Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 156
October 2003 Issue GE4
Pages 183–191
Paper 13374
Received 27/5/2003
Accepted 29/7/2003
Keywords: Francesco Castelli Ernesto Motta
foundations/piles & piling Researcher, Department of Professor, Department of
Civil and Environmental Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Engineering, University of
Catania, Italy Catania, Italy

Settlement prevision of piles under vertical load

F. Castelli and E. Motta

This paper presents a simplified non-linear method to R0 pile radius

predict the behaviour of a single pile and/or a pile group Rs shaft reaction
under vertical loads. The evaluation of the non-linear Rb base reaction
settlement is based on an incremental procedure taking Rslim shaft pier resistance
into account the decrease of the stiffness parameters Rblim base pier resistance
with increase of the applied load. The solution, derived s centre-to-centre pile spacing in the group
first for a single pile, was extended to the case of a pile w pile head settlement
group, introducing an equivalent pier interacting with
b load level for the base
the surrounding soil by means of hyperbolic load
s load level for the shaft
transfer functions. To take into account group action in
the soil–pile interaction, the stiffness of the equivalent
pier has been modified and linked to that of the single
pile, and a simple expression is also proposed. The 1. INTRODUCTION
numerical results obtained by the proposed method The mechanism of load transfer in single piles or pile groups
were compared with measurements derived from full- involves many interacting factors, such as soil properties,
scale load tests on single piles and pile groups, and it single pile and pile group geometry, pile cap, surrounding soil,
has been shown that this procedure can be used and pile–soil interaction. In most available prediction methods,
successfully for prediction of non-linear pile group pile group settlement is related to the settlement of a single
1,2
settlement. As the method can be easily coded or pile. The hybrid approach, for example, models the single
solved with the aid of a computer spreadsheet, pile using the load-transfer (t–z) method, whereas the
reasonable predictions can be made without expensive interaction between the piles, through the soil, is evaluated
3
and time-consuming analyses. using Mindlin’s solution. The load-transfer curves for the
individual piles are modified to take into account the group
effects by stretching the curves, involving the displacement of
NOTATION a single pile and an additional induced displacement due to
Ag plan area of pile group as a block pile interaction.
Atp total cross-sectional area of the piles in the group
D pile diameter A simplified non-linear method to predict the behaviour of a
Deq diameter of equivalent pier single pile and a pile group under vertical loads is presented in
Es Young’s modulus of soil this paper. The model employs hyperbolic load-transfer (t–z)
Ep Young’s modulus of pile functions, by which the non-linear behaviour of shaft and base
Eeq Young’s modulus of equivalent pier resistance is simulated.
f shaft mobilised stress
fs shear strength at pile shaft The load-transfer functions are modified to simulate the
G0 initial shear modulus of soil behaviour of a pile group, in terms of settlements, considering
4–6
Ksi initial shaft stiffness it as an equivalent pier. This allows us to utilise a simplified
Kbi initial base stiffness solution, taking into account the non-linearity of the soil–pile
Ks tangent shaft stiffness interaction. Obviously the representation of a pile group by an
Kb tangent base stiffness equivalent pier furnishes an estimation only of the average
L length of pile settlement of the pile group.
Ms flexibility factor
n number of piles in group Comparisons between analytical results with measurements
P applied load derived from full-scale load tests on pile groups show that this
q base mobilised stress simple procedure can be used successfully for evaluation of
qb limit unit load at pile base non-linear pile group settlements, if the model parameters are
R overall aspect ratio evaluated properly.

Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta 183
 2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
To estimate the settlement of a single pile or a pile group, a
procedure derived from a model analysing the non-linear
settlement behaviour of a single pile subjected to axial load is
7 8– 13
applied. The load transfer approach has been simulated by D
load-transfer functions distributed along the pile shaft and at
the base.
B

In a load transfer approach, the relationship between shaft and

base mobilised stress, f and q respectively, with the pile vertical
displacement w, is usually expressed in terms of Kondner-
14 s
type hyperbolic curves:
For the shaft:

B
w(z)
1 f ¼
1=K si þ w(z)= f s 冑ns
Raft

D
For the base:

w(L) Esoil
2 q¼ Deq
1=K bi þ w(z)=qb Eeq
L

where w(z) is the corresponding displacement at a given depth

z, f s is the shear strength at the pile shaft, and qb is the limit
unit load at the pile base. The initial stiffness for shaft and base Epile

load-transfer functions are indicated as Ksi and Kbi respectively Equivalent pier
in equations (1) and (2).

For practical estimation of pile group settlement, a convenient

Pile group
procedure that can be applied is the equivalent pier method. It
considers the region of soil in which the piles are embedded as
an equivalent continuum so that the pile group or the piled raft Fig. 1. Replacement of pile group by equivalent pier
is replaced by an equivalent pier, according to the suggestions
4
given by Randolph.

4
As suggested by Randolph the diameter of the equivalent pier,
Deq , for both friction piles and end-bearing piles, can be taken an embedded length L, the validity of the equivalent pier
as methods depends on a parameter defined by Randolph and
15
Clancy; the overall aspect ratio R, given by
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 Ag
3 Deq ¼
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
( n
1)s þ D
5 R¼
L
where Ag is the plan area of the pile group as a block. The
Young’s modulus of the equivalent pier, Eeq , is then calculated
as 15
Randolph and Clancy showed that the equivalent pier
approach was suitable for R less than 4, and certainly for
Atp values less than 2.
4 Eeq ¼ Es þ (Ep
Es )
Ag

where Ep is the Young’s modulus of the piles, Es is the average
Young’s modulus of the soil, and Atp is the total cross-sectional
area of the piles in the group (Fig. 1). The advantage of this
approach is that the load–settlement response of the equivalent
pier can be calculated using solutions for the response of a
single pile.
For a square group of n piles with diameter D, at spacing s, and
3. ANALYTICAL SOLUTION
To take into account the group action due to pile–soil–pile
interaction, load transfer functions must be modified to relate
the behaviour of a single pile to that of a pile group.
A method to evaluate the settlement, w, for a single pile or a
pile group is to assume two laws for the soil–pile interaction
along the shaft and at the base respectively, with different
stiffness values (Fig. 2(a)).

184 Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta
 P 8 ˜w ¼ C 1 eÆz þ C 2 e
Æz

Ksi
where ˜w is the incremental settlement due to a small load
increment, and where C1 and C2 are given by
N

Ksi (1
) ˜P
dz 9 C1 ¼ 
p ⫽ ⫺Ksiw (1 þ )e2ÆL
(1
) ÆEp Ap

dy
N ⫹ dN
Ksi (1 þ )e2ÆL ˜P
(N ⫹ dN) ⫺ N ⫹ pdz ⫽ 0 10 C2 ¼ 
(1 þ )e2ÆL
(1
) ÆEp Ap
(b)

Ksi
In equations (9) and (10) Ap is the cross-sectional area of the
pile, ˜P is the incremental load, and

Kb
Ksi 11 ¼
ÆEp

Ksi Because of the non-linearity of the load–settlement curve, and

Kbi
because the stiffness at the shaft and at the base decreases with
increase of the applied load, a suggested procedure is to
(a) compute the pile settlement in an incremental form, updating
on the basis of the load level, the shaft and base stiffness
according to the following formulae for the tangent stiffness:
Fig. 2. Model to derive solution for pile settlement prediction

12 K s ¼ K si (1

s )2

3.1. Single pile

For a single pile in a homogeneous soil, according to Fig. 2(b)
the following second-order differential equation can be 13 K b ¼ K bi (1

b )2
written:

where
s ¼ Rs /Rslim is the ratio between the shaft reaction, Rs,

6 w 0
Æ2 w ¼ 0
and the shaft resistance, Rslim ; and
b ¼ Rb /Rblim is the ratio
between the base reaction, Rb , and the base resistance, Rblim .

where w is settlement at depth z, and 3.2. Pile group

The settlement prediction for a pile group can be derived from
the solution for the single pile described above by simply
 : replacing the Young’s modulus and the diameter of the pile by
4K s 0 5
7 Ƽ those of the equivalent pier (equations (3) and (4)).
Ep D 16
Furthermore, it has been observed that the unit stiffness of
the equivalent pier is significantly less than that of the single
pile. To take this reduction into account the shear stiffness, K s ,
in which Ks is an average shear stiffness of the soil–pile of the equivalent pier is reduced according to the following
interface along the shaft depending on the load level, and Ep equation:
and D are the Young’s modulus and diameter of the pile
respectively.
14 K s ¼ ŁK s
Assuming the load–settlement curve of a pile to be a series of
quasi-static sequences, the solution of equation (6) is as
follows: where

Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta 185
  ø
D 24 ˜Rb ¼
K b ˜w(L)
15 Ł¼
Deq

25 ˜Rs ¼ ˜P
˜Rb
In equation (15) Ł is an empirical coefficient used to adapt the
single pile analysis to the equivalent pier analysis. Comparison
with field test results suggests adopting a value of the
16 A flow chart illustrating the adopted procedure for the case of
exponent ø ranging between 0·30 and 0·50. Consequently we
a pile group is shown in Fig. 3.
can assume, for the pile group,

 0:5 4. ESTIMATION OF SOIL PARAMETERS

4ŁK s
16 Æ9 ¼ The ultimate resistance, Rslim and Rblim, of the shaft and base
Eeq Deq respectively of a single pile can be evaluated according to the
well-known static formulae existing in the literature. For a pile
group the ultimate resistance can be related to that of a single
and
pile according to the efficiency concept for a pile group, based
on relating the group efficiency to the planar geometry, the
Kb spacing between the piles, the dimensions and number of piles
17 eq ¼
Æ9Eeq in the group.
17– 22

Alternatively an equivalent pier can be assumed for the

where Kb is the unit base stiffness of the soil-equivalent pier evaluation of the ultimate base and shaft resistances.
system. Obviously, the main difficulty in applying the proposed method

Equations (9) and (10) become

(1
eq ) ˜P Input
18 C1 ¼  L, Eeq, Deq, Rblim, Rslim, Kb, Ks, θ
(1 þ eq )e2Æ9 L
(1
eq ) Æ9Eeq Aeq

Initialise
(1 þ eq )e2ÆL ˜P P ⫽ 0; W(0) ⫽ 0; W(L) ⫽ 0; ηb ⫽ 0; ηs ⫽ 0
19 C2 ¼ 
(1 þ eq )e2Æ9 L
(1
eq ) Æ9Eeq Aeq
Starting
incremental procedure

P ⫽ P ⫹ ∆P; Ks ⫽ Ks(1 ⫺ ηs)2; K b ⫽ K b(1 ⫺ ηb)2

The incremental head settlement (at z ¼ 0) is given by

Compute incremental settlements at the head and at the base

20 ˜w(0) ¼ C 1 þ C 2 (eqs (20) and (22))
∆w(0); ∆w (L)

and the total settlement at the ith incremental step is Update settlements at pile head and base
w(0) ⫽ w(0) ⫹ ∆w (0); w(L) ⫽ w(L) ⫹ ∆w(L)

X
i Compute incremental base and shear reactions
21 w(0) i ¼ ˜w(0) j ∆Rb ⫽ ⫺K b∆w(L); ∆Rs ⫽ ∆P ⫹ ∆Rb
j¼1

Update base and shear reactions

Rb ⫽ Rb ⫹ ∆Rb; Rs ⫽ Rs ⫹ ∆Rs

In the same way, the incremental base settlement is Update base and shear load levels
ηb ⫽ Rb/Rblim; ηs ⫽ Rs/Rslim

22 ˜w(L) ¼ C 1 eÆ L þ C 2 e
Æ L

No
P ⫽ Pmax
and the total settlement at the ith incremental step is

Yes
X
23
i
w(L) ¼ ˜w(L) j End
j¼1

Fig. 3. Schematic flow chart for the incremental procedure

The incremental base reaction, ˜Rb , and lateral reaction, ˜Rs, adopted
are respectively

186 Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta
is the appropriate evaluation of function parameters for a
Reference L: m D: m Ms ¼ f s =Ksi D
realistic estimation of single pile or pile group settlements.

In a single pile–soil interaction, the initial stiffness, Ksi and Kbi , 29 15·20 0·94 0·00158
29 12·20 0·78 0·0032
can be derived from elastic theory using the following 30 20·00 0·42 0·00476
23
relationships proposed by Randolph and Wroth: 31 32·50 1·50 0·00083
32 14·00 0·53 0·00216
32 25·00 0·42 0·00433
G0
26 K si ¼ [FL
3 ] 32 29·00 0·77 0·00216
R0 ln (Rm =R0 ) 32 28·00 1·00 0·00135
33 22·00 1·00 0·00164
33 23·50 0·60 0·00132
4G0 20 13·10 0·27 0·0024
27 K bi ¼ [FL
3 ] 34 42·00 1·50 0·00165
R0 (1
) 34 42·00 2·00 0·0013
26 9·15 0·27 0·00082
35 43·30 1·50 0·00113
where R0 is the radius of the pile shaft, G0 is the initial shear 35 35·00 1·00 0·00154
modulus of the soil, and Rm is the radial distance at which the 35 25·00 0·80 0·00153
shear stress becomes negligible. According to Randolph and 36 48·00 0·39 0·00277
23
Wroth the radial distance, Rm , can be determined as 37 20·00 0·50 0·0019

Table 1. Essential features of the analysed case histories.

28 Rm ¼ 2:5L(1
)r

where L is the pile length,  is the soil Poisson’s ratio, and

r ¼ G l=2 /G is the variation of soil shear modulus with depth 140
(that is, the ratio of the soil shear modulus at the pile mid-
24 4
depth to that at the pile base). Baguelin and Frank suggested 120
K siD ⫽ 3·5 exp (31·15fs)
for ln (Rm /R0 ) a value ranging from 3 to 5. By comparing 100
equations (26) and (27) it is possible to find
KsiD: MPa

80
10
15 17
K bi 4 ln (Rm =R0 ) 60
29 ¼
K si (1
) 40 8
13
16 9
1

12 11 2
14 19
20 5
18
7
For the usual values of ln (Rm /Ro ) and , the ratio Kbi /Ksi 0
6 3 20 21

assumes values ranging between 4 and 10. 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0·05 0·06 0·07 0·08 0·09 0·10 0·11 0·12
fs: MPa

The initial stiffness, Ksi , can also be linked empirically to the

13
dimensionless flexibility factor, Ms : Fig. 4. Fitting of Ksi D against f s : 1 and 2, Whitaker and
29 30 31
Cooke ; 3, Calabresi ; 4, Colombo ; 5–7, Ottaviani and
32 33
Esu ; 9 and 10, Marchetti and D’Angelo ; 11, O’Neill et
fs 20 34 26
30 Ms ¼ al. ; 12 and 13, Viggiani and Vinale ; 14, Briaud et al. ; 15–
35 36
K si D 17, Caputo et al. ; 18, Mandolini and Viggiani ; 19, Maugeri
37 27 28
et al. ; 20, Liu Jin-Li et al. ; 21, Koizumi and Ito

In this way the values of Ksi can be deduced as a function of

the shear strength, f s , along the pile shaft.
13
According to Fleming, Ms would be expected to have values
in the range 0·001–0·004: that is, in agreement with the
7, 25
findings of Castelli et al., in which values of Ms varying
between 0·001 and 0·005 were deduced. These results are also
confirmed by pile loading tests analysed by the authors and
taken from the literature, as reported in Table 1, where the
flexibility factor, Ms , is determined by full-scale loading tests
performed by several authors. The non-linear relationship
between f s and Ksi D, shown in Fig. 4, can be expressed by the
following equation:
Once Ksi has been determined for a single pile, equations (14)
and (15) can be used to evaluate the equivalent pier stiffness
parameter, K s , for the pile group, and equation (27) or
equation (29) gives a first estimation of Kbi .
5. COMPARISON WITH FIELD TESTS
The proposed method for the settlement prediction of a single
pile or a pile group has been validated by comparing the
numerical results with those measured in four load tests
reported in the literature, both on a single pile and on a pile
group.

31 K si D ¼ 3:5 exp(31:15 f s ) 5.1. Case A: piles in medium dense sand

This case history concerns the load test reported by Briaud
26
et al. and performed on a five-pile group loaded to failure in
where f s and the product Ksi D are both in MPa. a medium-dense sand together with a control single pile as a

Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta 187
 reference. The piles were closed-end steel piles, 273 mm in
Load P: MN
outside diameter and 9·3 mm in wall thickness, driven to a
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
depth of 9·15 m below the ground surface. Given the average 0
value f s ¼ 0:0185 MPa, from equation (31) and Table 1, the
computed value of Ksi D is 6·23 MPa. The ratio Kbi /Ksi was 2

Pier head settlement, w: mm

assumed to be equal to 10. 4

The comparison between measured and computed results for 6

the single pile is reported in Fig. 5, where the computed
8
load–settlement behaviour is shown to be in good agreement
with the experimental curve. 10
Measured
To estimate the settlement of the pile group, the following 12 Computed
procedure has been carried out:
14

(a) Determine the total cross-sectional area, Atp ¼ 0·295 m2 .

Fig. 6. Measured and computed settlement for the pile group
(b) Determine the plan area of the pile group, Ag ¼ 1·21 m2 . of Case A
26

(c) Determine from equation (3) the equivalent diameter,

Deq ¼ 1:24 m.
(d) Assuming ø ¼ 0·30, determine from equation (15)
Ł ¼ 0:635.
(e) Determine from equation (4) Eeq ¼ 51·25 3 103 MPa.
( f ) Determine Æ from equation (7). From Fig. 4, a value of Ksi D is found equal to 24·7 MPa. The
(g) Determine the settlement, w, updating the values of Æ and ratio Kbi /Ksi was assumed equal to 10. The comparison between
 (equation (11)) according to the load level (equations (12) measured and computed results for the single pile is reported in
and (13)). Fig. 7, where the computed load–settlement behaviour is
shown to be in good agreement with the experimental curve.
The comparison between the measured and computed
settlements of the pile group is given in Fig. 6. To estimate the settlement of the pile group, the following
values of the model parameters were employed: for the four-
pile subgroup Atp ¼ 0·236 m2 , Ag ¼ 1·19 m2 , Deq ¼ 1·23 m and
5.2. Case B: piles in overconsolidated clay
Eeq ¼ 5·61 3 103 MPa; for the nine-pile subgroup
The case history analysed regards the load test reported by
20 Atp ¼ 0:531 m2 , Ag ¼ 3·65 m2 , Deq ¼ 2·16 m and
O’Neill et al. on 11 closed-ended steel pipe piles in stiff
Eeq ¼ 4:17 3 103 MPa.
overconsolidated clays.
The bearing capacity of the equivalent pier was taken as the
The piles had an external radius of 137 mm, with a wall
sum of the capacities of the individual piles, and the pier–soil
thickness of 9·3 mm, and were driven to a depth of 13·1 m. A
system stiffness was determined assuming a value ø ¼ 0·50.
single pile, a four-pile subgroup and a nine-pile group were
The comparison between measured and computed settlements
loaded to failure in compression. The single pile response was
for both the four-pile subgroup and the nine-pile group is
analysed assuming f s ¼ 60 kN=m2 , which is the average value
given in Fig. 8.
between f s ¼ 19 kN=m2 at the ground surface and
20
f s ¼ 93 kN=m2 at the pile base, as indicated by O’Neill et al.

Load, P: kN
Load, P: kN
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 0
0
Pile head settlement, w: mm

1
Pile head settlement, w: mm

2
6
3

9
4
Measured
12 Measured
Computed 5
Computed

15 6

Fig. 5. Measured and computed settlement for the single pile Fig. 7. Measured and computed settlement for the single pile
26 20
of Case A of Case B

188 Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta
 is given in Fig. 10. Also in this case the measured and the
Load, P : MN
computed load–settlement curves are very close.
0·0 1·0 2·0 3·0 4·0 5·0 6·0
0

1 5.4. Case D: pile group in clay

28
Koizumi and Ito report the results of a load test on a group
Pier head settlement, w: mm

2 Nine pile group of piles in clay. All piles had a diameter of 0·30 m and were
3 6·0 m in length. The piles were connected by a concrete cap
and were installed in a 3 3 3 configuration. According to the
4
Four pile group experimental results an average value f s ¼ 30 kN=m2 and a
5 Young’s modulus of soil Es ¼ 17 200 kN/m2 were taken.
6
To estimate the settlement of the pile group, the following
Measured
7 values of the model parameters were employed:
Computed
8 Atp ¼ 0:636 m2 , Ag ¼ 4:41 m2 , Deq ¼ 2:37 m,
Eeq ¼ 3:92 3 103 MPa. The computed value of Ksi D is 5·4 MPa,
and the ratio Kbi /Ksi was assumed equal to 10. The comparison
Fig. 8. Measured and computed settlement for the pile groups
20 between measured and computed settlements of the nine-pile
of Case B
group is given in Fig. 11.

5.3. Case C: piles in soft soil

27
Jin-Li et al. report a load test on steel pipe piles in soft soil.
Load, P: kN
All piles had an external radius of 100 mm, with a wall
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
thickness of 10 mm, and were 4·5 m in length with a closed 0
taper at the bottom. The piles were connected by a rigid
reinforced concrete cap, and were installed in a 3 3 3 and 5
Pier head settlement, w: mm

4 3 4 configuration with a centre-to-centre spacing ranging

from s ¼ 3D to s ¼ 6D. The comparison here is limited to the 10

3 3 3 configuration and s ¼ 3D. According to the experimental

15
results, for the shaft and the base resistance, average values of
23 kN/m2 and 25 kN/m2 were taken respectively. For this case
20
from Fig. 4 the value of Ksi D is 3·5 MPa and the ratio Kbi /Ksi
was assumed equal to 10. The comparison between measured 25 Measured
and computed results for the single pile is reported in Fig. 9. Computed

30
To estimate the settlement of the pile group, the following
values of the model parameters were employed: Fig. 10. Measured and computed settlement for the pile group
Atp ¼ 0:126 m2 , Ag ¼ 1:0 m2 , Deq ¼ 1:13 m, and of Case C
27

Eeq ¼ 5:10 3 103 MPa. The pier–soil system stiffness was

determined assuming a value ø ¼ 0:50. The comparison
between measured and computed settlements of the pile group

Load, P: kN
Load, P: kN
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0
0
2
Pier head settlement, w: mm
Pile head settlement, w: mm

1 4

6
2
8

3 10

12
4 Measured Measured
Computed 14 Computed

5 16

Fig. 9. Measured and computed settlement for the single pile Fig. 11. Measured and computed settlement for the pile group
27 28
of Case C of Case D

Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta 189
 6. CONCLUSIONS
A method for evaluating the non-linear settlement of single
piles and pile groups based on the equivalent pier approach has
been proposed.
The solution derived firstly for a single pile was extended to
the case of a pile group, introducing an equivalent pier
interacting with the surrounding soil by means of hyperbolic
load transfer functions. The method is based on an incremental
procedure taking into account the decrease of the stiffness
parameters with increase of the applied load, updating the shaft
and the base stiffness on the basis of the load level.
To take group action in the soil–pile interaction into account,
the stiffness of the constitutive law for the pile group has been
modified and linked to that of the single pile. The evaluation of
the stiffness for the single pile settlement analysis based on the
13
flexibility factor Ms seems to give reasonable results also for
a pile group.
It has been shown that, in the equivalent pier approach, the
shear stiffness of the load transfer function should be
significantly reduced with respect to those utilised for the
single pile. Although specific studies for the estimation of the
base stiffness in the equivalent pier approach have not been
carried out, it seems reasonable to adopt an initial ratio
K bi =K si ¼ 10. This has been confirmed by the numerical results
of the case histories analysed, which are in good agreement
with the experimental findings.
The procedure can be used successfully for prediction of non-
linear pile group settlements. Thus reasonable prediction can be
made without expensive and time-spending analyses. Indeed,
the method can be easily coded or solved with the aid of a
computer spreadsheet.
REFERENCES
1. O’NEILL M. W., GHAZZALY O. I. and HA H. B. Analysis of
three-dimensional pile groups with non-linear soil
response and pile–soil–pile interaction. Proceedings of the
9th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
1977, 245–256.
2. LEE C. Y. Pile group settlement analysis by hybrid layer
approach. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
1993, 119, No. 6, 984–997.
3. MINDLIN R. D. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-
infinite solid. Physics, 1936, 7, 192–202.
4. RANDOLPH M. F. Design method for pile group and piled
raft. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi,
1994, 5, 61–82.
5. CLANCY P. and RANDOLPH M. F. Simple design tools for
piled raft foundations. Géotechnique, 1996, 46, No. 2,
313–328.
6. HORIKOSHI K. and RANDOLPH M. Estimation of overall
settlement of piled raft. Soils and Foundations, 1999, 39,
No. 2, 59–68.
7. CASTELLI F., MAUGERI M. and MOTTA E. Analisi non lineare
del cedimento di un palo singolo. Rivista Italiana di
Geotecnica, 1992, 26, No. 2, 115–135.
8. COYLE H. M. and REESE L. C. Load transfer for axially
190 Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load
loaded piles in clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 1966, 92, No. SM2, 1–26.
9. KRAFT L. M., RAY R. P. and KAGAWA T. Theoretical t–z
curves. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 1981, 107, No. GT11, 1543–1561.
10. CHOW Y. K. Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 1986, 10, 59–72.
11. HIRAYAMA H. Load–settlement analysis for bored piles
using hyperbolic transfer functions. Soils and Foundations,
1990, 30, No. 1, 55–64.
12. KUWABARA F. Settlement behaviour of non-linear soil
around single piles subjected to vertical loads. Soils and
Foundations, 1991, 31, No. 1, 39–46.
13. FLEMING W. G. K. A new method for single pile settlement
prediction and analysis. Géotechnique, 1992, 42, No. 3,
411–425.
14. KONDNER R. L. Hyperbolic stress–strain response: cohesive
soil. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 1963, 89, No. SM11, 115–143.
15. RANDOLPH M. F. and CLANCY P. Efficient design of piled
rafts. Proceedings of the Second International Geotechnical
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles,
Ghent, 1993, 199–130.
16. CASTELLI F. and MAUGERI M. Simplified non linear analysis
for settlement prediction of pile groups. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2002, 128, No. 1, 76–84.
17. FELD J. Discussion on friction pile foundations.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
1943, 108, 143–144.
18. WHITAKER T. Experiments with model piles in groups.
Géotechnique, 1957, 7, No. 4, 147–167.
19. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.
20. O’NEILL M. W., HAWKINS R. A. and MAHAR L. J. Load
transfer mechanism in piles and pile groups. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1982, 108, No. GT12,
1605–1623.
21. O’NEILL M. W. Group action in offshore piles. Proceedings
of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore
Engineering, Austin, TX, 1983, 25–64.
22. SAYED M. S. and BAKEER R. M. Efficiency formula for pile
groups. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 1992, 118, No. 2, 278–299.
23. RANDOLPH M. F. and WROTH C. P. Analysis of deformation
of vertically loaded piles. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 1978, 104, No. GT12,
1465–1488.
24. BAGUELIN F. and FRANK J. La capacité portante des pieux.
Annales Institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux
Publics, Supplement 330, Serie SF/116, 1975.
25. CASTELLI F., MAUGERI M. and MOTTA E. Modellazione del
fenomeno di attrito negativo nei pali. Rivista Italiana di
Geotecnica, 1993, 27, No. 1, 11–27.
26. BRIAUD J. L., TUCKER L. M. and NG E. Axially loaded 5
pile group and single pile in sand. Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 1989, 2,
1121–1124.
27. LIU JIN-LI, HUANG QIANG, LI XIONG and HU WEN-LONG.
Experimental research on bearing behaviour of pile groups
Castelli • Motta
 in soft soil. Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
New Delhi, 1994, 5, 535–538.
28. KOIZUMI Y. and ITO K. Field tests with regard to pile driving
and bearing capacity of piled foundations. Soils and
Foundations, 1967, 7, No. 3, 30–53.
29. WHITAKER T. and COOKE R. W. An investigation of the shaft
and base resistances of large bored piles in London clay.
Large bored piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London,
1966.
30. CALABRESI G. Compartamento di un alto edificio fondato su
argille sopraconsolidate. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica,
1968, II, No. 2, 57–67.
31. COLUMBO P. Osservazioni sul comportamento di pali a
grande diametro. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, 1971, V,
No. 3, 163–172.
32. VIGGIANI C. and VINALE F. Comportamento di pali trivellati
di grande diamtero in terreni piroclasti. Rivista Italiana di
Geotecnica, 1983, XVII, No. 2, 59–83.
33. OTTAVIANI M. and ESU F. Interpretazione dei risultati di
prove di carico su pali di fondazione mediante il
metodo degli elementi finiti. Proceedings of the 10th
Italian Geotechnical Conference, Milan, T. I. 10, 1–16,
1976.
34. MARCHETTI S. and D’ANGELO L. Misura delle sollecitazioni
nei pali di fondazione. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, 1976,
X, No. 3, 178–205.
35. CAPUTO V., GAMBACORTA F. and VIGGIANI C. Pali trivellati di
grande diametro in terreni piroclastici del Napoletano.
Proceedings of the 17th Italian Geotechnical Conference,
Taormina, 1, 63–79, 1989.
36. MANDOLINI A. and VIGGIANI C. Settlement of piled
foundations. Géotechnique, 1997, 47, No. 4, 791–816.
37. MAUGERI M., CASTELLI F. and MOTTA E. Pile foundation
performance of an earthquake damaged building.
Proceedings of the 2nd Franco–Italian Symposium of
Earthquake Engineering on Strengthening and Repair of
Structures in Seismic Areas, Nice, 263–272, 1994.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 April 2004: email: mary.henderson@ice.org.uk;
fax: þ44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Mary Henderson, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1–7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.

Geotechnical Engineering 156 Issue GE4 Settlement of piles under vertical load Castelli • Motta 191