QUIZ GT203

Pile Foundations
Lucas Montogue

► PROBLEMS
PROBLEM 1
A 300 kN compressive load is to be imposed on a 10-m long reinforced
concrete pile with square cross-section having a side of 600-mm width, driven
through a homogeneous layer of hard clay as illustrated below. The unit skin
friction is 𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 = 40 kPa and the unit end-bearing stress is 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 = 400 kPa. Compute the
downward load capacity using a factor of safety equal to 3 and determine whether
the design is acceptable.

A) 𝑄𝑄all = 136 kN < P → The design is not acceptable.

B) 𝑄𝑄all = 217 kN < P → The design is not acceptable.
C) 𝑄𝑄all = 368 kN > P → The design is acceptable.
D) 𝑄𝑄all = 429 kN > P → The design is acceptable.

PROBLEM 2
A 800 kN compressive load is to be imposed on a 425-mm diameter, 15-m
long steel pipe pile driven into the soil profile shown in the figure below. The net
end-bearing and unit skin friction resistances are as shown. Compute the
downward load capacity using a factor of safety of 3 and determine whether the
design is acceptable.

1
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
A) 𝑄𝑄all = 654 kN < P → The design is not acceptable.
B) 𝑄𝑄all = 765 kN < P → The design is not acceptable.
C) 𝑄𝑄all = 876 kN > P → The design is acceptable.
D) 𝑄𝑄all = 987 kN > P → The design is acceptable.

PROBLEM 3
A cylindrical timber pile of diameter 450 mm is driven to a depth of 28 m
into firm, homogeneous normally consolidated clay. The soil parameters are su =
40 kPa, 𝜙𝜙′ = 28o, and 𝛾𝛾sat = 20.5 kN/m3. Groundwater level is at the surface.
Estimate the allowable load, 𝑄𝑄all, for a factor of safety of 1.5. Which of the
following intervals contains 𝑄𝑄all? Use a total stress analysis.

A) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (650 ; 850) kN

B) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (850 ; 1050) kN
C) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (1050 ; 1250) kN
D) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (1250 ; 1450) kN

2
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
PROBLEM 4a
A reinforced concrete pile of square cross-section with a 1-m side is driven
to a depth of 10 m into stiff, homogeneous normally consolidated clay. The soil
parameters are su = 60 kPa, 𝜙𝜙′ = 30o, and 𝛾𝛾sat = 19.5 kN/m3. More information on
the soil and pile materials is provided in the illustration. Groundwater level is at
the surface. Estimate the allowable load, 𝑄𝑄all, for a factor of safety of 1.5. Which of
the following intervals contains 𝑄𝑄all? Use an effective stress analysis.

A) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (300 ; 600) kN

B) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (600 ; 900) kN
C) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (900 ; 1200) kN
D) 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∈ (1200 ; 1500) kN

PROBLEM 4b
Consider, now, that the allowable lateral displacement of the top of the
pile is 8 mm. Compute the allowable lateral load, Qg, by the limiting displacement
and the moment capacity conditions. Note that Mg = 0, that is, there is no moment
at the ground surface (z = 0). In your calculations, use coefficient R, given by

1
 E I 4
R= p p 
 ks 
where Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the pile, Ip is the moment of inertia of the
pile cross-section, and ks is the modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil, which, in
the case of cohesive soils, can be approximated by Vesic’s expression

1
E D4   Es 
12
ks = 0.65  s   2 
E I
 p p   1 − µs 

A) 𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔,all = 211 kN
B) 𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔,all = 471 kN
C) 𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔,all = 2341 kN
D) 𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔,all = 8027 kN

3
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
PROBLEM 5A
A steel H-pile of square cross-section of type HP 360×152 is driven 18 m
into a deposit of homogeneous, slightly dense sand with parameters 𝜙𝜙′ = 36o, 𝛾𝛾sat
= 18.5 kN/m3, and Dr = 26%. More information on the soil and pile materials is
provided on the illustration. Groundwater level is at the surface. True or false?

1.( ) The skin friction on the pile by the 𝛽𝛽-method, with a 𝛽𝛽 factor obtained by
means of the Burland formula (𝛽𝛽 = (1 − sin 𝜙𝜙 ′ ) tan 𝛿𝛿), will be no less than 400 kN.
2.( ) The skin friction on the pile by the 𝛽𝛽-method, using a 𝛽𝛽 factor determined
with the Bhushan formula (𝛽𝛽 = 0.18 + 0.65𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 , with Dr given as a decimal), is less
than 60% of the skin friction obtained with a 𝛽𝛽 factor taken from the trend line
drawn by Fellenius (Figure 3).
3.( ) The end-bearing loads obtained by Berezantsev’s and Meyerhof’s curves and
methodologies are within 400 kN of each other.
4.( ) The end-bearing load obtained with the Coyle & Castello curve (Figure 5) is
greater than 925 kN.

PROBLEM 5b

The uplift resistance and the compressive resistance are approximately

the same for fine-grained soils, but not exactly so for piles in sands. In such cases,
Nicola & Randolph executed a numerical study, their 2D mesh shown above, and
proposed the following expression for the uplift skin frictional stress (fs,,up),
expressed as a fraction of the unit skin friction,

f s ,up  
100 
= 1 − 0.2 log10 (1 − 8η + 25η 2 )
fs 
 ( )
L 
D 

4
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 where 𝜂𝜂 is a compressibility factor given by

 L   Gs 
η = µ p tan δ   
 D   E p 

in which 𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 is Poisson’s ratio for the pile material, 𝛿𝛿 is the soil-pile interfacial
friction angle, L/D is the embedment ratio, 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠̅ is the averaged shear modulus of
the soil profile in which the pile is inserted, and Ep is Young’s modulus for the pile
material. Consider 𝛿𝛿 = (2⁄3)𝜙𝜙′ and soil to be an isotropic material. Compute unit
skin friction using Bhushan’s formula (𝛽𝛽 = 0.18 + 0.65𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 ). Then, obtain a reduction
factor, R, that can be applied to the formula

(Q ) =
f up
R × Qf

to produce a skin friction load equivalent to the downward skin friction 𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓 as
obtained with the 𝛽𝛽-method and Bhushan’s formula, where (Qf )up is the uplift
resistance as obtained with the expressions outlined above.
A) 𝑅𝑅 = 0.606
B) 𝑅𝑅 = 0.717
C) 𝑅𝑅 = 0.828
D) 𝑅𝑅 = 0.939

PROBLEM 5C
Estimate the settlement of the pile introduced above. To do so, consider
the three settlement components of the pile using the formulas outlined below.
Use the end-bearing resistance computed with Meyerhof’s method, and the skin
friction resistance computed with the 𝛽𝛽-method, with a 𝛽𝛽 calculated with
Bhushan’s formula. As a simple approximation, the total settlement S is to be
given as the algebraic sum of the three settlement components. Use a factor of
safety FS = 1.5.

Components of the Elastic Settlement of a Single Pile

Settlement Settlement Caused by Settlement Caused by Load Carried by
from Elastic Theory Load Carried by Pile Shaft Pile End

�𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,all + 0.6𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓,all �𝐿𝐿 𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓,all 𝐷𝐷 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,all 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝

𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒,1 = 𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒,2 = � � (1 − 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠2 )𝐼𝐼𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒,3 =
𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝐷𝑞𝑞𝑝𝑝,ult
Legend: Legend:
Legend:
Qf, all → Skin friction resistance under Qp,all → End-bearing resistance under
Qp, all → End-bearing resistance under
working load condition working load condition
working load condition
p → Pile perimeter D → Pile width
Qf, all → Skin friction resistance under
working load condition L → Pile length qp, ult → Ultimate unit end-bearing
L → Pile length resistance of the pile
D → Pile width
Ab → Pile cross-section 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 → Empirical coefficient, with values
Es → Elastic modulus of soil
given below. Choose 0.025.
surrounding pile shaft
Ep → Pile material elastic modulus
Type of soil Driven pile Bored pile
𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 → Poisson’s ratio of soil Sand (dense
0.02 – 0.04 0.09 – 0.18
surrounding pile shaft to loose)
Clay (stiff to
0.02 – 0.03 0.03 – 0.06
𝐼𝐼𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 → Influence factor, given by Vesic soft)
as Silt (dense
0.03 – 0.05 0.09 – 0.12
to loose)

𝐿𝐿
𝐼𝐼𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 = 2 + 0.35�
𝐷𝐷

A) 𝑆𝑆 = 5.54 mm
B) 𝑆𝑆 = 8.65 mm
C) 𝑆𝑆 = 11.76 mm
D) 𝑆𝑆 = 14.87 mm

5
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 PROBLEM 6
A 15-m long tubular steel pile (Ep = 200,000 MPa) is driven into a normally
consolidated clay and has a computed ultimate side friction capacity (Σ𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠) of 580
kN and an ultimate end-bearing capacity (𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 ) of 300 kN. Develop a load-
settlement curve using the equations below, then determine the adjusted
settlement when the foundation is subjected to the allowable load, given a factor
of safety of 2. Use a = 0.40 and b = 0.60.

Load-Settlement Response of Deep Foundations

Skin Friction Component End-bearing Component

(𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 )𝑚𝑚 𝛿𝛿 𝑎𝑎 (𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 )𝑚𝑚 𝛿𝛿 𝑏𝑏

=� � ≤1 =� �
𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢

(𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 )𝑚𝑚 → Mobilized unit skin friction resistance (𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 )𝑚𝑚 → Mobilized end-bearing resistance
𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 → Unit skin friction resistance 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 → Unit end-bearing resistance
𝛿𝛿 → Settlement 𝛿𝛿 → Settlement
𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢 → Settlement required to mobilize ultimate resistance = 10 𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢 → Settlement required to mobilize ultimate
mm for skin friction resistance = B/10 for end-bearing
a → Exponent ∈ (0.02 ; 0.5) b → Exponent ∈ (0.5 (clay) ; 1.0 (sand))

Deep foundations also experience elastic compression, which is another source of apparent “settlement.” This
component of settlement can be computed with the expression

Pzc
δe =
Asec E p

P → Total downward load

𝑧𝑧𝑐𝑐 → Depth to centroid of soil resistance ≈ 0.75L (where L = depth of embedment)
Asec → Cross-sectional area of pile excluding soil plugs, if any
Ep → Young’s modulus of pile material
The adjusted settlement 𝛿𝛿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 is obtained by summing assumed values of 𝛿𝛿 used with the two foregoing formulas with the
elastic component 𝛿𝛿𝑒𝑒 obtained with the aforementioned expression.

A) 𝛿𝛿adj = 3.80 mm
B) 𝛿𝛿adj = 5.41 mm
C) 𝛿𝛿adj = 7.92 mm
D) 𝛿𝛿adj = 10.73 mm

PROBLEM 7
A 250-mm square, 15-m long prestressed concrete pile (𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ = 40 MPa) was
driven at a site in Amsterdam as described by Heijnen & Janse (1985). A
conventional load test conducted 31 days later produced the load-settlement
curve shown below. Using Davisson’s method, compute the ultimate load capacity
of the pile.

6
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 A) 𝑃𝑃ult = 710 kN
B) 𝑃𝑃ult = 830 kN
C) 𝑃𝑃ult = 970 kN
D) 𝑃𝑃ult = 1100 kN

PROBLEM 8
The following is the variation of N60 with depth in a granular soil deposit. A
concrete pile 8.6 m long, with 0.410 m × 0.410 m cross-section, is driven into the
sand and fully embedded into the sand. Estimate the allowable load-carrying
capacity of the pile using Meyerhof’s equations (reproduced below) for a factor of
safety FS = 3.5.

Meyerhof’s formulas for bearing capacity based on SPT results

End-bearing capacity Skin Friction
𝐿𝐿 �60 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝 = 0.4𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎 (𝑁𝑁60 )sp � � 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 ≤ 4𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎 (𝑁𝑁60 )sp 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓 = 0.01𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁
𝐷𝐷
pa → Atmospheric pressure (≈ 100,000 Pa) pa → ≈ 100 kPa
�60 → Average SPT number throughout
𝑁𝑁
(L/D ) → Embedment ratio (length/width)
Ab → Cross-sectional area length of pile
(N60 )sp → N60 averaged about 10 widths above and 4 widths p → Pile perimeter
below pile end L → Pile length

A) 𝑄𝑄all = 295 kN
B) 𝑄𝑄all = 388 kN
C) 𝑄𝑄all = 491 kN
D) 𝑄𝑄all = 589 kN

PROBLEM 9
A reinforced concrete pile weighing 45 kN (including helmet and dolly) is
driven by a drop hammer weighing 30 kN with an effective fall of 0.8 m. The
average penetration per blow is 16 mm. The total temporary elastic compression
of the pile, pile cap and soil may be taken as 19 mm. The coefficient of restitution
is 0.32. What is the allowable load of this pile? Use Hiley’s formula with a factor of
safety of 1.5.
A) 𝑄𝑄all = 190 kN
B) 𝑄𝑄all = 231 kN
C) 𝑄𝑄all = 289 kN
D) 𝑄𝑄all = 360 kN

7
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 ► ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Table 1 Adhesion factors 𝛼𝛼 based on undrained shear strength (su), soil
consistency and pile type - NAVFAC data

Table 2 Young’s modulus (Es) estimates for soil (MPa)

Description Very Soft Soft Medium Hard Sandy

Clay 2 – 15 5 – 25 15 – 50 50 – 100 25 – 250
Sand + Sand +
Description Silty Loose Dense Gravel – Gravel -
Loose Dense
Sand 5 – 20 10 – 25 50 – 81 50 – 150 100 – 200

Table 3 Poisson’s ratio for soil and rock

Soil/Rock Poisson’s Ratio
Clay, saturated 0.4 – 0.5
Clay, unsaturated 0.1 – 0.3
Silt 0.3 – 0.35
Dense sand, drained
0.30 – 0.40
conditions
Loose sand, drained
0.10 – 0.30
conditions
Sandstone 0.25 – 0.30
Granite 0.23 – 0.27

Table 4 Rigidity index (𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 ) versus undrained cohesion (su, normalized with
atmospheric pressure) for saturated conditions

su/pa Ir
0.24 50
0.48 150
≥ 0.96 250 – 300

Table 5 Lateral earth pressure coefficient (K) for pile design with 𝛽𝛽-method

Steel piles K (piles under compression) K (piles under tension)

Driven H-piles 0.5 – 1.0 0.3 – 0.5
Driven displacement piles 1.0 – 1.5 0.6 – 1.0
Driven displacement tapered piles 1.5 – 2.0 1.0 – 1.3
Driven jetted piles 0.4 – 0.9 0.3 – 0.6
Bored piles (less than 60 cm in diameter) 0.7 0.4

Table 6 Pile-soil interface friction angle 𝛿𝛿

2
Steel piles 𝛿𝛿 = 3 𝜙𝜙′ to 0.8𝜙𝜙′
Concrete piles 𝛿𝛿 = 0.9𝜙𝜙′ to 1.0𝜙𝜙′
Timber piles 𝛿𝛿 = 0.8𝜙𝜙′ to 1.0𝜙𝜙′

8
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Table 7 Approximate ranges of 𝛽𝛽-coefficients (Fellenius, 2009)

Soil Type 𝛽𝛽 range

Clay 0.15 – 0.35
Silt 0.25 – 0.50
Sand 0.30 – 0.90
Gravel 0.35 – 0.80

Table 8 Approximate ranges of 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 coefficients

𝜙𝜙′ 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞
25o – 30o 3 – 30
28o – 34o 20 – 40
32o – 40o 30 – 150
35o – 45o 60 – 300

Table 9 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ coefficients based on Meyerhof’s theory for end-bearing capacity

on sand

Table 10 Variation of 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 factor with 𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧′ ratio

𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧′ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 0.95 0.70 0.62 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.42
𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧′ 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39

Figure 1 𝛽𝛽-coefficient for piles in clay versus plasticity index (Fellenius, 2006).

9
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
Figure 2 Variation of 𝐴𝐴′𝑥𝑥 and 𝐴𝐴′𝑚𝑚 (Figure a), 𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥′ , and 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚
′
(Figure b) with
dimensionless depth Z.

10
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Figure 3 𝛽𝛽-coefficient for piles in sand versus embedment length
(Fellenius, 2006).

Figure 4 Variation of bearing capacity factor 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 in sand following

Berezantsev’s 1961 theory.

Figure 5 Variation of 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ in sand with L/D and friction angle 𝜙𝜙′ following Coyle
& Castello’s theory.

11
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Figure 6 Variation of 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 factor for different fine-grained soil profiles.
1

► SOLUTIONS

P.1 ■ Solution
The component of resistance associated with skin friction, Qf, is given by
the product of unit friction stress fs = 40 kPa and the surface area 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 = 𝑝𝑝 × 𝐿𝐿,
where 𝑝𝑝 = 4 × 0.6 = 2.4 m is the perimeter of the cross-section of the pile and L =
10 m is its length, so that 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 = 2.4×10 = 24 m2. The skin friction load follows as

Q f = f s As = 40 × 24 = 960 kN
The contribution to resistance due to point bearing, Qp , is the product of
the unit end bearing resistance fb = 400 kPa and the cross-sectional area of the pile
Ab = 0.62 = 0.36 m2; that is,

Q p = fb Ab =400 × 0.36 =144 kN

The ultimate load capacity is then 𝑄𝑄ult = 960 + 144 = 1104 kN, and the
allowable load Qall, given a factor of safety of 3, is calculated to be

Qult 1104
Q
=all = = 368 kN
FS 3
Since Qall > P, the design is acceptable.

► The correct answer is C.

P.2 ■ Solution
Consider, first, side friction for the soft clay. Let As,1 be the surface area of
the pile exposed to this soil, and fs,1 = 18 kPa be the unit side friction resistance of
this layer of soil. The side friction load Qf, clay that this layer contributes to the load
capacity of the pile is

 
Q f ,clay = f s ,1 As ,1 = f s ,1 ×  π ×  D × L1 
 
= Pile diameter Soil layer depth 
 
∴ Q f ,clay = 18 × (π × 0.425 × 5 ) = 120 kN

12
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Similarly, suppose As,2 is the surface area of the pile that penetrates the
sandy deposit underlying the clay, and fs, 2 = 80 kPa is its corresponding unit side
friction resistance. The side friction load of this layer of sand is determined as

Q f ,sand = f s ,2 As ,2 = 80 × (π × 0.425 × 7.5 ) = 801 kN

The glacial till contributes to the friction load by an amount Qf, till, which is
calculated as

Q f ,till = f s ,3 As ,3 = 350 × (π × 0.425 × 2.5 ) = 1168 kN

It remains to compute the end-bearing resistance of the pile. This is done

by multiplying the unit end-bearing resistance 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 = 3800 kPa of the soil at the toe
of the pile, which is the glacial till, by the contact area Ab, so that 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝 = 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 .
Accordingly,

 π × D2   π × 0.4252 
Qp = 3800 × 
f b Ab =  3800
= ×  =539 kN
 4   4 
The ultimate load capacity of the pile is then

Qult = Q f ,clay + Q f ,sand + Q f ,till + Q p

∴ Qult = 120 + 801 + 1168 + 539 = 2628 kN

For a factor of safety of 3, the allowable load Qall becomes

Qult 2628
Q
=all = = 876 kN
FS 3
Since Qall > P, the design is acceptable.

► The correct answer is C.

P.3 ■ Solution
A total stress analysis begs use of the 𝛼𝛼-method. In this approach, the
undrained shear strength su is related to the skin frictional stress fs by the
adhesion coefficient, 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 , so that 𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 = 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 . One quick way to obtain this coefficient
is to resort to Table 1, which is provided in the NAVFAC guidelines. For the present
soil, which is in the “medium stiff” range, and the current pile, which is made of
timber, 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 ranges from 0.96 to 0.75, and linear interpolation yields 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 = 0.820. The
skin friction Qf is given by the product of fs and the surface area of the shaft, i.e.
perimeter × length. Accordingly,

Q f ,1 = f s × As × L = α u su × π D × L = ( 0.820 × 40 ) × (π × 0.45 ) × 28 = 1298 kN

Another approach would be to employ the rule prescribed by the

American Petroleum Institute (1987), which suggests values of 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 as a function of
su such that

  su − 25 
1 −  90  , 25 < su < 70 kPa
  
=α u 1.0, su ≤ 25 kPa
0.5, s ≥ 70 kPa
 u



which in the present case becomes

 40 − 25 
αu =
1−  =0.833
 90 
This quantity is only marginally above the coefficient extracted from Table
1, and would produce a skin friction such that

Q f=
,2 α u suπ DL
= 0.833 × 40 × π × 0.45 × 28
= 1319 kN

13
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 The previous method gave a slightly more conservative result. Another
way to establish the 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 coefficient, as posed by Sladen (1992), is to employ the
formula

0.45
σ′ 
α u = C  vo 
 su 
where 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
is the vertical effective stress at mid-depth and C ≥ 0.5 for driven piles,
but we take C = 0.5 for a more careful design. Also,

L 28
σ vo′ =× γ ′ = × ( 20.5 − 9.81) =
149.7 kPa
2 2
and hence

0.45
 149.7 
αu =
0.5 ×   0.906
=
 40 
This is the largest 𝛼𝛼𝑢𝑢 we’ve obtained, and should yield the most daring skin
friction result,

Q=
f ,3 α u suπ DL
= 0.906 × 40 × π × 0.45 × 28
= 1435 kN

The 𝛼𝛼-method thusly provides friction loads in the range of 1298 – 1435
kN. A second step in pile design is to compute the end-bearing load Qp, which is
given by

Q p ,1 = N c ( su )b Ab

where Nc is a bearing capacity coefficient that can be taken as 9 for saturated clays
under undrained conditions (assuming they have undrained strength greater than
25 kPa), (su)b is the undrained cohesion of the soil surrounding the end of the pile,
and Ab is the cross-sectional area. Substituting 9 for Nc, 40 kPa for(su)b, and
𝜋𝜋 × 0.452 ⁄4 = 0.159 m2 for Ab gives

Q p ,1 =9 × 40 × 0.159 =57 kN

A second, more complex approach would be to apply Vesic’s expansion of

cavity theory (1977), according to which the end-bearing load for a saturated clay
(𝜙𝜙 = 0 condition) is

Q p ,2 = N c* ( su )b Ab

where 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐∗ is a coefficient given by

=N c∗ 1.33 ( ln I rr + 1) + 2.57

in which Irr is the reduced rigidity index of the soil. At first, Irr is to be computed
with the formula

Ir
I rr =
1 + I rε v

in which Ir is the (non-reduced) rigidity index, and 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 is the volumetric strain of the
soil. A simplified, short-term approach would have 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 = 0 and, consequently, 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 =
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 . in undrained loading of saturated soil there is no volume change, but if
construction stops, the excess pore pressures dissipates, consolidation occurs,
and the volume changes. Volumetric strain can be estimated with the relationship

 φ ′ − 25  (σ vo
′ )b
=ε v 0.005 1 − 
 20  pa

where (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏 is the vertical effective stress at the level of the pile end, and pa = 100
kPa is the atmospheric pressure. Computation of Ir, in turn, also involves
knowledge of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the soil, some values of
which are provided in Tables 2 and 3 for future reference. Nonetheless, for a total
stress analysis, we should have 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 = 0, and the expression for Irr simplifies to

14
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Ir I
I rr = = r → I rr = I r
1 + Ir ε v 1

=0

Conveniently, a simple relationship for the rigidity index under saturated

(𝜙𝜙 = 0) conditions as a function of the normalized undrained cohesion is given in
Table 4. In the present case, we have 𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 ⁄𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎 = 40/100 = 0.40, so we can obtain, by
means of linear interpolation, Ir = 109.5. Noting once again that 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 = 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 when there
is no volume change, we can easily obtain the bearing capacity coefficient 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐∗,

=N c* 1.33 ( ln I rr + 1) =
+ 2.57 1.33 ( ln109.5 + 1) =
+ 2.57 10.1

We can then determine the end-bearing load Qp,2,

Q p ,2 = N c* ( su )b Ab = 10.1 × 40 × 0.159 = 64 kN

. In summary, the ultimate load imparted on the pile is in the range

Qult = Q f + Q p = (1298 ; 1435 ) + ( 53 ; 64 ) = (1351 ; 1499 ) kN

and the allowable load Qall will be in the range

Qult (1351 ; 1499 )

Q
=all = = ( 901 ; 999 ) kN
FS 1.5
The interval that encompasses this set of values is (850 ; 1050) kN.

► The correct answer is B.

P.4 ■ Solution
Part A: An effective stress analysis can be done by dint of the 𝛽𝛽-method.
In this approach, the skin friction of the pile is established by means of the
equation

=f s µ= ′
xσ h σ vo′ 
µ K= tan
K δ × σ vo′
x
= tan δ =β

βσ vo′
∴ fs =

That is, the unit skin resistance fs is obtained by applying a friction factor,
𝜇𝜇𝑥𝑥 , to the horizontal effective stress, 𝜎𝜎ℎ′ , which in turn is related to its vertical
counterpart by the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K. The friction factor is
usually given as the tangent of the pile-soil skin friction angle 𝛿𝛿. Finally, the
product 𝐾𝐾 tan 𝛿𝛿 is often condensed in a single constant of proportionality 𝛽𝛽, hence
the name of the method in question. One of the simplest means to compute this
factor is to resort to tabulated values of K and 𝛿𝛿, such as those given in Tables 5
and 6, which are based on data by NAVFAC. For a driven displacement pile, we
could take a cautious K = 1.0; also, for an interface between concrete and soil, we
could apply a conservative 𝛿𝛿 = 0.9𝜙𝜙′ = 0.9×30o = 27o. Combining the two quantities
produces a factor 𝛽𝛽 = 𝐾𝐾 tan 𝛿𝛿 = 1.0 × tan 27o = 0.509. The ensuing unit friction
resistance is, accordingly,

L  10 
f s =βσ vo′ =β ×  γ ′  =0.509 ×  × (19.5 − 9.81)  =24.7 kPa
2  2 
Note that the effective stress is conventionally taken at mid-depth of the
pile – in this case, 10/2 = 5 m. The skin friction load Qf,1 is then

Q f ,1 = f s × p × L = 24.7 × ( 4 × 1) × 10 = 988 kN

One of the earlier expressions for this the 𝛽𝛽 factor, valid for fine-grained
soils, is due to Burland (1973) and makes use of the at-rest lateral earth pressure
coefficient,

β= K tan δ= K ooc tan δ= (1 − sin φ ′ )( OCR ) tan δ

0.5

15
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Substituting 𝜙𝜙′ = 30o, OCR = 1.0 for a normally consolidated clay, and
taking a conservative 𝛿𝛿 = 0.9𝜙𝜙 ′ = 0.9 × 30 = 27o as the interface angle between soil
and concrete, we get

(1 sin 30o ) ×1.00.5 × tan 27o =

β =− 0.255

We observe that this factor is only about 50% of the 𝛽𝛽 value used for the
previous skin friction computation, suggesting that either the previous method is
exceedingly heedless or that the present one is too conservative. One investigator
(Fellenius, in his Basics of Foundation Design) has proposed a reasonable interval of
𝛽𝛽 values ranging from 0.15 to 0.35 for clay (Table 7), which would preclude the first
value we obtained from being used. Nonetheless, the same author acknowledges
that 𝛽𝛽 values can deviate substantially from his range. The unit skin friction
resistance with this 𝛽𝛽 coefficient is

L  10 
f s = βσ vo′ = 0.255 ×  γ ′ = 0.255 ×  × (19.5 − 9.81) = 12.4 kPa
2  2 
The skin friction Qf,2 is then

Q f ,2 = f s × p × L = 12.4 × ( 4 × 1) × 10 = 496 kN

A third approach to establish unit friction in the 𝛽𝛽-method, valid for clays,
is to resort to the trend line given in Figure 1. For a plasticity index PI = 40, there
corresponds a 𝛽𝛽 coefficient approximately equal to 0.225. The unit skin friction is
found as

L  10 
f s = βσ vo′ = 0.225 ×  γ ′ = 0.225 ×  × (19.5 − 9.81) = 10.9 kPa
2  2 
The corresponding skin friction Qf,3 is

Q f ,3 = f s × p × L = 10.9 × ( 4 × 1) × 10 = 436 kN

A reasonable approach to determine a final value of 𝛽𝛽 would be to reject

the larger value, i.e., the one obtained from sample NAVFAC data, and instead pick
the average of 𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓 values obtained from the other two methods, yielding

∑Q − Q f ,1
f ,i
436 + 496
=Qf i
= = 466 kN
2 2
Nevertheless, we shall include 𝑄𝑄𝑓𝑓,1 in our final computations to give an
upper limit for the ultimate load. The second step is to assess the end-bearing
capacity, Qp. As before, for piles in saturated clays under undrained conditions, the
end-bearing load can be approximated as

Q p = 9 ( su )b Ab

where (su)b is the undrained cohesion of the soil at the pile end, and Ab is the cross-
sectional area of the pile. Substituting (su)b = 60 kPa and Ab = 1×1 = 1 m2 gives

Q p ,1 = 9 × 60 × 1 = 540 kN

In an effective stress analysis, however, the contribution of the pile end to

loading is best determined with a relationship of the form

Qp
= f=
b Ab N q (σ vo
′ )b Ab

where 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 = 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

′
)𝑏𝑏 is the base resistance stress, given by the product of the
effective vertical stress at the end of the pile, (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏, and a bearing capacity
coefficient, Nq, which can be obtained by a number of different approaches. An
approximate range of Nq coefficients is provided in Table 8. In compiling
correlations and trend lines in a Nq versus 𝜙𝜙′ graph, one author found that some
of the lowest values were reported by Janbu’s 1976 expression, namely,

( )
2
N=
q tan φ ′ + 1 + tan 2 φ ′ e 2ψ tan φ ′

16
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
where 𝜓𝜓 is the angle of plastification associated with pile penetration, which
should not exceed 𝜋𝜋⁄3 for soft fine-grained soils (after all, in such cases the pile tip
is capable of piercing the soil without causing significant plastic zones). Taking 𝜓𝜓 =
𝜋𝜋⁄3 and 𝜙𝜙′ = 30o gives

( )
2 π
2× × tan 30o
Nq
= tan 30o + 1 + tan 2 30o e 3
= 10.05

It should be regarded that Nq is applicable only up to a certain critical

depth of penetration into the end bearing layer, that is, a critical depth, Lc, that is
dependent on friction angle, soil compressibility, and method of installation. One
expression that approximates Lc in the range of friction angles 20o ≤ 𝜙𝜙′ ≤ 40o is

Le ≤ 0.556 D exp ( 0.085φ ′ )

which in the present case becomes

Le ≤ 0.556 ×1× exp ( 0.085 × 30 ) =7.12 m

Hence, we will not use the full length of 10 m of the pile in computing the
end-bearing resistance. This affects the effective stress (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏 , which will be such
that

(σ vo′ )b,mod =Lcγ ′ =7.12 × (19.5 − 9.81) =69 kPa

The end-bearing resistance with Janbu’s factor is then

Q=
p ,2 10.05 × 69 =
× 1 693 kN

A third option would be to resort to Vesic’s expansion of cavities-based

approach, which has already been introduced in the previous example. In this
method, the end-bearing capacity of the pile is given by

Q p = N c* (σ vo′ )b,mod Ab

where the modified effective stress (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

′
)𝑏𝑏,mod = 69 kPa replaces the undrained
shear strength (𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢 )𝑏𝑏 at the end of the pile. Coefficient 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐∗ , as before, is given by

=N c* 1.33 ( ln I rr + 1) + 2.57

in which the reduced rigidity index is

Ir
I rr =
1 + I rε v

wherein Ir is the (non-reduced) rigidity index and 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 is the volumetric strain. In
undrained loading of saturated soil there is no volume change, but if construction
stops the excess pore pressures dissipate, consolidation occurs, and the volume
changes. Thus, a long-term, effective stress-based analysis would include
volumetric strain, i.e., 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 ≠ 0. As stated before, 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 can be approximated with the
expression

 φ ′ − 25  (σ vo
′ )b
=ε v 0.005 1 − 
 20  pa

where (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏 is the vertical effective stress at the level of the pile tip, and patm =
100,000 kPa is the atmospheric pressure. We have

(σ vo′ )b = 10 × (19.5 − 9.81) =

Lγ ′ = 96.9 kPa

Substituting the available data in the expression for 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 gives

ε= 0.005 × 1 −
 ( 30 ) − 25  × 96,900
= 0.00363
v 
 20  100, 000

We then proceed to compute Ir, which is given by

17
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Es
Ir =
′ )b tan φ ′
2 (1 + µ s )(σ vo

in which Es is the modulus of elasticity of the soil, and 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 is Poisson’s ratio for the
soil. We were given Es = 50 MPa, which is a reasonable value for a somewhat hard
clay, and 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 = 0.40. Substituting the available data in the foregoing relation yields

Es 50, 000
=Ir = = 319.2
2 (1 + µ s )(σ vo′ )b tan φ ′ 2 × (1 + 0.4 ) × 96.9 × tan 30o

We can then obtain Irr

Ir 319.2
=I rr = = 147.9
1 + I r ε v 1 + 319.2 × 0.00363

Then, we can return to the expression for the bearing capacity coefficient
𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐∗ , i.e.,

=N c* 1.33 ( ln147.9 +=
1) + 2.57 10.55

Accordingly, the end-bearing load as computed with Vesic’s formula is

Q p ,3= N c* (σ vo′ )b ,mod A=

b 10.55 × 69 × (12 =
) 728 kN
There is significant disparity between the three approaches for end-
bearing capacity. The initial short-term approach gave us a predicted end-bearing
load 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,1 = 540 kN; the calculation based on Janbu’s expression for the bearing
capacity coefficient produced a result 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,2 = 693 kN, which is 28% higher than the
first estimate; finally, a computation based on Vesic’s expansion of cavities
approach gave 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,3 = 728 kN, which in turn is almost 35% more than the first
estimate. In summary, the ultimate load imparted on the pile is in the range

Qult = Q f + Q p = ( 436 ; 496 ) + ( 540 ; 728 ) = ( 976 ; 1224 ) kN

The corresponding range for the allowable load capacity, given a factor of
safety FS = 1.5, is

Qult ( 976 ; 1224 )

Q
=all = = ( 651 ; 816 ) kN
FS 1.5
The interval that encompasses this set of values is (600 ; 900) kN.

► The correct answer is B.

Part B: In contrast with what is usually thought with granular soils, the
coefficient of subgrade reaction for cohesive soils can be estimated to be constant
with depth, and could be approximated with the following expression, proposed
by Vesic in 1961,

1
 Es D 4 12  Es 
0.65 
ks =× ×
 E I  2 
 p p  1 − µs 

where Es and Ep are Young’s modulus for the soil and the pile material,
respectively, 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 is Poisson’s ratio for the soil, D is the width of the pile and Ip is the
moment of inertia for the pile cross-section. Substituting Es = 50 MPa, Ep = 30,000
MPa, 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 = 0.40, D = 1 m, and Ip = 𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑3 ⁄12 = 1 × 13 ⁄12 = 0.0833 m4 gives

1
1
  12

 E D4   
12
 Es   50 ×1 4
  50, 000 
0.65 ×  s 
ks = × 2 
0.65 ×
= × 2 
27,930 kN m3
=
E I  1 − µ   1 × 13 
  1 − 0.40 
 p p  
 30, 000 × 
s

  12  

We can now return to the expression for R and substitute Ep = 30,000 MPa,
Ip = 0.0833 m4, and the just obtained ks = 27,930 kN/m3 = 27.93 MN/m3, giving

18
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 1
 30,000 × 0.0833  4
=R =  3.076
 27.93 
The lateral displacement of the pile as a function of depth can be
described with the equation

Qg R 3 M g R2
xz ( z ) Ax′
= + Bx′
EpI p EpI p

where Qg and Mg are the lateral force and the moment applied at the ground
surface (z = 0), whereas A’x and B’x are coefficients whose variations with the
dimensionless depth 𝑍𝑍 = 𝑧𝑧⁄𝑅𝑅, with 𝑍𝑍max = 𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅 as a parameter, are provided in
Figure 2. Similarly, the variation of moment Mz(z ) with depth is given by the
expression

M
= z ( z) Am′ Qg R + Bm′ M g

in which coefficients A’m and B’m are coefficients provided in the aforementioned
figure. Referring to the deflection equation, we have zero moment at the top of
the pile, so xz(z) reduces to

Qg R 3
xz ( z ) = Ax′
EpI p

which can be solved for the lateral load Qg,

Qg R 3 xz ( z ) E p I p
( z ) Ax′
x z= Qg
→=
EpI p Ax′ R 3

To obtain Qg, we require coefficient 𝐴𝐴′𝑥𝑥 , which in turn is a function of 𝑍𝑍max =

𝐿𝐿⁄𝑅𝑅 = 10/3.076 = 3.25. The results stemming from the theory used here would be
more precise if the pile were such that 𝐿𝐿 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇, at which point it is considered a
long pile; (T is a coefficient analogous to R, the difference being that it applies for
the calculation of deflections of piles in granular soils). But we will apply the theory
outlined here nonetheless. Charting Z = 0 in Figure 2, we read coefficient 𝐴𝐴′𝑥𝑥 ≈
1.458. Substituting this coefficient, along with the allowable deflection xz, max = 8
mm, Ep = 30 × 106 kPa, Ip = 0.0833 m4, and R = 3.076, the allowable lateral load is
determined as

0.008 × 30, 000, 000 × 0.0833

=Qg ,all = 471 kN
1.458 × 3.0763
The allowable lateral load on the pile is just short of 470 kilonewtons.
However, this magnitude of Qg is based on the limiting displacement condition only,
and a full design should also consider the allowable load by the moment capacity
of the pile. In this case, we resort to the function for Mz(z), which, with Mg = 0,
simplifies to

M
= z ( z) Am′ Qg R + Bm′ M g

∴Mz ( z) =
Am′ Qg R

M ( z)
∴ Qg =z
Am′ R

The maximum allowable moment the pile can carry is given by the
product of yield stress and section modulus,

Ip
M z=
,max σ=
YS σY
y

where 𝑦𝑦� is the distance from the neutral axis of the section to its upper or lower
extremity, which in this case equals 1.0/2 = 0.5 m, Ip = 0.0833 m4, and the yield
stress 𝜎𝜎𝑌𝑌 = 𝜖𝜖𝜖𝜖, where the strain at yield conditions for concrete is about 0.2%, so it
follows that

19
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
  0.2  0.0833
M z ,max=  × 30 × 109  × = 107 N ⋅ m= 10,000 kN ⋅ m
 100  0.5
From Figure 2, using the curve for Zmax = 3 as a reference, the largest 𝐴𝐴′𝑚𝑚
we can obtain is around 0.416. Substituting this coefficient, the accompanying
moment, and the value of R in the previous formula, we obtain the allowable load
as

M z ,max 10, 000

Qg,all
= = = 7815 kN
Am′ R 0.416 × 3.076

This is much greater than the allowable load predicted by the limit
displacement theory. This is comprehensible, since the bulky cross-section of this
pile, with one meter of width, results in high tolerable moments and,
consequently, high tolerable loads. Nevertheless, Qg, all = 471 kN controls.

► The correct answer is B.

P.5 ■ Solution
Part A: An effective stress analysis of skin friction load on a pile should
involve the 𝛽𝛽-method. Recall that the 𝛽𝛽-factor, in the formula proposed by
Burland, is given by

β= (1 − sin φ ′ ) tan δ
where 𝛿𝛿 is the soil-pile interfacial angle, which, following Table 6, ranges from
(2/3)𝜙𝜙′ to 0.8𝜙𝜙′ for steel piles; let us take a conservative 𝛿𝛿 = (2/3) × 36o = 24o. Then,

β= (1 − sin 36o ) tan 24o =

(1 − sin φ ′) tan δ = 0.184

Comparing this to the range of values in Table 7, this may be an

underestimate. However, the variation of the 𝛽𝛽 factor in granular soils is broader
than with other types of soil, so there is no need to outright reject our computed
value. The unit friction resistance is, in this case,

L  18 
f s = βσ vo′ = 0.184 ×  γ ′ = 0.184 ×  × (18.5 − 9.81) = 14.4 kPa
2  2 
and the corresponding load follows as

Q f ,1 = f s × p × L = 14.4 ×  2 × ( 0.356 + 0.376 )  ×18 = 380 kN

This is not greater than 400 kN, and hence denies statement 1. Another
possibility to assess the friction resistance by the 𝛽𝛽-method in sandy soils is to
resort to the formula recommended by Bhushan (1982),

β 0.18 + 0.65 Dr
=

where Dr is the relative density of the sand expressed in decimal form. We were
given Dr = 0.26, which corresponds to a loose sand, albeit one close to the interval
for medium-dense granular soils. Thus, 𝛽𝛽 is given by

β = 0.18 + 0.65Dr = 0.18 + 0.65 × 0.26 = 0.349

This is almost 90% above the estimate obtained from the Burland formula,
and serves to illustrate the inexactitude of frictional resistance calculations for
piles in sand. Nevertheless, proceeding with this quantity, the unit friction
resistance would be

L  18 
f s = βσ vo′ = 0.349 ×  γ ′ = 0.349 ×  × (18.5 − 9.81) = 27.3 kPa
2  2 
and the corresponding load is

Q f ,2 = f s × p × L = 27.3 ×  2 × ( 0.356 + 0.376 )  ×18 = 719 kN

20
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 A third option to determine the 𝛽𝛽 coefficient is to employ the trend line
traced in the 𝛽𝛽-coefficient versus pile length plane of Figure 3, which is Fellenius’s
condensation of a number of experimental results and design recommendations
established over the years. Entering L = 18 m in the red trend line given in this
graph, we read 𝛽𝛽 = 0.680. This is almost twice the value of 𝛽𝛽 obtained with the
Bhushan formula. The corresponding unit skin friction is

L  18 
f s = βσ vo′ = 0.680 ×  γ ′ = 0.680 ×  × (18.5 − 9.81) = 53.2 kPa
2  2 
The skin friction load follows as

Q f ,3 = f s × p × L = 53.2 ×  2 × ( 0.356 + 0.376 )  ×18 = 1402 kN

Notice that the result obtained with the Bhushan formula is only about
(719/1402) × 100 = 51.3% of this result, thus confirming statement 2. Observe, by
the way, that the skin friction on the H-pile could be close to 400 kN as predicted
by the Burland 𝐾𝐾 tan 𝛿𝛿 formula; or it could be around 700 kN as anticipated by the
Bhushan formula; or, yet, it may very well be as high as 1400 kN, if we are to
follow the trend line outlined by Fellenius.

We now turn to the end-bearing resistance that acts on the pile. One
simple approach to assess the end-bearing resistance in a sand deposit is due to
Berezantsev, who proposed, in 1961, that Qp be given by

Qp
= f=
b Ab N q (σ vo
′ )b Ab

where 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 is a bearing capacity factor that varies with the friction angle 𝜙𝜙′ as given
in Figure 4. (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏 is the vertical effective stress at the pile end, and Ab is the cross-
sectional area of the pile (which, in the case of an H-pile, is in fact the area of the
rectangle that circumscribes the cross-section, thus including the soil plugs). Since
we have L/B = 18/0.356 ≈ 50, we could trace an intermediary curve between those
that represent embedment ratios L/B = 20 and L/B = 70 and see which Nq
corresponds to 𝜙𝜙′ = 36o. This procedure yields approximately Nq = 50. We can then
compute the end-bearing resistance,

Q p ,1 =N q (σ vo′ )b Ab =50 × 18 × (18.5 − 9.81)  × ( 0.356 × 0.376 ) =1047 kN

Another simple approach to assess the end-bearing resistance in a sand

deposit is due to Meyerhof, who proposed, in 1976, that Qp be given by

Qp
= f=
b Ab N q∗ (σ vo
′ )b Ab ≤ ql Ab

where 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ once again is a bearing capacity factor that varies with the friction angle
𝜙𝜙′, this time following the interpolated values given in Table 9, while (𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
)𝑏𝑏 and Ab
are the same as before. For 𝜙𝜙′ = 36o, we have 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ = 168. Accordingly,

Q p = N q∗ (σ vo′ )b Ab = 168 × 18 × (18.5 − 9.81)  × ( 0.356 × 0.376 ) = 3517 kN

As noted in the foregoing equation, however, Meyerhof’s theory stipulates

that the end-bearing stress should not be greater than a limiting value 𝑞𝑞𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 , where
𝑞𝑞𝑙𝑙 is a unit point bearing resistance determined by the formula

ql = 0.5 pa N q∗ tan φ ′

In which pa = 100 kPa is the atmospheric pressure. Accordingly, the maximum end-
bearing load is

ql Ab = ( 0.5 p N
a
∗
q tan φ ′ ) × Ab = ( 0.5 ×100 ×168 × tan 36 ) × ( 0.356 × 0.376 ) =
o
817 kN

This is sensibly less than the initial value of Qp that we computed; indeed,
the point resistance obtained by Meyerhof’s initial formula may be as much as
seven times higher than the maximum 𝑞𝑞𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 established by the same theory.
Therefore, we take 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,2 = 817 kN. Notice that the end-bearing resistances
computed by means of Berezantsev’s and Meyerhof’s theories are within 400 kN
of each other (that is, 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,1 − 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,2 = 1047 − 817 = 230 kN). A third method to

21
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
determine the contribution of the pile’s end to resistance is that of Coyle &
Castello, who have analyzed 24 large-scale field load tests of driven piles in sand
and suggested that the end-bearing resistance be computed with the expression

Q p = N q∗ (σ vo
′ )b Ab

which would be identical to the Meyerhof formula were it not for the bearing
capacity factor 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ , which, in this case, varies with the embedment ratio L/D and the
friction angle 𝜙𝜙′ in accordance with Figure 5. In the present case, we have L/D =
18/0.356 ≈ 50 and 𝜙𝜙′ = 36o. Entering these quantities in the aforementioned
figure, we read 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞∗ = 40. Substituting this factor and other pertaining variables in
the expression for Qp gives

Q p ,3 =40 × 18 × (18.5 − 9.81)  × ( 0.356 × 0.376 ) =838 kN

which is less than 925 kN and thus implies that statement 4 is false. The end-
bearing resistances we’ve obtained range from 817 kN to 1047 kN; inasmuch as
the results from the Meyerhof (= 817 kN) and the Coyle & Castello (= 838 kN)
approaches are quite close and the result stemming from Berezantsev’s chart (=
1047 kN) deviates substantially from them, a prudent designer could simply reject
the latter and take the average of the former two; after all, the Berezantsev data is
the oldest of the three methods. This approach would lead to an ultimate end-
bearing capacity 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,ult = (817 + 838)/2 = 828 kN.

► Statements 2 and 3 are true, whereas statements 1 and 4 are false.

Part B: Since the soil deposit is homogeneous, it can be modeled by a

single shear modulus, which in the case of an isotropic material is given by

Es
G= G=
2 (1 + µ s )
s s

We were given Es = 15 MPa and 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 = 0.25. Accordingly,

Es 15
=Gs = = 6 MPa
2 (1 + µ s ) 2 × (1 + 0.25 )

Also, we have 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 = 0.30, the interfacial angle 𝛿𝛿 = (2⁄3)𝜙𝜙 ′ = (2⁄3) × 36o =
o
24 , the embedment ratio L/D = 18/0.356 = 50.6, and Ep = 200,000 MPa. With these
data, factor 𝜂𝜂 becomes

 6 
η =0.30 × tan 24o × ( 50.6 ) ×   =2.03 × 10−4
 200,000 
If we were to compute skin friction with a 𝛽𝛽-factor using Bhushan’s
formula, we would obtain a unit skin friction fs = 27.3 kPa, as demonstrated in the
previous part. Thus, if we substitute fs, the embedment ratio L/D = 50.6, and 𝜂𝜂 =
2.03×10-4 in the formula we were given, the uplift skin frictional stress becomes

 100 
 1 − 8η + 25η 
2
f s ,up = f s 1 − log10
 ( L D) 
 100  
 1 − 8 × ( 2.03 ×10 ) + 25 × ( 2.03 ×10 )  =25.6 kPa
−4 −4 2 
∴ f s ,up =27.3 × 1 − 0.2 log10
 ( 50.6 ) 
Consequently, the ultimate uplift skin friction load is such that

(Q ) =
f up
f s ,up × p × L= 25.6 ×  2 × ( 0.356 + 0.376 )  ×18= 675 kN

The reduction factor R that, when applied to the formula for the
downward skin friction Qf, would produce the same force as that obtained with
the 𝛽𝛽-method and Bhushan’s formula in the previous part, which was about 719
kN, is

22
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 (Q ) 675
(Q )
f up
f = R × Q f ,2 → R = = = 0.939
up Q f ,2 719

That is to say, the uplift skin friction has about 94% of the intensity of the
downward frictional resistance.

► The correct answer is D.

Part C: The skin friction resistance computed using the 𝛽𝛽-method

conjugated with Bhushan’s formula was Qf = 719 kN, whereas the end-bearing
resistance obtained with Meyerhof’s technique for granular soils was Qp = 817 kN.
With FS = 1.5, the working loads become Qf, all = 479.3 kN and Qp, all = 544.7 kN. The
length of the pile is L = 18 m, Ab = 0.356 × 0.376 = 0.134 m2, and Ep = 200,000 MPa.
Substituting these in the formula for settlement from elastic theory, se,1, we obtain

=se,1
( 544.7 + 0.6 × 479.3
=
) × 18 0.000559
= 0.56 mm
0.134 × ( 200 × 106 )

Next, let us consider the contribution to settlement due to the load carried
by the pile shaft. Here, we also need D = 0.356 m, p = 2(0.356 + 0.376) = 1.464 m, Es
= 15 MPa, and 𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠 = 0.25. We also require influence factor Iws, which is determined
as

L 18
2 + 0.35
I ws = 2 + 0.35
= 4.49
=
D 0.356
Substituting in the expression for se,2 gives

 479.3   0.356 
se,2 
= ×  × (1 − 0.252 ) × =
4.49 0.00182
= 1.82 mm
 1.464 × 18   15,000 
It remains to calculate the contribution to settlement caused by load
carried by the pile end. Here, we require the ultimate unit end-bearing resistance
𝑞𝑞𝑝𝑝,ult = 𝑄𝑄𝑝𝑝,ult⁄𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 = 817/0.134 = 6097 kPa and the empirical coefficient Cp = 0.03.
Substituting the pertaining variables brings to

544.7 × 0.025
=se ,3 = 0.00627
= 6.27 mm
0.356 × 6097
In a simplified analysis, the total settlement 𝑆𝑆 of the pile would be simply
the sum of the contribution of each component se,, or

S = se ,1 + se ,2 + se ,3 = 0.56 + 1.82 + 6.27 = 8.65 mm

The ASCE’s 1997 Standard Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Pile
Foundations stipulates that one way to conceive a failure load is to define it as the
load that causes a pile tip movement of 3.8 mm plus one percent of the tip
diameter. In the present case, this would correspond to a tip movement of 3.8 +
0.01 × 356 = 7.36 mm, which is 15% less than the settlement that we have
computed. Thus, if we were to follow such regulations, a larger factor of safety and
smaller working loads would have to be employed.

► The correct answer is B.

P.6 ■ Solution
The allowable load, given a factor of safety of 2, is

Qult Q f + Qb 300 + 580

Q
=all = = = 440 kN
FS FS 2
We have 𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢 = 10 mm for side friction and 𝛿𝛿𝑢𝑢 = 127/10 = 12.7 mm for end-
bearing resistance. Also, we make use of the exponents a = 0.40 and b = 0.60 in
the formulas just provided. The settlement due to elastic compression is
determined as

23
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
 Pzc P × 0.75 L 0.75 L
=δe = = P
Asec E p Asec E p Asec E p
0.75 ×15
=∴δ e = P 0.007049 P [ mm ]
0.00798 × 200, 000

The following table summarizes the calculations.

Side Friction End-Bearing

(fs*As)m (fb*Ab)m
δ (mm) δ/δu (fs)m/fs δ/δu (fb)m/fb P (kN) δe (mm) δ_Adj (mm)
(kN) (kN)

Ratio of Ratio of Settlement

Normalized Mobilized Normalized Mobilized Mobilized
mobilized mobilized due to Adjusted
Settlement Settlement skin friction Settlement end-bearing load
unit SF
load
unit EBR
load
Elastic Settlement
(SF comp.) to unit SF (EB comp.) to unit EBR = SF + EBR Compression

0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00

0.50 0.05 0.30 175 0.04 0.14 43 218 1.54 2.04
0.75 0.08 0.35 206 0.06 0.18 55 261 1.84 2.59
1.00 0.10 0.40 231 0.08 0.22 65 296 2.09 3.09
1.50 0.15 0.47 272 0.12 0.28 83 355 2.50 4.00
2.00 0.20 0.53 305 0.16 0.33 99 404 2.85 4.85
2.50 0.25 0.57 333 0.20 0.38 113 446 3.15 5.65
3.00 0.30 0.62 358 0.24 0.42 126 485 3.42 6.42
3.50 0.35 0.66 381 0.28 0.46 138 520 3.66 7.16
4.00 0.40 0.69 402 0.31 0.50 150 552 3.89 7.89
4.50 0.45 0.73 421 0.35 0.54 161 582 4.11 8.61
5.00 0.50 0.76 440 0.39 0.57 171 611 4.31 9.31
5.50 0.55 0.79 457 0.43 0.61 182 638 4.50 10.00
6.00 0.60 0.82 473 0.47 0.64 191 664 4.68 10.68
6.50 0.65 0.84 488 0.51 0.67 201 689 4.86 11.36
7.00 0.70 0.87 503 0.55 0.70 210 713 5.02 12.02
7.50 0.75 0.89 517 0.59 0.73 219 736 5.19 12.69
8.00 0.80 0.91 530 0.63 0.76 227 758 5.34 13.34
9.00 0.90 0.96 556 0.71 0.81 244 800 5.64 14.64
10.00 1.00 1.00 580 0.79 0.87 260 840 5.92 15.92
11.00 1.00 1.00 580 0.87 0.92 275 855 6.03 17.03
12.00 1.00 1.00 580 0.94 0.97 290 870 6.13 18.13
13.00 1.00 1.00 580 1.00 1.00 300 880 6.20 19.20

The adjusted settlement versus mobilized load data points, respectively

obtained from the red and blue columns above, are graphed below.

A curve fit, along with the plot markers, is provided in the following. The
point corresponding to the allowable load Qall = 440 kN is mapped, yielding 𝛿𝛿adj =
5.41 mm.

► The correct answer is B.

24
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
P.7 ■ Solution
Davisson’s method requires plotting a line on the P –𝛿𝛿 (load−settlement)
plane following the relation

B PL
) 4 [ mm ] +
δ ( P= +
120 AE
where P is the axial load applied on the foundation, B is the foundation diameter
or width, L is the foundation depth, A is the cross-sectional area, and E is the
modulus of elasticity of the foundation material (in this case, concrete). E for the
concrete can be computed with the formula 𝐸𝐸 = 4700�𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ = 4700�40 [N⁄mm2 ] =
29.73 N/mm2 = 29,725,000 kPa. Substituting this quantity, along with B = 250 mm,
L = 15,000 mm, and A = 0.252 = 0.0625 m2, we obtain

B PL 250 [ mm ] P × (15, 000 [ mm ])

δ ( P ) =+
4 + 4 [ mm ] +
= +
120 AE 120
( 0.0625 m  ) ×  29, 725, 000  kN
2 
m  
2

∴δ ( P ) =6.08 + 0.00807 P

Plotting this line in the P−𝛿𝛿 plane and looking for the intercept with the
horizontal axis, we conclude that the ultimate load capacity Pult is around 970 kN,
as shown.

► The correct answer is C.

P.8 ■ Solution
The influence length of the pile is 10 diameters above the tip and 4
diameters below it. Hence, the upper limit of influence is 8.6 − 10 × 0.410 = 4.5 m,
whereas the lower limit is 8.6 + 4 × 0.410 = 10.24 ≈ 10.5 m. Given these
approximations, we shall take the average blow count in the zone between a
depth of 4.5 m and 10.5 m; that is,

6 + 5 + 16 + 18 + 21
=( N 60 )sp = 13.2
5
We choose not to round the number up or down because our aim is to
use it in calculations, not report it in a soils investigation communiqué. We then
write Meyerhof’s expression to compute the end-bearing resistance of a pile using
SPT results,

L
=Q p 0.4 pa ( N 60 )sp   Ab ≤ 4 pa ( N 60 )sp Ab
D
where pa is the atmospheric pressure, (N60)sp is the special averaged standard
penetration number, L/D is the embedment ratio, and Ab is the cross-sectional

25
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
area of the pile. Substituting pa = 100 kPa, (N60)sp = 13.2, L/D = 8.6/0.41 = 21, and Ab
= 0.412 = 0.17 m2 on the left-hand side of the inequality gives

Q p = 0.4 × 100 × 13.2 × ( 21) × 0.17 = 1885 kN

We compare this result with the right-hand side of the inequality,

4 100 × 13.2 × 0.17 =

Q p =× 898 kN

The latter result is lower, so we take Qp = 898 kN. Next, to compute the
shaft resistance from SPT results, we resort to the formula

Q f = 0.01 pa N 60 pL

where 𝑁𝑁�60 is the average number of SPT blow counts throughout the length of the
�60 is calculated as
pile, and p is the perimeter of the pile section. 𝑁𝑁

4 + 8 + 6 + 5 + 16 + 18
=N 60 = 9.5
6
Accordingly,

Q f = 0.01× 100 × 9.5 × ( 4 × 0.410 ) × 8.6= 134 kN

The ultimate load imparted on the pile is then

Qult = Q p + Q f = 898 + 134 = 1032 kN

and, given a factor of safety FS = 3.5, the allowable load is

Qult Q p + Q f 1032
Q
=all = = = 295 kN
FS FS 3.5
► The correct answer is A.

P.9 ■ Solution
As per the Hiley formula, the ultimate load is

W ×H
Qult = ηb
C
S+
2
where W = 30 kN is the weight of the hammer, H = 0.9 m is the effective fall, S =
0.015 m is the average penetration per blow, C = 0.018 m is the temporary
compression of the pile, pile cap and soil. Lastly, 𝜂𝜂𝑏𝑏 is the efficiency factor, which is
given by

W + e2 P
ηb =
W +P
in which W = 30 kN, P = 45 kN, and e = 0.32 is the coefficient of restitution, so that

30 + 0.322 × 45
=ηb = 0.461
30 + 45
Substituting the pertaining variables in the equation for Qult, we obtain

30 × 0.8
0.461×
Qult = 434 kN
=
0.016 + 0.019 2

Applying the factor of safety, the allowable load becomes

Qult 434
Qallow
= = = 289 kN
FS 1.5
► The correct answer is C.

26
© 2020 Montogue Quiz
► ANSWER SUMMARY
Problem 1 C
Problem 2 C
Problem 3 B
4A B
Problem 4
4B B
5A T/F
Problem 5 5B D
5C B
Problem 6 B
Problem 7 C
Problem 8 A
Problem 9 C

► REFERENCES
 BUDHU, M. (2008). Foundations and Earth Retaining Structures. Hoboken:
John Wiley and Sons.
 CODUTO, D. (2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices. 2nd edition.
Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
 DAS, B. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th edition. Stamford:
Cengage Learning.

Got any questions related to this quiz? We can help!

Send a message to [email protected] and we’ll
answer your question as soon as possible.

27
© 2020 Montogue Quiz