corresponding relationship for pile head settlement.

These
figures show that the maximum load in the pile and the pile
head settlement continue to increase with increasing live load.
When the applied live load is approximately equal to the dead
load, the maximum load equals the applied load: that is, the
drag force due to the ground settlement is reduced such that
the maximum load is now at the pile head. The pile head
settlement also becomes similar to the settlement that would
have occurred if the ground settlement had not been imposed.
From a practical viewpoint, it would appear that, at least in the
example considered, the amount of live load that would.need
to be added to relieve the negative friction effects is far greater
than would normally be allowed. Thus it may be concluded
that negative friction effects are unlikely to be completely
removed when normal magnitudes of live load are applied.

6.3. Group effects

It is becoming recognised that group effects may be beneficial
in relation to the effects of negative skin friction. To examine
the general nature of group effects, the program PIES has been
used to analyse a group of nine piles, as shown in Fig. 17, with
the ground profile being that of the end bearing case shown in
Fig. 2. Each pile is assumed to have a length of 25 m and to be
subjected to a load of 1-5 MN, thus giving an overall factor of
safety of about 2 against geotechnical failure. A ground surface
settlement of 200 mm is then imposed on the piles, decreasing
from a maximum at the surface to zero at 20 m depth. The
induced pile loads and settlement are examined for the corner
and centre piles of the group, and also for a single isolated pile.
Figure 18 shows the computed pile head settlement as a
function of the ground surface settlement. It can be seen that
(a) the pile head settlements increase (but at a diminishing
rate) with increasing soil surface settlement;
(b) the centre pile settles more than the corner pile
(c) both piles in the group settle considerably more than a
single isolated pile.
1-25

1-25

1-25

30 i
Applied load = 1-5 MN
25
20
15
10

Corner pile - group

- - Centre pile - group

Single pile
20

40

60
80
100 120 140 160
Ground surface settlement: mm

180

200

Fig. 18. Pile settlement against ground surface settlement for

various piles in group

Figure 19 shows the computed relationship between the

maximum load in each pile and the ground surface settlement.
The maximum load increases with increasing ground
settlement, and is less for the centre pile than for the corner
pile. The rate of increase for both the group piles is, however,
significantly lower than for a single isolated pile. It is not until
relatively large ground settlements occur that the loads in the
group and single piles become similar. This characteristic is
consistent with that found by Kuwabara and Poulos.' 4
It can therefore be concluded that group effects may be
beneficial in terms of the induced loads in the piles, especially
for relatively small magnitudes of ground movement. However,
at normal working loads the pile head settlement is still
increased because of group effects.

7. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has demonstrated that designing piles to account for

negative skin friction requires three criteria to be satisfied:
overall geotechnical capacity, structural capacity of the pile
itself, and settlement control. For this last criterion, it has been
shown that settlements can be limited by having the length of
pile in the stable (non-settling) zone such that there is a factor
of safety of about 1-25 in that zone against the combined
effects of applied load and drag load due to negative skin
friction. If this condition is satisfied, then the settlement

@
1-25

Corner pile - group

Centre pile - group
'A = 1 -5 MN/pile

Stable zone
(stiff clay)

Fig. 17. Pile group example

Ground settlement
profile

Single pile

50
100
150
Ground surface settlement: mm

200

Fig. 19. Maximum load against ground settlement for various

piles in group

reaches a limiting value and does not continue to increase if

the ground continues to settle. A simple approach can then
give an adequate estimation of the pile head settlement.
The influence of other factors on induced drag loads and drag
settlements is also examined. It is found that the presence of
residual stresses in a pile tends to reduce the drag settlement
considerably, especially if the pile has a relatively large end
bearing capacity and stiffness. This suggests that preloading a
pile may have a beneficial effect in reducing drag settlements.
The application of live load to a pile does not reduce the total
load in the pile, but rather reduces the relative contribution
that the drag load makes to the overall maximum pile load.
Group effects are generally beneficial and lead to a
significantly lower rate of development of drag force and drag
settlement with increasing soil settlement than is the case for
an isolated pile.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable comments of
Patrick K. Wong of Coffey Geotechnics.
REFERENCES

1. FELLENIUS B. H. Recent advances in the design of piles for

axial loads, dragloads, downdrag, and settlement. In Urban
Geotechnology and Rehabilitation, Seminar sponsored by
ASCE Metropolitan Group, New York, April 22-23, 1998.
2. POULOS H. G. Piles subjected to negative friction: a
procedure for design. Geotechnical Engineering, 1997, 28,
No. 1, 23-44.
3. FEUENIUS B. H. Results from long-term measurements in
piles of drag loads and downdrag. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 2006, 43, No. 4, 409-430.

4. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA. Piling-Design and Installation.

Standards Australia, Homebush, Australia, 199B, AS 2159
5. BOWIES J. Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
6. TOMLINSON M. J. Foundation Design and Construction, 7th
edn. Pearson Education, Harlow, 2001.
7. LEE C. Y. Pile groups under negative friction. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1993, 119, No. 10, 1587
1600.
8. COMODROMOS E. M. and BAREKA S. V. Evaluation of
negative skin friction effects in pile foundations using 3D
nonlinear analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 2005, 32,
No. 4, 210-221.
9. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley, New York, 1980.
10. TEH C. I. and WONG K. S. Analysis of downdrag on pile
groups. Geotechnique, 1995, 45, No. 2, 191-207.
11. RANDOLPH M. F. and WROTH C. P. Analyses of deformation
of vertically loaded piles. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 1978, 104, No. GT12, 14651488.
12. POULOS H. G. Piled raft and compensated piled raft
foundations for soft soil sites. In Advances in Design and
Testing Deep Foundations (VIPULANANDAN C. and TOWNSEN
F. C. (eds)). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, USA, 2005, Geotechnical Special Publication 129, pp.
214-234.
13. POULOS H. G. Analysis of residual stress effects in piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1987, 113, No
3,216-229.
14. KUWABARA H. G. and Poulos, H. G. Downdrag forces in
group of piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
1989, 115, No. 6, 806-818.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000-5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for autho
juidelines and further details.