Pile Behavior—Consequences of Geological

and Construction Imperfections1

Harry G. Poulos, F.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper identifies some of the causes of imperfections in real pile foundations and then examines their possible effects on
pile behavior. The imperfections considered arise from two main sources, natural imperfections caused by the geological circumstances
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and imperfections related to the construction of the piles. In each case, single piles are considered first, and then pile groups are addressed
separately. Case histories are presented to illustrate the effects on pile performance which are predicted by theoretical analyses. The
analyses with which these examinations are carried out will still inevitably involve some degree of idealization, but at least attempt to
incorporate the key “nonideal” aspects. The paper also discusses the particular problems involved in investigating and analyzing under-
performing pile foundations and reviews some methods by which the consequences of imperfections may be overcome or ameliorated.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:5共538兲
CE Database subject headings: Pile foundations; Foundation settlement; Construction; Geologic processes.

Introduction assumptions being invalid, at least to some degree. It is important

In his Presidential Address to the 1st International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Terzaghi 共1936兲
stated: “…the earth in its natural state is never uniform…Its
properties are too complicated for rigorous theoretical
treatment…Even an approximate mathematical solution of some
of the most common problems is extremely difficult.” The sub-
stantial advances in numerical analysis made since that time have,
however, allowed theoretical treatment and solution of a wide
range of problems to be obtained, and these advances have been
particularly significant for pile foundations.
Despite the availability of these methods to modern-day pile
analysts and designers, it is still very common to assume that
“ideal” circumstances prevail and that the earth is essentially uni-
form. For example, it is usual to assume that all soil layers are
horizontal, the founding conditions below all piles are identical,
and that all piles in a group are flawless, elastic, and of equal
dimensions and length. Indeed, some methods also make more
radical assumptions with respect to ideal conditions, namely, that
the soil behavior is elastic, and that the soil profile is either uni-
form with depth or varies in a linear manner. The effects of con-
struction processes on the piles are also frequently ignored or
simplified. Such ideal conditions are rarely, if ever, encountered
in real life. Both natural geological circumstances and the pro-
cesses involved in construction will generally lead to the above
1
Presented at the GeoSupport 2004 Conference, Orlando, FL.
2
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Sydney Australia & Emeritus
Professor of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sydney, 8/12 Mars Rd. Ln.,
Cove West, NSW 2066, Australia. E-mail: harry_poulos@coffey.com.au
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on July 7, 2004; approved on November 1, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 5, May 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2005/5-538–563/$25.00.
to understand how nonideal conditions can arise and what effects
they may have on pile behavior. The term “imperfection” will be
used to describe a nonideal condition in which either the ground,
or the pile as-installed, has a defect or flaw, as compared to the
ideal situation. It is also essential to be able to cope with the
consequences of imperfections when construction has been com-
menced, or after it is completed, and the performance of the foun-
dation system has not met requirements. In some circumstances,
remedial works may be necessary to correct the foundation sys-
tem so that it remains both serviceable and safe.
This paper will attempt to identify some of the causes of im-
perfections in real pile foundations, and will then examine their
possible effects on pile behavior. In each case, single piles will be
considered first, and then pile groups will be addressed separately.
The analyses with which these examinations will be carried out
will still inevitably involve some degree of idealization, but will
at least attempt to incorporate the key “nonideal” aspects. The
paper will also discuss the particular problems involved in ana-
lyzing and designing underperforming pile foundations, and will
review some methods by which the consequences of imperfec-
tions may be overcome or ameliorated.
Process of Idealization
In any geotechnical analysis or design, it is necessary to simplify
the problem in hand and develop an idealized model that incor-
porates the key geotechnical and structural features of the prob-
lem. In particular, there are three aspects of idealization that may
be critical:
• The representation of the geology of the site;
• The assignment of the relevant geotechnical and structural pa-
rameters; and
• The consideration, as far as possible, of the “realities” of the
problem. Depending on the nature of the problem, it may be
essential to incorporate such factors as nonlinear pile-soil be-
havior, nonlinear pile material behavior, the presence of a
water table, layering of the soil profile, loading by structural

538 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 loads, and loading by ground movements.
In all cases, these latter realities should be recognized prior to the
analysis and allowed for. The assessment of appropriate geotech-
nical parameters is a major topic of research, and is often the key
ingredient in the success or failure of a design or analysis. Despite
its importance, this issue will not be the focus of this paper.
In many problems, there may exist “imperfections” that arise
because of natural geological or construction-related reasons, and
which are generally unanticipated deviations from the expected
circumstances. While it may be possible to handle these imper-
fections by appropriate analysis, the main difficulties are that the
designer/analyst may not recognize the existence of the imperfec-
tions during the design process, or else they may only become
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

manifest beyond the design process. Subsequent analysis may

then become either a remedial or a forensic exercise.
In this paper, it will be assumed that the “realities” of pile
analysis will have been recognized and will be incorporated into
the analyses as necessary, and that appropriate geotechnical pa-
rameters have been assessed for the problem. Hence attention will
be focused on the influence of “imperfections” which may not be
recognized at the time of design or construction, but which may
have an important influence on subsequent behavior of the foun-
dation system.

Sources of Imperfection
Fig. 1. Examples of natural 共geological兲 imperfections
The imperfections that may impact on pile foundation perfor-
mance may arise from a number of sources, including natural
sources, inadequate ground investigation, construction, pile load • A soft toe on bored piles due to inadequate base cleaning
testing, and loading during operation. Only the first three sources 共avoidable兲;
will be considered in this paper. However, the influence of other • Defects within the shaft of bored piles 共avoidable兲;
sources of imperfections has been studied by Poulos 共2000兲 in • Inadequate founding conditions 共avoidable兲;
relation to the effects of the testing setup on pile load-settlement • Ground movements developed due to drilling during the con-
performance, while the effects of loading arising from construc- struction process 共generally unavoidable兲;
tion operations during tunneling operations have been explored • Excavation and dewatering effects, especially with remedial
by Chen et al. 共1999兲; and Mroueh and Shahrour 共2002兲. piling projects 共generally unavoidable, but controllable兲; and
• Excessive driving of preformed piles 共avoidable兲.
Natural Geological Sources In general, construction-related imperfections in piles can be
broadly classified into two main categories, structural defects and
These imperfections arise from the geological processes at the
site, which have resulted in the present ground profile. They may
include 共among many others兲 layers which are not horizontal or
continuous, boulders within a soil layer, sloping bedrock, intru-
sions of rock over limited areas of the site, cavities in limestone
rock, or the presence of softer layers below what might be re-
garded as suitable founding strata for the piles. Fig. 1 illustrates
some of these situations.

Inadequate Ground Investigation

These imperfections are generally related to those that arise from
natural sources, but are exacerbated because the site is not prop-
erly characterized. Inadequacies are usually related to an insuffi-
cient number or depth of boreholes or probes to identify strati-
graphic variations across the site, or inadequate testing to quantify
the relevant geotechnical parameters. Fig. 2 illustrates a typical
example of such imperfections, and the inaccurate geotechnical
model that can result from them.

Construction
These imperfections arise from processes related to construction
of the piles, either from inadequate construction control or from
inevitable consequences of construction activities. They may in- Fig. 2. Examples of imperfections related to inadequate ground
clude: investigations

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 539

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Example of imperfections relation to construction techniques
geotechnical defects. Structural defects can result in the size,
strength, and/or stiffness of the pile being less than assumed in
design. Such defects have been discussed extensively in the lit-
erature, particularly with respect to cast-in situ concrete piles, for
example, Hobbs 共1957兲; Thorburn and Thorburn 共1977兲; and
Reese 共1978兲. Brown 共2004兲 discusses some aspects of construc-
tion techniques and materials that can lead to defects or subopti-
mal pile performance. Examples of structural defects include the
following: “necking” of the shaft of bored piles, leading to a
reduced cross-sectional area along part of the pile, poor quality
control during the construction of bored piles, leading to some
parts of the shaft having lower strength than assumed in design,
tensile cracking of large diameter bored piles under the influence
of thermal strains, damage during the driving of timber, precast
concrete, or steel piles, leading to reduced strength and stiffness
of parts of the pile, especially near the top or tip of the pile, and
bending of slender driven piles.
Geotechnical defects usually arise from either a misassessment
of the in situ conditions during design, or else from construction-
related problems, and may include reduced shaft friction and end
bearing resistance arising from localized softer or weaker geo-
technical conditions in the vicinity of one or more of the piles in
the group, reduced skin friction, and end bearing resistance aris-
ing from construction operations such as the use of bentonite
without due caution, and a “soft base” arising from inadequate
cleaning of the base of bored piles. The latter is one of the most
common concerns in bored pile construction and is likely to lead
to a reduction in the stiffness of the soil below the base of the
pile. The ultimate base bearing capacity may not be affected sig-
nificantly, but may require a large movement to be fully mobi-
lized. Several writers have investigated the influence of construc-
tion defects on the shaft friction and end bearing resistance of
piles, for example, O’Neill and Hassan 共1994兲; O’Neill 共2001兲;
and Abdrabbo and Abouseeda 共2002兲. O’Neill and Hassan sug-
gest bounds for the effects of construction-related factors and
present a framework for quantifying these parameters for design
purposes.
Fig. 3 illustrates an example of the usual idealization of a pile
which may have both structural and geotechnical defects. In this
paper, both types of defect will be considered, and it will be
demonstrated that the type of defect may play a significant role in
determining the subsequent behavior of that pile and of the pile
group containing it.
540 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
Analyses Incorporating Imperfections
It is important to recognize the requirements for analyses of piles
which can take account of the imperfections inherent in practical
pile foundations. Such analyses should have the ability to handle
the following aspects:
1. Soil profiles involving nonhorizontal layers;
2. Different soil profiles along different piles within the same
group;
3. Piles of different length or diameter within the same group,
including consideration of interaction among dissimilar piles;
4. Piles containing structural defects or changes in diameter or
size along the length;
5. Piles that are added 共or activated兲 part-way through the load-
ing process 共to simulate the installation of remedial piles兲;
and
6. Loadings imposed from ground movements, as well as from
normal structural loadings.
In addition to these capabilities, the analyses should also be able
to cope with the realities of pile behavior mentioned previously,
in particular, nonlinear pile-soil response, and also nonlinear pile
material behavior.
In principle, powerful contemporary numerical analyses, for
example, FLAC 共Itasca 1999兲 and PLAXIS 共Brinkgreve and Ver-
meer 1998兲, can take many, if not all, of the above factors into
account. However, there are often limitations involved in using
such programs, related to the time involved in setting up the
analyses of large pile groups, and the difficulty of discerning
broad patterns of behavior from parametric studies. There are also
potential problems with the accurate modeling of piles, particu-
larly if a two-dimensional analysis is to be used and details of the
internal forces and bending moments within the piles are re-
quired. The writer believes that it may be preferable, at least from
a practical viewpoint, to employ analyses which may involve a
greater degree of approximation, but may be simpler to use and
more readily adapted to carrying out parametric studies, as well as
solving real-world problems. It is preferable to consider an im-
perfection approximately, rather than to ignore it because it can-
not be treated rigorously.
Table 1 summarizes the capabilities of some of the computer
programs whose basis has been published 共although not all are
commercially available兲. The list in Table 1 is not meant to be
exhaustive, but rather, representative, and indicates that none of
the programs listed is able to incorporate all of the realities and
imperfections that might arise. Indeed, the only aspect that is
considered by all of the programs listed is axial behavior. How-
ever, a number are capable of considering at least some of the
realities and imperfections, albeit for a restricted range of prob-
lems. In the following sections, three of these programs,
DAMPIG, GEPAN, and PIGS, will be employed to examine some
of the characteristics of pile group behavior when imperfections
are present. A more detailed outline of the basis of the PIGS
program is given by Poulos 共2002兲.
Imperfections Considered
The effects on pile behavior of some of the imperfections arising
from nature, inadequate investigation, or inadequate construction
procedures will be examined in the following sections. For sim-
plicity, many of the cases examined will be idealized, and atten-
tion will be focused on load-settlement behavior under axial load-
ing. The following cases will be considered:
 Table 1. Summary of Capabilities of Some Pile Group Analysis Programs
PILGP1 PIGLET FLPIER PIES DAMPIG GEPAN EMPIG PIGS
共O’Neill et al. 共Randolph 共Hoit and McVay 共Poulos 共Poulos 共Xu and Poulos 共Poulos 共Poulos
Factor 1982兲 2003兲 1996兲 1989兲 1997兲 2001兲 1999a兲 2002兲
Axial response 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Foundation rotation 冑 冑 冑 — 冑 冑 冑 冑
Lateral response 冑 冑 冑 — 冑 冑 冑 —
Ground movements — — — 冑 — 冑 冑 冑
Nonlinear pile-soil 冑 — 冑 冑 冑 — 冑 冑
Nonlinear pile — — ? — 冑 — — 冑
Different pile length, etc. 冑 — — — — 冑 — 冑
Pile defects — — 冑 冑 i 冑 — i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Nonhorizontal soil layers — — — — — 冑 — i

Varying soil profiles — — — — — — — 冑
Piles added or removed — — — — — — — 冑
during loading process
Note: 冑⫽capability exists; i⫽factor can be incorporated, but indirectly; and—⫽capability does not exist.

1. Piles bearing on a rock stratum with compressible clay seams on the stiffness and ultimate axial capacity of the pile base;
共natural geological imperfections兲; and
2. Piles founded in a layer underlain by a compressible deposit 2. A pile-soil interaction analysis in which the base load-
共natural imperfections, and possibly imperfections from in- settlement characteristics are input to obtain the pile head
adequate investigations兲; load-settlement behavior.
3. A pile founded on a boulder within a soil layer 共natural geo- Fig. 4 shows an idealized case of a single seam below a pile base
logical imperfection兲; that has been analyzed by this approach. It is assumed here that
4. Piles founded in soil profiles of varying thickness 共natural the clay seam has a strength and Young’s modulus 1 / 100 times
geological imperfections兲; that of the rock into which the pile is founded. The finite element
5. Groups containing piles of different length 共imperfections program PLAXIS has been used to compute the reduction in base
from natural, investigation, and/or construction causes兲; capacity and stiffness as a function of the seam thickness and its
6. Piles with structural defects 共construction imperfections兲; depth below the pile, with the results being expressed in terms of
and base capacity and stiffness reduction factors, BCR and BSR, respec-
7. Piles with geotechnical defects 共construction imperfections兲, tively, where
in this case, piles with a “soft toe.”
In each case 共except numbers 4 and 5 for obvious reasons兲, the BCR = ultimate capacity of base with seam/
effects on single pile response will be considered, and then the ultimate capacity of base without seams 共1兲
case of pile groups will be examined.
BSR = stiffness of base with seam/stiffness of base without seam
共2兲
Effects of Thin Seams in Bedrock
The PLAXIS analyses indicate that, as might be expected, the
presence of the clay seam alters the failure mode of the pile base
Single Piles
An issue of considerable concern to pile foundation designers is
the presence of weak seams in the founding layer, below the pile
tip. Kulhawy 共1978兲 has given some consideration to the effects
of geological imperfections on rock mass stiffness and established
a relationship between the equivalent rock mass properties and
the individual rock mass properties of the rock material and the
discontinuities. The influence of discontinuities on bearing capac-
ity has been considered by Kulhawy and Carter 共1992兲. In many
cases, specifications for the construction of bored piles require
probing some distance below the founding level to avoid the pos-
sibility that discontinuities and clay seams underlie the pile base.
Nevertheless, the possibility remains that such seams may remain
undetected, and in the case of driven or jacked piles, the possi-
bilities may be even greater. The effects of such weak seams can
be investigated via numerical analysis procedures such as the fi-
nite element method. However, a more efficient approach is to
carry out a two-stage analysis process:
1. A finite-element analysis to assess the effect of a clay seam Fig. 4. Definition of clay seam imperfection

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 541

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Example of effect of clay seam on pile base load-settlement
behavior
significantly. An examination of the displacement fields near fail-
ure indicates that the seam provides a path for the failure surface
and can lead to a significant reduction in base capacity, as shown
in Fig. 5 which plots typical load-settlement curves for the pile tip
with and without a clay seam. Fig. 6 shows the reduction factors
BSR and BCR as functions of relative depth of the seam and as a
function of the seam thickness. It is clear that BCR reduces as the
seam thickness increases and as the distance of the seam from the
pile base decreases. The effect is particularly dramatic if the clay
seam is just below the pile base. The reduction in base stiffness is
even more dramatic than the reduction in capacity.
It is interesting to compare the theoretical results in Fig. 6 with
typical design requirements, for example, those recommended by
Pells et al. 共1978, 1998兲 for piles socketted into Sydney sandstone
Fig. 6. Influence of clay seam on pile base stiffness and capacity
542 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
and shale, where the rock grading depends on the proportion of
clay seam within the depth of influence of the pile base. Fig. 7
compares the reduction in capacity with increasing seam thick-
ness, for two different depths of the seam below the base, and for
sandstone and shale. It can be seen that the theoretical results for
a clay seam 0.2 base diameters below the base agree reasonably
well with the design recommendations from both the above-
mentioned sources. However, the design recommendations appear
to be unduly conservative if the clay seam is well below the pile
base, for example, more than about 0.4 base diameters. Similar
comments can be made in relation to the recommendations of the
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, where the thickness of
the clay seam is quantified explicitly.
From a design viewpoint, the result that is most critical is the
effect of the clay seam on the overall load-settlement behavior of
a pile. Using the computer program PIES, together with the re-
sults in Fig. 6, analyses have been carried out for a range of
values of pile length-to-diameter, to assess the overall capacity
and head stiffness reduction due to the presence of a clay seam.
The results are shown in Fig. 8 for a single 1 m diameter pile
situated in a weak rock and founded on a stronger and stiffer rock
containing a clay seam. Fig. 8共a兲 plots the ratio of ultimate pile
capacities with and without the clay seam below the base, while
Fig. 8共b兲 shows the corresponding plot for the initial pile head
stiffness. It can be seen that, as the pile length increases, the effect
of the seam becomes less than for the base alone, since a consid-
erable amount of load is carried by the pile shaft. For example,
even if a seam with a thickness of 0.3 times the pile diameter
exists 0.2 diameters below the pile tip, the reduction in pile head
stiffness is only about 30% when the pile length is 20 diameters,
while the loss of capacity is less than 20%. As might be expected,
the greater the proportion of load carried by the pile shaft, the
smaller is the effect of the weak seam on the pile head stiffness
and ultimate capacity.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparison between computed and design reduction factors 关adapted from Pells et al. 共1998兲兴

Fig. 8. Example of influence of clay seam on pile capacity and stiffness

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 543

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 Pile Groups
It is important to note that a pile group may well be affected more
severely than a single pile by a clay seam. This is because, in
many cases, a group can be represented by an equivalent single
pier containing the piles and the intervening soil 共van Impe 1991;
Poulos 1993兲. In the case of a group, the diameter of the base of
the group is of course larger than that of a single pile, and more of
the applied load is carried by the base of the piles than is the case
for a single pile. Because of the greater equivalent diameter of the
group, the relative depth of a clay seam will be less than is the
case for a single pile, and consequently, the reduction in capacity
and stiffness of the base of the group will be greater than for a
single pile.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

From the examples examined herein, it can be concluded that

the presence of weak seams within the founding layer can be of
considerable concern in relation to both the base load capacity
and the base stiffness. However, if the pile carries a significant
part of the load in skin friction, the decrease in pile head stiffness
and load capacity due to the seams is less dramatic, at least until
the shaft capacity has been fully mobilized. When most or all of
the load is carried by the pile base, the reduction in stiffness can
be significant if the seam is relatively thick and located very near
the base of the pile or pile group. Thus, as per the conventional
wisdom of good site investigation, it is essential to identify and
take account of thin weak seams within the founding layers, pref-
erably via drilling to and beyond the depth of influence of the pile
or group prior to determining the final founding level.
Piles in Layer Underlain by Compressible Layer
Single Piles
One of the most insidious forms of imperfection arising from
natural causes 共and which are not identified by the ground inves-
tigation兲 is the presence of compressible layers below the pile tip
founding level. Such layers can have a significant effect on both
the ultimate capacity and stiffness of the pile, especially of the
pile base. Many methods of estimating the bearing capacity of
circular foundations on layered soils have been proposed 关for ex-
ample, Button 共1953兲; Meyerhof 共1976兲; Meyerhof and Sastry
共1978兲; Giroud et al. 共1973兲; Merifield et al. 共1999兲兴, and such
solutions have been applied to the estimation of the bearing ca-
pacity of a pile base. A very useful study by Matsui 共1993兲 has
suggested a simplified approach to this problem of a pile tip
founded in a sand layer underlain by a clay layer, as shown in Fig.
9. This work indicates that the depth of influence of the clay layer
below the pile tip is less than had been previously suggested by
Meyerhof and Sastry 共1978兲, who indicated that the compressible
layer should be at least 6 pile base diameters below the pile base
before its effect could be neglected. Matsui’s results may be sum-
marized as follows:
fb = f2 共zc/db 艋 0.5兲
Fig. 9. Pile base founded in dense sand overlying clay 关after Matsui
共1993兲兴
db⫽diameter of pile base. It is also possible to use elastic theory
to assess the effects of the underlying layer on the axial stiffness
of the pile base. A series of such solutions is shown in Fig. 10, in
terms of a base stiffness reduction factor, defined as the ratio of
the base stiffness with the underlying layer to the base stiffness if
there is no underlying layer. The Young’s moduli of the upper and
lower layers are E1 and E2, respectively, and Poisson’s ratio for
each layer is assumed to be 0.3. It can be seen that, as would be
expected, the stiffness of the base decreases as the modulus E2 of
the underlying layer decreases and as the distance from the pile
base to the underlying layer decreases.
The results in Fig. 10 and Eq. 共3兲 can be used to estimate the
effects of the compressible underlying layer on the behavior of a
single pile. It is found that, as with the case of a clay seam, the
overall load-settlement behavior of the pile becomes less sensitive
to the presence of the underlying layer as the proportion of load
carried by the shaft increases. Thus, for relatively long slender
piles, the reduction in ultimate capacity and stiffness may be rela-
tively small.
Pile Groups
The results for a single pile may be used to obtain an indication of
the importance of an underlying compressible layer on the group
load-settlement behavior. Poulos 共1993兲 and Randolph 共1994兲
共3a兲

fb = f1 共zc/db 艌 3兲 共3b兲

f b = f 2 + 共0.4zc/db − 0.20兲 · 共f 1 − f 2兲 共3.0 艌 zc/db 艌 0.5兲

共3c兲
where f b⫽ultimate base bearing capacity; f 1⫽ultimate bearing
capacity of upper layer; f 2⫽ultimate bearing capacity of underly- Fig. 10. Stiffness reduction factor for pile base with compressible
ing layer; zc⫽depth of underlying layer below pile base; and underlying layer

544 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 relatively high level, well above a deep layer of compressible
Leda Clay. Fig. 12 shows the stratigraphy of the site and some of
the key engineering properties revealed by the investigations. A
plan of the configuration of the pile group is also shown in Fig.
12. A number of the original boreholes extended to depths up to
236 ft 共72 m兲 without encountering bedrock.
A load test was carried out on a pile similar to that used for the
furnace foundations. At a typical working load of 75 US t 共668
kN兲, the measured settlement was about 0.04 in. 共1.0 mm兲. Ap-
plying normal pile group settlement theory to this result, it was
expected that the settlement of a 32-pile furnace group would be
of the order of 3–6 mm.
Fifteen years of settlement records were available for a bank of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

five furnaces, and these measurements enabled some interesting

conclusions to be drawn regarding the sources of settlement of the
foundations. Fig. 13 reproduces the measured settlements over the
Fig. 11. Effect of compressible layer on group settlement bank of five furnaces, and reveals the following characteristics:
• The maximum settlement nearly 15 years after construction
was about 73 mm and was continuing to increase;
have shown that the behavior of pile groups can often be approxi- • The measured settlements were an order of magnitude greater
mated well by considering an equivalent pier of equal length and
than those which may have been expected simply on the basis
a diameter which gives a similar perimeter to that of the group.
of the pile load test; and
Using this approximation, it is clear that a compressible underly-
• The settlement of the end furnaces 共Furnace 1 and Furnace 5兲
ing layer will affect a pile group more than it affects a single pile.
was clearly affected by the other furnaces, and showed a sig-
The equivalent diameter of the group is obviously larger, and
more load is transferred to the base of the piles. Thus the relative nificant tilt.
depth of the underlying layer to the base diameter of the equiva- It was estimated by Golder and Osler that, taking into account the
lent pier is smaller, resulting in a greater reduction in base stiff- settlement of the compressible layers below the pile tips, the an-
ness and base capacity. Poulos et al. 共2002兲 have given an ex- ticipated final settlement of the end furnace 共No. 1兲 could be of
ample which shows that the increased settlement due to an the order of 87 mm, consisting of 10 mm of pile group settlement,
underlying layer increases with increasing group size. 13 mm consolidation of the silty clay layer below the pile tips,
It is also possible to examine the effect of a compressible and 64 mm from the deep Leda clay.
underlying layer via a pile group analysis, provided that due care This case clearly demonstrates the importance of taking ac-
is taken with the estimation of the interaction factors to make count of the compressibility of underlying compressible layers
some allowance for the effects of intervening piles between the below the pile tips, and of also considering the interaction among
influencing and influenced piles. The approximate approach sug- adjacent foundations. It also highlights the potential dangers of
gested by Poulos 共1988兲 has been used here, with the soil between relying solely on the results of a single pile load test to predict
the piles assumed to be three times stiffer than the soil near the pile group behavior, without a proper appreciation and character-
pile. For pile groups in a square configuration, with a center-to- ization of the ground conditions.
center spacing of 3 diameters, Fig. 11 shows the computed settle-
ment as a function of the number of piles and the Young’s modu-
lus of the underlying layer. The following observations may be
made:
• The effect of the underlying layer becomes more significant as
the size of the group increases;
• For a 122 group, the settlement may increase by a factor of
about 3.5 when the underlying layer has a modulus of 20 MPa,
compared to the case of a homogeneous founding layer with a
modulus of 100 MPa; and
• If the soil beneath the founding layer is very stiff 共1,000 MPa
in this case兲, the settlement may in be reduced by a factor of 2
compared to the case of a founding layer having a uniform
modulus of 100 MPa.
Fig. 11 thus indicates that the potential exists both to seriously
overestimate the settlement of pile groups if account is not taken
of the presence of stiffer layers at depth, and to seriously under-
estimate the settlement if underlying compressible layers are not
identified or are ignored.

Case History
Golder and Osler 共1968兲 have described an interesting case of a Fig. 12. Stratigraphy and pile group layout for furnace foundation
series of furnace foundations on piles, which were founded at a 关adapted from Golder and Osler 共1968兲兴

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 545

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 1. Jacking of the pile to its final penetration, considering the
boulder to be an enlarged base at the tip of the pile;
2. Removal of the jacking force, thus unloading of the pile; and
3. Reloading of the pile, simulating a static load test on the pile.
In the PIES analysis, the connection between the enlarged base
共boulder兲 was assumed to have very small tensile resistance on
unloading.
Fig. 14 shows the computed load-settlement behavior for the
three stages above. The following points can be noted:
1. On initial jacking, a relatively large resistance is developed
because of the presence of the boulder;
2. On unloading, the pile tip separates from the boulder, and a
gap forms; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3. On reloading in the static load test, the presence of the gap

formed during unloading leads to a reduced resistance until
the pile tip recontacts the boulder. Thus the pile appears to
have a reduced load capacity.

Pile Groups
If such a pile is part of a pile group, it will have a lower axial
stiffness and 共effectively兲 a lower axial capacity than other piles
which are properly founded on a hard stratum. Consequently, the
group will experience an uneven settlement as well as a lateral
displacement. The behavior of groups containing piles of different
lengths or stiffness is considered below.

Groups Containing Piles of Unequal Length

It is very common for the piles within a group to have different

lengths. Generally, the length differences are not great, and reflect
Fig. 13. Settlement observations along north-south line through
the variable nature of the founding stratum. However, there are
furnaces 1–5 关based on Golder and Osler 共1968兲兴
some circumstances in which significant length differences can
occur, in particular, if the group is founded on a steeply sloping
bedrock stratum 共Poulos 2003a,b兲, or if there are construction
Pile Founded on a Boulder inadequacies, or if one or more of the piles are founded on a
boulder.
An example of the latter source of imperfection occurred in a
Single Piles housing project in Hong Kong. Coring of some of the bored pile
In soil deposits of a colluvial or glacial origin, it is not unusual to foundations indicated that some of the piles were founded at a
have boulders present in soil strata. When piles are driven or higher level, and on less competent rock, than other piles. The
jacked into such strata, it is possible that they will be found on the writer was asked to investigate the consequences of having piles
boulder, rather than extending through to the underlying hard stra- of different length and founding conditions on a pile group con-
tum. Possible consequences of a pile founding on a boulder are as
follows:
1. With driven piles, there may be a false set because the pile
effectively has an enlarged base;
2. With jacked piles, there may be a false indication of the pile
capacity, as the jacking force will incorporate the effect of
the resistance of the boulder as well as the pile itself; and
3. With bored piles, the pile will tend to act as one with an
enlarged base, but having a compressible layer below. This
situation will then be similar to that discussed above for
compressible underlying layers.
To illustrate the possible consequences of a jacked pile being
founded on a boulder, the case of a pile jacked into a dense sand
layer containing boulders will be considered. This example is
based on a real case in the Gold Coast in Queensland Australia,
where the boulders originated from rockfill used to construct an
earlier revetment within a creek bed in which a new major struc-
ture was to be built. The program PIES was used to simulate the Fig. 14. Simulation of installation and subsequent unloading/
following phases of the pile history: reloading of jacked pile on boulder

546 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 Table 2. Summary of Computed Response of Bored Pile Group
Axial load Head moment Settlement
Pile number 共MN兲 共MNm兲 共mm兲
13 37.9 0.98 20.5
14 37.2 0.92 23.4
15 35.0 1.02 21.9
16 35.1 0.99 20.5
17 34.9 0.93 23.4
18 30.1 0.94 21.9

ing pressure, and ultimate lateral pile-soil pressure.

The parameters for the analyses 共soil Young’s modulus, ulti-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Pile group layout in wing of high-rise building
taining six bored piles, and supporting one of four wings of the
high-rise building. Each pile had a shaft diameter of 2.5 m, with
the base belled to a diameter of 3.0 m. The pile layout for this
wing is shown in Fig. 15. The coring indicated that three of the
piles, Nos. 14, 17, and 18, were founded about 40 m below the
surface in conditions similar to those in BHB4, while the other
three piles 共Nos. 13, 15, and 16兲 were founded about 48 m below
the surface, in conditions typified by BHB3. The geotechnical
models developed for each borehole are illustrated in Fig. 16,
together with the average standard penetration test 共SPT兲 values
for each layer.
The consequent analysis was carried out in two stages:
1. Analyses of single pile response were undertaken using the
computer program PIES for axial response and DEFPIG for
lateral response. Analyses were carried out for each set of
three piles to obtain the axial and lateral stiffness values.
2. The computer program DAMPIG 共Poulos 1997兲 was then
used to analyze the behavior of the 6-pile group, using the
single pile characteristics for each of the two sets of piles,
assuming that the pile cap was rigid.
In each case, account was taken of the realities of nonlinear pile
behavior by specifying limiting values of shaft friction, end bear-
mate shaft friction, ultimate end bearing, and ultimate lateral pile-
soil pressure兲 were derived from the available SPT data using a
combination of local Hong Kong correlations and also some cor-
relations developed by Decourt 共1995兲. The upper section of the
piles was cased to a depth of 22 m to minimize possible negative
skin friction.
The results of the DAMPIG analysis of the 6-pile group are
summarized in Table 2 for an applied vertical load of 210 MN.
The following observations may be made:
1. The maximum differential settlement across the group was
only about 3 mm.
2. The axial load distribution was nonuniform, with the longer
piles 共13,14,16兲 taking greater loads than the shorter piles.
3. Bending moments were induced in the piles, but these were
found to be considerably less than the design moment capac-
ity of the pile sections.
In addition, a lateral deflection was induced, but was only
about 1.5 mm.
The relatively small effects of the construction imperfections
that resulted in piles of unequal length were largely due to the
piles being relatively long and the contrast in founding conditions
not being great. As a consequence of the analyses carried out, it
was decided that no additional remedial works would be neces-
sary in this case.
Influence of Structural Defects—Necking
of the Shaft

Single Piles
An example of the effect of structural damage on the load-
settlement behavior of a single floating pile is shown in Fig. 17.

Fig. 17. Example of effect of structural defect on load-settlement

Fig. 16. Details of piles analyzed curve for single end bearing pile

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 547

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Load test on pile, showing structural failure 关adapted from Fig. 19. Influence of structural defects on pile head stiffness—
Abdrabbo 共1997兲兴 floating pile 关adapted from Poulos 共1997兲兴

stiffness of structurally defective pile

The structural defect consists of a “neck” in the pile from the pile
head to a depth of 8 m, the necked area being 10% of the area of
the undamaged pile. Load-settlement curves are plotted for vari-
ous values of the compressive strength of the pile material. The
applied load P is expressed as a proportion of the ultimate geo-
technical capacity Pu of the pile. The following characteristics
may be noted:
1. As would be expected, the presence of the defect leads to an
increase in settlement;
2. For pile strengths in excess of about 100 MPa, the pile re-
mains intact structurally, and the settlement increase is rela-
tively small;
3. As the pile compressive strength reduces, the pile fails struc-
turally, at progressively lower loads, relative to the geotech-
nical capacity Pu;
4. The onset of structural failure results in a very sudden in-
crease in settlement; this behavior is consistent with the re-
sults of model pile tests reported by Rao 共1996兲.
The latter conclusion is also confirmed in a pile load test on a 15
m long bored pile reported by Abdrabbo 共1997兲. As shown in Fig.
18, a sudden failure occurred at a load of about 1,200 kN, which
is symptomatic of a fatal structural defect. Integrity testing of this
pile indicated the presence of a major defect at a depth of about 6
m.
In an attempt to provide a more convenient and general mea-
sure of the extent of pile structural defects, a “structural integrity
factor” FSI has been developed by Poulos 共1997, 1999b兲, in which
RKS = 共5兲
stiffness of intact pile
Figs. 19 and 20 plot RKS as a function of the structural integrity
factor, FSI, for friction piles and end-bearing piles, respectively. It
is assumed that the pile has a compressive strength sufficient to
not fail structurally. In each figure, mean curves are plotted for a
defect located at the pile top 共zd / L = 0兲 and at 0.4 times the pile
length below the top 共zd / L = 0.4兲. The applied load level P / Pu is
0.5.
These figures show that
1. Different types of defects give similar values of RKS, if the
value of FSI is the same;
2. The head stiffness reduction factor RKS decreases as FSI de-
creases 共i.e., as the defect becomes more extensive兲;
3. The reduction in stiffness is more severe when the defect is
at or near the surface rather than at depth;
4. For a given value of FSI, the reduction in pile head stiffness
is generally more severe for an end-bearing pile than a fric-
tion pile; and

E dA dL
FSI = 共4兲
EALd
where E⫽Young’s modulus of intact pile; A⫽cross-sectional area
of intact pile; L⫽total pile length; Ed⫽Young’s modulus of dam-
aged portion of pile; Ad⫽cross-sectional area of defective portion
of pile; and Ld⫽length of defective portion of pile. If the pile is
intact, FSI is infinity; if the pile is seriously defective, FSI may be
small 共e.g., 0.1 or less兲, with a lower limit of zero.
To provide a measure of the pile performance, the “head stiff- Fig. 20. Influence of structural defects on pile head stiffness—end
ness reduction factor” RKS is introduced, where bearing pile 关adapted from Poulos 共1997兲兴

548 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 5. The effects of structural defects begin to be significant for
FSI less than about 1.
Some small-scale model tests on floating piles with diameter dis-
continuities, simulating shaft necking, have been reported by Xu
and Poulos 共2000a,b兲. In these tests, the load-settlement behavior
of piles with and without defects has been recorded, enabling the
reduction in pile head stiffness and capacity to be measured. Fig.
21 shows a comparison between the experimental results and the
theoretical curves in Fig. 19. The agreement is generally reason-
able, with the experimental results being reasonably consistent
with the lower bound curve expressing the relationship between
loss of stiffness and the structural integrity factor FSI.
There have been recent investigations of the effects of defects
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on axial response using finite element analysis by Petek et al.

共2002兲, who have considered axial behavior, and their work has
confirmed the critical effect that the position of the defect has on
pile performance. Sarhan et al. 共2002兲 and Sarhan and O’Neill
共2002兲 have considered the lateral response of piles with flaws.
Model tests and numerical analyses revealed that a concrete void
occupying 15% of the cross-sectional area of the pile, and pen-
etrating inside the reinforcement cage, can reduce the flexural
resistance by about 30% compared to an intact shaft. The shaft
ductility is also affected adversely.
Pile Groups
For the purposes of examining the influence of defective piles on
group behavior, a simple hypothetical example has been consid-
ered, as illustrated in Fig. 22. A group of six bored piles, 1.0 m in
diameter and 20 m long, is assumed to be installed through a
soft-medium clay layer onto a stiffer stratum. The pile cap is
assumed to be rigid. The ultimate axial geotechnical capacity of
each pile is 9,425 kN in compression, of which 6,280 kN is de-
rived from end bearing. The group is subjected to vertical loading
only, with loads up to 80% of the ultimate capacity of the group
being applied.
The basic case of a group with no defective piles has been
used as the reference case. Consideration has then been given to a
group containing piles which have structural defects, with the pile
being severely “necked,” such that the structural integrity factor
FSI is 0.25, and the defects commencing from the pile head. For
each defective pile, the reduction in axial stiffness has been de-
rived from Fig. 20.
Fig. 22. Pile group analyzed 关adapted from Poulos 共1997兲兴
Fig. 23 shows the reduction in axial stiffness of the group as a
function of the proportion of piles which have structural defects.
This figure reveals the following, and expected, results:
1. The reduction in stiffness is more severe as the percentage of
defective piles increases;
2. The reduction in stiffness is more severe as the applied load
level increases; and
3. The reduction in stiffness of the group is less than for the
case of an isolated pile because of the ability of the stiffer
undamaged piles in the group to carry a greater proportion of
the load.
The location of the defective pile has some effect on the average
axial stiffness of the group. For example, for an applied load level
of 50% of ultimate, when Piles 1 and 2 have defects, the axial
stiffness reduction is about 30%, whereas if Piles 1 and 4 are
defective, the axial stiffness reduction is over 45%.
Changes in load distribution will occur when defective piles
are present in the group. The load carried by the defective piles
decreases, while the intact piles are forced to carry more load. For
the case of four defective piles, the two intact piles 共numbers 3
and 5兲 carry substantially larger loads than the other piles, and
indeed the capacity of Pile 5 is fully mobilized. Nevertheless, in
that case, the corresponding reduction in pile group stiffness is
only slightly more than 50%, demonstrating that the ability of the
group to redistribute the loads restricts the loss of stiffness.

Fig. 21. Influence of structural defects on pile head stiffness— Fig. 23. Effect of structurally defective piles on axial group stiffness
experiment versus theory 关adapted from Poulos 共1997兲兴

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 549

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 25. End bearing load-settlement relationships for piles on gravel

layer 关adapted from Woo and Moh 共1990兲兴

affected very significantly by the presence of a 25 mm layer of

Fig. 24. Effect of structurally defective piles on lateral response of
group under axial loading 关adapted from Poulos 共1999b兲兴
An important feature of group response with defective piles is
that, under vertical load, the group will deflect laterally and suffer
a rotation, with bending moments being developed at the pile
heads. Fig. 24 shows the computed maximum pile head moment,
lateral deflection, and rotation as a function of the applied load
level and the number of defective piles. It will be seen that, once
the applied load level exceeds about 0.35, substantial bending
moments can be induced, perhaps exceeding the yield moment of
the piles. Significant lateral deflection and rotation are also devel-
oped. The more asymmetric the location of the defective piles, the
more severe is the induced lateral response effects. For the cases
analyzed, the group with three defective piles 共pile numbers 1, 2,
and 4兲 appears to generate the most severe lateral response.
slime at the pile tip. However, in the other two cases, the load-
settlement curves for the clean and “unclean” bases are quite
similar initially, and only separate significantly when the shaft
resistance is fully mobilized. Thereafter, large settlements are ex-
perienced by the piles with the unclean base. The deeper the pile,
the less significant is the effect of the unclean base on the load-
settlement behavior. This characteristic has also been observed
previously in relation to the effects of clay seams in rock below a
pile tip.
The latter two piles involved in the Woo and Moh study have
been analyzed by the writer using the computer program PIES.
The presence of debris at the base has been simulated by a soft
pile element at the base of the pile, with a Young’s modulus of 30
MPa. The shaft friction and soil modulus values have been chosen
initially via judgment, with some later adjustment to obtain a
better fit to the measured and calculated load-settlement curves
for the piles with a clean base. The same parameters have then
been used for the piles with the unclean base. Figs. 26 and 27
show comparisons between the measured and calculated load-
settlement curves. It can be seen that the analysis is capable of

Influence of Geotechnical Defects—Piles

with a “Soft Base”

Single Piles
A “soft base” at the toe of a bored pile is usually a result of debris
left from inadequate base cleaning during construction. Because
of its confinement by the surrounding soil, the debris is unlikely
to fail, but it will be expected to deform considerably. A very
instructive case history of the effects of inadequate base cleaning
has been presented by Woo and Moh 共1990兲. They have presented
load-settlement curves for three cases involving inadequate base
cleaning:
• End bearing piles on gravel;
• Piles about 32 m long through variable deposits, bearing in a
gravel layer which is underlain by clay; and
• Piles about 42 m long through variable deposits, bearing in a
fresh 共but fractured兲 sandstone.
The load-settlement curves measured for each of these three cases
are shown in Figs. 25–27. It can be seen from Fig. 25 that the Fig. 26. Effect of base cleanliness on pile performance 关adapted
load-settlement behavior of the piles bearing directly on gravel is from tests of Woo and Moh 共1990兲兴

550 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 28. Observed floor elevation changes over 30 day period

关adapted from Milligan 共1997兲兴

Fig. 27. Effect of base cleanliness on pile performance 关adapted two shear walls near one side of the building. Fig. 28 shows the
from tests of Woo and Moh 共1990兲兴 measured changes in basement floor elevations. Subsequent in-
vestigations showed that not all the caissons were founded on
bedrock, and that the concrete shafts and/or bells had become
identifying the effects of the base debris in increasing the pile contaminated with fill debris, as indicated in Fig. 29. The location
settlement after mobilization of the shaft resistance. of the largest settlements was where a significant amount of fill
The computed load-settlement curves for the geotechnically debris was found at the base of the pile, and the bell had a
defective piles in Figs. 26 and 27 are also consistent with some relatively small enlargement. The structure was subsequently
other field observations. For example, Thorburn and Thorburn demolished.
共1977兲 quote the example of an 18 m long, 600 mm diameter This case demonstrates the vital importance of proper con-
bored pile, which performed satisfactory under a test load of 1.16 struction techniques in bored pile construction to avoid imperfec-
times the required working load, but appeared to fail 共settle ex- tions which may ultimately lead to destruction of the structure
cessively兲 at 1.5 times the working load. It was found subse- that the piles were intended to support. It was also perhaps unfor-
quently that the base was resting on about 0.6 m of natural debris tunate that the structure and the pile caps were not more rigid, as
共small lumps of soft clay兲 which had fallen from the unlined there appeared to be little ability for load redistribution to occur in
portion of the bore, thus giving a soft base condition. this case, and the highly imperfect pile thus appeared to be unable
to transfer load on to less imperfect piles.
Pile Groups
Case History of Two Buildings in Hong Kong
Groups of piles in which some contain geotechnical imperfections
behave in a similar way to those with piles containing structural Construction of two adjoining residential high-rise blocks in Sha-
defects. While the failure of geotechnically defective piles is less tin, Hong Kong commenced in mid-1999. The 41-story blocks
abrupt than for those with structural defects, the overall group were each supported on 18 bored piles, 2.3 m in shaft diameter,
behavior is more forgiving because of the redundancy provided with a base belled out top of 3.8 m. Fig. 30 shows a plan of the
by the group. The consequences of having defective piles will two blocks 共denoted as Blocks D and E兲, while a typical geotech-
again depend on their location, and if the defective piles are con- nical profile for a section at the site is shown in Fig. 31. The piles
centrated in a particular part of the group, there may be a signifi-
cant rotation induced in the group, with consequent lateral deflec-
tions and induced moments in the piles.
An interesting case history of the consequences of having geo-
technically defective piles has been reported by Milligan 共1997兲.
During construction of a 13-story building, settlement of the
foundations led to cracking and severe distress of the partially
completed structure. The building was approximately rectangular
in shape 共15 m by 60 m in plan兲, with the structural loads carried
by shear walls down to drilled shaft 共caisson兲 foundations. The
shafts were 750 mm in diameter, and extended through mixed
clayey fill and dense glacial till to shale bedrock, the upper sur-
face of which was fractured and weathered. The bases of the
caissons were belled by hand to diameters ranging between 1 and
2 m. The caissons were backfilled with concrete and were
unlined.
Settlement was observed about 6 months after completion of
the caissons, and as the building height increased, so did the Fig. 29. Partial section showing details observed during investigation
settlements. The excessive settlement was concentrated in one or 关adapted from Milligan 共1997兲兴

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 551

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 30. Foundation plan for high-rise buildings

were designed as end bearing piles, to be founded in Grade II
共slightly weathered兲 granite, at a depth ranging between about 35
and 46 m.
When the buildings had reached the 17th story, a program of
settlement monitoring was commenced on the buildings, follow-
ing concerns about pile construction practices with some other
projects in Hong Kong. Two to three months later, it was ob-
served that both buildings were settling unevenly, with each block
tending to tilt as a rigid body. A program of investigatory coring
through the bored piles was subsequently instigated in December
1999, and this program revealed a number of deficiencies in both
the pile length and the founding conditions at the base of the
piles, and construction was halted at the 34th floor, very early in
2000. The conclusions of the independent consultant carrying out
the coring and the assessment of pile conditions are summarized
in Table 3.
It can be seen that only four of the total of 36 piles were
compliant with the construction specifications which required
founding on Grade II rock. The pile lengths were up to 14 m short
of bedrock level. In addition to the geotechnical deficiencies, six
of the concrete cores that were taken from the piles and tested
showed low uniaxial compressive strengths, ranging between 22.5
and 2 MPa, compared to the nominal strength of 35 MPa.
Fig. 32 shows typical time-settlement readings for one of the
blocks, the locations being as shown in Fig. 30. It is interesting to
note that the coring investigation works caused a temporary ac-

Fig. 31. Geotechnical profile along Section 1-1

552 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 Table 3. Summary of Inferred Pile Founding Conditions from Coring
Number of piles
Pile founding condition Block D Block E
Pile founded on Grade II rock 3 1
Thin sediment layer between pile base and rock 5 1
Sediment below pile base, underlain by inferior rock 5 4
Pile founded on inferior rock, without sediments 1 12
Thick layer of soft material below pile base 4 0

celeration in settlement of the buildings, and was an important

factor in the decision to suspend construction. Indeed, about 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mm of additional settlement at Block E was attributed to the

coring process.
Because of concerns about the integrity of the existing foun-
dation system, extensive investigations were carried out by sev-
eral parties to assess whether it would be feasible to carry out
remedial work to the foundation system so that construction could
be completed with an adequate level of confidence in the integrity
of the foundations. The writer carried out one of these investiga-
tions, and took the following approach.
• Geotechnical models were developed for each of the 36 piles,
based on the site investigation data and the information de-
rived from the coring investigation.
• Analyses were carried out, using the program PIGS, to com-
pute the relationship between building tilt and building height.
The interaction between the two buildings was considered, and
the geotechnical properties of the various layers were adjusted
关according to the standard penetration test 共SPT兲 values兴 to
obtain a fit with the measured increases in tilt since the com-
Fig. 32. Time-settlement records for four typical points—Block E
mencement of settlement measurements after the 17th floor
had been reached. In this calibration, the observed additional
settlements due to the coring process were excluded from the
total settlements, so that only settlements due to the building
load were considered.
• Reasonable fits between measured and calculated uneven
settlement were obtained, using soil modulus values of be-
tween 2.8N and 4.2N MPa, where N = SPT value. Fig. 33
shows the computed and measured settlements from Floors 17
to 34, for Block E, and for three sections.
• Using the fitted model, PIGS was then used to investigate a
number of alternative future options, including:
1. Construction with the existing foundation system.

Fig. 33. Measured and calculated settlements—Block E

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 553

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 2. Construction with up to 66 new steel H-piles installed in
prebored holes, and extending 9 m into the Grade II granite.
An extended pile cap would be constructed to link the old
and new foundation elements, and this would require up to 5
m excavation and some dewatering.
3. Truncation of the buildings so that the existing foundation
system would be adequate without any further enhancement.
It was found that the first option was not feasible. In principle,
the second option, involving enhancement of the foundation sys-
tem with H-piles, would provide a satisfactory solution. However,
the risks involved in carrying out the remedial foundation works
beneath heavily loaded buildings were considered to be unaccept-
able, particularly in view of the potential for significant ground
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
movements to be generated during the enhancement works. Trun-
cation of the buildings was assessed to be technically feasible, but
was not considered to be economically feasible by the owner
because of the stigma of having two lower-rise buildings 共12 or
13 stories high兲 within a larger group of much taller buildings.
In a decision that was widely publicized in Hong Kong, the
decision was taken to demolish both buildings, and this was car-
ried out in 2001–2002. This was therefore a rather extreme case
of the consequences of a series of construction imperfections,
leading to three undesirable conditions:
• Piles with a soft base;
• Piles with variable founding conditions; and
• Piles of variable length within a group.
Coping with the Consequences of Imperfections
during and after Construction
Introduction
It would appear essential that monitoring of the foundation be-
havior be carried out during and after construction, so that any
irregularities can be identified at the earliest possible opportunity,
and appropriate investigation works, and if necessary remedial
works, can be undertaken. The later problems are uncovered, the
more difficult and costly remedial action is likely to be.
In new foundation construction, there is usually relatively un-
impeded access to the site and to the areas in which the new
foundation system is to be constructed. However, the environment
around or within an existing foundation system which is being
investigated and/or upgraded may pose several constraints and
problems, and the following characteristics can be anticipated:
1. Access to the area may be very difficult and may limit the
range of construction methods that can be employed;
2. The ground will often be highly stressed, and thus changes in
the stress regime due to investigation or construction may
result in larger ground movements than would be the case in
a “greenfield” situation;
3. The foundation system will generally be loaded, and it is
therefore necessary to try and assess these existing loads so
that a more realistic design can be carried out. One cannot
assume 共as so often happens in new design兲 that the founda-
tion system is stress-free and load-free;
4. Existing piles will generally be subjected to some measure of
restraint from the building which they are supporting, via
attachment to pile caps and the overall foundation system;
5. Strict control of investigation and construction processes are
likely to be more critical, but more difficult to achieve, than
with “greenfield” situations; and
6. The consequences of uncontrolled ground movements on the
554 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
existing structure and foundation system are likely to be
more immediate and severe than with a “greenfield” site.
For these reasons, it is worthwhile to give some attention to the
problems of investigation, design, and construction within an ex-
isting foundation system, and to examine in some detail the pos-
sible consequences of inadequate control of the resulting ground
movements.
Investigation Issues
Investigations to identify possible causes of foundation perfor-
mance irregularity may involve some form of drilling adjacent to,
or through, the existing pile foundations. Both forms of drilling
may have deleterious effects on the piles being investigated. As
previously mentioned, the drilling of holes adjacent to piles will
generally cause vertical and lateral ground movements and these
will act upon the nearby piles, inducing additional stresses and
movements. These effects may be particularly severe if the
ground is highly stressed. Coring through the pile itself may also
create difficulties for the existing foundation, via the following
mechanisms:
• Unbalanced fluid pressures inside the core hole and outside the
pile. These may cause loosening or even piping of the soil
beneath the pile toe when “breakthrough” is achieved and the
underlying soil is soft or loose. In turn, the settlement of the
pile may then be exacerbated.
• SPT testing of the soil below the pile base may cause further
disturbance if it is not carried out carefully, and the SPT rods
are withdrawn too quickly, thus causing a suction within the
soil surrounding the hole.
Thus the investigation process itself may help to accentuate the
problem being investigated. Such a mechanism was thought to
have contributed to the additional settlements of up to 30 mm
during the previously mentioned investigation of defective bored
piles in a high-rise building in Hong Kong. Clearly, it is impera-
tive that such possible “side effects” of the investigation are an-
ticipated and that appropriate cautionary measures are adopted to
minimize the negative impact of these side effects.
Design Issues
There are at least three key design issues that may need to be
addressed when designing remedial works for pile foundations
which have been demonstrated to be inadequate or are not per-
forming to expectations:
• Correction of uneven settlements, if the foundation has already
undergone excessive tilting or differential settlement, or is
likely to do so during or after the remedial works;
• Design of remedial or enhancement works, which may include
repair of defective piles, the installation of additional piling, or
extension of the pile cap to obtain additional capacity and
stiffness; and
• Consideration of the load sharing between the existing piles
and the additional foundation elements. It is possible that ex-
cessive load may be carried by the additional elements, unless
the design can incorporate means of controlling the distribu-
tion of loads in the upgraded system.
These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Correction of Uneven Settlement
Methods of correcting uneven settlements of buildings can be
divided broadly into two categories:
 1. “Hard” methods, which rely on the application of some form
of direct force to the building; and
2. “Soft” methods, which rely on processes which produce cor-
rective foundation movements by inducing appropriate
ground movements.
In both cases, the treatment can be carried out to lower the build-
ing on the “high” side, or alternatively, to raise the low side of the
building. In both cases, the treatment may be accompanied by
some form of foundation strengthening or remediation on the
“low” side. Amirsoleymani 共1991a,b兲 lists six different methods
that have been used to reduce or eliminate differential settlement
and tilting. Three methods involve lifting of the low side of the
structure, while three involve lowering of the high side.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
“Hard” Methods
1. Application of Force by Anchor Stressing. This method in-
volves the installation of a series of strategically located an-
chors within the foundation system. The anchors are grouted
into a suitable hard stratum at depth below the building. The
anchors are then stressed 共typically to 60–75% of their ulti-
mate capacity兲 to obtain a corrective tilt to the foundation. In
some cases, repeated stressing and destressing may have a
beneficial effect in developing additional corrective tilting.
2. Application of Additional Loading. This method involves the
application of additional loading on the high side of the foun-
dation by water or other means. There are often limitations
on the amount of loading that can be applied because of
height limitations within the structure, and the limitations
that may be imposed by the limited strength of the structure
itself.
3. Cutting of Piles. This method involves the cutting of some
piles supporting the high side of the building to promote load
transfer to other piles on the high side and hence promote
beneficial settlement. When the process has been completed
and the settlements have ceased, the piles may be reattached
so that they may carry part of the future loadings. The cutting
of the piles is in itself a process that requires considerable
care so that the cut pile is not destroyed in the process. A
method that has been developed in Hong Kong involves the
partial cutting of both sides of the pile, the placement of
jacks to support the upper and lower parts of the pile and
carry the load existing in the pile, and then the cutting away
of the remaining central portion of the pile which is freed of
load prior to the cutting by the jacks. This process has been
used in conjunction with anchor stressing in correcting a
building in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, because of legal con-
straints, it is not possible to present details of this case.
4. Jetting of the Soil Beneath Pile Tips. There have been anec-
dotal reports of the use in China of high pressure water jet-
ting applied below the tips of piles to reduce their stiffness
and capacity and promote settlement of the high side of the
building. This process is in some ways similar to the cutting
of piles, but is a less controlled procedure whose effects ap-
pear to be difficult to predict.
5. Jacking of the Foundations on the “Low” Side. This method
generally employs compaction grouting to push the low side
up and at the same time strengthen the foundation. An ex-
ample of this approach is described by Tsai et al. 共1991兲 and
was used to correct a building on a raft foundation that had
tilted by about 0.74° after being subjected to hurricane load-
ing together with seismic forces. A process of staged grout-
ing allied with careful monitoring restored the building to a
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 555
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
Fig. 34. Details of soil extraction scheme for grain silo on mat
foundation 关adapted from Amirsoleymani 共1991b兲兴
plumb position. Amirsoleymani 共1991a兲 describes the use of
mechanical jacking to correct the settlement of a storage
tank, and the use of chemical grouting to restore a piled
foundation that tilted and failed after a deep excavation
nearby caused piping of sand near the pile tips. An expansive
admixture was used in the grout to promote uplift of the
columns, which were raised by 28 mm. Maffei et al. 共2001兲
describe a case of a tall building in Sao Paulo in which the
uneven settlement causing a tilt of 2.2° was corrected by
constructing a new pile foundation and jacking the low side
up against these piles to transfer load from the old to the new
foundation system.
6. Fracture Grouting. This method involves the use of a grout
under controlled high pressure to fracture the soil and cause
uplift of the foundation. Amirsoleymani 共1991a兲 has de-
scribed a case of a five-story warehouse in which 210 mm of
differential settlement was corrected by hydraulic fracturing
through 24 tubes installed into rock below the foundation.
Cement lenses 50–100 mm in thickness were found to have
been formed by the fracture grouting.
“Soft” Methods
1. Soil Extraction. In this method, soil is excavated from be-
neath or between the piles on the high side. This process
causes the ground to settle and thus induces a settlement of
the pile foundation also. Soil extraction was used to arrest the
tilt of the famous Pisa Tower in Italy 共which was supported
by a shallow foundation兲 共Jamiolkowski 2001; Burland
2004兲. Amirsoleymani 共1991b兲 described the use of a similar
process to correct the tilt of a grain storage silo. In that case,
thin layers of soil were extracted via specially constructed
chains which cut through the soil 共Fig. 34兲. Brandl 共1989兲
has described the use of soil extraction to correct uneven
settlement of piles supporting bridge piers, while the use of
soil extraction to correct uneven foundation settlements has
been described by Tamez et al. 共1997兲. In this case, involving
two historic churches in Mexico City, soil extraction was
carried out via 32 shafts 3 m in diameter, from tubes 100 mm
 in diameter, inserted a maximum distance of 22 m into the
soil. After 4 years of treatment, more than 2 , 600 m3 of soil
had been removed, and corrective settlements of about 800
mm were achieved. It was estimated by the writers that about
65% of the settlement could be attributed to the soil extrac-
tion, while the remaining 35% was due to consolidation aris-
ing from pumping from the deep wells at the bottom of the
shafts. Poulos 共2003b兲 developed a method of analysis for
pile foundations subjected to ground movements from soil
extraction, in which the process of drilling subhorizontal
holes is represented by the formation of small-diameter tun-
nels. The resulting ground movements are used in a pile-soil
interaction analysis via the program PIGS to assess the effect
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the underexcavation on the pile group response.
2. Dewatering. In principle, lowering of the water table can be
used to promote settlement of the high side and thus correct
uneven settlement. Amirsoleymani 共1991a兲 describes the use
of this approach for apartment building supported by raft
foundations. However, this method is fraught with difficulty
as the effects of ground water lowering are highly dependent
on the local hydrogeology, are time-dependent, and may ex-
tend considerably beyond the building being treated. Amir-
soleymani 共1991a兲 summarized this method succinctly as fol-
lows: “lowering water table to eliminate differential
settlement is one of the most unreliable methods.” Despite
these misgivings, Liu 共2004兲 has described a successful ap-
plication of dewatering in conjunction with grouting to re-
duce the tilt of a building adjacent to a deep excavation.
3. Compensation Grouting. van der Stoel et al. 共2003兲 described
the use of compensation grouting via fracturing to control the
vertical movement of timber pile foundations affected by
tunneling operations. The system involved the use of 22 sub-
horizontal tubes-a-manchette 共TAMs兲 in two levels. About 5
mm of heave was observed on a structure after postgrouting
was performed following the tunneling.
4. Removal of Soil Support (RSS). Poulos et al. 共2003兲 de-
scribed an approach which involves the drilling of a series of
vertical or subvertical holes just outside the high side of the
structure 共see Fig. 35兲. The removal of soil reduces the lat-
eral support of the ground and therefore promotes settlement
of the high side of the structure. The greater the stress im-
posed in the ground by the building, the greater will be the
settlement. Excavation of a continuous trench can, in prin-
ciple, cause significant settlement to occur. The advantage of
this approach is that it can be applied without intruding into
the building footprint. While no cases of the use of this
method for pile foundations appear to have been reported in
the literature, it does appear to have been used successfully
for buildings on shallow foundations 共Zou 1996兲. Settle-
ments of the order of 150 mm appear to have been developed
by this approach. Preliminary centrifuge tests on a model
shallow footing 共C. W. Ng, personal communication, 2002兲
have confirmed the potential of this approach.
Foundation Enhancement Works
Among the options that may be considered for foundation en-
hancement works are the following:
1. Repair of the existing piles which contain imperfections or
defects;
2. The addition of new piles to strengthen and/or stiffen the
existing foundation; and
556 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
Fig. 35. Principle of RSS method 关adapted from Poulos et al. 共2003兴
3. Extension of existing pile caps or rafts to provide additional
bearing capacity and stiffness.
In each case, attention needs to be given to the transfer of load
from the existing to the enhanced foundation system.
Repair of Existing Piles. Methods of repair of existing piles
are relatively limited because access to the pile is frequently lim-
ited, the nature of the defect may be uncertain, and the repair
process may itself result in deleterious side effects, such as addi-
tional ground movements, which may adversely affect the re-
mainder of the foundation system. Structural defects, especially
those found near the head of a pile, have been repaired with
epoxy jackets. Geotechnical defects, especially soft bases as a
result of inadequate base cleaning, have been treated successfully
by base grouting techniques. Examples have been described by
Teparaksa et al. 共1999兲 and Moh 共1994兲. Fig. 36 shows the dra-
matic improvement in load-settlement performance arising from
base grouting a bored pile 1.5 m in diameter and 22 m long 共Moh
1994兲. At the working load of 6.6 MN, the settlement was re-
duced from 80 mm to less than 10 mm.
Addition of New Piles. The addition of piles to an existing
foundation system is a remedial measure of long standing, espe-
cially in relation to underpinning operations, and has been carried
out using a variety of systems for the new piles. Because of con-
straints with access in most cases, the methods of installation
must allow for limited headroom; as a consequence, most addi-
tional piles tend to be relatively small in diameter, although their
length can be significant 共e.g., Bruce 1994兲. The use of jet grouted
piles has been described by Popa et al. 共2001兲, while the use of
compaction grouted piles to remediate an extensive warehouse
raft foundation has been described by Hayward Baker 共2003兲.
In analyzing the effectiveness of a foundation with additional
remedial piles, it is necessary to take account of several factors,
including the capacity and stiffness of the existing foundation
system, the time at which the additional piling is installed, and the
interaction between the original system and the new components,
including the subsequent load sharing. Makarchian and Poulos
共1996兲 developed an approximate method of analysis of a reme-
diated foundation system which uses concepts of pile-raft inter-
action. This method has been applied to model pile tests and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 36. Effects of base grouting on pile behavior 关adapted from Moh 共1994兲兴

reasonable agreement has been found between the measured and pile load test results is shown in Fig. 38 and indicates an ultimate
computed ratio of settlement reduction arising from the installa- capacity of only about 2,500 kN. Many of the piles had already
tion of piles beneath a shallow footing. been installed and the pile caps cast. For the particular pile tested,
An issue of concern with the installation of additional piles is the working load on the column was about 2,000 kN, and various
the disturbance of the ground caused by the installation process. options for remedial action were considered. The conventional
Installation of displacement piles will cause both vertical and lat- solution was to add an additional two piles to the group 共one on
eral ground movements which will interact with the existing foun- either side of the original pile, to avoid asymmetric loading兲, thus
dations system. Such ground movements have the potential to
cause additional vertical and lateral forces and bending moments
in existing piles, which may compromise their integrity. The ef-
fects of such ground movements may be particularly severe for
the case where the existing piles are restrained from moving lat-
erally or vertically, as mentioned previously. For piles which are
installed by drilling, there may also be potentially damaging
ground movements as a consequence of the release of lateral
ground stress and changes in water pressure arising from lack of
control of water levels during drilling. The effects may be of
particular concern if the existing foundation is heavily loaded, as
the release of stress due to drilling can then be large. These side
effects of foundation remediation are thought to have been sig-
nificant in a recent case in Hong Kong, where an existing building
adjacent to a building being remediated experienced some addi-
tional settlements during the installation of over 50 remedial
piles.
Extension of Existing Pile Caps. A remedial option which can
be useful is to extend an existing pile cap and make use of its
capacity and stiffness. Clearly, this option may be limited to those
cases in which the near-surface soils themselves have reasonable
strength and stiffness. The performance of such a remediated sys-
tem can again be assessed readily using pile raft analysis concepts
共Randolph 1994; Poulos 2001兲.
The above approach was recommended in a major project in
Queensland Australia, involving jacked piles in sand which had
not developed their anticipated ultimate capacity of 4,000 kN
共this being the jacking force employed for installation兲. Fig. 37
shows the geotechnical conditions at the site and reveals reason-
able ground conditions above the pile founding level. One of the Fig. 37. Geotechnical profile for jacked pile project

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 557

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 Control of Load Distribution in the Foundation
System

An issue of concern is the transfer or sharing of load between the

original and the remediated foundation system. It should be ex-
pected that, following the laws of mechanics, a greater proportion
of any additional load that is imposed on a system would be
carried by the stiffer components. This may in turn mean that the
new and stiffer piles may become overstressed or overloaded. It is
possible to control the load distribution within a pile foundation
system by means of inserts that are attached to the head of se-
lected piles. Fig. 39共a兲 shows a schematic of these inserts, which
may be neoprene or a similar semicompressible material. These
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

serve to decrease the pile head stiffness in a controlled manner,

and are referred to herein as “controlled stiffness inserts” 共CSIs兲.
Fig. 39共b兲 shows an example of the use of CSIs at the heads of
remedial prebored H-piles in a housing project in Hong Kong.
Fig. 38. Load-settlement performance of inadequate pile and of
alternative remedial measures
It is possible to examine the benefits to be gained by the use of
CSIs via an analysis using the program PIGS. This program has
the facility of incorporating a CSI at the head of selected piles,
and of “activating” remedial piles at a predetermined stage in the
necessitating an extension of the pile cap. Another solution inves- loading history of the foundation. Clearly, the earlier the remedial
tigated was to simply extend the pile cap and make use of its piles are installed, the more favorable is the subsequent founda-
capacity and stiffness to complement the existing pile. Calcula- tion performance likely to be. Poulos 共2004兲 has demonstrated
tions were carried out for both these options. The following ap- that the required stiffness, KIi, of an insert for a pile i, to develop
proach was adopted: a specified settlement and load, can be computed from the follow-
1. Estimate the geotechnical parameters for the existing pile ing expression:
and for a pile cap founded near the surface;
2. Calibrate the computed pile behavior with the measured 1/KIi = STi/Pi − 1/KGi 共6兲
load-settlement behavior from the pile load test; and where STi⫽“target” settlement of pile i; Pi⫽required load on pile
3. Carry out calculations for the two remedial options and as- i, and KGi⫽original stiffness of pile i within group environment.
sess their relative suitability. If all piles are required to carry equal load and settle equally, then
The computer program DEFPIG was used to carry out the calcu- Pi will be the average load on the group, and STi will be the same
lations. The ultimate shaft and base capacity of the pile were for all piles within the group. KGi can be computed from a pile
estimated on the basis of the SPT 共N兲 data, using the following
correlations:
• Ultimate shaft friction in the upper cohesive layers⫽20–25
kPa;
• Ultimate shaft friction in the sands⫽2.8N + 10 kPa 共Decourt
1995兲;
• Ultimate end bearing capacity in the indurated sand⫽12 MPa;
• Ultimate bearing capacity of the pile cap⫽210 kPa 共based on
the shear strength of the uppermost layers兲; and
• Young’s modulus of the soils along the shaft⫽2.5N MPa, and
below the pile tip⫽5N MPa 共to allow for compaction during
the installation兲, while an average value of 10 MPa was used
for the soil below the pile cap.
Fig. 38 shows the computed load settlement behavior of the test
pile, which agrees well with the measured behavior. Also shown
are the computed load-settlement curves for the three-pile option
and the extended pile cap option, with a cap 2.5 m square. In this
case, the three-pile option is an overdesign, while the pile plus
enlarged cap appears to perform satisfactorily. At the working
load, the settlement is about 10 mm, which is less than the allow-
able of 15 mm, while the overall factor of safety is in excess of
1.8. It should be noted that for the three-pile option, the pile cap
would have had to be extended to accommodate the two extra
piles, and its area would have been almost 4 m2, which is a con-
siderable proportion of the cap area in the extended cap option.
Clearly, the latter had some economic, as well as logistical, ad-
vantages in this case, in that the additional piles would have been
very difficult to install because part of the structure had already
been constructed. Fig. 39. Bored pile cases analyzed

558 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 40. Controlled stiffness inserts
group analysis such as DEFPIG, PIGS, or PIGLET in which all
the piles are assumed to be equally loaded.
From Eq. 共6兲, to avoid a negative insert stiffness, there is a
lower limit for the target settlement 共STi lim兲 which is as follows:
STi lim = Pi/KGi 共7兲
Alternatively, there will be a lower limit 共KGi lim兲 to the pile stiff-
ness for which stiffness inserts are required, and this limit is given
by
KGi lim = Pi/STi lim 共8兲
By adjusting the target value of settlement for each pile, and the
load on that pile, it is possible 共at least in principle兲 to design the
stiffness inserts so that the pile group settles in a predetermined
manner.
An example of an inadequate foundation that was remediated
with additional piles is described below. Fig. 40 shows a simpli-
fied and idealized example of a case involving a large-diameter
bored pile which was judged to be founded on an inadequate
bearing stratum 共Grade III/IV rock, rather than the intended Grade
II rock兲. The alleged deficiency in the pile was discovered during
construction of the building, when the dead loading was about
one-quarter of the final value. Subsequently, construction was
halted, and a remedial piling system was designed to compensate
for the alleged pile deficiency. The actual remedial system
adopted was via the use of eight remedial prebored H-piles, i.e.,
H-pile sections which were grouted into prebored holes 0.5 m in
diameter. The new remedial piles were then joined to the original
bored pile by means of a pile cap. However, the system consid-
ered herein is an alternative scheme consisting of an additional 16
prebored H-piles, as shown in Fig. 40.
Two questions needed to be answered in relation to this case:
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 559
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
1. What was the anticipated load-settlement behavior of the
bored pile, as-constructed, versus the behavior as-designed?
2. What was the load-settlement behavior of the remediated pile
group, upon the application of the remaining dead plus live
load?
Two main steps were involved in the subsequent analysis:
1. An analysis to compute the load-settlement behavior of the
original pile and the remedial piles; and
2. The development of an interaction analysis, which combined
the computed load-settlement behavior of the original pile
with the computed behavior of the remedial piles, in order to
obtain the load-settlement behavior of the remediated group.
This analysis took into account the existing load acting on
the pile prior to the addition of the remedial piles, and was
implemented via the computer program PIGS.
The required geotechnical parameters were estimated, based on
correlations used in Hong Kong, as shown in Table 4. The fol-
lowing analyses were carried out.
• The as-designed pile was analyzed to obtain the load-
settlement behavior to failure. This pile was meant to be
founded on Grade II rock, and would have had an ultimate
load capacity in excess of 250 MN.
• The as-constructed pile was analyzed to obtain the estimated
load-settlement behavior of the deficient pile. This pile was
founded on Grade IV/III rock, and had an estimated ultimate
load capacity of about 104 MN.
• The remedial H-piles were analyzed to obtain the load-
settlement curve to failure. The computed ultimate capacity of
each pile was about 8 MN.
• The as-constructed pile was analyzed with the additional re-
medial piles being part of the group. The remedial piles were
“activated” once the load of 20 MN had been reached 共1 / 4 of
 Table 4. Summary of Correlations Used for Hong Kong Pile Group Analysis
Young’s Ultimate skin Ultimate base
modulus Es friction f s pressure f b
Layer 共MPa兲 共kPa兲 共MPa兲 Remarks
Soil layers 共alluvium, completely 1.0N 1.0N — N = SPT value
decomposed granite兲
Grade IV/III rock 500 200 9.0 f b based on factor of safety of 3 applied to allowable value
Grade II rock 20,000 500 22.5 f b based on factor of safety of 3 applied to allowable value

the dead load, the stage at which the remedial piles were in-
stalled兲.
The results of the calculations are shown in Figs. 41 and 42.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 41. Load-settlement curves for bored pile and effects of reme-
dial actions
Fig. 42. Load carried by original bored pile in remediated system
Fig. 41 shows the load-settlement curves for the three cases de-
scribed above. It can be seen that the pile, as-designed, would
have had a factor of safety in excess of 3 and would have settled
about 8 mm under the design load of 80 MN. The short as-
constructed pile would barely have had adequate capacity to sus-
tain the design load and would have settled about 140 mm. The
remediated pile 共group兲 with 16 prebored H-piles develops suffi-
cient load capacity to bring the capacity back to that of the as-
designed bored pile. However, the settlement of the remediated
pile exceeds that of the as-designed pile, although the beneficial
effects of the increased stiffness of the remediated pile group can
be seen clearly after the loading is resumed beyond 1 / 4 of the
dead load.
Fig. 42 shows the computed loads within the original short pile
and all the additional remedial piles as a function of the applied
load. Clearly, the original short pile carries all the load until the
additional piles are added and the construction is resumed. There-
after, the remedial piles tend to take the majority of the load until
the full capacity of the additional piles is developed. The original
pile then continues to take all the additional load until the ultimate
capacity of the group is mobilized.
Analyses were also carried out to investigate the effects of
including CSIs at the top of the remedial piles. By application of
Eq. 共6兲, it was possible to develop a system that developed equal
loads in the remedial piles. Table 5 summarizes the computed pile
loads and settlement at the design load of 80 MN, without and
with CSIs. It can be seen that, without CSIs, there is a significant
inequality of load in the remedial piles, with the corner piles
carrying about 71% more than the least-loaded piles. With the use
of CSIs, the load distribution is almost uniform in the remedial
piles. As would be expected, the settlement increases with the
CSIs in place, but only by a small amount. The reduction in load
inequality is particularly important in places such as Hong Kong,
where local building regulations require that all piles should have
a prescribed factor of safety against individual pile failure of at
least 2 at the working load. While this requirement has little logi-
cal basis, it is nevertheless enforced. The use of CSIs in this case

Table 5. Summary of Computed Performance of Remediated Bored Pile 共at Design Load of 80 MN兲
Without inserts With inserts
Pile load Settlement Pile load Settlement Insert stiffness
Pile 共MN兲 共mm兲 共MN兲 共mm兲 共MN/ m兲
Original bored pile 21.24 47.5 21.72 51.3 —
Remedial piles A 4.79 47.5 3.66 51.3 992
Remedial piles B 3.91 47.5 3.62 51.3 1,865
Remedial piles C 3.19 47.5 3.66 51.3 6,021
Remedial piles D 2.80 47.5 3.64 51.3 —

560 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.

 facilitates the acceptance of the remedial design.
This example demonstrates the importance of considering the
soil-structure interaction processes and modeling the correct se-
quence of applied loading. It also shows the importance of being
able to rationally analyze the behavior of pile groups which con-
tain piles which are not all identical, and which may contain
either structural defects or 共as in this case兲 geotechnical defects. It
also demonstrates the potential for using CSIs to control the dis-
tribution of load within a group of piles.
Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Natural imperfections, arising from the geology of the site, can
create significant problems for a piled foundation and lead to
reductions in both capacity and stiffness of a single pile or pile
group. Among the more significant imperfections are
• Clay seams below the pile toe;
• Compressible layers below the founding levels of the piles;
• Soil layers of uneven thickness; and
• Differences in founding conditions, which can give rise to
piles of different length within a group.
The first two sources have been shown to have the potential to
reduce axial pile load capacity and decrease the stiffness. The
effects on pile groups are generally more significant than on a
single pile. The latter two sources of imperfection are of particu-
lar concern, as they generate uneven settlements and can induce
unexpected bending moments and shears in the piles under axial
loading.
Construction-related imperfections include both “geotechni-
cal” and structural defects. Geotechnical defects, such as a “soft
base” at the pile tip, may cause a reduction in pile head stiffness
that depends on the soil modulus at the pile tip, and the applied
load level. Even a modest softening of the soil at or near the pile
base can lead to significant reductions in pile head stiffness.
Structural defects may lead to only modest reductions in single
pile stiffness, as long as structural failure of the pile does not
occur. Structural failure of a pile is more abrupt than for a pile
with geotechnical defects.
Within a pile group, the ability of the stiffer undamaged piles
in a group to carry additional load reduces the potential conse-
quences of imperfections and defective piles, as compared with
an isolated pile. However, careful consideration needs to be given
to the additional bending moments induced in the piles by the
presence of the defective piles. A critical aspect of the group
response is that the presence of defective piles can result in in-
duced lateral deflection and cap rotation of the group, and addi-
tional bending moments in the piles. This induced lateral response
can become more severe as the location of the defective piles
becomes more asymmetric.
It is highly desirable that methods be developed to account for
such imperfections so that more realistic designs can be executed,
especially if remedial design is necessary. Remedial design poses
interesting and important challenges to the foundation designer in
that both the realities and the imperfections inherent in real prob-
lems need to be properly taken into account. Factors such as the
addition of new pile into a foundation system after loading has
commenced, or the removal of piles, also need to be given proper
consideration in order to obtain realistic assessments of the sub-
sequent behavior of the foundation system. It has been demon-
strated that the load distribution within a pile group can be con-
trolled by the use of controlled stiffness inserts 共CSIs兲 at the pile
head. The reduction of unevenness of load within a group gener-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 561
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
ally more than compensates for the small settlement increase that
occurs, and may facilitate acceptance of a remedial scheme which
might otherwise be required to have more piles added to satisfy
local design requirements related to the factor of safety of indi-
vidual piles within a group.
In his paper to the 1951 Building Research Congress, Terzaghi
共1951兲 stated: “Modern methods for the design of pile founda-
tions … can be considered reliable, provided the subsoil of the
proposed foundation has been adequately explored. On the other
hand, if the subsoil conditions have been misjudged, for instance,
on account of inadequate sampling operations, erroneous interpo-
lation between boreholes, or lack of care in the examination of the
soil samples, the difference between anticipated and real settle-
ment can be distressingly important.” It is hoped that this paper
will make some contribution to the understanding of the possible
effects which complex real soil conditions can have on the behav-
ior of pile foundations, and an appreciation of the many difficul-
ties which, more than 50 years later, geotechnical engineers still
face in forecasting pile foundation performance.
Acknowledgments
The writer is grateful to John P. Carter, John C. Small, Patrick
Wong, and Masoud Makarchian for their constructive comments,
and to Charles C. W. Ng for providing details of the RSS centri-
fuge tests.
References
Abdrabbo, F. M. 共1997兲. “Mis-use of soils and foundation causes disas-
ter.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Foundation Failures, Singapore, T. W.
Hulme and Y. S. Lau, eds., Inst. of Engs. Singapore, 121–130.
Abdrabbo, F. M., and Abouseeda, H. 共2002兲. “Effect of construction pro-
cedures on the performance of bored piles.” Deep Foundations 2002,
ASCE Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1438–
1454.
Amirsoleymani, T. 共1991a兲. “Elimination of excessive differential settle-
ment by different methods.” Proc., 9th Asian Reg. Conf. Soil Mechan-
ics Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, 1, 351–354.
Amirsoleymani, T. 共1991b兲. “Removing soil layers under foundations to
rotate buildings”. Proc., 9th Asian Reg. Conf. Soil Mechanichs Foun-
dation Engineering, Bangkok, 1, 201–204.
Brandl, H. 共1989兲. “Underpinning.” Special Lecture D, Proc., 12th Int.
Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 4, 2227–2258.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., and Vermeer, P. A. 共1998兲. PLAXIS finite element
code for soil and rock analyses, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Brown, D. A. 共2004兲. “Zen and the art of drilled shaft construction: The
pursuit of quality.” Proc. Geosupport 2004, J. P. Turner and P. W.
Mayne, eds., ASCE Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 124, ASCE, Reston, Va.,
19–33.
Bruce, D. A. 共1994兲. “Small-diameter cast-in-place elements for load-
bearing and in situ earth reinforcement.” Ground control and improve-
ment, P. P. Xanthakos, L. W. Abramson, and D. A. Bruce, eds., Wiley
Interscience, New York.
Burland, J. B. 共2004兲. “The leaning tower of Pisa revisited.” State of the
Art and Practice Paper No. 2, Proc., 5th Int. Conf. Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, New York, S. Prakash, ed., Univ. of Mis-
souri, Rolla, CD volume.
Button, S. J. 共1953兲. “The bearing capacity of footings on a two layer
cohesive subsoil.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation
Engineering, Zurich, 1, 332–335.
 Chen, L., Poulos, H. G., and Loganathan, N. 共1999兲. “Pile responses
caused by tunnelling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共3兲, 207–
215.
Decourt, L. 共1995兲. “Prediction of load-settlement relationships for foun-
dations on the basis of the SPT-T.” Ciclo de Conferencias Intern.
“Leonardo Zeevaert,” UNAM, Mexico, 85–104.
Giroud, J-P., Vo-Nhiem, T., and Obin, J. P.共1973兲. Tables pour le calcul
des foundations. Tome 3, Dunod, Paris 共in French兲.
Golder, H. Q., and Osler, J. C. 共1968兲. “Settlement of a furnace founda-
tion, Sorel, Quebec.” Can. Geotech. J., 5共1兲, 46–56.
Hayward Baker. 共2003兲. Project summary on warehouse remediation,
promotional literature.
Hobbs, N. B. 共1957兲. “Unusual necking of cast-in-situ concrete piles.”
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, London,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3, 40–42.
Hoit, M. I., and McVay, M. C. 共1996兲. FLPIER User’s Manual, Univer-
sity of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Itasca. 共1999兲. FLAC Users’Manual, Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Min-
nesota.
Jamiolkowski, M. 共2001兲. “The leaning tower of Pisa: End of an odys-
sey.” Terzaghi Oration, Proc., 15th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foun-
dation Engineering, Istanbul, 4, 2979–2996.
Kulhawy, F. H. 共1978兲. “Geomechanical model for rock foundation
settlement.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 104共2兲, 211–
227.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Carter, J. P. 共1992兲. “Settlement and bearing capacity
of foundations on rock masses.” Engineering in Rock Masses, F. G.
Bell, ed., Butterworth Heinemann, London, 231-245.
Liu, J. 共2004兲. “Grouting and dewatering in balancing settlement of a
building.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. Case Histories, New York, S. Prakash,
ed., CD volume, Paper No. 1.15.
Maffei, C. E., Goncalves, H. H. S., Pimenta, P. M., and Murakami, C. A.
共2001兲. “The plumbing of 2.2° inclined tall building.” Proc., 15th Int.
Conf. Soil Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, 3, 1799–
1802.
Makarchian, M., and Poulos, H. G. 共1996兲. “Simplified method for design
of underpinning piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 122共9兲, 745–751.
Matsui, T. 共1993兲. “Case studies on cast-in-place bored piles and some
considerations for design.” Proc. BAP II, Ghent, Balkema, Rotterdam,
77–102.
Merifield, R. S., Sloan, S. W., and Yu, H. S. 共1999兲. “Rigorous plasticity
solutions for the bearing capacity of two-layered clays.”Geotechnique
49共4兲, 471–490.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1976兲. “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foun-
dations.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 102共3兲, 195–228.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Sastry, V. V. R. N. 共1978兲. “Bearing capacity of
piles in layered soils: Part I & Part II.” Can. Geotech. J., 15共2兲,
171–189.
Milligan, V. 共1997兲. “Lessons from foundation failures.” Proc., Int. Conf.
on Foundation Failures, Singapore, T. W. Hulme and Y. S. Lau, eds.,
43–52.
Moh, Z. C. 共1994兲. “Current deep foundation practice in Taiwan and
Southeast Asia.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Design and Construction of
Deep Foundations, Orlando, FHWA, 1, 236–259.
Mroueh, H., and Shahrour, I. 共2002兲. “Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of the interaction between tunneling and pile foundation.”
Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 26, 217–230.
O’Neill, M. W. 共2001兲. “Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts.” 34th
Terzaghi Lecture, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共1兲, 1-16.
O’Neill, M. W., and Hassan, K. M. 共1994兲. “Drilled shafts: Effects of
construction on performance and design criteria.” Proc., Int. Conf.
Des. Constr. Deep Founds., Orlando, FHWA, 1, 137–187.
O’Neill, M. W., Hawkins, R. A., and Mahar, L. J. 共1982兲. “Load transfer
mechanisms in piles and pile groups.” Geotech. Eng., 108共12兲, 1605–
1623.
Pells, P. J. N., Douglas, D. J., Rodway, B., Thorne, C. P., and McMahon,
B. R. 共1978兲. “Design loadings for shales and sandstones in the Syd-
562 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
ney region.” Austral. Geomechs., G8, 31–39.
Pells, P. J. N., Mostyn, G., and Walker, B. F. 共1998兲. “Foundations on
sandstone and shale in the Sydney region.” Austral. Geomechs.,
33共3兲, 17–29.
Petek, K., Felice, C. W., and Holtz, R. D. 共2002兲. “Capacity analysis of
drilled shafts with defects.” Deep Foundations 2002, Geot. Spec. Pub.
No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1120–1135.
Popa, A., Lacatus, F., Rebeleanu, V., and Taria, O. 共2001兲. “Underpinning
of buildings by means of jet grouted piles.” Proc., 15th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, 3, 1835–1838.
Poulos, H. G. 共1988兲. “Modified calculation of pile group settlement in-
teraction.” J. Geotech. Eng., 114共6兲, 697–706.
Poulos, H. G. 共1989兲. “Pile behaviour—Theory and application.” Geo-
technique, 39共3兲, 65–415.
Poulos, H. G. 共1993兲. “Settlement of bored pile groups.” Proc., BAP II,
Ghent, Balkema, Rotterdam, 103–117.
Poulos, H. G. 共1997兲. “Behaviour of pile groups with defective piles.”
Proc., 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Ham-
burg, 2, 871–876.
Poulos, H. G. 共1999a兲. “Approximate computer analysis of pile groups
subjected to loads and ground movements.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
Meth. Geomech., 23, 1021–1041.
Poulos, H. G. 共1999b兲. “Pile defects—Influence on foundation perfor-
mance.” Keynote Lecture, Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Deep Foundations,
Singapore, CI Premier, 57–69.
Poulos, H. G. 共2000兲. “Pile testing—From the designer’s viewpoint.”
Keynote Lecture, Statnamic Loading Test ’98, O. Kusakabe, F. Kuwa-
bara, and T. Matsumoto, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, 3–21.
Poulos, H. G. 共2001兲. “Piled raft foundations—Design and applications.”
Geotechnique, 51共2兲, 95–113.
Poulos, H. G. 共2002兲. “Prediction of behaviour of piled building founda-
tions due to tunnelling operations.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Geotech-
nical Aspects of Tunnelling in Soft Ground, Toulouse, Preprint Vol-
ume, 4.55–4.61.
Poulos, H. G. 共2003a兲. “The significance of ground characterisation for
foundation deformation prediction.” Geotech. Eng., 3, 125–145.
Poulos, H. G. 共2003b兲. “Analysis of soil extraction for correcting uneven
settlement of pile foundations.” Proc., 12th Asian Reg. Conf. Soil
Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore, C. F. Leung et al.,
eds., 1, 653–656.
Poulos, H. G. 共2004兲. “Control of settlement and load distribution in pile
groups via stiffness inserts.” Proc., Symposium on Recent Develop-
ments in Foundation Practice, Center for Research and Professional
Development, Hong Kong.
Poulos, H. G., Badelow, F., and Powell, G. 共2003兲. “A theoretical study of
constructive application of excavation for foundation correction.”
Proc. Int. Conf. on Response of Buildings to Excavation-Induced
Ground Movements, London, CIRIA Spec. Pub. 199, F. M. Jardine,
ed., 469–484.
Poulos, H. G., Carter, J. P., and Small, J. C. 共2002兲. “Foundations and
retaining structures—Research and practice.” State of the Art Lecture,
Proc., 15th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Istan-
bul, 4, 2527–2606.
Randolph, M. F. 共1994兲. “Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts.”
Proc., 13th Int. Conf. S.M. & Foundation Engineering, 5, 61–82.
Randolph, M. F. 共2003兲. PIGLET. Analysis and design of pile groups,
Users’ manual, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Rao, N. 共1996兲. “Defective piles in clay.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. & Exhi-
bition on Piling & Deep Foundations, Bombay, paper 4.4.
Reese, L. C. 共1978兲. “Design and construction of drilled shafts.” J. Geo-
tech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 104共1兲, 95–116.
Sarhan, H. A., and O’Neill, M. W. 共2002兲. “Aspects of structural design
of drilled shafts for flexure”. Deep Foundations 2002, Geot. Spec.
Pub. No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1151–1165.
Sarhan, H., Tabsh, S. W., O’Neill, M. W., Ata, A., and Ealy, C. 共2002兲.
“Flexural behavior of drilled shafts with minor flaws.” Deep Founda-
tions 2002, ASCE Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston,
 Va., 1136–1150.
Tamez, E., Santoyo, E., and Ovando, E. 共1997兲. “Underexcavation of
Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral and Sagrarion Church.” Proc.,
14th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering, Hamburg,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 4, 2105–2126.
Teparaksa, W., Thasninapan, N., and Anwar, M. A. 共1999兲. “Base grout-
ing of wet process bored piles in Bangkok subsoils.” Proc., 11th Asian
Reg. Conf. Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, 1,
269–272.
Terzaghi, K. 共1936兲. “Presidential Address.” Proc., 1st Int. Cong. Soil
Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, Mass., 3, 13–18.
Terzaghi, K. 共1951兲. “The influence of modern soil studies on the design
and construction of foundations.” Building Res. Congress, London,
Div. 1, Part III, 139–145.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 01/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Thorburn, S., and Thorburn, J. Q. 共1977兲. “Review of problems associ-
ated with construction of cast-in-place concrete piles.” Report of DOE
and CIRIA Piling Devel. Group, CIRIA, London.
Tsai, K. W., Chao, C. S., and Chou, K. T. 共1991兲. “Tilted high-rise build-
ing corrected by grouting.” Proc., 11th European Conf. Soil Mechan-
ics Foundation Engineering, Florence, 2, 623–624.
van der Stoel, A. E. C., Haasnoot, J. K., and Essler, R. D. 共2003兲. “Fea-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 563
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:538-563.
sibility of compensation grouting of timber pile foundations to miti-
gate TBM settlements.” Proc. Int. Conf. on Response of Buildings to
Excavation-Induced Ground Movements, London, CIRIA Spec. Pub.
199, F. M. Jardine, ed., 613–620.
van Impe, W. F. 共1991兲. “Deformations of deep foundations.” Proc. 10th
European Conf. SM & Foundation Engineering, Florence, 3, 1031–
1062.
Woo, S. M., and Moh, Z-C. 共1990兲. “Geotechnical characteristics of soils
in the Taipei basin.” Proc., 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf.,
Taipei, 2, 51–65.
Xu, K. J., and P oulos, H. G. 共2000a兲. “Measured and predicted axial
response of piles with diameter discontinuities.” Geotech. Eng.,
31共3兲, 171–191.
Xu, K. J., and Poulos, H. G. 共2000b兲. “General elastic analysis of piles
and pile groups.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 24, 1109–
1138.
Xu, K. J., and Poulos, H. G. 共2001兲.“A general load-settlement analysis of
pile groups.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice In-
corporating Piletalk, Singapore, CI Premier, Singapore.
Zou, Y. 共1996兲. “Ein neues verfahren zum aufrichten geneigter gebaude.”
Bautechnik, 73共7兲, 437–442.