107 views

Uploaded by Andrew Cushing

A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science - January 2001

- Design and Construction of Foundations for the Saint Lawrence River Bridge, Autoroute 30 Montréal Quebec
- Time Dependent Movements on the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Pedestrian Tunnel, Ontario, Canada
- Time Dependent Deformations of Shafts and Tunnels in the Greater Toronto Area
- Billy Bishop Airport Pedestrian Tunnel Article - North American Tunnelling Journal October - November 2013
- The Billy Bishop Airport Pedestrian Tunnel Project: Analysis and Design of a Tunnel in Swelling Shale
- Ground Engineering for the Autoroute 30 PPP Project in Montreal, Quebec Canada
- Value of pile tests to inform detailed design in Canada
- Instrumented Static Pile Load Testing of Cast-in-place Concrete Piles in Edmonton
- RETC-81042
- Design and Construction of the Billy Bishop City Airport Pedestrian Tunnel, Toronto, Canada
- 63rd Street Tunnel & East Side Access, New York, NY
- SKMBT_C364e15010611070
- Reliability Analysis for Bridge Substructures
- Billy Bishop Article.pdf
- Retaining Walls and Foundations in New York City
- Driven Pile Capacity in Clay and Drilled Shaft Capacity in Rock from Field Load Tests
- History of Subaqueous Tunneling in New York City - by Andrew Cushing and Nik Sokol - Powerpoint Presentation
- An Evaluation of the Load-Displacement Behavior and Load Test Interpretation of Micropiles in Rock by Andrew Cushing, et al.
- Osterberg Load Cell Testing Results and Analysis for Rock Socket Design Validation - Bridge over Beauharnois Canal, Autoroute 30, Montreal by Andrew Cushing, et. al.
- O-Cell Testing for Rock Socket Design - Bridge Over Beauharnois Canal - Autoroute 30 Montreal

You are on page 1of 461

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

By Andrew Gregory Cushing January 2001

© 2001 Andrew Gregory Cushing

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the elastic, or immediate, movement of drilled shaft foundations under drained and undrained axial uplift and compression loading. This task is achieved through an experimental assessment of the small-strain behavior of drilled shafts using data from full-scale field load tests. The observed load and displacement at the elastic limit, defined by Hirany and Kulhawy (1988), are used to back-calculate representative values of soil modulus by using solutions based upon elastic theory. These back-calculated values are normalized by the unit side resistance, undrained shear strength, and cone tip resistance to develop predictive methodologies for the elastic limit movement of drilled shafts. The

quality of these methods is evaluated on the basis of the coefficient of variation (COV), or standard deviation divided by the mean, associated with the normalized modulus values as back-calculated tests. from the load

To minimize geometry complications, only single straight-sided

(non-belled) drilled shaft foundations are considered.

The Cays

on the means of these normalized soil modulus values are in

the range of 60 to 100 percent, which are quite high. Furthermore, the COVs associated with the mean values of the elastic limit displacement, expressed as a percentage of shaft diameter, are consistently lower than those of the mean values of normalized soil modulus for each soil type (cohesive and cohesionless) and loading mode (uplift and compression). These data indicate that the use of correlations representing the soil

modulus as a single multiple of a soil strength or in-situ soil measurement

for predicting elastic limit displacement are no better than direct estimates of the elastic limit displacement as a percentage of the shaft diameter.

To improve the predictive methodology from the back-calculated values of soil modulus, the database was subdivided by ranges of slenderness ratio (D/B) and qcn (a dimensionless, normalized value of cone tip

resistance that accounts for the mean vertical effective overburden stress). In most cases, the COy on the mean normalized soil modulus ratio within each subdivision of D/B or qcn was lower than that for the entire database.

A method is presented relating the soil modulus to qc and qcn to obtain a

first order estimate of the elastic limit displacement.

This method tends to

overestimate the movement by 30 to 60 percent, on average, with overall Cays in the same general range as the single normalized soil modulus However, removal of the most conservative 15 percent of the

values (60 to 100 percent).

cases (i.e., overpredicted movement), approximately database, yielded average predicted-to-measured ratios of approximately 1.0. The Cays between 45 and 55 percent.

elastic limit movement

on the resulting mean ratios are

Clearly, relatively large Cays displacement predictions. are quite small.

are inherent in the resulting elastic limit

Fortunately, these displacements, on average,

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Andrew Gregory Cushing was born on December 16, 1974, in Amherst, New York, a suburb of Buffalo, Subsequent to the completion to Brian and Madeline Cushing.

of his elementary

education in 1988, After

Andrew was enrolled in the S1. Joseph's graduating from S1. Joseph's

Collegiate Institute.

in 1992, he commenced his pursuit of

studies in Civil Engineering at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Student Andrew was actively involved with the NSPE and ASCE Chapters and became a member of the Tau Beta Pi and

Chi Epsilon Honor Societies.

During the summers, Andrew had the

opportunity to work for a number of engineering firms in the Western New York area, including Glynn Geotechnical Engineering, Duchscherer Oberst Design, PC, and Trautman Associates. He also spent a summer at

the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, as a participant in the Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program sponsored by the National

Science Foundation.

Andrew obtained his Bachelor of Science Degree in

May of 1997 and received the Richard P. Shaw Award, recognizing him as the "Engineering Mechanics Scholar of the Year." In the fan of 1997, the author began his graduate studies in Geotechnical Cornell University'S School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at

Engineering.

Andrew was awarded the John E. Perry Teaching Assistant Prize in 1999 and 2000. The author subsequently received his Master of Science degree with a major in Geotechnical Engineering in January of2001.

111

To my parents, Brian and Madeline, for their love, encouragement, and support

IV

.

encouragement. The three years of financial support provided by the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the form of Teaching Assistantships is greatly appreciated. Finally. exciting. and friendship during my years of study here at Cornell. Kulhawy. Perry Teaching Assistant Prize competitions of 1999 and 2000. 640. Without all of your love. Billington for serving as a member of my Special Conunittee. the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you so very much! v . and Grandma Hrebik. patience. Dad. Ken Eng for his friendship. Kulhawy. Chairman of my Special Committee. O'Rourke for making my years as a TA a rewarding educational and professional experience. assistance. and enjoyable. Attasit Sawatparnich. I would like to thank my roommate. I also would like to thank the students of CBE 341. I would like to thank the members of my family back in Buffalo: Mom. and Thomas D. I also would like to thank My. Mr.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Fred H. advice. for his guidance. and 644 for making the TA experience challenging. Harry E. both for his friendship and his eagerness to engage in geotechnical discussion and debate on a regular basis. Aunt Barb. I also would like to thank Professor Sarah L. and support. Stewart. and concern over these past few years. I would like to thank Professors Fred H. and for their favorable votes in the John E.

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Foundation Design Philosophy Elastic Movement Predictions Scope of Study References Page 1 1 3 4 7 9 2 EVALUATION OF GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS PARAMETERS Introduction Index Parameters Unit Weight Relative Density Consistency of Cohesive Soils Strength Effective Stress Friction Angle Undrained Shear Strength In-Situ State of Stress In-Situ Coefficient of Horizontal Soil Stress Overconsolidation Ratio Elastic Soil Parameters 9 9 10 10 15 16 17 22 26 26 32 38 VI .

L.. Interpretation Axial Compression Axial Uplift Mobilization Resistances of Ultimate Side and Tip Method Initial Tangent Slope Elastic Slope Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete 82 84 86 Summary References . Vll 89 91 .Poisson's Ratio 38 Soil Modulus Modulus of Cohesionless Soils 40 44 54 61 Modulus of Cohesive Soils Modulus of Other Materials Summary References 64 65 FOR DRlLLED 70 3 LOAD TEST INTERPRETATION SHAFT FOUNDATIONS Introduction 70 Curves 70 72 73 74 75 General Types of Load-Displacement L. .

1980) and Mattes and Poulos (1969) Methods Butterfield and Banerjee (1971) Method Simplified Methods Randolph (1977) and Randolph and Wroth (1978) Methods Vesic (1977) Method Summary References 93 93 94 94 103 110 110 116 120 122 125 5 SMALL-STRAIN DEFORMATION OF DRlLLED SHAFTS IN DRAINED AXIAL UPLIFT LOADING Introduction Database Assessment ofLJ-L2 Interpretation Scheme Displacements at LI and L2 Loads at L 1 and L2 Drained Soil Modulus vm 125 126 127 140 144 147 .4 ELASTIC APPROACHES TO DRILLED SHAFT MOVEMENT ANALYSIS Introduction Elastic Continuum Theory Methods Poulos and Davis (1968.

Modulus (Ed)-Strength (f) Relationships Modulus (Ed)-Cone Tip Resistance (qc) Relationships Comparison of Back-Ca1culation Procedures Initial Tangent Load-Displacement Behavior Summary References 147 157 165 166 175 179 183 6 SMALL-STRAIN DEFORMATION OF DRILLED SHAFTS IN DRAINED AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADING Introduction Database Assessment ofL1-L2 Interpretation Scheme Displacements at LJ and L2 Loads at L 1 and L2 Influence of Shaft Geometry On LoadDisplacement Curves Load Transfer at L J and L2 Drained Soil Modulus Modulus (Ed)-Strength (f) Relationships Modulus (Ed)-Cone Tip Resistance (qc) Relationships IX 183 185 185 191 196 200 201 206 206 216 .

Comparison of Back-Calculation Procedures Initial Tangent Load-Displacement Behavior Summary References 7 SMALL-STRAIN DEFORMATION OF DRlLLED SHAFTS IN UNDRAINED AXIAL UPLIFT LOADING Introduction Database Assessment ofLj-L2 Interpretation Scheme Displacements at L 1 and L2 Loads at LJ and L. Undrained Soil Modulus Modulus (Eu)-Strength (su) Relationships Modulus (Eu)-Cone Tip Resistance (qc) Relationships Comparison of Back-Calculation Procedures Initial Tangent Load-Displacement Behavior Summary References 229 230 240 245 249 249 251 251 258 262 266 266 278 286 288 296 300 x .

8 SMALL-STRAIN DEFORMATION OF DRILLED SHAFTS IN UNDRAINED AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADING Introduction Database Assessment ofLJ-L2 Interpretation Scheme Displacements at L1 and Lz Loads at LJ and Lz Influence of Shaft Geometry On LoadDisplacement Curves Load Transfer at LJ and L. Undrained Soil Modulus Modulus (Eu)-Strength (su) Relationships Modulus (Eu)-Cone Tip Resistance (qc) Relationships Comparison of Back-Calculation Procedures Initial Tangent Load-Displacement Behavior Summary References 304 304 306 306 316 321 325 326 333 333 349 365 367 376 381 386 386 387 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Evaluation of Geotechnical Analysis Parameters Xl .

Loads at LJ and L2 Load Transfer at L 1 and L2 Soil Modulus Comparison of Back-Calculation Procedures Initial Tangent Load-Displacement Behavior Recommendations References 387 387 389 389 389 392 394 395 404 405 408 410 xu . Interpretation Scheme Displacements at L.Load Test Interpretation for Drilled Shaft Foundations Elastic Approaches to Drilled Shaft Movement Analysis Small-Strain Elastic Deformation of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Axial Uplift and Compression Loading Assessment of Li-L.

.

qc Relationship for Cohesionless Soils Factors Affecting the Stiffness of Cohesionless Soils During Monotonic Loading Typical Ranges of Undrained Modulus for Clay Modulus-to-Strength Ratios for Soil-Cement and Concrete Average Values of KFS for Concrete Shafts Relationship Between A and KFS Typical Values of Clip ~ 11 16 20 22 2-5 2-6 2-7 25 39 44 45 47 48 55 63 96 104 120 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 4-1 4-2 4-3 for Drilled Shafts Xl11 .LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 Typical Soil Unit Weights Consistency Index of Cohesive Soil versus N and qc Relative Values of ~ for Cohesionless Soils Relative Values of ~ for Normally Consolidated Cohesive Soils Correction Factors for s. Compared with s. from CIUC Test Results Typical Ranges of Drained Poisson's Ratio Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Sand Values of S I and S2 for the Ed .SPT N Relationship for Cohesionless Soils Values of m and b for the Ed .

. Divided by Slenderness Ratio In-Situ Penetration Testing Data For Drained Uplift Ed Correlation Comparison of Mean Back-Calculated EctlqcValues for Real and Synthetic qc Data For Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Statistics For Ed/qc.5-1 Database General Information for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Database Geometry and Geotechnical Information for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Load-Displacement Data for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Statistical Summary of the Load-Displacement Parameters of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Back-Calculation of Drained Soil Modulus (Ed) for DriIled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Edlf Statistics for Uplift Case Histories 128 5-2 132 5-3 136 5-4 146 5-5 149 5-6 5-7 154 156 Ed/f Statistics for Uplift Case Histories. Over Ranges of q. Using Mixed Real and Synthetic qc Data For Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Statistics For Ratio of Predicted to Measured Values of Ed Using Equation 5-5 For Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift ISolISH Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift 5-8 158 5-9 160 5-10 161 5-11 163 5-12 169 XIV .

Divided by Slenderness Ratio In-Situ Penetration Testing Data For Drained Compression Ed Correlation Mean Values of Back-Calculated Ed/qc for Mixed q. Data xv 171 186 188 189 199 6-5 6-6 205 205 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 208 213 213 215 217 218 .5-13 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 Descriptive Statistics for Elastic to Initial Slope Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Database General Information for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Database Geometry and Geotechnical Information for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Load-Displacement Data for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Statistical Summary of the Load-Displacement Parameters of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Descriptive Statistics for the Tip Load Transfer of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axia1 Compression Modified Descriptive Statistics for the Tip Load Transfer of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Back-Calculation of Drained Soil Modulus (Ed) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Ed/f Statistics for Compression Case Histories Revised Edlf Statistics for Drained Case Histories EctlfStatistics for Drained Case Histories.

6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 Comparison of Mean Back-Calculated Ed/qc Values for Real and Synthetic qc Data Statistics For Ed/qc Over Ranges of qcn Using Mixed Real and Synthetic qc Data Statistics For Ratio of Predicted to Measured Values of Ed ISo/ISH Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Descriptive Statistics for Elastic to Initial Slope Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Database General Information for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Database Geometry and Geotechnical Information for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Load-Displacement Data for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Statistical Summary of the Load-Displacement Parameters of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Back-Calculation of Undrained Soil Modulus (Eu) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Comparison of Regression Data for Uplift aDSSValues Ejsu(DSS) and Eja s. Statistics for Uplift Case Histories. Statistics for Uplift Case Histories Eu/suCDSS)and Eu/a s. Divided by Slenderness Ratio 219 221 225 234 236 252 254 256 265 268 271 275 277 XVI .

Correlation Comparison of Mean Back-Calculated Eiqc Values for Real and Synthetic qc Data For Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Statistics For Eulqc Over Ranges of qcn Using Mixed Real and Synthetic qc Data For Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Statistics For Ratio of Predicted to Measured Values of E. For Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift ISo/ISH Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Descriptive Statistics for Elastic to Initial Slope Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Database General Information for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Database Geometry and Geotechnical Information for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Load-Displacement Data for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Statistical Summary of the Load-Displacement Parameters of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Descriptive Statistics for the Tip Load Transfer of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression 279 281 7-11 282 7-12 7-13 7-14 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 284 290 292 307 310 313 324 8-5 332 XVll .7-9 7-10 In-Situ Penetration Testing Data For Drained Uplift E.

Statistics for Undrained Case Histories Eu/su(DSS) and Eu/a s. Data Statistics For Ratio of Predicted to Measured Values ofEu ISo/ISH Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Descriptive Statistics for Elastic to Initial Slope Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Descriptive Statistics for Pu (% B) of Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading XVlll 332 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10 8-11 8-12 8-13 8-14 8-15 8-16 8-17 9-1 335 340 344 348 351 352 354 356 360 370 372 390 . Statistics for Undrained Case Histories. Divided by Slenderness Ratio In-Situ Penetration Testing Data For Drained Compression E.8-6 Modified Descriptive Statistics for the Tip Load Transfer of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Back-Calculation of Undrained Soil Modulus (Eu) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Comparison of Regression Data for Uplift and Compression aDSSValues Eu/su(DSS) and Eu/a s. Correlation Mean Values of Back-Calculated Eu/qc for Mixed qc Data Comparison of Mean Back-Calculated Eiqc Values for Real and Synthetic qc Data Statistics For EJqc Over Ranges of qcnUsing Mixed Real and Synthetic q.

mg A XIalL oa di Comparison of Observed PLi (nun) to the Hirany and Kulhawy (1988) Approximation for Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading Comparison of Observed and Estimated Loads at Failure Threshold and Elastic Limit for Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading QL2/QLlStatistics for Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading Modified QtiplQL1andQtiplQL2Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Axial Compression Loading Mean Values of Normalized Soil Modulus for Drilled Shafts in Drained and Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Summary of Procedure for Estimating Pu Using Es-qcqcn Relationships Statistical Data on the Ratio of Predicted to Measured PLI Using Es-qc-qcnRelationships (See Table 9-8) Details on Revised Databases for Evaluation of PLI Predictions Using Es-qc-qcnRelationships Comparison of Soil Modulus Back-calculation Procedures ISo/ISH Statistics for Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading Ed/EH and EuiEHStatistics for Drilled Shafts in Axial Loading 390 9-3 391 9-4 393 9-5 9-6 394 395 9-7 400 9-8 402 9-9 403 9-10 403 9-11 405 9-12 9-13 406 407 XIX .9-2 Descriptive Statistics for PLI (mm) of Drilled Shafts in ' ....

.

and Dr for NC and OC sands K. Correlated with SPT N for Cohesive Soils K.LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 2.Pev Normally Consolidated Clays Versus Plasticity for Index Normalized Undrained Strength Ratios for Major Laboratory Shear Test Types Stress Paths for Simple Stress Histories Correlation of Gha.~tc Relationships for Cohesionless Soils xx . Correlated with CPTU q-for Cohesive Soils O"p Correlated with Liquidity Index for Cohesive Soils Correlated with SPT N for Cohesive Soils Correlated with CPT qefor Cohesive Soils Correlated with VST SU O"p Gp (J p for Cohesive Soils Simplified q. 13 13 18 19 2-5 21 2-6 26 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 27 30 31 32 34 36 36 37 38 qe.2 2-3 2-4 Variation of qclN with Mean Particle Size Correlations between Dr and qe for Cohesionless Soils Trend of <Pte with Normalized qe for Cohesionless Soils Relevance of Laboratory Strength Tests to Field Conditions .K. . .

and Gioia Tauro Sand and Gravel Normalized Drained Modulus for Drilled Shafts in Uplift PMT Modulus of Sand versus SPT N Value DMT Modulus versus SPT N Value in Piedmont Sandy Silt Normalized Young's Modulus versus Stress Level from CKoU Direct Shear Tests on Seven Normally Consolidated Soils Normalized Undrained Modulus Versus Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) from CKoU Direct Simple Shear Tests on Five Clays Generalized Undrained Modulus Ratio as a function of Plasticity Index (PI) and Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) Cam Clay Prediction of Undrained Initial Tangent Modulus Ratio 42 43 2-18 2-19 46 50 2-20 51 2-21 52 2-22 2-23 53 54 2-24 57 2-25 58 2-26 59 2-27 60 XXI . Ticino.2-16 2-17 Modulus Defmitions Illustration of Strain Level Versus Soil Type and Related Testing Methods Comparative Plot of Modulus Correlations for Sand Evaluation of Drained Young's Modulus from CPT Test Results on Silica Sands Grain Size Distribution Curves For Po River. and Hokksund Sands.

2-28 Normalized Undrained Modulus for Drilled Shafts in Uplift and Compression Typical Load-Displacement Regions of Load-Displacement Curves Curve 62 3-1 3-2 71 71 3-3 Average Displacements Corresponding to Elastic Limit (QLl) and Failure Threshold (Qu) for Drilled Shafts in Axial Compression Normalized Side Load Transfer Versus Displacement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils Normalized Side Load Transfer Versus Displacement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils Normalized Tip Load Transfer Versus Displacement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils Normalized Tip Load Transfer Versus Displacement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesion less Soils Improved Average Load-Displacement Drilled Shafts in Axial Compression Effect of Scale on Appearance Load-Displacement Curve of a Curves for 74 3-4 76 3-5 77 79 80 3-6 3-7 3-8 81 3-9 83 3-10 3-11 Correlation Between the Static Modulus of Elasticity and Density of Concrete Static Modulus of Elasticity Strength Concretes Versus ~ for High 87 88 4-1 Stresses Acting on Shaft and Adjacent Soil 95 xx 11 .

Straight-Sided Drilled Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous.5 Theoretical Effect of an Enlarged Tip on the Axial Movement of a Single Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous. Linear-Elastic Soil. Vs = 0.5 Theoretical Shaft Shear Stress Distributions for a Single Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous. Vs = 0. LinearElastic Soil.5. v. for Soil Poisson's Ratio Proportion of Total Applied Load Transferred to the Tip of a Straight Incompressible Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous. for Finite Depth of Layer on a Rigid Base Correction Factor R. A = 30000 97 4-3 4-4 98 98 4-5 4-6 99 102 4-7 4-8 103 105 4-9 106 4-10 107 4-11 108 4-12 109 XXlll .5 Correction Factor RKfor Shaft Compressibility Correction Factor R. = 0. Vs = 0. Linear-Elastic Soil. Linear-Elastic Soil Compressibility Correction Factor CK for Tip Load Theoretical Load-Displacement Relationships for a Single Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous. Vs = 0. Linear-Elastic Soil. Linear-Elastic Soil. LinearElastic Soil. v.5 Theoretical Tip Load Contribution for a Single Compressible Underreamed Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous.4-2 Theoretical Settlement Influence Factor (10) for an Incompressible. = 0.5 Theoretical Tip Load Contribution for a Single Incompressible Underreamed Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous.

'A = 6000 Mode of Deformation of Soil Surrounding a Drilled Shaft Typical Simple Distributions of Side Resistance Histogram of PLl (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of Pu (nun) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of PL2 (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of PL2 (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of QO. Vs = 0.5.4%B/QLI Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of QO.4-13 Theoretical Tip Load Contribution for a Single Compressible Underreamed Shaft Embedded in a Homogeneous. Linear-Elastic Soil.5 inch/QL2 Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of QL2/QL I Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Average Load-Displacement Curve Obtained from Hyperbolic Modeling of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Eif Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift 109 4-14 110 4-15 5-1 118 141 5-2 141 5-3 142 5-4 142 5-5 144 5-6 145 5-7 145 5-8 147 5-9 154 XXIV .

5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-16 5-17 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 Correlation of Ed/qc With qcn for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift (Ed)RW/(Ed)PD Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in 163 165 167 167 169 170 170 174 193 193 194 194 197 Drained Axial Uplift (Ed)ss/(Ed)PD Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Variation in the ISo/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Variation in the ES/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Variation in the ES/ISo Drained Axial Uplift Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Variation in Ed/EH for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift Histogram of Pu (0/0 B) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Histogram of PLI (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Histogram of Pu (0/0 B) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Histogram of PL2 (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Histogram of QO_4%s/QLJ Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression xxv .

Versus qcn for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Loading XXVI 197 198 199 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-18 201 203 203 212 212 223 223 224 227 228 .6-6 6-7 6-8 Histogram of Q4%B/QL2 Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Histogram of QL2/QLl Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Average Load-Displacement Curve Obtained from Hyperbolic Modeling of Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Shape Parameter Versus Slenderness Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Qtip/QLJ Versus D/B at the Elastic Limit (Li) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Qrip/QL2 Versus D/B at the Failure Threshold (L2) for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Edlf Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Ed/f Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Correlation of Ed/qc With qcn for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Division of Drained Database by In-Situ Penetration Data Source Trend in Ej/q.

6-19 6-20 6-21 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-25 6-26 6-27 6-28 7-1 7-2 7-3 Ed/qcVersus qcnand OCR for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Ed/qc Versus qcnand D/B for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression (Ed)RW/(Ed)PDersus D/B for Drilled Shafts in V Drained Axial Compression (Ed)BB/(Ed)PD ersus D/B for Drilled Shafts in V Drained Axial Compression Variation in the ISo/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Variation in the ISo/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Variation in the ES/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Variation in the ES/ISo Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Variation in EiER for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Compression Variation in EiEH for Drilled Shafts in Drained Axial Uplift and Compression Histogram of Pu (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of PLi (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of PL2 (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift XXVll 228 229 231 231 233 233 235 235 239 239 259 259 260 .

7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 Histogram of PL2 (rom) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of QO. Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Correlation of Ell I qc With qcn for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift (Eu)RW/(Eu)po ersus D/B for Drilled Shafts in V Undrained Axial Uplift (Eu)BS/(Eu)Po Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift 260 263 263 264 265 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 272 274 274 283 7-13 7-14 7-15 285 287 287 XXVlll .s inch/QL2 Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of QL2/QLJ Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Average Load-Displacement Curve Obtained from Hyperbolic Modeling of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Uplift aoss Versus su(DSS)/Pa Eu/su(DSS)Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Eula s.4%B/QLl Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of Qo.

4%B/QL1Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of Q4%B/QL2 Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of QL2/QLI Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Average Load-Displacement Curve Obtained from Hyperbolic Modeling of Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Shape Parameter Versus Slenderness Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression XXIX 289 291 291 295 319 319 320 320 322 322 323 324 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 327 .7-16 7-17 7-18 7-19 Variation in the ISo/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Variation in the ESIISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Variation in the ES/ISo Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Variation in EulERfor Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift Histogram of Pu (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of PLl (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of PL2 (% B) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of PL2 (mm) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Histogram of Q0.

8-10 Shape Parameter Versus Slenderness Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Drained and Undrained Axial Compression 327 8-11 Qtip/Qu Versus D/B at the Elastic Limit (LI) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression 330 8-12 Qti/QL2 Versus D/B at the Failure Threshold (L2) for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression 330 8-13 Q!ip/QLl Versus D/B at the Elastic Limit (Li) for Drilled Shafts in Drained and Undrained Axial Compression 331 8-14 Qti/QL2 Versus D/B at the Failure Threshold (L2) for Drilled Shafts in Drained and Undrained Axial Compression 331 8-15 8-16 Compression aDSSVersus su(DSS)/Pa Ejsu(DSS)Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Eja s. Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Eja s. Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Eulsu(DSS)Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression 341 343 8-17 343 8-18 345 8-19 Eu/a s. I qc With qcn for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression 345 8-20 350 8-21 358 xxx . Versus OCR and PI for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Correlation of E.

8-22 Division of Undrained Database by In-Situ Penetration Data Source Trend in Eulqc Versus qcn for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Ratio of Predicted to Measured Displacements Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Loading Ejqc Versus qcn and Plasticity Index for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Eulqc Versus qcn and OCR for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression 358 8-23 359 8-24 362 8-25 363 8-26 363 8-27 364 8-28 Eulqc Versus qcn and DIB for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression (Eu)RW/(Eu)PD Versus D/B for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression (Eu)BB/(Eu)PD Versus DIB for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Variation in the ISo/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Variation in the ISolISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression Variation in the ES/ISH Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Variation in the ES/ISo Ratio for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression XXXI 364 8-29 366 8-30 366 8-31 369 8-32 369 8-33 371 8-34 371 .

8-35 Variation in EuiEH for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Compression Variation in EuiEH for Drilled Shafts in Undrained Axial Uplift and Compression 375 8-36 375 XXXll .

.

virgin compression index .shaft diameter .consistency index .consolidated-anisotropically .consolidated-anisotropically .correction factor for compressibility effect on tip load .empirical settlement coefficient to account for soil type and method of shaft construction in the calculation of PST CAUC CI .overburden stress correction factor for cone tip resistance .cross-sectional area of shaft .coefficient of variation .empirical settlement coefficient to account for soil type and method of shaft construction in the calculation of PTT .UPPER CASE A B .consolidated-anisotropically .cone penetration test (with pore pressure measurements) .LIST OF SYMBOLS ENGLISH LETTERS .tip diameter .consolidated-isotropically .consolidated-anisotropically .shaft depth .cone penetration test undrained triaxial compression crnc CKoD CKoU CKoUC CKoUE COY CPT CPTU D undrained triaxial compression drained triaxial test undrained triaxial test undrained triaxial compression undrained triaxial extension .grain size at 10 percent finer XXXl11 .consolidated-anisotropically .

modulus of elasticity of the shaft .tangent modulus .soil modulus ..soil modulus obtained from hyperbolic modeling .pressuremeter (PMT) modulus .relative density DMT DS DSS Eso .elastic slope .effective stress analysis .dilatometer test .maximum gram SIze ..mean gram SIze .secant modulus (taken at 50% of qu) .grain size at 60 percent finer .secant modulus of concrete (taken at 45% of f c) .dilatometer (DMT) modulus .average soil modulus .direct simple shear . .direct shear .plane strain soil modulus .factor of safety XXXIV .drained soil modulus .initial tangent modulus Ep EpMT .milllmum gram SIze .undrained soil modulus .secant modulus . .undrained initial tangent modulus Eps Es ES ESA FS .

standard penetration test (SPT) value .overconsolidation ratio xxxv ~tc I (3 .coefficient equal to E.elastic limit L2 LI M M.. I E.in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress .coefficient equal to 6 sin .Rankine minimum active coefficient of horizontal soil stress K.failure threshold . LJ .initial tangent slope obtained from direct observation . K.dimensionless influence factor used to calculate PST .ground water table .coefficient of horizontal soil stress .normally consolidated . N NC OC OCR . homogeneous soil) .sin ~IC) .initial tangent slope .dimensionless settlement influence factor (incompressible shaft.initial tangent slope derived from hyperbolic model ISo K .soil shear modulus GWT .dimensionless influence factor used to calculate PTT IS .Rankine maximum passive coefficient of horizontal soil stress .dimensionless settlement influence factor .overconsolidated .liquidity index .constrained soil modulus . .

predicted tip resistance in axial compression .side resistance in axial uplift .correction factor for shaft compressibility Rh RK XXXVI .applied load corresponding to a 0.measured side resistance .applied load .applied load at the failure threshold (Lj) .OeRmax PI PMT PSC PSE Q QO.reduced side resistance (cone breakout) in axial uplift Qc Qcp QLI QL2 QOCR o.5 inch vertical shaft butt displacement . Qtip Qtu QuIt .applied load corresponding to a vertical shaft butt displacement of 0.applied load at the elastic limit (LD .plane strain compression .calculated tip resistance (suction) in axial uplift .predicted compression capacity .plasticity index .correction factor for finite depth of layer on a rigid base .overconsolidation factor .measured tip resistance .side resistance in axial compression .maximum overconsolidation ratio .5inch .pressuremeter test .4%B .ultimate load applied to foundation (taken as QL2) .compressibility factor .4% B .plane strain extension .applied load corresponding to a vertical shaft butt displacement of 4% B QO..

self-boring pressuremeter test .Su factor for test mode b c c e .s.poorly-graded sand.Ed relationship) .cohesion .empirical coefficient (CPT qc .maximum void ratio ..in-situ void ratio . factor for strain rate during testing . SP SPT SW TC .minimum void ratio XXXVll .triaxial extension .standard penetration test .correction factor for the effect of an enlarged tip on shaft displacement SBPMT S.vane shear test .D.triaxial compression .curve fitting parameter for hyperbolic model .shaft weight TE TSA VST W ENGLISH LETTERS .correction factor for the soil Poisson's ratio .Su factor for overconsolidation .LOWER CASE a aOCR .standard deviation .well-graded sand . shape parameter .effective stress cohesion intercept .total stress analysis .

Ed relationship) undrained shear strength t u WL .unconfined compressive strength qult r r2 ro .number of data points .eo f fc h m n Pa qc qcn qT qu .unit side resistance - 28-day compressive strength of concrete .time .cone tip resistance .radial distance from the longitudinal axis of the shaft .atmospheric pressure .radial distance from the longitudinal axis of the shaft at which shear stresses are negligible S2 - empirical coefficients (SPT N .ultimate unit tip resistance (bearing capacity) .depth below the ground surface of a stiffer soil stratum .Ed relationship).parameter equal to (qc / Pa) / (0" vm I P. Su . curve fitting parameter for hyperbolic model .shaft radius rm s I.dimensionless coefficient (CPT qc . )0_5 .corrected cone tip resistance .initial void ratio .pore water pressure - liquid limit in-situ natural water content plastic limit Wn Wp - z .depth below ground surface XXXVlll .coefficient of determination .

~ in triaxial compression .relative friction angle .effective stress friction angle ~cv .plastic volumetric strain ratio GREEK LETTERS .UPPER CASE Au A .mean value of f3 over the full shaft depth .critical state (constant volume) ~ .normal strains 8a 8a .axial strain rate (percent per hour) .coefficient equal to K tan (5 X (5 .~ in plane strain compression ~tc .concrete unit weight Yc XXXIX .side load distribution coefficient ~ .change in pore water pressure caused by undrained loading . .friction angle ~rel .GREEK LETTERS .effective stress friction angle for the soil-shaft interface .axial strain .LOWER CASE ex.dimensionless adhesion factor .

soil Poisson's ratio - undrained soil Poisson's ratio P Pc Pd Pd max Pd min PLI .vertical displacement of shaft butt at the elastic limit Pu Ps PST Ptip .in-si tu dry densi ty - maximum dry density minimum dry density .coefficient equal to E. Vu .vertical displacement of shaft butt due to the axial compression of the shaft .vertical displacement of shaft butt . 1 Gs - coefficient equal to (.coefficient to account for stiffening effect of the soil above the loaded tip A ~l Vd .vertical displacement of shaft butt at the failure threshold .'Ydrv 'Ysat 'Yt 'Yw - dry soil unit weight saturated soil unit weight total soil unit weight unit weight of water 11 .J21 ~A) 1 ro drained soil Poisson's ratio v.vertical displacement of shaft butt due to shaft load only - vertical displacement of shaft tip due to shaft load only vertical displacement of shaft tip vertical displacement of shaft tip due to load transmitted at the tip major principal (total) stress PTT - 0"1 - xl .

coefficient equal to In (rm/ r 0) xli . soil inhomogeneity factor .1"o \jJ - shear stress at soil-shaft interface average shear stress along soil-shaft interface empirical parameter used to calculate a.a1 a3 a3 - major principal (effective) stress minor principal (total) stress minor principal (effective) stress axial total stress axial effective stress horizontal effective stress horizontal effective overburden stress preconsolidation stress vertical effective stress mean vertical effective overburden stress vertical total overburden stress vertical effective overburden stress - - aa aa - - ah aho - - ap av - - a vm CJ vo - - avo - 1: 1:avg.

primary 1 . However. when subjected to the unfactored dead and live loads (or so-called "working loads"). Once the structural loads are known. which involves the measurement or estimation of in-situ soil stress and strength parameters. which often make direct use of the results of an in-situ test. (b) primary consolidation settlement movement (or heave). or a rational design model based upon soil mechanics principles. possesses a sufficient factor of safety against the ultimate capacity and experiences only a tolerable amount of movement. and (c) secondary compression. and therefore it is also referred to as immediate movement. To account for the inherent uncertainty in the capacity prediction and provide a measure of safety. then an estimate is made of the total expected foundation movement under the working load. the geotechnical engineer can estimate the ultimate shaft capacity either by employing anyone of a number of empirical methods. If the resulting allowable load is greater than or equal to the expected applied working load. a factor of safety subsequently is applied to the calculated ultimate capacity. The elastic component occurs as the foundation load is applied. For axial compression loading. the total movement is composed of three separate components: (a) elastic movement.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION FOUNDATION DESIGN PHILOSOPHY The objective of the geotechnical engineer in foundation design is to develop an economical foundation system that.

However. Primary IS IS settlement is very minimal in cohesionless soils and difficult to distinguish from the elastic component.. The goal of this study is to contribute to the prediction of elastic. 1948. the duration of which generally are not sufficient to warrant the determination movements consolidation consolidation of can time-dependent be calculated movement by elastic components. theory.2 consolidation settlement and secondary compression do not occur immediately because they are time-dependent. This goal will be achieved by an assessment of the small-strain behavior of these shafts from fuII-scale field load tests. Holtz and Kovacs. Secondary compression is considered consolidation on occasion. will be used to back-calculate secant values of soil modulus using elastic theory solutions. defined by Hirany and Kulhawy (1988). the elastic movement is usually the dominant movement component. for cohesionless soils. while Elastic pnmary settlement and secondary compression are calculated by theories (Terzaghi. Lambe and Whitman. it In axial uplift. These back-calculated values will be correlated with various soil parameters to develop a consistent . lumped into the elastic settlement. 1969.e. Taylor. The observed load and displacement at the elastic limit. particularly at higher load levels. All three components are generally considered for foundations embedded in cohesive materials such as clays. 1981). or immediate. elastic movement usually is the only component calculated because the sources of such uplift loading (i. wind for transmission line structures) are transient in nature. Therefore. movement of drilled shaft foundations under axial uplift and compression loading. 1943.

(e. that compatibility Some exists along the soil-shaft factors to account interface. Elastic movement predictions be made using elastic continuum 1968.3 predictive single methodology. for the of the methods correction distribution of soil stiffness with depth or the presence of a stiffer soil also are layer at or below the shaft tip. linear-elastic medium. and Wroth. and soil-shaft material properties. Randolph behavior. modulus of elasticity of the shaft (Ep).g. ELASTIC MOVEMENT PREDICTIONS The elastic movement dependent including material relative of a deep foundation such as a drilled shaft is upon a number of geometric the slenderness ratio (D/B). 1980. 1971) or other simplified 1978. vs). as a function of slenderness relative shaft-soil stiffness ratio CD/B) and CKps or A).g. To rnmrrmze (non-belled) geometric shaft complications. Poulos and Davis. capable of yielding theoretical that is transmitted The results of elastic analyses values of the proportion of the applied load of to the shaft tip. foundations win only be straight-sided drilled considered. Butterfield methods elastic theory methods (e.. in addition to the relative distribution shear stress along the shaft. . of displacements provide isotropic. 1977) that assume shaft is and All of these methods that an elastic embedded within a homogeneous. stiffness of the shaft soil (expressed as either KFS or A).. and the can distribution of soil stiffness with depth. Vesic. assume analytical and Banerjee. elastic parameters to the surrounding of the soil CEs.

If in-situ soil testing also was done at the site. For a particular laboratory stress-strain curve. the secant modulus at a strain equal to that expected in the field under working loads is the value to be selected. or immediate. and the tangent modulus at zero strain (the initial tangent modulus) can be defmed. 1110stnatural soil materials behave in a highly nonlinear fashion. the results of this test. for a specific soil sample may not be defined uniquely. Therefore. 2 introduces the needed soil strength . in conjunction with one of the elastic methods. If a full-scale field load test is to be conducted.4 When calculating the elastic movement of a drilled shaft. which exhibit reasonably linear-elastic behavior over a wide range of strains. can be used to back-calculate an average secant modulus for the soil profile at the working load level. the value of E. a tangent or secant modulus can be defined at a specified strain level. but rather it is dependent upon the soil strain. the results can be related to the secant soil modulus for making first-order estimates of elastic movements. If a laboratory-determined soil modulus is to be used in an elastic movement calculation. SCOPE OF STUDY This study focuses on the prediction of the elastic. movement of single straight-sided (non-belled) drilled shaft foundations in axial uplift and compression loading. Chapters 2 through Chapter 4 provide a review of pertinent background and information. the most critical parameter to evaluate is the soil modulus (Es). Unlike materials such as concrete and steel.

These results are normalized by the unit side resistance (f) and undrained shear strength (s). considering separately drilled shafts in drained and undrained uplift and compression loading. as suggested by Callanan and Kulhawy (1985).5 deformation parameters. described in Chapter 3. and comparisons are made to the L. The method of Poulos and Davis (1968. databases of load tests conducted on fullscale drilled shafts are presented.). are reported. and L2 are represented by the coefficient of variation (COY). Chapters 5 through 8 present the results of the analyses performed in this study. as well as the cone tip resistance (q. The results subsequently are used to develop predictive methodologies for the elastic limit movement of drilled shafts. which is the standard deviation divided by the mean. First. in both axial uplift and compression. approximations uncertainties suggested associated by Hirany with the and Kulhawy evaluation of (1988). describes the method used herein to determine the drilled shaft elastic response. 1980) then is used to backcalculate values of soil modulus fr0111 the observed loads and displacements at Lt. The observed loads and corresponding displacements at the elastic limit (Li) and failure threshold (L2). Chapter 4 reviews the most CODU110n elastic approaches that are used to predict drilled shaft axial movements. and L. the loads The and displacements at L. The quality of these methods is . parameters and reVIeWS the methods to estimate these Chapter 3 reviews the typical load-displacement behavior of and drilled shaft foundations.

the backcalculated secant values of soil modulus at the elastic limit (LI) are compared to the values of soil modulus determined from hyperbolic modeling (EH)' Chapter 9 summanzes the findings of this study and provides recommendations and concluding remarks. as defined in Chapter 3. Finally. a comparison is made of the back-calculated soil modulus values determined from some of the other elastic methods reviewed in Chapter 4. Next. . The concept of relative foundation rigidity is used to provide an explanation of the observed trends as a function of the slenderness ratio CD/B). the initial tangent load-displacement behavior of drilled shafts is discussed in the context of the elastic slope (ES) and the initial tangent slopes (ISo and ISH). In addition.6 evaluated on the basis of the cays associated with the mean normalized modulus values as back-calculated from the load tests.

Randolph. M." Report EL-4107. "Settlement Behavior of Single Axially Loaded Incompressible Piles and Piers. E. A. and Davis. Wiley. 374 p. C. Wiley. W. Poulos. Electric Power Research Institute. 1969. 700 p. NJ. F. G. 1465-1488.. F.. Taylor. H.. W. Jul 1988. K. D. W. . R. 351-371. and Davis. K. P. and Wroth. Sep 1968. "Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles.7 REFERENCES Butterfield. H. E. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. 104 (GT12). "Evaluation of Procedures for Predicting Foundation Uplift Movements. 265-296. 18 (3).. R. 733 p.. 1948.. Mar 1971. R. Prentice Hall. J. New York..397 p. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Poulos. New York. D. Palo Alto. and Kulhawy. 97 p. Electric Power Research Institute.. and Whitman. and Kovacs. Aug 1985. Wiley. and Banerjee. 1981. Englewood Cliffs. Callanan. T. V. Hirany. H. F. "Elastic Analysis of Compressible Piles and Pile Groups. G.. H. Palo Alto." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Diyision. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics." RepQ11 EL5915 (1). Lambe. 1943. 21 (1). D. Wiley. "Conduct and Interpretation of Load Tests on Drilled Shaft Foundations: Detailed Guidelines. 1980. P. H." Geotechnique. H.. Terzaghi. F. ASCE. Dec 1978. New York. Holtz. New York. Soil Mechanics. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering." Geotechnique.406-422. and Kulhawy.43-60.

42.. ." Synthesis of Highway Practice No. S. Washington. Transportation Research Board. "Design of Pile Foundations. DC. 68 p.8 Vesic. 1977. A.

(b) strength parameters. among 9 . (c) in-situ state of stress parameters. These parameters also provide information for interpreting other soil parameters others. such as the total soil unit weight (Yt).g.. such as the in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress (Ko) and overconsolidation ratio (OCR). INDEX PARAMETERS Index parameters are useful in providing information regarding relative soil behavior . such as strength and in-situ stress state. and (d) elastic soil parameters. The analyses presented in subsequent chapters utilize the correlations presented in this chapter. These soil parameters of drilled shaft are grouped into four general categories: (a) index parameters.. liquidity index. and consistency (e. such as the Poisson's ratio (vs) and soil modulus (Es). such as the effective stress friction angle (~) and undrained shear strength (su).CHAPTER 2 BVALUATION OF GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS PARAMETERS INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the geotechnical analysis parameters that need to be evaluated for capacity and movement predictions foundations. LI) for cohesive soils. relative density (Dr) for cohesionless soils.

such as the one presented in Figure 2-1 that links the uncorrected standard penetration test (SPT) N value to the tip resistance (qc) value from the cone penetration test (CPT).10 Unit Weight The soil unit weight can be estimated from the soil description and typical granulometry information. as provided in Table 2-1. Typical mean gram SIze (Dso) values for a variety of soils also are provided in Table 2-1... clay)._P.e.:_x _-_P_d:o:.:. Relative Density The relative density (Dr) is a common index parameter for describing the relative engineering behavior of cohesionless soils and is given by: D == r emax eJ11ax - - e == ..d emin P d (p d max . These Dso values can serve as a first -order estimate in the absence of grain size distribution information.:.n=linC-'-) J (_.. The Dso parameter is an important index for some soil correlations.. provided that the general soil type is provided (i.:_P-=-:d11=a.. emin = minimum . emax = maximum void ratio (representative void ratio of the soil in its most loose state).:.P d min) (2-1) in which e = in-situ void ratio. The unit weight can be estimated more accurately than many other soil parameters. silty sand.

. 0 0 0 V) ....j >=l V !-< E~ bb . 0 00 G\ 0 If) 0'\ C'! .. §g ] § ·s ::l "3 "0 V ~ V 0 '""' .=: (1) . t..........-t . 0 If) 0 00 00 0 . ....." ~ .s 0 If) \D 0 0 0 ........~ §.£ .. V) r<") .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...s ......=: ./ ....-.... II .:j H ... ~ v V 0 N -E ..§ 0 bJ) ('. '""' '""' U00 Oil Oil z v .~ ::J en ::J ~ <I'l Sb ...11 ........-< v E <= 00 r'l <n If) 0 a 0 '<1" 0 0 '<1" a M 0 000000 0 N 0 '<1" '<1" <n N 0 N -aa M If) 0 \D 0 r00 If) If) 0 ~~ r<") '> E V '" . . § '"g § t....: 00 ci :.. bJ) ~ OIl G- :i "0 oo a N ........(/J ....... N " 'E U3 Q 8v p" <n 0 ~ EI .:x:: ..j V '-" § v G\ If) .....:: ...-........... ro al Q) ..l=: 4--< 'u v 0 5 0 --'" Q Q 0 0 -0 . ...... v ...±:: . c:8 00 • .S ..s: 0 G- .... ~ ·s t.....~ .) ~..... +-' 0 If) N 00 .." :1.::j .£ '§ >.....8 . '0 00 ."": N 0 00 000 ~ N .. N . 0"' ·s ~ en U '0 7) U3 [) ::.. .......~ ..Ii M 0 0 0 0 0 ..... a!) ..c ..!=: V '""' 0 .....J. NN ... If) :1. C'.... ... ~ v .p...j '"'..."........ ....... ovV >...-.. C'....Qj ._ "." 0 0 0 ... 0 0 -:B \D "0 "0 (1) "0 §< 0 5b . ....v... 0 0 .... '<1" M ....." ro .I E .) 00 0 ~ "0 OIl <I'l 0 .. M '<1" .~ . 00 0'\ N 00 0 8: ... ~ cti 00 r:FJ (l.~ o (/J <l) .s .......) N 0.... <£ ::l ..-.. E '-" -~ 00 0'\ '"d § ':s: >.... Q E ...... . 00 00 .-.. r0 \D 0 0 . 0 0\ 0\ c.0\ \0 0\ -0 0 ... .o<t:: 0 ....!..... (l..j:j ~ c...j ~ "0 0 • . 0 0 r...... U ........ 00 NN 0 ..... >0 .~ <. .. Q . 0 II .... r""l '-"' Oil . "0 00 a ~ ...: 0 '0 en 0 <n ~ .. U M '""' 0 tn 0 !-< bJ) 0 '--' 3 "0 0 ...-< <Il N ... 0 o . E-< en (..." .) " '<1" 00 If) 0 ci 0 00 NN 0 0 0 N 0 If) 0 If) N N 0 0 0 0 v .... 0 . .. U 0 0 0 If) 0 0 0 If) If) c........" ~ ..en 00 ...0.:::l __..... (l.........e ...» ~ il '-" OIl a OIl ....I ..-.... 00 v '"E N 0 ::t 6b 7) NI . ........0 ~ ro E.0... ~ ~ V "0 00 0 § t'd "0 @' <...a c: 0 0 ..:1 c:: (1) 0 V ::l "0 OIl aa "0 ~ bb . If) '1""""""1 0 0 .!.~ 0 ~ N .-.:t II V 0 <n 0 ...... <n '" ~ '" ¢:: v '""' '-. r:FJ ::c: ........E U3 E .. 0 :::J u - s -' .....s a bb "0 VI ~ (.... "0 OIl § a >....D >.....) ...N :1. E-< v ~ • ... §~ ~ ......-< ...--....±:: 00 .- ...::J 0 cti I=i 00 .. N ci N 0\ 00 a ci 0 NM 0 00 0 ci N .-...

..... ...... 1-< V > 0 "0 co ro .. Cd Z 0 § -c-...c ..~ N to Vl 0 ~ 00 Q) 00 51 1) o@ N :::i....0 N r<"") NN ............... .0 F="!! ~ Cl c rN N \0 0\ 0 0 00 6 d ~ ........... v o § a........ .....fj co "0 ...o . '"tj '"tj V w . .......) 51 ~ ~ <S ~ t-- >.. M \0 0 0 C1 .... . 0 0 o M § ""t:l o ~ 1-< ~ ~ '-""' .... M 0\ M 0 ...... r0 M V) 0 0 0 N 0 M 0 0 1....... ...... ......_ v d'Z 0 v ro w § 00 ~ US >-.._ .......12 ---'" '"Cf to ........ 00 N M "l ""': NNNN \0 M d M V) 00 . en ·0 00 U ... ..... ·a §~"0 ] Q) co § ......... c:'d -l- ~ ~ 0 N ...J co 0 ~ ... 1t I 0 I-< ctI '"g I-< t... r........ ...... ............... V) II) 0 V) -. I-< a ~ Uu00 M '-""' 0 '"@ . 0 1.=: til 0 I=l . a ~ ....-< ~ Q) Cd .....t:: a.. Il.oo \0 0\ ............0 00 0 ""': .. ....._ 1-< co '"tj 00 ....0 .. M 0 M "<t M "l . .8 ~ 0 l.!. ·S f...-< 0 1....l.o 00 § .. ......::: 1-" ... ..l en U 'S '0 US U ~ en t> ::l CIj § .....>... M ...... ..... d'Z 0 lI"l . § '00 N :1.. "0 ro Vl 0...o N .. .~ . "<t M M ... I C) g ...£ w § >-..>..o t::~ o ~ N .~ @~ f:! ""t:l ""t:l .......... 00 M "<t "<t .....o 0 <B .... 0 0 lI"l ...j a. 0\ r-........ .=:~ ro ..q- r-....... B c:'d d o: ... :::l 'Q) :i ""t:l N ..... NN 00 00 00 r. ... 0 ......... 0 "<t 1.......... >- ~ ~ ~ .......9 .......0 0 1..... ~ 0 ::J r 0.. ~ . ... ... 0 NNNNdN "<t N 'lI"l 0 ...Uj w ~ u t...... '--' .... ""t:l v a(! > .. N N M .. ....r.. .. 0 ~ ..._ '"d <1) .. 1... ... .... U Q) 0 ~ ...::l g § r....o E . 00 0\ 0 N "<t N C1 ~ . 0 0 00 0 ~ .... § a... ...... OIl........ "<t 00 0 0 V) -r N ...... 00 M 0\ 1............. ~ '"5 00 ........::l -e (!) § '"tj Q) .............0 '" :0 0 0 0 ........ r..........§ '"5 ro 00 ~ 0 u .. N "<t ............. CO ·v ~ .. § a. .::::' ........ -V.. ....._ N ..... 5 ""0 a.0 M V) .. 0"' .§ " o o ............. o .....0 0 .. Vl V ~ .::t: 0\ V) ..::. . .......... r...>.. '"0 ...8 ....... "l ... U ....._ '-' ~ a r0 1... co co v ro ......

44 D500..776 0.0.1987 Kosim. cornp.) 0.O.8 0. et 01.. <.10 0..2 S.. OCR 13-8) 403 443 High OCR (>8\ 59 145 190 404 34 56 50 0.) .5 co Figure 2-2 Correlations between Dr and qc for Cohesionless Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. 1986 Seed and deAlba. X . 1990..14 0.13 10 o 8 Z <. NC-Iow.. 1990.13 0.. 0 CI. cornp.26 r2=0. fP 0 __. 0. Dso (rnrn) Figure 2-1 Variation of qclN with Mean Particle Size (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne.. 6 Robertson and Campanella o o 5..14 0.2 33. 2-37.2 NC. 292 280 0.849 0.005 0. p. 1983 Ze r'logianni sand Kalleliot is.01 0.5 Mean Particle Size._--=."L03) 5 10 u 0" 4 00 2 (n=197... 1988 Chin._=- =Q a )0.10 0. 2-33. comp.overcqe 305 390 Low OCR 1<3\ Med.. OF n ... et 01.1988 Jamiolkowski.12 100 _ 400 600 (qcfpo) (0:... 1985 Andrus and Youd.885 0. • • • Rober Is on a nd Cam pane 110. et 01. p.859 500 0..796 0.. 1986 Muromachi..702. 1981 o .711 0.4 Cose NC-high NC-med.14 0.711 0. (qc Ipc) IN = 5.

18. an equivalent qc value can be estimated from Figure 2-1 for a given SPT N value and mean grain size (Dso). then can be used to estimate the relative density.09 for low). The relative density of a cohesionless soil can be estimated from the cone tip resistance (qc). Pd = in-situ dry density.5 (2-2) in which Qc = compressibility factor (0. 1. avo The introduction of atmospheric pressure (Pa) to normalize q. Many natural sands tend to be of medium to high compressibility and low to medium OCR. The C. as given in Figure 2-2. .91 for high. term in Equation 2-2 represents the overburden stress correction factor for cone tip resistance and is given by: (2-3) For the case histories where only SPT N values were reported. these cone correlations cannot be used directly. vertical effective overburden stress at the cone tip (avo)' compressibility. Pd max = maximum dry density. and the relationships makes dimensionless.0 for medium. The equivalent q. and stress history. and Pd min = minimum dry density. The mean relationships of Figure 2-2 are represented as follows: D r 2 = QeD = Cq(qc/pJ 305 QCQOCR = QF 1 (qc/pJ 305 Qc OCR 0. and QOCR = overconsolidation factor = OCRO. However. and 1.18 (avo I pJO.14 (representative of the soil in its most dense state).

. the liquidity index (LI) of a soil can be expressed as: LI = (w n- W p) (wL-wp) (2-5) A consistency index (Cl) also can be defined as: (2-6) While the consistency of a cohesive soil is an indicator of its geologic history and relative engineering behavior. The plasticity index (PI) of a soil can be defined as: PI = wL - WP (2-4) Likewise. liquid limit (wd. SPT N value. and normalized cone tip resistance (qc/Pa). Table 2-2 provides approximate relationships among the Cl. and plastic limit (w-).15 Consistency of Cohesive Soils The consistency of cohesive soils can be determined from the in-situ natural water content (w. few reliable correlations exist with in-situ test data.).

2-36. soil mechanics analyses are divided into two general categories: effective stress analysis (ESA) and total stress analysis (TSA). In addition. 105. p. 1978. whether obtained by laboratory or in-situ tests.5 STRENGTH In this study. a reasonable estimate of the soil strength is needed. as well as the effective stress friction angle in some cases.5 to 0. . p.0 to 1. the undrained shear strength (su) must be determined. Soil strength 1S a function of several parameters. and therefore it cannot be defined uniquely.75 to 1. the effective stress friction angle (<l> ) is the required parameter. For TSA. For ESA. 1990.75 0.0 l. as given by Kulhawy and Mayne.5 > 1.16 Table 2-2 Consistency Index of Cohesive Soil versus N and qc (Source: Szechy and Varga. Therefore. the back-calculated values of soil modulus (Es) are correlated with soil strength in accordance with common geotechnical practice.5 0.) NValue (blows 1ft) <2 2 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 > 30 Cone Tip Resistance (qclPa) <5 5 to IS 15 to 30 30 to 60 > 60 very soft soft to medium stiff very hard hard Consistency Consistency Index < 0.

As shown in Figure 2-4 (d). Since it is assumed that the soil experiences no radial strain in the field (i. and TE (triaxial extension) test values.. Therefore. conditions).17 Effective Stress Friction Angle The effective stress friction angle (f) describes the strength of all soils. the TC and TE tests used to model drilled shaft tip resistance are the CKoUC (consolidated-K. However. This value (~ tc ) f is the has been correlated with the normalized cone tip resistance (q/Pa) for sands. deep foundation axial side resistance is best represented by either the DS (direct shear) or DSS (direct simple shear) test. as shown in Figure 2-3.e. Figure 2-4 summarizes some common loading cases encountered and the most appropriate laboratory test simulation for each. This correlation can be used directly to estimate ~ tc for cohesionless soils when the cone tip resistance (qc) is reported. DSS (direct simple shear). undrained undrained triaxial compression) and CKoUE (consolidated-K. The most common type of laboratory test used to determine triaxial compression (TC) test. only the SPT N value is provided. triaxial extension) tests. in many cases. while the tip resistance is most appropriately modeled by averaging the TC (triaxial compression). the equivalent qc first must be estimated from Figure 2-1 and then Figure 2-3 can be used to estimate ~tc' Soil is subjected to a variety of boundary conditions and loading stress paths in the field. K. respectively. .

the use of ~tc.) For cohesionless soils. in an effective stress analysis involving cohesionless soils would be conservative. Therefore. 4-19. of the different test types.OC Sands Symbols-NC Sands 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 Figure 2-3 Trend of ~tc with Normalized qc for Cohesionless Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. 1990. the consolidated-isotropic ally undrained triaxial compression (Cll.18 g LL c u .. the relative values of <I> for the different test types are provided in Table 2-3. p. Other Symbols .. . It should be noted that..K') test gives the lowest value of effective stress friction angle for cohesionIess soils.

19 a) Embankment b) Loaded Wall ass ~ ~ or TE c) Vertical Compression Test (PSC or Cut rc: Direct Simple Shear Test (DSS) Extension Test (PSE or TE) ~SC o.TC d) Ori lied Compo Shaft Uplift ~DSS/OS TEJj ~omenl e) Spread Foundation Uplift W. - TC/OSS/TE - DSS Note. 1990.) . p. Plane strain tests (PSC IPS E 1 used for Ion g feo tures Triaxial tests (TC ITE) used for near symmetrical features Direct shear (OS) normally substituted for DSS to evaluate 4> Figure 2-4 Relevance of Laboratory Strength Tests to Field Conditions (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. 4-6. Shear Uplift C DSS Uplift e£n g .

12 1. p.) Test Type Friction Angle (degrees) Triaxial compression' (TC) Triaxial extension (TE) Plane strain compression (PSC) Plane strain extension (PSE) Direct shear (DS) 1. or CAUe .[tan~psccos $ cv ] or icruc. 4-14.25 1 ~tc ~tc - tan.20 Table 2-3 Relative Values of ~ for Cohesionless Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. CKoUC. 1990.0 ~tc 1.

~IC' ~cv represents a lower bound for Therefore. (OC) clays as a fi. 1990.6 0. 1976.8 > CPCI/ 40° IJ. 284. or other structured NC cohesive soils. cemented. The critical state (or constant volume) friction angle (~cv) of normally-consolidated (NC) clays can be estimated from the correlation between plasticity index (PI) and $cv presented in Figure 2-5. accepted method has been developed for estimating the peak friction angle of overconsolidated factors. Kulhawy and Mayne. the value of ~tc ~ ~cv· For sensitive. for insensitive..2 0 c (/) 20° 10° 1100 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 5060 80 100 150 200 Plasticity Figure 2-5 ~cv Index. Ll Undis1urbed soil Remolded soil 1-8- u 0.g.21 A parallel approach can be used to evaluate the effective stress friction angle of cohesive soils.mction of OCR and other 1. Unfortunately. p. uncemented NC cohesive soils.4 0. Previous work (e. 1976) indicates that.0 a 0.) . PI (%) for Normally Consolidated Clays Versus Plasticity Index (Source: Mitchell. Mitchell. ~tc ~ ~cv for NC clay no generally and can be estimated from Figure 2-5.

0 ~tc 1.) Test Type Friction Angle (degrees) Triaxial compression' (TC) Triaxial extension (TE) Plane strain compression (PSC) Plane strain extension (PSE) Direct shear' (OS) 1. Table 2-4 Relative Values of ~ for Normally Consolidated Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. based on results from sand Undrained Shear Strength The undrained shear strength (su) is an important parameter that describes the consistency and strength of cohesive soils. It is a measured response (not a physical property) of a soil subjected to undrained loading in which . the measured effective stress friction angle (~) is dependent upon the type of test and loading path. 1990.34 ~tc tan -I [X 'I' psc co S ~ cv ] or tan '+' 1-CIUC. CKoUC. 4-25. or CAUC 2-Speculative.22 1.22 As was the case for cohesionless soils. p.1 ° ~tc ~tc 1. The relative values of ~ for cohesive soils are presented in Table 2-4.

. For a first order estimation. confining stress level.8.5)/\ (2-7) in which Sll I avo = undrained strength ratio. is affected by factors such as the mode of testing. Consequently. as shown in Figure 2-4. 1990. 1984) that the conventional ClUe test be used as the standard test of reference. et al. and other variables (e. Therefore. initial stress state.. clay parameters representing strength and compressibility. 1977.7 to 0. and M and A = modified Cam respectively. 1977. which is a simplified alternative to an effective stress analysis for cohesive soils because the change in pore water stress (Au) during the period of loading might not be known with sufficient accuracy.8 typically is used.g. It has been suggested by several researchers (e. varying as a function of stress level in-situ.. Ladd. is a lumped parameter. 1984). Wroth. The value of A ranges from 0. The undrained = shear strength is employed for a total stress analysis (~ 0). used for analysis and design must match the governing field conditions. Kulhawy and Mayne. a standard reference test must be used. Kulhawy and Mayne. Ladd. or a measured soil response that is affected by ~ and Au.g.5 M (0. The parameter M is given by: . the estimate of s. et al. The undrained shear strength for NC clay under CIUC testing conditions can be estimated by the modified Cam clay model as follows: ( Su avo J CIUC = 0. It is also well-known that s. varies with test type. boundary conditions. rate of loading. Since s. Wroth. s. 1990.. a value of 0.23 zero volume change is assumed.

the use of undrained shear strength values obtained by the Cll. as given below: =-Su = aTEST aRATE aOCR ( cr vo =-J Su (2-9) eruc o vo in which aTEST. plotted as mean regression lines. strain = rate. a and aOCR correction factors for test mode. For each test type. values..) . the modified Cam clay model predicts values of s. modifying A general s. and overconsolidation.sin e. (Recall that the inverse is true for effective stress analyses involving ~IC. The relationships among the s. as given in Table 2-5. are shown in Figure 2-6. the elUe test gives the highest value of undrained shear strength.24 M = 6 sin~tc 3 . It should be noted that. RATE. of the different testing modes. 1990). strain rate.C test in a total stress analysis would be unconservative. relationship can be developed by Equation 2-7 to account for test mode. respectively. Therefore. a linear approximation is used for effective stress friction angles between 20° and 40°. and overconsolidation. (2-8) For CIUC test conditions. This is the most probable range of effective stress friction angles for natural soils. that are in relatively close agreement with available test data (Kulhawy and Mayne.

0064 0. from ClUC Test Results (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne.Normal reference rate is 1 % per hour.56 . .0.78 for simple shear 0.Linear approximation within 20° and 40°.72 for compression 0.25 Table 2-5 Correction Factors for s.0094 0.1 log Ea OCRA ~tc Influence Test Mode aTEST ClUC PSC CKoUC DSS PSE CKoUE a ~tc a a a ~tc ~tc ~lC a Strain Rate Overconsolidation aRATE All aOCR All b A A A = = = 0.0.13 .0046 1 + 0.0.0. see plots in Figure 2-6.77 .) Term Test Type Value 1. 1990.0 1.71 . b . p.0.0052 0.22 . Compared with s. 4-50.82 for extension a .0112 1.

.-.:..:. which is defined as the ratio between the in-situ horizontal and vertical effective stresses (aho / avo)' can be evaluated in several ways... CKoUC -~...:.....·· ..:_·d fOSS . vo) Figure 2-7 shows the relationship between the vertical ((j' and horizontal (aho) effective ..---....·:. ---:. ~ ....:... PsE.:. . ..--.. 4-51... 1990.. ·· 0..:. p..26 -v ..72 for camp ression cl>tc Figure 2-6 Normalized Undrained Strength Ratios for Major Laboratory Shear Test Types (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne......:...:... -.2 ¢psc=I..I¢tc A = 0..) IN-SITU STATE OF STRESS In-Situ Coefficient of Horizontal Soil Stress The in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress (Kj).T.

1990.27 overburden stresses at various loading stages. p. and OCR = OCRmax at every point along the .. represented by point D if one is on stress path D-E in Figure 2-7).) A general equation for evaluating K. During primary unloading. primary unloading. and primary reloading. the OCR is continuously increasing. 3-3. 1982): K o = (1- Sin~)[ tc OCR + OCRmax (l-sin$"J 4 l(l= OCR )] OCRmax (2-10) In which OCR = overconsolidation ratio (o I " vp '-'YO' WI" th " '-'p - preconsolidation stress) and OCRmax maximum past OCR during the primary reloading stage (e. for all three loading stages was proposed as follows (Mayne and Kulhawy. Primary unloading Virgin loading (Jvo - Figure 2-7 Stress Paths for Simple Stress Histories (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne.g. including virgin loading.

Therefore. so it must be used conservatively. oxidation. . Equation 2-10 can be simplified for primary unloading as follows: (2-11 ) . and seasonal temperature change also can contribute to an overconsolidation effect (Lutenegger. Equation 2-11 often is used for OC clays. For clay soils. For virgin loading (OCR = 1). The resulting K.28 primary unloading curve. it is difficult to estimate the field value of OCRmax. the most common of which includes the erosion of overburden material and seasonal fluctuations in the ground water table. It is important to note that Equation 2-10 was developed usmg soils consolidated known. leaching. Equation 2-10 can be simplified to: (2-12) Most natural soils have undergone a stress history of loading . value is most likely located between points C and E in Figure 2-7. located between points Band D in Figure 2-7. mechanisms such as cementation.reloading as a result of a number of factors. Therefore. Consequently.unloading . which assumes that a11OC clays are on the primary unloading curve. 1995). in the laboratory in which both OCR and OCRmax were In reality. value is likely to be somewhat on the high side. the insitu K.

Figure 2-8 shows the correlations. It should be noted that Figure 2-8 and Equation 2-15 are only rough approximations. so these K. in the field can be taken as the limiting passive stress coefficient for the Rankine stress condition (Kp). for uncemented. the horizontal effective stress (aha) can be estimated from the cone tip resistance and the relative density. K. then can be computed. With the IS c typically zero. . unstructured soils.sin~psc ps (2-14) For cohesionless soils.29 The theoretical maximum value of K. exception of cemented and structured soils. Therefore. K. This value is given by: Kp = 1 + sin ~p" + 2 C [I + SIn 1- S111~psc avo 1- ~I'" ]05 ~psc (2-13) SIn in which c = effective stress cohesion intercept of the soil and ~psc effective stress friction angle in plane strain compression. which are represented analytically by: GI1() _ (qc/pJL25 35 exp (Dr 120) Pa (2-15) Once Gho is known. is given by: K= p l+sjn~ "C 1.

et al. 132. C o :r:: o NO. p. 1989. The relationship between K. and Dr for NC and OC sands (Source: Kulhawy. qc. [as determined from laboratory tests and insitu tests such as the DMT (dilatometer test).. For cases in which only the SPT N values were reported. and SBPMT (self-boring pressuremeter test)] and the SPT N value normalized by atmospheric pressure and vertical effective overburden . PMT (pressuremeter test).5 >o Cone Tip Resistance> qc I Po Figure 2-8 Correlation of aho.30 values must be reviewed carefully to be sure that they are consistent with the estimated soil stress history..) For cohesive soils. K. Figure 2-1 can be employed to convert the N values to an equivalent q. has been correlated with a number of in-situ tests.

et aI. Correlated with SPT N for Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy.r--~'-"--'---'-'-~I-.r-~ 4- - Ko:O. 129. r2 N Po Ia-vo =0. p. A linear regression on these data gives: x. = 0. - 5 D. 1989. for cohesive soi1s can be estimated as follows: These data . = 0.43) 2r 13 intact clays 5 fissured cloys I I I 1 I 1 I 1 20 30 40 50 60 Npo / cTvO Figure 2-9 K.--. indicate that K.. as determined from SBPMT results with the normalized corrected cone tip resistance (qT) obtained from cone penetration tests with pore pressure measurements (CPTU)..073 N Pa avo (2-16) Figure 2-10 shows the trend of K..073 (n=O.57. 771.) stress is presented in Figure 2-9.31 5r--..--"--"--.

et al.. the OCR is . for cohesive soils usmg Equation 2-11. Kulhawy and Mayne. p. 3-28.32 - - 12 intact cloys clays 5 fissured O~----~I----~I~----~I----~I----~~--~ o 10 20 30 40 50 60 Figure 2-10 K. the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) must be known.10 (g T --=. Correlated with CPTU qT for Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. 1990.g. In addition. 1990. 1986). Overconsolidation Ratio To compute K.avo) avo (2-17) Details of the cone tip corrections are provided in other studies (e.) K 0 = 0.. Robertson.

33 an important parameter used to determine the undrained shear strength (s. the OCR was estimated.62 LJ) Pa in which Pa = (2-19) atmospheric pressure in the desired units of stress. G'p (Ladd and Foote. This can be achieved by first estimating the preconsolidation OCR from the following equation: stress and then computing the OCR =_p c (2-18) (j vo A number of researchers have correlated the preconsolidation stress with the liquidity index (LI). A more recent study of laboratory consolidation test data (Stas and Kulhawy. Therefore. The relationship has a standard deviation of .) of overconsolidated clays from shear tests conducted on samples that have been consolidated to a vertical effective stress greater than the maximum past stress. the stress history was not reported. The OCR also has an influence on the elastic modulus (Es) of all soils. For nearly all of the case histories used in this study. Equation 2-19 is based on a total of 150 data points for clays with a range in sensitivity between 1 and 10. 1974). 1984) indicates the following: _p G' = 10(111-1. or preconsolidation stress.

------- 1.LO----J 40 crp / pa Figure 2-11 all Correlated with Liquidity Index for Cohesive Soils (Source: Stas and Kulhawy.O------1.---------------.5..--------.0 x /-----L._ "0 c -0.5 + + + + + 1..O ~1------1 L.... 2.5 . 3-7..0 Regression line + -0.740).33 (r2 = 0.5 :. --L L.) .0 1 < St < 4 0.0 .5 _j Q) 0.j "0 ::J cr 1.:J 1..--=-. + 0.34 0. p. The data used to develop Equation 2-19 are provided in Figure 2-11.5 J..0 + + + + + + + + + + 4 < St < 10 + + ++ + 0.-------. 1984.

then can be calculated. as follows (Bullock.35 in-situ tests performed in the field also can be used to estimate the preconsolidation stress.~lC presented in Figure 2-15. With the DMT. 1990): OCR = K [ (l-sin~tc) 0 . ]( S. it may not be necessary to compute the OCR for the purpose of determining K. If is known.l'~~~eJ (2-20) which is a form of Equation 2-11 that has been re-arranged and modified to fit the results of laboratory calibration chamber tests on sand. 1983. the value of K.K. Figures 2-12 through 2-14 show relationships O"p' between in-situ test data and For cohesionless soils. . The best approach is through a detailed geologic study to evaluate the stress history of the formation. because 0"110 O"ho can be estimated directly. It is difficult to estimate the in-situ OCR of natural sand deposits. relationships . Equation 2-20 should be used in conjunction with the qc . as cited by Kulhawy and Mayne. a value of OCR for sands can be back-calculated from the estimated K.

p. 3-10... 3-11. Figure 2-13 Gp Correlated with CPT qc for Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. r2=0.D. S. =2. 0 IbCl. 1990..29 qc (n=113. 1990.) . 39 intact clays 10 fissured clays 2 5 10 20 50 qc/Pa 100 200 Cone Tip Resistance. c.2 49 intact cloys 2 fissured cloys SPT N Value (blows Iff or 305mm) Figure 2-12 GpCorrelated with SPT N for Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne.36 0. <II <II QJ cTp=0.. 0.5 ..31 po) . U1 0 "0 0 0 <II c C 0 QJ U a. p..1 0.) 50 <..858.

_ U) 5 2 • ._ "0 0 0 <5 <J1 0 Q) c ~f'.01 0.95Pol <ll '--. ~fiJ 'bCl...~ c III ~ u '--Q_ f1.37 50 I " 12) fisSUred-/'''\ <. a. 1990. D = 0.- / I c . su{VST} r2=0.832.02 0. III ~"fP 0...) .t.-. p.1 0.~ .2 96 intact clays I fissured clay 0. <. 3-9.f) vi S.1 0. 0.5 SU /.2 1Il~ .~ <J>1> I! 2 Q. 0 20 10 a-p~3..54 (n: 205. (VST) /Po Figure 2-14 crp Correlated with VST SU for Cohesive Soils (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne.05 5 Field Vane Strength. <lJIl <J 0.

If such an element is subjected to a normal stress CYx (with O"y = O"z . 2668. and the methods that can be used to estimate them. 1985. Poisson's Ratio The Poisson's ratio of soil (vs) provides a relationship between the normal strains of a soil element loaded in uniaxial compression within the elastic range.K. These elastic soil parameters. qc / cYvo Figure 2-15 Simplified qc . . are provided in this section.~IC Relationships for Cohesionless Soils (Source: Marchetti.) ELASTIC SOIL PARAMETERS The deformation properties of soil typically are represented by two elastic soil parameters: Poisson's ratio (v.2 100 200 1000 2000 Cone Tip Resi stance.) and Young's Modulus (Es).38 0. p.

For drained loading.3 to 0. While v. the resulting relationship among the elastic normal strains is given by: (2-21) The range of Vs for isotropic.5. Poisson's ratio for Vd (Vd) Therefore. volume changes do occur. p. can exceed 0. no volume change occurs. the undrained Poisson's ratio (vu) is equal to 0.5 for dilative.) Soil Type Clay Dense Sand Loose Sand Drained Poisson's Ratio. it should be noted that the behavior of such materials is not elastic.4 0.1 to 0. by definition. 5-4. Table 2-6 Typical Ranges of Drained Poisson's Ratio (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. elastic soil is between 0 and 0. 0.3 Vd .2 to 0.39 = 0). Therefore.4 0. the drained Typical values varies with soil type and consistency.5. are given in Table 2-6. inelastic soils. In the specific case of undrained loading ($ = 0) of saturated cohesive soils. 1990.

The shear modulus (Gs) Vs and as constrained follows: modulus (Ms) of soil can be related to E.5..) of a soil specimen in axial compression. cohesive soils. 3 ~ rei (2-22) in which ~ _~--=-IC . modulus (Ed) best represents the deformation behavior. The elastic soil modulus usually is represented by Young's modulus (Bs). (1987) approximated Vd Trautmann and Kulhawy as follows: Vd ~ 0 . For the drained soil For saturated. cohesionless soils that are relatively free-draining.1 + O. through . cohesive soil in which zero volume change is assumed.0'3) divided by the axial strain (s. which is defmed as the deviator stress (0'1 . rei = _-_2_5_"' 45" . however. the short-term deformation condition is best represented by the undrained 8011 modulus (Ell)' Recall that for the undrained loading of a saturated.25" (0 5. ~rel S 1) (2-23) Soil Modulus An estimate of soil modulus is needed to predict axial movements of drilled shafts. Vs = Vu = 0.40 For ease in computer code implementation.

These modulus definitions are shown schematically in Figure 2-16. The upper strain limit for the linear-elastic behavior of overconsolidated soils can be as high as an order of magnitude greater . Therefore. the soil modulus can be defined as the initial tangent modulus (ED. The strain level dependency of the stiffness of soil and rock materials is illustrated schematically in Figure 2-17. Kulhawy and Mayne.41 G s = Es 2 (1 + vJ (2-24) M= . where the stress-strain behavior is relatively linear-elastic at stress levels below the yield point. For most geotechnical engineering applications. or the secant modulus (Esec) at a specified stress or strain level. the tangent modulus (E) at a specified stress or strain level. the soil modulus cannot be defined uniquely for a particular specimen because the value is dependent upon the strain level. it is desirable to select a soil modulus that will correspond to the expected average strain level the soil will experience under working loads.) E s (I-v) s (2-25) Unlike materials such as steel. Most normally consolidated soils behave in a relatively linear-elastic manner at average strains of less than 1O~5 to 10-6. For a particular stress-strain curve. most soils are highly nonlinear.2v. these moduli vary with the confining stress (e. s (1 + v J(1. Furthermore.. 1990).g.

£a Figure 2-16 Modulus Definitions than that for normally consolidated soils. 1989).5 and 3. .42 b I M en C/) b U5 ClJ ...: ~ L- a . factors of safety between 1.g. unless otherwise noted. the initial signs of soil yielding occur at average strains on the order of 10-4.:. (]) o Axial Strain.. most "well-designed" The average soil strains for foundation elements at working loads are on the order of 10-3 or less (Jamiolkowski and Robertson..0). while the peak soil strength is generally achieved at local strains on the order of 10-2 to 10-1• The correlations for the drained and undrained soil moduli (Ed and Eu) presented in the subsequent portions of this chapter will refer to the secant value within common design stress levels (e. According to Figure 2-17...

. ....S: c ~ .... CD «I c: ....... 1.. «I c «I 0 .....~ "0 Q) . E . ~ _ ___.... oX 5 ~ I/) .... c «I CD :::l ..43 . II II :f j. III II? o U co ... ) ·C 0 I a:: o I/) Ql o o ~ en c ... c :0 ctI o o Ol c....... c: o . Q) g ".... : I CI) Q) c ~ .... 'c o ........I N c c: co "0 C I II fI «I c: 0 I/) E III ..... u III I: s c: 'C CD Ol 'c 0 o ..J ~ o o o c 'i5 Q5 '>' . ~ s: (/) Q) . ...I/) ~ 'u Q) E ...S: o g en ~ Q) a: -a.. '" .... 0 0 c: o CD E I/) (5 n ~ U) f/) Ql s: I/) Ol ~ ... «I o ...... E -0 «I 15 ........._ «I I: / I I . E I OJ en Q) en ~ ~ "0 () :::l ·c I/) :"Q ctI (5 ..... OJ .. ~ "i) r/} " <G "- > ~ ~ (3 ~ -§ail r/} r/} I» ....'0 Q) LL . I/) CD 0 E o >- ....._1-=..._ .. :J .5 C\I o I/) as l: ~ 'E 8 .. "0 Q) .. .... '0 . en Q) c 0 Ql fJ) 'c.

Table 2-7 Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Sand (Source: Kulhawy and Mayne. p. such as the SPT or CPT. 207. Ed/Pa Consistency Loose Medium Dense Typical 100 to 200 200 to 500 500 to 1000 Driven Pilesa 275 to 550 550 to 700 700 to 1100 a . in addition to the ranges for driven piles in particular. for conducting immediate (elastic) movement analyses.44 Modulus for Cohesionless Soils The drained elastic soil modulus (Ed) is generally used to estimate the axial movement of drilled shafts in cohesionless soils. geotechnical engineers have often relied upon empirical correlations between the drained soil modulus (Ed) and the results of in-situ tests. in 1110stcases. either impossible or not cost-effective. 1975. p.) Normalized Elastic Modulus. Marry of the early correlations between Ed and the SPT N value are of the following general form: (2-26) . Since the "undisturbed" sampling of cohesionless soils is. 1990.Source: Poulos. 5-15. Typical ranges of the normalized drained elastic soil modulus (Ed/Pa). are provided in Table 2-7.

45 in which

Sl

S1

and

S2 =

empirical coefficients. A list of published values for soils is given in Table 2-8.

and

S2

for a variety of cohesionless

Correlations between the normalized drained Young's modulus (EiPa) and SPT N value as back-calculated from full scale field load tests are presented in Figure 2-18.

Table 2-8 Values of Sl and S2 for the Ed - SPT N Relationship (Equation 2-26) for Cohesionless Soils (Based upon Denver, 1982, p. 38.) Reference NA VF AC (1986)

Sl 82

Comments Silts, Sandy Silts Clean, Fine to Medium Sands Coarse Sands and Gravelly Sands Sandy Gravels and Gravel NC Sand and Gravel Preloaded Sand

(MPa) 0.39 0.67 0.96 1.15 D'Appolonia, et a1. (1970) 0.76 1.04 0.52 0.48 0.32 0.48 0.32

(MPa) 0 0 0 0 18.8 36.8 7.46 7.17 1.58 7.20 1.58

Schultze and Menzenbach (1961) Webb (1970) Schmertmann (1970)

Saturated Sand Clay and Sand Submerged SP and SW Sands Submerged SP Clayey Sands

46

1200~~~-L--~~~----~--~~------~-----,

I - 0' Appolonia, O'Appolonia, and Brisetle, 1970

LOOSE

MEDIUM

OENSE

V_ DENSE

2 - Schmertmann, 1970

3 - Poulos and Davis, 1980

800

--.

W

a.

-u

m

20

40

60

SPT N Value (blows / ft or 305 mm)

Figure 2-18 Comparative Plot of Modulus Correlations for Sand (Source: Callanan and Kulhawy, 1985. p. 3-16.)

Empirical form:

correlations also have been published linking the cone tip

resistance (qc) to the drained Young's Modulus (Ed) in the following linear

(2-27) In which Ed, qc, and b are in the same stress units, and m

=

a

dimensionless constant. The m and b parameters, as reported by a number of different researchers, are presented in Table 2-9. For shallow footings and other surface loadings, m typically is between 1.5 and 3.5. However, for driven piles, values as high as 40 have been reported. The higher

values for driven piles can be attributed to the stiffening effect that pile driving has on the surrounding soil, in addition to the relatively large

**47 mean vertical effective stress that is inherent for deep foundations.
**

It

should be noted that the original Ed - q, correlation proposed by DeBeer and Martens (1957) was given as an upper bound predictor of foundation movement. Therefore, the true in-situ Ed is most likely larger than the Subsequent laboratory and field

value estimated by their method. experience has verified this assessment.

Table 2-9 Values of 111 and b for the Ed - qc Relationship (Equation 2-27) for Cohesionless Soils (Based upon Denver, 1982, p. 38.) Reference DeBeer and Martens (1957) Meyerhof (1965) Schmertmann (1970) Schmertmann, et a1. (1978) Terzaghi, et a1. (1996)

111

l.5 l.9 2.0 2.5 3.5

b (MPa) 0 0 0 0 0

Comments

Shallow Footings Shallow Footings on NC Sand Modified Method Square or Circular Loading on Sands and Gravelly Soils Saturated Sand Saturated Clayey Sand Driven Piles in Silica Sands Driven Piles in NC Silica Sands Driven Piles in OC Silica Sands

Webb (1970) Milovic and Stevanovic (1982) Poulos (1988)

2.50 1.67 20 to 40 5.0 7.5

7.17 2.40 0 0 0

48 Unfortunately, correlations for Ed as a function of only either N or qc are relatively crude and oversimplify the problem at hand. The stiffness of a cohesionless soil is dependent upon a number of other factors, such as the elasticity of the individual soil particles, the fabric of the soil, stress history, drainage conditions, and time. Table 2-10 lists the specific

factors associated with each of these five general categories.

Table 2-10 Factors Affecting the Stiffness of Cohesionless Soils During Monotonic Loading (Source: Baldi, et aI., 1989, p. 166.) Categories Material Factors Grading Mineralogy Angularity Grain Arrangement Grain Orientation Stress-strain History Mean Effective Stress Shear Strain Undrained Drained Creep, Rate Effects

Fabric Stress

Drainage Time

Testing programs involving laboratory triaxial tests and cone penetration tests in large calibration chambers have contributed to a quantification of the influence of aging and overconsolidation on the drained soil modulus, Ed. In Figure 2-19, Ed - qc relationships for silica sands and gravels from such laboratory and in-situ testing are presented for recent NC sands, aged

49 NC sands, and OC sands. The grain size distributions for these four [The drained soil modulus (Ed) in

materials are shown in Figure 2-20.

Figure 2-19 is the secant value, measured at an average axial strain of 10-3, as inferred from consolidated-K, drained (CKoD) triaxial

compression tests.]

The test data indicate that for OC sands, the Ed/qc

ratio can be up to 25 at low normalized qc values. While the relationships presented in Figure 2-19 are the result of carefully-performed, high-

quality laboratory and in-situ testing, they should be considered empirical in nature because a theoretical basis for the depicted trends does not exist at the present time.

The drained soil modulus also can be normalized resistance (f), which for axial compression is defined as:

by the unit side

(2-28)

in which

Quit =

**ultimate load applied to the foundation and to
**

Quit.

Qtip =

tip load

corresponding

For drilled shafts in axial uplift, the unit side

resistance is defined as:

f=

Q wit -Q

III

-W

nBD

(2-29)

in which

Qtu =

calculated tip suction in uplift and W

=

foundation weight.

- Design and Construction of Foundations for the Saint Lawrence River Bridge, Autoroute 30 Montréal QuebecUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Time Dependent Movements on the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Pedestrian Tunnel, Ontario, CanadaUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Time Dependent Deformations of Shafts and Tunnels in the Greater Toronto AreaUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Billy Bishop Airport Pedestrian Tunnel Article - North American Tunnelling Journal October - November 2013Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- The Billy Bishop Airport Pedestrian Tunnel Project: Analysis and Design of a Tunnel in Swelling ShaleUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Ground Engineering for the Autoroute 30 PPP Project in Montreal, Quebec CanadaUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Value of pile tests to inform detailed design in CanadaUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Instrumented Static Pile Load Testing of Cast-in-place Concrete Piles in EdmontonUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- RETC-81042Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Design and Construction of the Billy Bishop City Airport Pedestrian Tunnel, Toronto, CanadaUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- 63rd Street Tunnel & East Side Access, New York, NYUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- SKMBT_C364e15010611070Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Reliability Analysis for Bridge SubstructuresUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Billy Bishop Article.pdfUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Retaining Walls and Foundations in New York CityUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Driven Pile Capacity in Clay and Drilled Shaft Capacity in Rock from Field Load TestsUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- History of Subaqueous Tunneling in New York City - by Andrew Cushing and Nik Sokol - Powerpoint PresentationUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- An Evaluation of the Load-Displacement Behavior and Load Test Interpretation of Micropiles in Rock by Andrew Cushing, et al.Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Osterberg Load Cell Testing Results and Analysis for Rock Socket Design Validation - Bridge over Beauharnois Canal, Autoroute 30, Montreal by Andrew Cushing, et. al.Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- O-Cell Testing for Rock Socket Design - Bridge Over Beauharnois Canal - Autoroute 30 MontrealUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- O-Cell Testing for Rock Socket Design - Bridge Over Beauharnois Canal - Autoroute 30 MontrealUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Foundation Construction Challenges at 100 11th Avenue in Manhattan - Secant Pile Wall by Andrew Cushing, et. al.Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Temporary Excavation Support System for a New Railway Bridge and Highway Underpass in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by Andrew G. Cushing and Christopher J. LewisUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Undrained Elastic Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Cohesive Soil by Andrew Cushing and Fred KulhawyUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Reliability Analysis of Anchored and Cantilevered Flexible Retaining Walls by Andrew G. Cushing, et al.Uploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Drilled Shaft in Strong Rock - Design, Validation, and Construction of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge, Autoroute 30, MontrealUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Physical mechanical and hydraulic properties of coal refuse for slurry impoundment designUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Dynamic Analysis and Design of Large Diameter LNG Tanks to Resist Seismic Events - by Navin Peris, Andrew Cushing, Zygmunt Lubkowski, and David ScarrUploaded byAndrew Cushing
- Drained Elastic Behavior of Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils by Andrew Cushing and Fred H. KulhawyUploaded byAndrew Cushing