O-CELL RESPONSE USING ELASTIC PILE

AND SEISMIC PIEZOCONE TESTS

P W MAYNE
Georgia Institute of Technology, Civil & Environmental Engrg., 790 Atlantic
Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355 USA; email: [email protected]

D J WOELLER
Conetec Investigations Ltd, 2140 Vulcan Way, Richmond, British Columbia
V6V 1J8 Canada; email: [email protected]

SUMMARY: The responses of the individual base and side components of

O-cell load tests on drilled shaft foundations can be evaluated within an
elastic continuum framework using results from seismic piezocone tests
(SCPTu). The SCPTu is an optimal means for collection of geotechnical data
because the same sounding can provides information on soil behavior at
opposite ends of the stress-strain-strength curves, namely the peak strength
for capacity and the small-strain stiffness (Gmax) for the initial deformations.
Using a Randolph-type elastic pile model, a case study involving axial shaft
response in stiff clay till is presented.

Keywords: clay, drilled shafts, in-situ testing, load test, shear wave, stiffness

INTRODUCTION

The Osterberg load cell (O-cell) is an innovative and convenient means for mobilizing
both the axial side and base resistance components of drilled shaft foundations1. The
O-cell does not require a cumbersome reaction frame or anchor pilings as with
conventional pile load test setups. Instead, it utilizes a novel (and sacrificial) hydraulic
jack that is embedded within the bored pile at a specified vertical elevation2. The O-cell
is placed in the drilled shaft foundation during the installation of the rebar cage and then
concreted in-place. The hydraulic jack is inflated using a high-pressure pump, thereby
lifting the one shaft section upward while simulaneously pushing the other shaft section
downward. The results are evaluated to obtain the mobilized side and base components,
as well as an equivalent top-down curve for the axial load-displacement-capacity
response of the bored pile3. In the original design setup, the O-cell was positioned at the
base of the bored pile. In later scenarios, the O-cell can be installed at any convenient
elevation within the drilled shaft in order to provide comparable forces in upwards and

Mayne and Woeller - O-cell response using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests. Proceedings of the 2nd BGA
Intl. Conf. on Foundations, Dundee, Scotland,24 – 27 June 2008. IHS BRE Press, 2008, Vol. 1: 235-246.
 Mayne and Woeller

Fig. 1. Rigid pile displacements in elastic soil continuum using Randolph-Wroth solution.

downwards directions and fully mobilize resistances. Also, multiple levels of O-cells can
be installed to stage-load the bored pile, thereby achieving huge capacities during axial
load testing4.

ELASTIC CONTINUUM PILE

The axial load-displacement response of piles can be evaluated within an elastic

continuum solution5. For a rigid pile of length L and diameter d which is embedded in an
an elastic soil medium having an equivalent modulus Es and Poisson's ratio ν, the vertical
displacement (wt) under an applied load Pt is given by:

Pt ⋅ I p
wt = (1)
d ⋅ Es

where Ip = displacement influence factor given by the elasticity solution. For rigid piles,
the value of Ip depends simply upon the slenderness ratio (L/d) and ν, as indicated by
Figure 1. Poulos & Davis5 develop the values of Ip using boundary element solutions,
which are seen to be in good agreement with the closed-form analytical solution of
Randolph & Wroth6,7 shown in Figure 2. For the latter, the influence factor is simply:

1
Iρ = (2)
1 π (L / d )
+ ⋅
1 − υ 2 (1 + υ ) ln[5( L / d )(1 − v )]
O-cell evaluation using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests

Randolph & Wroth (1979); Poulos & Davis (1980)

Rigid Pile in an Infinite Elastic Medium
1.00

Boundary Elements

Closed Form v = 0.5

Influence Factor, Ip

Closed Form v = 0.2

Closed Form v = 0

0.10

0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Slenderness Ratio, L/d

Fig. 2. Displacement influence factors from elasticity solutions for rigid axially-loaded pile.

Additional facets of the deep foundation construction can also be considered, including
presence of a lower stiffer soil or rock layer, soil modulus variation with depth, and
relative soil-pile compressibility8.
In the conventional top-down axial loading of deep foundations, most often a
majority of the applied load is transferred in side shear and that a smaller proportion of
the load reaches the toe or base. In fact, elastic continuum theory provides a rational
framework for evaluating the amount of load transfer. In the simplest arrangement, the
O-cell hydraulic jack is located at the base, therefore the side shear segment and lower
circular base plate of the Randolph-Wroth model can be treated separately. Alternatively,
the O-cell can be placed within the a lower mid-section elevation of the drilled shaft, in
order to optimize the degree of mobilization for both components4. In that case, the upper
and lower portions can be considered as separate pile segments, as shown later.

AXIAL CAPACITY OF DRILLED SHAFTS

The axial capacity of deep foundations can be evaluated from methods based in static
equilibrium, limit plasticity, or cavity expansion theory, or the directly from the results of
in-situ tests. A review of selected and various methods is given elsewhere9,10.
Table 1 lists three relatively recent direct methods for pile capacity evaluation from
piezocone plus one beta-method for drilled shafts. The UNICONE, KTRI, and CUFAD
methods apply to both driven piles and drilled or bored piles in all soil types, whereas the
NGI-BRE method was actually developed for jacked and driven piles in clays. Details on
the calculation procedures for these CPT-based methods are reviewed in the 2007
Synthesis on Cone Penetration Testing 11.
 Mayne and Woeller

Table 1. Selected pile capacity methods using cone penetration test results

Method Reference Input Parameters Remarks

UNICONE Eslami & Fellenius12 Uses effective cone tip Based on 102 load
resistance qt-u2 and tests on driven and
sleeve friction fs drilled piles in soils
NGI-BRE Almeida et al.13 Net cone tip resistance For driven and jacked
(qt-σvo) for fp and qb piles in clay
KTRI Takesue, et al.14 Uses fs and Δu2 to obtain Applies to all soils,
fp for driven and drilled yet evaluates only
piles unit side resistance
CUFAD Kulhawy et al.15 OCR and φ' evaluations Applies to drilled
from CPT for fp and qb shaft foundations

AXIAL PILE RESPONSE Pt = Ps + Pb

SCPTu Pile wt = pile top displacement

Initial Soil Stiffness

for Elastic Continuum Shaft Capacity:
E = 2 G (1+ν) Ps = Σ (fp ΔAs)
Gmax = ρt Vs2 where ΔAs = πdΔz

Vs
fs pile unit side Base Capacity:

qt
ub
} friction, fp Pb = qb Ab
where Ab = πd2/4

unit end bearing = qb

Fig. 3. Application of seismic piezocone results for evaluating axial drilled shaft response.

Of particular value in geotechnical site characterization for foundation systems is

the seismic piezocone test (SCPTù) as it provides four separate readings on soil behavior
with depth from a single sounding11. The SCPTu obtains profiles of the cone tip
resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs), penetration porewater pressures at the shoulder (u2),
and shear wave velocity (Vs). The SCPTu test results allow for an opportunity for
capacity analyses by both direct and indirect in-situ methods (Figure 3). Moreover, the
Vs profile provides the small-strain stiffness (Gmax = ρt Vs2) which is the beginning of all
stress-strain-strength curves in geomaterials, where ρt = γt/ga = total soil mass density, γt
= total unit weight, and ga = 9.8 m/s2 = gravitation constant.
O-cell evaluation using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests

NONLINEAR SOIL STIFFNESS

The stiffness of geomaterials is highly nonlinear over many orders of scale over its range
in logarithmic shear strains. The initial small-strain shear modulus (G0 = Gmax) is
fundamental and can be considered a state parameter corresponding to the in-situ
geostatic conditions. As Gmax is within the true elastic region of soil behavior
corresponding to nondestructive shear strains (γs < 10-6), the value must be reduced to
appropriate strain levels or stress levels applicable to the working load levels for
utilization in the elastic continuum equations. One simple algorithm for this purpose is
a type of modified hyperbola16 whereby the reduction factor is given by:
g
G/Gmax = 1 - (1/FS) (3)

where FS = Pult/P = calculated factor of safety and g = exponent fitting parameter. Thus,
as the working load P increases toward the capacity (Pult), the modulus reduces
accordingly. For uncemented and non-highly structured soils, values of the exponent
parameter are generally observed to be g ≈ 0.3 ± 0.1 for many soils11. The shear modulus
(G) can be readily converted to an equivalent Young's modulus (E) by the well-known
elasticity relationship:

E = 2 G (1 + ν) (4)

with a value of ν = 0.2 taken appropriate for the small-strain region.

CALGARY TEST SITE

The construction of a new Foothills Medical Center (FMC) in Calgary, Alberta

warranted the use of drilled shaft foundations for support of the building loads. The site
is underlain by thin shallow fill and surficial sandy silt layers overlying a thick deposit of
very stiff to very hard silty clay till. Index properties of the till include: natural water
content (wn) between 13 to 17%, liquid limit (LL) = 27%, plasticity index (PI) = 10%, and
clay fraction (CF < 0.002 mm) varying between 5 to 22%. The site investigation program
included soil borings with standard penetration testing (SPT), piezocone penetration tests
(CPTu), and one seismic piezocone test (SCPTu). A representative soil profile and SPT
resistances from one boring (BH-8) at the site is shown in Figure 4. The many SPT
N-values between 30 and 60 blows/0.3 m indicate the very hard nature of the clay till
bearing stratum.
The geotechnical design team initiated a load test program on a drilled shaft
constructed within the clay till layer to confirm design capacities and performance. The
shaft was built with a 14-m embedded length and diameter of 1.4 m having the top of the
foundation located 8 m below the original ground surface in order to accommodate a
basement level. The test shaft was outfitted with an O-cell at a mid-elevation position
located approximately 4 m above its base. Additional details on the shaft construction and
instrumentation are given in the LoadTest Report17. Referring back to Figure 4, the
constructed reinforced concrete shaft for FMC is totally contained within the hard clay till
stratum.
 Mayne and Woeller

SOIL
SPT N-value (blow/300 mm)
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 Clayey Silt FILL

Silty CLAY
5
Grey Silty CLAY
(TILL)
Depth (meters)

10
Sandy SILT

15

Grey Silty CLAY

20 (TILL)

25
End of Borehole
at 24.84 m

30

Fig. 4. Soil profile and representative SPT resistances with depth at Calgary FMC.

CPT05-13 Calgary

Cone Tip qt (MPa) Sleeve fS (kPa) Porewater u2 (kPa) Shear Wave, VS (m/s) DRILLED SHAFT
0 10 20 30 0 200 400 600 -500 0 500 1000 0 200 400 600 LOAD TEST
0 ELEVATIONS

2
Dimensions
4 u2 d = 1.4 m
uo L = 14 m
6

Top at
8
-8m
Depth (meters)

10

12
Grey Silty
Clay TILL
14

16

18 O-Cell
at -18 m
20

22 Base at
- 22 m
24

Fig. 5. Seismic piezocone sounding and setup for O-cell load test for drilled shaft at Calgary FMC.

The results of a seismic piezocone test at the Calgary FMC site are presented in
Figure 5. As the conventional soil boring produces SPT N-values at approximate 1.5-m
depth intervals, in contrast the SCPTu offers three continuous profiles of qt, fs, and u2
with depth, plus downhole Vs data at 1-m intervals. The shear wave data provided an
initial elastic modulus Emax = 537 MPa, assuming a homogeneous case.
O-cell evaluation using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests

O-CELL LOAD TEST RESULTS

During the O-cell load testing, a maximum sustained bi-directional loading of 5.37 MN
was applied to the drilled shaft. The O-cell was outfitted with three linear variable wire
displacement transducers (LVWDTs) to monitor displacements17. Vibrating wire type
strain gages were attached to the sister bars to measure axial loads in the two pile
segments. Results from the load test are presented in Figure 6. At the fully applied load,
the maximum recorded displacements above and below the O-cell were 39.1 and 14.8
mm, respectively. The mean unit side resistance for the 10 m long pile segment loaded
upward by the O-cell is backcalculated at fp = 122 kPa. Using this value for the lower 4
m pile segment loaded downward gives an operational unit end bearing of qb = 2.1 MPa.

80
70
Measured Below O-Cell
Displacement, w (mm)

60
50 Measured Above O-Cell d = 1.4 m
40
30
20
L = 10 m
10
0
O-CELL
-10
L=4m
-20
-30
-40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

O-Cell Load, Q (kN)

Fig. 6. Measured load-displacement response during O-cell test on Calgary drilled shaft.

The unit side shearing resistance for the Calgary FMC drilled shaft was evaluated by
Elbanna et al.18 using a variety of direct in-situ methods for both cone penetration tests (CPT)
and flat plate dilatometer testing (DMT). In Figure 7, the selected CPT methods from Table
1 are presented and compared with the backfigured fp from the O-cell loading over the depth
range from 8 to 22 m. For the beta analysis, the effective friction angle was evaluated using
the normalized cone tip resistance (Q) and porewater pressure measurements (Bq), based on
the simplified NTH method11. A mean value of φ' = 37.7º for the till was determined in this
manner. The OCR was evaluated from the global correlation with Gmax and effective
overburden stress (σvo') for varied soil types19. As such, the shear wave velocity was
estimated from a method based on both the qt and fs profiles, as discussed by Hegazy &
Mayne20, which provided a very good agreement with the measured Vs profiles from the
SCPTu. The corresponding Gmax values gave an estimated average OCR ≈ 2.67 ± 0.55 by
 Mayne and Woeller

this approach. This allowed for a line-by-line evaluation, as shown in Figure 7. The resulting
profiles of φ' and OCR for the clay till were then utilized to evaluate the lateral stress
coefficient:

K0 = (1 - sin φ') OCR sinφ' (5)

which gave calculated mean values of K0 = 0.70 ± 0.05 over the depths of interest. Using the
beta method detailed by Kulhawy et al.15, the unit side friction is obtained from:

fp = CM CK K0 tanφ' σvo' (6)

where CM = pile material coefficient (= 1.0 for drilled shafts) and CK = lateral stress modifier
for installation ( = 0.9 for good quality drilled shaft construction). The calculation gave a
mean fp = 114 kPa for the Calgary FMC site.
As noted by Elbanna et al.18, the KTRI method produces values too high (average fp
= 320 kPa) for this clay till, notably because of the limited database for which the KTRI
correlations were developed. The NGI-BRE method gave somewhat high values for the till
on the order of fp = 188 kPa, yet as noted earlier, this method was developed for driven and
jacked piles in clay, thus not truly applicable here. In contrast, the UNICONE method gave
values less than the measured load tests with a mean estimated fp = 80 kPa. By averaging
three profiles (Beta, NGI-BRE, and UNICONE), a relatively good estimate of the unit side
friction (fp = 127 kPa) was obtained.

Takesue Method (1998) UNICONE and NGI-BRE BETA and AVE OF 3 METHODS

Side Friction, fp (kPa) Side Friction, fp (kPa) Side Friction, fp (kPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 0 0

fs (sleeve) NGI-BRE Beta = fctn(Ko, Phi')

2 2 2

4 KTRI fp 4 Unicone 4 Ave Methods

6 Backcalculated 6 Backcalculated 6 Backcalcated

8 8 8

10 10 10
Depth (m)

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20 20

22 22 22

24 24 24

Fig. 7. Calculated unit side friction resistances with measured values for Calgary drilled shaft.
O-cell evaluation using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests

For the unit end bearing, there are three methods available for the calculation of qb
below the foundation base. These values are summarized in Table 2 and compared with the
backfigured value from the O-cell results. Measured CPT data that are averaged about one
diameter deep beneath the base elevation include: qt = 3619 kPa, σvo = 448 kPa, and u2 =
498 kPa. For the limit plasticity solution, the value of undrained shear strength was obtained
for an equivalent direct simple shear (DSS) mode from su = (q t - σvo)/Nkt with a
representative value Nkt = 15. As seen from the results, the NGI-BRE and limit plasticity
methods gave answers comparable to the load tests, whereas UNICONE gives a value too
high using the usual adopted toe factor rt = 1. Of course, better agreement for this clay till is
found by adopting a site specific value rt = 0.7.

Table 2. End-bearing resistances for Calgary drilled shaft foundation

Method Reference Resistance, qb (kPa) Notes/Remarks

Measured by Kort (2005) 2100 kPa Backfigured
O-Cell Testing
UNICONE Elsami & Fellenius (1997) 3121 kPa qb = rt(qt - u2)
(for rt = 1)
NGI-BRE Almeida et al. (1996) 2113 kPa qb = (qt - σvo)/k2
(for k 2 = 1.5)
Limit Plasticity Kulhawy et al. (1983) 1972 kPa qb = Nc su
where Nc = 9.33

O-Cell Elastic Solution

Rigid pile under tension loading
upper segment
ro = 0.7 m Pt 2 πρ E L
L = 10 m = ⋅
G sL ro w t ζ ro

O-Cell Rigid pile under compression loading

lower segment
Pt 4η 2πρ E L
ro = 0.7 m = + ⋅
L=4m G sL ro wt (1 − υ )ξ ζ ro

L = pile length GsM = soil shear modulus at mid-shaft

ro = pile shaft radius (rb = base radius) λ = Ep/GsL = soil-pile stiffness ratio
η = rb/ro = 1 for shaft shaft ξ = GsL/Gsb
Ep = pile modulus Gsb = soil stiffness below pile base
GsL = soil shear modulus at z = L ζ = ln(rm/ro) = soil zone size around pile
ρE = GsM/GsL = Gibson parameter rm = L{0.25 + ξ [2.5 ρE(1-ν) – 0.25]}

Fig. 8. Elastic continuum solution for upper and lower pile segments of O-cell load test arrangement.
 Mayne and Woeller

PILE RESPONSE WITHIN ELASTIC MODEL

The results of the load tests can be represented within the framework of the elastic
continuum solution. Using the rigid pile solution, the O-cell can be partitioned into two
pile segments, as detailed in Figure 8. The results of the capacity analyses can be used to
reduce the initial measured Gmax = 224 MPa to an appropriate G for each fraction of
applied load level (P/Pult), or FS per equation (3). The resulting curves are seen to well
match the measured and separate responses for the upward and downward pile segments
from the load tests in Figure 9.

80
70 Elastic Pile - Down
Displacement, w (mm)

60
Elastic Shaft - Up
50 d = 1.4 m
Measured Below O-Cell
40
30 Measured Above O-Cell
20
L = 10 m
10
0
O-CELL
-10
L=4m
-20
-30
-40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

O-Cell Load, P (kN)

Fig. 9. Elastic continuum solution applied to components of O-cell load test in Calgary.

CONCLUSIONS

Elastic continuum solutions provide a rational framework for assessing and evaluating
field load test results on axially-loaded pile foundations. Using the fundamental initial
stiffness of geomaterials (Gmax) within this context, an approximate nonlinear
load-displacement-capacity representation can be afforded via a modified hyperbola to
achieve intermediate stiffnesses of soil as the applied loads increase towards capacity.
Results from an O-cell load test on a drilled shaft situated in very stiff to hard clay till in
Calgary are utilized to illustrate application of the method. Geotechnical soil parameters
for the analyses are conveniently obtained from seismic piezocone tests made at the site,
including tip, sleeve, and porewater resistances for capacity and shear wave velocity for
the initial small-strain shear modulus.
O-cell evaluation using elastic pile and seismic piezocone tests

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Chris Hendry of Golder Associates and to the Calgary
Health Region (CHR) for allowing access to the load test data at FMC.

REFERENCES

1. Osterberg J O. The Osterberg load test method for bored and driven piles.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and deep
Foundations (Vienna), Deep Foundations Institute, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998: pp.
1.28.1-1.28.11.
2. Osterberg, J O. Side shear and end bearing in drilled shafts. New Technological and
Design Developments in Deep Foundations, GSP No. 100 (Proc. GeoDenver),
2000, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, pp. 72-79.
3. Fellenius, B H. The O-cell: an innovative engineering tool. Geotechnical News
Magazine, Vol. 19 (2), 2001, pp. 32-33.
4. O'Neill, M W, Brown, D A, Townsend, F C, and Abar, N. Innovative load testing
of deep foundations. Transportation Research Record No. 1569, National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 17-25. Also in Advances in
Designing & Testing Deep Foundation (GSP No. 129), ASCE 2005, pp. 15-23.
5. Poulos, H G and Davis E H. Pile Foundation Analysis & Design, Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1980, 379 pages.
6. Randolph M F and Wroth C P. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE), Vol. 104 (GT12), 1978: pp.
1465-1488.
7. Randolph M F and Wroth C P. A simple approach to pile design and the evaluation
of pile tests. Behavior of Deep Foundations, STP 670, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 1979: pp. 484-499.
8. Fleming, W G K, Weltman A J, Randolph M F and Elson W K. Piling Engineering,
2nd Edition, Blackie/Halsted Press/Wiley & Sons, London, 1992: pp. 122-128.
9. Poulos H G. Pile behaviour: theory and applications. Geotechnique Vol. 39 (3),
1989: pp. 363-415.
10. O'Neill, M W and Reese L C. Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, Vols. I and II, Publication FHWA-IF-99-025, Association of Drilled
Shaft Contractors, Dallas, TX, 1999: 758 pages.
11. Mayne, P W. Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetration Testing, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP), National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
2007: 117 pages. Available from: www.trb.org
12. Eslami A and Fellenius B H. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods
applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34 (6), 1997: pp.
886-904.
13. Takesue K, Sasao H, and Matsumoto T. Correlation between ultimate pile skin
friction and CPT data. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-1,
Atlanta), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998: pp. 1177-1182.
14. Almeida, M S S, Danziger, F A B and Lunne, T. Use of the piezocone test to predict
the axial capacity of driven and jacked piles in clay. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 33 (1), 1996: pp. 33-41.
 Mayne and Woeller

15. Kulhawy, F H, Trautmann, C H, Beech, J F, O'Rourke, T D, and McGuire, W.

Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression Loading, Report
EL-2870, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1983: 412 pages.
16. Fahey, M. Deformation and in-situ stress measurement. Geotechnical Site
Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-1), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998: pp. 49-68.
17. Kort, D A. Report on drilled pile load testing (Osterberg method). Test pile 1,
Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, Alberta, Project LT-9121, prepared by
LoadTest Inc. for Golder Associates, May 9, 2005.
18. Elbanna M, Hendry C, Sharp J, Woeller D, and Greig J. Axial pile capacity:
predicted versus measured response in southern Alberta clay till. Proceedings
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, 2007: pp.
19. Mayne, P W. Integrated ground behavior: In-situ and laboratory tests. Deformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, Vol. 2 (Proc. IS-Lyon), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2005: pp. 155-177.
20. Hegazy, Y A and Mayne, P W. Statistical correlations between Vs and CPT data for
different soil types. Proceedings Intl. Symp. on Cone Penetration Test, Vol. 2,
Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linköping, 1995, pp. 173-178.