This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
: 10.1680/geng.2008.161.1.19 Paper 14675 Received 01/03/2006 Accepted 29/05/2007 Keywords: foundations/ geotechnical engineering/piles & piling Harry G. Poulos Senior Principal, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd, Lane Cove West, Australia
A practical design approach for piles with negative friction
H. G. Poulos,
BE, DSc(Eng), FIEAust Sw Sall zN ˜Sw ˜Sall äl ög ös settlement at serviceability or working load allowable settlement depth to neutral plane differential settlement at serviceability or working load allowable differential settlement length increment along pile geotechnical reduction factor structural reduction factor
Misconceptions remain in the minds of some pile designers when negative friction effects have to be taken into account. This paper outlines some of these misconceptions, and then describes a relatively straightforward approach for designing piles subjected to negative friction. This approach relies on the consideration of the portion of the pile that is located in the ‘stable’ zone—that is, that part of the ground proﬁle that is not subjected to ground settlements. By designing this portion of the pile to have adequate length and strength, the key design requirements in relation to geotechnical capacity, structural capacity and pile head settlement can be satisﬁed. The case where the ground settlements extend to a large depth is also described brieﬂy, and it is shown that it may then be prudent to design the piles to settle with the ground, rather than attempt to restrain them from settlement. Some other issues that can affect the response of piles to ground settlements are examined, including the presence of residual stresses in the pile, live load application and group effects. It is demonstrated that preloading a pile has the potential to reduce the axial force induced in the pile by the ground settlements. NOTATION C circumference of pile cu undrained shear strength of clay Es Young’s modulus of soil subject to settlement Esb Young’s modulus of soil in stable zone fb ultimate end-bearing capacity of pile fn negative skin friction fs ultimate skin friction at pile–soil interface FS factor of safety against failure FS2 factor of safety of portion of pile in stable zone PA applied axial force on pile Pmax maximum axial force in pile PNmax maximum downdrag force in pile Pw working load Rug ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile Rug2 ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile in stable zone below depth of soil settlement Rus ultimate structural capacity of pile SÃ factored loads applied to pile SÃ maximum factored axial force in pile max S0 settlement of ground surface SR settlement of pile as proportion of ground settlement Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1
1. INTRODUCTION It has long been recognised that piles located within a settling soil proﬁle will be subjected to negative skin friction. Despite the widespread recognition of the phenomenon of negative skin friction, there remains a misconception that this phenomenon will reduce the ultimate geotechnical axial load capacity of a pile (termed here the geotechnical capacity). As pointed out by Fellenius1 and Poulos,2 among many others, this concept is not valid. Because geotechnical failure of a pile requires that the pile moves (or ‘plunges’) past the soil, negative skin friction cannot be present when this happens, and so the geotechnical capacity will not be reduced by negative skin friction unless there is strain-softening at the pile/soil interface. This is unlikely to occur in soft clays, for which the problem of negative skin friction is most prevalent. The key issues related to negative skin friction are as follows. (a) It will induce additional axial forces in the pile. Fellenius 1,3 has suggested the terminology ‘drag force’ for this induced force, and this terminology will be adopted in this paper. (b) It will cause additional settlement of the pile, which Fellenius1,3 has termed ‘downdrag’. However, to avoid confusion with other connotations of the term ‘downdrag’, the term ‘drag settlement’ will be used herein to refer to this additional settlement induced by negative skin friction.
This paper will examine the design requirements for piles subjected to negative skin friction, and will present a relatively simple design approach that can address these requirements. It will then examine some other issues that can inﬂuence the magnitudes of drag force and drag settlement: the presence of residual stresses in the pile, the inﬂuence of live load, and group effects. Poulos 19
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 184.108.40.206 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32
A practical design approach for piles with negative friction
ög values range between about 0. Typically.0 for wind loading and earthquake loading. and Smax maximum factored axial force in the pile. The upper layer will be termed the ‘settling layer’ and the underlying layer(s) will be termed the ‘stable layer’. 1. Design for geotechnical capacity Because the presence of negative skin friction does not generally reduce the geotechnical capacity of a pile. design values of FS range between 2 and 3. it is usual to consider various In computing Pmax or Smax combinations of the applied dead. 3. that is.2 PNmax can be estimated on the assumption that full mobilisation of negative skin friction above the neutral plane has occurred. this depth can often be taken as the depth of soil movement.25 Wed. Typically. The pile is loaded by an axial force PA . live. wind and earthquake loads to the maximum drag force PNmax . 3. Most codes will have speciﬁc combinations of these loads and forces that have to be considered. 1. Ã .2.3 for dead load. 3. FSs is the factor of safety for structural strength. the design requirement for geotechnical capacity may be expressed as follows.2 for the drag force.5 for live load. FS is the overall factor of safety.1.9. so that Poulos hs Settling zone d Lc Stable zone Profile of ground settlement against depth Fig.177. and Pw is the working load applied to the pile. (b) In terms of LRFD: 4 Ã ös : Rus > Smax Ã is the where ös is a structural reduction factor. only a single settling layer and a single stable layer are shown in Fig. (b) In terms of LRFD: ög : Rug > SÃ where ög is the geotechnical reduction factor. and 1. For simplicity. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction . KEY DESIGN CRITERIA There are at least three key criteria that must be satisﬁed in the design of piles subjected to both axial load and negative skin friction. The value of PNmax can be computed as the drag force at the neutral plane. Basic case of pile subjected to negative friction 20 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.g. and the settlement proﬁle is assumed to decrease linearly with depth from a maximum value S0 at the ground surface to zero at the base of the settling layer.25 to 1. and SÃ is a factored-up combination of loads for the ultimate limit state. A PRACTICAL DESIGN APPROACH The general problem is illustrated in Fig. (b) They must have adequate structural strength to withstand the applied axial force and the axial force induced by the ground settlements. (a) They must have adequate geotechnical capacity to support the imposed loadings. Design for structural capacity (a) In terms of overall factor of safety: 3 Rus ¼ FSs ð Pmax Þ 2 where Rus is the ultimate structural strength.com to: IP: 115. Rug is the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the pile (making no allowance for negative friction). and Pmax is the maximum axial force in pile. including the working load and the drag force. at the base of the settling soil layer(s). Australian Standard AS 2159-1995 4 ). Conventional design methods have addressed the ﬁrst two criteria in terms of an overall factor of safety. which is the depth (zN ) at which the friction changes from negative to positive.4 and 0. a more detailed estimation of zN can be made. (a) In terms of overall factor of safety: PA S0 1 Rug ¼ FS: Pw where Rug is the ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile (making no allowance for negative friction). using (for example) the approach described by Poulos. Alternatively. whereas some more modern approaches employ load and resistance factored design (LRFD). (c) The settlements and differential settlements must be within tolerable limits for the structure.2. Typical load factors would be 1. where a pile is situated within a soil layer or layers that are settling. depending on a number of factors including the level of pile testing (e. Both of these approaches will be discussed below. 1. and below which there are one or more layers that are not settling. including the drag force. 1.135. Conservatively. and which is also the depth at which the soil settlement and the pile settlement are equal. 1.
(b) ﬂoating pile Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. and S3 is the settlement of the portion of the pile in the stable zone.25 Wed. 2. 8 Sw ¼ S1 þ S2 þ S3 9b The above approach will be evaluated below. S1 and S2 can be computed from simple column compression theory.177. Cases analysed for design study: (a) end-bearing pile. and ˜Sall is the allowable or tolerable differential settlement for the structure. and FS2 is the factor of safety for the portion of the pile in the stable zone. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 21 . S2 is the elastic compression of the portion of the pile shaft in the settling zone. and S2 max is as deﬁned above in equation (4). the depth of the neutral plane then lies below the depth of soil movement. 3. the axial drag forces increase with depth in the settling zone. (a) In terms of factor of safety: 9a Rug2 > FS2 ð Pw þ PNmax Þ 7 ˜ Sw < ˜ Sall where Rug2 is the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the pile in the stable zone below the depth of soil settlement. Pw . The second case involves an identical settling layer as for the end-bearing pile. Evaluation of proposed alternative design criterion In order to evaluate the proposed alternative design criterion. This will be denoted as an ‘end-bearing’ pile. underlain by a stiff clay layer. as shown in Fig. Values of Sall and ˜Sall depend on the type of structure and on the general ground conditions.2 It has been demonstrated by Poulos 2 that. ˜Sw is the differential settlement at the working or serviceability load. where the issue of selection of a suitable value of FS2 or ög2 will also be considered. Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Settling soft clay cu ϭ 22 kPa fs ϭ 22 kPa Es ϭ 2 MPa ‘Stable’ stiff clay cu ϭ 500 kPa fs ϭ 200 kPa fb ϭ 4·5 MPa Esb ϭ 100 MPa (a) 20 d ϭ 0·5 Settling soft clay 20 d ϭ 0·5 ‘Stable’ stiff clay cu ϭ 80 kPa fs ϭ 60 kPa fb ϭ 0·72 MPa Esb ϭ 30 MPa (b) Lc Lc Fig. the pile settlement will reach a limiting value and will then not continue to settle as the ground continues to settle. if the neutral plane lies at or below the depth of ground settlement. C is the pile circumference. Typical values are suggested by Bowles 5 and Tomlinson.10 (b) via an approximate analysis such as that set out by Poulos. but the underlying layer is a medium clay layer with considerably smaller strength and stiffness than in the ﬁrst case. AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERION FOR CONTROLLING SETTLEMENT To avoid having the pile settle continually as the ground settles. taking account of the fact that. and leads to an alternative design criterion that is described in more detail below. due to the induced drag forces. 4. the settlement Sw of the pile head at the working or serviceability load can be estimated as follows.1. This will be PA PA S0 where S1 is the elastic compression of the portion of the pile shaft in the settling zone. designing the pile so that it does not continue to settle with increasing ground settlement is a desirable condition. for example via ﬁnite element analysis7. under these circumstances. for S2 . It can be shown that. due to the applied load on the pile head. Sall is the allowable or tolerable settlement for the supported structure.8 or boundary element analyses 7. S3 can be computed adequately from elastic theory for the length of the pile embedded in the stable zone and subjected to an applied load equal to the applied pile head load ( Pw ) plus the maximum drag force in the pile. two hypothetical but typical problems have been analysed. 6 There are at least two means of estimating the values of Sw and ˜Sw : (a) via a soil–pile interaction analysis. it is proposed that the portion of the pile located below the depth of ground movement should be designed to have an adequate margin of safety against the combined effects of the applied loads and the maximum drag force. In many cases. where Sw is the settlement at the working or serviceability load. (b) In terms of LRFD: Ã ög2 : Rug2 > Smax where ög2 is the geotechnical reduction factor for the stable zone. Pile head settlement The design requirements for settlement are as follows: 6 Sw < Sall 4.3. This criterion may be expressed as follows.com to: IP: 115. The ﬁrst involves a single pile located in a 20 m thick soft clay layer that will experience a ground surface settlement of 100 mm. and äl is the length increment along the pile.9. PNmax . 2. In this case.5 PNmax ¼ z ¼ zN X z¼0 ð f N : C :ä l Þ where fN is the negative skin friction (usually taken to be equal to the positive skin friction).135.
Clearly.0 10. the results will be described in terms of the conventional factor of safety concept.25. Lc :* m Total pile length: m Applied load. developed at the University of 7 Overall factor of safety 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 PA ϭ 1·5 MN PA ϭ 2·0 MN Factor of safety in stable zone 6 PA ϭ 1·0 MN 3·5 3·0 2·5 2·0 1·5 1·0 0·5 0 0 2 PA ϭ 1·0 MN PA ϭ 1·5 MN PA ϭ 2·0 MN 4 6 8 10 12 Length of pile in stable zone. For example. the necessary value of Lc is about 6 m. As would be expected. PA : MN Pile head settlement: mm PIES program Simple method End bearing Floating 6 18 26 38 1. Overall factor of safety against pile length in stable zone: end-bearing pile Fig.5 0.9 12. For simplicity. 3 reveals that. Table 1. The corresponding relationships for the ﬂoating pile are shown in Fig.25. FS2 increases with increasing Lc or decreasing PA . 4. As with the overall factor of safety. 4. it is. Lc: m 25 0 5 10 15 20 Length of pile in stable zone. and these values are shown in Table 1 for a design FS of 2. Lc .5. 5. the required value of Lc for a speciﬁed factor of safety can be obtained. Factor of safety in stable zone against pile length in stable zone: end-bearing pile 9 8 Factor of safety in stable zone PA ϭ 0·4 MN PA ϭ 0·8 MN PA ϭ 1·2 MN 2·5 2·0 1·5 1·0 0·5 0 PA ϭ 0·4 MN PA ϭ 0·8 MN PA ϭ 1·2 MN Overall factor of safety 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Length of pile in stable zone. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos . FS increases with increasing Lc and decreasing applied load PA .25 Wed.5 9.135. Figures 5 and 6 show the computed factor of safety FS2 in the stable zone. Factor of safety in stable zone against pile length in stable zone: ﬂoating pile Case Length in stable zone. 6.denoted as the ‘ﬂoating pile’ case. The computer program PIES. From these ﬁgures. Comparison of computed settlements 22 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. Lc: m 14 16 Fig. Overall factor of safety against pile length in stable zone: ﬂoating pile Fig. Nevertheless. 3.691 MN.177. for a factor of safety of 2.8 12. Fig. Lc: m 14 16 4 6 8 10 12 Length of pile in stable zone. The maximum drag force PNmax has been computed to be at the base of the settling layer. for the endbearing pile with a working load of 1. and becomes a resistance only when the pile moves sufﬁciently to settle more than the surrounding soil. Figure 3 shows the computed overall factor of safety FS as a function of the length of pile in the stable zone. It is recognised that some foundation designers are hesitant to include the ﬁrst component of pile resistance. an available component of resistance at the ultimate limit state. Lc: m 25 Fig. Figs 3 and 4 may be used to assess the necessary length of pile in the stable zone to satisfy the overall geotechnical capacity criterion. in principle. again as a function of Lc and PA . FS is deﬁned here as the ratio of the sum of the pile resistances in the settling zone and the stable zone. a larger value of Lc is required as PA increases. divided by the applied load.4 * For overall factor of safety of 2.com to: IP: 115.5 MN applied at the pile head. and has a magnitude of 0. as it initially acts as a downdrag force.
5 MN. in this case. The pile head settlements shown in Table 1 would normally be expected to be tolerable for most structures. depending on the ratio of the shaft and base resistances in the stable zone. referring to Fig. the use of a factor of safety in the stable zone. Dimensionless drag settlement against factor of safety in stable zone indicated in Fig. 7. and on the maximum load in the pile. a value of FS2 of 1.25 there is little further reduction in the relative drag settlement.1. this ‘target’ factor of safety in the stable zone may vary. it is the settlement control criterion that governs design. Lc . 2.8 MN. the pile continues to settle as the soil settlement increases. against FS2 for both the ﬂoating and end bearing cases. and. Mindlin’s equations for an elastic continuum are used as the basis for computing the soil movements due to pile loading. 8. the relative drag settlement reduces as the factor of safety in the stable zone. and by specifying limiting skin friction and end bearing values. Because of the number of different load cases that need to be 60 FS2 ϭ 1·0 FS2 ϭ 1·25 FS2 ϭ 1·5 FS2 ϭ 2·0 Pile head settlement: mm 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ground surface settlement: mm 450 500 Fig. this value of Lc corresponds to an overall factor of safety of about 3. PIES has been used to compute the inﬂuence of the factor of safety of the portion of the pile in the stable zone (and hence the length of pile Lc in the stable zone) on the drag settlement of the pile induced by the ground settlements.25 requires a value of Lc of about 6 m. For each of the cases shown in Fig. and reveal that if FS2 ¼ 1. PIES uses a simpliﬁed boundary element approach to analyse the settlement and load distribution within a single pile or a symmetrical pile group. 8. For the ﬂoating pile.25 would require a value of Lc of only about 11 m. while the drag force induced in the pile is also reduced. Fig. From a design viewpoint.Sydney. 9. The latter program also conﬁrms that the settlement reaches a limiting value and does not continue to increase with increasing ground settlements beyond a ground surface settlement of about 150 mm.25 Wed. but non-linearity is allowed for by incorporating a hyperbolic relationship between soil/pile interface stiffness and applied stress level.0. subjected to an applied load of 1. Thus. subjected to a load of 0.177. a somewhat larger factor of safety may be desirable to compensate for the reduced ‘redundancy’ that is present when both components contribute almost equally to the resistance in the stable zone. since an overall factor of safety of 2. involving the summation of the three components S1 . A single regression line can be drawn through the points. 6 shows that a value of FS2 of 1.com to: IP: 115. which (by coincidence) is the same as the value required for the overall factor of safety criterion with FS ¼ 2. 5. if one or other component provides the predominant proportion of the resistance. Figure 9 shows Fig. Evolution of pile settlement: ﬂoating pile Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. and it can be seen that SD /S0 decreases with increasing FS2 : that is. For the end-bearing pile. Table 1 compares the total pile head settlements (due to both applied load and negative friction) computed from the PIES program with the simple approach set out above in equation (8). SR End bearing pile Floating pile Regression line SR ϭ 0·097(FSs)^(Ϫ1·36) 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 Factor of safety in stable zone.25 should be adequate to avoid having the piles settle continuously as the ground settlement increases.25 requires a length in the stable zone. 4. From Fig. but for FS2 ¼ 1. has been used to analyse both these problems. 8 re-plotted in dimensionless form in terms of the ratio of the drag settlement SD to the ground surface settlement S0 . This implies that the overall capacity criterion and the settlement control criterion govern this design equally. as 1·0 0·9 0·8 0·7 0·6 0·5 0·4 0·3 0·2 0·1 0 Pile settlement/ground settlement. of about 18 m. FS2 .135. FSs 4·5 Fig. More generally. increases.25. beyond about FS2 ¼ 1. The analysis results are shown in Figs 7 and 8. regardless of the soil settlement. It can be seen from Table 1 that the settlements from the simple approach agree well with those from the PIES program. subjected to axial loading and to externally imposed ground settlements. Evolution of pile settlement: End-bearing pile 14 Pile head settlement: mm 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 FS2 ϭ 1·0 FS2 ϭ 1·25 FS2 ϭ 1·5 FS2 ϭ 2·0 400 450 500 Ground surface settlement: mm Fig.25 or greater the pile settlement appears to reach a limiting value. From the limited study described herein it would appear that. of 1. FS2 . In this case S3 has been computed from the Randolph and Wroth 11 equations. from a practical design viewpoint. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 23 . S2 and S3 . even when group effects are allowed for.
6. 12. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos . Load–settlement curves for end-bearing pile. (b) A working load of 0. with soil movements Fig. Poulos 12 describes the application of this design philosophy to piled raft foundations.25 is assumed. In contrast. in LRFD design. most of which is subjected to ground settlements. if an average load factor of 1. 5.0 (note that a larger and more realistic average load factor would lead to an even larger implied value of ög2 ).25 translates to a value of ög2 of 1.9 MN has been applied to the pile. and the following simulation stages have been applied. (a) The pile has been loaded to failure and then unloaded. OTHER FACTORS 6. (d ) The pile has then been loaded to failure. the initially stress-free pile continues to undergo increasing settlement with increasing 35 Pile head settlement: mm 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Soil surface settlement: mm 400 450 500 With residual stresses No residual stresses Fig. Houston) because of the pumping of groundwater for water supply.1.com to: IP: 115. it is less easy to develop a design criterion for the geotechnical factor ög2 for the stable zone. 10 has been analysed using the program PIES. thus representing a pile with zero initial residual stress. However. there may be cases in which such a strategy is not feasible or is impractical—for example. However. including the drag load.considered in LRFD design. End-bearing pile analysed for residual stress effects 2·5 2·0 Pile load: MN 1·5 1·0 0·5 0 0 10 20 30 40 Pile settlement: mm 50 60 70 With residual stresses and soil movements With residual stresses and no soil movements No residual stresses. a proper pile–soil interaction analysis should be carried out to identify the length of piles for which the difference between the pile head settlement and the ground surface settlement is an acceptable value. (c) A ground settlement proﬁle has been applied to the pile. Effects of residual stresses Analyses of piles subjected to negative skin friction almost invariably assume that the pile is initially stress-free. In such cases it is almost futile to attempt to stop the pile settling as the ground continues to settle. 11. no soil movements No residual stresses. simulating installation by driving or jacking. especially for driven or jacked-in-place piles. In this way. An analysis has also been carried out where the ﬁrst step is omitted. Development of pile settlement with soil settlement.9 MN Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. Figure 11 shows the load–settlement curves for the endbearing pile with and without residual stresses. To examine the possible effects of residual stresses on pile drag loads and drag settlements. with the maximum ground surface settlement being 500 mm and decreasing with depth to zero at a depth of 20 m. Such situations are common in certain urban areas (e. excessive differential settlements between the structure and the surrounding ground are avoided.177. 10. Instead.25 Wed. This ﬁgure also shows that the pile with residual stress reaches a limiting or equilibrium settlement when the ground surface settlement is about 60 mm. and this often means supporting the structure on end-bearing piles that are founded on rock or on a stiff stratum. but this is generally not a realistic assumption. then a value of FS2 of 1. with and without residual stresses settlement compared with the initially stress-free pile. In other words. where there is a deep layer of soft clay.135. Bangkok. applied load ¼ 0. it seems preferable to accept that continuing settlement of the foundation is inevitable. the design criterion (equation 9(b)) requires that the unfactored capacity of the portion of the pile in the stable zone should equal or exceed the factored load combinations. 12 shows the evolution of pile head settlement with increasing ground surface settlement. CASES WHERE SOIL SETTLEMENTS OCCUR TO CONSIDERABLE DEPTH In most foundation designs emphasis is placed on minimising settlements. 13 This stage induces a residual stress distribution in the pile. It can be seen that the pile with residual stresses undergoes greatly reduced 24 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 PA S0 Soft clay cu ϭ 22 kPa fs ϭ 22 kPa Es ϭ 2 MPa d ϭ 0·5 20 Weak rock fb ϭ 8 MPa Esb ϭ 500 MPa Soil movement profile Fig. This case represents a primarily end-bearing pile. Mexico City. In such cases. and again highlights the difference in behaviour between the piles with and without residual stress. the case shown in Fig. and then to attempt to have the foundation settle the same amount as the ground.g. Fig.
(a) Piles that are driven or jacked into the ground (and which therefore have initial residual stresses) are likely to settle less under the action of negative skin friction than bored piles. 15. (a) Dead load of 1. (c) Application of additional (live) loads of increasing magnitude. Effect of live load on pile head settlement Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.135. 13.25 Wed.177. Figure 13 shows the computed relationship between maximum load in the pile and the ground surface settlement. Effect of residual stresses on pile base stress at various stages Fig. and trends similar to those for the end-bearing pile are noted. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 25 . the relative reduction in settlement of the pile with residual stresses is less than for the end-bearing pile. (b) Preloading of bored piles prior to putting them into service may reduce the potential for future settlements under the action of applied loads and ground movements. it would appear that some beneﬁts may be gained if a pile has initial residual stresses prior to the application of load and ground movement. As a consequence. Similar analyses have been carried out for a predominantly ﬂoating pile. The initially stress-free pile experiences a slightly reduced maximum load compared with the pile with initial residual stresses. Nevertheless. although there is no further change in the downdrag load or the stress acting on the pile toe.com to: IP: 115. where the initial residual stresses may be less. has been subjected to the following history. Development of maximum pile load with soil settlement. Applied load ¼ 0. To examine the validity of this concept. but the difference is relatively minor. The pile. Effects of live load There is a perception among some engineers that the application of live load can remove the effects of negative skin friction and reduce drag forces. 2 has been examined using the program PIES. even at a ground surface settlement of 500 mm.ground surface settlement. 16 shows the 3·5 1·8 Maximum load in pile: MN 1·6 1·4 1·2 1·0 0·8 0·6 0·4 0·2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Soil surface settlement: mm 400 450 500 With residual stresses No residual stresses Maximum load in pile/dead load 3·0 2·5 2·0 1·5 1·0 0·5 0 0 0·5 1·0 Live load/dead load 1·5 2·0 With 100 mm ground settlement No ground settlement Fig. 14. This in turn suggests the following. the tip penetration is less. (b) Application of ground settlement linearly decreasing from 100 mm at the ground surface to zero at 20 m depth. because the initial residual stresses in a ﬂoating pile are less (because of the smaller end bearing stiffness and capacity). Figure 15 shows the computed relationship between maximum pile load and the additional live load. Effect of live load on maximum pile load 9 8 7 No residual stresses With residual stresses 90 80 With 100 mm ground settlement No ground settlement Base stress: MPa Pile head settlement: mm Initial 900 kN 500 mm soil movement Stage Failure 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 Live load/dead load 2·0 2·5 Fig. the example of the end-bearing pile shown in Fig. of total length 25 m (and thus with a 5 m embedment into the stable zone). 6. and Fig. It is clear that the pile with residual stress has a ‘preloaded’ base and is therefore subjected to less base stress change during its history.9 MN Fig. The computed pile base pressures at various stages are shown in Fig. and this is reﬂected in a smaller pile head settlement.2. 14. 16.0 MN applied (representing an overall factor of safety of about 3). However.
the maximum load equals the applied load: that is. It is not until relatively large ground settlements occur that the loads in the group and single piles become similar. When the applied live load is approximately equal to the dead load. Maximum load against ground settlement for various piles in group 26 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. It can be seen that (a) the pile head settlements increase (but at a diminishing rate) with increasing soil surface settlement. However. For this last criterion. The rate of increase for both the group piles is. 19. structural capacity of the pile itself. To examine the general nature of group effects. Pile group example Fig. it has been shown that settlements can be limited by having the length of pile in the stable (non-settling) zone such that there is a factor of safety of about 1. 17. A ground surface settlement of 200 mm is then imposed on the piles. Group effects It is becoming recognised that group effects may be beneﬁcial in relation to the effects of negative skin friction.25 Wed. Pile settlement against ground surface settlement for various piles in group 6.135. signiﬁcantly lower than for a single isolated pile.177. If this condition is satisﬁed. especially for relatively small magnitudes of ground movement.corresponding relationship for pile head settlement. Each pile is assumed to have a length of 25 m and to be subjected to a load of 1. the drag force due to the ground settlement is reduced such that the maximum load is now at the pile head. as shown in Fig. 14 It can therefore be concluded that group effects may be beneﬁcial in terms of the induced loads in the piles. the amount of live load that would need to be added to relieve the negative friction effects is far greater than would normally be allowed. This characteristic is consistent with that found by Kuwabara and Poulos. at normal working loads the pile head settlement is still increased because of group effects. however. the program PIES has been used to analyse a group of nine piles. and also for a single isolated pile. and is less for the centre pile than for the corner pile. thus giving an overall factor of safety of about 2 against geotechnical failure. Thus it may be concluded that negative friction effects are unlikely to be completely removed when normal magnitudes of live load are applied. Figure 18 shows the computed pile head settlement as a function of the ground surface settlement. 30 Applied load ϭ 1·5 MN Pile head settlement: mm 25 20 15 10 5 0 Corner pile – group Centre pile – group Single pile 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Ground surface settlement: mm 180 200 Fig. then the settlement 1·25 2·5 Applied load ϭ 1·5 MN PA PA PA S0 Maximum pile load: MN 2·0 1·5 1·0 0·5 0 Corner pile – group Centre pile – group Single pile 20 Settling zone (soft clay) PA ϭ 1·5 MN/pile 0 5 Stable zone (stiff clay) Ground settlement profile 50 100 150 Ground surface settlement: mm 200 Fig. 1·25 7. 2. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos . with the ground proﬁle being that of the end bearing case shown in Fig. it would appear that. From a practical viewpoint.com to: IP: 115.25 in that zone against the combined effects of applied load and drag load due to negative skin friction. 18. The maximum load increases with increasing ground settlement.5 MN. decreasing from a maximum at the surface to zero at 20 m depth. The pile head settlement also becomes similar to the settlement that would have occurred if the ground settlement had not been imposed.3. at least in the example considered. and settlement control. CONCLUSIONS This paper has demonstrated that designing piles to account for negative skin friction requires three criteria to be satisﬁed: overall geotechnical capacity. (b) the centre pile settles more than the corner pile (c) both piles in the group settle considerably more than a single isolated pile. The induced pile loads and settlement are examined for the corner and centre piles of the group. These ﬁgures show that the maximum load in the pile and the pile head settlement continue to increase with increasing live load. 17. 1·25 1·25 Figure 19 shows the computed relationship between the maximum load in each pile and the ground surface settlement.
and BAREKA S. Homebush. USA. 1980. BOWLES J. and WONG K.177. Seminar sponsored by ASCE Metropolitan Group. Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary. The inﬂuence of other factors on induced drag loads and drag settlements is also examined. pp. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA. 5. 1995. 214–234. COMODROMOS E. Foundation Analysis and Design. A simple approach can then give an adequate estimation of the pile head settlement. Group effects are generally beneﬁcial and lead to a signiﬁcantly lower rate of development of drag force and drag settlement with increasing soil settlement than is the case for an isolated pile. April 22–23. 32.reaches a limiting value and does not continue to increase if the ground continues to settle. and Poulos. Analyses of deformation of vertically loaded piles. POULOS H. 1978. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. 2006. 28. Ge 11. Australia. The application of live load to a pile does not reduce the total load in the pile. (eds)). Wong of Coffey Geotechnics. 1988.org. FELLENIUS B. KUWABARA H. 104. Please visit www. Analysis of downdrag on pile ´ otechnique. No. Standards Australia. 9. 45. groups. 1998. 1465– 1488. 13. with adequate illustrations and references. Y. It is found that the presence of residual stresses in a pile tends to reduce the drag settlement considerably. G. downdrag. GT12. FELLENIUS B. 115. especially if the pile has a relatively large end bearing capacity and stiffness. No. ASCE. Computers and Geotechnics. ASCE. 216–229. TOMLINSON M. 10. 4. No. 806–818. POULOS H. V. Harlow.uk Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals. No. Piling—Design and Installation. but rather reduces the relative contribution that the drag load makes to the overall maximum pile load. 7th edn. and WROTH C. What do you think? To comment on this paper. 1997. 3. VA. 113. Piles subjected to negative friction: a procedure for design. 2. 23–44. C. No. G. Downdrag forces in group of piles. 1989. LEE C. 4. POULOS H. 6. please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice. 3. Evaluation of negative skin friction effects in pile foundations using 3D nonlinear analysis. H. 4th edn. Pearson Education. 191–207. 1. 2005.thomastelford. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1993. H. POULOS H.135. H. ASCE. AS 2159. 1995. and DAVIS E. Foundation Design and Construction.com/journals for author guidelines and further details. and TOWNSEND F. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 409–430. G. New York. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. This suggests that preloading a pile may have a beneﬁcial effect in reducing drag settlements. G. No. American Society of Civil Engineers. I. F. and settlement. Geotechnical Special Publication 129. RANDOLPH M. G. 210–221. Geotechnical Engineering. In Advances in Design and Testing Deep Foundations (VIPULANANDAN C. Results from long-term measurements in piles of drag loads and downdrag. REFERENCES 1. 2. 8. Recent advances in the design of piles for axial loads. McGraw-Hill. P. 10. 1987. 119. 43. 17 Mar 2010 03:57:32 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 27 . 14. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable comments of Patrick K. 2005. M. dragloads. G. S. TEH C.com to: IP: 115. 6. New York. ASCE. 4. Reston. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. No. John Wiley.25 Wed. 2001. Pile groups under negative friction. J. 7. 1587– 1600. academics and students. 12. No. H. New York. Piled raft and compensated piled raft foundations for soft soil sites. Analysis of residual stress effects in piles. In Urban Geotechnology and Rehabilitation.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.