Chen 2002

Evaluation of Drained Axial Capacity for Drilled Shafts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yit-Jin Chen* and Fred H. Kulhawy**, Fellow ASCE
*Deputy Manager, Taiwan High Speed Rail Project, Sinotech Engineering Consultants,
171 Nanking East Road, See. 5, Taipei, Taiwan 10572; yjchen@mail.sinotech.com.tw
**Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Hollister
Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853-3501; fhkl @comell.edu
Abstract
The drained side and tip resistances of drilled shafts in cohesionless soils were evaluated
from field load test case histories with axial uplift and compression loading. The side
resistance was evaluated using the effective stress or beta (I3) method, and the tip resistance
in compression was evaluated using bearing capacity theory. For the side resistance, the
results show that 13 values can reach 6.5 at shallow depth, but they decrease with depth.
The 13values in uplift and compression are essentially the same and generally vary by less
than 4%. Comparing the measured and predicted (traditional) values of 13, the predicted 13
values are low and overly conservative. For the tip resistance, the average ratio of the
measured to predicted values is about 0.3 at a displacement/diameter of 4%. This ratio
shows some scatter at shallow depths, but the scatter decreases with increasing depth. To
mobilize the tip resistance fully, a displacement/diameter of about 10% is required. Based
on these data and evaluations, design recommendations are proposed.
Introduction
When drilled shaft foundations are loaded axially in coarse-grained, cohesionless soils, the
excess pore water stresses are zero and the analysis generally is done in terms of effective
stresses. The effective stress method for side resistance essentially is a frictional theory
between the soil (or rock) and shaft concrete (e.g., Kulhawy et al., 1983). The effective
stress method for tip resistance in compression is based on beating capacity theory (e.g.,
Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1975; Kulhawy et al., 1983).
Drilled shafts are always constructed below the ground surface. Therefore the method
of construction has a potential impact on the eventual foundation performance under load
and has to be considered in the foundation analysis and design (e.g., Greer & Gardner,
1986; Kulhawy, 1991). Although many models have been proposed for evaluating the
capacity of drilled shafts under axial load, it is necessary to verify the effectiveness of these
models using field load test case histories and to evaluate the resulting statistical data to
describe the quality of these models.
In this study, a reassessment of the axial capacity of drilled shafts in cohesionless soils
was done based on a large number of load test data. All of the available data were
reinterpreted in consistent fashion using the soil property correlations outlined by Kulhawy
and Mayne (1990) and the L~-L2 load test interpretation method described by Hirany and
1200
Deep Foundations 2002

DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1201
Kulhawy (1989) and Kulhawy and Hirany (1989).
Drained Axial Analyses

Drilled shaft capacity is a function of the foundation weight (W), side resistance (Q~), and
tip resistance (Q,). By force equilibrium, the compression capacity (Qc) is given by:
Qr = Q~r + Q,r W (1)
while the uplift capacity (Qu) is given by:
Qu = Qsu + Qtu + W (2)
The drained or effective stress analysis method for these forces is described below.
Side Resistance. The side resistance of a drilled shaft can be expressed as the frictional
resistance of a cylindrical shear surface, given by:
D
Q~ = Q~~= ~ B ~[0 Cyv'(Z) K(z) tan 8(z) dz (3)
in which B = shaft diameter, D = shaft depth, 8 = effective stress friction angle for the soil-
shaft interface, z = depth, 6v' = vertical effective stress, and K = coefficient of horizontal
soil stress (6h'/6v'). For convenience in analysis, some of the terms in Equation 3 can be
grouped as follows:
O(z)=K(z)tanS(z) (4)
and
f(z) = o~'(z) 13(z) (5)
in which 13 is a coefficient and f = unit side resistance. In applying Equations 3 through 5,

the interface friction angle (8) normally is related to the effective stress friction angle of the
soil (~'), as given in Kulhawy et al. (1983). For concrete east in place against soil, 8 ~ 4'-
The operative horizontal stress coefficient (K) depends first on the original in-situ
coefficient of horizontal soil stress (Ko). Examination of numerous load tests (Kulhawy et
al., 1983) showed that the ratio of K/Ko for drilled shafts normally varies between 2/3 and
1, and it is a function of the construction method and its influence on the in-situ stress. For
dry construction, minimal sidewall disturbance, and prompt concreting, the soil disturbance
is minimized and K/K o is about 1. For slurry or wet-hole construction, using proper
eonstruction techniques, the soil disturbance also is minimized, and therefore K/Ko still is
close to 1. However, when slurry or wet-hole procedures are not applied properly, the soil
stress may relax significantly, and therefore K/Ko could be reduced to 2/3. Casing

1202 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002
construction under water may be intermediate between these ranges.
Tip Resistance. The tip resistance in compression is provided by the beating capacity of
the soil beneath the tip, as given by:
Qtc = quitAtip = quitx B2 / 4 (6)
in which quit = ultimate bearing capacity and Ati p = shaft tip area. The general solution for
quit (e.g., Vesic, 1975) is the Terzaghi-Buisman equation given below:
quit = c N c + 0.5 B y Ny + q Nq (7)
in which c = soil cohesion, y = soil unit weight, q = vertical stress at shaft tip (= y D), and
N~, Ny, Nq = bearing capacity factors.
Further studies have extended Equation 7 to actual field conditions, and modifiers (~)
that include foundation shape (s), depth (d), and rigidity (r) have been introduced by a
number of author (e.g., Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1975; Kulhawy et al., 1983). Considering
these modifiers for drained conditions, the general form of the bearing capacity equation
becomes:
qu,t = 0.5 B 7 Nv ~s ~md~--arr+ q Nq ~s ~cl ~r (8)

The detailed values of N c, Nv, and N q a r e given elsewhere (Kulhawy, 1991).
For drained conditions, the tip resistance in uplift is usually taken as zero.
WeighL The weight term is the effective weight of the foundation, given by the total
weight above the water table and the buoyant weight below the water table.
Database
The worldwide database developed for this study included 53 sites (35 in the U. S.) with
100 field load tests conducted in a wide variety of cohesionless soil profiles. Sands
dominated the database, with soil types ranging from gravelly sand to sand to silty sand.
Only a few were cemented. In-situ densities ranged from loose to dense, although loose to
medium dense cases dominated. All of the selected load tests were conducted on straight-
sided drilled shafts. Axial loading was applied in all cases, with 54 tests in uplift and 46
tests in compression.
Analysis details for these 100 tests are far too lengthy to list in this paper, but they are
presented elsewhere (Chen& Kulhawy, 1994; Chen, 1993). The load tests were divided
into four groups based on the loading and overall data quality: Group 1 in uplift (denoted
U1), Group 2 in uplift (denoted U2), Group 1 in compression (denoted C1), Group 2 in
compression (denoted C2).
Group 1 includes those cases in which the ground water table (GWT) and the complete
load-displacement curve were reported, and the geotechnical parameters were measured

DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002 1203
over the foundation depth. Group 2 consists of all remaining cases, such as those in which
the GWT was not reported, the load-displacement curve was stopped before the interpreted
failure load, or there was insufficient geotechnical data over the shaft depth.
For convenience, the range of foundation geometries and shaft and tip resistances is
summarized in Table 1. As can be seen, the range of geometry is broad, but the diameters
for uplift and compression are roughly comparable. For these load test data, the L~-L2
method (Kulhawy & Hirany, 1989; Hirany & Kulhawy, 1989) was adopted to define the
capacity in both uplift and compression. As shown in Figure 1, the "elastic limit" is
defined at L~, which is followed by a nonlinear yield region. The end of this region is at
L2, the "interpreted failure load" or "failure threshold", which begins the final linear region.
Table 1. Range of Axial Drained Load Test Data
Data No. Shaft Geometry (m) Resistance (kN)

Group Tests Depth, D Diameter, B D/B Shaft Tip
U1 41 1.37- 12.8 0.31- 1.31 2.5-32.1 21 - 2870 0
U2 13 2.44-25.9 0.41 - 0.99 2.7-42.5 92- 2369 0
C1 26 5.00-21.6 0.24- 1.52 5.8-44.8 137- 9465 43-2989
C2 20 5.50-62.0 0.36-2.00 8.6-56.4 102-23180 128-7320
1 m = 3.28 fl; 1 kN = 0.225 k
IO0 ..... 7
-o
/
QTIP=0.24 QL2
o I
76 -- I
II
J~
t-- I
i
I
P 50 ~Q~p=O.II QLI
~SIOE=0.76 QL2
"o
00 44.5- J
- Ii
~ I I I
._1 Q TIP =Tip resistonce
J i QSIDE:O.89QLI Q SLOE=Side resistonce
I QLI= Elostic limit
I
I
QL2=Foilure threshold
o I i~ i i I
0 0.4 I 2 3 4
Displocement / Diometer (%)
Figure 1. Average Load-Displacement Curve in Axial Compression

(Kulhawy & Hirany, 1989)

1204 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002
On average, L 2 occurs at a displacement approximately corresponding to 4% of the shaft

diameter. The "interpreted failure load" in uplift approximately corresponds to an uplift
displacement of about 12-13 nun (~ 1/2 inch).
Evaluation of Side Resistance by Beta Method
Measured Beta versus Depth. The measured beta (~m) was evaluated as follows:
13m = QsL2/ '/~ B D O'vm' (9)
in which QsL2 is the side resistance from Equation 1 (for Q~) or 2 (for Qs.), and o ~ ' is the
mean vertical effective stress over the shaft depth. The "interpreted failure load" was
defined by the L z point described previously. In the few cases where direct tip
measurements were made during the load test, Qtc and Q L2 were evaluated directly. In all
other cases, the overall average relationship shown in Figure 1 was used, in which QsL2
0.76 QL2.
The resulting 13mvalues are plotted versus depth in Figure 2. This figure shows that
very high values of 13., up to 6.5, can occur at shallow depth. However, 13mdecreases with
depth, until at depths greater than 20 meters or so, the values of 13,, converge to the
normally consolidated (NC) range, which is given by:
13Nc Ko tan 8 ~ (1 - sin ~') tan ~'

= (10)
Measured ApproximateMean ~, ~m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 ..... iO, 9 ,i .... i .... J .... , .... , ' ' 9
O gO O 9
g o_u 9 _b
10
"r~ o .o
20
f~ i ~ , . . , ~ Range for NC sand
~ E -
u 9
u
ii
n
30 9 ii0 9 G r o u p U t ( 15 sites, 41 data points)
!i [] Group U2 ( 7 sites, 13 data points)
t(~ 9 G r o u p C1 ( 18 silos, 2 6 data points)
40f~ O 0 GroupC2 (13 sites, 20 data points)
[ ii 1 ~ - s.2e.
[lj,~o,s,o.)
SO/1~ ...... , .... ' .... ' . . . . . . . . ' ....
Figure 2. Variation of Measured 13with Depth

assuming K/Ko = 1 and 8/~b' = 1. The range plotted is for typical ~b' values between 20 ~ and
40 ~ which results in 13~c between 0.24 and 0.30. The same pattern was found for the
variation of 13m versus D/B. These findings are reasonable because, in most natural soil
profiles, the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) generally decreases with increasing depth.
Note that the points denoted a, b, and c gave higher values because the shaft tips were
founded on rock.
Comparison of Measured and Predicted Beta. Approximate beta values also can be
predicted from Equation 4. To evaluate the predicted beta (13p), the soil profile along the
shaft depth was divided into several layers, and average K o and ~' values were taken at
mid-depth of each layer to calculate the predicted [3 for that layer. Then the average [~p
over the shaft depth was calculated using weighted averages. All 100 load tests could not
be used for this purpose because some were founded on clay or rock, and others did not
have sufficient data to evaluate 13p confidently. The resulting 58 load tests that were
evaluated included 27 in uplift and 31 in compression.
As described previously, the value of 8/~' for cast-in-place shafts is 1.0, and therefore
all cases used 8/~' = 1.0 for this calculation. For K/Ko, the value used depends on the
construction method (Kulhawy et al., 1983), and previously recommended values equal 1
for dry construction, 5/6 for casing construction, 2/3 for slurry construction, and 11/12 for
dry and casing construction (average of dry and casing). For the 27 uplift tests, 22 were
constructed dry, and 5 used slurry. For the 31 compression tests, 21 were constructed dry,
7 used slurry, 2 used casing, and 1 was dry with casing.
A comparison between the measured and predicted approximate mean beta values is
shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the predicted 13is somewhat smaller than the measured.
On average, 13m is equal to 1.21 130" This result might be attributed to underestimation of
the soil strength and Ko. This is a real possibility, because the case history geotechnical
data are somewhat limited and imperfect.
A second possibility is that the K/K o values are too conservative. A re-evaluation of 130
(denoted as 13p')was done using K/K o = 1, and these results are shown in Figure 4. As can
be seen, the 13m/13p'ratio is closer to unity after the FUKo = 1 adjustment. On average, 13mis
equal to 1.13 130" Use of the lower K/K o values might be appropriate in a conservative
design to cover potential construction uncertainties, but they are too low for load test back-
analyses. For high quality construction, K/K o = 1 should be used.
Table 2 summarizes the various 13 comparisons and their regression data. As can be
seen, the difference between the data groups for 13pis smaller. However, the differences are
substantial for the 13p'analyses, where there is a 20% difference between Data Groups 1 and
2, further confirming the K/K o = 1 recommendation.
Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4 also compare [3 in uplift and compression. The regression
slopes are comparable, although the standard deviation (S.D.) for the uplift tests is larger
than that for the compression tests. For all practical purposes, the uplift and compression
results are essentially the same, varying by less than 4%.
Figure 5 shows the variation of 13m/l~pwith depth, indicating that most data fall in the
range from about 0.9 to 1.6. However, the scatter is reduced as the shaft depth increases.
Figure 6 shows the corresponding variation of 13m/130'with depth. These data show less

1206 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002
. . . . . " .... " .... " . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . / !

Alldata # /,/"
\ /
9 ,~y /
Uplift #~ //"
9 /"/~'~Compression
3. 3
r
4)
Group U1 (11 sites, 21 data points)
9 Q=~"" [3 GroupU2 ( 5 sites, 6 data points)
,a~ lr 9 GroupC1 (11 sites, 15 data points)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Predicted Approximate Mean ~, ~p
Figure 3. Comparison of Measured and Predicted 13
D /
All data ~ . /
ooS 5
Uplift ~.///
[] /"
~ 4
'R ~Compression
CL
"O
2
mm my~m
~/"
~..~ m m r ~ l sites,24 datapoints)
I--"/l~/'D_ = O GroupU2 i 5 sites, 6 data points)
J~4 eU 9 GroupC1 (11 sites, 15 data points)
/, o ?rou0 ~,0~,,es:,Sda~ 0o,n~,
1 2 3 4 5 6
. i
PredictedApproximateMean13,
Figure 4. Comparison of Measured and Predicted [3 Using K/K o = 1

Table 2. Comparison of Regression Data for 13Values
Data Statisticsb
Test Type Group Za n r2 S.D.

Uplift 1 1.21 [0.99] 21 0.843 [0.616] 0.25 [0.39]
2 1.24 [1.24] 6 0.962 [0.962] 0.48 [0.48]
1+2 1.23 [1.13] 27 0.944 [0.881] 0.31 [0.45]
Compression 1 1.17 [1.01] 15 0.869 [0.792] 0.14 [0.17]
2 1.21 [1.19] 16 0.903 [0.889] 0.23 [0.25]
1+2 1,19 [1.12] 31 0.896 [0.856] 0.19 [0.22]
Uplift I 1.20 [1.00] 36 0.867 [0.705] 0.20 [0.31]
and 2 1.24 [1.23] 22 0.948 [0.957] 0.30 [0.31]
Compression 1 +2 1.21 [1.13] 58 0.941 [0.890] 0.25 [0.34]
Note: Brackets give results for K/Ko = 1.0
" [3,, = Z 13por ;( 13p'
b n = no. data points, r2 = coefficient of determination, S.D. = standard deviation
variability than 13m/l~p. Variations of these ratios with D/B show similar patterns.
Evaluation of Unit Side Resistance
As defined by Equation 5, the unit side resistance, f(z), is equal to Ov'(Z) p(z) and describes
the average shaft resistance directly. The variation of the average unit side resistance over
the shaft depth, normalized by atmospheric pressure (Pa), is given in Figure 7 versus the
shaft depth. The same pattern was found versus D/B. As shown, the normalized side
resistance can be divided into two portions at about D = 15 m (or D/B = 15). For D < 15 m
(or D/B < 15), the normalized side resistance varies greatly, from less than 0.2 to about 2.5.
However, for D > 15 m (or D/B > 15), the range of normalized side resistance is smaller,
with all values between 0.4 and 1. This result is consistent with results from Figure 2,
which showed that [~ varies greatly at shallow depths but converges toward the normally
consolidated (NC) range at depth.
Evaluation of Tip Resistance
The predicted drained compression tip resistance (Qtcp) from Equation 6 was compared
with the measured (or interpreted) tip resistance (Qtem)at L 2 (Hirany & Kulhawy, 1989) for
the load tests considered previously. However, additional tests had to be deleted from the
evaluation because of insufficient data. The soil parameters used represent the average
values over a depth B below the shaft tip. Furthermore, in using these equations, ~b' was
adopted as the average value from triaxial compression (TC), direct shear (DS), and triaxial
extension (TE) tests (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).

1208 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002
Measured ~ / Predicted ~, ~ / J~p
00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

) mOB 9
10
o.!;,% :.
(= o 9
.
I, 9
9 Group U1 i9 9
~ 20
(11 sites, 21 data points) 9 j O
O E] Group U2 i
( 5 sites, 6 data points) i9
9 Group C1
O 3O
(11 sites, 15 data points) [ O ~ ~ =~
0 Group C2
(10 sites, 16 data points) O(~ O
40 i o
1 m = 3.28 It
1o.9,s211
. . . . J . . . . . . . i , . ,
50
Figure 5. ~./)3~ versus Depth
Measured 13/ Predicted !5, ~ /
00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
9 9 i9 ~) I
m o =" 9
tm 0 0
to im
5
oQ 9
~ 2O 9 Group U1
9 o.) 9
Q (11 sites, 21 data points)
E3 Group U2
g ( 5 sites, 6 data points)
r~ 3o 9 Group C1
(11 sites, 15 data points)
(30 O O Group C2
(10 sites, 16 data points)
40
o DI
i 1 m = 3.28 ft
. . . . . I (0'6'62)
J , ,
50
Figure 6. 0m/0p'versus Depth

Normalized Unit Side Resistance, f / p,

1 2
-F. o . o
oo o
0
~0
D
J~ 40
r~ D []
(9
a
1 m = 3.28 ft
60
O
9 Group U1 (15 sites, 41 data points)
[] Group U2 ( 7 sites, 13 data points)
9 Group C1 (15 sites, 23 data points)
O Group C2 (13 sites, 20 data points)
80
Figure 7. Unit Side Resistance versus Depth
A comparison of the measured and predicted tip resistances is shown in Figure 8, and
the resulting regression data are given in Table 3. [In Figure 8, points A and B are Group 2
while point C is Group 1.] As can be seen, Qtcm at L 2 is substantially less than QtCp. These
results also show that the Group 2 data may be biased by two data points from very deep
shafts (40 and 62 m deep). Considering only Group 1 data, on average, Qtcmis equal to
0.29 Qtcp. The value is somewhat dependent on shaft depth, as shown in Figure 9. As can
be seen, shallower shafts appear to have a somewhat larger Qtcm/Qtepratio. Similar patterns
are shown when plotting versus D/B.
Examination of these figures and table for tip resistance clearly indicates different and
unexpected behavior for drained loading of cohesionless soils. For undrained loading, the
measured tip resistance at L 2 is essentially equal to the tip resistance computed by bearing
capacity theory (Chen & Kulhawy, 1994). However, for drained loading, the value at L 2 is
only about 29 percent of that from bearing capacity theory. This general type of behavior
has been observed previously (e.g., Reese & O'Neill, 1988; DeBeer, 1984; DeBeer, 1988).
For example, Figure 10 shows the early Reese and O'Neill (1988) approach for normalizing
the tip behavior. In this figure, "failure" is defined clearly for cohesive soils by reaching a
maximum load at small displacement (about 4% B), but it is ill-defined for cohesionless
soils, where "failure" must be defined at some arbitrary displacement. Comparing these
plots with the results analyzed herein and with Figure 1 indicates clearly that Figure 1 must
be modified to differentiate between undrained loading in cohesive soils and drained
loading in cohesionless soils.

6000
9 Group C1 /'/
//
O Group C 2 ,,
//
5000 /
//
A: (21300, 2775) 0 ,"
B: (45800. 7320) O 1
o 4000 C: (11200, 2989) 9 /" 1
//
,/"
c /
1 kN - 0.225 k /
._w /
r 3000 /J
rr" /
J
.o. /i
I-- sI
"o r C
o 2000 - /" All data -
, /,," \ 9
' /, Group C1
1000 " \ .2 .........

~ - - a (3roup CZ m-
0"
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Predicted Tip Resistance, Qtcp(kN)
Figure 8. Comparison of Measured and Predicted (at L2) Compression Tip Resistance
Table 3. Comparison of Regression Data for Compression Tip Resistance Values
Data Statistics b
Group Za n r2 S.D. (kN)
1 0.27 15 0.983 95
2 0.16 6 0.995 203
1+ 2 0.19 21 0.944 386
a Qtcm= Z Qtop(at L2)

b n = no. data points, r 2 = coes of determination, S.D. = standard deviation
1 kN = 0.225 k
Figure 11 presents an improved and expanded version of Figure 1. The interpretation

bases are still the same as described previously. L 2 still defines the "interpreted failure
load" or "failure threshold". For cohesive soils, the load at L2 (QL2) basically defines the
ultimate limit state given by bearing capacity theory. However, for cohesionless soils, QL2
actually defines a serviceability state, beyond which much additional displacement must be
developed before the ultimate limit state is reached that is given by bearing capacity
theory. On average, at L2, QS~E ~ 0.76 QL2 ~ Qsc for all soils. However, QT~ ~ 0.24 QL2 "~
Qtcp for cohesive soils, but it is only .~ 0.29 Q,cp for cohesionless soils. Therefore, for

Measured Q==/ PredictedQl=,O~c~/ Q=p

0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0 1,2
0 . . . . J . . . . Q . . . . ~ . . . . i . . . . . . . .
10 00
09
10
D
20 % Qr~r. = Q~
e~
1 m = 3 . 2 8 ft
30
(0.13, 62)
9 G r o u p C1 ( 1 0 sites, 15 data points)

O G r o u p C 2 ( 3 sites, 6 data points)
.. ,Oi .... L .... i .... i ....
40
o~
2oo Figure 9. Qtcm/Qtcp(at L~) versus Depth
150
O
O
(J Cohesive soils .~.,.'"'"~J'/~ "
Q.
~
I--
"11:2
OJ
r
r
r-~
'10 ~ / / - - - - R0nge of results-

O
O
._1
501-/~..-..'.-. Trend line
. . . . . . . . . . .
Q.
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12
Displocement/Diometer (%)
Figure 10. Normalized Tip Behavior in Axial Compression (Reese & O'Neill, 1988)

200 i i i i i i i i i i t
QTIP = Tip resistance measured

QSIDE= Side resistance measured
o~ 159 -QLI = Elastic limit

150 QL2 = Failure threshold 9 -/--T---~ r
. ,~~QTIP ~ 0"83 Ok21
l--
F" L2 Y (cohesionless)
, .(~. C.o.he _sLye_.s o! !s___
::3
I00
....... I
,,o ..-'~'/" I ==Qtcp (cohesive) t[
.%. 76 - ~ ..... Ii-- ==0.29Qtep(cohesionless}t
"13
El
0
._1 50
44.5 -z QTIP = 0.11QLI I QSIDE= 0.76 QL;
I QSIDE= 0.76 QL2=Qsc I
C . . . . ,. 1,
0 0.4 2 4 6 8 I0 12
Displacement/Diameter (%)
Figure 11. Improved Average Load-Displacement Curves in Axial Compression
cohesionless soils, the following average behavior occurs:
QTIp~ 0.29 Qtep~ 0.24 QL2 (11)
which results in:
Q,op= 0.83 QL2 (12)
Then the predicted test capacity is given by:
Qcp = Qtcp+ Q= = 0.83 QL2 + 0.76 QL2 = 1.59 QL2 (13)
This result is shown in Figure 11 at a normalized displacement equal to about 10%,

which is consistent with the study results and Figure 10. This improved load-displacement
curve should lead to better interpretations of the behavior of drilled shafts in cohesionless
soils. However, these results also show clearly that displacement control is very important
for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils under compression loading. If factor of safety values
are too low, displacements clearly will be excessive.

Conclusions and Design Recommendations
The drained axial capacity was evaluated for straight-sided drilled shafts in a wide variety
of cohesionless soil profiles. The basic database included 53 sites with 100 field load tests.
Axial loading was applied in all cases, with 54 tests in uplift and 46 tests in compression.
All of the load test data were interpreted in a consistent manner, using the interpreted
capacity from the LI-L 2 method (Kulhawy & Hirany, 1989) for all cases, and the drained
soil properties were standardized to a consistent test reference frame. The side resistance
was evaluated using the beta method, and the tip resistance in compression was evaluated
using bearing capacity theory. For each of these sets of analyses, detailed evaluations were
done, conclusions were reached, and design recommendations were developed.
For the drained side resistance by the beta method, the following was found:
9 13 values up to 6.5 occur at shallow depths, but they decrease with depth,
asymptotically approaching the normally consolidated value of 13, which is
between 0.24 and 0.30, at a depth of about 20 meters
9 K/K o values previously recommended for conservative design to accommodate
field uncertainty are overly conservative based on load test back-analyses, because
the field load test data suggest K/K o close to 1
9 analyses of the measured to predicted 13values give a mean ~m/[3~'= 1.16 (n = 58,
COV = 0.21)
9 regression analyses show that [~m = 1.13 [~p'(n = 58, r 2 = 0.890, S.D. = 0.34)
9 [3 values in uplift and compression are essentially the same, generally varying by
less than 4%.
For the drained compression tip resistance, the following was found:
9 analyses of the measured to predicted tip capacity values give a mean Qtcm/Qtep =
0.30 for the Group 1 data (n = 15, COV = 0.30) using the L2 interpretation, which
approximately corresponds to a tip displacement ,~ 4% B
9 regression analyses show Qtem at L 2 = 0.27 Qtcp for the Group 1 data (n = 15, r2 =
0.983, S.D. =95 kN)
9 Qtcm/Qtep shows some scatter at shallow depths, but the scatter reduces with
increasing depth
The limited Group 2 data apparently were biased by two very deep shafts and were not
used in reaching these conclusions on tip resistance. Re-evaluation of these data at the
computed ultimate tip bearing capacity indicates that the shaft displacement would have to
be about 10% B to develop the ultimate tip capacity. Clearly, careful displacement control
will be warranted for tip resistance to ensure adequate factor of safety and acceptable
displacement.
References
Chen, YJ (1993), "Case History Evaluation of Behavior of Drilled Shafts Under Axial &
Lateral Loading", PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Chen, YJ & Kulhawy, FH (1994), "Case History Evaluation of Behavior of Drilled Shafts
Under Axial & Lateral Loading", Rpt TR-104601, EPRI, Palo Alto.

1214 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002
DeBeer, E (1984), "Different Behavior of Bored & Driven Piles", Proc., 6th Budapest
Conf. Soil Mech. & Fndn. Engrg., Budapest, 307-318.
DeBeer, E (1988), "Different Behavior of Bored & Driven Piles", Proc., 1st Intl. Geotech.
Seminar Deep Fndns. on Bored & Auger Piles, Ghent, 47-82.

Greer, DM & Gardner, WS (1986), Construction of Drilled Pier Fndns., Wiley, New York.
Hansen, JB (1970), "Revised & Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity", Bull. 28, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen.
Hirany, A & Kulhawy, FH (1989), "Interpretation of Load Tests on Drilled Shafts, Pt 1:
Axial Compression", Fndn. Engrg.: Current Principles & Practices (GSP 22), Ed FH
Kulhawy, ASCE, New York, 1132-1149.
Kulhawy, FH & Hirany, A (1989), "Interpretation of Load Tests on Drilled Shafts, Pt 2:
Axial Uplift", Fndn. Engrg.: Current Principles & Practices (GSP 22), Ed FH
Kulhawy, ASCE, New York, 1150-1159.
Kulhawy, FH, Trautmann, CH, Beech, JF, O'Rourke, TD, McGuire, W, Wood, WA &
Capano, C (1983), "Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression
Loading", Rpt EL-2870, EPRI, Palo Alto.
Kulhawy, FH & Mayne, PW (1990), "Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for
Foundation Design", Rpt EL-6800, EPRI, Palo Alto.
Kulhawy, FH (1991), "Drilled Shaft Foundations", Chap 14 in Fndn. Engrg. Handbook
(2/E), Ed HY Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 537-552.
Reese, LC & O'Neill, MW (1988), "Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures & Design
Methods", Rpt FHWA-H1-88-042, Federal Highway Admin., McLean.
Vesic, AS (1975), "Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations", Chap 3 in Fndn. Engrg.
Handbook, Ed H Winterkorn & HY Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 121-
147.

Chen 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Drained Axial Capacity for Drilled Shafts

Yit-Jin Chen* and Fred H. Kulhawy**, Fellow ASCE

Deep Foundations 2002

Kulhawy (1989) and Kulhawy and Hirany (1989).

Drained Axial Analyses

Qr = Q~r + Q,r W (1)

while the uplift capacity (Qu) is given by:

Qu = Qsu + Qtu + W (2)

f(z) = o~'(z) 13(z) (5)

in which 13 is a coefficient and f = unit side resistance. In applying Equations 3 through 5,

Deep Foundations 2002

construction under water may be intermediate between these ranges.

the soil beneath the tip, as given by:

Qtc = quitAtip = quitx B2 / 4 (6)

quit = c N c + 0.5 B y Ny + q Nq (7)

qu,t = 0.5 B 7 Nv ~s ~md~--arr+ q Nq ~s ~cl ~r (8)

Deep Foundations 2002

Table 1. Range of Axial Drained Load Test Data

Data No. Shaft Geometry (m) Resistance (kN)

Figure 1. Average Load-Displacement Curve in Axial Compression

Deep Foundations 2002

On average, L 2 occurs at a displacement approximately corresponding to 4% of the shaft

Evaluation of Side Resistance by Beta Method

13m = QsL2/ '/~ B D O'vm' (9)

13Nc Ko tan 8 ~ (1 - sin ~') tan ~'

Figure 2. Variation of Measured 13with Depth

Deep Foundations 2002

Deep Foundations 2002

. . . . . " .... " .... " . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . / !

Figure 3. Comparison of Measured and Predicted 13

Figure 4. Comparison of Measured and Predicted [3 Using K/K o = 1

Deep Foundations 2002

Table 2. Comparison of Regression Data for 13Values

Test Type Group Za n r2 S.D.

Evaluation of Tip Resistance

Deep Foundations 2002

Measured ~ / Predicted ~, ~ / J~p

00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure 5. ~./)3~ versus Depth

Measured 13/ Predicted !5, ~ /

00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure 6. 0m/0p'versus Depth

Deep Foundations 2002

Normalized Unit Side Resistance, f / p,

Figure 7. Unit Side Resistance versus Depth

Deep Foundations 2002

1000 " \ .2 .........

Predicted Tip Resistance, Qtcp(kN)

Table 3. Comparison of Regression Data for Compression Tip Resistance Values

a Qtcm= Z Qtop(at L2)

Figure 11 presents an improved and expanded version of Figure 1. The interpretation

Deep Foundations 2002

Measured Q==/ PredictedQl=,O~c~/ Q=p

9 G r o u p C1 ( 1 0 sites, 15 data points)

'10 ~ / / - - - - R0nge of results-

Deep Foundations 2002

QTIP = Tip resistance measured

o~ 159 -QLI = Elastic limit

Figure 11. Improved Average Load-Displacement Curves in Axial Compression

cohesionless soils, the following average behavior occurs:

QTIp~ 0.29 Qtep~ 0.24 QL2 (11)

which results in:

Q,op= 0.83 QL2 (12)