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

net/publication/290080111

Evaluation of Lateral Interpretation Criteria for Drilled Shaft Capacity in

Gravels

Article · October 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-013-9665-z

CITATIONS READS

3 177

2 authors, including:

Maria Cecilia M. Marcos

Adamson University
24 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Pile Dynamic Test View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Cecilia M. Marcos on 18 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evaluation of Lateral Interpretation
Criteria for Drilled Shaft Capacity in
Gravels

Maria Cecilia M. Marcos & Yit-Jin Chen

Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering
An International Journal

ISSN 0960-3182

Geotech Geol Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9665-z

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9665-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Evaluation of Lateral Interpretation Criteria for Drilled
Shaft Capacity in Gravels
Maria Cecilia M. Marcos • Yit-Jin Chen
Received: 27 May 2012 / Accepted: 7 May 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Representative interpretation criteria are
examined in detail to evaluate the lateral response of
drilled shaft foundations in gravels. A database of field
lateral load tests is used for the analysis. The
representative criteria are subdivided into absolute
displacement, displacement as a function of shaft
diameter, rotation limit, mathematical model, and
graphical construction method. Comparison of these
criteria shows that the initial elastic region ends at
approximately 3–5 mm, 0.50 %B, and 0.08° rotation,
which represent the serviceability limit state. The final
region begins at about 25 mm, 2.5 %B, and 0.33°
rotation, which represent the ultimate limit state. The
graphical construction methods, QL and QS&W, are
located within the transition region of the curve.
Among these criteria, the displacement limits, QL, and
QS&W methods demonstrate more reliable results. The
typical load–displacement curves for lateral capacity
in gravels are developed for engineering practical use.
Further, recommendations for the use of these inter-
pretation criteria are also given.
M. C. M. Marcos
Y.-J. Chen (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian
University, Chung-Li 32023, Taiwan
e-mail: yjc@cycu.edu.tw
M. C. M. Marcos
Department of Civil Engineering, Adamson University,
Manila, Philippines
Keywords Interpretation criteria
Drilled shafts

Lateral loading
Gravels
1 Introduction
Drilled shafts have been used to support loads for
high-rise buildings, transmission towers, bridges, and
others. In active seismic areas, such as Taiwan, lateral
loads govern the design of drilled shafts in many cases.
The behavior of piles subjected to lateral loads is
governed by the interaction between pile and soil, and
it is a non-linear, complicated soil-structure interac-
tion problem (e.g., Fan and Long 2005; Abdrabbo and
Gaaver 2012). This issue has lead to a number of
researches on the non-linear analysis of laterally
loaded piles (e.g., Fan and Long 2005; Zhang 2009;
Peng et al. 2010). However, for the evaluation of
in situ soil-shaft behavior, field lateral load tests are
often utilized.
Drilled shaft lateral capacity can be evaluated from
field load test results using several interpretation
criteria (e.g., McNulty 1956; Broms 1964; Walker and
Cox 1966; Ivey and Dunlap 1970; Slack and Walker
1970; Davidson et al. 1982; Pyke 1984; Briaud 1984;
Manoliu et al. 1985; Hirany and Kulhawy 1989), as
listed in Table 1. Each method is based on a unique
definition to evaluate the so-called ‘‘interpreted capac-
ity’’ or ‘‘interpreted failure load’’ from the load–
displacement or rotation curves. The assumptions are
based on individual judgment, scale of the load–
123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Definition of representative lateral interpretation criteria for deep foundations

Method Type Definition of interpreted capacity, Q Symbol

Manoliu et al. (1985) Mathematical model Load is equal to inverse slope (1/m) of QH
line y/p = ms ? c, where p = load and
y = butt displacement
McNulty (1956) Displacement limitation Load at 6 mm butt displacement Q6 mm

Walker and Cox (1966) Displacement limitation Load at 13 mm butt displacement Q13 mm

New York City (1981) Displacement limitation Load at 25 mm butt displacement Q25 mm

Pyke (1984) Displacement limitation Load at 5 %B butt displacement, in which Q5 %B

B = shaft diameter
Briaud (1984) Displacement limitation Load at 10 %B butt displacement Q10 %B

Broms (1964) Displacement limitation Load at 20 %B butt displacement Q20 %B

Davidson et al. (1982) Rotation limitation Load at 2° butt slope Q2°

Ivey and Dunlap (1970)
Slack and Walker (1970)
Hirany and Kulhawy (1989)
Rotation limitation
Graphical construction
Graphical construction
Load at 5° butt slope Q5°
Load is at which change in slope on a QS&W
log–log load–displacement plot
Failure is defined based on the variation QL
of apparent depth of rotation with load.
The sudden change in the apparent
depth of rotation is interpreted
as the initiation of failure

displacement curve, or extrapolation of the measured
load–displacement curve. These methods often pro-
duce results that vary substantially.
The effective selection of appropriate method when
designing laterally loaded piles can be difficult
because of these inconsistencies. In early years,
Hirany and Kulhawy (1988) examined lateral load
tests of drilled shafts and proposed the lateral or
moment limit method. Recently, Chen and Lee (2010)
and Chen et al. (2011) extensively evaluated repre-
sentative interpretation criteria for lateral capacity of
drilled shafts. These studies were mainly focused on
the evaluation of shafts in general drained and
undrained soils. However, gravels typically have
greater strength or stiffness than general soils (non-
gravelly soils). The tendency of gravels to dilate
during shearing can further provide better strength
behavior. Therefore, there should be clear differences
in the lateral load–displacement (or rotation) relation-
ship between gravels and general soils, and an
extensive evaluation is required to observe the
behavior of shafts in gravels.
In this study, field lateral load tests of drilled shafts
in gravels are used for the evaluation of representative
interpretation criteria. The relative merits and interre-
lationships of these interpretation criteria are then
established. Moreover, typical load–displacement and
rotation curves for the lateral capacity of drilled shafts
in gravels are developed. The interpreted results are
statistically and graphically compared, and conclu-
sions are drawn for geotechnical applications.
2 Database of Load Tests
The database for this study includes 9 sites, with 24
field lateral load tests conducted in gravels. Tests in
five sites were conducted in Taiwan and others were
performed in other parts of the world at different
points in time. All of the collected lateral load test data
have nearly complete geological information. Based
on the soil conditions along the shaft depth, these tests
are dominated by gravel soils. The gravel soils have
particles size greater than 4.75 mm and the content of
gravels accounts for greater than 50 %. The load–
displacement curves for the load tests are shown in
Fig. 1. For visual clarity of the curves, tests that
yielded less than 20 mm displacements are plotted in
Fig. 1a and the rest are combined in Fig. 1b. Based on
the case history descriptions, the shaft construction
and test performance were of high quality. Thus, these
load test cases can reflect common field situations, and
the results can be a representative of actual conditions
in practice.

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

1100 (2004). Moreover, several cases did not present the

1000
(a) δ<20 mm shaft rotation information. For these cases, other
assumptions are not suggested to obtain the required
900
values.
800

700
Load (kN)

600 3 Interpretation Criteria

500
Eleven interpretation criteria listed in Table 1 are
400 adopted as the basic evaluation methods for lateral
300 capacity. In addition, criteria from their extensions,
200
including absolute displacement, displacement as a
function of shaft diameter (B), and rotation limit are
100
used for the evaluation. These criteria are selected
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
because they present a wide distribution of interpreted
Ground-Line Displacement, δ (mm) results, from the lower, the middle and the higher
ranges. The criteria also include various definitions,
2400
(b) δ>20 mm which can be seen in Table 1. Therefore, they are good
2200
representative for the evaluation of existing interpre-
2000 tation criteria for lateral capacity.
1800 The method proposed by Manoliu et al. (1985) is
1600 based on a mathematical model of a hyperbola. The
interpreted capacity corresponds to the asymptote of
Load (kN)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ground-Line Displacement, δ (mm)
Fig. 1 Load-displacement curves of drilled shafts in gravels
The load tests were conducted on straight-sided
drilled shafts with free end. The applied lateral load is
located at or close to the ground surface and has
relatively small eccentricity (e), ranging from 0.2 to
0.8 m. Therefore, the influence of eccentricity can be
ignored for analysis. Table 2 shows the basic infor-
mation and the reference sources of the lateral load
tests. The shaft diameter ranges from 0.4 to 1.5 m,
while the shaft depth ranges from 6 to 30 m. Other
load tests were terminated before the interpreted
failure load; thus, the last portion of the load–
displacement curve for these load test data is inferred
using the ‘‘hyperbolic method’’, as suggested by Chen
the load–displacement curve. This method normally
represents an upper bound for all criteria and is called
hyperbolic capacity. McNulty (1956), Walker and Cox
(1966), and New York City (1981) defined interpreted
failure load by the limit of an absolute displacement,
while Pyke (1984), Briaud (1984), and Broms (1964)
used a displacement limit as a function of shaft
diameter. The method proposed by Davidson et al.
60 70 80 (1982), and Ivey and Dunlap (1970) used a rotation
limit on the shaft butt (head) to determine the lateral
capacity. The displacement limit and rotation limit
criteria are generally based on practical experience of
pile load tests.
Meanwhile, Slack and Walker (1970) recom-
mended a graphical construction method that consid-
ers the general shape of overall load–displacement
curve. The interpreted failure load is defined at the
change of slope in the load–displacement curve, as re-
drawn on a log–log plot. Hirany and Kulhawy (1989)
presented another graphical method called the lateral
or moment limit method. This method claims that the
soil-shaft failure mechanism can be defined by the
apparent depth of rotation, which is the ratio of the
ground-line displacement to the tangent of the shaft
slope. They used the variation of the apparent depth of
rotation with the load to define the failure load. The

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Basic Information and sources of the lateral field tests in gravels
Site and Test site Soil description Gravel ea GWT Shaft Shaft Reference no.
shaft no. % (m) (m) depth diameter
(m) (m)

GL 1-1 Dajia river, Sandy gravels and cobbles 90 0.5 0.5 15.5 1.20 Diagnostic (2002)
Taiwan
GL 2-1 Taoyuan, Gravels and cobbles w/sand 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20 Diagnostic (2001)
Taiwan
GL 2-2 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20
GL 2-3 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20
GL 2-4 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20
GL 2-5 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20
GL 2-6 62 0.5 3.0 16.5 1.20
GL 3-1 Hsinchu, Gravels and cobbles w/sand 75 0.5 3.0 9.0 1.20 Diagnostic (2000)
Taiwan
GL 3-2 70 0.5 3.0 11.0 1.20
GL 3-3 75 0.5 3.0 9.0 1.20
GL 3-4 70 0.5 3.0 13.0 1.20
GL 4-1 Dajia river, Silty gravels 60 0.5 0.5 18.0 1.20 Chung-Hua (1995)
Taiwan
GL 5-1 Liverpool, Very dense sandy gravel 59 0.4 3.5 13.0 1.20 Lyndon et al. (1989)
UK with boulders
GL 5-2 52 0.4 3.5 13.0 1.50
GL 6-1 K-bridge, Gravels w/sand 71 0.2 2.4 9.4 0.40 Jeon et al. (2000)
Korea
GL 6-2 81 0.2 2.4 8.3 0.40
GL 6-3 81 0.2 2.4 8.3 0.40
GL 6-4 84 0.2 2.4 8.0 0.40
GL 7-1 Japan Sandy gravels 60 0.4 NR 30.0 1.20 Honjo et al. (2005)
GL 8-1 San Diego, USA Gravel, cobbles, sand and fines 60 0.8 NR 6.0 0.81 Bhushan and Scheyhing
(2002)
GL 8-2 60 0.8 NR 6.0 0.81
GL 9-1 Taichung, Gravels and cobbles/boulders 56 0.3 50 9.0 1.20 Bell et al. (2002)
Taiwan in clayey matrix
GL 9-2 64 0.3 50 11.0 1.20
GL 9-3 69 0.3 50 13.0 1.20
GWT groundwater table, NR not reported
a
e load eccentricity

sudden change in the apparent depth of rotation is
interpreted as the initiation of failure. Therefore,
complete load test data, including shaft displacement
and rotation, are essential to interpret the lateral or
moment limit.
In this study, the displacement and rotation are
referred from the elevation of the ground surface for
consistent comparison, although most of the presented
criteria use the butt displacement or rotation. The
interpreted results using the representative criteria and
their extensions are given in Table 3. The results show
a wide range of values, indicating that the case histories
are sufficient representative for analysis. However,
some tests failed to determine the QL because of
insufficient data. Moreover, the change of slope in the
load–displacement curve, as re-drawn in a log–log
plot, is not very apparent in two load tests; thus, these
load test data are disregarded in the analysis of QS&W.

123
 Table 3 Lateral interpreted capacities of drilled shafts in gravels
Geotech Geol Eng

Site and shaft Interpreted capacity, Q (kN)

no.
Q5 mm Q10 mm Q15 mm Q20 mm Q25 mm Q30 mm Q0.25 %B Q0.5 %B Q1 %B Q2 %B Q3 %B Q4 %B Q0.05° Q0.1° Q0.2° Q0.3° Q0.4° QS&W QL QH

GL 1-1 693 1,108 1,385 1,582a 1,730a 1,845a 462 792 1,231 1,704a 1,953a 2,108a – – – – – 1,107 – 2,763
a a a a a
GL 2-1 638 814 975 1,041 1,090 1,157 471 691 888 1,082 1,157 1,198a 758 889 1,005 1,079a 1,106a 700 785 1,343
GL 2-2 177 334 432 646 777 898 131 215 402 766 976 1,038a 102 159 313 438 836 777 620 2,031
GL 2-3 265 313 373 415 459 512 216 275 347 471 608 713 76 214 426 463 567 – 392 853
GL 2-4 392 551 684 754 800 918 290 448 617 860 975 1,037a 103 406 755 808 950 680 736 1,285
GL 2-5 196 392 722 772 858 959 196 346 613 900 1,061a 1,170a 135 268 552 745 892 620 441 1,695
GL 2-6 623 767 948 1,029a 1,085a 1,126a 420 645 878 1,076a 1,163a 1,212a 393 785 872 903 1,018a 780 736 1,388
GL 3-1 661 882 973 1,028a 1,064a 1,089a 518 725 942 1,057a 1,111a 1,140a 260 419 596 684 943a 650 621 1,236
GL 3-2 757 900 1,000a 1,046a 1,075a 1,095a 589 807 943 1,070a 1,113a 1,136a 321 702 891 985a 1,007a 720 701 1,211
GL 3-3 530 741 866 954a 998a 1,029a 392 618 824 990 1,057a 1,094a – – – – – 780 – 1,222
GL 3-4 684 848 933 961a 979a 992a 589 752 916 976a 1,002a 1,016a 680 859 916 969a 1,048a 700 687 1,059
a a a a a a
GL 4-1 640 799 871 912 939 958 506 686 834 934 974 995 – – – – – 630 – 1,063
GL 5-1 240 467 600 661 723 784 247 363 496 653 845 989 – – – – – 1,040 – 1,790
GL 5-2 686 1,029 1,272 1,469 1,645 1,781 411 743 1,087 1,529 1,958 2,378 – – – – – – – 3,205
GL 6-1 95 139 172 196a 214a 228a 8 29 77 124 150 178a – – – – – 123 – 334
GL 6-2 80 131 179 213a 244a 270a 6 21 58 110 143 178 – – – – – 147 – 578
GL 6-3 100 174 251 270a 303a 330a 13 38 76 147 202 260 – – – – – 219 – 595
Author's personal copy

a a a
GL 6-4 160 216 245 263 275 283a 36 68 130 198 230a 249a – – – – – 200 – 336
GL 7-1 370 400 510 520 580 632 115 375 480 572 688 812 – – – – – 710 – 1,501
GL 8-1 500 819 1,164 1,444 1,686 1,811 222 476 708 1,250 1,664 1,820 – – – – – 1,744 – 3,962
GL 8-2 500 778 990 1,200 1,358 1,469 222 476 676 1,056 1,333 1,500 – – – – – 990 – 2,550
GL 9-1 698 944 1,035a 1,101a 1,146a 1,177a 521 756 965 1,138a 1,205a 1,241a 209 480 646 709 998a 705 402 1,365
GL 9-2 778 960 1,057a 1,112a 1,149a 1,175a 534 822 965 1,143a 1,198a 1,228a 449 638 825 958a 1,006a 775 759 1,326
GL 9-3 690 878 965 1,022a 1,055a 1,078a 568 742 938 1,049a 1,098a 1,124a 415 608 774 898 1,010a 795 795 1,211
a
Values are inferred using hyperbolic method (Chen 2004)

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

0.49
0.13
0.27
0.93
4 Analysis Results

QL

12
The lateral capacity of every case history is inter-

QS&W

0.50
0.11
0.22
1.42
preted using the following criteria: (1) absolute

22
displacement limits (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 mm);

0.73
0.14
0.20
3.01
Q0.4°
(2) displacement limits as a function of shaft
12 diameter (0.25 %B, 0.5 %B, 1 %B, 2 %B, 3 %B,
0.62
0.18
0.30
1.72
Q0.3°

and 4 %B); (3) rotation limits (0.05°, 0.1°, 0.2°, 0.3°,

12

and 0.4°); (4) mathematical model (hyperbolic

0.56
0.19
0.34
1.09
Q0.2°

capacity, denoted as QH; and (5) graphical construc-

12

tions (Slack and Walker 1970, denoted as QS&W, and

0.42
0.21
0.50
0.52
Q0.1°

lateral or moment limit method, denoted as QL)

12

completing to 20 interpretation criteria. QH typically

Q0.05°

0.25
0.19
0.74
0.28

gives the highest capacity value, well above more

12

conventional interpreted capacities. Therefore, it was

%B

adopted as a base for comparing the interpretation

0.74
0.20
0.27
4.00
Q4

24

criteria. All of the interpreted capacities are normal-

ized by QH. The statistical results are tabulated in
%B

0.68
0.21
0.31
3.00

Table 4. The number of load tests (n), mean,

Q3

24

standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation

%B

0.61
0.24
0.39
2.00

(COV) which is the standard deviation divided by

Q2

24

the mean are presented. The typical load–displace-

%B

ment and rotation curves for laterally loaded drilled

0.48
0.24
0.51
1.00
Q1

24

shafts in gravels with respect to each set of

interpretation criteria are obtained through regression
%B

0.36
0.22
0.62
0.50

analysis and are completely analyzed. Subsequently,

Q0.5
Table 4 Summary comparison of interpreted capacities for lateral tests in gravels

24

comparisons of the different criteria are presented,

%B

and the mean normalized load–displacement curve is

0.24
0.16
0.67
0.25
Q0.25

developed.
24
mm

4.1 Absolute Displacement Limit

0.70
0.18
0.26
3.41
Q30

24

The results in Table 4 show mean load ratios for

mm

No. of test that can be used for the interpretation methods

0.66
0.19
0.29
2.84

ground-line displacement (d) limits ranging from 0.35

Q25

24

to 0.70 when compared to QH, with COV values of

mm

26–53 %. The SD values are relatively constant with

0.62
0.20
0.33
2.28
Q20

respect to displacements for these criteria. These

24

results exhibit an increasing capacity ratio with

mm

increasing displacement. Furthermore, the statistics

0.57
0.21
0.37
1.71
Q15

24

show that the smaller the displacement, the higher the

Interpreted Q/QH

COV is. The typical load–displacement curve for

mm

0.48
0.21
0.45
1.14

absolute displacement limit is illustrated in Fig. 2

Q10

24

wherein the mean interpreted Q/QH for each interpre-

mm

0.35
0.19
0.53
0.57

tation method is plotted against the absolute displace-

Q5

24

ment. The data points appear to be in good agreement

with the fit curve. The fit curve hyperbola for all
Mean d/B

criteria through the load–displacement data is given by

Q/QH = d/(8.97 ? 1.15d) with n = 6, SD = 0.008,
Mean

(%)
COV
Data

SD

and coefficient of determination (r2) = 0.996.

Na

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

1.0 displacement limit, the results exhibit an increasing

Qδmm at disp. limit = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 mm capacity ratio with increasing displacement and the
0.9
QS&W & QL smaller displacement corresponds to higher COV
0.8 value. Figure 3 presents the typical load–displacement
Q/QH = δ / (8.97+1.15*δ)
Mean Interpreted Q/Q H

0.7 curve for displacement limit as a function of shaft

(n = 6, SD = 0.008, r2 = 0.996 )
diameter. The mean interpreted Q/QH is plotted
0.6 Q Q/QH against the displacement limit as a function of shaft
Q5mm 0.35
0.5 QS&W diameter. The data points agree very well with the
Q10mm 0.48
QL curve and have a wide distribution of values from the
0.4 Q15mm 0.57
initial to the final region of the curve. The fit curve
Q20mm 0.62
0.3 hyperbola for all criteria through the load–displace-
Q25mm 0.66
Q30mm 0.70
ment data is given by Q/QH = v/(0.83 ? 1.18v) with
0.2
QS&W 0.50
n = 6, SD = 0.016, and r2 = 0.993. Based on these
0.1
QL 0.49 results, the initial elastic region ends at about 0.5 %B
0.0
displacement, and the final region begins at about
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2.5 %B displacement. These criteria likewise demon-
Ground-Line Absolute Displacement, δ (mm) strate a consistent relationship between load and
Fig. 2 Typical load-absolute displacement limit curve
displacement.

4.3 Rotation Limit

The load–displacement curve can be divided into As previously described, a number of load test cases
three distinct regions: initial more or less elastic cannot be utilized for these criteria because of
region, sharply curving transition region, and flatten- incomplete shaft rotation data. Table 4 shows the
ing asymptotic final region. In general, the initial results of available data for rotation (h) limit having
region corresponds to the load–displacement curve mean load ratios ranging from 0.25 to 0.73 when
portion which is more or less linear. The transition compared to QH, with COV values of 27–74 %. The
region starts after the linear portion, or when the line SDs exhibit comparatively constant value, thus the
becomes essentially curve. The final region is when
the curve line begins to change to linear again, in
which a small increase in load yields a large increase 1.0
in displacement. By linear approximation on Fig. 2, Qχ%B at disp. limit = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 %B
0.9
the initial elastic region is reached at small displace- QS&W & QL
ments of approximately 3–5 mm, while the final 0.8
Q/QH = χ / (0.83+1.18*χ)
region may begin at about 25 mm displacement. (n = 6, SD = 0.016, r2 = 0.993)
Mean Interpreted Q/QH

0.7
Based on these results, relatively small displacement is
needed to develop the lateral capacity of drilled shafts 0.6 Q Q/QH
in gravels. These criteria show a consistent relation- QL QS&W Q0.25%B 0.24
0.5
ship between load and displacement. Q0.5%B 0.36
0.4 Q1%B 0.48
Q2%B 0.61
4.2 Displacement Limit as a Function of Shaft 0.3
Q3%B 0.68
Diameter 0.2 Q4%B 0.74
QS&W 0.50
Table 4 likewise presents the results of mean inter- 0.1
QL 0.49
preted Q/QH for displacement limit as a function of 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
shaft diameter (vB %). The mean load ratios vary
Ground-Line Displacement at Percent Diameter, (%B)
from 0.24 to 0.74 with COV values of 27–67 %. The
SD values are also relatively constant with respect to Fig. 3 Typical load–displacement limit at percent diameter
the displacements for these criteria. As in absolute curve

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

smaller the displacement, the larger the COV is. The
COV values for these criteria appear to have a wider
range when compared to absolute displacement limit
and displacement as a function of shaft diameter.
Figure 4 demonstrates the typical load-rotation curve,
in which the mean interpreted Q/QH is plotted against
the rotation limit. Some data points somewhat vary
from the fit curve hyperbola which is given by
Q/QH = h/(0.14 ? 1.06h) with n = 5, SD = 0.022,
and r2 = 0.986.
The load-rotation curve indicates that the initial
elastic region ends at approximately 0.08° rotation and
the beginning of the final region occurs at around 0.33°
rotation. These results show that relatively small
rotation is required to mobilize the lateral capacity of
drilled shafts in gravels. Based on Fig. 4 and the COV
values, these criteria present more variable results
compared with the displacement limits. One possible
reason is the fewer number of data utilized for the
analysis. Other reason could be due to the presumed
high variability of rotation results obtained from the
field measurement. Therefore, it is suggested that
additional data be used for rotation analysis to provide
a more firm and reliable behavior.
4.4 Graphical Construction
The results in Table 4 show a mean QS&W/QH = 0.50
with an SD of 0.11 and a COV of 22 %. The SD and
COV values are relatively smaller compared with
those of other methods. Based on Figs. 2, 3, 4, QS&W is
located at about 13 mm, 1.42 %B displacement, and
0.18° rotation. On the other hand, QL method utilized
less data due to incomplete load test information to
interpret the load capacity. The QL shows a mean QL/
QH = 0.49, SD = 0.13 and COV = 27 %. Mean-
while, QL is located at about 11 mm, 0.93 %B
displacement, and 0.16° rotation. The capacity and
displacement of QL and QS&W are relatively compa-
rable. QL and QS&W occur nearly at the middle of the
transition region.
5 Comparison of Different Interpretation Criteria
Comparisons of the interpretation criteria in Table 4
show some interesting points. First, the COV value
decreases with increasing mean capacity ratio for all
the displacement limits. This result is clearly observed
in Fig. 5 wherein the mean capacity ratio is plotted
against the COV value. This behavior may result from
sensitivity of test measurement or probable fluctuation
during initial loading. Second, most of the interpreta-
tion criteria are generally in good agreement with the
individual fit curve. However, rotation limit exhibits
widest COV variation, while the displacement limits
and graphical construction can provide more consis-
tent and reliable results.

0.9
1.0
Qθ at rotation limit = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4
O O
0.9 0.8
QS&W & QL
Coefficient of Variation, COV

0.8 0.7
Q/QH = θ / (0.14+1.06*θ)
Mean Interpreted Q/QH

(n = 5, SD = 0.022, r2 = 0.986 )
0.7 0.6

0.6 Q Q/QH
0.5
Q0.05° 0.25
0.5 QS&W Q0.1° 0.42 0.4
QL
0.4 Q0.2° 0.56
0.3
Q0.3° 0.62
0.3
Q0.4° 0.73
0.2 ------absolute displacement limit
0.2 QS&W 0.50
____ percent diameter limit
0.1
QL 0.49 0.1
_ _ _ rotation limit

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Ground-Line Displacement at Rotation Limit, (θ°) Mean Capacity Ratio

Fig. 4 Typical load-rotation limit curve Fig. 5 COV versus mean lateral capacity ratio

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

To develop the typical load–displacement curve for individual set of interpretation method, as examined
drilled shafts under lateral loading in gravels, the previously. The fit curve hyperbola for all criteria
normalization using mean d/B (ground-line displace- through the load–displacement data is given by
ment/shaft diameter) value is also obtained and listed Q/QH = d/B/[0.81 ? 1.20(d/B)] with n = 19, SD =
in Table 4. This likewise allows direct comparison of 0.032, and r2 = 0.955.
the interpretation criteria. Figure 6 shows the mean The normalized load–displacement curves for grav-
Q/QH plotted against the mean d/B for all criteria. els obtained in the present study are compared to the
Some data points relatively vary from the curve, and load–displacement curves recently developed by Chen
these differences can be regarded to the individual et al. (2011) for rigid drilled shafts in general drained
definition of the methods, the varying number of data soils. The curves for gravels demonstrate a signifi-
available for evaluation, and other factors including cantly stiffer load–displacement behavior. This can be
database differences. attributed to the more dilative behavior of gravel which
As described previously, the load–displacement regains its strength during shearing. Moreover, pile
curve for lateral capacity in gravels can be divided into response under gravels can provide better resistance to
three distinct regions; the initial elastic, curved transi- displacement and rotation compared with drained
tion, and final region. Based on the available data in this soils. Interestingly, Chen et al. (2011) proposed an
study, Fig. 6 demonstrates that the approximate linear SLS for drained soils at absolute displacement of
initial elastic region ends at about 0.30–0.35 Q/QH, 10 mm and 1 % B, which is twice larger than that for
which corresponds to displacements of 3–5 mm, gravels (5 mm and 0.5 %B). Furthermore, Chen et al.
0.5 %B, and around 0.08° rotation. These limits can (2011) proposed an SLS of 0.3° rotation, which is
represent a serviceability limit state (SLS) for shafts in around four times larger than the value acquired in this
gravels. The final region begins at about 0.65 Q/QH, study of 0.08°. In addition, Chen et al. (2011) proposed
which corresponds to a value of 25 mm displacement, that USL in drained soils can provide a threshold of
2.5 %B, and around 0.33° rotation. These values can be 50 mm or 4 %B displacements and 0.9° rotation. In
accorded as the ultimate limit state (ULS) for lateral this study, at almost same capacity ratio, gravels yields
tests in gravels. QL is at 0.49 Q/QH and lies nearly at the only around 25 mm or 2.5 %B displacements and
middle of the transition region, with QS&W = 0.5 0.33° rotation. Clearly, better strength behavior can be
Q/QH, just above QL. The results of normalized Q/QH expected for piles under gravels. The results in Fig. 6
versus d/B for all criteria are consistent with that of the can provide preliminary estimation in cases where load
test is terminated prematurely and load capacity must
be inferred.
1.0
Qδmm at disp. limit = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 mm
0.9 Qδχ%B at disp. limit = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 %B
QθO at rotation limit = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4O
0.8 6 Summary and Conclusions
QS&W & QL
Mean Interpreted Q/Q H

0.7 Q Q/QH δ/B (%)

Q5mm
Q10mm
0.35
0.48
0.57
1.14
Lateral field load tests in predominantly gravel profile
0.6 Q15mm 0.57 1.71
were evaluated for straight-sided drilled shafts. Rep-
QL Q20mm
Q25mm
0.62
0.66
2.28
2.84
resentative interpretation criteria were used for the
0.5
QS&W Q30mm 0.70 3.41
Q0.25%B
Q0.5%B
0.24
0.36
0.25
0.50
evaluation. The interpreted results from these criteria
0.4 Q1%B
Q2%B
0.48
0.61
1.00
2.00
were then compared. Based on the analyses, the
Q3%B 0.68 3.00
0.3 Q4%B 0.74 4.00 following conclusions emerged:
Q0.05° 0.25 0.28

Q/QH = δ/B / (0.81+1.20*δ/B) Q0.1° 0.42 0.52

0.2
(n = 19, SD = 0.032, r2 = 0.955 )
Q0.2° 0.56 1.09 1. Among the interpretation criteria, the displace-
Q0.3° 0.62 1.72
Q0.4° 0.73 3.01 ment limits and graphical construction methods
0.1 QS&W 0.50 1.42
QL 0.49 0.93 present more consistent and reliable results.
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Statistical analyses show a decreasing COV value
Ground-Line Displacement/Diameter, δ/B (%)
with increasing lateral displacement.
3. The typical load–displacement and rotation curves
Fig. 6 Mean normalized load–displacement curve for drilled shafts under lateral loading in gravels

123
 Author's personal copy
are developed based on the representative inter-
pretation criteria. From the developed curves, the
initial elastic region ends at approximately
0.30–0.35 Q/QH, which corresponds to about
3–5 mm, 0.5 %B, and 0.08°. These represent the
SLS conditions for gravels. The final region begins
at about 0.65 Q/QH, which corresponds to around
25 mm displacement, 2.5 %B, and 0.33° rotation.
These results represent the ULS conditions.
4. The QS&W/QH = 0.50 occurs at about 13 mm,
1.42 %B, and 0.18°, whereas QL/QH = 0.49
occurs at about 11 mm, 0.93 %B, and 0.16°.
5. The fit curve hyperbola for all the criteria through
the normalized load–displacement data is given
by Q/QH = d/B/[0.81 ? 1.20(d/B)].
6. The load–displacement curves for gravels dem-
onstrate a significantly stiffer behavior than that
for general drained soils.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by the National
Science Council, Taiwan, under contract number NSC
100-2221-E-033-073-MY3.
References
Abdrabbo FM, Gaaver KE (2012) Simplified analysis of later-
ally loaded pile groups. Alex Eng J 51:121–127. doi:
10.1016/j.aej.2012.05.005
Bell K, Senapathy H, Gerken D (2002) Pre-production lateral
load testing in Tamaopu formation. In: O’Neill, Townsend
(eds) Proceedings international deep foundations Congress
2002, Orlando, Florida. Geotechnical special publication
no. 116, ASCE, Reston, pp 1376–1387
Bhushan K, Scheyhing C (2002) Lateral load tests on drilled
piers in San Diego area residual and formational soils. In:
Proceedings 27th annual conference on deep foundations,
San Diego, CA
Briaud J-L (1984) Panel discussion: laterally loaded deep
foundations (STP 835). ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 239–243
Broms BB (1964) Lateral resistance of pile in cohesive soils.
J Soil Mech Found Div 90(2):27–63
Chen J-R (2004) Axial behavior of drilled shafts in gravelly
soils. Dissertation, Cornell University
Chen Y-J, Lee Y-S (2010) Evaluation of lateral interpretation
criteria for drilled shaft capacity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
136(8):1124–1136. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000325
Chen Y-J, Lin S-W, Kulhawy FH (2011) Evaluation of lateral
interpretation criteria for rigid drilled shaft. Can Geotech J
48(4):634–643. doi:10.1139/t10-094
Chung-Hua Engineering Corporation (1995) Report on load test
of bored piles for Dajia Bridge of 1st Freeway, Taiwan.
Load Test Report, Taipei
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng
Davidson HL, Cass PG, Khilji KH, McQuade PV (1982) Lat-
erally loaded drilled pier research. Rep. no. EL-2197,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Diagnostic Engineering Consultants Ltd (2000) Pile load testing
of Hsin Tao combined cycle 307FA power plant project.
Load Test Report, Taipei
Diagnostic Engineering Consultants Ltd. (2001) Report on load
test of DaTan power station for Taipower Company. Pile
Load Test Report, Taipei
Diagnostic Engineering Consultants Ltd. (2002) Report on lat-
eral load test of bored piles for Dachia River, Hsi-Pin
highway. Pile Load Test Report, Taipei
Fan CC, Long J (2005) Assessment of existing methods for
predicting soil response of laterally loaded piles in sand.
Comput Geotech 32(4):274–289. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.
2005.02.004
Hirany A, Kulhawy FH (1988) Conduct and interpretation of
load tests on drilled shaft foundations: detailed guidelines.
Report no. EL-5915(1), Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA
Hirany A, Kulhawy FH (1989) Interpretation of load tests on
drilled shafts. 3: Lateral and moment. In: Kulhawy (ed)
Proceedings foundation engineering Congress, Evanston,
IL. Geotechnical special publication no. 22, ASCE, New
York, pp 1160–1172
Honjo Y, Zaika Y, Pokharel G (2005) Estimation of subgrade
reaction coefficient for horizontally loaded piles by sta-
tistical analyses. Soils Found 45(3):51–70
Ivey DL, Dunlap WA (1970) Design procedure compared to
full-scale tests of drilled shaft footings. Rep. no. 105-3,
University of Texas, Austin, TX
Jeon KS, Kim JH, Kim SH, Kim MM (2000) Analysis of lateral
head movements of CIP piles. In: Dennis, Castelli, O’neill
(eds) Proceedings Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colorado.
Geotechnical special publication no. 100. ASCE, Reston,
pp 254–268
Lyndon A, Price G, Wardle IF, Varey LS (1989) The effect of
vertical pile loading on subsequent lateral behavior. In:
Proceedings 3rd international conference on piling and deep
foundations, London, England. ASCE, London, pp 377–382
Manoliu I, Dimitriu DV, Radulescu N, Dobrescu G (1985)
Load-deformation characteristics of drilled piers. In: Pro-
ceedings 11th international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, vol 3, San Francisco, CA. AA
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1553–1558
McNulty JF (1956) Thrust loading on piles. J Soil Mech Found
Div 82(SM2): 940/1-940/25
New York City (1981) Building code of the city of New York.
Gould Publications, Binghamton
Peng JR, Rouainia M, Clarke BG (2010) Finite element analysis
of laterally loaded fin piles. Comput Struct 88:1239–1247.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.07.002
Pyke R (1984) Panel discussion: laterally loaded deep founda-
tions (STP 835). ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 239–243
Slack DC, Walker JN (1970) Deflections of shallow pier foun-
dations. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(SM4):1143–1157
Walker JN, Cox EH (1966) Design of pier foundations for lateral
loads. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 9(3):417–420
Zhang L (2009) Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded rigid piles
in cohesionless soils. Comput Geotech 36:718–724. doi:
10.1016/i.compgeo.2008.12.001