SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 27, No.1, 61-76, Mar.

1987
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

OF PILES AND PILE GROUPS

KrYOSHI YAMASHITA*, MA Tsu JIRO ToMoNo** and MASAAKI KAK URAr***

ABSTRACT
In this study we examine a method based on Mindlin's solution in order to estimate
the load-settlement behavior of piles and pile groups for rational design of pile foundations.
First, the theoretical aspects of the previous method proposed by Poulos and other investiga-
tors are briefly presented. Some modifications are made to the method so as to consider
additional factors such as soil non-linearity and multi-layering. Next, in order to evaluate
the numerical accuracy, vertical displacements and axial forces of pile groups or single
piles embedded in non-homogeneous soil calculated by the previous method and by the
modified method are compared with values calculated by more sophisticated methods such
as the boundary element method and the finite element method. As a result, we conclude
that, from a practical point of view, the modified method based on elasticity is sufficiently
accurate in regard to axial force distribution as well as settlement. We also propose tentative
input soil constants for immediate settlement using solely the results of SPT. Finally,
the values of pile top settlement calculated by the modified method are compared with
the results of 26 field vertical load tests on cast-in-place concrete piles. The results show
that the calculated values coincide approximately with the measured values, meaning that
the proposed modified method of calculation and the proposed input soil constants seem
to be adequate for the preliminary estimation of immediate settlement of cast-in-place
concrete piles.

Key words :design, elasticity, pile, settlement, vertical load (IGC : E 2)

cal method with relatively high accuracy,

INTRODUCTION
When designing pile foundations for vari-
ous ground conditions, estimating their set-
tlement is important in many cases in ad-
dition to examining the bearing capacity.
In such cases, it is necessary to use a practi-
and the. method should be based upon a
model that can illustrate clearly the pile-
bearing-system characteristics such as load
distribution between end resisJance and skin
friction, and the efficiency of the pile group.
Among the many methods developed re-

* Research Engineer, Geot.echnics and Civil Engineering Group, Take.naka Technical Research Labora-
tory, Koto-ku, Tokyo.
** Research Manager, ditto.
*** Chief Research Engineer, ditto.
Manuscript was received for review on December 23, 1985.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before October 1, 1987, to the Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sugayama Bldg. 4 F, Kanda Awaji-cho 2-23,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 62 YAMASHITA ET AL.
cently for calculating the settlement of piles,
those which provide a means of evaluating
the efficiency of pile groups can be classified
into the following three categories :
1. methods based on Mindlin's solution
of elasticity
2. the finite element method (Ellison et
al., 1971 ; Ottaviani, 1975)
3. the boundary element method (Baner-
jee, 1976 ; Banerjee and Davies, 1977)
When we wish to consider accurately the
conditions of multilayer ground and the con-
ditions of compatibility of pile-soil interface,
we must use one of the methods in categories
2 or 3. However, if we use a _finite element
method to analyze group piles, we must
deal with three-dimensional models. If
elasto-plastic conditions are included in the
analysis, considerable effort is required in
order to obtain reasonable results. There-
fore, finite element methods are normally
utilized only for single piles, small scale
group piles or special cases. The boundary
element methods have essentially the same
problems.
Methods .using Mindlin's solution have
been employed by several investigators
(Poulos, 1968 ; Poulos and Davis, 1968 ; Mattes
and Poulos, 1969 ; Butterfield and Banerjee,
1971 ; Yamagata and Yao, 1977) and this ap-
proach is superior from the points of view
of the ease of preparing input data and the
smaller computation time required. This
method can also deal easily with the problem
of pile-soil slip. Further, computation meth-
ods for some cases of non-homogeneous
soil where the elastic modulus of soil below
the pile tip level is relatively high· (Poulos
and Mattes, 1969) and where the soil elastic
modulus increases linearly with depth
(Poulos, 1979 a ; Poulos, 1979 b) have been
proposed. However, the applicability of this
method in studies of multi-layered·· ground
has not yet been fully examined, nor has
the applicability of the method to non-linear
soil behavior.
In this paper, some modifications ar.e made
to the _method based on M~ndliiJ..'s solution:
of elasticity so as to consider Eloil mon-line-
arity and multi-layered ground. The ac-
curacy of this approach is examined by com-
paring it with more sophisticated methods
such as the boundary element method and
the finite element method. Finally, pile top
settlements calculated from the modified
method are compared with the results of 26
field vertical load tests on cast-in-place con-
crete piles using input soil constants tenta-
tively proposed in the present paper.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The Previous Method based on Mindlin's So-
tution
We have based our study on the following
·fundamental assumptions regarding the pa-
. pers mentioned above :
1. Each pile shaft element behaves elasti-
cally only in the direction of its axis.
2. Soil mass is assumed to be a semi-
infinite elastic mass and Mindlin's first solu-
tion is applied.
3. In the case of finite soil layers, the
mirror-image principle is applied.
4. Each pile shaft element and the soil
in contact with it are subject to equal dis-
placement until the friction force between
them attains its ultimate value. Beyond the
ultimate value, slip occurs at the pile-soil
interface.
5. The stratum in contact with a pile
tip yields when the vertical stress attains its
ultimate value.
6. The pile cap of a pile group is con-
sidered either completely rigid or without
rigidity.
7. The interaction between a pile cap and
the ground is ignored.
Given a pile group of M number of piles,
each pile is divided into n shaft elements
as shown in Fig. 1. Replace the reaction
of the skin friction force acting on the j-th
element of the L-th pile and the reaction
of resistance acting on the tip element of
the L-th pile be concentrated load on the
center of the elements. Let these interact-
: ing ..forces by FJL and FciHllL· The ground
is divided . in principle in to n + 1 layers cor-
NII-Electronic Library Service
 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES 63

_suffix s on the left side means soil) on

ta Ground the soil adjacent to the i-th element of
j#' JfoK JPot. ] subsidence
'f'/,<;f/1 1 £,,
,Po the K -th pile due to interaction force FiL
1 0 0

2 0 0 2 E,2 acting on the j-th element of the L-th pile,

• I'Q'Id J 0 • IS formulated as follows :
j 0 FJu j E,;
l 0
)f}/
0 TtKjD F (1)
0 0
sPtKJL=E~d JL
sij
iol( .,. 0 i E,;
0 ~~X 0 Here, d is pile diameter and EstJ is equiva-
•. 0
'J
< 0
lent elastic modulus of soil between the i-th
n 0 F<,+,:_lL n E,.
n+l a. n+l £, 1,+ 1
layer and the j-th layer. IiKJL is displace-
ment influence factor with respect to the
Pile K Pile L
i-th element of the K-th pile due to FJL
7///T///T/T/7////////////7 and is given by Mindlin's first solution as
Fig. 1. Concept of the method based on indicated in Appendix A using the notation
Mindlin's solution shown in Fig. 2. However, if i=j=n+l in
the same pile, by assuming the interaction
responding to the pile elements. On the force on the pile tip as circular equal loading,
pile top, if the pile cap is rigid, the vertical the displacement influence factor on the cen-
load P a acts on it ; if the rigidity is ignored, ter of pile tip I(n+l)K(n+l)K is obtained from
let the arbitrary load PoK (K=l, ...... , M) the integration of Mindlin's first solution
act on each pile top (the suffix 0 signifies as indicated in Appendix A. Eqs. (A-1) and
the pile top). The sign is positive if down- (A-2) take into account the influences of
ward. finite soil layers in accordance with funda-
According to fundamental assumption num- mental assumption number 3. If the influ·
ber 2, the vertical displacement sPiKiL (the ences of other elements which are part of
the same pile are taken into account, the
vertical displacement of the soil adjacent to
f.j a pile shaft element is calculated at the
periphery positions of the element center
as shown in Fig. 3, and . if the influences
from elements belonging to other piles ar~
considered, the displacement is calculated at'
the midpoint of the element.
h

0 1

PileK
Fig. 2. ·Mindlin's solution with· Fig. 3. Calculation points of vertical
a mirror image displacements of soil

NII-Electronic Library Service

 64 YAMASHITA ET AL.

In Eq. (1), if the soil elastic modulus varies

in the direction of the ground depth, we ~Q,....L..,..---
1 0
obtain an approximate value of EsiJ by using
the equation proposed by Poulos (1979 a) as
follows :

(2)

Eq. (2) normally deals with cases where the

soil elastic modulus increases linearly in the k: bas.e element from
which the relative
direction of depth. displacements are
By applying Eq. (1) to all the elements measured

of M piles, and by superposing displace-

ments, the vertical displacement of soil adja- Fig. 4. Axial displacement of pile
cent to the i-th element · of the K -th pile shaft by load at pile top ·
sPiK is given by the following equation :

sPtK= d1 { ~ ~1( IEtKjL FjL)} ( 3)

L=l J=l Sij

The vertical displacement of the i-th ele-

ment of the K-th pile is considered as
the sum of the following three values
without referring to the value of ground
subsidence :
1. the value PPi!c:Kt (the prefix p signifies
pile), which is the axial deformation of the
pile between the i-th element and the k-th
eleme.nt from which the relative displace- Fig. 5. Axial displacement of pile
ments are measured and the value is. calculated shaft by interaction force
from the pile top load of the K -th pile.
2. the value PPtkK 2, which is the axial If i;;;;k,
deformation of the pile between the i-th
pfJikKl :::0 ( 6)
element and the. k-th element produced by
interaction force -FJK (l~j~k-,..1 or k~j~ In accordance with Fig. 5, PPikK 2 is given
n+1) on the K-th pile. by the following equation :
3. the value sPkK' which is the vertical If l~i<k,
displacement of soil adjacent to the k-th
element of the K-th pile by interaction
forces.
Therefore, the vertical displacement of If i;;;;k,
the i-th element of the K-th pile is given
· 1 ( i n+l )
by the following equation : pfJtkK2=- E A ~ lJkFJK+ ~ laFJK
'P 'P J=k J=i+l
PPiK=PPikK1 +PPikK2+sPkK ( 4) (8)
As shown in Fig. 4, and according to funda- If i=O (i.e. at the pile top),
mental assumption number 1, PPikKt is given 1 k-1
by the following equation : pfJOkK2=- E A ~ ljkFjK ( 9)
p p j=1

If O~i<k, If there is no slip and no yield between

the pile elements and the soil adjacent to
(5)
them, the following equation holds ;

NII-Electronic Library Service

 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES
i=l, ... , k-l, k+1, ... , n+1)
( K=1, ... ,M
When ground subsidence is considered as
shown in Fig. 1, the corresponding terms
will be added to both sides of Eq. (10) to
obtain another Eq. (11) (Yamagata and Yao,
1977).
sPiK+cPi =PPiK+cPk
i=l, ... , k-1, k+l, ... , n+l)
( K=1, ... ,M
where cPi and cPk are values of ground sub-
sidence at the center depth of the i-th and
the k-th layers.
According to fundamental assumption num-
ber 6 and by the conditions of equilibrium
and compatibility we obtain the following
Eqs. (12), (13), (14) :
1) If the pile cap is completely rigid,
PPoK = PPokK1 + PPokK2 + sPkK + cPk = PPo
(K=l, ... , M)
where PPo is the settlement of the rigid
pile cap.
M n+1
LJ LJ FJK=Pa
K=1 J=l
2) If the pile cap rigidity is ignored,
n+t
LJ FJK=PoK (K=l, ... , M)
J=l
Next follow the solutions for Eqs. (10)
through (14). The number of unknown fac-
tors is (n+1) xM+1 for a rigid pile cap
because we need (n+1) xM FJK's and PPo·
The number of equations is nxM from Eq.
(10) or Eq. (11), M from Eq. (12), and one
from Eq. (13), which is (n+1) xM+1, coin-
ciding with the number of unknown factors.
For pile caps for which the rigidity is ig-
nored, the number of unknown factors is (n
+1) xM FJK's. The number of equations is
n xM from Eq. (10) or Eq. (11), and M from
Eq. (14), which coincides with the number
of unknown factors as well.
While solving simultaneous equations, ac-
cording to fundamental assumptions 4 and
5, when FJK exceeds its ultimate value
FJmax• we calculate by defining FJK=FJmax
until all FJK's (for 1, ...... , n+1, K=1,
65
...... , M) converge into values smaller than
or equal to FJmax (for }=1, ...... , n+1).
(10)
Soil Non-linearity
In the former section we presented mathe-
matical formulations that express the pile-
soil slip, as well as the yield of the stratum
in contact with the pile tip. However, it
(11) is difficult to express the load-settlement be-
havior of non-displacement piles with the
above-mentioned method which treats soil
as a linear elastic body, since this. type of
pile usually shows marked non-linear behav-
IOr.
In general, the gradual reduction of soil
rigidity corresponding to an increase in pile
top load is confined to a relatively narrow
zone of soil adjacent to the pile shaft for
a single pile and for a pile group which
(12) has large pile spacing, whereas for a pile
group with narrow spacing the reduction
arises in the bulk of soil surrounding the
piles. In this model, one can change either
EsiJ or 1iKJL, depending on the load level,
(13) to approximate soil non-linearity. If EsiJ
is reduced in relation to the load level, it
is inconsistent with the actual condition
because the reduction of soil rigidity arises
(14) in the whole stratum between the i-th
and the j-th layer from the definition of
EsiJ·
In this paper, we have introduced an equa-
tion representing the hyperbolic relationship
between the displacement influence factor
1' iKJL which takes soil non-linearity into
consideration and the displacement influence
factor 1iKJL which is given by Eq. (A-1)
in Appendix A : this relationship is given
by Eq. (15).
1' iKjL (15)
This convenient method corresponds to the
concept of the non-elasticity modulus pro-
posed by Yamagata and Yao (1977). We
fixed the value of a which is hyperbolic
curve fitting constant at 0. 75 after prelimi-
nary calculation results.
NII-Electronic Library Service
 66 YAMASHITA ET AL.
Equivalent Elastic Modulus of Soil
Although Eq. (2) proposed by Poulos (1979)
is very simple and practical, we have identi-
fied a problem with its application because
it ignores the soil elastic modulus of strata
other than the i-th and the j-th strata if
the distribution of soil modulus is markedly
irregular.
In order to deal with this problem, we
consider Esi and E 8 J in Eq. (2) as weighted
averages including the soil elastic modulus
of strata other than the i-th and the j-th
strata, named Esiav, EsJav, respectively. The
equivalent elastic modulus of soil layers EsiJ
is given by Eqs. (16)-(18) using the nota-
tion shown in Fig. 6.
E _ E $i av+E sjav (16)
sij-
2 is the soil elastic modulus at the depth of
where :
(17)
[3_ <J-1>En +···+B-reEs o-re>+ .. ·
+f3-1Es<J-1> +EsJ+ f31Es<J+t> + ...
E sjav + [ikEs(J+k) + ··· + Bn+m-JEs(n+m)
B-<J-1> + ···+ B-k+ ·•· + B-1 + 1+ B1
+ .. ·+ f31?-+ .. ·+f3n+m-j
(18)
Although the weighted coefficient Pk in Eqs.
(17) and (18) is a parameter depending on
Esi• EsJ, pile spacing, depth of the midpoint
of the i-th element and the j-th element
from.the ground surface, etc., for convenience
it is assumed in this paper as follows :
B-k= Bk (19)
f3k=ak (where a is a constant and O~a<l)
(20)
If we set a=O in Eq. (20), Eq. (16) and
Eq. (2) are identical.
EVALUATION OF CALCULATION AC-
CURACY
Pile Groups Embedded in Gibson Soil
Banerjee and Davies (1977) have analyzed
the settlement of pile groups with rigid pile
caps in Gibson soil where the soil elastic
modulus increases linearly in the direction
of depth. They utilized the boundary ele-
ment method under linear elastic conditions.
We refer to the results of their study for com-
parison with our results from the previous
method based on elasticity, in which we
used Eq. (2) for evaluating the equivalent
elastic modulus of soil.
The conditions of the soil and pile founda-
tion are shown in Fig. 7. In this figure,
PPo is the pile top settlement and lp 0 is the
settlement influence factor at the pile top.
For our calculations we fixed the number
of pile shaft element divisions n at 10,
the pile diameter d at 1. 0 m and E 81 , which
the pile tip, to 9. 8 x 105 kN/m 2• We utilized
the mirror image principle to take account
of the finite soil layer influence. The val-
ues of lp 0 , calculated by the two methods
are shown in Table 1 for comparison. The
results of the previous method based on
Mindlin's solution correspond to 0. 93-1.25
times those obtained by the boundary element
method, which means that the results of
I / I
E,l E,t
-----
E,(j-kl
E,(i-kl !Fi Es(j I)
/_) E,i
E,~~~ E,(i+tl
~s( i-1)
i . .--- _../
E,;
E,u+ t l E,<i+*l
--
E,u+kl
Es(n+l)
Es(n+l)
///7777/7/7//777777777777
Fig. 6. Schematic illustration of
equivalent elastic modulus of
soil layers
NII-Electronic Library Service
 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES 67

Table 1. Summary of settlement influence factor at pile top calcu-

lated by the previous method based on Mindlin's solution
and the boundary element method

~
Settlement influence factor at pile top lp 0
Ratio
Previous method BEM by (Previous/BEM)
Banerjee et al. (1977)
2x2 0.072 0. 061 1.18
20 3x3 0. 047 0.039 1. 21
5x5 0.027 0.029 0. 93
2x2 0.058 0.048 1. 21
40 3x3 0.040 0.032 1. 25
5x5 0.025 0.025 1. 00

Table 2. Dimensions, load, elastic modulus

of pile and soil Poisson's ratio for
Rigid pile cap I ~ 1.'!-' I 4 examples
(1 tf=9.8kN, 1 tf/m 2 =9. 8kNfm 2)
Pile Pile Soil
Example length modulus Poisson's
(m) ( x 106tf/m 2) ratio
s/d= 3
1 46; 6 1.5 500 2. 75 0.4
2 16.0 1.2 100 2. 60 0.3
3 20.8 1.0 200 2. 60 0.3
2l 4 34.3 1.0 207 2. 60 0.4

the two methods coincide comparatively well.

v=0.5 Single Piles in 4 Examples with Different Soil

/pa-_P Profiles
Ppo= E,[CL c We also compared our results based on
elasticity with those obtained by the finite
element method for pile settlement and axial
Fig. 7. Soil and pile conditions for
force . distribution of single piles in four
settlement analysis of pile groups
examples with different soil profiles. In
this comparison, we defined the equivalent
soil elastic modulus for two cases in order
<'£
to find simultaneous influences of different
I definitions of the modulus. For the first
1! I
case we used the previous method, as rep-

l
I I
Pile
I I resented by Eq. (2). For the second case
I I
I I we used Eqs. (16)-(20), which represent
"'g! I
I
what we call the modified method, by ignor-
I ing the terms where k"?;,5 and setting a=O. 5

L
I"
I
E :, [1! (a value derived from preliminary calculations)
0
... ,.
I
I
. I, in Eq. (20), as is 'indicated in Appendix B .
I
I' I
An example of the finite element model is
I I
shown in Fig. 8. The calculation was made
under axi-symmetry and linear elasticity con-
ditions with fixed base and roller-supported
sides as the boundary conditions. Poisson's
I
'" ratio of pile material is fixed as 0. 17. In
Fig. 8. Finite element model the elasticity method we fixed n at 10. The

NII-Electronic Library Service

68 YAMASHITA ET AL.

E,(X10 4 tf/m~) .Axialforce (tf) Axial force ( tf)

o1o2 o o 100 200 300 400 soo 50.
0
'I L
!
/f'
,rl
i /:?I
I FEM kt;::;'
p~ ·case 1
~/ Case 2
/
II'

46.6 /

60 Lrj/TTT7ff i
30 I
i
""" ""
Rigid base Rigid base

(a) Example 1 (b) Example 2

E,( X 104 tf/m2) Axial force ( tf) Axial force ( tf)

00 1;.9.1~ 0 0 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
I ~·

,
- - . -:------~ J.J ./:
i
L
,J'
·case 1
v
l4 :-~-_;;~FEM_
- Case 1
/ '. I .-! j
'.:v ~Case2 ll ·Case 2/ .......
i/ )/
J.A.FEM lf?
.<":,.(f.''
34. 3
/'

40 L/,.j/77771'
Rigid base

(c) Example 3 (d) Example 4

Fig. 9. Comparison of axial force of single pile calculated by the finite
element method with the previous and the modified method based on
Mindlin's solution (1 tf=9. 8 kN, 1 tf/m 2 =9. 8 kN/m 2 )

Table 3. Summary of settlements of single mirror image principle was applied to the
piles calculated by the previous lower boundary. All the values used for
and the modified method based on the four comparison examples are presented
Mindlin's solution and the finite Table 2 and Fig. 9.
element method Table 3 shows the computation results of

~~
Settlement settlement at pile top and pile tip. The
Settlement (mm) ratio
(Present ratios between the two values obtained from
/FEM)
the tested method and the finite element
Case 1 /Case 2 FEM Case 1 Case 2
method are 0. 98-1. 08 for the first case and
1
Pile top 3.60 3. 51 3.32 1.08 1. 06 1. 03-1. 06 for the second, both at the pile
Pile tip 0.84 0.84 0. 75 1. 12 1. 12
top. At the pile tip, the ratios vary from
2
Pile top 2.05 2.15 2.09 0.98 1. 03
0. 97 to 1. 12 for the first case, and from
Pile tip 1.71 1. 82 1. 76 o.97 1. 03
1. 03 to 1. 15 for the second. In both cases,
Pile top 2.27 2. 31 2.24 1.01 1. 03
3 the differences in results from the method
Pile tip 0.82 0.89 0. 81 1. 01 1.10
based on elasticity and from the finite ele-
4
Pile top 3. 35 3.46 3.28 1. 02 1. 05
Pile tip 1. 26 1. 38 1. 20 1. 05 1.15 ment method are within 15%, while the
difference in settlement between the two

NII-Electronic Library Service

 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES 69

Table 4. Proposed input soil constants for cast-in-place concrete pile

for immediate settlement (ltf/m 2 =9. 8kN/m 2)
Input constants Soil type Proposed values Maximum values

7:/ Cohesionless Soil N/5+3 20

(tf/m2) Cohesive Soil Max. (1+0.16z,N/2) 15

E. Cohesionless Soil 600(N/5+3) -

(tf/m2) Cohesive Soil Max. (3000(1+0.16z),1500N) -
qp Cohesionless Soil 15N 750
(tf/m2) Cohesive Soil 9(1+0.16z) -

EaP Cohesionless Soil 400N 30000

(tf/m2) Cohesive Soil 3000(1 +0. 16z)
Cohesionless Soil 0. 3
I)

Cohesive Soil 0.4 -

Extrapolative N -values if N>50.

cases based on elasticity is even smaller, for verification.

within 10%. Fig. 9 presents the axial
force distribution along the pile. In the
first case, which is based on the previous
method, Example 1 shows good correspond-
ence with the finite element method
where the soil elastic modulus increases
almost linearly in the direction of depth.
However, in the case of Examples 2 to 4,
the values calculated by the previous method
differ a little from those obtained by the
finite element method at the depth where
the soil modulus changes sharply. In the
second case, which is based on the modified
method, the four examples indicate fair
correspondence to the finite element analy-
sis ; this represents better correspondence
than with the first case.
DETERMINATION OF INPUT SOIL CON-
STANTS
In order to apply this method to design prac-
tice, it is important to find appropriate input
soil constants fully backed up by measured
data. However, it is currently still difficult
to determine these constants. In this paper,
for practical purpose, we propose input soil
constants derived mainly through the use
of SPT results. In this case, due to the
difficulties involved in accurately determining
these soil constants, we have had to make
use of numerous vertical load test results
Table 4 presents the proposed values of
input constants for soil. These values, how-
ever, are limited to cast-in-place concrete
piles. The maximum skin friction -r 1 and
ultimate bearing capacity of strata in contact
with the pile tip qp were determined after
consulting the AU Standard for Structural
Design of Building Foundations (1974), Spec-
ifications for Highway Bridges (1980) and
portions of the results of field pile load tests.
The soil elastic modulus above the pile tip
Es was assumed as follows :
(21)
For cohesionless soil, the value of constant
g is set at 600. The calculated value of E 8
is the approximate average among the Es
values E 8 =755 (N +26) (kN/m 2) for normally
loaded sand or sand and gravel, E 8 1 000
(N +41) (kN/m 2) for preloaded sand by
D'Appolonia et al. (1979) and £ 8 =1570 N
(kNjm 2 ) by Kishida and Nakai (1977). Poulos
(1974) presents the values of elastic modulus
for driving piles in sand strata as shown in
Table 5. The proposed values in this paper
correspond closely with these lower limits. For
Table 5. Average values of elastic
modulus of sand (Poulos, 1974)
Sand density Range of E 8 (kN/m2)
Loose 27500~ 55000
Medium 55000- 69000
Dense 69000'""" 110000

NII-Electronic Library Service

 70 YAMASHITA ET AL.

Table 6. Summary of vertical load tests of cast-in-place concrete piles

(1 tf=9.8kN)
Construction Pile Pile Maximum Maximum Bearing Number of
No. method diameter length load settlement Ru mechanism references
(mm) (m) (tf) (mm) (tf)
Benoto 1000 19.5 1000 15.5 906 End-bearing 25)
2 Benoto 1000 18.9 1000 19.2 871 End-bearing 25)
3 Benoto 1000 20.8 1200 32.6 909 End-bearing 25)
4 Reverse 1500 46.6 1200 22.2 1204 Friction 8)
circulation
5 Benoto 1200 13.0 1350 115.0 959 End-bearing 24)
6 Benoto 1200 16.0 480 31.4 385 Friction 15)
7 Reverse 800 44.4 480 38.0 553 Friction 11)
circulation
8 Benoto 1000 34.3 800 34.0 1035 7)
9 Benoto 1000 13.0 520 100.0 482 13)
10 Benoto 1000 31.0 680 60.0 801 13)
11 Reverse 1500 26.0 3000 132.0 1728 End-bearing 10)
circulation
12 Reverse 1500 32.0 2250 494.0 1943 End-bearing 10)
circulation
13 Reverse 1500 30.0 1500 28.1 1421 End-bearing 10)
circulation
14 Earth 1200 29. 1 840 30.6 741 End-bearing 10)
drilling
15 Earth 1200 29.5 850 16. 1 903 10)
drilling
16 Earth 1300 29.0 900 19.0 1186 End-bearing 10)
drilling
17 Benoto 1000 36.4 780 40.9 1031 10)
18 Benoto 1500 28.5 1320 12.4 1863 End-bearing 10)
19 Earth 1200 28.0 800 13.7 1018 10)
drilling
20 Benoto 1300 24.3 800 16.3 1081 End-bearing 10)
21 Earth 1200 23.3 840 48.8 629 10)
drilling
22 Earth 1500 27.2 1200 60.3 863 10)
drilling
23 Earth 1300 22.5 840 18.9 943 10)
drilling
24 Earth 1200 22.3 900 39.3 879 10)
drilling
25 Benoto 800 10.9 350 87.5 286 Friction 10)
26 Benoto 1000 33.8 800 25.6 679 End-bearing 10)

cohesive soil, the value of g is determined dense stratum, we assumed the elastic modu-
as 3 000 by following the ratios 860, 2 140 lus at the pile tip stratum m cohesionless
and 4 650 between the elastic modulus and soil from the following Eq. (22)
the shear strength of soil back-figured from E 8 p=3 920 N (kN/m 2) (22)
load test results on three bored piles in
In cohesive soil E 8 p 1s determined m the
stiff clay (Poulos, 1979 a).
same manner as E 8 • Poisson's ratio of
On the other hand, values of E 8 p calculated
soil is assumed to be constant m all strata
from Eq. (21) when g=600, seem to be un~
for it IS relatively little affected by settle~
derestimated m the case of dense sand or
ment, and the values in Table 4 are used
dense sand and gravel, because if one back-
in accordance with the specific properties of
figures the elastic modulus from measured
the soil.
settlements on mat foundations and from
the results of plate loading tests, it varies
COMPARISON WITH FIELD-MEA-
between 3. 0 x 10 5 (kN/m 2) and 4. 0 x 10 5 (kN/
SURED DATA
m 2 ) m dense sand and gravel strata with
N-value equal or somewhat greater than 50 Data for Comparison
(AU, 1974). Considering the fact that the The field data used for comparison came
pile tip is usually embedded m a relatively from 26 examples of vertical load tests on

NII-Electronic Library Service

 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES 71

cast-in-place concrete piles ; all tests were tests seem to have been undertaken solely
carried out in Japan. Table 6 indicates the for verifying the long-term allowable bearing
dimensions of piles, maximum load, maxi- capacity 1/3 · Ru or where the tests seem
mum settlement, etc. These data were to have been terminated because of excessive
selected because the maximum loads are all settlement before the pile top load reached
greater than two-thirds of the ultimate bear- the short-term allowable bearing capacity
ing capacity, Rw obtained from the formula 2/3·Ru.
to calculate bearing capacity of cast-in-place When calculating Ru in Table 6, we evalu-
concrete piles described in AU (1974). We ated the skin friction of friction piles (No.
have eliminated all other data where the 4 and No.7) in soft clay with small N-value,

1 1
r/tf/m'J E,(tf/m 2 )
1.4 4200
Vertical load at pile top ( tf)
2.1 6300
~~500 Ru 1000
3.6 5490 ---------6. ____ Meas~red
e
e ' -------~......
~ 20 0..
\ ... ,,,
e £
"E .£
i5.. ·a 10
" 1'E
C) 30
c
"s
.£
tl
(f)
40 20

qp( tf/m 2 ) E,p( tf/m 2 )

I 79.3 26400

v=0.4, Ef,'-=2.75X J06tf/m2

(a) Input soil constants (b) Load-settlement curve

Fig. 10. Comparison of calculated values versus field measurements of pile
top settlement (No. 4) (1 tf=9.8 kN, 1 tf/m 2 =9.8 kN/m 2)

N-value
rj.tf/m~) E,(tf/m~)
0 0 1020»1050

~ 1.1 3300
~ Vertical load at pile top ( tf)

200 ~Ru
1
400

··---
7.8 4680 0..
2
e 6.5 3900
:s." 10
t1o 1
5.8 3480 1'E
8 I c
.I 6:2 3720 "'
~tl
j

(f)

20

y=0.3, Ef,='2.6X 10"tf/m2

(a) Input soil constants (b) Load-settlement curve

Fig. 11. Comparison of calculated values versus field measurements of pile
top settlement (No. 6) (1 tf=9.8 kN, 1 tf/m 2 =9.8 kN/m 2 )

NII-Electronic Library Service

 72 YAMASHITA ET AL.

rjtf/m 1 ) E,(tf/m 2 )

1.8 5400
Vertical load at pile top ( tf)
2.1 6300
500
2.8 8400
5
3.5 10500 s
0..
.8..,
"""\
12600
'§, 10
' \

M.easured ~~
14700 ~ \

1:.., \
I
16800 e I
I
30 ...!:
:::: \
\
18900 en"' \
I
23400
20 \
40
21000

q/tf/m 2 ) E,p(tf/m 2 )
74.7 24900
50
v=OA, Ep'=2.6X J06tf/m2

(a) Input soil constants (b) Load-settlement curve

Fig. 12. Comparison of calculated values versus field measurements of pile
top settlement (No. 7) (1 tf=9.8 kNt 1 tf/m 2 =9.8 kN/m 2)

N·value
0 /() r).tf/m2 ) E,(tf/m2 )
0
....
I 0

2.4 7200
Vertical load at pile top ( tf)

8
E
~ § 20 Calculated
...!:
·a.
~
c..,
E 40
...!:
::::..,
11.6 6960
en

qp(tf/m 2) E,p(tf/m 2 )
480 12800

v=0.3, Ep::::: 3.0 X 106tf/m 2

(a) Input soil constants (b) Load-settlement curve

.Fig. 13. Comparison of calculated values versus field measurements of pile
top settlement (No.8) (1tf=9.8kNt ltf/m 2 =9.8kN/m 2)

by using an equation, Z"t=9. 8+1. 96z (kN/m 2) Comparison Procedure

(Sakaguchi, 1968) where z indicates the depth
from ground surface.
The types of bearing mechanisms selected
include 12 examples of end-bearing piles,
4 types of friction piles, and the rest (10
examples) are examples of diversified systems
such as those supported by intermediate bear-
ing strata.
The number of pile shaft element divisions
was fixed at 10 and the input soil constants
were defined as shown in Table 4. The
elastic modulus at the pile tip stratum was
determined as the average value from the
pile tip to a depth equal to three times
the diameter of the pile. The elastic modu-
lus of the pile material was determined by

NII-Electronic Library Service

 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES
30r--------r------~r-r=====~
£:... R=!Ru
o R=~Ru
s 20
5 determined solely from SPT results and also
10 20
Measured value'(mm)
Fig. 14. Comparison of calculated and
measured values of settlement at
pile top
using measured values, where such data were
available ; in the absence of measured values
the elastic modulus was fixed to the empirical
value 2. 55 x 10 7 kN/m 2• Eqs. (16), (B-1)-
(B-4) were used for computing the equiva-
lent soil elastic modulus. Soil non-linearity
was taken into account using Eq. (15) when
loading Ru/6 as the load increment on the
pile top in each of the 5 steps. We compared
the calculated values of pile top settlement
obtained at the load levels of 1/3 · Ru and
2/3 · Ru with the measured values cor-
responding to these load levels. Some exam-
ples of the comparisons are shown in Figs.
10-13.
Results of Comparison
The results of comparison between the
calculated values and the measured values
of pile top settlement are shown in Fig. 14
for the 26 load test examples. The numbers
in the figure correspond to the numbers
identified in Table 6.
In 22 examples the computed values are
greater than the measured values at 1/3 · Ru
level, and in 18 examples the computed values
exceed the measured ones at the 2/3 · Ru level.
This means that the computed values have a
tendency to be greater than the measured
73
values. However, there are three examples
in which the measured values of settlement
are greater than 1. 5 times the computed
values. Generally, for practical purposes,
both values seem to agree well, considering
the fact that the input soil constants were
the fact that the load-settlement character-
istics of cast-in-place concrete piles are de-
pendent upon construction quality.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
With the aim of estimating pile load-set-
tlement characteristics, we examined a meth-
30
od based on elasticity theory. After we
presented the modified method, taking into
consideration factors such as soil non-lineari-
ty and multi-layering, the following conclu-
sions were reached through this study : Con-
cerning pile groups embedded in Gibson soil
where the soil elastic modulus increases
linearly with depth, comparisons between
the values of the settlement influence factor
at the pile top calculated by the previous
method based on Mindlin's solution and those
calculated by the boundary element method
(Banerjee and Davies, 1977) showed that
the previous m,ethod produced values within
a 25% difference from those calculated by
the boundary element method.
The difference between the values obtained
from the previous and the modified methods
based on elasticity and the values obtained
from the finite element method was within
15% for the pile top and pile tip settlement of
single piles in four examples with different
soil profiles. In this comparison, the differ-
ence between the equivalent elastic modulus
of soil determined in accordance with Poulos's
proposal (1977) and the elastic modulus pro-
posed in this paper affected the calculation
results within 10%. As for the load transfer
along the pile, around the strata where the
soil modulus varies sharply, Poulos's proposal
matches less well with the finite element
analysis. On the other hand, better agree-
ment was observed in the modified case on
this point.
NII-Electronic Library Service
 74 YAMASHITA ET AL.
VVe also proposed tentative input soil con-
stants to compare calculated values with meas-
ured ones for 26 examples of field vertical
load tests of cast-in-place concrete piles.
The results of the comparisons of pile top
settlement present generally good correspond-
ence between the calculated values and the
measured ones, which means that the modi-
fied calculation method and the proposed in-
put soil constants seem to be adequate for
the preliminary estimation of immediate set-
tlement of cast-in -place concrete piles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very grateful to the
authors of cited references for the use of
their data for this study. Many thanks are
due also to Haruo Miyagawa, Itsuo Yoshida
and Mitsuhiro Sato from Takenaka Komuten
Co., Ltd. for their invaluable assistance.
NOTATION
a=constant and O~a<l
Ap=area of pile section
d =diameter of pile shaft
db=diameter of pile tip
Ep=elastic modulus of pile material
E 8 =soil elastic modulus above the pile tip
Esp=soil elastic modulus of stratum in
contact with the pile tip
Esi• E 8J=soil elastic modulus of the i-th layer
and the j-th layer
Esiav, E 8lv=weighted averages including soil elastic
modulus of strata other than the i-th
and j-th strata
Esij=equivalent elastic modulus of soil
between the i-th layer and the j-th
layer
FJL=interaction force acting on the j-th
element of the L-th pile
FJmax=ultimate value of FJL
h =depth of rigid stratum from the
ground surface
JiKJL=displacement influence factor with
respect to the i-th element of the K-
th pile due to FJL
I' iKJL=displacement influence factor with
respect to the i-th element of the K-
th pile due to FJL which takes soil
non-linearity into consideration
lp 0 =settlement influence factor atlthe pile
top
l =length of pile
l 1k=longitudinal distance between the mid-
point of the i-th element and that
of the k-th element
M=number of piles
n =number of pile shaft element divisions
P 0 =vertical load acting on rigid pile cap
PoK=pile top load of the K-th pile
qp=ultimate bearing capacity of stratum
in contact with pile tip
Ru=ultimate bearing capacity obtained
from the formula to calculate bearing
capacity of cast-in-place concrete pile
described in AU (1974)
z=depth from the ground surface
a= hyperbolic curve fitting constant
/.?k=weighted coefficient for calculating
Esiav and Eslv
p/Jo=settlement of rigid pile cap
cPi, cPk=values of ground subsidence at the
center depth of the i-th layer and..,the
k-th layer
p/JiK=vertical displacement of the i-th ele-
ment of the K -th pile
sPiK=vertical displacement of soil adjacent
to the i-th element of the K-th pile
sPiKJL =vertical displacement of soil adjacent
to the i-th element of the K-th pile,
due to interaction force FJL
~=proportional constant between E 8 and 7:'
1
7:'1 =maximum skin friction
-r:=Poisson's ratio of soil
REFERENCES
1) Architectural Institute of Japan (1974) : Stand-
ard for Structural Design of Building Foun-
dations (in Japanese).
2) Banerjee, P. K. (1976) : "Analysis of vertical pile
groups embedded in non-homogeneous soil,"
Proc. the 6 th ECSMFE, Vol. 1. 2, pp. 345-350.
3) Banerjee, P. K. and Davies, T. G. (1977) :
"Analysis of pile groups embedded in Gibson
Soil," Proc. the 9th lCSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 381
-386.
4) Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P. K. (1971) : "The
elastic analysis of compressible piles and pile
groups," Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 43-
60.
5) D' Appolonia, D. ].,D' Appolonia, E. and Brissette,
R. F. (1970) : Closure on Settlement of Spread
Footings on Sand, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 96,
NII-Electronic Library Service
 ESTIMATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT OF PILES
No. SM 2, pp. 754-762.
6) Ellison, R. D., D' Appolonia, E. and Thiers, G.
R. (1971) : "Load-deformation mechanism for
bored piles," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM 4,
pp. 661-678.
7) Endo, M., Kawasaki, T., Ikuta, Y., Tomono, M.
and Asada, M. (1966) : "On an evaluation meth·
od of concrete pier stress at load tests," Proc.
Annual Meeting of JSSMFE (1st), pp. 227-231
(in Japanese).
8) Ishii, T. and Mori, H. (1982) : "Vertical bearing
capacity of friction piles," Tsuchi-to-Kiso,
JSSMFE, Vol. 30, No.2, pp. 11-18 (in Japa-
nese).
9) Japan Road Associations (1980) : Specification
for Highway Bridges (No.5, Sub-structure)
(in Japanese).
10) JSSMFE : Documents from the Research Com-
mittee on Construction Practice and Bearing
Capacity by Low Vibration and Low Noise
Piling Methods (in Japanese).
11) Kato, H. and Ito, N. (1982) : "Longer friction
pile in elevated bridge of JNR Keiyo-Line,"
Tsuchi-to-Kiso, JSSMFE, Vol. 30, No.2, pp.
31-38 (in Japanese).
12) Kishida, H. and Nakai, S. (1977) : "Nonlinearity
of relationship between subgrade reaction and
displacement," Tsuchi-to-Kiso, JSSMFE, Vol.
25, No.8, pp. 21-28 (in Japanese).
13) Kunugi, S. (1979) : "Brief description on high-
way bridges with imperfect end-bearing piles,"
Doboku Gijutsu, Vol. 34, No.7, pp. 29-39 (in
Japanese).
14) Mattes, N. S. and Poulos, H. G. (1969) : "Settle-
ment of single compressible pile," Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. SM 1, pp. 189-207.
15) Okano, G. and Hasegawa, H. (1980) : "On bear-
ing characteristics of cast-in-place concrete piles
in loose sand," Proc. Annual Meeting of
JSSMFE (15th), pp. 941-944 (in Japanese).
16) Ottaviani, M. (1975) : "Three-dimensional finite
element analysis of vertically loaded pile
groups," Geotechnique, Vol. 25, No.2, pp.
159-174.
17) Poulos, H. G. (1968) : "Analysis of the settle-
ment of pile groups," Geotechnique, Vol. 18,
No.4, pp. 449-471.
18) Poulos, H. G. (1974) : "Some recent develop-
ments in the theoretical analysis of pile be-
havior," Soil Mechanics New Horizons, I. K.
Lee, ed., Newnes-Butterworths, pp. 237-279.
19) Poulos, H. G. (1979 a) : "Settlement of single
piles in nonhomogeneous soil, " Proc. ASCE,
Vol.105, No. GT 5, pp. 627-641.
75
20) Poulos, H. G. (1979 b) : "Group factors for pile-
deflection estimation," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 105,
No. GT 12, pp. 1489-1509.
21) Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1968) : "The
settlement behavior of single axially loaded
incompressible piles and piers," Geotechnique,
Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 351-371.
22) Poulos, H. G. and Mattes, N. S. (1969) : "The
behavior of axially loaded end-bearing piles,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 285-300.
23) Sakaguchi, 0. (1968) : "On an estimation meth-
od of strength of clayey soil," Proc. Annual
Meeting of AIJ, pp. 599-600 (in Japanese).
24) Shii, Y., Someya, T. and Takeuchi, M. (1977) :
"Tests and considerations on vertical bearing
mechanism of bored piles, "Tsuchi-to-Kiso,
JSSMFE, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 51-58 (in Japanese).
25) Unpublished papers from Takenaka Technical
Research Laboratory (in Japanese).
26) Yamagata, K. and Yao, S. (1977) : "Studies on
settlement characteristics of piles and pile
groups (Part 1 : Fundamental equations),"
Transaction of AIJ, No. 261, pp. 41-47 (in
Japanese).
APPENDIX A
Displacement influence factor is obtained
from Mindlin's first solutions as follows :
(1+v)d [3-4v + 5-12v+8v 2
Sn-(1-v) r1 r2
+ Clt-lj) _+ (3-4_!.') Clt+lj) 2 -2ltlJ_
2
rla r2s
+ 6ltlj(lt+lj) 2
3-41.1
r25 sl
5-12v+8v 2 (2h-lt-lJ)~.
s2 sls
2
(3-4v) (2h-lt +lJ) -2lJ(2h -lt)_
(A-1)
The displacement influence factor on the
center of the pile tip where i = j n+ 1 in
the same pile, is given by the integration of
Mindlin's first solution. We use the Eq. (A-
2) as the displacement influence factor in
order to obtain the average displacement of
the stratum in contact with the pile tip.
I(n+l)K(tHl)K=
n- (1+v)ld [ (3-4v)db + (5 _ 12 +S 2 )
X rr(l-v)db 2 2l v v
NII-Electronic Library Service
 76 YAMASHITA ET AL.

x{/4+(~;Y-2}
terms where k and setting a 0. 5 in Eq.
(20) are given as follows :

+(5-8~t ifi,j~5

0. 0625 Es (i-4) + 0. 125 Es (i-D) + 0. 25 Es (i-2)

+0.5Es +Est+0.5Es(i+l)
+ 0. + 0. 125 Es (i+3)

(B-1)
0. 0625Es(j-4) +0.125Es(j-8) +0. 25Es(J-2)
+0. 6Esu-1> +EsJ+O. 5Es<J+1>
+0. 25Esu+ 2 ) +0.125Es<J+S)
E SJ.av +0. 0625E 8 <J+ 4 )
2.875
(B-2)
and if i, J
0. 5t- 1 Es 1+···+Est +0. 5Es <i+1>
+0. 25Es(i+2) +0.125Es(i+3)
+0. 0625Es(i+4)
(A-2) E si av
0. 5t-l + · · · + 1 +0. 9375
(B-3)
0. 5J- ESl + ... + EsJ+O. 5Es <J+1>
1

APPENDIX B +0. 25Es<J+2) +0.125Es(J+3)

E sj av +0. 0625Es(j+4)
The weighted averages of soil elastic mod-
ulus of the modified method, by ignoring the (B-4)

NII-Electronic Library Service