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

Introduction positively, geotechnical structures must be designed so as to satisfy
their intended performance outcomes. Engineers try to achieve this
Geostructural systems are inherently variable. There is variability in by using various mechanical checks, along with rules of thumb that
load combinations and other actions, variability of material proper- have proven useful in previously successful projects.
ties in space (heterogeneity) and with time (process), variability in The aim of this paper is to review the evolution of methods
the behavioral mechanisms that need to be invoked to predict the for the evaluation of geostructural systems for the purposes of
system response, and variability with respect to the consequences design, from simple safety factors through partial factors and the
for human safety or property damage of an error in predicting that development of reliability assessments, to practical performance
response. Furthermore, the exceptional nonlinearity of geostruc- evaluations that shift the focus to serviceability. The topic will ul-
tural systems creates additional difficulties both for the definition timately entail good decision making under uncertainty, accounting
of appropriate material parameters and for the selection of appro- for the inherent variability, and nonlinearity of the systems under
priate behavior mechanisms. discussion. One key issue that must be faced is the balance between
The field of civil engineering as a whole is characterized by the the creation of design rules and their application in practice by
great uncertainties of the one-off construction of expensive and ex- well-educated professionals using their own judgment.
tensive infrastructure schemes that depend on unreliable materials,
weather, and human behavior for their success. Within civil engi- Failure
neering, geotechnical engineering is arguably the most susceptible
to these factors and therefore the most difficult to deal with. Geotechnical engineers are generally taught about past examples of
Perhaps for this reason, the cultures of decision making in geotech- failure early in their education (Morley 1996). The engineering stu-
nical and structural design have diverged, creating additional dent will often be exposed to discussions on prominent failures
communication difficulties on the topic of risk and reliability. such as the Aberfan disaster in Wales (HMSO 1967) and the failure
Similar to other branches of civil engineering, geotechnical of the Teton Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior Teton Dam
engineering tends to focus on the prevention of any sort of failure. Failure Review Group 1977), each of which was so catastrophic
Leonards (1982) describes failure as the “unacceptable difference as to wipe out much of the evidence of their actual causes, leading
between expected and observed performance.” Expressing the task to continuing speculation concerning mechanisms of cracking,
fluid transmission, and soil liquefaction. The geostructural failures
by tilting of the Transcona Grain Elevator ultimate collapse (Peck
1
Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. and Bryant 1953) and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which repre-
of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TR, U.K. (corresponding author). E-mail: sented a repairable serviceability failure (Terracina 1962), were
[email protected] more amenable to the verification of mechanisms by back-analysis.
2
Emeritus Professor of Soil Mechanics, Dept. of Engineering, Univ. of Designers must anticipate how their designs could fail (if built) so
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]
that catastrophic events can be prevented; this is why case studies
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 2, 2015; approved on
September 15, 2015; published online on December 16, 2015. Discussion are essential (Petroski 1994). Until recently, however, the focus was
period open until May 16, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted placed on mechanisms of ultimate collapse, rather than unservice-
for individual papers. This paper is part of the ASCE-ASME Journal of ability. Geotechnics is perhaps the only branch of engineering in
Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engi- which the performance in service of manufactured goods is rarely
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 2376-7642. the keystone of the design process.
Schneider, H. R. (1999). “Panel discussion: Definition and determination of Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2013a). “Discussion: Laboratory measurement
characteristic soil properties.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics of strength mobilisation in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett.,
and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 4, A. A. Balkema, Lisse, 3(1), 16–17.
Netherlands, 2271–2274. Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2014). “Discussion: Bored pile design in stiff clay. I:
Schwamb, T., et al. (2014). “Fibre optic monitoring of a deep circular codes of practice.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(1), 87–88.
excavation.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(2), 144–154. Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2011). “Strength mobilization in clays
Schweiger, H. F., Thurner, R., and Pöttler, R. (2001). “Reliability analysis and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(10), 1485–1503.
in geotechnics with deterministic finite elements: Theoretical concepts Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2012). “Corrigendum: Strength mo-
bilization in clays and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 49(5), 631.
and practical application.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2013). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
-3641(2001)1:4(389), 389–413.
Normalizing shear modulus and shear strain.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Scott, B., Kim, B. J., and Salgado, R. (2003). “Assessment of current load
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000887, 1575–1589.
factors for use in geotechnical load and resistance factor design.” Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2014). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003) Modeling considerations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
129:4(287), 287–295. (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001104, 06014004.
Simpson, B. (2000). “Partial factors: Where to apply them?” 〈http://www Vardanega, P. J., Kolody, E., Pennington, S. H., Morrison, P. R. J., and
.finzi-ceas.it/ceas/Docs/melbourne.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015). Simpson, B. (2012a). “Bored pile design in stiff clay. I: codes of prac-
Simpson, B., Pappin, J. W., and Croft, D. D. (1981). “An approach to limit tice.” Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 213–232.
state calculations in geotechnics.” Ground Eng., 14(6), 21–26, 28. Vardanega, P. J., Lau, B. H., Lam, S. Y., Haigh, S. K., Madabhushi, S. P. G.,
Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). “Allowable settlement of and Bolton, M. D. (2012b). “Laboratory measurement of strength mo-
buildings.” ICE Proc. Eng. Div., 5(6), 727–768. bilization in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett., 2(1), 9–15.
Stokoe, K. H., Zalachoris, G., Cox, B., and Park, K. (2011). “Field eval- Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2012c). “Bored pile
uations of the effects of stress state, strain amplitude and pore pressure design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.” Proc., Inst. Civ.
generation of shear moduli of geotechnical and MSW materials.” Proc., Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 233–246.
5th Int. Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, C.-K. Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2013b). “Corrigen-
Chung, Y.-H. Jung, H.-K. Kim, J.-S. Lee, and D.-S. Kim, eds., Vol. 1, dum: Bored pile design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.”
IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 120–140. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 166(5), 518.
Terracina, F. (1962). “Foundations of the tower of Pisa.” Géotechnique, Whitman, R. V. (2000). “Organising and evaluating uncertainty in geotech-
nical engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
12(4), 336–339.
1090-0241(2000)126:7(583), 583–593.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
Zhang, D. M., Phoon, K. K., Huang, H. W., and Fu, Q. F. (2015). “Char-
tice, Wiley, New York.
acteristation of model uncertainty for cantilever deflections in undrained
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2015). “Bridges for service life clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
beyond 100 years: Service limit design.” 〈http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ .0001205, 04014088.
onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2prepubR19B.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015). Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalised shear
U.S. Department of the Interior Teton Dam Failure Review Group. (1977). modulus and material damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
“Failure of Teton dam: A report of findings.” U.S. Government Printing viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453), 453–464.
Office, Washington, DC. Zhang, L., Tang, W. H., and Ng, C. W. W. (2001). “Reliability of axially
Vanmarcke, E. H. (1977). “Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles.” J. Geo- loaded driven piles groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
tech. Eng., 103(11), 1227–1246. (ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:12(1051), 1051–1060.
Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Volume 165 Issue GE4 Geotechnical Engineering 165 August 2012 Issue GE4
Pages 213–232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00062
Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of Paper 1100062
practice Received 29/06/2011 Accepted 12/01/2012
Published online 19/05/2012
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and Keywords: codes of practice & standards/design methods & aids/piles &
Simpson piling
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Bored pile design in stiff clay I:

codes of practice
j
1 Paul J. Vardanega MEngSc, MIEAust, A.M.ASCE j
3 Stuart H. Pennington BEng, BSurv, CEng, MICE
Graduate Researcher, Department of Engineering, University of Geotechnical Engineer, Ove Arup and Partners, London, UK
Cambridge, UK j
4 Paul R. J. Morrison MSc, DIC, PhD, CEng, MIEI
j
2 Ekaterina Kolody MSc Director, Ove Arup and Partners, London, UK
Geotechnical Engineer, Ove Arup and Partners, London, UK j
5 Brian Simpson OBE, FREng, MA, PhD, FICE
Fellow, Ove Arup and Partners, London, UK

j
1 j
2 j
3 j
4 j
5

The assessment of the allowable bearing load of bored piles ‘floating’ in stiff clay is a standard engineering task.
Although the soil mechanics is universal, engineers designing structures in different parts of the world will need to
take into account the pertinent codes of practice. It will be helpful to compare such codes, especially in relation to
their treatment of uncertainty in the design of bored piles. This paper presents a series of design calculations for a real
set of geotechnical data using four international codes of practice: the Australian, American, European and Russian
codes. The National Annexes of Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK are used in conjunction with the European code.
This selection of countries covers the three Eurocode 7 design approaches (DA1, DA2 and DA3). A non-codified design
method is used to provide a base case for comparative purposes with the six codified calculations. A companion paper
investigates the issues of soil mechanics in pile design methods, uncertainty in soil parameters and settlement criteria.

Notation 2 partial factor on variable load

Ab area of pile base 3 partial factor on cu along pile shaft
cu undrained shear strength (kPa) 4 partial factor on cu at pile base
D pile diameter (m) 5 partial factor on pile shaft resistance
Ed design value of effect of actions 6 partial factor on pile base resistance
fs unit skin friction (kPa) 7 partial factor on design resistance
G unfactored permanent load ªRD model factor used in the UK National Annex to
IL liquidity index Eurocode 7
IP plasticity index g geotechnical reduction factor
K testing benefit factor gb basic geotechnical reduction factor
L length of pile in clay stratum (m) tf intrinsic test factor
Nc bearing capacity factor
Qb base resistance of the pile (kN) 1. Introduction
Qd design load of a bored pile (kN) The design of piles in stiff over-consolidated clay is common in
Qs shaft resistance of the pile (kN) geotechnical engineering. The engineer uses judgement, experi-
QT geotechnical design resistance of a pile ence, available site data and knowledge of soil mechanics to
Qwork G + V ¼ working load (kN) complete the design task and ensure designs are compliant with
Rd design value of resistance the code of practice in force in the relevant jurisdiction. In this
Rd,g design geotechnical strength paper the requirements of AS2159-2009 in Australia (Standards
Rd,ug design ultimate geotechnical strength Australia, 2009), Eurocode 7 (BSI, 2010) in the European Union,
V unfactored variable load the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
z depth below top of clay stratum (m) Officials (AASHTO) load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
Æ correlation factor between unit skin friction ( fs ) and bridge design specifications (AASHTO, 2007) in the USA and
undrained shear strength (cu ) SNiP 2.02.03-85 (SNiP, 1985a) in Russia, are considered together
1 partial factor on permanent load with a simple lump factor of safety design method. The Eurocode

213
Geotechnical Engineering Bored pile design in stiff clay I: codes of
Volume 165 Issue GE4 practice
Vardanega, Kolody, Pennington, Morrison and
Simpson

SPT blowcount, N60

To convert the SPT N60 values to cu , Equation 7 was used (see
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 6) 0

Depth below ground level, d: m

B1
7: cu ¼ 4:4(N 60 ) 4
B2

8 B3
Plasticity index (Ip ) varies on site from about 30% to 50%
12 B4
(Figure 3). Using the correlation from Figure 6 for Ip ¼ 30%
gives a multiplier on N60 for cu of about 4.7 and for Ip ¼ 50% a B5
16
multiplier of 4.2. For an N60 equal to 40 the range in Ip values
B6
would correspond to a range of cu from 168 kPa to 188 kPa as Ip
20
decreases. An average Ip of 40% was adopted for the following
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

paper) is unclear. A comparison with Æcu values derived

d¼

34
40
16
8
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
47.1
186.7
234.4
100.7
d¼8

regression coefficients are shown in Table 12 and the plotted

functions in Figure 13.

42: f i ¼ a(I L )3 þ b(I L )2 þ c(I L ) þ z

41.2
168.2
214.7
93.7
d¼6

For the base resistance of piles in clay, linear equations of the

form shown below were fitted to the data tables from SNiP. The
58.9
198.2
226.4
93.0
d¼5

regression coefficients are shown in Table 13 and the plotted

functions in Figure 14.
76.6
225.8
235.1
91.1
d¼4

43: R ¼ A(I L ) þ K

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–

REFERENCES
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 Géotechnique 9(4): 153–173.
Piles in London Clay. LDSA Publications, Bromley, UK, SNiP (1985a) SNiP 2.02.03-85: Pile foundations. Federal Registry
Guidance Note 1. of National Building Codes and Standards of Russia,
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile Moscow, Russia.
foundations (11th Terzaghi Lecture). Journal of the SNiP (1985b) SNiP 2.01.07-85: Loads and effects. Federal
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 102(3): 195–228. Registry of National Building Codes and Standards of Russia,
Muir Wood D (1983) Index properties and critical state soil Moscow, Russia.
mechanics. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Standards Australia (2002) AS/NZS1170.0-2002: Structural
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 refinement of parameters for the design of piles.
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
Deposits in the East San Francisco Bay Area. PhD thesis,
Purdue University, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Paikowsky S (2004) Load and Resistance Factors for Deep
Foundations, NCHRP Report 507. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Patel D (1992) Interpretation of results of pile tests in London
Clay. In Piling: European Practice and Worldwide Trends
(Sands MJ (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 100–
110.
Poulos HG (2004) An approach for assessing geotechnical
reduction factors for pile design. Proceedings of the 9th
Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 1, pp. 109–115.
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