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

net/publication/270543948

Enhanced Load-Transfer Analysis for Friction Piles Using a Modified Borehole

Shear Test

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · November 2012

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20120071

CITATIONS READS

10 4,328

3 authors:

Sherif S. Abdelsalam Muhannad T. Suleiman

Nile University Lehigh University
36 PUBLICATIONS   360 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   2,129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sri Sritharan
Iowa State University
237 PUBLICATIONS   4,722 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Precast Seismic Strcutural Systems View project

HEXCRETE TOWER FOR HARVESTING WIND ENERGY AT TALLER HUB HEIGHTS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sherif S. Abdelsalam on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2012
Available online at www.astm.org
doi:10.1520/GTJ20120071

Sherif S. AbdelSalam,1 Muhannad T. Suleiman,2 and Sri Sritharan3

Enhanced Load-Transfer Analysis for Friction Piles

Using a Modified Borehole Shear Test

REFERENCE: AbdelSalam, Sherif S., Suleiman, Muhannad T., and Sritharan Sri, “Enhanced Load-Transfer Analysis for Friction Piles Using
a Modified Borehole Shear Test,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1–11, doi:10.1520/GTJ20120071. ISSN 0149-6115.
ABSTRACT: This study discusses the development and use of a modified borehole shear test (mBST) to improve the prediction of the
load-displacement and load-distribution responses for axially loaded friction piles in cohesive soils using the load-transfer analysis method (i.e.,
t–z analysis). Unlike available approaches that rely on empirical or semi-empirical correlations to generate the shear stress displacement at the
soil–pile interface (i.e., t–z curves), the mBST enables direct field measurement of the t–z curves at the soil–pile interface. As part of this study,
three full-scale vertical static load tests (SLTs) were conducted on instrumented steel H piles. The t–z analysis was carried out utilizing the TZPILE
software with measured t–z curves via the mBST (i.e., the TZ-mBST model). When comparing results of the analysis with the measured responses
for the three test piles, it was found that: (1) the TZ-mBST provides proper prediction for the initial part of the measured load-displacement
response from SLT results, with a difference not exceeding 10 %; (2) the TZ-mBST analysis provides acceptable prediction of the pile capacity;
(3) the TZ-mBST analysis matches the load distribution along the pile length with a maximum difference of 8.3 %; and (4) the analysis with
directly measured t–z curves using the mBST provide improved predictions of the pile response when compared to the empirical CPT-based
analysis.
KEYWORDS: pile foundation, soil-structure interaction, load-transfer, t–z analysis, t–z curves, borehole shear test

Introduction the effectiveness of this approach to predict the load-displacement

Several numerical methods have been used in research and practice
to characterize the interaction between soil and vertically loaded pile
foundations. A frequently used, simple approach is the load-transfer
analysis method, known as the “t–z” analysis, which calculates the
vertical load-displacement response at the pile head, as well as the
vertical load distribution along the pile length. The selection of
the load-transfer curves, t–z and q–w curves that, respectively,
describe the stress-displacement relationships along the soil–pile
interface and at the pile tip, controls the accuracy of the analysis
(Misra and Chen 2004; Alawneh 2006). Because of the lack of a
method to directly measure the t–z and q–w curves, these curves are
typically established using empirical or semi-empirical correlations
with soil properties obtained from laboratory and/or in situ tests, such
as the standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test
(CPT) (Omer and Delpak 2007; Roberts et al. 2008).
This paper focuses on the use of a proposed field test to
directly measure the t–z curves along the soil–pile interface and
Manuscript received October 12, 2011; accepted for publication July 16,
2012; published online September 2012.
1
Lecturer, Civil Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, The British
Univ. in Egypt, Building A, Room 204, 11837, P.O. Box 43, Cairo, Egypt,
e-mail: sherif.abdelsalam@bue.edu.eg
2
P. C. Rossin Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Lehigh Univ., 326 STEPs Building, 1 W. Packer Ave.,
Bethlehem, PA 18015, e-mail: mts210@lehigh.edu
3
Wilson Engineering Professor and Associate Chair, Dept. of Civil,
Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 376 Town
Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011-3232, e-mail: sri@iastate.edu
and the load-transfer responses using results from three static load
tests (SLTs) conducted on friction piles driven in cohesive soils.
Developing such a field test will alleviate the use of empirical corre-
lations to establish the t–z curves and the associated uncertainties in
modeling friction piles. To achieve this objective, the conventional
borehole shear test (BST) device was modified, providing a modified
borehole shear test (mBST) to measure the shear-stress–displacement
curves (t–z curves) along the soil–pile interface. The measured t–z
curves were then directly used in the t–z analysis conducted utilizing
TZPILE developed by Reese et al. (2005).
The potential improvements to the t–z analysis with directly
measured t–z curves using mBST was investigated using results
from three full-scale instrumented vertical SLTs conducted on
friction steel H piles installed in cohesive soils at three different
test sites in Iowa. Note that the steel H piles are the most com-
monly used deep-foundation type to support bridges in the U.S.,
as found from a recent survey by AbdelSalam et al. (2010). In
addition to summarizing the results of the SLTs, this paper
describes the mBST, presents the measured t–z curves along with
the load-transfer model results, and highlights the benefits of the
proposed approach.
Background
Analytical methods, such as boundary-element and finite-element
approaches, are capable of solving sophisticated stress-transfer
problems in soil–pile systems. Despite their complexity, the
accuracy of these models depends on their ability to capture the

Copyright
Copyright
C 2012 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
V by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014 1
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 1—Details of the t–z model: (a) idealized pile, (b) nonlinear springs with
Kshaft representing the shaft resistance at soil–pile interface for element i with
normal stress equals to rh, and Ktip representing the resistance at the pile tip
for element i ¼ n, (c) t–z curve for element i, and (d) q–w curve at the pile tip.
soil–pile interface accurately. Because of its simplicity, the load-
transfer (i.e., t–z) method is widely used to calculate the response
of vertically loaded piles as an alternative to complex analytical
methods (Omer and Delpak 2007). The one-dimensional t–z
method is an iterative technique that solves a set of differential
equations, which represent the pile behavior based on a hyperbolic
(nonlinear elastic) model, using the finite-difference approach
(Misra and Chen 2004; Alawneh 2006). As shown in Fig. 1(a),
the pile in the t–z model is divided into several elements (or seg-
ments) and its interaction with the surrounding soil is represented
by nonlinear springs modeling the soil–pile interface along the
shaft (t–z curves) and one spring modeling the end bearing at the
pile tip (q–w curve). The t–z curve represents the relationship
between shear stress and displacement of the soil–pile interface at
a specific depth along the shaft, whereas the q–w curve defines a
relationship between the normal stress and displacement at the
pile tip. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the t–z curve for an element i
depends on the normal stress (rh) at the soil–pile interface. This
normal stress changes as a function of depth, soil properties, and
pile installation technique.
The concept of t–z model was first developed by Coyle and
Reese (1966) and Suleiman and Coyle (1976) in cohesive and
cohesionless soils, respectively. Reddy et al. (1998) modified the
model to account for the pile elastic deformation in computing the
mobilized shaft resistance using an elastoplastic soil–pile interface
model. The model was then improved to include a hyperbolic
response for the springs representing the soil–pile interface by
Misra and Roberts (2006). However, the major shortcoming of the
t–z analysis is that no method has been developed to directly mea-
sure the t–z and q–w curves. Therefore, researchers have estimated
the t–z and q–w curves using empirical methods that relied on
using laboratory or in situ soil test data (Coyle and Reese 1966;
Roberts et al. 2008). Several empirical correlations have been
reported in the literature and have been used to predict the pile
response. However, it requires considerable experience and
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
engineering judgment to determine which correlation is most
appropriate for a specific site and pile condition, making the t–z
analysis concept difficult to apply (Abu-Farsakh and Titi 2004;
Omer and Delpak 2007). In this paper, a modified BST is devel-
oped to directly measure the t–z curves in the field, thereby mini-
mizing the uncertainties and improving the response prediction of
axially loaded friction piles.
Borehole Shear Test
Conventional Method (BST)
The conventional borehole shear test (BST) device was designed
by Handy and Fox (1967) to determine a direct field measurement
for the drained soil shear strength parameters, (i.e., cohesion, c0 ,
and friction angle, u0 ). As shown in Fig. 2(a), the BST equipment
consists of two main parts: the dynamometer and the shear head.
On the shear head, grooved shear plates are used on both sides.
To conduct the BST, the shear head is lowered into an open bore-
hole (or through a hollow stemmed auger) to a depth where a
Shelby tube was pushed. Then, a constant stress (Pn in Fig. 2(a))
normal to the surface of the borehole is applied for a period of
time to allow for dissipation of the excess pore water pressure
generated as a result of the applied Pn value. The range of applied
Pn values is usually determined using the estimated effective lat-
eral earth pressures at the test depth. According to Luttenegger
et al. (1978), based on the measured excess pore water pressure
and observed dissipation during the BSTs conducted in different
soil conditions, the time required for pore water pressure dissipa-
tion around the BST ranges from 5 to 15 min. Therefore, it is rec-
ommended to maintain the applied stress (Pn) for 15 min to ensure
measuring the effective soil shear-strength parameters. After
maintaining the Pn for 15 min, the soil in the borehole is sheared
by applying an upward pulling force (T in Fig. 2(a)) on the
stainless-steel rods which transmits the load to the shear head. A
gauge attached to the dynamometer is calibrated to convert this
force to the corresponding shear stress (see Fig. 2(a)). The elonga-
tion of the stainless-steel rods caused by the applied shear is com-
monly neglected because it is very small for the range of stresses
applied during the test (i.e., smaller than 0.067 mm in our case).
Normally, when conducting the conventional BST, only the
maximum shear stress is recorded. To produce the Mohr-
Coulomb failure envelope of the tested soil, the BST can be con-
ducted three to five times at approximately the same depth using
different Pn values after rotating the shear head by approximately
45 (Handy and Fox 1967; Handy 1986).
To measure the concrete or steel–pile interface friction angle
(i.e., measuring only the peak shear resistance), Audibert and
Aggarwal (1982) and Handy et al. (1985) modified the conven-
tional BST by replacing the grooved shear plates with concrete
and smooth steel plates, respectively. Although, these changes
to the conventional BST shear plates were useful to determine
the friction at the soil–pile interface, the BST has not been used
to directly measure the longitudinal soil–pile interface stress–
displacement relationships (or t–z curves) required for load-
transfer analysis of pile foundations.
 ABDELSALAM ET AL. ON ENHANCED LOAD-TRANSFER ANALYSIS
FIG. 2—(a) BST components (modified after Handy (2008), courtesy of Handy Geotechnical Instruments, Inc.), (b) added dial gauge, (c) grooved shear plates used
in conventional BST, (d) new smooth plates, and (e) sample t–z curve.
Modified Method (mBST)
To directly measure the t–z curves at the soil–pile interface for
vertically loaded piles, the conventional BST equipment and test-
ing procedure were modified to produce the modified borehole
shear test (mBST). These modifications are as follows: (1) a dial
gauge was added to the apparatus base plate to measure the verti-
cal displacement of the shear head during shearing, as shown in
Fig. 2(b); (2) the grooved shear plates used in the conventional
BST (see Fig. 2(c)) were replaced with steel plates (total area
64.5 cm2 or 10 in.2) to better represent the surface of the steel
H piles (see Fig. 2(d)), hence, more accurately modeling the soil–
pile interface; and (3) the data-collection procedures were
modified to record the shear stress as a function of the measured
vertical displacement, which essentially yields a measured t–z
curve (see Fig. 2(e)). The applied shear stress and the displace-
ment were recorded manually, which required more than one
operator in the field. Hollow stemmed augers were used in the
field to support the base plate of the BST to prevent vertical move-
ments or pulling of the plate downward during shearing. It is also
recommended to make the height of the above ground exposed
auger within 40 cm to 60 cm (15.7 in. to 23.6 in.) for ease of use.
Drilling, shear-head insertion, and loading procedures to perform
the mBST are similar to those prescribed to conduct the conven-
tional test.
In this study, the mBST was performed over a range of Pn
values at different depths at three test sites to measure the t–z
curves for the major soil layers. However, the t–z curve used in
the analysis at a specific depth should be measured at a Pn value
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
3
similar to the stress normal to the soil–pile interface at the same
depth (i.e., rh in Fig. 1(b)). Therefore, push-in pressure cells were
used to monitor the horizontal stress at a depth below the ground
surface within close proximity of the pile (i.e., less than 45 cm or
18 in. from the pile flange) before and after pile driving, as well as
during the pile load test. To select the appropriate t–z curves at
other depths (i.e., measured at different Pn values), the horizontal
stress (or lateral earth pressure) estimated using a CPT-based
empirical method was used after validating it using the push-in
pressure cell measurements.
Field Testing
As part of a load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration
project, several SLTs were completed on full-scale instrumented
steel HP 254 mm (depth)  63 kg/m (self-weight) (10 in.  42 lb/ft)
piles in the state of Iowa (Ng et al. 2011). Three of these tests per-
formed in cohesive soils were utilized to validate the use of the
mBST and to advance the t–z analysis. These tests were conducted
in three different counties as follows: test pile ISU4 in Jasper
County, ISU5 in Clarke County, and ISU6 in Buchanan County.
All test piles were loaded axially using a 2000 kN (440 kip)
hydraulic jack, and the applied load was measured using a 1300 kN
(290 kip) load cell. In addition to using four 25.4-cm (10-in.) dis-
placement transducers to measure the vertical displacement at the
top of the test piles, the piles were instrumented with strain gauges
along the shaft and near the pile tip. All of the piles were load tested
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

following the “Quick Test” procedure outlined in the ASTM

D1143 (ASTM 2007). In all cases, the test pile was loaded in 5 %
increments beyond the estimated static pile capacity. The load was
kept relatively constant at the end of each load increment for a du-
ration ranging from 5 to 15 min (i.e., until displacement readings
stabilized) as required by ASTM D1143. After the pile experienced
excessive vertical displacement without a significant change in
load (i.e., pile plunging), the pile was unloaded in five equal
decrements.
Soil profiles at the test sites were characterized using in situ
SPT, CPT, and BST, and several laboratory tests including soil
classification and 1D consolidation tests. For major soil layers, the
mBST was performed over a range of Pn values. Because of space
limitations, the test procedure, analysis methods, and results are
presented in this paper for ISU5 in details, whereas a summary of
results is presented for the other two test piles. Ng et al. (2011)
provide further details about the soil profile, as well as SLT results
for ISU4 and ISU6.

Test Pile ISU5

The ISU5 test site was located next to an under construction
bridge at the intersection of Interstate 35 and U.S. Highway 34
near Osceola, IA. The test pile was a driven steel HP 254  63;
18.3 m (60 ft) long with 17.4 m (57 ft) embedded length. In addi-
tion, two HP 254  63, 18.3 -m (60-ft) long piles with 16.4 -m
(54-ft) embedded length, were used as reaction piles for the load-
ing frame. Ten strain gauges were installed on each side of the
web centerline of the test pile. The locations of the strain gauges
along the pile length were determined considering the soil layers
at the site. A pair of gauges (one on each side) was also installed
near the bottom of the pile to quantify the resistance at the pile tip
(see Fig. 3).
Soil Characterization—The typical geological formation
at the ISU5 test site consists of loess soil deposit on top of glacial
clay (stiff to very stiff clays). During drilling, the loess soil layer
was found to extend approximately 8.5 m (27.9 ft) below the
ground surface. Using laboratory tests conducted on disturbed
samples collected during drilling, the two soil layers (loess and
glacial clay) were classified as low-plasticity clay (CL) using the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The groundwater
table (GWT) at the time of in situ testing was located at 10 m
(32.8 ft) below the ground surface (see Fig. 3). Also, the labora-
tory 1D consolidation test was conducted on relatively undis-
turbed Shelby tube soil samples collected from the ISU5 test
site at different depths representing the two main soil layers to
obtain the vertical coefficient of consolidation (Cv) and the over-
consolidation ratio (OCR). Figure 3 shows the locations of the
undisturbed samples collected for the 1D consolidation test. From
the consolidation test results it was found that the Cv ranges from
0.089 to 0.051 cm2/min (0.014 to 0.318 in.2/min) and the OCR
ranges from 1.0 to 1.3, which confirm that the soil at the ISU5 test
site is considered normally consolidated (NC) to slightly over-
consolidated clay (slightly OC).
A cone penetration test (CPT) was also performed as close
as possible to ISU5 pile (lateral distance to the pile flange was
FIG. 3—Summary of soil tests conducted at the ISU5 test site including soil
classification and Atterburg limits, tip resistance (qc) and skin friction (fs) from
CPT, corrected SPT N values, locations of BST and mBST, soil shear strength
parameters from BST, and locations of strain gauges along the pile.
limited to 2.0 m or 6.6 ft) where the CPT tip resistance (qc) and
skin friction (fs) are presented in Fig. 3. From the figure, it can be
seen that the average qc and fs values for the top soil layer (loess)
were 1673 kPa and 102 kPa (34.8 ksf and 2.12 ksf), respectively,
whereas the corresponding values for the bottom layer (glacial
clay) were 2908 kPa and 153 kPa (60.7 and 3.2 ksf), respectively.
The undrained shear strength (Su) of the soil layers at the ISU5
test site was estimated utilizing the CPT correlation recommended
by Schmertmann (1978). The Su was calculated using a cone
factor (Nk) equals to 30 according to the recommendation of
Schmertmann (1978) and Lunne et al. (1997) for stiff clays. The
estimated Su was equal to 53.5 kPa (1.11 ksf) for the loess clay
layer and 90 kPa (1.88 ksf) for the glacial clay layer at the ISU5
test site. The Su/rv ratios for the two soil layers at the test site are
0.37 and 0.65, which is consistent with the range of Su/rv ratios
provided by Cetin and Isik (2007) for slightly OC soils. Figure 3
also includes the SPT blow counts corrected for the effect of the
soil overburden pressure, as well as the approximate locations of
the samples used in the laboratory consolidation tests and the loca-
tions of the BST and mBST tests. From the SPT results, it was
found that the loess soil has an average corrected SPT N-value of
10, whereas the glacial clay layer has a corrected N-value of 14.
For all test sites, Table 1 provides a summary of soil classifica-
tion based on the USCS, the OCR and Cv values obtained from
the 1D consolidation tests for different soil layers, as well as the
CPT results, including average qc, fs, and calculated Su. Most soil
layers were classified as low-plasticity clay (CL) with OCR values
ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 indicating that the soil for the three test

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 ABDELSALAM ET AL. ON ENHANCED LOAD-TRANSFER ANALYSIS 5

TABLE 1—Soil properties measured in the laboratory and those estimated using CPT.

Test No. Layers (m) Soil typea cb (kN/m3) OCRc Cvd (cm2/min) qc (kPa) fs (kPa) Sud (kPa) Su/rve Kof CPT
ISU4 0–1.5 Fill 19.7 n/a n/a 1543 64 n/a n/a 0.42
1.5–5.5 SM 20.2 n/a n/a 1614 12 n/a n/a 0.44
5.5–10.7 CL 22.2 1.6 0.077 2815 172 88.5 0.57 0.44
10.7–17 CL 21.6 1.0 0.076 2165 74 64.5 0.20 0.51
ISU5 0–8.5 CL 20.5 1.3 0.089 1673 102 53.5 0.65 0.51
8.5–17.4 CL 22.3 1.0 0.051 2908 153 90 0.37 0.44
ISU6 0–4.0 Fill 19.7 1.2 0.033 3594 73 n/a n/a 0.50
4.0–6.1 SM 19.7 n/a n/a 993 44 n/a n/a 0.43
6.1–9.3 CL 19.2 n/a n/a 2032 64 62 0.43 0.50
9.3–15.5 CL 23.5 1.1 0.039 2280 84 69 0.23 0.54
a
CL, plastic clay; SM, silty sand; ML, sandy silt (according to the USCS).
b
Soil total unit weight calculated in the laboratory.
c
OCR and coefficient of consolidation (Cv) measured based on a laboratory conducted 1D consolidation tests.
d
From CPT results after Schmertmann (1978), assuming Nk ¼ 30.
e
Ratio indicating that soil is NC to slightly OC.
f
Ko from CPT results using correlations from Mayne and Kulhawy (1990) for OCR > 1 and from Jaky (1944) for OCR ¼ 1.

sites ranged from NC to slightly OC clays. The Su for the three
test sites range from 53.5 kPa to 90 kPa (from 1.11 ksf to 1.88
ksf), which corresponds to a Su/rv ratio ranging from 0.20 to 0.65.
Table 2 provides a summary of the soil effective shear strength pa-
rameters (c0 and u0 ) using the BST at different depths for all test
sites, which result in friction angles for the soil layers ranging
between 12 and 35 .
Normal Stress at the Soil–Pile Interface—As dis-
cussed before and illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the t–z curves depend on
the horizontal stress at the soil–pile interface (rh). Therefore, the
t–z curves required for the analysis should be measured at a Pn
value similar to the horizontal stress acting on the soil–pile
interface (rh), which may have been affected by pile driving.
Therefore, push-in pressure cells were used to monitor and record
the horizontal stresses acting on the test piles before and during
driving, restrikes, and at the time of conducting the SLT. The
objectives of installing the push-in pressure cells were to: (1)
examine the effect of pile driving, if any, on the horizontal stress;
(2) ensure that the mBST tests would be conducted at Pn values
that represent the normal stress on the soil–pile interface (rh); and
(3) validate the estimated horizontal stress at the depth of the pres-
sure cell.
At the ISU5 test site, Geokon Model 4830 push-in pressure
cells were installed approximately 2 days before driving the pile
to allow for pressure readings to stabilize as recommended by
Suleiman et al. (2010) and the data was continuously recorded as
a function of time. Two push-in pressure cells were installed at
distances of 20 cm (8.0 in.) and 45.7 cm (18 in.) from the closest
test pile flange, both at the depth of 7.0 m (23.25 ft) below the
ground surface. The pressure cells data revealed that the effective
horizontal stress increased by 7 % (i.e., from 65.5 kPa, or 1.4 ksf,
before pile driving to 70.5 kPa, or 1.5 ksf, at time of conducting
the SLT), indicating only a small effect of pile driving and SLT
on horizontal stresses. More detailed information including the
change of soil stresses as a function of time and their effects on
pile capacity are found in Ng et al. (2012).
The measurements of the push-in pressure cells were also used
to validate the horizontal stress estimated using the CPT as shown
in Fig. 4, which compares the measured horizontal stresses using
the push-in pressure cells with the estimated horizontal stresses
using CPT results. Referring to the soil properties summarized in
Table 1, the at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) was
determined based on semi-empirical correlations with CPT results
using Ko ¼ 1-sinu0 as recommended by Jaky (1944) for normally
0
consolidated soil layers and using Ko ¼ (1-sinu0 )OCRsinu as

TABLE 2—Soil and soil–pile interface shear strength parameters measured using the BST and mBST at different depths for the corresponding normal stresses.

BST mBST

Test No. Depth (m) Pn Selected in t–z Analysis (kPa) c0 (kPa) u0 a (kPa) a a/u0
ISU4 8.2 120 n/a n/a 12.6 16 n/a
14.0 220 13.6 12 14.4 10 0.83
ISU5 2.7 30 14.9 25 15.1 22 0.88
11.0 170 72.6 27 42.2 15 0.56
ISU6 2.5 40 0.5 35 0.0 23.5 0.68
3.6 90 11.7 28 12 11.5 0.41
15.2 190 0.0 34 0.0 30.9 0.90

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 4—Estimated horizontal stress along pile length compared to stress
measured at one depth using push-in pressure cells installed for the ISU5 and
ISU6 test sites.
recommended by Mayne and Kulhawy (1990) for slightly OC soil
layers. The effective friction angle of soil (u0 ) from the CPT
results was calculated using 0.1 þ 0.38 log (qc/r0 v) after Robertson
and Campanella (1983). Summarized in Table 1 are the values of
Ko for different soil layers based on CPT data, which overall
ranged from 0.42 to 0.54 for different soil layers at the three test
sites. For ISU5 and ISU6 test sites, Fig. 4 shows that the measured
pressure using the pressure cells (i.e., P.C ISU5 and P.C ISU6)
correlate well with the estimated lateral earth pressure based on
CPT with a difference limited to approximately 5 %. Hence, using
the empirical approaches based on CPT to estimate the lateral
earth pressure was deemed satisfactory and can be used to select
the appropriate t–z curves for the analyses (i.e., t–z curve meas-
ured at Pn value equal to the estimated horizontal stress, rh). Note
that no push-in pressure sensors were used at the ISU4 test site.
However, the validated CPT-based horizontal stress calculation
for sites with similar soil profile was used to determine the t–z
curves used in the analysis for the ISU4 test site.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
FIG. 5—Shear-stress-versus-displacement curves for the soil–pile interface
measured using mBST at different depths and normal stresses used in the t–z
analysis for ISU5.
t–z Curves at the Soil–Pile Interface—Based on the
horizontal stress measurements and calculations discussed above
and presented in Fig. 4, the values of the normal stresses (rh)
along the test pile were determined and the t–z curves measured at
a similar stress (Pn) value were used in the analysis, which will be
discussed in more details in the next section. The mBST was con-
ducted at depths of 2.7 m (8.8 ft) and 11.0 m (36.1 ft) below the
ground surface at the ISU5 test site. The locations of these tests
were selected to cover the two main soil layers at the site. The
measured t–z curves at Pn equal to rh for the same depth are pre-
sented in Fig. 5 for ISU5. The t–z curves measured using the
mBST for other test sites are summarized in Ng et al. (2011).
In addition to providing the directly measured t–z curves, the
mBST measurements were used to generate the Mohr-Coulomb
shear failure envelope for the soil–pile interface and compared
to the shear failure envelope of the soil that was obtained using
the BST. As expected, the values of the friction angle (a) for
the soil–pile interface were smaller than the soil friction angle
(u). An example of the plotted shear envelopes is presented in
Figs. 4–6 for the tests conducted at 11 m (36.1 ft) below the
ground surface at the ISU5 site. The measured friction angle
was 27 and 15 for the soil and the soil–pile interface, respec-
tively. For all test sites, Table 2 summarizes the results of the
BST and mBST tests indicating that the ratio of the soil–pile
interface friction angle (a) compared to the soil friction angle
(u) ranges from 0.36 to 0.9, which is in general agreement with
the range of 0.5 to 0.7 reported by Tomlinson (1994) for steel
pile–soil interface.
Pile Static Load Test—For the ISU5 test site, the load-
displacement response measured at the pile head is presented in
Fig. 7. The figure shows that the vertical load-displacement of the
pile was approximately linear up to an applied load of 1043 kN
(236 kip), the maximum applied load reached during testing was
 ABDELSALAM ET AL. ON ENHANCED LOAD-TRANSFER ANALYSIS
FIG. 6—Failure envelopes for the soil and soil–pile interface measured using
BST and mBST at a depth of 11.0 m below the ground surface for the ISU5 test
site.
1170 kN (263 kip), and the pile experienced a plunging mode of
failure. According to Kim et al. (2002), the pile plunging may
indicate no or minimal formation of soil plug during pile driving.
Furthermore, Fig. 7 shows that the pile total capacity was approxi-
mately 1100 kN (247.3 kip) based on the Davisson’s criterion
(Davisson, 1972). The shaft resistance at different pile head dis-
placements shown in Fig. 7 was calculated using the strain gauge
data recorded at the end of each load increment. The end bearing
resistance at different pile head displacement shown in Fig. 7 was
calculated by subtracting the shaft resistance from the total applied
FIG. 7—Measured pile load-displacement response at the pile head during
static load test and calculated pile shaft and pile tip resistance for ISU5.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
7
FIG. 8—Load distribution along the pile length calculated from measured
strains at different applied loads on ISU5.
load at the end of each loading stage. The rate of load transfer in
the pile during the last few loading steps shown in Fig. 8 indicates
that the maximum unit friction (i.e., the slope of the curves) was
almost constant with 30 kN/m (2.1 kip/ft) for the loess soil layer
and 90 kN/m (6.2 kip/ft) for glacial clay soil layer. Figure 8 also
shows that the load transferred to the pile tip during the test
ranged from 0 to 54 kN (0 to 12 kip), which is approximately 6 %
of the maximum applied load, confirming that the tested pile was
essentially a friction pile.
Test Piles ISU4 and ISU6
The geological formation at the ISU4 test site consists of loess
soil deposit on top of slightly over-consolidated glacial clays and
the GWT was 3.4 m deep (11.2 ft), whereas, at the ISU6 site, it
consists of slightly over-consolidated loamy glacial clay with the
GWT at 4.6 m deep (15 ft). Similar to the ISU5 test site, the soil
profiles at these two test sites were characterized using in situ
SPT, CPT, and BST, and laboratory tests. Furthermore, two push-
in pressure cells were used to monitor the horizontal stresses at
ISU6, but no push-in pressure cells were deployed at ISU4. The
soil classification, the CPT results including average measured qc
and fs, and estimated Su for different soil layers, the OCR and Cv
values measured using the 1D consolidation, and the Ko values
are summarized in Table 2. It is noted from Table 1 that the pre-
dominant soil profile at the test sites consist of cohesive soils (i.e.,
mainly low-plasticity clay layers, CL, with two intermediate thin
silty sand layers, SM, according to the USCS). The CPT tip resist-
ance at the test sites ranged from 993 kPa (20.7 ksf) to 3594 kPa
(12.4 ksf) with estimated undrained shear strength ranging from
57 kPa (1.2 ksf) to 235 kPa (4.9 ksf). In situ BSTs and mBSTs
were conducted following the same procedures used for the ISU5
test site at different Pn values. The field testing results at the ISU4
and ISU6 sites showed similar trends to those found at ISU5 and
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
the t–z curves for all test sites were developed using the same
approach described previously.
Instrumented steel HP 254  63 test piles, with a length of
18.3 m (60 ft), were driven at the ISU4 and ISU6 test sites. Using
Davisson’s criterion, the total capacity of ISU4 and ISU6 test piles
was 680 kN (152.9 kips) and 930 kN (209.1 kips), respectively,
and both test piles experienced a plunging mode of failure. The
maximum % of load resisted by the pile tip was 3 % for ISU4
and 6 % for ISU6, confirming that the test piles mainly resisted
the applied loads by skin friction. For ISU4, the load transfer
during the last few loading steps for the top soil layer was 25 kN/m
(1.75 kip/ft) for the loess soil layer and 62 kN/m (4.34 kip/ft) for
the glacial clay soil layer. For ISU6, several strain gauges did not
function properly (damaged during driving), and therefore, the rate
of load transfer was not reported herein. Detailed soil properties,
SLT setup, procedures, and results, as well as t–z curves for ISU4
and ISU6 can be found in Ng et al. (2011).
Load-Transfer Analysis
The three test piles were modeled using the load-transfer t–z
analytical method using TZPILE v.2.0 (Reese et al. 2005). The
HP 254  63 test piles were modeled using 50 elements (or
segments), each of which was represented by an elastic spring of
constant stiffness term, AE ¼ 3.596  108 kN, where E and A are
the elastic modulus and the cross-sectional area of the pile, respec-
tively. Two analyses were conducted for each test pile: the first
analysis used the mBST-directly measured t–z curves (i.e., named
the TZ-mBST analysis), whereas the second analysis used t–z
curves developed using qc and fs values measured during CPT
testing (i.e., named the TZ-CPT analysis). This CPT-based proce-
dure is outlined in Reese et al. (2005) where the TZPILE software
internally develops the t–z curves using a method similar to that
suggested by Coyle and Reese (1966). Given that the three test
piles were mainly friction piles with limited contribution from the
end-bearing component, which ranged from 3 % to 6 %, and
because the q–w curves were not available in all cases, the end-
bearing component was not included in these two analyses. To
evaluate the effect of the end bearing component, an additional
analysis was conducted for ISU5 using q–w curve back-calculated
using the measurement of a strain gauge located at the pile tip
(analysis named TZ-mBST-SLT).
Results
Test Pile ISU5—Figure 9 represents the calculated load-
displacement response from the TZ-mBST analysis compared
with the experimentally measured total and shaft resistance
responses from the SLT results. The TZ-mBST response consists
of a near linear slope for the first part of the load-displacement
curve that is about 10 % softer than the total measured response,
whereas the pile ultimate capacity estimated using the Davisson’s
criterion from the TZ-mBST analysis was about 830 kN
(186.6 kips) or 24.5 % lower than the total ultimate capacity esti-
mated as 1100 kN (242.8 kips). Because the TZ-mBST analysis
did not consider the end bearing component, the analytical results
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
FIG. 9—Measured load-displacement response compared to calculated
responses using TZ-mBST, TZ-CPT, and TZ-mBST-SLT analyses for ISU5.
were also compared with the measured shaft response, which
shows that the TZ-mBST analysis had a difference of 10 % and
23 % from the slope of the initial part of the load-displacement
curve and the shaft capacity, respectively. In addition, Fig. 9 rep-
resents the calculated load-displacement curve from the TZ-CPT
analysis, which provided a slope of the first part of the load-
displacement curve that is 39 % stiffer than the measured shaft
response. The pile capacity estimated using the Davisson’s crite-
rion for the TZ-CPT analysis was 1654 kN (372 kip), which is
50 % higher than the measured ultimate shaft capacity. These
results illustrate that the mBST-based analysis provide an
improved and conservative, yet acceptable, prediction of pile
load-displacement response when compared to the overestimated
response provided by the CPT-based analysis.
To evaluate the effects of neglecting the end-bearing compo-
nent, an additional analysis was conducted for ISU 5 pile where
the end-bearing component (i.e., q–w curve at the pile tip) was
back-calculated using the measurement of the strain gauge located
near the pile tip. In this analysis, referred to as TZ-mBST-SLT in
Fig. 9 and Table 3, it was found that incorporating the end-
bearing component did not significantly improve the prediction of
the slope of the first part of the load displacement; however, it
improved the prediction of the pile ultimate capacity reducing the
difference between the calculated and measured responses from
23 % to 11 %. It should be noted; however, that the procedure of
using back-calculated q–w curve is not practical for prediction
purposes and was only used to evaluate the effect of considering
the end bearing component.
In Fig. 10, a comparison is represented between the calculated
and measured load distribution along the pile length at vertical
loads of 400 kN (90 kip) and 850 kN (191 kip), which were
selected to, respectively, represent the pile response in the first
part (the linear region) and the non-linear region of the load-
displacement curve. As can be seen from Fig. 10, the TZ-mBST
analysis provided a very good match of the measured load distri-
bution along the pile length for both loading stages. The differ-
ence between the calculated and measured load-distribution
 ABDELSALAM ET AL. ON ENHANCED LOAD-TRANSFER ANALYSIS 9

TABLE 3—Summary of the major t–z analyses used to compare the calculated responses with the measured responses from SLT.

Model Load-displacement curve % Difference to SLTa

Test No. Model t–z curve q–w curve First part slope (kN/mm) Davisson capacity (kN) First part of slope Davisson
ISU4 SLT (total) n/a 125 680 Measured
SLT (shaft) n/a 122 675 Measured
TZ-mBST mBST Ignored 113 585 7 % softer 13 % lower
TZ-CPT CPT Ignored 164 1140 25 % stiffer 68 % higher
ISU5 SLT (total) n/a 133 1100 Measured
SLT (shaft) n/a 130 1080 Measured
TZ-mBST mBST Ignored 116 830 10 % softer 23 % lower
TZ-CPT CPT Ignored 212 1654 39 % stiffer 50 % higher
TZ-mBST-SLT mBST SGb 117 980 13 % softer 11 % lower
ISU6 SLT (total) n/a 125 930 Measured
TZ-mBST mBST Ignored 134 820 10 % softer 12 % lower
TZ-CPT CPT Ignored 163 1115 24 % stiffer 20 % higher
a
Percent difference between the calculated and measured load-displacement curve along the first part of the curve (linear portion) and at failure using Davisson’s
criterion are based on comparison with shaft resistance except for the case of TZ-mBST-SLT and for ISU6.
b
Strain gauge readings.

responses did not exceed 8.3 %. The figure also shows that the
TZ-mBST analysis provide better prediction of the load distribu-
tion than the TZ-CPT analysis. It should be noted that CPT-based
predictions may be improved if site specific correlations (not
general correlations) are used; however, using the proposed
mBST-based approach avoids this problem.
Test Piles ISU4 and ISU6—For the other two test piles
(ISU4 and ISU6), Figs. 11 and 12, respectively, show the load-
displacement curves calculated using the same aforementioned t–z
analyses (TZ-mBST and TZ-CPT) compared with the measured
responses. As can be seen from the figures, the difference along
the first part of the load-displacement curve between the calcu-
lated TZ-mBST and measured responses for ISU4 and ISU6 were
softer by 7 % and 10 %, respectively. A slightly conservative esti-
mate of the ultimate capacity was provided by the TZ-mBST
model when compared with the measured response, this difference
was equal to 13 % and 12 % for ISU4 and ISU6, respectively
(see Table 3). Figures 11 and 12 also illustrate that the TZ-CPT
analysis significantly overpredicts the initial slope of the load-
displacement curve and the pile ultimate capacity based on Davis-
son’s criterion.
Overall, when compared to empirical CPT-based analysis, the
mBST-based analysis enhanced the prediction of the measured
load-displacement and load-distribution responses. It should also
be emphasized that using the mBST-based approach avoids rely-
ing on empirical correlations currently used in other analyses. The
improved prediction of the first part of the load-displacement
curve, which represents the range of working stresses, is beneficial
because it enables incorporating the serviceability limits into the

FIG. 10—Measured load distribution along the pile length compared with the FIG. 11—Measured load-displacement response compared to the calculated
TZ-mBST model for ISU5 at two loading stages. response from the TZ-mBST model for ISU4.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 12—Measured load-displacement response compared to the calculated
response from the TZ-mBST model for ISU6. (Note: strain gauges at ISU6 test
site did not function properly. Therefore, separation of shaft resistance was
not possible.)
design of pile foundations with improved estimates of settlement.
Conversely, the practically acceptable difference in the estimation
of the pile ultimate capacity using the TZ-mBST analysis can be
reduced by including the q–w curve in the analysis as proven by
the use of TZ-mBST-SLT analysis for ISU5. The difference
between the mBST-based analysis and measured shaft response
may be attributed to the greater constraint of soil element around
the steel H pile compared to the mBST case, which is expected to
result in higher shear resistance along the soil–pile interface.
Summary and Conclusions
The t–z analysis is used to model vertically loaded piles using the
t–z and q–w curves. These curves are mainly based on empirical
or semi-empirical correlations that utilize soil properties measured
or estimated using laboratory or in situ soil tests. To improve the
load-transfer analysis and thus the load-displacement response
and the load transfer along the pile length, a modified Borehole
Shear Test (mBST) is proposed to directly measure the t–z curves
in the field. Three vertical load tests were conducted on instru-
mented, driven, friction steel HP 254  63 piles at three different
sites having mainly cohesive soil profiles. The measured
responses of the load tests included vertical load-displacement at
the pile head and load transfer along the length of the pile. The
soil profiles at the three sites were characterized using SPT, CPT,
and BST tests. The t–z curves were directly obtained using the
mBST for the different soil layers at each site and the calculated
responses using the t–z models were compared with the measured
responses. To compare with currently used empirical-based meth-
ods, another analysis was performed utilizing CPT-based analysis.
Based on the results presented in this paper, the major findings
can be summarized as follows:
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
• The proposed mBST is a simple and cost effective test that
efficiently captures the soil–pile interface properties by pro-
viding a direct field measurement of the t–z curves along
the pile length. It can also generate a Mohr-Coulomb shear
failure envelope at the soil–pile interface to accurately
obtain the friction between the soil and the pile.
• The pile load-displacement response calculated using t-z
curves obtained from the mBST (i.e., the TZ-mBST) accu-
rately predicted the measured load-displacement responses
in the first part (linear region) for the three test piles with
difference limited to 10 %.
• Using the TZ-mBST, the pile ultimate capacity was conser-
vatively estimated for the test sites with an average differ-
ence equal to 15 %; however, a relative improvement in the
prediction can be obtained considering the end bearing
component.
• The load-displacement relationship predicted using a
CPT-based analysis (i.e., the TZ-CPT) overestimated the
soil–pile interface properties compared to the TZ-mBST
analysis.
• The TZ-mBST provides improved predictions of the meas-
ured load distribution along the pile length when compared
with the CPT-based analysis.
Acknowledgments
The study reported in this paper was conducted by the authors
using data from a research project funded by the Iowa Highway
Research Board (IHRB). The writers express their gratitude to the
IHRB and members of the project Technical Advisor Committee.
The members of this committee represent Office of Bridges and
Structures, Soils, Design Section, and Office of Construction of
the Iowa DOT, FHWA Iowa Division, and Iowa County Engi-
neers. Finally, special thanks to Kam Weng Ng and Matthew
Roling for their help during testing.
References
AbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T., 2010,
“Current Design and Construction Practices of Bridge Pile
Foundations With Emphasis on Implementation of LRFD,” J.
Bridge Eng., Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 749–758.
Abu-Farsakh, M. Y. and Titi, H. H., 2004, “Assessment of Direct
CPT Methods for Predicting the Ultimate Capacity of Friction
Driven Piles,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 130, No. 9,
pp. 935–944.
Alawneh, A. S., 2006, “Modeling Load–Displacement Response
of Driven Piles in Cohesionless Soils under Tensile Loading,”
Comput. Geotech., Vol. 32, pp. 578–586.
ASTM D1143-07, 2007, “Standard Test Methods for Deep Foun-
dations under Static Axial Compressive Load,” Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 1–15.
Audibert, J. and Aggarwal, D., 1982, “Study to Investigate the
Effects of Skin Friction on the Performance of Drilled Shafts
in Cohesive Soils, Vol. 1, Field Investigation,” Technical
 ABDELSALAM ET AL. ON ENHANCED LOAD-TRANSFER ANALYSIS
Report GL-82-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Cetin, K. O. and Isik, N. S., 2007, “Probabilistic Assessment of
Stress Normalization for CPT Data,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., Vol. 133, No. 7, 887–897.
Coyle, H. M. and Reese, L. C., 1966, “Load Transfer for Axially
Loaded Piles in Clay,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Div., Vol.
92, No. 2, pp. 1–26.
Davisson, M., 1972, “High Capacity Piles,” Proceedings:
Soil Mechanics Lecture Series on Innovations in Founda-
tion Construction, ASCE, IL Section, Chicago, IL, pp.
81–112.
Handy, R. L., 1986, “Borehole Shear Test and Slope Stability,”
Proceedings: The ASCE Specialty Conference on In Situ Tests:
Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg,
VA, pp. 161–175.
Handy, R. L., 2008, “Evaluation of Geotechnical Soil Testing: I.
Field Tests,” Int. J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 1, pp. 11–28.
Handy, R. L. and Fox, N. S., 1967, “A Soil Borehole Direct Shear
Test Device,” Highway Res. News, Transport. Res. Rec., No.
27, pp. 42–51.
Handy, R. L., Schmertmann, J. H., and Lutenegger, A. J., 1985,
“Borehole Shear Tests in a Shallow Marine Environment,”
ASTM STP No. 883, ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, pp. 140–153.
Jaky, J., 1944, “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest,” J. Soc.
Hungarian Arch. Eng. (Budapest), Vol. 7, pp. 355–358.
Kim, S. R., Lee, J., and Paik, K., 2002, “Load Tests on Pipe Piles
for Development of CPT-Based Design Method,” Paper 140,
Joint Transportation Research Program, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, Cone
Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Blackie Aca-
demic, Spon/Routledge, New York, 1997, 312 pp.
Luttenegger, A. J., Renames, B. D., and Handy, R. L., 1978,
“Borehole Shear Test for Stiff Soil,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div.,
Vol. 104, pp. 1403–1407.
Mayne, P. W. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1990, “Manual on
Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design,” Report No.
EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
306 pp.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Nov 25 10:51:17 EST 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Sherif AbdelSalam (British University in Egypt) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
View publication stats
11
Misra, A. and Chen, C. H., 2004, “Analytical Solutions for Micro-
pile Design under Tension and Compression,” Geotech. Geol.
Eng., Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 199–225.
Misra, A. and Roberts, L. A., 2006, “Probabilistic Analysis of
Drilled Shaft Service Limit State Using the “t–z” Method,”
Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 43, No. 12, pp. 1324–1332.
Ng, K. W., Roling, M. J., AbdelSalam, S. S., Suleiman, M. T.,
and Sritharan, S., 2012, “Pile Setup in Cohesive Soil: An Ex-
perimental Investigation,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. (to be
published).
Ng, K. W., Suleiman, M. T., Roling, M. J., AbdelSalam, S. S.,
and Sritharan, S., 2011, Development of LRFD Procedures for
Bridge Piles in Iowa. Vol. II, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Omer, J. R. and Delpak, R., 2007, “Analysis of Drilled, Cast In-
Situ Single Piles in Axial Loading,” Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng., Vol. 12.
Reddy, E. S., O’Reilly, M., and Chapman, D. A., 1998, “Modified
t-z Model—A Software for Tension Piles,” Comput. Struct.,
Vol. 68, pp. 613–625.
Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., and Arrellage, J., Analysis of Load Ver-
sus Settlement for an Axially Loaded Deep Foundation—
TZPILE; v. 2.0 Software User Manual. (2005). ENSOFT, Inc.,
3003 West Howard Lane, Austin, TX 78728.
Roberts, L. A., Gardner, B. S., and Misra, A., 2008, “Multiple Re-
sistance Factor Methodology for Service Limit State Design of
Deep Foundations Using a t–z Model Approach,” Proceedings:
The Geo-Congress, New Orleans, LA.
Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G., 1983, “Interpretation of
Cone Penetration Tests,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 20, No. 4 , pp.
718–733.
Schmertmann, I. B., 1978, “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test,
Performance, and Design,” Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., p. 145.
Suleiman, I. B. and Coyle, H. B., 1976, “Uplift Resistance of Piles
in Sand,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 102, pp. 559–562.
Suleiman, M. T., Stevens, L., Jahren, C. T., Ceylan, H., and Con-
way, W. M., 2010, “Identification of Practices, Design, Construc-
tion, and Repair Using Trenchless Technology,” Report No.
IHRB-06-09, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA.
Tomlinson, M. J., 1994, “Pile Design and Construction Practice,”
4th ed., Spon, Chapman and Hall, London.