You are on page 1of 36

# Previous Page

253

## where modulus of elasticity of steel = E, = 30 x 10 psi a, = 0.5 for uniform

distribution of skin friction.

B9P

- 0*03
12 x 58.88

## l3 where C, = 0.03 from Table 5.6 and

Q 58.88
q, = L!= -kips/in.
A,
113

S, = 0.094 in.

s,

=sQf.
from equation (5.37)

Df 4,

## + O . 1 6 m * C p from equation (5.38)

= 0.93 + 0 . 1 6 J m * 0 . 0 3 = 0.054

C, = 0.93

spa

## 0.054 x 11.4 x 113 =0.0033in.

360 x 58.88

S,= Ss+ S p + S p s
= 0.01 1

+ 0.094 + 0.0033

## = 0.108 in. (2.7 mm)

2. Empirical Method
S, =

100

+ QUIl
L from equation (5.39)
APE,

- l 2 + 31 x 360 x 1000
-100 26.496 x 30 x lo6
=0.12 +0.014=0.134in. (3.35mm)

## 5.1.5 Settlement of Pile Groups in Cohesionless Soils

The settlement of a pile group (S,) is normally greater than the settlement of a
single pile (S,) at equal load per pile because of the larger depth of influence (De)
of a group as compared to that of a single pile (De,) (shown conceptually in
Figure 5.14). No general theory to predict pile group settlements in cohesionless
soils is available. Many empirical and semiempirical methods with gross
approximations are available but cannot be recommended without reservations.

254

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

(a)

(b/

Figure 514 Zone of influencesfor a pile group and a single pile. (a)Zone of influence for
settlement of pile group. (b) Zone of inlluence for settlement of a single pile.

## For design purposes, the simplest of these methods is recommended as follows

(Vesic, 1977), according to which,
sG

=s
t
m

(5.40)

where
SG = group settlement at load per pile equal to that of the single pile
S, = settlement of a single pile estimated or determined from pile load test
7; = width of pile group (smaller dimension)

## B = individual pile diameter

A similar empirical relationship for estimating the settlement of pile groups has
been provided by Skempton (1953). This is a very conservative approach and is

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

255

not generally used in practice. In the absence of field load test data on pile groups,

## equation (5.40) is,generally recommended in engineering practice (Foundation

and Earth Structures Design Manual DM 7-2, 1982 and Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual, 1985) and can be used to obtain pile group settlements in
cohesionless soils.
Meyerhof (1976) presented conservative empirical expressions for preliminary
estimatesof the total settlements of pile foundations in cohesionless soil using the
results of standard penetration test (N)and static cone penetration (4J values as
follows:
1. Based on standard penetration (N) values:

sG= 2 p J m j

(5.41)

where
p = net foundation pressure, in tons/ft*
6 = the width of pile group, in feet
# = the average corrected standard penetration test values, in blows/ft
(blows per 0.3m) within the seat of settlement (roughly equal to 6
in homogeneous soils)
1 = [l - Df/86] 2 0.5
D, =effective depth in the bearing stratum = pile length

For silty sand, the values of SG obtained from equation (5.41) should be
doubled.
2. Based on static cone penetration '(qe)values:

All these preliminary estimates are based on the assumption that the soil is
uniform within the zone of influence. None of these methods provides an
accurate value for settlements of pile groups. Only load tests on a pile group
can provide representative settlement estimates.
Example 5.8 A pile group consisting of nine 12411. (300mm) diameter steel piles
driven 4 ft center to center to 30 ft into sand at a site is shown in Figure 5.2. The
sand had (b = 36" and y = 125 Ibft3 (19.8 kN/m3). Similar data were also used in
Examples 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, and 5.7. Estimate the pile group settlement.

## SOLUTION From Example 5.6:

B = lft
6 = 9 ft (square arrangement)
n = 9 piles
(QG).II

= 281 kips

256

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

From Example 5.2: within the zone of influence, 9ft, (equal to 6 depth below
group base) the average N = (12 14 14)/3cv 13. From Example 5 . 7
S,=0.134in.

+ +

## 1. Based on Vesic's method:

From equation (5.40):

## 2. Based on MeyerhoPs method (N values)

p = - (Qc).ii
281 - 3.47 kips/ft2= 1.74 tons/ft2
--6x6 9x9

## I = (1 - D ,/86) where D = pile length = 30 ft

= [1 - 30/(8 x 9)] = 0.58 > 0.5

SG=2p&m=2x

1.74,/-=0.5in.

(13mm)

## The design procedure consists of the following six steps:

1. Soil Profile. From proper soils investigations, establish the soil profile and
groundwater levels, and note soil properties on the soil profile based on the
field and laboratory tests (see Chapter 4 for details).
2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Select a pile type, length,
and diameter and calculate allowable bearing capacity based on the formulas
used for the available soil parameters as follows:
(a) Static analysis by utilizing soil strength

The values of N, and K, are provided in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, respectively.
(b) Empirical analysis utilizing the Standard Penetration Test values
For Sands

257

## For Nonplastic Silt

0.4N

Q, (tons) = B D f A ,

G 3RA,

Q, = (f,)(perimeter)(embedment length)

(5.9)

(5.1 1 )

## where f, in tons per square foot is given by the following equation:

f, = A150 < 1 tsf

(5.12)

The ultimate capacity (QJUI1is then the summation of Q, and Q f from the
above. These equations are for driven piles. For drilled piles use one-third of
Q , and one-half of Qf from these equations.
Empirical Analysis Utilizing the Static Cone Penetration Test Values

Q, = A,q,

(5.13)

QJ = (f,)(perimeter)(embedmentlength)

(5.14)

The (Qu)ultis then the summation of Q, and Q,. These equations are for driven
piles. For drilled piles, use one-half of the above values. Because of the
uncertainties in soil parameters and the semiempirical nature of bearing
capacity formulas, a factor of safety of 3 should be used to obtain the allowable
bearing capacity from the foregoing equations. The allowable bearing
capacity used in the design is then the lowest of these values.
3. Number of Piles and Their Arrangement. Determine the number of piles

required by dividing the column load with the allowable bearing capacity of a
pile and arrange the piles in the group so that pile spacing is three to four times
the pile diameter. Establish pile cap size with reference to column spacing and
other space restrictions. If the pile cap size becomes too large, increase pile
length and/or pile diameter and repeat step (2) to obtain reasonable pile
dimensions and capacity. Determine pile group capacity by simply adding the
individual pile capacities.
4. Settlement of a Single Pile. Estimate the settlement of a single pile by the
following methods:
(a) Semiempirical method

s,= s, + s, + s,

(5.34)

where
(5.35)

258

S p = C,Q,/Bq,
Sps= CsQfaIDfqp

(5.36)

(5.37)

## (b) Empirical method

S, = B/lOO

+ Q,L/A,E,

(5.39)

The settlement is then higher of the values obtained from the foregoing
methods.
5. Settlement of Pile Group and Check on Deign. Estimate pile group settlement

## by using the following methods:

(a) Vesic's method
(5.40)
(b) Meyerhof's method
1. If Standard Pentration (N)values are available:
(5.41)

where

## 2. If Static Cone Penetration (qc)values are available:

The largest of the values obtained from Vesic and Meyerhofs methods should
be equal to or less than the allowable settlement values.
6. Pile Load Test and Pile-Driving Criteria. Recommend a pile load test to fine

tune the allowable bearing capacity. If a driven pile is selected, specify the
driving criteria that should be supplemented with pile load test and dynamic
monitoring. On large projects the pile load test should be carried out on a test
pile that is loaded to failure. On smaller projects, one of the actual piles should
be tested by loading it to two times the design load. For details of a pile
load test, see Chapter 9.
Example 5.9 A 236-kip (1050 kN) vessel is to be supported on a pile foundation
in an area where soil investigations indicated soil profile (shown in Figure 5.15).

Depth below
ground

To

f-/

soil profile

Top soil

## 4 (1.2) Water taMe

sc

soft clay

8 (2.4)
12 (3.6)

LOO*

sand

SP

16(4.8)

20 16.0)

24 (7.2)

28 (8.4)
32 (9.6)

Gp

Gravel

SP
ML

sill

SP

Compact
sand

s:

;r ;r

II

II

II

(u

8
N

<

_
I

440 + 1250
= 1690 Ib/ft

36 (10.8)

40 (12.0)
(a)

Figure 5.15 Soil profile and soil properties used in Example 5.9. N = standard penetration
value, ob = effective vertical stress, 4 = 36" for sand, y(c1ay) = 1 101b/ft3, y(sand) = 125 Ib/ft3,
?'(sand) = 125-62.5 = 62.5 Ib/ft3.

260

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

Design a pile foundation so that the maximum allowable settlement for the group
does not exceed 0.6 in. (15 mm).
SOLUTION
1. Soil Profile (Shown in Figure 5.15)
2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Top 4 ft of soil consists of
top soil and soft clay. These are low strength materials and lie in the zone of
seasonal variation. Contribution of this depth to pile side frictional
resistance can therefore be neglected.

## The cohesionless soil, as shown by the soil profile, is exhibiting uniformly

increasing N values with depth except at 24 ft depth where N = 20. This anomaly
results because of gravel particles that cause obstruction and higher resistance to
split spoon. This higher N value at 24ft can therefore be neglected.
Try a 34-ft (10.3 m) long with 3 0 4 (9.1 m)net penetration into sand and 1241.
(305 mm) diameter steel-driven frictional pile. This pile will have 0.75411. (19 mm)
wall thickness and is closed at the bottom. Allowable bearing capacity of this pile
can be calculated as follows:
Static Analysis by Utilizing Soil Strength
I . =I .

(Qu)ult= A,a:N,

+ p K , tan 6 -X-aLIAL
L=O

(5.7)

## is equal to yz above groundwater level and is y'z below groundwater level.

Values of a: at various depths are shown in Figure 5.1%. In this figure, a: as
discussed earlier, has been considered increasing linearly up to (208) pile length.
Below this depth, the a: value is assumed to be constant for pile design.

a:

p = x B = ~ ( 1=
) 3.14ft

## K,= 1.0 from Table 5.3

6 = (2/3)4 = (2/3) x 36" = 24"

## Substituting these values in equation (5.7), we get:

(QJul,

x
= 79.6
(QJal1

+ 3.14 x 1.0tan 24
1690) x 20 + 1690 x lO1lb
2

= 0.785 x 1690 x 60
+

+ 43.7 = 123.3kips

261

## Empirical Analysis Utilizing Standard Penetration Tests

Point Bearing (Qp)

= 1,15t/ft2

12.

rs-

1, therefore,

= CN*N

## Q,, = (0.4fi/B)DrA, Q 4fiA, = 0.4 x 12/1 x 30 x 0.785 = 113 tons

(5.8)

which is greater than 4 x 12 x 0.785 = 37.7 tons (say 38 tons), therefore, use
Q, = 38 tons.
Shafr friction (Qf)
Average N value along pile shaft = (4 + 6 + 6 + 8 + 12)/5 = 7.2 (say 7)

f, = (N/50)
Q 1 tsf = 7/50 = 0.14 tsf

(5.12)

Therefore,

+ Q,

(QJult

= Q,

(QAii

## = ( Q J d= 34 kips (151.3 kN)

= (38

where (Qp)nll= 25.3 kips and (Qr).ll = 8.8 kips; these values will be later used in
settlement estimation.
Empirical Analysis Utilizing Cone Penetration Values
Cone penetration values are not available therefore allowable bearing capacity
on this basis has not been calculated.
The allowable bearing capacity will be the lower of the values obtained
previously. Therefore, (Qv)a,I= 34 kips (151.3 kN).
3. Number of Piles and Their Arrangement

The number of piles required to support 236 kips vessel load will be:
n = Qv,,/(Q,Jall
= 236/34 = 6.9

Try a group of nine piles arranged in a square pattern with 3 piles on each side.
Place the piles at 4 4 center to center spacing. Thus, a loft x 10ft square concrete
pile cap will be required. Assume that the pile cap is 3 ft thick. This means that
the pile cap width b is loft, and the square surrounding outer periphery of piles
has 6 = b - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9ft (b and 6 dimensions have been explained in
Figure 5.14).

262

## Pile cap weight = 3 x 10 x 10 x 0.15 = 45 kips

Total weight on pile group = 236

+ 45 = 281 kips

## Load per pile = 281/9 = 31 kips < 34 kips

Pile group capacity = 34 x 9 = 306 kips > 28 1 kips
4. Settlement of a Single Pile

## Settlement by Semiempirical Method

s, = ss+ s,

+ s,

(5.34)

where

Ss = (Q, + a,Q&/(ApEp)

(5.35)

Since the allowable load on each pile is 34 kips while the actual load is 31 kips, the
point resistance and skin friction can be proportionally reduced without any
significant error in calculations. Therefore,
(Qp)nc,a,= 25.3(31/34)= 23 kips = Q
,
(Q/)rctual=

8*8(31/34)= 8 kips = Q / o

## The modulus of elasticity of steel, E, = 30 x lo6psi and a, = 0.5 by assuming a

uniform distribution of skin friction. This is reasonable since, as discussed in
Section 5.1.4, the total settlement calculated based on uniform or triangular
distribution are not sensitive to a, values. Substituting these values in the
equation for S, we get S, = (23 + 0.5 x 8)30 x 12 x 1000)/(n/4)(122- 10.52)
(30 x lo6) = 0.012in.

where
c, = 0.03 from Table 5.6

Qpo= 23 kips

B = 12in.
q, = Q p / A p= 76/113.09

where
Q , = 76 kips

## from above and

A , = (n/4)(12) = 113.09in.2

Therefore,
S, = [(0.03 x 23)/(12 x 76/113.09)] = 0.086 in.

263

where

## C,= 0.93 + 0 . 1 6 m * C p= (0.93 + 0.16 x J m 0 . 0 3

= 0.054 from equation

5.38

Qfa = 8 kips

D f = 3 0 x 12in.
qp = Q,/A, = 76/113.09 = 0.67 kip~/in.~

Then,
S, = (0.054 x 8)/(30 x 12 x 0.67) = 0.0018 in.

S,= S, + S,

## Settlement by Empirical Method

Si = B/1W + QvaUApEp)
= 12/100 + (31 x 30 x 12 x 1000)/(~/4)(12~
- 10.5*)30x lo6
= 0.12

(5.39)

+ 0.014

## = 0.1 34 in. (3.4 mm)

From above, consider the larger of the two settlement values for a single pile that
is equal to 0.134 in.

## 5. Settlement of Pile Group and Check on Design As mentioned earlier,

B = 1ft, 6 = 9 ft square arrangement n = 9 piles within the zone of influence
of 9ft (equal to 6 depth below group base) the average N value is
N = (12 + 14 + 14)/3 N 13 actual load on group, QG = 281 kips. Total
settlement of a single pile, S,= 0.134 in.
Group Settlement Based on Vesic's Method
SG =

s,m

(5.40)

264

where
p = QG/(iI

= 1.74tons/ft2

## I = [l - D,/(86)], D, =effective depth in bearing stratum = 30ft (Figure 5.15)

= (1 - 30/8 x 9) = 0.58

Then,

SG = 2 x 17.4/,-

## = 0.47 in. (say 0.5 in.)(13 mm)

From above, take S , = 0.5 in. (13 mm). This is less than the allowable settlement
of 0.6 in. Therefore, the designed pile diameter, length, and group arrangement is
acceptable.
6. Pile Load Test and Piledriving Criteria
Driving Criteria

## Using W = 5000 Ib, H = 6.5 ft, Qall= 34 kips

S = 2 x 5000 x 6.5134000 - 1 = 0.9 in./blow
N 6/7 (i.e., for last 6 in. of driving it would require 7 blows for a drop hammer
with a driving energy of 32,500ft-lb = ( 5 W l b x 6.5ft))

## For a 12411.diameter closed-end steel pipe pile, driven to 34 ft below ground or

driven with a 32,500 ft-lb energy requiring 7 blows for the last 6 in. of driving,
carry out a compression pile load test as per ASTM D 1143-81 to confirm the
design load and settlement values. The load test shall be carried to two times the
design load. On small-sized projects, this load test can be carried out during
actual installation of the piles to confirm that the design criteria are being met.
For large projects, a full-scale pile load test (testing a pile to failure) should be
conducted. This will permit the selection of optimum pile type and design load.
Pile load test methods and related details are provided in Chapter 9.
5.1.7 Bearing Capacity of a Single Pile in Cohesive Soils
As discussed in the beginning of this chapter and shown by equation (5.1) the

ultimate axial compression load capacity (Q& of a pile is the sum of end-bearing
capacity ( Q p )and the frictional capacity (Q,). These two components Q, and Q,
for cohesive soils are further discussed as follows.

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

265

(ep)

End-bearing Capacity
For cohesive soils, the bearing capacity of piles is
critical on a short-term basis because clay strength will increase due to
consolidation or strength regain of disturbed soils in the long term. This was
discussed in Chapter 1. Therefore, for piles in clays 4 = 0 concept applies for
bearing capacity evaluation. Thus, undrained strength, S , = c, = c and 4 = O*
and bearing capacity factors N , = 0 and N , = 1. Equation (5.2) then becomes:
(5.43)

When adjustment for pile weight is made then equation (5.43) can be approximated to the following:

## Since N q = 1 for (p = 0, then equation (5.44) becomes:

(5.45)

Friction Capacity (Ql) For cohesive soils, applying the concept of 4 = 0, shaft
friction f, can be written as follows (See Figure 5.1):

f, = c + ohtan6
where
c = ca = adhesion between soil and pile, 6 = 2/34 = 0
fs=

ca

## Then equation (5.3) becomes

L=L.

(5.46)

Ultimate bearing capacity (Qv)ult for a pile in cohesive soil can then be expressed
in the following form:
(5.47)

where

## A , = pile point (base) area

c, =the minimum undrained shear strength of clay at pile point level (Le.,
cohesion of the bearing stratum ( c = c, = S, = 4,/2))
N c = the bearing capacity factor (obtained from Tables 5.7 and 5.8)
p = pile paremeter
+Total stress parameters will be used for the

C#J

= 0 case.

266

## Le = effective pile length

c, = soil-pile adhesion (obtained from Figure 4.27)

Since the unit weight of soil does not appear in this expression, the position of
groundwater has no effect on pile capacity.
Undrained Shear Strength of Bearing Stratum ( c = c,) The soil near the driven
pile is displaced and may get remolded to a distance of about one pile diameter.
Within this disturbed zone, the pore water pressure caused by the pile-driving
operation dissipates quickly and after consolidation the soil may be stronger.
However, in very sensitive clays or stiff, overconsolidated clays due to the loss of
soil structure, the final shear strength may be smaller than that in the undisturbed
state. Near bored piles, the clay is usually softened to a distance of about 1 in.
(25mm) due to pile installation, and experience has shown that there is no
significant shear strength change of the soil with time (Meyerhof, 1976).
For most practical purposes, it can be assumed that the shear strength of a
bearing stratum consisting of low to medium sensitivity homogeneous clay
remains unchanged during pile installation. Shear strength (c,) values for bearing
capacity estimation should be obtained from laboratory tests done on undisturbed clay samples. The c, value from laboratory tests is generally obtained by
testing 1.5 in. (37.5 mm)-diameter intact clay samples. However, in stiff, fissured
clays, the undrained shear strength (c,) decreases as the size of test specimen
increases. This reduction is primarily due to the greater involvement of fissured
material in controlling soil strength on larger soil samples than on the smallersized 1.5 in. (37.5mm) diameter laboratory samples. For stiff, fissured clay, the
undrained shear strength (c,) should therefore be corrected for scale effects
(Meyerhof, 1983). This is given by the following relationship.
(5.48)

where
is the undrained shear strength obtained from conventional triaxial
compression tests. R , is the reduction factor and is obtained from following
relationships.
1. For driven piles into stiff, fissured clay, R, is given by:
R, = ( B + 0.5)/(2B)< 1 for B 2 0.5 m

(5.49)

## where B is the pile base diameter in meters.

2. For bored piles into stiff, fissured clay, R , is given by:
R, =( B

+ 1)/(2B+ 1 ) < 1

(5.50)

## For intact clay R, = 1. Meyerhof (1983) provides further information on this

reduction factor, R,.
In cases where bearing stratum is under high artesian pressures and drilling
during pile installation has caused the base clay to swell resulting in decreased
shear strength, swelled soil samples should be tested in the laboratory for shear
strength determination. Undrained shear strength (c,) from these results should

267

## TABLE5.7 Values of A', for Various Depth to Pile

Diameter (D,/B) Ratios"
D,lB

NC

6.2

7.8
8.5
9

a4

"These values have been obtained from the graph presented in the
Foundationsand Earth Structures Design Manual NAVFAC, DM
1.2, 1982.

## TABLE 5.8 Values of N,for Various Pile Diameters ( B )

(Canadian Foundation Engineering Design Manual, 1985)

## Drilled Pile Base Diameter

Less than 0.5m ( N 1.5 ft)
Between 0.5 to 1 m ( z 1.5 to 3 ft)
Greater than 1 m ( z 3 ft)

~~

NC

9
7
6

then be used for bearing capacity estimation (Sharma et al., 1984). In highly
plastic soft clays, the undrained shear strength should be obtained from field vane
tests. Bengtsson and Sallfors (1983) present a method of determining the bearing
capacity of axially loaded floating piles in such soils.

Bearing Capacity Factor (N,) As shown in Table 5.7, N, values increase as the
depth-to-pile-diameter ratio increases until it reaches a value of 9 for D,/B 3 4
(Skempton, 1951). For most pile foundations, the depth-to-diameter ratio ( D f / B )
is greater than 4; N, = 9 may therefore be used for such cases. Table 5.8 provides
recommendations for N,values for various drilled pile base diameters. N , values
provided in Table 5.7 and 5.8 can therefore be used for design purposes, as
applicable.
The average value of soil-pile adhesion (c,) for
homogeneous saturated clay is usually related to the average undrained shear
strength (c,) of undisturbed clay within pile embedment length. The ratio (c,/c,)
depends on various factors such as (1) nature and strength of clay (2) dimensions
and method of installation of pile, and (3) time effects (Meyerhof, 1976). This has
also been discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2). Kraft et al. (1981) provide
correlations to relate soil-pile adhesion to (1) pile length (2) relative soil-pile
stiffness, and (3) soil stress history. These correlations need further field test
confirmation before they can be used in practice. Figure 4.27 provides the (c,/c,)
values for various soil consistency and unconfined strength values for driven
piles. Where a pile penetrates several different layers the soil-pile adhesion can be
approximated by the weighted average value of c, for individual layers. For
Soil-pile Adhesion (c,)

268

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

drilled piles, the values provided for (c,) in Table 4.7 may be used for preliminary
design calculations.

EJective Pile Length ( L e ) Effective pile length is the length that is assumed to
contribute to frictional capacity of the pile. This may be different from actual pile
embedment length (L) because, for most piles, the upper part of the pile may not
be in close contact with soil due to such factors, as disturbances caused by
humans and machines and softening and cracking caused by seasonal variations.
This length should be evaluated for specific geographical location or job site. For
most situations, this may vary from about 3 ft (1 m) to 5ft (1.5m).
For drilled-belled piles, the author's (Sharma) experience indicates that in
addition to the above seasonal depths, soil around the shaft-bell neck gets
disturbed due to a tendency for the soil to move down in that area. This disturbed
length is about two times the shaft diameter. Therefore, soil-pile adhesion along
this length should be neglected and effective pile length (Le)should be calculated
accordingly (Tomlinson, 1977; Sharma et al., 1984). In general, the criteria given
in Table 5.9 may be used for estimating effective pile lengths (Le)when L is the
total pile embedment or length. In equation (5.47), the length L should therefore
be replaced with Le.
Example 5.10 A straight-shafted drilled pile was installed through clay till to
bear on clay shale. The pile had a 20411. (500mm) shaft diameter and was 31 ft
(9.5m) long. Undrained shear strength (c,) for clay till was 9501b/ft2(45.5kN/m2)
and for clay shale was 6576 Ib/ft2 (315 kN/m2). Estimate the allowable bearing
capacity of this pile.

SOLUTION
B=20in.

D , = L = 3 1 x 12in.

## A, = (n/4)B2= n/4(20/12)' = 2.18ft2

D f / B = 31 x 12/48 = 7.75

## From Table 5.7, for (D,/E) = 7.75, N , = 9

TABLE 5.9 Effective Pile Length (Le)of Driven and Drilled Piles"

r,

Type of Piles
Driven and
Straight shaft drilled
Drilled and belled

L - (depth of seasonal
variation)
L -(depth of seasonal
variation + 2 x pile shaft
diameter)

(1984).

269

## From Table 5.8, for B = 20/12 = 1.67ft, N , = 7

The lower of the above two N , values is 7 and will be used for these calculations.
c, = 6576 Ib/ft* for the clay shale on which the pile tip will bear
p = RB = x x 20112 = 5.24ft

## From Table 4.7 for drilled concrete piles for

C, = 9501b/ftz, c,/c, = 0.6,
C, = 0.6 x 950 = 570 Ib/ft2
Le = 31 - 5 = 26 ft (assuming that 5 ft is the depth of seasonal variation)

(5.47)

## (Q,JulI= 2.18 x 6576 x 7 + 5.24 x 570 x 26 lb

= 178 kips
(Qu)all= 178/3 = 59 kips (262 kN), if a factor of safety of 3 is used

(Qu)ult

## 5.1.8 Bearing Capacity of Pile Groups in Cohesive Soils

If (Qu)ullis the ultimate capacity of a single pile and (Q,,G),,ll is the ultimate capacity
of a pile group in cohesive soils then, in general, the following applies:
(5.5 1)

## where n is the number of piles in the group.

There is, at present, no acceptable rational theory of bearing capacity of pile
groups (Vesic, 1977). The basic mechanism of group action of piles was discussed
in Chapter 1 (Section 1.3). For most practical purposes, the ultimate load of pile
group,
can be estimated from the smaller of the following two values:
Group Action

## Block failure of pile group by breaking into the ground along an

imaginary perimeter and bearing at the base as shown on Figure 5.16 (Terzaghi
and Peck, 1967; Meyerhof, 1976). Using equation (5.47), the ultimate capacity for
the group failure of Figure 5.16 can be estimated from the following relationship:
(5.52a)
Individual Action If there is no group action, the total load the group can take is
n times the load of the single pile

If the piles are spaced closely enough, the load in group action is smaller than
that in individual action. The ratio of ultimate load capacity of the group to the

## Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

----

-a
n 3 number of piles

## Le= L-depth of seasonal

variation

Df = L

+
(bl

Figure 5.16 Bearing capacity of pile group in cohesive soils. (a) Plan (b) Section

270

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

271

total individual capacity is defined as the pile group eficiency G,. Therefore,
Thus
The value of group efficiency (G,) depends on (1) soil parameters, (2) size and
shape of pile group, (3) pile length, and (4) pile spacing (Whitaker, 1957; Kerisel,
1967). A number of efficiency formulas are available in the literature (Chellis,
1961; Moorhouse and Sheehan, 1968). The following group efficiency or
reduction factors (G,) as given in Table 5.10 can be used for practical design
estimates of pile group capacities in cohesive soils. Thus, ( Q U G ) " l , will be the lower
of the values estimated from equations (5.52a) and (5.53b).
Example 5.11 Using the data of Example 5.10, estimate the pile group bearing
capacity if the piles are placed 5 ft (1500mm) center to center and joined at the top
by a square pile cap supported by nine piles.

## SOLUTION Assuming the arrangements of Figure 5.16, B = 20 in. (500 mm),

5 20112) ft = 10.67ft, n = 9.
(a) Block Failure of Pile Group

s = 5ft (1500mm), 8 = (5

+ +
C,

= 6576 lb/ft2

D l / 6 = 31/10.67 = 2.9
From Table 5.7: N , 'Y 9 for D,/B = 2.9
From Table 5.8: N , = 6 for base width 6 > 3 ft
The lower of these N, values is 6 and will be used in these calculations
c,, = 5701b/ft2 along the shaft, from Example 5.10.
B = 5 ft, 6 = 10.67 ft
Le = 31 - 5 = 26ft (assuming 5ft is the seasonal variation depth)
Then
= cuNc(6)' + 4ca(E)Le
= 6576 x 6(10.67')
570(4 x 10.67)26 lb = 5124 kips

(Qu~)u~t

(QuG)ulr

(5.52a)

Pile spacing(s)

3B

## Group elficiency (G.)

0.7

48
0.75

5B
0.85

6B
0.9

88
1.o

'These values are based on the experimental data obtained by Whitaker (1957) and presented in
graphs in Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual, DM-7.2 (1982).

272

## (b) Sum of Ultimate Loads of Single Piles

Pile spacing = s = 5 ft = 3 8
From s and G, relationship,

## G, = 0.7 from Table 5.10

Also, from Example 5.10,

## Then, from equation (5.53b)

(QuG)ul,= 0.7 x 9 x 178 = 1121 kips

(QvG).,l

## from (a) and (b) is 1121 kips.

= (QUG)ult/FS
= 1121/3 = 374 kips (1663 kN)

## Settlement of a Single Pile in Cohesive Soils

5.1.9

The settlement of piles in cohesive soils primarily consists of the sum of the
following two components:
1. Short-term settlement occurring as the load is applied.
2. Long-term consolidation settlement occurring gradually as the excess pore

## pressures generated by loads are dissipated.

Generally, the short-term settlement results from elastic compression of
cohesive soils. This component of settlement constitutes a significant portion of
the total settlement for partially saturated and overconsolidated saturated
cohesive soils. The overconsolidated soils are soils whose past effective vertical
overburden pressures are larger than the present effective vertical overburden
pressures. Methods of settlement estimation discussed in Section 5.1.4 also apply
here to calculate short-term settlements when pertinent soil properties for clays
are used.
The method of estimating long-term consolidation settlement of a pile group
is presented in the Section 5.1.10 and Example 5.12.
5.1.10

## Settlement of Pile Groups in Cohesive Soils

The settlement estimation of pile groups in cohesive soils is complex. Figure 5.17
shows a simple method that can be used for settlement estimation of pile groups
in cohesive soils.

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

273

Soil properties
2f

7:e,c,

0)
Figure 5.17 Stress distribution for settlement estimation for friction piles in clay. (a) Plan
(b) Section.

## This approximate method is based on the following assumptions:

1. The allowable soil pressure = qall= (QuG)a,l/(6x 0, where 6 and Tare the
base dimensions of pile group at the tip.
2. The pressure qlll is transferred to, (2/3) x L, depth below ground surface.
The settlement of the soil above this depth is assumed to be small and
therefore is neglected.

274

## 3. Then estimate the settlement as if a footing of dimensions 6 x with

pressure qallis placed at fLdepth below ground surface. The presence of
pile below this depth is disregarded.
4. Once the pressure qallis applied on top of a clay layer of thickness (H-fL),
then consolidation settlement, A H , can be calculated from the following
relationship:

where
AH = consolidation settlement
0:
= present effective (vertical) overburden pressure at the middle of the
layer ( H - 2/3L), determined as shown in Figure 5.17.
ACT; = increased pressure from pile load at the middle of the layer (H-2/3L).
C, = coefficient of consolidation
eo = initial void ratio of the soil
Figure 5.17 and Example 5.12 further explain these terms and the method of
calculating consolidation settlement. Figure 5.17 shows a pile group having b x 1
size pile cap. There are 9 piles having 6 x Trectangular dimension at the base of
the pile group. The piles are of length L. The soil conditions assumed are clay to a
depth H below ground underlain by rock.
If it is assumed that the load (QUG).I1 is transferred to 3L depth below ground.
The increased stress at his depth (level xx) is then:
(5.55)

For stress distribution below this level (xx), it is assumed that the pressure (or
stress) is distributed at 2 K l H slope as shown in Figure 5.17. Based on this
assumption, the increased stress on plane yy at depth z = H can be obtained
from the following:
=

= (QuG)oll/(6

+ H -3 N +

-3 ~ )

(5.56)

The increased stress at any intermediate level between x x and yy can then be
obtained by interpolation.
The consolidation settlement (AH)
of this pile group due to an applied load of
(QuG)O = (QuG)sll can then be estimated by using equation (5.54). In this equation
a: is the present effective vertical pressure, Aa: is obtained by using equations
(5.55) and (5.56), C, and e, are laboratory-determined soil parameters, and H is
the thickness of the clay stratum. Empirical relations for estimating C, are
presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2).
Equation (5.54) is used when the clays are normally consolidated. For
overconsolidated clays, the settlement calculation requires that the settlement be

275

## divided into two components as follows:

H =AH1 +AH2

(5.57)

where
AH1 = settlement due to applied load in the recompression zone
AH2 = settlement due to applied load in the virgin curve zone
Thus AH, and AH2 can be estimated from the following:
(5.58)

(5.59)

## For highly overconsolidated clays, long-term consolidation settlements do not

occur. Therefore, only short-term settlementsare calculated. This is because their
pc is very high and additional pressure due to Aa; will not result in consolidation.
When the soils are underconsolidated, they settle due to their own weight and
result in imposing downward loads along the pile shaft. This is discussed in
Section 5.1.12. The definitions of underconsolidated, normally consolidated,
overconsolidated, C,, C,,and pet were presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2).
Example 5.12 For the pile arrangement shown in Figure 5.17, let:
= 323 kips
b=10.67ft=T
L = 30ft
H = 50ft, unit weight of soil, y = 1251b/ft3

(Q~G).!

Initial soil void ratio, eo = 0.7, compression index, C,= 0.17, soil is normally
consolidated, water level is at ground surface, and eo remains constant for the
entire soil mass. Estimate the total settlement of the pile group.
SOLUTION
(a) Effective Overburden Pressure (a:)
a; (at depth = j L = 20ft) = (125 - 62.5)20/1000= 1.25kips/ft2
a;(at depth = H = Soft) = (125 - 62.5)50/1000 = 3.125 kips/ft2
(b) Increased Pressure Due to Loads on Pile (Ab:)
From equation (5.55):
Aa; (at depth = \$ L = 20ft) = (QU&,,/( 10.67 x 10.67)
= 323/(10.67)' = 2.83 ksf

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

276

10

ksf

20
*1

5n

30

40

50

*
(a)
Figure 5.18 (a) Existing vertical stress, o:, and (b) the increased stress,
consolidation settlement calculations in Example 5.12.

Ab:,

for

= 323/(10.67

- 5L)

## + 50 - 20) = 0.195 ksf

These values are plotted in Figure 5.18b. As shown in this figure, the total clay
layer between 20 to 50 ft depth is then divided into three layers. The pressures at
the middle of each layer are then calculated as follows:
Layer 1:

0:

= 1.25

1.875
+x 5 = 1.56;
30

1.875
Layer 2: a: = 1.25 + -x 15=2.19;
30
Layer 3:

0:

= 1.25

1.875
+ -x 25 = 2.81;

30

Ani = 0.195

2.635
x 25 = 2.39
+30

2.635
x 15 = 1.52
A~:=0.195+30
ACT;= 0.195

2.635
x
+30

5 =0.63

The soil thickness below depth 2/3L (= 20ft) is 30ft. This soil will be

277

## consolidated under the increased pressure of 2.83 kips/ft2. For settlement

calculation purposes as already mentioned, this 30-ft-thick clay has been divided
into three equal layers. u: and AuL are determined at their mid-depths, and the
settlements (AH) are then estimated as follows. In equation (5.54) the total depth
of clay that will undergo consolidation is (H - 2/3L) = 30. If we divide this total
thickness into three equal layers each of thickness H, = 30/3 = loft, the equation
(5.54) can be modified as follows:

1.56 + 2.39
0.17
x 12010g1,
= 4.84 in.
Layer 1: AHl =1 +0.7
1.56

0.17
2.19 1.52
Layer 2: AH, = -x 12010g1,
= 2.74 in.
1 +0.7
2.19
Layer 3: AH, = 0*17 x 12010g1,
1 +0.7

2.81 + 0.63
= 1.05 in.
2.8 1

Total settlement = AH = AH1 + AH2 + AH,, AH = 4.84 + 2.74 + 1.05 = 8.63 in.
(say 9 in.).
5.1.11

## The design procedure consists of the following five steps:

1. Soil Profile. From proper soils investigations, establish the soil profile and

groundwater levels and note soil properties on the profile based on field and
laboratory tests.
2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Select a pile type, length,
and diameter and calculate allowable bearing capacity of a single pile based on
the following equation:
(5.47)

## 3. Number of Piles. Determine the number of piles required by dividing the

column load with the allowable load or bearing capacity of the single pile.
Arrange the piles in the group such that pile spacing is three to four times
the pile diameter. Establish pile cap size with reference to column spacing
and other space restrictions. If it becomes too large, increase pile length
and/or pile diameter and repeat item (2) to obtain reasonable pile dimensions
and arrangement. The pile group capacity is then the lower of the values

278

## obtained from the following equations:

4. Settlement of Piles. The settlement of piles in cohesive soils is the sum of the
short-term and the long-term settlements. For short-term settlements the
settlement of a single pile is first calculated. Then this value is used to estimate
the short-term settlement of pile group.
( a ) Short-term settlement
The short-term settlement of a single pile is determined as follows:
(i) Semiempirical Method
(5.34)
st = s,
s, sps
where
(5.35)
Ss = (Qpa + asQ/a)L/(ApEp)

+ +

## (ii) Empirical Method

(5.39)

The settlement is then higher of the values obtained from (i) and (ii) above.
The settlement of a pile group is then determined from the following:
(5.40)
(b) brig-term (consolidation) settlement
(i) The long-term (consolidation) settlement for normally consolidated
clays is determined from the following:

## (ii) The long-term (consolidation)settlement for overconsolidated clays is

determined from the following:

279

## The Aa; is calculated at depth z = \$L and at z = H by using the following

equations. The Aa: values at any intermediate depth can then be obtained by
interpolation.
( A a u ) z - + L = (Quo)ail/(E

(Aou)z = H = (QuG)ad(g

(5.55)

+ H - \$L)(r+H - 3L)

(5.56)

5. Pile Load Test and Driving Criteria. Recommend a pile load test to fine tune
the allowable bearing capacity. If driven piles are selected, specify the driving
criteria that should be supplemented with the pile load test.
Example 5.13 In an industrial project one column of a steel frame supporting a
heavy equipment carries an axial load of 500 kips (2225 kN). Soils investigation
indicated the soil profile as shown in Figure 5.19a. Design a pile foundation such
that the maximum settlement of the group does not exceed 0.75 inch (19 mm).

SOLUTION
1. Soil Profile. Soil profile and test values with depth are shown in Figure 5.19a.
Soil profile

Depth below
ground

io

SM

Topsoil
Silty sand

4 (1.2)

8 (2.4)

## q,= 2700 psf

( 129 kN/m.

Water Table V
12 (3.6)

Clay till
CL
q,, = 2728 psf
( 1 31 kN/m . 2 )

28 (8.4)

32 (9.6)

Clay shale

36 (10.8)

q,= 13152 sf

(630k\$rn.2)

40 (12.0)

Figure5.19a Soil profile and soil properties along the depth used in Example 5.13.
qy = unconfined compressive strength; over consolidation ratio for the clay till = 4 to 5;
over consolidation ratio for clay shale 6 to 8. w = natural moisture content.

6 = 12.5'

-I

6 = 11.67'

@5----

-@-----It-

I
I

IC

-I

-a
I

B=B,
8

= 5

I
I
I

-I
@

a
I
I
I
I
I

Q w = 500 kips

L = D f = 31'

1
I.

5'J

I-

Bb = 30'

+ 10/12 = 12.5'
Figure 5.19b

-I

280

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

281

2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. The top 5 ft of the soil lies in
the zone of seasonal variation. Below this depth, the clay till appears to have a
uniform moisture content and shear strength. The average undrained shear
strength c, = f{ (2700 + 2728)/2) = 1357 psf.
Consider a 3 1 4 (9.5 m) long, 2041. (500mm) shaft diameter cast-in-place
bored concrete pile. Assume that a 30-in. diameter bell is made at the pile base.
From equation (5.47) the ultimate bearing capacity is:
(5.47)

where

A , = X/4(Bb)' = ~/4(30/12)~
= 4.9 ft2, where Bb is the bell diameter
c, = 13 152/2 = 6576 psf at pile base in clay shale
Df/Bb = 31 X 12/30 = 12.4

Then, from Table 5.7, N , = 9. The pile base diameter of 30 in. = 2.5 ft. Then, from
Table 5.8, N, = 7. The lower of these two N, values is 7 and will be used here.
p = AB,= II x 20/12 = 5.24 it,

## where B, is the shaft diameter.

From Table 4.7, for drilled concrete pile, if c, for clay along pile shaft is
1357 Ib/ft2, then c,/c, = 0.30.
C,

## From Table 5.9:

Le = L-(depth of seasonal variation

## + 2 pile shaft diameter)

+ 2 x 20/12) = 22.7ft
(QJult = 4.9 x 6576 x 7 + 5.24 x 407 x 22.7 lb
= 31 -(5

= 225.56

= Q,
(QJnll

## + 48.41 = 273.97 kips, say 274 kips

+ Qf;

Q, = 225.56 kips ;

Q = 48.41 kips

## 3. Number of Piles and Their Arrangement. The number of piles required to

support 500 kips equipment load will be:

n = QuG/(Qu)all
= 500/91 = 5.5 (say 6)
Since in cohesive soils, group capacity is normally less than the sum of

282

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

individual pile capacity, a greater number of piles should be used. Try a group
of nine piles arranged in a square pattern with three piles on each side. Place
the piles at 5ft (125mm) center-to-center spacing with 12.5ft x 12.5ft x 4ft
thick concrete cap. The pile group arrangement is shown in Figure 5.19b.
The allowable bearing capacity of this pile group can be calculated by the
following two methods:
(5.52a)
For straight-shafted piles, the pile base width will be 6. For belled piles this will
be increased to (6 10112)= 12.5' (shown in Figure 5.19b).

+
D f / B = Of/@+ 10112)= 31112.5 = 2.48

Also,

## N, = 6 from Table 5.8

The lower of the above two N, values is 6 and will be used in these calculations.
Values c,, c,, and Le were obtained above.

(Q,,G),,lt

= 6165
(QuG)aII

## = 2534 kips (11278 kN) when applying a safety factor of 3

( Q ~ G ) ~ I=
( Ge

xnx

s = 5ft,

(5.53b)

(QAt

B = 20/12 = 1.67ft,

SIB = 3

## From Table 5.10, G , = 0.7. The number of piles = n = 9.

(QJulc= 274 kips for a single pile as calculated above
(QvG),,lt

(QvG)ail

## = 1726/3 = 575 kips (2559 kN) when a safety factor of 3 is used

The lower of (QuG)aII calculated from equations (5.52a) and (5.53b) above is
575 kips (2559 kN).
Therefore,
( Q ~ G ) ~ I=
I 575 kips.

## Pile cap weight = 12.5 x 12.5 x 4 x 0.15 = 93 kips (417 kN)

Total load on pile group = 500 + 93 = 593 kips

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

283

The group capacity is 575 kips, which is approximately equal to the load
593 kips on the group. Therefore, it is acceptable from a bearing capacity point
of view.
4. Settlement of Single Pile and Pile Group
(a) Short-term settlement
(i) Semiempirical Method

s,= s, + s, + s,,

(5.34)

## by combining equations (5.34) through (5.37).

Total load on pile group = 593 kips. Therefore, the load per pile = 593/9
= 66 kips. From section (2) above, Q, = 225.56, (Qp)all
= 225.56/3 = 75 kips.
Also, Q f = 48.41, (Qf).,,
= 48.4/3 = 16 kips and total allowable load is 75 16
= 91 kips while the actual load on each pile is 66 kips. The values of actual Q,
and Q f can be proportioned as shown without any significant error in
calculations.

(Qp)actual=

(Q/)nctual

## 75(66/91) = 54 kips = Qpa

= 16(66/91) = 12 kips = Q / a

## L = 31 ft, A, = [~(20/12)~/4]= 2.18 ft2, E,, = 3.6 x lo6psi (for concrete)

a, = 0.5 by assuming uniform distribution of skin friction. This is a reason-

able assumption. As discussed in Section 5.1.4, the total settlement calculated based on uniform or triangular distribution are not sensitive to a,
values. From Table 5.6, C , = 0.03, B,, = B, = 30 in. q, = QJAbarC
= 225.56/(n/4)(30/12)2 = 46 kips/ft2, D, = 31ft, and from equation (5.38) C,
= (0.93

+ 0.16,/mC,,

(0.93

+0

. 1 6 J m x 0.03 = 0.048.
Substituting above values in the expression for S,, we get:
5:

## + 0.5 x 12) 31 x 12 x lo3

s,= (54 2.18
x 144 x 3.6 x IO6

0.03 x 54 x 144
30 x 46

0.048 x 12 x 144.
in.
+ 31x12~46

S, = 0.019 + 0.168

(5.39)

284

## where B = 20in., Q,, = 66 kips, L = 31 ft, A, = (1~/4)(20)~

= 314.16in2.
E, = E, = 3.6 x lo6psi
Sf = 20/100
Sf = 0.2

x 106)

## + 0.02 = 0.22 in. (5.5 mm)

The higher of the above two values estimated by the semiempirical and
empirical methods is 0.22 in. (5.5 mm)
Settlement of pile group can be calculated by using equation (5.40)
(5.40)

S,=S,J@
SG = 0.22,/(12.5 x 12/20) = 0.60in. (15.3mm)

## ( b ) Long-term (consolidation) settlement. As shown in soil profile

(Figure 5.19a), both the clay till and clay shales are highly overconsolidated
since their overconsolidation ratio is 4 or more. As, an example Aa; at pile
base is equal to 11 ksf while pi at that level is 14.6 ksf. Therefore, the consolidation settlement due to loads on pile foundations would not occur. This
has been discussed in Section 5.1.10. That Section and Example 5.12
also provide the details of estimating consolidation settlement for normally
consolidated soil. The calculated settlement of pile group is 0.60in. (1 5.3 mm).
This is less than the allowable settlement .of 0.75 in. (19 mm). Therefore, the
designed pile diameter, length, and group arrangement is acceptable.
5. Pile Load Test and Driving Criteria. These are cast-in-place bored concrete
piles, therefore, no driving criteria are required. Pile load tests as per
ASTM D1143-81 should, however, be recommended to confrm the design
load and settlement values estimated above. Conservative design values
should be used where the cost of pile load tests cannot be justified. On
small-size projects, a pile load test can be performed to two times the design
load on an actual foundation pile. On large projects, where economicsjustifies
it, pile load test should be carried out to failure on a test pile that shall not
be used as a part of the actual foundation and will be abandoned after the test.
5.1.12 Pile Design for Negative Skin Friction

In Figure 5.20a, a pile embedded in layered clay is loaded axially. The pile
has a tendency to move downward with reference to the surrounding soil. This
would result in the mobilization of upward (positive) resistance or friction along
the pile shaft. This upward or positive resistance Qf along with point baring
Q p act in the same direction and thus help support the external load (Qv&,.
In Figure 5.20b, the pile is driven through a recent fill resting over an old deposit
of clay. The recent fill is underconsolidated and is consolidating under its own

## PILES SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADS

285

Figure 5.20 Conceptual comparison between positive and negative skin friction development. (a) Positive friction development. (b) Negative skin friction when recent fill

consolidates due to its self-weight. (c) Negative skin friction when soft clay consolidates
due to dewatering and/or addition of recent fill.
weight after the pile has been installed. Therefore, the recent fill may settle
more than the pile. Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2) provides the definition for underconsolidated clays.
In Figure 5.20c, the pile has been driven through the recent fill overlying a
soft clay and its tip rests on a stiff medium clay. A dewatering operation may
lower the water table, and the soft clay starts consolidating under the increased
effective stresses. The recent fill is also underconsolidated. The pile tip is not
settling.
The foregoing two and other similar situations may cause the pile side friction
or resistance to act in the same direction as the externally applied load (QVG)all.

286

## ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

This is called negative skin friction because the soil resistance along the pile
surface operates in the downward direction, which is opposite to the conventional resisting forces Q, and Q, shown in Figure 5.20a. Thus, negatioe skin
friction develops when the settlement of surrounding soil exceeds the downward
movement of the pile shaft. This downward movement of the surrounding soil is
due to its consolidation. This is also called down drag because it pulls the pile
downward.
This downward pull on the pile would exert additional axial force on the pile
and may result in excessive settlements of the pile or even failure in extreme cases.
Vesic (1977) reported that observations had indicated that a relative downward
movement ofO.6in. (15 mm) of the soil with respect to the pile might be suDFicient
to mobilize full negative skin friction.
In areas where there is a potential for negative skin friction development,
batter piles should be avoided. This is primarily due to (1) the magnitude of this
down drag on the outer side of batter piles being significantly larger than the
inner vertical piles and (2) the settling soil moving away from the inner piles.
These phenomena can induce excessive bending on piles.
According to Vesic (1977), negative skin friction, (Qj)ncg,for both cohesionless
and cohesive soils can be estimated by the following expression:

where
N o = nondimensional factor that can be obtained from Table 5.11
Po = the mean normal effective stress
and
A = the area of the shaft in the zone of settling soil (e.g., A = xBL for a pile with
diameter B and length L in the zone of settling soil).

In Table 5.11 uncoated and coated piles have been mentioned. Uncoated piles are
the regular piles that have no surface treatment. The coated piles are piles that
have been coated with bitumen or bentonite. These coatings reduce the adhesion

## TABLE 5.11 Values of I%',for

-, Various Conditions'
Soil and Pile Condition
(a) Uncoated pile
(i) In soft compressible layers of silt

and clay
(ii) In loose sand
(b) Pile coated with bitumen or
bentonite

150
~~

0.15-0.3
0.3-0.8
0.01-0.05

287

## TABLE 5.12 Empirical Values of Negative Skin Friction

Soil Type
Negative Skin Friction

sand

0.35 to 0.5a:A
0.25 to 0.35 a:A
0.20to 0.25a: A

Silt

Clay
Note:

## < = average effective vertical stress. A = area of shaft in

the zone of settling soil. The units of a: and A have to be
consistent to yield a force unit for the negative skin
friction.

or bond between the soil and the pile surface. Thus the negative skin friction is
lower for coated piles than the uncoated piles.
Negative skin friction can also be estimated by an empirical relationship
originally proposed by Garlanger (1973) and recommended for use in the
Foundation and Earth Structures Design Manual (1982). According to this,
negative skin friction, (Q,)nep, can also be estimated from Table 5.12.
A simple method to estimate negative skin friction is by using positive skin
friction values in downward direction in the zones of settling soils. Negative skin
friction can be estimated as follows:
1. For cohesionless soils: From equation (5.6):

## 2. For cohesive soils: from equation (5.46):

(5.46)

In both these relations, Lor Le is the pile length in the zones of settling soils.
These relations normally yield higher (conservative) values.
Observations suggest that approximately 0.75 times the pile length (L) in
compressible layer should be considered as contributing to negative skin friction
(Endo et al., 1969). This is based on the observation that at about 0.75La neutral
point exists below which there is no relative movement between the pile and the
adjacent soil. However, other investigations show that neutral point can be
located higher or lower than 0.75L(Vesic, 1977). Until there is a definitivemethod
of determining the depth of this neutral point, it is recommended that total pile
length in the zone of settling soil be used for such calculations.
Estimated value of (Q,),,# should be subtracted from the allowable pile load
for the design. The mechanics of negative skin friction is complex. The estimation
method for negative skin friction on pile group is still not well understood. At the
present time, the negative skin friction on a pile group can be conservatively

## Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Next Page
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

288

calculated by taking the total weight of fill and/or compressible soil enclosed by
the piles in the group as follows:
In Figure 5.20b:
(5.61)
(5.62)

where y' is the effective unit weight of settling fill and 6, I, and LI and L are shown
in Figure 5.20.
Example 5.14 In Figure 5.2Oc, consider that each pile is spaced such that they
act individually and piles are end bearing. Further assume the following: steel
pile, B = 12 in., L1= 5 ft, L, = 10 ft, groundwater is at ground surface and soil
properties for the two layers are:

Layer
1
2

C,

C'

0
= 300 1 b/ft2
(14.37kN/m2)

30"
0

Soil Type

y 1 b/ft

110 (17.5kN/m3)
120 (19 kN/m3)

Sand
Clay

Estimate the negative skin friction along pile for the above case.
SOLUTION
Method 1: Empirical Relations

a:

## (Qflner= 0.5a:A + 0.25o:A from Table 5.12

at 5' depth = (110 - 62.5) 5 = 237.5 psf

cv at

15' depth = 237.5 + (120- 62.5) 10= 237.5 + 575 = 812.5 psf

(237.5 812.5)n
(Qf)neg= 0 . 5 ' i~ O)r
~ x~ 1~x ~5 + 0.25
2
2
= 932.66

L=LI

Aa:,AL

L=o

for layer 1

+p

L=Lz

L=O

p = nB = n x 1,

6 = 2/34 = 20"