Improved correlations with CPT data have had considerable duction of the soil friction angle (and hence
(and hence the interface friction
influence on design practice for estimating ultimate shaft resis­
tance. O f particular interest is the work of Jardine, Lehane and
their co-workers (e.g., Jardine and Chow, 1996; Lehane and Jar­
dine, 1994), who have carried eut tests on carefully instrumented
piles in both sand and clay. On the basis of these data, and meas­
urements of CPT in the soil, design procedures have been devel­
oped for both sands and clays. These methods are summarized in
Table 5.5 and cover both open-ended and closed-ended piles.
5.2.5 Comparison between various methods
It is instructive to compare some o f the commonly used methods
of assessing the ultimate capacity with methods developed more
recently. The case o f two driven precast concrete piles in sand,
described by Gregersen et al. (1973) is considered here. Figure
5.1 shows the soil conditions. A series of 0.28m diameter precast
piles was driven and tested, some being 8m long and others be­
ing a total of 16m in length. Table 5.6 shows the ultimate shaft,
base and total capacities computed by various methods, together
with the values deduced from the load tests. It can be seen that
there is some variability in the predictions from the various
methods employed, with the method of Poulos (1989) seriously
over-estimating the shaft capacity. For both pile lengths consid­
ered, the methods of Jardine and Chow (1996) and M E LT (1995)
agree well, and provide comfortably conservative estimates of
shaft capacity, although they tend to over-predict the base ca­
pacity. The approach of Lee and Salgado (1999) appears to give
reasonable base capacity predictions for both pile lengths.
5.2.6 Some issues relating to estimation o f ultimate shaft re­
sistance
A number of issues remain somewhat mysterious to many prac­
tical pile designers in relation to the ultimate shaft friction on
piles. Such issues include the following:
- Does a limiting value of f s actually exist, especially for piles
in sandy soils?
- How does the value of / , in uplift compare to the value of / ,
for compression?
- Can laboratory testing be used to provide a more reliable es­
timate of /,?
- How does cyclic loading influence /,?
The results of recent research over the past decade or so can
shed some light on these issues.
Limiting f s values fo r piles in sandy soils
The concept of limiting ultimate shaft resistance in sandy soils
was developed by Kerisel (1961), Vesic (1967) and BCP (1971).
It arose from tests on instrumented piles in which it appeared
that the average ultimate shaft friction reached a limiting value
for depths in excess of between 5 and 20 pile diameters from the
top of the pile. This was attributed to an arching phenomenon
around the shaft, and led to the adoption of a common practice of
specifying lim itin g /, values in design (e.g., Vesic, 1969; Meyer­
hof, 1976; Poulos and Davis, 1980).
The existence of such a lim iting value has been questioned
critically by a number o f authors subsequendy (e.g., Kulhawy,
1984; Fellenius, 1984). The apparent limiting values of / , have
been attributed to at least two factors:
- the existence o f residual stresses in the piles before the meas­
urements of shaft resistance were made. This leads to the
shaft friction in the lower part of the pile appearing to be
lower than the true value;
- the overconsolidation of the soil near the surface, which gives
rise to higher values of in-situ lateral stress, and hence values
of shaft resistance. The effects of overconsolidation become
less with increasing depth, and hence the rate of increase of
shaft resistance with depth becomes less.
Attempts to reproduce theoretically the apparent limiting
shaft friction have been unsuccessful, although a reduction in the
rate of increase o f shaft resistance has been obtained by consid­
eration of the effects o f compressibility of the soil, and the re­
2558
angle) with increasing effective pressure and depth. The conclu­
sion to be drawn from research into this aspect is that a limiting
value o f/ , probably does not exist, although the rate of increase
of / , with depth is not linear. However, from the viewpoint of
practical design, the adoption o f a suitable limiting value of f s is
a conservative approach which at least avoids predicting unreal-
istically large shaft friction values at great depths within a sandy
soil.
Shaft resistance in uplift and compression
It is generally accepted that the uplift shaft resistance for piles in
clay is similar to that for compressive loading. However, there is
conflicting evidence in relation to piles in sand, with some early
researchers indicating similar values for both compression and
uplift, while others found the values in uplift to be less than in
compression. A significant advance in understanding of this
problem was made by de N icola and Randolph (1993) who
showed that the ratio of the uplift resistances in uplift and com­
pression, / ,„ / f x , was dependent on the relative compressibility
of the pile, via the Poisson effect. The relationship they derived
is as follows:
f jf * = (1 - 0 - 2 1 o g lo[ 1 0 0 / ( L / ¿ ] } ( 1 - 8 r | + 2 5 t | 2 ) (5 .8 )
where L = pile length; d = pile diameter; r| = dimensionless
compressibility factor = vp.tan8 .(L/d).(GayEp)\ vp = pile Pois-
son's ratio; 8 = pile-soil interface friction angle; Gav = average
soil shear modulus along pile shaft; Ep = Young's modulus of
pile material. For typical piles in medium dense to dense sands,
this ratio typically ranges between 0.7 and 0.9, but tends towards
unity for relatively short piles.
Laboratory testing fo r f s
It has generally been accepted by practitioners that there is no
suitable laboratory test which can be used reliably to measure the
ultimate shaft friction /,. However, there has been a significant
development over the past 10-15 years in direct shear testing of
interfaces, with the development o f the “constant normal stiff­
ness” (CNS) test (Ooi and Carter, 1987; Lam and Johnston,
1982). The basic concept of this test is illustrated in Figure 5.2,
and involves the presence of a spring of appropriate stiffness
against which the normal stress on the interface acts. This test
provides a closer simulation o f the conditions at a pile-soil inter­
face than the conventional constant normal stress direct shear
test. The normal stiffness Kn can be “tuned” to represent the re­
straint of the soil surrounding the pile, and is given by:
K„ = 4G, Id (5.9)
where G, = shear modulus of surrounding soil; d = pile diameter.
The effects o f interface volume changes and dilatancy can be
tracked in a CNS test, and the results are particularly enlighten­
ing when cyclic loading is applied, as they demonstrate that the
cyclic degradation is due to the reduction in normal stress arising
from the cyclic displacements applied to the interface (see be­
low).
The Effects o f Cyclic Loading o n fs
Cyclic or repeated axial loading can arise from the action of
wave or wind forces and can be an important factor in the design
of piles for offshore structures, transmission towers, and some
tall buildings. The application o f cyclic loading to piles can have
at least two detrimental effects:
1. a possible reduction or "degradation" of pile resistance, espe­
cially shaft resistance
2. accumulation of permanent displacements.
I f the loading is applied rapidly, there may be a counterbal­
ancing effect of loading rate, that tends to increase pile resis­
tance.