Beta Method SKIN Friction
Beta Method SKIN Friction
Beta Method SKIN Friction
net/publication/272253694
CITATIONS READS
2 308
4 authors, including:
Jinyuan Liu
Ryerson University
116 PUBLICATIONS 1,197 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyuan Liu on 04 November 2015.
Keywords: Negative skin friction, Pile, Case history, Back calculation, a and b coefficients
Introduction effective stress in the soil along the pile before driving
and a and b are two empirical factors.
Negative skin friction (NSF) occurs when soil surround- The a method is widely used in practice because of its
ing a pile settles more than the pile itself. It normally simple form, though it is considered inadequate since su
occurs in highly compressible soil areas. Negative skin is not a unique soil property. The b method is based on
friction causes extra dragload on the pile foundation and the effective stress theory, which more coincides with the
induces significant pile settlement. engineering circumstances.9
Many methods have been proposed to calculate the Based on full scaled load tests, NAVFAC10 mainly
magnitude and distribution of NSF, including analytical recommends the b method for the unit skin friction. The
methods and numerical approaches.1–4 In particular, value of b varies depending on the type of soil: 0?2–0?25
field tests have been used by many researchers.5–7 These for clay, 0?25–0?35 for silt and 0?35–0?50 for sand.
tests were normally very expensive and time consuming. USACE11 provides a commentary on various methods
More importantly, the results provided valuable infor- used in practice regarding NSF in its manual of design
mation for engineers to understand NSF in piles. This for pile foundations. However, no specific method is
paper is to revisit these known case histories to evaluate recommended for design. In AREMA,12 the considera-
the a and b coefficients normally used in the design. tion of NSF is specified for end bearing piles in section
4?3?2. The design load is preferred to be determined by
loading tests. No specific design method is suggested or
Design methods for negative skin recommended in its manual. AASHTO13 specifies NSF
friction pile in section 4?5?6?7?1 of highway bridge design manual. As
There are mainly two methods, a (total stress) and b a guideline, the load transfer method of analysis shall be
(effective stress) methods, in calculating unit skin considered in the design with the time dependent
friction fs for driven piles in clay.8 The same methods behaviour of NSF on a pile.
have been applied to calculate NSF Canadian Geotechnical Society14 specifies NSF con-
sideration in section 18?2?5 in the fourth edition of
fs ~asu (1) ‘Canadian foundation engineering manual’. It mainly
recommends a method, where a value is in the range of
fs ~bs’v (2) 0?5–1?0 and the undrained shear strength su is specified
as the strength of soil after consolidation under new
where su is the average undrained shear strength of soil load. Canadian Geotechnical Society suggests the
along the length of the pile, sv9 is the average vertical application of b method in the range of 0?2–0?3.
In general, most of these design guidelines do not
provide a specific method to follow since NSF is a very
1
College of Transportation Science & Engineering, Nanjing University of complex phenomenon and influenced by many factors.
Technology, 200 Zhongshan North Road, Nanjing 210009, China
2
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and
Embankment Engineering, Geotechnical Research Institute, Hohai Calculation methods for a and b
University, 1 Xikang Road, Nanjing 210098, China
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,
coefficients
Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada Given unit skin friction fs, a and b can be directly
*Corresponding author, email hongmei54@163.com calculated from equations (1) and (2). If the dragload
along the pile is known, a and b can be calculated as Case history B: Heroya, Norway
follows Four 300 mm diameter telltale instrumented pipe piles
a~ðP2 {P1 Þ=½su C ðh2 {h1 Þ (3) [piles A, B (bitumen coated), C and D] were driven in a
site consisting of 7 m sand gravel fill, 5 m clayey silt and
18 m silty clay.16 An average value of 1?15 for a and a
b~2ðP2 {P1 Þ= c’C h2 2 {h1 2 (4) range of 0?17–0?24 for b were back calculated for
where h1 and h2 are the depths of two measurements uncoated piles, compared to smaller average values of
points, P1 and P2 are the dragloads measured at the 0?18 and 0?05 for a and b coefficients for coated pile B.
depths of h1 and h2, C is the perimeter of the pile and c9
Case history C: Fukagawa, Japan
is the effective unit weight of soil.
Three steel pipe piles (cE43, oE43 and cF31) with the
same diameter of 610 mm were driven in a site
Calculation of a and b based on field consisting of 2 m fill, 7 m silty sand, 30 m soft silt and
measurements 4 m hard silt.5 The 43 m long cE43 and oE43 were
driven to hard silt while the 31 m long cF31 was driven
Field tests have been performed to investigate NSF as a friction pile. The b value ranged from 0?16 to 0?53
problem since the 1960s. In this study, both a and with an average value of 0?33. The a coefficient varied in
b coefficients were back calculated for these field tests. a wide range from 0?1 to 1?57 with an average value of
0?75.
Case history A: Sorenga, Norway
A full scale test was conducted on a telltale instrumen- Case history D: Goteborg, Sweden
ted steel pile B.15 The pile with a length of 55 m and a Two instrumented precast concrete piles with lengths of
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited
diameter of 470 mm was embedded in layered soil 53?1 and 55?1 m were driven in a site consisting of 40 m
consisting of 10 m thick fill and 50 m soft to medium clay, 13 m silt and 15 m sand.6 All the piles had the same
soft marine clay on bedrock. The b coefficient back cross-sectional area of 800 cm2 and a circumference of
calculated in this study varied from 0?03 to 0?27 with an 106 cm. The a value was back calculated in the range of
average value of 0?15, and a coefficient ranged from 0?1–0?21 and b was in the range of 0?04–0?07 in this
0?23 to 1?85 with an average of 0?73. Bjerrum et al.16 study. These values were in good agreement with the
also investigated three piles (piles C, D and E) in a values of 0?17 and 0?05 for a and b reported by Fellenius
nearby site, which was consisted of 15 m fill and 40 m and Broms.6
soft marine clay. All piles were full scale steel tube piles
with a diameter of 500 mm and a wall thickness of Case history E: Hawaii, USA
8 mm. Piles D and E were bitumen coated. b decreased Three 420 mm diameter precast prestressed concrete
from 0?32 to 0?1 with depth for uncoated pile C. b piles [piles 6, 7 (bitumen coated) and 8] were driven in a
averaged 0?01 and 0?08 for the coated piles D and E site consisting mainly of soft to firm clay.17 Pile 7 had
respectively. The higher b value in pile E was due to the same length of 50 m as pile 8. For uncoated piles, the
bitumen scraped off during pile driving. a was not given b value, with an average of 0?22, reduced from 0?39 to
due to the lack of su. 0?11 with depth compared to an average value of 0?64
and the range from 1?07 to 0?37 for the a coefficient. The piles. Similarly, three excessive values for uncoated pile
a and b varied in a narrow range for coated pile with an and one for coated piles were excluded.
average value of 0?21 and 0?06 respectively.
10. NAVFAC: ‘Foundations and earth structures’, Design manual September 1965, University of Toronto Press, Vol. 2, 261–
7?02; 1986, Alexandra, VA, US Department of Navy. 264.
11. USACE: ‘Design of pile foundations’, Engineer manual 1110-2- 16. L. Bjerrum, I. J. Johannessen and O. Eide: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
2906; 1991, Washington, DC, US Army Corps of Engineers. ‘Soil mechanics and foundation engineering’, Mexico City, Mexico,
12. AREMA: ‘AREMA manual of railway engineering’, Part 4, ‘Pile August 1969, Vol. 2, 27–34.
foundations’; 1994, Lanham, MD, AREMA. 17. F. Clemente: Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil mechanics and
13. AASHTO: ‘Standard specifications for highway bridges’, 17th edn; foundation engineering’, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1981, Taylor
2002, Washington, DC, American Association of State Highway & & Francis, Vol. 2, 673–676.
Transportation Officials. 18. T. Fukuya, T. Todoroki and M. Kasuga: Proc. 7th Southeast Asian
14. Canadian Geotechnical Society: ‘Canadian foundation engineering ma- Geotechnical Conf., Hong Kong, China, November 1982,
nual’, 4th edn, 488; 2006, Richmond, Canadian Geotechnical Society. Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Vol. 1, 333–347.
15. I. J. Johannessen and L. Bjerrum: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on ‘Soil 19. K. S. Wong and C. I. Teh: J. Geotech. Eng., 1995, 121, (6), 457–
mechanics and foundation engineering’, Montreal, Canada, 465.
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited