OTC 4883
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
Shaft Capacity of Driven Piles in Clay
by M.F. Randolph, Cambridge V., and B.S. Murphy, Amoco Production Co.
Copyright 1985 Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 17th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 6-9,1985. The material is sUbject to correction by the author. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
ABSTRACT
A large database, consisting of details of over
a thousand axial load tests on piles, has recentLy
been assembled under the auspices of the American
PetroLeum Institute (API). The database has been
used as a basis to formulate and assess a new method
for calculating the shaft capacity of piles driven
into clay. The method draws together existing totaL
and effective stress approaches for calculating pile
capacity, in a manner which reduces the sensitivity
of the calculation to the measured shear strength of
the soiL.
1. INTRODUCTION
The scaLe of offshore piling operations,
together with differences in soil types encountered
offshore and onshore, entaiL that pile capacity cal-
culations for offshore structures lie outside most
onshore experience. This has prompted considerable
research effort towards developing soundly based,
theoretical approaches to calculating pile capacity,
rather than reLying solely on empirical methods.
The work of Chandler (1968) and Burland (1973)
emphasized that the limiting skin friction that
couLd be mobilized at the pile shaft should be
related to the local effective stress state, rather
than to the original shear strength of the intact
soil. The resulting deveLopment of "effective
stress" methods of calculating pile capacity led to
attempts to follow the stress changes that occur in
the soil due to installation of the pile.
Much of this work was instigated by two cooper-
ative research programs administered by Amoco Pro-
duction Company, nameLy the ACAPP and ESACC
projects. A summary of the latter project may be
found in Kraft, et. al. (1980). The projects have
led to a variety of models (ESMI to ESM4) which are
weLL summarized by Kraft (1982). A review of
References and illustrations at end of paper.
371
advances made in understanding the processes
involved has been presented by Randolph and Wroth
(1982).
In parallel with the theoretical effective
stress models, back analysis of pile load test data
has led to the development of empirical methods,
reLating skin friction to the in situ effective
overburden stress, a', rather than to the shear
strength s as in thif" traditionaL "total stress"
approach. uOne of the more widely used of these is
that due to Meyerhof (1976), who suggested that the
skin friction t couLd be expressed as
s
(1)
where K is the cofficient of earth pressure at rest
(prior ~o pile installation), and $' is the angle of
internal friction for the soil.
The factor of 1.5 in the above expression
allows for the increase in horizontal effective
stress due to pile installation. Instrumented model
pile test conducted by Francescon (1983) lend sup-
port to the factor of 1.5, but indicate that $'
should be replaced by the angle of friction measured
in simple shear, which tends to be somewhat lower
than that deduced from triaxial compression tests
(Randolph and Wroth, L981).
Current API guidelines for calculating the
axial capacity of piles in cohesive soil are
expressed in totaL stress terms, relating the skin
friction to the undrained shear strength.
ts = CIs u (2)
The factor Cl is in turn reLated to the strength
of the soil, varying from unity for soft soil, down
 2 SHAFT CAPACITY OF DRIVEN PILES IN CLAY
to 0.5 for clay above a certain strength. No
attempt is made to take account of either the
ambient effective stress level, or of the overconso-
lidation ratio of the soil as suggested by Wroth
(1972) and by Semple (1980).
As a basis for updating the guidelines for cal-
culating pile capacity, API has recently sponsored a
project to establish a database of axial pile load
test records. The work has been undertaken by Olson
and his coworkers at the University of Texas at
Austin, and has led to the documentation of over
1000 pile tests (Olson and Dennis, 1982). All data
have been thoroughly examined and assessed as to
accuracy and ~he load tests now form a most useful
basis for reviewing potential new pile capacity
methods.
2. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
One of the main limitations of existing effec-
tive stress methods is the requirement of either
relatively sophisticated computations (such as the
ESM family) or an estimate of less tangible soil
properties such as K , or the overconsolidation
ratio (OCR) for the ~oil.
The requirements of any practical design
approach for estimating skin friction may be summa-
rized as follows:
1. The approach must be simple, and should
avoid the use of intricate computational
techniques.
2. The skin friction must be estimated from
soil properties that can be obtained
easily and reliably.
3. The approach should be based on sound
principles of soil mechanics, taking
account of advances made in understanding
the mechanisms involved, gained over the
last decade.
4. The resulting method must be consistent
with the database of pile load tests.
It is important to emphasize that" since off-
shore piles generally fall outside onshore experi-
ence, any pile capacity method must be capable of
extrapolation from the existing database of load
test results in order to be applicable to the off-
shore environment. Thus, the last requirement
above, although a necessary one, is not sufficient
to validate a particular method.
The normal effective stress acting on the shaft
of a pipe pile driven into clay will clearly be
influenced by the effective stress state in the
ground prior to pile installation. The only compo-
nent of the in situ effective stress state that may
be determined with any confidence is the vertical
effective stress a'. Equally, it seems likely that
the stress changesVthat occur during pile installa-
tion will be a function of the shear strength of the
soil (which will help determine how hard the pile is
to install). The value of skin friction that may be
372
OTC 4883
mobilized will also depend on the angle of friction
between pile and soil.
Forgetting the influence of pile geometry on
the limiting value of skin friction, the skin fric-
tion becomes
L f{a' (3)
s v
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
This expression may be nondimensionalized in a var-
iety of ways, for example to give
a = L s Is u f(s la', $')
u v
(4)
The value of skin friction could have been non-
dimensionalized to give ~ = L la' or even A =
t l{a'+2s). All these param~te~s may be related
t5 eagh o~her by means of the strength ratio s la'
(often referred to as the clp ratio). Thus u v
a{s la' (5)
u v
and
a[2 + (a'/s )]-1 (6)
v u
In this way, effective and total stress approaches
may be combined, provided the parameters ~, ~, or A
are seen to vary with the strength ratio. For con-
venience, in the discussion below, attention will be
focused on the parameter a.
As will be discussed below, the strength ratio
may be related both to the value of OCR for a given
soil, and also the value of K. However, a is a
more fundamental (and directl~ measurable) quantity
than either of the other two, and also reflects the
full stress history of the soil, including the
effects of any erosion and redeposition cycles that
may have occurred.
The expression for skin friction suggested by
Meyerhof (1976) {see equation (1» has been shown to
fit pile load test data reasonably well. The
expression may therefore form a useful basis for
estimating the likely variation of the parameter a
with the strength ratio. Mayne and Kulhawy (1982)
have synthesized a considerable body of data
relating the value of K to the overconsolidation
history of different so~l types. They show that the
value of K for monotonic unloading may be expressed
o
as
K (I - sin$') OCR sin$' (7)
o
Ladd, et. al. (1977) have related the strength
ratio of soil to the value of OCR by means of
OTC 4883 M. F. RANDOLPH AND BENTON S. MURPHY
s la'v (s /0') OCR m
u u v nc
where the subscript nc stands for the normally con-
solidated state; the exponent m is about 0.8,
although varies from about 0.85 at low values of OCR
down to 0.75 at high values of OCR.
These two expressions may be combined with
equation (1) to express a as
The exponent n is equal to (1 - sin$'/m). For $'
lying between 20 and 30° and m = 0.8, the value of n
will lie between 0.57 and 0.37. The value of n may
be expected to reduce at high values of OCR, (as m
reduces from 0.85 down to 0.75). It should be noted
that the correlations given by equations (8) and (9)
may not reflect effects of the-macro-structure of
the soil. In heavily overconsolidated soil, fis-
suring may lead to particularly low strengths and
the correlations should then be used with caution.
The function f($') embodies the effect of the
soil plasticity on the value of a for a given
strength ratio. Adopting the generally accepted
assumption that a should be unity for normally con-
solidated soil, the function may be taken as
[(s /0') ]n
£($')
u v nc
The strength ratio for normally consolidated
soil should be taken as that for remoulded soil,
since pile installation will locally remould the
soil. Using soil models such as the Cam clay
family, the strength ratio for normally consolidated
clay may be related to the angle of friction, ~'
(for example, Wroth (1984». To sufficient accu-
racy, these models give
(s /0') ~ $'/100
u v nc
where ~' is expressed in degrees.
3. EFFECT OF PILE LENGTH
The above discussion has been concerned with
peak values of skin friction mobilized at the pile
shaft, and no account has been taken of the effect
of the pile geometry on the overall performance of
the pile. However, there are a number of possible
reasons why there might be an effect of pile length
on the average skin friction mobilized at failure.
1. Long piles result in more steel being
driven past any particular soil horizon,
thus possibly leading to more degradation
of the soil than for short piles.
Long slender piles are more flexible,
(8) 2.
which will result in more Whiplash and
lateral movement of the pile during
driving.
3. Long compressible (or extensible) piles
undergo large head movements prior to
failure of the pile. This can lead to
progressive failure, with the local skin
friction in the upper part of the pile
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
being reduced to a residual value before
the lower part of the pile has reached
failure. Also, when interpreting pile
(9) load test results, care must be taken to
ensure that true plunging failure of the
pile has been reached (Poulos, 1982).
At the tlme of installation, the effective
stresses close to the pile shaft are relatively low.
Subsequently, as the excess pore pressures generated
during pile driving dissipate, the effective
stresses increase. It thus seems unlikely that deg-
radation of the soil during pile installation (when
skin friction values are often as low as 20% of the
long term values) will have a major effect on the
final pile capacity. Equally well, any whiplash
effect is likely to be confined to the upper few
diameters of the pile, in which case the influence
on the overall capacity of a long slender pile will
be small.
The third reason above is potentially more sig-
nificant. Progressive failure of piles has been
discussed by Murff (1980) and by Randolph (1983).
(10) The magnitude of any reduction in pile capacity will
depend not only on the relative compressibility of
the pile, but also on the ratio of residual to peak
skin friction down the pile shaft.
Ring shear tests indicate that significant
reductions in shear transfer across a rupture plane
can occur for relative movements as low as 10-30 rom
(Lupini, et. al., 1981). In assessing the likeli-
hood of progressive failure of a pile, it is neces-
sary to consider the ratio of elastic shortening of
the pile to the additional movement, ~w ,for the
skin friction to reduce from a peak to ~e~esidual
(11) value. This may be expressed by means of a flexi-
bility ratio, K, given by (Randolph, 1983)
K (12 )
(AE) 6.w
pres
where d, Q and (AE) are the diameter, length and
cross-sectional rigfdity of the pile.
Figure 1 shows the variation of reduction
factor, R , (defined as the ratio of actual pile
f
shaft capacity to that of an ideal, rigid pile) with
flexibility ratio, for different values of~. Off-
shore piles may have values of K as high as 5,
giving actual capacities as low as 70% of the ideal
capacity.
373
4 SHAFT CAPACITY OF DRIVEN PILES IN CLAY
4. API DATABASE
Pile Load tests from the API database have been
used to assess the validity of equation (9), and to
establish an appropriate value for the exponent n.
FoLLowing SempLe and Rigden (1984), a subset of 33
of the best documented tests on steel pipe piles in
cLay (taken from 24 different) sites have been used
in the first instance. Some of the data points rep-
resent average values from 2-4 tests on similar
piLes, as detaiLed by SempLe and Rigden.
Figure 2 shows vaLues of a deduced from the
Load test resuLts, plotted against the strength
ratio. In order to aLLow Eor possible length
effects, piLe tests where the flexibility ratio K is
less than unity (taking Aw conservatively as
25 mm) have been distingui~~~d from those with K
greater than unity. In addition, tests where the
piLes were redriven (R) prior to testing, or where
an oversize closure (C) pLate was used, have been
indicated.
For strength ratios Less than unity, the data
for the shorter piLes appear to fall in a band with
a gradient (obtained by Linear regression) of ‘0.50.
This would indicate a variation of u given by
cl= [(s /0’) (L3)
u Vnc lo”5(5u/oyo”5
Shown on the Figure is a Line for (S /~’) = 0.25
(corresponding to @ - 250), and band; f~rnb.2 ~
(~u/(J’
) < 0.35. The value of n = 0.5 (see equa-
tion ~9?~ agrees well with the range derived ear-
Lier.
For strength ratios greater than unity, the
variation u with the strength ratio appears to level
off, although there are insufficient data points for
the trend to be cLear. In practice, strength ratios
greater than 3 or 4 are generally only encountered
in the upper 5 to 10 m - that is the upper few pile
diameters. In that .region, it may be prudent to
adopt relatively low skin friction values, in order
to alLow for the effects of lateral loading. In
view of this, a conservative value of 0.25 is sug-
gested for the exponent n for strength ratios
greater than unity, giving
a = [(sU/u’)
Vnc ]0.5(su/O;)-0.25 (14)
The three data points for long piles that fall
well outside the main data (with a vaLues approxi-
mately half those for short piLes) are aLL for tests
where the piles were t-edrivenprior to Load testing.
In addition, two of these tests had oversize closure
pLates fitted, which may have Led to artificially
low values of skin friction. The remaining data
points for piles with high flexibility ratios alL
Lie within 70% of the expected 0 vaLues for shorter
piLes.
C17A
“,-
OTC 4883
5. DISCUSSION
Semple and Ridgen (1984) ave presented an
aLternative treatment of the same data points. They
recommend calculation OE the average skin friction
aLong the pile from
T~ =Fas (15)
pu
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
where F is a Length correction factor (a function of
the pile aspect ratio !./d),a is a peak value of U
(a function of the strength r~tio) and s is the
average shear strength of the soil, as m~asured in
triaxial compression. Figure 3 shows the functional
forms of a and F. The sloping part of the curve
for a haspa gradient OE –0.84, which is rather
highe~ than expected from the considerations dis-
cussed earlier in the paper. The high gradient is
mainLy a resuLt of assuming that aLl soils with
strength ratio Less than 0.35 should be treated as
normally consolidated, with an a value of unity.
The other main differences in the treatment by
SempLe and Ridgen are:
L. No allowance was considered necessary for
variations in plasticity, or friction
angle, of the soil.
2. A minimum value for u of 0.5 was assumed.
P
3. Effects of pile length were considered in
terms of the aspect ratio, lid, rather
than a flexibility ratio such as K.
In view of uncertainties in the precise nature of
the pile length effect, and where data on the resi-
dual properties of the soiL are not avaiLable, the
correction factor F represents a reasonabLe approach
for Long piLes. However, it shouLd be noted that
Eor long piles in soft soil, the flexibility ratio K
may be quite Low, indicating littLe reduction in
capacity due to progressive failure.
The somewhat different variation of a to that
proposed in equations (13) and (14) will g&eraLLy
have only a small effect on the computed piLe
capacity. The most extreme difference would occur
for a highly plastic soil, with remouLded strength
ratio of about 0.2 under normally consolidated con-
ditions, with in situ strength ratio of 0.35. The
SempLe and Rigden approach would assume an 0 vaLue
of unity, whiLe equation (13) would suggest a value
of a = 0.76. However, most sites exhibit a varia-
tion of strength ratio with depth, and the differ-
ences in the fits shown in Figures 2 and 3 would
tend to compensate.
As discussed earLier, the value of u for very
high values of the strength ratio will often be
modified in the light of other effects, such as
those of Lateral Loading. It should, however, be
remembered that an a value of 0.5 for strength
ratios as high as 5, corresponds to normal effective
stresses acting on the pile that are some 5 times
the effective overburden stress. This may be con-
sidered unrealistic.
OTC 4883 M. F. B.ANDOLPHAND BENTON S. MURPHY
Olson (1984) has car~ied out.an rxtensive ass-
essment of pile capacity metholls,using over 100
pile load test results taken from the API database.
The four methods considered were
1. The current API design guideline.
2. A k method based on Kraft, et. al.,
(1981), in the f’orm
A = 0.258 - 0.032 ln(~) for su/u~ < 0.4
A = 0.450 - 0.078 ln(~) for su/u~ > 0.4
where Q.is the embedded pile length Ln
meters.
3. The method described here (equations (13)
and (14)), but with no allowance for any
Length effect.
4. The method proposed by Semple and Rigden
(see Figure 3).
All four methods came out with very comparable
average values of calculated/measured pile capaci-
ties, ranging from 0.96 to 1.05. However, it must
be emphasized that offshore pile design involves
extrapolation beyond the current database, and this
result does not indicate that all methods are
equally suitabLe for such purpose.
Even within the database, there are key piLe
tests that indicate the inadequacy of the current
API guidelines. In particular, the tests on deep
pile segments at Empire (Cox, et. al., 1979) and at
Aquatic Park (PelLetier and Doyle, 1982) confirm
that u values of unity can be achieved in high
strength soiLs that are normally consolidated.
The proposed method for calculating pile shaft
capacity has been assessed in terms of average
values of shear strength and effective overburden
pressure, since the database cannot contain the
detailed variation of these quantities with depth
for each load test. However, it is considered
essential that the approach should be applied in an
incremental fashion, in order to give reasonabLe
indications of the distribution of shear transfer
with depth.
As an example of this, and to allow comparison
with approaches based on average Clvalues, the
method wilL be used to predict the capacity of a
pile in a stiff overconsolidated cLay. Soil condi-
tions and pile properties are taken from a group of
six papers pubLished in Ground Engineering in
November, 1979, and January and March, 1980, in par-
ticular Parry (1980), describing the design of foun-
dations for an offshore pLatform situated in the
Heather Field in the North Sea. The piles were
1.524 m in diameter, 63.5 mm walL thickness, driven
with a driving shoe of internal diameter 1.346 m to
a final penetration of 45 m. The piles were to
carry maximum working loads of 29.5 MN in compres-
sion, with a factor of safety”of 1.5, giving a
required capacity of 44.3 MN.
Q7K
U,d
5
Profiles of Su, U’ and the strength ratio are
shown in Figure 4. Th~ site showed strong sandy
clay deposits, with shear strengths ranging up I.G
750 kN/m2 in the upper 10 m, which was heavily uver-
consolidated. Parry (1980) ~uotes values of @’ for
the soil of about 32° for depths between 5 and 50 m.
The corresponding strength ratio for a normally con-
solidated sample of the soil may be taken as 0.32.
In deducing a profile of skin friction using equa-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
tions (13) and (14), the upper 5 m of soil (3.3 pile
diameters) has been ignored due to the Likelihood of
loss of skin friction under the action of Lateral
loading. The deduced profiles of 1s, and the ratios
u and ~ are shown in Figure 4.
An average value of ~ may be derived (instead
of incremental values) by considering the average
values of s and o’, which are 460 kN/m2 and
294 kN/m2 r~specti~ely. Equation (14) wouLd indi-
cate an O’vaLue of 0.50, which is the same as would
be obtained from the Semple and Rigden (1984)
approach (or from the current API guidelines). For
a pile penetration of 45 m, the incremental approach
gives a pile shaft capacity of 43.2 MN (together
with a base capacity of about 4.9 MN, to give an
overall capacity of 49.1 MN). Adopting an average ~
value of 0.5 gives a marginally higher shaft
capacity of 44.1 MN.
While the overall shaft capacities are within
2%, the distribution of shear transfer implied by
the different approaches shows a much wider varia-
tion. Table 1 shows the cumulative shaft capacity
with depth, as predicted by the present (incre-
mental) approach and by the use of a gLobal value of
a = 0.5. For comparison, the values proposed by
Parry, using an incremental effective stress
approach, are also given. It may be seen that the
shear transfer at shallow depths predicted using a
globaL value of u = 0.5 is much greater than pred-
icted by either of the incremental approaches.
6. SUMMARY
The pile capacity method described in this
paper is intended as an incremental method, where
the peak skin friction at any depth is estimated
from
t s = [(su/u;)nc10”5 su0”5 cJ;””5 (L6)
for values of the strength ratio less than or equal
to unity, and
T5 = [(su/u:)nc]0”5 suO”75 ~+0.25 (17)
for strength ratios greater than unity. The value
of (s /0’) (the strength ratio for remoulded nor-
maLLy”co~s%idated soil) may be obtained from labo-
ratory tests, or estimated with reasonable accuracy
from The plasticity index or friction angLe for the
soil. In cases of uncertainty, a value of 0.25 may
be assumed.
6 SHAFT CAPACITY OF i)RL’VEti
PILES IN CLAY OTC 4883

(5) Kraft, L. M., Kirby, R. C. and Murphy, B. S.,

For many sites, Lhe strength ratio w1lL ue Less
“Summary report on Amoco Effect iv, C!ress
than unity apart from stnllow surface layers. ,!)<.
Axial Capacity Co-operative Pr ,gram (ESACC)”;
skin friction thus becnmus proportional t.uthe ger
1980.
metric mean of the shear strength and the effectl~~e
overburden pressure. The sensitivity of the com-
puted value of skin friction to variations in the (6) Kraft, L. M., Focht, J. A. and Amerasinghe,
measured shear strength (due to sampLe disturbance S. F., “Friction capacity of piles driven
into clay,” J. Geot. Engng Div., ASCE,
or other causes) is reduced by comparison with con-
vol. 107, no. GT1l, pp. 1521-1542; L981.
ventional pile capacity methods.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021

(7) Kraft, L. M., I!Effectivestress capacitY
No explicit correction factor Eor pile length
model for piles in clay,” J. Geot. Engng
has been introduced. However, possible progressive
failure of long piles should be assessed separately Div., ASCE, VOL. 108, no. GT1l,
pp. 1387-1404; 1982.
by load transfer anaLysis, or by the use of charts
such as Figure 1. Alternatively, the effects OE
(8) Ladd, C. D., Foot, R., Ishihara, K.,
pile Length may be assessed approximately using the
Schlosser, F., and POUOS, H. G., “stress
correction factor suggested by SempLe and Rigden
(1984), shown in Figure 3. deformation and strength characteristics:
State-of-the-art Report, Proc. 9th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mech. and Foundn Engng, Tokyo,
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the
VOL. 2, pp. 421-494; 1977.
proposed method for calculating skin friction, as
embodied in equations (16) and (17), represents a
(9) Lupini, J., Skinner, A. E. and Vaughan, P.
simple approach that is consistent with the prin-
R .> “The drained residuaL strength of cohe-
ciple of a purely frictional bond between pile and
soil. The method shows comparable consistency with sive soil,” Geotechnique, VOL. 3L, no. 2,
pp. 181-213; L981.
other methods in respect of pile tests in the API
database. ALthough the method differs in detaiL
with that of Semple and Rigden (L984), it is (lo) Mayne, P. W. and KuLhawy, F. H., “KO-OCR
reLationships in soil,” J. Geot. Engng Div.,
believed that both methods, based on correlations of
a with the strength ratio, s /u~, offer more poten- ASCE, vol. 108, no. GT6, pp. 851-872; 1982.
tiaL for extrapolating beyon~ the existing database
than do current piLe capacity methods. (11) Meyerhof, G. G., “Bearing capacity and set-
tlement of piLe foundations,” J. Geot. Engng
Div., ASCE, vol. 102, no. GT3, pp. 197-228;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1976.
The work described in this paper was instigated
by Amoco Production Company in connection with the (12) Murff, J. D., “PiLe capacity in a softening
soil,M ~nt. J. Num. and Anal. Methods ‘n @P-
ublication of the API database compiled by
mechanics, VOL. 4, pp. 185-189; 19813.
R. E. Olson and his coworkers at the University of
Texas at Austin. We are grateful to Amoco Produc-
tion Company for permission to publish the paper. (13) Olson, R. E. and Dennis, N. D., “Review and
We are alao grateful for the many vaLuable discus- compiLation of piLe test results, axiaL piLe
sions which took pLace with R. M. SempLe of McCLel- capacity,” PRAC Project 8L-29, American
Land Engineers, during the course of the work. Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas; L982.

(14) OLson, R. E., “Analysis of piLe response

REFERENCES
under axial loads,” Project 83-42B, American
PetroLeum Institute, DaLLas, Texas; 1984.
(1) Burland, J. B., “Shaft friction of piLes in
clay - a simple fundamental approach,” Ground
(15) Parry, R. H. G., “A study of pile capacity
Engng, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 30-42; 1973.
for the Heather pLatform,” Ground Engi-
neering, vol. 13, no. 27 pp. 26-28, 31, 37;
(2) Chandler, R. J., “The shaft friction of piles
1980.
in cohesive soils in terms of effective
stresses,” Civ. Engng Pub. Wks Rev., VOL. 63,
(16) pelletier, J. H. and DoyLe~ E. H.> “Tensifin
pp. 48-51; 1968.
capacity in silty cLays - Beta pile test>
proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Num Methods in Off-
(3) COX, w. R., Kraft, L. M. and Verner, E. A.,
shore Piling, Austin, Texas, pp. 163-182;
“Axial Load tests on 14-inch pipe piles in
1982.
clay,” Proc. llth Offshore Technology Conf.,
Houston, Texas, pp. 1147-1158; 1979.
(17) Poulos, H. G., llTheinfluence of shaft length
on pile load capacity in clays,” Geotech-
(4) Francescon, M., “Model pile tests in cLay:
nique, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 145-148; 1982.
stresses and displacements due to instaLLa-
tion and axial loading,” PhD Thesis, Univer-
(18) Randolph, M. F. and Wrnth, C. P., “Applica-
sity of Cambridge; 1983.
tion of the failure state in simpLe shear to
the shaft capacity of driven piLes,” Geotech-
nique, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 143-157; 1981.

~7C
 7
nTP
“,.”
ZLnn-1
7.7.-
M. F. RANDOLPH AND BENTON S. MURPHY

(19) Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P., “Qec IL

developments in understanding the ,ixlal
capacity of piles in clay,” Grounc ITr,,n+,
vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 17-25,32; 1982,

(20) Randolph, M. F., “Design considerar.ions for

offshore piles,” Proc. Conf. on Geot. Prac-
tice in Offshore Engng, ASCE, Austin, Texas,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021

pp. 422-439; 1983.

(21) Semple, R. M., Discussion of Session 8, Proc.

Conf. on Recent Developments in the Design
and Construction of Piles, Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, pp. 397-399; 1980.

(22) Semple, R. M. and Rigden, W. J., “Shaft

capacity of driven pipe piles in clay,” Proc.
Sym. on Analysis and Design of Pile Founda-
tions at ASCE National Convention, San Fran-
cisco, CaLifot-nia; 1984.

(23) Vijayvergiya”,V. N. and Focht, J. A., “A new

way to predict the capacity of piles in
clay,” Proc. 4th Annual Offshore Tech.
Conf. , Houston, Texas, VO1. 2, pp. 865-874;
1972.

(24) Wroth, C. P., Discussion in Spec. Conf. on

Performance of Earth and Earth-Supporting
Structures, ASCE, New York, New York, VOL. 3,
pp. 231-234; 1972,

(25) Wroth, C. P., “The interpretation OE in situ

soil tests,” 24th Rankin Lecture, Geotech-
nique, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 447–489; 1984.

Table 1 SHAFT CAPACITY WITH DEPTH

—...— .,—

Cumulative shaft capacity (MN)

Depth (m)
Incremental Global Parry (1980)
Approach a = 0.5

5 0 0 1.3
10 5.6 8.4 4.9
15 10.8 14.7 10.7
20 16.3 20.8 17.6
25 22.9 27.8 24.0
30 28.4 33.1 29.7
35 33.1 36.9 35.0
40 38.0 40.5 40.2
45 43.2 44.1 45.6

Q77
“, ,
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/85OTC/All-85OTC/OTC-4883-MS/2077227/otc-4883-ms.pdf/1 by HUEMAC CONTRERAS on 24 February 2021
I Y I

m.
0
I I I I I

/
/

~
o
,’0
../

-+
o
co
0

0
N

0
y

C7
I
b-
s c1

co
I

6
1

>
I
0:
G

u
.
In

.
W7’

a
1-
—

I
Ci
‘>
>
ml

1
$