See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251542700

Design charts for elastic pile shortening in the equivalent top–down load–
settlement curve from a bidirectional load test

Article  in  Computers and Geotechnics · March 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.11.001

CITATIONS READS

13 1,495

2 authors:

Jose Leo Mission Hyeong-Joo Kim

Horizon Geosciences Kunsan National University
32 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Derivation of design charts based on the two-dimensional structural analysis of geotextile tubes View project

Numerical and field test verifications for the deformation behavior of geotextile tubes considering 1D and areal strain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hyeong-Joo Kim on 18 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Design charts for elastic pile shortening in the equivalent top–down

load–settlement curve from a bidirectional load test
Jose Leo C. Mission, Hyeong-Joo Kim ⇑
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University, Miryong-dong, Kunsan City 573-701, Jeollabukdo, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With a rigid pile assumption, the equivalent top–down load–settlement curve constructed from the
Received 16 January 2010 results of a bidirectional or bottom–up pile load test does not fully consider the total elastic shortening
Received in revised form 18 September 2010 when all the load components from skin-friction and end-bearing are applied downward at the pile head.
Accepted 2 November 2010
In effect, the equivalent curve constructed by the original method suggested from the Osterberg test
Available online 14 January 2011
showed a much stiffer curve compared to the top–down curve. Design charts are provided in this paper
from the results of a parametric study on bored piles in order to approximately evaluate the k-factor that
Keywords:
is used to estimate the top–down pile shortening from the bottom–up shortening due to the skin-friction
Elastic pile shortening
Bidirectional test
component of the load. It has been shown that the k-factor varies with the distribution of the undrained
Osterberg (O-cell) test shear strength profile, pile slenderness ratio, and mobilization of the skin-friction resistance. In addition,
Bottom–up test the pile shortening due to the end-bearing load component is added to the top settlements by treating
Top–down test the pile as an elastic column. A modified method for the construction of the equivalent top–down
Equivalent load–settlement curve load–settlement curve is presented that considers the elastic pile shortening and validated with the mea-
sured top–down load–settlement curve from pile load tests.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bidirectional or bottom–up pile test by the method of Osterberg
load cell (O-cell) [1–3] uses a hydraulically driven, calibrated, sac-
rificial jacking device installed within the foundation unit and
when internally pressurized determines the skin-friction and
end-bearing separately. Due to differences in loading direction
and location in a bidirectional test from a static top–down test
(Fig. 1a), the load–displacement curves from the bidirectional test
(Fig. 1b) therefore have to be changed into an equivalent top–down
load–settlement curve similar to the static top–down load test re-
sult considering the axial load components from skin-friction (T)
and end-bearing (Q) are applied downward at the pile head
(Fig. 1c). Osterberg [1–3] suggested a method for the construction
of the equivalent top–down load–settlement curve determined by
adding the skin-friction and end-bearing loads mobilized at equal
displacements with the assumption that the pile is rigid. Based
on this method and assumption, the following considerations are
noteworthy to mention: (1) the pile shortening due to the end-
bearing load is not considered since the load component is applied
directly at the bearing stratum at the base [4], (2) the upward dis-
placement (z3) of the bottom of the pile due to the skin-friction
load component already includes the partial pile shortening (d2)
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 112873395; fax: +82 63 471 4760.
E-mail address: kimhj@kunsan.ac.kr (H.-J. Kim).
in a bottom–up test (Fig. 1b), and (3) the pile shortening d2 may
not be the same shortening that would have occurred when the
load T is applied downward at the pile head due to different mech-
anisms of load transfer to the pile and soil. It is mainly due to the
aforementioned factors that many researchers [5–10] have re-
ported the equivalent top-loaded settlement curve that does not
consider the elastic shortening of the pile were stiffer than conven-
tional top–down load–settlement curves. Kwon et al. [7] proposed
correction factors for the elastic pile shortening due to the skin-
friction component of the axial load by determining the ratio of
the area of load distribution between a top–down and bottom–
up loading on a pile. The main limitation of their method is that
the load-distribution in a top–down loading is generally not known
a priori, and the correction factors are affected by the pile slender-
ness ratio [11], distribution of the soil shear strength profiles, as
well as mobilization of the total skin-friction along the pile shaft.
Similarly, Kim and Mission [12] have proposed a general regression
equation for the correction factor for various distributions of soil
shear strength profile that assumed a fully mobilized skin-friction
along the shaft and disregarding pile slenderness effects. In this
study, the difference in upward displacements between the top
and bottom of the pile is related by a correction factor k to approx-
imate the elastic pile shortening that would have occurred if the
same load component T is applied downward at the pile head.
The various relationships of the k-factor are presented through de-
sign charts that were derived from a parametric study of a bored

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.11.001
168 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177

Fig. 1. Location and direction of pile load and displacements: (a) top–down load test, (b) bidirectional load test, and (c) equivalent top–down load and displacements.

pile that can be used to approximate the elastic pile shortening
from a bidirectional load test as it varies with the pile slenderness
ratio, distribution of the soil shear strength profile, and mobiliza-
tion of the total skin-friction. The correction for pile shortening
due to the end-bearing load component can also be computed
and provided in a design chart based on an equation that treats
the pile as an elastic column. Although the top–down load–
settlement curve can also be effectively determined from numeri-
cal modeling and simulation of a top–down loading on a pile such
as the one-dimensional nonlinear load-transfer (t–z) method, this
however entails additional expense and computational effort and
in which the results cannot be effectively verified due to variations
in the material models for ultimate load-transfer characteristics of
the soil in skin-friction and end-bearing. The aim of this paper is to
effectively utilize the results of the bidirectional pile load test using
the design charts in the construction of the equivalent top–down
load–settlement curve that considers elastic pile shortening.
component (T/Tu), a parametric study was performed by the
authors for a bored pile under the different idealized bilinear soil
profiles shown in Fig. 2, which was also described by Kim and Mis-
sion [12]. The soil–pile material properties are shown in Table 1
and in which the parametric study was limited to a normally con-
solidated cohesive soil in undrained conditions, with a maximum
undrained shear strength Su(max) at the bottom determined from
the linear relation by Mesri [13] based on the average effective
stress.
The parametric study was performed by numerical simulation
with finite element analysis using OpenSees [14] of a one-dimen-
sional (1-D) soil–pile model with the nonlinear load-transfer meth-
od (Fig. 3). For a typical soil–pile geometry shown in Fig. 3a, the
1-D soil–pile model shown in Fig. 3b was used for the static top–
down load test simulation and the 1-D model shown in Fig. 3c
was used for the bidirectional (bottom–up) load test simulation.

2. Design charts for elastic pile shortening and modified

equivalent top–down load–settlement curve from a
bidirectional load test

If dT is used to denote the downward elastic pile shortening due

to the skin-friction component (T) of the total load (P) applied at
the pile head, and dQ is used to denote the downward elastic pile
shortening due to the end-bearing component (Q), then the load
and displacement representations in Fig. 1a and c should be theo-
retically equivalent in which,

d1 ¼ d01 ¼ dT þ dQ ð1Þ
From Fig. 1b, an upward elastic pile shortening (d2) exists due to
the skin-friction load component (T) applied upward at the bottom
of the pile in a bidirectional test. In this study, the relationship that
exists between the elastic deformation dT in top–down loading to
d2 in bottom–up loading is approximately established. The factor
k is used to define this relationship and is written as,
dT ¼ kd2 ¼ kðz3  z4 Þ ð2Þ
In order to evaluate the values of the k-factor for various distri-
butions of undrained soil shear strength (Su) profile, pile slender- Fig. 2. Bilinear distribution of undrained shear strength profiles in normalized form
ness ratio (L/D), and mobilization of the skin-friction load [12].
 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177 169

Table 1
Soil–pile material parameters.

Pile diameter, D (m) 1.0

Pile length, L (m) 10–80
Slenderness ratio, L/D 10–80
Pile elastic modulus, E (MPa) 25,000
Soil type Cohesive
Average effective unit weight, c0 (kN/m3) 14.0
Max. undrained shear strength, Su(max) (kPa) 0.22c0 L [14]
Load-deformation property in skin-friction O’Neill and Reese [15]
(t–z curve)
Undrained shear strength (Su) profile distribution Profiles B–K (Fig. 2)

Fig. 3. (a) Typical pile–soil geometry, (b) one-dimensional (1-D) pile–soil model in
top–down load test simulation, and (c) 1-D pile–soil model in bottom–up load test
simulation.

The pile was modeled as elastic and discretized into elements that
were supported by soil springs having load-transfer properties in
skin-friction (t–z curve) at the sides and end-bearing (q–z curve)
at the base [15,16]. Nonlinear load-transfer curves were used to
model the soil–pile interface and end-bearing springs using O’Neill
and Reese [17] t–z and q–z curve relation for piles in clay, respec-
tively. The ultimate shaft resistance of the soil–pile interface in
skin-friction and the ultimate base resistance in end-bearing were
determined in accordance with the Federal Highway Administra-
tion (FHWA) provisions for drilled shafts [17]. However, for the
purpose of determining the k-factor in the parametric study, the
numerical simulations were performed by alternate loading of
the pile downward at the pile head without the end-bearing
resistance and upward loading at the pile tip until the ultimate
resistance in skin-friction (Tu) was fully mobilized. The pile short-
enings d2 and dT were determined from the difference in vertical
displacements between the top (z4) and bottom (z3), and the elastic
deformation ratio k = dT/d2 determined from Eq. (2) for the two
types of load direction and location. Fig. 4 shows the effects of pile
slenderness ratio and mobilization of total skin-friction on the k-
factor for the various bilinear distributions of soil shear strength
profile. For soil shear strength profiles increasing with depth, the
value of k-factor is greater than 1.0, which denotes that the elastic
pile shortening from T in a top–down load test is greater than the
bottom–up shortening. Thus a greater axial load is transferred to
the pile in the upper part (with a lesser load transferred to the soil
Fig. 4. Effects of pile slenderness ratio and mobilization of total skin-friction on the
k-factor for various distribution of soil shear strength profiles.
from shear) when it is top-loaded, compared to a lesser axial load
transfer to the pile (with a greater load transfer to the soil) when it
is bottom–up loaded in a bidirectional load test. It can be seen from
Fig. 4 that piles with high slenderness ratios (L/D P 30) have highly
nonlinear k-factors with increasing T/Tu ratio. Even for the linear
soil profile F, it can be seen that the k-factor is not constant for var-
ious L/D and T/Tu ratio. At low pile slenderness ratio (L/D < 30), the
values of the k-factor slightly vary with mobilization of skin-
friction T/Tu and can be approximated as constant for the respec-
tive soil profiles.
Fig. 5 shows the effects of pile slenderness ratio and distribution
of soil shear strength profiles on the k-factor for various mobiliza-
tion of the skin-friction load component T/Tu. At low slenderness
ratio (L/D < 30), the k-factor is almost constant with T/Tu for the
respective soil profile. It can also be seen from Figs. 4 and 5 that
at a nearly mobilized skin-friction (T/Tu = 0.9–1.0) the values of
the k-factors are more or less constant for the respective soil profile
and does not vary with L/D ratio. This can be explained by the fully
plastic condition of the soil–pile interface when the ultimate resis-
tance in skin-friction Tu has been reached, and thus the elastic
deformations have also become constant. At a fully mobilized total
170 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177
Fig. 5. Effects of pile slenderness ratio and distribution of soil shear strength
profiles on the k-factor for various mobilization of the skin-friction load component
T/Tu.
skin-friction, the k-factor is evaluated to be 1.0 for a soil profile
with uniform or constant shear strength distribution (profile K), k
is about 2.0 for a linear soil profile (F), k is less than 2.0 for soil pro-
files varying above linear (G–K), and k is greater than 2.0 for soil
profiles varying below linear (B–E).
Further evaluation of Figs. 4 and 5 show that the values of the
k-factor can be related to the normalized area (A) under the ideal-
ized undrained shear strength profile shown in Fig. 2. The
Fig. 6. (a) Undrained shear strength (Su) profile and (b) computation of the normalized area (A) under the soil shear strength profile.
normalized area A is defined as the ratio of the area under the Su
profile to the rectangular area bounded by the maximum un-
drained shear strength Su(max) and pile length L. Thus the soil pro-
files B–K in Fig. 2 corresponds to values of normalized area
A = 0.10–1.0, respectively, as determined by Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 shows the effects of pile slenderness ratio (L/D) and nor-
malized area (A) under the shear strength profile for various mobi-
lization of the skin-friction load component T/Tu. It can be seen
from Fig. 7 that the k-factor is not much affected by the variation
of the normalized area (A) and skin-friction mobilization (T/Tu)
for values of smaller pile slenderness ratio (L/D < 30). The effect
of the mobilized skin-friction is highly manifested in values of
higher pile slenderness ratio (L/D P 30), which is also reflected in
Figs. 4 and 5. Figs. 4, 5 and 7 can therefore serve as a useful guide
to approximately evaluate the k-factors considering the elastic pile
shortening in the construction of the equivalent top–down load–
settlement curves from bidirectional load test results. The results
of the study have shown that the k-factors vary with the distribu-
tion of the soil shear strength profile, mobilization of skin-friction,
and pile slenderness ratio.
In general, the total elastic shortening depends on the develop-
ment of load transfer T from skin-friction between the pile and the
soil along its length L, and on the load Q being transferred at the
pile base in end-bearing. Since friction is generally mobilized at
small displacements and end-bearing at large displacements, the
assumption is made that the effect from end-bearing is negligible
until the friction is fully mobilized. When the applied load P ex-
ceeds the total ultimate shaft resistance Tu, then the additional
load Q causes shortening of the unsupported length L and the pile
may be treated as a column carrying the excess load [18]. The elas-
tic shortening dQ due to the end-bearing load component Q can
then be conservatively approximated from the elastic axial stiff-
ness of the pile (Eq. (3)), in which Ap is the pile cross-sectional area
and Ep is the composite elastic modulus property of the pile
material.
QL
dQ ¼ ð3Þ
Ap Ep
An example distribution of dQ is shown in Fig. 8 for different pile
diameter (D) and bearing load (Q) that was computed based on Eq.
(3) per meter length of the pile having an elastic modulus
E = 25,000 MPa.
Fig. 9a–b shows the typical load–displacement curves in a top–
down and bottom–up pile test, respectively, while Fig. 9c shows
the original method for the construction of equivalent top–down
curve as suggested by Osterberg [1–3]. A modified method is sug-
gested in this study by taking the load and displacements from the
side shear-deflection curve at the top of the pile (T–z4), which
 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177 171

Fig. 7. Effects of pile slenderness ratio and normalized area (A) under the shear strength profile for various mobilization of the skin-friction load component (T/Tu).

closely corresponds to rigid pile movements, and not at the bottom top–down load–settlement curve is illustrated in Fig. 9d as imple-
(T–z3) as commonly applied in the original method. The proposed mented in this study that considers the corrections for elastic pile
and modified method for the construction of the equivalent shortening determined by Eqs. (1)–(3).
172 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177

3. Numerical simulation examples

Numerical simulation examples are presented to demonstrate

the application of the proposed method and results compared with
the original method by Osterberg [1–3]. The availability of the soil–
pile data and static top–down load test results from the selected
field tests on bored piles in the literature makes it possible to sim-
ulate a top–down and bottom–up load test and verify the load–
settlement curves. The numerical simulations were performed
using the 1-D pile–soil model shown in Fig. 3 that was imple-
mented using the finite element program OpenSees [14]. The
objective is not really to replicate the measured pile load test re-
sults but to illustrate the concepts and modified method presented
in this study for the construction of the equivalent top–down load–
settlement curve considering the elastic pile shortening.

3.1. Example 1: 1.2  52.0 m bored pile in layered soil

Fig. 8. Elastic pile shortening per meter length due to end-bearing load Q at
different pile diameter (D) and E = 25,000 MPa.
Chiorboli et al. [19] presented static field test results to study
the behavior of a bored pile, 1.2 m in diameter and 52 m in length

Fig. 9. (a) Top–down load–settlement curve, (b) bidirectional load–displacement curves, (c) equivalent load–settlement curve: Osterberg’s original method, and (d) proposed
equivalent load–settlement curve considering elastic shortening: this study.

Fig. 10. Example 1: 1.2  52.0 m bored pile in layered soil [19], (a) soil–pile geometry, (b) undrained shear strength profile, and (c) normalized soil shear strength profile.
 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177 173

Fig. 11. Example 1: (a and b) measured mobilized unit skin-friction (t–z) and end-bearing (q–z) load–displacement curves [19] and (c and d) normalized load–displacement
curves.

for a power plant cooling tower and chimney in Italy. The property profile of the undrained shear strength that is presented in normal-
and geometry of the soil–pile profile is shown in Fig. 10a in which ized form in Fig. 10c. Fig. 11a and b shows the measured mobilized
the upper 24 m had a steel pipe casing, while Fig. 10b shows the unit skin-friction (t–z) and end-bearing (q–z) load–displacement

Fig. 12. Example 1: load–displacement curves in bidirectional test simulation. Fig. 13. Example 1: comparison of k-factor in the simulated profile.
174 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177
curves from the static top–down pile load test. It can also be seen
that the normalized form of the load–displacement curves can be
represented by an equivalent nonlinear curve based on O’Neill
and Reese [15] t–z curve relation or approximated by a bilinear
curve as shown in Fig. 10c and d. These load-transfer curves in
skin-friction and end-bearing were used to simulate a static top–
down and bottom–up test for the pile based on the 1-D pile–soil
models shown in Fig. 3b and c. Since data on the pile reinforcement
and thickness of steel pipe casing is not available, the pile was
modeled as elastic with an assumed composite modulus property
E = 30,000 MPa for the upper 24 m that had a steel casing and
E = 25,000 MPa for the lower part without casing. Fig. 12 shows
Fig. 14. Example 1: measured and predicted top–down and equivalent load–
settlement curves.
Fig. 15. Example 2: (a) 1.2  37 m drilled shaft in clay, properties of soil–pile profile [10] and (b) normalized soil shear strength profile.
the simulated load–displacement curves in skin-friction and end-
bearing from the bidirectional loading, which were mobilized to
their respective ultimate resistance by the independent loading.
The evaluated normalized area (A) under the soil shear strength
profile is 0.42 and the pile slenderness ratio (L/D) is 43. Based on
the values of the normalized area, pile slenderness ratio, and mobi-
lization of the skin-friction, the values of the k-factors can be inter-
polated from those shown in Figs. 4 and 5, or 7. For the purpose of
the example, the k-factors were then approximately taken from
that of a closely equivalent soil profile E with a normalized area
A = 0.40 and pile slenderness ratio L/D = 40. A comparison of k-fac-
tor in the simulated pile–soil profile is shown in Fig. 13, which
shows that the approximation using the values from an equivalent
soil profile E is justified. Fig. 14 shows the measured and simulated
top–down and equivalent load–settlement curves. The equivalent
top–down load–settlement curve was constructed based on the
method shown in Fig. 9d that considers the elastic pile shortening
as defined by Eqs. (1)–(3). It can be seen from Fig. 14 that the
equivalent top–down curve constructed by the method described
in this study is in close agreement with the measured and pre-
dicted curves from a top–down pile load test. On the other hand,
the equivalent curve constructed using the original method sug-
gested by Osterberg [1–3] shows a much stiffer curve with the
mobilized displacements at nearly half of the top–down displace-
ments within the elastic range.
3.2. Example 2: 1.2  37 m drilled shaft in clay
Two parallel pile load tests, a static load test and an O-cell test,
were reported by Lee and Park [10] for the foundations of a Mass
Rapid Transit (MRT) project in Singapore, which was also discussed
by Kim and Mission [12] using a constant correction factor k. The
piles were 1.2 m in diameter and 37 m in length having the
center-to-center distance of 10 m between them. The subsurface
 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177 175

conditions were provided by the results from SPT tests with the
soil–pile profile shown in Fig. 15a. The undrained shear strength
(Su) profile was deduced from the SPT-N data based on correlations
and classification proposed by Terzaghi and Peck [20] and penetra-
tion resistance of clays and weak rocks by Gannon et al. [21]. The
estimated Su profile were then normalized as shown in Fig. 15b.
The static load test was performed 20 days after concrete place-
ment and a composite elastic modulus property E = 25,000 MPa
was assumed for the pile that is typical for a 20-day concrete com-
pressive strength. Nonlinear load-transfer curves were used to
model the soil–pile interface springs in skin-friction based on
O’Neill and Reese [17] t–z curve relation for piles in clay and the
ultimate properties were evaluated based on the FHWA provisions
for drilled shafts [17]. A trilinear load-transfer curve was used to
model the end-bearing with a uniaxial material property that
was fitted to the measured base resistance from the O-cell test
results.
Fig. 16 shows the load–displacement curves from the bidirec-
tional load test simulation on the pile, which closely predicts the
measured responses. The undrained shear strength profile has a
computed normalized area A = 0.47 and the pile has a slenderness Fig. 17. Example 2: comparison of k-factor for the simulated profile.
ratio L/D = 31. The equivalent top–down curve was constructed
following the method described in Fig. 9d using an approximate
k-factor for an equivalent soil profile F with a normalized area
A = 0.50 and pile slenderness ratio L/D = 30 as given by Figs. 4
and 5, or 7. A comparison of k-factor in the simulated profile
and that of soil profile F is shown in Fig. 17, in which a reasonable
estimate was justified. Fig. 18 shows the measured and predicted
top–down load–settlement curve and the equivalent load–settle-
ment curves from the bidirectional pile load test. The equivalent
load–settlement curve constructed by the method presented in
this study that considered the elastic pile shortening shows a bet-
ter agreement with the measured and predicted top–down load–
settlement curve compared to that constructed using the original
method by Osterberg [1–3].

3.3. Example 3: 0.8  38 m drilled shaft in layered soil

Comodromos et al. [22] reported the results from a static load

Fig. 18. Example 2: measured and predicted top–down and equivalent load–
test of a drilled shaft, 0.80 m in diameter and 38 m in length, for settlement curves.

Fig. 16. Example 2: simulated and measured load–movement curves in bidirectional test.
176 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177
the foundation of a composite-girder bridge in Northern Greece.
The average undrained shear strength Su was computed based on
the given soil strength parameters from the Mohr–Coulomb crite-
rion Su = c + rtan /, where c = cohesion, r = normal stress, and /
= soil angle of internal friction (Fig. 19a). The area under the un-
drained shear strength profile was then normalized to give the area
A = 0.45 as shown in Fig. 19b.
Pile behavior was considered as linear-elastic with a Young’s
modulus of 34,000 MPa that was correlated to the strength of con-
crete grade and allowing for stiffening due to the steel reinforce-
ments. Nonlinear load-transfer curves were used to model the
load-deformation behavior of the interface springs in skin-friction
based on O’Neill and Reese [15] t–z curve relation for piles in clay
and Mosher’s [23] t–z curve relation for piles in sand, while the
Fig. 19. Example 3: 0.8  38 m drilled shaft in layered soil, (a) properties of soil–
pile profile [22] and (b) normalized undrained shear strength profile.
Fig. 20. Example 3: simulated load–displacement curves in bidirectional test.
Fig. 21. Example 3: comparison of k-factor in the simulated profile.
Fig. 22. Example 3: measured and predicted top–down and equivalent load–
settlement curves.
load-transfer property of the end-bearing bearing spring was based
on O’Neill and Reese [15] q–z relation for drilled shafts in clay. The
ultimate resistances of the t–z and q–z springs were determined
based on the FHWA design provisions for drilled shafts [17]. Bidi-
rectional load test simulation was performed using the 1-D pile–
soil model shown in Fig. 3c, which was independently loaded up
to the respective ultimate resistance to obtain the load–
displacement curves shown in Fig. 20.
Considering the elastic pile shortening, the equivalent top–
down load–settlement curve was constructed following the meth-
od described in Fig. 9d and using an approximate k-factor for an
equivalent soil profile F with a normalized area A = 0.50 and pile
slenderness ratio L/D = 50 based on Figs. 4 and 5, or 7. Fig. 21
shows the comparison of the assumed k-factor using the soil pro-
file F that closely approximates that in the simulated profile. The
equivalent top–down load–settlement curves are compared with
the measured and simulated top–down curves in Fig. 22, which
shows that the equivalent curve closely agrees with the top–down
curve when the elastic pile shortening is considered.
4. Conclusion and recommendation
The original method for the construction of the equivalent
top–down load–settlement curve suggested by Osterberg [1–3]
assumes the pile to be rigid and does not fully consider the total
 J.L.C. Mission, H.-J. Kim / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 167–177
elastic shortening due to the axial load components from skin-
friction and end-bearing that are applied downward at the pile
head. In this study, a modified method is suggested for the equiv-
alent top–down curve in which the elastic pile shortening due to
the axial load components in skin-friction (T) and end-bearing
(Q) are added to the pile head settlements. Interaction charts are
presented to approximately evaluate the k-factor that is used to
define the relationship between the pile shortening that exist from
a bottom–up load test to that when the same load component from
skin-friction is applied top–down at the pile head. The k-factors
were derived from a parametric study of bored piles in cohesive
soil with various shear strength distribution profile and length. It
has been shown that the k-factor varies with the distribution of
the undrained shear strength profile, pile slenderness ratio, and
mobilization of the skin-friction component of the applied load.
In addition, the elastic shortening due the end-bearing load com-
ponent Q is added to the pile head settlements by treating the pile
as an elastic column. Numerical examples are presented in which it
has been shown that the equivalent top–down curve that considers
the elastic pile shortening and constructed by the proposed meth-
od in this study shows a better agreement with the top–down
load–settlement curve compared to the original method suggested
by Osterberg [1–3]. The k-factors were derived based on the results
of a parametric study and thus may have a limited application to
bored piles in cohesive soils. Nevertheless, when based on the
distribution of undrained shear strength profile and pile slender-
ness ratio, the method using the design charts is still shown to
work well even for mixed (clay–sand) profiles. It is understood that
the type of soil may have an effect on the mobilization of total
skin-friction due to variations on the load-transfer characteristics.
Further studies are also being recommended to determine the
variation of the k-factor for piles in other types of soil and rock.
References
[1] Osterberg JO. A new simplified method for load testing drilled shafts. In:
Foundation drilling, ADSC; 1984. p. 9–11.
[2] Osterberg JO. New device for load testing driven piles and drilled shafts
separates friction and end bearing. In: International conference on piling and
deep foundations. London: A.A Balkema; 1989. p. 421.
[3] Osterberg JO. The Osterberg load test method for bored and driven piles – the
first ten years. In: 7th International conference and exhibition on piling and
deep foundations, Deep Foundations Institute, Vienna, Austria; 1998. p.
1.28.1–11.
[4] Schertmann JH, Hayes JA. The Osterberg cell and bored pile testing – a
symbiosis. In: 3rd International geotechnical engineering conference, Cairo
University, Cairo, Egypt; 1997. p. 139–66.
View publication stats
177
[5] Waxse JA, Osterberg JO, Qudus O. Drilled shaft value engineering delivers
success to Wahoo, Nebraska Bridge. In: Geo-support 2004. International drilled
foundation support specialty conference, ASCE/ADSC, Orlando, Florida; 2004.
p. 10.
[6] Zuo G, Drumm EC, Islam MZ, Yang MZ. Numerical analysis of drilled shaft
O-cell testing in mica schist. In: Geo-support 2004. International drilled
foundation support specialty conference, ASCE/ADSC, Orlando, Florida; 2004.
p. 12.
[7] Kwon OS, Choi Y, Kwon O, Kim MM. Comparison of the bidirectional load test
with the top–down load test. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2005;1936:108–16.
[8] Woo SY, Jeong SS, Moon IS, Lee JK. Bearing capacity analysis of large diameter
drilled shafts by Osterberg-cell load tests. In: Korean Society of Civil Engineers
annual conference, South Korea; 2006. p. 1728–32.
[9] Hossain MS, Omelchenko V, Haque MA. Capacity of rock socketed drilled shafts
in Mid-Atlantic region. In: GSP 158 contemporary issues in deep foundations;
2007. p. 1–10.
[10] Lee JS, Park YH. Equivalent pile load–head settlement curve using a bi-
directional pile load test. Comput Geotech 2008;35(2):124–33.
[11] Russo G, Recinto B, Viggiani C, de-Sanctis L. A contribution to the analysis of
Osterberg’s cell load test. In: Deep foundation on bored and auger piles,
Belgium; 2003. p. 331–8.
[12] Kim HJ, Mission JL. Improved evaluation of equivalent top–down load–
displacement curve from a bottom–up pile load test. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng, ASCE 2010. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000454.
[13] Mesri G. A re-evaluation of Su(mob) = 0.22rp using laboratory shear tests. Can
Geotech J 1989;26(1):162–4.
[14] OpenSees. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
California; 2000. <http://opensees.berkeley.edu/>.
[15] Boulanger RW. The TzSimple1 material; 2003. <http://opensees.berkeley.edu/>.
[16] Kim HJ, Mission JL, Park IS. Analysis of static axial load capacity of single
piles and large diameter shafts using nonlinear load transfer curves. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2007;11(6):
285–92.
[17] O’Neill MW, Reese LC. Drilled shafts: construction procedures and design
methods. Report no. FHWA-IF-99-025, US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Virginia; 1999. p. 758.
[18] Fleming WGK. A new method for single pile settlement prediction and
analysis. Geotechnique 1992;42(3):411–25.
[19] Chiorboli M, Limido I, Nesti M, Uliana FA. Behavior of bored piles of a cooling
tower and chimney: group and FEM analysis. In: International conference on
design and construction of deep foundations, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), vol. 3; 1994. p. 1761–75.
[20] Terzaghi K, Peck RB. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. A Wiley
International Edition; 1967. p. 729.
[21] Gannon JA, Masterton GGT, Wallace WA, Muir Wood D. Pile foundations in
weak rock. Report no. 181, Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA), London, UK; 1999. p. 140.
[22] Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC, Rentzeperis IK. Pile foundation analysis
and design using experimental data and 3D numerical analysis. Comput
Geotech 2009;36(5):819–36.
[23] Mosher RL. Load transfer criteria for numerical analysis of axially loaded
piles in sand – part 1: load-transfer criteria. Technical report K-84-1, US
Army Engineering Waterways Experimental Station, Mississippi; 1984. p.
292.