by the pile.
Due to the pile-soil load transfer, when relative Qc occurs, relative displacements
occur in the pile-soil lateral interface, which activate shaft resistance. For Qc = QA (point
A of Figure 1a), the resistance distribution by shaft and tip is indicated by the dotted
curve of Figure 1d, the load transferred to the tip is small. By increasing Qc to point B,
all resistance per shaft is mobilized and any increased load is taken only by the tip of the
pile. By increasing Qc to point C, only the resistance at the tip is mobilized and load
transfer is indicated by the solid line of Figure 1d. In the load interval from B to C, the
resistance in the shaft remains constant.
To load collapse: Qc, Qsc and Qpc tend respectively to ultimate load capacity (Qu),
ultimate shaft capacity (Qs) and ultimate tip capacity (Qp). For a single pile [5], Qu is:

ܳ௨ ൌ ܳ௣ ൅ ܳ௦ (1)
݊
ܳ‫ = ݏ‬෍ (ܿ‫ܦߨ ∝ ) ݅ܮ ݅ݑ‬ (2)
݅=1

ܳ‫ܿܰ ݑܿ( = ݌‬′ + ‫ ݍ´ܰ ݍ‬+ 0.5 ߛ‫ݏܣ) ߛ´ܰ ܦ‬ (3)

where cui is undrained cohesion of the strata that covers the length of the pile (L); α is a
parameter that reduces the soil resistance due to the soil remolding generated by the pile
construction (cast-in-place concrete piles); implicitly, Af is pile shaft area (= πDL); cu is
undrained cohesion of tip pile soil; q is effective vertical stress at tip pile level, q = γDf ;
γ is effective volumetric weight of tip pile soil; Df is effective embedment depth; D is
pile diameter; N’c, N’q and N’γ are load capacity factors due respectively to cohesion, to
 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity 605

overload by pile soil adjacent and to weight of tip pile soil and; As is pile section area (=
π D2/4). Note that Df ≠ Lb, see Figure 5a.
To circular pile and cohesive soil, N’c = 9. In practice, the pile diameters are small
(1.0 meter), and the term (0.5γDN’γ) provides small values, therefore, it is common to
omit this term without introducing significant error. The calculation of N’q factor as a
function of the internal friction angle of the soil, presents numerous proposals, some of
which are theoretical and others semi-empirical (Figure 2), see [6-12]; so, the values of
the N’q factor have a wide range for the same angle of internal friction.

Figure 2. N’q factor, after [6].

Historically [6-12], various hypotheses have been proposed about the shape and
dimensions of the failure surface developed around the pile base, Figure 3 [12], when
pile tip receives collapse load. It should be noted that previously shaft resistance has been
exceeded. In this case, it is important that support layer must have high strength and
sufficient thickness under the tip pile to develop the failure mechanism.

Figure 3. Failure mechanisms proposed by several authors, modified from [12].

606 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity

The aim of this article is to promote a rational criterion to choose N’q factor as a
function of the internal friction angle (φ’) of pile tip soil. The N’q factor analysis
considers that hard soil deposit has internal friction angle that varies between 25 and 45
degrees and null cohesion and; weak soil strata with null internal friction angle and
cohesion non-zero. Therefore, this study focuses on determining the ultimate load
capacity provided by pile tip and evaluating the relationship between Qp and factor N’q.

2. Numerical analysis

The numerical analysis realized is with finite element method, see [13,14]. The analysis
considers triangular elements of 15 nodes and 12 Gaussian points. The model is
axisymmetric due to circular shape of considered pile, Figure 4a shows a mesh example.
The parametric analysis considers several effective embedding depths (Lb), from zero to
three pile diameters. Each embedding depth requires a particular numerical model. The
analysis includes the evaluation of the number of nodes to define the shape of the finite
element mesh that does not affect the results of the numerical analysis; from 20,000
nodes there is no change in the results.

a) b)
Figure 4. a) Numeric model example and b) failure mechanisms by vertical displacement contours.

2.1. Stratigraphy and constitutive models

The constitutive model of the soils is elastoplastic with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
and pile constitutive model is linear elastic. The pile and soil are modeling with solid
elements. The soil-pile_shaft interface is considered to evaluate shaft strength; the
computer program provides a tool that reduces in percentage (indicated by the user) soil
resistance, and it is associated to interface resistance.
The analysis considers a type stratigraphy: cohesive soil that overlies granular
material, sand. Geotechnical design parameters are indicated in the Table 1. The clay
parameters are total stresses, by soil low permeability, and to sand deposit, parameters
consider effective stresses. The pile tip is support in sand deposit.
 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity 607

Pile diameters considered are 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 m and pile lengths, between 12 and
15 m. In all cases, pile volumetric weight, γc = 24 kN/m3, and it is compensated by the
excavated soil. The pile deformation modulus, Ec = 14,000 (f´c)0.5 = 2.170 x 107 kPa, for f’c
= 250 kg/cm2, and the pile Poisson ratio considered is 0.20.
Table 1. Geotechnical design parameters of subsoil.
Depth γs φ’ cu Es υ Material
Unit
m kN/m3 degree kPa kPa --- type
CH 0.0 – 12.0 14.7 0.0 50.0 5,000.0 0.35 undrained
SW 12.0 – 25.0 19.6 25 - 45 0.0 27.000.0 0.30 drained
Note: γs: volumetric weight; φ’: internal friction angle; cu: cohesion; Es: deformation modulus; υ: Poisson ratio; CH:
high plasticity clay layer; SW: well-graded sand deposit.

2.2. Analysis steps

1. Geostatic stresses, initial conditions due to soil weight and subsoil hydraulic
conditions. Resting earth pressure coefficient is 0.5 (for both strata: CH and SW), the
groundwater level is at the bottom of the numerical model (zero pore pressure).
2. Pile installing and at the same time, large load is applied to pile head to reach pile
collapse. The failure mechanism shape and collapse load value are evaluated.

3. Interpretation of results

3.1. Interface evaluation, α

The adherence coefficient of the soil-pile_shaft interface (α) varies from 0.01, 0.6 and
1.0. To D = 1.0 m and Lb = 3.0 m, Figure 4b shows the vertical displacement contours of
the soil adjacent to the pile of three cases of interface analysis: to α = 0.01, null alteration
of soil next to the pile and interface resistance is practically null and its input is minimal
to calculate tip capacity and numerical calculation time is reduced. The curves for α =
0.6 and 1.0 (Figure 5b) are same to described by Kulhawy (pile head curve of Figure 1a).
The curve for α = 0.01 only has the section that corresponds almost totally to the
resistance at pile tip.

3.2. Criterions to determine Qp y N’q

A necessary condition to calculate the pile tip resistance Qp, is that the soil-pile_shaft
interface resistance is plasticized and does not provide resistance to pile penetration. To
fulfill the above, is necessary to calculate Qs with Equation 2 (theoretical), for α
coefficient used in numerical analysis and calculate Qp = Qu - Qs. Once Qp has been
calculated, the criterion to define the N’q factor is: Total volume of failure mechanism,
Figure 5a, directly determines the N’q factor value, this consideration is based on the fact
that the term (0.5γDN’γ) of Equation 3 is not considered in the professional practice of
analysis and geotechnical design of piles. The N’q factor is:

ܳ‫݌‬
ܰ´‫= ݍ‬ (4)
ߛ‫ݏܣ ݂ܦ‬
608 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity

a) b)
Figure 5. a) Failure mechanism and b) Curves Qc – settlement, results of the evaluation of the interface α.

3.3. Effective embedment depth, Lb

The analysis considers D = 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 m. Table 2 shows Lb/D ratios considered,
where L is defined, the same table indicates that there are four Lb for each D. For Lb = 0,
L = 12 m, from this case, L increases as Lb increases. To calculate Qs with Equation 2
(theoretical), of the stratum CH: cu= 50 kPa (undrained cohesion, Table 1), α= 0.01 and
L= 12 m. The φ’ parameter considered of SW stratum is 30 degrees.
Figure 6 shows the failure mechanisms defined by the points plasticized by shear
stresses, to pile analyzes with a diameter of 1.0 m and effective embedment depths
considered. To Lb of 1, 2 and 3 m the shape of the failure mechanism is similar to an
elongated spheroid in the long of the pile, and for Lb = 0, it is a less elongated spheroid
and very similar to that defined by Skempton (Figure 3d). All failure mechanisms with
Lb/D > 1, contain resistance supply of soil adjacent to the pile tip and of base soil of pile
tip; that is, they include the effect of the factors N'q and N'γ. For Lb/D = 0, only there is
resistance supply of base soil of pile tip (N'γ).
Based on calculated Qp (Table 2), Figure 7 shows the variation of Qp as a function
of Lb/D ratio, and to Lb/D ≥ 2, Qp is practically constant. Embedment greater than 2 pile
diameters are not efficient.
Table 2. Parametric analysis cases, effective embedment depth, Lb.
D Lb/D Lb L Qu Qs Qp
Identification
m ratio m m kN kN kN
3.0 3.0 15.0 P-1.0-15.0 2,061.3 18.5 2,042.8
2.0 2.0 14.0 P-1.0-14.0 1,989.1 18.5 1,970.6
1.0
1.0 1.0 13.0 P-1.0-13.0 1,946.7 18.5 1,928.2
0.0 0.0 12.0 P-1.0-12.0 1,852.7 18.5 1,834.2
3.0 2.4 14.4 P-0.8-14.4 1,361.7 14.8 1,346.9
2.0 1.6 13.6 P-0.8-13.6 1,325.3 14.8 1,310.5
0.8
1.0 0.8 12.8 P-0.8-12.8 1,306.5 14.8 1,291.7
0.0 0.0 12.0 P-0.8-12.0 1,185.9 14.8 1,171.1
3.0 1.8 13.8 P-0.6-13.8 849.4 11.1 838.3
2.0 1.2 13.2 P-0.6-13.2 815.4 11.1 804.3
0.6
1.0 0.6 12.6 P-0.6-12.6 800.1 11.1 789.0
0.0 0.0 12.0 P-0.6-12.0 712.3 11.1 701.2
 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity 609

Figure 6. Failure mechanisms by plasticized points by shear stresses, D = 1.0 m.

Figure 7. Failure mechanisms by shear stresses plasticized points, D = 1.0 m.

3.4. Evaluation and comparison of N’q factor

Considerations: The internal friction angle (φ) of SM unit (Table 1) varies of 25 to 45

degrees. The soil cohesion of SM unit is null, that Lb/D = 3 and D = 1.0 m.
Figure 8c shows the variation of ܰ'‫ ݍ‬as a function of the internal friction angle of the
soil that confines the tip of the pile. The factor ܰ'‫ ݍ‬varies between 29.7 and 529.0 for φ’
from 25 to 45 degrees, respectively. This curve occupies an intermediate position in the
theoretical values of this factor; the curve is similar to the results reported by Skempton
et al. (1953). It should be noted that the failure mechanism monitored in the present study
is similar to that proposed by Skempton, see Figures 8a and 8b. Table 3 shows the
summary of the factors ܰ'‫ ݍ‬calculated.

4. Conclusions

The N'q factor of load capacity of pile tip includes both, the contribution of shear strength
of the base pile tip and the adjacent soil too pile tip, zone defined as effective embedment
depth. Under this consideration, the N'q factor depends on the internal friction angle of
the support soil of the pile tip, the effective embedment depth and the volumetric weight
of the material that the effective embedment offers.
The optimum effective embedment depth is between 2 and 3 diameters of an isolated
pile.
The failure mechanism determined in the present study is similar to that reported by
Skempton.
610 S.A. Martínez-Galván et al. / Determination and Comparison of the N’q Factor of Pile Capacity

c)

Figure 8. a-b) Failure mechanisms, comparation and c) Evaluation of the N’q factor.

Table 3. Summary of the factors ܰ'‫ ݍ‬calculated.

φ’ degree 25 30 35 40 45
Qp kN 549.0 883.0 1,866.7 3,727.3 9,781.8
N’q --- 29.7 47.8 101.0 201.6 529.0

References

[1] S. Gourvenec, Effect of embedment on the undrained capacity of shallow foundations under general
loading. Géotechnique 58 (2008), No. 3, pp. 177-185.
[2] H. Taiebat and J.P. Carter, Numerical studies of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesive
soil subjected to combined loading. Géotechnique 50 (2000), No. 4, pp. 409-418.
[3] D. Reséndiz, Aplicación del análisis límite al cálculo de la capacidad de carga de cimentaciones, Tesis de
licenciatura, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, p.56, 1961.
[4] F.H. Kulhawy Foundation Engineering Handbook, 14 Drilled Shaft Foundations, Edited by H.Y. Fang,
Springer, Boston, MA, 1991.
[5] S. Prakash and H.D. Sharma, Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1990.
[6] A. Kezdi, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Pile Foundations, Edited by H.F. Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang,
Van Nostrand, New York, 1975.
[7] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1943.
[8] G.G. Meyerhof, The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations, Geotechnique, Vol 2 (1951), pp 301-332.
[9] A.W. Skempton, A.S. Yassin and R.E. Gibson, Theorie de la force portente des pieux, Annales de
L’Institute Technique Du Batiment Et Des Travaux Publics, Vol. 6, Nos. 63-64, 1953, pp. 285-290.
[10] V.G. Berezantsev, et al., Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations, Proceedings of the
5th International Conference, ISSMFE, Paris, Vol. 2, 1961, pp. 11–12.
[11] A.S. Vesic, Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand, Highway Research Record, No. 39, Highway
Research Board, Washington D. C., 1963.
[12] A.S. Vesic, A study of bearing capacity of deep foundations, Final Report, School of Civil Engg., Georgia
Inst. Tech., Atlanta, U.S.A, 1967.
[13] D.M. Potts and L. Zdravkovic, Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering, theory, Thomas
Telford, London, 1999.
[14] D.M. Potts and L. Zdravkovic, Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering, application. Thomas
Telford, London, 2001.