Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1997). GeÂotechnique 47, No.
4, 791±816
Settlement of piled foundations
A. MANDOLINI and C. VIGGIANI{
A numerical code for the prediction of the
settlement of pile groups and piled rafts is
presented. The code is based on the interaction
factors method; the non-linearity is simulated as
suggested by Caputo and Viggiani, that is,
concentrating it at the pile±soil interface. In
the linear range, the accuracy is checked against
known benchmark solutions. A standard proce-
dure, based on the results of load tests on single
piles, is suggested for the evaluation of soil
properties and for the implementation of the
analysis in real cases. Nineteen well-documented
case histories are then analysed, calculating for
each of them a linear elastic, an equivalent
linear elastic and a non-linear solution. Five out
of the 19 cases are illustrated in some detail, to
allow a deeper insight into the procedure. In all
but one of the analysed cases the predicted
values of the average settlement are within
20% of the observed values. The maximum
differential settlement is predicted with slightly
lesser accuracy. For foundations characterized
by a relatively high safety factor, linear and
non-linear analyses are essentially equivalent.
Some evidence suggests that the low-strain shear
modulus, obtained by in situ shear wave velocity
measurements, can be successfully employed in
the prediction of the settlement. When the
safety factor is low, the consideration of non-
linearity becomes mandatory.
KEYWORDS: numerical modelling and analysis;
piles; settlement.
INTRODUCTION
In his state-of-the-art report on `Design methods
for pile groups and piled rafts' to the New Delhi
Conference of ISSMFE, Randolph (1994) draws
attention to the fact that in the majority of cases
the primary reason for the choice of a piled foun-
Manuscript received 10 October 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 31 May 1996.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 December 1997; for
further details see p. ii.

Second University of Naples.
{ University of Naples `Federico II'.
791
L'article preÂsente un code numeÂrique pour
preÂdire le tassement des reÂseaux de pieux et
des radiers de fondation aÁ pieux. Ce code repose
sur la meÂthode des facteurs d'interaction: on
simule la non-lineÂarite de la facËon proposeÂe par
Caputo et Viggiani, c'est-aÁ-dire en la concen-
trant aÁ l'interface pieux=sol. Dans le domaine
lineÂaire, on veÂri®e l'exactitude aÁ l'aide de
comparaisons aÁ des solutions de reÂfeÂrence
connues. Pour eÂvaluer les proprieÂteÂs du sol et
appliquer l'analyse aÁ des situations reÂelles, les
auteurs proposent une meÂthode standard, qui
s'appuie sur les reÂsultats d'essais de charge sur
pieux isoleÂs. L'article analyse 19 cas bien
documenteÂs et calcule pour chacun une solution
eÂlastique lineÂaire, une solution eÂlastique lineÂaire
eÂquivalente et une solution non lineÂaire. L'article
illustre plus en deÂtail cinq de ces cas, pour aider
aÁ mieux comprendre le processus. Dans tous les
cas analyseÂs sauf un, les valeurs preÂdites de
tassement moyen correspondent, aÁ 20 p. 100
preÁs, aux valeurs observeÂes. Les preÂdictions du
tassement diffeÂrentiel maximal sont quelque peu
moins preÂcises. Dans le cas de fondations
caracteÂriseÂes par un coef®cient de seÂcuriteÂ
relativement eÂleveÂ, les analyses lineÂaires et non
lineÂaires sont plus ou moins eÂquivalentes.
Certaines donneÂes semblent indiquer qu'il est
possible de preÂdire le tassement aÁ l'aide du
module de cisaillement aÁ faible deÂformation,
calcule aÁ partir de la vitesse des ondes de
cisaillement mesureÂe sur place. Si le coef®cient
de seÂcurite est faible, il devient impeÂratif de
prendre en consideÂration la non-lineÂariteÂ.
dation is to reduce settlements. However, once the
decision has been made that piles are required, the
traditional design approach is to ensure that the
total structural load can be carried by the piles,
with an adequate factor of safety against a bearing
capacity failure. Hence design calculations for pile
groups concentrate on the ultimate capacity of
piles.
The use of piles as settlement reducers had been
discussed as early as 1977, at the Tokyo Confer-
ence of ISSMFE. Burland et al. (1977) pointed out
that traditionally engineers have asked themselves
how many piles are required to carry the weight of
the building, and claimed that designers should
792 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
perhaps better ask themselves the question of how
many piles are required to reduce the settlement to
an acceptable amount. The number of piles in
answer to the second question is invariably signi®-
cantly less than in answer to the ®rst question.
There are a number of compelling arguments for
moving towards a settlement-based design method-
ology for pile foundations, and since 1977 a num-
ber of interesting developments have occurred in
this direction, including some outstanding applica-
tions (Burland & Kalra, 1986; Sommer et al.,
1991); nevertheless the capacity-based design is
still dominant, as is evident for instance in current
revisions of national and regional design codes.
Such a situation may be partially attributed to
the widespread belief that predicting deformations
is more dif®cult and less reliable than predicting
capacity. On the contrary, a variety of analytical
and numerical techniques for the analysis of the
settlement of piled foundations and suitable experi-
mental procedures for the determination of the
relevant stiffness have been developed in recent
years.
A method of analysis capable of taking into
account the interaction among rafts, piles and soil,
and possibly accounting for non-linearity, is re-
quired. In this paper a numerical code for the
analysis of piled rafts is presented, which meets
the above requirements although it remains rela-
tively simple and straightforward. It is shown that
substantial simpli®cations are admissible provided
the analysis is aimed at the prediction of settle-
ment.
The code is employed to predict the settlement
in a number of well-documented case histories,
partly taken from the literature and partly coming
from the writers' ®les. The former include small
and large pile groups, bored and driven piles and
different subsoil conditions. The latter refer to a
number of high-rise buildings recently constructed
in the eastern Naples area, and founded on bored
or auger piles in pyroclastic soils.
The deformation properties of the subsoil are
deduced by a back-analysis of loading tests on
single piles.
In all but one of the cases examined, such a
procedure is shown to predict the absolute and
differential settlements with remarkable accuracy.
PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS
Numerical code
The most widespread technique for the analysis
of pile groups and piled rafts is provided by the
boundary element method (Poulos, 1968; Banerjee,
1970; Poulos & Davis, 1980; Banerjee & Butter-
®eld, 1981). The interface between soil and foun-
dation (piles and pile cap or raft) is divided into
elements and an appropriate Green's function, such
as that due to Mindlin (1936), is used to relate the
displacement of each element to the tractions on
the other elements. Corresponding equations are
written for the structural response of the founda-
tion, using either a ®nite difference or a ®nite
element approach. The two sets of equations, to-
gether with those for overall equilibrium, allow the
unknown tractions to be found, and hence the
settlement and load distribution throughout the
foundation to be evaluated.
In practice, the computational resources required
to perform the ideal analysis described above be-
come excessive for all but the simplest foundation
systems; it is therefore necessary to introduce
simpli®cations, particularly if non-linearity is simu-
lated using a stepwise linear incremental proce-
dure.
Typical simpli®cations include
(a) the assumption that the raft is clear of the soil
(the so-called free-standing raft)
(b) the assumption that the raft is either rigid or
completely ¯exible (in which case the load
acting on each pile is known), thus avoiding
the analysis of the structural response
(c) the use of interaction factors to represent the
in¯uence of a complete foundation unit (for
example, a pile or the pile cap) on the
displacement of either another unit or an
element (Poulos, 1968; Banerjee & Driscoll,
1978; Caputo & Viggiani, 1984; Bilotta et al.,
1991). Randolph & Wroth (1979) developed
simple approximate analytical expressions for
the interaction coef®cients
(d) the combination of a load transfer approach to
express the relationship between local tractions
and displacement of each pile, together with an
elastic continuum analysis of the additional
displacements due to the tractions acting on
other elements (O'Neill et al., 1977; Chow,
1986; Grif®ths et al., 1991; Clancy &
Randolph, 1992).
The computational procedure used in this paper
is based on the following codes:
SINGPALO. This is a BEM code analysing the
behaviour of a single pile embedded in an elastic
continuum. The settlement w of the pile under an
axial load Q may be expressed as
IwQ
wˆ ˆ w1 Q (1)
Es L
where the factor I w is a function of the ratio of the
length and diameter of the pile, L=d, of the ratio
of the moduli of the pile and soil, Ep =Es , of the
Poisson's ratio of the soil ís and of the model of
subsoil adopted (homogeneous half-space, horizon-
tally layered half-space, Gibson soil, etc.)
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
SINGPALO allows the evaluation of the com-
pliance w1 of a single pile with the following
assumptions:
(a) horizontally layered elastic soil; the layering
beneath the pile point is accounted for by the
so called Steinbrenner approximation, as de-
scribed by Poulos & Davis (1980); the layers
crossed by the pile shaft are treated in the
same way, by an approximate application of
the reciprocal theorem
(b) pile with stepwise or continuously variable
section
(c) compatibility of both vertical and horizontal
displacements
(d) slip at the interface between pile and soil once
a limiting shear stress has been attained; the
latter can be either cohesive or equal to the
horizontal stress times a friction coef®cient.
ALPHAPALO. This is a BEM code analysing the
interaction of a pair of piles i, j, embedded in an
elastic continuum and loaded by the forces Qi , Q j
respectively. The settlement of a pile is expressed
as
w i ˆ w1i [Qi á ii ‡ Q j á ij ]
ALPHAPALO determines the in¯uence factor á ij
(obviously, á ii ˆ 1) with the same assumptions as
SINGPALO. The two interacting piles may be differ-
ent in length and diameter.
GRUPPALO. This is a program for the analysis of
pile groups and free-standing piled rafts, based on
the use of interaction factors. The settlement w i of
the ith pile in a group of n piles is expressed as
X
n
wi ˆ w1i Q j á ij
jˆ1
Obviously, á ii ˆ á jj ˆ 1.
In the case of a group of piles acted on by
known loads (fully ¯exible raft), equation (3) may
be used directly to evaluate the settlement of each
pile in the group. In the case of an in®nitely stiff
raft, the settlement of the raft is de®ned by the
vertical displacement w0 of the centre and by two
rotations â x and â y . The settlement of the pile i,
having coordinates xi , yi referred to the centre,
must be compatible with such a displacement;
hence
X
n
w1i Q j á ij ˆ w0 ‡ â x yi ‡ â y xi
jˆ1
Furthermore, if Q is the total load acting on the
raft with eccentricities e x and e y, the equilibrium
requires that
793
X
n X
n X
n
Qi ˆ Q; Qi xi ˆ Qe x ; Qi yi ˆ Qe y
iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1
(5)
The system of n compatibility conditions (4)
plus three equilibrium conditions (5) allows the
determination of the n unknown loads Qi plus the
values of w0 , â x and â y .
Finally, in the case of a raft of ®nite stiffness,
the vertical displacements of its points are found
by a ®nite element model.
It must be pointed out that GRUPPALO can be
easily extended to account for a direct contact
between the raft (if any) and the soil; this is
necessary if the load sharing between piles and raft
has to be investigated. However, both theoretical
analyses (Butter®eld & Banerjee, 1971) and experi-
ments (Cooke et al., 1980) have shown that the
contact between the raft and the soil does not
signi®cantly affect the settlement of the group,
even if the load taken by the raft is as high as
50% of the total applied load.
The assumption of a free-standing raft has been
retained in this paper, which is devoted to the
analysis of settlement, in order to make the analy-
(2)
sis as simple as possible. With the same aim, either
a fully ¯exible or a rigid raft has been considered,
thus avoiding the rather dif®cult task of evaluating
the combined stiffness of the raft and superstruc-
ture (Wood, 1978).
The non-linearity of behaviour is simulated as
suggested by Caputo & Viggiani (1984). They
claim that the non-linearity is essentially concen-
trated at the pile±soil interface, while the inter-
action between other elements (pile±pile, pile±cap,
cap±soil) may be represented by a linear model
with suf®cient accuracy. Accordingly, in an analy-
(3) sis using the method of interaction factors, they
assume that all the factors á ij (i 6ˆ j) are constant,
irrespective of the load level, while the pile±pile
interaction factors on the principal diagonal á ii
vary according to the expression
1
á ii ˆ (6)
Qi
1ÿ
Qi,lim
corresponding to a hyperbolic load±settlement re-
lationship for the single pile (Chin, 1970, 1972).
This suggestion is essentially equivalent to that
formulated by Randolph (1994), to estimate the
(4)

Note that the value of Qi,lim in equation (6) is intended
only as a geometrical parameter of the hyperbola ®tting
the load±settlement curve in the load range of interest. In
some cases this value may signi®cantly differ from the
actual failure load.
794 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

group response on the basis of initial small-strain group, smax is increased by adding a term rG as
elastic stiffness and afterwards add the plastic dis- suggested by Randolph & Wroth (1979) for a
placement due to the slip at the pile±soil interface. square group, and extended by Mandolini (1994a)
for any other shape of the group. For s > smax
‡ rG , the interaction factor á is assumed equal to
Evaluation of soil properties and implementation of zero.
the analysis
The evaluation of the deformation properties of
the subsoil for the prediction of the settlement of Check of the procedure against known solutions
the pile group is the most dif®cult and uncertain In order to assess the accuracy of the above
step of the analysis. This is probably true for procedure, a standard for comparison should be
almost all problems in geotechnical engineering, de®ned. Randolph (1994) claims that, for groups
but in the case of piled foundations the dif®culties of 100 piles and over, the accuracy of available
are increased by the signi®cant in¯uence of the computer programs is probably not better than
installation of the piles. 20%. While this is probably suf®cient for most
In order to reduce the uncertainties connected engineering purposes, given the dif®culty in esti-
with the choice of the parameters, the writers have mating the deformation parameters, it still seems
attempted to develop a well-de®ned standard proce- to indicate a limit to the extent to which it is
dure, involving traditional subsoil investigations as fruitful to conduct `rigorous' analyses of pile
well as the results of loading tests on single piles, groups.
when available. The procedure may be summarized Figure 1 (Randolph, 1994; Mandolini, 1994b)
as follows. shows the computed overall pile group stiffness for
The results of all the available site and labora- square groups of piles embedded in an elastic half-
tory investigations are ®rst used to develop a space, with L=d ˆ 25, Ep =G ˆ 1000, ís ˆ 0:5,
model of the subsoil, in which the geometry is and s=d ˆ 2:5 and 5. The group stiffness K p is
adapted to a scheme of horizontal layering and the de®ned as the ratio between the total load acting
relative stiffness of the layers is evaluated. In this on the pile group and the average settlement of the
connection the writers share the emphasis put by group. In Fig. 1, the stiffness is normalized as
:
Randolph (1994) on the importance of considering Kp =(sGn0 5 ), where G is the shear modulus of the
the overall geometry of the foundation; engineers soil and n the number of piles in the group. The
should be encouraged to prepare correctly scaled
elevation drawings of the complete foundation and
relevant soil stratigraphy, which will often reveal
shortcomings in the proposed foundation scheme.
The absolute value of the stiffness of the differ-
ent layers is then ®xed by ®tting the initial stiffness
of the load±settlement response of loading tests on
single piles. The ®tting operation is performed by
the code SINGPALO.
Once the subsoil model is ®xed, the code
ALPHAPALO is used to produce a set of interaction
factors á for various spacings s. The relationship
between á and s=d is then ®tted with a continuous
curve, usually either a power law (á ˆ M(s=d) N )
or a logarithmic law (á ˆ M ‡ N ln (s=d)). It has
been assumed that no interaction occurs for piles
whose spacing is larger than a limiting value smax ,
which is de®ned according to Randolph & Wroth
(1978) as
 
: : : GL
smax ˆ 0 25 ‡ [2 5r(1 ÿ ís ) ÿ 0 25] L (7)
Gb

where r is a parameter which re¯ects the vertical

homogeneity of the soil, varying from unity for
homogeneous conditions to 0´5 where the stiffness
is proportional to depth; G L and Gb are respec-
tively the values of the shear modulus at depth L Fig. 1. Comparison between results of computations
and below the pile base. If the piles belong to a carried out with different codes
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
results obtained by GRUPPALO are compared with
other results taken by design charts available in the
literature, and obtained with available computer
codes, namely
(a) the approach by Fleming et al. (1992), using
the PIGLET program (Randolph, 1987)
(b) the interaction factor approach of Poulos &
Davis (1980), using the DEFPIG program
(Poulos, 1990)
(c) the charts of Butter®eld & Douglas (1981)
based on a complete BEM solution incorpo-
rated in the PGROUP program (Banerjee &
Driscoll, 1978).
All the above analyses are linearly elastic.
The ®rst and second approach may be seen to
give divergent results, with the computed stiffness
differing by a factor of two or more for very large
groups. The third and most rigorous approach gives
intermediate values, but it is limited to groups not
larger than 8 3 8, for enormous computational
resources would be needed to analyse larger
groups. For very large pile groups, where the ratio
of group width to pile length becomes much great-
er than unity, the group stiffness should approach
that of a shallow foundation. This would corre-
spond to a normalized stiffness of about 4´5, as
indicated in Fig. 1 (Fraser & Wardle, 1976).
It may be seen that the results obtained by
GRUPPALO agree with those by Butter®eld & Dou-
glas (1981) over the small group range, and ap-
proach the limiting value of 4´5 for large groups.
The overall accuracy of the code seems thus
satisfactory.
In the non-linear range, benchmark solutions are
not available and therefore a check of the overall
accuracy of the proposed procedure may only be
obtained by comparison with well-documented case
histories. In this context the term `overall accuracy'
refers not only to the numerical aspects or to the
admissibility of simpli®cation such as the assump-
tion of a free-standing raft or the use of interaction
factors, but also to the procedure of selection of
the relevant parameters and to the capability of
predicting the real behaviour in terms of settle-
ment.
A few recent case histories of settlement of pile
groups are analysed in the next section, choosing
well-documented cases, for some of which other
analyses have been published, so that a comparison
of the results is possible.
BACK-ANALYSIS OF SOME CASE HISTORIES
A list of the case histories that have been
analysed by means of the proposed procedure is
presented in Table 1, which reports the main
features of each pile group. They range from small
groups to very large piled rafts; subsoil conditions
795
and pile type vary from one case to another, so
that they are believed to be representative of a
wide range of practical problems.
For each case history three solutions have been
calculated:
(a) a linear elastic (LE) solution, based on the
elastic properties of the subsoil back-®gured
from the initial tangent stiffness of the load±
settlement curve of a load test on single pile
(b) an equivalent linear elastic (ELE) solution,
based on equivalent elastic properties back-
®gured from the load±settlement curve of the
load test on single pile, considering the secant
stiffness corresponding to the average working
load of the piles in the group
(c) a non-linear (NL) analysis, as described above.
The Poisson's ratio of the soil ís has been
assumed equal to 0´5 in clay soils and to 0´3 in
cohesionless soils. In any case, the results are not
very sensitive to the values of ís .
Either a rigid or a fully ¯exible raft has been
assumed, depending on the available information
on the superstructure. In the latter case the average
settlement and the maximum differential settlement
have been evaluated. When a rigid raft has been
assumed, the contribution of the self-weight of the
raft has been considered as a fully ¯exible load in
the cases where the available data made it possible.
In order to allow a deeper insight into the pro-
cedure, the analysis of a few different case his-
tories is reported in some detail. The results ob-
tained for all the cases are listed in Table 2.
Case 2. 19-storey reinforced concrete building
(Koerner & Partos, 1974)
The building was constructed in the USA in the
period 1967 to 1970; the overall dimensions in
plan are 34 m 3 24 m. It is founded on 132 perma-
nently cased driven piles with expanded base (pres-
sure injected Franki-type) with a length of 7´6 m, a
shaft diameter of 0´41 m and a base diameter of
0´76 m.
The layout of the foundation is shown in Fig. 2.
The subsoil consists essentially of cohesionless
soils, with a layer of highly compressible organic
silt between depths of 3 and 7 m below the ground
surface. The pro®le resulting from the site and
laboratory investigation is shown in Fig. 3.
The load±settlement curves of two load tests,
carried out on piles belonging to the foundations
up to a maximum load equal to twice the design
load, are shown in Fig. 4.
The subsoil has been modelled with ®ve hori-
zontal layers, as shown in Fig. 3; the ratio between
the moduli of any two layers has been assumed
equal to the ratio of the corresponding average
values of the SPT blow count.
 796
Table 1. Essential features of the analysed case histories
Case Reference Description Soil type Pile type No. of L: m d: m s=d
piles
1 Koizumi & Ito (1967) Field test Organic silty clay Driven, closed end steel pipe 9 5´55 0´30 3
2 Koerner & Partos (1974) Building Sand and silt Bored, permanent casing 132 7´60 0´41 Ð
d b ˆ 0:76
3 Tro®menkov (1977) Field test Silty clay Driven 9 12´0 0´40 3
4 Cooke et al. (1981) Building London Clay Bored 351 13´0 0´45 3´5
5 Thorburn et al. (1983) Tank Sand, silt and silty clay Driven, precast concrete 55 27´0 0´28 7
6 Kaino & Aoki (1985) Field test Interbedded clay and sands Bored, reverse circulation 5 24´0 1´00 2´6±3
7 Viggiani (1989) Tall building Pyroclastic; tuff substratum Bored, bentonite mud, end 136 30´0 1´50 2´4±2´6

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

bearing
8 Briaud et al. (1989) Field test Sand Driven, closed end steel pipe 5 9´15 0´273 3´3±4´8
9 Goossens & Van Impe (1991) Silos Interbedded sands and stiff Driven, cast in situ 697 13´4 0´52 4
clays d b ˆ 0:80
10 Caputo et al. (1991) Tall building Pyroclastic Bored, bentonite mud 82 42´0 1´80±2´20 2´6±3´2
11 Caputo et al. (1991) Tall building Pyroclastic Bored, bentonite mud 77 42´0 1´60±2´00 3±3´75
12 Caputo et al. (1991) Tall building Pyroclastic Bored, bentonite mud 82 42´0 1´50±1´80 3´2±3´9
13 Mandolini & Viggiani Bridge piers Clayey silt Driven `Multiton' 16±24 42´8±46´8 0´41=0´36 5´1±6
(1992a)
14 Mandolini & Viggiani Tall building Pyroclastic Auger `PressoDrill' 323 20´0 0´60 4
(1992b)
15 Mandolini & Viggiani Tall building Pyroclastic Auger `PressoDrill' 314 20´0 0´60 4
(1992b)
16 Randolph & Clancy (1994) Tall building Sediments over hard siltstone Bored 280 20´0 0´80 3´2±3´8
17 Russo (1994) Cable stayed Clayey silt with interbedded Driven `Multiton' 144 48´0 0´41=0´36 3
bridge sand
18 Rampello (1994) Chimney Clayey waste, lignite, and Bored, bentonite mud 74 56´7 1´20 3±3´25
clay
19 Rampello (1994) Power plant Clayey waste, lignite, and Bored, bentonite mud 768 52±54 1´20 3´6
clay
Table 2. Computed and observed average settlement wav and maximum differential settlement ämax
Load per Observed settlement: Computed settlement:
pile: MN mm mm
Average Average Max. differential Linear elastic Equivalent linear elastic Non-linear
Case Qav wav ämax wav ämax wav ämax wav ämax
1 0´22 6´7 0´0 4´8 0´0 8´8 0´0 5´9 0´0

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

2 1´20 64´0 43´0 25´1 11´2 65´8 29´4 27´8 11´2
3 0´89 5´0 0´0 3´8 0´0 7´6 0´0 4´9 0´0
4 0´44 25´0 Ð 26´4 12´3 36´5 17´0 26´6 12´3
5 0´44 29´5 6´0±7´0 27´8 6´9 39´6 9´8 29´4 6´9
6 1´33 3´8 0´0 3´5 0´0 5´2 0´0 3´9 0´0
7 1´93 5´9 3´4 6´5 3´6 8´0 4´4 6´7 3´6
8 0´49 38´1 0´0 2´6 0´0 164´8 0´0 36´8 0´0
9 1´30 185´0 73´0 174´0 82´8 278´0 132´3 175´0 82´8
10 5´09±8´90 28´1 17´5 26´9 20´8 37´9 29´3 32´7 20´8
11 4´38±7´49 31´5 15´9 27´7 15´4 38´4 21´3 32´5 15´4
12 4´12±5´93 25´1 13´9 21´0 18´5 27´0 23´8 24´8 18´5
13 0´06±0´26 0´6±3´5 0´0 0´6±3´3 0´0 0´8±4´0 0´0 0´7±3´4 0´0
14 0´66 29´2 15´1 31´5 21´8 37´8 26´1 31´9 21´8
15 0´64 23´5 20´0 31´0 20´9 37´2 25´1 31´4 20´9
16(a) 3´93 35´9 6´0 25´9 5´9 81´9 15´9 31´6 5´9
(b) 3´22 24´5 3´0 23´5 4´7 64´4 12´9 24´4 4´7
(c) 5´00 22´3 9´0 21´3 9´3 58´0 25´6 25´5 9´3
(d) 3´22±5´00 27´0 23´0 25´7 14´8 68´2 47´7 27´5 14´8
17 0´76 32´0 0´0 31´0 0´0 39´9 0´0 32´4 0´0
18 0´82 5´4 1´6 3´7 0´6 4´0 0´7 3´9 0´6
19 0´00±1´25 3´6 2´5 4´0 1´8 4´6 2´4 4´1 1´8

(a) `core' foundation; (b) `dog-leg' foundation; (c) `hammerhead' foundation; (d) overall.

797
798 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
Fig. 2. Case history No. 2: layout of foundations of the
building; pile locations are shown as solid circles, pile
caps as full lines and columns as ®lled rectangles;
overall dimensions are 33´6 m 3 24´4 m
The elements used for the analysis are as fol-
lows: I w0 ˆ 1:66 mm=MN; Qlim ˆ 1:94 MN; E1 ˆ
:
210 MPa; á ˆ 0:707(s=d)ÿ0 614 ; smax ˆ 13:3 m;
rG ˆ 13:2 m.
The results obtained are compared in Fig. 5 with
the observed settlement. It may be seen that, in
this case, the LE and NL analyses grossly under-
estimate the actual values of the settlement. The
ELE analysis shows a better agreement with the
observed values.
Koerner & Partos (1974) claim that the design
chart by Morgan & Poulos (1968) allows a rather
good estimate of the average and differential settle-
Fig. 3. Case history No. 2: typical soil pro®le and properties at building site; the subsoil model adopted in the
analysis is shown on the right-hand side
ment of the group; this is rather surprising, because
these charts are essentially a simpler version of the
procedure used in this paper. A closer scrutiny
reveals that: (i) an arbitrary value of the soil
modulus equal to 21 MPa has been adopted in the
analysis, and (ii) the geometry of the group has
been incorrectly modelled as a square regular
group of 11´5 3 11´5 piles at a constant spacing of
2´7d. This corresponds to overall dimensions in
plan of about 13 m 3 13 m, that is, much less than
the actual size of the building.
The reason for the disagreement between the
results of the present analysis and the observed
settlement has not been established; as a matter of
fact the ampli®cation effect in this case, as indi-
cated by the ratio between group and single pile
settlement, is exceptionally high, compared not
only with the results of the analysis, but also with
other experimental ®ndings.
A possible explanation of such an effect could
be the occurrence of a deep compressible layer.
Unfortunately, the maximum depth reached in the
investigation (31 m below ground surface) allows
no conclusion on this point.
In order to investigate the possible in¯uence of
this factor, the analysis has been repeated with a
modi®ed soil model, including a deep compressible
layer below the depth of 31 m, with a modulus
equal to that of the organic silt. With such a
hypothesis (admittedly, rather unrealistic), the com-
puted average settlement is 34 mm for the LE and
37 mm for the NL analysis. These values are closer
to the observed ones, thus con®rming that a deep
compressible layer could be a possible explanation.
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 799

Fig. 4. Case history No. 2: load±settlement curves of two loading tests on piles

25
59 27
64

B-14 B-15
24·4 m

25 20
80 27 41 23
64 82 61 53
20
33 23
53
29 28
32 30
B-16 76 72

33·6 m

Borings 59 Observed settlement

Settlement points 25 LE
27 NL Predicted settlement
64 ELE

Fig. 5. Case history No. 2: comparison between predicted and observed settlements
800 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
Case 5. Molasses tank (Thorburn et al., 1983)
The tank under examination (Fig. 6) was con-
structed in Scotland in 1978 to store molasses. It
has a diameter of 12´5 m and is supported by 55
precast concrete piles, each 250 3 250 mm2 in
cross-section and 29 m long, laid out on a triangu-
lar grid at a spacing of 2 m. A 2 m thick pad of
dense granular material was constructed over the
piles and incorporated a 150 mm thick reinforced
concrete membrane connecting the pile heads. The
effective pile length was then reduced to 27 m.
In the application of GRUPPALO the subsoil mod-
el reported in Fig. 6 has been adopted. The founda-
tion soil is a silty clay with interbedded sandy silt
and silty sand layers until a maximum depth of
18 m below ground level, overlying a slightly over-
consolidated silty clay with occasional intercala-
tions of sand and silt. According to Randolph
(1994), the subsoil can be modelled as a unique
cohesive layer with an undrained shear strength
linearly increasing with depth, with the expression
su (kPa) ˆ 6 ‡ 1:8z(m)
The load±settlement curve obtained by a load-
ing test on a single pile is shown in Fig. 7.
Ten layers with constant Es,i values have been
assumed. The ratios between these values have
been ®xed, simulating a stepwise increase of Es
with depth; then SINGPALO was used to reproduce
the above value of I w0 , thus obtaining the ten
Fig. 6. Case history No. 5: schematic of the molasses tank and subsoil model adopted in the analysis
values of Es,i . They have been ®tted with a con-
tinuous linear law, obtaining the expression
Es (MPa) ˆ 4:5 ‡ 1:35z(m)
corresponding to a ratio Es =su ˆ 750, and practi-
cally coincident with the one assumed by Ran-
dolph (1994). The elements used for the analysis
are: I w0 ˆ 10:82 mm=MN; Qlim ˆ 1:48 MN; á ˆ
:
0:570(s=d)ÿ0 600 ; smax ˆ 18:6 m; rG ˆ 6:8 m.
The results obtained are shown in Fig. 8. It may
be seen that LE analysis slightly underpredicts the
average and differential settlements, as was to be
expected; NL analysis is rather satisfactory, and
ELE substantially overpredicts the measured aver-
age settlement.
For this same case history, similar results were
obtained by Randolph (1994).
Case 8. Field test on ®ve-pile group, San
Francisco (Briaud et al., 1989)
In the framework of an investigation on the
behaviour of piles in sand, load tests to failure
were performed on a single pile and on a ®ve-pile
group. The piles were closed-end steel pipes,
273 mm in diameter, driven to a depth of 9´15 m
below ground surface through a 300 mm diameter
hole predrilled to a depth of 1´37 m. The piles of
the group were connected by a rigid reinforced
concrete cap, clear of the ground.
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 801

Fig. 7. Case history No. 5: loading test results on single pile

Fig. 8. Case history No. 5: comparison between predicted and observed settlements
802 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

At the test site, the subsoil consists of a hydrau-
lic ®ll made of clean sand, about 11 m thick,
overlain by 1´4 m of sandy gravel and underlain by
sand with interbedded layers of stiff clay down to
the bedrock found at a depth of around 14´3 m
below ground surface. The layout of the test, a
subsoil pro®le and some results of the site investi-
gations are shown in Fig. 9. A value of 38´3 MPa
is reported for the shear modulus of the hydraulic
®ll, as deduced from shear wave velocity.
Considering that the predrilled hole disconnects
the pile from the upper gravelly layer, a subsoil
model with ®ve elastic layers resting on a rigid
base has been adopted in the analysis; it is also
shown in Fig. 9.
The load test on the single pile has been
corrected by subtracting from the pile head settle-
ment the elastic shortening of the free upper part
of the test pile. The elements for the analysis
are: I w0 ˆ 2:25 mm=MN; Qlim ˆ 0:49 MN; E1 ˆ
:
92:2 MPa; á ˆ 1:020(s=d)ÿ0 480 ; smax ˆ 13:6 m;
rG ˆ 0:7 m.
The experimental load±settlement curve up to
failure of the pile group is compared, in Fig. 10,
with those predicted by the analyses. The curve
labelled ELE has been obtained using at each load
level the secant modulus evaluated at the same
load level from the load test on the single pile.
It may be seen that the LE analysis allows a
rather good prediction of the actual settlement up

Fig. 9. Case history No. 8: layout of the test and subsoil pro®le
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
Fig. 10. Case history No. 8: comparison between predicted and observed load±settlement curves; the
ELE curve has been obtained using at each load level the secant modulus evaluated at the same level
from the load test on a single pile
to a load of 0´75 MN, which corresponds to a
safety factor of around 3. For higher loads, the
settlement is underestimated, but the approximation
is still acceptable up to a safety factor of around
2´5.
The NL analysis improves the prediction over
the whole load range, and remains reliable even in
the vicinity of the failure load.
The ELE analysis gives acceptable results only
up to a safety factor of around 3, that is, in the
range of nearly linear behaviour of the group.
For loads exceeding 1 MN, ELE grossly over-
predicts the observed settlement, because it incor-
rectly ampli®es both the elastic and plastic
components of the settlement.
Case 9. Ghent Grain Terminal (Goossens & Van
Impe, 1991)
In 1975 a block of 40 cylindrical reinforced
concrete grain silo cells was erected in Ghent,
within a new terminal for storage and transit. The
inner diameter of each cell is 8 m, the total height
52 m and the wall thickness 0´18 m. The founda-
tion consists of a 1´2 m thick slab, 34 m 3 84 m in
plan, resting on 697 driven, cast in situ, reinforced
803
concrete piles with a length of 13´4 m, a shaft
diameter of 0´52 m and a diameter of the expanded
base of 0´8 m.
The subsoil pro®le obtained from the site inves-
tigations is shown in Fig. 11 together with the
subsoil model adopted in the back-analysis. The
geometry and the relative stiffness of the different
layers are equal to those of the model developed
by Poulos (1993) to analyse the same case history.
On the basis of the two load tests available, the
following data for the analysis have been obtained:
I w0 ˆ 1:56 mm=MN; Qlim ˆ 5:17 MN; E1 ˆ 7:5
MPa; á ˆ 1 ÿ 0:26 ln (s=d); smax ˆ 26:8 m; rG ˆ
19:2 m.
The comparison between the measured values of
the settlement and those predicted by GRUPPALO is
shown in Fig. 12. The results of NL analysis are
practically coincident with those of LE analysis,
since the non-linear component of the settlement
of the single pile (wn1  1 mm) is very small in
comparison with the linearly elastic component
ampli®ed to account for the group effect, Rs wel .
It may be seen that the prediction of both the
average and the differential settlement, obtained by
an LE and NL analysis using low-strain soil mod-
uli, agrees rather well with the observed values.
 804
MOS 1 PF2 PF7 MOS 6 MOS 9 PF11 PF12 MOS 14

5 5 E1
0 Fill
1
0·52 m E2 = 33·3 E1
0 0

13 m
Pile tip 5·5
qc –5
–5 qc level E3 = 20 E1
qc Clayey sand
qr,b qc
–10 –10 12

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

0·8 m
qr,b E4 = 26·7 E1
qr,b
–15 0 10 20 30 –15 17
qc,qr,b: MN E5 = 3·7 E1 Medium stiff clay
–20 –20 22
E6 = 14 E1 Relatively dense sand
0 10 20 26
–25 –25
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
qc,qr,b: MN E7 = 8·7 E1 Tertiary clay

Loamy or clayey quaternary sand layer of variable density CPT before pile installation
Consistent tertiary clay layer CPT after pile installation 39
Relatively dense tertiary sand layer E8 = 66·7 E1 Very dense sand
Tertiary clay layer

Fig. 11. Case history No. 9: subsoil pro®le and subsoil model adopted in the analysis; the geometry of the model and the ratio between the moduli of any two
layers are the same as assumed by Poulos (1993)
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
Fig. 12. Case history No. 9: comparison between predicted and observed settlements
On the contrary, the ELE analysis, based on a
secant value of the axial pile ¯exibility I w ˆ
2:46 mm=MN (E1 ˆ 4 MPa), substantially over-
estimates the settlement.
For the case under discussion, a still larger over-
prediction had been obtained by Poulos (1993)
using the code DEFPIG. As already observed, this
code overevaluates the interaction among piles
because it evaluates the interaction factors with an
elastic half-space model and without introducing a
maximum interaction spacing.
Both Goossens & Van Impe (1991) and Poulos
(1993) argue that `single pile load settlement mea-
surements have limited usefulness for describing
overall building behaviour', and suggest that some
form of the equivalent raft method is more suited
for large groups, such as the one under discussion.
The results obtained by the present writers, on the
contrary, seem to support the conclusion that a
proper application of the interaction factors method
can give satisfactory results even for large groups.
Cases 10, 11 and 12. New Law Court Building,
Naples (Caputo et al., 1991)
The building belongs to the New Directional
Centre of Naples, in the eastern area of the town.
It consists of three towers, ranging in height be-
tween 70 m (Tower C) and 110 m (Tower A), and
has a steel frame structure with reinforced concrete
stiffening cores.
The foundation is a reinforced concrete slab,
805
1 m thick, stiffened by heavy reinforced concrete
frames in the lower stages and resting on 241
bored piles with a length of 42 m and diameters
ranging between 1´5 m and 2´2 m, equipped with a
preloading cell at the base (Viggiani & Vinale,
1983). The layout of the foundation in plan is
shown in Fig. 13, while a schematic section of the
structure is shown in Fig. 14.
The subsoil of the whole area has been thor-
oughly investigated by a number of authors (a
summary is given by Mandolini, 1994b) and it is
well known in its general features.
Starting from the ground surface and moving
downwards, the following soils are typically found:
(a) made ground
(b) volcanic ashes and organic soils
(c) strati®ed sands
(e) pozzolana, cohesionless or slightly indurated
(f) volcanic tuff.
Pozzolana and tuff belong to the same pyroclas-
tic formation, the only difference being the degree
of diagenesis.
The groundwater table is found at a shallow
depth below the ground surface, located at an
average elevation of 5 m above mean sea level.
At the building location the tuff bedrock is
missing, and the pyroclastic formation consists
only of cohesionless and slightly indurated pozzo-
lana. An average soil pro®le with some CPT results
(average values of qc plus or minus the standard
deviation over 12 CPT pro®les) and a summary of
 806
MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
Fig. 13. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: layout of the foundation
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 807

Fig. 14. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: schematic plan and section of the structure

soil properties obtained by means of laboratory
tests on undisturbed samples are shown in Fig. 15,
together with the soil model assumed in the analy-
sis. The subsoil has been modelled as a three-layer
medium. The ratio between the moduli of any two
layers has been assumed equal to the ratio of the
corresponding average qc values, as deduced from
the CPT pro®les.
Several pile load tests have been performed at
the site, including tests to failure on four piles
(Fig. 16). All test piles were 42 m long; the
diameter was 1´5 m for piles A and C, and 2´0 m
for piles B and D. Piles C and D were equipped
with a preloading cell at the base, as detailed by
Viggiani & Vinale (1983); all piles were instru-
mented with strain gauges at different sections
along the shaft.
The construction of the three towers took about
seven years (1982±1989). During the whole con-
struction period, a detailed record was kept of the
load distribution over the foundation area, and the
settlement of a number of points has been recorded
(Fig. 17).
In the ®nal part of the construction period
(1987±1989) and for some years after the end of
construction, the rate of settlement remained nearly
unchanged, in spite of the very small increase
of the applied load. Such a behaviour can be
808 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

GWL 0

Made ground

15 m
E1
10 12 CPT
Peat and organic silt
γsat = 11–14 kN/m3
20
Silty sand with interbedded
pozzolana layers

25 m
E2 = 3 E1
γsat = 16–18 kN/m3 30

Depth: m
Cohesionless pozzolana
γsat = 15–16 kN/m3 40
c ′ = 0; φ′ = 36–40˚ 42 m

E3 = 10 E1
50

Slightly indurated pozzolana 60

γsat = 15–16 kN/m3
c ′ = 100–200 kPa Ep = 1200 E1
φ′ = 28– 32˚ 70

80
0 10 20 30 40 50
qc: MPa

Fig. 15. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: subsoil pro®le and properties, and subsoil model adopted in the analysis

Fig. 16. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: load±settlement curves of four load
tests on piles (PLC, preloading cell)
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 809

Fig. 17. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: loading history and settlement observed during and after
construction

explained by the occurrence of creep deformations.
The occurrence of creep in pyroclastic soils has
been known for a number of years (Croce, 1948).
The comparison between predicted and observed
settlement, reported below, refers to the end of
construction.
The load±settlement curves of the four test
piles, corrected to account for the in¯uence of
anchor piles and ®tted with a hyperbola, gave the
values reported in Table 3.
SINGPALO has been used to reproduce, on aver-
age, the corrected values of I w0 , giving a value of
E1 ˆ 39:3 MPa. Once the soil model was de®ned,
the codes SINGPALO and ALPHAPALO were used to
810 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

get respectively the values of I w0 for the piles with Indeed, the LE analysis based on low-strain
a diameter different from that of the test piles, and moduli as back-®gured from the initial stiffness of
the pile±pile interaction laws. Table 4 summarizes the load test on single piles gives a rather satisfac-
all the results obtained; the values of smax and rG tory agreement with the observed values in all but
do not depend on d and are 55´2 m and 84´5 m two cases (Fig. 19(a)).
respectively. One of the latter is case 2 (Koerner & Partos,
It has been found that the factor of interaction 1974), which has already been discussed. The other
between two piles of different diameter is equal to one is case 8 (Briaud et al., 1989) for a load close
that of a pair of identical piles having the diameter to the failure load, where obviously non-linearity
of the loaded pile. This agrees with the ®ndings of plays a major role. In fact, for the same case and a
Poulos & Hewitt (1985). safety factor SF > 2:5 (Q < 1 MN), the compari-
A comparison between the settlement predicted son falls within the range of all other cases (Fig.
by GRUPPALO at the end of construction and the 10).
measured settlements is shown in Fig. 18 for the These ®ndings con®rm the view already ex-
alignments reported in Fig. 13 and along the pressed by some authors (Mandolini & Viggiani,
perimeter of the raft. 1992b; Randolph, 1994) that the ampli®cation of
The agreement may be considered rather good the settlement of a single pile due to group action
for the LE and NL analyses; ELE analysis once depends essentially on the geometry of the group
more overpredicts both the average and the differ- and can be reliably predicted by a linear super-
ential settlements. position procedure.
In four out of the 19 cases examined, site mea-
surements of the shear wave velocity were avail-
DISCUSSION able, allowing an independent assessment of the
A comparison between the observed average and low-strain shear modulus of the soils.
differential settlements, and those predicted by the For the hydraulic ®ll in San Francisco (case 8)
analyses reported in this paper, is given in Fig. 19 Briaud et al. (1989) give an (average?) value of
for all the 19 cases examined. the shear modulus deduced by shear wave velocity
The majority of the cases examined refer to equal to 38´3 MPa. With a value of the Poisson's
foundations designed according to a conventional ratio ís ˆ 0:3, this corresponds to a Young's mod-
capacity-based approach. As a consequence, their ulus Es ˆ 99:6 MPa, to be compared with the
safety factor under the permanent working load is value Es ˆ 92:2 MPa back-®gured from the initial
rather high, and a simple linear analysis may be stiffness of the load test on the single pile.
expected to be adequate for engineering purposes. For the pyroclastic soils of the eastern Naples
area a set of cross-hole measurements of the shear
wave velocity were published by Vinale (1988).
Table 3. Data resulting from the load tests on single
piles Table 5 reports a comparison between such values
and those back-®gured from the pile load tests for
Pile I w0 : mm=MN I w0 : mm=MN Qlim : MN case histories 7, 10±12, and 14 and 15, all relating
(uncorrected) (corrected) to sites belonging to that area.
A 0´505 0´587 15´85 At the site of the bridge over the river Gariglia-
B 0´395 0´489 21´08 no (cases 13 and 17), a set of cross-hole measure-
C 0´518 0´611 47´22 ments of the shear wave velocity were published
D 0´313 0´351 34´55 by Mancuso & Mandolini (1993); they also carried

Pile C underwent a brittle failure at a load of 18 MN. out a number of vibration measurements during the
As stated elswhere, the value of Qlim reported in the table driving of piles, and interpreted them in terms of
is intended only as a geometrical parameter of the shear wave velocity. The results they obtained lead
hyperbola ®tting the initial part of the load±settlement to values of the shear modulus G0 equal to 18 MPa
curve. in a surface crust, and then increasing with depth
from 9 MPa at a depth of 5 m to 30 MPa at a
depth of 30 m below ground surface.
Table 4. Parameters for the analysis At the same site the load tests on a single pile
d: m I w0 : mm=MN á ˆ M(s=d) N gave an initial stiffness corresponding to values of
the shear modulus equal to 13 MPa from the
M N
ground surface to a depth of 9 m, 9 MPa from 9 to
1´5 0´583 0´494 ÿ0´800 22 m, 14 MPa from 22 to 34 m and, ®nally,
1´6 0´538 0´506 ÿ0´805 20 MPa from 34 to 50 m.
1´8 0´467 0´529 ÿ0´815 At the site of the Pietra®tta plant (cases 18 and
2´0 0´412 0´549 ÿ0´823 19) the data shown in Fig. 20 allow a direct com-
2´2 0´368 0´567 ÿ0´831
parison between the values of the shear modulus
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 811

Fig. 18. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12; comparison between predicted and observed settlements for some
alignments shown in Fig. 13 and around the perimeter of the raft

obtained by the shear wave velocity measurements
and those back-®gured by the load test on a pile.
In all four cases there is a substantial correspon-
dence between the two sets of values, with a trend
of the values back-®gured from pile loading tests
to ®t the lower limit of the geophysical measure-
ments. It appears that the initial stiffness of the
load±settlement curve of load tests on single piles
allows a reliable evaluation of the small-strain
deformability of the soil.
Such an observation, if substantiated by further
experience, shows promising implications for both
the interpretation of loading test results in terms of
soil properties and the prediction of settlement on
the basis of geophysical measurements.
The NL analysis (Fig. 19(b)), which essentially
consists of adding the non-linear component of the
settlement of the single pile to the settlement of
the group, obtained as in the LE analysis, slightly
improves the prediction of the average settlement
812 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

Fig. 19. Comparison between predicted and observed settlements: (a) average settlement, LE analysis; (b) average
settlement, NL analysis; (c) average settlement, ELE analysis; (d) maximum differential settlement, LE and NL
analysis; (e) maximum differential settlement, ELE analysis
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS 813
Table 5. Values of the small-strain shear modulus of the pyroclastic soils in the eastern Naples area, as deduced by
shear wave velocity measurements and back-®gured from load tests on single piles at three building sites
Soil type G0 : MPa

Measured cross-hole Back-®gured from initial stiffness of load tests

(Vinale, 1988)
Case 7 Cases 10, 11 and 12 Cases 14 and 15
Peat 3±7 8
Volcanic ash 35±61 24
Strati®ed sand 66±101 45 144 58
Cohesionless pozzolana 93±128 112 80
Indurated pozzolana 150±191 151

0
Foundation level 4·3 m

10 G0 profile back-figured E1 Mine waste

from load tests on single pile

20 22 m
27 m E2= 1·2 E1 Lignite and peaty clay

30
E3 = 4·0 E1 Silty clay
40
45 m

E4 = 8·0 E1
Depth: m

50 Clayey silt
53 m

60 61 m
E5 = 16 E1 Sandy silt

69 m
70

80

E6 = 11·4 E1 Clayey silt

90

100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
G0: MPa

Fig. 20. Case history No. 18: soil properties and subsoil model assumed in the analysis

in all the cases where the LE analysis was already
successful. In case 8, where the non-linearity plays
a signi®cant role, NL analysis substantially im-
proves the prediction (Fig. 10).
The ELE analysis (Fig. 19(c)), which incorrectly
ampli®es both the elastic and plastic components
of the settlement of the single pile, substantially
overpredicts the observed settlement. This is
clearly shown in Fig. 10 for case 8 (Briaud et al.,
1989).
The above comments also apply to the predic-
tion of the maximum differential settlement (Figs
19(d) and (e)). The available data, however, are
slightly more scanty and scattered than those on
the average settlement. This may be due, at least to
some extent, to the unknown and variable in¯uence
of the stiffness of the foundation and superstruc-
ture.
As a ®nal comment, it should be noted that all
the analyses presented are `Class C' predictions
(Lambe, 1973), that is, predictions made after the
event and when the results to be predicted are
already known. In spite of all the attempts at
de®ning a standard procedure and reducing to a
814 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
minimum the in¯uence of subjective judgement, a
range of choice of the values of parameters, of the
loading history and of the boundary conditions
always exists. More or less consciously the choice
may then be tuned, within such a range, to make
the analysis ®t the known observed results. As an
example of this subjectivity, a comparison may be
made between the results reported in this paper for
the buildings in the eastern Naples area (case 7;
cases 10, 11 and 12; and cases 14 and 15), and
previous back-analyses of the same cases published
by the writers or their colleagues (Caputo, 1991;
Caputo et al., 1991; Mandolini & Viggiani,
1992b). The comparison is made in Table 6.
The previous analyses were essentially ELE, and
were carried out on the basis of the same experi-
mental evidence as used for the present paper, with
slightly different procedures and codes. In particu-
lar, different values of the maximum interaction
spacing and different subsoil models were adopted.
At that time, however, the equivalent linear proce-
dure was believed to be the most suitable one and
accordingly also the judgement, though not deliber-
ately, was probably tuned to improve the agreement
between prediction and observation.
As a matter of fact, it may be seen that previous
ELE analyses tend to be in better agreement with
the observed results than the present ones.
The results reported in Table 6 allow an assess-
ment of the in¯uence of apparently minor details
of the procedure of analysis and of the range of
subjectivity in the selection of parameters.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A number of well-documented records of the
settlement of pile foundations have been back-
analysed by a numerical procedure based on super-
position factors; the soil properties relevant to the
analysis have been back-®gured from the results of
loading tests on single piles.
In all but one of the cases analysed the pre-
dicted values of the average settlement are within
Table 6. Comparison between different evaluations of the average settlement of buildings in eastern Naples Area
Case
Measured Present
ELE
7 5´9 5´2
10 28´1 37´9
11 31´5 38´4
12 25´1 27´0
14 11´0 19´8
15 7´0 14´3

These analyses refer to a load level lower than that at the end of construction.
20% of the observed ones. The maximum differ-
ential settlement is predicted with slightly lesser
accuracy. Such an accuracy is believed to be
adequate for engineering purposes, considering that
also the accuracy of the numerical codes is prob-
ably of the same order (Randolph, 1994).
For foundations designed according to the con-
ventional capacity-based approach, and hence char-
acterized by a relatively high safety factor, linear
and non-linear analyses are essentially equivalent
for the prediction of settlement. They are based on
elastic properties of the subsoil back-®gured from
the initial stiffness of load tests on single piles.
Some evidence suggests that the low-strain shear
modulus, obtained by in situ shear wave velocity
measurements, can be also successfully employed
in the prediction of the settlement.
When the safety factor is low, the consideration
of non-linearity becomes mandatory. It is to be
expected that foundations designed according to
the settlement-based approach, where piles are
essentially used as settlement reducers, will require
NL analysis.
The only case in which the observed and pre-
dicted values of the settlement completely disagree
is that reported by Koerner & Partos (1974). If
errors or misunderstandings are excluded, a possi-
ble explanation could be obtained from the occur-
rence of a deep compressible layer not revealed by
the available investigations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of undergraduate and postgraduate
students of the University of Naples shared in the
development of the computer codes and the back-
analysis of cases histories reported in the paper.
Among them R. Maiorano and G. Russo deserve a
special mention.
The work of M. Randolph, and the stimulating
discussions held with him in various places and
times, have greatly contributed to the ideas on
which this paper is based.
Average settlement: mm
Previous ELE
Value Source
4´1±10´6 Caputo (1991)
21´6±28´4 Caputo et al. (1991)
9´5 Mandolini & Viggiani (1992b)
6´9
 SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
REFERENCES
Banerjee, P. K. (1970). A contribution to the study of
axially loaded pile foundations. PhD thesis, University
of Southampton.
Banerjee, P. K. & Butter®eld, R. (1981). Boundary
element method in engineering science. McGraw-HIll.
Banerjee, P. K. & Driscoll, R. M. (1978). Program for
the analysis of pile groups of any geometry subjected
to horizontal and vertical loads and moments,
PGROUP (2.1). Department of Transport, London,
HECB=B=7.
Bilotta, E., Caputo, V. & Viggiani, C. (1991). Analysis of
soil±structure interaction for piled rafts. Proc. 10th
ECSMFE, Florence, Vol. 1, pp. 315±318.
Briaud, J. L., Tucker, L. M. & Ng, E. (1989). Axially
loaded 5 pile group and single pile in sand. Proc.
12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2, pp. 1121±1124.
Burland, J. B. & Kalra, J. C. (1986). Queen Elizabeth II
Conference Centre: geotechnical aspects. Proc. Instn.
Civ. Engrs 80, 1479±1505.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello, V. F. B. (1977).
Behaviour of foundation and structures. Proc. 9th
ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 495±546.
Butter®eld, R. & Banerjee, P. K. (1971). The problem of
pile group±pile cap interaction. GeÂotechnique 21, No.
2, 135±142.
Butter®eld, R. & Douglas, R. A. (1981). Flexibility
coef®cients for the design of piles and pile groups.
CIRIA Technical Note 108, London.
Caputo, V. (1991). Equivalent elastic analysis of settle-
ment for piled foundations. Proc. 10th ECSMFE,
Florence, Vol. 4, pp. 1346±1348.
Caputo, V. & Viggiani, C. (1984). Pile foundation
analysis: a simple approach to non linearity effects.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 18, No. 2, 32±51.
Caputo, V., Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1991).
Settlement of a piled foundation in pyroclastic soils.
Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Vol. 1, pp. 353±358.
Chin, F. K. (1970). Estimation of the ultimate load of
piles from tests not carried to failure. Proc. 2nd
SEACSE, Singapore, pp. 81±92.
Chin, F. K. (1972). The inverse slope as a prediction of
ultimate bearing capacity of piles. Proc. 3rd SEACSE,
Hong Kong, pp. 83±91.
Chow, Y. K. (1986). Analysis of vertically loaded pile
groups. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. in Geomech. 10, No.
1, 59±72.
Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1992). Analysis and design
of piled raft foundations. Research report G1062,
University of Western Australia, Perth.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G. & Tarr, K. W. (1980). Jacked
piles in London clay: interaction and group behaviour
under working conditions. GeÂotechnique 30, No. 2,
449±471.
Cooke, R. W., Bryden Smith, D. W., Gooch, M. N. &
Sillet, D. F. (1981). Some observations on the
foundation loading and settlement of a multi-storey
building on a piled raft foundation in London clay.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 107, Part I, 433±460.
Croce, A. (1948). Secondary time effect in the compres-
sion of unconsolidated sediments of volcanic origin.
Proc. 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 166±169.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. &
Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edition.
Surrey University Press.
815
Fraser, R. A. & Wardle, L. J. (1976). Numerical analysis
of rectangular rafts on layered foundations. GeÂotech-
nique 26, No. 4, 613±630.
Goossens, D. & Van Impe, W. F. (1991). Long term
settlements of a pile group foundation in sand,
overlying a clay layer. Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence,
Vol. 1, pp. 425±428.
Grif®ths, D. V., Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991).
Piled raft foundation analysis by ®nite elements. Proc.
7th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, Cairns, Vol. 2, pp. 1153±1157.
Kaino, T. & Aoki, H. (1985). Vertical load test of cast-in-
place concrete pile groups (1st report). Report of
Structural Design Of®ce of JNR, No. 84, pp. 19±23.
(In Japanese.)
Koerner, R. M. & Partos, A. (1974). Settlement of
building on pile foundation in sand. J. Soil Mech.
Fdns Div., ASCE 85, No. SM6, 1±29.
Koizumi, Y. & Ito, K. (1967). Field tests with regard to
pile driving and bearing capacity of piled foundations.
Soils Fdns 7, No. 3, 30±53.
Lambe, T. W. (1973). Prediction in soil engineering.
GeÂotechnique 23, No. 2, 149±202.
Mancuso, C. & Mandolini, A. (1993). Ulteriori indagini
sulla battitura di pali in argilla. Gruppos Nazionale
di Coordinamento per gli Studi di Ingegneria Geo-
tecnica, CNR. AttivitaÁ di Ricerca 1992=93, Roma, pp.
275±278.
Mandolini, A. (1994a). Modelling settlement behaviour
of piled foundations. Pile foundationsÐExperimental
investigations, analysis and design, pp. 361±406.
Naples: Cuen.
Mandolini, A. (1994b). Cedimenti di fondazioni su pali.
PhD thesis, University of Naples `Federico II'.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1992a) Terreni ed opere di
fondazione di un viadotto sul ®ume Garigliano.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 26, No. 2, 95±113.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1992b). Settlement pre-
diction for piled foundations from loading tests on
single pile. Proc. Wroth Mem. Symp. on Predictive
Soil Mechanics, Oxford, pp. 464±482.
Mindlin, R. D. (1936). Force at a point in the interior of
a semi-in®nite solid. Physics 7, 195±202.
Morgan, J. R. & Poulos, H. G. (1968). Stability and
settlement of deep foundations. In Soil mechanics
selected topics (ed. I. K. Lee), pp. 528±609. New
York: Elsevier.
O'Neill, M. W., Ghazzaly, O. I. & Ha, H. A. (1977).
Analysis of three dimensional pile groups with non
linear soil response and pile±soil±pile interaction.
Proc. 9th Ann. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
pp. 245±256.
Poulos, H. G. (1968). Analysis of settlement of pile
groups. GeÂotechnique 18, No. 3, 449±471.
Poulos, H. G. (1990). DEFPIGÐDeformation analysis of
pile groups, User's guide. Centre for Geotechnical
Research, University of Sydney.
Poulos, H. G. (1993). Settlement prediction for bored pile
groups. Proc. BAP II, Ghent, pp. 103±117.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation
analysis and design. New York: Wiley.
Poulos, H. G. & Hewitt, C. M. (1985). Axial interaction
between dissimilar piles in a group. School of Civil
and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney,
Research report No. R512.
816 MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
Rampello, S. (1994). Soil stiffness relevant to settlement
prediction of the piled foundations at Pietra®tta. Pile
foundationsÐExperimental investigations, analysis
and design, pp. 407±416. Naples: Cuen.
Randolph, M. F. (1987). PIGLET; a computer program for
the analysis and design of pile groups. University of
Western Australia, Perth, Report Geo 87036.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups
and piled rafts. Proc. 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, vol.
5, pp. 61±82.
Randolph, M. F. & Clancy, P. (1994). Design and
performance of a piled foundation. In ASCE Geo-
technical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical and
horizontal deformations of foundations and embank-
ments, pp. 314±324. College Station, Texas.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of
deformations of vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 104, No. GT12, 1465±1488.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1979). An analysis of
the vertical deformations of pile groups. GeÂotechnique
29, No. 4, 423±439.
Russo, G. (1994). Monitoring the behaviour of a pile
foundation. Pile foundationsÐExperimental investiga-
tions, analysis and design, pp. 435±441. Naples: Cuen.
View publication stats
Sommer, H., Tamaro, G. & De Benedittis, G. (1991).
Messe Turm: foundations for the tallest building in
Europe. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Stresa, Vol. 1, pp. 139±145.
Thorburn, S., Laird, C. & Randolph, M. F. (1983).
Storage tanks founded on soft soils reinforced with
driven piles. Proc. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Piling and Ground Treatment, Instn Civ. Engrs,
London, pp. 157±164.
Tro®menkov, J. (1977). Panel contribution, Session 2,
Behaviour of foundation and structures. Proc. 9th
ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 3, pp. 370±371.
Viggiani, C. (1989). Terreni ed opere di fondazione della
Cittadella Postale nel Centro Direzionale di Napoli.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 23, No. 3, 121±145.
Viggiani, C. & Vinale, F. (1983). Comportamento di pali
trivellati di grande diametro in terreni piroclastici.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 17, No. 2, 59±84.
Vinale, F. (1988). Caratterizzazione del sottosuolo di
un'area campione di Napoli ai ®ni di una micro-
zonazione sismica. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 22,
No. 2, 77±100.
Wood, L. A. (1978). A note on the settlement of piled
structures. Ground Engng, No. 5, 38±42.