(Asce) 1090-0241 (2001) 127 1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo on 01/16/23. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
THE THIRTY-FOURTH TERZAGHI LECTURE

Presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers
1998 Annual Convention
Michael W. O’Neill
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 1
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

INTRODUCTION OF MICHAEL W. O’NEILL THIRTY-FOURTH TERZAGHI
LECTURER, 1998, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
By Ronald E. Smith, P.E.
It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Michael W. O’Neill as the shaft foundations. His joint work with Professor Lymon Reese,
thirty-fourth Karl Terzaghi Lecturer. Dr. O’Neill’s talk is en- Construction and Design of Drilled Shafts, Second Edition,
titled ‘‘Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts.’’ This lec- was developed for the Federal Highway Administration. This
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo on 01/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ture deals with a subject on which Dr. O’Neill has become volume represents the state of the art and state of the practice
recognized as a leading expert. in drilled-shaft foundations. Of tremendous importance to rou-
Mike O’Neill was born in San Antonio, Texas, in 1940 and tine use of drilled-shaft foundations is the work for which
was educated at the University of Texas at Austin. He com- O’Neill is currently serving as Principal Investigator. This
pleted his BSCE in 1963 and proceeded directly to graduate FHWA Pool Fund Study addresses the important issue of the
school, where he was awarded a Master of Science in Civil use of nondestructive geophysical testing techniques for eval-
Engineering (Soil Mechanics) in 1964. After receipt of his uating the significance of minor defects in constructed drilled-
MSCE, he entered the U.S. Army as a Second Lieutenant and shaft foundations.
served as Environmental Engineer at Fort Bliss, Texas. He rose In addition to drilled shafts, O’Neill has conducted signifi-
to the rank of Captain and was discharged from military ser- cant research on continuous flight auger piles, driven open-
vice in 1967. At that time he returned to the University of ended piles, design of offshore piles, resistance factors for
Texas at Austin, where he proceeded to obtain a PhD in Civil driven piles, and many other related deep-foundation topics.
Engineering (Soil Mechanics) in 1970. For his research efforts he has received the ASCE Huber
After completing his graduate studies, Dr. O’Neill worked Research Prize, the ASCE State of the Art in Civil Engineering
for one year as a Research Associate at the Center for Highway Award, the ADSC Outstanding Service Award, and the
Research at the University of Texas. In 1971 he moved to ASCE Texas Section Hawley Award, and was cited by Texas
Houston and joined Southwestern Laboratories as the Manager DOT for one of the Top Ten Innovative Research Projects in
of Geotechnical Services, where he served until 1974. 2000.
In 1974 O’Neill joined the faculty of the University of In addition to his research, Dr. O’Neill is often called on to
Houston as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering. In 1978 consult on large, important deep-foundation projects. His re-
he became an Associate Professor, and in 1984 Professor of cent projects include the Woodrow Wilson Replacement
Civil Engineering. He served as Chairman of the Department Bridge across the Potomac River outside Washington, D.C.;
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, John and Rebecca the H-3 Viaducts in Oahu, Hawaii; the TH-36 Bridge over the
Moores Professor, and Cullen Distinguished Professor. He cur- St. Croix River, in Stillwater, Minnesota; and the Fred Hart-
rently serves as Director of the National Geotechnical Exper- mann Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel, in Texas.
imentation Site at the University of Houston. For his many accomplishments and contributions to the state
Professor O’Neill has devoted most of his research career of the art in deep foundations, ASCE and the Geo-Institute
to advancing the state of the art of design and construction of have proudly selected Dr. Michael W. O’Neill as the thirty-
deep foundations, with much of this effort devoted to drilled fourth Karl Terzaghi Lecturer.
2 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

SIDE RESISTANCE IN PILES AND DRILLED SHAFTS
By Michael W. O’Neill,1 Fellow, ASCE
(The Thirty-Fourth Karl Terzaghi Lecture)
ABSTRACT: More than 20 years have passed since a Terzaghi Lecture focused on the topic of deep foundations.
However, considerable research has been performed, and experience gained, in this subject area in the intervening
period. The objective of this paper is to update the earlier references on deep foundations by summarizing results
of important recent research on a few aspects of the topic of side resistance, most notably (1) driven piles in
saturated clay, (2) driven piles in siliceous sand loaded in compression and uplift, (3) drilled shafts in clay, and
(4) drilled shafts in soft rock. It is concluded that, while simple design relations are available for topic (1), much
is still to be learned. Under topic (2), the case is made that loading the pile in compression and uplift produces
different values of unit side-shearing resistance. Regarding topics (3) and (4), the effects of details related to
construction—such as stress relief, moisture migration from the concrete to the geomaterial, borehole roughness,
and borehole smear—are shown to be significant. The final point made is that the design of deep foundations
is a complex matter that should be addressed in a design context by engineers who are experienced in the
observation of pile behavior, theoretical modeling, and the appropriate use of design methods.
INTRODUCTION • Side resistance of driven piles in saturated clay under

monotonic loading
Terzaghi confessed that he did not know much about ‘‘skin • Side resistance of piles in siliceous sand in uplift versus
friction,’’ as he termed what we now call side shear or ‘‘side compression
resistance’’ (in the context of load and resistance factor design) • Side resistance of drilled shafts in clay
in piles. He had developed a few graphs based on earth pres- • Side resistance of drilled shafts in soft rock
sure theory, but he apparently did not have much confidence
that they were of practical value (Terzaghi 1943). Instead, he
These are topics of traditional interest that have received much
advised his colleagues to perform site-specific load tests to
attention from practitioners and researchers since the last series
measure skin friction; this remains good advice for us today
of Terzaghi Lectures that exclusively addressed pile perfor-
since construction effects, which in general are not included
mance and design (McClelland 1974; Meyerhof 1976; Reese
in even the more sophisticated design procedures, have a large
1978). Research following that period of time has been mo-
effect on pile behavior.
tivated largely by the need to predict pile capacities accurately
Years later, building on pioneering efforts by Seed and
for offshore drilling platforms and to develop economical de-
Reese (1955) and others, Vesic (1972) conceived and pro-
sign methodologies for foundations of major highway bridges.
moted the concept that the total and pore water stress fields in
The objectives of this paper are to review the recent research
the soil surrounding a driven pile after installation could be
and to serve as an update of these classic lectures.
estimated by invoking a theoretical model in which the soil is
The topics listed above will be covered by taking the path
envisioned to act as if it were being thrust outward by an shown in Fig. 1, which I think Terzaghi would approve of.
expanding cylindrical cavity. While the initial version of that First, we will see what observations tell us about the topic.
theory has been improved upon and superceded, it was an Then I will briefly describe, in some cases, one or more the-
excellent attempt to solve what Vesic referred to as one of the oretical ways of modeling what we observe. Finally, I will
most difficult and vexing problems in all of engineering (Vesic summarize what I consider practical solutions, which some-
1977). times derive from theory but which are always at least semi-
I once asked an earlier Terzaghi Lecturer, who is an expert empirical and experience based. In our profession the purpose
on piles, why he chose to speak on another topic. He stated of theory is to expand and generalize our observations and
that a lecture on piles would be just too big a ‘‘can of worms’’ ultimately help produce guidelines for design. Perhaps my
for a Terzaghi Lecture. Considering the familiar ‘‘fools and opinions in this regard will provoke discussion, which after all
angels’’ line, I decided that since he passed on the opportunity is one of the purposes of a Terzaghi Lecture.
to discuss piles, it might be interesting at least to peek into In order to provide a frame of reference, I will refer at times
the can of worms here. Because of space limitations, many to Meyerhof’s Terzaghi Lecture (Meyerhof 1976), which elu-
significant worms will have to be left in the can, including
modeling of the driving process, downdrag, cross-sectional
shape of the pile, soil layering, expansive soils, surface rough-
ness of driven piles, group behavior, safety and reliability, pile
flexibility, toe resistance, soil characterization, construction
strategies and economics, effects of lateral deformation on side
resistance, plugging, degradation of side resistance due to cy-
clic loading, aging in siliceous and carbonaceous granular
soils, and similar topics. These issues are perhaps no less im-
portant than those that will be covered, but they will need to
wait for another opportunity. Instead, this paper will focus on
the following topics:
FIG. 1. Observations, Theoretical Modeling, Application of
1
Cullen Distinguished Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Experience, and Design Method Development in Foundation En-
Houston, Houston, TX 77204-4791. gineering

driven steel-pipe piles in saturated cohesive soil. Static esti-
mates can be verified or improved by performing stress wave
analyses on piles as they are driven, but pile lengths must be
ordered and construction operations planned before such mea-
surements are made. So, even with the availability of today’s
‘‘high-tech’’ tools, the design team must still estimate Rs from
soil properties and good engineering judgment.
Meyerhof (1976) outlined the ␣ (total stress) and ␤ (effec-
tive stress) methods for assessing fmax (Fig. 2) for driven piles
in saturated clay, as described succinctly in (1)–(4):
fmax = ␣su (1)

where su = average undrained shear strength along the length
of the pile, or
fmax = ␤␴ ⬘vo (2)
where, in Meyerhof’s version of the ␤ method,
␤ = (1 ⫺ sin ␾⬘)tan ␾⬘ for normally consolidated clay (3)
␤ = (1.5)(1 ⫺ sin ␾⬘)OCR 0.5
tan ␾⬘ for overconsolidated clay
(4)
FIG. 2. Stresses and Forces Acting upon Axially Loaded Pile and ␴ ⬘v o = average vertical effective stress in the soil along the
pile before driving.
cidated many of the design rules that practitioners follow to- In the ␣ method, the changes in effective stress and soil
day. structure brought about by driving the pile and the effective
Fig. 2 can be thought of as the ‘‘problem definition’’ figure. stress path that the soil along the pile follows during loading
The surface of side shear failure is at or near the peripheral are all collapsed into one factor, ␣, which in both derivation
surface of the pile, and the shear strength of the soil there is and application is empirical. The ␣ method has been derided
controlled by the normal effective stresses along that surface as inadequate because the undrained shear strength su is not a
at the time of loading the pile, ␴ ⬘. h The difficulty comes in unique soil property but rather an artifact of the way the soil
evaluating those effective stresses, which can perhaps be es- is tested, and because the problem is an effective stress prob-
timated from the ambient vertical effective stresses, ␴ ⬘vo, the lem. Nonetheless, the ␣ method is practical because the soil
earth pressure coefficients, Ki or Kc, and the shear strength data are easy to obtain, and it continues to be used.
parameters of the soil. Ki and Kc, respectively, are the earth The ␤ method satisfies our instinct to analyze the problem
pressure coefficients related to the conditions immediately af- as an effective stress problem. We simply multiply ␴ ⬘v o by the
ter installation and to the conditions after all pore pressures product of an earth pressure coefficient (Kc) and the inclination
have stabilized, or ‘‘after consolidation.’’ Knowing these pa- of the effective resultant against the pile wall, which Meyerhof
rameters, we can proceed to compute the peak unit side shear- took to be the tangent of ␾⬘. The critic would ask ‘‘what
ing resistance, fmax, as a function of depth, and integrate that ␾⬘? ’’, but we will understand it to be the value corresponding
resistance over the surface of the pile to evaluate the total side to the maximum principal stress difference in drained triaxial
resistance Rs, assuming the pile is rigid or the soil does not compression. Kc for cohesive soil was taken as (1 ⫺ sin ␾⬘)
undergo progressive failure. There are some complicating fac- OCR0.5, which was a curve-fitting expression from experi-
tors, such as progressive failure in flexible piles, and that issue mental data for Ko. Meyerhof also stated that from field load
will be considered later. tests he observed that fmax was higher than ␴ v⬘o Ko tan ␾⬘ by a
Because of space limitations, I have neglected the topic of factor of 1 to 2 in overconsolidated London clay. So I have
toe resistance (Rb in Fig. 2). In some instances Rb, which is inserted the empirical multiplier 1.5 for overconsolidated clay.
addressed in numerous texts and design codes, can be of par- While Meyerhof’s version of the ␤ method presumes that
amount importance. In the context of a paper on side resis- Kc ⬇ Ko (or exceeds Ko by a fixed factor in OC clays), it
tance, however, it is appropriate to point out that the direct should not be surmised that insertion of a pile produces no
addition of side and toe resistance to determine the total com- changes in total or pore water stresses in the soil around a pile.
pressive resistance of the pile is an issue for engineering judg- The driving of a displacement pile into saturated clay produces
ment. The maximum value of Rb is reached at a toe settlement a zone of highly remolded soil around the pile, within which
of perhaps 5% of the pile’s diameter at the toe, while the elevated pore water pressures exist with a high hydraulic gra-
maximum value of side resistance is reached after perhaps 5 dient. Those excess pressures dissipate, but the volume change
to 10 mm (0.2 to 0.4 in.) of local settlement. If the soil or resulting from the exiting pore water also results in a change
rock in which the pile is embedded can experience deflection (decrease) in total stress against the pile wall, making the an-
softening, Rs can decrease significantly after reaching its peak alytical tracking of effective stresses from driving to loading
and before Rb is fully developed. In such a case, addition of difficult.
Rs to Rb is clearly not advisable. Perhaps the best way to con-
sider the possibility of this occurrence is through the perfor- Observations
mance of site-specific loading tests upon piles instrumented to Pursuing the observation-before-theory theme helps us gain
discriminate between side and toe resistance. deeper insight. In a Federal Highway Administration study
some years ago, we measured earth pressure coefficients in the
DRIVEN PILES IN CLAY UNDER MONOTONIC
ground, at rest, and against five heavily instrumented, driven,
LOADING
closed-toe, steel pipe piles. The test site consisted of saturated
One issue that was heightened by offshore development is Beaumont clay of varying plasticity that had been overcon-
that of making static estimates of the resistance of very long, solidated by desiccation.

sumption regarding changes in effective stresses are not quite
valid. Near the ground surface, where the clay was plastic,
pore water pressures increased during shear loading, and ef-
fective stresses became smaller, possibly explaining, in part,
the overprediction of fmax by the simple equation in Fig. 4.
Near the bottoms of the piles, where the clay was less plastic
and sandy, pore water pressures and effective stresses were
approximately as assumed—very little change during loading.
If we expand our view, a different picture emerges. A con-
sortium of oil companies sponsored a major load-testing pro-
gram for deep-penetration piles in the U.K. recently (Gibbs et
al. 1993; Lambson et al. 1993). A steel pipe pile 0.76 m in

diameter and driven open-ended, but plugged, to a depth of
59 m was tested at an overconsolidated clay site called Til-
brook Grange. Our tests on much shallower piles in Houston,
in a clay formation known as the Beaumont clay, exhibited
normalized stress paths that converge to a straight line at the
FIG. 3. Measured Trends for K o , Ki , and Kc for Closed-Toe Pipe point of slippage, denoted by the vertical arrows in Fig. 5.
Piles at Houston Site (after O’Neill et al. 1981) That is, fmax was proportional to the measured radial effective
stress at the pile-soil interface all along the pile at the time of
slip. No such proportionality existed at the measured slip
points for the Tilbrook test, however, as indicated by the mea-
sured stress paths in Fig. 5. Why? We do not know. There may
have been a considerable difference in the effective angles of
wall friction in the upper and lower formations because of the
mineralogical content of the soils, despite the closeness of their
OCRs and plasticity indices. If so, this test points to the need
to measure the angle of wall friction between the remolded
and reconsolidated soil and the pile material in every specific
geologic formation in some appropriate way. The point to this
story is that the ␤ method carries with it considerable uncer-
tainty in the form shown in (4) unless ␾⬘ is evaluated as a
residual value in which the effects of the surface texture of
the pile material are considered and the term (1.5) (1 ⫺ sin
␾⬘) OCR0.5 (=Ko) is replaced by Kc.
Another possibility is that the measurements at one or both
sites were faulty. There is no evidence for this conclusion, but
effective stress measurements against curved pile surfaces are
FIG. 4. Measured and Computed Relations for fmax versus
difficult to make, and any analyst should be cautious when
Depth at Houston Site (after O’Neill et al. 1981)
using such data to verify his or her analytical model.
To put the issue in perspective, measured values of ␤ are
The average measurements of earth pressure coefficients plotted (in Fig. 6) versus depth for full-sized steel pipe piles
versus depth among the five instrumented piles are shown in at three normally consolidated and two overconsolidated clay
Fig. 3, extracted from data given by O’Neill et al. (1981). sites. ␤, which in Fig. 6 is a ‘‘point’’ value defined at a specific
Clearly, ‘‘Ki’’ is 2 to 3 times Ko near the middle of the piles, depth (not an average value over the length of the pile), ap-
which is not influenced by end effects. Ki is shown in quotes pears to be 0.16 ⫾ 0.06, independent of depth, in soil classi-
because it is not a true value. The pore pressures that were fied as normally consolidated clay when the measured excess
generated by pile driving dissipated so quickly that by the time pore pressure (⌬u) has dissipated prior to loading. In overcon-
the instruments were read, the soil was already in a state some- solidated clay, however, ␤ does not appear to be a predictable
where between Ki and Kc. Kc was slightly larger than Ki
throughout most of the pile, indicating that the consolidation
process resulted in an increase in effective stresses against the
pile, which would imply time-dependent setup in this rather
highly overconsolidated, very stiff clay.
One is tempted to proceed directly from Kc to fmax, as shown
in Fig. 4. For example, it might be assumed that pile instal-
lation has produced a completely disturbed soil structure with-
out cohesion (residual shear strength condition) and that there
are no changes in the pore water pressures against piles in
overconsolidated clay during slow, monotonic loading. These
assumptions let us invoke the equation in the box in Fig. 4,
where ␾ r⬘ is the residual angle of internal friction. We are
mildly successful in reproducing the measured values of fmax
by doing this, but not completely. This exercise, however,
demonstrates the importance of predicting Kc, which is very
different from Ko.
The stress paths that were measured during compression
loading indicated some changes in effective stresses against FIG. 5. Measured Stress Paths during Axial Loading of Dis-
the pile face during loading (O’Neill et al. 1981), so our as- placement Piles at Two Overconsolidated Clay Sites

it is necessary to use a model such as the GESM, with radially
varying soil moduli, to reproduce what we observe.
The increase in mean effective stress computed at the pile-
soil interface during consolidation was 0.3 to 0.4 times the
initial excess pore water pressure at the interface in NC clays.
With this model, clay soils are at or relatively near the crit-
ical state line after consolidation. So it is assumed that, at the
interface, the mean effective stress at failure (pile slip) is equal
to the mean effective stress after consolidation. Interface co-
hesion is assumed to be zero, so fmax can be computed by
converting mean effective stress to radial effective stress and
multiplying by the appropriate friction coefficient, which, as

implied earlier, can now best be determined by a large-strain,
drained interface shear test (e.g., Jardine and Chow 1996).
The method was used to develop practical solutions by mak-
ing assumptions about the relationship between plasticity in-
dex (Ip), OCR, ␾⬘, Ko, ␴ ⬘vo, Young’s modulus, and the critical
FIG. 6. Depth-Dependent Values of ␤ Measured at Normally state parameters and then using the GESM to compute fmax. A
Consolidated and Overconsolidated Clay Sites set of solutions for full-displacement and nondisplacement
piles in clay with Ip ⱖ 20 are shown in Fig. 8. By comparing
function of either depth or OCR, suggesting that the frictional
properties of the soil at or near the pile interface or other
factors—such as the sensitivity of the soil to normal and shear
stress reversals during driving or lateral translation of the pile
during driving and axial loading—may exercise a degree of
control over fmax.
Analytical Modeling
We obviously quickly reach a limit to the usefulness of field
observations alone. Further progress can be made through an-
alytical modeling, however. The first efforts at purely analyt-
ical solutions were sponsored by the oil industry to predict
side resistance of very long piles in clay, for which very little
empirical data existed in the 1970s. The initial research, which
resulted in a process termed the ‘‘general effective stress
method’’ (GESM) (Kirby et al. 1983), required knowledge of
the in situ stress state as well as several soil properties. Mod-
eling then progressed to the effect of cylindrical pile installa-
tion on the effective pressures in the soil mass around the pile,
the effective stresses after consolidation, and finally, the effect
of loading on fmax. Most subsequent analytical models have
gone through the same steps, with variations.
Installation was modeled in the GESM by the undrained
plane strain cavity expansion theory, symbolized in Fig. 7. The FIG. 7. Stresses Predicted by Expanding Cylindrical Cavity
mean effective stress in the plastic (gray) zone was equated to Theory in Undrained Clay Soil with Mohr-Coulomb Characteris-
the mean effective stress at the critical state at the void ratio tics
encountered in the free field, which was then reduced by a
factor of 0.6 to account for the extreme remolding that occurs
in driving displacement piles. The mean total stress came di-
rectly from the von Mises model depicted in Fig. 7 and was
dependent on the Young’s modulus and undrained shear
strength of the soil. We of course have uncertainties about
which measurements of su and Eu should be used. There are
obviously many possibilities, which points toward the need for
site- or formation-specific calibration of the model.
Radial consolidation was then modeled by considering the
framework of the soil in the plastic zone to be elastic, com-
pressible, and pointwise isotropic (Leifer et al. 1979). The
Young’s modulus of the soil varied in a radially nonlinear
manner from a small magnitude at the pile surface to its un-
disturbed value at the outer edge of the plastic zone. If a con-
stant, isotropic value of Young’s modulus in the plastic zone
is used during consolidation, we return to Terzaghi’s one-di-
mensional consolidation theory and are forced to conclude that
the change in effective normal stress on the face of the pile
during consolidation is equal to the initial excess pore water
pressure. Observations tell us that this does not happen—the FIG. 8. Predictions of fmax by GESM (after Esrig and Kirby
effective stress changes are not that large, so, as a minimum, 1979)

the results with the data summarized in Fig. 6, the predictions ing deflections were computed with a finite-element code, con-
⬘ (␤) in Fig. 8 for displacement piles are somewhat
of fmax/␴ vo sidering a bonded interface, using the results of CIU triaxial
higher than the measured trends. The cutoff at OCR near 15 compression tests represented by simple, nonlinear Duncan-
was made because the model predicts unit side resistances that Chang stress-strain functions—which varied according to the
are consistently too high for soils with higher OCRs. The au- mean effective stress computed at the end of consolidation—
thors caution that better solutions can be obtained if high- to model the soil. For this soil, the VECONS/AXIPLN model
quality, site-specific soil data are acquired and used. Despite predicts shearing failure at a small distance away from the
its apparent shortcomings, the GESM was a major step in un- bonded interface reasonably near that which was measured,
derstanding the effects of the important soil parameters on side although undrained triaxial stress conditions are not the correct
resistance. conditions near the pile-soil interface.
At about the time that the GESM was being pursued, other The predictive results using an identical procedure for
models were also developed, such as CAMFE (Randolph et driven displacement piles in saturated clays with various min-
al. 1979) and CASH (Matlock et al. 1982), which had some- eralogies and stress histories are summarized in Table 1. The
what different attributes than the GESM but which had the model appears to lead to reasonable results over a wide spec-
same objectives. I am personally more familiar with the trum of soils, even though it contains a degree of empiricism.
‘‘VECONS/AXIPLN’’ model, developed by Heydinger (Hey- A significant further advance came with the coupling of the
dinger 1982; Heydinger and O’Neill 1986). It is similar to the strain path method (Baligh 1985) and the MIT-E3 constitutive
GESM, but it empirically considers the soil in the plastic zone model (Whittle 1987) in the late 1980s (Azzouz et al. 1990).
to have anisotropic stiffness during consolidation, with a ratio The strain path method offers a better solution for strain
of tangential modulus to radial modulus of about 2. Otherwise, changes in soil around a pile as it penetrates by using the
the solution of Leifer, used in the GESM, was used to compute analogy of a viscous, irrotational fluid flowing past a fixed
the effective stresses at the end of consolidation. object—very different from a cylindrical cavity that magically
Fig. 9 shows the conditions after installation, which repre- expands. The MIT-E3 constitutive model tracks those strains
sent the initial conditions for consolidation modeling. The sub- by assuming that the soil is completely nonlinear. Irrecovera-
script ‘‘cs’’ indicates ‘‘critical state.’’ Fig. 10 is a typical result ble strains are generated when stresses are reversed during
from VECONS for the Houston overconsolidated clay site. For installation, as illustrated in Fig. 11. Such behavior is not rec-
reference, the ambient vertical and horizontal effective stresses ognized in the expanding cavity model. The stress-strain be-
(␴ ⬘vo and ␴ ho
⬘ , respectively) are indicated on the right axis. Al- havior of the soil framework is then tracked as it consolidates
though the tangential effective stress (␴ ⬘) ␪ in the soil adjacent around the pile and during loading in a finite-element envi-
to the interface drops after driving, significant increases are ronment. There is no need to assume variations in Young’s
predicted in all three major principal effective stresses near the moduli, as with the previous models, and the model inputs can
interface during consolidation. The largest increase between all be developed from high-level laboratory tests.
driving and end-of-consolidation occurred in the tangential ef- This model predicts ␤ of 0.10 for normally consolidated
fective stress because more volume change occurs near the Boston Blue Clay to 0.21 for lightly overconsolidated BBC,
interface where the greatest pore pressure dissipation takes which are values generally consistent with the trend reported
place, leading to arching in the tangential direction. Here the
radial effective stress against the pile wall, ␴ r⬘ at r/Ro = 1, is
about 2.5 ␴ ⬘ho, which is consistent with observations made near
the middepths of the test piles described in Fig. 3 (Kc /Ko).
After determining these stress relations, fmax and correspond-
FIG. 10. Stress Distribution around Houston Test Piles (Fig. 3)

at Depth of 7.5 m (OCR ⴝ 6) according to VECONS (after Hey-
dinger and O’Neill 1986)
TABLE 1. Predictions of fmax Using VECONS/AXIPLN in Vari-

ous Soils (Heydinger and O’Neill 1986)
Depth fmax predicted Predicted/
Load test (m) (kPa) measured
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Houston (plastic OC clay) 6.1 68.3 1.02
Houston (sandy OC clay) 11.0 67.9 0.94
Hamilton AFB (plastic NC clay) 5.9 15.8 1.10
Hamilton AFB (plastic NC clay) 11.0 22.8 0.95
FIG. 9. Variation of Pore Water Pressure and Young’s Modulus St. Alban (sensitive OC clay) 4.2 16.0 0.84
of Soil Framework at Beginning of Consolidation in VECONS St. Alban (sensitive OC clay) 6.5 19.9 1.04
(after Heydinger 1982)

FIG. 13. Relations of [f (Mobilized Unit Resistance)/su] to [w

FIG. 11. Shear Strains Generated in Soil around Penetrating (Local Settlement)/B] for Pile in Stiff Clay with Varying Penetra-
Object according to Strain Path Model (Baligh 1985) tion (Aurora et al. 1980)
Complicating Factors
While our ability to predict fmax has greatly improved since
the 1970s, at least at the highest level of analytical effort, it
is important to realize that the design value of unit side resis-
tance fult may not be equal to fmax, the peak value, because of
deflection softening and progressive failure as a compressible
pile is loaded. These effects can be suitably modeled using the
‘‘t-z’’ method of Coyle and Reese (1966) or the ‘‘␲3-inverse’’
method of Murff (1980).
A more subtle explanation of why fult is not always equal to
fmax along the pile may concern the installation process (Aurora
et al. 1980). Fig. 13 summarizes the results of several com-
pression loading tests on closed-toe steel pipe piles in uniform,
medium stiff clays that were compacted wet of optimum in a
calibration chamber. The Ip of the clay soils varied from 23 to
37, and su (remolded) was 10–21 kPa in CKoU triaxial com-
FIG. 12. Range of Measurements and Predictions of fmax via
pression with ␴ v⬘ = 21 kPa. The pile was driven to a shallow
Strain Path/MIT E-3 Model for Driven Pipe Piles Loaded in Uplift depth, load tested to plunging failure, driven deeper, load
at NGI Haga Test Facility (after Whittle 1991) tested to plunging failure, and so forth. Whatever the depth of
penetration, fmax in the upper 30% of the pile was lower than
in the lower 70%. This effect could possibly be attributed to
in Fig. 6 for soils identified as normally consolidated. It also extreme destructuring of the soil at the pile-soil interface due
reveals that radial consolidation of soil with a residual vertical to large accumulated shear deformations; to reduced effective
shear stress resulting from the driving operation will produce stresses at the interface from effects of lateral expansion of
a higher value of fmax than without a vertical shear stress if the pile upon the passage of longitudinal stress waves during
subsequent loading does not reverse the shear stress direction. impact driving and the inability of the soil to rebound laterally
Whittle (1991), using this model, analyzed a series of 16 back against the pile; to the lateral motion of the pile due to
uplift tests performed on identical pipe piles (which were flexural waves during driving; or to a combination of factors.
jacked into place, not driven) at the NGI Haga test facility, in These data suggest that Rs, the shaft resistance, is about 15%
highly overconsolidated, crustal soil, considering residual less than one would obtain by integrating fmax over the perim-
stresses. A comparison of the measurements of peak unit side eter surface of the pile in this plastic clay.
resistance (including residual stresses) versus depth for the 16
piles and the range of predictions from the MIT-E3/Strain Path Unsolved Mysteries
model for the central parts of the piles are shown in Fig. 12.
Predictions for the heads and toes of the piles are omitted Although the preceding discussion suggests that the problem
because the model that was used did not include end effects. of side resistance in driven piles in clay is essentially a ‘‘solved
Also shown in Fig. 12 are the predictions made by using Mey- problem,’’ there is evidence to the contrary. Consider the case
erhof’s version of the ␤ method, which in this case greatly of a series of uplift load tests conducted on a steel pipe pile
overpredicts the side resistance. The use of the completely at West Delta Block 58A offshore from the Mississippi River
analytical model, in this case, clearly provided more accurate delta (Audibert and Hamilton 1998; Bogard and Matlock
predictions. The strain path model has recently been improved 1998a,b). The test pile was 0.76 m in diameter and about 70
to include the effects of a free surface (Whittle 1999), and m long, and the soil was a normally consolidated—perhaps
several similar models that include pore fluid dynamics and slightly underconsolidated—plastic clay. The pile was tested
variable yield surfaces have also been proposed (Wathugala to failure at intervals over a period of about two-and-a-half
and Desai 1989). years after it was initially driven. Furthermore, effective nor-

FIG. 14. Measured Values of [fmax and Kc versus Depth for Test Pile at West Delta 58A (Compiled from Bogard and Matlock 1998a,b)
mal stresses were measured along the face of the pile during
each load test.
Plotted in Fig. 14 are measured relationships between Kc (at
pile-soil slip) and depth for each load test. Kc clearly decreased
with time. On the other hand, the side resistance generally
increased each time the pile was loaded, despite the fact that
radial effective stresses at the pile-soil interface were decreas-
ing. Either the theory of effective stress did not apply, the
measurements of effective stresses against the pile wall (or
measurements of shear stress) were not appropriate, or there
is some other explanation for this unusual behavior. Jardine
and Saldivar (1999) offer several plausible reasons for the re-
ported behavior. Another is offered below.
The pile was extracted and examined after the final load
test. A layer of hard clay about 75 mm thick was attached to
the side of the pile. When the attached soil was dissected,
evidence was found of several microshear surfaces, at varying
distances from the face of the pile. These apparently repre- FIG. 15. Interpreted Relations of ␣ to su /OCR from ‘‘Universal’’
sented portions of the shearing surfaces that were produced by Database (Modified from Kolk and van der Velde 1996)
the successive loadings. The soil nearest the pile apparently
had hardened appreciably with time, forcing the failure surface
to migrate farther and farther into the soil mass. Indeed, if this model. But such modeling is justified only on projects near
happened, the effective stress measurements at the interface the outposts of our experience. For most projects, we have to
became irrelevant because failure was occurring elsewhere use something more tractable, considering the resources we
along a radially expanding shear surface, which produced have at our disposal. This often means reverting to a correla-
higher and higher overall resistances. tive solution, such as the ␣ method.
X-rays of the removed soil revealed zones of very dense The database for side resistance of piles in clay originally
soil, mostly near the interface. Despite being hard, the soil near developed for the API (Dennis and Olson 1983; Olson 1984),
the visible microshear surfaces had higher moisture contents and added to subsequently, has been catalogued intelligently
than the masses of soil between them. The increased density and includes correlations between undrained shear strength
was associated with the precipitation of iron. Where the iron and fmax, the so-called ␣ factor.
came from is a mystery, but it is quite possible that it was After analyzing this database, Semple and Rigden (1984)
removed from the steel pile and deposited in the adjacent soil proposed that ␣ be related to the ratio of su to ambient vertical
through the action of anaerobic, sulfate-reducing bacteria that effective stress, ␴⬘vo, which is an indirect measure of OCR.
were present in the organic soil. The iron may have become Semple and Rigden’s proposed relation is shown in Fig. 15,
a cementing agent, forcing the outward migration of the failure which also shows the data points in the database, compiled
surface. This is probably good news if only we knew how to mostly from load tests on steel pipe piles. The GESM, for
predict the phenomenon. Much still needs to be done in un- example, predicts that ␣( fmax /su) decreases as OCR increases,
derstanding chemical and biochemical interactions between so Semple and Rigden’s interpretation has a theoretical basis.
piles and soil. Here, fmax is the average unit side resistance at the load inter-
preted to correspond to failure of the pile; therefore, it may
Practical Design Guidelines include effects such as are shown in Fig. 13. Fig. 15 does not
take into explicit account the differences in the effects of shear
The ideal approach to design would be to model in detail and normal stress reversals during installation, nonlinear
every pile that we install in a clay profile with a model such stress-strain behavior, degree of anisotropy, rate of loading,
as VECONS, Strain Path/MIT-E3, or some other appropriate and other factors that theoretical models demonstrated are im-

portant but would be difficult for the designer to model rou- pile driving on sand-grain size distribution at the interface,
tinely. setup of piles in sand (Chow et al. 1996), the effects of vibra-
Randolph and Murphy (1985) developed a slightly different tory driving (O’Neill et al. 1990, Vipulanandan et al. 1990),
design curve from nearly the same database. Their curve is and effects of plugging in open-toe pipe piles (O’Neill and
the current method for design recommended by the API. Raines 1991; Choi and O’Neill 1997), among others. How-
Kolk and van der Velde (1996) analyzed more recent load- ever, I will briefly contribute my views on only one contro-
ing test data and added them to the data base, arriving at a versial topic: side resistance during compression loading ver-
curve that is different from the previous two, especially for sus uplift loading. And I will limit my comments to
low values of su /␴⬘vo. This demonstrates how sensitive our de- observations.
sign inferences are to the exact database we use to develop
those inferences. Most notably, the investigators added two
Observations
tests at a normally consolidated silty clay site called ‘‘Pentre,’’
in the U.K., where ␣ was very low, especially for a pile driven Some foundation engineers, mostly through observations of
in two stages, with a long time hold between stages. The clay universal databases, have concluded that the magnitude of unit
at Pentre is characterized as normally consolidated, and it is side resistance is independent of the direction of loading. Oth-
silty (Gibbs et al. 1993). Kolk and van der Velde gave the ers cite evidence to the contrary. For example, when the pile
two-stage pile a low weight when constructing the design is loaded in uplift, there is a Poisson’s effect in the pile that
curve because the pile had been driven such that there was will likely result in a reduction in radial effective stress at the
considerable pore pressure dissipation between stages. All tests interface. Uplift loading also produces a net reduction in ver-
on plugged (displacement) piles in the silty clay at Pentre, tical effective stress in the soil around the pile, which re-
however, exhibited lower ␣ factors that have been observed at duces the soil’s shear strength. Consider Fig. 16, which shows
sites where the clays were more plastic (Ip > 20). Although the measurements of vertical effective stress changes in the soil
phenomenon is not clearly understood, at least some clays with near a relatively rigid, open-toed, steel pipe pile that was
high silt contents appear to have very high unloading moduli, driven into dense sand confined in a calibration chamber and
such that when they are thrust slightly away from the pile loaded axially (O’Neill and Raines 1991). The large, gray cir-
during the passage of the stress wave, they do not rebound cles indicate the beginnings and ends of load tests, first in
back against the pile as strongly as plastic clays (Karlsrud compression and then in uplift. The vertically oriented earth
1999). Organics in the soil may have a similar effect. There- pressure cell clearly indicates an increase in vertical effective
fore, it appears appropriate to reduce the ␣ factor for silty clay, stress as the pile is loaded in compression and a decrease as
clayey silt, and organic soil sites to values below those on all it is loaded in uplift, both because of load transfer from the
of the design curves in Fig. 15. The task of the foundation pile. In Fig. 16, the term ‘‘fa’’ is the average unit side shear
designer then shifts to determining the stress history of the transferred from the pile to the soil above the level at which
deposit, its silt (and possibly organics) content, and its un- the measurements were made. At the depth of the measure-
drained shear strength. This task must be performed accurately, ment point, the increase in ␴⬘v is less than 10% of the average
because ␣ changes rapidly as su /␴⬘vo increases above about side resistance above that depth; however, the increase or de-
0.25.
These correlative methods apply to piles with length (pen-
etration)-to-diameter (L/B) ratios of about 50 or less. Each
recognizes that lengthening the pile reduces fmax to fult due to
progressive failure. How this reduction is made varies from
method to method. A 30% reduction in ␣ is proposed by Sem-
ple and Rigden for piles with L/B = 120 (relative to ␣ for
L/B ⱕ 50, Fig. 15). Kolk and van der Velde recommend the
use of (5), involving relative penetration (L/B) and implied
OCR, for piles with L/B > 50:
fult = [0.5(L/B)]⫺0.2[su /␴⬘vo]⫺0.3 (5)
It should be clearly understood that the method used to
quantify undrained shear strength is not arbitrary. Use of su
data should follow the same order of priority as was used by
the developers of the database, which is (1) UU triaxial com-
pression tests, (2) unconfined compression tests, (3) field vane
shear tests, and (4) results of any other undrained tests that
are available. This suggests that success in design is related to
using tests for estimating su that are as high up on the priority
ladder as possible. For the first two means of obtaining un-
drained shear strength, the tested soil samples should be clas-
sified as ‘‘undisturbed’’ (taken with thin-walled samplers with
area ratios of 10% of less than inside clearance ratios of 1 to
3%).
DRIVEN PILES IN UNCEMENTED SILICEOUS SAND

To this point we have addressed driven piles in fine-grained
soils. Space is not available to provide an equivalent coverage
of piles in cohesionless soils. Important issues that could be
addressed are effects of sand grain compressibility (e.g., sili- FIG. 16. Measured Relationship between Vertical Effective
ceous versus calcareous sands), magnitude and distribution of Stress and fa for Compressive and Uplift Loading in Dense, Sub-
side resistance with depth (Jardine and Chow 1996), effect of merged Siliceous Sand (Unpublished)

ous consideration should be given to using reduced values of
unit side resistance.
This brief exercise also points out the potential problems
that can ensure when one applies the observational method
without analytical or experimental verification that the results
are physically meaningful (in this case relying only on the
results of universal databases to derive design rules without
clear indications of the effects of the primary variables and
the assurance that those effects are contained in the data).
DRILLED SHAFTS IN COHESIVE SOIL

Many engineers view drilled shafts (bored piles) as nondis-
placement piles. I consider them to be entirely different crea-
tures. After all, construction involves excavating a borehole,
with relatively less soil disturbance than when a displacement
pile is driven but with consequent stress relief; filling the
borehole with fluid concrete, which partially or completely re-
stores the in situ ground stresses but which may supply free
water to the soil at the interface; letting the concrete set and
then loading the resulting deep foundation. Viewed from the
perspective of the soil, this is a very different situation than
occurs with driven piles, even so-called non-displacement
driven piles.
How fmax compares with the corresponding value for driven
displacement piles depends on how much effective stress and
structure in the soil near the borehole wall are lost before the
borehole is concreted, how effective the concreting process is
at restoring lateral stress in the soil, the degree of roughness
in the borehole, and the pore pressure response of the resulting
FIG. 17. Measured Dimensionless Relationships between fmax
modified soil.
and Pile Movement for Compressive and Uplift Loading in
Dense, Submerged Siliceous Sand (after O’Neill and Raines Observations
1991)
Physical observations reveal much about the effects of these
crease in ␴⬘v is clearly observable. Corresponding changes in parameters. The extent to which drilling a borehole in over-
shear strength must certainly occur. consolidated clay at the Houston site affects the shear wave
Results of load tests in the same calibration chamber, con- velocity as one moves away from the wall is demonstrated in
ducted in quadruplicate on open-toed pipe piles driven by im- Fig. 18. Data were obtained approximately 3 h after the
pact, are shown in Fig. 17. Measured values of external unit borehole was opened using the SASW technique (Kalinski and
side resistance (outside surface of the pile), f, are plotted ver- Stokoe 1998). The effect of the stress relief was felt 2 to 3
sus local movement, w, for the various levels on the pile face borehole radii away from the wall. At the eventual concrete-
indicated by the arrows. It is clear that the absolute value of soil interface, shear wave velocities were only about 70% of
fmax in uplift at a pile penetration of 21 B is only about 74% those in the free field. If the shear wave velocity is assumed
of the absolute value in compression. These experiments sup- to be proportional to the square root of su, we can hypothesize
port a hypothesis that unit side resistance is definitely depen- that su has been reduced to about half of its initial value at the
dent on direction of loading.
Through parametric centrifuge studies at the University of
Western Australia, de Nicola (1996) observed the direction-of-
loading effect and derived (6) to describe the relation between
fmax in uplift and fmax in compression along the parts of the pile
not appreciably affected by toe-shaft interaction. The equation
also conveniently shows the effects of the important param-
eters [penetration ratio (L/B), ratio of the average soil shear
modulus (Gsoil avg) to the Young’s modulus of the pile (Epile),
the Poisson’s ratio of the pile material (␯pile), and the angle of
pile-soil friction (␦)]. It is clear from de Nicola’s equation that
side resistance in uplift in sand decreases relative to that in
compression as ␯pile, ␦, L/B, and Gsoil increase.
( fmax)uplift
( fmax)compression
⬇ 冋
1 ⫺ 0.2 log10 冉冊册
100
L/B
[1 ⫺ 8␩ ⫹ 25␩2] (6)
where
␩ = ␯pile(tan ␦) 冉冊冉冊
L
B
Gsoil avg
Epile
(7)
FIG. 18. Effect of Borehole Excavation on Low-Strain Shear
The evidence is compelling that when one designs a pile in Modulus for Drilled Shaft at Houston Site (Overconsolidated
uncemented, siliceous sand that will be loaded in uplift, seri- Clay) (Modified after Kalinski and Stoke 1998)

Practical Design Guidelines
The simple ␣ correlation shown in Fig. 20 for drilled shafts
is based on an analysis of parts of two load test databases, in
which load tests at sites where the average indicated undrained
shear strength was less than about half an atmosphere are not
considered, since drilled shafts for bridge foundations (the pur-
pose for developing the correlation) are not often used in such
soils. The well-known ␣ correlation for drilled shafts given by
Chen and Kulhawy (1994) is different from this one, partic-
ularly at the low end of the shear strength axis, because tests
in soft soils are included in their database. The correlation of

Fig. 20 assumes that one uses the results of UU triaxial com-
pression tests to characterize su. Beyond su of 2.5 atmospheres
(2.5pa), the geomaterial is treated as ‘‘intermediate,’’ or an
earth material that is transitional between a hard soil and a soft
rock, where a different approach can be used to evaluate fmax
FIG. 19. Photographs of Textures of Peripheral Surfaces of
(e.g., O’Neill et al. 1996).
Drilled Shafts Constructed without PHPA Polymer Drilling
Slurry (Left) and with Drilling Slurry (Right) In this database, ␣ is about as uncertain as is ␣ for driven
piles in clay, for both similar and different reasons. The similar
ones are associated with characterization of shear strength pro-
borehole wall by the drilling process. By implication, ␣ is then
files. The different ones are associated with the details of con-
about 0.5.
struction.
Reese (1978) pointed out that once concrete has been
The databases from which Fig. 20 was derived are sum-
placed, water could migrate from the concrete into the soil
marized statistically in Table 2. We conclude that this partic-
when water/cement ratios are considerably higher than nec-
ular ␣ method is slightly conservatively biased but has a rather
essary for hydration of the cement. A high value of suction in
high coefficient of variation. In order to reduce the coefficient
the soil (e.g., borehole that has been exposed to air for an
of variation and increase the reliability of the side resistance
extended period) can accelerate water migration. In a clay, this
estimate, we can consider interpreting the load test data ac-
effect produces an additional decrease in su that depends upon
cording to the ␤ (effective stress) method.
the details of the concrete mix, among other factors. Use of
Meyerhof (1976) suggested that, for bored piles (drilled
concrete with no water reducer and a water/cement ratio of
shafts) in overconsolidated clay, ␤ [(2)] can be evaluated from
0.60 to maintain fluidity produced an increase in moisture con-
(8), or in cases where both ␾⬘ (drained triaxial compression)
tent of up to 3% within 2 mm of the interface in saturated,
and OCR are known, from (9):
overconsolidated clay (O’Neill 1998). Reductions in fmax for
drilled shafts in saturated, overconsolidated clay can be held
to a minimum by employing rapid construction, which miti-
gates effects of stress relief, and by using water reducers in
the concrete mix.
As in the case of driven piles, concrete-soil interface con-
ditions can be influenced by biological and chemical reactions.
For example, in Fig. 19 the peripheral surfaces of two concrete
drilled shafts are shown. One (right) was installed in the stiff
clay soil at the Houston test site using a high-molecular-weight
PHPA polymer drilling slurry, and the other (left) was installed
at the same site without slurry. The surface on the right was
exposed to a thin film of residual polymer drilling slurry for
about six months before the shaft was exhumed and photo-
graphed. Laboratory studies (Ata and O’Neill 1997b) indicated
that the PHPA extracted calcium from the surface of the con-
crete, which produced the rough texture of the surface on the
right. The process was self-limiting and apparently did not
produce any structural damage in the concrete. Axial load tests
performed at the Houston site (Alta and O’Neill 1997a) indi-
cated that shafts installed with PHPA polymer slurry actually
developed higher unit side load transfer (␣ = 0.74) than either
drilled shafts installed nearby in the dry (␣ = 0.51) or driven,
closed-toe steel pipe piles (␣ = 0.49), apparently because of FIG. 20. Suggested Design Relation to ␣ to su /pa in Drilled
the chemically roughened surface of the shaft. Shafts from ‘‘Universal’’ Databases
Analytical Modeling
TABLE 2. Statistical Summaries of ␣ and ␤ for Drilled Shafts
Researchers have not pursued the analysis of the effect of in Cohesive Soil from ‘‘Universal’’ Data Bases
installation on side resistance in drilled shafts with the rigor
Coefficient of
that the analysis of driven displacement piles have been pur- Mean measured Rs / variation (COV) Number
sued. Since the relation of fmax to su depends on many factors Method mean computed Rs in parameter of tests
that are construction dependent, some of which were just dem- (1) (2) (3) (4)
onstrated, we are left with correlative methods for routine de-
␣ 1.07 0.36 43
sign, most of which are again based on the familiar ␣ factor ␤ 1.08 0.37 140
concept.

␤ = 0.5 ⫹ 0.18[su (kPa) ⫺ 48 (kPa)]; 48 kPa < su < 115 kPa (8)
␤ = (1 ⫺ sin ␾⬘)OCR0.5 tan ␾⬘ (9)
More detailed analysis reported by Chen and Kulhawy
(1994) resulted in a modified equation, (10), for evaluation of
␤ in drilled shafts:
␤ = [(1 ⫺ sin ␾⬘)OCRsin ␾⬘]tan[␦/␾⬘)␾⬘] (10)
where ␦ = angle of wall friction between the soil and drilled
shaft and ␾⬘ is determined in triaxial compression. Analysis
of the database using each ␤ method leads to the average sta-

tistical results for the two versions of the ␤ method shown in
Table 2. ␤ values are again biased slightly conservatively, and
FIG. 21. Sinusoidal Roughness Pattern, with Potential Smear
␤ has a coefficient of variation of 0.35 to 0.40. The level of
Zone, at Concrete-Soft Rock (IGM) Interface
uncertainty seems not to have been improved by changing to
the ␤ method despite the fact that it includes a consideration
of effective stresses. This phenomenon points out a problem
associated with the use of ‘‘universal’’ databases of this type
to derive reliability-based resistance factors for drilled shafts
(or, by implication, for driven piles). If resistance factors (or
factors of safety) are computed from the bias and dispersion
indicated in Table 2 using safety indices to reflect acceptable
theoretical reliability, those factors will be unnecessarily low
(or high). If databases are developed locally, however, the dis-
persion resulting from differing geological conditions and dif-
fering construction practices inherent in Figs. 15 and 20 should
be reduced, which will reduce the COVs and result in higher
resistance factors (lower safety factors). It is obvious, there-
fore, that until reliable local databases can be developed, we
need to follow Terzaghi’s admonition to perform field tests to
measure side (and toe) resistance in deep foundations at every FIG. 22. Vertical Shear Stress Contours in Vicinity of IGM As-
opportunity, to catalog the results faithfully and to rely on perities along Interface in Fig. 21 Immediately Prior to Failure of
general correlations of the types given in this paper only when Socket (after Hassan and O’Neill 1997)
absolutely necessary—specifically, on minor projects in which
the use of low resistance factors or high factors of safety will vertical shear stresses ␶rz are very irregular along a vertical
impact project economics less than the cost of performing load line at the commencement of failure. A ‘‘gouging’’ action,
tests to failure. aided by minor geometric dilation, develops beneath the tips
of the IGM asperities, whereas at and above the IGM asperity
DRILLED SHAFTS IN SOFT, COHESIVE ROCK troughs (concrete asperity tips), very low shearing stresses de-
velop. Integrated along the tips of the concrete asperities over
Observations several cycles of the sinusoidal interface, the average value of
Observations of load tests on drilled shafts in rock (‘‘rock ␶rz ( fmax) is approximately equal to qu /3 at large displacements
sockets’’) indicate that the side resistance depends upon the for this particular example.
cohesive and frictional shear strength of the rock; the rough- Interface conditions were further considered by conducting
ness of the borehole; the presence or absence of highly de- the following analyses, summarized in Fig. 23: (1) no smeared
graded, smeared rock at the interface; and the effects of seams IGM between the concrete and parent IGM (similar to con-
and discontinuities in the rock (O’Neill and Hassan 1994; Wil- ditions for Fig. 22); and (2) soft, smeared (wet, soil-like) IGM
liams et al. 1980). in the 12.7 mm gap between the concrete and parent IGM
indicated in Fig. 21. The analysis conditions, including equiv-
Analytical Modeling alent qu of the unsmeared and smeared IGM, Young’s modulus
(Em) of the parent IGM, ␾rc, the angle of concrete-geomaterial
These phenomenon depend strongly on the details of con- friction, ␴n, the initial lateral effective stress on the interface
struction, and they can be modeled. Fig. 21 is a representation at the middepth of the socket, and other factors are shown in
of a typical, idealized interface—in soft, cohesive rock, or Fig. 23 along with four analytically generated unit side resis-
‘‘intermediate geomaterial’’ (earth material that is transitional tance ( f ) versus settlement curves for a socket 0.61 m in di-
from soil to hard rock, or ‘‘IGM’’)—in which a sinusoidal ameter and 6.1 m long.
roughness profile has been generated by the drilling tool. This The values of fmax for the unsmeared, rough sockets with
condition was analyzed with an axisymmetric finite-element the roughness profile of Fig. 21 are about in proportion to the
code, in which the concrete was treated as a linear, elastic values of qu for the parent geomaterial (‘‘stiff’’ and ‘‘soft’’).
material and the IGM was treated as a drained, Druker-Prager When the interface is smooth (no sinusoidal roughness pattern)
material with nonassociated flow (internal dilation angle = and the geomaterial is ‘‘stiff,’’ fmax is reduced to about one-
one-half of the angle of internal friction), and the interface third of the value for the rough interface in the stiff geoma-
was modeled as fully drained and completely frictional with terial. When the interface is rough, the geomaterial is stiff, and
slide-line elements (Hassan and O’Neill 1997). there is smeared geomaterial at the interface (as from reworked
The results of an analysis of the vertical shear stresses at cuttings mixed with free water), the load-movement behavior
the interface, without any smeared geomaterial between the is essentially equal to that for the smooth interface in the stiff
concrete and IGM and for an IGM with an unconfined com- geomaterial, despite the fact that the thickness of the smear
pression strength (qu) of 1.2 MPa, are shown in Fig. 22. The zone is only one-half that of the asperity height.

FIG. 23. Predicted Side Resistance-Movement Relations for Drilled Shaft Socket with Various Interface Conditions (O’Neill and Has-
san 1994)
Studies such as this demonstrate the critical nature of the fmax /pa = ⍀(qu /2pa)0.5 (11)
construction details and show how closely these details are tied
to design assumptions. Designs can be more efficient, for ex- where, for qu > 2.5 pa, ⍀ = 1 for sockets judged to be smooth,
ample, if grooving due to natural drilling operations or with 2 for sockets with average roughness, and 3 for sockets judged
the use of an artificial tool can be assured to produce an in- to be rough, including artificially roughened sockets. O’Neill
terface pattern similar to that shown in Fig. 21 and if control et al. (1996) review procedures for judging whether a socket
of construction operations ensure that smear does not accu- is rough. Caution should be used in applying these results to
mulate at the interface. very large diameter sockets, which were largely missing from
For drilled shafts in soft rock, particularly IGMs that are the database from which (11) was derived.
formed from weathering of sound rock, the effects of discon-
CLOSING REMARKS
tinuities on fmax must be considered because they affect the
percentage of the interface that is in contact with sound rock Computing pile resistances, even in the simple monotonic
and they limit the magnitude of the normal stresses produced axial loading case considered here, requires a keen knowledge
by interface dilation. O’Neill (1999) described a case history of the effects of fundamental geotechnical and construction
of very chaotic soft rock in which these issues were dealt with. phenomenon and of the past performance of piles in geologic
The use of sinusoidal roughness patterns of relatively long formations similar to that for which the pile is to be designed.
wave length (e.g., Fig. 21) tend to predict more settlement of While much is understood, much still remains to be learned,
the drilled shaft than actually occurs. Improvements in mod- particularly concerning the effects of construction on the be-
eling the effects of interface roughness for design purposes havior of individual piles. These effects include such factors
have been incorporated in a relatively new model as the installation method (impact driving, jacking, vibrodriv-
(‘‘ROCKET’’) in which asperity shapes have been assigned ing, rate of driving), lateral movements of piles during driving,
using fractal theory to match, in general, standard joint rough- and shear drag in layered soils in driven piles. They also in-
ness patterns observed in rock (Seidel 1998). This model include borehole roughness, water content of fluid concrete, time
dicates that interface dilation has a very strong effect on fmax, required for excavation (stress relief ), impact of the details of
which, in sound, unsmeared rock, decreases dramatically as drilling slurry, and the effect of drilling tools and practices on
the radius of the socket increases, partially because radial development of rock smear. Effects of construction procedures
strain in the rock due to dilation is inversely proportional to for pile groups, such as order and rapidity of pile installation
the socket diameter in an elastic system. For example, in a (which were not subjects of this paper) are equally important
sound, unsmeared rock with qu of 3 MPa, ROCKET indicates in the larger subject area of deep foundation systems. Inade-
a reduction in fmax from 0.72 to 0.30 MPa when the socket quately quantified effects of construction lead to the inevitable
diameter is increased from 350 to 2,000 mm (Baycan 1996). conclusion reached by Terzaghi that site-specific load testing
In most rock formations the effect of socket diameter will not must remain an integral part of the design process for driven
be this great, because of softening the rock asperities during piles and drilled shafts.
drilling. However, this phenomenon must be considered when From the perspective of engineering practice, however, in
deciding upon the scale at which to test a rock socket to arrive today’s bottom-line-driven environment, many owners view
at design parameters for a specific project. the need to acquire adequate and appropriate subsurface in-
formation, understand the relevance of load test databases to
Partial Design Guidelines the job at hand, load test piles at specific sites where war-
ranted, and apply available analytical methods as being too
When a local load test database does not exist from which complex, too expensive. Thus, we are told to use a simplified
to determine side resistance and when resources do not permit design method and get on with being ‘‘productive.’’
advance modeling, (11), developed from a database analysis Use of information such as is covered here, and the expe-
by Kulhawy and Phoon (1993), can be used with an appro- rience that is implied to use it correctly, requires time and
priate safety margin: effort by individuals who are dedicated to excellence in foun-

dation engineering—who consume higher engineering costs Esrig, M. E., and Kirby, R. C. (1979). ‘‘Advances in general effective
that at the end of the day will lead to greater economy and stress method for the prediction of axial capacity for driven piles in
clay.’’ Proc., 11th Offshore Technol. Conf., Paper OTC 3406, Houston.
greater safety in the constructed foundation. I am alarmed to Gibbs, C. E., McAuley, J., Mirza, U. A., and Cox, W. R. (1993). ‘‘Re-
see a growing complacency among owners regarding the tech- duction of field data and interpretation of results for axial load tests of
nical efforts and related investments that need to go into foun- two 762 mm diameter pipe piles in clay.’’ Proc., Conf. on Recent Large-
dation design—the belief that foundation design is somehow Scale Fully Instrumented Pile Tests in Clay, Thomas Telford, London,
a ‘‘solved problem,’’ a ‘‘done deal’’ that can be relegated to 285–345.
former C students or related practitioners who have little ap- Hassan, K. H., and O’Neill, M. W. (1997). ‘‘Side load transfer mecha-
nisms in drilled shafts in soft argillaceous rock.’’ J. Geotech. and
preciation for the complexities of the problem and the conse- Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 123(2), 145–152.
quences of wrong decisions. Foundation engineers must do a Heydinger, A. G. (1982). ‘‘Analysis of axial single pile-soil interaction
better job of selling the benefits of their services to clients and
in clay.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Houston,

return to the leadership role that once made them a valuable Houston.
resource for society. Heydinger, A. G., and O’Neill, M. W. (1986). ‘‘Analysis of axial pile-
soil interaction in clay.’’ Int. J. Numer. Methods in Geomech., 10(4),
367–381.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Jardine, R. J., and Chow, F. C. (1996). ‘‘New design methods for offshore
piles.’’ Rep. No. 96-103, Marine Technology Directorate Ltd., London.
I am indebted to my former students and professional colleagues, Ala Jardine, R. J., and Saldivar, E. (1999). ‘‘An alternative interpretation of
Ata, Dewaine Bogard, Jack Chan, Rathindra Dutt, John A. Focht, Jr., the West Delta 58A tension-pile research results.’’ Proc., Offshore Tech-
Christopher Haberfield, Khaled Hassan, Andrew Heydinger, Richard Jar- nol. Conf., OTC Paper No. 10827, Houston.
dine, Michael Kalinski, J. Don Murff, Lymon Reese, C. Vipulanandan, Kalinski, M. E., and Stokoe, K. H., II. (1998). ‘‘Stress wave measure-
Andrew Whittle and Daniel Wong, for discussing the issues covered here ments in open holes in soil.’’ Final Rep., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Uni-
with me, for providing me with information for this paper, and for their versity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
constructive comments and criticisms. I am also grateful to those orga- Karlsrud, K. (1999). ‘‘Lessons learned from instrumented axial pile load
nizations that have sponsored my formal research in deep foundations tests in clay.’’ Distributed as a separate OTRC Conference on the Anal-
and those that have given me the opportunity to learn about the true ysis, Design, Construction and Testing of Deep Foundations, Austin,
nature of foundation behavior on numerous interesting engineering as- Tex., April.
signments. Kirby, R. C., Esrig, M., and Murphy, B. S. (1983). ‘‘General effective
stress method for piles in clay.’’ Proc., Conf. on Geotech. Pract. in
Offshore Engrg., S. G. Wright, ed., ASCE, New York, 457–498.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES Kolk, H. J., and van der Velde. (1996). ‘‘A reliable method to determine
friction capacity of piles driven into clays.’’ Proc., Offshore Technol.
Ata, A., and O’Neill, M. W. (1997a). ‘‘Characterization of the effect of Conf., Vol. 1, Houston, 337–346.
Polybore polymer on the construction and performance of drilled shaft Kulhawy, F. H., and Phoon, K.-K. (1993). ‘‘Drilled shaft side resistance
foundations: Phase I, field tests.’’ Final Rep., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. in clay soil to rock.’’ Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 38, P. P. Nelson, T. D.
Engrg., University of Houston, Houston. Smith, and E. C. Clukey, eds., ASCE, New York, 172–183.
Ata, A., and O’Neill, M. W. (1997b). ‘‘Characterization of the effect of Lambson, M. D., Clare, D. G., and Semple, R. M. (1993). ‘‘Investigation
Polybore polymer on the construction and performance of drilled shaft and interpretation of Pentre and Tilbrook Grange soil conditions.’’
foundations: Phase II, laboratory investigation.’’ Final Rep., Dept. of Proc., Conf. on Recent Large-Scale Fully Instrumented Pile Tests in
Civ. and Envir. Engrg., University of Houston, Houston. Clay, Thomas Telford, London, 134–196.
Audibert, J. M. E., and Hamilton, T. K. (1998). ‘‘West Delta 58A site Leifer, S. A., Kirby, R. C., and Esrig, M. I. (1979). ‘‘Effects of radial
selection and characterization.’’ Proc., Offshore Technol. Conf., Vol. 1, variation of material properties on stress changes due to consolidation
Houston, 415–431. around a driven pile.’’ Proc., Conf. on Numer. Methods in Offshore
Aurora, R. P., Peterson, E. H., and O’Neill, M. W. (1980). ‘‘Model study Piling, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 129–135.
of load transfer in slender pile.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(8), Matlock, H., Lam, I., and Cheang, L. (1982). ‘‘Analytical interpretation
941–945. of pile installation and axial performance.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Azzouz, A. S., Baligh, M. M., and Whittle, A. J. (1990). ‘‘Shaft resistance Numer. Methods in Offshore Piling, University of Texas/ICE, 133–162.
of piles in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 205–221. McClelland, B. (1974). ‘‘Design of deep-penetration piles for ocean struc-
Baligh, M. M. (1985). ‘‘Strain path method.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, tures.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 100(7), 705–747.
111(9), 1108–1136. Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). ‘‘Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foun-
Baycan, S. (1996). ‘‘Field performance of expansive anchors and piles in dations.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 102(3), 195–228.
rock.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Monash University, Murff, J. D. (1980). ‘‘Pile capacity in a softening soil.’’ Int. J. Numer.
Clayton, Victoria, Australia. and Anal. Methods in Geomech., 4(2), 185–189.
Bogard, D., and Matlock, H. (1998a). ‘‘Static and cyclic load testing of Olson, R. E. (1984). ‘‘Analysis of pile response under axial loads.’’ Geo-
a 30-inch-diameter pile over a 2.5-year period.’’ Proc., Offshore Tech- tech. Engrg. Rep. GR 84-18, Geotechnical Engineering Ctr., University
nol. Conf., Vol. 1, Houston, 455–468. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Bogard, D., and Matlock, H. (1998b). ‘‘Lateral pressure measurements O’Neill, M. W. (1998). ‘‘Project 89 revisited.’’ Proc., Drilled Shaft
during 2.5 years of consolidation and setup.’’ Proc., Offshore Technol. Found. Symp.: Current Des. Prin. and Pract. (honoring Lymon C.
Conf., Vol. 1, Houston, 433–444. Reese), S. S. Litke, ed., ADSC, Dallas, 7–47.
Chen, Y.-J., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1994). ‘‘Case history evaluation of the O’Neill, M. W. (1999). ‘‘Foundation design in chaotic geomaterials: The
behavior of drilled shafts under axial and lateral loading.’’ Rep. No. H-3 project.’’ Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.
TR-104601, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ith- (Hamburg, 1997), Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2609–2612.
aca, N.Y. O’Neill, M. W., Hawkins, R. A., and Mahar, L. J. (1981). ‘‘Field study
Choi, Y.-K., and O’Neill, M. W. (1997). ‘‘Response of soil plug to hor- of pile group action.’’ Rep. No. FHWA RD-81/002, Materials Div., Fed-
izontal and vertical excitation.’’ Proc., 7th ISOPE Conf., Honolulu, eral Highway Administration Offices of Research and Development,
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Cupertino, Ca- Washington, D.C.
lif., 772–777. O’Neill, M. W., Townsend, F. C., Hassan, K. M., Buller, A., and Chan,
Chow, F. C., Jardine, R. J., Brucy, F., and Nauroy, J. F. (1996). ‘‘The P. S. (1996). ‘‘Drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials.’’ Rep. No.
effects of time on the capacity of pipe piles in dense marine sand.’’ FHWA RD-95/172, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
Proc., Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 1, Houston, 147–160. D.C.
Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C. (1966). ‘‘Load transfer for axially loaded O’Neill, M. W., and Raines, R. D. (1991). ‘‘Load transfer for pipe piles
piles in clay.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 92(2), 1–26. in highly pressurized dense sand.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(8),
Dennis, N. D., Jr., and Olson, R. E. (1983). ‘‘Axial capacity of steel pipe 1208–1226.
piles in clay.’’ Proc., Conf. on Geotech. Pract. in Offshore Engrg., S. O’Neill, M. W., Vipulanandan, C., and Wong, D. (1990). ‘‘Laboratory
G. Wright, ed., ASCE, New York, 370–388. modeling of vibro-driven piles.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 116(8),
de Nicola, A. (1996). ‘‘The performance of pipe piles in sand.’’ Disser- 1190–1209.
tation presented for degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Dept. of Civ. O’Neill, M. W., and Hassan, K. M. (1994). ‘‘Drilled shafts: Effects of
Engrg., University of Western Australia, Nedland, Western Australia.

construction on performance and design criteria.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on f = mobilized unit side shearing resistance;
Des. and Constr. of Deep Found., Vol. 1, 137–187. fa = average unit side shear transferred above specified
Randolph, M. F., Carter, J., and Wroth, C. P. (1979). ‘‘Driven piles in depth;
clay—the effects of installation and subsequent consolidation.’’ Géo- fmax = maximum unit side shearing resistance;
technique, London, 29(4), 361–393.
Randolph, M. F., and Murphy, B. S. (1985). ‘‘Shaft capacity of driven
fult = unit side shearing resistance at ultimate resistance of
piles in clay.’’ Proc., Offshore Technol. Conf., Vol. 1, Houston, 371– pile;
378. Gsoil avg = average shear modulus of granular soil;
Reese, L. C. (1978). ‘‘Design and construction of drilled shafts.’’ J. Geo- Ip = plasticity index;
tech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 104(1), 91–116. Kc = coefficient of earth pressure ␴⬘/␴⬘h v after consolidation
Reese, L. C., and O’Neill, M. W. (1988). ‘‘Field load tests of drilled of soil;
shafts.’’ Deep foundations on bored and auger piles, W. F. Van Impe, Ki = coefficient of earth pressure ␴⬘/␴⬘h v immediately after
ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 145–191. pile installation;

Seed, H. B., and Reese, L. C. (1955). ‘‘The action of soft clay along Ko = coefficient of earth pressure ␴⬘ho /␴⬘v o at rest;
friction piles.’’ Proc., ASCE, Vol. 81, Paper No. 842, December.
L = pile length (penetration below soil surface);
Seidel, J. P. (1998). Program ROCKET, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Monash
University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. OCR = overconsolidation ratio = ␴⬘v max /␴⬘v o;
Semple, R. M., and Rigden, W. J. (1984). ‘‘Shaft capacity of driven piles pa = atmospheric pressure, e.g., 101 kPa;
in clay.’’ Analysis and design of pile foundations, J. Ray Meyer, ed., p⬘cs = sum of major principal effective stresses at critical state;
ASCE, New York, 59–78. p⬘o = sum of major principal effective stresses for ambient
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York. conditions;
Vesic, A. S. (1972). ‘‘Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass.’’ J. Soil QT = load carried by pile at impending failure;
Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 98(3), 265–290. qu = unconfined compression strength of rock cores;
Vesic, A. S. (1977). ‘‘Research on pile foundations.’’ Address given to r = radial distance;
the FHWA Project 4H Workshop, Federal Highway Administration, At- Rb = toe (tip) resistance;
lanta, October.
Ro = pile radius;
Vipulanandan, C., Wong, D., Ochoa, M., and O’Neill, M. W. (1990).
‘‘Behavior of vibro-driven piles in sand.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, Rp = side shearing resistance;
116(8), 1211–1230. Rs = side shearing resistance;
Wathugala, G. W., and Desai, C. S. (1989). ‘‘An analysis of piles in su = undrained shear strength;
marine clay under cyclic loading.’’ Proc., 21st Offshore Technol. Conf., uexcess = excess pore water pressure;
Vol. 2, Houston, 359–366. w = axial displacement of pile;
Whittle, A. J., (1987). ‘‘A constitutive model for overconsolidated clays z = depth;
with application to the cyclic loading at friction piles.’’ ScD thesis, ⌬u = change in pore water pressure;
Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- ⌬␴r = change in total radial normal stress;
bridge, Mass. ⌬␴v = change in total vertical stress;
Whittle, A. J. (1991). ‘‘Interpretation of pile load tests at the Haga site.’’
⌬␴␪ = change in total tangential normal stress;
Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic Engrg., American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 267–274. ⍀ = roughness factor for side resistance in rock;
Whittle, A. J. (1999). ‘‘Advances in modeling installation disturbance.’’ ␣ = undrained shear strength reduction factor;
Distributed as a separate OTRC Conference on the Analysis, Design, ␤ = effective stress side resistance factor = fmax /␴⬘v o;
Construction and Testing of Deep Foundations, Austin, Tex., April. ␦ = angle of wall friction between pile and granular soil;
Williams, A. F., Johnston, I. W., and Donald, I. B. (1980). ‘‘The design εr = normal strain in radial direction;
of socketed piles in weak rock.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on εrz = shear strain in plane containing r and z axes;
Rock, Vol. 1, Sydney, Balkema, 327–347. ε␪ = normal strain in tangential direction;
␾⬘ = effective stress angle of internal friction;
APPENDIX II. NOTATION ␾⬘r = residual angle of internal friction of soil;
␾rc = effective angle of friction between concrete and soft
The following symbols are used in this paper: rock;
␩ = factor defined by (7);
␯⬘ = Poisson’s station of soil framework;
Af =
Skempton’s A coefficient at failure; ␯pile = Poisson’s ratio of pile material;
B =
pile diameter; ␴⬘h = normal (radial) effective stress at surface of pile;
DR =
relative density of granular soil; ␴⬘ho = ambient horizontal effective stress in soil;
Ei =
initial Young’s modulus; ␴n = initial normal radial stress at interface between concrete
Em =
Young’s modulus of rock mass; and IGM socket;
Epile =
Young’s modulus of pile material; ␴⬘r = radial effective stress;
E⬘r =
Young’s modulus of soil in radial direction in drained ␴⬘rc = radial effective stress at end of consolidation;
loading; ␴⬘v max = maximum past vertical effective stress;
Eu = Young’s modulus of soil in undrained loading; ␴⬘v = vertical effective stress soil;
E⬘␪ = Young’s modulus of soil in tangential direction in ␴⬘v o = ambient vertical effective stress in soil; and
drained loading; ␶rz = shear stress in plane containing r and z axes.

(Asce) 1090-0241 (2001) 127 1

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

(Asce) 1090-0241 (2001) 127 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo on 01/16/23. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

THE THIRTY-FOURTH TERZAGHI LECTURE

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 1

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

2 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

(The Thirty-Fourth Karl Terzaghi Lecture)

INTRODUCTION • Side resistance of driven piles in saturated clay under

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 3

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

fmax = ␣su (1)

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

al. 1993; Lambson et al. 1993). A steel pipe pile 0.76 m in

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 5

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

multiplying by the appropriate friction coefficient, which, as

6 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

FIG. 10. Stress Distribution around Houston Test Piles (Fig. 3)

TABLE 1. Predictions of fmax Using VECONS/AXIPLN in Vari-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 7

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

FIG. 13. Relations of [f (Mobilized Unit Resistance)/su] to [w

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

DRIVEN PILES IN UNCEMENTED SILICEOUS SAND

10 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

DRILLED SHAFTS IN COHESIVE SOIL

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 11

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

in soft soils are included in their database. The correlation of

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

of the database using each ␤ method leads to the average sta-

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

in clay.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Houston,

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 15

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 145–191. pile installation;

16 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(1): 3-16

You might also like