Modified Shear Displacement Method for Analysis of Piles in

Unsaturated Expansive Soils Considering Influence of

Environmental Factors
Yunlong Liu, Ph.D.1; and Sai K. Vanapalli, P.Eng., M.ASCE2

Abstract: Pile foundations are widely used in regions with expansive soils to transfer the loads from superstructures to a rigid soil stratum,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

thereby alleviating stability and deformation problems. However, current design procedures for pile foundations are typically based on sat-
urated soil mechanics principles assuming drained conditions, despite the fact expansive soils surrounding the piles are typically in an un-
saturated state. Volume changes of expansive soil induced by matric suction changes upon seasonal wetting and drying can significantly
influence the pile load-transfer mechanisms. In this paper, using unsaturated soil mechanics as a tool, theoretical models are introduced
for estimations of pile shaft friction and pile base resistance considering both the influences of matric suction changes and matric suction
variation-induced volume changes of expansive soil around the pile. The commonly used shear displacement method for interpreting the
pile mechanical behaviors is modified by including these models to extend their application to piles in unsaturated expansive soils. The pro-
posed modified shear displacement method (MSDM) is interpreted and successfully validated using a pile infiltration test conducted in the
laboratory along with another case study from published literature. The results of investigation studies using the proposed MSDM suggest that it
can be a valuable tool for practicing engineers to make reasonable predictions of mechanical behaviors of piles in unsaturated expansive soils.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002320. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Single pile; Expansive soils; Matric suction; Lateral swelling pressure; Shear displacement method.

Introduction
Piles of significant length, strength, and stiffness that penetrate
beyond a depth where there is no seasonal moisture content
change with their end placed on rigid bedrock or in a stable
soil stratum to perform reasonably well. Geotechnical engineers’
typical experience with pile foundations in expansive soil depos-
its of various regions of the world has been reasonably satisfac-
tory in comparison with other types of foundations to alleviate
stability and settlement problems and ensure safety of both the
sub and superstructures (Chen 1988; Rojas et al. 2006; Dafalla
et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2015). For instance, cast in situ piles
or drilled piles have been widely used to alleviate expansive
soils problems in the Rocky Mountain area of the United States
and in other regions of the world (e.g., Chen 1988; Al-Rawas
and Goosen 2006; Nelson et al. 2015). Piles placed in expansive
soils are typically designed assuming drained conditions (i.e., ef-
fective stress approach) extending saturated soil mechanics prin-
ciples. However, soil surrounding the pile is typically in an
unsaturated condition state. The mechanical behaviors of piles
are significantly influenced by matric suction changes within
1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Zhengzhou Univ., Zhengzhou 450001,
Henan, China. Email: liuyunlongzzu@hotmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa K1N
6N5, ON, Canada (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-3273-6149. Email: vanapall@eng.uottawa.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 17, 2020; approved
on November 19, 2021; published online on April 6, 2022. Discussion pe-
riod open until September 6, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
the expansive soil around the pile associated with environmental
factors.
Fig. 1 illustrates the influences of matric suction variations on
pile load-transfer mechanisms considering volume changes associ-
ated with drying and wetting conditions in expansive soils. More
specifically, as shown in Figs. 1(a)–(c), matric suction increases
or decreases in expansive soil within the active zone during the dry-
ing and wetting periods, respectively from hydrostatic state.
Fig. 1(e) highlights that after the pile is installed or constructed, a
linear lateral earth pressure (LEP) profile develops due to the influ-
ence of soil self-weight, which typically corresponds to at-rest con-
dition. Volume shrinkage of expansive soil in the horizontal
direction causes a reduction in LEP acting on the pile due to
water content changes associated with evaporation during dry sea-
sons or drought periods. Cracks develop when the tensile stress de-
velops due to the volume shrinkage of expansive soil. The LEP
typically has a bilinear distribution when cracks develop along
the pile–soil interface, as shown in Fig. 1(d). Conversely, upon
wetting due to storms, flood, or snow melting, lateral swelling pres-
sure (LSP) develops and acts as additional pressure to the conven-
tional LEP, which is dependent on the soil unit weight, as shown in
Fig. 1(f). However, the LEP should not exceed passive earth pres-
sure (PEP) to avoid the shear strength failure of soil. Expansive soil
deformation in the vertical direction (i.e., ground displacement)
contributes to variations in pile shaft friction due to pile–soil rela-
tive displacement. The pile moves downward relative to the sur-
rounding soil and exhibits a uniform distribution at hydrostatic
state, as shown in Fig. 1(h), if there is no compression or tension
deformation in pile in comparison with the pile displacement.
The expansive soil within the active zone undergoes volume
shrinkage during the drying process and contributes to ground set-
tlement in the vertical direction, as shown in Fig. 1(g). Conse-
quently, the pile–soil relative displacement gradually reduces

© ASCE 04022069-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 (a) (b) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

( j) (k) (l)

Fig. 1. Load-transfer mechanism variations of piles in expansive soils associated with drying and wetting conditions (LEP = lateral earth pressure;
PEP = passive earth pressure; LSP = lateral swelling pressure; PSRD = pile-soil relative displacement; and SD = soil displacement).

from the depth of the active zone to the ground surface. The pile–
soil relative displacement may reduce to zero or change its direction
of displacement if there is significant soil shrinkage deformation.
However, expansive soil ground heave occurs due to volume ex-
pansion in the vertical direction during the wetting process. For
such a scenario, there will be a cumulative pile–soil relative dis-
placement from the depth of the active zone to the ground surface,
as shown in Fig. 1(i).
Fig. 1(k) shows the load transfer mechanism of a single pile
placed in expansive soil for hydrostatic condition. Prior to the
water infiltration or evaporation, positive friction develops along
the entire length of the pile to carry the pile head load, together
with the base resistance. Upon evaporation, volume shrinkage of
expansive soil arises in the active zone associated with an increase
in matric suction and results in a ground settlement as well as a
reduction in LEP, as discussed earlier. Ground settlement may
change the pile–soil relative displacement that contributes to an
upward movement of pile relative to the surrounding soil. Due
to this, the pile shaft friction in the active zone changes its direc-
tion and acts as an additional load on the pile. Therefore, the pile
undergoes a further settlement [Fig. 1(j)]. However, matric suction
reduction associated with water infiltration triggers both ground
heave and mobilization of the LSP. Ground heave in the active
zone can increase the pile–soil relative displacement while the
mobilized LSP acts as an additional LEP component. Under the
influence of matric suction reduction, LEP increment and pile–
soil relative displacement increment, the positive friction in the ac-
tive zone may either increase or decrease (Liu and Vanapalli

© ASCE 04022069-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 2017). More specifically, if the contribution of increasing LEP to
the pile shaft friction overweighs the reduction of pile shaft fric-
tion due to matric suction reduction, the positive shaft friction
tends to increase, and vice versa. Based on the summarized dis-
cussions, two common scenarios that are typically encountered
in practice are considered regarding the load-transfer mechanism
variations [Fig. 1(l)]. There is a possibility of the pile to be up-
lifted, for a scenario in which pile shaft friction increases in the
active zone. The increasing positive friction is commonly referred
to as “uplift friction.” Once the pile is subjected to uplift, negative
friction generates in the stable zone, and the pile base resistance
reduces or even vanishes because of the possible detachment be-
tween the pile base and soil. On the contrary, the shaft friction re-
duction that contributes to pile settlement should be also
considered as another possible scenario.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The discussions summarized with the aid of Fig. 1 considers two
different scenarios (drying and wetting), highlighting three key fac-
tors that have significant influences on the load transfer mechanism
of piles in unsaturated expansive soils, namely matric suction, ma-
tric suction variation-induced LEP, and ground displacement
changes. Considering these factors, in this study, a series of theo-
retical equations are developed for evaluating both the pile shaft
friction and pile base resistance mobilization based on the princi-
ples of unsaturated soil mechanics. These equations are then intro-
duced into the traditional shear displacement method to extend its
application to analyze and interpret the behavior of piles in unsat-
urated expansive soils. The methodology developed is collectively
referred to as the modified shear displacement method (MSDM) in
this paper. A comprehensive experiment was conducted in the lab-
oratory to study the mechanical behavior changes of a model pile in
an expansive clay from Regina, Canada, upon wetting. Experimen-
tal results were employed to interpret and validate the MSDM to-
gether with a field case study from the published literature. The
results of the study present in this study suggest the proposed
MSDM is a promising tool for use in routine engineering practice
for the design of pile foundations in expansive soils.
Background
Traditional pile tests in conventional soils mainly focus on gather-
ing the load-versus-deformation behavior; however, mechanical
behavior variations associated with matric suction variations are re-
quired from pile tests in expansive soils. Currently, pile tests in ex-
pansive soils are typically performed either under zero pile head
load, service pile head load, or displacement fixed pile head condi-
tions (Benvenga 2005; Al-Rawas and Goosen 2006; Fan 2007;
Albusoda and Abbase 2017; Sharma and Sharma 2019; Fattah
et al. 2020; Abbas 2020; Jiang et al. 2020). The zero-pile head
load and fixed pile head test are valuable for monitoring the pile up-
lift displacement and uplift force during the infiltration process, re-
spectively. Various pile infiltration tests have been conducted under
the service load to simulate the real scenarios that are typically en-
countered in engineering practice; only a few of them provide de-
tailed description with respect to the pile load transfer mechanism
changes, including pile axial force distributions, pile shaft friction
distributions, and pile base resistance (e.g., Fan 2007; Jiang et al.
2020). Researchers are aware that matric suction affects the me-
chanical behavior of piles in unsaturated expansive soils; however,
due to the limitations associated with gathering reliable information
of matric suction over a long period of time, in most tests only
water content variations of the soil around the pile were measured.
Both theoretical and numerical methods have been proposed for
load transfer analyses of piles in unsaturated expansive soils by
© ASCE 04022069-3
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069
analyzing experimental results. The widely used theoretical meth-
ods for pile load transfer analysis include the shear displacement
methods (Cooke 1975) and the load transfer methods (Coyle and
Reese 1966). Fan et al. (2007) and Xiao et al. (2011) were the
first researchers to propose a modified shear displacement method
for piles in unsaturated expansive soils taking account of the influ-
ence of volume changes of expansive soils. This approach considers
the pile shaft friction and pile base resistance mobilized due to the
pile head load and the volume changes of expansive soils separately
and then use the superposition method. Later, considering the
changes associated with soil shear modulus with depth, Jiang
et al. (2020) extended the shear displacement method, interpreting
the behavior of piles in unsaturated expansive soils. However, due
to limitations in testing techniques, these approaches failed to link
the pile shaft friction variations associated with matric suction
changes. The key parameter (i.e., shear modulus of soil G) required
for the pile shaft friction calculations was obtained from regression
analysis based on experimental results, which may be not applicable
to other cases. During the last decade, several researchers focused
on understanding the unsaturated soil-interface shear strength
(Hamid and Miller 2009; Khoury et al. 2010; Hossain and Yin
2013; Shen et al. 2017; Cheng et al. 2018, 2019a, b). Based on
these models, Liu and Vanapalli (2019a) modified the traditional
load transfer method to extend its application to piles in unsaturated
expansive soils, considering both the contribution of expansive soil
volume expansion and matric suction to pile shaft friction. How-
ever, the proposed method is only suitable for pile load transfer anal-
ysis under wetting conditions instead of both wetting and drying
conditions.
There are several numerical methods proposed for analysis of piles
in expansive soils (e.g., Alonso et al. 1999; Al-Rawas and Goosen
2006; Hong 2008; Sharma 2019). However, several input model pa-
rameters must be obtained from complex experimental studies to
achieve precise simulations. In addition, required for computations
take time, especially for unsaturated soils. Therefore, theoretical meth-
ods are preferred in conventional engineering practice applications in
comparison with presently available complex numerical methods.
MSDM
Fig. 2 shows the procedural steps used in computation of both tra-
ditional shear displacement method and MSDM. The traditional
shear displacement method assumes a linear development of pile
base resistance with pile base settlement and pile shaft friction
with pile–soil relative displacement, as illustrated in Figs. 2(a and
c), respectively. A two-phase model is employed for calculation
of pile base resistance considering the possible detachment of
pile base and soil due to pile uplift in the wetting process in unsat-
urated expansive soils [Fig. 2(b)]. Several other investigators also
have employed two-phase softening models to better describe the
behavior of pile shaft friction development associated with pile–
soil relative displacement [Fig. 2(d)] (Fan 2007; Hamid and Miller
2009; Khoury et al. 2010; Hossain and Yin 2013; Borana et al.
2015). More information related to the MSDM are presented in
the sections that follow.
Mobilization of Pile Shaft Friction
Several investigators in recent years investigated the shear behavior
of unsaturated soil–structure interface and provided valuable infor-
mation about the influence of soil-softening behavior (Fan 2007;
Hamid and Miller 2009; Khoury et al. 2010; Hossain and Yin
Int. J. Geomech.
 (e) (f)

(c) (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Computation process of the traditional shear displacement method and modified shear displacement method (MSDM).

τ pp(w) = c′ar + σ L(wet) tan δ′r (2)

(1 − υ − 2υ2 )PS(ψmi−0)
σ L(wet) =
PS(ψmi−0)
1 − υ2 − (1 + υ)(1 − υ − 2υ2 )
E(ψmi−0)

(1 − υ − 2υ2 )PS(ψmw−0) υ
− + σ vs
P S(ψmw−0) 1−υ
1 − υ2 − (1 + υ)(1 − υ − 2υ2 )
E(ψmw−0)
(3)
Fig. 3. Two-phase softening model relating pile shaft friction to pile
displacement. where c′a = effective pile–soil interface cohesion; δ′ = effective
pile–soil interface friction angle; δb = pile–soil interface friction
angle with respect to matric suction; c′ar = residual effective
2013; Borana et al. 2015). Fan (2007) proposed a softening rela-
cohesion; d ′r r = residual interface friction angle; σL(wet) = LEP con-
tionship between interface shear stress and displacement based
sidering LSP in the wetting process; PS(ψmi−0) = vertical swelling
on interface direct shear tests between unsaturated expansive
pressure (VSP) under constant volume condition generated from
soils and concrete. More specifically, at the beginning of the shear-
matric suction corresponding to initial condition ψmi to 0; PS(ψmw
ing, shear stress (τs) increases linearly with shear displacement (w),
−0) = VSP under constant volume condition generated from matric
while after reaching the peak value (τpk), it experiences a sudden
suction corresponding to wetting condition ψmw to 0 (ψmi > ψmw);
decrease and finally stabilizes at a post-peak value (τpp). The phi-
E(ψmi−0) = elastic modulus corresponding to a matric suction vari-
losophy suggested by Fan (2007) is extended in this paper with
ation from ψmi to 0; E(ψmw−0) = elastic modulus corresponding to
modifications. As shown in Fig. 3, the relationship between the
a matric suction variation from ψmw to 0; υ = Poisson’s ratio;
shear stress and shear displacement is divided into two phases
and σvs = vertical stress due to soil self-weight and/or surcharge.
using three key parameters, namely the peak interface shear
Experimental studies of several investigators suggest that pre-
strength, (τpk), the post-peak interface shear strength, (τpp), and
dominant swelling or shrinkage occurs during the first wetting
the critical shear displacement corresponding to the peak interface
and drying cycle (e.g., Al-Homoud et al. 1995; Basma et al.
shear strength, (wcr).
1996). Beyond the fourth cycle, the drying process can be assumed
Liu and Vanapalli (2019b) proposed a series of theoretical mod-
to be following the reverse path of the wetting process (Rosenbalm
els for the estimations of both peak (τpk) and post-peak shaft friction
and Zapata 2017). Like the wetting process, there will be a reduc-
(τpp) of piles in unsaturated expansive soils during the wetting pro-
tion in LEP if the superposition method is employed due to the
cess, as given in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. These models con-
shrinkage of the soil in the drying process. Such a behavior can
sider the influence of matric suction reduction and LSP
be attributed to matric suction increment (ψmi to ψmd), which can
mobilization [Eq. (3)] on the pile shaft friction mobilization:
be estimated as the difference between the LSP generated from ma-
tric suction reductions from ψmd to 0 and from ψmi to 0. The LEP,

υ  peak and post-peak pile shaft friction during the drying process can
τ pk(w) = c′a + σ L(wet) + σ vs tan δ′ + ψ mw tan δb (1)
1−υ be represented using Eqs. (4)–(6), respectively:

© ASCE 04022069-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Development of Rankine’s active earth pressure in unsaturated soils against frictionless and rough surfaces.

(1 − υ − 2υ2 )PS(ψmi−0) 1 − sin ϕ′ cos 2αa

σ L(dry) = σ ha3 = σ vs − [c′ + (uaf − uwf ) tan ϕb ]
PS(ψmi−0) 1 + sin ϕ′ cos 2αa
1 − υ2 − (1 + υ)(1 − υ − 2υ2 )
E(ψmi−0) 2 cos ϕ′ cos 2αa
× (9)
(1 − υ − 2υ2 )PS(ψmd−0) υ 1 + sin ϕ′ cos 2αa
− + σ vs
P S(ψmd−0) 1−υ
1 − υ2 − (1 + υ)(1 − υ − 2υ2 )
E(ψmd−0) σ vs (1 − sin ϕ′ ) 2[c′ + (uaf − uwf ) tan ϕb ] cos ϕ′
σ ha4 = − (10)
(4) 1 + sin ϕ′ 1 + sin ϕ′

where ψmd = matric suction corresponding to drying condition, 1 C 1 B

τ pk(d) = c′a + [σ L(dry) ] tan δ′ + ψ md tan δb
τ pp(d) = c′ar + [σ L(dry) ] tan δ′r
However, as shown in Fig. 1, cracks develop once the tensile
stress that develops due to the volume shrinkage of expansive
soil. The development of Rankine’s active earth pressure (AEP)
at different degrees of saturation against frictionless and rough sur-
face is shown in Fig. 4. Extending the approach detailed in Liu and
Vanapalli (2017), the AEP for saturated soil against rough retaining
surface (σha1), saturated soils against frictionless surface (σha2), un-
saturated soil against rough retaining surface (σha3), and unsatu-
rated soils against frictionless surface (σha4) can be estimated
using Eqs. (7)–(10), respectively:
1 − sin ϕ′ cos 2αa 2 cos ϕ′ cos 2αa
σ ha1 = σ vs ′ − c′ + p0
1 + sin ϕ cos 2αa 1 + sin ϕ′ cos 2αa
σ vs (1 − sin ϕ′ ) 2c′ cos ϕ′
σ ha2 = − (8)
1 + sin ϕ′ 1 + sin ϕ′
αa = arcsin √ + arctan
2 A2 + B2 2 A
(5) ⎧
⎪
⎪ A = σ s sin ϕ′ + [c′ + (uaf − uwf ) tan ϕb ] cos ϕ′
⎪
⎨
B = [c′ a + (uaf − uwf ) tan δb ] sin ϕ′ − σ s sin ϕ′ tan δ′
(6) ⎪
⎪ −2[c′ + (uaf − uwf ) tan ϕb ] cos ϕ′ tan δ′
⎪
⎩
C = σ s tan δ′ + [c′ a + (uaf − uwf ) tan δb ]
where c′ = effective cohesion of soil; ϕ′ = effective internal friction
angle of soil; ϕb = internal friction angle of soil with respect to ma-
tric suction; p0 = pore water pressure and (uaf – uwf) = matric suc-
tion on the failure plane at failure.
Shrinkage deformation that arises after reaching a fully mobi-
lized AEP condition can lead to detachment between the backfill
expansive soil and retaining structure. The freestanding height of
the soil is usually referred to as the “depth of tension crack” (Das
2015). The expansive soil-retaining structure interface tensile
strength may vary from zero to the tensile strength of the expansive
soil. In this paper, models for the estimation of tensile strength of
(7) unsaturated soil [Eq. (11)] proposed by Morris et al. (1992) were
used since it is derived based on principles of unsaturated soil me-
chanics considering the matric suction as an independent stress-
state variable. The depth of the tension cracks can be estimated
by combining Eq. (11) to various AEP estimation models [i.e.,
Eqs. (7)–(10)]. For example, for unsaturated expansive soil against

© ASCE 04022069-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 a frictionless surface, the minimum crack depth [Eq. (12)] can be elastic state; however, in engineering practice the mobilization of
estimated by equaling Eqs. (11) to (7), while the maximum crack pile base resistance is much more complex (Kuwajima et al.
depth [Eq. (13)] can be estimated assuming the interface tensile 2009; Zhang et al. 2013; Malik et al. 2017). Influencing factors,
strength is negligible. In the calculation of LEP, self-weight of such as the failure mechanism and deformation properties of sup-
the soil within the depth of crack should be treated as surcharge: porting soils as well as the piling technology (e.g., the mud sur-
rounding the pile base is not cleaned up after installation of in
σ ts = αT [c′ + (ua − uw ) tan ϕb ] cot ϕ′ (11) situ cast piles), combined determine the pile base resistance mobi-
′ lization. Therefore, necessary modifications should be introduced
where c = effective cohesion; and αT = modified coefficient for
tensile stress in unsaturated soils, within the range of 0.5–0.7: to Eq. (15) considering the influence of these factors to provide rea-
sonable pile base resistance estimations:
[αT cot ϕ′ (1 + sin φ′ ) + 2 cos ϕ′ ][c′ + (ua − uw ) tan ϕb ]
zc( min ) = 4Gsb r0
(1 − sin φ′ )γ Pzb = wb (14)
1 − υb
(12)
⎧
⎨0 wb < 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

′ ′
2[c + (ua − uw ) tan ϕ ] cos ϕ
b
Pzb = 4Gsb r0 (15)
zc( max ) = (13) ⎩ wb wb ≥ 0
(1 − sin ϕ′ )γ 1 − υb
where γ = unit weight of soil.
The critical shear displacement (wcr) corresponding to the peak
interface shear strength is influenced by various factors, including
soil type, structure, stratigraphy, and loading procedure. Several in- Pile Load-Transfer Mechanism Analysis
vestigators suggested that wcr is to be determined experimentally or
from back-analysis of field tests because of the complexities asso- The basic assumptions used in the traditional shear displacement
ciated in understanding the independent contribution of each of method are extended in the MSDM, which are: (i) An expansive
these factors (Krasiń ski 2012; Zhang and Zhang 2012). A brief soil layer that has approximately the same water content is assumed
summary of various values of wcr suitable for different scenarios homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic; (ii) The cross section is
is available in Liu and Vanapalli (2019b). constant along the pile length, without considering the nonlinear
compressive behavior, and the pile material can withstand both
the compressive and tensile stresses.
Mobilization of Pile Base Resistance In the traditional shear deformation method Cooke (1975) pro-
posed, the soil around the pile was considered as a series of concen-
As discussed earlier, the pile base can be detached from the soil tric cylinders (Fig. 5). The vertical settlement of soil around the pile
once the pile is uplifted in the wetting process, as shown in at a certain depth z can be given as
∞
Fig. 1. Therefore, Eq. (14) proposed by Randolph and Wroth τ 0 r0 ∂r τ0 r0 rm
(1978) for pile base resistance estimation is revised to Eq. (15), w(z, r) = = ln (16)
Gs r0 r Gs r
considering the possible appearance of negative pile base settle-
ment (wb). However, it should be noted that Eq. (15) is only suit- where w = vertical settlement of soil around the pile; Gs = shear
able for idealized scenarios that assume the supporting soil is in modulus of soil around the pile; r0 = radius of the pile; r =

Fig. 5. Analytical model for pile and soil around the pile.

© ASCE 04022069-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 horizontal distance between the calculated point and the pile axis; where Δh = heave of soil; h = thickness of the calculated soil layer;
and rm = maximum influencing radius of the pile on the soil. Gen- Ea = average elastic modulus over the matric suction variation
erally, rm can be estimated using (Xiao et al. 2011) range; and Δ(ua–uw) = variation in matric suction:
rm = 2.5L(1 − υs ) (17) Δh = Hz + a (23)
where L = length of the pile; and υs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil The pile displacement considering the influences of ground dis-
around the pile. placement induced by expansive soil volume changes can be ex-
The relationship between axial force and the shaft friction pressed as Eq. (24):
around the pile is given as
w pz + (Hz + a) = Aerz + Be−rz (24)
∂Pz
= 2πr0 τ0 (18) Then the pile axial force can be calculated using Eq. (25) by
∂z combining Eq. (24) with Eq. (19).
The relationship between the axial force of the pile and the pile
∂w pz
displacement is given as Pz = −Ap Ep = Ap Ep [−Arerz + Bre−rz + H] (25)
∂z
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

∂w pz Pz
= (19) Eq. (26) can be obtained by expressing Eqs. (24) and (25) in a
∂z Ep Ap matrix form, which can be further simplified as Eq. (27).
      
Eq. (20) can be acquired by combining Eqs. (16), (18), and(19): w pz erz e−rz A −Hz − a
= + (26)
Pz −Ap Ep rerz Ap Ep re−rz B Ap Ep H
∂2 w pz k
− w pz = 0 (20)
∂z2 Ap Ep      
w pz A −Hz − a
= [T (z)] + (27)
The pile displacement can be estimated from Eq. (21), which is ob- Pz B Ap Ep H
tained by solving Eq. (20):
The soil properties can experience significant variations at dif-
w pz = Ae + Be
r1 z r2 z ferent depth levels. In this paper, both the pile and soil are divided
   into several segments, as shown in Fig. 5. For a typical pile segment
k k rm that is numbered as segment n in Fig. 5, the pile axial force and dis-
r1 = ; r2 = − ; k = 2πGs / ln (21)
Ap Ep Ap Ep r0 placement equation at the top and bottom of the segment are given
as Eqs. (28) and (29), respectively:
However, Eq. (21) is only suitable for certain scenarios for satu-      
rated soils. For unsaturated expansive soils, possible ground dis- w pzn A −Hn zn − an
= [T (z)(n)bot ] + (28)
placement in the active zone should also be considered. The heave Pzn B (n)bot Ap Ep Hn
prediction equation presented by Adem and Vanapalli (2016) [Eq.
     
(22)] for the elastic range is employed in this paper for estimating w pz(n−1) A −Hn z(n−1) − an
the ground heave. Since the soil is assumed elastic, this equation = [T (z)(n−1)top ] + (29)
Pz(n−1) B (n−1)top Ap Ep Hn
can be also used to estimate the ground settlement during the drying
process. The matric suction variations can be different for soil layers For the same pile segment n, Eq. (30) is valid; thus, Eq. (31) can
at different levels of depth. Thus, the vertical displacement calcu- be deduced:
lated using Eq. (22) for different soil layers would be different. In    
this paper, within a certain soil layer, the development of the vertical A A
= (30)
displacement is assumed to have a linear distribution [Eq. (23)], as B (n)bot B (n−1)top
shown in Fig. 6. The soil displacement in vertical direction is cumu-
lative from bottom to the top soil layer in the active zone:  

−1  w pz(n−1) 
w pzn
  = T (z)(n)bot T (z)(n−1)top
(1 + υ)(1 − 2υ) Pzn Pz(n−1)
Δh = h Δ(ua − uw ) (22)

−1  Hn z(n−1) + an 
Ea (1 − υ)
+ T (z)(n)bot T (z)(n−1)top
−Ap Ep Hn
 
Hn zn + an
− (31)
−Ap Ep Hn
The pile axial force and displacement at the top of segment n can
be calculated based on the pile base axial force and displacement
using Eq. (31). In addition, with Eqs. (22)–(24), the influence of
ground displacement induced by matric suction variations has
been considered. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the unsaturated
soil shear modulus, Gs, is sensitive to matric suction variations.
Note that in Eq. (21), a constant shear modulus has been used.
To consider the influence of matric suction on the pile–soil inter-
face shear behavior, a two-phase relationship between the shear
stress and shear displacement is used instead. As shown in Eq.
(32), the magnitude of the shear modulus in phase I is determined
by the slope of τsu over wcr. Then T(z1) and T(z2b) in Eqs. (28) and
Fig. 6. Simplified ground displacement calculation model. (29) can be calculated using Eqs. (33) and (34), respectively.

© ASCE 04022069-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Experimental settings of pile infiltration test (PIT).

Substituting Eqs. (33) (34) into Eq. (31), the displacement at the top force and displacement. This procedure can be followed to calcu-
of segment n (wpz2) can be calculated. Comparisons can be made late the load transfer from the bottom segment to the top segment
between the calculated displacement (wpz2) and the critical dis- of the entire pile. In other words, the pile head load displacement
placement (wcr). A calculated displacement (wpz2) higher than crit- that arises for a certain pile base displacement can be computed
ical displacement suggests that shear softening has occurred. In this using the MSDM. The proposed MSDM only requires information
scenario, the interface shear strength dropped from the peak value of the matric suction profile, soil water characteristic curve
to the post-peak value. (SWCC), and limited number of soil properties (saturated elastic
  modulus, saturated interface shear strength properties, Poisson’s
rm τsu
k = 2πGs / ln = 2πr0 (32) ratio, plasticity index, and maximum dry density of expansive
r0 wcr soil). For this reason,, the proposed approach is a valuable tool
  for practicing engineers to make quick and reasonable estimations
ern zn e−rn zn of pile mechanical behaviors in expansive soils considering the in-
T (z)(n)bot = (33)
−Ap Ep rn ern zn Ap Ep rn e−rn zn fluence of environmental factors.
 
ern z(n−1) e−rn z(n−1)
T (z)(n−1)top = (34)
−Ap Ep rn ern z(n−1) Ap Ep rn e−rn z(n−1) Validation of the Modified Shear Displacement
The pile axial force and displacement can be calculated for this Method (MSDM)
scenario using Eq. (35) instead of Eq. (31):
 Model Pile Infiltration Test Conducted in the
kn 2πτsu(n) r0 Geotechnical Laboratory of University of Ottawa
rn = ; kn =
Ap Ep wcr
⎧  ⎫ A model pile infiltration test (PIT) was performed in unsaturated
    ⎨ 2Pz(n−1) + τsp(n) Lπd L ⎬ expansive soil in the geotechnical laboratory of the University of
w pzn w pz(n−1)
= + 2 Ap Ep Ottawa for validation of the proposed MSDM. Schematics of the
Pzn Pz(n−1) ⎩ ⎭
τsp(n) Lπd experimental test setup used in the study are provided in Figs.
7(a and b). The PIT was conducted in an aluminum tank with an
(35)
internal diameter of 300 mm and a height of 700 mm. The model
Eqs. (28)–(35) can be used to calculate the pile segment head pile made of an aluminum pipe with strain gauges pasted inside
axial force and displacement from the pile segment base axial has a diameter of 25.4 mm and a height of 600 mm. A rough

© ASCE 04022069-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 Table 1. Index properties of Regina clay
Index properties of Regina clay
Liquid limit, LL (%)
Plastic limit, PL (%)
Plastic index, PI
Specific gravity, G
Maximum dry unit weight, γd,max (kN/m3)
Optimum water content, w (%)
Vertical swelling pressure under constant volume condition (from
gravimetric water content of 27% to fully saturation), (kPa)
Free swell index = [(Vd – Vk)/Vk] × 100%
where Vd = volume of soil specimen read from the graduated
cylinder containing distilled water;
Vk = volume of soil specimen read from the graduated cylinder
containing kerosene.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 2. Summary of various parameters used in the computation of
MSDM for PIT
Mechanical properties of expansive soil and pile
Effective internal friction angle with respect to net normal stress, 15.6
ϕ′ (°)
Effective internal friction angle with respect to matric suction, ϕb (°) 12.3
Effective interface friction angle with respect to net normal stress, 12.4
δ′ (°)
Effective interface friction angle with respect to matric suction, δb (°) 8.5
Effective cohesion, c′ (kPa)
Effective interface cohesion, c′a (kPa)
Critical pile–soil relative displacement corresponding to peak
interface shear strength, wcr (mm) (Liu and Vanapalli 2019b)
The ratio of residual interface shear strength to peak interface
shear strength, βs
Elastic modulus of saturated Regina clay, E (kPa)
Poisson’s ratio of Regina clay, υ (Adem and Vanapalli 2016)
Elastic modulus of the aluminum model pile, Ep (GPa)
Elastic modulus of sand below the model pile, Esand (kPa)
surface is achieved on the pile shaft by pasting a thin layer of fine
sand using epoxy, whose roughness information can be derived from
interface shear strength parameters. The pile was installed in a sim-
ilar way as cast in situ pile. The soil that was already mixed with a
water content of 27% was compacted around the model pile using a
specially designed compaction apparatus to achieve a wet density of
1,736 kg/m3 (i.e., dry density of 1,367 kg/m3). The ultimate bearing
capacity of the model pile was estimated to be 1,000 N according to
the Chinese Technical Code for Building Pile Foundations (JGJ
94-2008, MOC 2008) through pile shaft friction and pile base resis-
tance estimations. Using a factor of safety of two, in the loading pro-
cess an allowable load of 500 N was applied on the pile head prior to
wetting. Once the pile head settlement was observed to be constant
for 24 h, water was added manually, as and when required, to ensure
the ground water table was always slightly higher than the ground
surface. The experiment was terminated when the pile head displace-
ment stabilized and all buried GS-3 water content sensors and
MPS-6 suction sensors indicated that the soil has been fully satu-
rated. Pile mechanical behavior information, which includes the
axial force distribution, pile base resistance, pile head displacement,
and the soil behaviors that include the soil displacement, soil volu-
metric water content variations, and suction variations were moni-
tored during the infiltration process.
Soil index properties and various parameters required in the
computation of MSDM, including soil and pile-soil interface
shear strength properties, elastic modulus of pile and soil,
were measured from laboratory tests and are summarized in
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069
Value
89
32
57
2.85
13.82
29
136
100.6
Fig. 8. SWCC of Regina clay measured over the entire suction range
using multiple methods.
Value
14
8
10
0.83
12,500
0.4
69
800
Fig. 9. Variation of water potential (suction) distribution with respect
to time.
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. It should be noted that sand was
poured into the testing tank and no attempt was made to compact
it. This sand may have been disturbed to certain extent while setting
the earth pressure cell at the bottom of the pile. Therefore, the sand
at the bottom of the pile can be considered to be in a relative loose
state. The elastic modulus was back-calculated to have an approx-
imate value of 800 kPa according to the pile base resistance–settle-
ment response prior to wetting. The entire SWCC of Regina clay
(i.e., in the suction range of 0 to 106 kPa), as shown in Fig. 8,
were measured using four different methods, including the chilled-
mirror hygrometer (WP4) method, pressure plate method, filter
paper method, and desiccator method. Data points of SWCC
obtained through different methods were also fitted using the
Fredlund and Xing (1994) model, and corresponding fitting param-
eters are shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9 summarizes the suction changes during the testing period.
Water was manually added to keep the water table slightly higher
than the ground surface. A period of 40 h was required to saturate
the expansive soil layer in the test tank with a thickness of
400 mm. The expansive soil volume increases significantly during
the infiltration process; for this reason, both the void ratio and the co-
efficient of permeability increase. Fig. 10 shows the variation of the
soil and pile head displacement during the infiltration process. The
pile experienced a settlement of around 3 mm under the applied
load of 500 N, while no noticeable soil settlement was detected
04022069-9 Int. J. Geomech.
 during the pile loading. During the saturation process, ground heave
quickly increased and eventually reached 25 mm. The pile head set-
tlement increased from around 3 mm to around 7 mm.
The pile axial force distribution and pile shaft friction distribution
for four different time periods of testing (i.e., 160, 170, 180, and
200 h) were used to validate the MSDM. These four distinct times
were selected because they provide representative suction values
along the depth (Fig. 9), which indicate the wetting front just passed
the depth of certain suction sensors. The real-time suction profile
cannot be recorded since the readings of suction sensors show no
changes when the wetting front passes the distance between two ad-
jacent sensors. Fig. 10 presents the pile head displacement at four
time points, with reasonably good comparisons between estimations
using the MSDM and experimental data. Fig. 11 presents the com-
parisons of the pile axial force distribution between the experimental
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data and the estimations using MSDM. The estimated pile axial
forces at different depth were higher than the experimental data for
all four time points. This is because in the MSDM the interface
shear strength drops rapidly from the peak value to the post-peak
value after the critical pile–soil relative displacement.
Fig. 10. Variation of soil and pile head displacement with respect to
time.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 11. Comparisons of the pile axial force distribution using MSDM (a) 160 h; (b) 170 h; (c) 180 h; and (d) 200 h.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069
Field Investigation Case Study Presented by Benvenga
(2005)
The Colorado State University (CSU) expansive soils test site at
which several full-scale piles were tested has been widely docu-
mented in the literature (Abshire 2002; Benvenga 2005; Nelson
et al. 2012). Fig. 12 shows the schematic of the piles along with in-
strumentation details. Field measurement on pile axial strains, vol-
umetric water content of soil around the pile, and pile head and soil
displacement were conducted for almost 10 years from September
1995 to April 2004 (Benvenga 2005). Four pile tests were con-
ducted on reinforced concrete piles that were installed at this site.
The properties of soil around the pile were determined from labo-
ratory tests by Abshire (2002) and are summarized in Table 3.
Since all four piles demonstrated similar behavior, only one pile,
labeled as D1.130 (Nelson et al. 2012), was selected for validation
purposes using the MSDM. According to Benvenga (2005), the soil
experienced ground heave up to 64 mm from February 1997 to Au-
gust 1997; however, in September 2003, the soil suffered a settle-
ment and the ground heave reduced to around 6 mm.
Benvenga (2005) estimated the average interface shear strength
(shaft friction) between the pile and soil using Eq. (36) and sug-
gested that the range of α varies 0.6 to 1.0 in October 1997. Ben-
venga (2005) also mentioned that the calculated values of α can
be greater than 1 for some cases; however, such cases were not dis-
cussed. The interface shear strength properties corresponding to the
peak interface shear strength can be even higher. By comparing the
estimated pile shaft friction using Eq. (36) with the experimental
data, Liu and Vanapalli (2019b) suggested α equaling to 1.2
could be assumed and introduced to calculate the peak interface
shear strength from average shaft friction estimated using
fs = ασ ′cv (36)
where fs = average ultimate shaft friction; and α = empirical adhe-
sion coefficient.
Other parameters required for the computation of MSDM were
derived from properties summarized in Table 4; some of these
properties were based on semiempirical equations using the soil
properties summarized in Table 3 as well as volumetric water
(b)
(d)
04022069-10 Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 3. Index properties of expansive soil at CSU test site
Water Dry
Depth content density
(m) Material (%) (kN/m3) S%(%) σ′ cs(kPa) σ′ i(kPa)
0–1.5 Clay 14 17.3 1 39.9 23.9
1.5–1.8 Clay 13.9 17.7 2.9 205.9 47.9
1.8–2.4 Weathered 15.6 17.4 2.5 215.5 47.9
claystone
2.4–3.2 Weathered 20.6 18.1 0.9 124.5 47.9
claystone
3.2–4.3 Weathered 10.4 17.6 3.8 430.9 29.7
claystone
4.3–4.7 Weathered 11.5 17.9 1.9 210.7 29.7
claystone
4.7–7 Weathered 11.5 17.9 3.8 287.3 29.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

claystone
Fig. 13. Volumetric water content in February 1997 and October 1997.
Source: Data from Nelson et al. (2011). (Data from Benvenga 2005.)
Note: S% is the percentage of expansive soil swell in oedometer test; s′cs is
vertical swelling pressure acquired from consolidation-swell oedometer
test; s′i is the confining pressure in oedometer test.

Table 4. Various parameters used in the computation of MSDM for CSU

pile test
Mechanical properties of expansive soil and pile Value
Critical pile–soil relative displacement corresponding to peak 10
interface shear strength, wcr (mm)
The ratio of residual interface shear strength to peak interface shear 0.85
strength, βs
Average elastic modulus of soil, Ea (kPa) 5,000
Elastic modulus of the pile, Ep (MPa) 1,820
Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.4

Fig. 14. Estimated SWCC using model proposed by Fredlund and

Xing (1994).

Fig. 12. Diagram of the drilled reinforced concrete pier at CSU expan-
sive soil test site. (Data from Benvenga 2005.)
content and vertical swelling pressure distributions given in Fig. 13
(Benvenga 2005; Liu and Vanapalli 2019b). The SWCC and matric
suction variations of the expansive soil can be back-calculated;
these details are summarized in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively.
The MSDM was used to simulate the mechanical behavior of
a pile that was recorded in October 1997 and September 2003.
Fig. 15. Matric suction variations in February 1997; October 1997; and
September 2003.
Figs. 16(a and b) provide comparisons of the pile axial force distri-
bution in October 1997 and September 2003. Several strain gauges
that were pasted on the pile shaft were damaged during the testing
process, as reported by Benvenga (2005). Therefore, only a limited
number of data points (e.g., three data points for October 1997 and
two data points for September 2003) were available from the
Benvenga (2005) investigations. The reason for the appearance of

© ASCE 04022069-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Comparison of pile axial force distribution for pile test by Benvenga (2005): (a) October 1997; and (b) September 2003.
the polynomial curve can be attributed to negative friction that gen-
erates in the stable zone as the pile gets uplifted with ground heave
development. Nelson et al. (2015) proposed a finite-element pro-
gram and analyzed the mechanical behavior of the pile in October
1997 as a case study. Fig. 16 shows that the proposed MSDM accu-
rately estimates the mechanical behavior of the piles, taking account
of the influence of environmental factors. The estimated pile head
displacement in October 1997 and September 2003 using MSDM
are 20.8 and 3.7 mm, respectively, which are closer to the field mea-
surements of 9.2 and 3.1 mm compared with the simulations of
around 27 and 26 mm by Nelson et al. (2015). Some discrepancies
between estimations and experimental data may be attributed to the
uncertainties involved in the SWCC that is estimated based on a lim-
ited number of data points from the transition zone.
Summary and Conclusions
Load transfer mechanism of piles placed in unsaturated expansive
soils is sensitive to changes associated with environmental factors,
such as the wetting and drying conditions. In the active zone, not
only does the matric suction change, but these matric suction
changes-induced volume changes that occur in expansive soils
around the pile contribute to the pile shaft friction changes. Volume
changes of expansive soil in the horizontal direction change the
normal stress acting on the pile shaft while volume changes in
the vertical direction changes the pile–soil relative displacement.
In turn, variations in pile shaft friction in the active zone change
the load transfer mechanism of piles.
In this study, using unsaturated soil mechanics as a tool, a two-
phase softening model was proposed for calculations of pile shaft
friction considering the influence of matric suction changes and
matric suction variations-induced expansive soil volume changes.
Furthermore, theoretical models for pile base-resistance estima-
tions were also proposed considering the possible pile base detach-
ment from the subsoil due to uplift friction generated in the active
zone in the wetting process. By introducing these models into the
traditional shear displacement method, its application can be ex-
tended for interpreting the pile behavior in unsaturated expansive
soils. A model pile infiltration test was conducted in the geotechnical
laboratory of the University of Ottawa, Canada, and presented for the
interpretation and validation of the proposed MSDM, together with a
field investigation presented by Benvenga (2005). Reasonably good
comparisons were achieved between the estimations using the pro-
posed MSDM and measured data for both cases. In engineering
© ASCE 04022069-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069
(b)
practice applications, the matric suction profile can be obtained by
direct measurement using various suction sensors or estimated
from the water-content profile and the SWCC, which can be used
in estimating approximate suction values in uniform soils. If there
is no site investigation data available, engineers may use commercial
numerical software, such as the VADOSE-W (Geo-slope Ltd), to
predict a matric suction profile based on the information of
SWCC, environmental data that include infiltration and evaporation
and hydraulic boundary conditions. The proposed MSDM can be
used together with the suction profile data and soil and/or pile–soil
interface shear strength properties that facilitate practicing engineers
to provide rational design for pile foundations in expansive soils by
estimating the pile load-transfer mechanism.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable re-
quest. These items include detailed output for all analyzed scenarios.
Acknowledgments
The first author, Yunlong Liu, thanks the department of Science and
Technology of Henan Province for funding the project entitled “Mul-
tiscale study on the shear behavior of expansive soil-structure inter-
face under drying-wetting and freezing-thawing cycles” – Fund
code: 212300410280 for the period 2021-01 to 2022-12. The second
author thanks the NSERC for the Discovery Grant support in 2020.
References
Abbas, H. O. 2020. “Laboratory evaluation of effective parameters on up-
lift force under reamed pile in expansive soil.” Geotech. Geol. Eng.
38 (4): 4243–4252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01292-8.
Abshire, M. S. 2002. “Differential moisture migration and heave beneath
slabs over dipping expansive shale.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Colorado State Univ.
Adem, H. H., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2016. “Heave prediction in a natural un-
saturated expansive soil deposit under a lightly loaded structure.”
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34 (4): 1181–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706
-016-0037-3.
Albusoda, B. S., and H. O. Abbase. 2017. “Performance assessment of single
and group of helical piles embedded in expansive soil.” Int. J. Geo-Eng.
8 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-017-0063-x.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Al-Homoud, A. S., A. A. Basma, A. I. Husein Malkawi, and M. A. Al
Bashabsheh. 1995. “Cyclic swelling behaviour of clays.” J. Geotech.
Eng. 121 (7): 562–565. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1995)121:7(562).
Alonso, E. E., J. Vaunat, and A. Gens. 1999. “Modelling the mechanical
behavior of expansive clays.” Eng. Geol. 54 (1–2): 173–183. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00079-4.
Al-Rawas, A. A., and M. F. Goosen. 2006. Expansive soils: Recent ad-
vances in characterization and treatment. London: Taylor & Francis.
Basma, A. A., A. S. Al-Homould, A. I. Husein Malkawi, and M. A.
Ai-Bashabsheh. 1996. “Swelling-shrinkage behavior of natural expan-
sive clays.” Appl. Clay Sci. 11 (2-4): 211–277. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0169-1317(96)00009-9.
Benvenga, M. M. 2005. “Pier-soil adhesion factor for drilled shaft piers in
expansive soil.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Colorado
State Univ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 151.236.162.163 on 11/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Borana, L., J.-H. Yin, D. N. Singh, and S. K. Shukla. 2015. “A modified
suction-controlled direct shear device for testing unsaturated soil and
steel plate interface.” Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 33 (4): 289–298.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2013.843045.
Chen, F. H. 1988. Foundations on expansive soils. New York: Elsevier.
Cheng, W.-C., J. C. Ni, A. Arulrajah, and H.-W. Huang. 2018. “A simple
approach for characterising tunnel bore conditions based upon pipe-
jacking data.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 71: 494–504.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.10.002.
Cheng, W.-C., J. C. Ni, H.-W. Huang, and J. S. Shen. 2019b. “The use of
tunnelling parameters and spoil characteristics to assess soil types: A
case study from alluvial deposits at a pipejacking project site.” Bull.
Eng. Geol. Environ. 78 (4): 2933–2942. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10064-018-1288-4.
Cheng, W.-C., L. Wang, Z.-F. Xue, J. C. Ni, M. M. Rahman, and A.
Arulrajah. 2019a. “Lubrication performance of pipejacking in soft allu-
vial deposits.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 91: 102991.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.102991.
Cooke, R. W. 1975. “The settlement of friction pile foundations.”
Build. Res. Establishment Current Paper, CP 12/75. Garston, Canada:
Building Research Station.
Coyle, H. M., and L. C. Reese. 1966. “Load transfer for axially loaded piles
in clay.” J. Soil Mech. Found Div 92 (SM2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10
.1061/JSFEAQ.0000850.
Dafalla, M. A., M. A. Al-Shamrani, A. J. Puppala, and H. E. Ali. 2012.
“Design guide for rigid foundation systems on expansive soils.”
Int. J. Geomech. 12 (5): 528–536. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000141.
Das, B. M. 2015. Principles of foundation engineering. Boston: Cengage
Learning.
Fan, Z. H. 2007. “Research on swelling-shrinkage characteristic and pile–
soil interaction of expansive soil foundation.” [In Chinese.] Ph.D. the-
sis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Central South Univ.
Fan, Z.-H., Y.-H. Wang, H.-B. Xiao, and C.-S. Zhang. 2007. “Analytical
method of load-transfer of single pile under expansive soil swelling.”
J. Central South Univ. Technol. 14 (4): 575–579. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11771-007-0110-4.
Fattah, M. Y., R. R. Al-Omari, and S. H. Fadhil. 2020. “Load sharing and
behavior of single pile embedded in unsaturated swelling soil.”
Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 24 (12): 1967–1992. https://doi.org/10
.1080/19648189.2018.1495105.
Fredlund, D. G., and A. Xing. 1994. “Equations for the soil-water charac-
teristic curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 31 (4): 521–532. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t94-061.
Hamid, T. B., and G. A. Miller. 2009. “Shear strength of unsaturated soil
interfaces.” Can. Geotech. J. 46 (5): 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1139
/T09-002.
Hong, G. T. 2008. “Earth pressures and deformations in civil infrastructure
in expansive soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A
and M Univ.
Hossain, M. A., and J. H. Yin. 2013. “Unsaturated soil-cement interface be-
haviour in direct shear tests.” Aust. Geomech. J. 48 (3): 141–154.
Jiang, J., K. Hou, and X. Ou. 2020. “Analysis of the bearing capacity of a
single pile based on an analytical solution of pile–soil interaction in
© ASCE 04022069-13
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(6): 04022069
expansive soil.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 38 (2): 1721–1732. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01126-2.
Khoury, C. N., G. A. Miller, and K. Hatami. 2010. “Shear strength of un-
saturated soil-geotextile interfaces.” In GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in
Analysis, Modeling & Design, Geotechnical Special Publication 199,
edited by D. O. Fratta, A. J. Puppala, and B. Muhunthan, 307–316.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Krasiń ski, A. 2012. Pale przemieszczeniowe wkrę cane. Noś noś ´c i pracaw
gruntach niespoistych. Gdań sk, Poland: Gdań sk Univ. of Technology.
Kuwajima, K., M. Hyodo, and A. F. Hyde. 2009. “Pile bearing capacity
factors and soil crushabiity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (7):
901–913. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000057.
Liu, Y., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2017. “Influence of lateral swelling pressure
on the geotechnical infrastructure in expansive soils.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (6): 04017006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001651.
Liu, Y., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2019a. “Prediction of lateral swelling pressure
behind retaining structure with expansive soil as backfill.” Soils Found.
59 (1): 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.10.003.
Liu, Y., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2019b. “Load displacement analysis of a sin-
gle pile in an unsaturated expansive soil.” Comput. Geotech. 106: 83–
98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.10.007.
Malik, A. A., J. Kuwano, S. Tachibana, and T. Maejima. 2017. “End bear-
ing capacity comparison of screw pile with straight pipe pile under sim-
ilar ground conditions.” Acta Geotech. 12 (2): 415–428. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11440-016-0482-4.
MOC (Ministry of Construction). 2008. Technical code for building pile foun-
dations. JGJ 94- 2008. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press.
Morris, P. H., J. Graham, and D. J. Williams. 1992. “Cracking in drying
soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 29: 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-030.
Nelson, J. D., E. G. Thompson, R. W. Schaut, K. C. Chao, D. D. Overton
and J. S. Dunham-Friel. 2011. “Design procedure and considerations
for piers in expansive soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (8):
945–956. https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000647.
Nelson, J. D., K. C. Chao, D. D. Overton, and E. J. Nelson. 2015.
Foundation engineering for expansive soils. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nelson, J. D., E. G. Thompson, R. W. Schaut, K.-C. Chao, D. D. Overton,
and J. S. Dunham-Friel. 2012. “Design procedure and considerations
for piers in expansive soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (8):
945–956. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000647.
Randolph, M. F., and C. P. Wroth. 1978. “Analysis of deformation of ver-
tically loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 104 (12): 1465–1488. https://
doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000729.
Rojas, E., M. P. Romo, and R. Cervantes. 2006. “Analysis of deep moisture
barriers in expansive soils. I: Constitutive model formulation.”
Int. J. Geomech. 6 (5): 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532
-3641(2006)6:5(311).
Rosenbalm, D., and C. E. Zapata. 2017. “Effect of wetting and drying cycles
on the behavior of compacted expansive soils.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (1):
04016191. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001689.
Sharma, A., and R. K. Sharma. 2019. “An experimental study on uplift be-
haviour of granular anchor pile in stabilized expansive soil.”
Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 15 (8): 950–963. https://doi.org/10.1080
/19386362.2019.1597481.
Sharma, R. K. 2019. “A numerical study of granular pile anchors subjected
to uplift forces in expansive soils using PLAXIS 3D.” Indian Geotech.
J. 49 (3): 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0333-3.
Shen, S. L., Z. F. Wang, and W. C. Cheng. 2017. “Estimation of lateral dis-
placement induced by jet grouting in clayey soils.” Géotechnique
67 (7): 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.159.
Xiao, H.-B., C.-S. Zhang, Y.-H. Wang, and Z.-H. Fan. 2011. “Pile-soil in-
teraction in expansive soil foundation: Analytical solution and numeri-
cal simulation.” Int. J. Geomech. 11 (3): 159–166. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000046.
Zhang, C., G. D. Nguyen, and I. Einav. 2013. “The end-bearing capacity of
piles penetrating into crushable soils.” Géotechnique 63 (5): 341–354.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.117.
Zhang, Q.-Q., and Z.-M. Zhang. 2012. “A simplified nonlinear approach
for single pile settlement analysis.” Can. Geotech. J. 49 (11): 1256–
1266. https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-110.
Int. J. Geomech.