Qd LOAD (kN) SETTLEMENT (mm)

≈RULT Pile Cap Settlement

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 0 50 100 150 200

0 0

Silt
5 Sand 5

DEPTH (m)
10 10
DEPTH (m)

Soil Settlement

15 Clay 15
Qn

20 20

25 25
Till

30 30

0 0
LOAD (kN)

1,000 1,000 q-z relation

LOAD (kN)

2,000 2,000
3,000 3,000
4,000 4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 0 50 100
LOAD (kN) PILE TOE PENETRATION (mm)

341. Fellenius, B.H., 2014. Piled foundation design as

reflected in codes and standards. Proceedings of the
DFI-EFFC International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Stockholm, May 21-23, pp. 1013-1030.
 PILED FOUNDATION DESIGN AS REFLECTED IN CODES AND STANDARDS

Bengt H. Fellenius, Dr.Tech., P.Eng.

Consulting Engineer, 2475 Rothesay Ave., Sidney, BC, Canada, V8L 2B9. <[email protected]>

ABSTRACT

An example from a guidelines document for the Eurocode is discussed that addresses design for
geotechnical strength of piled foundations in settling soil, generating drag force and downdrag. A
modified example of geotechnical response is then analyzed in a failure mode, Ultimate Limit States
(ULS), and stationary long-term state, Serviceable Limit States (SLS). It is shown that the Eurocode
principles, when applied to correctly determined forces, results in an irrational and costly design. The
results of the analysis of the modified example are applied to eight different codes pertaining to piled
foundations from USA, Canada, Europe, and other countries. Several of the codes require that the
drag force be included as a load in a ULS design, which an absurd and costly requirement, in some
codes, in one case made even worse by combining drag force with live load. A major weakness of
almost all codes is their minimal treatment and sometimes total absence of aspects of settlement of
piled foundation. In contrast, my main argument is that design for capacity, whether in working stress
approach, or by LFRD or ULS approaches, is not always safe unless a thorough settlement analysis
shows that the design also meets the requirements of the SLS.

1. INTRODUCTION

First, there were analysis, design, and construction establishing a State-of-Practice, SOP. Then, came
codes and specifications summarizing the SOP, as interpreted by a committee. When the state-of-art,
SOA, was not understood by that SOP-interpreting committee, the codes and specifications are
uneconomical and, sometimes, also unsafe.

The paper first presents an example quoted from two commentaries on the Eurocode 7 on design for
geotechnical strength by the Eurocode (1997). The example is then modified to a more realistic case
and analyzed in failure mode (ultimate limit states, ULS) and in the context of settlement
(serviceability limit states, SLS). The analysis results are then applied to eight codes addressing piled
foundation design and changes necessary for the referenced codes and specifications to be closer to
the SOA are identified.

The referenced codes employ different terms. In the interest of uniformity, I have applied the term
"load" to denote what some codes call "action", "design action effect", or demand". Similarly, I use
the term "dead load" to denote "permanent", "sustained", or "long-term" loads. I use "live load" to
denote "transient", "temporary", "persistent", or "short-term" loads. I use the term "drag force" to
denote the accumulated negative skin friction along a pile having its maximum value at the neutral
plane (below which depth, the total axial force in the pile reduces due to positive shaft resistance
acting along the pile). Some codes here use terms such as "drag load", "dragdown force", "N.S.F.",
"negative friction", or even "downdrag". "Downdrag" is not a synonym to drag force, however, but
the term for the settlement of a pile when dragged down by the soil settlement.

Conventional working stress design (WSD) applies a global factor of safety (Fs) defined as a ratio
between the sum of the resistances and the sum of the loads. ULS design (also called Strength Limit
State in the Load and Resistance Factor Design, LRFD) applies factors to each component or sum of
similar components. These factors are called "load factors" when applied to load, and "resistance
factors" when applied to resistances. Obvious terms, it would seem. However, a few codes, e.g., the
Eurocode, use the term "partial factor of safety" to apply to either a strength parameter or load
component. To denote "resistance factor", the Australian code uses the term "strength factor" and the
Canadian code uses the term "performance factor". I will use the US and Canadian term "load factor"
for loads and forces, which factors are equal to or larger than unity and US term "resistance factor" for
resistances, which factors are equal to or smaller than unity.

1013
2. EUROCODE 7, EXAMPLE 7.4

Two commentaries (guidelines) on the Eurocode 7 (Simpson and Driscoll 1998, Frank et al. 2004)
present a design example comprised of a 300-mm diameter bored (circular) pile installed to 16.5 m
depth through 5 m of soft clay above a thick layer of stiff clay (the two documents use the same
example). The unfactored dead load assigned to the pile is 300 kN. Live load is not included.

The example information is summarized in Figure 1. The guidelines state that the pile shaft
resistances are determined in an effective stress analysis that results in an average unit shaft resistance
in the "soft clay" of 20 kPa and in the "stiff clay" of 50 kPa (50 kPa is right at the borderline between
firm and stiff consistency). The toe resistance is assumed to be zero. The shaft resistances in the two
layers are 94 kN and 543 kN, respectively, combining to a total capacity of 637 kN. A surcharge will
be placed over the site, generating consolidation settlement. The specific surcharge stress is not
mentioned. Nor is the location of the groundwater table indicated.

A back calculation for the condition of the guidelines example (long-term; full consolidation has
developed from the surcharge placed on the ground surface), applying the stated unit shaft resistance
values, shows that the surcharge stress is 30 kPa, the groundwater table lies at the ground surface and
the pore pressure is hydrostatically distributed with depth, the total density of the soft clay layer is
1,800 kg/m3 (wn = 40 %; e0 = 1.09) and 1,960 kg/m3 (wn = 28 %; e0 = 0.74) in the stiff clay layer, and
the effective stress proportionality coefficient, ß, is 0.40 in both clay layers. A beta-coefficient
of 0.40 is very large for a soft clay and large for a stiff clay unless it would be a clay till or similar.
However, as the stated purpose of the example is to demonstrate the Eurocode handling of negative
skin friction, selecting realistic coefficients is not essential to the example.

It is likely that the piles are constructed before the surcharge is placed or before any appreciable
consolidation from the surcharge has developed, which represents a short-term condition. Applying
the same beta-coefficients, the effective stress calculation show the shaft resistance along the full
length of the pile to be 450 kN for the short-term condition.

Eurocode Guide , Example 7.4 (Bored 0.3 m diameter pile)

Q (unfactored) = 300 kN

FILL

SOFT CLAY
Average unit shaft resistance, rs = qn = 20 kPa
5.0 m
Rs = 94.2 kN; R s = Qn

SILTY CLAY
Average rs = 50 kPa
11.5 m Rs = 543 kN

"The settlement due to the fill is sufficient

to develop maximum negative skin friction
in the soft clay"
Rt = 0 kN ?!

Fig. 1 Example 7.4 according to Simpson and Driscoll (1998) and Frank et al. (2004)
Rs = Accumulated unit shaft resistance, rs Qn = Accumulated negative skin friction, qn

1014
Checking the conditions for a conventional global factor of safety design, the factor of safety on the
long-term capacity shows to be 2.1. Conventionally, a factor of safety of 3.0 applies to the design
calculations based on theoretical static analysis. Thus, the "design" appears to be short on capacity.
Had the 637-kN capacity been determined in a static loading test, the 2.1-factor of safety would have
been acceptable in a conventional global factor of safety design. The factor of safety for the short-
term condition shows to be 1.5, which by the conventional approach would be inadequate even if the
capacity would have been determined in a static loading test.

According to Frank et al. (2004), the Eurocode considers the drag force to be a permanent load acting
on the pile much the same way as the load applied to the pile head. Moreover, the assumption is
made that the settlement due to the surcharge only causes negative skin friction in the soft clay (94 kN
drag force) and no negative skin friction and no settlement develops in the lower layer, the stiff clay—
but full positive shaft resistance does develop in that layer. The Eurocode disregards the contribution
from the shaft resistance in the soft clay layer allowing support only from the 543-kN shaft resistance
in the stiff clay layer (as mentioned, the toe resistance is assumed to be zero).

The Eurocode applies the principles of ultimate limit states, ULS, for analysis of capacity
(geotechnical strength), that is, factoring resistances and loads separately, requiring the sum of the
factored resistances to be equal to or larger than the sum of the factored loads.

The guidelines apply two approaches to the design of the example pile. According to the Eurocode
DA-1, Combination 2, ("normally considered first"), the load and resistance factors applicable to the
design calculations for the dead load applied to the pile is 1.00 and the load factor for the drag force
is 1.25. The resistance factor on the shaft resistance ("design resistance") is 0.77 (actually, this is the
inverse of the partial factor safety, 1.30, that the Eurocode applies to shaft resistance). For the long-
term condition, the sum of the factored loads is 1x300 +1.25x94 = 417 kN and the factored resistance
is 0.77x543 = 418 kN. According to the Eurocode, therefore, the long-term condition is acceptable.

In the alternative approach, the Eurocode DA-1, Combination 1, the load factor for the dead load
applied to the pile is 1.35 and the same load factor is applied to the drag force. The resistance factor
on the shaft resistance is 1.00. Per the guidelines, the factored load is 1.35x(300 + 94) = 532 kN, and
the factored resistance is 1.00x543 = 543 kN. Thus, also for this approach, according to the
guidelines, the long-term condition is acceptable.

For the short-term condition, it can be assumed that no drag force would have developed and,
therefore, the guidelines would employ shaft resistance acting along the full length of the pile. With
no surcharge effect on the effective stress distribution, short-term pile capacity is 450 kN and the
short-term factor of safety is only 1.5. According to Eurocode DA-1, Combination 2, the factored
load and the factored resistance are 1.00x300 = 300 kN and 0.77x450 = 347 kN, respectively. Thus,
the Eurocode would find the pile design results acceptable also for the short-term condition.
According to Combination 1, the factored load and the factored resistance are 1.35x300 = 405 kN and
1.00x450 = 450 kN, respectively, again showing the short-term condition to be acceptable.

The foregoing is how the design approach is presented in the commentaries (I have added the aspects
of the short-term condition). In my opinion, the Eurocode approach, as presented in the
commentaires, is quite wrong—on the dangerous side. As mentioned, the guidelines state that
negative skin friction only develops in the soft clay and imply that no settlement will develop in the
stiff clay. This is hardly realistic. Why would negative skin friction not develop in the stiff clay?
Numerous full-scale tests in different soils have shown that fully mobilized shaft shear—in the
negative as well as in the positive direction—requires only a very small movement between the pile
shaft and the soil. Possibly, the authors of the example had in mind that the settlement in the stiff clay
is much smaller than in the soft clay and such small settlement might be of negligible concern for the
structure supported on the pile(s), but that is an issue for the settlement of the foundation supported on
the pile(s) and not for the development of negative skin friction and drag force. If positive direction
shaft shear along the pile can be relied on during the development toward the long-term (ongoing

1015
consolidation), then, surely, the same "ability" must be assumed to be available also for the negative
direction shaft shear.

In my opinion, typical and reasonable compressibility parameters for the two clay layers would be
Janbu virgin modulus numbers, m, of 15 (optimistically) and 40, and re-loading modulus numbers, mr,
of 150 and 400, respectively. The virgin modulus numbers correlate to virgin compression indices,
Cc, of 0.32 and 0.10, respectively (the corresponding void ratios are mentioned above). Moreover, it
would be reasonable to assume that both layers are somewhat overconsolidated, and I have assumed
preconsolidation margins of 5 kPa and 20 kPa, respectively. These values characterize the soft clay as
compressible and the stiff clay as a soil of low compressibility. I also assume that the stiff clay layer
is 15 m thick and deposited on a firm layer of minimal compressibility, e.g., a very dense glacial till.

Figure 2A shows the condition for the more realistic load distribution for the long-term condition
when the consolidation process has developed an equilibrium between the downward acting forces
and the upward acting resistances. No toe resistance is indicated because the guidelines state that this
is the case for the example.

The calculations of load distributions and settlement for the guidelines example and the modified
example are performed using the UniPile program (Goudreault and Fellenius 2013). The analysis
follows generally accepted principle is a in a in a c in an effort s of effective stress analysis as detailed
in Fellenius (2014).

Fig. 2B shows the calculated distribution of the long-term settlement of the soil and the pile. I have
assumed that the pile is a single pile for which, then, the load applied to the pile will not cause any
appreciable consolidation settlement below the pile toe. Some pile head movement (settlement) will
develop due to load transfer of the 300 kN dead load to the soil during the construction of the
structure. It will be limited to the compression of the pile for the imposed axial load and the small
load-transfer movement of the pile element nearest the pile toe. It is not included in the 35-mm long-
term settlement of the pile, which is due to downdrag, i.e., settlement due to imposed pile toe
movement and a small amount from additional compression as the axial load in the pile increases.
LOAD (kN) Pile head SETTLEMENT (mm)
settlement
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 35 mm 100 200 300 400
0 0
Qd = 300 kN Rult = 637 kN
Soil
settlement
SOFT CLAY
5 5
STIFF CLAY
Neutral Neutral
Plane Plane
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)

10 10
Maximum Load = 460 kN THE KEY QUESTION:
Drag Force = 160 kN is the settlement acceptable?
Not 94 kN!

15 15
Toe Penetration = 27 mm

Rt = 0 kN
Soil Settlement = 10 mm
20 20

Fig. 2A Load distribution Fig. 2B Settlement distribution

The settlement distribution shown in the figure is that assumed developed at 90-% degree of
consolidation, say, 30 years after placing the surcharge. Secondary compression would add about
10 to 20 mm of settlement to the 30-year value and then increase slightly with time. I would expect
that the settlement after the first about 20 years after construction will be about 80 % of the values
shown in the figure.

1016
In the long-term, the soil settlement will result in negative skin friction along the pile that will
accumulate to a drag force. The drag force plus the dead load from the structure supported on the pile
will always be in equilibrium with the positive direction forces. Eventually, a stationary force
equilibrium will develop at a depth called "neutral plane" ("equilibrium plane" might be the better
term). For the guidelines example, as illustrated in Figure 2A, the neutral plane will be at a depth
of 7.4 m. There is always a transition zone from negative to positive direction of shear along the pile
and a small transition zone is indicated by the curved change from increasing load to decreasing.
When the soil settlement relative to the pile is large, the height of the transition zone is small, when
the settlement is small, the height is large. In the latter case, the drag force is smaller than in the
former case. However, the location of the neutral plane is approximately the same, be the settlement
small or large.

As indicated in Figure 2A, the drag force is 160 kN and the maximum load will be 460 kN. Below
the neutral plane, in the what some call the "stable zone" (the soil is no less stable above, however),
the accumulated positive shaft resistance is equal to the dead load plus the drag force, i.e., 460 kN—of
course, this is what the force equilibrium means. However, the total ultimate shaft resistance
is 637 kN, and after subtracting the 160-kN drag force, the remaining shaft resistance, the resistance
below the neutral plane, is 477 kN, not 460 kN. The explanation to this discrepancy lies in the
assumed transition zone. For example, if the transition zone is longer than the length indicated in
Figure 2A, the drag force might reduce to, say, 100 kN, and the maximum load would become
400 KN. It would then seem as if the shaft resistance below the neutral plane, because of the
equilibrium condition would be 400 kN, significantly smaller than 477 kN. The incongruity is due to
comparing two mechanically conflicting conditions: when the pile responds to changing movement—
is in flux—and when it is in a stationary condition.

The location of the force-equilibrium neutral plane is always the same as the location of the settlement
equilibrium neutral plane, which is where there is no relative movement between the pile and the soil,
i.e., where the soil and the pile(s) settle equally. This condition determines the settlement of the pile
head after due consideration of the compression of the pile for the load between the pile head and the
neutral plane. As mentioned, when the pile settlement is due to the soil dragging the pile down, it is
termed "downdrag".

If one would argue that my assumed values of compressibility of the stiff clay are too conservative,
and, quite optimistically, apply values resulting in much smaller consolidation settlement than shown
in Figure 2B, then, the long-term soil settlement would still be sufficient to mobilize fully the negative
skin friction and the positive shaft resistance. Indeed, were the piles to be constructed after the full
consolidation had taken place, the distribution of load would still be the same as illustrated in
Figure 2A, the final state would just take a longer time to develop. The long-term settlement would
be small, of course. The transition height would therefore be longer.

Now, were the Eurocode principles applied with the correctly determined distribution of forces along
the pile, the analysis would result in a factored load of 1x300 + 1.25x160 = 500 kN versus a factored
resistance of 0.77x460 = 354 kN, and the design would no longer be acceptable according to the
Eurocode.

For a real case, it is likely that the stiff clay would provide some toe resistance. For example, if
a 100-kN toe resistance would be included in the analysis, I think most would agree that the margin
against failure of the pile would have improved. However, improvement would not be recognized in
an analysis applying the Eurocode principles, because the location of the neutral plane would have
moved down, the drag force would have increased by about 50 kN, and the positive shaft resistance,
below the neutral plane would have decreased with the same amount. Despite the increase of
capacity, the factored resistance would have become smaller by the amount of 0.77x50 = 38 kN, and
the increase of drag force would have added 1.35x50 = 68 kN to the factored load. In effect,
providing toe resistance to the pile would actually have made the Eurocode indicate that the adequacy
of the pile design had gone down!

1017
I strongly disagree with the Eurocode design principles. The magnitude of the maximum axial force
in the pile (consisting of the dead load plus the drag force) is only of concern for the axial structural
strength of the pile. In contrast, when assessing a design for bearing capacity (geotechnical strength),
the drag force must not be lumped in with the load from the structure. The main requirement or
premise of design for bearing capacity is the adequacy of the margin against the possibility of the
loads applied to the pile could exceed total resistance of the pile, i.e., resistance acting along the entire
length of the pile. The safety factors are chosen to ensure a margin against that possibility. Drag
force will develop only when the chosen factors are successful in providing that margin. If the factors
are inadequate, the pile will start to fail, and, then, there is no negative skin friction and no drag
force—nonetheless, the pile, most undesirably, fails. To avoid this misfortune, a proper design
applies margins to the load and resistances. When considering the margin against failure—against the
geotechnical response, i.e., capacity—the design must not add-in the drag force, which is a load
that à priori assumes absence of failure. Indeed, the larger the drag force on a pile, the larger the
margin against failure of the pile (provided the axial strength of the pile is not exceeded).

Consider a pile, similar to the guidelines example, installed in a uniform soft soil that is undergoing
consolidation and has minimal toe resistance. (Such piles are often called floating piles). Assume
further that the shaft resistance is about two to three times larger than the load to be applied to the
pile—which would seem to be an adequate design. Eventually, an equilibrium will develop between
the downward direction forces (dead load plus drag force), and the upward direction shaft resistance
with a neutral plane located somewhere below the mid-point of the pile. However, applying the
Eurocode principles, the factored loads would be larger than the factored resistance. Actually, even if
no dead load would be applied, the Eurocode would show that the pile would not even be adequate to
support its own drag force. Indeed, when the geotechnical response is correctly analyzed, a mainly
shaft bearing pile can never meet the requirements of the Eurocode.

Assume now that the pile would have a significant toe resistance, say, just about equal to the total
shaft resistance and the capacity would be doubled to four to six times the applied load. Now, the
neutral plane would lie deeper and if the provision would be applied that all contribution to "bearing"
above the neutral plane would be disregarded and instead be applied as load (drag force), then, this
would show the pile to be inadequate to support any load according to the Eurocode! In effect, the
Eurocode lumping-in the drag force with the loads from the structure in assessing geotechnical pile
response is absurd and leads to large unnecessary foundation costs.

I must point out that my criticism is for the Eurocode and not for the authors of the guidelines, who
simply report how the code treats the design example, claiming it neither to be right nor wrong.

The guidelines example only includes a permanent load. The Eurocode recognizes that live load and
drag force do not act together—a pile element cannot have shaft shear in both the negative and
positive directions at the same time. I assume that as long as the factored live load is smaller than the
factored drag force, the Eurocode just leaves out live load from the analysis.

As mentioned, the objective of the guidelines example was to illustrate the principles of the Eurocode
for analysis of a pile subjected to negative skin friction from settlements of the surrounding soil. It is,
however, of interest to compare the settlement for the single pile to that of a group of piles. Let's
assume that the example pile is one of a group of 64 piles in circular configuration at a center-to-
center spacing of 4 pile diameters with a footprint of 130 m2. Because of the large pile spacing, the
piles inside the group would not have any appreciably reduced drag force compared to the single pile.
(Drag force is limited by the buoyant weight of the soil in-between the piles. Therefore, a small
spacing means that full drag force is reduced compared to that of the single pile). Moreover, because
the piles reinforce the soil, the downdrag (settlement at the neutral plane) is significantly reduced.
However, the load (64 x 300 kN) on the pile group will add stress (about 150 kPa) to the soil below
the pile toe level, which will result in consolidation settlement between the pile toe level and the
bearing, non-settling layer at 20 m depth. Calculations show that the pile group will settle close to
about 80 mm in the long-term (the pile group calculation method is detailed in Fellenius 2014).

1018
3. A MODIFIED EXAMPLE

The guidelines example can be turned into an more realistic case by modifying it to a 400-mm
diameter, bored pile installed to or into the bearing, non-settling layer at 20 m depth and allowing for
a more typical load to support from the structure, say, 800 kN. For good measure, I assume that this
load includes a 200-kN live load. The soil parameters given for the guidelines example are applied
also to the modified example and a similar surcharge will be placed. However, I will allow for a toe
resistance commensurate with a dense soil layer at the 20-m depth.

The analysis will address the conditions both before and after settlement of the soft and stiff clay
layers due to the surcharge have resulted in "negative skin friction effects" on the pile—drag force and
downdrag. I assume that the downdrag-imposed toe-penetration into the bearing layer will follow the
relation defined by the q-z function called Ratio Function (Fellenius 2014) expressed by Eq. 1.

[1]

where R = resistance
δ = movement at "R"
Ru = "ultimate" resistance
δu = movement at "ultimate" resistance
ӿ = an exponent

I further assume that the structure supported by the pile is sensitive to settlement. If so, a
conventionally imposed pile-head settlement limit is a "half-inch", let's say close to 15 mm. To
satisfy this requirement, the neutral plane must be located at the depth of about 14 m. The pile toe
penetration imposed by the downdrag will then be about 10 mm, which I assume will result in
a 5 MPa toe stress; about 600 kN.

A typical toe response for a pile toe is a doubling of the toe resistance for a tripling of the movement.
Thus, a pile toe having a 5 MPa resistance for a 10-mm movement will have a 10 MPa resistance for
a 30-mm movement. The corresponding total toe resistances for the example pile are 630 kN
and 1,260 kN, respectively. Inserting the two pairs of values into Eq. 1 results in an exponent of 0.63.
Despite the fact that ultimate toe resistance does not exist in the real world (Fellenius 1999; 2014),
and, therefore, somewhat arbitrarily, I define that the 10-MPa unit toe resistance at 30-mm movement
will represent an "ultimate" condition for the pile toe response of the modified example.

The long-term is defined as the conditions after 90-% consolidation of the soft and stiff clay layers has
developed. Two states must be analyzed. The ULS condition, which is the state where soil failure
occurs and the pile is in flux—is moving—and the SLS condition which is the stationary state—the
distance to the neutral plane and the load distribution stay essentially unchanged over time.

Note, for the stationary condition—SLS—, the "assumed" values of toe resistance and toe penetration
cannot be chosen independently of each other because they are interconnected by their q-z function.
If the toe resistance would be assumed to be zero, the calculation would result in a neutral plane
at 8.9 m depth. However, this would only be possible if the q-z relation states that the toe resistance is
zero regardless of toe penetration (such as for the guidelines example—a floating pile with no toe
resistance). Similarly, it would seem that the upper limit of toe resistance would be to assume that the
neutral plane is at the pile toe level, which would result in a large toe resistance (1,260 kN for the
example pile). However, that would require a large toe penetration (30 mm), which is not possible—
the downdrag is too small to generate this toe movement. In fact, for every distribution of settlement
and every q-z relation, there is only one location of the neutral plane and only one value of mobilized
toe resistance. That is, three interdependent parameters govern the condition and any two of them
determine the third.

1019
The objective of serviceability limit states design, SLS, for a piled foundation is to combine the
geotechnical response to the dead load placed on the pile (load distribution) and the settlement
distribution around the pile. This will determine the stationary conditions for the pile.

Piled foundation design needs to consider both the ultimate limit states, ULS, and the serviceability
limit states, SLS. For ULS conditions, neither negative skin friction, drag force, nor downdrag exist.
The ULS design applies load and resistance factor to ensure a reasonable margin to the undesirable
event of failure.

In contrast to the ULS design, SLS is design for deformation—settlement—of the piled foundation,
and it applies neither load factors nor resistance factors. The designer assesses the calculated
settlement in relation to the settlement that can be tolerated by the structure. Of course, there has got
to be a suitable margin between the calculated settlement and the maximum settlement the foundation
can tolerate. This margin is not achieved by imposing a certain ratio between the two settlement
values. Instead, in calculations using unfactored loads and resistances, the designer exercises
judgment applies realistically chosen, but upper and lower boundary values, for loads and assumes
upper and lower boundary values for resistances, a conservative q-z relation, conservative values for
compressibility parameters, etc. to produce results of neutral plane location, downdrag amounts in a
settlement estimate that then must not exceed the maximum tolerable for the particular foundation.
The analyses must include a realistic depth to the location of the neutral plane. The upper boundary
settlement will then represent sufficiently improbable outcome of the design; "improbable", yes, but
still mechanically possible.

The parameters used in the analysis of the modified example were combined with a pile E-modulus
of 30 GPa and an assumed t-z function for the shaft resistance response—a Hansen 80-% function
with a slight post-peak softening relation was assumed representing the shear-movement relation
along the pile shaft, same for pile elements in both clay layers—with the peak occurring at a 10-mm
movement. Figure 3 shows the results from a static loading test simulated using the UniPile program:
load-movement curves for the pile head, pile toe, pile shaft, and pile compression. The figure
represents the condition existing in a conventional design case: the test is performed before the
surcharge has been placed—before any appreciable change has occurred in the effective stress
distribution. Because it is the rare test that is continued until a pile head movement beyond about
40 mm (regardless of pile diameter), the lengths of the curves beyond 40 mm are dashed.

Test before Placing the Surcharge

2,500
2,000; Load for HEAD 2,150
COMPRESSION Rt at 30 mm Rs + Rt
2,000 2,020; head at 10 %
LOAD (KN)

TOE
1,700; Offset
1,500
1,500; Load for
Rt at 10 mm Rt
1,000 Rs
800
SHAFT
Load
Toe resistance
500 at offset limit
Toe resistance
at 10 mm mvmnt
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
MOVEMENT (mm)

Fig. 3 Simulated results of a static loading test performed before placing the surcharge

1020
The figure has been supplemented with values of load, as follows.

(1) The sum of the theoretically calculated shaft and toe resistances which amounts to 2,150 kN,
using the assigned beta-coefficients and the toe resistance defined as the "ultimate".
(2) The Davisson Offset Limit (1,700 kN), which is defined by the intersection of the pile head load-
movement curve with a line rising parallel the free-standing column load-movement line starting
from a movement equal to 4 mm plus the pile toe diameter divided by 120. It is often considered
to be a conservative estimate of capacity.
(3) The pile head loads (1,500 and 2,000 kN) that generated the pile toe resistances (890 and
1,260 kN) for 10 and 30 mm movements, respectively.
(4) The load (2,020 kN), that generated a pile head movement equal to 10 % of the pile-head
diameter—coincidentally very close to the load that generated a 30-mm toe movement.

The Eurocode states that the load that generated a pile head movement of 10 % for the pile head
diameter can be defined as the capacity of the tested pile. The value (2,020 kN) has been indicated in
the figure. The "10-% definition" originates in a misquote of a statement by Terzaghi back in 1942.
Terzaghi stated that assessing the capacity of a pile from a load-movement response should not be
undertaken until the pile toe had moved at least 10 % of the pile toe diameter (Likins et al. 2012,
Terzaghi 1942). Terzaghi did not state that the capacity would be the load that resulted in a 10-%
pile-toe movement, let alone the load for a 10-% pile-head movement.

I have a preference for defining the capacity to be the pile head load that results in a pile toe
movement of about "one inch"—about 30 mm. For the short-term test at a 30-mm toe movement, the
toe resistance is 1,260 kN, the shaft resistance is 740 kN, and the load at the pile head (the capacity")
is 2,000-kN. Due to the post-peak softening of the shaft resistance, the capacity—by any definition—
is smaller than the capacity calculated from accumulatin of the theoretical ultimate resistances of each
pile element.

Figure 4 shows the simulated load-movement curves for the pile head, pile toe, pile shaft, and pile
compression for an assumed test performed at long-term condition. The thick line load-movement
curves represent the test measurements for the case of all gages being set to zero immediately before
the test started; much the way that a real-life test is recorded. Again, the curves beyond a pile head
movement of 40 mm are dashed. The difference in shape of the load-movement curves as opposed to
those shown in Figure 3 is because residual load is present in the pile at the start of the test. The
development of residual load follows the same mechanism as the development of drag force. Thus,
the long-term stationary condition existing at the start of the test will result in residual load in the pile
distributed according to downward directed shear force above a neutral plane in equilibrium with
upward directed shear force plus a small toe resistance.

The thin-dotted lines show the "true" load-movement curves as if residual load had been accounted
for in the test or not been present. The specific "capacity" values determined by the same principles
as in Figure 3 are indicated for the true curves. The increase of effective stress has resulted in a 20 %
and 13 % increase of "capacity" for the Offset Limit, the 30-mm toe-movement value, and the
theoretical ultimate resistance, respectively, as compared to the conditions before the surcharge.

As shown, the residual load, present and unaccounted for, has falsely increased the true shaft
resistance and reduced the true toe resistance. It also implies a more plastic response of the pile-head
load-movement than the true, "hardening" response. This means that if residual load would not be
recognized to have affected the test results, it would be easy to believe that the test shows a well-
accentuated capacity, whereas in reality, interpreting a capacity from the load-movement curve would
be less than clear-cut. Again, due to the post-peak softening of the shaft resistance, the pile
capacity—by any definition—is smaller than the capacity calculated from the theoretical ultimate
resistance of each pile element.

1021
 Test after Completed Consolidation
3,000
2,270; Load for
Rt at 30 mm and
TRUE
head at 10 % mvmnt HEAD 2,460
2,500
Rs + Rt
COMPRESSION
HEAD
2,000
LOAD (KN)

2,040; Offset TRUE

TOE
1,820; Load for
1,500 Rt at 10 mm
SHAFT
Rt Rs
1,000 1,190; Shaft resistance TRUE
800 SHAFT
for Rt at 10 mm
Load TOE
500
Toe resistance
at 10 mm mvmnt
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

MOVEMENT (mm)

Fig. 4 Simulated results of a static loading test at long-term condition

If only the pile-head load-movement is recorded in a test, estimating the residual load is to a large
extent a guesswork, albeit it could be somewhat informed. If the pile would be instrumented so that
the load distribution and the shaft and toe resistance load-movement curves are measured, the true
distributions can be evaluated. Note, when it would seem to make economic and technical sense to
run a static loading test, the testing effort is mostly wasted unless the pile is instrumented to measure
the load distribution.

Again, I prefer to define capacity from the pile toe movement. Applying the same 30-mm limit as for
the no-surcharge condition results in a capacity of 2,270 kN, about 200 kN less than the theoretical
value for accumulating the capacity of all pile elements. The shaft resistance mobilized for this toe
movement is 1,010 kN, about 200 kN smaller than the theoretically ultimate shaft resistance.

Once the values of capacity have been determined in terms of ultimate total resistance and in shaft and
toe resistances, the ULS calculation is simple, whether the design applies a global factor of safety or
load and resistance factors.

How to pursue a SLS calculation is a bit less obvious. That is, the approach I consider correct, the
settlement analysis based on the downdrag for single piles and small pile groups outlined in the
foregoing, is straight-forward and quickly performed. So is the settlement analysis of larger pile
groups. However, many apply a SLS analysis that employs loads and resistances with special factors
applied and include the drag force in the calculations, which analysis is neither straight-forward nor
quickly performed. For a start, what resistances should be used? I would suggest that the resistances
developed for the stationary case are the ones to use. Employing the failure mode resistances would
not be logical. And the values should be corrected for residual load.

Table 1 compiles the unfactored values for the ULS, without and with the effect of the surcharge, and
the SLS long-term conditions for the modified example. The symbols used for denoting the various
loads are those used in the Canadian Foundation Engineering manual; also defined in Figure 1). (That
the long-term axial load at the neutral plane is equal to the long-term total shaft resistance is a
coincidence).

1022
TABLE 1 Resistances according to calculations ("Theor.") and simulated static "Test"
Before Surcharge After Surcharge
Item ULS ULS1) ULS ULS1) SLS3)
Theor. Test Theor. Test Test

Shaft Resistance Rs, (kN) 890 7402) 1,190 1,0102) 1,190

Toe Resistance, Rt, (kN) 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,260 630
Capacity, Rult, (kN) 2,150 2,000 2,450 2,270 ---
Depth to NP (m) --- --- -- 13.7
Drag force, Qn , (kN) --- - --- --- --- 590
Axial Load at NP (kN) --- --- --- --- 1,190
Pile Head Settlement (mm) - - - --- --- --- 15
1) 2) 3)
30-mm toe movement after strain-softening 10-mm toe movement

4. THE MODIFIED EXAMPLE AS A BASE FOR DESIGN IN VARIOUS CODES

It is of interest to see how various codes around the world can be applied to the modified example, as
I understand these codes are applied. The loads from the structure are 600 kN dead load (Qd) and
200 kN live load (Ql). For input to SLS calculations, I will use the values in the column
headed "SLS".

4.1 The Eurocode

For the long-term condition (surcharge effect is included) and drag force according to the Eurocode,
DA-1, Combination 2, the factored load is 1.00 Qd + 1.25 Qn and according to the Eurocode, DA-1,
Combination 1, it is 1.35 (Qd +Qn.). This results in factored loads of 600 + 1.25x590 = 1,340 kN and
1.35(600+590) = 1,610 kN, respectively. Note, because the analysis according to the Eurocode
includes the drag force, live load is not included.

According to the Eurocode, DA-1, Combination 2 and Combination 1, the factored resistance
is 0.77Rult = 0.77x(1,190 + 630) = 1,401 kN, and 1.00x(1,190 + 630) = 1,820 kN, respectively, which
both are larger than the factored loads. The design for the long-term condition with surcharge is,
therefore, acceptable. Had the calculations been performed for the no-surcharge condition before the
drag force had developed, for when the maximum factored load is (1.35x800 = 1,080 kN), they would
have resulted in factored resistances of 0.77x2,000 = 1,540 kN or 1.00x2,000 = 2,000 kN,
respectively, larger than those for the long-term condition. This is a strange outcome, because the
capacity has actually increased for the long-term. The apparent contradiction is entirely due to the
fact that the drag force is lumped in with the load from the structure and only a portion of the shaft
resistance is used. If in a real case, the calculated long-term condition would lead the designer to
reduce the dead load (say, by increasing the number of piles), the location of the neutral plane be at a
lower depth, the drag force would increase, and the resistance below the neutral plane would decrease.
As a result, the design would show to be even less acceptable. Increasing the dead load would seem
to be a better decision! Actually, in practice, the impasse is resolved, sort of, by not letting the
nuisance of the real distribution of the forces bother the design effort, and instead declaring that the
drag force is small or that the neutral plane really lies higher up, maybe at the boundary of the two soil
layers. This might even work if no SLS (settlement) analysis is pursued.

4.2 The Canadian Code

The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (Canadian Standard Council 2006) applies both ULS and
SLS, to geotechnical design. A load factor of 1.2 pertains to total axial pile load, and a resistance
factor of 0.4 pertains to resistance determined from static analysis.

1023
For the no-surcharge condition, theoretical analysis, the factored load is 1.2x800 = 960 kN and the
factored resistance is 0.4x2,150 = 860 kN. Therefore, the short-term design is unacceptable. If
assessed from the results of the static loading test, the factored resistance is 0.6x2,000 = 1,200 kN and
the short-term design is now acceptable with a margin. SLS is not of concern for the short-term
condition of the modified example.

For the surcharge condition, theoretical analysis, the factored resistance is 0.4x2,450 = 980 kN,
showing the design to be right-on. If analyzed from the results of the static loading test, the factored
resistance is 0.6x2,270 = 1,360 kN and the design is acceptable with good margin.

In the Canadian Code, the drag force is not included in the analysis against the geotechnical response.
It only comes into play with regard to the axial strength of the pile. Thus, with the load factor on the
590-kN drag force of 1.25, the factored axial load is 1.2x600 + 1.25x590 = 1,460 kN (live load is not
included) is well within the limits of a factored strength of a 400-mm diameter concrete pile.

For SLS conditions, the Canadian code applies the settlement analysis per the approach detailed above
and illustrated in principle in Figure 2B. The long-term settlement would be limited to about 15 mm
(10-mm toe movement plus about 5-mm pile compression above the neutral plane), which is an
acceptable settlement for most foundations.

4.3 The AASHTO LRFD Specs

The AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2012) pertain to transportation projects, e.g., bridge
foundations. It is the only Limits States geotechnical code in the USA although several guidelines
such as the FHWA Manual (2006) addressing LRFD exist which are by many taken as equal to codes.
The AASHTO Code is therefore often also applied to foundations for buildings. For the most
common load combination, called Strength Limit I, the AASHTO code applies a load factor of 1.25 to
dead load, and 1.75 to live load from vehicles. The load factor for drag force is 1.25. The AASHTO
code specifies total stress analysis for piles in "clay", i.e., the α-method with, usually, a constant unit
shaft resistance with depth, reserving effective stress analysis, the ß-method, for piles in "sand". The
stated resistance factors for shaft and toe resistance in "clay" are 0.45 and 0.40, and in "sand" 0.55 and
0.50, respectively, as recommended by O'Neill and Reese (1999). The AASHTO code applies the
same approach to the drag force as the Eurocode, i.e., the drag force is considered a load similar to the
dead load on the pile and no shaft resistance contribution is allowed from the soil above the neutral
plane.

The AASHTO code is usually interpreted to require live load and drag force to act simultaneously.
That is, the drag force is added to the applied dead load and live load on the pile in assessing the pile
for bearing capacity. This notwithstanding that Article 3.11.8 of AASHTO states that “If transient
loads act to reduce the magnitude of downdrag forces and this reduction is considered in the design
of the pile or shaft, the reduction shall not exceed that portion of transient load equal to the downdrag
force”. The commentary to this clause does not make the intent of the article more clear in stating
that “Transient loads can act to reduce the downdrag because they cause a downward movement of
the pile resulting in a temporary reduction or elimination of the downdrag force. It is conservative to
include the transient loads together with the downdrag”. The latter is not "conservative". Combining
forces working in opposite directions is irrational and, therefore, including the drag force is simply
"wrong".

For the same reason as for the Eurocode calculations, the AASHTO code calculations must employ
resistances according to the SLS conditions. The soil for the example is clay, but as the resistance is
calculated using effective stress, I have chosen the stated resistance factors of the ß-method in "sand".

1024
Short-term Condition , theoretical analysis ("Theor.")
Factored load: 1.25 Qd + 1.75 Ql = 1.25 x 600 + 1.75x200 = 1,100 kN
Factored resistance: 0.55 Rs + 0.50 Rt = 0.55 x 890 + 0.50x1,260 = 1,120 kN

Long-term Condition
Factored load: 1.25 Qd + 1.75 Ql + 1.25 Qn = 1.25x600 +1.75x200 + 1.25x590 = 1,840 kN
Factored resistance: 0.55(Rsbelow NP) + 0.50 Rt = 0.55 x 560 + 0.50 x 630 = 620 kN

According to the AASHTO code, the design would be acceptable for the short-term (no surcharge)
condition, but be vastly unacceptable for the long-term conditions despite the fact that the capacity
had actually increased. Similarly to the Eurocode, and for the same reasons, reducing the dead load
would actually indicate that the pile design had become less acceptable. Inasmuch the AASHTO code
includes the live load with the drag force, it is actually more off the realistic modeling of the pile and
soil interaction than the Eurocode. The conflicting results are due to the AASHTO Code confounding
the SLS state with the ULS state.

4.4 The Australian Code

The ULS approach in the Australian Code ("Standard") usually applies a load factor of 1.20 on dead
load, 1.50 on live load, and, for axial strength, 1.20 on drag force. (For special combinations of load,
other factors may apply). The shaft and toe resistances have the same resistance factor and, if the
resistance is determined from analysis, the factor is 0.40. A series of larger resistance factors are
assigned to designs where the capacity is more reliably determined. Depending on the quality and
number of static loading tests and other tests, those larger factors can become as high as 0.9. For the
results of a single loading test similar in scope to the one presented here, a resistance factor of 0.6
appears to be suitable.

The Australian code expresses that, when assessing geotechnical strength of the pile in compression
or in uplift, the design shall be assumed to be unaffected by drag force. See, for example, Poulos
(2013). The stated reason is that under the "failure" condition of the pile for strength, negative skin
friction will have been removed by the downward movement of the pile replacing the negative
direction of shear with positive direction shear. Similar to the Canadian code, the Australian code
combines drag force and dead load, but excludes the live load, when considering the adequacy of the
axial strength of the pile at the neutral plane.

Applying the Australian code to the example results in the following.

Short-term Condition, theoretical analysis

Factored load 1.20 Qd + 1.50 Ql = 1.20 x 600 + 1.50x200 = 1,020 kN
Factored resistance, Theor. 0.40 Rs + 0.40 Rt = 0.40 x 890 + 0.40x1,260 = 860 kN
Factored resistance, Test 0.60 Rs + 0.60 Rt = 0.60 x 740 + 0.60x1,260 = 1,200 kN

Long-term Condition
Factored load 1.20 Qd + 1.50 Ql = 1.20 x 600 + 1.50x200 = 1,020 kN
Factored resistance, Theor. 0.40 Rs + 0.40 Rt = 0.40 x 1,200 + 0.40x1,260 = 985 kN
Factored resistance, Test 0.60 Rs + 0.60 Rt = 0.60 x 1,010 + 0.60x1,260 = 1,360 kN

The Australian code is very similar to the Canadian Code for the ULS approach. For SLS conditions,
the Australian code applies a series of factors to modify the load and resistances and also includes the
drag force as a load. It is an approach that I find complicated and difficult to grasp. However, the
Australian code does allow the alternative design for SLS condition of using the more straight-
forward settlement analysis and neutral plane consideration as outlined in relation to Figure 2 and
recommended by the Canadian Code.

1025
4.5 The Japanese Codes

Japan has four separate codes: the Road Association code, the Architecture Association code, the Port
and Harbor Research Institute code, and the Railway code. All apply working stress design and make
no distinction for the load from the structure being dead load or live load. The approach in Japan
appears to be a partial factor of safety approach with different factors for shaft and toe resistances.
The compilation in Table 2 shows the sum of the so-reduced resistance values for the modified
example. Where the sum is larger than 800 kN, the design is acceptable by the particular code. These
values are underscored.

TABLE 2 Compilation of the example applied to the Japanese codes

Sum of Factored Resistances
Code F. O. S. Short term Long-term
Shaft Toe Theo. Test Theo. Test
Road Assoc. 3.0 4.0 610 560 710 640 none is acceptable
Architecture Assn 3.0 3.0 715 665 815 755 one is acceptable
Port and Harbor1) >2.5 >2.5 860 800 980 910 all are acceptable
Railway 2.4 5.0 620 560 750 670 none is acceptable
1)
I assume that for cases where uncertainty exists, the Port and Harbor increases the required FOS.

The Japanese codes do not specifically indicate that drag force and live load are combined and that
only the resistance below the neutral plane should be considered as supporting the pile, but it is my
information that the capacity above the neutral plane is disregarded. I have not included this in the
above compilation table, however.

4.6 The Israeli Code

Israel has a Standard on Geotechnical Design (Israel 2008) that applies working stress design,
assigning a global factor of safety of 3.0 to capacity based on theoretical analysis. The code does not
mention drag force. However, when drag force is included in design, it is combined with dead and
live loads. Drag force is generally considered only to develop in significantly settling soil layers. The
contribution of the shaft resistance in those layers is not included in the capacity estimate.

The Israeli code results in the same factored resistances as the Japanese Architecture Association
code.

4.7 The Singapore Code

The current code in Singapore is a working stress code (Singapore 2003). (Singapore intends to shift
to a National Annex of the Eurocode in 2015). For design based on geotechnical strength, the current
code applies a range of global factors of safety of 2.5 to 3.0. For capacity calculated using theoretical
analysis, the practice has adopted to use a factor o f safety of 2.5. When capacity is separated on shaft
and toe resistance, some practitioners apply a factor of 1.5 or 2.0 on the shaft resistance and 3.0 on toe
resistance. The drag force is combined with the dead load and "sustained live load" (loads such as
furniture and books, etc., that are removable but will be kept in place for a long time), but does not
combine it with "transient" load, such as wind loads and traffic loads. However, the shaft resistance
in layers generating drag force is not included in the capacity estimate, that is, only the "below NP"
resistance is considered. Calculations based on the Singapore code would show the design of the
example pile to be unacceptable.

1026
4.8 The Indian Code

The Indian Code (2006) applies working stress design, assigning a global factor of safety of 2.5 to
capacity based on theoretical analysis. No distinction is made between dead or live load. The same
factor is applied to shaft and toe resistances. The code does not include provisions for drag force.
However, practice is to subtract drag force from the capacity and then divide the balance with the
factor of safety to obtain the allowable load. Again, calculations based on the Indian code would
show the example pile to be inadequate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The design for geotechnical strength, the ULS condition, addresses a non-stationary failure process—
the pile is moving down relative to the soil. By applying a factor of safety, or load and resistance
factors to increase load and reduce the resistances, the designer ensures that the design has backed-off
sufficiently from the possibility of the ULS condition. The premise is still that the pile would be
failing! To include drag force in this scenario is a violation of principles because the pile approaches
a failure condition, there is no longer any drag force present. To yet include it, perhaps defended by
saying that "in a negative skin friction scenario, it is good to have some extra margin", is nothing
other than design by ignorance. Why not instead boost the load factors and reduce the resistance
factors? That would at least aim the ignorance toward the correct target.

The fact is that the phenomenon of negative skin friction, NSF, resulting in drag force plus dead load
in balance with positive direction forces occurs for every pile—eventually. In ultimate limit states,
ULS design, whether the settlement is small or large, the NSF issue is limited to checking the
adequacy of the pile axial strength, which could be a deciding factor for sites where the depth to the
neutral plane is more than about 80 to 100 times the pile diameter. Design of single piles and small
pile groups must include assessing the expected settlement of the soil surrounding the pile and the
downdrag of the pile, i.e., the settlement of the soil—and the pile—at the neutral plane in
serviceability limit states, SLS. Indeed, for serviceability design, be the pile long or short, therefore,
the issue is the downdrag, not the drag force. For pile groups, the settlement of the soil layers below
the pile toe levels may show to be critical.

Addressing the ULS design for a NSF issue is not modeled by adding the drag force to the load from
the structure. If a calculations model does not relate the depth to the neutral plane to a pertinent force
equilibrium, the model would have little relevance to the actual conditions. Moreover, the tendency
for many is to assume that the drag force only develops in soil that settles significantly in relation to
the pile—a limit of 10 mm is often mentioned. Thus, the analysis returns a drag force conveniently
small and of little bearing (pun intended) on the design calculations. In reality, long, mainly toe-
bearing piles, even in soil exhibiting settlement much smaller than 10 mm, will be subjected to large
drag force. When the correct drag force and location of the neutral plane are applied, adding the drag
force to the loads from the structure will result in a mechanically impossible design.

The serviceability, SLS, design must be based on a settlement analysis incorporating the pile (or piles
or pile group) response to unfactored loads and unfactored responses of primarily the pile toe and the
settlement of the soils as affected by the stress changes at the pile location. For a margin to represent
uncertainty, the design can apply a pessimistic approach to compressibility of the soil used in the
settlement analysis and the estimate of the stiffness response of the pile toe.

My brief review of the various codes has demonstrated that there is a large lack of consistency in our
practice for determining what really is the capacity of the pile. Yet, the practice seems to treat
capacity as an assured number, proceeding to specify decimals for the various factors with no respect
to how capacity was determined, the extent of the soils investigation, the number of static tests, the
risks involved (i.e., the consequence of being wrong), the change with time, etc. The reviewed codes

1027
do either not address settlement of piled foundations or address them only very cursorily. The
practice seems to assume that if the capacity has "plenty of FOS", or similar, the settlement issue is
taken care of. This is far from the truth. I personally know of several projects where capacity was
more than adequate with regard to geotechnical strength—the literature includes several additional
cases—yet, the foundations suffered such severe distress that the structures had to be demolished.

A major weakness of most codes is that they refer to a "capacity" without properly defining what the
capacity is, or not defining it by an acceptable method. Capacity related to the pile diameter is at best
quasi. Just imagine two piles, one with a small diameter and one with a large, each subjected to a
static loading test that shows exactly the same load-movement curve for the piles. Applying a
definition based on the pile diameter would result in the curves being interpreted as the two piles
having different capacities.

The movements measured in a static test are from 'elastic' compression of the pile (shortening), from
build-up of shaft resistance that may exhibit an ultimate—plastic—response, but more often a
response that is either post-peak-softening or a strain-hardening, and from pile toe movement
increasing as a function of the pile toe stiffness similar to Eq. 1. There is no ultimate resistance for a
pile toe! Indeed, the search for a pile capacity definition is charged with modeling the response to
load by an elastic-plastic condition, when two of the three components definitely do not exhibit
anything remotely like an elastic-plastic response and the third only rarely so.

As if the difficulty in choosing a suitable definition of capacity by itself would not cause enough
uncertainty for applying the ULS code requirements, the practice employs a variety of definitions
ranging from the Offset limit to the Chin-Kondner extrapolation (Fellenius 2013). Basing a design on
geotechnical strength—the capacity—, be it by theoretical analysis or interpretation of results from a
static loading test, is fraught with large uncertainty, hardly covered by the relatively small range of
suggested factors of safety or resistance factors.

In answer to the requirement of the ULS condition, I prefer to recognize that what the structure
supported on the piles is concerned with is the movement or settlement of the of the pile head, which
is governed by the movement of the pile toe and settlement at the pile toe level, not by the shape of
the load-movement curve or a value based on a pile diameter. The analyses leading up to assessing
the SLS condition is the key to a successful design. Or more simply put: a large factor of safety does
not ensure that the settlements will be small. However, an SLS analysis showing the settlements to be
small does ensure that the capacity of the pile(s) is adequate. I am not suggesting we cease carrying
out a ULS analysis, but we definitely need to improve how we do it and we need to pay more
attention to the SLS.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledged comments received from my colleagues David Klingberg, Julian Seidel,
and Stephen Buttling (Australia), Brian Simpson (UK), Dan Brown, Naresh Samtani, and Jon Bishop
(USA), Gandhi, S.R. and Rama Krishna (India), Joram Amir (Israel), Tatsunori Matsumoto (Japan),
and Harry Tan and Hartono Wu (Singapore). Inasmuch any of my brief accounts of the various codes
is incorrect, this is certainly due to my interpretation of the codes and comments and not to incorrect
statements received.

References

AASHTO 2012. LFRD bridge design specifications, Section 10 Foundations. American Association
of State Highway Officials.

Canadian Standard Council, 2006. Canadian Highways Bridge Design Code, Section 6, Foundations.
Canadian Standard Association, CSA-S6-06, Code and Commentary, 1,340 p.

1028
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, 2006. Design and construction of driven pile foundations.
Volume 1 and II. US Dept. of Trp., Publ. No. FHWA NHI-05-042, 1,462 p.

Eurocode 1997. EN 1997-1. Geotechnical Design, Part 1: General Rules.

Fellenius, B.H., 1999. Bearing capacity — A delusion? Deep Foundation Institute, Hawthorne, NJ,
Proceedings of Annual Meeting, Dearborn, Michigan, October 14 16, 1999, 17 p.

Fellenius, B.H., 2013. Capacity and load-movement of a CFA pile: A prediction event. ASCE
GeoInstitute Geo Congress San Diego, March 3-6, 2013, Foundation Engineering in the Face of
Uncertainty, ASCE, Reston, VA, James L. Withiam, Kwok-Kwang Phoon, and Mohamad H. Hussein,
eds., Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 229, pp. 707-719.

Fellenius, B.H., 2014. Basics of foundation design. Electronic Edition. www.Fellenius.net, 410 p.

Frank, R., Baudin, C., Driscoll, M., Kavvada, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T., and Schuppener, B.,
2004. Designers' Guide to EN 1997-1. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design, General Rules. Thomas
Telford, 216 p.

Goudreault, P.A. and Fellenius, B.H., 2013. UniPile Version 5, Users and Examples Manual.
UniSoft Geotechnical Solutions Ltd. [www.UniSoftLtd.com]. 108 p.

Indian Code, 2006. Indian Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations IS:2911
1980, revised 2006, 38 p.

Israel 2008. Geotechnical Design Standard IS940 Part 1. Personal communication with Joram
M. Amir, Israel, 13-09-28.

Likins, G.E., Fellenius, B.H., and Holtz, R.D., 2012. Pile Driving Formulas—Past and Present.. Full-
scale Testing in Foundation Design, M.H. Hussein, R.D. Holtz, K.R. Massarsch, and G.E. Likins, eds.
ASCE GeoInstitute Geo Congress Oakland, March 25-29, 2012, State of the Art and Practice in
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA., Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 227, 737-753.

O'Neill, M.W. and Reese, L.C., 1999. Drilled shafts. Construction procedures and design methods,
Federal Highway Administration, Transp. Research Board, Washington, FHWA-IF99-025.

Poulos, H.G., 2013. Pile design for ground movement. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on State-of-the-Art of
Pile Foundations and Case Histories, Bandung, Indonesia, June 2-4, pp. A2-1 - A2-18.

Simpson, B. and Driscoll, R., 1998. Eurocode 7A Commentary. Construction Research

Communications, Watford.

Singapore 2003. Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Foundations, CP4:2003. 253 p.

Terzaghi, K., 1942 Discussions on the Progress Report of the Committee on the Bearing Value of
Pile Foundations. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, February, pp. 311-323.

1029