NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

DOWNDRAG ON PILE

1
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Known Facts about Negative Skin Friction

1. QNSF develops when the soil moves 
down relative to the pile.

2. QPSF develops when the pile move 
down relative to the soil.

3. There exists a neutral point which 
divides QNSF and QPSF.

4. It only takes a few mm of relative 
movement to fully mobilise QNSF and 
QPSF.

2
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Development of Negative Skin Friction

fs =  'v

(initial)
Uo+U Excess pore pressure

Time
Uo

Settlement
(final)
Time

Soil
vf′
(final)
Friction
Vertical effective stress
fs =  v′
vi′
Skin

(initial) Time Time

3
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Case Study: Bangkok, Thailand
(Indraratna et al., 1992)

4
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Variation Of Surface Settlement With Time
(Indraratna et al., 1992)

5
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Soil Settlement Versus Depth Profile
(Indraratna et al., 1992)

6
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Variation of Neutral Point with Time
(Indraratna et al., 1992)

7
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Cause of Downdrag

Load & Resistance Distribution Settlement of Pile & Soil

What is the neutral point?
QC
QC

Pile
Soil moves more
QNSF QC+ than the pile
QNSF

Pile moves more

QPSF than the soil
QP+
QPSF
QP
QP

Note: QP and QPSF may not be fully mobilised. 8

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point

9
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Soil Settlement on Neutral Point

So =

10
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Soil Settlement on Neutral Point

Soil Settlement (mm)

Bangkok Case Study

Axial Load (tonnes)

Location of Neutral Point

Depth (m)

11
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Soil Settlement Profile on Neutral Point

12
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Neutral point of pile end bearing in sand & rock

Ls Ln
L
Soft
Clay

Sand

13
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Neutral Point Of Pile End Bearing In Clay

Ln = 0.6 L

Ln = 0.7 to 0.9 Ls
Ls Ln
L
Soft
Clay
Ln = 0.9 to 1.0 Ls

Stiff to
Ln=
Hard Clay
Ls=

14
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Floating Piles in Soft Clay 

15
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Case Study 2: Nishi & Esashi (1982)

End Bearing Pile Floating Pile

16
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Case Study 3: Tokyo Bay, Japan
(Endo et al., 1969)
cE43 cF31

cF31

oE43 17
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters Through Back‐Analysis 

(Wong & Teh, 1995)

Computer Program -- NSFpile

18
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters Through Back‐Analysis 

(Wong & Teh, 1995)

Tokyo Bay, Japan (Fukuya et al., 1982)

19
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters Through Back‐Analysis 

(Wong & Teh, 1995)

20
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters through Back‐Analysis 
(Wong & Teh, 1995)

Comparison of computed and

measured axial forces in pile

Tokyo Bay, Japan

(Fukuya et al., 1982)

21
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters through Back‐Analysis 
(Wong & Teh, 1995)

Norway Tokyo Bay Bangkok

(Bjerrum et al., 1969) (Fukuya et al., 1982) (Indraratna et al., 1992)
22
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters through Back‐Analysis 
(Wong & Teh, 1995)

End bearing pile Floating friction pile

Melborne
(Walker & Darvall, 1969) Japan (Nishi & Esashi, 1982)
23
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Evaluation of Soil Parameters through Back‐Analysis 
(Wong & Teh, 1995)

Closed-end pipe pile open-end pipe pile Closed-end pipe pile

(End bearing) (End bearing) (Floating friction)

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Tokyo (Endo et al., 1969) 24
 Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Clay

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)

Use either  or  method
- method
- method

25
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Determination of Limiting Skin Friction

Clay (Wong and Teh, 1995)

fs =  vf′
where  = (cu / v′)NC OCR f 0.5
(cu / v′)NC ~ 0.22 for many clays
OCR f = p′ / vf′
p′ = preconsolidation pressure
vf′ = final effective stress
For conservative estimation of Qnsf, higher
unit weights and lower ground water table
should be used.
For conservative estimation of Qpsf, the
opposite trend should be used.
26
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Limiting Negative Skin Friction

Clay (Fleming et al., 1987)

fs =  cuf
0.5
where  = 0.5 / (cuf / vf′) for cuf / vf′ ≤ 1
 = 0.5 / (cuf / vf′) 0.25 for cuf / vf′ > 1
cuf = final undrained shear strength
vf′ = final effective stress

27
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag in Pile Group 

Settlement
Measurements
in Pile Group
(Ergun & Sonmez,
1995)

28
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ NAVFAC’s Method 

29
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ Terzaghi & Peck’s Method

30
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ NSFpile
(after Teh and Wong, 1995)
Case study: Koichi et al.  (1979)

31
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ NSFpile
(after Teh and Wong, 1995)
Case study: Shibata et al.  (1982)

32
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ NSFpile
(after Teh and Wong, 1995)
Case study: Okabe,  (1982)

(After Okabe, 1977)

33
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Pile Group ‐ Broms’ Method

34
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 3‐D Finite Element Analysis using ABACUS
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

35
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Validation of 3‐D Finite Element Analysis using ABACUS
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

After Okabe (1977) 4
3
2
1

36
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

37
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Pile Spacing in End Bearing Piles
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

s = 5d

s = 2.5d

Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3

38
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Recommended Downdrag on Piles within a Group
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

39
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Downdrag on Piles within a Group
(Architectural Institute of Japan, 1988)

or
f s   ave
'
Ln

40

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Validation of AIJ Method

41
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 An Extension of AIJ Method

Ln

Neutral
Plane

s d

Corner Pile

Ln / d

42
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Known Facts
Downdrag about
on Piles Negative
within Skin
a Group Friction
– AIJ Method

Corner Side
Pile Group

Centre
Corner :  = 0.64
Side :  = 0.47
Centre :  = 0.33

Single Single Pile

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag 43
 Comparison of AIJ Method against 3D FEM

2x2

FEM
6x6

2x2
AIJ

FEM

6x6

44
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Pile Cap for Piles Subjected to Downdrag

Rigid Pile Cap Flexible Pile Cap

45
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Conventional Method of Analysis

Pile without  Downdrag Pile with Downdrag

46
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Live Load on Piles subjected to Downdrag

QDL QDL
Pile A QDL QLL Pile B QDL QLL

QNSF
QS
QDL QNSF

QPSF

QP QP

When QLL is applied to Pile A, When QLL is applied to Pile B,

the maximum stress in pile is the maximum stress in pile is
QDL+ QLL. still QDL+ QNSF.

47
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Effect of Transient Live Load on Downdrag
(Data from Fellenius, 1971)

• It is not necessary to include transient live load.

• Sustained live load should be treated as dead load.
48
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Designing of Piles subjected to Downdrag

1. Check capacity at the end of construction QALL

Geotechnical capacity
QALL ≤ (QP + QS ) / FS where FS = 2 to 3

Structural capacity
QALL ≤ fc′ AP / FS where FS = 4 for concrete QS
Use smaller of the two QALL.

 Use the current soil strength to compute QP and QS.

 Use lower strength to obtain conservative results.
QP

49
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Designing of Piles subjected to Downdrag

2. Determine neutral point

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)

Ln = 0.6 Ls for friction pile
Ln = 1.0 Ls for end bearing pile
Ln Ls
L
Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)
Ln = 1.0 Ls

Proposed
See notes.
Ln = 1.0 Ls is a reasonable and
conservative choice for piles
penetrated into competent stratum.
50
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Designing of Piles subjected to Downdrag

QC
3. Determine downdrag QC
• Use  or  method.
• Use final stresses and
strength. QNSF
• Use higher strength to
obtain conservative QC QNSF
downdrag.
QPSF

QP QPSF

QP
51
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Degree of Mobilisation ""

QC
QC

Pile
Soil moves more
QNSF QC+ than the pile
QNSF

Pile moves more

QPSF than the soil
QP+
QP QPSF
QP

CP4 : 2003  = 0.67 (typical)

Downdrag =  QNSF  = 1.0 (when Qc is low relative to QNSF) 
52
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Group Reduction Factor ""

Downdrag =  QNSF where  ~ 0.5 to 1



 ~ 0.5 to 1.0

Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
Use group reduction factor  = 0.85 53
 Designing of Piles subjected to Downdrag

QC

QC
4. Check structural capacity
under downdrag
QC + QNSF ≤ Qall, str QNSF

QC QNSF

QPSF
How should we calculate Qall, str?
QP QPSF

QP
54
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Structural Capacity of Piles subjected to Downdrag

Qall, str ≤ fc′ AP / FS

maximum
Q Q

maximum

Maximum stress at pile top Maximum stress at neutral point under

under low confining pressure. high confining pressure.
FS = 4.0 (concrete) FS = 1.5 (concrete)
CP4Downdrag
CV6313 ‐ : 2003 Singapore Canadian Foundation Manual (1992)
55
Geotechnical Capacity of Piles subjected to Downdrag

QC
5. Check geotechnical capacity
under downdrag QC

QC + QNSF ≤ ( QP + QPSF ) / FS
QNSF
CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)
Fs = 2.0 to 2.5 or higher QC QNSF

Can we use a lower Fs? QPSF

Fs = 1.5 ?
QP QPSF

QP
56
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Pile Settlement due to Downdrag
QC QC
QC QC

QNSF
QS Same Soil
QC QNSF

QPSF
Downdrag
No Downdrag
QP Present
QP
QC Q QC Q

  57
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Plunging Failure Under Downdrag?

QC QC
Q Q

QNSF
QS
?

QPSF

 
QP
QP

No downdrag Pile subjected to downdrag

58
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Comparison of CP4:2003 with Conventional Method

Conventional Method
QC = (QP + QS) / Fs - QNSF
QC QC For Fs = 2.5
QC = (QP + QS) / 2.5 - QNSF

CP4 : 2003
QNSF
QC + QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
QS
Qc ≤ (QP + QS) / Fs – (+ 1/Fs) QNSF

For Fs = 2.5 and = 1.0

QPSF
QC ≤ (QP + QS) / 2.5 – 1.40 QNSF

For Fs = 2.5 and  = 0.67

QP QP QC ≤ (QP + QS) / 2.5 – 1.07 QNSF

CV6313 ‐ Downdrag ?? 59
 Comparison of Singapore & Hong Kong Codes

1. CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)

2. Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)

• Both methods are quite similar. 
• Transient live load is not included when designing for 
downdrag. 
• Sustained live load is treated as part of dead load.
• Design load  = QC + QNSF
where QC = dead load + sustained live load 
QNSF = downdrag

60
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Neutral Point

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)

Ln = 0.6 Ls for friction pile
Ln = 1.0 Ls for end bearing pile
Ls = thickness of "consolidation soil"
Ln
L Ls

Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)

Ln = 1.0 Ls
Ls = thickness of "consolidation strata"

Proposed Alternatives
Ln = 0.5 to 1.0 Ls
Ls = length of pile within settling soil

61
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Degree of Mobilisation ""

Downdrag =  QNSF

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)
 = 0.67  (typical)
 = 1.0    (when QC is low relative to QNSF)
Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)
 = 0.85 (group reduction factor)   

Proposed alternatives to CP4 : 2003
• Use group reduction factor based on AIJ method. 
• Use  = 0.5 to 1.0 
62
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Structural & Geotechnical Capacities

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)

Structural: QC + QNSF ≤ QALL,ST
Geotechnical: QC + QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
where Fs = 2.0 to 2.5 or higher

Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)

Structural: QC + QNSF ≤ QALL,ST
Geotechnical: none specified

Proposed alternatives to CP4 : 2003

• Use Fs = 1.5
63
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Load test for Piles subjected to Downdrag

CP4 : 2003 (Singapore)
• Conventional load test.
• Settlement at (Qc + 2QNSF)   ≤  10 mm

Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)
• Conventional load test to (2QC+ QNSF)

Recommended method:
• Conduct conventional load test to failure, QULT = QP+ QS
• Construct load‐settlement curve for downdrag

64
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Reported Failures due to Downdrag
Miller (1938)

65
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Reported Failures due to Downdrag

66
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Reported Failures due to Downdrag

67
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 Failure due to Downdrag in Singapore

68
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag
 References
CP4:2003 – Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Foundations, SPRING Singapore.
(www.standards.org.sg)
Code of Practice for Foundations (2004), Building Department, Hong Kong
(http://www.info.gov.hk/bd/english/documents/code/FoundationCode2004.pdf)
Fleming, W.G.K, Weltman, A.J, Randolph, M.F. and Elson, W.K. (1985) Piling Engineering, Surrey
University Press, Glasgow.
Indraratna, B., Balasubramaniam, A.S., Phamvan, P. and Wong, K.Y. (1992) Development of negative
skin friction on driven piles in soft Bangkok clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, 393-404.
Jeong, S. and Briaud, J.L. (1994) Nonlinear 3-D analysis of downdrag on pile groups, Vertical and
horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40,
Vol. 2, 1366-1384.
Teh, C. I. and Wong, K. S. (1995) Analysis of Downdrag of Pile Group, Geotechnique, 45 (2), 191-207.
Wong, K. S. and Teh, C. I (1995) Negative Skin Friction on Piles in Layered Deposits, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 6, 457-465.
Wong, K.S., and Teh, C.I. (1995) Downdrag on Piles, Proc. of Bengt B. Broms Geotechncial Symposium,
Singapore, December 13-15, 449-468.
Wong, K.S., and Teh, C.I. (1996) Special Load Test for Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction, Proc. of
12th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Vol. 1, 399-402.
Wong, K.S., and Teh, C.I. (1997) Lessons Learned from Failures due to Downdrag, Proceedings of
International Conference on Foundation Failures, Singapore, 195-206.

69
CV6313 ‐ Downdrag