Alexandria Engineering Journal (2015) 54, 481–495

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil

Fathi M. Abdrabbo a, Naema A. Ali b,*

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt
b
Higher Institute for Engineering & Technology, Behera, Egypt

Received 15 January 2015; revised 4 May 2015; accepted 23 May 2015

Available online 6 June 2015

KEYWORDS Abstract Piles located in consolidating soil are subjected to indirect loading resulted from the set-
Consolidating soil; tlement of adjacent soil. Both pile and soil undergo downward movements caused by the axial pile
Dragload; load and surcharge loading on surrounding area. Both dragload and downdrag imposed on the pile
Downdrag; are time dependent. The purpose of this research was to analyse and quantify the dragload and
Surcharge loaded area; down drag imposed on single pile. Effect of pile head load was considered. Shielded and unshielded
Shielded pile piles are analysed. Three dimensional nonlinear analyses using ABAQUS 6.12 have been utilised.
The research investigates the size of the surcharge loaded area, location of the pile tip and pile head
load on the dragload and down drag imposed on the pile. Based on numerical results the study
revealed that sacrificing piles, which are unloaded piles, ‘‘hang up’’ the soil between the piles in
the group and, thus, the vertical effective stress around the shielded pile is reduced. Numerical
results proved that an average value of the shear stress mobilisation factor b mobilised along
unloaded shielded central pile varies between zero at neutral plane (NP) and 0.27. The long term
dragload of the shielded floating pile is about 67% of the long term dragload of unshielded floating
single pile.
ª 2015 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction positive skin friction are related to relative displacement of the

pile and the free-field movement of the adjacent soil. Therefore
Negative skin friction (NSF) mobilised along pile shaft embed- the magnitude of shear stresses mobilised along the pile shaft is
ded in consolidating soil, has been realised since the sixties of related to relative movement between the pile and the soil, with
the 20th century, Johanness and Bjerrum [26], Fellenius and a limiting value reached where slip between pile and soil
Broms [18], Aldrich [3], Fellenius [19], Lambe et al. [31] and occurs. The development of negative skin friction along piles
Inoue et al. [24]. Poulos and Davis [45], reported that, the most is attributed to the subsidence of normally consolidated or
widely used method for estimating the downdragload on piles slightly over-consolidated clay. The occurrence of subsidence
was formulated by Terzaghi and Peck [50]. Both negative and is attributed to lowering of ground water table, placing of sur-
charge load on ground surface, remoulding of clay during pile
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 1006621095. installation, liquefaction of loose sand and self weight consol-
E-mail address: Dr_Naemaali1@yahoo.com (N.A. Ali). idating clay.
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
Poulos and Davis [45], analysed dragload mobilised along
University. end bearing piles situated in a consolidating soil. The analysis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.05.016
1110-0168 ª 2015 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
482
includes the development of downdrag with time during con-
solidation of soil and the final dragload. Elastic theory
incorporated with pile-soil slip was implemented in the
analysis. Single pile and pile groups are considered. Since then,
there have been several investigations into the behaviour of
piles subjected to negative skin friction, Lee et al. [35].
Theoretical and experimental work were carried out by
Shibata et al. [48], Kog [28], Chow et al. [10], Davisson [15],
Chow et al. [11], Acar et al. [2], Poulos [46], Fellenius [20],
Jeony et al. [25], Lee and Ng [34], Leung [37], Ng et al. [42],
Yan et al. [54] and Lam et al. [30].
Ng et al. [42] reported results of four centrifuge model tests
on piles subjected to negative skin friction (NSF) along with
numerical analyses. The location of pile tip with respect to
end-bearing stratum and the effects of shielding piles on the
behaviour of floating piles subjected to NSF were investigated.
The effects of the stiffness of bearing stratum on dragload and
downdrag of end-bearing piles were investigated by Lee and
Ng [34], and Chow et al. [10]. Several centrifuge model tests
have been carried out to investigate the response of end-
bearing and socketed piles subjected to NSF, Lee and Chen
[32], Thomas et al. [51], Lee and Chen [33], Shen et al. [47],
Leung et al. [38].
Lam et al. [29] conducted four centrifuge model tests on sin-
gle isolated pile and shielded single pile, to investigate the
behaviour of floating piles subjected to negative skin friction
and also to study the effects of axial load on the load-
transfer mechanisms along the pile. The authors carried out
also, three-dimensional numerical analysis of the centrifuge
model tests. The study revealed that installation of sacrificing
piles around single pile is an effective procedure for reducing
dragload of the central pile. Also, the dragload decreased,
while inducing axial load on the pile.
Several methods to reduce dragload and downdrag of piles
are documented in literature, [4,12,13], and Briaud et al. [7].
Some of these methods are not environmentally friendly.
Sacrificing piles were used to reduce NSF on piles, Okabe
[43], Ng et al. [41] and Ng et al. [42]. Again, Lam et al. [30]
investigated the efficiency of the shielding piles on dragload
and downdrag of shielded piles, through centrifuge model tests
and numerical analysis. Shielding was carried out by installa-
tion of sheet piles sleeves around central pile in consolidating
ground. The effect of shielding length on NSF mobilised along
central shielded pile was investigated.
The prime objectives of the work presented are to investi-
gate the effects of pile tip conditions, size of the surcharge
loaded area surrounding the pile, the rigidity of the pile bear-
ing stratum, and the imposed pile head load on the NSF mobi-
lised along single isolated pile embedded in a consolidating
clay. Shielded and unshielded central piles are considered.
2. Codes of practice
Holeyman et al. [23] quoted that the calculations of dragload,
in accordance with Belgian practice were based on method
proposed by Zeevaert [55] and detailed by De Beer [16]. The
method depends upon, the critical height hc over which the
dragload is estimated to occur, the perimeter of the pile shaft
Xs, surcharge load po, angle of shearing resistance of soil A,
and coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko. Bustamante and
Frank [9] reported that the Fasciule 62-V provisions for
F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali
calculating dragload, follow the original work of Cormbarieu
[14]. The long term dragload is taking into account the hanging
effect around the pile and the existence of a neutral point. The
well known (K tan d) method is considered in the calculations.
The value of (K tan d) depends upon the method of pile instal-
lation and type of soil. Lehane [36] reported that Irish practice
dealing with negative skin friction load calculations is based on
local shear stresses of about 0.3r0vo , where r0vo is the free-field
vertical effective stress. These provisions are based on
Tomlinso [52]. Simonsen and Athanasiu [49] reported that
Norwegian practice has not distinguished between positive
and negative skin friction calculations. NAVFAC DM 7.2
[40], recommended that the peak negative skin friction in gran-
ular soils and cohesive soils is obtained as for positive skin fric-
tion. b-method can be implemented for the calculation of peak
unit negative skin friction. The negative skin friction on pile
group does not exceed the total weight of fill and or weight
of compressible soil enclosed by the piles in the group [17].
Provisions, stated that the maximum dragload is considered
in the pile foundation design even though the use of the max-
imum possible down dragload can lead to very conservative or
even unrealistic design, particularly when the settlements of the
ground are small and or the compressible layer below pile tip is
very thick. The provisions stated also that (s–z) curves can be
implemented where, the profile of ground displacement is an
input. The characteristic value of the long-term dragload per
unit area of the pile shaft is calculated in terms of effective
stress. The code considers negative friction unfavourable
action with partial factor of safety equal to 1.0.AASHTO
Design specifications [1] set a procedure, for estimating the
dragload based on the step-by-step procedure presented by
Hannigan et al. [22]. The method is simply based on settlement
calculations of the soil layers along the length of the pile and
the settlement of the pile. It is interesting to note that the
design specification considered a relative movement of soil rel-
ative to pile equal to or greater than 10.16 mm is sufficient
enough to, fully, develop the dragload. AASHTO Design spec-
ifications distinguished between the calculations of dragload
on end bearing piles and floating piles. In the first, where the
design of the pile is structurally controlled, the strength of soil
is considered. While as in the later, service strength is consid-
ered. In both, extreme limit state is implemented.
3. Mathematical model and boundary conditions
Negative skin friction (NSF) developed along a pile, embedded
in a consolidating clay, due to settling of surrounding soil, is
reported. The settlement is due to a surcharge load surround-
ing the pile. The settlement due to self-weight of soil is not con-
sidered. Three dimensional nonlinear axis symmetric finite
element (FE) analyses using ABAQUS6.12 are used.
Modified Drucker-Prager plasticity model (2004), (2007) is
implemented to simulate the clay behaviour. The model is cap-
able of considering the effect of stress history, stress path, dila-
tancy, and the effect of the intermediate principal stress. The
piles are simulated by one dimensional elastic model.
Duplicated nodes along pile soil interface were used to form
a zero thickness interface element. Mohr–Coulomb failure cri-
terion along with friction law was adopted to describe the fric-
tional interface behaviour. The bottom sand is modelled as
elasto-plastic material, with a Young’s modules Es before
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil 483

yielding. After yielding Mohr–Coulomb criteria are considered

Table 1 Summary of material parameters (after Lam et al.
to express the stress–strain relationship of sand layer.
[30]).
Central pile surrounded by a group of eight sacrificing piles
of the same length is considered. Because of the symmetry of Properties Clay Bearing Pile
the model, only a quarter of the whole finite element mesh is sand
used. In 3D model, the vertical sides of the boundary surfaces Unit weight csat (kN/m3) 16.3 19.4 27
were not allowed to deform laterally, whereas along the bot- Poisson’s ratio of soil m0 0.35 0.30 0.35
tom boundary surface the lateral and vertical deformations Modulus of elasticity E0 (kN/m2) N/A 1.2 · 105 7 · 107
are vanished. A limiting relative shear displacement (ccrit) of M 0.98 N/A N/A
5 mm is considered adequate enough to achieve a full mobili- k 0.14 N/A N/A
k 0.012 N/A N/A
sation of shear strength along pile shaft. Once the relative
p0o (kN/m2) 64 N/A N/A
shear displacement at pile–soil interface reached ccrit the shear The initial void ratio eo 1.6 N/A N/A
stiffness at the pile–soil interface becomes zero. Interface fric- Friction angle at the critical state 25 29.7 N/A
tion angle, d, was adopted as proposed by Randolph and A0
Worth [44], Lam et al. [30]. Ground water table was kept at Angle of dilation w0 0 8.3 N/A
the top surface of clay layer. The clay layer has single drainage ko = (1  sin u0 ) 0.58 0.39 N/A
boundary, the bottom boundary. No drainage is allowed in Interface friction angle d 18 19.06 N/A
redial direction. ccrit.(in prototype scale) (mm) 5.0 5.0 N/A

4. Justification of numerical model

It is important before-hand to justify the proposed soil model.
Tests carried out in a centrifuge machine by Lam et al. [30]
were analyzed. The laboratory model dimensions of the test
are presented in Fig. 1. Lam et al. [30] carried out laboratory
tests at acceleration equivalent to 60 g. The dimensions of soil
domain were assessed and discretised into finite elements.
Table 1 presents the material parameters involved in the
numerical analysis. The dimensions of the physical model were
obtained from the dimensions of laboratory model using the
centrifuge acceleration.
In Table 1, M is the slope of the critical state line, in q0 –p0
space, k slope of normal consolidation line, k slope of swelling
line, under isotropic compression of clay, and p0o is the value of
p0 at the intersection of the yield locality with the p0 axis.
The laboratory test model, as presented in Fig. 1, consists
of central pile of 20 mm diameter, 295 mm length, installed
in 300 mm consolidating clay layer, surrounded by eight sacri-
ficing piles of diameter 10 mm distributed symmetrically
around the central pile on a circumference of a circle of
100 mm diameter. The cord spacing between sleeve piles is
2.5 times the central pile diameter. The pile tips are located
at 0.25 times the central pile diameter above sand bed. A sur-
charge load was placed on the top clay surface, which is equiv-
alent to vertical stress resulted from overlying sand layer on
top of clay surface of thickness 50 mm. Shear stresses between
top sand layer and clay layer were ignored. The initial geostatic
free field vertical stress is based on the soil unit weight inte-
grated over the soil layers depth. The coefficient of free field

Figure 1 Descritisation of soil domain.

484 F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali

lateral stress is implemented in the calculations of that stress. 140

The initial void ratio eo was kept constant throughout the case 130 4
Element 3
study. The numerical analysis started with the initial equilib- 120 Element 2
rium conditions under the effects of gravity conditions, which

Excess Pore Water Pressue, kN/m2

110 3 element 1
simulate one of the conditions in centrifuge model, the subse-
100 Lam 2013
quent numerical analysis simulate the centrifuge model when
Element 4
subjected to an acceleration of 60 g. In the later, a surcharge 90 2
load of 45 kPa was applied on the top of clay surface. 80
Fig. 2 presents numerical and experimental distribution of 70 1
long term dragload along shielded and unshielded free head 60
loaded single pile. The figure which also presents the measured
50
values by Lam et al. [30], for unshielded pile, revealed good
correlation between numerical analysis and laboratory test 40
results. This good correlation gives an evidence in the output 30
results of subsequent case study. The figure demonstrates that 20
the dragload imposed on the central pile increases with depth, 10
and attains a maximum value at a depth equivalent to 75% of
0
the pile length, then decreases as the depth increased. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Therefore, the neutral plane is located at depth about 0.75 of
\/ Time \/ Month
the pile length blow ground surface. Above the neutral plane,
dragload is mobilised, whiles, below the neutral plane, upward Figure 3a Excess pore water pressure, versus square root of tim.
friction load along pile soil interface is mobilised. At neutral
plane the relative displacement of pile-soil system is vanished,
above neutral plane the relative displacement of soil is down-
ward, while below the neutral plane the relative displacement indicates that the excess pore water pressure is decaying with
of pile is downward. Furthermore the figure demonstrates that elapsed time, and becomes of negligible value after 81 months.
the long term dragload of shielded pile is about 67% of the The decaying time of excess pore water pressure depends upon
dragload of unshielded pile. Also the location of neutral plane many factors such as, the properties of clay layer and the
is independent of whether the pile is shielded or not. length and direction of drainage path.
Fig. 3a presents the excess pore water pressures obtained Since the clay surface has only open face for water drainage
from numerical analysis along with those measured from lab- at depth 18.0 m, the distribution of excess pore water pressure
oratory test using centrifuge model conducted by Lam et al. shall be unsymmetrical about the centreline of clay layer,
[30]. Unshielded pile was used in the analysis. The variation Fig. 3b. The figure indicates that the excess pore water pressure
of excess pore water pressures versus square root of time at decreases slightly with the increase of depth below ground sur-
points 1, 2, 3 and 4, are presented. The concerned points are face up to depth 14.0 m, then decreased sharply to attain zero
located at distance 350 mm from the central pile, Fig. 1. The value at the open drainage face. The figure also, indicates that
figure indicates good correlation between calculated and mea- the excess pore-water pressure is completely dissipated after
sured excess pore water pressure. Beside that the figure 81 months. The dissipation rate of excess porewater pressure
reflects the development of negative skin friction NSF along
the pile. So the downdrag and dragload are time dependent.
Dragload kN. The attainable time of the long term dragload depends upon
the characteristics of soil, the depth of clay layer and the drai-
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
nage conditions. It is interesting to note that the developed
0.0
normalised excesses pore water pressure after 4 months from
UnShielded
placing the surcharge load attained a value of 0.75 the far field
Shieldedd pile
vertical effective stress.
4.0 Lam, 2013
Depth from Ground surface m

5. Numerical study
8.0
Numerical results are presented to quantify the effects of
shielding on the downdrag and dragload of a central pile.
Also, numerical analyses are undertaken to investigate the
12.0
effects of the size of the surcharge loaded area surrounding
the pile, pile tip location, stiffness of underlying sand layer
and pile head axial load on the negative skin friction (NSF)
16.0 imposed on single pile. To assist in the interpretation of the
computed dragload, b method, Johanness and Bjerrum [26]
and Burland [8], which is based on effective stress r0v is used
20.0 to back calculate the value of b using the output from numer-
ical analysis. The shear stress mobilised along the pile shaft can
Figure 2 Long term dragload distribution along the pile. be expressed as;
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil 485

fs ¼ bðr0o þ q0o Þ ¼ bðr0v Þ
where fs is the negative or the positive skin friction mobilised
along the pile shaft, r0o is far field vertical effective geostatic
stress and q0o is the imposed surcharge load.
6. Discussion of results
6.1. Time effect
Fig. 4 presents the distribution of long term vertical effective
stress on horizontal plane at depth 0.8 L (14.16 m) below
ground surface. The central pile is shielded with the eight sac-
rificing piles. The sacrificing piles are located at distance 2.5 D
from the central shielded pile. Due to the existence of piles in
consolidating clay, the soil mass is hanging up between the sac-
rificing piles themselves and between the sacrificing piles and
the central shielded pile and also between the sacrificing piles
and the far field soil. The hanging up shape between shielded
pile and sacrificing piles is not symmetrical due to the differ-
ence in pile diameter and also, due to the effects of the spacing
between sacrificing piles. The hanging up of soil is extending
below NP, but the relative movement between the pile and
the soil, creates positive skin friction. One can say there is pri-
mary hanging up of soil mass between central pile and sacri-
ficing piles and secondary hanging up between sacrificing
piles themselves. It is interesting to note that the effect of sac-
rificing piles on the values of effective stress is extending to a
distance equivalent to more than 15 times the sacrificing piles
diameter measured from sacrificing piles, Fig. 4. The conse-
quence of hanging up phenomenon is a reduction in effective
stress at shielded pile base, and consequently reduction in pile
ultimate base load especially, if the pile is embedded in sand
soil. Also reduction in lateral effective stress acting on pile
shaft may lead to reduction in mobilised friction stress at pile
soil interface, since the long term friction stress mobilised
Time = 4 Months
Time = 9 Months
Time = 16 Months
0.0
Time = 49 Months
-2.0 Time = 81 Months
ð1Þ along the pile shaft depends upon the effective lateral stress.
Therefore there is twofold adverse effects of the consolidating
clay layer which are imposing dragload on central and sacri-
ficing piles and reducing the positive skin friction. Fig. 5 pre-
sents the vertical effective stress adjacent central pile
compared by the far field vertical effective stress (r0v ). Due to
the existence of central pile and sacrificing piles in a consolidat-
ing clay, above NP the piles are restraining the down word
movement of soil to some extent. These restraining is associ-
ated with NSF, and the relative movements between soil and
piles are downward. The vertical effective stress adjacent to
the central pile is time dependent, since the total stress is inde-
pendent of time, and the excess pore water pressure is time
dependent. At a very small finite time after placing the sur-
charge load, the excess pore water pressure induced in the clay
layer is at the upper most maximum value, and the effective
stress along piles is at the lower most minim value, with
elapsed time, the excess porewater pressure is decaying and
the vertical effective stress along piles is growing up. Due to
hanging up phenomenon of soil, both total stress and effective
stress are not linearly proportional with depth below ground
surface. Fig. 5 may reflect the disproportionality on the distri-
bution of vertical effective stress adjacent to central pile com-
pared by fare field geostatic vertical effective stress.
Fig. 6 illustrates the distribution of horizontal effective
stress r0h acting adjacent to shielded pile. The figure also, pre-
sents the far field horizontal effective stress based on a coeffi-
cient of earth pressure at rest ko, and Rankine active earth
pressure coefficient ka. The figure indicates that the distribu-
tion of r0h adjacent shielding pile is not linear with depth and
is less than kaÆr0v and less than koÆr0v , where r0v is the far field
vertical effective stress. Fig. 7 presents the ratio of the calcu-
lated r0h /r0v developed adjacent to central pile; the ratio varies
between 0.3 and 0.4 up to the depth of neutral plane, and
increased to some values between 0.4 and 0.5 below the neutral
plan (NP).
Usually the ratio of (r0h )/(r0v ) at far field in clays, reflect the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest ko. The value of ko depends
upon the over-consolidation ratio, and the drained angle of
shearing resistance. The values of ko of cohesive soils varies
from 0.40 to 0.8, Bowles [5]. Therefore the shielding piles

1 140
-4.0

-6.0 120
2
Clay Depth m.

-8.0 100
Effective stress kPa

-10.0 80
3
-12.0
60
Centeral Pile

Sacrif Pile

-14.0 4 40
-16.0
20
Surface of Bottom
-18.0
SAND 0
-20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Distance in m.
DU / s v'
Figure 4 Distribution of long-term vertical effective stress at
Figure 3b Normlised excess pore water pressure versus depth. depth 0.8L.
486 F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali

Vertical Effective Stress kpa Effective Stress σ h' / σv'

0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0

2.0 2
Depth from Ground surface m

4.0
4

Depth from Ground surface m

6.0
6
8.0
8
10.0
10
12.0

14.0 12

16.0 14

18.0
16
20.0
18
Adjacent Shielded pile
Shielded Pile
"Geostatic vertical effective stress 20

Figure 7 Distribution of stress ratio (r0h /r0v ) adjacent to central

Figure 5 Effect of shielding on long-term vertical effective stress
pile.
imposed on central pile.

reduced the value of ko of clay soil, the reduction is pro-
nounced above NP.
The effect of time on the location of NP, the development
of dragload and settlement profile of soil adjacent to shielded
pile is obtained and presented in Fig. 8. The downdrag of pile,
and the settlement profile of soil were obtained at elapsed times
of 70, 205, 380, 586 and 2400 days which are corresponding to
degree of consolidation equal to 40%, 50%, 70%, 75%, and
90% respectively. Fig. 8 indicates that the location of neutral
plane, NP, is time dependent up to a degree of consolidation
of clay equal to 50%. For a degree of consolidation less than
50%, as the elapsed time of consolidation due to surcharge
load increases, the location of NP goes down close to the pile
Horizontal Effective Stress kpa
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 subsidence of ground surface (Sp/S) increases with the increase
2 of the degree of consolidation (U), up to (U) equal to 27%. For
Depth from Ground surface m
tip. For a degree of consolidation bigger than 50% the location
of NP is time independent. At the mean time, the dragload
increases with the increase of the elapsed time of consolidation.
Fig. 8 illustrates that the downdrag of the pile decreases
with the increase of depth, that is to say settlement of pile head
is bigger than the settlement of the pile base by elastic com-
pression which takes place in the pile due to dragload. The
downdrag of the pile and settlement of adjacent soil, both
are time dependent. The relative displacement of soil with
respect to the pile which is time dependent decreases with the
increase of depth below ground surface, contrary to the
increase of relative displacement with the increase of the
elapsed time of consolidation. As a result of that the depth
of the pile which is subjected to NSF below ground surface
increases with the increase of elapsed consolidation time.
This finding agrees qualitatively with Yan et al. [54]. Fig. 9
80 90 100 indicates that the percentage of downdrag of the pile to the

4
a degree of consolidation (U) bigger than 27% the percentage
of pile downdrag to soil subsidence (Sp/S) decreased as (U)
6
increased. The maximum value of (Sp/S) is 70% and the long
8 term value, at U = 90% is 37%. The percentage of pile down-
10 drag to the subsidence of ground surface due to consolidation
12 of clay is time dependent.
The distribution of dragload along the pile at different
14
elapsed time of consolidation are presented in Fig. 10. The fig-
16 ure indicates that eighty percent of the long term dragload
18 takes place after 586 days which is corresponding to a degree
20 of consolidation equal to 75%. The elapsed time required to
22
attain long term dragload depends upon the nature of soil pro-
Shielded without Axial Load file and the properties of clay. Close investigation of Fig. 10
Ko * Po' revealed that the magnitude of dragloads along the top portion
Ka * po' of the pile, 50% of the pile length, are not appreciably affected
by the elapsed time for time bigger than 380 days, degree of
Figure 6 Effect of shielding on horizontal effective stress. consolidation 70%. This may be attributed to that the relative
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil 487

Settlement mm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
0.0

2.0

4.0
Depth from Ground Surface m
6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Pile Settlement, 205 days Pile Settlement, 586 days

Pile Settlement, 380 days pile settlement, 70 days
Soil settlement at pile interface Soil settlement at pile interface
Soil settlement at pile interface Soil settlement at pile interface
Soil settlement at pile interface pile settlement, 2400 days

Figure 8 Downdrag of pile and settlement profile of soil at different elapsed time.

Degree of consolidation U% AASHTO Design specifications [1] specified 10.16 mm for

Pile downdrag / soil subsidence (Sp /S)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 relative displacement of soil with respect to pile to achieve full

0.0 mobilisation of NSF. The effect of elapsed time is more pro-
0.1 nounced on the maximum value of dragload in the portion
0.2 of the pile length just above NP and on the positive skin fric-
0.3
tion. The relative pile displacement, with respect to soil dis-
0.4
placement, below NP depends upon the dragload. The more
0.5
dragload the more relative pile displacement with respect to
0.6
0.7
soil below NP. Consequently the positive skin friction below
0.8 NP increases as the dragload increased, Fig. 10.
0.9
1.0 7. Effect of the size of the surcharge loaded area on the dragload

Figure 9 Ratio of downdrag of pile/soil subsidence (Sp/S) at Numerical analyses were conducted on shielded and
different degree of consolidation. unshielded piles of different lengths. Through the analyses
the effect of the size of the surcharge loaded area on the long
term dragload was considered. The thickness of clay layer Hc
displacement of soil with respect to the pile along the top por- varies as 5.1 m, 18.0 m, 36.3 m and 48.0 m, corresponding to
tion of the pile attained the limiting value corresponding to pile length of 4.8 m, 17.7 m, 36.0 m and 47.7 m respectively.
maximum NSF at relatively short time. Therefore any further The diameter of the surcharge loaded area Ds was kept con-
relative displacement shall not cause any increase in the NSF stant at 60 m. The ratio Ds/Hc varies from 11.75, 3.32, 1.65
value. Fellenius [21], reported that few millimetres of relative and 1.25. The location of NP, which are corresponding to
movement of soil with respect to pile would be enough to maximum long term dragload goes down as Ds/Hc decreases
induce a full mobilisation of the shaft shear strength and a sig- to be close to the pile tip. At ratio of Ds/Hc equal to 11.75,
nificant amount of dragload. the NP is at depth 0.65 of the pile length, while piles with
488 F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali

Ds/Hc equal to 1.25 the NP is at depth 0.78 of the pile length, Axial load kN
Figs. 11a and 11c. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Fig. 11a indicated that the shielding piles reduced the long 0
term dragload of shielded pile by a value varies between 0.65 Ds/Hc = 11.75
4
and 0.78 of the long term dragload of unshielded pile, for
8

Pile Length / Pile diameter L / D

Ds/Hc varying from 1.25 to 11.75. Fig. 11b presents variation
12 Ds/Hc = 3.32
of long term dragload per unit length of the pile (Pn/L) versus
Ds/Hc. The figure demonstrates that as the ratio of the size of 16
surcharge loaded area to the thickness of clay layer increases, 20
the long term dragload per unit length of the pile increased. In Ds/Hc = 1.65
24
the figure the pile length L is equal to (Hc – 0.3). So the figure
28
indicates that long term dragload on a pile increased as the Ds/Hc = 1.25
diameter of the surcharge loaded area surrounding the pile 32
increased. The variation of (Pn/L) versus Ds/Hc indicated a 36
refraction point at Ds/Hc which equal to 3.32. The achieved 40
result is useful for conducting laboratory tests taking into con- 44
sideration the elimination of the size effect of surcharge loaded Shielded Ds/Hc =1.65 Unshielded Ds/Hc =1.65
48 shielding Ds/Hc =1.25 unshielded Ds/Hc =1.25
area on dragload. Practically, the surcharge loaded area is of
Shielded Ds/Hc =3.32 Unshielded Ds/Hc =3.32
limited size, so the dragload imposed on shielded or unshielded
Unshield Ds/Hc =11.75 Shieled Ds/Hc =11.75
piles is function of the ratio Ds/Hc. Figs. 11b and 11c reflect
that as the pile length increases the surface area of pile sub- Figure 11a Dragload distribution along pile depth for different
jected to NSF increases, and consequently the long term dra- D/L.
gload increases. On the other hand Terzaghi’s consolidation
theory implemented in the study assumes that the superim-
posed stress at any depth below ground surface is equal to Long term Drageload kN / L
the applied surcharge load, since the surcharge loaded area is (Pn/L)
extending to infinity, which is not practically true. So one 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
anticipated that, as the pile length increases, and the surcharge 0.0
imposed on ground surface is extending undefinitely, the long
term dragload on the pile shall be increased. On the other side, 2.0
if the size of the surcharge loaded area is decreased, the influ-
ence depth of the superimposed surcharge load decreased and 4.0
consequently the dragload on pile decreased. Therefore, there
are two contradictory actions, the pile length and the size of 6.0
the surcharge loaded area. Fig. 11a presents an envelope of
Ds / Hc

maximum dragload developed on shielded and unshielded 8.0

piles. The figure indicates that as the pile length increases from
4.8 m to 17.7 m, the ratio Ds/Hc decreases from 11.75 to 3.32,
10.0
and the dragload increases from 730 kN to 1180 kN, for
12.0

Axial Load kN.

14.0
0.0 300.0 600.0 900.0 1200.0 1500.0
0.0
16.0
2.0
Unshielded pile
4.0
Depth from Ground Surface m

6.0
Figure 11b Long term dragload/pile length versus (Ds/Hc).
8.0
10.0
12.0 unshielded pile and from 500 kN to 620 kN for shielded pile.
14.0 The effect of pile length on the magnitude of dragload is more
pronounced than the effect of the size of the surcharge loaded
16.0
area. Piles of lengths 36 m and 47.7 m exhibit maximum dra-
18.0
gload which is decreases with the increase of pile length for
20.0 both shielded and unshielded piles. This means that the effect
After 205 days U=50%
22.0 After 380 days U=70% of the size of surcharge loaded area is more pronounced than
24.0 After 586 days U=75% the effect of pile length. Therefore a surcharge loaded area sur-
after 2400 Day U= 90% rounding the pile of size bigger than 3.32 times the thickness of
26.0
clay layer may be considered infinite surcharge loaded area.
Figure 10 Distribution of dragload along the pile at different It is anticipated that a ratio of Ds/Hc of 3.32 or bigger may
elapsedtime. leads approximately to the same superimposed load and initial
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil
excess porewater pressure through clay layer as infinite sur-
charge loaded area. In this case the dragload on the pile
becomes dependent on pile length and independent of the size
of surcharge loaded area and the long term effective stress at
any point within the clay layer shall be increased by the value
of the surcharge load. Ratios of Ds/Hc less than 3.32, the
superimposed load and consequently the excess porewater
pressure and the long term effective stress at any point within
the clay layer shall be dependent on the depth below clay sur-
face and be less than the surcharge load, except near ground
surface. As a result of that the displacement of soil with respect
to pile decreased as Ds/Hc decreased with a decreasing long
term dragload. Therefore, to minimise the long term dragload
on a floating pile the surcharge load area should be limited to a
minimum possible size.
8. Effects of superimposed pile load on the dragload
Ignoring the effect of pile installation on the properties of soil,
Fig. 12 presents schematic drawings showing the development
of skin friction along the pile shaft considering with soil defor-
mation. Positive skin friction along the pile shaft is mobilised,
once the pile enter to service under the action of superstructure
load. Fig. 12 presents the shear strength developed in soil and
positive skin friction acting on the pile shaft. At a certain
degree of consolidation of clay soil, the locked-in positive skin
friction along the pile shaft is vanished along with the positive
shear strength in soil. With the increase of the degree of con-
solidation, the positive skin friction and the positive shear
strength in soil are reversed and dragload on pile may be devel-
oped, and associated with hanging up of soil on the pile and on
soil at far field. The figure presents an ideal states, but the
shear strength in soil at a certain horizontal plan may be pos-
itive, zero and negative values at a certain degree of consolida-
tion, depending upon the soil deformations which are varying
horizontally and vertically in soil domain. Shielded and
Depth of NP (Ln) / Pile Length (L)
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.0
4.0
Ds / Hc
8.0
12.0
16.0
Figure 11c Depth of the neutral plane NP versus (Ds/Hc).
489
unshielded piles of length 17.8 m, where the pile tips at
0.25D above the sand, were analysed under the action of pile
head loads. Free pile head load is also considered. Pile head
loads of 650 kN and 1300 kN are implemented, Fig. 13. The
pile head load is applied concurrently with the surcharge load.
The figure indicates that sacrificing piles reduce the dragload
of free head and loaded head piles, to values between 80%
and 85% of the dragload of unshielded piles. The magnitude
of reduction is independent of the pile head load. As the pile
head load increases the location of the neutral plan moves
upward, inappreciably leaving a bigger portion of the pile
length below neutral plan with positive friction.
The figure also, demonstrated that above NP the gradient
of axial load with respect to pile depth increased as the pile
head load decreased, which means that the negative skin fric-
tion increased as the pile head load decreased. Controversly
the positive friction mobilised along the pile increased as the
pile head load increases, as the gradient of dragload depth rela-
tionship increases with the increases of pile head load. The pile
head load decreases the pile soil relative displacement as the
pile head load increased. The figure indicates that the long
term dragload deceases as the pile head load increased.
Practically the pile is subjected to load from superstructure,
so caution shall be considered during the implementation of
the achieved results of single unloaded pile in practical design.
The results reported here agree qualitatively with Leung [37]
and Yan et al. [54].
Fig. 13 which postulates the axial load distribution along
the pile shaft, indicates that, still negative skin friction is devel-
oping along the pile, even though the pile is subjected to
imposed head load, of 1300 kN. The negative skin friction is
not completely reversed due to the effect of pile head load,
as it was believed earlier, Fellenius [19] and Bozuzuk [6]. It is
believed that there is a pile head load which can vanish the
down dragload and may reverse the negative skin friction.
Leung [37] reported from centrifuge test results that the locked
in negative skin friction developed along the pile is overcome
when the pile head load becomes three times the long term dra-
gload value. Therefore the dragload acting on the pile can also,
be reduced, if the soil consolidation settlement has been
achieved before pile installation. But this is not really practical,
because installation process of the pile generates pore water
pressure in soil around the pile and the soil may settle, produc-
ing negative skin friction. Also the consolidation process of
clay before pile construction impacts a relatively large con-
struction time. From the above discussion the dragload on
the pile can be reduced by pre-consolidation of clay layer, or
by increasing the pile head load. The former method is time
consuming, and the later is critical in a way that the pile head
load must be less than the structural pile load, which is limited
by the pile material serviceability stress. So the pile head load
cannot be increased unlimitedly.
The dragload for shielded and unshielded floating piles
were drawn versus pile head load, Fig. 14. The figure postu-
lated that for shielded and unshielded piles the effect of pile
head load on dragload is linear. By extrapolating the linear
relationship in Fig. 14, the loads required to overcome the dra-
gload are 2822 kN in case of unshielded pile and 1861 kN in
case of shielded pile. The ratio between the two loads is 0.66.
It is not worthy to install eight sacrificing piles to reduce the
dragload by 34%. It seems that the sacrificing piles are uneco-
nomical design for reducing dragload. The pile head loads
490 F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali

Figure 12 Progress of NSF along loaded head pile.

Axial Load kN. Pile Head Axial Load kN

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
0 0
2
Depth from Ground Surface m

4 500
6

8 1000
Dragload kN

10
1500
12

14
2000
16

18 2500
20
P=0.0 kN P=1300 kN 3000
P= 650 kN unshielding p=0.0 Unshielded Pile
unshielding p=1300 unshielding p=650
Shielded Pile
Figure 13 Long-term dragload distribution along pile depth.
Figure 14 Long term dragload versus pile head load.

required to overcome the long term dragload are 1.4 and 1.8
times the long term dragload in case of shielded and unshielded
floating piles respectively.
9. Effect of pile tip location on the dragload
A comparative study, was carried out on a single pile. Two pile
tip conditions are considered. In the first the pile tip is at 0.25
times the central pile diameter above sand layer and in the sec-
ond the pile tip is embedded one time the central pile diameter
into sand. The depth of sacrificing piles were kept at 0.25 m
above sand. Shielded and unshielded are analyses. Different
solutions were obtained for different pile head loads in addi-
tion to the surcharge load which are concurrently applied.
Fig. 15 illustrates the results obtained from the unshielded
piles. The figure indicates that the long term dragload imposed
on end bearing pile is bigger than that imposed on floating pile.
The displacement of end bearing pile is less than the displace-
ment of floating piles, so the relative displacement of soil with
respect to pile of floating piles is less than that of end bearing
piles. As a result the dragload increases as the pile tip is
restrained against vertical movement. Fig. 15 postulated that
for end bearing piles the neutral plan is located very close to
the bottom boundary of clay layer, while in floating piles the
neutral plan is located at depth about 80% of pile length below
the top clay surface. This finding is in agreement with Ng et al.
[41] and Leung et al. [38], Ng et al. [42], and in contrary with
Lv et al. [39].
The figure shows that the long term dragload decreased as
the pile head load increased due to the decrease in relative dis-
placement between pile and soil. Also the long term dragload
increased as the stiffness of the pile soil system of the lower
portion of the pile increased, that is to say, the penetration
depth of the pile increased. The dragload was drawn versus
the superimposed pile head load, Fig. 16. The figure postulated
that the drag-load decreased linearly as the pile head load
increased. The two straight lines in Fig. 16 were extrapolated
to get the superimposed head load capable to vanished the dra-
gload. It was found that a loads 2822 kN for floating pile and a
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil 491

Axial Load kN Pile Head Axial Load kN

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
0.0 0

4.0 500
Depth from Ground surface m

1000

Drag-Load kN
8.0

1500
12.0
2000
16.0
2500

20.0
3000
End Bearing Pile Floating Pile
24.0
P=0 & Y=0.25 D P=650 kN & Y=0.25 D
P=0 & Y=-1.0 D P=650 kN & Y=-1.0 D Figure 16 Long term dragload versus pile head load.
P=1300 kN & Y=-1.00 D P=1300 kN & Y=0.25 D

Long term Drageload kN.

Figure 15 Dragload distribution along depth of unshielded pile.
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
0.0
2.0
load of 3169 kN for end bearing pile are required to overcome 4.0
the locked in down dragload. The imposed stress on pile mate-
Depth from Ground Surface m

6.0
rial are 2497 kN/m2 and 2654 kN/m2 respectively. Reinforced 8.0
concrete piles can sustain these stresses. So it is advisable to 10.0
design the pile taking into consideration the superimposed 12.0
14.0
load which can overcome the dragload, at the mean time, to
16.0
ensure the pile structural load. Keeping in mind the pile head 18.0
load, just immediately after construction, is resisted by positive 20.0
skin friction along the pile shaft and bearing stress at the pile 22.0
base. Once the clay start consolidating the positive friction 24.0
along the pile shaft within the clay layer is reversed to attain 26.0 Y=-2D,Bearing Modulus E=2.4*10 5 kN/m2
a value of zero, and negative skin friction starts to develop 28.0 Y=-4D,Bearing Modulus E=2.4*10 5 kN/m2
30.0 Y=-4D,Bearing Modulus E=2.4*10 7 kN/m2
reaching long term value. In fact this point needs more
32.0 Y=-4D,Bearing Modulus E=2.4*10 6 kN/m2
research work. The pile head loads required to overcome the
long term dragloads are 1.65 and 1.75 times the dragloads in
Figure 17 Dragload distribution along pile depth at different
case of end bearing and floating piles, respectively.
bearing layer stiffnesses.

10. Effects of bearing stratum stiffness on the dragload of the
pile
Numerical analyses of free head loaded unshielded pile were
conducted, while the embedment depth in the bearing stratum
is four times the pile diameter. The analysis of the pile with
penetration depth of two times the pile diameter was also con-
ducted for the sake of comparison. Fig. 17 presents the
achieved results. The figure revealed that the location of neu-
tral plane is inappreciably affected by the penetration depth
of the pile into sand, even though the neutral plane moves
slightly downwards as the penetration depth of the pile into
bearing stratum increased from two times the pile diameter
to four times the pile diameter. The figure also, revealed that
the long term dragload increased as the penetration depth into
sand layer increased and as the stiffness of the bearing stratum
increased. The bearing stress underneath the pile base and the
positive friction stress along the embedded part of the pile into
sand increased as the stiffness of the bearing stratum increased.
As a consequence, the long term dragload increased. It is
interesting to note that the effects of the penetration depth
of the pile into bearing stratum, and the stiffness of the bearing
stratum on dragload are vanished along the top portion of the
pile, which is about one third of the pile length. This may be
attributed to that the limiting values of NSF which is corre-
sponding to limiting relative displacement of soil with respect
to the pile equal to 5.0 mm, is achieved irrespective of the mag-
nitude of the bearing stiffness or embedded depth of the pile
into sand. The dominated relative displacement along this por-
tion of the pile is due to the consolidation of the clay layer.
Fig. 18 indicates that the vertical displacement of the pile
and the soil are inappreciably affected by the stiffness of the
bearing stratum, ever though the displacement of the soil
decreases, slightly, as the stiffness of the bearing stratum
increased.
11. Mobilised shear strength along the pile
Practically, there are three methods for calculating friction
stress along single isolated pile. These methods are b-method
492 F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali

Settlement mm Skin friction τ kN/m2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
0.0
0
Depth from Ground surface m

4.0 2

Depth from Ground surface m

8.0 4

6
12.0
8
16.0
10
20.0
12
24.0 14
Pile Settlement
Pile Settlement 16
6
Soil settlement at pile interfaceE=2.4*10 kN/m2 18
7
Soil settlement at pile interface E=2.4*10 kN/m2
20
Figure 18 Dragload distribution along pile depth and settlement p= 0.0 kN p=1300 kN
of soil and pile.
Figure 19a Mobilised negative skin friction s versus depth.

Burland [8], k-method Vijayvergiya and Focht [53] and a- β value

method Tomlinso [52]. The first two methods depend upon -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
the vertical geostatic effective stress, soil friction angle, over- 0
consolidation ratio and other parameters. while a-method
2
depends upon the undrained shear strength Su of soil. The dra-

Depth from Ground surface m

gload is time dependent and depends upon the rate of porewa- 4
ter dissipation. Therefore drained soil parameters may be 6
0.90Ln
implemented in the calculation of the mobilised negative shear 0.84Ln
8
stress developed along the pile due to consolidation of clay
soil. These methods have been reviewed and discussed by 10
Karlsrud [27]. 12
The long term dragloads corresponding to 90% degree of 0.10Ln
consolidation were used to back calculate, b values. The 14

achieved results postulated that b values are not dependent 16 0.16Ln

upon soil parameters only but also, dependent upon the pile
18
end restraining condition, the applied pile head load and
restraining of clay layer against vertical settlement. 20
The mobilised NSF and PSF along shielded floating piles, P= 0.00 kN P= 1300 kN
where pile tips are 0.25D above sand, were derived from axial
load distribution along the pile depth at different pile head Figure 19b Mobilised b values versus depth for shielded floating
loads. Fig. 19a presents the achieved results of skin friction s pile.
along pile depth. The figure reflects the effects of pile head load
on mobilised skin friction. The value of NSF for free pile head
load varies along the pile depth from an average value of the applied load at pile head. The nondimensional parameter
20 kPa at ground surface to 40 kPa just above NP, while pos- bp corresponding to pile head load may be expressed as;
itive skin friction of almost of constant value equals to 39 kPa. bp ¼ b0  a  P ð2Þ
As the pile head load increases, the magnitude of NSF
decreased, and the PSF increased. The mobilised friction along Where,
the pile shaft was implemented in Eq. (1) to calculate values of bp value of b corresponding to pile head load P,
b. Fig. 19b postulated that, in case of free pile head load, the b0 value of b corresponding to free pile head load,
depth Ln of NP from pile head is 0.84 the pile length. When a constant equal to 1.0 · 104,
the pile is loaded by 1300 kN at pile head, the depth Ln of P pile head load (kN).
NP becomes 0.76 the pile length. The figure also, indicates that
b-values along a depth equals to 0.84 Ln, in case of free pile The a value was obtained based on that the negative skin
head load, have a constant value of 0.27. This value decreased friction along pile shaft vanish at a load 1861 kN, and the rela-
to 0.12 in case of a floating pile, loaded by 1300 kN, and mobi- tionship between b and P is linear.
lised along 0.90 Ln. The above b-values decreased to zero value The same calculations, as above, were carried out for
at NP along a depth 0.16 Ln in case of free pile head load, and shielded end bearing pile with penetration depth into sand
0.10 Ln in case of pile loaded by 1300 kN at pile head. equal to the pile diameter, Figs. 20a and 20b. The sacrificing
Therefore, the b-parameter depends upon the magnitude of piles are extending to 0.25 m above sand. The figure reflects
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil 493

the effect of pile base stiffness on the skin friction developed
along the pile shaft. Fig. 20a, which represent variation of skin
friction along the pile shaft, indicates that for free head loaded
shielded pile, NSF varies from 25 kN at ground surface to a
maximum value of 50 kPa, while the maximum value of PSF
is also, 50 kPa. Comparison of Figs. 19 and 20 revealed that
the maximum value of skin friction along end bearing pile is
about 1.25 times the values mobilised along floating piles.
The figure also revealed that the affect of pile head load up
to 1300 kN on the mobilised skin fiction is inappreciable.
Fig. 20b presents the variation of b values along the pile
shaft in case of shielded end bearing piles. Two cases were con-
sidered, pile with free pile head load and pile loaded with
1300 kN on the pile head. Free pile head load exhibits values
of b increasing with depth from 0.2 at pile head to a maximum
value of 0.46 at depth 0.54 Ln, then decreased to be of zero
value at NP. The PSF increased from zero value to 0.2 at pile
base. Pile loaded with 1300 kN, at pile head, exhibits less
increased from zero value at pile head to a maximum value
of 0.4 at depth 0.54 Ln from pile head, then decreased to zero
value at NP. The PSF increased from zero at NP to 0.2 at pile
base. The b value is equal to zero at pile head in case of pile
loaded by 1300 kN. This may be resulted from the elastic
deformation of pile at pile head, which balance the soil defor-
mation at that depth.
Fig. 21a reflects the effect of pile base stiffness on the skin
friction developed along the unshielded end bearing pile.
Fig. 21a, which represents variation of skin friction along
unshielded pile shaft, indicates that for free pile head load,
NSF varies from 25 kPa at pile head to 70 kPa, while the max-
imum value of PSF is also, 70 kPa.
Skin friction τ kN/m2
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
0.0

mobilised NSF compared by free pile head load. b values 2.0

4.0

Depth from Ground surface m

Skin friction τ kN/m2
6.0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
0 8.0
2 10.0
Depth from Ground surface m

4
12.0
6
14.0
8
10 16.0
12 18.0
14
20.0
16
22.0
18
P=0 & Y=-1.00 D
20
P= 130 kN & Y=-1.00 D
22
P=0.0 kN & Y=-1.00 D
Figure 21a Mobilised negative skin Friction s versus depth.
P= 1300 kN & Y=-1.00 D

Figure 20a Mobilised negative skin friction s versus depth.

β value
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
0.0
β value
2.0
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.70Ln
0.0 4.0
Depth from Ground surface m

2.0 6.0
Depth from Ground surface m

4.0
0.54Ln 8.0
6.0
10.0
8.0
10.0 12.0

12.0
0.46Ln 14.0
0.30Ln
14.0 16.0
16.0 18.0
18.0
20.0
20.0
22.0
22.0 P=0 & Y=-1.00 D
P=0 Unloaded & Y=-1.00 D
P=1300 kN & Y=-1.00 D P=1300 kN & Y=-1.00 D
Standurdize distribution Standardized distribution

Figure 20b Mobilised b values versus depth for shielded end Figure 21b Mobilised b values versus depth for unshielded end
bearing pile. bearing pile.
494
Comparison of Figs. 20 and 21 revealed that the maximum
value of skin friction along end bearing unshielded pile is
about 1.4 times the values mobilised along shielded piles.
Fig. 21b presents the distribution of b values along the pile
shaft, in case of end bearing unshielded pile. The figure
revealed that b values increases with depth from zero in case
of pile loaded with 1300 kN at pile head to a maximum value
of 0.55 at depth 0.70 Ln, then decreased to zero value at NP. In
case of free pile head load, the b values increased from 0.20 at
pile head to 0.58 at depth 0.70 Ln, then decreased to zero at
NP. The depth of NP Ln is at 0.90 the depth of consolidating
clay. The positive b values in two cases increased from zero at
NP to 0.30 at pile base.
12. Conclusions
The dimensionless parameter b for calculating the negative
skin friction mobilised along single pile is not a soil parameter
only, but the values of b depend upon the applied pile head
load, restraining conditions of pile tip vertical movement, stiff-
ness of the bearing stratum in which the pile tip is embedded,
and restraining conditions of the consolidation settlement of
the clay layer.
The drag-load imposed on single pile embedded in clay
layer decreased as the magnitude of the applied pile head load
increased. It is cost effective to assess a pile head load which
can overcome the dragload ensuring structural and geotechni-
cal safety of the pile.
The location of neutral plane NP, at which the relative
movement of pile with respect to soil is vanished, depends
upon the size of the surcharge loaded area on top of clay layer,
and pile tip restraining condition against vertical movement,
time lag of consolidation, and pile head load. The location
of neutral plane is independent of whether the pile is shielded
or not. As the consolidation of clay is progressing, the location
of NP moves down close to the pile tip up to a degree of con-
solidation of 50%. For a degree of consolidation of clay bigger
than 50%, the location of NP becomes independent of the con-
solidation time.
The effects of shielding a central pile are; reduction of dra-
gload, reduction of the values of the lateral effective stress,
reduction of the positive friction stress below neutral plane
NP, reduction of vertical effective stress, and reduction of hor-
izontal effective stress to vertical effective stress ratio. Even
though sacrificing piles for reducing dragload on single piles
are not cost effective.
The percentage of downdrag of shielded pile surrounded by
eight sacrificing piles, to the subsidence of ground surface is
time dependent. A value of 0.66 occurs at a degree of consol-
idation 40%, while the long term ratio is 37%. Eighty percent
of down dragload acting on shielded pile surrounded by eight
sacrificing piles takes place at a time corresponding to a degree
of consolidation 75%. In practice, the size of the loaded sur-
charge area should be considered in the calculations of dra-
gload on the pile.
References
[1] AASHTO Design specifications, American Association of State
highway and Transportation Official, Washington D.C., 2012.
F.M. Abdrabbo, N.A. Ali
[2] Y.B. Acar, R. Avent, M.R. Taha, Downdrag on friction piles, a
case history. Proc. settlement (1994) vertical and horizontal
deformation of foundation and embankment, ASCE Gsp 40
(1994) 986–999.
[3] H.P. Aldrich, Back Bay Boston-Part 1, JL. Of Boston Society of
Civil Engineers 57 (1) (1970) 1–33.
[4] L. Bjerrum, I.J. Johannesson, O. Eide, Reduction of skin
friction on steel piles to rock, in: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. S.M. &
F.E., 1969, vol. 2, pp. 27–34.
[5] J.E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, fifth ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
[6] M. Bozuzuk, Bearing capacity of pile preloading by down-drag,
in: Proc. 10th Conf., Soil Mech. & Found. Engng. Stockholm,
Sweden, 1981, pp. 631–636.
[7] J. Briaud, S. Jeong, R. Bush, Group effect in the case of down-
drag. Int. Geotech. Engng Congress: Geotechnical Special
Publication, New York, ASCE, 1991, vol. 27, pp. 505–518.
[8] J.B. Burland, Shaft friction of piles in clay, Ground Eng. 6 (3)
(1973) 30–42.
[9] M. Bustamante, R. Frank, Design of axially loaded piles-French
practice, in: Proceeding of ERTC3 Seminar, Brussel, Belgium,
Cock, F.DE. Legrand C. Balkema, 1997.
[10] Y.K. Chow, J.T. Chin, S.L. Lee, Negative skin friction on pile
groups, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Method, Geomech. 14 (1990) 75–
91.
[11] Y.K. Chow, C.H. Lim, G.P. Karuaratne, Numerical modeling
of negative skin friction on pile groups, Comput. Geotech. 18 (3)
(1996) 201–224.
[12] F.M. Clemente, Downdrag – a comparison study of bitumen
coated and uncoated prestressed piles, in: Proc., Associated Pile
and Fittings, 7th, pile talk seminar, pp. 49–71.
[13] F.M. Clemente, Downdrag – a comparison study of bitumen
coated piles in a warm climate. in: Proc., 10th ICSMFE, 1981,
vol. 2, pp. 673–676.
[14] O. Cormbarieu, Effect d’accrochage et me’thod d’e’valuation du
Frottement ne’galit (Hanging effect and prediction method of
negative friction). Bull Liaison Labo. P. et ch 71, pp. 93–107 (in
French).
[15] M.T. Davisson, Ne. Negative skin friction in piles and design
decisions, in: Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. Case Histories, Geotechnical
Engineering, 1993, pp. 1793–1801.
[16] E. De Beer, Quelques problemes concerrnant les fondations sur
pieux dans des zones portuaires. in: Proceedings of the 5th
International Harbour Congres, Antwerp, 1968.
[17] Eurocode 7, Geotechnical design, general rules, in: R. Frank, C.
Buduin, R. Driscoll, M. Kavvadas, N. Krebs Ovesen, T. Crr, B.
Schuppener, Series editor H. Gulvanessian, 1997.
[18] B.H. Fellenius, B.B. Broms, Negative skin friction for long piles
driven in clay, in: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. SM. & F.E., 1969, vol. 2,
pp. 93–98.
[19] B.H. Fellenius, Down-drag on piles in clay due to negative skin
friction, CGJ 9 (4) (1972) 323–337.
[20] B.H. Fellenius, Pile Terminology, 1999 <http://
www.geoforum.com/info/pile info/terminology>.
[21] B.H. Fellenius, Results from long-term measurement in piles of
dragload and downdrag, Can. Geotech. J. 43 (4) (2006) 409–430.
[22] P.J. Hannigan, G.G. Goble, G. Thendean, G.E. Likins, F.
Rausche, Design and construction of driven pile foundation,
federal highway Administration report No FHWA – HT-05
Federal highway Administrations, Washington, D.C., 2005,
vols. I and II.
[23] A. Holeyman, C. Bauduim, M. Bottiau, P. Debacker, F. De
cock, E. Dupont, J.L. Hild, C. Legrand, N. Huybrechts, P.
Menge’, D.P. Miller, G. Simon, Design of axially loaded piles-
Belgian practice, in: Proceeding of ERTC3 Seminar, Brussel,
Belgium, F.DE. Cock, C.L.A.a Legrand, Balkema, 1997.
Behaviour of single pile in consolidating soil
[24] Y. Inoue, K. Tamoaki, T. Ogai, Settlement of building due to
pile downdrag, in: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. SM. & F.E., Tokyo,
Japan, 1977, vol. 1, pp. 561–564.
[25] S. Jeony, J. Lee, C.J. Lee, Slip effect at the pile-soil interface on
dragload, Comput. Geotechnics 31 (2) (2004) 115–126.
[26] I.J. Johannessen, L. Bjerrum, Measurement of the compression
of steel pile to rock due to settlement of the surrounding clay, in:
Proc. 6th Int. Conf. SM. & F.E. 1965, vol. 2, pp. 261–264.
[27] K. Karlsrud, Ultimate shaft friction and load displacement
response of axially loaded piles in clay based on instruments pile
tests, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (12) (2014) 04014074-1–
04014074-16.
[28] Y.C. Kog, Downdrag and axial load on pile, Ground Eng.
(1990) 24–30.
[29] S.Y. Lam, C.W.W. Ng, C.F. Leug, S.H. Chan, Centrifuge and
numerical modeling of axial load effect on piles in consolidating
ground, Can. Geotech. J. 46 (1) (2009) 10–24.
[30] S.Y. Lam, C.W.W. Ng, H.G. Poulos, Shielding piles from
downdrag in consolidating ground, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 139 (2013) 956–968.
[31] T.W. Lambe, J.E. Garlarger, S.A. Leifer, Prediction and field
evaluation of downdrag forces on a syngineering, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass, 1974.
[32] C.J. Lee, H.T. Chen, W.H. Wang, Negative skin friction on a
pile due to excessive ground water withdrawal, in: Proc., Int.
Conf. Centrifuge, 1998, vol. 98, pp. 513–518.
[33] C.J. Lee, C.Z. Chen, Negative skin friction on grouped piles, in:
Proc., Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2002,
pp. 679–684.
[34] C.J. Lee, C.W.W. Ng, Development of downdrag on piles and
pile groups in consolidating soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
130 (9) (2004) 905–914.
[35] C.J. Lee, C.W.W. Ng, S.S. Jeong, The effect of negative skin
friction on piles and groups. Linear and nonlinear numerical
analysis of foundation, John W. Bull, Taylor and Francis – e-
library, 2009.
[36] B.M. Lehane, Design of axially loaded piles-Irish practice, in:
F.DE. Cock, C.L.A.a. Legrand (Eds.), Proceeding of ERTC3
Seminar, Brussel, Belgium, Balkema.
[37] C.F. Leung, Negative skin friction on piles, IGC, Guntur.
INDIA Geotechnical Society (2009) 827–836.
[38] C.F. Leung, B.K. Liao, Y.K. Chow, R.F. Shen, Y.C. Kog,
Behavior of pile subject to negative skin friction and axial load,
Soil and Foundation 44 (6) (2004) 17–26.
[39] Y. Lv, X. Ding, D. Wang, Effects of the tip location on single
piles subjected to surcharge and axial loads, Sci. World J. (2013),
<http://dx.dot.org/10.1155/2013/149706>.
[40] NAVFAC DM (7–2), Foundations and earth structures, Design
manual 7.2, Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
engineering command, 200 Stovall street, Alexandria, 1982.
495
[41] C.W.W. Ng, S.H. Chan, S.Y. Lam, 2005. Centrifuge and
numerical modeling of shielding effects on piles in
consolidating soil. Recent developments of geotechnical
engineering in soft ground, in: Proceedings of the 2nd China–
Japan Geotechnical Symposium, Shanghai, China, 15–16
October 2005. Tongji University Press, Shanghai, China, pp.
7–19.
[42] C.W.W. Ng, H.G. Poulos, V.S.H. Chan, S.S.Y. Lam, G.C.Y.
Chanm, Effects of tip location and shielding on piles in
consolidating ground, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (9)
(2008) 1245–1260.
[43] T. Okabe, Large negative friction and friction-free pile methods.
in: Int. Proc. of the 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, Japan, 1977, pp. 679–
682.
[44] M.F. Randolph, C.P. Worth, Application of the failure state in
undrained simple shear to the shaft capacity of driven piles,
Geotechnique 31 (1) (1981) 143–157.
[45] H.G. Poulos, E.H. Davis, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design,
John Wiley, New York, 1980, p. 271.
[46] H.G. Poulos, Piles subjected to negative friction: a procedure for
design, Geotech. Eng., J. Southeast Asian Geotech. Soc. 28 (1)
(1997) 23–44.
[47] R.F. Shen, C.F. Leung, Y.K. Chow, Y.C. Kog, B.K. Liao,
Negative skin friction on piles, in: Proc. Conf. Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics, 2002, pp. 673–678.
[48] T. Shibata, H. Sekiguchi, H. Yukitomo, Model test and analysis
of negative friction acting on piles, Soil Found. 22 (2) (1982) 29–
39.
[49] A.S. Simonsen, C. Athanasiu, Design of axially loaded piles
Norwegain practice, in: Proceeding of the ERTC3 Seminar,
Brussels. Belgium, F. DE Cock, C. Legrand, Balkenna, 1997.
[50] K. Terzaghi, R.B. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Wiley, New York, 1967.
[51] J. Thomas, M. Fahey, R.J. Jewell, Pile down-drag due to surface
loading, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Centrifuge, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 9,
pp. 507–513.
[52] M.J. Tomlinso, Pile Design and Construction, fourth ed.,
Viewpoint Publication, 1994.
[53] V.N. Vijayvergiya, J.A. Focht, A new way to predict capacity of
piles in clay, OTC Paper 1718, 4th Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, 1972.
[54] W.M. Yan, T.K. Sun, L.G. Tham, Coupled-consolidating
modeling of a pile in consolidating ground, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE-789-798 (2012).
[55] L. Zeevaert, Reduction of point capacity of piles because of
negative friction, in: Proceedings of the first Panamerican
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico, 1969, vol. III.