2

Foundation in Difficult Subsoil Conditions

 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Prediction of Differential Settlement of Buildings Induced by Land

Subsidence from Deep Well Pumping

N. Phienwej, S. Thepparak & P.H. Giao

School of Civil Eng’g., Asian Institute of Technology,P.O. Box 4, Kong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
noppadol@ait.ac.th

Abstract: An FDA code, ConSett, was developed for prediction of time-dependent differential settlement between buildings founded at
different depths caused by consolidation of clay layers from the effect of deep well pumping as well as land fill. The numerical solution
follows the Crank-Nicholson scheme based on Terzaghi ’s one dimensional consolidation theory. The code was tested for its applic abil-
ity against land subsidence monitoring data at selected locations in Bangkok and the result was promising. The analysis also indicated
that the present piezometric drawdown in the first sand layer of Bangkok was induced by recent deep well pumping not by past geo-
logic evolution. The code was further useful to predict long term differential settlement at connection between tunnel and station wall
of the Bangkok MRT subway.

1 INTRODUCTION 200 m. Groundwater in the first aquifer (named Bangkok Aqui-

Bangkok, a metropolis with population over 10 million, has been
seriously affected by land subsidence from deep well pumping
since 1970s. In early 1980s, the land subsidence reached a criti-
cal level as the land in the worst affected area was sinking at the
rate as large as 120 mm/year. Till present the land subsidence has
not yet been brought under control because of inability of the me-
tropolis to be independent on groundwater use. The subsidence
affected area has expanded significantly in all directions follow-
ing the rapid growth of the city. Currently, the most affected area
of 1980s still continues to subside at a rate of 15 to 30 mm/year.
Even for the inner city area where deep well pumping no longer
exists, subsidence at a small rate of 5 to 10mm/year still occurs.
The amount of groundwater extraction increased from 1.2 million
cu.m/day in early 1980s to 2.0 million cu.m/day at present, re-
sulting in an increase in piezometric drawdown in the production
aquifers in the critical area from about 40 m below ground sur-
face in early 1980s to 60 m at present. Even in the inner city area,
the drawdown has not been recovered.
2 AQUIFERS AND SUBSIDENCE PROBLEMS
Bangkok is located at the head of the Gulf of Thailand on the
Lower Chao Phraya Plain. The plain was formed in a geo-
logical depression resulted from block faulting during the
Tertiary Period. The basin was later filled with clastic sedi-
ments consisting of alluvial sand and gravel interbedded with
flood plain silts and clays which progressed seaward into del-
taic deposits and marine clays. Beneath Bangkok there exist
eight principal aquifers with a combined thickness more than
550 m. They consist of sands and gravel separated by rela-
tively impermeable stiff to hard clays deposited during sea
transgressions. These aquifers constitute the Bangkok multi-
layer aquifer system which covers the entire Lower Chao
Phraya Plain which extends 250 km to the north of Bangkok
city and 150 km from west to east. The production aquifers are
the 2 nd to 4th aquifer layers located at depths between 100 m and
fer), which is located at depth between 20 m and 50 m, is no
longer potent because of high salinity and contamination.
From foundation engineering point of view, Bangkok is
founded on thick soft marine clay, 12 to 18 m in thickness, fol-
lowed by a thin layer of medium stiff clay of the same origin.
Underlying it is a stiff clay layer known as the “first stiff
clay”. Below it is a fine to medium dense silty sand layer known
as “Bangkok first sand” which is in fact the upper sub-layer of
the first aquifer layer. The top of the sand layer is typically
found at a depth of 20 to 22 m. Underlying the first sand layer
is a layer of stiff clay which in turn overlies the “Bangkok second
sand layer” (the lower sub-layer of the first aquifer layer). The
sand layer typically exists at a depth of 40 to 60 m which is the
founding depth of the deepest foundation constructed in Bang-
kok.
Owing to the low lying and flat topography and the close
proximity to the sea, the land subsidence has intensified flood
risk of the city. The city is kept dry by a massive flood protection
system. Continuing land subsidence necessitates frequent upgrad-
ing of the system as it continues to sink with the ground. Apart
from the flood threat, deep well pumping causes various founda-
tion problems. The situation is rather severe because of an exis-
tence of the highly compressible soft marine clay at the ground
surface covering the entire metropolis area. Large compression of
the soft clay triggered by piezometric drawdown from deep well
pumping can cause differential settlement problem of building
and other structures. Moreover, the common practice of land fill-
ing in most development projects in the low lying Bangkok areas
further complicates the settlement problem. Fill height of 1 to 2
m is common and will inevitably cause large compression of the
soft clay layer.
Although deep wells extract groundwater from aquifers at
depths of 100 to 200 m, the piezometric drawdown is also felt in
the shallow soil layers. Monitoring of groundwater condition in
the inner city area during the last 30 years showed that the pie-
zometric head in the first sand layer had been drawndown 20 to
24 m below the ground surface while the drawdowns in the pro-
duction aquifers at deeper depth were at 40 to 50 m from the

165
ground surface. The decline in piezometric head in the First Sand multi clay-layer system representing the shallow Bangkok sub-
layer triggered the decline in porewater pressure of the overlying soils. Drawdowns in piezometric pressure in the underlying and
clay layers at the surface. The drawdown gradually propagated interbedding sand layers and surcharge load are input as bound-
upward in the clay layers, and by early 1980s it was well in the ary conditions. These values may be allowed to change with time
lower part of the soft clay layer. Consequently, large consolida- for the time period analyzed.
tion settlement of the clay occurred, which in long term it may The mechanism of land subsidence due to compression of
constitute a considerable portion of the overall surface subsi- clay layers from piezometric drawdowns in underlying or inter-
dence. Monitoring data indicated that approximately 30 to 50% bedding sand layers and surcharge load over a wide area can be
of the total land subsidence in the inner city area was from the explained by the Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation the-
compression of the soft and stiff clay layers overlying the first ory. The basic differential equation of porewater pressure change
sand layer (Duc, 1999 and Phienwej, 1999). The observation is in a homogeneous clay layer is:
supported by the results of numerical analyses made be Premchit
(1978) and Giao (1997). This phenomenon results in differential u 2
u
cv 2 (1)
settlements of buildings founded at different depths in the subsi- t z
dence affected areas.
Because of the existence of the soft clay layer at the surface,
pile foundation is necessary for buildings constructed in Bang- For a heterogeneous clay layer system the equation becomes:
kok. Various depths of piles were used depending on type and
size of structures. Small or old buildings are typically founded on u u
short piles with tips extending within the soft clay layer (depth 6- k S sv (2)
z z t
12 m). Medium sized buildings are mostly founded on long piles
extending into the stiff clay or first sand layers (depth 20 to 30
where: cv : coefficient of consolidation
m). Tall buildings or large-sized structures usually have pile tips
u : pore water pressure
extending into the second sand layer (depth 40 to 60 m). Build-
t : time
ings on deep piles would experience less subsidence than adjoin-
z : depth
ing structures founded at shallower depths. Distortion and cracks
k : coefficient of permeability
of structures from differential settlements may jeopardize the in-
Ssv : mv w
tended function of the structures. While the differential settle-
ment induced by a land fill can be prevented or minimized by
adopting a proper foundation design, the differential settlement
The numerical solution using the finite difference formulation
from land subsidence can not. Unlike the land subsidence,
of Crank-Nicholson scheme is adopted
ground settlement induced by a land fill is only confined to a
small area and can be reliably predicted by common methods of
ki ki ki ki ki ki z2 n ki ki
analysis. The differential settlement from land subsidence will l
u in ll l l
2Ssvi ui l l
u in ll
2 2 2 t 2
not stop as long as the piezometric drawdown in the clay layers
from deep well pumping still continues to develop. In fact, this
adverse phenomenon was one of the major design considerations ki ki l ki ki l ki l ki z2 n ki l ki
u in l 2Ssvi ui u in l
in the recent underground infrastructure development projects in 2 2 2 t 2
Bangkok, such as the MRT subway system. In the project, the an- (3)
ticipated long term differential settlement phenomenon carried
significant impact on the design of shallow tunnels and tran- where: ki : permeability at grid point No. i
sition zones between running tunnels and station walls. u in : pore water pressure at grid point No. i
Prediction on magnitude of differential settlements between and time step n
adjoining structures brought about by land subsidence was usu- Ssv,i : mv w at grid point No. i
ally skeptical due to lack of reliable prediction tools as well as
inadequacy of information on soil conditions and past records on
piezometric condition at the site. Typically, the predictions were The settlement of each clay layer at a time step, St, is calcu-
made by extrapolation of available monitoring data using some lated from:
empirical rules and assumptions. To avail a better prediction
tool, the authors have developed a numerical code of the cou- et
St H (4)
pled flow-consolidation finite difference analysis (FDA) type 1 eo
(Thepparak, 2001).
where: St : magnitude of clay settlement at t time step
H : thickness of the clay layer
3 THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION eo : initial void ratio
et : change in void ratio at t time step
The numerical solution is developed to predict the magnitude of
differential settlement of foundations in Bangkok subsoils due to
piezometric drawdown in shallow sand layers induced by deep A computer program, ConSett, is written using Visual Basic
well pumping well as due to surcharge load from land fill. The language under Windows Operating System to permit graphical
solution calculates time-dependent distribution of porewater user-interface data inputting and computation. The program
pressure and settlements at various depths over a time period in a routes outputs to Microsoft Excel for graphical presentation.
The assumptions used in developing the code are as follows.

166
 A system of a series of clay layers with underlying and
interbedding sand layers may be considered. To reflect
the heterogeneity in compressibility and permeability in
the vertical direction, each clay layer may be repre- 4 VERIFICATION
sented by a number of clay sub-layers.
Permeability of the clay is considered to vary during Verification of the numerical code is made using monitoring data
the consolidation period. A function of permeability on piezometric pressure and ground settlement at some selected
value with vertical effective stress is input for such a subsidence monitoring stations in Bangkok (AIT, 1981). Input
purpose. parameters of clay layers were chosen and adjusted within the
Boundary conditions are given in term of changes in likely range of Bangkok clay. Monitoring stations at three moni-
piezometric head in the underlying and interbedding toring stations were selected for the purpose.
sand layers and in surcharge load at the ground surface.
The decrease in permeability of clay during consolidation has
a significant effect on the time-rate long-term settlement as illus-
Time (Years)
trated by the results of a comparative analysis made for the typi-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
cal Bangkok subsoil profile. Three permeability conditions were
0
compared, namely, Test 2
0.1 Test 3
Case 1 (Test 2): Permeability of each clay sub-layer is a func- Test 4
tion of the initial effective stress. The value remains constant 0.2
with time.
0.3
Case 2 (Test 3): Each clay sub-layer has a constant value of
permeability which is equivalent to the values used in Case 1. 0.4
Case 3 (Test 4): Initial values of permeability are the same as
0.5
in Case 1, but they decrease during consolidation with a func-
tion with the increasing effective stress. 0.6

The analysis shows that Cases 1 and 2 give similar predic- 0.7
tions of porewater pressure distribution with depth in the clay Fig. 2. Predicted time rate settlement using different conditions of
layers, while Case 3 gives slightly higher values at large elapsed input parameter.
time (more than 40 years after the occurrence of the drawdown),
Fig. 1. In terms of the predicted differential settlement, Case 3
gives significantly smaller value in long term, Fig. 1. The pre-
dicted settlement considering permeability decreasing during 4.1 Chulalongkorn University Site
consolidation gives one-third smaller final settlement than the
case of constant permeability values throughout the consolidation The site is located in the center Bangkok. The first sand layer
period. Therefore, the change in permeability of consolidating starts at 20 m depth. Monitoring data on peizometric pressure and
clay layers should be considered in the settlement analysis. settlement at various depths in clays and first sand have been col-
lected since 1975. By early 1980s, the piezometric head in the
first sand layer was drawndown by slightly over 20 m. Although
y (
the chronology of the drawdown at the site is not known, the re-
cm/sec)
Pore Water Pressure (kPa) Permeability, 10-6 (cm/sec) cord showed that deep pumping in inner area of Bangkok began
in early 1950s and did not cease until late 1980s. Therefore, two
0 50 100 150 200 250 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
0
scenarios of the assumptions on the chronology of the drawdown
0
are considered.
2 Weathered Clay 2
Scenario A: Drawdown of to present value occurred gradally
4 4
Soft Clay from 1950 to 1995.
6 6 Scenario B: Drawdown to present value occurred suddenly
8 Soft Clay 8
in 1950.

10 10
Soft Clay
12 12 Table 1. Soil properties at Chulalongkorn University campus.
14 14 Soil Type Depth k x10 -6 Cv Density OCR CR RR
k-Test 2
m cm/sec m2 /yr kN/m3
16 16 k-Test 3
Stiff Clay k-initial-Test 4
18 18
k-final-Test 4 Crust 0-3 0.500 3.00 17.50 5.00 0.10 0.012
20 20 Soft clay 3-6.5 0.085 2.00 16.00 1.10 0.45 0.080
Soft clay 6.5-10 0.062 2.50 16.00 1.20 0.45 0.080
Soft clay 10-13 0.040 3.00 16.00 1.35 0.30 0.060
Fig. 1. Predicted piezometric drawndowns for different condi-
tions of input permeability. Stiff Clay 13-20 0.026 3.00 17.20 1.50 0.10 0.012

167
 Time-Year
Chulalongkorn University
1978 1988 1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
Pore water pressure (kPa) 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0.05
0.10
2 Weathered Clay
0.15
Monitoring Settlement, m (0-27.1 m.)
4 0.20
Soft Clay
Calculated Settlement, m (0-20 m.)
0.25
6
Monitoring Settlement, m (1-10 m.)
0.30
Calculated Settlement, m (0-10 m.)
8 Soft Clay 0.35
10
0.40
Soft Clay
0.45
12

Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted and measured differential settle-

14
ments at Chulalongkorn University Campus, Scenario A draw-
16 down.

18

20 Time-Year
1978 1988 1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058

Fig. 3. Predicted versus measured piezometric drawndowns at 0.00

Chulalongkorn University Campus. 0.05
0.10
Chulalongkorn University
0.15
0.20
Calculated Settlement, m (0-20 m.)
Settlement (m)
0.25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Monitoring Settlement, m (0-27.1 m.)
0 0.30
Calculated Settlement, m (0-10 m.)
Weathered Clay 0.35
2 Monitoring Settlement, m (1-10 m.)
0.40
0.45
4
Soft Clay

6 Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted and measured differential settle-

ments at Chulalongkorn University Campus, Scenario B draw-
8 Soft Clay
down.
10

Soft Clay
12
14
16
18
20
Fig. 4. Calculated differential settlement with depth at Chu-
lalongkorn University campus.
Table 1 shows input soil properties used in the analysis. The
computation results in term of the distributions of porewater
pressure and settlement with depth in the clay layers using the
gradual drawdown (modeled as incremental drawdowns) are
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The predicted time-
dependent differential settlements correspond closely with the
observed values, Fig. 5. The assumption of a sudden drawdown
in 1950, gave very unrealistic settlement condition compared
with the measured values, Fig. 6.
The analysis sheds light on the reason for the drawdown in
the first sand layer of Bangkok. Because there were no records of
piezometric pressure in the sand layer prior to late 1970s, there
has been argument on the reason of the drawdown. Although
most people believe that it was caused by deep well pumping,
some argue that it was the result of some geo-hydrological
evolution occurring during the past geologic time not related to
the recent deep well pumping. The cause of the piezometric
drawdowns carries an implication to the design criteria on future
load carrying capacity of piles and uplift pressure against under-
ground structures constructed in Bangkok. If one considers that
the drawdown is the result of recent deep well pumping, a re-
bound should be expected in the near future when the pumping is
terminated or significantly reduced. Therefore, foundations need
to be designed for an anticipated increase in uplift pressure and a
decrease in load capacity of piles. On the other hand, if the
drawdown was a result of a past geological process the present
piezometric conditions in the sand layer would not be much af-
fected by any future reduction in deep well pumping and there
was no need for consideration on the future adverse foundation
condition in the design.
The result of the analysis of the Chulalongkorn University
site clearly indicates that the drawdown was a recent phenome-
non. The analysis with the assumption of a gradual drawdown
since 1950s yields comparable results with the observed values in
term of piezometric pressure and differential settlement in the
clay layers while that of the sudden drawdown in 1950s does not.
Moreover, the sudden drawdown analysis shows a steady state of
piezometric pressure in the clay layers more or less 50 years after
the drawdown occurred and there would been insignificant con-

168
solidation settlement afterward. This contradicts the actual con-
dition in recent time.
KMIT- Lad krabang Campus

Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

4.2 Ramkhamhaeng University Site Weathered Clay

The site is located in the area that experienced the highest rate 5
Soft Clay
of subsidence in early 1980s. The rate reached 120 mm/year in
1981. From mid 1960s to early 1980s, the area was the newly
developed and rapidly expanding residential and industrial zone 10
Soft Clay
in the eastern outskirt of the city. Thus it relied solely on
groundwater supply. The rate of subsidence remained high dur-
ing 1978 to 1986 with the average of 45 to 50 mm/year (Duc, 15 Soft Clay

1999). The assumption that a piezometric drawdown in the first

sand layer of 22 m in 1960 gave a good match with the moni-
tored piezometric heads in the overlying clay layers in 1980. 20
Stiff Clay
The calculated pore water pressure distribution with depth is
shown on Fig. 7. The predicted differential settlements compare Stiff Clay
well with the observed data, Fig. 8. 25

Fig. 9. Predicted versus measured piezometric drawndowns at

KMIT-Ladkrabang Campus.
4.3 King Mongkutt Institute of Technology-Lad Krabang Site
Time-Year
Subsidence monitoring station was installed in 1978 at the site -0.2
1978 1998 2018 2038 2058 2078
which was located in the vicinity of the New Bangkok Interna- 0.0
tional Airport in the remote eastern outskirt of Bangkok. The
0.2
present piezometric head in the first sand layer was at 19 m. be-
low ground surface in 1980. A good match between the calcu- 0.4
lated piezometric pressure and differential settlements with the 0.6
monitoring data is obtained when assuming incremental drops of
0.8
the piezometric pressure in the sand layer of that amount occur-
1.0

Pore Water Pressure (kPa) Calculation settlement, m (0-25 m.) Monitoring settlement, m (1-27.4 m.)
0 50 100 150 200 250 Calculation settlement, m (0-10 m.) Monitoring settlement, m (1-27.4 m.)
0

Weathered Clay
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted and measured differential set-
tlements at KMIT-Ladkrabang Campus.
Soft Clay
5

ring between 1960 and 1990. The comparisons are shown in

Figs. 9 and 10.
10 Soft Clay
The good agreement between the calculated differential set-
tlements by the developed numerical code to the monitoring data
Soft Clay
at these subsidence monitoring stations suggests applicability of
15 the code for prediction on future differential settlements between
structures founded on different foundation depths in Bangkok
area once the properties of the clay layers and the history and
20 magnitude of the drawdown in the shallow sand layers are
known.

Fig. 7. Predicted versus measured piezometric drawndowns at

Ramkhamhaeng University Campus. 5 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS IN MRT SUBWAY
g y
Time-Year
In the design of the first Bangkok MRT subway project which
1978 1998 2018 2038 2058 2078
0.0
has just been completed in 2003, running tunnels constructed us-
0.1 ing EPB shield tunneling were within the depth of the first stiff
0.2 clay layer and station boxes were founded on diaphragm walls
0.3 with tips extending to the second stiff clay or second sand layer.
0.4 Therefore, allowance for long-term differential settlement to be-
0.5
induced by future land subsidence at the connections of tunnels
0.6
and station walls was one of the major design consideration. Pre-
0.7
diction on the values was rather doubtful due to lack of under-
Calculation s ettlem ent, m (0-23.25 m .) Monitoring s ettlem ent, m (1-24 m .)
Calculated Settlement, m (0-10 m .) Monitoring Settlem ent, m (1-10 m.)
standing on the mechanisms of subsidence in the shallow zone
Calculated Settlement, m (0-12.75 m .) Monitoring Settlem ent, m (1-12.8 m .) and lack of records on the drawdown. The prediction methods
adopted in the design were empirical extrapolation of the moni-
Fig. 8. Comparison of predicted and measured differential settle- tored data available in nearby areas and analysis assuming secon-
ments at Ramkhamhaeng University Campus. dary compression effect of the clays.

169
Table 2. Soil conditions and differential settlements between tun- P ore Water Pres sure (kPa)
nels and station walls of Bangkok MRTA subway. 0 200 400 600
Hua Silom Lad Bang Su 0
Lampong Station Phrao Station
Station Staion 5

A. Soil Stratigrahy (Depth in m)

10
Fill/Crust 0-1.5 m 0-4 m 0-2 m 0-2 m Cl ay

Soft clay 1.5-12 m 4-12 m 2-15 m 2-15 m 15

1st stiff clay 12-22 m 12-25 m 15-25 m 15-25 m
1st sand 22+ m 25-37 m 25 + m 25 + m 20

2nd stiff clay 37-44 m

25
2nd sand 44 + m
B. Depth of structure (m)
30
Tunnel 14.3 18.0 20.5 15.0 Sand

Station wall 18.8 38.5 35.1 18.8 35

C. Long-term differential settlement from land subsidence in
50 years (mm) 40 Clay

10 15 30 50

Fig. 11. Predicted piezometric drawdowns at Silom Station.

Deep well pumping in Inner Bangkok city area where the MRT
subway was constructed was terminated in early 1990s but the
land subsidence still continues till present at the annual rate of 5-
10 mm. The phenomenon is induced by the delayed effect of the
piezometric drawdown caused by deep well pumping in the past.
Therefore, it is relevant to make prediction of the differential set-
tlement using the developed code.
Subsoil stratigraphy and depths of the tunnel and the station
wall at these stations are given in Table 2. The predicted differ-
ential settlements over the next 50 years assuming no further
changes in the piezometric pressure in the first and second sand
layers at the first two stations (located in central area) and addi-
tional 10-m drawdown in the following 10 years at the other two
stations (located in northern area) are given in Table 2. The cal-
culated time-rate settlement at Silom Station, the deepest station,
is shown in Fig. 10 and the simulated piezometric drawdown in
the clay layers is as in Fig. 11. The predicted settlements for the
first two stations are small because the tunnels were placed in
stiff clay layers not the shallower soft clay and it is assumed no
further significant drawdown in the sand layers in the future.
When considering additional 10 m drawdown in the first sand
layer, the predicted settlements of the other two stations are 3 to 5
times larger. The values predicted based on the extrapolation of
monitoring data and the calculation assuming primary and secon-
dary consolidation of the clays adopted in the design of the pro-
ject were 10 to 55 mm of all stations over 120 years period.
Movement joints that could accommodate 100 mm of differential
settlements were provided.
6 CONCLUSIONS
An FDA computer code developed for prediction of differential
settlements in shallow clay layers of Bangkok from the effect of
deep well pumping shows good comparison of the results with
the monitoring data. The analysis simulates time-rate piezomet-
ric drawdown and consolidation of the clay layer, thus it is a
more rationale approach than other methods such as empirical ex-
trapolation of subsidence monitoring data, etc.

Silom Station
REFERENCES
Time (years)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0 Duc, N. A. 1999. Updating and analysis of Bangkok land subsi-
dence caused by deep well pumping with emphasis on shal-
0.1 MRT Completion low soil settlement, M.Eng. Thesis No. GE-98-1, AIT, Bang-
0.2 kok, Thailand
0.3 Giao, P. H. 1997. Artificial recharge of the Bangkok aquifer sys-
0.4
tem for the mitigation of land subsidence, Doctoral Disserta-
tion No. GE-96-2, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
0.5
Thailand
0.6 Phienwej, N. 1999. Bangkok land subsidence and its problems in
0.7 foundation engineering. Proceedings Seminar of the Engi-
0.8 neering Institute of Thailand , Bangkok, Thailand .
0.9
Premchit, J. 1978. Analysis and simulation of land subsidence
Differential Settlement 0-18.00 m. with special reference to Bangkok, Doctoral Dissertation
Differential Settlement 0-44.00 m. No.D37, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Differential Settlement between 44.00 m. and 18.00 m. Thepparak, S. 2001. Analysis of settlement and compression of
Differential settlement from 2000 shallow soil strata due to drawdown of groundwater in an
Fig. 10. Predicted differential settlement from future land subsi- underlying aquifer from well pumping in Bangkok area,
dence between running tunnel and station wall, Silom Station. M.Eng. Thesis No. GE-00-01, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand.

170
 ¬¸
ïë ͱ«¬¸»¿-¬ ß-·¿² Ù»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ͱ½·»¬§ ݱ²º»®»²½»ô îî ¬± îê Ò±ª»³¾»® îððìô Þ¿²¹µ±µô ̸¿·´¿²¼

ß Ü»-·¹² ß°°®±¿½¸ º±® з´»¼ οº¬ ©·¬¸ ͸±®¬ Ú®·½¬·±² з´»- º±® Ô±© η-»
Þ«·´¼·²¹- ±² Ê»®§ ͱº¬ Ý´¿§

ÇòÝò Ì¿²ô ÝòÓò ݸ±© ú ÍòÍò Ù«»

Ù«» ú ﮬ²»®- ͼ² Þ¸¼ô Õ«¿´¿ Ô«³°«®ô Ó¿´¿§-·¿
©©©ò¹«»¿²¼°¿®¬²»®-ò½±³ò³§

ß¾-¬®¿½¬æ Ù»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ©±®µ- ·² ¼»»° ¼»°±-·¬ ±º ¸·¹¸´§ ½±³°®»--·¾´» -±º¬ ½´¿§ ·- ±º¬»² ¿--±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ °®±¾´»³- -«½¸ ¿- »¨½»--·ª» ¼·ºó
º»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ô ²»¹¿¬·ª» -µ·² º®·½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ º¿·´«®»ò Ì®¿¼·¬·±²¿´´§ô °·´»- ¿®» ·²¬®±¼«½»¼ ¬± ¿¼¼®»-- ¬¸» ·--«» ±º ¾»¿®ó
·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¿²¼ »¨½»--·ª» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ò з´»- ¿®» ±º¬»² ·²-¬¿´´»¼ ·²¬± ½±³°»¬»²¬ -¬®¿¬«³ ±® •-»¬Ž ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ´·³·¬ ¬¸» ¼·ºº»®»²ó
¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¾§ ®»¼«½·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ±º ¿ -¬®«½¬«®»ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸·- -±´«¬·±² ¹»²»®¿´´§ ±²´§ ¿¼¼®»--»- -¸±®¬ó¬»®³ °®±¾´»³
¿--±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ -±º¬ ½´¿§ ¿- °·´» ½¿°¿½·¬§ ·- ¿´-± -·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ®»¼«½»¼ ¼«» ¬± ²»¹¿¬·ª» -µ·² º®·½¬·±²ò ̸·- ±º¬»² ®»¼«½»- ¬¸» ½±-¬ó
»ºº»½¬·ª»²»-- ±º -«½¸ •½±²ª»²¬·±²¿´ -±´«¬·±²Žò ײ ¬¸·- °¿°»®ô ¿ ¼»-·¹² ¿°°®±¿½¸ ·- °®»-»²¬»¼ ·² ©¸·½¸ ¿ •º´±¿¬·²¹Ž °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±²
-§-¬»³ ·- ¿¼±°¬»¼ º±® ¿ °®±°±-»¼ ¸±«-·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±² -±º¬ ½´¿§ò ̸» •º´±¿¬·²¹Ž °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² ·- ¼»-·¹²»¼ ¬± ´·³·¬ ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´
-»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ·¬ ½±²-·-¬- ±º -¸±®¬ °·´»- -¬®¿¬»¹·½¿´´§ ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ ¿®»¿- ±º ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ ´±¿¼·²¹- ¿²¼ ·²¬»®½±²²»½¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ®·¹·¼ -§-¬»³ ±º
-¬®·°ó®¿º¬ ¬± ½±²¬®±´ ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ò ̸·- º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ½±«°´»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ °®±°»®´§ °´¿²²»¼ ¬»³°±®¿®§ -«®½¸¿®¹·²¹ ±º ¬¸» »¿®¬¸
°´¿¬º±®³ ¸¿- -¸±©² ¬± ¾» ª»®§ »ºº»½¬·ª» ¿- ¼»³±²-¬®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- ±² ¬¸» ½±³°´»¬»¼ -¬®«½¬«®»-ò

ï ×ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ¼·-¬·²½¬ ´¿§»®- ¿¬ ¼»°¬¸ ±º ïë ³ò ͱ³» ±º ¬¸» ½±³°®»--·¾·´·¬§ °¿ó

ß ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©¿- ½¿®»º«´´§ °´¿²²»¼
¿²¼ »¨»½«¬»¼ ¿¬ ¿ -·¬» ±º ¿¾±«¬ ïîðð ¿½®»- ¿¬ Þ«µ·¬ Ì·²¹¹·ô Õ´¿²¹ô
Ó¿´¿§-·¿ô ©¸·½¸ ·- ¿¾±«¬ ìð µ³ ¬±©¿®¼- -±«¬¸ ©»-¬ ±º Õ«¿´¿
Ô«³°«®ò ̸·- ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©¿- ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ±ª»® -±º¬ -·´¬§ ½´¿§ô
¬»®³»¼ ¿- Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ øÌ¿² »¬ ¿´òô îððì÷ò ̸» °®±°±-»¼ ¿²¼ ½±²ó
-¬®«½¬»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹- ³¿·²´§ ½±²-·-¬ ±º ¬©±ó-¬±®»§ ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»-ô
-»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»-ô ½±³³»®½·¿´ «²·¬-ô º·ª»ó-¬±®»§ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬-
¿²¼ ¿´-± ±¬¸»® ¿³»²·¬·»- ¾«·´¼·²¹-ò
ݱ²-¬®«½¬·±² ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹- ±ª»® ¼»»° ¼»°±-·¬ ±º
¸·¹¸´§ ½±³°®»--·¾´» -±º¬ ½´¿§ ·- ±º¬»² ¿--±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ °®±¾´»³-
-«½¸ ¿- »¨½»--·ª» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ô ²»¹¿¬·ª» -µ·² º®·½¬·±²
¿²¼ ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ º¿·´«®»ò Ì®¿¼·¬·±²¿´´§ô °·´»- ¿®» ·²¬®±¼«½»¼ ¬±
¿¼¼®»-- ¬¸» ·--«» ±º ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¿²¼ »¨½»--·ª» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´
-»¬¬´»³»²¬ò ̸» °·´»- ¿®» ±º¬»² ·²-¬¿´´»¼ ·²¬± ½±³°»¬»²¬ -¬®¿¬«³ ±®
•-»¬Ž ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ´·³·¬ ¬¸» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¾§ ®»¼«½·²¹ ¬¸»
±ª»®¿´´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®»ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸·- -±´«¬·±² ±²´§
¿¼¼®»--»- -¸±®¬ó¬»®³ °®±¾´»³ ¿--±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ -±º¬ ½´¿§ ¿- °·´» ½¿ó
°¿½·¬§ ·- ¿´-± -·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ®»¼«½»¼ ¼«» ¬± ²»¹¿¬·ª» -µ·² º®·½¬·±²ò
̸·- ±º¬»² ®»¼«½»- ¬¸» ½±-¬ó»ºº»½¬·ª»²»-- ±º -«½¸ •½±²ª»²¬·±²¿´
-±´«¬·±²Žò ײ ¬¸·- °¿°»®ô ¿ ¼»-·¹² ¿°°®±¿½¸ ·- °®»-»²¬»¼ ·² ©¸·½¸ ¿
•º´±¿¬·²¹Ž °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ·- ¿¼±°¬»¼ º±® ¬©±ó-¬±®»§
¬»®®¿½» ¿²¼ -»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»- ±² -±º¬ ½´¿§ò ߬ ¬¸» ¬·³» ±º
°®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸·- °¿°»®ô ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïððð «²·¬- ±º ¬©±ó-¬±®»§ ¿²¼
-»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»- -«°°±®¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» •º´±¿¬·²¹Ž °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ ¸¿ª»
¾»»² ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ¿²¼ ®»¿¼§ º±® ±½½«°¿²½§ò ͱ³» -»¬¬´»³»²¬
³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- ±² ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹- ¿®» °®»-»²¬»¼ ¿²¼ ¼·-½«--»¼
·² ¬¸·- °¿°»®ò
î ÍËÞÍÑ×Ô ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒ
̸» ¿´´«ª·¿´ ¼»°±-·¬- ¿¬ ¬¸» -·¬» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ½±²-·-¬ ±º ª»®§ -±º¬ ¬±
º·®³ -·´¬§ ÝÔßÇ «° ¬± ¿ ¼»°¬¸ ±º îë ³ ¬± íð ³ ©·¬¸ °®»-»²½» ±º
·²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» -¿²¼§ ´¿§»®-ò ̸» -·´¬§ ÝÔßÇ -¬®¿¬«³ ·- ¹»²»®¿´´§
«²¼»®´¿·² ¾§ -·´¬§ ÍßÒÜò Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ½¿² ¾» ¼·ª·¼»¼ ·²¬± ¬©±
®¿³»¬»®- ±º Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ¿®» °®»-»²¬»¼ ·² Ú·¹ò ï ¿²¼ ¬¸»-» °¿®¿³»ó
¬»®- °´¿§ ¿ ª·¬¿´ ®±´» ·² -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¿´§-»- º±® ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¼»ó
-·¹²ò ̸» «²¼®¿·²»¼ -¸»¿® -¬®»²¹¬¸ °®±º·´» ¿²¼ -»²-·¬·ª·¬§ ±º ¬¸»
Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ¿- ±¾¬¿·²»¼ º®±³ ·²ó-·¬« º·»´¼ ª¿²» -¸»¿® ¬»-¬- ¿®»
-¸±©² ·² Ú·¹ò îò
̸» «²¼®¿·²»¼ -¸»¿® -¬®»²¹¬¸ ±º Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ·²½®»¿-»- ¿´³±-¬
´·²»¿®´§ ©·¬¸ ¼»°¬¸ ¿²¼ -¸±©- ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ ¸·¹¸ ª¿´«» º±® ¬¸» º·®-¬
í ³ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨·-¬»²½» ±º ±ª»®½±²-±´·¼¿¬»¼ ½®«-¬ò ̸» - «øºª÷ñÐŽ½ ®¿ó
¬·± ±º Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ·- ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ ¸·¹¸ ©·¬¸ ®¿¬·± ±º - «øºª÷ñÐŽ½ ã ðòì
¿²¼ ·- ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ ±º °´¿-¬·½·¬§ ·²¼»¨ øÐ×÷ò Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ °®±°»®ó
¬·»- ±º ¬¸» Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ ¿²¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ ½±®®»´¿¬·±²- ¿®» ®»°±®¬»¼ ·² ¬¸»
°¿°»® ¾§ Ì¿² »¬ ¿´ò øîððì÷ò
í ÜÛÍ×ÙÒ ßÐÐÎÑßÝØ ÚÑÎ ÐÔßÌÚÑÎÓ ÛßÎÌØÉÑÎÕÍ
̸» ¼»-·¹² ¿°°®±¿½¸»- º±® º±«²¼¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹- ±² ª»®§
-±º¬ -±·´- ¸¿ª» ¬± ·²¬»¹®¿¬» ©·¬¸ ¹®±«²¼ ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ ¼»-·¹² º±® ¬¸»
»¿®¬¸©±®µ- -± ¬¸¿¬ ¾±¬¸ ¼»-·¹²- ¿®» ¬»½¸²·½¿´´§ ½±³°¿¬·¾´» ¿²¼
»ºº·½·»²¬ò ײ Ó¿´¿§-·¿ô ³¿²§ º±«²¼¿¬·±² º¿·´«®»- ·²ª»-¬·¹¿¬»¼ ¾§
¬¸» ß«¬¸±®- øÙ«» »¬ ¿´òô îððì÷ -¸±© ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»-» º¿·´«®»- ¿®» »·¬¸»®
½¿«-»¼ ¾§ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» -«¾-±·´ ²±¬ ¾»·²¹ ¬¿µ»² ·²¬± ½±²-·¼ó
»®¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¼»-·¹² ±® ´¿½µ ±º ¹»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ »²¹·²»»®ó
·²¹ µ²±©´»¼¹» ±² -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±¾´»³-ò
Ú±® ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ °®±¶»½¬ô ¾±¬¸ ¬»³°±®¿®§ -«®½¸¿®¹·²¹ ¿²¼ °®»ó
´±¿¼·²¹ ¬»½¸²·¯«» ·- ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¬± ½±²¬®±´ ´±²¹ó¬»®³ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ±º
¬¸» -«¾-±·´ «²¼»® ¬¸» ´±¿¼- º®±³ ¬¸» º·´´ ¿²¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹- ¬± ¾»
°´¿½»¼ ±² ¬±° ±º ·¬ò Ù»²»®¿´´§ô ¬¸» ²»¬ º·´´ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» -·¬» ·-
¿¾±«¬ ðòë ³ ¬± ïòð ³ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿ª»®¿¹» «²·º±®³ ´±¿¼ º®±³ ¬¸» ¬©±ó
-¬±®»§ ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»- ·- ¿¾±«¬ îë µÐ¿ò ̸» ¬»³°±®¿®§ -«®½¸¿®¹·²¹
¸»·¹¸¬- ®¿²¹»- º®±³ î ³ ¬± ë ³ ¼»°»²¼·²¹ ±² ¬¸» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ©¿·¬ó
·²¹ °»®·±¼ò
ߺ¬»® ¬¸» -«¾-±·´ ¸¿- ¿½¸·»ª»¼ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º -»¬ó
¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ª»®·º·»¼ «-·²¹ ß-¿±µ¿Ž- ³»¬¸±¼ øß-¿±µ¿ô ïçéè÷ô ¬¸»
¬»³°±®¿®§ »¿®¬¸ º·´´- ¿®» ®»³±ª»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±²-¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¬¸»
º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¾»¹·²-ò

ïéï
 ð

ïð

ïë

îð

îë

íð

íë

ð ï î í ì ïðð îðð íðð ìððî í ì ë ê é è ç ðòë ï ïòë ðòðë ðòï ðòïë ïð îð íð

»± Ð ½ ù øµÐ¿÷ ÑÝÎ ÝÎãÝ ½ñïõ»½ ÎÎãÝ ® ñïõ»± ݪø³ îñ§®÷
Ú·¹ò ïò ݱ³°®»--·¾·´·¬§ °¿®¿³»¬»®- º±® Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ øº®±³ Ì¿² »¬ ¿´òô îððì÷ò
ð øî𠧻¿®-÷ -¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» ³±®» ¬¸¿² éë ³³ ¿º¬»® ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º
¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ûª»² ©¸»² ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ·- ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸» ¼»ó
̱¬¿´ ²±- ±º º·»´¼ ª¿²» -¸»¿®
¬»-¬- ´±½¿¬·±²- ã çç -·¹²»¼ ª¿´«»ô ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹- ©·´´ -¬·´´ ²±¬ ½®¿½µ ¿- ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬ó
ë ¬´»³»²¬ ·- ½±²¬®±´´»¼ò
̱¬¿´ ²±- ±º ¬»-¬- ã ïîêð

ïð
ïë
îð
îë
ð íð êð çð
-«øºª÷øµÐ¿÷
Ú·¹ò îò ˲¼®¿·²»¼ -¸»¿® -¬®»²¹¬¸ ¿²¼ -»²-·¬·ª·¬§ ±º Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ øº®±³ Ì¿²
»¬ ¿´ò îððì÷ò
ì ÜÛÍ×ÙÒ ßÐÐÎÑßÝØ ÚÑÎ ÚÑËÒÜßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌÉÑó
ÍÌÑÎÛÇ ÌÛÎÎßÝÛ ßÒÜ ÍÛÓ×óÜÛÌßÝØÛÜ ØÑËÍÛÍ
ìòï Ô±¿¼·²¹- ±º ¬©±ó-¬±®»§ ر«-»- ¿²¼ Ü»-·¹² Ý®·¬»®·¿
Ù»²»®¿´´§ô ¬¸» ´±¿¼·²¹- ±º îó-¬±®»§ ¸±«-»- ¿®» ¸·¹¸»-¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» ½±´ó
«³²- ¿²¼ ®¿²¹»- º®±³ ïð µÒ ¬± íêð µÒò ̸» ´·²» ´±¿¼ º®±³ ¬¸»
¾®·½µ ©¿´´- ®¿²¹»- º®±³ ç µÒñ³ øìòëŒ ¾®·½µ ©¿´´÷ ¬± ïê µÒñ³ øçŒ
¾®·½µ ©¿´´÷ ¿²¼ ¬¸» «²·º±®³ ´·ª» ´±¿¼ ¿½¬·²¹ ±² ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ º´±±®
®¿º¬ ®¿²¹»- º®±³ îòë µÒñ³î ¬± íòð µÒñ³î ¿- °»® ®»½±³³»²¼»¼
ª¿´«»- ¹·ª»² ¾§ ÞÍêíççæ ﮬ ïæ ïççêò ̸» ³¿·² ¼»-·¹² ½®·¬»®·±²
º±® ¬¸» ¬©±ó-¬±®»§ ¸±«-»- ·- ¬± ´·³·¬ ¬¸» ®»´¿¬·ª» ®±¬¿¬·±² ø¿²¹«´¿®
¼·-¬±®¬·±²÷ ¬± ïñíëð ø͵»³°¬±² ú Ó¿½Ü±²¿´¼ô ïçëê÷ ¬± °®»ª»²¬
½®¿½µ·²¹ ·² ©¿´´- ¿²¼ °¿®¬·¬·±²-ò ̸» ´±²¹ó¬»®³ ¬±¬¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬
ìòî Ü»-·¹² Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§
Ó¿²§ ½¿-»- ±² ¬¸» «-» ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»- ¬± -«°°±®¬ ¿
-¬®«½¬«®» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»°±®¬»¼ ø»ò¹ò Ô±ª»ô îððíô Ç¿³¿-¸·¬¿ »¬ ¿´ò
ïççì ¿²¼ Þ«®´¿²¼ ú Õ¿´®¿ô ïçèê÷ò λ½»²¬ «²¼»®-¬¿²¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ¿¼ó
ª¿²½»- ·² ¬¸» ¼»-·¹² ¿²¼ ¿²¿´§-·- ±º °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² ø»ò¹ò
б«´±-ô îððï ¿²¼ ο²¼±´°¸ô ïççì÷ ¸¿ª» ¿´-± »²¿¾´»¼ °®¿½¬·½·²¹
»²¹·²»»®- ¬± ¿¼±°¬ ¬¸» ½±²½»°¬ ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»- ©·¬¸
¹®»¿¬»® ½±²º·¼»²½»ò
̸» ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ·² ¬¸·- °¿°»® ¹»²»®¿´´§ º±´´±©- ¬¸» ®»½ó
±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ±º б«´±- øîððï÷ ©¸»®» º±«® ½·®½«³-¬¿²½»- ·²
©¸·½¸ ¿ °·´» ·- °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾»²»¿¬¸ ¿ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ ´±¿¼ ø·ò»ò ½±´ó
î ì ê è ïð
Í»²-·¬·ª·¬§ «³²÷æ
¿÷ ݱ²¼·¬·±² ïæ ·º ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ³±³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´
³»³¾»® ¾»´±© ¬¸» ½±´«³² »¨½»»¼- ¬¸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» ª¿´«»
º±® ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»®ò
¾÷ ݱ²¼·¬·±² îæ ·º ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ -¸»¿® ·² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´
³»³¾»® ¾»´±© ¬¸» ½±´«³² »¨½»»¼- ¬¸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» ª¿´«»
º±® ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»®ò
½÷ ݱ²¼·¬·±² íæ ·º ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ½±²¬¿½¬ °®»--«®» ¾»´±© ¬¸»
º±«²¼¿¬·±² »¨½»»¼- ¬¸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» ¼»-·¹² ª¿´«» º±® ¬¸»
-±·´ò
¼÷ ݱ²¼·¬·±² ìæ ·º ¬¸» ´±½¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¾»´±© ¬¸» ½±´«³²
»¨½»»¼- ¬¸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» ª¿´«»ò
̸» ±²´§ ¼·ºº»®»²½» ¾»¬©»»² б«´±- øîððï÷ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²-
¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¾§ ¬¸» ß«¬¸±®- ·- ¬¸¿¬ б«´±- øîððï÷
®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ¿®» ±²´§ º±® -¬·ººñ¼»²-» -±·´ò ̸» ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¼»ó
-½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸·- °¿°»® ¸±©»ª»®ô ¸¿- ¾»»² »¨¬»²¼»¼ º±® ª»®§ -±º¬
-±·´-ò
ײ ±®¼»® ¬± ¿¼±°¬ ¬¸» ½±²½»°¬ ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»-ô ¬¸»
º±«²¼¿¬·±² ®¿º¬ ³«-¬ ¾» ¿¾´» ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§
·² ¬¸» º·®-¬ °´¿½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» °·´»- ¿®» -±´»´§ ·²¬®±¼«½»¼ ¬± ½±²¬®±´ ¼·ºó
º»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬- ©·¬¸·² ¿´´±©¿¾´» ª¿´«»- ø»ò¹ò ïñíëð÷ô ¿²¼

ïéî
¿´-± ®»¼«½»- ¬¸» -¬®»--»- ±² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»®ò ß -·³°´» ½¿´ó
½«´¿¬·±² ¾¿-»¼ ±² ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬¸»±®§ ©±«´¼ ·²¼·½¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»
®¿º¬ º±® ±²» ¾´±½µ ±º ïî «²·¬- ±º ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»- ¬§°·½¿´´§ ³»¿-«®ó
·²¹ ïë ³ ¨ èð ³ ¿²¼ ±²» ¾´±½µ ±º -»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»- ¬§°·½¿´´§
³»¿-«®·²¹ îð ³ ¨ îð ³ ©±«´¼ °®±ª·¼» ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½ó
·¬§ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸» ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ ½±´«³² ´±¿¼- ©±«´¼ ·³°±-» ´¿®¹»
½±²¬¿½¬ °®»--«®» ¾»´±© ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ´»¿¼ ¬± »¨½»-ó
-·ª» ´±½¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ´»¿¼·²¹ ¬± ½®¿½µ- ±² ¾«·´¼·²¹-ò ̸»®»º±®»ô
ݱ²¼·¬·±² í ¿²¼ ݱ²¼·¬·±² ì ¿®·-» ©¸·½¸ ²»½»--·¬¿¬» ¬¸» ·²¬®±¼«½ó
¬·±² ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»-ò ̸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»-
¿®» ¼»-·¹²»¼ ¿- º®·½¬·±² °·´»- ¿²¼ ¬¸·- »´·³·²¿¬» ¬¸» ®·-µ ±º -¬®«½ó
¬«®¿´ º¿·´«®» ±® ·²¿¼»¯«¿½§ ±º °·´»- ¼«» ¬± ²»¹¿¬·ª» -µ·² º®·½¬·±²ò
̸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»® ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ½±²-·-¬- ±º
½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º -¬®·°- ¿²¼ ®¿º¬ò ̸·- -§-¬»³ ·- ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¬± ³·²·ó
³·¦» ¬¸» ¬¸·½µ²»-- ±º ¬¸» ®¿º¬ º±® ³¿¨·³«³ »½±²±³·½ ¾»²»º·¬-
©¸·´» ²±¬ -¿½®·º·½·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ®·¹·¼·¬§ò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸» -¬®·°-
-»®ª» ¬¸» ¼«¿´ °«®°±-» ±º °®±ª·¼·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ®·¹·¼·¬§ ¬± ¬¸»
º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ¿²¼ ¿´-± ¿- °·´» ½¿°- ¬± ¼·-¬®·¾«¬» ¬¸» ½±´«³²
´±¿¼- ¬± ¬¸» °·´»-ò É·¬¸ ¬¸» -¬®·°- ´±½¿¬»¼ ¼·®»½¬´§ ¾»²»¿¬¸ ¬¸»
½±´«³²-ô ݱ²¼·¬·±²- ï ¿²¼ îô ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¹±ª»®²»¼ ¾§ -¬®«½¬«®¿´
½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±²-ô ¿®» ²± ´±²¹»® ½®·¬·½¿´ò
ìòí ß²¿´§-·-
̸» ´±½¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»- ¿- ¼»¬»®³·²»¼
¾¿-»¼ ±² ݱ²¼·¬·±²- í ¿²¼ ì ³¿·²´§ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»- ¿¬ ½±´«³² ´±½¿ó
¬·±²- ¿²¼ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸» ´±²¹ -°¿² ±º ´·²» ´±¿¼-ò É·¬¸ ¬¸» °·´·²¹ ´¿§±«¬
½±²º·®³»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» º®¿³·²¹ ±º ¬¸» -¬®·°ó®¿º¬ ½±³°´»¬»¼ô ¼»¬¿·´»¼
¿²¿´§-·- ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸» -¬®»--»- ·²ó
¼«½»¼ ±² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»®- ¿®» ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ º±® -«¾-»¯«»²¬
-¬®«½¬«®¿´ ¼»-·¹²ò ̸·- ½¿² ¾» ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ «-·²¹ ½±³³»®½·¿´´§
¿ª¿·´¿¾´» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ¿²¿´§-·- -±º¬©¿®»ò
ر©»ª»®ô ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» ´·³·¬¿¬·±²- ±º -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ¿²¿´§-·- -±º¬ó
©¿®» ©¸»®» -«°°±®¬- ¿®» «-«¿´´§ ³±¼»´´»¼ «-·²¹ «²½±«°´»¼
-°®·²¹ ½±²-¬¿²¬- ±® É·²µ´»® º±«²¼¿¬·±²-ô ·¬ ·- ²»½»--¿®§ ¬± ¼»¬»®ó
³·²» ¬¸» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» -°®·²¹ ½±²-¬¿²¬- ¬± ¿½½±«²¬ º±® ¬¸» ¿½¬«¿´
¾»¸¿ª·±«® ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ò ̸» ´·³·¬¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸»
É·²µ´»® º±«²¼¿¬·±²- ¿- ¸·¹¸´·¹¸¬»¼ ¾§ б«´±- øîððð÷ ³«-¬ ¾»
½´»¿®´§ «²¼»®-¬±±¼ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± °®±¼«½» ³»¿²·²¹º«´ ¿²¿´§-·- ®»ó
-«´¬-ò ̸» ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¿²¿´§-·- ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ ½¿² ¾» ¾®±¿¼´§ ¼·ª·¼»¼
·²¬± ¬©± ½¿¬»¹±®·»-æ
¿÷ Ô±½¿´ -¬®»--»- ¿¬ ´±½¿¬·±²- ±º ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ ´±¿¼-
¾÷ Ѫ»®¿´´ -¬®»--»- º±® ¬¸» ©¸±´» ¾´±½µ ±º ¬¸» ¸±«-»-
ß²¿´§-·- ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ´±½¿´ -¬®»--»- ¿®» º«®¬¸»® ¼·ª·¼»¼ ·²¬±
¬¸®»» ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ½¿-»-æ
¿÷ Ý¿-» ïæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ¿- °»® °®»¼·½¬·±²
¾÷ Ý¿-» îæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ·- ´±©»® ¬¸¿² °®»¼·½¬·±² ø«²¼»®ó
½¿°¿½·¬§÷
½÷ Ý¿-» íæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ·- ¾»¬¬»® ¬¸¿² °®»¼·½¬·±² ø±ª»®ó
½¿°¿½·¬§÷
̸» ¬¸®»» ½¿-»- ¿®» ¬± ½¿¬»® º±® °±--·¾´» ª¿®·¿¬·±²- ·² ¬¸» -«¾ó
-±·´ °®±°»®¬·»- ¿²¼ °·´» ·²-¬¿´´¿¬·±² °®±½»¼«®»- ®»-«´¬·²¹ ·² ¼·ºº»®ó
»²¬ ª¿´«»- ±º ®»´¿¬·ª» °·´» -¬·ºº²»-- ¿²¼ -±·´ -¬·ºº²»-- ¾»²»¿¬¸ ¬¸»
®¿º¬ò ̸» ª¿®·¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» -¬·ºº²»-- ©±«´¼ ¿ºº»½¬ ¬¸» -¬®»--»- ¹»²ó
»®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»® ¿²¼ ²»»¼- ¬± ¾» ¬¿µ»² ·²¬± ½±²ó
-·¼»®¿¬·±²ò Í·³·´¿® ¼»-·¹² ¿°°®±¿½¸ «-·²¹ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹
°·´»- ¸¿- ¿´-± ¾»»² ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¾§ Ô±ª» øîððí÷ò
ß- ¸·¹¸´·¹¸¬»¼ ¾§ Ì»®¦¿¹¸· øïçëë÷ ¿²¼ б«´±- øîððð÷ô ¬¸»
É·²µ´»® -§-¬»³ ¸¿- ·¬- ´·³·¬¿¬·±²- ·² ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ·- ±²´§ ¿¾´» ¬± º«®²·-¸
ª¿´«»- ±º ´±½¿´ -¬®»--»-ò ̸»®»º±®»ô ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ½¿¬»® º±® ±ª»®¿´´
-¬®»--»- ±² ¬¸» ©¸±´» ¾´±½µ ±º ¬¸» ¸±«-»-ô ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬
¿²¿´§-»- ¿®» ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» º±®
-«¾-»¯«»²¬ ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º -°®·²¹ -¬·ºº²»-- º±® ¬¸» °·´»- ¿²¼ -±·´ò
ïéí
̸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¿´§-·- ·- ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ ¾¿-»¼ ±² Ì»®¦¿¹¸·Ž- ïó
¼·³»²-·±²¿´ ½±²-±´·¼¿¬·±² ¬¸»±®§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» -¬®»-- ¼·-¬®·¾«¬·±² ·-
¾¿-»¼ ±² Þ±«--·²»-¯Ž- ¬¸»±®§ò ̸» ®¿º¬ ·- ¿--«³»¼ ¬± ¾» ¬®«´§
º´»¨·¾´» ©¸·½¸ ·- ±² ¬¸» ½±²-»®ª¿¬·ª» -·¼» º±® ¼»-·¹²ò ̸» -»¬¬´»ó
³»²¬ ¿²¿´§-·- ¿´-± ¬¿µ»- ·²¬± ½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±² ¬¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ¿¼¶¿½»²¬
®±©- ±º ¸±«-»- ¿- -¸±©² ·² Ú·¹-ò í ¿²¼ ìò
Í»½¬·±²¿´ Ê·»©
α© ±º ¸±«-»- «²¼»®
½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±²
ͬ®»-- ¾«´¾ º®±³ ¿¼¶¿ó
½»²¬ ®±© ±º ¸±«-»-
Ú·¹ò íò Ûºº»½¬ ±º ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¸±«-»- ±² -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ø¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»÷ò
ر«-» «²¼»® д¿² Ê·»©
ݱ®²»® «²·¬ ½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±² ײ¬»®³»¼·¿¬» «²·¬
ͬ®»-- º·»´¼ º®±³
¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¸±«-»
Ú·¹ò ìò Ûºº»½¬ ±º ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¸±«-»- ±² -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ø-»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»÷ò
̧°·½¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´»- ±¾¬¿·²»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬
¿²¿´§-»- ¿®» -¸±©² ·² Ú·¹-ò ëô ê ¿²¼ é ®»-°»½¬·ª»´§ò ̸» -»¬¬´»ó
³»²¬ °®±º·´» ©·´´ -«¾-»¯«»²¬´§ ¾» «-»¼ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸» -°®·²¹
-¬·ºº²»-- øª¿´«» ±º ´±¿¼ñ-»¬¬´»³»²¬÷ º±® ¬¸» °·´» ¿²¼ -±·´ -«°°±®¬ ·²
±®¼»® ¬± -·³«´¿¬» ¿ -·³·´¿® -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» ¹·ª·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´
-¬®»--»- ±² ¬¸» ©¸±´» ¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»-ò ̸» º·¹«®»- -¸±© ¬¸» »ºó
º»½¬ ±º ´±¿¼ º®±³ ¬¸» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¾´±½µ- ±º ¸±«-»- ·² ·²½®»¿-·²¹ ¬¸»
-»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¸»²½» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ò ̸»®»º±®»ô °¿®¬·½«´¿®
½¿®» -¸±«´¼ ¾» ¹·ª»² ¬± ¬¸» ¼»-·¹² ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ »-°»ó
½·¿´´§ ¿¬ ¬¸» ½±®²»® ±º ¬¸» ¾´±½µ- ¿²¼ ¿¬ ¿®»¿- º¿½·²¹ ¿²±¬¸»® ¿¼¶¿ó
½»²¬ ¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»-ô ¿- ¬¸» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¸»²½»
¾»²¼·²¹ ³±³»²¬ ¿®» ¬¸» ´¿®¹»-¬ ¿¬ ¬¸±-» ¿®»¿-ò ̸» º·²¿´ º±«²¼¿ó
¬·±² -§-¬»³ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ½±²-·-¬- ±º ïëð ³³ ¨ ïëð ³³ ¨ ç ³ ´»²¹¬¸
®»·²º±®½»¼ ½±²½®»¬» øÎÝ÷ -¯«¿®» °·´»- ·²¬»®½±²²»½¬»¼ ©·¬¸
íëð ³³ ¨ êðð ³³ -¬®·°- ¿²¼ ïëð ³³ ¬¸·½µ ®¿º¬ò Ú·¹-ò è ¿²¼ ç
-¸±© ¬§°·½¿´ ´¿§±«¬ ±º º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ¿¼±°¬»¼ º±® ¬»®®¿½»
¸±«-»- ¿²¼ ¬§°·½¿´ ½®±--ó-»½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» -¬®·°ó®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-ó
¬»³ ®»-°»½¬·ª»´§ò
Ò±¬»æ Ê»®¬·½¿´ -½¿´» »¨¿¹¹»®¿¬»¼
λ´¿¬·ª» ÚÎÑÒÌ
Í»¬¬´»³»²¬
ø³³÷
ÞßÝÕ
Ü·-¬¿²½»
ø³÷
Ú·¹ò ëò Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» º±® ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»ò
 Ò±¬»æ Ê»®¬·½¿´ -½¿´» λ·²º±®½»³»²¬
λ´¿¬·ª» »¨¿¹¹»®¿¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¼»-·¹²»¼
Í»¬¬´»³»²¬
ø³³÷

Ü·-¬¿²½»
ø³÷
Ú·¹ò çò ̧°·½¿´ ½®±--ó-»½¬·±² ±º -¬®·° ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ò
Ú·¹ò êò Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» º±® -»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-» ø½±®²»® «²·¬÷ò

Ò±¬»æ Ê»®¬·½¿´ -½¿´» ë ÍÛÌÌÔÛÓÛÒÌ ÓÑÒ×ÌÑÎ×ÒÙ

λ´¿¬·ª» »¨¿¹¹»®¿¬»¼
Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ß -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ °®±¹®¿³³» ©¿- ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ «-·²¹ °®»ó
ø³³÷ ½·-» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³¿®µ»®- ·²-¬¿´´»¼ ±² ½±´«³²- ±º ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®»ò
Ú·¹ò ïð -¸±©- ¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³¿®µ»®- º±® ¬¸» ¬©±
¾´±½µ- ±º ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»- ©¸»®» ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º îî ²±-ò ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬
³¿®µ»®- ©»®» ·²-¬¿´´»¼ò Ó±²·¬±®·²¹ ©±®µ- ©»®» ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ -¬¿®¬ó
·²¹ º®±³ Ò±ª»³¾»® îððî ©¸»² ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ º´±±® ½±´«³²- ¸¿ª»
¾»»² ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ¬± Ó¿®½¸ñß°®·´ îððí ©¸»² ·¬ ©¿- -¬±°°»¼ °®»ó
³¿¬«®»´§ ¬± º¿½·´·¬¿¬» ·²-¬¿´´¿¬·±² ±º ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ º·²·-¸»-ò ̸»®»ó
º±®»ô ¬¸» ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ·- ±²´§ ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ½±²-¬®«½¬·±²
Ü·-¬¿²½»
°»®·±¼ ©¸»®» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ´±¿¼- º®±³ ¬¸» º·®-¬ º´±±® ©»®» -«¾-»ó
ø³÷
¯«»²¬´§ ·³°±-»¼ò
Ú·¹«®»- ïï ¿²¼ ïî -¸±© ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- º±®
Ú·¹ò éò Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» º±® -»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-» ø·²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» «²·¬÷ò
¬¸» ¬©± ¾´±½µ- ±º ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»-ò ׬ ·- ©±®¬¸ ²±¬·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» -»¬ó
¬´»³»²¬ ·²½®»¿-»- ®¿¬¸»® -¬»»°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬·³»ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸·- ·- »¨ó
°»½¬»¼ ¿- ´±¿¼- º®±³ ¬¸» º·®-¬ º´±±® ø¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ´±¿¼-÷ ©»®» ·³ó
°±-»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ³±²·¬±®·²¹ °»®·±¼ò ̸» ³¿¨·³«³ ®»½±®¼»¼
ÞßÝÕ ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬- ¿®» èòçç ³³ ø¾»¬©»»² ÝÍðé ó ÝÍðç÷ ¿²¼
ïíòîë ³³ øÝÍïé ó ÝÍîï÷ º±® Þ´±½µ- î ¿²¼ í ®»-°»½¬·ª»´§ò ̸»
³¿¨·³«³ ¿²¹«´¿® ¼·-¬±®¬·±²- ®»½±®¼»¼ ø»²¼ ±º ½±²-¬®«½¬·±²÷ ¿®»
ïñîèëð ¿²¼ ïñïééë º±® Þ´±½µ- î ¿²¼ í ®»-°»½¬·ª»´§ò
̸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- ¿´-± ½±²º·®³ ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬
½¸¿®¿½¬»®·-¬·½- ±º ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®» ©¸»®» ·¬ ½¿² ¾» -»»² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» -»¬ó
¬´»³»²¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» ½±®²»®- ±º ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®» ¿®» ¬¸» -³¿´´»-¬ ©¸·½¸ ·-
½¸¿®¿½¬»®·-¬·½- º±® ¿ º´»¨·¾´» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ©¸»®» ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±ó
º·´» ·- ±º ¿ ½«®ª»¼ ±® •¾±©´Ž -¸¿°»ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¿- ¬¸» ¾¿½µ °±®ó
¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»- ·- ª»®§ ½´±-» ø ïð ³÷ ¬± »¿½¸ ±¬¸»® ¿-
½±³°¿®»¼ ¬± ¬¸» º®±²¬ ©¸»®» ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®» ·- -»°¿®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ¿°ó
°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ îð³ ¾§ ¿ ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» º®±²¬ §¿®¼ô ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿¬
¬¸» ¾¿½µ ·- ¹®»¿¬»® ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» ·²º´«»²½» ±º ´±¿¼·²¹- º®±³ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬
¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»- ¿- -¸±©² ·² Ú·¹ò íò Í«½¸ º·²¼·²¹- ¿¹®»» ©»´´ ©·¬¸
¬¸» °®»¼·½¬»¼ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¬®»²¼ -¸±©² ·² Ú·¹ò ëô ©¸·½¸ ¸¿- ¬¿µ»²
·²¬± ½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±² ¬¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ´±¿¼·²¹- º®±³ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¸±«-»-ò
̸·- ¼»³±²-¬®¿¬»- ¬¸» ·³°±®¬¿²½» ±º ¼»¬»®³·²·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´
-¬®»--»- ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¾¿-»¼ ±² ·¬- -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» ®¿¬¸»®
¬¸¿² ®»´§·²¹ -±´»´§ ±² ´±½¿´ -¬®»--»- ±¾¬¿·²»¼ º®±³ ½±²ª»²¬·±²¿´
É·²µ´»® º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¿²¿´§-·-ò

ÚÎÑÒÌ

Ô»¹»²¼æ
ïëð³³ ¨ ïëð³³ ÎòÝò ͯ«¿®» з´» ±º ç³ ´»²¹¬¸
ݱ´«³² ´±½¿¬·±²

Ú·¹ò èò ̧°·½¿´ ´¿§±«¬ ±º º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ º±® ¬»®®¿½» ¸±«-»-ò

ïéì
 Ô»¹»²¼æ
ÝÍ Š Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³¿®µ»®- øîî Ò±-ò÷

Ú·¹ò ïðò Ô±½¿¬·±²- ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³¿®µ»®-ò

Ü¿§- Ü¿§-
ð íë ëè çð ïïç ð íë ëè çð ïïç ïëì

ð ð ð ð

ï ï ï ï

î î
í í
ì ì
î î
í í
ì ì
ë ë

ë ë ê ê

é é
ê ê
è è
é é
ç ç
è è ïð ݱ®²»® ïð

ç ç ïï ïï

ïð
ݱ®²»® ïð
ïî ïî

ïí ïí
ïï ïï
ïì ïì
ïî ïî ïë
Ú®±²¬ ïë

ïí ïí ïê ïê
Ú®±²¬ ïé ïé
ïì ïì
ïè ïè
ïë ïë
ïç ïç
ïê ïê îð îð

ïé
Í »¬¬´»³»²¬ Ó¿®µ»®-
Þ¿½µ ïé îï
Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ Ó¿®µ»®-
Þ¿½µ îï

ÝÍðïô ÝÍðéô ÝÍïï îî ÝÍïîô ÝÍïéô ÝÍïèô ÝÍîî îî

ïè ïè
ÝÍðîô ÝÍðíô ÝÍðìô ÝÍðëô ÝÍðê îí ÝÍïíô ÝÍïìô ÝÍïëô ÝÍïê îí
ïç ÝÍðèô ÝÍðçô ÝÍïð ïç ÝÍïçô ÝÍîðô ÝÍîï
îì îì
îð îð îë îë

ïçóÒ±ªóðî îìóÜ»½óðî ïêóÖ¿²óðí ïéóÚ»¾óðí ïèóÓ¿®óðí ïçóÒ±ªóðî îì óÜ »½óðî ïê óÖ¿²óðí ïéóÚ»¾óðí ïèóÓ¿®óðí îîóß°®óðí
Ü¿¬» Ü¿¬»
Ú·¹ò ïïò Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- º±® Þ´±½µ îò Ú·¹ò ïîò Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- º±® Þ´±½µ íò

ïéë
ê ÝÑÒÝÔËÍ×ÑÒÍ
ß ¼»-·¹² ¿°°®±¿½¸ º±® •º´±¿¬·²¹Ž °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ º±®
¬©±ó-¬±®»§ ¬»®®¿½» ¿²¼ -»³·ó¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«-»- ±² -±º¬ ½´¿§ ¿®» °®»ó
-»²¬»¼ò ̸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ½±²-·-¬- ±º ¿ -§-¬»³ ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½ó
·²¹ °·´»- ·²¬»®½±²²»½¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ -¬®·°ó®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ò
̸» «-» ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»- ·- -±´»´§ ¬± ½±²¬®±´ ¼·ºº»®ó
»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬- ©·¬¸·² ¿´´±©¿¾´» ª¿´«»- ¬± °®»ª»²¬ ½®¿½µ·²¹ ·²
©¿´´- ¿²¼ °¿®¬·¬·±²- ¿²¼ ¿´-± ¬± ®»¼«½» -¬®»--»- ±² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´
³»³¾»®ò ײ ±®¼»® ¬± ¿¼±°¬ ¬¸» ½±²½»°¬ ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹
°·´»-ô ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ®¿º¬ ³«-¬ º·®-¬ ¾» ¿¾´» ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿¼»¯«¿¬»
¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ò
̸» ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¿²¿´§-·- ±º ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²»
¬¸» -¬®»--»- ¿½¬·²¹ ±² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»® ®»¯«·®»- ½¿®»º«´ ½±²ó
-·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½¿-»-æ
¿÷ Ô±½¿´ -¬®»--»- ¿¬ ´±½¿¬·±²- ±º ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ ´±¿¼-
¾÷ Ѫ»®¿´´ -¬®»--»- º±® ¬¸» ©¸±´» ¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»-ò
ß²¿´§-·- ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ´±½¿´ -¬®»--»- ¿®» º«®¬¸»® ¼·ª·¼»¼ ·²¬±
¬¸®»» ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ½¿-»-æ
¿÷ Ý¿-» ïæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ¿- °»® °®»¼·½¬·±²
¾÷ Ý¿-» îæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ·- ´±©»® ¬¸¿² °®»¼·½¬·±² ø«²¼»®ó
½¿°¿½·¬§÷
½÷ Ý¿-» íæ з´» °»®º±®³¿²½» ·- ¾»¬¬»® ¬¸¿² °®»¼·½¬·±² ø±ª»®ó
½¿°¿½·¬§÷
ß²¿´§-·- ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ±ª»®¿´´ -¬®»--»- ·²ª±´ª»- ¬¸» ¼»¬»®³·²¿ó
¬·±² ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» º±® ¬¸» ©¸±´» ¾´±½µ ±º ¸±«-»-ò ̸·- ·- ¬±
º¿½·´·¬¿¬» ¬¸» ¿¼¶«-¬³»²¬ ±º -°®·²¹ -¬·ºº²»-- ª¿´«»- º±® ¬¸» °·´» ·²
½±²ª»²¬·±²¿´ É·²µ´»® º±«²¼¿¬·±² ¿²¿´§-·- ¿²¼ ¬± -·³«´¿¬» -·³·´¿®
-»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» ¹·ª·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´ -¬®»--»-ò ײº´«»²½» ±º ¿¼¶¿ó
½»²¬ ®±©- ±º ¸±«-»- ±² ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» ·- ¿´-± ·³°±®¬¿²¬ô ¿-
·¬ ©±«´¼ ¼·®»½¬´§ ¿ºº»½¬ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´ -¬®»--»-ò
Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ®»-«´¬- ¸¿ª» ¼»³±²-¬®¿¬»¼ ¬¸» »ºº»½ó
¬·ª»²»-- ±º ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ º±«²¼¿¬·±² -§-¬»³ ·² ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¼·ºº»®ó
»²¬·¿´ -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ·³°±®¬¿²½» ±º ¬¸» ·²º´«»²½» º®±³ ¿¼¶¿ó
½»²¬ ²»¿®¾§ ¸±«-»- ±² ¬¸» -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®±º·´» ¿²¼ ¸»²½» -¬®»--»-
±² ¬¸» -¬®«½¬«®¿´ ³»³¾»®-ò
ïéê
ÎÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ
ß-¿±µ¿ô ßò ïçéèò Ѿ-»®ª¿¬·±²¿´ °®±½»¼«®» ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ °®»¼·½ó
¬·±²ò ͱ·´- ¿²¼ Ú±«²¼¿¬·±²- îèøì÷æ èéóïðïò
Þ®·¬·-¸ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ ײ-¬·¬«¬·±²ò ïççêò ÞÍêíççæ ﮬ ïæ ïççêæ ݱ¼»
±º °®¿½¬·½» º±® ¼»¿¼ ¿²¼ ·³°±-»¼ ´±¿¼-ò
Þ«®´¿²¼ô ÖòÞò ú Õ¿´®¿ô ÖòÝò ïçèêò Ï«»»² Û´·¦¿¾»¬¸ ×× Ý±²º»®»²½»
Ý»²¬®»æ ¹»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿-°»½¬-ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- ײ-¬·¬«¬·±² Ý·ª·´
Û²¹·²»»®- ïøèð÷æ ïìéçóïëðíò
Ù«»ô ÍòÍò ú Ì¿²ô ÇòÝò îððìò Ю»ª»²¬·±² ±º º¿·´«®»- ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬±
¹»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ©±®µ- ±² -±º¬ ¹®±«²¼ øÍ°»½·¿´ Ô»½¬«®»÷ò Ю±ó
½»»¼·²¹- Ó¿´¿§-·¿² Ù»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ݱ²º»®»²½»æ ëçóéí Õ«¿´¿
Ô«³°«®ò
Ô±ª»ô ÖòÐò îððíò Ë-» ±º -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ °·´»- ¬± -«°°±®¬ ¿ ®¿º¬
-¬®«½¬«®»ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- ײ-¬·¬«¬·±² Ý·ª·´ Û²¹·²»»®- ïëêøì÷æ
ïééóïèïò
б«´±-ô ØòÙò îðððò Ú±«²¼¿¬·±² -»¬¬´»³»²¬ ¿²¿´§-·- Š °®¿½¬·½»
ª»®-«- ®»-»¿®½¸ò ̸» Û·¹¸¬ Í°»²½»® Öò Þ«½¸¿²¿² Ô»½¬«®» ô
Ì»¨¿-ô ËòÍòßò
б«´±-ô ØòÙò îððïò з´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±²-æ ¼»-·¹² ¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿ó
¬·±²-ò Ù»±¬»½¸²·¯«» ëïøî÷æ çëóïïíò
ο²¼±´°¸ô Óò Úò ïççìò Ü»-·¹² ³»¬¸±¼- º±® °·´» ¹®±«°- ¿²¼ °·´»¼
®¿º¬-ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- ïí ¬¸ ×ÝÍÓÚÛæ êïóèîô Ò»© Ü»´¸·ô ײ¼·¿ò
͵»³°¬±²ô ßòÉò ú Ó¿½Ü±²¿´¼ô ÜòØò ïçëêò ̸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» -»¬ó
¬´»³»²¬ ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹-ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- ײ-¬·¬«¬·±² Ý·ª·´ Û²¹·²»»®-
íøë÷æ éîéóéèìò
Ì¿²ô ÇòÝòô Ù«»ô ÍòÍòô Ò¹ô ØòÞò ú Ô»»ô ÐòÌò îððìò ͱ³» ¹»±¬»½¸ó
²·½¿´ °®±°»®¬·»- ±º Õ´¿²¹ Ý´¿§ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- Ó¿´¿§-·¿² Ù»±ó
¬»½¸²·½¿´ ݱ²º»®»²½»æ ïéçóïèëô Õ«¿´¿ Ô«³°«®ò
Ì»®¦¿¹¸·ô Õò ïçëëò Ûª¿´«¿¬·±² ±º ½±»ºº·½·»²¬- ±º -«¾¹®¿¼» ®»¿½ó
¬·±²ò Ù»±¬»½¸²·¯«» ëøì÷æ îçéóíîêò
Ç¿³¿-¸·¬¿ô Õòô Õ¿µ«®¿·ô Óò ú Ç¿³¿¼¿ô Ìò ïççìò ײª»-¬·¹¿¬·±² ±º
¿ °·´»¼ ®¿º¬ º±«²¼¿¬·±² ±² -¬·ºº ½´¿§ò Ю±½»»¼·²¹- ïí ¬¸
×ÝÍÓÚÛæ ëìíóëìêô Ò»© Ü»´¸·ô ײ¼·¿ò
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Earth Pressures of Anisotropic Soft Clay on Rigid Rough Retaining Walls

at Failure

A. El Nahas
Division of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
a.m.a.l.elnahas@dundee.ac.uk
J. Takemura
Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan.
jtakemur@cv.titech.ac.jp

Abstract: Upper bound solutions for active and passive earth pressures on rough self-supported retaining wall in anisotropic soft clay
were developed, and tested together with the design earth pressures of the current design method in Japan and BS8002 against centri-
fuge test results. The upper bounds matched the measured earth pressures at failure assuming full mobilization of undrained triaxial
compression soil strength behind the wall, partial mobilization of the triaxial extension soil strength in front of the wall, and ignoring
the soil adhesion on the wall front. The current design method overestimated the active and passive earth pressures as it ignores the soil
strength anisotropy and soil adhesion on the wall surfaces, and uses the unconfined compressive soil strength . The BS8002 overesti-
mated the passive earth pressures, as it overestimated the soil adhesion on the wall front and the mobilized soil strength in front of the
wall. Soil adhesion factors were calculated and presented to be used, instead of the approximate factors, to calculate the design active
earth pressures.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 UPPER BOUND ANALYSIS

The current design method in Japan of the DM on self-supported
walls, supporting open excavations in anisotropic normally con-
solidated (NC) clay, uses Rankine’s theory to estimate the design
earth pressures on the wall (Shiomi et al., 1996). The undrained
soil strength (c u) is estimated by conducting Unconfined Com-
pression Tests on undisturbed field soil samples, and is consid-
ered fully mobilized everywhere in the soil mass. In order to as-
sess the validity of the method for a safe and economic design
verification of its design earth pressures is necessary, which in
turn requires a theoretical approach to predict the mobilized soil
shear strengths on the wall surfaces at failure, considering the soil
characteristics (e.g. strength anisotropy & profile), and boundary
conditions. This work is yet to be done. However, the BS8002
empirical design earth pressure relationships conservatively con-
sider the soil adhesion (c w) on the wall surfaces (0 cw/cu 0.75),
and allows using the Triaxial extension test to estimate the
undrained soil strength in front of the wall.
In this study, the external wall stability and efficiency of the
current design method are being investigated using upper bound
calculations and results of centrifuge model tests. El Nahas &
Takemura (2002a,b) proved that the main design criterion in the
design of self-supported type DMM wall floating in clay, is the
wall stability against sliding failure in the undrained condition.
This paper is concerned with upper bound solutions to predict the
earth pressures on the wall at failure, considering the soil strength
anisotropy and soil adhesion on the wall surfaces. The solutions
are examined by comparing them, together with the design earth
pressures of the current design method in Japan, and BS8002,
against the centrifuge model test results. The mobilized soil
shear strengths and adhesion at failure on both wall sides are also
discussed using total stress analysis.
2.1 Failure Mechanisms
Four compatible failure Mechanisms (Figs. 1- 4) were used to es-
timate upper bounds for the active and passive earth pressure
forces on the wall (N a & Np). Mechanism A is the Coulomb’s
mechanism in the undrained condition ( u=0 & 1,2=45°).
Mechanism B, on each wall side, consisted of a slip fan besides
the wall, and two triangular failure blocks, and is fully described
by three angles ( 1,2,3 & 4,5,6). Mechanism C consisted of a trian-
gular failure block, a slip fan, and a Rankine failure block, on
each wall side, and is fully described by one angle ( 1,2). Mecha-
nism D, on each wall side, consisted of two triangular blocks, and
is fully described by three angles ( 1,2, 1,2& 1,2)
El Nahas & Takemura (2002a & 2004) specified the parame-
ters that affect the external wall stability against sliding type fail-
ure as shown in Fig.5. These are the wall embedded height into
clay, Hclay, & breadth, B, soil adhesion on the wall surfaces, sur-
charge on the clay surface, q, excavated height into clay at fail-
ure, zcf, clay bulk unit weight, , coefficient of soil strength ani-
sotropy, m, clay compressive strength at its surface c 0, and
gradient of the clay strength increase with depth, k. From these
parameters, seven non-dimensional parameters were derived: m,
cw/cu, B/c0, Hu= Hclay/c0, Q = q/c0, k/ & Zu= zcf/c0. Using six
parameters from them excluding B/Hclay, the active & passive
earth pressure forces in nondimensional form are given. Eqs. 1 &
2 are these non-dimensional form, in which another non-
dimensional parameter D u (= D/c0) is used instead of Z u. Where
D is the embedded wall height into clay under the excavation bot-
tom (D=H clay-zcf). WAct & WPas in the equations are the sums
of the rates of internal energy dissipation on the failure planes
behind and in front of the wall, respectively, and wwall is the wall
velocity. WAct & WPas were functions in the defining angles for
the failure mechanism, k/ , Hu, cw/cu, m & Du,. The soil shear

177
 q Table 2. Sums of the rates of energy dissipation on the failure
zcf wall
planes in the passive side, for Mechanisms A, B, C & D.
Na C
A Np Adhesion ratio=1.0 Adhesion ratio=0.0
1= 45° 2=45° k/ =0.0 k/ =0.1 k/ =0.0 k/ =0.1
Sb O mM 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Fig. 1. Failure mechanism A. WPas_MechAb 1.75 3.0 7.09 12.15 2.0 8.1
WPas_MechBb 1.43 2.57 6.37 11.2 2.57 11.2
WPas_MechCb 1.43 2.57 6.19 10.95 2.0 8.1
q
zcf WPas_MechDb 1.46 2.61 6.21 10.99 2.0 8.1
6 a,b
wall D WAct/c0Hclay wwall & WPas /c0Hclay wwall).
A
1
Na c,d
cw/cu=1 & 0 e , f anisotropic and isotropic soils.
2 Np 1
B C
O strength on each failure plane was estimated using Casagrande &
Slip Fan 1 Slip Fan 2 Carillo’s (1944) formula (Eq. (3)). Where c uv, cuh & cu are the
Sb
Fig. 2. Failure mechanism B. undrained soil shear strengths when the major principal stresses
are vertical, horizontal & inclined with an angle to the vertical.
Details of Eqs 1 &2 are given in El Nahas & Takemura (2004).
q
zcf wall
45° cu cuh cuv cuh cos 2 (3)
45° A 1
1 D
Na 2 2
Np C
B 2.2 Comparison of Failure Mechanism Solutions
Slip Fan 1 Slip Fan 2
Sb O Tables 1 & 2 show the normalized sums of the rates of internal
Fig. 3. Failure mechanism C. energy dissipation on the failure planes behind and in front of the
wall, estimated with the four mechanisms on a 6.1 m high rigid
wall, embedded in a clay layer ( =15.0 kN/m3 & c0=1.5kN/m3)
with a horizontal surface and without any surcharge on its sur-
q
zcf face, or excavation (zcf=0). The non-dimensional active and pas-
wall 2
sive earth pressure forces could be estimated by substituting with
1
Na D
A 2 the sums of energy dissipation on the failure planes, shown in the
1 Np C
1 B 2 O tables, together with the rates of work done by the soil self
1 2 weights (Hu/2 = Du2/2Hu =30.5) in Eqs. 1 & 2.
Fig. 4. Failure mechanism D. Sb The analysis was conducted for isotropic and anisotropic clay
soil (m = 1.0 & 0.5), with and without increasing strength pro-
files (k/ = 0.1 & 0) and soil adhesion on the vertical soil-wall in-
q terfaces (cw/cu = 1.0 & 0). Mechanism C yielded the lowest sum
c0
of the rates of energy dissipation on the failure surfaces on each
k
wall side.
1 By using Mechanism C and assuming the soil to be isotropic
cw with a uniform strength profile (k/ =0) and the soil adhesion on
the wall surfaces to be fully mobilized, the rate of energy dissipa-
cu ext cw
m tion was found to be (2+ )/2 and the mechanism was reduced to
cu comp
a slip fan and a Rankine failure block outside it on each wall side
cw clay strength
B ( 1,2=0, and 1,2=45 ). In this case, the mechanism became iden-
profile
tical to Terzaghi’s mechanism (1996) for rough rigid wall in
undrained condition ( u=0), and its solution was identical to the
Fig. 5. Parameters affect ting the external wall stability.
exact solution. However, when the soil had a strength increasing
with depth (k/ >0), the lowest upper bounds were achieved with
N a c0 H clay Q Hu 2 WAct c0 H clay wwall (1) the blocks B and C between the slip fans and the wall ( 1,2>0,
2 and 1,2<45 ). Hence, for excavations in typical NC clay, for
N p c0 H clay D 2Huu WPas c0 H clay wwall (2)
which the strength increases with depth, Mechanism C led to bet-
ter solutions than Terzaghi’s mechanism. Therefore, the Mecha-
nism upper bounds were considered the closest to the exact solu-
Table 1. Sums of the rates of energy dissipation on the failure tions, and used in the analytical study.
planes in the active side, for Mechanisms A, B, C & D.
Adhesion ratio=1.0 c Adhesion ratio=0.0 d
k/ =0.0 k/ =0.1 k/ =0.0 k/ =0.1 3 CENTRIFUGE MODELING TESTS
m 0.5e 1.0 f 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 Test Conditions and Used Soils
WAct_MechAa 2.75 3.0 11.14 12.15 2.0 8.1
WAct_MechBa 2.43 2.57 10.42 11.20 2.57 11.20 El Nahas & Takemura (2002a) conducted six Centrifuge mod-
WAct_MechCa 2.43 2.57 10.24 10.95 2.0 8.1 eling tests in Tokyo Institute of Technology. The details and
WAct_MechDa 2.46 2.61 10.27 10.99 2.0 8.1 specifications of the test systems, and setup, as well as the used
soils are mentioned by Takemura et al. (1999), and El Nahas &
Takemura (2002a). The test setup is illustrated in Fig. 6. The

178
model ground consisted of upper loose sand layer ( = 14.2 kPa. Thereafter, the front window of the strong box was de-
kN/m3 & 14 mm thick) and lower dense sand ( = 19.6 kN/m3 & tached, the model wall was placed in its location, and the box
35 mm thick) and NC Kaolin clay ( = 15.5 kN/m 3 2.5% & 153 was closed back. Then the clay was submerged, and the sand was
mm thick) between them. Speswhite Kaolin clay and Toyoura laid inside the water on the clay surface to form the upper loose
sand were used to form the model ground. The clay has liquid sand layer. After installing LVDTs, laser displacement transduc-
and plastic limits of 77.5% & 30.3%, and normalized undrained ers (LDTs) and the excavator as shown in Fig. 6, the test setup
shear strengths from Triaxial CK 0UC and CK0UE tests, cu- was mounted on the centrifuge and then the model ground was
comp/ vc & cuext/ vc, of 0.24 & 0.144, respectively. The undrained re-consolidated under 70g until excess pore pressure dissipated.
soil strength was estimated from the soil stress history, in the During the reconsolidation, ground water table was kept at the
plain strain condition. The undrained soil shear strengths in the level of the clay surface. At the end of re-consolidation, excava-
plain strain compression and extension tests (PSC & PSE) are tion was conducted step-by-step using the in-flight excavator, un-
1.087 and 1.22 times those estimated from the CK 0UC & CK0UE til clear failure occurred. In each step, about 10mm thickness of
Triaxial tests, respectively (Ladd et al., 1977). No account was the soil (0.7m in the prototype scale) was cut from the front of
taken of differences in soil properties between a model and a pro- the wall every five minutes. The water level in the excavated area
totype. was lowered by draining water from the box to the drainage tank,
so that it could be kept at the same level of the excavation bot-
Table 3. Test conditions and excavated height at failure.
tom. However, in SSW-6, the maximum excavation depth (100
Test Surf *a V. Suprt H*c B*d (ze)f*e
*b mm) was achieved without observing any failure. So, water was
Cond. Cond. . (mm) (mm) (mm)
poured from the water supply line on the upper loose sand layer
SSW-0 smooth floating 123 (8.6) *f 82 (5.7) *e 32 (2.2)*e
behind the wall till failure took place. El Nahas & Takemura
SSW-3 rough floating 123 (8.6) 82 (5.7) 43 (3.0)
(2002a) described in details the model preparations and test pro-
SSW-4 rough floating 163(11.4) 82 (5.7) 64 (4.5)
cedures. Wall and ground displacements, pore water pressures as
SSW-5 rough floating 124(8.7) 123 (8.6) 67 (4.7)
well as earth pressures on the wall surfaces were measured during
SSW-6 rough resting 165 (11.6) 82 (5.7) 100 (7.0)
excavation. Test results are given in prototype scale in the fol-
SSW-7 rough floating 122 (8.5) 61 (4.3) 50 (3.5)
a&b lowing section.
wall surface and vertical support conditions.
c, d & e
wall height and breadth & failure excavation height.
f
dimensions in prototype scale (m).

Table 4. Model wall displacements and tiltings before failure. in-flight excavator upper sand layer
LVDTs
LDTs
SSW-3 SSW-4 SSW-5 SSW-6 SSW-7 gate motor
zea (m) 2.1 2.8 2.2 3.5 2.1
wall at ze (m) 0.007 0.022 0.0 0.010 0.007
wall at ze (°) 0.06 -0.003 0.0 -0.02 0.03 soil retaining gate
(ze)fb (m) 2.9 4.3 4.3 7.0 2.8 wall (4) (1)
(5)
wall at (ze)f (m) 0.004 0.023 0.011 0.035 0.016 (3) kaolin clay
wall at (ze)f (°) 0.18 0.35 0.0 0.47 0.12 tank (6) (2)
b,a
excavation depths just before failure, and earlier during excavation, re- (7) lower sand layer
spectively. Dimensions are in prototype scale acrylic plates
solenoid valve surface markers
The model wall consisted of Aluminum and Perspex plates, 160 140 B 400-B
instrumented with pressure cells on its back, front, and base sur- dumped soil unit: mm.
700
faces. The wall height (H) and breadth (B) could be varied by (1-7 ) pore pressure transducers No. (1) to No. (7)
adding Perspex horizontal and vertical plates to the wall.
Table 3 shows the test conditions. The wall bulk density was Fig. 6. Centrifuge tests setup.
16.4 kN/m3 in SSW-0, 3, 4 & 5, and 17.6 & 19 kN/m 3 in SSW-6
& 7. Except for SSW-0, the wall sides and bottom were covered 4 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
by sandpaper sheets (No. 100) to create a rough surface condi-
tion. The wall was used in test SSW-0 with its polished surfaces 4.1 Wall Movements and Ground Deformations
not covered by sand paper sheets, in order to create a smooth sur-
face condition. In SSW-6, the wall rested on the bottom dense El Nahas & Takemura(2002a,b) showed that excavations with
sand layer. In the other tests, the wall floated in the clay layer, as floating type walls with H/B 2 in SSW-0, 3, 4, 5 & 7 had a
shown in Fig. 6. The test parameters were the wall dimensions, sudden slip failure without marked prefailure soil and wall dis-
surface roughness, and vertical support condition at its base. placements; the excavation supported by a wall resting on a rigid
strong base in SSW-6 failed due to overturning mechanism with-
3.2 Model Preparation and Test Procedures out marked lateral wall base displacements; and the prefailure
wall displacements and tiltings didn’t exceed 0.035 m & 0.5°, re-
The submerged dense sand layer was made by compaction. Then, spectively (Table 4). Figure 7 shows the ground and wall dis-
de-aired clay slurry with a water content of 1.5 times the liquid placements at failure in SSW-0 & 4. On the active side, clear
limit, was poured into the container, and stepwise consolidated failure planes bound the failed zones with inclinations to the
on the Lab floor until a pressure level of 15kPa. Thereafter, seven horizontal of 59, 51.5, 50, 64, 49.5& 53 in tests SSW-0, 3, 4, 5,
pore pressure transducers were inserted in the clay and bottom 6 & 7, respectively. Outside these failure planes and below the
sand layers, and the clay layer was subjected to centrifugal con- wall no marked displacements were observed even after failure.
solidation at 70g to form a normally consolidated clay layer with On the passive side, the soil deformed laterally with some vertical
strength increasing with depth under brass rods surcharge of 15 displacements without showing any clear failure planes.

179
 0
Table 5. Measured and calculated active earth pressure forces. ze=2.1 m
1 ze=2.9 m
SSW-3 SSW-4h SSW-5 SSW-6 h SSW-7 Mech C (c w/cu=1.0)
2 SSW-3 Mech C (c w/cu=0.0)
(Na)Measureda (kN/m) 386.7 619.9 364.8 641.3 395.4
3
(Na)Mech_C_PSRb(kN/m) 373.0 621.6 397.4 642.6 363.6
4
(Na)Mech_C_PSSc(kN/m) 412.0 679.0 438.4 679.2 402.2 front side
5 back side
(Na)Mech_C_TARd (kN/m) 388.7 644.3 413.8 667.3 379.0
6
(Na)Mech_C_TASe(kN/m) 423.0 694.9 449.8 722.1 413.0
(Na)Shiomi et alf (kN/m) 448.1 731.3 476.1 761.5 437.9 7
8
(Na) BS8002g (kN/m) 382.6 636.1 407.4 656.8 373.0
120 80 40 0 40 80 120
Table 6. Measured and calculated passive earth pressure forces. earth pressure (kPa) earth pressure (kPa)

SSW-3 SSW-4 SSW-5 SSW-6 SSW-7 Fig. 8. Earth pressures on both wall sides before failure in SSW-3.
(Np)Measureda (kN/m) 302.3 464.4 213.5 219.2 308.6
3
(Np)Mech_C_PSRb(kN/m) 347.7 565.2 253.1 300.4 361.2
(Np)Mech_C_PSSc(kN/m) 316.1 513.7 225.7 261.9 329.0 4
SSW-4
(Np)Mech_C_TASe(kN/m) 308.5 490.8 213.2 243.9 314.9 5 back side
(Np)Shiomi et alf (kN/m) 329.9 525.5 232.2 271.2 336.5 6 front side
(Np) BS8002g (kN/m) 328.9 524.5 231.6 256.0 335.8 7
a 8 ze=2.8 m
calculated from the measured earth pressures on the model wall. ze=4.3 m
b,c
calculated using Mechanism C with the soil strength in the plain strain condition 9 Mech C (c w/cu=1.0)
and cw/cu= 1.0 & 0, respectively. Mech C (c w/cu=0.0)
d,e 10
calculated using Mechanism C with the soil strength based on the Triaxial test re-
sults (cu = cucomp & cuext, respectively), and cw/cu=0. 11
f,g 120 80 40 0 40 80 120
calculated using the current design method (cw/cu=0 & cu/cucomp 0.8) & BS8002 earth pressure (kPa) earth pressure (kPa)
(cw/cu= 0.75 & m= 0.6), respectively.
h
calculated over the wall height that is installed with pressure cells (7.7 m).
Fig. 9. Earth pressures on both wall sides before failure in SSW-4.

(m) 0
0.0
14 ze=2.2 m
1 ze=4.3 m
3.59 SSW-5 Mech C (cw/cu=1.0)
2 Mech C (cw/cu=0.0)
7.04 SSW-0 ( ze= 2.8 m) 3
front side
10.5
-1 4 back side
14.0 (m) 5
-6
0 3.5 7.0 10.514.017.521.024.528.0 6
0.0 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(m)
18.4 7
3.5
13.4 8
7.0
8.4 120 80 40 0 40 80 120
SSW-4 (ze= 5.6 m) earth pressure (kPa) earth pressure (kPa)
10.5
3.4
14.0
-1.6 (m) Fig. 10. Earth pressures on both wall sides before failure in SSW-5.
0 3.5
-10 -5 7.0
0 10.514.017.521.024.528.0
10.514.017.521.024.528.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
3
Fig. 7. Observed ground displacements at failure in SSW-0 &
4
SSW-6 back side
5
4.2 Earth Pressures and Mobilized Soil Strength and Adhesion 6 front side
7
Figures 8-12 present profiles of the measured and calculated 8
earth pressures using the upper bound failure mechanism on both 9 ze=3.5 m
wall vertical surfaces, just before failure, together with the meas- 10
ze=7.0 m
Mech C (cw/cu=1.0)
ured earth pressures on the wall back after earlier excavation 11 Mech C (cw/cu=0.0)
steps. The wall base displacements and tiltings after these excava-
120 80 40 0 40 80 120
tion steps are shown in Table 4. Tables 5 and 6 show the horizon- earth pressure (kPa) earth pressure (kPa)
tal active and passive earth pressure forces on the wall that were:
estimated from the measured earth pressures just before failure, Fig. 11. Earth pressures on both wall sides before failure in SSW-6.
(Na,p)Measured, and calculated using the upper bound method,
0 ze=2.1 m
(Na,p)Mech C, the current design method, (N a,p)Shiomi et al, and ze=2.8 m
1 Mech C (cw/cu=1.0)
BS8002 (N a,p)BS8002. The upper bound solutions were estimated 2 SSW-7 Mech C (cw/cu=0.0)
using soil strength profiles in the plain strain condition (PS), and 3
also based on the Triaxial test results (TA), with and without 4 back side
front side
considering the soil adhesion on the vertical wall surfaces. For 5
the earth pressures of the current design method, the soil strength 6
everywhere in the soil mass was considered identical to 80% of 7
its peak level in the CK0UC Triaxial tests, so as to consider the 8
strength reduction due to the soil sample disturbance and the use 120 80 40 0 40 80 120
earth pressure (kPa) earth pressure (kPa)
of the unconfined compression test rather than undrained Triaxial
compression test. The BS8002 empirical relationships of the de-
sign active ( an) and passive ( pn) earth pressures on the wall at
Fig. 12. Earth pressures on both wall sides before failure in SSW-7.
depth (z) from the upper clay surface are:

180
 an z 2 K accuz
z 2 K pccuz
pn
where: K ac K pc 1 cw , and & cuz are the total vertical
cu z
stress & undrained clay shear strength at depth (z) & c w/cu is the
design soil adhesion ratio, and was considered in this study to be
0.75. The soil strength (c uz) behind and in front of the wall was
considered identical to its peak and maximum levels in the Triax-
ial CK0UC and CK0UE, respectively.
The measured active earth pressure forces in tests SSW-3, 4 &
6 matched their upper bounds, assuming: full mobilization of the
soil peak shear strength in the Triaxial test behind the wall in
SSW-3, and in the plain strain condition in tests SSW-4 & 6, as
well as full mobilization of the soil adhesion on the wall back in
the three tests. In SSW-7, the measured active earth pressure
force was more than its upper bound assuming full mobilization
of the Triaxial compressive soil strength behind the wall and of
the soil adhesion on the wall back. In SSW-5, however, the
measured active earth pressure force was less than its upper
bounds. This probably resulted from having initial stress profile
on the wall back before excavation in SSW-5 that was less than
the calculated at-rest stress distribution (El Nahas & Takemura,
2002a). Hence, increasing the wall height in SSW-4 & 6, in-
creased the mobilized soil strength behind the wall, as the
prefailure soil displacements became more ductile (El Nahas &
Takemura, 2002a). The measured passive earth pressures on the
wall front in SSW-3, 4, 6 & 7 were less than their upper bounds.
However, assuming the mobilized soil strengths in front of the
wall in these tests to be 0.91, 0.75, 0.34 & 0.91 of the maximum
soil shear strength in the CK0UE Triaxial test and ignoring the
soil adhesion on the wall front, led to upper bounds that were
identical to the measured passive earth pressure forces on the
wall, before failure. The small wall lateral displacements and tilt-
ings at early excavation stages before failure (Table 4) were suffi-
cient for the retained soil strength to reach its peak level in the
CK0UC Triaxial test. Hence, the BS8002’s mobilization factor
(M 1.5) to assess the mobilized undrained soil shear strength
behind the wall when the wall displacement, in service, is to be
restricted to 0.5% of its height, is a conservative design assump-
tion. The prefailure soil displacements were sufficient for the ac-
tive earth pressure distributions on the walls that failed by sliding
mechanism, to become close to the linear distribution, proposed
by Terzaghi et al. (1996). However, when the failure mode be-
came overturning in SSW-6, the prefailure wall tilting (0.47 )
and retained soil displacements were not sufficient to form linear
stress distribution on the wall back. Further, the lowest mobilized
strength in front of the wall was in SSW-6, with an overturning
failure mechanism and the maximum prefailure wall tilting (Ta-
ble 4). Hence, it can be implied that the soil in front of the rotat-
ing wall around its tip required more displacements to mobilize
its passive earth pressure than the soil in front of sliding walls.
These experimental observations agreed with the numerical
analysis prediction by Potts (1991). The mobilized earth pres-
sures on the wall in all tests were close to linear distribution, al-
though the maximum soil strength was not fully mobilized.
The BS8002 predicted reasonably the active earth pressure
forces on the wall before failure, as for the used kaolin NC clay,
the BS8002 underestimation of the soil adhesion ratio canceled
its ignorance of the influence of the soil strength anisotropy.
However, the BS8002 overestimated the mobilized earth pressure
on the wall front before failure, as it overestimated the mobilized
soil adhesion on the wall front and soil strength in front of the
wall. The current design method overestimated both of the active
(4) and passive earth pressure forces, as it ignored the soil strength
anisotropy and soil adhesion on the wall vertical surfaces. Using
(5)
the soil unconfined compressive strength did not improve the
method’s estimate of the active earth pressures on the wall, than
Rankine’s solution (N a)Mech_C_TAS. In this method, the design
critical wall cross section is assumed to be at the level of excava-
tion bottom. Hence, when compared with the upper bound solu-
tion assuming full mobilization of the soil adhesion and Triaxial
compressive soil shear strength behind the wall, this method
overestimated both of the design bending moment and shear
force on the wall in SSW-3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 by 15.3, 13.5, 15.1, 14.1
& 15.5%, respectively, as it overestimated the active earth pres-
sure forces with these percentages, besides overestimating the
maximum wall bearing stresses on the foundation soil, as shown
by El Nahas & Takemura (2002a).
The slide resisting forces due to the soil adhesion on the
model wall base were backcalculated from the measured earth
pressure forces (measured base slide resisting force), (S b)Measured,
and presented in Table 7 with the calculated slide resisting forces
for the tests SSW-3, 5, and 7, in which the earth pressures were
measured along the whole embedded wall height into clay, and
the underestimation of the base slide resisting forces, Sb, by the
calculated forces. Assuming full mobilization of the soil adhesion
on the wall base, the calculated base slide resisting forces, using
the undrained Triaxial (TA) soil shear strength and the undrained
soil strength in the plain strain (PS) condition, were estimated
from the relationship: (S b)TA,PS=0.5 (cw/cu) { wall Hwall- water
Hclay} (cu/ z) TA,PS (1+m) B; where wall, water & Hwall are
the unit weight of the wall and water & the wall height, respec-
tively. Using a soil strength profile that was based on Triaxial test
results underestimated the wall base slide resisting forces. How-
ever, using the undrained soil shear strength profiles in the plain
strain condition led to reasonable agreement between the calcu-
lated and measured wall base slide resisting forces in SSW-3 and
7. In SSW-5, the measured base slide resisting force was re-
markably higher than the calculated forces, even with the
undrained soil strength in the plain strain condition. If the active
earth pressure force were within the range of the similar meas-
ured forces in SSW-3 and 7 with the same wall height ( 391.1
kN/m2), the minimum wall base slide resisting force to keep a
safety factor against sliding failure of unity should have been
177.5 kN/m 2, which is much more than the measured force and
the maximum possible force (S b)PS, assuming full mobilization of
the soil adhesion on the wall base. Hence, the excavation in
SSW-5 continued till an excavation depth (z e) of 4.3 m, because
the active earth pressure force on the wall was exceptionally
small. This relatively deep excavation caused marked prefailure
soil displacements (El Nahas & Takemura, 2002a). Subsequently,
the earth pressure on the wall front before failure, reached
Rankine’s solution with the soil strength identical to its maxi-
mum level in the CK0UE Triaxial test, probably because the mo-
bilized more soil strength in front of the wall at failure was more
than the mobilized strengths in the other tests (Table 6). Hence,
the designer of the floating type wall may estimate the earth pres-
sures on the wall when the excavation reach the ultimate limit
state using:
1. The peak CK0UC Triaxial soil shear strength everywhere
behind the wall, and assuming full mobilization of the soil adhe-
sion on the wall back.
2. A mobilization factor of about 1.1 1.4 to estimate the mobi-
lized soil shear strength in front of the wall, from the maximum
CK0UE Triaxial soil strength, without considering any soil adhe-
sion on the wall front.
181
Table 7. Measured and calculated base slide resistance forces. method, the active and passive earth pressures on the rough DM
SSW-3 SSW-5 SSW-7 self-supported walls were successfully calculated and matched
the measured earth pressures in the Centrifuge tests at failure. In
(Sb)Measured a (kN/m) 84.5 151.3 86.8
addition, the mobilized soil shear strengths and soil adhesion on
(Sb) TAb (kN/m) 73. 3 103.4 71.80
the wall surfaces, at failure, were assessed, and a range of average
(Sb)PSc (kN/m) 83.3 117.6 81.7
values for the soil adhesion factor behind the wall were pre-
( Sb) TAd (%) 13.25 8.69 31.64
sented, in order to be used in the wall design. The numerical re-
( Sb) PS (%) 1.40 31.64 22.30
a sults led to the following conclusions:
(Na)Measured-(Np)Measured. d Sb (%)={1-[Sb/( Sb)Measured]} 100
b,c
calculated assuming cw/cu=1.0 and using undrained Triaxial soil shear strengths, 1. The current design method overestimated the active and pas-
and undrained soil shear strengths in the plain strain condition. sive earth pressures on both wall sides, the design bending mo-
ment and shear force as well as the maximum bearing stress on
Table 8. Soil adhesion factors.
the foundation soil, as it use the unconfined compressive soil
k/ =0.076 k/ =0.14 shear strength and ignore both of the soil strength anisotropy and
m = 0.5 m = 1.0 m = 0.5 m = 1.0 soil adhesion on the vertical wall surfaces.
Cnd 1b Cnd 2c Cnd 1 Cnd 2 Cnd 1 Cnd 2 Cnd 1 Cnd 2 2. The BS8002 empirical design earth pressure relationships pre-
Kac Kac Kac Kac Kac Kac Kac Kac dicted reasonably the active earth pressures on the wall, but over-
Hua = 60 1.157 1.262 1.210 1.349 1.158 1.266 1.211 1.355 estimated the passive earth pressures, as it overestimated the mo-
Hu =300 1.159 1.271 1.213 1.361 1.160 1.272 1.213 1.363 bilized soil adhesion on the wall front and soil strength in front of
averaged 1.158 1.266 1.211 1.355 1.159 1.269 1.212 1.359
the wall.
a,b,c d
Hclay/c0, cw/cu = 0.5& 1.0, respectively. Average (Kac)values for Hu=60~300
3. The small prefailure soil and wall displacements fully mobi-
lized the undrained Triaxial peak soil shear strengths behind the
3. The maximum soil shear strength in the plain strain condi- wall and the soil adhesion on the wall back, in early excavation
tion to estimate the wall base slide resisting force, assuming full steps before failure, as well as the maximum soil shear strength in
mobilization of the soil adhesion on the wall base. the plain strain condition on the soil-wall base interface before
Using these assumptions, the passive earth pressure forces on the failure. However, they were not sufficient to mobilize the maxi-
wall in SSW-3 & 7 were 302.0 & 308.4 kN/m, and the safety fac- mum undrained extension Triaxial soil shear strengths in front of
tors against sliding failure were 0.99 & 1.029, respectively, the wall, even without considering the soil adhesion on the wall
which implies that these excavations were on the verge of sliding front. So, the wall designers should use a mobilization factor to
failure. estimate the mobilized soil strengths in front of the wall at fail-
ure, and ignore the soil adhesion on the wall front.
4.3 Soil Adhesion Factor in the Active Side
REFERENCES
The upper bound analysis results were used to define Eq. 4 ’s soil
adhesion factor (K ac), in order to use that equation to estimate the British Standards Institution 1994. Code of Practice for Earth
design active earth pressures on the wall, assuming the undrained Retaining Structures-BS8002, London, UK.
soil strength (c uz) to be identical to its peak level in the CK0UC Casagrande, A. & Carillo, N. 1944. Shear failure of Anisotropic
Triaxial test (cucomp). Table 8 presents the soil adhesion factor Soils. Contributions to Soil Mech anics, ASCE: 122-135.
El Nahas, A. & Takemura, J. 2002a. External stability of vertical
(Kac), which is defined as:
excavations in soft clay with self-supported DMM walls. Soils
W Act
K ac
W Act (6) and Foundations 42: 53-69.
Rankine
El Nahas, A. & Takemura, J. 2002b. External stability of open
where [ WAct]Rankine is the sum of the rates of internal energy dis- excavations in soft clay with DM self-supported walls. Intl.
sipation on the failure planes behind the wall, without consider- Conf. Physical Model in Geotechnics -ICPMG ’02: 835-840.
ing the soil adhesion on the wall back (c w=0). The analysis con- El Nahas, A. & Takemura, J. 2004. Upper bound solution and
sidered the minimum and maximum limits for: the total unit Centrifuge modeling for excavations in anisotropic soft clay
weight of the clay to be 15 and 20 kN/m 3, the embedded wall with rough retaining walls at failure. Intl. Journal of Physical
height into clay to be 6 and 22.5 m, the ratio c ucomp/ zc to be 0.22 Modelling in Geotechnics-IJPMG. (Submitted)
and 0.27, the coefficient of soil strength anisotropy to be 0.5 and Ladd, D.D., et al. 1977. Stress-deformation and strength
1.0, and the soil adhesion ratio (c w/cu) to be 0.5 and 1.0, respec- characteristics: State-of-the-Art Report. Proceedings of 9th
tively, and assuming the undrained compressive soil strength at International Conference Soil Mechanics Foundation
the clay surface, c 0, to be 1.5 kN/m 2 (without any surcharge on Engineering 2:421-482. Tokyo.
the clay surface). The soil strength anisotropy and soil adhesion Potts, D.M. 1991. Finite element simulation of embedded
ratio had marked influence on the soil adhesion factor, and the retaining walls. In Banerjee & Butterfield (ed). Developments
influences of the other parameters were marginal. Thus, average in Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering : 131-167.
soil adhesion factors for Hclay/c0=60 ~ 300 are also presented in Elsevier Applied Science.
the Table. For design purposes, K ac can be considered to range Shiomi, M. et al. 1996. Slope stability using the admixture
between 1.16 and 1.21 for c w/cu = 0.5, and between 1.26 and 1.36 method. Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96 1: 563-568.
Takemura, J. et al. 1999. Centrifuge model tests on double
for cw/cu = 1.0, when the coefficient of soil strength anisotropy
propped wall excavation in soft clay. Soils and Foundations
ranges between 0.5 and unity, and K ac for a specific site can be
39: 75-87.
estimated from these limits by interpolation.
Terzaghi, K., et al. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice
New York: Wiley & Sons.
CONCLUSIONS
Using Mechanism C in the framework of the upper bound

182
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation Subjected to Ground Movement Induced

by Tunnelling

P. Kitiyodomi), T. Matsumotoii) & K. Kawaguchiiii)

Kanazawa University, 2-40-20 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa 920-8667, Japan
i)
pastsak@nihonkai.kanazawa-u.ac.jp, ii) matsumot@t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp, iii) star_recoba20@hotmail.com

Abstract: In this paper, a three-dimensional simplified deformation analytical method is presented for the analysis of piled raft founda-
tions subjected to ground movement induced by tunnelling. In the method, a hybrid model is employed in which the flexible raft is
modelled as thin plates, the piles as elastic beams, and the soil is treated as springs. The interactions between structural members, pile-
soil-pile, pile-soil-raft and ra ft-soil-raft interactions, are modelled based on Mindlin’s solutions for both vertical and lateral forces.
Reasonable agreement is found between some existing published solutions and those developed herein. The method is then used for a
parametric study of single piles, pile groups and piled rafts subjected to ground movements induced by tunnelling.

1 INTRODUCTION
Piled raft foundations have been widely recognized as one of the
most economical foundation systems since Burland et al. (1977)
presented the concept of ‘settlement reducers’. In recent years,
there has been an increasing recognition that the inclusion of the
resistance of the raft in pile foundation design can lead to a con-
siderable economy without compromising the safety or the per-
formance of the foundation. Considering current trends toward
the limit state design or performance based design in the area of
foundation engineering, precise estimation of the deformation of
a pile foundation and of the stresses of their structural members is
a vital issue in the framework of these new design criteria. In the
preliminary design stage, a number of alternative calculations
may be required, varying the number of piles, the pile length, the
pile spacing, the locations of the piles, and so on. Hence, a feasi-
ble but reliable deformation analysis method for piled raft foun-
dations would be useful. As a preliminary routine design tool of a
piled raft foundation subjected to external loading (vertical, lat-
eral and moment loads), a computer program PRAB (Piled Raft
Analysis with Batter piles) has been developed by the authors
(Kitiyodom & Matsumoto 2002 & 2003a). In Kitiyodom & Ma-
tsumoto (2003b), the program was extended to accommodate
three-dimensional simplified analysis of piled raft foundations
subjected to ground movements.
In an urban environment, many buildings are supported by
pile foundations. Due to a lack of available space, a lot of under-
ground constructions such as tunnelling are increasing. Tunnel-
ling may cause ground movements invariably, which in turn im-
pose axial and lateral forces on the existing pile foundations
resulting in extra deformations of the foundations. Some research
on the analysis of pile foundations subjected to ground move-
ments induced by tunnelling has been done. Chen et al. (1999)
analyzed the response of single piles by de-coupled loadings in
two dimensions. Xu & Poulos (2001) and Loganathan et al.
(2001) employed a three-dimensional coupled boundary element
approach to analyze the response of vertical piles subjected to
ground movements induced by tunnelling. However, in their
works only single piles and pile groups were considered, and the
method can give only the elastic solutions of the problems. A
complete three-dimensional analysis of a foundation system sub-
jected to ground movements induced by tunnelling can be carried
out by a finite element analysis, for instance, the work of Mroueh
& Shahrour (2002). However, a finite element analysis is more
suited to obtaining benchmark solutions against which to com-
pare simpler analysis methods, or to obtaining solutions of a de-
tailed analysis for the final design of a foundation, rather than as
a preliminary routine design tool.
This paper presents an extension of the computer program
PRAB, in order to incorporate the problem of piled raft founda-
tions subjected to ground movements induced by tunnelling.
With an aim to examine the validity of the extended PRAB, the
results calculated using PRAB are compared with the solutions
available from previous research. The proposed method is then
used as a parametric study tool for the analyses of single piles,
pile groups and piled rafts subjected to ground movements in-
duced by tunnelling.
2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The problem considered in this work is shown in Fig. 1 where an
existing pile foundation is located adjacent to a tunnel under con-
struction. Tunnelling generally will induce ground movements in
both vertical and lateral directions. These ground movements will
cause vertical settlements and lateral deflections in the piles. The
analysis of such a problem may be carried out in two stages; first,
estimation of the free-field ground movements induced by tunnel-
ling; second, the imposition of these ground movements on the
foundation and the computation of the consequent foundation re-
sponses (e.g. Chen et al. 1999; Xu & Poulos; 2001; Loganathan
et al.; 2001).
Pile foundation
x
Tunnel L
H
R d
z
Fig. 1. Pile foundation adjacent to tunnelling.

183
 y
2.1 Estimation of Tunnelling-Induced Ground Movements
Methods for estimating ground movements induced by tunnelling
may be classified broadly into three categories, empirical method,
finite element method, and analytical method. However in the
case that there is inadequate detailed sited information to warrant x
the use of either the empirical method or a complex finite element
method, simple closed form analytical solutions, such as those
given by Sagaseta (1987), Verruijt & Booker (1996), and Loga-
nathan & Poulos (1998), may be useful. In this work, surface set-
tlement, subsurface settlements and lateral deformations of the
ground induced by tunnelling are calculated by means of Eqs. (1)
to (3) based on the closed-form analytical solutions presented by
Loganathan & Poulos (1998). Fig. 2. Plate-beam-spring modelling of a piled raft.
The load-displacement relationship of the group piles and the
2 4H 1 s 1.38 x 2 raft can be written as
Uz 0 0R exp (1)
H2 x 2
H R
2
Kp w P (6)
2
z H 3 z H 2 z x2 z H Kr w P (7)
2 s
Uz 0R 2 2
x 2
z H x 2
z H 2 2
x2 z H where [Kp] is the pile stiffness matrix, [Kr] the raft stiffness ma-
trix, {w} the displacement vector, and {P} the internal force vec-
1.38 x 2 0.69 z 2 tor.
exp 2
(2) The relative displacement of the soil at the structure member-
H R H2
soil interface, wi-w0i, at a particular node i due to interaction
forces acting on itself and at other nodes in the piled raft system
2 1 3 4 s 4z z H can be written in the following discrete form:
Ux 0R x 2 2
x2 z H x2 H z 2 2 2
x H z n
wi w0i aij Pj (8)
j 1
1.38 x 2 0.69 z 2
exp (3)
H R
2
H2 where wi is the soil deformation at the structure member-soil in-
terface at node i, w0i is the soil deformation at node i due to the
where Uz = 0 is the ground surface settlement, Uz the subsurface ground movement, aij is the soil flexibility coefficient denoting
settlement, Ux the lateral soil movement, R the tunnel radius, z the deformation at node i due to a unit load acting at node j, and
the depth below the ground surface, H the depth of tunnel hori- n is the total number nodes in the piled raft system. Eq. (8) is re-
zontal axis level, s the soil Poisson’s ratio, 0 the average ground written in the following matrix form considering all degrees of
loss ratio, and x is the lateral distance from the tunnel centreline. freedom at each node.
The equivalent average ground loss ratio, 0, is defined as w w0 A P (9)
2
g where [A] is the soil flexibility matrix.
R R2
2 4 gR g2 The diagonal coefficients of [A] are determined by inverting
0 100% 100% (4)
R2 4R2 the soil spring stiffness matrix [Ks]. The details of the soil spring
stiffness values can be found in Kitiyodom & Matsumoto (2002,
where g is the gap parameter and can be estimated as follows
2003a). The off-diagonal non-zero coefficients in the matrix [ A]
(Lee et al., 1992):
represent structural member-soil-structural member interactions
g *
Gp U 3D (5) and are calculated based on Mindlin ’s solutions for both vertical
and lateral forces.
where Gp is the physical gap (usually the difference between the For further use, Eq. (9) is rewritten as
maximum outside diameter of the tunnelling machine and the
outside diameter of the lining for a circular tunnel), U*3D the elas- [C ] w w0 P (10)
toplastic deformation into the tunnel face, and is the work-
where [C] = [A]-1.
manship factor.
Finally, from Eqs. (6), (7) and (10), we get

[C Kr K p ]{w} [ K ]{w} [C ] w0 (11)

2.2 Analysis of Pile Foundation Response
Figure 2 illustrates the analytical model for piled raft foundations where [K] is the global stiffness of the piled raft system.
employed in this study. The flexible raft is modelled as thin The vector [C]{w0} represents the forces acting on the piled
plates, the piles as elastic beams, and the soil is treated as springs. raft induced by the ground movements. This set of equations can
The interaction between structural members, pile-soil-pile, pile- be solved for the vertical and lateral ground movements to give
soil-raft and raft-soil-raft interactions are calculated based on the pile settlements, deflections and rotations from which the ax-
Mindlin’s solutions (Mindlin, 1936) for both vertical and lateral ial forces, the shear forces and the bending moments can be ob-
forces. tained.

184
 The bilinear (elastic perfectly plastic) responses of the pile Lateral Deflection of Pile (mm) Bending Moment (kN.m)
shaft and the pile base resistances, and also the raft base resis- -75 -50 -25 0 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0 0
tance in the case of piled rafts can be taken into account in the PRAB PRAB
analysis. 5 Xu & Poulos, 2001 5 Xu & Poulos, 2001

10 10
= 5% = 1% = 2.5%
3 ACCURACY OF THE PROPOSED METHOD 15 0 15 0 0
= 5%
0

= 2.5%
20 0 20
In order to ensure the validity of the proposed method, the results
25 25
calculated using PRAB were compared with the results from re- 0
= 1%
lated previous research. 30 30
(a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment

3.1 Tunnelling-Induced Single Pile Responses Vertical Movement of Pile (mm) Axial Force (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
Xu & Poulos (2001) demonstrates the elastic response of a single = 1%
0
pile in the problem as shown in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows the com- 5 5
= 2.5%
puted free-field vertical and lateral ground movement profiles in- 10 10
0
= 5%
0
duced by tunnelling, corresponding to three ground loss ratios 0
of 1, 2.5 and 5% and for a distance x = 4.5 m. It can be seen that 15 15
0
= 2.5% = 5%
the ground movements increase with increasing ground loss ratio. 20
0
20
Figure 5 shows the single pile responses calculated using the
25 25
proposed method compared with the responses from the bound- 0
= 1% PRAB PRAB
Xu & Poulos, 2001
30 Xu & Poulos, 2001 30
ary element method by Xu & Poulos (2001). It can be seen that
the results obtained from PRAB, except for the axial forces, (c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force
match very well with the results from the boundary element
Fig. 5. Typical single pile response at x = 4.5 m.
method. It can be seen from Fig. 5(d) that although the shape of
the profiles are identical, the results calculated by PRAB under-
estimated the axial forces about 50 percents compared with those 3.2 Tunnelling-Induced Pile Group Responses
of the boundary element method. This was thought to be due to
the inherent assumption in the load-transfer method for model- Loganathan et al. (2001) demonstrates the elastic response of a
ling vertical soil behaviour in single pile in which the influence pile group to the ground movement induced by tunnelling with
of vertical forces acting at other nodes associated with the same the ground loss ratio 0 of 1% as shown in Fig. 6.
pile on the considered node are neglected. Figure 7 shows pile group responses calculated using the pro-
posed method compared with the responses from the boundary
element method by Loganathan et al. (2001). Both the front piles
x = 4.5 m and back piles responses are shown in the figure. It can be seen
again that the results calculated using PRAB, except for the axial
forces, match very well with the results from the boundary ele-
ment method. Again the results calculated by PRAB underesti-
d = 0.5 m mated the axial forces about 50 percents compared with those of
H = 20 m
the boundary element method.
L = 25 m

Ep = 30000 MPa Ep = 30000 MPa

R=3m Es = 24 MPa Es = 24 MPa s = 2.4 m
s = 0.5 p = 0.25
z = 0.5
s
Rigid raft
Fig. 3. Problem analyzed (single pile). x = 4.5 m

Vertical Ground Movement (mm) Lateral Ground Movement (mm)

-20 0 20 40 60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 d = 0.8 m
0 0 H = 20 m
= 1%
L = 25 m
0
5 5 0
= 2.5%
0
= 5%
10 10

15 15

20 20 R=3m
0
= 1%
25 0
= 2.5% 25 z front back
0
= 5%
30 30
Fig. 6. Problem analyzed (pile group).
(a) Vertical ground movement (b) Lateral ground movement

Fig. 4. Computed free-field ground movement at x = 4.5 m.

185
 Lateral Deflection of Pile (mm) Bending Moment (kN.m) leaned, while in the other cases, the bottom parts of the pile near
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 -150 0 150 300 450 the tunnel axis largely deformed compared to the upper parts.
0 0
PRAB (front) PRAB (front) When the pile deformed like a short pile the vertical movement of
5 PRAB (back) 5 PRAB (back)
Loganathan et al., 2001
the pile (Fig. 9(c)) and the axial force along the pile (Fig. 9(d))
Loganathan et al., 2001
10 10
increase as the pile slenderness ratio increases. On the other hand,
when the pile deformed like a long pile the vertical movement of
15 15 the pile and the axial force along the pile decreases as the pile
20 20 slenderness ratio increases. As shown in Fig. 9(b), the value of
bending moment and the depth where the maximum bending
25 25 moment occurred increase as the pile slenderness ratio increases.
30 30 However, when L/d > 15, the values of the maximum bending
(a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment moment are almost the same.
Vertical Movement of Pile (mm) Axial Force (kN) Lateral deflection of pile(mm) Bending moment(kN.m)
0 2 4 6 8 0 200 400 600 800 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 -100 0 100 200
0 0 0.0 0.0
PRAB (front) x x
5 5
PRAB (back) 4.50m 4.50m
Loganathan et al., 2001 0.2 0.2
6.75m 6.75m
10 10 front 9.00m 9.00m
back 0.4 0.4
11.25m 11.25m
15 15 13.00m
0.6 0.6 13.00m
20 20
PRAB (front) 0.8 0.8
25 PRAB (back) 25
Loganathan et al., 2001
30 30 1.0 1.0
(c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force (a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment

Fig. 7. Typical pile group response. Vertical movement of pile(mm) Axial force(kN)
0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0 0.0
x
4 PARAMETRIC STUDY 0.2 0.2 4.50m
6.75m
x 0.4 9.00m
In the previous section, the validity of the proposed method was 0.4
4.50m 11.25m
examined. It was shown that the proposed method is a valid ap- 13.00m
0.6 6.75m 0.6
proach to analyze deformation of and load distribution in pile 9.00m
foundations subjected to vertical and lateral ground movements 0.8 11.25m 0.8
induced by tunnelling. In this section, a parametric study of sin- 13.00m
gle piles, pile groups and piled rafts subjected to ground move- 1.0 1.0
ments induced by tunnelling is conducted. (c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force

Fig. 8. Single pile responses located at different distances from tunnel.

4.1 Single Piles Lateral deflection of pile(mm) Bending moment(kN.m)
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 -200 -100 0 100 200
Analyses were conducted for single piles subjected to ground 0.0 0.0
movements induced by tunnelling. The ranges of the parameters L/d
were set as 4.5 to 13.5 m for the lateral distance of pile from tun- 0.2 0.2 5
10
nel centreline x, 5 to 25 for the pile slenderness ratio L/d, and 0.5 15
0.4 L/d 0.4
to 2.0 for the ratio of the depth of tunnel horizontal axis level, H, 20
5
to the pile embedment length, L. The pile diameter, d, was set at 0.6 10 0.6 25
1 m, the tunnel radius, R, at 3 m, the equivalent average 15
undrained ground loss, 0, at 1 %, the soil Young’s modulus, Es, 0.8 20 0.8
at 24 MN/m2, the pile Young’s modulus, Ep, at 30 GN/m2, the 25
1.0 1.0
soil Poisson’s ratio, s, at 0.5, and the pile Poisson’s ratio, p, (a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment
was set at 0.25 throughout.
Figure 8 shows the responses of single piles located at differ- Vertical movement of pile(mm) Axial force(kN)
ent distances away from the tunnel centerline. The pile slender- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -100 0 100 200 300
0.0 0.0
ness ratio, L/d, was set at 20, and the ratio H/L was set constant at
1. It can be seen that the calculated values of the maximum lateral 0.2 0.2
deflection and the maximum vertical movement of the pile, and L/d
the maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force 0.4 5 0.4 L/d
along the pile decreases as the lateral distance of the pile from the 10 5
0.6 15
0.6 10
tunnel centreline increases. 15
20
Figure 9 shows the response of single piles with different pile 0.8 25 0.8 20
slenderness ratios, L/d, for the case where the ratio H/L = 1 and 25
the lateral distance of the pile from the tunnel centreline x = 4.5 1.0 1.0
m. It can be seen from Fig. 9(a) that in the case of L/d < 10, the (c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force
pile deformed like a short pile in which all parts of the pile Fig. 9. Single pile responses with different pile slenderness ratio.

186
 Lateral deflection of pile(mm) Bending moment(kN.m) of piles in the piled raft (PR) and piles in the pile group (PG).
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 The responses of the single piles (SP) located at the lateral dis-
0.0 0.0
H/L H/L tances from the tunnel centreline x = 4.5 and 7.5 m are also
0.2 0.50 0.2 0.50 shown in the figures.
0.75 0.75 Figure 12 shows comparisons of the responses of piles in the
0.4 1.00 0.4 1.00 piled raft, piles in the pile group and single piles with the slen-
1.50 1.50
2.00 2.00 derness ratio, L/d, of 25. A comparison of the induced lateral de-
0.6 0.6
formation profiles of piles is shown in Fig 12(a). It can be seen
0.8 0.8 that the maximum lateral deflection of the front piles is higher
than that of the back piles, and occurs at the depth of the pile tip,
1.0 1.0 which equals to the depth of the tunnel horizontal axis. The lat-
(a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment eral deformation profiles of single piles are almost identical to
Vertical movement of pile(mm) Axial force(kN) those of the corresponding piles in the pile group and in the piled
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 300 600 900 1200 raft.
0.0 0.0
Figure 12(b) shows a comparison of the induced bending mo-
H/L
0.2 0.2 0.50 ment profiles of piles in the piled raft, piles in the pile group and
H/L
0.50 0.75 single piles. It can be seen that the bending moment profiles of
0.4 0.75 0.4 1.00 single piles are almost the same with those of the corresponding
1.00 1.50 piles in the pile group and in the piled raft, except for a difference
0.6 1.50 0.6 2.00
near the pile head due to the difference in the pile head connec-
2.00
0.8 0.8 tion conditions between single pile and pile in the piled raft and
the pile group.
1.0 1.0 Figure 12(c) shows a comparison of the induced vertical
(c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force movement profiles of piles in the piled raft, piles in the pile
group and single piles. It can be seen that the vertical movement
Fig. 10. Influence of pile tip location on the single pile responses.
of the front pile is higher than that of the back pile. The vertical
Figure 10 shows the influence of the position the pile tip re- movement profiles of single piles are almost identical to those of
garding the tunnel horizontal axis on the responses of single piles. the corresponding piles in the pile group and in the piled raft.
The slenderness ratio, L/d, was set at 20, and the lateral distance Figure 12(d) shows a comparison of the induced axial force
of pile from the tunnel centreline x = 4.5 m. As shown in Fig. profiles of piles in the piled raft, piles in the pile group and single
10(a), the maximum lateral deflection of pile is observed near the piles. The axial force profiles of single piles are different from the
position of the tunnel horizontal axis. It can be also seen from Fig. axial force profiles of the corresponding piles in the pile group
10(b) that the position of the pile tip regarding the tunnel axis and in the piled raft.
largely affects the bending moment. When the pile tip is above Loganathan et al. (2001) suggests that the results of a rela-
the tunnel horizontal axis, tunnelling induces low pile bending tively simple single pile analysis can be used to predict the in-
moment compared with that obtained when the pile tip is under duced bending moment, lateral deflection and vertical movement
the tunnel horizontal axis. in a pile group at identical distances from the tunnel, except for
Moreover, it can be seen also from Fig. 10 (d) that the position the axial forces in the pile. The above calculation results support
of the pile tip affects the distribution of axial force along the pile. this suggestion. However, it will be shown in Fig. 13 that the sin-
When the pile tip is located above the tunnel horizontal axis, the gle pile responses cannot be used to predict the responses of the
axial force is negative. When the pile tip is located below the corresponding piles in the pile group as well as those in the piled
tunnel horizontal axis, the axial force increases up to its maxi- raft, if the value of the pile slenderness ratio is small.
mum value at the depth of the tunnel horizontal axis followed by Figure 13 shows comparisons of the responses of piles in the
a decrease due to the upward movement of the soil situated under piled raft, piles in the pile group and single piles with the slen-
the tunnel horizontal axis, and the maximum axial force is ob- derness ratio, L/d, of 5. It can be seen that the responses of the
tained near the depth of the tunnel horizontal axis level. single piles are totally different from those of the corresponding
piles in the piled raft and in the pile group.

4.2 Piled Rafts and Pile Groups

Ep = 30000 MPa
Figure 11 illustrates the problem of existing 2 2 squared piled Es = 24 MPa Br = 6 m
s=3m
raft foundations subjected to ground movements induced by tun- p = 0.25
nelling. The square rigid raft has dimensions of 6 m in breadth s = 0.5

and length, and 2 m in thickness. Piles beneath the raft are spaced H/L = 1 x = 4.5 m tr = 2 m
at 3d. The pile Young’s modulus, Ep = 30 GN/m2, the soil
Young’s modulus, Es = 24 MN/m2, the pile Poisson’s ratio, p =
0.25 and the soil Poisson ’s ratio, s = 0.5. The ratio H/L = 1, the d=1m
L
H
tunnel radius, R = 3 m, the pile diameter, d = 1 m, and the lateral
distance of the front pile from the tunnel centreline, x = 4.5 m.
The analyses of piled raft and pile group responses have been
carried out using the proposed method varying the pile slender-
front back
ness ratio, L/d. Only elastic behaviour of the pile and the soil has R=3m
been considered in this analysis. x = 7.5 m
z
Figures 12 & 13 show comparisons of the computed responses Fig. 11. Problem analyze (piled raft).

187
 Lateral Deflection of Pile (mm) Bending Moment (kN.m) 5 CONCLUSIONS
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 -600 -400 -200 0 200
0.0 0.0
A simplified analytical method has been proposed for the analysis
0.2 0.2 of the deformation and the load distribution of piled raft founda-
L/d = 25 tions subjected to ground movements induced by tunnelling. The
0.4 0.4 L/d = 25
PR (front) proposed method was verified through comparisons with the re-
PR (back)
0.6 PG (front) 0.6 PR (front) sults from previous research.
PG (back) PR (back)
SP (x = 4.5m) PG (front) The proposed method was employed for a parametric study of
0.8 SP (x = 7.5m) 0.8 PG (back)
SP (x = 4.5m)
single piles, pile groups and piled rafts. It was suggested from the
SP (x = 7.5m) calculation results that in the case of piled rafts in which the short
1.0 1.0
piles are commonly used, the resistance of the raft and interac-
(a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment tions between the structural members should be considered in the
Vertical Movement of Pile (mm) Axial Force (kN) analysis of the foundation.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -450-300-150 0 150 300 450
0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 REFERENCES

L/d = 25
0.4 0.4 L/d = 25
Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B. & De Mello, V.F.B. 1977. Behaviour
0.6 PR (front) 0.6 PR (front) of foundations and structures. Proceeding of the 9 th ICSMFE
PR (back) PR (back)
PG (front) PG (front) 2: 496-546, Tokyo, Japan.
0.8 PG (back) 0.8 PG (back)
SP (x = 4.5m) SP (x = 4.5m) Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. & Loganathan, N. 1999. Pile responses
SP (x = 7.5m)
1.0
SP (x = 7.5m)
1.0 caused by tunneling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
(c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force ronmental Engineering, ASCE 125(3): 802-811.
Kitiyodom, P. & Matsumoto, T. 2002. A simplified analysis
Fig. 12. Piled raft and pile group responses ( L/d = 25).
method for piled raft and pile group foundations with batter
Lateral Deflection of Pile (mm)
piles. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Bending Moment (kN.m)
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 Methods in Geomechanics 26: 1349-1369.
0.0 0.0 Kitiyodom, P. & Matsumoto, T. 2003a. A simplified analysis
0.2 0.2 method for piled raft foundations in non-homogeneous soils.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
0.4 L/d = 5 0.4
L/d = 5 in Geomechanics 27: 85-109.
0.6 PR (front) 0.6 PR (front) Kitiyodom, P. & Matsumoto, T. 2003b. Extension of a computer
PR (back)
PG (front)
PR (back)
PG (front)
program PRAB for deformation analysis of piled rafts sub-
0.8 PG (back) 0.8 PG (back)
jected to ground movements. Proceedings of the Sino-
SP (x = 4.5m) SP (x = 4.5m)

1.0
SP (x = 7.5m)
1.0
SP (x = 7.5m) Japanese Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering : 74-79.
(a) Lateral deflection (b) Bending moment Lee, K.M., Rowe, R.K. & Lo, K.Y. 1992. Subsidence owing to
tunnelling I: Estimating the gap parameter. Canadian Geo-
Vertical Movement of Pile (mm) Axial Force (kN)
technical Journal 29: 929-940.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -450-300-150 0 150 300 450
0.0 0.0 Loganathan, N. & Poulos, H.G. 1998. Analytical prediction for
tunelling-induced ground movements in clays. Journal of
0.2 0.2
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE
L/d = 5 L/d = 5
0.4 0.4 124(9): 846-856.
Loganathan, N., Poulos, H.G. & Xu K.J. 2001. Ground and pile-
0.6 PR (front) 0.6 PR (front)
PR (back) PR (back) group responses due to tunnelling. Soils and Foundations
PG (front) PG (front)
0.8 PG (back) 0.8 PG (back) 41(1): 57-67.
SP (x = 4.5m)
SP (x = 7.5m)
SP (x = 4.5m)
SP (x = 7.5m)
Mindlin, R.D. 1936. Force at a point interior of a semi-infinite
1.0 1.0
solid. Physics 7: 245-256.
(c) Vertical movement (d) Axial force
Mroueh, H. & Shahrour, I. 2002. Three-dimensional finite ele-
Fig. 13. Piled raft and pile group responses ( L/d = 5). ment analysis of the interaction between tunneling and pile
foundations. International Journal for Numerical and Ana-
Moreover, it can be seen from Fig. 12 that the responses of the
piles in the pile group and the piles in the piled raft are almost lytical Methods in Geomechanics 26: 217-230.
identical when the pile slenderness ratio is high ( L/d = 25). How- Sagaseta, C. 1987. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to
ever, for a low pile slenderness ratio ( L/d = 5) as shown in Fig. ground loss. Géotechnique 37: 301-320.
13, the piles in the pile group deform less than those in the piled Verruijt, A. & Booker, J.R. 1996. Surface settlements due to de-
raft, and the induced axial force and bending moment are higher formation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane Géotechnique
in the case of the piles in the piled raft. Note that in the analysis, 46(4): 753-756.
the foundations are subjected to the same vertical and lateral free Xu, K.J. & Poulos, H.G. 2001. 3-D elastic analysis of vertical
field ground movements induced by tunnelling at the pile-soil in- pile subjected to “passive” loadings. Computers and Geo-
terface, but the passive loads induced by these ground move- technics 28: 349-375.
ments acting on two types of the foundations are different.

188
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Experimental Verification of Vertical Support Systems for Long Steel-Pipe

Piles and Sheet Piles

K. Tomisawa & S. Nishimoto

Civil Engineering Research Institute of Hokkaido(CERI) Hiragishi 1-3-1-34,Toyohira-ku,
Sapporo, Hokkaido 062-8602 Japan.
ko-tomsw@ceri.go.jp & nishimoto@ceri.go.jp

Abstract: When installing long steel-pipe piles and sheet piles, construction management that is more precise and accurate than that for
ordinary piling work is considered to be necessary for ensuring the required design bearing capacity of foundations. In this study, im-
pact, vertical loading and dynamic loading tests for long steel-pipe piles (65 m) and sheet piles (61.5 m) were conducted at a site with
deep peaty soft ground as part of construction management, and a vertical support system for deep foundations was examined to de-
velop appropriate construction management methods for the future .

1 INTRODUCTION 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SITE AND FOUNDATION FORM

In this study, impact and vertical loading tests for long steel-pipe
piles (L1 = 65 m) and driving management, impact and dynamic
loading tests for long steel-pipe sheet piles (L2 = 61.5 m) were
conducted at a site with deep peaty soft ground as part of con-
struction management, and a vertical support system for deep
foundations was examined to develop appropriate construction
management methods for the future. During these tests, the driv-
ing process had a tendency to be difficult due to the applicability
of rebound management through the wave equation and residual
stress, especially in the case of the driving of long steel-pipe
piles, as well as because of the general existence of coupling
pipes in the case of long steel-pipe sheet piles in comparison with
single piles. Focus was therefore placed on the estimation of ap-
propriate coupling pipe resistance, stress distribution and other
technical issues concerning construction management including
percussion for finish.
A series of management tests for long steel-pipe and long steel-
pile sheet piles were conducted at the steel-pipe pile foundation
(steel-pipe pile diameter: 600mm, pile thickness: t=13mm, pile
length: L= 65m) of P-2 pier and the steel-pipe sheet pile founda-
tion (steel-pipe sheet pile diameter: 1000mm, sheet pile thick-
ness: t=12 mm, sheet pile length: L = 61.5 m) of P-4 pier of the
Shin-Kushirogawa Bridge on Hokkaido in Japan.
Figure 1 shows the type of the steel-pipe pile foundation of P-
2 pier, as well as the structural type, planar shape and soil boring
log of the steel-pipe sheet pile foundation of P-4 pier The P-2
pier was a group of pile-type foundations with seven rows of
seven piles, and the installation of steel-pipe piles was conducted
using the driving method with a hydraulic hammer of W = 10
tons. While on-site coupling of six rods (1 rod = 11m to 12 m )
is required for the installation of steel-pipe piles, friction cut was
not applied to the pile heads to ensure the design skin friction. As

Fig. 1. Forms of P-2 steel-pipe pile and P-4 steel-pipe sheet and soil log.
189
a result, the design ultimate bearing capacity per steel-pipe pile of
P-2pier was set at Rup=5800kN, and the de sign end-bearing ca-
pacity as a bearing pile was qdp=7640 kN/m2.
Since installation of steel-pipe sheet piles requires on-site cou-
pling of five rods (lower sheet = 13.5 m, middle sheets 1, 2 and 3
= 12.0 m, upper sheet = 12.0 m), the lower sheet was erected and
closed by taking the workability and residual stress associated
with sheet driving into account. Subsequently, pre-placement of
sheets was carried out in between middle sheet piles 1, 2 and 3
and upper sheet piles, and post- placement of sheets was also
conducted in between them with a hydraulic hammer of W = 11.5
tons, followed by the closure of each rod. Regarding the vertical Fig. 2. Conceptual drawing of the dynamic loading test for steel-
bearing capacity of the entire steel-pipe sheet pile foundation, the pipe sheet piles.
bearing capacity of each single sheet pile was first calculated us-
ing the formula for vertical bearing capacity of single piles by ig- Rs(xo,t)=Rt(xo,t) Rd(xo,t)
noring the cross section of coupling pipes. This vertical bearing Rd(xo,t)=Jc Z b(t)
capacity was then evaluated as the total vertical bearing capacity b(t)= Fd(xo,t Lm/c) Fu(xo,t+Lm/c) /Z
for the number of piles 1),2). As a result, the design ultimate bear- where Rt(xo,t)=total resistance (kN), Rs(xo,t)=static resistance
ing capacity of each single sheet pile was Rus=9300kN per pile component (kN), Rd(xo,t)=dynamic resistance component (kN),
for P4 steel-pipe sheet piles. Lm=total pile length (m), Fd(xo,t Lm/c)=progressive wave of
The bearing stratum was found in a gravel bed 60 m or deeper impact (kN), Fu(xo,t +Lm/c)=longitudinal backward wave (kN);
since soft quarternary alluvial silt is distributed deeply to the Jc=CASE damping, Z=pile body impedance and b(t)=pile
depth of 40 to 50 m in the ground of the site. As a result, instal- head velocity (m/sec).
lation of a very long foundation was required to place the steel- Here, the static resistance component of the driving pile
pipe piles and sheet piles of this bridge in the bearing stratum and equivalent to the design ultimate bearing capacity can be found
ensure the required bearing capacity. by removing the dynamic resistance component from the total re-
The coupling pipes of steel-pipe sheet piles are divided into P- sistance using CASE damping. In this case, because CASE damp-
P, P-T, L-T1 and L-T2 types depending on their used areas, such ing for estimation of the dynamic resistance component varies
as curves. The commonly used P-P type was employed for P4 according to ground conditions and pile specifications, it is de-
steel-pipe sheet piles in this study. termined by waveform matching analysis using a characteristic
curve in which the resistance components are converted into a
dash-pot model.
3 DYNAMIC LOADING TEST METHOD FOR STEEL-PIPE The dynamic loading test can therefore generally be conducted
SHEET PILES for single steel and existing concrete piles. For this study, how-
ever, a new application method for the dynamic loading test was
The dynamic loading test is a test used to apply axial impact on
developed to calculate the vertical bearing capacity of steel-pipe
vertically installed single piles, measure the dynamic strain and
sheet pile foundations. Figure 2 shows the conceptual drawing of
acceleration and estimate the dynamic resistance from the meas-
this dynamic loading test. The vertical bearing capacity of steel-
ured values using analysis based on the kinematic wave theory.
pipe sheet piles differs from that of single piles. Vertical bearing
In Japan, it was compiled in manual form as a practical test
capacity P1 is thought to consist of end-bearing capacity A, skin
method in 2002 3).
resistance B and resistance C, which is generated at the joint. In
If load is applied in the axial direction of a pile body for a
other words, it can be described by the relationship P1 =
short period of time, the stress wave is transmitted in the axial di-
A+B+C. This means that the vertical bearing capacity of inter-
rection of the pile body. This wave phenomenon can be ex-
locking sheet piles is considered to be P2 = 2A+2B+C. This is
pressed as a one-dimensional wave equation (Eq. (1)).
because the competition of coupling pipes at the center of inter-
2 locking can be ignored if load is applied on two interlocking
u(x ,t) / t2 = c2 u(x ,t) / x2 (1)
steel-pipe sheet piles.
As a result, the sheet pile bearing capacity P after removing re-
where c: stress wave propagation velocity (m/sec2), u=dis-
sistance C of the coupling pipes can in principle be calculated by
placement (m), x=position (m) and t=time (sec)
subtracting P1 from P2 in Eq. (3) if dynamic resistance P1 of one
From the measured values of dynamic strain and acceleration,
steel-pipe sheet pile and P2 of the interlocking steel-pipe sheet
the general solution for this one-dimensional wave theory was
piles can be estimated using the dynamic loading test.
used, and the total resistance Rt (= static resistance component Rs
+ dynamic resistance component Rd) was calculated using the
P = P2 - P1 = ( 2A + 2B + C ) - ( A + B +C ) = A + B (3)
CASE method 5), which can be expressed by Eq. (2) on the as-
sumption that the total of the progressive wave generated by the
Since two steel-pipe sheet piles (No. 4 and 5) must be put in
impact on the pile head and the backward wave that returned af-
place simultaneously while being interlocking to each other in
ter moving around the pile body balances out with the ground re-
addition to the driving of ordinary steel-pipe sheet pile No. 3 at
sistance.
the time of the test, a special cap was produced to connect and
cover the heads of two steel-pipe sheet piles and installed at the
Rt(xo,t)=Fd(xo,t Lm/c) Fu(xo,t+Lm/c) (2)
head of the steel-pipe sheet piles, and driving was conducted with
one hammer.

190
 Fig. 3. Impact wave forms of steel-pipe piles. Fig. 4. Impact steel of steel-pipe piles.

The dynamic loading test was conducted at the position of per- In addition, the residual stress on the pile body, which was at
cussion for finish in the same manner as in the impact test to es- first a concern, was generally small, although there was a ten-
timate the final bearing capacity. dency for slight tensile stress to be generated at the pile heads
against the initial value at the time of the lining of piles. It was
presumed that this phenomenon occurred due to elastic deforma-
4 VERIFICATION OF IMPACT TEST RESULTS tion because stress was gradually released from the condition in
which the pile heads were set in the bearing stratum with the
4.1 Impact Waveform and Stress of Long Steel-Pipe Piles compressive action of impacts on the pile bodies. However,
since bending prevailed only at the pile heads in the case of the
While the dropping height of the hydraulic hammer ( W = 10tons) pile body stress generated by design external force, the body
was fixed at 1 m in the impact test for test steel-pipe pile No. 1, stress of the entire system found by integrating those values was
piles almost sank by themselves in the soft ground during the within the range of allowable stress.
early stage, and the measured impact stress reached its maximum
in the final rod pile after intrusion into the bearing stratum.
the early stage, and the measured impact stress reached its maxi- 4.2 Impact Waveform and Stress Distribution of Long Steel-Pipe
mum in the final rod pile after intrusion into the bearing stratum. Sheet Piles
Figure 3 illustrates the impact stress waveform measured at the
Figure 5 shows the impact waveform at the head of test sheet pile
pile head at the position of percussion for finish of test piles (rep-
No. 1 (post-placement) at the time of percussion for finish, which
resentative waveform after elimination of noise) overlapping the
was obtained as a result of the impact test for steel-pipe sheet
basic waveform of the St. Venant solution 5) provided in Eq. (4).
piles, together with the results of the above-mentioned impact
test of long steel-pipe piles of P2 pier. According to the figure,
= o e-( p Ap/WH Cp t )
(4)
the time phase of the peak after impact, rebound at the cushion
o=Ep/Cp (2g h)
(peak of the second wave) and the attenuation conditions of im-
pact stress nearly corresponded between the steel-pipe sheet piles
where Ap=pile cross section (m2), WH=hammer weight (tons),
and single piles, although the maximum stress values differed due
p=unit weight of the pile (kN/m 3), Cp=elastic wave velocity
to the difference in specifications and hydraulic hammer weight.
in the pipe (m/s), Ep=Elastic modulus of the pile (kN/m 2),
It was therefore determined that the construction and intrusion
t=elapsed time (t), g=gravitational acceleration (m/s 2) and
properties were similar to those of steel-pipe single piles under
h=hammer dropping height (m).
buckling stress.
Moreover, Fig. 3 shows that the measured waveform nearly
Figure 6 shows stress transmission in the depth direction at the
corresponded with the theoretical waveform, although the peak
time of installation of test steel-pipe sheet piles and the stress dis-
value was slightly lower due to the effect of energy loss, indicat-
tribution measured for adjoining sheet pile No. 2. The impact
ing that the standard construction of single piles was verified. It
stress on the bodies of test steel-pipe sheet piles were attenuated
was also considered that there were no problems concerning
in the depth direction along the soil boring log, and workability
workability since the impact stress measured at the pile head was
for steel-pipe sheet piles was similar to that of single piles in the
approximately 22000 kN/m 2 and the buckling stress of the steel-
same manner as in the impact waveform at the head. Stress dis-
pipe pile of SKK400, t=13 mm was approximately 30000 kN/m 2.
tribution of approximately 200 to 400 kN/m 2 to adjoining piles
Figure 4 presents the relationship between the measured im-
was, however, found to develop nearly linearly in the depth di-
pact stress in the depth direction at the position of percussion for-
rection, and these distribution values for both of the adjoining
finish andthe residual stress on the pile body after being left un-
sheet piles were approximately 5 to 10% of the stress on the bod-
touched for a fixed period of (15 days). It also shows the
ies of the test steel-pipe sheet piles. Although it is difficult to
standard construction state in which the impact stress is transmit
calculate the vertical bearing capacity of these test steel-pipe
ted almost linearly in the pile body after impact was applied to
sheet piles and adjoining sheet piles from this phenomenon, the
the pile.
considerable effect of coupling pipes at the time of installation of
steel-pipe sheet piles was confirmed.

191
Fig. 5. Head impact waveforms of steel-pipe sheet piles and sin-
gle steel-pipe piles.
Fig. 6. Impact stress of test steel-pipe sheet piles and adjoining
sheet piles.
5 STATIC VERTICAL BEARING OF LONG STEEL-PIPE
PILES
Figure 7 shows the axial force distribution on the pile bodies in
the depth direction against vertical load P, which was obtained
by the vertical loading test of test steel-pipe pile No. 1, and Fig. 8
illustrates the relationship between load Log P and vertical set-
tlement at the pile head LogS. The axial force was vertically
transmitted to the soft stratum approximately 40 m in depth with-
out significant development of skin friction. Following this, rela-
tively high skin friction was secured linearly toward the pile
head. The relationship between load and settlement was nearly
linear without a clear point of inflection equivalent to yield and
ultimate bearing capacity, although the displacement had a ten-
dency to slightly incline at the final point of planned maximum
load P = 6600 kN.
The evaluation method is not necessarily appropriate for this
case. The ultimate bearing capacity Ru2 of the steel-pipe piles in
this vertical loading test was therefore determined using Uzu’s
method 6) shown in the exponent model of Eq. (5).
P = Ru2 1 exp( S / So) m (5)
where Ru2: ultimate bearing capacity (kN), P=load on pile head
(kN), m=displacement exponent, S=settlement (mm) and
So=standard settlement (mm).
192
Fig. 7. Axial force distribution of test piles in the vertical Load-
ing test.
Fig. 8. Relationship between the test load and settlement in the
vertical loading test.
As a result, the ultimate bearing capacity was estimated to be
Rup2 = 9100 kN, and it was believed that design vertical ultimate
bearing capacity Rus was secured in a non-excessive range in the
same manner as for dynamic bearing capacity Rupl. Regarding
bearing capacity at the pile head Rp2, Rp2 = 2920 kN was calcu-
lated using a similar method. Since end-bearing capacity qd2 =
Rp2/A was qd2 = 10390 kN/m 2, design value qd = 7640 kN/m2
was secured. In terms of skin friction, the maximum skin friction
to the depth of approximately 40 m in the soft stratum was as low
as f2' = 685 kN, which is equivalent to the present design friction
f with N value = approx. 2 (f2/L U). However, a relatively high
friction force exceeding the design value was displayed at depths
of 40 m or deeper, making the total skin friction f2 = 6,180 kN .
The spring constant in the axial direction of piles Kv = 150000
kN/m, which was obtained from the secant gradient of loaded
weight and settlement (10-mm settlement load), was nearly
equivalent to the design value.
6 COUPLING PILE RESISTANCE OF LONG STEEL-PIPE
SHEET PILES
In the dynamic loading test of long steel-pipe sheet piles, it was
necessary to clarify the difference in impact force and total resis-
tance of interlocking sheet piles when only one steel-pipe pile
(No. 3) was installed and two sheet piles ( No. 4 and 5 ) were

Fig. 9. Dynamic resistance as determined using the CASE
method.
Fig. 10. Upward waves of single and interlocking sheet piles.
installed concurrently to calculate the resistance of coupling
pipes at the time of construction of steel-pipe sheet piles.
Figure 9 presents the relationship between the impact force
generated at the heads of two single sheet piles and one interlock-
ing sheet pile by changing the dropping height of the hydraulic
hammer and the dynamic resistance obtained using the CASE
method. According to the figure, the dynamic maximum resis-
tance or total resistance at the head, which is the total for the dy-
namic and static resistance components of the value of the CASE
method in the impact test, was approximately 8000 kN even for
single sheet piles and was lower than design ultimate bearing ca-
pacity Rus = 9300 kN. It was therefore presumed that the impact
force was insufficient for obtaining the maximum development of
the end ground resistance. As can be seen in the figure, however,
the dynamic resistance of single sheet piles was approximately
2000 kN higher than that of interlocking sheet piles at the percus-
sion for finish. The same tendency was also found in measured
values of maximum acceleration and strain, and it was presumed
that this phenomenon was caused by greater vibrations generated
on single sheet piles due to the difference in body weight and
coupling pipe resistance even when the same impact force was
applied.
The difference of 2000 kN in maximum resistance between
single and interlocking sheet piles in this study was thought to
imply the resistance of coupling pipes between interlocking sheet
piles. This value was equivalent to approximately 25% of the to-
tal resistance (2000 kN / 8000 kN), and was greater than the
193
stress distribution through coupling pipes, which was obtained
through the impact test. This also implies that the competition of
coupling pipes or friction resistance should not be ignored when
installing steel-pipe sheet piles.
Figure 10 illustrates the relationship between the upward
waves of single sheet pile No. 3 and interlocking sheet piles No. 4
and 5. In the dynamic loading test, downward waves are simply
impact input waves generated by the hammer, and calculation of
the vertical bearing capacity of steel-pipe sheet piles is made pos-
sible by examining the upward waves, which were found as a re-
sult of the dynamic loading test, including the elements of end-
bearing capacity, skin resistance and resistance generated at
joints. The figure shows that the impact of steel-pipe sheet piles
began at approximately 7 ms and that the upward waves of the
pile ends returned to the pile heads at approximately 30 ms. The
length of the underlined portions during this time shows the re-
turn time (2L/c) for the impact wave to be transmitted through the
pile body. If these underlined portions are regarded as the body
of a steel-pipe sheet pile lying sideways, it means that the upward
wave shown above it indicates the changes of the sheet pile in the
depth direction.
The time period between 7 and 30 ms is therefore applied to
the sheet pile head and refers to upward waves caused by sheet
pile skin resistance B and resistance C generated at the joint, and
the time at 30 ms or later is applied to upward waves generated
by end-bearing capacity A. According to the figure, the upward
wave obtained in this dynamic loading test was attenuated before
the wave motion of impact at the head reached the end of the
sheet pile because the peak of the upward wave (approx. 25 ms)
occurs before 30 ms, which is at the end of the sheet pile. This
phenomenon probably occurred because the majority of the im-
pact force on the sheet pile head was dispersed to the coupling
pipe resistance and transmission of the impact force became in-
sufficient, although driving itself was possible, as the competition
length of coupling pipes gradually increased with the driving of
steel-pipe sheet piles.
In the case of dynamic resistance P1 of single sheet piles and
P2 of interlocking sheet piles, it is therefore difficult to calculate
the true end-bearing capacity itself with a small impact force on
long sheet piles by setting end-bearing capacity A, skin resistance
B and resistance generated at joint C of steel-pipe sheet piles ac-
cording to the initial principal of examination. Thus, assuming
that the transmission of the impact force to the end is very small
and the end-bearing capacity against the impact force in this test
is A 0, the relationship between Eqs. (6) and (7) can be ob-
tained, respectively.
P1 B C (6)
P2 2B C (7)
Furthermore, Fig. 10 shows that the upward waves of single
sheet pile No. 3 and interlocking sheet piles No. 4 and 5 nearly
corresponded with each other, indicating the relationship P1
P2 within the time of the return wave generated in steel-pipe
sheet piles. In other words, the skin resistance of the ground B
0 (from 2B = B), or the skin resistance of the sheet piles, was
not developed during installation of steel-pipe sheet piles, and
this was nearly consistent with the soft soil boring log of the
ground. Although the dynamic maximum resistance (approx.
8000 kN) of single steel-pipe sheet piles obtained using the
CASE method in this study was not necessarily the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of steel-pipe sheet piles under this system condition,
the maximum resistance of 2000 kN calculated from Fig. 9 could
be considered as resistance C generated at the joint. This was for
the most part consistent with the difference in dynamic resistance
between single and interlocking sheet piles found from Fig. 10.
This result shows a relatively high resistance of coupling pipes at
the time of installation of steel-pipe sheet piles, in the same way
as the tendency of stress distribution to adjoining sheet piles ob-
tained in the impact test. Although this resistance of coupling
pipes would be very disadvantageous for the management of in-
stallation of steel-pipe sheet piles, it is thought to be an effective
element of closing to establish an integrated closed foundation
and ensure the required rigidity in the end.
7 CONCLUSIONS
From the results of a series of construction management tests
conducted for long steel-pipe piles (L1 = 65 m) and sheet piles
(L2 = 61.5 m), including, impact, vertical loading and dynamic
loading tests, the following conclusions were obtained as assess-
ments of the vertical support system of deep foundations in rela-
tion to workability:
1. From the impact test for long steel-pipe piles, it was found
that verification of workability of long steel-pipe piles was
possible, the normal impact basic waveform was developed
even for long piles and residual impact stress in the depth
direction was insufficient.
2. From the vertical loading test of long steel-pipe piles, the
pile skin friction, end-bearing capacity and axial spring
constant were directly evaluated and the vertical support
system of long piles was verified.
3. From the impact waveform and stress obtained as a result
of the impact test of long steel-pipe sheet piles, it was con-
firmed that steel-pipe sheet piles exhibited workability
equivalent to that of single piles. As a result, stress distri-
bution of 5 to 10% through coupling piles was observed in
the depth direction of adjoining sheet piles at the time of
installation of steel-pipe sheet piles.
4. As a result of the dynamic loading test of single steel-pipe
sheet piles and interlocking steel-pipe sheet piles using
special fixtures, the resistance properties of the bodies of
coupling pipes were clarified through the analysis of up-
194
ward and downward waves using the CASE method. In the
dynamic loading test for the long steel-pipe sheet piles in
question, a relatively large resistance of coupling pipes was
found, probably due to the effect of competition of cou-
pling pipes at the time of construction.
From the above conclusions, it is believed that the support
system including construction management of steel-pipe sheet
piles was roughly verified, although it was previously known that
there were many unclear matters concerning the evaluation of
vertical bearing capacity related to workability, such as driving
methods for long piles and selection of hammers, as well as the
resistance of coupling pipes. The use of the dynamic loading test
for steel-pipe sheet piles in this study, in particular, led to new
possible methods of calculating the bearing capacity of steel-pipe
sheet piles 7), 8) taking the effect of coupling pipes into considera-
tion. This also indicated the possibility of ensuring the required
bearing capacity through appropriate construction management
even for long foundations.
REFERENCES
Japan Road Association 2002. Specification for Highway Bridges
and Instruction Manual IV: 434-465.
Japan Road Association. 1997. Guidebook for Design and Con-
struction of Steel-Pipe Sheet Pile Foundations : 177-257.
Japanese Geotechnical Society 2002. Method for Horizontal
Loading Test of Piles and Instruction Manual : 223-244.
Sakai T. 1990. Japan Society for Civil Engineers, No. 424/III-14 :
75 – 83.
Japanese Geotechnical Society 1989. Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium on Driving Performance of Piles and Application of
the Kinematic Wave Theory to Piles.
Uzu, F. 1978. Pile loading test arrangement method, Collection
of lectures . Proceedings 31 st Soil Engineering Society
Meeting.
Kimura, Isobe, J. & Arop Too, K. 2002. Proceedings of the 37 th
Geotechnical Research Presentation: 1407 – 1408.
Kazama, Oki, Okubo & Nambu. 2002. Proceedings of the 37 th
Geotechnical Research Presentation: 714 – 720.
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Analysis of Ultimate Bearing Capacity on Composite Layered Soil

S. Ohtsuka
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Nagaoka University of Tech., Nagaoka, Niigata 940-2188, Japan
ohtsuka@nagaokaut.ac.jp
A. Husna
Dept. of Energy and Environmental Science, Nagaoka University of Tech., Nagaoka, Niigata 940-2188, Japan
asmaul@eudoramail.com

Abstract: A study has been carried out for ultimate bearing capacity of footing on composite layered soil where sandy soil overlies
clayey soil. It is, however, difficult to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity due to complicate failure mode. This paper took into ac-
count two aspects of difficulty in assessment. One was a computational method and the other, a determination on soil constants. The
rigid-plastic finite element method (RPFEM) was employed to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of composite layered soil by
taking into account the dilation property. The soil constant as angle of shear resistance for sand was obtained by the inversed analysis
of centrifuge tests on ultimate bearing capacity for uniform Toyoura sand. Using inversed constants, the direct analysis of ultimate
bearing capacity was conducted for composite layered soil on two-dimensional ( 2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) computations. The
obtained results were compared with those of centrifuge tests and conventional methods. It exhibited RPFEM favorably simulated the
ultimate bearing capacity and the complicated failure modes of composite layered soil even with difference in boundary condition.

1 INTRODUCTION softening. These effects express the material constant of sandy

In ultimate bearing capacity assessment, the soil profile is gener-
ally not homogeneous and it affects the result greatly. Numbers
of study have conducted for ultimate bearing capacity of compos-
ite layered soil (Yamaguchi, 1963; Hanna & Meyerhof, 1980;
Kraft & Helfrich, 1982; Michalowski & Shi, 1995; Burd &
Frydman, 1997; Kenny & Andrawes, 1997; etc) and experimental
model tests (Craig & Chua, 1990; Okamura et al., 1993, 1997;
etc). Those may give a proper solution for real construction pro-
jects; however, the conventional methods inevitably introduce
assumptions on failure mechanism of soil prior to analysis. Since
the failure mode of composite layered soil is more complicated
and different from that of uniform soil, the applicability of con-
ventional methods naturally becomes limited. On the other hand,
Tamura (1990) developed rigid-plastic analysis (RPFEM) to
solve various problems in geotechnical engineering. The advan-
tages of this method are the failure mode of earth structure is
determined as a result of analysis and pre-information on feasible
failure mode is not necessary different from conventional formu-
las. Ohtsuka & Husna (2003) carried out an investigation on the
applicability of RPFEM for ultimate bearing capacity assessment
and gave good estimation for sandy soil.
This paper is based on the advanced computation of RPFEM
to investigate the inversed angle of shear resistance for founda-
tion designs on composite layered soil, sand overlying soft clay.
An inverse analysis of centrifuge test is conducted for ultimate
bearing capacity of Toyoura sand to obtain the soil constant as
angle of shear resistance. The applicability of inversed constants
is led to compute ultimate bearing capacity on composite layered
soil for various conditions and it is compared not only with cen-
trifuge tests but also those well-known conventional methods. A
three-dimensional (3-D) calculation of ultimate bearing capacity
for square footing is also given to demonstrate the relevance and
the wide applicability of the employed method.
2 INVERSE ANALYSIS FOR SOIL CONSTANT
It is generally known there are various factors affect the shear
strength of sandy soil, such as stress level, anisotropy, and strain
soil as angle of shear resistance widely varies in the ground de-
pending on stress, shearing pattern and strain softening. On the
contrary, the conventional design of ultimate bearing capacity
formula assumes a uniform material constant for soil. It is of
course a simple assumption, however the applicability of this
assumption has not been made clear yet. The question is, fur-
thermore, the way to determine the design constant for conven-
tional method.
Okamura et al. (1993, 1997) performed centrifuge tests for
shallow footing on dense Toyoura sand and composite sand over-
lying soft clay. Toyoura sand is the standard sand in Japan and its
physical property has been studied in detail as listed in Table 1.
An empirical equation to express the angles of shear resistance
and dilation angle d of Toyoura sand was given by Tatsuoka et
al. (1986) as d = - 30o. It means the dilation angle is naturally
obtained with the angle of shear resistance.
Table 1. Physical property of Toyoura sand.
Gs D50 (mm) Uc emax emin
2.640 0.190 1.560 0.973 0.609
(Source: Okamura et al., 1993)
As a most realistic approach to real problems, inverse analysis
is carried out for axis-symmetric condition. The angle of shear
resistance for Toyoura sand is computed with the assumption of
Tatsuoka’s equation and uniform soil constant in the ground. In
computation, the unit weight and the void ratio of soil are
15.6kN/m3 and 0.65, respectively. The radius of footing is set in
the range of B=0.03m to 2.264m from centrifuge test. The inverse
analysis is conducted only for peak state since there was small
range in bearing capacity between peak and residual loads of Fig.
1 except for case of 1g-model test (Okamura et al., 1993).
Figure 2 presents the calculated inversed constant with dif-
ference in footing radius. The angle of shear resistance is ob-
tained in the range of 34.5o - 36.0o. It drops with the increase in
footing radius and lower about 5.0o – 10.0o than those obtained in
triaxial tests ( =40o-45o). The difference in angle of shear resis-
tance evidently express the influence of stress level, anisotropy
and progressive failure caused by strain softening in the analysis.
The detail discussion of the inversed analysis for soil constant

195

Fig. 1. Normalized load intensity of axis-symmetric footing.
40
30
axis-symmetric footing
=36.0o - 34.5o
20
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Radius of footing (m)
Fig. 2. Inverse analysis for angle of shear resistance.
can be found in Ohtsuka & Husna (2003). Some parts are re-
viewed only for easy understanding of current paper. The ob-
tained angle of shear resistance differs for footing radius and
geometry, which attributes to the scale-effect and due to the
stress distribution in the ground different by failure mode. It is
obvious that the mobilized angle of6 shear resistance is affected
by various factors as stress level, anisotropy and progressive
failure caused by strain softening. However, the degree in effect
of each factor on inversed angle of shear resistance is not made
clear in this paper. The angle of shear resistance decreases with
the increase in footing radius and it is lower than those obtained
in testing methods. Taking into consideration the effects of ani-
sotropy and strain softening are nearly same for footing radius,
the change in angle of shear resistance for footing radius might
express the stress level effect mainly. In fact, the inversed angle
of shear resistance does not have physical meaning directly, but
the mean value to match the ultimate bearing capacity exactly.
These results are based on advanced computation to employ
the non-associated flow rule and different from conventional
formulas, but give valuable information for design especially on
the relationship between the inversed and original soil constants.
By accumulating the case studies on other soils, a general method
to determine the design constant for ultimate bearing capacity
might be constituted.
3 2-D ANALYSIS OF ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
ON COMPOSITE LAYERED SOIL
3.1 Analysis Procedures and Result
The direct analysis of inverse constant for ultimate bearing ca-
pacity on two-layers foundation soil system is conducted for the
cases where the thickness of sand layer, H, is comparable to the
footing radius, B, and in all cases the ground surface and inter-
196
face between the two soil layers are horizontal. In computation,
the fully drainage condition is set for sand and the undrained
condition for clay. Footing radius is taken as 1.5m and 3.0m from
centrifuge test and the effective unit weight of soil is 9.74kN/m 3.
The angle of shear resistance of sand layer is put as 34.5o from
the inversed constant by taking into account the footing radius.
The thickness of sand layer is changed by the ratio of sand layer
thickness to footing radius from 0.5 to 2.0. The shear strength of
clay is predicted with the strength increase ratio cu/p’. The mean
effective stress p’ is estimated by employing Jaky’s formula for
earth pressure coefficient.
In general, conventional methods to calculate ultimate bearing
capacity of composite layered soil are divided by assuming fail-
ure mechanism beneath the footing. First group is called Load-
spread model. It assumes that the load spreads in sand layer and
works on the surface of clay foundation. Ultimate bearing capac-
ity is assessed for spread load by estimating the shear resistance
of clay layer only. The load-spread mechanism within the sand
layer is modelled by assuming the zone defined by lines inclined
at angle of side surface of the sand block to the vertical, as
shown in Fig. 3(a). Load from footing is assumed to be distrib-
uted uniformly over the width B’ at the base of sand layer, where
. The chosen value of has an important in-
fluence on the ultimate bearing capacity calculation, however, it
is not clear how this value should be selected. Although the side
surface angle of the sand block to the vertical is influenced by
the strength of the sand, in practice, (Yamaguchi, 1963)
and (Kraft & Helfrich, 1983) are generally
adopted. The ultimate bearing capacity of axis-symmetric footing
qu is estimated using the expression :
(1)
The second group, Punching-shear model assumes the direct
shear of sand along a vertical plane beneath each edge of the
footing, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Sandy soil beneath the footing is
pushed downwards into clay and ultimate bearing capacity is
exerted with shear resistance in sand and clay layers. The charts
of Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) were not given in non-dimensional
form, however, and so are proper only for the certain values of
sand unit weight and layer thickness. First chart was given as
function of the punching shear coefficient Ks and the angle of
shear resistance ’. While another one was function of the clay
shear strength cu and the ratio of / ’. The ultimate bearing ca-
pacity of axis-symmetric footing qu is computed as :
(2)
The obtained ultimate bearing capacity of each method is
drawn in Fig. 4. Footing radius is taken as B=1.5m and 3.0m. The
ratio of footing radius to thickness of sand layer is arranged from
H/B=0.5 to 2.0. Generally, the calculated ultimate bearing capac-
ity with RPFEM is in good conformity with those of centrifuge
tests even the boundary condition was different from the inverse
analysis. It strongly implies the applicability of direct analysis
with the inversed soil constant for ultimate bearing capacity
analysis. Since the failure mode of composite layered soil is more
complicate and different from that of uniform sandy soil, it seems
difficult to assess the ultimate bearing capacity with the inversed
angle of shear resistance prior to computation. However, the
obtained result suggests the selection of soil constant is insensi-
tive for ultimate bearing capacity assessment of composite lay-
ered soil by taking into account the footing radius, and the wide
applicability of inversed constant could be expected.
In conventional methods, Load-spread model gives good
estimation for centrifuge test than that of Punching-shear model,
however underestimates the ultimate bearing capacity for com-
 Q Q

po' p o'
B B

Sand : ' ' Sand : ' '

H z
H
B' (p0' + z') Ks

Clay : cu Clay : cu
cu Nc + po' cu N c + po'
Ks : punching shear coefficient
a. Load-spread model b. Punching-shear model
Fig. 3. Assumptions on failure mechanisms in conventional methods.

posite layered soil in case of H/B>1.5. Conventional methods
usually employ the assumption on failure mode, it causes the
accuracy of conventional method highly depends on the applica-
bility of assumed failure mode to the actual problem. Notably,
RPFEM does not require the failure mode prior to computation.
3.2 Failure Modes and Soil Movement
The patterns of soil movement at failure and the development of
plastic zones in soil under the footing are in interest. Then, the
failure mechanism with the variation in ratio of sand layer thick-
ness to footing radius H/B is discussed as shown in Fig. 5. A
punching-shear mode of sand layer is observed for thin sand
layer and it gradually changes to a general-shearing mode for
thick sand layer on Fig. 5(d). It clearly exhibits that the failure
pattern is largely affected by the ratio of H/B. It is apparent that
the sand block beneath the footing is pushed into clay layer up to
H/B=1 and the shear zone in sand layer is restricted along the
side of sand block as obtained in centrifuge test. For H/B=2.0,
failure occurs entirely within sand layer and a general-shearing
mode takes place. It is totally same as obtained failure mode for
uniform sand of Fig. 5(a). This denotes that for the greater thick-
ness of top layer (H/B 2.0), the computation of ultimate bearing
capacity on composite layered soil, sand overlying soft clay,
could be generated as uniform sandy ground.
The failure mode of RPFEM computation is determined as a
consequence of computation and it is contrary to the conventional
methods. In case of Fig. 4(a), Load-spread model gives relatively
good estimation on the ultimate bearing capacity, however, it
only takes into account the failure of clay layer. It implies incon-
sistency in the assumption and the result of Load-spread model in
Fig. 5 and it naturally suggests RPFEM results are more rational.
The obtained results express both the applicability of the inversed
soil constant and the employed numerical procedure to assess
ultimate bearing capacity for composite layered soil. Although
various factors as stress level, anisotropy and strain softening
greatly affect the angle of shear resistance for case of sandy soil,
RPFEM with the inversed angle of shear resistance could well
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity. The detailed discussion on
the relationship between the physical property and the inversed
one is necessary to develop a general method for determining the
design constants.

2-D RPFEM
2000 Punching-shear model
Load-spread model
Centrifuge test

1000

a. B = 1.5m b. B = 3.0m
0
0 1 2 3 40 2 4 6 8
Thickness of sand layer (m) Thickness of sand layer (m)
Fig. 4. Computational result of direct analysis on composite layered soil.

B/2 B/2 B/2 B/2

Y
Y
Y Y

Sand
Sand 0 .1
8

Sand
Sand

Clay
a. Uniform sand Clay
b. H/B=0.5 c. H/B=1.0 d. H/B=2.0
Clay

Fig. 5. Failure modes dependent of sand layer thickness in two-dimensional computation.

197
 2000
Centrifuge test B/2
2-D RPFEM
3-D RPFEM
Sand

1000

Clay
7.

0
6.5

Y
6.

5.5

0 2 4 6 8
5.

4.5

4.

3.5

3.

2.5

2.

Thickness of sand layer (m)

1.5

1.

0.5

a. H/B = 0.5
Fig. 6. Ultimate bearing capacity of 3-D computation.

4 3-D ANALYSIS OF ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY X

ON COMPOSITE LAYERED SOIL B/2

Direct analysis of inversed constant is conducted for 3-D (three-

dimensional) RPFEM of square footing resting on sand layer
Sand
overlying soft clay. The condition of computation as soil con-
stants and footing in case of 3-D computation is set similar with
that in case of two-dimensional (2-D). A direct comparison of the
obtained results could be done. It is noted that the angle of shear
resistance for sand layer is determined by considering the footing Clay 7.

6. 5

width. Figure 6 illustrates the obtained ultimate bearing capacity

Y

6.

5.5

5.

4. 5

of 3-D computation. It is given in comparison with 2-D computa-

4.

3. 5

3.

2.5

2.

tion and centrifuge test.

1. 5

1.

0. 5

The 3-D ultimate bearing capacity matches well with those of b. H/B = 1.0
centrifuge tests and 2-D results even if the mesh employed in 3-D
RPFEM is coarser than those of 2-D cases. This indicates the
effect of geometry in footing does not affect the ultimate bearing
capacity so much. The obtained failure mode of square footing is
X

presented in Fig. 7. The generated mesh of 3-D analysis shows
the realistic failure modes for square footing. It is different from
that of 2-D RPFEM and it indicates a good idea for employing
the 3-D computation, especially to assess the ultimate bearing
capacity of rectangular footing.
Fig. 7. Failure modes of 3-D computation.
3. The applicability of 3-D computation should be examined in
comparison with the experimental results. It was especially in
the assessment of ultimate bearing capacity for rectangular
footing.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The two- and three-dimensional computations of axis-symmetric
and square footings for composite layered soil, sand overlying
soft clay, were carried out to investigate the ultimate bearing
capacity and its failure mechanism of foundation with the use of
inversed soil constant. The result of numerical analysis was com-
pared with centrifuge test and some of the available theoretical
solutions to calculate ultimate bearing capacity for composite
layered soil. The followings were obtained in this study.
1. Ultimate bearing capacity was well simulated by direct
analysis with RPFEM for various thickness of sand layer un-
derlain clay. In addition, RPFEM also properly modeled the
complicated failure modes of composite layered soil. It obvi-
ously exhibited the wide applicability of the inversed pa-
rameter to ultimate bearing capacity assessment of composite
layered soil for various boundary value problems.
2. The applicability of conventional methods was found to de-
pend highly on agreement of the assumed failure mode with
the actual behavior. No need of assumption for feasible fail-
ure modes is great advantage of RPFEM to conventional
methods. Employment of non-associated flow rule for consti-
tutive equation was also noted. The dilation angle also seems
to have a significant influence on the magnitude of ultimate
bearing capacity for composite layered soil.
REFERENCES
Hanna, A.M. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1980. Design Charts for Ulti-
mate Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sand Overlying
Soft Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 17: 300-303.
Ohtsuka, S. & Husna, A. 2003. Inverse Analysis of Material
Constants for Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Sandy Soil. Proc.
of International Symposium on Shallow Foundation 1: 397-
404.
Okamura, M., Takemura, J. & Kimura, T. 1993. A Study on
Bearing Capacities of Shallow Footings on Sand. Proc. of
JSCE 463(3): 85-94 (in Japanese).
Okamura, M., Takemura, J. & Kimura, T. 1997. Centrifuge
Model Tests on Bearing Capacity and Deformation of Sand
Layer Overlying Clay. Soils and Foundations 37(1): 73-87.
Tamura, T. 1990. Rigid-Plastic Finite Element Method in Geo-
technical Engineering. Computational Plasticity, Current
Japanese Material Research 7: 135-164.
Tatsuoka, M., Sakamoto, M., Kawamura T. & Fukushima, S.
1986. Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Sand in
Plane Strain Compression at Extremely Low Pressure. Soils
and Foundations 26(1): 65-84.
Yamaguchi, H. 1963. Practical Formula of Bearing Value for
Two Layered Ground. Proceedings of the 2nd ARCSMFE 1:
176-180.

198
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

A Series of Static Loading Tests of Modeled Sheet-Pile Foundation

Combining Footing with Sheet-Piles on Sand
H. Nishioka, M. Koda & O. Murata
Railway Technical Research Institute, 2-8-38, Hikari-cho, Kokubunji-shi, Tokyo, 185-8540, Japan
nishioka@rtri.or.jp

Abstract: The authors have proposed the sheet-pile foundation as a new reasonable foundation structure. This foundation can be con-
structed at a lower cost than the pile foundation, and be used more widely than the shallow foundation. In this research, in order to
grasp the fundamental characteristics of the sheet-pile foundation, a series of static loading tests are conducted on a model of the shal-
low foundation and sheet-pile foundation. It is shown that the sheet-pile foundation has excellent performance against seismic force.
In addition, the resistance mechanism of the sheet-pile foundation is discussed based on the displacement of the ground which is com-
puted by an Image Processing System, to show that this mechanism restrains deformation of the ground, prevents local failure of the
ground, and resists horizontal force in a large area of the ground.

1 INTRODUCTION With the above in background, "the sheet-pile foundation"

Recently, construction work is increasing in densely populated
urban areas in Japan. For example, in order to ease traffic con-
gestion, railroads running through urban areas are re-laid on ele-
vated bridges, which are constructed close to existing structures.
Moreover, the space for construction work is often very small.
On the other hand, in such construction work in urban areas, it is
required to cut down costs and reduce noise and vibration. The
disposal of surplus soil on construction work must also be taken
into consideration.
Furthermore, shallow foundations and pile foundations are
mainly used for structures in urban areas. Although the shallow
foundation is one of the cheapest forms of foundation structure, it
is constructed only on the ground of good quality, such as the
dense sand whose N-value is higher than 30 (Railway Technical
Research Institute 1999, 2000). Since the quantity to dig is com-
paratively small, however noise, vibration or the surplus soil does
not pose a serious problem. On the other hand, the pile founda-
tion applies to various ground conditions and can also be con-
structed on the soft ground. However, the pile foundation has the
problems of noise, vibration and surplus soil, when boreholes for
piles are excavated.
which combines the footing and sheet-piles has been proposed as
a new foundation form (Punrattanasin et al., 2002, 2003a, b,
Koda et al., 2003). Since the sheet-pile foundation reinforces the
ground with sheet-piles, its bearing capacity and horizontal seis-
mic resistance are higher than those of the shallow foundation.
Since its applicability is higher than that of the shallow founda-
tion, it can be used on the loose sandy ground to which the pile
foundation has been applied until now, for example. Its con-
struction cost is almost the same as that of the shallow foundation
and lower than that of the pile foundation. On the other hand,
since pile excavation is not necessary, it can avoid various prob-
lems of pile foundation mentioned above. Figure 1 shows an out-
line of the sheet-pile foundation compared with the shallow
foundation and the pile foundation.
In this research, a series of static loading tests were carried out
on a model of shallow foundation and sheet-pile foundation for
the purpose of grasping the performance of the sheet-pile founda-
tion.
2 OUTLINE OF STATIC LOADING TESTS
This chapter explains an outline of static loading tests including
the size of the model and loading conditions. A modeled ground
was made from dry Toyoura sand in a sand container shown in
Fig. 2. It was a two-dimensional model in plane strain conditions.
The sand container was a box whose height, depth and width
were 1,000mm, 600mm and 2,000mm, respectively. Planes of
the front and backside of the sand container were made of a
transparent acrylic plate to allow observation of the deformation

Table 1. Conditions of modeled ground.

Container size (W*H*D) 2000mm*1000mm*600mm
Ground size (W*H*D) 2000mm*580mm*600mm
Material of ground Dry Toyoura sand
Relative density Dr Dr = 90% or 60%
Dry unit weight d d = 16.2 kN/m or 15.1 kN/m
3 3

Rubber membrane(t=0.2mm)
Lubricated layer
Fig. 1. Outline of sheet-pile foundation. with Grease(10 m)

199
of the ground in it. The sand container was reinforced with steel
frames in order to hold plane strain conditions. The relative den-
sity Dr of the modeled ground was controlled by the height of the
sand hopper to 90% or 60%. The height of the ground was
580mm. In order to reduce friction between the acrylic plate and
sand, before making the modeled ground, rubber membranes
were pasted on the acrylic plates with grease. Moreover, target
points were marked on the rubber membrane, and their displace-
ment was computed from photographs taken with a digital cam-
era through the acrylic plate by an Image Processing System
(Watanabe & Tateyama, 2003). Table 1 summarizes the condi-
tions of the modeled ground.
The modeled footing was made of aluminum with a width of
100mm. In order to raise the rigidity of the footing, the height of
the aluminum block was set to 100mm, but its ratio of width to
height was larger than that of actual footings.
The model of sheet-pile was made of copper plates. Its length
L that was penetrating into the sand was 100mm, the same as the
width of a footing model. There were three sheet-pile models
whose cross-sections were different as shown in Table 2. Models
A and B were produced with flat plates with thicknesses of 1mm
and 0.2mm. Model C was made of flat plates with a thickness of
0.2mm and manufactured to a concavo-convex form whose
height is 1.4mm. Figure 3 is a picture of the sheet-pile Model C.
The value of L shown in Eq. 1 of Models A and C was the same
grade as that of an actual sheet-pile. In addition, the sheet-pile
model was put into the model ground.
L 4 k h D 4 EI L (1)
where : characteristic value of pile (1/m), kh: coefficient of hori-
zontal subgrade reaction (kN/m 3), D: width of sheet-pile (m), EI:
flexural rigidity of sheet-pile (kNm2) and L: length of sheet-pile
(m).
3 VERTICAL LOADING TESTS
3.1 Outline of Vertical Loading Tests
The purpose of vertical loading tests was to check the ground
conditions and the improvement effect of the bearing capacity of
the sheet-pile foundation. Tests were carried out for four cases of
different ground densities and foundation forms shown in Table 2.
A screw jack gave vertical displacement to the model of the shal-
low foundation and the sheet-pile foundation placed on the dense
ground whose relative density Dr was 90% and the loose ground
whose relative density Dr was 60%. The screw jack was jointed
to the center on the upper surface of the footing model (alumi-
num block) with a pin in the direction of the long axis of the
footing model so that the moment could be removed. An outline
of loading equipment is shown in Fig. 4. The displacement was
increased monotonically at the rate of 1 mm/min. In addition,
tests of the sheet-pile foundation were started from the position
where the sheet-pile tip had not touched the sands. The dis-
placement was also increased and the sheet-pile was put into the
sands, until the bottom of footing touched the sands. Further-
more, the experiment on the modeled sheet-pile foundation was
carried out continuously.

Table 2. Specifications of modeled sheet-piles.

Prototype Model A Model B Model C

Material Steel Plate Copper Plate

Thickness t (mm) 15.5 1.0 0.2 0.2

Height of concavo- Not concavo-convex
340 1.4
convex h (mm) form
Width W (m) 4.8 0.6
2 -4
Area As (m ) 0.11 6.00*10 1.20*10 -4 1.35*10-4
Fig. 2. Picture of container and ground.
Young's modulus
200 110
E (kN/mm2)
Geometrical moment
1.23*10 -3 5.00*10 -11 4.00*10 -13 4.29*10 -11
of inertia I (m4)
Characteristic value
0.689 33.41 111.7 34.72
of sheet-pile
Length L (mm) 4800 100

L 3.31 3.34 11.2 3.47

Table 3. Cases of vertical loading tests.

Density of Sheet-Pile
Case Foundation Form
ground models
V-D-1 Shallow foundation
Dr=90%
V-D-2 Sheet-pile foundation Model A
V-L-1 Shallow foundation
Fig. 3. Picture of Sheet-Pile Model C (concavo-convex form). Dr=60%
V-L-2 Sheet-pile foundation Model C

200
 20
Case-V-D-1
18
Case-V-D-2
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)

a) Cases on Dr=90%
10
Case-V-L-1
9
Case-V-L-2
8
7
Fig. 4. Equipment for vertical loading tests. 6
5
4
3.2 Results and Discussions 3

The relation between vertical load and displacement of all cases 2

is shown in Fig. 5. However, the displacement when the footing 1

bottom contacts the sands was set to zero. Moreover, the bearing 0
capacity was calculated as the maximum load measured at the -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
time when the displacement increased to 10mm which was 10%
of the footing width as summarized in Table 4. b) Cases on Dr=60%
First, the difference in the density of ground and the relation Fig. 5. Relationship between vertical load and displacement.
of bearing capacity of the shallow foundation were considered.
Although it was natural, it was clear that the bearing capacity of Table 4. Bearing Capacity.
the Dr = 90% case was about three times higher than that of the
Case Dr Foundation Form Bearing Capacity
Dr = 60% case. Moreover, the rigidity at early stages of the Dr =
V-D-1 Shallow foundation 13.1kN
90% case was larger than that of the Dr = 60% case. Moreover, 90%
V-D-2 Sheet-pile foundation 15.4kN
in the Dr = 90% case, the load became the maximum by about
V-L-1 Shallow foundation 4.7kN
7mm of displacement, fell sharply after that and became about 60%
V-L-2 Sheet-pile foundation 8.0kN
70% of the maximum. On the other hand, in the Dr = 60% case,
the load did not fall clearly. It turned out that the Dr = 90% case
corresponded to typical dense sands and the Dr = 60% case to In all cases, the target points of the ground in a certain domain
loose sands. under the footing model were moved in the downward vertical di-
Next, the effect of the improvement on the shallow foundation rection, and the target points of the ground of outside that domain
of the sheet-pile foundation was considered. Regardless of the were moved in the outward horizontal direction. However, the
density, although the rigidity at early stages did not change, the sizes of that domain differed in different cases, and in the case of
bearing capacity increased. From the viewpoint of the incre- the sheet-pile foundation, that domain spread to a deeper area.
mental ratio, the effect of improvement of Dr = 60% case was This means that sheet-piles restricted the horizontal dilation to-
higher, namely, the sheet-pile foundation was more effective on ward the outside of the ground under the footing. Therefore, as a
the loose ground. On the other hand, the increment of the bear- result of image processing, it became clear that the mechanism to
ing capacity of the sheet-pile foundation against that of the shal- increase the bearing capacity of sheet-pile foundation depended
low foundation was about 2.0 to 3.0 kN, which was larger than on the reinforcement effect of the ground.
0.5~1.0 kN. This was the penetration resistance when pushing a
sheet-pile into the sands. This penetration resistance was the
load that was measured when the displacement was zero mm just 4 HORIZONTAL RECIPROCAL LOADING TESTS
before the bottom of the footing touched the sand. Therefore,
sheet-piles reinforced the ground. Consequently, it was thought
that the reaction force at the bottom of footing became large.
Moreover, the residual plastic deformation of the sheet-pile 4.1 Outline of Horizontal Reciprocal Loading Tests
model was not observed after the experiment. An outline of horizontal reciprocal loading tests is shown in Fig.
Figure 6 shows the displacement computed by the Image 7. The repetition displacement in the horizontal direction was
Processing System. The line in the figure is the locus of each given at the position similar to the bridge pier top, by keeping the
target point until the vertical displacement of the footing model vertical load constant.
reaches 10mm.

201
 The vertical load was kept at 1.2kN, which was about 10% of
the bearing capacity of the shallow foundation in the Dr = 90%
ground by an air cylinder, because the ratio of the dead load to
the bearing capacity of the shallow foundation was 10% in the
situation of the design for railway structures in Japan. The hori-
zontal displacement was given with a screw jack reciprocally at a
height of 230mm from the footing model bottom that was similar
to the bridge pier top. In this research, we named this position
"the top of pier." Figure 8 shows the reciprocal history of hori-
zontal displacement.
Four cases shown in Table 5 were tested for the purpose of
grasping the seismic-resistance of the sheet-pile foundation.
Mainly, the horizontal load at the top of pier, displacement of the
footing (in the vertical, horizontal and rotational directions), re-
action stress of the bottom of footing, and strain of the sheet-pile
a) Case-V-D-1 (The shallow foundation on Dr=90%)
model were measured.

b) Case-V-D-2 (The sheet-pile foundation on Dr=90%)

Fig. 7. Outline of horizontal reciprocal loading test.

20

15

10

-5

-10

-15 History A
History B
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (min)
c) Case-V-L-1 (The shallow foundation on Dr=60%)
Fig. 8. Reciprocal history of Horizontal displacement .

Table 5. Cases of horizontal reciprocal loading tests.

Sheet-Pile
Case Dr Foundation Form History
models
H-D-1 Shallow foundation History A
90% Sheet-pile founda-
H-D-2 tion
Model B
H-L-1 Shallow foundation History B
60% Sheet-pile founda-
H-L-2 tion
Model B

Table 6. Settlement of foundation.

Case Dr Foundation Form Settlement
d) Case-V-L-2 (The sheet-pile foundation on Dr=60%) H-D-1 Shallow foundation 4.1mm
90%
Fig. 6. Displacement computed by an Image Processing System H-D-2 Sheet-pile foundation 4.2mm
when vertical displacement reaches 10mm. H-L-1 Shallow foundation 12.6mm
60%
H-L-2 Sheet-pile foundation 7.8mm

202
4.2 Results and Discussions
0.4
In this section, the settlement characteristic, which is the impor-
tant function of a foundation structure, is described first. Table 6 0.3

summarizes the vertical displacement of footing, i.e. , the quan-

0.2
tity of the settlement, at the time when the horizontal loading fin-
ished. However, in this displacement, a part to be generated by
0.1
the vertical load was removed. In the Dr = 60% case of loose
sand, it was clear that the sheet-pile foundation reduced the quan- 0
tity of settlement.
Next, as the resistance characteristic against the inertia force -0.1
by earthquakes, the relations between the horizontal load P and
the horizontal displacement at the top of pier are described. -0.2

About the P- relation, the historical curve of each case is shown

-0.3
in Fig. 9, and a skeleton curve, which connects the turning point Case-H-D-1
on each cycle, is shown in Fig. 10. Figures 9 & 10 show that the Case-H-D-2
-0.4
sheet-pile foundation has horizontal resistance higher than that of -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
the shallow foundation, and the yield capacity and the secondary Horizontal displacement (mm)
slope after the yield of sheet-pile foundation rose conspicuously.
Additionally, since the loop of the history curve of the sheet-pile a) Cases on Dr=90%
foundation was larger than that of the shallow foundation in Fig.
0.4
9, it was clear that the hysteresis damping of the sheet-pile foun-
dation was larger than that of the shallow foundation. 0.3
Moreover, the residual plasticity deformation of the sheet-pile
model was unobservable after the experiment. This is the same 0.2
phenomenon as the one seen in vertical loading tests.
Figure 11 shows the displacement computed by an Image 0.1

Processing System. The line in the Fig. 11 shows the locus of

0
each target point until the turning point of the cycle whose hori-
zontal displacement at the top of pier reaches 20mm. -0.1
First, two cases on the Dr = 90% dense sandy ground is de-
scribed. About the shallow foundation, the ground deformation -0.2
was observed only in a small local area under the edge of footing
-0.3
on the compressed side. However, since the floating of footing Case-H-L-1
on the opposite side was observed, it was thought that intensity Case-H-L-2
-0.4
depended on the floating of footing, but not on the ground under -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
the footing. On the other hand, about the sheet-pile foundation,
the displacement of the domain enclosed with the sheet-pile oc- Horizontal displacement at top of pier (mm)
curred integrally. The center of the rotation was deeper than the
b) Cases on Dr=60%
footing bottom. Therefore, the ground of the outside of sheet-
piles was also pushed by the sheet-pile, and moved outside and a Fig. 9. Historical curves of P- relationship.
large area of the ground around the foundation model deformed
as a whole. 0.35
Next, in two cases of the Dr = 60% loose sandy ground, the
displacement of the ground was observed in a large area around 0.3
the footing model. However, the measurement and direction of
displacement differed from each other on the shallow foundation 0.25
and the sheet-pile foundation. In the case of shallow foundation,
the ground had failure like a circular slip in the comparatively 0.2
limited domain shallower than 100mm on both sides. The dis-
placement of the ground around the edges of the footing model 0.15
turned in the outward horizontal direction. On the other hand,
about the sheet-pile foundation, sheet-piles restrained the hori-
0.1
zontal deformation of the ground. Since deeper areas of the Case-H-D-1
ground were deformed, as a whole, local failure of the ground Case-H-D-2
0.05
had not occurred. Case-H-L-1

As mentioned above, it was thought that the resistance of the Case-H-L-2

0
sheet-pile foundation was based on the following mechanisms.
0 5 10 15 20
Since sheet-piles restrained the horizontal displacement of the
Horizontal displacement (mm)
ground, local failure of ground was prevented and horizontal re-
sistance increased. Fig. 10. Skeleton curves of P- relationship.

203
 5 CONCLUSIONS

The following knowledge is acquired in this research.

1. The vertical bearing capacity of the sheet-pile foundation
is larger than that of the shallow foundation.
2. On the loose ground, the sheet-pile foundation can reduce
the settlement when repeated horizontal force acts on the
structure.
3. The horizontal resistance characteristic of the sheet-pile
foundation is higher than that of the shallow foundation.
4. The damping characteristic of sheet-pile foundation is
higher than that of the shallow foundation.
5. The resistance mechanism of the sheet-pile foundation is
to restrain the deformation of the ground, prevent local
failure of the ground and resist horizontal force in a large
a) Case-H-D-1 (The shallow foundation on Dr=90%)
area of ground.
Based on the above, it is shown that the sheet-pile foundation
which is a new form of foundation structure is excellent in the
performance for seismic force. From now on, construction tests
of the sheet-pile foundation and full scale loading tests will be
carried out and a design method will established, aiming at the
utilization of sheet-pile foundation into railway structure.

REFERENCES

Koda, M., Murata, O., Nishioka, H., Punrattanasin, P., &

Kusakabe. O. 2003. The proposal of sheet-pile foundation
combining a footing with sheet-piles (in Japanese) : TSUCHI-
TO-KISO JGS Ser. No.550, Tokyo: JGS. 51(11): 8-10.
b) Case-H-D-2 (The sheet-pile foundation on Dr=90%)
Punrattanasin, P., Kusakabe, O., Murata, O., Koda, M. & Nishi-
oka, H. 2002. Sheet pile foundation on sand under combined
loading- A literature review and preliminary investigation.
Technical Report No. 65, Department of Civil Engineering,
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo: 57-85
Punrattanasin, P., Kusakabe, O., Murata, O., Koda, M. & Nishi-
oka, H. 2003a. The behavior of sheet pile foundation on sand.
Proceeding of BGA International Conference on Foundations
London: Thomas Telford.
Punrattanasin, P., Nishioka, H. Murata, O. & Kusakabe, O.
2003b. Combined loading apparatus for centrifuge test. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Modeling in Geotechnics 3(4): 1-
14.
Railway Technical Research Institute. 2000. Design Standard for
Railway Structures (Foundation Structures) (in Japanese) To-
c) Case-H-L-1 (The shallow foundation on Dr=60%) kyo: Maruzen.
Railway Technical Research Institute 1999. Design Standard for
Railway Structures (Seismic Design) (in Japanese) Tokyo:
Maruzen.
Watanabe. K. & Tateyama. M. 2003. Shaking Table Tests on
Seismic Behavior of Retaining Walls Using Image Processing
System (in Japanese). RTRI REPORT 17 Railway Technical
Research Institute, Tokyo. (3): 19-24.

d) Case-V-L-2 (The sheet-pile foundation on Dr=60%)

Fig. 11. Displacement computed by an Image Processing Sys-
tem when horizontal displacement reaches 20mm.

204
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Pile Load Test Data Interpretation and Design Verification

for HSR Project in Taiwan

S. P. Corbet
FaberMaunsell Ltd, 160 Croydon Road, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 4DE, UK
steve.corbet@fabermaunsell.com
B. C. B. Hsiung
Department of Civil Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, 807,
Taiwan (formerly FaberMaunsell)
benson@cc.kuas.edu.tw
F. Huppert
BilfingerBerger AG, Germany
fhup@bilfinger.de

Abstract: Construction of the southern section of Taiwan High Speed Rail Link will involve the construction of a large number of piles.
The behaviour of the piles must be understood. At an early stage in the project, some static pile load tests were conducted at Taipao,
Chiayi to investigate the ultimate capacity of piles when formed in the alluvium materials of the southwest plain in Taiwan. At later
stages in the project, a number of pile load tests were carried out with the loads applied using Osterberg load cells (O-cells). The pile
O-cell tests were performed in Contract C270 through the length of the contract. Some of the pile tests were carried out at a location
about 2km north of Taipao. Using data from these pile load tests, the paper will explore and discuss the pile capacities of piles in-
stalled in soft ground using the construction methods used during the construction of C270. The effects of pile size, base grouting and
the variations possible in the elastic modulus of concrete will be considered. Based on the pile load test results at Taipao and in Con-
tract C270, it was found that the percentage of the load carried in end bearing approximately 22% to 24% of the ultimate capacity. The
variation in the value of the elastic modulus of the concrete can give a 16% to 25% variation in the calculated shaft friction force along
the pile. For the piles tested using the O-cell system, it is concluded that some of the inconsistent calculated values of the unit shaft
friction results close to the O-cells may be a result of soil disturbance resulting from soil movements as the O-cell is opened during the
tests.

1 INTRODUCTION section is alluvial deposits, consisting of sands, silts and clay

To enable the rapid development of urban areas in the western
part of Taiwan, a high-speed rail link is being constructed from
Panchiao, Taipei County, in the north to Tzoying Kaohsiung City
in the south. Total route length of the Taiwan High Speed Rail
Link (THSRL) is 345 km. It will have six stations including Pan-
chiao, Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Taichung, Chiayi, Tainan and Tzoying.
The railway runs on viaducts for much of the route south of
Paguashan tunnel. Along the southern section of the route, the
main type of soil is Alluvium. To support the structures, a large
number of piles have been installed. Pile load tests are an essen-
tial part of the design process to confirm estimates of the ultimate
pile capacity. This paper will consider the results from pile tests
carried out by BOTHSR prior to inviting tenders for the construc-
tion and some of the pile tests carried out by the Contractor to
validate the designs. The early pile tests were carried out at the
depot site at Taipao, which is close to the route in contract C270.
2 THE SITE
Contract C270 (THSRL chainage of 207km+015 to 249km+ 814)
is located between Hsichou, Changhwa County and Taipao,
Chiayi County and is 42.799 km long. The geology along this
with occasional layers of gravel. In some sections, there is a thin
covering of made ground. The whole of the area is seismically
very active with the Meishan Fault close to the route between ch
241+606 to 245+415.
The depth of the alluvium exceeds 100m. Underlying solid
basement was not penetrated in any of the boreholes sunk during
the ground investigations.
The soil types encountered in contract C270 are predomi-
nantly either loose to medium dense deposits of soft to firm silty
sands or firm to stiff silty clays to depths of about 30m below
ground level. From 30 m to 50 m, the density of the soils in-
creases and the soils are generally medium dense, with a few re-
sults recorded as dense, cohesionless material. In this depth
zone, clays would be described as being generally firm to stiff,
occasionally very stiff. At depths greater than 50m below ground
level the soils are mainly medium dense to dense with a greater
proportion being described as very dense below 60m.
The sequence of the soil layers along the route is variable.
The soils can be described collectively as alluvium, of generally
low plasticity (where cohesive), and generally with strength and
density increasing linearly with depth.
Groundwater was encountered between 2.7 and 4.3m below
ground level during the ground investigation. The ground water
level can vary locally due to abstractions for irrigation.

205
3 EARLY PILE LOAD TESTS (BOTHSR) base was grouted to maximise the base resistance. Details of the
test piles are presented in Table 1.
In 1996, to provide information and an understanding of the op-
timum design for structural foundations for the THSRL, the Tai- Table 1 . Details of test piles.
wan High Speed Rail Bureau (BOTHSR), initiated a research
contract before the tenders were invited for design and construc-
tion . Piles were constructed using both reverse circulation drill- Test pile number B4 B7 270-05 270-07
ing (RCD) and the casing oscillator method (OCM) at the provi-
sional site of the Taipao Depot (THSRL chainage 251km+200).
Location Taipao Main Site
Three key aspects were considered in this study (Taiwan High
Speed Rail Bureau, 1997):
Pile diameter
(1) A review of the design criteria 1.5 1.5 2 2
(m)
(2) Identification of problems of foundation analysis and con-
struction
(3) The effects of soil liquefaction and soil improvement Pile length (m) 34.7 34.7 57.1 63.4

The Taipao Depot is located next to the southern end of con-

tract C270; the ground profile is similar to the soils along Con-
tract C270. The test results from Taipao Depot will be compared
with pile tests carried out by the contractor for section C270.

4 C270 TEST PILES LOADED USING OSTERBERG CELL

The primary objectives of the C270 pile load tests were to verify
design assumptions given in the Design Manual (FaberMaunsell
Ltd, 2000) and where possible to optimise pile design by analys-
ing the distribution of forces within the pile during loading. De-
tails of the test piles constructed during this programme are given
in the reports prepared by the sub-contractor LOADTEST
(2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d & 2000e), all of the test piles were
loaded using Osterberg in-shaft load cells (O-cells). A schematic
section of a test pile is shown in Fig. 1. The tests were carried
out with three loading stages. In the first stage, the lower O-cell
is expanded to assess the combined end bearing and shaft friction
below the O-cell. In the second stage, after unloading the lower
O-cell, the upper O-cell is pressurised to assess the shaft friction
characteristic of the pile between the two O-cell assemblies by
using the upper shaft friction as the reaction, the lower O-cell is
left free to drain. During the last stage, after closing the lower O-
cell, the upper O-cell is loaded to assess the friction characteris-
tics of the pile above the upper O-cell assembly by using the
combined middle and lower shaft friction and the end bearing as
the reaction.

5 EVALUATION OF PILE CAPACITY Fig. 1. Schematic section of a test pile.

After reviewing data from pile load tests at the Taipao Depot and In a conventional pile load test, skin friction force along the
the eight O-cell test piles constructed in Contract C270 during shaft (P) is defined by:
the design stage, data from four of the tests, which are considered P Es As Ec Ac (1)
representative of the soil conditions encountered in the area of
C270, have been selected for this comparison. To eliminate the : strain measured from strain gauge on pile shaft
influence of different construction methods on the analysis, only Es: elastic modulus of reinforcement
test piles at Taipao Depot constructed by the RCD method have Ec: elastic modulus of concrete
been considered. Some differences may, however, still pertain Ac: area of cross section of concrete
due to the use of different drilling muds and the different lengths As: area of cross section of reinforcement
of the piles. Although the piles are of different lengths, the soils
at the pile toe and over upper portions of the shaft are similar. Es is taken as 2.04 105 MPa and Ec is interpreted in
Results selected for this comparison are from Pile B4 and B7 at
Taipao Depot and piles 270-05 and 270-07 from the contractor ’s Ec 15,000 fc ' (2)
test pile programme. During the construction of test pile B7, the

206
in which fc’ is the unconfined compressive strength of concrete. The Taiwanese Building Code (TBC, 2001) recommends that the
Ec is equal to 2.5 104 MPa for a value of fc’ = 28 MPa. Figure 2 unit shaft friction resistance (fs) of piles in sand can be estimated
shows the friction force along the pile shaft interpreted from using the Standard Penetration Test results ( SPT N) as:
strain gauges when the maximum top load, (1375 tonnes) is ap-
plied to pile B4 and B7 using a conventional top loading static fs 1.96 N (units: kPa) (4)
system.
A strain gauge was installed in the pile 40 cm above the pile Based on the data from the conventional top loaded pile load
toe (34.3 m below ground level) to provide data for an estimate tests at Taipao Depot, BOTHSR suggested that the relationship
of the end bearing resistance of the pile. The results from pile between shaft friction force (fs) and SPT N value could be:
test B4 show the measured load from this strain gauge to be 3319
kN when 13,750 kN was applied to the pile head. In contrast, the for sandy soils
base load measured in pile B7 was only 613 kN when 13,000 kN f s 4.7 N 105.84 (units: kPa) (5)
is applied to the pile head.
Considering the results of the O-cell tests, the unit shaft fric- for silty and clayey soils
tion force (P) is determined by f s 4.7 N (units: kPa) (6)

P Emix A (3) Based on the pile tests in the soft alluvium in south Taiwan,
FaberMaunsell (2000) suggested that fs could be
: strain measured from strain gauges in pile shaft at one level.
Emix: weighted pile modulus for sands and gravels
A: area of cross section of pile f s 3.3 N (units: kPa) (7)
with a maximum value of 165kPa or N<50
Unit pile shaft friction force (kPa)
for silt and clay of N 4
0 100 200 300 f s 6.25 N (units: kPa) (8)
0 with a maximum value of 150kPa or N<24

and for silt and clay of N>4

5 f s 1.31N 26 (units: kPa) (9)

10 Taking a typical common ground profile, the friction force

along the pile shaft is calculated from Eqs. (5) to (9). Figs. 4 & 5
show the shaft friction force interpreted from the different equa-
15 tions. The estimation from Eqs. (7) to (9) are close to pile load
test results carried out by the contractor.
20 Unit shaft friction force (kPa)
0 100 200 300
25 0

30
10
B4
35
B7 20
40
30
Fig. 2. Friction force along the shaft Test B4 and B7.

Figure 3 presents the measured unit shaft friction force along 40

the pile taken from the strain gauges in piles P270-05 and P270-
07 tested using the double O-cell test.
The load is applied to the lower O-cell directly in the first 50
stage test. Lower side shear force can be calculated from the
strain gauges and it is possible to separate end bearing and shaft
friction. Test results show that load carried in end bearing is 60
6.25MN for Pile P270-05 and 8.65MN for Pile P270-07. 270-05
270-07
70
6 DISCUSSION

Fig. 3. Friction force along the shaft from the O-cell tests.

207
 Unit shaft friction (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 End bearing and shaft friction of the piles has been estimated
from the pile load tests. Table 2 lists the shaft friction, end bear-
0
ing and the ratio of end bearing to ultimate pile capacity as a per-
centage for the pile load tests.
10 Table 2. Shaft friction, end bearing and ratio of end bearing to
FaberM aunsell
BOTHSR ultimate pile capacity.
20 TBC
Test pile B4 B7 P270-05 P270- 07
O-cell pile test
Shaft friction force
13.75 13.00 21.50 30.00
30 (MN)
End bearing (MN) 3.32 0.61 6.25 8.65
Ratio of end bear-
40 ing to ultimate pile 24.1 4.72 22.5 22.4
capacity (%)

50
It can be seen that the shaft friction is the most significant
element in the pile capacity for the piles installed in the local soft
60
alluvial soils. The ratio of end bearing to ultimate pile capacity
varies from 22.4% to 24.1%. The end bearing and the base
70 grouting at test pile B7 does not seem to have induced a signifi-
cant increase in the end bearing resistance, this is consistent with
Fig. 4. Shaft friction based on the ground profile at Pier 7-570 in the suggestion of BOTHSR (1997). However, there may be other
contract C270. reasons, which are not obvious from the BOTHSR report to ex-
plain this result.
Unit shaft friction (kPa) During the interpretation of shaft friction along the pile us-
ing the strain gauges, an elastic modulus of concrete must be as-
0 100 200 300 400 500
sumed. For test pile P270-05, at the time of testing, the concrete
0 unconfined compressive strength was reported to be 37.1 MPa,
using the relationship for the elastic modulus of the concrete ( Ec)
FaberMaunsell as defined:
10
BOTHSR
Ec 57000 fc ' (where fc’ is in psi) (10)
TBC
20 Combined with the area of reinforcing steel, a weighted pile
O-cell plie test
modulus of 28,800 MPa is determined. Hsiung (2002) reported
that the elastic modulus of concrete may be expressed as
30 (BS8110, 1985)

Ec,28 K 0ag 0.2 fcu ,28 (11)

40
50
60
70
Fig. 5. Shaft friction force based on the ground profile at Pier
7-621 at contract C270.
Considering different sizes of test piles installed on site, a
similar relationship between f s and SPT N in sandy soils is found
by TBC, BOTHSR and FaberMaunsell.. In this study it is seen
that the pile diameter, in the range 1.5m to 2.0m, does not affect
the unit values of shaft friction (fs). Variations noted are a func-
tion of the strain gauges in the test piles and possibly the effects
of different drilling muds used during construction.
where Ec,28 is the elastic modulus of concrete at 28 days. fcu,28 is
the characteristic cube strength at 28 days (in MPa). K0ag is a
constant related to the aggregate material used for concrete, vary-
ing from 14 to 26 GPa. The test was carried out 27- 29 days after
pile construction. Thus, 37.1MPa of fcu,28 is used in Eq. (11).
From Eq. (11), the elastic modulus of concrete at 28 days ( Ec,28)
was calculated with a possible range of Ec,28 from 21.4 to 33.4
GPa depending on aggregate type, as shown in Fig. 6. The
weighted pile elastic modulus varies in the range 21.5 to 33.5
GPa.
Shaft friction along the pile can be re-calculated using the
weighted pile elastic modulus and the results are shown in Figs. 7
& 8. The variation of elastic modulus of concrete induces 16-
25% change of skin friction force along the pile.
As indicated in Fig. 3, it is seen that shaft force measured by
reference to the strain gauge in the pile close to an O-cell in Pile
P270-05 is not in agreement with the range of values expected.
The disturbance of the soils close to the O-cell caused by a flow
of soil during the opening of the O-cell is considered to be one
possible reason for this observation

208
P270-05 is not in agreement with the range of values expected.
The disturbance of the soils close to the O-cell caused by a flow
Unit shaft friction force (kPa)
of soil during the opening of the O-cell is considered to be one
possible reason for this observation.
0 100 200 300 400 500
40 0

LL: O-cell pile test

35 UL: O-cell pile test
10
FaberM aunsell
Upper limit BOTHSR
30
20

25 Design value
30
20

40
Lower limit
15

50
10

5 60

0
70
0 10 20 30 40 50
f cu,28 (M Pa) Fig. 8. Influence of elastic modulus of concrete on shaft force at
Pier 7-621.
Fig. 6. Variation of elastic modulus of concrete.

Unit shaft friction force (kPa)

7 CONCLUSIONS
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
0 From pile load tests carried out in soft alluvium in south Taiwan
to validate the design criteria to be used in the design of the
foundations for the Taiwan High Speed Railway, the following
10 conclusions have been reached:
UL: O-cell pile test
1. Pile diameter does not affect the unit shaft friction force along
LL: O-cell pile test the pile in the ranges considered, 1.5m to 2.0m.
FaberM aunsell 2. Shaft friction along the pile plays a key role in the ultimate pile
20
BOTHSR capacity for the piles installed in soft alluvial soils. The per-
centage of end bearing to pile ultimate capacity is approxi-
30 mately 22% to 24.%.
3. Base grouting does not seem to contribute significantly to end
bearing. If grouting to increase the base resistance were to be
evaluated further tests would be appropriate.
40
4. Variation of elastic modulus of concrete may result in varia-
tions of between 16 to 25% in the values predicted for the shaft
friction force.
50
5. The in-flow of soil during the opening of O-cells may disturb
test results close to the cells.

60
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
70
The authors would like to appreciate the permission given by
Fig. 7. Influence of elastic modulus of concrete on shaft Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation, Bilfinger Berger AG/CEC
friction force at Pier 7-570. Joint Venture and FaberMaunsell Ltd. for publication of this pa-
per.

209
REFERENCES
BS8110. 1985. Structural use of concrete. British Standards In-
stitution
BOTHSR. 1997. Optimal Design for bridge foundation of HSR
Project, Research Report No. 2-0-86-05-02-165
FaberMaunsell Ltd. 2002. Test Pile Interpretative Report- Con-
tract C270, Doc ID: C270/P/3501/C04/0042/A8
FaberMaunsell 2000. Contract C270: Design Manual Part II:
Standard Bridges and Viaducts, DOC ID: C270/P/3502/C01
/0002
Hsiung, B.C. 2002. Engineering Performance of Deep Excava-
tions in Taipei, PhD thesis, University of Bristol, UK
210
LOADTEST. 2000a. Data Report On Pile Load Testing: Test
Pile C270/05
LOADTEST. 2000b. Data Report On Pile Load Testing: Test
Pile C270/06
LOADTEST. 2000c. Data Report On Pile Load Testing: Test Pile
C270/07
LOADTEST. 2000d. Data Report On Pile Load Testing: Test
Pile C270/08
LOADTEST. 2000e. Data Report On Pile Load Testing: Test Pile
C270/09
Taiwanese Building Code. 2001, Ministry of Interior Affair,
printed by Construction Magazine (in Chinese)
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Load Transfer Characteristics of Bored Piles in Singapore’s Old Alluvium

M. F. Chang
Associate Professor, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Block N1, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798
cmfchang@ntu.edu.sg
P. Teo
Design Engineer, Land Transport Authority, 1 Hampshire Road, Singapore 219428
phillip_teo@lta.gov.sg

Abstract: Previous investigations of bored piles in Singapore’s Old Alluvium have indicated that load transfer along bored pile s is
predominantly governed by shaft resistance and the observed load transfer characteristics in relation to the standard penetration
resistance, or the N-value, vary significantly. This paper summarizes the results of load tests on six instrumented bored piles, five
tested in compression and one tested in tension, in the Old Alluvium at two project sites in Singapore. Results indicate that there is no
distinct difference in the ultimate shaft resistance f s versus N relationship among piles in different soil groups, cast in different
conditions and tested in compression and in tension. The f s/N ratio ranges typically from 1.5 to 4.8, similar to those from previous
investigations. A correlation exists between f s/ c ( c = critical shaft displacement) and N. The mobilized base resistance q b is typically
5000 to 7000 kPa and the q b/40N ratio is between 1.4 and 2.5.

1 INTRODUCTION design of bored piles in Singapore’s Old Alluvium and

In conjunction with the development of transport infrastructures,
a large number of large diameter bored piles are installed in the
Old Alluvium that covers the eastern part of the Singapore Island.
Safe and economic design of bored piles in Old Alluvium, which
is traditionally based on static formula, estimates of shaft and
base resistance from the standard penetration resistance and use
of a global factor of safety, has been a prime concern.
A number of studies of load transfer along bored piles in
Singapore’s Old Alluvium have been carried out by means of
axial load tests of bored piles usually instrumented with strain
gauges and tell-tale rods. A general observation is that bored
piles of significant length function essentially as friction piles and
that load transfer along bored piles is predominately governed by
shaft resistance, similar to that of bored piles in the residual soils
of the Bukit Timah Granite and the sedimentary Jurong
Formation, two other major geological units in Singapore. The
detailed load transfer characteristics, such as the unit shaft
resistance, or the fs value, in relation to the prevailed standard
penetration resistance, or the N value, however, vary
significantly.
A number of factors could contribute to the variation in the
back-calculated fs/N ratio. These include accuracy of strain
measurements, correctness of interpretation, pile construction and
load testing details, and natural variation in soil characteristics in
the Old Alluvium. An investigation aiming at minimizing the
impact of various key factors will be useful.
This paper presents the load transfer characteristics of bored
piles in Singapore’s Old Alluvium as obtained from careful
interpretation of results of compression and pull-out load tests on
six (6) piles installed in the slightly weathered and unweathered
Old Alluvium at two sites in the eastern part of Singapore. Load
transfer parameters deduced from these tests are analyzed to
explore possible effect of soil variability, construction details,
and the loading condition and compared with results from
previous investigations. Practical implications of results of the
present are discussed and suggestions are made for improving the
potentially also stiff and hard soils elsewhere.
2 GEOLOGY AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
The Old Alluvium, which covers the eastern part of Singapore
Island, is a major geological Formation of lightly cemented
Pleistocene sediments (Tan, et al. 1980). It consists
predominantly of silty to clayey sand or sand-clay mixtures of
different consistency that varies with the degree of weathering.
The majority of soils (over 70%) can be classified as SC or SM,
20% can be classified as CL or CH, and less than 10% can be
classified as SP or SW (Li & Wong, 2001).
The shear strength of the Old alluvium is affected by
cementation in the matrix. In some cases, sand particles are
weakly cemented. In others involving highly weathered material,
low plasticity clay provides a weak binding. As the N-value from
the standard penetration test (SPT) provides a good measure of
the degree of weathering and somewhat the extent of
cementation, Chiam et al. (2003) suggested a classification of the
Old Alluvium on the basis of the range of value of N, as follows:
Unweathered N > 100
Partially weathered 50 < N < 100
Distinctively weathered 30 < N < 50
Destructed 10 < N < 30
Residual N < 10 blows/0.3m
Two project sites of Land Transport Authority, covered by
Old Alluvium, were investigated in conjunction with major
infrastructure developments for transportation. The first site,
Contract C504, is in Changi area while the second, Contract
C821, is in Kim Chuan. The Old Alluvium at Changi site consists
primarily of silty sand (SM). The Old Alluvium at Kim Chuan
site consists predominantly of clayey to silty sand (SC) with
varying plasticity and fines content. As indicated by the SPT
resistance, the Old Alluvium is generally partially weathered at

211
the Changi site and partially to unweathered at the Kim Chuan
site within the depth of pile embedment.
3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The load transfer of bored piles in Singapore ’s Old Alluvium has
been reported by a number of investigators (Yong et al., 1982;
Chin, et al., 1985; Chan & Lee, 1990; Ho & Lim, 1994; Chin,
1996; Ong et al., 2001, Wei et al., 2002) based on results of axial
compression tests on instrumented piles. While the shaft
resistance has been consistently found to play a dominant role in
the load transfer along bored piles, the deduced load transfer
parameters in relation to the SPT resistance have been found to
vary significantly.
Because the Old Alluvium is relatively stiff to hard, bored
piles in the Old Alluvium are often cast in dry holes. Chin, et al.
(1985), from four test piles located at three well-apart sites, found
that the ratio of the limiting or ultimate shaft resistance f s over the
SPT resistance, or the fs /N ratio, varied from 3.8 and 4.7 in SC
(30 < N < 60) material to 6.0 in SM (40 < N < 60) material. The
maximum mobilized base resistance q b was found to range
typically from 19N to 35N (in kN/m 2), and the shaft resistance
was found to mobilize fully at a pile head settlement of less than
15 mm. Chan & Lee (1990) reported a f s /N ratio of 3.1 for one
bored pile in slightly cemented Old Alluvium with N > 50. Chin
(1996) found that the back-calculated f s /N ratio varied from 1.3
to 5.8 in primarily SM material with 10 < N < 94. The value of N
was 120 near the base and the maximum observed q b was only
130 kPa, or less than 1.3N, possibly due to the presence of soft
toe. Ong et al. (1999) reported, based on four piles along the
North-East Rapid Transit Line, that the f s /N ratios were between
2 and 6. The maximum qb observed varied drastically from 170
to 7900 kPa, and the equivalent q b /N ratio was 3 to 66. Wei et
al. (2002) found that the fs /N ratio generally ranged from 1.4 to
6.8 at one site (27 < N < 88) and 2.8 to 5.0 at the other (9 < N <
47). The mobilized base resistance was found to be at 4550 kPa,
or close to 90N, for one pile, but less than 12N for the other pile.
Results of these investigations indicate that there is a
significant scatter in the reported f s /N ratio even for piles
constructed in dry holes. There is no clear trend between f s/N
ratio and N or soil grouping (SM or SC), although a vague
indication of slightly higher ratio f s/N for piles in SM materials
exists. The base resistance is usually not fully mobilized at the
maximum test load and the qb/N ratio varies significantly mainly
due to the large variation in pile construction details and the
extent of base cleaning.
Ho & Lim (1994), on the other hand, reported results of two
test piles that were constructed in slurry stabilized wet holes.
They found that, similar to the common finding, the load-
settlement behaviour of such piles was largely governed by the
load transfer characteristics along the shaft. The limiting shaft
resistance fs was found to be 1.5N to 2N for one pile in material
with 74 < N < 116 and 2N to 2.4N for the other in material with
65 < N < 126. These ratios were much reduced when compared
with similar piles constructed in dry holes, as a result of wetting.
Nevertheless, the maximum observed mobilized based resistance
were found to be 5470 kPa, or 47N, and 4230 kPa, or 33N,
respectively for the above two piles, indicating the insignificant
effect of slurry on the mobilized base resistance.
4 PILES INVESTIGATED AND TYPICAL RESULTS
A total of six (6) bored piles constructed in the Old Alluvium
were investigated. Three piles in Changi, namely TP-1, TP-2 and
TP-3, and two piles in Kim Chuan, namely KC-1 and KC-2, were
subject to compression tests, and one additional pile in Kim
Chuan, namely KC-3, was subject to tension or pull-out test.
212
These piles were load tested 18 to 28 days after construction. The
details of these piles and the load tests are shown in Table 1.
Basically maintained loads provided by kentledge were used
in compression tests and reaction pile systems were used in
tension tests. The three piles in Changi piles were debonded in
the upper 10 or 20 m, whereas, the piles at Kim chuan were
installed from an excavated level averaged 15.5 m below the
existing ground surface. All the piles were embedded in either
partially weathered or unweathered Old Alluvium. In addition to
two to three telltales, the piles were instrumented with vibrating
wire strain gauges (VWSGs) at different levels along the pile axis
to measure the strain distribution during axial load testing.
As all the piles were instrumented, axial strain distributions
suitable for the derivation of the load distributions and shaft
displacements at various levels were obtained in addition to the
load-settlement curve. Because of uncertainties that may exist in
the measured strain readings, one often needs to carefully screen
through the raw data and select a valid workable strain
distribution after applying certain process of simplification.
Subsequently, a standard procedure such as that described in
Chang (2001) can be followed to calculate the unit mobilized
resistance for each step of loading and the corresponding pile
displacement relative to the surrounding soil along the shaft as
well as for the base. A set of load transfer curves which describes
the gradual mobilization of unit resistance with an increase in
relative displacement between the pile and the soil can then be
constructed.
To illustrate this process of interpretation of load test results
from instrumented piles, the typical test results from the first
compression pile at Kim Chuan, KC-1, is selected as an example.
Figure 1(a) shows the typical original strain distribution and for
Pile KC-1 along with the relevant soil stratification. The upper
most pile segment appeared to have attracted relatively high unit
friction probably due to the presence of desiccated crust. Figure
1(b) shows the modified strain distribution with the friction in the
upper most pile segment ignored that was selected for the
subsequent analysis. As the pile penetration is relatively small,
there were significantly large registered strains at the pile base,
signifying a significant mobilization of resistance at the base at
the end.
Figure 2 shows the observed load-settlement relationship at
the pile head. At the working load, the pile settlement reached 4.1
mm. The pile exhibits significant displacement as the applied
load exceeds 1.5 times the design load of 1500 tons (14710 kN).
The pile plunged by over 50 mm after the applied load was
increased to the maximum value of 2250 tons (22066 kN).
The assumed elastic modulus, E, of the pile has an important
effect on the deduced load transfer curves. Very often, one back-
calculates the E-value from strain measurements in gauges close
to the pile top where the axial load is known to be equal to the
applied load. Figure 3 shows the variation of elastic pile modulus
back-calculated from the applied load and the corresponding
measured strains at 0.4 m as well as at 0.7 m for Pile KC-1. The
elastic modulus clearly decreases with an increase in applied load
or strain level and the rate of decrease is rather rapid in the first
few steps of loading. The two sets of modulus values were
similar and the simplified modulus variation as indicated by the
dotted line in the figure was selected for the subsequent
calculations of load distribution and mobilized unit shaft
resistance. The selected modulus is similar to a value of 36.9
kN/mm2 determined from a laboratory compression test on a
concrete cylinder specimen prepared from a cube sample
collected at the site.
It is important to incorporate the degradation of modulus in
the analysis, especially for piles subjected to tension in a pull-out
test where the decrease in E could be very drastic in the first few
steps of loading.
Table 1. Details of test piles.

Pile No. TP-1 TP2 TP3 KC-1 KC-2 KC-3

Diameter, D (mm) 1000 1000 1000 1200 1200 800

Length, L (m) 20.8 38.2 35.7 17 17 12.2

De-bonded Length 10 m 20 m 20 m - - -

Grade 45 by Grade 45 by Grade 45 by Grade 40 in Grade 40 in Grade 40 in

Concrete Grade &
tremie in dry tremie in dry tremie in dry hole dry hole dry hole
Casting Method
hole hole slurry

Working Load (WL) 510 tons 786 tons 786 tons 1000 tons 1000 tons 290 tons

1110 tons 1470 tons 1325 tons 2250 tons 2550 tons 520 tons
Maximum Test Load
(2.15WL) (1.87WL) (1.69WL) (2.25WL) (2.55WL) (1.8WL)

32 - VWSGs 32 – VWSGs 32 - VWSGs 24 – VWSGs 21 – VWSGs 16 – VWSGs

Instrumentation
3 - Telltales 3 - Telltales 3 - Telltales 3 - Telltales 3 - Telltales 2 - Telltales

Axial Strain, , 10-6 Axial Strain, 10 -6

0 200 400 600 800
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0
0 0

Clayey to Silty Sand 2

2 2
(N=70)
4
4 4
250T 6
6 6
500T
750T 8
8 8 Clayey to Silty Sand
1000T (N=102)
10 500T
10 1250T 10
1500T 1000T
12
12 1750T 12 1500T
2000T Clayey to Silty Sand 2000T
14
14 14 (N=118) 2250T
2168T
2218T 16
16 16
2250T Clayey to Silty Sand
(N=116) 18
18 18

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Distributions of axial strain for Pile KC-1 : (a) measured (b) modified.

Figure 4 shows the deduced load transfer curves for the
distinctive pile sections in various soil strata and for the pile base.
It is seen that typically the unit shaft resistance is mobilized
practically fully at a relative shaft displacement of between 5 and
6 mm, although the limiting f s values in various strata vary. On
the other hand, the base resistance has not reached full
mobilization even at the maximum test load when the base
displacement reached 46 mm or 3.8% of the pile diameter.
5 LOAD TRANSFER PARAMETERS
Although load transfer curves similar to those shown in Fig. 4
can be directly used in load transfer analysis in the prediction of
load settlement relationship for the design of bored piles at a
specific site, load transfer characteristics can be described
alternatively by load transfer parameters, namely the limiting or
ultimate resistance and the corresponding critical pile
displacement beyond which the increase in mobilized resistance
is drastically reduced with further increase in displacement, for
general applications in practice.
Table 2 summarizes the key test results from the load tests for
all the piles and the deduced load transfer parameters. As the
shaft resistance has fully mobilized practically in all the piles
investigated, both the limiting shaft resistance f s and the
interpreted critical shaft displacement, c, can be reasonably
interpreted or estimated from the load transfer curves for the pile
shaft. For the base resistance, which did not mobilize fully at the
end of the test, only the maximum mobilized base resistance q b
and the corresponding base displacement b are available.

213
 600
Applied Load, Po (kN) 0.7-3.7m(N=71)
3.7-12m(N=94)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 500 12-14.5m(N=100)
0 14.5-17m(N=100)

400
10

300
20

30 200

40 100

50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60 Shaft Displacement, s (mm)

Fig. 2. Load-settlement relationship for Pile KC-1. (a)

7000
110 6000
100 0.4m VWSG 5000
90 0.7m VWSG
4000
80 E= 62 at Po = 4904kN 3000
70
2000
60
E =44-0.00065(Po-9807) 1000
50
0
40
0 10 20 30 40 50
30 Base Displacement, (mm)
b
20
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 (b)
Applied Load, Po (kN)
Fig. 4. Load transfer curves for Pile KC-1: (a) shaft; (b) base.

Fig. 3. Variation of pile modulus with applied load for Pile KC-1.
It is seen that, with the exception of Changi TP-1, generally
the critical shaft displacement c is between 4 and 10 mm for the
compression piles, similar to those commonly reported. For the
tension pile, the c is much smaller, at 1 to 3 mm. With the
exception of Changi TP-2 pile, which was cast in a slurry-filled
borehole where base cleaning was probably not thorough, the
maximum mobilized base restance ranged from 4920 to 6970
kPa, with the corresponding base displacement ranged from 2.4
to 6.9 % of the pile diameter. The mobilized q b values are similar
to those reported by Ho and Lim (1994) and Wei et al. (2002) for
piles that were cast in a carefully drilled borehole with a clean
base.
6 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDA-
TIONS
In the traditional method of design of piles in stiff soils in
Singapore, the ultimate pile capacity Q u is usually calculated
using the static formula, as follows:
where, respectively, fs and q b are the ultimate shaft and base
resistance, and As and Ab are the shaft area and base area. Note
that both f s and qb, usually in kN/m 2, are commonly estimated
from the N-value. A design engineer is always concerned with
what values of Ks and Kb are to use in the design of bored piles.
Notwithstanding the great diversity in the deduced resistance
values in previous investigations, SPRING (2003) recommended
the following ranges of values: K s = 2 3 (fs 300 kPa) and K b =
1 3 (qb 10, 000 kPa) for the design of bored piles in the Old
Alluvium in Singapore.
Figure 5 shows the unit shaft resistance versus N-value
relationship from the bored piles investigated, as summarized in
Table 2. Although similar to results from others, there is a large
scatter, the common observed trend of increase in shaft resistance
with an increase in N-value is evident. Specifically, it is seen that
(1) for a soil with a given range of N- value, the f s/N ratio or the
Ks value is not drastically different between the compression test
and the tension test and between piles cast in dry hole and cast in
slurry-filled hole and (2) the majority of data points fall in the
range where Ks is between 1.5 and 4.8, similar to those reported
earlier.

Qu = fsAs +qbAb = (KsN)As + (40KbN)Ab (1)

214
Table 2. Summary of test results and deduced load transfer parameters.

Pile No. TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 KC-1 KC-2 KC-3

Settlement at 7.0 9.1 19.6 4.1 3.4 2.9
WL (mm)
Max. 78.2 53.5 74.2 52.7 38.9 12.1
Settlement
(mm)
Major Soil 1 10-12m 20-25m 20-26m 0.7-3.7m 0.7-9.5m 1.5-2m
Stratification SM(N=48) SM(N=57) SM(N=56) SC(N=70) SC(N=105) SC(N=70)
2 12-16m 25-31m 26-32m 3.7-12m 9.5-12m 2-3.5m
SM(N=47) SM(N=80) SM(N=50) SC(N=102) SC(N=105) SC(N=80)
3 16-20.8m 31-34m 32-35.7m 12-14.5m 12-17m 3.5-6.5m
SM(N=53) SM(N=85) SM(N=95) SC(N=118) SC(N=105) SC(N=92)
4 34-38.2m 14.5-17m 6.5-9m
SM(N=85) SC(N=116) SC(N=120)
5 9-12m
SC(N=111)
Limiting Shaft 1 138 88 217 157 368 237
Resistance, fs 2 194 352 141 282 584 260
(kN/m2)
3 262 310 111 379 209 143
4 271 385 218
5 85
Critical Shaft 1 22.0 10.0 9.5 6.0 4.0 3.0
Displacement, 2 14.5 7.6 7.5 5.0 10.0 3.3
c (mm)
3 14.0 6.5 7.5 5.0 4.0 1.7
4 6.0 6.0 1.0
5 1.0
Max. qb 4920 800 6970 6360 6600 -
(kN/m2)
Max. Base 69 37.5 63.5 46 29 -
Movement (6.9%D) (3.8%D) (6.4%D) (3.8%D) (2.4%D)
(mm)

exist between fs/ c, which represents the secant stiffness, and the
N-value. Figure 7 shows the relationship between f s/ c and N
800.0
TP-1(C) based on data presented in Table 2. It is interesting that (1) the
fs/N=4.8
700.0 TP-2(C) fs/ c values are distinctively higher for the tension pile than for
600.0
TP-3(C) the compression piles and (2) there is a good correlation between
KC-1(C) fs/ c and N for compression piles in the Old Alluvium with 50 <
500.0 KC-2(C)
N < 120 as follows: fs/ c = 0.73 (N-30) in kPa/mm.
400.0 KC-3(T)

300.0
fs/N=1.5
200.0
12000.0
100.0

10000.0 Kb /N =2.5
0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
Kb /N =1.4
N Value (blows/0.3m) 8000.0

6000.0
Fig. 5. Limiting shaft resistance versus N-value.
4000.0
Figure 6 shows the qb values from the five compression piles
plotted against N. Except for one of the piles that was cast in
2000.0
slurry-filled borehole, the q b values were found to range from
5000 to 7000 kPa and the corresponding K b is between 1.4 and 0.0
2.5, similar to that recommended in SPRING (2003). These 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0
values can be considered as the practical limiting values as they N Value (blows/0.3m)
correspond to relatively large base displacements.
In an improved design procedure based on the load transfer
method (Chang & Broms, 1991), one needs another load transfer Fig. 6. Mobilized base resistance versus N-value.
parameter, the critical displacement for the shaft as well as for the
base. Based on Chang & Goh (1988), a strong correlation might

215

250
TP-1(C) TP-2(C)
200 TP-3(C) KC-1(C)
KC-2(C) KC-3(T)
150
For compression piles:
100 f s / c = 0.73 (N-30)
50
0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0
N Value (blow s/0.3m )
Fig. 7. Relationship between f s/ c and N.
For design applications of bored piles in major projects in
Singapore’s Old Alluvium using the improved load transfer
procedure, a site-specific verification of f s from load tests of
instrumented piles is advisable because of the diversity of the
field observed Ks value and construction effects. However, for
preliminary design purposes, an average f s/N ratio of between 2
and 4 appears reasonable for compression piles. The use of f s/ c
= 0.73 (N-30), combined with appropriate K s values, will provide
engineers a means of estimating both f s and c and consequently a
complete load transfer curve for the pile shaft, based on for
example Vijayverjiya (1977) and others. As to the end bearing, a
Kb value of 1.4 or 1.5 appears to provide a conservative estimate
of qb for a properly constructed pile. The critical base
displacement corresponding to the recommended q b value can be
taken as 6% of the pile diameter.
Although a lowering of the f s/N ratio may not be necessary for
tension piles, further verification is recommended. An
improvement should be made on bonding between the main
reinforcement and the concrete to allow more effective transfer of
loads and to avoid severe cracking of the pile concrete under the
working loads that may affect the pile integrity in the long run.
7 CONCLUSIONS
An investigation of five compression tests and one tension test on
bored piles in Singapore’s Old Alluvium has indicated load
transfer characteristics that are similar to those observed
previously. The major conclusions are as follows:
(1) The relationship between f s and N is highly scattered and
the fs/N ratio, or the K s, is typically between 1.5 and 4.8, similar
to those from previous investigations. There is no distinct
difference in K s values for compression piles constructed in
different soil groups and in different borehole conditions. Site
specific verification by means of load tests of instrumented piles
is recommended for major projects, although a typical K s value of
between 2 and 4 may appear reasonable for preliminary designs.
(2) There is no distinctive difference in the deduced f s values
between compression piles and tension piles, although further
verification may be necessary.
(3) The maximum observed qb varies due to variation in soil
condition and construction details. The q b values are typically
5000 to 7000 kPa and the corresponding Kb values are 1.4 to 2.5
for piles in material with 50 N 120. These values of q b
correspond to relative large base displacements and can be taken
as the practical limiting base resistance in the design of properly
constructed bored piles in partially to unweathered material.
216
(4) For an improved design of bored piles subject to axial
compression in Singapore’s Old Alluvium using the load transfer
approach, the critical shaft displacement c can be estimated
using fs/ c = 0.73 (N-30) in kPa/mm and the corresponding f s
values estimated from appropriate f s/N ratios.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the
Nanyang Technological University and the Land Transport
Authority of Singapore for supporting the relevant research on
which the paper is based.
REFERENCES
Chan, S. F. & Lee, S. L. 1990. The design of foundations for
Suntec City, Singapore. Proceedings of Conference on Deep
Foundation Practice 27-32, Singapore.
Chang, M. F., 2001. Interpretation and use of axial load tests on
instrumented bored piles. Journal of the Institution of
Engineers, Singapore 41: 36-48.
Chang, M. F. & Goh, A. T. C. 1988. Behaviour of bored piles in
residual soils and weathered rocks of Singapore. Research
Project Report for RP 1/84 & RP 2/84, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.
Chang, M. F. & Goh, A.T. C. 1989. Design of bored piles
considering load transfer. Geotechnical Engineering 20(1):
1- 18.
Chang, M. F. & Broms, B. B. 1991. Design of bored piles in
residual soils based on field-performance data. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 28(2): 200-209.
Chiam, et. al. 2003. The Old Alluvium. Proceedings of
Underground Singapore 2003: 408-427. Singapore.
Chin, Y.K. et al. 1985. Ultimate load test on instrumented bored
piles In Singapore Old Alluvium, Proceedings of the 8th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference 1: 2.54-2.65,
Kuala Lumpur.
Chin, J.T., 1996. Back-analysis of instrumented bored piles In
Singapore Old Alluvium. Proceedings of the 12th Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Conference I: 441-446, Kuala Lumpur.
Ho C. H. & Lim, C. H. 1994. Bearing capacity and settlement of
slurry bored piles in Singapore Old Alluvium. Proceedings
of the 3 rd International Conference on Deep Foundation
Practice: 125-132, Singapore.
Li, W.W. & Wong, K.S. 2001 Geotechnical properties of Old
Alluvium in Singapore. Journal of the Institution of
Engineers 41:10-20. Singapore.
Ong et al., 1999. A summary of preliminary pile load test results
for North East Line. Proceedings of the Rapid Transit
Conference: 689-702. Singapore.
SPRING. 2003. Singapore Standard CP4:2003- Code of Practice
for Foundations. Spring Singapore.
Tan, S. B., et. al. 1980. Engineering geology of the Old Alluvium
in Singapore, Proceedings of the 6th Southeast Asian
Conference on Soil Engineering 1: 673-684. Taipei.
Wei, J. et al. 2002. Utilization of instrumented pile testing for
cost effective foundations, Proceedings of Conference on
Case Studies in Geotechnical Engineering 271-287.
Singapore.
Vijayvergiya, V. N. 1977. Load-movement characteristics of
piles. Proceedings of the ASCE Ports'77 Conference, Long
Beach, California: 269-284.
Yong, K. Y. et al. 1982. Ultimate load test of an instrumented
cast-in-place bored pile installed in stiff silty clay.
Proeedings of the 7th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference 1: 453-463. Hong Kong.
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Load Transfer Characteristics of Bored Piles Embedded in Weak Rocks

L. W. Wong
Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the HKSAR, Hong Kong
lwwong@cedd.gov.hk
R. Barsby
Hyder Consulting Limited, Guildford, England
roger.barsby@hyderconsulting.com
A. Houghton
Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan
ahoughton@thsrc.com.tw

Abstract: Based on results of 10 preliminary test piles, mobilization of shaft and base resistances of piles in weak rocks of sandstone
and mudstone are interpreted. The load-displacement behaviour of the pile/rock interfaces can be described by a power function. The
shaft and base resistance have the tendency to increase with depth but decrease with increasing displacement. With the empirical
parameters obtained from the preliminary tests performance of 5 working piles are analyzed by the load-transfer method. Results of
analyses indicate good agreement between the observed and calculated pile head settlements.

1 INTRODUCTION
The use of the load transfer method, or the t-z curve method, in
the analysis of pile load test results and the calculation of
settlement of a single pile has been widely adopted in recent
decades. The key parameters, the mobilized shaft friction and
base resistance and the corresponding pile displacements are
interpreted from the pile load tests. However, there were very
limited literatures reporting the load transfer data on bored piles
in slightly weathered to fresh weak rocks. Chang & Broms (1991)
reviewed the unit shaft resistance and the critical displacement of
bored piles in the residual soil of the Jurong Formation in
Singapore. These piles were socketed into the highly weathered
siltstone or the highly weathered shale with depth ranging from
1.5 m to 12 m. Moh et al. (1995) presented the load transfer
results for a 1.5 m diameter bored pile in Taipei that embedded
in the fresh shale and sandstone by 3.3 m. The data on shaft
resistance versus displacement are so limited that the t-z curve
method can hardly be a readily design tool until preliminary load
tests have been conducted and the key parameters are
determined.
During construction of the Hsinchu to Tungshiao section of
the Taiwan High Speed Rail (HSR), a pile test programme that
comprised 10 axially loaded compression instrumentation test
piles and 5 working pile load tests were conducted. Majority of
the test piles were embedded predominant 12 m to 36 m in fresh
to slightly weathered rocks of the sandstone, the mudstone or the
interbedded sandstone and mudstone. The first part of this paper
interprets of the shaft and base resistances and their
corresponding displacements from the preliminary tests. The
abundance data enable the development of empirical resistance
versus displacement envelops for various types of rocks so that
the load transfer characteristics could be applied to piles in
similar geological conditions. The second part of the paper
applies the back-calculated load transfer parameters and the load
transfer method to perform a Class 2 prediction on those working
test piles. Results of this study provide an insight into the load
displacement characteristics of piles in weak rocks, and the
significance of a pile with a soft toe. Topics for further research
are suggested.
2 PRELIMINARY TEST PILES
The viaducts for the Hsinchu to Tungshaio section of the HSR is
approximately 20 km in length. The viaduct foundations were
supported on bored piles of 1.5 m in diameter with lengths
varying from 24 m to 36 m. The piles are embedded in sandstone
or the interbedded sandstone and mudstone of the Cholan
formation or the Toukoshan formation. Belong to the late
Pliocene and early Pleistocene epoch, the rocks are extremely
weak to weak, with the uniaxial compressive strengths generally
varying from 0.1 MPa to 2.3 MPa. The standard penetration test
N300 values, extrapolated to 300 mm as defined by Stroud (1974),
for the weak rocks range from 70 to 300, with an average of 210.
The piles were constructed by the cased bored piling method.
Approximately 2,000 working piles of 1.5 m in diameter were
constructed. The Casagrande type oscillator for advancing and
withdrawal of casing and the clamshell bucket excavation system
were adopted. Although groundwater levels are located at 2 m to
4 m below the ground surface, the hole of the pile is essentially
dry during excavation due to the sealing effect of the casing.
Ten preliminary compression load tests were conducted.
Lengths of these test piles varied from 12 m to 24 m. Vibrating
wire strain gauges were installed at multi-levels to measure the
distribution of strains along the pile shaft. A pair of
extensometers was installed between the head and the toe of each
of the test pile to measure pile toe deformations. Three strain
gauges at each level and 3 to 6 levels were installed in each of
the test piles. The vertical spacing between each level ranged
from 3 m to 5 m. In total, there were 56 numbers of instrumented
segments for these 10 preliminary test piles.
The test piles were embedded in the interbeds of sandstone
and mudstone (Ss&Ms), sandstone (Ss), mudstone (Ms) and in
the alluvial gravel deposits (GM). As summarized in Table 1,
except for the test pile 3PC2, the preliminary test piles were
loaded to the maximum load ranging from 20 MN to 38 MN.

217
Two to 4 unload-reload cycles were applied. Residual
300
settlements were measured for each unloading stage. It is noted
that the lengths of the preliminary test piles were one half to two
third of the working piles and they were loaded up to 3 times of
the normal design load. This arrangement enables sufficient
movements of the piles so that significant base loads are 200
mobilized. Due to page limit load-displacement results for the
gravel deposits are beyond the scope of this paper.
Pile 4PC5
100
3 ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PILE LOAD TESTS 5-8.5 m
8.5-12 m
In the analysis of the preliminary pile load test results, load- 12-15.5 m
transfer curves representing the relationships between the 15.5-19.5 m
mobilized resistances and the corresponding absolute 0
displacements of the pile segments relative the supporting 0 100 200 300
ground are deduced from the load settlement data and the Absolute displacement of pile shaft mm
measured strain distributions.
The load-transfer curves for shaft resistances, t-z curves, for Fig. 1. Development of shaft resistance in sandstone and
the interbedded sandstone and mudstone and for the sandstone mudstone.
materials are presented in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. Most of the
t-z curves have the characteristics that prior to reaching their
ultimate resistances the curves are bilinear and the critical 300
Pile 3PC4
displacements could not readily be determined.
Development of base resistances against the pile toe
displacements, the q-z curves, for pile bases founding on the
interbedded sandstone and mudstone and on the predominant 200
sandstone materials are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. An ultimate
base resistance has not been mobilized even at pile base
displacements exceeding 100 mm. The displacement of 145 mm
that observed at the base of the pile 3PC2 for mobilization of a 100
1-6 m
base resistance of 2.4 MN as shown in Fig. 4 would be an 6-11 m
indication of a pile with a soft toe. 11-17 m
17-23 m
Table 1. Summary of preliminary pile load tests. 0
0 50 100 150
Type of Pile Maximum Maximum Residual
Absolute displacement of pile shaft mm
Pile rock length test load displace. displace.
No. socket m MN mm mm Fig. 2. Development of shaft resistance in sandstone.
3PC1 GM, Ss&Ms 12.0 27.5 49.2 38.0
3PC2 Ss 18.4 7.0 142.5 136.6
3PC3 GM, Ss&Ms 22.0 35.0 52.2 37.5
3PC4 Ss, Ms 24.3 38.0 109.1 92.1 4.1 Ground Stiffness for Loading
3PC5 Ss 24.1 33.0 184.5 171.0
4PC1 GM, Ss&Ms 14.0 21.8 71.5 58.4 The ground stiffness, Ks , for the pile-rock interface along the
4PC2 Ss, Ms 12.0 22.5 192.7 76.2 shaft is defined as:
4PC3 Ss&Ms 12.3 25.0 90.1 72.5
4PC4 Ss&Ms 24.5 33.0 137.2 115.5 Ks = fs Ds / Ss (1)
4PC5 Ss&Ms 20.5 30.3 238.6 225.7
The Ks is basically the slope of the shaft resistance versus pile
displacement curve extending from the origin and the shaft
4 GROUND STIFFNESS displacement is normalized with the shaft diameter.
The secant modulus of the ground below the pile base, Eb , is
In previous literatures such as Coyle & Reese (1966) and calculated by the formula suggested by the AASHTO (1996):
Vijayvergiya (1977), the load-transfer curves in the residual soil
or in clay materials could be idealized as elastic-plastic and a set Eb = P / Db Sb (2)
of parameters of the ultimate resistance and the corresponding
critical displacement could be interpreted. However, as presented where:
in Figs. 1 to 4, it would be difficult to interpret the set of fs the resistance of the pile-rock interface mobilized along the
parameters for bored piles in weak rocks. In order to analyze the shaft of the pile,
pile performance by the load-transfer method, alternatively the P the load at the base of the pile,
ground stiffnesses are interpreted from the slopes of the t-z and Ss the absolute displacement of the shaft relative to the ground,
the q-z curves. Unload-reload stiffnesses are also determined Sb the absolute displacement of the base of the pile,
from unload-reload cycles. Ds the diameter of the pile shaft,
Db the diameter of the pile base.

218
 20 3
4PC4 Ss&Ms
4PC3 Origin for unloading

Shaft or base resistance MPa

4PC2
3PC3 Unload-reload cycle
3PC1 2

10 Unloading
Eb curve
1 Ks Eb-ur
1 Ks-ur
Origin for reloading 1

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Absolute dipslacement of pile base mm Absolute displacement / Diameter of pile

Fig. 3. Development of base resistance in sandstone and Fig. 5. Typical resistance versus displacement relationship for
mudstone. the supporting ground.

15 1000
4PC5 Ss Pile 4PC5 5-8.5 m
3PC2 8.5-12 m
3PC5 12-15.5 m
15.5-19.5 m
10 100

5 10

0 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Absolute displacement of pile base mm Absolute displacement of shaft / Diameter of shaft

Fig. 4. Development of base resistance in sandstone. Fig. 6. Variation of secant modulus with displacement in
sandstone and mudstone.
The ground stiffness for the pile-rock interface along the shaft
and the secant modulus for the ground beneath the base are beneath the base, Ks / v and Eb / v , respectively, could be
calculated respectively from the slopes of the t-z curves and the expressed as:
q-z curves. Figure 5 shows a typical resistance-displacement
-m
relationship for the supporting ground and the absolute Ks / v = a (Ss /Ds) (3)
displacements are normalized with the diameter of the pile. The
-m
diagram in Fig. 5 is actually interpreted from the q-z curve for Eb / v = a (Sb /Db) (4)
Pile 3PC1 presented in Fig. 3. There are 3 unload-reload cycles.
The resistance versus normalized displacement diagram exhibits where:
irrecoverable displacements after unloading. The slopes for v the in-situ total vertical stress at the center of the segment,
unload-reload cycles are somewhat parallel with each other. a the stiffness coefficient,
Results of data processing on those t-z curves for Pile 4PC5 m the stiffness power factor.
are presented in Fig. 6. The computed ground stiffnesses along The unit weight of 22 kN/m 3 for the weak rocks is adopted for
the shaft are plotted against the corresponding normalized calculating the vertical stresses. Empirical equations for ground
displacements. The stiffness versus displacement relationships stiffness or secant modulus versus displacement relationships,
are family of power function curves that straightened to linear determined by regression analysis, are presented in Figs. 7 to 10.
curves when plotted in the log-log scale. The ground stiffness The stiffness parameters a and m are summarized in Table 2.
decreases with increasing displacement and increases with depth. Stiffness coefficients for the base of the pile in a normal toe
Normalized with the in-situ total vertical stresses, the ground and in a soft toe are interpreted for the sandstone. As shown in
stiffness versus displacement diagrams for all pile segments Fig. 4, at displacements exceeding 40 mm, two of the test piles
merge into common envelops that are shown in Figs. 7 to 10. show stiffer base resistances. At displacements less than 40 mm,
The average values for the normalized ground stiffnesses all three test piles exhibit softer moduli that are about 1/4 of that
along the pile-rock interface and the normalized secant moduli for the stiffer base. It appears that the ground stiffness beneath
the pile base in sandstone would be construction dependant.

219
 10000 10000
Ss&Ms
-0.312
Eb / = 85.5 (Sb /Db)
Ground stiffness / Vertical stress

Secant Modulus / Vertical Stress

v
1000 -0.759
Ks / v = 1.43 (Ss /Ds)
1000

100

100
10
Loading Loading
Unload-reload Unload-reload Ss&Ms
1 10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Shaft displacement / Diameter of shaft Pile base displacemnt / Diameter of base

Fig. 7. Ground stiffness along pile shaft in sandstone and Fig. 9. Secant modulus below pile base in sandstone and
mudstone. mudstone.

1000 1000
-0.749 Ss Ss
Ks / v = 1.12 (Ss /Ds) Secant modulus / Vertical stress
Ground Stiffness / Vertical Stress

100 -0.560
Eb / v = 6.36 (Sb /Db)

100

10

Normal toe
Loading Soft toe
1 10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shaft displacement / Diameter of shaft Pile base displacement / Diameter of base
Fig. 8. Ground stiffness along pile shaft in sandstone. Fig. 10. Secant modulus below pile base in sandstone.

Table 2. Summary of ground stiffness empirical coefficients.

unload-reload stiffnesses of the pile-rock interface along the
shaft, Ks-ur , and that beneath the base, Eb-ur , could be expressed
Resistance Stiffness parameter
by Equations 5 & 6:
Rock type a m
Sandstone and Shaft 1.43 0.759
Ks-ur = 2 Ks (5)
mudstone Base 85.5 0.312
Sandstone Shaft 1.12 0.749
Eb-ur = 2 Eb (6)
Base- Normal toe 6.36 0.560
Base- Soft toe 1.64 0.560 Although there are less unload-reload data for piles in the
sandstone, it is considered that Equations 5 and 6 are also
4.2 Ground Stiffness for Unload-reload Cycles applicable to the sandstone.
As shown in Fig. 5, the ground stiffness or the secant modulus
for an unload-reload cycle is interpreted from the unloading
5 ANALYSIS OF WORKING PILES
curve of the resistance versus displacement diagram with the
origin shifted to the maximum load prior to unloading, or from Results for 5 working pile load tests are available for verification
the reloading curve up to the maximum load of the preceding of the empirical stiffness parameters a and m that interpreted
cycle with the origin corresponding to the displacement when the from the preliminary pile load tests. The working piles were
load was totally removed. loaded to 2 times of the design normal loads. The observed pile
Figures 7 & 9 indicate that ground stiffnesses or secant moduli head settlements for the test piles are summarized in Table 3.
for unload-reload cycles are approximately 2 to 3 times of that The load transfer method, or the t-z curve method that reported
for the loading. For the sandstone and mudstone, the by Coyle & Reese (1966) is adopted for the prediction of the
working pile load tests. A simple computer programme is

220
 20 30
Observed Pile 406 Observed Pile 407
Calculated- Normal toe Calculated- Normal toe
Calculated- Soft toe
Load at pile head MN

15

Load at pile head MN

20

10

10
5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20
Pile head settlement mm Pile head settlement mm

Fig. 11. Prediction of pile head settlement for Pile 406. Fig. 13. Prediction of pile head settlement for Pile 407.

30 30
Observed Pile 411 Observed Pile 314
Calculated-Normal toe Calculated- Normal toe
Calculated- Soft toe
20 20

10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pile head settlement mm
Pile head settlement mm
Fig. 12. Prediction of pile head settlement for Pile 411.
Fig. 14. Prediction of pile head settlement for Pile 314.
developed to facilitate rapid calculation. Basically the pile is
idealized by a series of elastic discrete elements supported by a As shown in Fig. 7, a factor of 1.5 for the average stiffness
number of nonlinear side springs and a base spring, which coefficient a is within the upper bound of the normalized ground
represent the soil-structure interaction. stiffness for the interbedded sandstone and mudstone. The reason
The load displacement behaviour expressed in Equations 1 to for greater ground stiffness along the shaft of the working piles
6 together with empirical coefficients that summarized in Table 2 would probably due to their longer lengths. The working piles in
are initially adopted for estimating the pile head settlements. The sandstone and mudstone are 27 m to 36 m while the preliminary
28-day strength of 28 MPa and the elastic modulus of 2.5 x 10 4 test piles are 12 m to 24 m in length. The ground stiffness for
MPa are adopted for the concrete material. deeper rock strata is stiffer.
Piles 406 and 411 are embedded in the interbedded sandstone Piles 407 and 314 are embedded in the sandstone. The secant
and mudstone. It is noted that using the average stiffness moduli for a normal toe and for a soft toe that summarized in
coefficient a value of 1.43 would overestimate the pile head Table 2 are adopted in the analysis. Results of analysis are shown
settlements. A stiffer a value of 2.15 has been adopted in the in Figs. 13 & 14, indicating that Pile 407 would have a normal
analysis of Piles 406 and 411 and results of analysis are shown in toe and Pile 314 would encounter a soft toe.
Figs. 11 & 12. Sets of stiffness parameters that are actually adopted for
analyzing the working pile load tests are summarized in Table 4.
Table 3. Summary of working pile load tests. Results of analysis of working test piles show that at the
maximum test load, the load transferred from the top to the base
Type of Pile Maximum Maximum Residual
of the pile is 14 % and 20 %, respectively, for Piles 407 and 314.
Pile Rock length test load displace. displace.
For Piles 406, 411 and 413, virtually zero percentage of the loads
no. socket m MN mm mm
at the pile heads were transferred to the bases. Due to their
406 Ss&Ms 27.57 15.36 6.16 0.71
longer lengths and higher ground stiffnesses, Piles 406, 411 and
407 Ss 33.11 20.40 15.30 6.79
413 behave essentially as friction piles.
411 Ss&Ms 36.37 22.66 9.90 2.51
413 Ss&Ms 36.33 21.30 9.15 2.35
314 Ss 27.02 18.30 25.60 19.80

221
Table 4. Stiffness coefficients adopted for working pile load test
analysis.
Type of Shaft Base
Pile no. rock socket a m a m
406, 411 & Ss&Ms 2.15 0.759 85.5 0.312
413
407 & 314 Ss- Normal toe 1.12 0.749 6.36 0.560
Ss- Soft toe 1.64 0.560
6 DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Load Transfer Parameters
As the results of analysis for the 5 working pile load tests closely
agree with those observed pile head settlements, the sets of
stiffness parameters interpreted from the preliminary pile load
tests are verified and refined. The parameters shall generally be
applicable to pile head displacements not exceeding 240 mm, the
maximum displacement observed at the preliminary tests.
Since pile load tests are expensive, the ground stiffnesses for
various rock materials could be estimated from a set of in-situ
tests that would comprise vibration test, pressuremeter test and
plate bearing test. This set of in-situ tests would cover ground
-6 -2
strains ranging from 10 to 10 . The pressuremeter test result
could be analogue to the ground stiffness of the pile-rock
interface along the shaft. The plate bearing test could be used for
estimating the modulus of the rock beneath the base of the pile.
Correlation of in-situ tests with pile load test results would be
worthwhile for future research.
6.2 Measures for Soft Toe Effect
Based on results presented in Figs. 3 and 4, it appears that those
preliminary test piles that embedded pre-dominantly in
sandstones would be susceptible to the soft toe effect. This soft
toe phenomenon is well recognized and is reported in the
literature. Contingency measures such as pile base grouting or
contact grouting could be considered in the design stage in order
to achieve satisfactory pile performance. With the load-transfer
method as an analytical tool, sensitivity studies on the
performance of the pile with or without a soft toe can be
conducted. The cost-effectiveness of a pile with a longer shaft or
the beneficial effect for base grouting can be assessed.
Mitigation measures to overcome the potential soft toe effect
that actually adopted in one of the HSR project was to provide
additional lengths of the piles. Piles with as-constructed lengths
of 15 to 30 percent longer than those specified in the working
drawings were installed. Results of working pile load tests
demonstrate that good performance has been achieved. As
diagnosed in Figs. 11 to 14, piles socketed in the interbedded
sandstone and mudstone have exceptionally low residual
settlements of less than 3 mm after un-loaded from the 2 times
design normal loads. For piles embedded in the sandstone and
for which the soft toe effect is dominant, the residual pile head
222
settlements after releasing from 2 times design normal loads do
not exceed 20 mm.
In view of the fact that 3 preliminary test piles and 1 working
test pile experienced the soft toe phenomenon, it is suggested
that larger factors of safety for assessing allowable pile base
capacity could be considered in future pile foundation design
when the conventional static approach is adopted.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Based on results of studies of 10 preliminary and 5 working pile
load tests on bored piles embedded in weak rocks of the
sandstone and the interbedded sandstone and mudstone, the
following concluding remarks could be drawn:
(1) The load-displacement characteristics of weak rocks of
sandstone and the interbedded sandstone and mudstone
could be described by the power function relationship.
(2) In addition to the widely recognized characteristics of the
decreasing stiffness with increasing displacement, the
ground stiffness along the pile-rock interface of the shaft
and the secant modulus beneath the base of the pile have the
tendency to increase with depth.
(3) With reliable ground stiffness parameters that derived from
the preliminary pile load tests, the load-transfer method is a
useful tool for analyzing pile performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express thanks to Hyundai-Chung Lin-Zen Pacific
Joint Venture and Hyundai-Chung Lin Joint Venture for
providing pile test results that are presented in this paper. Sincere
gratitude should be given to Dr. R.N. Hwang of Moh and
Associates, Inc. for his valuable comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1996. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
16th Edition.
Chang, M.F. & Broms, B.B. 1991. Design of bored piles in
residual soils based on field performance data. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 28: 200-209.
Coyle, H.M. & Reese, L.C. 1966. Load transfer for axially
loaded piles in clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 92(2): 1-26.
Moh, Z.C., Chang, M.F. & Hwang, R.N. 1995. Load transfer in
piles during load reversals. Proceedings of the 10 th Asian
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Aug 29-Sept 2, Beijing, China.
Stroud, M.A. 1974. The standard penetration test in sensitive
clays and soft rock. Proceedings of the 1st European Seminar
on Penetration Testing 2(2): 366-375. Stockholm.
Vijayvergiya, V.N. 1977. Load settlement characteristics of piles.
Proceedings of Ports’77 Conference 269-284. Long Beach,
CA.
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Optimization of Pile Foundation Design Through Full-Scale Pile Load Tests

in Taiwan High Speed Rail Project

S.W. Duann
Moh and Associates, Inc., 11F, No.3, Tunhwa South Road, Section 1, Taipei 105, Taiwan
sw.duann@maaconsultants.com
M.S. Chen
Moh and Associates, Inc., 11F, No.3, Tunhwa South Road, Section 1, Taipei 105, Taiwan
ms.chen@maaconsultants.com
T.H. Seah
MAA Geotechnics Co., Ltd., 39/165-7 Moo 13, Lat Phrao Road, Lat Phrao, Bangkok, 10230, Thailand
admin@maageo.com
M. Fujita
Evergreen/Shimizu Joint Venture of Contract Lot C291

Abstract: The Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) project is one of the largest BOT projects in terms of scale and construction cost in the
World. The rail was constructed to link two main cities in Taiwan from the north to the south. The terrain along route varies enor-
mously from the northern mountainous zone to flat plain in the south. Approximately three-quarters of the route are carried on via-
ducts and bridges with over 30,000 piles supporting the structures. Having large number of piles to be constructed, there is a great
benefit to optimize the pile design. The full-scale pile load tests were executed to determine the actual shearing resistance of the local
soil. The test piles were instrumented with rebar stress transducers installed at different depths. The results of the pile load tests in
compression, tension and lateral direction were evaluated. Some correlations between the unit skin friction and the SPT N values were
established for various types of soil.

1 INTRODUCTION method. After further investigation, it was concluded that low

measured pile capacities were primarily due to caking effect of
1.1 General the sand layer causing large reduction in the skin friction of the
sandy soil. Two (2) additional compression pile tests were im-
For Contract Lot C291 of the Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) mediately performed with improvement in construction methods,
project stretching from Chainage TK284 to TK312 (totaling 28 such as introduction of polymer to reduce caking, shortening un-
km) constructed by the Joint Venture Shimizu-Evergreen and de- necessary construction time during pile installation and introduc-
signed by Moh and Associates, Inc., the foundation of the struc- tion of multistage toe grouting etc. The improvement had led to a
tures was supported by large bored piles due to the poor subsoil drastic increase in the pile capacity.
conditions. The diameters of bored pile used were 1.8 and 2 m,
depending on loading requirements and subsoil conditions. Fac-
tors, including environment impact, economic assessment and 1.2 Objectives
engineering issues, were taken into consideration in the design of
The primary objectives of the pile load tests were to optimize the
pile foundation. Due to variation in the depth of sound bearing
pile design by establishing appropriate correlation based on the
strata for the piles over the entire route, the uncertainty in con-
pile load tests through analyzing the distribution of skin friction
struction quality together with economical consideration, an ex-
along the pile and the end bearing during loading. The pile load
tensive pile load test program was adopted to determine appro-
test program was summarized in Table 1, including six (6) com-
priate design correlation.
pression in conjunction with four (4) tension and two (2) lateral
The preliminary static pile load tests were performed at four
pile load tests. The piles tested in compression and in tension
(4) locations; namely Chainage TK287, TK299, TK307 and
were instrumented with rebar stress transducers at seven (7) to
TK311. The interpretation and evaluation of static compression
eight (8) different depths together with surface movement meas-
pile load tests, tension pile load tests as well as lateral pile load
urements via displacement transducers. These instrumentations
tests are summarized in this paper. The results were compared
enable one to determine the skin friction along the pile between
with estimates made based on published data, with focus on the
the adjacent rebar stress transducers as well as the end bearing.
correlation used.
In the initial plan, four (4) compression tests were proposed,
During the course of pile load testing, it was observed that the
due to unsatisfactory results of compression tests, two (2) addi-
measured pile capacities at some locations were much lower than
tional compression tests were conducted with improvement in the
the initial estimates, leading to re-evaluation of pile installation

223
construction method, including the use of polymer, shorter con-
struction period and better toe grouting technique etc. Two (2) Chanage (km)
lateral pile load tests were conducted to determine the lateral re- 288K 296K 304K 312K
sistance of the tested piles at selected locations (TK299 and
TK311); the results of the tests were also compared with the pre- Location 4
dictions based on design soil parameters, in particular, the hori- +20 TP-4

zontal modulus of subsoil reaction. Location 3 7

Location 1 TP-3 and TP-3B 16
TP-1 and TP-1B 5
Table 1. Pile load test program. 10 15
Location 2
4 6 12
Tested Pile Di- Pile +10 4
TP-2
19
2
Test Static Pile
Length Remarks
7 18
Load ameter 18

No. Load Test 6 4 24 28

(ton) (m) (m) 7 3
3
29 20
6 22 26
2
Compression 2,209 Poor results 6 33 28
0 7 5 27 25

TP-1 1.8 65.0 10 7 28 21

Tension 2,104 10 5
7
33 12
14 27 22
12 9 24 24
TP-1B Compression 4,238 2.0 64.0 Additional 21
22
30
28
42 12
36 14
-10 30
Compression 2,833
24 39 11
23 26 44 14
39 29 46 12

TP-2 Tension 2,069 2.0 62.0 34 29 48 12

37 29 51 14
18 55 15
Lateral 351 32
11 28 13
-20 29
21 17
69 17

Compression 2,807 Poor results 38 20 38

45
20 19 29
46
TP-3 2.0 56.5 14 36

Tension 2,107 29
37
14 18
100

22 26
65
-30 17
TP-3B Compression 4,206 Additional 29
65
1.8 60.0 59
18 34 100
17 41
26
Compression 4,118 57
17
26
34
21 100
28 26 24
TP-4 Tension 1,633 1.8 54.5
31 26 21
-40 44 31 24
57 61 100

Lateral 452 25 88
36
38
39 63 22
39 48 20
40
63 35 23
29
63
-50 63
32 27

2 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND PILE LOAD TEST 59

37
37
30
34
PROGRAM 32 46 69
81
84
Legend:
2.1 Subsoil Conditions -60 0 2 4
SAND
The subsoil conditions along the project route from Chainage CLAY SCALE (km)
MUDSTONE
TK284 to TK312, consist of mainly alluvial deposits except at
Note: Number next to borehole denotes SPT N value
some locations with presence of mudstone at deeper depth. The
THSR alignment of Lot C291 lies in the Chianan coastal plain
with elevations ranging from 5 m to 30 m MSL. The slope of ex-
Fig. 1. Soil profiles at pile load test location.
isting ground surface is approximately between 1/250 and 1/350.
This flat alluvial plain can be divided into a number of distinct
2.2 Testing Program
topographical zones based on the ground relief. They are, from
north to south; Shanhua Terrace, Tawan lowland and Chungchou Efforts had been placed on the compression pile load tests be-
terrace. The top layer of the subsoil along the alignment is the cause of the importance in obtaining the skin frictions and end
Holocene alluvium consisting of lagoon and marsh deposits and bearing of the piles through measurements made by stress rebar
Tainan formation. Both are composed of uncemented sand, silt transducers
and clay. The lagoon and marsh deposits contain high clay con-
tents. Underlying bedrocks are the Liushuang formation, the Er-
chungchi formation of Pleistocene, and the Gutingkeng formation 2.3 Pile Details and Construction Records
of Pliocene. Since the area along the alignment is covered by al- All piles were installed by reversed circulation method with
luvium, the underlying bedrock does not have any outcrop. summary of construction records given in Table 2. It should be
Under these geological formations and structural design re- noted that all test piles were constructed without any use of
quirements, four (4) locations have been selected for the prelimi- polymer as stabilizing agent, except for Test Pile Nos. TP-1B and
nary pile load tests. Detailed soil investigation was carried out TP-3B.
for estimating the initial load capacity of the pile as well as for Toe grouting was carried out on all compression piles, by in-
determining appropriate pile length for testing at each test loca- jecting grout under pressure through sleeved pipes uniformly
tion. The soil profiles at the test locations are presented in Fig. 1. spaced over the base of the pile in order to recompact any soil
loosened during boring and to mobilize the working toe resis-

224
tance of the pile. Two (2) grout line circuits, each permitting
grout to return to the pile top and suitable for flushing were pro-
vided. Each circuit had four sleeved sections below the pile base.
The sleeved sections were positioned on a frame at the end of the
reinforcement cage assembly so as to be placed in close contact
with the soil surface. Each sleeved section had eight 4-mm di-
ameter holes covered by tightly fitted rubber sleeves. An initial
opening of the sleeves was carried out within 48 hours, but not
less than 24 hours, of concreting. Pressure was released immedi-
ately when cracking had achieved to limit water injection to a
minimum. Grout was injected in doses through each grout line
circuit. Lines were thoroughly flushed after each injection to al-
low for later injections. All the lines were injected in turn with
the specified dose or until a maximum pressure of 60 bars was
maintained for 5 minutes. Second and third injections were con-
ducted 6 hours after previous injection. Rounds of grouting were
continued until a total of 1000 liters had been injected, or until
all lines were sustaining the required pressure or until pile uplift
exceeding 3 mm had been detected.
The first four (4) compression tests (TP-1, TP-2, TP-3 and TP-
4) were conducted under single stage injection due to inappropri-
ate rubber sleeves. Additional two (2) tests (TP-1B and TP-3B)
were performed with multiple injections, resulting in stiffer end
bearing response.
nine (9) 500-ton hydraulic jacks against a reaction frame. This
frame was fixed in place by four (4) anchor piles. During the
test, the pile was loaded incrementally. The loads and displace-
ments were recorded periodically by means of nine (9) load cells
and eight (8) displacement transducers with four (4) on each test
pile and one (1) on each anchor pile. A typical pile testing ar-
rangement is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The tension test piles were subjected to external applied load
through extended rebars from top of the pile to a beam with four
(4) 500-ton hydraulic jacks resting on top of the beam. The
frame was placed on four (4) reaction piles. During the test, the
pile was loaded incrementally. The loads and displacements
were recorded periodically by means of four (4) load cells and
displacement transducers on test pile.
For lateral pile load tests, a hydraulic jack was pushed against
a test beam supported by two (2) supporting piles as reaction.
The test piles were loaded incrementally up to 350 ton for TP-2
and 450 ton for TP-4. They were located in different areas with
different upper soil conditions, that is, for test Pile No. TP-2L,
the upper soil consists of mainly clay. Whereas for test Pile No.
TP-4L, the upper 20 m of soil layer consists of sand with thin
layer of clay. During each load increment, the load, the horizon-
tal displacement at pile top and the horizontal deformation profile
were measured.

Table 2. Construction records of compression piles. C S8 S5 B

Location TP-1 TP-1B TP-2 TP-3 TP-3B TP-4
C2
Diameter (m) 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 C3 C1

S4 S1
Length (m) 65.0 64.0 62.0 56.5 60.0 54.5
A
Use of Polymer No Yes No No Yes No S3 S2

Compression
Single Multi Single Single Multi Single
Toe Grouting or Tension Pile
Stage stage Stage Stage stage Stage

Installation Stages Time Taken (Hours) D S7 S6 E

Drilling 15.5 9.0 9.0 8.5 7.5 9.0 11.3 m

Halting Time 33.0 0.0 38.0 14.0 0.0 14.0

Legend :
Base Cleaning 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 S - Displacement
Transducers
Pile
Halting Time 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 C - Telltale
A - Rebar Stress
Sonic Logging 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 Transducer
Rebar Stress Transducer
Halting Time 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Caging 11.0 6.0 15.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Fig. 2. Typical layout of static pile load test.

Halting Time 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS
Tremie Pipe In-
0.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.1 General
stallation
Base Cleaning 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 The results of the pile load tests, both compression and tension,
have been compiled, and analysis has been conducted to evaluate
Halting Time 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5
the performance of the piles as well as to establish appropriate
Concreting 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 correlation with soil parameters. Emphasis has been placed on
compression pile load tests since the tests gave both skin friction
Total Time 68.5 24.0 72.0 36.0 18.0 38.0 and end bearing of the piles. Non-uniform strains were observed
between the reinforcement and concrete during loading in the
2.4 Testing Conditions tension tests, resulting in less reliable data interpretation.
The results of the pile load tests have been analyzed and the
At four (4) test locations, the compression test piles were sub- process of analysis is summarized in Figure 3 in the form of a
jected to external applied load at the top of the pile by means of flowchart.

225
 START
200

TP-1T
Input Field Data and Section Properties
150 TP-2T

TP-3T

Select Appropriate
100 TP-4T
Rebar Stress Data Compute Estimated Skin Friction
and Section Properties

50
Compute Concrete Modulus, Ec
from Rebar Stress Data
@ 2m Depth
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Load (ton)
No Trend of Ec with Strain
Acceptable ?

Yes
Fig. 5. Load heave curves for tension pile load tests.
Compute Section Modulus
at Various Depth
3.3 Stress-Strain Behavior
The concrete modulus of the pile was estimated based on the re-
Compute Shortening
bar stress transducer response at 1.5 m depth. At each location,
Compute Force at Given Depth of Given Section and
Compare with that from Telltate
the concrete modulus versus strain relationship is presented as
shown in Figures 6 and 7. For all compression piles except for
Compute Skin Friction Compute Movement
Test Pile No. TP-3B, the relationship between estimated concrete
at Given Depth of Each Point modulus and strain is considered reasonable. For Test Pile No.
TP-3B, the estimated concrete modulus is relatively high in the
range of 0.38 to 0.41x 106 kg/cm2.
The stress rebar transducers installed at various depths along
the pile were used to measure the stresses in the reinforcement
Compare Estimated Skin Friction No
with Measured Skin Friction
Recompute Soil Parameter
and the corresponding strains could be estimated. The force of
Acceptable ?
the pile at that level was computed based on estimated sectional
Yes
modulus of the pile, which was a function of sectional properties
END
of pile. It should be noted that not all rebar stress transducers
behave accordingly; therefore it is often necessary to eliminate
Fig. 3. Flowchart of instrumented pile load test analysis. the abnormal rebar stress transducers. The malfunction of the re-
bar stress transducer could be caused by short-circuit, damage in
3.2 Load Settlement Relationships the cable and transducer during caging to concreting. An exam-
ple of the load distributions of Test Pile Nos. TP-1 and TP-1B is
The load settlement curves of the compression and tension tests
presented in Figure 8, showing decrease in load with increasing
are presented in Figs 4 and 5, respectively. The initial portion of
depth.
the compression curves exhibit very similar behavior up to 1,200
For the tension tests, several stress rebar transducers at shal-
ton with corresponding settlement of approximately 1 cm, except
low depths had abrupt change in the stress during loading, indi-
for test pile TP-3B with stiffer response. Test piles, TP-1 and
cating some separation of reinforcement and surrounding con-
TP-2, have very distinct gradients beyond the yield points, indi-
crete. This sudden change in the stresses of the rebar hampers
cating very low end bearing resistance.
the analysis because of difficulty in determining the effective
For tension tests, the piles were tested to failure or maximum
cross sectional area of intact concrete at those depths, therefore
capacity of the equipment. The maximum applied loads for all
assumptions with respect to the intact concrete area has to be
four (4) tension tests range from 1,633 ton to 2,107 ton. Two (2)
made. It is also observed that the separation begins at axial strain
test piles, TP-3T and TP-4T, exhibit large movement beyond the
yield points as shown in Figu 5. The other two (2) tests were
area of about 30% is applied for computation of section modulus
terminated at the maximum equipment capacity of 2,100 ton,
whenever the stress rebar transducer had experienced a sudden
having final movement of around 5 cm.
increase. This 30% reduction was obtained by trial and error on
Load (ton) all tension test results.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
0 0.6
TP-1
0.5 TP-1B
50
TP-2
0.4 TP-3
100 TP-1
TP-1B TP-3B
0.3
TP-2 TP-4
150
TP-3 0.2

200 TP-3B
0.1
TP-4
250 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Strain (10-6)
Fig. 4. Load settlement curves for compression pile load tests.
Fig. 6. Estimated concrete modulus with strain in compression.

226
Fig. 7. Estimated concrete modulus with strain in tension. 4.2 Estimation of Skin Friction
0.4
From the load distribution of the pile, the average skin friction
TP-1T between two (2) adjacent rebar stress transducer depths can be
0.3
TP-2T
estimated. When the load on the pile is increased, the skin fric-
tion will gradually increase up to a certain limit. Strain softening
0.2 TP-3T or hardening behavior may be expected depending on the type of
TP-4T soil at those depths. Plots of mobilized skin friction versus
0.1 movement of Test Pile Nos. TP-1 and TP-1B are shown in Figs
9a and 9b, respectively. It was observed that in most cases, the
0.0 skin friction reaches a peak at about 1 to 2 cm movement, indi-
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 cating that the skin friction of the pile will be fully developed un-
-6
Strain (10 ) der this movement. The maximum skin frictions obtained are
presented in Fig 10.
Loading (ton) Loading (ton) 20
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1.5 m-11 m 11 m-19 m
0 19 m -32.5 m 32.5 m-37.5 m
37.5 m-48.5 m 48.5 m-58 m
15
58 m-64.5m

10
10

20 5

0
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Movement (cm)

TP-1 Fig. 9a. Mobilized skin resistance versus movement of TP-1.

40 TP-1B
25
239 ton 241 ton 1.5 m-12 m
721 ton 720 ton 12 m-19.4 m
50 20
19.4 m-33.3 m
956 ton 961 ton
33.3 m-38.3 m
1258 ton 1592 ton
15 38.3 m-47.8 m
1599 ton 1997 ton 47.8 m-58.8 m
60 58.8 m-64m
1905 ton 2400 ton
10
2001 ton 3198 ton
2155 ton 4101 ton
70 5

0
Fig. 8. Load distribution curves of TP-1 and TP-1B. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Movement (cm)

Fig. 9b. Mobilized skin resistance versus movement of TP-1B.

4 ENGINEERING EVALUATION

4.1 General
Friction Resistance (ton/m2) SPT N value
The measured unit skin frictions of the soil layers and unit end 0 10 20 30 0 50 100
bearing for each compression test were estimated based on the 0
TP-1
0
SPT N
test results. Increase in the pile capacity due to improvement in TP-1B
construction was also quantified and recommendations were 10 TP-1T
10
Lower
Limit
made accordingly.
Results of the tension tests were compared with the compres- 20 20
sion tests to determine the mobilized skin friction in upwards and
downwards directions. Assumptions were made in estimating the
30 30
force within the pile due to the problem of non-uniformity in the
tension tests, hence the measured skin frictions in tension mode
are considered less reliable. Since most of the piles were lifted to 40 40

over 4 cm, significant portions of the piles had mobilized their

skin frictions. Therefore, the pulling resistance of the pile could 50 50
be compared with the friction resistance of the pile in compres-
sion. 60 60
The results of two (2) lateral pile load tests were also com-
pared with predictions made by LPILE computer software. A
70 70
brief description of the software is provided in latter section.
Fig. 10. Skin friction profiles at test location 1 (TP-1, TP-1B).

227
 From the results of compression tests, the following observa-
tions have been made: 30
TP-1
Clay: By assuming linear relationship between skin friction Average for TP-1, TP-3
TP-1B Average for TP-1B, TP-3B
and SPT N value for clay layers as shown in Figure 11a, TP-2 Average for TP-2, TP-4
the adhesion factor versus undrained shear strength rela- 20 TP-3
tionship can be established as presented in Figures 11b. TP-3B Slope=0.33
The results indicated slightly lower adhesion factor for TP- TP-4
Slope=0.3
1 and TP-3, and greater adhesion factor for TP-2 and TP-4,
10
compared with published adhesion factor. With improve-
ment in construction method, the analysis shows much Slope=0.15

higher adhesion factor for TP-1B and TP-3B, and it had

exceeded unity in low strength range, and the most likely 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
reason for this high factor is due to under-estimation of SPT N Value
undrained shear strength.
Sand: Plots of skin friction versus SPT N value are made Fig. 12. Measured unit skin friction versus SPT N value for sand
and linear relationships are assumed as presented in Figure layers.
12. For Test Pile Nos. TP-1 and TP-3, the ratio of skin
friction to SPT N was only 0.15, compared with values of
4.3 Unit End Bearing Response
0.3 to 0.33 for TP-2, TP-4, TP-1B and TP-3B. The caking
effect seems to reduce the skin friction substantially; there- The response of the end bearing was determined from extrapola-
fore the use of polymer together with shorter construction tion of the last set of rebar stress transducers to the pile tip. Fig-
time had improved the shaft friction considerably. ure 13 shows the increase in unit end bearing with tip movement
Mudstone: Two (2) sets of rebar stress transducers were for all six (6) compression piles. Poor end bearing responses
used to measure the skin friction of the mudstone at loca- were encountered for test Pile Nos. TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3, except
tion 4 (TK311). Both measurements give a unit skin fric- for test Pile No. TP-4 with tip embedded in mudstone, reaching
tion of 16.8 ton/m2. It should be emphasized that since unit end bearing of over 700 ton/m2 at movement of 7 cm.
significant variation in the properties of mudstone was usu- With better grouting technique (multi-stage injection) in TP-
ally expected; therefore a skin friction of 16 ton/m2 was 1B and TP-3B, stiffer end bearing response has been achieved
compared with other piles. Unfortunately, the end bearing of
20 these two (2) piles did not reach full capacity due to limitation in
Average for TP-1, TP-3 TP-1 the maximum applied load. Nevertheless, the unit end bearing
Average for TP-1B, TP-3B TP-1B
Average for TP-2, TP-4 TP-2
seems to increase significantly with increasing movement for TP-
15
TP-3 3B. The results clearly indicated the importance of base (or toe)
TP-3B cleaning and the effectiveness of toe grouting as well as the pres-
10
TP-4 ence of sound bearing stratum. Normally, less emphasis has been
placed on the end bearing and higher factor of safety is adopted
for the end bearing compared with the skin friction.
5
Unit End Bearing (ton/m2 )
0 200 400 600 800
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N Value
50

adopted in the design for mudstone layer.

Fig. 11a. Measured unit skin friction versus SPT N value for clay 100 TP-1
Layers. TP-1B
TP-2
2.0 150 TP-3

Average for TP-1, TP-3 TP-1 TP-3B

Average for TP-1B, TP-3B TP1B TP-4
1.5 Average for TP-2, TP-4 TP-2 200
TP-3
TP3B Fig. 13. Unit end bearing versus pile tip movement.
TP-4
1.0

4.4 Improvement due to Better Construction Methods

0.5
The change in construction method gives rise to significant im-
provement in the performance of pile as shown in the results of
0.0 Pile Nos. TP-1B and TP-3B. Figures 11 and 12 compare the
0 10 20 30 40 measured skin frictions of test piles (Test Pile Nos. TP-1, TP-3,
Undrained Shear Strength, cu (ton/m2 ) TP-1B and TP-3B) under two different construction methods, in-
Fig. 11b. Adhesion factor versus undrained shear strength for dicating that most of the soil layers, both sand and clay, have
clay Layers.

228
significant increase in the unit skin frictions. The improvement
in skin friction is about 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than values from
TP-1 and TP-3, this is probably due to a combination of polymer
usage, shorter construction time etc. Therefore, it should be em-
phasized that the good construction technique and control in in-
stallation are essential in bored pile construction.
Since Test Pile Nos. TP-1 and TP-3, were injected with single
stage grout and test Pile Nos. TP-1B and TP-3B were subjected
to multi-stage grouting, therefore the effect of toe grouting meth-
ods could also be evaluated. Figure 14 shows the unit end bear-
ing response with pile tip movement, it can be seen that only TP-
3B has substantial increase in the bearing resistance. The im-
provement ratio for TP-3B compared with TP-3 is much higher;
whereas TP-1B did not show any increase in the end bearing up
to 20 mm of pile tip movement. Due to the lack of soil data be-
low the pile tip at TP-1 location, it is not possible to evaluate the
full performance of TP-1B. From the results of TP-3B, it can be
concluded that multi-stage toe grouting will improve the end
bearing significantly.
400
TP-1 (Single-Stage Grouting)
TP-1B (Multi-Stage Grouting)
300 TP-3 (Single-Stage Grouting)
TP-3B (Multi-Stage Grouting)
beam theory (beam on springs) is applied to analyze the problem.
Since each spring has a non-linear behavior, numerical approach,
such as finite difference method, has been adopted to solve this
problem. It should be noted that the major difference in this
method compared with other conventional approach is the as-
sumption on stress-strain behavior. Conventional approach as-
sumes that the soil behaves elastically with and without consid-
eration of ultimate soil resistance; the basic input soil parameters
are horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction or modulus and
soil resistance or strength. Generally, the non-linear p-y curve
approach yields higher movement than elastic approach at high
stress level and small difference at small stress level. Therefore,
large difference in lateral displacement may be expected if the
stress level is high. A commercial computer program, named
LPILE, incorporated the above p-y method has been used for
predicting the behavior of laterally loaded pile.
Figure 17 presents the predicted and measured lateral move-
ment along the pile, TP-2L, the result indicated very good agree-
ment.
For the actual pile foundation, the pile tops will be connected
together by the pile cap, giving a fixed head condition which will
behave differently as in the free head pile load test. Therefore,
the test results are mainly used to ensure that the design soil pa-
rameters and model used are acceptable.

200
500

100
400

0 300
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pile Tip Movement (mm)
200
Fig. 14. Effect of toe grouting type on unit end bearing. TP-2 Measurement
100 TP-2 Prediction
TP-4 Measurement
4.5 Comparison between Compression and Tension Tests TP-4 Prediction
0
The maximum mobilized skin friction in compression is also 0 50 100
Pile Top Movement (mm)
150 200

compared with the results from the tension piles as shown in Fig
15. As mentioned in earlier section, the test piles, TP-1T and TP-
2T, were not tested to “failure” due to limitation in testing Fig. 15. Comparison of mobilized skin friction between tension
equipment, higher tension resistance can be expected from these piles and compression piles.
tests as also indicated in the mobilized skin friction distribution.
Figure 15 presents comparison between the compression and
mobilized tension frictions; the results indicated that the mobi-
20
lized skin friction of the piles in tension and the maximum skin
friction in compression are in certain agreement.
From the results of ultimate pile capacities, the ratio of ulti- 15
mate tension capacity to compression pile capacity ranges from
62% to 105%, having an average of 81%.
10

4.6 Lateral Pile Load Tests

The results of the lateral pile load tests were compared with the 5
Clay TP-1
Clay TP-2
Sand TP-1
Sand TP-2
predicted results as shown in Fig 16 at locations 2 (TK299) and 4 Clay TP-3 Sand TP-3

(TK311). The lateral resistance of pile under lateral loading was Clay TP-4
Mudstone TP-4
Sand TP-4

estimated by means of “p-y” curve method. In this method, a 0

0 5 10 15 20
non-linear load (p) versus horizontal displacement (y) of soil Mobilized Compression Skin Friction (ton/m2 )
layer for given pile diameter is estimated based on certain input
soil parameters, such as undrained shear strength, undrained
modulus, friction angle etc. The p-y curves of various soil layers Fig. 16. Horizontal load versus pile top movement of TP-2L and
are then generated for a given problem. Once these load- TP-4L.
displacement curves are established for the soil layers, Winkler

229
 TP-4 and TP-3B), that is, the gain in end bearing capacity is
rather insignificant compared with the skin friction. The con-
Lateral Displacement (mm) tribution of the end bearing at 3 to 4 cm movement ranges
-50 0 50 100 150 200 from 9 to 25% to the total capacity, depending on the pile
0
SM, = 32
o length and embedded soil stratum. The performance of the
= 1.9 t/m
3 end bearing is greatly affected by the construction methods as
well, hence in current adopted construction method; it can be
5 seen that stiffer response in the end bearing was achieved
through multi-stage toe grouting provided that the bearing
layer is sandy soil. The recommended correlation is summa-
rized in Table 3 for different soil types.
10
CL Skin frictions in tension and compression: From the test
S u = 5 t/m
2
results, the ratio of skin friction in tension mode to the skin
= 2.0 t/m
3
60 ton (Prediction) friction in compression mode ranges from 62% to 105%, hav-
15 120 ton (Prediction)
ing an average of 81%.
SM
180 ton (Prediction)
Performance of lateral pile load tests: Two (2) lateral pile
240 ton (Prediction)
= 32
o load tests had been conducted with different upper soil condi-
300 ton (Prediction)
20 = 2.0 t/m
3
350 ton (Prediction)
tions. The measurements give relatively similar response as
60 T on (Measurement)
predicted by LPILE computer program, indicating reasonable
120 ton (Measurement) input soil parameters as well as model used. Therefore, the
25 CL 180 ton (Measurement) method of analysis was adopted in design.
2
Su = 20 t/m 240 ton (Measurement)
= 2.0 t/m
3
300 ton (Measurement) Table 3. Recommended correlation for estimation of shaft fric-
350 ton (Measurement) tion and end bearing.
30
Soil Shaft Resistance,
Fig. 17. Lateral movement under horizontal loading of TP-2L. End Bearing, qb
Type fs
Cohesive fs = cu 12 ton/m 2 qb = 9 cu 160 ton/m 2
5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Soil where where
= Adhesion factor cu = Undrained shear
The results obtained from the compression, tension and lateral = 0.21+2.6/c u strength (ton/m 2)
load tests have been analyzed, and the following recommenda- 1
tions and conclusions are obtained:
Construction methods: In this series of pile load tests, the Non- fs = N/3 15 ton/m 2 qb = 7.5 N ton/m2
construction methods of bored pile installation were im- cohesive where N = Average SPT-N
proved to a great extent through the use of proper stabilizing Soil N = SPT-N value value at depths of 4D
agent (polymer), shorter construction time, multi-stage toe above and 1D below pile
grouting etc. The pile load test results clearly demonstrated toe. D = pile diameter
the increase in pile capacity with these improvements. High
skin friction was achieved through reduction in caking effect Mudstone fs = qu ton/m2 qb= tan2(45+ /2)+1 qu
of the sand layer with the introduction of polymer as stabiliz- where where
ing agent. Shorter construction duration reduces the soften- = 0.4 = Friction angle of rock
ing of clayey soil due to swelling. Multistage toe grouting fs = 16 ton/m 2 qb 160 ton/m 2 for N =
ensures that any soft toe caused by inadequate toe cleaning or for N = 50~100 50~100
sedimentation of soil at the bottom of excavated holes can be qu = Uniaxial com-
improved via injection of high-pressure grout in stages to pressive strength
strengthen the weak zone around the pile toe area. The im- of intact rock
proved method of construction was adopted as a standard
procedure for the installation of the working piles.
Skin friction from compression tests: The stresses from the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
rebar stress transducers at different depths together with
compression load and surface settlement, were used to com- The authors acknowledge technical assistance and review pro-
pute the unit skin frictions and end bearings of the soil for the vided by colleagues. They are indebted to Mr. Norawat Rattana-
test piles. Based on analysis of the pile load tests, the rec- rungsan for preparing the final manuscript. Appreciations are
ommended formulae for estimation of pile capacity are sum- due to the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation and Moh and
marized in Table 3. The followings can be concluded: Associates, Inc. for their permission to publish this paper
End bearing response: The development of end bearing is
relatively small for most of the compression piles (except for

230
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Three-Dimensional Analysis of Load Distribution in Pile Group

B. Ukritchon & P. Rungbanaphan

Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Pathumwan Rd., Bangkok 10300, Thailand
fcebuk@eng.chula.ac.th

Abstract: The objective of this research is to study the pile load distribution in the pile group with rigid caps subjected to the static
vertical load by means of a three-dimensional finite element model. A computer program, ‘PILE3D’ was developed based on the basic
program of Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method proposed by Smith & Griffiths (1999). The program improvements include
additional capabilities to mesh generation process and high efficient fast solver algorithm. In this study, the soil is modeled as an
elasto-plastic material under undrained condition (total stress analysis). The groups of 4 piles, 5 piles and 9 piles were selected as case
studies. The results show that each pile in the group does not carry the load equally, which is contrast to the standard design practice.
Major parameters affecting the load distribution include pile spacing, the length of pile, the number of piles, and the relative stiffness of
soil above and below the tip. For the 9-pile group, the corner pile carries the largest load, followed by the mid-edge pile, and the center
pile. Similarly, for the 5-pile group, the center pile carries the load much less than the corner pile. The pile group efficiency increases
when the pile spacing increases, the number of pile decreases, and the stiffness of end bearing soil layer increases.

1 INTRODUCTION full mesh is not necessary. Only the one-forth of the full mesh is
modeled. the use of symmetry reduced the size of the model to a
Pile group is generally used as foundation for high-rise buildings quarter (1/4) of the full mesh. For all meshes, the nodes on
or infrastructures. For design practice, it is generally assumed external boundaries are allowed to move only in the vertical
that each pile in the group shares the applied working load direction while bottom nodes were fixed in all directions.
equally. However, in the real situation, the load on each pile of
the pile group may not distribute equally because the cap of the
pile group acts as a rigid structure. Under the rigid pile cap, the
top of each pile settles uniformly but the load acting on each pile
is not distributed equally. Important parameters affecting on the
load distribution in the pile group include pile-pile interaction
behavior, a number of piles, pile arrangement, and pile spacing.
This paper studies the load distribution characteristic of pile
group foundations with rigid pile cap subjected to vertical loads.
The study is carried out by means of three-dimensional finite
element method of pile group. The analysis considers three types
of pile group, include 4 pile, 5 piles and 9 piles. Pile spacing
ratios and length ratios are also considered in the study. The three
three-dimensional finite element analysis used in this research is
described in the next section.

2 THREE DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

A computer program, PILE3D, used in this research to study the

load distribution of pile group is developed based on three-
dimensional finite element techniques (Smith and Griffiths,
1998). Several capabilities of PILE3D are implemented,
including the type of element, mesh generation, mesh refinement,
boundary conditions, the type of loading, the constitutive
material, post-processing of nodal stress recovery method.
The number of piles is one of important parameters controlling
the characteristics of finite element mesh used to model the pile
Fig. 1. Typical finite element meshes of group for 9 piles.
group. For example, Fig. 1 shows the horizontal and vertical
cross sections of a typical mesh of the structure of 9 piles. It can
be seen that finer elements are generated at each pile, forming the The initial stress condition through out the mesh is set up by
center core of the mesh. Elements far from this center core has the self-equilibrating geostatic stress field. Subsequent loading on
larger size increasing towards external boundary edges. For the piles is either single-step or multi-step, axial or lateral, force
vertical loadings, due to problem symmetry, the generation of the or displacement and is applied only at the pile head. The piles

231
and soil is modeled by the solid three-dimensional linear
isoparametric 4-node tetrahedron elements (three nodes per face).
The mesh is generated by a noncommercial mesh generation
package, ‘GMSH’ version 1.37 (Christophe & Jean-François,
2003), which is an automatic three-dimensional finite element
mesh generator based primarily on Delaunay algorithm. GMSH
is effectively incorporated to the developed program, Pile 3D, in
which several types of pile group with various soil layers can be
modeled.
Mesh refinement is used in certain regions of the finite
element model, as shown in Fig. 1, in order to reduce numerical
error from finite element approximation and ensure satisfactory
accuracy of result. In this problem, the mesh with suitable
degrees of refinement, especially in the region surrounding the
piles and near the pile head and tip where stress singularity may
occur, is automatically generated to smooth stress distribution at
those areas and to ensure convergence of the numerical solutions.
Thin element along pile proposed by Desai and Zaman is also
implemented in PILE3D.
The pile elements are assumed to behave elastically at all
times while the soil is modeled as either a linear elastic material
or elasto-plastic material, based on Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion. This model can represent soil dilatancy and directly
related to the physical soil properties (cohesion intercept and
angle of internal friction). The constant stiffness approach is used
to model material nonlinearity in the iterative calculation. In this
approach, convergence is accepted when stresses generated by
the loads satisfy some stress-strain law within prescribed
tolerances.
To minimize computational time, a high performance equation
solving algorithm of sparse symmetric positive definite system of
linear equations, based on Cholesky factorization of the
coefficient matrix, is applied in the developed program.
At the end of each step, nodal stresses are recovered based on
the Superconvergent Patch Recovery Method (Zienkiewicz &
Zhu, 1992; Bathe, 1996). The concept of this stress smoothing
method is that the stresses at each node are estimated from the
Gauss point stresses of the elements within the area around it
(local stress smoothing). The stresses is assumed as a polynomial
expansion P* of the same complete order of the basic shape
function N over an element patch surrounding the particular node
considered.
* For this research, a limited parametric study is carried out
P = <P> {a}
where <P> is a based function in the form of <1, x, y, z> and
{a} is a set of unknown parameter expressed as {a 0, a1, a2, a3}.
The determination of the unknown {a} is made by ensuring a
least square fit of P* to the high accuracy sampling points
existing in the patch considered which, in this case, are the Gauss
points. The equation can be expressed as follow,
n n
[P(xi,yi,zi)]T[P(xi,yi,zi)]{a} = h(xi,yi,zi)[P(xi,yi,zi)]
T
i=1 i=1
where h represents the Gauss point stress and n is the number
of Gauss point within the element patch considered.
The relative error is estimated based on the comparison of the
energy norm in order to check numerical error of the finite
element analysis. The error distribution can be used as the
indicator for the mesh refinement pattern.
The capability of PILE3D is verified by comparing some
computed elastic solutions of pile group with those from previous
researches. Thus, the selected problem is the three dimensional
analysis of the single pile, with 7.5 m long, 0.3 m diameter
circular pile (Young’s Modulus Ep = 4.5x105 ton/m2), embedded
in an elastic soil layer of 50 m deep (Young’s Modulus Es = 450
ton/m2) and loaded axially at its head. Solutions are compared
with those provided by Poulos & Davis (1980). The comparison
results show that the head settlement from the finite element
analysis is very close to the analytical solution (the difference
about 0.5%) and so is the shear stress distribution along the pile
shaft, as shown in Fig. 2, where ‘p’ represents the shear stresses
and ‘K’ is the pile stiffness factor (E p/Es)
0
0.1
P
0.2
0.3
d
0.4
Elastic Solution, K = 50
z/L 0.5 3D FEM, K = 50
Elastic Solution, K = 5000
0.6
3D FEM, K = 5000
0.7
0.8 L/d = 25
Vs = 0.45
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
p.(pi)dL/P
p dL/P
Fig. 2. Comparison between distribution of shear stresses along
the single pile shaft.
3 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Researches on single pile and pile group have been extensively
carried out during the last 30 years. Examples include Coyle &
Reese (1966), Poulos & Davis (1968), Randolph & Wroth
(1978), and Muqtadir & Desai (1986).
(1) using PILE3D with the major objectives of gaining a better
understanding of the role of various factors on load distribution
characteristic of pile group under the rigid pile cap. The analyses
consider the load distribution in the pile group assuming elastic
behavior of soil and pile. No interface elements are used between
soil and pile elements. Fig. 3 shows example of problem
geometry used in this study. Figure 3a illustrates the diagram of
5-pile group of floating type and Fig. 3b represents the end
bearing type of 9-pile group. The basic pile properties are
(2) Young’s modulus Ep = 2.6x106 ton/m2, Poisson’s ratio p = 0.3,
concrete unit weight p = 2.4 ton/m3, pile length L = 20, 30 m,
and diameter D = 0.6 m (round piles). The typical finite element
mesh for a 9 pile group (one quarter mesh) is shown in Fig. 4.
The elastic soil properties, corresponding to the Bangkok soft
to medium clay layer as shown in Fig. 3, are Young’s modulus
Es1 = 1600 ton/m 2, Poisson’s ratio s1 = 0.45, and soil unit weight
3
s1 = 1.8 ton/m . For elastic-perfectly plastic model, the Tresca
failure criterion is used with the undrained shear strength c u = 4
ton/m2 and angle of internal friction = 0.
232
 D D D
Analysis Area Analysis Area
D D
s
s s

s s s

S S (a) 4 piles (b) 5 piles (c) 9 piles

Fig. 5. Pile arrangement of the studied groups of piles.

Constant Settlement
Constant Settlement

Ep, p, p 4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Ep, p, P Soft/Medium Clay
Es1, s1, s1,Cu
It should be noted that with the settlement of 1 cm, the behavior
of piles in the studies is still elastic. Figure 6 shows the load
Soft/Medium Clay distribution on group of 9 piles. The floating pile type is
Es1, s1, s1,Cu
(a) First Sand (b) considered with the soil properties of soft to medium clay as
Es2, s2, s2, c, described in the previous section. The load on each pile (P) is
normalized by the average load of all piles in the group (P m). It
can be seen that the greatest loads is carried out at the corner
Fig. 3. Diagrams of models and parameters used in FEM piles, followed by the mid-edge pile and the center pile.
analysis. However, the mid-edge pile and the center pile carry the load
much less than the average value, but the corner pile carries more
load than the average value. Figure 7 show the ratio of load
distribution in the 9-pile group. In this figure, P min correspond to
Z
X
the minimum load of the pile in the group. For practical design
Y s/D = 3, the corner pile and the mid-edge pile carry the load
approximately 4.4 and 2.4 times of that of the center pile,
respectively. As the ratio of pile spacing diameter ratio (s/D)
increases, the difference between the loads on each pile decrease
largely. A more uniform load distribution is mainly due to a
decrease in effect of adjacent piles in the group. This influence is
reduced further with larger spacing distance between the adjacent
piles.

20.00
L/D = 33 D
18.00
L/D = 50 s
16.00

14.00 s

12.00
Floating pile
10.00 D = 0.6 m
Fig. 4. Typical 3D Finite Element Mesh for a 9-Pile Group (One
Quarter Problem). 8.00

6.00 mid-edge corner

4.00

For the first sand layer shown in Fig. 3, the elastic properties 2.00 center
are Young’s modulus E s2 = 4000 ton/m2, Poisson’s ratio s2 = 0.3,
0.00
unit weight s2 = 2.0 ton/m3. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
is used with the angle of internal friction = 30 o and cohesion s/D
intercept c = 0 ton/m 2.
Three types of pile group are investigated in this study. The 4, Fig. 6. Pile load distribution in the 9-Pile group.
5, and 9 piles groups, arranged as the pattern shown in Fig. 5, are
analyzed with various pile spacing, pile length, and types of
layered soil. The pile head settlement of 1 cm is equally
Figure 6 also shows the influence of pile length on the load
constrained to all of the piles in the group and the pile head
distribution characteristic. It is obvious that there is a small
loadings corresponding to this settlement are obtained from
increase in the difference of the pile load distribution as the
PILE3D. The results of analysis are concluded in the next
length to diameter ratio (L/D) of pile increases. This confirms the
section.
fact that the larger stress bulb is generated on the longer pile. The

233
stress interference of adjacent pile increases, which increase in pile also takes the load greater than the average value about 10%,
the pile load sharing. but the center pile shares the load less than the average value
about 60%. The increase in pile spacing has small effect on the
corner pile, but has significant effect on the center pile.
2.0 D Comparisons of load distribution between groups of 5 piles
L/D = 33
and 9 piles are shown in Fig. 11. It is obvious that the load
L/D = 50
s distribution of the group of 5 piles is more uniform than that of 9
piles. This result makes sense because as the number of piles in
1.5 s the group increases with the constant pile spacing, the interaction
corner
between adjacent piles certainly increases and the effects are
more pronounced.

1.0
2.0
D
L/D = 33
mid-edge L/D = 50 s
0.5
1.5
s

center Floating pile corner

D = 0.6 m
0.0
1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
s/D
Fig. 7. Ratio of pile load distribution of 9-Pile group.
0.5

2.0 Floating pile

Es2/Es1 = 1 D center D = 0.6 m
Es2/Es1 = 2.5 0.0
Es2/Es1 = 10 s
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
1.5 s/D
s
corner
Fig. 9. Pile load distribution of 5-Pile group

1.0 18.0
mid-edge
L/D = 33 D
16.0
L/D = 50
s
0.5 14.0
s
center D = 0.6 m 12.0
L/D = 33
10.0
min

0.0 Floating pile

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 D = 0.6 m
s/D corner
6.0
Fig. 8. Influence of stiffness of end bearing soil layer on load
distribution in groups of 9 Piles. 4.0

2.0 center
The effects of bearing layer at the pile tip are investigated as
illustrated in Fig. 8. The group of 9 piles is also considered in this 0.0
study. It should be noted that the soil stiffness ratio, E s2/Es1 of 2.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
corresponds to the case of first sand layer underlain the stiff to s/D
medium clay layer as in Fig. 3 (b) while the value of 1.0
represents the case of floating piles. The pile length is 20 m, Fig. 10. Ratio of pile load distribution of 5-Pile group
where the length to diameter ratio is 33. From the Figure, It can
be seen that the load distribution tends to more uniform as the
ratio of Es2/Es1 increases. This means that the stiffer stratum at tip
of pile, the more uniform pile load distribution in the group. The influences of numbers of pile, soil layer types and pile
Figures 9 & 10 show the results of analyses of load spacing on the total load of pile groups are studied as illustrated
distribution in the 5-pile group of the floating type. These results in Fig. 11. The figure shows the ratio of the average load of the
are very similar to those of the 9-pile group. For s/D = 3, the pile group to the single pile load at the same unit settlement of
corner pile carries the large portion of the load much smaller than the pile top.
that of the center pile, approximately by 2.8 times. The corner

234
 2.0 5 CONCLUSIONS
D D
9 piles
The main objectives of this research described herein is to study
5 piles
s s the characteristics of pile load distribution in the pile group with
rigid cap subjected to the static vertical load by means of a three-
1.5 corner s s dimensional finite element model. A limited parametric study of
the response of the various type of pile group subjected to a
uniform unit settlement was conducted in order to examine the
effects of pile spacing, pile dimension and soil properties. Under
1.0
the applied settlement, the analyses assume that the behaviors of
the soil and the pile are in the linear elastic range. The computer
mid-edge program, called ‘PILE3D’, was developed as an analysis tool in
this research. The powerful three-dimensional mesh generation
0.5
was implemented in order to generate efficient and accurate finite
D = 0.6 m element meshes. The high performance equation solving
center L/D = 33 algorithm was included to minimize computation time. The
Es2/Es1 = 2.5 Superconvergent Patch Recovery Method was applied in the
0.0
post-processing step in order to recover more accurate nodal
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 stresses for the output of the analysis.
s/D The groups of 4 piles, 5 piles and 9 piles were selected in this
study. The soil properties was selected to match the Bangkok
Fig. 11. Influence of number of piles on load distribution in end
subsoil conditions, where the soil profile consists of the soft to
bearing pile groups.
medium clay layer and first the sand layer. The results show that
the load of each pile is not equally shared in the group. These
0.9 findings are contrast to the standard design used in practice,
4 piles assuming that each pile in the group take the load equally. The
0.8 D = 0.6 m 5 piles analyses show that the load distribution in the group depends on
L/D = 33 pile spacing, number of piles, and relative stiffness of soil above
0.7 and below the pile tip. There is an increase in the load sharing
9 piles when the pile spacing decreases, the length of pile increases and
0.6 the number of pile increases. In addition, the load distribution of
the end bearing pile groups is more uniform than that of the
0.5 floating pile groups. The pile group efficiency also depend the
pile spacing in the group, and the number of piles. The typical
0.4
spacing ratio of 3 used in design practice give the group
0.3 efficiency in the range of 25%-55%.
It should be noted that in this research, because the analyses
0.2 consider elastic behavior of soil and pile, interface elements are
Es2/Es1 = 1 not introduced between soil and pile elements. In real situation,
0.1 Es2/Es1 = 2.5 slippage between the soil and the pile can happen and thus shaft
friction capacity can be fully mobilized. Future researches should
0.0
be carried out to consider the effect of slippage between the soil
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 and the pile to the characteristics of pile load distribution in the
s/D group.
Fig. 12. Ratio of average load of pile group to load of single pile.
This parameter can be viewed as the pile group efficiency. In this REFERENCES
study, the pile length is 20 m and its diameter is 0.3 m. For the
typical pile spacing ratio of 3, the pile group efficiency ranges Bathe, N.J. 1996. Finite Element Procedures. Englewood Cliffs,
from 25% to 55%, depending on the number of piles in the group. New Jersey: Prentice-Hill.
The smaller number of piles in the group, the higher pile group Christophe, G. & Jean-François, R. 2003. Gmsh: A three-
efficiency. As the spacing ratio increases, the pile group dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-
efficiency also improves significantly. For the spacing ratio of and post-processing facilities [online]. Available from:
10.0, the group efficiency increase to 45%-75%. However, such http://www.geuz.org/gmsh/ [2003, September 7]
large spacing ratio is not practical in pile foundation since the Coyle, H.M. & Reese, L.C. 1966. Load transfer for axially loaded
pile cap size increase significantly, and thus such design is not piles in clay. Journal of The Soil Mechanics and Foundation
economical in practice. Thus, the interference of adjacent piles in Division, ASCE 92(SM2): 1-26.
the group has a significant effect on the total load of the pile Desai, C.S. & Zaman, M.M. 1984. Thin-layer element for
group or the group efficiency. In addition, this figure also shows interfaces and joints. International Journal for Numerical and
the effect of relative stiffness of the upper soil above the tip to the Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 8: 19-43.
lower soil. For all pile groups, the pile group efficiency of the Muqtadir, A. & Desai, C. S. 1986. Three-dimensional analysis of
floating pile type is lower than that of the end bearing pile type, a pile group foundation. International Journal for Numerical
approximately 10-20% at the typical spacing ratio of 3. and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 10(1): 41-58.

235
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. 1968. The settlement behavious of
single axially-loaded incompressible piles and piers.
Geotechnique 18: 351-371.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. 1978. Analysis of deformation
of vertically loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 104 (GT12): 1465-1448.
236
Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Zhu, J. Z. 1992. The superconvergent patch
recovery and a posteriori error estimates. Part 1: the recovery
technique. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 33: 1331-1364.
Smith, I. M., & Griffiths, D. V. 1998. Programming the Finite
Element Method. 3rd Edition. England: John Wiley & Sons.
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

The New Load Settlement Equation and the Prediction of Pile Failure Load
from the Results of Static Pile Loading Test

M. Arayasiri
Senior Geotechnical Consultant, Professional Civil Engineer No. 856, Council of Engineers of Thailand
Charter Member No. 2523, Engineering Institute of Thailand
arayasiri_m@yahoo.com

Abstract: The results of the study indicate that the load-settlement relationship of piles under loading can be represented by the loga-
rithmic equation which is transformed into the linear equation as log P = A+B( ) ( = settlement, P = pile load). It is found that the
ratio varies linearly with with the coefficient of linear correlation, r in the range of 0.9999+, which will give the minimum
log P
error of prediction. The study covers the interpretation of the pile ultimate load in both the case of testing a pile to plunging failure and
the case of not to plunging failure. In case of a pile not tested to plunging failure, the relationships of pile load, settlement and slope of
d d
the load-settlement curve are established as (d / dP) / log p a b and (d / dP) / log a' b' . The plunging failure criteria at
d dP dP
_ is adopted in predicting of pile failure load and failure settlement. The results from a total of 34 pile tests in this study are
dP
close to the experimental value with a high degree of confidence and minimum errors as small as 5%.

1 INTRODUCTION 0 PE PU
Pile Load
1.1 Pile Behavior Under Loading E A
Pile can be considered as a structural member for transferring
the footing load to the foundation soils. The allowable pile load Settlement
for safety and cost effectiveness can be derived by applying a fac-
( ) U
tor of safety (F.S) to the ultimate load of the pile. The prediction B
of pile ultimate load can be carried out by applying soil pa-
rameters obtained from soil investigation to the static pile ca-
pacity formula. The pile ultimate load can also be obtained from
the results of static pile load test. The value of pile ultimate load
is dependant on the soil-pile behavior.
The soil-pile behavior as shown by the load-settlement curve
can be divided 3 parts as shown in Fig. 1. The first part, before C
OA = Elastic range (linear)
the yielding pile load (P E), is the elastic range in which the AB = Elasto-plastic range (non-linear)
settlement increase linearly with the applied load on pile. The BC = Plastic range
second part from pile yielding load to failure load (P U) is the B = Point of plunging failure
elasto-plastic range in which the increase of settlement with the PE = Yielding pile load
pile load is not linear. The part beyond the failure load in which PU = Ultimate pile load
the settlement increases with no or slight increment of pile load is = Settlement at yielding pile load
E
the plastic range. = Settlement at ultimate pile load or plunging
U
failure
1.2 Interpretation of Failure Load Fig. 1. Pile-load settlement.
Fellenius (1980) concluded that the pile failure load or ultimate 2) In the past, the definition of pile failure load is defined as
load has different meanings as follow: the pile load that causes the pile to settle more than 10 % of its
1) For pile which is stronger than the foundation soils the diameter. This definition does not take into account the elastic
failure load is generated when the settlement suddenly increases deformation of the pile which is a large value in the case of long
under the constant pile load or under small pile load increment. piles and low value for shorter piles.
This phenomenon is called “pile plunge” 3) Sometimes the pile ultimate load is defined as the pile
However, this definition is not sufficient because pile plunge load at the point of intersection of the two asymptotic lines, e.g.
requires large settlement and in several cases the failure load the extensions of the elastic range line and the plastic range line
obtained is not dependent on the capacity of the soil-pile of the load settlement curve. The pile load interpreted by this
behavior, but it may depend on the capacity of man-pump system definition is dependent on the graphical scale and the inter-
used in the test. preter’s judgment. Using different scales will effect the interpre-
tation.

237
 4) For practical use, the definition of the suitable failure
load should be based on the mathematical concept and always
give one answer. This means that the interpretation is not de-
pendent on the graphical scale of the load-settlement curve and
the interpreter’s judgment. In some cases, the shape of load-
settlement curve may be taken into consideration, or the length of
the pile which indirectly influences the shape of the load-
settlement curve. Without such suitable definitions mentioned
above the interpretation of the failure load of the pile may be mis-
leading.
From the Author’s experience in Thailand, the pile ultimate
load obtained by the Chin method from the result of ML-test is
always higher than that of the test result by about 20 - 30 %. For
the Brinch Hansen method, it is very difficult to get the load set-
tlement co-ordinates beyond the elastic range, because the plung-
ing failure loads always found close to the pile load at the yield
point or about 5 % of the pile diameter. The Brinch Hansen
method is therefore has limited use in determining the ultimate
pile load in Thailand where the conventional load test is ML-test.

2 THE NEW LOAD SETTLEMENT EQUATION

1.3 Load Settlement Relationship and Pile Failure Load
The information derived from the load-settlement curve obtained In order to overcome the above mentioned limitations, Arayasiri
from the static pile load test is used to determine the value of (2002) presented the New Load Settlement Equation derived
subgrade reaction and the allowable load of the pile in foundation mathematically as follows:
design. Several methods have been proposed for the
determination of the pile ultimate load from such curve for A+B (6)
establishing the factor of safety (F.S. = ultimate pile load / log P
allowable pile load). Fellenius(1980) pointed out that two out of 1/( )

nine are scientific methods by which the result is derived by r P 10

mathematical means. These two methods are;
1) Chin (1970) method, based on the assumption that the where = settlement, P = pile load
load-settlement relationship is a hyperbolic function, expressed
It is found that the coefficient of linear correlation, r, of the
as:
ratio and is in the order of r = 0.9999+ for all load-
log P
x settlement data obtained from pile load test. It is also found that
a b( x) (1)
y the coefficient r increases with the pile load, and the constants A
and B also vary accordingly with the load variation.
when, x = settlement, y = pile load. The ultimate pile load can
The ultimate pile load can be derived as:
be derived from:
1/( )
u
Pu 1/ b @ x (2) P 10 (7)
u

where u = Settlement at plunging failure and the theoretical

2) Brinch Hansen (1963) method based on the assumption
pile ultimate load can be derived as
of a parabolic load-settlement relationship. The equation can be
expressed as: 1/B
Pu(th) 10 @ u
(8)
x (3)
a b( x)
y As mentioned above, the constants A and B vary with the
maximum pile load. Therefore the theoretical pile ultimate load,
when, x = settlement, y = pile load
PU(th), will also vary with the maximum pile load. It is clear that
In determining the ultimate pile load, Hansen set up the 80%
only in the case where the maximum test load is close to plunging
criterion where the settlement at 80% ultimate load (80% P U) is
failure load, will the estimated theoretical P U(th) be close to P U(th)
equal to ¼ of the settlement at ultimate load ( u @ 100% PU) So
at plunging failure. If the maximum test load is less than plunging
that:
failure load the estimated P U(th) will have an error. Anyway, the
1 (4) theoretical failure load P U(th) estimated at is not the
PU
2 ab plunging failure load in which the practical measurement is taken
at d.
u a/b (5) dP
In order to estimate the plunging failure load and settlement
Fellenius (1980) also pointed out that the pile ultimate load from load settlement curve, the relationship of pile load, pile
estimated from these two methods will be effective when the settlement and the slope of the curve d have been developed
load-settlement is beyond the Davisson Limit Load or elastic as follows: dP
limit of the load-settlement curve. The results of pile ultimate d
load from Chin (1970) will be the upper limit of all methods, and dP d (9)
a b
for Brinch Hansen (1963), the ultimate pile load will be close to log P dP
the tested value. In the case of Maintained Load Test (ML-test) d
and dP d (10)
the co-ordinates of load settlement beyond elastic range is limited a' b'
in numbers, so it may not have sufficient data to get accurate log dP
results by the Chin and Brinch Hansen methods. For Constant 2
Rate Penetration test (CRP test), Chin and Brinch Hansen in which d log e A B (11)
methods will give better results. dP A.P

238
 It is found that the linear correlation coefficient of Eqs. (9) & 3 VERIFICATION OF THE NEW LOAD SETTLEMENT
(10) are as high as r = 0.9999+. From Eqs. (9) & (10) considering EQUATION
d
the plunging failure criteria, , the plunging failure load and
dP
failure settlement can be derived as 3.1 Method of Study

Pu = 10 1/b (12) The new load settlement equation was checked by the linear cor-
relation coefficient, r, of the load settlement data of each test pile
as shown in Tables 1 & 2. These data were obtained from 34
and u= 10 1/b (13) static pile load tests, of which 10 tests were performed on driven
piles and 24 tests were those on bored piles. On both driven and
bored piles, 24 tests were loaded to plunging failure and 10 tests
were not loaded to plunging failure.

Table 1. Summary of results of piles tested to plunging failure.

Analysis of pile ultimate load and
At plunging failure load (P ut)
failure settlement
Test Diameter Length
Ultimate pile
pile D L L/D Failure settlement
Put ut Puc d /dP Linear cor- load
No. (m) (m)
(T) (mm.) (T) (mm./T) relation r Pua ua
Pua/Put ua/D
(T) (mm.)
32-D-I 0.22X0.22 21.00 95.5 65.0 40.15 65.49 11.04 0.99988 65.44 1.007 44.65 0.203
35-D-I 0.30X0.30 21.00 70.0 95.6 39.40 96.07 8.19 0.99993 96.28 1.007 44.11 0.147
37-D-I 0.22X0.22 21.00 95.5 63.6 39.40 64.27 9.96 0.99981 64.17 1.009 44.42 0.202
41-D-I 0.26X0.26 21.00 80.8 76 21.51 77.08 2.90 0.99972 78.30 1.030 29.14 0.112
62-B 1.50 38.37 25.6 1147.1 81.70 1130.62 2.87 0.999994 1163.50 1.014 102.48 0.068
76-D- 0.60 25.00 41.7 300 46.12 301.93 2.55 0.99998 302.98 1.010 52.37 0.087
78-D- 0.40X0.40 13.00 32.5 250 31.61 241.50 2.65 0.99987 261.60 1.046 57.95 0.145
81-D-I 0.30X0.30 24.00 80.0 117 75.47 117.10 23.92 0.999979 117.53 1.005 82.27 0.274
82-D 0.40 25.00 62.5 150 73.93 149.70 10.53 0.999924 152.99 1.020 91.07 0.228
84-B 0.50 18.50 37.0 110 17.25 108.70 2.16 0.999969 110.14 1.001 20.02 0.040
85-D- 0.40X0.40 13.00 32.5 315 22.83 311.80 1.58 0.999988 317.03 1.006 28.06 0.070
88-B 0.60 21.50 35.8 175 32.18 175.29 4.64 0.999972 176.16 1.007 37.38 0.062
89-D 0.40 21.00 52.5 160 47.76 160.51 5.12 0.999957 161.16 1.007 53.29 0.133
91-D-I 0.22X0.22 18.00 81.8 25 71.29 25.00 126.4 0.999993 25.02 1.001 73.44 0.334
94-B 1.00 35.00 35.0 831 85.48 822.11 4.30 0.999988 830.96 0.999 87.16 0.087
TP1.1-B 1.50 60.00 40.00 3477 66.19 3472.1 0.1564 0.999990 3657.2 1.052 87.80 0.059
TP1.3-B 1.50 55.00 36.70 3451 112.17 3469.1 0.4626 0.999996 3509.6 1.017 124.56 0.083
TP1.4-B 1.50 52.00 34.70 3440 61.69 3440.5 0.1441 0.999985 3620.6 1.053 82.56 0.055
TP2.3-B 1.50 55.00 36.70 2932 88.78 2937.6 0.4528 0.999995 2971.9 1.014 102.07 0.068
TP2.4-B 1.50 60.00 40.00 3458 90.67 3475.9 0.2866 0.999993 3553.7 1.028 108.04 0.072
TP3.3-B 1.50 55.00 36.70 3215 50.12 3215.9 0.1444 0.999980 3382.5 1.052 67.84 0.0452
PP2.1-B 1.20 51.10 42.60 1800 52.46 1798.8 0.3688 0.999990 1848.2 1.027 64.88 0.0540
PP2.2-B 1.20 53.40 44.50 1800 42.61 1796.1 0.2259 0.999983 1882.0 1.046 56.51 0.0471
PP2.3-B 1.20 49.40 41.20 1757 117.63 1748.2 2.0040 0.999995 1755.5 0.999 112.26 0.0936
Put = tested ultimate load
Puc = calculated ultimate load
Pua = analyzed ultimate load
ut = settlement at tested ultimate load
ua = settlement at analyzed ultimate load

239
Table 2. Summary of results of piles not tested to failure.

Analysis of pile ultimate

At maximum test load (P mt)
load and failure settlement
Diameter Length Ultimate pile Failure
Test pile
D L L/D load settlement
No. Pmt mt Pmc d /dP Linear
(m) (m)
(T) (mm.) (T) (mm./T) correlation r Pua Pua/P mt ua ua/D
(T) (mm.)
TP1.5-B 1.50 55.00 36.7 3440 49.15 3449.4 0.1004 0.999976 3653.4 1.062 68.13 0.0454
TP2.1-B 1.50 58.00 38.7 3670 44.64 3606.6 0.0662 0.999944 4260.6 1.161 78.47 0.0523
TP2.5-B 1.50 60.00 40.0 3700 56.80 3692.3 0.1051 0.999977 4006.3 1.083 81.72 0.0545
TP2.6-B 1.50 60.00 40.0 3825 41.83 3746.6 0.0497 0.999903 4818.4 1.260 89.87 0.0600
PP1.1-B 1.20 53.50 44.6 1804 23.61 1739.6 0.0630 0.999906 2219.3 1.230 55.50 0.0463
PP1.2-B 1.20 53.30 44.4 1800 18.34 1746.3 0.0361 0.999795 2995.4 1.664 120.69 0.1000
PP1.3-B 1.20 51.40 42.8 1799 29.91 1740.6 0.0893 0.999913 2136.0 1.187 60.58 0.0505
PP1.4-B 1.20 52.20 43.5 1800 29.61 1736.0 0.0883 0.999889 2193.3 1.219 65.85 0.0550
PP1.5-B 1.00 51.60 51.6 1350 28.80 1281.1 0.0896 0.999876 1722.6 1.276 68.47 0.0685
PP2.4-B 1.20 51.10 42.6 1720 31.41 1713.5 0.1119 0.999941 1952.8 1.135 54.84 0.0457
Pmt = tested maximum load
Pmc = calculated maximum load

mt = settlement at tested maximum load

3.2 Interpretation of the Ultimate Pile Load indicates the precision of using Eq. (7) in calculating the ultimate
load.
Case A: The test piles were loaded to plunging failure and the 3) The values of the ultimate pile load (P ua) analyzed from the
final settlement ( u) is recorded. The pile ultimate load can be criterion that at plunging failure slope of load – settlement
d
obtained from Eq. (7). curve dP as presented in Table 1 also differ from the
Case B: The test piles were not loaded to plunging failure plunging failure load (P ut) by not more than 5%. It can therefore
and the final settlement ( u) is not attained. The load settlement be concluded that the plunging failure load observed in the field
d
relationship up to the maximum tested load is governed by Eq. test does conform with the criterion .
dP
(6). 4) The values of the failure settlement( ua) analyzed from the
d
The slope of the load-settlemtent curve in all cases can be cal- criterion at plunging failure base on presented in Table
dP
culated by Eq. (11). 1 and Fig. 2 are slightly higher than the settlement observed at
The criteria for determining the ultimate pile load can be set plunging failure load ( ut) which seems dto be reasonable. The
as follows: ratios of the settlement analyzed from dP and the test pile
1) The linear correlation, r, of the load settlement equation diameter are shown in Tables 1 & 2. It is seen that the ratios are
at the maximum test load should be r = 0.9999+. in the range of 4 to 20% of pile diameter, and seem to depend on
2) Pile load should be beyond the elastic yielding load or the value of slenderness ratio L/D and diameter D as shown in
Davisson limit load. Figs. 3 & 4.
3) The linear correlation r P and r of the linear equations
Eqs. (9) & (10) shouldd be r = 0.999 + Min. At the 0.40
plunging failure where , Eqs. (12) & (13) should
dP 0.35
be applied. 0.30
0.25

0.20
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0.15
( ua/D) = 0.01215+1.0377( ut /D)
0.10 r =0.9845
1) All the values of the coefficient of linear correlation, r, at the 0.05
plunging failure load and at maximum test load shown 0.00
respectively in Tables 1 & 2. are in the order of 0.9999+ ,which 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
indicates that the load settlement curve and the derived equations
ut/D
are nearly coincidental.
2) The values of the ultimate calculated pile load (P uc) by Eq. Fig. 2. Relationship of analyzed ultimate settlement, ua and the
(7) as shown in Table 1 compared to the plunging pile load (P ut) tested ultimate settlement, ut.
observed in the field test show an error not exceeding + 2 %. This

240
 0.40
0.35 12

0.30
ua /D = - 0.00659 /( (1/log D) - 0.43796) 10
2
0.25 r = 0.99676 ,r = 0.9935 , n =34
8
0.20
u/ D = 0.10

0.15 (Terzaghi ) 6
0.10
4
0.05
2 d /dP = 0.20683 / ((1/log(L/D)) - 0.5209
0.00 2
r = 0.99989 , r = 0.99978 , n = 24
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0
D (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L/D
Fig. 3. Relationship of analyzed ultimate settlement, ua and the
pile diameter, D. Fig.6. Relationship of settlement rate, d dP at plunging failure
from pile load test and the pile slenderness ratio, L/D.
0.50

ua/D = 0.00792/ ((1/log(L/D))-0.5019)

0.40 2
r = 0.9868 , n = 34
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
0.30

ua/D = - 0.0477+0.00302(L/D)
1) The New Load Settlement Eq. (6) fits well with the load - set-
0.20 2
r = 0.6106 , n = 34 tlement curve obtained from the static pile loading test. The lin-
u/ D = 0.10 ear correlation coefficient, r, is found to increase with the in-
0.10 (Terzaghi )
crease in load, and varies in the range of r = 0.999+ to 0.9999+.
2) The values of ultimate load and settlement at ultimate load
0.00 d
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 analyzed from the criterion that at plunging failure (P ua,
dP
L/D ua) show good correlation with the corresponding tested values
(P ut, ut). For P ua it is + 5% max. greater than P ut. The ratio of
Fig. 4. Relationship of analyzed ultimate settlement, ua and the ultimate settlement and pile diameter, ua/D is not constant for all
pile slenderness ratio, L/D. pile diameters but increases logarithmically with the slenderness
ratio L/D, and decreases logarithmically with pile diameter (D).
It’s seen that the DU ratio does not decrease linearly with 3) The values of the settlement rate at plunging failure are in
the increase in pile diameter, D and does not increase linearly the range of 0.10 to more than 100 mm/T, and vary with the pile
with the increase in the slenderness ratio L/D. Such behavior is diameter (D) and slenderness ratio L/D.
found to be different from the Terzaghi concept that the ultimate 4) The criteria for predicting the failure load can be con-
settlement is estimated to be 10% of the pile diameter. cluded as follows:
5) The settlement rate at plunging failure load, is found to be in a. The linear correlation, r, of the load settlement equation
the range of 0.10 mm/T to more than 100 mm/T as shown in up to the maximum test load should be d
r = 0.9999+.
Table 1. This rate exhibits good correlation with log D and log b. The slope of load-settlement curve, dP at the maximum
(L/D) (Figs. 5 & 6). It is seen that the settlement rate decrease test load should be more than 0.15 mm/T depending
logarithmically with the increase in pile diameter and increases on the pile diameter and slenderness ratio.
logarithmically with the slenderness ratio. 5) For further study, it is recommended to study the result of
pile load test from wide ranging geotechnical areas in order to
verify the global validity of the New Load Settlement Equation
d
12 and the slope of load settlement curve, dP equations in
predicting the ultimate pile load and settlement.
10

(d /dP)/ log D = A+B (d /dP)

8
A = - 0.1452 , B = 0.42725

6
2
r = 0.99989 , r = 0.9998 , n = 24 REFERENCES

4
Arayasiri, M. 2002. The new load settlement equation and the
2 prediction of ultimate load from the results of static pile load-
ing test. EIT Seminar on pile behavior resulted from pile load
0
test and the application of pile load test data in foundation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
work, Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai).
D(mm)
Chin, F.K. 1970. Estimation of the ultimate load of test pile not
Fig. 5. Relationship of settlement rate, d dP, at plunging failure carried to failure. Proceedings of the 2 nd Southeast Asian
from pile load test and the pile diameter, D. Conference on Soil Engineering .
Davisson, M.T. 1972. High capacity piles. Proceedings of the
Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation Construction,
ASCE, Illinois Section.

241
Fellenius, B.H. 1980. The analysis of results from routine pile Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil Mechanic in Engineering
load test. Ground Engineering, 13(6): 19-31. Practice. New York: Wiley.

242
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Improved Effect of Skin Friction of Pile Extended in Sand

N. Yasufuku, H. Ochiai, & K. Omine

Department of Civil Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581,Japan
yasufuku@civil.kyushu-u.ac.jp
S. Babasaki
Obayashi Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract: An improved effect of skin friction of pile expanded in sandy ground is discussed based on the experimental results from a
series of the model pile load tests. The characteristics of the apparatus, which is newly developed in this study, is first explained,
mainly focused on the function of the expanded system of the pile. The way of changes in horizontal stresses of a model ground sur-
rounding the pile due to its expansion is then discussed with reference to the degree of the expansion. Finally the improved effect of
the skin friction due to the expansion is clarified based on the experimental data. In addition, a simple idea to evaluate the improved
pile skin friction is introduced in this study. Its applicability is verified by the experimental data. It can be found from the experimental
results that the pile with an expanded function in practice is environmentally effective to improve the pile skin friction.

1 INTRODUCTION
Air Cylinder
When considering the mobilized mechanism of pile skin friction,
it is essential to understand the horizontal stress of the ground Displacement
surrounding the pile. Recently, several kinds of pile construction Transducer
methods without generating the construction surplus soils during
the pile setup are produced by Japanese construction and steel
companies, aiming at reducing the environmental impact. Such Loading Plate
pile construction methods are expected not only to reduce the
construction surplus soils but also to increase the horizontal
stresses acting on the pile due to horizontally pushing outward Load Cell
and compacting the soils surrounding the pile.
In this study, fundamental characteristics of the improved effect 1000mm
Model Pile
of pile skin friction by the increments of the horizontal stresses
acting on the pile are discussed through the results of model pile
load tests and the brief theoretical considerations. In addition, the Sample
propagation characteristics of the incremental horizontal stresses
in the ground surrounding the pile is considered, particular refer-
ence to the degree of the model pile expansion which may di-
700mm
rectly reflect the increments of the horizontal stresses in the
ground close to the pile.
Fig. 1. Schematic view of model pile load apparatus.

2 MODEL PILE LOAD TEST APPARATUS AND TEST

PROCEDURE

2.1 Model Test Apparatus Produced

A model pile load apparatus newly made is schematically shown
in Fig. 1, in which the model pile is characterized as being hori-
zontally expanded. The cylindrical chamber is about 700mm in
diameter and 1000mm in height. A constant overburden pressure 5mm
up to 100kPa can be applied through a loading plate with two air
cylinders. Small earth pressure sensors (PDA-200-500kPa, To-
kyo Sokki Co., Ltd) shown in Fig. 2 are set up in the proper posi- Fig. 2. Earth pressure measurement sensor used.
tions of the model ground surrounding the pile, which are used to
measure the changes of the horizontal stresses, when the model overburden pressure. Figure 3 shows the structural system of
pile is horizontally expanded and then penetrated under a certain mechanically expanded model pile used here, which is named as
an expanded pile, where the diameter of the upper and lower

243
 7
Before pile After pile extension
extension Dr = 75%
6
Rmax = 100 m
5 r / a = 1.0
60mm
4
3
Cross section Cross section
2 h0 = 8.2kPa
Brass Brass = 12.5kPa
Steel Steel 1 h0

h0 = 25.0kPa
0
1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07
Part of pile surface Part of pile surface
a / a0
50mm
Fig. 5. Increments of normalized horizontal stresses at
pile surface with increasing pile extension ratio.
500mm
(a) (b) (c)
model tests, the diameter “a0” at the middle of the pile length D f
Fig. 3. Model pile and its extension mechanism. is used as a representative initial diameter of the pile (see Fig.4)
and then the pile extended ratio is simply defined as a/a 0 where
“a” is the pile diameter after cylindrically extending the pile out-
ward shown in Fig. 4. In addition, the normalized horizontal dis-
Actual pile Model test pile tance from the center of the pile defined as “r/a” is used to char-
acterize the distribution of the horizontal stresses in the ground
Modeling a fixed depth by applying
a corresponding surcharge load
due to cylindrically pile extension. Test conditions are summa-
rized in Table 1. Four different initial horizontal stresses and
Before pile After pile
extension
three extended ratios are selected in this study to investigate the
extension
v r v
effect of the overburden pressure and the pile extension outwards
on the characteristics of horizontal stress changes and the im-
proved effect of the mobilized pile skin friction. After the model
pile is set up to the fixed position in the chamber, Toyoura sand
Df ground with the relative density of 75% is made as a representa-
a0 a
tive model ground, which is prepared by air –pluviation method.
Table 1. Test conditions selected.
r / a = 1.0 3.0 9.0
Extension ratio Location of earth Initial horizontal stress h0 (kPa) 8.2, 12.5, 25.0, 50.0
= a / a0 pressure sensor set up Initial pile diameter a 0 (mm) 27.5, 28.7, 29.6
Pile extension ratio a / a 0 1.0, 1.042, 1.075
Fig. 4. Modeling of the pile and location of earth pressure Relative density D r (%) 75
sensor. Pile surface roughness R max ( m) 100
Penetration depth D f (mm) 450

parts are around 60mm and 50mm, respectively, which indicates

that the pile is cylindrically taper shaped one, and also the length
is about 500mm. The model pile consists of the brass plates
which are divided by 16 pieces. When a central shaft is rotated by
a rod as shown in Fig. 3, each plate smoothly slides and then the
diameter of the pile increases. Figures 3(b) & 3(c) shows the
cross section of the pile and a piece of pile surface before and af-
ter the pile diameter increases. The model pile is always set up to
the initial penetration depth of 450 mm from the model ground
surface and all the tests are conducted under various overburden
pressures to simulate a stress condition in any depth of actual pile
(see Fig.4).
2.2 Test Conditions and Definitions of Parameters Used
The parameter for defining the degree of changes in pile diameter,
simply called as pile extension ratio here, and the position of
small sensors for measuring the changes of the horizontal effec-
tive stresses in the ground during testing are shown in Fig. 4. In
3 CHARACTERISTICS OF HORIZONTAL STRESS
CHANGES DUE TO CYLINDRICAL PILE EXTENSION
3.1 Horizontal Stress Changes with the Degree of Pile Extension
Figure 5 shows the horizontal stresses h acting on the pile sur-
face just after pile extension, which is normalized by the initial
horizontal stress h0, h/ h0, against the degree of pile extension
a/a0 in terms of the initial horizontal stresses. In this case, the
normalized horizontal stresses almost linearly increase with the
increasing pile extension ratio a/a 0, irrespective of the initial
horizontal stresses. Figure 6(a) shows the characteristics of the
normalized horizontal stresses under the initial horizontal stress
of 12.5kPa, at which the normalized horizontal distance r/a is
from 1.0 to 9.0, against the pile extension ratio. It is clear that the
increasing rate of the normalized horizontal stresses with the pile

244
 6 4
r / a = 1.0
Dr = 75% a / a0 = 1.030
Rmax = 100 m
5 r / a = 2.0
h0 = 12.5kPa
a / a0 = 1.042
r / a = 3.0 3 a / a0 = 1.055
4 r / a = 4.0
r / a = 6.0
r / a = 3.0
3 2
2
1
1

0
1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
a / a0
h0
kPa
Fig. 7 Changes of initial stresses at r/a=3.0 with initial hori-
6
zontal stresses.
a / a0 = 1.02
5 a / a0 = 1.04
a / a0 = 1.06
4 Dr = 75% crease with the increasing initial horizontal stresses, which means
Rmax = 100 m that the dramatic effect on the stress changes due to pile exten-
3 h0 = 12.5kPa sion tends to be in more narrow ranges with the increasing over-
burden pressure.
2

1 3.2 Characteristics of Horizontal Stress Relaxation after Pile

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
r/a
Fig. 6. Changes of horizontal stresses in surrounding ground
related to pile extension ratio.
extension ratio decreases with the increasing distance from the
center of the pile r/a. Such tendency can also be understood from
the h/ h0-r/a relationship shown in Fig. 6(b). When r/a becomes
greater, the changes of h/ h0 exponentially reduce to zero irre-
spective of a/a0. There seems to exist a limited distance from the
center of pile in which the stress changes do not appear even if
the pile is cylindrically extended outward. In this case, the lim-
ited distance become 9.0 in r/a. Similar results were observed in
the cases conducted under the different overburden pressures.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the normalized horizon-
tal stresses at r/a=3.0 and the initial horizontal stresses h0. It is
clear that the h/ h0 for each pile extension ratio gradually de-
Extension
7 8 9 The horizontal stresses in the ground due to pile extension may
decrease with the increasing elapsed time because of the rear-
rangement of soil particle structure and its visco-plastic proper-
ties. Figure 8 shows the results in the cases that pile was ex-
tended up to 7.5% against the initial diameter of pile a 0
(a/a0=1.075). The horizontal stress changes with the increasing
pile extension ratio and the elapsed time at an initial horizontal
stress of 8.2kPa and at four different r/a are shown in Figs. 8(a)
and (b). It is clear that the horizontal stresses at zero elapsed time,
which increased with pile extension ratio, quickly decreased
within several hours just after stopping the pile extension and
then almost converge a constant value till 20 hours passed, which
is called as the residual horizontal stress and in these cases, the
horizontal stresses from 70% to 80% are remained. When com-
paring the relaxation properties in terms of r/a, smaller r/a is, lar-
ger the decreasing rate with time becomes. In other words, the re-
laxation ratio of the horizontal stresses at a location relatively far
from the center of the pile tends to be small The incremental

40 40
Rmax = 100 m h0 = 8.2kPa
35 35 r / a = 1.0
a / a0 = 1.075 Dr = 75%
30 30

25 25
r / a = 2.0
20 20

15 15 r / a = 3.0

10 10

5 5
r / a = 4.0
0 0
1 1.075 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
a / a0 t h
Fig. 8. Stress relaxation properties at h0=8.2kPa after pile extension.

245
 Table 2. Analytical parameters used and initial condition.
1
0.9 Cohesion c (kPa) 0
Internal friction angle (degs.) 30
0.8
Poisson ratio 0.3
0.7
Dilatancy angle (degs.) 10
0.6 Young's modulus E ( MPa) 200, 250, 300
0.5 h0 = 8.2kPa Initial cavity inner pressure p 0 (kPa) 8.2, 12.5, 25.0
a / a0 = 1.075 h0 = 12.5kPa Cavity radius a 0 ( mm) 27.5
0.4
r / a = 1.0 h0 = 25.0kPa
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
6
t h
5 Experiment
Fig. 9. Horizontal stress relaxation properties related to initial Prediction
horizontal stresses.
4 = -10
horizontal stresses at an elapsed time, ht, normalized by the
h0 = 25.0kPa
initial incremental stresses 3
h(at t=0) against the elapsed time a / a0 = 1.021
are shown in Fig. 9, which are obtained under three different
2
kinds of initial horizontal stresses. The stress relaxation ratio with
time depends on the initial horizontal stresses, namely, the re- 1
laxation ratio is just greater when increasing the initial horizontal
stresses. It is however noted that the horizontal stresses around 0
70% for each case continues to remain as the residual stresses. 1 2 4 6 8 10
r / a0
3.3 Evaluation of Horizontal Stress Changes in Surrounding
Ground with Pile Extension 6

It must be convenient if the effect of pile extension on stress and 5 Experiment

deformation state in the surrounding ground can be easily evalu-
ated. In this study, a cylindrical cavity expansion theory, which is
derived by Yu & Houlsby (1991), is applied to predict the
changes of the horizontal stresses in the ground surrounding the
pile. Four soil constants are needed for calculation, which are
Young modulus E, Poisson’s ratio , internal friction angle ,
and dilatancy angle summarized in Table 2. All the parameters
are determined by the results from triaxial compression tests. The
initial and boundary condition which is linked with experimental
condition are also shown in this table. Figure 10 shows the com-
parison of the predicted results with the experimental ones, in
which the changes of h/ h0 with r/a at two different pile exten-
sions are shown in Figs. 10(a) & (b), respectively. Although the
difference between the predicted and experimental results can be
found in the case that the pile extension is relatively small (see
Fig.10(a), the experimental tendency which h/ h0 exponentially
decreases with the increasing r/a can be represented by the model
used. Therefore, if more accurate prediction is requested, some
modification of model may be necessary.
4 IMPROVED PILE SKIN FRICTION DUE TO PILE
EXTENSION
Figure 11 shows the relationship between the pile skin friction
and normalized settlement S/D under two different overburden
pressures obtained by the model pile load tests, where S and D
are defined as pile settlement and diameter, respectively. In both
figures, black and white circles indicate the results without and
with pile extension, respectively. It is confirmed from these fig-
ures that the improved effect of the skin friction due to pile ex-
tension is clear, which is presented as the increases of the initial
stiffness in the fs-S/D relationship and also presented as the in-
Prediction
4 = -10
h0 = 25.0kPa
3
a / a0 = 1.042
2
1
0
1 2 4 6 8 10
r / a0
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted horizontal stresses against r/a 0
with experimental ones.
creases of the maximum skin friction, irrespective of the over-
burden pressure. The relationship between the degree of the im-
proved effects fs/fs0 and the normalized settlements S/D is shown
in Fig. 12, which is depicted by using the results in Fig. 11,
where fs0 and fs are defined as the mobilized skin frictions with-
out and with the pile extension, respectively. The degrees of the
improved effects are gradually increased and are then reach the
peak values around S/D from 0.05 to 0.1, which are generally
within an allowable settlements in design. When increasing the
normalized settlements further, the degree of the improved effect
decreases and then approaches to a constant values. Figure 13
shows the normalized maximum pile skin friction f s/fs0 against
the initial horizontal stress h0 directly related to the pile penetra-
tion depth. It is noted that all the results are obtained for the cases
that pile extension ratios are in the range around from 4% to 7%.
Although the degree of the improved effect tends to decrease
with the increasing initial horizontal stress, the resulting degree
of the improved effect defined as the normalized maximum skin

246
 30 1.7
1.6 h0 = 25.0kPa
25
1.5
20
1.4
15 a /a0 = 1.042 1.3 = 8.2kPa
h0
10 a /a0 = 1.0
1.2
5 = 8.2kPa Dr = 75% fs a / a0 = 1.042
h0 1.1
fs0 a / a0 = 1.0
a = 57.3mm v0 = 16.3kPa Rmax = 100 m
0 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

S/D S/D
Fig. 12 Improved effect of pile skin friction related to normal-
ized settlements.
60

50 fi c' '
h tan '
(1)

40 a /a0 = 1.042
c’ and ’ are the adhesion and friction parameters between pile
30 and soil, and 'h is the effective lateral stress acting on the pile.
When assuming that the mobilized mechanism of skin friction
20 a /a0 = 1.0 between piles and soils is essentially based on the shear failure
mechanism in the thin layer of soils, it is reasonable to use the
10 h0 = 25.0kPa Dr = 75% strength parameters at the critical state corresponding to the suf-
a = 57.3mm v0 = 50.0kPa Rmax = 100 m ficiently large displacements, such that:
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
c' 0 (2)
S/D ' '
(3)
cv
Fig. 11. Improved pile skin friction due to pile extension in
the ground related to overburden pressure.
where ’cv is a friction angle at the critical state. If this friction
angle is used for the soil, it is independent of density and is
friction fs/fs0 is found to be from 140% to 200% when the pile ex-
unique, irrespective of the confining pressure. In addition it is
tension ratio is in the range from 4% to 7%.
important to point out that, if this is used, the soil strengths
minimum value is assured which is very useful (Yasufuku et al.,
1997, 1998 and 2001). Thus, submitting Eqs.(2) and (3) into
5 EVALUATION OF IMPROVED PILE SKIN FRICTION
Eq.(1), the following simple equation is derived, which is con-
RELATED TO HORIZONTAL STRESS CHANGES
sidered to be a basic equation in this study:

Skin friction of a pile is generally determined as the sum of pile

to soil adhesion and friction components as shown in the follow-
ing equation:

2.2
a / a0 = 1.042
2
a / a0 = 1.075
1.8 Dr = 75%
Rmax = 100 m
1.6

1.4

1.2

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
h0
Fig. 13. Improved effect of pile skin friction against initial horizontal stresses related to
pile extension ratio.

247
 6 CONCLUSIONS
70 The following conclusions are obtained from a series of model
60 pile load tests;
a / a0 = 1.042 1) Horizontal stresses in the ground surrounding the pile in-
50 crease with the pile extension and then exponentially decrease
with the elapsed time after pile extension. However, in this study,
40 the horizontal increment stresses around 70-80% of the incre-
30 mental ones just after pile extension remained as a residual hori-
a / a0 = 1.075 zontal stress, irrespective of overburden pressure and the distance
20 from the pile.
h0 = 8.2kPa 2) The horizontal stress increments due to pile extension expo-
10 h0 = 12.5kPa nentially decrease with the increasing distance from the pile.
h0 = 25.0kPa They were not measured at the position more than 9 times far
0 from the center of the pile in this study.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
3) Improved effect of pile skin friction due to pile extension is
f s (cal1) clearly found, which appeared as an increment of the initial stiff-
ness and an increases of the maximum skin friction. The im-
Fig. 14. Comparison of predicted skin frictions due to pile exten-
proved effect is in the range of 1.4 to 2.0 times greater than the
sion with measured ones.
maximum skin friction without pile extension.
4) It is confirmed that the improved effect of pile skin friction
fi '
h tan '
cv (4) due to pile extension can be evaluated by using the incremental
Now, referring to Eq.(4), the skin friction related to the incre- horizontal stress in the ground close to the pile surface, properly
ment of horizontal stress due to pile extension can be expressed considering the stress relaxation.
as :
fi h
'
h tan cv
'
(5)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
where, h0 and h are defined as the initial horizontal stress and
the changes of the horizontal stresses which include the stress re-
This study is supported by Japanese Society for the promotion of
laxation effect, respectively. Further, in order to introduce the
science through the grant No: 14350160 “Evaluation of bearing
stress relaxation effect into Eq.(5) based on the experimental re-
capacity of taper type pile foundation taking care of soil com-
sults shown in Figs. 8 and 9, h is divided by two parts, that is,
pressibility and its application to the performance based design ”
the initial stress changes h1 due to pile extension and the
The authors also wish their sincere thanks to Mr. S. Yamada of
amount of stress relaxation h2 such that :
Fukuoka University and Mr. M. Nakashima of Kyushu Univer-
sity for their advice and encouragements.
fi '
h h1 h2 tan '
cv (6)

A comparison of the experimental maximum skin frictions REFERENCES

fs(mea) with the calculated values fs(cal) using Eq.(6) is shown in
Fig. 14. Here,
h1 and h2 in Eq.(6) are determined by intro-
ducing the experimental results obtained as shown in Figs. 8 and
9. It is found that the calculated results give a relatively good
agreement with the experimental results. Therefore, an important
thing as a next step is to present a rational manner for estimating
the horizontal stress changes due to pile extension.
Yasufuku, N., Ochiai, H. & Maeda,Y.1997. Geotechnical
analysis of skin friction of cast-in-place piles. Proceedings of
14th International Conference Soil Mechanics and Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Hamburg: 921-924.
Yasufuku, N, Ochiai, H, Kwag, J & Miyazaki, K. 1998. Effec-
tiveness of critical state friction angle of volcanic ash soils in
design applications. Proceedings of International Symposium
on Problematic Soils 1: 235-239.
Yasufuku, N, Ochiai, H & Ohno, S. 2001. Pile end-bearing ca-
pacity of sand related to soil compressibility. Soils and Foun-
dations 41(4): 59-71.
Yu, H.S. & Houlsby, G.T. 1991. Finite cavity expansion in dila-
tant soils: loading analysis. Geotechnique 41(2): 173-183.

248
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Undrained Lateral Loading for Drilled Shafts

Y. J. Chen
Sinotech Engineering Consultants, 171 Nanking East Road, Sec.5, Taipei, Taiwan
yjchen@mail.sinotech.com.tw
F. H. Kulhawy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
fhk1@cornell.edu

Abstract: Undrained lateral loading capacity models are evaluated for drilled shaft foundations. The basic models are reviewed briefly,
and then the model capacity predictions are compared with two capacities interpreted from load test results, the lateral or moment limit
and hyperbolic capacity. The relationships between the models and interpreted capacities are presented, noting the lower and upper
bound values. The effect of shaft rigidity on lateral capacity also is discussed, citing differences for rigid, intermediate, and flexible shafts.
Design recommendations are developed, supported by basic statistics to define the recommendation quality.

1 INTRODUCTION
The force system for a laterally loaded drilled shaft is complex and
three-dimensional. Although these forces are dominated by the
passive lateral soil resistance, there is shearing along the shaft tip
(toe) and along the front and back faces and sides, and the axial
force components can affect the lateral behavior. A rigorous
analysis of these forces requires three-dimensional numerical
methods, such as finite elements. However, the problem usually is
condensed to a two-dimensional model.
The shaft response also is affected by many boundary condi-
tions (Kulhawy & Chen, 1995), such as shaft rigidity and shaft butt
(top or head) fixity. For shaft rigidity, no generally accepted
standard definitions exist for rigid, intermediate, and flexible
behavior, although several have been suggested (Broms, 1964;
Bierschwale et al., 1981; Poulos & Davis, 1980; Poulos & Hull,
1989; Carter & Kulhawy, 1992). For butt fixity, nearly all load
tests have been conducted on unrestrained shafts.
Many analytical models have been proposed for the undrained
lateral capacity, based on a variety of theoretical assumptions.
Also, various methods have been proposed for interpreting the
shaft "capacity" or "failure" from load test results. Different
models and interpretation methods could result in considerable
differences. Some clarification is warranted.
In this paper, a comparison is made of representative analytical
models, using a large database of undrained lateral load tests on
drilled shafts, at both laboratory and field scales, and consistent
methods of interpreting the load test results. The results lead to
design recommendations for future use.
strength test types to use are TE (triaxial extension) for the lateral
soil resistance and DSS (direct simple shear) for the tip resistance
(e.g., Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).
In any case, the soil limit state at greater depths is characterized
by flow around the shaft. At shallow depths, the soil in front of the
shaft can move upward and laterally. Therefore, most analytical
models include some variation of N p with depth. Some of the
commonly-referenced models are illustrated in Fig. 2 and are
described briefly below.
Reese (1958) utilized a wedge model for shallow failure and a
plasticity model for lateral plastic flow around the shaft for deep
failure. Hansen (1961) employed an earth pressure model at
shallow depths, a Rankine wedge equilibrium model at moderate
depths, and a plastic flow model at greater depths. Broms (1964)
used a plastic flow model for deep failure and judgment for shal-
low failure, based on the Reese & Hansen models and available
load test data. Stevens & Audibert (1979) backfigured profiles of
Np with depth from analysis of instrumented driven pile load test
data. Randolph & Houlsby (1984) essentially modified the Reese
shallow model to include surface roughness and expanded on the
Broms deep plastic flow model.

2 UNDRAINED LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS

The total stress method of analysis is appropriate for undrained

loading. For this method, the lateral capacity (H u) can be calcu-
lated by limit equilibrium analysis of the horizontal forces and
moment shown in Fig. 1. The lateral soil resistance or yield stress
(pu) in Fig. 1 is the most critical parameter and usually is expressed
in terms of a lateral bearing factor (Np), defined as Np = pu /su in Fig. 1. Profile for undrained equilibrium analysis.
which su = undrained shear strength. The appropriate undrained

249
 Both the lateral or moment limit and hyperbolic capacity were
used to determine the "capacity" from the load test data. Hirany &
Kulhawy (1989) discuss the actual load-displacement response
and the modes of soil-shaft failure to develop the lateral or moment
limit (HL). Basically, these modes become evident by plotting the
applied load or moment versus the apparent point of rotation,
which is the ratio of butt displacement to the tangent of the butt
slope. HL corresponds approximately to the load at which initial
failure or yield occurs, generally in the "knee" of the
load-displacement curve, and is not the ultimate limit state.
For the ultimate limit state, a simple hyperbolic representation
(e.g. Manoliu et al., 1985) can be used. By transforming the
load-displacement curve to a displacement/load versus displace-
ment plot, the slope of the data can be obtained, and then its re-
ciprocal is the hyperbolic capacity (H h). The capacity always lies
above the measured data and represents an upper bound.

4 COMPARISON OF CAPACITY PREDICTIONS

Illustrative results of the analyses for undrained lateral loading are

shown for the Reese model in Fig. 3 for the laboratory tests and in
Fig. 4 for the field tests. Each of these figures is in two parts.

Fig. 2. Lateral bearing factors from analytical models.

Finally, Davidson et al. (1982) proposed a more complete

equilibrium system for the lateral or moment loads acting on a
rigid drilled shaft. They considered four modes of load resistance,
including lateral soil resistance, vertical side shear, base or tip
shear, and tip moment.

3 DATABASE FOR LATERAL LOAD EVALUATION

To evaluate these undrained lateral capacity models, available case

histories were compiled that included both laboratory model-scale
and field full-scale load tests. Complete database details are given
by Chen (1993) and Chen & Kulhawy (1994).
In the database, 50 laboratory tests and 43 field tests were
evaluated. All were conducted in cohesive soil profiles. For the
laboratory tests, the shaft diameter (B) ranged from 89 to 175 mm,
D/B (depth/diameter) was between 3 and 8, and all shafts were
rigid. For the field tests, B ranged from 0.1 to 2.0 meters, and D/B
was between 2.5 and 31.6, with 27 rigid, 4 intermediate, and 12
flexible shafts.
For the laboratory tests, extensive property testing had been
done, and therefore all of the required data were available to
evaluate the necessary parameters. However, for the field tests, all
of the necessary parameters were not available. Therefore, it was
necessary to rely on available empirical correlations to obtain
these parameters, as given by Kulhawy & Mayne (1990).
Fig. 3. Laboratory lateral capacity comparisons for Reese model.

250
 Table 1. Regressions for undrained lateral load tests on rigid
drilled shafts.

A. Laboratory tests (n = 45 for H L & 47 for H h)

Model Lateral/Moment Limit, H L Hyperbolic Capacity, H h
a
L r2 SD (kN) h
a
r2 SD (kN)
Reese 0.90 0.981 0.065 1.46 0.979 0.108
Hansen 1.33 0.981 0.065 2.17 0.980 0.106
Broms 1.06 0.977 0.071 1.73 0.977 0.114
Stevens 0.76 0.981 0.065 1.24 0.979 0.107
Davidson 1.11 0.983 0.060 1.81 0.981 0.101
Randolph 0.86 0.981 0.064 1.40 0.980 0.106

B. Field tests (n = 21 for H L & Hh, except Davidson w. 20)

Model Lateral/Moment Limit, H L Hyperbolic Capacity, H h
a
L r2 SD (kN) h
a
r2 SD (kN)
Reese 0.65 0.982 54.7 0.91 0.945 131.
Hansen 1.00 0.986 48.8 1.39 0.948 128.
Broms 0.85 0.979 59.1 1.19 0.956 117.
Stevens 0.57 0.986 48.9 0.79 0.946 130.
Davidson 0.91 0.984 52.7 1.23 0.954 119.
Randolph 0.63 0.983 52.9 0.88 0.946 130.

C. Lab & field tests (n = 66 for H L & 68 for H h; Dav = 65 & 67)
Model Lateral/Moment Limit, H L Hyperbolic Capacity, H h
a
L r2 SD (kN) h
a
r2 SD (kN)
Reese 0.65 0.985 30.3 0.91 0.957 71.6
Hansen 1.00 0.988 27.1 1.39 0.959 69.9
Broms 0.85 0.983 32.8 1.19 0.966 63.9
Stevens 0.57 0.988 27.1 0.79 0.958 71.0
Davidson 0.91 0.987 28.7 1.23 0.964 64.0
Randolph 0.63 0.986 29.4 0.88 0.958 71.1
a - slope of regression through origin, giving H L = L Hu or Hh = h
Fig. 4. Field lateral capacity comparisons for Reese model. Hu, with Hu = predicted lateral capacity

The first is a plot of H L and Hh versus Hu and includes the re-
gression lines through the origin for both data sets. The second is a
histogram of the lateral capacity ratios, with mean and standard
deviation (S.D.) shown for each data set. In these figures, all of the
50 laboratory tests are classified as rigid, and only the 21 rigid
field tests are included.
Note that 7 of the 27 rigid field tests were conducted at the same
site. To minimize potential site bias, only the average of these 7
was used, resulting in 21 cases analyzed. Also, because of insuf-
ficient data, HL and Hh could only be evaluated for 45 and 47 tests,
respectively.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the regression analyses for all
of the analytical models evaluated. This table is separated into
three parts for the laboratory tests, field tests, and all tests together.
As can be seen, the coefficient of determination (r 2) and the S.D.
are comparable within each comparison group (e.g., for H L in the
laboratory tests), and both suggest relatively high quality com-
parisons. However, visual examination of the plotted laboratory
test data indicates two data points at high capacity that may bias
the regression lines somewhat. The same is true for one high
capacity data point in the field test data.
Further examination of the results in Table 1 shows that the
laboratory and field data may constitute two separate populations
that can not be compared directly. This point is evident when
examining part C of the table. In this combined population, the
regression slopes are controlled by the field data, which may be
biased as noted above.
A more correct method of comparison for these data is to use
the normalized capacities, which also are plotted as histograms in
Figs. 3 & 4. A complete summary of these evaluations is given in
Table 2, which shows the calculated capacities normalized first by
HL and second by H h. As noted previously, H L corresponds ap-
proximately to initial failure of the shaft-soil system and effec-
tively represents the lower bound. In contrast, H h corresponds
approximately to the ultimate limit state and effectively represents
the upper bound.
Examination of these normalized results indicates that the
corresponding mean, S.D., and coefficient of variation (COV) for
the laboratory and field data are reasonably comparable. There-
fore, both data sets can be considered equally valid for evaluating
the analytical models.
Evaluation of these analytical models shows that, for H u/HL,
Broms averages 0.78, Hansen averages 0.88, Davidson et al.
average 1.03, and the other three overestimate and predict 1.19 to
1.53. For H u/Hh, Stevens and Audibert average 0.99, Randolph &
Houlsby average 0.83, Reese averages 0.78, Davidson et al. av-
erage 0.66, Hansen averages 0.57, and Broms averages 0.50.

251
Table 2. Summary of normalized undrained lateral capacities. 5 INFLUENCE OF TIP RESISTANCE

A. Normalized by H L In Table 2, the calculated capacities represent the lateral soil

Test No. a
Calculated H u by Author / HLb resistance alone, except for the Davidson et al. model that includes
tip resistance. However, the load test results, and subsequently H L
R H B S&A D R&H and Hh, include some tip resistance, even though the amount is
Lab 45 mean 1.18 0.88 0.76 1.52 1.03 1.28 unknown and has not been measured.
S.D. 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.46 0.31 0.35 To provide a qualitative assessment of this tip effect, the test
COV 0.26 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.27 results were re-analyzed, assuming that the full possible tip resis-
Field 21 mean 1.20 0.90 0.83 1.54 1.02 c 1.30 tance (Ht) was present and was equal to A tip su (DSS). This H t
S.D. 0.38 0.26 0.36 0.46 0.35 0.39 value then was subtracted from the H L and Hh values to give HL
COV 0.32 0.29 0.43 0.30 0.34 0.30 and Hh , and the analyses were re-done for all but the Davidson et
al. model. Table 3 summarizes the normalized undrained lateral
Lab 66 mean 1.19 0.88 0.78 1.53 1.03 c 1.28
capacities without the full tip effect. It should be noted that some
& S.D. 0.34 0.26 0.28 0.46 0.32 0.37
ill-conditioning developed where H t was large compared to HL or
Field COV 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.29
Hh.
Comparison of the results in Tables 2 & 3 reveals some im-
B. Normalized by Hh. portant points. First, all of the normalized capacities are increased
Test No. Calculated Hu by Author a / Hhb HL/Hh when the tip resistance is included, with a rather large increase of
about 34 percent on the lower bound (H L ) comparisons and a
R H B S&A D R&H
more modest increase of about 19 percent on the upper bound (H h )
Lab 47 mean 0.76 0.56 0.49 0.97 0.66 0.82 0.65 d comparisons. This disproportionate increase on the lower bound
S.D. 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.31 0.21 0.24 0.08 assumes that the full available tip resistance has been mobilized at
COV 0.28 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.12 relatively small displacements. This effect is not likely, and only a
Field 21 mean 0.81 0.59 0.52 1.03 0.66 c 0.86 0.64 modest percentage of the available tip resistance would be mobi-
S.D. 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.24 0.09 lized.
COV 0.28 0.29 0.40 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.14 Second, the field data comparisons consistently give larger ra-
Lab 68 mean 0.78 0.57 0.50 0.99 0.66 c 0.83 0.65 d tios than the laboratory data comparisons, which suggest that the
& S.D. 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.31 0.21 0.24 0.08 field tests are less likely to develop the same tip resistance effects
Field COV 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.12 as the laboratory tests. Intuitively, this pattern should occur be-
cause there are more controls in the laboratory.
a - R = Reese, H = Hansen, B = Broms, S&A = Stevens & Audibert,
Third, the COV on the upper bound (H h ) comparisons still is
D = Davidson et al., R&H = Randolph & Houlsby
about 30 percent, which suggests comparable influence of the tip
b - HL = lateral/moment limit, H h = hyperbolic capacity
resistance on the overall data interpretations. However, the COV
c - n = 20 for field, n = 65 or 67 for lab & field
on the lower bound (H L ) comparisons has increased to about 45
d - n = 44 for lab, n = 65 for lab & field
percent for the laboratory data. This significant increase further
suggests a disproportionate influence on these laboratory data.
Overall evaluation of these data suggests the following guide-
lines for rigid drilled shafts. The Hansen or Davidson et al.
models are appropriate to evaluate H L or the lower bound, and a
modest tip resistance (1/4 to 1/3 of the maximum available) could
be included in the Hansen model. Tip effects already are included
in the Davidson et al. model. The Reese, Randolph & Houlsby, or
Stevens & Audibert models are appropriate to evaluate H h or the
upper bound, and a large component of tip resistance (1/2 to 2/3 of
the maximum available) could be included. There will always be
more vagaries in field data, and therefore the specific site condi-
tions at the test should be assessed carefully when assessing the tip
resistance.

6 MODIFICATIONS FOR NON-RIGID FIELD TESTS

Fig. 5. H L / Hh for undrained lateral tests on rigid drilled shafts.
Clearly, the Broms, Hansen, and Davidson et al. models corre-
spond to a lower bound, while the Reese, Randolph and Houlsby,
and Stevens and Audibert models are upper bounds.
One final point to note about Table 2 is that the average H L/Hh
is 0.65, or about 2/3, which is consistent with previous observa-
tions (Mayne et al., 1992; Chen & Kulhawy, 2003). These data
are shown in Fig. 5 and clearly indicate comparable laboratory and
field data populations.
The non-rigid field tests also were evaluated, even though the
analytical models presented are not directly applicable. In general,
these models predict capacities that are larger than the test results,
largely because the full shaft depth is considered. However, for
the flexible shafts, the depth below the "hinge" or "yield" point
without full tip effect does not materially contribute to the capac-
ity.

252
Table 3. Summary of normalized undrained lateral capacities 1/3 of the maximum available) could be included in the Hansen
model. For the Hansen model (without tip resistance), the ratio of
A. Normalized by H L' capacity to HL is 0.88 with n = 66, S.D. = 0.26, and COV = 0.30.
For the Davidson et al. model, the ratio of capacity to H L is 1.03
Test No. Calculated H u by Author a / HL'b
with n = 65, S.D. = 0.32, and COV = 0.31.
R H B S&A R&H (c) The Reese, Randolph and Houlsby, or Stevens and Audibert
Lab 41 mean 1.55 1.14 1.00 1.99 1.67 models are appropriate to evaluate H h or the upper bound, and a
S.D. 0.66 0.53 0.44 0.92 0.74 larger tip resistance (1/2 to 2/3 of the maximum available) could be
COV 0.43 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44 included. For the Reese model, the ratio of capacity to H h is 0.78,
with n = 68, S.D. = 0.22, and COV = 0.28. For the Randolph and
Field 13 mean 1.78 1.23 1.30 2.16 1.87
Houlsby model, the ratio of capacity to H h is 0.83 with n = 68, S.D.
S.D. 0.47 0.34 0.38 0.58 0.49
= 0.29, and COV = 0.29. For the Stevens and Audibert model, the
COV 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.27 0.26
ratio of capacity to H h is 0.99, with n = 68, S.D. = 0.31, and COV =
Lab 54 mean 1.61 1.16 1.07 2.03 1.72 0.31.
& S.D. 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.84 0.68 (d) Shaft rigidity greatly influences the lateral capacity. For
Field COV 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.40 intermediate and flexible shafts, the computed capacities from the
analytical models are greater than the interpreted capacities. By
B. Normalized by Hh'. using Dc/3 for D in the analytical models, shafts of intermediate
Test No. Calculated Hu by Author a / Hh'b stiffness give results comparable to those of rigid shafts. However,
this approach is not applicable for flexible shafts.
R H B S&A R&H
Lab 41 mean 0.89 0.65 0.57 1.14 0.95
S.D. 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.38 0.29 REFERENCES
COV 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.33 0.31
Bierschwale, M.W., Coyle, H.M. & Bartoskewitz, R.E. 1981.
Field 14 mean 0.96 0.72 0.73 1.26 1.09
Lateral load tests on drilled shafts. Drilled Piers & Caissons:
S.D. 0.29 0.20 0.23 0.33 0.28
98-113. MW O‘Neill (Ed.). New York: ASCE.
COV 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.26
Broms, B.B. 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.
Lab 55 mean 0.91 0.67 0.61 1.17 0.99 Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division , ASCE,
& S.D. 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.37 0.29 90(SM2): 27-63.
Field COV 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.29 Carter, J.P. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1992. Analysis of laterally loaded
a - R = Reese, H = Hansen, B = Broms, S&A = Stevens shafts in rock. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering , ASCE
& Audibert, R&H = Randolph & Houlsby 118(6):839-855.
b - H L = lateral/moment limit, H h = hyperbolic capacity Chen, Y.J. 1993. Case history evaluation of behavior of drilled
shafts under axial and lateral loading. PhD Thesis, Cornell
Still, it is worthwhile to examine whether these more flexible University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.
shafts can be modeled by simple rigid shaft approaches. One Chen, Y.J. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1994. Case history evaluation of
criterion (Poulos & Hull, 1989) considers the shaft to be rigid behavior of drilled shafts under axial and lateral loading. Re-
when D is less than one-third of the critical depth (D c), given by port TR-104601, EPRI, Palo Alto: 356p.
4.44 (E cIc/Es)0.25, in which E c = concrete modulus, I c = concrete Chen, YJ & Kulhawy, FH 2003. Drained lateral loading for drilled
moment of inertia, and E s = soil modulus. Using D c/3 as the shaft shafts. Proceedings of the 12 th Asian Regional Conference on
depth, H u was re-calculated. No corrections are made for tip Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering : 595-598. Sin-
effects, because the tip influence for a flexible shaft will be neg- gapore.
ligible. Davidson, H.L., Cass, P.G., Khilji, K.H. & McQuade, P.V. 1982.
The results show that, for shafts of intermediate stiffness, they Laterally loaded drilled pier research. Report EL-2197, EPRI,
are similar to those for rigid shafts and are of comparable popula- Palo Alto: 448p.
tions, using D c/3. However, this simple correction is not appli- Hansen, J.B. 1961. Ultimate resistance of rigid piles against
cable for flexible shafts, which need criteria specific to flexible transversal forces. Bulletin Danish Geotechnical Institute : 5-9.
shafts. Copenhagen.
Hirany, A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1989. Interpretation of load tests on
drilled shafts - Part 3: Lateral and moment. Foundation Engi-
7 CONCLUSIONS neering: Current Principles & Practices (GSP 22): 1160-1172.
(Ed.) FH Kulhawy. New York: ASCE.
The undrained lateral capacity was evaluated for straight-sided Kulhawy, F.H. & Chen, Y.J. 1995. A thirty year perspective on
laboratory and field-scale drilled shafts in a wide variety of cohe- Broms' lateral loading model, as applied to drilled shafts.
sive soil profiles. The lateral capacity was evaluated using several Proceedings Broms Symposium : 225-240. Singapore: World-
analytical models and consistent interpretation methods for load wide Scientific.
tests. These analyses showed the following: Kulhawy, F.H. & Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on estimating soil
(a) The laboratory and field data populations give comparable properties for foundation design, Report EL-6800, EPRI, Palo
results when normalized properly, and therefore both are useful for Alto: 306.
comparison with available analytical models. Manoliu, I., Dimitriu, D.V., Radulescu, N. & Dobrescu, G. 1985.
(b) The Hansen or Davidson et al. models are appropriate to Load-deformation characteristics of drilled piers. Proceedings
evaluate HL or the lower bound. A modest tip resistance (1/4 to of the 11 th International Conference on Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Engineering (3) : 1553-1558. San Francisco.

253
Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy, F.H. & Trautmann, C.H. 1992. Experi-
mental study of undrained lateral and moment behavior of
drilled shafts during static and cyclic loading. Report
TR-100221, EPRI, Palo Alto: 383p.
Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. New York: Wiley.
Poulos, H.G. & Hull, T.S. 1989. Role of analytical geomechanics
in foundation engineering. Foundation Engineering: Princi-
ples & Practices (GSP 22): 1578-1606. FH Kulhawy (Ed.).
New York: ASCE.
254
Randolph, M.F. & Houlsby, G.T. 1984. Limiting pressure on
circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Geotechnique
34(4): 613-623.
Reese, L.C. 1958. Discussion of soil modulus for laterally loaded
piles, Transactions ASCE 123: 1071-1074.
Stevens, J.B. & Audibert, J.M.E. 1979. Re-examination of p-y
curve formulations. Proceedings of the 11 th Offshore Tech-
nology Conference (1): 397-403. Houston.
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

A Time-Related Load Transfer Model for Bearing Behavior of Driven Piles

Y. Huang, Y.Q. Tang & W. M.Ye

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
yhuang@mail.tongji.edu.cn
L. L. Zhao
Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200032, China

Abstract: There are many researches on the phenomenon of time-dependent capacity related to pile driving. However, very few data
have been published on methods of predicting the variation of load-settlement curves with time after driving. The main objective of this
paper is to quantify effects of time on the load-settlement behavior of a single pile. Based on the mechanism related to the variation of
load-settlement behavior with time, a new time-related load transfer model is proposed to estimate the load-settlement behavior of a
single pile after driving. Two nondimensional time factors are added into traditional load transfer functions in order to describe the in-
crease in both shaft friction and base resistance with time. For verification, the proposed time-related load transfer model is used to cal-
culate the load-settlement behavior after pile installation based on a case history. Good agreement is found between calculated and
measured load-settlement curves of static load tests.

1 INTRODUCTION resistance recovers apparently after installation, which also leads

Load-settlement curve is one of the most important behaviour of
a single pile, from which geotechnical engineers may evaluate the
load transfer character between piles and soil easily. It is well
known that the capacity of a driven pile changes with time after
installation. A lot of observed data has indicated that the bearing
capacity of driven piles is not a constant value, but changes with
the time, and finally tends to a certain steady value (e.g. Long et
al., 1999). This phenomenon is called pile setup.
For having great economic benefits, until now, there are many
researches on the phenomenon of time-dependent capacity re-
lated to pile driving. However, most of them are limited in pile
ultimate bearing capacity. On the contrary very few literatures
have been published on methods of predicting the variation of
load-settlement curves with time after driving. Therefore, the
main objective of this paper is to quantify effects of time on the
load-settlement behavior of a single pile.
2 MECHANISM
Previous researches have indicated that pile bearing capacity
show the increasing trend with time particularly in clayey soils.
From the current state of knowledge for time effects of driven
piles, in general, the mechanisms related to the variation of load-
settlement behavior with time mostly include the following two
reasons, i.e. the migration of pore water and thixotropy.
Firstly, excess pore water pressures generates during pile in-
stallation, causing a reduction in effective stress. As the excess
pore water pressure dissipates with time, the effective stress in
the soil will increase. Thus, shaft friction as well as the ultimate
pile bearing capacity increases too. On the other hand, during
pile driving, thixotropy occurs when the soil is seriously dis-
turbed by vibration. Since thixotropy is a reversible process, soil
to an increase in the bearing capacity of the pile with time. Of
course, the load-settlement behavior of pile also depends on
some other factors, including driven depth, pile geometrical
shape, installation method, and loading conditions.
3 ANALYSIS METHOD
The current analysis methods for load-settlement behavior of a
single pile, which have been commonly performed, are mainly
the load transfer method, the elastic analytical method, the finite
element method and so on. In this paper, we use the compara-
tively simple one of them, i.e. the load transfer method (e.g.
Coyle et al., 1966), from which we can get the full load-
settlement curve of a single pile. This method views the single
pile as a number of segments that are assumed to be connected
with soil by a series of nonlinear springs. The load transfer char-
acteristics between soil and pile usually referred to as load trans-
fer functions. For the interface component of this model, the
shaft friction per unit pile length, qs, is related to the relative dis-
placement of the pile-soil interface, s. The second component re-
fers to the base resistance, Qp with pile tip displacement sp. In
this study, the corresponding linear elastic-perfectly plastic load
transfer function is used in Fig. 1. Therefore, the load transfer
function for shaft friction is:
qs=Cs · s, when s<su (1)
qs=qsu, when s=su and s>su (2)
where, qsu is the ultimate value of shaft friction at the ultimate
relative displacement su. The load transfer function for base resis-
tance Qp is:

255

qs
qsu
Cs
1 8
su s
Fig. 1. Linear elastic-perfectly plastic load transfer function.
Qp=kp · Ap · sp (3)
where kp is the subgrade reaction coefficient, and Ap is the plan
area of the pile base.
In order to describe the increase in both shaft friction and base
resistance with time respectively, two nondimensional experien-
tial parameters, Ist and Ipt, may be added into the above load
transfer functions. Thus, the modified load transfer functions can
take into account load-settlement behavior at an actual time after
pile installation. The shaft friction, qst at time t can be calculated
from:
qst= Ist · Cs · s, when s<su (4)
qst= Ist · qsut, when s=su and s>su (5)
where Ist is the time effect coefficient for shaft friction at time t.
In addition, the base resistance is
Qpt= Ipt · kp · Ap · sp (6)
where, Ipt is the time effect coefficient for ending bearing at
time t. Values of Ist and Ipt may be determined by laboratory tests,
instrumented field tests, and empirical data in specific areas.
In previous mechanism analysis, the time effect coefficients are
determined by calculating the effects of pore water migration and
thixotropy on pile bearing behavior. Above all, the influence of
excess pore water may be predicted from the consolidation state.
For instance, the excess pore water pressure generated during
pile installation could be estimated by the elastic-plastic theory
on cavity expansion. Then, from the Terzaghi or Biot consolida-
tion theory, it is easy to get the dissipation ratio at any time. Thus,
the increase of pile-soil strength could be obtained by the history
of effective stress. In addition, the effect of pore water migration
can be determined by the empirical method. Soderberg (1962)
proposed a nondimensional parameter to describe this kind of in-
fluence, which was related to intermission time, pile diameter
and coefficient of consolidation. On the other hand, the effect of
thixotropy can be obtained in terms of laboratory tests of dis-
turbed sample soil. Figure 2 shows the strength increases
256
14
12
10
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time (day)
Fig. 2. Increase of strength with time of remolded clay (Li et al.,
1992)
with time of the remolded soft saturated clay near pile side at dif-
ferent time interval (Li et al., 1992).
4 APPLICATION
With the proposed method, we developed a program for simulat-
ing time effects on load-settlement behavior of a single pile and
then investigated the load tests of a driven precast concrete pile
at the 14th day and 50th day after installation in Shanghai, China
for verification. The pile is 25.6 m long and 300 mm in diameter.
At the end of driving, the penetration at pile termination of about
12mm/blow (with 1.8 t hammer and 1m drop) was recorded. The
soils at the site consist of deep saturated soft clayey soils. The
engineering geological properties at the test site are listed in Ta-
ble1.
The Incremental-Static-Load Test was carried out to deter-
mine load-settlement relationships. The tests followed the stan-
dard test method for piles under static load prescribed in the
Shanghai Code for Design of Building Foundation (DGJ08-11-
1989). The applied load was increased in equal increments, each
increment being one tenth of the predicted ultimate toe resistance.
The load was held at each increment for 60 min.
In the analysis, the pile is divided into 32 segments. Accord-
ing to the previous research and experiences, the time effect on
base resistance can be ignored in Shanghai area and the coeffi-
cient Ist for shaft friction may be determined as 0.50 at the 14th
day and 0.65 at the 50th day. It is necessary to point out that the
values of the above two parameters were assumed based on the
local experiences in this research.
The comparison between calculated results and measured re-
sults are shown in Tables 2 & 3, Figs. 3 & 4. Good agreement
could be found between calculated and measured load-settlement
curves of static load tests.
Table 1. Properties of soil strata at the test site.
Q /100kN
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Layer Type Elevation/m c/kPa /
0
2 Silty clay 0.76~-1.88 14 14.0 1
3-1 Mucky silty clay -1.58~-0.14 7 10.1 2
3-2 Sandy silt -3.17~-1.71 4 21.9 3
3-3 Mucky silty clay -4.63~-3.97 7 8.6 4
4-1 Mucky clay -14.49~-13.61 9 8.1 5
4-2 Clay -17.03~-16.11 12 9.8 6

5-1-1 Silty clay -18.83~-17.35 12 13.1 7

8 Predicted
5-1-2 Silty clay -20.95~-19.72 11 14.1
Measured
6 Silty clay -25.67~-24.01 29 15.3 9
10
Q /100kN
0 2 4 6 8 10 Fig. 4. Measured load-settlement (Q-s) curve and calculated re-
0 sults (50 days after pile driving).

5 Table 3. Comparison between calculated results and measured

10 values (50 days after pile driving).

15 s/mm s/mm
Q/kN Error/%
20 (Predicted) (Measured)

25 224 1.12 1.17 4.27

30 336 1.80 1.83 1.64

448 2.59 2.58 0.39
35 Predicted
560 3.50 3.43 2.04
40 Measured
672 4.49 4.37 2.75
45
784 5.52 5.39 2.41

Fig. 3. Measured load-settlement (Q-s) curve and calculated re- 896 6.55 6.49 0.92
sults (14 days after pile driving). 100.8 7.99 7.70 3.77

Table 2. Comparison between calculated results and measured 1120 9.45 9.37 0.85
values (14 days after pile driving).

s/mm s/mm 5 CONCLUSIONS

Q/kN Error/%
(Predicted) (Measured)
In the paper, a method of analysis was proposed to calculate the
224 1.30 1.25 4.00 load-settlement behavior of driven piles. Based on the mecha-
336 2.11 2.17 2.76 nism of time effects, two nondimensional time factors are added
into traditional load transfer functions in order to describe the in-
448 3.54 3.64 2.75
crease in both shaft friction and base resistance with time respec-
560 6.09 6.25 2.56 tively. Then, the modified load transfer functions can take into
account load-settlement behavior at an actual time after pile in-
672 9.59 9.75 1.64 stallation.
784 14.23 14.86 4.24 It is necessary to point out that the method belongs to the
semi-empirical method. The time factors should be determined
896 41.61 43.53 4.41
on the basis of laboratory tests and instrumented field tests as
well as local experiences.

257
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was supported by the Shanghai
Education Commission, through the Shanghai Municipal Key
Discipline Development Project (Geotechnical Engineering).
This support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Coyle, H.M. & Reese, L.C. 1966. Load transfer for axially
loaded piles in clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations Division, ASCE 92(2): 1- 26.
258
Li, X. & Liu, J.L. 1992. Time effect of bearing capacity of driven
pile in saturated soft soil. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 14(6): 9-16.
Long, J.H., Kerrigan, J. A. & Wysockey, M. H. 1999. Measured
time effects for axial capacity of driven piling. Transportation
Research Record 1663: 8- 15.
Shanghai Construction Commission 1989. Shanghai Code for
Design of Building Foundation (DGJ08-11-1989) .
Soderberg, L.O. 1962. Consolidation theory applied to founda-
tion pile time effects. Geotechnique 12(3): 217-225.
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Lateral Bearing Capacity Prediction of Caisson Type of Seawalls in

Difficult Subsoil Conditions

N. D. Kumar
Ph.D Scholar, Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-36, India.
ndargakumar@hotmail.com
S. N. Rao
Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-36, India.
snr@iitm.ac.in
V. Sundar
Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-36, India.
vsundar@iitm.ac.in

Abstract: In this paper, the lateral capacity of caisson seawall in marine clay has been brought out. The load-ground level deflection
curves and the variations in lateral capacities with embedment depth, load eccentricities and consistency of soil are presented and
discussed. The capacities estimated from the methods reported in literature, are over conservative at lower embedment depth ratios. The
estimated lateral capacities are close to the observed values at higher embedment depth ratios and lower load eccentricity ratios. Using
curve-fitting method for the observed data, an equation is suggested for the estimation of lateral bearing capacity of caissons in clay.
This equation is validated for an independent data. This procedure can be extended for the estimation of capacities in caissons.

1 INTRODUCTION
In marine situations, one could find large stretches of soft clay
deposits, which in general, pose lot of problems to geotechnical
engineers. One of the important aspects in the design of
foundation is the estimation of load carrying capacity. Caissons
can be used as water front structures in marine environment. In
the coastal protection works, caissons can be used as seawalls.
These caissons embedded in clay, might experience large amount
of lateral forces due to waves and currents. The exact prediction
of lateral load carrying capacity of caissons and their depth of
embedment into these deposits lead to safe performance as
seawalls. The lateral capacity of this type of embedded caisson
used in seawalls depends on the passive resistance of surrounding
soil and the size of the structure. There are a few approaches
reported in literature for the lateral capacity of caissons in clay.
Some of the theories related to rigid piles are extended to study
the lateral behaviour of caissons. There can be few limitations in
extending the rigid pile concept to predict its lateral behaviour of
caissons.
Hansen (1961) suggested a method for the estimation of
ultimate lateral resistance of rigid piles founded in cohesive and
cohesionless soils. Broms (1964) developed a set of charts for
estimating the ultimate lateral capacity of rigid piles in cohesive
soils and also suggested a simplified distribution of ultimate soil
resistance with depth in terms of passive earth pressure. Girija
Vallabhan (1981) used nonlinear soil spring concept for the
lateral soil resistance to estimate the lateral capacity. Sastry et al.
(1986) extended the lateral earth pressure theories of Terzaghi
(1943) and Hansen (1961) for estimating the ultimate loads in
both sands and clays for rigid piles. Brettmann & Duncan (1996)
suggested a method called characteristic load method (CLM) for
the analysis of laterally loaded piles and drilled shafts to estimate
the ground level deflection, accurately in clay. Prasad & Rao
(1996) studied the lateral capacity of helical piles in clays. A
simplified approach for lateral load carrying capacity of rigid
piles in clays was developed (Rao et al., 1996). Leung et al.
(1997) brought out the influence of width of caisson on lateral
displacement. Zen et al. (1998) reported the field application of
caissons and suggested the use of suction force in the installation
of caissons. Kanatani et al. (2001) developed the deformation
analysis for the caisson type of seawalls with an armoured
embankment-using centrifuge shaking table tests.
Ohmaki et al. (2001) performed the studies on skirted caisson
foundation and brought out the influence of embedment on lateral
load carrying capacity. With increase in skirt embedment, the
lateral capacity improvement was observed. Yuxia & Randolph
(2002) considering the soil as normally consolidated clay in
which undrained shear strength increases with depth, the soil
flow mechanisms was developed for caissons with embedment
ratios up to 5. It was found that with increasing embedment ratio,
the soil flow mechanism changed from surface failure to a deep
cavity expansion mode and this transition occurs at a higher
embedment ratio.
From the aforementioned review, it is felt that there is a need
to make an in depth study in predicting the lateral behaviour of
caisson in clayey soil. An attempt has been made to arrive at
predictions for lateral capacity of caisson in marine clay using the
test results obtained from a controlled testing in a laboratory.
2 EXPERIMENTAL WORK
2.1 Model Caisson Used
Model caissons were made out of mild steel pipes of 105 mm
outer diameter and 10 mm wall thickness. The embedment length

259
(L) to diameter (D) ratio (L/D) of model caissons investigated
was varied from 2 to 4. The load was applied with a load of
eccentricity (e), equal to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2D of the model
caisson. Consistency index of soil considered in this investigation
was varied from 0.22 to 0.62. Model caissons were prepared ,
keeping in view the fixing and removal of instrumentation and its
rigidity.
The rigidity of the model caissons has been estimated as per
the Poulos (1971). The pile flexibility factor is expressed as:
EpI p
kR (1)
4 1
E s Le
where kR= Pile flexibility factor, Ep= Pile material Young’s
modulus, Ip= Moment of inertia of pile material, E s= Soil
modulus and Le= Embedment length of pile in soil. As per this
criterion, all the model caissons used in this investigation are
found to be rigid.
2.2 Soil Used
Marine clay from the coastal deposit of Chennai, India was used
in this investigation. The liquid limit and plastic limit of soil are
48% and 18% respectively. This soil is composed of 38% clay,
32% silt and 30% fine sand. The soil is classified as medium
compressible clay (CI).
2.3 Test Set Up
The tests were conducted in a mild steel rectangular tank of size,
1.2 m x 0.8 m x 0.90 m (Fig.1). The test tank is chosen such that
the size effects of model caissons adopted in this investigation
were minimum. A special stress controlled pneumatic loading
device was designed and fabricated to apply the loading. The
pneumatic loading system consisted of (i) an air compressor of
adequate capacity with pressure chamber, (ii) 5 port two-way
electrical double solenoid valve, (iii) double acting pneumatic
power cylinder, and (iv) the pressure regulator valve with filter.
Using this system, the lateral static loading was transferred to the
model through an appropriate piston arrangement. A load cell
was connected to the piston rod to measure the lateral load. The
inductive type LVDT was placed at the ground level to monitor
the deflections. The outputs through cables connected to
amplifiers were recorded in the system through data acquisition
unit.
2.4 Testing Procedure
Clayey soil was mixed thoroughly with the required amount of
water to maintain a consistency index of 0.22, 0.42 and 0.62
(Consistency Index, I c is the ratio of difference of Liquid limit
and natural water content to plasticity Index). In the test tank,
after placing the model caisson vertically, the soil was placed in
layers of 50mm thickness with hand packing and pressed by
jacking a template to remove entrapped air and to ensure
homogeneous packing. The full saturation of soil was confirmed
by the measurements of pore water pressure parameter of B=0.98
to 0.99 in a triaxial test set up (Bishop & Henkel, 1962). Static
lateral load tests were conducted to arrive at ultimate lateral load
at Ic = 0.22, 0.42 and 0.62 for caissons with L/D ratio of 2,3 & 4
and for e/D values of 0.5, 1.0 1.5 and 2. Static lateral loads were
applied in increments through pneumatic system. At every load
increment, it was waited until the stabilization in deformation had
reached. The ultimate load was obtained from the lateral load-
260
ground level deflection plots, corresponding to a ground level
deflection of 0.2 times the diameter of the model caisson (Broms,
1964). The ground level deflections and actual lateral load acting
were recorded for every load increment. In this paper, the test
results corresponding to L/D= 2, 3 & 4, e/D= 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 & 2.0
and for Ic of 0.22, 0.42 and 0.62 are presented and discussed.
10
7
8 6
9
5
11 4
3
15
13
12
16
14
17 2
1. Model caisson, 2. Soil, 3. Test tank, 4. Test frame, 5.
LVDT, 6. Extension rod, 7. Load cell, 8.Piston rod,
9.Pneumatic power cylinder, 10. Pressure gauge, 11.
Solenoid valve, 12. Electronic timer, 13. Pressure regulator,
14. Compressor air chamber, 15. Carrier frequency
amplifier, 16. BNC box, 17. Data acquisition system.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of test set up.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
From the experimental results, some of the interesting findings in
relation to lateral capacity of caissons in marine clay are brought
out. Figure 2 shows a typical variation in ground level deflection
with lateral load for a caisson model of L/D=4 and I c= 0.22. From
these results, it is observed that with increase in e/D, there is a
significant decrease in the capacities.
The ultimate lateral loads observed and estimated from the
available theories (Hansen, 1961; Broms,1964; Rao et al., 1996)
for various conditions are presented in Table.1.
The percentage difference in the observed values
corresponding to ground level deflections of 0.1D and 0.2D are
brought out and these values are presented in Table 2. From these
results, it is clear that there is not much difference in lateral
capacities observed between deflections of 0.1D and 0.2D. This
difference is found to be 10 to 17%. This indicates that there is an
enormous increase in deflection even for small load increment
after a ground deflection of 0.1D.
Figures 3, 4 & 5, show the variation in ultimate lateral
capacity with embedment depth, load eccentricity and
consistency of soil respectively. From Fig.3, it is observed that
there is a good increase in lateral load carrying capacity with
embedment depth ratio (L/D) and the increase capacity is about
60% as L/D changes from 2 to 4. From Fig.4, it is observed that
there is a decrease in ultimate lateral capacity with increase in
load eccentricity at all the embedment depths of caisson tested.
Table 1. Observed and estimated ultimate lateral capacities at Table 2. Lateral capacities observed at ground level deflections of
Ic = 0.42. 0.1D and 0.2D at Ic=0.42.
e/D Ultimate Lateral Load (N) e/D Ultimate Lateral Load (N)
Method L/D L/D
2 3 4 0.2D 0.1D %
Observed 0.5 285.00 530.00 710.00 Difference
1.0 240.00 440.00 620.00 2 0.5 285 255 11.76
1.5 200.00 380.00 575.00 1.0 240 212 13.21
2.0 160.00 290.00 495.00 1.5 200 180 11.11
Hansen’s 0.5 262.00 470.00 708.30 2.0 160 140 14.29
(1961) 1.0 207.00 393.20 616.00 3 0.5 530 460 15.22
1.5 170.00 337.50 544.00 1.0 440 375 17.33
2.0 144.00 232.00 433.20 1.5 380 325 16.92
Broms 0.5 134.00 363.00 700.00 2.0 290 250 16.00
(1964) 1.0 114.00 323.00 605.00 4 0.5 710 605 17.36
1.5 80.00 262.00 444.00 1.0 620 535 15.89
2.0 67.00 202.00 336.00 1.5 575 495 16.16
Rao et al. 0.5 118.00 369.00 680.00 2.0 495 425 16.47
(1996) 1.0 97.00 312.00 590.00
1.5 79.00 268.00 521.00
2.0 68.00 236.00 467.00

0.50
0.50 Ic=0.22
Ic=0.22, L/D=4

0.40
0.40

0.30
0.30

0.20
0.20

0.10
0.10 e/D=0.5
e/D=0.5 e/D=1.0
e/D=1.0 e/D=1.5
e/D=1.5 e/D=2.0
e/D=2.0 0.00
0.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Embedment depth ratio (L/D)
Ground level deflection (mm) Fig. 3. Variation in ultimate lateral capacity with embedment
Fig. 2. Variation in ground level deflection with lateral load. depth ratio (L/D).

Figures 5 & 6 show the increase in ultimate lateral capacity
with consistency. There is a good improvement in the lateral
capacity with consistency at all the embedment depths tested,
where as changes in the capacity with load eccentricity, e at
different values of Ic are not significant. With increase in
consistency of soil, there is a good improvement in strength and
for the higher embedment depths of caisson the projected area for
mobilization of passive resistance is more. Hence, the lateral
capacity observed is more.
Figure 7 explains the variation in observed and estimated
ultimate lateral capacities with embedment depth. From this plot,
it is seen that the observed capacities are higher than the values
estimated from the reported theories. Capacities from Hansen’s
(1961) theory are closely matching with observed values from the
tests. The capacities estimated form Broms (1964) and Rao et al.
(1996) are conservative in predicting the lateral capacities of
caisson.

261
 0.50 1.40

L/D=4
Ic=0.22 1.20
0.40

1.00

0.30
0.80

0.60
0.20

0.40

0.10
0.20 e/D=0.5
L/D=4 e/D=1.0
L/D=3 e/D=1.5
L/D=2 e/D=2.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.44 0.52 0.60 0.68
Load eccentricity ratio (e/D) Consistency Index (Ic)
Fig. 4. Variation in ultimate lateral capacity with embedment Fig. 6. Variation in ultimate lateral capacity with consistency of
depth ratio (L/D). clay (Ic).

1.20 0.30

e/D=1 e/D=2, Ic=0.22

1.00 0.25

0.80 0.20

0.60 0.15

0.40 0.10

0.20 0.05
Observed
L/D=4 Hansens (1961)
L/D=3 Rao et al (1996)
L/D=2 Broms (1964)
0.00 0.00
0.20 0.28 0.36 0.44 0.52 0.60 0.68 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Consistency Index (Ic) Embedment depth ratio (L/D)
Fig. 5. Variation in ultimate lateral capacity with consistency Fig. 7. Variation in observed and estimated ultimate lateral
of clay (Ic). capacity with embedment depth ratio of caisson (L/D).

262
 1.40
1.40
L/D=4, e/D=1 (P/Pu) = -9.7805(y/D)2 + 5.8392(y/D) + 0.28
1.20 R2 = 0.9417
1.20

1.00
1.00

0.80
0.80

0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
Ic=0.42, L/D=4
0.20 M ayne et al (1994)
Vallabhan et al (1983) e/D=0.5
0.20 e/D=1.0
Observed e/D=1.5
0.00 e/D=2.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Poly. (fit)
0.00
(y/D)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Fig. 8. Comparison of test data with reported data in the
normalised form (P/P u) and (y/D). (y/D)
Fig. 9. Variation in ultimate lateral capacity with consistency of
From the lateral load-deflection data obtained from the model clay (Ic).
tests conducted and the data reported by earlier investigators
(Mayne, 1994; Vallabhan, 1983), the normalized plots are drawn
in the form of (P/P u) and (y/D) shown in Fig 8. From this, it is
seen that the observed and reported normalized data are closely 6.00
matching. The independent data reported by Vallabhan et al. Ic=0.42
(1983) and Mayne et al. (1994) along with the author’s data have
been used in these plots. The lateral load-deflection data obtained
at different load eccentricity ratios is presented in Fig. 9, in the 5.00
form of normalized plots between P/P u and y/D. From this
normalized data presented in Fig 9, a unique relation is fitted
between P/P u and y/D as shown in Eq. (2). 4.00

2
P y y
9.7805 5.8392 0.28 (2) 3.00
Pu D D

From the above equation (2), for the known values of ultimate 2.00
lateral capacity (Pu) and size (D) of the caisson, the lateral
capacity (P) of caissons for a specified ground level deflection (y)
can be estimated in clay. 1.00
The observed test data is put in non-dimensional form, and e/D=0.5
e/D=1.0
curves are drawn between (P u/cuD2) and (L/D) for various values e/D=1.5
of e/D. These curves are shown in Fig 10. From the data e/D=2.0
presented in Fig 10, a linear fit has been made for the non- 0.00
dimensional parameters of (P u/cuD2), (L/D) and (e/D). An 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
equation has been fitted from the data and is given in equation
(3). L/D
Fig. 10. Non-dimensional plots for ultimate lateral capacity.

Pu L e 2
1.36 0.967 9.667 10 (3) 4 CONCLUSIONS
2
cu D D D
(1) There is not much variation in observed ultimate lateral
Ultimate lateral capacity of caissons can be estimated in clay capacities corresponding to a ground level deflection between
from the Eq. (3) for the known values of (L/D), (e/D), D and c u. 0.1D and 0.2D.

263
 (2) Up to about a ground level deflection of 0.1D, the lateral
load taken by caisson is more and thereafter for even small load
increment, the ground level deflection of a caisson observed is
quite enormous.
(3) There is significant increase in the ultimate lateral
capacity with embedment depth and consistency of soil. The
influence of load eccentricity on ultimate lateral capacity is not
significant.
(4) At higher embedment depths of caissons, the observed
and estimated lateral capacities are closely matching.
(5) The estimated lateral capacities are very much on the
conservative side at lower embedment depths and whereas at
higher embedment depths, the estimated and observed
capacities are nearly equal.
(6) Based on the fitting of observed data, an equation has
been proposed to estimate the ultimate lateral capacity of
caissons in clay. Independent published data also have been used
in these formulations.
(7) Keeping in view of all these, it is possible to design the
embedded caisson in marine clay to serve as seawall for better
performance and to resist the lateral loads.
REFERENCES
Bishop, A.W. & Henkel, D.J. 1969. The Measurement of Soil
Properties in the Triaxial Test. 2 nd Ed. London: Edward
Arnold.
Brettmann, T. & Duncan, J. M. 1996. Computer application of
CLM laterally load analysis to piles and drilled shafts.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
122(6): 496 – 498.
Broms, B. B. 1964. The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive
soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics & Foundations
Division, ASCE 90(SM2): 27-63.
Girija Vallabhan. 1981. Short rigid piers in clays. Journal of
Goetechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 108 (GT10): 255-
272.
264
Hansen, B. 1961. The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against
transversal forces. Bulletin 12, Geoteknisk Institut.
Copenhagen.
Kanatani, M. et al. 2001. Prediction method on deformation
behaviour of caisson type seawall covered with armored
embankment on man-made islands during earthquakes. Soils
and Foundations 41(6): 79-96.
Leung, C.F. et al. 1997. Behaviour of gravity caisson on sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 123(3): 187-196.
Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy, F.H and Trautmann, C.H. 2001.
Laboratory modeling of laterally loaded drilled shafts in
clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 121(12) 827-835.
Ohmaki, S. & Nishizaki, T. 2001. Bearing capacity and
deformation characteristics of a skirted foundation on soft
cohesive ground. Soft Soil Engineering 8: 231-236. Lee et al.
(Eds), Swets and Zeitlinger.
Poulos, H.G. 1971. Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: I- Single
piles. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division,
ASCE 97(SM5): 711-751.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. & Rao, S.N. 1996. Lateral capacity of helical
piles in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 122(11): 938-941.
Rao, S.N. et al. 1996. A simplified method of calculating the
lateral load carrying capacity of rigid piles in clay. Ground
Engineering 29(9): 38 - 40.
Sastry, V. V. R. N. et al. 1986. Behaviour of rigid piles in
layered soil under eccentric and inclined loads. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal (23): 451- 457.
Yuxia Hu & Mark, F. Randolph. 2002. Bearing capacity of
caisson foundations on normally consolidated clay. Soils and
Foundations 42(5): 71-77.
Zen, K. et al. 1998. Case history on the penetration of caisson-
type foundations into seabed by the use of suction force.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
603(III-44): 21-34. (In Japanese).
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Influence of Pile Head Connection Condition on Behavior of Model Piled

Raft Foundations in Sand: Shaking Table Tests at 1-G Gravitational Field

K. Fukumura, T. Matsumoto & A. Oki

Kanazawa University, 2-40-20 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa 920-8667, Japan
matsumot@t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
K. Horikoshi
Technology Center, Taisei Corporation, 344-1 Nase Cho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama 245-0051, Japan
kenichi.horikoshi@sakura.taisei.co.jp

Abstract: A series of seismic load tests were carried out on model piled rafts in dry sand by using a shaking table at 1-g gravitational
filed. An emphasis is placed on the influence of the connection condition between the pile head and the raft on the behaviour of the
piled raft foundations, such as horizontal acceleration, horizontal displacement and inclination (rocking motion) of the foundation. Fur-
thermore, a series of static horizontal load tests on the same model piled rafts were conducted to compare the behaviour of the model
piled rafts under static and dynamic horizontal loading. Some parts of the results from both test series are presented and discussed in
this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION tive density, Dr, of the model ground used in the centrifuge mod-
elling was about 60 %, while that of the model ground used in
Piled raft foundations have been widely recognized as an eco- the 1-g model tests was 95 %.
nomical and rational type of pile foundations when they are sub- A series of triaxial consolidated drained shear tests (CD test)
jected to vertical loading, because the vertical load is supported were carried out on soil specimens of Dr = 95 %, 100 mm high
by the raft as well as the piles, resulting in smaller settlements and 50 mm radius, with different confining pressures, p0, of 50,
with a reduced number of piles compared to free-standing pile 100, 200 and 300 kPa. Another series of CD tests were carried
groups (e.g., Poulos & Davis, 1980; Randolph, 1994; Horikoshi out on soil specimens of Dr = 65 % which was nearly equal to Dr
& Randolph, 1999; Katzenbach & Moorman, 2001). of the model ground used in the centrifuge modelling.
In highly seismic areas such as Japan, estimation of the be- The deviator stress, q, versus, axial strain, a, obtained from
haviour of pile groups and piled rafts subjected to horizontal the CD tests on the soil specimens of Dr = 95 % are shown in Fig.
loading or seismic loading becomes a vital issue in seismic de- 1. The internal friction angle, ', was obtained as 45 degrees.
sign of pile foundations. Behaviour of model piled rafts and From initial linear part of each curve, the shear modulus, G, was
model pile groups subjected to static or dynamic horizontal estimated as G = q/( a- r) where r is radial strain, and is plotted
loads have been intensively investigated in 1-g field model tests against the confining pressure, p0, in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, the G ver-
(Pastsakorn, et al., 2002; Fukumura et al., 2003) and in centri- sus p0 of Toyoura sand with Dr = 65 % is also indicated. The
fuge modelling (Horikoshi et al., 2003a; Horikoshi et al., measured values of G are fitted by the lines given by Eq. (1):
2003b). These test results show that piled rafts are also eco-
nomical and rational foundations even for horizontal loading. In G Gref ( p/ pref )0.5 (1)
the centrifuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b), a focus
was placed on the influence of the pile head connection condi- where pref is a reference value of confining pressure ( =100 kPa)
tions, rigid or hinged, on the behaviour of piled raft models with and Gref is the value of G at p = pref. The values of Gref are 29163
limited test conditions. kPa and 21086 kPa for soil specimens of Dr = 95 % and 65 %,
In this paper, a series of dynamic horizontal load tests by us- respectively.
ing a shaking table at 1-g gravitational field as well as static
horizontal load tests were carried out on model pile rafts in dry Table 1. Physical properties of Toyoura sand.
sand, in order to compare the test results with those from Property Value
Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b).
Density at 1-g test t 1.64 t/m3
Density at centrifuge modelling t 1.52 t/m3
2 SIMILARITY RULE FOR 1-G FIELD MODEL TEST Relative density in 1-g test Dr 95 %
Relative density in centrifuge modelling Dr 60 %
It is important to consider the similarity rule to deduce the behav- Maximum density dmax 1.65 t/m3
iour of a prototype structure from the behaviour of the corre- Minimum density dmin 1.35 t/m3
sponding model. Dry Toyoura sand was used for the model Density of soil particle 2.66 t/m3
s
grounds in both of the 1-g model tests in this study and the cen-
Mean grain size D50 0.162 mm
trifuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b). The physical
Internal friction angle ' 45 deg.
properties of Toyoura sand are summarised in Table 1. The rela-

265
 1000 each pile for the rigid pile connection piled raft model so that the
pile could rotate freely in any direction.
800 Note that configurations of the model piled rafts used in this
study are almost the same as those used in the centrifuge model-
600
ling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b). In Table 3, the geometrical
400 and mechanical properties of the model pile used in the centri-
fuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b) are also shown.
200 20 40 20

20 40 20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Axial strain, a
(%)
Pi l e 4 Pi l e 3
Fig. 1. Deviator stress versus axial strain obtained from CD tests
Pi l e 4 Pi l e 3
of Toyoura sand of Dr = 95 %. Pi l e 2 Pi l e 1

60000 Pi l e 2 Pi l e 1

50000
80
40000
80
30000
20000 Dr=95 %
Dr=65 %
10000
0
0 100 200 300 400
2
Confining pressure, p0 (kN/m )
Fig. 2. Shear modulus versus confining pressure, together with
the fitting line.

It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the shear modulus of Toyoura

sand is proportional to the square root of the confining pressure,
p0, regardless of the relative density. Hence, the similarity rule at
1-g field proposed by Iai (1989) can be applied to the model tests
in this study with the similitude for strain = where is the
scale factor (prototype scale/model scale).

3 TEST APPARATUS AND TEST PROCEDURE

3.1 Model piled raft

Figure 3 shows the model rafts having different pile head
connection conditions: (a) rigid connection and (b) hinged
connection. The square model rafts, with a breadth of 80 mm,
was made of aluminum plates with thicknesses of 25 mm for the
rigid connection and 40 mm for the hinged connection. The mass
of the model raft for the rigid connection was 0.4 kg and that for
the hinged connection was 0.94 kg. In order to increase the
friction at the raft base, the base was roughened. The interface
frictional angle between the raft base and the model ground was
30.5 degrees in the rigid connection model and 22.9 degrees in
the hinged connection model, respectively, i.e., the coefficient of
frictional angle was 0.59 and 0.42.
Aluminum pipes with an outer diameter of 10 mm, an inner
diameter of 8 mm and a length of 170 mm were used for the
model piles. Each pile toe was capped with a thin aluminum
plate. Young’s modulus, Ep, and Poisson’s ratio, p, were
determined from bending tests of the model piles. Each pile was
instrumented with foil strain gauges along the pile shaft as shown
in Fig. 3 in order to obtain the distributions of the axial forces,
the shear forces and the bending moments of the pile. The
geometrical and mechanical properties of the model pile are
listed in Table 2.
Four model piles were connected to the model rafts with a pile
spacing of 40 mm. A universal joint was attached to the head of
Al umi num cap Al umi num cap
Al umi num pi pe
Axi al st r ai n OD: 10 mm
Shear st r ai n I D: 8 mm Uni t : mm
(a) rigid pile head connection (b) hinged pile head connection
Fig. 3. Model piled rafts.
3.2 Test set-up and test procedure
Figure 4 shows an illustration of the final stage of the test set-up
just before starting a dynamic (seismic) load test. The model
foundation was set near the centre location of a laminar box with
a special rig before making the model ground. The laminar box
with dimensions of 210 mm in width, 560 mm in length and 310
mm in depth was consisted of 16 layers of aluminum frames
with a thickness of 20 mm. Dry Toyoura sand was poured in the
laminar box and compacted to Dr = 95 % by applying small
vibrations using the shaking table. After the completion of the
preparation of the model ground, a loading mass (model
superstructure) of 22 kg was bolted on the top of the raft.
Accelerometers were embedded in the model ground (Acc. 2,
to 4) and attached to the side of the model raft (Acc. 5), and the
side and the top of the model superstructure (Acc. 6 to 9). An
accelerometer (Acc. 1) was placed on the shaking table to
measure the input acceleration.

266
 Table 2. Geometrical and mechanical properties of the model piles and the corresponding prototype piles.
Model Prototype ( = 50)
1-g field test Centrifuge model- 1-g field test Centrifuge
ling at 50-g modelling
Outer diameter, ro (mm) 10 10 500 500
Wall thickness, tw (mm) 1 1 50 50
Length, L (mm) 170 180 8500 9000
Cross section area, A (mm2) 28.3 28.3 70685.8 70685.8
Young's modulus, Ep (GPa) 67.1 71.0 474.5 71.0
Poisson's ratio, p 0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345
Longitudinal rigidity, EpA (GN) 1.90 10-3 2.0 10-3 33.53 5.0
-8
Bending rigidity, EpI (GNm ) 2
1.94 10 1.94 10-8 0.859 0.128
Effective vertical stress (kPa)* 2.725 126.4 136.3 126.4
Mean effective stress (kPa)* 1.442 66.8 72.1 66.8
Shear modulus of soil at the pile base, Gb (kPa)* 3502 17232 24763 17232
Equivalent Young's modulus as a solid pile (GPa) 279.8 41.7
(compatible with EpI)
* at depth of 170 mm in model (at depth of 8.5 m in prototype)
A series of dynamic horizontal load tests were carried out The horizontal load was applied at the level of the gravity cen-
with target amplitude of 100 gal. Sinusoidal input waves of the tre of the loading mass by pulling the loading mass by means of a
frequencies from 5 to 95 Hz at an interval of 5 Hz were applied. winch and a wire at a slow displacement rate less than 1 mm/min.
Static horizontal load tests were also carried out using the The horizontal displacement of the raft was measured by a laser
model ground prepared in a rigid acrylic box with dimensions of displacement transducer (LDT), and the vertical displacements of
500 mm in width, 840 mm in length and 300 mm in depth (Fig. the loading mass were measured at two points by dial gauges
5). (DG) to obtain the inclination of the loading mass.
Note that the test procedure and the model pile rafts used in
the 1-g tests in this study are similar to those used in the centri-
80 fuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a, b). Minor difference
Pi l e 4 Pi l e 3 is the pile lengths in both tests. The pile length used in the centri-
Pi l e 1
fuge modelling was 180 mm, while that used in the 1-g tests is
Pi l e 2
170 mm. However, the soil conditions in both tests are largely
different as shown in Table 2. In Table 2, the effective vertical
stresses, v', the effective mean stresses, p, and the values of the
560 shear modulus at a depth of 170 mm in the model ground (pile tip
260 depth in the 1-g tests) are shown. The corresponding values in
the prototype (scale factor = 50) for the 1-g test and the centri-
Acc. 8 Acc. 7 Acc. 9
fuge modelling are also indicated. In estimation of the shear
Acc. 6 modulus, the relation of Eq. (1) was used with p = (1+2K0) v'/3
Acc. 5 where K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest and was esti-
LDT
mated from the empirical equation by Jâky:
Acc. 4
K0 1 sin ' (2)
Acc. 3 If we have an interest in the prototype scale, the stress level
Pi l e 2 Pi l e 1 and the shear modulus are comparable between the prototypes of
the 1-g test and the centrifuge modelling. However, the longitu-
Acc. 2
Toyour a sand Dr = 95 % dinal rigidity, EpA, and the bending rigidity, EpI, of the prototype
Acc. 1
pile in the 1-g test are very large, compared with those in the cen-
: Accel er omet er Uni t : mm trifuge modelling. Equivalent Young's modulus of the prototype
: LDT I nput mot i on
pile as a solid pile is 41.7 GPa in the centrifuge modelling when
Fig. 4. Test set-up for dynamic load test using shaking table. the compatibility of EpI is considered, indicating that the proto-
type pile simulates a concrete pile. On the other hand, equivalent
Young's modulus of the prototype pile as a solid pile is 280 GPa
840
Load cel l in the 1-g test when the compatibility of EpI is considered, indi-
Wi nch Wi r e
DG 1 DG 2 cating that the prototype pile in the 1-g test is substantially 'rigid'
in bending and deforms as 'short' pile.
LDT

4 TEST RESULTS
Pi l e 1 Pi l e 2
Toyour a sand Dr = 95 % The results of the dynamic horizontal load tests and the static
horizontal load tests listed in Table 3 are presented and compared.
Fig. 5. Test set-up for static horizontal load test.

267
Table 3. Test name and test conditions. 1.0 1.0
Test Gravity Pile head Type of Loading Vertical 0.5 0.5
name centre condition loading mass load
from G.L. (kg) ratio* 0.0 0.0
(mm) (%) -0.5 -0.5
DRL 49.3 Rigid Dynamic 22.4 73.4
DHL 63.2 Hinged Dynamic 22.9 72.5 -1.0 -1.0
1 2 3 1 2 3
SRL 49.3 Rigid Static 22.4 79.6 Time (s) Time (s)
SHL 63.2 Hinged Static 22.9 78.5 (a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL)
*Proportion of vertical load carried by piles before load test. Fig. 7. Input acceleration waves.

The proportions of the vertical load carried by the piles just after
the loading mass was placed on the raft were about 73 % in the 2 Input 2 Input
Response Response
dynamic load tests and about 79 % in the static load tests. This 1 5 6 1 6
5 7
difference of the vertical load proportions is thought to be caused 0
4 7
0
by the different soil containers used in the dynamic and the static 1 3
1 4
-1 2 -1 2 3
load tests, laminar and rigid soil containers.
Figure 6 shows the transfer functions of the horizontal accel- -2 -2

erations at the ground surface (Acc. 4), side of the raft (Acc. 5),
the gravity center of loading mass (Acc. 6) and the top of loading
mass (Acc. 7). The response factor is the ratio of the response ac-
celeration to the input acceleration measured at the shaking table
(Acc. 1). It can be seen that the natural frequencies of the both
model piled rafts were 15 Hz. It can be also seen that the re-
sponse factor of the top of the loading mass was larger than that
of the raft at input frequencies between 5 Hz to about 30 Hz in
both models. On the other hand, the response factor of the raft
became larger than that of the top of the loading mass at input
frequencies larger than about 30 Hz where the response factor of
the ground surface became large.
Hereafter, the test results of the both models at the input fre-
quency of 15 Hz (0.8 Hz in prototype scale) are compared.
Figure 7 shows the input acceleration waves. Sinusoidal
waves with amplitude of about 0.70 m/s 2 and a frequency of 15
Hz were applied to the both models.
Figure 8 shows the input acceleration and the response accel-
eration at the gravity center of the loading mass for a loading cy-
cle indicated by the shaded area in Fig. 7. It can be clearly seen
that there was time lag of 0.02 second between the input and the
response accelerations in both models. At this input frequency,
the response factors were 2.8 and 2.5, respectively, in the rigid
and the hinged pile head connection models.
6 60
Top of
superstructure
4 Gravity center
of superstructure
2.20 2.22 2.24 2.26 2.50 2.52 2.54 2.56
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL)
Fig. 8. Input and response acceleration waves.
Figures 9 and 10 show the time histories of the horizontal
load and the pile resistance, respectively. The horizontal load was
calculated as the product of the acceleration measured at the
gravity center of superstructure and the total mass of superstruc-
ture (raft and loading mass). The pile resistance was the total of
shear forces at the pile heads of 4 piles. In both models, large
amplitude of the horizontal load was observed at the initial stage
of dynamic loading. After that, the amplitude decayed, then it be-
came almost constant. It can be seen that the horizontal load and
the pile resistance of the rigid connection model were slightly
larger than those of the hinged connection model. In both mod-
els, the pile resistance was smaller than the horizontal load, and
this reduction of load was due to the contribution of the raft resis-
tance.
Figure 11 shows the time history of the horizontal load pro-
portion carried by the piles. A rapid decrease in the pile load was
observed during the initial stage of dynamic loading in both
models. The horizontal load proportion carried by the piles in
DRL concentrated in a range from 50 % to 70 %, and that in
DHL concentrated in a range from 50 % to 60 %.
60
30 30
0 0

2 Raft
-30 -30
Ground surface
-60 -60
0 1 2 3 1 2 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 Time (s) Time (s)
Input frequency (Hz) (a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL)
(a) Rigid connection model (DRL) Fig. 9. Time history of horizontal load.
6
60 60

4 30 30

0 0
2
-30 -30
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 -60
1 2 3
-60
1 2 3
Input frequency (Hz) Time (s) Time (s)
(b) Hinged connection model (DHL) (a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL)
Fig. 6. Transfer function of horizontal acceleration Fig. 10. Time history of pile resistance.

268
 100 100 Figure 14 shows the relationship between the inclination and
80 80 the horizontal displacement of the raft. Inclination in clockwise
60 60 direction was taken as positive. The inclination of the raft tended
to increase with increasing the horizontal displacement in both
40 40
models. Comparing both models, the inclination of the raft of
20 20
DHL was almost equal to that of DRL. This result was different
0 0 from the results from the static horizontal loading tests, in which
1 2 3 1 2 3
Time (s) Time (s) the inclination of the rigid connection model (SRL) was larger
(a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL) than that of the hinged connection model (SHL).
Fig. 11. Horizontal load proportion carried by piles.
0.0010
DRL
In the centrifuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003b), the raft DHL 6
0.0005
initially carries more load than the piles, with larger displace- SRL 6
ments the piles more than the raft in the piled raft with rigid pile SHL 4
0.0000
head connection. In the piled raft with hinged pile head connec- 3
3 1 7
tion, the contribution of the piles is much smaller. Higher propor- -0.0005
tions of the horizontal load carried by the piles in both the rigid 2 1
2
and hinged connections in the 1-g tests (Fig. 11) could be attrib- -0.0010
uted to substantially 'rigid' piles used in the 1-g model tests. -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Figure 12 shows the time history of the vertical load propor-
tion carried by the piles. It can be seen that the vertical load pro- Fig. 14. Inclination of the raft vs Horizontal displacement.
portion carried by the piles was reduced during dynamic loading.
However, the proportion of the vertical load carried by the piles Figure 15 shows the distributions of the axial forces, the shear
almost recovers to the initial value before dynamic loading. forces and the bending moments along the pile shaft observed in
the cases of DRL and DHL. Positions of pile 1 and pile 2 can be
100 100 referred to Fig. 4. The distributions at the horizontal load of 40 N
are shown for the cases of DRL and DHL for comparison. At this
80 80
time moment, pile 1 was front pile, while pile 2 was rear
60 60 pile.
40 40 0
20 20 20
40
0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3 60
Time (s) Time (s) 80 HL= 40 N
(a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL) 100
DRL Pile 1
Fig. 12. Time history of vertical load proportion carried by piles. 120 DRL Pile 2
140 DHL Pile 1
160 DHL Pile 2
Figure 13 shows the relationship between the total horizontal
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
resistance including the pile resistance and the raft resistance, and Axial force (N)
the horizontal displacement of the raft in a loading cycle. The
(a) Distribution of axial force
horizontal displacement of the raft measured by the laser dis-
0
placement transducer is the relative displacement between the
20
shaking table and the center height of the raft. It can be seen from 40
both figures that the relationships of the horizontal load and the 60
horizontal displacement of the rigid and the hinged connection 80 HL= 40 N
models exhibited similar hysteresis loops. In both models, the raft 100
DRL Pile 1
resistance was effectively mobilized even during dynamic load- 120 DRL Pile 2
140 DHL Pile 1
ing.
160 DHL Pile 2
On the other hand, in the static load tests, the horizontal stiff-
-5 0 5 10 15 20
ness of the hinged connection model was larger than that of the Shear force (N)
rigid connection model. (b) Distribution of shear force
0
60 60
Total (DRL) 4
5 5 20 HL= 40 N
30
Pile (DRL)
Total (SRL) 30
40
6
Pile (SRL) 4 60
0 0 80
Total (DHL)
100
DRL Pile 1
-30 -30 Pile (DHL) 120 DRL Pile 2
1
2 1 7 2
Total (SHL)
Pile (SHL)
140 DHL Pile 1
-60 -60 160 DHL Pile 2
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Bending moment (Nm)
(a) Rigid connection model (DRL) (b) Hinged connection model (DHL)
(c) Distribution of bending moment
Fig. 13. Horizontal resistance-horizontal displacement
relationship. Fig. 15. Distributions of axial force, shear force and
bending moment.

269
The raft inclined in clockwise direction at this time moment, so 3) As for the proportion of the horizontal load carried by each
pile 1 was compressed resulting in the increase in the axial forces component, the piles carry more than 60 % of the total
as shown in Fig. 15(a). horizontal load in both the dynamic and the static load tests.
In both models, the axial force, the shear force and the bend- 4) In the dynamic load tests, the relationships of the horizon-
ing moment of the front pile (pile 1) were larger than those of the tal load and the horizontal displacement of the rigid and
rear pile (pile 2). It can be seen from Fig. 15(a), (b), (c) that the the hinged connection models exhibited similar hysteresis
difference between pile 1 and pile 2 in the case of DHL was loops. On the other hand, in static load tests, the horizontal
smaller than that in the case of DRL. stiffness of the hinged connection model was larger than
As for the bending moment, the maximum bending moment that of the rigid connection model.
was generated at a depth of 80 mm from the pile head in the case 5) In the dynamic load tests, the relationships of the inclina-
of DRL, while that was generated at a depth of 40 mm in the case tion and the horizontal displacement of the rigid and the
of DHL. In the case of DRL, it can be inferred from the measured hinged connection models exhibited similar loop where the
distribution of the bending moments that a large bending moment inclination tends to increase with the horizontal displace-
is also generated at the pile head. ment. On the other hand, in static load tests, the rigid con-
The distributions of the shear forces and the bending moments nection model exhibited larger inclination compared with
of the pile shaft obtained from the dynamic tests and the static the hinged connection model.
load tests are compared in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 , respectively. The 6) In the dynamic and the static load tests, much more shear
distributions at a horizontal load of 40 N are shown. Even in the forces and bending moments are generated in the front
static load tests, larger shear forces and bending moments are piles compared with the rear piles. This behaviour is pro-
generated in the front piles compared with the rear piles. How- nounced in the rigid pile head connection model and in the
ever, it can be seen that difference of pile behaviour between the dynamic load tests.
front and the rear piles is smaller in the static load tests. The findings 3) to 5) are somewhat different from the find-
The results in Figs. 16 and 17 suggest that the hinged pile ings from the centrifuge modelling by Horikoshi et al. (2003a,
connection model has an advantage for reducing failure of piles b). This maybe attributed to the difference of the shear modulus
especially in dynamic loading. and the stress level of the model grounds used in this study and
the centrifuge modelling, i.e. substantially 'rigid' pile in the 1-g
0 0
20 20 HL= 40 N tests and flexible pile in the centrifuge modelling. For more un-
40 40 derstanding of the results from the 1-g test and the centrifuge
60 60
modelling, analytical study will be required.
80 HL= 40 N 80
100 100
DRL Pile 1 DHL Pile 1
120 120
140
DRL Pile 2
SRL Pile 1 140
DHL Pile 2
SHL Pile 1
REFERENCES
160 SRL Pile 2 160 SHL Pile 2
Iai, S. 1989. Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-
-10 0 10 20 -10 0 10 20
Shear force (N) Shear force (N) fluid model in 1g gravitational field, Soils and Foundations
29(1): 105-118.
(a) DRL & SRL (b) DHL & SHL
Fukumura, K., Matsumoto, T., Ohno, A. & Hashizume, Y. 2003.
Fig. 16. Distribution of shear forces. Experimental study on behavior of piled raft foundations in
sand using shaking table at 1-g gravitational filed. Proceed-
0 0 ings of the BGA International Conference on Foundations:
20 HL= 40 N 20 HL= 40 N Innovations, observations, design and practice , Dundee: 307-
40 40 320.
60 60 Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T. &
80 80
100 100
Fukuyama, H. 2003a. Performance of piled raft foundations
120 DRL Pile 1
120
DHL Pile 1
DHL Pile 2
subjected to static horizontal loads. International Journal of
DRL Pile 2
140 SRL Pile 1 140 SHL Pile 1 Physical Modelling in Geomechanics 3(2): 37-50.
160 SRL Pile 2 160 SHL Pile 2
Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., & Watanabe, T.
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 2003b. Performance of piled raft foundations subjected to dy-
Bending moment (Nm) Bending moment (Nm)
namic loading. International Journal of Physical Modelling
(a) DRL & SRL (b) DHL & SHL in Geomechanics 3(2): 51-62.
Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M.F. 1999. Estimation of overall
Fig. 17. Distribution of bending moments.
settlement of piled rafts, Soils and Foundations 39(2), 59-68.
Katzenbach, R. & Moormann, C. 2001. Recommendations for
the design and construction of piled rafts, Proceedings of the
5 CONCLUSIONS
15th ICSMGE 2: 927-930.
Pastsakorn, K., Hashizume, Y. & Matsumoto, T. 2002. Lateral
Principal findings from this study are as follows: load tests on model pile groups and piled raft foundations in
sand. Proceedings of the International Conference on Physi-
1) The responses of horizontal accelerations of the raft in the cal Modelling in Geotechnics , St. John's, Canada: 709-714.
rigid and the hinged pile head connection models were al- Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and
most equal, although the response in the rigid connection Design. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
model was a little bit of large. Randolph, M. F. 1994. Design methods for pile groups and piled
rafts, Proceedings of the 13th ICSMFE 1994, New Delhi 2:
2) The proportion of the vertical load carried by the piles is
61-546.
reduced during dynamic loading in both piled raft models.
Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M. & Yamada, T. 1994. Investigation of
However, the proportion of the vertical load carried by the
a piled raft foundation on stiff clay. Proceedings of the 3rd In-
piles almost recovers to the initial value before dynamic
ternational Geotechnical Seminar Deep Foundation on Bored
loading.
and Auger Piles, Belgium 1: 457-464.

270
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Modeling of Pile Foundations Retrofitting Strategies Against

Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading

T. H. Abdoun
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, JEC 4049, 110 8th street, Troy, NY 12180, USA.
abdout@rpi.edu

Abstract: Experiences from earthquakes and centrifuge models have shown the great importance of the shallow nonliquefiable soil in
increasing the forces and moments imposed on the pile cap and pile foundation subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading.
This paper focuses on evaluating retrofitting strategies, with emphasis on the placement of a soft or frangible material near the founda-
tion in the shallow nonliquefiable layer. While this shallow soft material reduces the stiffness and the strength of the pile foundation
with respect to the superstructure inertia forces, it constitutes an extremely effective way to mitigate the effect of lateral spreading cases
in which the resistance to inertia is provided by other foundation elements are one area of application of the proposed retrofitting
strategies. Results of three centrifuge tests, Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2, are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the implemented ret-
rofitting method. The experimental results for each of the centrifuge pile models are reviewed and compared. After implementing the
proposed retrofitting strategies, a dramatic reduction in the maximum bending moment is observed at the upper boundary of the lique-
fied layer (2 m depth). A reduction of up to 35% in the measured maximum bending moment is also observed at the lower boundary of
the liquefied layer (8 m depth). These significant reductions in measured pile maximum bending moments in Model 2r, together with
the associated reduction of up to 50% in the measured pile head displacement, demonstrate the effectiveness of the implemented retro-
fitting method.

1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are among the major natural disasters. Case history
indicates that in most large earthquakes soil liquefaction-related
failures have occurred. For instance, the 1971 San Fernando,
California earthquake caused more than five hundred million in
damage (NRC 1982). In 1976, the Tangshan, China earthquake
resulted in collapse and severe damage of many buildings and in
the death of several hundred thousand people (NRC 1982). The
1995 HyogoKen Nanbu earthquake in Kobe, Japan, caused more
than one hundred billion in total damage. The recent Turkey,
Taiwan and Greece 1999 earthquakes also caused tremendous de-
struction. In all these earthquakes, much of the damage was re-
lated to liquefaction and associated induced lateral spreading.
Evaluation of case history and physical models reveals the
significance of several factors influencing the deformation of
deep foundations as well as bending moments and cracking of
damaged piles. These factors include: free-field permanent lat-
eral ground displacement; thicknesses and properties of soil strata
penetrated by the piles; and the geometry and properties of the
pile foundation. The observed damage and cracking to the piles
is often concentrated at the upper and lower boundaries of the
liquefied sand layer where there is a sudden change in soil prop-
erties (Hamada 1992; Yokoyama et al. 1997; Tokimatsu 1999;
Abdoun & Dobry 2002; Abdoun et al. 2002 and Dobry et al.
2002) or at the connections between pile and pile cap (e.g.,
(Hamada, 1992 & Hamada, 2000).
A series of centrifuge tests were conducted earlier to study the
great importance of the shallow nonliquefiable soil in increasing
the bending response of the pile foundation (Adboun & Dobry,
2002), (Abdoun et al., 2002) and (Dobry et al., 2002). This paper
presents a promising rehabilitation approach of existing founda-
tions to replace the shallow soil in a trench around piles and pile
cap by a soft material that will yield under constant lateral soil
forces (Figs. 1b &1c). This would decrease both bending mo-
ments and foundation deformations while allowing the ground
lateral spreading to take place without interference from the
foundation. As this retrofitting scheme also decreases the lateral
resistance of the foundation to inertial loading, a desired material
should remain resilient under the transient inertial loading while
yielding to static force. In this study, the trench surrounding the
foundation will be filled with soft clay. Trenches may be located
directly around the foundation (Fig. 1b) or may be located at
some distance from the foundation so as to increase the resistance
to inertial loading (Fig. 1c).
This paper presents the results of three centrifuge experiments
performed to study lateral spreading and its effect on single pile
foundations for retrofitted and non-retrofitted piles (Fig. 1). The
objectives of this study are accomplished mainly using the centri-
fuge experiments and corresponding interpretations and compari-
sons. These objectives can be summaries as follows: i) study the
three-layer lateral spreading soil response in the free field during
earthquake shaking including the magnitude and profile with
depth of the maximum induced lateral displacement; and ii) study
the soil-pile interaction in three-layer soil system during liquefac-
tion and lateral spreading, with and without the implementation
of retrofitting strategies.
2 DESCRIPTION OF CENTRIFUGE MODELS
Sketches of RPI’s laminar box (0.25 m (W) 0.46 m (L) 0.25
m (H), in model units) including the instrumentation used for all
the centrifuge models are presented in Fig.. 1. The laminar box
consists of a stack of up to 39 rectangular rings separated by lin-
ear roller bearings, arranged to permit relative movement be-
tween rings in the long direction with minimal friction.
A relative displacement of up to 0.006 m between adjacent rings
is possible, and the design permits an overall shear strain up to

271
 (1a)

(1b)

(1c)

Pore Pressure
Strain Gage LVDT Accelerometer
Transducer
Fig. 1. Setups and instrument locations of six centrifuge models; Model 2 (1a), Model 2r1 (1b) and Model 2r2 (1c).

272
20%. The laminar box is optimized to accommodate and accu- shaking for all models are listed in Table 1. A similar good com-
rately measure a wide range of cyclic and permanent lateral parison, not presented in this paper, was also obtained between
strains occurring in the soil model. More detailed information on the recorded acceleration time histories for the seven centrifuge
RPI laminar box used in this study is presented by (Van Laak et models (Wang, 2001).
al. 1994) and www.cee.rpi.edu/centrifuge.
The prototype being simulated in Model 2 (Fig. 1a) involves a 0 0 Model 2
single solid pile of diameter 0.60 m, length 10 m and EI = 8000 Slightly Slightly Model 2r1
cemented sand cemented sand Model 2r2
kN-m2, with a pile cap embedded in the top cemented sand layer. 2 2
after 5 cycles of at end of
An Aluminum pile cap was rigidly clamped to the to top of the shaking shaking
pile model. The pile cap has dimensions of 2 m (W) 2.5 m (L) ru = 1.0 ru = 1.0
4 4
0.5 m (H), in prototype units. In model units, the model height
is approximately 0.20 m, simulating a 10 m prototype soil deposit
and pile length at 50g. The prototype profile includes a bottom 6 6
Nevada sand
layer of 2.0 m slightly cemented sand, topped by a 6.0 m layer of (Dr=40%)
Nevada sand
(Dr=40%)
uniform Nevada sand placed at a relative density of about 40%, 8 8
topped by a 2.0 m layer of the same slightly cemented sand. At Slightly Slightly
cemented sand cemented sand
50g, the Dr = 40% fine Nevada sand layer in the model simulates
10 10
a liquefiable, Dr = 40% coarse Nevada sand layer in the proto- 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
type. The soil profile is fully saturated with water, inclined 2 0 to Excess pore pressure (kPa)

the horizontal corresponding to 4.8 0 inclination in the field after

the instrumental correction (Taboada 1995), and spun at a centri-
fuge acceleration of 50g.
The model was excited by 40 cycles of a 100 Hz sinusoidal
input parallel to the base of the laminar box, with uniform accel-
eration amplitude of about 15g. For the 50g centrifuge accelera-
tion of the test, this corresponds respectively, to a frequency of 2
Hz and peak acceleration of 0.3g in prototype units. The horizon-
tal accelerations outside the laminar box and in the soil, excess
pore water pressures in the liquefiable sand layer, lateral dis-
placements of the rings, and bending moments along the pile
were measured.
The proposed rehabilitation approach of existing foundations
by replacing the shallow soil in a trench around piles and pile cap
by a soft material that will yield under constant lateral soil forces
(Figs. 1b and 1c). Models 2r1 and 2r2 shown in Figs. 1b and 1c,
respectively, represent the two strategies used in retrofitting exist-
ing single piles with pile cap embedded in a three layer soil sys-
tem. In Model 2r1 (Strategy 1), the slightly cemented sand di-
rectly surrounding the pile cap is replaced by 1m width of a
slurry wall made by bentonite and water mixture. The depth of
the slurry wall is about 1 m. A 1 m width ring of clay wall is di-
rectly surrounding the pile from 1m below the slightly cemented
sand surface to the boundary of the cemented sand layer and li-
quefiable sand layer. In Model 2r2 (Strategy 2), a slurry wall
made by bentonite and water mixture was placed around the
foundation about 1 m away from the pile cap. The slurry wall has
dimensions of 1 m width and 2m depth.
Fig. 2. Profiles of free field excess pore pressures measured dur-
ing and at the end of shaking.
4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS MEASURED IN MODELS
2, 2R1 AND 2R2; PILE RETROFITTING WITH NO INER-
TIAL EFFECTS
4.1 Lateral Displacement
Figure 3 shows the recorded lateral displacements of the soil sys-
tem at various elevations. The permanent prototype lateral dis-
placements of the ground surface after shaking were about 0.70,
0.74 and 0.78 m for Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2, respectively (Table
1).
A comparison of soil and pile lateral displacement profiles of
Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2 is presented in Fig. 4. Smaller pile head
displacements were measured in Models 2r1 and 2r2 than those
measured in Model 2. This indicates that the implemented reme-
diation did decrease the pile lateral displacement. Figure 5 pre-
sents photos of soil condition around the pile cap after the test of
Model 2r1. The pictures indicate that the implemented remedia-
tion did decrease the pile lateral displacement as the clay in the
upslope of the pile cap was crushed while a gap was left on the
downslope side of the cap. The permanent prototype lateral dis-
placements of the pile head at the end of shaking were about
0.85, 0.42 and 0.60 m for Models 2. 2r1 and 2r2, respectively
(Table 1).

3 SUMMARY OF CENTRIFUGE TESTS FREE FIELD 4.2 Bending Moments

MEASUREMENTS
It is important to analyze the free field experimental results
measured away from the piles to verify tests repeatability. A
comparison between excess pore pressure profiles, and soil lat-
eral displacement profiles for all models presented in Fig. 1, at
different times during shaking are presented respectively in Figs.
2 and 3. These free field records are very similar, confirming that
the presence of the pile did not affect the free field soil response,
and also validating the good repeatability of these centrifuge
tests. In all models the lateral displacement occurred essentially
within the 6.0 m thickness of the liquefiable sand layer (Fig. 3).
The permanent ground surface lateral displacements at the end of
The effect of the remediation can be best seen in the comparison
of the bending moments. Figure 6 shows the bending moment
measured along the pile in Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2 plotted at dif-
ferent times during shaking as the ground surfaces lateral dis-
placement (D H) was increasing. Before remediation, the meas-
ured moments at the interface of the top cemented layer and the
liquefiable layer is about 200 kN-m in prototype units. After
remediation, it drops to almost zero in Model 2r1 and only 20
kN-m in Model 2r2. Before remediation, the maximum bending
moment between the bottom layer and the liquefied layer is about
305 kN-m. It drops to about 200 kN-m in Model 2r1 and drops to
about 250 kN-m in Model 2r2.

273
Table 1. Summary of single pile foundation characteristics and measurements during centrifuge tests (D r = 40 % in all the tests for the
liquefiable layer).

Measurements on piles
Free field
No. of soil Retrofitting Bending moment, Mmax ground surface lat-
Model No. Pile Cap Mass Pile deflec-
layers strategy (kN-m) eral displacement
tion, Dpmax
Upper Lower bound- (m)
(m)
boundary ary

2 3 Yes No No 270 305 0.85 0.70

2r1 3 Yes No Strategy 1 0 220 0.42 0.74

2r2 3 Yes No Strategy 2 30 290 0.60 0.78

Model 2 Model 2r1 Model 2r2

T = 5 sec T = 10 sec T = 25 sec

0 0 0
Slightly Slightly Slightly
cemented sand cemented sand cemented sand
2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6
Nevada sand Nevada sand Nevada sand
(Dr=40%) (Dr=40%) (Dr=40%)
8 8 8
Slightly Slightly Slightly
cemented sand cemented sand cemented sand

10 10 10
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

Fig. 3. Lateral displacement profiles at different times during shaking, Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2.

Measured Soil Disp. Estimated Pile Disp. Measured Pile Disp.

Model 2 Model 2r1 Model 2r2

0 0 0
Slightly Slightly Slightly
cemented sand cemented sand cemented sand
2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6
Nevada sand Nevada sand Nevada sand
(Dr=40%) (Dr=40%) (Dr=40%)
8 8 8
Slightly Slightly Slightly
cemented sand cemented sand cemented sand

10 10 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

Fig. 4. Pile and soil lateral displacement profiles at the end of shaking, Models 2, 2r1 and 2r2, estimated pile displacements were cal-
culated using Beam-on-Winkler springs (BWS).

274
 DIRECTION OF FREE FIELD
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

Fig. 5. Photos of soil condition around pile cap after the test, Model 2r1.

Model 2 Model 2r1 Model 2r2

0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2
DH=20cm DH=40cm DH=60cm DH=70cm
4 4 4 4

6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8

10 10 10 10
-200 0 200 -200 0 200 -200 0 200 -200 0 200

Moment (kN-m)

Fig. 6. Bending Moments Along the Pile in Model 2, Model 2r1 and Model 2r2.

5 CONCLUSIONS Consistent results were obtained from all centrifuge model

The results from three centrifuge model tests of sand liquefaction
with and without retrofitting strategies for the single pile founda-
tion are reported in this paper, with detailed data interpretations
and discussions. Some major conclusions may be drawn from
these results as follows:
1. This work demonstrates that centrifuge modeling of soil-pile
interaction during liquefaction is both realistic and useful.
tests, which provided detailed information on bending mo-
ment response of single pile foundations subjected to lateral
spreading with or without retrofitting.
2. As expected, the maximum bending moment was still meas-
ured at the lower boundary between liquefied and nonlique-
fied soil, while the bending moment at the upper boundaries
between liquefied and nonliquefied soil was greatly reduced
after retrofitting.

275
 3. Test results indicate that the lateral pressure, exerted by
the shallow nonliquefied soil layer controls the bending
moments developed along the pile.
4. In the absence of inertia force, a significant reduction of
the measured maximum bending moment is achieved by
the implementation of the two proposed retrofitting
strategies aimed at reducing the lateral pressures exerted
by the shallow nonliquefied layer.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work reported herein was partially supported by the Multid-
isciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This sup-
port is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Abdoun, T. & Dobry, R. 2002. Evaluation of pile foundation re-
sponse to lateral spreading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering Journal 22 (9-12) 1069-1076.
Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., T. D. O’Rourke & Goh, S.H. 2002. Pile
Response to lateral spreads: Centrifuge modeling. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , ASCE (in
print).
Dobry, R., T. Abdoun, T. D. O’Rourke & Goh, S.H. 2002. Piles
in lateral spreading: Field bending moment evaluation. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ,
ASCE (in print).
276
Hamada, M. 1992. Large ground deformations and their effects
on lifelines: 1964 Niigata Earthquake, Chapter 3 of Hamada
and O’Rourke: 3-1 to 3-123.
Hamada, M. 2000. Performances of foundations against liquefac-
tion-induced permanent ground displacement. Proceedings of
the 12 th World Conf. On Earthquake Engineering , Paper
1754.
NRC 1982. Earthquake Engineering Research - 1982, Overview
and recommendations, Report by the Committee on Earth-
quake Engineering, National Research Council, National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Taboada, V. 1995. Centrifuge modeling of earthquake-induced
lateral spreading in sand using a laminar box. Ph.D. Thesis,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Tokimatsu, K. 1999. Performance of pile foundations in laterally
spreading soils. Proceedings of the 2 nd International Confer-
ence on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering 3: 957-964.
Lisbon, Portugal.
Van Laak, P., Taboada, V., Dobry, R. & Elgamal, A. W., 1994.
Earthquake centrifuge modeling using a laminar box. Dynamic
Geotechnical Testing Journal, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia.
Wang, Y., 2001. Evaluation of pile foundation retrofitting against
lateral spreading and inertial effects during liquefaction using
centrifuge models. MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Yokoyama, K., Tamura, K. & Matsuo, O. 1997. Design methods
of bridge foundations against soil liquefaction and liquefac-
tion-induced ground flow. Proceedings of the 2 nd Italy-Japan
Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges Rome ,
Italy: 109-131.
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Single Pile Settlement: A Practical Assessment

J. T. Chin
JT Geodesign, 36A Jalan BRP ½, Bukit Rahman Putra, 47000 Sg. Buloh, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
cjt@tm.net.my

Abstract: Various methods are available for computing vertical settlement of single pile. These available methods vary in degree of
complexity. The rigorous methods generally have greater flexibility but are not economical to use for routine initial design assessments.
Therefore, the need for a practical and quick method of assessment of the single pile settlement is desired. This paper presents elastic
settlement design charts for axially-loaded single vertical piles embedded in a two-layer soil continuum with the homogeneous profile
as a special case. It can be shown that these design charts can be readily programmed into an efficient spreadsheet formulation. This
spreadsheet can then be easily and routinely used for computing elastic pile settlements at design working loads without recourse to the
computer program, resulting in savings in time and cost. The solutions obtained using these design charts approach are shown to com-
pare favorably to some field measured static axial pile load test results.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Pile foundation is one of the most common foundation systems The simplified boundary element method analysis procedure of
used for the support of many buildings, bridges, towers and other Chow et al. (1990) for piles embedded in a two-layer soil contin-
structures. The piles may be used as individual single piles or as uum is used for assessment of the elastic pile-soil interaction
individual pile groups. From a practical viewpoint, the ability to problem. Full details of the analysis procedures can be obtained
estimate quickly the single pile performance for given pile sizes from that reference. However, for clarity brief details are de-
and pile lengths during the initial design stage is an advantage. scribed herein. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the single pile
Commercial and proprietary computer programs are available for problem installed through an upper soil layer and socketed into a
the analysis of the pile deformation response (e.g. PIGLET, lower stiffer bearing layer.
DEFPIG, PGROUP). These methods of analysis vary in degree of
complexity. Elastic design charts for specific class of problems
P
have also been reported by Butterfield & Douglas (1981) and
Poulos & Davis (1980). The structural-based methods, which ig-
nore or simplify the soil continuum, generally have more restric-
tions and limitations in its application to practical problems. On
the other hand, the more rigorous boundary and finite element
methods, which considers the soil continuum, have greater flexi- d Upper soil layer
bility and modeling capabilities (e.g. Butterfield & Banerjee h (E1 , 1)
1971; Ottaviani 1975). The rigorous methods are however gener-
ally not economical to use for routine initial design assessments.
Therefore, the need for a practical and quick method of assess-
ment of the single pile deformation response is desired.
In this paper, elastic design charts for axial pile settlement re- e Lower soil layer
sponse derived from the elastic continuum simplified boundary (E2 , 2)
element method for piles embedded in a two-layer soil continuum
are presented. The homogeneous soil profile represents a special Fig. 1. Single pile problem embedded in two-layer soil profile.
case of the design charts. The presented elastic design charts
cover a wide practical range of normalized pile and soil parame-
ters. For practical purposes, elastic analysis is generally applica- The governing relationship for the pile-soil interaction prob-
ble for assessments at service working load conditions where as- lem can be shown to be given by Eq. (1).
sumption of elastic pile-soil response is acceptable.
It can be shown that the present elastic design charts can be
([Kp] + [Ks]) {wp} = {P} (1)
readily programmed into an efficient single page spreadsheet
formulation. This spreadsheet can then be easily and routinely
used for computing elastic single pile settlements at design work- where [Kp] and [K s] are the assembled pile and soil stiffness ma-
ing loads without recourse to the computer program, resulting in trices respectively, {wp} and {P} are the vectors of pile nodal
time and cost savings. Finally, the solutions obtained using the vertical deformations and applied axial compression load respec-
present elastic design charts spreadsheet formulation are com- tively. The soil stiffness matrix [Ks] is obtained using the elastic
pared to two reported field measured static single pile axial load solutions of Chan et al. (1974) for a two-layer soil continuum.
test results. Equation (1) can be solved to obtain the pile head settlement for

277
a given axial compression load at the pile head. The analysis pro-
cedure has been coded into a fortran computer program “SPILE”.
3 ELASTIC DESIGN CHARTS
A series of elastic single pile settlement design charts has been
generated using the computer program SPILE for different values
of the pile-soil stiffness ratio (E p/E1), soil stiffness ratio (E 2/E1),
normalized upper soil layer thickness (h/d) and the normalized
pile socket length in the lower bearing layer (e/d). These charts
cover the following practical ranges of pile and soil parameters:
h/d = 5 to 200
e/d = 0 to 40
Ep/E1 = 100 to 10000
E2/E1 = 1 to 200
For clarity of presentation, the sample elastic single pile design
charts are collectively shown in Figs. 2 to 4 for pile-soil stiffness
ratios of Ep/E1 = 100, 1000 and 10000 respectively. The present
sets of design charts are more detailed than those presented ear-
lier by Chow et al. (1990). It can be shown that these sets of de-
sign charts can be readily programmed into an efficient spread-
sheet formulation. For intermediate pile and soil parameter values
than those shown in Figs. 2 to 4, linear and logarithmic (to base
10) interpolations for relevant “h/d” and “e/d” values, and
“Ep/E1” and “E2/E1” values can be used respectively. It is obvious
that increased accuracy would be obtained for more intermediate
values of E p/E1 design charts. However, for initial design assess-
ment purposes the presented sets of design charts are sufficient
for most practical situations. The single page spreadsheet can
then be used to (a) obtain a quick assessment of the elastic pile
settlements at service working loads for different pile-soil prob-
lems without the need to run the computer program SPILE; (b)
back-figure relevant soil deformation parameters by “matching”
the field measured pile load-settlement response.
The accuracy of the spreadsheet approach using the presented
design charts is compared to the results obtained using the com-
puter program SPILE, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Good agree-
ment is obtained between the estimated values using the spread-
sheet and the computed values using the program SPILE.
4 COMPARISON WITH SINGLE PILE TEST RESULTS
4.1 Bored Pile in Singapore Old Alluvium Formation
Chin (1996) reported the static load test results of an instru-
mented 800mm diameter bored pile installed in Singapore Old
Alluvium formation. The design working load of the pile is 4000
kN. The bored pile was installed through about 10m of loose to
medium dense clayey silty sand, 4m of dense silty sand and a fi-
nal 10m of very dense silty sand. Details of the pile instrumenta-
tion, test loading procedures and site soil conditions may be ob-
tained from that reference.
For the present elastic design charts approach using the pro-
grammed spreadsheet, the following relevant pile and representa-
tive two-layer soil parameters adopted by Chin (1996) are used.
Pile Parameters:
Pile length, L (=h+e) = 24.0 m
Pile diameter, d = 800 mm
Modulus of pile, E p = 28000 MPa
278
Soil Parameters:
Thickness of upper soil layer, h = 14.0 m
Upper soil modulus, E 1 = 50 MPa
Lower soil modulus, E 2 = 450 MPa
Using Spreadsheet (Design Charts):
with Ep/E1 = 560, E 2/E1 = 9, h/d = 17.5, e/d = 12.5,
the estimated pile stiffness, K [= P/(w*E 1*d)] = 24.8,
and computed pile settlement = 4.04mm at service working
load of 4000 kN.
Figure 7 shows the comparison between the spreadsheet com-
puted pile settlement value at the service working load of 4000
kN, the elastic results obtained from program SPILE and the field
measured load-settlement data. As shown, the computed spread-
sheet results compare favorably to the SPILE results and the field
measurements. For practical purposes, the programmed spread-
sheet using the presented elastic design charts is therefore capa-
ble of providing a quick assessment of the elastic bored pile set-
tlement at service working load condition.
4.2 Driven Steel Pipe Pile in Stiff Over-Consolidated Clays
O’Neill et al. (1982) reported the axial load test results of a
274mm external diameter (wall thickness = 9.3mm) steel pipe
pile driven 13.1m into stiff over-consolidated clays. The adopted
service working load of the pile is 200 kN for the present case.
Chow (1986) has analyzed this reported field pile test results,
and the relevant reported parameters in that reference are adopted
for the present assessment. The adopted parameters for the pre-
sent two-layer soil continuum model are tabulated below.
Pile Parameters:
Pile length, L (=h+e) = 13.1 m
Pile diameter, d = 274 mm (external diameter)
Wall thickness, t = 9.3 mm
Modulus of pile, E p = 205000 MPa
Soil Parameters:
Thickness of upper soil layer, h = 13.1 m
Upper soil modulus, E 1 = 298.5 MPa
Lower soil modulus, E 2 = 465.9 MPa
Using Spreadsheet (Design Charts):
with Ep/E1 = 90.1, E 2/E1 = 1.56, h/d = 47.8, e/d = 0.0,
the estimated pile stiffness, K [= P/(w*E 1*d)] = 6.61,
and computed pile settlement = 0.37mm at service working
load of 200 kN.
Figure 8 shows the comparison between the spreadsheet com-
puted pile settlement value at the service working load of 200
kN, the elastic and non-elastic results obtained from program
SPILE and the field measured load-settlement data. As shown,
the computed spreadsheet results compare favorably to the SPILE
elastic results. The present field test results show a larger magni-
tude of the measured pile head settlement indicating some pile-
soil interface yielding has occurred at the applied axial load of
200 kN. A non-elastic analysis using computer program “SPILE”
shows good agreement between the computed and measured re-
sults up to the applied axial load of 200 kN. For practical pur-
poses, the programmed spreadsheet using the presented elastic
design charts is shown to be capable of providing a quick and ac-
ceptable assessment of the elastic steel pipe pile settlement at
service working load condition.
 Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 100 (E2/E1 = 1) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 100 (E2/E1 = 20)

7.0 16
20,40
6.5 14
1,2,5,10,20,40
6.0 10
12
5
5.5
2 10
5.0
1 e/d = 0
8
4.5
e/d = 0
4.0 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
h/d h/d

(a) (c)

Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 100 (E2/E1 = 10) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 100 (E2/E1 = 50 & 100)
13
16
12
2,5,10,20,40
14
11
1
10 12
e/d = 0,1,2,5,10,20,40
9
10
8
e/d = 0
7 8

6 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
h/d h/d

(b) (d)

Fig. 2. Variations of pile stiffness for E p/E1=100 for (a) E 2/E1=1, (b) E2/E1=10, (c) E 2/E1=20 and (d) E 2/E1=50 & 100.

279
 Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 1000 (E 2/E1 = 1) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 1000 (E 2/E1 = 50)
20 100
e/d = 40
16 80 5,10,20,40
20 2
10
12 60
1
5
8 40
2,1,0 e/d = 0
4 20

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
h/d h/d

(a) (d)

Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 1000 (E 2/E1 = 10) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 1000 (E 2/E1 = 100)
60 120

50 100
10,20,40 5,10,20,40
40 80
1
5
30 60
2
20 1 40
e/d = 0 e/d = 0
10 20

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
h/d h/d

(b) (e)

Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 1000 (E 2/E1 = 20) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 1000 (E2/E1 = 200)
70 120
60 100
10 10,20,40
50 1,2,5,10,20,40
5 80
40
2 60
30 1
40
20 e/d = 0
20
10 e/d = 0
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
h/d h/d

(c) (f)
Fig. 3. Variations of pile stiffness for E p/E1=1000 for (a) E 2/E1=1, (b) E2/E1=10, (c) E2/E1=20, (d) E 2/E1=50, (e) E 2/E1=100 and
E2/E1=200.

280
 Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 10000 (E2/E1 = 1) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 10000 (E 2/E1 = 50)
60 400

50 20,40
320
40
e/d = 40 240
30 10
5
20 160
20 2
10
10 80 1
5,2,1,0 e/d = 0
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
h/d h/d

(a) (d)

Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 10000 (E 2/E1 = 10) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E1 = 10000 (E2/E1 = 100)
160 480
140
40 400
120 10,20,40
20 320
100
10 240 5
80
60 2
5 160
40 2 1
1 80
20 e/d = 0 e/d = 0
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
h/d h/d

(b) (e)

Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 10000 (E 2/E1 = 20) Pile Stiffness for Ep/E 1 = 10000 (E 2/E1 = 200)
240 700
40
200 600
20 5,10,20,40
500
160
10 400
120
5 300
2
80 2 1
200
1
40 100
e/d = 0 e/d = 0
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
h/d h/d

(c) (f)

Fig. 4. Variations of pile stiffness for E p/E1=10000 for (a) E 2/E1=1, (b) E2/E1=10, (c) E 2/E1=20, (d) E 2/E1=50, (e) E 2/E1=100 and
E2/E1=200.

281
 200 0

160
2
120 single pile test
4
80
Measured
6
40 Computed (non-elastic)
Computed (Elastic)
0 8
Design Charts (Elastic)
100 1000 10000
Ep/E1 10
0 200 400 600 800
E2/E1 = 15 (program) E2/E1 = 15 (charts)
Load (kN)
E2/E1 = 60 (program) E2/E1 = 60 (charts)
Fig. 8. Computed and measured steel pipe pile static axial re-
Fig. 5. Comparison between results from computer program sponse.
SPILE and spreadsheet using design charts (for h/d=35, e/d=4).

100 5 CONCLUSIONS

80 The present paper has provided single pile elastic settlement

design charts for an axially loaded vertical pile embedded in a
60 two-layer soil profile, with the homogeneous profile as a special
case. It has been shown that these design charts can be readily
programmed into an efficient spreadsheet formulation which can
40 be used to obtain a quick estimate of the single pile settlement
with-out recourse to the computer program. Comparisons with
20 two re-ported field static axial pile test results show favorable
agreement between the computed and measured responses at
0 service working load condition. The proposed spreadsheet
approach presents a practical, economical and quick method for
0 40 80 120 160 200 routine initial de-sign assessments of the single pile settlements
h/d at service working loads.
Ep/E1 = 2500 (program)
Ep/E1 = 2500 (charts)
Ep/E1 = 8500 (program) REFERENCES
Ep/E1 = 8500 (charts)
Butterfield, R. & Banerjee, P.K. 1971. Geotechnique 21: 43-60.
Fig. 6. Comparison between results from computer program
Butterfield, R. & Douglas, R.A. 1981. Technical Note 108.
1000 CIRIA, London.
computed Chan, K.S. et al. 1974. International Journal of Solids and
800 (using program) Structures 10: 1179-1199.
Chin, J.T. 1996. Proceedings of the 12th Southeast Asian Geo-
computed technical Conference 1: 441-446.
600
(design chart) Chow, Y.K. 1986. International Journal for Numerical and Ana-
lytical Methods in Geomechanics 10: 59-72.
400
Chow, Y.K. et al. 1990. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
measured Division, ASCE 116: 1171-1184.
200
O’Neill et al. 1982. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE. 108: 1605-1623.
0
Ottaviani, M. 1975. Geotechnique 25: 159-174.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Settlement (mm)
Design. New York, U.S.A.: John Wiley & Sons Publisher.
SPILE and spreadsheet using design charts (for E 2/E1=6, e/d=6). .

Fig. 7. Computed and measured bored-pile static axial response.

282
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

A Comparative Study on Results of Static Pile Load Test at Rock

Socketed Drilled Shaft and Bearing Capacity Equations

B. S. Chun & S. S. Whang

Department of Civil Engineering, Hanyang University #17, Haeng-Dang Dong, Seong-Dong Ku, Seoul,Korea,
hengdang@unitel.co.kr

Abstract: The driven pile has environmental problems such as vibration and noise. Especially, if the site consists of gravel, cobble and
weathered rock, the driven pile cannot be applied. Therefore, the application of the drilled shafts is increasing in Korea. However, the
bearing capacity values which were estimated by the suggested theoretical formulas are generally considered too conservative. In this
paper, static load tests for the rock socketed drilled shaft were done. To study the load transfer mechanism, strain gauges were used.
The bearing capacity values by the theoretical formula are compared. Even the static load tests did not reached the ultimate bearing
capacity nor by end bearings but rather by side friction resistances. Based on the above results, several suggestions are proposed for the
drilled shaft design.

1 GUIDELINES 2 TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The pile which has been used in this country is divided into two 2.1 Field Data
types: driven pile and drilled shaft. The study of drilled shaft has
In this paper, the static pile load test data, which were carried
been widely made abroad since 1960 because of non-vibration,
out in Gwangan Highway 5th construction field of Suyoung Bay
anti-noise and good workability for the ground composed of
filled ground and Suyoung 3rd Bridge construction site of Pusan
gravel, boulder layer or weathered rock. Though the use of
Centum penetration road, are used to compare with the existing
drilled shaft has increased in the country, there is much to be
proposed bearing capacity formula. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the
desired in the study of drilled shaft.
specifications of drilled shaft and the geotechnical physical
Therefore, design criteria and bearing capacity formulas of
property value of ground (Kyungsung Univ. 2000; Baek, 2002).
foreign country such as America and Canada are used to design
In case of Suyoung 3rd Bridge, because the data analysis results
drilled shaft in Korea.
were still incomplete, except for N value, geotechnical physical
However, it is known that because the design criteria and
property values (unit weight, unconfined compressive strength,
bearing capacity formulas are for specified foreign ground and
undrained strength, internal friction angle) of other soil part are
solid rock, there have been a problem with applying for domestic
presumed to be the upper and the lower limit value using
ground and rock and are underestimated in comparison with
correlation with N value that is proposed by Bowles (1977).
ultimate bearing capacity of actual ground (Bae et al, 1996;
Unconfined compressive strength of weathered rock layer used
Kyungsung University, 2000). Therefore, to use foreign design
the proposed value about the weakest soft rock among
criteria in domestic fields, the applicability has to be examined in
classification categories that was provided from ISRM
comparison with static load test data of drilled shaft. Moreover, it
(International Society for Rock Mechanics).
is necessary to establish the design criteria for the design of
Rock, differently from soil part, has much difference in the
domestic drilled shaft. In this paper, static load test data for the
value of physical properties such as internal friction angle
rock socketed drilled shaft at Gwangan Highway and Suyoung
according to the type of rock and the weathering level. Therefore,
3rd Bridge are analyzed. The bearing capacity from field test data
without physical property test about the field rock, the use of data
and theoretical formulas are compared and analyzed. Also, this
in practical design must be avoided.
study seeks about to suggest the ultimate bearing capacity
formulas which are suitable to the domestic field and make it
possible to design economically.

Table 1. Pile specifications.

Gwangan Highway
Suyoung 3rd Bridge
5th construction field
The embedded length of pile 32m 30m
The type of pile The drilled shaft of weathered rock The drilled shaft of weathered rock
The diameter of pile 1m 1.5m
maximum static pile load 1500 ton 2050 ton

283
Table 2. The value of geotechnical properties applied for bearing capacity formula (Gwangan Highway 5th construction field).

Unconfined
Saturated unit Internal friction Undrained strength
Depth(m) Layer compressive
weight t (t/m2) angle Cu(t/m2)
strength qu(t/m2)
0.0 9.1 alluvium 1.85 3.974 32 1.997
9.1 11.5 weathered soil 1.89 7.948 35 3.994
11.5 32 weathered rock 2.26 99.862 36 49.9311

Table 3. The value of geotechnical physical properties applied for bearing capacity formulas (Suyoung 3 rd Bridge).

Unconfined Undrained
Saturated unit Internal friction
Depth(m) Layer Navg compressive strength strength
weight t(t/m2) angle (°)
qu(t/m2) Cu(t/m2)
0.0-5.2 clay, gravel 7/30 1.76- 4.98-9.78 2.45-4.89 -
5.2-10.7 sand 7/30 1.44-1.85 - - 27-32
10.7-15.5 clay 4/30 1.61-1.92 2.45-4.89 1.23-2.45 -
15.5-16.8 sand gravel 25/30 1.76-2.08 - - 30-35
argillaceous wea-
16.8-24.5 35/30 1.92-2.24 39.13- 19.57 -
thered soil
24.5-30.0 weathered rock 50/4 2.00-2.50 100-500 - 35-40

2.2. The Evaluation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Using been compared with the ultimate bearing capacity which varies as
Existing Formulas the designer’s selection of property value.
As the result, there was at most the treble difference of total
Ultimate bearing capacity was evaluated by the existing design
ultimate bearing capacity as design methods and Uniaxial
standard and the suggested bearing capacity formulas to compare
Compressive Strength of rock masses was potent influence
with the surveying value of static pile load test to use a ground
Therefore, in case of drilled shaft socketed to rock masses, in
property value of Tables 2 to 5.
order to reduce the difference of bearing capacity by designer ’s
The used bearing capacity formulas were proposed by Reese
selection, not only the properties of sand but also accurate
& O’Neil (1988), Das (1984), Bowles (1988) etc., and comply
properties of rock masses (unit weight, uniaxial compressive
with Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992) and FHWA (1999),
strength, internal friction angle) are very important. Because of
an existing design standard of Highway Corporation and a
few data about rock joints, end bearing capacity using design
reformed design standard of Highway Corporation in this year.
criteria of FHWA (1999) was calculated on the most critical
In case of Suyoung 3 rd Bridge, when there were no exact data
assumption that joint spacing is 305mm and joint aperture was
as calculating ultimate bearing capacity according to the upper
5mm long.
and the lower limit value of properties which are calculated from
N value of soil department and a general statement of rock, it had
Table 4. Ultimate bearing capacities through the theory formulas of bearing capacity (Gwangan Highway 5 th construction site).

Highway
Highway
bridge
bridge design The
Reese Canadian design
th standard of measured
Gwangan Highway 5 & Das Bowles Geotechni- standard of FHWA
established value of
construction field O’Neil (1984) (1988) cal Society reformed (1999)
road construc- static pile
(1988) (1992) load
tion load test
construction
(2000)
(2002)
The static 0.0~9.1m 3.78 1.14 1.21 1.55 3.78 3.78 3.78 24.5
pile load test 9.1~11.5m 6.29 2.63 3.08 3.52 6.29 6.29 6.29 29.2
which is
followed by 11.5~32m
8.13 4.16 8.28 19.9 1.01 19.9 15 8.7
depth (t/m2) (rock mass)
Skin friction (ton) 678 320 591 1353 220 1009 1121 1480
End bearing capacity unit
430 913.9 200 90 130 430 40.8 25.5
(t/m2)
End bearing capacity (ton) 338 718 157 71 338 338 32 20
Gross ultimate bearing ca-
1017 1038 748 1424 558 1347 1153 1500
pacity (ton)
* The surveying value of static pile load test is not ultimate bearing capacity but the distribution load of skin friction and end bear-
ing capacity during the maximum loading condition
** : the ratio of settlement to a pile-top diameter

284
 Table 5. Ultimate bearing capacities calculated by theoretical equation.

Highway Highway The

bridge design bridge design real
Canadian Geo-
Reese & Bowels standard of es- standard of re- FHWA value of
Das (1984) technical Soci-
rd O'Neil (1988) (1988) tablished road formed load (1999) loading
Suyoung 3 Bidge ety (1992)
construction construction test
(2000) (2002)
Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower
limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit
0.0~5.2m 2.69 1.35 1.96 0.98 2.45 1.21 2.45 1.23 2.69 1.35 2.69 1.35 2.69 1.35 -
Mean unit 5.2~10.7m 6.43 4.18 2.34 1.44 2.48 1.31 3.18 2.06 6.43 4.18 6.43 4.18 3.01 1.95 -
skin fric- 10.7~15.5m 1.35 0.68 0.98 0.49 1.23 0.62 1.23 0.62 1.35 0.68 1.35 0.68 1.35 0.68 -
tion 15.5~16.8m 7.94 5.04 4.60 2.83 5.40 2.83 6.16 3.92 7.94 5.04 7.94 5.04 12.20 7.76 -
per depth 16.8~24.5m 10.76 10.76 7.83 7.83 9.79 9.79 5.22 3.46 10.76 10.76 10.76 10.76 10.76 10.76 -
(t/ ) 24.5~30.0m
6.58 4.45 6.95 4.64 12.49 7.04 44.55 19.90 2.64 1.01 44.60 19.90 46.87 15.00 -
(base rock)
Skin friction(ton) 854 684 609 487 847 624 1535 754 751 595 1453 913 1835 916 1904
Unit end bearing capacity 2526.
430 430 869.7 133.3 133.3 370.5 74.1 364.2 364.2 364.2 364.2 197.5 39.5 82.6
of pile(t/ ) 6
End bearing capacity of
760 760 4465 1537 236 236 655 131 644 644 644 644 349 70 146
pile (ton)
Total ultimate bearing
1614 1444 5074 2024 1083 860 2190 885 1395 1239 2097 1557 2184 986 2050
capacity(ton)
*The surveying value of static pile load test is not ultimate bearing capacity but the distribution load of skin friction and end bearing
capacity during the maximum loading condition.
**Mean unit skin friction is not obtained because of lack of data.
*** : the ratio of settlement to a pile-top diameter.

This method is suggested in the case of such rock as more than
305mm joint spacing, less than 5mm joint aperture, and more
than 305mm foundation width. Therefore, end bearing capacity
which is calculated with the formula of FHWA (1999) was too
small to be less than those which are calculated with other
formulas. This means that special investigation for joints of rock
masses should be carried out to use the bearing capacity formula
of FHWA in design.
2.3 The Comparison Between Static Load Test and Theoretical
Formulas
Though general load test is applied only to measure the strain
quantity on the pile tip, the static load test, carried out in Busan
Gwangan Highway 5th construction field and Suyoung 3 rd Bridge,
made it possible to measure not only load-strain on the pile tip
but also skin friction and end bearing capacity independently by
axial transfer analysis according to depth using auto-monitoring
system.
During the loading test, the test pile in Gwangan Highway 5 th
construction field and Suyoung 3 rd Bridge was given maximum
load (1500ton, 2050ton), but failure of pile did not occur and
load-displacement curve showed that the behavior of test piles
was elastic. According to regular Load Transfer Curve between
end bearing capacity and settlement suggested by FHWA (1999),
the skin friction and end bearing capacity of sand socketed drilled
shaft have maximum value when the settlement is over 1% and
over 5% of end diameter.
As the results of the Load Test, the settlements of pile tip were
each 11mm and 35mm at Gwangan Highway 5th construction
field and Suyoung 3 rd Bridge and is actually 0mm and 28mm
without elastic strain. These values are each 0% and 1.87% of
end diameter.
The rock layers that test pile penetrated is completely
weathered to sand (silty sand, gravel). In comparison with
FHWA, it can be shown that the static load is much smaller than
ultimate bearing capacity. Thus, the skin friction and the end
bearing capacity, calculated by the axial load transfer of static
loading test, are distributed load measured around pile and on the
tip under maximum condition.
Nevertheless, the ultimate bearing capacity calculated by
design equation is almost equal to distribution load of static pile
load test. Also, in the case of actual design, the safety factor of
ultimate bearing capacity is generally 3 for general bearing
capacity formula and 2 for static load test. Therefore, the
difference of ultimate bearing capacity is more remarkable.
Accordingly, if existing bearing capacity formula is used in the
actual design of piles, the construction design will be
conservative and uneconomical.
3 CONCLUSIONS
From the result of comparative study on bearing capacity
equation and static pile load test at Gwangan Highway 5 th
Construction Field and Suyoung 3 rd Bridge of Test Pile, the
following conclusion can be obtained:
1) First, the actual measured value obtained by static pile load
test is not ultimate bearing capacity but skin friction of maximum
load and distribution load of toe resistance. Therefore, the
ultimate bearing capacity of actual ground should be even larger
than maximum load. Nevertheless, the ultimate bearing capacity
calculated by capacity equation is small or nearly equal as

285
compared with the load by static loading test. Moreover, when
the factor of safety of 3 and 2 is applied in the design, this
difference becomes remarkable. This means that the method by
current capacity equations have a problem with calculating
ultimate bearing capacity. In comparison with the surveyed value
of static loading test used in this study, it has a problem with the
safety of piles that the value of safety of 2 can be applied to
bearing capacity obtained by capacity equations
2) In case of frictional resistance, there is no value of Bearing
Capacity Formulas that exceeded the measured value by the
Static Load Test. It means that Bearing Capacity Formulas
underestimated the frictional resistance of Drilled Shaft very
much. Among theoretical bearing values, the calculated values of
frictional resistance by Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992)
and FHWA (1999) were the most approximate to the measured
value of frictional resistance by the Static Load Test. Therefore, it
is desired to put a calculation equation of frictional resistance by
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992) and FHWA (1999) among
proposed equations compared in this paper in order to calculate
frictional resistance of drilled shaft penetrating domestic
weathered rock without field load test.
3) In case of FHWA (1999), the frictional resistance is the
most approximate measured value by Static Load Test but end
bearing capacity of pile is calculated were very small. The data
for rock joint assumed most critical condition because there were
no data of rock joint for calculation of end bearing capacity of a
pile, and, henceforth, rock joint survey must be performed at
ground survey in other to use the theory equation of FWHA for
design
4) In case of performing loading test not for verifying design
load but for design, to verify ultimate bearing capacity, it is
essential to control the load till failure.
5)In case of rock socketed drilled shaft, ground survey for pre-
design must measure the properties for rock as well as soil
because rock properties have much influence on ultimate bearing
capacity.
6) Therefore, until suitable design method for domestic ground
is found in the future, Load Transfer Analysis through axial load
measuring system has to be used with loading test.
286
REFERENCES
Baek K.G.C. 2002. Suyoung 3rd Bridge for the bearing capacity
comparison of drilled shaft Report No. PTR-02-115.
Bae, S.W., Hwang, S.I. & Cho, N.J. 1996. Prediction of load
settlement curves for drilled shafts, Korean Geotechnical
Society: 327-336.
Bowles, J.E. 1977. Foundation Analysis and Design . New York:
Graw-Hill Book Company.
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design : New York:
Graw-Hill Book Company.
Canadian Geotechnical Society 1992. Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual, Canadian Geotechnical Society
Technical Committee on Foundations, Ottawa.
Choi, Y.K. 1989. An experimental study on the sealing ability of
base-grouted pile, Dissertation, Seoul National.
Das, B.M. 1999. Principles of Foundation Engineeri ng,
Book/Cole.
Korean Geotechnical Society 1997. Ground Exploration.
Geotechnical Engineering Series, Gu Mi Book Publisher.
Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2001. Design and
Performance of Road Pavements Explanation.
Kyungsung University 2000. The review on the Gwangan bridge
construction work is during static pile load test for a large
diameter socketed pipe pile and numerical analysis. Report
No. KSU/GT-00-1.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., & Thornburn, T.H. 1974. Foundation
Engineering, John Wiley and Sons: 361-374.
Reese, L.C. & O'Neill, M.W. 1988. Drilled Shafts Student
Workbook. NHI Course No. 13214, Federal Highway
Administration, August.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration 1999. Drilled Shafts: Construction
Publication No. FHWA-IF-99_025
Vesic, A. S. 1977. Design of pile foundation, NCHRP synthesis of
highway practice No. 42, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

The Increase of Passive Earth Pressure due to the Dowel Effect of

Foundation Piles

R. Katzenbach, G. Bachmann, C. Gutberlet & J. Turek

Institute and Laboratory of Geotechnics, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Petersenstrasse 13, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany
katzenbach@geotechnik.tu-darmstadt.de

Abstract: The construction of a CPRF is usually combined with a deep excavation. Geotechnical measurements on retaining structures
within different high-rise building projects in Frankfurt am Main (Katzenbach et al. 1999) have shown that the observed wall dis-
placements are much less than predicted which is partially caused by the dowel effect of the foundation piles nailing the earth wedge in
front of the wall. For quantifying the increase of the passive earth pressure due to this effect a “numerical test series” – built up on a
small scale model test series – was carried out with more than 500 single finite element simulations in which geometrical dimen sions
like the distance between the first pile row and the retaining wall and material parameters were varied within the investigation to gain
knowledge about their influence on the earth pressure. The results of the numerical investigations show an increase of earth pressure
leading to an effective reduction of the embedment depth of the walls and thus to a cost-optimization for excavation pits.

1 INTRODUCTION
During the construction process of high-rise buildings founded
on a CPRF or a pile foundation the piles used for the foundation
are constructed from a pre-excavation level above the groundwa-
ter table before the remaining part of the pit is excavated. The in-
teraction of the foundation piles, the soil continuum and the re-
taining wall during the excavation process – which leads to a
strengthening of the earth wedge in front of the wall – is worth-
while to be investigated, for example the impact of the piles on
the displacement dependent earth pressure in front of the wall.
The impact of lateral ground movements on piles has been de-
scribed by Heyman (1965) who reported about the influence of
lateral earth pressure on pile foundations and Chen & Poulos
(1997) who developed linear elastic solutions for simple soil
movement profiles to enable approximate assessment of the pile
head deflection and the maximum bending moment. Furthermore,
Nalcakan & Ergun (2001) report about model tests on laterally
loaded passive piles.
This paper deals with small scale model tests combined with
numerical parameter studies with the aim to identify the parame-
ters which have influence on the magnitude of the earth pressure
and to develop a method for the consideration of the dowel effect
of foundation piles for the design of retaining walls. The se-
quence of the investigation is shown in Fig. 1.
2 SMALL SCALE MODEL TEST SERIES
The 1g small scale model test series (Moormann 2003) was set
up to gain both knowledge about the quantity of the dowel effect
and a data basis for the subsequent numerical simulation series.
The dimensions of the small scale model test series were deter-
mined based on typical dimensions of CPRFs and excavation pits
in Frankfurt am Main and a model scale factor for the length of
1/50. The earth pressure activation is achieved by moving the up-
per part of the test setup wall into the soil. A schematic sketch of
the investigated problem is shown in Fig. 2.
з´»-

É¿´´ ¼·-°´¿½»³»²¬ «
ͬ»° ï ͳ¿´´ -½¿´» ³±¼»´ ¬»-¬ -»®·»-
λ¬¿·²·²¹ ©¿´´

ͬ»° î Ò«³»®·½¿´ ¬»-¬ -»®·»-

ͬ»° í Ê¿´·¼¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ÚÛó³±¼»´ Û³¾»¼³»²¬

¼»°¬¸ ¬ ß--«³»¼
-¸»¿® ¾¿²¼

ͬ»° ì п®¿³»¬»® -¬«¼§

ͬ»° ë Ï«¿²¬·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼±©»´ »ºº»½¬

Fig. 2. Section of the doweled earth wedge.

Fig. 1. Sequence of the investigation.

287
 Within the testing series a variation of several parameters influ- - The earth pressure increases with decreasing geometrical pa-
encing the increase of passive earth pressure due to the dowel ef- rameters e0 and ep.
fect was performed. The following parameters were varied:
The test results give a first glance on the dependencies and
- Distance between the first row of piles and the impact of the dowel effect on the earth pressure.
retaining wall e 0 (Fig. 3)
- Distance between the piles within the pile grid e p (Fig. 3)
- Embedment depth of the retaining wall t (Fig. 2) 3 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE SMALL SCALE
- Wall displacement type (parallel translation, rotation about MODEL TEST SERIES
wall top, rotation about wall base, rotation about a deep fixed
point in a distance of 1.25 t from the wall base) 3.1 Aim of the Numerical Investigation
The numerical investigation was carried out to derive a numerical
The test setup consists of a rigid box of 720 mm x 900 mm x
basic model calibrated on the results of the small scale test series.
800 mm (Fig. 3). The diameter of the installed model piles (tubes
This model was transferred to Frankfurt am Main soil conditions
made of polycarbonate) has been set to 30 mm which corre-
for an investigation of the quantities of the earth pressure in-
sponds to a diameter of 1.50 m in real dimensions. The embedded
crease factor which is described in chapter 4.
length of the piles was 600 mm (30 m in real dimensions).
Ù®±«²¼ °´±¬
з´»- 3.2 Description of the Constitutive Law for the Quartz Sand
»° The constitutive law used for the sand is an ideally-plastic Mohr-
ß ß
Coulomb model combined with linear elasticity.
The angle of friction, cohesion and density were identified by
éî ½³

»ð »°
several laboratory tests. The remaining parameters were deter-
mined within the back-analysis (Table 2) supported by laboratory
tests. The low value of the Young’s modulus has to be ascribed
çð ½³
to its stress dependency. The low stress level which exists all
Í»½¬·±² ßóß over the height of the test box causes the low stiffness of the im-
ͽ®»© ¬¸®»¿¼
plemented quartz sand.
îð ½³

Ó±ª¿¾´» ©¿´´
Table 2. Material parameters used for the Mohr-Coulomb model.
èð ½³
êð ½³ Ú·¨»¼ ©¿´´

Material Parameter Symbol Dimension Value

Angle of friction ’ [°] 38.0
Cohesion c’ [kN/m²] -
Angle of dilatancy [°] 10.0
çð ½³

Fig. 3. Exemplary layout and photo of the model test setup. Young’s modulus E [kN/m²] 2000
Poisson’s ratio [-] 0.3
Unit weight [kN/m³] 16.5
Some material parameters of the sand used for the tests are dis-
played in Table 1.
3.3 Pre-Analysis
Table 1. Material parameters of the dry quartz sand.
Before the actual numerical simulation series have been carried
Material Parameter Symbol Dimension Value out a pre-analysis was performed to examine the acceptability of
Angle of friction ’ [°] 38.0 the basic numerical model. Because of the multiple symmetry of
Cohesion c’ [kN/m²] - the test setup the numerical basic model was supposed to be re-
Unit weight [kN/m³] 16.5 duced to a 3-dimensional slice (Figs. 4 & 6). Therefore an inves-
Void ratio e [-] 0.59 tigation of the influence of the friction between the lateral walls
Water content w [%] 0.11 and the soil and herewith the feasibility of the basic model with
respect to this friction problem was performed.
The density of the sand used in model tests has a strong influ- This investigation consisted of two single simulations. In the
ence on the test results. Therefore a method of forming artificial first simulation half of the whole test setup was modelled – under
beds of sand which are homogeneously reproducible is required consideration of the onefold symmetry of the setup. As it is a
(Walker & Whitaker 1967; Heineke et al. 2001). This require- model test without any piles, the results of the described simula-
ment was met by pouring the sand into the test box with a rainfall tion can be directly compared with the second simulation, a
method which was successfully applied for several model tests in plain-strain simulation of the same model test (Fig. 5).
Darmstadt (e.g. Turek & Katzenbach 2003). The difference between both curves is caused by the shear
stresses at the lateral walls. The increase of the measured earth
The most important results of the test series are: pressure due to the shear stresses is about 20 % which means the
friction influence of the lateral walls has necessarily to be consid-
- The increase of earth pressure due to the dowel effect is non- ered in the 3-dimensional slice model.
linearly dependent on the wall displacement.
- The increase of earth pressure depends severely on the type
of the wall displacement.

288
 creasing displacements. This earth pressure decrease is not ob-
served within the numerical simulations because of the constitu-
»°
tive law used (Fig. 7).

íÜóÍ´·½» Table 3. Notations of the numerical simulated small scale model

éî ½³ tests.
Type of wall Depth of the
Notation No. of piles
»ð »° movement wall
P0P 10 Parallel 0 10 cm
P0P 20 Parallel 0 20 cm
P0P 30 Parallel 0 30 cm
P8P 10 Parallel 8 10 cm
çð ½³ P8P 20 Parallel 8 20 cm
P8P 30 Parallel 8 30 cm
K0P 20 Combined 0 20 cm
Fig. 4. 3-D-Slice (Top view). K0P 30 Combined 0 30 cm
K8P 20 Combined 8 20 cm
K8P 30 Combined 8 30 cm
K30P 20 Combined 30 20 cm
K30P 30 Combined 30 30 cm
Earth Pressure E [N]

Earth Pressure E [N]

Fig. 5. Influence of the lateral wall friction.

Further investigations concerning the influence of the wall

friction of the retaining wall and of the material parameters like
angle of dilatancy or Young’s modulus were carried out. The
achievements of the pre-analysis were implemented in the basic
model. Fig. 7. Earth pressure-displacement relation of P0P 10, model
test and simulation.
ܱ©»´ з´»-

Ú±®½»¼
Ü·-°´¿½»³»²¬
Earth Pressure E [N]

Fig. 6. 3-D-Slice (Displaced finite element mesh).

3.4 Assessment of the Results of the Numerical Investigation

In total 12 model tests which are listed in Table 3 were simulated.
Although all simulations were set up with the same basic model
and identical material parameters a good agreement between the
results of the simulations and the small scale test series was
achieved.
The basic form of the earth pressure displacement curves of all
model tests performed without piles is equal. After reaching a
maximum the earth pressure decreases to a steady level with in-
Fig. 8. Earth pressure-displacement relation of P8P 10, model
test and simulation.
The earth pressure decrease does not appear in systems rein-
forced by piles. The behaviour of the composite material “soil
and piles” is distinctly different from conventional soil behaviour

289
so the best accordance between test and simulation was achieved
with the pile reinforced systems (Fig. 8).
The test series and the numerical simulations provide the fol-
lowing important results:

[-]
Earth Pressure Increase Factor
- The influence of the geometrical parameter e 0, ep and t that
has been investigated by the small scale model test series was
also observed within the numerical analysis.
- The main increase of earth pressure has to be ascribed to the
first row of piles. If there are more than one pile row the fur-
ther increase of earth pressure is only of minor importance.
- The behaviour of reinforced earth wedges clearly differs from
the conventional soil behaviour.

The numerical basic model is validated by a good agreement

between the results of the small scale model test series and the
numerical simulation. Fig. 10. Earth pressure increase factor EEF related to the wall
displacement and friction angle, P8P 10, numerical simulation.

3.5 Quantification of the Earth Pressure Increase

The earth pressure increase is quantified by the earth pressure in-

[-]
crease factor EEF which is defined by the ratio of the earth pres-
sure measured in the test with piles and the earth pressure of the

Earth Pressure Increase Factor

tests without piles:

E with piles (u ) (1)

EEF EEF (u )
E w / o piles (u )

Thus, a displacement dependent increase factor is introduced. As

it is shown in Fig. 9 the earth pressure increase factor rises with
increasing displacement.

Fig. 11. Earth pressure increase factor EEF related to the wall
displacement and Young’s modulus, P8P 10, numerical simula-
[-]

tion.
Earth Pressure Increase Factor

The influence of the Young’s modulus on the earth pressure

increase is much larger than the influence of the friction angle.
Higher soil stiffness is connected to an increasing earth pressure
(Fig. 11).

4 APPLICATION OF THE NUMERICAL BASIC MODEL

ON FRANKFURT CLAY

The basic numerical model was transferred to the soil conditions

Fig. 9. Earth pressure increase factor EEF related to the wall dis- of Frankfurt am Main to describe the earth pressure increase due
placement u, P8P 20, model test and numerical simulation. to the dowel effect of foundation piles for excavation pits in the
Frankfurt clay.
-ï

3.6 Dependencies of the Earth Pressure Increase Factor EEF

ا¼®±-¬¿¬·½ ߨ·-
ا¼®±-¬¿¬·-½¸» ß½¸-»
Ú¬
In the following section the earth pressure increase factor’s de-
pendencies on the angle of friction and the Young ’s modulus is Ú- Ú½
described. For this examination a parameter variation of these pa-
rameters was carried out while the remaining parameters main-
tained their primary values. The simulation series derived the
subsequent results. -î
The earth pressure increase is influenced by the variation of
the angle of friction at displacements of 2 mm matching 10 cm in
-í
real dimensions (Fig. 10). At small wall displacements (1 mm)
the earth pressure increase is nearly independent of the angle of Fig. 12. Yield surfaces of the Modified Drucker-Prager/
friction. Cap model in the principal stress space.

290
 For the simulation of the material behaviour of the Frankfurt
clay the modified Drucker-Prager/Cap model was used. This con- λ¬¿·²·²¹ É¿´´ λ¬¿·²·²¹ É¿´´

stitutive law uses two main yield surface segments: the pressure Þ«ºº»® ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» º·®-¬
°·´» ®±© ¿²¼ ¬¸» ®»¬¿·²·²¹ ©¿´´
dependent, perfectly shear failure surface and the compression
cap yield surface (Katzenbach et al., 1998). Changes of stress
within the yield surfaces cause only elastic deformations while Û¿®¬¸ É»¼¹» Û¿®¬¸ É»¼¹»

stress changes on the yield surface lead to plastic deformations.

The shear failure surface is perfectly plastic whereas volumetric
¬ ¬

plastic strains can lead to hardening or softening by changing the

cap position.
The material parameters for the Frankfurt clay are summarized
»ð »ð

in Table 4. Ú±«²¼¿¬·±² з´» Ú±«²¼¿¬·±² з´»

Table 4. Material parameters of the Frankfurt clay.

Fig. 14. Section view through the earth wedge at different pile-
Material Parameter Symbol Dimension Value wall-distances e0.
Angle of friction ’ [°] 20.0
Cohesion c’ [kN/m²] 20.0
Young’s modulus E [kN/m²] 50000

[-]
Poisson’s ratio [-] 0.25
Buoyant unit weight [kN/m³] 9.0

Earth Pressure Increase Factor

’

To achieve knowledge about the influence of several parame-

ters a variation of four geometrical parameters based on the re-
sults of the model test series has been started. The following pa-
rameters were varied:

- Embedment depth of the retaining wall t

- Distance between the first row of piles and the
retaining wall e 0
- Distance between the piles within the pile grid e p
- Diameter of the foundation piles D

The subsequent figures show the earth pressure increase factor Fig. 15. Earth pressure increase factor EEF in dependence of the
EEFin dependence of the above listed parameters exemplarily pile-pile-distance e p (e0 = 1.5 m; t = 3 m; D = 1.5 m).
for the configuration e 0 = 1.5 m, e p = 3 m, t = 3 m and D = 1.5 m.
During the analysis only one of the parameters was varied while
the others were held constant. Displayed are the earth pressure
[-]

increase factor EEF for a wall movement of u = 5 cm and

u = 10 cm.
Earth Pressure Increase Factor
[-]
Earth Pressure Increase Factor

Fig. 16. Earth pressure increase factor EEF in dependence of the

diameter of the pile D (e 0 = 1,5 m; e p = 3 m; t = 3 m).

Fig. 13. Earth pressure increase factor EEF in dependence of the
pile-wall-distance e 0 (ep = 3 m; t = 3 m; D = 1.5 m).
With decreasing pile-wall-distance e 0 the earth pressure in-
crease factor EEF rises. This effect is apparently caused by the
smaller buffer of soil between the first pile row and the wall
(Figs. 13 & 14).
A decreasing pile-pile-distance e p and a larger pile diameter D
lead to a higher stiffness of the whole earth wedge and therefore
the earth pressure increase factor EEF rises (Figs. 15 & 16).
Increasing the embedment depth of the retaining wall leads to
superproportionally larger earth wedges. Thus, the ratio of the
cross sectional area of the pile and the area of the whole shear
band decreases.

291

[-]
Earth Pressure Increase Factor
Fig. 17. Earth pressure increase factor EEF in dependence of the
embedment depth of the wall t (e 0 = 1.5 m; e p = 3 m; D = 1.5 m).
λ¬¿·²·²¹ É¿´´
Û¿®¬¸ É»¹¼»
¬ pressure on pile foundation. Proceedings 6th International
»ð
Ú±«²¼¿¬·±² з´»
Fig. 18. Section view through the earth wedge at different em-
bedment depths t.
The maximum values for the earth pressure increase factor
for the exemplarily listed configuration e 0 = 1.5 m, ep = 3 m,
EEF
t = 3 m and D = 1.5 m are (Figs. 17 and 18):
- EEF = 1,97 for a wall movement of 5 cm and
- EEF = 2,54 for a wall movement of 10 cm.
6 CONCLUSIONS
With the small model test series the increase of the earth pressure
related to the dowel effect of piles can be simulated. The devel-
oped and validated numerical model is appropriate to simulate
the dowel effect of piles in front of retaining walls. The results of
the numerical simulation form a basis for the quantification of the
passive earth pressure increase due to the dowel effect of founda-
tion piles.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
- With increasing wall movement the earth pressure in-
crease factor EEF rises.
- With decreasing pile-wall-distance e 0 the earth pressure
increase factor EEF rises superproportionally.
- With decreasing pile-pile-distance e p the earth pressure
increase factor EEF increases.
- With increasing diameter of the piles the earth pressure
increase factor EEF increases.
- With decreasing embedment depth of the wall the earth
pressure increase factor EEF rises.
Due to the increased passive earth pressure the embedment depth
of retaining walls can be distinctly reduced. So the consideration
of the dowel effect of foundation piles in front of retaining walls
consequently offers a technical and economical optimization for
retaining structures.
REFERENCES
Chen, L. & Poulos, H. 1997. Piles subjected to lateral soil
movements. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 123 (9): 802-811.
Heineke, S.T., Katzenbach, R., & Arslan, U. 2001. Model scale
λ¬¿·²·²¹ É¿´´
investigations on the deformation of the subsoil under railway
traffic. Proceedings 15th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (3): 2077-2080,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Heyman, L. 1965. Measurement of the influence of lateral earth
Û¿®¬¸ É»¼¹»
¬ Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
(2): 257 – 260, Montreal, Canada.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Moormann, C. & Reul, O 1998.
»ð Piled raft foundation – Interaction between piles and raft.
Proceedings International Conference on Soil-Structure In-
Ú±«²¼¿¬·±² з´»
teraction in Urban Civil Engineering 4(2): 279 – 296.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Moormann, C. 1999. Piled raft
foundation projects in Germany. In: Design Applications of
Raft Foundations, (J.A. Hemsley, ed.), Thomas Telford, Lon-
don: 323-391.
Moormann, C. 2003. Zur Tragwirkung von Gründungspfählen
beim Baugrubenaushub. Pfahl-Symposium 2003, Mitteilungen
des Instituts für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik, Technische
Universität Braunschweig, Heft (71): 351 – 378.
Nalcakan, M.S. & Ergun, M.U. 2001. Lateral loading of a row of
model passive piles in a cohesive soil. Proceedings 15 th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical En-
gineering 2: 1219-1222, Istanbul, Turkey.
Turek, J. & Katzenbach, R. 2003. Small-scale model tests with
combined pile-raft foundations. Proceedings 4th International
Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, Millpress, Rotterdam: 409-413.
Walker, B.P. & Whitaker, T. 1967. An apparatus for forming
uniform beds of sand for model foundation tests. Géotech-
nique 17: 161-167.
292
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Laboratory Study on the Behaviour of Piled Raft on Granular Soils

V. Balakumar
Research Scholar, Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai
vb_kumar2002@yahoo.com
K. Ilamparuthi
Professor & Head, Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai

Abstract : In order to understand the settlement behaviour of piled raft on granular soil, a series of small scale 1g tests were conducted
in the geotechnical engineering laboratory of Anna University. The constituent elements of the model were determined based on the
typical dimensions of tank foundations in around this place. The pile length was so chosen that the length is not more than the raft
dimension. The tests were carried out on plain raft, combined piled raft and free standing pile group embedded in sand beds of three
different densities. The performance of square piled raft and circular piled raft were compared. The factors influencing the load-
settlement behaviour of piled raft were identified. Further this paper focuses on the results of the parametric study and establishes the
governing factor on the settlement reduction of the raft due to the presence of piles.

1 INTRODUCTION of pile and number of piles on the load settlement behaviour of a

Piled raft is essentially raft foundation enhanced with piles with
the aim of reducing the settlement. This concept of raft enhanced
with piles as settlement reducer has been in the minds of
geotechnical engineers as early as 1957. Even though the concept
exists for a long time, this has not been an automatic choice due
to the conservative approach of our building codes and the end
users. Various researchers have worked on the behaviour of the
piled raft. They can be grouped broadly under there heads,
namely (a) analytical modeling (b) filed observations on proto
type piled raft and (c) laboratory modeling. Analytical modeling
has been on the process of development since 1971. Butterfield
& Banerjee (1971) have used boundary element theory to study
the effect of the pile cap in load sharing. Plate and spring
approach, (winkler approach) has also been used in studying the
load sharing mechanism (Yamashita et al., 1990; Clancy &
Randolph,1993; Poulos, 1994). Combined models using
boundary elements for piles and finite elements for raft have also
been studied.(Hain & Lee, 1973; Frank et al.,1994; Ta &
Small,1996;). Limited studies have been reported on the
performance of real size structure on piled raft (Hooper, 1973;
Yamashita et al., 1993; Katzenbach et al., 1999; Reul, 2000;
Balakumar & Ilamparuthi, 2003;). Poulos (2001) has summarized
many of the studies conducted on real size structures by various
researchers and scholars. He has concluded that increase in the
number of piles will not always produce best foundation
performance.
Laboratory model studies on piled raft have also been reported
to a limited extent. Weisner & Brown (1980) studied the
behaviour of model piled raft of sizes 118mm x 118mm and
152mm x 89mm with piles of 9.6mm diameter and 250mm long
founded on kaolin clay bed and validated their findings through
finite element analysis by modeling the soil as elastic continuam.
Cooke (1986) concluded through the model studies that the
spacing and the length of the pile have influence on the
behaviour of piled raft. He further reported that longer the length
of the pile lesser is the settlement of the piled raft system. The
influence of various parameters such as diameter of pile, length
combined piled raft foundation was investigated by Thaher &
Jeeseberger (1991). Horikoshi & Randolph (1996) brought out
the effect of closely spaced(small centered) pile group on the
settlement of the piled raft through centrifuge model tests on an
over consolidated clay bed. Recently few studies carried out on
granular beds have been reported. Kim et al. (2002) conducted
model tests on piled raft embedded in sand bed and developed a
genetic algorithms based analysis for optimizing pile locations.
Turek & Katzenbach (2003) reported the results of model tests
conducted on loose and dense sand bed. Tests were conducted on
instrumented model piles of 30mm diameter in a five pile group,
piled raft model. It was reported that the reduction in settlement
is 30% and 50% in loose and dense sand respectively.
The research on the behaviour of piled raft on sand has gained
momentum recently, though it is an accepted practice to support
large storage tanks on the piled raft system in loose granular
deposits. Further the allowable settlement in sand is lesser than
clay. Therefore, control of total and differential settlements are
very important. Conventionally in the design, the presence of raft
and its contribution in sharing the load is ignored, assuming that
the entire load is taken by piles. If the presence of raft and its
contribution in sharing the load are taken, it is quite possible, to
use a relatively smaller number and shorter length of pile.
Most of the laboratory studies reported covers only the effect
of spacing of piles on load sharing between raft and pile. Further
studies in the laboratory covering many other important
parameters such as length of the piles, spacing of piles, shape of
the raft etc. are very limited. Hence it was decided to conduct an
elaborate study on circular and square piled raft in granular strata.
Accordingly tests were conducted on model piled raft by varying
the length, diameter and spacing of the piles. Spacing were so
arranged as to represent more of piled raft behaviour rather than
pile group behaviour. The influence of pile length, diameter of
piles, thickness of raft and spacing between the piles on settlement
reduction as well as piled raft coefficient are brought out in this
study inclusive of effect of density of sand bed.

293
2 SMALL SCALE MODEL TEST

The small scale model tests described in this paper were

conducted at 1 g level in the geotechnical engineering laboratory
of Anna University, Chennai. The shape and dimensions of the
model was determined based on typical dimensions of the tanks
commonly used with a scale of 1/100. Commonly used scaling
law relationship have been given due consideration (Frank &
Mirth 1985).

Table 1. Properties of sand used for test.

Fig. 1. Test setup.
Silt 2%
Fine Sand 35%
Medium Sand 61%
Coarse Sand 2%
Max. Void Ratio 0.46
Min. Void Ratio 0.84
Coefficient of Curvature 1.22
Uniformity Coefficient 2.63
D10 0.38

In the present study vertical loading tests have been performed

on plain raft and piled raft with and without contact between raft
and soil. raft

Fig. 2. Plan detail of piled raft.

2.1 Test Bed
All the tests were carried out in a steel tank of 1000mm x 600mm
x 600mm. Sufficient thickness of plates and stiffeners were used
to keep the tank rigid. Thick Perspex sheet was used on one face.
A rigid door was kept on one side to clear the box, after finishing
the test. Fig 1 indicate the test tank with loading arrangements.
2.2 Sand
Dry sand obtained from Palar river bed has been used. The grain
size and the properties are given in Table 1. The tests were
conducted on three different densities of sand bed namely loose
(14.5kN/m3),medium dense ( 15.5kN/m3), and dense(16.5kN/m 3)
conditions. The corresponding values are 34 0, 370 and 41 0
respectively .
2.3 Raft
Details of the model raft and raft with piles are given in Fig. 2.
Perspex sheets of 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm thickness(t) have
been chosen for raft, keeping in mind commonly used raft
thickness. The raft dimension has been kept as 200mm dia in the
case of circular raft, and 200mm X 200mm in the case of the
square raft. The top of the raft has countersunk holes to fasten the
pile using stainless steel screw. Corresponding to each model of
piled raft, separate plain raft was also made.
2.4 Piles
Perspex solid rods have been used as piles. 6mm, 8mm and
10mm diameters(D) have been chosen. The length of the piles
(L)chosen were 200mm, 160mm, 120mm, 100m. Sufficient care
was taken to see that the specimen is geometrically accurate.
Threads were provided on the top end to facilitate accurate
fastening, and to generate monolithic action between the two.
2.5 Head Condition
The piles were fixed to the raft at required locations using
stainless steel screws. This ensures the true fixed head condition.
2.6 Loading Arrangement
The foundation was vertically loaded using a hydraulic jack fitted
to a loading frame. The loading was measured by a proving ring
of 20 kN capacity having the required accuracy. A rigid plate
was fixed to the proving ring bottom. A loading platten with
closely spaced ball shaped buttons was used to transfer the load
from the jack to the foundation system uniformly. The
displacements were measured using highly sensitive mechanical
dial gauges placed on the diagonally opposite corners of the
model.
3 PREPARATION OF THE TEST BED AND TESTING
PROCEDURE
One important aspect that has considerable influence on the test
behaviour is the bed preparation. It is imperative that the bed
must have uniform density. In order to achieve this, sand was
poured from a constant height in layers. Each layer was
compacted with specially made rammer. The height of pouring
and ramming were calibrated to achieve the required density. The
bed was prepared for each test independently. In the case of loose
sand, the height of pouring was so adjusted that the density is
achieved constantly at each test.
Sand bed was prepared under three densities viz. 14.5kN/m 3
15.5kN/m3 and 16.5kN/m3 representing loose, medium dense,
dense, state of compactness. A specially made template was
placed on the bed and piles were driven through an outer sleeve

294
 LOAD (kN) LOAD (kN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
0 0
N = 25
4 N = 21 4 L = 200m m
L = 200mm D = 10m m
8 D = 10mm 8 S = 4D
S = 4D B = 200m m
12 12 t = 8m m
= 37°
f == 37
37°°
16 16

20
20
24
24
FREE STANDING GROUP PILED RAFT GROUP
RAFT PILE PILED RAFT

Fig. 3. Load settlement – pile group. Fig. 5. Load settlement curve – (square piled raft).
LOAD (kN)
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.90
0 0.80
N = 21 0.70 N = 21
4 D = 10m m
L = 200mm 0.60 f== 37 °
D = 10mm 0.50 S = 4D
8

S
S = 4D B =
0.40
B = 200mm 200m m
12 0.30 t = 8m m f == 34 °
t = 8mm
f = 37 ° 0.20
16
0.10

20 0.00
40 80 120 160 200 240 280
24 LE N GTH O F P ILE (mm)

R AFT PILE PILED RAFT M E D IU M D E N S E LOOSE

Fig. 4. Load settlement curve – (circular piled raft). Fig. 6. Length Vs S R (circular piled raft).

fitted to the template. 30mm long piles were left out and the raft
was fixed to it as stated earlier.
The entire pile group was pushed down as a single unit till the
raft touched down the sand. While doing so, the reading on the
proving ring was noted to evaluate the unit friction. The whole
installation procedure represents the driving of piles. This
procedure ensures the pile to soil and pile to pile interaction and
ensures field condition to certain extent. A monolithic single
sheet of perspex with required size and thickness was used to
represent the raft in order to achieve a reasonable representation
of proto type. For each density corresponding plain raft of same
size and thickness was used to get the load settlement curve.
After checking the levels and accuracy, a small seating load was
applied. The settlement gauges were reset. The load was applied
in very small increments and the corresponding settlements were
recorded.
4 TEST RESULTS
The tests performed comprise of tests on plain raft and raft
supported on piles with raft in contact with soil and the raft
without contact. Initially a series of tests were performed and
they were repeated twice to get the consistency over the
preparation of bed and testing procedure. The results presented in
the paper are from 24 tests on circular piled raft and 33 tests on
square piled raft. Figure 3 gives the load settlement curve for a
free standing pile group and the pile group with raft in contact
with the soil. The load settlement curves for typical circular piled
raft and square piled raft on medium dense sand are given in
Figs. 4 & 5.
The corresponding load settlement curves for plain raft and
pile group have also been incorporated. In all the cases the
settlement reduction for the corresponding plain raft capacity was
of the order of 50 to 60%.
5 LOAD SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOUR
The study of Fig. 3 indicate that the load carrying capacity of
pile group, in the case of raft in contact with the soil is higher
than free standing pile group except for the settlements lesser
than 2mm to 3mm. At this settlement free standing piles reached
their limiting resistance, there after piles exhibited uncontrollable
settlement under limiting load. In the case of raft in contact with
the soil the resistance of piles increased steadily with settlement
and reached nearly with the load of free standing pile at 20mm
settlement. Similar observations were made in tests on piled raft
of various length and spacing irrespective of density of sand bed.
This behaviour is due to the increase in the normal stress, as the
result of the transfer of the load from the raft to the soil. The
general load settlement curve as given in Figs. 4 & 5 indicate that
the settlement reduction corresponding to 20mm settlement of
plain raft is of the order of 47.5% for circular raft with radial pile
configuration and 62% in the case of square raft. The number of
piles for circular raft and square raft were so provided that area
of the piles to the area of the raft is the same in both the cases. A
small variation of 5% could not be avoided due to the layout
requirement. The load settlement curve indicates that in the
initial stages more load is transferred to the pile group, and the
raft takes lesser load. As the settlement increases beyond a
particular magnitude, the raft starts taking more load than the
pile group. This trend has been found practically in all the tests.
Also this behaviour is in agreement with the views published by
Horikoshi & Randolph (1996). It is evident from the curves that
as the settlement crosses 2.5mm to 3mm, the friction is over
come by the piles and the raft starts taking the load. Such
behaviour made the piles to function as a settlement reducer,

295
 1.00
0.90 0 .8 0
0.80 0 .7 0
0.70 N=9 0 .6 0
D = 10mm N = 21
0.60 0 .5 0 L = 2 0 0 mm
S = 6D
0.50 B = 200mm 0 .4 0 D = 1 0 mm
0.40 t = 8mm 0 .3 0 S = 4D
0.30 B = 2 0 0 mm
0 .2 0 t = 8 mm
0.20
0 .1 0 = 37 °
0.10
0 .0 0
0.00
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
80 120 160 200 240
PILE D IA M ET ER (mm)
LENGTH OF PILE (mm)
DENSE MEDIUM DENSE LOOSE 2 M M SETT LEM EN T 1 0 M M SET T LEM EN T
f = 41 ° f = 37 ° f = 34 ° 2 0 M M SET T LEM EN T

Fig. 7. Length Vs S R (Square piled raft). Fig. 9. Piled diameter Vs S R (Circular raft).
1.00
SQ. RAFT raft. For square raft the increase is gradual, probably because the
N=9
0.80 L = 160m m piles were spaced at 6D. The raft contact area becomes more in
D = 10m m this case and hence the effect of increase in pile length was not
0.60 S = 6D very much prominent. However when the spacing was 4D the
t = 8mm
settlement reduction was of the order of 63% as against 50% of
S

0.40 CIR. RAFT 6D spacing. So it can be concluded when the pile spacing is
N = 21 smaller, the length plays a vital role.
0.20 L = 160m m
D = 10m m
S = 4D
0.00 6.2 Effect of Bed Density
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
DENSITY (kN/m )3
The variation in settlement reduction of circular and square piled
SQ. - 25% SQ. - 100% raft are compared in Fig.8. The comparison has been done at two
CIR. - 25% CIR. - 100% stages of loading namely 25% of the load at which the raft
settlement becomes 20mm and at final load corresponding to a
Fig. 8. Density Vs S R.
settlement of 20mm. It can be seen that the reduction in
settlement in higher for lesser load irrespective of the density and
which is in conformity with the expected performance of the
shape of the raft.
piledraft.
As the loading becomes higher the performance is very
At a settlement of 20mm which is 10% of the least lateral consistent for both square and circular rafts in the reducing
dimension of the raft, the piles in the raft resisted 28% of the settlement. In general the square piled raft perform better than
total load in the case of circular raft where as piles in square raft the circular piled raft in reducing the settlement. This may be
resisted 33% . On the other hand, for the load corresponding to
due to the loading of square raft loads higher confinement than
20mm settlement of plain raft, the settlement of piled raft is
circular raft which leads to the development of higher frictional
10mm and 8mm for circular and square shape piled raft
resistance on piles.
respectively. From the results of model rafts the piles in raft are
very effective in reducing the settlement rather than contributing
in resisting the load. 6.3 Effect of Pile Diameter
Three different diameter of piles have been used to study the
6 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON SETTLEMENT VARIATION effect on settlement reduction. The reduction in settlements of
circular piled raft are presented for the settlement of 2mm/10mm
In order to understand the influence of various parameters of and 20mmin Fig. 9. It can be seen from the Fig. 9, as the
piled raft system on the reduction of settlement a parameter diameter increases the settlement reduction ratio also increases.
called settlement ratio, S R was used and was defined as follows In the initial stages, the diameter has got more pronounced effect
due to the fact that the load transfer to the pile is higher and by
( pr - r) ) shaft friction. As the settlement increases the raft starts taking
SR = ------------ (1) more load and hence the curve becomes more linear. In other
r words the relation between the diameter of the pile and the
where: settlement reduction is more linear at higher level of settlement.
pr settlement of piled raft for a given load
r settlement of raft for the same load.
7 LOAD SHARING

6.1 Effect of Pile Length on Settlement Reduction
Figures 6 & 7 represent the effect of pile length on the settlement
reduction for circular and square piled raft. It can be observed
that the settlement reduction ratio increases as the length
increases. In the case of medium dense sand the settlement
reduction increases more rapidly with length for circular piled
The distribution of the load between the two main components
namely raft and the piles can well be designated by a factor
called load distribution factor, pr which represents the ratio
between the total load taken by the piles to the total load on the
piled raft corresponding to a given settlement. The value of pr
=o when the system is raft alone and = 1, when the system is
totally piles. The value of pr(Figs. 10 & 11) in the initial stages

296
increase and then falls down with the settlement. This indicates
that the proportion of the load taken by the pile reduces as
settlement increases. This has also been indicated by Horikoshi &
Randolph (1996), Turek & Katzenbach (2003).The value of pr
appear to decrease rapidly at initial stages of loading and until the
settlement ( about 3mm to 4mm) required to over come the
limiting friction value of piles. There after, though the piles take
more load, its contribution is not significant which is evident
from the almost constant pr values at higher settlement of piled
raft. This trend has been found in all the tests. This phenomenon
is happening at settlements around 3 to 5mm. In other words at
this settlement the friction reaches a limiting value. The pile raft
starts behaving as a block with raft sharing more load. However
there is a small increase is seen in the friction. This is perhaps
due to the increase in normal stress on account of the loading on
the raft. The tests conducted on a free standing pile group and the
pile group with raft in contact with the soil confirms this effect as
the load taken by the pile group of the piled raft is higher than the
load taken by the free standing pile group.
7.1 Comparison of Square and Circular Piled Raft
In Figs. 10 & 11 the variation of pr Vs settlement for both
circular and square piled raft for a particular length and thickness
of the raft are compared. The figures indicate that the square and
circular piled raft perform well in the case of loose sand
compared to medium dense and dense. In the case of circular raft
the pr does not vary much between loose and dense. In the case
of square raft while there is not much of difference in the pr
value between dense and medium dense, the value of pr in the
case of loose sand is much higher than the medium dense and
dense sand. But in either case pr value reduces as the settlement
increases. The prvalue is higher in the initial stages of settlement
of around 3mm to 5mm beyond this the pr value reached more
or less constant value with increase in settlement. This trend
confirms that the pile group takes more load initially then the raft
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
shares most part of the applied load despite that there is some
increase in the pile resistance. This behaviour clearly shows that
settlement of higher order is required for active involvement of
raft in load sharing mechanism. At initial stages of loading most
part of the load goes to the pile, however there is a increase in
pile resistance due to increase in normal stress on piles due to
load transfer mechanism between raft and soil. The tests
conducted on the freestanding pile groups confirmed this.
At higher settlement the raft starts taking more load
generating block action leading to a fall in the pr value. This
confirms the fact that the increase in the soil strength below the
raft plays a vital role in making the piles function efficiently as
settlement reducer. The bearing effect of the raft becomes more
important at higher settlement. It can be seen very clearly that in
the case of circular raft piles take more load in the initial stages
of loading than the square raft but as the settlement increases the
square pile raft transfers more load to the pile. Hence it is quite
evident that the bearing of the raft also plays a very important
role in the behaviour of piled raft system. The reduction in
settlement corresponding to a plain raft capacity at 20mm
settlement is 50% for circular raft and 60% for square raft.
7.2 Effect of Pile Length
In Fig. 12, the variation of pr with length of pile is presented. As
the length increases the pr value increases irrespective of the
order of settlement of the piled raft. The pr value is maximum
for the pile length of 200mm which is equal to the width of the
raft. The increase in pr value with the length is almost linear
irrespective of the settlement and density of sand bed. The
variation in pr for settlements higher than 10mm is almost
negligible irrespective of lengths. Similar observation was
recorded in other tests on circular raft tested in loose and dense
0.7
0.6 n = 21
0.5 = 37°
0.4 t = 8mm
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Length of pile (mm)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 2 mm sett 10 mm sett 20 mm sett
SETTLEMENT (mm)

loose medium dense

Fig. 12. Pr Vs pile Length (Circular piled raft).

Fig. 10. Pr Vs settlement (Circular Raft). 0.80

0.70

0.8 0.60
N = 21
0.7 0.50 L = 200m m
0.6 D = 10m m
0.40
S = 4D
0.5 0.30 B = 200m m
0.4 t = 8m m
0.20
0.3 = 37 °
0.10
0.2
0.00
0.1
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 P ILE D IA M E TE R (m m )

SETTLEMENT ( mm)
2MM S E T TLE M E N T 10MM S E TTLE ME N T
loose medium dense 20MM S E T TLE ME N T

Fig. 11. Pr Vs settlement (Square Piled Raft). Fig. 13. Pr Vs pile diameter (Circular Piled Raft).

297
sand conditions. Since the study concentrates on relatively
shorter piles, effect of pile length larger than the raft dimension is
not discussed here. However, the effect of length is not very
much pronounced in the case of tests on the square piled raft with
larger spacings (6D). This is perhaps due to the fact that the
square raft with larger spacing has more contact area.
7.3 Effect of Pile Diameter
Figure13 indicates the effect of pile diameter on PR for a given
density. The diameter has a predominant role in the load sharing
in the initial stages of settlement. This is perhaps the load taken
by the pile gets transferred in the form of shaft friction. At higher
level of settlement, the variation of pr is gradual with increase
in diameter and is lesser in magnitude than .pr of initial
settlement.
8 CONCLUSIONS
1. The load on piles of piled raft system is higher than the free
standing pile groups irrespective of length, diameter, spacing of
piles and density of sand bed. The contribution by the piles
against load beyond the settlements corresponding to limiting
friction is stable and function of intensity of load on the piled
raft.
2. The settlement of square piled raft is lesser than the circular
piled raft for a given set of condition of the piled raft.
3. A term called settlement reduction ratio (S R) is used to
understand the influence of various parameters of piled raft on
settlement variation. S R increases with increase in length of pile
and pile diameter. However S R showed decreasing trend with
increasing in density of sand bed.
4. The load sharing between the piles and raft of a piled raft
system is mainly depends on the settlement. At settlements
lesser than the deformation required for limiting friction, Most of
the applied load is taken by the piles. Beyond this settlement, raft
shares most part of the load irrespective of the thickness and
shape of the raft, length and the spacing of the piles.
5. The load distribution factor pr decreased rapidly at the
initial stages of loading, and almost reached a constant value with
increase in settlement. The pr value is higher in loose sand than
denser states of sand bed. However this effect is more
pronounced in square raft than the circular raft.
6. The pr value is higher for longer length of pile and higher
diameter irrespective of order of settlement of piled raft.
7. The thickness of the raft investigated in this study does not
show significant effect on load sharing irrespective of sand bed
and various parameters of pile.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their deep sense of gratitude for the
inspiring encouragement of Dr. H. G. Poulos, Senior Principal,
Coffey Geosciences Limited, Sydney. Also the authors expresses
his gratitude to M/S Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Limited, and
Indian Roof Crafts, Chennai for their financial support in
fabrication of experimental set up and models.
REFERENCES
Butterfield, R. & Banerjee, P.K. 1971. The Problem of Pile
Group and Pile Cap Interaction. Geotechnique 21(2):135-142.
298
Balakumar, V. & Ilamparuthi, K. 2003. Field study on piled raft
foundations of twelve storied building at Chennai.
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Field
Measurements in Geo Mechanics – Oslo, Norway, 17-22.
Clancy, P. & Randolph, M.F.1993. Simple design tools for piled
raft foundations. Geotechnique 46(2): 313-328.
Cooke, R.W. 1986. Piled raft foundations on stiff clays- a
contribution to design philosophy, Geotechnique 36 (2): 169-
203.
Frank, E. & Mirth, G. 1985. Scale effects in 1 g model tests on
horizontally loaded piles. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A: 1011-1014.
Frank, E .et al., 1994. Measurements and numerical modeling of
high rise building foundations on Frankfurt clay. Vert. And
Horzl. Deformations of Foundations and Embankments. ,
ASCE Geotech. spec. pub. no. 40(2):1325-1336.
Hooper, J.A. 1973. Observations on the behaviour a piled raft
foundations on London clay. Journal of Institution of Civil
Engineers 55(2) 77-90.
Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M.F. 1996. Centrifuge modeling of
piled raft foundations on clay. Geotechnique 46(4) :741-752
Katzenbach, R. et al., 1999. Piled raft foundation projects in
Germany. Design applications of raft foundations and ground
slabs. Ed. By J.A.Helmsley, Thomas Telford Ltd.
Kim, H.T., Yoo, H.K. & Kang, I.K. 2002. Genetic algorithm
optimum design of piled raft foundations with model tests
Journal of South East Asian Geotechnical Society : 1 –9.
Poulos, H. G. 1994. An approximate numerical analysis of pile-
raft interaction. International Journal of Numerical &
Analytical methods in Geomechanics 18: 73-92.
Poulos, H. G. 2001. Piled Raft Foundation: Design and
Application, Geotechnique 51(2): 95-113.
Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2001. Contribution of piled raft
foundation, Journal of Geotechinical & Geo-environmental
Engineering, ASCE: 17-24.
Reul, O. 2000. In-Situ Messungen Und Numerische Studien
Zum Tragverhalten Der Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattngrundung,
Mitteillungen Desinstituts Und Der Versuchanstilt Fur
Geotecnique Der Technischen Universitadt.Darmstadt.Heft.53
Ta, L.D. & Small, J.C. 1996. Analysis of piled raft systems in
layered soil .International Journal of Numerical & Analytical
methods in Geomechanics 20:57-72.
Thaher & Jesseberger, H.L. 1991. Investigation of the behaviour
of pile raft foundations by centrifuge modeling. Proceeding of
the 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Italy: 597-603.
Turek. J. & Katzenbach. R. 2003. Small scale model tests with
combined pile raft foundations. Proceedings of the 4 th
International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Angered piles, Ghent, Belgium: 409-413.
Wiesner T. & Brown P. T. 1980. Laboratory tests on model piled
raft, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE: 767-783.
Yamashita, M. & Kakurai, M. 1991. Settlement Behaviour of the
Raft Foundation with Friction Piles, Proceedings of the 4 th Int.
Conf. on Piling and Deep Foundation: 461-466.
Yamashita, K. et al., 1993. Settlement behavior of a five story
building on a piled raft foundation. Proceedings of the 2 nd Int.
Geot. Sem. on Deep Foundation on Bored & Augerpiles,
ghent.A.A. Balkema Rotterdam: 3512-3516.
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

Analysis of Load Tests on Large Diameter Bored Piles in Very Dense

Cemented Sands

N. F. Ismael
Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, POB. 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
nabil@civil.kuniv.edu.kw

Abstract: The ultimate bearing capacity of short, large diameter bored piles was examined in connection with the construction of a
multistory building on the Arabian Gulf in Kuwait. Testing included 0.45 m, 1.0 m, and 1.2 m piles installed through loose sand into a
bearing stratum consisting of very dense cemented sands. All tests were carried out to failure. The base resistance and shaft friction
were calculated using the Meyerhof method for a layered soil profile. The method employs the standard penetration test N-values. The
results indicate that the piles are point bearing piles with a great portion of the pile capacity due to base resistance. The mobilized skin
friction is small. The calculated pile capacities were very close to the measured values with the maximum difference not exceeding
10%.

1 INTRODUCTION
Short, large diameter bored piles are used with increasing
frequency for heavy structures in Kuwait, and the Gulf region
where ground conditions indicate loose deposits of calcareous
sands. The piles range in length from 8 m to 15 m with their base
located in the dense-to-very dense, cemented sand bearing
deposit. The design of these piles requires knowledge of the skin
friction and point resistance in these soils. While field tests on
driven piles are available (Ismael 1989 & Ismael 1999), field test
data on large diameter bored piles installed through loose
calcareous sands into dense-to-very dense cemented or partially
cemented sands are very limited at present. The results of three
load tests carried out recently on bored piles at one site in Kuwait
have become available. In these tests the failure load was either
reached or can be extrapolated from the test results. It is
important to examine and analyze the test results for the benefit
of the geotechnical research and design engineers.
This paper presents the soil conditions, pile installation details,
and the pile load test data at the test site located in Shuwaikh,
Kuwait. The site is facing the Arabian Gulf. Test results were
directly analyzed and the point resistance, and skin friction were
calculated. The ultimate capacities of the piles were calculated
and compared with the measured values. The influence of the
pile diameter on the settlement at ultimate and at working loads is
examined.
2 SOIL CONDITIONS AND PILE INSTALLATION
Figure 1 shows a brief summary of soil conditions and the
dimensions of the test piles. At the site of each test pile a surface
layer of loose fine sand or silty sand is underlain by very dense
cemented silty sand. The cemented sand extends well below the
pile tip elevations and has a Standard Penetration Test SPT N
value 50. The penetration of the piles into this layer varies from
3.3 m to 6 m. Pile 1 is 0.45 m diameter and 10.8 m long. Pile 2
is 1 m diameter and 8.7 m long. Pile 3 is 1.2 m diameter and 8.5
m long.
All piles were installed by drilling using a steel casing for the
full length of the piles. The steel case was then installed
followed by concreting. Upon completion of concreting, the
casing was removed.
3 PILE TESTING
All piles were tested in accordance with ASTM standard 1143-81
(ASTM 1994). At least three load cycles were carried out in each
test corresponding to 100%, 200%, and 300% of the proposed
working load. For pile 1, the test was carried out to large
displacement and until the ultimate bearing capacity failure
occurred. This was evident by the continuous settlement at
constant load. However, for piles 2 and 3 failure was progressive
in nature, and the failure load was taken by the slope tangent
method at the point of intersection of the initial and final tangents
to the load settlement curve. Figures 2 to 4 show the load
settlement curves for the test piles. The vertical arrows in the
figures indicate the failure load.
4 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
A summary of all pile data and design parameters is given in
Table 1. The base resistance and shaft friction were calculated
using the Meyerhof method for a layered soil profile (Meyerhof
1976). Accordingly, the skin friction f s for low or no
displacement bored piles is first calculated as
N
fs tsf 0.96 N kN/m 2 (1)
100
where N is the average SPT-N value along the pile shaft in the
bearing stratum.
Fs = f s * D b * p (2)
where Fs is the frictional load, D b is the depth of the pile in the
bearing stratum, and p is the pile perimeter.

299
Fig. 1. Soil conditions and bored pile details.

Fig. 2. Load-settlement curve for 0.45 m diameter pile.

Fig. 3. Load-settlement curve for 1.0 m diameter pile.

300
 Fig. 4. Load-settlement curve for 1.2 m diameter pile.

Table 1. Design parameters for calculated pipe capacities.

Parameter Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
Pile width, B 0.45 m 1.0 m 1.2 m
Total penetration 10.8 m 8.7 m 8.5 m
Depth to top of bearing stratum 7.5 m 3.5 m 3.5 m
Penetration into bearing stratum D b 3.3 m 5.2 m 5.0 m
N = average N-value within length D b 50 blows/0.3 m 50 blows/0.3 m 50 blows/0.3 m
N-value at final penetration 50 blows/0.3 m 50 blows/0.3 m 50 blows/0.3 m
N
fs = tsf (0.96 N kN/m2) 48 kPa 48 kPa 48 kPa
100
D
qb = 0.4 N b 4 N tsf, (0.383 N MPa) 14.04 MPa 9.96 MPa 7.98 MPa
B
Friction above bearing stratum 0 0 0
Fs = fs Db B 224 kN 784 kN 905 kN
B2 2233 kN 7821 kN 9024 kN
End bearing, Q = qb
4
Total calculated capacity 2457 kN 8605 kN 9929 kN
Load tested capacity 2700 kN 9500 kN 11000 kN
Ratio of calculated to measured capacity 91% 91% 90.3%

Table 2. Settlement data of the test piles.

Parameter Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
Pile width, B 0.45 m 1.0 m 1.2 m
Total penetration 10.8 m 8.7 m 8.5 m
Working load 500 kN 3600 kN 5400 kN
Settlement at working load 1.6 mm 9.3 mm 7.3 mm
Settlement ratio at working load S e/B 0.36% 0.93% 0.61%
Failure load 2700 kN 9500 kN* 11000 kN*
Settlement at failure 43.7 mm 32.5 mm 18 mm
Settlement ratio at failure S f/B 9.71% 3.25% 1.5%
*These values are the initial failure loads.

301
 Friction within the upper layer of loose sand was judged as
insignificant and was ignored in the analysis.
The base resistance q is given by:
b
qb = 0.4 N Db/B 4 N tsf, (0.383 N MPa) (3)
Db
Therefore, for 10 q b = 0.383 N MPa (4)
B
D D
for b < 10 qb = 0.383 N b MPa (5)
B 10B
where B is the pile diameter.
The SPT-N values averaged 50 along the depth of the piles
in the bearing stratum and was 50 in the vicinity of the pile tips.
It was taken as 50 in the calculations shown in Table 1.
A close examination of Table 1 reveals that despite the
empirical nature of the method of analysis the calculated pile
capacities are very close to the measured values. The ratio of the
calculated to measured capacity is ~91% for all three piles.
Moreover, the frictional resistance is about 9% of the total
calculated capacity indicating that the piles are predominantly
point bearing piles.
5 SETTLEMENT
Table 2 shows a summary of the test pile settlement at both the
working and the ultimate loading. For the proposed working
load, the corresponding settlement is very small and does not
exceed one percent of the pile diameter. However, at failure, the
settlement ratio is 9.71% for the 0.45 m diameter pile decreasing
to 3.25% and 1.5% for the 1 m and 1.2 m diameter piles
respectively. The reason for this discrepancy is related to the
method of taking the failure loads for piles 2 and 3. Ultimate
failure was not reached for these piles and the failure load taken
by the slope tangent method represents the initial failure of a
progressive local shear failure mode. Thus piles 2 and 3 could
resist a larger load at the ultimate failure condition than the loads
determined herein.
302
6 CONCLUSIONS
Short large diameter bored piles installed through calcareous sand
with their bases in very dense cemented sands were load tested to
failure. The results were analyzed and the calculated ultimate
capacities were compared with the measured values. The
following conclusions are made:
1. The piles usually penetrate a loose-to-compact calcareous
surface deposit underlain by a competent dense-to-very dense
cemented sand layer. The pile bases and the lower part of the
pile shafts are located in the lower layer, which is siliceous with
low carbonate content.
2. A major portion of the calculated capacity is derived from
tip or base resistance. The small skin friction component of
~10% of the total capacity is derived from the bearing layer along
the pile shaft.
3. The calculated pile capacities based on the Standard
Penetration Test N values, using the classical Meyerhof method
for a layered soil profile yielded accurate predictions. They were
within 9% of the measured values.
4. For large diameter bored piles ultimate failure would
occur at very large load which is well beyond the loading
capacity that can be reached in the field. The failure load taken
by the slope tangent method is considered representation of the
failure condition.
5. Large diameter bored piles installed in cemented sands
has the advantage of supporting large axial and lateral loads
compared with driven piles.
REFERENCES
ASTM Standards. 1994. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
4.08, ASTM-D1143-81, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pa, U.S.A.
Ismael, N.F. 1989. Skin friction of driven piles in calcareous
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
115(1):135-139.
Ismael, N.F. 1999. Analysis of load tests on piles driven through
calcareous desert sands. Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE 125(10):
905-908.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Division,
ASCE 102(3): 195-228.
 th
15 Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22 to 26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand

“Swiss-Cheese” – A Method of Degrading Soil Crust and Minimising

Risk to Punch Through Problem on the Installation of Mobile Offshore
Drilling Unit (MODU)

P. Handidjaja, P. Somehsa, & M. Manoj

Somehsa Geosciences Pte. Ltd, 10, Jalan Tembusu Singapore, 438225
www.somehsa.com

Abstract: A number of potential problems can affect the performance of jack-up rig footings. The most significant problem with
respect to jack-up rig foundation performance is rapid leg penetration termed “punch-through”. Typically punch-through problems are
associated with stratified soil deposits, in which, a strong soil layer overlies a weak soil layer. Most serious case of punch – through is
when bearing capacity of the layered system is more than the pre-load, but bearing capacity to pre-load ratio is not sufficient enough to
preclude punch-through. One of the methods to reduce punch-through potential in such a situation, is to reduce the bearing capacity of
the soil by making perforations in the soil. The reduced bearing capacity facilitates the penetration of spudcan through the strong layer
to the underlying weak soil layer. This method of reducing the bearing capacity by making perforations in a strong soil layer overlying
a weak layer is known as “Swiss Cheese”. Swiss Cheese operation requires careful planning. Some of the geotechnical aspects and
drilling constraints to be considered during planning of Swiss cheese operation are discussed in this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION

Most of the offshore drilling is performed from self- elevating

mobile platforms, commonly known as jack-ups. The foundation
of jack-ups is a approximate large inverted cones, known as
“spudcan”. Spudcans are generally hexagonal or roughly circular
in plan and typically have a shallow conical underside with a
sharp protruding spigot or cone tip.
In its operation a jack up mobile unit floats to location with its
legs lifted. At the drilling site, the legs are lowered to mudline
and jacked down in to the soil until the bearing capacity of soil
becomes equal to the load carried by each leg. At this point the
hull begins to lift out of water. Jacking continues until the air
gap is about 1.5 m and the rig is levelled to within 0.1 degrees.
Pre-loading by ballasting with water is then performed until all
the leg penetration has stopped. Static test is then performed by
holding preload water for about one to four hours. Then, pre-load
water is dumped and finally hull is jacked to operation-level.
Certain geotechnical and geological conditions pose potential Fig. 2. Mobile jack-up rig with individual footings foundation.
hazards to safe foundation performance of mobile jack ups.
These hazards should be investigated and remedial measures strong soil (“crust”) overlies a relatively weak soil strata, gives
taken to reduce the risk of failure. rise to three general situations:
Stratified soil deposits at shallow depths often pose serious
risk to jack – up rig installation. Soil stratification, in which, a 1. Bearing capacity is sufficiently less than pre-load so that
spudcan penetrate through the strong soil layer to the
underlying weak soil.
2. Bearing capacity is significantly more than that of pre-load
so that no punch through takes place.
3. Bearing capacity is more than pre-load but the bearing
capacity/pre-load ratio is not sufficient enough to preclude
punch – through.
The third condition is the most serious as jack-up legs will
penetrate until the strong soil layer, which can support it, and
stops temporarily. During pre-loading or operation, the legs may
suddenly punch – through the strong layer leading to serious
Fig. 1. Typical spudcan cross section. consequences. If soil investigation suggests this possibility, then
remedial measures should be taken to alleviate the potential

303
punch through condition. One of the methods, which has been During drilling the soil around the circumference is disturbed.
found to be fairly successful, is making perforations in the strong However, for the estimation of number of boreholes required,
layer in order to sufficiently reduce the bearing capacity and this disturbance is normally neglected.
thereby facilitate the penetration of legs through the strong soil
layer. This process of reducing the bearing capacity by making
perforations in soil is known in the industry as “Swiss Cheese”. 5 DRILLING PLAN AND PROCEDURE
Another situation requiring Swiss Cheese operation is, when a
mobile offshore drilling unit is to re-visit a platform location Swiss Cheese operation can be performed from MODU or Jack-
where a different MODU type of rig was placed before. If up by utilising the main draw-work and drilling system after
configurations of spudcan imprints for both rigs do not match, it positioning the drill string over each of the proposed spudcan leg
will lead to serious consequences such as spudcan following or location. Swiss Cheese operation can also be carried out from a
sliding into old hole. As a result, the trusses may bend and jack coring vessel, with 4 point mooring arrangement, by utilising soil
and pinion arrangement get over-stressed, resulting in foundation boring drilling rig, either mounted over the side or at the centre.
tilt and even failure. In such situations, the existing imprint shall
be widened or deepened to match the configuration and required
bearing capacity of a new rig by using Swiss Cheese operation.
Swiss Cheese operations were fairly successful carried out for
a number of platforms in South China Sea.
In this paper, goetechnical aspects and installation
considerations of Swiss Cheese operation are discussed.

2 OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL “CRUST”

Soil “crust” exists when the soil resistance at the crust is higher
than the leg load of the jack-up rig and soil resistance below crust
is lower than the leg load to support the rig. Also, thickness of
“crust” is less than half of the footing diameter of the spudcan.
This crustal zone is commonly present in South China Sea,
Gulf of Thailand, Sunda Shelf, including Java Sea. Figure 3
shows the general distribution map of crustal layer in the region.
The first crustal zone appears, generally, between 80 to 90m
below present sea level. Thickness of this upper crustal zone
varies from 1 to 3m. It is characterised by high shear strength
and may have been formed by weathering during world-wide
lowering of sea level related to Pleistocene glaciation. Figure 4
shows a typical boring log with a “crust”.
The soil layer overlying the crust, formed after this glaciation
period may have inconsistent deposition and distribution over the Fig. 3. Map showing distribution of “crust”.
area. Hence, the level and thickness of crust may vary laterally.

3 FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST PUNCH-THROUGH

The Factor of Safety against punch through is defined as the peak

bearing capacity (peak soil resistance) divided by the footing
load (spudcan reaction). A factor of safety greater than one
indicates the bearing capacity exceeds the footing load.
Conversely, a factor of safety less than one indicates footing is
likely to penetrate through the strong stratum. A factor of Safety
greater than 1.5 with respect to spucan reaction indicates that
punch through is unlikely to occur. Figure 5 shows a typical
bearing capacity vs depth plot of a potential punch-through
condition.

4 GENERAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

General procedure is to reduce the bearing area of “crust”, and

thereby reduce the bearing capacity. Bearing area reduction is
achieved by creating perforations in crust. Area reduction
required to lower the factor of safety to a value less than one is
then estimated. Then the number of boreholes such that the total
combined area is equal to the area to be reduced, is determined. Fig. 4. Example of a boring log with “crust”.

304

peak
Fig. 5. Typical bearing capacity vs depth.
The later will provide better option to prepare the site in advance
prior to rig installation.
It is common practice to distribute the boreholes evenly in the
spudcan foot print area. A typical pattern is shown in Fig. 6.
Successful Swiss Cheese operation require careful planning
considering all the factors influencing the operation. The factors
influencing the Swiss Cheese operation are discussed below.
Fig. 6. Standard borehole distribution pattern.
5.1 Diameter of Holes
Diameter of boreholes depends on the availability of drilling bits
and drilling rigs. During the selection of drill bits and drilling
rigs, consideration should be given to the torque required for the
drilling bit to pierce the crust vertically. The drilling rig should
be such that, it can exert enough torque to penetrate the hard
crust without damaging the unit and at efficient rate of
penetration. The bottom hole assembly (BHA) for Swiss Cheese
operation, normally consists of a minimum of 26” tricon drilling
bit with an optional 36” hole-opener, as shown in Fig. 7.
305
Obviously, drilling with bigger bit will cut down the number of
holes to drill and save cost and time. However, to handle bigger
bit is limited to the availability of Crane and space available in
coring vessel or jack-up rig.
Fig. 7. One of the drilling bits used for Swiss Cheese operation.
5.2 Spacing of Boreholes
Experience suggests that borehole spacing is a very important
parameter for the efficient drilling operations. For a given site
condition and drill bit, there appears to be a critical minimum
spacing, below which efficient drilling becomes difficult. When
the spacing is less than this critical value, drill bit tends to slip to
the adjacent drilled borehole. The critical minimum spacing is
found to be influenced by:
Diameter of borehole
Strength of hard crust
Thickness of crust
Depth of crust below mudline
Pumping pressure and flow
Weather conditions (currents)
It is difficult to quantify the effect of these factors on the
minimum spacing of boreholes. Therefore for any Swiss Cheese
is advisable to perform a trial operation, hence determine the
minimum spacing. This trial should be carried out very near to
the proposed site for Swiss Cheese operation.
5.3 Drilling Pattern
Drilling pattern, the arrangement of boreholes within the spudcan
foot print area, is another important factor deciding the efficiency
of Swiss cheese operation. Though the standard procedure is to
distribute the boreholes evenly, experience suggest that, it is
better to have more holes along the periphery of the spudcan foot
print area.
When spudcan tip is trying to penetrate hard “crust’, due to
the conical shape of spudcan, there will be a lateral (radial) force
as well as a downward force.
The lateral thrust will push the “crust” sideways and
downward force will push the crust in to the under-laying softer
soil (Fig. 8).
Therefore the most efficient borehole pattern is the one which
facilitates this failure mechanism. One of the drilling pattern
which facilitates this failure mechanism is to have as many bore

Fig. 8. Likely failure mechanism.
holes as possible along the periphery of the spudcan foot print
area . Figure. 9 shows recommended pattern of boreholes.
The resistance of the crustal layer against spudcan penetration
consists of:
a) Shear resistance provided by the crust along the perimeter
over the thickness of crust and
b) Bearing capacity of softer soil below the crust
Resistance given by the crust depends mainly on the effective
perimeter of the spudcan foot print area, shear strength of crust
and thickness of crust. Here the effective perimeter is defined as:
Effective perimeter = Total perimeter - diameter of holes x
number of holes along perimeter
Therefore, more the number of holes along the perimeter of
Fig . 9. Recommended pattern of boreholes.
306
spudcan foot print area, lesser the effective perimeter and hence
lower the resistance against spudcan penetration. Therefore it is
advisable to distribute more holes along the periphery of the
spudcan foot print area in order to reduce the bearing capacity of
the crust. The area to be Swiss Cheesed should be slightly more
than that of the proposed spudcan.
5.4 Pump Pressure
During drilling, water is pumped at high pressure through the
drill string. The jetting action of this water coming out through
drill bits, remove cuttings from the bottom of hole. There
appears to be an optimum water pressure and flow rate for
efficient Swiss Cheese operation. This optimum water pressure
can be determined during trial run
5.5 Weather Condition
Sliding of drill bit to the previously drilled adjacent borehole
depends to certain extend on weather condition. Probability of
sliding appears to be high during rough weather and strong
bottom currents. This is because rough weather and currents
make it difficult to keep the movement of vessel (roll and pitch)
steady and hence drill string movement is unavoidable, especially
when cutting the top soil layer which is often soft, prior
advancing the crust layer.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Swiss Cheese procedure is increasingly being used to minimise
the risk of punch through. The risk factor is high when Swiss
Cheese is to be done very near to an existing platform. The
procedure is based on the assumption that reducing bearing area
of crust reduces the resistance of the crust against spudcan
penetration. The standard practice is to estimate the number of
boreholes required for reducing the bearing area and then
distribute these boreholes evenly in the spudcan foot print area.
In this paper on Swiss cheese operation, various geotechnical
aspects in general and drilling constraints in particular are
discussed, based on author’s experience.
7 FURTHER STUDIES
Further studies are needed to evaluate the probability of success
of Swiss Cheese operation. Detailed experimental/theoretical
studies are required to understand the failure mechanism during
spudcan penetration, after Swiss Cheese operation. Such studies
will enable us to understand the influence of various factors such
as shear strength and thickness of crust, diameter and number of
bore holes, distribution of boreholes etc. Also effect of Swiss
Cheese operation on foundation of adjacent structures and the
reduction in leg fixity and consequent reduction in lateral load
capacity also require further detailed studies.
REFERENCES
Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile
Jack-up Units, SNAME, 1994. First Edition.
Maung, M. and Che, A. 2000. Swiss cheesing to bring in a jack-
up Rig at Anding location, IADC/SPE 62755, Petronas
Carigali SDN, BHD.
Castleberry.J.P & Prebaharan, N. 1985. Clay crusts of the Sunda
Shelf. Proceedings of the 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.