Geotechnical Engineering Discussion

Volume 167 Issue GE1 Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington et al.

the geotechnical reduction factors (similar to partial factors), and Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC,
a risk analysis matrix is used to search for a value of the USA.
reduction factor applicable to the specific design project being Burland JB, Butler FG and Dunican P (1966) The behaviour and
undertaken. This gives the design engineer the flexibility to design of large diameter bored piles in stiff clay. Proceedings
reduce the partial factors if good ground investigation data and of the ICE Symposium on Large Bored Piles, London, UK,
load testing are carried out, or increase them if designing in an pp. 51–71.
unfamiliar soil deposit. The code itself gives advice on the Caltrans (2011) California Amendments to Aashto LRFD Bridge
elements of geotechnical risk that the designer must consider; in Design Specifications, 4th edn. California Department of
other words, they recognise that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
perhaps limited. Eurocode 7 aims to achieve a similar result by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) (2010) Drilled Shafts:
encouraging the designer to vary the characteristic values of soil Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, Report
properties in relation to the quality of the supporting data, while No FHWA NHI-10-016. National Highway Institute,
keeping the values of partial factors constant. Washington, DC, USA.
Guha S (1995) Dynamic Characteristics of Old Bay Clay
The discussion of the adhesion factor Æ for bored pile design is Deposits in the East San Francisco Bay Area. PhD thesis,
interesting. The parameter Æ relates to the soil deposit being Purdue University, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
studied; the value Æ ¼ 0.5 is commonly used in London Clay. Paikowsky S (2004) Load and Resistance Factors for Deep
Increasing Æ to account for rate effects in clay might be Foundations, NCHRP Report 507. Transportation Research
warranted, but only if load-test data were also available (e.g. Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Burland et al., 1966). For example, previous use of ‘constant rate Patel D (1992) Interpretation of results of pile tests in London
of penetration’ tests generally showed slightly higher values of Æ Clay. In Piling: European Practice and Worldwide Trends
for London Clay (Patel, 1992). For static loading, Æ ¼ 0.7 used in (Sands MJ (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 100–
the Caltrans amendment, as noted by the discussers, does seem 110.
surprisingly high for a stiff clay (API, 1984); the overall Poulos HG (2004) An approach for assessing geotechnical
reliability of the design will depend not only on this and the reduction factors for pile design. Proceedings of the 9th
applied strength reduction factor, but also on the factors applied Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
to loads. We understand that, in practice, the use of this value is Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 1, pp. 109–115.
often replaced by results from load testing. Standards Australia (2009) AS2159-2009: Piling: design
and installation. Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW,
REFERENCES Australia.
Aashto (2007) LRFD bridge design specifications. Customary US Vardanega PJ, Kolody E, Pennington SH, Morrison PRJ and
Units, 4th edn. American Association of State Highway and Simpson B (2012) Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA. practice. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
API (1984) Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Geotechnical Engineering 165(4): 213–232.

88
cleanings can be performed either as a preventive maintenance op- are, to the authors’ best knowledge, no studies investigating the
eration to maintain permeate flux [through incorporating chemical impact of daily CEBs on the effectiveness of chemical cleaning
cleanings into regular physical cleaning processes, for example processes.
chemically enhanced backwashes (CEBs)], or as a recovery oper-
ation to recover membrane flux from a severely fouled membrane
module (Ramos et al. 2014). Chemically enhanced backwashes Materials and Methods
combine conventional physical backwashing with chemical clean-
ing in one process, which could be of high importance for the
Reactor Configuration
design and operation of membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems
for wastewater treatment. Recent studies using CEBs have typically A 1,000 L stainless steel anaerobic CSTR was equipped with an
been performed at long intervals (weekly or monthly cleaning proc- external nanofiltration tubular membrane module and operated in
esses) (Zhou et al. 2014). There have been few comparative studies cross-flow mode. A simplified process flow diagram (PFD) of the
on different cleaning methods and conditions, and scant informa- configuration may be viewed in Fig. 1. The anaerobic CSTR was
tion exists on CEBs, in general, in the literature (Ramos et al. 2014; equipped with a heat wrap, which maintained the reactor temper-
Zhou et al. 2014). Snowdon et al. (2018) observed that one 60 s ature at an average value of 36.2°C (
0.5°C) throughout the dura-
CEB every 24 h resulted in increased permeate flux, operational tion of the study. The operational temperature of approximately
permeability, and net flux, demonstrating CEBs’ effectiveness as 36°C was selected since it is the upper limit of mesophilic anaerobic
a preventive maintenance operation. digestion (25°C–35°C) and maximized biogas generation, which
This research project compared the efficiency of two different was desired (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
chemical cleaning processes applied to one membrane module Reactor-mixed liquor was continuously recirculated from the
integrated within a continuously operated pilot-scale AnMBR sys- CSTR to the membrane module and back into the CSTR by a pro-
tem. The two chemical cleaning processes were applied to the gressive cavity pump (Nemo, New Brunswick, Canada). This pump
membrane module only once it was severely fouled, acting as a maintained a mixed-liquor flow rate of 6,000 L=h, which resulted
recovery operation. As a secondary objective, the project investi- in the targeted membrane surface cross-flow velocity of 2.5 m=s
gated the impact of daily CEBs on the effectiveness of each and a complete recirculation of reactor contents every 10 min.
chemical cleaning process. The novel pilot-scale AnMBR system A cross-flow velocity of 2.5 m=s was selected since it is deemed
consisted of a 1,000 L anaerobic continuously stirred tank reactor to be the minimum operational cross-flow velocity that must be
(CSTR) integrated with an external nanofiltration tubular mem- maintained for the membrane module based on manufacturer rec-
brane module. The reactor and membrane configuration provided ommendations. It was desired to operate at the lower spectrum of
benefits over conventional cleaning processes in that the membrane the operational cross-flow velocity to minimize energy demands.
module did not need to be removed for chemical cleanings (since it The membrane module was cylindrical in shape, composed of poly-
could be isolated from the CSTR through a recirculation loop). This vinylidene fluoride (PVDF), with an outer diameter of 50 mm and
resulted in minimal downtime and maintenance work required for a total length of 1.436 m. The module contained 13 tubular mem-
chemical cleaning processes. With few direct comparative studies brane channels, each 8 mm in diameter, which resulted in a total
on different chemical cleanings applied to the same membrane membrane area of 0.42 m2 . The membrane surfaces had a mean
module, and little information in the literature on CEBs, there pore size of 30 nm.

Fig. 1. Simplified PFD of experimental setup.

© ASCE 04019018-2 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019018

Table 1. Chemical cleaning conditions
Cleaning Recirculation Soak time Number of backwashes and
process Cycle time (min) (min) duration (number and min) Chemical used
1 1 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% sodium hydroxide
2 N/A 20 N/A
3 30 N/A 2 and 2 min
4 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% citric acid
5 N/A 20 N/A
6 30 N/A 2 and 2 min
7 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
8 N/A 20 N/A
9 30 N/A 2 and 2 min
2 1 30 N/A N/A 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
2 N/A 60 N/A
3 30 N/A N/A
3 1 30 N/A N/A 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
2 N/A 60 N/A
3 30 N/A N/A
4 1 30 N/A N/A 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
2 N/A 60 N/A
3 30 N/A N/A
5 1 30 N/A N/A 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
2 N/A 60 N/A
3 30 N/A N/A
6 1 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% sodium hydroxide
2 N/A 20 N/A
3 30 N/A 2 and 2 min
4 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% citric acid
5 N/A 20 N/A
6 30 N/A 2 and 2 min
7 30 N/A 2 and 2 min 1% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite
8 N/A 20 N/A
9 30 N/A 2 and 2 min

chemical cleaning process. Finally, the chemicals used outline the module were also measured. These values allowed the MLF
exact concentration of chemical cleaning solutions applied to the and MLOP to be calculated. The mixed-liquor recoveries were
membrane module during each cleaning condition. calculated by dividing the post–chemical cleaning MLF or post–
Clean water flux was measured by isolating the CSTR recircu- chemical cleaning MLOP values by the initial MLF or initial
lation line from the CSTR itself, allowing a 50-L tank to be filled MLOP values measured on Day 2 of operation, and then multiply-
with clean water (maintained at around 30°C) and filtered through ing by 100. Equations used to calculate clean water and mixed-
the membrane module. Each clean water test recirculated the clean liquor recoveries are displayed in Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively:
water at five flow rates in increasing order (790, 1,580, 2,360,
3,150, and 3,940 L=h), and the resultant membrane fluxes and J; OPPC
TMPs were measured. Five different increasing flow rates were se- CW J;OP ð%Þ ¼ × 100 ð2Þ
J; OPo
lected to provide incremental increases in flux and TMP, reaching
the maximum flow rate of the recirculation loop at approximately
3,940 L=h. Operational permeability is defined as membrane flux
divided by instantaneous operational TMP, in other words pressure- J; OPPC
MLJ;OP ð%Þ ¼ × 100 ð3Þ
averaged flux, and may be defined by Eq. (1) (Hamden de Andrade J; OPo
et al. 2013):
Ji In Eq. (2), CW J;OP is the clean water flux or operational per-
OPi ¼ ð1Þ
ΔPi meability recovery (%), J; OPPC is the post–membrane cleaning
clean water membrane flux or clean water operational permeability
In Eq. (1), OPi is the instantaneous operational permeability (L=m2 =h, L=m2 =h=bar), and J, OPo is the initial clean water mem-
(L=m2 =h=bar), J i is the instantaneous membrane flux (L=m2 =h), brane flux or clean water operational permeability (L=m2 =h,
and ΔPi is the instantaneous transmembrane pressure (bar). Opera- L=m2 =h=bar). In Eq. (3), MLJ;OP is the mixed-liquor flux or opera-
tional permeability was considered so that TMP could be factored tional permeability recovery (%), J; OPPC is the post–membrane
into the flux recovery analysis. Clean water recoveries were calcu- cleaning mixed-liquor membrane flux or mixed-liquor operational
lated by dividing the post–chemical cleaning clean water flux or permeability (L=m2 =h, L=m2 =h=bar), and J; OPo is the initial
post–chemical cleaning clean water OP by the initial clean water mixed-liquor membrane flux or mixed-liquor operational per-
flux or initial OP values measured on Day 1 of operation, and then meability (L=m2 =h, L=m2 =h=bar).
multiplying by 100. Once the membrane module was placed back Membrane resistance coefficients were calculated using the
inline for mixed-liquor recirculation, and after 24 h of recirculation resistance-in-series model [Eq. (4)]. This equation was adopted and
at a flow rate of 6,000 L=h, the flux and TMP of the membrane developed from other studies (Ruigomez et al. 2017):

© ASCE 04019018-4 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019018

 
the UASB Reactor Treating Starch Wastewater[J]. Industrial Safety and
tion produced by the compound flocculating agent produce
Environmental Protection, 2010,36˄5˅ ˖1̚2.
bacteria flocculant M17 synthesis was in the best effect. ᴢѮዄˈ䰜⍯ˈ䮿ᯁ. UASB ডᑨ఼໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᬜᵰঞᕅડ಴㋴[J].
ᎹϮᅝܼϢ⦃ֱˈ2010,36˄5˅ ˖1̚2.
When the flocculant was used in processing breeding [8] ZHANG Chunyan. Study on the UASB reactor treating starch wastewa-
wastewater, printing and dyeing money wastewater the ter[J]. municipal technology, 2008,26˄4˅ ˖334̚336.
ᓴ᯹㡇. UASB Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⷨお[J].Ꮦᬓᡔᴃˈ2008,26˄4˅ ˖
highest removal rates of COD, turbidity and chromaticity 334̚336.
are 54%, 88% and 75%. [9] GONG Qi. Study on the ABR reactor treating starch wastewater[J]. Envi-
ron. Sci. Manag. 2009,34˄4˅ ˖94̚97.
5 Conclusions 啮䍋. ABR ໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘⷨお[J].⦃๗⾥ᄺϢㅵ⧚ˈ2009,34˄4˅ ˖94̚
Domestic and international common starch wastewater 97.
[10] RUAN Jinyi, PENG Chengzhong. Starch wastewater treatment with
treatment in general can be divided into biochemical compound fluidized bed [J]. Oil Chemical Engineering, 1990,19˄8˅ ˖560̚
563.
method and chemical flocculation precipitation. COD in Ḓ䞥Нˈᕁ៤Ё.໡ড়⫳⠽⌕࣪ᑞ໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].⷇⊍࣪Ꮉˈ1990,19
starch wastewater is high concentration, so anaerobic bio- ˄8˅ ˖560̚563.
[11] Matsumoto AˈSakamoto M NoiKE T. A new opration of the bohydrate
logical treatment method used as the main process has ad- containing wastewater treatment in a aeobic fludized bed sys-
vantages such as low energy consumption and recycling tem[J].Wat.Sci.Tech..1992,26(9-11):2453̚2456.
[12] Jin B,Van Leeuwen J,Patel B,et al.Production of fungal protein and glu-
resource, which draws increasingly attention. The high coamylase by Rhizopus oligosporus from starch processing wastewa-
ter[J].Process Biochem,1999(34):59̚65.
concentration of effluent in anaerobic treatment method
[13] LIAO Xinkai, LI Qingbiao, CHEN Wenmou et al. Study on Starch Syn-
must pass subsequent aerobic biology and also combine thetic Wastewater Treatment by SBR Process[J]. Journal of Xiamen Uni-
versity(Natural Science), 2004,43˄3˅ ˖376.
with flocculation precipitation and other various methods ᒪ䨿߃ˈᴢ⏙ᔾˈ䰜᭛䇟ˈㄝ.SBR ⊩໘⧚῵ᢳ⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᎹ㡎ᴵӊⷨ
to achieve better treatment effect and standard effluent to お[J].ॺ䮼໻ᄺᄺ᡹˄㞾✊⾥ᄺ⠜˅ˈ2004,43˄3˅ ˖376.
[14] LIANG Jiajun, GAO Xinhong. model test of Starch wastewater treat-
discharge. Therefore, corn starch wastewater treatment ment with A/O process[J]. Science & Technology Information, 2007ˈ
ideas should put resources at first, recycling dry matter like ˄28˅ ˖317̚322.
ṕᆊ֞ˈ催ᖗ㑶. A/O Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ῵ൟ䆩偠[J].⾥ᡔֵᙃˈ
protein and biomass energy. The treatment procedure 2007ˈ ˄28˅ ˖317̚322.
should be “resource recycling + anaerobic digestion (en- [15] LIU Gengyun, LI Yawei, SAI Yin. Flocculent and Biological Treament
of Starch Wastewater[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Nei-
ergy recovery) + aerobic biological treatment + physico- mongol, 2002,33˄2˅ ˖230̚235.
߬㗩㗬ˈᴢѮ࿕ˈ䌯䷇.⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ㍂‫⎔≝ޱ‬ঞ⫳⠽໘⧚[J].‫ݙ‬㩭স໻ᄺ
chemical method deep treatment". ᄺ᡹˄㞾✊⾥ᄺ⠜˅ ˈ2002,33˄2˅ ˖230̚235.
[16] LIU Hui, ZHOU Kangqun, LIU Jieping, etal. Study on treament of
starch wastewater by microbial flocculant[J]. Journal of Zhongkai Agro-
References(খ㗗᭛⤂) technical College, 2004,17˄2˅ ˖47̚50.
߬ᰪˈ਼ᒋ㕸ˈ߬⋕㧡ˈㄝ.ᖂ⫳⠽㍂‫ࠖޱ‬໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].ӆᙎ‫ݰ‬Ϯ
[1] LI Shanping, GAN Hainan. Operation and management of starch waste-
ᡔᴃᄺ䰶ᄺ᡹ˈ2004,17˄2˅ ˖47̚50.
water treatment[M]. China Environmental science press, 2000
[17] Poesponegoro,Milino.Microbial flocculation in relationship to wastewa-
ᴢ୘ᑇˈ⫬⍋फ.⎔㉝⫳ѻᑳ∈໘⧚ⱘ䖤㸠Ϣㅵ⧚[M].࣫Ҁ˖Ё೑⦃๗
ter treatment processes: isolation and screening of flo-producing microor-
⾥ᄺߎ⠜⼒ˈ2000. ganisms[J]. Biotechnol.Util.Biol. Resour. Trop.,1999,13:104̚114.
[2] Yokoyama S,Ogi T,Koguchi K.Direct liquefaction of activated sludge from [18] MU Jianbo, REN Hui, DI Yigang, et al. Research on Usage on
aerobic treatment of effluents from the cornstarch indus- Air-Floating Integral Unit Column in Treating the Waste Water of
try[J].Biomass,1990,23(3):215̚228. Starch[J]. Henan Chemical Industry, 2002,8:14̚15.
[3]
CAI Jing, CHAI Sheli, RUI Mingxian et al. Starch wastewater treatment
⠻ࠥ⊶ˈӏ᜻ˈϕϔ߮ˈㄝ.⇨⍂ϔԧ࣪㺙㕂໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᑨ⫼ⷨお
technology[J]. Envin. Eng. 2007,25˄1˅ ˖72̚74.
[J].⊇फ࣪Ꮉˈ2002,8:14̚15.
㫵᱊ˈ᷈⼒ゟˈ㢂䫁‫ܜ‬ㄝ.⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ໘⧚ᡔᴃ[J].⦃๗Ꮉ⿟ˈ [19] BELING U A,SEYFIELD C F.Anaerobix Aerobic Treatment of Po-
2007,25˄1˅ ˖72̚74. tato-Starch wastewater[J].Water Science and Technol-
[4] Wang R M,Wang Y,Ma G P,et al. Efficiency of porous burnt-coke carrier ogy,1993,28(2):165̚176.
on treatment of potato starch wastewater with an anaerobic-aerobic biore- [20] LV Rong. Zero discharge of starch wastewater in starch production
actor[J].Chem Eng J,2009(148):35̚40. [J].Starch and Starch Sugar,1999˄4˅ ˖26̚27.
[5]
YANG Kaiming, YANG Xiaolin, ZHANG Hua et al. UBF-CASS process
৩㤷. ⎔㉝⫳ѻЁᅲ⦄᳝ᴎᑳ∈䳊ᥦᬒ[J]. ⎔㉝Ϣ⎔㉝㊪ˈ1999˄4˅ ˖
for starch wastewater treatment[J]. Water & Wastewater Eng. 2009,35˄5˅ ˖
26̚27.
69̚70.
[21] YANG Fengjiang, LI Liming. Starch wastewater treatment with water
ᴼᓔᯢˈᴼᇣᵫˈᓴढㄝ.UBF-CASS Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].㒭∈ᥦ plant[J]. Environ. Protect. Sci. 1996, 2˄2˅ ˖24̚26.
∈ˈ2009,35˄5˅ ˖69̚70. ᴼ޸∳ˈᴢゟᯢ.߽⫼∈⫳ỡ⠽⊏⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].⦃๗ֱᡸ⾥ᄺˈ1996ˈ,2
[6] SHI Hui, XUE Jianliang, WANG Xiaodong. EGSB- A /O Process for
˄2˅ ˖24̚26.
Treatment of High Concentration Starch Wastewater[J]. Industrial Water
[22] WANG Yuxin, LIU Chunchao, QIAN Xinmin. Study on starch wastewa-
Treatment, 2009,29˄9˅ ˖81̚83.
ter treatment with photosynthetic bacteria[J]. Environ. Sci, 1995,16˄3˅ ˖
⷇᜻ˈ㭯ᓎ㡃ˈ⥟ュ‫ހ‬.EGSB—A/O Ꮉ㡎໘⧚催⌧ᑺ⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᎹ⿟ᑨ
39̚40.
⫼[J].ᎹϮ∈໘⧚ˈ2009,29˄9˅ ˖81̚83.
⥟ᅛᮄˈ߬᯹ᳱˈ䪅ᮄ⇥.‫ܝ‬ড়㒚㦠໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘЁ䆩ⷨお[J].⦃๗
[7] LI Yafeng, CHEN Tao, YAN Xu. The Effect and the Influential Factors of
⾥ᄺ 1995,16˄3˅ ˖39̚40.


Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

The term ‘partial factor’ is used for the ‘’ terms to include all limits are summarised in Figure 3. Data from 102 mm unconsoli-
types of factors used in the various codes (factor of safety, partial dated, undrained (UU) triaxial tests (Figure 4) and correlated
factor, model factor and so on). Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data (Figure 5) show the
variation of undrained shear strength (cu ) with depth in the clay.
In order to compare the different codes fairly a quantity Qwork ,
termed the working load, is defined

6: Qwork ¼ G þ V B1

The value of Qwork includes no partial factors and G and V are B5

unfactored loads. B6

B3
4. Design problem and site data
To illustrate how independently developed codes of practice
B4
affect the design of a single pile in clay, as well as the influence B2
that different methods of analysis have on the resulting design, 200 m
the following example is presented.
Foundation location
An engineer has been asked to determine the allowable working
load (Qwork , defined as the combined unfactored permanent plus
variable load) of the piles shown in Figure 1. In this paper, for Figure 2. Location of foundation and boreholes (1 cm ¼ 30 m)
simplicity, eccentricity of loading is not considered. The pile to
be designed is a bored, straight-shafted, cast-in-place concrete
pile, with no load testing carried out on the site. The variable Moisture content: %
load (V) is assumed to be 0.25 times the permanent load (G). 0 20 40 60 80
0
This is a generic permanent to variable load ratio that has been
taken to simulate a standard structure. Information based on
Simpson et al. (1980) has been used to provide ground investiga-
tion data for the London Clay deposit. Data were collected from 5
six boreholes with locations as shown on Figure 2. The Atterberg

10
G⫽? V ⫽ 0·25G
V⫽?

15
Depth: m

Made ground 3m
20

London Clay

25
G and V to be calculated
17 m
for piles 10–20 m long

30

35
Woolwich and Plastic Liquid
BH1 BH4
Reading beds limit Moisture content limit
BH2 BH5
BH3 BH6

Figure 1. Idealised soil profile and pile to be designed Figure 3. Site Atterberg limits

215
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

SPT blowcount, N

p
analysis. Comments on Stroud (1974) with respect to the lack of Figure 5. Results from SPT measurements
statistical treatment have been made (Reid and Taylor, 2010).
Vardanega and Bolton (2011) showed that a power curve, drawn

through Stroud’s data (Figure 6) is a good statistical relationship

Undrained shear strength, cu: kPa that could be fitted to the data. The coefficient of determination
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 (R2 ) of the regression line is 0.37 (R2 ¼ 0.37). The regression
0
Depth below ground level, d: m

B1 curve is similar to Stroud’s original line and the use of either

4 curve results in Equation 7 for a plasticity index of 40%. There is
B2 a divergence between the two curves at low and high plasticity
8 B3 indices.

12 B4 5. Undrained shear strength (cu )

B5 relationship with depth
16
Figure 7 shows the combined data from Figures 4 and 5
B6 (converted SPTs and data from 102 mm UU triaxial tests), with
20
linear regression lines through the undrained strength data of
Figure 4. Results from triaxial tests individual boreholes. The slope does not vary considerably for
the six boreholes. The data points are not highly scattered with

10
London Clay
9 cu / N60 ⫽ 9·96(Ip)⫺0·22 Woolwich and Reading Clay
R2 ⫽ 0·37
8 n ⫽ 53 Keuper Marl
p ⬍ 0·001 Oxford Clay
7
Bracklesham beds
cu / N60: kN/m2

6 Kimmeridge Clay

5 Boulder Clay
Sunnybrook Till
4
Upper Lias Clay
3
Laminated Clay
2 Flints
Stroud's line
1
Power (all)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Plasticity index, Ip: %

Figure 6. Relationship between cu /N60 and Ip for a variety of clays

(replotted from Stroud (1974) and Vardanega and Bolton (2011))

216
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

Risk factor Weighting Individual risk Comments

factor, w i rating (IRR)

Site

Geological complexity of 2 2 Well-understood soil strata, London Clay is widely studied and lots of
site testing done on this site
Low risk
Extent of ground 2 2 Relatively deep boreholes with lots of test data down to pile depth
investigation proposed
Low risk
Amount and quality of 2 3 Undrained triaxial data and SPTs taken
geotechnical data Moderate risk

Design

Moderate risk

Note: The pile design shall include the risk circumstances for each individual risk category and consideration of all of the relevant site and
construction factors (AS2159 T4.3.2(A)).

Table 3. Geotechnical risk factors, weightings and ratings

to determine the reduction factor on the geotechnical calculations. Qd ¼ 1 G þ 2 V

It bounds the value of gb between 0.67 and 0.4 for low- 2 ð 3
L ,
redundancy systems and between 0.76 and 0.47 for high-redun-
6DÆ ð cu =3 Þdz 7
dancy systems. For low-redundancy problems, this is akin to 4 Ab N c ð cu =4 Þ5
¼ o
þ 7
dividing the calculated resistances by 1.50 for very low risk and 5: 5 6
2.5 for very high risk, as shown in the ‘Equivalent 7 ’ column in
Table 4; that is, the ‘partial factor’ on the geotechnical resistance
is between 1.5 and 2.5 with the loading being considered
separately. ðL !,
Qd ¼ 1 G þ 2 V ¼ DÆ cu dz þ Ab N c cu 7
7.2 Design calculations 17: o
For design to AS2159-2009 Equation 5 reduces to Equation 17

220
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

Range of average risk Overall risk category Low-redundancy systems High-redundancy systems
rating (ARR)
gb Equivalent 7 gb Equivalent 7

ARR < 1.5 Very low 0.67 1.50 0.76 1.32

1.5 , ARR < 2.0 Very low to low 0.61 1.64 0.70 1.43
2.0 , ARR < 2.5 Low 0.56 1.79 0.64 1.56
2.5 , ARR < 3.0 Low to moderate 0.52 1.92 0.60 1.67
3.0 , ARR < 3.5 Moderate 0.48 2.08 0.56 1.79
3.5 , ARR < 4.0 Moderate to high 0.45 2.22 0.53 1.89
4.0 , ARR < 4.5 High 0.42 2.38 0.50 2.00
ARR . 4.5 Very high 0.40 2.50 0.47 2.13

Table 4. Basic geotechnical strength reduction factor for average

risk rating

where approaches: DA1, DA2 and DA3. Partial factors can be applied
1 , partial factor on permanent load ¼1.2 (AS1170) to the actions ‘A’ (i.e. the loads), the material properties ‘M’ (e.g.
2 , partial factor on variable load ¼ 1.5 (AS1170) soil strengths) and the resistances ‘R’ (e.g. skin friction). Differ-
7 ¼ 1/ g ¼ 1.92. ent design approaches use different combinations of partial
factors. In order for the code to be used within a particular
For a 15 m long (12 m into the clay), 0.45 m diameter pile country, the national standards body of that country is required to
produce a national annex (NA). The NA will specify which
Qd ¼ 1 G þ 2 V design approach(es) is/are permitted for construction in that
" country, and specifies the values of the partial factors to be used.
ð 12 In order to demonstrate the use of each design approach, three
¼ DÆ (9:86z þ 39)dz countries have been selected on the basis of their NA choice: the
o
UK for DA1, Ireland for DA2 and the Netherlands for DA3.
#,
þAb N c (9:86 3 12 þ 39) 7
18: 9. EC 7 – design approach 1 (UK national
approach)
9.1 Partial factors

d
Variable load 1.5 2
design value of the resistance, Rd (the design capacity)
Permanent load 1.35 1
Skin friction 1.0 5
20: Ed < Rd
Base resistance 1.0 6

Table 5. DA1-1 partial factors used

For design by calculation, Eurocode 7 presents three design

221
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

2 ðL 3
,
Description Partial factor  term
6DÆ cu dz 7
4 A b N c cu 5
:
Qd ¼ G þ 1 3V ¼ o
þ 1: 4
Variable load 1.3 2 22: 1: 6 2: 0
Permanent load 1.0 1
Skin friction 1.5 (driven piles) 5
1.6 (bored piles)
Base resistance 1.7 (driven piles) 6 For the 15 m pile (12 m into the clay) of 0.45 m diameter
2.0 (bored piles) DA1-1
Note: Partial factors on resistances can be reduced with explicit
verification of serviceability limit state (not applicable for this  
example).
: : : 832:6 225:2
Qd ¼ 1 35G þ 1 5(0 25G) ¼ þ : 1: 4
23: 1: 0 10
Table 6. DA1-2 partial factors used

if the modification of the results makes use of a model factor, it 24: 1:725G ¼ ½832:6 þ 225:2=1:4
should take account of: the range of uncertainty in the results of the
method of analysis; any systematic errors known to be associated with
the method of analysis.
G ¼ 438.0 kN
V ¼ 109.5 kN
The UK NA introduces a model factor termed ªRd : In this Qwork ¼ 547.5 kN
example it is applied to the calculated shaft and base resistances The equivalent factor of safety is 1057.8/547.5 ¼ 1.93.
to account for the fact that the analysis model is empirically DA1-2 (governs)
based. The UK NA requires a value of 1.4 (which would be
reduced to 1.2 if there were load testing). This term is represented
in Equation 6 at the 7 term; for more information on pile design  
: : : 832:6 225:2
to Eurocode 7 see Bond and Simpson (2010). Qd ¼ 1 0G þ 1 3(0 25G) ¼ þ : 1: 4
25: 1: 6 20
9.3 Design calculations
For a DA1-1 calculation Equation 5 reduces to Equation 25 and
for a DA1-2 calculation Equation 5 reduces to Equation 22,
assuming that no load testing is carried out 26: 1:325G ¼ ð832:6=1:6 þ 225:2=2Þ=1:4

Qd ¼ 1 35G þ 1 5V ¼ D cu dz þ Ab Nc cu 14 Table 7 presents the parameters to be used for the Irish adoption
21: o
of DA2.

10.2 Design calculation

DA1-2; terms 1 , 3 and 4 are equal to unity and have been Therefore, for DA2 design to the Irish NA Equation 5 reduces to
omitted Equation 27

222
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

( j) The major reason SNiP appears unconservative is that the

d ¼ 35

107.7
388.4
447.5
174.0
partial factor on resistance (1.4) and the partial factor on
actions (1.2) are both relatively low. It is not known if the
estimates of skin friction are conservative or not as the source
of the data in SNiP Tables 2 and 7 (Figures 11 and 12 in this

d ¼ 30

89.2
341.1
405.1
160.5
paper) is unclear. A comparison with Æcu values derived
suggests that they are high at shallow depth and low at
greater depth. Overall for the 12 m pile, there is little
difference between the SNiP representative resistance and

d ¼ 25

79.1
303.5
365.0
146.8
that derived from the ‘Æ’ method. It would be interesting to
know performance statistics for piled foundation systems
constructed under the SNiP framework.

d ¼ 20

74.1
275.6
329.2
133.6
Acknowledgements
Thanks must go to the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and Ove
Arup and Partners for providing financial support to the first
author. The first author offers thanks to Professor Malcolm

d ¼ 15

61.4
236.0
288.5
119.8
Bolton for his supervision. The authors would also like to thank
Professor Harry Poulos for providing a draft copy of AS2159-
2009 for examination and for his advice on an early draft of the
paper.
d ¼ 10

52.2
203.7
252.2
106.6
Appendix – SNiP design charts
For the shaft resistance of piles in clay, cubic equations of the
form in Equation 42 were fitted to the data tables from SNiP. The
.1
.7
.4
.7
8

48.0
168.5
195.9

Depth of stratum: m
d¼3

80.
displacement and bored piles, fi : kPa

200
1 2
180
3 4
Shaft resistance for driven,

Table 12. Fitted coefficients (Table 2, SNiP)

160 5 6
43.8
151.3
174.5
70.6
d¼2

140 8 10
120 15 20
100 25 30
35
80
90.1
230.7
206.0
67.2
d¼1

60
40
20
Stratum depth,

0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0·7 0·8 0·9 1·0 1·1
Liquidity index, IL
d: m

Figure 13. Graphical representation of Table 2 in SNiP 2.02.03-85

b
a

c
z

230
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

Design resistance, R: d¼3 d¼5 d¼7 d ¼ 10 d ¼ 12 d ¼ 15 d ¼ 18 d ¼ 20 d ¼ 30 d ¼ 40

kPa below the pile tip

A 1054 1107 1196 1250 1446 1679 1911 2107 3300 5000
K 845 875 1116 1325 1541 1811 2088 2304 3300 4500

Table 13. Fitted coefficients (Table 7, SNiP)

Pile base depth: m

Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 301–309.
5000 3 5
10 NEN (Netherlands Standardization Institute) (2007) Eurocode 7:
4500 7
Base resistance at pile toe for

12 15 National Annex to NEN-EN 1997-1 – Geotechnical design –

4000 18 20 Part 1: General rules. NEN, Delft, the Netherlands.
bored piles, R: kPa

3500 30 40
NSAI (National Standards Authority Ireland) (2005) National
3000
Annex Eurocode 7: I. S. EN 1997-1-2005: Geotechnical
2500
design – Part 1: General rules. NSAI, Dublin, Ireland.
2000
Patel D (1992) Interpretation of results of pile tests in London
1500
Clay. In: Piling: European Practice and Worldwide Trends
1000
(Sands MJ (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 100–
500 110.
0 Poulos HG (2004) An approach for assessing geotechnical
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6
Liquidity index, IL reduction factors for pile design. In Proceedings of the 9th
Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics
Figure 14. Graphical representation of Table 7 in SNiP 2.2.03-85 Auckland, New Zealand (New Zealand Geotechnical Society
and Australian Geomechanics Society (eds)), vol. 1, pp. 109–
115.
REFERENCES Reid A and Taylor J (2010) The misuse of SPTs in fine soils and
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) (2007) LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 4th edn. AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA
(with 2008 interim revisions).
Bond AJ and Simpson B (2010) Pile design to Eurocode 7 and the
UK National Annex Part 2: UK National Annex. Ground
Engineering 43(1): 28–31.
BSI (1986) BS 8004: 1986: Code of practice for foundations. BSI,
Milton Keynes, UK.
BSI (2007) National Annex to Eurocode 7: BS EN 1997-1-2004:
Geotechnical design – part 1: general rules. BSI, Milton
Keynes, UK.
BSI (2010) Eurocode 7: BS EN 1997-1-2004: Geotechincal design
– part 1: general rules. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK
(incorporating corrigenda February 2009).
LDSA (London District Surveyors Association) (ed.) (2000)
Guidance Notes for the Design of Straight Shafted Bored
Piles in London Clay. LDSA Publications, Bromley, UK,
Guidance Note 1.
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations (11th Terzaghi Lecture). Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 102(3): 195–228.
Muir Wood D (1983) Index properties and critical state soil
mechanics. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent
Developments in Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of design actions – part 0: general principles. Standards
Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 6–9 December 1983. Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

231
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

Standards Australia (2009) AS2159-2009: Piling – design and edn. Longman Group, Harlow, UK.
installation. Standards Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Vardanega PJ and Bolton MD (2011) Strength mobilization in
Australia. clays and silts. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48(10):
Stroud MA (1974) The standard penetration test in sensitive clays 1485–1503.
and soft rocks. Proceedings of the European Seminar on Vardanega PJ, Williamson MG and Bolton MD (2012) Bored pile
Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Sweden, vol. 2:2, pp. 366– design in stiff clay II: mechanisms and uncertainty.
375. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Tomlinson MJ (1986) Foundation Design and Construction, 5th Geotechnical Engineering 165(4): 233–246.
Contribution by Nick O’Riordan and Brandon a stiff clay could exhibit higher stiffness and strength. Guha (1995)
Kluzniak showed an increase in stiffness and strength, for the Old Bay Clay
Vardanega et al. (2012) have produced an interesting examination contemplated by the authors, of approximately 5% per order-of-
of various code approaches to the design of bored piles in stiff clay magnitude increase in strain rate over that produced from slow
(Vardanega et al., 2012). Included in the codes considered was the undrained strength testing in a conventional laboratory. The high Æ
Aashto (2007) load and resistance factor design (LRFD) bridge factor of 0.7 may in part reflect an allowance for such rate effects.
design specification document, and strict application of that
document produced an equivalent lumped factor of safety, F, of Finally, we draw the authors’ attention to FHWA (2010), in which
between 3.41 and 3.85, using undrained strength data. These are by Aashto (2007) is rigorously reviewed. Great stress is given to pile
far the highest values of F found by the authors, and imply that the load testing and back-analysis in order to provide continuing
Aashto design method will produce a larger, less efficient pile than
other codes considered.

Pile design practice in the USA varies from state to state, and
some states have published amendments to Aashto (2007) to take
account of local conditions. In California for example, Caltrans
(2011), at Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 for bored (‘drilled’) pile construc-
tion, replaces the Aashto resistance factor on pile shaft resistance
of 0.45 with 0.7, and the Aashto resistance factor on pile base
resistance of 0.4 with 0.5. Caltrans (2011) cites engineering
judgement and past design practice as the primary reasons for
these amendments. Caltrans (2011) stresses the importance of
construction quality control, and states that the ‘full effectiveness
of the tip resistance should only be permitted when cleaning of
the bottom of the drilled shaft is specified and can be acceptably
completed before concrete is placed.’ The discussers cite the work of Paikowsky (2004), which suggests
that the partial factors for pile design can be determined from
Using the full Caltrans (2011) amendments, we calculate a value statistical calibration – again based on data. This implies that the
of F of 2.58, which falls perhaps fortuitously within the range database used to calibrate any partial factor set is ‘representative’
2.43 to 2.66 calculated using Eurocode 7. of the designs that will be carried out under its auspices.
Eurocode 7 assigns partial factors based on the experience of
Readers may be somewhat surprised at Caltrans’ use of, in effect, experts, who would have access to various databases, but it does
an equivalent Æ value of 0.7 for a stiff clay. This value can be not claim to have a load-test database that represents pile designs
related to a reliability index, , that represents the number of for the whole of Europe. The key is to have access to a database
standard deviations between the mean safety margin and the that is representative of the designs that will be done under the
failure limit (Paikowsky, 2004). Using this approach, an Æ value auspices of the code.
of 0.7 would imply a  value of about 2.5, rather than about 3.5
if using the lower, Aashto-specified resistance factors. Other codes also facilitate risk analysis, but not using explicit
statistical procedures. Vardanega et al. (2012) reviewed the
However, in California it is often the case that the governing load approaches described in AS2159-2009 (Standards Australia,
case is from short-term, rapid loading from seismic action, in which 2009) and Poulos (2004), where the code drafters set limits on

87
Geotechnical Engineering Discussion
Volume 167 Issue GE1 Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington et al.

the geotechnical reduction factors (similar to partial factors), and Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC,
a risk analysis matrix is used to search for a value of the USA.
reduction factor applicable to the specific design project being Burland JB, Butler FG and Dunican P (1966) The behaviour and
undertaken. This gives the design engineer the flexibility to design of large diameter bored piles in stiff clay. Proceedings
reduce the partial factors if good ground investigation data and of the ICE Symposium on Large Bored Piles, London, UK,
load testing are carried out, or increase them if designing in an pp. 51–71.
unfamiliar soil deposit. The code itself gives advice on the Caltrans (2011) California Amendments to Aashto LRFD Bridge
elements of geotechnical risk that the designer must consider; in Design Specifications, 4th edn. California Department of
other words, they recognise that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
perhaps limited. Eurocode 7 aims to achieve a similar result by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) (2010) Drilled Shafts:
encouraging the designer to vary the characteristic values of soil Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, Report
properties in relation to the quality of the supporting data, while No FHWA NHI-10-016. National Highway Institute,
keeping the values of partial factors constant. Washington, DC, USA.
Guha S (1995) Dynamic Characteristics of Old Bay Clay
The discussion of the adhesion factor Æ for bored pile design is Deposits in the East San Francisco Bay Area. PhD thesis,
interesting. The parameter Æ relates to the soil deposit being Purdue University, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
studied; the value Æ ¼ 0.5 is commonly used in London Clay. Paikowsky S (2004) Load and Resistance Factors for Deep
Increasing Æ to account for rate effects in clay might be Foundations, NCHRP Report 507. Transportation Research
warranted, but only if load-test data were also available (e.g. Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Burland et al., 1966). For example, previous use of ‘constant rate Patel D (1992) Interpretation of results of pile tests in London
of penetration’ tests generally showed slightly higher values of Æ Clay. In Piling: European Practice and Worldwide Trends
for London Clay (Patel, 1992). For static loading, Æ ¼ 0.7 used in (Sands MJ (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 100–
the Caltrans amendment, as noted by the discussers, does seem 110.
surprisingly high for a stiff clay (API, 1984); the overall Poulos HG (2004) An approach for assessing geotechnical
reliability of the design will depend not only on this and the reduction factors for pile design. Proceedings of the 9th
applied strength reduction factor, but also on the factors applied Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
to loads. We understand that, in practice, the use of this value is Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 1, pp. 109–115.
often replaced by results from load testing. Standards Australia (2009) AS2159-2009: Piling: design
and installation. Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW,
REFERENCES Australia.
Aashto (2007) LRFD bridge design specifications. Customary US Vardanega PJ, Kolody E, Pennington SH, Morrison PRJ and
Units, 4th edn. American Association of State Highway and Simpson B (2012) Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA. practice. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
API (1984) Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Geotechnical Engineering 165(4): 213–232.

88