Evaluation of Uplift Interpretation Criteria for Drilled

Shaft Capacity
Yit-Jin Chen1; Hsin-Wen Chang2; and Fred H. Kulhawy, Dist.M.ASCE3

Abstract: Representative interpretation criteria are examined to evaluate the capacity of drilled shaft foundations under axial uplift
loading. A wide variety of uplift load test data are used, and these data are divided into drained and undrained databases. The interpretation
criteria are applied to these load test data to establish a consistent uplift interpretation criterion. The results are comparable for both
drained and undrained loading. In general, the undrained load test results show somewhat less variability than the drained results. Based
on these analyses, the QL2, Q0.5in, and slope tangent methods are the more reliable and consistent, and specific design recommendations
for the interpretation of uplift drilled shaft load test are given, in terms of both capacity and displacement.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:10共1459兲
CE Database subject headings: Drilled shafts; Foundations; Uplift; Load tests; Displacement.

Introduction injected footings, and micropiles 共Kulhawy and Jeon 1999; Jeon
and Kulhawy 2001; Chen and Kulhawy 2001, 2002, 2003兲.
Load–displacement curves from axial load tests on drilled shaft In this paper, the L1 – L2 and other interpretation methods are
foundations can exhibit any one of three shapes, as shown in Fig. examined in detail to assess their relative merits and their inter-
1. The peak of Curve A and the asymptote of Curve B clearly relationships. A broad database is used for this purpose, consisting
define the foundation capacity. However, if the load–displacement of both drained and undrained axial uplift load tests on drilled
curve resembles C, the “capacity” is not defined clearly. Unfortu- shafts. The results are compared statistically and graphically, and
nately, most drilled foundation load tests resemble Curve C, so conclusions are reached for consistent use in practice.
the “capacity” almost always needs to be interpreted from the
load test results, resulting in an “interpreted failure load.”
Dozens of interpretation criteria 共e.g., van der Veen 1953; Database of Load Tests
Fuller and Hoy 1970; DeBeer 1970; Chin 1970; O’Rourke and
Kulhawy 1985; Hirany and Kulhawy 1988, 1989, 2002兲 have The database developed for this study consisted of 77 field uplift
been proposed over the years for interpreting this failure load. load tests, conducted at 42 sites in a wide variety of soil profiles.
Table 1 defines six representative criteria for the interpreted fail- These data separate into 40 tests at 21 sites with drained loading
ure load. These criteria are based on a variety of assumptions, and and 37 tests at 21 sites with undrained loading, based on the soil
some are influenced by individual judgment and the scale of the conditions along the shaft length. All of the selected tests had
load–displacement curve, while others are based on extrapolation almost complete geological data and load–displacement curves
from the measured load–displacement curve. These interpretation for most interpretation methods, and all were conducted on
criteria will give different results that can vary substantially. straight-sided drilled shafts. Based on the case history descrip-
Because of these inconsistencies, it is useful to have a straight- tions, it appears that the shaft construction and test performance
forward and simple criterion that can be applied consistently over were of high quality. Consequently, these data should reflect
a wide range of load tests. Kulhawy and co-workers have exam- “real” field situations, and the analysis results should be represen-
ined this issue in detail for drilled foundations since the 1980s. tative for application in practice.
The initial focus was on drilled shafts 共Hirany and Kulhawy 1988, Tables 2 and 3 show the basic information and interpreted
1989, 2002; Cushing and Kulhawy 2001, 2002; Kulhawy 2004兲, capacities for the drained and undrained load tests, respectively.
resulting in the L1 – L2 method, which will be described shortly. Table 4 lists the reference sources for all of the load test case
Later studies extended the work to augercast piles, pressure- histories in Tables 2 and 3. As can be seen, these load tests have
been conducted in various soil types around the world at different
1
times. For convenience, Table 5 shows the ranges of foundation
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chung Yuan Chris- geometry and uplift capacity from the database, along with the
tian Univ., Chung-Li 32023, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected]
2 data standard deviation 共SD兲 and coefficient of variation 共COV兲,
M.S. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian
Univ., Chung-Li 32023, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected] which is the standard deviation divided by the mean. As can be
3
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell seen, the ranges are broad, but the drained and undrained popu-
Univ., Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3501. E-mail: [email protected] lations are roughly comparable.
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on May 19, 2007; approved Interpreted Axial Uplift Capacity
on February 22, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10, October 1, 2008. Six different criteria were used to evaluate the interpreted failure
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2008/10-1459–1468/$25.00. load or capacity Q, as given in Table 1. These criteria were se-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1459

 Tables 2 and 3 because the necessary load test data were not
available for proper interpretation.

Comparison of Different Interpretation Criteria

Drained Uplift Load Tests

Summary comparisons of the interpreted capacities and the cor-
responding displacements for the drained uplift tests are shown in
Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Both tables show comparisons that
include all of the data and the data averaged per site. As can be
seen, both comparisons give very similar results, so therefore site
bias is minimal in these data.
Table 6 consists of two groups that are normalized by L1 and
L2. For the L1 group, the capacities at displacements of 0.2% B,
Fig. 1. Typical load–displacement curves for drilled shafts
0.25% B, and 0.4% B 共B = shaft diameter兲 were used to assess the
possible position of L1 on the load–displacement curve. For the L2
group, the selected interpretation and displacement criteria were
lected because they represent a distribution of interpreted results used to evaluate the capacity interrelationships. For all of these
from the lower, middle, and higher ranges as found in practice. In comparisons, the number of tests, mean, standard deviation, and
addition, these criteria employ varied interpretation bases, as coefficient of variation are given to describe the data.
noted in Table 1. Therefore, they can be considered as represen- For the L1 group, the mean ratios 共QxB / QL1兲 range from 0.88
tative of existing criteria. to 1.18 with SD and COV about 0.3. By interpolation, QL1 is
The van der Veen 共1953兲 and Chin 共1970兲 methods are math- approximately equal to Q0.26%B, so therefore the mean ␳L1
ematical models. The DeBeer 共1970兲 and Fuller and Hoy 共1970兲 ⬇ 0.26% B. From Table 7, the mean ␳L1 is 1.7 mm. Previous work
methods represent settlement limitations. The slope tangent by Hirany and Kulhawy 共1989兲 suggested ␳L1 about 0.4% B; later
method 共O’Rourke and Kulhawy 1985兲 is a graphical construc- Cushing and Kulhawy 共2002兲 suggested 0.25% B with a mean of
tion that is a modification of the Davisson 共1972兲 method, using 1.5 mm. All of these results are consistent, and they show that the
the initial 共not elastic兲 slope and an offset. The L1 – L2 method initial linear region occurs within a very small displacement. The
共Hirany and Kulhawy 1988, 1989, 2002兲 also is a graphical con- COV values on these displacements are relatively large, probably
struction. As shown in Fig. 2, good quality load–displacement because of measurement sensitivity. However, the magnitudes are
curves generally can be simplified into three distinct regions: ini- all very small.
tial linear, curve transition, and final linear. Point L1 共elastic limit兲 For the L2 group, the mean ratios using DeBeer, slope tangent,
corresponds to the load 共QL1兲 and butt displacement 共␳L1兲 at the 0.5 in., van der Veen, Fuller and Hoy, and Chin, all compared to
end of the initial linear region, while L2 共failure threshold兲 corre- QL2, range from 0.84 to 1.26. DeBeer gives the lowest values,
sponds to the load 共QL2兲 and butt displacement 共␳L2兲 at the initia- while Chin gives the highest, well above QL2. DeBeer and slope
tion of the final linear region. QL2 is defined as the “interpreted tangent give values ⬍1 and therefore are in the nonlinear transi-
failure load or capacity” because beyond QL2, a small increase in tion between L1 and L2. The statistics show that the 0.5 in. and
load gives a significant increase in displacement. The initial 1988 slope tangent methods have the lowest COV and that the lower
study suggested that, for uplift loading, L2 occurred at a mean the displacement, the higher the COV.
displacement of about 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 and that L1 occurred at The mean QSTU / QL2 = 0.90, which is consistent with previous
about 0.4% of the shaft diameter. results 共Hirany and Kulhawy 1989兲 giving 0.89 for drained and
The results using these interpretation criteria are shown in undrained cases together. Overall, the most favorable statistics are
Tables 2 and 3 for the drained and undrained load tests, respec- given with Q0.5in / QL2 = 1.04 共SD= 0.09 and COV= 0.09兲. How-
tively. As can be seen, the ranges of these interpreted capacities ever, Table 7 shows a mean ␳L2 = 10.6 mm. A previous study
are large and representative of diverse field conditions. However, 共Hirany and Kulhawy 1989兲 suggested ␳L2 at about 0.5 in.
a few load tests were terminated before achieving the interpreted 共12.7 mm兲. These differences are relatively small.
values, so these interpreted results are denoted as greater than 共⬎兲 The mean QL1 / QL2 = 0.50 with SD= 0.15 and COV= 0.31. This
the termination load. In addition, some values are missing in mean is somewhat larger than in previous studies by Hirany and

Table 1. Definition of Representative Uplift Interpretation Criteria for Drilled Shafts

Method Main basis Definition of interpreted capacity, Q
van der Veen Mathematical model Value of QVDV that gives a straight line when log共1 − Q / QVDV兲 is plotted versus total settlement
Chin Mathematical model QCHIN is equal to inverse slope 共1 / m兲 of line s / p = ms + c with p = load and s = total settlement
DeBeer Settlement limitation QDEBEER is at change in slope on log–log total settlement curve
Fuller and Hoy Settlement limitation QF&H is minimum load that occurs for a rate of total settlement of 0.05 in. per ton 共0.14 mm/ kN兲.
Slope tangent Graphical construction QSTU occurs at a displacement equal to the initial slope of the load–displacement curve plus
0.15 in. 共3.8 mm兲
L1 – L2 Graphical construction L1 and L2 designate the elastic limit and failure threshold, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2

1460 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

 Table 2. Basic Information and Interpreted Results for Drained Uplift Tests
Interpreted capacity, Q 共kN兲
Site and Soil GWTa D rb Shaft depth Shaft diameter
shaft number Test site description 共m兲 共%兲 D 共m兲 B 共m兲 D/B QL1 Q0.2%B Q0.25%B Q0.4%B QL2 Q0.5in QSTU QF&H QDEBEER QVDV QCHIN
c
DU1 Hawk Springs, Wyo. Silt over silty sand 2.3 45 3.1 0.91 3.4 249 231 249 267 391 383 338 338 356 409 458
DU2 Ohio Sandy silt and silty sand 0.9 18 2.1 0.76 2.8 31 18 21 36 102 82 70 66 58 102 158
d
DU3 Crystal River, Fla. Sand over limestone 1.1 50 8.2 0.48 17.1 347 214 267 312 592 525 454 ⬎622 445 445 636
DU4-1 Fla. Fine sand 0.9 25 1.4 0.31 4.4 13 9 11 12 25 25 24 25 23 25c 32
DU4-2 25 2.4 0.30 8.0 30 33 36 48 73 72 62 74 67 72 78
DU4-3 25 3.7 0.30 12.3 61 67 75 85 152 164 120 187 116 169 194
d
DU5 Walkerton, Ont., Canada Medium dense fine sand 0.6 55 6.4 1.07 6.0 552 463 516 641 890 890 801 890 801 ⬎890 1,023
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1461

DU6-1 Westchester County, N.Y. Fine to coarse sand with some gravel 1.2 65 5.0 1.28 3.9 214 214 240 311 578 534 418 623 554 641 809
DU6-2 65 5.2 1.31 4.0 338 267 276 383 747 654 587 934 712 952 1,236
DU7-1 Ontario, Canada Clayey silt over fine sand 1.2 45 12.2 0.38 32.1 178 116 125 151 294 294 240 267 266 ⬎356d 380
DU7-2 45 12.2 0.46 26.5 160 116 133 142 243 325 267 338c 338c 338c 403
c
DU8-1 Newark, N.J. Fine to medium silty sand with cobbles and boulders 3.4 50 2.4 1.22 2.0 445 645 667 694 645 694 694c 694c 694c 694c 890
DU8-2 50 3.1 1.22 2.5 714 987 1,027 1,104 1,095 1,112 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,271
DU8-3 50 3.7 1.22 3.0 801 1,076 1,108 1,170 1,246 1,326 1,175 1,310 1,112 1,161 1,390
e
DU9 Linton, N.D. Silt, sandy silt, and silty sand NR 50 2.4 0.91 2.7 89 102 107 116 214 231 215 231 187 231c 244
e
DU10 Hawk Springs, Wyo. Silt, silty sand, and sand NR 40 3.1 0.91 3.4 320 356 360 383 427 438 431 445c 356 445c 476
e d
DU11 Brownson, Neb. Dense sand NR 60 2.4 0.61 4.0 338 285 329 374 ⬎480 ⬎480d ⬎480d ⬎480d 356 ⬎480
d
542
DU12 Portland, Ore. Medium to dense sand with cemented zones NRe 50 3.7 0.91 4.0 872 818 845 941 1,068 1,049 979 1,085 801 1,076 1,155
DU13-1 Lake Fork Dam, Tex. Dense fine sand with clay and lignite 3.0 80 17.7 0.61 29.0 1,068 996 1,068 1,245 2,313 2,438 2,313 2,438 1,334 2,402 2,965
DU13-2 80 26.0 0.61 42.6 693 961 996 1,112 1,957 ⬎2,446d 1,735 ⬎2,446d 1,334 ⬎2,446d 3,068
DU14-1 San Diego, Calif. Sandy topsoil over decomposed granite NRe 50 3.2 0.99 3.2 668 512 600 890 ⬎1,868d ⬎1,868d ⬎1,868d ⬎1,868d 890 ⬎1,868d 2,617
DU14-2 50 3.2 0.99 3.2 801 712 845 1,223 1,624 1,646 1,624 ⬎1,957d 1,112 1,246 2,341
DU15-1 Elkhart, Ind. Loose to medium dense fine sand 5.5 45 6.1 0.36 16.9 400 196 214 285 578 596 543 607 534 596 706
c
DU15-2 45 7.6 0.36 21.2 267 196 214 258 552 596 516 632 632c 632c 735
d
DU15-3 45 9.1 0.36 25.4 249 160 187 231 516 552 445 ⬎614 267 489 676
d
DU15-4 45 10.7 0.36 29.7 231 160 196 231 534 623 489 ⬎623 311 489 723
DU15-5 45 12.2 0.36 33.9 214 196 209 258 658 721 534 623c 267 249 542
DU16 Bacons Castle, Va. Silty sand with some clay 0 45 3.1 0.91 3.4 141 80 89 107 400 391 363 400 334 369 408
f
DU17-1 Caliente, Utah-Calif. Silty sand 40 2.1 0.74 2.8 254 318 330 413 627 645 597 635 578 645 729
c
DU17-2 40 3.1 0.74 4.2 356 529 585 661 890 979 813 940 712 845 1112
f
DU18-1 Baker, Calif. Medium to dense silty sand and gravel 60 4.6 0.69 6.7 186 198 225 345 750 800 748 775 600 800 909
DU18-2 60 3.1 0.67 4.6 143 86 114 143 350 390 310 360 275 320 400
DU19-1 Sao Paulo, Brazil Clayey sand 11.0 45 10.0 0.35 28.6 208 188 192 219 385 388 352 367 380 390 417
DU19-2 45 10.0 0.40 25.0 385 212 262 277 462 465 460 433 410 466 500
DU19-3 45 10.0 0.50 20.0 250 300 323 385 477 477 440 433 450 460 500
f
DU20-1 Oksbol, Denmark Loose to very loose alluvial quartz sand 20 5.0 0.14 35.7 29 15 19 25 83 84 75 57 80 72 101
DU20-2 20 5.0 0.14 35.7 14 8 10 15 54 54 49 43 58 43 72
DU20-3 20 6.0 0.14 42.9 28 20 22 26 76 75 70 44 78 78 100
DU20-4 20 6.0 0.14 42.9 29 9 11 17 92 92 69 42 90 120 133
f
DU21 Nangang, Taipei, Taiwan Very dense sand with sandstone 90 49.3 1.50 32.9 10,897 8,537 10,897 13,656 23,898 21,574 20,038 30,000 14,731 25,000 33,333
a
Ground water table.
b
Relative density.
c
Shaft failure before interpreted capacity.
d
Load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.
e
Not reported.
f
Below shaft tip.
 Table 3. Basic Information and Interpreted Results for Undrained Uplift Tests
1462 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

Shaft Shaft Interpreted capacity, Q 共kN兲

Site and shaft GWTa s ub depth diameter
number Test site Soil description 共m兲 共kN/ m2兲 D 共m兲 B 共m兲 D/B QL1 Q0.2%B Q0.25%B Q0.4%B QL2 Q0.5in QSTU QF&H QDEBEER QVDV QCHIN
c
UU1-1 Melbourne, Australia Basaltic clay 共CH兲 NR 101 2.8 0.61 4.6 179 200 207 320 330 334 320 335 320 335 387
d
UU1-2 101 3.7 0.61 6.1 379 374 400 427 440 440d 438 440d 400 425 473
UU1-3 101 4.6 0.61 7.5 391 391 441 512 591 600 569 605 519 605 684
UU1-4 101 5.5 0.61 9.0 584 374 719 809 907 890 907 943 890 867 1,011
UU1-5 101 2.7 0.76 3.6 218 288 314 340 384 378 379 388 356 365 416
d
UU1-6 101 3.7 0.76 4.9 200 300 334 414 494 507 480 500 498 507 570
UU1-7 101 4.6 0.76 6.0 485 566 584 683 773 756 764 782 741 787 855
UU2-1 Southern Ontario, Canada Heavily desiccated clay 1.8 172 2.4 1.50 1.6 343 489 538 552 587 596 534 587 519 569 635
UU2-2 173 3.7 1.50 2.5 734 934 945 979 1,134 1,090 979 1,156 1,112 1,150 1,202
c d d
UU3-1 Orient, S.D. Silty clay NR 68 2.4 0.91 2.7 220 267 280 292 338 338 338 338 338 338 352
d
UU3-2 68 2.4 0.91 2.7 200 240 249 280 356 356 356 356 356 356d 374
UU4 Gerlach, Nev. Soft to stiff clay 共Lacustrine clay兲 0.0 59 4.6 0.61 7.5 222 178 222 258 ⬎312e ⬎312e ⬎312e ⬎312e ⬎312e ⬎312e 618
UU5 Houston, Tex. Very stiff to hard silty clay NRc 290 4.5 0.91 4.9 1,223 890 979 1,317 1,668 1,468 1,423 1,688 1,681 1,688d 1,774
f
UU6 Wichita, Kan. Silty clay NE 93 3.2 0.64 5.0 258 258 262 303 303 315 307 316 267 316d 327
g
UU7-1 Dallas, Tex. Clay with gravel over weathered shale 32 1.8 0.51 3.6 44 44 49 54 85 80 67 ⬎111e 80 85 122
UU7-2 32 1.8 0.61 3.0 44 40 44 49 85 78 62 88 82 82 96
UU8 Hamilton, Ont., Canada Firm to stiff silty clay 0.0 52 12.2 1.52 8.0 1,423 1,201 1,557 1,913 2,491 2,374 2,135 2,847 2,491 2,669 3,068
UU9-1 Devers-Palo Verde, Calif. Silty and sandy clay 3.0 56 8.0 0.35 22.8 231 169 173 205 409 427 338 445 401 396 512
UU9-2 57 7.0 0.52 13.4 249 249 267 303 516 498 436 525 445 490 556
d
UU9-3 57 5.2 0.53 9.8 178 165 178 214 356 356 285 356 311 369 440
UU10-1 Nantong, Jiangsu, China Silty clay over silt 2.0 26 4.4 0.62 7.1 133 89 98 133 227 227 196 227 200 225 238
UU10-2 32 4.2 0.60 7.0 133 89 98 133 214 214 178 214 180 180 213
UU11 Ontario, Canada Stiff clay to sandy clay 2.4 96 12.0 0.53 22.6 285 294 302 409 676 676 462 676 600 620 714
UU12-1 Ottawa, Ont., Canada Leda marine clay 2.0 21 6.9 1.50 4.6 400 510 530 580 600 650 510 620 650 615 588
UU12-2 21 6.8 1.45 4.7 750 550 750 840 960 940 850 960 850 860 909
g d d d
UU13-1 Mound City, S.D. Sandy clay with gravel 307 2.4 0.61 3.9 178 133 151 205 267 285 285 285 222 285 388
UU13-2 68 2.4 0.61 3.9 214 214 222 245 338 351 307 351 214 338 383
g
UU14-1 Delta, Calif. Silty clay 182 3.1 0.65 4.7 331 334 342 378 445 471 436 445 500 430 500
UU14-2 182 4.6 0.66 6.9 436 445 467 556 703 756 645 703 600 770 833
e
UU15 Dana, Taipei, Taiwan Silty clay with silt and sand 5.0 120 56.0 1.00 56.0 2,669 712 801 1,601 6,494 6,316 4,670 ⬎6,494 4,736 8,896 9,884
e
UU16 Neihu, Taipei, Taiwan Silty clay with silt and sand 3.0 100 52.0 1.50 34.7 6,138 4,003 5,160 5,871 13,433 10,675 11,209 ⬎16,013 11,120 15,479 21,795
e
UU17 Dana, Taipei, Taiwan Silty clay with silt and sand 4.0 100 48.0 1.50 32.0 7,117 6,494 6,850 8,540 12,098 11,565 10,124 ⬎12,098 8,896 10,675 12,709
h
UU18 Dana, Taipei, Taiwan Silty clay with silt and sand 5.0 120 62.0 1.20 51.7 2473 1,690 1,735 2,473 4,448 3,825 4,359 4,982 2,669 5,836
h
UU19 Sinyi, Taipei, Taiwan Silty clay with silt and sand 3.0 100 26.5 1.20 22.1 2,315 1,779 2,002 3,469 3,781 3,558 2,776 3,336 2,535 4,048
g
UU20-1 Kawasaki, Japan Kanto loam 共clay兲 NR 94 10.0 0.50 20.0 400 356 347 516 614 614 569 614 445 614 700
UU20-2 94 10.0 0.50 20.0 400 311 427 516 667 667 667 667 534 569 809
e
UU21 Tainan, Taiwan Silty and sandy clay 3.0 32 35.0 1.20 29.2 2,990 3,155 3,304 ⬎3,562 ⬎3,562e ⬎3,562e ⬎3,562e ⬎3,562e ⬎3,562e ⬎3,562e 4,679
a
Ground water table.
b
Undrained shear strength.
c
Not reported.
d
Shaft failure before interpreted capacity.
e
Load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.
f
Not encountered.
g
Below shaft tip.
h
Load test data not available for proper interpretation.
Table 4. Reference Sources of Shaft Load Tests in Tables 2 and 3
Site number Reference sources
DU1, 9, 10, 11 Harza Engineering Company. 共1978兲. “Foundation uplift tests—Missouri Basin Power Project East Transmission.” Basin Electric
Power Cooperative, Bismarck, N.D., 26.
DU2 Ohio Edison Company. 共early 1960s兲. “Test program proves feasibility of concrete cylinder anchors for steel transmission towers
for Ohio Edison Company.” Akron, Ohio, 8.
DU3 Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. 共1965兲. “Combined section test pile, tension and compression.” Florida Power Corporation, St.
Petersburg, Fla., 9.
DU4 Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. 共1966兲. “Pile research for design parameters.” Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Fla.,
69.
DU5 Ismael, N. F., and Klym, T. W. 共1979兲. “Uplift and bearing capacity of short piers in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 105共GT5兲,
579–594.
DU6 Stern, L. I., Bose, S. K., and King, R. D. 共1976兲. “Uplift capacity of poured-in-place cylindrical caissons.” Paper A 76 053–9,
IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, 9.
DU7 Sowa, V. A. 共1970兲. “Pulling capacity of concrete cast-in-situ bored piles.” Canadian Geotech. J., 7共4兲, 482–493.
DU8 Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. 共1969兲. “Report on pull test on auger piles, Branchburg to Ramapo line.” Public Service
Electric and Gas Co., Newark, N.J., 18.
DU12 Pacific Power and Light Company 共1980兲. “Pier uplift test.” Portland, Ore., 20.
DU13 Sacre, A. S. 共1977兲. “A study of the pullout resistance of drilled shafts.” MS thesis, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex., 164.
DU14 Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 共1980兲. “Geotechnical investigation for the Miguel-Imperial Valley 500 kV transmission line
共Tower Sites 25 through 213兲.” for San Diego Gas & Electric Company, San Diego, 62.
DU15 Marsico, R., Retallack, R. L., and Tedesco, P. A. 共1976兲. “Report on pile testing for AEP transmission lines. I.” IEEE, Trans.
Power Apparatus Syst., 95共6兲, 1975–1802.
Marsico, R., Retallack, R. L., and Tedesco, P. A. 共1976兲. “Report on pile testing for AEP transmission lines. II.” IEEE, Trans.
Power Apparatus Syst., 95共6兲, 1803–1813.
DU16 Virginia Electric and Power Co. 共1967兲. “Tests on piles and caissons. Surry—Hopewell 230 kV; Bacons Castle, Virginia.”
Virginia Electric & Power Company, Richmond, Va., 15.
DU17 Briaud, J. L., Pacal, A. J., and Shively, A. W. 共1984兲. “Power line foundation design using the pressuremeter.” Proc., 1st Int.
Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering., Vol. 1, Rolla, 279–283.
DU18 Konstantinidis, B., Pacal, A. J., and Shively, A. W. 共1987兲. “Uplift capacity of drilled piers in desert soils: A case history.”
Foundations for Transmission Line Towers (GSP 8), J. L. Briaud, ed., ASCE, New York, 128–141.
DU19 Chambon, P., and Corté, J.-F. 共1991兲. “Étude sur modèles réduits centrifugés.” Application aux tunnels à faible profondeur en
terrain meuble pulvérulent, Études et Recherches des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, série Géotechnique, GT 48, 163.
Neves, M., Mestat, P., Frank, R., and Degny, E. 共2001兲. “Research on the behavior of bored piles. I: In situ and laboratory
experiments.” CESAR-LCPC, 231, 39–54.
DU20 Sven, K., Johan, C., and Lars, D. 共2006兲. “Tension test on bored piles in sand.” Symp. Int. ELU/ULS, Paris, 87–94.
DU21 Ni, J. C., and Cheng, W. C. 共2006兲. “Numerical analyses of pile load testing.” J. National Taipei Univ. Technology, 39共2兲, 57–76.
UU1 McKenzie, R. J. 共1971兲. “Uplift testing of prototype transmission tower footings.” Proc., 1st Australia-New Zealand Conf. on
Geomechanics, Vol. 1, Melbourne, 283–290.
UU2 Adams, J. I., and Radhakrishna, H. S. 共1970兲. “Uplift resistance of augered footing in fissured clay.” Ontario Hydro Res.
Quarterly, 22共1兲, 10–16.
UU3 Harza Engineering Co. 共1978兲. “Foundation uplift tests—Missouri Basin Power Project east transmission.” for Basin Electric
Power Coop., Bismarck, N.D., 26.
UU4 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 共1967兲. “Footing tests for Pacific Intertie D-C system transmission line.” Los
Angeles, 37.
UU5 Pearce, R. A., and Brassow, C. L. 共1979兲. “Pull-out load test of a drilled pier in very stiff Beaumont clay.” Symp. on Deep
Foundations, F. M. Fuller, ed., ASCE, New York, 331–342.
UU6 Wichita Testing Co. 共1977兲. “Final report—Steel tower foundation test.” Kansas Gas & Electric Co., Wichita, Kan., 36.
UU7 Reference not available for publication. 共1983兲. Summary is given as Case No. 25, “Transmission line structure foundations for
uplift-compression loading: Load test summaries.” Rep. No. EL-3160, EPRI, Palo Alto, Calif., 731.
UU8 Ismael, N. F., and Klym, T. W. 共1978兲. “Behavior of rigid pier in layered cohesive soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 104共GT8兲,
1061–1074.
UU9 Tucker, K. D. 共1986兲. “Performance evaluation of pile foundation using CPT data.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, St. Louis, 1355–1364.
South California Edison Co. “Interim report on evaluation of SCE Bipile computer program.” Rosemead, 39.
UU10 Tang, N. C., Shen, H. R., and Liu, S. G. 共1983兲. “Static uplift capacity of bored piles.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Advances in Piling &
Ground Treatment, ICE, London, 197–202.
UU11 Sowa, V. A. 共1970兲. “Pulling capacity of concrete cast-in-situ bored piles.” Canadian Geotech. J., 7共4兲, 482–493.
UU12 Radhakrishna, H. S., Cragg, C. B. H., Tsang, R, and Bozozuk, M. 共1986兲. “Uplift and compression behavior of drilled piers in
Leda clay.” Proc., 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conf., Ottawa, 123–130.
UU13 Harza Engineering Co. 共1978兲. “Foundation uplift tests—Missouri Basin Power Project east transmission.” Basin Electric Power
Coop., Bismarck, N.D., 26.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1463

Table 4. 共Continued.兲
Site number Reference sources
UU14 Briaud, J. L., Pacal, A. J., and Shively, A. W. 共1984兲. “Power line foundation design using the pressuremeter.” Proc., 1st Int.
Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, St. Louis, 279–283.
UU15 Diagnostic Engineering Consultants, Ltd. 共1996兲. “Report on uplift load test of bored piles.” Taiwan.
UU16 Diagnostic Engineering Consultants, Ltd. 共2000兲. “Report on uplift load test of bored piles.” Taiwan.
UU17 Diagnostic Engineering Consultants, Ltd. 共2002兲. “Report on uplift load test of bored piles.” Taiwan.
UU18 Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation. 共2003兲. “Piles load test of Tzu Chi Culture Center.” Taiwan.
UU19 Shinkong Life Insurance Co. 共2002兲. “Piles load test of Shinkong Hsin-Yi Planning C1 Building.” Taiwan.
UU20 Yajima, J., Aoki, Y., and Shibasaki, F. 共1993兲. “Uplift capacity of piles under cyclic load.” Proc., 11th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conf., Singapore, 601–604.
UU21 Bronco, G., Daniele, I., and Claire, N. 共2002兲. “Piles monitoring during the axial compression, pullout and flexure test using
fiber optic sensors.” Proc., 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, CD, 02-2701.

Kulhawy 共1989兲, which showed 0.41 for drained and undrained because of measurement sensitivity. However, the magnitudes are
load tests together, and by Cushing and Kulhawy 共2001, 2002兲, all very small.
which showed 0.44 for drained load tests. Again, the differences For the L2 group, the mean ratios using slope tangent, DeBeer,
are relatively small. 0.5 in., van der Veen, Fuller and Hoy, and Chin, all compared to
Table 7 shows the mean uplift displacements that correspond QL2, range from 0.90 to 1.18. Slope tangent gives the lowest
to each interpretation criterion. The order of these displacements values, while Chin gives the highest, well above QL2. Slope tan-
is the same as that for the capacities, from DeBeer to Chin, with gent and DeBeer give values ⬍1 and therefore are in the nonlin-
␳ values from 6.0 to ⬎ 17.0 mm. Values from the lower bound to ear transition between L1 and L2. All of the methods give
upper bound interpretation criteria vary by more than a factor of relatively low COVs.
three. The mean QSTU / QL2 = 0.90, which is consistent with previous
results 共Hirany and Kulhawy 1989兲 giving 0.89 for drained and
undrained cases together. Overall, the most favorable statistics are
Undrained Uplift Load Tests given with Q0.5in / QL2 = 0.99 共SD= 0.06 and COV= 0.06兲. Further,
Table 9 shows a mean ␳L2 = 12.1 mm. These results are consistent
Summary comparisons of the interpreted capacities and the cor-
with previous studies 共Hirany and Kulhawy 1989; Cushing and
responding displacements for the undrained uplift tests are shown
Kulhawy 2002兲 and suggest that Q0.5in can be considered equiva-
in Tables 8 and 9, respectively, which basically follow the same
approach used for the drained tests. Both tables show compari- lent to QL2.
sons that include all of the data and the data averaged per site. As The mean QL1 / QL2 = 0.61 with SD= 0.11 and COV= 0.19. This
can be seen, both comparisons give very similar results, so there- mean is larger than in previous studies by Hirany and Kulhawy
fore site bias is minimal in these data. 共1989兲, which showed 0.41 for drained and undrained load tests
For the L1 group, the mean ratios 共QxB / QL1兲 range from 0.94 together, but it is comparable to that by Cushing and Kulhawy
to 1.26, with SD and COV about 0.25. By interpolation, QL1 is 共2001, 2002兲, which showed 0.56 for undrained load tests. Again,
approximately equal to Q0.22%B, so therefore the mean ␳L1 the differences are relatively small.
⬇ 0.22% B. From Table 9, the mean ␳L1 is 1.9 mm. Previous work Table 9 shows the mean uplift displacements that correspond
by Hirany and Kulhawy 共1989兲 suggested ␳L1 about 0.4% B; later to each interpretation criterion. The order of these displacements
Cushing and Kulhawy 共2002兲 suggested 0.19% B with a mean of is the same as that for the capacities, from slope tangent to Chin,
1.4 mm. All of these results are consistent, and they show that the with ␳ values from 6.0 to ⬎ 16.2 mm. Values from the lower
initial linear region occurs within a very small displacement. The bound to upper bound interpretation criteria vary by more than a
COV values on these displacements are relatively large, probably factor of three.

Table 5. Range of Geometry of Drilled Shafts for Analysis

Shaft geometry 共m兲
Loading Number of Interpreted capacitya
condition tests Depth, D Diameter, B D/B 共kN兲
Drained 40 Range 1.4–49.3 0.14–1.50 2.0–42.9 25–23,898
Mean 7.4 0.7 15.8 1,212
SD 8.4 0.4 14.1 3,814
COV 1.1 0.6 0.9 3.1
Undrained 37 Range 1.8–62.0 0.35–1.52 1.60–56.0 85–13,433
Mean 11.7 0.9 12.4 1,740
SD 16.5 0.4 13.4 3,164
COV 1.4 0.4 1.1 1.8
a
Uplift capacity was interpreted from L1 – L2 method.

1464 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

 Comparison of Drained and Undrained Load Tests

A comparison of the drained and undrained load tests in Tables

6–9 shows some interesting points. First, the SD and COV for the
undrained tests generally are slightly less than those for the
drained tests. It is not clear whether this is a significant issue or
just a database issue. Both are of the same order of magnitude.
The displacements at ␳L1 are consistent for both drained and und-
rained analyses, but ␳L2 in drained loading occurs at less than
12.7 mm, while it is close to 12.7 mm for undrained loading.
Also, drained loading shows a smaller QL1 / QL2.
The interpreted results for all criteria in the drained and und-
rained loading analyses generally present the same trend. The
DeBeer and slope tangent methods represent the lower bound and
are located within the nonlinear L1 to L2 transition, while Chin is
Fig. 2. Regions of load–displacement curve

Table 6. Summary Comparisons of Interpreted Capacities for Drained Uplift Tests

Interpreted Q / QL1 Interpreted Q / QL2
Data Q0.2%B Q0.25%B Q0.4%B QL1 QDEBEER QSTU QF&H QVDVa Q0.5in QCHIN
All data n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 共33兲 40 共35兲 40 40
Mean 0.88 0.98 1.18 0.50 0.84 0.90 1.01 共0.99兲 1.01 共1.00兲 1.04 1.26
SD 0.30 0.29 0.32 0.15 0.19 0.09 0.19 共0.19兲 0.17 共0.17兲 0.09 0.16
COV 0.34 0.30 0.27 0.31 0.23 0.10 0.19 共0.19兲 0.17 共0.17兲 0.09 0.13
Averaged per site n 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 共16兲 21 共16兲 21 21
Mean 0.88 0.98 1.18 0.51 0.82 0.90 1.02 共1.00兲 1.01 共1.00兲 1.01 1.24
SD 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.15 共0.17兲 0.11 共0.09兲 0.09 0.16
COV 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.30 0.18 0.10 0.15 共0.17兲 0.11 共0.09兲 0.09 0.13
a
Parentheses express the results without data in which load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.
Table 7. Summary Comparisons of Interpreted Displacements for Drained Uplift Tests
Displacement 共mm兲 of interpreted criteria
Data ␳L1 ␳DEBEER ␳STU ␳L2 ␳F&Ha ␳VDVa ␳CHINb
All data n 40 40 40 40 40 共33兲 40 共35兲 40
Range 0.1–4.0 1.8–18.0 2.8–12.7 2.3–20.3 2.3–30.7 共2.3–30.7兲 1.8–40.0 共1.8–34.5兲 3.2–40.0
Mean 1.7 6.0 6.8 10.6 11.1 共10.62兲 12.1 共11.2兲 ⬎17.0
SD 1.02 4.25 2.40 4.03 6.43 共6.77兲 8.19 共7.29兲 ⬎8.82
COV 0.61 0.70 0.36 0.38 0.58 共0.64兲 0.68 共0.65兲 ⬎0.52
Averaged per site n 21 21 21 21 21 共16兲 21 共16兲 21
Range 0.1–3.1 1.8–14.6 2.8–12.7 4.3–20.3 3.2–27.3 共3.2–27.3兲 3.5–31.2 共3.5–31.2兲 4.3–32.1
Mean 1.7 5.5 6.9 11.1 11.80 共11.1兲 12.7 共12.1兲 ⬎17.2
SD 0.87 3.74 2.56 4.32 6.00 共6.31兲 7.41 共7.34兲 ⬎7.89
COV 0.51 0.68 0.37 0.39 0.51 共0.57兲 0.58 共0.61兲 ⬎0.46
a
Parentheses express the results without data in which load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.
b
The symbol 共⬎兲 expresses that the displacements are greater than the measurement data.
Table 8. Summary Comparisons of Interpreted Capacities for Undrained Uplift Tests
Interpreted Q / QL1 Interpreted Q / QL2
Data Q0.2%B Q0.25%B Q0.4%B QL1 QSTU QDEBEER Q0.5in QVDVa QF&H QCHIN
All data n 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 35 37 共31兲 37
Mean 0.94 1.04 1.26 0.61 0.90 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.03 共1.01兲 1.18
SD 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.07 共0.06兲 0.19
COV 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.07 共0.06兲 0.16
Averaged per site n 21 21 20 21 21 21 21 19 21 共15兲 21
Mean 0.89 1.00 1.20 0.62 0.88 0.88 0.98 1.01 1.03 共1.01兲 1.21
SD 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.11 0.07 共0.05兲 0.22
COV 0.26 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.10 0.07 共0.05兲 0.18
a
Parentheses express the results without data in which load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1465

Table 9. Summary Comparisons of Interpreted Displacements for Undrained Uplift Tests
Displacement 共mm兲 of interpreted criteria
Data ␳L1 ␳STU ␳DEBEER ␳VDV ␳L2 ␳F&Ha ␳CHINb
All data n 36 36 36 34 36 36 共31兲 36
Range 0.8–5.2 1.9–18.0 1.1–28.0 2.5–33.0 2.5–38.0 2.5–40.0 共3.8–34.5兲 2.5–40.0
Mean 1.9 6.0 7.7 11.3 12.1 14.4 共12.9兲 ⬎16.2
SD 1.19 3.21 6.07 8.05 7.98 10.62 共8.63兲 ⬎11.50
COV 0.64 0.54 0.79 0.71 0.63 0.73 共0.67兲 ⬎0.71
Averaged per site n 21 21 21 19 21 21 共16兲 21
Range 0.8–4.0 2.0–18.0 1.1–28.0 2.5–31.3 2.5–48.0 2.5–40.0 共6.0–34.5兲 2.5–40.0
Mean 2.2 6.5 8.6 13.3 13.8 16.6 共14.1兲 ⬎19.0
SD 1.25 3.84 7.10 8.65 8.92 11.01 共7.95兲 ⬎12.44
COV 0.56 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.65 0.66 共0.56兲 ⬎0.65
a
Parentheses express the results without data in which load test was terminated before interpreted capacity.
b
The symbol 共⬎兲 expresses that the displacements are greater than the measurement data.

the upper bound above all the measured results. The L2, 0.5 in., more favorable statistics. Slope tangent and DeBeer have mean
van der Veen, and Fuller and Hoy methods are in the medium displacements between 5 and 10 mm, but slope tangent has better
region for all the interpretation criteria. Among these criteria, the statistics. L1 occurs at very small displacements.
0.5 in. and slope tangent methods give the smallest SD and COV. For undrained loading, the recommendations are basically the
Table 10 summarizes the key statistics for the drained, und- same.
rained, and combined load tests using representative interpreta-
tion criteria. On average, QL1 occurs at about 0.24% B, QL1 / QL2
is between 0.5 and 0.6, QSTU / QL2 is about 0.9, Q0.5in / QL2 is about Summary and Conclusions
1, and ␳L2 is about 12– 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲.
Table 11 compares the regression data for the different inter- Axial uplift load test data were evaluated for straight-sided drilled
pretation methods, and Figs. 3 and 4 show the upper, middle, and shafts in a wide variety of soil profiles. The database included 42
lower bounds among the interpretation criteria for the drained and sites with 77 field uplift load tests, including 21 sites with 40 tests
undrained load tests, respectively. DeBeer represents the lower in drained loading and 21 sites with 37 tests in undrained loading.
bound, Chin is the upper bound, and 0.5 in. is closest to QL2. Six representative interpretation criteria were used to evaluate the
data. From these analyses, the following consistent results
emerged.
Design Recommendations 1. The range of each interpretation method is comparable for
both drained and undrained loading. The DeBeer and slope
Based on the data analyses, the mean load–displacement curves tangent methods are lower bounds, Chin is the upper bound,
for drained and undrained axial uplift loading can be given as in and L2, 0.5 in., Fuller and Hoy, and van der Veen are in the
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The corresponding ratio of each inter- middle. DeBeer and slope tangent are between L1 and L2,
pretation method to QL2 and its displacement also are shown. For while Chin always lies above the measured data.
drained loading, Chin is always above the measured load– 2. The coefficients of variation for the undrained database are
displacement curve and will be unconservative. L2, 0.5 in., Fuller lower than those for the drained database, suggesting that
and Hoy, and van der Veen are comparable, on average, and their undrained predictions may be more reliable than the drained.
mean displacements are between 10 and 15 mm. However, L2 has 3. In drained loading, ␳L2 occurs at less than 12.7 mm, while it

Table 10. Summary Comparisons of Uplift Interpreted Results

Interpreted Q / QL2 Displacement 共mm兲
a b
Database Mode QL1 QSTU Q0.5in QCHIN ␳L1 ␳STU ␳L2 ␳CHIN
Hirany and Kulhawy D — — — — — — — —
Cushing and Kulhawy D 0.44 — 1.08 — 1.5共0.25% B兲 — — —
This study D 0.50 0.90 1.04 1.26 1.7共0.26% B兲 6.8 10.6 ⬎17.0
Hirany and Kulhawy U — — — — — — — —
Cushing and Kulhawy U 0.56 — 0.99 — 1.4共0.19% B兲 — — —
This study U 0.61 0.90 0.99 1.18 1.9共0.22% B兲 6.0 12.1 ⬎16.2
Hirany and Kulhawy D+U 0.41 0.89 — — −共0.40% B兲 — 12.7 —
Cushing and Kulhawy D+U — — — — — — — —
This study D+U 0.55 0.90 1.01 1.22 1.8共0.24% B兲 6.4 11.3 ⬎16.6
a
Hirany and Kulhawy 共1988, 1989, 2002兲; Cushing and Kulhawy 共2001, 2002兲.
b
D = drained; U = undrained.
1466 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Table 11. Comparison of Regression Data for Different Methods versus
QL2
Statisticsc
Interpreted Q Modea ␹b n r2 SD 共kN兲
d
QL1 D 0.46 共0.48兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.93兲 114 共114兲
QDEBEER D 0.62 共0.71兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.94兲 160 共144兲
QSTU D 0.84 共0.95兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.99兲 105 共56兲
Q0.5in. D 0.91 共1.06兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.99兲 147 共76兲
QF&H D 1.25 共1.08兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.99兲 163 共86兲
QVDV D 1.05 共1.01兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.98兲 133 共132兲
QCHIN D 1.39 共1.32兲 40 共39兲 0.99 共0.99兲 145 共134兲
QL1 U 0.52 37 0.97 391
QDEBEER U 0.78 37 0.99 285
QSTU U 0.83 37 0.99 210
Q0.5in. U 0.93 37 0.99 124
QVDV U 1.07 35 0.98 551
QF&H U 1.08 37 0.99 342 Fig. 4. Comparison of undrained interpreted results
QCHIN U 1.24 37 0.99 508
a
D = drained; U = undrained.
b
Q = ␹QL2.
c
n = data points; r2 = coef. determination; SD= standard deviation.
d
Parentheses express results when one very large value was removed;
these results are adopted in Figs. 3 and 4.

is close to 12.7 mm in undrained loading. Also, drained load-

ing shows a smaller QL1 / QL2 than undrained loading.
4. On average, QL1 is close to Q0.25%B with a mean displace-
ment of 1.7– 1.9 mm, and QL1 is between 0.5 and 0.6 QL2.
5. On average, QL2 is close to Q0.5in with a mean displacement
of 10.6– 12.1 mm. Although the graphical QL2 method is to
be preferred, Q0.5in can be employed as a first approximation,
but only for drilled shafts constructed conventionally.
6. QL2 is proper to use for uplift drilled shaft design. Factored
values less than QL1 will ensure safety factors over 2 and
small design displacements.
7. When necessary, QSTU can be used to infer QL2 if the load
test data are insufficient or are terminated prematurely. Fig. 5. Typical load–displacement results for drained uplift loading

Fig. 6. Typical load–displacement results for undrained uplift

Fig. 3. Comparison of drained interpreted results loading

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1467

Acknowledgments Chicago, 81–112.
DeBeer, E. E. 共1970兲. “Experimental determination of shape factors of
This study was supported by the National Science Council, Tai- sand.” Geotechnique, 20共4兲, 387–411.
wan, under Contract No. NSC 96-2221-E-033-034. Fuller, F. M., and Hoy, H. E. 共1970兲. “Pile load tests including quick load
test method, conventional methods, and interpretations.” Research
Record No. 333, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 74–86
Hirany, A., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1988兲. “Conduct & interpretation of load
References
tests on drilled shaft foundations: Detailed guidelines.” Rep. No. EL-
5915(1), Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Chen, J.-R., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2001兲. “Compaction effects induced in Hirany, A., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1989兲. “Interpretation of load tests on
cohesionless soil by installation of pressure-injected footings.” Foun-
drilled shafts. 2: Axial uplift.” Foundation engineering: Current prin-
dations and ground improvement (GSP 113), T. L. Brandon, ed.,
ciples and practices (GSP 22), F. H. Kulhawy, ed., ASCE, New York,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 230–244.
1150–1159.
Chen, J.-R., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2002兲. “Axial uplift behavior of
Hirany, A., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2002兲. “On the interpretation of drilled
pressure-injected footings in cohesionless soil.” Deep foundations
foundation load test results.” Deep foundations (GSP 116), M. W.
(GSP 116), M. W. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend, eds., ASCE, Reston,
Va., 1275–1289. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 1018–1028.
Chen, J.-R., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2003兲. “Significance of construction Jeon, S. S., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2001兲. “Evaluation of axial compression
effects on uplift behavior of drilled foundations.” Proc., 12th Asian behavior of micropiles.” Foundations and ground improvement (GSP
Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 113), T. L. Brandon, ed., ASCE, Reston, Va., 460–471.
World Scientific, Singapore, 591–594. Kulhawy, F. H. 共2004兲. “On the axial behavior of drilled foundations.”
Chin, F. K. 共1970兲. “Estimation of the ultimate load of piles not carried to GeoSupport 2004: Drilled shafts, micropiling, deep mixing, remedial
failure.” Proc., 2nd Southeast Asian Conf. on Soil Engineering, 81– methods, and specialty foundation systems (GSP 124), J. P. Turner and
90. P. W. Mayne, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 34–51.
Cushing, A. G., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2001兲. “Undrained elastic behavior Kulhawy, F. H., and Jeon, S. S. 共1999兲. “Some observations on axial
of drilled shaft foundations in cohesive soils.” Proc., 15th Int. Conf. compression behavior of micropiles.” Proc., 2nd Int. Workshop on
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, Balkema, Micropiles, Ube 共Japan兲, 89–92.
Rotterdam, 873–876. O’Rourke, T. D., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1985兲. “Observations on load tests
Cushing, A. G., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2002兲. “Drained elastic behavior of on drilled shafts.” Drilled piers and caissons II, C. N. Baker, ed.,
drilled shafts in cohesionless soils.” Deep foundations (GSP 116), M. ASCE, New York, 113–128.
W. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 22–36. van der Veen, C. 共1953兲. “Bearing capacity of a pile.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Davisson, M. T. 共1972兲. “High capacity piles.” Proc., Lecture Series on Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Zurich,
Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section, 85–90.

1468 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008