ANNEX 7.

DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

7.1. Equivalent thickness of constructive layer of flight
For flight, the equivalent thickness of constructive layer of flight determined as follow:
+ For mortar lining with the thickness of 𝛿𝑖 :
(ℎ𝑏 + 𝑙𝑏 ) × 𝛿𝑖 × cos 𝛼 (170 + 300) × 20 × 0.87
𝛿𝑡𝑑,𝑖 = = = 27 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑙𝑏 300
+ For ceramic tile with the thickness of 𝛿𝑖 :
(ℎ𝑏 + 𝑙𝑏 ) × 𝛿𝑖 × cos 𝛼 (170 + 300) × 10 × 0.87
𝛿𝑡𝑑,𝑖 = = = 14 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑙𝑏 300
+ For stair with dimension ℎ𝑏 × 𝑙𝑏 :
ℎ𝑏 × cos 𝛼 170 × 0.87
𝛿𝑡𝑑,𝑖 = = = 74 (𝑚𝑚)
2 2
+ For flight with the thickness of hs:
𝛿𝑡𝑑,𝑖 = ℎ𝑠 = 140 (𝑚𝑚)
+ For plaster layer:
𝛿𝑡𝑑,𝑖 = 𝛿𝑖 = 15 (𝑚𝑚)
7.2. Total load applied to flight and landing
- For landing:
Standard load: 𝑞1𝑐 = 𝑔1𝑐 + 𝑝𝑐 = 4.33 + 3 = 7.33 (kN/m2).
Calculated load:𝑞1 = 1.35 × 𝑔1𝑐 + 1.5 × 𝑝𝑐 = 1.35 × 4.33 + 1.5 × 3 = 10.35 (kN/m2).
- For flight:
Standard load: 𝑞2𝑐 = 𝑔2𝑐 + 𝑝𝑐 cos 𝛼 = 5.95 + 3 × 0.87 = 8.56 (kN/m2).
Calculated load:𝑞2 = 1.35 × 𝑔2𝑐 + 1.5 × 𝑝𝑐 = 1.35 × 5.95 + 1.5 × 3 × 0.87 = 11.95
❖ Comment:
The results of dead load is reasonable when dead load applied to flight is larger than the
dead load applied to the landing because the flight includes self-weight of steps and rail.
7.3. Reaction forces and nternal forces calculation
7.3.1. Reaction force manual calculation
The calculated load (which were calculated in part 12.3.2.3) and the reaction force will
be illustrated in the Figure 7.1;
Apply the knowledge of strength of material subject, in this part, we will use the formula
to determine the reaction forces and internal forces of the stair. In the following part,
we will determine the internal forces of the staircase in both 2D and 3D model by using
SAP2000 and compared with the result calculated by manual method.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 85

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Figure 7.1 Calculated load and reaction force of the stair

Note: Applied equaiton ∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0 ⇒ 𝐻𝐷1 = 0 (𝑘𝑁)

+ Reaction force under dead load (kN/m2):
𝐿 2 𝐿 𝐿 1.42 3 3
𝑔1 × 1 +𝑔2 × 2 ×(𝐿1 + 2) 4.33× +5.95× ×(1.4+ )
2 cos 𝛼 2 2 0.87 2
𝑉𝐷1,𝑔 = (𝐿1 +𝐿2 )
= (1.4+3)
= 14.49 𝑘𝑁

+ Reaction force under live load (kN/m2):

𝐿 2 𝐿 𝐿 1.42 3 3
𝑝× 1 +𝑝× 2 ×(𝐿1 + 2 ) 3× +2.61× ×(1.4+ )
2 cos 𝛼 2 2 0.87 2
𝑉𝐷1,𝑝 = (𝐿1 +𝐿2 )
= (1.4+3)
= 6.6 𝑘𝑁

• For calculated load:

∑ 𝑀𝐷3 = 0
𝐻𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝐿1 𝐿2 𝐿
→ 𝑉𝐷1 × (𝐿1 + 𝐿2 ) − 𝐻𝐷1 × − 𝑞1 × 𝐿1 × − 𝑞2 × × ( 2 + 𝐿1 ) = 0
2 2 cos 𝛼 2
1.4 3 3
→ 𝑉𝐷1 × (1.4 + 3) − 10.35 × 1.4 × − 11.95 × × ( + 1.4) = 0
2 0.87 2

→ 𝑉𝐷1 = 29.46 (kN)

∑ 𝑀𝐷1 = 0
𝐿 𝐿2 𝐿2
→ −𝑉𝐷3 × (𝐿1 + 𝐿2 ) + 𝑞1 × 𝐿1 × ( 1 + 𝐿2 ) + 𝑞2 × × =0
2 cos 𝛼 2
1.4 3 3
→ −𝑉𝐷3 × (1.4 + 3) + 10.35 × 1.4 × ( + 3) + 11.95 × × =0
2 0.87 2

→ 𝑉𝐷3 = 26.23 (kN)

7.3.2. Internal force manual calculation

Consider a section with x (m) away from the supported beam D1 (as Figure 7.2). The
internal forces is calculated according to the calculated load q (kN/m2).

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 86

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Figure 7.2 Internal forces calculated based on x value

• Bending moment:
𝑞2
The moment value at x position: 𝑀𝑥 = − × 𝑥 2 + 𝑉𝐷1 × 𝑥
2×cos 𝛼

Bending moment M will reach maximum value when dMx/dx=0

- The moment value reaches its maximum when x equal to:
𝑉𝐷1 × cos 𝛼 29.34 × 0.87
𝑥= = = 2.15 (𝑚)
𝑞2 11.9
- The maximum moment value (x = 2.15m)
𝑞2 11.9
𝑀𝑥 = − × 𝑥 2 + 𝑉𝐷1 × 𝑥 = − × 2.152 + 29.34 × 2.15 = 31.47 𝑘𝑁𝑚
2 × cos 𝛼 2 × 0.87

- The moment value at the end flight (x = L2 = 3m):

𝑞2 11.9
𝑀𝑥 = − × 𝑥 2 + 𝑉𝐷1 × 𝑥 = − × 32 + 29.34 × 3 = 26.47𝑘𝑁𝑚
2 × cos 𝛼 2 × 0.87

 Bending moment distribution Mmid-span = 0.7×Mmax = 0.7×31.47 = 22.03kNm

Msupport = 0.4×Mmax = 0.4×31.47 = 12.59kNm
We must calculation the bending moment distribution beacause in reality, the boundary
condition of this model is not simply supported beam but coefficients will help results
of bennding moment to ensure the safety, eventhough it can be fixed support in reality.
Note: We calculate the bending moment distribution at support equal 0.4Mmax, its mean
the bending moment distribution at mid-span is 0.6 (0.4+0.6=1, the maximum bending
moment is unchanged) but we assign the coefficient for Mmid-span =0.7Mmax for safety
purpose.
• Shear force
- The maximum shear force at the support (at x = 0).
𝑄𝑥 = −𝑞2 × 𝑥 + 𝑉𝐷1 × cos 𝛼 = 29.34 × 0.87 = 25.5 (𝑘𝑁)
- The shear force at the position between landing and flight (at x = 3m)
𝑄𝑥 = −𝑞2 × 𝑥 + 𝑉𝐷1 × cos 𝛼 = −11.9 × 3 + 29.34 × 0.87 = −10.17 (𝑘𝑁)
- The shear force at the position which moment reaches maximum (at x = 2.15m)
𝑄𝑥 = −𝑞2 × 𝑥 + 𝑉𝐷1 × cos 𝛼 = −11.9 × 2.15 + 29.34 × 0.87 ≈ 0 (𝑘𝑁)

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 87

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

7.4. Determine the internal forces by using SAP2000

We will assign the calculated load in SAP2000 software in 2D model to compare with
the result in part 12.3.4.2. Hence, we will consider the model of calculation of stair in 3
cases to find the most critical cases for the design of steel reinforcement in next part.
Step 1: Choose model initialization and edit grid data.

Figure 7.3 Select grid template

Figure 7.4 Edit dimension of model

Step 2: Model the simply supported beam for the staircase.

Figure 7.5 Simply supported beam for staircase in SAP2000

Step 3: Define material and frame section of stair case in 2D model

Figure 7.6 Define material Figure 7.7 Define staircase section

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 88
 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Step 4: Assign frame mesh.

Note: we must do this step to ensure the frame is divided into many small element for
more accuracy internal force results.

Figure 7.8 Assign automatic frame mesh

Step 5: Define load pattern and load combination.

Note: The self-weight multiplier of dead load equal 0 because we will assign this results
by the manual calculation.

Figure 7.9 Define dead load and live load pattern

Step 6: Assign the dead load and live load value to the stair case.

Figure 7.10 Define load combination Figure 7.11 Live load assignment

The student will establish the model for the 3 cases of the stairs with 2 hinge supports,
2 fixed supports and hinge roller support.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 89

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

7.5. Flexural reinforcement calculation for staircase

Step 1: Check condition of ductile failure.
𝑀𝐸𝑑 22.03 × 106
𝐾= = = 0.061 ≤ 0.167
𝑏 × 𝑑 2 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1000 × 1102 × 30
Based on this 𝐾 value, this beam does not need compression rebar because it will have
ductile failure.
Step 2: Determine the lever arm.
𝐾 0.061
𝑧 = 𝑑 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 110 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 103.72 𝑚𝑚
1.134 1.134

𝑧 ≤ 0.95 × 𝑑 = 0.95 × 110 = 104.5 𝑚𝑚 => z = 103.72 mm.

Step 3: Calculate the area of reinforcement.
𝑀𝐸𝑑 22.03 × 106
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = = 814 𝑚𝑚2
0.87 × 𝑓𝑦𝑘 × 𝑧 0.87 × 300 × 103.72
Step 4: Check condition of reasonable ratio area of reinforcement.
𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.4 %
𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.8 %
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 814
𝜌= = = 0.74 % ⇒ 𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝜌 ≤ 𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑏×𝑑 1000 × 110
Ratio area of reinforcement satisfied the condition of reasonable ratio so the dimension
of flight and landing of staircase are suitable.
Step 5: Provide reinforcement area for flight and landing and check condition of
minimum and maximum area of reinforcement.
0.26 ×𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 0.26 ×2.9
𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ≥ 0.13 (%) = = 0.0025 > 0.0013 => 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.0025
𝑓𝑦𝑘 300

𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 4 %
1000 𝜋×𝐷 2 1000 𝜋×122
Provide 12a120 => 𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 = × = × = 942 𝑚𝑚2
𝑎 4 120 4
𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 942
𝜌= = = 0.86%
𝑏× 𝑑 1000×110

𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.15% < 𝜌 = 0.86% < 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 4%

7.6. Concrete cover
Cmin = max {Cmin,b; Cmin,dur; 10mm}= max (12, 15, 10) = 15mm.
Cmin,b: Minimum cover for bond, takes equal to diameter of bar for separated case (for
ϕ ≤ 32mm), see at EC2, Part 1-1, Section 4.4.1.2.
Cmin,dur: Minimum cover for durability (design working life of 50 years is S4, exposure
class XC1), see at EC2, Part 1-1, Section 4.4.1.2.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 90

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 = 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 + ∆𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑣 = 15 + 5 = 20 (𝑚𝑚)

𝜙 12
𝑎 = 𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 + = 20 + = 26 (𝑚𝑚) → 𝑑 = ℎ − 𝑎 = 140 − 26 = 114 (𝑚𝑚)
2 2
7.7. Shear resistance capacity
200 200
𝑘 =1+√ =1+√ = 2.32 > 2 => 𝑘 = 2
𝑑 114

𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 565 𝑁𝐸𝑑

𝜌1 = = = 0.496% ≤ 2% ; 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = =0
𝑏𝑑 1000×114 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035 × 𝑘 1.5 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑

= 0.035 × 21.5 × √30 × 1000 × 114 = 61.8 𝑘𝑁

1
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑
1
= [0.12 × 2 × ( 100 × 0.496% × 30)3 ] × 1000 × 114 = 67.3 𝑘𝑁

=> 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 67.3 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 61.8 𝑘𝑁

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 67.3 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 𝑉𝐸𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 25.63 𝑘𝑁

7.8. Summary of load acting on slab applied to the supported beam D1

Table 7.1 The summary of load acting on slab applied to the supported beam D1
Load Thickness Unit weight Characteritic Total load
Layer
case (mm) (kN/m3) load (kN/m2) (kN/m2)

Reinforced
DL 140 25 3.5 3.5
concrete layer
Ceramic tile 20 23 0.46
Mortar layer 20 19 0.38
SDL 1.64
Plaster layer 20 20 0.4
MEP systems - - 0.4
LL Category A - - 2 2

7.9. Design of flexural reinforcement for supported beam D1

𝑀𝐸𝑑 25.58 × 106
𝐾= = = 0.092 ≤ 0.167
𝑏 × 𝑑 2 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 200 × 2152 × 30

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 91

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

𝐾 0.092
𝑧 = 𝑑 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 215 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 195.8 𝑚𝑚
1.134 1.134

𝑧 ≤ 0.95 × 𝑑 = 0.95 × 215 = 204.25 𝑚𝑚 => z = 195.8 mm.

𝑀𝐸𝑑 25.58 × 106
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = = 300.33 𝑚𝑚2
0.87 × 𝑓𝑦𝑘 × 𝑧 0.87 × 500 × 195.8
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 300.33
𝜌= = = 0.7 %
𝑏× 𝑑 200 × 215
Ratio area of reinforcement satisfied the condition of reasonable ratio so the dimension
of supported beam D1 is suitable.
0.26 ×𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 0.26 ×2.9
𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ≥ 0.13 (%) = = 0.0015 > 0.0013 => 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.0015
𝑓𝑦𝑘 500

𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 4 %
𝜋×𝐷 2 𝜋×162
Provide 3 => 𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 = 3 × =3× = 603.2 𝑚𝑚2
4 4
𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 603.2
𝜌= = = 1.4%
𝑏× 𝑑 200×215

𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.15% < 𝜌 = 1.4% < 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 4%

7.10. Concrete cover condition for supported beam D1
Cmin = max {Cmin,b; Cmin,dur; 10mm}= max (16, 15, 10) = 16mm.
where:
Cmin,b: Minimum cover for bond, takes equal to diameter of bar for separated case (for
ϕ ≤ 32mm), see at EC2, Part 1-1, Section 4.4.1.2;
Cmin,dur: Minimum cover for durability (design working life of 50 years is S4, exposure
class XC1), see at EC2, Part 1-1, Section 4.4.1.2;
𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 = 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 + ∆𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑣 = 16 + 5 = 21 (𝑚𝑚)
𝜙 16
𝑎 = 𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 + 𝜙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 + 2 = 21 + 8 + = 37 (𝑚𝑚) → 𝑑 = ℎ − 𝑎 = 250 − 37 = 213 (𝑚𝑚)
2

7.11. Shear resistance capacity of supported beam D1

200 200
𝑘 =1+√ =1+√ = 1.97 < 2 => 𝑘 = 1.97
𝑑 213

𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 603.2
𝜌1 = = = 1.42% ≤ 2%
𝑏𝑑 200×213
𝑁𝑒𝑑
𝜎𝑐𝑝 = =0
𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035 × 𝑘 1.5 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 92

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

= 0.035 × 1.971.5 × √30 × 200 × 213 = 22.58 𝑘𝑁

1
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑
1
= [0.12 × 1.97 × ( 100 × 1.42% × 30)3 ] × 200 × 213 = 35.17 𝑘𝑁

=> 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 35.17 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 22.58 𝑘𝑁

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 35.17 𝑘𝑁 ≤ 𝑉𝐸𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 54.81 𝑘𝑁
❖ Conclusion:
The supported beam D1 need the shear reinforcement to resist the shear strength.
- Determine the strut angle limit 
cot 𝜃
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,0 = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑤 × 𝑏𝑤 × 𝑧 × 𝑣1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑑 ×
1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 2
30 cot 𝜃
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 54.81 × 1000 = 1 × 200 × 0.9 × 213 × 0.6 × ×
1.5 1+𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 2
cot 𝜃 cot 𝜃 = 8.21
 = 0.12 => { =>cot 𝜃 = 2.5
1+𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 2 cot 𝜃 = 0.12
cot 𝜃
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,1 = 𝛼𝑐𝑤 × 𝑏𝑤 × 𝑧 × 𝑣1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑑 ×
1+𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 2
30 2.5
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,1 = 1 × 200 × 0.9 × 213 × 0.6 × × =158.6 kN
1.5 1+2.52
+ Condition 1: Shear resistance of beam with vertical stirrup must be lesser than the
designed shear force.
𝜋×82
Choose link bar = 8mm => Asw = 2 × = 100 (mm2)
4
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑘 300
𝑧×cot 𝜃×𝐴𝑠𝑤 × 0.9×213×2.5×100×
1.25 1.25
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = ≥ 𝑉𝑒𝑑 ⇔ 𝑠1 ≤ = 210 (mm)
𝑠1 54.81×1000
+ Condition 2: Minimum and maximum area of shear rebar.
√𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑠𝑤 100
0.08𝑏𝑤 × 𝑠2 × ≤ 𝐴𝑠𝑤 ⇔ 𝑠2 ≤ √𝑓
= √30
= 342 (mm)
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑘 0.08𝑏𝑤 × 𝑐𝑘 0.08×200×
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑘 300

+ Condition 3: Longitudinal spacing.

𝑠3 ≤ 0.75𝑑 = 0.75 × 213 = 159.75 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑠1 ≤ 210𝑚𝑚
Select s =100mm from { 𝑠2 ≤ 342𝑚𝑚
𝑠3 ≤ 159.75𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑘 300
𝑧 × cot 𝜃 × 𝐴𝑠𝑤 × 0.9 × 213 × 2.5× 100 ×
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 1.25 = 1.25 = 115.02 𝑘𝑁
𝑠 100
 VEd = 54.81 kN < VRd,s = 115.02 kN < VRd,max1 = 158.6 kN
7.12. Modeling the 3D staircase in SAP2000 software

The procedure of modeling the 3D stair in SAP2000 is as follow:

- Step 1: Choose model initialization and edit grid data.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 93
 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Figure 7.12 “Grid only” template Figure 7.13 Edit grid system

- Step 2: Draw flight and landing and adjust local axes of each element is suitable.
Note: We should change the direction that all the local axes 1 of landing and flight are
same direction in order to easily comparision internal forces such as bending moment
and shear force.

Figure 7.14 Angle to change the local Figure 7.15 All the local axes 1 (red) of
axes of landing and flight landing and flight are the same direction
- Step 3: Draw shear wall and supported beam.

Figure 7.16 3D model of staircase

- Step 4: Divide landing and flight, the shear wall and beam into smaller elements for
ensuring accuracy.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 94

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Figure 7.18 Divided the intersection between

Figure 7.17 Divided landing and flight
flight and beam
Note: We must divide the beam D1 into smaller elements based on the node of flight
becase in SAP2000 now, the flight and beam D1 only connect with each other at 1 node
at the corner of stair, but in reality the flight must work together with the beam along
the length of flight so we divide the beam based on the node we had divided from flight
area to make sure the flight and beam work together.
- Step 5: Define material and frame section, area section.

Figure 7.19 Define concrete material Figure 7.20 Define beam D1 dimension

Figure 7.21 Define flight and landing

Figure 7.22 Define shear wall dimension
dimension
The width of flight equal 1.3m, we divide the intersection between supported beam D1
and width of flight into smaller elements with the area 0.1m×0.1m so we have 14 nodes
and 13 elements from this intersection.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 95
 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

- Step 6: Define load pattern and load combination.

Note: The self-weight multiplier of dead load equal 0 because we will assign this value
based on the value calculated from manual method instead of automatically calculating
by SAP2000 software.

Figure 7.23 Define load pattern Figure 7.24 Load combination

- Step 7: Assign section property for each element and assign the applied load.
Elements including flight, landing, supported beam and shear wall. Applied load
including dead load and live load applied to the landing and flight, the apllied load to
supported beam.

Figure 7.25 Assign dead load for landing Figure 7.26 Assign dead load for flight
For supported beam D1, characteristic deadload value 𝑔 = 0.55 + 4.63 + 14.49 =
19.67 kN/m and characteristic liveload value 𝑝 = 1.8 + 6.6 = 8.4 kNm.

Figure 7.27 Assign dead load and live load applied to the supported beam D1

- Step 8: Assign suitable joint restraint and assign the degree of freedom to space frame.
Note: We will assign 8 nodes at the corner edge of this model as fixed support because
we do not model the wall of the higher story and lower story so we assign these position
as fixed support in order to replace the shear wall we do not model.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 96

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

We will assign 26 nodes is prevented from Translation 1 because we do not model the
slab at that position in SAP2000 software (13 nodes at the intersection between
supported beam and flight except the node at corner edge).

Figure 7.28 Assign joint restraint for node Figure 7.29 Choose avalable DOFs

- Step 9: Check the model → Run and analyze the result.

❖ Result of bending moment of flight and landing extracted from SAP2000
The bending moment results on two local axes (M11 and M22) will be shown as Figure
7.30 and Figure 7.31;

Figure 7.30 Moment on local axes 1 (M11)

Figure 7.31 Moment on local axes 2 (M22)

The comparision between 2D method, 3D method and manual calculation for internal
force (bending moment) will be summarized as Table 7.2;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 97

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Table 7.2 Bending moment comparision between 2D method and 3D method

MA MB MC MD
Bending moment
(kNm/m) (kNm/m) (kNm/m) (kNm/m)
2D manual calculation 12.79 25.58 12.79 12.79
3D
M11 6.53 7.27 4.69 0.57
modelling
% difference M11 48.97 71.56 63.29 95.52

❖ Analyze and compare the result between 2 methods

In general, there is a massive difference in the result between the two methods. The
values extracted from 2D hand calculation are significantly higher than the result in 3D
modeling. Base from the table 7.2 the student sees that the difference between the 2D
and 3D result is quite large, the biggest is 95.52% and the smallest is 48.97%. The
difference happens may due to these reasons:
- The difference might come from the working principle between each component. In
detail, for hand calculation, we assume that the flight and landing are worked as a singly
support slab (the stair will work separated from the surrounding structure component).
The reaction force of the flight will transfer to the supported beams. However, for the
3D modeling method, the stair will work together with the surrounding beams and
horizontal shear wall. As a result, the moment and shear force value will reduce
significantly compared to the hand calculation because the stair and the core system will
work together to share the internal forces evenly.
- In reality, the stair will not construct simultaneously with the surrounding wall and
slab system. Specifically, the stair is the sub-structure, so it will construct after the frame
system is complete. Therefore, the working principle of hand calculation might be safer
as it gives a higher value of the moment and reflects the stair's working principle more
accurately in real life.
- When modeling the stair into the frame system, it will increase the stiffness of the
structure. However, the stair only plays a role as a sub-structure that cannot be
considered to enhance the structure's stiffness. Therefore, it is necessary to model and
calculate the stair separately.
-The 3D model will be more complicated, and the stair is a sloping floor that might
affect the results of the entire structure.
→ In conclusion, the use of 2D or 3D modeling depends on the construction
requirement. We usually use the 2D hand calculation method to simplify the design
problems, and it gives a higher amount of reinforcement that would be safer than 3D
modeling.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 98

 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

7.13. Applied load and internal force of supported beam D1

- Self-weight of supported beam D1:

𝑘𝑁
𝑔𝑑 = 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 × 𝑏𝑏 × (ℎ𝑏 − ℎ𝑠 ) = 25 × 0.2 × (0.25 − 0.14) = 0.55 ( )
𝑚
where:
𝑏𝑏 and ℎ𝑏 are the width and height of the landing beam respectively.
- Load from the landing transfered to the beam D1:
𝑉𝐷1 29.46
𝑞𝑏 = = = 29.46 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
1𝑚 1𝑚
- Load from slab transfered to the beam D1:
The beam located at longer edge of slab has the dimension 𝐿1 =2500mm and
𝐿2 =3000mm as Figure 7.32;

Figure 7.32 Load transfer from slab to supported beam D1

The load transferring from slab to beam D1 will be described as Figure 7.33;

Figure 7.33 Load transferring principle from slab to supported beam D1

𝐿1 2500 𝑤𝑠 × 𝐿1
𝛽= = = 0.42; 𝑤 = (1 − 2𝛽2 + 𝛽3 ) × ;
2 × 𝐿2 2 × 3000 2
The load acting on slab including dead load, super dead load and live load will be
summarized as Table 7.3;
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 99
 ANNEX 7. DESIGN OF STAIRCASE

Table 7.3 The summary of load acting on slab applied to the supported beam D1
Load Thickness Unit weight Characteritic Total load
Layer 3 2
case (mm) (kN/m ) load (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
Reinforced
DL 140 25 3.5 3.5
concrete layer
Ceramic tile 20 23 0.46
Mortar layer 20 19 0.38
SDL 1.64
Plaster layer 20 20 0.4
MEP systems - - 0.4
LL Category A - - 2 2
(3.5+1.64)×2.5
+ For dead load: 𝑤𝑠,𝐺𝑘 = (1 − 2 × 0.422 + 0.423 ) × = 4.63 (kN/m)
2
2×2.5
+ For live load: 𝑤𝑠,𝑄𝑘 = (1 − 2 × 0.422 + 0.423 ) × = 1.8 (kN/m)
2

- Total load q (kN/m) acting on the supported beam D1:

+ Method 1: Using the reaction force (characteristic loads acting on the stair which were
calculated in part 12.3.4.1 including dead load and live load calculates separately),
combined with its self-weight.
→ 𝑞 = 1.35 × (0.55 + 4.63 + 14.49) + 1.5 × (1.8 + 6.6) = 39.155 (kN/m)
+ Method 2: Using the reaction force (calculated load on the stair including the
combination of dead load and live load according to EC2 standard), combined with its
self-weight and wall.
→ 𝑞 = 1.35 × (0.55 + 4.63) + 1.5 × 1.8 + 29.46 = 39.153 (kN/m)
→ The 2 methods have the similar result; we will use the result in method 2 for further
calculation.
7.14. Internal force of supported beam D1
- Bending moment at mid-span:
𝑞𝐿2 39.153 × 2.82
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 12.79 𝑘𝑁𝑚
24 24
- Bending moment at support:
𝑞𝐿2 39.153 × 2.82
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 25.58 𝑘𝑁𝑚
24 12
- Maximum shear force:
𝑞𝐿 39.153 × 2.8
𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 54.81 𝑘𝑁
2 2
Where L = 2B + d = 2×1.3 + 0.2 = 2.8m.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 100

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.1. Seismic – resistance solutions for building
In order to avoid the phenomenon of local weakening leading to the destruction of the
building as above, a number of design solutions are proposed to absorb and evenly
distribute the earthquake energy for the entire building.
Some methods used for seismic resistance will be summarized as Figure 8.1;

Figure 8.1 Seismic resistance method for building

❖ Damped structure method
In case the vibration energy is transmitted directly to the building due to non-
separability, one can increase the damping of the structure itself to release this vibration
energy by installing devices damper to the building. There are many forms of damping:
passive, active or semi-active.
One of the basic provisions of modern seismic design standards is to give the structure
a sufficiently large strength and an appropriate stiffness.
- The strength is large enough to increase the bearing capacity of the structure.
- Appropriate stiffness to help the building have a harmonious balance in terms of
dynamics. Because of the shaking effect of earthquakes, it causes displacement and
acceleration in the building. If the building has too much rigidity, the acceleration
generated will be extremely large, causing the furniture and equipment to be scattered
inside the house, leading to economic losses. On the contrary, if the building is too soft,
the relative displacement between floors is too large, causing significant deformation of
the whole building, damaging the connection nodes of the bearing frame, cracking the
wall, warping the door..., in addition. The vibration of the building also significantly
affects the psychology of people living and working in the building.
❖ Seismic isolated structure method
Since vibrations propagate in the ground, the best method to limit the impact of
earthquakes is to separate the structure from the ground. However, because they cannot
be completely separated, a special layer of equipment between the building and the
ground is arranged, called an isolator.
This device has low stiffness, so when the ground vibrates, the device has a large
deformation, the upper structure thanks to large inertia, so it only suffers a small
oscillation. Damage to structures and equipment in the building is thus minimized. The
comparision of this method and conventional structure will be shown as Figure 8.2;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 101

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Figure 8.2 Efficiency of seismic solutions compared to conventional structures

8.2. SEISMIC LOAD DEFINITION IN ETABS
Step 1: Define ELCENTRO earthquake data
Define → Choose function Type to add: From file → Add new function → ELCENTRO.

Figure 8.3 Time history function definition

Step 2: Define load pattern in X-diretion and Y-direction.

Figure 8.4 Load pattern EQ_X and EQ_Y for seismic action
Step 3: Define load case MODAL and EQ pattern load.

Figure 8.5 Modal definition Figure 8.6 EQ load case definition

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 102

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

• MODAL load case: We choose maximum number of modes for building analysis
is 12 with the convergence tolerance is 10−9 for accuracy calculation.
• EQ_Y load case: We choose the load case type is time history, subtype is linear
modal and number of output time steps is 120.
Step 4: Assign diaphram for all slab of building.

Figure 8.7 Diaphram extent of slab for seismic action

8.3. Modelling of rubber isolator in ETABS
Step 1: Define link proper data.

Figure 8.8 Define link properties

Step 2: Define directional properties for rubber isolator.

Figure 8.9 Define parameter for direction U1, U2, U3

Step 3: Define load case data for EQ_Y.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 103

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Figure 8.10 Define load case EQ_Y as nonlinear modal

Step 4: Draw link and assign constraint for the foundation.

Figure 8.11 Draw link Rubber isolator Figure 8.12 Divide to many elements

Figure 8.13 Assign fixed support Figure 8.14 Assign link support

Assumption parameters of rubber isolator:

+ U1 Linear Effective Stiffness : 1500000 kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Linear Effective Stiffness : 800 kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Nonlinear Stiffness : 2500 kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Yeild Strength : 80 kN
+ U2 and U3 Post Yeild Stiffness Ratio: 0.1
Note: We must use the option “Divide shell” in order to mesh the shear wall (as Figure
8.12) and core elevator to many elements for accuracy results. These nodes also will be
assigned fixed support and link support as Figure 8.13;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 104

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.4. Modelling of friction isolator in ETABS

Step 1: Define link proper data and define load case data for EQ_Y.

Figure 8.15 Define link properties Figure 8.16 Define load case EQ_Y

Step 2: Define assumption parameter for friction isolator in ETABS.

+ U1 Linear Effective Stiffness : 1500000 kN/m
+ U1 Nonlinear Effective Stiffness : 1500000 kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Linear Stiffness : 750 kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Nonlinear Stiffness : 15000kN/m
+ U2 and U3 Friction Coefficient, Slow : 0.03
+ U2 and U3 Friction Coefficient, Fast : 0.05
+ U2 and U3 Rate Parameter : 40sec/mm
+ U2 and U3 : Radius of Sliding Surface : 2.23m
• The height of an element in the system is 0.5m

Step 3: Draw link and assign constraint for foundation.

Figure 8.18 Assign suitably the constraint

Figure 8.17 Draw link Frction isolator

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 105

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.5. Story displacement

Table 8.1 Displacement of center of mass in X direction

No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator Difference Difference
(1) (2) (3) (1) and (2) (1) and (3)
Story Load case
UX UX UX  
mm mm mm % %
Story16 Mode 1 0.01600 0.00913 0.00905 42.94 43.44
Story15 Mode 1 0.01503 0.00901 0.00893 40.05 40.59
Story14 Mode 1 0.01395 0.00886 0.00880 36.49 36.92
Story13 Mode 1 0.01282 0.00872 0.00866 31.98 32.45
Story12 Mode 1 0.01166 0.00856 0.00852 26.59 26.93
Story11 Mode 1 0.01046 0.00841 0.00837 19.60 19.98
Story10 Mode 1 0.00924 0.00824 0.00822 10.82 11.04
Story9 Mode 1 0.00799 0.00807 0.00806 0.99 0.87
Story8 Mode 1 0.00674 0.00790 0.00790 14.68 14.68
Story7 Mode 1 0.00551 0.00773 0.00773 28.72 28.72
Story6 Mode 1 0.00432 0.00761 0.00757 42.86 42.93
Story5 Mode 1 0.00319 0.00743 0.00741 56.83 56.95
Story4 Mode 1 0.00216 0.00728 0.00726 70.12 70.25
Story3 Mode 1 0.00126 0.00717 0.00713 82.20 82.33
Story2 Mode 1 0.00054 0.00706 0.00701 92.24 92.30
Story1 Mode 1 0.00002 0.00697 0.00692 99.71 99.71

Table 8.2 Displacement of center of mass in Y direction

No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator Difference Difference
(1) (2) (3) (1) and (2) (1) and (3)
Story Load case
UY UY UY  
mm mm mm % %
Story16 Mode 2 0.01621 0.00899 0.00892 44.54 44.97
Story15 Mode 2 0.01519 0.00887 0.00881 41.61 42.00
Story14 Mode 2 0.01404 0.00874 0.00868 37.75 38.18
Story13 Mode 2 0.01286 0.00861 0.00856 33.05 33.44
Story12 Mode 2 0.01166 0.00847 0.00843 27.36 27.70
Story11 Mode 2 0.01042 0.00832 0.00829 20.15 20.44
Story10 Mode 2 0.00917 0.00818 0.00815 10.80 11.12
Story9 Mode 2 0.00790 0.00803 0.00801 1.62 1.37
Story8 Mode 2 0.00664 0.00788 0.00787 15.74 15.63
Story7 Mode 2 0.00541 0.00779 0.00773 29.92 30.01
Story6 Mode 2 0.00422 0.00765 0.00759 44.25 44.40
Story5 Mode 2 0.00311 0.00749 0.00745 58.14 58.26
Story4 Mode 2 0.00211 0.00735 0.00733 71.10 71.21
Story3 Mode 2 0.00124 0.00724 0.00721 82.71 82.80
Story2 Mode 2 0.00054 0.00717 0.00711 92.36 92.41
Story1 Mode 2 0.00004 0.00709 0.00704 99.43 99.43
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 106
 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.6. Internal force of column C7 comparision between methods

Shear forceCHART TITLE C7 dimensionless

V2 of column
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator

18

of shear force
16
14
12

AXIS TITLE
10

Dimensionless
8
6
4
2
0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.19 Shear force V2 of column C7 dimensionless

Comment:
- The value of shear force V2 of column C7 changes unstable. The value of shear force V2 in the case of no seismic isolation is
the largest value compared to seismis-resistance method and the maximum difference and minimum difference of shear force
value is 43.8% and 33.2% respectively.
- The seismic-resistance method friction isolator and rubber isolator have the same trend (maximum difference between rubber
and friction is 9.52%) on shear force graph for all stories and smaller than conventional structure.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in column for frame and 2 methods have
the same efficiency.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 107

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

SHEAR FORCE OF COLUMN C7 (KN)

Shear force V3 of column C7 dimensionless
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
5.000

OF V3force
4.000

of shear
DIMENSIONLESS
3.000

Dimensionless
2.000

1.000

0.000
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.20 Shear force V3 of column C7 dimensionless

Comment:

- The value of shear force V3 of column C7 changes unstable. The value of shear force V3 in the case of no seismic isolation is
the largest value compared to 2 others method except the bottom story.
- The seismic-resistance method friction isolator and rubber isolator have the same trend on shear force graph for all stories and
smaller than conventional structure. The maximum difference of shear force value between 3 methods is 63% and minimum
difference of shear force value between 3 methods is 6.89%.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in column for frame and 2 methods have
the same efficiency.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 108
 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

MOMENT
Moment M2OF
of COLUMN
column C7 C7 (KNM)
dimensionless

OF M2 moment
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator

4.0

of bending
3.5
3.0

DIMENSIONLESS
2.5
2.0

Dimensionless
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.21 Bending moment M2 of column C7 dimensionless

Comment:
-There is the significant increase of bending moment for 3 methods (about 33%) at story 6. All 3 methods have them same trend in
bending moment diagram and moment results of conventional structure is largest whereas this values of seismic-resistance method is
smaller. When providing seismic-resistance method, the bending moment of column is reduced with the maximum difference is 96%
and minimum difference is 32.53%. The value of bending moment according to these methods at story 1 are nearly zero so we can
conclude the connection between isolator and building is hinge connection.
- The bending moment value at bottom story of conventional structure is larger than the structure provided seismic-resistance method
so it will reduce the damage due to seismic action applied to structure.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the bending moment in column for frame and 2 methods
have the same efficiency.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 109
 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Moment M3 ofM3 C7 C7 dimensionless

column
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator

moment
25

20

of bending
TITLE
15

DimensionlessAXIS
10

0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.22 Bending moment M3 of column C7 dimensionless

❖ Comment:
- All 3 methods have them same trend in bending moment diagram and moment results of conventional structure is largest whereas this
values of seismic-resistance method is smaller. When providing seismic-resistance method, the bending moment of column is reduced
with the maximum difference is 68.4% and minimum difference is 52.35%. The value of bending moment according to these methods
at story 1 are nearly zero so we can conclude the connection between isolator and building is hinge connection.
- The bending moment value at bottom story of conventional structure is larger than the structure provided seismic-resistance method
so it will reduce the damage due to seismic action applied to structure.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the bending moment in column for frame and 2 methods
have the same efficiency.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 110
 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.7. Bending moment of beam B72

Table 8.3 Bending moment at support and mid span of beam B72 extracted from Envelope combo between 3 different methods
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
Story Support Mid-span Support Mid-span Support Mid-span
kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm
15 402.58 311.37 302.01 276.09 301.89 276.09
14 525.54 362.54 409.96 322.14 409.8 322.13
13 514.52 375.13 405.93 333.36 405.78 333.35
12 512.01 367.82 402.92 333.18 402.75 333.18
11 507.23 363.98 399.19 326.81 399.03 326.81
10 512.53 358.54 401.46 321.68 401.29 321.67
9 503.54 357.41 395.26 321.13 395.1 321.12
8 498.63 356.36 388.11 319.33 387.95 319.32
7 481.23 352.32 380.63 318.56 380.48 318.55
6 462.31 348.29 369.12 311.15 368.96 311.14
5 455.36 343.21 367.69 305.92 367.54 305.91
4 451.25 337.15 360.82 304.1 360.69 304.09
3 443.84 333.56 355.2 301.39 355.09 301.38
2 431.75 328.87 344.87 297.85 344.78 297.85
1 403.36 265.34 303.19 237.82 303.16 237.82

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 111

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Table 8.4 Bending moment at support and mid span of beam B72 dimensionless
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
Story Support Mid-span Support Mid-span Support Mid-span
kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm
15 0.998 1.173 0.749 1.041 0.748 1.041
14 1.303 1.366 1.016 1.214 1.016 1.214
13 1.276 1.414 1.006 1.256 1.006 1.256
12 1.269 1.386 0.999 1.256 0.998 1.256
11 1.258 1.372 0.990 1.232 0.989 1.232
10 1.271 1.351 0.995 1.212 0.995 1.212
9 1.248 1.347 0.980 1.210 0.980 1.210
8 1.236 1.343 0.962 1.203 0.962 1.203
7 1.193 1.328 0.944 1.201 0.943 1.201
6 1.146 1.313 0.915 1.173 0.915 1.173
5 1.129 1.293 0.912 1.153 0.911 1.153
4 1.119 1.271 0.895 1.146 0.894 1.146
3 1.100 1.257 0.881 1.136 0.880 1.136
2 1.070 1.239 0.855 1.123 0.855 1.123
1 1.000 1.000 0.752 0.896 0.752 0.896

For easy comparison, we plot the relationship between elevation of story and bending moment of beam B72 shown as Figure 8.24 and
Figure 8.25;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 112

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Figure 8.23 Bending moment M3 at support of beam B72 dimensionless

Figure 8.24 Bending moment M3 at mid-span of beam B72 dimensionless

Comment:
+ For support and mid-span bending moment, these values between 2 seismic-resistance
methods has the same trend with small difference (maximum difference between 2
methods is 0.2%) whereas the conventional structure accounted for the largest value
compared to rubber isolator and friction isolator.
+ The bending moment at support of 3 methods is larger than these values at mid-span
bending moment because the support of the beam B72 is located nearly the core elevator
so the stiffness is largest in building leading to increasement of internal force for beam.
We can conclude that bending moment results are reasonable and high-relibility.
+ For support bending moment, the maximum difference between isolator and without
isolator is 25% and the minimum difference is 19%. For mid-span bending moment,
this difference is 11% and 9% respectively.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the
bending moment value at support and mid-span of beam for frame and 2
methods have the same efficiency.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 113

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

8.8. Internal force of shear wall P11 comparision between methods

V2 wall P11 dimensionless
Shear force V2 of shear
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
30.0

of shear force
25.0

20.0

AXIS TITLE
15.0
Dimensionless
10.0

5.0

0.0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.25 Shear force V2 of shear wall P11 dimensionless

- The value of shear force V2 of shear wall changes unstable. Three methods have the same trend on shear force graph for all
stories and the value of shear force V2 in the case of no seismic isolation is the largest value compared to 2 others method.
- The maximum difference of shear force value between conventional structure and seismic – resistance methods are 55.07% and
80.34% respectively.
- The shear force at bottom story of conventional methods is larger than the shear force of isolator method (36% and 50%
respectively) and when the earthquake disaster occuring, the bottom is always the first destroyed story so if we can reduce the
internal force at this position it will reduce the damage that the seismic applied to the structure.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in shear wall and friction isolator method
is more effective than rubber isolator.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 114

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

V3 wall P11 dimensionless

Shear force V3 of shear
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator

of shear force
1.4
1.2
1.0

AXIS TITLE
0.8

Dimensionless
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.26 Shear force V3 of shear wall P11 dimensionless

Comment:
- The value of shear force V3 of shear wall changes unstable. Three methods have the same trend on shear force graph for all
stories and the value of shear force V3 in the case of no seismic isolation is the largest value compared to 2 others method.
- The maximum difference of shear force value between conventional structure and seismic – resistance methods are 46% and
57.37% respectively.
- The shear force at bottom story of conventional methods is larger than the shear force of isolator method (35% and 46%
respectively) and when the earthquake disaster occuring, the bottom is always the first destroyed story so if we can reduce the
internal force at this position it will reduce the damage due to the seismic action applied to the structure.
- The difference of shear force V3 between 3 methods are smaller than the results of shear force V2.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in shear wall and friction isolator method
is more effective than rubber isolator.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 115

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

Moment M2 M2of shear wall P11

No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
dimensionless

of moment
1.2
1.0

AXIS TITLE
0.8

Dimensionless
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.27 Bending moment M2 of shear wall P11 dimensionless

-There is the significant decrease of bending moment for all 3 methods (about 90%) at story 3 and the others bottom has the moment
value increased gradually. All 3 methods have them same trend in bending moment diagram and moment results of conventional
structure is largest whereas this values of seismic-resistance method is smaller. When providing seismic-resistance method, the bending
moment of shear wall is reduced with the maximum difference is 74.25% and 87.13% respectively .
- For conventional structure without seismic-resistance plan, we can easily recognize that the internal force at the bottom story is largest
value compared to others elevation. This result is reasonable and high-relibility because the building works as the console component
with one free end, so the moment at the foundation is largest. It can be explained why in earthquake disaster, the lower part of building
is collapsed firstly. The bending moment values at bottom story of seismic – resistance method is also smaller than the no isolator
(difference is 26% and 34% respectively) so when the earthquake occuring, the isolator assists to reduce the damage due to internal
force applied to the structure.
 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in shear wall and friction isolator method
is more effective than rubber isolator.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 116

 ANNEX 8. DESIGN SEISMIC RESISTANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING

M3wall P11 dimensionless

Moment M3 of shear
No isolator Rubber isolator Friction isolator
30.0

of moment
25.0

20.0

AXIS TITLE
15.0

Dimensionless
10.0

5.0

0.0
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STORY

Figure 8.28 Bending moment M3 of shear wall P11 dimensionless

-There is the significant increase of bending moment for all 3 methods (about 17%) at story 4 and the others bottom has the moment
value decreased gradually. All 3 methods have them same trend in bending moment diagram and moment results of conventional
structure is largest whereas this values of seismic-resistance method is smaller. When providing seismic-resistance method, the bending
moment of shear wall is reduced with the maximum difference is 66% and 84.45% respectively .
- The bending moment values at bottom story of seismic – resistance method is also smaller than the no isolator (difference is 66% and
76% respectively) so when the earthquake occuring, the isolator assists to reduce the damage due to internal force applied to the
structure.

 We can conclude that using seismic-resistance method will reduce the shear force in shear wall and friction isolator method is
more effective than rubber isolator.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 117

 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

9.1. Division of soil layer and rules for deviation omission
A soil layer is considered by the similarities of physic-mechanic of samples obtaining
by in situ test or in laboratory. The coefficient of variation  of all samples is limited so
as to be considered as one layer. 𝜈 is determined by:
𝜎
𝜈 = × 100%
𝐴
where:
∑ 𝐴𝑖
𝐴= is the mean value of one characteristic.
𝑛
2
∑(𝐴 −𝐴)
𝜎=√ 𝑖 is the root-mean square deviation.
𝑛−1
𝐴𝑖 is the characteristic value of the ith sample obtained from one specific experiment.
𝑛 is the number of conducted experiments or the number of samples in one layer.
In a set of soil samples in one soil layer, the relationship between the coefficients of
variation  and the allowable coefficient of variation [] is that:
•  ≤ [] ⟹ The considered soil layer is satisfied.
•  > [] ⟹ The value with large deviation shall be omitted.
The allowable coefficient of variation [] will be shown as Table 9.1;

Table 9.1 Allowable coefficients of variation

Soil characteristics Allowable coefficients of variation []
Specific gravity 0.018
Unit weight 0.05
In-situ moisture 0.15
Atterberg limit 0.15
Modulus of deformation 0.3
Shear strength 0.3
Uniaxial compressive strength 0.4

The manual omission of 𝐴𝑖 out of the set is conducted when:

|𝐴𝑖 − 𝐴| > 𝜈 × 𝜎𝑐𝑚
𝜈 is the standard statistic coefficient determined by the dependent on the number of
experiment samples. The standard statistic coefficient 𝜈 will be shown as Table 9.2;
𝜎𝑐𝑚 is the quadratic equation.
1 2
𝜎𝑐𝑚 = √ ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝐴𝑖 − 𝐴) for n > 25;
𝑛−1

1 2
𝜎𝑐𝑚 = √ ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝐴𝑖 − 𝐴) for n ≤ 25;
𝑛

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 118

 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

Table 9.2 Value of standard statistic coefficient ν

𝑛 𝜈 𝑛 𝜈 𝑛 𝜈 𝑛 𝜈 𝑛 𝜈 𝑛 𝜈
6 2.07 12 2.52 18 2.73 24 2.86 30 2.96 36 3.03
7 2.18 13 2.56 19 2.75 25 2.88 31 2.97 37 3.04
8 2.27 14 2.6 20 2.78 26 2.9 32 2.98 38 3.05
9 2.35 15 2.64 21 2.8 27 2.91 33 3 39 3.06
10 2.41 16 2.67 22 2.82 28 2.93 34 3.01 40 3.07
11 2.47 17 2.7 23 2.84 29 2.94 35 3.02 41 3.08

9.2. Determination of standard characteristics and design value

Given data:
The soil layer 4 has 6 samples including UD-21, UD-22, UD-23, UD-24, UD-25 and
UD-26. The properties of these samples will be summaried as for easy calculation and
this results extracted from soil investigation report from LAS_XD 238.
 Standard value of unit weight  void ratio e0 and moisture W
The results of unit weight, void ratio and moisture of soil layer 4 extracted from soil
investigation report will be summarized as Table 9.3;

Table 9.3 Results of moisture, density and void ratio from soil investigation report
Sample W (%)  (kN/m3) e0
UD-21 21.21 10.8 0.596
UD-22 17.1 11.4 0.531
UD-23 19.07 11.2 0.557
Layer 4 UD-24 17.99 11.3 0.534
UD-25 15.96 11.8 0.473
UD-26 22.86 10.6 0.635
Average 19.03 11.18 0.55

For these properties, the standard value equals the average value.
 Standard characteristic value of cohesion c and internal friction angle 
The results of direct shear test of soil layer 4 will be summarized as Table 9.4;

Table 9.4 Results of  and  through direct shear test in laboratory

i (kPa) i (kPa)
100 200 300 400 87.8 117 147.4 172.9
100 200 300 400 98.5 123.2 153.3 188.3
100 200 300 400 93.9 109.6 157.3 175.5
Layer 4
100 200 300 400 91.4 109.4 146.2 178.8
100 200 300 400 100.3 115.8 169.1 185.7
100 200 300 400 78.7 107.7 144.3 159.5

❖ Method 1: Manual calculation.

In layer 4, we have 6 samples and each sample including 4 times conducting the direct
shear test => For c and  calculation, n = 6×4=24.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 119
 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

• (∑ 𝜎𝑖 )2 = [(100 + 200 + 300 + 400) × 62 ] = 36000000

• ∑ 𝜎𝑖 2 = (1002 + 2002 + 3002 + 4002 ) × 6 = 1800000
• ∑ 𝜏𝑖 = 87.8 + 117 + 147.4 + ⋯ + 144.3 + 159.5 = 3211.6
• ∑ 𝜏𝑖 𝜎𝑖 = 100 × 87.8 + 200 × 117 + ⋯ + 400 × 159.5 = 891160
• ∆= 𝑛 ∑ 𝜎𝑖 2 − (∑ 𝜎𝑖 )2 = 24 × 1800000 − 36000000 = 7200000
1 1
• 𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = ∆ (∑ 𝜏𝑖 ∑ 𝜎𝑖 2 − ∑ 𝜎𝑖 ∑ 𝜏𝑖 𝜎𝑖 ) = 7200000 (3211.6 × 1800000 − 6000 × 891160)
 𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = 60.267
1 1
• tan 𝜑𝑡𝑐 = (𝑛 ∑ 𝜏𝑖 𝜎𝑖 − ∑ 𝜏𝑖 ∑ 𝜎𝑖 ) = (24 × 891160 − 3211.6 × 6000)
∆ 7200000
𝑡𝑐
 tan 𝜑 = 0.2942
❖ Method 2: EXCEL software calculation.
Use linest function in EXCEL (as Figure 9.1) as to calculate automatically the standard
value of the cohesion c and internal friction-angle .

Figure 9.1 Linest function in EXCEL software

Based on results of  and  Table 9.4, we use the finction Linest in EXCEL software for
accuracy calculation and the results of ctc and tc will be summarized as Table 9.5;

Table 9.5 Automatically calculated results from EXCEL software

tc
C (kPa) tantc c tan
60.267 0.2942 4.484 0.0164

Comment: The results of standard characteristics about cohesion c and internal friction
angle  according to 2 methods has the same values so we can conclude that both
methods have the high-reasonable accuracy.
 Design calculated value of cohesion c and internal friction angle 
For the ULS – Limit State I,  = 0.95 and n = 24 => t = 1.716.
𝑐 𝑡𝑡 (𝐼) = 𝑐 𝑡𝑐 ± (𝜎𝑐 × 𝑡𝛼 ) = 60.267 ± (4.484 × 1.716) = (52.572~67.962)
tan 𝜑𝑡𝑡 (𝐼) = tan 𝜑𝑡𝑐 ± (𝜎tan 𝜑 × 𝑡𝛼 ) = 0.2942 ± (0.0164 × 1.716) = (0.266~0.322)
The others calculation will be shown as Table 9.6;

Table 9.6 Design calculated cohesion c and internal friction  according to Limit state
Limit State I Limit State II
 0.95 0.85
t 1.7160 1.0600
𝑡𝑡
𝑐 max (kPa) 67.9614 65.0198
𝑡𝑡
𝑐 min (kPa) 52.5719 55.5135
𝑡𝑡
tan 𝜑 max 0.3223 0.3116
𝑡𝑡
tan 𝜑 min 0.2661 0.2768
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 120
 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

 Design calculated value of unit weight 

• Only buoyancy unit weight is used because all calculated layers are all under
groundwater level.
• In calculation of unit weight, only layer with number of specimens above 6 is
required to determine the calculated value.
For layers having number of specimens below 6, the standard characteristic values of
unit weight equal the design calculated design value.
We take layer 3 with 15 specimens (n=15) as example to calculate the design calculated
value accoring to unit weight. The density properties of each speciments will be shown
as Table 9.7;

Table 9.7 Density values extracted from soil investigation report of layer 3
Buoyancy unit weight
Sample (i-ave)2
(kN/m3)
UD-6 10.7 0.0087
UD-7 10.7 0.0087
UD-8 10.7 0.0087
UD-9 10.7 0.0087
UD-10 10.8 0.0374
UD-11 10.7 0.0087
UD-12 10.2 0.1654
UD-13 10.7 0.0087
Layer 3
UD-14 10.5 0.0114
UD-15 10.2 0.1654
UD-16 10.6 0.0000
UD-17 10.8 0.0374
UD-18 10.7 0.0087
UD-19 10.3 0.0940
UD-20 10.8 0.0374
Average 10.607 0.6093 (total)
∑(𝛾𝑖 −𝛾𝑎𝑣𝑒 )2 0.6093 𝜎𝑦 0.209
𝜎𝑦 = √ =√ = 0.209 ; 𝜈 = = = 0.02
𝑛−1 15−1 𝛾𝑎𝑣𝑒 10.607

𝑡 ×𝜈 1.76×0.02
𝜌= 𝛼 = = 0.009 ; 𝛾 𝑡𝑡 (𝐼) = 𝛾 𝑡𝑐 × (1 ± 𝜌) = 10.62 × (1 ± 0.009) =
√𝑛 √15
(10.52~10.72)
The others calculation will be shown as Table 9.8;

Table 9.8 Design calculated value of buoyancy unit weight according to Limit state
Limit State I Limit State II
𝑡𝛼 1.7600 1.0700
𝜈 0.0197 0.0197
𝜌 0.0089 0.0054
𝑡𝑡 3
𝛾 max (kN/m ) 10.715 10.678
𝑡𝑡 3
𝛾 min (kN/m ) 10.525 10.562

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 121

 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

9.3. PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL LAYERS

Table 9.9 Physical properties of soil layers from borehole 3

Physical properties

Thickness Unit weight Initial

Saturation
Moisture Density void
Layer Description Natural Dry Buoyancy rate
ratio
t W γ γd γ' ρ Sr e
m % kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 % -
A Fill with concrete, stone and sand 1.7 - - - - - - -

1 Clayey silt, greyish-blueish black, very soft 3.8 75.41 15.19 8.67 5.36 26.26 97.18 2.037

2 Clay, whitish grey or yellow, soft state 4.2 22.37 19.31 15.79 9.94 27.01 84.93 0.711
3 Sand, whitish grey or yellow, stiff state 30.3 18.86 20.15 16.95 10.62 26.75 87.11 0.579

4 Clay, whitish grey or yellow, loose state 9.5 20.42 20.73 17.24 10.94 27.36 94.22 0.592

Clay, grey or blueish grey or yellowish grey or

5 4.8 24.6 19.54 15.71 9.91 27.11 91.43 0.729
brown, stiff state

6 Sand, coal grey, stiff state 32.2 18.1 20.26 17.18 10.75 26.72 86.52 0.555

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 122

 ANNEX 9. GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

Table 9.10 Mechanical properties of soil layers from borehole 3

Mechanical properties
Thickness Internal friction SPT Modulus of deformation
Cohesion
Layer Description angle value (Representative)

t c ϕ Nspt E
m kPa degree blow kPa

A Fill with concrete, stone and sand 1.7 - - - -

1 Clayey silt, greyish-blueish black, very soft 3.8 6.09 3.783 0 1249

2 Clay, whitish grey or yellow, soft state 4.2 19.96 10.183 6.5 11254

3 Sand, whitish grey or yellow, stiff state 30.3 9.18 23.23 12 24553

4 Clay, whitish grey or yellow, loose state 9.5 58.98 16.45 31 18025

5 Clay, grey or blueish grey 4.8 31.71 15.53 23 38919

6 Sand, coal grey, stiff state 32.2 9.18 24.13 26 29362

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 123

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.1. Designed capacity and pile subject to compression
For a pile foundation subject to compression, Eurocode 7 requires the design
compressive action 𝐹𝑐𝑑 acting on the pile to be less than or equal to the design bearing
resistance 𝑅𝑐𝑑 of the ground [EN1997-1 exp(7.1)]:
𝐹𝑐𝑑 ≤ 𝑅𝑐𝑑
where:
𝐹𝑐𝑑 is the design compressive action acting on the pile (kN).
𝑅𝑐𝑑 is the design bearing resistance of the ground (kN).
Note: 𝐹𝑐𝑑 should include the self-weight of the pile as illustration of Figure 10.1;

Figure 10.1 Self-weight of pile should be included for accuracy calculation

The characteristic value of 𝐹𝑐𝑘 given by:

𝐹𝑐𝑘 = (𝑃𝐺𝑘 + ∑ Ψ𝑖 𝑃𝑄𝑘,𝑖 ) + 𝑊𝐺𝑘

where: 𝑃𝐺𝑘 and 𝑃𝑄𝑘,𝑖 are, respectively, characteristic permanent and variable
components of P; the symbol 𝑊𝐺𝑘 represents the pile’s characteristic self-weight (a
permanent action); and Ψ𝑖 is the combination factor applicable to the ith variable action
(Ψ𝑖 ≤ 1).
The design value of 𝐹𝑐𝑑 is given by:

𝐹𝑐𝑑 = 𝛾𝐺 (𝑃𝐺𝑘 + 𝑊𝐺𝑘 ) + ∑ 𝛾𝑄 Ψ𝑖 𝑃𝑄𝑘,𝑖

where: 𝛾𝐺 and 𝛾𝑄 are partial factors on unfavourable permanent and variable actions.
=> In conclusion, as mentioned above, the compressive strength will be designed
according to soil parameter. Therefore, all 3 Design Approaches will be checked. The
most critical state will be chosen for design.
10.1.1. Design of pile by reliability
Probability of the existence of loads and soils characteristics must be taken into acocunt
by partial factor as Table 10.1;
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 124
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.1 Partial factors for action

Resistance factors
Parameter Partial factors
R1 R2 R3 R4
Base resistance 1.1 1.0
…driven pile 1.0 1.3
b
…bored pile 1.25 1.6
…CFA pile 1.1 1.45
Shaft resistance s 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3
Total resistance t 1.1 1.0
…driven pile 1.0 1.3
…bored pile 1.15 1.5
…CFA pile 1.1 1.4
Tensile resistance st 1.25 1.15 1.1 1.6
Calculation model Rd
10.1.2. Design approach 1
In combination 1, partial factors are applied to actions and small factors to resistances
by employing factors from Sets A1, M1 and R1.
In combination 2, partial factors are applied to resistances and to variable actions by
employing factors from Sets A2, M1 and R4.

Table 10.2 Summary for Design Approach 1

Factor Annotation DA1-Comb1 DA1-Comb2
Partial factor
for permanent γG 1.35 1
action
Load factor
Partial factor
for variable γQ 1.5 1.3
action
Material
resistance γM 1.0 1.0
factor
Base resistance
γb 1.25 1.6
factor
Resistance Shaft resistance
γs 1.0 1.3
factor factor
Total resistance
γt 1.15 1.5
factor
Tensile
resistance γst 1.3 1.6
factor
10.1.3. Design approach 2
The Design Approach 2 will emphasize in checking the reliability of the calculation by
applying factors on both load effect and resistance. In summary, the Design Approach
2 for bored pile can be shown as Table 10.3;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 125

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.3 Summary for Design Approach 2 (DA2)

Factor Annotation DA2
Partial factor
for permanent γG 1.35
action
Load factor
Partial factor
for variable γQ 1.5
action
Material
resistance γM 1.0
factor
Base resistance
γb 1.1
factor
Shaft
Resistance resistance γs 1.1
factor factor
Total
resistance γt 1.1
factor
Tensile
resistance γst 1.15
factor
10.1.4. Design approach 3
The Design Approach 3 will emphasize in checking the capacity by applying factors on
both load effect and material resistance. In Design Approach 3, there are 2 differences
ideal: Structural ideal and geotechnical ideal.
In summary, the Design Approach 3 for bored pile can be shown as Table 10.4;

Table 10.4 Summary for Design Approach 3 (DA3)

DA3 DA3
Factor Annotation
(Structural) (Geotechnical)
Partial factor
for permanent γG 1.35 1
action
Load factor
Partial factor
for variable γQ 1.5 1.3
action
Base resistance 1
γb
factor
Shaft
1
Resistance resistance γs
factor factor
Total
resistance γt 1
factor

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 126

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

DA3 DA3
Factor Annotation
(Structural) (Geotechnical)
Tensile
resistance γst 1.1
factor
Coefficient of
shearing
γφ 1.25
resistance (tan
φ)
Effective
γc’ 1.25
cohesion (c’)
Geotechnical
Undrained
factor γcu 1.4
strength (cu)
Unconfined
compressive γqu 1.4
strength (qu)
Weight density
γγ 1
(γ)

10.2. Slenderness of pile

Step 1: Determine the inertia of pile cap and pile section.
1 1
𝐼𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 = × 𝜋 × 𝑑4 = × 𝜋 × 9504 = 39981982051 𝑚𝑚4
64 64
𝑏ℎ3 1000 × 19003
𝐼𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝 = = = 5.71 × 1011 𝑚𝑚4
12 12
Step 2: Determine the stiffness of section.
𝐸𝐼 𝐼 39981982051
( ) ( )
𝐿 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝐿 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒
𝑘𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 = = = 51.7 × 100011 = 0.0024
𝐸𝐼 𝐼 5.71 × 10
∑2 × ( ) 2×( ) 2 ×
𝐿 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝 𝐿 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝 3.6 × 1000
𝑘𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 = 0 (𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 )
L = length of the pile and pile cap in the referenced direction = 57 − 5.3 = 51.7𝑚
(elevation of embbed pile cap is -5.3m).

Step 3: Calculate the effective length of the pile.

For safe design, the pile can be treated as an unbraced structure.
𝑘1 𝑘2
𝐿0 = 0.5 × 𝐿 × √(1 + ) × (1 + )
0.45 + 𝑘1 0.45 + 𝑘2

0.0024 0
𝐿0 = 0.5 × 51.7 × √(1 + ) × (1 + ) = 25918𝑚𝑚
0.45 + 0.0024 0.45 + 0

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 127

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

where:
𝐿0 is the effective length of pile (m).
k1 = 𝑘𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 and k2 = 𝑘𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 .

Step 4: Determine the slenderness ratio of section.

𝐿0 𝐿0 25918
𝜆= = = = 109.1
𝑖
𝐼 √39981982051
√ 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 708822
𝐴𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒

Where: 𝑖 is the radius of gyration of section.

Step 5: Determine the limit slenderness ratio.

𝑓𝑐𝑘 35 𝑁
𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 × = 0.85 × = 18.03 ( )
𝑘𝑓 ×𝛾𝑐 1.1×1.5 𝑚𝑚2
𝑓𝑦𝑘 500 𝑁
𝑓𝑦𝑑 = = = 434.78 ( )
𝛾𝑠 1.15 𝑚𝑚2

𝑁𝐸𝑑 15002.55×1000
𝑛= = = 1.174 (NEd,max of column of combo DA1-Combo 1).
𝐴×𝑓𝑐𝑑 708822×18.03
20×𝐴×𝐵×𝐶 20×0.7×1.1×1.7
𝜆𝑙𝑖𝑚 = = = 24.162 (EC2, 5.8.3.1)
√𝑛 √1.174

𝜆 = 109.1 ≥ 𝜆𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 24.162

10.3. Bearing capacity of bored pile based on SPT results

The design compressive resistance obtained from SPT results is estimated by summing
the design base resistance 𝑅𝑏𝑑 and the design shaft resistance 𝑅𝑠𝑑 .
𝑅𝑏𝑘 𝑅𝑠𝑘
𝑅𝑐𝑑 = +
𝛾𝑏 𝛾𝑠
𝑅𝑏𝑘 is the characteristic end-bearing base resistance of pile tip (kN).
𝑅𝑠𝑘 is the characteristic shaft resistance (kN).
10.3.1. Characteristic end-bearing base resistance 𝑹𝒃𝒌
𝐿
𝑅𝑏,𝑘 = 𝐴𝑏 × (0.4𝑝𝑎 𝑁60 ( )) ≤ 𝐴𝑏 × (4𝑝𝑎 𝑁60 )
𝐷
where:
𝑁60 is the average SPT blow at 3 elevations (at 10D above pile tip; at pile tip and 4D
below pile tip).
𝑝𝑎 is the atmospheric pressure = 100kN/m2.
𝐴𝑏 is the area of bored pile (m2).
𝜋𝐷 2 𝜋×0.952
𝐴𝑏 = = = 0.71 m2
4 4

The description about elevation and SPT results of each layer for 𝑁60 calculation will
be summarized as Table 10.5;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 128

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.5 Calculation of N60

Position Elevation z (m) SPT (Blows)
10D above pile tip -47.5 44
Pile tip -57 28
4D below pile tip -60.8 28
N60 34

Dbored pile = 0.95m so the elevation at the position located at 10D above pile tip z = 57 -
10×0.95 = 47.5m.
Dbored pile = 0.95m so the elevation at the position located at 4D below pile tip z = 57 +
4×0.95 = 60.8m.
For layer 4: at elevation z = 46m SPT N = 41 blows and elevation z = 48m SPT N = 45
blows => Based on interpolation we can calculate the SPT value at elevation z = 47.5m
N = 44 blows.
51.7
=> 𝑅𝑏,𝑘 = 0.71 × (0.4 × 100 × 34 × ( )) ≤ 0.71 × (4 × 100 × 34)
0.95
=> 𝑅𝑏,𝑘 = 52549 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 9656 𝑘𝑁
=> 𝑅𝑏,𝑘 = 9656 𝑘𝑁

10.3.2. Skin friction by SPT blow

𝑅𝑠,𝑘 = 𝑝𝐿(0.001𝑝𝑎 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝑁60 )
̅̅̅̅̅
𝑁 60 is the average SPT blow at each soil layer to the end of pile tip.
𝐿 is the length of pile considered from the bottom of pile cap (m).
𝑝 is the perimeter of pile (m).
𝑝𝑎 is the atmospheric pressure = 100kN/m2.
̅̅̅̅̅
The calculation of 𝑁 60 value and the average SPT values of each layer will be
summarized as Table 10.6;

Table 10.6 Calculation of (𝑁60 ) for bored pile

Layer Average SPT blow
A -
1 0.00
2 8.00
3 11.00
4 33.00
5 29.00
̅̅̅̅̅
𝑁 60 16.2

Perimeter of pile: 𝑝 = 𝜋𝑅 = 𝜋 × 0.95 = 2.98 𝑚.

=> 𝑅𝑠,𝑘 = 2.98 × 51.7 × (0.001 × 100 × 16.2) = 250 𝑘𝑁

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 129

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.4. End bearing resistance Qp and skin friction Qs

10.4.1. End bearing resistance 𝑸𝒑
Because the pile tip is put into layer 5 is a clay layer (cohesion soil), the formulation of
end bearing resistance 𝑄𝑝 for cohesion soil is taken as within.
• 𝑞𝑝 = 9𝑐𝑢 (for driven piles)
• 𝑞𝑝 = 6𝑐𝑢 (for pile’s diameter ≥ 0.6m)
where
𝑐𝑢 : undrained shear strength of soil, determined by drain shear test or triple compression
test (kPa).
𝑄𝑝 = 𝑞𝑝 × 𝐴𝑝

where:
𝑞𝑝 is the unit end bearing resistance of pile tip (kN/m2).
𝑐𝑢 is undrained shear strength (kN/m2).
𝑄𝑝 is the end bearing resistance of pile tip (kN).
𝐴𝑝 is the cross section area of pile tip (m2).

=> 𝑞𝑝 = 6 × 41.9 = 251.4 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

0.952
=> 𝑄𝑝 = 251.4 × 𝜋 × = 178 𝑘𝑁
4
10.4.2. Skin friction – shaft resistance 𝑸𝒔
′
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑘𝑠,𝑖 × 𝜎𝑣,𝑖 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑𝑎 + 𝛼 × 𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒
10.4.2.1. Skin friciton calculation for cohesionless soil:
′
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑘𝑠,𝑖 × 𝜎𝑣,𝑖 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑𝑎
𝑄𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 × 𝐴𝑠,𝑖

𝑄𝑠 = ∑ 𝑄𝑠,𝑖

𝐴𝑠,𝑖 is the nominal surface area of pile at layer i (kN/m2).

𝑄𝑠,𝑖 is the skin friction of pile at layer i (kN).
𝑄𝑠 is the total skin friction of pile (kN).
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 is the unit skin friction at layer i (kN/m2).
For sand layers: 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 is constant if 𝑧 ≥ 𝑧𝑐 = 15𝑑𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 = 15 × 0.95 = 14.25𝑚.
 The shaft resistance will increase gradually from the start of sand layer (layer
3 at z = -10m) and the shaft resistance will be constant at the elevation 𝑧 =
−10 − 14.25 = −24.25m.
This property will be illustrated as Figure 10.2;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 130

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Figure 10.2 Property only applied for sand layer

𝑘𝑠,𝑖 = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜑𝑖 (bored pile, far pile group).
′
𝜎𝑣,𝑖 = 𝜎𝑧′ : effective stressed caused by the soil’s weight at the i layer (take z at
middle of layer).
- Layer 1: Clayer silt, greyish-blueish black, very soft.
From z = -1.4m to z = -5.8m →Thickness of soil layer 1 = 4.4m.
′ 4.4 𝑘𝑁
𝜎𝑣,𝑖 = (1.4 + ) × 5.36 = 19.296 ( )
2 𝑚2

𝑘𝑠,𝑖 = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 2.4 = 0.958

2 2
𝜑𝑎 = 𝜑 = × 2.4 = 1.6
3 3

′ 𝑘𝑁
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝑘𝑠,𝑖 × 𝜎𝑣,𝑖 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑𝑎 = 0.958 × 19.296 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛 (1.6) = 0.516 ( )
𝑚2

The unit skin friction of others layer will be shown as Table 10.7;

Table 10.7 Unit cohesionless skin friction of soil layer

𝜑𝐼 min 𝜎𝑣 ′ 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠
Layer 𝑘𝑠 tan 𝜑𝑎 2
(degree) (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
1 2.40 0.958 0.028 19.296 0.516
2 8.76 0.848 0.102 51.962 4.505
3 22.61 0.616 0.269 372.675 61.782
4 14.9 0.743 0.175 464.091 60.377
5 14 0.758 0.164 553.38 68.947

10.4.2.2. Skin friciton calculation for cohesion soil:

𝑓𝑠,𝑖 = 𝛼 × 𝑐𝑢,𝑖
where:
𝑐𝑢,𝑖 is undrain shear strength determined through direct shear test (kN/m2).
𝑝𝑎 = 100 (kN/m2) is atmospheric pressure.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 131

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

The values of 𝛼 determination will be shown as Table 10.8 based on value of 𝑐𝑢,𝑖 .

Table 10.8 Variation of α

𝑐𝑢
𝛼
𝑝𝑎
≤ 0.1 1.00
0.2 0.92
0.3 0.82
0.4 0.74
0.6 0.62
0.8 0.54
1.0 0.48
1.2 0.42
1.4 0.40
1.6 0.38
1.8 0.36
2.0 0.35
2.4 0.34
2.8 0.34
- Layer 1: Clayer silt, greyish-blueish black, very soft.
𝑐𝑢 16
𝑐𝑢 = 16 ⇒ = = 0.16. Based on the Table 10.8 we can get the result of 
𝑝𝑎 100
variation by interpolation method ⇒ = 
𝑘𝑁
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝛼 × 𝑐𝑢,𝑖 = 0.952 × 16 = 15.232 ( 2 )
𝑚
The unit skin friction of others layer will be shown as Table 10.9;

Table 10.9 Unit cohesive skin friction of soil layer

𝑐𝑢 fs,i cohesive
Layer 𝑐𝑢 /𝑝𝑎 α
(kN/m2) (kN/m2)
1 16.00 0.16 0.95 15.23
2 32.90 0.33 0.80 26.21
3 2.50 0.03 1.00 2.50
4 53.50 0.54 0.66 35.26
5 41.90 0.42 0.73 30.53
10.4.2.3. Total skin friction:
′
𝑓𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑘𝑠,𝑖 × 𝜎𝑣,𝑖 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑𝑎 + 𝛼 × 𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒
𝑄𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑓𝑠,𝑖 × 𝐴𝑠,𝑖

𝑄𝑠 = ∑ 𝑄𝑠,𝑖

𝐴𝑠,𝑖 is the surface area of pile in ith soil layer and 𝐴𝑠,𝑖 = 2𝜋𝑟ℎ (𝑚2 ).

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 132

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

- Layer 1: Clayer silt, greyish-blueish black, very soft.

𝑘𝑁
𝑓𝑠,1 = 𝑓𝑠,1 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 𝑓𝑠,1 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 0.516 + 15.232 = 15.748 ( )
𝑚2
0.95
𝐴𝑠,1 = 2𝜋𝑟ℎ = 2 × 𝜋 × × 4.4 = 13.13 (𝑚2 )
2

𝑄𝑠,1 = 𝑓𝑠,1 × 𝐴𝑠,1 = 15.748 × 13.13 = 206.8 (𝑘𝑁)

The ultimate skin friction of others layer will be shown as Table 10.10;

Table 10.10 Ultimate skin friction of soil layer

fs,i cohesive fs,i cohesionless Thickness 𝐴𝑠,𝑖 𝑄𝑠,𝑖
Layer 2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m ) (m) (m2) (kN)
1 15.232 0.516 4.4 13.13 206.771
2 26.215 4.505 4.2 12.53 384.922
3 2.5 61.782 30.3 90.43 5813.021
4 35.257 60.377 16.05 37.90 3624.529
5 30.528 68.947 12.7 11.94 1187.732
⟹ 𝑄𝑠 = ∑ 𝑄𝑠,𝑖 = 11216.975 𝑘𝑁

10.5. End bearing resistance and skin friction according to DA3

Design Approach 3 requires reduction by safety factors. The safety factors for soil
parameters will be shown as Table 10.11;

Table 10.11 Summary of partial factor for soil parameter

DA3 DA3
Factor
(Structural) (Geotechnical)
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan φ) γφ 1.25
Effective cohesion (c’) γc’ 1.25
Undrained strength (cu) γcu 1.4
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) γqu 1.4
Weight density (γ) γγ 1
Then, the end bearing resistance and skin friction accoridng to Design Approach 3 will
be re-calculated as follow.
a. End bearing resistance according to Design Approach 3
In the formulation of end bearing resistance, cu will be reduced by 1.4
𝑐 41.9
𝑞𝑝 = 6 × 𝑢 = 6 × = 179.57 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝛾𝑐𝑢 1.4

𝛾𝑐𝑢 : partial factor of undrain shear strength according to Design approach 3.

0.952
=> 𝑄𝑝 = 𝑞𝑝 × 𝐴𝑝 = 179.57 × 𝜋 × = 127.3 𝑘𝑁
4
b. Skin friction according to Design Approach 3
In the formulation of skin friction, tan φ will be reduced by 1.25 and cu will be reduced
by 1.4. The reduction will be denoted as Table 10.12 and Table 10.13;
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 133
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.12 Calculation for cohesionless unit skin friction with reduction coefficient
𝜑𝐼 min σ’v,i fs,i cohesionless
Type Layer 𝑘𝑠 2 tan(φa)
(degree) (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
Clay 1 2.40 0.958 19.296 0.022 0.413
Clay 2 8.76 0.848 51.962 0.082 3.604
Sand 3 22.61 0.616 372.675 0.215 49.425
Clay 4 14.9 0.743 464.091 0.215 48.301
Clay 5 14 0.758 553.38 0.140 55.158

Table 10.13 Calculation for cohesion unit skin friction with reduction coefficient
𝑐𝑢 fs,i cohesive
Layer 𝑐𝑢 /𝑝𝑎 α
(kN/m )2
(kN/m2)
1 11.429 0.114 0.989 11.303
2 23.500 0.235 0.885 20.798
3 1.786 0.018 1 1.786
4 38.214 0.382 0.754 28.814
5 29.929 0.299 0.821 24.571

Table 10.14 Ultimate skin friction of soil layer according to Design Approach 3
fs,i cohesive fs,i cohesionless Thickness 𝐴𝑠,𝑖 𝑄𝑠,𝑖
Layer 2 2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m ) (m) (m ) (kN)
1 11.303 0.413 4.4 13.13 153.831
2 20.798 3.604 4.2 12.53 305.757
3 1.786 49.425 30.3 90.43 4631.011
4 28.814 48.301 16.05 37.90 2922.659
5 24.571 55.158 12.7 11.94 951.964
⟹ 𝑄𝑠 = ∑ 𝑄𝑠,𝑖 = 8965.222 𝑘𝑁

10.6. Ultimate designed capacity of single pile

The designed capacity can be calculated as follow:
𝑄𝑝 𝑄𝑠
(𝑅𝑐𝑑 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = +
𝛾𝑏 × 𝛾𝑅𝑑 𝛾𝑠 × 𝛾𝑅𝑑
where:
𝛾𝑅𝑑 is the partial factor from model (For EuroCode 7, 𝛾𝑅𝑑 = 1.5).

For safe design, the self-weight of pile will also be considered:

𝑅𝑐𝑑 = (𝑅𝑐𝑑 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝑆𝑊 × 𝛾𝐺
For DA1-Comb1
𝑄𝑝 𝑄𝑠
(𝑅𝑐𝑑 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = + − 𝑆𝑊 × 𝛾𝐺
𝛾𝑏 ×𝛾𝑅𝑑 𝛾𝑠 ×𝛾𝑅𝑑
178 11216.975
(𝑅𝑐𝑑 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = + − 556.654 × 1.35 = 6821.434 (𝑘𝑁)
1.25×1.5 1×1.5

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 134

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.7. Internal force under column and shear wall extracted from ETABS

Table 10.15 Internal force under column and shear wall according to set A1
𝐹𝑧 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑦 𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑦
Element Location
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
C1 Bottom -11332.29 -51.72 -161.30 -198.39 -65.74
C2 Bottom -13148.48 -19.14 -170.30 -210.31 -21.25
C3 Bottom -13148.48 -21.61 -170.30 -210.31 -24.62
C4 Bottom -11332.30 5.54 -161.30 -198.39 12.44
C5 Bottom -11041.93 -165.91 -59.20 -73.56 -209.89
C6 Bottom -14890.36 7.77 -2.37 2.75 13.37
C7 Bottom -8103.67 -11.19 56.34 80.95 -12.63
C8 Bottom -8103.67 -15.83 56.34 80.95 -18.99
C9 Bottom -14890.38 -30.17 -2.37 2.75 -38.66
C10 Bottom -11041.94 44.02 -59.17 -73.51 68.65
C11 Bottom -11570.52 -171.64 13.27 25.48 -217.61
C12 Bottom -15108.02 10.02 -28.63 -32.96 16.43
C13 Bottom -7724.81 -11.66 -102.13 -134.02 -13.30
C14 Bottom -7724.81 -15.50 -102.13 -134.02 -18.56
C15 Bottom -15108.03 -33.03 -28.63 -32.95 -42.61
C16 Bottom -11570.50 49.23 13.26 25.46 75.46
C17 Bottom -11862.95 -42.52 64.81 101.67 -53.33
C18 Bottom -13119.69 -18.36 71.05 109.96 -20.33
C19 Bottom -13119.69 -20.44 71.05 109.96 -23.17
C20 Bottom -11862.92 -2.19 64.81 101.67 1.74
P1D Bottom -13743.95 -1072.57 -606.24 -536.15 -626.68
P6D Bottom -13744.08 -1072.52 -908.41 -1088.30 -626.63
P1A Bottom -16563.89 -1870.34 -1192.65 -2449.56 -4237.04
P6A Bottom -16563.66 -1870.26 -1494.25 -2832.60 -4237.15
PCore Bottom -69453.46 -8014.5 -10359.00 -55245.1 -94659.1

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 135

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.16 Internal force under column and shear wall according to set A2
𝐹𝑧 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑦 𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑦
Element Location
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
C1 Bottom -8716.15 -41.91 -128.39 -156.79 -53.00
C2 Bottom -9531.57 -12.69 -120.81 -149.87 -14.07
C3 Bottom -10093.29 -18.61 -135.22 -165.84 -21.17
C4 Bottom -8716.16 1.89 -128.39 -156.79 6.81
C5 Bottom -8532.66 -132.99 -47.15 -58.07 -167.59
C6 Bottom -11416.47 4.83 -3.21 0.81 8.98
C7 Bottom -6466.19 -9.96 40.73 59.16 -11.30
C8 Bottom -5730.09 -10.71 42.32 60.43 -12.87
C9 Bottom -11416.49 -24.25 -3.21 0.81 -30.89
C10 Bottom -8532.67 27.36 -47.13 -58.03 45.18
C11 Bottom -8882.70 -137.37 8.32 17.76 -173.49
C12 Bottom -11587.34 6.51 -23.51 -26.78 11.26
C13 Bottom -6146.20 -10.33 -80.46 -105.20 -11.83
C14 Bottom -6146.20 -13.21 -80.46 -105.20 -15.78
C15 Bottom -11587.34 -26.46 -23.51 -26.78 -33.95
C16 Bottom -8882.68 31.28 8.32 17.74 50.29
C17 Bottom -9101.30 -34.80 44.27 72.34 -43.41
C18 Bottom -9467.22 -16.02 49.14 78.82 -17.76
C19 Bottom -10068.57 -17.61 49.14 78.82 -19.94
C20 Bottom -9101.28 -3.95 44.27 72.34 -1.30
P1D Bottom -10562.85 -945.55 -540.80 -492.94 -562.23
P6D Bottom -10562.96 -945.51 -771.91 -914.92 -562.19
P1A Bottom -12755.50 -1609.43 -1049.08 -2142.55 -3656.03
P6A Bottom -12755.32 -1609.38 -1279.56 -2435.33 -3656.11
PCore Bottom -62518.88 -7247.7 -6893.7 -36888.7 -63106.1

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 136

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.8. Example calculation number of pile

We will take column C1 as example for calculating number of pile for this column.
Step 1: Summarize the parameter of pile cap.
• Width of pile cap B = 3.85m.
• Length of pile cap L = 3.85m.
• Thickness of pile cap h = 2m.
Step 2: The total axial force from upper structure acting on the center of the pile cap.
• For set A1: NEd,A1 = 11332.29 kN.
• For set A2: NEd,A2 = 8716.15 kN.
Step 3: The self-weight of pile cap.
• For set A1:
𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝,𝐴1 = 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑝 × ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑝 × 𝛾𝑐 × 𝛾𝐺,𝐴1 = 3.85 × 3.85 × 2 × 25 × 1.35 = 1000.52 𝑘𝑁

• For set A2:

𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝,𝐴2 = 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑝 × ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑝 × 𝛾𝑐 × 𝛾𝐺,𝐴2 = 3.85 × 3.85 × 2 × 25 × 1 = 741.125 𝑘𝑁

Step 4: The design compressive force acting on pile 𝐹𝑐𝑑 .

• For set A1:
𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐴1 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑,𝐴1 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝,𝐴1 = 11332.29 + 1000.52 = 12332.81 𝑘𝑁

• For set A2:

𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐴2 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑,𝐴2 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝,𝐴2 = 8716.15 + 741.125 = 9457.275 𝑘𝑁

Step 5: Determine number of pile.

𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐴𝑖
𝑛=𝛽×
𝑅𝑐𝑑,𝐴𝑖
𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴1−1 12332.81
For Design Approach 1 – Combo 1: 𝑛 = 𝛽 × = 1.3 × = 2.35 (piles)
𝑅𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴1−1 6821.4

𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴1−2 9457.275
For Design Approach 1 – Combo 2: 𝑛 = 𝛽 × = 1.3 × = 2.33 (piles)
𝑅𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴1−2 5269.8

𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴2 12332.81
For Design Approach 2 : 𝑛 = 𝛽 × = 1.3 × = 2.6 (piles)
𝑅𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴2 6154.6

𝐹𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴2 12332.81
For Design Approach 3 - Structural: 𝑛 = 𝛽 × = 1.3 × = 2.34 (piles)
𝑅𝑐𝑑,𝐷𝐴2 6845.2

 We provide 𝑛 = 4 piles for pile cap foundation below Column C1.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 137

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.9. Summary for calculation number of pile for each pile cap

Table 10.17 Number of piles for pile cap of columns and piers
Dimension of pile cap NEd,A1 NEd,A2 Gcap,A1 Gcap,A2 Fcd,A1 Fcd,A2 nDA1-1 nDA1-2 nDA2 nDA3 Choose n
Pile cap H
B (m) L (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) piles piles piles piles piles
(m)
C1 3.85 3.85 2 11332 8716 1001 741 12333 9457 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.3 4
C2 3.85 3.85 2 13148 9532 1001 741 14149 10273 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.7 4
PF1
C10 3.85 3.85 2 11042 8533 1001 741 12042 9274 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3 4
C11 3.85 3.85 2 11571 8883 1001 741 12571 9624 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.4 4
C6 4.6 4.6 2 14890 11416 1428 1058 16319 12474 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 4
C9 4.6 4.6 2 14890 11416 1428 1058 16319 12474 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 4
PF2
C12 4.6 4.6 2 15108 11587 1428 1058 16536 12645 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.1 4
C15 4.6 4.6 2 15108 11587 1428 1058 16536 12645 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.1 4
P1D 5 5 2 13744 10563 1688 1250 15431 11813 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 4
P6D 5 5 2 13744 10563 1688 1250 15432 11813 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 4
PF3
P1A 5 5 2 16564 12756 1688 1250 18251 14006 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.5 4
P6A 5 5 2 16564 12755 1688 1250 18251 14005 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.5 4
Pcore 16 16 3.5 69453 62519 30240 22400 99693 84919 19.0 20.9 21.1 18.9 25

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 138

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.10. Pile group stability

To design the most optimal solution, piles will also be considered in the case of pile
group. The pile group will include pile-pile interaction, pile-soil interaction.
There are many methods to validate this capacity from Terzaghi, Meyerholf, ... but the
most advanced one is from Brinch Hansen.
Formulation of Brinch Hansen include the depth factor in calculation, which makes its
suitable for deep foundation.
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 𝑏𝑐 + 𝑝𝑜 𝑁𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 𝑏𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 𝑏𝛾 (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )

where:
𝑁𝑐 ; 𝑁𝑞 ; 𝑁𝛾 are the bearing capacity factors.
𝑠𝑐 ; 𝑠𝑞 ; 𝑠𝛾 are the shape factors.
𝑑𝑐 ; 𝑑𝑞 ; 𝑑𝛾 are the depth factors.
𝑖𝑐 ; 𝑖𝑞 ; 𝑖𝛾 are the load inclination factors.
𝑏𝑐 ; 𝑏𝑞 ; 𝑏𝛾 are the base inclination factors.
𝛾 is density of the soil.
𝑝𝑜 is pressure of the overburden soil at the foundation level.
10.10.1. Equivalent raft method
The pile group can be modeled as an equivalent raft foundation.
The visualization will be shown as Figure 10.3;

Figure 10.3 Section of equivalent raft foundation of PF1

The dimension of equivalent draft is 2.25 × 2.25 × 51.6m.

10.10.2. Bearing capacity factor

The bearing capacity factor can be derived from the internal friction angle of the base
through below Table 10.18;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 139

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.18 Bearing capacity factor according to Brinch Hansen

φ φ
Nc Nq Nγ Nc Nq Nγ
(degrees) (degrees)
0 5.142 1.000 0.000 21 15.815 7.071 4.661
1 5.379 1.094 0.003 22 16.833 7.821 5.512
2 5.632 1.197 0.014 23 18.049 8.661 6.504
3 5.900 1.309 0.032 24 19.324 9.603 7.661
4 6.185 1.433 0.060 25 20.721 10.662 9.011
5 6.489 1.568 0.099 26 22.254 11.854 10.558
6 6.813 1.716 0.151 27 23.942 13.199 12.432
7 7.158 1.879 0.216 28 25.803 14.72 14.59
8 7.527 2.058 0.297 29 27.86 16.443 17.121
9 7.922 2.255 0.397 30 30.14 18.401 20.093
10 8.345 2.471 0.519 31 32.671 20.631 23.591
11 8.798 2.71 0.665 32 35.49 23.177 27.715
12 9.285 2.974 0.839 33 38.638 26.092 32.59
13 9.807 3.264 1.045 34 42.164 29.44 38.366
14 10.37 3.586 1.289 35 46.124 33.296 45.228
15 10.977 3.941 1.576 36 50.586 37.753 53.404
16 11.631 4.335 1.913 37 55.63 42.92 63.178
17 12.338 4.772 2.307 38 61.352 48.933 74.899
18 13.104 5.258 2.767 39 67.867 55.957 89.007
19 13.934 5.798 3.304 40 75.313 64.195 106.054
20 14.835 6.399 3.930
Based on the statics of investigation soil report, we have 𝜑 = 15.120 .
=> 𝑁𝑐 = 11.06; 𝑁𝑞 = 3.989; 𝑁𝛾 = 1.616;
10.10.3. Shape factors
Shape factor can be referred from the ratio of B/L and friction angle as Figure 10.4;

Figure 10.4 Shape factor by Brinch Hansen

𝐵 2.25
𝜑 = 15.120 and = =1
𝐿 2.25

=> 𝑠𝑐 = 1.2; 𝑠𝑞 = 1.0; 𝑠𝛾 = 0.92;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 140
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.10.4. Depth factors

Depth factor referred from the ratio of B/D and internal friction angle as Figure 10.5;

Figure 10.5 Depth factor by Brinch Hansen

𝐷 51.6
𝜑 = 15.120 and = = 22.93
𝐵 2.25
𝑑𝑐 −1
=> 𝑑𝑐 = 1.5; 𝑑𝑞 = = 1.5; 𝑑𝛾 = 1.0;
𝑁𝑞
10.10.5. Load inclination factor

The depth factor can be referred from the eccentricity of loads. The eccentricity of load
is causes by the moment effect.

𝑀𝑦𝑡𝑡 59.53
𝑒𝑥 = = = 0.0045𝑚;
𝑁𝑧𝑡𝑡 13148.48

𝑀𝑥𝑡𝑡 550.91
𝑒𝑦 = = = 0.04𝑚;
𝑁𝑧𝑡𝑡 13148.48

𝐵′ = 𝐵 − 2𝑒𝑥 = 2.25 − 2 × 0.0045 = 2.241𝑚;

𝐿′ = 𝐿 − 2𝑒𝑦 = 2.25 − 2 × 0.04 = 2.17 𝑚;
𝐻 170.3
= = 0.05;
𝐵′ ×𝐿′×𝑐+𝑉×𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 2.241×2.17×24.089+13148.48×𝑡𝑎𝑛15.12

𝐻 170.3
= = 0.013;
𝑉+𝐵′ ×𝐿′ ×𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜑 13148.48+2.241×2.17×𝑐𝑜𝑡15.12

where:
𝐻 is maximum horizontal load acting to the pile group (kN).
𝑉 is maximum vertical load acting to the pile group (kN).
𝐵′ and 𝐿′ are the equivalent dimension of pile cap (m2).
The load inclination factor can be calculated as Figure 10.6;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 141

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Figure 10.6 Load inclination factor by Brinch Hansen

=> 𝑖𝑐 = 0.9; 𝑖𝑞 = 0.9; 𝑖𝛾 = 0.9;

10.10.6. Base inclination factor

Because the foundation is all vertical, the base inclination factor can be taken as unity.
𝑏𝑐 = 1; 𝑏𝑞 = 1; 𝑏𝛾 = 1;

10.11. Settlement of pile cap PF1

10.11.1. Immediate settlement
Elastic settlement or immediate settlement is caused by the surcharge of supper-
structure. The soil is compressed by load and deformation takes place, causing
settlement.
The tip layer is laid on a clay base. Therefore, the method of calculating immediate
settlement for fine-grained soil can be applied.
𝜇0 × 𝜇1 × 𝑞 × 𝐵
𝑆𝑖 =
𝐸
where:
𝜇0 , 𝜇1 : Influence factors.
𝐸 = 𝐸𝑢 : Undrained modulus of soil base.
The settlement caused action can be determined as follow.
𝑄𝑔 𝑘𝑁
𝑞= ( )
𝐵 × 𝐿 𝑚2
𝑄𝑔 = 𝑁𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟−𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 (𝑘𝑁)
where:
❖ Nupper-structure is the total load from the upper structure extracted from ETABS
software by using SLS combo→ Nupper-structure = 9531.57kN.
❖ 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 is the self-weight of the pile cap:
𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 𝛾𝑐 × 𝑏𝑐𝑎𝑝 × 𝑙𝑐𝑎𝑝 × ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑝 = (25 − 10) × 3.85 × 3.85 × 2 = 444.675𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑄𝑔 = 𝑁𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟−𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 9531.57 + 444.675 = 9976.245 (𝑘𝑁)
𝑄𝑔 9976.245 𝑘𝑁
𝑞= = = 1970.616 ( 2 )
𝐵 × 𝐿 2.25 × 2.25 𝑚
The coefficient for influence factors 𝜇0 and 𝜇1 can be determined as Figure 10.7;
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 142
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Figure 10.7 Coefficient μ0 and μ1

𝐷 51.6
= = 22.93 => 𝜇0 = 0.84;
𝐵 2.25
𝐿 𝐻 7.3−4
= 1.0 and = = 1.46 => 𝜇1 = 0.35;
𝐵 𝐵 2.25

The module of deformation of soil is suggested to be determined as Figure 10.8;

Figure 10.8 Module of deformation of soil

𝑃𝐼 = 14.26%
𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 328.38 𝐸𝑢
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = = = 0.6 => = 1500 => 𝐸𝑢 = 1500 × 41.9 = 62850 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝜎′ 553.38 𝐶𝑢

where:
𝑐𝑢 is undrained shear strength from direct shear test of pile tip’s layer 5 (kPa).
Finally, the elastic settlement can be determined:
𝜇0 × 𝜇1 × 𝑞 × 𝐵 0.84 × 0.35 × 1970.616 × 2.25
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝜌 = = = 2.074 𝑐𝑚
𝐸 62850
10.11.2. Primary consolidation settlement
The primary consolidation settlement is cause by excessive pore water pressure from
the dissipation of pore water. This type of deformation only occurs in cohesive soil only
with undrained property. In cohesionless soil, the water dissipates so fast that excessive
pore water pressure cannot be formed, which will not create settlement. There are 2
main methods of calculating this settlement.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 143
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

- Division of settling zone

For pile group, the settling zone is a cone shape area. The dimension of top surface is
B×L of the equivalent raft.
The surface is expanded with the slope of 2 vertical: 1 horizontal. The start of the
expansion is from 2/3 length of the pile. The zone is illustrated as Figure 10.9;

Figure 10.9 Settling zone

The consolidation settlement of a group pile in clay can be estimated by using the 2:1
stress distribution method. The calculation involves the following steps:
- Step 1: Let the depth of embedment of the piles be L. The group is subjected to a total
load of Qg.
- Step 2: Assume that the load Qg is transmitted to the soil beginning at a depth of 2L/3
from the top of the pile. The load Qg spreads out along two vertical to one horizontal
line from this depth. Line aa’ and bb’ are the two 2:1 lines.
- Step 3: Calculate the increase in effective stress caused at the middle of each soil layer
by the load Qg. The formula is as follow:
The stress increment for this case can be calculated by the following method:
𝑄𝑔
∆𝜎 =
(𝐵𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 ) × (𝐿𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 )
where:
❖ ∆𝜎 is the increase in effective stress at the middle of each soil layer i (kN/m2).
❖ 𝑄𝑔 is the concentrated load by on pile cap (kN).
❖ 𝐵𝑔 and 𝐿𝑔 are the dimension of the pile group (m).
❖ 𝑧𝑖 is the depth of calculated soil layer i (m).
- Step 4: Calculate the consolidation settlement of each layer caused by the increased
stress. The formula is:
∆𝑒(𝑖)
∆𝑆𝑐(𝑖) = [ ] × 𝐻𝑖
1 + 𝑒0(𝑖)
where:
❖ ∆𝑆𝑐(𝑖) is the consolidation settlement of layer i (mm).
❖ ∆𝑒(𝑖) is the change of void ratio caused by the increase in stress in layer i.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 144
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

❖ 𝑒0(𝑖) is the initial void ratio of layer i (before construction)

❖ 𝐻𝑖 is the thickness of layer i
Note: For layer 2 𝐻𝑖 = 𝐿1 ; For layer 3 𝐻𝑖 = 𝐿2 ;
- Step 5: The total consolidation settlement of the group piles:
∆𝑆𝑐 = ∑ ∆𝑆𝑐(𝑖)
2 2
Given data: 𝑄𝑔 = 9531.57𝑘𝑁; 𝐵𝑔 = 3.85𝑚; 𝐿𝑔 = 3.85𝑚; 𝐿 = × 51.6 = 34.4𝑚;
3 3
- Step 1: The group of pile is subjected to a load of Qg = 9531.57kN.
- Step 2: Assume that the load Qg is transmitted to the soil beginning at a depth of 2L/3
from the top of the pile: zo = 2L/3 = 34.4m which is at layer 3 (elevation of the pile tip
-57m).
- Step 3: Calculate the increase in effective stress caused at the middle of each soil layer
by the load Qg.
𝑄𝑔
∆𝜎 =
(𝐵𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 ) × (𝐿𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 )

The results of effective stress will be summarized as Table 10.19;

Table 10.19 Calculate the effective stress at the middle of each soil layer
Elevation (m) Thickness z0 zi ∆𝜎
Layer
Top Bottom (m) (m) (m) (kN/m2)
3 -10.0 -40.3 30.3 34.4 0 0
4 -40.3 -50.5 10.2 34.4 11 54.29
5 -50.5 -57.8 7.3 34.4 19.75 19.69

10.11.2.1. Calculated by modulus of elasticity E

With modulus of elasticity, the primary consolidation settlement can be calculated as
follow:
𝛽
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × ∆𝜎 × 𝐻
𝐸
𝛽 is the coefficient related to Poisson’s ratio, can be 0.8 as conservative.
∆𝜎 is the stress increment (kN/m2).
𝐸 is the modulus of deformation, which can be integrated from total stress as Table
10.20;

Table 10.20 Module of elasticity by applied stresses

E (kN/m2)
Layer
0 100 200 400 800
4 - 13635.6 24112 35808 50468.6
5 - 11351.6 21140.2 31330.9 61686.1

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 145

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Consolidation settlement will be calculated and summarized as Table 10.21;

Table 10.21 Primary consolidation settlement by module of elasticity

σ Δσ E H Si
Type Layer 2 2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (m) (cm)
Clay 4 533.56 54.29 40703.17 10.2 1.09
Clay 5 605.903 19.69 46956.47 7.3 0.24

𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 4 = (1.4 + 4.4) × 5.36 + 4.2 × 9.94 + 30.3 × 10.62 + 12.7 × 10.94
𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 4 = 533.56 kN/m2
𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 5 = (1.4 + 4.4) × 5.36 + 4.2 × 9.94 + 30.3 × 10.62 + 12.7 × 10.94 + 7.3 ×
9.91 = 605.903 kN/m2
 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 = 1.09 + 0.24 = 1.33 𝑐𝑚 (1)
10.11.2.2. - Calculated by e-p diagram
From the e-p relationship, Δe can be calculated. From that, the deformation from the
dissipation can be determined. The variants of e-p of required layers can be shown as
Table 10.22;

Table 10.22 Variants of e-p relationship

Layer 4 Layer 5
2 2
p (kN/m ) e p (kN/m ) e
100 0.608 100 0.718
200 0.592 200 0.898
400 0.575 400 0.677
800 0.557 800 0.652
+ Layer 4
𝑝11 = 533.56 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑝22 = 𝑝11 + ∆𝜎 = 533.56 + 54.29 = 587.85 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑝11 : pressure at the middle of layer (kN/m2).
𝑝22 : pressure at the middle of layer after putting footing (kN/m2).
Based on the value of Table 10.22, we use interpolation between e and p to find 𝑒11
and 𝑒22 from 𝑝11 and 𝑝22 respectively.
 𝑒11 = 0.569; 𝑒22 = 0.567;
𝑒 −𝑒 0.569−0.567
 𝑆4 = 11 22 × 𝐻4 = × 10.2 × 100 = 1.3 𝑐𝑚
1+𝑒11 1+0.569

+ Layer 5
𝑝11 = 605.903 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑝22 = 𝑝11 + ∆𝜎 = 605.903 + 19.69 = 625.593 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 146

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

𝑝11 : pressure at the middle of layer (kN/m2).

𝑝22 : pressure at the middle of layer after putting footing (kN/m2).
Based on the value of Table 10.22, we use interpolation between e and p to find 𝑒11 and
𝑒22 from 𝑝11 and 𝑝22 respectively.
 𝑒11 = 0.664; 𝑒22 = 0.663;
𝑒 −𝑒 0.664−0.663
 𝑆5 = 11 22 × 𝐻5 = × 7.3 × 100 = 0.44 𝑐𝑚
1+𝑒11 1+0.664

𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 = 1.3 + 0.44 = 1.74 𝑐𝑚 (2)

For better reliability, the e of settlement will be the average value of 2 methods.
(1)+(2) 1.33+1.74
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑙 = = = 1.535 𝑐𝑚
2 2

10.12. Spring stiffness in SAP2000

Table 10.23 Calculate the spring stiffness in SAP2000 software

z K Cz k1x z K Cz k1x z K Cz k1x
(m) (kN/m ) (kN/m3)
4
(kN/m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m3)
4
(kN/m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m3)
4
(kN/m)

1 7000 7000 10990 20 10000 200000 314000 39 10000 390000 612300

2 7000 14000 21980 21 10000 210000 329700 40 12000 480000 753600

3 7000 21000 32970 22 10000 220000 345400 41 12000 492000 772440

4 7000 28000 43960 23 10000 230000 361100 42 12000 504000 791280

5 7000 35000 54950 24 10000 240000 376800 43 12000 516000 810120

6 7000 42000 65940 25 10000 250000 392500 44 12000 528000 828960

7 10000 70000 109900 26 10000 260000 408200 45 12000 540000 847800

8 10000 80000 125600 27 10000 270000 423900 46 12000 552000 866640

9 10000 90000 141300 28 10000 280000 439600 47 12000 564000 885480

10 10000 100000 157000 29 10000 290000 455300 48 12000 576000 904320

11 10000 110000 172700 30 10000 300000 471000 49 12000 588000 923160

12 10000 120000 188400 31 10000 310000 486700 50 10000 500000 785000

13 10000 130000 204100 32 10000 320000 502400 51 10000 510000 800700

14 10000 140000 219800 33 10000 330000 518100 52 10000 520000 816400

15 10000 150000 235500 34 10000 340000 533800 53 10000 530000 832100

16 10000 160000 251200 35 10000 350000 549500 54 10000 540000 847800

17 10000 170000 266900 36 10000 360000 565200 55 10000 550000 863500

18 10000 180000 282600 37 10000 370000 580900 56 10000 560000 879200

19 10000 190000 298300 38 10000 380000 596600 57 10000 570000 894900

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 147

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.13. Bored pile modelling in SAP2000 software

Step 1: Define material and frame section.
We consider the bored pile acts as column so we define the frame section for bored pile.

Figure 10.10 Define concrete material Figure 10.11 Define frame section
Step 2: Divide the frame section into segments with the length of each segment is 1m.
We based on the parameter about thickness of layer to draw the total length of bored
pile. The elevation at the pile’s tip is -57m.

Figure 10.12 Divided the frame into 57 segments

Step 3: Assign the spring properties.

Figure 10.13 Define joint spring Figure 10.14 Joint spring assignment

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 148

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Note: We only assign spring for joint except the top and bottom joint because we will
assign restraint for these joint suitably.

Figure 10.15 Assign the restraint for top (left) and bottom (right) joint

Step 4: Assign the load action applied to the bored pile.

The pile is considered to have only horizontal force acted on pile head. Moment at foot
of pile cap is converted to vertical force in pile, so the pile does not have moment
applying on the pile head, only horizontal force at the pile head.
❖ Horizontal force at pile cap: Hmax = 170kN (Set A).
170
❖ Horizontal force at single pile: Hi = = 42.575 kN.
4

Note: We define the self-weight multipler of Horizontal load as 0 so we will assign the
value of force manually.

Figure 10.16 Define load pattern

Figure 10.17 Assign joint force
10.14. Bending moment calculation for PF1
The applied load causing bending moment in pile cap is the reaction from the piles.
Therefore, model of calculation is the cantilever beam from the surface of column (as
Figure 10.18) where maximum bending moment for two axis is determined through
equation:
𝑀 = ∑(𝑃𝑖 × 𝑟𝑖 )
where:
𝑃𝑖 : Reaction of the pile tip affect to console surface (kN).
𝑟𝑖 : Distance from the point load ti the console surface (m).
For model calculation along X-axis:

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 149

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Figure 10.18 Pile cap act as cantilever beam along X-direction

Figure 10.19 Pile cap act as cantilever beam along Y-direction

We will compare the reaction component including P2+P4 and P1+P3 to find out the
largest reaction for calculating bending moment for pile cap PF1 as Table 10.24;

Table 10.24 Comparision reaction components applied to pile cap in 2 direction X and Y
Direction P1 (kN) P2 (kN) P3 (kN) P4 (kN) P1+P3 (kN) P2+P4 (kN)
X-axis 3177.87 3151.40 3422.84 3396.37 6600.71 6547.77
Direction P1 (kN) P2 (kN) P3 (kN) P4 (kN) P1+P2 (kN) P3+P4 (kN)
Y-axis 3177.87 3151.40 3422.84 3396.37 6329.27 6819.21

Based on the results from Table 10.24, we choose reaction from Pile 1 and Pile 3 to
calculate bending moment with Pmax = 6600.71 kN.
800
𝑟𝑖 = 𝑟1 = 𝑟3 = 1125 − = 725 𝑚𝑚 = 0.725 𝑚
2
𝑀𝐸𝑑 = ∑(𝑃𝑖 × 𝑟𝑖 ) = 𝑃1 × 𝑟1 + 𝑃3 × 𝑟3 = 6600.71 × 0.725 = 4785.5 𝑘𝑁𝑚
The others bending moment in 2 direction will be summarized as Table 10.25;

Table 10.25 Bending moment value applied to pile cap according to 2 direction
Direction Pmax (kN) 𝑟𝑖 (m) 𝑀𝐸𝑑 (kNm)
X-axis 6600.71 0.725 4785.8
Y-axis 6819.21 0.85 5796.3

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 150

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.15. Shear resistance of pile cap PF1:

For the critical on the right of pile cap:
𝑉𝐸𝑑,1 = 𝑁 𝑡𝑡 − (𝑃1 + 𝑃3 ) = 13148.48 − (3177.87 + 3422.84) = 6547.77 kN;
𝑉𝐸𝑑,2 = 𝑃2 + 𝑃4 = 3151.4 + 3396.37 = 6547.77 kN;
 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 6547.77 kN
Shear enhancement may be considered such that the shear force, may be
𝑎 425
decreased by 𝑎𝑣 /2d = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 × 𝑣 = 6547.77 × = 732.32 𝑘𝑁;
2𝑑 2×1900
200 200
𝑘 =1+√ =1+√ = 1.32 ≤ 2
𝑑 1900
𝐴𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 8063.42
𝜌1 = = = 0.11% ≤ 2%
𝑏×𝑑 3850×1900
1.5
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035.× 𝑘 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑
= 0.035.× 1.321.5 × √35 × 3850 × 1900 = 2297.1 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑 ≥ 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.32 × (100 × 0.11 × 35)3 ] × 3850 × 1900 = 1816 𝑘𝑁
→ 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 2297.1 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 732.32 𝑘𝑁
10.16. Shear resistance capacity of pile in PF1
A. CHECK SHEAR CAPACITY OF CONCRETE
The shear capacity of a pile cap should e checked at the critical section taken to be 20%
of the pile diameter inside the face of the pile. When the spacing of the piles exceeds
three times the pile diameter then the pile cap should be checked for punching shear.
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐
where:
𝑉𝐸𝑑 : Shear force applied along critical section (kN).
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 : Design shear resistance of the section without shear reinforcement (kN).
Critical section taken to be 20%×pile diameter inside the face of the pile. The critical
section will be defined as Figure 10.20;

Figure 10.20 Critical section of pile cap for check shear resistance

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 151

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

800 𝜙 800 1000

For X-axis: 𝑎𝑣 = 1125 − 500 − + = 1125 − 500 − + = 425mm
2 5 2 5

where:
𝑎𝑣 is the distance from the face of column to the critical section (mm).
Shear force along critical section: 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = ∑(𝑃𝑖 outside critical section).
The critical section of this pile cap will be considered and drawn as Figure 10.21;

Figure 10.21 Critical section of pile cap

For the critical on the right of pile cap:
𝑉𝐸𝑑,1 = 𝑁 𝑡𝑡 − (𝑃1 + 𝑃3 ) = 13148.48 − (3177.87 + 3422.84) = 6547.77 kN;
𝑉𝐸𝑑,2 = 𝑃2 + 𝑃4 = 3151.4 + 3396.37 = 6547.77 kN;
 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 6547.77 kN
Shear enhancement may be considered such that the shear force, may be
𝑎𝑣 425
decreased by 𝑎𝑣 /2d = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 × = 6547.77 × = 732.32 𝑘𝑁;
2𝑑 2×1900
200 200
𝑘 =1+√ =1+√ = 1.32 ≤ 2
𝑑 1900
𝐴𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 8063.42
𝜌1 = = = 0.11% ≤ 2%
𝑏×𝑑 3850×1900
1.5
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035.× 𝑘 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑
= 0.035.× 1.321.5 × √35 × 3850 × 1900 = 2297.1 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑 ≥ 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.32 × (100 × 0.11 × 35)3 ] × 3850 × 1900 = 1816 𝑘𝑁
→ 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 2297.1 𝑘𝑁 ≥ 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 732.32 𝑘𝑁

Conclusion:
• No shear reinforcement required for pile cap.
• After checking shear resistance condition of pile cap, we can conclude that shear
resistance capacity of pile cap is larger than maximum shear force applied to the
pile cap so we do not need shear bar for pile cap.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 152

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

B. CHECK SHEAR CAPACITY IN PERIMETER

❖ For spacing of piles ≤ 3× pile diameter, the enhancement of shear force may be
applied across the whole critical section so we do not need to check for punching
shear on the perimeter.
❖ For spacing of piles > 3×pile diameter, the pile cap should be checked for
punching shear on the perimeter.
Spacing between piles: Spiles = 1125mm and diameter of piles: d = 1000 mm.
=> Spiles= 1125𝑚𝑚 ≤ 3× 1000 = 3000mm.
=> No need for punching shear on the perimeter.
C. CHECK SHEAR FORCE AT COLUMN FACE
Condition of checking shear force at column face: 𝑉𝐸𝑑 < 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 [0.6 × (1 − )] × × 𝑢 × 𝑑 (𝑘𝑁)
250 1.5
where:
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 : the axial force applied from the column to pile cap (kN).
𝑢 is the perimeter of column (m) whereas 𝑢 = 2 × (𝑎 + 𝑏);
Columns supported by PF1 have dimension 800×550mm.
Perimeter of column 𝑢 = 2 × (0.8 + 0.55) = 2.7 𝑚;
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 = 13148.48 𝑘𝑁;
35 35
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 [0.6 × (1 − )] × × 2700 × 1900 = 30882.6 (𝑘𝑁) > 𝑉𝐸𝑑
250 1.5
 Condition of checking shear force at column face is satisfied.

10.17. Verification of PF1 pile’s capacity due to shear force

Design shear force VEd = 40.02kN.
Shear resistance of pile:
𝜋𝑑 2 1/2 𝜋𝑑 2
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘 (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )1/3 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ] × 3/2
≥ (0.0035𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ) ×
4 4
200
𝑘 =1+√ = 1.47 ≤ 2; 𝑘1 = 0.15;
900
𝜋×162
16×
4
𝜌1 = 𝜋×10002
= 0.004 < 0.02
4
𝑁𝐸𝑑 3422.84×1000
𝜎𝑐𝑝 = = 𝜋×10002
= 4.36𝑀𝑃𝑎;
𝐴𝑐
4
𝜋𝑑 2 1/2 𝜋𝑑 2
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘 (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )1/3 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ] × 3/2
≥ (0.0035𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ) ×
4 4
1/3 𝜋×10002
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.47 × (100 × 0.004 × 35) + 0.15 × 4.36] × =
4
847.6𝑘𝑁 > 542.6𝑘𝑁
 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 847.6𝑘𝑁 > 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 40.02𝑘𝑁
 The shear resistance of concrete is satisfied to the shear conditions. Provide
the transverse reinforcement as a constructive reinforcement ∅10a200.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 153
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.18. Modelling PFC in SAFE for internal force

In this part, we will use SAFE program to determine the reaction force of the bored pile
acting on the pile cap. The pile cap is declared as shell element (thick plate with 3.5m
thickness). Bored piles under the pile cap are assigned as a springs with stiffness of 𝐾𝑖 .
Step 1: Import the data of basement from ETABS and export to SAFE.

Figure 10.22 Import data from ETABS Figure 10.23 Export data to SAFE
Step 2: Define the pile cap properties.
We define the pile cap as shell element with the thickness of pile cap is 3.5m.

Figure 10.24 Define pile cap section

Step 3: Draw design strips for extracting the internal force of pile cap.
Because we consider the pile cap as shell element so we draw design strips (width of
strips is 1m) similar to design slab process.

Figure 10.25 Design strips A and strip B

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 154

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Step 4: Define and assign spring properties.

In this part, the pile reactions are determined using SAFE program. The model is
transferred from ETABS. Pile cap is declared as Shell element (thick plate with 3.5m
thickness). Bored piles under the pile cap are declared as springs with stiffness:
𝑄 𝑘𝑁
𝐾= ( )
𝑆 𝑚𝑚
where:
𝑄 is the bearing capacity of pile and 𝑄 = 5269.8 𝑘𝑁;
𝑆 is the immediate settlement which may be determined as:
𝐷 𝑄𝐿
𝑆= +
100 𝐴𝐸
where:
𝐷 is the diamter of bored pile (m) and 𝐷 = 0.1m;
𝜋𝐷 2
𝐴 is the cross-section area of bored pile (m2) and 𝐴 = = 0.785𝑚2 ;
4
𝐸 is the elastic modulus of pile’s material (MPa) and 𝐸 = 33000MPa;
𝐿 is the length of bored pile (m) and 𝐿 = 50.1m;
𝑄 is the applied load (kN) and 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 3226.57𝑘𝑁;
Therefore, the single pile’s settlement can be computed as follows:
0.95 5269.8×50.1
𝑆= + = 11.1𝑚𝑚 < 50𝑚𝑚 => Satisfied.
100 0.785×33000×103
The spring stiffness (Z direction) can be determined follows the expression below:
𝑄 5269.8 𝑘𝑁
𝐾= = = 475 ( )
𝑆 11.1 𝑚𝑚
10.19. Pile group stability for PFC
The pile goup stability of PFC can be determined as follow:
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 𝑏𝑐 + 𝑝𝑜 𝑁𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 𝑏𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 𝑏𝛾 (𝑘𝑁)
where:
𝑁𝑐 ; 𝑁𝑞 ; 𝑁𝛾 are the bearing capacity factors.
𝑠𝑐 ; 𝑠𝑞 ; 𝑠𝛾 are the shape factors.
𝑑𝑐 ; 𝑑𝑞 ; 𝑑𝛾 are the depth factors.
𝑖𝑐 ; 𝑖𝑞 ; 𝑖𝛾 are the load inclination factors.
𝑏𝑐 ; 𝑏𝑞 ; 𝑏𝛾 are the base inclination factors.
𝛾 is density of the soil.
𝑝𝑜 is pressure of the overburden soil at the foundation level.
10.19.1.1. Equivalent raft method
The pile group can be modeled as an equivalent raft foundation. The visualization will
be shown as Figure 10.26;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 155

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Figure 10.26 Section of equivalent raft foundation of PFC

The dimension of equivalent draft is 14 x 14 x 50.1m.

10.19.1.2. Bearing capacity factor
Based on the statics of investigation soil report, we have 𝜑 = 15.120 .
=> 𝑁𝑐 = 11.06; 𝑁𝑞 = 3.989 𝑁𝛾 = 1.616;
10.19.1.3. Shape factors
𝐵 14
𝜑 = 15.120 and = =1
𝐿 14

=> 𝑠𝑐 = 1.2; 𝑠𝑞 = 1.0; 𝑠𝛾 = 0.92;

10.19.1.4. Depth factors
𝐷 50.1
𝜑 = 15.120 and = = 3.58
𝐵 14
𝑑𝑐 −1
=> 𝑑𝑐 = 1.5; 𝑑𝑞 = = 1.5; 𝑑𝛾 = 1.0;
𝑁𝑞

where 𝜑 is greater than 250, 𝑑𝑞 can be taken as equal to 𝑑𝑐 .

10.19.1.5. Load inclination factor
𝑀𝑦𝑡𝑡 122709.7 𝑀𝑥𝑡𝑡 91501.6
𝑒𝑥 = = = 1.767𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑦 = = = 1.317𝑚;
𝑁𝑧𝑡𝑡 69453.46 𝑁𝑧𝑡𝑡 69453.46

𝐵′ = 𝐵 − 2𝑒𝑥 = 14 − 2 × 1.767 = 10.466𝑚;

𝐿′ = 𝐿 − 2𝑒𝑦 = 14 − 2 × 1.317 = 11.366𝑚;
𝐻 10359
= = 0.479;
𝐵′ ×𝐿′×𝑐+𝑉×𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 10.466×11.366×24.089+69453.46 ×𝑡𝑎𝑛15.12
𝐻 10359
= = 0.148;
𝑉+𝐵′ ×𝐿′ ×𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜑 69453.46+10.466×11.366×𝑐𝑜𝑡15.12

=> 𝑖𝑐 = 0.8; 𝑖𝑞 = 0.9; 𝑖𝛾 = 0.8;

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 156

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.19.1.6. Base inclination factor

Because the foundation is all vertical, the base inclination factor can be taken as unity.
𝑏𝑐 = 1; 𝑏𝑞 = 1; 𝑏𝛾 = 1;
10.20. Settlement of pile cap PFC
10.20.1. Immediate settlement
Similar to part 16.5.5.1, the immediate settlement for fine-grained soil can be
determined as follow:
𝜇0 × 𝜇1 × 𝑞 × 𝐵
𝑆𝑖 =
𝐸
where:
𝜇0 , 𝜇1 : Influence factors.
𝐸 = 𝐸𝑢 : Undrained modulus of soil base.
The settlement caused action can be determined as follow.
𝑄𝑔 𝑘𝑁
𝑞= ( )
𝐵 × 𝐿 𝑚2
𝑄𝑔 = 𝑁𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟−𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 (𝑘𝑁)
where:
❖ Nupper-structure is the total load from the upper structure extracted from ETABS
software by using combo 1.0DL + 1.0LL → Nupper-structure = 62518.88kN.
❖ 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 is the self-weight of the pile cap:
𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 𝛾𝑐 × 𝑏𝑐𝑎𝑝 × 𝑙𝑐𝑎𝑝 × ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑝 = (25 − 10) × 14 × 14 × 2 = 5880𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑄𝑔 = 𝑁𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟−𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝐺𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 62518.88 + 5880 = 68398.88 (𝑘𝑁)
𝑄𝑔 68398.88 𝑘𝑁
𝑞= = = 575 ( 2 )
𝐵 × 𝐿 10.466 × 11.366 𝑚
𝐷 50.1
= = 3.58 => 𝜇0 = 0.9;
𝐵 14
𝐿 𝐻 7.3−4
= 1.0 and = = 0.24 => 𝜇1 = 0.015;
𝐵 𝐵 14

𝑃𝐼 = 14.26%
𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 328.38 𝐸𝑢
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = = = 0.6 => = 1500 => 𝐸𝑢 = 1500 × 41.9 = 62850 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝜎′ 553.38 𝐶𝑢

where:
𝑐𝑢 is undrained shear strength from direct shear test of pile tip’s layer 5 (kPa).
Finally, the elastic settlement can be determined
𝜇0 × 𝜇1 × 𝑞 × 𝐵 0.84 × 0.015 × 575 × 10.466
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝜌 = = = 0.121 𝑐𝑚
𝐸 62850
10.20.2. Primary consolidation settlement
2 2
Given data: 𝑄𝑔 = 68398.88 𝑘𝑁; 𝐵𝑔 = 16𝑚; 𝐿𝑔 = 16𝑚; 𝐿 = × 50.1 = 33.4𝑚;
3 3

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 157

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

- Step 1: The group of pile is subjected to a load of Qg = 68398.88 kN.

- Step 2: Assume load Qg is transmitted to the soil beginning at a depth of 2L/3 from the
top of the pile: zo = 2L/3 = 33.4m which is at layer 3 (elevation of pile tip -57m).
- Step 3: Calculate increase in effective stress caused at middle of each soil layer by Qg.
𝑄𝑔
∆𝜎 =
(𝐵𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 ) × (𝐿𝑔 + 𝑧𝑖 )
The results of effective stress will be summarized as Table 10.26;

Table 10.26 Calculate the effective stress at the middle of each soil layer
Elevation (m) Thickness z0 zi ∆𝜎
Layer
Top Bottom (m) (m) (m) (kN/m2)
3 -10.0 -40.3 30.3 33.4 0 0
4 -40.3 -50.5 10.2 33.4 12 87.24
5 -50.5 -57.8 7.3 33.4 20.75 50.64
10.20.2.1. Calculated by modulus of elasticity E
With modulus of elasticity, consolidation settlement can be calculated as follow:
𝛽
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × ∆𝜎 × 𝐻
𝐸
𝛽 is the coefficient related to Poisson’s ratio, can be 0.8 as conservative.
∆𝜎 is the stress increment (kN/m2).
𝐸 is the modulus of deformation, integrated from total stress as Table 10.27;

Table 10.27 Module of elasticity by applied stresses

E (kN/m2)
Layer
0 100 200 400 800
4 - 13635.6 24112 35808 50468.6
5 - 11351.6 21140.2 31330.9 61686.1

The primary consolidation settlement of foundation will be calculated and summarized

as Table 10.28;

Table 10.28 Primary consolidation settlement by module of elasticity

σ Δσ E H Si
Type Layer
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (cm)
Clay 4 533.56 87.24 40703.17 10.2 1.75
Clay 5 605.903 50.64 46956.47 7.3 0.63
𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 4 = (1.4 + 4.4) × 5.36 + 4.2 × 9.94 + 30.3 × 10.62 + 12.7 × 10.94
𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 4 = 533.56 kN/m2
𝜎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 5 = (1.4 + 4.4) × 5.36 + 4.2 × 9.94 + 30.3 × 10.62 + 12.7 × 10.94 + 7.3 ×
9.91 = 605.903 kN/m2
 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 = 1.75 + 0.63 = 2.38 𝑐𝑚 (1)

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 158

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.20.2.2. Calculated by e-p diagram

From the e-p relationship, Δe can be calculated. From that, the deformation from the
dissipation can be determined.

Table 10.29 Variants of e-p relationship

Layer 4 Layer 5
2 2
p (kN/m ) e p (kN/m ) e
100 0.608 100 0.718
200 0.592 200 0.898
400 0.575 400 0.677
800 0.557 800 0.652

+ Layer 4
𝑝11 = 533.56 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑝22 = 𝑝11 + ∆𝜎 = 533.56 + 87.24 = 620.8 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
where:
𝑝11 : pressure at the middle of layer (kN/m2).
𝑝22 : pressure at the middle of layer after putting footing (kN/m2).
Based on the value of Table 10.29, we use interpolation between e and p to find 𝑒11 and
𝑒22 from 𝑝11 and 𝑝22 respectively.
 𝑒11 = 0.569; 𝑒22 = 0.565;
𝑒 −𝑒 0.569−0.565
 𝑆4 = 11 22 × 𝐻4 = × 10.2 × 100 = 2.6 𝑐𝑚
1+𝑒11 1+0.569

+ Layer 5
𝑝11 = 605.903 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑝22 = 𝑝11 + ∆𝜎 = 605.903 + 50.64 = 656.543 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
where:
𝑝11 : pressure at the middle of layer (kN/m2).
𝑝22 : pressure at the middle of layer after putting footing (kN/m2).
Based on the value of Table 10.29, we use interpolation between e and p to find 𝑒11 and
𝑒22 from 𝑝11 and 𝑝22 respectively.
 𝑒11 = 0.664; 𝑒22 = 0.661;
𝑒 −𝑒 0.664−0.661
 𝑆5 = 11 22 × 𝐻5 = × 7.3 × 100 = 1.32 𝑐𝑚
1+𝑒11 1+0.664

𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 = 2.6 + 1.32 = 3.92 𝑐𝑚 (2)

For better reliability, the final value of settlement will be the average value of 2
methods.
(1)+(2) 3.92+2.38
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑙 = = = 3.15 𝑐𝑚
2 2

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 159

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.21. Flexural reinforcement of pile cap PFC

Step 1: Check condition of ductile failure.

𝑀𝐸𝑑 2082.94 × 106
𝐾= = = 0.005 ≤ 0.167
𝑏 × 𝑑 2 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1000 × 33502 × 35
The K value satisfied the condition, therefore, compressive reinforcement is not
required. The design will be the singly reinforcement section member.
Step 2: Determine the lever arm.
𝐾 0.005
𝑧 = 𝑑 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 3350 × (0.5 + √0.25 − ) = 3334.26𝑚𝑚
1.134 1.134

=> 𝑧 = 3334.26𝑚𝑚 > 0.95𝑑 = 3182.5𝑚𝑚 => 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑧 = 3182.5𝑚𝑚

Step 3: Calculate the area of reinforcement.
𝑀𝐸𝑑 2082.94 × 106
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = = 2507.66 𝑚𝑚2
0.87 × 𝑓𝑦𝑘 × 𝑧 0.87 × 300 × 3182.5
𝐴𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞 2507.66
𝜌= = = 0.075%
𝑏× 𝑑 1000×3350

1000 𝜋×𝐷 2 1000 𝜋×252

Provide 25a120 => 𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 = × = × = 3272.49 𝑚𝑚2
𝑎 4 150 4

𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 3272.49
𝜌= = = 0.098%
𝑏× ℎ 1000×3350

10.22. Shear resistance capacity of pile cap PFC

A. CHECK SHEAR CAPACITY OF CONCRETE
According to EC2-1 Section 6.2.2 (6): “For members with loads applied on the upper
side within a distance 0.5𝑑 ≤ 𝑎𝑣 ≤ 2𝑑 from the edge of a support (or center of bearing
where flexible bearings are used), the contribution of this load to the shear force VEd
may be multiplied by β = 𝑎𝑣 /2𝑑. This reduction may be applied for checking VRd,c.

Figure 10.27 Loads near support

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 160

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Punching shear of piles acting upon the pile cap PFC requires a lot of work due large
number of piles. On the other hand the mechanics of punching shear force in pile cap
will be assumed as shear force in a beam. Therefore, foundation system PFC is modeled
in SAFE with shear force obtained from strip layers. These strips shall be drawn across
piles position to obtain the shear force acting from piles upon pile cap.

Figure 10.28 Shear force of strip A and strip B

The shear force from these strips (X and Y directions) should be verified with the
maximum shear capacity of pile cap. These values will be shown as Figure 10.28;
In this pile cap, the distance between the edge of the bored pile to the edge of the border
is shear span 𝑎𝑣 ;
Shear resistance of the pile cap with 𝑏 = 1000mm; 𝑑 = 3500 – 100 - 50 = 3350mm.
2𝑑 = 6.7m > 𝑎𝑣 = 1.5m > 0.5𝑑 = 1.675m, therefore 𝑎𝑣 is taken as 1.5m;
• For X-direction:
The largest shear force from strips A from SAFE 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1939.25𝑘𝑁;
200
𝑘 =1+√ = 1.244 < 2 => 𝑘 = 1.244
3350
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 3272.49
𝜌1 = = = 0.098 % ≤ 2%
𝑏𝑑 1000×3350
1.5
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035 × 𝑘 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑
= 0.035 × 21.5 × √35 × 1000 × 3350 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑
1
= [0.12 × 2 × ( 100 × 0.098% × 35)3 ] × 1000 × 3350 = 1212.5 𝑘𝑁
=> 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁
Shear enhancement may be considered such that the shear force V Ed may be decreased
𝑎 1.5
by = 𝑣 = = 0.224
2𝑑 2×3.35

=> 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.224 × 1939.25 = 434.392 𝑘𝑁 < 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁;

 Condition of shear force checking according to X direction is satisfied.
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 161
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

• For Y-direction:
The largest shear force from strips A from SAFE 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1095.075𝑘𝑁;
200
𝑘 =1+√ = 1.244 < 2 => 𝑘 = 1.244
3350
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 3272.49
𝜌1 = = = 0.098 % ≤ 2%
𝑏𝑑 1000×3350
1.5
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035 × 𝑘 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏 × 𝑑
= 0.035 × 21.5 × √35 × 1000 × 3350 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 𝑘 × (100 × 𝜌1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ] × 𝑏 × 𝑑
1
= [0.12 × 2 × ( 100 × 0.098% × 35)3 ] × 1000 × 3350 = 1212.5 𝑘𝑁
=> 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁
Shear enhancement may be considered such that the shear force V Ed may be decreased
𝑎 1.5
by = 𝑣 = = 0.224
2𝑑 2×3.35

=> 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.224 × 1095.075 = 245.3 𝑘𝑁 < 𝑉𝑟𝑑,𝑐 = 1961.97 𝑘𝑁;

 Condition of shear force checking according to Y direction is satisfied.
B. PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF PILE CAP
We will take the Pier 8 as example with the dimension of pier will be shown as Figure
10.29 and the damage failure caused by punching shear illustrated as Figure 10.30;

Figure 10.29 Shear resistance of Pier 8 Figure 10.30 Shear damage area

Typical basic control perimeters around loaded areas will be shown as Figure 10.31;

Figure 10.31 Typical basic control perimeters around loaded areas

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 162

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

We will conclude that no punching shear reinforcement is needed if the punching shear
capacity of concrete along perimeter u1 – at distance 2d from the column perimeter u0
– is greater than the actual shear stres:
𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑢1 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐
𝑉𝐸𝑑
𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑢1 = 𝛽 ×
𝑢1 × 𝑑
𝑀𝐸𝑑 𝑢1
𝛽 =1+𝑘× ×
𝑉𝐸𝑑 𝑊1
where:
𝑢1 is the length of the basic control perimeter (mm);
𝑘 is a coefficient dependent on the ratio between the core dimensions 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 : its value
is a function of the proportions of the unbalanced moment transmitted by uneven shear
and by bending and torsion (see Table 10.30).

Table 10.30 Values of k for rectangular loaded areas

𝑐1 /𝑐2 ≤ 0.5 1.0 2.0 ≥ 3.0
𝑘 0.45 0.60 0.70 0.80

𝑊1 corresponds to a distribution of shear and is a function of the basic control perimeter.

𝑐1 2
𝑊1 = + 𝑐1 × 𝑐2 + 4𝑐2 𝑑 + 16𝑑 2 + 2𝜋𝑑𝑐1
2
where:
𝑐1 , 𝑐2 are the dimensions of shear wall (m).

→ Using Pier 8 as an example. The  can be determined as follow:

Effective depth d = h – a = 3500 – 150 = 3350mm = 3.35m;
Internal force value applied to bottom Pier 8 extracted from SAFE: 𝑀𝐸𝑑 =
1858.74𝑘𝑁𝑚 and 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 1154.23𝑘𝑁.
𝑐1 4.7
𝑐1 = 4.7𝑚 and 𝑐2 = 0.2𝑚 → = ⟶ 𝑘 = 0.8;
𝑐2 0.2
𝑢0 = 2(𝑐1 + 𝑐2 ) = 2 × (4.7 + 0.2) = 9.8𝑚
𝑢1 = 𝑢0 + 4𝜋𝑑 = 9.8 + 4𝜋 × 3.35 = 51.9𝑚
4.72
𝑊1 = + 4.7 × 0.2 + 4 × 0.2 × 3.35 + 16 × 3.352 + 2𝜋 × 3.35 × 4.7 = 293𝑚2
2
𝑀𝐸𝑑 𝑢1 1858.74 51.9
𝛽 =1+𝑘× × = 1 + 0.8 × × = 1.23
𝑉𝐸𝑑 𝑊1 1154.23 293
𝑉𝐸𝑑 1154.23
Maximum shear stress 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑢0 = 𝛽 × = 1.23 × = 43.24𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑢0 ×𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 9.8×3.35
Maximum shear stress resistance 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 depend on the type of concrete will be shown
as Table 10.31;
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 163
 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

Table 10.31 Values of 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (MPa) according to concrete type

𝑓𝑐𝑘 (MPa) 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (MPa)
20 3.68
25 4.50
28 4.97
30 5.28
32 5.58
35 6.02
40 6.72
45 7.38
50 8.00

For concrete class C35/45:

→ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 6.02𝑀𝑃𝑎 = 6020𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 > 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑢0 = 43.24𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑉𝐸𝑑 1154.23
Design shear stress 𝑉𝐸𝑑,𝑢1 = = = 6.64𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑢1 ×𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 51.9×3.35

2𝑑
Design shear resistance of concrete without reinforcement: 𝑉𝑅𝑑 = × 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐
𝑎

where: 𝑎 is the distance from the periphery of the column to the control perimeter
considered = 2𝑑 => 𝑉𝑅𝑑 = 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 1961.97𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 > 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 6.64𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

Conclusion: The shear resistance of concrete (without reinforcement) is larger than the
shear stress applied to the pile cap so thear stress capacity of pile cap is satisfied the
shear strength condition.
C. CHECK SHEAR FORCE AT SHEAR WALL SECTION
→ Using Pier 8 as an example with the parameter dimension of Pier 8 are mentioned as
Part 18.6.6.3b;
Condition of checking shear force at shear wall section: 𝑉𝐸𝑑 < 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 [0.6 × (1 − )] × × 𝑢 × 𝑑 (𝑘𝑁)
250 1.5
where:
𝑉𝐸𝑑 : the shear force applied from the core elevator to pile cap (kN) 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 1124.53𝑘𝑁.
𝑢 is the perimeter of shear wall (m) whereas 𝑢 = 2 × (𝑎 + 𝑏) = 9.8𝑚;
35 35
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 [0.6 × (1 − )] × × 9800 × 3350 = 197637 (𝑘𝑁) > 𝑉𝐸𝑑 =
250 1.5
1124.53 𝑘𝑁
 Condition of checking shear force at shear wall section is satisfied.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 164

 ANNEX 10. BORED PILE SOLUTION

10.23. Verification of pile’s capacity

Verification of pile’s capacity due to axial load and bending moment

Figure 10.32 Design chart for pile with circular section

𝑁𝐸𝑑 3226.57×1000 𝑀𝐸𝑑 698.09×106
= = 0.102; = = 0.023;
ℎ 2 ×𝑓𝑐𝑘 9502 ×35 3
ℎ ×𝑓𝑐𝑘 9503 ×35
→ The value is in the interaction diagram.
→ Assumption 16𝜙16 satisfied the required reinforcement area.

10.23.1. Verification of pile’s capacity due to shear force

1/3
𝜋𝑑 2 3/2 1/2 𝜋𝑑 2
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘 (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ) + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ] × ≥ (0.0035𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ) ×
4 4
200
𝑘 =1+√ = 1.47 ≤ 2; 𝑘1 = 0.15;
900

𝜋×162
16×
4
𝜌1 = 𝜋×10002
= 0.004 < 0.02
4

𝑁𝐸𝑑 3226.57×1000
𝜎𝑐𝑝 = = 𝜋×10002
= 4.108𝑀𝑃𝑎;
𝐴𝑐
4

𝜋𝑑 2 1/2 𝜋𝑑 2
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘 (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )1/3 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ] × ≥ (0.0035𝑘 3/2
)
𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 𝑘1 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ×
4 4
𝜋×10002
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.47 × (100 × 0.004 × 35)1/3 + 0.15 × 4.108] × = 817.87𝑘𝑁 >
4
812.4kN
 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 817.87𝑘𝑁 > 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 372.54𝑘𝑁
The shear resistance of concrete is satisfied to the shear conditions. Provide the
transverse reinforcement as a constructive reinforcement ∅10a200.

Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment 165

 REFERENCES
[1] A. J. Bond, How-to-design-concrete-structures-using-Eurocode-2.pdf. Surrey
GU17 9AB: Concrete Centre, 2006
[2] BS-EN1997-1 (2004), “Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General
rules”, British Standard.
[3] BS-EN1991-1-4 (2005), “Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General
actions - Wind actions”, British Standard
[4] BS-EN1992-1-1 (2004), “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings”, British Standard.
[5] BS-EN1992-1-2 (2004), “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-2:
General rules – Structural fire design”, British Standard.
[6] BS-EN1998-1-1 (2004), “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake - Part
1-1: General rules, seismic action and rules for buildings”, British Standard.
[7] CEN, “Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions – Wind
actions, Committee for Standarization,” vol. 3. 2005.
[8] ETABS, “Integrated Building Design Software.” Computers and Structures,
INC, New York, 2017.
[9] European Committe for Standardisation, “EN1990-E:2002 Basis of structural
design.”
[10] Ho Duc Duy (2020), “Reinforced Concrete Structure (Design to Eurocode 2)”,
Lecture note.
[11] H. H. Chinh, “Reinforced Concrete Structures 1 - Lecture note,” Ho Chi Minh
City University of Technology, 2020.
[12] Le Ba Vinh (2020), “Foundation engineering (Design to Eurocode 7)”, Lecture
note.
[13] N. T. P. Phan Quang Minh, Ket cau Betong Cot Thep - Thiet ke theo tieu chuan
Chau Au. Ha Noi: Nha Xuat Ban Xay Dung, 2015.
[14] SAP2000, “Integrated Solution for Structural Analysis and Design,” Computers
and structures, INC. Computers and Structures, INC, 2021.
[15] SAFE, “Design of Slabs, Beams and Foundations Reinforced and Post-
Tensioned Concrete.” Computers and Structures, INC, New York, 2016.
[16] Software application for this project:
+ ETABS 18 - Computer and Structures. Inc (CSI)
+ AutoCad 2019 – Autodesk company
+ SAP2000
+ SAFE
Tran Vi Khang – 1852452 –Dai Phuc Apartment