Prediction of load-carrying capacity of driven piles

Y. K. CHOW,G. P. KARUNARATNE,
K. Y. WONG, AND S. L. LEE
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511
Received February 16, 1987
Accepted September 1 1, 1987
Two methods are presented to estimate the load-carrying capacity of driven piles. These methods use a new wave equation
model that incorporates the loss of energy to the soil mass through radiation damping of the soil. Conventional soil parameters
are used in this new model. Both methods use the load-test result of a test pile to estimate the soil parameters at the site by set
matching. These soil parameters are then used to predict the load-carrying capacity of similar piles at the site in subsequent
analyses from set measurements. The two methods are demonstrated by the prediction of the load-carrying capacity of 21 piles
at four sites.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

Key words: load-carrying capacity, pile foundations, pile driving, soil setup, wave equation model.

L'on prisente deux mCthodes pour tvaluer la capacitt portante des pieux forks; elles font appel B un nouveau modble qui
utilise 1'Cquation de transmission des ondes et qui incorpore la perte d'knergie dans la masse de sol par amortissement radiant
du sol. Ce modble fait appel aux parambtres conventionnels de sol. Les deux mtthodes utilisent les rksultats de l'essai de
chargement du pieu d'essai pour kaluer par appariement les parambtres du site qui servent alors pour prtdire la capacitC
portante de pieux similaires sur le site dans des analyses subskquentes B partir des mesures. Les deux mtthodes sont
dCmontrtes au moyen de la prtdiction de la capacitC portante de 21 pieux sur quatre sites.
Mots clks : capacitt portante, fondations sur pieux, fonqage de pieux, modble d'Cquation de transmission des ondes.
[Traduit par la revue]

Can. Geotech. 1. 25, 13-23 (1988)

For personal use only.

Introduction
Undoubtedly, the most reliable method to determine the
"true" load-carrying capacity of a pile is by a load test. For
economic reasons, only a prespecified number of piles per site
are load tested. A common alternative to predict the load-
canying capacity of the driven piles is by the use of "pile driv-
ing foknulae." These formulae assume rigid-body mechanics.
The parameters used in these formulae are based on experience
for a particular soil type, pile type, or driven depth. Extrapola-
tion of these parameters for use in other soil or pile types
can be unreliable. In addition, the assumption of rigid-body
mechanics does not represent the physical phenomenon of
stress wave propagation in the pile during driving. It is, there-
fore, not surprising that the accuracy of these formulae varies
considerably.
Smith (1960) presented a one-dimensional wave equation
model using a finite difference scheme for pile driving analy-
sis. The soil resistance to driving is represented by a series of
springs and dashpots. The total resistance to driving consists of
two components: a static soil resistance component and a
dynamic component to represent the damping of the soil.
Smith (1960) mentioned the possibility of predicting the load-
carrying capacity of a pile from the pile set using the wave
equation. The load-carrying capacity of the pile is given by the
static component of the soil resistance. Subsequently, Fore-
hand and Reese (1964) illustrated the load-carrying-capacity
prediction potential of the wave equation using the Smith
(1960) model.
The common procedure using the Smith (1960) model is to
determine the "soil" parameters applicable to the site by
matching the predicted set with the field set of a test pile. The
"failure load" determined from a ~ i l loade test is used as the
static soil resistance during driving. The load-carrying capacity
of other piles in the same site may then be estimated by set
matching using the determined "soil7' parameters from the
analysis of the test pile. This method of prediction assumes
Printed in Canada 1 imprim6 au Canada
that the soil resistances at the end of driving and at the time of
load testing are the same. Although this assumption may be
applicable for cohesionless soils, cohesive soils generally
exhibit a regain in strength or soil setup after the end of driv-
ing. Seed and Reese (1957), among others, showed that con-
siderable soil setup with time can occur for driven piles in
cohesive soils. This regain in soil strength with time is gener-
ally attributed to the restructuring of the cohesive soil particles
and the dissipation of the excess pore-water pressure generated
during driving. The increase in excess pore-water pressure in
the immediate vicinity of the piles as a result of driving in
cohesive soils has been reported by a number of investigators
(for example, Lo and Stermac 1965; Rigden et al. 1979). In
practice, a considerable time may have elapsed prior to the
load testing of the pile, resulting in substantial soil setup.
Hence, by assuming no soil setup, the method of load-carrying-
capacity prediction of piles using the Smith (1960) model does
not reflect the physical behaviour of driven piles in cohesive
soils. Although this method is not strictly rational, it does
appear to give practical solutions (for example, Forehand and
Reese 1964; Radhakrishnan et al. 1980). This is because,
in the correlation with the test pile, the influence of soil setup
has been implicitly accounted for in the "soil" parameters
determined.
Although the Smith (1960) model represents the first
approach to simulate the propagation of stress waves in a pile
driving analysis, the oversimplification of the complex prob-
lem of dynamic pile-soil interaction resulted in the use of
empirical parameters. These parameters are generally deter-
mined from a back analyses of pile driving records and pile
load tests. A large number of combinations of the quake, Q,
and damping constants, J, and J p , can, theoretically, match the
field-observed set using the load-test value as the static soil
resistance during driving. This results in an experience-
dependent situation when selecting the "correct" values for
these parameters. Furthermore, the manner of defining set in
 14 CAN. GEOTECH. 3 . VOL. 25, 1988

the Smith (1960) model-by subtracting the quake from the

maximum tip displacement-results in an approximation of the
true set.
Other soil models were proposed subsequent to the Smith
(1960) model. The soil model adopted in the Texas Transport
Institute (TTI) computer program accounts for the nonlinearity
of the soil damping force with penetration velocity. The total
soil resistance Rd in the TTI program is given by

where R, is the spring component of soil resistance, JI is the

damping coefficient, and N is an exponent less than unity to
account for the nonlinear variation of the damping force with
velocity, v , of the pile.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) proposed a soil

model where the soil damping force is uncoupled from the
soil spring force. The total resistance, Rd, during driving is
given by

where J, is a dimensionless constant often referred to as the

Case damping factor and Zp is the mechanical impedance of the
pile defined by E p A p / c w Ep
; is the Young's modulus of the pile
material, Ap the pile cross-sectional area, and c, the longitudi-
nal wave speed given by where p p is the density of the
pile material. It is of interest to note that J, is not a soil prop-
erty, since a different value of J, may be required if a pile of
For personal use only.

different material or dimension is driven in the same soil.

The "soil parameters" in the TTI and CWRU computer pro-
grams are clearly empirical correlation parameters that have
little rational or physical representation.
A new one-dimensional wave equation model formulated
using visco-elasto-dynamic theory was presented by Lee et al.
(1988). The loss of energy to the soil through radiation damp-
ing of the soil and hysteresis due to the plasticity of the soil
are accounted for. Unlike the soil model proposed by Smith
(1960) and those in the TTI and CWRU programs, the input
parameters for this new soil model can be experimentally
determined or correlated with conventional soil properties.
Two methods are presented for predicting the load-canying
capacity of the driven piles using this model based on the
method of set matching.
In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of stress
waves measured during driving to predict the load-canying
capacity of driven piles (Goble et al. 1975). The use of mea-
sured stress waves is advantageous, since the uncertainty in the
amount of energy transfered to the pile is eliminated. In this
method, the hammer system is not modelled. Instead, the mea-
sured force or velocity trace at the instrumented location is
used as a boundary condition in a wave equation analysis. The
soil resistance and distribution are varied until the predicted
force or velocity (depending on which was used as a boundary
condition) trace matches the measured values. This method of
prediction is also possible using the new model proposed by
Lee et al. (1988). Although stress wave measurements may be
more refined than the set matching methods proposed in this
paper, the instrumentation is costly and matching the stress
waves using the wave equation analysis requires considerable
experience. In addition, the load-canying-capacity prediction
is limited only to the instrumented piles. The method of stress
wave matching is, therefore, less versatile and less economical
than the methods of set matching, since sets are recorded
routinely during driving. Prior to the description of the two
ONE-DIMENSIONAL
f l N l l E ELEMENT L:OOEL
FIG. 1. Wave equation model.
methods, a review of the new one-dimensional model pro-
posed by Lee et al. (1988) is presented herein.
Review of a rational, new one-dimensional wave equation
model
A new one-dimensional wave equation model presented by
Lee et al. (1988) is shown in Fig. 1. In this model, the pile is
discretized into line elements interconnected at the nodes. It
should be noted that the major difference between this new
model and that due to Smith (1960) or those in the WEAP
(wave equation analysis of pile driving) and TTI computer pro-
grams lies in the modelling of the soil behaviour during driv-
ing. The treatment of the pile using the finite difference
method, finite element method, or the method of characteris-
tics should result in essentially similar solutions for the same
soil model.
The new soil model is derived from visco-elasto-dynamic
theory. The total soil resistance prior to soil failure is given by
where k and c are the stiffness and radiation damping coeffi-
cients respectively and u is the pile displacement. For the
behaviour of the soil at the pile shaft, the soil model for a har-
monically vibrating rod in an infinite medium was assumed
(Novak et al. 1978). The soil stiffness and radiation damping
coefficients are dependent on the frequency of excitation, and
they are essentially constant at high frequencies. Since an
 CHOW ET AL.
impact load comprises mainly high-frequency components,
these frequency-dependent coefficients may be replaced by
frequency-independent ones. The frequency-independent stiff-
ness (k,) and radiation damping (c,) coefficients per unit length
of the pile prior to soil failure are
where G, is the soil shear modulus, ro the pile radius, and p,
the soil density.
For the tip soil behaviour, the response is assumed to be
similar to that of a rigid disc on the surface of an elastic half-
space (Lysmer and Richart 1966). The frequency-independent
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
soil stiffness and radiation coefficients are
where v, is the Poisson's ratio of the soil.
Equations [6] and [7] are applicable for closed-ended or
solid piles. For open-ended pipe piles, the stiffness and damp-
ing coefficients for a rigid ring are assumed. The stiffness
coefficient for the rigid ring proposed by Egorov (1965) is
where Q is a factor that accounts for thickness of the ring.
For personal use only.
The radiation damping coefficient for the ring is approxi-
mated by the method proposed by Gazetas and Dobry (1984).
The damping coefficient is
where ri is the internal radius of the pile.
The pile set in this new model is determined as the perma-
nent tip displacement when the tip velocity vanishes.
Rate effects
When soil is subjected to rapid loading, the resistance of the
soil to failure may increase above the static failure limit (see,
for example, Gibson and Coyle 1968; Litkouhi and Poskitt
1980). This soil resistance enhancement is attributed to the rate
effects that can be approximated by the power law relationship
proposed by Gibson and Coyle (1968) as
where Rfis the limiting resistance to failure at velocity u , R, is
the ultimate static soil resistance, J* is the rate coefficient
describing the magnitude of the rate effects, and N is an expo-
nent describing the nonlinear relationship between Rf and
velocity. Equation [lo] is applicable for soil at the pile shaft
and the pile tip. In the model by Lee et al. (1988), the failure
of the soil is defined as the point when the dynamic soil spring
force reaches the limiting failure resistance, R , in [lo]. At this
instance, the propagation of shear waves ceases across the
pile - soil interface. Therefore, the soil resistance during driv-
ing when soil failure has occurred is given by
Input soil parameters
The required input soil parameters for the wave equation
analysis are the shear modulus, G,, Poisson's ratio, v,, and the
bulk density, p,. In the absence of experimental data, Lee et al.
(1988) presented tentative recommendations for the selection
of these parameters. The value of G, may be estimated from a
15
G,/c, ratio of 150 for cohesive soils and a G,/a{ ratio of 200
for cohesionless soils where cu is the undrained shear strength
and a{ the effective vertical stress. The Poisson's ratio, v,,
may be assumed to be 0.5 for saturated cohesive soils and 0.35
for cohesionless soils. The G,/c, ratio of 150 is commonly
assumed in the analysis of axially loaded piles in cohesive soils
while the G/a{ ratio of 200 for cohesionless soils was deter-
mined by the authors from back analysis of driving and load-
test data.
The authors have presented correlations of the rate effect
coefficients for the soil at pile shaft and tip, J: and J,* respec-
tively, with the undrained shear strength, c,, for cohesive soils
and Jp" with the angle of internal friction, 6 , for cohesionless
soils, based on data from other researchers (Lee et al. 1988).
The coefficient J,* is generally negligible for cohesionless
soils. These correlations will facilitate the selection of the
parameters in the absence of experimental data. Although the
rate effect coefficient for the tip, J,*, for cohesionless soils is
dependent on the angle of internal friction 6 , this coefficient
during driving appears to be small owing to the densification of
the soil. Back analysis of driving and load-test data by the
authors, using the Lee et al. (1988) model, indicated that the
value of J,* is in the region of 0.1 ( s / ~ ) O .The
~ . value of the
exponent, N, from various researchers, for both cohesive and
cohesionless soils, appears to lie in the region of 0.2 for both
the shaft and tip soil.
Proposed load-carrying-capacity prediction methods
The two methods based on the use of the new one-
dimensional wave equation model to predict load-caving
capacity of the driven piles are now described. Method 1
assumes that the limiting failure soil resistance of a reference
test pile during driving is approximated by the "failure load"
determined from a load test. This method assumes that the rate
effects are absent (i.e., J* is zero). The method may be used
for piles driven in cohesive and cohesionless soils. In particu-
lar, the method is rational for piles driven in cohesionless soils,
since cohesionless soils generally exhibit negligible thixotropic
effects. Method 2 predicts the load-caving capacity immedi-
ately after driving and uses the "failure load" determined from
the load test to establish a soil setup factor applicable for the
elapsed time prior to the load test of a reference test pile. This
method is only applicable for piles driven in cohesive soils,
since, as noted earlier, cohesionless soils generally exhibit
negligible thixotropic effects. The limiting failure resistance of
the soil during driving is determined by [lo], taking into
account the rate effects. This method is, therefore, a rational
approach for the prediction of capacity of driven piles in cohe-
sive soils, emulating the physically observed phenomena of
rate effects and soil setup.
Method 1
The procedures in this method are aimed at determining the
unit skin friction and unit end bearing applicable for the soil in
which the piles are driven. The limiting failure resistance of
the soil during driving is estimated for a reference test pile by
the "failure load" determined from the load test.
For cohesive soils, the unit skin friction is assumed to be
ac,, where a is an empirical factor. The unit end-bearing
resistance is assumed to be 9cu. Although the a method
(Tornlinson 1970) is illustrated here for cohesive soils, the pro-
cedures outlined are also applicable for the effective stress or /3
method (Burland 1973) and the X method (Vijavergiya and
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988

METHOD 1

soil type

v
A
Deterrr~ine
Gs Cu
+
I
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

Determine base Estimate Ks and 1

resistance determine shaft
= 9 Cu A, resistance
+
Use load test
6
Use load test
to determine to determine Nq,
shaft resistance the base
+ I
empil-ical factor
I
Determine a
For personal use only.

Predict set
Predict set -
using wave eq. Reestimate

Use 6, Gs Iq'
ratio, K, and Nq
for subsequent
Use a, Gs /C, predictions
ratio for
subsequent
predict ions
\I
I T

( END )
FIG. 2. Flow chart for method 1.

Focht 1972). Instead of determining the value of a, the value
of p or X is determined for the ,t?method and X method respec-
tively. For cohesionless soils, the unit skin friction is assumed
to be K,a{ tan 6 and the unit base resistance is assumed to be
Nqa{where K, is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, 6 is
the pile-soil friction angle, a{ is the vertical effective stress
given by the product of the submerged unit weight, y',and the
depth, and Nqis an empirical factor for the base resistance. The
values of c, and y' may be estimated from soil investigation.
The pile-soil friction angle, 6, may be estimated from the
 ET AL.

angle of internal friction, 4, of the cohesionless soil. METHOD 2

The unknowns-a for the cohesive soils and K, and Nq for
the cohesionless soils-are determined using the load-test
result and the wave equation analysis.
For cohesive soils, the value of a is first estimated from the
"failure load" determined from the load test on a reference
pile, assuming the unit base resistance to be 9cu. For cohesion-
less soils, the value of K, is first estimated based on the static
design approach. Limiting values of the unit skin friction must and rate coefficients

ml
be observed in determining the shaft resistance (Vesic 1967).
The base resistance may now be determined by subtracting the
shaft resistance from the "failure load" estimated from the
load test. The unit base resistance determined is compared with Define a=-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

the limiting base resistance (Vesic 1967). If this limiting base

resistance is exceeded, the value of K, is reestimated and the
process to estimate Nq is repeated.
A wave equation analysis is then performed to predict the
set. If the predicted set is higher than the field set, the value of Reestimate Predict set using
a or K, is increased. Two guidelines are available for matching
sets. Firstly, the value of a or K, should not be out of the range
of a or K, commonly assumed in the static design. Secondly,
the values of the range of c, or y'at the site bound the value of
R,. If set matching cannot be achieved without the use of an
unreasonable a or K, value, the value of c, or a{ (hence G,)
should be varied. Thus the wave equation analysis for the
reference pile serves to "fine tune" the value of a or K,.
If the soil is layered, but is essentially of the same type
For personal use only.

(cohesive or cohesionless), the a or K, value for the layer esti-

mated to contribute most to the shaft resistance is adjusted in
the set matching. This choice is reasonable, since an equal
change of a or K, of this layer (relative to the other layers) will
result in the largest variation in the predicted set. For cohesion-
less soil, if this layer is at its limiting resistance, K, can only be
adjusted for a lower predicted set. For a higher predicted set,
K, of the subsequent layer contributing the most to the shaft
resistance is adjusted.
It may be noted that for cohesionless soil, the driving action
may densify the soil through compaction or loosen the soil by
dilation. Hence, the vertical effective stress, a{, for the soil
adjacent to the pile will depend upon the degree of compaction
or dilation of the soil.
For a mixed soil profile, one can start by considering contri-
bution of the shaft resistance from the cohesionless layers first
and use the load test and the wave equation analysis to estimate
the contribution of shaft resistance by the cohesive layers. The
load-carrying capacity of any pile in the same site may now be
estimated by varying the c, or a{ (hence G,) until set matching
is achieved, using the a or Nq and K, determined by the set
matching of the reference test pile.
A flow chart showing schematically the procedures for
method 1 is shown in Fig. 2.
Method 2
During the driving of piles in cohesive soils, the soil adjacent
to the pile is constantly remoulded and, therefore, the unit skin
friction may be estimated using the remoulded undrained shear
strength, c, (Toolan and Fox 1977). The value of a is given by
the ratio of c, to c,. This value of a represents the reciprocal of
the sensitivity of the cohesive soil. The ultimate resistance to
failure during driving, Rf,is given by the sum of the static
resistance determined from c, and the additional resistance due
to the rate effects ([lo]). The procedures for set matching are
now identical to method 1 for cohesive soils. When set match-
determine soil
setup
Use a , G,/C" ,
rate coefficients
and soil setup
for subsequent
predictions
FIG. 3. Flow chart for method 2.
ing is achieved, the "failure load" determined from the load
test is use to determine the average soil setup factor for the ref-
erence test pile by taking the ratio of the "failure load" and the
static soil resistance, R,, from the wave equation analysis. It is
essential to note that this soil setup factor determined is appli-
cable only for the elapsed time prior to load testing of the refer-
ence test pile. If the soil consists of layers of cohesive and
cohesionless soils, the soil setup factor should be determined
only for the cohesive layers. In this case, the resistance of the
cohesionless layers is assumed to be reasonably estimated. Set
matching of other piles in the same site may now be possible
using the values of a and rate effect coefficients determined
using the reference test pile. The contribution of the soil resist-
ance of the cohesive layers to the load-carrying capacity of the
pile is then estimated by multiplying the static soil resistance of
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988

TABLE1. Input parameters

Site A-East Lagoon Site B-Pasir Panjang

Pile reference: Pile reference:
JA JB * I* IB Q B-36* G-15 B-1 2-142
Pile cross-sectional area (m2)
Pile penetration (m)
Hammer mass (t)
Capblock stiffness (kN1m)
Coefficient of restitution
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

for capblock
Cushion stiffness (kN1m)
Coefficient of restitution
for cushion
Mass of pile cap (t)
Hammer drop (m)
Set (mmlblow)
Load test (kN)
Predicted capacity,
method 1 (kN)
For personal use only.

Predicted capacity,
method 2 (kN)

Predicted capacity,
Smith (1960)
method (kN)
- -

NOTES:
(1) Figures within ( ) denote percentage error in predicted capacity. (2) Figures within < > denote elapsed time prior to
*Reference test pile.

the cohesive layers with the soil setup factor determined from
the reference test pile. Thus, this soil setup factor corrects
for the soil regain in strength with time up to the period of the
load test.
A flow chart showing schematically the procedures for
method 2 is shown in Fig. 3.
Additional remarks about the prediction methods
The set of a pile is dependent on the amount of energy trans-
mitted to the pile from the impact of the hammer. In most wave
equation analyses, this energy is estimated from the impact
velocity with allowance made for the efficiency, [, of the
hammer. This impact velocity, uo, is determined by multiply-
ing the observed ram stroke, h , by this efficiency, such that
where g in the acceleration due to gravity. Equation [12] is a
measure of the ram energy. The energy transmitted to the pile
top may be less than the ram energy because of energy losses
as a result of hysteresis due to restitution of the capblock,
cushion, and (or) cap and the interaction of the stress waves
due to the impedance differences of the capblock, cushion, pile
cap, and pile. These energy losses are implicitly determined in
the wave equation analysis from the specified material and
geometric properties of the capblock, cushion, cap, and pile.
It is of interest to note that the ram's energy determined from
[12] may be less than that determined by using the same effi-
ciency multiplied by the rated or maximum energy indicated
by the hammer manufacturer. This is because the rated energy
corresponds to the maximum stroke possible for the hammer.
The use of an efficiency multiplied by the rated energy may not
be reasonable for a diesel hammer, since the energy delivered
by a diesel hammer depends on the magnitude of the soil resist-
ance encountered. In the analyses for piles driven with a diesel
hammer, the diesel hammer is treated as an equivalent drop
hammer with the energy determined from the observed stroke.
For a steam or drop hammer, the stroke can be controlled by
presetting. For a diesel hammer, the stroke is determined from
the O-ring levels, since control of the stroke of the ram by reg-
ulating the fuel intake is generally difficult. The sensitivity of
the load-carrying-capacity prediction to the input hammer
energy, was discussed by Tavenas and Audibert (1977). There-
fore, the methods of load-carrying-capacity prediction by set
matching require that this energy be reasonably estimated. The
effect of input hammer energy on the load-carrying capacity
prediction is demonstrated by one of the case studies presented
herein.
It may be noted that the analysis in method 2 requires the
rate coefficients, J,*and Jp*, for pile shaft and tip respectively
and the exponent N. These parameters are not required in
method 1.
It is of interest to note the similarity between method 1 and
 and wave equation results
Site C-Missouri
Pile reference:
SBl* SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB7 1*
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
For personal use only.
load testing. (3) NA = not applicable.
the Smith (1960) method. In method 1, the soil setup effects
for piles driven in cohesive soils are implicitly accounted for in
the value of a determined from the wave equation analysis. In
the method using the Smith (1960) model, these soil setup
effects are implicitly accounted for in either the Q or J values
determined by the wave equation analysis. Thus, both methods
attempt to correlate the event at the time of driving to that
during load test by the adjustment of these parameters to
include possible thixotropic effects.
Case studies
Twenty-one driven piles at four sites were examined by the
proposed methods to predict the load-carrying capacity of
these piles. Three of the sites consist of predominantly cohe-
sive sbils. The fourth site consists of cohesionless soils and,
for the reason mentioned earlier, is only studied using method
1. All the 21 piles were load tested to "failure." It is worth
noting that, very few piles have a load-settlement
curve that has a well-defined plunging failure and defining the
"failure load" of a pile depends on the methods employed (for
example, Davisson's method (1973) or Chin's method (1970)).
However, the pile-top settlement may be the limiting criterion
and for the piles in sites A, B, and D, this criterion was
adopted. The "failure loads" for piles at sites A and B were
determined as the load corresponding to a pile-top displace-
ment of 20 mm using the load-settlement curve of either the
Site D-Bangkok
Pile reference:
2 3 4 5 6
maintained load-test method or the constant rate of penetration
method (Whitaker 1976). For site D, the "failure load" was
determined, from the load-settlement curve of a maintained
load test, as the load corresponding to a pile settlement of 10%
of the pile diameter. For the piles in site C, Blendy (1979)
defined the allowable load as half of that determined by the
Davisson method (1973) from the load-settlement curve
determined from a maintained load test. Since the method of
set matching requires the use of the "failure load" of a
reference pile, the load-carrying capacity predicted for other
piles in the same site should be compared only with those
determined by the method used for the reference pile.
Site conditions
Site A-This site is situated on the East Lagoon in the
Republic of Singapore. The soil profile consists of a top layer
of soft marine clay underlain by stiff to very stiff clay. The soil
profile is shown in Fig. 4. Prestressed concrete piles were
driven to depths of between 30 and 35 m using British Steel
Piling (BSP) 8.13 and 12.19 t steam hammers, for a container-
terminal project managed by the Port of Singapore Authority.
Five pile load-test results were available for this site.
Site B-This site is also located in the Republic of Singapore
at Pasir Panjang. The soil profiles at this site vary quite consid-
erably in the thickness of the various strata. In general, the soil
consists of soft to stiff marine clay interbedded with thin sand
seams. A typical soil profile is also shown in Fig. 4. Pre-
 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 25, 1988

Description Description
L'
Very s o f t t o s o f t
0 - -- - -
- - --
marine c l a y - -- - -- Water
C, = 5 - 15 W a

Soft t o s t i f i clay with

some s a n d and s h e l l s

C, = 30 - 50 kPa
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

S t i f f t o very s t i f f
clay Shale I

-- C, = 60 - 120 kPa

end o f b o r e h o l e

SITE A - E a s t Lagoon SITE B - P a s i r Panjang

For personal use only.

Description Description

Soft clay
C, = 10 - 25 kPa

S t i f f clay
C, = 80 - 160 kPa

-. -

,
%

,, , Medium d e n s e sand
.' . ... ..
' .. -
SPT 40 - 55
. . I

i
- ..

- end of b o r e h o l e -- -
- .-.>:.- - -
'
S t i f f clay
C, =

SPT 80 - 95
50 - 110kPa
Very d e n s e s a n d

Very d e n s e sand
SPT 4 9 - 116
end of b o r e h o l e

SITE C - Missouri SITE D - Bangkok

FIG.4. Soil profiles for case studies presented.

stressed concrete piles were driven to depths of between 25 and
30 m below seabed using Kobe K42 and K45 diesel hammers,
for a wharf project. This project was also managed by the Port
of Singapore Authority. Four pile load test results were avail-
able for this site.
Site C-This site is located in Missouri. The site consists of
an upper layer of sand fill underlain by a layer of silt and a
layer of dense sand. The soil profile as described by Blendy
(1979) is also shown in Fig. 4. Precast concrete piles were
driven to depths of 9-25 m using Vulcan VUL 80C diesel
hammers. Six pile load-test results were available for these
piles.
Site D-This site is located in Bangkok, Thailand. The soil
profile at this site consists of alternating layers of clay and
 CHOW ET AL
TABLE2. Parameters determined from wave equation analysis
Site A-East Lagoon Site B-Pasir
Method 1 Method 2 Method 1
a! (average) 1.0 0.5 0.7
Ks - -
Ng
- - - -
Soil setup - 1.87 - 2.07
*Unit skin friction in cohesionless soil limited to 120 Wa.
+Unit skin friction in cohesionless soil limited to 100 Wa.
'Unit base resistance limit of 10 000 kPa reached for all piles.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
sand, and is also shown in Fig. 4. Steel pipe piles were driven
to depths of between 55 and 60 m with Kobe K45 diesel ham-
mers, and founded on a very dense and sand layer for a hotel
project (Lee et al. 1984). In anticipation of ground subsidence
as a result of water withdrawal from the sand substrata, the
piles were coated with bitumen at certain sections to reduce the
negative skin friction. For the purpose of pile driving analysis,
the effect of the bitumen was neglected. This assumption is
justified, since at the velocities experienced during driving the
shear strength of the bitumen-pile surface is very much higher
than the skin friction between the soil -bitumen interface. The
piles were initially jacked through the soft upper layers and
augered prior to driving. Six piles were load tested.
For personal use only.
Results and discussions
Table 1 summarizes the hammer and pile parameters used in
the study. The measured load-carrying capacity of the 21 piles,
the predicted capacity using both methods, and the predicted
capacity using the Smith (1960) model for sites A, B, and C
are also included in Table 1. The predicted load-carrying
capacity using the Smith (1960) model for sites A and B were
presented by Quek et al. (1979) and those for site C were pre-
sented by Blendy (1979). The elapsed times after installation
prior to load testing of the piles in site D are also indicated in
Table 1. Table 2 shows the a , K,,and N, values and soil setup
factors determined using the reference test piles for the four
sites. The efficiencies, l, of the steam hammers and diesel
hammers used to determine the impact velocity were assumed
to be 65 and 85 % respectively. It should be reiterated here that
these efficiencies are used with the observed stroke of the
hammer and not the maximum stroke.
It was shown in Wong et al. (1987) that the set determined
from a single-blow analysis for piles with large shaft and (or)
tip resistances may not be representative of subsequent sets
determined by multiple-blow analysis where residual forces
due to the preceding blows are taken into account. The set
determined by a single blow may overestimate the sets of sub-
sequent blows for piles driven in soils where large residual
forces can build up along the pile shaft and at the tip. This
situation is common, for example, for piles driven in sand. In
the first hammer blow (single blow) the pile and soil are
assumed to be stress free. The pile tip will be prevented from
rebounding to the full elastic limit or "quake" owing to the
residual forces along the shaft that have built up at the end of
the blow. The subsequent hammer blow has to reverse the
direction of these residual forces along the shaft prior to soil
plasticity in the downward direction. Wong et al. (1987)
showed that for piles driven in cohesionless soils, the differ-
ence in sets for the first and subsequent blows can be signifi-
cant. However, for cohesive soils this effect is generally small.
Panjang Site C-Missouri Site D-Bangkok
Method 2 Method 1 Method 1 Method 2
0.333 - 0.54 0.29
- 1.5" 1.OOi 1.Ot
30 50t 50:
- - 2.0
This is primarily due to the small tip resistance of piles in cohe-
sive soils, resulting in only small shaft residual forces at the
end of the hammer blow.
The piles at sites A and B were driven in cohesive soils and
thus were studied using single-blow analysis. However, the
piles in sites C and D were driven into cohesionless and lay-
ered soils respectively. Therefore, the piles at sites C and D
were analysed by multiple-blow analysis. Five hammer blows
were applied consecutively when the hammer energy due to
the previous blow vanishes. In general, the residual forces
"stabilized" after about three blows and the sets of subsequent
blows after the third are similar. It is interesting to note that
even for a hammer blow rate of 60 blows/min, the duration
between blows is more than sufficient for the dissipation of the
hammer energy from the previous blow. For example, for a
30 m long concrete pile, 1 s duration represents about 105~lc,,
where L is the length of the pile. In general, stress wave mea-
surements indicated that the energy would have been dissi-
pated long before 105Llcw. here fore, the assumption in the
wave equation analysis of applying the subsequent blow when
the hammer energy due to the previous blow has dissipated is
reasonable.
The results obtained using the two methods described in this
paper showed favourable predictions of the load-cawing
capacity of the piles. The results also showed that the load-
carrying capacity predicted appears to be insensitive to either
method, since the order of accuracy is about the same. The
predicted capacities of both methods are plotted against the
load-tested capacities in Fig. 5. The load-carrying capacities of
the piles predicted by both methods were all within 85% of the
load-tested capacities with the exception of four.
In general, the accuracy of the predicted capacity by the new
model using either method is a marginal improvement over the
predicted capacity by the Smith (1960) model for cohesive
soil. However, this improvement in accuracy is quite signifi-
cant for the case of the piles driven in sand at site C.
Pile 5 at site D showed a load-carrying-capacity underpre-
diction of about 30% by both methods. This underprediction is
in part attributed to the larger soil setup due to the longer
elapsed time (36 days) prior to load testing for pile 5 compared
with the elapsed time of the reference test pile, pile 1 (11
days). Therefore, the use of the soil setup factor determined by
the reference test pile in method 2 may result in the underpre-
diction of the load-carrying capacity of other piles with elapsed
times that are significantly larger than that of the reference test
pile. Note that the other four piles at site D had better predicted
load-carrying capacities owing to the much smaller deviations
in elapsed time from the elapsed time of the reference test pile
(Table 1).
 22 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 2 5 , 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
LOAD - TEST CAPACITY [ kN)
FIG. 5. Comparisons of predicted and measured load-canying
capacities.
A sible to check the validity of the assumed parameters (a and c,)
X
For personal use only.
I capacity is illustrated using method 2 for piles in site D.
I
I Figure 7 shows the load-carrying capacity versus blow count
I
I
I tration of 55 m. For this site. the maximum deviation between
I
o I
o 10 20 30 36
ELAPSED TIME (DAY)
FIG. 6. Variation of soil setup of cohesive layers with time for
site D.
Using the "failure loads" determined from the load tests of
the six piles and the static soil resistance immediately after
driving, R,, determined using method 2, an estimate of the
average soil setup variation with time for the cohesive layers at
site D is shown in Fig. 6. The points in this figure were
obtained by plotting the ratios of the soil resistance due to the
cohesive layers (from "failure load") to the soil resistance of
the same layers immediately after driving (from wave equation
analyses) for the six piles against the respective elapsed times.
The resistance of the cohesive layers (from "failure load")
was determined by subtracting, from the "failure load," the
shaft and base resistances of the cohesionless layers deter-
mined from wave equation analysis.
From the line of best fit (Fig. 6), the setup factor for pile 5 at
36 days after driving was 3.8 (compared with 2.0 determined
from the reference test pile). The ultimate soil setup factor,
from the asymptotic value of the line of best fit in Fig. 6, for
the piles in site D, was approximately 4.0. Hence, 36 days
after driving, the cohesive layers have regained about 95 % of
their long-term shaft capacity.
Using the ultimate setup factor and the resistance immedi-
ately after driving, R,, of the cohesive layers from the wave
equation analysis, the long-term shaft capacity of any pile in
the site may be estimated. The long-term capacity determined
can then be compared with the long-term capacity calculated
2oooj " 0
L&
Ram
Ram
energy : 11.7 l . m
energy : 9.915 1.m
+ Ram energy = 7.6 I - m
Ram energy = 5.85 1.m
0 200 LOO 600 800 1000 1200 1100 1600
Biows Irn
FIG.7. Load-carrying capacity versus blow counts for various input
ram energies for test piles in site D.
using static design methods. This comparison allows an inde-
pendent check on the long-term capacity of the pile determined
by static design methods. By this comparison, it may be pos-
in the static design methods and allow adjustments of these
parameters for the design of other piles in the same or similar
soils. This method of long-term capacity prediction is not pos-
sible with either the method using the Smith (1960) model or
method 1.
The effect of input ram energy on the predicted load-carrying
curves generated for various input ram energies for a pile pene-
-
the predicted and measured load-carrying capacities for the six
LO piles is about 35% for a doubling of the input energy from
5.85-11.7 t.m.
Conclusions
Two methods have been presented to predict the load-
carrying capacity of piles using a rational new wave equation
model (Lee et al. 1988) that uses conventional soil mechanics
parameters. These two methods, methods 1 and 2, use a load-
test result to estimate the soil parameters at the site by set
matching. These estimated soil parameters are then used in
subsequent analyses to predict the load-carrying capacity of
similar piles at the same site. Twenty-one piles were examined
and the predicted load-carrying capacities of these piles by
both methods compare favourably with the load-tested capac-
ities. Method 2 is able to account for the phenomenon of soil
setup generally observed in cohesive soil. This method repre-
sents a rational approach to estimating the load-carrying capac-
ity of driven piles in cohesive soils. The time dependency of
the load-carrying capacity of driven piles in cohesive soils is
demonstrated by six piles using method 2. The ultimate soil
setup factor for the site can then be determined and the long-
term capacity of piles estimated. This long-term-capacity pre-
diction for driven piles in cohesive soil is not possible with
method 1 or the method using the Smith (1960) model.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Mr. R. Radhakrishnan of the Port
of Singapore Authority for permission to use and publish the
soil data for sites A and B.
 ET AL. 23

BLENDY,M. M. 1979. Rational approach to piled foundations.
American Society of Civil Engineers National Convention, Atlanta,
GA, pp. 38-47.
BURLAND, J. 1973. Shaft friction of piles in clay; a simple fundamen-
tal approach. Ground Engineering, 6(3): 30-42.
DAVISSON, M. T. 1973. Higher capacity piles. Proceedings of Lec-
ture Series, Innovations in Founndation Construction, ASCE,
Illinois Section, Chicago, pp. 81 - 112.
CHIN,F. K. 1970. Estimation of the ultimate load of piles not canied
to failure. Proceedings, 2nd Southeast Asia Conference on Soil
Engineering, Singapore, pp. 81 -90.
EGOROV,K. E. 1965. Calculation of bed for foundation with ring
footing. Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Canada, Vol. 2, pp.
41 -45.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
wave equation analysis to friction piles in sand. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 14: 34-5 1.
TOMLINSON, M. J. 1970. Foundation design and construction.
Pitman, London, United Kingdom.
TOOLAN, F. E., and Fox, D. A. 1977. Geotechnical planning of piled
foundations for offshore platforms. Proceedings-the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Part 1, 69: 221 -244.
VESIC,A. S. 1967. A study of bearing capacity of deep foundation.
Final report, project B- 181, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA.
VIJAYVERGIYA, V. N., and FOCHT,J. A., JR. 1972. A new way to
predict the capacity of piles in clay. 4th Annual Offshore Technol-
ogy Conference, Houston, TX, Vol. 2, OTC paper 1718.
WHITAKER, T. 1976. The design of pile foundations. 2nd ed. Per-
gamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

FOREHAND, P. W., and REESE,J. L. 1964. Prediction of pile capacity WONG,K. Y., CHOW,Y. K., KARUNARATNE, G. P., and LEE,S. L.
by the wave equation. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and 1987. Effect of residual stress on the pile driveability and driving
Foundations Division, 90(SM2): 1-25. stresses. Department of Civil Engineering, National University of
GAZETAS, G., and DOBRY,R. 1984. Simple radiation damping model Singapore, internal report.
for piles and footings. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
llO(EM6): 937-956.
GIBSON,G. C., and COYLE,H. M. 1968. Soil damping constants List of symbols
related to common soil properties in sands and clays. Report radiation damping coefficient
No-125- 1, Texas Transport Institute, Texas A & M University, remoulded shear strength of cohesive soils
College Station, TX. radiation damping coefficient for shaft and tip respec-
GOBLE,G. G., LIKINS,G. E., and RAUSCH, F. 1975. Bearing capac-
ity of piles from dynamic measurements. Final report, Department tively
of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, undrained shear strength of cohesive soils
Cleveland, OH. longitudinal wave speed in pile
LEE, S. L., KARUNARATNE, G. P., and SITICHAIKASEM, S. 1984. soil shear modulus
For personal use only.

Non-negative skin friction piles in layered soil. International Con- damping coefficient in TTI soil model
ference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Missouri, tip damping coefficient in Smith (1960) model
Vol. 1, 285-288.
LEE,S. L., CHOW,Y. K., KARUNARATNE, G. P., and WONG,K. Y. rate effect coefficient for tip
1988. Rational wave equation model for pile driving analysis. shaft damping constant in Smith (1960) model
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114(3), in press. rate effect coefficient for shaft
LITKOUHI, S., and POSKITT,T. J. 1980. Damping constants for pile soil stiffness coefficient
driveability calculations. GCotechnique, 30: 77 - 86. soil stiffness for shaft and tip respectively
Lo, K. Y., and STERMAC, A. G. 1965. Induced pore pressure during
coefficient of lateral earth pressure
pile driving operations. Proceedings 6th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Canada, Vol. 2, exponent for rate effects
pp. 285-289. empirical factor for base resistance in cohesionless
LYSMER, J., and RICHART, F. E. 1966. Dynamic response of footing soils
to vertical loading. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun- maximum elastic deformation of soil, quake
dations Division, 92(SM1): 65 -91. total soil resistance during driving
NOVAK,M., NOGAMI, T., and ABOUL-ELLA, F. 1978. Dynamic soil ultimate soil resistance t o failure
reactions for plane strain case. ASCE Journal of the Engineering soil spring force
Mechanics Division, 104(EM4): 953 -959. maximum static resistance of soil
QUEK,T. B., SEOW,K. L., and YEO, S. H. 1979. A study of piled inner and outer pile radius respectively
foundations. B.Eng. thesis, University of Singapore, Singapore.
pile velocity
RADHAKRISHNAN, R., SUBRAMANYAM, R. V., and ABDULKHADER,
M. H. 1980. Wave equation analysis for steel piles. Proceedings impact velocity
6th Southeast Asia Conference on Soil Engineering, Taiwan, pp. empirical factor for pile - soil adhesion
273-281. empirical constant in Burland's P method
RIGDEN,W. J., PETTIT,J. J., ST. JOHN,H. D., and POSKITT,T. J. friction angle at pile - soil interface
1979. Developments in piling for offshore structures. Proceedings empirical constant in X method
of the 2nd International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore efficiency of the hammer
structures, London, Vol. 2, pp. 279-296. Poisson's ratio of soil
SEED,H. B., and REESE,L. C. 1957. The action of soft clay along density of soil
friction piles. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engi- angle of internal friction
neers, 122: 731 -754. a factor that accounts for changes in soil stiffness due
SMITH,E. A. L. 1960. Pile driving analysis by the wave equation.
ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, to changes in annulus thickness
86(SM4): 35-61. submerged unit weight of soil
TAVENAS, F. A., and AUDIBERT, J. M. E. 1977. Application of the vertical effective stress