Seminar on

Analysis and design for piled foundations

affected by negative skin friction

FECON Corporation, Hanoi, Vietnam

December 15, 2021

Bengt H. Fellenius, Dr.Tech., P.Eng.

Lecture 2
Wide pile groups

Translated and presented by Nguyen Tien Dung, Ph.D.

R&D Department, FECON Corp, Hanoi, Vietnam
Settlement analysis of a wide piled foundation by the Equivalent
Pier and Equivalent Raft Method
The analysis can either be for a flexible or rigid
FILLS, etc. raft (or in-between) according to the specific
conditions of the raft. If flexible, all piles have
equal load (stress intensity is constant across
the raft and the settlement is largest in the raft
G.W. lowering center. If rigid, settlement will be even and pile
loads (stress intensity) will vary across the raft,
depending on the specific conditions of the raft
Equivalent Pier with a and soil.
stiffness of AEcombined

The piles will compress for the applied load. The

Ap ile E p ile  Aso il Eso il compression (for full load over full length) can
Eco mb in ed  be estimated taking the pile group as an
Ap ile  Aso il equivalent pier with a stiffness AEcombined.
Equivalent Raft placed at
the average pile toe level
There will be a load transfer movement due to
pile toe penetration (addressed later).
2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq
distribution distribution The settlement and its horizontal and vertical
distribution underneath the pile group can be
Settlement of the piled foundation is caused by: calculated, as that from a flexible ‘equivalent’
raft at the pile toe level. However, unless the
(1) compression resulting from from the external
load applied to the piles and, for perimeter piles, main raft is flexible, the settlement distribution
from drag force will vary because the loads will not be equal
(2) load-transfer, which is pile toe penetration caused across the pile toe level. Calculation of loading
by the pile toe force intensity due to raft rigidity can be simplified to
(3) compression of the soil below the pile toe level due to assuming the piles are loaded by one stress
the applied load (distributed across the equivalent raft intensity across a center area with a perimeter
combined with stress changes due to fills, embankments,
loads on adjacent foundations, lowering of groundwater “donut” area around it loaded by stress intensity
table, excavations, etc.). of a different magnitude.

N.B., the above approach goes far beyond the 1948 Terzaghi and Peck
suggestion of placing an Equivalent Raft at the lower third depth
2
 Epile+soil and Footprint Ratio, FR

The combined E-modulus of the pile and soil body, the equivalent pier, is
expressed in the equation in the previous slide. the E-modulus of the pile
material is either 200 GPa (steel piles) or about 30 GPa (concrete piles) and
the soil modulus is usually no more than about 50 MPa or smaller, often
much smaller. Therefore, the combined modulus depends mainly on the pile
modulus and the Footprint Ratio, defined as follows.

Epile +soil = FRxEpile + (1 – FR)Esoil ≈ FRxEpile [Esoil is very small compared to Epile]

where Epile +soil = combined E-modulus

FR = Footprint Ratio = area of piles/area of pile group

QH
L 
EPile S o il ARa ft

ΔL = pile shortening (compression) for the applied load

Q = load applied to the foundation raft
H = height of equivalent pier height (pile length)
ARaft = footprint area of the raft
EPile+Soil = combined E-modulus

3
 The response of the perimeter piles is a key issue to discuss.
The equivalent raft is a flexible raft, and so is,
approximately, also the foundation raft. The
perimeter piles will therefore carry a smaller
portion of the load than the interior piles. Should
the perimeter piles then not be shorter than the
interior piles to minimize differential settlement?

FILLS, etc.
Foundation raft

G.W.

Equivalent Pier with a

stiffness of AEcombined

Equivalent Raft placed at

the average pile toe level

2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq

distribution distribution

The above is particularly important for wide piled foundations. 4

 The response of the perimeter piles is a key issue to discuss.
The equivalent raft is a flexible raft, and so is, But piles are often installed at a site
approximately, also the foundation raft. The that is affected by general subsidence.
perimeter piles will therefore carry a smaller Thus, the perimeter piles will
portion of the load than the interior piles. Should experience down-drag and settle.
the perimeter piles then not be shorter than the Should the perimeter piles then not be
interior piles to minimize differential settlement? installed longer than the interior piles?

FILLS, etc.
Foundation raft

G.W.

Equivalent Pier with a

stiffness of AEcombined

N.B., to balance the effect

Equivalent Raft placed at between the piles, also the
the average pile toe level
interior piles may have to
be longer
2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq
distribution distribution

The particular conditions for each individual case will determine

5
Indeed, for analysis and design of a piled foundation one must
address settlement. Addressing “capacity” of single piles in the
group and treating the “capacity” of the entire group as a
collection of single piles is not constructive, nor is it safe.

Only a few good case histories of settlement measurement of

pile groups have been published. I will present a couple that I
have found to be instructive.

6
A wide pile group supporting a liquid storage tank in Tessaloniki, Greece (Savvaidis 2009)

20

Compression of 15
piles is minimal.
10
112 1.0 m diameter, bored The settlement
5
piles installed to 42 m depth

Norht-South
originated from
below the pile 0 Pile 16

toe level. -5 Pile 11

Settlement was -10

Pile 7
measured
across a -15

diameter. -20
Dense, silty sand to 50+ m depth -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
East-West

7
The settlement of the Tessaloniki tank was monitored during the hydro test and I have
used the settlement measured at the tank mid-point in a back-calculation, which
calibrated the soil parameters for analyzing the settlement across the tank diameter.

ACROSS THE DIAMETER (m)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
SETTLEMENT (mm)

10

20

30

40

Curve calculated for a flexible footing located at the pile toe

level with parameters fitted to the settlement measured at the
tank mid-point.
The agreement between the measured and calculated values
supports calculating the settlement for an equivalent flexible
raft at the pile toe level.

8
 A second example: The Gdansk Millennium Bridge across the Dead Vistula River

The distribution of effective

overburden stress below the piled
foundation is affected by the
depth of the river. More so at the
river side than at the land side.

Dead Vistula River

22.4 m

#2 #3 #4
#1
22.4 m

#8 #5
#7 #6
52.4 m

The river’s name is “Dead Vistula River”

Gwizdala and Kesik 2015 and it is very much dead due to toxic waste. 9
 DAYS AFTER CASTING THE SLAB
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0

SETTLEMENT (mm)
10
Land Side
15
Average
20 River Side

25 Settlements are due to bridge structure, only.

(Monitoring started after the slab was cast).
30

Measured piled foundation settlements

Dead Vistula River
Along the River Side, the effective overburden stress
is smaller than along the Land Side and the relative
stress increase is therefore larger resulting in larger
deformations along the River Side.

10
Settlement of the ground surface due to embankments placed on soft
compressible clay (data from Broms 1976). The pile-soil, i.e., the pier,
compresses less than the without piles (columns) and most of the measured
settlement was due to compression of the soil below the columns.

≈10 m
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
0
1
SETTLEMENT (mm)

10 2
1: 16 days
6m 2: 65 days
20 3
4 3: 351 days
4: 541 days
30

40 ≈9 m 3
50 Column Reference
Area (half) 4 Area (half)
60

So, the effect below a pile group is straight

forward. Now, what about within a group?

11
 Single Pile
Conventional "Group Effect" Concept applies
a “group efficiency coefficient”
“Group efficiency”
9-pile Group 800 usually refers to
Average of 4 Piles
“capacity” if a single

LOAD PER PILE (KN)

Single Pile
pile vs. the average
600 group pile. Here, the
fact that the average
Average of 9 Piles pile showed larger
400 movement than the
single pile has been
claimed to be due to a
200 group efficiency smaller
20 m than 1 for a pile inside
the group.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

4-pile Group
PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

Data from O’Neill et al. (1982)

N.B., the above

groups are narrow
groups!
12
 Single Pile
Conventional "Group Effect" Concept applies
a “group efficiency coefficient”
Group efficiency”
9-pile Group 800 usually refers to
Average of 4 Piles
“capacity” if a single

LOAD PER PILE (KN)

Single Pile
pile vs. the average
600 group pile. Here, the
fact that the average
Average of 9 Piles pile showed larger
400 movement than the
single pile has been
claimed to be due to a
200 group efficiency smaller
20 m than 1 for a pile inside
the group.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 However, the single pile
does not cause much
4-pile Group
PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm) settlement below the
pile toe level. The
larger the pile group,
the more settlement will
“Group efficiency” as based on
develop below the pile
toe level.
N.B., the above “capacity” is an unreliable and
groups are narrow useless concept
groups!
13
 0
There is interaction
0 between
1 2piles. Here,
3 the4movement5 of an 6 unloaded
7
pile (“passive”) near a pile (“active”) subjected to a static loading test.
MOVEMENT (mm)
2,000
#3
PASSIVE
1,600
ACTIVE
LOAD (kN)

1,200

800

400
500 mm Pile Diameter
Distance: 3.0 m (#3)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
MOVEMENT (mm)

(Data from Caputo and Viggiani 1984).

14
 Two adjacent piled foundations of very similar buildings with very different approach to the design.

Building 1, Building 2,
211 piles 104 piles

Soft to very soft, compressible, normally consolidated, marine clay extending to about 40 m depth. The general area was subject to
a small general subsidence, about a millimetre or two per year. The nominal total load on the foundations of the two buildings were
46 and 54 MN, respectively, corresponding to an average stress over the building footprint of 66 kPa and 60 kPa, respectively, i.e.,
very similar values.
Both buildings were supported on 18 m long about 300 mm diameter piles. However, the average axial working load was 220 kN/pile
for one building and 520 kN/pile for the other. The settlement and contact stress for the buildings were monitored over long time.

This is one of the most important case histories

on wide pile groups ever published.

Hansbo 1984; 1993 and Hansbo and Jendeby 1998.

15
 Two adjacent piled foundations of very similar buildings with very different approach to the design.

Building 1, Building 2,
211 piles 104 piles

Soft to very soft, compressible, normally consolidated, marine clay extending to about 40 m depth. The general area was subject to
a small general subsidence, about a millimetre or two per year. The nominal total load on the foundations of the two buildings were
46 and 54 MN, respectively, corresponding to an average stress over the building footprint of 66 kPa and 60 kPa, respectively, i.e.,
very similar values.
Both buildings were supported on 18 m long about 300 mm diameter piles. However, the average axial working load was 220 kN/pile
for one building and 520 kN/pile for the other. The settlement for the buildings was monitored over 13 years.

Building 2 Plan and locations of

test piles and earth stress cells.

Load at pile Contact stress

head monitored monitored
16
Thirteen years of monitoring average building settlement.

Years after start of Construction

1980 1993
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

AVERAGE SETTLEMENT (mm)

0
5
Building 1
10
15
20
25
Building 2
30
35
40
45
50

Average stress from the building weight over the building footprint was
almost same for the two buildings, i.e., 66 and 60 kPa, respectively).

Building 1 with twice as many piles as Building 2 settled less within the pile
length (less compression) and more below the pile toe level (due to the 10 %
larger stress). That is, the differences compensated each other.

That is, modeling the case records by the concept of an

equivalent pier and equivalent raft at the pile toe level
fits the measured settlements.
17
 Cable-stayed bridge over the Garigliano River in Southern Italy; constructed in 1991-94.

PIER
W

Foundation
Piles
b = 406 mm Bored Pile Wall
D = 48 m b = 800 mm
D = 12.0 m
(To prevent scour.
Free from contact
with raft and piles).
19.0 m

10.6 m

The soil profile consisted of about 10 m of clay on about 10 m of dense sand underlain by soft clay deposited at about 48 m
depth on a very dense sand and gravel bed. The clay is normally consolidated undergoing small. The piled raft foundation
comprised 144 mandrel-driven, then concrete-filled, steel pipe piles, 406-mm diameter, 48 m long, uniformly distributed in a
10.6 m by 19.0 m raft and driven into the very dense sand and gravel layer. The pile c/c distance was 1.2 m (3.0 pile
diameters). The Footprint Ratio was 9 %. The unfactored load from the pier was 800 kN/pile, which incorporated a factor of
safety of 3.0 on pile capacity as stated to have been verified in static loading tests.

(Russo and Viggiani 1995, and Mandolini et al. 2005).

18
 Cable-stayed bridge over the Garigliano River in Southern Italy; constructed in 1991-94.

PIER
W
800
CORNER

AXIAL LOAD (kN)

Foundation 600 SIDE
Piles
b = 406 mm
D = 48 m
Bored Pile Wall INTERIOR
b = 800 mm 400
D = 12.0 m
(To prevent scour.
End of
Construction Construction
Free from contact
with raft and piles). 200 Pause

0
19.0 m

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TIME AFTER CONSTRUCTION START (days)

10.6 m As should be for a raft on elastic soil, the load on the perimeter piles was larger
than that on the interior piles with the load on the corner piles larger than that
on the side piles. With time, the subsiding soil created downdrag and the
perimeter piles settled and transferred load to the interior piles.

The soil profile consisted of about 10 m of clay on about 10 m of dense sand underlain by soft clay deposited at about 48 m
depth on a very dense sand and gravel bed. The clay is normally consolidated undergoing small. The piled raft foundation
comprised 144 mandrel-driven, then concrete-filled, steel pipe piles, 406-mm diameter, 48 m long, uniformly distributed in a
10.6 m by 19.0 m raft and driven into the very dense sand and gravel layer. The pile c/c distance was 1.2 m (3.0 pile
diameters). The Footprint Ratio was 9 %. The unfactored load from the pier was 800 kN/pile, which incorporated a factor of
safety of 3.0 on pile capacity as stated to have been verified in static loading tests.

(Russo and Viggiani 1995, and Mandolini et al. 2005).

19
 Okabe (1977) monitored axial force over 1,040 days in four 600-mm diameter, 43 m long, pipe piles in
a wide piled foundation containing 38 piles. It also is one of the more valuable studies ever published.

9.4 m
10.6 m

1.5 m

Monitored
Piles

1.5 m 0.7 m

Single Pile

Okabe, T., 1977. Large negative friction and friction-free piles

methods. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, July 11-15, Vol.1, pp. 679-682.
20
 Okabe (1977) monitored axial force after 1,040 days in four 600-mm diameter, 43 m long, pipe piles in
a wide piled foundation containing 38 piles. It also is one of the more valuable studies ever published.

LOAD (kN)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
9.4 m
0
The working load?

10
43 m long
single pile
installed
away from
10.6 m

group
20

DEPTH (m)
1.5 m

30

Monitored
Piles 40
Interior
piles
1.5 m 0.7 m

50

Single Pile The graph shows only the force distribution in

the three interior piles. Note, there’s no shaft
resistance and no drag force.
Okabe, T., 1977. Large negative friction and friction-free piles
methods. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, July 11-15, Vol.1, pp. 679-682.
21
 Okabe (1977) monitored axial force after 1,040 days in four 600-mm diameter, 43 m long, pipe piles in
a wide piled foundation containing 38 piles. It also is one of the more valuable studies ever published.

The result showed that interior piles did not develop any drag force—nor any shaft resistance. The toe force
was about equal to the applied load per pile. The perimeter pile responded the same way as the single pile.
LOAD (kN)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
9.4 m
0
The working load?

10
43 m long
single pile
installed
away from
10.6 m

group
20

DEPTH (m)
1.5 m

( )

30

Perimeter
pile
Monitored
Piles 40 Perimeter pile
Interior with loads
piles shifted to same
1.5 m 0.7 m load at start as
the others
50

Single Pile

Okabe, T., 1977. Large negative friction and friction-free piles

methods. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, July 11-15, Vol.1, pp. 679-682.
22
 ISSMGE model for the response of a piled raft to load

Contact
Contactstress
stress

Conventional pile group analysis usually assumes that all soil

forces are ultimate resistances, i.e., the analysis is for “capacity”!
The model is complete: shows both shaft and toe resistances acting on the piles and the
corresponding soil forces. It is what most would imagine represents the principles of true
response. However, the actual observations just reported do not at all support this model.

Moreover, most case histories on pile group observations report only short-term
observations and often only the load-movement of the pile head (or of the supported
raft). Only few cases exist that report also the contact stress. I know of none reporting soil
stress in-between the piles versus depth.
23
 Comments on the conventional model
Piled Foundation Soil
? ?
? ? ?
For the interior
piles, this model is
simply not true!
Think of the pile and soil as a loaded reinforced concrete
column: The distribution of stress in the concrete and
stress in the rebars is governed by the areas of concrete
and steel and the particular E-moduli of the concrete and
steel. Moreover, if the concrete would be chipped off
along some length, all load will be in the steel rebars
along that length, but above and below, strain
compatibility still controls what stress there is in the
concrete and what there is in the steel. The “chipped-
off” length would be like a layer of very soft soil.
If there is contact between raft and soil, there is contact stress and
there is axial pile force, but there is no movement between pile and
soil. Therefore, the first fact is that under the pile cap (raft), the strain
in the pile and in the soil must be equal and no relative movement can
develop between the pile and the soil.
The second fact is that two interacting bodies must have strain
compatibility. But for the very surface of the combined body of pile
and soil, the strain is equal across the body. Therefore, there cannot be
any relative movement between the two parts and there cannot be any
shaft resistance.
The third fact is the E-modulus of the pile and of the soil determine the
magnitude of axial stress in the pile and vertical stress in the soil.
The fourth fact is that right below the raft, the soil is usually an
engineered soil with large E-modulus and, therefore, the contact stress
is large. Deeper down , the soil is usually soft with small E-modulus.
The total load is the same and the soil stress is therefore smaller and
the axial stress in the pile larger. The strain across the body of piles and
soil will have increased because the combined E-modulus has
decreased. But this occurs without any shaft resistance developing.
At some shallow depth below the raft, distribution of stress and strain
in piles and soil is independent of the magnitude of contact stress and,
indeed, whether there at all is a contact stress between the raft
underside and the soil surface.
If there is ongoing consolidation of the soil inside the pile group, some
amount of drag force may develop above a neutral plane somewhere
along the pile length. The drag force cannot be larger than the buoyant
weight of the soil in-between the piles above that neutral plane.
24
 Correct condition of shear between an
interior pile and soil
Supported load Interior piles in a group engage the soil from the
(shown as stress)
pile toe upward in contrast to single piles which
engage the soil from the pile head downward
Contact Stress (the Franke principle).
per strain
compaibility for The pile toe movement (downward) is of course
pile and soil
Apparent equal to the “upward” movement of soil in-between
upward soil the piles. The movement is resisted by shaft
movement Shaft resistance resistance along some length above the pile toe.
Pile toe only near the pile
penetration toe level.
The load applied to the pile from the raft is
Toe Stress transferred down to the pile toe, forcing the pile toe
downward and, thus, generating shaft resistance
above the pile toe that reduces the axial force in the
pile until an equilibrium is reached between the pile
The shaft resistance is determined by toe force and the axial force reduced due to the
t-z relation (for the pile element at the
pile toe) and the toe stress (force) is
movement-generated shaft resistance.
determined by the q-z relation.

25
Compare “Plugging” of an Open-toe Pipe Pile
Forces on pipe in dynamic Forces and Movement
and static loading of the core in static loading
(The pipe is not shown)

Movement
Core between core
Core
and inside
of pipe
Core
Core

The core consists of soil and its

In Driving, the In a Static Test, response is that of a very soft
pipe and core the core is only pile ("loaded" upward). The soil
are fully partially core stiffness, EA, is a thousand
mobilized mobilized times softer than that of the steel.

26
 The Franke principle is supported by
measured load distribution for interior piles
Kakurai, M., Yamashita, K., and Tomono, M., 1987. Settlement
Yamashita, K., Wakai, S., and Hamada, J. 2013. Large-scale piled
behavior of piled raft foundations on soft ground. Proceedings of
raft with grid form deep mixing walls on soft ground. Proc. 18th
the 8th Asian Regional Conf. on SMFE ARCSMFE, Kyoto, 20 -24 July
ICSMGE, September 2 6, Paris, France, Vol. 3, pp. 2637-2640.
1987, Vol. 1. pp. 373 -376.

LOAD (kN)
LOAD (MN) & SPT-N (blows/0.3m)
0 5 10 15 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
0 400 mm diameter, Raft Level
closed-toe pipe-pile to
5 Raf t load 24 m depth, c/c = 4.5 m
Raft level per pile
10 5
End of One year
Construction later
15
Silt + Sand
20 10
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)
Normally
consolidated
25 clay and silt

30 15
Reduction of axial
35 load due to shaft
resistance above Alt. 1
the pile toe
40 20

45 Alt. 2
PILE

50
25

Alt. 2 is after adjusting for residual force.

27
 Results from Plaxis modeling the response to load by a wide pile group by
Drs. Hartono Wu and Harry Tan at NUS, Singapore.

Rigid raft with 40 mm

movement imposed

Vertical movement along mid-side to mid-side Shadings of 3D movement (displacement)

Fellenius 2019, CGJ 56(3), 378-397

29
 A 36-pile group with a rigid pile cap forced down 40 mm. The raft
rests on the ground and contact stress and pile forces are generated.
SOIL SETTLEMENT AND PILE MOVEMENT (mm) LOAD (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
F

F
E
2 2
E

D D
4 4
C
C
B
6
B
6
A
The simulated
load distributions
A 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 8
agree well with

DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Interior those measured

10 10 Piles for the four case
histories
The distribution of load (“force”,
12 12
Perimeter Piles presented a few
rather) says little unless coupled
slides earlier.
to
14
the distribution of settlement 14
and movement
Pile Toe Depthbetween pile and
soil.
16
Pile 16
Soil at Movement
Perimeter Pile
18 18
Soil at
Interior Pile
20 20

Distribution of load (axial force)

at perimeter and interior piles
supporting a rigid pile cap.
30
 A 36-pile group with a rigid pile cap forced down 40 mm. The raft
rests on the ground and contact stress and pile forces are generated.
SOIL
SOILSETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
SOIL and PILE AND
ANDPILE
PILEMOVEMENT
MOVEMENTMOVEMENT
(mm) (mm)
(mm) LOAD
LOAD (kN)
(kN)
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600
00 00

FF
22 22
EE

DD
44 44
CC

BB
66 66
AA

11 22 33 44 55 66
88 88

DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)

Interior
Interior
10
10 10
10 Piles
Piles

12
12 12
12
Perimeter
PerimeterPiles
Piles

14
14 14
14
Pile
PileToe
Toe Depth
Depth
Pile
Pile 16
16
16
16
Soil
Soilat
at Movement
Movement
Perimeter
PerimeterPile
Pile
18
18 18
18
Soil
Soilat
at
Interior
InteriorPile
Pile
20
20 20
20

Distribution of settlement of soil

Distribution of load (axial force)
and movement of perimeter and
in perimeter and interior piles
interior piles supporting a rigid
supporting a rigid pile cap.
pile cap.
31
 The principles are confirmed by the case histories and Plaxis simulations. Now,
the procedure for determining the load-transfer movement of interior piles.
This difference equals the
toe resistance. The
intersection with the blue
Average sustained
The green curve line is the “true value”.
load on interior piles
shows the shaft 500 20.0
resistance as it is Applied load minus

LENGTH ABOVE TOE LEVEL (m)

engaged upward "Soil-pile"(shaft)
from the pile toe 400 Left Ordinate axis 16.0
level. Its intersection
with the blue line
LOAD (kN)

(the toe resistance) 300 12.0

governs the pile toe Pile-toe
equilibrium. Resistance
200 Left Ordinate 8.0

100 4.0

0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Pile length above MOVEMENT (mm)

Pile-toe load-transfer
the pile toe with movement for the
shaft resistance sustained load
Right Ordinate

The intersection of the green and blue curves is where

Calculations performed with the downward toe force and movement match the 32
UniPile software
(www.unisoftGS.com) upward soil force and movement (at the pile toe).
 Additional example

The blue curve is the pile-toe force vs. the pile-toe penetration. The green curve is the
sustained load on the pile (here 700 kN) minus the toe resistance for the series of pile
toe penetration. The toe penetration determines the length with shaft resistance of the
pile above the toe.

The right graph provides a check, showing the length of pile engaged by the balance
between the 700-kN sustained load and the 350-kN toe resistance mobilized by the
4.3-mm toe penetration (that both loads are 350 kN is just a coincidence)

Sustained load on Shaft resistance above the

the interior pile pile toe as function of toe
movement
700 35
Shaft Resistance along
600 30 the 4.5-m length above
Toe Force the pile toe for 4.3 mm
500 25 toe movement
FORCE (kN)

400 20

SHAFT RESISTANCE (m)

Applied Load (700 kN)

LENGTH OF PILE WITH

300 minus Toe Force, i.e., 15
"Shaft Resistance"
200 10

100 5 Toe Resistance

for 4.3 mm toe
0 0 movement
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TOE MOVEMENT (mm)

33
 Comparison of the pile–head load-movement response of
perimeter and interior piles for rigid and flexible rafts
Useful when estimating the load difference between
perimeter and interior piles

5,000

Rigid Raft, so
LOAD AT PILE HEAD (kN)

4,000 Perimeter Most of the time,

same movement
and different load Pile the actual loads
on the raft lie
3,000
between a rigid
Interior and flexible
2,000 Pile condition. The
actual rigidity is
Qavg
difficult to
1,000 Flexible Raft, so ascertain.
Actual
same load and Loads
different movement
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

Slightly exaggerated,
qualitative graph 34
According to Horikoshi and Randolph 1997, the raft to soil stiffness ratio, Kr , across a raft loaded
by a uniform stress is governed by the below equation.

where ν = Poisson Ratio (raft “r” and soil “s”)

t = Raft thickness
E = E-modulus (raft “r” and soil “s”)
B and L = Raft breadth and length

The stiffness ratio governs the Bending moment of a raft (mat), Mr, and differential
settlement, Δs, [M ≈ function of (Kr) and Δs ≈ function of (1/Kr)]. (Applies to rectangular raft).

For piled rafts, the Poisson Ratios are almost the same for pile and soil (Basile 2019).
The ratio between Er and Es is essentially equal to the Footprint Ratio, FR. Thus, if B≈L,
the relation for Kr becomes:
6 t 3
Kr 
≈ ( )( )
FR L

35
For a center-to-center spacing, c/c, ranging from 5b through 3 b, FR ranges from
about 4 % through about 10% and Kr ranges from 0.09L through 0.12L, i.e. ≈ 0.1L.

According Basile (2019), the degree of rigidity of a raft as a function of Kr is:

0.1
0.10

0.1
0.10
Thus, most piled rafts can be considered at least “practically flexible”.

Yet, for a uniformly loaded raft, perimeter piles will still receive larger loads than
the interior piles. In case of general subsidence at the site, in the long-term, the
difference reduces; perimeter piles may even receive smaller loads.

36
 Case History: Full-scale tests at the Bolivian B.E.S.T. site in Santa Cruz on a
group of thirteen 300-mm piles (FDP) constructed to 9.5 m depth as FDP in
silty sand and equipped with a bidirectional cell at the pile toe.
Sequence of EB Expansion
1st: E8, E2, 3.45 mand E14
E4, E12,
Phase 1b. Bidirectional load vs. upward movement (no pile cap)
2nd: E3, E9,
2.54 mand E7
E13,
3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4

E5 E6
3.45 m

E8
E7 E9 Plan View All pile loads were the same (all BDs were connected to the same
hydraulic system). The upward pile movements were separately
E10 E11
measured for each pile.
E12 E13 E14

FRpile = 14 %

` ` Vertical view

Bidirectional
cells (BD)

Expanded Base (EB) to

enhance toe resistance.
FREB = 36 %
37
 Case History: Full-scale tests at the Bolivian B.E.S.T. site in Santa Cruz on a
group of thirteen 300-mm piles (FDP) constructed to 9.5 m depth as FDP in
silty sand and equipped with a bidirectional cell at the pile toe.
Sequence of EB Expansion
1st: E8, E2, 3.45 mand E14
E4, E12,
Phase 1b. Bidirectional load vs. upward movement (no pile cap)
2nd: E3, E9,
2.54 mand E7
E13,
3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6 800
E2 E3 E4
700 Single,
E5 E6 Pile E1
3.45 m

600
E8

BD LOAD (kN)
E9 500 E-Group
E7
400 Center
E10 E11 Interior
Mid-side
300
E12 E13 E14 Corner
200
FRpile = 14 %
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MOVEMENT (mm)
Sequence of EB Expansion
1st: E8, E2, E4, E12, and E14
25
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)

2nd: E3, E9, E13, and E7

` ` 3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6

E2 E3 E4

E5 E6

20 E8
E9
435 kN
E7

E10 E11
420 kN
15 E12 E13 E14

404 kN
10
Bidirectional 391 kN
5
cells (BD) 346 kN
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6
DISTANCE ALONG DIAMETER (m)

Expanded Base (EB) to

The soil around the interior piles heaved an amount about equal to the upward
enhance toe resistance.
movement of the pile heads. That is, no relative movement and no shaft resistance for
FREB = 36 % the interior piles developed. The pile group responded as a single pier!
38
1st: E8, E2, E4, E12, and E14
2nd: E3, E9, E13, and E7 After completion of the Phase 1 test, an
3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6 engineered fill was placed around the piles
E2 E3 E4 and a rigid, 1.80 m thick, pile cap was cast
bearing on the piles, and Phase 2 started as a
E5 E6 “head-down” test on the group.

E8
E7 E9

E10 E11
E12 E13 E14

39
Load measurements for interior piles in the E-group test

Applied Load and

RAFT Weight of Raft (in
Jack)
The applied load developed an axial pile
ENGINEERED force and a contact stress (force) in the
FILL engineered backfill. Down in the natural
soil, the E-modulus was smaller, so the
Load as soil stress portion reduced and the pile
Contact Stress force increased—as per the unified
Axial Load
in Pile method.

Load as
SOIL Soil Stress The distribution of axial force for the
interior piles showed agreement with the
Unified method applying the Franke
principle: the pile shaft resistance was
BIDIRECTIONAL engaged from the toe upward.
CELL
Also in the head-down test, the pile
EXPANDER
BASE Load at Pile Shaft Resistance group responded as a single pier.
Toe (in BD) above Pile Toe

40
 Load-Movement Results

Contact Load
1,000 1,000
E-GROUP Total Load

EB response (≈500 kN)

PHASE 2 Average
800 Average 800 Perimeter Piles

LOAD AT PILE HEAD (kN)

Pile Head
LOAD per PILE (kN)

Average
Load All Piles
600 600 Average
Interior Piles
SHAFT Sequence of EB Expansion
1st: E8, E2, E4, E12, and E14
Resistance 2nd: E3, E9, E13, and E7
400 400 3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4
Average E5 E6
Contact Load E8
200 200 E7 E9

E10 E11
E12 E13 E14

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
HEAD MOVEMENT (mm) PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)

The results agree with the principles of the

Unified Method for wide pile groups

41
A current design project in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia

Manzana 40 Towers, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

 How to apply the principles to an actual project, warts and all?
The single piles, narrow pile groups, and wide pile groups interact.

Small group
Wide group

Narrow group

Towers in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia

43
 Cone Stress, qt (MPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Pore Pressure (kPa) Friction Ratio, fR (%)
EXCAVATION 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 300 400 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 10 20 30 40 50
00 0 0 0

5 5 5 5

DEPTH (m)
10 10 10 10

15 15 15 15
DEPT H (m)

EB
Ran ge of pile
2020 0 25
20
50 bl/0.3m
20 20

toe levels
determined
fr om the
assigned
w or king loads EB

Soil profile from

The so-determined pile toe
levels (pile lengths) were then 30
adjusted as indicated by the
settlement analysis for the CPTU soundings and Boreholes
combined affect of all
foundation rafts

40

40
44
 60
WEST TOWER EAST TOWER

50
NORTH-SOUTH (m)

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
EAST-WEST (m)

45
 Settlement calculations in UniSettle --- Input

For Input of Layout of

One of the Pile Caps One of the
Soil Profile Soil layers Pile Caps

WEST TOWER

Loaded Pile Input of

Caps Excavation

46
 Settlement calculations in UniSettle --- Output
Numbers are distorted because the two
rafts, Rafts A and B, are typical, only.

================================== ==================================

Stress distribution (Boussinesq) Settlement

distribution
Calculated from the combined effect Settlement distribution at Raft B
of the pile rafts as footings placed at
at Piled Raft A
the respective pile toe levels and with Differential
site excavation and fills.
settlement
A to B

Settlement
distribution

Includes the effect of all other at Raft A

piled rafts around the site as it
pertains to the specific raft.

The permissible differential settlement of no more than 10 to 15 mm

governed the design, i.e., pile lengths of the interacting pile groups.

Monitoring over three years after completion

showed differential settlement ranging from
5 through 10 mm

47
 CONCLUSIONS

1. The analysis of how a pile group responds to an applied load start with analyzing the response of a
single pile because perimeter piles will behave much like a single pile—both in regard to supporting
an applied load and downdrag effect. One difference is that the load placed on the single pile is
known, but what load that will be on the perimeter piles depends on a number of factors, such as
number of piles, rigidity of the raft, the distribution of settlement below the pile toe level, and
amount of downdrag.
2. There will be contact stress under a raft resting on soil. However, the distribution between load
acting on the piles and what load is represented by the contact stress across the ‘free’ area
depends on the E-moduli of pile and soil, and on the footprint ratio. Strain compatibility rules for
pile stress and soil stress. Some distance below the raft, there is no difference whether or not there
is contact stress under the raft. Thus, there is no “contribution to bearing” from contact stress.
3. The axial force in the piles due to the applied load will not reduce until near the pile toe level—a
boundary between pile body (pier) and soil—As the pile toe is pushed into the soil, toe resistance
builds up at the same time as shaft resistance is mobilized above the pile toe. An equilibrium
(balance) is attained when the movement has resulted in shaft and toe resistances that together
are equal to the axial pile force from above.
4. Knowing the load-movement response of a pile is very important for the analysis, However, a
“capacity”, however defined, of the individual piles in the group, or of the group as a whole, is
irrelevant to the design. The controlling aspect is the settlement of the piled foundation (average
and across the raft), which is governed by the compression of the soil below the toe level,
compression of the piles (pier effect), load distribution across the raft (raft rigidity), and load-
transfer analysis for the pile toe.
Thank you for your attention

49