Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 166 Issue GE6 Geotechnical Engineering 166 December 2013 Issue GE6
Pages 540–548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00100
The base resistance of non-displacement Paper 1100100
piles in sand. Part I: field tests Received 30/10/2011 Accepted 24/09/2012
Published online 09/04/2013
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey Keywords: field testing & monitoring/geotechnical engineering/piles &
piling
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The base resistance of non-

displacement piles in sand.
Part I: field tests
j
1 Kenneth Gavin PhD j
3 Ali Tolooiyan MSc, PhD
Lecturer, School of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Research Fellow, School of Civil, Structural and Environmental
University College Dublin, Ireland Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland
j
2 David Cadogan BE j
4 Patrick Casey BE
Lecturer, School of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Arup Consulting Engineers, Dublin,
University College Dublin and Cork Institute of Technology, Ireland Ireland

j
1 j
2 j
3 j
4

This paper presents the results of full-scale load tests performed to investigate the end bearing pressure mobilised by
continuous flight auger piles installed in sand. In particular, the tests considered the effects of the footing width and,
by varying the load test procedure (from maintained load test to constant rate of penetration), allowed quantification
of creep effects. By comparing the load test results with in situ test results from cone penetration tests, correlations
between the end bearing pressure mobilised at normalised settlement levels of 10% of the footing width and the
cone penetration test qc value were studied. For the maintained load tests, these correlations were found to be similar
to those used in routine design practice. When creep effects were reduced using constant rate of penetration load
testing, the end bearing pressure mobilised was significantly higher than that assumed in normal practice, and it was
in keeping with the results of finite-element analyses performed using a soil model that ignored creep. In the final
section, the field test results are compared to database pile load tests performed on non-displacement piles in sand.

Notation cone penetration test (CPT) end resistance (qc ) have been shown
B footing width to have a relatively high reliability (Lehane et al., 2005) and have
Dr relative density been widely accepted in industry. These techniques generally
D50 mean grain size estimate the base resistance at relatively large pile base settlement
L pile embedment depth (sb ), typically at 10% of the pile diameter, qb0:1 , using an
qb pile end bearing pressure empirical reduction factor Æ
qb0:10 pile bearing resistances mobilised at normalised
settlement of 10% 1: qb0:1 ¼ Æqc
qc cone penetration test end resistance value
qc(1:5B), qc(3:5B) cone penetration test end resistance value
average over 1.5 pile diameters or 3.5 pile Based on a database study, Jardine et al. (2005) suggest that a
diameters above and below the pile base diameter-dependent Æ value reduced from 0.63 to 0.43 as the pile
s, sb , sc , screep pile head, base and creep settlement diameter increased from 200 mm to 500 mm. Randolph (2003)
respectively and White and Bolton (2005) argued that once appropriate
v poissons ratio averaging techniques are adopted to derive design qc values and
z depth the effects of residual loads are accounted for, a constant Æ factor
Æ empirical constant linking qb0:1 and qc can be adopted which is independent of pile diameter. Lehane et
9v vertical effective stress al. (2005) found that an Æ value of 0.6 gave the best fit to a
database of instrumented pile load tests with diameters ranging
1. Introduction from 0.2 m to 0.68 m. For partial displacement (open-ended) pipe
Recent design methods linking the ultimate base resistance of piles, model and full-scale pile tests reported by Lehane and
driven, closed-ended or full-displacement piles in sand and the Gavin (2001) and Foye et al. (2009) show that direct correlations

540
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 166 Issue GE6
between Æ (based on the average pressure mobilised over the
entire pile base area) and qc which are independent of pile
diameter or sand state can be determined once the effects of sand
displacement at the pile base during pile installation are included.
Sand displacement is best quantified through the incremental
filling ration (IFR), which compares the rate of soil intrusion
during pile installation with IFR ¼ 1 for a fully coring pile
(which causes minimal disruption) and IFR ¼ 0 for a pile with a
fully formed plug, which prevents soil intrusion and results in
what is effectively a closed-ended pile. Minimum Æ factors in the
range 0.15–0.2 have been suggested by Lehane and Randolph
(2002) and Gavin and Lehane (2003) for fully coring piles.
The Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées or French method
(Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982) is widely used in practice to
estimate pile end bearing. The approach is based on a database of
197 pile tests on driven and bored piles in a range of soil
conditions. An Æ value of 0.2 is recommended for bored piles in
sand and gravel. The design qc(1:5B) value is given by cone tip
resistance around the pile tip averaged in the area ranging from
1.5B under the pile tip to 1.5B above the pile tip, having excluded
values that are in excess of 30% of the average. De Cock et al.
(2003) compiled a review of pile design practice in Europe and
found that Æ commonly ranged between 0.15 and 0.2 and
typically did not depend on the diameter or the length of the pile.
Eurocode 7, Part 1/EN 1997-1 (BSI, 2004), suggests that Æ
values, which although independent of footing width and depth,
reduce from 0.2 for qc values up to 15 MPa, to 0.16 for
qc ¼ 20 MPa. Numerical analyses reported by Lee and Salgado
(1999) suggest that Æ varies with pile length (or stress level),
coefficient of earth pressure and relative density. Lehane (2009)
reported a database study of continuous flight auger (CFA) piles
where the pile length varied from 4 m to 10.5 m. The database
contained both straight and expanded base piles and recorded Æ
values that increased from approximately 0.15 for 4 m long piles,
to approximately 0.4 for a 10.5 m long pile. It should be noted
that Æ values at a given site could also be affected by other
effects, including geological variability and workmanship.
In a companion paper Tolooiyan and Gavin (2013) used finite-
element analyses (FEAs) to investigate the effect of pile diameter,
length and sand relative density on the Æ factor mobilised in
sand. They found that once the design qc(3:5B) value used to
derive Æ accounted for soil variability within the zone of applied
stress (which required averaging up to 3.5B in highly variable
soil) a constant Æ value was obtained that was independent of pile
diameter, and in situ density (see Figure 1). Although a small
length effect was evident, with Æ reducing slightly as the pile
length (or stress level) increased, they suggested that a constant Æ
factor of 0.31 could be adopted that was substantially higher than
the value proposed in most design approaches. The field tests
described in this paper were designed to investigate possible
causes for these apparently high Æ values. In the final section of
the paper, the results of the maintained load tests described in
this paper are compared to a database of field tests.
The base resistance of non-displacement
piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey
0·5
0·4
α ⫽ qb0·1/qc
0·3
0·2 Hokksund (Dr ⫽ 50%)
Blessington (Dr ⫽ 100%)
0·1 Tanta (Dr ⫽ 75%)
Monterey (Dr ⫽ 65%)
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pile length: m
Figure 1. Results of numerical analyses by Tolooiyan and Gavin
(2013)
2. Field tests: site conditions
The field tests were performed in Killarney in south-west Ireland.
The town of Killarney is underlain by thick glacial sand and
gravel deposits, the geological formation of which is described by
Wright (1927) and Warren (1991). The in situ investigation at the
site comprised ten shell and auger boreholes and six CPT profiles.
The boreholes indicated that the ground conditions consisted of a
2 m layer of mixed deposits (sand/silt and clay) overlying sand
extending to at least 20 m below ground level. The water table
level was at the top of the sand layer. Particle size analyses tests
performed on disturbed samples revealed that the mean particle
size (D50 ) of the sand reduced slightly with depth, from 0.35 mm
at 2 m below ground level to 0.31 mm for samples recovered
from 10 m below ground level.
Two CPT qc profiles taken within 3 m of the test piles are shown in
Figure 2. The CPT tests were performed after the pile load tests
were complete. The qc profiles suggested that the sand consisted of
three sub-units: an upper dense layer extending between 2 and 4 m
below ground level, an overlay of loose to medium-dense sand to
approximately 14–15 m below ground level at the test pile
locations, which in turn overlay dense sand. Moving north when on
the site, it was clear from the CPT resistance and pile installation
records that the loose sand layer became much thinner (and was
not evident in some profiles), whereas the depth to the lower dense
sand layer decreased. The torque reading measured during pile
installation indicated that the test piles penetrated the lower dense
sand where the CPT qc resistance was in the range 10–15 MPa.
3. Test piles
Two instrumented piles were installed at the test site. The first
test pile was an 800 mm diameter pile (designated C800) and the
second was a 450 mm diameter pile (C450). Both piles were
installed using a Soilmec CM-48 piling rig, and the torque
required to install the piles increased significantly when the auger
reached the lower dense sand; installation stopped when the
maximum torque (84 kN m) was applied. The final pile length
541
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey

CPT end resistance, qc: MPa

rapid load test was performed on each pile. The maintained load
0 5 10 15 20
0 periods were initially creep controlled, with a requirement for the
pile settlement rate to be less than 0.1 mm/h before the applica-
tion of the next load increment. However, in order to determine
2
the ultimate resistance of the piles at displacements in excess of
10% of the pile diameter, this creep criterion was ignored for
4 loads above the safe working load (SWL) of the piles (1000 kN
and 1800 kN for the 450 mm and 800 mm piles respectively).
The amended test procedure is set out in the next section. Further
6
details of the test piles, site conditions and consideration of the
shaft capacity developed by the piles are presented in Gavin et al.
8 (2009).

4. Load test results

Depth, z: m

10
Reaction to the test piles was measured using four tension piles
connected to a stiffened load transfer beam. The axial load was
12 controlled by a hydraulic pump system and the pile head
displacement was monitored using four linear variable displace-
ment transducers located around the pile head.
14

The load test on the 450 mm diameter pile (see Figure 3) was
16 performed in four stages.

(a) In stage 1, the SWL of 1000 kN was applied and the total
18 pile settlement, s, recorded was 15.2 mm, which was
CPT1
significantly below the specification level of 25 mm. The
20 CPT2 strain gauge data revealed that only 15% of the pile
resistance at SWL was generated by base resistance.
Average
(b) During stage 2, the load increments were applied to 150% of
22 the SWL. When the applied load reached 1250 kN (125% of
SWL), additional creep settlement of 5 mm developed over a
Figure 2. Cone penetration test qc profiles at test site
period of 20 min. When the load was increased to 1500 kN
(150% of SWL), large creep settlements of up to 20 mm were

was 14 m for pile C800 and 15 m for pile C450. Both piles were 2000
reinforced over their entire length, with seven T32 bars and five
T25 bars used in piles C800 and C450 respectively. Vibrating 1800
Stage 3 Stage 4
wire strain gauges were attached to the reinforcement cages (in 1600 Stage 2
groups of four) at depths of 0 m, 3.1 m, 6.05 m, 8.9 m and
11.85 m below ground level. The load distribution in the pile was 1400
Stage
calculated using a pile modulus calibrated using the strain gauges 1
1200 Shaft
positioned at ground level, assuming a pile diameter equal to the
Load: kN

auger and accounting for the effects of strain as well as creep 1000
level effects (see Fellenius, 2001; Gavin et al., 2009; Lehane et
800
al., 2003). In order to allow the reinforcement cage to be pushed
into the fluid concrete, the lowest section of the reinforcement 600
cage (below 11.85 m) was crimped. The shaft resistance over the Base
lower section of the pile was estimated using the CPT qc value 400
using a site-specific correlation determined by Gavin et al.
200
(2009). The base resistance was calculated by subtracting the
total shaft resistance from the applied load. Both piles were 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
subjected to static compression maintained load tests (within 1 Displacement: mm
week of installation), which were performed in accordance with
the UK Institution of Civil Engineers specification (ICE, 1996). Figure 3. Load–settlement response of pile C450
Immediately following the last stage of the maintained load test a

542
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey

4500
recorded during the first 5 min of the load holding period.
The creep settlement reduced to specified limits between 30 4000
to 50 min after the application of the load, by which time the Stage 3
total pile head settlement had reached 58 mm (13% of the 3500 Stage 2
pile diameter). The strain gauge data revealed that the
mobilised base resistance provided 18% of the pile resistance 3000
at 1.5 SWL.
Shaft

Load: kN
(c) In stage 3, the pile was initially loaded to 100% of the SWL 2500 Stage
and no appreciable creep settlements developed. When the 1
load was increased to 150% of the SWL creep, settlements 2000
Base
were again initiated, with the overall pile head settlement
1500
reaching 82.23 mm (18% of the pile diameter), before the
creep rates reduced below the specified limits. Comparison of
1000
the load distribution in the pile when the applied load was
1500 kN in stage 2 and stage 3 shows that the shaft resistance 500
mobilised in the third stage was lower than that recorded in
stage 2. This suggests the occurrence of friction fatigue (see 0
Lehane et al., 1993; White and Lehane, 2004) whereby the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Displacement: mm
application of cyclic loading to the pile can reduce the
available shaft resistance. As a consequence, in order to Figure 4. Load–settlement response of pile C800
support the same applied load, the pile mobilised a higher
proportion of the available base resistance in stage 3. When
the applied pile load was increased to 1650 kN (165% SWL)
the additional resistance was provided exclusively by the Stage Applied load: % of SWL
mobilisation of additional base resistance, with approximately
29% of total pile resistance. Significant creep settlements C450 C800
were recorded (over 50 mm in 5 min) and the load test stage
was terminated. Stage 1 25 25
(d ) In stage 4, a rapid load test was performed in which the 50 50
applied load was increased steadily (with no pause periods) in 75 75
an attempt to establish the ultimate resistance of the pile. A 90 90
peak pile capacity of 1720 kN was mobilised when the pile 100 100
head settlement reached 240 mm (53% of the pile diameter). Stage 2 33 33
The available shaft resistance again reduced, suggesting 66 66
further effects of friction fatigue, which tend to be 100 100
concentrated during the initial cycles of loading at or near the 125 125
pile maximum shaft resistance (Gavin and O’Kelly, 2007). 150 150
— 175
The load test on the 800 mm diameter pile (see Figure 4) was — 200
performed in three load stages. Stage 3 50 50
100 100
(a) In stage 1 the pile load was increased to the SWL using the 150 150
loading sequence outlined in Table 1. The pile head 165 200
settlement at the SWL was 9 mm (i.e. just over 1% of the Stage 4 — 227
pile diameter). The strain gauges showed that 28% of this 125 —
resistance was mobilised by the pile base. 150 —
(b) In stage 2 the pile was loaded to 3600 kN (200% of SWL). 172 —
Total creep settlements during loading increments up to
Table 1. Static load test procedure
2700 kN (150%) were generally small and reduced to rates
below the specified creep rate during the 50 min holding
periods adopted. When the applied load was increased to
3150 kN, the creep criterion was not achieved during a holding period. As the creep rate remained high and the load
50 min holding period (a total creep settlement of 4 mm was was difficult to maintain, the load stage was terminated.
measured). When the applied load was increased to 3600 kN, (c) In stage 3 a rapid load test was performed to establish the
the creep settlement reached almost 6 mm in a 20 min ultimate capacity of the pile. A peak resistance of 4080 kN

543
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey

6
was mobilised at a pile head settlement of 124 mm (16% of
2208 kPa (Stage 2 – 200% SWL)
the pile diameter). At this load level, the base resistance
accounted for 40% of the applied load.
5

The normalised base pressure pile base settlement response

measured during the maintained load portion of the static load 1900 kPa (Stage 2 – 175% SWL)
4

Creep settlement: mm
test is shown in Figure 5. In keeping with observations by Briaud
(2007) and Gavin and Lehane (2007), the mobilised base pressure
(qb ) was similar for both piles up to 2200 kPa. At this stage, the
3
test on C800 was halted because of the large pile head loads
required to maintain the applied base pressure. The base pressure
response was highly non-linear, with qb in the range 1800–
2
1900 kPa when sb /B ¼ 5%, which increased to only 2400 kPa 1537 kPa (Stage 2 – 150% SWL)
when s/B reached 10%. In this dense sand deposit (with qc3,5B
10 600 kPa), Æ values of 0.23 for pile C450 and 0.22 for pile
C800 are inferred. These values are in keeping with many of the 1
empirical correlations from the literature. However, it is evident
that the response of the piles was strongly affected by creep, a
time-dependent phenomenon, the extent of which is obviously 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
determined by the test procedures. Time: min
(a)
65
The creep settlement (screep ) response measured during three load
holding stages on pile C800 is shown in Figure 6(a). The relevant 60
stage of loading (see Table 1) and the percentage of the total load 55 2986 kPa (Stage 3 – 165%)
applied are included in the figure. It is apparent that for base
50
pressures up to approximately 2200 kPa, the rate of creep
settlement reduced significantly between 10 min and 20 min after 45
Creep settlement: mm

application of the load, while the creep settlement rate measured

40
at the maximum applied pressure was still significant 20 min after
35

30

25 2392 kPa (Stage 2 – 150%)

4500
20
4000 450 mm 15

3500 10

5 1794 kPa (Stage 2 – 125% SWL)

Base pressure, qb: kPa

3000
0
800 mm 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2500
Time: min
(b)
2000
Figure 6. Creep measured during maintained load tests: (a) pile
1500 C800; (b) pile C450

1000

500

0 loading. The creep settlement rates measured on pile C450 (see

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normalised base displacement, sb /B: % Figure 6(b)) appeared to be much higher than those measured on
pile C800, and yet for applied pressures less than 2400 kPa,
Figure 5. Normalised base-pressure response of test piles during reduced to within specification limits (, 0.1 mm/h) within 3 min.
maintained load tests Small increases in settlement that were evident during some
maintained load periods were the result of the automated pressure

544
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey

5000
controller attempting to maintain the specified pile head load. For
the maximum applied pressure qb of approximately 3000 kPa, 4500
creep settlements approached 55 mm within 5 min of loading and
the test was stopped. 4000

The pressure-base settlement response measured during the 3500

constant rate of penetration tests (final load stage of the static

Base pressure: kPa

3000
load tests) is shown in Figure 7. Although the response
(including the initial stiffness and total settlement) was affected
2500 800 mm
by previous maintained load cycles, the absence of creep in the
450 mm
test clearly allowed a more rapid mobilisation of the available 2000
base resistance. The test on pile C800 terminated at a normal-
ised displacement of about 9%, but the measured pressure qb0:1 1500
of 3150 kPa was 31% higher than the value measured at a
comparable settlement in the maintained load test. The mobi- 1000
lised Æ value of 0.30 (derived using qc3:5B ) is in keeping with
500
the FEAs of Tolooiyan and Gavin (2013), which were performed
using a constitutive model that did not consider the effects of 0
creep. 0 5 10 15 20 25
Normalised base displacement, sb /B: %
The test results presented here suggest that the mobilised pressure
settlement response of CFA piles in sand is independent of pile Figure 7. Normalised base-pressure response of test piles during
diameter and normalised pile length. This finding is in keeping fast load tests
with observations from displacement pile tests (Lehane et al.,
2005), footing tests (Briaud, 2007) and numerical analyses. An test. The base pressure values mobilised in these fast load tests
interesting observation from the field tests presented herein was were comparable to predictions made in FEAs using soil models
that the base pressure response developed in a maintained load that do not account for the effects of creep, reported in Tolooiyan
test was lower than that measured in a constant rate of penetration and Gavin (2013).

Pile Pile diameter: Pile length: Relative CPT qc : qb0:1 : Æ Reference

m m density: % MPa MPa

US59 0.76 9.80 82 24.0 6.60 0.28 Reese et al. (1974)

HH 0.61 7.60 88 24.0 5.50 0.23 Reese et al. (1974)
G1 0.92 18.20 35 9.6 3.14 0.33 Reese et al. (1974)
BB 0.76 20.00 68 20.0 4.58 0.23 Reese et al. (1974)
1B 0.20 4.00 51 5.2 1.26 0.24 BCP Committee (1971)
4B 0.20 4.50 63 8.0 2.20 0.28 BCP Committee (1971)
5C 0.20 11.00 73 20.4 5.40 0.26 BCP Committee (1971)
1 1.10 13.00 55 13.6 4.19 0.31 Franke and Gabrecht (1977)
3 1.50 14.00 54 13.6 4.23 0.31 Franke and Gabrecht (1977)
5 1.50 6.00 81 16.8 4.42 0.26 Franke and Gabrecht (1977)
7 1.50 6.00 80 16.0 3.74 0.23 Franke and Gabrecht (1977)
Pile 1 0.84 24.00 46 15.8 2.80 0.18 Mandolini et al. (2002)
Pile 2 0.61 22.50 34 10.8 2.52 0.23 Mandolini et al. (2002)
CFA 1 0.54 10.50 50 10.0 1.93 0.19 Evers et al. (2003)
CFA 2 0.53 11.00 49 10.0 2.40 0.24 Evers et al. (2003)
P1 0.70 10.50 29 3.7 0.76 0.20 Durham (2006)
T600 0.60 6.00 46 6.0 1.52 0.25 Fellenius et al. (2007)
No.1 1.20 26.50 51 20.0 5.30 0.27 Ogura et al. (1996)
C450 0.45 15.00 43 10.6 2.40 0.23 Current paper
C800 0.80 14.00 45 10.6 2.28 0.22 Current paper

Table 2. Database of static load tests

545
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey

5. Database study
The pile test database (see Table 2) comprised 20 static
maintained load tests performed on non-displacement piles
installed in sand, where the piles were loaded to settlements in
excess of 10% of the pile diameter. The diameter B of the piles
ranged from 0.2 m to 1.5 m, and their length L ranged from 4 m
to 26.5 m with L/B in the range 4–37. They were founded in sand
where the CPT end resistance, qc1:5B value ranged from 2 to
40 MPa, with SPT N varying from 4 to 100. The relative density
of the sand deposits was estimated using the correlation proposed
by Lunne and Christoffersen (1983) and was found to vary from
29% to 100%.
:
2: Dr ¼ 1=2:91 ln[qc =60 ( v9 )0 71 ]
In the assessment of mobilised Æ values, the design (normalising)
qc value was averaged over a distance  1.5B from the pile tip.
The variation of Æ with pile diameter, length, relative density and
CPT qc value is shown in Figure 8. Although there is consider-

0·35 0·35

0·30 0·30

0·25 0·25
α ⫽ qb0·1/qc

α ⫽ qb0·1/qc

0·20 0·20

0·15 0·15

0·10 0·10

0·05 0·05

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 0 10 20 30
Pile diameter, D: m Pile length, L: m
(a) (b)
0·35 0·35

0·30 0·30

0·25 0·25
α ⫽ qb0·1/qc
α ⫽ qb0·1/qc

0·20 0·20

0·15 0·15

0·10 0·10

0·05 0·05

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
Relative density, Dr: % Cone end resistance, qc: MPa
(c) (d)

Figure 8. Æ values back-figured from load test database:

(a) effect of pile diameter; (b) effect of pile length; (c) effect of
relative density; (d) effect of soil strength

546
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 166 Issue GE6
able scatter in the results, there is no suggestion that Æ varied in a
consistent manner with any of the assumed controlling para-
meters. The average Æ value for the database piles is 0.24, with a
standard deviation of 0.04, which is similar to the value mobilised
during maintained load tests on the CFA piles installed in
Killarney, Co. Kerry.
6. Summary and conclusion
The paper presents the base pressure–settlement response meas-
ured during static load testing of two CFA piles installed in dense
glacial sand deposits in south-west Ireland. Although the piles
were of similar length (between 14 m and 15 m), two diameters
(450 mm and 800 mm) were considered in order to investigate
the effect of pile diameter and normalised pile length (L/D) on
the mobilised base pressure. The base resistance and stiffness
response of the piles were comparable when the base settlement
was normalised by the pile diameter. Despite the overconsolidated
nature of the sand deposit, the piles experienced significant creep
during loading when the base pressure exceeded  2000 kPa
( 0.2qc ). The base pressures measured in maintained load tests
were affected by creep, and resulted in back-figured Æ values in
the range 0.22–0.23. These were in keeping with values observed
from a database of pile load tests collated from the literature,
which suggested that constant Æ factors could be adopted in
design. When creep effects were reduced by performing fast load
tests, the mobilised Æ value increased to 0.30. The results suggest
that the Æ factors used to predict the ultimate resistance of piles
in practice may be too conservative.
REFERENCES
BCP Committee (1971) Field tests on piles in sand. Soils and
Foundations 11(2): 11–20.
Briaud JL (2007) Spread footings in sand: load settlement curve
approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 133(8): 905–920.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1997-1: Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design.
General rules. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK.
Bustamante M and Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity
prediction by means of static cone penetrometer CPT.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Amsterdam, vol. 2, pp. 493–500.
De Cock F, Legrand C and Huybrechts N (2003) Overview of
design methods of axially loaded piles in Europe – Report of
ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee. Proceedings of the
8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Prague, pp. 663–715.
Durham CJ (2006) The Behaviour of Bored Piles in Perth CBD.
Final year honours project, School of Civil and Resource
Engineering, University of Western Australia, Australia.
Evers G, Hass G, Frossard A et al. (2003) Comparative
performances of continuous flight auger and driven cast in
place piles in sands. In Proceedings of Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles (Van Impe WF (ed.). IOS Publishers,
Ghent, Belgium, pp. 137–14.
The base resistance of non-displacement
piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey
Fellenius BH (2001) From strain to load in an instrumented pile.
Geotechnical News Magazine 19(1): 35–38.
Fellenius BH, Santos JA and Viana de Fonseca A (2007) Analysis
of piles in a residual soil – The ISC’2 prediction. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 19(1): 201–220.
Foye KC, Abou-Jaoude G, Prezzi M and Salgado R (2009)
Resistance factors for use in load and resistance factor design
of driven pipe piles in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(1): 1–13.
Franke E and Gabrecht F (1977) Test loading on 8 large bored
piles in sand. Proceedings of the 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, vol. 1,
pp. 529–532.
Gavin KG and Lehane BM (2003) The shaft capacity of pipe piles
in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40(1): 36–45, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1139/t02-093.
Gavin KG and Lehane BM (2007) Base load–displacement
response of piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
44(9): 1053–1063.
Gavin KG and O’Kelly BO (2007) Effect of friction fatigue on
piles in dense sand. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(1): 63–71.
Gavin K, Cadogan D and Casey P (2009) The shaft capacity of
CFA piles in sand. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(6): 790–798, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000073.
ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) (1996) Specification for Piling
and Embedded Retaining Walls. Thomas Telford, London,
UK.
Jardine RJ, Bond AJ and Frank R (1993) Mechanisims of shaft
friction in sand from instrumented pile test. Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers – Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 119(1): 19–35.
Jardine RJ, Chow FC, Overy R and Standing J (2005) ICP Design
Methods for Driven Piles in Sands and Clays. Thomas
Telford, London, UK.
Lee J and Salgado R (1999) Determination of pilebase resistance
in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 125(8): 673–683.
Lehane BM (2009) Relationships between axial capacity and CPT
qc for bored piles in sand. Proceedings of the 5th
International Symposium on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles, 1, 61–74.
Lehane BM and Gavin KG (2001) Experimental investigation of
the factors affecting the base resistance of open-ended piles
in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental
Engineering, ASCE 127(6): 473–480, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:6(473).
Lehane BM and Randolph MF (2002) Evaluation of a minimum
base resistance for driven piles in siliceous sand. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE
128(3): 198–205.
Lehane BM, Jardine RJ, Bond AJ and Frank R (1993) Mechanisms
of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers –
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119(9): 19–35.
547
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 166 Issue GE6
Lehane BM, Pennington D and Clark S (2003) Jacked end-
bearing piles in the soft alluvial sediments of Perth.
Australian Geomechanics Journal 38(3): 123–134.
Lehane BM, Schneider JA and Xu X (2005) The UWA-05 method
for prediction of axial capacity of driven piles in sand. In
Proceedings of Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics: ISFOG,
University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Lunne T and Christoffersen HP (1983) Interpretation of cone
penetrometer data for offshore sands. Proceedings of the
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4464, Houston, TX,
USA, pp. 181–182.
Mandolini A, Ramondini M, Russo G and Viggiani C (2002) Full
scale loading tests on instrumented CFA piles. Proceedings of
the International Deep Foundations Congress 2002. ASCE,
Reston, VA, USA, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116,
vol. 2, pp. 1088–1097.
Ogura T, Sumi M, Kishida H and Yoshifuka T (1996) Application
of the pile toe test to cast-in-place and precast piles.
Foundation Drilling Magazine December: 23–28.
Randolph MF (2003) Science and empiricism in pile foundation
548
The base resistance of non-displacement
piles in sand. Part I: field tests
Gavin, Cadogan, Tolooiyan and Casey
design. Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 53(10): 847–875.
Reese LC, O’Neill MW and Touma FT (1974) Behaviour of drilled
piers under axial loading. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 102(5): 493–510.
Tolooiyan A and Gavin KG (2013) The base resistance of
non-displacement piles in sand. Part II: finite element
analyses. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Geotechnical Engineering 166(6): 549–560.
Warren WP (1991) Glacial deposits in southwest Ireland. In
Glacial Deposits in Great Britain and Ireland (Ehlers J,
Gibbard PL and Rose J (eds)). Balkema, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands, pp. 345–353.
White DJ and Bolton M (2005) Comparing CPT and pile base
resistance in sand. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 158(1): 3–14.
White DJ and Lehane BM (2004) Friction fatigue on
displacement piles in sand. Géotechnique 54(10): 645–658.
Wright WB (1927) The Geology of Killarney and Kenmare.
Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Ireland, Dublin,
Ireland.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.