Summing up
PROFESSOR A. W. SKEMPTON
Professor Skempton, summarizing the proceedings of the
Symposium, said that it was natural to concentrate o n the
problems connected with the design of large bored piles in
London Clay. The applications of this type of foundation
covered a much wider field, of course, and Mr Thorburn's
Paper was therefore very welcome; but L o n d o n was the
type-location, so to speak, and the centre-piece of the
Symposium was undoubtedly the Paper by Whitaker and
Cooke describing and analysing their full-scale tests o n
twelve piles in the London Clay at Wembley. Professor
Skempton could not share Mr Derrington's scepticism on
the value of these tests. Indeed, he regarded them as an
outstanding contribution to civil engineering research.
At the outset it must be emphasized that n o matter h o w
thorough a site investigation had been, and how carefully a
design had been thought out, everything finally depended on
the site work. For this reason he was glad to see, and had
enjoyed reading, the Paper by Palmer and Holland.
Turning now to the design problems, the various factors
involved could be considered under six headings.
(a) Strength of London Clay. At least three methods were
in use for determining the strength of London Clay.
Traditionally an endeavour was made to find the average
strength at any depth by testing a reasonably large number
of samples taken from boreholes; plotting the results o n a
graph relating strength and depth; and drawing the best line
through the points. For convenience 1 J-in. diameter speci
mens were used, in the quick undrained triaxial test, and
were prepared from 4-in. diameter cores taken by the open-
drive sampler. Each point was usually the mean of three or
four individual tests from the same core.
A second method was to draw a line on this graph defining
some sort of lower limit of strength. With further research,
on the strength of fissured clays, partly of a statistical nature,
a useful procedure of this kind might be evolved. At the
moment, however, it was perhaps the least satisfying method.
The third method involved carrying out plate-loading tests
in boreholes. These should not be less than 12 in. in
diameter. Such tests unquestionably give valuable in
formation. They gauged the strength of a much larger
volume of clay than the laboratory tests and consequently
showed less scatter. Moreover, less extrapolation to the
full-scale was required.
Downloaded by [ Leeds Beckett University] on [11/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Imperial C o l l e g e of S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y ,
University of London
Professor Skempton thought that the traditional H - i n .
triaxial tests o n open-drive samples would remain the con
ventional basis of site investigation and design, if only
because the great majority of experience, including the
research at Wembley, was correlated with strength measure
ments made in this way. But in addition, o n important
jobs, plate-loading tests should be made to supplement the
laboratory determinations.
It must be clearly recognized that, in general, the results
obtained by these two methods could not be the same, as
might be seen from the following discussion.
(b) End-bearing capacity. At the depths reached by the
base of large bored piles the L o n d o n Clay was typically a
'closely fissured' material, according to the classification
proposed in Table 2 of Paper 5. But many of the H - i n .
laboratory specimens contain no fissures and, if so, the
strength measured would be that of the intact clay. Speci
mens no larger than 4-in. diameter, however, often showed
a markedly lower strength, due primarily to the greater
likelihood of fissures being present; and this effect was felt
still more in plate-loading tests. It probably reached a
maximum when the loaded area exceeded a diameter of
about 3 ft.
In addition to fissures there were other reasons why the
conventional laboratory strength was not necessarily the
same as the strength beneath a pile base. For example, in
the field the rates of loading were slower, and there might be
some progressive failure. On the other hand the sampling
operations might disturb the clay and open micro-fissures.
Finally, stress release effects might be different in sampling
from those caused by drilling the hole for the pile.
It was therefore necessary to establish empirically the
relations between laboratory strength, the strength deter
mined by plate tests, and the strength controlling the end-
bearing capacity of a large diameter pile. It was one of the
merits of the Papers by Whitaker and Cooke, and by
Burland, Butler and Dunican, that they provided many new
data which helped in establishing these relations with some
degree of confidence. In this connexion Professor Skempton
was grateful to Mr Butler for giving him the opportunity to
study the results of the Knightsbridge tests which provided
further valuable information. He had also taken into con
sideration the pioneer tests at Southall and Kensal Green
as well as the important tests reported by Derrington at the
Stag Brewery site.
155
 Summing up
Net end-bearing pressure
SO OB
KG
^ ISB
^K-^ n o-o-r-m
0-50
As a starting point in analysing these data it could be assumed
that N = 9 for loaded areas situated at a considerable depth
c extent a function of the type of test and size of specimen.
within a saturated clay. Thus, if the observed net ultimate
bearing pressure was q, the corresponding shear strength of
the clay was c = #/9. The conventional strength, as
q and this was about 2 5 % less than the strength as measured
measured o n H - i n . specimens from open-drive samples,
was c. Then, following Whitaker and Cooke,
c = CO.C
q
where co was a factor to be determined by field tests.
The results were assembled in the figure, and there was
evidently an indication that up to a certain point co tended
to decrease with increasing diameter of the loaded area.
For diameters of more than 3 ft it would be seen that
co = 0-75; which was the value given by Whitaker and Cooke.
For diameters between about 1 \ and 3 ft the value of co
could be taken as 0-8, and for 1-ft diameter plates co might
be about 0-85. There was a considerable scatter, even using
mean values of c for each site based in some cases on a
q given by the expression
considerable number of plate tests. This was quite under
standable, since the intensity of Assuring would certainly not
be the same at all sites. But probably the values of co were
sufficiently reliable for a reasonable estimate to be made of
end-bearing capacity, provided a good average value of c
was known. And if, for example, 1 -ft plate tests were carried
out, the strength as given by these tests would have to be
reduced only by the ratio of 0-75 to 0-85 in order to obtain
the strength appropriate for a large diameter pile.
It was worth repeating that c was the average strength
determined on 1 | - i n . specimens cut from open-drive samples.
A better method of sampling might lead to slightly higher
laboratory strengths and the values of co would have to be
adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, if 4-in. diameter
specimens were tested, the laboratory strengths would be
lower and, once again, the values of co would require
modification.
156
Downloaded by [ Leeds Beckett University] on [11/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
C = Average shear strength
I J " specimens from U4
open-drive samples
W w
w
s = Southall O Plate-loading test in borehole
K = Knightsbridge # Plain pile 1 . . .
.. T . r end-bearing pressure I
KG = Kensal Green
B = Barbican
Belled pile J 6 Y 1
M = Moorfields
SB = South Bank
Sc = Stag Brewery
W = Wembley
3 4
DIAMETER OF L O A D E D AREA B : FT
Thus the undrained strength of London Clay was to some
In so far as there was a unique value, it was the strength of
the clay en masse determined by large diameter loading tests,
by conventional triaxial tests. It was interesting that
D r LaRochelle and Professor Skempton had found the
strength of the London Clay involved in the Bradwell slip to
be about 3 0 % less than the 1 i-in. diameter triaxial strength
(after correction for time effects) and, in this case, laboratory
specimens including fissures had been rejected. The results
from Bradwell and Wembley therefore might be very much
the same, basically, and they provided an answer to a
fundamental question: namely the relation between the
undrained strength of a large mass of fissured clay and the
strength of small specimens taken from the clay.
(c) Shaft friction. It was now widely accepted that the
friction along the shaft of a cast-in-situ concrete pile was
/ = cc.c
where c was the mean value of c over the effective length of
the shaft. In 1959 Professor Skempton had been able to
show from the analysis of many pile tests in London Clay
that, in practice, a lay between 0-3 and 0-6; and that a
reasonable working rule would be to take a = 0-45. Subse
quent experience, and especially the work by Whitaker and
Cooke, confirmed this result.
The reason for this low shaft friction was to be sought
primarily in softening of the clay in the sides of the boring,
brought about chiefly by stress release.
(d) Settlement of the single pile. Whitaker and Cooke paid
considerable attention to the settlement of the single pile,
as did also Burland, Butler and Dunican. Their proposals
justified more serious thought than he had had time to give
to the problem. For the present, therefore, he had simply

taken the results expressed in the useful graph given by
Whitaker and Cooke in their Fig. 21. This showed that the
settlement of a pile at a given load could be related to the
ratio of that load to the ultimate capacity of the pile, the
relationship depending upon whether the pile was plain-
shafted or belled.
It must be remembered, however, that their tests were limited
to bells of 6 ft diameter. For larger bells the settlement at
any particular value of the load ratio might well be greater,
and the graph shown by Mr Burland in his introduction
was revealing in this respect.
(e) Load factors. The choice of the load factors to be used
in the design of a piled foundation was the responsibility of
the engineer. N o general rules could be laid down, as the
choice must depend on many different considerations.
Nevertheless it was useful to have a set of 'first approxima
tion' rules to enable the designer to see quickly and easily
the order of the problems to be faced.
With the proviso, then, that these were in no way ' Code of
Practice' rules, Professor Skempton suggested the following:
First Approximation Design Rules
(a) Shaft / = 0-45 c
(b) Base q = 9.wc
where w = 0-8 for B < 3 ft
and OJ = 0-75 for B > 3 ft
Working load:
Total
(c) Plain W.L.
2
Total
(d) Belled (i) W.L. =
2-5
tfor B < 6 f t
Shaft Base
or (ii) W.L. =
1-5
For B > 6 ft working load to be evaluated from settle
ment calculations.
(e) Check settlements of structure.
The first two points had been discussed already. For plain-
shafted piles settlement considerations were not critical,
since even at loads equal to 7 5 % of ultimate the settlement
was only about \ in. (Whitaker and Cooke, Fig. 21). This
was due to the fact that most of the load was taken by shaft
friction, and the friction was fully mobilized at movements
of the order of 1 in. or less. But loads of more than 7 5 %
of the ultimate, corresponding to a load factor of 1-3 would
not be considered, even if the ultimate were known rather
accurately. To allow for uncertainties in the value of a,
and also in determining c, the load factor should be increased
by, say, 50%, giving a final value of 2. This was probably
adequate for any plain-shafted pile, given careful site work.
For befled piles, settlement considerations would generally
control the design. If, for example, a settlement of \ in.
Downloaded by [ Leeds Beckett University] on [11/09/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Professor A . W . Skempton
was the maximum allowable, then from Fig. 21 in Whitaker
and Cooke's Paper it would be seen that the load must not
exceed about one-half the ultimate. This supposed that the
ultimate was known precisely. T o allow for uncertainties
an increase of less than 2 5 % in load factor could scarcely
be allowed, giving 2-5 as about the lowest load factor for
the design of belled piles of typical proportions with bells
not exceeding 6 ft diameter. A larger allowable settlement
would naturally lead to a lower acceptable factor of safety.
A s in some cases the bell might take a very substantial pro
portion of the load, and as the settlements might then exceed
those given in Whitaker and Cooke's Fig. 21, it was neces
sary to set up an alternative design rule which applied a
higher load factor to the bell than the shaft. The expression
(</(ii)) given in the Table ensured that the bell itself was never
loaded to more than one-third of its calculated ultimate
bearing capacity. The lower of the two working loads given
by (d(i)) and (d(ii)) should be used, but for belled piles of the
usual proportions little difference would be found.
If the bell diameter was larger than 6 ft the working load
should be checked by calculating the settlement according to
the methods given by Whitaker and C o o k e or by Burland,
Butler and Dunican. The allowable settlement was a
matter of judgement, but \ in. was presumably a value which
might be accepted in first approximation design.
(/) Settlements of the structure. Having arrived at
provisional working loads for the piles only one part of the
problem had been solved. The other part was, of course,
the calculation of the settlements of the structure.
The subject of structural settlement was considered in the
Paper by Fleming and Steger. They had outlined the
methods of calculation generally used, and gave some
interesting settlement observations, but Professor Skempton
felt sure they would be the first to agree that the questions
asked by D r Simons were highly relevant and almost un
answerable at the present time.
H e strongly supported the suggestion made by Mr Suther
land that the next phase of research should be the recording
of settlements of structures o n piled foundations, in more
detail and o n a more extensive scale than hitherto. H e
suggested that load-measuring cells should be installed so
that it would be possible to learn something about the
distribution of total load between the piles and the raft.
Only by making such observations of loads and settlements,
and comparing the results with settlement calculations, could
the second part of the problem be tackled successfully.
The Symposium had, in his opinion, contributed greatly to
the design of the single pile. The problem of structural
settlement still required much further work. It would be
satisfactory if another Symposium could be arranged in a
few years dealing with the settlement of structures founded
o n the types of pile which had been considered.
157