See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266896701

Buckling considerations in pile

design

Conference Paper · September 2005

DOI: 10.1201/NOE0415390637.ch93

CITATIONS READS

4 5,953

3 authors, including:

Tim Carrington Subhamoy Bhattacharya

Fugro World Wide University of Surrey
10 PUBLICATIONS 31 201 PUBLICATIONS 1,509
CITATIONS CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these

related projects:

Increasing the collapse time for non-engineered buildings View

project

Dynamic Behaviour of Soils of Haryana, India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subhamoy Bhattacharya on 18 Octo

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics: ISFOG 2005 – Gourvenec & Cassidy (eds)
© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 0 415 39063 X

Buckling considerations in pile design

S. Bhattacharya, T.M. Carrington & T.R. Aldridge

Fugro Limited, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: Buckling instability is one of the more destructive forms of pile failure. Buckling of piles
can be classified into two groups; (a) Global buckling, where a part or full length deforms longitudinally
as in Euler’s buckling of unsupported struts; (b) Local buckling where the cross-section of the pile deforms
and the damage is localised. Global buckling is currently considered in design where piles are partially
exposed or driven in extremely soft soil or during installation under driving stresses. Recent studies have
shown that fully embedded end-bearing piles passing through saturated loose to medium dense sand can
buckle if the surrounding soil liquefies in an earthquake. There have been a number of cases where offshore
piles have collapsed during driving due to progressive closure of the internal dimensions – the initiat-
ing mechanism being local buckling. This paper summarizes the different cases where buckling should be
considered in pile design. Mechanisms of collapse of offshore piles by local buckling are discussed in a
companion paper.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Limit State of Collapse and Limit State of

Serviceability
1.1 Buckling as a mode of failure
The failure of piled foundations can be classified into
Buckling instability is one of the more destructive two groups:
forms of pile failure. It is sudden and is the cause
(a) Structural failure of the pile whereby the load
of failure of many, if not most structures. The import-
carrying capacity of the foundation drops, see for
ance of buckling instability in structural design
example Figure 1. The figure shows plastic hinges
cannot be underestimated. McRobie (2002) in his
formed in the piles during the 1964 Niigata earth-
introductory lecture on buckling to undergradu-
quake. The fundamental failure mechanisms that
ates states; “If you ever intend to design a structure,
do not even think of skipping these (buckling) lec-
tures”. This form of failure mechanism dominates
the design of slender members carrying substantial
axial loads. Piles are slender members normally used
to transfer the axial load of the superstructure to
the deep bearing strata. Bond (1989) collated embed-
ded lengths and diameters of piles used in practice.
The study shows that the length to diameter ratio
of piles ranges between 25 and 100. These can be
considered as slender columns, in the absence of soil
support.
Buckling of piles is currently considered in pile
design under the following headings:

1 Partially exposed piles, as in jetties or offshore

platforms where part of the pile is in water or air. Figure 1. Structural failure of piles by forming plastic
2 Piles in very soft soil (clay). hinges Hamada (1992). A piled foundation that collapsed
3 During pile installation by driving. during the 1964 Niigata earthquake.

815
 can cause plastic hinge formation in a pile are shear
failure, bending failure and buckling failure. The
above three forms of failure are often known as
LIMIT STATE OF COLLAPSE. It must be men-
tioned that each of these types of failure can cause
a complete collapse of the foundations.
(b) Failure by excessive settlement. Often the settle-
ment of piled foundations exceeds the acceptable
limits of the structure, which is essentially SER-
VICEABILITY LIMIT STATE. In this type of fail-
ure, the piles may not fail structurally.
This paper deals with the buckling aspect of Limit
State of Collapse.
1.3 Structural design of piles
Structurally most piles are designed against bending
failure due to lateral loads. The semi-empirical P-y
concept is normally used to design the piles. However,
this approach cannot be applied if buckling under axial
loading is a possibility for the member under consid-
eration. These considerations would lead to the fact
that, if part of the pile loses lateral support during its
design period, the pile should be treated as unsup-
ported column. The structural design of the pile in the
unsupported zone should be designed as a column
carrying lateral loads.
A recent investigation, Bhattacharya et al. (2004),
has revealed that fully embedded end bearing piles
passing through loose to medium dense sand can
buckle under the axial load alone if the surrounding soil
liquefies in an earthquake. Buckling of fully embedded
piles in extremely soft clay is known, but should also be
considered in loose to medium dense sand in liquefi-
able areas. This approach should be applied equally to
earthquake or wave induced liquefiable soils.
1.4 Purpose of this paper
This paper aims to list the cases where buckling
should be considered in design. Buckling of piles has
been subdivided into two groups:
(a) Local buckling, where the transverse section of
the pile deforms. In practice, this is often observed
at the pile tip.
(b) Global buckling, like Euler’s buckling of an unsup-
ported strut, where the longitudinal section of the
pile deforms.
Checking against local buckling is crucial for thin
walled sections and is an important consideration dur-
ing the installation of piles, particularly when driving
into extremely hard soil or rock. A companion paper,
Aldridge et al. (2005) in this symposium deals with pile
tip damage. Therefore, this paper does not address local
buckling. The codes of practice for pile design are
816
reviewed with respect to the current understanding.
A simplified design graph is recommended to avoid
global buckling of piles in liquefiable soils.
2 REVIEW OF CODES OF PRACTICE FOR
PILE DESIGN
This section of the paper reviews the design guide-
lines against buckling of piles in some of the most
used codes of practice.
2.1 Eurocode 7 and Part 5 of Eurocode 8
Eurocode 7 (1997) suggests that:
“Slender piles passing through water or thick deposits
of very weak soil need to be checked against buckling.
This check is not normally necessary when piles are
completely embedded in the ground unless the char-
acteristic undrained shear strength is less than 15 kPa”.
For design of piles in seismic areas, Eurocode 8
advises designers to design against bending due to iner-
tia and kinematic forces arising from the deformation
of the surrounding soil. It says:
“Piles shall be designed to remain elastic. When this
is not feasible, the sections of the potential plastic
hinging must be designed according to the rules of
Part 1–3 of Eurocode 8”.
Eurocode 8 (Part 5) also says:
“Potential plastic hinging shall be assumed for:
a region of 2d from the pile cap
a region of
2d from any interface between two
layers with markedly different shear stiffness (ratio of
shear moduli 6)
where d denotes the pile diameter. Such region shall
be ductile, using proper confining reinforcements”.
2.2 American Petroleum Institute (API)
Clause 3.3.1.b of API (2000) recommends the
following:
“Column buckling tendencies should be considered
for piling below the mudline. Overall column buck-
ling is normally not a problem in pile design, because
even soft soils help to inhibit overall column buckling.
However, when laterally loaded pilings are subject to
significant axial loads, the load deflection (P-
)
effect should be considered in stress computations. An
effective method of analysis is to model the pile as a
beam column on an elastic foundation.”
Clause 6.10.2 of API (2000) states:
“General column buckling of the portion below the
mudline need not be considered unless the pile is
believed to be laterally unsupported because of
extremely low soil shear strengths, large computed
lateral deflections, or for some other reason”.
 API (2000) considers stresses in a pile during driv-
ing. The code advises designers to have a minimum
pile wall thickness to avoid local buckling. The rec-
ommendations are:
“For piles that are to be installed by driving where
sustained hard driving is anticipated, the minimum
piling wall thickness used should not be less than
(1)
where
t  wall thickness in mm,
D  diameter, in mm.”
2.3 Japanese Road Association code
(JRA 1996)
The guidelines for designing piles in liquefiable soils
are shown in Figure 2. The code advises practicing
engineers to design piles against bending failure due
to lateral loads arising out of inertia or slope move-
ment (lateral spreading). The code discourages the
additions of effects due to inertia and lateral spread-
ing. To check against the bending failure due to lateral
spreading, the code recommends that the non-liquefied
crust above the liquefied soil exerts passive pressure
(qNL in Fig. 2) and the liquefied soil offers 30% of the
total overburden pressure (qL in Fig. 2).
Eurocode 8 (1998), JRA (1996) focus on bending
strength and omit considerations of the bending stiff-
ness necessary to avoid buckling in the event of soil
liquefaction. API (2000) code does consider column
buckling, but only for soils having low shear strength,
i.e. soft clay. The following sections point out that buck-
ling needs to be considered even for fully-embedded
piles passing through loose to medium dense sand
where there may liquefy for any reason.
Figure 2. Japanese Roadways Association (JRA) code.
817
3 WHERE BUCKLING IS IMPORTANT
3.1 Pile as a beam-column
A pile can be best described as a beam-column i.e. a
column section carrying lateral loads. A general equa-
tion can be described following Heelis et al. (2004).
(2)
where
EI  Flexural rigidity of the pile;
P0  External axial compressive force applied at
the top of the pile i.e. x  0
f(x) is the friction per unit length
k(x) is the modulus of subgrade reaction.
The above equation suggests that if part of the soil
surrounding the pile loses its effective stress, then
f(x)  0 and k(x) will be near zero, and the equation
reduces to Euler’s buckling equation. The theoretical
buckling load can be estimated by equation 3.
(3)
where Leff  Effective length of the pile in the unsup-
ported zone. This depends of the boundary condition
of the pile below and above the support loss zone, see
Bhattacharya et al. (2004).
3.2 Role of lateral load in buckling
Rankine (1866) recognized that the failure load of
structural columns predicted by equation 3 is more
than the actual failure load (PF) i.e. equation 3 is
unconservative. This is because buckling is very sen-
sitive to imperfections and lateral loads. The collapse
also involves an interaction between elastic and plas-
tic modes of failure. Lateral loads and geometrical
imperfections both lead to the creation of bending
moments in addition to axial loads. Bending moments
have to be accompanied by stress resultants that dimin-
ish the cross-sectional area available for carrying the
axial load, so the failure load PF is less than the plastic
squash load (PP) given by A. y (A  area of the pile
section, y is the yield stress of the material). Equally,
the growth of zones of plastic bending reduces the
effective elastic modulus of the section, thereby
reducing the critical load for buckling, so that PF  Pcr.
Furthermore these processes feed on each other, as
explained in Horne & Merchant (1965). As the elastic
critical load is approached, all bending effects are
magnified. If lateral loads in the absence of axial load
would create a maximum lateral displacement 0 in the
critical mode-shape of buckling, then the displacement
 under the same lateral loads but with a co-existing
axial load P is given by:
(4)
The same magnification factor applies to any initial
out-of-line straightness of the pile in the mode shape
of potential buckling. Correspondingly, all curvatures
are similarly magnified and so are the bending strains
induced in the column by its lateral loads or eccen-
tricities. The progression towards plastic bending fail-
ure is accelerated as axial loads approach the elastic
critical load (Pcr). Not only do axial loads induce extra
bending moments (P- effects), but the full plastic
bending resistance cannot be mobilized due to the
fact that part of the pile section is required to carry
the axial loads. Equation 4 indicates that for a column
carrying an axial load of half its Euler load, that lat-
eral displacements and therefore bending moments
would be 1/(1  0.5) or 100% bigger than those cal-
culated ignoring axial load effects. This is important
if significant lateral loads must also be carried.
2 Initial imperfection or lack of straightness. Figure 5
shows a pile attached to a towing bollard in an off-
shore pile installation. This creates an initial eccen-
tric moment.
3 Loss of lateral support due to liquefaction or scour.
Recent investigation has shown that fully embed-
ded end bearing piles passing through saturated,
loose to medium dense sand can buckle under the
axial load alone if the surrounding soil liquefies in
an earthquake. The stress in the pile section will
initially be within the elastic range, and the buckling
length will be the entire length of the pile in liquefied
soil. Figure 6 shows a failure of a fully embedded
pile by buckling in a centrifuge test.
4 Partially exposed pile. This is often encountered in
jetties or offshore platforms.
5 Piles in extremely soft clay. Buckling of slender
steel piles in soft, quick clay in Trondheim (Norway)
has been reported by Brantzaeg & Elvegaten (1957).

3.3 List of cases where buckling is important

The cases where buckling needs special attention are
listed below:
1 During installation by driving. The stability of
slender piles during driving has been dealt with by
Burgess (1976). This is also a design consideration
in offshore installations, see Figures 3 and 4. Figure
3 shows a typical offshore installation and Figure 4
shows the pile stick up. Once the pile is in the sleeve,
it is important to check the buckling potential under
the action of the lateral forces due to the wave Figure 4. Pile stick up.
loading and the hammer weight.

Figure 3. A typical offshore pile installation. Figure 5. Attachments at the bottom of the pile.

818
6 Buckling of pile due to dredging operation in a
marine harbour. It has been reported by Sovinc
(1981) that a piled marine harbour was seriously
damaged during a dredging operation due to soil
movement.
7 Local buckling at the sleeve during driving.
8 Local tips buckling due to faulty shoe design.
4 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO AVOID
GLOBAL BUCKLING OF PILES
As mentioned earlier, the part of the pile in liquefiable
soil should be treated as an unsupported column. A pile
not only has axial stress but also may have bending
stresses in two axes due to the lateral loads. The pile
represents a most general form of a “beam-column”
Figure 6. Buckling of a fully embedded pile in a centrifuge
test, after Bhattacharya (2003).
Figure 7. Failure of Adriatic harbour during dredging operation, Sovinc (1981).
819
(column carrying lateral loads) element with bi-axial
bending. If the section of the pile is a “long column”,
analysis would become extremely complex and an
explicit closed-form solution does not exist. The solu-
tion of such a problem demands an understanding of
the way in which the various structural actions inter-
act with each other i.e. how the axial load influences
the amplification of lateral deflection produced by the
lateral loads. In the simplest cases i.e. when the sec-
tion is a “short column”, the superposition principle
can be applied i.e. direct summation of the load
effects. In other cases, careful consideration of the
complicated interactions needs to be made.
Designing such a type of member needs a three-
dimensional interaction diagram where the axes are:
Axial (P), major-axis moment (Mx) and minor-axis
moment (My). The analysis becomes far more com-
plicated in presence of dynamic loads. The above
complicated non-linear process can be avoided by
designing the section of the pile as a “short column”
i.e. for concrete section – length to least lateral dimen-
sion less than 15 (British Code 8110) or a slenderness
ratio (effective length to minimum radius of gyration)
less than 50.
Figure 8 shows the study of 14 reported case histor-
ies of pile foundation during earthquakes, after
Bhattacharya (2003) and Bhattacharya et al. (2004).
The case histories were from four different earth-
quakes. Six of the piled foundations survived while
others suffered severe damage. Essentially, it is
assumed that the pile is unsupported in the liquefiable
zone. For each of the case histories, the Leff of the pile
in the liquefiable region is plotted against the min-
imum radius of gyration (rmin) of the pile. rmin is intro-
duced to represent piles of any shape (square, tubular,
circular) and is given by √I/A where I is the second
moment of area; and A is the cross sectional area of
the pile section. For a solid circular section, rmin is
 0.8 kept as “short column” i.e. for concrete section –
length to least lateral dimension less than 15 or a slen-
0.7
derness ratio (effective length to minimum radius of
0.6 Good gyration) less than 50.
0.5 performance The main assumptions in developing the design
chart are:
(rmin) m

0.4 Poor
performance 1 The piles are either solid concrete section having E
0.3
(Young’s Modulus) of 22.5 GPa or steel tubular
0.2 section having E of 210 GPa.
0.1 2 The piles are not in a single row and at least in
2  2-matrix form – this ensures that the pile heads
0 are restrained against rotation but free to translate.
0 10 20 30 40 50
3 The thickness of the steel pile is based on
Effective length (Leff) m
equation (1).
Figure 8. Study of 15 case histories, Bhattacharya et al.
(2004).
5 CONCLUSIONS

Minimum dia of pile from buckling consideration Buckling of pile can be classified into two groups:
2.25 global buckling and local buckling. In global buck-
2 Concrete pile ling, the pile deforms longitudinally leading to lateral
Diameter of pile (m)

1.75
1.5
Steel tubular pile
1.25
1 leading to a localized damage. In either case, the load
0.75
0.5
0.25
0 sideration.
4 6 8 10
Thickness of liquefiable layer (m)
Figure 9. Minimum diameter to avoid buckling of piles,
Bhattacharya and Tokimatsu (2004).
0.25 times the diameter of the pile and for a hollow
circular section rmin is 0.35 times the outside diameter
of the pile. Leff is dependent on the thickness of the
liquefiable zone, depth of embedment and the fixity
at the pile head. In the figure, a line representing a
slenderness ratio of 50 could differentiate the good
performance piles from the poor performance. It is
worthwhile to note that slenderness and buckling dif-
ferentiated between the good and poor performance
irrespective of whether the ground surface was sloped
or not. Thus the study shows that piles should be
designed as short columns, i.e. large diameter piles
are better.
Figure 9 shows a typical graph showing the min-
imum diameter of pile necessary to avoid global buck-
ling depending on the thickness of the liquefiable
soils following Bhattacharya & Tokimatsu (2004). If
the diameter of a pile is chosen based on Figure 9,
then non-linear P- analysis can be avoided and the
lateral load amplification effects, explained in section
3.2 are minimal. Essentially, the section of the pile is
instability of the entire structure. On the other hand in
local buckling, the cross section of the pile deforms
carrying capacity of the pile reduces drastically and
may lead to complete collapse of the foundation. Eight
cases have been listed where buckling is a design con-
12 14 16 18 20
Global buckling should be considered for fully
embedded end-bearing piles passing through loose to
medium dense where they may liquefy for any reason.
This can be avoided by reducing the slenderness ratio
of the pile in the “likely-to-be-unsupported” zone. A
simplified approach to avoid buckling under such situ-
ations has been described.
REFERENCES
Aldridge, T.R, Carrington, T.M and Kee, N.R. 2005.
Propagation of pile tip damage during installation,
Proceedings of ISFOG 2005, Australia.
API 2000. Recommended practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working
Stress Design. American Petroleum Institute.
Bhattacharya, S. 2003. Pile instability during earthquake
liquefaction, PhD Thesis; University of Cambridge (U.K).
Bhattacharya, S., Madabhushi, S.P.G and Bolton, M.D.
2004. An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefi-
able deposits during earthquakes, Geotechnique 54,
No 3, pp 203–213.
Bhattacharya and Tokimatsu 2004. Essential criteria for design
of piled foundations in seismically liquefiable areas,
Proceedings of the 39th Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering, Niigata, 7th to 9th July 2004.
Bond, A.J. 1989. Behavior of displacement piles in over-
consolidated clays, PhD Thesis, Imperial College (U.K).

820
Brandtzaeg, A. and Elvegaten, E.H. 1957. Buckling tests of
slender steel piles in soft, quick clay, Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE), London, 12th to
24th August 1957. Volume – II, pp 19–23.
Eurocode 7 1997. Geotechnical design, Brussels, European
Committee for Standardization.
Eurocode 8 (Part 5) 1998. Design provisions for earthquake
resistance of structures-foundations, retaining structures
and geotechnical aspects, European Committee for stand-
ardization, Brussels.
Hamada 1992. Large ground deformations and their effects
on lifelines: 1964 Niigata earthquake, Technical report
NCEER-92-0001, Volume 1.
821
Heelis, M.E., Pavlovic, M.N. and West, R.P. 2004. The ana-
lytical prediction of the buckling loads of fully and par-
tially embedded piles, Geotechnique 54, No 6, pp 363–373.
McRobie, A. 2002. Buckling and stability, Undergraduate
lecture notes; University of Cambridge (U.K).
Rankine, W.J.M. 1866. Useful rules and tables, London.
Sovinc, I. 1981. Buckling of piles with initial curvature,
Proc of the International Conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Volume 8, pp 851–855.
JRA 1996. Japanese Road Association, Specification for
Highway Bridges, Part 5, Seismic Design.
Rankine, W.J.M. 1866. Useful rules and tables, London.
Horne, M.R and Merchant, W. 1965. The Stability of Frames,
Pergamon.
View publication stats