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

net/publication/237373234

Development of negative skin friction on single piles: Uncoupled analysis based

on nonlinear consolidation theory with finite strain and the load-transfer
method

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · June 2011

DOI: 10.1139/t11-004

CITATIONS READS

13 2,543

2 authors:

Hyeong-Joo Kim Jose Leo Mission

Kunsan National University National Marine Dredging Company (NMDC)
58 PUBLICATIONS   235 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Analysis of Negative Skin-Friction on Single Piles by One-Dimensional Consolidation Model Test View project

Numerical and field test verifications for the deformation behavior of geotextile tubes considering 1D and areal strain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hyeong-Joo Kim on 11 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 905

Development of negative skin friction on single

piles: uncoupled analysis based on nonlinear
consolidation theory with finite strain and the
load-transfer method
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13

Hyeong-Joo Kim and Jose Leo C. Mission

Abstract: The development of negative skin friction (NSF) on single piles is investigated based on an uncoupled method of
analysis with the Mikasa (1963) generalized nonlinear consolidation theory in terms of finite strain and the nonlinear load-
transfer method. Predicted results are compared with results based on the conventional linear consolidation theory with in-
finitesimal strains. It is found that predicted development of dragload using the conventional consolidation theory is slightly
greater and conservative compared to that using the nonlinear consolidation theory based on effective stress (b method). Ef-
fective stress predictions using the conventional theory are larger due to the faster dissipation of excess pore pressures, with
the assumption of constant coefficient of consolidation and permeability. However, since the relative displacements required
to mobilize the ultimate skin friction are small, and piles are usually installed near the final stages of soil consolidation, the
differences in the predictions for the development of dragload on piles between the two consolidation theories are overshad-
owed. Using the uncoupled model for pile NSF, it is therefore found that the most significant factor for the estimation of
dragload and downdrag is the proper selection of the b value rather than the consolidation theory used.
Key words: pile negative skin friction, one-dimensional nonlinear consolidation, effective stress method, nonlinear load-
For personal use only.

transfer method.
Résumé : Le développement de la friction superficielle négative (FSN) sur des pieux simples est évalué selon une méthode
d’analyse non couplée avec la théorie de consolidation linéaire généralisée de Mikasa (1963) en termes de déformation finie
et de la méthode de transfert de charge non linéaire. Les résultats des prédictions sont comparés à ceux basés sur la théorie
de consolidation linéaire conventionnelle avec des déformations infinitésimales. Il est observé que les développements de la
charge de traînée prédit à l’aide de la théorie de consolidation conventionnelle sont légèrement plus élevés et conservateurs
comparativement à ceux obtenus par la théorie de consolidation non linéaire basée sur les contraintes effectives (méthode
b). Les prédictions des contraintes effectives obtenues à l’aide de la théorie conventionnelle sont plus grandes en raison de
la dissipation plus rapide des pressions interstitielles en assumant un coefficient de consolidation et de perméabilité constant.
Cependant, comme les déplacements relatifs nécessaires pour mobiliser la friction superficielle ultime sont faibles et que les
pieux sont normalement installés durant les derniers stades de la consolidation du sol, les différences entre les prédictions
pour le développement de la charge de traînée sur les pieux selon les deux théories de consolidation se confondent. À partir
du modèle non couplé de FSN pour les pieux, il a été déterminé que la sélection adéquate de la valeur de b est le facteur le
plus important pour l’estimation de la charge de traînée et de l’entraînement vers le bas, plutôt que la théorie de consolida-
tion utilisée.
Mots‐clés : friction superficielle négative d’un pieu, consolidation linéaire unidimensionnelle, méthode des contraintes effec-
tives, méthode de transfert de charge non linéaire.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction (Bjerrum et al. 1969; Endo et al. 1969; Fellenius 2006). Sev-
eral methods for the prediction of NSF in single piles employ
Consolidation of a saturated clayey soil produces settle- a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) elastic–
ment and variation in effective stresses and its shear strength plastic continuum model using finite element procedures for
properties due to the dissipation of excess pore pressures the soil and pile in a coupled analysis (Indraratna et al.
with time. Consequently, downward movements of a consoli- 1992; Jeong et al. 1997; Comodromos and Bareka 2005).
dating soil relative to an embedded pile develop to negative Alonso et al. (1984) used the load-transfer method to predict
skin friction (NSF), accumulating to downdrag and dragload the NSF on single piles in an uncoupled analysis with the
Received 10 March 2009. Accepted 15 November 2010. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 2 June 2011.
H.-J. Kim and J.L.C. Mission. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University, Miryong-dong,
Kunsan, Jeollabuk-do, 573-701, South Korea.
Corresponding author: J.L.C. Mission (e-mail: joseleo_mission@kunsan.ac.kr).

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 905–914 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-004 Published by NRC Research Press
 906
classical Terzaghi (1943) assumptions of one-dimensional
(1D) consolidation theory and an elastoplastic and bilinear
load-transfer function for the soil–pile interface. Wong and
Teh (1995) also utilized the load-transfer approach using a
hyperbolic criterion for the soil spring at the pile shaft in a
numerical procedure by applying a known value of the soil
settlement at the layers, which was determined using the con-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
ventional Terzaghi consolidation theory. Chen et al. (2009)
studied the influence of nonlinear soil consolidation based
on the Davis and Raymond (1965) theory on the develop-
ment of NSF on a pile using a hyperbolic interface model,
but consideration for variation of the coefficient of consolida-
tion, finite strain effects, and reduced soil–pile interaction
length due to settlement was not accounted for. On the other
hand, Kim and Mission (2009a, 2009b) studied the develop-
ment of NSF on single piles in an uncoupled analysis based
on finite strain consolidation theory, but the consolidation pa-
rameters were assumed constant. Since soil–pile interaction is
greatly influenced by the effective stresses at the interface
and the relative movements at which they are mobilized, and
coupled with the fact that the ultimate soil–pile interface
shear stresses become fully mobilized at small relative soil–
pile movements, the effects of nonlinear consolidation may
be a significant consideration in the analysis of pile NSF.
Considering the complexity involved in continuum ap-
proaches, while some of them incapable of being used with
For personal use only.
an advanced settlement theory or deformation analysis, as
well as consideration for delayed pile installation from the
start of surcharge loading or fill, this study presents a simpli-
fied uncoupled method for the analysis of NSF in single piles
using the Mikasa (1963) generalized 1D nonlinear consolida-
tion theory for the prediction of soil settlements and effective
stresses, and the nonlinear load-transfer method for the pile
analysis. The analysis makes use of a set of simplified non-
linear load-transfer curves for clay and sand developed in the
literature that is representative of the average axial soil–pile
responses and behavior observed in the field from various
pile load tests under different soil conditions. Soil–pile slip
is also being implicitly considered by curtailing the soil–pile
interface stresses to some limiting values (Chow et al. 1990)
based on the effective stress method.
Most load-transfer approaches employ the classic Terzaghi
1D consolidation theory in the prediction of soil settlements
and effective stresses. The Terzaghi theory is expressed in
terms of excess pore pressures and is formulated under the
following assumptions among others: (i) infinitesimal strains;
(ii) the coefficients of consolidation (Cv), permeability (k),
and volume compressibility (mv) are constant during the con-
solidation process. Since small relative soil–pile movements
are required to mobilize the ultimate skin friction, accurate
prediction of soil settlements and interface shear stresses
may be significant factors in the analysis of pile NSF. In ad-
dition, large soil settlements may have a significant effect on
the reduced soil–pile interaction length in the computation of
the interface shear forces and axial load on the pile. Given
that most field data on consolidation tests and pile observa-
tions are typically available in terms of strain or settlement
rather than on excess pore pressures, this study uses the Mi-
kasa (1963) generalized 1D nonlinear consolidation theory
that considers finite strains as well as the variation of the co-
efficients of consolidation. In this study, the predictions for
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
the development of dragload on a single pile are compared in
an uncoupled method of analysis based on the nonlinear and
linear consolidation theories and the load-transfer method.
Analytical soil–pile model
A pile embedded in a compressible soil layer that is sub-
jected to a surcharge load, q, on its surface experiences an
increasing variation of its effective stresses (s′) and settle-
ment (Figs. 1a–1c). A 1D soil–pile model is being used,
based on the vertical beam on Winkler foundation and the
nonlinear load-transfer method as shown in Fig. 1d. The
soil–pile interface is modeled by a zero-length spring whose
load-deformation behavior is defined by a nonlinear load-
transfer curve in skin friction or T–z curve (Fig. 1e). The
load-deformation behavior at the base of the pile can be mod-
eled by a zero-length spring whose property is defined by a
load-transfer curve in end bearing or Q–z curve for a com-
pressible bearing stratum. As used in this study, the backbone
of the T–z curve for clay is approximated from the Reese and
O’Neill (1987) relation (Fig. 2a), and the backbone of the T–
z curve for sand is approximated from the Mosher (1984) re-
lation (Fig. 2b), all of which are being implemented in the
software program OpenSees (2000) using the TzSimple1 ma-
terials (Boulanger 2003). The ultimate properties of the T–z
curve are determined based on the effective stress (b
method), as described in the next sections, depending on the
type of soil and pile present. The TzSimple1 command in
OpenSees accepts as input the ultimate capacity (in unit of
force) of the T–z material and the displacement at which
50% of the ultimate capacity is mobilized. A more detailed
formulation of the parameters for the nonlinear T–z and Q–z
soil springs used in this study can be found in the OpenSees
user manual (Mazzoni et al. 2006).
The transfer of load through shear along the sides of a cir-
cular pile is given by the following differential equation (Re-
ese and O’Neill 1987),
d2 zp
½1 EA ¼ pDfs
dz2
where zp is movement of the pile or shaft at depth z, A is the
cross-section area of the pile, E is the modulus of elasticity
of the pile material, D is the pile diameter, and fs is the shear
force per unit area of load transfer from the shaft to the soil
at depth z. With the presence of ongoing settlements around
the vicinity of the pile from soil consolidation, if we let zs
equal soil settlement and zp equal pile settlement, then a cri-
terion for T–z load transfer can be established based on the
following:
1. (zs > zp), T is negative (downward drag force)
2. (zs < zp), T is positive (upward shaft resistance)
3. (zs = zp), T = 0 (equilibrium, location of neutral plane)
Thus, the shear force per unit area of load transfer, fs, in
eq. [1] can also be viewed and written in a generalized form
as a function of the difference between the pile and soil set-
tlements, zp and zs, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1e.
½2 fs ¼ f ðzp  zs Þ
The soil settlements, zs, at any time and depth in the soil
layers are predicted from a 1D consolidation theory and are
Published by NRC Research Press
 Kim and Mission
Fig. 1. (a) Typical pile in compressible soil layer undergoing consolidation settlement; (b) effective stress profile; (c) soil settlement profile;
(d) nonlinear load-transfer curves; (e) 1D soil–pile discretization (all after Kim and Mission 2009a).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
Fig. 2. Normalized load-transfer relations (T–z curve) for side resis-
tance of piles: (a) in clay (Reese and O’Neill 1987); (b) in sand
(Mosher 1984). D, pile diameter; Tu, ultimate skin-friction resistance.
For personal use only.
907
applied as boundary conditions (imposed displacements) at
the free ends of the soil springs at any time during the prog-
ress of consolidation (Fig. 1d). The ultimate resistances of
the nonlinear T–z springs are determined from the effective
stresses (b method) that exist at the time when NSF is to be
evaluated. The 1D soil–pile finite element model is shown in
Fig. 1d, and the analysis is implemented using the open-
source software finite element program OpenSees (2000)
that is used in this study. Since the soil–pile model used is
1D, the method is thus limited to the analysis of NSF on sin-
gle piles and is uncoupled. Analysis of pile NSF in pile
groups is possible using coupled analysis with 3D finite ele-
ment method or other modelling methods that account for the
pile–soil–pile interaction. Nevertheless, various interaction
factors can be applied to the single pile to approximate the
magnitude of dragload for other piles in the group, depend-
ing on number of piles, location, and pile spacing (Poulos
and Davis 1980; Chin 1988; Kuwabara and Poulos 1989;
Chow et al. 1990; Jeong et al. 1997).
It can be noted that when consolidation in clay takes place
with an embedded pile, the surface elevation of the soil
moves downward due to the finite reduction in thickness of
the clay layer from settlement. During the progress of consol-
idation, the total soil–pile interaction length in the compressi-
ble soil layers is then also reduced, with a total reduction
equal to the total settlement S (Fig. 3). When large settle-
ments in the clay layer exist, the calculation for the ultimate
soil–pile interface shear strength (in unit of force) that is trib-
utary for a given soil–pile node of the T–z soil spring would
be overestimated if this reduction in length is not taken into
account and infinitesimal strains are assumed. This condition
is being considered in this study by continually updating the
longitudinal geometry of the 1D soil–pile model after each
time step by maintaining the same number of nodes and ele-
ments but adjusting the coordinates of the soil–pile interface
nodes as shown in Fig. 3. Similarly, with an increase in ef-
fective stress due to dissipation of excess pore pressures,
there would be differences in the prediction of the interface
shear strength fs, which is linearly related to the vertical ef-
Published by NRC Research Press
 908 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 3. Model updating process of the soil–pile interaction length Fig. 4. Constitutive relationships for normally consolidated clay:
due to the effect of large settlements. 1D soil–pile model of the pro- (a) compressibility; (b) permeability.
file: (a) before settlement; (b) after settlement. e, void ratio.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13

The natural (logarithmic) strain 3 is related to the void ra-

tio e from the following equation (Mikasa 1963; Tan and
Scott 1988):
fective stress s′, between linear and nonlinear consolidation 1 þ e0
analysis that assumes either constant or variable consolida- ½6 expð3Þ ¼
1þe
tion parameters. In this study, the combined effects on the de-
velopment of NSF on single piles based on linear or From eqs. [4] and [6], the vertical effective stress s' is re-
nonlinear consolidation theory with infinitesimal or finite lated to the natural strain 3 as follows:
strain are being investigated in detail.
½7 s 0 ¼ s 00 10f½ð1þe0 Þ=Cc ½11=expð3Þg
For personal use only.

1D nonlinear consolidation theory Similarly, from eqs. [5] and [6], the coefficient of perme-
considering finite strain ability k is related to the natural strain 3 as follows:
Mikasa (1963) derived a generalized nonlinear 1D consol- ½8 k ¼ k0 10f½ð1þe0 Þ=Ck ½1=expð3Þ1g
idation equation for a layer of clay having homogeneous con-
solidation properties throughout its depth, which is initially From eqs. [4], [6], and [7], the coefficient of volume com-
in equilibrium with its self-weight and the effective overbur- pressibility mv is related to the natural strain 3 and derived as
den stress s 00 as follows: follows:


@3 @ 2 3 dCv @3 2 1 de Cc
½3 ¼ Cv 2 þ ½9 mv ¼  ¼
@t @z d3 @z ð1 þ eÞ ds 0 ð1 þ eÞs 0 ln10
f½ð1þe0 Þ=Cc ½1=expð3Þ1g
¼ mv0 expð3Þ10
where 3 is the natural strain, t is the consolidation time, and z
is the depth. Equation [3] considers the changes of the coeffi- where mv0 ¼ Cc =½ð1 þ e0 Þs 00 ln10 is the initial coefficient of
cient of consolidation Cv, coefficient of volume compressibil- volume compressibility. Using eqs. [8] and [9], the coeffi-
ity mv, and coefficient of permeability k, with the decrease in cient of consolidation Cv is related to the natural strain 3 and
void ratio e during the progress of consolidation. derived as follows:
It is generally accepted that the void ratio – effective stress
k
relationship for normally consolidated homogeneous soil is ½10 Cv ¼ ¼ Cv0 f
linear in semi-logarithmic space of e–logs′ (Fig. 4a) (Lambe mv g w
and Whitman 1969; Burland 1990), the slope of which is
where
called the compressibility index (Cc). A similar linear rela-
tionship can also be presented between the void ratio and k0
permeability (Fig. 4b), the slope of which is called the per- ½11 Cv0 ¼
mv0 g w
meability index (Ck) (Tavenas et al. 1983; Sridharan and Pra-
kash 1999). Based on Fig. 4, the following constitutive is the defined as the initial coefficient of consolidation, gw is
relations in eqs. [4] and [5] are written in which e0 is the ini- the unit weight of the saturating liquid, and
tial void ratio corresponding to the initial effective stress s 00
and coefficient of permeability k0. 10f½11=expð3Þð1þe0 Þð1=Cc 1=Ck Þg
½12 f¼

0 expð3Þ
s
½4 e ¼ e0  Cc log 0 Differentiating eq. [12] with respect to the natural strain 3
s0
gives

  
k df ð1=Cc  1=Ck Þð1 þ e0 Þ ln10
½5 e ¼ e0 þ Ck log ½13 ¼f 1
k0 d3 expð3Þ

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kim and Mission 909

Equations [10] and [13] are then used in the 1D consolida-
tion equation in eq. [3] to account for the variability of the
coefficient of consolidation Cv during the progress of consol-
idation. Equation [3] was also derived based on infinitesimal
strain assumption that does not consider the finite reduction
in thickness of the clay layer during the progress of consoli-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
dation. However, the derivative terms of the natural strain 3
in eq. [3] at depth z can be written numerically in finite dif-
ference form, accounting for the reduced thickness of the clay
element in the numerical differentiation due to consolidation
settlement as follows:

(  
2 )
ð3zþDz  3z Þ=DzzþDz  ð3z  3zDz Þ=DzzDz df 3zþDz  3zDz
½14 D3 ¼ Cv0 Dt f þ
ðDzzDz þ DzzþDz Þ=2 d3 DzzDz þ DzzþDz

where Dt is the time step and Dz is the depth increment as
shown in Fig. 5. If H0 is the initial thickness of the clay layer
and n is the number of elements in the finite difference grid,
then the initial element thickness is Dz0 = H0/n. After the
value of strain 3 has been determined for the time t = Dt, it
is used to determine the nodal coordinates for the new grid
to be used to predict the value of strain at the next time step
(Fig. 5b). The reduced element thicknesses Dzz–Dz and Dzz+Dz
can then be expressed in terms of the initial element thick-
ness Dz0 by the reduction factor a determined from the natural
strains as follows (Tan and Scott 1988):
It can be noted of the similarity between eq. [19] by Mi-
kasa (1963), which is expressed in terms of the strain 3, and
the conventional 1D consolidation theory according to Terza-
ghi (1943), which is expressed in terms of pore pressure u,
under the same fundamental assumptions of which they were
derived. When the magnitude of the distributed surcharge
load q causing consolidation is uniform and constant, the re-
lationship between the strain 3 and the change in vertical ef-
fective stress Ds′ is given as
½20 3 ¼ mv Ds 0 ¼ mv ðq  uÞ

DzzDz The excess pore pressure u can also be determined by sub-

½15 azDz ¼ ¼ exp½0:5ð3zDz þ 3z Þ
Dz0 tracting the calculated effective stress in eq. [7] from the total
For personal use only.

stress as follows:
DzzþDz ½21 u ¼ s 00 þ q  s 0
½16 azþDz ¼ ¼ exp½0:5ð3zþDz þ 3z Þ
Dz0
Similarly, when infinitesimal strains are assumed, then
The total settlement S at any time during the progress of eqs. [15] and [16] are reduced to a z+Dz = a z–Dz = 1.0
consolidation is then determined by or Dzz+Dz = Dzz–Dz = Dz0. Equation [18] is then trans-
formed to the conventional finite difference expression for
X
n X
n
½17 S¼ Dz0 ð1  aÞ ¼ H0  Dz0 a eq. [19], which is written as
1 1 Cv Dt
½22 D3 ¼ ð3zþDz  23z þ 3zDz Þ
Dz2
Substitution of eqs. [15] and [16] into eq. [14] and simpli-
fying, the modified finite difference expression for eq. [3] is The numerical solution proceeds by ensuring that the crite-
derived for the numerical analysis of 1D nonlinear consolida- rion for numerical stability and accuracy is satisfied in deter-
tion that now considers finite strain, and is given as mining the time and depth increments, Dt and Dz, respectively,
(
"
 as follows (Forsythe and Wasow 1960; Mikasa 1963):
Cv0 Dt 2 3zþDz  3z
½18 D3 ¼ f
Dz20 azDz þ azþDz azþDz Cv Dt 1

#
) ½23 
3z  3zDz df 3z0 þDz0  3z0 Dz0 2 Dz2 2
 þ
azDz d3 azDz þ azþDz Since all the variables are approximated as constant in the
piecewise linear iteration, the time increment must be suffi-
Equation [18] shows the finite difference scheme that al- ciently small. Given that Cv and Dz varies with consolida-
lows for uneven nodal spacing or reduced element thickness tion, the constant time step Dt is initially determined using
during the consolidation process. The method is similar to the largest value of Cv and smallest value of Dz for any given
the updated Lagrangian concept or the moving boundary ap- condition. Mikasa (1963) recommends eq. [23] to be smaller
proach (Fig. 5) to large strain consolidation (Lee and Sills 1979) than 1/4 in ordinary case for the determination of Dt and Dz.
but accounts for the convective effect (Tan and Scott 1988). The numerical solution proceeds by utilizing the following
When Cv is assumed constant, f = 1.0 and dCv/d3 = 0, initial and boundary conditions for an immediately applied
then eq. [3] is reduced to the case of linear consolidation, surcharge load, q, which remains constant during the prog-
which is written as ress of consolidation. At the permeable boundaries at the sur-
face (z = 0) and (or) the bottom of the clay layer (z = H0),
@3 @23 the natural strain 3 is calculated from eq. [10] using the final
½19 ¼ Cv 2
@t @z effective stress s′ = s 00 + q.

Published by NRC Research Press

 910 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 5. (a) Variation of strain, 3, and thickness, Dz, in a soil element; (b) schematic diagram of the numerical algorithm with mesh updating method.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13

½24 3ðz; 0Þ ¼ 1:0 initial condition pile shaft. In this study, it is assumed that the unit skin fric-
tion resistance is the same both for the positive (upward) and
2 3 negative (downward) direction of side shear. The coefficient
1 þ e0
½25 3ðz; tÞ ¼ ln4  5 b is a function of the soil type, pile material and surface
0
ð1 þ e0 Þ  Cc log ss0 roughness, and the method of pile installation. Fellenius
0 (2008) expressed the b coefficient as a function of several
at a permeable boundary parameters,
For personal use only.

½29 b ¼ M tanf0 ð1  sinf0 ÞðOCRÞ0:5

@3
½26 ðH0 ; tÞ ¼ 0 at an impermeable bottom boundary
@z
From eq. [26], an impermeable boundary ð@u=@z ¼ 0Þ is
also an incompressible boundary ð@3=@z ¼ 0Þ. Equation [26]
can be implemented into the finite difference solution by in-
serting a dummy node after the impermeable boundary at
depth H0, and in which by the method of central difference,
3zþDz  3zDz
½27 ¼ 0 or 3zþDz ¼ 3zDz
2Dz
Equations [3]–[27] describe the formulations for the 1D
nonlinear consolidation in a single layer of homogeneous
clay having uniform consolidation properties as defined by
eqs. [4] and [5] and shown in Fig. 4. Nevertheless, similar
relationships can be extended for the nonlinear 1D consolida-
tion in multilayered clay having nonhomogeneous consolida-
tion properties using appropriate interface boundary relations
as described by Kim and Mission (2010) and Takada and Mi-
kasa (1984), or by using relative consolidation parameter re-
lationships as described by Mikasa et al. (1998).
Soil–pile interface shear strength based on
effective stress
For piles embedded in saturated soils, the unit friction re-
sistance fs for the soil–pile interface can be evaluated from ef-
fective stress parameters (b method) as given by eq. [28]. The
appropriate effective stresses s′ are those prevalent at the time
when downdrag is to be computed (Alonso et al. 1984).
½28 fs ¼ bs 0 ¼ bðs  ut Þ
where s is total vertical soil stress and ut is the sum of hy-
drostatic and excess pore water pressure (u) adjacent to the
where M = tand′/tanf′, f′ is the effective soil friction angle,
d′ is the effective interface friction angle, which is a function
of pile surface texture and material, and OCR is the overcon-
solidation ratio.
For sand, b is a function of the lateral earth pressure coef-
ficient, Ks, and the interface friction angle, d, expressed as
½30 b ¼ Ks tand
where different values of Ks and d have been suggested in the
literature as given by Poulos and Davis (1980), Kulhawy
(1984), and Tomlinson (1986) for different types of pile ma-
terial and property of sand.
During the consolidation process, predictions of the ulti-
mate interface friction stresses using the effective stress ap-
proach (b method) are simpler to adopt compared to the
total stress approach (a method), as values of fs are largely
influenced by excess pore pressures. While it is recognized
that the b method is a simplistic method, case histories and
research findings, however, have demonstrated that actual
shaft shear stresses are proportional to the effective overbur-
den stress, where reasonable agreements have been obtained
with correlations through the b coefficient (Fellenius 2008).
To give a more reasonable estimation on the magnitude of
NSF, Burland (1973) also suggested that NSF is best ac-
counted for in terms of effective stress, since NSF results
from consolidation of clay and usually takes a long period of
time to fully develop.
Numerical validation example
To study NSF, Chan (2004, 2006), and later Ng et al.
(2008), reported consolidation tests and experiments in a cen-
trifuge model that was spun at 60g on free-head single piles

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kim and Mission
in clay, which were subjected to a surcharge load from fill.
Unless otherwise stated, all the test and simulation results
are presented in prototype scale in this paper, in which the
prototype soil and pile geometry were scaled by a factor of
60 times the actual values used in the centrifuge model test.
The clay layer subjected to the surcharge load was 18 m
thick. Two types of driven prototype single piles were inves-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
tigated in this study: (i) test 1, a bearing pile penetrated
through 18 m in clay and socketed 1.2 m into the underlying
dense sand; (ii) test 2, a floating pile penetrated through
17.7 m in clay. Both types were aluminum piles with an ex-
ternal diameter of 1140 mm and wall thickness of 90 mm in
prototype scale, with elastic modulus property E = 70 GPa.
A sand fill having a unit weight of 15 kN/m3 imposed an
equivalent surcharge loading of 45 kPa, which was applied
on the surface with the pile already in place. Other data on
the initial nonlinear consolidation parameters were not avail-
able and were estimated from the initial conditions based on
the available measured data. A uniform initial void ratio (e0)
of the clay was assumed and was determined from the aver-
age water content measurements before the tests. The satu-
rated unit weight of the clay before and after the centrifuge
test was found to be 16.3 and 16.7 kN/m3, respectively
(Chan 2006). An assumption of a constant and uniform initial
void ratio e0 also leads to a uniform initial effective stress s 00
and permeability coefficient k0, which was taken as the aver-
For personal use only.
age for the clay layer and is assumed to be effective through-
out the total thickness of the clay profile for the purpose of
consolidation analysis. The compression index Cc was ap-
proximated from the correlation given by Nagaraj and Murthy
(1985, 1986) in which Cc = 0.2343e0. In addition, the value
of Ck was approximated as equal to half the initial void ratio,
which is typical for many natural soft clay deposits (Tavenas
et al. 1983; Leroueil et al. 1990; Mesri et al. 1994). The
estimated nonlinear consolidation parameters for the soft
clay that were used in the consolidation analysis are shown
in Table 1.
For soil consolidation analysis, the 18 m thick clay layer
was subdivided into 36 elements. An initial uniform element
thickness of Dz0 = 0.50 m and a time step of Dt = 0.25 day
were used, which were consistent with the criteria for stabil-
ity and accuracy given by eq. [23]. For comparison with the
results from conventional consolidation analysis using
eqs. [19] and [22], which assumes infinitesimal strain and
constant consolidation properties, appropriate “equivalent”
properties were selected in which the coefficient of consoli-
dation Cv was calculated from eq. [10] using k0 and an equiv-
alent value for the coefficient of volume compressibility mv,
which was computed from eq. [20] using the final strain at
the end of consolidation.
Figure 6 shows the comparison of the predicted and meas-
ured settlement–time curves. The close agreement between
the predicted final settlements is expected, since the constant
coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) for the conven-
tional theory was matched to that of the final strain corre-
sponding to the nonlinear consolidation theory. Nevertheless,
soil consolidation for the conventional theory proceeds at a
slightly faster rate due to the assumption of constant coeffi-
cient of consolidation and permeability compared to the non-
linear theory. The differences in settlement predictions can
also be seen in terms of the soil settlement profiles as shown
911
Table 1. Estimated nonlinear consolidation parameters for soft clay.
Initial average void ratio, e0 1.60
Initial average effective stress, s 00 (kPa) 64.0
Initial average coefficient of permeability, k0 (m/year) 0.13
Slope of e–logs′ relation, Cc 0.40
Slope of e–logk relation, Ck 0.80
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and predicted soil settle-
ment – time curves.
in Fig. 7a wherein the results from nonlinear theory are plot-
ted in convective coordinates. When the settlement is quite
large, the decrease in the thickness of the clay layer is clearly
seen from the profile. When a pile is present, a portion of the
length of the pile is therefore exposed due to settlement,
which literally means that the embedding soil has lost contact
to the pile by almost the same length.
The excess pore pressures were calculated using eqs. [20]
and [21] for the conventional and nonlinear consolidation
theory, respectively. The excess pore pressures were then
subtracted from the calculated distribution of the total stress
in the profile based on the unit weight and applied surcharge
load to give the effective stress profile distribution shown in
Fig. 7b. As expected, dissipation of excess pore pressures
with the conventional theory proceeds at a slightly faster rate
due to the assumption of constant coefficient of permeability.
On the other hand, the permeability coefficient decreases
with increasing strain for the nonlinear theory, which slows
the dissipation of excess pore pressure. The conventional
consolidation theory therefore has the potential to underesti-
mate the excess pore pressures in a clay layer. As a result,
the soil effective stresses (Fig. 7b), undrained shear strength,
and soil–pile interface shear stresses would then be overesti-
mated based on effective stress analysis.
One-dimensional numerical pile–soil models were then
created as typically shown in Fig. 1d. Whenever the dragload
was evaluated, the models were updated to account for the
finite reduction of the soil–pile interaction lengths, as shown
in Fig. 3, and the ultimate shear properties of the soil–pile inter-
face were also updated based on the current state of effective
Published by NRC Research Press
 912
Fig. 7. (a) Predicted soil settlement profiles; (b) predicted effective
stress and excess pore pressure profiles.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
For personal use only.
stress at the layers. In the uncoupled method of analysis,
the free ends of the soil springs in skin friction were sub-
jected to the downward free-field soil settlements (Fig. 7a)
at the layers, which act as boundary conditions for the sides
of the pile. For test 1, the nonlinear load-transfer properties
for skin friction of piles were based on the Reese and
O’Neill (1987) T–z relation in clay and the Mosher (1984)
relation in sand. Similarly, the nonlinear load-transfer prop-
erties for end bearing were based on the Vijayvergiya
(1977) Q–z relation for piles in sand. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the pile in sand was calculated based on the
Meyerhof (1976) limiting point resistance qu = 50Nq tanf
(kPa), where Nq is the bearing capacity factor corresponding
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Fig. 8. Comparison between measured and predicted dragload dis-
tributions on pile: (a) test 1; (b) test 2.
to a soil-friction angle f = 29.7° of the bearing stratum.
The ultimate properties of the pile in skin friction were cal-
culated using the b method as described in the previous
section. Ng et al. (2008) reported that at earlier stages of
soil consolidation, an estimation of dragload using a con-
stant b value would overestimate dragload, since the partial
mobilization of shaft friction is not considered at the lower
layer near the pile tip. For test 1, the mobilized b value in-
creased with time from about 0.18 during the early stages
and reached 0.30 during the final stages of consolidation.
Figure 8a shows the predicted development of dragload on
the pile for test 1 at three stages of consolidation, that is
after 2, 4, and 6.7 years, using the reported b values of
0.18, 0.25, and 0.30 by Ng et al. (2008), respectively. As
expected, dragload predictions based on the conventional
consolidation theory are slightly larger than predictions
based on the nonlinear and finite strain consolidation theory
due to the overestimation of the soil effective stress, settle-
ment, and soil–pile interaction length. A similar method of
numerical modeling and analysis was performed for the pile
in test 2. For the floating pile in test 2, the nonlinear load-
transfer relation of the end-bearing spring was based on the
Reese and O’Neill (1987) Q–z relation for clay. The ulti-
mate end-bearing resistance (Q) was calculated from the lim-
iting point bearing capacity (qu) of a pile in saturated clay
based on the undrained shear strength Cu, that is, qu = 9Cu.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Kim and Mission
Using the same values of b factors from test 1, the pre-
dicted development of dragload on the pile for test 2 at
three stages of consolidation are compared with the meas-
ured data as shown in Fig. 8b. Similar trends of results are
observed in which dragload predictions by the conventional
consolidation theory slightly overestimate those based on
the nonlinear consolidation theory.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
Since most piles are usually driven in the field in which
the surrounding soil must have nearly stabilized from consol-
idation settlement and the excess pore pressures have nearly
dissipated, it is believed that the differences in dragload pre-
dictions between the linear and nonlinear consolidation theo-
ries are still minimal as shown in Fig. 8, in which the
dragload predictions using the two theories are in good
agreement with measured data. The dragload predictions us-
ing the linear consolidation theory therefore produces an
upper bound result, with greater axial forces due to the larger
effective stress predictions. Thus, in the context of pile NSF,
the predictions using the conventional consolidation theory
would be on the conservative side. However, in the context
of positive skin friction, the pile axial force and settlement
predictions using the conventional theory would be on the
unsafe side, wherein the effective stress is overestimated and
thus the pile axial forces and settlements would be smaller
than expected. On the other hand, the smaller prediction of
dragload by the nonlinear consolidation method makes it an
For personal use only.
economical approach in the context of pile NSF. As shown
in this study, it is, however, found that the proper selection
of the b value is rather the most significant factor in the ef-
fective stress method of analysis for pile NSF rather than the
consolidation theory used. Since the relative settlement re-
quired to mobilize the ultimate skin friction is small, the dif-
ferences between the two consolidation theories are
overshadowed. Nevertheless, the model presented in the
study provides a simplified method for the development and
prediction of NSF on single piles by an uncoupled method of
analysis.
Conclusions
A simplified method for the evaluation of the development
of NSF in single piles is presented in this study in an un-
coupled analysis with the 1D nonlinear consolidation theory
in terms of finite strain and the nonlinear load-transfer
method. The method uses a 1D soil–pile model based on a ver-
tical beam on Winkler foundation, using nonlinear load-transfer
curves. Compared with the coupled soil–pile continuum
method of analysis, the uncoupled method has the advant-
age of being capable of use with an advanced consolidation
theory. Moreover, the consolidation predictions are ex-
pressed in terms of strain that can be more conveniently
used in conjunction with the nonlinear load-transfer method
for a single pile subjected to consolidation settlement of its sur-
rounding soil layers from surcharge load or fill. As expected,
the dissipation of excess pore pressures is faster using the
conventional consolidation theory due to the assumption of
constant permeability and coefficient of consolidation. The
results of the study have shown that the predictions of the
development of dragload based on the conventional consoli-
dation theory are conservative compared to predictions
based on the nonlinear consolidation theory. In general, it
913
can be then be inferred that these differences in the predic-
tions on the development of NSF can be attributed to the
following reasons: (i) differences in predictions of the free-
field soil consolidation settlements that impose the dragload
on pile; (ii) differences in predictions for the effective
stresses from which the ultimate soil–pile interface shear
strength is based; (iii) decrease in the soil–pile interaction
length from settlement and decrease in thickness of the
clay layer based on the nonlinear finite strain consolidation
theory. Since the relative displacement required to mobilize
the ultimate skin friction is small, and piles are usually
driven and installed near the final stages of soil consolida-
tion, the differences in the predictions for the development
of dragload on piles between the two consolidation theories
are overshadowed. However, based on the results of this
study using the effective stress method of analysis for pile
NSF, it is found that the most significant factor for the esti-
mation of dragload and downdrag is the proper selection of
the b value rather than the consolidation theory used.
References
Alonso, E.E., Josa, A., and Ledesma, A. 1984. Negative skin friction
on piles: a simplified analysis and prediction procedure.
Géotechnique, 34(3): 341–357. doi:10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.341.
Bjerrum, L., Johannessen, I.J., and Eide, O. 1969. Reduction of
negative skin friction on steel piles to rock. In Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969. Vol. 2,
pp. 27–34. Mexican Society of Soil Mechanics, Mexico.
Boulanger, R.W. 2003. The TzSimple1 material models [documenta-
tion for the OpenSees Platform]. Available from opensees.
berkeley.edu/ [updated 27 September 2010; accessed 26 April
2011].
Burland, J. 1973. Shaft friction of piles in clay: a simple fundamental
approach. Ground Engineering, 6(3): 30–42.
Burland, J.B. 1990. On the compressibility and shear strength of
natural soils. Géotechnique, 40(3): 329–378. doi:10.1680/geot.
1990.40.3.329.
Chan, C.Y. 2004. Centrifuge modeling of behavior of piles in
consolidating ground. M.Sc. thesis, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
Chan, S.H. 2006. Negative skin friction on piles in consolidating
ground. M.Sc. thesis, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, Hong Kong.
Chen, R.P., Zhou, W.H., and Chen, Y.M. 2009. Influences of soil
consolidation and pile load on the development of negative skin
friction on a pile. Computers and Geotechnics, 36(8): 1265–1271.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.05.011.
Chin, J.T. 1988. Axially loaded piles and pile groups embedded in a
layered half-space. M.Eng. thesis, National University of Singa-
pore, Singapore.
Chow, Y.K., Chin, J.T., and Lee, S.L. 1990. Negative skin friction on
pile groups. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 14(1): 75–91. doi:10.1002/nag.
1610140202.
Comodromos, E., and Bareka, S. 2005. Evaluation of negative skin
friction effects in pile foundations using 3D nonlinear analysis.
Computers and Geotechnics, 32(3): 210–221. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2005.01.006.
Davis, E.H., and Raymond, G.P. 1965. A nonlinear theory of
consolidation. Géotechnique, 15(2): 161–173. doi:10.1680/geot.
1965.15.2.161.
Endo, M., Minou, A., Kawasaki, T., and Shibata, T. 1969. Negative
Published by NRC Research Press
 914
skin friction acting on steel piles in clay. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969. Mexican
Society of Soil Mechanics, Mexico. Vol. 2, pp. 85–92.
Fellenius, B.H. 2006. Results from long-term measurement in piles of
drag load and downdrag. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(4):
409–430. doi:10.1139/t06-009.
Fellenius, B.H. 2008. Effective stress analysis and set-up for shaft
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by China University of Science and Technology on 06/04/13
capacity of piles in clay. In From research to practice in
geotechnical engineering. GSP 180. Edited by J.E. Laier, D.K.
Crapps, and M.H. Hussein. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Va. pp. 384–406. doi:10.1061/40962(325)12.
Forsythe, G.E., and Wasow, W.R. 1960. Finite difference methods for
partial differential equations. Wiley, New York.
Indraratna, B., Balasubramaniam, A.S., Phamvan, P., and Wong, Y.K.
1992. Development of negative skin friction on driven piles in soft
Bangkok clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(3): 393–404.
doi:10.1139/t92-044.
Jeong, S., Kim, S., and Briaud, J.L. 1997. Analysis of downdrag on
pile groups by the finite element method. Computers and
Geotechnics, 21(2): 143–161. doi:10.1016/S0266-352X(97)
00018-9.
Kim, H.J., and Mission, J.L. 2009a. Negative skin friction on piles
based on finite strain consolidation theory and nonlinear load
transfer method. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(2): 107–
115. doi:10.1007/s12205-009-0107-7.
Kim, H.J., and Mission, J.L. 2009b. A program development for
For personal use only.
prediction of negative skin friction on piles by consolidation
settlement. Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society, 25(9): 5–17.
Kim, H.J., and Mission, J.L. 2010. Numerical analysis of one-
dimensional consolidation in layered clay using interface boundary
relations in terms of infinitesimal strain. International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE, 11(1): 72–77. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.
1943-5622.0000066.
Kulhawy, F.H. 1984. Limiting tip and side resistance. In Proceedings
of the Symposium on Design and Analysis of Pile Foundations,
New York, N.Y. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
pp. 80–98.
Kuwabara, F., and Poulos, H.G. 1989. Downdrag forces in group of
piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(6): 806–818.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:6(806).
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.W. 1969. Soil mechanics. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Lee, K.S., and Sills, G.C. 1979. A moving boundary approach to
large strain consolidation of a thin layer. In Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, Aachen, Germany, 2–6 April 1979. Edited by W.
Wittke. pp. 163–173.
Leroueil, S., Bouclin, G., Tavenas, F., Bergeron, L., and La Rochelle,
P. 1990. Permeability anisotropy of natural clays as a function of
strain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(5): 568–579. doi:10.
1139/t90-072.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., Fenves, G.L., et al. 2006.
OpenSees command language manual [computer program].
Available from opensees.berkeley.edu/ [updated 27 September
2010; accessed 26 April 2011].
Mesri, G., Lo, D.O.K., and Feng, T.-W. 1994. Settlement of
embankments in soft clays. In Vertical and horizontal deformations
of foundations and embankments. GSP 40. Edited by A.T. Yeung
and G.Y. Felio. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Vol. 1, pp. 8–56.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 102(GT3): 197–228.
Mikasa, M. 1963. The consolidation of soft clay — a new
consolidation theory and its application. Kajima Institution
Publishing Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. [In Japanese.]
Mikasa, M., Takada, N., Oshima, T., and Kiyama, M. 1998.
Nonlinear consolidation theory for nonhomogeneous clay layers
and its application. Soils and Foundations, 38(4): 205–212.
Mosher, R.L. 1984. Load transfer criteria for numerical analysis of
axially loaded piles in sand. Part 1: load-transfer criteria. US Army
Engineering Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Technical Report K-84-1.
Nagaraj, T.S., and Murthy, B.R.S. 1985. Prediction of the
preconsolidation pressure and recompression index of soils.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 8(4): 199–202. doi:10.1520/
GTJ10538J.
Nagaraj, T.S., and Murthy, B.R.S. 1986. A critical reappraisal of
compression index. Géotechnique, 36(1): 27–32. doi:10.1680/
geot.1986.36.1.27.
Ng, W.W., Poulos, H.G., Chan, S.H., Lam, S.Y., and Chan, C.Y.
2008. Effects of tip location and shielding on piles in consolidating
ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 134(9): 1245–1260. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)
134:9(1245).
OpenSees. 2000. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.
Version 2.2.2 [computer program]. Pacific Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Available from opensees.berkeley.edu/ [updated 27 September
2010; accessed 26 April 2011].
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M.W. 1987. Drilled shafts: construction
procedures and design methods. US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Mclean, Va. Report No. FHWA-
HI-88-042.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. 1999. Consolidation and permeability
behavior of segregated and homogeneous sediments. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 24(1): 109–120.
Takada, N., and Mikasa, M. 1984. Consolidation of multilayered clay.
In Proceedings of the Symposium on Sedimentation/Consolidation
Models: Prediction and Validation, San Francisco, Calif., 1
October 1984. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
pp. 121–140.
Tan, T.S., and Scott, R.F. 1988. Finite strain consolidation — a study
of convection. Soils and Foundations, 28(3): 64–67.
Tavenas, P., Jean, P., Leblond, P., and Leroueil, S. 1983. The
permeability of natural soft clays. Part II: Permeability character-
istics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 645–660. doi:10.
1139/t83-073.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Tomlinson, M.J. 1986. Foundation design and construction. 5th ed.
Pitman Books Ltd., London, England.
Vijayvergiya, V.N. 1977. Load-movement characteristics of piles. In
Proceedings of the Ports 77 4th Annual Symposium of the
Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Long Beach, Calif., March 1977. Vol.
2, pp. 269–284.
Wong, K.S., and Teh, C.I. 1995. Negative skin friction on piles in
layered soil deposits. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 121(6): 457–465. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1995)121:6(457).
Published by NRC Research Press