Professional Documents
Culture Documents
III Illllllllllllllllllllllllill: Sponsor: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
III Illllllllllllllllllllllllill: Sponsor: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
PB97-103972
Volume I
KeynotePa~
"
December, 1994
REPROOUCEO BY: ~
u.s. Oepartmenl of Commerce
National Teehnicallnfonnatlon Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. PB97-1eJ3972 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA-SA-084
1111111 "111111 III" 11111111111
4. Title and Subtitle 4. Report Date
Proceedings: International Conference on Design and December 6, 1994
Construction of Deep Foundations. VOLUME 1
6. Performing Organization Code:
HTA-20
15. Supplementary Notes
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project Manager: Chien-Tan Chang
Conference Chairperson and Technical Consultant: Jerry DiMaggio
16. Abstract
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the International Association of Foundation
Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundation Institute (DFI), Transportation Research board (TRB) and American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) co-sponsored an International'
Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, from December 6, to 8, 1994 in Orlando,
Florida.
The principal objective of the conference was t6 improve the cost-effectiveness of deep
foundation systems for transportation-related projects by documentation and exchange of innovative
practices and improved techniques. The conference provided an opportunity to share technological
advances in deep foundation from a global perspective. The conference subjects ranged from theoretical
modeling of pile foundation systems to driven and drilled pile transportation-related case studies.
Volume 1 of the proceedings consists of papers by eleven internationally known keynote speakers
invited to provide state-of-the-art knowledge and perspectives on Deep Foundations. Volumes 2 and 3 of
the proceedings consist of 115 papers selected from 191 abstracts in response to the call for papers in
1992. The papers were written by more than 300 authors and co-authors representing 23 countries.·~=~~.
---- _.
17. KeyWords Drilled Shafts, Auger Case Piles, Pile 18. Distribution Statement
Testing, Axial and Lateral Loads, Stanamic No restrictions. This document is available to the
Testing, Materials and Equipment, Driven Piles, public from the National Technical Information
Drilled Piles, Integrity Testing, Axial Capacity,
physical Modeling, Mumerical Techniques, Soil Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Structure Interaction, Driveability. Dynamic
Capacity Prediction.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified Pages
323
Fonn DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Preface
In 1992, the United States Federal Highway Administration in its continuing efforts to
improve quality in the design and construction of highway and roadway systems, initiated this
international conference on the Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, with Orlando,
Florida selected as the conference site. The purpose of the conference was to provide an
international forum concerning design, analysis, and construction of deep foundation systems.
Accordingly, the following conference topics were selected:
Numerical Techniques
Physical Modeling
Integrity & Capacity Testing of Load Bearing Elements
New & Innovative Driven & Drilled Pile Types
Load Transfer Behavior (Single Elements & Groups)
Deep Foundation Experiences
State of Practice
Specifications and Contracting Documents
Compression, Tension, and Lateral Loads
Special Design Events (i.e., Seismic, Ship Impact and Scour)
Geologic and Subsurface Data (Interpretation & Application)
Economic Considerations and Selection Methods
Innovations in Material and Equipment
Soil-Structure Interaction between Foundations & Superstructures
Load & Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) vs Working Stress Design
I. Dr. George G. Goble, GRL & Assoc., Boulder, Colorado "Pile Driving - An International State-of-the-Art"
2. Dr. Gary M. Norris, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada "Seismic Bridge Pile Foundation Behavior"
3. Manuel A. Fine, Berminghammer Corp. Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario, "Innovation in Equipment and Materials
and Their Impact on Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations"
4. Dr. Michael W. O'Neill, University of Houston, Houston, Texas "Drilled Shafts: Effect of Construction on Performance
and Design Criteria"
5. Dr. John H. Schmertmann, Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc. Gainesville, Florida "Past, Present, and Future Practice in
Deep Foundations, with Florida Emphasis"
6. Lawrence H. Roth, CH2M Hill, Oakland, California "Current Practice Issues for Consulting Engineers and DOTs"
7. Dr. Za-Chieh Moh, Moh & Assoc, Inc. Taiwan, Rep. of China, "Current Deep Foundation Practice in Taiwan and
"- Southeast Asia"
8. Dr. Ken Fleming, Cementation Piling & Foundation, Ltd. Hertfordshire, England, "Current Understanding and Control
of Continuous Flight Auger Piling"
9. Clyde N. Baker, STS Consultants, North Brook, Illinois "Current' U.S. Design and Construction Practices for Drilled
. Piers"
10. Dr. Roger Frank, Centre D'Enseignement et de Recherche en Mecanique des Sols, Paris, France "The New Eurocode
and the New French Code for the Design of Deep Foundations"
11. Herb Minatre, Bay Shore Systems, Inc. Benicia, California "Tools and Equipment Used in the Drilled Shaft Industry"
The call for papers it 1992 drew a response of 191 abstracts. After the review process,
115 papers were selected and published in the Proceedings. The papers were written by more
than 300 authors and co-authors representing 23 countries. Every paper in this Proceeding has
undergone a rigorous review process, to those reviewers, the Steering Committee is most grateful.
At the conference, up to 100 Exhibitors displayed and demonstrated their products.
We, the steering committee, trust that this conference and Proceedings provided the
participants and readers a useful forum and information source for deep foundation design and
construction, to the benefit of public users of highway systems. We wish to thank the Federal
Highway Administration, ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Drilling, the Deep
Foundations Institute (DFI), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for their sponsorship of this
conference, the authors and co-authors, invited keynote Speakers, and exhibitors who have
assisted and supported the "International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations"
December 1994.
Steering Committee:
Moderators
The Steering Committee would like to thank the following persons who served as
moderators, and thus greatly assisted in guiding the technical sessions of the conference:
The Steering Committee would like to thank the following persons who reviewed
manuscripts, and thus greatly assisted in the quality and technical standards of the papers in these
Proceedings:
ABAR, NARIMAN GRABNER, WILLIAM J. PIRES, JOSE A.
ADAMS, GREGG B. GRAHAM, JAMES S. PRYSOCK,ROD
ALAMPALLI, SRIEENUAS HANNIGAN, PATRICK PUTCHA, SASTR Y
ALLEN, TONY HASAN, SHAFl RA THFON, SCOTT
ALPERSTEIN, ROBERT HOLDER, SAM RAUSCHE, FRANK
ALWAHAB, RIYAD M. HOLEYMAN, ALAIN E. REESE, LYMON C.
ARGO, RICHARD H. HOOVER, K.R. RIAZ, MUHAMMED
ARMSTRONG, STAN HORVATH, JOHN S. RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, CARLOS E.
ARONOWITZ, ARNOLD HOUGHTON, ROBERT C. ROLLINS, KYLE M.
AVASARALA, SWAMY K.V. HOVRANI, NABIL ROSCHKE, PAUL N.
BAILEY, WARREN HUSSEIN, MOHAMAD RUPIPER, STAN
BAKER, CLYDE N. JR ISENHOWER, WILLIAM M. SAMARA, EMILE
BEIKAE, MOHSEN ISKANDER, MAGUED SAMMAN, MAC.
BENAMAR, AHMED JAY SCOTT DE NATALE SAYED, SAYED M.
BENDA, CHRIS JIMENEZ, PEDRO SCHAEFFER, VERNON R.
BENVIE, DONALD JOLLY, JOSEPH P. SCHNORE, AUSTARS R.
BERKOVITZ, BARRY JORY, BRIAN W. SHEAHAN, JAMES
BHARIL, RAJl\'EESH KEANE, EDWARD SHEFFIELD, RICHARD
BOGHRAT, ALIREA KILIAN, ALAN SIEL, BARRY
BONOMO, RONALD J. KNIGHT, BUBBA SIZEMORE, JEFF
BOOTH, ANDREW T. KOON, MENG CHUA SMITH, ALEC D.
BORDEN, ROY H. KULHAWY, FRED H. SMITH, TREVOR D.
BRENNAN, JIM LAI, PETER W. SPEER, DANIEL
BRENNER, BRIAN, LATER, JAMES E. SVINKIN, MARK
BRIAUD, JEAN-LOUIS LAMBRECHTS, JIM TAWFIG, KAMAL S.
BROWN, DAN A. LEDBETTER, JOHN F. JR. TOMMEN,GLEN
BRUCE, DONALD A. LENS, JOHN E. TOWNSEND. FRANK C.
BURCH, SCOTT LEVINE, MIKE W ALKINSHA W, JOHN
BUTLER, BERNARD E. LEW, MARSHALL WARRINGTON, DON C.
BYRNE, JOSEPH H. LIANG, ROBERT Y. WEATHERBY, DA VID E.
CALIENDO, JOSEPH A. LIKINS, GARLAND WEBSTER, SCOTT
CANNER, RON LONG, JAMES H. WHITAKER, SCOTT S.
CANNON, RANDY LONG, RICHARD P. WlTHIAM, JAMES L.
CAR VILLE, CHESTER A. LUKAS, ROBERT G. WONG, DANIEL
CHASSIE, RONALD G. LUTENEGGER, ALAN J. WOO, EDWIN P.
CHENEY, RICHARD MAMOON, SAIF M. YANG, CHANGZHONG
CLARK, G.N. MATHIS, HENRY, JR. YEH, SHAN-TAl
DASH, UMAKANT MAYNE, PAUL W. YOKLEY, BUDDY
DA VIDSON, JOHN L. McCASKIE, STEPHEN L. YORK, DONALD L.
DEMIR, SIDDIKA McGILLIVRAY, ROSS T. ZANDI, FlROOZ
DWILLlO, ALBERT F. MCVAY, MICHAEL
DIRKS, KERMIT MECKLIN, PAUL R.
DRUMM, ERIC C. MENSAH, FRANCIS D.
DUMAS, CHRISTOPHER MIDDENDORP, PETER
DUNN, PHILIP MOODY, WESLEY
EALY, CARL D. MORGAN, MELVIN W.
ELIAS, VICTOR NAGLE, GALEN S.
ENGEL, RICHARD L. NEELY, WILLIAM J.
ENGLE, DAVE NEFF, THOMAS
ERIKSON, CHRIS M. NEGUSSEY, DAWIT
ESNARD, J. B. NORRIS, GARY
FENNESSEY, TOM O'NEILL, MICHAEL W.
FERREGUT, CARLOS O'ROURKE, PAT
FLICK, LOREN D. O'TOOLE, DONALD
FONG, MITCHELL L. ODEM, GEORGE
FOSHEE, JON OSBORN, PETER
FRITZ, MIKE OSTERBERG, JORJ O.
GEARY, MALONE PASSE, PAUL, D.
GOBLE, GEORGE G. PEARLMAN, SETH L.
GOETTLE, RICHARD J. III PETRAS SIC, KERRY
For any additional reviewers whose names were inadvertently omitted, we offer our
sincere apology for this oversight. the quality of these proceedings reflect the efforts of these
reviewers.
TABLE OF CONTENT
(Volume I)
Keynote Papers
"Innovation in Equipment and Materials and Their Impact on Design and Construction of
Driven Pile Foundations"
Manuel A. Fine (Presentation Only)
"Drilled Shafts: Effects of Construction on Performance and Design Criteria". '" 137
Michael W. O'Neill and Khaled M. Hassen (51 pgs)
"Past, Present and Future Practice in Deep Foundations, with Florida Emphasis" ... 188
John H. Schmertmann and David K. Crapps (21 pgs)
"Current Practice Issues for Consulting Engineers and DOTs" .. .... .... '" 209
Lawrence H. Roth (27 pgs)
"Current Deep Foundation Practice in Taiwan and Southeast Asia" ... 236
Za-Chieh Moh (24 pgs)
"Current Understanding and Control of Continuous Flight Auger Piling" .... '" 260
W.G. Ken Fleming (19 pgs)
"Current U.S. Design and Construction Practices for Drilled Piers" ... .... '" 305
Clyde N. Baker, Jr. (19 pgs)
"Compression Bored Piles in Singapore Old Alluvium: Performance and Design" . . 337
C.E. Ho and e.G. Tan (15 pgs)
"Axial compression Behavior of Two Drilled Shafts in Piedmont Residual Soils" .. 352
D.E. Harris and P. Mayne (16 pgs)
Session IB
Auger Cast Piles
"Utilization and Quality Control of Augercast Piles" ... .... .... .... . .. 385
A.T. Booth, and K.A. McIntosh (16 pgs)
Session lC
Special Design Events
"Soil Resistance Factors for LRFD of Driven Piles" . . .. .... .... .... . .. 427
1. Berger and G.G. Goble (12 pgs)
Session ID
Expert Systems
"Diagnostic Expert System for Drilled Shaft Foundation Construction" 454
S. Demir, DJ. Fisher, and M.W. O'Neill (15 pgs)
"A Prototype Expert System for Foundation Design" . .. .... .... .... '" 469
P.N. Roschke, J. Briaud, and E.G. Funegard (15 pgs)
"A Numerical Solution for the Dynamic Pile Driving Problem". .... .... '" 484
S.M. Mamoon (9 pgs)
Session 2A
Static Axial Pile Testing
Session 2B
Design Methods for Axial and Lateral Loads
"Drilled Shaft Load Test Database and an Evaluation of the Program SHAFTUF" . . 541
J.L. Davidson, L.D. Spears, and P.W. Lai (15 pgs)
"A New Approach to the Prediction of Drilled Pier Performance in Rock" . .. '" 556
J.P. Seidel and C.M. Haberfield (15 pgs)
"Improved Methods for Evaluation of Bending Stiffness of Deep Foundations" '" 571
W.M. Isenhower (15 pgs)
Session 2C
Statnamic Testing
"Statnamic Tests on Steel Pipe Piles Driven in a Soft Rock" . .. .... .... . .. 586
T. Matsumoto and M. Tsuzuki (15 pgs)
"Analytical Study of Statnamic Test of a Cast-In-Place Concrete Pile~'. .... '" 601
K. Yamashita, Y. Tsubakihara, M. Kakurai, and T. Fukuhara (15 pgs)
"A Comparison of Statnamic and Static Field Tests at Seven FHWA Sites" . . . 616
P. Bermingham, C.D. Ealy, and J.K. White (15 pgs)
Session 3A
Innovations in Materials and Equipment
"A Promising Method for Improving Drilled Pier Performance in Rock" .... ... 631
e.M. Haberfield, S. Baycan, and T.D. Chamberlain (15 pgs)
"Hardware Solutions for Quality Control of Deep Foundations-Overview" ... ... 656
G. Likins, F. Rausche, and D. Peterman (14 pgs)
Session 3B
Design Methods for Driven Piles
"Pile Load Test Database and an Evaluation of the Program SPT91" .. .... . .. 759
l.L. Davidson, F.C. Townsend, P.F. Ruesta, and l.A. Caliendo (15 pgs)
"Design Parameters for Steel Pipe Piles Driven in a Soft Rock" ... 774
Y. Michi, M. Tsuzuki, and T. Matsumoto (15 pgs)
"Integrity Testing of Drilled Shafts: A Computer Vision Approach" .. .... '" 803
M.M. Samman and M. Biswas (14 pgs)
"Bearing Capacity of Expanded-Base Piles in Till" .... .... .... .... '" 817
W. J. Neely (12 pgs)
"Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles" .... .... .... .... '" 829
S. Tanaka, Y. Sawano, F. Okumura, A. Nishimura, and T. Watanabe (13 pgs)
"Analysis of Piles Under Lateral Loading with Nonlinear Flexural Rigidity" .. '" 842
L.c. Reese and S.T. Wang (15 pgs)
"Detennination of P-Y Curves in Fractured Rock Using Inclinometer Data" .. '" 857
D.A. Brown and S. Zhang (16 pgs)
"Modelling of the Shaft Capacity of Grouted Driven Piles in Calcareous Soils" ... 873
H.A. Joer and M.F. Randolph (15 pgs)
Session 4A
New and Innovative Driven and Drilled Pile Types
"The Drill Pile Method - New Low-Noise, Low Vibration Piling Method" ... '" 931
M. Hashimoto, O. Hashimoto, S. Nishizawa, K. Ishihara, and.Y. Sakurai (15 pgs)
"Researches Into the Behavior of High Capacity Pin Piles'" ... .... .... '" 946
D.A. Bruce, J.R. Wolosick and A.L. Rechenmacher (23 pgs)
"Testing of Geojet Units Under Lateral Loading" . . . . . ... . ... '" 969
D. Spear, L.C. Reese, G.T. Reavis, and S. Wang (11 pgs)
"Helical Plate Bearing Members, A Practical Solution to Deep Foundations" . ... 980
S. Rupiper (12 pgs)
Session 4B
Load Transfer Behavior & Soil Structure Interaction
"Recent Developments in the Design of Piles Loaded by Lateral Soil Movements" . 992
D.P. Stewart, M.F. Randolph, and R.J. Jewell (15 pgs)
"Design of Deep Foundations for Cut-and-Cover Tunnels" .... .... .... .. 1022
B. Brenner, C. Gagnon, and C.K. Shah (15 pgs)
"The Computational Method of Settlement and Loads of Pile Group" . .... .. 1037
L. Jie, Q.S. Yin, and Z.G. Ming (8 pgs)
Session 4C
Driveability and Dynamic Capacity Prediction
"Dynamic and Static Tests on Driven and Cast-In-Place Piles" . .... .... .. 1103
M.H. Hussein and W.M. Camp (15 pgs)
"Examination of the Energy Approach for Capacity Evaluation of Driven Piles" .. 1133
S.G. Paikowsky and V.A. LaBelle (17 pgs)
"Influence of Pile Parameters on Pile Driveability" .... .... .... .... .. 1150
M.R. Svinkin (15 pgs)
"Soil Modeling for Pile Vibratory Driving" . . .. 1165
A.E. Holeyman and C. Legrand (14 pgs)
(Volume III)
Session 5A
State of Practice
"Drilled Shaft Bridge Foundations in North Carolina" .. .... .... .... .. 1192
J.F. Ledbetter, Jr. (11 pgs)
"A Failure Case Study of Island Method Excavation in Soft Clay" ... .... .. 1216
Y.K. Chu (15 pgs)
Session 58
Integrity Testing
"Load and Integrity Testing of Auger Cast Piles for a Multi-Level Building" . .. 1262
C. Mirza and M. Montgomery (10 pgs)
"A Comparison of the Efficiency of Drilled Shaft Down-Hole Integrity Tests" .. 1272
A.G. Davis and RH. Hertlein (15 pgs)
Session 5C
Interpretation, Application, and Use of
Geologic and Subsurface Investigation Data
"Dynamic Probing Test to Detennine Driven Pile Capacity" . .. .... .... .. 1321
R. Engel, M. Riaz, V. Dalal, D. Hanhilammi, A.I. Husein, and RY. Liang (16 pgs)
Session 6A
New and Innovative Driven and Drilled Shafts
Session 6B
Numerical Techniques
"Static Lateral and Moment Behavior of Rigid Drilled Shafts in Sand" 1377
S.W. Agaiby and F.H. Kulhawy (13 pgs)
"A Model of Shaft Pile-Soil Interaction During Driving. Numerical Simulation" .. 1390
A. Benamar (13 pgs)
"Analysis and Design of Piles Through Embankments" . .... .... .... .. 1403
H.G. Poulos (19 pgs)
Session 6C
Case Histories - Driven Piles
"Experience in High Capacity Pile Driving Monitored
Using Pile Dynamic Analyzer" . . . . .. .... ., 1422
J.P. Jolly, S.L. Rathfon, and A. Donofrio (19 pgs)
"Dynamic Pile Testing for Five Mile Bridge and Tunnel Crossing" ... . .. , .. 1441
S.D. Webster, P.J. Hannigan, and D.A. Lawler (14 pgs)
"Design and Construction of Deep Pile Foundations, Kings Bay, Georgia" . .. .. 1455
A.D. Smith and E.B. Kinner (16 pgs)
Session 7A
Physical Modeling
"Ohio DOT Research on the Development of In-Situ Testing Techniques for Wave
Equation Soil Parameters" . . . .. .. o. . 0 • 0 0 . . . 1471
REngel, M. Riaz, V. Dalal, D. Hanhilamrni, and RYo Liang (14 pgs)
"Drilled Shaft Friction Evaluation via Pullout Tests" ... ... 0 0 0 0 0 .. 1485
F.C. Townsend, C.E. Dunkelberger, and D. Bloomquist (14 pgs)
Session 7B
Case Histories - Driven Piles
"A Case History of the Foundation Design Procedures for the Palm Valley Bridge" 1568
S. Burch (14 pgs)
"Comparative Results of Static and Dynamic Tests of High Capacity Piles" .. ;. 1582
E.Po Woo, ToW. Pelnik III, F. Rausche, and S.R Weaver (15 pgs)
"The Use of the PDA in the Construction of the Manati River Bridge" o 0 1597
P. Jimenez (15 pgs)
Session 7C
Axial Capacity
"Testing, Perfonnance and Reliability of Small Diameter Pipe Piles" .. .... .. 1666
C.A. Carville and lS. Pack (10 pgs)
"Tension and Compression Testing of Various Piles in San Francisco Bay Mud" . 1691
J.L. Walkinshaw and S. Healow (26 pgs)
"Uplift Load Tests on Drilled Shafts in Gravels to Evaluate Side Friction" . .. .. 1717
K.M. Rollins, RC. Mikesell, R.J. Clayton, and E. Keane (15 pgs)
"Utility of Drilled Shaft Load Test Results" ... . . .. .... .... .. 1789
M.H. Wysockey and lH. Long (15 pgs)
"Lug Behavior For Model Steel Piles In Frozen Sand - Theory And Experiment"
R. M. Al Wahab (7 pgs) . . . . " .... .... .... ., 1819
PILE DRIVING - AN INTERNATIONAL STATE-OF-THE-ART
G. G. Goble!
A. Introduction
Over the past 40 years there has been a continual evolution of pile
driving technology so that today as a result of this development the industry
has been radically changed. These changes have occurred because of an
evolution in piles, driving equipment - particularly hammers, and the
engineering of the entire operation. Pile driving hammers have become larger,
at least partially due to developments in offshore pile driving. Piles and pile
capacities have also become larger and, in addition, changes have been made
to take advantage of high strength pile material and new concepts for pile types
and installation procedures. Finally, analytical studies combined with the
ability to make accurate computer simulations of pile driving operations and
to make measurements of the event has supported the development of a general
understanding of the pile driving process. This capability opens the door to
further orderly developments in the area. In this paper, these developments
will be reviewed and summarized and projections will be made for further
developments. North American practice will be emphasized but an effort will
be made to discuss current practice from an international point of view.
B. Background
At the end of World War II the dominant hammer type in the United
States was the air/steam powered hammer of the type developed by the Vulcan
Iron Works. At that time there were other manufacturers of similar machines
in addition to the Vulcan Company. This hammer had a stocky ram and the
motive fluid driving the machine was either compressed air or steam, but
probably most commonly steam. The motive fluid lifted the ram and then it
was allowed to fall free on the downstroke. These machines had a stroke of
1 G. Goble
0.9-1. 0 meters and delivered about 60 hammer blows per minute. Double-
acting hammers of a similar type were also available and also powered by
compressed air or steam. In this context, the reference to "double acting"
refers to the general class of hammers in which the ram is powered on the
downstroke as well as the upstroke. The double acting hammer was attractive
to contractors because it operated at a higher speed, 100-140 blows per minute,
than the single acting ham mer.
At this time, drop hammers were still widely used in the United States.
Abroad their use was even more prevalent. One can hypothesize as to why the
use of the powered hammer was more widespread in the United States than
abroad. Surely, one reason was the effect of union work rules in the United
States. Here, in the industrial parts of the country, a pile crew of six or seven
was generally a union requirement. As labor became more expensive it was
natural for the contractor to seek higher productivity by using larger equipment
and, to some extent, larger piles. The Raymond Company was a major factor
in the American market. They brought in large equipment with many
innovative changes and in the period after the end of the war they were
dominant in pile construction in the United States and to a lesser extent
abroad. They operated throughout most of the United States and also in many
other parts of the world.
During this time the skid rig began to disappear and was replaced by
large cranes with fixed leads and steam generators mounted on the rear. This
came to represent pile driving on large jobs in the United States.
The most dominant pile types at this time was the timber pile and the
steel H-pile. In addition, some proprietary types such as the Raymond Step
Taper concrete filled, mandrel driven pile were common, particularly on large
jobs. The use of reinforced concrete piles that were usually precast on the job
site occurred in the United States and was more widespread abroad. Steel
pipes were also used and they were usually filled with concrete after driving.
Pile capacities were generally low. Timber piles were commonly loaded
to 20 tons working load in a practice dominated by the New York City area
where their use was very common. For other pile types, a design load of 50 -
60 tons was common and would have been considered to be reasonably high.
2
The engineering of pile foundations was almost completely an art at this
time. Efforts had been made to predict pile capacity from subsurface
information but the results were not encouraging. In fact, the engineering of
pile foundations is generally credited with motivating the development of the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), (Fletcher 1965). Again the influence of a
predecessor company to the Raymond Company was important. In the
immediate post war years, soil mechanics offered explanations for phenomena
observed during pile driving and the hope that sometime it may be possible to
reliably predict pile capacity from subsurface information. However, at that
time, pile capacity was generally determined at the job site from one of the
many dynamic formula that were commonly used. This describes conditions
that existed in other parts of the world. In the United States, the Engineering
News formula or some minor modification was the most common.
I. Engineering
In the years since the Second World War an immense effort has been
devoted to the development and proof of methods that would reliably predict
static pile capacity. A large number of methods have been developed and
tested, but a widely accepted solution has not been found. The difficulties are
probably due to two problems; the lack of a reliable and accurate model of pile
behavior and the unreliability of available subsurface investigation techniques.
In the United States and many other countries, the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) is by far the most commonly used soil testing method. The Cone
Penetration Test (CPT) and the Pressure Meter are widely used in some areas.
On occasions, where comparisons have been made with the SPT, the CPT has
not shown substantially better accuracy. Generally, static capacity methods
will do a better job in dealing with sites in clay soils than in granular
materials. This is fortunate since the opposite is true with dynamic capacity
prediction methods. Past work in this area has been well summarized by Vesic
(1977). This aspect of pile design and installation will not be discussed further
in this paper since a very extensive literature already exists.
In dealing with the soil, Smith understood that the problem is more
difficult. He selected an elastic-plastic spring and a linear dash pot as the soil
representation as shown in Figure 1. Thus, the soil resistance to penetration
is defined as a function of displacement and velocity only. To satisfy the
needs of this model, three "soil" constants must be supplied. Smith suggested
values for two of these constants, the displacement where the static resistance
changes from elastic to plastic (named the Quake, q) and the damping constant.
In the computational procedure, he left the total capacity to be determined and
only required that the static soil resistance distribution be provided. Total
capacity is then incremented in some orderly fashion to generate a curve,
called a bearing graph, that relates capacity to blow count (the inverse of
penetration). Thus, it was possible to observe blow count in the field and
obtain a prediction of capacity, or the opposite, to select the blow count
required to obtain the required capacity. With this computational procedure
the pile driving process becomes sort of a soil investigation technique.
When viewed from today it seems more logical to enter all of the soil
variables as well as the pile and driving system quantities and then generate a
predicted driving record as a function of depth of penetration. This approach
to evaluation has become known as a driveability analysis. Had Smith taken
that route it is likely that his work would not have been as well-received since
our lack of knowledge of soil properties would have been much more obvious.
4
(A) Actuo.l Sys'tePl (8) Hodel
I
Diesel
n
11-·---U_RQ"---
Alr/Steo.l'l
~
CJ ...·---------~c
D---
~.-..Ho."""'" c:::::J
Anvil. - -
Cushlon _ _
~
c:::::J ..
..
c:::::J
- - - Helnet - - -
PIl... CUS....l o n _ (C) SOil Hodel
Soil
(D) RepreslKltG.tlon of
SOli Modql
~
~t
°lii
~~ " ' -
l=llX _
q
Velocity
Displo.c:el'len t
5
The above description has only mentioned the treatment of the velocity
dependent portion of the soil resistance in a very limited way. The Smith
definition of dynamic soil resistance (damping) is more complex than is
described here. A more complete discussion of this topic is contained in
another paper in this conference (Rausche et aI, 1994).
The driving system parameters relate to the hammer and pile cushion
stiffnesses. Hammer cushion parameters have been well-defined for manufac-
tured materials and the parameters have been extensively tested against pile
driving measurements. For pile cushions (on concrete piles), plywood or other
wood loaded across the grain is the dominant cushion material. At the
beginning of driving, both the stiffness properties and the thickness will
change rapidly and these changes should be better quantified for use by the
practitioner. The force-deformation unloading characteristics must also be
6
provided by the Wave Equation user and this parameter is more difficult to
define. However, the results are not very sensitive to variations in its values.
The remaining topic for review is the soil model. As may be expected
this topic is certainly the most difficult. In summary, one can conclude that
there has been little actual change in practice since the initial work of Smith.
His model contains three constants; ultimate resistance (or resistance
distribution), quake and the damping constant (see Figure 1). Ultimate
7
resistance remains difficult to evaluate and the topic is beyond the scope of this
paper. A very large voulume of literature exists on this topic and it cannot be
discussed here. (Some important references are as follows:Olson 1990, Peck
et a11974, Vesic 1977.) However, as was noted above, total soil capacity can
be obtained from the Wave Equation analysis if a resistance distribution is
entered, a bearing graph calculated, and the observed blow count used to
determine the total pile capacity. The bearing graph can be shown to be quite
insensitive to the distribution of resistance.
The most serious soil modeling problems are associated with the last of
the three parameters, the dynamic resistance. These values are important since
modest changes can produce a substantial effect on the results. Coyle and
Gibson (1970) have shown, quite conclusively in experimental studies, that the
dynamic resistance is not linearly related to the velocity and this work has been
confirmed by others (Litkouhi and Poskitt 1980, Heerema 1981). The question
is examined in detail in another paper at this conference (Rausche et al 1994)
and will not be discussed further here. The work of Coyle and Gibson (1970)
is very important in applications other that Wave Equation analysis. In any
case of soil penetration, the non-linear soil response causes large dynamic
resistances at low velocities.
A more general question regarding the treatment of the soil has been the
suggestion of several authors (Novak et al 1978, Corte and Lepert 1986,
Randolph and Simons 1986, Holeyman 1988) that the soil model should be
substantially changed. This suggestion has also been examined in the paper by
Rausche et al (1994) at this conference and will not be discussed further here.
Certainly the matter of a proper soil model has not been settled at this time.
During the time that the discrete pile model described above was
developing in the United States another approach was under study in Europe.
In this approach, the solution of the one dimensional wave equation was used
8
directly to investigate the pile driving problem. The earliest and most
extensive work was done by Fischer at Uppsula University. It has been
published extensively but is well summarized by Fischer (1984). He used the
wave equation solution to develop graphical methods that were practical and
useful in explaining many pile driving phenomena. This work influenced many
of the applications that have been made since the First Stress Wave Conference
in 1980.
The effect of the magnitude of the ram mass is to modify the rate of
decay of the impact force. Assume that a rigid ram impacts a uniform elastic
pile that is fixed at the opposite end. This problem can be solved to obtain the
stress at the pile top as a function of time. The result shows that the stress
decay rate is related to the ratio of the pile impedance to the ram mass as
shown in Figure 2 (Timoshenko and Goodier 1951). Thus, it can be seen that
if the pile mass is large compared to the ram mass the decay after impact will
be rapid. On the other hand, if the ram is large compared to the pile and if a
high toe force reflects a large compression force, this compression force will
arrive back at the pile top while the hammer is still introducing force into the
pile. When this force is reflected at the ram together with that due to the
remaining ram velocity a force larger than the initial impact can be generated
that will induce penetration of the pile in the second wave transmission. This
case can only happen if the ram weight is very large compared to the pile.
Therefore, it is concluded that the mobilization of higher resistance forces and
penetration in hard driving can be most effectively accomplished with a higher
impact velocity than with a heavier ram. Of course, there are limits to this
concept since a very light ram would have a very short period of high force
9
3.-------.........,.--------,
Pile-Ram
21-----------++-~-----l Weight Ratio
.:>-1
...........
CIl
CIl
....Q)
........
U1
Q..
o
I-
2 J 4
Lie
Figure 2: Idealized Pile Top Force for Impact of a Rigid Ram on an Elastic
Pile with Fixed End
and this could further be strongly affected by the cushion and helmet.
3. Dynamic Monitoring
A large volume of literature has been generated with the principal effort
being devoted to the development of simple methods of capacity prediction
(Goble and Rausche 1970, Walker 1972). For the case of piles of uniform
cross section the total force that resists penetration, given as a function of
time, has been shown to be
1 LEAL (2)
Rl..t) =-[F(t) +F(t+2-)] +-[v(t)-v(t+2-)]
2 c 2c c
where L is the pile length, c is the velocity of wave propagation, and the other
terms have been defined above (Rausche et al 1985).
200 "8<1
k:1.p. .... d
:L"O
.. 0
0
0 L/ ..
-::L150
RI
1. l.IE,o.suRE Fm, Am
2. CO~PUTE Fe - Fe(Am, Ri)
3. COMPARE F m - Fe
4. CORRECT Ri
5. ITTERATE (GO TO 2.)
FIELD CONDmON
I.lOOEL
12
stiffnesses, different loading and unloading capacities, radiation damping, a
gap in the toe soil resistance, and a soil mass at the toe. In the computational
procedure, the measured velocity is induced at the pile top, a set of values is
assumed for the soil elements, and the force at the top is calculated and
compared. with the measured force. The values for the soil elements are
adj usted to obtain the best possible match between calculated and measured
force. Alternatively, the force can be input and the velocity calculated or the
wave up-wave down record can be used. When the best possible match has
been obtained a simulated static load test can be run on the static part of the
result. An example of a measurement, the match, and the simulated static load
test curve is shown in Figure 5.
II. Hammers
13
_.
~
(J'Q
c.,
~
Abutment 1. Pi1e 4 at RS 1lJ.".. 14 03/10/."
..
til Gobl.. RauBch. L~k~n. A•• oo~at••• Xno. ~(.) V~.~on 1_~.3-1
C/)
~
3
"0
......
0
....,
0
300
tu_
.....
CPt:
300
Id....
POE
Vol
-
_d
n
>
'"d
:1.50 150
~
>
'"d
~ r:r1a ,1, 4'(l~SO ...
I
, 10 I ,O I I I
',' , I ut
..
0 !
I I I I'I \ I 0
:;t1 0 1 3 5 5 L/o 0 :I. ~111Jj'v
~.~ ...., -II / " 6 1./0
0
VI
" I
c::
~
~
.......... n
-1.50 J -150
Lo.d. :i.n k1.p.
UIIIIIIII
BkJ..D. a._,l_ta.a.o•
D1.A!:!:1.but:1.on
R.. 1r. - 133.0 lr.1.po
1:t1
• GoO
.50
1 I
Rto - 27.0 ~o
Dy - .4. J.nc:b
.. 00
BCD
-
----------------- -- -- ------
! 500
~
~ 400
200
was unnecessary and, therefore, in union areas the crew could be one man
smaller. This hammer with a set of swinging leads constituted an inexpensive,
flexible system that made it possible for a small contractor with little overhead
to be competitive with the large specialty piling contractors, particularly on
small jobs.
The diesel hammer was developed in Germany before the Second World
War by the DELMAG company but was only brought into the United States
after the war. This device can be described as a two cycle, internal combus-
tion engine in which the ram serves the function of both ram and piston. In
operation, the ram stroke will vary depending on the pile resistance. It is
single acting with the top of the ram usually visible at the top of the stroke and
it is sometimes also referred to as an "open end" hammer. Since the stroke is
variable the speed of hammer operation will vary from about 40 to 50 blows
per minute. Currently several companies are manufacturing these hammers.
They are available with strokes up to about 3.5 m and generally the trend over
the past 20 years has been to produce machines with continually increasing
maximum strokes. The result has been higher and higher impact velocities.
However, it is incorrect to assume that the impact velocity can be calculated
from the stroke and free fall kinematics. After the ram passes the ports further
increase in velocity is impeded by the precompression force under the ram in
the combustion chamber. This characteristic is modeled in the WEAP wave
equation program and the hammer stroke is calculated for each case during the
wave equation analysis.
15
Diesel hammers have also become larger with passing time. In the
sixties, a commonly used hammer may have had a ram weight of 11,000 to
22,000 kN. Today much larger machines are used. Currently the largest diesel
hammer has a ram weight of 100,000 kN.
Some diesel hammers have throttles that can be set for a metered amount
of fuel for each stroke and there are several available throttle settings. It is
possible to run the hammer at reduced throttle settings for cases where larger
strokes may damage the pile. This capability can be of use in controlling
stresses, particularly in the case of concrete piles. In easy driving, tension
stresses can be large so the ability to reduce the impact stress will reduce the
reflected tension stress.
Double acting or closed end diesel hammers are also available. These
machines use a passive air cushion in a closed chamber as a spring at the top
of the ram. Actually the design is more complicated since there are valved
connections between the combustion chamber and the upper chamber that uses
the upper chamber pressure to improve scavenging and, hence, combustion.
16
This design shortens the stroke and increases the speed of operation to the
range of about 80 blows per minute. One manufacturer has produced a
hammer that can be converted from closed to open end operation by removing
a cap on the top of the cylinder.
During the late 70' sand 80' s a number of different hydraulic hammers
became available and increasingly popular in land applications. Probably
earliest hydraulic hammer was developed and tested by the Raymond Company
in the late 60' s and early 70' s. At the time, they argued that this was the
hammer of the future. The machine they built and tested was double-acting but
its performance was not satisfactory, possibly due to the method of operation.
An early hammer in Sweden used hydraulic actuators to push the ram up and
then simply retracted them faster than the ram fell. This simple system is
particularly attractive since it is quite easy to control the stroke accurately, a
necessary requirement when driving the commonly used concrete piles through
soft clay to recently glaciated granite, a common soil condition in Sweden.
17
displayed and the hammer operation can be adjusted to give the desired value.
Today other hydraulic hammers offering this double acting feature are
available. Most hydraulic hammers have a system for measuring the ram
velocity near impact and calculating the ram kinetic energy.
III. Piles
In this time frame, steel H-piles have probably also lost market share.
At the beginning of the period under consideration many designers used H-
piles in all cases without careful reflection regarding the appropriateness of the
design. As designers became more sophisticated they turned to other solutions
and H-piles were often replaced. In the past few years the cost of H-piles has
dropped (due to a drop in the price of steel) and they have become much more
cost competitive. In addition, steels with yield points of 350 MPa (50 ksi) or
even higher are available at little or no increase in cost. When considered at
appropriate sites they can be a competitive solution. In order to drive these
piles using the higher yield stresses, the pile driving process must be
understood and the appropriate equipment must be available. In most cases
high impact velocity hammers will probably be required.
For most ram-pile weight ratios, the maximum stress occurs at impact
and is determined by the ram impact velocity and the helmet cushion system.
If pile yield stress is increased, then the ram impact velocity must be increased
to take advantage of the increased strength. Over the recent past, 90 % of the
yield strength has become accepted as a tolerable allowable for the maximum
driving stress in steel piles. This translates into a stress of 250 MPa (32 ksi)
for the most common steel type. If the increased yield strength is used, this
will imply a peak driving stress of 310 MPa (45 ksi) for comparable condi-
tions. The 310 MPa stress implies an impact velocity in excess of 7.5 meters
per second (25 feet per second) and a free fall stroke of 3.0 meters (l0 feet).
It would be unwise to use the 90% allowable driving stress in this application
without gaining considerable experience with gradually increased driving
stresses for high strength steels. Bending stresses may become more critical
18
so care in driving system alignment will be important.
Steel pipe piles have remained a common solution during this entire time
frame. In land use, the most common application has been of closed end
pipes. In the central part of the United States these pipes were often quite
thin-walled with wall thicknesses as light as 7 gage for a diameter of 325 mm
(12-3/4 inches). This pile type has to be driven with great care and in the
process of driving these piles contractors developed considerable skill in
operating at very high stress levels. After driving these piles are usually filled
with concrete. As pile capacities have increased, the frequency of use of very
thin wall thicknesses has decreased. Piles of this type have frequently used
pipe that was manufactured for some other purpose such as oil field applica-
tions but was rejected because it failed to meet some aspect of the specifica-
tion. Usually such pipe is of high strength and easily driven.
In the thirty year time frame covered here, there was a substantial
19
increase in market share for precast concrete piles. In the United States and
Japan, the prestressed concrete pile is dominant today while in other countries
most concrete piles are made of reinforced concrete that is not prestressed.
Fairly high strength concrete is commonly used with strengths of 40-55 MPa
(6000-8000) psi common.
Prestressed concrete pile usage in the United States has grown, both in
the frequency of use and the size and capacity of the piles. In the typical land
application, 600 mm precast piles have become quite common as are lengths
up to 40 meters. These large cross section elements may have a circular void.
Square piles of this type up to 1120 mm in size with void have been driven on
a batter up to 45 degrees. Specified ultimate pile capacities of up to 900
tonnes (1000 tons) have been used.
20
must be carried under service load conditions. In many cases, a simple non-
tension splice will be adequate, less expensive, and less likely to generate
damage during driving.
D. Future
I. Engineering
II. Hammers
21
It appears that the development of hydraulic hammers will continue.
Also, this development will include more quality control tools on the hammer.
It should soon be possible for the engineer to specify exactly the driving
procedure that he wishes to use and to expect that the contractor can execute
it.
III. Piles
Higher strength concretes should be tested and probably the real field
conditions should be examined. It seems that these concretes reach their
maximum stress at a lower strain levels than ordinary concrete so higher
impact velocity hammers may not be required. The very high strength
concretes are more brittle and the influence of this property must be evaluated
in field tests. Again strength increases should be investigated in practice with
grad ual increases.
E. Conclusions
22
pile driving has advanced dramatically over this time period. The time has
now come to capitalize on these advances with practical applications based on
these developments. The opportunities for cost saving advances are available
to the creative foundation designer and constructor.
References
Glanville, W. H., Grime, G., Fox, E. N., and Davies, W. W. (1938). "An
Investigation of the Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Piles During Driving. "
British Building Research Station, Technical Paper No. 20. London, England.
Goble, G. G., and Rausche, F. (1970). "Pile Load Test by Impact Driving."
Highway \ \
Research Record, No. 333,.Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.
23
Goble, G. G. and Rausche, F. (1981). "Wave Equation Analysis of Pile
Driving - WEAP Update." Volumes 1 - 4, IP-76-14.1 - 14.4.
Hirsch, T. T., Carr, L., and Lowry, L. L. (1976). "Pile Driving Analysis
Wave Equation User's Manuals - TTl Program." Volumes 1 - 4, FHWA, IP-
76-13.1-13.4, April.
Novak, M., Nagami, T., and Aboul-Ella, F. (1978). "Dynamic Soil Reaction
for Plane Strain Case." Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 104, No.4.
24
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6419, Houston, TX.
Rausche, F., Goble, G. G., Likins, G. E., and Miner, R. (1985). "The
Performance of Pile Driving Systems." Report to the FHWA by GRL and
Associates, Inc., Volumes 1 - 4 Contract DTFH 61-82-1-00059.
Rausche, F., Likins, G. E., and Goble, G. G. (1994). "A Rational and Usable
Wave Equation Soil Model Based on Field Test Correlation." Proceedings,
International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations. "
U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Orlando, Florida.
25
Smith, E. A. L. (1960). "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation."
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 86, August.
Voitus van Hamme, G. E. 1. S. L., Jansz, 1. W., Bomer, H., and Arentsen,
D. (1974). "Hydroblok and Improved Piledriving Analysis." De lngenieur,
Vol. 86, No.8.
26
SEISMIC BRIDGE PILE
FOUNDATION BEHAVIOR
Gary M. Norris+
Abstract
The author's methods for the assessment of the nonlinear
variation in pile foundation stiffnesses are presented.
Values of such lateral and vertical/rotational stiff-
nesses are intended for use for boundary element springs
of a structural dynamic model of a highway bridge under-
going seismic analysis. The paper points out differences
between the FHWA and ATC approaches to foundation stiff-
ness evaluation in regard to their dependence upon free-
field versus inertial interaction (i.e., relative)
strain. The strain based equivalent linear methodology
presented herein is demonstrated relative to field case
studies for which there are backcalculated values (or
other responses) with which to compare. Such field case
studies involve both failing and nonfailing soil
responses, different soil conditions, a wide range of
deflection amplitudes, and different types of loading
(ambient level tests, full-scale push-back quick-release
bridge tests, and response during earthquake excitation) .
The paper also discusses the development of permanent
rotationally induced settlement and, separately, the need
for additional resarch or consensus regarding aspects of
the group interference effects, pile cap contribution,
vertical pile behavior in sand, and undrained loading in
sand.
28
softening of the soil profile associated with either
cyclically degrading clay or developing but unrealized
liquefaction in sand, the combination of the inertial
interaction load from the superstructure and the reduced
strength of the soil results in a foundation failure as
seen, for instance, in Mexico City in 1985. Accordingly,
there might not be free-field soil failure (e.g., lique-
faction) nor failure initiating with the superstructure
but rather a soil-foundation interaction failure that
might be overlooked given the traditional division of
work between the bridge design and geotechnical groups
within a highway department. Such consideration of soil-
foundation interaction failure can be treated in the
context of a geotechnical pile foundation stiffness
evaluation as shown in the pUblished Meloland, Oakland
outer Harbor and Cypress case studies.
OVERVIEW
29
lateral resistance
P
cap P
-cap
H H I ..
q
H H=[P
o
+ Pcap
combined +
w
o
rotational resistance
overlapping wedges of
developing passive
pressure resistance
uu
cylindrical zones
of vertical resistance
a) b)
31
interaction of cylindrical zones and point pressure bulbs
wi th respect to vertical and, hence, rotational pile
group response (Figure 2b). Pile head fixity, ranging
from a pinned to a fully f ixed condition, has little
effect with respect to the rotational stiffness of the
pile group; therefore, a pinned condition is assumed.
On the other hand, lateral stiffness will vary
significantly depending upon the assumed head fixity
condition (Figure 1). In fact, the head fixity of a
given pile group may vary in practice from being fixed to
tending toward a free or pinned head response with
increasing lateral load.
32
t i\Q due [0 M
1Q
p~
PI~/; 1 [ ;C.due to dead load Q
'p,
o z
~
~,
tv
y,
tv
~
qLz
b) t-z springs
a) p-y springs
~igure 3. BEF characterization for a) lateral and b) vertical single pile response.
initial static vertical load (i.e., a dead load).
Therefore, of the two different pile head responses,
34
Q
Po slope k v (load increase)
T~Q (unload)
pile
head ! I1Q k
v
(unload)
z (at pile head)
! ~:t=
Yo
POT, Yo
z
I1Z Q(= DL) =
~Q =
J todx
fM dx
x p -
o - J( P dx xT t initial coordinate due to
dx I y
ply
.y
dxI
~ dead load (DL)
T~t (unload)
~
Z (at dx)
w response of
(1'1
length dx response of
length dx
w
(J)
a) b)
60 60
, ,/
I , ,,
i = COCFFlOE:NT OF VARIATION OF LATERAL SUBG~ REACTtON ,
50
WITH DEPTH USED IN ANAl:tSIS OF LATERALLY UlAOED f'iL£S. , 50
, ,.1
, ,/
,/
/
Y
~
F
'd
, ,.
~
fUR cbARSE
GRA~NED SOlLS
/
FOR FlNE:
GRAINED SOILS-Y
y , ,.
,p
"
20
, ,. "
10 10
-~V "~,,,,,
~~ I'
10 20 30 40 50 60 ro ll:O SO 100
o 0
IVERY LOOSE: I LOOSE I MEDIUM ~NSE I DENSE ~'DENSE
r RELAnve: D8IlSITY Dr. PERCENT
37
elsewhere (16). Note that, below the water table, the
cohesionless soil variation becomes f' which equals the
modulus, f, times the ratio of the buoyant unit weight,
~', to the total unit weight, ~, and that the
construction of the IIdesign level ll Es profile is as shown
in Figure 7.
38
ground surface
,)(§y/
~\ f
1
,\
\\ \
\\ \
\
1 sand 1
\ \
,,
\ \
\
\ sand 2
\, \
\
\
\
\
,
sand 3
\
E
s \ lr groundwater table
I
I
sand 4
4
1
x
39
in the soil in the developing passive wedge in front of
the pile is approximately equal to the associated shear
strain, 7, on the mobilized failure plane. Taking 7 = €
and Yo as the deflection in Skempton's equation, then
Yo = 2. SyB (2)
such that
G G
= or (3b)
Go Gref
and
E s = constE (see, e.g., 21) (3c)
such that
(3d)
Es,design
40
1
reduction curve
G
Go
0 {'(%)
10- 4 10- 3 10- 2 10- 1 1
G E amplification
=
Gref Eref
{'(%)
o
{' ref = {'50
amplification
Es,design curve
1 ---------------~--
Yo = 2.5B{'
o
Yo,design
41
8r-.....,...------r-----r------r-----~--
E
-t-----:----
5
s,ae5~qn
Yo' inches
42
load, Po' and a given Es profile can be expressed as
p r 3 (4)
Yo = (A yo or c Yo ) ~I
(6)
43
Table 1. BEF Deflection Coefficients for Es = Eso + fx
Profile
Eso/fT A e yo A.m+ x ++
yo du "/-0
to Po
0 2.435 0.929 0.772 2.39 T
0.1 2.151 0.853 0.708 2.37 T
0.2 1.930 0.766 0.661 2.32 T
0.5 1.490 0.643 0.564 2.18 T
1 1.097 0.498 0.477 2.01 T
2 0.742 0.353 0.396 1. 79 T
5 0.404 0.199 0.308 1. 47 T
S e('f l/e('f
J J
3B 0.354 2.83
4B 0.503 1. 99
5B 0.639 1. 57
6B 0.765 1. 31
7B 0.885 1. 13
8B 1. 00 1. 00
44
I-- Yo ----:-t //
deflected position
of pile
developing
passive
o= "1/2 = wedge
h
Kavo t:J.0
h
Xy=o
~
01
t:J.°hl~
~£
first zero
crossing
p~P/y
5 ... Y
Figur~ 10. Relationship between deflection pattern and strain; and between p-y and a-€
response.
(2) or the use of equivalent linear p-y curves with the
program COM622, the single (isolated) pile head stiff-
ness, k, is
k =_
Po (7)
Yo
which, for the pUblished solutions, becomes
k = E1 T3 (8)
(A yo or CYo )
yg =
Yo (10)
eg
46
pile head
stiffness
(y ,kl
o
I
I
pile head I
stiffness I
I
I
I
k, k
gp t
I
e k I
g I
,
I
I
I
L. (Yg,k gp )
isolated pile
(lie )y
g 0
pile in group
Yo' Yg (inches)
Figure 12. pile head stiffness versus pile top
deflection for the single isolated pile (k
vs. Yo) and the pile in the group (k gp vs.
Yg ) .
47
displacement, Y , of a group pile, is to find k of the
isolated pile ag Yo (= yg/e g ) and reduce it via Equation
9.
Note that p is
48
p = EsY (16)
49
EXAl\1PLE: Lateral Stiffness of Pile Groups at Rose Creek
Bridge
The procedure outlined in the previous sections was
employed relative to the pile groups of the Rose Creek
Bridge near Winnemucca, Nevada to assess the variation in
the lateral stiffness of each group with deflection
amplitude. Figure 13 presents the soil profile estab-
lished from boring logs for Group 1 along with the
associated values of q or Dr and f. Table 3 contains
specific comments rela~ive to the determination of the
values presented in Figure 13. Plates la through lc
present an example of stiffness evaluation relative to
Pile Group 1 using an available uniform soil (i. e. ,
single layer) closed form solution corresponding to the
simplified pile profile of Figure 14. On the other hand,
the soil profile for Pile Group 2 is presented in Figure
15 and the simplified profile in Figure 16. As indicated
in Figure 16, the presence of a stiffer zone of soil near
the pile top necessitates the use of a two-layer solution
for the evaluation of the single pile stiffness.
Reference 1 presents a sample calculation of the pile
group stiffness for Pile Group 2 with reference to the
two-layer solutions appearing in Reference 2.
The number of piles, the embedment, and the form of the
simplified design level subgrade modulus profile for the
single isolated pile of Pile Group 3 are identical to
those of Pile Group 2. (The upper zone of stiff soil at
the pile top is 3.0 ft. relative to Pile Group 3 versus
1.5 ft. relative to Pile Group 2.) On the other hand,
the conditions for Pile Group 4 resemble those for Pile
Group 1. See Appendix A (modified from Reference 1) for
information regarding the pile type, size, length,
spacing, etc.
The predicted variation in the lateral stiffness of the
pile groups is compared with the reported (i.e., back-
calculated) values as determined from system identifica-
tion evaluation of the bridge response from full-scale
bridge tests (28). Figure 17a presents comparisons for
Groups 1 and 4, while Figure 17b presents the comparisons
for Groups 2 and 3. Note that the range in predicted
response from fixed to free head conditions brackets
virtually all test data. As pointed out elsewhere (14),
the degree of fixity that can be developed on a practical
bas is is about 50% (for what the author would take
Davisson to mean to be at design or working level
conditions). On the other hand, at negligible strain or
def lection (e. g. ambient conditions), f ixi ty response
might approach 100%. This seems to be the trend in the
data between the predicted limits.
50
ElevatLo'1
Original ft
SPT
--_~ 4299.5 u
Blow Count
q
u
D
r .p f
~
blolJs/ft tsf % td
F1thed Grade "
4292 ..
IJl
.. " . 0; ~ OJ
;: ".
'"
'-'
7'l:5
HeLlLum Dense
.... c d 2g e
4.25' I 14- 9'
OJ
.... Sandy Sllt a 22 (26)b 60 J5·
"-
- 4286
Hed ium St if f
f
SIlty Clay 7 0.9 U 8
26' 4276
U1
-"
I II II II
Very Stiff
SIlty Clay 18 2.4 29
4266
Very Stiff
Silty Clay JO 4.0 48
- 4260
t V
Very Dense
SanLl anLl Gravel
Figure 13. Soil profile for Pile Group 1 at Rose Creek (from 1).
Table 3. Notes for Figure 13
52
ground surface (finished grade)
6ft.
embedment
of pile
n
[
pier shaft (B
pile cap (B =9
4 ft.)
ft.)
Trw
o
6~74
l
r
x cap (f:.)
(ft)
26 ft. long, 12 3/4 in., Es, d es i gn for cap
]/8 in. thick driven pipe
pile backfilled with x and pier shaft
concrete lEI = 40.9 x (ftJ
16 10 3 t-ft 2 )
10
01 5 x 3 (= 15) piles,
W
3 ft. center-to- Note:
center spacing
E Simplified (single layer)
26 s,design .754 201 '286
(tsf) pile profile valid if
E for second layer below first
s,design zero crossing, i.e.,
single isolated 10 ft. > xy=O
pile
full profile
simplified profile
Figure 14. Full and simplified design level modulus profiles for Pile Group 1 (from 1).
CALCULATIONS
PLATE NO I a.-
PILE. GROUP
k. a.1 Yo (fa,. 11te. s/''"7/<' /-:u'/~ )
eJ o. 3~'1 /or S-38
:=
(7! ,-.
W
lor
~~
Cl-/? rOjJr(~ h S/I17/(.. Ia-ylo"'-
Sa {utI 0 k. /O~ lab/e. /
6me s 0.00003
J
0.000/) aooCJ.$j 0.00 I) 0.003 J O. OJ) 0.03 <lAd 0./ /;"..
54
CALCUUT/ONS
PLATE NO 1b
I-ron-r T;;U~ / PILE GROUP)
~O.7 Xlo
= 3 /.f7 ~
II<.
aiso (3.,/0/'
?hIS one. f,~IJ"f. I:; ru/f;c/:e "f tb, tJ~!J rS;M.j A'1o 0,,- So )
val£LL= :fir.. a./i o!t.L, o/ef!eJlinr relcJ.lv~ 1ZJ ~/S };/e.
71u_n.£re l r",£.L/W.kr worl:. "'.I..It:<./tI/~ fc, c4.h.nt>1,hAj./(JIt.l.
lor 07te~ d.e.f1tcllo~$ /.s r~du..'-td.
55
CALCULATIONS
PLATE NO / C.
j
('Q'
at 4
.)5 PIL..E. GRouP I
k CQ.p .. Es
-
5.'~{'1"
f Es,cUr" ... d;<
tvltQ Y4 '
C£ =- S. {,3
~).J..r" ..
I.?r
I. ;;tr
56
OrIgInal ~levatlon SPT
'1 u or cj)
f[ Blo," Count f
4302 blo,"./ft tsf % tC f
Finished Grad e
'''If- 42~7
1 /'('\
Very Stlff
5.75'
~ 4'
:ot- Clayey Silt 19 2.5 30
I I
4.25'
[ 16'
l
.... 4288.5
Hedium Den.e
I 4287 Sandy Silt 26(29) 65 36· 12
4285.5
Hedrum
01 St Iff
'-J SUty 11
0.9
Clay
25.5'
4265
Very Stiff SIlty Clay 18 2.4 29
4263
I I l- 4261.5 Very Stiff
31 4 50
t
SUty Clay
4260
-
Very Denae
Sand and Gravel
Q
Figure 15. Soil profile for Pile Group 2 at Rose Creek (from 1).
ground surface (finished grade)
1\30
x
(ft·)5.75 \
\ 1',
7'2 184
10 ft..
embedment of
pier shaft (B 4 ft)
x
(ft.)
T
pile cap
pile cap (B = 16 ftJ 5.75
11.51
\
\
2 "
1 "
26.5\
368 " "
"
---- TO
25.5 ft. long,
1 .5
320
==='32
368
10 ' '320
'2PP
"
,,
1200
E
s. d '
eS1gn
for
single isolated pile
s,desl.gn
35.5 1250
Figure 16. Full and simplified design level modulus profiles for Pile Group 2 (from 1).
3000
1
4 predicted
ambient Group 1 l results from
Group 45 bridge tests
sample calculations
2000
anbient
4
K
(k/in)
1000
0.01 0.1
0.0001 0.001
Y (inches)
a) g
12000
ambient predicted
3
o Group 2} results fro
ambient a Group 3 bridge tests
2 X sample calculations
8000
K 3
(k/in)
2
. . . . ~~__ fixed
4000
head
3000
59
The comparisons presented in Figure 17 lend credibility
to the proposed procedure. It should be pointed out,
however, that only the overall results are compared, not
the component parts, i.e., single pile stiffness, group
effect, cap stiffness, etc.
60
SPT
D It qu f f'
I I 10rlqln~1~r~~)
Blow Count
,r
12'
48) Final blows/ft tsf tBf taf
~
I
Soft Sandy Clay 6 0.15 8 8
~r 415 414 _
412 GWT Compact Fine Silty Sind Inter-
~~ bedded with Stiff Silty Clay
n 52 )) 2.15 2) 11.5
410
Slightly Compact Fine Silty
Sand Interbedded With Stiff 16 45 )2 1. 15 18 9
Silty Clay ISand 50' Clay 50')
46)
m
..... I
""""
45'
II II II II II 448
Slightly Compact silt to Fine
Silty Sand Interbedded With 17 41 U 19.5 10
Thin stiff Clay Seams
440
4))
Stiff Clay Interbedded With
12 )1 )0 1.80 1) 6.5
Slightly Compact Fine Sand
Figure 18. soil profile for central pier pile group at Meloland (from 4).
Pile Group Stiffness vs Deflection
~eloland Overcrossing Site
7000 r - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -....
6000
Central (Total)
--0 5000
c
~
........
co
c..
...;
~
c:.
::l
0
W
~
....CJ
~
2000
~
____ Abutments
1000
63
abutment pile group). Realize as well that an abutment
pile group can be very complicated if there is an
attached wingwall. Such complication arises from the
flexibility of the wingwall and seasonal changes in soil
resistance (f) corresponding to its relatively shallow
embedment in just the active soil layer.
The BEF formulation used here is for so-called long piles
where the deflected shape near ground surface (to depth
xy=O in Figure 10) is independent of the length, L, of
tne pile provided L > 4T. Where L < 4T, appropriate
intermediate or rigid pier BEF solutions or COM622 would
need to be employed. For wide piles (B > 3 ft.), it
should be recognized that shear in the axial direction
along the pile sides associated with pile rotation leads
to a greater resistance to pile deflection and, hence, a
greater pile head stiffness. It is hoped that ongoing
study of rigid pier response will provide a rule-of-thumb
correction that might be applied to the proposed
procedure for wide (long) piles.
While the limitations above are not prohibitive, the
proposed procedure is recommended only on an interim
basis. Hopefully, ongoing studies relative to a
theoretical basis for beam-on-elastic foundation
characterization (12) will provide simple relationships
for f as a function of both soil and pile properties.
While Terzaghi (15) fully recognized the dependence of Es
and f upon pile as well as soil properties, available
recommendations (e.g., Figure 6) are for just average
pile conditions. The true importance of the pile
stiffness, EI; pile head fixity; pile head embedment;
pile size, B; and pile shape relative to soil-pile
resistance, Es (or f) has yet to be clearly established.
The same stra1n wedge model characterization (12) is also
being used to investigate pile group interference effects
and the relative contribution of the pile cap.
ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS
EVALUATION
Static Bias
The rotational stiffness, KO' of a pile group is the
ratio of the applied moment, M, to the resulting
rotation, 0, of the base of the pile cap, i.e.,
Ke = Hie (19)
65
Axial
backbone
~~
[Q load
+~ ,&L--:
Q
[6.Qr
6.Qd
d I
1
original condition /
,~r, rL f
(Qo,Zo) //~kL t:.Q
L
1:
=- I
'/
6.z u / r
center 6.z L
of loop
rotation --~ t:.Qu/ r
k
u/r springs for
6.Q response
k
L j
1
k ,
u/r
secant slope
.
en
en
t"Q t Q
~ 6.Qu/r t 6.QL
= k liz = k 6.z
u/r u/r L L
6QL = 6Qu / r; [6Q o
Pile top displacement, Z
7 12 13
a
03 ~8 7. time
9
4 10
Figure 20. Rotational response of a two-row
pile group under static dead
load.
condition (point 0 on the backbone curve) are not the
same for the load versus the unload pi les. This, in
turn, means that the axis of rotation cannot be symmetri-
cally located between the two rows of piles but must be
proportionately located to induce these different
displacements at the same time. In other words, the axis
is displaced toward the stiffer (k u / r ) unload/reload
piles (where zL=(ku/r/kL)~zu/r for the same ~Q).
Therefore, at point 1 dn the O~tlme curve, the heads of
the piles of the unload row have moved up ~zu/r while
the heads of the piles of the load row have moved down
~zL. The corresponding moment at point 1 is equal to
H = n(!:JQ • d) (20)
1 e~larqed portion
Ii ) ~Q unload of Q-z curve
around point 0
La
o e)
r
a
I-
Note e = 3
la
ta. a = ~z u/r
I oa;;;:,:-7_ _:::::..."'
row a
pile
,...- --Clb
row b
pile
10
a)
~ Qr. = kl' zL
= k ~ z
u/r u/r
Figure 21. Q-Z and M-O response of the piles of the aroup
for 0 vs. time excitation: a) between points
o and 1 and
68
lb
"" time
---------;(
2a e:. z
1
/,
/
/
/ 1a
/
/
/
/ Note: M = 0
/
2
/
/
2 8
r
a
I.
la
tlz tlz u/r [
a
Oa
2a
2b
b)
69
13
Load c-hange due to
rotation x 7
Applied
IIlO1DCnt
H
stabilized
response
InItial static-
load "-
2a tlovcment
(scttlenll,nc)
due to rotatio
a)
InItIal static
disDlacement
b)
71
modified to reflect degrading material behavior if that
were deemed to be significant. Also, the Q-z and M-8
loops are shown to close down to straight lines. In
reality, there is some material hysteresis which has not
been shown; only the hysteresis associated with the
system behavior has been characterized. Therefore, the
stabilized responses are really very narrow hysteresis
loops rather than straight lines.
72
x
6z 6z
I u/r(~) L .. I x
6z·
Q 6Qu/r 6Qu/r
6 u/ r sta ble
6Q 1
o
6Qu/r ku / r 6Q u / r
6Q i
ku/ r
6z·
6Q u / r stable
I
-zI
/ Y
L
I
r'--'6·z~.'---~
e ; --a-- ~ const stable
M .. n6Qd ~ const
6z. co const 6Q a conBt
6z· a 26Zu/rstable
-..J
W M
a) b)
M
max
i 7? F LI e Ale- "
I
1 8
8
i
Figure 23. Initial and stabilized Q-z and M-O responses for a) 0 versus time and
b) M versus time input.
Q
T~U/r
k·
u/r
~u/r
k u/ r = ~
.....
~
z f:,z'llo
bQ, 6z response
based on u/r
t-z and q-z responses ~6z, 6z
T,q~,~
z,z
P
Nonlinear Characterization
In order to establish the nonlinear form of the
stabilized vertical pile head stiffness curve (ku./r -
~z *) of Figure 24, one needs to know the nonl:l.near
unload/reload ~r - ~z stiffness variation of the t-z
curves and the ~q - ~z point load response (see Figure
24) . The discussion t5elow relates to such character-
ization in clay as detailed in Appendix D of Reference 3.
The author's corresponding response in sand will be
pUblished at some later time; only a general discussion
of it is given here.
75
1.
C 0.8
,
etc 0.5
O.
Displacement, z (inches)
1. Ol,..-- ~-~-----~--_.,
T
ljJ.c
0.5
o ~ _ _- - . . . . L - - - - - - '
_ _ -_::__~--_...L-
!
b) 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement, z (inches)
B/2
76
1.0
,
T
T 0.5
ult
a) o
o 0.025 .060 .075 0.179
z, inches
1.0
T
ult J
I
I
I
b) o I I
o 0.313 0.75 .938 2.24
Y , %
o 1 Z/Z50 or Y/Y 50 3
1.0
T
ult
0.5 - - - _ _
c)
0.75 1.0
z:/z£ or Y/Y f
77
full contact. If one takes the combination rac as the
resulting average ultimate modified shear strength, Tql t '
then the vertical axis of Figure 21b can be thought ot as
a stress level, SL, and, for a given displacement, z, the
product of T /T u±t times T ult is the mobilized shear
stress at the pl e-soil interface.
or
y = O. 12S~ (for z in inches and B in feet) (22b)
in English units.
While not stated, it is assumed here that displacement,
z, relative to curves A, B, and C of Figure 25,
represents the typical size pile (B = 1 ft. or 0.3 m).
Therefore, one has the correspondence between z and ~ at
50 and 100% stress levels as shown in Figures 27a and
27b.
(24)
78
~Y
Yr
~[1
Tult
+ ~u/J~)R-1]
Ll Tult
(25)
where
~u/r (26)
then
GSO (27)
such that
G50 = 160T u lt for Yf = 0.938%(Y50 = 0.31%) for curve C
and
G50 = 67T u lt for Yf '" 2.24%(ySO '" 0.75%) for curves A and B
Alternatively,
79
a or 1"
~a or 61
6£ or 6y
E. or G
1. 0
E or Y £ or y
r r
o /0
d df
: q = ~)
( ~et Qp,net
o L..- _
~et
or
q
q = '\,et - - ~,net
~et
or
Q
~ = Qp net ....:E....-
• Qp ,net
Z EBl
P
80
0.5
m =
(28)
becomes
or
Yr -m1 (30)
Yr p[ G;~] (31)
and
or
Yf = 10 Y50 = 3.33
Yr Yr
81
Zf Yf (33)
zr Yr
or
Z50 Y50 (34)
or
R-l
1~
0 2P P + a2P - 1] (36)
log(O.SO)
82
Ramberg-Osgood formulation and the Seed and Idriss shear
modulus reduction curve to extend the backbone Coyle-
Reese t-z curves down to the small deflection (strain)
range allows an indirect assessment (via Masing rules) of
the desired unload/reload, ~t-~z, response.
or
(37b)
83
R-1
°d
°d,ult
1 + ~ °d
°d,ult
[ j (39)
and
aad
0d,ult
1 + ~ (aad
u/1 0 d,ult
r- 1
(40)
where
Qp 1 ~[ Qp ]R-1 (42)
Qp,net + Qp,net
~
---E. =
tJ:< p 1 + Pu/ ~ tJ:< p ]R-1 (43)
zpr Qp,net Qp,net
84
1 _ 1 (45)
r
R-l
lO~~) (46)
log(O.5)
85
c5
Il .. t of t-z
analysis)
z • f Iyl
y ~ f (G)
E
r. = --------
2( I • vI
y
r:; = «6))
CI • 0 - 1:
3 vo
°3
A
co B
en
c
ad
o
2T
o.
CI .. CI - l KCI a
3 vo vo
y
vo
Figure 30. stress and strain response in sand in the near-field soil region along the
sides of the pile.
soil-pile interface (i.e., on a ~ertical plane) whereby
the stress level in the soil at 0 3 = avo - 2T l imit is
less than one. All of this is shown ln Figure 3 a and
should be part of the backbone t-z formulation for sand.
By contrast, Figure 31 demonstrates, by way of a footing
analogy, the stiffening of the sand below the pile point
due to the increasing conf in ing pressure, 0 3 , in the zone
or wedge immediately below the pile point. with
increasing (net) pile load, Q , the net pressure, q,
increases. since q is the mij or pr incipa I stress of
Wedge II and its associated Mohr circle, a mobilized
frictiQn angle, ¢m' necessary for equilibrium develops
where 0 3 is the confining pressure of Wedge II but equal
to the major principal stress of Wedge I (Circle I). Of
course, the stress in the sand around a pile point would
involve three or more circles or zones and the deviator
stress, ad' of the last circle would cause strain, € ~for
modulus E), of a stiffening response (i.e., growing 0 3 of
Wedge II) as characterized by the dotted line path across
the stress-strain curves of a series triaxial tests.
Pile point movement, given Schmertmann's strain triangle,
would be given by Equation 38. In addition to the
aforementioned consideration, a nonlinear q-z
formulation should also treat the curvature of the Moh~
envelope at the elevated pressures beneath the pile
point.
For the pile in sand, one can assess the corresponding
skin friction resistance with depth and substitute that
for Tul t in Equations 24 and 25 and the net point load
and su5stitute that for Qp net in Equations 42 and 43.
On an interim basis, the ~,'R-1, and ~ l/r Ramberg-Osgood
parameters that the author recommends fdr shaft and point
resistance in sand are these:
While there are other t-z formulations that one can use
for design level and larger deflections (e.g., see 36),
realize that the Ramberg-Osgood formulations presented
here for sand and clay specifically consider the small
strain response obtained via the use of the Seed Idriss
shear modulus reduction curve. Different than with the
87
a3
o
": IY~:
p/ t /
T"J -
r
B l\l I R _.-t<' e:
co
co 1 'V L<P
Q Mohr Circles
p
q = ------- for Wedge I I
2
TT 8 /4
z = e:B
p
Figure 31. A footing analogy for the stress and strain response in sand immediately
beneath the pile point.
lateral stiffness procedure, the accuracy of the t-z
formulation presented here extends beyond design level
conditions; and, therefore, it may be used to produce
the whole backbone pile head load-settlement curve.
89
z
a)
Qp,net
..1.Qp,limit 2Qp,DL
Qp,DL or
Ignore soil
suction
Lt
b)
90
as shown in Figure 24 and reiterated in Figure 33, one
wishes to establish k u/r versus the double amplitude
displacement, ~z* (because k u1r for pile head
displacement,~z, is the secant Slope of the ~z* loop),
then note that for unload/reload behavior in Figure 32
that
(47)
and
t.Qp, limi t = 2Qp, DL (48a)
91
Q
amplitude of + 6z stabilized
- u/r
movement about point 0'
YI-
6z./
u r
for determination of k /
u r
~-----------------z
92
stiffness. Figures 34 and 35 are the soil profiles
relative to Pile Groups 3 and 4. Recall that the soil
profiles for pile Groups 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 13
and 15 and that procedures for evaluating soil properties
from blow counts, N, as indicated in Table 3, apply to
Figures 34 and 35. Table 4, taken from Reference 3,
indicates the subdivision of a typical pile of Group 4
and the associated input for Tul t and m for each segment.
Note that the pile elements are numbered 1 through 6
going from the bottom up because t-z calculation proceeds
in that direction. Program TZCURVE (or its older version
ROSECREEK in Reference 3) can be used with this input to
establish stabilized vertical pile head stiffness, k u / r '
versus double amplitude displacement, ~z~/r (as shown ~n
Figure 33). Figure 36 is a plot of such vertical single
pile stiffness variation at each of the pile group
locations. The hash marks at the end of these curves
indicate the older limits imposed on the pile head load,
Q, rather than the use of the current limits Qn
components (i. e., ~T and ~Qp). It would be useful for
the reader to use the program TZCURVE and rerun the
backbone curve for the pile Group 4 pile dead load values
as required for Equations 47 and 48. Note that the dead
load per pile is DL = 58.6 kips (260 kN) for which the
corresponding pile tip load is 13.7 kips or 61 kN (where
Q net = 9cA is 25.5 kips or 114 kN) for a pile of Group
4~' Note thaE the ultimate capacity, QuIt' of the pile is
79.8 kips or 355 kN.
~ = (~) = r8
(49a)
or
~. = d8 (49b)
93
Eleva Uon SPT
qu D
Or 18in-;1- y:..:::: ft Blow Count r ell [
Soft to
tledium 4 0.5 b
<0 Silty Clay
,J:l.
24'
4275
4270
Hard
Silty 5.3 6!,
40
Clay
I I ~ U 4263
4261
Very Dense
'V Sand and Gravel
Figure 34. soil profile for Pile Group J at Rose Creek (from J).
---\
Original
Elevation
[t
SPT
Blo... Count
blo\Js/ft
q'J
tsf
D
%
r .p f
teE
Finished Grade _)r,l
-292
1.75'''' --r I 7.i0 :1edlum Dense
Sandy
S llt 19(25) 60 )_.5· 28
_.25' I I I _288
Very Stiff
Clayey Silt 2) ).1 17
_286
Medium
St if f
Silty 5~ 0.7 9
Clay
lO 2)'
U1
-269.5
Very Stiff Silty Clay 18 2._ 24
4268
Very Stiff )8
24 ).2
Silty Clay
426)
Figure 35.
t r:J
_260
Very Dense
Sand and Gravel
~
5 4282-4272 10-15 5 B 0.7 0.9 0.85 0.53 447
U)
~ >.
'-
ci500:1 4 4277-4272 15-20 5 B 0.7 0.9 0.85 0.53 447
-0
<1)
<0 ::E
m 3 4272-4269.5 20-22.5 2.5 C 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.72 1070
2
2
3000
2500
k
u/r
k
in
2000
1500
1000
*.
!:>z u I r ' in.
98
o 0 p
r 6'"''rO....
0
-,r
+e.~
roul
C4l CUlATIONS
~-----
PLATE NO. 20..
I
I
o 0 o 0 PILE GRouP "'f
=L1 t: + :.
Qt.Ltrro...J
O. 00 1 ;YI..
h2}. 3(,
= Z [3(lq1'S-~)(fIt)Z.+ 3(ZIZOkJ(3ftrJ
I~ I~
0.003 IK.
II
~ ,
;t A b"lJ,.h,,;:: 0.003 /11-, or !-1l-"'Ir- O,OO~ 1>1. -+- tr& l'OO~I'
1:: L} C I ...... U =- O. 00 Ir • 0.003 :. ISLO
99
CALCULATIONS
PLATE NO. 26
a~ Llt/ r = 0.003 :. ~ /7 110
-S-J
y-(LO
Pi LE CrTl.o uP "I
& ( 12.)
+
- L1 COu. t .e..... ,. O. 0 ,() i "- (Jy'
• '"'
L:l e'.L/.,.. 0.020 -- k.w.lf' z. 12~ 0 k./
Ii k.
:t tltcu.. +4.,. =
row
0.0 17S- trl. e.l'\.d ~+ S1-a b, /1l.<.cI spo I't~
'("..I.
+
-LIt"U-T-' ~ ,. •
..
=OOI7S-I~ or
* .. o. 0 3~,
4 t;.w ,I rL. ~ k".,,, J': II 0 0 Ie.II/ ....
-7.,..
!' odt,Il.ru r· O.OoB37.f" '"' O. Ol,or :. /2. 'i!:.-
100
10
Pl"erllcted
16
--~,
Group 2 6.
Group J 0
14
Predicted -
I o
--I Group 1 0
12 12
Group 4
'" I "0
10 10
k-11!.
K
e
rod '"
I
k-in '"
..... <ad '" 0
0
..... 6 "'- o
~ I 6
'" 0.
ill '"
2 .-
o I I , I oI I I I I
-5 -4 -] 5 -4 _,
10 10 10 10 10 10
9. radiAns e. radians
102
field R.cord.d Seod CorreClted EQul"el.oI81I1y
E I .... La~. r 8Pf Blow Count Blow Count. N 1 8and Blow Count, H ,+ 1.8
floa' (Orlglna.Orld.) blow."t blo •• "t blo •• llt
1
2'
483
!
"-
40' I II IIIII1
;:
81111 Clo y 0 '2. V
{"
11
13
.....
0
W I II IIIII1 II~ ~
448
,sllghlly Camp.cl 811! Ig Fino
Silly Bend Interbedded With E 14 13.6 21
Thin 81111 Cloy S •• m,
a
440
"
0
co Compact fino Silly Send F 27 24 31.6
-L U UUU U
433
SIIII Cloy In, . . beddod With
8l1ghU, COfftDaol Fine Sand
a 14 12
Av. III' ellv. 42g
01 435
fO
(
2S 21
Compacl Fine 8111y Sand o.
27
lol.rbed With Clay
)
D.n •• Pili,. 8~nd 62
Figure 39. Soil profile at the central pler pile group at Meloland (from 7) .
peak-to-peak or double amplitude displacement of the
outer pi Ie row. Table 5 is the pr inted output from
program TZCURVE for the backbone pile head dead load of
52.2 kips or 231 kN (see arrow) obtained by trial and
error for a pressure level, PL, at the point of 0.0618.
The input Qp net after Thurman (see 38), Zpr (= 0.015B;
B = 8 in. 01:' 0.2 m at pile tip), {3, and R-l values and
Tult' m, L, B, and AE values per segment (nine of them)
appear as part of the printed output. Table 1 of
Reference 7 gives the Dr and ¢ values (after 26) and the
qu values (after 27) used to assess the Tul t (or TULT in
Table 5) values. Note that the pile segments are
numbered 1 through 9 going from the bottom up and that,
for the interbedded sand and clay layers (E, C, and B of
Figure 39), two segments (each equal to half the layer
thickness) are used, one assuming the material to be a
sand and the other a clay. The Tult values for sand used
here are calculated after Nordlund (see 38).
104
Table 5. Backbone Curve DL Response for Meloland
Qp,netIKIPS) 3~.3
ZprlINCHES)= .12
BETA FOR POINT= 31
R-1 FOR POINT= 2.~2
BETA FOR CLAY SIDE= 9
R-1 FOR CLAY SIDE= .667~
BETA FOR SAND SIDE= 130
R-1 FOR SAND SIDE= 5.02
Qp,netIKIPS) 3~.3
DELTA Qp,limit(KIPS)= ~.22
Zpr ( INCHES) = . 12
BETA FOR POINT= 5.78
R-1 FOR POINT= 2.~2~
BETA FOR CLAY SIDE= 5.67
R-1 FOR CLAY SIDE= .667~
BETA FOR SAND SIDE= ~.03
R-1 FOR SAND SIDE= 5.02
SEGMENT NO. 1 'l'ULT (KSF) = 1. 3~ TLIMIT(KSF)= 1. 67 M= 500 LtFT)= 5 BIFT)= .75
A.EIKIPS'= 95/,000
SEGMENT NO. 2 'l'ULT(KSF l = .79 TLIMITIKSF)= .92 M= 500 LeFT'= to B(FT)= .75
AECKIPS)= 95/,000
SEGMENT NO. 3 'l'ULT(KSF)= .71 TLIMITCKSF)= .71 M= 1070 LCFT)= /,0 B(FT)= .75
AE(KIPS)= 95/,000
SEGMENT NO. /0 'l'ULT(KSF) = .8 TLIMITCKSF)= .5 M= 1070 LCFT'= 15 BeFT'= .875
AE(KIPS'= 129885
SEGMENT NO. 5 'l'ULT (KSF) = .75 TLIMITCKSF)= .68 M= 500 L(FT)= 3.5 B(FT)= 1
AEeKIPS'= 169600
SEGMENT NO. 6 'l'ULT (KSF , = .6/0 TLIMITIKSF)= .55 M= /,o~7 L(FT)= 3.5 B(FT)= 1
AECKIPS)= 169600
SEGMENT NO. 7 TULT(KSF)= .93 TLIMIT(KSF)= .79 M= 500 LIFT)= 2 B(IT)= 1
AE(KIPS)= 169600
SEGMENT NO. 8 TOLT(KSF)= .59 TLIMIT(KSFl= .(02 M= 1,,~7 LCFT)= 2 BeFT'= 1
AE(KIPS)= 169600
SEGMENT NO. 9 TOLTIKSF)= .36 TLIMITIKSF)= .22 M= /,o~7 LCFT)= 1 BCFT)= 1
AE(KIPS)= 169600
106
z50' Equation 22) in the near-field cylindrical region of
sOlI supporting the pile. Even if the reader prefers a
different set of t-z curves for clay (say, where zf = 0.2
in. regardless of depth and pile size), the formulation
given here is generalized thus allowing the computation
of the Ramberg-Osgood load and unload/reload parameters
(~, R-1, ~u r) for any desired curve (i.e., different z50
and zf Valu's) and the use of any shear modulus reduction
curve (i.e., the Gso/G value for 1'50 where 1'50 is
related to z50 via Equa~ion 22). Pile tip support in
clay is mlnimal and, therefore, the point-load
displacement characterization for the pile point in clay
is relatively unimportant. By contrast, the profession
still struggles with axial pile response in sand and only
the author's interim Ramberg-Osgood fitting values are
presented. The reader may wish to substitute another
formulation (e.g., see 11 or 36).
107
Finally, both lateral and vertical/rotational stiffness
analyses assume stable behavior. Nonstable behavior will
be discussed subsequently.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
108
-z-.-:supported 1MS9 of
&Uper&trocture
FJlWA.
.. ,.." ,.......,
K K
IITC IITC
far fi"ld region near field region of inertial
in~tion
~
or
increasing magnitude
K earthquake
upwardly propagating
shear wave --'---
c)
displacement/rotation
Figure 40. a) Near- versus far- (i.e., free-) field soil regions; b) associated
stiffness variations depending on whether near-field (FHWA) or far-field (ATe)
strains employed; c) proposed variation with horizontal cutoff a function of
earthquake magnitude.
combined strain would lie closer to the free-field value.
This would imply that the ATC (constant) variation
applies on the far left hand side of Figure 40b. At
larger levels of inertial interaction displacement/
rotation (on the right side of Figure 40b), the relative
strain dominates and the FHWA approach applies. At the
intersection of the ATC and FHWA variations, the free-
field and relative strains match and the combined strain
will depend upon the phase difference between the two
components. At present, the author assumes a direct
transition from the ATC to the FHWA variation as shown in
Figure 40c. Of course, the ATC cap will move down with
an increase in the magnitude of the earthquake and the
resulting free-field soil strain(s).
It should be pointed out that, in the comparison of the
predicted and backcalculated lateral and rotational
stiffnesses of Figures 17, 19, 37, and 38 from the Rose
Creek and Meloland field tests, only relative strains
were induced in the soil; and, therefore, no horizontal
ATC type cap on the predicted curves was employed (though
a horizontal line associated with past vertical overload
from overweight trucks may be inferred from the back-
calculated points in Figures 37 and 38). Depending on
the level of free-field motions considered, a cap would
need to be superposed. Such discussion points out the
possibility for error if backcalculated stiffnesses from
full-scale bridge tests are used without modification in
seismic analysis.
110
Vertical Stillness (kips/in)
4000, I
3500 .-
'::""
3000
2000
1500
1000 .-
-"
500
0' I I I I I
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Deflection (in)
a) flU b)
Figure 41. a) Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf and b) the vertical pile stiffness variation
(FHWA with ATe cutoff) used for Lorna Prieta response analysis (from 8).
0.3,--, . : . . . - - - - - - - - -
0.2
.-..
0.1
bJl
....,
Z
0
t::
0
~
~
w
u
........ u
-<
N -0.1
-0.2 - CALCULATED
.•• MEASURED
-0.3..1---------
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TIME (SEC)
Figure 42. Computed versus measured transverse horizontal acceleration on the deck of the
Oakland outer Harbor Wharf. Computed is based on free-field acceleration
input and equivalent linear foundatiun springs (from 8).
vertical stiffness values all fell along the level ATC
portion of the vertical stiffness curve (Figure 41b)
while the lateral stiffness values all fell on the
descending FHWA portion of their respective curve.
Therefore, in the same earthquake, free- fie ld stra ins
controlled vertical stiffness while relative or inertial
strain controlled lateral stiffness of this free-standing
pile group. By contrast, the use of stiffness values
significantly different from such compatible values
resulted in poorer to very poor correlation between the
recorded and the predicted accelerations on the deck.
Of course, the question arises as to how to plot the ATC
horizontal cutoff given the results of a ground response
analysis such as SHAKE (41). For lateral resistance,
where the associated near-field zone of soil occurs over
limited depth (see Figure 2a), the equivalent linear
effecti~e shea~ strain, ~eff (= %~ma~)' rep~rted out from
SHAKE ln thls near surface so11 reglon, can be
substituted into Equation 2 to establish the single pile
head deflection, Yo' or the group deflection, yq (from
Equation 10), at which the free-field and relative
strains are equal. One would then draw a horizontal line
or cap to the FHWA type stiffness variation through that
point on the FHWA curve of the assessed deflection.
or
YeffB (SIb)
~EQ = 0.125
113
~T ~TEQ[~]
=
EQ !1z
(52)
or
(53b)
114
7~
GroUDd suriaCG at time of
Rubble lateral pile group load test Dr (%)
N 40 60 80 100
'Y .. 120 pc{
500 psf 10
\ \ 45
\ 654 pst \
0 \
\
\
\
\
I
22 ) 78
-s I
I
/
I
Shaft Lo.ad 14 (6(J
\
-10 '\
\
\
1.22
"
100 I
\
115
not take into account the additional undrained porewater
pressure, ~ud' induced by lateral (inertial interaction)
loading and the relative strain. In essence then, one
would be performing a drained analysis for the inertial
interacting loading based ~pon earthquake reduced free-
field effective stresses, avo - u s. This might be
accurate in loose sands at small s~rains as shown, for
example, in Figure 44 where the ATC cap controls, i.e.,
~ud due to relative strain is small; but it would be
inaccurate at larger deflections where relative strains
exceed free-field and where, therefore, ~ud becomes
significant. The same reasoning would, of course, apply
to vertical/rotational behavior.
The author's Cypress and Oakland outer Harbor pile
foundation studies in medium to dense sands (8, 9, 10)
are basically of this type. Given the small or even
negative ~ud that might develop at such a density state,
the results are probably reasonably accurate. However,
in loose sands or for more accurate characterization in
medium to dense sands, an undrained effective stress
analysis, i. e., avo - u xs - ~ud' is preferred. until
recently (42), the undralned behavior of loose sand under
monotonic loading has remained a mystery. As shown
schematically in Figure 45, it is now possible to assess
the undrained monotonic loading stress-stain curve with
peak and residual strengths and the associated effective
stress path from a series of drained rebounded triaxial
tests with volume change measurements, provided one
equates the vOlumetric expansion due to a dropping
effective stress, a:l' in the undrained test with the
volumetric compress~on arising from shear loading, ad.
Accordingly, if one can characterize the total stress
path for side shear and point load behavior in terms of
changes in applied stresses, a 3 and ad (see Figures 30
and 31), and can analyze pore pressures due to ad and,
separa tely, changes in a, it should be poss ible to
assess ~ud due to undrained inertial interaction loading
in the near future.
116
K
-'-
avo
117
0) • O)e
)
stress-strain behavior, b)
isotropic consolidation
rebound, and c) effective
stress path.
----- a) • o)e'lt
(a) CI
:::::.:,~,-,.... I~I~~
o~~
e [I
0' 0) • O)e'lt
[v
./l./ isotropic (dt Idt I • 0
v • r
/ - consolidollltion
00 Decrellslno
r
St.eady Slate a)
0) •
-o)e
c
\
,
\1 I t ~
e
.' I
...... [
v. hear
.-[
Y
lsD I
-----<:---1 _: 0) q Q
constant voluIIle. IdC/dt.',.O
o \,It- 6u
0)...0--
d
I
::lc
Una
'
~
(b)
~ ~Ko
4 CSP •
Ie , TSP
P
(c) °le'lt o )e
outweigh the problem of loss of support.
119
original load-settlement
Pile load curve of the average pile
Q
inertial interaction
reduction due to liquefaction M~ moment from bridge
deck via pier shaft
of rotation
DL
- 4
tlQ)
5 reduced axial
• pile capaci ty liz l~
t.7.)
DL
Figure 46. Reduced load-settlement curve due to liquefaction and load changes relative
to it for piles of rows 1-5 associated with the applied moment, M (or rotation
0) •
D. )
-;;.
15
:;
~
..
~
c
0
.
l'r ., ~ . ,__ I
5.,
. ,
----
ApplIed 2 3 u
u ~
moment ~
I I
H 10 /-- J I
(10 6 lb-tn)
,I I
./ I' I
~
I I
I ./
D.3 ~ \J 0
rna' 7
2 3 4
RotatIon, {/ (10. 3 radIans)
~7
9 m H3 - H
Keffective / I
• 7 9 Moment-rotation
3,3 x 10 1b-11l/rad Figure 47.
response of the
central pier pile
group at Meloland
6 from 4 seconds
(point 0) to 5.2
seconds (point 7) of
shaking (from 7).
differential displacement across the pile group of 0.5
in. as reported in Reference 43, the nonstable Q-z axial
pile response and the M-8 behavior of the group were
assessed. Figure 46 shows the Q-z travel coordinates
associated with Point 2 of the M-8 and 8-time diagrams in
Figure 47.
One will note from Figure 47, which depicts the M-8
response of the pile group from 4 to 5.2 seconds of the
free-field acceleration record, that, at Point 2 and
again at Point 6, the pile group reached a condition of
unrestrained rotational response corresponding to four of
the five pile rows plunging at QUIt in rotation about an
axis located through the remaining unfailed pile row (see
Figure (6). It was only during the reversal in the free-
field ground surface acceleration at the times
corresponding to Points 3 and 7 of Figure 47 that the
motion of the abutment fill, the monolithically attached
bridge deck, the pier shaft, and, thus, the pile group
were reversed.
122
of soil-structure interaction failure. However, as
assessed, such was not the case. Nevertheless, the
analysis procedure should be of interest to the reader if
he or she wishes to be able to duplicate the effort
elsewhere. Realize, however, the undrained analysis in
sand for both of these cases is really a drained analysis
for free-field reduced effective stresses. (See earlier
discussion.)
SUMMARY
The information presented here is a review of previous
symposia papers of a methodology for lateral and
rotational stiffness evaluation and field case study
comparisons. The methodology is an alternative to
stiffness evaluation approaches adopted by the FHWA and
ATC. Of course, it is the author's strong belief that
such an evaluation should be undertaken or overseen by a
geotechnical engineer given his appreciation for the
level of free-field soil strains, soil's linear stress-
strain behavior, and the possibility of developing pore
pressures in sand and/or cyclic degradation of clay under
seismic excitation.
The recommended lateral stiffness evaluation procedure is
an equivalent linear subgrade modulus profile approach
which is intended to be more accurate than existing p-y
curve analysis at seismic levels of excitation. The
proposed procedure accounts for soil layering, the
embedment of the pile heads, the group interference
effect, and the pi le cap contribution in contrast to
other approachers which only allude to these effects or,
in the case of the pile cap, wrongly assess a base shear
resistance. Assuming prior knowledge of free-field
strain, this nonlinear stiffness evaluation procedure
requires only hand computations (or simple COM622
analysis) and takes only slightly longer than the time
necessary to establish the so-called "design level"
stiffness.
The basic rotational stiffness evaluation procedure
assumes nonl inear (i. e. , equivalent linear) stabi 1 ized
response, from which it is a simple matter to evaluate
the corresponding level of permanent rotationally-induced
settlement that occurs. The dead load on the structure
influences whether nonstable behavior occurs as the
result of compressional or tensile pile capacity failure.
In the event that nonstable rotational behavior develops,
the Q-z travel paths that result are a direct function of
the pattern as well as the amplitude of inertial inter-
action loading as demonstrated elsewhere (7) for the case
123
of the Meloland overcrossing during the 1979 Imperial
Valley earthquake. While some may wish to avoid
nonstable behavior altogether, a more practical approach
might be to design to accommodate a certain amount of
deformation as with abutment wall movement.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank NSF, FHWA, CSMIP, DOE, and
the Army Corps of Engineers for past financial support
and Caltrans and NDOT for their current support of such
studies. The author also acknowledges the efforts of
former and current students, R. L. Sack, L. Berg, P.
Abdollaholiaee, P. Gowda, Z. Zafir, M. Ashour, P. Piling,
and S. Elfass, and colleagues, R. siddharthan, A. Ross,
D. Sanders, E.M. Maragakis, and B. Douglas. The author
would like to thank J. Prat for her considerable skills
in editing and typing this and previous manuscripts.
References
1. Norris, G.M. and Sack, R.L., "Evaluation of the
Lateral Stiffness of Pile Groups for Seismic
Analysis of Highway Bridges," proceedings, 22nd
Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering symposium,
Boise, Feb. 1986, pp. 323-363.
124
4. Sack, R.L., "Lateral Stiffness of pile Groups for
Seismic Analysis of Highway Bridges," M.S. Thesis,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1983.
21. Pyke, R. S. and Beikae, M., "A New Solution for the
Resistance of Single Piles to Lateral Loading,"
Laterally Loaded Deep Foundtions: Analysis and
Performance, ASTM, STP 835, pp. 3-20, 1984.
126
26. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T. H. ,
Foundation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, 1974,
pp. 310-312.
127
36. Kraft, L.M., Ray, R.P., and Kagawa, T., "Theoretical
t-z Curves," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 197, No. GT11, 1981, pp. 1543-
1561.
37. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, pp. 491-495.
38. Vanikar, S.N., Manual on Design and Construction of
Driven Pile Foundations, FHWA/DP-66-1, April 1985,
pp. 141-154.
39. Idriss, LM., Dobry, R., and Singh, R.D., "Nonlinear
Behavior of Soft Clays During Cyclic Loading,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT12, 1978.
40. Applied Technology council, ATC 3-06, Tentative
Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulations for Buildings, ATC Publication, 1978.
128
Appendix A: Pile Groups at Rose Creek
Figure 48a shows the plan and elevation views of the Rose
Creek Overcrossing. Figures 13, 15, 34, and 35 are the
soil profiles as determined from the boring logs from the
bridge plans for Pile Groups 1 through 4 respectively.
Groups 1 and 4 consist of 15 piles driven in a
rectangular pattern (3 x 5) at 3-ft. (0.9 m) center-to-
center spacing. Groups 2 and 3 are 20 piles driven in a
4 x 5 pattern also at 3-ft. (0.9 m) spacing. The piles
are 12.75 in. (0.32 m)in diameter by 0.37 in. (9.4 mm)
thick pipe piles, 26 ± 2 ft. (7.8 ± 0.6 m) long (L > 4T,
therefore, long piles) driven with closed ends and
backfilled with concrete (with an average concrete
compressive strength f c = 4030 psi or 27.8 MPa).
bending stiffness, El, of the individual pile is 11.78 x
The
129
'.
PLAN
SOUTH :~ NORTH
.""..
ABUTMEN-r,:~
tit
PIER 4 PIER 3 PIER 2 PIER I
..
A!:UTMENT
a) ELEVATION
51'
r
I-
en
w
PLAN 3=
208~O"
b) ELEVATION
130
Appendix C: Program TZCURVE
The following BASIC program is a t-z analysis program
requiring input of the Ramberg-Osgood fitting parameters
{3 and R-l for backbone pile top load-settlement, Q-z,
response generation, or {3u/r and R-l for unload/reload
pile top ~Q-~z* response generation. The program
interactively queries the user for the following input.
Note that pile segments start just above the pile tip and
are entered going ill2 the pile. Also note that the
printer must be on before entering the next piece of
information, i.e., the pressure level (or change), PL (or
~PL), at the point. Once the user inputs the desired
trial PL or ~PL, the program computes the pile tip
movement, zp or ~z~, and successively computes and prints
the values Of the stress level (or change), SL (or ~SL) ,
the top of the element displacement (or change), z (or
~z*) I the top of the element load (or change), Q (or ~Q) ,
going up the pile. The ratio of the last element load-
131
displacement ratio is printed as the pile top stiffness,
k (or k u / r )' along with the associated pile tip displace-
ment, zp (or ~Z~), and load, Qp (or ~Qp) .
Keep in mind that, while a change in stress level, ~SL,
for unload/reload behavior for any pile element may
increase indefinitely (for displacement calculation for
that element), AT will not exceed ~Tl·mit. with the
calculation of one set of results for tRe entered PL or
APL at the pile point, the user is asked if another value
is to be calculated. wi th enough runs, the backbone
load-settlement (Q-z) curve (i.e., last element Q vs. z
values) or the unload/reload stiffness variation (k u / r
vs. Az*) can be plotted.
132
10 KEY OFF:CLS:WIDTH 80
20 'THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM CAN BE USED TO ASSESS EITHER UNLOAD-RELOAD OR
30 'BACKBONE CURVE AXIAL PILE RESPONSE. VALUES OF BETA FOR BOTH POINT AND
~O 'SIDE SHEAR RESPONSE SHOULD REFLECT UNLOAD-RELOAD OR LOAD VALUES DEPENDING
SO 'ON WHETHER STABILIZED OR BACKBONE CURVE RESPONSE IS DESIRED.
90 LOCATE 6,10:PRINT CHR$(2011
100 LOCATE 6,11:PRINT STRING$(S9,20S1
110 LOCATE 6,70:PRINT CHR$(1871
120 FOR 1=7 TO 9:LOCATE I,10:PRINT CHR$(186)
130 LOCATE I,70:PRINT CHR$(186):NEXT I
1~0 LOCATE 10.10:PRINT CHR$(186J:
lS0 LOCATE 10,21f:PRINT "t-z Curve Program by Gary Norris"
160 LOCATE 10,70:PRINT CHR$(186)
170 FOR 1=11 TO 13:LOCATE I,10:PRINT CHR$(lB6l
180 LOCATE I.70:PRINT CHR$(186J:NEXT I
190 LOCATE 11f.10:PRINT CHR$(200)
200 LOCATE 1~,11:PRINT STRING$(S9.20S)
210 LOCATE 1~,70:PRINT CHR$(188)
220 LOCATE 20,10
230 PRINT "PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE"
2~0 A$=INKEY$:IF A$="" THEN 2~0
250 CLS:LOCATE 12,1
260 INPUT "TYPE 1 FOR BACKBONE OR 0 FOR U/R RESPONSE=? ", BB
270 CLS
280 '========================INPUT=============================================
285 INPUT "ROUND (R) OR SQUARE (S) PILE=";SS:
290 INPUT "DOES THE PILE HAVE A CONST DIAMETER AND AE (Y or NJ =":B$:IF B$="N"
OR B$="n" GOTO 310
300 INPUT "PILE DIA (FT)= ";DI:INPUT "AE(KIPS)= ";EA
310 INPUT "Qp,net(KIPS)";QN
320 IF BB=l THEN MP=QN:GOTO 3~0 ELSE GOTO 330
330 INPUT "DELTA Qp,liJnit(KIPS)=";MP
3~0 INPUT "Zpr(INCHESl=";ZR
350 INPUT "BETA FOR POINT=";BP
360 INPUT "R-1 FOR POINT=";RP
370 INPUT "BETA FOR CLAY SIDE=":BC: INPUT "R-1 FOR CLAY SIDE=";RC
380 INPUT "BETA FOR SAND SIDE=";BS: INPUT "R-1 FOR SAND SIDE=":RS
390 '================DEFINE ELEMENTS===========================================
~OO PRINT
HO INPUT "NUMBER OF PILE ELEMENTS =" ;N
~20 PRINT
~30 PRINT "INPUT THE ELEMENT DATA FROM PILE BOTTOM TO PILE TOP"
~(OO PRINT
~~9 FOR 1=1 TO N: PRINT "SEGMENT NO. ";1
~50 IF 8B=0 GOTO ~S5
~51 IF B$="N" OR B$="n" GOTO ~53
'-52 INPUT "SAND(S) OR CLAY(C). TULT(KSFl. M, L(FTl =";Y$(I).TU(Il,M(I),L(I):GOTO
~58
~53 INPUT "SAND(Sl OR CLAY(Cl, TULT(KSFJ. M. L(FT). B(FT), Uri) =";Y$(I).TU(I),
M( I ) ,L ( I ) • B ( I ) ,AE ( I ) : GOTO ~ 5 B
1f55 IF B$="N" OR 8$="n" GOTO ~57
'-56 INPUT "SANDISl OR CLAYICl. TULTIKSFJ, DELTA TLIMIT(KSF), M. LIFT) =";¥$(Il,T
U ( I ) , TL I I ) ,M ( I ) , L ( I ) : GOTO '- 5 B
'-57 INPUT "SAND(S) OR CLAY(C). TULT(KSF). DELTA TLIMIT(KSFl, M. LIFT), B(FTl, AE
( I) ="; ¥$ ( I ) , TU' I l ,TL ( I ) ,M I I ) , L ( I ) , B( I ) ,AE I I )
~58 NEXT
~59 FOR 1=1 TO N
10.60 IF Y$(I)= "C" OR Y$(I)="c" THEN GOTO '-70
~65 IF ¥$(Il= "5" OR Y$(I)="s" THEN GOTO '-75
'-70 BX(1)=BC: RXII)=RC: GOTO ~BO
~75 BX(IJ=BS: RX(Il=RS
~80 IF B$="N" OR B$="n" GOTO ~85
~81 AE(I)=EA: B(I)=DI
133
1<85 PRINT
1<90 NEXT
1<91 IF BB=l GOTO 500
1<92 INPUT "DO YOU WANT TO SPECIFY FREE-FIELD EO GAMMAS (V or N)=? ";Q$
1<93 IF Q$="Y" OR Q$="y" GOTO 6000
500 '==========================================================================
510 IF B$="N" OR B$="n" GOTO 530
520 LPRINT "PILE DIA (FT)=";DI:LPRINT "AE(KIPS)=";EA
530 LPRINT "Qp,net(KIPS)";QN
51<0 IF BB=l THEN GOTO 560
550 LPRINT "DELTA Qp,limit(KIPS)=";MP
560 LPRINT "ZprIINCHES)=";ZR
570 LPRINT "BETA FOR POINT=";BP
580 LPRINT "R-1 FOR POINT=";RP
585 LPRINT "BETA FOR CLAY SIDE=";BC
590 LPRINT "R-1 FOR CLAY SIDE=";RC
595 LPRINT "BETA FOR SAND SIDE=";BS
600 LPRINT "R-1 FOR SAND SIDE=";RS
610 LPRINT
620 FOR 1=1 TO N
625 IF BB=l GOTO 633
630 LPRINT "SEGMENT NO. ";1 "TULTIKSF'=";TU(I) "TLIMIT(KSF)=";TL(I)" M=";M(I
)" L(FT)=";LII) "B(FT)=";B(I) "AE(KIPS)=";AECI): GOTO 635
633 LPRINT "SEGMENI' NO. ";1 "TULTCKSF)=";TUCI) "M=";M(I)" L(FT)=";L(IJ "B(F
T)=";B(I) "AECKIPS)=";AE(I)
635 NEXT
61,00 LPRINT
61,05 '==========================================================================
650 CLS
660 INPUT "PRESS/STRESS LEVEL AT POINT="; PL
670 LPRINT "PRESSURE/STRESS LEVEL AT POINT=";PL
680 LPRINT ,,--------------------------------------------------------------------
-"
690 LPRINT "I SEGMENI' STRESS LEVEL TOP DISP( In) I TOP LOADCKip5)
I"
700 LPRINT ,,--------------------------------------------------------------------
-"
710 QP=PL*QN
720 ZP = ZR*PL*C!+BP*PL-RPl
725 IF BB=l GOTO 71,00
730 IF Q$="Y" OR Q$="y" GOTO 7000
71,00 IF QP>MP THEN QP=MP
750 ZB=ZP: QB=QP
760 FOR 1=1 TO N
770 Zl=12*(QB*L(Il )/(2*AECIl J
780 ZM = ZB + Zl
790 OZ=Zl
800 GOSUB 2000
810 IF BB=O THEN GOTO B20 ELSE IF SL > 1 THEN SL 1
B20 T=SL*TUCI): IF BB=l GOTO B30
B25 IF T>TLCI) THEN T=TL(Il
B30 PI = 3.11,0159: IF S$="S" OR S$="5" THEN PI="
BI,oO S=PI*B(I)*L(Il*T
850 QT=QB+S
860 Zl=12*(QT+3*QB)*LII)/C8*AEIIl l
870 Z2=12*(QT+QB)/2*LCI)/AEII)
8BO ZT=ZB+Z2
890 ¥=(Zl-0Z)/Zl
900 IF ABSI¥) < .00001 THEN GOTO 9000
910 GOTO 780
920 '========================== OUTPUT ========================================
930 LPRINT USING "II U II lI# Itt. IIltttl_ " ; r. SL. ZT. QT
91,00 IF I<N GOTO 101,00
950 K=QT/ZT
960 LPRINT ,,--------------------------------------------------------------------
134
970 LPRINT "STIFFNESS. KlKips/ln)=";K
980 LPRINT "POINT DISPLACEMENTlln)=";ZP
990 LPRINT "POINT LOAD(Kips)=";QP
1000 LPRINT "==================================================~================
="
1010 PRINT "TYPE 'c' TO CONTINUE OR 'Q'TO QU!T"
1020 X$=INPUT$(l)
1030 IF X$="Q" OR X$="q" THEN SYSTEM ELSE GOTO 650
101,,0 QB=QT
1050 ZB=ZT
1060 NEXT
1070 END
2000 SL=,2
2010 OS=SL
2020 ZC=8*BlI)/M(I)*SL*(1+BX(Il*SL-RX(I»
2030 DS=(ZM-ZC)*MlI)*.125/BlI)/(1+(RXII)+1)*BX(I)*SL-RXlIl)
201,,0 SL=SL+DS
2050 E=IOS-SL)/SL
2060 IF ABS(E) ) .00001 THEN GOTO 2010
2070 RETURN
6000 FOR 1=1 TO N
6010 PRINT "SEGMENT NO. ";1
6020 INPUT "GAMMA-EFF(DECIMAL VALUE)=";GM(I)
6030 EQII)=GM(I)*B(I)/.125
601,,0 NEXT
6050 PRINT: INPUT "GAMMA-EFF AT PILE POINT"";GP
6060 IF B$="N" OR B$="n" GOTO 6080
6070 DP= B(l): GOTO 6090
6080 INPUT "PILE DIAMETER AT POINT (FT)=";DP
6090 EP=GPDP/12
6100 ZE=2*EP
6110 GOTO 500
7000 IF ZP)ZE GOTO 71,,0
7010 LP=.2: OP=LP
7020 ZN=ZR*LP*(l+BP*LP-RP)
7030 DP=(ZE-ZN)*ZR/l1+(RP+1l*BP*LP-RP)
701,,0 LP=LP+DP
7050 EE=(OP-LP)/LP
7060 IF ABS(EE».OOOI THEN GOTO 7010
7070 QE"LP*QN
7080 QP=IZP/ZE)*QE
7090 GOTO 71,00
9000 IF BB=l GOTO 930
9005 IF Q$="N" OR Q$="n" GOTO 930
9010 ZQ=ZB+2*EQII)
9020 IF ZM>ZQ GOTO 930
9030 OM=ZM
901,00 ZM=ZQ
9060 GOSUB 2000
9090 T=SL*TU(I)
9100 IF T>TLlIl THEN T=TL(Il
9110 PI = 3.11,0159: IF S$="S" OR 5$="s" THEN PI=1,o
9120 S=PI*B(!)*LII)*T
9130 S"(OM/ZM)*S
91/,0 0 QT=QB+S
9150 Zl=12*(QT+3*QB)*L(I)/(S*AE(I»
9160 Z2=12*(QT+QB)/2*LI!)/AE(!)
9170 ZT=ZB+Z2
9180 GOTO 930
135
Appendix D: Conversion Factors
1 in. = 25.4 rn_rn
1 ft. = 0.305 rn
1 kip = 4.45 kN
136
Drilled Shafts: Effects of Construction on Performance
and Design Criteria
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Drilled shafts, otherwise known locally as drilled piers, drilled caissons, bored
piles, cast-in-drill-hole piles, and by other similar names, often provide an economical
alternative to other types of foundations and are being used increasingly in
transportation structure foundations. A typical drilled shaft is formed by excavating a
cylindrical borehole in a geomaterial, possibly using installation aids such as casing
and/or drilling fluid, placing reinforcing steel in the borehole and filling the borehole
with fluid concrete. Occasionally, bases are enlarged to provide high base bearing
resistance, but this practice is decreasing in popularity for transportation structures
because of the time and risk involved in completing the enlarged base successfully,
coupled with increased confidence in estimating side resistance that is used to replace
the resistance lost by not enlarging the base.
A typical drilled shaft is shown in Fig. 1. Compressive axial resistance QUIL can
be computed for design purposes in one of two ways:
N
QuIt = L f max n As n+ qb Ab, or ( 1)
n =1
N
QuIt + W =L f max n As n+ qb Ab , (2)
n =1
138
where fmax is the unit side resistance at failure, 'lb is the unit base resistance at failure, n
is a geomateriallayer index, N is the total number of geomateriallayers through which
the shaft passes, As n is the perimeter area of the shaft in Layer n, Ab is the area of the
base and W is the weight of the drilled shaft. f max and qb are evaluated at comparable
settlements, about 0.05 D, to permit direct addition. Whether W is included in the
design equation depends upon whether it was included in the equilibrium equation
that was used to deduce values of f max and qb, either from loading tests or theoretical
computations, for the particular procedure being used. Normally, W is not included;
however, in all of the procedures attributed to Kulhawy and his associates, W is
included.
This paper will focus largely on procedures used to estimate fmax and qb and the
effects of geomaterial and construction details on their values. While excellent methods
have been developed elsewhere, most notably in Europe, for assigning values to f max
and qb from in situ test results, US practice, particularly in transportation engineering,
still relies heavily upon the unconfined compression test or UU triaxial compression
test to characterize rocks and cohesive soils and the standard penetration test (SPT),
along with rudimentary phreatic surface and unit weight information, to characterize
granular soils. It is the intent of this paper to describe construction effects in the
context of current design practice; therefore, geomaterial characterizations will largely
be limited to the tests indicated above.
LOAD TRANSFER
Most typically, the ultimate unit side shearing resistance, f max , is computed in
general practice in the USA from a single geomaterial parameter, su, by
f max = ex Su , (3)
in which Su is the undrained shear strength of the geomaterial at the elevation for which
f max is required and ex is a lumped constant of proportionality that depends potentially
on the effects of drilling disturbance on the geomaterial, pressures exerted on the sides
of the borehole by the fluid concrete, roughness of interface between concrete and
geomaterial, pore water pressure chnnges that occur during loading, and (not the least
important) the method used to assess suo Obviously, ex cannot be a constant or a simple
function of su, although such is generally assumed for design purposes. Mallard and
Ballantyne (1976) suggest that the use of the standard penetration test (SPT) is not
appropriate for correlation of drilled shaft performance in chalk, and this conclusion can
generally be extended to other cohesive geomaterials. Tomlinson (1976) also warns
that the selection of a value for f max in soft rock depends strongly on the presence of
fissures, hard rock nodules and other local anomalies, which require subjective
evaluation. This observation is relevant to whether the engineer selects an average
strength value from among the soil or rock tests used to characterize a geomateriallayer
for design purposes or a value near the upper or lower limit. In this paper it is
139
suggested that the value selected be representative of the strength judged to be
operational in the majority of the undisturbed geomaterial, with consideration being
given to the effects of soft geomaterial embedded within the principal geomaterial
matrix, discussed subsequently.
The most striking aspect of Fig. 2 is the disparity in the various correlations
shown for hard clay and soft rock (su > 3 bars) (Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993; Williams
et aI., 1980; Hassan and O'Neill, 1993). Superimposed on this figure are data points
from full-scale load tests reported recently by Turner et aI. (1993), Hassan and O'Neill,
Goeke and Hustad (1979) and Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota (1991). All of the data for
the correlations Turner et a1., Hassan and O'Neill and Goeke and Hustad are for "clay
140
- - Kulhawy and Jackson, 1989}Clay
Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993
1.0 N(Uf'·,
o '"
Typical G (U) .......' ..
a 0.8 Error 0 - ......-: ..
•.
..... .. .
Band (Clays) ~
0.6 "-
-- .:.. ':'_- -
.
•
........ ~
.....•
0.4
- ..
0.2
Clay Soft Rock
ol
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Su (bars)
Fig. 2. a vs. Su for Cohesive Soil and Very Soft Massive Rock
1.0 r
0.9
0.8
0.7 - Kulhawy and PhOon, 1993 I
0.6 .••.• Horvath, 1978
a 0.5
0.4
0.1
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Su (bars)
141
shales" in the midwestern USA, some of which tend to degrade to soil-like material at
the face of the borehole when drilled, particularly if the face has access to water during
drilling. The data from Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota are for tests in saprolite, a hard,
porous soil weathered in place from lava, and the upper limit of the shear strength data
appear to be more appropriate than the mean, probably due to the presence of harder,
less weathered layers within the principal strata of less hard materials that may not have
been sampled representatively. These limited data suggest that there is probably a
continuum of points spanning the two sets of relations in Fig. 2 in the domain of
"intermediate geomaterials" (very hard clay to very soft rock).
The effects of extreme borehole roughness are illustrated from studies involving
artificially roughening (grooving) the borehole wall. Turner et al. (1993) report
measuring a four- to five-fold increase in shearing resistance in a 0.85-m average
diameter shaft in a clay-shale formation when shear rings (grooves) 50 mm deep, 76
mm high, and spaced 460 mm vertically on centers, were used in a test shaft, compared
to the shearing resistance developed on a smooth-faced shaft. Horvath et al. (1983),
based on analysis of load tests in mudstones in southern Ontario, suggest that
roughness effects can be expressed by a "roughness" factor, RF, to calculate a when
the borehole is either naturally rough and without smear or when clean shear keys
(grooves) have been installed.
RF _ ~r L t
- r CS (4)
in which & is the depth of the shear key or natural asperity, r is the radius of the shaft,
L t is the total length of the vertical path from the top of the socket to the base, including
the path along artificial grooves and/or natural asperities, and L s is the length of the
socket. The lower limit of RF is 0.01 - 0.03 (Horvath et aI., 1983), which can be
assumed to represent a "smooth" shaft. RF for the shaft reponed by Turner et aI. is
0.143.
Horvath et al. (1983) also suggest a simple correlation for a (interpreted by the
authors to be used to multiply one-half of the compressive strength of the rock or the
concrete, whichever is lower) based on RF:
142
augers, with varying amplitude and wave length. Between the concrete and
undisturbed soft rock is a potential zone of smeared rock of variable thickness. An
axisymmetric finite element analysis was conducted for the hypothetical socket shown
in Fig. 5. The concrete shaft is a linear elastic material and the undisturbed and smeared
soft rock have the properties indicated in Fig. 5, in which <P is the angle of internal
friction, 'V is the angle of internal dilation, Em is the mass modulus of elasticity, qu is
the compressive srrength, <Pre is the angle of interface friction and O'na is the initial
radial effective srress between the soft rock and concrete, which may be assumed equal
to the initial fluid pressure in the concrete column if slump and rate of placement are
conrrolled (considered in "Effects of Concrete Placement"). Dilation at the interface
was modelled explicitly by developing a mesh to conform to the indicated roughness
patterns, the geomaterial model was a simple extended Drucker-Prager model with
nonassociated flow, and the interface elements between the concrete and rock
represented an angle of interface friction of 30°.
The results of the analysis, also in Fig. 5, are shown for the case of a 305 mm
wave length, a = 25.4 mrn and t = 0 (smooth and rough sockets) and 15 mm.
smear zone
f (MPa)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
smear
zone 5
. ...
- Depth (m)
4: ' . o
\~ ' ..
Concrete Rock
--
E
§.
C
Gl
10
15
20
'• t
:~
:
~
: "•
\. .j:li"
\
3 OS
I
Ii:! Overburden
"",0
Sol1 argillaceous
Il\L rock SOCkel
E • 9.15 '"
t (thickness !Q:i 25 \ -i I-
of smear zone) en 30
,, 0.61m
143
These results indicate that the unit side shearing resistance, f, in a rough shaft without
smear, is about three times as high as that for a smooth shaft without smear at a
settlement of 25 mm and that the presence of a relatively thin smear zone causes the
performance to degrade nearly back to that of a smooth interface. It has also been
observed (Hassan, 1994) that the interface roughness of an as-built drilled shaft in clay
shale is less than that observed in the borehole before concreting, suggesting that the
smeared material is displaced by the fluid concrete, as suggested in Fig. 4, resulting in
a non-dilating interface.
In the case of limestone, McVay et al. (1992) have suggested a new method for
computing fmax , which correlates well with their load test data base in Florida
limestones, in which zero normal stress is assumed at the interface of the concrete and
rock at failure, consistent with a bonding, non-dilating interface. Here
(6)
in which qu is the unconfined compression strength and qt is the split tensile strength of
representative rock cores. It is easily shown that, based on this method,
so that a varies from 0.31 for a tensile to compression strength ratio of 0.1 to 0.71 for
a ratio of 0.5, indicating that tensile strength may be an index to borehole face
degradation in limestone.
144
Note that the tests of Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota (1991) yielded very high
values of a in saprolite, whether the side of the borehole was artificially roughened or
not. The high a values are probably not an artifact of inadequate shear strength
measurements, since the shear strengths at the test sites were investigated very
thoroughly by several methods. However, a comparison is made between a detennined
from the mean shear strength profile and from the upper bound profile, which may
more closely represent the mass strength of the saprolite considering the effect of the
presence of less weathered zones among the more highly weathered zones. Values of a
derived from the upper bound, in this case, are in close agreement with the relations of
Williams et al. and Kulhawy and Phoon. The reason for the high values of a in the
non-grooved shaft is not clear; however, it appears that the saprolite exhibited a
naturally rough borehole wall, without significant smearing, after drilling. Thorough
studies of the effects of natural borehole roughness in soft and hard rock have been
performed by Kodikara et al. (1992), Seidel and Haberfield (1994), Carter and
Kulhawy (1988) and others. Using a detailed triangular joint shearing model, which
reflects the effects of interface dilation during loading, Kodikara et al. conducted
statistical analyses of the effects of joint characteristics [irn = mean asperity angle
measured from the nominal surface of the borehole, isd = standard deviation of the
asperity angle, hrn = mean height (double amplitude) of the asperities, hsd = standard
deviation of the asperity height, D = shaft diameter, qu = soft rock compressive
strength, E rnass = soft rock mass modulus, and ana = normal stress on the interface
prior to loading (e. g., the fluid pressure of the concrete at the time of construction)].
The writers define degrees of natural roughness in terms of these characteristics in
Table 1, although a method of a priori prediction of roughness produced by a particular
drilling process is not advanced. A portion of their results, confirmed by the writers by
conducting constant normal stiffness direct shear tests on artificial mudstone, is shown
in Fig. 6. From this analysis, proceeding from a smooth shaft to a rough one increases
a by a factor of almost 2, which compares with a factor of 3 in the analysis of Hassan
and 5 in the loading tests of Turner. Recently, Seidel and Haberfield (1994) have
extended this model to more complex interfaces by using fractal geometry to define
roughness patterns. This model shows great promise in improving drilled shaft design
in soft rocks provided roughness and smear condition predictions can be made during
the design phase of a project.
It is noteworthy that the relation of Williams et al. (1980) (Fig. 2) suggests that
a values can be larger than 1, which reflects larger unit side resistance than the
indicated undrained shearing resistance of the hard clay or soft rock. Justification for
this relation comes mainly from loading tests in Melbourne Mudstone, but both
Williams et al. and Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) use limited field test data from other
formations to support this relation, as do the tests in saprolite reported by Parsons
Brinckerhoff-Hirota (1991). The reasons for this apparently unusual behavior are not
clear. In rough interfaces that do not smear, and in which the soft rock exhibits drained
behavior during shear. dilation at the interface may produce increased nonnal effective
stresses and thereby values of unit side resistance that exceed suo However, the models
of Kodikara et al. and Hassan do not reflect enough dilation to produce this effect.
Enlargement of the boreholes in test shafts, not considered in computing a, or effective
penetration of the formation by cement paste from the unset concrete, which effectively
increases the diameter of the borehole, could also impact the phenomenon. For
example, the saprolites in the tests of Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota have a complex
145
network of vesicles, which may permit cemenc paste penetration. Uncil further is
known about this phenomenon, it does not appear prudent to use a > 1 in design.
It is further possible to address the reasons for scatter in a for hard soils and
rock from another perspective not related to the effects of construction. If the parent
geomaterial contains horizontally stratified inclusions of softer soil, significant
reductions in a (e. g., from Williams et aI., Kulhawy and Phoon, Hassan and
O'Neill, or Horvath, whichever is appropriate) can be produced, as illustrated in Fig.
7, referring to results presented by Williams et al. (1980) and Pabon and Nelson
(1993). A factor, denoted E, can be added to the equation for f max , as follows, to
express this effect.
f max = a E Su , (8)
where Su is the undrained shear strength of the stronger material.
i m (0) 10 - 12 12 - 17 17 - 30
!!sd 0.35
hm
qu (bars) 5 - 100
A possible design relation for E is suggested by the lower envelope to the relations
shown in Fig. 7, based on the ratio of the Young's moduli of the rock mass to the intact
rock, E- E mass . A simple expression for this ratio, adapted after Kulhawy (1978), is
mtact rock
E mass _ 4: (9)
Eintact rock - (EinLact rock/E seam material)(L tseams) + L tintact rock'
146
0.8
-I-~rough~_{J
a
0.6
____!-f:-- m••i,m i
s:,:m.:.:;o: :;o: .,:t:. :h_ _
I
0.4
I
0.2
o ,:-'- ----...:.'------'-----~:.-...-------:....----:
o 50 100 150 200
1.0
f max = a £ Su
0.9 •
..j
0.8 :' 88
0.7
0.6
:7'
72: rOCk l,
~/.~.
.,..
0.5 :,. • ••• Pabon and Nelson, 1993
£
'" (laboratory)
~
0.4
- Williams et aI., 1980
0.3
0.2
i 46
(field)
0.0 L.....--"---'_~---'-_""""----'--..J'----'--~---'
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Emass
Eintact rock
147
and E = Young's modulus. For core recoveries less than about 50 per cent, E is very
sensitive to core recovery, and E (and fmaxJ simply cannot be forecast with any degree
of accuracy using the shear strength of the stronger material. In such cases field
loading tests are vital.
A direct field approach to the estimation of unit side resistance for drilled shafts
in rock has been suggested by Townsend et a1. (1993a). In this method, small-
diameter (150 nun ±) cores are made in a rock fonnation, the core holes filled with non-
shrinking grout, and the grout plugs (0.8 - 1.5 m long) are subjected to pullout tests
with the loading point at the bottom of the plug to reproduce approximately the Poisson
effect for compressive loading. The resulting interpreted unit side shearing resistance,
assuming no suction at the base of the plug, should be approximately the site-specific
value of f max , provided roughness and smearing effects are similar in the core and in
the full-sized drilled shafts. According to Horvath and Kenney (1979), plugs smaller
than about 150 nun in diameter exhibit significantly higher load transfer than do larger
plugs, perhaps due to dilation effects, which are diameter-dependent. Relatively little
difference in fmax is reported by Horvath and Kenney for plugs with diameters greater
than about 150 nun. Townsend et a1. (1993a) report results of six sets of plug pullout
tests, in which the pullout tests consistently predicted higher load transfer than occurred
in corresponding test shafts in clay shale and limestone (by an average factor of 2.7).
On the other hand, ratios of plug shearing resistance to f max deduced from a load test
were measured as low as 0.1 in conditions in which both the plug and the drilled shaft
were placed in a sandy shale under a polymer drilling slurry (Townsend et aI., 1993b).
As a practical tool for expressing the combined effects of smear and roughness, the
plug test shows promise but must undergo further development.
148
parameters, that equation can serve as a general guide to the rational selection of
nominal design values for unit shaft resistance f max when the construction method can
be forecast and agreed upon by the engineer and constructor. Factored resistances,
discussed later, should then be employed in the final design to account for the residual
uncertainties in making the evaluation of fmax .
On major projects, or on any project in soft to hard rock where core recovery is
less than 50%, large-scale field load testing to obtain site-specific design values appears
highly desirable. Expedient test methods (e. g., Horvath, 1990; Osterberg, 1994) may
serve to reduce costs for such tests, although it is important to interpret their results in
light of differences in testing conditions and loading conditions for the prototype shafts.
Base Resistance. Relatively less attention has been given to the estimation
of net ultimate unit base resistances in drilled shafts, qb, and effects of construction on
base performance, than to the estimation of ultimate unit side resistance, fmax . Reese
and O'Neill (1988) suggest that qb = Nc su, where Nc = 9, is appropriate from a
practical perspective for drilled shafts in stiff, cohesive soils with nominally clean bases
for base diameters of up to 1.9 m, although Nc can be influenced by soil stiffness and
anisotropy. For diameters larger than 1.9 m, an explicit analysis is recommended to
assess settlement, or a reduction in qb is suggested. Meyerhof (1983) suggests that Su
be averaged over about four base diameters below the base and that N c be taken to be as
low as 5 for sensitive clays. He also suggests that qb be reduced, conservatively, as
shown in Eq. 11, using a settlement-controlled definition of failure.
(11)
where D is the base diameter of the shaft in m. The authors' experience suggests that
this correction need not be applied to drilled shafts in very stiff to hard insensitive clay
of diameters less than 1.9 m when appropriate factors of safety or resistance factors,
described later, are used in design, and/or when an explicit settlement analysis is made.
In soft, cohesive mudstone that may contain seams of softer rock or soil,
Williams et al. (1980) suggest that qb be defined as the unit base pressure
corresponding to a settlement of 1 per cent of the base diameter, which is given
approximately by
qb = Ns E mass (12)
where N s is a factor shown in Table 2, and E mass is the mass modulus of the soft rock
below the base, which can be assessed from Eq. 9.
o 0.006
1 0.010
2 0.013
5 0.017
10 0.019
149
Williams et al. also warn that the above method applies only to clean bases and
that if it is suspected that debris (soft soil or sediments from drilling slurry) will exist
on the base, qb should be discounted in rock.
In massive rock, Rowe and Armitage (1987) suggest that qb ~ 5 Su (2.5 qu).
The value of 5 Su is about the value that would be anticipated if the failure mechanism
were the production of radial fracture in the rock at the base of the shaft, followed by
punching. This expression would therefore also appear to be appropriate for
horizontally layered soft rock, such as clay shales. Thompson (1994), in an analysis of
new full-scale loading test data in the southeastern USA concluded that qb ~ 3 qu in
argillaceous rock.
(13)
The factor Kb2 is particularly troublesome if cavities are found within two base
diameters of the bottom of the base. Townsend (1990) suggests that it may be
uneconomical to design with base resistance if it will be incumbent on contractors to
probe continually for sound rock and adjust shaft lengths accordingly in the field. That
is, one might design with Kb2 =0 and remove the requirement to probe for sound rock.
An argument could also be made for assuming base resistance equal to that computed in
the overburden soil, or to design without base resistance, if there is a fuzzy transition
zone from soil to sound rock. A somewhat different approach is suggested by Brown
(1990) for design in pinnacled and slotted rock where it may be difficult to obtain a
rock socket of sufficient length to carry the required load. It is suggested that if the
coverage of the area of the shaft base by rock is at least 75 per cent (the remaining being
soil-filled venical or sloping slots) the shaft may be considered adequate for base
resistance, as long as qb is assessed conservatively (e. g., authors suggest Kb2 = 0.5
±). Sloping fractures adjacent to soil-filled slots, however, are reinforced with rock
anchors to prevent premature and sudden failure if funher reductions in % are not
made. Such anchors are designed to take the full shear load along the fractures.
in which
K - 3[ 3 + X/D ] (15)
sp - 10 (l + 300 '6/X)O.5
The expression for Ksp is represented as being applicable for n.05 < xJD < 2.0 and 0 <
'6/X < 0.02, or 0 < '6/X < 0.1 if joints are filled with soil or rock debris. This method is
intentionally conservative relative to the recommendations of Rowe and Annitage
(1987), who assume essentially massive rock beneath the base of the shaft.
(17)
where K is the coefficient of earth pressure at the wall of the drilled shaft at side shear
.failure, Ko is the ambient coefficient of earth pressure at rest, ¢ is the effective angle
of internal friction of the soil, '6 is the angle of wall friction, and cr' vz is the ambient
vertical effective stress at depth z.
151
If all construction procedures affected every granu lar soil in the same way, ~o
o
and - would remain constant, and if it is assumed that the drilling process, which
(\)
produces large shear strains in the soil mass adjacent to the borehole, causes (\) to
approach its critical state value, which might be assumed to be nearly constant for all
uncemented sands, Eq. 17 becomes
change if the assumptions regarding (\), ~ and KK change. For example, Fig. 8 also
B 0
shows the profile of J3 computed by assuming the same parameters as above but using a
measured K o profile in moderately overconsolid:llcd sand (Withiam, reported by Stas
and Kulhawy, 1984). The concept represented by these relations potentially can be
used to develop design relations from loading ICSI data. That is, measured local side
shear resistance could be plotted as a functioll only of depth, since K o is a function of
depth at any given site. The accuracy of such n relation can be improved by assuming
that only A is a constant and measuring or estimating the site-specific variation of K o
with depth using in situ measurement devices (pressuremeter, stepped blade, etc.) or
using a correlation procedure with a common field test such as the SPT (e. g., Mayne
and Harris, 1993).
152
Reese and O'Neill (1988) recommended a design relation for ~ based on an
assumption for the variation of Ko similar to that commonly inferred along the Texas
Gulf Coast, where fine Recent and Pleistocene sands have been preconsolidated by
desiccation and may be considered aged. That relation is shown in Fig. 8 along with
the hypothetical relation and the relation based on the measured Ka profile (Withiam) in
a soil similar to that described for Texas Gulf Coast formations. That design relation is
now part of the standard FHWA design procedure. The intent of that relation is to
provide a near-lower enveloping relation for test data so that designers can
conservatively estimate unit side shear resistance on sites where direct measurements of
Ko or correlations of Ko with simple tests have not been conducted. ~, as defined here,
is intended to be a depth-local factor that is used to compute depthwise incremental
values of fmax , and not a global factor that is used to compute a mean value of fmax
over the length of the drilled shaft. Thompson (1994), in a recent analysis of load tests
on drilled shafts in rock weathered to granular soil in Alabama and Georgia, indicates
that the relation of Reese and O'Neill is generally conservative, as intended, except for
one test shaft in which fmax was exceptionally low for some unknown reason.
O 1.0 2.0
O;....----r-...,.....-,-....--r---r-;----r-...,.---,
5 o
o
10
L.
o
e- 15 • (cemented)
N
• 0\1
20
o
25 - Hypothetical. Simple Drawdown
•••••• From K o measured by Withiam (Stas and Kulhawy, 1984)
I - Reese and O'Neill, 1988
30 I _. - . Improved lower-bound design relation, N ~ 15
• Burch et aI., 1988, N ~ 15 except as noted
• Vrymoed, 1994, 30 $ N $ 70, 0.40m $ 0 $ 0.61 m
o Finno, 1989; Finno et aI., 1989; 10 $ N $ 70
@ Rollins and Price, 1993, gravelly sand
o O'Neill and Reese, 1978, 20 $ N $ 60, allUVium
o Parsons BrinckerhoH - Hirota, 1991, gravel and cobbles
o Matsui, 1993, sandy gravel, 28 $ N $ 35
L. O'Neill et aI., 1992, N=40
\1 O'Neill, 1992, N = 150, residual weathered rock
~ Baker et aI., 1993, alluvium
153
Recent data from full-scale test shafts in granular materials are also shown in
Fig.8. The data with the open symbols were derived from measured values of f max ,
whereas those with the closed symbols have been estimated by either (1) assuming that
the maximum net unit base resistance is 60 Nuncorrected (kPa), as recommended in
Reese and O'Neill, 1988), with a limiting value of 3 MPa for shafts with diameters less
that 0.61 m (Burch et al., 1988), and in which complete failure is defined as the applied
load corresponding to a deflection of 5 per cent of the shaft diameter, or (2) computing
f max from applied loads corresponding to a head deflection of 2.5 mm (Vrymoed,
1994). The latter series of tests were on shafts in dry or moist granular soils in
California with nominal (intended) diameters mostly in the range of 0.40 - 0.61 m.
These shafts were loaded to deflections of only about 12 mm, as is the custom within
the design agency (Caltrans). Values for ~ from these tests are thus probably biased on
the low side, since the full side shear resistance is generally developed at
displacements larger than 2.5 mm in granular soil. The remaining data (Burch et aI.,
1988; Finno, 1989; Finno et al., 1989; Matsui, 1993; Rollins and Price, 1993; O'Neill
and Reese, 1978; O'Neill et al, 1992; O'Neill, 1992) are typically for test shafts with
diameters from 0.61 to 1.22 m in both dry and submerged conditions.
The data of Rollins and Price (1993), Matsui (1993) and Parsons Brinckerhoff-
Hirota (1991) are unique in that they represent gravelly soils (with cobbles in the case
of the Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota data). Results of load tests in residuum (fine
residual decomposed granite) and in sands cemented with calcium carbonate are also
shown for comparison. These data indicate that ~ tends to be higher than the Reese-
O'Neill relation in those geomaterials, particularly near the soil surface.
It is clear from the data that no unique relation exists for ~ vs. depth.
Geomaterial factors such as local variations in K o, cementation, and character of parent
material (e. g., effective pore size, which influences penetration of cement paste into the
formation, initial <I> and soil compressibility) affect the results. Undoubtedly, borehole
dimensions, interface roughness, drilling disturbance, time-dependent stress relief,
effects of drilling fluids, effects of concrete fluidity and placement methods and similar
construction factors also playa major role in this apparently chaotic situation. If the
data of Vrymoed (having a consistent bias toward underestimation of~) are given a low
weight, the design relation of Reese and O'Neill (1988) generally serves the intended
purpose of providing a conservative envelope. However, data from the University of
Florida data base (Burch et aI., 1988) indicate that for three short shafts (which had
nominal diameters of 0.36 - 0.65 m) in very loose sands, the method is
unconservative.
~nominal (sands) = 1.5 - 0.42 [z (m)] 0.34, 1.2 ~ ~ ~ 0.25; N ~ 15. (21)
154
Analysis of the data of Rollins and Price (1993), Matsui (1993) and Parsons
Brinckerhoff-Hirota (1991) indicate that ~ can be conservatively expressed for gravelly
granular soils using
Additional tests, conducted in uplift (Rollins et aI., 1994) confinned that unit side
resistance increases with gravel content of the soil.
Vrymoed (1994) provides a different interpretation of the data from his loading
test data base for tests in dry to moist silty sands in California for shafts longer than 5
m. For that set of data, and for the writer's method of interpretation of side failure load
(total load corresponding to 2.5 mm of movement), the most accurate global correlation
in this case was with N rather than with depth.
One could consider abandoning the B method of Reese and O'Neill for a
method that gives site specific values of Ko . A rational method for detennining f max
from SPT data as well as depth, as reflected by vertical effective stresses, has been
proposed by Mayne and Harris (1993), primarily from correlations in residuum in the
Piedmont region of the southeastern United States. At a given depth z the vertical
effective stress in the ground, cr'yZ' is estimated. From the blow count N60, in B/0.3
m, from an SPT log in which the energy transferred to the top of the drive string is 60
per cent of the drop energy of the SPT hammer or N has been corrected to N60, the
preconsolidation pressure crp ' can be estimated from
in which
Ko = (1 - sin <1» OCRsin ¢l (27)
155
If the fluid concrete stresses do not equal or exceed Ko (J'vz. as might occur when
concrete pressures are reduced due to the use of low-slump or prematurely setting
concrete, or in a small-diameter borehole in which arching of the concrete may occur. it
is likely that ~ will be < 1. The lateral pressure developed in the concrete column is
discussed funher under "Effects of Concrete Placement."
in which <I> is estimated from Eq. 25. Since this equation contains expressions for site
specific Ko (estimated from SPT data) and 8, it should give more accurate values for ~
than the method illustrated in Fig. 8.
• DepI" Dependent 6
o N COrr.rlled 6
2
d w
E A - , - - ., D r (WI = a
C d z·
"
/
"
E
c = Shalt Modulus
---...~ A = Shalt Cross-Secllonal
.- Area
_ 02
""'4 q
~ calculated q~
~ measured
w
156
For purposes of comparison, the method described above is tenned the "N
Correlated" ~ method, and the improved lower bound design relation suggested in Eq.
19 and Fig. 8 is tenned the "Depth Dependent" ~ method. Comparisons are made
between the two methods in Fig. 9 for the data of Vrymoed (1994), assuming 8 = 30°
in the former method and using averages of N along the shaft. Vinually no difference
is seen in the dispersion between the two methods, although they both give remarkably
accurate mean values. While some of the dispersion could be the result of the method
for interpreting the ultimate side resistance in shafts that were not instrumented, Fig. 9
nonetheless suggests that construction details (prompt vs. delayed concreting, irregular
boreholes, etc.), which may affect K and 8, and stratigraphic details not reflected in the
standard penetration tests result in significant uncertainty in the side resistance
predictions at this particular group of sites. While the N-correlated ~ method is clearly
superior to the Depth Dependent ~ method from a soil mechanics perspective,
construction effects at these sites appear to be so strong that no advantage can be taken
by using the N-correlated ~ method.
Jr =_----:'+'-- (29)
qO.5 tan <1>a '
in which q is approximated as the ambient vertical effective stress in tsf (96 kPa) at a
distance of one-half a base diameter below the base, <1>a is a stress-level-adjusted value
for the effective angle of internal friction (approximately 28° at shallow depth to 26° at
large depth, say 30 m, for loose sands; 40° at shallow depth to 37° at large depth for
dense sands) and,+, is a density factor (30 for loose sands and 110 for dense sands).
qb = N* q q, (30)
in which representative values for N*q for practical ranges of <1> and Jr are given Table
3.
Arguments can be made that the construction process alters the stress state and
density of granular soils near the base of a drilled shaft in an unpredictable way, and
that construction aids such as drilling slurry leave the base in a degraded condition not
accounted for by the fonnal method above, such that empirical correlations may provide
equally good estimates of unit base resistances.
157
Table 3. Bearing Capacity Factor N* q (after Kulhawy et al., 1983)
30 25 18 30 50 23 30 100 30
35 25 27 35 50 39 35 100 50
40 25 37 40 50 52 40 100 75
Reese and O'Neill (1988), through analysis of a limited data base, suggest that
there is a direct correlation between the uncorrected value of Nand qb when base failure
resistance is defined as the resistance developed at a movement of 5 per cent of the base
diameter. The correlation equation for sand under drained loading is
High-quality load transfer data in the lests of Rollins and Price (1993) allowed
the authors to interpret base resistance relative to the SPT N values in overconsolidated,
partially submerged Utah sandy gravels, which are
For conservative design, therefore, one may take correlations for % near the
lower limits of the above methods, e. g., Eqs. 30 or 31, with the understanding that
careful base cleanout procedures will be carried out, especially if the shaft is
constructed under slurry. Clearly, more research is needed in this subject area.
For rapid loading and in relatively impenneable sands, where undrained failure
cannot be assured, a lower limit value of % C:ln be estimated by using the correlational
method of Mayne and Harris (1993):
158
Undrained failure is assumed, in which
~ - 0.230eRo.8 (38)
cr'v z
qb = 9.33 su (39)
Obviously, to assure safety, punching failure should be investigated and
accounted for in drilled shafts founded in layers of granular soil above softer soils (e.
g., Meyerhof, 1976).
LOAD-SETTLEMENT 8EHAVIOR
Predictive Method
Unlike terrestrial driven piles, drilled shafts for transportation structures are
usually constructed most economically with large diameters, making settlement analysis
advisable. Several techniques exist for the direct simulation of load-settlement behavior
of drilled shafts without the use of a computer (e. g., Pells and Turner, 1979; Williams
et aI., 1980; Rowe and Annitage, 1987; Hassan, 1994). These techniques are
generally based on parametric finite element analyses of shaft-soil interaction.
However, for purposes of this presentation, it will be assumed that load-settlement
behavior will be simulated using the simple and straightforward load transfer method
159
originally proposed by Coyle and Reese (1966), in which the differential equation of
the deformable drilled shaft, transferring load to the geomaterial locally through
nonlinear Winkler springs, is shown on Fig. ID. Also depicted there is a physical
discrete element model whose internal and external equilibrium and shaft soil
compatibility are satisfied to provide a close approximation to the solution of the
differential equation. The Winkler springs are represented by unit side load transfer vs.
local displacement relations ("f-w curves") and unit base load transfer vs. local
displacement relations ("q-w curves"). Computations can be carried out using readily
available software (e. g., Reese and Wang, 1989). The key to the computations is the
defmition of the f-w and q-w relations, which are discussed in the following.
Cohesive Soil
Sides. Analysis of the data base of Reese and O'Neill (1988) indicates that
unit or total side load transfer relations can be normalized as shown in Fig. 11. Thus,
the f-w relation can be developed with reasonable accuracy from fmax (which can be
estimated, for example, from Fig. 2, with appropriate consideration of construction
effects) and shaft diameter, D. The bounds depicted represent the range of construction
effects.
Base. Similar normalized relations for base resistance derived from the data
base of Reese and O'Neill (1988) are shown in Fig. 12. A q-w relation can be
developed knowing qb (e. g., Eq. 8) and base diameter.
Granular Soil
Trend lines from a data set from full-scale tests conducted in the Osaka, Japan,
area (Matsui, 1993) are superimposed on Fig. 13 to illustrate the possible effect of
construction method. At shaft settlements less than about 0.002 D, the relations are
similar to those of Reese and O'Neill, but thereafter, the Osaka data exhibit much softer
response. One explanation for the differences in the two data sets is that all of the
shafts in the Osaka tests were excavated with a Benoto device, except for one, which
was excavated with a reverse circulation drill, whereas the tests in the Reese and
O'Neill data base were excavated with augers. The diluvial sediments in Osaka are also
more prone to creep than the soils at most sites in the data base of Reese and O'Neill.
Base. Relations between net base stress q and local movement w derived from
several full-scale loading tests in overconsolidillcd sands were expressed in normalized
form by Reese and O'Neill (1988), as given in Fig. 14. This figure can also be used to
develop q-w curves for load-settlement analysis provided % is evaluated appropriately.
160
1,0
0,9
0.8
0,7
0,6
,Q
r::' 0,5
a
- - Range 01 Results - - Range of Results
0,2 ~
0,1
'~ (%)
; ('!o)
Fig. 11. Nonnalized Side Behavior Fig. 12. Nonnalized Base Behavior
(Clay) (Clay)
2,0
1,8
1,0 r- // -'-'-;:':'-="-==---""",=
1,6
/
I
I
1,4
0,8 :
I
i 1,2
i
Defined
0,6 ei 1,0
Failure -
,I
"
!i - - Reese and O'Neill (19881:
:i
0.4 H-
Range 01 Results for
Deflection-Softening Resconse
0,8
ITTI Data
Range 01 Osaka
(MatSUI, 1993)
0,0 '----'----'---'----'--:....---'--:....--- 0.0 0"---'--:2:--~3-~---6---7-a:---9-'~0-11-12
0,0 0,2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1.0 1,2 1.4 1.6 1,8 2.0
~ ('!oj' %('!o)
Fig. 13. Nonnalized Side Behavior Fig. 14. Nonnalized Base Behavior
(Sand) (Sand)
161
A new and promising alternate approach to the development of q-w relations for
drilled shafts in sand is suggested by Ghionna et al. (1994), based on a large number of
deep plate load tests in a calibration chamber. The soils tested were unaged normally
consolidated sands and overconsolidated sands with OCR's of up to 7. This approach
requires a knowledge or an estimation of the low-strain Young's modulus of the sand
near the base of the shaft, Eo, obtained, for example, by in situ seismic testing or, less
desirably, through the simple SPT correlation of Ohsaki and Iwasaki (1973):
in which
0.1
KN OCR> 2.5
is near top
bound a
0.01
w
o
Fig. 15. KN vs. Normalized Base Displacement (Ghionna et al., 1994)
162
on Fig. 15, but no discernable difference is observed in KN for ~ > 0.005. Since KN
is dependent on displacement, the process of developing q-w relations from Eqs. 41
and 42 is an iterative one. It should be kept in mind that the conditions of the
calibration chamber tests represent the optimum contact condition at the base of the
shaft, and the field q-w relation would obviollsly be affected by the effectiveness of
base cleaning procedures in the field, the effects of unloading and reloading of the soil
during drilling and concreting and, possibly, scale.
Rock
Sides. The specific forms of the f-w relations are important for the analysis of
rock sockets. Osterberg and Gill (1973), in the first significant finite element study of
the elastic behavior of drilled shafts bonded to rock, determined that the rate at which
load is transferred from the concrete shaft into the rock along the sides depends upon
the length of the socket and the relative stiffness of the concrete and socket materials,
with higher rates of load transfer always occurring near the top of the socket than near
the base, especially in cases in which the rock is stiffer than the concrete. Koutsoftas
(1981) reports experimental data indicating significant dissipation of f with depth in
mica schist rock. Both of these studies suggest that progressive failure can occur
"macroscopically" along the shaft from top to bottom.
In most cases, however, loading along path OABC appears not to occur
because the interface asperity pattern is not regular, some degree of smear exists, and
the asperities are deformable, which results in ductile, progressive failure among
asperities (Johnston and Haberfield, 1992; Kodikara et aI., 1992; Seidel and
Haberfield, 1994; Hassan, 1994). A hyperbolic expression illustrated by the dashed
line in Fig. 16 would appear to be a reasonable interim criterion for the f-w relation at a
given elevation in most rock until better solutions become accepted. Assuming f max at
the elevation of interest can be estimated (e. g., from Fig. 2 , 3 or 6), a simple equation
for the f-w relation can be written.
163
w
f = 2.5 Dw (43)
--+--
E mass f max
Judgment must be applied when using Eq. 43, as conditions that promote the behavior
depicted by path OABC are possible with drilling techniques that produce regular
asperity patterns. Johnston (1994) warns that methods such as the f-w method shown
in Eq. 43 elicit criticism because they do not explicitly consider failure mechanisms and
that rational models (e. g., Johnston and Haberfield, 1992) that include random
asperity patterns, interface slippage at low defOImation levels, subsequent progressive
shearing of asperities and effects of interface dilation on normal stresses, rock stiffness
and similar factors provide the best approach toward the ultimate solution of the
problem of load-settlement behavior of drilled shafts in soft rock.
Base. Very few loading tests have been carried to failure on end-bearing rock
sockets. Therefore, a simplified q-w model, adapted from Williams et al. (1980)
appears appropriate at present for design. For a selected value of w, the ratio of base
bearing stress corresponding to elastic base behavior of the rock, qe, to qb, the bearing
capacity corresponding to a settlement of 0.01 D, is given by
~_ w (44)
qb - N s D (l-v 2 ) I p
164
~_ w
(45)
qb - 0.6 D N s
for sockets with LID ~ 6, where N s is evaluated from Table 2. Pp, the plastic stress
ratio, resulting from nonlinear behavior of the rock and the contact, is then evaluated
from Fig. 17 using the calculated value of ~. Then, corresponding to the selected
qb
value of w,
(46)
qp = stress
producing
plastic
""
component of "
displacement
.Q
C"
2 , ,
C1I
C"
, ,
, ,
Mean
"
", Bounds
I "
""
I ""
0
0 2
Pp =qp / qb
Fig. 17. Relation for Plastic Stress Ratio (Williams et al., 1980)
The extent to which construction influences the q-w relation in rock is not well
understood. Stress relief effects could be significant in horizontally laminated clay-
shales and similar geomaterials, and borehole cleanliness can affect the initial slope of
the q-w relation.
165
Em D
SN - (48)
- 2 Qsocket Wsocket
where Em is a secant mass rock modulus at one-half the compressive strength of the
rock, Qsocket is the applied load at the top of a socket with diameter D, and Wsocket is
the settlement of the top of the socket. Creep settlement, ~SN (settlement occurring in
the period after one day of sustained load), can be expressed by
In the above expression cnrp is a normalized primary creep coefficient in mm/1og cycle
of time in days, Cnrs is a normalized secondary creep coefficient in the same units, tp is
the time of primary creep, approximately 100 days in the tests reported, and t is the tlme
after applying the sustained load. Test results indicate that the creep coefficients are
dependent on construction, expressed by the degree of roughness at the concrete-rock
interface. For smooth interfaces (RF = 0.025, cna> = 0.1 ± and Cms = 0.03 ±, while
for rough interfaces (RF > 0.08), cnrp = 0.06 ± and Cms = 0.01 ±. Further research is
needed to establish the validity of these predictions for conditions in which significant
smear develops at the interface, significant load is transferred to the base and for other
rock formations, but the study serves to indicate that side shear creep settlements can be
2 - 3 times the elastic settlement when sustained loads are applied over the period of
primary creep. Such settlements may still be inconsequential to strucmres as long as the
short-term, elastic settlement remains small.
Other Methods
Other practical methods exist for the prediction of load-settlement behavior.
For example, Mayne and Harris (1993) has adapted the elasticity-based method of
Randolph and Wroth (1978) to the prediction of the total load-settlement relation in
granular soil without the use of a load-transfer-analysis program. Bustamante and
Gianeselli (1993) describe methods for developing f-w and q-w relations for various
geomaterial types from pressuremeter tests. Fleming (1992) has described a method
("CEMSET") for settlement computations in soil and soft rock using hyperbolic f-w
and q-w relations based on geomaterial rigidity and coupling of such relations through
computation of elastic shortening of the shaft, and England (1993) has extended this
method ("TIMESET") to include the effects of loading time on the load-settlement
response.
EFFECTS OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT
It is of interest now to focus upon quantitative information concerning
construction practices other than excavating, beginning with concrete placement.
Increasing the concrete fluidity and rate of placement, decreasing the period of time that
the borehole is open and increasing the drop height of the concrete are expected
intuitively to have a salutary effect on the magnitude of effective pressure that is
eventually developed at the concrete-soil interface (both base and sides) and therefore
on the magnitude of fmax and possibly, but to a lesser degree, qb. Bernal and Reese
(1983) reported measurements of radial pressures in a 1.07-m-diameter steel form,
assumed to represent the pressures in a borehole in stiff soil, as a function of concrete
slump and rate of placement. The measured horizontal concrete fluid pressures, O'hc,
for a temperature of 25°C, are summarized in Fig. 18. It is observed that the pressures
remained essentially as defined by the hydrostatic pressure of the concrete column (!<c,
166
ratio of lateral pressure in the concrete column to unit weight of concrete, Yconcrete,
times depth, z, = 1) when very high slump and high rate of placement (14 m per hour)
were employed. Bernal and Reese measured subsequent reductions in the lateral
pressures of about 40 per cent as the concrete cured above-ground in the test form;
however, O'Neill and Reese (1970), through long-term radial srrain measurements in
full-scale drilled shafts, observed that concrete, once placed in an actual drilled shaft in
a saturated soil does not contract while curing; therefore, the total lateral fluid concrete
pressure at the time of concrete placement is probably nearly equal to the normal radial
interface stress at the time of loading unless stress relaxation occurs in the soil.
Although K is also influenced by the initial effective stresses in the soil, since concrete
stresses dissipate rapidly in the radial direction near the shaft wall (Kulhawy, 1984), as
a fIrst approximation one could take
Eq. 20 for Ko, this will occur when
:0 = 1 in Eq. 17 if Yconcrete ICc ~ Y soil Ko . Using
For example, for a typical drilled shaft in granular soil where <I> = 36°, OCR = 3 and
"{'soil = 0.83, Kc ~ 0.65 for ~ = 1 to be valid according to the premise advanced
Yconcrete 0
here. This will be the case, according to Fig. 18, for slumps of 178 nun and rates of
concrete placement of 11.6 m per hour or higher, but not for lower slumps or lower
rates of placement. For the 114 mm slump test, ICc = 0.3, which is insufficient to
replace the lateral effective stress that was present in a sand deposit before excavating
(Jlle (k Pal
a lOa 200
1
..',\
" '.
, \
2
. \
\
I \
\
3 I- \
,
i " \
Form Dlame,er = 1.07m
I.r::. 4 r ,
\
\
,,
Q.
a.
c
q- " ,
\
~
\~
6. \1\
6 \
\
I \
\
i;o. \J\
:t
\
" \
"'
"'
6.tr D .
6. 114· mm slump / 9.1 m per hour
'V 127· mm slump I 12.5m per hour
o 178· mm slump, 11 .6m per hour
o 241 • mm slump /14.0m per hour
167
unless the sand is submerged, normally consolidated and has a 4> value of no more than
300 (i. e., has a very low in situ lateral effective stress). In this case ~ will be
Ko
reduced to a value less than 1, requiring that Eqs. 21 or 26 be modified to give a lower
value of f max . Slump and rate of placement can be seen, therefore, to have an
important effect on the theoretical value for fmax.
Actual data on the effect of concrete slump on the ratio of predicted to measured
drilled shaft side and base resistance presented by Long and Shimel (1989) and Long
(1994) from an analysis of a large data base are shown in Fig. 19. One would expect
based on the previous discussion a general trend toward lower capacity ratios with
increasing slump; however, both base and side resistance tend to be independent of
slump in Long's data base. Other factors such as initial effective soil stresses, concrete
drop distance, time between opening the borehole and concreting and variations in
load testing methods may have had an effect on the performance of the shafts in this
data base, producing the lack of correlation. Borehole diameter may also be a
significant variable, since a linear distribution of concrete pressure is expected to occur
to smaller depth in shafts with small diameters due to concrete arching in the borehole.
Concerning the effect of time that the borehole remains open, De Beer (1988)
reviewed a series of loading tests conducted on drilled shafts constructed under a
bentonite slurry in sand. In one case (Fig. 20 a) the borehole was excavated and was
concreted immediately. In the other case (Fig. 20 b) the borehole was excavated but
was allowed to remain open for approximately two weeks before concreting. CPT
results indicate very little reduction in density in the soil surrounding the shaft that was
concreted immediately; however, a major reduction occurred in the extreme case in
which the borehole was allowed to remain open for two weeks. Since unit shaft and
base resistances correlate to cone resistance qc, reduction in unit resistance is suggested
Concn. Slump (mm,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
so I i
I
-; • J
..
"E
2.0
• •
-..
0 1.0
• • •••• I
s-
• •
Ol
Q.
-" 0.5 •
•
0
• •
0.2 '
I
5.0 i
Ii
!
I!
..
-;
2.0 ~ ...!
E I
-",
I
s- ••
0
.-
1.01
i • I• • •
-",
Q.
0.5
!
~
• • •• •• •
0
"1
I
0.2
I i
• I
Fig. 19. Effects of Concrete Slump on Measured Load Transfer (Long, 1994)
168
Cl C (MPa)
o 10 20 30
r--~....----r--::::-c-:----r----...,
o 10 20 30
,
°
~~ .':;
'"
" . ~Orilled
ShaM,
-
O=0.59m
- '?~-L
5
--" .. ,0- ........
I .... I -:: ":::>
'" I
:[ ,
.'
J:
Q.. -:.""
- ."
'. I
OJ
o 10
. . .=--.. I
.:.:.:
0--
"'-I~
I-'~'
I
15 ~ .. _.,;........ ,-
l"
>
~
20
It
- - Cl c before drilling 30 ,-'---"""----~---....;
- - Cl c after installation allm
Irom shall surface - - Cl c before drilling
- - Cl c aMer installation all m
Irom shaM surface
Fig. 20 a. qc Near Shaft Excavated and Fig. 20 b. qc Near Shaft Concreted
Concreted Quickly (De Beer, 1988) Two Weeks After Excavation
(De Beer, 1988)
in Fig. 20 b. Since the effect of delayed concreting has affected soil density to at least 1
m from the face of the pile, Fig. 20 has some relevance to group behavior, which will
be discussed later.
169
effective stress to the soil framework, which aids in preventing the soil from caving
during the drilling process. Simultaneously, the developing mudcake impedes the flow
of slurry into the formation. In order to perform its intended function as a membrane
during excavation in permeable soils the cake must be sufficiently strong and thick such
that it is not completely scoured off the sides of the borehole by the rising column of
fluid concrete. In soils that are essentially impermeable (e g., massive, highly plastic
clays) mudcakes appear not to build up, so there is no apparent loss of side load
rransfer due to the presence of residual cake (e. g., Cooke, 1979; Tucker and Reese,
1984). However, Baker et al. (1994) report considerable degradation of side shear
stiffness in a test shaft left exposed to bentonitic slurry for six days before concreting in
residual ML and MH soils. It is unknown whether part of this effect may have also
been caused by stress relaxation in the soil due to excessive open hole time.
The preponderance oflaboratory studies conducted in the past (e. g., Fanner et
al., 1970; Eide et al., 1972; Wates and Knight, 1975) indicate that the use of bentonitic
drilling slurry reduces the unit shaft resistance of drilled shafts in sands by 10 - 25 per
cent relative to the resistance that would exist without the use of bentonitic slurry.
Polymer slurries do not form effective mudcakes, although the long chains of
the polymers can encapsulate clay and silt panicles mixed through the drilling process,
which are then transponed to the borehole wall as filtration of the slurry into the
formation takes place. Primarily, however, the function of a polymer slurry is to
increase the effective stresses in the soil at the borehole wall by increasing the viscosity
of the filtrate while a hydraulic gradient is maintained between the slurry column and
the pores of the soil. This action enhances hole stability as long as the pressures in the
slurry column exceed the hydrostatic groundwater pressures in the formation. Since
the propensity for the existence of residual mudcake is small, polymer slurries have the
potential of producing drilled shafts with very good perimeter load rransfer propenies.
Polymer slurries are relatively new innovations in drilled shaft construction that
may have economic and environmental advantages over mineral slurries. Beresford et
al. (1989) and Kheng et al. (1991) describe desirable rheological propenies for polymer
slurries, including the use of higher viscosities than for mineral slurries for maintaining
hole stability and simultaneously achieving adequate contact between the concrete and
geomaterial.
Majano et al. (1994) repon a systematic laboratory study to quantify the effects
of both mineral and polymer slurries on side load transfer in model drilled shafts in
clean, fine sand. Model test shafts, 25 mm in diameter and 150 mm long, were
installed under slurry in a manner to simulate field construction ana filtration
phenomena. The unit side resistance, fmax , was measured and related to the effective
isotropic confining pressure crc, in a test chamber, as shown in Table 4 for doses that
represent those used in the field [5.0 Nil for bentonite and attapulgite slurries, 0.14 Nil
for solid vinyl polymer, and 1/400 by volume for a commercial partially hydrolized
polyacrylamide (PHPA) polymer]. Tests were also conducted on model shafts
constructed by pushing thin-walled casing into the sand, removing the soil from the
interior of the casing and concreting while the model casing was being extracted. Note
that f max = tan 8. The angle of internal friction of the sand <I> in the tests was 36°. The
o"c
study tended to confirm past studies that suggested reduced values of side load transfer
due to using slurry. For example, in no slurry test was 8 ~ <1>. The jacked casing
method of installation clearly produced superior load transfer characteristics, since all
borehole walls were smooth, and the slurry was not completely scoured off the walls
170
by the model concrete (fluid grout), preventing penetration of the soil pores by the
value that can be assumed for design with slurry construction), f max must exceed
O'c
0.445. This value is exceeded for all slurries at the above dosage at short exposure
time, which indicates that any reduction in load transfer can be accounted for rationally.
In the field, higher values of f max will probably ensure because of the effects of
O'c
borehole roughness.
Bentonite 0.50
Attapu1gite 0.54
Majano et al. (1994) also report the effects of various contaminants on the
properties of the slurry and the performance of the completed model shaft, and they
suggest ranges of slurry properties that always produced.Q. > 0.67 in the model tests.
<I>
In general, polymer slurries were more resistant to the effects of contamination than
were untreated mineral slurries. Model shafts constructed with polymer slurries, at
several dosages at, above and below the dosages reported above exhibited increasing
side load transfer with exposure time, whereas there was a tendency to exhibit
decreasing side load transfer with exposure time when using mineral slurries (with
some exceptions). Generally, polymer slurries, when properly used, produced model
shafts with load transfer characteristics equivalent to or better than the model shafts
constructed with mineral slurries.
171
borehole just prior to concreting. ~ values are reported for the shaft as a whole
(average over depth indicated), since there was no internal instrumentation, and are
reported based on the assumption that there were no geostatic water pressures in the
soil pores.
The pH levels were kept at 7 for the solid vinyl and 9 for the PHPA, as
recommended by the slurry manufacturers. Polymer slurries do not suspend sand, and
so had very low sand contents at the time of casting. The fluid in the water-only shaft
had a high solids content (both sand and fine-grained soil), demonstrating that the
polymers appear to assist in sedimentation.
There was essentially no effect of the type of polymer used on side load
transfer. Although the polymer shafts had somewhat lower capacities than the
reference shaft constructed with water only, they did possess ~ factors that were higher
than the design factors presented in Fig. 8.
172
mineral drilling slurry in the construction of drilled shafts in saturated silty sand,
reponed by the FHW A (Baker et al., 1993), produced the load test results shown on
Fig. 21. The characteristics of the slurries used in the tests on two shafts, Shaft A and
Shaft B, which were both 11.5 m long and 0.91 m in nominal diameter, are indicated in
Side Shear Resistance
(kN)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
In ... ...
0 In 0
N
In
N
0
M
In
M
0
IJI,
.·.
,
10
•
20
~
-0- No Mudcake Buildup
40
.'
•
I
50 l
Fig. 21. Comparison of Side Resistance in Drilled Shafts in Sand with Proper and
Poor Bentonitic Slurry Construction (Baker et al., 1993)
173
Table 6. Although reduction in soil density due to excessive time between drilling and
concreting (e. g., Fig. 20 b) may have contributed to the reduction in capacity, the
order of magnitude of capacity loss that is suggested in Fig. 21 cannot be entirely due
to that effect. The use of improper slurry properties for Shaft A can therefore be seen
to have produced a large reduction in side resistance.
Pells et al. (1980) describe substantial reduction in side resistance for a shaft
drilled into sandstone under well-controlled bentonitic slurry. In this case, the borehole
was described as smooth. It was thought that the solids in the bentonite penetrated the
pores of the sandstone, preventing the cement paste from doing so, thereby eliminating
or severely reducing any adhesive bond that developed between concrete and rock,
which may be important in smooth shafts. The practical solution in such a case is to
use plain water as the drilling fluid if the purpose of the drilling fluid is to balance the
groundwater head in a jointed rock and not to stabilize layers of granular soil.
In summary, while slurries used as installation aids appear to reduce unit side
shearing resistance in granular soils, and may do so in any geomaterial if proper
construction practices are not carried out, especially if long exposure times are
pennitted, the results appear predictable and indicate that acceptable performance can
usually be achieved using slurry. Note that Fig. 8 and the suggested design relation
were developed mostly from load tests conducted on shafts constructed under well-
controlled drilling slurry.
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT
The negative effects of rock or clay smear, residual drilling fluid cakes and
loosening of granular soils during the construction process may be partially or fully
reversed by post-grouting newly-installed shafts or by constructing the shafts initially
with expansive concrete. Bustamante and Gouvenot (1983) report results of tests on
drilled shafts in Europe that were post grouted in two ways: using external grout tubes
around the circumference of the shaft and internal grout tubes with valves at the base of
the shaft. Internal grout tubes can be installed prior to construction or can be made by
drilling through the completed shaft, the latter being much more expensive. Cement-
water grouts with grouting pressures of 2 - 3 MPa introduced through the base of the
shaft produced a 60 per cent increase in fmax and a 25 per cent increase in qb in a shaft
installed in very dense gravel under a bentonite slurry. An increase in f max of 250 per
cent was observed in a marl when grouting was accomplished through two external
grout tubes ("manchenes") placed diametrically opposite each other near the completed
shaft. Base grouting apparently improves f max because grout flows up from the base
around the lower circumference of the shaft.
174
casting, were pressurized with fluid grout at a pressure of about 5 MFa one to two days
after the shafts were cast, fracturing the green concrete around the tubes and greatly
increasing the lateral pressures on the soil at the shaft-soil interface. Typical increases
in shaft capacity of 200 - 300 per cent were noted in both granular and cohesive soils.
175
to 5 times that value. The authors suggest that drilled shaft groups require similar
values for clay but that Eb is approximately equal to E s for sand. Es for sand, but not
Eb, may be reduced to (1.5 ± 0.5) N in MFa if excessive open hole time is pennitted
while constructing shafts within the group, based on the evidence produced by De Beer
(Fig. 20) and correlations of Imai and Tonouchi (1982) between low-strain soil moduli
and CPT tip resistance qc. Reduction in f max may be of a similar magnitude, which
would justify the use of the approximate efficiency factors of Meyerhof, described
earlier, at least in cases where boreholes are open for an excessive period. Research is
needed to define more precisely the magnitude of that period. For practical purposes at
present any delays during excavation and concreting, especially in granular soil, should
be cause for concern.
Methods are also reported by Poulos (1994) for extending the calculations to
include nonlinear behavior. For more complex analyses (e. g., for load distribution
among shafts) procedures that explicitly consider all of the shafts, referenced by
Poulos, should be used.
0.5.--........,.------------
Settlement =
0.4
0.3
0.2
E:>c
- - =88
Es
Fig. 22. Equivalent Pier Group Settlement Computation Method (Poulos, 1994)
If the assumption is made that the installation procedure does not affect the
srress field around nearby drilled shafts in rock, or if the effect is known in tenns of
induced changes in the mass Young's modulus of the rock, parametric graphs
developed by Chow et a1. (1990), based on elasticity solutions, can be used CO estimate
the effects of loading on the stiffness of a group of rock-socketed shafts. For example,
the axial stiffness of a typical drilled shaft in a group is reduced co about 40 per cent of
its value as an isolated shaft if it is within a 3 X 3 shaft group spaced 3 diameters on
centers when the shafts are socketed into rock to a distance of 2 D for typical conditions
in which the mass Young's modulus of the rock is 0.01 times the modulus of the
176
concrete and 10 times the modulus of the overburden soil. For similar conditions but
with a 2 X 2 group the stiffness of each shaft is reduced to about 60 per cent of its
value as an isolated shaft.
SAFETY
The method used for assuring safe loads should take account, explicitly or
implicitly, of the influence of the geomaterial properties, construction procedures and
design methods. Traditional implicit approaches have used a single conservative factor
of safety or partial factors of safety for load and resistance. For example, Van Impe
(1991) describes three ultimate limit states (ULS) that are considered by the draft
version of Eurocode 7: ULS lA, bearing capacity failure of the foundation; ULS lB,
failure of the superstructure due to excessive differential settlements in the foundation;
and ULS 2, loss of serviceability in the structure due to excessive foundation
deformations. For ULS lA,
(51)
where Yf is a load factor and F IA is a partial factor of safety for resistance, QuIt is the
nominal (computed) ultimate capacity of the foundation corresponding to a settlement of
0.1 D, and Qd is the design load. Methods for computing QuIt that are described in this
paper are generally conservative for this approach, since they tend to be valid for
settlements in the order of 0.05 D. On the other hand, European practice relies heavily
on in situ tools, such as the CPT, for capacity computations, which are generally more
accurate than the Su and N or depth-dependent ~ correlations used extensively in the
USA and highlighted in this paper. Yf is nonnally in the range of 1.35 - 1.50, and FIA
is taken to be 1.4. These values calibrate back to the use of an overall factor of safety
of (Yf X FIA) = 2, which experience has proved to be successful in European
transportation practice. The same equation and values are used for ULS lB, except that
QuIt is evaluated, through load-settlement analysis (such as the method suggested in
Fig. 10 for single shafts and Fig. 22 for groups of shafts), at a value of settlement
corresponding to initiation of superstructure failure, which in the case of large-diameter
drilled shafts may be considerably less than 0.1 D. In ULS 2, the procedure is similar
to ULS 1B, except that a partial factor of safety for resistance is not applied to the value
of QuIt corresponding to foundation settlement at the onset of unserviceability.
Less traditionally, a probabilistic approach can be taken that will allow explicit
inclusion of the variations in drilled shaft performance, as affected by construction
methods and geomaterial properties, in the formulation for Qd. Franke (1990)
suggested that Qd corresponding to a specified value of settlement (e. g., 0.1 D for
ULS lA) be computed for design purposes from
Qd = exp (In QuIt(mean) - 0.5 [In (1 + vQ2)]O.5 - 0.8 P' [In (1 + vQ2)]0.5}, (52)
in which QuIt (mean) is the nominal foundation capacity computed using mean
geomaterial properties, vQ is the coefficient of variation of QuIt and P' is a safety index.
Franke indicates that one can take vQ = 0.3 for drilled shafts with primarily base
resistance and 0.2 for drilled shafts with primarily side resistance, for construction
practices employed in Europe, based on an extensive analysis of loading tests.
Obviously, however, vQ is a site- and construction-method-specific factor that should
177
be estimated by the designer for each project. For example, higher factors can be
expected in rock fonnations in which borehole smearing can occur during drilling and
free water seeps occur that will soften the borehole wall. Franke suggests that ULS 1
should correspond to a probability of failure of 10- 6 , rendering a value of Wof 4.7,
and that ULS 2 should correspond to a probability of failure of 10- 3, rendering a value
of Wof 3.0. Franke further states that with these values the traditional method (Eq.
51) gives lower values for Qd than the probabilistic method, so that the use of a
probabilistic approach can potentially result in economy of design.
In the USA Barker et al. (1991) have proposed practical load factor design
methods for drilled shafts that are based on the panicu1ar method used for calculating
QuIt. In addition, they consider an ultimate limit state that corresponds to structural
failure of the foundation. For bearing capacity failure:
N
L Yi Pi $; <Ps Qs + <Pb Qb , (53)
i =1
where Yi is the load factor corresponding to the ith load case (e. g., dead or live), Pi is
the value of the load corresponding to the ith load case, <l>s and <Pb are perfonnance
factors corresponding to the nominal computed side resistance Qs and base resistance
Qb, respectively. The load factors are intended to be the standard AASHTO load
factors (typically, 1.3 for dead load and 2.17 for live load).
The authors interpret the repon of Barker et al. to suggest <l>s = 0.65 in cohesive
soil and soft rock, when a conservative ex. correlation is used, and cDb = 0.55 in cohesive
soil and 0.50 in soft rock when correlations with compressive strength and
discontinuities are used (e. g., Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1985). Values of <Ps
and <Pb are not explicitly stated by Barker et al. for granular soils. but the data presented
herein (Fig. 8) suggest that if the depth-dependent p method, which is conservative, is
used for calculating Qs, <Ps should be in the same range as that used with a correlations
in cohesive soil. Including considerations for concrete slump and rate of placement,
time the borehole remains open and similar factors, a higher value of <l>s may be
possible on a site-specific basis with close construction control. Considering the
potential difficulty in evaluating the parameters for computing base resistance and
potential negative effects of the use of drilling slurries on base resistance with current
construction practice in the USA, it seems prudent to use a lower value of <l>b in
granular soils, perhaps in the range of 0.45, or even lower when comprehensive slurry
construction specifications are not followed. Considerably higher perfonnance factors
(in the range of 0.8) are recommended by Barker et al. if site-specific loading test data
are available. Perhaps such a high factor should be used, however, only if rigid
construction controls are followed that ensure that the quality of the execution of
prototype shafts is at least as good as that employed on test shafts and site conditions
are relatively unifonn (i. e., the location of the loading test is closely representative of
the entire site).
178
Structural serviceability states are generally considered in the same manner as
reponed by Van Impe (1991). Safety against structural failure of the foundation, when
only axial compressive loads are considered, is provided using:
(54)
in which Yd and YL are dead and live load factors, respectively, Pd and PI are values of
the dead and live loads, respectively, <1>a is a structural performance factor and P nom is
the nominal structural capacity of the drilled shaft considered as a shon column,
computed from:
In the above equation, f c is the target compressive strength of the concrete verified
using standard concrete cylinders, Ac is the area of the concrete in the cross section, f y
is the yield strength of the steel and As is the area of the steel in the cross section. llla is
taken to be 0.64 if spiral transverse reinforcement is used and structural integrity
(absence of voids or zones of soil-contaminated concrete) is assured.
The load factor and probabilistic approaches, while rational, are controversial
and will probably be altered before gaining general acceptance in the USA. The
probabilistic approach, in particular, provides a rational means of including the many
effects of construction on perfonnance in the selection of perfonnance factors.
However, increasingly more complex projects are being attempted that involve
engineers with relatively less field experience than their predecessors and contractors
who must constantly keep pace with technological developments. A logical, formal
procedure for ensuring that construction operations produce the desired foundation
performance is the use of a "decision suppon system," or coherent groups of
179
knowledge-based expert systems that address principal aspects of construction and that
are programmed for use on a micro-computer. Such systems can provide a common
focus and basis for discussion for both the engineer and the contractor, and they
provide a continuity of expertise developed over the years. Decision support systems
are developed through the use of domain experts, who have a holistic understanding of
both the construction and design processes, data bases and simulation programs that
can lead to appropriate key decisions for construction details that are displayed to the
users with a specified degree of certainty. High degrees of certainty indicate that the
experts whose knowledge is captured are reasonably certain that the proposed action
will produce the best solution at least cost, while low degrees of certainty indicate that
the problem is either so complex or so specific to a given site that significant human
expertise is necessary.
Expert systems for foundation construction have been criticized for taking
essential human judgment out of the decision-making process; however, when properly
programmed, they force the user to understand the subsurface details, and construction
effects, through consultation with a geotechnical expert if necessary, which may not
occur in unaided decision making. They are effective tools for "what-if' training for
young engineers and construction personnel who have not have sufficient field
assignments to develop appropriate experience.
INPUT OUTPUT
Type of
.0
Construction
STEP 2 Specific Details;
DSI\2-SPEC Taxonomy of
Method Method
.0 Cost Analysis
Resource STEP 3 Using
Data DSI\2-COST Spreadsheet
.0
Bid and STEP 4 Expected
Costing Data DSI\2·SIM Benefit
Drilling
.0 Drilling
Problem
STEP 5 PrOblem
Scenario DSI\2·DIAG Solution
180
(elements of specifications), (3) cost analysis from a data base of construction projects,
(4) expected benefits from using various types of drilling equipment and (5) diagnostics
for drilling problems. Because of the complexity of the problem, DS"2 is not fully
developed, and will never be fully developed, since technology and experience are
constantly changing. However, it provides a sound foundation for future development
that can make its use, or the use of similar decision support systems, an integral part of
drilled shaft design and construction.
An equally important development in the assurance of good performance in the
completed drilled shaft is a formal acceptance criterion system, such as that proposed
by Baker et al. (1993) and Baker (1994) for the US Federal Highway Administration.
This criterion, which addresses primarily the structural integrity of drilled shafts, is
holistic, in that it integrates observations made during construction, the level of stress in
the shaft, number of shafts in the foundation, defect tolerance, external non-destructive
evaluation (NDE) tests (e. g., pulse echo test) and internal NDE tests (e. g., crosshole
ultrasonic logging). The criterion is predicated on the premise that several evaluation
methods used in coordination are superior to a single type of observation.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of construction details on the performance of drilled shafts can be
profound. Borehole roughness, geomaterial degradation (smear), time of open
excavation, fluid concrete pressures and residual drilling fluid are factors that can be
quantified approximately, and they can be controlled where necessary by close and
continuous cooperation between the foundation engineer and the drilled shaft
contractor. This paper suggests bounds of the effects of these factors and gives a
framework in which they can be quantified for design purposes. Selection of specific
numerical design values for a given site are left to the geotechnical specialist having
knowledge of the behavior of the geological formations involved and a detailed
understanding of construction practices. Stratigraphic details not directly affected by the
construction process, such as the presence of soft seams or voids within rock and
gravel content of cohesionless soils, or initial state conditions, such as Ko and its
variation with depth, mass modulus and initial phreatic surface position, are also major
factors that should be considered in developing design rules. The alternative is the
continuation of present conservative design practice, which potentially wastes the
owner's resources. The complexity of the problem and the potential for cost savings
produced by considering construction details in design suggest that thorough
subsurface investigations, site-specific geotechnical and geological engineering
analyses and devices such as knowledge-based expert systems to connect the engineer
and the contractor are indispensable for improving the use of drilled shafts for
transportation projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Clyde Baker, Barry Berkovitz, Dan Brown, Deborah Fisher,
Fred Kulhawy, Scot Litke, James Long, Reniere Majano, Tamotsu Matsui, Paul
Mayne, Lymon Reese, Kyle Rollins, Julian Seidel, Robert Stott, Frank Townsend,
John Vrymoed and Kenneth Walsh for providing information used in this paper and/or
for providing critical reviews.
181
REFERENCES
Baker, C. N., Jr., Azam, T., and Joseph, L. S. (1994). "Settlement Analysis for 450
Meter Tall KLCC Towers," Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical
and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Vol. 2, Ed.
by A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Felio, ASCE, June, pp. 1650 - 1071.
Baker, C, N., Jr. (1994). "Current U. S. Practice in the Design and Construction of
Drilled Shafts," Proceedings, International Conference on Design and
Construction ofDeep Foundations, Orlando, FL, FHWA, December.
Baker, C. N., Jr., Parikh, G., Briaud, J-L, Drumright, E. E., and Mensah, F. (1993).
"Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations," Report No. FHWA-RD-92-004,
Federal Highway Administration, August.
Baker, C. N., Jr. (1989). Drilled Shaft Inspector's Manual, ADSC / DFI Joint
Caisson-Drilled Shaft Committee.
Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Rojani, K. B., Oai, P. S. K., Tan, C. K., and Kim,
S. G. (1991). Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations, NCHRP Report
No. 343, TRB, Washington, D. C., December.
Beresford, J. J., Cashman, P. M., and Hollamby, R. G. (1989). "The Merits of
Polymeric Fluids as Support Slurries," Proceedings, International Conference
on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vol. 1, Ed. by 1. B. Burland and J. M.
Mitchell, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3 - 10.
Berkovitz, B. (1994). Personal Communication, April.
Bernal, J. B., and Reese, L. C. (1983). "Study of the Lateral Pressure of Fresh
Concrete as Related to the Design of Drilled Shafts," Research Report 308-1F,
Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, November.
Brown, D. A. (1990). "Construction and Design of Drilled Shafts in Hard Pinnacle
Limestone," Transportation Research Record No. 1277, TRB, Washington, D.
C., pp. 148 - 152.
Burch, S. B., Parra, F., Townsend, F. C., and McVay, M. C. (1988). "Design
Guidelines for Drilled Shaft Foundations. Volume I: An Evaluation of Design
Methods for Drilled Shafts in Cohesion less Soils," Final Report, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October.
Bustamante, M., and Gouvenot, D. (1983). "Grouting: A Method Improving the
Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundation," Proceedings, Eighth European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Ed. by H.
G. Rathmayer and K. H. D. Saari, Helsinki, May, pp. 131 - 134.
Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli, L. (1993). "Design of Auger Displacement Piles from
In Situ Tests," Proceedings, International Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Ed. by W. F. Van Impe, Balkema, Rotterdam, June,
pp. 21 - 34.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 2nd
Edition, Bitech Publishers, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Carter, J. P., and Kulhawy , F. H. (1988). "Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft
Foundations Socketed into Rock," Final Report, EL 5918/ Project 1493-4 /
Electric Power Research Institute, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, August.
Chow, Y. K., Chin, J. T., Kog, Y. C, and Lee, S. L. (1990). "Settlement Analysis
of Socketed Pile Groups," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
116, No.8, August, pp. 1171 - 1184.
Cooke, R. W. (1979). "Load Transfer from Bored, Cast-In-Situ Piles in London
Clay," ASTM STP 670, Behavior of Deep Foundations, Ed. by R. Lundgren,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 250 - 263.
182
Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C. (1966). "Load Transfer for Axially Loaded Piles in
Clay," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.
92, No. SM2, March, pp. 1 - 26.
Crapps, D. K. (1986). "Design, Construction and Inspection of Drilled Shafts in
Limerock and Limestone," Preprint, 35th Annual Geotechnical Conference,
. ASCE/AGC, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March, 38 pp.
Demir, S. , Fisher, D. J., and O'Neill, M. W. (1994). "Diagnostic Expert System for
Drilled Shaft Foundation Construction," Proceedings, International Conference
on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, FL, FHWA,
December.
De Beer, E. (1988). "Different Behavior of Bored and Driven Piles," Proceedings,
International Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ed. by
W. F. Van Impe, Balkema, Rotterdam, June, pp. 47 - 82.
Eide, 0., Aas, G., and Josang, T. (1972). "Special Applications of Cast-In-Place
Walls for Tunnels in Soft Clay in Oslo," Proceedings, Fifth European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 63 - 74.
England, M. (1993). "A Method of Analysis of Stress-Induced Displacement in Soils
with Respect to Time," Proceedings, International Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ed. by W. F. Van Impe, Balkema,
Rotterdam, June, pp. 241 - 246.
Farmer, I. W., Buckley, J. C., and Sliwinski, Z. J. (1970). "The Effect of Bentonite
on the Skin Friction of Cast-In-Place Piles," Proceedings, Conference on
Behavior of Piles, ICE, London, pp. 115 - 120.
Finno, R. J. (1989). "Subsurface Conditions and Pile Installation Data: 1989
Foundation Engineering Congress Test Section," Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 23, Predicted and Observed Axial Behavior of Piles: Results
of a Pile Prediction Symposium, Ed. by R. J. Finno, ASCE, June, pp. 1 - 75.
Finno, R. J., Cosmao, T., and Gitskin, B. (1989). "Results of Foundation
Engineering Congress Pile Load Tests," Geotechnical Special Publication No.
23, Predicted and Observed Axial Behavior of Piles: Results of a Pile
Prediction Symposium, Ed. by R. J. Finno, ASCE, June, pp. 338 - 355.
Fisher, D. J., O'Neill, M. W., and Contreras, J. C. (1995). "DS"2: Drilled Shaft
Decision Support System," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, to appear.
Fleming, W. G. K. (1992) "A New Method for Single Pile Settlement Prediction and
Analysis," Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No.3, pp. 411 - 425.
Franke, E. (1990). Prediction of Bearing Behaviour of Bored Piles - A Statistical
Base. Research Report quoted by Van Impe (1991).
Greer, D. M., and Gardner, W. S. (1986). Construction of Drilled Pier Foundations,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 246 pp.
Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., Pedroni, S., and Salgado, R. (1994). "The Tip
Displacement of Drilled Shafts in Sands," Geotechnical Special Publication No.
40, Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments,
Vol. 2, Ed. by A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Felio, ASCE, June, pp. 1039 - 1057.
Goeke, P. M., and Hustad, P. A. (1979). "Instrumented Drilled Shafts in Clay-
Shale," Proceedings, Symposium on Deep Foundations, Ed. by F. M. Fuller,
ASCE, October, pp. 149 - 165.
Gwizdala, K. (1984). Large-Diameter Bored Piles in Non-cohesive Soils. Swedish
Geotechnical Institute, Linkoping, Sweden.
Hassan, K. H. (1994). Analysis and Design of Drilled Shafts Socketed into Soft
Rock, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, May, 264 pp.
Hassan, K. H., and O'Neill, M. W. (1993). "Perimeter Load Transfer in Drilled
Shafts in the Eagle Ford Formation," Geotechnical Special Publication No. 3B,
183
Design and Performance ofDeep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft
Rock, Ed. by P. P. Nelson, T. D. Smith and E. C. Clukey, ASCE, October,
pp. 229 - 244.
Hassan, K. H., O'Neill, M. W., and Sheikh, S. A. (1993). "Bored Piles in Clay-
Shale Using Expansive Concrete," Proceedings, International Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ed. by W. F. Van Impe, Balkema,
Rotterdam, June, pp. 289 - 294.
Holden, J. C. (1984). "Construction of Bored Piles in Weathered Rocks, Part 4:
Bentonite Construction Procedures," Technical Report No. 69, Road
Construction Authority of Victoria, Kew, Victoria, Australia.
Horvath, R. G. (1990). "Statnamic: An Accurate and Innovative Load Test Method for
High Capacity Deep Foundations," Foundation Drilling, ADSC, March-April,
pp. 8 - 12.
Horvath, R. G. (1978). "Field Load Test Data on Concrete-to-Rock Bond Strength for
Drilled Pier Foundations," Department of Civil Engineering Publication 78-07,
University of Toronto.
Horvath, R. G., and Chae, K-J. (1989). "Long-term Settlement of Model Rock-
Socketed Piers," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 348 - 358.
Horvath, R. G., and Kenney, T C. (1979). "Shaft Resistance of Rock-Socketed
Piers," Proceedings, Symposium on Deep Foundations, Ed. by F. M. Fuller,
ASCE, October, pp. 182 - 214.
Horvath, R. G., Kenney, T. C., and Kozicki, P. (1983). "Methods of Improving the
Performance of Drilled Piers in Weak Rock," Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 20, pp. 758 - 772.
Imai, T., and Tonouchi, K. (1982). "Correlation of N Value with S-wave Velocity
and Shear Modulus," ESOPT II, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 67 - 72.
Johnston, 1. W., and Haberfield, C. M. (1992). "Side Resistance of Piles in Weak
Rock," Proceedings, Conference on Piling: European Practice and Worldwide
Trends, Thomas Telford, London, pp. 52 - 58.
Johnston, 1. W. (1994). "Movement of Foundations on Rock," Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 40, Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, Vol. 2, Ed. by A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Felio, ASCE, June,
pp. 1703 - 1717.
Kheng, H. Y., Bloomquist, D., Townsend, F. c., Thompson, P. Y., and Dobson, E.
(1991). "Slurry Performance in Drilled Shaft Construction," State Project
Report No. 88700-7487-010, Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Kiefer, T. A., and Baker, C. N., Jr. (1994). "The Effects of Free Fall Concrete in
Drilled Shafts," Report to the Federal Highway Administration, ADSC: The
International Association of Foundation Drilling, Dallas, February.
Kodikara, J., Johnston, 1. W., and Haberfield, C. M. (1992). "Analytical Predictions
for Side Resistance of Piles in Rock," Proceedings, Sixth Australia - New
Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Auckland, February, pp. 157 - 162.
Koutsoftas, D . C. (1981). "Caissons Socketed in Sound Mica Schist," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT6, June, pp. 743
-758.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1978). "Geomechanical Model for Rock Foundation Settlement,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GU,
pp. 211 - 227.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1984). "Side Resistance of Drilled Shafts - A Fundamental View,"
Foundation Drilling, ADSC, Vol. 18, No. 20, November, pp. 7 - 9.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Jackson, C. S. (1989). "Some Observations on Undrained Side
Resistance of Drilled Shafts," Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and
Practices, Vol. 2, Ed. by F. H. Kulhawy, ASCE, June, pp. 1011 - 1025.
184
Kulhawy, E H., and Phoon, K-K. (1993). "Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Clay
Soil to Rock," Geotechnical Special Puhlication No. 38, Design and
Performance ofDeep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock, Ed.
by P. P. Nelson, T. D. Smith and E. C. Clukey, ASCE, October, pp. 172 -
183.
Kulhawy, F. R., Trautman, C. H., Beech, J. E, O'Rourke, T. D., and McGuire, W.
(1983). "Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression
Loading," Final Report, EL 2870/ Project 1493-1 / Electric Power Research
Institute, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,
February.
Ladanyi, B., and Roy, A. (1971). "Some Aspects of Bearing Capacity of Rock
Mass," Proceedings, Seventh Canadian Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Edmonton, pp. 161 - 190.
Long, J. H. (1994). Personal Communication.
Long, J. H., and Shimel (1989). "Drilled Shafts - A Database Approach," Foundation
Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Vol. 2, Ed. by F. H. Kulhawy,
ASCE, June, pp. 1091 - 1108.
Majano, R. E. (1992). Effect of Mineral and Polymer Slurries on Perimeter Load
Transfer in Drilled Shafts, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Houston, December, 350 pp.
Majano, R. E., O'Neill, M. W., and Hassan, K. H. (1994). "Perimeter Load Transfer
in Model Drilled Shafts Formed under Slurry," Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. GTI2, December.
Mallard, D. J., and Ballantyne, 1. L. (1976). "The Behavior of Piles in Upper Chalk at
Littlebrook D Power Station," Geotechnique, Vol. XXVI, pp. 115 - 132.
Matsui, T. (1993). "Case Studies on Cast-in-Place Bored Piles and Some
Considerations for Design," Proceedings, International Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ed. by W. F. Van Impe, Balkema,
Rotterdam, June, pp. 103 - 118.
Mayne, P. W., and Harris, D. E. (1993). "Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of
Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum," FHWA Reference No. 41-
30-2175, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Division, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil
Engineering, Atlanta, GA, February.
Mayne, P.W., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). "1<0 - OCR Relationships in Soil,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT6,
June, pp. 851 - 872.
McVay, M. C., Townsend, F. C., and Williams, R. C. (1992). "Design of Socketed
Drilled Shafts in Limestone," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 118, No. 10, October, pp. 1626 - 1637.
Meigh, A. c., and Wolski, W. (1979). "Design Parameters for Weak Rock,"
Proceedings, Seventh European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Brighton, UK.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). "Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT3,
March, pp. 195 - 228.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1983). "Scale Effects of Ultimate Pile Capacity," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No.6, ASCE, June, pp. 797 - 806
O'Neill, M. W. (1991). "Short Report on Free-Fall Tests at SWL Site," Letter Report,
ADSC: International Association of Foundation Drilling, Dallas, August, 7 pp.
O'Neill, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1970). "Behavior of Drilled Shafts in Beaumont
Clay," Report No. 89-8, Center for Highway Research, The University of
Texas at Austin, December (in five volumes).
185
O'Neill, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1978). "Load Transfer in a Slender Drilled Pier in
Sand," Preprint No. 3141, ASCE Spring Convention, Pittsburgh, PA, April.
O'Neill, M. W. (1992) Progress Report for Project DFTH-91-Z-0041, Federal
Highway Administration, March.
O'Neill, M., Reese, L., Barnes, R., Wang, S-T, Morvant, M., and Ochoa, M. (1992).
"Effects of Stratigraphic and Construction Details on the Load Transfer
Behavior of Drilled Shafts," Transportation Research Record No. 1336, TRB,
Washington, D. c., pp. 50 - 56.
Ohsaki, Y., and Iwasaki, R. (1973). "On Dynamic Shear Moduli and Poisson's Ratio
of Soil Deposits,"Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 13, No.4, pp. 61 -
73.
Osterberg, J. 0., and Gill, S. A. (1973). "Load Transfer Mechanisms for Piers
Socketed into Hard Soil or Rock," Proceedings, Ninth Canadian Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, pp. 235 - 262.
Osterberg, J. O. (1994). "Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Hard Rock - Part II,"
Foundation Drilling, ADSC, March-April, pp. 29 - 35.
Pabon, G., and Nelson, P. P. (1993). "Behavior of Instrumented Model Piles in
Manufactured Rock with a Soft Layer," Geotechnical Special Publication No.
38, Design and Performance ofDeep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and
Soft Rock, Ed. by P. P. Nelson, T. D. Smith and E. C. Clukey, ASCE,
October, pp. 260 - 276.
Parsons Brinckerhoff-Hirota Associates (1991). "Drilled Shaft Test Program Report,"
Report FAlP No. I-H3-1(67), Hawaii Department of Transportation, June.
Pells, P. J. N., and Turner, R. M. (1979). "Elastic Solutions for Design and Analysis
of Rock-Socketed Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 481 -
487.
Pells, P. J. N., Rowe, R. K., and Turner, R. M. (1980). "An Experimental
Investigation into the Side Shear of Socketed Piles in Sandstone," Proceedings,
International Conference on Structural Foundations in Rock, Balkema, Sydney,
pp. 291 - 302.
Poulos, H. G. (1994). "Settlement Prediction for Driven Piles and Pile Groups,"
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical and Horizontal Deformations
of Foundations and Embankments, Vol. 2, Ed. by A. T. Yeung and G. Y.
Felio, ASCE, June, pp. 1629 - ] 647.
Price, R. R. (1994). "Supplemental Data for Pile Tests at Polymer Slurry Test Site,"
Memorandum Report, California Department of Transportation, Division of
Structures, Sacramento, California.
Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P. (1978). "Analysis of Deformation of Vertically
Loaded Piles," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No. GT12, December, pp. 1465 - 1488.
Reese, L. c., and O'Neill, M. W. (1988). "Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures
and Design Methods," Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-042, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D. C., July.
Reese, L. C., and Wang, S-T (1989). Computer Program SHAFT1, Ensoft, Inc.,
Austin, TX.
Rollins, K. M., and Price, R. M. (1993). "Evaluation of Drilled Shaft Capacity
Equations Based on Utah DOT Load Tests," Research Report No. CET 93 -01,
Civil Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, July.
Rollins, K. M., Mikesell, R. C., Clayton, R. J., and Keane, E. (1994). "Uplift Load
Tests on Drilled Shafts in Gravel to Evaluate Side Friction," Proceedings,
International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations,
Orlando, FL, FHWA, December.
186
Rosenberg, P., and Journeaux, N. L. (1976). "Friction and End Bearing Tests on
Bedrock for High Capacity Socket Design," Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 324 - 333.
Rowe, P. K, and Annitage, H. H. (1987). "A Design Method for Drilled Piers in
Weak Rock," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 114 - 125.
Seidel, J., and Haberfield, C. (1994). "A New Approach to the Prediction of Drilled
Pier Perfonnance in Rock," Proceedings, lnternational Conference on Design
and Construction ofDeep Foundations, Orlando, FL, FHWA, December.
Stas, C. V., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1984) "Critical Evaluation of Design Methods for
Foundations Under Axial Uplift and Compression Loading," Final Report, EL-
3771 / Project 1493-1 / Electric Power Research Institute, Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November.
Stocker, M. (1983). "The Influence of Post-Grouting on the Load-Bearing Capacity of
Bored Piles," Proceedings, Eighth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Ed. by H. G. Rathmayer and K H. D. Saari,
Helsinki, May, pp. 167 - 170.
Thompson, W. R., III (1994). Axial Capacity of Drilled Shafts Socketed into Soft
Rock, Highway Research Center, Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn
University, June, 173 pp.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1976). "Preface: Piles in Weak Rock," Geotechnique, Vol. XXVI,
pp. 13 - 20.
Townsend, F. C. (1990). Personal Communication.
Townsend, F. c., Dunkelberger, C. E., and Bloomquist, D. (1993a). "Drilled Shaft
Friction Evaluation via Pullout Tests," Geotechnical Special Publication No.
38, Design and Performance ofDeep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and
Soft Rock, Ed. by P. P. Nelson, T. D. Smith and E. C. Clukey, ASCE,
October, pp. 64 - 75.
Townsend, F. c., Hirshman-Cox, P., Crapps, D. K, and Goodwin, J. W. (1993b).
"Pullout and Osterberg Load Cell Tests on Drilled Shafts - Owensboro Bridge,"
Report submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, May.
Tucker, K. L., and Reese, L. C. (1984). "The Effect of Bentonitic Slurry on Drilled
Shafts," Research Report 351-1 F, Center for Transportation Research, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, lX.
Turner,1. P., Sandberg, E., and Chou, N. N. S. (1993). "Side Resistance of Drilled
Shafts in the Denver and Pierre Fonnations," Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 38, Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil
and Soft Rock, Ed. by P. P. Nelson, T. D. Smith and E. C. Clukey, ASCE,
October, pp. 245 - 259.
Van Impe, W. F. (1991). "Defonnations of Deep Foundations: General Report,"
Proceedings, X European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Florence, Italy.
Vrymoed,1. (1994). "Pile Load Test Data," Proceedings, International Conference on
Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, FL, FHWA,
December.
Walsh, K D. (1993). The Skin Friction Behavior of Deep Foundations in Cemented
Soils, PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, December.
Wates,1. A., and Knight, K (1975). "The Effect of Bentonite on the Skin Friction in
Cast-In-Place Piles and Diaphragm Walls," Proceedings, Sixth Regional
Conferencefor Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
Durban, South Africa, pp. 183 - 188.
Williams, A. F., Johnston, I. W., and Donald, T. B. (]980). "The Design of Socketed
Piles in Weak Rock," Proceedings, International Conference on Structural
Foundations on Rock, Balkema, Sydney, pp. 327 - 347.
187
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE PRACTICE IN DEEP FOUNDATIONS,
WITH FLORIDA EMPHASIS
John H. Schmertmann' and David K. Crapps'
Abstract
The authors review their past 30-40 years of experience with
deep foundations, with a strong emphasis on their involvement
with the history of developments in the Florida Dept. of
Transportation. They also suggest trends for the next 10 years.
The review includes the type, size and loading of driven piles;
hammer type, ram weight and energy; installation problems; use
of drilled shafts; soil exploration and capacity prediction
methods; capacity testing; and other trends including setup,
scour, ship impact, and litigation.
1. Introduction
The past of deep foundations goes back a long way. "Piles
are older than history. The Neolithnic inhabitants of
Switzerland 12,000 years ago drove wooden piles in the soft
bottoms of shallow lakes and on them erected their homes, high
above marauding animals and warring neighbors." (see Sowers and
Sowers, 1961). Therefore, the first deep foundations were likely
used to support homes. Other types of deep foundations are of
more recent origin and generally followed the advance of
mechanization (for example, see Ledgard (1994)).
Time marches on and engineering practice with respect to
deep foundations changes continuously in a complex interaction
between professional inertia versus ever new technology, lessons
learned from problems encountered -- including failures
and litigation experience, population demands, economic
conditions and environmental concerns. The evolution of practice
188
will of course also depend on local conditions in all of these
areas. The writers' experience with deep foundation practice,
including design and construction, encompasses a combined total
of approximately 70 years, but includes mostly Florida Department
of Transportation (FOOT) projects. This paper draws primarily on
th is experi ence. We hope that the past, present and future
practice within this agency at least roughly indicates the
situation elsewhere.
We know the past with the accuracy of hinds i ght. Our
hindsight goes back to approximately the mid 1950s. Predicating
the future represents little more than a guessing game. However,
in the spirit of the challenge presented by this Conference, we
have played the game and venture forth into the next 10 years
worth of trends for deep foundations.
189
stresses and allow higher design loads. Therefore, we also
foresee higher design loads in the future at selected sites with
appropriate soils or rock.
3. Hammer Type, Ram Weight and Energy
Table 3 shows that in 1965 (data from Schmertmann, 1967)
approximately 75% of the concrete piles in Florida were driven
with diesel hammers and 25% were driven with air/steam hammers.
However, by 1975 (Allred, 1975) approximately 50% of the concrete
pil es were dri ven with di esel hammers and 50% with air/steam
hammers. Today (see FDOT, 1994) approximately 49% of the
concrete piles are driven with air/steam, 49% with diesel and 2%
with hydraulic hammers. A review of the Florida Specifications
helps to explain these changes.
Specifications reflect the needs of the Engineer to provide
hammers that will drive piles to the required design loads. In
the mid 1960's the Florida State Road Department (now the FDOT)
Standard Specifications (see FSRD, 1966) reqUired the use of
power hammers (drop hammers not allowed) for the driving of
concrete piles. The 1966 Specifications included a minimum
energy requirement (examples shown in Table 4). In the early
1970's the FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT, 1973) were
modified to include minimum ram weight requirement as well as
minimum energy requirements (examples shown in Table 4). The
minimum ram weight requirements generally favored air/steam
hammers, especially for larger pile sizes and long piles (due to
pile weight), which explains the shift from the predominate use
of diesel hammers in 1965 to approximately 50% each in 1975 (see
Table 3). Today the FDOT Specifications include minimum ram
weight and energy requirements based on wave equation studies.
The minimum ram weight depends upon pile size (and type) and the
minimum energy requirements depend upon the design loads.
Of course, the use of 1arger (more energy deli vered per
blow) hammers has, in part, resulted from trying to service the
trend towards 1arger and higher capacity pil es. The
manufacturers designed and built larger hammers to provide
efficient driving for the contractors in response to the
engineers' desire to use larger piles and larger loads.
Overlaying these factors, the needs of the offshore industry
created a demand for much 1arger hammers, the technology for
which then filtered down to conventional land usage designs. The
successful use of 1arger hammers al so depended upon the new
understanding of hammer behavior and performance made possible by
wave equation analyses, in turn made practical by the emergence
of relatively low cost and portable computers.
Schmertmann
190
There exists a relatively fine balance in the driving of
large capacity piles by large hammers, especially with concrete
piles, between damaging the pile vs. successfully driving it to
the required depth and capacity. The new developments in dynamic
testing and analyses have probably been just as important for the
proper selection of driving hammers as for the prediction of
capacities. We fully expect the trend in the increasing use of
dynamic analyses in hammer selection to continue in the next 10
years.
All of the major hammer manufacturers are making larger
hammers incorporating features to make them more energy efficient
and applicable for the driving of various pile types and sizes.
Diesel hammers are being manufactured with heavy rams with
maximum strokes less than earlier models to make them more
suitable for the driving of large displacement concrete piles.
Vari abl e energy air/steam hammers are bei ng manufactured with
maximum strokes longer than available in the past. Engineers
typically favor air/steam hammers because they are typically more
energy efficient and provide a better tool for estimating pile
capacity. Contractors vary widely in their hammer of choice with
some that use primarily air/steam hammers and some that use
primarily diesel hammers. Small contractors who drive small
piles using small cranes tend to prefer diesel hammers. Large
contractors are not consistent in their choice between air/steam
and diesel hammers with some that say they only use air/steam
hammers and some that say they would never use an air/steam if
the specifications allowed them to use a diesel hammer. We
believe that the trend for the next 10 years will be toward use
of more diesel hammers for small jobs with concrete piles and
jobs with high capacity steel piles and toward air/steam hammers
for high capacity large concrete piles. Both air/steam and
diesel hammers will likely lose part of their market to newer
alternate hammer types (hydraulic for example).
Hydraul i c hammers have been used on a small number of
projects in Florida. Hydraulic hammers are being manufactured
with heavy rams and infinite stroke selection capabilities which
makes them especially attractive for the driving of concrete
piles. Some of these hydraulic hammers transfer a much higher
percentage of the kinetic energy at impact than do air/steam and
diesel hammers. Some engineers and contractors believe that the
hydraulic hammer is the hammer of the future. However, presently
they are typically slower (less blows per minute at comparable
strokes) than air/steam and diesel hammers and they are expensive
to purchase. We expect that new designs will speed their
operation and competition will bring the price down. Therefore,
we bel ieve that the use of hydraul ic hammers will increase
significantly from the aforementioned 2% during the next 10
Schmertmann
191
years, especially for the driving of PSC piles.
We expect that other types of hammers will continue to have
their special uses. For example, while vibratory hammers are
never used by the FDOT to drive displacement piles, they. do have
wide usage for the driving and extraction of sheetpiles and we
expect that this will continue.
4. Installation Problems
The use of 1arger, higher capacity pil es has increased
installation problems. Higher capacities for given sizes means
higher driving stresses. This makes it more likely that the PSC
concrete piles may be damaged during driving, making them
vulnerable to corrosion. This in turn makes the driving
sensitive to the hammer and cushion selection. Contractors now
must routinely demonstrate on test piles the suitability of their
hammer and cushion selections.
Increasing the capacity of the pile often means driving it
deeper. It has become increasingly necessary to bypass
previously used bearing layers to reach new bearing layers. This
has resulted in increased use of pile penetration aids, such as
jetting and preformed pile holes, and the increased importance of
having the engineer control the use of such aids so as not to
diminish pile capacity.
The use of higher capacity piles has also made it more
difficult for the engineer to prejudge the exact required length
of piles. This is particularly a problem when using PSC piles
because of the difficulty and expense of spl icing should the
pi 1es need to be longer than precast, and because contractor
complaints about excessive cutoff should they drive too short.
The installation problems associated with bigger, and
particularly higher capacity piles have created a major challenge
for the geotechnical engineer designing and supervising their
installation. This is further complicated by the increasing use
of freeze or setup effects, which are imperfectly known and the
demonstration of which can increase capacity but also delays the
contractor.
Currently, installation problems or misunderstandings about
installation procedures and specifications are a major source of
claims for extra compensation and/or litigation by contractors.
We see a trend for geotechnical engineers to become more
intimately involved with the design of installation methods and
monitoring.
Schmertmann
192
5. Use of Drilled Shafts (bored piles, predrilled piles,
caissons)
Increasing the use of the drilled shaft alternative to
driven piles represents a major change in deep foundation
engineering as practiced by the FOOT, and for Florida as a whole.
193
loadings have also increased substantially with time.
The trend toward the increasing use of drilled shafts should
continue in the next 10 years. The aforementioned reasons for
their use should continue t and the technology for their
installation and testing (discussed subsequently) will continue
to improve.
194
Occasionally other types of testing are used to assist the
design of deep foundations. These are, in approximate order of
1esser usage, the Marchetti Di 1atometer Test (OMT), the vane
shear test (VST) and the pressuremeter test (PMT). All these
tests combined represent a small percentage of the budget for SPT
and CPT testing.
Our expectation for the next 10 years is that the SPT will
continue to dominate as the most used tool for the exploration
for deep foundation design. But, we also expect that usage of
the CPT will continue to gradually increase. We further expect
that more data and information will be extracted from the SPT.
For example, combining the SPT with a torque measurement at the
end of each sampling will provide more direct data for pile side
shear estimates. Calibrating the SPT for its dynamic behavior by
POA-type methods may also provide more accurate input information
about quake and damping coefficients in the CAPWAP-type wave
equation analyses.
7. Capacity Testing
An important component of the reasons for the increases
noted in Section 2. involves the increase in the amount and
sophistication of testing now possible and in frequent use by the
FOOT.
Driven Piles: Through the 1970's the FOOT used only a
Florida-modified version of the Engineering News (EN) formula to
control pile driving in the field. Although notorious for its
variabil ity, the high average FS results provided by the EN
formula combined with low pile loadings made the practice
acceptable and widespread. Problems only arose as pile sizes and
loads increased and hammers reached the limit of their driving
capabil it ies.
In 1867 De Saint-Venant offered a solution to the one-
Schmertmann
195
dimensional wave equation which provides the correct theory for
the impact driving problem. The first known attempt to apply
wave theory to the pile driving problem was in 1931. Although
the theoretically far superior wave equation dynamic analysis of
pile driving dates back for some time, it took the advent of
relatively inexpensive computers to make its use practical.
The wave equation, as we know it today, was developed in the
early 1960's. (See Crapps, 1977 for historical references). In
the early 1970's a cooperative project sponsored by the Federal
Highway Administration and FOOT resulted in the driving of the
first instrumented concrete piles in Florida (see Goble and
Likins, 1973; Goble and Fricke, 1973; and Goble, Fricke and
Likins, 1974). These were among the first concrete piles to be
driven using what we know today as the Pile Driving Analyzer
(PDA) with capacity predictions using the Case Method.
Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc. in 1981 introduced dynamic pile
testing into FOOT practice when POA testing was specified in the
large Skyway Bridge Repl acement Project. Thi s project made
extensive use of pile driver analyzer (PDA) testing, with CAPWAP
wave equat i on analyses for cali brat ion, in turn cali brated by
extensive static load testing. In the wake of this successful
application, the FOOT has greatly expanded its use of PDA testing
as this equipment and service became more Widely available. They
eventually contracted with Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc. to revise
their Standard Specifications to substitute wave equation, PDA
and CAPWAP methods for the previously long used Engineering News
formula control of pile driving. These new specs were approved
by the FHWA and adopted by the FOOT in May 1991. The FOOT is now
in the process of completely transferring to the new dynamic
testing and control methods. We believe that this trend is a
very strong one and expect in 10 years that the transition will
be essentially complete in Florida.
The Structures Design Guidelines (FOOT, 1992) states "As a
minimum, one test pile shall be located every 200 feet of bridge
length with a minimum of two test piles per bridge structure.
These requirements shall apply for each size and pile type in the
bridge except at end bents. For bascule piers and high level
crossings that require large cofferdam type foundations, a
minimum of one test pile shall be driven at each pier." The
Geotechnical Engineer verifies the adequacy of the test pile
locations including the end bents. All test piles are
dynamically load tested using the PDA.
At present, judging by our recent experience with major FOOT
bridge projects, the FOOT performs approximately 1 POA-type
dynamic pile test at every major bridge pier and about 1 per two
Schmertmann
196
bents for trestle-type construction during the test pile phase of
the project. At least one CAPWAP-type analysis is then performed
on a typical blow toward the end of driving, for each test pile,
as a means of calibrating the results from the less accurate PDA
prediction methods. Dynamic methods are also used to evaluate
and solve problems during construction and for quality control
during the driving of production piles.
One might think that the aforementioned dynamic analysis
methods, which have become practical and routine, might have
reduced the need for static load tests. Historically, with the
FOOT the opposite has happened. Prior to 1980 the FOOT rarely
called for static load tests and contractors often bid this item
in the bid documents at $1/test. Because pile loads have
increased so dramatically (Table I), the need for confirmation by
static testing has also increased. The profession now generally
recognizes that large differences can occur between the static
capacity of a driven pile at the time of loading vs. its inferred
static capacity from dynamic measurements at the time of driving.
This has led to the increased use of static tests to calibrate
the CAPWAPs that calibrate the PDA-type predicted capacities.
The Structures Design Guidelines (FOOT, 1992) recommends static
load tests when the recommended design loads are exceeded. The
Geotechnical Engineer evaluates the need for and number of load
tests. The specifications allow a lower factor of safety when
stat i c load tests are used. Therefore, cost and benefit are
evaluated. Typical, in our experience, FOOT practice on their
1arger projects is to have approximatel y one stat i c test for
every 25 dynamic test piles.
Drilled Shafts: Because of their relative newness, the
large concentration of load usually placed on shafts, and the
uncertainties regarding their capacities in view of capacity
sensitivity to construction methods, major projects usually
involve at least one static test. Until recently the static
testing of drilled shafts has involved much frustration,
especially with shafts into rock such as the Florida
limestones/limerocks. In the 1970's and 1980's the friction
capacity in such materials was often underestimated and even
reduced-size (vs. production) shafts could not be carried to
failure with the approximate 1000 ton limit of conventional
static load testing equipment. The recent availability and
economy of the Osterberg cell "bottom-up" testing (sometimes
referred to as "bi-directional" or "sacrificial jack" testing)
method has dramatically increased our ability to impose high
static loads on shafts, with recent tests in the Ohio River in
Kentucky and Indiana and in New Mexico putting loads on shafts
equivalent to 5-6000 tons conventional top loading (ENR, 1993).
These and other O-cell tests have shown that the profession at
Schmertmann
197
present still often badly underestimates the shaft shear --
typically by a factor of 4 or more in soft rock (Osterberg,1992).
198
problem, the FOOT and Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc. built and used
a sophisticated shaft inspection device (SID) to inspect both the
bottom and sides of the 88 shafts that support the main piers for
the Skyway Replacement Bridge (Crapps, 1983). The inspection
involves physical sampling of the sides and visual TV camera
monitoring and recording of the condition of the bottom. The 5'
diameter Skyway shafts used both side friction and end bearing to
carry maximum design loads of 1000 tons. We expect that the use
of this technology will increase in the next 10 years and will
improve the economy of drilled shafts by documenting conditions
and making engineers feel more comfortable with both the bearing
and side shear capacity of the slurried shafts they inspect with
SID-type equipment.
We think it quite likely that the new testing and inspection
methods wi 11 result in the even more frequent select i on of
dri 11 ed shafts for deep foundations vs. pil es. As these new
tests establish the true capacity of drilled shafts they should
become relatively more economical.
199
returning to the pile. When done in the design phase (typically
either a design phase test pil e program or test pil e program
before production pile driving begins) of a project, setchecks
and redrives may allow the engineer to make quantitative
estimates of setup effects and incorporate them in the design --
perhaps allowing for fewer and/or shorter piles. When done in
the construction phase they may be useful on piles that have
reached their minimum tip elevations but have not yet reached the
required capacity. Letting them rest and then checking with
setchecks and redrives may prove that the setup effect now gives
them adequate capacity. This would save driving the pile further
in search of more initial capacity and possibly the need for an
expensive splice.
Currently the FDOT, in cooperation with the FHWA and the
University of Florida, has research in progress to better predict
and util ize significant setup effects in the exploration and
design stage, so that they will be most useful in providing more
economical foundations. We expect that in the next 10 years the
use of setcheck and redrive testing will increase and that useful
setup-predictor tests will be found to allow the gradual
deployment of such pore pressure and/or agi ng benefits into
design practice.
200
this case the foundations did not fail, the new awareness of the
danger of ship impact has, in the last 10 years, dramatically
increased the ship impact forces used in design -- including the
design of pile or shaft foundations. We now find, especially
with 1arge bridges over navigabl e waters, that shi p impact
considerations often control the design of the deep foundations
involved. This is a trend over the past 10 years and we expect
it to continue in the next 10 years.
9. Conclusions
We offer the following conclusions relative to the past-
present-future of deep foundation engineering as practiced in
Florida, primarily by the FOOT:
9.1 Average pile sizes and design loads have steadily
increased, but we think that any further increase will be
much more gradual in the next 10 years.
9.2 Concurrent with the increase in the size and capacity of
Schmertmann
201
driven piles, there has also been a dramatic increase in
the size of hammers used and, at least in Florida, a
trend toward the increasing use of air/steam and recently
to hydraulic hammers. The use of larger hammers has, in
part, been made possible by the wave-equation-based
design of proper pile cushioning. We do not expect
hammers to get much larger, but they may gradually become
more efficient with the introduction of hydraulic
hammers.
9.3 The installation problems associated with driven piles
have increased as they have become larger, more heavily
loaded, dri ven wi th heavi er hammers, and dri ven to depths
increasingly dictated by formerly relatively minor design
factors such as scour and ship impact. These problems
will increase in the next 10 years and will be one of the
factors dri vi ng increased 1it igat ion. However, other
factors mitigate and overall we believe litigation with
respect to deep foundations will decrease.
9.4 The use of drilled shafts has increased in Florida, and
we think that the technical and economic forces in play
will further increase their use in the next 10 years.
9.5 The SPT has dominated, continues to dominate, and will
probably dominate in the next 10 years as the most used
soil exploration and capacity prediction test for deep
foundations in Florida. The CPT has made important
inroads, but will continue its supplementary role. The
related capacity prediction methods in common use were
developed in Florida, and their use will continue but
perhaps be modified by extracting and using more
information from the SPT and CPT methods.
9.6 The various forms of capacity testing have improved
dramatically, from a technical viewpoint, in the past 20
years. We expect that improvement will continue in the
next 10 years, particularly the wider use of true dynamic
pile analyses and the use of high capacity testing for
dri 11 ed shafts.
Schmertmann
202
REFERENCES
Allred, S. F., (1975), Engineer of Construction (and also FOOT
Project Manager for Revision of Structure Foundations
Specifications) , Florida Department of Transportation, Personal
Communication correspondence dated January 27 & February 24.
ASCE (1993), Design & Performance of Deep Foundations,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 38.
Crapps, David K. (1977), Wave Equation Study and Recommended
Specifications For the Impact Driving of Prestressed Concrete
Piles, dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Crapps, David K. (1983), "DRILLED SHAFT INSPECTION DEVICE SAVES
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION COSTS ON THE SUNSHINE SKYWAY BRIDGE",
paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of SASHTO, Tarpon
Springs, Florida, 14 pp., Aug.
Crapps, David K. (1992), "STRUCTURES FOUNDATIONS CONSTRUCTION
MANUALII ,
Schmertmann
203
Goble, G. G. and Likins, G.E., Jr. (1973), "A Report on a Static
and Dynamic Pile Test in West Palm Beach, Florida", Report to
Florida DOT, August.
Goble, G. G. and Fricke, K. E. (1973), "A Report on a Static and·
Dynami c Pil e Test in Jefferson County, Flori da", Report to
Florida DOT, December.
Goble, G. G., Fricke, K. E. and Likins, G.E., Jr. (1974), "A
Report on a Static and Dynamic Pile Test in Dade County,
Florida", Report to Florida DOT, March.
Goble, G. G., (1993), "Dynamic Capacity Testing of Drilled
Shafts" ,
Foundation Drilling, ADSC, Jan., pp. 12-15.
Horvath, R. G. (1993), "Static Load Tests in Drilled Foundations
in Sand", Foundation Drilling, ADSC, Jan., pp. 21-24.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1991), "Drilled Shaft Foundations", Foundation
Engineering Handbook, 2nd Ed., Ed.· H. Y. Fang, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, p. 537.
Ledgard, Ted, "Imagination of Manufacturers Help Advance
Technology", "Foundation Drilling", ADSC, December/January
Mair, George (1982), BRIDGE DOWN, A True Story, Stein and Day,
New York, New York.
Nottingham, Larry C. (1975), Use of Quasi-Static Friction Cone
Penetrometer Data to Predict Load Capacity of Displacement Piles,
dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 552 pp.
Nottingham, Larry C. and Schmertmann, John H. (1975), An
Investigation of Pile Capacity Design Procedures, Engineering &
Industrial Experiment Station, Final Report 0629 (Report for
FOOT), University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, September.
Osterberg, J. O. (1992), "Rock Socket Friction in Drilled Shafts:
It's Greater Than You Think", Foundation Drilling, ADSC, Jan.,
pp. 15-21.
Schmertmann, John H. (1967), "Guidelines For Use In the Soils
Investigations and Design of Foundations For Bridge Structures in
the State of Florida, Florida Department of Transportation
Research Bulletin 121, January 25.
Schmertmann
204
Schmertmann, John H. (1975), "MEASUREMENT OF INSITU SHEAR
STRENGTH", ASCE Proceedings of a Conference on insitu measurement
of soil properties, Vol. II, State-of-the-Art Report for Session
III, p. 57-138 Discussions and closure to p. 179, June.
Schmertmann, John H. (1991), "THE MECHANICAL AGING OF SOILS", The
1989, 25th Terzagh i Lecture, ASCE Journal of the Geotechn i ca1
Engineering Division, Vol. 117, No.9, Sept., pp. 1285-1330. Two
discussions and closure in Vol. 118, No. 12, Dec. 1992, pp. 2009-
2014.
Schmertmann, John H. and Crapps, David K. (1977), Wave Equation
Study and Recommended Specifications For the Impact Driving of
Prestressed Concrete Piles, Engineering & Industrial Experiment
Station, Research Report D657 (Report for FDOT) , University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, June.
Sowers, George B. and Sowers, George F. (1961), Introductory Soil
Mechanics and Foundations, Second Edition, The MacMillan Company,
New York.
Terzaghi, Karl and Peck, Ralph B. (1948), SOIL MECHANICS IN
ENGINEERING PRACTICE, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New
York.
Townsend, F.C., Dunkleberger, C. E. and Bloomquist, D. (1994),
"Drilled Shaft Friction Evaluation via Pullout Tests",
Foundation Drilling, ADSC, May, pp. 13-17. Also in ASCE (1993).
Schmertmann
205
Table 1 - COMPARISON OF FDOT DESIGN LOADS
1965 25 75 0
1975 50 50 0
1994 49 49 2
Schmertmann
206
TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF PILING UNDER OLD & REPLACEMENT FOOT BRIDGES
2 96-144
Vilano 1946' Precast 18 30 1995 PSC 24
SR AlA Cone. 35
Schmertmann
208
CURRENT PRACTICE ISSUES FOR
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND DOTs
by Lawrence H. Roth'
INTRODUCTION
The 1990s present a changing and challenging environment for the business practices of
consulting architects and engineers (AlEs). After boom times in the 1980s, the U.S.
recession and the economy's slow climb out of it have forced AlEs to view their practices in
a harsh light. Clients, pressed themselves, are demanding more value from their consultants
- more responsive service and higher quality, both at less cost.
The sluggish economy has restricted growth in the marketplace. This has resulted in fierce
competition among AlEs; the only sure way to gain market share is to take it from someone
else. To survive in these tougher times, AlEs are changing their practices. Many are
implementing Total Quality Management (TQM), and are even contemplating ISO 9000
quality standards as the global marketplace begins to beckon. These quality initiatives put
the client first - offering improved services at lower costs.
Clients, too, are implementing quality improvements, and many are recogmzmg the
importance of obtaining quality services from their suppliers, including AlEs. Many
recognize that the bidding process for AlE services seldom results in obtaining superior
quality and often does not result in obtaining adequate quality. For this reason, quality-
driven clients are beginning to place greater reliance on Qualifications Based Selection
(QBS) procedures to select and retain AlEs.
209 L. Roth
Another product of the quality movement is the recent trend of partnering. While still
relatively new, it appears to be gaining popularity as clients team with their suppliers,
including AJEs, to develop and promote concepts of shared responsibility to achieve mutual
goals.
Of course, disputes still occur. There is growing interest, however, in resolving disputes in
novel and innovative ways to avoid the high costs and extensive delays associated with
conventional litigation. Collectively these methods are referred to as Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), and ADR techniques are rapidly becoming a preferred means of avoiding
costly litigation.
The use of Dispute Review Boards (DRBs) is a type of ADR developed and nurtured in the
underground construction industry. DRBs are making their way aboveground, and are
increasingly being used to help defuse or resolve potential disputes, in some cases even
before they begin.
To gain additional information on these and other current nontechnical practice issues,
ASFElProfessional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE) charged its Practice
Environment Committee to survey ASFE members that work for the various Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) across the U.S. And for comparison, ASFE also surveyed the DOTs
regarding these same practice issues.
As background for the survey, the Practice Environment Committee reviewed a list of 12
issues that ASFE's Emerging Issues Committee had identified as likely to confront ASFE
member firms before the tum of the century (ASFE, 1993). In a January 1994 workshop, the
Practice Environment Committee selected three emerging issues, and added three current
issues they believed to be important for DOTs and their consulting AJEs. The six selected
issues are:
A small task group of the Practice Environment Committee prepared a survey questionnaire
for distribution to the ASFE mailing list. Questionnaires were mailed to 297 ASFE member
firms in March 1994. The returned questionnaires yielded 118 responses from ASFE
members in 41 states. The responses from ASFE member firms are reported as responses
from consulting engineers throughout this paper.
210
The questionnaire was then revised slightly for distribution to DOTs. The same questions
were posed, but they were directed to DOTs as clients. The questionnaires were mailed in
April 1994 to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) geotechnical engineering
contacts, one in each of the 50 state DOTs, as listed in a directory obtained from the FHW A.
We received responses from 22 state DOTs.
The responses from the consulting engineers and DOTs cover 42 states. Of these, one-half,
or 21 states include responses from both consulting engineers and DOTs. One state had a
DOT response with no consulting engineer response, and for 20 ~tates we had consulting
engineer responses with no corresponding DOT responses.
The questionnaire asked both groups to rate the relative importance of the six issues, and
invited suggestions for additional issues to consider. Only a few minor suggestions were
received, and we concluded that the responses validated the issues selected by the Practice
Environment Committee. The relative importance of the six issues was determined and is
displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 reveals surprising agreement between consulting engineers and DOT respondents on
the relative importance of issues. If the two QBS issues are considered together, it suggests
that both consulting engineers and DOTs consider QBS to be anywhere from two to five
times more important than the other four issues.
30
o Consulting Engineers
III DOTs
o
QBS QBS for LPIRM Partnering ADR DRBs
Subs
FIGURE 1
211
DOTs and consulting engineers expressed different perspectives about LPIRM, ADR, and
partnering issues. Not surprisingly, consulting engineers ranked LPIRM issues twice as
important as did the DOTs. On the other hand, DOTs showed greater interest in ADR and in
partnering, but by lesser margins.
For AlEs and their clients, there are three strategies to deal with risk:
In today's world, it is not likely that one entity can be successful in transferring all risks to
another party. As a consequence, some level of risk must be managed no matter which
strategy is selected. For AlEs, these efforts are often termed loss prevention/risk
management (LPIRM). For 25 years, ASFE has pioneered innovative thinking in LP/RM; its
efforts are nicely described by Bachner (1991) in Practice Management for Design
Professionals.
Although survey respondents were asked to rank improved understanding of LPIRM as one
of six key current issues, the other five issues are, in fact, subsets of LPIRM. This paper is
aimed at improving understanding of LPIRM through discussion of these issues, and through
documentation of current practices as revealed by survey results.
The issue of DOTs' use of QBS for selecting and retaining prime AlEs, and the issue of their
requirements for prime AlEs to use QBS for selecting and retaining lower-tier subconsultants
were kept separate in the survey questionnaire. In this paper, though, these two issues are
discussed together.
Although the survey questionnaire focused on SIX Issues, In this paper they have been
aggregated into four sections:
• Quality Issues
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Dispute Review Boards
• Partnering
This paper provides brief discussions defining each issue, why it is important, and what
benefits it provides. Each section reviews current practice from the perspective of DOTs and
consulting engineers that work for DOTs, as revealed by survey results.
212
QUALITY ISSUES
QBS DEFINED
Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) is a method of selecting AlEs and other professionals
to provide services that require high degrees of judgment and creativity (Bachner, 1991).
Using QBS, the client and the AlE develop solutions together, identifying assumptions,
clarifying goals, and discussing alternatives. Because the solutions are developed jointly, the
QBS process encourages brainstorming and creates opportunities for innovation. This is a
major difference from the bidding process in which an AlE develops a proposal based on a
static document, the Request for Proposal (RFP). QBS also de-emphasizes fee as an
assessment criteria and instead focuses on developing a fee appropriate for the scope of work.
In fact, in the QBS process, the proposed fee is not discussed until there is agreement as to
the scope and level of effort required to meet the client's needs. Again, this is a major
difference from bidding practices in which the fee proposed may be the major factor in the
decision to award the contract - regardless of the quality or appropriateness of the proposal.
Not only does the QBS process help encourage appropriately priced innovation, it also
encourages competition. Responding to a QBS request is much less expensive than
responding to an RFP in a bidding situation because the materials used to respond to a QBS
RFP are usually general statements about the firm, its qualifications, and its experience,
rather than custom-made documents expressly for the specific RFP. More companies can
afford to respond to a QBS-based request, allowing the client a broader range of alternatives
from which to select.
• The client invites statements of qualifications from interested AlEs and selects the
best-qualified firm to begin negotiations for a proposed assignment.
• The client and the AlE work together to jointly define the scope of work that best
meets the needs of the client (mutual scope development).
• The client then retains the firm on the basis of an acceptable price proposal.
The details of the QBS process vary considerably with the size and complexity of projects,
and on the client's particular needs or desires. In general, the client develops criteria in
advance to assess competing firms and prepares a project description. Interested firms are
invited to submit their qualifications for the proposed project. The statement of
qualifications usually addresses the general qualifications of the firm, including a summary
of the history of the firm, its related experience, and the technical background of its staff.
References may be included along with other supporting information.
The client carefully evaluates the responses using the pre-determined criteria. Generally, a
short-list of three to five firms is selected for interview. During interviews, the AlEs often
make formal presentations and answer questions. The client carefully reviews the written
documents and results of the interview using the previously determined qualifications criteria
to rank the firms.
213
The highest-ranked finn is invited to meet with the client to develop a scope of work that is
consistent with the client's needs and the AlE's experience and qualifications. After
development of a mutual understanding and agreement on the scope of work, the AlE
prepares a written project workplan, confirming its understanding of the project and the tasks
involved. Based on the agreed scope of work, the AlE prepares a detailed cost estimate and
proposed schedule for review by the client, including proposed contract terms.
If the scope and fee are acceptable to the client, a fonnal contract is prepared. If, however,
the proposed fees exceed the client's budget, then the AlE and the client work together to
redefine the scope of work and level of effort until both the scope and proposed fees are
acceptable. If the AlE believes that the reduced scope will increase project risks, these added
uncertainties are explained to the client.
Occasionally, the client and AlE are unable to reach agreement. If this occurs, the client then
enters into negotiations with the next-ranked finn.
QBS makes sense for both the client and the AlE for the following reasons:
• QBS is a more efficient procurement process. The work required to write a clear,
concise, and unambiguous scope of work as the basis of bidding will usually cost
more and be less efficient than the work required to develop a joint scope of work
with the selected AlE.
• The client maintains control over both the scope and costs of the services
provided. The QBS process defers price determination until the selected AlE
understands the client's needs and objectives. In contrast, competitive bids
require AlEs to make assumptions in advance regarding the scope of work; these
assumptions may vary considerably from the client's true needs.
• QBS promotes teamwork and understanding with the client. In contrast, the use
of competitive bids can create adversarial relationships between the client and the
AlE. The client dictates the scope, and the AlE determines how to meet that
scope, at the lowest price, based on assumptions. Changes in scope result in
change orders, misunderstandings, and, occasionally, disputes.
Although it is difficult to find cost comparisons that demonstrate the differences between the
results of QBS and the selection of AlEs based on competitive bids, an excellent case history
214
compares experiences in Maryland and Florida (Roberts, 1992). Before 1974, Maryland used
a QBS process for selecting and retaining AlEs. In 1974, legislation was enacted requiring
AlEs to include fees in their proposals because the Maryland legislature was persuaded that
fee-bidding would minimize opportunities for corruption, despite evidence to the contrary.
This legislation required Maryland to award all state projects with fees greater than $25,000
on the basis of both price and technical proposals, each submitted in its own envelope. The
selection process included development of a short-list based on qualifications, and
submission of bids from the short-listed firms. Maryland's fee-bidding procedure required
state agencies to prepare highly detailed work scopes, ostensibly so that bids could be
compared against consistent criteria.
As might be expected, when qualifications and price were considered together during
selection, a disproportionate emphasis was inevitably placed on price. Between 1981 and
1983,83 percent of the AlE contracts were awarded to the firm that had submitted the lowest
priced proposal (Roberts, 1992). Thus, low price usually became the deciding factor,
regardless of the AlEs' technical rankings, past experience, or qualifications.
In 1984, the Consulting Engineers Council of Metropolitan Washington found that 75 percent
of the regional AlEs refused to compete for state projects in Maryland. Respondents said that
they did not want to "play the game," that is, submit fees based strictly on the work scope
developed by state agencies (Bachner, 1991). After ten years of experience with the two
envelope system in Maryland, the American Institute of Architects compared the costs of
public construction in Maryland to those in Florida, which used a QBS process, finding
(Roberts, 1992):
• The cost of AlE selection and design as a percentage of total construction costs in
Maryland was almost twice that of Florida (13 percent vs. 6.7 percent).
In 1985, the Maryland legislature voted nearly three to one to abandon the price-based
selection process in favor of a process based on QBS (Roberts, 1992).
Not surprisingly, most U.S. design professions endorse QBS. These include ASFE, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Consulting Engineers Council
(ACEC), the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE), the American Institute of
Architects (AlA), as well as landscape architects and surveyors (Roberts, 1992).
Note, however, that the American Bar Association (ABA) also endorses QBS. Their widely
accepted model code, developed in 1979 for state and local governments, includes guidelines
for the retention of AlEs and land surveyors using the QBS process. In addition, the Institute
for Municipal Engineering, a division of the American Public Works Association, provides a
215
client's perspective on the benefits of using QBS, emphasizing that selection criteria must be
based on qualifications. Construction contractors also endorse the use of QBS. In a joint
statement prepared in 1988, the Associated General Contractors (AGC) and the American
Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) support the selection of AJEs on the basis of
qualifications and competence at fees determined on a negotiated basis (Roberts, 1992).
QBS LEGISLATION
For many years, the U.S. Congress encouraged the use of a competitive negotiation process
and many federal agencies voluntarily used a QBS approach. However, federal law did not
explicitly describe how AJEs were to be retained by federal agencies until passage of the
"Brooks Law" (Public Law 92-582) in October 1972 (Bachner, 1991). The Brooks Law
requires federal agencies to publicly announce requirements for AlE services, and to
negotiate AlE contracts on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications. The
Brooks Law specifies retaining AlEs for all federal projects using QBS procedures; it was
amended in 1988 (PL100-656) to include land surveyors and landscape architects (Roberts,
1992).
As of 1992, thirty-six states have some form of legislation requiring QBS, often referred to as
"mini-Brooks" laws (Roberts, 1992). Many other states adhere to the principles of QBS,
without imposing QBS as a mandatory requirement. The various state laws vary
considerably in application. For example:
• Some laws apply to both state agencies and to local government; others apply
only to state agencies.
• In some states certmn agencies, such as DOTs, are exempt from the legislation.
• Only a few state laws have provisions for enforcement of the legislation.
• Some states suggest the use of QBS, but do not require it.
Our survey results show that both DOTs and consulting engineers agree that QBS is used
most of the time by DOTs to select and retain AlEs. As indicated in Figure 2, both
consulting engineers and DOTs report that QBS is always used more than 60 percent of the
time, and is rarely or never used less than 15 percent of the time.
216
USE OF QBS BY DOTs
80
o Consulting Engineers
=
~
60 . - - .... - II DOTs
:.a
=
c
=-
~
~ 40 .
~
....
=
-
~
(oJ
~ 20 .
0....-----
Always Use Use QBS Rarely or
QBS Most of the Never Use
Time QBS
FIGURE 2
There is less agreement, however, about whether or not DOTs require AlEs to use QBS
procedures for their lower-tier subconsultants.. As shown in Figure 3, consulting engineers
are split nearly 50/50 on this issue. In contrast, the DOTs report they require use of QBS for
lower-tier subconsultants at a ratio of nearly four to one.
80 o Consulting Engineers
.-= 60
"0
~
II DOTs
L...- ---'
. -- . - ..
=
c
=-
~ ..
~
~
40
.....
= 20 .
-
~
(oJ
~
~
0
Mostly or Rarely or
Always Never
FIGURE 3
217
According to consulting engineers, DOTs do encourage use of QBS selection procedures for
lower-tier sub-consultants as shown in Figure 4. DOT respondents are split about 50/50 on
this issue.
o Consulting Engineers
• DOTs
60
...c
~
"'C
C
0
Q"
[IJ
Q"l
~
....C
Q"l
...
C.l
Q"l
~
0
Mostly or Rarely or
Always Never
FIGURE 4
Background
Dr. W. Edwards Deming is generally credited with helping the Japanese achieve economic
superiority. In the re-building of Japan after World War II, he taught Japanese business and
industry that continuous quality improvement would lead to competitive dominance over
those who promoted only low-priced products. Based on his experience in Japan, Deming
developed 14 rules for quality. The fourth rule can be paraphrased: End the practice of
awarding business on the basis of price (Roberts, 1992).
In the early 1980s, U.S. industry began to take this challenge seriously. So much so that
Total Quality Management (TQM) has become a way of life for leading industries. TQM is
spreading to the services industry, and even to government. In the late 1980's and early
1990's many AlEs, DOTs, and governmental agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation are beginning to implement TQM practices.
218
The impact of TQM on the procurement of AlE services is becoming increasingly significant.
Private sector clients and some government agencies recognize that they cannot achieve
TQM without having a dependable source of high quality goods and services from others.
This philosophy has led to encouraging or requiring suppliers to implement quality
improvement programs of their own. It has also led to the creation of strategic alliances,· or
"partnering" with suppliers, including AlEs. Long term-contracts can result, and the
suppliers function as though they were extensions of the client's staff. Before entering into
strategic alliances, however, clients often insist that the AlEs have compatible TQM
programs and that they are fully qualified to provide long-term service.
This phenomenon suggests that the "Q" in QBS is becoming quality instead of qualifications.
If carried to its logical conclusion, traditional bidding for professional services will become
totally unacceptable to clients practicing TQM.
Our survey results indicate that both consulting engineers and DOTs are beginning to
implement TQM concepts in their daily activities in surprising numbers. For example, as
illustrated in Figure 5, nearly 45 percent of the DOTs have begun implementing TQM, and
another 27 percent believe that it is on its way. Although nearly 40 percent of consulting
engineers were not sure what the DOTs were doing with respect to TQM, another 35 percent
report that the DOTs they work with either use or plan to use TQM.
60 o Consulting Engineers
II DOTs
ell
...."0C
C
0
C.
v.l
a.l
~
....
=
a.l
...
(,J
a.l
Q..
0
Yes No Not Yet, Not Sure
But It Is
On Its Way
FIGURES
219
The next logical step for a DOT that has implemented TQM is to require its consultants to
practice TQM. We asked if DOTs have this as a current requirement, or if they encourage
TQM practices, and the survey results are shown in Figure 6. About 30 percent of the
consulting engineers, and 25 percent of the DOTs say that this is now the case, while 25
percent of consulting engineers and 35 percent of the DOTs believe it is on its way.
o Consulting Engineers
II DOTs
40
.-c
01)
"C
C
Q
Q.,
~
Q,l
...c
~
-
Q,l
C.l
Q,l
Q.o
0
Yes No Not Yet, Not Sure
ButH
is on Its
Way
FIGURE 6
Consulting engineers seem to be moving even more quickly towards implementing TQM in
their practices. Nearly 55 percent of the respondents have implemented TQM, and another
34 percent plan to implement TQM practices (see Figure 7). Of those that have already
implemented TQM practices, 80 percent report that they have benefitted from TQM as
illustrated in Figure 8. While 20 percent are still unsure about the benefits of TQM, no one
responded "no" to the question: Has TQM been beneficial to your firm?
220
AS A CONSULTING FIRM, HAVE YOU IMPLEMENTED TQM?
60
o
Yes No Not Yet,
But It
Is On Its
Way
FIGURE 7
100
Oll
.5 SO
"'C
c0
Cl.
(1:1
60
-
CI.l
~
cCI.l 40
Cj
100
CI.l
~
20
0
Yes Unsure
FIGURES
221
ISO 9000
Many believe that the next step in the quality process in the U.S. is ISO 9000, a series of five
international standards that establish requirements for quality systems. The ISO 9000
standards were developed during the 1980s by the International Organization for
Standardization to provide uniform, worldwide quality assurance requirements. The
standards are generic and specify 20 distinct elements of a quality system such as
management responsibility, training, document control, quality audits, and corrective action.
ISO 9000 standards are now common in Europe, and with increasing international trade and
the opening of global markets, are expected to become more common in the U.S. in coming
years. Here in the U.S., there were 1882 ISO 9000 registrations on the books in November
1993, with most coming from companies in the chemical, computer, and electronics
industries (Chemical Week, April 6, 1994).
The ISO 9000 standards are intended to be a means of verifying quality through an
independent, consistent, reliable, and economical system that assesses conformity of services
and products to recognized standards. As worldwide acceptance to ISO 9000 grows,
registration will likely be viewed as a stamp of approval.
The ISO 9000 definition of "quality" is conformance to documented requirements, and ISO
9000 registration is based on verifying conformance to consistent, specified operations,
including proper documentation. Compliance with requirements assures customers that the
systems and processes that a company uses consistently produce the level of quality that is
specified by the company. Recognize, though, that this compliance does not necessarily
assure customers that a company's systems and processes will produce quality acceptable to
the customer.
Hence, ISO 9000 standards specify elements of a quality system, but do not address whether
services or products resulting from that system will meet customer requirements. ISO 9000
registration merely provides customers with assurance that a registered company has a
documented system and follows it.
We surveyed DOTs and consulting engineers regarding their plans for ISO 9000. In contrast
with TQM, ISO 9000 is not yet a pressing issue. Only one DOT reports that it is beginning
to explore ISO 9000, while two consulting engineers believe that DOTs they work for may be
considering ISO 9000 registration. No DOTs require their consultants to be registered,
although two claim they are thinking about it.
Four consulting engineers (3 percent of respondents) report that all or part of their operations
are ISO 9000 registered. Another 11 consulting engineers (9 percent of respondents) report
that they are considering ISO 9000 registration.
222
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
ADRDEFINED
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses a quiet revolution of resolving disputes
outside the U.S. legal system that is beginning to take shape (Pollock, 1993). Frustrated by
the expenditure of money and time, and disruption of business experienced when fighting
legal cases, an increasing number of firms are settling disputes outside the nation's courts. In
1992, more than 40,000 cases were handled by private mediation and arbitration firms
(Pollock, 1993). The cost savings associated with this shift are enormous. For example, the
Center for Public Resources, a non-profit group that provides mediators and arbitrators, has
tracked the experiences of 406 companies since 1990. Since that time, an estimated $150
million in legal fees and expert witness costs have been saved by using litigation alternatives
-(Pollock, 1993).
ADR is the general term used to describe the methods used by disputants seeking resolution
of their disputes without resorting to litigation in U.S. courts. While surveys show the
growing strength of ADR, it is not new to the construction industry. As early as the 1970s,
ASFE saw ADR as a way to relieve the liability problems that were confronting geotechnical
and geoenvironmental engineers. In 1974, ASFE introduced its mediation/arbitration
concept - two years before the American Bar Association's Pound Conference, which is
often credited with the beginning of the ADR movement.
ADR embodies a wide variety of creative and innovative processes that are used as
alternatives to litigation for solving disputes. Some of the more familiar ADR processes are
mediation, mediation/arbitration, mini-trials, and summary jury trials. In its publication,
Alternative Dispute Resolution for the Construction Industry, ASFE provides a description of
20 different ADR techniques (ASFE, 1988). The common thread in these techniques is that
they all eliminate the need for a formal trial and oftentimes the expensive and time
consuming discovery process that is a major part of formal litigation proceedings.
BENEFITS OF ADR
ADR presents several benefits to the construction industry. Among the most obvious are the
potential for significant time and cost savings. These savings are realized in the reduced fees
and overhead hours invested in legal battles, and also on the project site, where quick
resolution of disputes means attention can be focused on quality and timely project
completion. Most importantly, the goal of ADR is to conduct business fairly and to preserve
client relationships. ASFE (1988) cites several benefits associated with ADR, which are
worth summarizing here.
• With ADR, there is more than one right answer. This flexibility enables the
involved parties to evaluate numerous options for settling disputes and select the
one most suitable for their specific circumstances. If needed, the selected method
can be further modified to suit the parties to a dispute.
223
• In an ADR process, the disputants select their neutrals; that is, the individuals who
will arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise facilitate resolution of a dispute. It should be
recognized that the ideal time to identify a neutral individual(s) is at the start of
the project, when the parties are not burdened or biased by a dispute situation.
• Most forms of ADR can lead to quick resolution with relatively little time spent in
hearings before neutrals. More importantly, ADR can often be implemented
quickly after a dispute erupts, sometimes within a few days after the incident
giving rise to the claim. Many ADR methods have been developed precisely
because they permit expedited resolution of specific issues even if the overall case
is not resolved. This is in sharp contrast to the delay of trials where there can be a
lapse of 18 months or more before the average case reaches trial; for major cases,
it is not unusual for final resolution to occur ten or more years after the initial
claim is filed.
• With most ADR procedures, the disputants are intimately involved in the process
from the start. Most forms of ADR are open, accessible, and user-friendly.
• Litigation awards are almost always a cash settlement. When ADR is used, more
creative solutions can be applied; e.g., providing services or products. Because
creative solutions are more flexible, they enhance the potential for fashioning an
acceptable resolution.
• In most cases confidentiality is assured with ADR; the proceedings are not public
as with court cases. While confidentiality is good, it should not serve, however,
as an excuse for keeping some types of important information unavailable to the
public.
• When decisions can be reached within days rather than months or years, costs are
reduced, in many cases, substantially. The delays, further claims, and breakdown
of cooperation that often result from lengthy trials are avoided and as a result
added project costs are minimized.
If we are really concerned about doing a quality job, then ADR seems to be the obvious path
to take in case of dispute. It establishes communication processes for solving problems
quickly and easily so that we can focus on doing our work.
A recent ENR article reports that ADR is gaining greater acceptance in both public and
private sectors in the construction industry. For example, in May 1994 two dozen federal
agencies including the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency
signed aJormal pledge to use ADR whenever possible (ENR, July 11, 1994).
224
The same ENR article, however, describes the results of a survey of general contractors
reporting that less than half say that their legal counsels recommend ADR. More than three-
fourths of those experienced with ADR, though, report that their ADR experience was
favorable or very favorable.
We found similar results; although U.S. industry in general seems to be embracing ADR with
increasing frequency, this trend is not yet apparent with DOTs. As shown in Figure 9, two
thirds of the DOTs responding to the survey say they never use ADR. And, nearly 60 percent
of the consulting engineers either say the DOTs do not use ADR, or are not sure if they do.
80
~
..'Cc 60
C
0
C.
[Il
-
QJ
a: 40
:::
QJ
u
'"'
~
QJ 20
O-t""""........_ -
On Occasion! - Never Not Sure
When
Possible
FIGURE 9
The Dispute Review Board (DRB) is one of several ADR techniques used to avoid or resolve
disputes between project participants and contractors before litigation is required. The
processes described here are flexible and may be adapted to meet the needs of each project
and its participants. The DRB process has been used extensively in underground
construction, recently expanding into other areas including highway, bridge, and dam
225
projects (ASCE, 1991). The DRB is an excellent ADR method to consider whenever the
possibility of a dispute represents significant time or cost.
The use of a DRB is often stipulated in the original contract. It is generally established at the
beginning of the project before any disputes arise, though a DRB can be added at any step
during the project. From its inception, the DRB is an active part of the entire project.
During construction, the DRB meets regularly during critical phases at frequencies that
permit the Board to remain up-to-date with construction and administrative developments;
for most projects this may mean meeting every three to four months. These meetings are
frequently held at the project site, enabling the Board to see the work in progress so that they
can understand first-hand any problems which may arise. At less critical times during the
project, the Board may meet less frequently. The Board also receives periodic updates on the
status of the project, often in the form of copies of the weekly project reviews that are
commonly provided to the owner.
The DRB typically comprises three professionals: One member selected by the owner and
approved by the contractor, one member selected by the contractor and approved by the
owner, and a third selected by the first two members and approved by both the owner and the
contractor. The members serve throughout the life of the project. As a whole, the Board
should have experience with:
• The engineering and construction principles necessary for the specific project.
• The cost and scheduling practices for the specific project.
• Interpreting contract documents.
• Claims analysis.
In addition, it is helpful if one member of the Board has served on a DRB previously, while
another member has little or no previous DRB experience. This enables the DRB to benefit
from previous procedural and administrative experience as well as the fresh insights of the
new member. A single Board member should be designated as chair; this member should
have excellent communication and leadership skills. Most importantly, the Board members
should be respected, t]J.eir expertise acknowledged, and their objectivity and impartiality
trusted by all project participants (ASCE, 1991).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute arises during the course of a project, the dispute is brought to the Board. Project
participants, usually the contractor and the owner, and sometimes the project ME, provide
reports of their positions to the Board prior to a hearing. Relevant background materials
accompany the position papers, and it is preferable that the project participants work together
to compile a single set of documents for the Board's review. A list of hearing participants
and witnesses should also be provided to all parties before the hearing begins.
226
The hearing is designed to be an informal, problem-solving session, so the presence of
attorneys and the excessive participation of technical experts is discouraged. The chair of the
DRB is responsible for the flow of the meeting, including facilitating the discussions and
questioning participants. The goal of the hearing is to resolve the dispute at the job level, and
to determine merit of position. To assure that the dispute does not unduly impact the project
schedule, decisions regarding quantum, or compensation can be addressed by the DRB at a
later time, or can be resolved by the parties independently. One of the principal advantages
of DRBs is their ability to provide decisions within weeks or months, as compared with years
often required by litigation. The decisions resulting from the DRB are generally non-
binding. However, since the project participants have been involved with the selection of
Board members and have agreed to this form of dispute mediation, the Board's decisions are
usually accepted.
The primary benefit of the DRB is that it prevents disputes from escalating. Disputes often
result in loss of respect and trust between the project participants that create additional
problems during the course of the project, delays, and finally, expensive litigation. Second,
the DRB also reduces the cost of the project and the cost of resolving disputes.
The presence of the DRB enables project participants to have an impartial and knowledgeable
resource to review the technical and administrative aspects of the project. With this common
ground, project participants often establish a degree of trust and rapport that can be
maintained and expanded throughout the project, even when negotiations with the Board are
required. Knowing that experts are close at hand, the tendency towards posturing and game
playing can be reduced. Maintaining trusting relationships between project participants helps
assure that problems will be addressed directly and efficiently.
The presence of the DRB reduces the likelihood of significant project delays from incipient
disputes because the DRB is actively involved in the project. When a problem arises, it can
be resolved quickly, while relevant technical information is available, before project
participants have become entrenched in their positions, and before the disagreement has
derailed the project schedule significantly.
The Board also reduces the focus on protecting the legal or technical position so that project
managers can focus on getting the job done right and on time. When issues arise that may be
politically undesirable, or in which direct involvement may make objectivity difficult, the
Board is available to provide unbiased and educated insight, quickly and efficiently.
Disputes and the likelihood of disputes influence contractors' prices. By including a DRB in
a contract, owners indicate their willingness to be reasonable in situations in which disputes
arise. By indicating reasonability, the owners enable the contractors to reduce contingencies
in their bid price, resulting in savings. And, when disputes occur, using the DRB to resolve
the dispute is usually much more cost-effective than litigation. The overall cost of a DRB is
generally between 0.1 and 0.3 percent of the total project cost (ENR, July 11, 1994).
227
In one study, use of DRBs was tracked on 166 projects worth $10.5-billion. The boards
heard 225 disputes, and resolved 208. Only one dispute went into litigation and was resolved
prior to adjudication (ENR, July 11, 1994).
There is an unfortunate common perception that DRBs are used exclusively to facilitate
avoidance or resolution of disputes between owners and contractors on construction projects.
While this may be the traditional case, the author has first-hand experience using a DRB to
settle a dispute between an owner, coincidentally a DOT, and the project design AlE. In this
case, the DRB was successful in avoiding protracted litigation that would have been costly to
both parties, and would have had a major impact on the project schedule. The DRB
recommended a solution that was not only satisfactory to both parties, but also enabled them
to preserve their working relationship and to complete the project without undue delay.
As noted earlier, use of DRBs rated last among both consulting engineers and DOTs in the
six issues of importance (see Figure 1). Clearly, use of DRBs has not yet made the impact on
general transportation projects that it has on underground construction. This is demonstrated
in Figure 10. Only about 5 percent of DOTs responding report using DRBs regularly, and
only about 10 percent of consulting engineers responding reported that DOTs regularly use
DRBs. Nearly 40 percent of the consulting engineers responding were not sure if the DOTs
used DRBs, suggesting that, even if used, DRBs are not well-publicized.
'"'
~
20
=--
0
Rarely, or Regularly Not Sure
On Occasion
FIGURE 10
228
PARTNERING
For many, partnering intuitively seems the way we would like to do business-basing our
relationships on trust and mutual commitment to a common set of goals. Unfortunately, in
the engineering and construction industries, there has historically been the potential for
adversarial relationships between participants on a project. Participants are suspicious of one
another and protective of their own financial and legal positions, often at the expense of
others. The bidding process is often indicative of this attitude; contractors and owners
sometimes provide inaccurate financial and schedule information to the other party, knowing
that it is all "part of the game" (Work Systems Associates, Inc., 1994).
With initial negotiations based in posturing and gamesmanship, the ongoing project work
often assumes a similar tone. When issues arise, meetings become games in which each
party tries to outplay the other, rather than problem-solving sessions in which each party
brings its insight and expertise to reach common goals. The result is expensive-dollars and
hours spent checking and double-checking the validity of each player's statements and, in the
most severe cases (which are becoming all too frequent), time and money spent in litigation.
WHAT IS PARTNERING?
With tight economic conditions, engineering and construction industries have begun looking
at more cost-effective ways of doing business, improving quality, and avoiding litigation.
Partnering is one of several strategies that meets these aims. Partnering is a structured
approach to helping project participants build teams that address their common goals. The
process is increasingly being used in the design stage with consulting engineers as well.
Although some report a more enjoyable work environment on partnering projects, partnering
is not just a panacea that makes everyone feel good (Weston, 1992).
Partnerships take on different forms in the public sector, where partnerships are established
for a single project, and in the private sector, where partnerships tend to be longer term and
can extend over the span of several projects. In both sectors, however, the contract is still the
legal agreement between the parties and the agreement to partner does not replace a strong
contract. But in a partnering relationship, the contract is not the only document that defines
the relationship between project participants. Rather, the contract is the starting point for
their work together and is supplemented by additional documents, developed jointly, that
outline:
229
DEVELOPING THE PARTNERING STRUCTURE
Not only must all parties involved in the project be included in the partnership, but they must
also see their organizational leaders, both project managers and senior management, as being
committed to the process. Because partnering requires a change in long held and often
negative attitudes, organizational leaders must model openness, trust, and cooperation.
The initial meeting, generally scheduled for two days, helps the participants recognize the
barriers to the formation of a partnership and develops strategies for overcoming those
barriers. The facilitator, a neutral party, is important in helping establish common ground
between the partners and helping improve communication. After common ground has been
established, the initial working session focuses on development of a charter.
The charter includes the basic elements of organizational structure by addressing some basic
questions: Will the project participants form a team and work together as one team, or will
cooperating te~s exist? What are the responsibilities of the team or teams? Do the teams
have any unique responsibilities? What are the limits of authority for individual team
members and the team as a whole? What process will be used to escalate issues beyond the
authority of the team to resolve? (Work Systems Associates, Inc., 1994).
The charter also defines the goals, measures of success, and incentives: What goals do the
partners have in common? What goals are unique to a single partner or individual? How do
those goals effect the achievement of the team goals? (ACEC & AlA, 1993). How can the
achievement of those goals be measured? What incentives does the team want to put in place
to reward the team and individual participants for achievement of those goals? (Work
Systems Associates, Inc., 1994). After the charter has been defined, all participants sign the
charter, indicating their agreement with its tenets and their commitment to achieving its
goals.
The last task of the initial meeting is to develop an implementation plan that addresses the
methods of communication, conflict resolution methods and timeframes, team meeting
230
structure and regularity, and ongoing self-assessment methods. A key element in this
implementation plan is a schedule for team meetings throughout the project life cycle.
While the first meeting may be considered among the most critical because it sets the
direction and tone of the partnership, it is not sufficient. Additional meetings must be
scheduled throughout the project to enable team members to ask questions about the
partnering process, to voice their concerns about team communications, to resolve potential
disputes, to explore new potentials for cost savings, and to develop strategies for capitalizing
on new opportunities. These meetings may be one or two day sessions and should be
facilitated (Work Systems Associates, Inc., 1994).
The final stage of the partnering process is project completion. This is a time for celebration;
for recognition of goals met; for recognition of incentives earned; and for recognition of the
relationships developed.
BENEFITS OF PARTNERING
Partnering has significant benefits. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has
found that by using partnering agreements, they have reduced claims significantly. On 96
projects worth $300 million conducted under partnering agreements, no claims have been
filed. This has resulted in the reduction of their claims staff by four and the reduction of its
engineering contingency by half. The ADOT says it has saved $5 million dollars as a result
(ENR, July 18, 1994).
One study of the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers' use of partnering on construction projects
reports significant savings when the partnering strategy is used between the Corps and its
construction contractors. Comparing Corps' projects with partnering versus Corps' projects
without partnering, there was nine percent less cost growth on projects with partnering,
attributed primarily to fewer change orders and claims (Weston, 1992). The Corps has used
partnering on 200 construction contracts since 1988, and no claim as yet has gone into
litigation (ENR, July 11, 1994).
While the partnering strategy offers significant benefits, there are pitfalls that should be
recognized and avoided. A partnering agreement is not a replacement for a good contract. It
is essential that the contract still address issues such as risk allocation, even if a partnering
agreement is in place (ACEC & AlA, 1993). It is also important to realize that while the
partnering agreement is not a formal contract, agreements made in the partnering agreement
can be viewed as legally binding should a claim arise.
There is also risk that using a partnering strategy will result in a decrease in quality from
failure to report and resolve problems, as evidenced in concerns raised about the partnering
program undertaken by the Arizona DOT (ENR, July 18, 1994). These problems can be
avoided by ensuring that all project participants are involved in the partnering process, and
that the quality goals are clearly understood by all participants. The ADOT is developing
methods to measure the performance of the roads and bridges built before and after it began
231
partnering in 1991 (ENR, July 18, 1994). Similar quality measurement programs in other
partnering relationships are wise.
It is also important to recognize that the partnering agreement on one project should not risk,
or curtail relationships with possible partners on other projects. Additionally, even if an
owner and contractor have worked on multiple projects under partnering agreements, each
partnering agreement must be unique to the specific project for which it was developed and
should not be applied to other projects (ACEC & AlA, 1993).
Partnering has its own costs in time, money, and commitment. Ideally, workshop costs are
shared between the contractor and the owner. Typically, partnering might only add 0.2
percent to the contract award price (Weston, 1992). Time and commitment are required from
all team members and senior management of all participating organizations to assure that the
partnering concept is understood, accepted, and implemented throughout the project life
cycle. Reduced litigation, reduced cost, reduced schedule overruns, and increased job
satisfaction are well worth the extra time and effort.
Figure 11 reveals some disagreement in responses from consulting engineers and DOTs
regarding partnering with consultants. Although the DOTs overwhelmingly say they do not
partner with consultants, the majority of consulting engineers report they do. The rapidly
growing popularity of partnering may mean that experience is moving so quickly that there
are bound to be discrepancies.
On the other hand, Figure 12 shows that DOTs overwhelmingly partner on construction
projects, and Figure 13 shows that they include consultants and subconsultants a majority of
the time. Responding consulting engineers agree, but to a lesser degree.
o Consulting Engineers
80 II DOTs
...=
t).()
"t:l
60 .
=
0
c.
[IJ
~ 40 .
-=...
~
~
~
20 .
~
~
0
Yes No
FIGURE 11
232
DOES THE DOT PARTNER ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS?
100
· _ _ .
80 D Consulting Engineers
.-=
OIl
-=
Q,l
~
Q,l
40
~
~
""
Q,l
20
- - - - - - - • - - - - •• - - - - - • - - - • "1'--"""""'-
0
Yes No Not Sure
FIGURE 12
100
D Consulting Engineers
............... _ ..
BlDOTs
80
20
o
Yes
FIGURE 13
233
CONCLUSIONS
The current practice issues described in this paper-quality (including QBS and TQM),
ADR, DRBs, and partnering-have been shown to offer significant opportunities for cost and
time savings. Their use in the U.S. construction industry will benefit all project participants
by helping them to better manage their risks, and to reduce their opportunities for losses.
Survey results reported in this paper from DOTs and ASFE member firms that work for
DOTs generally show good agreement on these current practice issues. Both DOTs and
consulting engineers express strong interest and support for QBS, and experience with ADR,
DRB, and partnering appears on the rise.
Of the current practice issues discussed in this paper, it is interesting to note that the most
recent issue, partnering, encompasses the most desirable attributes of the other three.
Quality-driven owners wishing to partner with their AlEs will most likely select them using
some form of QBS that includes assessment of the AlEs quality management practices. And,
after the partnership is formed, the ongoing partnering process between the owner and AlE
will likely facilitate dispute resolution. It appears that all project participants will benefit
from the quality practices that partnering encourages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author extends his appreciation to Kevan D. Sharp, Chair of the ASFE Practice
Environment Committee, and to ASFE for support and advice during preparation of this
paper, and for preparing and mailing the questionnaires. Thanks also to Don V. Roberts,
Chair of ASFE' s Council of Fellows, for sharing his files and his insights on QBS.
REFERENCES
ACEC & AlA (1993). A Project Partnering Guide for Design Professionals. American
Consulting Engineers Council and The American Institute of Architects. Washington, D.C.
ASCE (1991). Avoiding and Resolving Disputes During Construction. The Technical
Committee on Contracting Practices of the Underground Technology Research Council.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
Bachner, J.P. (1991). Practice Managementfor Design Professionals. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, New York.
Chemical Week (1994). ISO 9000: Views from Chemical Experts. Riverton, New Jersey.
Volume 154, Number 13, April 6. Pps.45-48.
234
ENR (July 11, 1994). "Industry Pounds Away at Disputes." Engineering News-Record.
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. Pps.24-27.
ENR (July 18, 1994). "Partnering May Pare Quality with Claims." Engineering News-
Record. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. P. 13.
Roberts, D.V. (1992). QBS: What Is It? Where Is It Going? Presentations at Seminars on
Qualifications Based Selection, Consulting Engineers of Alberta. Calgary and Edmonton,
Alberta. September 23-24.
Work Systems Associates, Inc. (1994). The Evolution of Strategic Partnering. Marlborough,
Massachusetts. Volume 5, May.
235
Current Deep Foundation Practice in Taiwan and Southeast Asia
Za-Chieh Moh 1
Abstract:
The current practice of constructing deep foundations, including driven piles, drilled
shafts, large diameter drilled caissons, barrette foundations and mini piles, in Southeast
Asia is reviewed. Research studies which have been conducted in this region on
aspects of negative skin friction, pile group effects, pressure grouting at pile toes and
the use of backbone t-z curves and their mutants for unloading an~ relqading for
evaluating the performance of piles are briefly discussed. .
Introduction
.Due to the geographic nature, all these countries have long coastal lines and
most economic developments spread along the coasts. Therefore the most important
landform in the region is the low flat deltaic plains which count for an appreciable
portion of the usable land. Soft soils of sedimentary origin become one of the most
commonly encountered ground conditions in constructions. However, as plains
become too congested, hilly lands become people's choices. With the convenience of
modern transportation, developments even stretch into mountainous area where people
can stay away from noise and enjoy their lives. The ground conditions in mountainous
lpresident, Moh and Associates Group, IIF, 35, Lane 11, Kwangfu N. Road, Taipei
105, Taiwan, Republic of China
236 Moh
areas are quite different from the ground conditions in plains and are frequently
unsuitable for piling works. Special techniques have been developed to suit local
environments, for example, large diameter hand-dug caissons are widely used to deal
with the unique geological conditions in Hong Kong. Malaysia is very notable for
karstic limestone formations in which large cavities are present (Ting, et aI, 1993).
Underpinning of bored piles offers a unique and innovative solution.
The types of deep foundations commonly adopted in this region are not different from
those adopted elsewhere. They include driven piles, drilled shafts, drilled caissons,
barrettes, mini piles, etc.
Driven Piles
Steel pipe pile, steel H-pile and prestressed concrete pile are the three types of deep
foundations most commonly used in this region. They all are competitive with
preference different from place to place because of local environments, availability and
costs.
In Taiwan, driven piles are seldom used in urban areas because of the concerns
on noise and vibration. They are used primarily for highways and industrial facilities in
rural areas, coastal and reclaimed sites. One of the most notable recent piling projects
is the construction of Taichung Steam Power Plant where the site was reclaimed by
hydraulic sandfill about 6m in thickness. Closed-ended steel pipe piles of 0.8m in
diameter were driven to a maximum depth of 58m to support three tall chimneys of
250m in height (Duann et aI, 1994). Open-ended steel pipe piles were once popular
for power generating facilities, for example, the Hsin-Ta Steam Power Plant, also on a
reclaimed site, in southern Taiwan (Woo et aI, 1990). Extensive studies have been
carried out to study the plugging effects of open-ended pipe piles (Sao et aI, 1980) and
it was found that the loading capacities of open-ended piles, even with plugs effectively
developed, were only 60% of those of closed-ended piles. Therefore, recently
prestressed concrete piles (typically 600mm in diameter) are more preferred. Raymond
piles, with step-taper corrugated light-steel shells, were introduced to Taiwan in
1970's. For constructing the plant complex for China Steel Corporation, a total of
22,560 Raymond piles were driven in the first phase alone and many thousands more
were installed in later stages (Moh, 1987).
In Hong Kong, steel H-piles and spun concrete piles are usually adopted for
foundations on land while steel pipe piles are often used for marine structures such as
wharves and jetties. Piles are commonly driven by diesel hammers, which are
becoming less and less popular for environmental reasons. The use of hydraulic
hammers is being promoted by the Hong Kong Government. For H-piles, the most
popular size is Grade 55, 180 kg/m piles with an allowable axial load of about 30 MN.
Steel pipe piles are generally driven open-ended, although sometimes closed-ended
237 Moh
piles are adopted to suit special occasions. To reduce long term maintenance problems
in a marine environment, piles are frequently infilled with concrete to the seabed level.
Spun piles are cast in factories where concrete is compacted by spinning and autoclave
curing is carried out to produce a characteristics strength of 78.5 11Pa. Tendons are
pretensioned so the shell is prestressed and is able to resist hard driving. The most
popular size is 500mm O.D piles with an allowable load of2.3 1v1N.
Steel H-piles, square concrete piles and spun concrete piles are the three most
commonly used types of piles in Thailand. The maximum penetration is
approximately 26m for H-piles and square concrete piles (maximum size: 400 x
400mm). In Bangkok, spun piles (maximum diameter: 1m) can be driven through the
First Sand Layer by hydraulic hammers to reach a depth of about 30m.
Prestressed concrete pile is the most commonly used type of pile in Singapore.
To a lesser extent, steel H-piles and spun concrete piles are also popular. One of the
major piling projects is the Marina Centre Development in Singapore, a total of 9,349
Raymond piles were installed to support three hotels varying from 22 to 37 stories in
height (Moh and Woo, 1984).
Drilled shafts are almost always referred to as bored piles in this region and are
commonly used to support heavy loads from tall buildings, bridge piers, towers, etc.
They are equally popular as, ifnot more popular than, driven piles. As noise becomes
a major environmental issue, the use of bored piles is gaining additional momentum.
Various techniques have been developed to improve their performance, such as, high
pressure grouting, the use of full-length casings, etc.
238
Moh
boulders, bored piles of 2m diameter used to support the 50-story Shin-Kwang
Building, the tallest building in Taipei, were underreamed to a maximum diameter of
3.3m. Chung-Yang Bridge, a cable-stayed bridge, is supported on 2m diameter bored
piles, installed to a maximum depth of 94m which probably is the record length in
Taiwan. Sometimes, instead casting the piles in-situ, precast concrete piles can be
lowered into pre-drilled holes infilled with soil-cement mixture. This eliminates the
vibration and noise associated with driven piles and, meanwhile, avoid the many
problems associated with installation of conventional bored piles, such as "soft toe",
necking, etc. A total of 309 prestressed concrete piles, with a diameter of 450mm and
a length of 15m, were installed in such a manner for the construction of a sewer plant
in Linyuan, Kaoshiung (Wang, et ai, 1991). Loading tests on such piles indicated
slightly lower capacities in comparison with piles directly driven into the ground but
higher capacities in comparison with the conventional bored piles.
In Thailand, bored piles are the most popular for highrise buildings. In the recent
piling practice in Bangkok, almost all the bored piles are drilled by using "the auger
and bucket method". The upper portion of the bore in soft clay is protected by using
casing, while the lower portion is stabilized by bentonite slurry. Piles usually range
from 0.5 to 1.5m in diameter with the pile tips embedded in the Second-Sand Layer at
239 Moh
depths of 50 to 60m. The design load can be as much as 10 MN. A maximum total
load of 25 MN has been reported (Balasubramanium, 1994). The world's longest
cable-stayed bridge at the Chao Phraya River Crossing in Bangkok is supported on 2m
diameter bored piles extending to depths varying from 30 to 70m below the sea level.
The bridge has a total length of 182m composed of a 450m main span and two 166m
back spans.
In Malaysia, bored piles, ranging from 450rnm to 1,200mm in diameter, are often
employed in city areas where noise control is implemented. The largest bored pile, up
to 1.83m in diameter was used in the Core Project (Government Office Complex) in
Shah Alam, near Kuala Lumpur. The deepest bored piles, up to 50m, were used in the
Hotel Istana and the Mall, in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia is notable for the presence of
huge cavities in the limestone formation. Small cavities are usually grouted. In some
cases, bored piles are underpinned by micropiles spanning over cavities. For example,
the 30-storey Pan Pacific Hotel in Kuala Lumpur is partly supported on barrettes and
partly on bored piles. Eleven out of the 73 bored piles, 1.2m in diameter, were
underpinned. They were terminated at a short distance into the limestone formation,
or even above the limestone formation. The toe of each pile were underpinned by four
micropiles with a 156rnm internal diameter. Permanent casings of 4.5mm in wall
thickness were are cased 3m above and 3m below any cavities (Mitchell, 1985).
Drilled Caissons
They are usually excavated in the dry by digging circular holes and casting concrete
lining in approximately 1 meter intervals in depth. Smaller caissons (as small as 0.6m
in diameter) are excavated by hand while small excavators may be used at the bottom
of larger caissons. Careful consideration must be given to groundwater control during
caisson construction. This type of caisson can also be used as a retaining structure (e.g.
Moh, Chiang and au, 1979).
In Taiwan, large drilled caissons have not been used. Small diameter (less than
1.5m in diameter) hand-dug caissons were used in developments on slopes as retaining
structures.
In Hong Kong, hand-dug caissons, upto 70m in length, are very popular. The
78-storey Central Plaza Building, the tallest in Asia, the fourth tallest in the world and
the world's tallest concrete structure, is founded on 28 hand-dug caissons, which vary
240
Moh
from 5 to 7.5m in diameter and are embedded in unweathered granite by 30m
(Construction & Contract News, 1990, 1991). Reinforced concrete liners were cast as
excavation proceeded. The 70-storey Bank of China Building, the fifth tallest building
in the world, is supported on only four hang-dug caissons of which the largest is 9m in
diameter belled out to 10.5m (Barcham & Gillespie, 1988). These caissons are 30m in
length. The design load is 380 MN increasing to 510 MN under windload. Diaphragm
walls of 1m in thickness were installed prior to excavation to form liners and to control
the ground water during excavation. The foundations for the 66-storey Gilman Plaza,
now under construction, employ hand-dug caissons 26m in diameter and 40m in depth
with diaphragm waJling as the liner.
The 50-storey DBS Building is probably the first application of large diameter
caissons in Singapore. It was the tallest building in Singapore upon its completion in
the mid-70's, and once held the world record of the largest caissons (6.8m in diameter)
in the Guinness Book (Stephens, 1976). The tower is supported on 4 caissons,
carrying a load of 183 MN each. The deepest one is 64m in depth (Ramaswamy,
1979). The 62-storey OUB Centre, the current taJlest building in Singapore and the
tenth tallest building in the world, is 280m in height and is supported on 7 caissons
founded on bedrock at a depth of about 100m below the ground level (Kurzeme &
Rush, 1985). The caissons have shaft diameters of 5 and 6m, belled out to 6 to 9m,
respectively. They were designed as end-bearing piles founded on sandstone bedrock
in the Jurong formation underlying the Boulder Clay. Just a block away, the 280m tall
tower block for the United Overseas Building Plaza is supported on 12 caissons with
diameters of 4.7m, 6.2m and 6.8m, and a maximum length of 60m (Brems and Han,
1991). They are designed as friction piles and gain their resistance from the Boulder
Clay. The maximum depth of the caissons in the Boulder Clay is 43m. The excavation
for the caissons in the soft marine clay was supported by 0.8m thick diaphragm walls
which extended about 2m into the underlying stiff residual soils. Circular reinforced
concrete segments of 1.5 to 2m in depth were used as liners in Boulder Clay. For
confirming the adhesion between these segments and the Boulder clay, 15 jacking tests
were carried out in the bores by jacking against neighboring segments. The largest
caissons are 8m in diameter and were sunk to a depth of 50m for supporting the
Treasury Building. They are embedded in sandstone/mudstone of the Jurong
fonnation.
Hand-dug caissons were recently used for multi-storey buildings in very steep
mountain terrain in Penang and Genting Highland of Malaysia. In places where
transportation is difficult and labors are inexpensive, the use of hand-dug caissons
appears to be an obvious option.
Barrette Foundations
Barrette foundations differ from other types of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete piles in
that barrettes are rectangular in shape and are installed by using diaphragm walling
machines. Although they are far from being popular, barrette foundations have been
241
Moh
used in quite a number of cases in recent years for the reasons that (1) they are able to
carry huge loads, (2) they can be combined to form sections with different geometry,
such as cruciform, T-shape and H-shape to provide better lateral resistance, and (3)
they can be conveniently installed by using the diaphragm walling machine already
mobilized to the site.
In Taiwan, rectangular barrettes are used in the Taipei Rapid Transit Systems
(TRTS) to support multi-storey buildings to be built on MRT station and entrances.
The barrettes, 1.2m wide, 5.4m (Contract CC2?7) or 6.6m (Contract CC278) long and
upto 78m deep, penetrated into the bearing stratum by 6m. The bases of these
barrettes were pressure-grouted for ensure a solid contact between the underlying
gravels and the toes. The construction of Shin-Kwang Tienmu Building is another
example in which barrettes of 1.2m x 7.4m with a design load of 19 MN were used.
They are 23.5m in length. In constructing Far East Plaza Building, barrettes of 1.2m x
3m were connected to diaphragm walls to a depth of 33m to form buttresses for
reducing the wall movements, thus ground settlements as a precautionary measures to
protect adjacent building.
In Malaysia, the 30-storey Kuala Lumpur Pan Pacific Hotel, is partly supported
on rectangular barrettes, 0.6 x 2.7m in size and up to 86m in depth (Mitchell, 1985). It
was necessary to perform contact grouting and cavity grouting underneath these
barrettes because of the presence of limestone cavities. Barrettes are also used to
support the 88-storey Petronas Twin Towers, now under construction, in the Kuala
Lumpur City Centre Project. It is claimed that these Twin Towers with a height of
450m will be the tallest buildings in the world, surpassing the Sears Towers, the
current record holder, by 7m.
In Hong Kong, the most common sizes of barrette are 2.8m long by 1.0 or 1.2m
wide. They are excavated under bentonite using a clamshell and obstructions are
broken up using heavy chisels. They have proved to be particularly cost-effective as
foundations for highway structures.
Minipiles
Minipiles are not capable of supporting heavy loads. They are often used for sites with
limited headroom or difficult access. The are also highly suitable where there are
numerous obstructions such as boulders or concrete in the ground. They generally
have diameters of between 100mm and 250mm and load carrying capacities up to
1,400 kN. In Singapore, minipiles were used to underpin the Convent of Holy Infant
Jesus as a precautionary protection measures before the passing of the twin tunnels of
the Mass Transit System (Todo, Hwang and Hulme, 1992). In Penang, Malaysia, City
Bank Building was underpinned by mini piles to arrest uneven settlements.
242 Moh
In Malaysia, minipiles in shallow karst limestone formations has gained
widespread acceptance. The piles range in diameter from 250mm to 300mm with
working loads upto 1.5 MN.
Tests on Piles
Loading tests are routinely carried out for confirming the design capacities of piles.
For large projects, tests are carried out on 1, 2, or 3 the most, piles to a maximum load
of 2.5 times to 3 times of working loads. Ultimate load tests to failure, however, are
relatively infrequent. Test are usually carried out in a constant-load mode (stage
loading), rather than the constant-rate mode. Loading tests are also routinely carried
out on 10 to 50% of working piles. Furthermore, in some projects, particularly those
for public works, non-destructive testing (sonic, seismic and vibration) is conducted on
all the piles to check their integrity. If defects are detected, coring is then carried out
for confirmation.
Up to the present, the maximum test load is 24 MN in Taiwan (on a 1.2m x 6.6m
barrette of Contract CC278 of TRTS). In Hong Kong, a maximum load of 25 MN
was tested on a 0.6m x 2.8m barrette. In Malaysia, a 1.2m diameter bored pile of
Kuala Lumpur City Centre Project was tested to 30 MN and test on a barrette is
planned to go up to about 32 MN. In Singapore, the maximum test load is 23 MN on
a 1.5m diameter bored pile for a highway interchange project.
Recently, a number of tests have been carried out using the "Osterberg Cell"
(Osterberg, 1989) in Hong Kong. The use of such cells has not been reported
elsewhere in the region.
243
Moh
The use of t-z curves for back analyses of ultimate bearing capacities of piles
(Coyle and Reese, 1966) so far is still quite limited. This is by far a superior method
because it takes friction and end-bearing separately into consideration. However,
unless instruments are installed and strains and/or displacements are measured at, say,
3 to 4 levels, t-z curves can not be uniquely determined from back analyses.
The use of dynamic formulas for estimating bearing capacities is fading away and
is discouraged by codes in many countries. Where it is used, the Hiley' formula is
probably the one most commonly followed.
Codes of Practice
In Hong Kong, private sector projects are controlled by laws of Hong Kong
entitled "The Building (Construction) Regulations (BCR)" which are administrated by
the Buildings Department of the Hong Kong Government. All deep foundation
designs are submitted to the Buildings Department who check that they comply with
the relevant laws, regulations, codes and practice notes, all of which are available to
local practitioners. Construction is not permitted to commence till consent to do so is
granted by the Buildings Department. Public sector projects fall outside the Building
Regulations. They are controlled by the individual government departments which are
responsible for the works. The revised BCR published in 1990 permits, for the first
time, the use of rational design methods (rather than conservative "rules") for
244 Moh
foundations. A Geoguide on Pile Design & Construction is under preparation by the
Geotechnical Engineering Office aiming at guiding the profession to good practice.
Environmental Regulations
Design Practice
The conventional designs still base on the principle of applying partial factors of safety
on ultimate shaft and tip resistances which are computed from soil strengths.
Allowable loads so determined are not coupled to the permissible settlements which
rely on pile loading tests for confirmation. With sufficient data obtained from tests on
instrumented piles, it is now possible to establish load transfer curves for various
ground conditions and settlements of pil es can be estimated with reasonable confidence.
This rational approach has been incorporated in AASHTO (1992) and will be the
future trend of design. However, the design codes require updating which is overdue.
This is particularly true for bored piles. The phenomenon of "soft toe" has
recently been observed in many tests on instrumented piles. The end bearing of bored
piles, following the conventional design procedures, has been grossly over-estimated.
Fortunately, skin friction which was back analyzed from the results ofload tests on un-
instrumented piles by arbitrary assumptions on the sharing of loads between shaft
friction and end bearing, was grossly under-estimated. Therefore, most of the designs
are "adequate" because of the mutually compensating errors. This discrepancy has
been recognized and corrected in a Japanese design manual by increasing the partial
factor of safety to 10 for end bearing (Japanese Association of Construction, 1988).
In Taipei, old buildings are normally less than 10 storeys in height and are mostly
supported on footings and compensating foundations. Negative skin friction was not a .
serious concern. Restriction on building heights was lifted in the early eighties and the
number of tall buildings erected increased sharply. Fortunately, ground subsidence has
stopped as groundwater table recovered as a result of the banning of withdrawal of
ground water. Therefore, the problem with negative skin friction has been eased. It
remains to be a problem in newly reclaimed coastal areas in southern Taiwan where
industrial parks are located.
Research Studies
A few research studies conducted in the past years in this region are quite interesting
and are thus briefly introduced herein.
Non-Friction Piles
The effectiveness of non-friction piles (trade name NF pile) was studied by a full scale
loading test (Moh, Ou and Woo, 1983) on a reclaimed land in Singapore. As depicted
in Fig. 1, the sand fill of about 3. 7m in thickness is underlain by soft: deposits to a
depth of 32m. The consolidation of marine clay layers as a result of surcharge load
from the new fill may lead to ground settlements and hence negative skin friction on
piles.
246
Moh
SPT Appiled Load, MN
810,,",1)0 em
Depth, m 10 30 50 PIA PIC 5 NIA NIC
01/.\;,
~~:r. Top Sand
.. MBrine Clay
--- ...-rQ.05 mr---'I'----=JI'=---9Ir--:ilF,-j;O:'-..., ....~ir->s ....
5 rt Modiwn to
•. :~: COlne Sand
Sand Oay
P3A • P3C 11,3 m
N4A •• N4C
12,75m
N5A •• N5C
17.75m
NA • P4C 20.8 m
N6A •• N6C
22.25 m
MBrine Clay
-PlainPile
P6C 30.3 m
... NF Pile NSA NBC
31.75 m
Two piles, one plain and one co'ated, were tested to investigate the effectiveness ofNF
pile in reducing skin friction. They are steel pipe piles of 61 Omm in diameter with a
wall thickness of 12. 6mm. Each of them comprises three sections, with lengths of 12m
(l0.5m for the plain pile), 12m, and 9.5m. The NF pile has its top two sections
surrounded by protective sliding sleeves, 11.5m in length and 3mm in thickness.
Between the protective sleeve and the pile is an asphalt coating of 1.5mm in thickness.
For measuring load transfer in the piles, electrical resistant type strain gauges
were mounted on the inside surface of the piles. The strain gauges were protected
from possible damage due to driving by a steel channel welded on the inner surface of
the piles. A total of 18 gauges were on the NF test pile at 5 levels and 12 gauges were
mounted on the uncoated plain test pile at 4 levels. Settlements of the piles during
loading tests were measured by means of displacement dial gauges at the tops.
The two test piles were loaded to 4.5 MN in 5 cycles for the plain pile and 6
cycles for the NF pile. The load-settlement curves for the two piles are compared in
Fig. 2. At the maximum test load, the plain pile settled by 16mm while the NF pile
settled by 72mm. The loads at different levels, computed from readings obtained by
the strain gauges, for the two piles are compared in Fig. 1. The average shaft friction
in the two coated sections was 21 kPa, while that for the corresponding plain sections
was 51 kPa. The residual negative skin friction on NF pile estimated on the basis of
visco-elastic theory is approximately equal to 4.5 kPa at a ground subsidence rate as
much as 300 nun/year and the total negative friction will be 242 kN. For the plain pile,
the total negative skin friction will be 2.4 MN. The effectiveness of NF pile in
reducing negative skin friction is thus apparent.
247 Moh
Load,MN Load,MN
1 2 3 4 2 3 4
0
10
20
e
e 30
-"=e
~
u 40
'E
u
CIJ
50
60
70
Group Effects
The foundation system and the layout of piles of Chimney NO.3 are given in Fig.
3. Tests were carried out to a maximum load of 6,600 kN which is twice of the
working load of 3,330 kN. Test results for TP5 and TP6 are shown in Fig. 4. As can
be noted the full test loads were taken entirely by shaft friction. However, the long-
term monitoring during the construction stage revealed that, as shown in Fig. 5, end
bearing accounted 100% of the load applied on the top for the case of TP5 and 30%
for the case ofTP6. The end bearing for other piles are 60% (TPI), 80% (TP2), 30%
(TP3 and TP4) of the load. This gives rise to a serious concern on the meaningfulness
of loading tests on single piles.
248 Moh
N 297
(j) TP5 34.4
23.2
EL. 8.0 I I I I}?
~" t- r-<
~
N
1
.&. 800mm TYP .
~
TP6 "'"
::x:
"',.;"
vEL. -43.
-
Unit: m
PLAN VIEW OF PILECAP SECTION A-A
Load, lv1N
o 2 4 6 8
" / /. /. V ~
,,.
Jl?/ '/'V
I ~ V.t.:: /'
I/'/~V
-x OT -
-0 60T -
~~ -0 128T _
1/ --b 210T
--b 300T -
-iJ 390T -
-iJ 480 T
~ 600T -
~ 653T -
I I I
TP6
249
Moh
than what test results indicate. This is particularly true for bored piles which are very
likely to have soft toes. Many bridge piers suffer from serious subsidences. The
reason for buildings to be unaffected is that the contact pressures acting on the
baseslabs are usually not taken into consideration and building foundations are thus
much over-designed. In some cases, the uplift forces acting on the buildings are in fact
greater than the building weights, yet piles are designed to support the full weights.
Pressure Grouting
Phenomenon of "soft toe" has been recognized and base grouting is receiving
growing attention. It has been specified in a few public projects in Taiwan. Two pairs
of piles were tested in Contract 17 of the Chungshan Freeway Widening Project for
detennining the effectiveness of grouting. They are 62m and 70m long. Results
indicate limited improvements of grouted piles over ungrouted piles. Presumably the
piles are too long and loads are fully taken by shaft friction (Guo, 1993).
Load,MN Load,MN
o o 2 3 o 2 3
o o
8M 10
) .P
10 '\
J I
V V V
2 =. 20 20
t
-5 '\ '\ I(
...0..
l a 30 \ \. \
i::.'
30
\ / V
... :
,;,;.
8M
40 ~ 40 { I'
~ ,
CL
. I" c \ I I
0 II
5 , 50 50
:. ~ 8M
6' S.I:-:. TP5 TP6
8M
7
Ledgen: -0- Chimney Completed
, 8M
80··· ....... ..... Pilec,p Completed
oW~o
250 Moh
embedded in the First Sand Layer, which lies between depths of 32m to 38m below the
surface, the improvements range from 26 to 66% for ultimate capacities, 24 to 66%
for shaft friction, and 28 to 61 % for end bearing. Improvements obviously decrease
as the pile length increases. For piles with their toes embedded in the Second Sand
Layer, which lies between depths of 45m to 55m below surface, the above values
reduce to 12 to 24% for ultimate capacities, 9 to 27% for skin friction and II to 21 %
for end bearing.
In Malaysia, there is a recent case of the innovative use of post-grouted mini-
piles for a 12-storey building (Lui, Cheung and Chan, 1993). In Singapore, it is
reported that the capacity of a 1.5m diameter bored pile increased by 25 to 30 % while
the cost of grout was about 10% of that of installation (Lee, 1994 ).
A recent study was conducted in the Nankang Depot of TRTS. Tests were
performed at two locations and at each location two piles, one with its base grouted
and one without, were tested. The test piles are 1.5m in diameter and 22m in length.
Their toes are embedded in weakly cemented sandstone/shale by only 2m. Grouting
was carried out to a maximum grouting pressures of 22 kg/cm 2 and 30 kg/cm 2 , at Site
I and 2, respectively, and the intakes of grout were 380 liters and 500 liters.
The results are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 for Site 1 and Site 2, respectively.
Settlements were reduced from 160mrn to 80mm at a maximum test load of 19.8 MN
as a result of base grouting. At the working load of 6.6 MN, the settlements were
reduced from 80mm to less than 10mm. Based on these findings, all the piles, more
than 2,000 in number, were grouted to ensure that the settlement criteria are met.
GJ~:g:
,
-
E>.1ensomeler SPT
Appiled I..ood, mm
--r---I'=-
'"" I~ r--105
106
NVAULE
2.5
2
o 5 10 15 20
o t'l~~R::~~-r-T"""""T"""""-+-""""""--'--~
Strain CL 3 20
4
Gauge 4 40
I I I -98.6
-98 31 ~ 8Jr-+-~----+-~~~~
77 ~. 80
~ 100
i3 120
-91
~ 140
160
I I I -86
SH
180 " ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
I I I =l!.55 SS
251 Moh
Response to Load Reversals
A recent study successfully constructed the load-settlement curves for unloading and
reloading cycles by using the concept of mutant curves (Moh, Chang and Hwang,.
1995). To illustrate the idea, a typical backbone curve, representing the relationship
between the soil resistance, q, and the relative displacement, 0, for a pile subjected to
tension load and compressive load is shown in Fig. 8 and can be expressed as, in a
nonnalized fonn:
CD .. :.'
~o~
'"
k
Strain
Gauge
Ex"tensometer SPT
NVAULE
Appiled Load, MN
.- 106
1""""" 4 0 5 10 15 2
~
-105 3
0
St 5
7 20
G[ ~e
I I -99.5 8 40
21
E 60
24
25 E 80
-94 SM 27
Ill·
34 .,
C 100
36 .E
.,
120
- 88.6 55
>100
-=
tr.l 140
160
SS
I I - 84.55 180
84
252 Moh
q
max
(q+)
max Compression
Test
-----l-- ----.....:::,f---------- 0
(q-) Tension
max
A Test
(0 -) ( 0+)
max max
q
q'
Backbone
Backbone
Curve 0' 0'
S- 3
B
~//
/
, q
Unloading
I
(Q+)·lo /
,
0 0
~ I
(q-) max O2 2
/
01
. -... ",
( 0 +) max
Unloading Reloading
253 Moh
For Unloading
(2)
For Reloading
(3)
The results of a loading test, as shown in Fig. 10, were back analyzed using the
backbone curves shown in Fig. 11. The test pile is a 1m diameter bored pile
embedded in shale and sandstone by 3.3m. It was loaded to a maximum load of 17
MN" in 2 cycles. The computed load-settlement relationship at the pile top are
compared with that obtained in the test in Fig. 12. The agreement between the two
sets of data is excellent in spite the simplicity of the procedure.
4
S .- 6
Silty ...!::
.....
0..
Sand v 8
Q
10
11.8 m
m 12
Sandstone 14
15.1 III
~=1 m 16
18
254 Moh
0.7 25
0.6 ---e-- 0 - 8.3 m
ro 20 ro
0.5 ____ 8.3 - 12.6 m
~ 15 ~
c 0.4 --+-12.6 - 14.9 m c.6
.9 c
....u 0.3 10
'C
ro
Q)'
;E
.-....
c
0.2
0.1
5
~
"'0
c
~ ~
0 0
0 40 80 120
Relative displacement, mm
Appiled Load, MN
o 5 10 15 20
o
E 20
E
40
~
;3 60
E
Q)
=:Q) 80
en 100
120
255
Moh
Summary
The economy boom in the 80's and 90's has promoted numerous prestigious
construction projects in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.
Many of these projects, in terms of size, rank pretty high in world records. The greater
and greater structural loads call for high capacity piles, therefore there is a general
trend of shifting from driven piles, to bored piles (drilled shafts), and to drilled
caissons. The concerns on noise and vibration have practically eliminate the use of
driven piles in populated cities.
Four research studies are discussed herein and the findings can be
summarized as follows:
Doubtlessly, there is much need for further researches. In addition to the four topics
mentioned above, the areas of particular interest include the use of PDA and the use of
Osterberg cells.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Dr. E. W. Brand, :Mr. D. V. Smyth and Mr. Nick Walsh of
Hong Kong, Dr. W. H. Ting and Dr. S. F. Chan of Malaysia, Prof. S. L. Lee, Dr. Tan
Swan Bend and Mr. Lim Thian Loke of Singapore, and Prof. Balasubramanium of
Thailand for providing valuable information. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Richard
N. Hwang and Dr. C. T. Chin of Moh and Associates, Inc. who have assisted in
preparation of major part of this paper. Assistance given by the author's other
colleagues including C. H. Wang, S. K. Kong, Y. M. Ho and N. Namchantra is also
acknowledged.
References
AASHTO (1992), Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 15th ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation officials
256 Moh
Balasubramanium, A.S. (1994), Personal Communication
Bareham, M.e. and Gillespie, BJ. (1988), New Bank of China, Hong Kong:
Foundations and Substructure Design, Prec., 4th Int. Conf. on Tall Buildings, Hong
Kong and Shanghai, vI, pp 128-135
Broms, B.B. and Han, KK (1991), Load Tests of Large Diameter Caissons for a
High Rise Building in Singapore, 9th Asian Regional Conf on SMFE, 9-13 December,
1991, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 205-208
Butler, RD. and Hoy, RE. (1977), Users Manual for the Texas Quick-Load Method
for Foundation Load Testing, Federal Highway Adm., Office of Development,
Washington, 59pp
Chan, S,F. and Lee, P,e.S. (1990), The Design'of Foundations for Suntec City,
Singapore, Prec., Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice, 30-31 Oct, Singapore
Chin, F.K (1970), Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles not Carried to Failure,
Proc. 2nd Southeast Asian Conf. on Soil Engrg., pp 81-90
Chin, F.K (1986), Some Geotechnical Considerations in the Design and Construction
of the Penang Bridge, Proc., IEM-JSSMFE Joint Symposium on Geotechnical
Problems, Kuala Lumpur
Coyle, RM. and Reese, L.e. (1966), Load Transfer for Axially Loaded Piles in Clay,
Prec., ASCE, v.92, No. SM2, March
Construction & Contract News (1991), Central Plaza: Sounds and Looks Simple, but
Wasn't, Sept/Oct, pp 26-31 (in both Chinese and English)
Duann, S.W., Wang, R.F., Kao, T.C. and Liou, G.!. (1994), Behavior of Load
Distribution of Single Pile and Group Pile, Proc., 3rd Int. Conf on Deep Foundation
Practice, 19-20 May, Singapore
Fuller, R.R and Hoy, RE. (1970), Pile Load Tests Including Quick-Load Test
Method, Conventional Methods and Interpretations, HRB 333, pp 78-86
257
Moh
Guo, C.D. (1993), Bearing Capacities of Bored Piles and Base Grouting, CECI
Technique, no. 19, China Engineering Consultants, Inc., Taipei, January
Kurzeme, M. and Rush, M.C. (1985), Deep Caisson Foundations for OUB Centre,
Singapore, Proe., 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Kuala Lumpur, vI, pp 2-43
Lui, lYH., Cheung, S.P.Y and Chan, A.K.e. (1993), Pressure Grouted Minipiles for
a 12-storey Residential Building at the Mid-levels Scheduled Area in Hong Kong,
Proc., Int. Conf. on Soft Clay Engrg, Guangzhou, China, pp 419-424
Mitchell, lM. (1985), Foundations for the Pan Pacific Hotel on Pinnacled and
Cavernous Limestone, Proc., 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., 11-15 March,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Moh, Z.e. (1987), Geotechnical Engineering in Southeast Asia, Past, Present and
Future, Special Guest Lecture, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Dec 1987,
Bangkok (reprinted in Geotechnical Engineering, v19, 1988)
Moh, Z.C., Chang, M.F. and Hwang, R. N. (1995), Load Transfer in Piles during Load
Reversals, Proc., 10th Asian Regional Conf. on SMFE, Aug 29-Sept 2, Beijing, China
(accepted for publication)
Moh, Z.C., Chiang, YC. and Ou, e.D. (1979), Design and Construction of a High
Retaining Scheme, Proc., 6th Asian Regional Conf. on SMFE, Singapore, vi, pp 233-
236
Moh, Z.e., Ou, e.D. and Woo, S.M. (1983), A Case Study on Negative Skin Friction,
Proc., 1st Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Construction Problems in Soft Soils, Dec. 1-3,
Singapore
Moh, Z.C. and Woo, S.M. (1984), Behavior of Steel Shelled Piles at Singapore Marina
Square, Proc., 2nd Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Pile Foundations, 28-30 November,
Singapore
258
Moh
Osterberg, 1. (1989), New Device for Load Testing Driven Piles and Drilled Shafts
Separates Friction and Eng Bearing, Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep
Foundations, London, v I, pp 421-428
Soo, C.F., Lin, C.e., Wang, R.F., Ou, e.D. and Moh, Z.e. (1980), Plugging of Open-
end Steel Pipe Piles, Proc., 6th Southeast Asian Conf, on Soil Engrg, May, Taipei, v2,
pp 315-325
Stephens, J.H. (1976), The Guinness Book of Structures, Guinness Superlatives Ltd.,
Enfield, Middlesex, Great Britain
Ting, W.H., and Lau, L.Y (1993), Treatment of Cavities for Piled Foundations,
Forum on Urban Geology and Geotechnical Engrg in Construction, 1 July, Kuala
Lumpur
Van Der Veen, e. (1953), The Bearing Capacity of A Pile, Proc. 3rd ICSIv1FE, Zurich,
v2, pp 84-90
Wang, W.G. (1992), Foundations for Bee Tan Bridge, Modem Construction of Civil
Engrg and Architecture, no. 147, March
Wang, C.e., Wu, C.M., Yu, M.S., Hsei, B.e. and Chung, YT (1991), The
InstaIIation and Capacities of Pre-driIIed Precast Piles, Proc., 4th Conf on Current
Researches in Geot. Engrg. in Taiwan, Tienshyang
Woo, S.M., Kao, Te., Yen, TL. and Moh, Z.e. (1990), Long Term Geotechnical
Studies at the Hsin-Ta Power Plant Site, Proc., 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conf., 16-20 April, Taipei
259
Moh
CURRENT UNDERSTANDING AND CONTROL
W.G.K.Fleming
Although the use of the system has not been without its
problems, in only a small proportion of all the contracts
done have there have been accounts of misconstruction of
piles, loosening of soils or of occasional damage to
adjacent structures, mainly in sandy or cohesionless
soils. Some of these cases have been reported in
conference proceedings and in the technical press (refs 1
and 2). .
260 Fleming
and see the bottom before placing concrete or observe
directly the continuity of pile shaft construction. This
resistance has been encouraged by the occasional reports
of mishaps.
One of the problems has been that there are machines
readily available in the market and nothing to stop the
unskilled from going to work with a poor understanding of
the technical requirements. Those who have considerable
experience frequently complain that, because it looks
simple, it is all too easy for the inexperienced to
imagine that they also could make money in this way.
Manufacturers, contractors and professionals do not
always appreciate the full relationship between the rate
of cutting by the auger blades, the rate of soil
transportation up the auger stem, and the lateral
pressures required to maintain undisturbed natural soil
around the borehole.
Continuous Flight Auger Pile Performance
During recent years a great many tests have been
carried out in the United Kingdom on piles constructed by
the method in a wide variety of soils, using computer
controlled maintained load testing facilities and
analysing the results using the TIMESET CEMSET
CEMSOLVE pile analysis programs (refs 3,4). These programs
are based on the now well researched fact that both the
time-settlement and load-settlement behaviour of pile
shafts and bases, considered independently, can be
very closely represented by hyperbolic functions when load
is held truly constant at each load stage. Under these
specific conditions the shaft and base characteristics, in
terms of strength and soil stiffness, can be
mathematically separated from any total pile behaviour
result with a high degree of accuracy, provided settlement
has been carried far enough to give an unambiguous result.
Using this system it should be pointed out that
maintained load tests always give fully drained results.
The object of computer control is largely to give very
refined load control at each stage since this quality is
necessary for the analysis process, but it also makes for
simpler handling of reports to clients and can improve
the quality of testing SUbstantially. The current data
base contains about 1000 case records for all types of
driven and bored piles.
The conclusions from tests on continuous flight
auger piles may be summarised as follows:-
1) Provided good construction techniques are used, the
end resistance of continuous flight auger piles is
261
Fleming
consistently good. The stiffness of the base reaction
in any given soil lies within ranges that have been
reported from other information sources and as
determined from other similar experience. The
performance is generally better than that found by
similar means for other bored piles.
D
S = pile shaft diameter E = soil modulus at 25%
D
b = pile base diameter b of ultimate load
U = ultimate shaft load E = elastic modulus of
US = ultimate base load c pile material
b
L
O = friction free length K = effective column
E
L
f = friction transfer length friction length
M
s = dimensionless shaft/soil factor (ratio)
flexibility
Examples
Case (1) The details of pile diameter and length are shown
on the diagram in Fig 1 for a site in Stafford(UK) .
262 Fleming
Ground: 0 - 4.5m Made Ground
4.5 - 8.0m Silty Clayey Sand (SPT N = 10)
8.0 - 24.0m Clayey Silty Sand (SPT N = 10 - 20)
Ground water level at 7m depth.
The ultimate end bearing pressure is almost 9000 kN/m 2
corresponding to an angle of friction of about 31 degrees
(using the Berezantsev bearing capacity coefficients).
The stiffness of the 2soil below the pile base is
approximately 250000 kNjm which is considerably higher
than might have been expected from typical published
correlation values.
(/)
6 --I
~
"Tl
"Tl
o
:0
10 CEMSOLVE o
ANALYSIS n"Tl
x• Input Data ~
1.:1 Os • .6 m
Do • .6 m
Us • 1080 kN
uo • 2512 kN
18 La
Lf
Ms
.
• 4.5 m
16,9 m
• . 001
22 EO • 255000
Ec • 3.3E+07
Ke • .5
26
0 400 800 1200 1500 2000 2400 2800
LOAD ( kN ) C CuJ'l'I~1 CP" lU' ·"3
Fig .1
Case (~) The details of pile dimensions are shown in
Fig.2 for a site in Belfast(UK) .
Ground 0 - 4.25m Made Ground/Fill
4.25 - 7.0m Soft Organic Clayey Silt
7.0 - 14.7m Sand and Gravel (SPT N = 17 to 32)
263 Fleming
Ground water level at 2.5m depth.
2
The ultimate end bearing pressure is 11600 kN/m
corr5sponding to an effective angle of friction of about
34.5 (after Berezantsev).
The stiffness of the soil below the pile base is
approximately 160000 kN/m 2 and again is good by comparison
with other bored pile behaviour in similar ground
determined by the same method.
The shaft friction Ks is approximately 0.45 on the basis
stated above.
CD
rn
r
"'T'1
6 ~
(/)
--I
8 CEMSOLVE n
"'T'1
ANALYSIS ~
10 X • Input Oata
Os • . 45 m
12 DD • . 45 m
Us • 700 kN
Ub • 1870 kN
14 La • 4.25 m
L f · 12.75 m
16 Ms • . 0012
ED • 146500
Ec • 3.2E+07
18 Ke • . 5
1.....:.,;.=----=.;=--_ _---'
20
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
LOAD [ kN ) C) ~""'lplll cp, r (U' -f)
Fig. 2
Fleming
264
Some Basic Controls
When the author's Company entered this field in the late
1970's grouts were mainly used as the material of the
pile. However, it was clear that in many respects
concrete would be easier to use and more controllable,
since good pumping systems had by then become available,
and it was decided to make a change.
Because this was the first time concrete had been used
for this purpose in the UK, the Company, recognising that
there were risks, decided to bUy Integrity Testing
equipment and made it mandatory that all piles constructed
in this way should be tested for soundness. This had two
benefits; firstly, the machine operators were encouraged
to be more careful than they might otherwise have been
and, secondly, it was very educational in that where any
problem occurred it was investigated to find the cause. At
the same time it was realised that the use of this
checking method could be much enhanced by
electronically monitoring both the boring and concreting
processes on each machine.
The first problem encountered in trying to do this was
that there were no satisfactory devices on the market for
measuring concrete flow. Cementation therefore went into a
joint venture with English China Clay Ltd and a gauge
manufacturer to develop a suitable device. This took about
a year of field trials until a meter which was both
accurate and durable enough was produced. The device has
now been in use for several years and has proved to give
consistent and satisfactory results.
Pressure measurement was not so much of a problem and
there are now at least two types of meter which have
proved successful. Other items which clearly needed
attention were the depth of penetration of the auger and
the record of auger rotations, both easy problems to solve
with modern encoders.
Several .successive generations of the monitoring
equipment have now been built and these are centred around
a ~computer in the cab' with a menu-driven system. Not
only are all records stored constantly but they are also
stored into a removable memory unit which is sent to the
head office every week for scanning and reporting. All
salient data from.the records can be printed in the cab as
work proceeds. The same robust computer is used to monitor
the driving process on driven piling machines and for
other control and pile testing devices currently under
development.
The use of such monitoring equipment has now become
widespread in Europe, with several different units being
Fleming
265
manufactured and sold on the market. Most of these are
less advanced than that used by the author's company, but
they do nevertheless lead to more care and attention being
paid to the construction of this type of pile. Indeed many
specifications and codes now call for minimum standards of
monitoring. In purchasing such equipment however one
should be more impressed by the design and reliability of
the system than by graphic representations of reputed pile
sections which may not be accurate.
Examples of some of the output from the monitoring
system currently in use on all continuous flight auger
machines operated by the author's Company are shown on
Figures. 3 to 6. The system has proved reliable and
experimental work is currently under way to link it with
machine controls, so that in the near future the most
important functions of boring and concreting will be
carried out automatically.
Revs AUGER REVOLUTIONS YS DEPTH DIAGRAM
177 .1'
Auger revolutions
v. depth (m) from
1'\ 11 computer record
Fig.3
35. '3
P~ESSU~E
PRESSURE YS DEPTH DIAGRAM
1 00 ,-_.---_.---_..---_....--_-.--_....--_,-_-,--_--.-_...,
-I 00 '-:;----=~---:~__;-:--;:-__;_:_::_~_:_::____:__:_:_-~-~-~-..J
0.0 2.0 '.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 18.0 20.0
DEPTH I m I
266 Fleming
CONCRETE FLOW Illlresl CONCRETE FLOW vs DEPTH DIAGRAM
2-0 00 -
200 00
160 00 F-
400mm diam. pile
- Concrete flow in
litres/metre v.
depth (m)
8000
Fig.5
-0 00
o 00 LL----IL...wl.---II....L...JIl..-JLJ.....Il-...JW....IL-..IL..L....II.-.........'-'--IL........--'--'--_--'--_....J
0.0 2.0 4 0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12 a 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
O£PTH ( m I
-.50
4 00
a 50
267 Fleming
The basis of the model for soil transportation up an
auger is developed inAppendix 1 and it results from
consideration of the shear forces which act on the soil on
a flight at its peripheral edge when it is full of
excavated soil and the auger is at the same time rotating
and penetrating the ground. Important considerations are
the displacement volume of the auger and<- soil bulking or
dilation effects.
The only force available to drive soil upward and
prevent the auger blocking is the shear stress at the bore
wall and this in turn depends on the "active" normal
pressure necessary to sustain stability of the wall. The
method proposed by Terzaghi for calculating the lateral
stability of the walls of a shaft is used and the
resulting values from this are confirmed by experience
gained in stabilising boreholes by the use of bentonite
suspensions.
On the other hand the forces resisting upward soil
result from self weight and the downdrag acting against
the upward flow at the bore wall. These can then be
calculated and the ratio of the upward to downward acting
forces is termed the "Flighting Ratio".
From this it is possible to draw conclusions regarding
the effects for example of variation of auger diameter,
auger stem diameter, flight pitch, soil friction angle and
the rate of penetration during the digging process. This
allows a better appreciation of the risk of over
extraction of soil and can be used to suggest ways in
which it can be minimised.
General Findings
Some of the general findings are as follow:-
(1) The occurrence of excessive flighting is more likely
with large than with small diameter augers.
(2) Flighting of soil becomes more difficult as the
flight angle is steepened
(3) Excessive flighting becomes less probable as the
angle of friction of the soil external to the auger
increases.
It may therefore be expected that the detrimental
effects of drawing excessive soil into the bore will be
most significant when the angle of friction of the
surrounding soil corresponds to a loose to medium dense
state. In these circumstances the worst effects of side
loading can only be avoided by increasing the rate of
268 Fleming
auger penetration so that the digging and transporting
mechanisms are brought more nearly into balance.
The conclusion must therefore be that normal augers
should be controlled in their descent so that near maximum
torque of the machine is consistently mobilised. Thus in
loose sands where the digging is easy, the penetration
rate should automatically be increased, while in dense
sands it would be limited. Of course it follows that the
power delivered to the auger should always be sufficient
and that low powered machines are not suitable for many
sandy ground conditions. Current development is aimed at
controlling penetration rates by linking them directly
with the torque being supplied by the driving motor.
The Concreting stage
The concreting stage is also of interest and there has
been discussion as to whether augers should be rotated
during extraction and concrete placing or simply pUlled
without rotation in sandy soils. Clearly if rotation is
used there is the possibility that some lateral auger
loading will take place in sands, depending on the over
supply of concrete which is imposed.
During concreting it is common, now that the supply can
be monitored to an accuracy of better than 5%, to set a
target for over supply in the region of 20%. The pressures
required to expand a pile shaft in sand at depth are large
because of the large passive pressures which can be
mobilised in a circular hole, and such pressures are not
normally available from any conventional concrete pump.
The object of over supplying is in this case only to
ensure that concrete rises relative to the auger at all
times. Under supply would be a hazard to the proper
formation of a pile shaft, if it should occur when there
has been no reserve of clean concrete taken up onto the
main body of the auger above the tip.
If auger rotation during withdrawal is used·it is clear
that, if the supply rate is insufficient and the auger
transporting rate is not satisfied by it, then side
loading can also take place in sand. In practice some
rotation is necessary when concrete flow is. initiated in
order to clear debris away from the auger tip but it is
desirable that thereafter the auger is simply pUlled
without rotation. If for some reason this is not possible
then clearly the minimum possible rotation rate should be
applied during the process.
In the author's Company particular attention has been
paid to the initiation of the concrete flow at the bases
of piles. The devices for measuring pile depth can
consistently measure within an accuracy of 25mmso that it
269 Fleming
becomes possible to observe in detail that sufficient
concrete has been carried up onto the auger and that a
good positive pressure is present before lifting
commences. This has beneficial effects in that any void
which may have occurred within the auger stem, while the
machine was moving between piles, is eliminated and that
concrete is carried up by say 0.5 metre in the pile to
ensure that any loose debris is taken well away from the
pile base. In order to achieve this it is necessary to
rotate the auger at this stage.
Another problem which is encountered in the initiation
of concrete flow concerns the occurrence of blockages. In
order to minimise this it is necessary to use a concrete
mix with good flow characteristics and a slump of 150mm is
normally adopted. It has also been found that attention
needs to be paid to the water tightness of the bung and to
its position. Originally most bungs were positioned in
the base of the auger stem but it has been found that less
blockages occur with bungs positioned in the side of the
auger stem and with careful design and manufacture of the
interior of the stem leading to the bung position.
However, blockages cannot be entirely ruled out and when
one does occur it is necessary to take appropriate steps
to keep the hole full of soil as the auger is withdrawn to
carry out the clearing action. Back-rotation of the auger
and back filling at the top is usually possible but, if
not, a bentonite fluid supplied through a separate feeder
pipe attached to the auger could be used to overcome the
problem.
Concrete Pressure During Delivery
271 Fleming
CONCLUSIONS
Fleming
272
APPENDIX
Notation for Soil Transport Model
D =
l
External diameter of auger
Ds = Diameter of auger stem
H = Depth below ground
KH= The lateral earth pressure coefficient at the bore
wall (after Terzaghi)
P = Pitch of auger flights
S = The penetration rate in turns per metre
~= Shear force at the auger periphery
X Volume of auger metal divided by the volume of
the excavated bore for a given length of auger
(The auger volume displacement factor).
o = Angle of surface friction of soil to auger
$ = Angle of soil friction in ground outside the auger
$a= Angle of friction of disturbed soil on the auger
y = Effective bulk density ·of soil outside auger
Ya = Density of 'bulked' soil on the auger flights
a = Angle of soil driving friction at the bore
perimeter to the horizontal
~ = The angle of the flight edge to the horizontal
Physical Considerations
273 Fleming
a = {( "f - "fa) I "fa) + {x / (1 - x ) (1 )
= ¢'
FLIGHT FULL Os
OF SOIL}
Densi ty = ~a '" 1~
Plngl e f r i cti on = ~ "'--"I'"
~::=ZZ=~~O~Z~;~~~~ ~
2 ---_-I-_~(f)
PERIPHERAL SHEAR
FORCES AT BORE WALL Fig.Al
274 Fleming
flights.
Once the soil has suffered the effects of auger
displacement and bulking, these actions cease and the soil
is forced bodily upwards.
In practice trial calculations indicate that the angle
of the soil driving force a moves only a few degrees above
the horizontal even for large auger flight pitch values.
Lateral Pressures
The driving force derives from the radial pressure
acting to close the hole and a reasonable approach towards
finding this would seem to be that given by Terzaghi in
Theoretical Soil Mechanics (Art 74) (ref. 6) for pressures
acting on the walls of a shaft. These are forces which
represent the minimum value necessary to sustain the
wall.
Pressure kN/sq rn
, 2 .3 4 5 6
o~~~~~
I.. _.......... c/J ~ 35 ~eg
E
£'0 .-.·.·.·.·.·.·.T.·.·.·.·.·.·..( ..... .... , .....
0. .
Q)
o
_ -
" , - • • • ,..
'
p - ••••
. . _ • • • • _,0 ........
20 • - - -oooo ",- - , "'I-
.......... J ,_ .. .. t . . . . . .
Fleming
275
dense sand. There are therefore greater forces available
to drive soil up a continuous flight auger in the loose
sand.
Pressure kN/sq rn
o 1 :2 .3 4 5 6
o~~~~~~
l_- _
.............. -.-...... .
: Shaft :Dian"'l O.5rn
................ 'O, ..
............. ",- .
E - "',_ . - .
- , .
• • • • • • • '0 ..
.. .. .. • .. .. .. .. • ' . .. .. .. .. .. .... oJ . . .
.............. , - ,
. .. J . _ ' ' .
................. ' - .. I, _ ..
Fig.A3
~ (de<d) 40 .36 34 32 30
Hence large diameter augers and loose sands are likely to
give rise to much greater problems than dense sands and
small augers in that both the stability of the hole is
more difficult to sustain and the transportation driving
forces are greater. One is forced to speculate, in view
of the magnitude of the pressures, why it is not practice
to feed water into piles bored with this type of
equipment in some sand conditions. Small water head
differences between the inside of the bore and the soil
outside would clearly have a marked influence on stability
in difficult ground.
276 Fleming
This is the only driving force acting at the auger
flight edge, ignoring any upward force generated remotely
at the auger tip by soil coming on to it.
Q1 = W. sin 0/' + Ts . sin ( 'V' + a). tan 0a + W. sin 'V' ... (6)
The opposing force acting up the plane of the auger is
Q
2
= Ts . cos ('V' + a) . . . . . • • • . • • • • . • • • . . . • • . • . • . . . . (7 )
277 Fleming
considerable ground disturbance in the immediate
vicinity.
Flighting Ratio
1.0 2.0 3.0
o
. .
· .. .
·· .'
.... -00 ••' • • • • • •
,
_
. .
500rnrn AUGER
.
•••••••••• e_
.· '
,
' •••••••••• _.
PITCH 375rnrn
·
. . .. .. . . .. .
~ ,.
' - - PEJ\IETRA "'T1O'J
RATE 5 nJRNS/h'"l
, .
10 "r"' - ---
AJ'.G..E CF FRICllO'J
SOL 0'0J AUGER
:5 - .30 DEG1"'<EES
Q.
ID
o
20
40 36 32 30 deg) Fig. A4
SOL AI'o.ICLE CF FRICllO'J
It should be borne in mind that these are simple
considerations and there are additional possible forces on
the undersides of auger flights and on the stem. The
given analysis regards these issues as potentially minor
items and it should be regarded as only indicating the
general trends of probable behaviour . It should also be
remembered that turbulence of the soil within the auger is
likely to decrease the transporting efficiency.
Nevertheless such analysis helps to improve the
understanding of the method and produces results which
correspond with field experience.
278 Fleming
The New Eurocode and the New French Code for the
Design of Deep Foundations
Roger Frankl
Abstract
Both codes use the limit state approach (or Load and
Resistance Factor approach). They have both been drafted,
independently, over the last decade or so, and they are
reason~bly consistent in the case of foundations.
279 R. Frank
the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, as a European
Prestandard (ENV = European Norm Voluntary). It can be
applied (on an optional basis) to buildings and civil
engineering works. Its initial life will be three years,
starting from the date of its publ ication by CEN (Comi te
Europeen de Normalisation) in English, French and German.
At the time of writing, it only exists in English. It is
intended to be used, in each country, in conjunction with
a National Application Document (NAD). The NAD will
define, in particular, the values for certain safety
elements which have been assigned so-called 'boxed' values
in EUROCODE 7-1, identified by ().
280
2 General contents
EUROCODES
FASCICULE 62-V
281
effort, corresponding to the construction of major
infrastructures in France, such as the motorway network or
the TGV (very fast train) lines, was almost exclusively
based on full scale experiments. After 1985, work
performed with the help of the LCPC geotechnical
centrifuge, located at Nantes, also yielded interesting
results.
282
PMT limit pressure and CPT cone resistance load
inclination factors for shallow foundations ; - settlement
of shallow foundations ; - sUbgrade reaction modulus for
shallow foundation from PMT interaction between deep
foundations (group effects) ; - negative friction on deep
foundations; 'free' soil movement due to embankments ;
axial stiffness of deep foundations (settlement
predictions) .
The rules in the Annexes to the Comments can be amended
easily, without going through the whole legal process of
official approval again.
Characteristic values
G' permanent actions
QI dominant (or basic) variable action
A accidental action
( 1)
283
manner, the summation signs "+" and "L" mean that the
effects are combined)
EUROCODE 7-1
Permanent Variable
CASE
Unfa- Favou- Unfa- tan<\> c' Cu quI)
vou- rable vou-
rable rable
284
I geotechnical' point of view, Case C is not always the
more critical of the two cases, Band C.
FASCICULE 62-V
285
When soil movements are to be considered :
- Ysn is 1.00 or 1.20, so that the unfavourable effect of
negative friction is maximum ;
- Ysp is 0.60 or 1.20, so that the unfavourable effect of
lateral soil movement is maximum.
+ Ad + \1 / 11 Q1 + l: \1 / 2 i Qi ( 6)
i>l
286
Serviceability Limit States (SLS)
(8 )
Frequent combinations
+ \jill Q1 + L \1 / 2 i Q i (9 )
i>l
Quasi-permanent combinations
+ L\1/2 i Qi (10)
i~l
4.1 General
Structural design
287
buckling may need to be checked only for piles in soils of
undrained shear strength C u < 15 kPa.
288
4.3 Axial bearing capacity (ultimate)
or Rd Rk/Yt (13)
289
tests can be used when their validity has been established
by static load tests lIin comparable situations ll •
(16)
290
load Rck for serviceability limit state design according
to FASCICULE 62-V (see below).
EUROCODE 7-1
(18)
291
The ultimate bearing resistance can also be derived,
for piles in compression, from pile driving formulae or
from wave equation ana lyses, if the validity "has been
demonstrated by previous evidence of acceptable
performance or static load tests on the same pile type of
similar length and cross-section and in similar soil
conditions. II
FASCICULE 62-V
PMT method
(19)
292
Table 5. FASCICULE 62-V : Base bearing capacity factors
k p (PMT) and k c (CPT)
Clay
SOIL
,
TYPE
MPa
PI
I MPa
qc ND lkl1J D
kc
ND
kc
D
soft A <0.7 <3 1.1 1.4
Silt B stiff 1.2-2 3-6 1.2 1.5 0.40 0.55
C hard(clay) >2.5 >6 1.3 1.6
Sand A loose <0.5 <5 1 4.2
Gravel B medium 1-2 8-15 1.1 3.7 0.15 0.50
C dense >2.5 >20 1.2 3.2
A soft <0.7 <5 1.1 1.6 0.20 0.30
Chalk B weathered 1-2.5 >5 1.4 2.2 0.30 0.45
C dense >3 - 1.8 2.6 - -
Marl A soft 1.5-4 - - -
Calcareous B dense >4.5 - 1.8 2.6 - -
marl
A weathered 2.5-4 - 1.1 1.8 - -
Rock ( 1) to to
1.8 3.2
B fragmented >4.5 - - - - -
(1) use the value of the most similar soil .
...
q. (MPa)
0,3 I I
I
....L..L.
IQ7 Q6 1.00 1 ~
Q5
".
i'"
... ...
".
... 1"'"
0,2
10'"
I; " Q4
~ ~
~ i'"
~
,... j"lIl
IIQ3
I'
0,1 l.o"'"
I~
~ Ia.-.,...,....I
i'" ~
~
Q1 1
o
""" pt (MPa) ...
o 1 2 3 4 5
293
Table 6. FASCICULE 62-V Choice of unit shaft friction curve qs
CLAY SAND
& & CHALK MARL ROCK
Type of pile SILT GRAVEL
A B C A B C A B C A B C
Drilled no mud Ql Ql Q2 Ql Q3 Q4 Q3 Q4 Q6
Q2 (1) Q3(1) - Qc:; (1) Qc:; (1)
Drilled with Ql Ql Q1 Q2 Q3 Ql Q3 Q4 Q3 Q4 Q6
mud Q? (1) Ql (2) Q? (2) Qc:; (1) Qc:; (1)
Drilled, removed Ql Ql Q1 Q2 Q3 Ql Q2 Q3 Q3 Q4 -
caslng Q? (3) Q1(2) Q? (2) Qo:1 (3)
Drilled, permanent Ql Ql Q2 (4) Q2 Q3 -
casing
Piers (5) Q, Q? Q1 - Ql Q? Q1 Qo:1 Qc:; Qf\
Steel driven Ql Q2 Q2 Q3 (4 ) Q3 Q4 Q4
closed-ended
'"to
~
Driven concrete
Driven moulded
Q,
Q,
Q? Q (4) Q1 Q.1 Qo:1
-
Q? Q? Q1 Ql Q? Q1 Q1 Q.1
Driven coated Ql Q? Q1 Qo:1 14 Q1 QLL -
Low pressure Ql Q2 Q3 Q2 Q3 Q4 QS -
injected
High pressure
inj ected (6)
- Q4 IQs Qs Q6
I
- QS Q6 Q6 Q7 (7)
The correlations between qbk and qsk and the CPT cone
resistance qc' proposed by FASCICULE 62-V, also come from
full scale pile tests performed by the LPCs (Bustamante et
Gianeselli, 1981). The relation for unit base resistance
takes the form :
(20)
To take the case of one single pile load test and ULS
combinations, the use of Equations (1), (11), (13) and
(16) leads to :
Rm/FS (22)
295
FASCICULE 62-V: FS = 1. 0 x: 1. 2 x: 1. 2 = 1. 44
EUROCODE 7-1
296
Calculation rules can also be used "when they have
been proved by load tests on similar piles, of similar
length and cross-section, under comparable soil
conditions". A sample calculation model for single piles
or group of pi les is given in an Annex, suggesting that
shaft fr iction, qs' should depend on the effective
vertical stress and may be smaller than for piles in
compression.
FASCICULE 62-V
297
The values for Yc proposed by FASCICULE 62-V are
for rare combinations
in compression: Yc = 1.1 (29)
in tension : Yc = 1.4 (1.1 for micropiles) (30)
for quasi permanent combinations :
in compression : Yc = 1.4 (31)
in tension : Yc = 1.4 for micropiles only, (32)
Standard piles are not allowed to work permanently in
tension : one should check that Fd is always a compression
load for quasi permanent load combinations.
Note that frequent combinations are not checked here.
4.5 Axial displacements
298
in Figure 2, with kt and k q given as functions of the PMT
pressuremeter modulus, EM' and the diameter B of the pile:
for fine grained soils
kt = 2.0 EM/B and k q 11.0 EM/B (33)
for granular soils
kt = 0.8 EM/B and k q 4.8 EM/B (34)
299
subgrade reaction curves (p-y curves), built from PMT
results (pressuremeter modulus EM and limit pressure PI) .
It recommends using, for estimating transverse
displacements of piles :
ESM for long duration loads,
2 ESM for short duration loads,
where ESM is the modulus of reaction originally proposed
by Menard, proportional to EM, but a function of the soil
type and of the pile width. According to the various
situations, the maximum transverse reaction pressure p on
the pile section is either Pf, the PMT creep pressure, or
PI the PMT limit pressure. For pi les of elongated cross-
section ('barrettes'), a method for estimating additional
side reactions is also given.
300
The method uses, in particular, the well known KtanO
parameter, such that
Drilled
TYPE OF PILE with Drilled Driven
casing
PEAT organic soil 0.10 0.15 0.20
CLAY soft 0.10 0.15 0.20
SILT stiff to hard 0.15 0.20 0.30
SAND very loose 0.35
GRAVEL loose 0.45
others 1. 00
301
5. Conclusions
302
Appendix. References
304
CURRENT U.S. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES FOR DRILLED PIERS
BY
1 Senior Principal Engineer, SIS Consultants, Ltd., 1415 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015
305
ABSTRACT
The paper presents the results of a survey sent out to approximately 450
geotechnical engineering firms and major deep foundation contractors
regarding the current U.S. practice in the design and construction of drilled
piers (80 responses were received). The survey explores the extent to which
recent research developments in the industry have penetrated actual practice on
projects including the following: 1) the slurry displacement method with
increased use of polymers as an alternative to bentonite and other mineral
slurries; 2) increased use of non-destructive testing as both a quality control
technique and an investigative technique; 3) increased use of the Osterberg
Load Cell and other load testing techniques to determine shaft side resistance
and end bearing parameters for design; 4) the free fall placement of concrete; 5)
the instrumentation of production shafts.
The paper includes commentary by the writer based on recent research projects
involving the writer dealing with the effects of free fall placement of concrete,
nondestructive testing and load testing of drilled shafts containing defects, and
the instrumentation of production shafts to obtain long-term load shedding
data. 0
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a survey on the current
U.S. practice in the design and construction of drilled piers that was sent to
approximately 450 geotechnical engineering specialists and major deep
foundation contractors. The survey explores the extent to which some recent
developments have penetrated actual practice on projects. These new
developments include increasing use of the slurry displacement method along
with increased use of polymers as an alternative to bentonite and other mineral
slurries; increased use of nondestructive testing as both a quality control
technique and an investigative technique; increased use of free fall placement of
concrete in dry holes; increased use of the Osterberg Load Cell and other load
testing techniques to determine shaft side resistance and bearing parameters for
design; and use of instrumentation on production shafts to monitor long-term
load shedding.
The survey is presented in the same format in which it was sent out and
includes a summary of the responses after each question along with a
commentary by the writer (based on his personal experiences) at the end of
each appropriate section including results from recent FHWA sponsored
research on which the writer has been involved.
c. Baker
306
Commentary:
Most of the responses indicated involvement with both driven piles and drilled
piers. Approximately 15% of the respondents indicated 100% involvement with
drilled piers. These respondents were primarily contractors.
a) Dry method (soil is stable so that the hole is drilled and concrete is
placed in the dry)?
Average 37.6%; Range 0-100%
Commentary
It was evident from the responses that every effort is made not to leave in
casing permanently because of cost factors. The 10% reported really reflects
those contractors installing bridge foundations where 100% of the casing is
typically permanent.
The percent total for all cases add up to more than 100% probably due to
different interpretations by the respondents answering the multi-part questions.
Most common response was concrete level must at least be equal to water
level outside casing and must be a minimum of 5 feet (1.5 m) above bottom
of casing.
Commentary:
The average minimum slump requirement for pulling casing of 5.7 inches (145
mm)falls right in the zone of the current minimum recommendations of 5
inches (12.7 mm) by ACI Standard Specification 336.1 and 6 inches (152mm) by
the FHWA Drilled Shaft manual. The average maximum aggregate size of 1.1
inch (27.9 mm) is only slightly larger than the recommended maximum 3/4
inches (19 mm). However the wide range of responses indicates that some
contractors are asking for trouble (a two inch (51 mm) minimum slump
reported in once case and a three inch (76 mm) maximum aggregate size
reported in another.
Commentary:
While the reported current usage is almost evenly split between traditional
bentonite slurry and polymer slurry, the trend is definitely strongly toward use
of polymer slurry because of the ease of handling and lesser disposal problems.
308
5) In preparing or using drilled pier specifications do you use or see ACI
Standard Specification 336.1 as a basic guide?
Approximately 80% said yes except that goverrunental entities use their
own specifications. Remainder also use their own in house specifications.
How often are the specifications prepared by the structural engineer (or
architect)?
Average equals 49.6%; Range equals 0 -100%
Conunentary:
In the writers' opinion, 20 years ago the design and specifications for drilled
piers would have been perfonned almost exclusively by the structural engineer.
There appears to be a growing tendency to make greater use of the geotechnical
engineer's specialized expertise and to have him more involved in the design
and preparation of specifications for drilled piers.
6) What is the typical range of shaft diameters, bell diameters, and depths on
your projects?
The typical range of shaft diameters appears to be 2 to 6 feet (0.6 - 1.8 m)
with depths of 20 to 100 feet (6.1 - 30.4 m) although a number of responses
indicated shaft diameters as small as one foot (0.3 m) and as large as 13
feet (4.0 m) and depths up to 200 feet (61 m). Maximum diameter
indicated was 24 feet (7.3 m) and the maximum depth indicated on any
response was 280 feet (85.1 m).
What is the typical range of concrete strength and what is the maximum
concrete strength that you have used?
The typical response indicated a normal working range of 3,000 to
5,000 psi (20.7 - 34.5 MPa)with maximum strength responses typically
in the 8,000 to 10,000 psi (69 MPa)range, but with one response
indicating a maximum strength of 19,000 psi (131 MPa).
309
What is the maximum bearing pressure you have used in soil and what
was the soil?
Dense sand and gravel: Maximum average equals 35 ksf (175 KPa);
range 5 to 90 ksf.
Hard clay or clay shale: Average equals 30 ksf (1500 KPa); range 12 to
50 ksf.
Very dense till or hardpan: Average 49.3 ksf (2460 KPa); range 30 to
90 ksf.
Hard limestone: Average 179 ksf (8950 KPa); range equals 100 to 300
ksf.
Argillite: 120 ksf (6000 KPa)
Shale: Average equals 127.5 ksf (6375 KPa); range 60 to 200 ksf.
Weathered shale: 50 ksf (2500 KPa).
Sandstone: Average equals 58.8 ksf (2940 KPa); range 10 to 100 ksf.
Tuff: 50 ksf (2500 KPa)
Granite: 200 ksf (10,000 KPa)
Chalky limestone (massive and unweathered): 120 ksf (6000 KPa)
Kentucky limestone: 40 ksf (200 KPa).
Diabase: 175 ksf (8750 KPa).
Schist: 100 ksf (5000 KPa)
Gneiss: average equals 135 ksf (6750 KPa); range 120 to 150 ksf
Florida limestone: 14 ksf (700 KPa)
Commentary:
It is evident from the responses that the scale of practice both with regard to
size and depth of drilled piers and with regard to maximum bearing pressures
utilized in various soil and rock formations, varies Widely across the United
States. Some contractors install drilled shafts as small as 12 inches (305 mm)in
diameter and others routinely install shafts up to 10 to 12 feet in diameter (32.9 -
39.5 m). The range in maximum bearing pressures used in various soil and rock
formations is even more dramatic. In material described as dense sand and
gravel, the range of maximum bearing pressure varied from 5 to 90 ksf 250 -
4500 KPa). Large ranges were also noted on a variety of other materials
indicating the extremely regional nature of the geology and the drilled shaft
practice in the United States and the difficulty of establishing any type of
standard that could be universally applied across the country. Possibly the
lower end valves also represent extra conservatism due to limited soil property
information and limited information on property variation throughout the site.
310
1 2 3 4 5
... )
-;1/
-
0
~
, , ,
~ 15cc51 00
I I
1 ~
~
00
-2 ~
1secs V,,".DUNO. H"" om"
OUTSIDE CAGE,
ON(-HJ.l.F WAY ~ -).~
d
- s, sss -2~
,,"D.
TO -1.~ n.
,
[llIPTICAl
SSSS -1.0 _ 51tl -1 ~
,NCLUSION
- 10 I J (I~X Of' SHAn NECI( IN ' C O L D JOltll
X-SECTION) AT 8 n - 10.2 sces
DEPTII
...
D.
SSSS 1-21.8
C
- 2~ j 2~ -22 915SSS •
- JO , SOFT BOnDy
ISCCll-27.~ - 30
-27.61 sces I SAND "'GRAVEL
- 0
, I I I I(i;~'~'
)I: % ... ,
,
,.. I L I I
X,"
I' IINDfA-RLW
Al lJ r
O~PI"
- 10 I I I I I [LUPllCAl
IfClUSON
,Y//1
.r-"
AT 12 n
DCPlH
- I~ I I I ilU or ~
- 20 I I , I ,.
OH(CI BY
IR(WI[
!'L'C[u(1{f
I'~ -5(CIIOH)
!
~
~ i1
~ ~
~-
- 2~ IE
t:'
III ,.
!
E-
- lO
i
::>
~
-JO 6
!
IE
~
Z
~
W
m
U-2'.2
IE
.,w~
W
..... 0
PI
i ~2C~-
~
~
I
N - J~
Dlo\.
.. ""\
DOl( HAl.r
WAY AROU
III Al 40 n
- 40 I I 1 DCPIH
2" -lllOIA.
II C~ ..
T 1.110
- .~ I I I o PH n
-
-~O
- ~~
-J U-~8~ , ,-81.0
-61.' l-J-61.0
NOI[; All O[PI"S AII[ DHOW lOP or (XISIING GRAD£. III-D.l<n
~~~~-
- r, l"":"""n~f~"
'2~ ,1100- r--l10,..
1111.., " KI"-rM:ra«: II((L ('CVf 'YVIDI(i .....
.. " ..... , ~ .. l'l( '1
~ DIVI ••/; 1""'1 "Sf" 107m Pu-IOOO ......
, (re.Il~~ ~~rl.I(~,r,f~ItI"~~.(tt
vr"-"IH, . II °n-Il'
.n
"'-"'C:l .... "". n4
IHb 1{.l.f{1 A' rtl.lOVII
f lOa( 10 I( l"I~.ul'Jll"
( ~ .1) .1 1 0-,,"
-"9 ~ ~ U) "' l8 D..... S
1 I I I ..... IIJ 'DI' ..... bA.U"I (J" n"'''I{I''
"I I I "It O'f' ,'"'- , .. , tt' 110'( Ul.Il' If "
-I ,,-J ~ I
[IN( U~ 10 • • (''1 IN D{UIIV(
H
GCN[RIIL
'- ....l SMAIl! hl' .... [ .. DlfoM(ru IY BUn
I!. ( • U'0ttD4:TtI IS. SUI[D ."" I
"
_,.~Il -9.2"
-,. I/[CK'"G 7D~ Mr. t -. 9 -10.4,.,
-11,..
~IO'~
.~-r~ U (AVe-IN @,Jl, AA[A '-7.6 1'1
LV
-ro
:~I~
~ ] ID1M[M1nJt (""""lIt"l~ ~ I ~
'-::.::':r," 111'(n ... I.... (JI(~" 1"':::- J-l •
-23.2" ,
I~'
. , V(1r
, ., VC.l
']
I-!-t '{HU,
Il£SCRIPTJDN
jBAlr
IH- IT
I
"rV'IIc.<S
-n
TEXAS A~H UNIVERSITY
FHVA RESEIIRCH PROJEC T [IN;
I~
h1"'C_L ' ...... n. III tp..,CING
IIQlf-OCtfRUCflv{ rnrl'N(j CT ~'IlLCD s~"',r
CJ'QIt ucra:Jll' C-< O'mr Ircru .... amr aOPlJ'!(-{ I"....u.:r I W- P1 1 ::,~nq.. 1:'-'.. :'"u_ .. (r 7170
It¥r' n. , SIoUf" II.. • Iu..rl IL , rrc D[JMl
J-°l "I"'UD
Commentary:
The Drilled Shaft Inspector's manual grew out of a perceived need for
improving the quality of drilled shaft inspection across the United States. It is
worthwhile noting that although the manual has been in print only four years,
over 90% of the respondents stated that they utilized it or recommended its use.
Hopefully this also correlates with improved drilled shaft inspection.
Respondents were split with slightly more than half indicating they
had never used NDT on any of their projects.
Commentary:
Ten years ago only a very small percentage of responses would have indicated
use of NDT. The research recently sponsored by the FHWA on use of
nondestructive testing in drilled shafts has undoubtedly resulted in increase
usage of NDT. That research confirmed the value of nondestructive testing as
an investigative and quality assurance tool and also indicated the limitations.
The research program involved 20 drilled shafts constructed with a variety of
defects as indicated in figures 15, 16 and 74 (Reference 3). Nondestructive
testing utilizing surface reflection techniques was typically able to find defects
covering more than 40% cross sectional area of the shaft but could not
consistently detect defects of a smaller size. When nondestructive testing
utilizing pre-placed access tubes and direct transmission techniques was used,
defects as small as 12 to 15 percent of the cross sectional area could be detected
(provided one of the access tubes was close to the defect, which is likely if there
were at least 4 tubes per shaft). Thus, nondestructive testing as a quality control
tool must be used and evaluated in conjunction with careful construction
observation techniques.
314
Caving or squeezing soil, water in-flow, floating cage, bottom sediment,
mis-location, improper slurry use, poor concrete delivered, casing sealing
problem, concrete flash set, pulling casing with low slump concrete,
undersize bell, artesian condition, out of plumb, improper tremie, rebar
buckling, concrete placement into water without tremie. Of these, the
most common causes were caving soil, water in-flow, and pulling casing.
Commentary:
The wide range in reported defects from 0% of projects to a high in one case of
20% of projects may indicate a misunderstanding of the question. The defect is
supposed to have been sufficient to require some type of remediation.
However, the response may also indicate reality.
Commentary:
315
ASSESS AND
RATE PROJECT
,
I
•
,
LOW STRESS l..:.v~ HIGH STRESS L.£YEL
INTERMEDlATE RISK
,
LOW RIS K HIGH RISK
NORMAl.. Q.C. NORMAl.. Q.C. MAXIMUM Q.C. AND
NO N.D .T. SEI...ECTlYE N.D.T. MAXIMUM N.D.T•
(INCLUDING SEI...ECTIVE
ACCESS TUSES)
D.C. INDICATES
SUSPECT SfWT
FUR11-!ER EVALUATION
REQUIRED
USE N.D.T.
N.D.T. SAYS OK
SO
,
N.D.T. SAYS SUSPECT
SO FUR11-!ER EVALUATE:
ACCEPT REVIEW Q.C. OSSER\IATlON
RECORDS. DISCUSS WITIi
DESIGNERS. IF STILL
SUSPECT EITHER
, AND SUPPLEMENT
IF NECESSARY
+ t
I CORE EVALUATION
SAYS OK SO ACCEPT
I CORE EVALUATION SAYS
NO GOOD
SO OR
,
IF NECESSARY
!
CORE OR DRILL HOLES.
ClEAN WITH HIGH
•
APPROPRlATE SIZE CORE OR
DRILL Tl-lROUGH DEFECTIVE
PRESSURE WATER JET ZONE AND REPLACE 'NTTH
AND GROUT CALCULATED HIGH STRENGTl-l
CONCRETE AND STE'EL
316
The FHWA along with the ADSC recently sponsored research on the effect of
free-fall placement on the ultimate segregation and strength of concrete. The
research involved construction of four, 60 foot (18.2 nun)deep shafts arranged
as shown in Figure 2, and 3 (Reference 5) with a fifth central access shaft
permitting exposure of the test drilled shaft wall. The four test shafts were
divided into six, 10 foot (3 m) sections where different concrete mixes and
different placement procedures were used so that certain variables could be
compared as indicated on Figure 4. (Reference 5)
The research program was aimed at answering the following four questions.
3. Does rebar spacing within normal limits affect whether the concrete
flows readily through and around the rebar, and what is the effect of
slump, aggregate size, or height of fall or method of placement?
All shafts were cored (4 inch (101.6 nun)diameter cores) and also viewed at their
perimeters through a central access shaft.
The report goes into considerable detail in answering these questions, but in
summary there appeared to be no statistically significant variations in the
concrete compressive strength for any of the mixes used or placement
procedures followed. Average concrete strengths in all but one case were well
above the required design strength. The one low strength case involved
concrete dropped into excessive water (6" ±) (91 nun) on top of the previously
placed concrete section. The concrete that was placed by the sloppy free fall
method and allowed to ricochet off the rebar cage attained comparable strength
and appearance (well distributed aggregate and matrix) as the concrete that
was carefully directed to free fall down the center of the shaft or was placed by
tremie. It appeared that there was adequate re-mixing of concrete that hit the
rebar cage and the amount of robbing of paste out of the concrete mix through
coating of the rebar was insufficient to affect the concrete strength. It also was
apparent that the commercial concrete mixes selected for the project which
were available locally were high quality, workable mixes and perhaps the range
of slump and range of aggregate size was not sufficient to assure statistical
differences in the end product. The primary conclusion is that free fall
placement of concrete does not adversely affect either the aggregate distribution
in the concrete or the strength of the concrete regardless of the height of free
317
-
6" CLEAR
REBAR SPACING }
3" DIA .
............
w
.....
00
~
L 3-1.5 " DIAMETER
STEEL PIPE ACCESS
TUBES, 60 FT. LONG,
CAPPED AT BOTH ENDS
3" CLEAR
REBAR SPACING
.
n ~
..
----- IDRAWHBY
KKB
DATE
11-29-93
~~
..,,:;;
(5; ~ RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF
CO z
CHECICE08'1'
I
" I\) OA'E
~ -.j
:II
-t .. Cl'l
!l ... FREE FALL CONCRETE
m Ul
... til APPROVED BY
TAK
lOAn 11-29-93
I\) ~ 'f'!; C.,..,_un.nhlhl
IN DRILLED SHAFTS
ConwW~IE.....,pn.... CADFILE
(ReferenCI! 5)
OVER IIEAD VIEW PROr:ILE VIEW
10 #8 Verlical
3 in. 5 pacmg r- 6 in. Spacing
E
Three 1-]/2 in. Dia ( ~
Oars 51eel Tubes. 60 £1.
Long. DOlh Ends capped.
3" Clearance
I
..'
fj I 24 ill.
~:f$
~~~G
J
N a I s
~
w
.....
<0
)
w ~!==
~ e.g,
3D in.0;.
I
I
#4 lies al
Corrug.led
Liner 36 in.
....
24 in apart.
. . I
~
~ ~ S ~ DRAWN 6Y
KKB _ 11-29-93
~~
~
:!!~ ~ II)} RESEARCH ON CttfCIICfO BY OAIE
I
Cl z z 2 ..... 2
c: P -l .. CIllO
:u
m
til !1.-!1 FREE FALL CONCRETE REBAR CAGE APPROVED BY I DATE
Co) .
~ lID
..
z
0
• II CO.IIIM......... Ud.
Cun....-.g(~.I.
(Reference 5) CADFllE
TAK 11-29-93
~ 'N' 'S' 'E' 'W
-2'3" -I'll" Mix No. Slump Max. Agg.
1 ........ "."
" .. " ...
.........
..,'" ........ ·3'2"
.... "'0° .. -2'7" 1 . 4-5 1-1/4"
..... 2 7-8 1-1/4"
2 4 4 3 4-5 5/8"
2
__~ .10'3" 4 7-8 5/8"
-11'5" -11'5" ·12'
1
Central drop
3 2 4
-18'6"
wi plasticizer ~
-21'9" Sloppy drop
-22' ·22'5"
1 wi plasticizer ~
4 2 Central drop
no plasticizer ITIIJ
.33'1" F---4---4--4 -32 '5" fo--""""""--4 -32'5" Sloppy drop
I E:=I
no plasticizer
5 3 -38'4" Tremie placement
~XX wi plasticizer ~
+ -42'7" HH----l -42'5"~ t---~ -43'S"
Tremie placement
6 1 4 2 -48'6"
no plasticizer CJ
-50'9"
."- -"-............... ~-..... -53'5"
Vibrated concrete c=J
...
.
7 1--1-
4
4
• -6"- • ·63'2"
L...-_---J -65'3"
Elevations taken from tOP of access shaft (2' above ground level)
320
fall, when working with well designed, workable, commercially available
concrete mixes.
13) On what percent of your drilled pier projects is the design controlled by;
a) settlement criteria 37.6%
b) bearing capacity criteria and factor of safety 73.4%
14) What design methods are usually used for settlement criteria?
Majority of respondents indicated elastic theory and consolidation
theory.
What design methods are usually used for bearing capacity criteria?
Most respondents indicated the Alpha method for cohesive soils and
the Beta method for granular soils with a slightly smaller number
indicating correlations with blow count, compressive strength, cone
data and pressuremeter data based on their experience. Many
respondents referenced the FHWA Drilled Shaft manual prepared by
Reese and O'Neill (1988).
Commentary:
15) How often and in what circumstances are load tests used to confirm or
adjust design values?
Average 18.6%, Range 0 to 100%
When is the Osterberg Load Cell Test used?
The respondents indicated that currently the Osterberg load cell is used
apprOXimately 65% of the time that a load test is required. Some
321
respondents indicated they were now using the Osterberg load cell 100%
of the time.
Commentary:
The Osterberg Load Cell is fast becoming a favorite with contractors because of
its speed of installation and reasonable cost compared to conventional multi-
shaft reaction type load tests or dead weight type load tests.
16) Have you ever used a dynamic load test to confirm or adjust design
capacity?
9% of respondents indicated they had used a dynamic test with the
Statnamic test and the pile driving analyzer mentioned as two
techniques that had been used.
Commentary:
It is clear that dynamic testing of drilled shafts has not yet reached significant
proportions particularly when compared to dynamic testing of piles.
17) Have you ever instrumented a production drilled pier to monitor long-
term load transfer?
Only 6 out of 80 respondents have ever instrumented a production
shaft.
Commentary:
Summary Commentary
For more specific information on the results of the research mentioned in the
paper, the reader is referred to the research reports noted in the reference list.
322
Conclusions
The survey responses indicate that the results of recent research sponsored by
the FHWA on the Osterberg Load Cell and the comparison of polymer and
mineral slurries on shaft perimeter load transfer have had substantial impact
on actual drilled pier practice, whereas the research on the utilization of
nondestructive testing techniques has had a moderate effect. The results from
the free-fall concrete research are too recent to be reflected in this survey.
References
3) Baker, Jr., C.N., Drumright, E., Briaud, J.L., Mensah-Dwumah, F., and
Parikh, G. (1991) "Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations" FHWA 88130-10
4) Drumright, E.E., and Baker, Jr., C.N. "Long Term Load Transfer in Drilled
Shafts", XXlII ICSMFE, 1994 New Delhi, India
5) Kiefer, A and Baker, C.N. "The Effects of Free Fall Concrete in Drilled
Shafts" ADSC sponsored report to F.H.W.A., April 1994
6) Majano, R.E. and O'Neill, M.W. "Effect of Mineral and Polymer Slurries on
Perimeter Load Transfer in Drilled Shafts", University of Houston,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, January 1993
UHCE93-1
CNB:BHO:map
323