MS Civil Engineering

CE-552: Foundation Engineering

Term 241: (Fall 2024)

Deep Foundations (c)

Syed Umair Ali, PhD

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
[email protected]
Link to image: https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/types-of-foundations
 Downdrag or Negative Skin Friction
The downward force due to consolidation of clay. In some cases,
this force can be excessive and cause foundation failure

There are three possibilities:

1. If a fill of clay soil is placed over a granular soil layer into which a
pile is driven, the fill will gradually consolidate. The consolidation
process will exert a downward drag force on the pile during the
period of consolidation.
2. If a fill of granular soil is placed over a layer of soft clay, it will
induce the process of consolidation in the clay layer and thus exert a
downward drag on the pile.
3. Lowering of the water table will increase the vertical effective stress
on the soil at any depth, which will induce consolidation settlement
in clay. If a pile is located in the clay layer, it will be subjected to a
downward drag force.
2
 Downdrag or Negative Skin Friction

Why?
For sand fill over clay:
Negative skin stress on friction pile may exist from z = 0 to z = L1
For end-bearing piles, the neutral depth may be assumed to be located at the
pile tip i.e., L1 = L - Hf
3
 a- Clay Fill Over Granular Soil

Unit negative skin friction

Qn = Total down-drag force on a pile

Hf = Height of the fill
If the fill is above GWT, replace  ’f with f
4
 b- Granular Soil Fill over Clay
The evidence indicates that the negative skin stress on friction pile may
exist from z = 0 to z = L1 (referred to as neutral depth)
For end-bearing piles, the neutral depth may be assumed to be located at
the pile tip i.e., L1 = L - Hf

’f = effective unit weight of the fill

’ = effective unit weight of clay layer

The unit negative skin friction (fn) at any depth from z = 0 to z = L1 is;

P = perimeter of the pile

If the soil and the fill are above GWT, replace ’ with 
5
Example: Given that, Hf = 2 m, Pile diameter = 0.305 m, f = 16.5 kN/m3,
’clay = 34o, sat(clay) = 17.2 kN/m3, and L = 20 m. The GWT coincides with the
top of the clay layer. Determine the down-drag force on the pile. Assume that
the value of δ = 0.6 ϕclay
Fill is above GWT, so ’f has been replaced with f

6
 Load Capacity of Piles
(Drilled Shafts)

➢ Axial Load Capacity

• Based on Static Load Tests
• Based on Static Analysis Methods
• Based on Dynamic Methods

➢ Serviceability Limit States

➢ Laterally Loaded Piles

7
 Static Analysis Methods
Static analysis methods for pile foundation design are used to estimate the load-carrying
capacity of piles under axial loads by considering the soil-pile interaction and the soil's
physical and mechanical properties (e.g., c, , SPNT, cone tip resistance, etc.).

→ Developed from theory and exp. Data → semi-empirical correlations

→ Cost-effective methods
→ Less accurate → conservative design

Engineering judgment and understanding of soil-pile interactions are crucial for proper
application.

• Total Stress Method (α-Method)

• Effective Stress Method (β-Method)
• Standard Penetration Test (SPT)-Based Methods
• Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-Based Methods
• Wave Equation Analysis (primarily dynamic, it can provide static estimates by modeling
pile driving as a wave propagation problem.)
• Meyerhof’s Method

8
 Axial Load Capacity Based on Static Analysis Methods
Toe-Bearing Capacity

Effects of construction methods on toe bearing capacity

• Diameter of drilled shafts > driven piles, so more displacement is
required to achieve the toe bearing capacity.
• Pile driving compacts the soil beneath the toe, drilled shaft construction
temporary relieves the stresses in the ground and mechanically loosens
the soil at the bottom of the shaft (may require post- construction
grouting).
• For these reasons, some engineers ignore toe bearing in drilled shafts.
• ULS nominal toe bearing capacity is defined as that which occurs at a
settlement of 5 to 10 % of the pile diameter

9
1- Granular Soils
For cohesionless soils, Brown et al. (2010) recommends using the empirical
formula developed by O’Neill and Reese (1999) from full- scale load tests. This
method defines q’n as the toe bearing resistance which occurs at a settlement of 5
percent of the base diameter

• If N60 > 50, the ground is classified as an intermediate geomaterial and should
be evaluated using other methods.
• While using this method, rigorous settlement analyses are important, especially
if the diameter exceeds 1.5 m (60 in).

10
2- Fine-grained Soils
Because of their low hydraulic conductivity, we assume undrained conditions exist
in cohesive soils beneath the toe of drilled shafts. Therefore, we compute q′n using
the undrained shear strength, Su, using the following equations from O’Neill and
Reese (1999):

D = Depth of embedment
B = Pile diameter
Cohesive soils with su > 250 kPa (5000
lb/ft2) should be evaluated as intermediate
Geomaterials (IGM).

11
Large diameter foundations require correspondingly more settlement to
achieve q′n. If the base diameter, Bb > 1900 mm (75 in), the value of q′n
from equation (Nc* su) could produce settlements greater than 25 mm (1
in.), which is unacceptable for most buildings.

To keep settlements within tolerable limits, reduce the value of q′n to q′nr,
and use this value (O’Neill and Reese, 1999):

SI

English

SI

English

q′nr = reduced nominal net toe-bearing capacity

q′n = nominal net toe-bearing capacity
Bb = diameter at base of foundation (ft, m)
D = depth of embedment (ft, m)
Su = undrained shear strength in the soil between the base of the foundation and a depth 2Bb
below the base (lb/ft2, kPa)
12
 Axial Load Capacity Based on Static Analysis Methods
Side Friction
Effects of construction methods on side friction
• Driven piles displace the soil as they advance into the ground, thus increasing the
lateral stresses in the ground. For large displacement driven-piles, this usually
produces K/K0 values > 1. This increase in the lateral stress can significantly
improve the side friction resistance.
• In contrast, drilled shaft construction introduces a temporary hole in the ground
that relieves some lateral stress, thus producing K/K0 values ≤ 1. The degree of
stress relief depends on the construction method (open hole, slurry, casing, etc.),
the soil properties, and other factors.
• This stress relief is recovered through the hydrostatic pressure of the wet
concrete. Nevertheless, the final K/K0 will be less than that for a driven pile with
the same diameter.
• On the other hand, drilled shaft construction produces a rougher interface
between the concrete and the soil, so the s / ′s ratio is higher than that for
driven concrete piles.
13
 (f = N)

Divide the soil into layers, compute ′z at the midpoint of each layer,
assign a  value to each layer, and compute fn
14
• Use K/K0 = 1.0 - For open hole, temporary casing, or slurry
methods of construction methods if used with good workmanship
(including prompt placement of concrete) and good quality control.
Use K/K0 = 0.67 - When slurry method workmanship or quality
control is questionable.
• So long as the workmanship is good, a s /  ′ ratio of 1.0 may be
used, even when the shaft is constructed with slurry (Chen and
Kulhawy, 2002).
• In the  method, K0 is the most difficult parameter to evaluate
accurately. Ideally determined from in situ testing, such as DMT or
PMT.
• The value of  in NC sands is typically between 0.24 - 0.30 and
increases as the OCR increases. Silts and silty sands have lower 
values than clean sands.

15
 values back-calculated from 100 static load tests on
drilled shafts at 53 sites. Group 1 tests had higher
quality geotechnical data than Group 2. U and C
represent uplift and compression (downward)
loading, respectively. OCR is high at shallow
depths due to desiccation
and other processes.
(Chen and Kulhawy, 2002).

Accurate evaluations of OCR in sands can be

difficult, which is why  is often underestimated
U2
by the given equation. In situ measurements of
K0 can help overcome this problem.

Reese and O’Neill (1988) - for drilled shafts in sand

SI Where z is the depth below the ground
surface in feet or meters
English

be cautious about using excessive  values at very shallow depths. Brown, et al. (2010)
recommend limiting the value of  in the shallow depths to that computed at a depth of
2.3 m (7.5 ft) (At lower confining stress, the correlations for effective stress friction
angle and pre-consolidation stress have not been validated). 16
It is very difficult to characterize the required engineering properties in gravelly
soils, making it difficult to quantify the factors in equation for .
Rollins et al. (2005) developed the following  - functions directly from 103 static
load tests conducted in soils with N60 > 25

SI
English

SI

English

Side friction in gravels and gravelly sands In the case of a permanent casing there is
is greater than that in sands, especially no rough concrete interface, so a reduction
when well- graded. factor of 0.60 – 0.75 is applied to the
computed  -value (Brown et al., 2010)
17
Example:
The drilled shaft shown in the figure is to be designed without the benefit of any onsite static load tests. The
soil conditions are uniform, the site characterization program was average, and good construction quality
control can be expected. Compute the ASD allowable compressive load capacity and the AASHTO LRFD
factored compressive load capacity.

Assuming:

Silty sand above groundwater table:   17 kN/m3

Silty sand below groundwater table:   20 kN/m3
Sand below groundwater table:   20 kN/m3

Take  = 36o (use empirical relationships of SPTN from

Lec. 4)

18
Steps:
1- We need to determine  using Brown (2010) eq.

2- Determine K0 →
Mayne (2007)
3- Determine OCR → m = 0.6 for clean quartz sands
= 0.8 for silty sands to sandy silts
4- Determine ’z →

Evaluate  using equations by Brown et al. (2010) and Reese and O’Neill (1988), then assign design
values using some engineering judgment → Our limiting value will be this calculated  value

19
Mayne (2007)
m = 0.6 for clean quartz sands
= 0.8 for silty sands to sandy silts

20
Brown et al. Reese and O’Neill
(2010) (1988)

21
Toe Bearing
Although no N60 values are available within a depth of 2B below the bottom
of the shaft, N60 = 22 would be a reasonable value for design.

(1265)

22
 Axial Load Capacity Based on Static Analysis Methods
Side Friction – Cohesive Soils
• ESA may also be used to compute side friction, fn in cohesive soils. However, −
method (based on TSA) is preferred.
• fn within 1.5m (5ft) of ground surface is ignored because of clay shrinkage due to
drying, foundation movement produced by lateral loads, and other factors.

Reese and O’Neill (1989)

approach as modified by
Brown, et al. (2010)

23
According to Reese and O’Neill (1999)
• Limit fn to a maximum value of 260 kPa or 5500 lb/ft2.
• Apply a reduction factor of 0.50 to 0.75 if permanent casing is used.
• These  factors are for insensitive clays (St < 4).
• For sensitive clays, full-scale static load tests, special lab tests, or some other verification
method should be used.

Back- calculated values of  for

drilled shafts obtained from
instrumented load tests
(Kulhawy and Jackson, 1989)

Installation of drilled shaft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhGPTI9vrPg 24

Example:
A 48 in. diameter, 60 ft. long drilled shaft is to be built using the open hole method in the soil
shown. This foundation is to be designed without the benefit of an onsite static load test, the soil
conditions are uniform, and the subsurface investigation program was extensive.
Compute the ASD allowable downward load capacity and the AASHTO LRFD factored
downward load capacity.

Toe Bearing

25
Side Friction Su / pa = ? (pa = 2000 lb/ft2)

Pa (ASD)  Pn (LRFD)

26
 UPWARD LOAD CAPACITY

• fn in uplift is typically 70 to 85 % of the downward loading value

unless some other value is justified through static load tests.
• Required safety factor in uplift is higher (or the resistance factor is
lower).
• Thus, the available side friction capacity in uplift is substantially
less than that for downward loading, and (of course) the toe
bearing cannot be considered at all (except for drilled under-
reamed shafts).
• However, these losses are somewhat offset by the greater self-
weight of drilled shafts.

27
• The upward pressure from the enlarged
base interacts with the side-friction
resistance of the lower portion of the
shaft, so it is recommended to neglect
the side friction between the bottom of
the foundation and a distance 2Bb
above the bottom.

• If the bottom is below the GWT, suction

forces might produce additional upward
resistance. Although they might be
large, especially for short-term loading
(i.e., less than 1 minute), it is
conservative to ignore.

• However, it is usually better to simply

drill a longer straight shaft than to
construct an enlarged base. [collapse,
safety, and cleaning the base concerns]
28
O’Neill (1987) and O’Neill and Reese (1999)

ASD

LRFD

29