Behavior of Driven Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete H-Piles

Subjected to Vertical and Lateral Loadings

Muhannad T. Suleiman, A.M.ASCE1; Thomas Vande Voort2; and Sri Sritharan, M.ASCE3

Abstract: In the United States, an estimated $1 billion is spent annually on repair and replacement of deep foundations. In a recent study,
the possibility of using ultrahigh-performance concrete 共UHPC兲 for deep foundation applications was explored with the objectives of
increasing the service life of deep foundations supporting bridges to 75 years and reducing maintenance costs. This paper focuses on field
evaluation of two UHPC piles and references a steel H-pile. An UHPC pile with an H shape was designed to simplify the process of
casting the pile and reduce the volume 共i.e., cost兲 of the material needed to cast the pile. Two instrumented UHPC piles were driven in
loess on top of a glacial till clay soil and load tested under vertical and lateral loads. This paper provides a complete set of results for the
field investigation conducted on UHPC H-shaped piles. The results presented in this paper prove that the designed UHPC piles can be
driven using the same equipment used to drive steel H-piles through hard soil layers without a pile cushion. The vertical load capacity of
the UHPC pile was over 80% higher than that of the steel H-piles.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000350
CE Database subject headings: Deep foundations; Driven piles; Load tests; Concrete.
Author keywords: Deep foundation; Driven piles; UHPC; Load tests.

Introduction
In 2005, the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials issued a strategic plan for bridge engineering,
which included seven grand challenges. The first two challenges
were extending service life and optimizing structural systems.
One of the greatest challenges to achieving the 75-year service
life for foundations with minimal maintenance is material dete-
rioration, which is targeted for future typical bridges according to
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Offi-
cials 共2005兲.
The most common pile foundation systems used to support
bridges and buildings are made of steel or concrete. Both of these
pile materials have limitations, especially related to durability and
drivability. Concrete piles 共precast or prestressed-precast兲 are sus-
ceptible to cracking during easy driving due to development of
large tensile stresses—a main reason why pile cushion is used
during driving. Concrete piles may also fail in compression dur-
ing driving in hard soil due to development of excessive compres-
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Lehigh Univ., 326 STEPS Building, Bethlehem, PA 18015; formerly, As-
sistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Lafayette College, 321 Acopian Engineering Center, Easton, PA 18042
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: mts210@lehigh.edu
2
Formerly, Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 176 Town Engineering, Ames,
IA 50011-3232. E-mail: tomvv@psmail.net
3
Wilson Engineering Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction
and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 406 Town Engineer-
ing, Ames, IA 50011-3232. E-mail: sri@iastate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 2, 2009; approved on
March 2, 2010; published online on March 4, 2010. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 10, October 1, 2010.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/10-1403–1413/$25.00.
sive stresses or due to the use of large driving hammers 共Salgado
2008兲. Cracked concrete intensifies corrosion of steel reinforce-
ment, leading to eventual spalling and deterioration of the con-
crete pile, which reduces its axial and flexural capacities. Steel
piles are vulnerable to local buckling during hard driving condi-
tions and experience corrosion, which often occurs near the re-
gion that has the largest stresses due to combined axial load and
flexural moment 共Huck and Hull 1971; Mekkawy 2004; Vande
Voort et al. 2008兲. The maintenance challenges associated with
conventional piles are emphasized by Pando et al. 共2006兲, who
reported that the United States spends an estimated $1 billion
annually on maintenance and replacement of pile foundations.
To achieve the target service life, minimize drivability chal-
lenges, and ensure durability, the use of pile foundation elements
made of ultrahigh-performance concrete 共UHPC兲, with its high
compressive and tensile strengths and excellent durability, was
investigated. An H-shaped UHPC section, with dimensions and
weight similar to that of a commonly used HP 10⫻ 57 共depth
= 254 mm and weight= 86 kg/ m兲 steel pile, was designed. In-
strumented UHPC full-scale piles were driven near a bridge con-
struction site with a soil profile of loess on top of a glacial till clay
共a common soil profile in the Midwestern United States兲 and
tested under vertical and lateral loads. Furthermore, laboratory
3
tests were conducted on 2.4-m-long specimens scaled to 4 of the
cross section of the piles used in the field, and drivability studies
were also performed. In addition to summarizing the properties
and drivability of precast-prestressed normal concrete 共NC兲 and
steel H-piles, Vande Voort et al. 共2008, 2009兲 summarized the
properties and durability of the UHPC, the section design of the
UHPC piles, and the theoretical drivability analysis results of the
pile in several soil conditions using different driving equipment.
The drivability analysis showed that stresses induced in the
UHPC pile during driving are not significantly higher than those
in NC piles, and the ratio of the calculated stresses to the permis-
sible stress limits was significantly lower for the UHPC than for

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1403

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 1. Cross-sectional details of the UHPC pile compared with the steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile
the NC, and was comparable to those obtained for steel H-piles.
The analyses further showed that UHPC may be driven with no
pile cushion in most situations with a wide range of hammers and
strokes. This paper focuses on the behavior of instrumented
UHPC piles tested in the field and presents the experimental re-
sults obtained during driving as well as vertical and lateral load
test behaviors compared with theoretical responses and with the
behavior of a steel H-pile subjected to vertical loads.
Properties, Design, and Production of UHPC Piles
Material Properties
The compressive strength of the UHPC ranges from 180 to 220
MPa, while its direct tensile strength ranges from 8.4 to 9.3 MPa
共Tuchlinski et al. 2006; Graybeal 2006兲. When compared to NC,
UHPC shows more than five times the compressive strength, four
times the tensile strength, and two times the elastic modulus.
Increases in the compressive and tensile strengths of concrete pile
foundations allow contractors to use larger hammers during con-
struction without exceeding the tensile and compressive strengths
of concrete, which also results in higher penetration rates and
reduced construction time.
The very low porosity of the UHPC improves its durability
compared to NC and high-performance concrete 共HPC兲. The re-
sults summarized by Vande Voort et al. 共2008兲 show that UHPC
has a chloride ion penetration resistance that is 28 times smaller
than that of the NC and a reinforcement corrosion rate that is 120
times slower than that of the NC. These favorable properties will
reduce the required maintenance cost and extend the life of foun-
dation systems.
Section Design
A tapered H-shaped prestressed-precast section was designed to
avoid the risk of forming air pockets during production. The
UHPC pile section was reinforced with ten 13-mm-diameter pre-
stressing strands with no mild steel or shear reinforcement. The
high strength and durability of the UHPC allowed a reduction in
the concrete cover required on the prestressing strands from 32 to
19 mm. A 51-mm center-to-center spacing between the prestress-
ing strands was maintained to allow the UHPC to flow freely
through the section during casting. The final UHPC section is a
254⫻ 254-mm tapered H-shaped section shown in Fig. 1 next to a
1404 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile, which is commonly used by many state
department of transportation to support bridges; both piles have
similar outer dimensions and weight per unit length. The design
process of the UHPC pile cross section included developing the
interaction diagram, which describes the axial load capacity of a
beam-column element as a function of bending moment for the
UHPC pile compared with the steel HP 10⫻ 57, and the moment-
curvature relationship of several possible sections as well as a
drivability study considering different soil conditions. Vande
Voort et al. 共2008兲 presented more details on the design of the
UHPC pile cross section.
Production of UHPC Piles
Two identical 10.7-m-long UHPC piles were cast at Coreslab in
Omaha, Neb. Wooden forms with Styrofoam inserts were used for
casting the two piles. The test units were instrumented with vi-
brating wire strain gauges 共sister bars兲 and normal strain gauges.
Then, the prestressing strands were stressed, and the UHPC was
mixed and poured into the forms. The cast UHPC piles were
covered with plastic to prevent moisture loss. The UHPC mem-
bers were initially cured at 30° C until they reached the release
strength of 97 MPa. The strands were then released, and the
UHPC piles were steam cured for 48 h at 90° C. The measured
compressive strength of the UHPC material used to construct the
UHPC pile test units ranged from 182 to 199 MPa on the day of
full-scale testing.
Instrumentation of Test Units
The first test unit 共UHPC Pile 1兲 was instrumented with 3 pairs of
sister bars and 12 normal strain gauges, while the second unit
共UHPC Pile 2兲 was instrumented with 11 normal strain gauges.
The locations of strain gauges and sister bars along the length of
the pile and on the pile cross section are shown in Figs. 2共a–d兲.
For UHPC Pile 1, the locations of the sister bars and strain gauges
were chosen to obtain estimates of the skin friction along the
length of the pile and to the end bearing at the tip of the pile
during vertical axial load testing 关see Figs. 2共e and f兲兴. These
gauges were also used to determine the moment distribution along
the length of the pile when subjected to lateral loading. For
UHPC Pile 2, most of the strain gauges were installed in the top
3 m of the pile, in which the location of the maximum moment
was predicated by LPILE 共Reese et al. 2000兲 when subjected to
 203 280
Strand 2 Strand 2 Strand 4
890 7, 8 927
1, 2
13-15 3-6 Sister bars 1, 3, 5 Gauge 9 Gauge 7,10,13,16
2298
635 9-12 610 7-9
890 1, 2 445
Strand 5
470 10
16-17 Gauges 8,11,14
11,12 Strand 1 Strand 3
Sister bars 2, 4, 6 Gauges 12,15,17
3683

(b) (c)

3, 4 Strand 1 Strand 2
Gauge 3 Gauge 1,4,7,10,11
3543
Strand 4
Strain Gauge Gauges 2,5,8
Strand 3
Gauges 6,9,18
5, 6 Sister Bars (Pairs)

UHPC 1 UHPC 2 (d)

(a)

Fig. 2. Instrumentation used for test units UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2: 共a兲 locations of various gauges along test units measured from the top
of the pile with all dimensions in mm; 共b兲 strands instrumented with sister bars for UHPC Pile 1; 共c兲 instrumented prestressing strands on UHPC
Pile 1 and 共d兲 instrumented prestressing strands on UHPC Pile 2; 共e兲 sister bars used in UHPC Pile 1; and 共f兲 strain gauges used on strands of
UHPC Pile 1

lateral loads. Threaded rods were also installed near the top of
UHPC Pile 2 to mount the acceleration and strain gauges of the
pile driving analyzer 共PDA兲 during pile driving.
Site Characterization
The two 10.7-m-long UHPC piles and steel HP 10⫻ 57 pile were
installed next to a bridge site near Oskaloosa, Iowa. The bridge at
this site is a three-span bridge carrying future expansion of north-
bound U.S. 63 across Union Pacific railroad. The soil at the
bridge was initially characterized using standard penetration tests
共SPTs兲 conducted by the Iowa Department of Transportation
共2007兲. In the field, the research team characterized the soil at the
site using the SPT and piezocone penetration tests 共CPTs兲. Dis-
turbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples were also collected
using Shelby tubes to characterize the soil in the laboratory.
The soil at the Oskaloosa bridge site consists of 4.8 m of
Wisconsinan loess overlaying a pre-Illinoian hard glacial till,
which is a well-graded mixture of clay, silt, and sand with occa-
sional gravel and boulders. The soil profile of loess on top of a
glacial till is very common in the Midwestern region of the
United States. Using laboratory tests and CPT results, the Wis-
consinan loess soil was classified into three soil layers consisting
of 1.5 m of a low plastic silt 共ML兲 overlaying a 1.2 m of a low
plastic clay 共CL兲 and 2.1 m of a low plastic clay with sand 共CL兲.
The pre-Illinoian hard glacial till consists of layers of clayey sand,
sandy clay, and well-graded sand with gravel 共see Fig. 3兲.
The results of two CPTs, which were conducted at distances of
1.2 and 12 m from UHPC Pile 2, indicate a 0.9-m sand layer at a
depth of 4.65 m, with an average CPT tip resistance of 15.6 MPa
and 1.35 m deep of a very stiff well-graded silty sand layer at a
depth of 7.6 m with an average CPT tip resistance of 26.7 MPa.
The measured pore-water pressure during the CPTs indicated that
the water table was located at approximately 3 m below the
ground surface. The CPTs were terminated at approximately 11 m
due to refusal indicating large inclusions at this depth. The SPT
was conducted at approximately 75 m from the CPT located at 12
m from UHPC Pile 2 and showed hard layers at depths of 7.6 m
共N ⬎ 100兲 and 11 m 共N ⬃ 75兲, respectively. Observations during
driving confirmed the locations of the hard layers at 4.65 and 7.6
m, as will be discussed in a later section.
Fig. 3共d兲 also shows the estimated undrained shear strength
and friction angle of soil layers using the CPT-based empirical
relationships recommended by Lunne et al. 共1997兲. The average
undrained shear strength of the loess soil in the top 2.7 m was 60
kPa underlain by a sandy clay having an undrained shear strength
of 136 kPa. The friction angles of the sandy soils ranged from 34°
to 43° with estimated relative densities varying between 77 and
87%. Fig. 3共d兲 also included the strain at 50% of the strength for
cohesive soil and the modulus of subgrade reaction for cohesion-
less soil based on values recommended by Reese et al. 共2000兲.
Predicted Pile Capacity
Using the soil properties presented in Fig. 3 and pile dimensions,
static analysis methods were used to estimate the capacity of the
UHPC and steel piles. Because the soil profile at the site consisted
of mixed soils 共clay and sand兲, static analysis methods developed
for both materials were used to provide estimates of pile capacity.
Assuming no soil plugging, Table 1 summarizes the predicted pile
capacity using SPT-Meyerhof 共Meyerhof 1976兲, ␣ method 共Tom-
linson 1986兲, ␤ method 共Esrig and Kirby 1979兲, Nordlund 共1963兲
method, and Iowa Blue Book method 共Dirks and Kam 1989兲,
which is an in-house method developed by the Iowa Department
of Transportation 共2007兲 for the local soil conditions. The esti-
mated capacity of the UHPC pile ranged from 725 to 1,299 kN
while the estimated capacity of the steel pile ranged from 479 to
755 kN. The difference in calculated pile capacity depends mainly
on estimated soil properties and assumptions made during the
development of several static analysis methods. For example, the
Nordlund 共1963兲 method accounts for the volume of the pile and
the interface between soil and pile material 共i.e., steel or con-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1405

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Tip resistance (qT in MPa) Fr (%) Undrained shear strength, Su (kPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

-1 -1 -1 -1
Classification Properties
0 Ground surface Ground surface
Low plastic silt  = 18.8 kN/m3 w =21.2% 0 0 0 Su
UHPC H-Pile
1 (ML) LL = 42.1%, PI = 10.4% 
1 1 1
3
Low plastic clay  = 18.5 kN/m  w =7.6%
Water table Su = 60 kPa
2 2 2 2
(CL) LL = 44.4%, PI = 17.9% 50 = 0.007
3 3
3 3 3
Low plastic clay  = 18.5 kN/m  w =12.7% Su = 136 kPa
with sand LL = 27.9%, PI = 7.4% Loess
4
(CL) 4 4 4 50 = 0.005
Depth (m)

N (SPT) = 8

Depth (m)
Depth (m)
5 Clayey sand  = 20.5 kN/m3 w =4.33% 5 5 Water table 5  = 41o
(SC) LL = 32.5%, PI = 17.7% k = 33.9 kN/m3
6 3
6 6 6
Low plastic clay  = 20.4 kN/m  w =4.83%
with sand LL = 36.7%, PI = 19.2% Glacial Till  = 35o
7 7 7 7 k = 6.7 kN/m3
(CL) N (SPT) = 7

8 Well graded 3
sand  = 20.6 kN/m 8 8 8  = 42o
9 (SW) N (SPT) >100 k = 33.9 kN/m3
Low plastic clay 3
9 9 9
 = 20.4 kN/m Su = 800 kPa
10 (CL) 10 10 10
Well graded 3
50 = 0.004
11 sand with gravel  = 20.4 kN/m
11 11 11
(SW) N (SPT) ~ 75
12 12 12 12
0 10 20 30 40 50

Friction angle,  (Degrees)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 3. Properties of soil at the test site: 共a兲 soil profile; 共b兲 CPTu tip resistance; 共c兲 CPTu friction ratio; and 共d兲 estimated undrained shear strength
for cohesive soils and friction angle for cohesionless soils including the values of the undrained shear strength 共Su兲 and the strain at 50% of the
strength 共␧50兲 for cohesive soils and the friction angle 共␾兲 and the modulus of subgrade reaction 共k兲 used to generate the p-y curves for the LPILE
analysis investigating the response of the UHPC pile subjected to lateral loads

crete兲, while the ␣ method assumes a total stress analysis 共i.e., frame. However, due to very low cold temperatures and signifi-
short-term capacity兲, and the ␤ method uses effective stress cant snow accumulation experienced in Iowa, the vertical load
analysis 共i.e., long-term capacity兲. The vertical load tests on tests were conducted approximately 3 months after driving. Based
UHPC and steel piles were planned to be conducted within 1 on this, it was expected that the ␤ method will provide the best
week after the end of pile driving and assembly of the loading estimate of the load test results.

Table 1. Estimated Capacities 共in kN兲 of UHPC and Steel Piles Using Static Analysis Methods Compared to Static Load Test Results
UHPCa Steelb
Method Capacity Skin friction End bearing Capacity Skin friction End bearing
c
SPT-Meyerhof 725 370 355 479 374 105
␣ methodd 794 715 79 746 714 32
␤ methode 1,299 519 780 755 525 230
Nordlundf 897 302 595 642 466 176
Iowa Blue Bookg 932 380 552 618 320 298
PDAh 925 259 666 641 545 96
CAPWAPh 894 384 510 578 434 144
Static load test 1,640 1,053 587 881 NA NA
a
Cross-sectional area equals to 36, 600 mm2 and cross-sectional surface length equals to 1,016 mm.
b
Cross-sectional area equals to 10, 800 mm2 and cross-sectional surface length equals to 1,028 mm.
c
After Meyerhof 共1976兲 and based on SPT corrected N values.
d
Adhesion factor 共␣兲 after the American Petroleum Institute 共API兲 共1989兲; the Su calculated based on the SPT corrected N values using the empirical
correlation 关0.29N0.72兴 after Hara et al. 共1974兲.
e
␤ coefficient after Burland 共1973兲; the ␾ calculated based on SPT corrected N values using the empirical correlation 关54− 27.6 exp共−0.014N160兲兴 after
Peck et al. 共1974兲.
f
After Nordlund 共1963兲; using ␾ 共same ␾ as in ␤ method兲.
g
Iowa Blue Book 共after Dirks and Kam 1989兲; mainly use a combination of the SPT-Meyerhof method 共Meyerhof 1976兲 and ␣-Tomlinson method
共Tomlinson 1986兲.
h
Using the procedures summarized in Hannigan et al. 共1997兲.

1406 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 4. Disintegration of pile cushion as the UHPC pile penetrates
the hard soil layer at a depth of 7.9 m
Driving of Test Piles
The anchor piles were driven first followed by the steel HP 10
⫻ 57 pile, UHPC Pile 1, and UHPC Pile 2 in December 2007
using a Delmag D19-42 hammer with a 51-mm-thick hammer
cushion made of aluminum and micarta. The PDA was used to
measure strains and accelerometers in UHPC Pile 2 and steel pile
during driving.
Although theoretical calculations using the one-dimensional
wave equation analysis program 共GRLWEAP兲 indicated that the
UHPC piles could be driven with no pile cushion 共Vande Voort et
al. 2009兲, the contractor requested the use of plywood cushion
during driving mainly to follow the general practice used for driv-
ing precast-prestressed concrete piles. UHPC Pile 2 was driven
first with a 57-mm-thick plywood pile cushion. The cushion dis-
integrated with approximately 1.5 m of driving remaining 关see
Figs. 4共a and b兲兴. UHPC Pile 1 was then driven with 95 mm of
cushion, which also disintegrated with about 0.6 m of driving
remaining. After pile cushions were damaged, both UHPC test
units were driven with no pile cushion. The depth of the test units
when driven with no pile cushion corresponded with the depth of
the hard soil layer starting at a depth of about 7.6 m. After the end
of driving, the top of both UHPC piles were examined carefully
and found no visible signs of damage.
The UHPC piles and the steel pile were driven to a penetration
depth of 9.9 m. The driving log that included the number of blows
required to penetrate each 0.3-m depth during driving and the
cumulative number of blows are shown in Fig. 5 for UHPC Pile 2
and steel HP 10⫻ 57 piles. The figure shows that the number of
blows required per 0.3-m depth penetration increases at a depth of
approximately 7.6 m and, to a lesser extent, at 4.65 m, both of
which correspond to the hard layers indicated by the CPT test
results. A total of 275 blows were required to drive UHPC Pile 2
to its final depth, while the steel pile required 175 total blows.
Although the UHPC pile required more blows to reach the target
depth, because of their higher compressive and tensile strengths,
UHPC piles can be driven with larger hammers and strokes re-
ducing the required total number of blows and improving the
efficiency of the driving process especially when compared to
precast-prestressed concrete piles 共see Vande Voort et al. 2009兲.
PDA strain gauges and accelerometers were used to monitor
UHPC Pile 2 and steel pile test units during driving. The PDA
results near the end of driving show typical response of force and
velocity with the two curves diverging from each other because of
skin friction provided by the soil 关see Figs. 6共a and b兲兴. The
significant increase in velocity and decrease in force at time of
2L / C for steel pile, where L is embedded pile length and C is the
wave velocity in the pile, indicate a small end bearing resistance.
Furthermore, the PDA results, with velocity smaller than the force
and no intersection between the force and velocity curves along
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1407
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Cumulative Blows
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
1 Blows/0.3m of Steel HP 10x57
Blows/0.3 m of UHPC pile 2
2
Cum blows for steel HP 10x57
3 Cum blows for UHPC pile 2
Penetration Depth (m)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Blows/ 0.3m penetration
Fig. 5. Driving logs for test units UHPC Pile 2 and HP 10⫻ 57
showing blows/0.3 m and cumulative blow count
the length of the pile, indicate that neither pile was damaged
during driving.
PDA results at the end of driving indicated that the UHPC pile
capacity was 925 kN with 259 kN 共i.e., 28%兲 of the load resisted
by skin friction and 666 kN 共72%兲 by end bearing, while the steel
pile capacity was predicted to be 641 kN with 545 kN 共85%兲 of
the load resisted by skin friction and 96 kN 共15%兲 by end bearing.
The results of CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program 共CAPWAP兲
analysis at the end of driving show that the UHPC pile capacity of
894 kN with 384 kN 共43%兲 resisted by skin friction and 510 kN
共57%兲 by end bearing. For the steel pile, CAPWAP analysis indi-
cated a capacity of 578 kN with 434 kN 共75%兲 carried by skin
friction and 144 kN 共25%兲 by end bearing. The results of fully
instrumented steel H-piles driven in a similar soil profile in Iowa
with PDA data collected at the end of driving and during several
restrikes show that the CAPWAP results of the latest restrike cor-
relate well with the static vertical load test. Ng et al. 共2010兲 con-
cluded that a pile capacity difference between static load test
results and CAPWAP results was less than 5% when conducted
within 3 days of the latest restrike. Static analysis using the Nor-
dlund 共1963兲 method, which accounts for the effects of soil-pile
material interface and volume of driven pile, resulted in 33.7 and
72.6% of the load resisted by skin friction for UHPC and steel
pile, respectively, which are consistent with estimates provided by
PDA 共28 and 85%兲 measurements and CAPWAP analysis 共43 and
75%兲.
Testing Plan and Setup
The testing plan at the site consisted of conducting two vertical
static load tests on UHPC Pile 1 and the steel HP 10⫻ 57 piles
using the same loading frame system, as shown in Fig. 7共a and b兲.
Following the vertical load tests, UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2
were simultaneously subjected to lateral load testing using a hy-
draulic jack placed between the two units.
Vertical Load Tests
Test Procedure
Due to very low cold temperatures and significant snow accumu-
lation on the ground experienced in Iowa during the winter of
 500 17.0 500 16.7
kips f/s kips f/s

F V F V

51.2ms 51.2ms
4.20 ms 4.00 ms

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. PDA force and velocity curves at the end of driving for 共a兲 UHPC Pile 2; 共b兲 steel pile

2007–2008, the static load test was conducted in March 2008,
approximately 93 days for UHPC and 102 days for steel pile after
driving. Vertical load tests were conducted on UHPC Pile 1 and
steel HP 10⫻ 57 using the setup shown in Fig. 7. Given that the
predicted vertical load capacity of the UHPC pile was larger than
that of the steel pile, and it ranged from 725 to 1,299 kN with an
average estimated capacity of 930 kN, the load frame was de-
signed to sustain a maximum vertical load of 1,668 kN 共1.8 times
the predicted capacity兲. A hydraulic jack with 1,780-kN capacity
and a load cell of 1,335-kN capacity were used. In addition to
monitoring applied axial load and the strains along the length, the
vertical settlement of UHPC Pile 1 was measured using four dis-
placement transducers. For the steel HP 10⫻ 57, only the applied
axial load and the vertical settlement were monitored. The tests
were conducted in accordance with the quick test procedure out-
Reaction Pile
Reaction Beam
1.98 m 1.52 m
Unit UHPC 1 Steel Pile
1.22 m
Reaction Pile
Unit UHPC 2
(a)
UHPC 1 Steel H Pile
UHPC 2
(b)
Fig. 7. Setup used field testing of UHPC Pile 1, UHPC Pile 2, and
HP 10⫻ 57 steel pile: 共a兲 plan view; 共b兲 elevation view
lined in ASTM D1143/D1143M-07 共ASTM 2007a兲. For UHPC
Pile 1, load increments of 31 kN 关i.e., 5% of the predicted pile
capacity using initial soil testing conducted by the Iowa Depart-
ment of Transportation 共2007兲兴 were used and sustained between
4 and 8 min to allow pile settlement to stabilize. After exceeding
the predicted pile capacity, the load steps were increased to 111
kN. For loads greater than 890 kN, the measurements of strain
gauges and sister bars were not recorded. For the steel H-pile,
load increments of 27 kN, which is also 5% of the predicted pile
capacity, were used.
Pile Load Capacity
The load-displacement responses of UHPC Pile 1 and steel HP
10⫻ 57 pile obtained from the vertical load tests are shown in
Fig. 8. The Davisson 共1972兲 failure criterion, which is shown by
Reaction Pile the dashed line in Figs. 8共a and b兲, was used to define the capacity
of both piles. Although several methods could be used to deter-
mine the pile capacity using the measured pile response during a
1.98 m
load test, the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was used because it is the
major pile capacity determination method used in the load and
resistance factor design of deep foundations. Since the study fo-
Reaction Pile cuses on comparison of pile capacities, the choice of using Davis-
son 共1972兲 criterion has less impact on the outcomes of the study.
The load test on the UHPC pile had to be stopped at a load of
1,335 kN, which was the capacity of the load cell used for this
test. At this load, the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was not reached
for UHPC Pile 1. To estimate the UHPC Pile 1 capacity, the
procedure recommended by Paikowsky and Tolosko 共1999兲 was
used to extrapolate the load-displacement curve, resulting in a
Davisson 共1972兲 pile capacity of 1,640 kN. The steel pile experi-
enced failure during the vertical load test as the pile vertical dis-
placement increased significantly without any significant increase
in the applied load, as shown in Fig. 8共b兲. The steel pile capacity
estimated using the Davisson 共1972兲 criterion was 881 kN.
Given that the static load tests were conducted about 3 months
after driving the piles, the ␤ method, which is based on effective
stress analysis, provided the best prediction of the UHPC and
steel pile capacities. Furthermore, the ␤ method also closely pre-
dicted the ratio of the UHPC pile capacity to the steel pile capac-
ity, which was 1.72 compared to the ratio based on static load test
results, which was 1.86. The ratio of the UHPC pile capacity to
the steel pile capacity is not only a function of the ratio of cross-
sectional area 共which was 3.4兲 but also a function of the interface
properties between the soil and the material of the piles. In com-
parison, the Nordlund 共1963兲 method, which accounts for the pile

1408 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0 0
Da
vis
s on
4 4 Pil
eC

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
ap
Extrapolation ac
Dav ity
8 8 isso = 88
Dav n Fa 1k
isso ilure N
nF Crit
ailu er ion
12 re C 12
rite
rion

16 16

Davisson Pile Capacity = 1640 kN

20 20
(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Vertical load-vertical displacement and Davisson 共1972兲 failure criterion for UHPC and steel test piles from static load test and CAPWAP
analyses

material in estimating skin friction, resulted in a skin friction of
the steel pile that is 1.54 times the skin friction of the UHPC pile,
although both piles have similar surface areas. Neglecting the
effects of pile driving and those of larger soil movement resulting
from driving of the UHPC pile on its load bearing capacity, the
UPHC pile provided larger end bearing capacity than the steel
pile due to 3.4 times larger cross-sectional area. When this in-
crease in capacity combined with a reduction in the skin friction
component expected for concrete piles 共e.g., Nordlund 共1963兲
method estimates 1.54 times smaller skin friction for concrete
piles than for steel H-piles兲, using the ␤ method, the UHPC pile
capacity is expected to be about 1.72 times that of the steel
H-pile, which is close to the ratio of 1.86 from the measured
UHPC pile capacity to the steel pile capacity.
Although ongoing research at Iowa State University on steel
H-piles shows a difference between the CAPWAP predicted ca-
pacity and static load test results less than 5% when conducted
within 3 days 共Ng et al. 2010兲, significantly larger differences
were observed between CAPWAP estimated pile capacities and
those determined from the static load tests in this study. These
differences were 83% for the UHPC pile and 50% for the steel
pile, which was attributed to pile setup. Using PDA measurements
and CAPWAP analyses conducted at the end of driving and at
several restrikes, and the results of static vertical load tests, Ng et
al. 共2010兲 developed an equation to estimate steel pile capacity as
a function of time, which shows that for a similar soil profile pile
setup after about 3 months 共the time between the end of driving
and testing for the presented research兲 approached 50% for steel
H-piles.
Load Transfer
Using section and material properties, the measured strains from
sister bars and strain gauges were used to calculate the load in
UHPC Pile 1 at different locations along the length of the pile, as
shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 9共a兲 shows that when the applied load was
876.7 kN 共i.e., corresponding displacement at the top of the pile
was 5.3 mm兲, 23.6% of the applied load was resisted by end
bearing. At smaller pile displacements 共i.e., beginning of the test兲,
6% of the applied load was resisted by end bearing. CAPWAP
analysis results indicated that at the end of driving 57% of the
load was resisted by end bearing and 43% of the load resisted by
skin friction. In addition to pile setup, the difference between the
static load test results and CAPWAP analysis may be attributed to
the soil displacement at which these results were obtained where
the UHPC pile was driven at a rate of 15 blows/0.3 m at the end
of driving 共average of 20-mm displacement per blow兲 and the pile
displacement at the Davisson 共1972兲 pile capacity was 15 mm.
Fig. 9共b兲 exhibits the increase in unit skin friction for the two
main soil types at the test site as a function of pile head displace-
ment 共i.e., loess for the top 4.8 m and glacial till for the bottom
5.1 m along the length of the pile兲. This figure shows that the unit
skin friction of the glacial till is higher than that of the loess soil
with a ratio ranging from 1.54 to 1.85. Although the unit skin
friction is expected to reach a maximum limit value as the pile
head displacement increases, such behavior was not observed dur-
ing the test, indicating that the maximum skin friction limit was
not mobilized in either soil. Extrapolation of the unit skin friction
curves indicates that the maximum unit frictions between the
UHPC pile and loess and glacial till were 47 kN/m 共3.22 kips/ft兲
and 94 kN/m 共6.44 kips/ft兲.
Fig. 9共c兲 shows the increase in total, skin friction and end
bearing as a function of pile head displacement, which indicates
that the percent of the load resisted by skin friction decreases as
the load increases 共i.e., the difference between applied load and
the skin friction curves increases兲. The figure also indicates that
the curve of skin friction may become constant at a top pile dis-
placement of about 7 mm 共2.7% of the pile cross-sectional dimen-
sion兲.
Lateral Load Test
Test Procedure and Observations
The lateral load test on the UHPC piles was conducted using a
445-kN capacity hydraulic actuator with a 46-cm stroke, which
was used to simultaneously push test units UHPC Pile 1 and
UHPC Pile 2 laterally against each other. The actuator was placed
at 0.61 m above the ground surface 共i.e., 0.25 m below the top of
the pile兲. The lateral load test followed the “standard loading”
procedure outlined in ASTM D3966-07 共ASTM 2007b兲. Accord-
ingly, for all loading steps, the load was kept relatively constant
for duration of at least 10 min. At the end of the test, the piles
were unloaded in four equal load steps. For both the loading and

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1409

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Vertical Load (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 Load (kN) 100

-1
183.7 90 Loess soil (top 4.8 m)
0 207.8 Glacial till (bottom 5.1 m)

Ground Surface
234.4 80
1
Loess 261.7
2 292.0 70

Unit friction (kN/m)

313.7
3 60
345.2
4 369.5
Depth (m)

396.6 50
5
Glacial Till

425.7
6 451.3 40
477.3
7 UHPC pile 30
502.7
8 529.2
554.8 20
9 616.6
10 700.3 10
Points at 9.9 m are based on extrapolation 790.0
11 876.7 0
12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement at the top of the pile (mm)

(a) (b)

1000

900 Total applied load

Skin friction
800 End bearing
700

600
Load (kN)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement at the top of the pile (mm)

(c)

Fig. 9. Measured vertical load transfer as a function of depth for UHPC Pile 1 obtained from strain measurements: 共a兲 load as a function of depth
with points at 9.9 m determined using a constant slope of the measurements within the glacial till soil; 共b兲 skin friction per unit length for the two
main soil layers; and 共c兲 skin friction and end bearing as a function of pile top displacement

unloading stages, deflections, strains, and loads were recorded at creased up to 92.7 kN. For UHPC Pile 2 at the end of testing, the
1, 5, and 10 min after the load was applied and at 5-min intervals maximum lateral displacement at the point of loading was 6.25
for any remaining duration. cm for a lateral load of 101.3 kN. Test units were expected to
During the lateral load test, unexpected shear cracks and shear sustain larger lateral loads and displacements but could not be
failure developed in UHPC Pile 1 near the point of lateral load loaded further after the shear failure of UHPC Pile 1. At a load of
application. Although section analysis showed that the shear ca- 101.3 kN, UHPC Pile 1 started experiencing a significant increase
pacity of the UHPC pile section was 191 kN, UHPC Pile 1 expe- in lateral displacement as the shear cracks developed to a shear
rienced extensive shear cracking at a lateral load of 101.3 kN. In failure. After the shear failure began, UHPC Pile 1 continued to
a posttest investigation, it was concluded that the shear cracking
displace to reach a total displacement of 20.1 cm while sustaining
and premature shear failure in this pile were caused by a reduc-
a lateral load of approximately 80 kN.
tion in shear capacity due to the presence of a 20-mm-thick
bundle of instrumentation wires from 6 sister bars and 11 strain The lateral load response of the UHPC pile was also predicted
gauges through the web of the pile, as shown in Figs. 10共a and b兲. using the LPILE software 共Reese et al. 2000兲. The pile was sub-
jected to an increasing lateral displacement. The soil resistance in
the horizontal direction was represented with nonlinear springs
Force-Displacement Response 共p-y curves兲 located at the midheight of the elements modeling
The force-displacement responses of UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC the pile foundation. The p-y curves for all soil layers were devel-
Pile 2 from the lateral load testing are shown in Fig. 10共e兲, where oped using the soil parameters 共i.e., undrained shear strength, Su,
both units show similar responses as the applied lateral load in- and strain at 50% of the strength, ␧50, for cohesive soil, and fric-

1410 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 10. Response of UHPC 1 and UHPC 2 when subjected to lateral loads: 关共a兲 and 共b兲兴 cracking and failure of UHPC 1 at the location of
instrumentation wires through the web of the pile; 共c兲 the p-y curves representing the nonlinear soil response used in the LPILE analysis for the
major soil layers along the UHPC pile; 共d兲 the moment-curvature relationship used to model the response of the UHPC pile subjected to flexural
bending; and 共e兲 lateral load versus lateral displacement

tion angle, ␾, and modulus of subgrade reaction, k, for cohesion-
less soil兲 reported in Fig. 3共d兲 and using the default LPILE p-y
curves shown in Fig. 10共d兲. The flexural responses of the beam-
column elements representing the pile foundation were character-
ized by specifying the moment resistance of the pile section and
the corresponding flexural stiffness 共EcIeff, where Ec is the elastic
modulus of the UHPC material and Ieff is the effective moment of
inertia of the UHPC pile cross section兲, which was generated by
performing the moment-curvature analysis 关see Fig. 10共e兲兴.
Fig. 10共c兲 shows the force-displacement response of the UHPC
pile predicted by LPILE analysis compared with the measured
force-displacement response of UHPC Pile 2, which shows that
the analysis captured the overall lateral load response of the
UHPC pile. LPILE analysis predicted the lateral capacity of the
UHPC pile to be 141 kN occurring at a maximum displacement of
26.3 cm.
Strain Profiles
The strain profiles established for longitudinal reinforcing strands
in UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 are presented in Fig. 11. Fig.
11共a兲 presents the strain profiles combining measured strains for
Strands 2 and 4 for UHPC Pile 1 and Fig. 11共b兲 shows the strain
profile along Strand 3 for UHPC Pile 2; both of which show that,
for a given lateral load, the largest strains were recorded at a
depth of 1.43 m below the ground surface. The strain profiles also
suggest that strains gradually reduced below 1.43 m, and insig-
nificant strains were recorded at 5.12 m below the ground surface.
Based on these observations and the LPILE analysis results, it
was concluded that the maximum moment in test units UHPC
Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 was at a depth of about 1.43 m below the
ground surface 共i.e., depth approximately 5.6⫻ pile size兲. The
differences in magnitude between recorded strains at similar

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1411

Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Strain (
0 200 400 600 800
-1
0 Ground Surface
1 1
2 2
3 3
Depth (m)
Depth =1.43 m
4 15.9 kN
5 27.9 kN
40.7 kN
6 6
55.9 kN
7 7
68.8 kN
8 77.8 kN
9 92.7 kN
101.2 kN
10
(a)
Fig. 11. Measured strain profiles along the length of UHPC piles: 共a兲 along Strands 2 and 4 in UHPC 1; 共b兲 along Strand 3 in UHPC 2
depth in test units UHPC Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 were attributed
to shear cracks and shear failure observed in UHPC Pile 1 during
the lateral load test. The maximum measured strains along UHPC
Pile 1 and UHPC Pile 2 result in bending moments of 125 and
101 kN m, respectively, which is smaller than the bending mo-
ment capacity of 198 kN m expected at zero axial load. These
results confirm that UHPC Pile 1 failed due to shear as concluded
previously.
Summary and Conclusions
To achieve the target service life, avoid drivability problems, and
ensure durability, the researchers investigated the use and behav-
ior of deep foundation elements made of UHPC. A prestressed-
precast H-shaped UHPC section, which was 254-mm deep with
weight similar to that of a HP 10⫻ 57 steel pile, was designed
with no mild steel reinforcement. The following are the major
findings of this study.
1. H-shaped UHPC piles can be driven with the same driving
equipment as steel piles of the same size and weight and can
be successfully driven without a pile cushion through hard
soil layers without causing any damage to the UHPC piles.
Although the UHPC pile required more blows to reach the
target depth, because of their higher compressive and tensile
strengths, UHPC piles can be driven with larger hammers
and strokes reducing the required total number of blows and
improving the efficiency of the driving process especially
when compared to precast-prestressed concrete piles.
2. CAPWAP analyses at the end of driving confirmed that
UHPC piles resisted applied load by both skin friction 共43%兲
and end bearing 共57%兲 and steel H-piles resisted applied
loads mainly by skin friction 共75%兲.
3. Although Nordlund 共1963兲 static analysis method indicates
that the skin friction of steel piles is greater than that of
UHPC piles, the axial load capacity of the UHPC pile was
86% greater than that of the steel pile. This suggests that the
use of UHPC piles may reduce the total number of piles
required for a bridge foundation.
4. When subjected to lateral loading, UHPC Pile 1 experienced
unexpected failure due to the presence of wire bundle
through the web of the pile. The maximum lateral load and
displacement recorded for the unfailed test unit 共UHPC Pile
1412 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Strain (
1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-1
0 Ground Surface
Depth (m)
15.9 kN
4
27.9 kN
5 40.7 kN
55.9 kN
68.8 kN
77.8 kN
8
92.7 kN
9 101.2 kN
10
(b)
2兲 was 101.3 kN at 6.25 cm. The LPILE analysis of the
UHPC pile closely matched the measured response of UHPC
Pile 2 and predicted a lateral load capacity of 141 kN with a
maximum moment location at a depth equals to approxi-
mately 5.6 times the cross section of the pile.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded through the high-risk research program by
the Iowa Highway Research Board. The writers would like to
thank the technical advisory committee of the research project.
Special thanks are due to Iowa Department of Transportation,
Coreslab Structures of Omaha, Nebraska, Lafarge North America,
and Cramer and Associates for their help, in-kind support, and
services. The writers would like to thank Sherif AbdelSalam,
Kam Weng Ng, and Mathew Rolling for their help during field
tests and interpretation of data.
References
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials.
共2005兲. Grand challenges: A strategic plan for bridge engineering,
AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, Washington,
D.C.
American Petroleum Institute 共API兲. 共1989兲. “Draft recommended prac-
tice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms—Load and resistance factor design.” API RP2A-LRFD,
American Petroleum Institute, Dallas.
ASTM. 共2007a兲. “Standard test methods for deep foundations under static
axial compressive load.” ASTM D1143-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 共2007b兲. “Standard test methods for deep foundations under lat-
eral load.” ASTM D3966-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
Burland, J. B. 共1973兲. “Shaft friction of piles in clay.” Ground Eng., 6共3兲,
30–42.
Davisson, M. T. 共1972兲. “High capacity piles.” Proc., Soil Mechanics
Lecture Series on Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE,
New York, 81–112.
Dirks, K., and Kam, P. 共1989兲. “Foundation soils information chart-pile
foundation.” Iowa Dept. of Transportation, Office of Roads Design,
Ames, IA.
Esrig, M. I., and Kirby, R. C. 共1979兲. “Soil capacity for supporting deep
foundation members in clay.” Behavior of deep foundation, Vol. 670,
 ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 27–63.
Graybeal, B. A. 共2006兲. “Material property characterization of ultra-high
performance concrete.” FHWA-HRT-06-103, Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, Washington, D.C.
Hannigan, P. J., Goble, G. G., Thendean, G., Linkin, G. E., and Rausche,
F. 共1997兲. “Design and construction of driven foundations: Volume I
and II.” Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Rep. No. FHWA-
HI-97-013, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 共1974兲. “Shear
modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils.” Soils Found., 14共3兲,
1–12.
Huck, R. W., and Hull, J. R. 共1971兲. “Resonant driving in permafrost.”
Foundation Facts, 7共1兲, 11–15.
Iowa Department of Transportation. 共2007兲. “ASD/LFD bridge design
manual.” 具http://www.dot.state.ia.us/bridge/manualasd.htm典 共Jan. 10,
2008兲.
Lunne, T., Powell, J. M., and Robertson, P. K. 共1997兲. Cone penetration
testing in geotechnical practice, Taylor & Francis, London.
Mekkawy, M. 共2004兲. “Management of water and backfill characteristics
for improved bridge approach performance.” M.S. thesis, Iowa State
Univ., Ames, IA.
Meyerhof, G. 共1976兲. “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile founda-
tions.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102共3兲, 195–228.
Ng, K. W., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2010兲. “LRFD resistance
factors including the influence of setup for design of steel piles using
WEAP.” GeoFlorida 2010—Advances in analysis, modeling and de-
sign, Florida 2010, Geo-Institute of ASCE, West Palm Beach, FL.
Nordlund, R. L. 共1963兲. “Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soils.”
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1413
Downloaded 01 Oct 2010 to 129.186.167.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
J. Geotech. Found. Eng., 89共SM 3兲, 1–36.
Paikowsky, S. G., and Tolosko, T. A. 共1999兲. “Extrapolation of pile ca-
pacity from non-failed load tests.” FHWA-RD-99-170, Federal High-
way Administration 共FHWA兲, Washington, D.C.
Pando, M. A., Ealy, C. D., Filz, G. M., Lesko, J. J., and Hoppe, E. J.
共2006兲. “A laboratory and field study of composite piles for bridge
substructures.” Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-04-043, Federal Highway Ad-
ministration 共FHWA兲, Washington, D.C.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 共1974兲. Foundation
engineering, Wiley, New York.
Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., Isenhower, W. M., and Arrellaga, J. A. 共2000兲.
Computer program: LPILE version 4 technical manual, Ensoft, Aus-
tin, TX.
Salgado, R. 共2008兲. The engineering of foundations, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Tomlinson, M. J. 共1986兲. Foundation design and construction, Longman
Scientific and Technical, Essex, England.
Tuchlinski, D., Hegger, J., and Kommer, B. 共2006兲. “Studies on pre-
stressed concrete beams made from UHPC.” Concrete Precasting
Plant and Technology, 72共1兲, 14–20.
Vande Voort, T., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2008兲. “Design and
performance verification of ultra-high performance concrete piles for
deep foundations.” Final Report, Iowa DOT, IHRB Project TR-558,
CTRE Project 06-264, Iowa Dept. of Transportation, Ames, IA.
Vande Voort, T., Suleiman, M. T., and Sritharan, S. 共2009兲. “Design,
construction, and drivability of UHPC pile.” Int. Foundation Con-
gress and Equipment Expo 09, ASCE and Geo-Institute, Orlando, FL.