ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests

Hoonil Seol, Sangseom Jeong *
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Osterberg-Cell (O-Cell) tests are widely used to predict the load–settlement behavior of large-diameter
Received 14 August 2008 drilled shafts socketed in rock. The loading direction of O-Cell tests for shaft resistance is opposite to that
Received in revised form 4 March 2009 of conventional downward load tests, meaning that the equivalent top load–settlement curve determined
Accepted 29 April 2009
by the summation of the mobilized shaft resistance and end bearing at the same deflection neglects the
Available online xxxx
pile–toe settlement caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft. The emphasis is on quantifying
the effect of coupled shaft resistance, which is closely related to the ratios of pile diameter to soil mod-
Keywords:
ulus (D/Es) and total shaft resistance to total applied load (Rs/Q) in rock-socketed drilled shafts, using the
Load-transfer analysis
Coupled shaft resistance
coupled load-transfer method. The proposed analytical method, which takes into account the effect of
Drilled shaft coupled shaft resistance, was developed using a modified Mindlin’s point load solution. Through compar-
Osterberg-Cell test isons with field case studies, it was found that the proposed method reasonably estimated the load-trans-
Mindlin’s solution fer behavior of piles and coupling effects due to the transfer of shaft shear loading. These results represent
a significant improvement in the prediction of load–settlement behaviors of drilled shafts subjected to bi-
directional loading from the O-Cell test.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In South Korea, a number of huge construction projects, such as
land reclamation for international airports, high-speed railways,
and harbor constructions, are in progress in urban and coastal
areas. Large-diameter drilled shafts are frequently used instead
of driven piles for two applications: deepwater offshore founda-
tions, and foundations in urban areas to avoid the noise and vibra-
tion associated with pile driving. Over 90% of the drilled shafts
constructed in South Korea are embedded in weathered or soft
rocks.
The high capacity of large-diameter drilled shafts, in combina-
tion with the high cost of top load systems providing over 10 MN
reaction load, make conventional load testing too costly or imprac-
tical. The Osterberg-Cell test (O-Cell test, or bi-directional loading
test) provides high capacities at an affordable cost, and has there-
fore become an attractive alternative for testing drilled shafts.
Generally, the pile-head settlements in O-Cell tests are calcu-
lated by the summation of the side shear load–displacement curve
resulting from the upward movement of the top of the O-Cell and
the end bearing load–displacement curve obtained from the down-
ward movement of the bottom of the O-Cell [1,2]. However, it
should be noted that the loading direction of O-Cell tests for shaft
is opposite to that of conventional load tests. This means that the
pile-toe displacement (wbs) caused by the load transmitted along
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2807; fax: +82 2 364 5300.
E-mail addresses: hiseol7@gmail.com (H. Seol), soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
the pile shaft is not considered. According to Seol and Jeong et al.
[3], the typical range of wbs, expressed as a percentage of the total
pile-toe displacement (wb), is 0% to 30% for general working loads.
Consequently, the effects of coupled shaft resistance need to be
considered for the design of drilled shafts by O-Cell tests.
This study presents an improved load-transfer method to take
into account this coupled shaft resistance on the basis of Mindlin’s
solution [4]. The proposed method was validated using field
measurements of O-Cell tests performed at Pusan, Gimhae, and
Inchoen in South Korea. In Pusan and Gimhae, both conventional
compressive and O-Cell testing were performed simultaneously
to investigate the effects of different loading mechanisms on pile
load–displacement behavior.
2. Osterberg-Cell tests
The O-Cell is a static-loading test device, consisting of a hydrau-
lic jack used to induce an upward and downward vertical load at
the bottom of the shaft. As the cell is pressurized, the bottom of
the cell moves downward, causing end bearing forces, while the
top of the cell moves upward, causing shaft resistance (see
Fig. 1). This allows the estimation of shear and end bearing load-
transfer behavior separately from two measured load–displace-
ment curves.
The data from an O-Cell test could be analyzed in much the
same way as data from a conventional top-load test using the
equivalent top-loaded settlement curve. The three assumptions
made to reconstruct the equivalent top-loaded settlement curve

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Reaction System 120

By pile top loading (coupled)
Q = F+P
By pile toe loading (non-coupled)

Displacement (mm)
80
Ultimate shaft resistance
F P = (-) F mobilizes

40
Expanding wbs
Osterberg Cell
P P Q = 2P wb
wbp
Fig. 1. Comparison of the conventional compressive test and the O-Cell test [1].

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
from the O-Cell test results are [1]: firstly, the side shear load–dis-
placement curve resulting from the upward movement of the top Unit toe resistance (kPa)
of the O-cell is equal to the downward top-of-pile movement in
Fig. 2. Comparison of q–w relations under pile-top and pile-toe loading [3].
conventional compression load tests; secondly, the end bearing
load–displacement curve obtained from the downward movement
of the bottom of the O-cell is equal to the downward bottom-of- 0.5
pile movement in a conventional top-load test; and finally, the pile
D = 0.5m
is assumed to be rigid so that the top and bottom have the same
Es = 50MPa D 1
deformation, despite them supporting different loads. By adding Es = 100 m/MPa
the shaft resistance to the mobilized end bearing having the same 0.4 Es = 500MPa
deformation, a single point on the equivalent top-loaded settle- Es = 5000MPa
ment curve can be obtained. This is repeated for all data to deter-
mine the equivalent head-down load–settlement curve. In this D = 1.0m
0.3 Es = 100MPa
interpretation method, the elastic compression in the equivalent
wbs / wb

Es = 1000MPa D 1
top-load test always exceeds that obtained in the O-Cell test be- Es = 1,000 m/MPa
cause the load–movement curve for end bearing does not include Es = 10000MPa
elastic pile compression [2]. This not only produces more top 0.2
movement, but also additional side shear movement, which then
D 1
generates more side shear and more compression. To solve this Es = 10,000 m/MPa
Non-coupled
problem, an exact solution using the load-transfer method and
0.1 soil resistance
an approximate solution [2] using the pattern of developed side
shear stress are widely used in practice. However, as mentioned
above, these solutions do not consider the effects of coupled shaft
resistance. 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
3. Effects of coupled shaft resistance (End-bearing pile) (Friction pile)
Total Shaft Resistance / Total Applied load
The load-transfer method [5,6] has been widely used to predict
the load-transfer characteristics of piles subjected to axial loads, Fig. 3. Effects of coupled soil resistance [3].
since it can be applied fairly well to complex material layering with
a nonlinear stress–strain relationship, non-homogeneity, and with From observation of the results of FE analyses, they reported that
variations in the pile section along its length. In this method, the additional pile-toe displacement (wbs) due to coupled shaft resis-
pile is modeled by discrete elements and the soil by a set of tance increases proportionally until it reaches the ultimate state,
load-transfer curves that represent the soil resistance as a function as shown in Fig. 2. This displacement depends on the ratio of the pile
of pile displacements at several discrete points along the pile, diameter to the modulus of the end bearing layer (D/Es) as shown in
including the pile-toe. It is implicit that coupled shaft resistance, Fig. 3. Here, wb is the total pile-toe displacement and wbp is the dis-
in which the response at any point on the interface affects other placement caused by the load transmitted at the pile-toe. Also, it
points, is neglected [3]. was observed that as the ratio of total shaft resistance to total
Seol and Jeong et al. [3] conducted a series of FE analyses to applied load (Rs/Q) increased, the effects of coupled shaft resistance
examine the coupled behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts. To increased exponentially, so that the coupling effect is generally
simulate slippage and shear-load-transfer behavior at the pile–soil more significant for friction piles than for end-bearing piles.
(or pile–rock) interface, they proposed an interface modeling tech-
nique using a special (contact) interface model defined by a user- 4. Load-transfer analysis by coupled shaft resistance
subroutine (FRIC). The FE analysis is a continuum approach, so it
considers coupled shaft resistance of piles automatically, while As described in the previous section, coupled shaft resistance
the traditional load-transfer method does not. effects are significant for friction piles, depend on the values of

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

D/Es and Rs/Q, and can be modeled by Mindlin’s equation. The ana- due to a vertical point load. According to Mindlin’s equation, Ip is gi-
lytical method proposed in the present study improves upon the ven by:
solution procedure and the algorithm based on Mindlin’s solution, (
and is discussed in detail in following sections. ð1 þ ms Þ z21 ð3  4ms Þ ð5  12ms þ 8m2s Þ
Ip ¼ þ þ
8pð1  ms Þ R31 R1 R2
4.1. Modeling for coupled shaft resistance )
ð3  4ms Þz2  2cz þ 2c2 6cz2 ðz  cÞ
þ þ ð4Þ
The vertical displacement at pile element due to shear on other R32 R52
elements can be described as follows [4]:
where ms is Poisson’s ratio, z = L + c, z1 = L  c, R2 = z2 + D2/4, and
D R21 ¼ z21 þ D2 =4.
fws g ¼ ½Is fpg ð1Þ
Es The integral with respect to c of Eq. (4) can be evaluated analyt-
ically and expressed as
where {ws} is the vertical displacement of the material adjacent to
the pile, {p} is the pile stress vector; D and Es are the pile diameter (
ð1 þ ms Þ z1
and Young’s modulus of material, respectively; and [Is] is the Ibj ¼  4ð1 þ ms Þ lnðz1 þ R1 Þ
8ð1  ms Þ R1
approximate influence factor obtained by integration of Mindlin’s
equation for the displacement due to a point load within a semi- 2L2 z=r 2  4L  ð3  4ms Þz
infinite mass. þ 8ð1  2ms þ m2s Þ lnðz þ R2 Þ þ
R2
For n shaft elements and the base, the influence factor Is can be )
classified into two different components: Ibj (j = 1  n), which is the ðLr2  L2 z3 =r 2 Þ
þ2 ð5Þ
toe displacement due to shear stress on an element j, and the Iij R32
(i – j), which is the vertical displacement factor for element i due
to shear stress on element j. Therefore, the pile-toe displacement
where L is the embedded depth and r is the pile radius. By substitu-
caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft can be ex-
tion of Eq. (5) into Eq. (2), the pile-toe displacement wbs caused by
pressed as:
the load carried by the pile shaft can be calculated.

D X n
wbs ¼ ðIbj fj Þ ð2Þ
Es j¼1
Node Q0
0
where fj is the shear transfer function on element j and Ibj is the ver-

Displacement
w0
tical displacement factor for the base due to shear stress on element Sf-w,0
Stiffness T1
j (see Fig. 4). This factor is defined as: (AE)1
Δ L1
Z Δ L1
jD L
T1 +w
Ibj ¼ p Ip dc ð3Þ Q1
ðj1ÞDL
1
w1
where the length of the element DL is L/n, c is the embedded depth Sf-w,1
T2

Applied force
to element j, and Ip is the influence factor for vertical displacement

(AE)i
Δ Li
Δ Li +Q
Element 1 Ti
Qi
i wi
( j-1) Δ L c
z
Sf-w,i
jΔL Ti+1 +T
Axial thrust

Δ Li+1 (AE)i+1
Δ Li+1
ΔL fj
Element j
L +T
Tn-1
Qn-1
n-1
wn-1
Sf-w,n-1
Tn
(ApEp)n
Δ Ln Δ Ln
Tn
Qn
Element n n
wn
Sq-w Sf-w,n
D

Fig. 4. Geometry of pile [4]. Fig. 5. Mechanical model for an axial beam-column [6].

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

82 3
4.2. Solution procedure >
> c0 d0
>
>6 7
>
>6 b c1 d1 7
>
>6
1
7
The mechanical model of the pile under axial loading is shown >
>6 7
>
<6    7
in Fig. 5. The pile is treated as a series of deformable springs of 6 7
6 bi c i di 7
length DL rigidly connected at nodes denoted by the symbol i. >
>6 7
>
>6    7
The pile stiffness is considered to be a linear spring of stiffness >
>6 7
>
>6 7
AE/DL, where A is the cross-sectional area and E is the modulus >
>4 bn1 cn1 dn1 5
>
:
of elasticity. External loads Q and support springs S (shaft resis- bn cn
tance Sf–w of n + 1, toe resistance Sq–w of 1) may be placed at each 2 3 2 3
2 39 w0 p0
node i. The internal force in each spring is termed the thrust and >
>6 7 6 7
6 7>>6 w1 7 6 p1 7
denoted by the symbol T. Displacements w are considered positive 6 7>>
> 6 7 6 7
6 7> 6 .. 7 6 .. 7
in downward direction shown in Fig. 5. Tensile thrust is considered 6 7>>
> 6 . 7 6 . 7
6 7=6 7 6 7
positive. The equations of force-equilibrium for any node i and 6 7 6 7 6 7
þ6 ei;j 7 6 wi 7 ¼ 6 pi 7 ð12aÞ
node n (pile-toe) can be respectively expressed as follows: 6 7>> 6 7 6 7
6 7> 6 .. 7 6 .. 7
6 7>>
> 6 . 7 6 . 7
6 7> 6 7 6 7
T i þ T iþ1 þ Q i  Si ðwi  wbs Þ ¼ 0 ð6Þ 4 5>>
> 6 7 6 7
;4 wn1 5 4 pn1 5
>
wn pn
where wi is the total displacement at node i, and wbs is the pile-toe
displacement caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft ½K A þ K C fWg ¼ fPg ð12bÞ
(Eq. (2)), so that wi  wbs is the relative displacement between the where [KA] is the ordinary stiffness matrix for an axially-loaded pile,
pile and material. At node 0 (pile-head) and node n (pile-toe), half [KC] is the added stiffness matrix for coupling effects, {W} is the ver-
values of the material reaction stiffness Sf–w should be used because tical displacement, and {P} is the external vertical load.
the equivalent spring at those nodes represents the material reac-
tion stiffness for half of the layer depth that is equal to half length
5. Comparison with field observations
of the corresponding element.
If increments of length DL are equal, the unit shaft resistance
5.1. Pusan Case
exerted by the material can be expressed as follows:

Sf —w;j The load-transfer characteristics of large-diameter instru-

fj ¼ ðwj  wbs Þ ð7Þ mented drilled shafts socketed in highly weathered rocks reported
C p DL
by Kwon et al. [7] were compared to the values predicted by the
where Cp is the perimeter of the pile. Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. proposed method. Fig. 6 shows the subsurface profile and shaft
(2), wbs can be rewritten as follows: embedments of the test piles. Both test piles T and O are
1500 mm in diameter and 33.4 m in length. The pile load tests
Pn were performed to investigate the effects of different loading
j¼0 ðI bj Sf w;j wj Þ
wbs ¼ P ð8Þ mechanisms on pile load–displacement behavior and thus, piles T
Es C p DL=D þ nj¼0 ðIbj Sf w;j Þ
and O were tested using conventional and O-Cell methods, respec-
tively. The transfer functions and material parameters used in this
From the force–deformation relationships for each spring, the study are summarized in Table 1, in which the following parame-
member forces must be ters are listed: unconfined compressive strength of intact rock (rci),
soil (Es) and rock mass moduli (Em), Poisson’s ratio (t), unit weight
ðAEÞi
Ti ¼ ðwi1 þ wi Þ ð9aÞ (c), mean roughness angle (i), geological strength index (GSI), rock
DL quality designation (RQD), ultimate unit shaft resistance (fmax),
ðAEÞiþ1 ultimate unit toe resistance (qmax), and critical movement (wmax)
T iþ1 ¼ ðwi þ wiþ1 Þ ð9bÞ
DL of the pile segment at fmax or qmax.
The parameters of the materials and interface for the gneiss
Substituting Eqs. (8), and (9) into Eq. (6), combining like coeffi-
layer were chosen based on the results of various site investiga-
cients and rearranging terms, the governing equation at node i is
tions (SPT tests, pressuremeter tests, uniaxial compressive load
expressed as follows:
X
n
bi wi1 þ ci wi þ diþ1 wiþ1 þ ðei;j wj Þ ¼ pi ð10Þ T O
j¼0

where Fill
Fill -9.0m
bi ¼ ðAEÞi =DL ð11aÞ -12.6m
ci ¼ ½ðAEÞi  ðAEÞiþ1 =DL þ Si ð11bÞ
Clay Clay
di ¼ ðAEÞiþ1 =DL ð11cÞ
-22.0m -22.5m
Si ðIbj Sf —w;j Þ
ei;j ¼ P ð11dÞ
Es C p DL=D þ nk¼0 ðIbk Sf —w;k Þ Gravel Gravel
-28.0m -28.0m
pi ¼ Q i ð11eÞ
Breccia [CW] Breccia [CW]
-33.5m -33.5m
In Eq. (11b), the supporting spring Si of any node i and node n are Breccia [HW] Breccia [HW] O-Cell
Sf–w,i and Sf–w,n + Sq–w, respectively. Eq. (10) is then written sequen-
1.5 m 1.5 m
tially for each node i along the shaft. The result is a set of n + 1 equa-
tions containing the unknown displacements wi as follows: Fig. 6. Subsurface profile and shaft embedments for test piles (Pusan).

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

Table 1
Parameters of material and transfer function (Pusan).

Pile no. Subsurface profile Transfer function Material parameters

a
Type Depth (m) rci (MPa) Es (MPa) t c (kN/m3) i (°) GSI RQD fmax (kPa) wmax (m)
– Pile 0–33.5 – 45 30,000 0.2 23 – – – – –
T Shaft Sand 0–12.6 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 50 0.01
Clay 12.6–22.0 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 200 0.01
Gravel 22.0–28.0 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 400 0.01
Breccia (CW) 28.0–33.5 Nonlinearb 79 151 0.3 21 4.6d 25 20 528e –
Toe Breccia (HW) – Hyperbolicc – 1000g 0.3 10,000f,g –
O Shaft Sand 0–9.0 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 50 0.01
Clay 9.0–22.5 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 200 0.01
Gravel 22.5–28.0 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – – 400 0.01
Breccia (CW) 28.0–33.5 Nonlinearb 79 151 0.3 21 4.6d 25 20 528e –
Toe Breccia (HW) – Hyperbolicc – 1000g 0.3 10,000f,g –
a
CW: completely weathered rock, HW: highly weathered rock, MW: moderately weathered rock, SW: slightly weathered rock [8].
b
Seol and Jeong et al. [9].
c
Castelli et al. [10].
d
Moderate magnitude of borehole roughness angle.
e
Predicted value by fmax = 0.135 Pa (Em/Pa)0.5 [11].
f
qmax.
g
Assumed value.

tests, and point load tests), but those of the soil and gravel layers
were selected using only SPT tests and general reference values.
For the fill and clay layers, SPT test results raged from 5 to 20 blows
per 30 cm of penetration, with average values of 8/30 and 13/30,
respectively. The ranges of the SPT N values measured in the gravel
layer was from 50/30 to 50/8 (corresponding roughly to SPT N val-
ues of 50–300).
The roughness in the shear-load transfer (f–w) model [9] of the
Breccia layer is characterized by a chord length and the mean
roughness angle, which are then used to generate fractal roughness
profiles for the socket wall [12]. Therefore, these roughness param-
eters were required to simulate the varying degrees of roughness
that can occur in rough rock socket. Seol et al. [11] recommends
that the interface roughness for rocks of unconfined compressive
strength greater than 20 MPa can be represented by a regular saw-
tooth with a chord length of 50 mm and roughness angle ranging
from 1.1° to 8.0°, based on results of borehole roughness profiling
tests and study of Seidel and Collingwood [13]. This approach
yielded an average roughness angle (i) for the test shafts of 4.6°.
Also, fmax used in the interface model of the rock layer was deter-
mined by its empirical relationship with the rock mass moduli
[11]. A constant value of 0.3 was assigned to Poisson’s ratio of rock
layers. The assumed and predicted values using general references
and empirical relations for the curve fittings are annotated by var-
ious symbols in Table 1.
Fig. 7 shows the predicted and measured load–settlement
curves of test pile T and the equivalent top-loaded load–settlement
curve of test pile O. The equivalent top-loaded load–settlement
curve was established by an approximate solution [2] using the
pattern of developed side shear stress. It is shown that the general
trend observed by measurements of pile O are similar to the pre-
dictions made using the existing uncoupled method under working
load settlement (within 1% of the pile diameter), although there are
some differences beyond the working load. In addition, both the
equivalent top-loaded curve of pile O and the predicted value of
pile T obtained from the uncoupled method have considerably

Axial Load (kN) Axial Load (kN)

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
0 0

Sand
Settlement at pile head (mm)

10
20
Depth (m)

Clay
20

40 Gravel

Measured (Pile T) 30
Equivalent (Pile O) by Loadtest Inc.[2] Breccia
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis
Measured (Pile T)
Uncoupled Load Transfer Analysis
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis
60 40

Fig. 7. Comparison of load–displacement curves at the pile-head (Pusan). Fig. 8. Comparison of axial load distributions (Pusan).

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

G1 G2 Axial Load (kN)

Fill -1.7m Fill -1.7m 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
0

Residual Soil Residual Soil

Settlement at pile head (mm)

4
-19.9m -19.9m

Andesite [HW] Andesite [HW]

-27.9m -27.9m
Andesite [MW] -30.6m Andesite [MW] -30.6m 8
O-Cell

1.5 m 1.5 m

Fig. 9. Subsurface profile and shaft embedments for test piles (Gimhae).
smaller settlements than the measured value for pile T obtained
from conventional load tests. The presented analysis based on soil
coupling closely approximates the measured load–settlement
behavior of pile T. This clearly demonstrates the existence of soil
coupling, represented by wbs, and that the prediction account for
the pile-toe settlement caused by shear-load transfer.
Fig. 8 shows the predicted and observed axial load distributions
in the test piles, together with the results of the proposed coupled
method only. This is because the equations of force-equilibrium
are calculated by excluding wbs (see Eq. (6)), so that the axial load
distributions calculated by either method are equivalent. It is ob-
served that agreement between the measured and predicted value
is generally good.
5.2. Gimhae case
The load-transfer characteristics of two large-diameter instru-
mented drilled shafts [14] in moderately weathered rock were
compared to the results using the proposed method. Fig. 9 shows
the subsurface profile and shaft embedments of the test piles. Both
test piles G1 and G2 are 1500 mm in diameter and 30.6 m in
length. Test pile G1 was tested using a conventional loading test
and Test pile G2 was tested using the O-Cell test. The material
parameters and load-transfer functions were chosen based on the
12
Measured (Pile G2)
Equivalent (Pile G1) by Loadtest Inc.[2]
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis
Uncoupled Load Transfer Analysis
16
Fig. 10. Comparison of load–displacement curves at the pile-head (Gimhae).
results of various site investigations (SPT tests, pressure meter
tests, and uniaxial compressive load tests) and the pile load tests.
For andesite layers, the measured RQD varied from 10% to 45%,
with an average of 21% and an average TCR of 54. From the uniaxial
compressive tests, UCS was approximately 75 MPa. The roughness
angle, i, was assumed to be 4.6 throughout and a constant value of
0.3 was assigned to Poisson’s ratio of rock layers. The transfer func-
tions and material parameters used in this study are summarized
in Table 2. The assumed and predicted values using general refer-
ences and empirical relations for the curve fittings are annotated
by various symbols in the same manner as Table 1.
Figs. 10 and 11 show comparisons of the load–settlement
curves and axial load distributions, respectively. In Fig. 10,
although the measured curve for pile G1 shows slightly larger set-
tlements than the equivalent curve for pile G2, it can be seen that
piles G1 and G2 will have almost identical load–settlement curves.
This is explained by the fact that the test pile-head settlements are
very small (within 0.5% of the pile diameter), and the settlements

Table 2
Parameters of material and transfer function (Gimhae).

Pile no. Subsurface profile Transfer function Material parameters

Typea Depth (m) rci (MPa) Es (MPa) t c (kN/m3) i (°) GSI fmax (kPa) wmax (m)
– Pile 0–30.6 – 34.3 27,500 0.2 23 – – – –
G1 Shaft Fill 0–1.7 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – 50 0.002
Residual soil 1.7–19.9 Bi-linear – – – 17g – – 50 0.002
Andesite (HW) 19.9–26.0 Nonlinearb 75 1395 0.3 21 4.6d 25 1605e –
Andesite (MW) 26.0 – 30.6 Nonlinearb 75 5330 0.3 26 4.6d 40 3137e –
Toe Andesite (MW) – Hyperbolicc – 5330 0.3 – – – 25,000f,g –
G2 Shaft Fill 0–1.7 Bi-linear – – – 18g – – 50 0.002
Residual soil 1.7–19.9 Bi-linear – – – 17g – – 50 0.002
Andesite (HW) 19.9–26.0 Nonlinearb 75 1395 0.3 21 4.6d 25 1605e –
Andesite (MW) 26.0–30.6 Nonlinearb 75 5330 0.3 26 4.6d 40 3137e –
Toe Andesite (MW) – Hyperbolicc – 5330 0.3 – – – 25,000f,g –
a
CW: completely weathered rock, HW: highly weathered rock, MW: moderately weathered rock, SW: slightly weathered rock [8].
b
Seol and Jeong et al. [9].
c
Castelli et al. [10].
d
Moderate magnitude of borehole roughness angle.
e
Predicted value by fmax = 0.135 Pa (Em/Pa)0.5 [11].
f
qmax.
g
Assumed value.

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7

Axial Load (kN) at the pile-toe are less than 2.5 mm. The small measured difference
between the measured curve for pile G1 and equivalent curve for
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
pile G2 do not matter from a quantitative point of view. It should
0 be noted that the analyses using the coupled and uncoupled meth-
ods give similar values and behaviors. This is because the test piles
G1 and G2 are installed in high strength rocks, which have qu of
75 MPa and Em of 5,330 MPa, and thus wbs due to the effects of cou-
10 pled shaft resistance is small. This observation is verified by Seol
and Jeong et al. [3], who report that wbs due to coupled shaft resis-
Residual Soil tance depends on the ratio of diameter to rock-mass modulus (D/
Depth (m)

Es). This suggests that for piles socketed in high strength rock it
is possible to substitute approximate, equivalent uncoupled
20 load–settlement curves.
Andesite (HW)
5.3. Inchoen case

30 Andesite (MW) The load-transfer characteristics of three large-diameter instru-

mented drilled shafts [15] were compared to the results using the
Measured (Pile G2) proposed coupled method. These piles were installed in moder-
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis ately weathered granite for real construction projects in Incheon.
Fig. 12 shows the subsurface profile and shaft embedments of
40 the test piles. Both test piles W8 and E7 are 2,400 mm in diameter
and 45.1 and 40.0 m in length, respectively. Test pile E5 is
Fig. 11. Comparison of axial load distributions (Gimhae).
3000 mm in diameter and 40.1 m in length. All test piles were
tested using the O-Cell test suited for the high bearing capacity
W8 E7 E5 of a large-diameter pile. Applied loads for W8, E7, and E5 were
240 MN, 170 MN, and 284 MN, respectively. The material parame-
- 5.5m
Sea bed ters and load-transfer functions were based on various site inves-
- 6.1m Sea bed - 11.2m - 14.1m tigations (pressure meter tests, uniaxial compressive tests, point
Marine Sea bed
- 12.3m load test, Goodman–Jack tests, and SPT tests) and the pile load
Deposit - 15.3m
Marine Marine tests. For granite layers, rock-mass modulus, Em, ranged from
- 36.0m Deposit Deposit
Granite [HW] - 43.2m 121 MPa and 2,816 MPa and Young’s modulus varied from 0.7 to
- 38.7m - 41.1m 69.6 GPa. The measured UCS of Pile W8, E7, and E5 ranged from
Granite [MW] - 51.2m Granite [HW]
- 48.2m Granite [HW] - 48.1m 12 MPa to 71 MPa, with average of 35 MPa, 30 MPa, and 54 MPa,
- 61.5m Granite [MW] - 52.3m Granite [MW] respectively. RQD varied from 10% to 68%. Table 3 shows the mate-
Granite Granite - 54.7m Granite - 54.1m rial parameters and load-transfer functions. The assumed and pre-
O-Cell dicted values using general references and empirical relations for
[Hard] [Hard] [Hard]
the curve fittings are annotated by various symbols in the same
manner as previous field cases.
2.4 m 2.4 m 3.0 m Fig. 13 shows the predicted and equivalent top-loaded load–
settlement curves for the test piles. It is seen that the uncoupled
Fig. 12. Subsurface profile and shaft embedments for test piles (Incheon). method gives a fair approximation of the general trend of the

Table 3
Parameters of material and transfer function (Incheon).

Pile no. Subsurface profile Transfer function Material parameters

Typea Depth (m) rci (MPa) Es (MPa) t c (kN/m3) i (°) GSI fmax (kPa) wmax (m)
– Pile – – 53 35,000 0.2 23 – – – –
W8 Shaft Clay 6.1–36.0 Bi-Linear – – – 18g – – 100 0.01
Granite (HW) 36.0–43.2 Nonlinearb 35 1000 0.3 21 4.6d 10 1360e –
Granite (MW) 43.2–51.2 Nonlinearb 35 2300 0.3 21 4.6d 45 2060e –
Toe Granite (MW) – Hyperbolicc 35 2300 0.3 21 – – 25,000f,g –
E7 Shaft Clay 12.3–38.7 Bi-Linear – – – 18g – – 100 0.01
Granite (HW) 38.7–48.2 Nonlinearb 30 1000 0.3 21 4.6d 26 1360e –
Granite (MW) 48.2 – 52.3 Nonlinearb 30 1480 0.3 21 4.6d 35 1650e –
Toe Granite (MW) – Hyperbolicc 30 1480 0.3 21 – – 25,000f,g –
E5 Shaft Clay 15.3–41.1 Bi-Linear – – – 18g – – 100 0.01
Granite (HW) 41.1–48.1 Nonlinearb 54 1000 0.3 21 4.6d 26 1360e –
Granite (MW) 48.1–54.1 Nonlinearb 54 1630 0.3 21 4.6d 45 2370e –
Toe Granite (MW) – Hyperbolicc 54 1630 0.3 21 – – 25,000f,g –
a
CW: completely weathered rock, HW: highly weathered rock, MW: moderately weathered rock, SW: slightly weathered rock [8].
b
Seol and Jeong et al. [9].
c
Castelli et al. [10].
d
Moderate magnitude of borehole roughness angle.
e
Predicted value by fmax = 0.135 Pa (Em/Pa)0.5 [11].
f
qmax.
g
Assumed value.

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

8 H. Seol, S. Jeong / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Axial Load (kN) additional pile-toe displacement (wbs) due to coupled shaft resis-
tance is neglected. Therefore, the proposed analytical method
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
may be a more appropriate and realistic representation of pile
0
behavior than the existing uncoupled method.
Settlement at pile head (mm)

6. Conclusions
20
In this study, an improved analytical method based on Mindlin’s
solutions was proposed to take into account coupled shaft resis-
40 tance. Comparisons with field case studies clearly demonstrate
the importance of interaction effects of drilled shafts tested by
O-Cell tests. The following conclusions are drawn from the findings
60 (a) Pile W8 of this study:

(1) A comparison of O-Cell and conventional load tests with

80 field measurements, found that for test piles coupled shaft
Equivalent by Loadtest Inc.[2]
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis resistance (wbs) effects are important. The commonly uncou-
Uncoupled Load Transfer Analysis pled methods for calculating equivalent curves substantially
100
overestimated the bearing capacity of piles based upon O-
Cell tests in realistic situations. However, the effects of cou-
Axial Load (kN) pled shaft resistance can be neglected in the case of piles
socketed in high strength rocks.
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
(2) The effects of coupled shaft resistance are generally more
0
significant for friction piles than for end-bearing piles and
depend on the values of D/Es and Rs/Q. The present method
using Mindlin’s equation can appropriately model effects
Settlement at pile head (mm)

20 of coupled shaft resistance and produces a considerably lar-

ger settlement when compared with the results of the
uncoupled load-transfer method. Therefore, the proposed
40 method would be safe for the design of drilled shafts based
on the concept of serviceability limit state.
(3) This study was based on a few field pile load tests, and thus
60 (b) Pile E7 for obtaining quantitative reliability, it needs additional
analysis with field pile load tests performed under various
soil conditions.
80 Equivalent by Loadtest Inc.[2]
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis References
Uncoupled Load Transfer Analysis
[1] Schmertmann JH, Hayes JA. The Osterberg cell and bored pile testing – a
100 symbiosis. In: Proceedings of 3rd international geotechnical engineering
conference, Cairo;1997.
Axial Load (kN) [2] LOADTEST, Inc. Construction of the equivalent top-loaded load–settlement
curve from the results of an O-cell test, loadtest appendix to reports; 2000.
0 100000 200000 300000 [3] Seol HI, Jeong SS, Kim YM. Load transfer analysis of rock-socketed drilled shafts
0 by coupled soil resistance. Comp Geotech 2008. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.
2008.08.01.
[4] Poulos HG, Davis EH. Pile foundation analysis and design. USA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.; 1980.
Settlement at pile head (mm)

[5] Coyle HM, Reese LC. Load transfer for axially loaded piles in clay. J Soil Mech
20
Found Div ASCE 1966;92:1–26.
[6] Matlock, Hudson, Meyer, Holmquist. AXCOL 3: a program for discrete-element
solution of axially loaded members on nonlinear supports. American
Petroleum Institute Report; 1976.
40 [7] Kwon OS, Choi YK, Kwon OK, Kim MM. Method of estimating pile load–
displacement curve using bi-directional load test. J KGS 2006;22:11–9.
[8] Mechanics International Society for Rock. Suggested methods for the
quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. UK: Pergamon
60 (c) Pile E5 Press; 1981.
[9] Seol HI, Jeong SS, Cho CH, You KH. Shear load transfer for rock-socketed drilled
shafts based on borehole roughness and geological strength index (GSI). Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45:848–61.
80 [10] Castelli F, Maugeri M, Motta E. Analisi non lineare del cedimento di un Palo
Equivalent by Loadtest Inc.[2] Singolo. Rivista Italiana di Geotechnica 1992;26:115–35.
Coupled Load Transfer Analysis [11] Seol HI, Jeong SS. Shaft resistance characteristics of rock-socketed drilled
Uncoupled Load Transfer Analysis shafts based on pile load tests. J KGS 2007;23:51–63.
100 [12] Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. Towards an understanding of joint roughness. Rock
Mech Rock Eng J 1995;28:69–92.
[13] Seidel JP, Collingwood B. A new socket roughness factor for prediction of rock
Fig. 13. Comparison of load–displacement curves at the pile-head (Incheon).
socket shaft resistance. Can Geotech J 2001;38:138–53.
[14] Han, KT. Load–settlement behavior of the drilled shafts subjected to bi-
directional loading. Thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea; 2008.
measured values. However, it should be noted, as mentioned pre-
[15] Shin, SH, Lee, YK, Kim, ZC, Kim JH, Lee HG. Case study of Osterberg-cell pile
viously, that the loading direction of O-Cell load tests for shaft load tests on piles in Incheon bridge project. In: Proceeding of the Korean
resistance is opposite to that of the conventional load tests, so that society of civil engineers, Jeju; 2005. p. 3921–4.

Please cite this article in press as: Seol H, Jeong S. Load–settlement behavior of rock-socketed drilled shafts using Osterberg-Cell tests. Comput Geotech
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.004