3.1 INTRODUCTION shaft and base resistances, less the weight of the pile; that
is,
There arc two usual approaches to the Galculation of the
(3.1)*
ultimate load capacity of piles: the "static" approach,
which uses the normal soilmechanics method to calculate
where
the load capacity from measured soil properties; and the
"dynamic" approach, which estimates the load capacity
Psu ultimate shaft resistance
of driven piles from analysis of piledriving data. The
Pbu ultimate base resistance
first approach will be described in detail in this chapter,
W = weight of pile
and the second in Chapter 4.
In this chapter, a general expression for the ultimate
Psu can be evaluated by integration of the pilesoil
load capacity of a single pile is given and its application to
shear strength Ta over the surface area of the shaft. Ta
piles in clay and sand is described. Approaches for groups
is given by the Coulomb expression
of piles in clay and sand will then be outlined. Other topics
include the design of piles to rock, the use o.f insitu tests
Ta = Ca + On tan rPa (3.2)
such as the standard penetration test and the static cone
to estimate pileload capacity, the calculation of uplift
where
resistance of piles and grou'ps, and the load capacity of
bent piles.
Ta pilesoil shear strength
Ca = adhesion
3.2 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF SINGLE P1LES On = normal stress between pile and soil
rPa angle of friction between pile and soil
;,.2.1 General Expression It is an implicit assumption of Eq. 3.1 that shaft and base
resistance are not interdependent. This assumption cannot be
The net ultimate load capacity, Pu , of a. single pile is strictly correct, but there is !ittk doubt that it is correct enough
generally accepted to be equal to the sum of the ultimate for practical purposes for all normalproportion piles and piers.
18
ULTlMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 19
an is in turn frequently related to the vertical stress av , base resistance of piles, reliance has to be placed on approx
as imate theoretical or semiempiricaJ methods. With regard
to: sands, these methods have been reviewed by Vesic
(3.3)
(1967), who fmrnd that the solution of Bcrezantzev et al.
(I 96 l ) generally fitted experimental results best.
where From Eqs. (3.1), (3.5), and (3.6),
st
Ks coefficient of lateral pressure
Pu Cf ca + avKs tan <Pa) dz
Thus,
+ A b (CNc + O v bNq + 0.5ydN"f) W (3.7)
Ta
(3.4)
Equation (3.7) is a general expression for the ultimate
and load capacity of a single pile. If the undrained or short
term ultimate load capacity is to be computed, the soil
parameters c, , Ca, and r should be values appropriate
to undrained conditions, and a v and av b should be the
L total stresses. If the longterm ultimate load capacity of
"" f O C(c a + avKs tan <Pa )dz (3.5)
piles in sand is required, the soil parameters should be
drained values, and a and a b the effective vertical
where stresses. The vertical stresses are usually taken to be the
overburden stresses, and for clays, this is probably true
C pile perimeter enough, even close to the piles. However, for sands, there is
L length of pile shaft now clear evidence implying that the vertical stress near the
pile may be less than the overburden. This matter is dis
It is usually accepted that the ultimate resistance Pb u
cussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.3.
can be evaluated from bearingcapacity theory as
For steel Hpiles, two modes of failure of the shaft
are possible: (a) the development of the limiting pile
(3.6)
soil shear strength along the entire surface area of the
pile; and (b) the development of the limiting pilesoil
where
shear strength along the outer parts of the flanges, plus
the development of the full shear strength of the soil along
Ab = area of pile base
the plane joining the tips of the flangesthat is, the soil
c cohesion of soil
within the outer boundaries of the pile effectively forms
av b = vertical stress in soil at level of pile base
part of the pile shaft. Therefore, when using Eq. (3.7),
r unit weight of soil
the ultimate skin resistance, Psu , should be taken as the
d pile diameter
lesser of the two values.
Ne , Nq , N'Y bearing capacity of factors, which are
primarily functions of the angle of
internal friction <f; of the soil, the relative 3 .2.2 Piles in Clay
compressibility of the soil and the pile
geometry .3.2.2.1 UNDRAINED LOAD CAPACITY
Rigorous solutions for the bearing capacity of surface For piles in clay, the undrained load capacity is generally
footings using the methods of classical plasticity are now taken to be the critical value unless the clay is highly
wellestablished (Prandtl, r 1923; Sokolovskii, 1965; Cox, overconsolidated. (Burland, 1973, contends, however,
1962; Lundgren and Mortensen, 1953; Davis and Booker, that an effective stressdrained analysis is more appropriate,
1971), and tl1e only doubts regarding the practical validity as the rate of porepressure dissipation is so rapid that
of these solutions lie in the possible effects of the differ for normal rates of load application, drained conditions
ences between the behavior of real soil and that of the ideal generally prevail in the soil near the pile shaft.) If the clay
material assumed in the theory. At the present time, there is .saturated, the undraiQed angle of friction <Pu is zero,
are few if any classical plasticity solutions that are relevant and <Pa may also be taken as zero. In addition, Nq l
to a buried footing, and therefore, for the calculation of and N"f O for= 0, so that Eq. (3.7) reduces to
20 ULTIMATE_ LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
for piles without an enlarged base, Abavb = W, in which Case Soil Conditions Ratiob Ca/Cu
case Sands or sandy soils <20 1.25
overlying stiff
(3.10) cohesive soils >20 See Fig. 3.2
with many factors, including pile type, soil type, and Ill Stiff cohesive soils <20 (>8) 0.40
method of installation. Ideally, Ca for a given pile at a without overlying
given site should be determined from a pileloading test, strata >20 See Fig. 3.3
but since this is not always possible, resort must often be
a After Tomlinson (1970).
made t_o empirical values of Ca . Many attempts have been
. r _ Dep1h of penetration in stiff clay
made to correlate Ca with undrained cohesion Cu , notably b p enet ratwn ra 10  Pile diameter
Tomlinson (1957, 1970), Peck (1958), Woodward et al. NOTE]: Adhesion factors not applicable to Hsection piles.
(1961), Coyle and Reese (1966), Vesic (1967), Morgan NOTE 2: Shaft adhesion in overburden soil for cases I and
II must be calculated separately.
and Poulos (1968), McClelland et al. (1969), McClelland
(1972), and McClelland (1974).
For driven piles, the rapid dissipation of excess po_re pressures
For driven piles, typical relationships between ca /cu due to driving may result in a locally overconsolidated condition,
and Cu , based on the summary provided by McClelland and hence a value of c a even greater than c u for the unaffected soil.
K eme
',1\
,
0.8
..........__ 
' ',
' Woodward
'
0.6
c,

Cu
...
0.4
Tomli
".
0.2
0 '''''''''
0 0.5 10 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Undrained Cohesion c 0 kips/sq ft
FIGURE 3.1 A dhesion factors for driven piles in cl ay (after McClelland, 1974).
,
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 21
1.0
o 27
26
170 23
44. O 0
0.5 60 ... 56
160
69.
Design curve for
penetration ratio 20
o, "'
1000 2000 3000 4000
Undrained shear strength !c 0) lu/ft2
FIGURE 3.2 Adhesion factors for case I (sands and gravels overlying stiff to very stiff cohesive soils) (Tomlinson, 1970).
FIGURE 3.3 Adhesion factors for case III (stiff to very stiff clays without overlying strata) (Tomlinson, 1970).
values of ca/c u is evident. This scatter is often attributed be little data on appropriate values of Ca for driven piles
to the effects of "whip" during driving. A more complete founded in very sensitive clays, and the extent to which
investigation of adhesion for driven piles in stiff clay has "setup" compensates for remolding can at present only
been made by Tomlinson (1970), who found that ca/cu be determined by a load test.
may be markedly influenced by the soil strata overlying For bored piles, the available data on ca/cu is not as
the clay, as well as by the value of Cu . Tomlinson has sug extensive as for driven piles, and much of the data that is
gested the adhesion factors shown in Table 3.1 and Figs. available is related to London clay.cTable 3.2 gives a sum
3.2 and 3.3 for cu > 1000 lb/sq ft (48 kPa). The most mary of adhesion factors, one of which is expressed in
notable feature of Tornlinson's results are the high values terms of remolded strength, c,, as well as the undisturbed
of ca/cu for case I, where sand or sandy gravel overlies undrained strength, cu . Results obtained by Skempton
the clay, because of the "carrying down" of a skin of the (1959) and Meyerhof and Murdock (1953) suggest that
overlying soil into the clay by the pile. There appears to an upper limit of Ca is 2000 lb/sq ft (96 k.Pa).
22 UL TIM.HE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
TABLE 3.2 ADHESION FACTORS FOR BORED PILES IN CLAY A somewhat different approach to the calculation of
the ultimate shaft capacity Psu has been adopted by Vijay
Adhesion vergiya and Focht (1972) for steelpipe piles. From an
Soil Type Factor Value Reference examination of a number of loading tests on such piles,
they concluded that Psu can be expressed as follows:
London clay 0.250 7 Golder and Leonard
Average, ( 1954)
0.45 Tomlinson (195 7) (3.lOa)
Skempton (195?)
where
Sensitive cby Golder (1957)
o 1 mean effective vertical stress between ground
Highly expnsive Ca/cu 0.5 Mohan and Chandra
clay (1961) surface and pile tip
Cm = average undrained shear strength along pile.
2c,
50
 100
"
Lemoo"e 0 Woodward
Stan;riore Torr:linson
i50 ' New Orleans Blessev
Venice McClelland
0 Alliance v' McClelland
oriaidsonville Darragh
MSC Hosston McCle!lano
0
175 San Francisco Seed
Bri:ish Columbia
McCammon
0
Burnside
200
10 ,,,,,,,,,
strain behavior of the soil. From an analysis of the expan
9 sion of a cavity in a mass, Ladanyi (1963) found that
for insensitive clays, 7.4 < Ne < 9 .3, depending on the
8 stressstrain behavior of the soil. This analysis broadly
confirmed the earlier analysis of Bishop et al. (1945), which
7 gave the following result f or a circular base (as quoted by
Ladanyi).
(3 .l l)
/\ was found to be a function of pile penetration and is Burland (1973) discusses appropriate values of the
plotted in Fig. 3.4. combined parameter {3 Ks tan if, and demonstrates that
Equation (3. lOa) has been used extensively to predict a lower limit for this factor for normally consolidated clay
the shaft capacity of heavily loaded pipepiles for offshore can be given as
structures.
(3 = (1 . sin ') tan ' (3.13)
Bearing Capacity Factor Ne
The value of Ne usually used in design is that proposed by where
Skempton (195 I) for a circular area, which increases from
6 .14 for a surface foundation to a limiting value of 9 for ',' = effective stress friction angle for the clay
length ? 4 diameters (Fig. 3.5). The latter value of Ne
1
9 has been confirmed in tests in London clay (Skempton, For values of , in the range of 20 to 30 degrees, Eq.
19 59) and has been widely accepted in practice. However, (3.13) shows that ;3 varies only between 0.24 and 0.29.
differing values have been found by other investigators; This range of values is consistent with values of i3 Ks
for example, Sowers (1961) has found 5 < Ne < 8 f or tan deduced from measurements of negative friction
model tests, and Mohan (1961) has found 5.7 < Ne < on piles in soft clay (see Figs. 11.26 and 11.2 7). Meyerhof
8.2 for expansivt: clays. The variations in the value of (1976) also presents data that suggests similar values of
Ne may well be associated with the influence of the stress (3; however, there is some data to suggest that /3 decrea1.es
24 ULTIMTE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
+71
,_
tion angle of the clay.
0
In the absence of contrary data, a and ab may be
Medium dense sand (G21
taken as the effective vertical overburden stresses. Values
120 .... of l'v'q may be taken to be the same as for piles in sand;
o
these values are plotted in Fig. 3 :11.
!
Loose\and ( G 1 l :
140 ._____.___,____,___.__._____,__,___....__,___,
.
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 3.2.3 Piles in Sand
Average skin resistance ltons/f: 2 )
\ Conventional methods of calculation of the ultimate load
FIGURE 3.6 Varial!on of skin 1esistance with pile length (Vesic,
l96Ti. capacity of piles in sand (Broms, 1966; Nordlund, 1963)
\
Point resistance (lb/in.2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
40'
\
I 60 \
s \
Field tests
so: ,\
I loose, moist, sandI
\
\ G41
''
1001
I
0
Loose Medium dense sand
sand IG2)
(G1) I I
120 I
I
140
10 20 30 40 50 60
Point resistance (ton/ft2 )
FIGURE 3.7 Variation of point resistance with pile length (Vesic, 1967).
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPAClTY OF PIL. ES 25
ll
assume that the vertical stresses a,, and Ov b in Eq. (3.7)
are the effective vertical stresses caused by overburden.
However, extensive research by Vesic (1967) and Kerisel , WT __
(1961) has revealed that the unit shaft and base resistances z,
of a pile do not necessarily increase linearly with depth,
but instead reach almost constant values beyond a certain 
o' vc
 
depth (Figs. 3.6 and 3.7). These characteristics have been
confinned by subsequent research (e.g., BCP Comm., L
1971; Hanna and Tan, 1973). Vesic also found that the
ratio of the limiting unit point and shaft resistances, fb ffs ,
cf a pile at depth in a homogeneous soilmass appears to
be independent of pile size, and is a function of relative
density of the sand and method of installation of the f;d
piles. Relationships between fb lfs and angle of internal FIGURE 3.9 Simplified distribution of vertical stress adjacent to
friction ('), obtained by Vesic, are shown in Fig. 3.8. pile in sand.
51,_.___.,_____.,_____.,_____.._____,
0 10 20 30 40 (3.15)
Ang!e of shearing resistance I degrees)
a:, = effective vertical stress along shaft results, it may be possible to derive different relationships
 effective overburden stress for z ,;;; Zc or limit for different pile materials.
ing value a ;,c for z > z c For bored or jacked piles, the values of Ks tan in
a b  effective vertical stress at level of pile base Fig. 3.10b are considered to be far too large, and it is sug
Fw  co rrection factor for tapered pile (= I for gested that values derived from the data of Meyerhof
uniform diameter pile) (I 976) are more appropriate fo r design. These values are
shown in Fig. 3.10c, and have been obtained by assuming
On the basis of the test results of Vesic (1967), values <!> 0.75'. The values for bored piles are reasonably
of Ks tan and the dimensionless critical depth z c/d consistent with, althoug.11 more conservative than, those
have been evaluated. Vesic's results are presented in terms recommended by Reese, Touma, and O'Neill (1976).
of the relative density Dr of the sand, but the results may Also shown are values of Ks tan; tor driven piles, derived
also be expressed in terms of the angle of internal friction from Meyerhofs data; these latter values are considerably
', by using a relationship such as that suggested by Meyer smaller (typically about one half) of the values given in
hof (1956): Fig. 3 .1 Ob. Some of this difference may lie in the method
of interpretation of the data of Vesic and others by Meyer
' == 28 + lSDr (3.16) hof, which leads to smaller values of Ks tan associated
with larger values of .,;c/d.
Relationships between Ks tan and ,p, and Zc /d and The bearing capacity factor Nq is plotted against
', are shown in Fig. 3.10. In a layeredsoil profile, the in Fig. 3.11, these values being based on those derived by
critical depth Zc refers to the position of the pile embedded Berezantzev et al. (1961). Vesic (1967) has pointed out
in the sand. It should be emphasized that these relation that there is a great variation in theoretical values of Nq
ships may be subject to amendment in the light of further derived by different investigators, but the values of
test results. For example, at present, the dependence of Berezantzev et al. appear to fit the available test data best.
I<s tan on the pile material is not defined. Vesi,:;'s tests The solutions given by Berezantzev et al. indicate only
were carried out on steel tube piles, but the values of Ks a small effect of relative embedment depth L/d, and the
tan derived from these tests appear to be applicable to curve in Fig. 3.11 represents an average of this small range.
other pile materials. However, in the light of future test The curves given by Meyerhof (1976) show a larger effect
3
For driv<2n p1l<2s 0 = 1/,i 0'1+10 (Fig.3.10a,F,g.3.10b)
For bored piles,0 =01 3 (F19.310a), 0=01 (Fig 3.10c)
where ',2)1 angl<Z of internal f iction prior to
r
1nstallot1on of pile
15 25 1 2 1l4
I
20 I
10 08
D
''
V
5 15
35 40
0 0'1
where
Nq 100
J
/ rt>
1
1 = angle of internal friction prior to installation of
the pile
3 0;. 40
For drMrn pil<Zs, 0 = 01+ 10 For drivczn pilczs. 0 =  
2
wh(lr<Z. 0; angle of internal frlction
For bored p1lczs, 0 = 0; 3
prior to 1nstallaf1on of pilcz
whczre 01 angle of intczrnal tristion
pr 1or to installation of pile
'
Volu<Zs of L/d
10
100 l...l.....J1....i......lJ......L....l......J_..l.L..J,__I............
28 32 36 40 44
0
0
FIGURE 3.14 Dimensionless ultimate baseload capacity for pile
in uniform sand.
is 98.
Substituting into Eq. (3.15),
In examining the behavior of pile groups, it is necessary
+2 99 to distinguish between two types of group:
P,, = ,, X 0.32{[(O ) X1.55 + 26.99 X
(a) A freestanding group, in which the pile cap is not
(2.4 l.56)] Xl.00 +26 .99X( l8.32.4) in contact with the underlying soil.
X 1.30 + 26. 99X(20.8 18.3) (b) A "piled foundation," in which the pile cap is in con
tact with the underlying soil.
X l. l 8 +26.99X(24.4 20.8)X1.31
+ 26.99 / rr X O ! 22
X 98
For both types, it is customary to relate the ultimate load
capacity of the group to the load capacity of a single pile
through an efficiency factor T), where
816 + 213
1029 kN (IIS.6 t)
T) == ultimate load capacity of group
sum of ultimate load capacities (3.20)
This com part's with the measured value of I 12 kN ( 125 t). of individual piles
Pile A was a Raymond Standard pile, 10 m long, with
a head diameter d 0.55 m and a tip diameter of 0.20 m.
The pile taper w is 1 . From Fig. 3.12, for W = 1 , Fw
= 3.35 (0 ... 2.4 m), and Fw 4.1 (2.418.3 m). The values 3.3.1 Pile Groups in Clay
of tan are as for pile B. Assuming again that the
critical depth is above 2.4 m, z c /d = 5.0 as before, and 3.3.U FREESTANDING GROUPS
taking an average value of d of 0.51. Z c == 2.55 m, that is,
greater than 2.4 m. However, the difference is negligible For freestanding groups of friction or floating piles in clay,
and hence Z c will be taken as 2.55 m. At this level, the efficiency is unity at relatively large spacings, but
decreases as the spacing decreases. For pointbearing piles,
ac = 2.55X17.3 == 44.12kN1m2 the efficiency is usually considered to be unity for all
spacingsthat is, grouping has no effect on load capacity,
At2.4n;, although in theory the efficiency could be greater than
unity for closelyspaced piles that are pointbearing, f or
a;, = 24 X 17.3 41.52 kN/m 2 example, in dense gravel. For piles that derive their load
capacity from both sideadhesion and endbearing, Chellis
Since the pile tip is founded in the second stratum,
from Eq. (3.17) is 36 and the corresponding value of
(1962) recommends that the group effect be taken into
is 88. consideration for the sideadhesion component only.
Substituting into Eq. (3.15) and using, for simplicity, Several empirical efficiency fonnulas have been used to
th<' m;;an diameter of the pile in the upper 2.4 m and tiie try and relate group efficiency to pile spacings, among
lower 7.6 m, which are the f ollowing:
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 31
(a) ConverseLabarre fonnula, was accompaniecf by the formation of vertical slip planes
joining the perimeter piles, the block of clay enclosed by
, rcnl)m+(ml)n] /90 the slip planes sinking with the pile relative to the general
_
71  l  ::; tmn
(3.21)
surface of the clay. For wider spacings, the piles penetrated
individually into the clay .The critical spacing was found to
where increase as the number of piles in the group increased_
Although Whitaker's tests confirmed the existence of
m = number of rows the above two types of failure, th transition between the
n = number of piles in a row ultimate group capacity as given by individual pile failure
= arctan d/s, in degrees and that given by block failure was not as abrupt as the
d "' pile diameter Terzaghi and Peck approach suggests. In order to obtain
s == centertocenter spacing of piles a more realistic estimate of the ultimate load capacity of
a group, the following empirical relationship is suggested:
(b) Feld's rule, which reduces the calculated load capacity
of each pile in a group by l/t6 for each adjacent pile, that 5m
is, no account is taken of the pile spacing. l < 1
: : : J5m
(c) A rule of uncertain origin, in which the calculated load
capacity of each pile is reduced by a proportion I for each
0 0 0 0
adjacent pile where
O____Q _Q_ 0
1
I == ci/s (3.22)
8
t
I I

A comparison made by Chellis (I 962), between these Clay
50 kPa L = 20 rn d = 0.3 rP
and other empirical formulas shows a considerable variation Cu
where I
c == undrained cohesion at base of group
I.
;:;
L = length of piles ::J
5
( 1957) confirmed the existence of the above two types of
failure. For a given length and number of piles in a group, 10 15
1.0 r,,
3 2 x 30 d(ST)
2 x 12 d(SF)
2
3 x 12 d(STI I
t o 6 ttc:t,r'
LI.)
d = diameter
0.2 '
2 3 4
Si:aci ng/diameter
FIGURE 3.17 Relationships for freestanding groups of 2' to 9' 1pi!es oflengths 12d to 48d,frnm model tests (after de Mello, 1969).
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 33
0 yoo.o
Oo
0.6 O 0 0.6 0.6
0
!] !]
!]
2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4
' s
d d
Calculated
0 Experimental
(Whitaker, 1957}
_I,_= 48
d
FIGURE 3.18 Experimental and calculated group efficiency, effect of group size.
calculation appears to predict . with reasonable accuracy has measured the load carried by the piles in model free
the effects of group size, pile spacing, and pile length. standing groups in clay by introducing a small load gauge
It has often been assumed that all piles in a group are at the head of each pile. The results for a 3 2 group of piles
equally loaded. However, if the group supports a rigid at three different spacings are shown in Fig. 3 .20, in which
cap, the load distribution within the group is generally the average percentage of load taken by each pile is plotted
not uniform, the outer piles tending to be more heavily against the group load as a percentage of the group load at
loaded than the piles near the center. Whitaker ( 1957) failure. At spacings of 2d and 4d, the corner piles take the
greatest load (about 13 to 25% more than the average
load) while the center pile takes the least (about 18 to 35%
less than the average), At a spaci.lg of 8d, virtually no
group action was observed and the load distribution was
uniform. The load distribution for a 5 2 group, at a spacing
of 2d, is shown in Fig. 3 .21. The corner piles reached their
maximum load at about 80% of the ultimate group load,
and carried a constant load thereafter. At failure, the corner
0.5 0.5
0 2 4 (i 8 0 2 4 6 8 piles carried about 28% more than the average load, while
1 s
(a) d (b) d the center and lightestloaded pile carried about 44%
1 24
d
less. Therefore, there appears to be a tendency for the load
LO 1.0 distribution to become increasingly nonuniform as the
number of piles in the group increases. A theoretical
method for calculating the load distribution prior to
0
!] 17 0 ultimate failure is described in Chapter 6, and this method
also confinns the trends displayed by Whitaker's tests.
16
(a) (:,) (c)
s/d 4
"' s/d = 2 , s/d 8
I
g' "'
Q.
C: 0
12
"' 0
I ,,
5) I
0. "'
ro :S
8
//
C. ::
I /
]
//
0. "'
C:
0 w
l
/ /
u.c 4
"'
o
/.
.J 0
(b) The sum of the ultimate load capacity of cap and the
piles, acting individually, that is, for group of n pile's of
diameter d and length L. supported by a rectangular cap of
dimensions Be X L e ,
where
A
o
co Bl)
B
0
A
Average of piles A
The first value will apply for close pilespacings while the
Bo Eo oo Bo
..__,, o second will apply at wider spacings when individual action
B
..
0 Average of piles can occur.
co Eo 0 \) co
Average of piles C Whitaker (1960) carried out tests on model piled foun
dations in clay and found that at close spacings, block fail
B
Average of piles D
B "'
0 0 o
E D Average of piles E
ure occurred, and that when the cap did not extend beyond
0 the perimeter of the group, it added nothing to the efficien
A
o
Bo o 0 0 C B A
a Pile F
cy of the group. At greater spacings, the efficiencyversus
spacing relationship was found to be an exter.sion of the
FIGURE 3.21 Load dis'tribu tion m 5' pile group at 2d spacing relationship for b.lock failure, with the efficiency exceeding
(Whitaker, 1970). unity because of the effect oft.he cap. Good agreement was
ULTH,iATE: LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 3S
Press (1933) Mediumgrained 610 ft 5 & 6 in. 1220 28 Various >l Driven piles. Max.
moist, dense 11 of l.5 ats/d "',2
sand 23 ft 16 in. 17 2 Various <L Bored piles
Cambefort (1953) Humus/stiff 100 in. 2 in. 50 27 2 1.39 Driven piles
clay/sand/ 3 1.64 Average values of 17.
gravel 5 1.17
9 1.07
,fl
s
200
''I I "'t'
<S 1
Si
_!],
1
!
Oj;/
C
a; 180
I
Y. t.i'
o._
": 2.0  I
;,;
# cf
C
,t::
u
':: 160
"'. r o ra ,
I Ii; 1
"" I . _ __..
ef
'::'
' en c y 'vir
I
l)
140 "'
2 .....,cap
I
____,, ii: 1.S I . .,.el'
5
120 ''
' '
& Meyerhof,_
40 Point.efficiencv
2 ,ti 4!>
' .0
0
3;; 3 ,...,,,,,_=,
(Average of all Ptests)
 0.... . I?
80 ..!'s
   
........_ (),"f5
60
x "'*"   p,        
32,s c1,  31 5
:_
FIGURE 3.23 Measured values of group efficiency in sandsmodel .ests (Lo, FIGURE 3.24 Pile group efficiencies (Vesic, 1969).
1967). (Reproduced by permission of t1' National Research Council of Canada
from the Canadian Geotechnical Jour.. al, Vol. 4, 1967, pp. 353354.)
w....
38 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
Dense
(,;,  4 3" l
1.25 1.25 Er,1
Sand
S1eel
paper
"'
2 :il
0
1 p1IE' 0
.'! co 1.00 1.00 "
;;u
4 pdes D
"'
u u 9 p,les 6  ...
"'
C,
C
C ::, 0.75
::, o_
e
o_ ::,
::,
0 00 (pile cap
o; J' X J")
0
0.50 0.50
.f"
g
o_
o_
ro
ro u
u o;
o; C
C c: 0.25 0.25
"'ro
"'ro
(b)
2 3 4 0 2 3 4
FIGURE 3.25 Bearing capacity of model pile groups under eccentric load in sand: (a) freestanding pile grups; {b) piled foundations
(Kishitla and Mcyerhof, 1965 ). (Copyright Canada, 1965 by University of Toronto Press.)
e is balanced by the moment caused by lateral forces on ing between 20% and 50% more than the average. Thes,:
the sides cf the group until it reaches the maximum value results are in contrast to the load distribution in groups in
corresponding to the coefficient of passive earth pressure. clay, where the center pile carries the least load and the
Within this limit, the eccentricity of load is assumed to corner piles the most.
have no effect on the point resistance. When the moment The influence of the order of driving piles in a group
Ve is greater than can be resisted by side pressure on the on the load distribution has been studied by Beredugo
outer piles., the extra is considered to be taken by an (1966) and Kishida (1967). They found that when the
eccentric base resistance for the case of block failure; load on the group was relatively small, piles that had been
or, for individual pile failure, by the development of uplift installed earlier carried less load than those that have been
resistance of some piles. The total bearing capacity then installed later; but when the failure load of the group was
decreases with further increase in eccentricity. approached, the influence of driving order diminished,
Comparisons between the theoretical and measured and the position of the pile in the group became the domi
effect of load eccentricity on load capacity are shown in nant factor. At this stage, the piles near the center took
Fig. 3.25 for the tests carried out by Kishida and Meyerhof the most load and the corner piles. the least, as in Vesic's
(1965), and there is fair agreement for tests in both loose experiments.
and dense sands. Beredugo also investigated the effects of repeated
loading and found that there was a progressive reduction
3.3.2.4 LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN GROUP
of the influence of driving order, and that for the third
The most detailed data available on load distribution and subsequent loadings, the pile position was the domi
within groups in sand is that reported by Vesic (1969), nant factor at all loads up to the ultimate of the group.
wh0 made axial load measurements in individual piles
during group placement, as well as during loading tests.
For the fourpile groups tested, the measured load distri
bution was JUnost uniform, as expected; the maximum 3.4 PILES TO ROCK
deviation from the average was 3 to 7%. For the nine
pile groups, significant nonuniformit.y of load was mea
sured. The center pile carried about 36% more load than 3.4.1 PointBearing Capacity
the average, while the corner piles carried about 12%
less and the edge piles 3% more. Other tests on similar There are a number of possibl approaches to the estima
groups shmved a similar trend, with the center piles carry tion of pointbearing capacity of piles to rock, including:
ULTIMATE LOAD C.$.PACITY OF PiLES 39
(a) The use of bearingcapacity theories to calculate the d..aws attention to the fact that the loadpenetration curve
ultimate pointbearing capacity Pbu. for rocks of medium strength or less ("' 100 MPa) has a
(b) The use of empirical data to determine the allowable large "plastic" component, despite the brittle nature of
point pressure Pba the rock. The curve divides into two portions, with what
(c) The use of insitu tests to estimate either ultimate appears to be a change of slope associated with the forma
point capacity Pbi, or allowable point pressure Pba. tion of a crushed zone beneath the footing. The displace
ments required to mobilize the full bearing capacity of
BearingC:apacity Theories such rocks are very large, and it seems that ; factor of
Pelis (1977) has classified theoretical approaches into three safety of 3 to 4 is required to limit. the displacements to less
categories: than 2% of the footing diameter. Very brittle rocks (qum
> l 50 MPa), do not exhibit this "plastic" loadpenetration
1. Methods that essentially assume rock failure to be curve.
"'plastic" and either use soil mechanicstype bearing The presence of jointing in [he rock will tenn to reduce
capacity analyses o; modifications thereof to account for the ultimate bearing capacity. The presence of closely
the curved nature of the peak failure envelope of rock. spaced continuous tight joints may not reduce the bearing
2 . .Methods that idealize the zones of failure beneath a capacity much below that for the intact rock material. If
footing in a form that allows either the brittlenessstrength the are open vertical joints with a spacing less than tne
ratio or the brittlenessmodular ratio to be taken into width or diameter of the pile point, the point is essentially
account. supported by unconfined rock columns and the bearing
3. Methods based on limiting the maximum stress beneath capacity may be expected to be slightly less than the aver
the loaded area to a value less than required to initiate age uniaxial strength of the rock. If the joint spacing is
fracture. These methods assume essentially tltl.t once the much wider than the footing width, Meyerhof (1953) sug
max.imum strength is exceeded at any point in a brittle gests that the crushed zone beneath the footing splits the
materiaL total collapse occurs. block of rock formed by the joints. Sowers and Sowers
(1970) present a theory for this case that generally indi
For a typical sandstone having an effective frktion cates a bearing capacity slightly greater than the uniaxial
angle ' in excess of 45 , effective cohesion c' of about . strength. Thus, in summary, theoretical considerations sug
onetenth of the uniaxial strength, qum, and a ratio of gest that the ultimate bearing capacity is unlikely to be ri;;
Young's modulustouniaxial strength of about 200, Pelis duced much below the uniaxial strengtn of the intact rock,
shows that the varios theories predict an ultinrnte point even if open vertical joints are present.
bearing capacity ranging between 4.9qum (incipient failure
theory based on the modified Griffith theory) to 56qum Use ofEmpirical Data
(classical plasticity theory). Various model tests on intact Allowable bearing pressures on rock have often been
rock carried out by Pelis and others indicate ultimate specified by various building codes and authorities, either
capacities ranging between 4 and 11 times qum. Pelis , based on a description of the rock, or in}rms of the
_ :..
;::, l. t',. ,, :;t\
_./ j:_:J4 \.. . '\j 1.
,/, . ., {
TABLE 3.5 TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF ROCK (PECK, 1969) , .... , O. _5 v' <:", ,j
Rock Compressive Shear E(IUps1J Poisson's Ratio
ype Strength q 1,1.m Strength
(psi) (psi) Field Lab. Field Lab.
Unfailed
=. .,,,
Y Failed
50
40
e
Q.
30
.
,
"O
.,
.,
"O
.,
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Unconfined strength (MPa)
FIGURE 3.26 Achieved endbearing pressures in field tests on piles to rock (Thorne, I 977).
uniaxial compressive strength Qum . Some typical values been used but may be expensive if the rock is strong and
of qum and other rock properties are summarized in large loads are required. Freeman et al. ( 1912) have
Table 3 .5 Typically, allowable pressures, Pba , ranging described the use of the Menard Pressuremeter to estimate
between 0.2 and 0.5 times Qum have been stipulated. An the allowable pointbearing capacity, Pba, of piles in rock,
example of stiulated bearing pressures related to rock and suggest that Pba may be taken as the value where the
types is provide by Ordinance No. 70 in New South Wales, pressureversusvolume relationship starts to become
Australia, in which values of Pba range between 430 kN/m 2 nonlinear. Satisfactory designs of caissons in sound shale
for soft shale to 3210 kN/m 2 for hard sandstone free from bedrock using the above approach have been reported by
defects to a depth of 900 mm. Freeman et al., and design pressures considerably larger
Thorne (1977) has collected data on recorded values than those specified by empirical relationships or building
of bearing capacity, as shown in Fig. 3.26. These values codes have been used.
vary from 0.3qum to about 4q u , ana most cases do not
involve failure. The few recorded failures are in swelling
shales and in fractured rocks, it is clear from these results
that the fracture spacing has an effect on the bearing capa 3.4.2 PileRock Adhesion
city, . although the data is insufficient to quantify this
effect. When piles are socketed or driven into rock, some load
On the basis of the available data, an allowable point transfer to the embedded portion of the shaft will usually
bearing pressure on the order of 0.3qum would appear to occur. Theoretical solutions for load transfer are discussed
be quite conservative for all but swelling shales . Reference in Section 5 .3, and also by Ladanyi (1977). The distribu
to the theoretical solutions shows that such values generally tion of applied load between sideadhesion and endbearing
imply a factor of safety of at.least 3 in fractured or closely at working loads, as given by theory, has been supported
jointed rocks and 12 or more for intact rocks. by insitu measurements at a number of sites (Pells, 1977).
There is not a great amount of data on ultimate values of
The Use of InSitu Tests pilerock adhesion, but Thorne (1977) has summarized
A number of methods of insitu testing of rock have been some of the available data, and this summary is reproduced
dmeloped in recent years. Plateload tests have f requently in 3.27. These results show that a number of failures
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 41
Unfailed
Failed
5 r,,,..
Sydney
.;
Canada shale
sandstone
3
11Newcastle +.+./= =1
] sandstone
0
2rtl+4,.:____4___J
Kings Park
_,.,c;......____ ....1..=s....
Normal maximum
shale
for 25 MPaconc ret
andesit e::,,j,Melbo_ u_rn_e Ei+Ca li forn
i al
/ mudstone I shale and
(value appro ximate) sandstone
Canada
shale UK siltstone/rn udstone UK shale
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Unconfined strength (MPa)
FIGURE 3.27 Adhesion attained in field tests on piles in rock (Thorne, 1977).
have occurred, even in relatively unjointed rocks, at values 3.5 USE OF INSITU TESTS
on the order of O. l qum . It should. be noted that in many
instances, concrete strength will be the limiting factor,
and in the few instances in which information is available 3 .5 .I Static Cone Penetrometer
on concrete strengths, failure has occurred at an average
shear.stress of between 0.05 to 0.2 times the ultimate com The basis of the test is the measurement of the resistance
pressure strength of concrete, f However, the tests of to penetration of a 60 cone with a base area of 10 sq
Jaspar and Shtenko (1969) indicated that considerable cm. Two types of cone are commonly used; the standard
caution must be exercised with piles in expansive shales point, with which only point resistance can be measured;
that are likely to be affected by water; an adhesion of and the frictionjacket point, which allows both point
only about 11 psi (75 k.Pa) was measured in these tests. resistance and local skin resistance to be measured (Bege
Freeman et al. (I 972) suggest a design value of allowable mann, 1953 and 1965).
pilerock adhesion of 100 to 150 psi (700 to 1000 k.Pa), In purely cohesive soils, it is generally accepted that the
depending on the quality of the rock. With such a value, conepoint resistance, Ckd , is related to the undrained cohe
they recommended that the full calculated endbearing sion, cu , as
capacity be added to obtain the total designload capacity.
On the basis of the limited information available, (3.27)
it would appear reasonable to use as a design value an allow
able adhesion of O.OSf or 0.05Qu m, whichever is the As discussed in the previous section, the factor Ne may
lesser value. These values should not be applied to highly vary widely both theoretically and in practice, and values
fractured rocks, for which values of adhesion between 75 of Ne ranging from 10 to 30 have been suggested. The
and 150 kPa may be more appropriate. It must be empha major causes of this variation are the sensitivity of the soil,
sized that care should be exercised to remove all remolded the relative compressibility of the soil, and the occurrence
soil from the socket zone. Furthermore, for uplift loads, of adhesion on the side of the cone. The variation in the
a reduction of the above loads (e.g., by about 30%) appears rate of strain between the cone test and other testing
to be desirable. methods also has an effect on the deduced value of Ne ,
42 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
but the use of a constantpenetration rate minimizes cone resistance Ckd within a distance 3.75 db above and
variations from this cause. For design purposes, a value of db below the pile tip, where db is the diameter of the
Ne 15 to 18 appears reasonable (Begemann, 1965; pile tip.
Thomas, 1965; Blight, 1967; Thorne and Burman, 1968). Fullscale tests carried out by Vesic (1967) showed
Van der Veen ( 1957) suggested that the ultimate resis that the point resistance of the piles tested is comparable
tance of a pile point, of diameter db , could be derived from with that of the penetrometer, but the shaft resistance of
the corresponding conepenetration curve by taking the the piles was approximately double that measured by the
average cone resistance over a distance bdb below the penetrometer. Thus, the ultimate load capacity is given by
pile point and adb above the point. Average values of
a = 3 .75 and b l were suggested by Van der Veen.
(3.28)
The adhesion measured by the friction jacket may
safely be taken as the skin friction for driven piles in clays
where
(Begemann, 1965). Alternatively, but less desirably, the
cohesion may be estimated from the point resistance and Ckd = measured conepoint resistance at base
an appropriate reduction made to obtain the pilesoil
j average shaft friction along pile, as measured
adhesion (see Section 3.2.1).
on the friction jacket
For piles in sand, various attempts have been made to
relate the conepoh1t resistance to the angle of friction
..
and relative density of the sand (Meyerhof, 1956; Shultze
and Mezler, 1965; Plantema, 1957), but it has been found
For driven steel Iipiles, Meyerhof (1956) suggested that
the above shaft resistance should be halved.
that cone resistance is very sensitive to changes in density. A comparison between the pile and penctrometer
For pactical use, the previously mentioned suggestion of resistances for the tests reported by Ves;c (I 967) is shown
Van der Veen (1957) may be adopted; namely, that the iI_1 Fig. 3.28. The upper and lower limits of the penetro
ultimate point resistance of the pile be taken as the average meter values are shown. Correlation with static cone tests
10

i:l 20
.D 30
40
was found by Vesic to be better than with the results of 3.5.3 Pressuremeter Test
standard penetration tests (see below).
for cases in which separate measurements of friction The use of the pressuremeter in foundation design has been
jacket resistances are not made, Meyerhof (1956) suggested developed extensively in France in recent years. Its appli
that for driven concrete or timber piles, the ultimate skin cation to the estimation of pile load capacity has been
friction fs could be estimated from the cone point resis summarized by Baguelin et al (1978) who present curves
tance Ck d as follows: relating ultimate base capacity to the pressuremeter limit
pressure, for both driven and castinsitu piles. Relation
fs 0.005Ck d (3.29) ships are also presented between ultimate skin resistance
and limit pressure for steel or concrete piles in granular and
For driven steel Hpiles, Meyerhof suggested that the cohesive soils, and for castinsitu piles in weathred rock.
above value be halved. Some comparisons (Mohan et al., The following upper limits on the ultimate skin resistance
1963; Thorne and Burman, 1968) indicate that Eq. (3.29) are suggested by Baguelin et al for pressuremeter limit
underestimates the skin friction by a factor of about pressures in excess of 15 00 k.Pa;
2 if Ckd is less than about 35 kgf/cm 2
In sands, it is necessary to make a distinction between concrete displacement piles in
the skin friction for downward and upward loading. Modi granular soil 122 kPa
fications fo r uplift resistance are discussed in Section 3 .7.
concrete displacement piles in
cohesive soil, or steel displace
ment piles in granular soil 82 kPa
3.5.2 Standard Penetration Test
steel displacement piles in
Meyerhof (1956) has correlated the shaft and base resis cohesive soil 62 kPa
tances of a pile with the results of a standard penetration nondisplacement piles in
test. For displacement piles in saturated sand, the ultimate any soil 40 k.Pa
load, in U.S. tons, is given by
(3.30)
3.6 SPECIAL TYPES OF PILE
where
3.6.1 Large Bored Piers
f!p standard penetration mimber, N. at pile base
N average value of N along pile shaft Largediameter bored piles have come into increasing use
in recent years as an alternative to pile groups. They have
For small displacement piles (e.g., steel Hpiles), been constructed up to IO ft in diameter and in lengths
exceeding lOO ft, often with an underreamed or belled
base. Such piles have found extensive use in London clay,
(3.31)
and much of the research on large bored piers is based on
their behavior in London clay. Empirical methods of
where design have been developed on the basis of extensive expe
rienc and research. One of the earliest investigations was
Ab net sectional area of toe (sq ft) in model tests on piles with enlarged bases, reported by
A s = gross surface area of shaft (sq ft) (area of all sur Cooke and Whitaker (1961). These tests evealed that,
faces of flanges and web for Hpiles) whereas settlements on the order of 10 to 15% of the base
diameter were required to develop the ultimate base capa
In Eq. (3.30), the recommended upper limit of the unit city, the full shaft resistance was developed at very small
shaft resistance (F//50) is 1 ton/ft 2 and in Eq. (3.31), settlements, on the order of 0.5 to 1.0% of the shaft
0.5 ton/ft2 diameter. (The theory given in Chapter 5 supports these
The above equations have also been used with some findings.) A considerable amount of fieldtest evidence has
success in stiff clays (Bromham and Styles,1971 ). subsequently been obtained (Whitaker and Cooke, 1966;
44 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
1.25 
Source of data i
Tomlinson ( 1957) Average values
} for pile load tests
Skempton ( 1959)
1.00 f'><++++ Mohan and Chandra (1961 ) j
Turner {19621 Data for p,le
I f:
o F erson and Urie (1964) pulling teSts
Relatively fw pulling tests on piles have been reported (a) The shear resistance of a vertical cylinder above the
in th literature. A summary of some of the available results base, multiplied by a factor k, plus the weight of soil and
is given by Sowa (I 970), who has f ound that the values of pile, W, above the base.
ca lcu agree reasc.nably well with the values for piles sub (b) The uplift capacity of the base plus W, that is,
jeted to downward loading 3.3l).
For piles of uniform diameter in sand, the ultimate
uplift capacity may be calculated as the sum of the shaft ( 3.34)
resistance plus the weight of the pile. There is, however,
little data available on the skin friction for upward loading, where
and the available data is to some extent conflicting. For
example, tests rported by Ireland ( 1957) on piles driven Nu uplift coefficient
into fine sand suggest that the average skin friction for = Ne for downward load
uplift loading i5 equal to that for downward loading, but
data summarized by Sowa ( 1970) and Downs and Chieurzzi Examination of the results of model and field tests led
(1966) indicates considerable variations in average skin Meyerhof and Adams to suggest the following values of
friction between different tests, although there is a ten k:
dency for the values to be lower than for downward load
ing, especially for castinsitu piles. In the absence of other Soft clays k 11.25
information, a reduction to two thirds of the calculated Medium clays k 0.7
shaft resistance for downward loading is recommended. S.:iff clays k 0.5
However, a reliable estimate is best deterrr.ined by carrying Stiff fissured clays k 0.25
out a pulling test insitu.
If staticcor,epenetration tests are used as a basis for The low values of k in the stiffer clays are partly attributed
estinrnting ultimate uplift skin resistance, Begemann (1965) by Meyerhof and Adams to the influence of tension cracks
suggests that the calculated skin resistan(;e for downward arising from premature tensionfailure in the clay.
loading be adjusted by a reduction factor dependent on It has been found that negative pore pressures may
the soil and pile type. He also suggests reduced values of occur in clays during uplift, particularly with shallow
skin resistance be used if the uplift load is oscillating. embedment depihs. The uplift capacity under sustained
Begemann's suggestions, however, should be viewed with loading may therefore be less than the shortterm or un
cor,siderable caution, as they are based on limited data. drained capacity, because the clay tends to soften with
Additional uplift resistance may be obtained by under time as the negative pore pressures dissipate. The longterm
reaming or enlarging the base of the pile, and in such uplift capacity can be estimated from the theory f or a
cases, the pile shaft may have little or no influence on the material with both friction and cohesion, using the drained
uplift capacity. Traditional methods of design assume the parameters <Pa and ca of the clay.
resistance of the enlarged base to be the weight of a cone For a soil with both cohesion and friction, the follow
of earth having sides that rise either vert.cally or at 30 ing expressions were obtained by Meyerhof and Adams
f rom the vertical. Neither of these methods has proved for the ultimate load capacity, P uu, of a circular base:
reliable in practice, however. The 30 cone method is
usually conserv1tive at shallow depths but can give a con (a) Shallow depths(L<db):
siderable overestimate of uplift capacity at large depths
(Turner, 1962). Parr and Varner (1962) showed that the
verticalfailuresurface approach did not apply to piles in (3.35)
clay, although it could apply to backfilled f ootings. Alter
native theories for uplift resistance of enlarged bases have (b) Great depths (L > H):
been proposed by Balla (1961), MacDonald (1963), and
Spence ( 1965)these theories differing in the assump
tions regarding the shape of the failure surface. (3.36)
Meyerhof and Adams ( 1968) have developed an approx
imate approach based on observations made in laboratory where
model tests. They suggest that the shortterm uplift capa
city of a pile in clay ( under undrained conditions) is given 1 soil unit weight*
by the lesser of s = shape factor
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 47
= I + mL/db , with a maximum value of values may be appropriate to upward loading. However,
1 tmH/db the theory for failure of anchor piles with enlarged bases,
K!I ::: earthpressure coefficient ( approximately 0.9. or of anchor plates more generally, has yet to be fully
0.95 for ,P values between 25 and 40 ) developed.
m coefficient depending on ,p For use in Eqs. (3.35) and (3.36), values of H/db ,
H = limiting height of failure surface above base s, and m, obtained from tests results by Meyerhof and
W weight of soil and pile in cylinder above base* Adams, are shown in Table 3.6. The ultimate uplift capa.
city should be taken as the lesser value of that given by
The upper lin1it of the uplift capacity is the sum of the net Eq. (3.37) and the appropriate equations 3.35 or 3.36.
bearingcapacity of the base, the side adhesion of the shaft, The results of model tests in clays, reported by Meyer
and the weight of the pile, that is, hof and Adams ( 1968), are shown in Fig. 3.32. !30th the
undrained and longterm pullout loads are shown; and the
(3.37)
TABLE 3.6 FACTORS FOR UPLIFT ANALYS!Sa
where
20 25 30 35 40 45 48
1
800 160
1;l .I
I
..Q 600 120 60 30
400 80 40
I
20
'
200 40 20
I
10
I
=
,; II
0 L....l1._.c=...u.J..LJ......J 0 0
Brick clay Brick clay Brick clay Niagara clay
5"" 5" anchor 1. 125" dia. anchor 1. 125'' dia. anchor 1. 125" dia. anchor
depth 12 in. depth 7.5 in.. depth 2 in. depth 5 in,
D/B 2. 4 D/B 6. 7 D/B = 1.78 D/B = 4 . 4
stiff stiff stiff soft
FIGURE 3.32 Comparisor:. of shrJrtterm and longterm pullout tests in clay (Meyerhof and Adams, 1968). (Reproduced by permission of the
National Research Council of Canada from the Canadian Geo technical Journal, Vol. 5, I 968, PP: 225244.)
48 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
considerable reduction in load capacity with time can (b) The uplift load of an equivalent pier foundation
clearly be seen. The extent of the loadcapacity decrease consisting of the footings and enclosed soil mass.
becomes greater as the soil becomes stiffer. The predicted
longtenn capacities of the piles show reasonable agree Meyerhof and Adams (1968) have presented some
ment with the measured values. data on the uplift efficiency of groups of two and four
The above theory can also be used to estimate the model circular footings in clay. The results indicate that
uplift capacity of piles in sand. Meyerhof and Adams have the uplift efficiency increases with the spacing of the foot
compared predicted and measured uplift capacities for ings or bases and as the depth of embedment decreases,
buried footings in sand and have found fair agreemet, but decreases as the number of footings or bases in the
although there is a relatively wide scatter of points. group increases. The uplift efficiencies are found to be
in good agreement with those found by Whitaker (1957)
for freestanding groups with downward loads.
For uplift loading on pile groups in sand, there appears
3.7.2 Pile Groups to be little data from fullscale field tests. However, Meyer
hof and Adams (1968) have carried out tests on small
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) suggest that the ultimate groups of circular footings and rough circular shafts, and
uplift load of a group be calculated as the lesser of have analyzed the group efficiencies. For a given sand
density, the uplift efficiencies of the groups increase
(a) The sum of the uplift of the individual footings. roughly linearly with the spacing of the footings or shafts,
Outof
Pile Alignment
Reference Pile Type Length Soil Type at Tip Type of Bend
Parsons and Composite: lower 140 ft 20 ft fill, layers of 4.4 ft Gentle sweep over
Wilson 85 ft, I Oin. pipe, organic silt, medium lower length
(1954) top 55 ft, sand, fine sand, silt
corrugated pipe with clay layers,
gravel, bedrock
and increase as the depth of embedment becomes smaller. largely be caused by the neglect of the structural strength
The uplift efficiency decreases as the numb of footings or of the pile shell in the design. Long, precast, hexagonal
shafts in the group increases and as the sand density in test piles have also been found to perform satisfactorily,
creases. but Hanna (I 967) has found that for steel Hpiles, large
stresses are induced because of bending during driving. Pile
bending is attributed by Hanna to the dvelopment of asym
3.8 LOAD CAPACI.TY OF BENT PILES metrical stresses in the pile as a result of the eccentric pile
tip reaction and eccentric driving inherent in all piledriving
A number of cases have been reported in which long, work. These eccentric stresses are considered to be suffi
slender piles have become bent during driving. A summary cient to initiate bending, which causes the pile to drive off
of these measurements is shown in Table 3.7. For con vertical. Reverse curvature of the pile may subseq_uently oc
cretefilled steel shell piles, load tests indicated that the cur, and this is believed to result primarily fro the verti
piles could tolerate significant outofverticality and still calweight component of the inclined pile forcing the pile
carry their design load with safety. This, however, may to bend.
Deflection in inches
 
80 40 0 40 40 0 40
t 
North
East North South
80
14BP69
60
a. NS line throug
0 casmg grooves
inclined 7 degrees
west of NS pile
axis
20
14BP73
 140
NS line through
Slope outside range casing grooves
of inscrurnent inclined 15 degrees
west of NS pile
axis
flGURE 3.33 Measured deflection components of driven pile (Hanna, 1968). (Reproduced by permission of the National Research Council of
Canada from the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 5, 1968, pp. 150172.)
SO ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES
Boreho
0 2 3 4 5
i 1 I I I I
Scale in ft
FIGURE 3.34 Driven position of pile tips (Hanna. 1968). (Reproduced by permission of the National Research Council of Canada frOJ the
Canadian Geo\eclrnical Journal, Vol. 5, 1968, pp. 150172.)
Typical deflection profiles, reported by Hanna (1967), Pmax = maximum allowable soil pressure
are shmvn in Fig. 3 .33. These profiles have been obtained Per buckling load of pile
from measurements on an inclinometer installed within the k modulus of subgrade reaction
Hpiles. The asdriven positions of the pile tips for every Pmax maximum lateral deflection (deviation of the
20 ft of depth are shown in Fig. 3.34. For the two piles center line of the pile from a straight line con
conside,red, minimum computed radii of curvature were on necting the pile tip and the point at which
the order of 170 ft and I 90 ft at depths of 100 ft and 70 curvature of the pile begins)
ft: these values are about six times less than the suggested
safe minimum value for steel Hpiles of 1200 ft (Bjerrum,
For the second criterion to be satisfied, the allowable load
1957).
Methods of estimating the stresses in a pile due to non Pis
verticality have been proposed by Johnson ( l 962), Broms
(1963), Parson and Wilson (1954), and Madhav and Rao (3.39).
(1975). Typical of these methods is that of Brorns, who by
expressing the deflected shape of the pile as a Fourier sine where
series and assuming the soil to be a Winkler medium, was
able to derive a simple approximate equation for the buck b = Pe r + Aamax
ling load on the pile (the subject of buckling is discussed
more fully in Chapter 14). Provided that some information
C (3.39)
of the departure from straightness of the actual piles is
available, the maximum soil pressure along the pile and the
maximum bending moment can then be calculated. As de Per = pilebuckling load
sign criteria, Broms suggested that A area of pile
Orn ax allowable maximum stress in pile
(a) The calculated maximum soil pressure along the pile EP Young's modulus of pile
should not exceed one third of the ultimate value. Ip moment of inertia of pile
(b) The maximum stress (axial plus bending) in the pile Z pile sectionmodulus
.should be less than the allowable value. Rmin minimum radius of curvature along pile
(3.40)
where
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES 51
Section 8P14;89)
500
Pile lengtn = 50 ft
600
co. 400
:.;z
400
<i 200
_Q
"'
200
0
106 105 10 3
Maximum curvature (rads/in_)
FIGURE 3.35 Allowable loads for bent piles (from Broms' analysis).
For a typical steel Hpile section_ in clay, the allowable pendent of pile length. For the limiting steelstress criter
loads from Eqs. (3.38) and (3.39) are plotted in Fig. 3.35. ion, an allowable steel stress of 18 kips/sq ft has been
For the limitingsoilpressure criterion, the allowable load adopted. The allowable load is insensitive to change in soil
increases as the stiffness of the soil increases (K =kd = 33 subgradereaction modulus or pile ler:gth.
times the cohesion, has been assumed) buLis almost inde