Design of Piled Foundations

Design of Piled Foundations
Kuala Lumpur & Singapore, 5th & 7th September 2018
Short course presented by

Mark Randolph
MA PhD FAA FREng FRS FTSE FIEAust CPEng DSc (h.c.) ETH Zurich
Programme
8.30-9.00 Registration
9.00-9.10 Opening address
9.10-9.40 Lecture 1 Overview – design principles
9.40-10.40 Lecture 2 Axial capacity - derivation of design parameters from SI
data, effects of pile construction and aging
10.40-11.10 Break
11.10-11.50 Lecture 3 Axial load-settlement response
11.50-12.35 Lecture 4 Laterally loaded piles
12.35-13.30 Lunch
13.30-14.35 Lecture 5 Interaction effects and system response for design of pile
groups
14.35-15.30 Lecture 6 Design of piled rafts and case histories
15.30-16.00 Break
16.00-17.00 Lecture 7 Pile design software
17.00-17.15 Questions etc
17.15 Closure
About the presenter

Mark Randolph is Professor of Civil Engineering in the Centre for Offshore Foundation
Systems at the University of Western Australia. His two main research interests are pile
foundations and offshore geotechnics, and he has co-authored books in each area: Piling
Engineering, now in its third edition, and Offshore Geotechnical Engineering. He has published
around 300 journal articles, providing novel solutions to practical problems. He is also the
author of various pieces of software for analysis and design of piles and pile groups.
Professor Randolph interacts closely with industry, both in research and through his role as
Technical Advisor within Fugro AG. He is a Fellow of several learned academies, including the
Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science, and in 2013 was elected Scientist of the
Year in Western Australia. In 2015 he received an honorary doctorate from ETH Zurich.
Design of Piled Foundations ‐ Mark Randolph September 2018
Overview – design principles
Mark Randolph [mark.randolph@uwa.edu.au]
Professor of Civil Engineering
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS)
University of Western Australia
Technical Advisor, Fugro AG, Perth

September 2018
Design of piled foundations – schedule
9.35-10.30 Lecture 2 Axial capacity: design parameters from SI

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch
13.45-14.35 Lecture 5 Interaction effects and system response for

design of pile groups
15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Overview of design process; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Design of piled foundations – outcomes

Target outcomes for the course:
• Awareness of the role of pile testing in design
• Appreciation of influence of pile construction techniques on pile
performance
• Ability to derive design parameters for piles from intrinsic soil
properties and site investigation data
• Awareness of time effects on pile capacity
• Familiarity with calculation approaches used to quantify the in-service
response of single piles and pile groups
• Awareness of the effects of cyclic shearing, including that occurring
during installation, on the capacity of piles
• Appreciation of interaction effects and complete system response in
design of pile groups and piled rafts
• Exposure to simple software tools for analysis of piles
Role of design guidelines and codes

• Should avoid mandates that discourage innovation
• Should allow flexibility in site investigation, construction
and calculation techniques
• Safety in design is primary objective
Quote from ISO 19904/1 Quote from Australian standard AS 2159
“The offshore structures “Decisions in pile design are based on design
International Standards are intended formulae, empirical and practical experience,
to provide a wide latitude in the and the accumulated records of a large
choice of structural configurations, number of applications of proprietary systems
materials and techniques without (both successful and otherwise). As such,
hindering innovation. Sound there is a great need for flexibility,
engineering judgement is therefore experience, engineering judgement and
necessary in the use of these common sense in designing and constructing
International Standards.” a piled footing system. In a real sense, these
requirements are in conflict with the need to
make unqualified mandatory statements.”
2
Basis of design for piled foundations
Inputs drivability, casing integrity, hole collapse,

damage, maintenance of hole cleaning,
Interpreted driving stresses, hydrofracture,
soil support
SI data directional stability base integrity,
Design loading
load and Driven Driven Drilled
resistance factors (or jacked) cast in situ cast in situ
testing strategy
Installation
traditional methods, issues short or long pile
CPT-based methods, failure modes,
other correlations, Axial Lateral plastic moment
progressive failure, capacity capacity capacity,
Piles cyclic response
cyclic degradation
Axial Lateral
response response
elastic solutions, elastic solutions,
t-z modelling, Other P-y modelling,
structural stiffness, considerations structural stiffness,
group response group response
seismic soil movement, scour,

response downdrag landslides
Categorisation of piled foundations
Displacement piles Non-displacement piles
Soil and rock displaced during installation Soil and rock removed during construction
Large displacement Small displacement

Steel
Unsupported Supported
Preformed Cast in place H-section Screw Open Other

tube sections
Driven Temporary support
Screwed Continuous Shoring or Drilling

Temporary Permanent flight auger casing fluid
casing casing
Permanent
support
Concrete Timber Composite

Closed Concrete
steel tube shell Steel Concrete Other
casing casing
Reinforced Prestressed
3
Construction issues
• Driven piles
• Drivability: premature refusal, damage, cumulative soil displacements
• Validation: monitoring, re-drive testing , dynamic or static testing
• Cast in situ piles
• Soil support: hole collapse, reduced stresses and stiffness in ground
• Drilling fluids: bentonite systems, polymer muds, instrumented drilling
• Testing: low strain (integrity), high strain – dynamic, rapid or static
• Potential ground hazards
• Buried objects or other latent conditions (not revealed during SI)
• Slope instability
• Local technology basis
• Experience base of contractors, infrastructure (e.g. concrete delivery)
• Validated prior experience for given site conditions
Reliability of pile design

• Underlying principles common to most codes
• Design ‘action effect’ Ed less than design (geotechnical) ‘strength’ Rg
E d  R g  g R gu
where Rgu is the unfactored ultimate geotechnical strength

and g the relevant adjustment factor (< 1)
• Serviceability: operational deformations must not exceed allowed levels
• Choice of adjustment ‘safety’ factors g
• Logical to allow range of g, depending on
• Relative level of risk
• Design method and extent of validation by testing
• Testing strategy often a key aspect of cost-effective design for piled
foundations
4
Choice of partial factor for geotechnical design

Examples taken from Australian Standard AS 2159
• Underlying principles common to most codes
• Design ‘action effect’ Ed less than design (geotechnical) ‘strength’ Rg

g  gb   tf  gb K  gb 
where tf reflects quality of testing, and K the proportion of piles tested
and gb is a minimum factor related to the relative risks
tf Type of test Adjustment factor for percentage

p of piles tested
gb No testing
0.75 Rapid or dynamic on cast in situ piles 1.33p
K  1 for static or rapid testing
0.8 Dynamic testing of preformed piles
p  3. 3
1.13p
0.85 Internal O-cell type jacking tests K  1 for dynamic testing
p  3. 3
0.9 Static load testing
Base geotechnical strength reduction factor

• Base reduction factor gb assessed from average risk ratio, taking
account of level of redundancy in the pile layout
• Individual piles beneath column loads (low redundancy)
• Groups of capped piles supporting loads (high redundancy)
Risk rating Risk category Low redundancy gb High redundancy gb
ARR ≤ 1.5 Very low 0.67 0.76
1.5 < ARR ≤ 2.0 Very low to low 0.61 0.70
2.0 < ARR ≤ 2.5 Low 0.56 0.64
2.5 < ARR ≤ 3.0 Low to moderate 0.52 0.60
3.0 < ARR ≤ 3.5 Moderate 0.48 0.56
3.5 < ARR ≤ 4.0 Moderate to high 0.45 0.53
4.0 < ARR ≤ 4.5 High 0.42 0.50
ARR > 4.5 Very high 0.40 0.47
5
Assessment of risk rating

• Assess ‘individual’ risk rating according to level of risk (IRR = 1 for very
low to 5 for very high), considering issues such as
• Geology: uniform soil layer to complex layered stratigraphy
• Extent and quality of ground investigation
• Amount of useful quantitative in situ and laboratory test data
• Previous experience with similar foundations in similar soil or rock
• Methodologies for assessing pile design parameters and pile capacity
• Method of incorporating results of in situ pile testing
• Construction control and post-construction monitoring strategy
• Tabulated weights (wi = 0.5,1 or 2) and assessed individual risk factors
then combined to give average risk rating as
ARR 
 w i IRR i
 wi
Probabilistic approach to pile design

• Consider a ‘population’ of piles with mean capacity 1.3 MN and
standard deviation of 0.65 MN (P10 ~ 0.64 MN ~ gRgu for g = 0.5)
• Total of Ntest pile load tests undertaken to maximum load of 1.0 MN, but
with standard deviation of 0.2 MN (load uncertainty, e.g. dynamic test)
• What is predicted pile capacity if nf piles fail to reach the nominal 1 MN?
• Even single test can increase P10 value by 50% (to 1 MN)
Prior PDF and
1.1
1.1
cumulative probability
11
0.9
0.9 Cumulative
0.8
0.8 probability
probability
0.7
Probability
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.6
Posterior PDF and Example courtesy
cumulative probability Dr Jinsong Huang
0.5
0.5 (Single test, no failure)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2 Probability
0.1
0.1 density function
00
00 0.5
0.5 11 1.5 1.5 22 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pile capacity (MN)
Pile capacity (MN)
6
Bayes theorem
• Given event A, with prior probability p(A)
• What is posterior probability if related event B occurs first?
p(A) p(A and B) Posterior Prior

probability probability
of A given B of A
p  B A p  A
p  A | B 
p(B) p  B
• For continuous probability functions

• Relative frequency (PDF) of x given n is
p  n x  f  x  dx p  n x  f  x  dx
f  x n  dx  
p n b
 p  n x  f  x  dx
a
Bayesian interpretation of pile load tests

• Prior to testing: (log normal: mean 1.3 MN, standard dev. 0.65 MN)
• Design for geotechnical capacity based on P10 = 0.64 MN (g ~ 0.5)
• Posterior predictions
• Consider up to 4 tests with loads up to 1 MN (error standard dev. 0.2 MN)
• P10 increases from 0.64 MN (no tests) to 0.78 MN (2 tests, 1 fail) and
0.97 MN (4 tests, 1 fail) [or g ~ 0.75, e.g. dynamic testing of ~10% of piles]
1.4
Posterior P10 pile capacity
1.2
1
0.8 Example courtesy
0.6 Dr Jinsong Huang
0.4 Ntes t = 1 Ntes t = 2 N = 3 N = 4
tes t tes t
0.2 N tes t = 0
(prior P10)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of failed tests
7
Static, rapid and dynamic testing
Pile testing method

Rapid
Static Dynamic
(e.g. Statnamic)
Unit cost ($/tonne) 100 - 200 40 - 80 5 - 10
Loading duration 5 – 200 hours 120 – 200 ms 10 – 30 ms
Reaction mass
100 5 - 10 1-2
(% of max load)
Interpretation Direct Simple Complex
Equipment Routine Specialist Readily available
Kentledge reaction for static tests
Concrete blocks
Spreader
grillage
Jack Timber
framing
Suspended
reference beam
Pile
8
Reaction piles or anchors for static tests
Reaction beam
Tension
bars Jack
Reference beam
Tension Ground
pile anchors
Pile
Osterberg cell method (cast in situ piles)
2 level arrangement
Reference beam
Tell-tale
rod for displacement
measurements
A
Level of cell judged to
give similar pile
resistance above and Osterberg
below cell cell(s) B
9
Osterberg cells and bearing plates
Hydraulic jacks (3 per level)
Steel bearing plate

(above and below jacks)
Statnamic (or ‘rapid’) load testing
Reaction mass, M
(upward acceleration, a)
M(g + a) = Fpile
Pressure
chamber
Fpile
Pile
10
Dynamic load testing
Pile monitoring and testing during driving

Hammer
Gauge sets 1 and 2
Main Cable
Data acquisition
and analysis
Gauge
set 1
Main
cable
11
Inverse analysis – fitting of stress-wave data

• Stress-wave measurements
• Dynamic force and velocity data from pile instrumentation
• Iterative adjustment of all soil data until fitting of measured data
Steel pipe pile
7000
0.61 m diam. embedded 32.8 m
6000 Computed F
Continuum
5000 Computed ZV model
Force or Z x Velocity (kN)
2L/c
4000 Measured F External shaft 2.43 MN
Force ShaftMeasured
resistance ZV Internal shaft 3.97 MN
3000
(Fu > 0) Base 0.94 MN
2000
Fitted Total 7.34 MN
1000
0
-1000 0 10 20 30 40
Measured
-2000 Tip reflection
Factored velocity, Zv
(Fu tending < 0)
-3000
Time (ms)
Comparison with static load test
8
Force 7
(MN) Dynamic test
6
Measured Range of Qext = 2.43 MN
5
reasonable
4 Qint = 3.97 MN
fits to dynamic test
3 Qbase = 0.94 MN
Computed Total = 7.34 MN
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
12
Concluding remarks
• Pile construction methods continue to advance and innovate
• New technology needs extensive verification before adoption
• Design codes must allow flexibility to accommodate innovation, both in
technology and in calculation methods
• Design standards increasingly aiming at a given level of reliability

• Most design calculations are still deterministic, but probabilistic approaches
are starting to be promoted
• National codes must develop their own systems of strength reduction factors
but in future may also need to encompass non-deterministic calculations
• In situ testing is increasing in importance

• For site investigation, to provide direct input into design (e.g. from cone
penetration test data)
• For pile testing, the proportion of piles tested and type of test will influence
choice of strength reduction factor
13
Axial capacity of piles
Mark Randolph

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Axial capacity of piles; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Axial pile response - capacity

Q
8000
7000
6000
Pile head load (kN)

D Q  Qs  Q b
Shaft
5000
capacity D 2
4000  DLs  qb
L s 4
3000
2000 Base
capacity
1000
0
qb 0 50 100
Pile head displacement (mm)
Bored pile: 0.8 m diameter by 20 m embedment

Axial pile response - stiffness

Operational
P
stiffness
6000
5000 • Operating load carried

almost entirely by shaft
D
Pile head load (kN)
4000 • shaft friction mobilised at

/D ~ 1% D
3000 • base resistance mobilised
L at /D ~ 10% D
s
2000
1000
0
qb 0 5 10 15 20
Pile head disp. (mm)

2
Overview
• Ultimate capacity
• Nature of failure – shaft friction and end-bearing
• Choice of strength parameters for soil or rock
• Derivation of pile design parameters from soil/rock data
• Material type (sand, clay, rock etc)
• Design approaches for driven piles
• Sand: CPT-based approach
• Friction degradation
• Time dependency: consolidation (clay); aging effects (sand)
• Cast-in-situ piles
• Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles
• Proprietary cast-in-place piles
• Design parameters for rock sockets
• Offshore drilled and grouted piles
Axial pile capacity – input soil parameters

P • Soil ‘strength’
• su, qucs, ' by deduction only (qc as primary)
• also by correlation with SPT blowcount N
• What is most appropriate measure of strength
D for pile design?
s • How do pile type, geometry and construction
'n methods affect design parameters?
L
s = 'n tan 
= f('v0, K0, su, qc, ' (or ) etc)
e.g. su, K'v0 tan 'v0, fsqc
qb
qb,design = f('v0, su, qc, ' etc)
e.g. Nq'v0, Ncsu, fbqc

3
Principles for shaft capacity in sand (driven piles)
• Shaft friction and base resistance linked to cone resistance, qc

• qc provides superior measure of strength than '
• Open-ended piles displace less soil, leading to lower radial stresses
• use area ratio Ar to adjust end-bearing and shaft friction
• Maximum radial stresses and friction ratio s/qc near pile tip
• friction degradation: reduction in s/qc with distance from pile tip
• Interface friction angle 29-24º decreasing with d50 from sand to gravel
Soil flow modes: partial plugging
Soil flow Radial stress Soil flow Radial stress Soil flow Radial stress
(a) Closed ended pile, Ar = 1 (b) Coring (unplugged) pile (c) Partially plugged pile
Di2 D2
Area ratio, Ar A r  1  IFR 2
Equivalent diameter, Deq D eq  A r D  1  IFR i D
D D2
Pipe pile: Diameter (D) to wall thickness (t) ratio is D/t
Ar ~ 4/(D/t) ; typically D/t ~ 40, Ar ~ 0.1 (assuming IFR = 1)
4
Degradation of shaft friction during driving

• Shaft friction near pile tip broadly proportional to cone resistance
• Magnitude at any depth degrades as pile advances
Cone resistance Low friction

Imperial College qc/100 coefficient
model pile
6 m x 100 mm
D Friction
fatigue
h/D =
Load cells: 25
radial and
shear stress h/D = 13 h/D = 4
h
High stress
behind tip
Data from Lehane et al (1993)
Experimental results from cyclic shearing
200
Densification due to
silica sand, ±1 mm,
cyclic shearing
uncemented
Shear Stress (kPa)
100  = 1.25
0 Trend
Constant normal
stiffness
-100
 = 1.25
-200
0 50 100 150
Normal Stress (kPa)
5
Soil-steel interface friction angle, 
0.8 36
Interface Friction Angle, cv

0.7 34 Recommended
Trend
0.6 32
0.5 30
 = tan cv
0.4 28
0.3 26
Jardine et al. 1993
0.2 Dietz 2000 24
0.1 Frost et al. 2002 22 Ra ≈ 5 to 15 m
Fugro 2004
0 20
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1 10
Rn = Ra/d50 Median Grain Size, d50 (mm)
UWA-05 approach shaft resistance

Lehane et al. (2005)
• Developed at UWA as API-funded research 2003-2005
• based on large global database of pile load tests
Distance from
• Shaft resistance:
pile tip
0.5
  h 
sf  0.021q c A r 0.3
 max  , 1  f ct tan 
  2D 
Intrinsic Friction Friction

radial stress degradation coefficient
Open-ended Compression: 1
adjustment Tension: 0.75
• Assume, during driving, that incremental filling ratio IFR = 1

4
A r  1  IFR Di / D 2  1  Di / D 2  t Di
D/t D
6
Base capacity of piles in sand

• Base capacity, qbu
• link to cone resistance, qc
design value of qc considering several pile diameters
• consider limited displacements (e.g. 10 % pile diameter)
residual stresses important
1 q = 0.7q
bo c
qb/qc Limit based on
0.8 0.3qc average qc
e.g. from 2-4D above,
0.6 to 2-4D
b q 1 below pile tip
0.4  0.5 c
D Eb 1  qb / qc
0.2 (Fleming, 1992)
0
0 1 2 3 4
Normalised displacement, w/D
Base capacity of piles in sand

• Residual stresses
• highest for jacked piles
• cannot exceed shaft capacity
• low residual stresses for open-ended piles
Small displacements
0.9 qbo = 0.7qc
qb/qc Jacked piles
0.6 qbo = 0.3qc
Driven:closed ended
Driven: open-ended
0.3
Bored
0
0 0.1 0.2
w/d
7
UWA-05 base resistance

• Base resistance:
• tip displacement of D/10
q bf  (0.15  0.45A r )q c
2
D 
A r  1  IFR i 
 Do 
• Linear trend with Ar matches field 0.15 0.6 1.0
qb/qc
data
• Thin-walled unplugged pile 0.1
Plugged
• qb ~ 0.15-0.2qc or
closed
• Closed ended or plugged (during
driving) pile qb0.1/qc
qb0.1/qc wb/D
• qb ~ 0.6qc Unplugged
thin-walled
Example axial pile capacity in sand

Cone resistance qc (MPa) End-bearing qb (MPa)
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 15 30 45 60
0 0
5 5
10 10
Cone
resistance
Depth (m)
15 15
Depth (m)
20 Raw 20
cone resistance
25 25
30 30 Shaft friction
35 35 Unit end-bearing
Averaged (5 m) resistance
cone resistance
40 40
0 100 200 300
Shaft friction s (kPa)
• Pile: 1.5 m diameter, 37.5 mm wall thickness (D/t = 40, Ar ~ 0.10)

• Embedment 33 m (L/D = 22)
8
Comparison of open and closed ended pile

End-bearing qb (MPa) Cumulative capacity (MN)
0 15 30 45 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
5 5
Shaft friction
(15 m embedment, Closed-ended
10 closed ended) 10 1.5 m diameter
15 m embedment
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Cone
20 resistance 20
25 25
Open-ended
1.5 m diameter
30 30 33 m embedment
Open Closed Open Closed

35 35
End-bearing Shaft friction
(33 m embedment)
40 40
0 100 200 300 400
Shaft friction s (kPa)
• Closed ended pile increases end-bearing 3-fold, and shaft friction 2-fold
• Embedment of 15 m has similar shaft capacity and 3-fold higher base capacity
Beware: carbonate sands

• Contraction of carbonate sand causes very low normal effective
stresses, hence low shaft friction
• Experienced offshore Australia, Brazil and elsewhere
Schneider
et al (2007)
9
Driven pile axial capacity in clay
• Design usually based on in situ undrained strength, su

• Methods using pile  CPT analogy have been proposed, but are not
yet widely adopted
• Large increase in radial stress during pile installation
• In soft clay (low OCR, low su/vo), installation causes high positive
excess pore pressure
• Subsequent equalisation (consolidation) causes a gain in the strength
of the soil close to the pile, but also some relaxation of total stress
• Current offshore guidance uses correlations for sf/su as a function of
su/vo based on Randolph-Murphy 1985 study
• Base resistance assessed using Nc = 9 bearing factor
Offshore design method for axial capacity in clay

Q
Randolph & Murphy (1985)
1 / 4
1 s 
   u 
2  ' v 0 
1 / 2
1 s 
   u  sf
2  ' v 0 
sf  s u  s u v0 sf  s u  s3u / 4v10/ 4
qbf
q bf  N cs u
Nc  9
10
Time effects on pile capacity
• Clay (fine-grained soils)

• ‘set-up’ consistent with consolidation mechanisms
• time-scale scales in proportion to area ratio (Ar or Deq2)
• typical t90 consolidation times:
o 1-3 months for open ended piles
o 1 to 3 years for closed-ended piles
• Sand (free-draining soils)
• minimal ‘consolidation’ effects, although some pore pressure
dissipation in layers that liquefy partially during pile driving
• but ... significant (factor of 2) increase over a year or two
• increased shaft capacity attributed to creep mechanisms
• calcareous sands – no evidence of improvement
Driven piles in clay: pore pressure dissipation

1
u/umax
Randolph (2003) Closed-ended pile
0.8
(G/su = 100)
• Extent of excess pore pressure
0.6
field, hence consolidation time,
0.4
scales with Deq2 20
80 40
0.2 D/t = 160
u/umax Open-ended piles
1 0
0.9
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/su = 100 T = cht/D2
0.8
0.7
0.6 Closed
0.5 D/t = 20
0.4 D/t = 40
0.3 D/t = 80
0.2 D/t = 160 Deq  A r D  2 Dt
SPM: Whittle
0.1
SPM: Teh & Houlsby
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
2
Teq = cht/Deq
11
Development of axial pile resistance – Gulf of Mexico
Consolidation index
1
CI ~ 1 
1  T/ T500.75
T10 ~ T50/20 : t10 ~ 2 to 5 hours

T50 ~ 0.6 : t50 ~ 2 to 5 days
T90 ~ 20T50 : t90 ~ 1 to 3 months
Aging effects in sand - Euripides pile load test

qc (MPa)
• 0.76 m diameter 0 25 50 75 100
• Embedded 47 m 0
• Dense sands: 5
27.5 – 50 q
mult qmob,0.1D 10
Initial test
15
20
Depth (m)
25
30
35
40
45
50
Test site: Dunkirk
12
Aging effects for driven piles in sand

• Typically: doubling of capacity
over 1st year since installation Rimoy et al. (2015)
• Physio-chemical changes at
pile-soil interface
• Initial (1-day) shaft

friction overestimated
by CPT approaches
• CPT predictions:
30-day capacity
Non-displacement cast-in-situ piles
• Construction techniques
• bored piles (drilled shafts) with support from
o temporary casing
o drilling mud (bentonite or polymer)
• onshore continuous flight auger (CFA) piles – enlisting soil support
• proprietary (screw-injected) piles simulate ‘full-displacement’ piles
• offshore: drilled and grouted piles, generally cemented sediments
• Potential hazards
• hole collapse or significant reduction in geostatic stress conditions
• coating of shaft, e.g. with bentonite cake
• debris at toe (soft base response unless remedial pressure grouting)
• hydro-fracture (grouted piles)
13
Cast-in-situ piles – design approaches

• Shaft friction
• strong dependency on shaft
roughness (interlocking)
• normal effective stress at
failure correlates better with sf = 'ntan
qc than 'v0
• End-bearing Dilation for high
socket roughness
• design end-bearing limited by
will increase 'n
mobilisation displacement
(without pressure grouting) qb
sf  Kv0 tan or f s q c or q c / s q b,design  0.15  0.2q c
fs = 1/s depends
K ~ 0.8 to 1.5
on soil type
CFA piles – shaft and base capacity

Photo courtesy
Prof Ken Gavin
5000 0.5
4500 0.45
Normalised base resistance, qb /qc
4000 0.4
Base pressure, qb (kPa)
Founding
3500 450 mm 0.35
level
3000 0.3
2500 800 mm 0.25
2000 0.2
1500 0.15
1000 0.1 • Mobilised shaft capacity ~ 0.8% qc
500 0.05
• appropriate for (silty) sand)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Mobilised base resistance ~ 0.2-0.25qc
Normalised base displacement, sb /B (%)
Gavin et al. (2009, 2013)
14
CFA piles - shaft friction linked to cone resistance

200 4
180 3.6
Cone resistance to shaft friction ratio

160 s = qc/s clay 3.2
140 s ~ 3-5 % of qc 2.8
Friction ratio (%)

120 2.4
 s = qc/s 100 2
fs = s/qc
80 1.6
sand
60 s ~ 0.6 % of qc 1.2
40 0.8
20 0.4
0 0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Soil consistency index, I c
• Quantify soil type through Robertson’s soil ‘consistency index’ Ic

• s/qc increases from 0.0055-0.006 (sand) to 0.03-0.04 (clay)
• qc/s decreases from 160-180 (sand) to 20-30 (clay)
Driven cast-in-place piles

Normalised distance from pile tip (h/D)
UWA-05
driven piles
(AFR = 1)
0.5
  h 
sf  fs q c  max  , 1 
  2D 
Test data
(3 pile tests)
Steel tubes
0.32 m diameter
Normalised shaft friction (s/qc)
Embedment
range • Shaft friction similar to (but )
that for driven piles
Flynn & McCabe (2016)

15
Fundex piles - base capacity

Photos courtesy
Prof Ken Gavin
16
14
12
Base pressure (MPa)

10
6
Piles 0.46 m diam. 4 qb= 10 to 13.7 MPa
embedded ~ 20 m
2
qc,tip,avg ~
0
9.75 to 12.0 MPa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Base settlement (mm)
• ‘Design’ qc near pile base depends on

averaging method
• Mobilised base resistance, qb ~ qc,tip,avg
Gavin (2018)
Shaft friction for full-displacement driven piles

UWA-05 CFA
driven piles piles
0.5
  h 
sf  fs q c  max  , 1 
  2D  Screw-
injected
pile
Data for driven

cast-in-place
piles
Normalised shaft friction (s/qc) Normalised shaft friction (s/qc)
• CPT-based approach (e.g. UWA-05) provides reasonable basis for

driven piles and lower bound for full-displacement cast-in-situ piles
Gavin (2018)
16
Pile capacity in weak rock
• Rock-sockets typically relatively short, but with significant load

transfer from the shaft
• Construction detail important for good performance
• rough socket critical for high shaft friction (due to dilation effects)
• clean base, with sound rock, critical for stiff base response
Dilation due to socket

s = n'tan roughness gives high n'
qb
End-bearing capacity in weak rock
100
CPT: calibration
Cone resistance, qc chamber (with v')
or
CPT:
end-bearing, qmax
triaxial q max q 
0.5
(MPa)  15 ucs 
pa  pa 
10
0.5
qc q  End-bearing data
 60 ucs 
pa  pa  CPT: zero from Zhang &
overburden Einstein (1998)
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Unconfined compressive strength, qucs (MPa)
17
Shaft friction versus unconfined shear strength

0.5 0.5
s s  q 
  u  or  ucs 
pa  pa   2p a 
100 Overland Corner:
Normalised Grouted Section Test
shaft Grouted Driven Pile =3 2
friction Grouted Anchor 1
Rod Shear Test (Lab)
s/pa 10 CNS Shear Test (Lab)
Lab. grouted
Kulhawy & Phoon (1993)
1 driven pile
Clay
Shale, mudstone
" (rough socket)
 = 0.5 Sandstone, Limestone, Marl
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalised shear strength, su(CIU)/pa, qucs/2pa
Variation of roughness with strength
(Seidel & Haberfield 1995)

20 Mean
roughness
Mean 15
angle
roughness 15 (deg)
Maximum roughness
height
(mm) 10
10
5
5
Minimum roughness
0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalised shear strength, su/pa, qucs/2pa
18
Correlation of shaft friction with cone resistance

Laboratory test data for grouted driven piles
(Joer & Randolph, 1994)
0.3
Grouting pressures
50 kPa
0.25 75 kPa
100 kPa
0.2 150 kPa
200 kPa
p 0.15
p /q c
250 kPa
300 kPa
qc 500 kPa
0.1 T rend upper bound
T rend lower bound
0.05 Design:
p ~ 2 to 4 % of qc
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
qq c/p
c/ pa a
Grouted pile tests at Overland Corner, SA

Woodside Offshore Petroleum Esso Australia (1988)
(1987-8)
30
0.98 x 5.1 m
35 0.44 x 2.4 m
40
Depth 2.08 x 5.1 m 0.95 x 10.0 m

(m) 0.41 x 10.0 m
45
0.44 x 15.6 m
Grouted driven
Grouted section tests pile tests
50
19
Key parameters for Overland Corner limestone
• Cone resistance, qc 10 - 18 MPa

(average: 14 MPa)
• Grouted anchors, p 526 - 614 kPa
(residual: 25 - 40 % peak)
• Hydraulic fracture, pi 1600 - 2300 kPa
(overburden: 500 - 800 kPa)
• Pressuremeter, Gur > 350 MPa (compliance limited)
(su: 600 - 700 kPa)
• CNS tests, p 160 - 320 kPa
(residual values: 50 - 100 kPa)
• Rod shear tests, p 300 - 600 kPa
(residual values: 100 - 300 kPa)
Diameter effect: grouted section tests

500
0.44 m diameter
Average 400
shear stress 0.98 m diameter
(kPa) 300
2.08 m diameter
200
100
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement/diameter (%)
Reduction in peak shaft friction with increasing diameter is

consistent with constant normal stiffness concept
20
Peak shear stress and cone data
Peak shear stress (kPa)

0 200 400 600 800 1000
30
Rod shear tests
Grouted driven
35 pile tests
Depth below
ground surface
(m)
40
Constant normal Anchor tests
stiffness (CNS) tests
45
Grouted section tests
2 % qc 4 % qc
50
Offshore grouted piles in strong limestone
Woodside’s Pluto field

North-West Shelf of Australia
• Water depth 84 m
• Grooved drilled and grouted
piles
• Pile diameter = 3 m
• Pile length 29 m
• 3 piles at each corner
21
A groovy foundation solution
Courtesy of Woodside Energy Ltd
Analysis by Advanced Geomechanics
Courtesy of Woodside Energy Ltd 43
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Axial capacity of piles; September 2018 The University of Western Australia
A groovy foundation solution

The top
The middle
The bottom Courtesy of Woodside Energy Ltd
22
Concluding remarks
• Improved understanding of mechanics of axial load transfer
• Friction degradation for driven piles – in particular for sands
• Roughness-induced dilation results in shaft friction linked closely with soil
‘strength’, rather than initial effective stresses
• Increasing use of in situ (cone resistance) data for pile capacity
• Construction effects
• Friction degradation for driven piles – in particular for sands
• Aging effects
• Potential doubling of shaft friction due to physio-chemical changes
• CFA piles – uniform ratio of shaft friction to cone resistance
• Full-displacement cast-in situ piles show high friction ratios s/qc
• Rock-sockets
• Shaft roughness a vital aspect
• Effect of pile diameter: decreasing shaft friction with increasing diameter
23
Axial load-settlement response
Mark Randolph

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Axial load-settlement response; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Axial pile response - capacity

Q
8000
7000
6000
Pile head load (kN)

D Q  Qs  Q b
Shaft
5000
capacity D 2
4000  DLs  qb
L s 4
3000
2000 Base
capacity
1000
0
qb 0 50 100

Axial pile response - stiffness

Operational
P
stiffness
6000
5000 • Operating load carried

almost entirely by shaft
D
Pile head load (kN)
4000 • shaft friction mobilised at

/D ~ 1% D
3000 • base resistance mobilised
L at /D ~ 10% D
s
2000
1000
0
qb 0 5 10 15 20

2
Overview
• Stiffness
• Simple elastic solutions
• Limits of behaviour
• Numerical analysis – load transfer approach
• Strain softening and progressive failure
• Back-analysis of pile load tests
• Cyclic loading effects for offshore applications
Axial load-settlement of piles – key parameters

P
Basic approach:
w radius, r
Elastic (+ allowance for pile slip)
D = 2ro Pile stiffness (P/w)
P/w = f(L, D, Ep, G, )
L Soil: Dimensional analysis yields:

G,  Poisson’s ratio
P  L Ep 
 f  , ,  
Ep wDG  D G 
Slenderness ratio
depth, z Non-dimensional Stiffness ratio, 
3
Equivalent solid cylindrical pile
H-pile: Take D2/4 = bw Pipe pile
Di
w D D
Equivalent solid pile
E  A steel
Pile considered as solid: E p  steel
D 2 / 4
Axial stiffness of piles – formulation for uniform soil

Mylonakis & Gazetas (1998, 2001)
• elegant expressions for pile head (Winkler spring soil)
Pt
K Pt K  S tanhL
wt  S b S (for L > 2)
S  K b tanhL
axial
wt
ka EAp
D L  L and S  L  EAp k a
EAp L
L ka ~ 1.5G
w Pile shaft compliance
(dimensionless pile length)
(EA)p
Mobilisation of shaft friction initiated near pile head:
P
slip 1 1 EAp
Pb ~ 
Qshaft L L ka
Kb
wb - Consequences for progressive failure and cyclic stability
4
Single pile axial stiffness – general expression

G avg GL
P (w) Shear modulus  
Gavg GL Gb GL Gb
D Ep
 b 
D D GL
L L/2 2w / D
 ~ n51  1   L / D 
0 / G
Db L
Normalised pile length:
2 L
Depth L  2
 D
2 2 tanh L L

P

1     L D
 

G L Dw 1  1 8 tanh L L 2
 1    L D For large L
Design chart for pile stiffness
30
GL Db 3000
P  1  1
25 Gb D
G L Dw
20 G avg
  0.75 1000
15 GL
10 300
100 Ep
5 30

 = 10
GL
0
1 10 100
Pile
Pileslenderness
slendernessratio, L/d
ratio, L/D
5
Non-linear soil response
• Elastic solution may be extended for non-linear soil response

• hyperbolic soil model
1
 G o
1  R f G o /  f 
• elastic, perfectly plastic, with partial slip
• Note, integrated load transfer response is more 'linear' than soil
element response
R   e   0   
 f o   ln  
f  1   
• parabolic load transfer curve gives good representation of
hyperbolic soil model
• displacement at peak load transfer is approximately double
the purely elastic response
Non-linear soil response: load transfer approach

P P
• Pile simulated by elastic springs
• Pile-soil interaction by non-linear
‘t-z’ springs
• non-linear pre-peak
• displacement-softening post-peak
Ep   f w 
w  g z 
Pb= h(wbase)
6
Load transfer curves: offshore design guidelines

Clay
w/D /s
1
0.0016 0.30
0.9
0.0031 0.50 Normalised 0.8
0.0057 0.75 shear 0.7
0.0080 0.90 stress 0.6
0.010 1.00 0.5
0.02 0.70 to 0.90 0.4
0.1 0.70 to 0.90 0.3 RATZ: xi = 0; eta = 1
0.2 API Guidelines (0.9)
0.1
Sand 0
API Guidelines (0.7)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
w /s Displacement/pile diameter (%)
0.0025 m 1
Fitting of measured pile load test data

Axial load transfer software: RATZ
8000
7000
Measured
6000 0.8 m
Pile head load (kN)
RATZ: total
5000
RATZ : shaft (55%)
4000
20 m
3000 RATZ : base
2000
1000 Bored pile cast
0 under bentonite
0 50 100
7
Pile load test – initial response

initial
gradient
6000
RATZ:
• Working load taken primarily by shaft
5000
Pile head load (kN)
total • Shaft capacity mobilized at ~0.5-1% D

4000 Shaft • G0/s ~ 2000
• pile group – interaction effects
3000 Measured ‘soften’ shaft response significantly
2000 • hence greater load transfer to base
1000
Base
0
0 5 10 15 20
Progressive failure of piles
Displacement Qactual = RpfQideal

   s,res / s,peak
A 1
 =10.75 linear
w exponential
Normalised shear stress, /f
0.75
Reduction factor, Rpf
0.75 fully
  = 0.5
brittle
B 0.5 0.5 Df L2
 = 0.25 C
EA
wres
p /w
wff  wres 

w 0.25
0.25  1 
 R pf ~   1   tanh 

 0= 0  C
0 1 2 3
C 0 Normalised displacement, w/wf
w 0 1 2 3
Inverse of square root of pile compliance, C
8
RATZ load transfer curve
Shear stress, 
wres
Peak shaft
friction, p
Residual shaft
friction, r
 
f  p  1.1 p  r 1  e  2.4w / w res  

 
 
Displacement, w
Cyclic residual shaft friction
(original simple approach)
RATZ simulation of cyclic loading

100
Monotonic response
 
f  p  1.1 p  r 1  e  2.4w / w res  

75  
Relative shear
stress (%) 50
 
25 2-way cyclic
1-way cyclic loading
loading 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
-25
-50
Displacement/Diameter
Non-linear yield algorithm: 1-way elastic  0.51   p
 y   min  0.51     p   min   1   

elastic  
2-way p
3  
9
Modelling 0.44 m diameter grouted pile (15 m long)
7
6
Load
(MN) 5
4
3 RATZ
Field data
2 simulation
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
Design of piles grouted into cemented materials
• Site specific data limited to laboratory testing – focus on CNS

(constant normal stiffness) direct shear tests
• Enhancement of RATZ (proprietary software: CYCLOPS)
• Fixed displacement cyclic response a critical aspect
• CNS tests at ±0.5 mm, ±1 mm, ±5 mm ('gap' zone)
• Transition for shearing beyond cyclic zone
• Fit peak and residual shaft friction values to qc profile
• Adjust internal cyclic parameters to match CNS test data
• Main issue: scaling of displacements from laboratory to field
• Still rely on field scale tests at Overland Corner
10
North Rankin B foundation details

Cone resistance (MPa)
Mudline
Driven 104 m
primary Carbonate
D = 2.83 m muddy silt
116 m long to silty sand
Overlap
104 to
116 m
76 m
Grouted
Variably
secondary
cemented
2.18 m tube
calcarenite
inserted in
2.48 m hole
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Axial load-settlement response; September 2018
The University of Western Australia 21
Operational design loading

• Piles to survive 10,000 year storm plus 30-year life cyclic
environmental loading
• Reserve strength from post-cyclic monotonic capacity
• Numerical modelling of > 10,000 load cycles
• Establish threshold level below which no incremental damage
110
100
Pile Head Axial Load
90
(% of maximum)
Wave Peak
80 Wave Trough
70
60
50
40
30
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000
Cycle Number
11
Matching of CNS test data
1 1
0.8 NRB_CNS38
CNS Test Test
0.8
Max. Normalised Shear Stress  / peak

CYCLOPS Fit A, uniform b = 0.21
0.6
Normalised Shear Stress  / peak
CYCLOPS Fit B, variable b = 0.70 - 0.21
0.4 0.6
0.2
0.4
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2 0.2
-0.4
0
-0.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Horizontal Displacement (mm) Cycle Number
Calibration against field data

1.8
1.6 wres = 0.5 m,  = 0.37
wres = 3.0 m,  = 0.24
1.4
wres = 0.25 m,  = 0.56
Section head load (MN)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6 Field data
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Section head displacement (mm)
12
Example of cyclic loading effect on pile capacity

0.7
Monotonic capacity: 64 % of ideal
Peak storm Monotonic
Normalised pile load, P/Q(rigid) 0.6 (rigid pile) capacity (~250 MN)
load displacement
0.5 Post-cyclic capacity: 51 % of ideal
0.4
Shaft friction (kPa)
0.3
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Monotonic displacement following
0.2 0
storm + lifetime cyclic loading
0.1 0.1
0.2 Profile following Peak
Normalised depth, z/L

0 0.3 cyclic loading
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
Normalised pile head displacement, w/D (%)
0.5
0.6
0.7
Profiles of shaft friction 0.8
before and after storm 0.9
Residual
1
Concluding remarks
• Axial response – serviceability performance
• Simple ‘elastic’ solutions to estimate pile head stiffness
• Shaft response dominates (especially isolated piles, but progressively
less so for nominally end-bearing piles or for large groups)
• Low strain modulus (G0) for initial stiffness estimates

• Routine for detailed back-analysis of pile load tests
• Strain softening reduces shaft capacity – due to progressive failure
• Cyclic loading effects need to be considered, especially for offshore
applications where cyclic loading is significant
13
Laterally loaded piles
Mark Randolph

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Laterally loaded piles; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Overview
• Design considerations
• Ultimate and serviceability limit conditions
• Failure modes for long and short piles
• Simple approaches for lateral capacity and deformation
• Limiting lateral resistance and design charts
• Evaluation of working load response
• Typical P-y curves
• Stiffness at small displacements
• New approaches for P-y curves
• Monopiles for offshore wind turbines
• Response under cyclic loading
Design considerations
• Lateral strength
• Prevent failure by pile moving through soil (short piles)
• Prevent bending failure of the pile (long piles)
• Lateral stiffness
• Prevent excessive deflection of pile head and rotation of (short) piles
• Cyclic effects
• Cyclic loading causes ‘post-holing’ and either softening of response
or incremental cumulative deformations
• Long piles: additional deformation will increase bending moments
• Short piles: additional deformation under biased cyclic loading may
threaten serviceability
2
Pile response to lateral load
Mp = D2tyield
for pipe piles
Soil resistance: force/unit depth: P

net pressure, p = P/D
Long pile failure mechanism
Force equilibrium Hult  Pab

Moment equilibrium M p  Pab  L ab  e 
3
Short pile failure mechanism
Force equilibrium Hult  Pab  Pbc

Moment equilibrium Hult e  PabL ab  PbcLbc
Limiting soil resistance in cohesive soil
fan zone Flow mechanism

Deep failure ( 3D)
rigid (Randolph & Houlsby, 1984)

zone
Pile 13
Limiting 12
Diameter, D resistance Upper bound
Pu/Dsu 11
Recommended
for design: 10.5
10
Lower bound
9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
concentric shells Interface friction ratio,  = s/su
4
Limiting soil resistance in non-cohesive soil

60
Deep failure
50
API
40
Pu/D'v Barton
30 Kp2
3Kp
20
10
Prasad & Chari
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction angle (deg.)
Shallow failure mechanism in soil

Murff & Hamilton (1993)
Conical wedge
mechanism
Possible spherical
failure mechanism
Confined failure
Confined failure
5
Shallow failure mechanism in soil
Optimal failure mechanism

L/D = 3; uniform soil; 1-sided
Hult =~2suLD
Implementation of Murff & Hamilton
upper bound solution Radius (m)
• Software AGSPANC 0
‐1 ‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
• Optimisation in Excel H
0.5
• Primary applications: 1
• suction caisson design; 1.5
Depth (m)
conical
• offshore wind turbine monopiles 2 wedge
2.5
3 spherical
bulb
3.5 centre of
rotation
4
Limiting soil resistance near surface for clay

1-sided conical Murff & Hamilton (1993)
wedge mechanism Pu
su D

 N p  N deep  N deep  N z  0 e  z / D 
where   0.25  0.05 / 
with   Max k su D / s um , 0.17  and s u  s um  k su z
Normalised resistance Pu/suD
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
Murff‐Hamilton
• 2-sided: Np  2Np ≤ Ndeep
2
rough, uniform su
Broms
•
Normalised depth, z/D
very rapid increase to Ndeep

Murff‐Hamilton
• Broms profile reasonable and
4
smooth, su = ksuz
conservative 6 Murff‐Hamilton
smooth, uniform su
8
10 Murff‐Hamilton
rough, su = ksuz
12
6
Generic profiles of limiting lateral resistance
Pu/suD Pu/D
Pu/D = nz
Uniform clay Sand: n = 'Kp2

Conservative assumptions in NC clay: n = 9ksu with su = ksuz
respect of Pu (9 to 12suD depending
on pile roughness) and low
resistance near soil surface
Generic design charts (‘long’ piles)

100
H
Uniform soil (Broms 1964) Mp
Normalised horizontal capacit, Hult/suD2
• reduced resistance near surface

Mp
• with or without base shear 10
(little difference) H
e 2 9
e/D = 0 1 2 4 8 Pu/suD
16
3D
1
h Mp
100
H
Normalised horizontal capacity, Hult/nD3
Mp D
0.1
Mp 1 10 100 1000
10 Plastic moment capacity of pile, Mp/suD3
H
e
e/D = 0 1 2 4
8 16 Pu/nD
h
Lateral resistance
1
Mp proportional to depth
D z
• Pu = nzD
0.1 (e.g. Kp2'zD)
1 10 100 1000
Plastic moment capacity of pile, Mp/nD4
7
Generic design charts (‘short’ piles)

3
Uniform soil (Broms 1964)
Normalised horizontal capacity, Hult/suLD
Murff-Hamilton
• reduced resistance near surface H 2.5 solution
(dashed lines)
e/D = 0
e 2 9
• with or without base shear
Pu/suD 2 1
(little difference) 3D 2
L 1.5
4
D 1 8
0.14
Normalised horizontal capacity, Hult/nDL2
16
e/D = 0 0.5
0.12
0.1 1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
2
0.08 Length to diameter ratio, L/D
4 H
0.06
e
Lateral resistance
8
0.04
proportional to depth Pu/nD
16
0.02 • Pu = nzD L
0 (e.g. Kp2'zD)
D
0 2 4 6 8 10 z
Length to diameter ratio, L/D
Design charts (‘short’ piles) with rotation restraint

100
Normalised horizontal capacity, Hult/suD2
H 200
Mp 100
Uniform soil (Broms 1964) 50
• reduced resistance near surface Mp/suD3
= 20
10
• with or without base shear
(little difference) e/D = 0
1
H
e 2 9
2
1 4 Pu/suD
100 8 3D
Normalised horizontal capacity, Hult/nD3
16 L
H 200
Mp 100 D
z
50 0.1
10 H 1 10
Mp/nD4 Length to diameter ratio, L/D
= 20
H
e Lateral resistance
1 Pu/nD
e/D = 0
proportional to depth
1 L • Pu = nzD
2
4 8 16 D (e.g. Kp2'zD)
0.1 z
1 10
Length to diameter ratio, L/D
8
Lateral loading response of piles
• Alternative approaches for assessing lateral loading response of piles

• simple elastic calculations (Winkler spring or elastic continuum models)
• non-linear load transfer analysis
• Lateral deformations typically restricted to upper ~10 diameters
• pile-soil stiffness ratio much more important than pile length
• initial pile stiffness important for assessing pile group response
• critical design issue generally maximum bending moments, with
exception of monopiles for offshore wind turbines
• Softening and cyclic effects
• cyclic loading causes ‘post-holing’ and either softening of response or
incremental cumulative deformations
• incremental deformations important since cyclic lateral loading is often
biased on one direction
Subgrade reaction analysis – classical solution

Load transfer ‘Winkler’ springs
H (y0) M () P = force per unit depth Subgrade modulus, k
k = ko
k (units of
modulus) k = nz
Lc
k ~ 4 to 5G
Lateral displacement, y Depth, z
 EI p   EI p 
1/ 4 1/ 5
Define :     or  
D  ko   n 
H 1 M 1 H 1 M 1
y0  2  2
y0  2.43 2
 1.62
ko  ko  n n 3
Critical pile
length: Lc ~ 4 H 1 M 1 H 1 M 1
0  2
 2 0  1.62  1.74
ko  k o 3 n 3 n 4
9
Lateral response: continuum approach

H (y0) M (q0) c G c G c Modified shear
modulus, G*
Lc/4
Lc Lc/2 G* = G(1 + 3/4)
D Gc = G* at z = Lc/2
Lc
EI p
Depth, z
Ep 
D4 / 64
y0 
Ep / Gc 1 / 7 0.27 H
 0.30
M 
 
Critical pile length:
c G c  Lc / 2 Lc / 2 2 
Lc = D[Ep/Gc]2/7
0 
E p / G c 1 / 7 
0.30
H
 0.80 
M 
 c 
cG c  Lc / 2 2 Lc / 23 
Displacement and moment profiles

Free-head piles (M = 0); L ≥ Lc (critical length)
1/ 7
y0 DG c  Ep 
2H G 
 c M/HLc
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
G
c = 0.75
0.2 c = 1 0.2 G
z
0.4
c = 0.5
H (y0) 0.4 z c = 0.75 G
G c = 1
0.6 0.6 z
c = 0.5
z
0.8 0.8
Mmax ~ 0.1HLc/c at
z/Lc ~ 0.3 to 0.4
1 1
z/Lc z/Lc
Displacement Bending moment
10
Displacement and moment profiles

Fixed-head piles (0 = 0); L ≥ Lc (critical length)
1/ 7
y0 DG c  E p 
2 H  G c  M/HLc
0 0.2 0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
0
G G
c = 1 G r = 0.5 c = 1
0.2 c = 0.75 0.2 c
z z
c = 0.5 c = 0.75
0.4 G 0.4 z H (y0)
0.6 z 0.6
0.8 0.8 Mmax = -Mfix

at z = 0
1 1
z/Lc z/Lc
Displacement Bending moment
Lateral stiffness matrix: continuum approach

H (u0) M (0) Gc Modified shear
modulus, G* = fG
f = (1 + 3/4)
Lc Lc/2 Critical ‘flexible’
D pile length:
Lc Lc/D = (Ep/Gc)2/7
Depth, z
 H  2  3.2*  0.6  u 0 / D 
Pile head    G c D Lc / D   
stiffness matrix: M / L c   0.6 0.27  L c / D 0 
*
or 2.2 for G proportional to depth
11
Lateral stiffness: example design charts

16 Onshore: e.g. 1-2 m diameter, D/t = 40
=0 • G = 10-40 MPa: Ep/G ~ 500-2000
Normalised lateral stiffness, H/uGD
14
Winkler: k = 4.5G
12 Ep/G = 3000 • (L/D)flexible ~ 6 to 8
10 Rigid Ep/G = 1000 • H/uGD ~ 10 (zero rotation)
limit Flexible limit
Ep/G = 300 H
8
Ep/G = 100  3.2 Lc / D
6 Ep/G = 30
u 0GD
4
k/G ~ 4 to 5 works reasonably, but
2
sensitive to Ep/G and M/HD
0
0 5 10 15 20
Pile length to diameter ratio, L/D
Monopile: e.g. 6-8 m diameter, D/t = 80

• G = 25-100 MPa: Ep/G ~ 100-400
• (L/D)flexible ~ 3 to 5
• H/GD2 ~ 1-2 (high moment)
H 1
2
 Lc / D 1.5
0GD 6.4e / L c  1.2
Non-linear P-y analysis
Non-linear springs
P = force per unit depth
Pu
Initial
tangent,
gradient k
Lateral displacement, y
Non-linear load transfer

or 'P-y' curve
Example computer codes:
• LPILE (www.ensoftinc.com)
• LAP (Doherty, 2016)
12
Typical API P-y curves

American Petroleum Institute (API) recommendations
Silica sand k = nz Soft clay
1 1
Normalised lateral load, P/Pu
Normalised lateral load, P/Pu

0.9 0.9 Initial gradient corresponds
to G/su ~ 200
0.8 0.8
0.7  ky  0.7
0.6 P  APu tanh   0.33
 APu  0.6 P  y 
0.5 0.5 P  u  
2  yc 
0.4 0.4
' (º) 25 30 35 40
0.3 Sand 0.3 yc/D Soft clay
0.2 A = 0.93) (cyclic
k' (MN/m 5 11loading)
22 45
0.2 Cyclic loading
0.1 kD/P u3= 501
m = dG/dz
2.5 5 10 0.1 z/D = 1.7
(MN/m )
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Normalised displacement, y/D Normalised displacement, y/D
A = 0.9 for cyclic loading yc = 2.550D ~ 1 to 3 % of D
Comments on API code P-y curves
• Initial gradient generally lower than anticipated using small strain

shear modulus (i.e. k0 < 4G0)
• Note recent inclusion of extra point in API curve at
P/Pu = 0.23, y/yc = 0.1 (doubling previous stiffness)
• Displacements to mobilise Pu smaller in sand than clay
• 2 – 4 % D in sand
• 4 – 8 % D in clay
• BUT: initial stiffness may be underestimated:
k ~ 50Pu/D implies G/'v0 ~ 100-200 for reasonable Pu ~ Kp2'v0D,
although API recommended values of Pu are much higher
• Cyclic loading:
• Shallow: softening and gapping in clay and sand
• Deep: no softening in sand, ~30% softening in clay
13
Cone resistance based load transfer curves
• Relationships between cone resistance qc and lateral resistance P

• experimental (calcareous sand)
0.67 0.5
P q  y
 2 c    Novello (1999)
zD  z  D
• numerically derived (generic sands)
0.68 0.56
P q  y
 4.2 c    Suryasentana & Lehane (2014)
zD  z  D
0.67 0.75   1.2 0.89  
P q  z  z y 
 2.4 c    1  exp  6.2    
zD  z  D   D D  
• need to limit P/D ≤ qc
Monopiles for wind turbines
• Design loading for wind turbines differs from common onshore

or offshore (platform) situations
• Low vertical load in relation to axial capacity
• High moment lever arm (M/HL may exceed unity)
• Large diameter, low wall thickness, low aspect ratio
• Diameter, D: 4 m to 6 m
• Wall thickness, t: 50 mm to 70 mm (D/t ~ 60 to 120)
• Embedment, L: 25 to 35 m (L/D ~ 4 to 6)
• Cyclic loading
• Combination of water (dominant) and wind
• Generally one-way (no reversal of direction)
• Critical direction (in plan) may be identified, but allowance
should be made for some variation in directionality
14
Lateral capacity: monopiles in soft rock

• Failure by ‘rigid body’ rotation
• wall-thickness profile chosen to
avoid plastic failure of pile
interface
• surface wedge transitioning to tractions
deep flow failure surface
chipping wedge
• ‘tennis ball’ type failure generally gap
observed in FE calculations P
• Load transfer analysis

• cannot capture rotational failure confined
rotational
confined
rotational failure y
(though capacity estimates still
failure
reasonable)
• Degradation of resistance
• effects of cyclic loading FE kinematics
• fracture of cemented material
(Potts et al. 2015)
(“Chipper” Erbrich 2004)

Recent studies for monopiles
• Leblanc et al. (2010)

• Quasi-rigid pipe pile in sand
• L/D = 4.5; D/t = 40; M/HL = 1.2
• Focus on incremental cumulative rotation
• Grabe et al. (Hamburg University of Technology, UWA):
• Improved performance of monopiles by addition of lateral
wings (Bienen et al. 2012)
• Variable direction cyclic loading: increased cumulative
deformations (Grabe 2008; Rudolph et al. 2014)
15
Cumulative rotation under cyclic loading
Leblanc et al (2010)
• Model tests in sand of various densities

• General forms of M- relationship
• Cumulative  for different combinations
of cyclic loading
• Secant stiffness, kN, increased with
increasing number of cycles
Experimental data on cumulative cyclic rotation
Mmax/Mu
Pure 1-way cyclic loading
0.52
Sand relative density: 38 %
0.40
0.27
Doubling of static value
after ~103 cycles
N 
 f M max / M u , I d  gM min / M max  N 0.3
static
Leblanc et al (2010)
16
Effect of cyclic loading regime
Leblanc et al (2010) medium

f(Mmax/Mu)
g(Mmin/Mmax)
Pure 1-way
cyclic loading
loose
Mmax/Mu
Mmin/Mmax
Varying direction cyclic loading

Grabe & Dührkop (2008)
(medium dense sand) Varying angle,  = 45º
Uni-directional,  = 0
Resultant
displacement
y0/L
(x 10-3)
Non-dimensional
loading level
Note important
effect of varying
direction of the
cyclic loading
Number of loading cycles

17
Summary comments
• Lateral capacity of piles
• Classical approaches widely used, with limiting unit resistance of
pu ~ 9-12su (clay) and Kp2'z (sand)
• Some allowance for cyclic effects (particularly clays)
• Short piles will show interaction between vertical and horizontal
capacities (e.g. suction caissons, monopiles for wind turbines)
• Load-displacement response
• Simple linear solutions provide underlying checks, but most
analysis now based on non-linear P-y curves
• Empirical basis for P-y curves may not be consistent with soil
stiffness at small displacements
• Cyclic loading, particularly incremental accumulation of
displacements, a major consideration
18
Pile groups
Mark Randolph

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Pile groups; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Overview
• Capacity of pile groups

• Block failure under vertical loading
• ‘Shielding’ under lateral loading
• Interaction between piles under working load
• Simplified methods
• Concept of efficiency for pile groups
• Allowance for non-linear soil response
• Response of pile groups to general loading
• Global pile group stiffness and flexibility matrices
• Case study: pile foundations for My Thuan bridge
• Value of static pile testing
• Load redistribution
Vertical block failure of pile groups
Single pile failure Failure of rows Block failure

of piles
• Essentially only likely for pile groups in clay (undrained conditions)
• Critical spacing ratio generally s/D ~ 3, depending on pile length
and soil stratigraphy
2
Laterally loaded pile groups – capacity reduction

Np = Pu/suD
A Leading
Sections: B wedge
Trailing
C failure
zones
Depth
Sections: A wedge failure
B slotting ahead of trailing piles
C flow failure
• Shielding (or shadow) effect generally handled using ‘P’ multipliers

• Rollins et al. (2006) quote observed values ranging from
0.5 at s/D = 3.3 up to 0.8 to 0.9 at s/D = 5.6 (and unity for s/D >6)
Interaction between foundations
Pi Pj
Foundation Foundation
unit, i unit, j
Stiffness, ki Stiffness, kj
Pi Pj
Settlement of unit i:
Settlement: wi    ij
ki kj
3
Interaction between piles

Surface settlement profiles for
individual piles Original ground surface
Combined surface
settlement profile
Interaction factors, 
For one pile: w = P/k
For two piles: w = P(1+)/k
For group of n piles
n
w =  ij Pj/kj (ii = 1)
Piles j=1
Interaction factor for axial loading
Poulos (1979): Value of  affected by:
1. Pile soil stiffness ratio:  = EP/GL
2. The degree of homogeneity:  = G/GL
3. Spacing ratio: s/D
For typical values of ,  given approximately by

n(L/s)
 ~ 0.5  = 0 for s > L
n(L/D)
4
Vertical pile stiffness & interaction

• Mylonakis & Gazetas (1998, 2001)
• Elegant expressions for pile head stiffness based on Winkler
approximation for soil
• Closed form expressions for (a) interaction between piles
and (b) ratio of Winkler spring stiffness to shear modulus
=S P
P   tanh  L 
K  t   E A p 
wt 1   tanh  L 
w1t w1t
lnrm / s 
 L,  
ln2rm / D  1 2
L
 = base stiffness factor = Kb/S (Lecture 3)

L = dimensionless pile length s
D
Deflection profiles for pair of piles
Normalised displacement, w(z)/w1t

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 P
Pile 2 Pile 2
0.2 adjusted log. decay w1t w1t
for pile  = 0.58 Pile 1
0.4 stiffness
 = 0.38 1 2 20D
0.6 Ep/G = 500
Depth  = 0.3
z/L  = 0.376
0.8 3D
5
Interaction adjustment factor

Base stiffness factor
Interaction 1
P
adjustment  = 0 (fully floating pile)
0.05
factor, 
0.8 0.1 w1t w1t
0.2
0.6 L
1 2
0.4 1
s
0.2
 =  (end-bearing pile)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 lnrm / s 

ln2rm / D 
Dimensionless pile length, L
Mylonakis & Gazetas (1998)

Simplified methods for vertically loaded groups
• Consider overall geometry of pile group in elevation

• Equivalent raft – for groups wider than embedment
• Equivalent pier – for groups embedded great than their width
6
Stiffness of square pile groups

Square arrays of piles: 2 x 2 up to 30 x 30
Spacing to diameter ratios: s/D = 2 to 10
Group 20
L/D = 25
stiffness 18 Ep/GL = 1000
Kp/GLB 16  = 0.75
s/D = 2  = 0.3
14
12
10 s/D = 3
L
8 B
s/D = 5
6
4 s/D = 10
2
Raft stiffness
0
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L
Stiffness of square pile groups

• Stiffness estimated with good accuracy using equivalent
cylindrical pier approach
• Pier of same area, length – can ignore axial compressibility
Group 20
stiffness 18
Kp/GLB 16
14 Stiffness of
12 incompressible pier
10 Equivalent pier
8 (same area and
length as pile group)
6
4 80 % of stiffness of Raft
2 incompressible pier stiffness
0
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L
7
Full numerical analysis
• Various software available

• DEFPIG, PIGLET, PGROUP, REPUTE etc
• Need to ensure convergence for large pile groups
• Purely elastic approach adequate for stiffness, but will
exaggerate loads in piles near group edges
Non-dimensional pile group stiffness
12
Kp/BG Fleming et al (1992)
Butterfield & Douglas (1981)
10 s/d == 2.5
s/D
Poulos & Davis (1980)
8
s/D == 55
s/d
6
PIGLET
2
(using Mylonakis & Gazetas) Limiting stiffness
0
0 5 10 15 20
Square root of number of piles in group
8
Efficiency of pile groups

Butterfield & Douglas (1981): Define w = Kp/nk1 = 1/Rs
Express efficiency, w, as: w= n-e 0.5 < e < 0.6
Thus, group stiffness is: Kp = k1 n1-e
1
L/D = 25
Efficiency
Ep/GL = 1000

 = 0.75
 = 0.3
10
0.1
5
3
s/D = 2
0.01
1 10 100 1000
Number of piles in group
Non-linear effects in group interaction

• Non-linear effects are ‘local’ to each pile
• Interaction arises from underlying ‘elastic’ strains in soil
• Hence non-linearity much smaller aspect of pile group response
Shaft friction
O A B C D
Single pile Group pile

Settlement ratio
Elastic: OC = RsOA
Non-linear: AB = CD
Displacement
9
General loading of pile groups
• Pile groups for bridge abutments, offshore platforms,

transmission towers, wharf structures etc all subjected to
combined vertical, horizontal and moment loading
• Pile cap generally relatively rigid compared to piles
• General analysis required, treating pile axial and lateral
response, allowing for interaction, to arrive at global stiffness
of complete pile group
• Raking piles commonly used to help carry horizontal
component of applied load as axial load
Interaction for lateral loading

H
S
H 
• Interaction depends on pile spacing, stiffness ratio and departure
angle, , that piles make with direction of loading
• For fixed head piles, Randolph (1981) has suggested interaction
factor, uf, given by
1/ 7

0.3  E p 
c  
s / d  G c 
1  cos 
2
 uf   for   0.33
2
 uf  1  for   0.33
27
10
Flexibility matrix for pile groups
Flexibility matrix for typical pile

V (v) Hx (ux) group
 v  F11 0 0 0 0 0  V 
u   0 F F23 0 0 0   H x 
Hy (uy)  x  22
x  y   0 F32 F33 0 0 0  M y 
   
u y   0 0 0 F44 F45 0  H y 
Mx (x)  x   0 0 0 F54 F55 0  M x 
    
My (y)     0 0 0 0 0 F66   T 
T () y
• Matrix fully populated for groups
with raking piles
z • For symmetric groups, F44 identical

to F22 etc
Example application of raking piles
Embankment Bridge
Resultant Design loads at

load pile cap level:
V = 11.3 MN
Canal
H = 2.0 MN
Soil:
G = 2.5z MPa Piles: 0.6 m x 16 m M = 5.2 MNm
• fixed or pinned
• vertical or raking
11
Deformations and bending moments
y Bending moment (kNm)

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0
Mmin = Pinned,
3 11 -133 kNm 1 Fixed, raking vertical
Pile 3
2 Fixed,
x Mmin = vertical
-87 kNm 3
2.8 m
Pile 11 Mmax =
1.9 m 4
Displacements (mm) 128 kNm
Vertical Horizontal 5
Pile layout 5.0 9.5 6

5.0 13.5 Depth (m)
4.6 5.2
Raking piles
Piles aligned with load resultants for Piles spread uniformly

extreme load cases through soil
• Raking piles help carry horizontal loads axially in piles

• Avoid raking piles if significant vertical movements expected
12
General loading of pile groups

• Vertical deflection important
• soil response quasi-linear
• robust analytical models available
• target accuracy: ±20 % ?
• Horizontal deflection generally less vital
• soil response extremely non-linear
(but pile stiffness  Gn, with 0.3 < n < 0.7)
• target accuracy: factor of 2 (transient only) ?
• bending moments induce in piles critical, but
relatively insensitive to soil properties
• Pile group analysis: two main approaches
• elastic, but allowing for local yield
• non-linear load transfer, modified for interaction
Case study: My Thuan Bridge , Vietnam
13
Pile design for My Thuan Bridge , Vietnam
• Crossing of Tien Giang branch of Mekong delta

• cable-stayed bridge, 350 m central span, 37.5 m clearance
• towers supported on piers resting on large diameter piles
• construction in fast-flowing 23 m deep river
• Observational design approach
• relatively sparse site investigation data at tower sites
• construction issues a potential factor in pile capacity
• pile tests on shore piers to prove final design penetrations
• Refinement of design procedure
• re-distribution of load from highly-loaded piles
• ultimate limit state essentially deflection-limited
My Thuan Bridge: pile group geometry

~ 60 m
5.5 m
2.4 m
x
• Group of 16 piles
8 beneath each tower leg
• 2.4 m diameter bored piles
cast under bentonite
• Base grouted
• Loads
95 m
V = 315 MN (19.7 MN/pile)
H ~ 20 MN
M ~ 320 MNm
s
14
My Thuan Bridge: soil stratigraphy

0m 0m
Water
23 m
Silty clay
(su ~ 200 kPa) Design scour
level (47 m)
40 m Clayey sand 42 m
(' ~ 38°)
51 m
56 m
Silty clay
(su ~ 300 kPa)
68 m
Osterberg cells 75 m
83 m
Sand
(' ~ 40°) 93 m
South Bank Test
Piles (86.4 m)
South Pier Pile (95 m)
My Thuan Bridge: method of pile testing

0m
40 m
51 m
68 m active
active
83 m
active valve valve
open closed
South Bank test Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
piles (86.4 m) pile base lower shaft upper shaft
15
My Thuan Bridge: pile test results
100
Shaft Middle section
Test 2 (between cells)
friction
75
(kPa) Test 1
Upper section
50
(above top cell)
25
Displacement (mm)
0
20 40 60 80 100
Base 2.5 Simulation (RATZ)

pressure
Base
(MPa) 5
My Thuan Bridge: construction issues

• First test pile showed low friction
• significant delay between excavation and concreting
• questionable bentonite quality (and suspected caking)
• Improvements:
• reduced delay between excavation
and concreting
• improved bentonite quality control
and reduce head to 1.5 m above
river level
• wire brush used to scarify shaft
edges prior to concreting
16
My Thuan Bridge: pile group design

• Test pile load tests (twin Osterberg cells):
• shaft friction of 55 kPa (upper) to 90 kPa (lower soils)
• end-bearing pressure of 4.5 MPa
• Design conditions assume scour of 47 m
• Resulting pile capacity:
• ultimate capacity of 42.1 MN (and pile weight of 5.4 MN)
• factored design capacity of 0.72 x 42.1 – 5.4 = 24.9 MN
• Load tests on Tower piles (single Osterberg cells):
• maximum loads of 26 and 27 MN (failing upper 75 m section of pile)
• no creep displacements of lower section, confirming actual capacity
in excess of 30 MN
My Thuan Bridge: pile group analysis

40
Axial Elastic
load 30 Load Case 1
(MN) Ship impact
20 parallel to river
10
Upload Download
0
-40 -20 0 20 40
Distance from pile group centroid (m)
-400 -20 0 20 40
10 Load Case 2
Ship impact
20
at 45° to river
Axial 30
load Elastic
(MN) 40
17
My Thuan Bridge: load redistribution

40
Axial Non-linear Elastic
load 30 Load Case 1
(MN) 22 Ship impact
20 parallel to river
10
Upload Download
0
-40 -20 0 20 40
Distance from pile group centroid (m)
0-40 -20 0 20 40
10 Non- Load Case 2

linear Ship impact
20
at 45° to river
22
Axial 30
load Elastic
(MN) 40
My Thuan Bridge: non-linear response
40
Pile Effect of pile capacity
capacity on pile group deflection
(MN) 30
2 True design limit: 24.9 MN
Load 1
Average 20
cases 1
load
(MN) 2
Load-displacement
10 response
(22 MN limit)
Elastic
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Vertical deflection of pile group centroid (m)
18
Summary comments
• Ultimate loads
• Block failure for vertical loading; shielding for lateral response
• Interaction effects
• Elastic solutions to quantify interaction effects
• Non-linear response concentrated locally around each pile
• Equivalent models for vertically loaded pile groups
• Robust analogue models: equivalent pier or embedded rafts
• Consider overall aspect ratio of pile group
• Efficiency charts useful in assessing group stiffness
• Load redistribution
• Practical approach to explore adequacy of design
• Circumvents limitations of elastic interaction effects, which lead to
overestimation of loads carried by piles near edges of group
• Notional restriction of maximum load on any pile forces redistribution,
resulting in increased deformations
19
Piled Rafts
Acknowledgements to
Mark Randolph
Professor Oliver Reul
Professor of Civil Engineering Kassel University, Germany

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Piled rafts; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Overview
• Introduction
• Background to piled rafts
• Simple ‘lumped’ approach for symmetric foundations
• Differential settlement
• Numerical study
• Parametric study varying loading distribution and pile support
• Concept of optimisation
• Case histories from Germany
• WestendDuo
• Parktower
Concept of piled rafts
A piled raft is a composite construction consisting of:

• Piles
• Raft S
• Soil
Qtot = Qraft + Qpile > S
where: Qpile,1 Qraft Qpile,i

Qtot = Total resistance of foundation
Qraft = Resistance of raft
Rpile = Sum of resistances of all piles
S = Applied load
2
Safety concept for piled rafts at ultimate limit state
Ultimate limit state (ULS)
External bearing capacity Internal bearing capacity
Proof for overall piled raft: Proof for internal forces with
Sk ≤ Qtotal – all components conventional design codes (EC2)
Stiffness of subsoil and
No proof required for individual piles. structure must be considered
German Institute for Building Research (DIBt):

Guideline for design, computation and construction of piled rafts.
Safety concept at serviceability limit state
Serviceability limit state (SLS)
External serviceability (settlements, Internal serviceability

differential settlements, tilting) (crack control, deformations …)
Proof for overall piled raft Proof for internal forces and
Sk < Ptotal – all components deformations for overall system
German Institute for Building Research (DIBt):

Guideline for design, computation and construction of piled rafts.
3
Requirements for the design of piled rafts
• Serviceability is decisive criterion for design of vertically

loaded piled rafts, especially for high rise buildings
• Magnitude of absolute and differential settlements and
resulting tilting of building are of particular importance
• Moreover, objective of an economic optimised design
is to save resources such as steel and concrete
Key questions that arise in the design of piled rafts concern:

• relative proportion of load carried by raft and piles
• optimal pile configuration (pile number, length and
layout) to limit absolute and differential settlements
and bending moments most efficiently
Pile group capacity and stiffness

Advantages of displacement criteria
• Pile capacity sensitive to effective stress and fabric conditions at pile soil-
interface
• Deformation response influenced primarily by soil conditions away from pile
Pile capacity determined Pile group stiffness

by soil conditions just determined primarily
around pile by far-field conditions
4
Pile groups and piled rafts

• Where pile group stiffness is significantly greater than stiffness of raft
foundation, raft (pile cap) will contribute little to foundation
• Main focus here on piled rafts with raft foundations supported by
(relatively) small number of piles
• For piled rafts of this type the raft will generally provide sufficient margin
against collapse
Soil-structure interaction of piled rafts
1 Pile-pile interaction
2 Pile-raft interaction
4 3 Soil-pile interaction
2 4 Soil-raft interaction
3
S := Load on the raft
5
Estimation of piled raft stiffness
Raft stiffness alone: kr

Pile cap, or raft rr
(carries Pr) Pile group stiffness alone: kp
Piled raft stiffness: kpr
Pp  Pr k p  k r 1  2 rp 
rp k pr  
l
Equivalent w pr 1   2rp k r / k p
pier
(carries Pp) Pr


k r 1   rp 

Pp  Pr k p  k r 1  2 rp 
n r / r 
r p rp ~ 0.8 for large
 rp  1
n r / r 
m p
groups
Differential settlement (w)
Non-dimensional
raft-soil stiffness ratio
• Raft foundations: w/wavg = f(Krs)
• Pile group: w/wavg = f(Krs, B/L, . .)
• Goal
• distribute pile support to minimise w
• depending on superstructure load distribution, central pile

support more effective than edge support
6
Differential settlement for raft
For uniform pile groups: adjust soil modulus Es to

Differential defln
reflect stiffness of pile group
Average defln
w 0.6 Lr
0 .5 3
w average 0.5 E 1   s2  B r   tr  Br
K rs  5.57 r    
0.4 E s 1   2r  L r   Lr 
0.3 Midside-centre
Rectangle (Lr/Br = 1 or 10) tr
0.2
0.1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs
Bending moments for raft
Average applied Br
bearing stress, q
Lr
Central moment 0.03
M/qLr2 Lr/Br = 1
0.025
0.02 Lr/Br = 5
0.015
Lr/Br = 10
0.01
0.005
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs
7
Central pile support
Contact stress
distribution
Pile support
• Pile support designed to even out differential normal stresses on raft

• Objective to minimize w and Mmax simultaneously
Piled rafts in Germany

Wesertower
Bremen
Posttower
Bonn
Messeturm DB Headquarters
Frankfurt Berlin
Hegau Tower
Singen
Courtesy: Professor Oliver Reul

Kassel University, Germany
8
Numerical study: foundation types
B = edge length of square raft

tr = thickness of raft
Lp = pile length
dp = pile diameter
e = pile spacing
n = number of piles
Load configurations for parametric study
9
Pile configurations in numerical study
Model conditions and finite element mesh
10
Elastoplastic soil model

1 1, 2, 3 = principal stresses
t = deviatoric stress
Ft
p = hydrostatic stress
Fs Fc d = intersection of yield
surface Fs with the t-axis
 = slope of yield surface Fs
in p-t-plane
2 Fc = cap yield surface
Fs = conical yield surface
3 t  Ft = transition yield surface
Ft
Gc = plastic potential cap
Fs Gs = plastic potential cone
Gc
Gs
Fc Material parameters are given
by Reul & Randolph (2004).
d
p
Resistance-settlement curves
Separate curves shown for raft (R), pile group (FPG) and piled raft (PR)
11
Resistance-settlement curves - pile resistances
Resistance-settlement curves – raft resistance
12
Piled raft coefficient depending on effective load
Ppile
 pr 
Peff
pr = piled raft coefficient

Ppile = sum of all pile loads
Peff = effective settlement inducing
load on foundation
pr = 1  freestanding pile group

pr = 0  unpiled raft
Resistance-settlement curves of individual piles
13
Pile shaft and base resistance
Influence of load level: mean stress changes

Section A-A
conical yield
surface Fs
conical yield
surface Fs
Seff = effective load t = deviatoric stress

p =mean stress relative to end of excavation p = mean stress
14
Coefficient for maximum settlement
System configuration:
B = 38 m dp = 1 m
tr = 3 m q = 500 kPa
B = edge length of raft
tr = thickness of raft
 s 
s pr ,max
sr ,max dp = pile diameter
p = uniform load
Lp = pile length
n = number of piles
s = coefficient for maximum
settlement
spr,max = maximum settlement
of piled raft
sr,max = maximum settlement
of unpiled raft
Interaction-diagram for maximum settlement coefficient
System configuration:
B = 38 m dp = 1 m
tr = 3 m p = 500 kPa
Find (economic) optimum solution
for total pile length:
min nLp
A
Constraints:
• s  0.5
• Lp  30 m
B • n  350 (s  2dp)
Optimum solution: Point A:
nLp = 35  30 m = 1050 m
15
Coefficient for differential settlement
spr
 s 
sr
e
Vult = ultimate capacity of a vertically loaded unpiled raft
Peff = effective applied load caused by the superstructure and the raft
s = coefficient for the differential settlement
spr = differential settlement of the piled raft tr = raft thickness
sr = differential settlement of the unpiled raft nLp = total pile length
Results of numerical study
• Pile-pile interaction and pile-raft interaction have a major influence on

bearing behaviour of whole foundation
• Because of the pile-raft interaction the piles of a piled raft do not reach an
ultimate shaft capacity. Pile shaft resistance increases with increasing load level
• Pile stiffness within a piled raft is smaller then pile stiffness of a single standing
pile under working load because of interaction effects
• Resistance and stiffness of a pile in a pile group depend respectively on
position of the pile and load level or settlement
• For a given total pile length nLp maximum and average settlements decrease
with increasing pile length Lp
• Beware system configurations (load, pile position) that yield increased
differential settlements of the piled raft compared to an unpiled raft
16
WestendDuo, Frankfurt
• Height: 96 m (high rise section)

• Construction phase: 2004-2006
• 4 storey basement
• Depth of the excavation pit: 15 m
• Foundations: piled raft
Ground plan of the site
Geothermal use of the groundwater:

• Required power for heating and
cooling: 300 kW
• Extraction rate of groundwater:
43 m³/h
17
Subsoil conditions at the WestendDuo-site
6m
79 m
> 50 m
Alternative foundation configurations
18
Results of foundation analyses for design process
Results are shown for the settlement inducing load (Peff ~ 590 MN)
Ppile
 pr 
Peff
Foundation Maximum settlement Deflection ratio of the raft Piled raft coefficient
configuration smax /L αpr
[cm] [-] [-]
F1 unpiled raft 13.7 ~ 1/300 
F2 unpiled raft 13.5 ~ 1/500 
K1 piled raft 6.2 ~ 1/900 0.460
K2 piled raft 7.0 ~ 1/700 0.377
K3 piled raft 7.2 ~ 1/500 0.380
Maximum deflection ratio of /L = 1/500 generally considered to be the limit to

prevent significant cracks.
• All configurations except F1 fulfil this criterion
Foundation configuration K3
K3 was selected for construction, yielding
• tolerable deformations and
• the most efficient solution economically
19
Costs for different foundation configurations
Costs of each component have been scaled to the total cost of

configuration K3
Component F1 F2 K1 K2 K3
Retaining structure for the excavation pit 45.5 % 50.0 % 45.5 % 45.5 % 42.5 %
Excavation and disposal of soil 17.9 % 22.5 % 17.9 % 17.9 % 15.5 %
Dewatering system 8.1 % 8.3 % 8.1 % 8.1 % 8.1 %
Foundation piles 0.0 % 0.0 % 9.9 % 6.1 % 6.1 %
Raft 50.6 % 54.2 % 28.3 % 29.7 % 26.4 %
Measurement devices (foundation. dewatering. 0.7 % 0.7 % 1.4 % 1.4 % 1.4 %
retaining structure)
 122.9 % 135.8 % 111.2 % 108.8 % 100.0 %
Compared with F2, K3 reduced the required reinforcement steel from

~2000 tons to ~1150 tons.
Measured settlements following building completion
Settlements as of
November 2006
20
Parktower – extension of previous SGZ-Bank tower
Subsoil conditions at Parktower site
5m
64 m
> 40 m
21
SGZ-Bank (construction phase from 1970 to 1972)
Eccentric core constructed in advance of

the rest of the building
• Large settlements and tilting right from
start of construction process.
SGZ-Bank: foundation details
22
SGZ-Bank: settlement of raft
Measured settlements (08.07.1980):

MP1: 26.4 cm
MP2: 20.9 cm
MP3: 24.7 cm
MP4: 30.6 cm
Deflection ratio of raft: /L = 1/340
3D finite element mesh for foundation analysis
Material behaviour of the Frankfurt clay modelled with an elastoplastic

hardening-soil model
• Encapsulating different soil stiffness due to primary loading and
unloading/reloading as well as shear hardening
• Calibration based on back analysis of measured load-settlement
behaviour of existing SGZ-Bank.
23
Foundation layout for the high rise extension
Predicted settlements
Settlement inducing load:
• Load increase between
construction stage
following demolition of
storeys No. 22 to 24 and
completion of building.
Ppile
 pr 
Peff
smax,B smax,N /LB /L N αpr
[cm] [cm] [-] [-] [-]
2.7 3.6 < 1/2000 < 1/4500 0.72
smax,B / smax,N max. settlement existing building / extension
/LB / /LN max. deflection ratio existing building / extension
αpr piled raft coefficient
24
Geotechnical measurement devices
Measured pile loads
Predicted average pile loads:

Rpile,ave = 8.4 MN
Measured pile loads relative to

concreting of the raft for the extension
25
Measured settlements
Predicted maximum settlements:

Existing building: smax,B = 2.7 cm
Extension: smax,N = 3.6 cm
Measured settlements relative to

concreting of the raft for the extension;
initial settlements of raft ignored
Settlement profile
26
Summary remarks
• Piled rafts offer an attractive foundation concept
• Piles used to moderate settlements and reduce foundation distortion
• Significant load (typically 20 to 60 %) carried by raft (pile cap)
• Lumped interaction models provide estimates of overall stiffness

• Symmetric foundations; combining equivalent pier with raft
• Numerical parametric study

• Illustration of optimisation of pile support
• Potential savings of ~70-80% of piling compared with free-standing group
• Case histories from German practice

• WestendDuo – optimising design final configuration providing 22 to 35%
lower costs than unpiled raft approach
• Parktower – use of piled raft to revitalise existing building in an urban
environment, increasing both plan area and height
27
Pile analysis software

RATZ, LAP and PIGLET
Mark Randolph

September 2018

10.30-11.00 Break
12.30-13.45 Lunch

15.30-16.00 Break
Mark Randolph: Design of piled foundations: Pile analysis software; September 2018 The University of Western Australia 2
1
Overview
• Wide variety of software for pile analysis available
• e.g. Ensoft (LPile), Innovative Geotechnics (PileAXL, PileLAT, PileGroup),
Unisoft (Unipile), GRL (GRLWeap, CAPWAP), TNO (TNOWave)
• Categorise by
• Single piles – drivability, stress-wave matching, axial response (including
downdrag), lateral response
• Pile groups – simplified modelling (equivalent rafts, piers), detailed (non-linear or
elastic) analysis
• Focus on three tools
• RATZ: non-linear analysis of axially loaded piles
• LAP: non-linear analysis of laterally loaded piles
• PIGLET: (mainly) elastic analysis of pile group response
• Example problem
• Foundation analysis for slender lightweight tower
RATZ – Non-linear axial analysis of single piles

• Overview
• 1-dimensional multi-segment pile model
• Soil-pile interaction through load transfer curves
• Allowance for pile group effects by adjusting load transfer curves
• Load transfer curves
• Flexible formulation: non-linear pre-peak; strain-softening post-peak
• Initial gradient linked to soil shear modulus
• Additional features
• Downdrag modelled by specified active soil settlement profile
• Thermal effects modelled – profiles of thermal strains in pile
• Cyclic loading
• Cycle by cycle analysis incorporating gradual degradation of load transfer
• Concept of (pre-failure) yield points on load transfer curves
• Software
• Input-output via Excel, calling Fortran coded subroutine compiled as DLL
2
RATZ – Input and output

Multi-segment pile details
Fitting of measured pile load test data
8000
7000
Load Test
6000 Pile head
Pile head load (kN)

z = 0.5 m
5000
z = 4.5 m
4000 z = 9.5 m
Soil data – up to 20 different zones z = 14.5 m
3000 z = 19.5 m
2000
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Pile head displacement (m)
Loading – up to 100 stages; load or displacement control
Open access software

www.geocalcs.com
James Doherty and Mark Randolph

3
LAP – Non-linear analysis of single piles under lateral loading

• Load transfer (p-y) analysis of
laterally loaded piles
• Wide variety of in-built p-y curves
• Soil input data may be derived
automatically from CPT data
• Multiple external loads possible,
including restraints and active soil
loading
• Development history
• Launched August 2016
• Over 800 users in 60 countries
• Widespread use in large consulting
companies (e.g. Arup, Atkins,
Burohappold, Coffey, Douglas,
Fugro, NGI) and energy companies
(e.g. BP, Eon, Statoil, Woodside)
Driven (reduced scale) monopiles in weak limestone
4
Lateral load-displacement responses for different p-y models

Reese Strength factored by 1.2
CHIPPER
rqUCS approach
Reduced Eir
Strength based directly on qUCS
Lateral load
Stiffness: E/su = 500 (E/qUCS = 250) Proprietary
code for rock
Strength factored by 1.2 (Erbrich 2004)
CHIPPER
Strength based directly on qUCS
Stiffness: E/su = 500 (E/qUCS = 250)
Field data
Small diameter, L/D = 2.6 and 3.5
Lateral pile displacement at ground level
• CHIPPER: field data matched using intact qUCS (or 20 % greater)
• Similar capacities predicted from the two approaches
• Reese p-y curves (available in LAP) give significantly higher stiffness
PIGLET – Elastic analysis of pile groups under general loading

• Elastic solutions
• Closed-form expressions for single pile axial, lateral and torsional stiffness
• Independent soil modulus input for axial and lateral response
• Approximate expressions for pile-soil-pile interaction
• Pile group geometry
• Piles raking 3-dimensionally
• Rigid pile group (also full flexible cap for purely vertical loading)
• Piles pinned (zero moment) or ‘fixed’ (full moment connection) into pile cap
• Loading
• Options for (a) vertical only; (b) vertical and horizontal in one vertical plane;
(c) full 3-dimensional loading including torsion
• Non-linearity
• Limiting axial load specified for each pile, forcing load-redistribution
• Software
• Input-output via Excel, calling Fortran coded subroutine compiled as DLL
5
PIGLET – Idealisation of soil modulus profile

• Simplified profiles of soil shear modulus
• Separate profiles for axial and lateral pile response
• Both increasing linearly with depth but typically Glat < Gaxial at all depths
• For axial response, separate value of G specified for base stiffness (Gb) to address
end-bearing piles
Axial response Lateral response
G0,axial Shear modulus, G G0,lat Shear modulus, G
mlat
Pile
SolidDiameter
cylindrical
D pile
Radius: ro
Embedment L 1
Equivalent L Gavg = GL
Equiv. modulusEEp
modulus,
p
GL Gb  GL
Depth, z
Depth, z
PIGLET – Example analyses

• Examples taken from Pirrello & Poulos (2014)
• Simple 3  3 pile group under general loading
• Large 172 pile group for 151 storey Incheon Tower
• Results from 3 analysis programs: CLAP, PIGLET and REPUTE compared with
results from a 3-D finite element analysis using Plaxis 3D
• PIGLET results presented in Pirrello & Poulos (2014) contained significant errors, as
acknowledged by both authors and corrected here
• Example 1
6
PIGLET – Example 1: Simple 3  3 pile group
V = 9 MN
G = 19.2 MPa
Hx = 0.9 MN ( = 0.3)
Hy = 0.9 MN
Mx (y to z) = 3 MNm
My (x to z) = 4.5 MNm
T = 1.5 MNm G = 38.5 MPa
(Pirrello & Poulos, 2014)
Plaxis
surprisingly
high values
Corrected
values
PIGLET – Example analyses

• Examples taken from Pirrello & Poulos (2014)
• Large 172 pile group for 151 storey Incheon Tower
• Results from 3 analysis programs: CLAP, PIGLET and REPUTE compared with
results from a 3-D finite element analysis using Plaxis 3D
• PIGLET results presented in Pirrello & Poulos (2014) contained significant errors, as
acknowledged by both authors and corrected here
• Example 2
• Incheon Tower foundations: 172 pile group under general loading
7
PIGLET – Example 2: Foundations for planned Incheon Tower

x coordinate (m) 172 piles
8m Diameter 2.5 m
20 m Typical spacing: 5 m
y coordinate (m)
2m V = 6560 MN
Hx = 149 MN
20 m Hy = 115 MN
Mx (y to z) = 21600 MNm
My (x to z) = 12710 MNm
T = 1996 MNm
Pile embedment from 46.3 to 71.3 m (average 55.3 m)
• Soil shear modulus profiles: Gaxial = 7 + 4.5z MPa

Gb = 600 MPa ~ 2GL
Proposed Glateral = 5 + 3.5z MPa ( = 0.3)

151 storey • Shaft friction: 50 kPa to 500 kPa: design average ~ 125 kPa (54 MN)
twin towers • End-bearing capacity: 12 MPa (58.9 MN): design limit 30 MN
PIGLET – Example 2: Incheon Tower results

(Pirrello & Poulos, 2014)
Fully elastic Assuming limiting axial

response pile load of 83.5 MN
• Close agreement with respect to displacements and rotation
• Load re-distribution (PIGLET) results in 25 piles reaching limit of 83.5 MN,
but with very minor consequences for deformations
8
Foundation design for slender lightweight tower

• Design SLS loads
• Vertical: 2.5 MN to 3.0 MN
• Horizontal: dynamic loads up to 0.8 MN
• Moment (base of pile cap): up to 45 MNm
• Load factor: f ≥ 1.5
CPT qc (MPa)
• SLS tilt limit: 1/600 0 5 10 15 20
•
0
Soil conditions Pile cap formation
• Lateritic sandy clay

5
• Weathered to 22 m
• qc ~ 3 to 7 MPa
Depth (m)
10
• Preliminary design
• 12 to 24 CFA piles
15
• 0.6 m diameter
• 20 m embedment
20
Reduced weathering
Lehane & Randolph (2004)
Trial pile load test

700
• Trial pile to assess shaft friction
• 0.34 m diameter 600
• embedded to 8 m
Applied pile head tesnion load (kN)
• sleeved over upper 2 m 500

Tension
• Tension load test
400
• Ultimate capacity ~ 640 kN
2m
• Average shaft friction: 100 kPa 300 sleeve
(s ~ 0.015qc in upper 2 to 8 m)
• Creep load ~ 250 to 300 kN 200 340 mm
by
• Initial shear modulus ~ 35 MPa 8 m long
100
• Design pile capacities
• 0.6 m dia. × 20 m embedment 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(18 m below pile cap)
Pile head (upward) displacement (mm)
• Conservatively, reduce shear modulus
for lateral loading to ~ 5 MPa
9
Results of RATZ and LAP modelling

RATZ – overall response (test pile) LAP – overall response
700
1000
600 900 API ‘firm’ clay model
800
500
Pile head load (kN)
Pile head load (kN)

700 PIGLET
400 Load Test 600 G = 5 MPa
Fails to capture strong
Pile head 500
300
non-linear mobilization
z = 0.3 m
400
z = 1.8 m
200 of shaft friction 300
z = 3.8 m LAP response
100 z = 5.8 m 200

z = 19.5 m 100 PIGLET lateral fixed head
0
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
300
LAP analyses
Load Test
250 Pile head
• Design situation:
Pile head load (kN)
200
Creep
150
Detail of initial 0.6 m by 18 m embedment pile
•
100
response Downgraded soil strength
50 G = 35 MPa
0 (100 kPa instead of 200 – 300 kPa)
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Pile head displacement (m) • Initial response: elastic with G = 5 MPa
Tower foundation: ring of CFA piles D = 0.6 m
Group A
• CFA piles adopted 16 × CFA piles
• 600 mm diameter
• Embedment: 20 m Dpitch = 9 m
• Plastic moment capacity: 300 kNm
(less under tensile loading)
• Alternative rings of 12 or 16 piles

• Diameter 0.6 m D = 0.6 m
• Pitch circle diameter: 9 m

Group B
• Embedment: 20 m
12 × CFA piles
(18 m below pile cap)
D=9m
10
Foundation design Alternative design: ring of 12 CFA piles

• Design pile capacities D = 0.6 m
• Ring of 16 CFA piles: 0.6 m dia. ×

12 × CFA piles
20 m embedment
• Limiting axial loads D=9m
• On basis of pile test data; g = 0.8
• 20% allowance for rate effects
ULS SLS
Static tension (MN) 2.3 1.25 PIGLET analysis of load redistribution
Static comp’n (MN) 2.9 1.45 0.012 D = 0.6 m 600
Maximum bending moment (kNm)

Maximum pile
Dynamic tension (MN) 2.8 1.5 head bending
Rotation of pile cap (radians)

0.01 500
moment
Dynamic comp’n (MN) 3.5 1.7 Pile cap Group A
0.008 rotation 400
16 × CFA piles
Design limit
PIGLET analysis (16-pile ring): 0.006 derived from 300
test pile
• Maximum axial load 1.44 MN 0.004 Dpitch = 9 m 200
Design rotation
• Maximum moment 7.5 kNm limit (1/600)
0.002 100
• Pile rotation 0.0010 radians
0 0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Lehane & Randolph (2004) Imposed limiting axial pile load (MN)
Concluding remarks
• Effective use of pile software
• Non-linear analysis of complete axial and pile load response

- illustrated here using RATZ (axial) and LAP (lateral)
• Serviceability response idealised as (quasi) elastic
• Simple elastic approach generally adequate for pile group analysis

e.g. PIGLET: high consistency with alternative software
• Design process
• Load test data help constrain design limits
• Load redistribution: explores effect of limiting maximum axial load on
resulting operational response
11
Kuala Lumpur & Singapore, September 2018
Mark Randolph
Fugro Chair in Geotechnics
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
The University of Western Australia
Accompanying Bibliography
General – Pile Design

API (2000). RP2A: Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms, American Petroleum Institute, Washington.
API (2011). Recommended Practice 2GEO Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations, 1st
Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington.
Australian Standards (2009). Piling – Design and installation. AS2159-2009. Standards Australia, Sydney.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F. and Elson, W.K. (2009). Piling Engineering, 3rd
Edition, Taylor and Francis, London.
ISO 19901-4 (2003). Petroleum and natural gas industries — Specific requirements for offshore structures
- Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation design considerations, 1st Edition.
ISO 19902 (2007). Petroleum and natural gas industries — Fixed Steel Offshore Structures, 1st Edition.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1995) Behaviour of pile foundations under special loading conditions: R.M. Hardy
keynote address, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32 (2), 204-222.
Poulos H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour – theory and application. Géotechnique, 39(3), 365-415.
Poulos, H.G. (1999) The design of piles with particular reference to the Australian piling code, Australian
Geomechanics, 32 (4), 25-40.
Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Randolph, M.F. (2003). 43rd Rankine Lecture: Science and empiricism in pile foundation design.
Géotechnique, 53(10), 847-875.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1986). Foundation Design and Construction, 5th Edition, Longman Scientific and
Technical.
Vesic A.S. (1977). Design of pile foundations. National Co-operative Highway Research Program,
Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 42, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington DC.
Viggiani, C. (2001). Analysis and design of piled foundations. First Arrigo Croce Lecture, Rivista Italiana
di Geotecnica, 35(1), 47-75.
General – Soil Mechanics

Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.H., Jamiolkowski, M. and Lo Presti, D.C. (1989). Modulus of sands
from CPTs and DMTs, Proc 12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, 1, Balkema, 165-170.
Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands, Geotechnique, 36 (1), 65-78.
Bolton, M.D. (1987). Discussion and closure on: The strength and dilatancy of sands, Geotechnique, 37
(2), 225-226.
Burland, J.B. (1990). On the compressibility and shear strength natural clays. Géotechnique 40(3): 329–
378.
Carriglio, F., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. (1990). Stiffness and penetration resistance
of sands versus state parameter. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), 1015-1020.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., Pasqualini, E., Marchetti, S. and Nova, R. (1979) Design parameters
for soft clays, Proc. 7th ECSMFE, 5, Brighton, 27-57.
Jardine, R., Fourie, A., Maswose, J. and Burland, J.B. (1985) Field and laboratory measurement of soil
stiffness, Proc. 11th ICSMFE, 2, San Francisco, 511-514.
Jardine R.J., Potts D.M. Fourie A.B. and Burland J.B. (1986). Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-
strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique, 36(3), 377-396.
Ladd C.C., Foott R., Ishihara K., Schlosser F. and Poulos H.G. (1977). Stress-deformation and strength
characteristics. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Tokyo, 2, 421-494.
Lamb, T.W and Whitman, R.V. (1969), Soil Mechanics, p 199, John Wiley and Sons Inc.,New York.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice,
Blackie Academic and Professional.
Lupini, J.F., Skinner, A.E. and Vaughan, P.R. (1981). The drained residual strength of cohesive soil.
Géotechnique 31 (2), 181-213.
Mayne, P.W. (1980) Cam-Clay predictions of undrained shear strength, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 106 GT11, 1219-1242.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1982) K0 - OCR relationships in soil, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 108
(GT6), 851-872.
Mesri, G, Rokhsar, A. and Bohor, B.F. (1975). Composition and compressibility of typical samples of
Mexico Clay. Géotechnique, 25(3): 527-554.
O’Reilly, M.P. and Brown, S.F. (1991) Cyclic Loading of Soils. Blackie.
Ramsey, N., Jardine, R.J., Lehane, B.M. and Ridley, A.M. (1998). A review of soil-steel interface testing
with the ring shear apparatus. Proc. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behaviour,
Soc. for Underwater Technology, London, 237-258.
Rowe, P.W. (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
contact, Proc. Royal Society, 269A, 500-527.
Schneider, J.A., Randolph, M.F., Mayne, P.W. and Ramsey, N.R. (2008). Analysis of factors influencing
soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134(11), 1569-1586.
Schneider, J.A., Hotstream, J.N., Mayne, P.W. and Randolph, M.F. (2012). Comparing CPTU Q-F and Q-
u2/'v0 soil classification charts. Géotechnique Letters, 2, 209-215.
Schofield A.N. and Wroth C.P. (1968). Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London.
Simpson, B., Calabresi, G., Sommer, H. and Wallays, M. (1979). Design parameters for stiff clays, in Proc.
7th Eur. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Brighton, Vol. 5, pp. 91-125.
Skempton, A.W. and Northey, R.D. (1952). The sensitivity of clays. Géotechnique 3, 30-53.
Teh, C. I. and Houlsby, G. T. (1991). An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay. Géotechnique,
41(1): 17-34.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Wood D.M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state sol mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Wroth C.P. (1984). The interpretation of in-situ soil tests. 24th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, 34(4), 449-
489.
Wroth, C.P., Randolph, M.F., Houlsby, G.T. and Fahey, M. (1979). A review of the engineering properties
of soils, with particular reference to the shear modulus. Cambridge University Research Report,
CUED/D-Soils TR 75.
Wroth, C.P. and Wood, D.M. (1978). The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering
properties of soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15 (2), 127-145.
Axial Capacity and Response of Piles

Abbs, A.F. (1992) ‘Design of grouted offshore piles in calcareous soils’. Proc. ANZ Conf. Geomech.,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 128–132.
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B.H. and Evgin, E. (1992). Axial load transfer for piles in sand: I. Tests on an
instrumented precast pile. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(1), 11-20.
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B.H. and Evgin, E. (1993). Axial load transfer for piles in sand and the critical depth.
Canadian Geotechnical J., 30(3), 455-463.
BCP Committee (1971). Field tests on pipe piles in sand. Soils and Foundations, 11(2), 29-49.
Bea, R.G. (1992) Pile capacity for axial cyclic loading. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 118(1): 34–50.
Berezantzev V.G., Khristoforov V. and Golubkov V. (1961). Load bearing capacity and deformation of
piled foundations. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 2, 11-15.
Beringen, F.L., Windle, D. and Van Hooydonk, W.R. (1979). Results of loading tests on driven piles in
sand. Proc. Int. Conf. On Recent Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles, ICE, London,
213-225.
Bond, A.J. and Jardine, R.J. (1991). Effects of installing displacement piles in a high OCR clay.
Boulon, M. and Foray, P. (1986) ‘Physical and numerical simulation of lateral shaft friction along offshore
piles in sand. Proc. Conf. on Num. Methods Offshore Piling. Nantes, France, 127–147.
Brucy, F., Meunier, J. and Nauroy, J.-F. (1991). Behaviour of pile plug in sandy soils during and after
driving. Proc. 23rd Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 6514, 145-154.
Bruno D. and Randolph M.F. (1999). Dynamic and static load testing of model piles driven into dense
sand. J. Geot. Eng, Div, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 11, pp. 988-998.
Burland, J.E. and Cooke, R.W. (1974). The design of bored piles in stiff clays. Ground Engineering 7 (4),
28-30, 33-35.
Burland, J.B. and Twine, D. (1988). The shaft friction of bored piles in terms of effective strength, Proc.
1st Int. Geot. Sem. on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, pp. 411-420.
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. (1982). Pile bearing capacity by means of static penetrometer CPT.
Proc. 2nd Eur. Symp. on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 493-499.
Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K. (1971). The elastic analysis of compressible piles and pile groups.
Caputo, V. and Viggiani, C. (1984). Pile foundation analysis: a simple approach to non linearity effects.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, 18 (2), 32-51.
Chandler, R.J. (1968). The shaft friction of piles in cohesive soils in terms of effective stresses. Civ. Eng.
Public Wks. Rev. 63, 48-51.
Chandler, R.J. and Martins, J.P. (1982). An experimental study of skin friction around piles in clay.
Chow, F.C., Jardine, R.J., Brucy, F. and Nauroy, J.F. (1998). Effects of time on capacity of pipe piles in
dense marine sand. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng. Div, ASCE, 124(3), 254-264.
Colliat, J.L. and Colliard, D. (2010). Set-up of suction piles in deepwater Gulf of Guinea clays. Proc. 2nd
Int. Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 723-727.
Cooke, R.W., Price, G. and Tarr, K.W. (1979). Friction piles under vertical working load conditions - load
transfer and settlement. Géotechnique 29 (2), 113-147.
Coop M.R. and Wroth, C.P. (1990). Discussion of M.R. Coop and C.P. Wroth (1989): Field studies of an
instrumented model pile in clay, Géotechnique 39(4): 679-696, Géotechnique, 40(4): 669-672.
Coyle, H.M. and Castello, R.R. (1981). New design correlations for piles in sand. J. Geotech. Eng. Div.,
ASCE, 197(GT7), 965-985.
Davisson, M.T. (1963). Estimating buckling loads for piles, in Proc. 2nd Pan-Amer. Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found. Eng., Brazil, Vol. 1, pp. 351-371.
Davisson, M.T. and Robinson, KE. (1965). Bending and buckling of partially embedded piles, in Proc. 6th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Vol. 2, pp. 243-246.
De Beer, E., de Jonghe, A., Carpentier, R. and Wallays, M. (1979). Analysis of the results of loading tests
on displacement piles penetrating into a very dense sand layer. Proc. Conf. On Recent Developments in
the Design and Construction of Piles, ICE, UK, 199-211.
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. Proc. Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech.
Eng. (ECSMGE). Prague, Czech Republic, 663–715.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M.F. (1993). Tensile and compressive shaft capacity of piles in sand. J. Geot.
Eng. Div., ASCE, 119(12), 1952 - 1973.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M.F. (1997). The plugging behaviour of driven and jacked piles in sand.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M.F. (1999). Centrifuge modelling of pipe piles in sand under axial loads.
De Ruiter J. and Beringen F.L. (1979). Pile foundations for large North Sea structures. Marine
Geotechnology, 3(3), 267-314.
Dutt, R. and Ehlers, C. (2009) ‘Set-up of large diameter driven pipe piles in deepwater normally
consolidated high plasticity clays’. Proc. Conf. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng., Paper OMAE2009-79012.
England, M. and Fleming, W.G.K. (1994). Review of foundation testing methods and procedures.
Geotechnical Engineering, ICE, London, 107(3), 135-142.
Fellenius, B.H. (1972). Down drag on piles in clay due to negative skin friction. Can. Geotech. J. 9 (4),
323-337.
Fellenius, B.H. and Altaee, A.A. (1995). Critical depth: how it came into being and why it doesn’t exist.
Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng.. 113(1): 107–119.
Fioravante, V. (2002). On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand. Soils and
Foundations, 42(2), 23-33
Fioravante, V., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M. and Sarri, H. (1999). Shaft friction modelling of non-
displacement piles in sand. Proc. Int. Conf. On Analysis, Design, Construction and Testing of Deep
Foundations, Austin, Texas.
Fleming, W.G.K. (1992). A new method for single pile settlement prediction and analysis. Géotechnique,
42(3), 411-425.
Fleming, W.G.K. (1995). The understanding of continuous flight auger piling, its monitoring and control,
Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, July, pp. 157-165.
Discussion by R. Smyth-Osbourne and reply, Vol. 119, Oct., 1996, p. 237.
Fleming, W.G.K. and Lane, P.F. (1971). Tolerance requirements and construction problems in piling, Conf.
on Behaviour of Piles, ICE, London, 175-178.
Fleming, W.G.K. and Thorburn, S. (1983). Recent piling advances, State of the Art Report, in Proc. Conf.
on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, ICE, London.
Fleming, W.K. and Sliwinski, Z.J. (1977). The use and influence of bentonite in bored pile construction.
D.O.E/CIRIA Piling Development Group Report PG 3.
Flynn, K.N. and McCabe, B.M. (2016). Shaft resistance of driven cast-in-situ piles in sand, Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 53(1), 49–59.
Foray, P., Colliat, J. L. and Nauroy, J. F. (1993) Bearing capacity of driven model piles in dense sands
from calibration tests. Proc. 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 7194,
655-665.
Gavin, K. (2018). Use of CPT for the design of shallow and deep foundations on sand. Proc. Int. Symp.
Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’18, Delft.
Gavin, K., Cadogan, D. and Casey, P. (2009). The shaft capacity of CFA piles in sand. J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 135(6), 790–798.
Gavin, K., Cadogan, D., Casey, P. and Tolooiyan, A. (2013). The base resistance of non-displacement piles
in sand – field tests, Geotechnical Engineering, ICE, 166(6), 540–548.
Gavin, K., Jardine, R.J., Karlsrud, K. and Lehane, B.M. (2015). The effects of pile ageing on the shaft
capacity of offshore piles in sand. Keynote paper. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics (ISFOG 2015), Oslo, Norway: Taylor and Francis Group. 1, 129-152.
Gregersen, O.S., Aas, G. and Dibagio, E. (1973). Load tests on friction piles in loose sand. Proc. 8th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Moscow, 2, 109-117.
Guo, W.D. and Randolph, M.F. (1997). Vertically loaded piles in non-homogeneous media. Int. J. Num.
and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 21(8), 507-532.
Guo W.D. and Randolph M.F. (1998). Rationality of load transfer approach for pile analysis. Computers
and Geotechnics, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp 85-112.
Gurtowski, T.M. and Wu, M.J. (1984). Compression load test on concrete piles in aluminium. Analysis
and Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE, 138-153.
Hanna, A. and Nguyen, T.Q. (2003). Shaft resistance of single vertical and batter piles driven in sand. J.
Geot. And GeoEnvir. Eng., ASCE, 129(7), 601-607.
Hight, D.W., Lawrence, D.M., Farquhar, G.B., Milligan, G.W., Gue, S.S. and Potts, D.M. (1996). Evidence
for scale effects in the bearing capacity of open-ended piles in sand. Proc., 28th Annual Offshore
Technology Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7975, 181-192.
Hiley, A. (1925). A rational pile-driving formula and its application in piling practice explained.
Engineering (London) 119, 657, 721.
Hobbs, N.B. and Healy, P.R. (1979). Piling in Chalk DOE/CIRIA Piling Development Group Report PG.
6. CIRIA, London.
Hobbs, N.B. and Robins, P. (1976). Compression and tension tests on driven piles in chalk. Géotechnique
26 (1), 33-46.
Hodges, W.G.H. and Pink, S. (1971). The use of penetrometer soundings in the estimation of pile bearing
capacity and settlement for driven piles in highly weathered chalk, in Stress Strain Behaviour of Soils,
(Proc. Roscoc Mem. Symp.) ed. Parry, R.H.G. G.T. Foulis (Blackie Publishing Group) pp. 693-723.
Horvath, R.G. and Kenney, T.C. (1979) Shaft resistance of rock socketed drilled piers, Proc. Symp. on
Deep Found. ASCE, 182-184.
Jardine, R.J. and Chow, F.C. (1996). New Design Methods for Offshore Piles, MTD Publication 96/103.
Jardine, R.J., Chow, F.C., Overy, R. and Standing, J. (2005) ICP Design Methods for Driven Piles in Sands
and Clays. Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0 7277 3272 2.
Jardine, R. J., Lehane, B. M. and Everton, S. J. (1992). “Friction coefficients for piles in sands and silts.”
Proc. Int. Conf. on offshore site investigation and foundation behaviour, Soc. of Underwater Tech.,
London, 661-680.
Joer, H.A and Randolph, M.F. (1994) ‘Modelling of the shaft capacity of grouted driven piles in calcareous
soil’. Proc. Int. Conf. Des. Constr. Deep Found., FHWA. Orlando. 2: 873–887.
Joer, H.A., Randolph, M.F. and Gunasena, U. (1998) ‘Experimental modelling of the shaft capacity of
grouted driven piles’. ASTM Geotech. Test. J., 21(3): 159–168.
Karlsrud, K. (1999). Lessons learned from instrumented pile load tests in clay. Proc. Int. Conf. On
Analysis, Design, Construction and Testing of Deep Foundations, Austin, Texas.
Karlsrud, K. and Haugen, T. (1985). Behavior of piles in clay under cyclic axial loading results of field
model tests. Proc. Int. Conf. Behav. Offshore Struct., Delft. 2: 589–600.
Karlsrud K., Kalsnes, B. and Nowacki, F. (1993) ‘Response of piles in soft clay and silt deposits to static
and cyclic axial loading based on recent instrumented pile load tests’. Proc. Conf. Offshore Site Invest.
Found. Behav., Soc. Underwater Tech., London, 549–584.
Karlsrud, K. and Nadim, F. (1990). Axial capacity of offshore piles in clay. Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf.
Houston, Texas, Paper OTC 6245.
Kirby, R.C. and Esrig, M.I. (1979). Further development of a general effective stress method for prediction
of axial capacity for driven piles in clay, Proc. Conf. On Recent Developments in the Design and
Construction of Piles, ICE, UK, 335-344.
Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M. (1987). Tests of interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus.
Kolk, H.J., Baaijens, A.E., and Senders, M. (2005). Design criteria for pipe piles in silica sands. Proc. Int.
Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 711–716.
Kolk, H.J. and van der Velde, E. (1996). A reliable method to determine friction capacity of piles driven
into clays. Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7993.
Kraft L.M. (1990). Computing axial pile capacity in sands for offshore conditions. Marine Geotechnology,
9, 61-92.
Kulhawy, F.H. (1984). Limiting tip and side resistance: Fact or fallacy?. Analysis and Design of Pile
Foundations, ASCE, 80-98.
Kulhawy, F.H. and K.K.Phoon 1993. Drilled shaft side resistance in clay soil to rock, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 38, Design and Performance of Deep Foundations, ASCE, New York, 172-183.
Kuwabara F. and Poulos H.G. (1989). Downdrag forces in a group of piles. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE,
115(GT6), 806-818.
Lee, J.H. and Salgado, R. (1999). Determination of pile base resistance in sands. J. Geotech. and Geoenv.
Eng., ASCE, 125(8), 673-683.
Lehane, B.M. and Gavin, K.G (2001). The base resistance of jacked pipe piles in sand. J. Geotech. and
Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, .
Lehane, B.M., and Jardine, R.J. (1994). Displacement-pile behaviour in a soft marine clay, Canadian
Geotchnical Journal, 31(2): 181-191.
Lehane, B.M., Jardine, R.J., Bond, A.J. and Frank, R. (1993). Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from
instrumented pile tests, J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 119(1): 19-35.
Lehane, B.M., Jardine, R.J., Bond, A.J. and Chow, F.C. (1994). The development of shaft friction on
displacement piles in clay, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., New Dehli, 2: 473-
476.
Lehane, B.M., Lim, J.K., Carotenuto, P., Nadim, F., Lacasse, S., Jardine, R.J. and van Dijk, B.F.J. (2017).
Characteristics of unified databases for driven piles. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Offshore Site Investigation and
Geotechnics, Society for Underwater Technology, London, 1, 162-191.
Lehane, B.M. and Randolph, M.F. (2002). Evaluation of a minimum base resistance for driven pipe piles
in siliceous sand. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng. Div, ASCE, 128(3), 198-205.
Lehane, B.M., Schneider, J.A. and Xu, X. (2005) A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in
siliceous sand. Research Report Geo:05358, Geomechanics Group, The University of Western Australia
Leong E.C. and Randolph M.F. (1991). Finite element analyses of soil plug response. Int. J. of Num. and
Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp 121-141.
Leong E.C. and Randolph M.F. (1994). Finite element modelling of rock-socketed piles. Int J. Num. and
Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 25-47.
Lord, J.A. (1976). A comparison of three types of driven cast-in-situ pile in chalk. Géotechnique 26 (1),
73-93.
Lord, J.A., Hayward, T. and Clayton, C.R.I. (2003). Shaft friction of CFA piles in chalk. CIRIA Project
Report 86.
Mattes, N.S. and Poulos, H.G. (1969). Settlement of single compressible pile. J. Soil Mech. and Found.
Div., ASCE, 95 (SM1), 198-207.
McCammon, N.R. and Golder, H.Q. (1970). Some loading tests on long pipe piles. Géotechnique, 20(2),
171-184.
McClelland, B. (1974). Design of deep penetration piles for ocean structures. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE,
100 (GT7), 705-747.
McClelland, B., Focht, J.A. and Emrich, W.J. (1969). Problems in design and installation of offshore piles.
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 6, 1491-1513.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE,
102(GT3), 197-228.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Sastry, V.V.R.N. (1985) Bearing capacity of rigid piles under eccentric and inclined
loads, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22, 267-276.
Murff, J.D. (1980). Pile capacity in a softening soil. Int. J. Num. and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 4,
185-189.
Murff, J.D. (1987). Pile capacity in calcareous sands: State of the Art. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 113
(GT5), 490-507.
Mylonakis, G. (2001). Winkler modulus for axially loaded piles. Géotechnique, 51(5), 455-461.
Mylonakis, G. and Gazetas, G. (1998). Settlement and additional internal forces of grouped piles in layered
soil. Géotechnique 48(1), 55–72.
Nauroy J.F. and Le Tirant P. (1983). Model tests of piles in calcareous sands. Proc. Conf. on Geotechnical
Practice in Offshore Engineering, ASCE, Austin, Texas, 356-369.
Neely W.J. (1988). Bearing capacity of expanded-base piles in sand. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 116(GT1),
73-87.
Novak, M. (1977). Vertical vibration of floating piles. J. Engrg Mech. Div., ASCE, 103(EM1), 153-168.
O’Neill, M.W. (2001). Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng. Div, ASCE,
127(1), 1-16.
O’Neill, M.W. and Raines, R.D. (1991). Load transfer for pipe piles in highly pressured dense sand. Jnl.
Geotech. Eng., Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs 117(8), 1208-1226.
O'Riordan, N.J. (1982). The mobilisation of shaft adhesion down a bored, cast-in-situ pile in the Woolwich
and Reading beds. Ground Engineering 15(3), 17-26.
Osterberg, J. (1989). New device for load testing driven piles and drilled shafts separates friction and end-
bearing. Proc. Int. Conf. On Piling an Deep Found., London, 1, 421-427.
Parry, R.H.G. (1980). A study of pile capacity for the Heather platform. Ground Engineering 13 (2), 26-
28, 31, 37.
Parry, R.H.G. and Swain, C.W. (1977). Effective stress methods of calculating skin friction of driven piles
in soft clay. Ground Engineering 10 (3), 24-26.
Poulos, H.G. (1987). Analysis of residual effects in piles. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 113(3), 216-219.
Poulos H.G. (1988). Cyclic stability diagram for axially loaded piles. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 114(GT8),
877-895.
Poulos, H.G. (1989) ‘Cyclic axial loading analysis of piles in sand’. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 115(6): 836–
852.
Poulos, H.G. (1998). Pile testing – From the designer’s viewpoint. Proc. 2nd Int. Statnamic Seminar,
Tokyo, Balkema, 3-21.
Randolph, M.F. (1981). Piles subjected to torsion. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 107 (GT8), 1095-1111.
Randolph, M.F. (1983). Design considerations for offshore piles, Proc. Conf. on Geot. Practice in Offshore
Eng., Austin, Texas, 422-439.
Randolph M.F. (1986), RATZ, Load Transfer Analysis of Axially Loaded Piles, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, The University of Western Australia.
Randolph, M.F. (1987). Modelling of the soil plug response during pile driving. Proc. 9th SE Asian
Geotechnical Conf., Bangkok, 2, 6.1-6.14.
Randolph M.F. (1988). The axial capacity of deep foundations in calcareous soil. Proc. Int. Conf. on
Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 2, 837-857.
Randolph, M.F. (1990). Analysis of the dynamics of pile driving. In Developments in Soil Mechanics –
IV: Advanced Geotechnical Analyses, Ed. P.K. Banerjee and R. Butterfield, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers.
Randolph M.F. (1991). The effect of residual stresses in interpreting stress wave data. Proc. 7th Conf. of
the Int. Assoc. for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, 1, 777-782.
Randolph M.F. (1993) 'Pile capacity in sand - the critical depth myth. Australian Geomechanics, Vol. 24,
pp 30-34.
Randolph, M.F. (2013). 2nd McClelland Lecture: Analytical contributions to offshore geotechnical
engineering. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, 85-105.
Randolph, M.F., Carter, J.P. and Wroth, C.P. (1979). Driven piles in clay - the effects of installation and
subsequent consolidation, Géotechnique, 29(4): 361-393.
Randolph, M.F., Dolwin, J. and Beck, R.D. (1994). Design of driven piles in sand. Géotechnique, 44(3),
427-448.
Randolph, M.F. and Gourvenec, S.M. (2011). Offshore Geotechnical Engineering, Taylor and Francis,
London.
Randolph M.F., Joer H.A. and Airey D.W. (1998), Foundation design in cemented sands. 2nd Int. Seminar
on Hard Soils, Soft Rocks, Naples, (3), 1373-1387.
Randolph M.F., Joer H.A., Khorshid M.S. and Hyden A.M. (1996). Field and laboratory data from pile
load tests in calcareous soil. Proc. 28th Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper 7992, Vol 1, pp
327-336.
Randolph, M.F., Leong, E.C. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991). One dimensional analysis of soil plugs in pipe
piles. Géotechnique, 41(4), 587-598.
Randolph M.F., May M., Leong E.C., Hyden A.M. and Murff J.D. (1992). Soil plug response in open
ended pipe piles. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. GT5, pp 743-759.
Randolph, M.F. and Murphy, B.S. (1985). Shaft capacity of driven piles in clay, Proc. 17th Annual
Offshore Tech. Conf., Paper OTC 4883, 1, 371-378.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978). A simple approach to pile design and the evaluation of pile tests,
in Behaviour of Deep Foundations, ed. R. Lundgren, ASTM STP 670, pp. 484-499.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. J. Geot. Eng.
Div., ASCE, 104(GT12), 1465-1488.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1979). An analytical solution for the consolidation around a driven pile,
Int. J. Num. and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 3(3), 217-229.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1981). Application of the failure state in undrained simple shear to the
shaft capacity of driven piles. Géotechnique 31 (1), 143-157.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1982). Recent developments in understanding the axial capacity of piles
in clay. Ground Engineering 15 (7), 17-25, 32.
Reddy, A.S. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1970). Buckling of fully and partially embedded piles. J. Soil Mech.
and Found. Div., ASCE, 96 (SM6), 1951-1965.
Reese, L.C., Touma, F.T. and O,Neill, M.W. (1976). Behaviour of drilled piers under axial loading. Proc.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 102(GT5), 493-510.
Rimoy, S., Silva, M., Jardine, R.J., Yang, Z.X., Zhu, B.T. and Tsuha, C.H.C. (2015). Field and model
investigations into the influence of age on axial capacity of displacement piles in silica sands.
Rollins, K.M., Olsen, R.J., Egbert, J.J., Jensen, D.H., Olsen, K.G. and Garrett, B.H. (2006). Pile spacing
effects on lateral pile group behavior: Load tests. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 132(10), 1262-
1271.
Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H., Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J. and Egbert, J.J. (2006). Pile spacing
effects on lateral pile group behavior: Analysis. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 132(10), 1272-
1283.
Rowe, R.K. and Armitage, H.H. (1987). A design method for drilled piers in soft rack. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 24 (1), 126-142.
Schneider, J.A., White, D.J. and Lehane, B.M. (2007) ‘Shaft friction of piles in siliceous, calcareous and
micaceous sands’. Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Offshore Site Invest. Geotech., Soc., Underwater Tech.,
London. 367–382.
Schneider, J.A., Xu, X. and Lehane, B.M. (2008). Database assessment of CPT-based design methods for
axial capacity of driven piles in siliceous sands. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. ASCE, 134(9): 1227–1244.
Seed H.B. and Reese L.C. (1955). The action of soft clay along friction piles. Proc. ASCE, 81, Paper 842.
Seidel, J. and Haberfield, C.M. (1995). The axial capacity of pile sockets in rocks and hard soils, Ground
Engineering, 28(2), 33-38.
Semple, R.M. and Rigden, W.J. (1984). Shaft capacity of driven piles in clay, Proc. Symp. on Analysis
and Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE, San Francisco, 59-79.
Shioi, Y., Yoshida, O., Meta, T. and Homma, M. (1992). Estimation of bearing capacity of steel pipe pile
by static loading test and stress-wave theory. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. On Application of Stress-Wave Theory
to Piles, Balkema, Rotterdam, 325-330.
Skempton, A.W. (1959). Cast in situ bored piles in London clay. Géotechnique 9, 153-173.
Sliwinski, Z.J. and Fleming, W.G.K. (1984). The integrity and performance of bored piles. Advances in
Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, I.C.E., London.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1957). The adhesion of piles driven in clay soils, in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found. Eng., Vol. 2, pp. 66-71.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1970). Adhesion of piles in stiff clay. CIRIA Report 26, London.
Toolan, F.E., Lings, M.L. and Mirza, U.A. (1990). An appraisal of API RP2A recommendations for
determining skin friction of piles in sand. Proc. 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
Paper OTC 6422, 33-42.
Vesic, A.S. (1967). A Study of Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations, Final Report, Project B-189,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga., pp xvi + 264.
Vesic, A.S. (1969). Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand. ASTM STP 444, 177-222.
Vesic, A.S. (1970). Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site. J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Div.,
ASCE, 96(SM2), 561-584.
Vijayvergiya, V.N. and Focht, J.A. (1972). A new way to predict capacity of piles in clay. Proc. 4th Annual
Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 1718, 2: 865-874.
Walker, L.K. and Darvall, P. Le P. (1973). Dragdown on coated and uncoated piles, in Proc. 8th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Vol. 2.1, pp. 257-262.
Whitaker, T. and Cooke, R.W. (1966). An investigation of the shaft and base resistance of large bored piles
in London clay, in Proc. Symp. on Large Bored Piles, ICE, London, pp. 7-49.
White, D.J. (2005). A general framework for shaft resistance on displacement piles in sand. Proc. Int.
Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 697–703.
White, D.J. and Bolton, M.D. (2005). Comparing CPT and pile base resistance in sand. Proc. Inst. Civil
Engng. Geotech. Eng. 158(GE1): 3–14.
White, D. J. and Bolton, M.D. (2002). Observing friction fatigue on a jacked pile. Centrifuge and
Constitutive Modelling: Two extremes. Springman S.M. (ed.), Swets and Zeitlinger, Rotterdam, 347-
354.
White, D.J., Schneider, J.A. and Lehane, B.M. (2005) ‘The influence of effective area ratio on shaft friction
of displacement piles in sand’. Proc. Int. Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 741–747.
Whittle, A.J. (1992). Assessment of an effective stress analysis for predicting the performance of driven
piles in clays, Proc. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behaviour, Society for
Underwater Technology, Kluwer, 28: 607-643.
Williams, A.F. and Pells, P.J.N. (1981). Side resistance of rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale.
Can. Geotech. J., 18, 502-513.
Xu, X. and Lehane, B.M. (2008) Pile and penetrometer end bearing resistance in two-layered soil profiles.
Géotechnique, 58(3): 187–197.
Xu, X.T., Schneider, J.A. and Lehane, B.M. (2008) Cone penetration test (CPT) methods for end-bearing
assessment of open- and closed-ended driven piles in siliceous sand. Can Geotech. J., 45(1): 1130–1141.
Zhang, L. and Einstein, H.H. (1998). End bearing capacity of drilled shafts in rock, J. of Geot. and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(7), 574-584.
Pile Driving and Installation

Aldridge, T.R., Carrington, T.M., and Kee, N.R. (2005). Propagation of pile tip damage during installation,
Proc. Int. Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 823-827.
Alm, T. and Hamre, L. (2001). “Soil model for pile driveability based on CPT interpretations”, Proc. 15th
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 2, Istanbul, pp. 1297-1302.
Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W. (1973). Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile driving. Ground
Engineering 6 (4), 26-29.
Baligh, M.M. (1985). Strain path method. J. Soil Mech. And Found. Div., ASCE, 111(9): 1180-1136.
Baligh, M.M. (1986). Undrained deep penetration. Géotechnique, 36(4), 471-485; 487-501.
Barbour, R. and Erbrich, C.T. (1995). Analysis of soil skirt interaction during installation of bucket
foundations using ABAQUS. Proc. ABAQUS Users Conference, Paris.
Bermingham, P. and Janes, M. (1989). An innovative approach to load testing of high capacity piles. Proc.
Int. Conf. On Piling and Deep Foundations, London, 409-413.
Byrne, T., Doherty, P. and Gavin, K. (2012). Comparison of pile driveability methods in north sea sand,
Proc. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics: Integrated Technologies - Present and Future,
September 12 - 14, 2012, London, UK.
Colliat, J-L., Vergobbi, P., and Puech, A. (1993). Friction degradation and set-up effects in hard clays
offshore Congo and Angola. Proc. 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 3-6 May, 1993,
Houston, Texas: 627-635.
Coyle H.M., Lowery L.L and Hirsch T.J. (1977). Wave equation analysis of piling behaviour. in Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, McGraw Hill, New York, 272-296.
Dean, E.T.R. and Deokiesingh, S. (2012). Plugging criterion for offshore pipe pile drivability.
Géotechnique, 63(9): 796-800.
Deeks, A.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1995). A simple model for inelastic footing response to transient loading.
Int. J. Num. and Anal. Meth. in Geom., 19(5), 307-329.
Dutt, R.N., Doyle, E.H., Collins, J.T., Ganguly, P. (1996). A simple model to predict soil resistance to
driving for long piles in deepwater normally consolidated clays. Proc. 27th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, 1-4 May, 1996, Houston, Texas: 257-269.
Erbrich, C.T., Barbosa-Cruz, E. and Barbour, R. (2010). Soil-pile interaction during extrusion of an
initially deformed pile. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Front. Offshore Geotech., Perth, Australia, 489-494.
Gibson, G.C. and Coyle, H.M. (1968). Soil damping constants related to common soil properties in sands
and clays, Report No.125-1, Texas Transport Institute, Texas A and M University, Houston.
Goble G.G. and Rausche F. (1976), Wave equation analysis of pile driving - WEAP program, U.S. Dept
of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin., Implementation Div., Office of Research and
Development, Washington D.C. 20590.
Goble, G.G. and Rausche, F. (1979). Pile drivability predictions by CAPWAP, in Proc. Int. Conf. on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, ICE, London, pp. 29-36.
Goble, G.G., Rausche, F. and Liking, G.E. (1980). The analysis of pile driving - A state-of-the-art, Proc.
Int. Conf. on Stress-Wave Theory on Piles, Stockholm, 131-161.
Goble G.G. and Rausche F. (1986), WEAP86 program documentation in 4 Vols, Federal Highway Admin.,
Office of Implementation, Washington D.C. 20590.
Hagerty, D. and Peck, R.B. (1971). Heave and lateral movements due to pile driving. J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Div., ASCE, (SM 11) Nov. 1971, 1513-1531.
Healy, P.R. and Weltman, A.J. (1980). Survey of problems associated with the installation of displacement
piles. CIRIA Report PG8, Storeys Gate, London.
Heerema, E.P. (1980). Predicting pile driveability: Heather as an Illustration of the “Friction Fatigue”
theory. Ground Eng. 13: 15–37.
Heerema, E.P. and de Jong, A. (1979). An advanced wave equation computer program which simulates
dynamic pile plugging through a coupled mass-spring system. Proc. Int. Conf. on Num. Methods in
Offshore Piling, London, 37-42.
Holeyman, A., J.-F. Vanden Berghe, and N. Charue (2002). Vibratory Pile Driving and Deep Soil
Compaction, Zwets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 521 5, 233 p.
Kusakabe O. and Matsumoto T. (1995). Statnamic tests of Shonan test program with review of signal
interpretation. Proc. 1st Int. Statnamic Seminar, Vancouver.
Lee, S.L., Chow, Y.K., Karunaratne, G.P., and Wong, K.Y. (1988). Rational wave equation model for pile-
driving analysis. J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 114(3), 306-325.
Likins, G.E. (1984) Field measurements and the pile driving analyser, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Application
of Stress Wave Theory, Stockholm, 298-305.
Litkouhi, S. and Poskitt, T.J. (1980). Damping constant for pile driveability calculations. Géotechnique,
30(1), 77-86.
Liyanapathirana, D.S., Deeks, A.J. and Randolph, M.F. (2001). Numerical modelling of the driving
response of thin-walled open-ended piles. Int. J. Num. and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 25(9), 933-
953.
Maiorano, R.M.S., Viggiani, C. and Randolph, M.F. (1996). Residual stress system arising from different
methods of pile installation. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. On Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles,
Orlando, 518-528.
Matsumoto T., Tsuzuki M. and Michi Y. (1994). Comparative study of static loading test and statnamic on
a steel pipe pile driven into a soft rock. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. On Piling and Deep Foundations, Bruges.
Middendorp P. and van Weele A.F. (1986). Application of characteristic stress wave method in offshore
practice. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Num. Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, Supplement, 6-18.
Middendorp P. and Bielefield M.W. (1995). Statnamic load testing and the influence of stress-wave
phenomena. Proc. 1st Int. Statnamic Seminar, Vancouver.
Paik, K.H. and Lee, S.R. (1993). Behaviour of soil plugs in open-ended model piles driven into sands.
Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 11, 353-373.
Paik, K.H., Salgado, R., Lee, J. and Kim, B. (2003). Behaviour of open and closed-ended piles driven into
sand. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng. Div, ASCE, 129(4), 296-306.
Randolph, M.F. (1990). Analysis of the dynamics of pile driving. In Developments in Soil Mechanics IV:
Advanced Geotethoical Analyses, Eds P.K. Banerjee and R. Butterfield, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers Ltd.
Randolph, M.F. (2000). Pile-soil interaction for dynamic and static loading. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on
Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Sao Paulo, Balkema, Appendix: 3-11.
Randolph, M.F. and Deeks, A.J. (1992). Dynamic and static soil models for axial pile response dynamics.
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, The Hague, Balkema, 1-14.
Randolph M.F. and Simons H.A. (1986). An improved soil model for one-dimensional pile driving
analysis. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Num. Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, pp 3-17.
Rausche, F., Goble, G.G. and Likins, G.E. (1985). Dynamic determination of pile capacity. J. Geot. Eng.
Div., ASCE, 111, 367-383.
Rausche F., Goble G.G. and Likins G.E. (1988). Recent WEAP developments. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, 164-173.
Schneider, J.A. and Harmon, I.A. (2010). “Analyzing drivability of open ended piles in very dense sands”,
Journal of the Deep Foundation Institute, 4(1): 3-15.
Schneider, J.A., White, D.J., and Kikuchi, Y. (2010). Analysis of large diameter pipe pile driveability in
Tokyo Bay using piezocone data, Proc. GeoFlorida 2010, Orlando, United States of America.
Simons, H.A. and Randolph, M.F. (1985). A new approach to one-dimensional pile driving analysis. Proc.
5th Int. Conf. on Num. Methods in Geomech., Nagoya, 3, 1457-1464.
Smith, E.A.L. (1960). Pile driving analysis by the wave equation. J. Soil Mech., ASCE, 86, 35-61.
Smits M. Th.J.H. (1996). Pile integrity tests. Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles: Test Results,
Balkema, 25-54.
Stevens, R.F. (1988). The effect of a soil plug on pile drivability in clay. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Application
of Stress Wave Theory to Piles.” Ottawa: 861-868.
Stevens, R.S, Wiltsie, E.A, and Turton, T.H. (1982). Evaluating pile drivability for hard clay, very dense
sand, and rock, Proc. 14th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 3-6 May, 1982, Houston, Texas:
465-469.
Strandgaard, T., and Vandenbulcke, L. (2002). Driving monopiles in glacial till. Proc. IBC’s Wind Power
Europe.
Take A., Valsangkar A.J. and Randolph M.F. (1999). Analytical solution for pile drivability assessment,
Computers and Geotechnics, 25(2), 57-74.
Weltman, A.J. (1977). Integrity testing of piles: a review. CIRIA Report PG4, Storeys Gate, London.
Laterally Loaded Piles

Abbs, A.F. (1983) ‘Lateral pile analysis in weak carbonate rocks’. Proc. Conf. Geotech. Practice in
Offshore Eng., ASCE, Austin, Texas, 546–556.
Agaiby, S.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1994). Static lateral and moment behaviour of rigid drilled shafts in
sand, Proc Int. Conf. Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, 3, FHWA, 1377-1389.
Baguelin F., Frank R. and Said Y.H. (1977). Theoretical study of lateral reaction mechanism of piles.
Geotechnique, 27(3), 405-434.
Bigot G., F. Bourges, R. Frank and Y. Guegan (1977) Action du deplacement lateral du sol sur un pieu,
Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, 1, 407-410.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces, Geoteknisk
Institut. Bull. No. 12, Copenhagen.
Broms, B.B. (1964a) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils, Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 90 (SM2), 27-63.
Broms, B.B. (1964b) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils, Journal Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 90 (SM3), 123-156.
Brown, D.A., Morrison, C. and Reese, L.C. (1988) Lateral load behaviour of pile groups in sand, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 114 (11), 1261-1276.
Brown, D.A., Reese, L.C. and O'Neill, M.W. (1987) Cyclic lateral loading of a large scale pile group,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113 (11), 1326-1343.
Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2003). Foundations for offshore wind turbines. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
A, 361, 2909-2930.
Carter, J.P. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1992). Analysis of laterally loaded shafts in rock, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 118 (6), 839-855.
Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1997) Piles subjected to lateral soil movements, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123 (9), 802-811.
Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1999) Design charts for analysis of piles subjected to lateral soil movements,
Proc. 8th Aust-New Zealand Conf. Geomechanics, Hobart, 1, 367-373.
Davisson, M.T. and Gill, H.L. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil system. J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Div., ASCE, 89 (SM3) 63-94.
De Beer E.E. and Wallays M. (1972). Forces induced in piles by unsymmetrical surcharges on the soil
around the piles. Proc. 5th Eur. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Madrid, 1, 325-332.
Dunnavant, T. W. and O'Neill, M W. (1989) Experimental p-y model for submerged, stiff clay, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115 (1) , 95-114.
Dyson, G.J. and Randolph, M.F. (2001). Monotonic lateral loading of piles in calcareous sediments. J.
Geotech Eng. Div, ASCE, 127(4),346-352.
Erbrich, C.T. (2004). A new method for the design of laterally loaded anchor piles in soft rock. Proc. Annu.
Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Texas, Paper OTC 16441.
Evangelista, A. and Viggiani, C. (1976). Accuracy of numerical solutions for laterally loaded piles in
elastic half-space, in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Blacksburg, Vol. 3,
pp. 1367-1370.
Gabr and Borden (1990) Lateral analysis of piers constructed on slopes, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 116 (12), ASCE, 1831-1850.
Grabe, J. (2008). Pile foundations for nearshore and offshore structures. Keynote Lecture, Proc. 11th Baltic
Sea Geotechnical Conference.
Hamilton, J.M. and Murff, J.D. (1995) ‘Ultimate lateral capacity of piles in clay’. Proc. Annu. Offshore
Tech. Conf. Houston,Texas, Paper OTC 7667.
Hetenyi M. (1946), Beams on Elastic Foundations, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Hull T.S., Lee C.Y. and Poulos H.G. (1991). Mechanics of pile reinforcement for unstable slopes.
University of Sydney, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, Research Report No. R636.
Jeanjean, P. (2009) ‘Re-assessment of p-y curves for soft clays from centrifuge testing and finite element
modelling’. Proc. Annu. Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Texas, Paper OTC 20158.
Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1979). Static and dynamic laterally loaded floating piles J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE,
105 (GT2), 289-304.
LeBlanc, C., Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2010). Response of stiff piles in sand to long-term cyclic
lateral loading. Géotechnique, 60(2), 79–90.
Lee, C.Y., Hull, T.S. and Poulos, H.G. (1995) Simplified pile-slope stability analysis, Computers and
Geotechnics, 17 (1), 1-16.
Lysmer, T. and Richart F.E. (1966). Dynamic response of footing to vertical loading, J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Eng. Div., ASCE, 98, 85-105.
Martin, C.M. and Randolph, M.F. (2006) ‘Upper bound analysis of lateral pile capacity in cohesive soil.’
Géotechnique, 56(2), 141–145.
Matlock H. (1970). Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Proc. 2nd Annual Offshore
Tech. Conf., Houston, 1, 577-594.
Matlock, H.S., Ingram, W.B., Kelley, A.E. and Bogard, D. (1980). Field tests of the lateral- load behaviour
of pile groups in soft clay. Proc. 12th Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 163-174.
Matlock, H.S. and Reese, L.C. (1960). Generalised solutions for laterally loaded piles. J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Div., ASCE, 86 (SM5), 63-91.
Meyerhof, G.G., Mathur, S.K. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1981) Lateral resistance and deflection of rigid walls
and piles in layered soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18, 159-170.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1977). Bearing capacity of piles in layered soils. Proc. 8th Int. Conf.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow,. (1), 645-650.
Murff, J.D. and Hamilton, J.M. (1993) P-Ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 119 (1), ASCE, 91-107.
Novello, E.A. (1999). From static to cyclic p–y data in calcareous sediments. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
Engineering for Calcareous Sediments, Bahrein, 1, 17-24.
O’Neill, M.W. and Murchison, J.M. (1983) An Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Sands. Report PRAC
82-41-1 to American Petroleum Institute, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Pise, P.J. (1982). Laterally loaded piles in a two-layer soil system. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 108 (GT9),
1177-1181.
Poulos, HG. (1971). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: I - single piles, and II - pile groups. J. Soil Mech.
and Found. Div., ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731, 733-751.
Poulos, HG. (1971). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: I - single piles, and II - pile groups. J. Soil Mech.
and Found. Div., ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731, 733-751.
Poulos H.G. (1982). Single pile response to cyclic lateral load. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 108(GT3), 355-
375.
Poulos, H.G. (1994) Analysis and design of piles through embankments, Proc. Int. Conf. Design and
Construction of Deep Foundations, 3, Orlando, FHWA, 1403-1421.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Chari, T.R. (1999) Lateral capacity of model rigid piles in cohesionless soils, Soils
and Foundations, 39 (2), 21-29.
Randolph M.F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Géotechnique, 31(2), 247-259.
Randolph M.F., Poulos H.G. and Jewell R.J. (1988), Evaluation of lateral pile performance. Proc. Int. Conf.
on Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 2, 639-645.
Reid W.M. and Buchanan N.W. (1983). Bridge approach support piling. Proc. Conf. on Recent Advances
in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, ICE, London, 267-274.
Remaud, D., Garnier, J. and Frank, R. (1998) Laterally loaded piles in dense sand – group effects, Proc.
Int. Conf. Centrifuge 98, Tokyo, Balkema, 533-538.
Randolph M.F. and Houlsby G.T. (1984). The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded laterally in
cohesive soil. Géotechnique, 34(4), 613-623.
Randolph, M.F. and Springman, S.M. (1991). Analysis of pile response due to external loads and soil
movement. Proc. 10th European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Florence, II, 525-528.
Reese L.C. and Wang S.-T. (1993), Documentation of computer program LPILE 4.0, Ensoft Inc., Austin.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R. and Koop, F.D. (1974) Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand, Proc. 6th Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
Reese L.C. and van Impe, W.F. (2001) Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading. Balkema.
Reese L.C., Wright S.G., Hayes L.H., Dobry R. and Vallabhan C.V.G. (1988). Analysis of piles subjected
to lateral loading by storm-generated waves. Proc. Int. Conf. on Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 2, 647-
654.
Reese, L.C. and Welch, R.C. (1975). Lateral loading of deep foundations in stiff clays, Journal of the
Geotechnical Division, ASCE, (GT7).
Rudolph, C., Bienen, B. and Grabe, J. (2014). Effect of variation of the loading direction on the
displacement accumulation of large-diameter piles under cyclic lateral loading in sand. Canadian
Geotechnical J., 51, 1196-1206.
Sastry, V.V.R.N. and Meyerhof, G.G. (1985) Lateral soil pressures and displacements of rigid piles in
homogeneous soils under eccentric and inclined loads, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23, 281-286.
Springman S.M., Randolph M.F. and Bolton M.D. (1991). Modelling the behaviour of piles subjected to
surcharge loading. Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge Modelling - Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, pp
253-260.
Stewart, D.P. (1999). Discussion to Analysis of piles subjected to embankment induced lateral soil
movements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125 (5), 425-426.
Stewart, D.P. (1999). Reduction of undrained lateral pile capacity in clay due to an adjacent slope.
Australian Geomechanics, 34(4), 17-23.
Stewart, D.P. (1999). PYGMY user manual, version 2.1, Department of Civil and Resource Engineering,
The University of Western Australia.
Stewart, D.P. (1999) Reduction of undrained lateral pile capacity in clay due to an adjacent slope,
Australian Geomechanics, 34 (4), 17-23.
Suryasentana, S. K. and Lehane, B. M. (2014). Numerical derivation of CPT-based p-y curves for piles in
sand. Géotechnique 64, No. 3,186–194.
Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C. and Bourges, F. (1979) Lateral displacements in clay foundations under
embankments, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16, 532-550.
Wesselink, B.D., Murff, J.D., Randolph, M.F., Nunez, I.L., and Hyden, A.M. (1988) Analysis of centrifuge
model test data from laterally loaded piles in calcareous sand, Proc. Int. Conf. Calcareous Sediments, 1,
Balkema, 261-270.
Pile Groups
Banerjee P.K. and Davies T.G. (1977). Analysis of pile groups embedded in Gibson soil. Proc. 9th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Tokyo, 1, 381-386.
Banerjee P.K. and Driscoll R.M. (1976). Three-dimensional analysis of raked pile groups. Proc. Inst. of
Civil Engineers, Part 2, 61, 653-671.
Barton Y.O. (1982), Laterally loaded model piles in sand, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Basile, F. (1999). Non-linear analysis of pile groups. Geotechnical Engineering, ICE, London, 137, 105-
115.
Briaud, J.-L., Tucker, L.M. and Eng, E. (1989). Axially loaded 5 pile group and single pile in sand. Proc.
12th Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Rio de Janeiro, 2, 1121-1124.
Chandler, B.C. (1998). My Thuan Bridge: Update on bored pile foundations. Proc. Australasian Bridge
Conference, Sydney.
Chow Y.K. (1986). Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups. Int. J. for Num. and Anal. Methods in
Geomechanics, 10, 59-72.
Chow Y.K. (1987). Axial and lateral response of pile groups embedded in non-homogenous soils. Int. J.
Num. and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 11(6), 621-638.
Chow Y.K., Chin J.T. and Lee S.L. (1990). Negative skin friction on pile groups. Int. J. Num. and Anal.
Methods in Geomechanics, 14(2), 75-91.
Fellenius, B.H. (1988) Unified design of piles and pile groups, Transportation Research Record, 1169, 75-
82.
Focht, J.A. and Koch, K.J. (1973). Rational analysis of the performance of offshore pile groups, 5th
Offshore Technology Conference, 2, Houston, 701-708.
Franke, E., Lutz, B. and El-Mossallamy, Y. (1994). Measurements and Numerical Modelling of High Rise
Building Foundations on Frankfurt Clay. Proc. Conf. on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of
Foundations an Embankments, Texas, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, 2, 1325-1336
Guo W.D. and Randolph M.F. (1996). Settlement of pile groups in non-homogeneous soil. Proc. 7th ANZ
Conf. on Geomechanics, Adelaide, pp 631-636.
Guo, W.D. and Randolph, M.F. (1997). Vertically loaded piles in non-homogeneous media. Int. J. Num.
and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 21(8), 507-532.
Guo W.D. and Randolph M.F. (1999). An efficient approach for settlement prediction of pile groups.
Geotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 161-179.
Hansbo, S. and Jenderby, L. (1983). A case study of two alternative foundation principles: conventional
friction piling and creep piling. Vag-och Vattenbyggaren 7 (8), 29-31.
Hewlett W.J. and Randolph M.F. (1988). Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Engineering, 22(3), 12-
18.
Lee, C.J., Bolton, M.D. and Al-Tabbaa, A. (2002). Numerical modelling of group effect on the distribution
of dragloads in pile foundations. Géotechnique, 52(5), 323-335.
Lehane, B. and Randolph, M.F. (2004). Redistribution in pile group design: a case history. Proc. Australian
Conf. on Materials and Structural Mechanics, Perth, 2, 1037-1042.
Love, J.P. and Milligan, G. (2003). Design methods for basally reinforced pile-supported embankments on
soft ground. Ground Engineering, March, 39-43.
Mandolini, A. and Viggiani, C. (1997). Settlement of piled foundations. Géotechnique, 47(4), 791-816.
Mylonakis, G. and Gazetas, G. (1998). Settlement and additional internal forces of grouped piles in layered
soil . Géotechnique, 48(1), 55-72.
O'Neill M.W., Ghazzaly O.I. and Ha H.B. (1977). Analysis of three-dimensional pile groups and non-linear
soil response and pile-soil-pile interaction. Proc. 9th Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper
2838, 245-256.
O'Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A. and Mahar, L.J. (1982). Load transfer mechanisms in piles and pile groups.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 108 (GT12), 1605-1623.
Pirrello, S. and Poulos, H.G. (2014). Comparison of four pile group analysis programs. Advances in
Foundation Engineering, Eds K.K. Phoon, T.S. Chua, H.B. Yang and W.M. Cham, Research Publishing
Services, ISBN: 978-981-07-4623-0 :: doi:10.3850/978-981-07-4623-0 085.
Poulos, H.G. (1968). Analysis of settlement of pile groups. Géotechnique, 18(3), 449-471.
Poulos, H.G. (1976) Behaviour of laterally loaded piles near a cut or slope, Australian Geomechanics
Journal, G6 (1), 6-12.
Poulos H.G. (1978), Users' Guide to TAPILE, School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.
Poulos H.G. (1979). Group factors for pile-deflection estimation. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 105(GT12),
1489-1509.
Poulos H.G. (1979). Settlement of single piles in non-homogeneous soil. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE,
105(GT5), 627-641.
Poulos H.G. (1980), Users' Guide to DEFPIG, School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.
Poulos H.G. and Randolph M.F. (1983). Pile group analysis: A study of two methods. J. Geot. Eng. Div.,
ASCE, 109(GT3), 355-372.
Randolph, M.F. (2003). PIGLET: Analysis and design of pile groups. Users’ Manual, Version 5-1, Perth.
Randolph M.F. and Poulos H.G. (1982). Estimating the flexibility of offshore pile groups. Proc. 2nd Int.
Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, 313-328.
Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Egbert, J.J., Jensen, D.H., Olsen, R.J. and Garrett, B.H. (2006). Pile spacing
effects on lateral pile group behavior: Load tests. J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE,
132(10), 1262-1283.
Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H., Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J. and Egbert, J.J. (2006). Pile spacing
effects on lateral pile group behavior: Analysis. J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE,
132(10), 1272-1271.
Russell, D. and Pierpoint, N. (1997). An assessment of design methods for piled embankments. Ground
Engineering, 30(11), 39–44.
Stewart, D.P., Jewell, R.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1991). Embankment loading of piled bridge abutments on
soft clay. Proc. Int. Conf. on Geot. Eng. for Coastal Development, Yokohama, 741-746.
Stewart, D.P., Jewell, R.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1992). Piled bridge abutments on soft clay - experimental
data and simple design methods. Proc. 6th ANZ Conf. on Geomechanics, Christchurch, 199-204.
Stewart, D.P., Jewell, R.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1993). Numerical modelling of piled bridge abutments on
soft ground. Computers and Geotechnics, 15(1), 21-46.
Stewart D.P., Jewell R.J. and Randolph M.F. (1994). Design of piled bridge abutments on soft clay for
loading from lateral soil movements. Geotechnique, Vol 44, No. 2, pp 277-296.
Stewart D.P., Jewell R.J. and Randolph M.F. (1994). Physical modelling of piled bridge abutments on soft
ground. Soils and Foundations, Vol 34, No. 1, pp 41-51.
Stewart D.P., Randolph M.F. and Jewell R.J. (1994). Recent developments in the design of piled bridge
abutments for loading from lateral soil movements. FHWA Conf. on Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations, Florida, Vol. 2, pp 992-1006.
Thorburn S., Laird C. and Randolph M.F. (1983). Storage tanks founded on soft soils reinforced with
driven piles. Proc. Conf. on Recent Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, ICE,
London. 157-164.
Piled Rafts
Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., and De Mello, V.F.B (1977). Behaviour of foundations and structures. Proc.
9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Tokyo, 2, 495-546.
Clancy, P. and Randolph, M.F. (1993). An approximate analysis procedure for piled raft foundations. Int
J. Num. and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 17(12), 849-869.
Clancy, P. and Randolph, M.F. (1996). Simple design tools for piled raft foundations. Géotechnique, 46(2),
313-328.
Chow, Y. K. and Teh, C. I. (1991). Pile-cap-pile-group interaction in nonhomogeneous soil, J. of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(11), 1655-1668.
Cooke R.W., Bryden Smith D.W., Gooch M.N. and Sillet D.F. (1981). Some observations of the foundation
loading and settlement of a multi-storey building on a piled raft foundation in London clay. Proc. ICE
(UK), 107 (Part 1), 433-460.
Cooke, R.W. (1986). Piled raft foundations on stiff clays: a contribution to design philosophy.
Griffiths D.V., Clancy P. and Randolph M.F. (1991). Piled raft foundation analysis by finite elements.
Proc. 7th Conf. of Int. Assoc. for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, 2, 1153-1157.
Hain, S.J. and Lee, I.K. (1978). The analysis of flexible pile raft systems. Géotechnique, 28 (1), 65-83
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F. (1994). Settlement of piled raft foundations on clay. Proc. Int.
Conference Centrifuge '94, Singapore, 449-454.
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F. (1996). Centrifuge modelling of piled raft foundations on clay.
Geotechnique, 46(4),741-752.
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F. (1997). On the definition of raft-soil stiffness ratio. Géotechnique, 47(5),
1055-1061.
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F. (1998). Optimum design of piled rafts. Géotechnique, 48(3), 301-317.
Horikoshi K. and Randolph M.F. (1999). Estimation of piled raft stiffness. Soils and Foundations, 39(2),
59-68.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. and Moormann, C. (2000). Piled raft foundation projects in Germany. Design
Applications of Raft Foundations, 323-391, Thomas Telford, London.
Liew, S.S., Gue, S.S. and Tan, Y.C. (2002). Design and instrumentation results of a reinforced concrete
piled raft supporting 2500 tonne oil storage tank on very soft alluvium. Proc. 9t Int. Conf. On Piling and
Deep Foundations, Nice.
Mandolini, A. (2003). Design of piled raft foundations: practice and development. Proc. 4th Int. Sem. On
Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, BAP IV, Ghent, 59-80.
Padfield, C.J. and Sharrock,M.J. (1983),Settlement of structures on clay soils, CIRIA Special Publication
27,CIRIA, London.
Poulos, H.G. (1994). An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft interaction. Int. J. for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 18, 73-92.
Poulos, H.G. (2001). Piled-raft foundation: design and applications. Géotechnique, 51(2), 95-113.
Prakoso, W.A., and Kulhawy, F.H. (2001). Contribution to piled raft optimum design. J. of Geotech. and
Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 127(1), 17-24.
Randolph, M. F. (1983). Design of piled raft foundations. Proc. Int. Symp. on Recent Developments in
Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 525-537.
Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found. Eng., New Delhi, 5, 61-82.
Randolph M.F. (1996). Simple design approaches for piled foundations. Proc. Int. Symp. on Pile
Foundations, Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, pp 79-108.
Randolph M.F. (1997). Central pile support for raft foundations. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. and
Found. Eng., Hamburg, Vol. 4.
Randolph M.F. and Clancy P. (1993). Efficient design of piled rafts. Proc. 2nd Int. Geotech. Sem. on Deep
Found. on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, 119-130.
Randolph M.F. and Clancy P. (1994). Design and performance of a piled raft foundation. Proc. Settlement
94, ASCE Geot. Special Publication 40(1), 314-324.
Reul, O. (2000). In-situ-Messungen und numerische Studien zum Tragverhalten der Kombinierten Pfahl-
Plattengründung. Mitteilungen des Institutes und der Versuchsanstalt für Geotechnik der Technischen
Universität Darmstadt, Heft 53.
Reul, O. (2001). Numerical study on the bearing behaviour of piled rafts subjected to nonuniform vertical
loading. Data Report, GEO:03294, The University of Western Australia, Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems.
Reul, O. (2004). Numerical study of the bearing behaviour of piled rafts. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 4(2), 59-68.
Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F. (2003). Piled rafts in overconsolidated clay – Comparison of in-situ
measurements and numerical analyses. Géotechnique, 53(3), 301-315.
Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F. (2004). Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to nonuniform vertical
loading. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(1), 1-13.
Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F. (2009). Optimised Design of Combined Pile Raft Foundations. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Deep Foundations – CPRF and Energy Piles, 15 May 2009, Frankfurt am Main, Darmstadt
Geotechnics No. 18, 149-169.
Reul, O. and Remmel, G. (2009). Foundation design for the extension of an existing high-rise building.
Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, 2, 2072-2075.
Russo, G. (1998). Numerical analysis of piled rafts. Int. J. Anal. and Num. Methods in Geomechanics,
22(6), 477-493
Smith D.M.A. and Randolph M.F. (1990). Piled raft foundation - a case history. Proc. Conf. on Deep
Foundations, Singapore, 237-245.
Ta, L.D. and Small, J.C. 1996. Analysis of piled raft systems in layered soil. Int. J. Num. and Anal. Methods
in Geomech., 20(1), 57-72.

Design of Piled Foundations - Course Notes - Singapore

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Design of Piled Foundations - Course Notes - Singapore

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kuala Lumpur & Singapore, 5th & 7th September 2018

Short course presented by

About the presenter

Design of Piled Foundations

Overview – design principles

Mark Randolph [mark.randolph@uwa.edu.au]

Professor of Civil Engineering

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS)

University of Western Australia

Technical Advisor, Fugro AG, Perth

Design of piled foundations – schedule

9.00-9.30 Lecture 1 Overview – design principles

9.35-10.30 Lecture 2 Axial capacity: design parameters from SI

11.00-11.40 Lecture 3 Axial load-settlement response

11.45-12.30 Lecture 4 Laterally loaded piles

13.45-14.35 Lecture 5 Interaction effects and system response for

16.00-17.30 Lecture 7 Pile design software

Design of piled foundations – outcomes

Role of design guidelines and codes

Basis of design for piled foundations

Inputs drivability, casing integrity, hole collapse,

seismic soil movement, scour,

Categorisation of piled foundations

Displacement piles Non-displacement piles

Large displacement Small displacement

Preformed Cast in place H-section Screw Open Other

Screwed Continuous Shoring or Drilling

Concrete Timber Composite

Reliability of pile design

where Rgu is the unfactored ultimate geotechnical strength

Choice of partial factor for geotechnical design

tf Type of test Adjustment factor for percentage

Base geotechnical strength reduction factor

Assessment of risk rating

Probabilistic approach to pile design

p(A) p(A and B) Posterior Prior

• For continuous probability functions

Bayesian interpretation of pile load tests

Static, rapid and dynamic testing

Pile testing method

Kentledge reaction for static tests

Reaction piles or anchors for static tests

Osterberg cell method (cast in situ piles)

Osterberg cells and bearing plates

Hydraulic jacks (3 per level)

Steel bearing plate

Statnamic (or ‘rapid’) load testing

Dynamic load testing

Pile monitoring and testing during driving

Gauge sets 1 and 2

Inverse analysis – fitting of stress-wave data

Comparison with static load test

• Design standards increasingly aiming at a given level of reliability

• In situ testing is increasing in importance

Design of Piled Foundations

Axial capacity of piles

Professor of Civil Engineering

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS)

University of Western Australia

Technical Advisor, Fugro AG, Perth

Design of piled foundations – schedule

9.00-9.30 Lecture 1 Overview – design principles