See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272253694

Back calculated α and β coefficients from case histories of negative skin

friction piles

Article  in  Material Research Innovations · February 2011

DOI: 10.1179/143307511X12858957677073

CITATIONS READS

2 308

4 authors, including:

Jinyuan Liu
Ryerson University
116 PUBLICATIONS   1,197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LRFD approach for soil nail walls View project

Geotechnical properties of glacial tills in GTA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyuan Liu on 04 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Back calculated a and b coefficients from case
histories of negative skin friction piles
H. M. Gao*1, H. L. Liu2, J. Y. Liu3 and M. L. Liu2
This paper presents the back calculated a and b coefficients from case histories in negative skin
friction piles and provides an engineering reference for engineers to design a negative skin
friction pile. Negative skin friction or dragload is a common problem for a pile in a highly
compressible soil. There are mainly two methods to calculate negative skin friction: a and b
methods. In this paper, a and b coefficients are back calculated based on several known case
histories. It is found that both a and b coefficients vary in a wide range. The average values of 0?62
for a and 0?21 for b are recommended for uncoated piles compared to 0?17 and 0?07 for a and b
for coated piles.
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Keywords: Negative skin friction, Pile, Case history, Back calculation, a and b coefficients

Introduction
Negative skin friction (NSF) occurs when soil surround-
ing a pile settles more than the pile itself. It normally
occurs in highly compressible soil areas. Negative skin
friction causes extra dragload on the pile foundation and
induces significant pile settlement.
Many methods have been proposed to calculate the
magnitude and distribution of NSF, including analytical
methods and numerical approaches.1–4 In particular,
field tests have been used by many researchers.5–7 These
tests were normally very expensive and time consuming.
More importantly, the results provided valuable infor-
mation for engineers to understand NSF in piles. This
paper is to revisit these known case histories to evaluate
the a and b coefficients normally used in the design.
Design methods for negative skin
friction pile
There are mainly two methods, a (total stress) and b
(effective stress) methods, in calculating unit skin
friction fs for driven piles in clay.8 The same methods
have been applied to calculate NSF
fs ~asu (1)
fs ~bs’v (2)
where su is the average undrained shear strength of soil
along the length of the pile, sv9 is the average vertical
1
College of Transportation Science & Engineering, Nanjing University of
Technology, 200 Zhongshan North Road, Nanjing 210009, China
2
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and
Embankment Engineering, Geotechnical Research Institute, Hohai
University, 1 Xikang Road, Nanjing 210098, China
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,
Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
*Corresponding author, email hongmei54@163.com
effective stress in the soil along the pile before driving
and a and b are two empirical factors.
The a method is widely used in practice because of its
simple form, though it is considered inadequate since su
is not a unique soil property. The b method is based on
the effective stress theory, which more coincides with the
engineering circumstances.9
Based on full scaled load tests, NAVFAC10 mainly
recommends the b method for the unit skin friction. The
value of b varies depending on the type of soil: 0?2–0?25
for clay, 0?25–0?35 for silt and 0?35–0?50 for sand.
USACE11 provides a commentary on various methods
used in practice regarding NSF in its manual of design
for pile foundations. However, no specific method is
recommended for design. In AREMA,12 the considera-
tion of NSF is specified for end bearing piles in section
4?3?2. The design load is preferred to be determined by
loading tests. No specific design method is suggested or
recommended in its manual. AASHTO13 specifies NSF
in section 4?5?6?7?1 of highway bridge design manual. As
a guideline, the load transfer method of analysis shall be
considered in the design with the time dependent
behaviour of NSF on a pile.
Canadian Geotechnical Society14 specifies NSF con-
sideration in section 18?2?5 in the fourth edition of
‘Canadian foundation engineering manual’. It mainly
recommends a method, where a value is in the range of
0?5–1?0 and the undrained shear strength su is specified
as the strength of soil after consolidation under new
load. Canadian Geotechnical Society suggests the
application of b method in the range of 0?2–0?3.
In general, most of these design guidelines do not
provide a specific method to follow since NSF is a very
complex phenomenon and influenced by many factors.
Calculation methods for a and b
coefficients
Given unit skin friction fs, a and b can be directly
calculated from equations (1) and (2). If the dragload

ß W. S. Maney & Son Ltd. 2011

Received 20 September 2010; accepted 15 November 2010
DOI 10.1179/143307511X12858957677073 Materials Research Innovations 2011 VOL 15 SUPPL 1 S597
 Gao et al. Back calculated a and b coefficients
along the pile is known, a and b can be calculated as
follows
a~ðP2 {P1 Þ=½su C ðh2 {h1 Þ


b~2ðP2 {P1 Þ= c’C h2 2 {h1 2
where h1 and h2 are the depths of two measurements
points, P1 and P2 are the dragloads measured at the
depths of h1 and h2, C is the perimeter of the pile and c9
is the effective unit weight of soil.
Calculation of a and b based on field
measurements
Field tests have been performed to investigate NSF
problem since the 1960s. In this study, both a and
b coefficients were back calculated for these field tests.
Case history A: Sorenga, Norway
A full scale test was conducted on a telltale instrumen-
ted steel pile B.15 The pile with a length of 55 m and a
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited
diameter of 470 mm was embedded in layered soil
consisting of 10 m thick fill and 50 m soft to medium
soft marine clay on bedrock. The b coefficient back
calculated in this study varied from 0?03 to 0?27 with an
average value of 0?15, and a coefficient ranged from
0?23 to 1?85 with an average of 0?73. Bjerrum et al.16
also investigated three piles (piles C, D and E) in a
nearby site, which was consisted of 15 m fill and 40 m
soft marine clay. All piles were full scale steel tube piles
with a diameter of 500 mm and a wall thickness of
8 mm. Piles D and E were bitumen coated. b decreased
from 0?32 to 0?1 with depth for uncoated pile C. b
averaged 0?01 and 0?08 for the coated piles D and E
respectively. The higher b value in pile E was due to
bitumen scraped off during pile driving. a was not given
due to the lack of su.
1 Distribution of a coefficient over pile length
S598 Materials Research Innovations 2011 VOL 15 SUPPL
Case history B: Heroya, Norway
Four 300 mm diameter telltale instrumented pipe piles
(3) [piles A, B (bitumen coated), C and D] were driven in a
site consisting of 7 m sand gravel fill, 5 m clayey silt and
18 m silty clay.16 An average value of 1?15 for a and a
(4) range of 0?17–0?24 for b were back calculated for
uncoated piles, compared to smaller average values of
0?18 and 0?05 for a and b coefficients for coated pile B.
Case history C: Fukagawa, Japan
Three steel pipe piles (cE43, oE43 and cF31) with the
same diameter of 610 mm were driven in a site
consisting of 2 m fill, 7 m silty sand, 30 m soft silt and
4 m hard silt.5 The 43 m long cE43 and oE43 were
driven to hard silt while the 31 m long cF31 was driven
as a friction pile. The b value ranged from 0?16 to 0?53
with an average value of 0?33. The a coefficient varied in
a wide range from 0?1 to 1?57 with an average value of
0?75.
Case history D: Goteborg, Sweden
Two instrumented precast concrete piles with lengths of
53?1 and 55?1 m were driven in a site consisting of 40 m
clay, 13 m silt and 15 m sand.6 All the piles had the same
cross-sectional area of 800 cm2 and a circumference of
106 cm. The a value was back calculated in the range of
0?1–0?21 and b was in the range of 0?04–0?07 in this
study. These values were in good agreement with the
values of 0?17 and 0?05 for a and b reported by Fellenius
and Broms.6
Case history E: Hawaii, USA
Three 420 mm diameter precast prestressed concrete
piles [piles 6, 7 (bitumen coated) and 8] were driven in a
site consisting mainly of soft to firm clay.17 Pile 7 had
the same length of 50 m as pile 8. For uncoated piles, the
b value, with an average of 0?22, reduced from 0?39 to
0?11 with depth compared to an average value of 0?64
1

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited
2 Distribution of b coefficient over pile length
and the range from 1?07 to 0?37 for the a coefficient. The
a and b varied in a narrow range for coated pile with an
average value of 0?21 and 0?06 respectively.
Case history F: Tokyo Bay, Japan
A 37?5 m long closed end steel pipe pile was driven
through 7 m sand fill and 30?5 m silt, clay and gravel
into a bearing stratum of dense sand.18 The b value was
back calculated to vary from 0?22 to 0?61 with an
average value of 0?4, which was bigger than 0?22
suggested by Wong and Teh.19 The a value ranged from
0?72 to 1?63 with an average value of 1?16.
Case history G: Bangkok, Thailand
Two hollow prestressed precast concrete piles [T1 and
T2 (bitumen coated)] were driven in a site consisting of
2–4 m weathered clay, 16 m soft clay and 6–8 m thick
medium stiff and stiff clay.7 Two piles had an outside
and an inside diameters of 400 and 250 mm. For the
uncoated pile T1, the b value reduced from 0?59 to 0?02
with depth with an average value of 0?23 and the a value
ranged from 0?04 to 0?61 with an average value of 0?43.
For the coated pile T2, the a and b coefficients
remarkably reduced to an average value of 0?18 and
0?09 respectively. These values were in general agree-
ment with those reported by Indraratna et al.7
Distribution of a and b with pile length
The distributions of both a and b with normalised pile
length are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. Since the
pile length varied case by case, the depths of measure-
ment points were normalised by each pile length. Both a
and b coefficients scattered in a wide range. An average
b value of 0?21 is suggested for uncoated piles and 0?07
for coated piles, where three excessive values for
uncoated piles and one for coated piles were excluded
in averaging. An average value of 0?62 for a is
recommended for uncoated piles and 0?17 for coated
Gao et al. Back calculated a and b coefficients
piles. Similarly, three excessive values for uncoated pile
and one for coated piles were excluded.
Conclusions
The a and b coefficients were back calculated in this
paper from several known case histories. Both a and b
vary in a wide range. In each case, back calculated a is
almost three times of b. Based on this study, an average
a value of 0?62 or b value of 0?21 were recommended for
uncoated piles and 0?17 or 0?07 for coated piles.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to acknowledge the scholarship awarded
to the first and fourth authors by the China Scholarship
Council during their 1 year study at Ryerson University.
Financial support from the Natural Science Foundation of
Jiangsu Province, China for this research under Grant No.
BK2008040 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck: ‘Soil mechanics in engineering
practice’; 1948, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
2. H. G. Poulos and N. S. Mattes: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil
mechanics and foundation engineering’, Mexico City, Mexico,
August 1969, Vol. 2, 203–209.
3. Y. K. Chow, C. H. Lim and G. P. Karunaratne: Comput. Geotech.,
1969, 18, (3), 201–224.
4. C. J. Lee, M. D. Bolton and A. Al-Tabbaa: Geotechnique, 2002, 52,
(5), 325–335.
5. M. Endo, T. Kawasaki and T. Shibata: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil
mechanics and foundation engineering’, Mexico City, Mexico,
August 1969, Vol. 2, 85–92.
6. B. H. Fellenius and B. B. Broms: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil
mechanics and foundation engineering’, Mexico City, Mexico,
August 1969, Vol. 2, 93–98.
7. B. Indraratna, A. S. Balasubramaniam, P. Phamvan and Y. K.
Wong: Can. Geotech. J., 1992, 29, (3), 393–404.
8. G. G. Meyerhof: J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 1976, 102, (3), 195–228.
9. M. W. O’Neill: J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127, (1), 3–16.
Materials Research Innovations 2011 VOL 15 SUPPL 1 S599
 Gao et al. Back calculated a and b coefficients
10. NAVFAC: ‘Foundations and earth structures’, Design manual
7?02; 1986, Alexandra, VA, US Department of Navy.
11. USACE: ‘Design of pile foundations’, Engineer manual 1110-2-
2906; 1991, Washington, DC, US Army Corps of Engineers.
12. AREMA: ‘AREMA manual of railway engineering’, Part 4, ‘Pile
foundations’; 1994, Lanham, MD, AREMA.
13. AASHTO: ‘Standard specifications for highway bridges’, 17th edn;
2002, Washington, DC, American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials.
14. Canadian Geotechnical Society: ‘Canadian foundation engineering ma-
nual’, 4th edn, 488; 2006, Richmond, Canadian Geotechnical Society.
15. I. J. Johannessen and L. Bjerrum: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil
mechanics and foundation engineering’, Montreal, Canada,
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited
S600 Materials Research Innovations 2011 VOL 15 SUPPL 1
View publication stats
September 1965, University of Toronto Press, Vol. 2, 261–
264.
16. L. Bjerrum, I. J. Johannessen and O. Eide: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
‘Soil mechanics and foundation engineering’, Mexico City, Mexico,
August 1969, Vol. 2, 27–34.
17. F. Clemente: Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil mechanics and
foundation engineering’, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1981, Taylor
& Francis, Vol. 2, 673–676.
18. T. Fukuya, T. Todoroki and M. Kasuga: Proc. 7th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conf., Hong Kong, China, November 1982,
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Vol. 1, 333–347.
19. K. S. Wong and C. I. Teh: J. Geotech. Eng., 1995, 121, (6), 457–
465.