Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 161
February 2008 Issue GE1
Pages 19–27
doi: 10.1680/geng.2008.161.1.19

Paper 14675
Received 01/03/2006
Accepted 29/05/2007
Harry G. Poulos
Keywords: foundations/ Senior Principal, Coffey
geotechnical engineering/piles & Geotechnics Pty Ltd, Lane
piling Cove West, Australia

A practical design approach for piles with negative friction

H. G. Poulos, BE, DSc(Eng), FIEAust

Misconceptions remain in the minds of some pile Sw settlement at serviceability or working load
designers when negative friction effects have to be taken Sall allowable settlement
into account. This paper outlines some of these zN depth to neutral plane
misconceptions, and then describes a relatively ˜Sw differential settlement at serviceability or working load
straightforward approach for designing piles subjected to ˜Sall allowable differential settlement
negative friction. This approach relies on the äl length increment along pile
consideration of the portion of the pile that is located in ög geotechnical reduction factor
the ‘stable’ zone—that is, that part of the ground profile ös structural reduction factor
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 1. INTRODUCTION
geotechnical capacity, structural capacity and pile head It has long been recognised that piles located within a settling
settlement can be satisfied. The case where the ground soil profile will be subjected to negative skin friction. Despite
settlements extend to a large depth is also described the widespread recognition of the phenomenon of negative
briefly, and it is shown that it may then be prudent to skin friction, there remains a misconception that this
design the piles to settle with the ground, rather than phenomenon will reduce the ultimate geotechnical axial load
attempt to restrain them from settlement. Some other capacity of a pile (termed here the geotechnical capacity). As
issues that can affect the response of piles to ground pointed out by Fellenius1 and Poulos,2 among many others,
settlements are examined, including the presence of this concept is not valid. Because geotechnical failure of a pile
residual stresses in the pile, live load application and requires that the pile moves (or ‘plunges’) past the soil,
group effects. It is demonstrated that preloading a pile negative skin friction cannot be present when this happens,
has the potential to reduce the axial force induced in the and so the geotechnical capacity will not be reduced by
pile by the ground settlements. negative skin friction unless there is strain-softening at the
pile/soil interface. This is unlikely to occur in soft clays, for
NOTATION which the problem of negative skin friction is most prevalent.
C circumference of pile
cu undrained shear strength of clay The key issues related to negative skin friction are as follows.
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 (a) It will induce additional axial forces in the pile. Fellenius 1,3
fn negative skin friction has suggested the terminology ‘drag force’ for this induced
fs ultimate skin friction at pile–soil interface force, and this terminology will be adopted in this paper.
FS factor of safety against failure (b) It will cause additional settlement of the pile, which
FS2 factor of safety of portion of pile in stable zone Fellenius1,3 has termed ‘downdrag’. However, to avoid
PA applied axial force on pile confusion with other connotations of the term ‘downdrag’,
Pmax maximum axial force in pile the term ‘drag settlement’ will be used herein to refer to
PNmax maximum downdrag force in pile this additional settlement induced by negative skin friction.
Pw working load
Rug ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile
Rug2 ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile in stable zone This paper will examine the design requirements for piles
below depth of soil settlement subjected to negative skin friction, and will present a relatively
Rus ultimate structural capacity of pile simple design approach that can address these requirements. It
S
factored loads applied to pile will then examine some other issues that can influence the
S
max maximum factored axial force in pile magnitudes of drag force and drag settlement: the presence of
S0 settlement of ground surface residual stresses in the pile, the influence of live load, and
SR settlement of pile as proportion of ground settlement group effects.

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 19
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
 2. 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.
(a) They must have adequate geotechnical capacity to support
the imposed loadings.
(b) They must have adequate structural strength to withstand
the applied axial force and the axial force induced by the
ground settlements.
(c) The settlements and differential settlements must be within
tolerable limits for the structure.
Conventional design methods have addressed the first two
criteria in terms of an overall factor of safety, whereas some
more modern approaches employ load and resistance factored
design (LRFD). Both of these approaches will be discussed
below.
3. A PRACTICAL DESIGN APPROACH
The general problem is illustrated in Fig. 1, where a pile is
situated within a soil layer or layers that are settling, and
below which there are one or more layers that are not settling.
The upper layer will be termed the ‘settling layer’ and the
underlying layer(s) will be termed the ‘stable layer’. For
simplicity, only a single settling layer and a single stable layer
are shown in Fig. 1. The pile is loaded by an axial force PA ,
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.
3.1. Design for geotechnical capacity
Because the presence of negative skin friction does not
generally reduce the geotechnical capacity of a pile, the design
requirement for geotechnical capacity may be expressed as
follows.
(a) In terms of overall factor of safety:
PA
S0
Settling
hs zone
Profile of ground
d settlement against depth
Stable
Lc
zone
Fig. 1. Basic case of pile subjected to negative friction
20 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
1 Rug ¼ FS:Pw
where Rug is the ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile
(making no allowance for negative friction); FS is the
overall factor of safety; and Pw is the working load applied
to the pile. Typically, design values of FS range between 2
and 3.
(b) In terms of LRFD:
2 ög :Rug > S

where ög is the geotechnical reduction factor; Rug is the
ultimate geotechnical capacity of the pile (making no
allowance for negative friction); and S
is a factored-up
combination of loads for the ultimate limit state.
Typically, ög values range between about 0.4 and 0.9,
depending on a number of factors including the level of pile
testing (e.g. Australian Standard AS 2159-1995 4 ).
3.2. Design for structural capacity
(a) In terms of overall factor of safety:
3 Rus ¼ FSs ð Pmax Þ
where Rus is the ultimate structural strength; FSs is the
factor of safety for structural strength; and Pmax is the
maximum axial force in pile, including the working load
and the drag force.
(b) In terms of LRFD:
4

ös :Rus > Smax

is the
where ös is a structural reduction factor, and Smax
maximum factored axial force in the pile, including the
drag force.

, it is usual to consider various
In computing Pmax or Smax
combinations of the applied dead, live, wind and earthquake
loads to the maximum drag force PNmax . Typical load factors
would be 1.25 to 1.3 for dead load, 1.5 for live load, 1.0 for
wind loading and earthquake loading, and 1.2 for the drag
force. Most codes will have specific combinations of these
loads and forces that have to be considered.
The value of PNmax can be computed as the drag force at the
neutral plane, which is the depth (zN ) at which the friction
changes from negative to positive, and which is also the depth
at which the soil settlement and the pile settlement are equal.
Conservatively, this depth can often be taken as the depth of
soil movement, that is, at the base of the settling soil layer(s).
Alternatively, a more detailed estimation of zN can be made,
using (for example) the approach described by Poulos.2
PNmax can be estimated on the assumption that full
mobilisation of negative skin friction above the neutral plane
has occurred, so that
Poulos
 4. AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERION FOR
XN
z¼z
5 PNmax ¼ ð f N :C:älÞ CONTROLLING SETTLEMENT
z¼0 To avoid having the pile settle continually as the ground
settles, it is proposed that the portion of the pile located below
where fN is the negative skin friction (usually taken to be equal the depth of ground movement should be designed to have an
to the positive skin friction); C is the pile circumference; and äl adequate margin of safety against the combined effects of the
is the length increment along the pile. applied loads and the maximum drag force. It can be shown
that, under these circumstances, the depth of the neutral plane
3.3. Pile head settlement then lies below the depth of soil movement. This criterion may
The design requirements for settlement are as follows: be expressed as follows.

Sw < Sall (a) In terms of factor of safety:

6

9a Rug2 > FS2 ð Pw þ PNmax Þ

7 ˜Sw < ˜Sall
where Sw is the settlement at the working or serviceability
load; Sall is the allowable or tolerable settlement for the
supported structure; ˜Sw is the differential settlement at the
working or serviceability load; and ˜Sall is the allowable or
tolerable differential settlement for the structure. Values of Sall
and ˜Sall depend on the type of structure and on the general
ground conditions. Typical values are suggested by Bowles 5
and Tomlinson. 6
There are at least two means of estimating the values of Sw and
˜Sw :
(a) via a soil–pile interaction analysis, for example via finite
element analysis7,8 or boundary element analyses 7,9,10
(b) via an approximate analysis such as that set out by
Poulos.2
It has been demonstrated by Poulos 2 that, if the neutral plane
lies at or below the depth of ground settlement, the pile
settlement will reach a limiting value and will then not
continue to settle as the ground continues to settle. In this case,
the settlement Sw of the pile head at the working or
serviceability load can be estimated as follows.
8 Sw ¼ S1 þ S2 þ S3
where Rug2 is the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the pile
in the stable zone below the depth of soil settlement; and
FS2 is the factor of safety for the portion of the pile in the
stable zone.
(b) In terms of LRFD:


ög2 :Rug2 > Smax
9b
where ög2 is the geotechnical reduction factor for the
stable zone, and S2max is as defined above in equation (4).
The above approach will be evaluated below, where the issue of
selection of a suitable value of FS2 or ög2 will also be
considered.
4.1. Evaluation of proposed alternative design criterion
In order to evaluate the proposed alternative design criterion,
two hypothetical but typical problems have been analysed, as
shown in Fig. 2. 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, underlain by a stiff clay layer. This will
be denoted as an ‘end-bearing’ pile. The second case involves
an identical settling layer as for the end-bearing pile, but the
underlying layer is a medium clay layer with considerably
smaller strength and stiffness than in the first case. This will be

PA PA
where S1 is the elastic compression of the portion of the pile S0

shaft in the settling zone, due to the applied load on the pile
head, Pw ; S2 is the elastic compression of the portion of the pile
Settling Settling
shaft in the settling zone, due to the induced drag forces; and soft clay soft clay
S3 is the settlement of the portion of the pile in the stable zone. cu ⫽ 22 kPa 20 20
S1 and S2 can be computed from simple column compression fs ⫽ 22 kPa
Es ⫽ 2 MPa d ⫽ 0·5 d ⫽ 0·5
theory, taking account of the fact that, for S2 , the axial drag
forces increase with depth in the settling zone. S3 can be
‘Stable’ ‘Stable’
computed adequately from elastic theory for the length of the stiff clay stiff clay
Lc
pile embedded in the stable zone and subjected to an applied cu ⫽ 500 kPa cu ⫽ 80 kPa Lc
fs ⫽ 200 kPa fs ⫽ 60 kPa
load equal to the applied pile head load ( Pw ) plus the fb ⫽ 4·5 MPa fb ⫽ 0·72 MPa
maximum drag force in the pile, PNmax . Esb ⫽ 100 MPa Esb ⫽ 30 MPa

(a) (b)
In many cases, designing the pile so that it does not continue
to settle with increasing ground settlement is a desirable
Fig. 2. Cases analysed for design study: (a) end-bearing pile;
condition, and leads to an alternative design criterion that is (b) floating pile
described in more detail below.

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 21
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
 denoted as the ‘floating pile’ case. For simplicity, the results
will be described in terms of the conventional factor of safety
concept.
Figure 3 shows the computed overall factor of safety FS as a
function of the length of pile in the stable zone, Lc . FS is
defined here as the ratio of the sum of the pile resistances in
the settling zone and the stable zone, divided by the applied
load. It is recognised that some foundation designers are
hesitant to include the first component of pile resistance, as it
initially acts as a downdrag force, and becomes a resistance
only when the pile moves sufficiently to settle more than the
surrounding soil. Nevertheless, it is, in principle, an available
component of resistance at the ultimate limit state. As would
be expected, FS increases with increasing Lc and decreasing
applied load PA . The corresponding relationships for the
floating pile are shown in Fig. 4. From these figures, the
required value of Lc for a specified factor of safety can be
obtained, and these values are shown in Table 1 for a design
FS of 2.5. Clearly, a larger value of Lc is required as PA
increases. 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. For example, for the end-
bearing pile with a working load of 1.5 MN applied at the pile
head, Fig. 3 reveals that, for a factor of safety of 2.25, the
necessary value of Lc is about 6 m.
Figures 5 and 6 show the computed factor of safety FS2 in the
stable zone, again as a function of Lc and PA . The maximum
drag force PNmax has been computed to be at the base of the
settling layer, and has a magnitude of 0.691 MN. As with the
overall factor of safety, FS2 increases with increasing Lc or
decreasing PA .
The computer program PIES, developed at the University of

7
PA ⫽ 1·0 MN
6 3·5

Factor of safety in stable zone

PA ⫽ 1·5 MN
Overall factor of safety

3·0
5
PA ⫽ 2·0 MN 2·5
4
2·0
3
1·5
2
1·0 PA ⫽ 1·0 MN
1 PA ⫽ 1·5 MN
0·5 PA ⫽ 2·0 MN
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Length of pile in stable zone, Lc: m Length of pile in stable zone, Lc: m

Fig. 3. Overall factor of safety against pile length in stable Fig. 5. Factor of safety in stable zone against pile length in
zone: end-bearing pile stable zone: end-bearing pile

9
PA ⫽ 0·4 MN
8 2·5
Factor of safety in stable zone

PA ⫽ 0·8 MN PA ⫽ 0·4 MN
Overall factor of safety

7
2·0 PA ⫽ 0·8 MN
6 PA ⫽ 1·2 MN PA ⫽ 1·2 MN
5 1·5
4
3 1·0

2
0·5
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Length of pile in stable zone, Lc: m Length of pile in stable zone, Lc: m

Fig. 4. Overall factor of safety against pile length in stable Fig. 6. Factor of safety in stable zone against pile length in
zone: floating pile stable zone: floating pile

Case Length in stable Total pile Applied load, Pile head settlement: mm
zone, Lc :* m length: m PA : MN
PIES program Simple method

End bearing 6 26 1.5 12.5 12.0

Floating 18 38 0.8 9.9 10.4

* For overall factor of safety of 2.25.

Table 1. Comparison of computed settlements

22 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
Sydney, has been used to analyse both these problems. PIES
End bearing pile
uses a simplified boundary element approach to analyse the 1·0 Floating pile
settlement and load distribution within a single pile or a 0·9 Regression line

Pile settlement/ground
0·8
symmetrical pile group, subjected to axial loading and to

settlement, SR
0·7 SR ⫽ 0·097(FSs)^(⫺1·36)
externally imposed ground settlements. Mindlin’s equations for 0·6
an elastic continuum are used as the basis for computing the 0·5
soil movements due to pile loading, but non-linearity is 0·4
0·3
allowed for by incorporating a hyperbolic relationship between
0·2
soil/pile interface stiffness and applied stress level, and by 0·1
specifying limiting skin friction and end bearing values. 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5
Factor of safety in stable zone, FSs
For each of the cases shown in Fig. 2, PIES has been used to
compute the influence of the factor of safety of the portion of Fig. 9. Dimensionless drag settlement against factor of safety
the pile in the stable zone (and hence the length of pile Lc in the in stable zone
stable zone) on the drag settlement of the pile induced by the
ground settlements, and on the maximum load in the pile. The
analysis results are shown in Figs 7 and 8, and reveal that if FS2 indicated in Fig. 8, beyond about FS2 ¼ 1.25 there is little
¼ 1.0, the pile continues to settle as the soil settlement increases, further reduction in the relative drag settlement.
but for FS2 ¼ 1.25 or greater the pile settlement appears to reach
a limiting value, regardless of the soil settlement, while the drag For the end-bearing pile, subjected to an applied load of
force induced in the pile is also reduced. 1.5 MN, referring to Fig. 5, a value of FS2 of 1.25 requires a
value of Lc of about 6 m, which (by coincidence) is the same as
Figure 9 shows Fig. 8 re-plotted in dimensionless form in terms the value required for the overall factor of safety criterion with
of the ratio of the drag settlement SD to the ground surface FS ¼ 2.25. This implies that the overall capacity criterion and
settlement S0 , against FS2 for both the floating and end the settlement control criterion govern this design equally.
bearing cases, and it can be seen that SD /S0 decreases with
increasing FS2 : that is, the relative drag settlement reduces as For the floating pile, subjected to a load of 0.8 MN, Fig. 6
the factor of safety in the stable zone, FS2 , increases. A single shows that a value of FS2 of 1.25 requires a length in the stable
regression line can be drawn through the points, and, as zone, Lc , of about 18 m. From Fig. 4, this value of Lc
corresponds to an overall factor of safety of about 3.1. Thus, in
this case, it is the settlement control criterion that governs
60 design, since an overall factor of safety of 2.25 would require a
FS2 ⫽ 1·0
value of Lc of only about 11 m.
50 FS2 ⫽ 1·25
Pile head settlement: mm

FS2 ⫽ 1·5 Table 1 compares the total pile head settlements (due to both
40
FS2 ⫽ 2·0 applied load and negative friction) computed from the PIES
30 program with the simple approach set out above in equation (8),
involving the summation of the three components S1 , S2 and S3 .
20
In this case S3 has been computed from the Randolph and
10
Wroth 11 equations. It can be seen from Table 1 that the
settlements from the simple approach agree well with those
0 from the PIES program. The latter program also confirms that
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
the settlement reaches a limiting value and does not continue to
Ground surface settlement: mm
increase with increasing ground settlements beyond a ground
Fig. 7. Evolution of pile settlement: End-bearing pile surface settlement of about 150 mm. The pile head settlements
shown in Table 1 would normally be expected to be tolerable for
most structures, even when group effects are allowed for.

14
From the limited study described herein it would appear that,
12 from a practical design viewpoint, the use of a factor of safety
Pile head settlement: mm

10 in the stable zone, FS2 , of 1.25 should be adequate to avoid

having the piles settle continuously as the ground settlement
8
increases. More generally, this ‘target’ factor of safety in the
6 FS2 ⫽ 1·0 stable zone may vary, depending on the ratio of the shaft and
4 FS2 ⫽ 1·25 base resistances in the stable zone. From a design viewpoint, if
FS2 ⫽ 1·5 one or other component provides the predominant proportion
2
FS2 ⫽ 2·0 of the resistance, a somewhat larger factor of safety may be
0 desirable to compensate for the reduced ‘redundancy’ that is
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
present when both components contribute almost equally to
Ground surface settlement: mm
the resistance in the stable zone.
Fig. 8. Evolution of pile settlement: floating pile
Because of the number of different load cases that need to be

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 23
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
 considered in LRFD design, it is less easy to develop a design PA
criterion for the geotechnical factor ög2 for the stable zone.
S0
However, if an average load factor of 1.25 is assumed, then a
value of FS2 of 1.25 translates to a value of ög2 of 1.0 (note
that a larger and more realistic average load factor would lead
to an even larger implied value of ög2 ). In other words, in
LRFD design, the design criterion (equation 9(b)) requires that
Soft clay
the unfactored capacity of the portion of the pile in the stable
cu ⫽ 22 kPa
zone should equal or exceed the factored load combinations, 20
fs ⫽ 22 kPa
including the drag load.
Es ⫽ 2 MPa
d ⫽ 0·5
5. CASES WHERE SOIL SETTLEMENTS OCCUR TO
CONSIDERABLE DEPTH
In most foundation designs emphasis is placed on minimising
settlements, and this often means supporting the structure on Weak rock
Soil movement
end-bearing piles that are founded on rock or on a stiff stratum. fb ⫽ 8 MPa
profile
However, there may be cases in which such a strategy is not Esb ⫽ 500 MPa
feasible or is impractical—for example, where there is a deep
layer of soft clay, most of which is subjected to ground Fig. 10. End-bearing pile analysed for residual stress effects
settlements. Such situations are common in certain urban areas
(e.g. Bangkok, Mexico City, Houston) because of the pumping of
groundwater for water supply. In such cases it is almost futile to
2·5
attempt to stop the pile settling as the ground continues to
settle. Instead, it seems preferable to accept that continuing
2·0
settlement of the foundation is inevitable, and then to attempt to
Pile load: MN

have the foundation settle the same amount as the ground. In 1·5
this way, excessive differential settlements between the
structure and the surrounding ground are avoided. In such 1·0
cases, a proper pile–soil interaction analysis should be carried
With residual stresses and soil movements
out to identify the length of piles for which the difference 0·5 With residual stresses and no soil movements
No residual stresses, no soil movements
between the pile head settlement and the ground surface No residual stresses, with soil movements
settlement is an acceptable value. Poulos 12 describes the 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
application of this design philosophy to piled raft foundations. Pile settlement: mm

6. OTHER FACTORS
6.1. Effects of residual stresses
Analyses of piles subjected to negative skin friction almost
invariably assume that the pile is initially stress-free, but this is
generally not a realistic assumption, especially for driven or
jacked-in-place piles. To examine the possible effects of
residual stresses on pile drag loads and drag settlements, the
case shown in Fig. 10 has been analysed using the program
PIES. This case represents a primarily end-bearing pile, and the
following simulation stages have been applied.
(a) The pile has been loaded to failure and then unloaded,
simulating installation by driving or jacking. 13 This stage
induces a residual stress distribution in the pile.
(b) A working load of 0.9 MN has been applied to the pile.
Fig. 11. Load–settlement curves for end-bearing pile, with and
without residual stresses
settlement compared with the initially stress-free pile. Fig. 12
shows the evolution of pile head settlement with increasing
ground surface settlement, and again highlights the difference
in behaviour between the piles with and without residual stress.
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. In contrast, the initially stress-free
pile continues to undergo increasing settlement with increasing
35
30
Pile head settlement: mm

(c) A ground settlement profile has been applied to the pile, 25

with the maximum ground surface settlement being 20
500 mm and decreasing with depth to zero at a depth of With residual stresses
15
20 m. No residual stresses
(d ) The pile has then been loaded to failure. 10

5
An analysis has also been carried out where the first step is 0
omitted, thus representing a pile with zero initial residual stress. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Soil surface settlement: mm

Figure 11 shows the load–settlement curves for the end-

Fig. 12. Development of pile settlement with soil settlement;
bearing pile with and without residual stresses. It can be seen applied load ¼ 0.9 MN
that the pile with residual stresses undergoes greatly reduced

24 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
ground surface settlement, even at a ground surface settlement
of 500 mm, although there is no further change in the
downdrag load or the stress acting on the pile toe.
Figure 13 shows the computed relationship between maximum
load in the pile and the ground surface settlement. The initially
stress-free pile experiences a slightly reduced maximum load
compared with the pile with initial residual stresses, but the
difference is relatively minor.
The computed pile base pressures at various stages are shown
in Fig. 14. 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. As a consequence, the tip
penetration is less, and this is reflected in a smaller pile head
settlement.
(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, where the initial residual stresses may be less.
(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.
6.2. 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. To examine the validity of this
concept, the example of the end-bearing pile shown in Fig. 2
has been examined using the program PIES. The pile, of total
length 25 m (and thus with a 5 m embedment into the stable
zone), has been subjected to the following history.

Similar analyses have been carried out for a predominantly

(a) Dead load of 1.0 MN applied (representing an overall factor
floating pile, and trends similar to those for the end-bearing
of safety of about 3).
pile are noted, However, because the initial residual stresses in
(b) Application of ground settlement linearly decreasing from
a floating pile are less (because of the smaller end bearing
100 mm at the ground surface to zero at 20 m depth.
stiffness and capacity), the relative reduction in settlement of
(c) Application of additional (live) loads of increasing
the pile with residual stresses is less than for the end-bearing
magnitude.
pile. Nevertheless, 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. This in turn Figure 15 shows the computed relationship between maximum
suggests the following. pile load and the additional live load, and Fig. 16 shows the

3·5
1·8
3·0
Maximum load in pile/dead load

1·6
Maximum load in pile: MN

1·4
2·5
1·2
1·0 2·0
0·8
0·6 1·5
With residual stresses
0·4 No residual stresses 1·0
0·2
0·5 With 100 mm ground settlement
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Soil surface settlement: mm No ground settlement
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
Fig. 13. Development of maximum pile load with soil Live load/dead load
settlement. Applied load ¼ 0.9 MN
Fig. 15. Effect of live load on maximum pile load

9
No residual stresses 90
8 With 100 mm ground
80 settlement
7 With residual stresses
No ground settlement
Base stress: MPa

Pile head settlement: mm

6 70

5 60
4 50
3 40
2
30
1
20
0
Initial 900 kN 500 mm Failure 10
soil movement
Stage 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Live load/dead load
Fig. 14. Effect of residual stresses on pile base stress at
various stages Fig. 16. Effect of live load on pile head settlement

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 25
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
 corresponding relationship for pile head settlement. These 30
figures show that the maximum load in the pile and the pile Applied load ⫽ 1·5 MN
head settlement continue to increase with increasing live load. 25

Pile head settlement: mm

When the applied live load is approximately equal to the dead
20
load, the maximum load equals the applied load: that is, the
drag force due to the ground settlement is reduced such that 15
the maximum load is now at the pile head. The pile head
settlement also becomes similar to the settlement that would 10
Corner pile – group
have occurred if the ground settlement had not been imposed. Centre pile – group
5
From a practical viewpoint, it would appear that, at least in the
Single pile
example considered, the amount of live load that would need 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
to be added to relieve the negative friction effects is far greater Ground surface settlement: mm
than would normally be allowed. Thus it may be concluded
that negative friction effects are unlikely to be completely Fig. 18. Pile settlement against ground surface settlement for
removed when normal magnitudes of live load are applied. various piles in group

6.3. Group effects
It is becoming recognised that group effects may be beneficial
in relation to the effects of negative skin friction. To examine
the general nature of group effects, the program PIES has been
used to analyse a group of nine piles, as shown in Fig. 17, with
the ground profile being that of the end bearing case shown in
Fig. 2. Each pile is assumed to have a length of 25 m and to be
subjected to a load of 1.5 MN, thus giving an overall factor of
safety of about 2 against geotechnical failure. A ground surface
settlement of 200 mm is then imposed on the piles, decreasing
from a maximum at the surface to zero at 20 m depth. The
induced pile loads and settlement are examined for the corner
and centre piles of the group, and also for a single isolated pile.
Figure 18 shows the computed pile head settlement as a
function of the ground surface settlement. It can be seen that
Figure 19 shows the computed relationship between the
maximum load in each pile and the ground surface settlement.
The maximum load increases with increasing ground
settlement, and is less for the centre pile than for the corner
pile. The rate of increase for both the group piles is, however,
significantly lower than for a single isolated pile. It is not until
relatively large ground settlements occur that the loads in the
group and single piles become similar. This characteristic is
consistent with that found by Kuwabara and Poulos. 14
It can therefore be concluded that group effects may be
beneficial in terms of the induced loads in the piles, especially
for relatively small magnitudes of ground movement. However,
at normal working loads the pile head settlement is still
increased because of group effects.

7. CONCLUSIONS
(a) the pile head settlements increase (but at a diminishing
This paper has demonstrated that designing piles to account for
rate) with increasing soil surface settlement;
negative skin friction requires three criteria to be satisfied:
(b) the centre pile settles more than the corner pile
overall geotechnical capacity, structural capacity of the pile
(c) both piles in the group settle considerably more than a
itself, and settlement control. For this last criterion, it has been
single isolated pile.
shown that settlements can be limited by having the length of
pile in the stable (non-settling) zone such that there is a factor
1·25 1·25
of safety of about 1.25 in that zone against the combined
effects of applied load and drag load due to negative skin
friction. If this condition is satisfied, then the settlement
1·25

1·25
2·5 Applied load ⫽ 1·5 MN

2·0
Maximum pile load: MN

PA PA PA
S0
1·5

1·0 Corner pile – group

Settling zone Centre pile – group
20
(soft clay) PA ⫽ 1·5 MN/pile 0·5 Single pile

0
0 50 100 150 200
Stable zone Ground settlement Ground surface settlement: mm
5
(stiff clay) profile

Fig. 19. Maximum load against ground settlement for various

Fig. 17. Pile group example piles in group

26 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41
reaches a limiting value and does not continue to increase if
the ground continues to settle. A simple approach can then
give an adequate estimation of the pile head settlement.
The influence of other factors on induced drag loads and drag
settlements is also examined. It is found that the presence of
residual stresses in a pile tends to reduce the drag settlement
considerably, especially if the pile has a relatively large end
bearing capacity and stiffness. This suggests that preloading a
pile may have a beneficial effect in reducing drag settlements.
The application of live load to a pile does not reduce the total
load in the pile, but rather reduces the relative contribution
that the drag load makes to the overall maximum pile load.
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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable comments of
Patrick K. Wong of Coffey Geotechnics.
REFERENCES
1. FELLENIUS B. H. Recent advances in the design of piles for
axial loads, dragloads, downdrag, and settlement. In Urban
Geotechnology and Rehabilitation, Seminar sponsored by
ASCE Metropolitan Group, New York, April 22–23, 1998.
2. POULOS H. G. Piles subjected to negative friction: a
procedure for design. Geotechnical Engineering, 1997, 28,
No. 1, 23–44.
3. FELLENIUS B. H. Results from long-term measurements in
piles of drag loads and downdrag. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 2006, 43, No. 4, 409–430.
4. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA. Piling—Design and Installation.
Standards Australia, Homebush, Australia, 1995, AS 2159.
5. BOWLES J. Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
6. TOMLINSON M. J. Foundation Design and Construction, 7th
edn. Pearson Education, Harlow, 2001.
7. LEE C. Y. Pile groups under negative friction. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1993, 119, No. 10, 1587–
1600.
8. COMODROMOS E. M. and BAREKA S. V. Evaluation of
negative skin friction effects in pile foundations using 3D
nonlinear analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 2005, 32,
No. 4, 210–221.
9. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley, New York, 1980.
10. TEH C. I. and WONG K. S. Analysis of downdrag on pile
groups. Géotechnique, 1995, 45, No. 2, 191–207.
11. RANDOLPH M. F. and WROTH C. P. Analyses of deformation
of vertically loaded piles. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 1978, 104, No. GT12, 1465–
1488.
12. POULOS H. G. Piled raft and compensated piled raft
foundations for soft soil sites. In Advances in Design and
Testing Deep Foundations (VIPULANANDAN C. and TOWNSEND
F. C. (eds)). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, USA, 2005, Geotechnical Special Publication 129, pp.
214–234.
13. POULOS H. G. Analysis of residual stress effects in piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1987, 113, No.
3, 216–229.
14. KUWABARA H. G. and Poulos, H. G. Downdrag forces in
group of piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
1989, 115, No. 6, 806–818.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE1 A practical design approach for piles with negative friction Poulos 27
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 210.87.21.6
On: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:50:41