Geotechnical Engineering

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.13.00140
Paper 1300140
Received 21/10/2013
Accepted 08/09/2014
Keywords: field testing & monitoring/geotechnical engineering/strength &
testing of materials
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Appraisal of reliable skin friction

variation in a bored pile
1
j
Ramli Nazir PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Geotechnics and Transportation,

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai,
Johor, Malaysia

2
Hossein Moayedi PhD
j

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Kermanshah

University of Technology, Kermanshah, Iran

1
j

2
j

3
j

3
j
Mansour Mosallanezhad PhD

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

4
Alireza Tourtiz MSc
j

Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Beyza Branch, Islamic

Azad University, Beyza, Iran

4
j

The design of bored piles in Malaysia is usually based on the results of the standard penetration test. It is important
to predict the geotechnical capacity of a designed bored pile through the multilayer soil strata. The back-analysis of a
test pile is a reliable means of obtaining the range for the ultimate skin factor (Ksu) and the ultimate end-bearing
factor (Kbu). In this research, two case histories of maintained load tests on single bored piles (PTP-1 and 2) under
full-scale static load (up to twice designed load) are examined. Measurements are taken using various embedded
transducers, including both conventional instrumentation and a state-of-the-art global strain extensometer. The
results show the rates of the pile base and pile head load mobilisation with settlement, the variation of the skin
friction factors and stresses along the pile, and their proportion in relation to the total pile capacity. The Ksu and Kbu
factors for both tested piles are obtained and compared using a conventional vibrating-wire global strain gauge and
a global strain extensometer. It is also observed that for the stiff soil layers the skin friction is significant. However,
the increase in the applied load increases the proportion carried by the end-bearing.

1.

Introduction

Bored piles are commonly used as foundations to support heavily

loaded structures, such as high-rise buildings and bridges, in view
of their low noise, low vibration and flexibility of sizes to suite
different loading conditions and subsoil conditions. These piles
are sometimes referred to as bored cast-in-place piles, as
specified in BS EN 1997 (BSI, 1990). The bored piles are formed
by boring using a suitable type of machine. Subsequently, the
holes are filled with high-workability concrete and some
reinforcement. Their usual sizes are between 750 mm and
3000 mm diameter, with a capacity that can achieve a very high
working load depending on the pile size and geological profile
near the pile (Fang, 2002). A higher pile capacity will reduce the
pile cap size and the number of piles in the group.
It is well established that the ultimate bearing capacity of a pile
used in a design may be determined by one of three values:
(a) the maximum load, Qmax, at which further settlement (or
penetration) occurs without the load increasing; (b) a calculated
value which is required based on the sum of end-bearing and
skin friction (shaft resistances); or (c) the load at which a
settlement of 0 .1 diameter (0 .1D) occurs (when Qmax is not clear)

(Meyerhof and Yalcin, 1983; Poulos, 1989, 2007). For largediameter piles, settlement can be large; therefore, a safety factor
of 22 .5 is usually used on the working load. Accordingly, a safe
load (or designed load) can be calculated from the working load
divided by the factor of safety specified for a particular project.
It should be mentioned that, in maintained load tests (MLTs), the
piles are loaded up to a point near the safety factor times the
maximum load transferred from the above structures. However,
the pile will not approach failure during the test. Prakash and
Sharma (1990) have stated that the design load may be
determined by consideration of either shear failure or settlement,
and that it is the lower of the following two values: (a) the
allowable load obtained by dividing the ultimate failure load with
a particular factor, or (b) the load corresponding to an allowable
settlement of the pile.
Numerous studies exist regarding the prediction of the geotechnical capacity of bored piles through soft soil and weak rock
(Hooley and Brooks, 1993; Ng et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2009; Zou,
2013). There are also various studies on the long-term measurement of strain in instrumented piles. Kister et al. (2007) used
Bragg grating sensors for the strain and temperature monitoring
1

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

of reinforced concrete foundation piling. They were able to

successfully measure the change in the strain distribution along
the whole depth of the foundation piles. Fellenius et al. (2009)
explored the long-term monitoring (200 days record) of strain in
two 31 m and 56 m long instrumented post-driving grouted
cylinder piles at a site west of Busan, South Korea. They
monitored the unexpected elongation of the pile, probably due to
swelling from the absorption of water; however, as the soil
reconsolidated, the elongation shortened, probably because of the
imposed residual load in the pile. Brown et al. (2006) have stated
that the existing methods for test analysis generally overpredict
pile capacities by up to 50% for clays. They studied the loadtransfer mechanisms of rapid axial loading on a full-scale
instrumented pile in a glacial lodgement till near Grimsby, UK.
In order to gain insight into the load-transfer mechanisms of a
rapidly loaded pile in clay, they compared the shaft frictions
derived from the strain-gauged reinforcement in the pile with
shear strains and stresses derived from accelerations in the
surrounding soil. It can be seen that the design and the construction of a bored pile are highly empirical and that they are,
perhaps, more an art than a science (Tomlinson and Woodward,
2003). In tropical soils, which generally have complex soil
characteristics, the construction of a bored pile is a preferred
option in comparison to other types of pile.

mobilisation with settlement; (b) the variation of the stresses

along the pile.

In Malaysia, the design of bored piles is usually based on the

results of the standard penetration test (SPT). The empirical
approach to ultimate unit skin resistance ( fs) relates to
Ksu 3 SPT, while the same approach to ultimate base resistance
( fb) relates to Kbu 3 SPT. Both relationships are widely used in
common design works (Hanifah and Lee, 2006). To evaluate Ksu
and Kbu, the values of the local soil conditions are required, and
vibrating-wire strain gauges (VWSGs) and mechanical tell-tale
rods are installed along the piles. The installed strain gauges
within the pile allowed the monitoring of axial loads and
movement at various depths down to the pile shaft and the pile
toe (Badrun, 2011). Recently, to address the challenges and
difficulties posed by conventional measurement methods, a
retrieval sensor a global strain extensometer (GSE) has been
used for instrumentation of bored piles (Aziz et al., 2005; Liew
et al., 2011). This technology consists of a deformation monitoring system that uses advanced pneumatically anchored extensometers coupled with high-precision spring-loaded transducers; it
is a novel analytical technique to monitor loads and displacements down the shaft and at the toe of bored piles through sonic
logging tubes (Hanifah and Lee, 2006).

The MLT test presented in this research is based on the reaction

pile system. The test follows the method described in the ASTM
standard D1143/D1143M-07 (ASTM, 2013). The clear distance
between the edges of the reaction pile to the edge of the test pile
should not be less than five times the diameter of the largest pile.
In the set-up used, the piles were loaded using hydraulic jacks
acting against the main beam. The jacks were operated by an
electric pump. The applied load was calibrated using vibratingwire load cells (VWLCs). To ensure the stability of the test
assembly, careful consideration was given to the provision of a
suitable system. The geometry arrangement should also seek to
minimise the interaction between the test pile, the reaction system
and the reference beam support. The capacity of the reaction
against the maximum test load should be 1020% higher. A
typical load application and measurement system consists of
hydraulic jacks, a load-measuring device, a spherical seating and
a load-bearing plate. The jack used for the test should preferably
have a large diameter with a travel of at least 15% of the pile
diameter. Pressure was applied using a motorised pumping unit.
Pressure gauges were fitted to permit checking of the load. In
addition to the independent load-measuring device, linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) and optical levelling systems
were also used during the load test. All the devices were
calibrated before each series of tests.

Generally, the main objectives of loading tests are: (a) to

determine the loadsettlement characteristics of the pile at the
expected designed load using both conventional and GSE methods; (b) to check the ultimate capacity of the pile and to calibrate
the empirical design methods employed for the more accurate
assessment of the bearing capacity of the pile at a given site. The
main aim of the full-scale tests and analysis presented here is to
investigate: (a) the rates of the pile base and pile head load
2

2.

Experimental set-up

The prediction of the load capacity for a pile foundation is most

quickly done through a field test accompanied by the semiempirical method (Abu Kiefa, 1998; Anoyatis and Mylonakis,
2012; Coop and Wroth, 1989; Robertson et al., 1985). Thus, any
prediction or calculation should be justified through a full-scale
test (Fellenius et al., 2009). Axial pile load tests are among the
design procedures of most major construction projects that
include pile foundations, and the aim is to determine both the
pile stiffness and the ultimate bearing capacity at the designed
load depth (Comodromos et al., 2003). An MLT is one of the
best tests for predicting the actual behaviour of the axial pile
capacity (Brown et al., 2006; Consoli et al., 2003; Dai et al.,
2012; Holscher et al., 2012; Salgado, 2013; Zhang et al., 2008).
In an MLT, the load is applied in increments (in the vertical
direction), each being held until the rate of movement at both the
top and base of the pile has reduced to an acceptably low value
before the next load increment is applied (Tomlinson and
Woodward, 2003). It is, however, important to mention that the
reliability of the result will depend upon the instrumentation used
to acquire the relevant data.

2.1 Site condition

In this research, two series of full-scale MLTs were performed on
a bored pile. The first full-scale test was conducted at Cadangan
Pembangunan 2, Lorong Stonor, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and is
denoted by PTP-1. The test pile was a preliminary and was

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

loaded up to twice the piles structural capacity. It should be

mentioned that for test pile PTP-1, the required structural
capacity was 22 200 kN. PTP-1 was designed for a nominal
diameter of 1800 mm and a penetration depth of 36 .95 m from
the existing piling platform depth of 36 .25 m. The pile was tested
up to 44 400 kN (twice the designed load) in two loading cycles
for the initial test programme. The location of the second fullscale project was at Utama Lodge, Jalan Senangria, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, and is referred to as PTP-2.

Table 2 presents a summary of the instrumented bored pile

load test. The 1800 mm diameter bored pile (PTP-1) was
instrumented using a seven-level vibrating-wire (VW) global
strain gauge and an eight-level VW extensometer. However, the
1000 mm diameter bored pile (PTP-2) was instrumented using
a five-levels VW strain gauge and a mechanical extensometer.
For PTP-2, the designed load was 6750 kN. Static load was
applied by hydraulic jacks acting against the reaction pile
system. The piles were loaded up to two times the designed
load, which was near to the safety factor of 2 .5 considered.
For each loading, calibrated load cells were used to measure
the actual applied load on the pile head. The general soil
profile and SPT value (SPT-N) at the project site of piles PTP1 and PTP-2 are shown in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b),
respectively.

From the subsurface investigation, Table 1 presents a summary of

the soil type and the standard penetration test (SPT-N) values,
respectively. The depth of the borehole in the vicinity of PTP-1
was 31 .66 m and the soil profile at the borehole comprised very
stiff, sandy silt (at a depth of between 0 m and 24 m) and
fractured limestone (at a depth of more than 24 m). When there
is a rock layer more than 3 m thick, it is assumed that the
mentioned layer can be considered as a bedrock. In the case of
PTP-1, from z 24 m, limestone rock appeared (where z is depth
below ground level). As it was fractured, the SPT could not give
a reliable value. Therefore, core samples were taken from rotary
drilling, which show that the fractures in the limestone continued.
Accordingly, the layer below that was assumed to be a sedimentary rock (fractured limestone). However, in depths lower than
32 m, a softer layer was found and the SPT was applied once
again. The depth of the borehole in the vicinity of PTP-2 was
47 .5 m and the monitored soil profile at the borehole comprised
sandy silt, sandy clay, hard silt (at a depth of between 0 m and
23 m), with completely weathered sandstone (at a depth of more
than 23 m).

Test pile
PTP-1

PTP-2

L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4

2.2 Bored pile construction and instrumentation

In this study, the bored piles were installed and concreted directly
into the study area. To install a bored pile, a borehole of a
specified diameter and depth based on the required depth and
diameter for PTP-1 and PTP-2 was drilled. Next, the borehole
was reinforced with a metal frame of a required cut and filled
with fine-aggregate concrete. As stated, both of the bored piles
were tested using the MLT method through the reaction pile
system. All of the instruments were logged automatically using a
Micro-10 data logger and multilevel software. The conventional
method for instrumentation using a VWSG and mechanical telltales was employed. The VWSGs were attached to the steel cage
of the bored pile (used for PTP-2). The VWSG and mechanical
tell-tales were embedded in the concrete permanently. The second

Soil stratum

Depth: m

SPT-N values

Average SPT-N

Stiff sandy silt with little gravel

Very stiff sandy silt with little gravel
Hard yellowish sandy silt with little gravel
Hard yellowish sandy silt with little gravel
Fractured limestone
Sandy silt
Sandy clay
Silt
Weathered sandstone

08
810
1017
1724
2436 .95
012
1217
1823
2531 .65

316
1650
50111
111150
143150
430
1939
54125
176200

15 .50
27 .5
110
122
150
30
39
122
195

Table 1. Summary of soil profile for test pile locations

Pile No.

PTP-1
PTP-2

Diameter: mm

1800
1000

Working load: kN

22 200
6750

Pile length: m

36 .95
32 .56

Test load: kN

44 400
13 500

Type of instrument No. of instrument

levels
GSE
Conventional

7
5

Table 2. Summary of instrumented bored pile load test

Depth: m

Geotechnical Engineering

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

SPT-N
50 100 150 200 250

0
Stiff, sandy silt
with little gravel

8
Very stiff, sandy silt
Hard, yellowish,
sandy silt with
little gravel

17
Very stiff, sandy silt
Hard, yellowish,
sandy silt with
little gravel

24
Fractured
limestone

Depth: m

(a)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34

SPT-N
50 100 150 200 250

Sandy silt

12
Sandy clay

17
Silt

23

Weathered
sandstone

(b)

Figure 1. Variation of SPT with depth for soil in the vicinity of:
(a) PTP-1; (b) PTP-2

instrument used to measure the axial load and settlement

distribution along the bored pile was the GSE (used for PTP-1).
During static load testing, the deformation of the pile under
loading produces relative movement between each anchored
interval, causing a change in the strain gauge wire tension and a
corresponding change in its resonant frequency of vibration. The
resonant frequency is measured by plucking the GSE sensors/
transducers through a signal cable to a read-out box/data logger,
which also measures the frequency and displays the shortening
reading and the strain reading.
With the installation set-up as described above, this state-of-the4

art GSE system can measure shortening and strains over an entire
section of the test pile during each loading step of a typical static
pile load test; thus, it integrates the strains over a larger and more
representative sample. With the proper implementation of an
instrumentation scheme, the collected data from an instrumented
pile are more reliable, and a better and more meaningful
interpretation can be made. The obtained results from the GSE
method (PTP-1) were compared with the bored pile with conventional instrumentation (PTP-2) results. For PTP-2, the Geokon
VWSG and tell-tale extensometers were installed internally in the
test pile to monitor the strain development and shortening behaviour of the pile during testing.
GSE instrumentation has been placed at seven levels for PTP-1.
The number of required GSEs depends on the length of the pile
and the vertical variation of the subsoil conditions, through sonic
logging tubes (Figure 2). A calibrated GSE sensor was installed
near the pile head (where no interaction from the soil friction to
the pile shaft is expected) for the calibration of the applied axial
load and the measured average strain. The GSE sensors measure
the strain and the axial load transferred through each section of
the pile shaft. In addition, the GSE sensor at the toe of the pile
measures the load contributed by the toe or else by end-bearing
resistance.
The VW extensometer was installed at eight depths at the
anchored intervals (Figure 3). Deformation of the pile under
loading produces relative movement between each anchored
interval. This causes a change in the strain gauge wire tension of
the VW transducers and a corresponding change in its resonant
frequency of vibration. The VWSG instruments for PTP-2 were
also installed at five levels (levels A through to level E), with
four per level (as shown in Figure 3). A schematic view of the
VWSG attached to the steel cage can be seen in Figure 4.
The gauges were checked before and after installation, after the
placement of the cage in the borehole and after concreting. For
the rod extensometer, galvanised iron (GI) pipes were tied to the
main reinforcement cage with steel wires at each terminating
depth, as shown in Figure 5. The 10 mm mild steel rod was
inserted until it touched the bottom of the pipe. A steel plate was
welded onto the end of the rod for the plunger to sit on during
the load test.
The pile head displacements were also measured by dial
gauges and LVDTs with readings to an accuracy of 0 .01 mm.
These displacement measurement instruments were mounted
on stable reference beams, and the whole system was
protected from direct sunlight and disturbance by the personnel who were performing the pile testing and instrumentation
work. Settlement measurements using a precise levelling
technique were also taken as a useful backup, as well as to
check the movement of the reference beams. The VWLCs,
strain gauges, retrievable extensometers and LVDTs were
logged automatically using a Micro-103 data logger and the
MultiLogger software at 3 min intervals for close monitoring

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

RL 3674 m (pile top)

00 m

Anchored level A-0

10 m
20 m

Glostrext Sensor 1a,

Anchored level A-

RL 3625 m platform level

9375

Global strain gauge level A (RL 3525 m)

Extensometer level 1 (RL 3425 m)
1800 mm
Bored pile
Col. RL 26875

575 m

Glostrext Sensor 2a,

Global strain gauge level B (RL 3050 m)

950 m

Anchored level A-

Extensometer level 2 (RL 2675 m)

12875 m Glostrext Sensor 3a,

Global strain gauge level C (RL 23375 m)

1625 m Anchored level A-

Extensometer level 3 (RL 200 m)

19625 m Glostrext Sensor 4a,

Global strain gauge level D (RL 16625 m)

230 m

Extensometer level 4 (RL 1325 m)

Anchored level A-

Global strain gauge level E (RL 8125 m)

28125 m Glostrext Sensor 5a,

3325 m Anchored level A3460 m

3595 m
3645 m
3695 m

Global strain gauge level F (RL 165 m)

Extensometer level 6 (RL 03 m)
Global strain gauge level G (RL 02 m)
Extensometer level 7 (RL 07 m)

Glostrext Sensor 6a,

Anchored level A-6
Glostrext Sensor 6a,
Anchored level A-

Pile toe at 3695 m depth (RL 07 m)

denotes Glostrext anchored level (two sets per level)
denotes VW Glostrext Sensors (two sets per level)

Figure 2. Arrangement of the instrument at different levels for

GSE in pile PTP-1

during the loading and unloading steps. Only precise level

readings were taken manually.

3.

Results and discussion

3.1 Bored pile deformation

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the variation of applied load plotted
against pile top and base settlement, respectively, for two
continuous cycles on PTP-1 (Figure 6(a)) and PTP-2 (Figure
6(b)). During the first cycle, the observed maximum pile top
settlement at a loading of 22 418 kN was 9 .60 mm. Upon
unloading to zero, the pile rebounded to a residual settlement of
0 .36 mm. However, during the second cycle the observed maximum pile top settlement at the peak load of 44 036 kN was
24 .63 mm. Upon unloading to zero, the pile rebounded to a
residual settlement of 5 .34 mm. The relationship between applied
load plotted against pile base settlement obtained from the pile

load test is presented in Figure 7. The irregular shape in the base

settlement at each step of loading particularly the first cycle
at the location of sandstone or limestone might be the result of
rock particle rupture. The continuance of such an irregularly
shaped settlement, however, might also be due to the high excess
pore-water pressure (because of applied stresses from the pile)
produced in the small fractures of the ruptured rock leading to
non-uniform sliding of small particles.
As can be seen, the maximum pile top settlement for the two
designed loads is about 24 .6 mm, which is very small in comparison to the length of the installed bore pile. Faisal and Lee (2013)
have stated that the critical shaft displacement should be relatively small (in order to fully mobilise the shaft resistance)
compared to the large movement that is needed to fully mobilise
end-bearing. Excessive settlement and differential movement can
cause distortion and cracking in structures (Salgado et al., 2007).
5

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

RL 70724 m (pile top)

RL 70392 m (existing platform)

Bored pile

4286 m

COL RL 66106 m

5559 m VWSG and extensometer

level A

TT1

7816 m VWSG and extensometer

level B

TT2

Galvanised item pipe

for extensometer rod

Reinforcement bar

17816 m VWSG and extensometer

level C

23816 m VWSG and extensometer

level D

TT3

Attached

TT4 VWSG: (four sets per level)

Tell-tale extensometer
(TT, one on each level)
32068 m VWSG and extensometer
level E

TT5 Pile toe at 32568 m depth

(RL 37824 m)

Figure 3. Arrangement of the VWSGs and tell-tale extensometer

in pile PTP-2

Figure 4. Schematic view of the VWSG attached to steel cage

Figure 5. Galvanised iron pipes for tell-tale extensometer were

pre-installed at VWSG level

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

50 000
45 000

Applied load: kN

Applied load: kN

40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5000
0
5

10
15
20
25
30
Total pile top settlement: mm
PTP 1 first cycle
PTP 1 second cycle
(a)

14 000

14 000

12 000

12 000

10 000

10 000

8000
6000
4000

4
5
7
6
8
3
Total pile base settlement: mm
PTP 1 first cycle
(a)

Applied load: kN

Applied load: kN

50 000
45 000
40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5000
0
9

10

PTP 1 second cycle

8000
6000
4000
2000

2000

0
0

10
15
20
25
30
Total pile top settlement: mm
PTP 2 first cycle
PTP 2 second cycle
(b)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total pile base settlement: mm
PTP 2 first cycle
PTP 2 second cycle
(b)

Figure 6. Variation of applied load plotted against pile top

settlement for two continues cycles: (a) PTP-1; (b) PTP-2

Figure 7. Variation of applied load plotted against pile base

settlement for two continues cycles: (a) PTP-1; (b) PTP-2

3.2

95 .58% of the test load was carried by skin friction; the

remaining 4 .42% test load was carried by end-bearing, as
shown in Figure 9(b).

Measuring the axial load-carrying capacity of the

bored piles
The load distribution curves for the test cycles are plotted in
Figure 8 and Figure 9. The load distribution curves capable of
indicating the load distribution along the shaft and the base
were derived from computations based on the measured changes
in the strain gauge readings and estimated pile properties (steel
content, cross-sectional areas and modulus of elasticity). The
computations made for PTP-2 were based on as-built details
(including concrete record) known from the construction record.
The difference between the loads at any two levels (levels are
given from the top and bottom of the pile) represents the shaft
load carried by the portion of the pile between those levels.
For instance, for PTP-2 when the 6735 kN test load during the
first cycle was applied, almost 99 .78% of the test load was
carried by skin friction (the portion of the load carried
between depths of z 0 m and z 32 .06 m in comparison to
the applied load); the remaining 0 .22% test load was carried
by end-bearing, as shown in Figure 9(a). For the second cycle,
the maximum applied load was 12 904 kN while approximately

It can be concluded that the measured skin friction resistance

between 0 , z , 15 m and 0 , z ,5 m in the soil at the vicinity
of PTP-1 and PTP-2, respectively, was much lower in comparison
to the designed load. The variations of the portions of skin
friction resistance were calculated at the end of each test (i.e. for
PTP-1 at depth z 36 .45 m and for PTP-2 at depth z 32 .06 m),
as shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that the higher load reduces
the effect of skin friction while increasing the influence of the
end-bearing portion. For example, the skin friction effect in PTP1 varied from the portion between 98 .1% and 87 .1% when the
applied load increased from 3313 kN to 22 418 kN (Figure 10(a)).
This, based on the evidence presented by Chin (1970) and
Fleming (1992), is true of piles that carry most of their load by
shaft friction. Owing to the observed low values for the base
resistance, it is suggested that the end-bearing resistance of the
bored pile should be eliminated in the design, especially when the
wet drilling method should be used.
7

Geotechnical Engineering

5000

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

Load registered: kN
10 000
15 000

20 000

25 000

10 000

Load registered: kN
20 000
30 000

40 000

50 000

Depth below platform level: m

Depth below platform level: m

10
15
20
25

10
15
20
25
30

30
35
35

40

40
PTP-1-C1-3313 kN

PTP-1-C1-4698 kN

PTP-1-C1-6883 kN

PTP-1-C1-8897 kN

PTP-1-C1-11 061 kN

PTP-1-C1-14 016 kN

PTP-1-C1-16 056 kN

PTP-1-C1-17 973 kN

PTP-1-C1-20 370 kN

PTP-1-C1-22 418 kN

(a)

PTP-1-C2-5627 kN

PTP-1-C2-11 351 kN

PTP-1-C2-16 664 kN

PTP-1-C2-22 391 kN

PTP-1-C2-24 479 kN

PTP-1-C2-27 138 kN

PTP-1-C2-29 181 kN

PTP-1-C2-31 072 kN

PTP-1-C2-33 186 kN

PTP-1-C2-35 465 kN

PTP-1-C2-37 716 kN

PTP-1-C2-40 475 kN

PTP-1-C2-42 184 kN
(b)

PTP-1-C2-44 036 kN

Figure 8. Load distribution curve for PTP-1 in: (a) first cycle and
(b) second cycle, computed from VWSG

Based on the soil properties in the vicinity of PTP-1 and PTP-2,

the pile may not be able to provide significant load capacity or
stiffness at 8 m depth below the platform. However, at depths
below 8 m, the long-term settlement of incompressible underlying
layers (e.g. the very stiff, sandy silts in PTP-1 and the weathered
sandstone in PTP-2) will increase the contribution of the pile in
relation to the long-term stiffness of the foundation.
For a bored pile installed through soft soil, the focus is
mainly on the skin friction. An increasing proportion is taken
up by the end-bearing, as the shaft has been fully mobilised.
Since the pile base was located on limestone (PTP-1) or
sandstone (PTP-2), the effect of the end-bearing capacity
should be carefully considered. In the present study, the piles
were loaded up to twice their designed loads. Under such
conditions, the skin friction may not be fully mobilised and
the point where the end-bearing capacity becomes significant
may not be reached. For example, the end-bearing capacity
portion after the application of twice the designed load was
18% and 12% for PTP-1 and PTP-2, respectively (Figure 7).
As such, considering displacement at the head of the bored
pile, a much higher applied load is needed if the end-bearing
tends to be significant.
8

3.3 Piles vertical shortening

The results of this research show the importance of considering
both elastic and plastic deformation behaviours during the axial
loading of a pile test. The variation of applied load plotted
against the measured total pile shortening by the GSE for PTP-1,
and the use of tell-tale sensors for PTP-2, are presented in Figure
11 and Figure 12, respectively. The pile shortened significantly,
up to 8 .68 mm and 18 .89 mm, when the applied vertical load
reached a maximum of 22 390 kN and 44 000 kN, respectively.
The plastic deformation behaviour of the test pile for high static
loads was 1 .51 mm which, in comparison with the total length of
the pile, is insignificant. However, when the plastic deformation
results from the first cycle and the second cycle are compared,
there is a much higher incidence of permanent deflection in the
vertical axis of the test pile (Figure 11).
As stated earlier, the tell-tale sensors were installed in five
different positions along the vertical axis of the test pile. Figure
12 shows the influence of the applied load on total pile shortening
in PTP-2 for the two continuous cycles. As shown in Figure
12(a), the higher depth of the test pile (z , 7 .816 m) resulted in
less shortening in the piles. The total elastic shortening deformation of test pile PTP-2 (for z 32 .068 m) was 5 .04 mm and

Geotechnical Engineering

2000

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

Load registered: kN
4000
6000

8000

Load registered: kN
5000
10 000

15 000

Depth below platform level: m

Depth below platform level: m

10

15

20

10

15

20

25

25
30
30
35
35
PTP-2-C1-738 kN

PTP-2-C1-1316 kN

PTP-2-C1-2013 kN

PTP-2-C1-2759 kN

PTP-2-C1-3320 kN

PTP-2-C1-3986 kN

PTP-2-C1-4741 kN

PTP-2-C1-5596 kN

PTP-2-C1-6051 kN

PTP-2-C1-6735 kN
(a)

PTP-2-C2-1750 kN

PTP-2-C2-3381 kN

PTP-2-C2-5025 kN

PTP-2-C2-6714 kN

PTP-2-C2-7321 kN

PTP-2-C2-7976 kN

PTP-2-C2-8661 kN

PTP-2-C2-9370 kN

PTP-2-C2-10 072 kN

PTP-2-C2-10 584 kN

PTP-2-C2-11 429 kN

PTP-2-C2-12 123 kN

PTP-2-C2-12 714 kN
(b)

PTP-2-C2-12 904 kN

Figure 9. Load distribution curve for PTP-2 in: (a) first cycle and
(b) second cycle, computed from VWSG

11 .61 mm for the applied loads 6735 kN and 12 904 kN, respectively. However, the corresponding plastic deformations of test
pile PTP-2 were less than 1 mm and 2 mm for the same loading
conditions, respectively.
3.4 Back-analysis of the full-scale pile-load test
As stated earlier, for bored piles the axial load capacity can be
evaluated empirically from the correlation of SPT-N values using
the modified Meyerhof method, where the ultimate bearing
capacity of a pile in compression is given by Equation 1

1:

Qu K s N s As K b (40N b )Ab

where Qu is the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile (in kN); Ks

is the empirical design factor relating the ultimate shaft load to
SPT values (kN/m2 per SPT blow); Ns is the SPT value for the
pile shaft (blows/300 mm); As is the perimeter area of the shaft
(m); Kb is the empirical design factor relating the ultimate endbearing load to SPT values (kN/m2 per SPT blow); Nb is the SPT

value for the pile base (blows/300 mm); and Ab is the crosssectional area of the pile base (m2).
Generally, the results of the load-transfer parameters for each of
the soil layers are summarised in the corresponding correlation of
SPT-N values plotted against maximum mobilised unit shaft
resistance. The skin friction factor will be calculated as the
changes in the mobilised unit friction resistance over the changes
in the SPT-N for a 0 .3 m penetration. A summary of the results of
the back-analysis of the ultimate skin friction factor (Ksu) for
PTP-1 and PTP-2 is given in Table 3.
The results of back-analysis of the ultimate end-bearing factor
Kbu for PTP-1 and PTP-2 are summarised in Table 4. The Kbu
values corresponding to the allowable settlement of 40 mm for
PTP-1 and PTP-2 were 7 .8 kPa and 2 .23 kPa, respectively. The
expected ultimate end-bearing capacities from the SPT-N results
for both PTP-1 and PTP-2 were 2977 .3 kN and 309 .2 kN, respectively. Compared to the obtained values for skin friction from the
SPT-N results for PTP-1 and PTP-2, the end-bearing values are
considered quite small. It is important to note that the base
9

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

100

8000

96

6000

Applied load: kN

Skin friction portion: %

Geotechnical Engineering

92
88

4000

2000

84
0
80

10 000

20 000
30 000
Applied load: kN

PTP-1-C1-skin friction

40 000

50 000

PTP-1-C2-skin friction

(a)

100

2
3
4
5
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-2 first cycle TT1 z 556 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT2 z 7816 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT3 z 17816 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT4 z 22816 m

PTP-2 first cycle TT5 z 32068 m

12 000

96

Applied load: kN

Skin friction portion: %

(a)

14 000

92

88

10 000
8000
6000
4000
2000

2000

4000

6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000

Applied load: kN

PTP-2-C1-skin friction
(b)

PTP-2-C2-skin friction

Figure 10. The portions of the skin friction and end bearing varied
with the applied load for: (a) PTP-1 depth z 36 .45 m; (b) in
PTP-2 depth z 32 .06 m

6
9
12
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-2 second cycle TT1 z 556 m
PTP-2 second cycle TT2 z 7816 m

15

PTP-2 second cycle TT3 z 17816 m

PTP-2 second cycle TT4 z 22816 m
PTP-2 second cycle TT5 z 32068 m
(b)

Figure 12. Effect of applied load on measured total pile

shortening by TT system for PTP-2: (a) first cycle; (b) second cycle

50 000

Applied load: kN

40 000

resistance of bored piles is usually ignored, since in comparison

to the magnitude of skin friction (particularly at the top of the
bored pile) the amount of end-bearing resistance in the soft soil
is negligible. In addition, it is difficult to obtain a clean base
during construction to ensure suitable end-bearing capacity.

30 000
20 000
10 000
0
0

10
15
20
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-1 first cycle
PTP-1 second cycle

Figure 11. Effect of applied load on measured total pile

shortening by GSE for PTP-1

10

Generally, the back-calculated Kb values represent a conservative

approach to end-bearing resistance factors, as the majority of the
piles were not tested to full failure. However, it can still serve as
a useful initial design guide for shaft resistance factors. The
back-analysis of a pile load test allows the evaluation of the soil
modulus and, consequently, the more accurate prediction of the
pile response. However, the obtained Ksu and Kbu values
particularly for these case studies could be different for other

Geotechnical Engineering

PTP-1

PTP-2

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

Level

Depth: m

GL to level B
Level B to level C
Level C to level D
Level D to level E
Level E to level F
Level F to level G
GL to level B
Level B to level C
Level C to level D
Level D to level E

5 .75
7 .125
6 .75
8 .50
6 .475
1 .85
3 .53
10 .0
6 .0
8 .252

Average
SPT-N

Unit skin
friction, fsu:
kPa

Ultimate skin
friction factor, Ksu:
kPa

Expected skin friction

from the SPT:
kN/m depth

15 .50
27 .50
110
122
150
160
30
39
122
195

29 .30
22 .90
243 .50
263 .50
284 .20
348 .50
68 .8
44 .6
72 .5
117 .7

1 .89
1 .20
2 .21
2 .16
1 .90
2 .18
2 .29
1 .14
0 .59
0 .60

168 .48
129 .5
1376 .9
1490 .0
1607 .1
1970 .6
216 .0
140 .0
227 .7
369 .6

Table 3. Summary of results of back-analysis on the ultimate skin

friction factor, Ksu, for PTP-1 and PTP-2

Test pile

PTP-1
PTP-2

Depth: m

36 .95
32 .56

SPT-N
values
150
176

Unit end bearing,

fbu: kPa
1170
393 .7

Ultimate end bearing

factor, Kbu: kPa

Area: m2

Expected end bearing

from SPT-N: kN

7 .8
2 .23

2 .5447
0 .7854

2977 .3
309 .2

Table 4. Results of back-analysis on the ultimate end-bearing

factor, Kbu, for PTP-1 and PTP-2

projects, depending upon the soil layer characteristics, loading

conditions and site effects. The available data are limited, and
thus more instrumentation data need to be combined to obtain
closer range values for the skin resistance factors and base
resistance factors. The use of the suggested values in this project
should be applied with caution, and establishing an MLT as a
prove test is recommended.

4.

Conclusion

This study can help engineers evaluate a pile under designed load
conditions. From the preceding analysis and discussion, the
following conclusions can be derived.
(a) The GSE method significantly simplifies the effort involved
in instrumentation by enabling the sensors to be post-installed
after casting the piles. This method also minimises the risk of
the instruments being damaged during concreting work,
compared with the conventional method.
(b) For the stiff soil layers where skin friction is significant,
increasing the applied load reduces the effect of skin friction
while increasing the effect of the end-bearing portion. It can be
concluded that an increasing proportion is taken up by endbearing as the shaft is fully mobilised. The obtained unit skin
friction resistance in soft soil layers between 0 , z , 15 m (for
PTP-1) and 0 , z , 5 m (for PTP-2) was insignificant in
relation to the total resistance capacity of the pile.

(c) The results imply that when the pile is loaded higher, the
influence of shaft friction is lower.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Research Management
Centre of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Ministry of
Higher Education (MOHE) for providing financial support
through research vote R.J130000.7822.4L130, thereby bringing
the idea into fruition.
REFERENCES

Abu Kiefa MA (1998) General regression neural networks for

driven piles in cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(12): 11771185.
Anoyatis G and Mylonakis G (2012) Dynamic Winkler modulus
for axially loaded piles. Geotechnique 62(6): 521536.
ASTM (2013) ASTM D1143/D1143M-07: Standard test methods
for deep foundations under static axial compressive load.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Aziz HA, Hanifah KM and Lee SK (2005) Innovation in
instrumented test piles in Malaysia: application of global strain
extensometer (GloStrExt) method for bored piles. Bulletin of
the Institution of Engineers Malaysia 11(10): 1019.
Badrun M (2011) Prediction of Ultimate Bored Pile Capacity
Using Global Strain Extensometer. MSc thesis, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Malaysia.
11

Geotechnical Engineering

Appraisal of reliable skin friction variation

in a bored pile
Nazir, Moayedi, Mosallanezhad and Tourtiz

Brown MJ, Hyde AFL and Anderson WF (2006) Analysis of a

Conference: Geotechnical Research and Its Application to

Canadian Resource Development. Canadian Geotechnical
Society, Richmond, BC, Canada, pp. 311316.
Ng CWW, Yau TLY, Li JHM and Tang WH (2001) Side resistance
of large diameter bored piles socketed into decomposed
rocks. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 127(8): 642657.
Poulos HG (1989) Pile behaviour theory and application.
Geotechnique 39(3): 365415.
Poulos HG (2007) Design charts for piles supporting
embankments on soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(5): 493501.
Prakash S and Sharma HD (1990) Pile Foundations in
Engineering Practice. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

rapid load test on an instrumented bored pile in clay.

Geotechnique 56(9): 627638.
BSI (1990) BS EN 1997: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part
7: Pile foundations. BSI, London, UK.
Chin FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles not carried
to failure. Proceedings of the 2nd Southeast Asian Conference
on Soil Engineering, SEAGS, Singapore, pp. 8190.
Comodromos EM, Anagnostopoulos CT and Georgiadis MK (2003)
Numerical assessment of axial pile group response based on
load test. Computers and Geotechnics 30(6): 505515.
Consoli NC, Casagrande MDT, Prietto PDM and Thome A (2003)
Plate load test on fiber-reinforced soil. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(10): 951955.
Coop MR and Wroth CP (1989) Field studies of an instrumented
model pile in clay. Geotechnique 39(4): 679696.
Dai G, Salgado R, Gong W and Zhang Y (2012) Load tests on
full-scale bored pile groups. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
49(11): 12931308.
Faisal A and Lee SK (2013) Measurement of strain distribution
along precast driven pile during pile load test. International
Journal of GEOMATE 2(8): 565573.
Fang HY (2002) Foundation Engineering Handbook. Kluwer
Academic, Norwell, MA, USA.
Fellenius BH, Kim SR and Chung SG (2009) Long-term monitoring
of strain in instrumented piles. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(11): 15831595.
Fleming WGK (1992) A new method for single pile settlement
prediction and analysis. Geotechnique 42(3): 411425.
Hanifah AA and Lee SK (2006) Application of global strain
extensometer (GLOSTREXT) method for instrumented bored
piles in Malaysia. Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, pp. 669676.
Holscher P, Van Tol AF and Huy NQ (2012) Rapid pile load tests
in the geotechnical centrifuge. Soils and Foundations 52(6):
11021117.
Hooley P and Brooks SRL (1993) The ultimate shaft frictional
resistance mobilised by bored piles in over-consolidated clays
and socketed into weak and weathered rock. In The
Engineering Geology of Weak Rock (Coulthard JM, Cripps JC,
Culshaw MG et al. (eds)). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
Engineering Geology Special Publications, pp. 447455.
Kister G, Winter D, Gebremichael YM et al. (2007) Methodology
and integrity monitoring of foundation concrete piles using
Bragg grating optical fibre sensors. Engineering Structures
29(9): 20482055.
Liew SS, Khoo CM, Tan ST and Loh YE (2011) Pile performance in
weathered meta-sedimentary formation and KL limestone.
Proceedings of the 14th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Curran Associates,
Red Hook, New York, NY, USA, pp. 740745.
Meyerhof GG and Yalcin AS (1983) Bearing capacity of rigid
piles and pile groups under eccentric and inclined loads in
clay. In Proceedings of the 36th Canadian Geotechnical
12

Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Brown PT, Grof I and Hughes

JMO (1985) Design of axially and laterally loaded piles using
in situ tests: a case history. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
22(4): 518527.
Salgado R (2013) Instrumentation and axial load testing of
displacement piles. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers Geotechnical Engineering 167(3): 238252,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.12.00080.
Salgado R, Prezzi M and Seo H (2007) Advanced modeling tools
for the analysis of axially loaded piles. Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Recent Advances in Deep
Foundations, IWDPF07, Yokosuka, Japan, pp. 4967.
Tomlinson MJ and Woodward J (2003) Pile Design and
Construction Practice. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK.
Xu ZH, Wang JH and Wang WD (2009) Deformation behavior of
deep excavations retained by bored pile wall in soft soil.
Yantu Lixue/Rock and Soil Mechanics 30(5): 13621366.
Zhang LM, Xu Y and Tang WH (2008) Calibration of models for
pile settlement analysis using 64 field load tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 45(1): 5973.
Zou DF (2013) Behaviors of bearing capacity of ultra-long bored
piles. Yantu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 35(1): 388392.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers
should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.