Geot 1997 47 4 791

Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1997). Geotechnique 47, No.
4, 791816
Settlement of piled foundations

A. MANDOLINI and C. VIGGIANI{
L'article presente un code numerique pour
predire le tassement des reseaux de pieux et
des radiers de fondation a pieux. Ce code repose
sur la methode des facteurs d'interaction: on
simule la non-linearite de la facon proposee par
Caputo et Viggiani, c'est-a-dire en la concentrant a l'interface pieux=sol. Dans le domaine
lineaire, on verie l'exactitude a l'aide de
comparaisons a des solutions de reference
connues. Pour evaluer les proprietes du sol et
appliquer l'analyse a des situations reelles, les
auteurs proposent une methode standard, qui
s'appuie sur les resultats d'essais de charge sur
pieux isoles. L'article analyse 19 cas bien
documentes et calcule pour chacun une solution
elastique lineaire, une solution elastique lineaire
equivalente et une solution non lineaire. L'article
illustre plus en detail cinq de ces cas, pour aider
a mieux comprendre le processus. Dans tous les
cas analyses sauf un, les valeurs predites de
tassement moyen correspondent, a 20 p. 100
pres, aux valeurs observees. Les predictions du
tassement differentiel maximal sont quelque peu
moins precises. Dans le cas de fondations
caracterisees par un coefcient de securite
relativement eleve, les analyses lineaires et non
lineaires sont plus ou moins equivalentes.
Certaines donnees semblent indiquer qu'il est
possible de predire le tassement a l'aide du
module de cisaillement a faible deformation,
calcule a partir de la vitesse des ondes de
cisaillement mesuree sur place. Si le coefcient
de securite est faible, il devient imperatif de
prendre en consideration la non-linearite.
A numerical code for the prediction of the

settlement of pile groups and piled rafts is
presented. The code is based on the interaction
factors method; the non-linearity is simulated as
suggested by Caputo and Viggiani, that is,
concentrating it at the pilesoil interface. In
the linear range, the accuracy is checked against
known benchmark solutions. A standard procedure, based on the results of load tests on single
piles, is suggested for the evaluation of soil
properties and for the implementation of the
analysis in real cases. Nineteen well-documented
case histories are then analysed, calculating for
each of them a linear elastic, an equivalent
linear elastic and a non-linear solution. Five out
of the 19 cases are illustrated in some detail, to
allow a deeper insight into the procedure. In all
but one of the analysed cases the predicted
values of the average settlement are within
20% of the observed values. The maximum
differential settlement is predicted with slightly
lesser accuracy. For foundations characterized
by a relatively high safety factor, linear and
non-linear analyses are essentially equivalent.
Some evidence suggests that the low-strain shear
modulus, obtained by in situ shear wave velocity
measurements, can be successfully employed in
the prediction of the settlement. When the
safety factor is low, the consideration of nonlinearity becomes mandatory.
KEYWORDS: numerical modelling and analysis;
piles; settlement.
dation is to reduce settlements. However, once the

decision has been made that piles are required, the
traditional design approach is to ensure that the
total structural load can be carried by the piles,
with an adequate factor of safety against a bearing
capacity failure. Hence design calculations for pile
groups concentrate on the ultimate capacity of
piles.
The use of piles as settlement reducers had been
discussed as early as 1977, at the Tokyo Conference of ISSMFE. Burland et al. (1977) pointed out
that traditionally engineers have asked themselves
how many piles are required to carry the weight of
the building, and claimed that designers should
INTRODUCTION
In his state-of-the-art report on `Design methods

for pile groups and piled rafts' to the New Delhi
Conference of ISSMFE, Randolph (1994) draws
attention to the fact that in the majority of cases
the primary reason for the choice of a piled foun-
Manuscript received 10 October 1995; revised manuscript

accepted 31 May 1996.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 December 1997; for
further details see p. ii.

Second University of Naples.
{ University of Naples `Federico II'.
791
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [21/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
792
MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI
perhaps better ask themselves the question of how

many piles are required to reduce the settlement to
an acceptable amount. The number of piles in
answer to the second question is invariably signicantly less than in answer to the rst question.
There are a number of compelling arguments for
moving towards a settlement-based design methodology for pile foundations, and since 1977 a number of interesting developments have occurred in
this direction, including some outstanding applications (Burland & Kalra, 1986; Sommer et al.,
1991); nevertheless the capacity-based design is
still dominant, as is evident for instance in current
revisions of national and regional design codes.
Such a situation may be partially attributed to
the widespread belief that predicting deformations
is more difcult and less reliable than predicting
capacity. On the contrary, a variety of analytical
and numerical techniques for the analysis of the
settlement of piled foundations and suitable experimental procedures for the determination of the
relevant stiffness have been developed in recent
years.
A method of analysis capable of taking into
account the interaction among rafts, piles and soil,
and possibly accounting for non-linearity, is required. In this paper a numerical code for the
analysis of piled rafts is presented, which meets
the above requirements although it remains relatively simple and straightforward. It is shown that
substantial simplications are admissible provided
the analysis is aimed at the prediction of settlement.
The code is employed to predict the settlement
in a number of well-documented case histories,
partly taken from the literature and partly coming
from the writers' les. The former include small
and large pile groups, bored and driven piles and
different subsoil conditions. The latter refer to a
number of high-rise buildings recently constructed
in the eastern Naples area, and founded on bored
or auger piles in pyroclastic soils.
The deformation properties of the subsoil are
deduced by a back-analysis of loading tests on
single piles.
In all but one of the cases examined, such a
procedure is shown to predict the absolute and
differential settlements with remarkable accuracy.
PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS
Numerical code
The most widespread technique for the analysis
of pile groups and piled rafts is provided by the
boundary element method (Poulos, 1968; Banerjee,
1970; Poulos & Davis, 1980; Banerjee & Buttereld, 1981). The interface between soil and foundation (piles and pile cap or raft) is divided into
elements and an appropriate Green's function, such
as that due to Mindlin (1936), is used to relate the

displacement of each element to the tractions on
the other elements. Corresponding equations are
written for the structural response of the foundation, using either a nite difference or a nite
element approach. The two sets of equations, together with those for overall equilibrium, allow the
unknown tractions to be found, and hence the
settlement and load distribution throughout the
foundation to be evaluated.
In practice, the computational resources required
to perform the ideal analysis described above become excessive for all but the simplest foundation
systems; it is therefore necessary to introduce
simplications, particularly if non-linearity is simulated using a stepwise linear incremental procedure.
Typical simplications include
(a) the assumption that the raft is clear of the soil
(the so-called free-standing raft)
(b) the assumption that the raft is either rigid or
completely exible (in which case the load
acting on each pile is known), thus avoiding
the analysis of the structural response
(c) the use of interaction factors to represent the
inuence of a complete foundation unit (for
example, a pile or the pile cap) on the
displacement of either another unit or an
element (Poulos, 1968; Banerjee & Driscoll,
1978; Caputo & Viggiani, 1984; Bilotta et al.,
1991). Randolph & Wroth (1979) developed
simple approximate analytical expressions for
the interaction coefcients
(d) the combination of a load transfer approach to
express the relationship between local tractions
and displacement of each pile, together with an
elastic continuum analysis of the additional
displacements due to the tractions acting on
other elements (O'Neill et al., 1977; Chow,
1986; Grifths et al., 1991; Clancy &
Randolph, 1992).
The computational procedure used in this paper
is based on the following codes:
SINGPALO. This is a BEM code analysing the
behaviour of a single pile embedded in an elastic
continuum. The settlement w of the pile under an
axial load Q may be expressed as
w
IwQ
w1 Q
Es L
(1)
where the factor I w is a function of the ratio of the

length and diameter of the pile, L=d, of the ratio
of the moduli of the pile and soil, Ep =Es , of the
Poisson's ratio of the soil s and of the model of
subsoil adopted (homogeneous half-space, horizontally layered half-space, Gibson soil, etc.)
793
SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

n
X
SINGPALO allows the evaluation of the compliance w1 of a single pile with the following
assumptions:
(a) horizontally layered elastic soil; the layering
beneath the pile point is accounted for by the
so called Steinbrenner approximation, as described by Poulos & Davis (1980); the layers
crossed by the pile shaft are treated in the
same way, by an approximate application of
the reciprocal theorem
(b) pile with stepwise or continuously variable
section
(c) compatibility of both vertical and horizontal
displacements
(d) slip at the interface between pile and soil once
a limiting shear stress has been attained; the
latter can be either cohesive or equal to the
horizontal stress times a friction coefcient.
ALPHAPALO. This is a BEM code analysing the
interaction of a pair of piles i, j, embedded in an
elastic continuum and loaded by the forces Qi , Q j
respectively. The settlement of a pile is expressed
as
w i w1i [Qi ii Q j ij ]
(2)
ALPHAPALO determines the inuence factor ij

(obviously, ii 1) with the same assumptions as
SINGPALO. The two interacting piles may be different in length and diameter.
GRUPPALO. This is a program for the analysis of
pile groups and free-standing piled rafts, based on
the use of interaction factors. The settlement w i of
the ith pile in a group of n piles is expressed as
wi
n
X
w1i Q j ij
(3)
j1
Obviously, ii jj 1.
In the case of a group of piles acted on by
known loads (fully exible raft), equation (3) may
be used directly to evaluate the settlement of each
pile in the group. In the case of an innitely stiff
raft, the settlement of the raft is dened by the
vertical displacement w0 of the centre and by two
rotations x and y . The settlement of the pile i,
having coordinates xi , yi referred to the centre,
must be compatible with such a displacement;
hence
n
X
w1i Q j ij w0 x yi y xi
(4)
j1
Furthermore, if Q is the total load acting on the

raft with eccentricities e x and e y, the equilibrium
requires that
Qi Q;
i1
n
X
Qi xi Qe x ;
i1
n
X
Qi yi Qe y
i1
(5)
The system of n compatibility conditions (4)
plus three equilibrium conditions (5) allows the
determination of the n unknown loads Qi plus the
values of w0 , x and y .
Finally, in the case of a raft of nite stiffness,
the vertical displacements of its points are found
by a nite element model.
It must be pointed out that GRUPPALO can be
easily extended to account for a direct contact
between the raft (if any) and the soil; this is
necessary if the load sharing between piles and raft
has to be investigated. However, both theoretical
analyses (Buttereld & Banerjee, 1971) and experiments (Cooke et al., 1980) have shown that the
contact between the raft and the soil does not
signicantly affect the settlement of the group,
even if the load taken by the raft is as high as
50% of the total applied load.
The assumption of a free-standing raft has been
retained in this paper, which is devoted to the
analysis of settlement, in order to make the analysis as simple as possible. With the same aim, either
a fully exible or a rigid raft has been considered,
thus avoiding the rather difcult task of evaluating
the combined stiffness of the raft and superstructure (Wood, 1978).
The non-linearity of behaviour is simulated as
suggested by Caputo & Viggiani (1984). They
claim that the non-linearity is essentially concentrated at the pilesoil interface, while the interaction between other elements (pilepile, pilecap,
capsoil) may be represented by a linear model
with sufcient accuracy. Accordingly, in an analysis using the method of interaction factors, they
assume that all the factors ij (i 6 j) are constant,
irrespective of the load level, while the pilepile
interaction factors on the principal diagonal ii
vary according to the expression
ii
1
1
Qi
Qi,lim
(6)
corresponding to a hyperbolic loadsettlement relationship for the single pile (Chin, 1970, 1972).
This suggestion is essentially equivalent to that
formulated by Randolph (1994), to estimate the
Note that the value of Qi,lim in equation (6) is intended

only as a geometrical parameter of the hyperbola tting
the loadsettlement curve in the load range of interest. In
some cases this value may signicantly differ from the
actual failure load.
794
group response on the basis of initial small-strain

elastic stiffness and afterwards add the plastic displacement due to the slip at the pilesoil interface.
Evaluation of soil properties and implementation of
the analysis
The evaluation of the deformation properties of
the subsoil for the prediction of the settlement of
the pile group is the most difcult and uncertain
step of the analysis. This is probably true for
almost all problems in geotechnical engineering,
but in the case of piled foundations the difculties
are increased by the signicant inuence of the
installation of the piles.
In order to reduce the uncertainties connected
with the choice of the parameters, the writers have
attempted to develop a well-dened standard procedure, involving traditional subsoil investigations as
well as the results of loading tests on single piles,
when available. The procedure may be summarized
as follows.
The results of all the available site and laboratory investigations are rst used to develop a
model of the subsoil, in which the geometry is
adapted to a scheme of horizontal layering and the
relative stiffness of the layers is evaluated. In this
connection the writers share the emphasis put by
Randolph (1994) on the importance of considering
the overall geometry of the foundation; engineers
should be encouraged to prepare correctly scaled
elevation drawings of the complete foundation and
relevant soil stratigraphy, which will often reveal
shortcomings in the proposed foundation scheme.
The absolute value of the stiffness of the different layers is then xed by tting the initial stiffness
of the loadsettlement response of loading tests on
single piles. The tting operation is performed by
the code SINGPALO.
Once the subsoil model is xed, the code
ALPHAPALO is used to produce a set of interaction
factors for various spacings s. The relationship
between and s=d is then tted with a continuous
curve, usually either a power law ( M(s=d) N )
or a logarithmic law ( M N ln (s=d)). It has
been assumed that no interaction occurs for piles
whose spacing is larger than a limiting value smax ,
which is dened according to Randolph & Wroth
(1978) as

GL
:
:
:
smax 0 25 [2 5r(1 s ) 0 25]
L (7)
Gb
where r is a parameter which reects the vertical
homogeneity of the soil, varying from unity for
homogeneous conditions to 05 where the stiffness
is proportional to depth; G L and Gb are respectively the values of the shear modulus at depth L
and below the pile base. If the piles belong to a
group, smax is increased by adding a term rG as

suggested by Randolph & Wroth (1979) for a
square group, and extended by Mandolini (1994a)
for any other shape of the group. For s > smax
rG , the interaction factor is assumed equal to
zero.
Check of the procedure against known solutions
In order to assess the accuracy of the above
procedure, a standard for comparison should be
dened. Randolph (1994) claims that, for groups
of 100 piles and over, the accuracy of available
computer programs is probably not better than
20%. While this is probably sufcient for most
engineering purposes, given the difculty in estimating the deformation parameters, it still seems
to indicate a limit to the extent to which it is
fruitful to conduct `rigorous' analyses of pile
groups.
Figure 1 (Randolph, 1994; Mandolini, 1994b)
shows the computed overall pile group stiffness for
square groups of piles embedded in an elastic halfspace, with L=d 25, Ep =G 1000, s 0:5,
and s=d 2:5 and 5. The group stiffness K p is
dened as the ratio between the total load acting
on the pile group and the average settlement of the
group. In Fig. 1, the stiffness is normalized as
:
Kp =(sGn0 5 ), where G is the shear modulus of the
soil and n the number of piles in the group. The
Fig. 1. Comparison between results of computations

carried out with different codes
results obtained by GRUPPALO are compared with

other results taken by design charts available in the
literature, and obtained with available computer
codes, namely
(a) the approach by Fleming et al. (1992), using
the PIGLET program (Randolph, 1987)
(b) the interaction factor approach of Poulos &
Davis (1980), using the DEFPIG program
(Poulos, 1990)
(c) the charts of Buttereld & Douglas (1981)
based on a complete BEM solution incorporated in the PGROUP program (Banerjee &
Driscoll, 1978).
All the above analyses are linearly elastic.
The rst and second approach may be seen to
give divergent results, with the computed stiffness
differing by a factor of two or more for very large
groups. The third and most rigorous approach gives
intermediate values, but it is limited to groups not
larger than 8 3 8, for enormous computational
resources would be needed to analyse larger
groups. For very large pile groups, where the ratio
of group width to pile length becomes much greater than unity, the group stiffness should approach
that of a shallow foundation. This would correspond to a normalized stiffness of about 45, as
indicated in Fig. 1 (Fraser & Wardle, 1976).
It may be seen that the results obtained by
GRUPPALO agree with those by Buttereld & Douglas (1981) over the small group range, and approach the limiting value of 45 for large groups.
The overall accuracy of the code seems thus
satisfactory.
In the non-linear range, benchmark solutions are
not available and therefore a check of the overall
accuracy of the proposed procedure may only be
obtained by comparison with well-documented case
histories. In this context the term `overall accuracy'
refers not only to the numerical aspects or to the
admissibility of simplication such as the assumption of a free-standing raft or the use of interaction
factors, but also to the procedure of selection of
the relevant parameters and to the capability of
predicting the real behaviour in terms of settlement.
A few recent case histories of settlement of pile
groups are analysed in the next section, choosing
well-documented cases, for some of which other
analyses have been published, so that a comparison
of the results is possible.
BACK-ANALYSIS OF SOME CASE HISTORIES
A list of the case histories that have been

analysed by means of the proposed procedure is
presented in Table 1, which reports the main
features of each pile group. They range from small
groups to very large piled rafts; subsoil conditions
795
and pile type vary from one case to another, so

that they are believed to be representative of a
wide range of practical problems.
For each case history three solutions have been
calculated:
(a) a linear elastic (LE) solution, based on the
elastic properties of the subsoil back-gured
from the initial tangent stiffness of the load
settlement curve of a load test on single pile
(b) an equivalent linear elastic (ELE) solution,
based on equivalent elastic properties backgured from the loadsettlement curve of the
load test on single pile, considering the secant
stiffness corresponding to the average working
load of the piles in the group
(c) a non-linear (NL) analysis, as described above.
The Poisson's ratio of the soil s has been
assumed equal to 05 in clay soils and to 03 in
cohesionless soils. In any case, the results are not
very sensitive to the values of s .
Either a rigid or a fully exible raft has been
assumed, depending on the available information
on the superstructure. In the latter case the average
settlement and the maximum differential settlement
have been evaluated. When a rigid raft has been
assumed, the contribution of the self-weight of the
raft has been considered as a fully exible load in
the cases where the available data made it possible.
In order to allow a deeper insight into the procedure, the analysis of a few different case histories is reported in some detail. The results obtained for all the cases are listed in Table 2.
Case 2. 19-storey reinforced concrete building
(Koerner & Partos, 1974)
The building was constructed in the USA in the
period 1967 to 1970; the overall dimensions in
plan are 34 m 3 24 m. It is founded on 132 permanently cased driven piles with expanded base (pressure injected Franki-type) with a length of 76 m, a
shaft diameter of 041 m and a base diameter of
076 m.
The layout of the foundation is shown in Fig. 2.
The subsoil consists essentially of cohesionless
soils, with a layer of highly compressible organic
silt between depths of 3 and 7 m below the ground
surface. The prole resulting from the site and
laboratory investigation is shown in Fig. 3.
The loadsettlement curves of two load tests,
carried out on piles belonging to the foundations
up to a maximum load equal to twice the design
load, are shown in Fig. 4.
The subsoil has been modelled with ve horizontal layers, as shown in Fig. 3; the ratio between
the moduli of any two layers has been assumed
equal to the ratio of the corresponding average
values of the SPT blow count.
796
Table 1. Essential features of the analysed case histories

Case
Reference
Description
Soil type
Pile type
L: m
d: m
s=d
555
760
030
041
d b 0:76
040
045
028
100
150
1
2
Koizumi & Ito (1967)

Koerner & Partos (1974)
Field test
Building
Organic silty clay

Sand and silt
Driven, closed end steel pipe

Bored, permanent casing
9
132
3
4
5
6
7
Tromenkov (1977)
Cooke et al. (1981)
Thorburn et al. (1983)
Kaino & Aoki (1985)
Viggiani (1989)
Field test
Building
Tank
Field test
Tall building
Silty clay
London Clay
Sand, silt and silty clay
Interbedded clay and sands
Pyroclastic; tuff substratum
9
351
55
5
136
120
130
270
240
300
8
9
Briaud et al. (1989)

Field test
Goossens & Van Impe (1991) Silos
Driven
Bored
Driven, precast concrete
Bored, reverse circulation
Bored, bentonite mud, end
bearing
Driven, closed end steel pipe
Driven, cast in situ
5
697
915
134
82
77
82
1624
420
420
420
428468
0273
052
d b 0:80
180220
160200
150180
041=036
10
11
12
13
Tall building
Tall building
Tall building
Bridge piers
Sand
Interbedded sands and stiff
clays
Pyroclastic
Pyroclastic
Pyroclastic
Clayey silt
Tall building
Pyroclastic
Auger `PressoDrill'
323
200
060
Tall building
Pyroclastic
Auger `PressoDrill'
314
200
060
Sediments over hard siltstone

Clayey silt with interbedded
sand
Clayey waste, lignite, and
clay
Clayey waste, lignite, and
clay
Bored
Driven `Multiton'
280
144
200
480
080
041=036
Bored, bentonite mud
74
567
120
3325
Bored, bentonite mud
768
5254
120
36
16
17
Caputo et al. (1991)

Mandolini & Viggiani
(1992a)
(1992b)
(1992b)
Randolph & Clancy (1994)
Russo (1994)
18
Rampello (1994)
Tall building
Cable stayed
bridge
Chimney
19
Rampello (1994)
Power plant
14
15
3
35
7
263
2426
Bored,
Bored,
Bored,
Driven
bentonite mud
bentonite mud
bentonite mud
`Multiton'
3348
4
2632
3375
3239
516
3238
3
No. of
piles
Table 2. Computed and observed average settlement wav and maximum differential settlement max
Load per
pile: MN
Average
Average
Max. differential
Qav
022
120
089
044
044
133
193
049
130
509890
438749
412593
006026
066
064
393
322
500
322500
076
082
000125
wav
67
640
50
250
295
38
59
381
1850
281
315
251
0635
292
235
359
245
223
270
320
54
36
max
00
430
00
6070
00
34
00
730
175
159
139
00
151
200
60
30
90
230
00
16
25
Computed settlement:
mm
Linear elastic
wav
48
251
38
264
278
35
65
26
1740
269
277
210
0633
315
310
259
235
213
257
310
37
40
max
00
112
00
123
69
00
36
00
828
208
154
185
00
218
209
59
47
93
148
00
06
18
Equivalent linear elastic

wav
88
658
76
365
396
52
80
1648
2780
379
384
270
0840
378
372
819
644
580
682
399
40
46
max
00
294
00
170
98
00
44
00
1323
293
213
238
00
261
251
159
129
256
477
00
07
24
Non-linear
wav
59
278
49
266
294
39
67
368
1750
327
325
248
0734
319
314
316
244
255
275
324
39
41
max
00
112
00
123
69
00
36
00
828
208
154
185
00
218
209
59
47
93
148
00
06
18
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
17
18
19
Observed settlement:
mm
(a) `core' foundation; (b) `dog-leg' foundation; (c) `hammerhead' foundation; (d) overall.
797
798
Fig. 2. Case history No. 2: layout of foundations of the

building; pile locations are shown as solid circles, pile
caps as full lines and columns as lled rectangles;
overall dimensions are 336 m 3 244 m
The elements used for the analysis are as follows: I w0 1:66 mm=MN; Qlim 1:94 MN; E1
:
210 MPa; 0:707(s=d)0 614 ; smax 13:3 m;
rG 13:2 m.
The results obtained are compared in Fig. 5 with
the observed settlement. It may be seen that, in
this case, the LE and NL analyses grossly underestimate the actual values of the settlement. The
ELE analysis shows a better agreement with the
observed values.
Koerner & Partos (1974) claim that the design
chart by Morgan & Poulos (1968) allows a rather
good estimate of the average and differential settle-
ment of the group; this is rather surprising, because

these charts are essentially a simpler version of the
procedure used in this paper. A closer scrutiny
reveals that: (i) an arbitrary value of the soil
modulus equal to 21 MPa has been adopted in the
analysis, and (ii) the geometry of the group has
been incorrectly modelled as a square regular
group of 115 3 115 piles at a constant spacing of
27d. This corresponds to overall dimensions in
plan of about 13 m 3 13 m, that is, much less than
the actual size of the building.
The reason for the disagreement between the
results of the present analysis and the observed
settlement has not been established; as a matter of
fact the amplication effect in this case, as indicated by the ratio between group and single pile
settlement, is exceptionally high, compared not
only with the results of the analysis, but also with
other experimental ndings.
A possible explanation of such an effect could
be the occurrence of a deep compressible layer.
Unfortunately, the maximum depth reached in the
investigation (31 m below ground surface) allows
no conclusion on this point.
In order to investigate the possible inuence of
this factor, the analysis has been repeated with a
modied soil model, including a deep compressible
layer below the depth of 31 m, with a modulus
equal to that of the organic silt. With such a
hypothesis (admittedly, rather unrealistic), the computed average settlement is 34 mm for the LE and
37 mm for the NL analysis. These values are closer
to the observed ones, thus conrming that a deep
compressible layer could be a possible explanation.
Fig. 3. Case history No. 2: typical soil prole and properties at building site; the subsoil model adopted in the
analysis is shown on the right-hand side
799
Fig. 4. Case history No. 2: loadsettlement curves of two loading tests on piles
25
27
64
59
244 m
B-14
80
33
B-15
25
27
64
41
20
23
53
B-16
82
61
29
32
76
28
30
72
20
23
53
336 m
Borings
59
Settlement points
25
27
64
Observed settlement
LE
NL
ELE
Predicted settlement
Fig. 5. Case history No. 2: comparison between predicted and observed settlements
800
Case 5. Molasses tank (Thorburn et al., 1983)

The tank under examination (Fig. 6) was constructed in Scotland in 1978 to store molasses. It
has a diameter of 125 m and is supported by 55
precast concrete piles, each 250 3 250 mm2 in
cross-section and 29 m long, laid out on a triangular grid at a spacing of 2 m. A 2 m thick pad of
dense granular material was constructed over the
piles and incorporated a 150 mm thick reinforced
concrete membrane connecting the pile heads. The
effective pile length was then reduced to 27 m.
In the application of GRUPPALO the subsoil model reported in Fig. 6 has been adopted. The foundation soil is a silty clay with interbedded sandy silt
and silty sand layers until a maximum depth of
18 m below ground level, overlying a slightly overconsolidated silty clay with occasional intercalations of sand and silt. According to Randolph
(1994), the subsoil can be modelled as a unique
cohesive layer with an undrained shear strength
linearly increasing with depth, with the expression
su (kPa) 6 1:8z(m)
The loadsettlement curve obtained by a loading test on a single pile is shown in Fig. 7.
Ten layers with constant Es,i values have been
assumed. The ratios between these values have
been xed, simulating a stepwise increase of Es
with depth; then SINGPALO was used to reproduce
the above value of I w0 , thus obtaining the ten
values of Es,i . They have been tted with a continuous linear law, obtaining the expression
Es (MPa) 4:5 1:35z(m)
corresponding to a ratio Es =su 750, and practically coincident with the one assumed by Randolph (1994). The elements used for the analysis
are: I w0 10:82 mm=MN; Qlim 1:48 MN;
:
0:570(s=d)0 600 ; smax 18:6 m; rG 6:8 m.
The results obtained are shown in Fig. 8. It may
be seen that LE analysis slightly underpredicts the
average and differential settlements, as was to be
expected; NL analysis is rather satisfactory, and
ELE substantially overpredicts the measured average settlement.
For this same case history, similar results were
obtained by Randolph (1994).
Case 8. Field test on ve-pile group, San
Francisco (Briaud et al., 1989)
In the framework of an investigation on the
behaviour of piles in sand, load tests to failure
were performed on a single pile and on a ve-pile
group. The piles were closed-end steel pipes,
273 mm in diameter, driven to a depth of 915 m
below ground surface through a 300 mm diameter
hole predrilled to a depth of 137 m. The piles of
the group were connected by a rigid reinforced
concrete cap, clear of the ground.
Fig. 6. Case history No. 5: schematic of the molasses tank and subsoil model adopted in the analysis
Fig. 7. Case history No. 5: loading test results on single pile
801
802
At the test site, the subsoil consists of a hydraulic ll made of clean sand, about 11 m thick,
overlain by 14 m of sandy gravel and underlain by
sand with interbedded layers of stiff clay down to
the bedrock found at a depth of around 143 m
below ground surface. The layout of the test, a
subsoil prole and some results of the site investigations are shown in Fig. 9. A value of 383 MPa
is reported for the shear modulus of the hydraulic
ll, as deduced from shear wave velocity.
Considering that the predrilled hole disconnects
the pile from the upper gravelly layer, a subsoil
model with ve elastic layers resting on a rigid
base has been adopted in the analysis; it is also
shown in Fig. 9.
The load test on the single pile has been

corrected by subtracting from the pile head settlement the elastic shortening of the free upper part
of the test pile. The elements for the analysis
are: I w0 2:25 mm=MN; Qlim 0:49 MN; E1
:
92:2 MPa; 1:020(s=d)0 480 ; smax 13:6 m;
rG 0:7 m.
The experimental loadsettlement curve up to
failure of the pile group is compared, in Fig. 10,
with those predicted by the analyses. The curve
labelled ELE has been obtained using at each load
level the secant modulus evaluated at the same
load level from the load test on the single pile.
It may be seen that the LE analysis allows a
rather good prediction of the actual settlement up
Fig. 9. Case history No. 8: layout of the test and subsoil prole
803
Fig. 10. Case history No. 8: comparison between predicted and observed loadsettlement curves; the
ELE curve has been obtained using at each load level the secant modulus evaluated at the same level
from the load test on a single pile
to a load of 075 MN, which corresponds to a

safety factor of around 3. For higher loads, the
settlement is underestimated, but the approximation
is still acceptable up to a safety factor of around
25.
The NL analysis improves the prediction over
the whole load range, and remains reliable even in
the vicinity of the failure load.
The ELE analysis gives acceptable results only
up to a safety factor of around 3, that is, in the
range of nearly linear behaviour of the group.
For loads exceeding 1 MN, ELE grossly overpredicts the observed settlement, because it incorrectly amplies both the elastic and plastic
components of the settlement.
Case 9. Ghent Grain Terminal (Goossens & Van
Impe, 1991)
In 1975 a block of 40 cylindrical reinforced
concrete grain silo cells was erected in Ghent,
within a new terminal for storage and transit. The
inner diameter of each cell is 8 m, the total height
52 m and the wall thickness 018 m. The foundation consists of a 12 m thick slab, 34 m 3 84 m in
plan, resting on 697 driven, cast in situ, reinforced
concrete piles with a length of 134 m, a shaft

diameter of 052 m and a diameter of the expanded
base of 08 m.
The subsoil prole obtained from the site investigations is shown in Fig. 11 together with the
subsoil model adopted in the back-analysis. The
geometry and the relative stiffness of the different
layers are equal to those of the model developed
by Poulos (1993) to analyse the same case history.
On the basis of the two load tests available, the
following data for the analysis have been obtained:
I w0 1:56 mm=MN; Qlim 5:17 MN; E1 7:5
MPa; 1 0:26 ln (s=d); smax 26:8 m; rG
19:2 m.
The comparison between the measured values of
the settlement and those predicted by GRUPPALO is
shown in Fig. 12. The results of NL analysis are
practically coincident with those of LE analysis,
since the non-linear component of the settlement
of the single pile (wn1 1 mm) is very small in
comparison with the linearly elastic component
amplied to account for the group effect, Rs wel .
It may be seen that the prediction of both the
average and the differential settlement, obtained by
an LE and NL analysis using low-strain soil moduli, agrees rather well with the observed values.
804
MOS 1
PF2
PF7
MOS 6
MOS 9
PF11
PF12
MOS 14
5
5
052 m
qc
qc
qc
qr,b
qc
08 m
qr,b
15
qr,b
10 20
30
qc,qr,b: MN
0
25
10
20
30
10
10
55
5
12
15
17
20
22
10
20
10
20
30
qc,qr,b: MN
0
0
10
10 20
30
20
30
Loamy or clayey quaternary sand layer of variable density
CPT before pile installation
Consistent tertiary clay layer
CPT after pile installation
Relatively dense tertiary sand layer
Clayey sand
E4 = 267 E1
20
20 0
E3 = 20 E1
10
E5 = 37 E1
20
Fill
25
E6 = 14 E1
Medium stiff clay

Relatively dense sand
26
E7 = 87 E1
Tertiary clay
39
E8 = 667 E1 Very dense sand
Tertiary clay layer
Fig. 11. Case history No. 9: subsoil prole and subsoil model adopted in the analysis; the geometry of the model and the ratio between the moduli of any two
layers are the same as assumed by Poulos (1993)
10
Pile tip
level
E1
E2 = 333 E1
13 m
0
1
805
On the contrary, the ELE analysis, based on a

secant value of the axial pile exibility I w
2:46 mm=MN (E1 4 MPa), substantially overestimates the settlement.
For the case under discussion, a still larger overprediction had been obtained by Poulos (1993)
using the code DEFPIG. As already observed, this
code overevaluates the interaction among piles
because it evaluates the interaction factors with an
elastic half-space model and without introducing a
maximum interaction spacing.
Both Goossens & Van Impe (1991) and Poulos
(1993) argue that `single pile load settlement measurements have limited usefulness for describing
overall building behaviour', and suggest that some
form of the equivalent raft method is more suited
for large groups, such as the one under discussion.
The results obtained by the present writers, on the
contrary, seem to support the conclusion that a
proper application of the interaction factors method
can give satisfactory results even for large groups.
Cases 10, 11 and 12. New Law Court Building,
Naples (Caputo et al., 1991)
The building belongs to the New Directional
Centre of Naples, in the eastern area of the town.
It consists of three towers, ranging in height between 70 m (Tower C) and 110 m (Tower A), and
has a steel frame structure with reinforced concrete
stiffening cores.
The foundation is a reinforced concrete slab,
1 m thick, stiffened by heavy reinforced concrete

frames in the lower stages and resting on 241
bored piles with a length of 42 m and diameters
ranging between 15 m and 22 m, equipped with a
preloading cell at the base (Viggiani & Vinale,
1983). The layout of the foundation in plan is
shown in Fig. 13, while a schematic section of the
structure is shown in Fig. 14.
The subsoil of the whole area has been thoroughly investigated by a number of authors (a
summary is given by Mandolini, 1994b) and it is
well known in its general features.
Starting from the ground surface and moving
downwards, the following soils are typically found:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(f)
made ground
volcanic ashes and organic soils
stratied sands
pozzolana, cohesionless or slightly indurated
volcanic tuff.
Pozzolana and tuff belong to the same pyroclastic formation, the only difference being the degree
of diagenesis.
The groundwater table is found at a shallow
depth below the ground surface, located at an
average elevation of 5 m above mean sea level.
At the building location the tuff bedrock is
missing, and the pyroclastic formation consists
only of cohesionless and slightly indurated pozzolana. An average soil prole with some CPT results
(average values of qc plus or minus the standard
deviation over 12 CPT proles) and a summary of
806
Fig. 13. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: layout of the foundation
807
Fig. 14. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: schematic plan and section of the structure
soil properties obtained by means of laboratory

tests on undisturbed samples are shown in Fig. 15,
together with the soil model assumed in the analysis. The subsoil has been modelled as a three-layer
medium. The ratio between the moduli of any two
layers has been assumed equal to the ratio of the
corresponding average qc values, as deduced from
the CPT proles.
Several pile load tests have been performed at
the site, including tests to failure on four piles
(Fig. 16). All test piles were 42 m long; the
diameter was 15 m for piles A and C, and 20 m
for piles B and D. Piles C and D were equipped
with a preloading cell at the base, as detailed by
Viggiani & Vinale (1983); all piles were instrumented with strain gauges at different sections
along the shaft.
The construction of the three towers took about
seven years (19821989). During the whole construction period, a detailed record was kept of the
load distribution over the foundation area, and the
settlement of a number of points has been recorded
(Fig. 17).
In the nal part of the construction period
(19871989) and for some years after the end of
construction, the rate of settlement remained nearly
unchanged, in spite of the very small increase
of the applied load. Such a behaviour can be
808
GWL
12 CPT
10
Peat and organic silt

sat = 1114 kN/m3
15 m
Made ground
E1
25 m
E2 = 3 E1
20
Silty sand with interbedded
pozzolana layers
sat = 1618 kN/m3
Depth: m
Cohesionless pozzolana
sat = 1516 kN/m3
c = 0; = 3640
30
40
42 m
E3 = 10 E1
50
Slightly indurated pozzolana

sat = 1516 kN/m3
c = 100200 kPa
= 28 32
60
Ep = 1200 E1
70
80
10
20
30
qc: MPa
40
50
Fig. 15. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: subsoil prole and properties, and subsoil model adopted in the analysis
Fig. 16. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: loadsettlement curves of four load
tests on piles (PLC, preloading cell)
809
Fig. 17. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: loading history and settlement observed during and after
construction
explained by the occurrence of creep deformations.

The occurrence of creep in pyroclastic soils has
been known for a number of years (Croce, 1948).
The comparison between predicted and observed
settlement, reported below, refers to the end of
construction.
The loadsettlement curves of the four test
piles, corrected to account for the inuence of

anchor piles and tted with a hyperbola, gave the
values reported in Table 3.
SINGPALO has been used to reproduce, on average, the corrected values of I w0 , giving a value of
E1 39:3 MPa. Once the soil model was dened,
the codes SINGPALO and ALPHAPALO were used to
810
get respectively the values of I w0 for the piles with

a diameter different from that of the test piles, and
the pilepile interaction laws. Table 4 summarizes
all the results obtained; the values of smax and rG
do not depend on d and are 552 m and 845 m
respectively.
It has been found that the factor of interaction
between two piles of different diameter is equal to
that of a pair of identical piles having the diameter
of the loaded pile. This agrees with the ndings of
Poulos & Hewitt (1985).
A comparison between the settlement predicted
by GRUPPALO at the end of construction and the
measured settlements is shown in Fig. 18 for the
alignments reported in Fig. 13 and along the
perimeter of the raft.
The agreement may be considered rather good
for the LE and NL analyses; ELE analysis once
more overpredicts both the average and the differential settlements.
DISCUSSION
A comparison between the observed average and

differential settlements, and those predicted by the
analyses reported in this paper, is given in Fig. 19
for all the 19 cases examined.
The majority of the cases examined refer to
foundations designed according to a conventional
capacity-based approach. As a consequence, their
safety factor under the permanent working load is
rather high, and a simple linear analysis may be
expected to be adequate for engineering purposes.
Table 3. Data resulting from the load tests on single

piles
Pile
I w0 : mm=MN
(uncorrected)
I w0 : mm=MN
(corrected)
Qlim : MN
A
B
C
D
0505
0395
0518
0313
0587
0489
0611
0351
1585
2108
4722
3455
Pile C underwent a brittle failure at a load of 18 MN.

As stated elswhere, the value of Qlim reported in the table
is intended only as a geometrical parameter of the
hyperbola tting the initial part of the loadsettlement
curve.
Table 4. Parameters for the analysis

d: m
15
16
18
20
22
I w0 : mm=MN
0583
0538
0467
0412
0368
M(s=d) N
M
0494
0506
0529
0549
0567
0800
0805
0815
0823
0831
Indeed, the LE analysis based on low-strain

moduli as back-gured from the initial stiffness of
the load test on single piles gives a rather satisfactory agreement with the observed values in all but
two cases (Fig. 19(a)).
One of the latter is case 2 (Koerner & Partos,
1974), which has already been discussed. The other
one is case 8 (Briaud et al., 1989) for a load close
to the failure load, where obviously non-linearity
plays a major role. In fact, for the same case and a
safety factor SF > 2:5 (Q < 1 MN), the comparison falls within the range of all other cases (Fig.
10).
These ndings conrm the view already expressed by some authors (Mandolini & Viggiani,
1992b; Randolph, 1994) that the amplication of
the settlement of a single pile due to group action
depends essentially on the geometry of the group
and can be reliably predicted by a linear superposition procedure.
In four out of the 19 cases examined, site measurements of the shear wave velocity were available, allowing an independent assessment of the
low-strain shear modulus of the soils.
For the hydraulic ll in San Francisco (case 8)
Briaud et al. (1989) give an (average?) value of
the shear modulus deduced by shear wave velocity
equal to 383 MPa. With a value of the Poisson's
ratio s 0:3, this corresponds to a Young's modulus Es 99:6 MPa, to be compared with the
value Es 92:2 MPa back-gured from the initial
stiffness of the load test on the single pile.
For the pyroclastic soils of the eastern Naples
area a set of cross-hole measurements of the shear
wave velocity were published by Vinale (1988).
Table 5 reports a comparison between such values
and those back-gured from the pile load tests for
case histories 7, 1012, and 14 and 15, all relating
to sites belonging to that area.
At the site of the bridge over the river Garigliano (cases 13 and 17), a set of cross-hole measurements of the shear wave velocity were published
by Mancuso & Mandolini (1993); they also carried
out a number of vibration measurements during the
driving of piles, and interpreted them in terms of
shear wave velocity. The results they obtained lead
to values of the shear modulus G0 equal to 18 MPa
in a surface crust, and then increasing with depth
from 9 MPa at a depth of 5 m to 30 MPa at a
depth of 30 m below ground surface.
At the same site the load tests on a single pile
gave an initial stiffness corresponding to values of
the shear modulus equal to 13 MPa from the
ground surface to a depth of 9 m, 9 MPa from 9 to
22 m, 14 MPa from 22 to 34 m and, nally,
20 MPa from 34 to 50 m.
At the site of the Pietratta plant (cases 18 and
19) the data shown in Fig. 20 allow a direct comparison between the values of the shear modulus
811
Fig. 18. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12; comparison between predicted and observed settlements for some
alignments shown in Fig. 13 and around the perimeter of the raft
obtained by the shear wave velocity measurements

and those back-gured by the load test on a pile.
In all four cases there is a substantial correspondence between the two sets of values, with a trend
of the values back-gured from pile loading tests
to t the lower limit of the geophysical measurements. It appears that the initial stiffness of the
loadsettlement curve of load tests on single piles
allows a reliable evaluation of the small-strain
deformability of the soil.
Such an observation, if substantiated by further

experience, shows promising implications for both
the interpretation of loading test results in terms of
soil properties and the prediction of settlement on
the basis of geophysical measurements.
The NL analysis (Fig. 19(b)), which essentially
consists of adding the non-linear component of the
settlement of the single pile to the settlement of
the group, obtained as in the LE analysis, slightly
improves the prediction of the average settlement
812
Fig. 19. Comparison between predicted and observed settlements: (a) average settlement, LE analysis; (b) average
settlement, NL analysis; (c) average settlement, ELE analysis; (d) maximum differential settlement, LE and NL
analysis; (e) maximum differential settlement, ELE analysis
813
Table 5. Values of the small-strain shear modulus of the pyroclastic soils in the eastern Naples area, as deduced by
shear wave velocity measurements and back-gured from load tests on single piles at three building sites
Soil type
G0 : MPa
Measured cross-hole
(Vinale, 1988)
Peat
Volcanic ash
Stratied sand
Cohesionless pozzolana
Indurated pozzolana
Back-gured from initial stiffness of load tests

Case 7
37
3561
66101
93128
150191
45
151
Cases 10, 11 and 12
Cases 14 and 15
144
112
8
24
58
80
0
Foundation level
43 m
E1
G0 profile back-figured
from load tests on single pile
10
Mine waste
22 m
20
27 m
E2= 12 E1
Lignite and peaty clay
E3 = 40 E1
Silty clay
E4 = 80 E1
Clayey silt
E5 = 16 E1
Sandy silt
E6 = 114 E1
Clayey silt
30
40
Depth: m
45 m
50
53 m
61 m
60
69 m
70
80
90
100
200
400
600
G0: MPa
800
1000
1200
Fig. 20. Case history No. 18: soil properties and subsoil model assumed in the analysis
in all the cases where the LE analysis was already

successful. In case 8, where the non-linearity plays
a signicant role, NL analysis substantially improves the prediction (Fig. 10).
The ELE analysis (Fig. 19(c)), which incorrectly
amplies both the elastic and plastic components
of the settlement of the single pile, substantially
overpredicts the observed settlement. This is
clearly shown in Fig. 10 for case 8 (Briaud et al.,
1989).
The above comments also apply to the prediction of the maximum differential settlement (Figs
19(d) and (e)). The available data, however, are

slightly more scanty and scattered than those on
the average settlement. This may be due, at least to
some extent, to the unknown and variable inuence
of the stiffness of the foundation and superstructure.
As a nal comment, it should be noted that all
the analyses presented are `Class C' predictions
(Lambe, 1973), that is, predictions made after the
event and when the results to be predicted are
already known. In spite of all the attempts at
dening a standard procedure and reducing to a
814
minimum the inuence of subjective judgement, a

range of choice of the values of parameters, of the
loading history and of the boundary conditions
always exists. More or less consciously the choice
may then be tuned, within such a range, to make
the analysis t the known observed results. As an
example of this subjectivity, a comparison may be
made between the results reported in this paper for
the buildings in the eastern Naples area (case 7;
cases 10, 11 and 12; and cases 14 and 15), and
previous back-analyses of the same cases published
by the writers or their colleagues (Caputo, 1991;
Caputo et al., 1991; Mandolini & Viggiani,
1992b). The comparison is made in Table 6.
The previous analyses were essentially ELE, and
were carried out on the basis of the same experimental evidence as used for the present paper, with
slightly different procedures and codes. In particular, different values of the maximum interaction
spacing and different subsoil models were adopted.
At that time, however, the equivalent linear procedure was believed to be the most suitable one and
accordingly also the judgement, though not deliberately, was probably tuned to improve the agreement
between prediction and observation.
As a matter of fact, it may be seen that previous
ELE analyses tend to be in better agreement with
the observed results than the present ones.
The results reported in Table 6 allow an assessment of the inuence of apparently minor details
of the procedure of analysis and of the range of
subjectivity in the selection of parameters.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A number of well-documented records of the

settlement of pile foundations have been backanalysed by a numerical procedure based on superposition factors; the soil properties relevant to the
analysis have been back-gured from the results of
loading tests on single piles.
In all but one of the cases analysed the predicted values of the average settlement are within
20% of the observed ones. The maximum differential settlement is predicted with slightly lesser
accuracy. Such an accuracy is believed to be
adequate for engineering purposes, considering that
also the accuracy of the numerical codes is probably of the same order (Randolph, 1994).
For foundations designed according to the conventional capacity-based approach, and hence characterized by a relatively high safety factor, linear
and non-linear analyses are essentially equivalent
for the prediction of settlement. They are based on
elastic properties of the subsoil back-gured from
the initial stiffness of load tests on single piles.
Some evidence suggests that the low-strain shear
modulus, obtained by in situ shear wave velocity
measurements, can be also successfully employed
in the prediction of the settlement.
When the safety factor is low, the consideration
of non-linearity becomes mandatory. It is to be
expected that foundations designed according to
the settlement-based approach, where piles are
essentially used as settlement reducers, will require
NL analysis.
The only case in which the observed and predicted values of the settlement completely disagree
is that reported by Koerner & Partos (1974). If
errors or misunderstandings are excluded, a possible explanation could be obtained from the occurrence of a deep compressible layer not revealed by
the available investigations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of undergraduate and postgraduate

students of the University of Naples shared in the
development of the computer codes and the backanalysis of cases histories reported in the paper.
Among them R. Maiorano and G. Russo deserve a
special mention.
The work of M. Randolph, and the stimulating
discussions held with him in various places and
times, have greatly contributed to the ideas on
which this paper is based.
Table 6. Comparison between different evaluations of the average settlement of buildings in eastern Naples Area
Case
Average settlement: mm
Measured
Present
ELE
Previous ELE
59
52
41106
10
11
12
281
315
251
379
384
270
216284
14
15
110
70
198
143
95
69
Value
Source
Caputo (1991)
Mandolini & Viggiani (1992b)
These analyses refer to a load level lower than that at the end of construction.
REFERENCES
Banerjee, P. K. (1970). A contribution to the study of
axially loaded pile foundations. PhD thesis, University
of Southampton.
Banerjee, P. K. & Buttereld, R. (1981). Boundary
element method in engineering science. McGraw-HIll.
Banerjee, P. K. & Driscoll, R. M. (1978). Program for
the analysis of pile groups of any geometry subjected
to horizontal and vertical loads and moments,
PGROUP (2.1). Department of Transport, London,
HECB=B=7.
Bilotta, E., Caputo, V. & Viggiani, C. (1991). Analysis of
soilstructure interaction for piled rafts. Proc. 10th
ECSMFE, Florence, Vol. 1, pp. 315318.
Briaud, J. L., Tucker, L. M. & Ng, E. (1989). Axially
loaded 5 pile group and single pile in sand. Proc.
12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2, pp. 11211124.
Burland, J. B. & Kalra, J. C. (1986). Queen Elizabeth II
Conference Centre: geotechnical aspects. Proc. Instn.
Civ. Engrs 80, 14791505.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello, V. F. B. (1977).
Behaviour of foundation and structures. Proc. 9th
ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 495546.
Buttereld, R. & Banerjee, P. K. (1971). The problem of
pile grouppile cap interaction. Geotechnique 21, No.
2, 135142.
Buttereld, R. & Douglas, R. A. (1981). Flexibility
coefcients for the design of piles and pile groups.
CIRIA Technical Note 108, London.
Caputo, V. (1991). Equivalent elastic analysis of settlement for piled foundations. Proc. 10th ECSMFE,
Florence, Vol. 4, pp. 13461348.
Caputo, V. & Viggiani, C. (1984). Pile foundation
analysis: a simple approach to non linearity effects.
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 18, No. 2, 3251.
Caputo, V., Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1991).
Settlement of a piled foundation in pyroclastic soils.
Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Vol. 1, pp. 353358.
Chin, F. K. (1970). Estimation of the ultimate load of
piles from tests not carried to failure. Proc. 2nd
SEACSE, Singapore, pp. 8192.
Chin, F. K. (1972). The inverse slope as a prediction of
ultimate bearing capacity of piles. Proc. 3rd SEACSE,
Hong Kong, pp. 8391.
Chow, Y. K. (1986). Analysis of vertically loaded pile
groups. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. in Geomech. 10, No.
1, 5972.
Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1992). Analysis and design
of piled raft foundations. Research report G1062,
University of Western Australia, Perth.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G. & Tarr, K. W. (1980). Jacked
piles in London clay: interaction and group behaviour
under working conditions. Geotechnique 30, No. 2,
449471.
Cooke, R. W., Bryden Smith, D. W., Gooch, M. N. &
Sillet, D. F. (1981). Some observations on the
foundation loading and settlement of a multi-storey
building on a piled raft foundation in London clay.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 107, Part I, 433460.
Croce, A. (1948). Secondary time effect in the compression of unconsolidated sediments of volcanic origin.
Proc. 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 166169.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. &
Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edition.
Surrey University Press.
815
Fraser, R. A. & Wardle, L. J. (1976). Numerical analysis

of rectangular rafts on layered foundations. Geotechnique 26, No. 4, 613630.
Goossens, D. & Van Impe, W. F. (1991). Long term
settlements of a pile group foundation in sand,
overlying a clay layer. Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence,
Vol. 1, pp. 425428.
Grifths, D. V., Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991).
Piled raft foundation analysis by nite elements. Proc.
7th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, Cairns, Vol. 2, pp. 11531157.
Kaino, T. & Aoki, H. (1985). Vertical load test of cast-inplace concrete pile groups (1st report). Report of
Structural Design Ofce of JNR, No. 84, pp. 1923.
(In Japanese.)
Koerner, R. M. & Partos, A. (1974). Settlement of
building on pile foundation in sand. J. Soil Mech.
Fdns Div., ASCE 85, No. SM6, 129.
Koizumi, Y. & Ito, K. (1967). Field tests with regard to
pile driving and bearing capacity of piled foundations.
Soils Fdns 7, No. 3, 3053.
Lambe, T. W. (1973). Prediction in soil engineering.
Geotechnique 23, No. 2, 149202.
Mancuso, C. & Mandolini, A. (1993). Ulteriori indagini
sulla battitura di pali in argilla. Gruppos Nazionale
di Coordinamento per gli Studi di Ingegneria Geotecnica, CNR. Attivita di Ricerca 1992=93, Roma, pp.
275278.
Mandolini, A. (1994a). Modelling settlement behaviour
of piled foundations. Pile foundationsExperimental
investigations, analysis and design, pp. 361406.
Naples: Cuen.
Mandolini, A. (1994b). Cedimenti di fondazioni su pali.
PhD thesis, University of Naples `Federico II'.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1992a) Terreni ed opere di
fondazione di un viadotto sul ume Garigliano.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1992b). Settlement prediction for piled foundations from loading tests on
single pile. Proc. Wroth Mem. Symp. on Predictive
Soil Mechanics, Oxford, pp. 464482.
Mindlin, R. D. (1936). Force at a point in the interior of
a semi-innite solid. Physics 7, 195202.
Morgan, J. R. & Poulos, H. G. (1968). Stability and
settlement of deep foundations. In Soil mechanics
selected topics (ed. I. K. Lee), pp. 528609. New
York: Elsevier.
O'Neill, M. W., Ghazzaly, O. I. & Ha, H. A. (1977).
Analysis of three dimensional pile groups with non
linear soil response and pilesoilpile interaction.
Proc. 9th Ann. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
pp. 245256.
Poulos, H. G. (1968). Analysis of settlement of pile
groups. Geotechnique 18, No. 3, 449471.
Poulos, H. G. (1990). DEFPIGDeformation analysis of
pile groups, User's guide. Centre for Geotechnical
Research, University of Sydney.
Poulos, H. G. (1993). Settlement prediction for bored pile
groups. Proc. BAP II, Ghent, pp. 103117.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation
analysis and design. New York: Wiley.
Poulos, H. G. & Hewitt, C. M. (1985). Axial interaction
between dissimilar piles in a group. School of Civil
and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney,
Research report No. R512.
816
Rampello, S. (1994). Soil stiffness relevant to settlement

prediction of the piled foundations at Pietratta. Pile
foundationsExperimental investigations, analysis
and design, pp. 407416. Naples: Cuen.
Randolph, M. F. (1987). PIGLET; a computer program for
the analysis and design of pile groups. University of
Western Australia, Perth, Report Geo 87036.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups
and piled rafts. Proc. 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, vol.
5, pp. 6182.
Randolph, M. F. & Clancy, P. (1994). Design and
performance of a piled foundation. In ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical and
horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments, pp. 314324. College Station, Texas.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of
deformations of vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 104, No. GT12, 14651488.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1979). An analysis of
the vertical deformations of pile groups. Geotechnique
29, No. 4, 423439.
Russo, G. (1994). Monitoring the behaviour of a pile
foundation. Pile foundationsExperimental investigations, analysis and design, pp. 435441. Naples: Cuen.
Sommer, H., Tamaro, G. & De Benedittis, G. (1991).

Messe Turm: foundations for the tallest building in
Europe. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Stresa, Vol. 1, pp. 139145.
Thorburn, S., Laird, C. & Randolph, M. F. (1983).
Storage tanks founded on soft soils reinforced with
driven piles. Proc. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Piling and Ground Treatment, Instn Civ. Engrs,
London, pp. 157164.
Tromenkov, J. (1977). Panel contribution, Session 2,
Behaviour of foundation and structures. Proc. 9th
ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 3, pp. 370371.
Viggiani, C. (1989). Terreni ed opere di fondazione della
Cittadella Postale nel Centro Direzionale di Napoli.
Viggiani, C. & Vinale, F. (1983). Comportamento di pali
trivellati di grande diametro in terreni piroclastici.
Vinale, F. (1988). Caratterizzazione del sottosuolo di
un'area campione di Napoli ai ni di una microzonazione sismica. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 22,
No. 2, 77100.
Wood, L. A. (1978). A note on the settlement of piled
structures. Ground Engng, No. 5, 3842.

Geot 1997 47 4 791

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Geot 1997 47 4 791

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1997). Geotechnique 47, No.

Settlement of piled foundations

A numerical code for the prediction of the

dation is to reduce settlements. However, once the

In his state-of-the-art report on `Design methods

Manuscript received 10 October 1995; revised manuscript

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

perhaps better ask themselves the question of how

as that due to Mindlin (1936), is used to relate the

where the factor I w is a function of the ratio of the

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

ALPHAPALO determines the inuence factor ij

Furthermore, if Q is the total load acting on the

Note that the value of Qi,lim in equation (6) is intended

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

group response on the basis of initial small-strain

group, smax is increased by adding a term rG as

Fig. 1. Comparison between results of computations

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

results obtained by GRUPPALO are compared with

A list of the case histories that have been

and pile type vary from one case to another, so

Table 1. Essential features of the analysed case histories

Koizumi & Ito (1967)

Organic silty clay

Driven, closed end steel pipe

Briaud et al. (1989)

Sediments over hard siltstone

Bored, bentonite mud

Bored, bentonite mud

Caputo et al. (1991)

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

Equivalent linear elastic

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

Fig. 2. Case history No. 2: layout of foundations of the

ment of the group; this is rather surprising, because

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

Case 5. Molasses tank (Thorburn et al., 1983)

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

Fig. 7. Case history No. 5: loading test results on single pile

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

The load test on the single pile has been

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

to a load of 075 MN, which corresponds to a

concrete piles with a length of 134 m, a shaft

Loamy or clayey quaternary sand layer of variable density

CPT before pile installation

Consistent tertiary clay layer

CPT after pile installation

Relatively dense tertiary sand layer

Medium stiff clay

E8 = 667 E1 Very dense sand

Tertiary clay layer

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

On the contrary, the ELE analysis, based on a

1 m thick, stiffened by heavy reinforced concrete

SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

soil properties obtained by means of laboratory

MANDOLINI AND VIGGIANI

Peat and organic silt