Search Documents

By Arturo Ressi di Cervia

"The Construction of the Thrust Pits for Jacking of the I-90 Tunnel for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project (Part of Contract No. C09A4) in Boston MA was nominated for DFI’s 2002 Outstanding Project Award. In the judging, the project and the specialty subcontractor, Treviicos Corporation, was chosen for a Special Recognition Award. INTRODUCTIONBoston’s Big Dig, as the construction of the underground artery became known, is undoubtedly the largest urban construction project of this century.The Central Artery/Tunnel Project, or CA/T, to call it by its proper name, runs approximately eight miles through the heart of Boston, five miles of which are built underground while maintaining traffic on the elevated existing structure, while at its southern end I-90 is extended to Logan airport under active rail lines, Fort Point Channel and Boston Inner Harbor.Since the alignment of the road closely parallels the shoreline as it existed in colonial times, the cut and cover construction had to contend with substantial portions of filled ground, not to mention existing subway lines, live utilities, building foundations and, last but not least, the irritable Boston drivers and litigious adjacent property and business owners.Consequently, while it is impossible to single out the most difficult or challenging contract, the jacking of the tunnels of I-90 under the live rails of Amtrak certainly will rank high on the list.Never before, anywhere in the world, was an attempt made to jack tunnels of this size: the South Bay Interchange consists of three 78 feet (24 m) wide by 38 feet (11.6 m) high tunnels, the shortest of which is 167 feet (51 m) long. TECHNOLOGYIn order to achieve this engineering feat it was necessary to consolidate the soil under the track to prevent it from moving or settling during the jacking process. After a detailed analysis of the geological profile to be traversed it was decided that freezing was the most suitable method, since it could be applied to the full range of soils present on the proposed alignment."

Jan 3, 2003

By Norm Kirk, Robert Bittner

"The addition of a new powerhouse at the existing Tulloch Hydroelectric site on the Stanislaus River in the western foothills of the Sierras Nevada Mountains of central California required a deep excavation in rock on the downstream face of the dam. A cofferdam (water exclusion device) was necessary to isolate the powerhouse construction site excavation from the existing Goodwin Reservoir and the turbulent discharge from the existing powerhouse. The cofferdam was positioned on a steeply sloping fractured rock surface exceeding 50 degrees.This paper describes the challenges encountered during design and construction of the cofferdam and describes the unique design features used to address these challenges including:•,The use of flat-sheet-piles to form cellular walls on the steeply sloping rock surface.•,The use of 5-ft deep tremie concrete plugs in the bottom of the sheet pocket cells to create the bottom seal of the cellular cofferdam walls against the sloping rock surface.•,The use of vertical post-tensioned rock anchors to provide shear resistance at the contact point between the base of the cellular-wall and the sloping rocksurface.INTRODUCTIONModification or expansion of existing hydroelectric power plants often require downstream cofferdams or water exclusion devices to temporarily separate new construction from turbulent downstream discharge of the existing dam. Most dams are positioned on solid rock in the narrowest and therefore the steepest section of the river. This combination of steeply slopingrock and the need for an exclusion barrier creates a challenge for the design engineer trying to maintain a safe dewatered construction site. Typical cofferdam solutions for hydroelectric dams usually use large granular filled circular sheet pile cells that perform as gravity structures. However, this type of structures is not well suited to steeply-sloping highly irregular rock surfaces in a confined area."

Jan 1, 2017

By Paul J. Lewis

Estimation of the axial side shear resistance of drilled shaft rock sockets is directly related to the unconfined compressive strength of the bedrock. Commonly, the mean unconfined compressive strength value is calculated from a range of laboratory test results and is used to estimate the side shear of the bedrock. This paper presents the results from a full scale axial load test performed on an 8.5-feet-diameter drilled shaft rock socket, and compares measured side shear values to estimated values for two different rock strata. Measured side shear values correlated well with the design value calculated for the ?strong? rock stratum, but did not correlate well with the design value calculated for the ?weak? rock stratum. The mean unconfined compressive strength was used to calculate the side shear in both strata, but review of the laboratory data indicates that this value may not have been appropriate for the weak stratum due to a large variation in the laboratory test results. Also included in this paper is a discussion of the subsurface conditions, the laboratory test results, and the methodology used to design the drilled shaft rock sockets for axial and lateral resistance.

Jan 1, 2013

By Gihan E. Abdelraham, Youssef G. Youssef, Mohamed M. Kamel

"Previous studies defined Narrow Mechanically Stabilized Earth, NMSE, walls as a retaining wall with aspect ratio (wall width to its height, L/H) less than 0.70 as in traditional walls. Some studies investigated its behavior and its failure planes compared to those of traditional walls. In this paper, parametric study using finite element analysis PLAXIS, 8.2 has been introduced to discuss global factor of safety, FS, maximum horizontal displacement, Ds, maximum tension force of reinforcement element, Tmax, and active earth pressure coefficient, ka, as a function of different aspect ratio of NMSE wall, L/H, reinforcing elements spacing, S, elastic axial stiffness of reinforcement element, EA, wall batter, 1/m, soil friction angle, f, and wall height, H. The results indicated that increasing aspect ratio increases the factor of safety, maximum horizontal displacement, maximum tensile force and active earth pressure. Increasing elastic axial stiffness increases factor of safety, maximum tension force of reinforcement element while decreasing the maximum horizontal displacement.IntroductionReinforced earth is a composite geoconstruction material, which embodies two basic components; namely engineering fill and reinforcing elements. The latter one is responsible for improving the tensile and shear resistance of the soil. The soil-reinforcement technique has been in use for many geotechnical applications especially MSE walls.A narrow wall system is referred to as a MSE wall with an aspect ratio, L/H, below 0.70 that is placed in front of a stabilized wall. An example of a narrow wall system with its dimensions is illustrated in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2017

By Douglas Heenan

The fracture orientations were inferred based on theory and previous experience. The fracture pattern was not monitored during the project. Grout volume was recorded at each sleeve port and real time movement monitoring of the building foundation was performed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lynn Crayne

We used Glyoxal as the hardener, at a final concentration of 10% by volume and therefore 20% by volume in the A-Component. They worked pretty well what we did was we shaved the joints on each of the pipes when we assembled them so they wouldn't rip the packers and then we greased the packers very well going in. We had to replace some but we have any getting stuck or didn't lose any pipes.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

Feb 10, 2003

By K. Viking

It's well known that conventional impact hammers, usually are the method to use in order to drive precast prestressed concrete piles. However sometimes the vibratory technique might be considered as a suitable alternative due to favourable soil conditions. It is also well known that piles driven into granular soils can be installed more efficiently by the use of a vibratory driver compared with impact hammers. However, the use of the vibratory technique is seldom regarded as the first choice, since the technique is constrained by several uncertainties related to the pile capacity, and concrete piles to cope with tensile stresses. With the opportunities of having suitable subsurface conditions and a fair amount of piles to be installed, it was anticipated that the use of the vibratory method could result in a significant reduction of the installation costs. Part of the uncertainties of using a vibrator was intended to be eliminated by restriking the vibratory driven pile with an impact hammer and use a Pile Driving Analyzer? (PDA) to correlate recordings of soil resistance to driving with measured rate of penetration, and to evaluate the static capacity and load/settlement characteristics of the vibratory driven pile by conducting static load test. The conducted test study of using a vibrator to drive the precast prestressed test pile (14-in. square by 30-ft-long) did not turn out to the author's complete satisfaction. The present paper focuses mainly on a numerous practical engineering issues in relation to the use of the vibro-technique to drive precast prestressed concrete piles in granular soils. The obtained experiences of using a PDA to monitor vibro-driven piles, with its potential and limitations, is presented and discussed. Furthermore, a simple method of how to subjectively pre-estimate the soil resistance due to vibratory driving is presented and discussed. The reasons for the partly unsuccessful test study are discussed in great detail based on the obtained experiences. Suggestions of how to better approach a similar situation in the future are also provided in great detail

Jan 1, 2004

By Jesús E. Gómez

A total of 260 micropiles were installed as part of a retrofit effort for two existing bridges. The micropiles consisted of hollow core bars installed under limited headroom conditions. Of the total number of micropiles, 180 were installed in submerged sand and 80 were installed in stiff, silty clay. The micropiles were drilled using a lean cement grout which was re-circulated for de-sanding and re-use. Final grout was injected upon completion of drilling to the design tip elevation. The micropiles were subject to a rigorous quality control that included grout quality testing and proof-testing of each production micropile. This paper presents a description of the procedure for installation and quality control of the micropiles. The successful proof-testing of all the production micropiles showed that hollow core bar micropiles can be used effectively in granular and fine-grained soils. Hollow core bar micropiles offer particular advantages when installed in submerged sand formations with respect to other traditional micropile types. The results of the proof load tests are presented in a companion paper.

Jan 1, 2007

By P. Middendorp, Gerald E. H. Verbeek

"INTRODUCTIONStatic Load Testing (SLT) is generally considered the pile testing method that provides the de-facto answers regarding pile capacity and load-deflection behavior. However, as this testing method is time consuming and costly, alternative pile testing methods are applied, such as High-Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT), commonly referred to as Dynamic Load Testing (DLT), and Rapid Load Testing (RLT), which includes Statnamic Testing (STN) and the Fundex Pile Load Tester (PLT). Extensive descriptions of these pile testing methods as well as comparisons of the results from these two methods have been widely published, but little is written on the choice between HSDT and RLT. This article will address this issue for concrete piles by discussing five different aspects that should be considered when making a choice between HSDT and RLT for either cast-in-situ piles or precast driven piles. TIMINGThe timing of the pile load test is independent of the testing method. For cast-in-situ piles load testing is performed some time after the pile has been installed (to allow the pile to obtain the compressive strength required to withstand the test load), while for precast driven piles load testing is performed after a so-called set-up period following pile installation (to allow the soil to recover from driving induced disturbances and, at least in most cases,regain strength).In other words, the timing of the test does not affect the choice of the testing method.ACCURACY OF THE APPLIED LOADWhen a pile is tested by RLT the applied load is measured by a calibrated load cell placed on the pile head, just as it would be during SLT. This means that the error in the applied load value is less than 0.1% of the maximum range of the load cell.However, when a pile is tested by HSDT the load is calculated from the measured strains, which means that the outcome is dependent on the pile material properties. In this case the applied load (F) on the pile head is calculated by multiplying the measured strain (?) with either the calculated or estimated elastic modulus of concrete (E) and the pile cross section (A).The elastic modulus is generally back calculated from the (average) stress wave velocity (c), which in turn is derived from the reflection time (T) it takes for a stress wave to travel over the pile length (L) from the pile head to the pile toe and back to the pile head."

Jan 1, 2006

By Jochen Maurer, Dr. Christian Hoyme, Dr. Hans Regler

Currently, it is very difficult to obtain qualitative and quantitative information about the status and production process of a construction site. As a rule, companies depend on reports from on-site experts. There is no end-to-end digitalization due to the mobility of equipment and ever-changing locations. Equipment from different manufacturers, especially in special foundation engineering, is highly specialized. Any data collected by this equipment is recorded in proprietary formats and made available on the manufacturers' platforms. This exacerbates the situation, making simple analysis of performance indicators impossible. Most functions such as construction diaries, equipment utilization analyses, etc. are implemented only as standalone solutions. This does not allow for prompt visualization and intervention in critical process sequences because the construction site process is usually managed using a cost-based method. Furthermore, special foundation engineering requires a high level of expertise in an extremely wide range of construction processes. In this article, the results from a set of non-proprietary performance analysis tools are presented using numerous practical examples. Once a construction element is completed, the equipment data is immediately transferred to the platform using the latest cloud technology. Because the data is normalized, construction progress can be documented immediately, even for mixed equipment fleets. Bottlenecks can be immediately detected by visualizing the current performance of the production process, which is broken down into individual steps. Modern analyses of this equipment data improve quality, thereby providing better information about current performance. These sets of tools are essential for changing from the current monetary or cost-based method of process management to time- and bottleneck-oriented management. This makes it much easier to identify the critical path during projects. The article shows that processes can be documented and managed.

By Andrew Baxter

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas is a beautiful glass and concrete structure cut into a valley that mingles with water ponds spanned by multiple bridges with suspended roofs. Or, at least it will be when completed in 2009. At Crystal Bridges, most of the proposed buildings involve cuts up to 50 ft high to be retained by the building structures. This requires the construction of retaining walls adequately founded to support lateral loads of up to 70 kip/ft. To add to this difficulty, the site is within a karst region with all the variability and irregularities associated with solutioning and erosion of the parent rock in this environment. The irregular rock profile made it virtually impossible to conceive a predictable arrangement of shallow footings and shear keys for the retaining walls. The existence of layers of soft soils within a hard rock formation made a caisson foundation impractical. The authors developed an innovative solution based on micropiles, which proved to be invaluable from a cost and schedule point of view. In areas where rock was shallow, micropiles were used as ?shear pins? to transfer the horizontal loads to the rock. In areas with significant overburden, a system of vertical and battered micropiles was devised to carry vertical and horizontal loads from the retaining walls. This paper presents a detailed description of the design and installation of the micropiles used as shear pins, and includes the results of lateral load tests performed on full-scale models of the grade beams on shear pins. The work performed shows that micropiles in rock can be effectively utilized for support of significant lateral loads provided that an adequate arrangement of suitably sized micropiles is provided, and that micropiles used as shear pins may develop significant tensile stresses when loaded laterally.

Jan 1, 2008

By Max Gwynn, Tony Suckling

"The new Wembley Stadium is the most spectacular soccer stadium in the world, built to the highest specifications, using the latest technology and offering visitors an unrivalled match-day experience. Wembley Stadium is the home of English soccer, dating back to 1918 when the British Government began planning a British Empire Exhibition with a stadium as its centrepiece. The Empire Stadium, as it was originally known, was completed in 1924 in just 300 days and cost £750,000 ($1.4m). It was finally closed in 2000.The new Wembley Stadium, which opened in 2006, features fully covered seats for 90,000 fans and a striking arch that sits above the northern half of the stadium. With a span of 315 m (1040 ft), the 133-m (440-ft) tall arch is the longest single-span roof structure in the world. It supports the entire weight of the northern roof and 60% of the weight of the southern retractable roof. This means there is no need for columns within the stadium and ensures unobstructed views.Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd. employed Stent Foundations Limited to construct the £10m ($19m) foundations package for the new stadium. The scope of works for the foundation package included the design and construction of all foundations, including all main works piling, temporary works piles for the arch and roof, and tower crane piles. The scope also included trial piling and pile testing, setting out and removal of spoil.Piles were constructed by using bored cast-in-place techniques with both hydraulic and traditional crane-mounted rigs. Stent also installed sheet-piled walls at three locations to the site’s northern boundary. In addition to the main contract works, Stent constructed a £2m ($3.8m) contiguous bored-pile retaining wall within the demolition and earthworks package (Figure 1). This work was carried out as a subcontractor to Griffith McGee."

Jan 1, 2008

By David S. Graham, Joseph D. Bailey, Paul J. Axtell, Michael K. Muchard

"Two instrumented test piles were simultaneously subjected to a static lateral load test by jacking the piles apart. One of the piles was loaded in axial compression via kentledge during the lateral load test. Both piles were constructed in an identical manner. These piles were constructed and tested as part of a construction-phase load test program for a floodwall improvement project along the Missouri River in Kansas City, Kansas. Details of the subsurface conditions, drilled pile construction, instrumentation, and load testing procedures are described. Data collected during testing of the piles are presented and compared. Potential effects of the axial compressive load related to observed differences in pile lateral response are discussed.INTRODUCTIONTwo instrumented test piles were simultaneously subjected to a static lateral load with one of the piles also subject to a combined axial load during testing. The load test program was part of a floodwall improvement project in Kansas City, Kansas. Known as the BPU floodwall, the floodwall runs along the south bank of the Missouri River at a Kansas City Board of Public Utilities power generation and water treatment facility. The project location is shown in Fig. 1.Drilled, 2-ft (610-mm) diameter piles were designated by the designer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), as the foundation type for supporting extended floodwall footings. The drilled piles are fully cased, cast-in-place concrete, reinforced with a steel 12x74 (310x110) H-pile. In order to test soil lateral response and pile structural response under combined loading, the COE required that both a lateral test and combined lateral and axial test pile be constructed and tested. In order to most efficiently test both piles and to allow for simpler comparison, the two piles were simultaneously laterally loaded by jacking the piles apart, applying a maximum lateral load of 195 kips (867 kN). A constant axial load was applied to the combined test pile by kentledge prior to lateral loading and was maintained for the duration of the lateral load test. The total weight of the kentledge was 61.5 kips (274 kN). Fig. 2 shows the test setup."

Jan 1, 2017

By Donald T. Robertson

This paper presents case histories of driven concrete pile damage detected with dynamic testing methods utilizing strain gages and accelerometers embedded in the pile at the prestressing yard during pile construction. Data from the embedded instrumentation is compared with data taken with external bolt on instrumentation and other test methods such as low strain testing on the same pile. In the most severe cases, the piles were extracted revealing and corroborating the embedded data collector results.

By B. De Paoli

At Pietrafitta, between Assisi and Perugia, ENEL (Italian National Electricity Authority) has for some time been managing a power-station operated with lignite, mined from an open mine on the way to exhaustion. A new plant is under construction which is located in the mine that was filled with tailings, mainly clays, sandy silts, lignite and ashes produced by the power-station. The soil profile is shown in Fig. 1: the thickness of the made ground is around 27 m. The foundation of the new power-station is on 320 t piles, 1.20 m diameter, embedded in the cohesive base formation at a depth of 57.5 m. 2,350 piles will be constructed for a total length of 125 km. It is therefore one of the largest pile sites at present in operation in Italy. [ ]

Jan 1, 1994

By Lawrence F. Johnsen, Marc J. Gallagher

"Micropiles are small diameter, bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements. The omission of micropiles from most United States building codes has resulted in the application of varying standards for design and installation. The ADSC/DFI Micropile Committee has developed a proposed section for the 2006 edition of the International Building Code (IBC 2006) covering micropiles. The proposed IBC 2006 micropile code section is presented, along with comparisons to existing micropile codes and guidelines. A discussion section is provided to clarify sections of the proposed code. IntroductionMicropiles, defined as small diameter (typically less than 12 inches outer diameter), bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements, are becoming common foundation elements for new construction, retrofits, and emergency repairs. Developed in Europe in the 1950's and used in United States practice since the late 1970's, micropiles are typically not addressed in building codes, particularly in the United States. As a result, micropiles are often reviewed by building officials to a variety of standards, including drilled shafts, caissons, cast-in-place bored piles, and concrete filled pipe piles. None of these adequately address the unique design and construction aspects of micropiles. Therefore, it became apparent to the foundation design and construction community that a micropile-specific code section was required.To that end, the International Association of Foundation Drilling and the Deep Foundations Institute (ADSC/DFI) Micropile Committee appointed a subcommittee in October 2003 to develop and submit a proposed micropile code section for the 2006 IBC. The subcommittee members included the two co-authors, as well as Tom Richards (Nicholson Construction Company), Tom Armour (DBM Contractors, Inc.), John Wolosick (Hayward Baker, Inc.), Allen Cadden (Schnabel Engineering) and Matt Niermann (Schnabel Foundation Company). At the time of the writing of this paper, the proposed code section has been presented at the IBC public hearing during which it was modified slightly. Final adoption (or rejection) will be determined by the IBC at the final action hearing in September 2005. The attached code section is the revised version following the public review hearings."

Jan 1, 2005

By Donald T. Robertson, Kurt Hecht, Michael K. Muchard

"This paper presents case histories of driven concrete pile damage detected with dynamic testing methods utilizing strain gages and accelerometers embedded in the pile at the prestressing yard during pile construction. Data from the embedded instrumentation is compared with data taken with external bolt on instrumentation and other test methods such as low strain testing on the same pile. In the most severe cases, the piles were extracted revealing and corroborating the embedded data collector results.INTRODUCTIONDynamic testing of driven pile foundations was originally developed in the late 1960’s and commercialized in the early 1970’s. While the methods of analyzing dynamic test data have improved with the advancement of computer technology, the test method and the sensors used to acquire the data have changed little. In 1998, under a research grant provided by the Florida Department of Transportation, (McVay et al, 2002) an Embedded Data Collector system (EDC) was developed. The collector utilizes two sensor packs, each consisting of one strain gage and one accelerometer, embedded near the pile toe and pile top. Utilizing the toe sensor pack, the system provides reliable real time pile end bearing capacity measurements. This end bearing capacity is combined with a Case Method Solution augmented with an automatic damping calculation to provide the overall pile capacity, pile skin friction capacity and pile end bearing capacity. Also, since the gages are embedded, they have the ability to track all changes from the casting yard (i.e. prestress), driving, and subsequent setup (freeze, relaxation, etc) at both the top and bottom of the pile."

Jan 1, 2017

By Lance Rasband, Richard Hanke, John Starcevich

"The 17.4 meter (57 ft) diameter tunnel boring machine (TBM), the world’s largest at the time of her launch in 2012, locally referred to as “Bertha,” is stuck. Incapacitated due to mechanical failure approximately 36 meters (120 ft) beneath downtown Seattle, situated precariously between the deteriorating Alaskan Way Viaduct and the failing Seattle Seawall. Accessing Bertha with a vertical shaft provides the best approach to address all facets needed for repairs and will allow the full removal of Bertha’s cutter head and related inner workings. Limited area above the tunnel alignment and the physical restrictions of existing infrastructure, create significant challenges for the design of an otherwise symmetrical shaft, requiring special attention to design and layout. Consequently, the access/recovery shaft design required a combination of 3m, 2.5m, 2.2m, 1.5m and 1m diameter unreinforced drilled secant piles coupled with various ground improvement techniques and dewatering, to fully satisfy the shoring design requirements. This paper will describe the shaft installation procedures, equipment used and pitfalls encountered while undertaking access shaft construction of this magnitude.INTRODUCTIONTunneling on Seattle’s SR99 tunnel project began in July of 2013. After slowly mining through a 4.5 m (14.76 ft) thick fiber-reinforced concrete headwall and the first of three stabilized “safe havens,” Bertha would proceed along the proposed alignment through 122 meters (400 ft) of jet grout improved soil at a rate of slightly over 1.6 m (5.25 ft) per day. Once past the improved area, it was planned that “Bertha” – would be moving at a rate of about 11 m (36 ft) per day. By the end of October 2013, Bertha had mined roughly 131 m, (430 ft) averaging 1.4 m (4.6 ft) per day and had begun mining within native soils. By December 2013, tunneling had reached the 244 m mark and Bertha was averaging 3.6 m (11.8 ft) per day, achieving as much as 12.8 m (42 ft) of progress on given days. Unfortunately, on December 6th, 2013, Bertha began to stumble and all progress quickly came to a halt.It was initially reported that an obstruction had stopped Bertha in her tracks. The preliminary investigation involved installation of 10 deep dewatering wells to reduce the hydrostatic pressure around the TBM, and allow visual inspection of the cutter head from within the TBM, and also to investigate for the presence of obstructions at the face of the cutter head. During this inspection, fragments of steel pipe were discovered entangled in the cutter head. The fragments were apparently from an abandoned 254 mm (10 in.) diameter monitoring well casing, previously installed by WSDOT to monitor ground water conditions for the design and planning of this tunnel project. After the steel was removed from the cutter head and cleared from Bertha’s path, tunneling resumed. It was then discovered that Bertha was only able to generate a slow crawl."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ramin Motamed, Anna Panorska``, Joseph A. W. Toth

In this study, a dataset of 145 bi-directional and static load tests was used to evaluate the load-displacement response with respect to unit side resistance for drilled shafts comprising fully and partially mobilized data. A total of 612 unit side resistance curves were calculated which included 52 fully mobilized curves showing a maximum response. A new approach using the double tangent method, is proposed in calculating the maximum unit side resistance from partially mobilized load-displacement data. The double tangent method was applied to each load-displacement response to estimate the ratio of mobilized resistance between the intersecting tangents and peak measured resistance. It is observed that as the mobilization of side shear approaches a maximum, the ratio approaches unity. Using the fully mobilized curves, regression models were developed using correlations between ratios of estimated resistance at the double tangent, peak, and maximum measured responses. Regression models are evaluated for the following factors: predominant soil type and drilled shaft construction methods. Comparisons of calculated and measured maximum values of unit side resistance are compared for each model. Although these factors each influence the load-transfer behavior, a single global regression model including all the data showed promise in yielding accurate results.