HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Analysis on shaft resistance of the steel pipe prebored and precast

piles based on field load-transfer curves and finite element method
Dohyun Kim a, Sangseom Jeong b,⇑, Jongjeon Park b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Received 10 August 2019; received in revised form 23 January 2020; accepted 26 March 2020
Available online 15 May 2020

Abstract

Shaft resistance is the major source of bearing capacity and has a critical effect on settlement of prebored and precast pile (PPP). In
this paper, the load-transfer behavior and shaft resistance of steel pipe PPP was observed based on real scale pile loading tests. The main
focus was on determining the load transfer mechanism and establishing a framework on shaft behavior of steel pipe PPPs. 10 cases of real
scale field loading tests were carried out on the fully instrumented steel pipe PPPs, and the load transfer mechanism was observed based
on the obtained load-transfer (t-z) curves along the shaft. In addition, the failure surface along the pile shaft was clarified based on the
nine small-scale pile loading test results. By analyzing the load-transfer (t-z) curves, it was shown that steel pipe PPP showed two dis-
tinctive types of curves related with two different types of failure characteristics – elasto-perfectly plastic and brittle behavior – along the
shaft, and this was validated by using intensive finite element analysis. From this, the shaft behavior of the steel pipe PPP can be classified
and can be used in analyzing the shaft behavior along the shaft. Moreover, the range and the lower 95% value of the shaft resistance of
the steel pipe PPP will be stated for different types of soil the pile is socketed, which can be used as a guideline of PPP design.
Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Steel pipe prebored and precast pile (PPP); Real scale pile loading test; Load-settlement curve; Tip bearing capacity; Shaft resistance; Finite
element analysis (FEA)

1. Introduction shafts (cast-in-place pile) for small to medium diameter

As the concentration of population in urban areas are at
its peak, the construction projects are also concentrated
around the urban centers. Compared to conventional pil-
ing methods, PPP is significantly effective in reducing nui-
sance induced during pile installation, such as noise and
vibration, and secures the integrity of the pile by using
PHC or steel pipe piles. For this reason, the substitution
of conventional driven piles to PPP has become common
in major metropolitan areas in Korea, Japan and China.
In addition, PPP is more cost-effective compared to drilled
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: geokim@yonsei.ac.kr (D. Kim), soj9081@yonsei.ac.
kr (S. Jeong), yunapie@naver.com (J. Park).
piles which are frequently used in urban construction pro-
jects and has higher lateral resistance (Ng et al., 2001; Jung
et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Jeong and Kim. 2018). How-
ever, PPP has a unique and relatively complex installation
process compared to driven piles and drill shafts. Also, the
stability and the integrity of PPP highly depends on the
workmanship of the technicians and quality control, and
due to this it is relatively difficult to predict the behavior
and the settlement of the PPP (Jung et al., 2017). Com-
pared to driven piles and drilled shafts, studies on clarify-
ing the behavior of PPP, let alone real scale pile loading
test, has not been thoroughly carried out. Studies and
experiments on PPP have been limited to empirical meth-
ods and formulas predicting the ultimate bearing capacity
based on the SPT-N value of the surrounding soil or rocks.
Deformation based studies, such as analysis of the load-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.03.011
0038-0806/Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
settlement and load-transfer (t-z) curves, have not been
properly carried out. Deformation of bored piles including
PPP has been estimated based on rough assumptions and
theoretical approaches (Reese and O’Neill, 1988; Seol
et al., 2009; Jeong et al., 2010). Moreover, studies mention
above can only be said to PHC (Pretensioned Spun High
Strength Concrete) PPPs. To date, the research or field test
including pile loading tests on the steel pipe PPP have been
neglected, despite the difference in pile tip condition and
shaft behavior.
Most of the pile constructions in Korea are embedded in
weathered rocks, which occupies two-thirds of the Korean
peninsula. Weathered rocks in the Korean peninsula are
generally the results of the physical weathering of granite-
gneiss of varying thicknesses ranging up to 40 m. Since
1970, numerous studies has been carried out in the field
of soil-structure interaction of pile foundations in clay,
hard rock sockets and soft rocks such as shale or clay-
shale. However, less is known about the behavior of piles
in weathered rocks of granite-gneiss (Kim et al., 1999;
Jeong and Kim. 2018).
In this study, the shaft behavior of steel pipe PPP has
been intensively investigated through real scale pile loading
tests. 10 cases of real scale field pile loading tests were car-
ried out to observe the failure mechanism, load-settlement
and load-transfer (t-z) curves of PPP. The shaft resistance
of the steel pipe PPP will be stated in accordance to the soil
type based on the field loading test results. In addition, the
apparent failure surface of PPP was observed through nine
cases of small scale model test.
2. Steel pipe prebored and precast pile
PPP is installed based on a unique and complex installa-
tion process. As shown in Fig. 1, PPP is installed by boring
Fig. 1. Prebored and precast pile installation process.
479
a hole in the ground and placing the precast PHC or steel
pipe pile in the borehole right after the 1st cement milk
injection up to four times the diameter of the pile. The
installation is finished by casting cement around the pile
up to the top of the borehole (2nd cement milk injection).
Light hammering on the head (two to three strikes) of the
PPP is conducted to secure the integrity of the pile tip bear-
ing condition. Due to this relatively complex installation
process, the behavior of the PPP is significantly different
from the conventional driven piles and drilled shafts.
The bearing capacity and settlement of a PPP are
affected not only by the tip bearing capacity, but also
greatly affected by the shaft resistance induced between
the pile and the cement milk injected in the borehole. How-
ever, as mentioned above, to date, most of the measure-
ments and experiments were based on conventional
driven piles or drilled shafts. For this reason, special atten-
tion of this paper was given to the shaft resistance and
behavior of PPP.
Drilled shafts, which have a similar source of shaft resis-
tance with PPP, shows a relative displacement (elastic slip)
between the pile and soil as the loading applies and mobi-
lizes high shear stress along the pile-soil interface (O’Neill
et al., 1996). It is generally accepted that the ultimate shaft
resistance for large bored piles are mobilized after relative
displacements of the shaft with respect to the surrounding
soil. The ultimate value of tip resistance is also reached at
relatively large relative displacements of the pile tip (De
Beer 1986; Reese and O’Neill 1988; Ghionna et al., 1993).
Shear load transfer characteristics along the skin of the
drilled shaft socketed in rocks were investigated, and mod-
ified load-transfer (t-z) curves were proposed and applied
to enhance the accuracy of the numerical predictions
(Seol et al., 2009; Jeong et al., 2010). The unit weight of
the soil around the pile was found to be the main influence
480 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
factor for the skin friction (Lim et al., 2002). Thorough
studies on the cement strength and the skin friction of
PPP showed that the unit skin friction increased up to
700% as the cement hardened. The proportion of the skin
friction in the total bearing capacity also increased up to
400% (approximately, 10% ? 40%) (Park 2004). Addition-
ally, studies showed that the SPT N-value, the type of soil
and the water-cement ratio of the cement milk were the
major influence factors affecting the skin friction of PPP.
Among the major factors, the water-cement ratio of the
cement milk was found to have the biggest influence on
the skin friction (Hong et al., 2008). According to the study
carried out by Horvath et al. (1983), O’Neill et al. (1996)
and Seidel and Collingwood (2001), the shear behavior of
the rock-socketed drilled shafts is highly influenced by
the following factors; rock strength, borehole roughness,
modulus of rock, Poisson’s ratio, surface condition of rock
mass, pile diameter, initial normal stress between pile and
rock and construction practice related to workmanship.
These studies can be applied to PPP, which has the similar
source and behavior of shaft resistance. Johnston and Lam
(1989) made detailed investigations of the pile-rock inter-
face to clarify the shear load transfer behavior for drilled
shafts. Fig. 2 shows idealize rock-socketed section of the
general PPP. Despite the fact that there is a precast pile
in the middle of the cement layer, the interface between
the cement (in case of drilled shaft, the pile) and the rock
is identical to that of drilled shafts. For the cement (pile)-
rock interface, shearing results in dilation as one roughness
overrides another. If the surrounding rock mass is not
deformed sufficiently, an inevitable increase in normal
Fig. 2. Schematic of idealized rock-socketed pile (Johnston and Lam, 1989).
stress (Drn) occurs during shearing. This so called constant
normal stiffness (Kn), which can be determined by a theo-
retical approach based on an expanding infinite cylindrical
cavity in an elastic half-space as seen in Eq. (1) (Boresi,
1965):
Drn Em
Kn ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Dr rð1 þ vm Þ
where Drn is the increased normal stress, Dr is the dilation,
r is the radius of the pile and Em and mm is the deformation
modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the rock mass, respectively.
In case of PPP, Dr can be also caused by the circulation loss
(infiltration) of the injected cement milk, which is common
during installation. Due to this, an excessive ‘‘bonding”
shear force can be formed between the pile (or injected
cement layer) and the surrounding soil, which cause two
different types of load-transfer (t-z) curves along the pile
shaft. And since the pile is separated from the soil due to
the injected cement milk, majority of the reports and stud-
ies showed that only the strength of the soil and the degree
of cement milk infiltration has an effect on the behavior,
rather than the soil composition (O’Neill and Hassan,
1994; Choi et al., 2003). Although these behaviors have
been studied and established for drilled shafts, in case of
steel pipe PPP it has not been properly tested or studied.
3. Field loading test
In this study, small scale and real scale pile loading test
was carried out to observe the apparent failure surface and
obtain the load-settlement and load-transfer (t-z) curve of
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 481

PPP. In addition, a detailed supplementary investigation of
the pile tip and shaft was conducted to clarify the actual
pile condition embedded in soil.
3.1. Small scale loading test
To observe the failure criteria along the shaft of the
PPP, series of small scale model pile test (total of nine
cases) was conducted. Test preparation, as seen in Fig. 3,
was made by boring a 74 mm hole in the test site, and a
steel bar (pile) with a 67 mm diameter (D) and a 1.15 m
length was installed. The size of the borehole (74 mm) for
the 67 mm diameter test pile is equivalent to a 0.508 m
diameter steel PPP with a 100 mm cement milk thickness,
which is identical to the full-scale pile loading test. The test
preparation is made by 1) the cement milk with a 70%, 83%
and 90% water-cement ratio being poured into the bore-
hole at a height of 4D. Then, 2) the test pile was placed into
the borehole, followed by the perpendicularity check. 3)
The cement milk was poured in to the top of the borehole.
4) To secure the quality control of the test pile, the height
of the cement milk was examined after 24 h to refill the
cement milk loss due to infiltration into the surrounding
soil. After 28 days, 5) the loading test was carried out by
simulating a static load on the head of the pile. The static
load acts on the hydraulic jack that controls the load,
and the settlement of the test pile was recorded using an
LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer). The
loading test procedure followed the ASTM D1143-87
(2009) rapid loading test manual. In this test, to concen-
trate solely on the failure surface along the shaft and the
skin friction capacity of the test pile, the pile was installed
in a weak land fill layer, with no end bearing condition. The
mechanical properties of soil and cement milk of the small
scale model test is stated in Table 1.
Based on the results shown in Fig. 4, it was found that
the failure surface of the PPP in all nine cases occurs
between the cement layer and the soil, regardless of
water-cement ratio. The injected cement milk layer was
found to form a strong chemical bonding with the steel pile
during curing, and showed no yielding or failure within in
the cement during the loading tests.
3.2. Real scale loading test

To analyze the full behavior of the PPP, 10 cases of field

Fig. 3. Test preparation of the small scale loading test.
loading tests on an actual pile was conducted in the three
different regions of the Korean peninsula. After a series
of field investigations and laboratory tests, the ground con-
dition was found to reflect the typical soil condition of the
Korean peninsula, consisting of land fill, sedimentary layer,
weathered soil and weathered rock layers. The mechanical
properties of the soil and rock of the test site are shown in
Table 2. The diameter of the steel pile used in the loading
test was 0.457 m (A site)/0.508 m (B and C site), and the
thickness was 0.012 m. The diameter of the borehole was
0.650 m (A site)/0.711 m (B and C site). The groundwater
level of test sites A, B, and C are 3.8 m, 3.0 m, and 7.5 m
below the surface, respectively. The strain gauges (vibrat-
ing wire type, GEOKON) measuring the settlement and
the load-transfer (t-z) curve of the test pile were installed
at the surface of the test pile. The spacing of the gauges
was regular with 1 m at the upper part of the pile, and
the spacing was reduced to 0.5 m in lower 2 m part of
the test pile. The gauges were placed on two sides of the pile
for each depth to prevent the loss of records due to gauge

Table 1
Mechanical properties of test site and cement milk (small scale model test).
Soil Unit weight, Young’s Poisson’s Cohesion, c Friction angle, u USCS Depth
c (kN/m3) modulus, E (MPa) ratio, t (kPa) (deg) (m)
Fill 17 10 0.3 0 25 SM 1.5
Sedimentary layer 18 40 0.3 26 15 CL 3.5
Weathered soil 18 40 0.3 23 28 SM 10
Cement milk (70%) 21 2950 0.2 – – –
Cement milk (83%) 20 2750 0.2 – – –
Cement milk (90%) 20 2550 0.2 – – –
482 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

Fig. 4. Observation of the failure surface of PPP through small scale model test

Table 2
Mechanical properties of test site and cement milk (real scale loading test).
Physical properties Model c (kN/m3) E(1), (2), (3)
(MPa) m(2) C(4) (kPa) u(4) (°)
Pile Linear 75 200,000 0.20 – –
elastic
Cement milk Linear 20 2700 0.20 – –
elastic
Fill Mohr 17 10 0.30 0 29
Coulomb
Sedimentary layer (SM) Mohr 19 20 0.30 3 28
Coulomb
Sedimentary layer (GP) Mohr 20 40 0.30 5 29
Coulomb
Weathered soil Mohr 20 12.724 0.30 22 39
Coulomb
Weathered rock Mohr 21.5 185.18 0.30 35 32
Coulomb
(1) Standard penetration test, (2) Uniaxial compression test, (3) Pressuremeter test, (4) Borehole shear test.

failure. Fig. 5 summarizes the installation conditions of the
test piles. The numerator/denominator in stating the SPT
N-value of the test site soil and rock means ‘‘number of
strikes/penetration length (cm)”. The test piles were
installed at a various pile tip condition, with different tar-
geted (assigned) SPT N-value, in order to observe the effect
of different pile tip condition. The cement milk with water-
cement ratio (W/C) of 70% was injected in the pile tip and
the shaft of the test pile. The elastic modulus of the injected
cement milk was obtained through nine cases of uniaxial
compression test. The results showed that average elastic
modulus of the injected cement milk was
2240 MPa/2705 MPa, after 14 days/28 days of curing,
respectively.
The static pile loading test was carried out on the test
piles 30 days after the test pile installation, to secure max-
imum curing of the injected cement milk. The procedure of
the loading test is a combination of the slow maintained
standard loading test based on the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1143 (2009). The period
of the loading was based on four steps, by loading 25%,
50% and 75%, sustaining the load until the settlement of
the head due to loading was less than 0.25 mm per hour
(maximum duration of two hours). The loading process
was carried up to the ultimate state of the pile. The settle-
ment of the pile head due to axial loading is recorded based
on the measurement through the LVDT (Linear Variable
Differential Transformer) installed on the test pile. After
the completion of the loading, the unloading process was
carried out by unloading 50% of the load over the
20 min period. The ultimate stage of the pile is assumed
to be reached when a sudden settlement (i.e. failure)
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 483

Fig. 5. Test pile installation conditions.

occurred during the loading process. After the ultimate
state the test is completed.
The schematic of the loading system for the static load-
ing test used in this study is shown Fig. 6. The instruments
for the loading tests includes a load cell, hydraulic jack,
pump, LVDTs, earth anchors for reaction and beams (sup-
port and reaction). Eight anchor (reaction) piles were con-
structed by boring 150 mm borehole with 10 12.7 mm steel
bars installed. The borehole is grouted with cement of 50%
water-cement ratio, in order to reach capacity of 1000 kN
per anchor. The distance between the center of the test pile
 
and the anchor pile is set to 2.5 m (7.5D, where D is the
mean diameter of pile and reaction anchor). This installa-
tion procedure satisfies the test standard of ASTM
484 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

Table 3
Summary of pile tip investigation.
Reaction beam
Pile No. Pile tip condition Target SPT-N value Actual SPT-N value
Spacer
Load A TP-1 Normal 50/7 50/6
cell
A TP-2 Disturbed 50/3 50/10
Support beam Hydraulic B TP-1 Disturbed 50/12 50/20
Steel plate jack
B TP-2 Disturbed 50/15 50/25
LVDT Test B TP-3 Slime 50/13 7/30
pile Pump B TP-4 Normal 50/17 50/17
Reference
C TP-1 Normal 50/5 50/7
Earth anchor C TP-2 Slime 50/2 3/30
beam
C TP-3 Normal 50/20 50/21
C TP-4 Normal 50/17 50/13
Fig. 6. Schematic of loading system for static loading test.

tion were summarized in Table 3. By comparing the results

D1143 (2009), which requires at least of 5D (D = diameter
of test pile). The loading system was designed to withstand
up to 6000 kN per each test pile.
3.3. Detailed supplementary site investigation
After the completion of the pile loading test, the actual
pile tip condition was thoroughly investigated. After dril-
ling a borehole along the center of the test pile, standard
penetration test was carried out to investigate the SPT N-
value of the pile tip. The shaft of the test pile was investi-
gated through borehole image profile system (BIPS) analy-
sis. Fig. 7 shows the location of the boring position for
supplementary site investigation.
3.3.1. Pile tip investigation
Additional investigation of the pile tip condition was
conducted after the loading test in order to obtain the
actual pile tip condition of the test pile. After the drilling
of the borehole in the center of the test pile, standard pen-
etration test was carried out to estimate the SPT N-value of
the pile tip condition. The results of the pile tip investiga-
Fig. 7. Borehole location for the detailed supplementary site investigation.
it was found that in some cases the SPT N-value differed
significantly between the initial installation condition and
after the loading tests, due to disturbance or occurrence
of slime during the installation process. In site A, TP-2
showed a slight decrease in pile tip condition compared
to the targeted (assigned) SPT-N value at installation pro-
cess. Test piles in site B showed decrease in SPT-N value in
three test cases. Moreover, in case of TP-3, the SPT-N
value of the pile tip was found to be extremely low
(7/30), which indicated the existence of slime layer. In site
C, TP-2 showed a very weak pile tip condition with the
possibility of slime.
3.3.2. Pile shaft investigation
PPP has various uncertainties in clarifying the behavior
since the installation process is relatively complex and qual-
ity control affects the bearing capacity and load-settlement
behavior. After the real scale pile loading test, additional
site investigation around the test pile was executed to clar-
ify the pile shaft interface conditions and the failure
surface.
Borehole image profile system (BIPS) was used to inves-
tigate the shaft of the test pile. BIPS investigation was car-
ried out by boring a hole in the side of the PPP and taking
images of the side of the borehole. Fig. 8 (a) shows the
BIPS investigation result on the TP-4 of C site. The wall
of the borehole showed dark soils of the surrounding
ground. On the other hand, the BIPS picture shown in
Fig. 8 (b) clearly showed the relatively light-colored transi-
tional soil-cement layer between the injected cement milk
layer and the soil due to infiltration. The smooth surface
of the transitional soil-cement layer (where the actual soil
is shown relatively rough and dark in the down to 2 m
below the ground surface) is observed below the fill layer.
In order to investigate the mechanical properties of the
soil-cement layer, laboratory test using universal testing
machine (UTM) was carried out on nine soil-cement sam-
ples obtained after the loading test. The test samples were
obtained from test site B, with all low (TP-3)/mid (TP-2)/
high (TP-1) degree of cement milk infiltration. Through
laboratory test it was found that the elastic modulus and
uniaxial compression strength of the soil-cement layer were
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 485

(a) BIPS results without cement milk infiltration (C TP-4)

(b) BIPS results showing cement milk infiltration (C TP-1)

Fig. 8. BIPS investigation results.
486 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

Table 4
Mechanical properties of soil-cement layer.
No. Location DOI Elastic modulus (MPa) Compression strength (MPa)
Original Soil-cement Original Soil-cement
1 B TP-3 Low 2799 834 23.7 7.0
2 B TP-3 Low 2771 845 24.0 7.1
3 B TP-4 Low 2667 797 21.9 6.6
4 B TP-2 Mid 2725 1006 25.4 9.4
5 B TP-2 Mid 2512 1284 24.1 12.2
6 B TP-2 Mid 2785 1175 23.8 10.0
7 B TP-1 High 2698 1333 21.0 10.5
8 B TP-1 High 2700 1461 19.5 10.2
9 B TP-1 High 2688 1478 25.3 13.9

in the range of 30–55% of the originally injected cement
milk paste. As the degree of infiltration increases, the uni-
axial and shear strength of soil-cement was found to be
higher. Table 4 shows the test results on the soil-cement
layer samples. This additional layer caused an excessively
high skin friction and brittle behavior during the pile load-
ing tests. Table 5 states the results of the BIPS investigation
for all 10 test cases.
3.4. Field test results and discussions
3.4.1. Load-settlement curves
A load-settlement curve obtained from the real scale pile
loading tests of the test site A are shown in Fig. 9. The
load-settlement curves from the A site shows relatively long
elastic region, which is related with the high shaft resistance
of the pile in the early loading stages. This high shaft resis-
tance and the yielding of the shaft resistance are shown in
the representative load-distribution curves in Fig. 10. The
analysis on load-distribution curves are carried out on all
10 test piles to determine the yielding of the shaft resis-
tance. The bonding effect and the high shaft resistance
between the injected cement milk and the surrounding
ground can be formed, due to the fair ground condition
along the shaft, overlays or the circulation loss (infiltration)
of the cement milk (Adams and Perchard, 1985; Ollivier
et al., 1995; Scrivener et al., 2004; Momayez et al., 2005;
De la Varga et al., 2017). Moreover, the long elastic region
Table 5
BIPS investigation results.
Pile No. Loss circulation Degree
(cement milk infiltration)
A TP-1 O Mid
A TP-2 O Mid
B TP-1 O High
B TP-2 O Mid
B TP-3 O Low
B TP-4 O Low
C TP-1 O High
C TP-2 O High
C TP-3  –
C TP-4  –
and solid pile tip condition led to high total ultimate bear-
ing capacity of the test piles, which is shown to exceed 5000
kN.
Fig. 11 shows four load-settlement curves of the test
piles in site B. The test results of the B site test cases
showed two distinctive types of load-settlement curves with
different elastic region compared to test cases in site A. Test
piles 1, 2, and 4 showed similar load-settlement curves,
while test pile 3 showed a significantly shorter elastic
region. This can be due to the different degree of lost circu-
lation of the cement milk at TP-3 (Mansour, 2017), poor
cement milk condition along the shaft or separation
between the injected cement milk layer and pile (Jeong
and Jeong, 2018), as seen in the previous mentioned results
of the BIPS investigation. In addition, after the yielding of
the shaft resistance, the load-settlement curves tend to drop
dramatically. The settlement stiffness will be expressed as
increased applied load divided by settlement (kN/mm).
The settlement stiffness for TP-1,2,3 and 4 in site B
before/after the yielding of shaft resistance is, 160/7.25,
75.8/7.16, 103/4.59, and 162/7.13, respectively. Through
this, it can be concluded that load supported (kN) per set-
tlement (mm) changes significantly before and after the
yielding of the shaft resistance. This can be explained by
the pile tip investigation, which showed that the test piles
in site B relatively weak or poor quality controlled pile
tip condition.
The site C test results showed by far the widest range of
load-settlement curves (Fig. 12). Two test piles, test piles 1
and 2, showed a load-settlement behavior with longer elastic
region, while other two test cases, test piles 3 and 4, showed
different behaviors. This also can be caused by the different
degree of lost circulation of cement milk and various pile
tip condition, shown in supplementary site investigation.
The results of the pile loading test based on the load-
settlement curves and analysis are stated in Table 6 and
7, respectively. Table 7 states the applied load for 3%,
5%, and 10% of pile diameter. Where, 3% (=13.71 m
m/15.24 mm) of pile diameter is within the elastic region
in the load-settlement curves, 5% of the pile
diameter is equivalent to 25.4 mm (22.8 mm for test
cases in site A) which is the allowable settlement
according to Korean Geotechnical Society (2009), and
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 487

Fig. 9. Load-settlement curves (A site). Fig. 11. Load-settlement curves (B site).

each soil layers (fill, sedimentary layer, weathered soil,

10% (45.7 mm/50.8 mm) is the settlement at ultimate
state.
3.4.2. Load-transfer (t-z) curves
To investigate the variety of the shaft resistance, the
detail analysis of the load-transfer curves (t-z) were carried
out along with the load-settlement behaviors. Load-
transfer (t-z) curves were obtained from strain gauges along
the shaft of the test piles and were converted to represent
weathered rock). Converted load-transfer (t-z) curves are
shown for site A, B, and C in Figs. 13 – 15, respectively.
Compared to the conventional load transfer behavior
reported in the literature, notable number of test cases –
five out of ten test cases – showed significantly high shaft
resistance and brittle-like behavior. The high shear stress
brittle behavior load-transfer (t-z) curves were mostly
observed in weathered rock layers, and few weathered soils
layers. These behaviors were dominantly observed in test

Fig. 10. Representative load-distribution curves of test pile (A TP-1).

488 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

(a) TP-1

Fig. 12. Load-settlement curves (C site).

cases in weathered rock layers of test sites B and C. This

can be caused by the distinctive behavior of rock layers
and the bond formed between the injected cement milk
along the pile shaft. Due to the additional bond between
the cement milk and the surrounding rock, the failure of (b) TP-2
the pile showed a brittle behavior with excessive shaft resis-
tance. In this case, the failure surface occurred on the sur- Fig. 13. Load-transfer (t-z) curves (A site).

face of the weathered rock layer, which is normally weaker

Table 6 than the injected cement milk. Thus, the uniaxial compres-
Results of pile loading tests. sion strength of the surrounding weathered rock affects the
Test case Loading test results (kN) magnitude of the shaft resistance. Test cases in site A
Tip Shaft Total showed load-transfer (t-z) curves with notably high shaft
A TP-1 3150 2000 5150 resistance in weathered soil layer, but no significant brittle
A TP-2 3350 2275 5625 behavior was observed but a bilinear form. The reason for
B TP-1 864 1836 2700 this phenomenon can be explained based on the difference
B TP-2 1882 1868 3750 in degree of circulation loss (infiltration) due to the density
B TP-3 950 3175 4125
B TP-4 1261 2114 3375
and strength of the surrounding soil. Based on literatures
C TP-1 1183 3817 5000 and studies, it was reported that the circulation loss is
C TP-2 1150 2225 3375 greater in sandy soil conditions (Lavrov, 2016; Mansour,
C TP-3 1200 1640 2840 2017). Among the 10 test cases, the cases in test site A
C TP-4 1375 2000 3375 was installed and tested on highly weathered soil with

Table 7
Analysis of pile loading tests.
Test case 3% Diameter 5% Diameter 10% Diameter Remarks
A TP-1 3815 4326 5100 D = 457 mm
A TP-2 3459 4247 4674
B TP-1 2858 3025 3127 D = 508 mm
B TP-2 2581 2808 3043
B TP-3 1944 2089 2170
B TP-4 2739 3006 3157
C TP-1 3748 4185 4441
C TP-2 3091 3674 4125
C TP-3 2604 2699 –
C TP-4 2652 2779 3109
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 489

(a) TP-1 (a) TP-1

(b) TP-2 (b) TP-2

(c) TP-3 (c) TP-3

(d) TP-4 (d) TP-4

Fig. 14. Load-transfer (t-z) curves (B site).
Fig. 15. Load-transfer (t-z) curves (C site).
490 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

higher SPT N-value along the shaft. This increased the

degree of lost circulation of the injected cement milk, caus-
ing a high shaft resistance, while the behavior of the soil
layer yielded a load-transfer (t-z) curves like brittle failure
form. The circulation loss occurred in fill, sedimentary lay-
ers caused a relatively high shaft resistance in load-transfer
(t-z) curves compared to other observations. This can be
explained by the infiltration of the cement milk occurred
in fill and sedimentary layers, forming an additional bond-
ing force. By analyzing the field load-transfer (t-z) curves of
each soil layer certain tendency was found among the soil
layers.

4. Numerical analysis

To further study the load transfer behavior along the

shaft of the PPP, and validate the two distinctive types of
load-transfer (t-z) curves, multi-interface numerical analy-
sis reflecting the various elements of the PPP, was carried
out.

4.1. Multi-interface FE analysis

4.1.1. FE mesh and boundary conditions

A commercial finite-element package, ABAQUS CAE
6.13 (2013), was used in this study for modeling and ana-
lyzing single PPP loading test. Fig. 16 shows the three-
dimensional FE mesh and boundary condition. The
numerical modeling consists of steel pile, cement milk
layer, cement milk inside the pile, with the additional infil-
trated soil-cement layer and disturbed pile tip condition Fig. 16. 3D modeling of PPP and various elements.
based on the preliminary and supplementary site investiga-
tion. The material property of the disturbed tip condition
Interfaces based on the field test induced load-transfer (t-
will be estimated based on SPT N-value from the supple-
z) curve were modelled between pile-cement milk layer,
mentary site investigation. Due to symmetry, only a quar-
cement milk layer- transitional soil-cement layer, and tran-
ter of a whole mesh was used in the three-dimensional
sitional soil-cement layer-soil.
analyses to save calculation time and memory space. For
the three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA), the
(1) Pile-Cement milk
pile, cement, soil and rock were modeled as a separate ele-
ment with specially designated interface behavior among
Due to the cement milk cast in the borehole, the skin
the elements.
friction of the PPP is fully mobilized in relatively small dis-
placement. Additionally, the shear stress acting between
4.1.2. Interface modeling
the pile and the cement milk layer is relatively higher than
The analysis of the PPP was performed based on the
the shear stress acting between the elements. This condition
load-transfer (t-z) curves obtained from the field loading
was confirmed through the small scale model pile test,
test. To reflect the actual interfaces of the loading test site,
where the failure surfaces were observed outside the cement
special effort was given to interface models between the
milk layer. To simulate the actual behavior of the interface
steel test pile-cement milk around and inside the pile- tran-
between the pile and the cement milk, we assumed a ‘hard
sitional soil-cement layer-soil to simulate the specific char-
contact’, which has infinite shear stress and failure does not
acteristic of the PPP through proposed load-transfer (t-z)
occur.
curves.
The proposed load-transfer (t-z) curve that considers the
(2) Cement milk - transitional Soil-cement - soil
relative settlement between each of the elements and
cement milk infiltration (brittle behavior) was designated
The interface between the cement milk and the soil was
by using the ABAQUS user-subroutine option ‘‘FRIC”.
modelled based on the proposed t-z curve considering rel-
Different relative settlement and the maximum shear stress
ative displacement and t-z curve which can take into
and brittle behavior were modelled for each interface.
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495 491

account the excessively high shear strength and brittle sin£  cos£
d ¼ tan1 ð Þ ð4Þ
behavior due to cement milk infiltration. The interface 1 þ sin2 £
between the cement milk and soil is modelled in two differ-
where d is the interface friction angle and u is the friction
ent types. Type 1 is when the cement milk is in direct con-
angle of the soil layer. However, due to the hardening pro-
tact with the soil layer and the interface behavior is based
cess of the cement milk, additional shear strength was con-
on a bilinear load-transfer (t-z) curve. This modeling is
sidered in the analysis between the cement milk layer and
under the assumption that the injected cement milk infiltra-
the transitional soil-cement layer. Based on the field mea-
tion has not occurred and no transitional soil-cement layer
surement, the peak shear stress of the second proposed t-
is formed.
z curve is in the range of 30–55% of the original cement
The second type of interface modeling is capable of con-
milk shear strength.
sidering the cement milk infiltration (loss circulation). In
In the early stage of the loading test, the shear stress
this model the additional transitional soil-cement layer
between the cement milk and the soil increases based on
was assumed to form within the soil right outside the
the elastic behavior. Additionally, due to the light hammer-
cement milk layer. The interface between the cement milk
ing executed at the end of the pile installation, no signifi-
and the transitional soil-cement layer was assumed to be
cant settlement in the base of the pile was observed. To
an intermediate stage, where the proposed load-transfer
simulate the actual pile loading process, different interface
(t-z) curve has a lower shear stress compared to the
behaviors were modelled based on the type of soil. The rel-
drilled-shaft, but higher than the result of the direct shear
ative settlement length (elastic slip) is set to 1–8 mm
stress between the hardened cement milk and soil in type
depending on the soil and behavior type. Fig. 17 shows
1 interface model. Compared to the pile-cement milk inter-
the summary of the modeling of the steel pile, the cement
face (which is assumed as a hard contact), the shear
milk layer and the infiltrated cement milk layer.
strength between the injected cement milk layer and the
transitional soil-cement layer showed relative displacement
4.2. Conventional FE analysis
and lower shear strength. However, this shear strength is
still significantly higher than the shear strength between
To justify the multi-interface analysis model, the load-
the transitional soil-cement and soil layer. For this reason,
settlement and the t-z curves from the field loading test,
the failure surface is assumed to appear between the tran-
additional numerical analysis was carried out based on
sitional soil-cement layer and soil.
conventional FE analysis – without the multi-interface
The length of the relative settlement (elastic slip) differs
analysis model (no cement layer and soil-cement layer).
according to the types of soil in which the pile is socketed
Other than the multi-interface modelling, the PPP test pile,
as stated in Table 8 (Broms 1979; Braiud et al., 1991). In
mesh and the soil condition was modelled with properties
case where a transitional soil-cement layer is present, the
and the geometry identical to the multi-interface analysis
relative displacement is significantly smaller, as socketed
model. The interface modeling was carried out by only
in rocks. This assumption reflects the failure mechanism
using the offset (equivalent to cel) of the bilinear load-
observed from the small-scale field test. Through the
transfer (t-z) curves and the friction coefficient (0.7) which
small-scale field test, we showed that the cement milk infil-
is a default interface modeling option in ABAQUS model-
trated into the soil, and the failure surface occurred
ing (Uesegi and Kishida, 1986).
between the hardened cement milk and soil. The maximum
shear stress (smax) of the type 1 after the elastic slip section
is estimated based on the earth pressure (p0 ) and the friction
coefficient (m). Eq. (2) shows the estimation of smax and the
friction coefficient (m) is calculated based on Eqs. (3) and
(4) (Randolph and Wroth, 1981; Jeong et al., 2004).

smax ¼ l  p0 ð2Þ

l ¼ tand ð3Þ

Table 8
Relative displacement of soil and rock layer (Broms, 1979).
Soil layer Relative displacement (mm)
Fill 7–9
Sedimentary layer 5–7
Weathered soil 4–5
Weathered rock 2–4
Fig. 17. Summary of the interface modeling considering cement milk
Soil-cement 1.5–2
infiltration.
492 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495

4.3. Model validation

To validate the field test derived load-transfer (t-z) curve

and the multi-interface analysis model, the proposed model
analysis results along with the conventional analysis model
were compared to the field loading test results. The soil
profile used in the analysis is modelled identically to the
test case TP-2 and 4 of site C. These test cases were selected
for model validation due to the fact that they most accu-
rately represent the two different failure behavior –

Fig. 19. Validation of the multi-interface model and proposed load-

transfer curve (load-distribution).

(a) C site TP-2

cement milk infiltration (Type 1)

(b) Brittle load-transfer curve (t-z) with

(b) C site TP-4 cement milk infiltration (Type 2)
Fig. 18. Validation of the multi-interface model and proposed load- Fig. 20. Classification of load-transfer (t-z) curves of prebored and precast
transfer curve (load-settlement). piles.
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
Table 9
Unit shaft resistance of test cases by soil layers.
Soil layers Unit shaft resistance
(Min–Max) (kN/m2)
Including peak shaft resistance
Fill 45–250
Sedimentary layer 140–600
Weathered soil 250–1000
Weathered rock 500–1412
Without peak shaft resistance
Fill 55–250
Sedimentary layer 100–350
Weathered soil 150–650
Weathered rock 250–800
elasto-perfectly plastic and brittle type. The material prop-
erties are shown in Table 2.
Fig. 18 shows the results of the numerical model valida-
tion based on the load-settlement behavior. Based on the
computed results, it can be concluded that the multi-
interface model simulated the behavior of the PPP accu-
rately compared to the conventional model. However, it
was also found that in case the cement milk infiltration is
observed, the accuracy of the results through the multi-
interface model increases compared to the conventional
model. Moreover, it was found that the multi-interface
model can also accurately simulate the load-distribution
curves (at final loading stage) along the shaft, as shown
in Fig. 19.
In conclusion, the behavior of the PPP can be accurately
simulated and predicted by modeling the cement layer and
various interfaces among the elements, taking into account
the two distinctive types of load-transfer (t-z) curves along
the pile shaft.
5. Shaft load transfer behavior classification and shaft
resistance
From the field pile loading test it was clearly found that
the steel pipe PPP shows two distinctive type of load trans-
fer behaviors. First form of load-transfer (t-z) curve is
shown in Fig. 20 (a). This elasto-perfectly plastic (bilinear)
type of load transfer behavior could be found and applied
to conventional piling methods, where. smax is maximum
shaft resistance and cel is the relative displacement between
the pile structure and the surrounding soil. The maximum
shaft resistance (smax) can be calculated based on the Eq.
(2), and the length of the elastic slip from field test results
and literature reviews (Broms, 1979; Braiud et al., 1991).
However, the second type of brittle load transfer behavior
with excessively high shaft resistance shown in Fig. 20(b)
can be classified as a special load transfer behavior
observed in steel pipe PPPs due to the infiltration of cement
milk in to surrounding grounds, where speak is the peak
shaft resistance due to cement milk infiltration. Peak shaft
resistance (speak) can be calculated by using Eq. (5) (ACI,
2015):
493
Average Lower 95%
(kN/m2) value (kN/m2)
163 70
245 170
457 280
920 600
152 65
223 120
367 180
453 300
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 0 2
f t ¼ 0:3 ðf c Þ ð5Þ
where ft (MPa) is the tensile strength of cement milk, and
f0 c (MPa) is the uniaxial compression strength. Unlike,
prior studies regarding conventional bored piles, in case
on steel pipe PPPs this was the first attempt to investigate
and actually observing this distinctive load transfer behav-
ior and the resistance along the shaft.
Based on the field test conducted in this study, range of
the maximum shaft resistance of fill, sedimentary, weath-
ered soil and weathered rock layer is suggested. The sug-
gested shaft resistance is stated as a 1) range of the
maximum shaft resistance including the peak resistance
of the brittle behavior load-transfer (t-z) curves, and as a
2) range of the maximum shaft resistance of the elasto-
perfectly plastic behavior load-transfer (t-z) curves. The
lower and upper boundary values of the maximum shaft
resistance, as well as the lower 95% shaft resistance based
on a statistical processing, are stated by type of soil layers
in Table 9. By suggesting the lower 95% of the shaft resis-
tance, the limitation due to a broad range of the yielded
shaft resistance can be compensated and can be used in
the actual engineering practice in PPP applied foundation.
6. Conclusions
In this study, the behavior of the shaft resistance of the
PPP was thoroughly investigated based on nine cases of
small and 10 cases real scale pile loading tests. In addition,
numerical analysis applying the field test results were car-
ried out to clarify and validate the shaft load-transfer char-
acteristics of the PPP. Based on the preceding studies and
the tests conducted in this paper the following conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) The failure surface of the PPP was observed through
a series of small scale field loading test. Based on the
field test, it was apparent that the failure occurred
outside the cement layer, and not along the pile-
cement boundary. This behavior was observed in all
test cases regardless of different water-cement ratio.
494 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
(2) From the real scale pile loading test it can be con-
cluded that the steel pipe PPP has distinctive failure
characteristics compared to driven piles as well as
other bored piles. Compared to other conventional
piling methods, PPP was found to have significantly
higher shaft resistance which is shown as a relatively
long elastic region of the load-settlement curve, due
the injected cement mil layer.
(3) By analyzing the load-transfer (t-z) curves of the test
piles, two distinctive types load transfer behavior
along the shaft of the PPP was observed. The form
of the load-transfer (t-z) curve differs based on the
existence of a transitional soil-cement milk layer
due to cement milk infiltration in to surrounding
grounds, and varies with the degree of infiltration.
Different types of load-transfer (t-z) curve was found
to govern the magnitude of the shaft resistance and
the shape of the load-settlement curve in the early
loading stages (elastic region) significantly.
(4) Based on the field data obtained from the pile loading
tests, suggested shaft resistance of the PPP was
derived, which could be used in engineering practice.
(5) Additional numerical analyses considering the multi-
interface among elements were carried out to validate
the two types of load-transfer (t-z) curves obtained
from the field loading test. Based on the computed
results it was found that the behavior of PPP can only
be simulated by considering complex interfaces
among elements, and applying two distinct types of
load-transfer (t-z) curves.
(6) Based on the field loading test results and detailed
supplementary investigation of the pile tip and shaft,
the quality control plays a significant role in the
capacity of PPP. To ensure the pile tip condition,
the cement milk should be injected from pile tip
and agitated to avoid slime, as well as anticipate full
plugging of the pile tip. Maximum shaft resistance of
PPP is closely related with the loss circulation of the
injected cement milk during installation, which
should be check daily and re-injected accordingly.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dohyun Kim: Full scale test organizing and execution,
data curation, executing analysis, writing and drafting.
Sangseom Jeong: Funding designation, test and experiment
management, corresponding, data verification, data gath-
ering. Jongjeon Park: Test and experiment execution, data
analysis.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude in sup-
porting this study to the Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Fund of Korea (NRF)
(No. 2018R1A6A1A08025348) and the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport (Grant No. 19SCIP-
B119955-014-000000) of the Republic of Korea, and the
Korea Expressway Corporation.
References
ABAQUS, 2013. ABAQUS user’s manual, Version 6.13. Dessault
Systemes Simulia Corp, RI, USA.
American Concrete Institute, 2005. Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary. ACI committee.
Adams, M., Perchard, V., 1985. The cohesive forces between particles with
interstitial liquid. Inst. Chem. Eng. Sym. 91, 147–160.
American Society for Testing and Materials D1143-87, 2009. Standard
Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load.
Boresi, A., 1965. Elasticity in engineering mechanics. Prentice Hall, N.J..
Braiud, J.L., Jeong, S., Bush, R., 1991. Group effect in the case of
downdrag. Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Geotechnical Special
Publication, No.27, pp. 505–518.
Broms, B., 1979. Negative skin friction. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asian
Regional Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Singapore, vol. 2, pp. 41–75.
Choi, Y., Hwang, G., Jung, S., Lee, M., Jung, C., 2003. Behavior of axial
load transfer for drilled shafts in soft ground. In: Proceedings of
Korean Geo-environmental Society, pp. 285–289.
De Beer, E., 1986. Different behavior of bored and driven piles. In:
Proceeding of 6th Danubian Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, pp. 307–318.
De la Varga, I., Munoz, J., Bentz, D., Stutzman, P., Graybeal, B., 2017.
Grout-concrete interface bond performance: effect of interface mois-
ture in the tensile bond strength and grout microstructure. Cem.
Concr. Compos., 1–21
Ghionna, N., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., Pedroni, S., 1993. Base
capacity of bored piles in sands from in situ tests. In: Proceeding of 2nd
International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundation on Bored
and Auger Piles. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, pp. 67–75.
Hong, W., Lee, J., Chai, S., 2008. Bearing capacity of SDA augered piles
in various grounds depending on water-cement ratio of cement milk. J.
Korean Geotech. Soc. 24 (5), 37–54.
Horvath, R., Kenny, T., Kozicki, P., 1983. Method of improving the
performance of drilled piers in weak rock. Can. Geotech. J. 20, 758–
772.
Jeong, S., Lee, J., Lee, C., 2004. Slip effect of the pile-soil interface on
dragload. Comput. Geotech. 31, 115–126.
Jeong, S., Ahn, S., Seol, H., 2010. Shear load transfer characteristics of
drilled shafts in rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 43 (1), 41–54.
Jeong, S., Jeong, N., 2018. Pile bearing capacity investigation report on
single test pile of Samyangsa storage warehouse. Report, Yonsei
University.
Jeong, S., Kim, D., 2018. Estimation of the load sharing ratio of pre-
installed columns in top-down buildings on Korean rock. KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 22 (12), 4852–4861.
Johnston, I., Lam, T., 1989. Shear behavior of regular triangular concrete/
rock joints-analysis. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (5), 711–727.
Jung, G., Kim, D., Lee, C., Jeong, S., 2017. Analysis of skin friction
behavior in prebored and precast piles based on field loading test. J.
Korean Geotech. Soc. 33, 31–38.
Kim, D., Jeong, S., Jung, G., Park, J., 2018. Load-sharing ratio of
prebored and precast pile in top-down method construction process.
Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 27 (10), 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tal.1472.
Kim, S., Jeong, S., Cho, S., Park, I., 1999. Shear load transfer
characteristics of drilled shafts in weathered rocks. ASCE J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (11), 999–1010.
 D. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 478–495
Korean Geotechnical Society, 2009. Standards for Foundation Design of
Structures. CIR.
Lavrov, A., 2016. Lost Circulation: Mechanisms and Solutions. Gulf
Professional Publishing, Elsevier, MA, USA.
Lim, H., Park, Y., Park, J., 2002. Investigation of characteristics and
suggestion of evaluation formulae for skin resistance of SIP. J. Korean
Geoenviron. Soc. 3 (2), 15–21.
Mansour, A., 2017. Experimental study and modeling of smart loss
circulation materials; advantages and promises. Master dissertation.
LSU, Louisiana, USA.
Momayez, A., Ehsani, M., Ramezanianpour, A., Rajaie, H., 2005.
Comparison of methods for evaluating bond strength between
concrete substrate and repqir materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (4),
748–757.
Ng, C., Zhang, L., Nip, D., 2001. Response of laterally loaded large-
diameter bored pile groups. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127
(8), 658–669.
Ollivier, J., Maso, J., Bourdette, 1995. Interfacial transition zone in
concrete. Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 2, 30–38.
O’Neill, M., Hassan, K., 1994. Drilled shaft: effects of construction on
performance and design criteria. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations,
Federal Highways Administration, Washington D.C., vol. 1, pp.
137–187.
495
O’Neill, M., Townsend, F., Hassan, K., Buller, A., Chan, P., 1996. Load
transfer for drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials. Federal
Highways Administration.
Park, J., 2004. Strength and friction behavior of cement paste poured in
the bored pile. J. Korean Geoenviron. Soc. 5 (3), 31–39.
Randolph, M., Wroth, C., 1981. Applications of the failure state in
undrained simple shear to the shaft capacity of driven piles. Geotech-
nique 31 (1), 143–157.
Reese, L., O’Neill, M., 1988. Drilled shafts: Construction procedures and
design methods. Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-042, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Scrivener, K., Crumbie, A., Laugesen, P., 2004. The interfacial transtition
zone (ITZ) between cement paste and aggregate in concrete. Interface
Sci. 12, 411–421.
Seidel, J., Collingwood, B., 2001. A new socket roughness factor for
prediction of rock socket shaft resistance. Can. Geotech. J. 38, 138–
153.
Seol, H., Jeong, S., Cho, S., 2009. Analytical method for load-transfer
characteristics of rock-socketed drilled shafts. ASCE’s J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (6), 778–789.
Uesegi, M., Kishida, H., 1986. Friction resistance at yield between dry
sand and mild steel. Soils Found. 26 (4), 139–149.