Pile Response under Axial Tension Forces in Sandy Soils

Aser Ibrahim1; Mohamed Ashour, M.ASCE2; and Ayman Altahrany3

Abstract: This paper presents a methodology to predict the pile-head load versus displacement curve, and the associated mobilized stiffness
of a pile embedded into sandy soils, on the basis of the soil-pile interaction. The mobilized tensile resistance and displacement of the pile shaft
are determined up to failure on the basis of the soil and pile properties, including the soil stress-strain curve. The proposed technique also pro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vides the t-z curves for piles in sandy soils that can be separately used in a combined model for a complete superstructure-substructure solution.
A detailed flowchart is presented to describe the proposed methodology that has been compiled through a computer program. A number of
comparisons with full-scale load tests at different sites were employed to validate the suggested technique. In addition, a finite-element model
has also been developed to compare the results of the presented method with those determined from the finite-element analysis and full-scale
load tests results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001142. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction conducted field-load tests on highly instrumented piles in tension

A pile subjected to tensile force is an expected loading scenario in
bridge foundations and abutments (i.e., vertical and battered piles).
A pile resists tensile loads via its own weight and the side resistance
of the embedded shaft (i.e., skin resistance). There is considerable
controversy about the methods of calculating the pile tensile shaft
capacity in sandy soils on whether tension loading produces lower
skin-friction values than those produced under compression loading.
Kulhawy (2004) concluded, by examining a large number of
load tests, that there is no appreciable difference between tensile
and compressive shaft capacities. O’Neil and Raines (1991) studied
the load transfer in compression and tension loading by conducting
a number of large-scale loading tests in a pressure chamber on steel-
pipe piles that were 102 mm in diameter, D, driven 15 and 21 D into
dense sand. It was observed that compressive loads developed
larger values of horizontal effective stress and associated skin fric-
tion than did tensile loads. In reference to the 1991 experiment,
O’Neil (2001) reported that tensile loads produced a net reduction
in vertical effective stress in the soil around the pile.
De Nicola and Randolph (1993) and Alawneh et al. (2007) indi-
cated that there is a basis for the consistent differences between the
tensile and compressive shaft capacities of piles in sand.
Furthermore, the difference between tensile and compressive pile
shaft capacities was explored and quantified. De Nicola and
Randolph (1993) quantified the effects of Poisson’s ratio and a
decrease in the mean stress level, caused by tensile loading, on the
tensile-to-compressive-shaft capacity ratio through theoretical anal-
yses and a finite-difference parametric study. Lehane et al. (1993)
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Mansoura Univ.,
Mansoura City 35516, Egypt; Project Engineer, EMC Co., Egypt. E-mail:
aser.ibr@live.com
2
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, Alabama A&M Univ.,
Normal, AL 35752; Professor of Civil Engineering, Mansoura Univ.,
Mansoura 35516, Egypt (corresponding author). E-mail: Mohamed.
Ashour@aamu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Mansoura Univ.,
Mansoura City 35516, Egypt. E-mail: atahrany@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 8, 2016; approved
on May 31, 2017; published online on September 8, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until February 8, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
and compression and observed that the shaft capacity in tension was
20% less than it was in compression.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) used lower values of
earth-pressure coefficient for the tension loading, compared to the
compression case, to estimate the pile-shaft capacity in sandy soils
(NAVFAC 1986; USACE 1991). These lower earth-pressure coef-
ficient values resulted in lower side friction in tension than in com-
pression. The American Petroleum Institute (API) used the same
values for the pile shaft capacities under either tensile or compres-
sive loads (API 2014). It is noteworthy that lower values for tensile
loads were used in the first edition of the API (1969) and then omit-
ted in the API (1984) edition. For the prediction of the pile-mobi-
lized axial response, the API (2014) recommended the use of empir-
ical t-z curves in which the maximum pile displacement is taken as
a percentage of the pile diameter.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (O’Neil and
Reese 1999) used the b method to assess the shear stress, t , for
pile-tension loading in sandy soils, given in Eq. (1) as
t ¼ ab s v (1)
where a = reduction factor as adopted from a study from De Nicola
(1996), which typically ranges between 0.74 and 0.88, and b is cal-
culated using Eqs. (2) and (3) as follows:
b ¼ 1:5  0:245ðDm Þ0:5 0:25  b  1:2 (2)
For N60 ðuncorrectedÞ 15
h i
b ¼ ðN=15Þ 1:5  0:245ðDm Þ0:5 0:25  b  1:2 (3)
For N60 ðuncorrectedÞ <15
where Dm = depth below the ground surface in meters. To determine
the pile-mobilized axial response, O’Neil and Reese (1999) recom-
mended the use of the t-z curves developed by O’Neil and Hassan
(1994) through the analysis of a large database of compression-load
tests in cohesionless soils. (Brown et al. 2010) and (Hannigan et al.
2016) addressed the issue of tension loading in cohesionless soils
by using LRFD resistance factors for tension loading that were less
than those used for compression loading. However, the LRFD re-
sistance factors in the FHWA 2016 (for both tension and

© ASCE 04017100-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

 compression loading) were less than the earlier values from the
FHWA 2010.
Reddy et al. (1997) modified the elastic continuum approach
suggested by Randolph and Wroth (1978) for piles under compres-
sion loads to determine the mobilized-pile response under tension
loads. In the modified model, the end bearing effects were
neglected, and the lateral pressure at the pile wall at any given depth
was calculated as a function of the distance from the pile tip.
However, no reduction was applied to the side resistance.
Sulaiman and Coyle (1976) proposed a t-z method to estimate
the pile response under tension loads in sandy soils. The proposed
t-z curves were based on laboratory tests on modeled steel piles in
sand. However, the model proposed by Sulaiman and Coyle (1976)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
did not account for the elastic extension of the pile in calculating the
mobilized side resistance. Reddy et al. (1998) attempted to improve
the model proposed by Sulaiman and Coyle (1976) by modifying
several aspects, which included that the elastic extension of the pile
was considered in computing the mobilized side resistance. Despite
the improvement, the modified model was still dependent on the
work suggested by Sulaiman and Coyle (1976).
The assessment of the mobilized pile response is essential to
evaluate the interaction between the foundation and superstructure.
The literature shows that when it comes to the pile response under
axial tension forces in sandy soils, most available methods are either
empirical or only concerned with the ultimate pile capacity. Other
methods used equal side-resistance values for tension and compres-
sion loading. The work of O’Neil and Raines (1991), Lehane et al.
(1993), De Nicola and Randolph (1993), and Alawneh et al.
(2007) showed that there is a strong basis for considering lower
side-resistance values for tension loading than for compression
loading. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to develop a
method that predicts the mobilized pile response under axial ten-
sion forces in sandy soils, including the development of the t-z
curves along the length of the pile, on the basis of soil and pile
properties. It is noteworthy that the proposed method accounts for
variations of the shear stress (resistance) and confining pressure
of sands around the pile with the progress of pile displacement.
Such a methodology reflects a representative scenario for pile
behavior in sand under tension forces.
Fig. 1. Variations of shear displacement and strain in soil around the pile: (a) soil rings around a pile segment; (b) cross section in soil rings; (c) radial
variation of z
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100
Methodology
The relationship between pile displacement and associated pile-skin
resistance needs to be established to predict the mobilized pile
response under axial tension loads in sandy soils. The method devel-
oped by Ashour and Helal (2017) to determine the load transfer (i.e.,
t-z) curves of piles loaded in compression in sandy soils has been
modified to account for the change in loading direction. The obser-
vations of O’Neil (2001) and the ratio of the tensile-to-compressive-
shaft capacity suggested by De Nicola and Randolph (1993) are
used to assess the reduction in shaft capacity due to tensile loading.
To evaluate the mobilized side resistance, the mobilized shear mod-
ulus, Gmob , of sandy soil is used instead of the average shear modu-
lus, Gavg , suggested by De Nicola and Randolph (1993).
Variations of Shear Displacement and Strain in the Soil
Surrounding the Pile
The pile in question is divided into a number of segments as
in the method developed by Coyle and Reese (1966). The soil
around the pile is also modeled in horizontal rings and sublayers
with a thickness of Hs each, which is equal to the length of each pile
segment, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Ashour and Helal (2017) suggested
a nonlinear, parabolic, degrading pattern for the soil vertical dis-
placement, Zs , versus radial distance, r, as shown in Figs. 1(b and c)
and given by Eq. (4). The shear strain, g i, in sand slice i between ri
and riþ1 along with the associated soil vertical displacement can be
determined using Eq. (5).
 2
r0
Zs ¼ Z0 (4)
r
zi  ziþ1 Dzi
gi ¼ ¼ (5)
riþ1  ri Dri
where r = radial distance from the pile center ðr ¼ r0 Þ; and Zs ¼ Z0
at the pile-soil interface (pile surface).
04017100-2 J. Bridge Eng.
 Variation of Shear Stress at the Pile-Soil Interface anisotropic shearing scenario and a constitutive model. At a particu-
lar depth, upward pile displacements produce shear strain, g 0 , and
The vertical effective stress in soil, s v0 , has been reduced to ðs v0 Þr stress, t 0 , at the pile-soil interface with a Mohr’s circle of radius t 0
as observed by O’Neil (2001) and suggested by De Nicola and and confining pressure of s 3 . The increase in upward tensile loads
Randolph (1993) in Eq. (6) to account for the effect of tensile loads. results in larger Mohr’s circles with increasing values of t 0 and
" !#   decreasing values of s 3 until the maximum shear stress is reached
100 (i.e., t 0 ¼ t max ). t max is reached when the mobilized friction angle,
 1  8 h 0 þ 25 h 0
2
 v0 Þr ¼ s
ðs  v0  1  0:2 log L
D
w m , becomes equal to d , as shown in Fig. 2. The soil-pile friction
angle d limits the value of the full soil-friction angle, w , according
" !#
100 to the roughness of the pile surface. It is noteworthy that at a given
¼s
 v0  1  0:2 log L X (6) depth ðs v0 Þr increases with increasing shear stresses and decreasing
D
Gmob . Therefore, the mobilized Mohr’s circle in Fig. 2 and associ-
ated ðs v0 Þr are slightly shifted with advancing increments of shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where ðs v0 Þr = factored vertical effective stress due to the tensile stress.

loading of the pile; h 0 = compressibility parameter, which is deter- For an upward displacement of the pile segment of interest, a
mined in Eq. (7) on the basis of Gmob. The typical reduction values mobilized value of t 0 is assumed, and the corresponding s 3 value
obtained from Eq. (6) have the same values as a in Eq. (1). The use is calculated through Eq. (8). On the basis of the current deviatoric
of the Gmob allows for better prediction of the mobilized pile stress, s d , and deviatoric stress at failure, s df , at t 0 , the stress level
response under tension loads in multilayered sandy-soil profiles. (SL) can be calculated as shown in Eqs. (9) and (10) and as pre-
   sented in the triaxial test featured in Fig. 3.
L Gmob
h 0 ¼ y p tand (7)
D Ep s 3 ¼ s 30  t 0 (8)

where y p = pile Poisson’s ratio; L = pile length; d = pile-soil inter- (   )

face friction angle; D = pile diameter; and Ep = pile material w 2
s df ¼ s 3  tan 45 þ 1 (9)
Young’s modulus. 2
Isotropic conditions are assumed to be caused by pile installation
(i.e., k ¼ 1), and the original confining stress at the pile-soil inter-
face, s  v0 Þr . Despite the sophistication of the pile-
 30 , is equal to ðs sd 2t
SL ¼ ¼ (10)
installation effect on the soil-lateral pressure (i.e., K values), the s df s df
proposed model represents an average and general scenario for pile-
soil interaction. Alternate values of K might be more appropriate for The friction angle, w , which is compatible with the model pre-
some installation methods, but they would result in a complicated sented, is obtained from the simple shear test or related correlations.

Fig. 2. Progress of shear stresses at the pile-soil interface

© ASCE 04017100-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Relationships between stress level, friction angle, and horizontal stress changes in sandy soils

As described in Eqs. (8)–(10), every step of shear-stress loading, t 0

(i.e., a simple shear circle), develops a new associating deviatoric
stress (s d ¼ 2 t 0 ) with SL and principal stresses s 3 and s 1 ,
respectively. Such a scenario reflects the relaxation of soil pressure
around the pile with the progress of shear stress.
Using the normal strain in soil at a 50% SL (ɛ50 Þ, the constitutive
model (Fig. 4) developed by Norris (1986) and then adjusted by
Ashour et al. (1998) for drained soils is used to determine the nor-
mal strain, « , for a given value of SL. ɛ50 can be obtained from the
drained triaxial test or the correlation developed by Norris (1986).
The soil Poisson’s ratio, y s , is a function of SL as given in Eq. (11)
(Ashour and Helal 2017). The shear strain in soil, g , and the accom-
panying Gmob can then be calculated at the pile-soil interface using
Eqs. (12) and (13), respectively.

y s ¼ 0:1 þ 0:4SL (11)

g ¼ ɛð1 þ y s Þ (12)

t
Gmob ¼ (13)
g

Pile-Soil Modeling: t-z Curve

The presented approach allows the assessment of the t-z curves
along the pile length in sandy soils. For a given displacement of a
particular pile segment, Zmid , the accompanying shear strain, g 0 , at
the pile-soil interface using Eqs. (4) and (5) is determined. The
mobilized shear stress, t 0 , caused by Zmid (i.e., g 0 Þ is estimated by
assuming a very small value of t 0 and then calculating the corre-
sponding values of s 3 , s df , SL; and y s , as shown in Eqs. (8)–(11).
It is noteworthy that the initial shear stress starts with 0.001 t max at
each depth and increases in very small increments to capture the
appropriate converging values with the desired tolerance. The effect
of the pile tensile
 force on the vertical effective stress of the sur-
rounding soil i:e:; ðs v0 Þr  is determined by using Eq. (6) and
assuming a unit value for X in the first trial.
As described in Fig. 4 and Eq. (10), SL is used to compute the
associated « and thus a new value of g 0 and Gmob , as given in Eqs.
(12) and (13), respectively. X is adjusted on the basis of the new
value of Gmob [Eqs. (6) and (7)]. New values of s 3 , s df , SL, y s , g 0 ,
and Gmob at t 0 are calculated on the basis of the adjusted values of
X until a sufficient convergence (i.e., less than 1%) of X is obtained.
Thereafter, the value of t 0 is increased, and the described proce-
dures are repeated until an acceptable convergence between g 0
Fig. 4. Stress-strain soil model (adapted from Ashour et al. 1998,
© ASCE; adapted from Norris 1986)
caused by Zmid and the one determined based on t 0 is achieved.
This process provides a point (Zmid versus t 0 ) on the t-z curve for
that particular pile segment.
A larger displacement value, Zmid , for that pile segment is
assumed, and the corresponding t 0 can be estimated through the
iterative process described to construct the entire t-z curve for the
pile segment in question at a particular depth until t 0 equals t max .
The flowchart presented in Fig. 5 demonstrates the iterative process
of constructing the t-z curve.
Mobilized Pile-Head Load-Displacement Relationship
Pile segments are numbered in ascending order from tip to top
assuming the thickness of the pile segment, Hs, equal to the pile
diameter as shown in Fig. 6. Linear springs are used to model the

© ASCE 04017100-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the proposed model

pile segments to determine the stretching in the pile materials
under tensile loads. One of the advantages of the proposed model
is the consideration of the horizontal stress relaxation at the wall
interface in association with the pile extension. The pile side re-
sistance with surrounding soils (i.e., pile-skin friction) is modeled
through a set of nonlinear springs along the pile length (i.e., t-z
curves). In addition to its own weight, wo , each pile segment is
subjected to axial forces at the top and bottom, Qt and Qb , respec-
tively, and a vertical-side shear force, T, as seen in Fig. 6.
Because of the permeability of cohesionless soils, any negative
pore-water pressure that may develop as a result of the voids cre-
ated between the pile base and underlying soil (i.e., suction) will
dissipate quickly. Therefore, for the first segment (i = 1) at the
pile tip, Qb is assumed to be 0.

© ASCE 04017100-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

 b. Evaluate t 0 on the basis of the value of Zmid as explained
in the previous section and then the associated side shear
force, T, using Eq. (14).
c. Calculate the axial load, Qt , at the top of segment i accord-
ing to Eq. (17) to determine a new value for Z 0 using Eq.
(16).
d. Repeat steps a through c using the new value of Z 0 until a
sufficient convergence of Zmid is obtained.
3. Use the value of Qt calculated from the last iteration process to
determine the elastic extension, Z 00 , and upward displacement,
Zt , of the entire segment i using Eqs. (18) and (19), respec-
tively, as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Qb þ Qt Hs
Z 00 ¼  (18)
2 Ap Ep

Zt ¼ Zb þ Z 00 (19)

4. Take Zt and Qt to be Zb and Qb , respectively, of the new upper

segment (i þ 1).
5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 for each segment going up the length of
the pile. The pile upward displacement, Z, and the correspond-
ing axial force, Q, at the pile head are equal to Zt and Qt of the
upper-most segment. A single point on the pile-head load ver-
sus displacement (Q-Z) curve is evaluated.
Fig. 6. Pile segments and pile-soil modeling under axial tensile 6. Assume larger values of Zp to construct the whole pile-head
force load versus displacement (Q-Z) curve by repeating Steps 1
through 5.
A FORTRAN software computer program has been developed
using the proposed model to simulate the pile axial-tension loading
T ¼ t 0 dAs (14) and to predict the resulting pile-head load versus displacement
curve. The flowchart presented in Fig. 5 describes in detail the
where t 0 = mobilized shear stress at the pile-soil interface developed method.
caused by the displacement at the midheight of the segment, Fig. 7 shows the t-z curves at a depth of 10 m obtained using the
Zmid ; and dAs = surface area of the segment. Zmid is a combi- proposed method and O’Neil and Reese (1999) procedures for a 15
nation of the upward displacement at the bottom of the seg- m long, and 0.5 m diameter bored concrete pile, which is embedded
ment, Zb , and the pile elastic extension of the lower half of into sands with different relative densities, Dr . Table 1 shows the
the segment, Z 0 . properties of Nevada sand as adopted in the current study. The
reduction factor, a, in Eq. (1) adopted in the O’Neil and Reese
Zmid ¼ Zb þ Z 0 (15) (1999) method is a function of the average shear modulus over
the whole length of the pile, Gavg . Gavg is computed on the basis of
Knowing the cross-sectional area, As , Young’s modulus, Ep , and a correlation with the standard penetration test (SPT) (N60 value),
unit weight, g p , of the pile, the elastic extension can be assessed on as suggested by Seed et al. (1986) and shown in Eq. (20) where
the basis of the average axial force over the lower half of the seg- s v is in pound per square foot (psf).
ment, shown in Eq. (16) as 
0:4 
Gmax ¼ 35  1; 000N60 0:34
 s
v (20)
ð3Qb þ Qt ÞHs
Z0 ¼ (16)
8Ap Ep Fig. 7(a) presents the t-z curves obtained using the developed
method, and Fig. 7(b) shows the t-z curves obtained using O’Neil
and Reese (1999) method. Unlike the O’Neil and Reese (1999) pro-
Qt ¼ Qb þ T þ wo (17) cedure, in which the mobilized side shear reaches the maximum
value at a specific displacement ratio of the pile diameter regardless
Knowing the pile properties (Ap , Ep , and g p Þ and relating the of the relative density, Dr, of soil, the proposed technique accounts
upward displacement of each segment to the shear stress developed for the variation of Dr in calculating the pile displacement and asso-
at the pile-soil interface, the pile-head load versus displacement ciated side shear stress. The O’Neil and Reese (1999) method uses
(Q-Z) curve is assessed as follows: Eq. (2) to assess b for both dense and medium-dense sand. Because
1. A very small upward pile-tip displacement, Zp , is assumed as a Gavg for dense sand is larger than that of medium dense sand, the
starting value at the pile-tip segment (i = 1) where Zb ¼ Zp and reduction factor for dense sand has a value less than that for
Qb ¼ 0. medium-dense sand. Therefore, the t-z curves for dense and
2. For the segment i under consideration: medium-dense sand are relatively close. Fig. 8 shows a set of t-z
a. Assume the elastic extension Z 0 of 0 (as a first trial) and curves for 15-m-long piles with different diameters embedded
calculate the upward displacement at the middle of the into medium-dense sand 10 m below the ground surface. Under
segment using Eq. (15). the same conditions, it was observed that piles with smaller

© ASCE 04017100-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. t-z curves for a bored concrete pile at a depth of 10 m in sand with different relative densities: (a) proposed model; (b) O’Neil and Reese
(1999) method

Table 1. Sand Properties Used in the Presented Parametric Study

Sand state Dr (%) SPT-N60 g unsat (kN/m3 Þ w (degrees) d (degrees) e Uniformity coefficient (cu ) ɛ50 Gavg (kN/m2)
Loose 30 8 17 30 30 0.764 1.6 0.0052 79,692.35
Medium 60 30 19 35 35 0.671 1.6 0.0037 130,589.8
Dense 80 50 21 40 40 0.61 1.6 0.0028 161,705.2
Note: e = the soil void ratio.

diameters develop higher values of shear stress and lower values
of displacement at failure. In other words, the shear stress and
strain zone of influence around the pile grows with an increase in
pile diameter.
The results of a full-scale load test performed by Carvalho and
Albuquerque (2013) on a 10-m-long and 0.35-m-diameter concrete
pile were used to exhibit the capability of the presented technique
(Figs. 9–11) (test details are presented in a subsequent section
herein). Fig. 9 presents the t-z curves at 4.2, 6.4, and 8.6 m below
the ground surface as predicted by the proposed model using the
input data presented in Table 2 versus those back calculated from
data reported by Carvalho and Albuquerque (2013). A reasonable
agreement between the predicted and field back-calculated t-z
curves can be noticed. Fig. 10 shows the predicted cumulative-load-
distribution curves along the pile versus the curves reported by
Carvalho and Albuquerque (2013) for pile-head loads of 160, 240,
and 360 kN. Good agreement was seen between the predicted and
reported curves. The larger differences observed in Fig. 9 compared
to those shown in Fig. 10 may be referred to the type of data. While
Fig. 10 displays only a comparison of shear stresses, Fig. 9 presents
both pile displacements and shear stresses. For a pile-head load of
372.76 kN, Fig. 11 shows the progress of the vertical displacement
of soil and the associated degradation of shear stress and strain at ra-
dial distances away from a pile wall at 9.75 m below the ground sur-
face. As shown in Fig. 11, rapid degradations of soil displacement
and shear strain and stress can be observed in the soil around the

© ASCE 04017100-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Effect of pile-diameter variation on the t-z curve at a depth of 10 m
pile followed by a decrease at a very slow rate; however, the signifi-
cant values of shear stresses develop in the radial range approxi-
mately 10 times the pile diameter.
Numerical Analysis
A numerical model was developed to evaluate pile-tensile loading
using the finite- element program Plaxis 2D. The cases presented in
the current study were modeled as axially loaded cylindrical piles.
Therefore, a two-dimensional (2D) axisymmetric model was used
for modeling the pile and surrounding soil. The piles in the case
studies were either steel or RC piles that were modeled as linear,
elastic, nonporous material. Unreported unit weights of RC and
steel were assumed to be 25 kN/m3 and 78.5 kN/m3 , respectively. A
value of 20  107 kN/m2 was used for the elastic modulus of steel.
The elastic modulus of concrete in tension was assumed the same as
in the compression up to the tensile strength (Park and Paulay
1974). Therefore, the value of the elastic modulus is equal to 29:2 
106 kN/m2 . The Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0.15 for concrete
and 0.33 for steel (Bowles 1996).
Soil was modeled as a drained elastoplastic material using the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. Soil properties used in the current nu-
merical analysis, such as unsaturated unit weight, g unsat , and friction
angle, w , are reported in all the case studies. The pile-soil interface
friction angle, d , with concrete piles was assumed to be the same as
w . For steel piles, d was reported, except in the U.S. tests for which
the pile-soil interface friction angle was not reported; in these cases,
the full soil-friction angle was used instead. The saturated unit weight,
g sat , of soil was calculated or estimated. The ranges of values sug-
gested by Bowles (1996) were used to estimate the soil elastic modu-
lus, E, and the Poisson’s ratio, y s . The dilatancy angle, W, was taken
as equal to w −30 for cases in which it was not reported. The interac-
tion between the pile and adjacent soil was simulated via interface ele-
ments placed around the pile. Eq. (21), as follows, was used to calcu-
late the friction angle d at the pile-soil interface, which is a function
of the interface strength reduction factor, Rint :
tand ¼ Rint  tan w (21)
Rint is a strength reduction factor that is applied to the pile-soil
interface element in the finite-element analysis. It is assumed by the
user and depends on pile-surface roughness.
© ASCE 04017100-8
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100
Case Studies for Comparison and Validation
The proposed method was validated through a number of compari-
sons between the evaluated load-displacement curves and those
obtained from full-scale load tests in sandy soils under axial-tensile
loads. The results of the numerical analysis are presented for some
of the cases.
The following case studies were based on field test data that
relied on devices, installation efficiency, and methods of data acqui-
sition and analysis. On the other hand, the proposed model assumes
isotropic soil conditions. Although the measured data in the case
studies came from actual soil properties, used and reported soil
properties (i.e., input data), such as the soil unit weight and friction
angle, represent an average value for the entire soil layer (not the
actual values at each depth). This data use may explain the varying
levels of agreement between the measured and predicted pile-head
loads and displacements.
Full-Scale Pile-Load Tests in South-Central Brazil
Carvalho and Albuquerque (2013) performed full-scale axial-
tension load tests on three bored concrete piles of 0.35, 0.40, and
0.50 m in diameter and 10 m in length. Strain gauges were installed
at five levels along the pile length (0.6, 3.1, 5.3, 7.5, and 9.7 m). The
water table was located below the base of the piles. The top two
layers of soil, listed in Table 2, were silty and clayey sands [SM and
SC according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)]
with 62 and 61% of sands. The remaining percentage was fines (silt
and clay). The geotechnical parameters reported by Carvalho and
Albuquerque (2013) and interpreted for the use in the numerical
analysis and proposed model are presented in Table 2. Fig. 12
shows good agreement between the pile-head load versus displace-
ment curves predicted by the proposed model and those obtained
from the field tests of the three different piles.
Full-Scale Field Tests in Christchurch, New Zealand
McManus (1997) reported a study on nine bored piles. The
objective of the study was to investigate the effect of cyclic load-
ing on the uplift capacity of bored piles in granular soil. Three
piles were successfully loaded monotonically up to failure in
tension before being subjected to cyclic loading (EQCO2, 3, and
4). Some problems were encountered in testing the EQCO3 pile,
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. t-z curves at different depths for a bored concrete pile that is10 m long and 0.35m in diameter

Table 2. Reported and Interpreted Input Soil Parameters Used for Tests in the South Central Brazil

Reporteda Interpreted
Thickness (m) 3
g unsat (kN/m ) w (degrees) SPT −N72 Gs e ɛ50 d (degrees)
0–6 16.3 30 4 2.73 0.94 0.007 30
6–2 18.9 23 7 2.76 0.71 0.005 23
Note: e = the soil void ratio.
a
Data were from Carvalho and Albuquerque (2013).

© ASCE 04017100-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Predicted load distribution versus measured data along a 10-m-long bored concrete pile under different pile-head tension loads
so the test was repeated as EQCO3A. The piles were 0.75 m in
diameter at 5.5 m embedded length and with 1 m extension
above ground level. The water table was well below the pile
bases. The instrumentation used consisted of a displacement
transducer, a load cell, and three strain gauges connected to one
of the longitudinal steel bars. The geotechnical parameters
reported by McManus (1997) were used in both the numerical
analysis and proposed model as described in Table 3. A compari-
son between predicted and measured pile-head responses under
axial tension loads is presented in Fig. 13.
Although the piles had the same dimensions and were tested
under the same conditions, there was a considerable difference in
their responses. At the initial loading stages of the test, it can be
observed that the measured responses of piles lay between the
results of the numerical analysis and the proposed model and are
closer to the latter.
Field Tests in Dunkirk, France
Jardine and Standing (2000) performed full-scale load tests on
eight open-ended steel pipe piles. The objective was to study the
effect of cyclic loading on those piles in sand through multiple
full-scale static and cyclic load tests. However, the only pile
tested in tension before being subjected to any other type of load-
ing was an open-ended driven steel pipe pile that was 19.32 m
long with a 0.457 m diameter. The 2.5-m section at the pile head
was composed of steel Grade 52 with 20-mm wall thickness, and the
remainder of the pile was made of steel Grade 44 with 13.5-mm wall
thickness. The water table was located 4 m below ground level.
The piles were modeled, as reported, as equivalent solid elastic
cylinders with y p of 0.3 and Ep of 35:2  106 kPa over the first
1.5 m and y p of 0.3 and Ep of 24:9  106 kPa over the remaining
length of the pile. Four displacement transducers were attached to
a reference beam, and a high-quality load cell was used. Soil
properties and parameters reported by Jardine and Standing
(2000) were used in the numerical analysis and proposed model,
as shown in Table 4. The predicted pile-head response was com-
pared to numerical and field results, and the results are presented
in Fig. 14. According to the proposed method, slippage at the
pile-soil interface would occur at a pile-head displacement and an
© ASCE 04017100-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100
axial-tension load of 0.00638 m and 1,481.6 kN, respectively. A
reasonable agreement can be noticed between the predicted and
measured data over the entire pile-head load versus displacement
curve up to failure.
Full-Scale Load Tests in Alton, Illinois
The U.S. Army Corps (USACE) of engineers performed a pile-load
test program for the new Lock and Dam 26 replacement project
(Tucker and Briaud 1988). Sixteen tension-load tests were reported,
13 of which were on H-piles and 3 on pipe piles. The three closed-
ended driven pipe piles were 0.305, 0.356, and 0.406 m in diameter
and 10.97 m long. The piles were filled with sand during the load
tests. The river bottom was lowered before any pile driving took
place. Soil properties reported by Tucker and Briaud (1988) and
other interpreted parameters used in the numerical analysis and pro-
posed model are presented in Table 5. The predicted pile response
was compared to numerical and field test results (Fig. 15).
A good agreement can be seen between the predicted and meas-
ured results for the 0.305 and 0.356-m-diameter piles. The 0.406-m-
diameter pile maintained a stiffer measured pile-head response
compared to those in the proposed model and numerical analysis.
Such a soft predicted response of the 0.406-m-diameter pile can be
attributed to the soil properties used, which were the result of aver-
aging the coefficient of variation (COV) of the SPT values for the
13 borings from Tucker and Briaud (1988). The predicted failure
load (724 kN) was 29% less than the measured failure load (1,020
kN), which is less than the 38% average COV reported by Tucker
and Briaud (1988) for the 13 SPT borings.
Conclusions
The proposed approach allows the assessment of the pile behavior
under axial-tensile forces on the basis of pile and soil properties and
pile-soil interactions. The presented procedures clearly illustrate the
mobilized responses of axially loaded piles and the creation of the
associated t-z curves along the pile length through the use of nonlin-
ear stress-strain curves for sandy soils. The developing stress and
strain values for the soil around the pile and soil-pile skin resistance
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Degradation of vertical displacement and shear strain and stress at radial distances in surrounding sand

© ASCE 04017100-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Predicted pile-head responses versus field results of Brazil tests on piles of different diameter

Table 3. Reported and Interpreted Input Soil Parameters Used for the Christchurch, New Zealand, Test

Reporteda Interpreted
Thickness (m) 3
g unsat (kN/m ) w (degrees) D50 (mm) W (%) g sat (kN/m3) E (kN/m2) y W (degrees) ɛ50 d (degrees)
0–6 17.2 43 15 4.6 19 25,000 0.3 13 0.002 43
a
Data were from McManus (1997).

© ASCE 04017100-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Predicted pile-head responses versus field and numerical results of New Zealand tests

Table 4. Reported and Interpreted Input Soil Parameters Used for the Dunkirk, France, Test

Reporteda Interpreted
Thickness (m) 3
g unsat (kN/m ) w (degrees) d (degrees) W (degrees) 3
g sat (kN/m ) E (kN/m2) y Rint ɛ50
0–4.4 17.1 35 28 17.5 19.5 80,000 0.3 0.76 0.004
4.4–7 20 35 28 17.5 22 80,000 0.3 0.76 0.004
7–8 19.5 32 28 15 21.5 77,000 0.3 0.85 0.006
8–14.5 20 35 28 17.5 22 80,000 0.3 0.76 0.004
14.5–15.5 19.5 32 28 15 21.5 77,000 0.3 0.85 0.005
15.5–17 20 35 28 17.5 22 80,000 0.3 0.76 0.004
17–18 19.5 32 28 15 21.5 77,000 0.3 0.85 0.005
18–30 20 35 28 17.5 22 80,000 0.3 0.76 0.004
Note: E = the soil Young’s modulus.
a
Data were from Jardine and Standing (2000).

1600

1400
Pile-head load, Q, kN

1200

1000

800

600 Load test (Jardine and Standing 2000)

Proposed model
400
Numerical analysis
200
0.457-m diameter driven steel pile
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Pile-head displacement, Z, m

Fig. 14. Predicted pile-head responses versus field and numerical results of Dunkirk test

© ASCE 04017100-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

 Table 5. Reported and Interpreted Input Soil Parameters Used for the Alton, Illinois, Test

Reporteda Interpreted
Average SPT
Thickness (m) g unsat (kN/m3) w (degrees) W (%) (BL/0.3 m) g sat (kN/m3) E (kN/m2) y W (degrees) Rint ɛ50 d (degrees)
12.19 18.23 34 19 65 21 7,430 0.3 5 1 0.007 34
a
Data were from Tucker and Briaud (1988).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Predicted pile-head responses versus field and numerical results of Alton, Illinois, tests on piles of different diameter

can be determined in a progressive and mobilized fashion up to fail- in the surrounding soil while considering confining-pressure relaxa-
ure. The current method determines the progressive pile-head load tion. The good agreement observed between predicted and meas-
versus displacement according to developing shear stress and strain ured pile-head responses, as obtained from field tests, highlights the

© ASCE 04017100-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100

 capability of the proposed technique and enhances the analysis level
of certainty. A representative pile-soil modeling can be used in a
performance-based design to reflect the actual stiffness of the pile-
foundation system.
References
Alawneh, A. S., Nusier, O. K., and Sharo’, A. A. (2007). “Poisson’s ratio
effect on compressive and tensile shaft capacity of driven piles in sand:
Theoretical formulation.” Comput. Geotech., 34(3), 151–163.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (1969). “Recommended practice
for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms.”
API RP2A, 1st Ed., Washington, DC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 09/11/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (1984). “Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms.” API
RP2A, 15th Ed., Washington, DC.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2014). Geotechnical and foundation
design considerations, 22nd Ed., Washington, DC.
Ashour, M., and Helal, A. (2017). “Pre- and post-liquefaction response of
axially loaded piles in sands.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000968, 04017073.
Ashour, M., Norris, G., and Pilling, P. (1998). “Lateral loading of a pile in
layered soil using the strain wedge model.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:4(303), 303–315.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Brown, D. A., Turner, J. P., and Castelli, R. J. (2010). “Drilled shafts:
Construction procedures and LRFD design methods.” FHWA-NHI-10-
016, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Carvalho D. D., and Albuquerque, R. D. (2013). “Uplift behavior of bored
piles in tropical unsaturated sandy soil.” Proc., 18th Int. Conf., Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 4, Presses des Ponts,
Paris, 2707–2710.
Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C. (1966). “Load transfer for axially loaded
piles in clay.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 92(2), 1–26.
De Nicola, A. (1996). “The performance of pipe piles in sand.” Ph.D. disser-
tation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Western Australia,
Nedlands, Australia.
De Nicola, A., and Randolph, M. F. (1993). “Tensile and compressive shaft
capacity of piles in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1993)119:12(1952), 1952–1973.
Hannigan, P. J., Rausche, F., Likins, G. E., Robinson, B. R., and
Becker, M. L. (2016). “Design and construction of driven pile foun-
dations.” FHWA-NHI-16-009, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Jardine, R. J., and Standing, J. R. (2000). “Pile load testing preformed for
HSE cyclic loading study.” OTO 2000 008, Dept. of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of Science & Technology,
Dunkirk, France.
© ASCE 04017100-15
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017100
Kulhawy, F. (2004). “On the axial behavior of drilled foundations.”
GeoSupport 2004: Drilled shafts, micropiling, deep mixing, remedial
methods, and specialty foundation systems, Geotechnical special pub-
lication 124, J. P. Turner and P. W. Mayne, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA,
34–51.
Lehane, B. M., Jardine, R. J., Bond, A. J., and Frank, R. (1993).
“Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(19), 19–35.
McManus, K. J. (1997). “Axial behavior of bored pile foundation.” Report
97-2, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand,
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). (1986). Foundations
and earth structures: Design manual 7.02, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Alexandria, VA.
Norris, G. M. (1986). “Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile analy-
sis.” 3rd Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Editions
Technip, Paris, 361–386.
O’Neil, M. (2001). “Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:1(3), 3–16.
O’Neil, M. W., and Hassan, K. H. (1994). “Drilled shafts: Effects of con-
struction on performance and design criteria.” Proc., Int. Conf., Deep
Foundations, Vol. 1, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC., 137–187.
O’Neil, M., and Raines, R. (1991). “Load transfer for pipe piles in highly
pressured dense sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1991)117:8(1208), 1208–1226.
O’Neil, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1999). “Drilled shafts: Construction pro-
cedures and design methods.” FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1974). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley-
Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 16–17.
Plaxis 2D [Computer software]. Plaxis bv, Delft, Netherlands.
Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P. (1978). “Analysis of deformation of ver-
tically loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 104(12), 1465–1488.
Reddy, E. S. B., O'Reilly, M., and Chapman, D. (1997). “A software to
predict the behaviour of tension piles.” Comput. Struct., 62(4),
653–658.
Reddy, E. S. B., O'Reilly, M., and Chapman, D. N. (1998). “Modified T-Z
model—A software for tension piles.” Comput. Struct., 68, 613–625.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I. M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1986).
“Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless
soils.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:
11(1016), 1016–1032.
Sulaiman, I. H., and Coyle, H. M. (1976). “Uplift resistance of piles in
sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 102(5), 559–562.
Tucker, L. M., and Briaud, J. (1988). “Analysis of the pile load test program
at the Lock and Dam 26 replacement project.” Paper GL-88-11, Civil
Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). (1991). “Engineering and
design: Design of pile foundations.” Engineer Manual 1110-2-2906,
Washington, DC.
J. Bridge Eng.