454
DISCUSSION
Reply to the discussion by Fellenius on “Load tests on full-scale
bored pile groups”1
Rodrigo Salgado, Yanbei Zhang, Guoliang Dai, and Weiming Gong
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on 02/25/23
We thank Dr. Fellenius for his discussion of our paper.
The discussion suggests that we have left out four references on
load tests on pile groups (O'Neill et al. 1982a, 1982b; Phung 1993;
O'Neill and Reese 1999). Our paper focused on instrumented field
load tests on bored piles, with a clear focus on pile groups. The
references mentioned in the discussion, while of interest, are not
directly applicable in the present case. The Ph.D. thesis of Phung
(1993) focuses on model, steel pipe piles driven in sand. O'Neill
and Reese (1999) discuss load tests on instrumented single bored
piles, but not on pile groups. The papers by O'Neill et al. (1982a,
1982b) focus on instrumented driven pile groups.
The discussion appears to argue that the position of the pile
within the group (i.e., whether a corner, side or central pile) would
have no effect on load response. Our tests show otherwise. The
pile spacing in the data reported by Phung (1993), as shown in
For personal use only.
Fig. 1 of the discussion, is of the order of 10 times the equivalent
diameter of the piles, while the pile spacing is 2.5 and 3 times the
pile diameter in our tests. The focus of Phung (1993) was on piles
as settlement-reducing elements (i.e, piled mats or rafts); our
work, in contrast, focused on spacings that would be more typical
in a traditional pile group, for which spacings are kept relatively
small so that pile cap costs do not increase. The different spacing
obviously has an impact on pile interaction and on the influence
of pile position on pile response. The extent of the effect of pile
position also depends on other factors, chiefly the relative stiff-
nesses of the various components of the foundation system (pile
cap, individual piles, and soil), and could be obscured by random
variation of soil properties around the pile group or, particularly
in the case of driven piles, by variability related to installation
procedure and sequence. Another issue with model pile testing is
the scale effects, which become quite significant as shear strain
begins to localize next to the pile (see, for example, Foray et al.
(1998); Lehane et al. (2005); Loukidis and Salgado (2008)). These
scale effects may distort results significantly.
The next point raised refers to the use of the term settlement by
the geotechnical engineering profession. It is useful in issues
related to notation to refer back to the underlying science:
mechanics in this case. In mechanics, the pertinent quantity is
displacement. In the context of the present paper, we are dealing
with vertical displacements, routinely referred to as settlement in
foundation engineering. The term has of course been used univer-
sally (e.g., Poulos 1989; Briaud et al. 2000; Lehane and Randolph
2002; Randolph 2003; de Sanctis and Mandolini 2006; McCabe and
Lehane 2006; Xu and Zhang 2007; Salgado 2008) and is appropriate
to describe the results of our tests.
Another question raised regards the use of the traditional 10%
relative settlement criterion for estimation of the ultimate load of
Received 11 March 2013. Accepted 11 March 2013.
R. Salgado and Y. Zhang. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
G. Dai and W. Gong. School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, No.2 Sipailou, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210096, China.
Corresponding author: Rodrigo Salgado (e-mail: rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu).
1Appears in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(X): XXX–XXX [doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0027].
Can. Geotech. J. 50: 454–455 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0096
an individual pile. It is a criterion that is indeed widely used
internationally both in design and in the interpretation of load
tests (e.g., Skempton 1959; Lee and Salgado 1999; Briaud et al.
2000; Paik and Salgado 2003; Paik et al. 2003; Randolph 2003;
Jardine et al. 2005; de Sanctis and Mandolini 2006; McCabe and
Lehane 2006; Salgado 2008; Xu et al. 2008; Fleming et al. 2009; Kim
et al. 2009; Seo et al. 2009). The reason for its widespread use is
that it does work well for a range of design situations. As pointed
out by Salgado et al. (2011), deviations would occur, for example,
for piles bearing in rock (when a smaller relative settlement
would be appropriate) or for piles in very weak clay (when a limit
or plunging load would be reached before a relative settlement of
10% could develop). The notion of a relative settlement (in contrast
to a set value of settlement) is useful in designing foundations for
frame structures in that the pile diameter has some correlation
with span, which, in turn, correlates with tolerable differential
settlement (Salgado 2008). The correlation weakens as we move
from one pile per column to multiple piles per column, but it still
exists. In any case, relative settlement is typically used to define
an ultimate load for an individual pile. Many authors (e.g., Lee and
Salgado 1999; Lehane and Randolph 2002; Fleming et al. 2009) also
explicitly use or refer to use of the relative settlement of the base,
not of the top of the pile, which would specifically separate out
the contribution of pile compression to total settlement at the
pile head.
In summary, if the range of applicability of the criterion is
properly considered, the 10% relative settlement criterion has a
role in pile design. It is no worse than any method in the literature
and definitely superior to the so-called graphical methods that
attempt to arrive at an ultimate load based on the appearance of
the load–settlement curve, without any reference to the fact that
the foundation element is supporting a structural load and has as
its primary function minimization of the chances of the structure
reaching a limit state. Ideally, an engineer would be able to use
much more specific criteria, applicable to a given structure and
circumstances, and definition of an “ultimate load” for an individ-
ual pile, much less for a pile group, would not even be required in
such a case.
Now we turn to some specific clarifications regarding the test
results. With respect to the last applied load (equal to 1680 kN) on
pile DZ1L, this was a plunging load. As it could not reach equilib-
rium, we must assume that plunging would have occurred be-
tween the 1540 and 1680 kN loads. Details were provided only for
the 1540 kN load.
With respect to load transfer plot estimation, taking the loca-
tion of layer interfaces, if accurately known, into account would
lead to an improved estimation of these plots and therefore of the
Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 5 April 2013.
 Salgado et al.
shaft resistance within individual layers. If the goal is to make an
assessment of unit shaft resistance within an individual layer, it is
also possible to simply use only strain gauges known to be located
within that layer.
As to the influence of the cap on total resistance for a given
settlement, we have performed calculations using the Lee and
Salgado (2002) method, which is a modification of the Schmertmann
(1970) method to estimate the resistance at the base of the cap; the
Lee and Salgado (2002) method accounts for stiffness degradation
with increasing settlement (the rate of which depends on relative
density), and is applied here with recognition that the presence of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on 02/25/23
the piles renders it not strictly applicable. Nonetheless, it does
offer an estimate of what the base resistance of the cap might be.
The cap rested on a loose fill, with zero embedment, and had
relative density no greater than 40% (note low values of qc). The
soft clay layer contributed to cap resistance for the four- and
nine-pile groups, but only slightly. As an example, the percentage
of the total load applied at the top of the cap carried by the base of
the cap at a fixed settlement of 40 mm (10% of the diameter of the
individual piles) was calculated to range from approximately 1.5%
to 5% for all pile groups, a contribution to total resistance that is
small to negligible even with the relatively conservative assump-
tions made in our calculations. Were pile spacing (in terms of
multiples of the pile diameter) greater, the geometry of the result-
ing piled raft would be such that the ratio of the base resistance of
the cap (now a “raft”) would be a greater fraction of total resis-
tance; more significantly, justification for the assumption of cap
rigidity would erode and completely different methods of analysis
of the foundation system might be required.
For personal use only.
Finally, the loads at the bases of the piles were quite small,
which would reinforce the expectation for frictional piles that
most of the load was transferred to the soil through the sides of
the group through arching. So it is not expected that a block
action of the group would have had the effect below the pile base
mentioned in the discussion to any significant degree.
References
Briaud, J.L., Ballouz, M., and Nasr, G. 2000. Static capacity prediction by dynamic
methods for three bored piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 126(7): 640–649. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:7(640).
de Sanctis, L., and Mandolini, A. 2006. Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(12):
1600–1610. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1600).
Fleming, M., Weltman, A., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, K. 2009. Piling engineer-
ing. Taylor & Francis.
Foray, P., Balachowski, L., and Rault, G. 1998. Scale effect in shaft friction due to
the localisation of deformations. In Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence Centrifuge 98, Tokyo. Edited by Y. Kimura, O. Kusaka, and J. Takemura.
Balkema, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 211–216.
Jardine, R., Chow, F., Overy, R., and Standing, J. 2005. ICP design methods for
driven piles in sands and clays. Thomas Telford Publishing.
Kim, D., Bica, A.V.D., Salgado, R., and Prezzi, M. 2009. Load testing of a closed-
ended pipe pile driven in multilayered soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
455
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(4): 463–473. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2009)135:4(463).
Lee, J.H., and Salgado, R. 1999. Determination of pile base resistance in sands.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(8): 673–
683. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:8(673).
Lee, J.H., and Salgado, R. 2002. Estimation of footing settlement in sand. The
International Journal of Geomechanics, 2(1): 1–28. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-
3641(2002)2:1(1).
Lehane, B.M., and Randolph, M.F. 2002. Evaluation of a minimum base resis-
tance for driven pipe piles in siliceous sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(3): 198–205. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2002)128:3(198).
Lehane, B.M., Gaudin, C., and Schneider, J.A. 2005. Scale effects on tension
capacity for rough piles buried in dense sand. Géotechnique, 55(10): 709–719.
doi:10.1680/geot.2005.55.10.709.
Loukidis, D., and Salgado, R. 2008. Analysis of the shaft resistance of non-
displacement piles in sand. Géotechnique, 58(4): 283–296. doi:10.1680/geot.
2008.58.4.283.
McCabe, B.A., and Lehane, B.M. 2006. Behavior of axially loaded pile groups
driven in clayey silt. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, 132(3): 401–410. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:3(401).
O'Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. 1999. Drilled shaft construction procedures and
design methods. Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., and Audibert, J.M.E. 1982a. Installation of pile
group in overconsolidated clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 108(11): 1369–1386.
O'Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., and Mahar, L.J. 1982b. Load transfer mechanisms in
piles and pile groups. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 108(12): 1605–1623.
Paik, K., and Salgado, R. 2003. Determination of bearing capacity of open-ended
piles in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
129(1): 46–57. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:1(46).
Paik, K., Salgado, R., Lee, J., and Kim, B. 2003. Behavior of open- and closed-ended
piles driven into sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering, 129(4): 296–306. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(296).
Phung, L.D. 1993. Footings with settlement-reducing piles in non-cohesive soil.
Chalmers University of Technology.
Poulos, H.G. 1989. Pile behaviour — theory and application. Géotechnique,
39(3): 365–415. doi:10.1680/geot.1989.39.3.365.
Randolph, M.F. 2003. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. Géo-
technique, 53(10): 847–875. doi:10.1680/geot.2003.53.10.847.
Salgado, R. 2008. The engineering of foundations. McGraw-Hill.
Salgado, R., Kim, D., Prezzi, M., DamianiBica, A., and Lee, W. 2011. Closure to
‘Load testing of a closed-ended pipe pile driven in multilayered soil’. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(10): 986–988. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000505.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 1011–
1043.
Seo, H., Yildirim, I.Z., and Prezzi, M. 2009. Assessment of the axial load response
of an h pile driven in multilayered soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Engineering, 135(12): 1789–1804. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000156.
Skempton, A.W. 1959. Cast in-situ bored piles in London clay. Géotechnique,
9(4): 153–173. doi:10.1680/geot.1959.9.4.153.
Xu, X., Schneider, J.A., and Lehane, B.M. 2008. Cone penetration test (CPT) meth-
ods for end-bearing assessment of open- and closed-ended driven piles in
siliceous sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(8): 1130–1141. doi:10.1139/
T08-035.
Xu, Y., and Zhang, L.M. 2007. Settlement ratio of pile groups in sandy soils from
field load tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
133(8): 1048–1054. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:8(1048).
Published by NRC Research Press
78

Active pressure on gravity walls supporting purely

frictional soils
D. Loukidis and R. Salgado

Abstract: The active earth pressure used in the design of gravity walls is calculated based on the internal friction angle of
the retained soil or backfill. However, the friction angle of a soil changes during the deformation process. For drained load-
ing, the mobilized friction angle varies between the peak and critical-state friction angles, depending on the level of shear
strain in the retained soil. Consequently, there is not a single value of friction angle for the retained soil mass, and the active
earth pressure coefficient changes as the wall moves away from the backfill and plastic shear strains in the backfill increase.
In this paper, the finite element method is used to study the evolution of the active earth pressure behind a gravity retaining
wall, as well as the shear patterns developing in the backfill and foundation soil. The analyses relied on use of a two-surface
plasticity constitutive model for sands, which is based on critical-state soil mechanics.
Key words: finite elements, plasticity, retaining walls, sands.
Résumé : La pression active des terres utilisée dans la conception des murs gravitaires est calculée à partir de l’angle de
friction interne du sol ou du remblai retenu. Cependant, l’angle de friction d’un sol change durant le processus de déforma-
tion. Dans le cas d’un chargement drainé, l’angle de friction mobilisé varie entre l’angle de friction au pic et celui à l’état
critique, dépendant du niveau de déformation en cisaillement dans le sol retenu. En conséquence, il n’y a pas de valeur
unique d’angle de friction pour une masse de sol retenue, et le coefficient de pression active des terres varie à mesure que
le mur se sépare du remblai et que les déformations plastiques en cisaillement augmentent dans le remblai. Dans cet article,
la méthode par éléments finis est utilisée pour étudier l’évolution de la pression active des terres derrière un mur de soutène-
ment gravitaire, ainsi que les patrons de cisaillement qui se développent dans le remblai et dans le sol de fondation. Les ana-
lyses sont réalisées à l’aide d’un modèle constitutif de plasticité à deux surfaces pour des sables, qui est basé sur la
mécanique de l’état critique des sols.
Mots‐clés : éléments finis, plasticité, murs de soutènement, sables.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced solutions in tabulated

form, assuming slip surfaces with logarithmic spiral shape.
The active earth pressure acting on the back of a retaining
More recently, Paik and Salgado (2003) estimated the active
wall controls its design. The active earth pressure is ex-
earth pressure behind rigid walls by improving the formula-
pressed as the product of the vertical effective stress s v0 in
tion of Handy (1985), which considers soil arching concepts.
the retained soil mass or backfill1 and the active earth pres-
Limit analysis has also been used to study the active earth
sure coefficient KA. The earliest and simplest methods for the
pressure problem. Rigorous upper bound values for KA estab-
calculation of the active earth pressure for purely frictional
lished by Chen (1975) and Soubra and Macuh (2002) using
backfills are those based on the Coulomb and Rankine theo-
limit analysis are in very close agreement with the values of Ca-
ries. For a backfill with horizontal surface, the Rankine solu-
quot and Kerisel (1948). Sokolovskiĭ (1965) solved the problem
tion is mathematically exact for a vertical and smooth wall
of active and passive earth pressure using the method of charac-
backface. Coulomb’s solution assumes a planar slip surface
teristics. More recently, Lancellotta (2002) provided a rigorous
and is equivalent to an upper bound solution. For a horizon-
lower-bound solution for active pressures in closed form:
tal backfill and a vertical wall backface, Coulomb’s solution

yields cosd
½2 KA ¼ ðcosd
1 þ sinf
½1 KA ¼
cos 2 f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2  sin 2 f  sin 2 dÞ e½darcsin ðsind=sinfÞ tanf
cosdf1 þ ½sin ðf þ dÞ sinf=cosdg

Received 21 March 2011. Accepted 26 September 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 20 December 2011.
D. Loukidis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus.
R. Salgado. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, USA.
Corresponding author: D. Loukidis (e-mail: loukidis@ucy.ac.cy).
1The paper is not restricted to backfilled walls. To call attention to applicability of the discussion to walls supporting natural ground as

well as completely backfilled walls, the terms “retained soil mass” and “backfill” are used interchangeably throughout.

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 78–97 (2012) doi:10.1139/T11-087 Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
The upper bound values for KA by Coulomb’s solution,
Chen (1975), and Soubra and Macuh (2002) are very close
to the corresponding lower bound values using Lancellotta’s
equation (eq. [2]); the differences do not exceed 7%. The KA
values by Sokolovskiĭ (1965) lie between the narrow band
defined by these lower and upper bounds.
Lower and upper bounds produced by limit analysis are
valid for perfectly plastic soils following an associated flow
rule (dilatancy angle j equal to the friction angle f). In the
case of materials commonly used for backfills (sands and
gravels), j is significantly lower than f. In fact, the complex-
ity of soil behavior goes beyond the difference between j
and f, as discussed in detail later, but this does not appear
to have been studied in connection with the analysis of re-
taining walls.
Three stability checks are traditionally done in wall design,
namely bearing capacity failure, sliding, and toppling. In es-
sence, these checks deal with assuring vertical, horizontal,
and moment equilibrium of the wall. While these separate
checks are easy for engineers to understand and apply, the
horizontal and moment resistances that the foundation soil
(including any embedment in front of the wall) can provide
to the wall are in fact coupled with the vertical bearing ca-
pacity. For example, toppling failure occurs in theory when
the foundation load eccentricity e becomes greater than one-
half the foundation width B. Unless the wall base is resting
on rock or very stiff soil, the wall foundation will actually
fail due to the excessively high contact pressure at the wall
base caused by large load eccentricity before toppling. In ad-
dition, wall sliding on its base is more likely to have the form
of a shallow one-sided bearing capacity mechanism with a
large horizontal displacement component (Loukidis et al.
2008) rather than pure sliding along the base–soil interface.
This paper aims to investigate the gravity wall–soil interac-
tion and the development of these different failure scenarios
by modeling the soil mechanical behavior in a realistic way
in a series of finite element (FE) analyses. This allows the
development of displacement and stress fields within the soil
that are not constrained by the simplifying assumptions of
perfect plasticity and associativity. These results are useful in
informing design decisions, the most important of which
being how to calculate the active pressures on the backface
of the wall. The FE analyses, which take into account nonas-
sociativity, stress dependence of sand strength and dilatancy,
stress-induced anisotropy, fabric-induced anisotropy, and pro-
gressive failure, focus on the evolution of KA with wall dis-
placement u. This permits establishing the soil friction angle
value that is suitable for the estimation of the design KA
value, which is the one that corresponds to the wall displace-
ment required to bring the wall to an ultimate limit state
(ULS).
Problem statement
Dependence of active earth pressure on wall movement
In methods of analysis currently used in design practice,
the main input for the calculation of KA for purely frictional
backfills is the internal friction angle f of the soil. These
methods, which include the Rankine, Coulomb, and Lancel-
lotta methods discussed earlier, assume that f is constant, i.e.,
its value is the same at all points inside the backfill and
79
does not change as the wall moves. This would be valid
for a very loose backfill, where all soil elements reach fail-
ure directly at critical state (CS), with f equal to the CS
friction angle fc . However, most practical cases involve
backfills consisting of medium dense and dense sands and
gravels, which are strain-softening materials when sheared
under drained conditions, meaning that the mobilized fric-
tion angle of an element of any of these soils will first
reach a peak value fp and then decrease towards fc . Cer-
tain regions inside the backfill mass will fail and start to
soften early in the loading process. The shear strain level
developed in these regions may be large enough for the
friction angle to drop to its CS value fc before the wall
reaches a ULS, while f is close to fp in other regions.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as progressive
failure. In addition, fp depends strongly on the level of
mean effective stress p′, which varies from point to point
inside the backfill and evolves continuously during wall
movement. It should also be noted that, given that retaining
walls have a much larger length than width, the deformation
of the backfill and foundation soil happens under plane-
strain conditions (so the CS friction angle is the plane-strain
CS friction angle (Loukidis and Salgado 2009)). Given that
the friction angle varies from point to point in the backfill,
the representative f value to be used in KA calculation
methods assuming perfect plasticity and associated flow is
unknown; it cannot be determined precisely based on intu-
ition or judgment.
Let us idealize the gravity wall initial condition as one in
which there has been no horizontal movement; as a result,
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K is equal to its at-
rest value (K0). If we allow the wall to move away from the
backfill, K first decreases to a minimum value KA, min (point
M in Fig. 1) and then increases to an ultimate (residual)
value KA, cr (point C in Fig. 1). Between points M and C, the
supported soil is in an active state. Point M is associated with
an active state for which the average mobilized f in the sup-
ported soil is closer to fp than fc . Point C is associated with
full mobilization of CS (f ¼ fc ) along all failure surfaces
(shear bands) formed in the retained soil.
To design a wall, we are interested in the value of KA at a
limit state (KA, LS), which is not necessarily equal to either
KA, cr or KA, min. At present, there are two approaches to deter-
mine KA (Salgado 2008), one based on calculations using an
estimate of fp and the other using an estimate of fc . The for-
mer approach, which is most common in practice, would
underpredict the active earth pressure on the wall at the limit
state, making it unconservative. On the other hand, using fc
may be overly conservative, since a well-designed wall would
not move as much as to cause more than 20% shear strain in
the shear bands developing in the backfill before the wall
reaches its limit state (Salgado 2008). The following section
examines in more detail what happens between points M and
C, and what would constitute an appropriately defined ULS
for a gravity wall.
Wall limit state (WLS)
To establish KA, LS, we need first to establish a way to
identify the ultimate WLS. We must stress that, in establish-
ing a limit state, we are unconcerned with what the value of
Published by NRC Research Press