I I illllllllllllllllllllllllill

PB97-103972

Volume I
KeynotePa~

"

December, 1994

Sponsor: u.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Co-Sponsors: ADSC: International Association of Foundation Drilling
Deep Foundation Institute (DFI)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)

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:

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS)

John Hou All American Soils, Inc. 711 South Bristol St.,
Santa Ana, CA 92703
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-92-Z-00114
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Technology Application Conference Proceedings

Office of Engineering/Bridge Division

Federal Highway Administration
400 Seventh Street, S. W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
14. Sponsoring Agency 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

In cognizance of these conference themes, eleven Keynote Speakers were invited to

provide State-of-the-Art knowledge and perspectives; these are:

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:

Jerry DiMaggio (Chairperson) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

John Hooks Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Al DiMilIio Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Chien-Tan Chang Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Al Kilian Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (formerly Washington DOT)
John Ledbetter North Carolina DOT
George Goble GRL & Associates
Scot Litke ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC)
Robert Compton Deep Foundations Institute (OF!)
Joe Caliendo Utah State University
Frank C. Townsend University of Florida
John P. Hou All American Soils, Inc. (AASI)

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:

Ted Ferragut Alan J. Luttenegger Dan Bruce

Joe Caliendo Mike O'Neill Al DiMilIio
John Walkinshaw John Ledbetter Dan Brown
Clyde Baker Jim Cahill Manuel Fine
AI Kilian Mary Ellen Hynes Roger Frank
Frank Townsend IIan Juran Ed Keane
Wes Moody Fred Kulhawy Mike McVay
Barry Berkovitz Pricilla Nelson Mark Morvant
George Goble Bengt Fellenius
 Manuscript Reviewers

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

"Pile Driving - An International State-of-the-Art" . . .. .... .... . ... 1

George G. Goble (26 pgs)

"Seismic Bridge Pile Foundation Behavior" . . .. .... .... .... '" 27

Gary M. Norris (110 pgs)

"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)

"The New Eurocode and the New French Code for

the Design of Deep Foundations" . . .. .... .... .... '" 279
Roger Frank (26 pgs)

"Current U.S. Design and Construction Practices for Drilled Piers" ... .... '" 305
Clyde N. Baker, Jr. (19 pgs)

"Tools and Equipment Used in the Drilled Shaft Industry"

Herb Minatre (Presentation Only)
 (Volume m
Session lA
Drilled Shaft Case Histories

"Some Experiences on Bored Cast-In-Situ Reinforced Concrete Piles

in Bangladesh - A Case Study" . . . .. . ... . ... '" 325
MD.N. Amin, M.F. Karim, and A. Uz Zaman (12 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

"Auger-Cast Piles in Clays" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

D. O. Wong (17 pgs)

"Utilization and Quality Control of Augercast Piles" ... .... .... .... . .. 385
A.T. Booth, and K.A. McIntosh (16 pgs)

"Auger-Cast Piles". . ... . . .. .... .... .... . .. 401

JJ. Brennan (14 pgs)

Session lC
Special Design Events

"Limit States Design for Deep Foundations" . . .. .... . .. 415

RH. Fellenius (12 pgs)

"Soil Resistance Factors for LRFD of Driven Piles" . . .. .... .... .... . .. 427
1. Berger and G.G. Goble (12 pgs)

"Seismic Retrofit of Foundations for a Double-Deck Viaduct" .. .... .... . .. 439

M.E. Fowler, R.E. Johnston, G.S. Nagle (15 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

"Pile Load Test is a Proof Test, But?" .. . '" 493

F. Abdrabbo and R. EI-Hansy (20 pgs)

"Optimum Specification for Static Load Testing" 513

M. England and W.G.K. Fleming (12 pgs)

"Effects of Plugging on Piles Installed in an Overconsolidated Clay" .. .... '" 525

G.A. Miller and AJ. Lutenegger (16 pgs)

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)

"Design Guidelines for Screw Anchors" . . 646

e.A. Carville and RW. Walton (10 pgs)

"Hardware Solutions for Quality Control of Deep Foundations-Overview" ... ... 656
G. Likins, F. Rausche, and D. Peterman (14 pgs)

"The Development of a New Pile Load Testing System" . .. 670

T. Fujioka and K. Yamada (15 pgs)

"Polyethylene Coating for Downdrag Mitigation on Abutment Piles" .. .... . .. 685

K.S. Tawfiq (14 pgs)

"Correlations Between the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and

the Measured Shear Strength of Florida Natural Rock" . .... .... .... . .. 699
H.R Ramos, l.A. Antorena, and G.T. McDaniel (13 pgs)

Session 3B
Design Methods for Driven Piles

"An Evaluation of Predicted Ultimate Capacity of

Single Piles From SPILE and UNIPILE Programs" . . .. .... .... .... ... 712
S. Kumar, V. Avasarala, J.L. Davidson, M.e. McVay (12 pgs)

"Static Pile Capacity Predictions with SPT91" .. .. 724

l.A. Caliendo, M. Bartholomew, P.W. Lai, F.C. Townsend, and M.e. McVay (14 pgs)

"Neural Network Predictions of Load- Deflection Curves for Concrete

Piles in Florida" ., .... . . " .... . . .. . .. 738
G.G. Goble, J.F. Kreider, P. Curtis and J. Berger (21 pgs)

"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)

"Aspects of Pile Design for Cyclic and Dynamic Loading

with Reference to API Conditions for Offshore Structures" ... .... .... . .. 789
J.P. Sully, M. Paga, R Bea, E. Gajardo, R Gonzalez, and A.F. Fernandez (14 pgs)
 Session 3C
Numerical Method

"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

"A Novel Foundation Piling System - The Spear Pile" 888

R. T. McGillivray and M.H. Hussein (15 pgs)

"Effect of Cantilever Plate of a Foundation Pile on

Pile Deflection Under Lateral Load" . . .. .... .... .... '" 903
K. Trojnar (10 pgs)

"The GEWI-PILE, A Micropile for Retrofitting,

Seismic Upgrading and Difficult Installation" .. 913
T.F. Herbst (18 pgs)

"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)

"Deep Timber Pile Foundations Using Geotextile Reinforced Embankments" . .. 1007

J.H. Byrne (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)

"Group Load Test: 9-Timber Piles" .................. 1045

R. Alperstein and C. Dobryn (9 pgs)

"Footings with Settlement-Reducing Piles in Non-Cohesive Soil" .... .... .. 1054

P. D. Long (15 pgs)

"The Mechanics of Piled Embankment" . . .. .... .... .. 1069

B.B.K. Huat, W.H. Craig, and F. Ali (14 pgs)

Session 4C
Driveability and Dynamic Capacity Prediction

"Dynamic Testing of an Instrumented Drilled Shaft" ... .... . ... .. 1083

F.c. Townsend, J.F. Theos, D. Bloomquist, and M. Hussein (12 pgs)

"Validity of Predicting Pile Capacity by Pile Driving Analyzer" .. 1095

P. Lai and C.L. Kuo (8 pgs)

"Dynamic and Static Tests on Driven and Cast-In-Place Piles" . .... .... .. 1103
M.H. Hussein and W.M. Camp (15 pgs)

"A Rational and Usable Wave Equation Soil Model

Based on Field Test Correlation" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
F.Rausche, G. Likins, and G. Goble (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

"Specifications: Constructible as Well as Thorough" . . .. .... .... .. 1179

E.C. Yokley, JI. (13 pgs)

"Drilled Shaft Bridge Foundations in North Carolina" .. .... .... .... .. 1192
J.F. Ledbetter, Jr. (11 pgs)

"The Practice of Deep Foundations in Highly Degradable Soils" 1203

E. P. Corona (13 pgs)

"A Failure Case Study of Island Method Excavation in Soft Clay" ... .... .. 1216
Y.K. Chu (15 pgs)

Session 58
Integrity Testing

"Quality Assurance of Drilled Shaft Foundations with Nondestructive Testing" .. 1231

L.D. Olson, M. Lew, G.C. Phelps, K.N. Murthy, and B.M. Ghadiali (13 pgs)

"Pile Integrity Testing in North Carolina" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1244

N. Abar (18 pgs)

"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

"Prediction and Performance of Pile Using In Situ Test Data" . . . . . .. .. 1287

A. Tanaka (9 pgs)
"Response of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Karst During Construction Loading" .. 1296
Q. Tang, E.C. Drumm, and RM. Bennett (14 pgs)

"Site Variability in Karst Fonnations" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1310

P,D. Passe (11 pgs)

"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

"Newly Developed Toe-Grouted Bored Pile in

Soft Bangkok Clay: Perfonnance and Behavior" . . .. .... ,... ".. .. 1337
W. Teparaksa (15 pgs)

"The Design of Starsol Piles" . . .. .... .... .... .. 1352

LJ. Whitworth and C.M. Gilbert (14 pgs)

"Spin-Fin Pile Perfonnance" .... . .. , " . . .... .... ., 1366

D. Nottingham (11 pgs)

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)

"Effect of Surcharge Loading on Pile Capacity" • 0 o. o. 1499

G. Achari and RC. Joshi (12 pgs)

"Experimental Program to Monitor the Behavior of Piers in Expansive Soils". o. 1511

J. Behar, C. Ferregut, and M. Picornell (9 pgs)

"Laboratory Modelling of Drilled Piers in Soft Rock" .. .. 0 0 o. 0 0 • 0 o. o. 1520

C.M. Haberfield, J.P. Seidel, and LW. Johnston (15 pgs)

"Response of a Flexible Cyclic Loaded Pile in Sand by Centrifuge Modelling" .. 1535

Do Levacher and Fo Schoefs (17 pgs)

Session 7B
Case Histories - Driven Piles

"Lateral Load Test at Thorofare Bay, North Carolina" • • •• • • • • • 0 1552

D. T. O'Toole (16 pgs)

"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)

"Installation of High Capacity Driven Piles in Coastal Northern Florida" 0 0 0 0 o. 1612

M. Sharp, B. Jory, Wo Knight, and M. Hussein (15 pgs)

"Shaft Resistance on H-Piles in Cohesionless Soils" .. 0 0 . 0 o. 0... .. 1627

P.F. Bailey, SoL. Borg, and A.R SChnore (15 pgs)
"Driven Steel Pile in Bouldery Soils" . . . . . .. .... .... .. 1642
S.T Yeh, RD. Andrew and T.D. Bowen (15 pgs)

Session 7C
Axial Capacity

"Perfonnance of Long, Slender Piles Installed by Jacking" . . .. .... .... .. 1657

I.H. Wong (9 pgs)

"Testing, Perfonnance and Reliability of Small Diameter Pipe Piles" .. .... .. 1666
C.A. Carville and lS. Pack (10 pgs)

"Pile Load Test Data" ... . . .. .... .... .... .. 1676

J. Vrymoed (15 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)

"Long Tenn Relaxation Test on a Pile Foundation" .... .. 1732

L. Vulliet, H. Fleischer, and S. Terentieff (12 pgs)

Papers Not Presented In The Conference

"Site Geology and Selection of Optimum Foundation System" . . .. .. 1747

S.K. Jain and K. Kishore (14 pgs)

"Behaviour of Bored Piles of A Cooling Tower and Chimney:

Group and FEM Analysis. . . " .... .... .... .. 1761
M. Chiorboli, I. Limido, M. Nesti, F.A. Uliana (15 pgs)

"Modeling of Swift Delta Bridge Piles From

Soil Nailed Wall Construction" . . . .. .... .... .. 1776
T.D. Smith, R Kimmerling, R Barrows (13 pgs)

"Utility of Drilled Shaft Load Test Results" ... . . .. .... .... .. 1789
M.H. Wysockey and lH. Long (15 pgs)

"Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Capacity of a

Long 12-H-74 Steel Pile" . . . .. .... .... .. 1804
lE. Laier (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

!Principal, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, 5398 Manhattan Circle,

Boulder, CO 80303

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.

Single acting air/steam hammers were rated by the manufacturers based

on the potential energy in the ram at the top of the stroke and they were
considered to operate at a constant stroke. The procedures used to rate
hammers were quite direct and were generally accepted by engineers. Rated
energy became the standard approach used to specify hammers. Double-acting
hammers could also be rated in a similar way if the downward acting force is
taken into account.

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.

C. Current State-of-the-Art and Its Development

I. Engineering

a. Static Performance Prediction

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.

b. Performance Prediction by Dynamic Methods

1. Discrete Dynamic Model

Three major applications of dynamic methods affected the engineering

of pile driving practice during the period under consideration. First, and
probably most important, was the development of discrete Wave Equation
analysis (a computer simulation) by E. A. L. Smith of the Raymond Company.
3
Second, analytical work on the closed form solution of the wave equation (the
second order, partial, differential equation) with particular reference to pile
driving applications, produced results that provided explanations for what
happens during pile driving impact. Third, developments in dynamic field
instrumentation made it possible to obtain force and velocity measurements of
pile driving impacts and process them for use in support of the analytical
procedures described in the second case above and, further with the
quantitative results from the discrete Wave Equation, to directly generate soil
resistance characteristics. These three developments will be examined in
greater detail.

The Wave Equation method of analysis was developed from initial

concept all the way to practical application by Smith (1951, 1957, 1960) in a
remarkable achievement. This solution may have been the first application of
the digital computer to a civilian engineering problem (communication with
Schiffman (1988». The model that he used is shown in Figure 1.

It is appropriate to discuss the computational procedure that Smith

developed to make use of this concept. When the program is executed it is
necessary to provide the various input quantities to describe the hammer, pile
and the driving system. Most of these quantities are necessary to describe
mechanical characteristics and they can be determined quite directly using
appropriate tests.

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

Figure 1: Wave Equation Mathematical Model

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).

Today Wave Equation analysis is standard in North America having

almost completely displaced the dynamic formula. In other parts of the world,
its use is growing. In offshore applications, Wave Equation analysis has been
widely used for several years and today is used almost universally both in
verifying hammer selection and also in estimating pile capacity.

The first generally available Wave Equation program was developed at

Texas A and M University with support from the Texas DOT and The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and has been known as the TTl Program
(after the Texas Transportation Institute)(Samson et al 1963, Hirsch et al
1976). This program became available in the early 60's and has been widely
used.

In 1974, the FHWA sponsored the development of the WEAP Program

to deal with problems that had been observed with the analysis of driving with
diesel hammers (Goble and Rausche 1976). Development of this program has
continued and a large user base has been generated (Goble and Rausche 1981,
Goble and Rausche 1986, GRLWEAP 1991). Work was also done in this area
by Rempe (1975).

The parameters that must be entered to perform a Wave Equation

analysis can be divided into four groups; hammer, driving system, pile, and
soil. The most extensive work on hammers has been done in the continuing
development of the WEAP program (Likins 1982, Rausche et al 1985). The
resulting models and performance parameters have been tested extensively with
measurements, both on the pile and also directly on the hammer. The only
hammer performance variable that cannot be well defined today (1994) is the
efficiency which, of course, depends on the operation and condition of a
particular hammer. This cannot be predicted in advance but there are hammers
available today that contain instrumentation to measure performance during
operation and have controls that can adjust the hammer operation.

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 pile model as originally proposed by Smith consisted of discrete

masses and springs. This model gives good results when properly used in most
applications as proven in extensive tests. Care must be used in selecting the
proper integration time increment but that can be accomplished quite
successfully on an automatic basis. High frequency dynamic events are not
represented very well by normally used element lengths. Thus, the analysis
will tend to "smooth out" the force record particularly for applications
involving stee1-to-stee1 impact. However, the hammer and driving system fit
very well in this model.

Another approach has been suggested by Voitus van Hamme (1974). In

this approach, the pile is modeled as a series of uniform cross section,
continuous elements with any cross section changes concentrated at the element
boundaries. Since the wave is known to propagate unchanged in a uniform
rod, and since the transmitted and reflected forces can be determined at the
element boundaries the wave propagation calculation becomes only a
bookkeeping process. This approach to wave propagation analysis will give
an excellent representation of the wave, again as proven by measurements.
However, rules for hammer and driving system modeling have not been
developed for the continuous model. The use of a hammer "signature" force-
time record has been proposed but does not include the effect of the reflected
wave on the driving system. For diesel hammers, the stroke is dependent on
the soil resistance and, therefore, the results obtained by using a force-time
input will be particularly unsatisfactory.

The inclusion of residual stresses in the driving analysis can be

considered as part of the pile modeling process. This problem was first
analyzed by Holloway et al (1978) in an examination of the critical depth
concept. A modified approach that emphasized the effect of residual stresses
on driveabi1ity was presented by Hery (1983) and this tool has been available
for some time in the WEAP program. It can be shown that residual stresses
are important in many driveability evaluations but the method has been used
only infrequently in land applications. Engineers involved in driveabi1ity
predictions for flexible (steel) piles driven with large shaft resistances should
gain experience with a residual stress analysis. It will probably improve the
accuracy of the analysis and its inclusion in driveability analyses may produce
important differences in the results.

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.

In his original work, Smith recommended that a value of 2.5 mm be

used for the quake in all cases. With the availability of measurements and
signal matching techniques cases were found (Likins 1983) where different
values had to be used to represent field observations. After extensive
experience, it can be concluded that the 2.5 mm value is satisfactory for all
shaft quakes. The toe quake can be estimated as a function of the pile toe
diameter from the expression D1120, where D is the effective pile toe
diameter. Toe quakes smaller than this values are appropriate for piles driven
to hard rock. There are some cases where toe quakes larger than this value are
observed and this phenomenon is apparently a soil property. Fortunately,
large quakes not associated with pile toe diameter are only infrequently
observed.

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.

2. Continuous Dynamic Model

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.

Some simple results of one dimensional wave mechanics can be applied

to understand pile driving. First, there is a proportionality between particle
velocity and force in a one dimensional wave traveling along a pile. This
relationship can be stated as
EA (1)
F=-v
c

where E is the modulus of elasticity of the pile material, A is the cross

sectional area of the pile, c is the velocity of wave propagation in the pile, and
v is the velocity of particle motion in the pile during the passage of a wave.
It can be assumed that the velocity of particle motion in a pile is related to the
ram impact velocity Thus, the peak force is directly related to the impact
velocity of the ram. This force may be modified by the influence of the
cushion and the helmet. The cushion will have the effect of reducing the peak
force and delaying it in time. The more flexible the cushion the greater the
force reduction and delay. The helmet mass will have the same effect as the
cushion and again as the mass is increased the peak force is reduced and
delayed (Rausche and Goble 1972).

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.

If it is assumed that the particle velocity in the pile is strongly affected

by the ram impact velocity, then it is possible to make some estimates of
desirable hammer design characteristics.

3. Dynamic Monitoring

Another development that had a large influence on piling practice was

the development of the technology for making routine measurements of force
and acceleration under the pile driving hammer. The first measurements of the
stress wave during pile driving were made by (Glanville et al 1938). In the
early 1960's, the Michigan Highway Department performed an extensive
testing program on pile driving with the purpose of verifying and evaluating
pile driving hammer performance. In this program, they made the first
measurements of acceleration during pile driving (Michigan Highway
Commission 1965). These measurements made it possible to calculate the
energy delivered to the pile top. Between 1964 and 1976, The Ohio Depart-
ment of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration conducted a
research project at Case Western Reserve University that emphasized the
measurement of force and acceleration under the pile driving hammer (Goble
et aI1975). A large volume of measurements were collected on piles that were
also load tested.
10
 The routine processing of these measurements can yield a great deal of
information on the pile driving operation. Quantities such as maximum force,
maximum delivered energy, bending stresses, maximum reflected tension,
energy delivered to the measurement point, etc. can be obtained and displayed
in real time during the driving operation. This information can be very useful
in monitoring and controlling the driving operation and in detecting problems.

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).

An example of a measurement is shown in Figure 3. The resistance 'i'

force from the soil acting as a function of time can be calculated from
Eq uation 2. The method of calculation of the total resistance force was
derived from considerations of one dimensional wave mechanics. Only
themost limited assumptions had to be made (uniform cross section, modulus,
and mass density; linear behavior; etc.). Therefore, this expression can be
expected to give the value of the resistance to penetration active at a given

200 "8<1

k:1.p. .... d

:L"O

.. 0
0
0 L/ ..

-::L150

Figure 3: Example of Force and Velocity Measurement

11
instant in time. The question of interest to the foundation engineer is the static
capacity. Two questions must be answered to use the results of Equation 2 to
obtain static capacity; at what time should the capacity be selected from the
available time dependent values from Equation 2 and how should this result be
modified to deal with the fact that the result contains the velocity dependent
portion. In general, the time selected usually starts at the point of maximum
impact force although in some cases a later time is used if a larger displace-
ment is required to mobilize the resistance force.

The determination of the velocity dependent component of the resistance

to be removed from the total resistance to obtain the static capacity has proved
to be a difficult problem. In early work, it was assumed that the total
resistance at the time of zero velocity represented the static resistance. Later
the dynamic resistance was assumed to be proportional to the toe velocity.
Data from cases where both dynamic measurements and static load test results
were available were used to generate values of a "Case Damping Constant".
Those values were found to be dependent on the soil type at the toe (Goble et
al 1975). A number of other methods have been proposed and found to work
well in particular cases. This problem is not a closed topic today.

A more fundamental approach to the determination of static capacity

from dynamic measurements, known as CAPWAP (CAse Pile Wave Analysis
Program) was developed by Rausche (1970). This signal matching approach
is described in Figure 4. The pile is modeled by a series of continuous
discrete elements and the soil by the Smith Model. Modifications have been
made in the standard Smith model to allow different loading and unloading

F~ IoI00URCl FORCE COIolPUTED

(Fm) (re)

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

Figure 4: CAPWAP Method

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.

Questions have frequently been raised regarding the uniqueness of the

CAPWAP solution. The mathematical uniqueness has been proven by Rausche
et al. (1985). Uniqueness was also studied by Fellenius (1988) in a more
practical way. Four different measurement sets were sent to 15 different
engineers who are regularly involved in CAPWAP analysis. Each one made
the analyses and submitted the results. A comparison of all of the results 26
showed that good uniqueness was achieved. An example of the results is shown
in Figure 6.

II. Hammers

In the period of reference, here the Vulcan type air/steam hammer

continued to enjoy wide usage. These hammers have proven to be very rugged
so individual machines have had a very long life. However, they have lost
market share to other hammer types.

In the United States, the drop hammer has essentially disappeared.

Other countries that are still industrializing continue to use them, but it can be
expected that their use there will also decline both due to low productivity and
unreliable performance.

Two external factors influenced the state-of-practice in the use of pile

driving hammers in the United States. The first was the construction of the
Interstate Highway System and the second was the offshore industry. The
Interstate program caused a large growth in bridge construction capability in
the United States. The regionally diverse nature of the program was such that
there was a demand for pile driving capability over much of the country.
Many small general contractors took on pile driving jobs that earlier would
have probably turned to a specialty contractor such as Raymond. At the
sametime, many well-trained Raymond superintendents, looking at the large
number of talented people that were above them in the organization chose to
start their own business. The diesel hammer was ideal for their operation. It
was light and could be handled by a much smaller crane than the equivalent
air/steam hammer. The power was part of the machine so a large compressor

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.

0 50 100 150 "00

PU.o Top
\'" I I I I
\ -----
j I~"",
B~ttom
1.0
\,
. ao \
:ki.,. •
\1.. I I Rut: • 150.0 k:1.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

I ~:l.1. Wozoc • • at :aut

Dy - .4. J.nc:b
.. 00

.80 DIn>< - .sa 1.ogh

TOP llIOv. . .nc 1.D 1agh

 ICCC - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

BCD

-
----------------- -- -- ------
! 500

~
~ 400

200

1 2 3 .. 5 fl 7 II II 1011 12 13 14 15 111 17 III

Figure 6: CAPWAP Result Obtained by 18 Operators from a Particular

Measurement

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.

Since the stroke is variable depending on resistance the peak energy is

also variable. This makes rating of these hammers quite difficult and the
various manufacturers do not use a standard procedure. The forces of
competition have caused the ratings to be inflated to meet the requirements
specified in particular job specifications. For external combustion hammers,
the rating can be done in an orderly and obvious fashion and it is more
important since it is usually used to calculate the stroke and the impact velocity
for Wave Equation analysis. In the case of diesel hammers, the characteristics
of the hammer are entered into the wave equation analysis and impact velocity
and stroke are determined during the analysis. The diesel hammer manufactur-
ers would provide a service to foundation designers if a reasonable and
equitable rating procedure were developed. This will not be a simple task.

The performance of Single Acting diesel hammers can be checked by

observing the stroke which can then be compared with the stroke obtained from
Wave Equation analysis. The observation of stroke has been made with a
"Jump Stick" that is attached to the upper barrel of the cylinder and has stroke
marks visible from the ground. This device is undesirable since it can become
a dangerous missile if it breaks loose. Stroke can be determined by timing the
hammer operating speed and calculating the stroke from a formula given by the
manufacturers. A device is also available that will measure the stroke by
sensing the sound of the impact, timing the interval between hammer blows,
and calculating the stroke automatically.

One diesel hammer manufacturer has eliminated the hammer cushion in

his driving system, claiming greater efficiency of energy transfer and improved
productivity.

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.

The primary manufacturer of double acting diesel hammers is the

International Construction Equipment Company (ICE). Their hammers use
atomized fuel injection and due to this characteristic their performance will be
quite different than single acting hammers that have impact atomization. The
atomized fuel injection machines inject the fuel prior to impact in an atomized
state. The fuel begins to burn almost immediately while injection continues.
Since combustion takes place before impact this cushions the blow somewhat
and increases the stroke. One advantage of this hammer is that it will run in
very easy driving conditions where the single acting diesel would stop. This
advantageous characteristic is achieved at the cost of a somewhat reduced
impact velocity.

In the off shore environment, hammers became much larger particularly

during the oil boom of the late 70's and early 80's. Hammers of the
traditional vulcan type became available with ram weights up to 1,300,000 kN
and strokes to about two meters. In this market, the hydraulic hammer was
introduced and has become increasingly common. This machine has the
additional advantage of being able to operate underwater. In this environment,
large cost savings can accrue due to the use of underwater hammers. With an
underwater hammer, large pipe piles can be floated to the site in full final
length, flooded, lowered to the bottom, and driven to final position. On-site
welding and construction time is radically reduced. Instrumentation to perform
underwater dynamic monitoring is available and this is particularly important
since easy visual observation of the driving operation is not possible.

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.

The IHC hammer is particularly interesting in that it uses a double

acting design that has the cylinder acting against compressed nitrogen on the
up stroke and gaining velocity on the down stroke. Another important feature
provides a measurement of ram velocity shortly before impact. This value is

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.

A number of manufacturers are producing hydraulic hammers of a

variety of types. Impact velocities of almost 6 meters per second are available
and they can usually be easily controlled. The claim is also made that they are
quieter.

III. Piles

In the 30 year period under discussion here, piles also developed

dramatically. While the percentage usage of timber piles has decreased, design
capacities have increased. Today, the Nevada Department of Transportation
uses working load capacities for treated Douglas Fir of 65 tonnes with a factor
of safety of two, providing that the capacity is proven with a static load test.
Acceptable driving stresses up to 20 MPa (3.0 ksi) are generally used in well
controlled situations.

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.

A special type of pipe is the Monotube pile that is manufactured from

steel plate in a special facility. Pipes are formed from sheet by welding and
then deformed into a fluted shape by rolling over a mandrel. The forming
process raises the yield point and the fluted shape makes it possible drive the
pile very hard without damage. The lower section of the pile is usually
tapered. The tapered shape seems to offer advantages in generating load
carrying capacity that has not been mechanistically explained but has also been
observed in timber piles. This pile is also filled with concrete.

A number of proprietary systems that use mandrels to drive very thin-

walled steel pipes are available. Usually these systems use corrugated steel
pipes to resist the soil pressures and prevent buckling. The former Raymond
Step taper used successively smaller sections down the length of the pile. This
made it easier to insert the mandrel since the fresh pile could be inserted into
one of the previously driven piles. Other systems use mandrels that grip along
the length of the corrugated pile. Other systems use smooth pipes with
adjustable toe plates.

Some pipe piles are driven open-ended to achieve greater penetration

where scour may be a problem. With the increased interest in the scour
problem for bridges, this solution is seen much more frequently in the United
States than it was a few years ago. In some such cases, capacity prediction by
dynamic methods can seriously underpredict. In these cases, the failure mode
during driving does not have a plug forming while it may form during a static
test. Recently, a case was observed where static load tests were performed on
two piles that were within a short distance of each other in a single footing.
One of the piles failed, apparently with a plug, while the other probably did
not plug and failed at a much lower capacity. The same problem can occur
with H-piles.

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.

In some locations and particularly in Chesapeake Bay, prestressed

concrete cylinder piles have been used very effectively. These piles are
precast in fixed lengths by centrifugal casting, usually in a facility for
manufacturing large diameter concrete pipe. After casting and curing, they are
connected together by post-tensioning and grouting. Any desired length can
be manufactured and diameters from 900 mm to 1800 mm with wall thickness-
es of about 120 mm are available. These piles are sometimes difficult t6 drive
but the potential for cost saving is substantial in applications such as shallow
tidal waters where de-watering and pile caps can be avoided. It is usually
necessary to transport these piles by barge so water transportation is necessary.

In most of the world, reinforced rather than prestressed concrete piles

are used. These piles are precast in standard, relatively short lengths (13
meters and less). They have mechanical connectors of steel on the ends and
can be cast and stockpiled for use when needed. The required pile length is
achieved by splicing the available lengths as necessary. Tension stress
problems are reduced since in the easy driving portion the pile is fairly short.
However, these piles will often be cracked when driving is finished. Research
conducted in Sweden indicates that the cracks will "heal" in time, probably due
to further hydration of the cement. Usually they are of relatively small cross
section and use high strength concrete. It is surprising that these systems have
not found their way into North American practice.

Mechanical splices, developed for reinforced concrete piles, are often

used on prestressed concrete piles when very long piles are required. Frequent
problems have been encountered with damage in the vicinity of the splice.
First, great care must be taken that the splice fitting is properly installed and
that its end is square with the axis of the pile. A long embedment length must
be used for the reinforcing bars that are attached to the splice fitting. In
addition, it is desirable to examine tension stresses in the splice region where
the prestress force is developed using Wave Equation analysis or dynamic
monitoring. It may be desirable to avoid tension splices unless tension forces

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.

Reinforced concrete piles of triangular cross section have been proposed

and are now in use in Sweden. These piles are of the general type as other
concrete piles with mechanical splices. The advantage claimed is that the cross
section has a larger circumference to area ratio than square piles making them
more effective in developing skin friction.

D. Future

I. Engineering

It can be expected that the electronics and computer revolution will

continue and that measurements will become easier and computation cheaper.
This will make possible more difficult measurements, but probably these
changes will be only incremental. However, on the computational side the
availability of greater computational speed at less cost can produce the use of
pile type measurements for subsurface investigation purposes. All of the
geophysical type measurements produce elastic type soil constants since the
deformations are very small. With the use of measurements on sounding rods
and a CAPWAP-type analysis insitu finite element constitutive properties
including non-linear components can be determined (Abou-Matar 1992).

Greater care must be applied in performing static load tests. As pile

capacities have increased the difficulties in performing static load tests have
also increased. Too often a static load test is considered to be a routine task
and the results produced are of poor quality. Standards of performing the test
must be tightened and the personnel must be better trained. It is even more
important (since it would be easier) to further standardize the evaluation of
static load tests. The argument is frequently made that the evaluation of the
static load test must be left to the judgement of the geotechnical engineer. Too
often the geotechnical engineer has had very little experience and needs the
guidance of a specified method. With the advent of LRFD design procedures,
it becomes easy to vary the </>-factor as the margin of safety changes.

No consideration has been given to the increased reliability gained from

the driving process. Dynamic methods have been shown to be more accurate
than static methods. Thus, every pile is subjected to a capacity evaluation at
the end of driving. Comparing this procedure with simply installing to depth
indicates that smaller factors of safety are appropriate for driven piles. This
can now be applied on an orderly basis.

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.

Surely higher impact velocity hammers will be required to drive the

high strength steel piles. Manufacturers and contractors must deal with the
noise problem. It should be possible to reduce these problems to the point
where they are not a consideration. Ground vibration is a similar problem.
The magnitudes must be determined and quantified to the point where the
problem can be approached in a rational manner. Surely this problem is not
more serious than the effects of drilling near the foundations of a large
building.

III. Piles

Timber piles face an environmental problem regarding the influences of

creosote. The industry has made the point that this problem has been over-
stated but the problem remains. In a well-engineered job with good quality
control, it should be possible to increase the design loads on timber piles.
However, if loads are increased contractors must expect that higher driving
resistances will be required. Driving procedures must be improved. It is
possible to drive timber piles to very high capacities but contractors must
expect that this cannot be achieved with some of the sloppy driving systems
they are currently using. The effect of taper is clearly beneficial but needs to
be better quantified.

Steel piles can be driven to higher stresses, particularly the high

strength steels. However, the higher impact velocities will increase the
possibility of damage and it is essential that the driving system be held in good
alignment, and that the blow be uniformly and concentrically applied. Changes
in practice of this type should be made gradually.

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

Thirty years of innovation and modification has greatly increased the

efficiency of pile driving operations. The understanding of the mechanics of

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

Abou-Matar, H. (1992). "Determination of Soil Constants from Standard

Penetration Test." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder,
CO.

Corte, J. F. and Lepert, P. (1986). "Lateral Resistance during Driving and

Dynamic Pile Testing." Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France.

Coyle, H. M. and Gibson, G. C. (1970). "Empirical Damping. Constants for

Sands and Clays." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE.

Fellenius, B. H. (1988). "Variations of CAPWAP Results as a Function of the

Operator." Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the
Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Editor, B. H. Fellenius, Ottawa,
Canada.

Fischer, H. C. (1984). "Wave Mechanics Lectures." Proceedings, Second

Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles, Stockholm,
Sweden.

Fletcher, G. F. A. (1965). "Standard Penetration Test: Its Uses and Abuses."

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 105, No GT8, August.

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.

Goble, G. G., Likins, G. E., and Rausche, F. (1975). "Bearing Capacity of

Piles from Dynamic Measurements - Final Report." Department of Civil
Engineering, Case Western Reserve Uni versity, Cleveland, OH.

Goble, G. G. and Rausche, F. (1976). "Wave Equation Analysis of Pile

Driving - WEAP Program." Volumes 1 - 4, FHWA, IP-76-14.l - 14.4, April.

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.

Goble, G. G. and Rausche, F. (1986). "Wave Equation Analysis of Piles -

WEAP86." Volumes 1 -4, FHWA DTFH61-84-C-00I00, March.

"GRLWEAP - Wave Equation Analysis of Piles." (1991). Goble Rausche

Likins and Associates, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, July, 1991.

Heerema, E. P. (1981). "Dynamic Point Resistance in Sand and in Clay for

Pile Driveability Analysis." Ground Engineering.

Hery, P. (1983). "Residual Stress Analysis in WEAP." A Thesis Submitted to

the University of Colorado in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree, Boulder, CO.

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.

Holeyman, A. (1988). "Modeling of Dynamic Behavior at the Pile Base."

Proceedings ofthe Third International Conference on the Application ofStress-
Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, Canada.

Holloway, D. M., Clough, G. W., and Vesic, A. S. (1978). "The Effect of

Residual Driving Stresses on Pile Performance Under Axial Loads." Proceed-
ings Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 3306, Houston, TX.

Likins, G. E. (1982). "Evaluating the Performance of Pile Driving Hammers."

4th PDA User's Seminar, Amsterdam, Holland.

Likins, G. E. (1983). "Pile Installation Difficulties in Soils with Large

Quakes." Proceedings of the Symposium on Dynamic Measurements of Piles
and Piers, ASCE Convention, Philadelphia, PA.

Litkouhi, S. and Poskitt, T. 1. (1980). "Damping Constants for Pile Drive-

ability Calculation s." Geotechnique.

Michigan State Highway Commission. (1965). "A Performance Investigation

of Pile Driving Hammers and Piles - Final Report." Lansing, Michigan.

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.

Olson, R. E. (1990). "Axial Load Capacity of Steel Pipe Piles in Sand."

24
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6419, Houston, TX.

Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation

Engineering John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Randolph, M. F. and Simons, H. A. (1986). "An Improved Soil Model for

One-Dimensional Pile Driving Analysis. " Proceedings ofthe Third Internation-
al Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France.

Rausche, F. (1970). "Soil Response from Dynamic analysis and Measure-

ments." Doctoral Dissertation, Division of Solid Mechanics, Structures, and
Mechanical Design, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, .OR.

Rausche, F. and Goble, G. G. (1972). "Performance of Pile Driving

Hammers. " Journal
of the Construction Division, ASCE, September.

Rausche, F., Goble, G. G., and Likins, G. E. (1985). "Dynamic Determina-

tion of Pile Capacity." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, September.

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.

Rempe, David M. (1975). "Mechanics of Diesel Pile Driving." Thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Samson, C. H., Hirsch, T. 1., and Lowry, L. L. (1963). ''''Computer Study

of the Dynamic Behavior of Piling. " Journal ofthe Structural Division, ASCE,
Vol. ST4.

Schiffman, R. L. (1988). Private discussions with Professor Schiffman,

University of Colorado, one of the earliest computer users in geotechnology.

Smith, E. A. L. (1951). "Pile Driving Impact." Seminar Proceedings, IBM.

Smith, E. A. L. (1957). "What Happens When Rammer Hits Pile." Engineer-

ing News-Record, 159 September 5.

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.

Timoshenko, S. and Goodier, J. N. (1951). Theory of Elasticity , McGraw-Hill

Book Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Vesic, A. S. (1977). "Design of Pile Foundations." National Cooperative

Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.

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.

Walker, F. K. (1972). "Dependability of Pile Capacity Prediction Methods."

Masters Thesis, School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH.

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.

+ civil Engineering Department, University of N.evada,

Reno, NV 89557
27 G. Norris
Introduction
Foundation flexibility is taken into account in the
structural dynamic modeling of a pile supported highway
bridge by incorporating boundary element springs of
stiffness values comparable to that of the soil-pile
foundation systems they replace. Typically, it is the
lateral and rotational stiffnesses of the foundations
that are required for the seismic analysis of a highway
bridge.

While it is the bridge designer that undertakes the

dynamic analysis of the structure, it is the geotechnical
engineer that should direct the evaluation of the founda-
tion stiffnesses needed in the analysis. Gi ven the
nonlinear variation of the soil modulus, the dependence
of such modulus value(s) on the stress path and the near-
field soil strain (associated with superposed free-field
and inertial interaction responses), and the necessity of
evaluating such modulus dependence from relatively meager
subsurface data, such geotechnical expertise is critical.
since it is the geotechnical engineer that often
evaluates the site dependent free-field ground surface
motions or response spectrum to be used as input to the
structure, he already has knowledge of the level of free-
field strains that will develop in the different soil
layers.

What is needed for realistic structural dynamic modeling

is an accurate assessment of both the ground surface
motions and the foundation stiffnesses along the length
of the structure so that the dynamic analysis leads to an
appropriate distribution of seismic forces to the
structure. Unfortunately, the bridge design group often
chooses to do a fixed base (i.e., infinitely stiff
springs) response evaluation or, alternatively, under-
takes the evaluation of the foundation springs for what
it considers a worst case soi 1 condition. Neither of
these approaches is to be encouraged because each can
lead to significant inaccuracies. In fact, it is not
presently known whether an evaluation of the foundation
springs for spatially varying soil conditions using
linear "design level" stiffnesses with limiting force or
moment capacity is sufficient for the task. It may be
that a full equivalent linear stiffness analysis, similar
in principle to the use of strain compatible shear moduli
in a ground response analysis, is required.

It should be emphasized that geotechnical input into pile

foundation stiffness evaluation is necessary if the
potential for a commonly overlooked mechanism of failure
is to be assessed. There can be situations where, due to

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.

This paper provides an overview of the author's

equivalent linear lateral and rotational pile foundation
stiffness evaluation procedures (1-3) and some field case
studies (1 and 3-10).

OVERVIEW

Uncoupled Stiffnesses and Differences in Associated Effects

It is assumed that the lateral and rotational responses
of a pile group can be uncoupled and treated indepen-
dently (Figure 1) provided that there are no batter piles
in the group. Accordingly, the lateral response of the
group derives from the soil-pile interaction of the piles
near ground surface (together with the lateral resistance
of the pile cap and any embedded portion of the pier
shaft). The rotational resistance of the group, on the
other hand, is dominated by the axial (i.e., vertical)
response of the piles about the corresponding axis of
rotation. It is the soils at depth that provide the
significant part of the axial and, hence, the rotational
stiffness of the group.
The associated near-field zones of soil that govern in
lateral versus vertical/rotational stiffness evaluation
are shown in Figure 2. It is the soil modulus variation
in these different zones that governs the respective pile
foundation stiffness evaluations. Further, pile group
interference effects, head f ixi ty conditions, and the
pile cap contribution are different for the different
modes. Group interference due to the progressive overlap
of developing passive wedges can be significant for
lateral response (Figure 2a), while there is negligible

29
 lateral resistance
P
cap P
-cap
H H I ..
q

H H=[P
o
+ Pcap

head· conditions K = k piles + k

cap
fixed to free

combined +
w
o

rotational resistance

e1: I =? --=_ !Jz

!JQ i
i
k H
Figure 1. Uncoupled lateral vi Ke = -tj- f(k )
v
and rotational _~~L
responses. r where k v
i !Jz
 H

overlapping wedges of
developing passive
pressure resistance
uu
cylindrical zones
of vertical resistance
a) b)

Figure 2. Zones of soil-pile interaction for a)

lateral and b) vertical/rotational response.

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.

It is assumed here that the soil settles away from the

base of the pile cap and that, due to a concurrent
lateral response (i. e., the development of soi 1 gaps
along the vertical faces of the cap), there is no pile
cap contribution to rotational stiffness. On the other
hand, with the soil gap closed, there will be a
developing passive wedge in front of the leading face of
the pile cap resulting in a notable pile cap contribution
to lateral resistance. Furthermore, the choice of the
soil modulus value for cap resistance should be made in
conjunction with the level of the lateral deflection of
the cap, which is equal to that of the piles at pile top.
Given the difference in the width of the pile cap versus
the individual pile, the same displacement implies that
decidedly different soil strains (proportional to the
deflection divided by the width of the member) and,
hence, modulus values occur in the controlling zones of
the soil in front of the cap versus the individual pile.

Beam on Elastic Foundation Formulation

Lateral and rotational pile group stiffnesses rely upon
first assessing the nonlinear variation in lateral and
vertical pile responses. This is best achieved using
well-accepted beam-on-elastic foundation (BEF) formula-
tion in which soil-pile reactions are characterized by a
continuous bed of springs (i.e., a Winkler foundation).
Given the uncoupling of the lateral and rotational
responses of the pile group, different sets of springs
are used to characterize the lateral (i.e., p-y) and the
vertical (t-z) soil-pile reactions (Figure 3). It is the
cumulative effect of the responses (p-y or t-z) of all of
the elements along the length of the pile that equals the
pile head response. (Po-Yo or Q-z) as shown in Figures 4a
and 4b respectively.
One significant difference between the lateral and
vertical pile responses is that the piles are under an

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,

• The horizontal load-displacement ( po-Yo) response

(or the associated pile head stiffness, k = Po/Yo)
from p-y behavior and

• The vertical load change-displacement (.1Q-.1z)

response (or the associated vertical pile head
stiffness, k v = .1Q/.1z) from t-z behavior,

the vertical will be different in unload versus load

behavior in accordance with the subsequent inertial
interaction loading of the pile group (Figure 4). The
consequences of this are considered in a later section.

LATERAL STIFFNESS EVALUATION

Equivalent Linear Approach

Currently available p-y curve formulation (11) has
several limitations relative to its use in highway bridge
seismic pile foundation analysis. Such formulation was
not meant to be particularly accurate in the small
deflection range, nor are such p-y curves appropriate for
an embedded pile head, i.e., with the pile top occurring
at the base of the cap at, say, five to ten feet (1.5 to
3 m) below the ground surface. Likewise, available p-y
curve formulation does not account for differences in the
pile bending stiffness (El), the pile shape, and the pile
head fixity. While strain wedge (SW) model formulation
(12) will account for all of these factors, such
refinement may not be warranted given the subsequent
modification due to pile group interference effects and
due to existing differences in opinion as to the
contribution of the pile cap (e.g., 1 versus 11).
A simple but realistic "p-y" BEF analysis that addresses
both the small deflection and embedment issues is the
equivalent linear subgrade modulus profile approach (1).
Accordingly, one assesses the "design level" subgrade
modulus, Es(=p/y) profile, Le., E = fx (Figure Sa)
given the modulus variation f as cliaracterized in the
literature (Figure 6). Figure 6 presents the vertical
subgrade modulus variation, f, as a function of the
relative density, Dr' for cohesionless soils (13) and f
as a function of the unconfined compressive strength, qu'
for clays. The latter is a modification (1) of NAVFAC
(13), Davisson (14), and Terzaghi (15) criteria. A
similar (but not identical) set of curves are given

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

a) symmetrical lateral response b) unequal load versus unload vertical response

Figure 4. Response due to inertial interaction loading: a) lateral and b) vertical/

rotational.
 Es profile for
soil pile cap
Es profile for pile
1
t
~ E profile for Yo,design
s
for pile for Yo < Yo,design

w
(J)

+---increasing pile top

deflection Y and soil
strain 0

a) b)

Figure 5. SUbgrade modulus profile for laterally loaded pile response:

a) spatial
variation and b) change with decreasing pile top deflection.
 I UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVe: STRE:NG1li Q .. TSF 1
~I~SOFT '1 MEDIUM
STIFF I STIFF VERV STIFF
1ro
T0
~ 4
Ie> I 2

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

Figure 6. Design level subgrade modulus variation f

(from 1 and 13).

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.

Note from Figure Sa that only that portion of the profile

from the pile top and down is used to assess the single
isolated pile stiffness, k, while that variation over the
height of the pile cap is used to evaluate the contribu-
tion of the pile cap, k cap .
The IIdesign level ll modulus profile applies at a given
value of strain in the soil in the developing passive
wedge in front of the pile (or pile cap) which reflects
a pile head (or cap) deflection, Yo (or Yg ), of 0.1 in.
per foot of pile (or cap) width B (or 0.25 cm deflection
per 0.3 m width B). This IIdesign level ll value of pile
head deflection was established using program COM622 (17)
and nonlinear p-y curves for sand and clay after Matlock
and Reese (e.g., see 18) modified to have initial
straight line slopes equal to the design level modulus,
Es = fx. A parametric study was undertaken to assess the
level of pile head deflection, Yo' at which the pile head
stiffness, k (= Po/Yo)' deviated from a constant value
(Le., started to decrease) with increasing pile head
load Po; this value was taken to be the des ign level
pile head deflection, Yo design. This average value (0.1
in. or 0.25 mm) for a 1-rt. (0.3-m) diameter pile
embedded (Figure Sa) a typical 5 to 10 ft. (1.5 to 3 m)
is less than the IIworking load ll deflection of 0.5 to 1
in. (12 to 25 mm) reported elsewhere (16). The larger
range of deflection (16) is for a non embedded pile.
Furthermore, the adopted value compares well with the
deflection, y, from the relationship
YSO = 2.SesoB (1)

which Matlock and Reese use for clays (18) to establish

their p-y curve deflection at 50% load level (i.e., P50).
without the "5011 sUbscripts, Equation 1 is actually
Skempton's equation (19) relating the deflection of a
strip footing to the strain in the supporting soil. If
one takes Y50 to be the pile head deflection, Yo' and
substitutes E 50 = 1/300 for the typical strain (ranging
from 1/500 to 1/200 as a function of the plasticity index
for clay) at 50% stress level from a triaxial test, then
Yo (= y 0) equals 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) for a 1-ft. (0.3-m)
wlde pile. It can be demonstrated that a similar Y50
value derives for the p-y curves for sand.

As shown elsewhere (12), the normal horizontal strain, E,

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

Figure 7. Subgrade modulus profile for a layered sand

profile.

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)

where Yo = Yo d s~g .= 0.1 in. (2.5 m) per B = 1 ~t. (0.3

m) for 750 = b.~3~ ~1.e., 750 = €50 = 1/300). G1ven the
(sand) shear modulus reduction curve from soil dynamics
(20) and the correspondence between shear modulus (G),
~oung's modulus (E) and subgrade modulus (E s ) ratios,
1. e. ,

E=2(1+v)G (v = Poisson' s ratio) (3a)

such that
G G
= or (3b)
Go Gref

and
E s = constE (see, e.g., 21) (3c)

such that
(3d)
Es,design

the shear modulus reduction curve can be transformed via

Equation 2 into a subgrade modulus amplification curve as
shown schematically in Figure 8. (The subgrade modulus
amplification curve through 0.1 in. (2.5 cm) per 1-ft.
(0.3 -m) diameter pi Ie is the same shape as the shear
modulus reduction curve through 7 = 0.33%.) Of course,
for a unique curve in terms of strain, 7 (or Yo/B), one
obtains different curves for different width members (B)
as shown in Figure 9.
The modulus amplification curve serves as the mechanism
for logically increasing the design level subgrade
modulus profile, Es ' (and, therefore, the secant or
equivalent linear p-y curve response) for a seismic pile
head deflection, Yo' less than Yo desj.~n' See, for
.instance, Figure 5b where, for a 1-f't. (CT.3-m) diameter
pile, the design level modulus profile would be
mUltiplied by a factor of 3.7, the amplification value
from Figure 9, for, say, a pile head deflection of Yo =
o. 0 1 in. ( 0 • 2 5 mm) .
From beam on elastic foundation (BEF) theory (e.g., see
1 and 2), the pile top deflection, Yo' for a pile head

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

Figure 8. Relationship between the shear modulus

reduction curve and sUbgrade modulus
amplification curve.

41
 8r-.....,...------r-----r------r-----~--

E
-t-----:----
5

s,ae5~qn

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

Yo' inches

Figure 9. SUbgrade modulus amplification curves

(from 1).

42
load, Po' and a given Es profile can be expressed as
p r 3 (4)
Yo = (A yo or c Yo ) ~I

where A and C are dimensionless coefficients (for

yo Yo
displacement) for free and fixed head conditions
respectively; T is the characteristic stiffness,
(5)

and EI is the bending stiffness of the pile. Table 1

presents values of coefficients Ayo and CYofor different
Es profiles of the form Eso + fX, i.e., a single soil.
Reference 2 provides coefflcients and a simple method for
constructing the deflected shape and moment variation
along the pile for these same profiles as well as for
other single soil profiles and for simple two-layer soil
profiles (e.g., for the pile of Figures 5a and 5b). If
there are more than two layers within the depth of the
developing passive wedge (x =0 in Figure 10), then
program COM622 (17) can be us~d to solve for deflection
versus load response by simply inputting straight line p-
y curves requiring two-point p-y curve input (i.e., [0,0)
and [p = EsYlarqe' Ylarqe), say, Ylarqe = 100 in. or 2.54
m) at the in~e~facel)e~ween layers (~.e., one p-y curve
for each the upper and lower materials at the interface) .
The program will linearly interpolate additional p-y
curves. Of course, the E profile for the desired y
deflection is used to estab~ish the secant or equivalen~
linear p-y curves; and the pile head load, Po' that
applies is

(6)

where Po and yb are linear elastic load and deflection

values tor an arbitrary input of the pile head load of
P b. The deflection pattern (y vs. x) and the moment
variation (M vs. x) can then be established by running
the program again for the load, Po' as established from
Equation 6. Similarly, the secant (p,y) coordinates (one
point per curve at each depth x) can be extracted from
such output; and, with enough runs at different pi Ie
head deflections (Yo)' the small strain p-y curves can be
developed if desired.
Whichever approach is used, i.e., published BEF solutions

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

+ ~ax (free ~ead) = AmPoT

++ xy=O' see F1g. 10.

Table 2. Stiffness Reduction (e) and Deflection

Increase (l/e q ) as a Func~ion of pile Spacing
(5) in Pile DIameters (B)

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 )

Figure 11 schematically demonstrates the nonlinear pile

head stiffness variation that develops by assuming a
different yo. « Yo de.si,gn), adjusting the "design level"
subgrade modulus prot lIe (see Figure 5b) by the ampli-
fication factor from Figure 9, and assessing k from
Equation 7 using COM622 or Equation 8 (based on published
BEF solutions for simple modulus profiles) .

Piles at close spacing (S) experience a group inter-

ference effect. While elastic continuum solutions (22)
are often used to assess such an effect, results from
recent tests (23, 24) indicate that the overlap of the
mobilizing passive wedges (not the superposition of
elastic strains) is the main cause of such group
interference. Given that more research is desired, a
simple expedient for the present is to use older
empirically based results (13, 14). The author (see 1)
has long used a pile head stiffness reduction factor, e q ,
which derives from the recommended subgrade modulOs
reduction factor, R, reported in DM-7 (13). Table 2
gives values of e g versus the center-to-center spacing of
piles in a group.
The stiffness of the average pile in the group, k gp ' is
e g time the isolated pile head stiffness, k, or
(9)

at the same average load per pile, Po. Therefore, if

stiffness reduces, pile head deflection for the average
pile in the group, Yg , must increase; or

yg =
Yo (10)
eg

for constant load, P (= kyo = k Y ). Figure 12

indicates the relations~ip between or ~h~ transformation
of a point on the pile head stiffness curve for the
single isolated pile and a pile in the group. Therefore,
one way to establish the k gp at a specified pile head

46
pile head
stiffness

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

Variation in pile head stiffness with

Figure 11.
deflection amplitude

(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

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

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.

Instead of the factor e~ given here, one may wish to use

the recently pUblishe~ (25) deflection amplification
factor, Cy ' which can be considered to be the reciprocal
of e g in ~hich case
k (11)
k gp = - Ygp = CyYo
cy

However, it is unclear at the present time whether Cy is

more accurate than e for the small deflections- of
interest here. In any %ase, it is the author's view that
there is certainly need for some correction, contrary to
the noncommittal view expressed by FHWA (11).

The stiffness of the piles in the group considered

collectively at the deflection, Yq' is n, the number of
piles in the group, times the average group pile stiff-
~ess, k gp (at y g ), or n times egk (k at deflection Yo)'
~. e. ,

kpiles = nkgp (k gp at Yg) = negk (k at Yo) (12)

This is equivalent to increasing-the group pile curve of

Figure 12 vertically by the factor n.

Pile Cap Contribution

The stiffness of the pile group, K, is the stiffness of
the piles plus the stiffness provided by the pile cap and
any embedded portion of the pier shaft, i.e.,
K = kpiles + k cap (13 )

The pile cap stiffness, k cap ' due to a uniform horizontal

translation, Yg , of the p~le cap is
k cap = P caplYg (14)

where the pi Ie cap force, P a ' can be taken as the

integration of the p-y curve r~ge load force, p, acting
over the height of the cap and any embedded portion of
the pier shaft,
Pcap = J p dx (15)

Note that p is
48
 p = EsY (16)

(see Figure Ja) where Es is the equivalent linear

subgrade modulus for the cap of width B for the
,deflection y = yg. That means that a different modulus
amplification factor (for width, B) applies to that
portion of the design level sUbgrade modulus profile
adjacent to the cap (see Figure Sa). Substituting
Equation 16 into Equation 15 and 15 into 14 yields

k cap = (y1 ) r Esygdx = r Esdx (17)

g

However, given that E at y is the appropriate amplifi-

cation factor .times l:.he d~sign level modulus profile,
then
E
s
k cap -,.---- r Es,designdx (18)
Es,design

In other words, k cap is the amplification factor (for Yq'

B) times the area bf the design level sUbgrade modulus
profile down to the base of the pile cap (Figure 5a).

There is some difference of opinion as to the assessment

of pile cap stiffness (1 vs. 11). While the method
presented here employs only lateral resistance against
the front face of the cap with due regard to the strain
level as ref lected by y /B, others would employ base
shear as well. According~y, pile cap stiffness might be
assessed assuming the cap is an embedded shallow
foundation undergoing lateral translation (11). It is
argued here that, in many instances, the soil settles
away from the bottom of the pile cap thereby losing
contact. Alternatively, even if contact is maintained,
the soil in the developing passive wedge (see Figure 10)
at the pile top and, therefore, at the base of the cap is
straining and moving such that there is little or no
relative movement between the cap and the underlying
soil. There is also disagreement as to the source of the
lateral resistance for cap stiffness. While there may be
structural backf i 11 around the cap , it is argued here
that, given the extent of the developing wedge(s) from
the piles extending upward toward the surface, the
structural backfill constitutes only a small part of the
wedge width adjacent to the cap and that the surrounding
natural soil experiences the strain and provides the
controlling lateral resistance. These differences in
opinion result in a relative cap contribution to the
total resistance ranging from 15-50% in the author's view
to, say, 70 to 90% in the view of others.

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

a. Layering and blowcounts from boring logs of bridge

plans.

b. Recorded (and corrected) SPT blowcount, i.e., Nrec

(Nco r)· The blow count corrected for effectlve
overEurden pressure (sands and nonplastic silts
only), Ncorr ' is Ncorr = CNN rec where CN (=-1.2) is
taken from Figure 19.6 of Reference 26 for avo (=
0.5 tsf) with respect to original ground.

c. Dr from Ncorr based on Figure 19.5 of Reference 26

and Dr limlts identical to those in Figure 6

d. ¢ from Ncorr based on Figure 19.5 of Reference 26.

Note, however, that ¢ is not required here for
analysis but it will be required later for vertical
stiffness evaluation.

e. f from Dr based on Figure 6

f. qu = N/7.5 tsf from Reference 27 (Terzaghi and Peck
curve) where N is Nrec .

g. f from qu based on Figure 6

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
:=

'10· e3 ],J 0.00 3SJ./ ;1'1.. =0

t:.-s = S. Z'1 f;r Jo" O. OO:3Sl1I~.) (3 = I. 0 b It

.Es,~sI111. IrOh1. /;J. r~

S8.' ~,..- a.. It'l.l'.ar

va rt(.. !I() "-
.. (~(). if X 10.3) rs-
\ - S8.z. J
10,. Sln~ 1< 1>'/(. at = 3.7/0 ft.
d..ffec.htJl1. Jo'" O. 003SC/ /;.,..
Esc =- 3f1? .. K '" /.62.
-IT ~2 (3.71) //(:.7/)
Co e.g; r: I .(!;t l.r
('!fo '" <:l A~o h/td A~o altd C~o .;;." !k,j
.:l.' E;.o/rT ,..~f,o fro,."" &
~

(7! ,-.
W

lor
~~
Cl-/? rOjJr(~ h S/I17/(.. Ia-ylo"'-
Sa {utI 0 k. /O~ lab/e. /

lI:H..d Ys. f,.e.e. he-a. cL r.t. Spoil. se.

One Ca./t (on.. sf,..u.cf a. Curve lor a. Sp~CII:C 8 va/lI.t.-

Ll..S/I'-J o,."J""ah.s &/Cs,)cL-S1'I 7.30,7.2'. 1.01 I.. liZ) S:f'~J
fL " J

3. U. ;).18 4 I cul"d.. Occ.ur 0_:1- .~~ delf~cf,o".s (8,1t/ I It)

j

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)

4;0 a-d lj" ya(u.e.s ra..flos

-IT
t!O
t4-'1() c'0 A
_~o
IT cJo
(J, ;;- /. '190 ~,GI(3 .2 32-
I /. 09 7 d. f(1 8 2 . 2. 0
2. O.7VZ O. 3.(3 2./0

8J I;,. 7£ . .,.Do Ia.~o "'- £OM. ~ ))/01

of Ayo (en- So) vs IoJ £.0
-fT
A "
'10
O,i.!?)
a"d 6.0;: 2. /3
(!~o .. O. Y'OO ('to

~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" ..

= '.37 ft, .. /j" d. ()J ,:"

,5 r 9R
'·7!"
+ I..37!.:19 x dx "
Ie. cop = .s:~3
1
" .:J.9 xdx

I.?r
I. ;;tr

S':'63 .21 -12.

2. J 6
f-

= .1.so 7" 30'1Z :,..3 z 92 :f Z' $(/'/ ~

H- ,"-
: i'Z kJr f
tal- !J,
-to- $'19 .!=
,...
Ie;"(JU? ..
.
.J.3~O l
,"- f".d J 0.1:- JJ : O. ()I I~,
~~ X p0/l'/h
On ~ I"d/c. hd
I3PO
-t..
1"-
~~ eUfV~S of 0. 17
cO"""s pondll'j
/0 GJ ) 1:9,"OlL)
('CJ(jrd,lto'k s.
~
#dh 7kAf !li:i... C:2~ Co,,!r,bt.As ~."I (fw ;;~1J) to ~o % (,h;,.--
IrLIJ. ko..c1. £:0 nd,h~) of ~ ~ Ia.( si7f?,~,Js.

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

\ " 12 3/4 in., 3/8 in. x

\
\
"" thick driven pipe (ft.)
E .
S,des1gn
for cap
and pier shaft
pile backfilled
\ " 50
with concrete (EI
\ ~ 40.9 x 10 3 t-ft 2 )
U1
(X)
\
\
"" 5 x 4 (= 20) piles
\29 " 3 ft. center-to-
\]1 " center spacing
\ "
32
34 E
,352
. (tsf)
\ 928
\

'2PP
"
,,
1200
E
s. d '
eS1gn
for
single isolated pile
s,desl.gn
35.5 1250

full profile simplified profile

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

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

b) Y (inches)
g

Figure 17. Comparison of predicted vs. observed (i.e.,

backcalculated) lateral stiffness results
from
a) Pile Groups 1 and 4 and
b) pile Groups 2 and 3
of the Rose Creek Bridge (from 1).

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.

EXAl\1PLE: Lateral Stiffness of the Central Pier Pile Group at

the Meloland Overcrossing
The same procedure was also used to predict the lateral
stiffness variation of the central pier pile group of the
Meloland overcrossing (4) five years before the bridge
was tested (e.g., see 29). See Appendix B for informa-
tion regarding the pile type, size, length, etc. at
Meloland. Figures 18 and 19 are reproduced from Sack's
1983 thesis. The one data point backcalculated from
system identification analysis (30) from the full-scale
bridge tests conducted in 1988 is superimposed on Figure
19. (Different than Reference 31, the system identifica-
tion stiffness and the associated release displacement
are plotted as the data point.) Note that Figure 18 was
established from the bridge boring log which indicated
two layers of interbedded fine silty sand and stiff silty
clay in the controlling depth (approximately 8 pile
diameters or 8 ft. in this case) near the pile top. In
each of these two layers, the blow count was used to
assess the Dr and ¢ of the material assuming it to be
sand and, separately, the q assuming the material to be
clay. Both the design leve~ subgrade modulus variation,
f, and below the water table, f', for the sand were
assessed. Since both f' and f might be used below the
water table, depending on whether the sand or clay
controls in the interbedded layers, Figure 19 shows the
predicted central pier pile group stiffness variation for
both possibilities. Both curves assume that the piles
are fully fixed. While the author would now prefer to
assess the free head stiffness as well in order to show
a possible range of response depending upon head fixity,
the one data point is in the strain or deflection range
where fixity may still be close to 100%. More will be
said later about the Meloland Overcrossing and its
performance during the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake.

Advantages and Limitations of Proposed Equivalent Linear

Approach
A significant advantage of the proposed procedure is that
the method is straightforward and fully spelled out. It
is relatively easy to accomplish given that it relies on
a familiar approach (beam on elastic foundation analysis)

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)

Stiff Clay 12 1.60 15 15

II

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

Compact Fine Silty Sand 18 49 )) 21 11.5

4))
Stiff Clay Interbedded With
12 )1 )0 1.80 1) 6.5
Slightly Compact Fine Sand

Central Pile Group

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'I 4000 Cent=al (Bouyant)

.lI:
co
co
CJ
c
......
......
...;
.u 3000
:J)

c:.
::l
0
W
~

....CJ
~
2000
~

____ Abutments
1000

a ,_.....;.. ~ __L..I ....1.-2

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

Pile Top Deflection y (inches)

Figure 19. Lateral stiffness variation at Meloland

(from 4).
62
and employs available charts and tables or a commonly
available and documented program, COM622, or its
equivalent. The method treats complexities such as
nonlinear soil response, soil layering, embedment
(including pile cap resistance), pile head fixity, and
group interference effects. Cyclic effects are small at
a p-y curve load level of less than 70% or P70 (18) i
and, since the design level modulus (E s d~siqn) profile
and pile head deflection (Yo oesign) retlect approxi-
mately p at the pile top , (and lesser values of p
below), ~~e cyclic effects are not included. The
approach relies on Terzaghi's and DM-7's accepted values
for the design level subgrade modulus, corrected for
ampli tude dependence based upon the modulus reduction
curve employed in soil dynamics. Furthermore, the
simplicity of the method is in keeping with the level of
error or approximation associated with such factors as
the correction for amplitude dependence, group
interference effects, and the pile cap contribution.
Most importantly, the method yields results that compare
well with field response as demonstrated with the pile
groups at Rose Creek and Meloland.

By contrast, a p-y curve approach requires a program with

p-y curve input. Such p-y curves were not meant to be
accurate in the small deflection range, and recent
efforts (11) to correct this deficiency seem to be some-
what arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, the engineer will
spend considerable effort on such an approach to estab-
lish what would "appear" to be a relatively· precise
evaluation of single pile stiffness but which must then
be modified by rather large and still debated corrections
for the group effect and the contribution of the pile
cap. (If, for instance, cap resistance is not assessed
as a function of amplitude dependence, then considerable
error is likely to be introduced.)

One limitation of the present procedure is that it is

proposed specifically for use on highway bridges where
the pile tops are typically embedded a distance of, say,
five to ten feet (1.5 to 3 m). Therefore, the design
level pile top deflection for the single isolated pile,
Yo,design' or that of the average pile i~ the ~r,?up,
y~ desiqn = Yo desiqn/eq' corresponds to thlS condltl0n.
Tnis rererence'defl~cti~n will most likely be different
for a pile with its top at the ground surface. Secondly,
the proposed procedure only accounts for deflections up
to the design level value. For larger deflections, one
should use a p-y curve analysis with due consideration
for cyclic effects. One should also note that the values
of the group reduction factor, e g , reported in Table 2
are more appropriate with square or rectangular
arrangements of piles than with a pile row (e.g., an

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)

As discussed earlier, if the piles are pin ended in a

64
rigid pile cap and the cap contributes nothing, then the
resistance to moment, M, derives solely from the axial
response of the vertical piles.

The dependence of the vertical/rotational stiffness of a

pile group upon its ini tia I static dead load can be
easily demonstrated using the imagined symmetric two-row
pile group shown in Figure 20. Before the imposition of,
say, a seismic equivalent uniform sinusoidal rotation to
the group, all piles are at some point, 0, on the load-
settlement curve for the piles corresponding to the
vertical static dead load per pile. This means that, in
running a t-z analysis to establish the predicted back-
bone or load-settlement curve (the same curve that might
result from a pile load test), one keeps track of the
shear stress (t) and displacement (z) at the midpoint of
the various elements along the length of the pile used in
the analysis. Such data represents, say, the points on
the t-z curves of Figure 3b.

The Q-z curve of Figure 20 represents, specifically, the

pile head load-settlement curve. It is the result of the
shear stress responses (t-z) of all the elements along
the length of the pile and the point load (Q -z )
response. Therefore, a change in the pile head Plo~d
means that there must be a corresponding related change
in the element t-z responses and the Q -z response. If
a moment, M, corresponding to the desi~d ~otation, 0max'
from point 0 to point 1 on the O-time curve is applied to
the base of the pile cap, this causes a load change, ~Q,
at the heads of the piles on opposite sides of the axis
of rotation that must be reflected in changes ~t-~z in
all elements along the length of the pile and ~Qp-~zo at
the pile point. Note that, to maintain vertical load
equilibrium under application of only moment M, the load
change (~Q), compression to the piles of one row, and
tension or unload to the piles of the other row, must be
the same if there are an equal number of piles in each
row. However, such a load change, ~Q, would invoke
different Q-z travel paths for the load versus the unload
piles of the group. As shown in Figure 20, the piles
that are further loaded will move up the backbone curve
at a slope, k L , while the unload piles will not retrace
their path down the backbone curve but rather move at a
much stiffer slope, k u / r ' off the backbone curve (as with
the unload loop of a plle load test curve). To assess
such unload (and subsequent reload) pile head response,
the corresponding unload/reload ~t-~z responses (and
point ~Q-~zp response) would have to be known as
discussed sUbsequently.

Notice that, because the ~Q-~z slopes are different, the

vertical pile head displacements, ~z, from the initial

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
.

row a due to M row b

-t l-l1Z u/ r

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)

where n is the number of piles in one row and d is the

horizontal distance between pile rows. Figure 21a is a
plot of the O-time, ~Q-~z, and M-O responses at point 1
along with the deflected position of the tops of the
piles (or base of the pile cap).

Reaching the maximum assigned rotation in one direction,

a moment change, LlM, of the opposite sense (counter-
clockwise) is needed to cause a ~O change to bring the
pile group back from 0max (i.e., from point 1 to point 2
on the O-time curve). However, for this to occur the
piles of the row that were unloaded will start to reload
and the piles of the row that were loaded up the backbone
curve will start to unload. These responses occur along
unload/reload travel paths of the same k u / r slope as
shown in the ~Q-~z response plot of Figure 21b. As shown
in Figure 21b, with equal vertical stiffnesses (k~{r) for
all piles, the axis of rotation for this change t -2) is
located half way between the pile rows. Point 2
corresponds to the condition where the load change ~Q
associated with the counterclockwise moment change, LlM,
brings the Q-z load paths back to the original dead load
value, though only the unload/reload piles end up back at
point 0 of Figure 20; the (backbone) load-unload piles
have a net downward displacement corresponding to the
horizontal distance between points 0 and 2b of the ~Q-~z
response plot of Figure 21b.

The moment change, LlM 12 (= n'~Q'd), is equal to the

or~ginal ~hange, LlM 01 ' such that t~e cumulative moment at
pOlnt 2 (l.e., M2 . = ~Q1 + LlM 12 ) lS zero. However, the
rotation change, ~012 (= 2~z12/d, in radians), does not
bring the rotation, ~, back to zero as can be judged by
both the M-O response and the plot of the deflected
posi tion of the pile tops (base of the pile cap).
Therefore, the slope of the M-O curve is steeper between
points 1 and 2 than between points 0 and 1. Realize that
this M-O slope is the rotational stiffness of the pile
67
 1
... ..... , ~Q load

o " time ---

Note: 8=8
max
~up down

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

~Q u/r = k u/r~z u/r

= ek u/r

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

t.Q = k tlz tlz

u/r u/r lb u/r

b)

Figure 21. b) between 1 and 2.

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

la Stabilize~ response Rotation 9

-...J
o (non-failing conditions)
4b

Note: a refers to pile of Row a

and b to pile of Row b.

a)
InItIal static
disDlacement

b)

Figure 22. Transient a) pile head Q-z

travel path and b) pile
group M-8 response.
group, just like the slope of the Q-z travel path
reflects the associated vertical stiffness of the
pile(s) . In this fashion, one has assessed the
rotational stiffness of a pile group by considering the
pile cap resting on a set of vertical springs represen-
ting the vertical head responses of the piles they
replace.

Figure 22a represents the Q-z travel paths of piles of

opposite rows (a and b of Figure 20) undergoing such
sinusoidal rotational excitation as referenced to the
initial condition on the load-settlement curve (point 0
of Figure 20). Figure 22b is the corresponding assessed
M-8 response from such a shakedown analysis. (Those
desiring to see the point by point evaluation of these
figures are referred to the appendix of Reference 3.)
Note that such uniform sinusoidal excitation causes a
transient response that requires two to three cycles
before a stabilized Q-z and M-8 response results (i.e.,
the piles of opposite rows end up on the same elastic xy
unload/reload Q-z line and the M-8 curve collapses to a
straight xy line). Note the fact that the M-8 curve is
composed of lines of two distinct slopes reflecting these
different conditions: a) the piles of one of the rows are
on the backbone (or virgin load) Q-z path of slope k L
(while all the piles of the other row are on a reload
path of slope k u / r ) and b) the piles of each row are on
different unload and reload paths but of the same slope
ku/ro As demonstrated relative to excursions from points
o to 1 and then 1 to 2, the axis of rotation is either
shifted toward the stiffer unload/reload piles (for case
a) or midway between opposite unload and reload pile rows
(for case b) ° The final or stabilized response reflects
this latter condition. In fact, if it is only the
stabilized rotational stiffness, KO' of the pile group
that is desired (slope of line xy ln Figure 22b), it is
a function of only the stabilized vertical pile stiff-
ness, k ul ' (slope of line xy in Figure 22a). The
stabilize'~ stiffness, k u / r ' is, in turn, a function of
the unload/reload t-z responses and the point
unload/reload Qp-zp response.
Therefore, as a pile group is initially excited, it
experiences a transient response in which the rotational
stiffness increases (as judged by the secant slope of
successive M-8 loops of Figure 22b), a permanent
rotationally induced settlement results (as jUdged by the
horizontal distance in Figure 22a between point 0 and
0' ), and an associated mechanism of damping (due to
rotationally induced settlement) decreases (as judged by
the narrower and narrower M-8 loops in successive cycles
of Figure 22b) ° Realize that this is the response of
piles in a nondegrading soil and would need to be

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.

Figure 23 provides a comparison of the initial to

stabilized response that results from rotation/
displacement control or moment/load control. Figure 22
is a point by point presentation of the transition from
initial to stabilized response under sinusoidal 8-time
input (see Figure 20), while Figure 23a shows only the
initial and stabilized components. Note that the
stabilized Q-z response results from moving a line of
slope k~/r and width Llz* (=.LlzL+ Llzu/.r.(i) = 2LlZu/f,sta~l~
= 8 a d) laterally from po~nt 0 unt~l the top b lt (X)
jUs~ touches the backbone Q-z curve. Distance 00' is the
permanent rotationally induced settlement that develops
before stabilized response ensues. Llz u/r st ble (=
Llz*/2) represents the elastic upward and ~hen 80wnward
movement that the pile heads go through during stabilized
behavior. Note also that, for this case where the slope
k L is one-third k~!r' Llz*=4Llz q / rfi ) and that the
stabilized movement, ~zu/r stable l = ~Z*/2), is twice the
ini tial movement Llz u Ir (i) '. Slmi larly, the stabilized
rotational stiffness KO 1S twice the initial stiffness.

Figure 23b shows the corresponding initial and final Q-z

and M-B responses for the case involving moment, M-time,
or load, ~Q-time, control. Here, the stabilized response
results from moving a line of slope k u/r and height 2LlQ
laterally from a until x just touches tHe backbone curve.
Again, 00' is the permanent rotationally induced settle-
ment and ~z* is the whole stabilized elastic excursion
(from the up to the down position). As with the rotation
control, Ke for the stabilized response (for k L=k u/r /3)
is twice the initial value. The only difference is that,
under moment or load control (where peak values of ~Q and
M are held constant), the rotation decreases (where, for
rotation control, 0max is constant and M decreases) .
Figures 22a and 23a are, in turn, a simplification of
somewhat more complex behavior due to the soil's
nonlinearity. Figure 24 shows how k u / r varies with the
level of unload/reload peak-to-peak amplitude Llz* (as
well as shows the associated material related hysteresis
loops) . Such nonlinear variation in ku../r would be
related to the unload/reload t-z loops (and Qp-zp loop)
as discussed subsequently.

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

Figure 24. Nonlinear variation in stabilized vertical pile stiffness k u / r .

Given the form of the kUl. r versus ~z* curve, the
associated stabilized rotational stiffness of any
symmetric group (not just the two-row pile group used
here for discussion) is

Ke = ~[n k u/ r (~z*/2) d]/e (21 )

where n is the number of piles in one of two rows

equidistant (d/2) from the axis of rotation, k u / (~z*/2)
is the load change ~Q at the pile head of all [he piles
of the two rows, d is the distance between the two rows,
and the summation process is for all pairs of rows of
successively greater separation distance d. The axis of
rotation reverts to the center of the (regular) arrange-
ment of the pile rows once stabilized response is reached
in two to three cycles of excitation. Note that k Jr
varies from one pair of pile rows to another based on ~he
values of ~z* (where k u / r is taken from the appropriate
k u / r v~. ~z* curve, Figure 24) and ~z*=d·e (where e is in
ratl1ans) .

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.

If the Coyle-Reese (32) normalized shear stress-transfer

curves of Figure 25a for clays (curve A for 0 to 10 ft.
or 0 to 3 m depth, curve B for 10 to 20 ft. or 3 to 6 m
depth, and curve C for greater than 20 ft. or 6 m depth)
are accepted as accurate t-z curves in the design level
to large deflection range, note that, when normalized
again by their peak point, curves A and B collapse to
form one curve as shown in Figure 25b. The denominator
is a factor r times the regained clay strength, ac, after
pile installation where r
can be thought of as reflecting
partial loss in contact between pile and soil due, for
instance, to pile wobble during driving. Note that, at
shallower depths, r
equals 0.53 for curve A and 0.85 for
curve B where overburden is insufficient to reinstitute

75
 1.

C 0.8
,
etc 0.5
O.

a) 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

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)

Figure 25. Normalized t-z curves a) after Coyle and

Reese and b) as modified (from 3).

far or free field position

of soil horizon
z

B/2

Figure 26. Idealized relationship

between shear strain, ~,
of the soil and displace-
ment, z, of the pile.

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

Figure 27. Curves of T/T u1t a) vs. z, b) vs. ~, and c)

vs. z/z50 or f or ~/~50 or f (from 3).

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.

Based on a model study (33) of the soil displacement

pattern adjacent to a vertically loaded pile, it is
surmised that the average shear strain, ~, within a zone
B/2 wide adjacent to the pile accounts for 75% of the
shear displacement, z, as shown in Figure 26. Assuming
that the vertical pile response is dominated by this zone
of soil, one has that
Y (= tany)
0.7Sz 1. Sz ( 22a)
B/2 -B-

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.

From an inspection of Figure 27, note that

zSO Yso = p (23)
zf Yf

where P equals 1/3 for all curves; secondly, if the ~

(or z) axis of Figure 27b (or 27a) were normalized by
either ~f or ~50 (or zf or Z50)' all curves would become
one and the same (Figure 27c).
With the above mentioned transformation of the t-z curves
to T-~ curves, a Ramberg-Osgood equation (e.g., see 34)
of the form

(24)

can be used to characterize the backbone response and,

assuming Masing rules (see 34), the unload/reload
response becomes

78
 ~Y
Yr
~[1
Tult
+ ~u/J~)R-1]
Ll Tult
(25)

where

~u/r (26)

Note from Figure 28 that ~r is a reference strain of the

backbone shear stress-stra1n (T-~) curve that equals Tult
divided by the initial tangent shear modulus, Go.

Consider the secant modulus of the T-~ curve at a 50%

stress level (see Figure 27c), i.e.,
TSOO.5T u lt
GSO - Y50 = PYf
- Y50 YSO

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

If one takes the ratio of G50 /G o to be 0.15, correspon-

ding to the G/G o value for ~ between 0.31 to 0.75% from
the Seed and Idriss (20) shear modulus reduction curve,
then the initial tangent modulus, Go' is
G50 0.5T u lt
Go = - - - '"

[;~] PY1 ;~]

or

1070 Tul t for curve C

Alternatively,

79
a or 1"
~a or 61

6£ or 6y
E. or G
1. 0

E or Y £ or y
r r

Figure 28. Basic stress-strain curve with

unload/reload loop.

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

Figure 29. Point response q-z or Q -z curve in clay

from the soil stre~s-str~inPcurve.

80
 0.5
m =
(28)

where m = 1070 for curve C and 447 for curves A and B.

This range in m is reasonable given that Go = 1000 to
2300 c (c = qu/2) for undisturbed clay. Note also that
rn is less at shallow depths (curves A and B) correspon-
ding to the greater amount of disturbance (pile wobble)
occurring there. Consequently, ~r' as given by
(29)

becomes

or

Yr -m1 (30)

Based on Equations 28 and 30, note that

Yi (= Yf m ) = 0 .5

Yr p[ G;~] (31)

and

Y50 [= PYi] 0.5

(32)
Yr Yr

or
Yf = 10 Y50 = 3.33
Yr Yr

for curves A, B, and C of Figure 27c.

Based on Equation 22, a similar relationship holds
relative to displacements, i.e.,

81
 Zf Yf (33)
zr Yr

or
Z50 Y50 (34)

or

for curves A, B, and C of Figure 27a. If, at this point,

one lets 1 = 1f in Equation 24, corresponding to stress
level T/Tult = 1, then
p = Yf -1 (35)
Yr

where 1f/1r is given by Equation 31. Accordingly, ~ = 9

for curves A, B, and C.

setting 1 = 150 or P1f (Equation 23) in Equation 24,

corresponding to T/Tul t = 0.50, leads to an expression
for R-1 of

R-l
1~
0 2P P + a2P - 1] (36)
log(O.SO)

where R-l equals 0.6674 for curves A, B, and C for the

values of P = ~ and ~ = 9. Knowing ~ and R-1, ~u/r can
then be evaluated based on Equation 26. As a result,
~u/r equals 5.67 for curves A, B, and C.

While the values ~ = 9, R-1 = 0.6674, ~u/r = 5.67, and 1 r

= 1f/10 (also zr = zf/10) are appropriate for the Coyle-
Reese curves A, B, and C considered heretofore, the
values of ~, R-1, ~u/r and 1f/1r for other t-z curves in
clay may be assessed using the equations given above if
the values of P and Gsa/Go are provided.
with a knowledge of ~, R-1, and zr' one can evaluate the
shear stress, T, due to displacement, z, as follows:
assess z/z; evaluate T/Tul t as a function of ~/1r (=
z/zr) based on Equation 24; and assess T = (r/Tult)Tul t
where TUl t = rac of the clay layer in question. Tne same
procedure is also used to assess the stress change, ~T,
associated with the unload/reload movement, ~z, provided
Equation 25 is substituted for Equation 24; and ~u/r'
ra ther than ~, is used. The foregoing application of

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.

In regard to the point load-point displacement, Qp-zp,

response, consider the following. If one accepts
Skempton's characterization (19) that shallow foundation
load-settlement response in clay is modeled by the clay's
undrained triaxial test stress-strain curve as shown in
Figure 29, then, in a similar fashion, one can take the
pressure level (PL = q/q et' where qnet = 9c is the net
ultimate bearing capaci~y) or the point load level
(Qp/Qp net) of a deep foundation to be proportional to
the tdevlator) stress level (od/odf) in the clay.
Different from Equation 1 that applies specifically to a
strip footing, the vertical strain beneath the centerline
of a square or circular foundation (i.e., pile point) is
tool too 3 (37 )
€ 1 = -r - v -r - v 6.03 a

or
(37b)

which, for a Poisson's ratio of v = 0.5, becomes

or (37c)

Therefore, for a constant Young's modulus with depth, the

strain or €l profile is the same shape as the elastic
(~al - ~a3) variation or Schmertmann's I factor (35).
Taklng €l at B/2 depth below the pile poin\ (the peak of
the I curve) and the point displacement, Z , as the area
benea~h this triangular variation (from o,OPto €l' B/2 to
0,2B), then
zP = €B (38)

Therefore, given the ideal normalized stress-strain curve

for the clay beneath the pile point, one obtains the
point load-point settlement (Qp-Zp) curve by simply
scaling its axes. See Figure 29.
The Ramberg-Osgood equations for deviator stress-normal
strain and unload/reload behavior (see Figure 28) similar
to those for shear stress-shear strain (Equations 24 and
25), become

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

0d,ult = 0df = 2c (41)

and Ei is the initial tangent Young's modulus.

Given the proportionality between the point displacement,

Zg' and the soil strain, E (Equation 38), and between the
1 ad level, Q /Q net (Q net = qnet A where A = the
area of the i:Pil;P'po~nt) ,P, and the str~ss level p in the
soil, ad/adf' Equations 39 and 40 can likewise be
expressed as

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

since the point load of a pile with its tip in clay is

relatively small and, therefore, of lesser importance, it
is deemed sufficiently accurate to take zpr to be equal
to zpso or
(44)

where ESO is the value of strain in the clay at the pile

tip at a stress level from a triaxial compression test of
50% and where E5 may be expressed as some fraction, P',
of its failure s~rain, cf. Apply~ng th~ condit~on that
zp = zpf = EfB for QQ = Qp net (i.e., ~n Equat~on 42),
one obLains tbe relaLlonsh~p

84
 1 _ 1 (45)
r

Likewise, applying the condition that z = zp50 = P'€fB

at Qp = QpSO = O.SQp,net leads to the r~sult that

R-l
lO~~) (46)
log(O.5)

In turn, ~u/r can be evaluated using Equation 26.

Therefore, based on an estimate of the failure strain,
€f' and the ratio, P' (= €SO/€f)' of the clay at the pile
point, one can evaluate the parameters ~, R-1, ~u/r' and
zpr for use relative to th~ assessment of poin~ load-
d~splacement response (Equat~ons 42 or 43).

Typically, what is done is to specify a pressure or load

level, PL (= Qp/Q p net)' for load conditions or a change,
~PL (= ~Qp/Qp net)', for unload/reload response and then
to use ei"the-r' Equation 42 or 43 to calculate ~"Q/zpr or
~Z /z r. Thereafter, z = (z /z r) z rand Q = PL Q et
fo~ 19ad conditions or %zp = p(~~/ Zp:) zpr and ~Qp g'RPL
Qp,net for unload/reload -respon~e.

For a pile in sand, consider via Figure 30 the developing

shear stress, T, at the sand-pile interface. For
simplicity, assume that, due to pile installation, the
horizontal effective stress, KayO' after installation
just equals the vertical effect~ve overburden, avo (i.e.,
the lateral earth pressure coefficient K = 1). As the
pile is loaded, shear stress, T, develops on the
horizontal and vertical planes. Corresponding to this,
a Mohr circle with a diameter of 2 T develops about a
£enter at avo such tha~the effective confining pressure,
a 3 , drops from avo to avo-T and the deviator stress, ad'
equals 2T. Note the orientation of the major and minor
principal stresses. The corresponding shear strain, ~ (=
~~ax)' causes a major normal principal strain, €1 = (1 +
v)~, such that shear modulus, G, where G = E/2(1 + v), is
related to Young's modulus, E, at normal strain, €1' for
a 3 = aYO-T. With increasing _load and stress, T, the
effect~ve confining pressure (a ) drops, and E (and,
3
thereby, G) decreases in the fashion of the dotted line
variation across the stress-strain curves from a series
of triaxial tests. However, before T reaches T ul t'
corresponding to failure in the sand (i.e., a Mohr circle
tangent to the drained friction envelope at angle ¢),
there may be a limiting slip condition, Tlimit' at the

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:

shaft: ~ = 130 R-l = 5.02 ~u/r = 4.03 m = 500

point: ~ = 31 R-l = 2.42 ~u/r = 5.78 Zpr = 0.015B
Such parameters reflect backbone and unload/reload t-z
and q-zP responses down to and including very small
strains. However, they were der i ved for specif ic soil
conditions (e.g., the Merritt sand at Bent 61 of the
Cypress Viaduct, see Reference 10) and may need
modification for general use.

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.

t-z Analysis Procedure

The t-z analysis procedure is described in greater depth
in different sources (e.g., see 3 or 37). In brief,
however, it follows these steps: 1) assume a pile tip
displacement, zp (or ~zp)' and calculate the correspon-
ding pile tip load, Qp (or ~Qp) from the q-zP formula-
tion; 2) given the shear stre~s transfer, t-~ or ~t-~z,
formulation or curve for the pile segment just above the
pile tip, iteratively assess the shear stress transfer,
(T or ~T) / the shear load, (S or ~S), the elastic
shortening, (zel or ~zel) of the lower half of the
segment and the movement at the midpoint of the segment
(zmid = Zti + zel) such that the T,Z id (or ~T, ~zmid)
coordinate ~alls on the t-z (or ~t-~zr curve; 3) uSlng
the load Q = Qp + S at the top of the segment and its
movement Z = Z id + zel as the load and displacement at
the bottom of t~e next segment up, repeat step 2 for this
and, in succession thereafter, for all segments going up
the shaft to the pile top. The load and the movement at
the top of the last segment are, thus, the pile top load
and displacement, Q-z (or ~Q - ~z).

A very simple BASIC program called TZCURVE is given in

Appendix C. It employs the aforementioned Ramberg-Osgood
type formulation in traditional t-z analysis procedure.
It can handle a varying pile section and both sand and
clay layers along the length of the pile. It can be used
to assess either the backbone pile top load-settlement
curve or nonlinear unload/reload pile top, ~Q-~z, and
vertical pile stiffness, k u / r (= ~Q/~z) response. Note
that, in running the unload/reload behavior, the program
asks for a couple of additional pieces of information,
the maximum pile point unload, ~Q limit' and the
limiting unload/reload side shear resfstances, ~Tlimit.
As shown in Figures 3a and 32, due to initial static dead
load conditions, a pile subject to vertical pile load
change, ~Q, will cause side shear, ~T, or pile point, ~q
or ~Q , responses that may reach limiting conditions.
Unlik~ the program in Reference 3 which looked at limits
on the pi le head response, the present program allows
(requires) limits be imposed relative to all pile
segments and the pile point responses individually.
Since the backbone t-z response is symmetric (Figure
32a), limiting shear stress response will be reached on
the compression side when T reaches Tult. Of course, if,

89
 z
a)

Qp,net

..1.Qp,limit 2Qp,DL
Qp,DL or
Ignore soil
suction

Lt
b)

Figure 32. Limit of stabilized a} side shear response

and b} point response.

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)

where the unload limit is reached, or

M:}p,limit = 2(Qp,net - Qp,DL) (48b)

for the reload 1 imi t. Of course, only one ~Qp 1 imi t

governs, i.e., whichever (Equation 48a or 48b) value 1S
smaller.
What the program does is to allow larger displacements
(~z and ~zp) for t1?-ese 1 imi t.s (~T 1 imi t and ~Qp, limi t) but
at no greater res1stance (l.e., ~T = ~Tlimit and ~Q =
~Qp limit) as if the affected loops of Figure 32a and ~2b
rotate about point 0' (at a constant ~Tlimit and
~Qp limit): . In reality, since the limits ar~ actually
on~!..way llm1 ts, the program forces symmetr 1C two-way
response beyond the attainment of the governing limit(s) .

The limits as calculated from Equations 47 and 48 need to

be supplied as input to the program for use relative to
unload/reload behavior if it is expected that
unload/reload behavior is large enough that one or more
of the limits are exceeded. While T lt (for each pile
segment) and Qp net should already be\nown, the program
will need to b~'run for backbone behavior to find the TDL
and Q D values for the anticipated dead load, DL. A
coupl~ 'ol' tr ials (i. e., assumed point load displacements)
will need to be undertaken until the pile head load Q
matches the known dead load value. At that time, the
values for the various segments and tip should be read
off as TDL and Qp DL to be used in Equations 47 and 48 to
establish the r~qu1red limits.

Example: Stabilized Vertical/Rotational Stiffness of Pile Groups

at Rose Creek Bridge
The same pile groups used to demonstrate the evaluation
of the lateral stiffness variation at Rose Creek were
used for a similar evaluation of the rotational

91
 Q

amplitude of + 6z stabilized
- u/r
movement about point 0'

YI-
6z./
u r
for determination of k /
u r

~-----------------z

Figure 33. Relationship between ~za/r for evaluation

of k u / r and amplitude ot pile head movement
± ~zu/r'

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.

with Figure 36, the nonlinear stabilized rotational

stiffness KO versus 0 can be assessed based on Equation
21. Note that, because

~ = (~) = r8
(49a)

or
~. = d8 (49b)

for 0 in radians where r is the distance from the

stabilized axis of rotation, Equation 21 can be expressed
as
(50)

(Equation 21 is a summation over the number of pile rows,

while Equation 50 is a summation over the number of
piles. ) The only trouble with Equation 50 is that the
casual reader loses understanding that k supposedly
varies with the associated ~z* as shown ujr n Figure 24.
(More will be said on this point very shortly.)

93
 Eleva Uon SPT
qu D
Or 18in-;1- y:..:::: ft Blow Count r ell [

. ·"---4300 blows/h tsf X td

Finished Grade .-- 4297
~ ~edlum Dense Sandy Silt 8(12) 40 30.5° 1'<
4295
5.75 ' -to! 4' ~ Medium Dense
Sandy
__I I , Silt 19(25) 60 34.5 28
16'
4.25' La. -..
4288
- 11-' - 4287
II Very StHf
18 2.4 29
Clayey Silt
4284

Soft to
tledium 4 0.5 b
<0 Silty Clay
,J:l.
24'
4275

Very StHf 2.4 2'1

18
Silty Clay

4270

Hard
Silty 5.3 6!,
40
Clay
I I ~ U 4263

4261

i 4260 Stiff Silty Clay

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

soil profile for Pile Group 4 at Rose Creek (from 3).

 Table 4. Soil Data for Pile Group 4 (from Reference 3)

Pile Elevation Depth L Curve c 0+ r++ Tult

m+++
Segment (ft) (ft) (ft) (kst) (kst)

6 4286-4282 6-10 4 A 0.7 0.9 0.53 0.33 477

~
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

V. Stiff 2 4269.5-4268 22.5-24 1.5 C 2.4 0.4 1.0 0.96 1070

V. Stiff I 4268-4263 24-29 5 C 3.2 0.4 1.0 1.28 1070

+ From "Average Curve for Concrete Piles" in Figure 2, p. 7.2-196 of Reference

13
++ = 0.53, 0.85, and 1.0 for curve A, B, or C for depths 0-10, 10-20, > 20 ft.
+++ m = 1/1r = 447 for curve A or Band 1070 for curve C.
 3
3

2
2

3000

2500

k
u/r

k
in
2000

1500

1000

*.
!:>z u I r ' in.

Figure 36. Axial pile stiffness k u / r vs. AZ~/r curves

for piles of Groups 1-4 at Rose Cteek (from
3) •
97
Plates 2a and 2b demonstrate the evaluation of KO for
different values of e for Pile Group 4. Use of Curve 4
(ku/~ vs. ~zn/r) in Figure 36 leads to Curve 4 (Ke vs. 0)
in FIgure 37. Curves for the other groups (1 1 ike 4,
i.e., soil conditions and number of piles, and 2 like 3)
are shown in Figures 37 and 38. Superposed on these
plots are the values found from independent system
identification evaluation of full-scale push-back quick-
release bridge tests (28) mentioned in relation to the
lateral stiffness evaluation. It should be noted that
the best fit backcalculated rotational stiffness values
shown here imply simultaneous adoption of the best fit
lateral stiffness values of Figure 17 and vice versa.
While Figure 17 indicates good agreement of the predicted
fixed head lateral stiffness with ambient level stiff-
nesses, note that the predicted rotational stiffnesses at
basically zero strain (the short horizontal lines at the
top) in Figures 37 and 38 overpredict the observed
ambient level stiffness points.

It is the author's belief that this overpass, which is

located next to an aggregate pit, has been loaded
vertically (though not horizontally) to very high values
through the passage of several seriously overloaded
(i.e., illegal weight) aggregate trucks. Consequently,
the vertical stiffness, k u/r ' would be a function of this
maximum past load and disp~acement causing, for example,
preconditioning from point 0 to point 0' in Figure 33.
Note that the horizontal distance between point 0 and 0'
would be the corresponding permanently induced settle-
ment. Therefore, upon loading from point 0', k u / r in the
bridge test would be constant (and, therefore, so would
Ke) until the ~zu/r displacement reaches the backbone
load-settlement curve (point x in Figure 33). Only
thereafter would k u / r (and Ke) start to decrease.

Since pUblishing this comparison of observed (i.e.,

backcalculated) versus predicted rotational stiffnesses,
the author has come to realize that the stabilized
vertical stiffness k u / r of Equations 21 and 50 should not
be taken as a functIon of the individual pile or pile
row's displacement but, rather, just the outer row's
movement. While Figures 20-22 are a characterization of
the response of a two-row pile group, realize that, if
one considers Figure 22a the response of the piles of the
outer row of a symmetric multiple row pile group, to
reach stabilized response (line x-y in Figure 22a and
22b), the piles of all inner rows must undergo the same
permanent rotationally induced settlement, distance 0 to
0' of Figure 22a and Figure 33 representing the outer row
piles. Therefore, once stabilized response is achieved,
all piles are moving up and down different distances
(~zu/r) along the same x-y line of slope ku / r

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(,

!I:J~ k'"Yr" ¥t.. .

~LJco. . .+.. . : : 0.00/,·..... 0.002
&
or I..)r;; 1..... - 191.{S"
u-/r
:!" J c 1t'l,1'\.'''''
or 0.00 as ~ 0.001 "'- .J120

kEf" L ~v..I" 'r 7.. .. 2. Z k.1A-/,. r"Z.

I.J /. 0 Ie. Iu. If
9ro~ ~ro~r

= Z [3(lq1'S-~)(fIt)Z.+ 3(ZIZOkJ(3ftrJ
I~ I~

~ G. [(19~.s-) (3~) + (zno) (GJ)] Iff

;:, 1. 70 )( /0 7 1< -II'-
ro. d.
-S"
'" 0,001,..,- 1.3 'i X /0 ro..d.
o(Il.) 1"-

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

Kg = (., [(IC.OO )(3~) + (l'iZoXq)] Ni./ I

= {, 39 )( to?
'~
k.-111.. II

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.

:- J ?:I ...... ~.,= 0, ODS- • 0.010 :: /lIs-S-

I< 9 : c; [(/2'0)@C,) -+- (//{ss- )('1)] 14~

7
5".05" XIO k-/H...
-;::;;r
e - L1t-j,.. .. 0.0/0 -= /.39)( /0 -'!ro...cJ
, (Iz.)

:t tltcu.. +4.,. =
row
0.0 17S- trl. e.l'\.d ~+ S1-a b, /1l.<.cI spo I't~
'("..I.

a.ssoclaf~d I.Vltt o(A.f~.,.. I"'cw

+
-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!:.-

K9-" C, [(/Joo)(j') -I- (IZqs-)('l)] /lIJi

= "I.JI' X 10 7 k-II\.
ro.,t;L
e ~ II
(.J&/y- : o.OI7S" • 2. '/3 ')f /0 -'I ra.. d
~ (n.)

A/'14 "I~ 11..+ ) ~U-/.,.. 'e .27LfO Ie.

JI"o..

)<9- ~[(Z7'10)(3') +- (Z7/{o)(c,)J I'IJI

... /0. ~s )( 10 7 Ie-m..
I"'"a C/..

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

Figure 37. stabilized rotational Figure 38. stabilized rotational

stiffness Kn vs. 0 for stiffness KO vs. 0 for
Groups 1 and 4 (from 3) Groups 2 and 3 (from 3)
representing the outer pile row response.
Consequently, Plate 2 should be redone by taking the
inner pile row pile stiffness, kujr' to be the same as
the lower outer row stiffness. (Therefore, change 2120
to 1945 k/in in the first calculation, 1820 to 1600 in
the second, 1455 to 1260 in the third, and 1295 to 1100
in the third while 2740 remains 2740 in the ambient level
calculation.) Consequently, the position of the
predicted stiffness lines in Figures 37 and 38 would move
down slightly making the comparison with the back-
calculated data worse in Figure 37 but better in Figure
38.

Example: VerticallRotational Stiffness of the Central Pier Pile

Group at the Meloland Overcrossing
The same pile group used to demonstrate Sack's evaluation
of lateral stiffness (4) is considered here for the
evaluation of the vertical/rotational stiffness. As will
be discussed in a later section, the author assessed the
nonstable rotational stiffness of this pile group (5, 6,
7) under conditions of the 1979 Imperial Valley earth-
quake in which liquefaction developed; but the author
has not assessed the stabilized vertical/rotational
stiffness corresponding to bridge test conditions (29,
30, 31). Therefore, the stiffness discussed here was
established as part of the present paper. Figure 39
shows the soil profile for Meloland used by the author in
his earthquake analysis (7). Note that this profile is
somewhat different than Sack's profile (4) of Figure 18.
There is virtually no difference between Figures 18 and
39 in the upper layers controlling lateral stiffness;
therefore, the curves of Figure 19 are unchanged
regardless of whether Figure 18 or 39 is used for such a
lateral stiffness evaluation. However, the difference
between Figures 18 and 39 is considered important for the
present evaluation.

Figure 39 is a more carefully constructed profile based

on the published boring log (Figure 4 of Reference 7) and
the " as built" plans. Note that the "as-bui 1t" plans
indicate an average pile tip elevation of 435 ft., not
the 430 ft. implied in Figure 18 as established from the
original plans.

Given the release rotation of 0 = 6 x 10- 5 radians

(30,31), the corresponding differential rotational
displacement across the group (i.e., between outer pile
rows), Llz*, is 0.00864 in. or 0.22 mm as assessed from
Equation 49b (d = 12 ft. or 3.6 m). This is also the

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

8011 81"d~ Clay

3.8'
478 -- -- A
474
Compacl Eln. Rilly Plod lolar-
472 OWl boddod .lIh SIIII Silly Cloy
S'- .... U 2 , 27 34.8
470
Bllghll,. Complct Fin. Rilly
8..ulJI Inlo,boddod .lIh SIIII C 13 IS 23.8
Silly Clo y (Sond 80'" Cloy 60"')
4'3

!
"-
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

418 tAor. Comp.t.nl MII.rlal,

)
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).

The Table 5 values were employed to calculate the 1 DL (=

SL DL 1 It) values used to assess the A1 l i it values
(Equa~lon 47) for input to an unload/reloa~ analysis.
Note that AQ p limit is given by Equation 48a where Qp DL
is 2.12 kips' (9.4 kN) from Table 5. Table 6 is the
output from the unload/reload analysis where, by trial
and error, a change in pressure level at the point of APL
= 0.00065 yields the desired pile head displacement, Az*
= 0.0086 in. or 0.2 mm, and the associated stiffness,
k u / r = 1064 kips/in (186 MN/m). Note the input of
ATli~it (TLIMIT) and AQ p limit values as calculated from
the backbone Table 5 re~ponse.

Using k u/r = 1064 kips/in (186 kN/mm) as obtained for the

outer pl~e row, then, based on Equation 50, Ke = 57.5 x
10 5 k-ft/rad, i.e., 5(2)1064(12in/ft) [3 2 +6 2 ] or 78.5 kN-
m/rad. The backcalculated value from system identifica-
tion analysis of the bridge test response (30, 31) is 48
x 10 5 k-ft/rad or 65.5 kN-m/rad.

Advantages and Limitations of Proposed Approach

An advantage of the proposed approach is that it is
straightforward. It does require a t-z analysis and the
use of the Ramberg-Osgood formulation presented here.
While such t-z analysis procedure is quite common and
most geotechnical engineers are familiar with the Coyle-
Reese curves for clay, these curves have been extended
down into the small strain range using the Seed and
Idriss shear modulus reduction curve (the G50 /G o value)
and the author's relationship between side shear
displacement, z, and shear strain, '}', (e.g., '}'50 from

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

SEGMENT NO. 1 TULTlKSF)= 1. 3~ M= 500 LlFT)= 5 8lFT)= .75 AElKIPS)= 95~00

SEGMENT NO. 2 TULT(KSF)= .79 M= 500 L(FT)= 4. B(FT)= .75 AElKIPS)= 954.00
SEGMENT NO. 3 TULT(KSF)= .71 M= 1070 L ( FT I = 4. B( FT ) = .75 AE(KIPS)= 95~00
SEGMENT NO. 4. TULT(KSF)= .8 M= 1070 L(FT)= 15 B(FT)= .875 AE(KIPS)= 12988~
SEGMENT NO. 5 TULT(KSF)= .75 M= 500 L(FT)= 3.5 B(FT)= 1 AEIKIPS)= 169600
SEGMENT NO. 6 TULT(KSF)= .64. M= 4.4.7 L(FT)= 3.5 BIFT)= 1 AE(KIPS)= 169600
..... SEGMENT NO. 7 TULT(KSF)= .93 M= 500 L(FT)= 2 BlFT)= 1 AE(KIPS)= 169600
o SEGMENT NO. 8 TULT(KSF)= .59 M= ~4.7 L(FT)= 2 B(FT)= 1 AE(KIPS)= 169600
(J1
SEGMENT NO. 9 TULT(KSF)= .36 M= 4.4.7 L(FT)= 1 B(FT)= 1 AE(KIPS)= 169600

PRESSURE/STRESS LEVEL AT POINT= .0618

SEGMENT STRESS LEVEL TOP DISP(In) I TOP LOAD(Kips) I

1.0000 0.3758 0.0109 8.0529

2.0000 0.4.173 0.0157 11.1603
3.0000 0.5008 0.0222 H.5116
4..0000 0.6893 0.0580 37.2509
5.0000 0.54.5~ 0.0678 4.1. n8~
6.0000 0.5692 0.0787 4.5.7537
7.0000 0.5730 0.0854. 4.9.1018
8.0000 0.64.4.2 0.0925 51.4.897
9.0000 0.6688 0.0962 52.24.61 -
STIFFNESS, K(Kips/ln)= 54.3.3138
POINT DISPLACEMENT(In)= 7.688724.E-03
POINT LOAD(Kips)= 2.11974.
====================================================================
 Table 6. Unload/Reload Output from Meloland for Bridge
Test Conditions

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

PRESSURE/STRESS LEVEL AT POINT= .00065

SEGMENT STRESS LEVEL TOP DISPIIo) I TOP LOAD(Kips'

1.0000 0.0079 0.0001 0.1(070

2.0000 0.OH6 0.0002 0.2557
3.0000 0.03/07 O.OOO~ O. /,0877
(0.0000 0.0910 0.0032 3./,0907
5.0000 0.2286 0.00~3 5.3761
6.0000 0.1176 0.0057 6.2037
7.0000 0.3755 0.0067 8.3981
8.0000 0.1556 0.0080 8.97lo9
9.0000 0.169~ 0.0086 9.1665
STIFFNESS. KIKips/In)= 106/0.362
POINT DISPLACEMENT[In)= 7.800001E-05
POINT LOAD(Kips)= .022295

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).

No group effect exists because of the limited size of the

cylindrical soil regions supporting the piles (see Figure
2b). Further, the pile cap is not considered to provide
resistance, a topic debated by others (e.g., 11). Cyclic
load effects were not specif ically included but, for
clay, may be introduced via the work of others (39).
Even so, ~rlimit would, most likely, be more important
than the Cycllc load degradation.
As pointed out elsewhere (11), the unload/reload
stiffness, k u / r ' at the peak-to-peak displacement,
~z~/r' is the same as the backbone curve secant pile head
stlftness, k = Q/z, at displacement, z = ~~zIT/r' But z
is the same as the magnitude of the stabilized
unload/reload one-way pile head displacement, ~zu/r'
Therefore, one could take k u/r = k for ~Zu/r = z using
the backbone curve results only. However, this equality
holds only for the case where no limits, ~Qlimit or
~r 1 . mit' are reached. The author feels that l t is
pruaent to run the unload/reload analysis with limits to
eliminate the possibility for error. When doing so, note
that the ratio ~r/rult can exceed unity provided that ~T
< ~Tlimit· This ratlo, ~T/Tult' which one might define
as a change in stress level is, therefore, not
specifically limited to 100%.

For both the lateral and vertical/rotational stiffness

evaluations presented here, soil layering and the effect
of the overburden stress via embedment upon sand strength
and behavior are of considerable interest. Nonlinear
response and, in particular, accurate small strain
behavior have been of major concern to the author. While
soil properties are important, the method is supported by
standard correlations (e.g., see 13, 26, 27) and commonly
available standard penetration test blow count data.

107
Finally, both lateral and vertical/rotational stiffness
analyses assume stable behavior. Nonstable behavior will
be discussed subsequently.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Stiffness as a Function of Near Versus Far-Field Soil Response

Given that the lateral resistance of the piles derives
from the developing passive soil wedges near the ground
surface (Figure 2a) and that the axial and the rotational
resistance of the piles derive from the cylindrical zones
of soil over the full length of the piles (Figure 2b),
the lateral and rotational stiffnesses of the pile group
clearly depend upon the nonlinear soil properties (a
function of the stress or strain level) within these
near-field regions thus affected by soil-structure
interaction response. (See Figure 40a.) However, in an
earthquake, the "far" or "free" field soil also moves.
Therefore, for seismic excitation, one should actually
assess the modulus within the near-field region as a
function of the total strain where the total strain
equals the algebraic sum of the free-field and the
inertial interaction strains (with due regard for phase
differences). Unfortunately, such an evaluation is not
presently feasible which has led to the development of
two different and conflicting approaches.

Both the FHWA (11) and the presentation to this point

have recommended assessment of the pile foundation
stiffnesses be based upon BEF (p-y and t-z type)
analyses. Such nonlinear analyses require soil parameter
input that is a function of the relative (or inertial
interaction) displacement/strain. Therefore, the
resulting lateral or rotational stiffness plotted as a
function of relative displacement or rotation would vary
as shown schematically by the curve designated "FHWA" in
Figure 40b. The ATe (40), on the other hand, recommends
evaluation of stiffnesses based on soil modulus values
chosen as a function of the free-field level of soil
strain as assessed, for instance, in a ground response
analysis (41). Such a stiffness would remain independent
of the relative displacement/rotation and would plot as
a horizontal line (a constant value) across Figure 40b.

As an expedient, a combination of the two approaches

would seem more appropriate. For lower levels of
relative displacement (or relative strain), the far- (or
free-) field strain would be larger and, therefore, the

108
 -z-.-:supported 1MS9 of
&Uper&trocture

FJlWA.

.. ,.." ,.......,
K K
IITC IITC
far fi"ld region near field region of inertial
in~tion
~
or

displacement/rotation (log scale) displacement/rotation

--"
o
(0
a) b)

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.

Analysis of the Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf (8), an

instrumented structure that was shaken in the Lorna Prieta
earthquake, provides an example of the need for such a
distinction between the free-field and near-field soil
strains. Figure 41a is a cross section of the wharf,
which is basically a long free-standing pile group with
batter piles. Because of the flexibility of the wharf
deck and the presence of the batter piles, recorded
transverse free-field motions were applied to a three-
dimensional finite element model of the unsupported
length of the piles and deck through lateral and vertical
springs (a pair for each pile) at the mudline. Curves of
the type shown in Figure 41b were developed, one
vertical/axial stiffness curve for all piles and
different lateral stiffness curves (not shown) depending
on the force/moment condition at the mudline applicable
to each pile. Several finite element runs were required
before displacement compatible spring stiffnesses were
assumed. Once this was accomplished, a comparison of the
predicted and the recorded transverse accelerations at
recording stations on the deck yielded a nearly perfect
match as shown in Figure 42. However, in obtaining
compatible stiffnesses, it was noticed that the resulting

110
 Vertical Stillness (kips/in)
4000, I

3500 .-
'::""

3000

mllcll i lie 2500

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.

The same type of cap in the vertical stiffness (k u / r vs.

~zn/r) curve can be generated by modifying the program
TZCURVE. Because the pile derives its vertical
resistance via side shear support over many layers or
pile segments, the ~eff values of the different layers,
as reported from SHAKE (41), should all be employed. The
associated free-field displacement, ~zEQ,for each layer
can then be calculated from a rearranged Equation 22,
i. e. ,
YeffB (Sla)
~EQ
1.5

or
YeffB (SIb)
~EQ = 0.125

(the latter for ~zEQ in inches for B in ft.). The

corresponding peak-to-peak or double amplitude displace-
ment, AZ~Q' is twice this value; and a subroutine that
calculates ~TEQ has been added to TZCURVE. For each
segment, the program compares the ~z*, as normally
generated for that element, for unload/reload behavior;
and, if it is less than AZ~Q' then the induced side shear
stress is modified as follows:

113
 ~T ~TEQ[~]
=
EQ !1z
(52)

In :that way, the lower stiffness, as governed by 6z~ ~

~eff' controls until 6z* equals or exceeds 6z~O an~6T,
as governed by 6z* and ~ I exceeds 6T . Eacfl element
would not necessarily reach its 6z~Q afCIthe same pile top
displacement; and, so, the horizon~al cutoff might have
a slight incline as more and more elements are activated
(as relative strain overtakes free-field) with increasing
pile top deflection.

A similar effect occurs at the pile point where the peak-

to-peak free-field displacement, 6z pEQ ' can be taken as
twice the associated free-field displacement, i.e~,
• = 2 (e:B)
!1z pEQ (53a)

or
(53b)

Soil-Pile Foundation Interaction Failure

As mentioned at the very beginning, if a soil, from which
a pil.e foundation derives some or all of its support,
softens significantly or fails in part, then a soil-
foundation interaction failure may very well ensue. Such
a softening response can occur in a loose to medium sand
with developing porewater pressure that may not be
sufficient to cause liquefaction but may be high enough
to cause trouble. Likewise, under high static loads
(e.g., friction piles in Mexico City), cyclic degradation
of clay (or 6T = 6Tlimit) under seismic loading can lead
to large displacements. .

Undrained Response in Sand

It is possible to iccommodate excess. free-field porewater
pressuie buildup,.u xs ' in a lateral stiffness analysis by
reducing the sUbgrade modulus, profile of Figure Sa at
each depth based on the ratio of the reduced vertical
effective~tress, avo - u
xs ' to the original effective
stress, avo; as shown, for example, in Figure 43 for Bent
61 at Cypress (9). However, the ensuing analysis would

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
\

Point Load -15

,I
I
I
36 901
-20 I
I
I
Effective Stress I
Pipe pile filled I
with concrete a'va SS 95 I
11.75 in OD. -25
I
3/8 in thick
v -
a' a:O-~ 1
I
130 100 I
-3D
2754 psi
Ei evati.o II (ft)

Figure 43. Reduced Kree-field vertical effective

stress (a v ) at Bent 61 in Merritt sand at
Cypress at the end of strong shaking in the
Lorna Prieta earthquake (from 9).

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.

One final point in regard to possible near surface

liquefaction is that, once a sand liquefies, it does not
necessarily lose all strength. Such a sand will develop
a residual strength; though, for very loose sands, such
residual strength may approach zero. Therefore, while it
has been the custom (11) to discount support offered by
liquefying soil, recognize that, if liquefaction develops
above some fluidized seam (i. e., a seam of very loose
sand offering zero residual strength), there will be a
tremendous drag on the foundation from the soil with
residual strength as free-field motion reverses but the
inertia of the mass above the fluidized interface
continues in the opposite sense. Possible drag may far

116
K

-'-

avo

displacement (log scale)

Figure 44. stiffness reduction due to free-field

excess porewater pressure generation in
sand in ATe governed strain range.

117
 0) • O)e

Figure 45. Interrelationships between °d Dee'~.ol"9

a) drained and undrained a)

)
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.

Nonstable Rotational Response

Previous discussion of rotational behavior has assumed a
transient response that leads to stabilized behavior in
two to three cycles of excitation. Nonstable rotational
stiffness, on the other hand, develops when the piles of
one or more rows reach axial pi le capacity in either
tension or compression. Once moment, M, causes such a
response, the piles of that row plunge or pullout, i.e.,
they experience a large plastic displacement, AZ, at a
constant axial resistance, Q = Qult' until moment, M,
reverses. The Q-z travel paths of such pi les never
stabilize, and both the Q-z response of the piles and the
M-O behavior of the group become a function of the
pattern (as well as the magnitude) of the inertial
interaction loading (i.e., the 0 or M versus time,
response as well as the 0 or M amplitude). Consequently,
the rotational stiffness, Ke, of the pile group cannot be
assessed a priori, i.e., wlthout knowledge of the free-
field motion because the pattern of either inertial
interaction loading, M versus time, or excitation, 0
versus time, is dependent upon the response of the
superstructure to the free-field response. In fact, the
M-O response of the foundation should be rigorously
determined from a coupled soil-foundation structure
response analysis. A case in point demonstrating such
nonstable rotational behavior is the central pier pile
group of the Meloland Overcrossing during the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake as discussed in detail in
References 5, 6, and 7. Figure 39, shown earlier, is the
soil profile established from the boring log from the
bridge plans.

Based on a modified level ground liquefaction analysis

(6, 7), it was assessed that the fine sand in layer G
located just below the pile tip elevation liquefied on
the rise of the first strong free-field ground acceler-
ation pulse causing a corresponding loss of tip capacity
of the piles and shaft resistance of the cohesionless
materials in layers E and F resting on G. Due to this
development, the axial pile capacity of the average pile
in the group dropped immediately from a value in excess
of 100 kips to approximately 58 kips or 258 kN. Given
that the average dead load per pile was 52 kips or 231
kN, then point a of Figure 20 came very close to failure
as shown schematically in Figure 46a. Taking the
inertial interaction excitation (i.e., the 0 versus time
response) of the pile group as proportional to the free-
field acceleration (i.e, a versus time) and a maximum

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.)

load increase in pile

of row ) for rli~place­
ment associated with
rotation 6
.....
N
o
t\Q 1 t.Q 2 tlQ) llQ
S
1

DL

pile of ro~ 2. ) , 4' 5

unloads are further loaded

Pile top displacement, z

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

5 AHumed rotat10051 excitation (sImplified) from

1 Ib- In • 1.13 x 10- 4 kN-m free f1eld acceleration record
-'
N
-'

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.

The effective rotational stiffness, K8' of the pile

foundation (from 4 to 5.2 seconds), taken as the secant
slope between Points 3 and 7 of the M-8 response of
Figure 47, was found to be in good agreement with the
value backcalculated from a system identification
analysis of bridge response data recorded during the same
earthquake (43). Note, however, that the geotechnical M-
8 analysis was, in part, dependent upon the given
differential displacement as reported from the system
identification analysis. Therefore, if one were to
undertake the same analysis on a completely independent
basis, one could only assess K8 for a given 8ma i and
such a variation would correspond to a particular~istory
of inertial interaction loading, i.e., the specific
pattern of ground surface acceleration. Nevertheless,
once the M-8 response is assessed for a given 8ma ' it
can then be quickly reevaluated for other e~a~ values.
By contrast, the rotational stiffness ot the same
foundation, as tested under the nonseismic conditions
discussed earlier, is some twenty times higher!

The reader is directed to References 5-7 for a more

detailed consideration of the Meloland case study.
Because of the loss in tip capacity due to liquefaction
in layer G, the response reverted to basically that of
friction piles in clay (layer D). The investigation
serves as an example of the type of analysis that might
be used to evaluate what happened to friction piles in
the 1985 Mexico city earthquake.

The analyses undertaken for Oakland Outer Harbor (8) and

Cypress (9, 10) were meant to highlight any possibility

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.

The lateral and rotational stiffness evaluation

procedures presented here are supported by included or
referenced tables and a listed program. Examples of
their use relative to Rose Creek and Meloland have been
demonstrated. There has been additional discussion
regarding near-field versus free-field strains and which
governs stiffnesses, undrained behavior in sands, and
soil-pile interaction failure. Finally, mention has been
made of differences in thinking and needed research.

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.

2. Norris, G.M., Abdollaholiaee, P., and Ross, A.,

"Two-Layer BEF Solutions and the Simplified
Presentation of Deflection and Moment Results,"
Proceedings, 22nd Engineering Geology and Soils
Engineering Symposium, Boise, Feb. 1986, pp. 118-
137.

3. Norris, G.M., "Evaluation of the Nonlinear

Stabilized Rotational Stiffness of Pile Groups,"
Proceedings, 37th Highway Geology Symposium, Helena,
Aug. 1986, pp. 331-386.

124
4. Sack, R.L., "Lateral Stiffness of pile Groups for
Seismic Analysis of Highway Bridges," M.S. Thesis,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1983.

5. Norris, G.M., "Nonstable Rotational stiffness of a

pile Group," Proceedings, Third u.s. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, EERI,
Charleston, July 1986, pp. 635-646.
6. Norr is, G. M. , "Liquefaction at the Meloland
Overcrossing During the Imperial Valley Earthquake
of 1979," Bulletin of the Association of Engineering
Geologists, AEG, Vol. 25, No.2, May 1988. pp. 235-
247.
7. Norris, G.M., "A Seismic Analysis: Meloland
Overcrossing During the 1979 Earthquake,"
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 17, Soil
properties Evaluation from centrifugal Models and
Field Performance, ASCE, 1988, pp. 88-117.

8. Norris, G., Siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z., Abdel-

Ghaffar, S., and Gowda, P., "soil-Foundation-
Structure Behavior at the Oakland outer Harbor
Wharf," CCEER, Report No. 91-2, University of
Nevada, Reno, June 1991, submitted to Earthquake
spectra for publication.
9. Norris, G., Siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z., and Gowda,
P., "Soil and Foundation Conditions at Cypress
Street Viaduct," Transportation Research Record
1411, TRB, 1993, pp. 61-69.

10. Norris, G., Siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z., and Gowda,

P., "Seismic Pile Foundation Stiffnesses at Cypress
street Viaduct," Transportation Research Record
1411, TRB, 1993, pp. 70-80.

11. Lam, 1. and Martin, G.R., "Seismic Design of Highway

Bridge Foundations," FHWA Report Nos. FHWA/RD-
86/101, FHWA/RD-86/102, FHWA/RD-86/103, June 1986.
12. Norris, G.M. and Abdollaholiaee, P., "BEF Studies
with the Strain Wedge Model," Proceedings, 26th
Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium,
Pocatello, Idaho, April 1990, Paper 13, 32 pp.

13. U.S. Navy, NAVFAC DM 7.2, Design Manual:

Foundations and Earth structures, 1982, pp. 234-241.

14. Davisson, M.T., "Lateral Load Capacity of Piles,"

Highway Research Record, No. 333, pp. 104-112, 1970.
125
15. Terzaghi, K., "Evaluation of Coefficients of
Subgrade Reaction," Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No.4, pp.
297-326, 1955.

16. Lam, I.P., Martin, G.R., and Imbsen, R., "Modeling

Bridge Foundations for Seismic Design and
Retrofitting," Transportation Research Record 1290,
TRB, 1990, pp. 113-126.

17. Reese, L.C., "Laterally Loaded Piles: Program

Documentation," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT4, 1977, pp. 287-
305.

18. Reese, L.C., Numerical Methods in Geotechnical

Engineering, "Chapter 9: Laterally Loaded Piles,"
ed i ted by C. S. Desa i and J.T. Christian, McGraw-
Hill, 1977, pp. 297-325.

19. Skempton, A. W., "The Bearing capacity of Clays , "

Soil Mechanics Papers presented at the Building
Research Congress 1951, National Research Council
Technical Memorandum No. 25, NRC, 1952, pp. 180-189.

20. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., "Soil Moduli and

Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis," EERC
Rep. 70-10, University of California, Berkeley,
1970.

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.

22. Poulos, H. G., "Group Factors for Pile-Deflection

Estimation," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT12, 1979, pp. 1489-
1509.

23. Brown, D.A., Reese, L.C., and O'Neill, M.W., "Cyclic

Lateral Loading of a Large Scale pile Group,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
vol. 113, No. GT11, 1987, pp. 1326-1343.

24. Brown, D.A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C., "Lateral

Load Behavior of Pile Group in Sand," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 114,
No. GT11, 1988, pp. 1261-1276.

25. Ooi, P.S.K. and Duncan, J.M., "Lateral Load Analysis

of Groups of piles and Drilled Shafts," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 120,
No. GT6, 1994, pp. 1034-1050.

126
26. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T. H. ,
Foundation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, 1974,
pp. 310-312.

27. u. S. Navy, NAVFAC DM-7. 1, Design Manual: Soil

Mechanics, 1982, p. 88.
28. Douglas, B.M. and J.A. Richardson, "Maximum
Amplitude Dynamic Tests of a Highway Bridge, II
Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. II, 1984, pp. 889-896.
29. Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Nath, B.,
"static Deformations of Bridges from Quick-Release
Dynamic Experiments," Journal of structural
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 116, No.8, 1990,
pp. 2201-2213.

30. Vrontinos, S., Douglas, B.M., and Maragakis, E.A.,

"System Identif ication of the Meloland Road
Overcrossing Using Static and Dynamic Field Data,"
Proceedings of the ASCE Structures Congress '93,
Irvine, California, April 19-21, 1993, 6 pp.
31. Maragakis, E.A., Douglas, B.M., and Abdel-Ghaffar,
S., "Equivalent Linear Finite Element Approach for
the Estimation of pile Foundation Stiffnesses,"
accepted for pUblication in Earthquake Engineering
and structural Dynamics, 1994.

32. Coyle, H.M. and Reese, L.C., IILoad Transfer of

Axially Loaded piles in Clay," Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 92,
No. SM2, 1966, pp. 1-26.

33. Robinsky, E.I. and Morrison, C.E., "Sand

Displacement and Compaction Around Model Friction
Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No.
2, 1964, p. 81.

34. Richart, F.E., "Nonlinear Soil Models for Irregular

Cyclic Loadings, II Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT6, 1979,
pp. 715-726.

35. Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P. and Brown, P.R.,

"Improved strain Influence Factor Diagram," Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No. GT8, 1979, pp. 909-926.

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.

41. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B., "SHAKE -

A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis
of Horizontal Layered Sites," University of
California, Berkeley, EERC - Report 72-12, December
1977, 88 pp.

42. Norris, G.M., siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z., and Madhu,

R., " Liquefaction and Residual Strength of Loose
Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests," U.S./Japan
Workshop on Remedial Treatment of Liquefiable Soils,
Tsukuba, July 1994, Paper No. 22.

43. Douglas, B.M., Norris, G.M., Dodd, L., and

Richardson, J., "Behavior of the Meloland Road
Overcrossing During the 1979 Imperial Valley
Earthquake," Proceedings of the 16th Joint Meeting
of the V.S./Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects,
UJNR, May 1984, 27 pp.

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

10 9 Ib-in 2 (= 40.9 x 10 3 t-ft 2 or 33.8 MN-m 2 ). The piles

extend 1 ft. (0.3 m) beyond the pile top (i.e., the base
of the pile cap) into a 4.25-ft. or 1.3-m thick pile cap
with no additional provision for anchorage. The pile
caps are 9 ft. or 2.7 m (Groups 1 and 4) and 16 ft. or
4.8 m (Groups 2 and 3) wide. The base of the cap is 6
ft. (1.8 m) and 10 ft. (3 m) below final grade for Groups
1 and 4 and 2 and 3 respectively.

Appendix B: Central Pier Pile Group at Meloland

Figure 48b shows the plan and elevation views of the
Meloland Overcrossing. The circled numbers are
accelerometer stations and the arrows indicate their
sensing direction. Figure 18 shows the soil profile
given in Reference 4, while Figure 39 is that appearing
in Reference 7 established from the boring log (given in
7) appearing in the bridge plans. The central pier pile
group consists of five rows of five treated timber piles
(5 x 5) driven in a square pattern 3 ft. (0.9 m) on
center. The piles are tapered with a diameter at the top
of the pile (i.e., the base of the pile cap) slightly in
excess of 12 in. (0.3 m) tapering to a minimum of 8 in.
(0.2 m) at the pile tip. The piles are 40 ft. long as
assessed from the "as-built" plans; and a value of
bending stiffness, El = 1.53 x 10 9 Ib-in 2 (4.39 MN-m 2 ),
is assumed corresponding to the 12-in. (0.3-m) diameter,
d, section (with EI proportional to d 4 for other values
of d along the pile length). The piles are embedded 6
in. (0.15 m) into a 5~-ft. (1. 7 -m) thick reinforced
concrete pi le cap. The base of the pile cap is 8 ft.
(2.4 m) below final grade.

129
 '.

PLAN

Ii. EASTBOUND ROM:NIAY ;. WESTBOUND ROADWAY

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

Figure 48. a) Rose Creek and b) Meloland Overcrossings

(from 43 and 7 respectively).

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.

Backbone or unload/reload response desired

Pile shape, round or square
Does the pile have a constant diameter and AE (area x
Young's modulus) value?
If no, the user will need to supply Band AE values
with each pile segment.
If yes, then the user is asked the pile diameter and
AE.
Value of Qp,net (and ~Qp,limit for ujr response)
Value of zPf
(3 and R-l if backbone) or {3ujr and R-l (for ujr) for
pile point
{3 and R-l (if backbone) or {3u/r and R-l (for u/r) for
clay in side shear
{3 and R-l (if backbone) or {3u/r and R-l (for u/r) for
sand in side shear

Number of pile segments

For each segment depending on whether one has

backbone response and constant pile section: sand

or clay along the side, T~lt' m, and length
backbone response and varying plle section: sand or
clay, Tul t ' m, length, pile diameter, and AE
unload/reload and constant pile section: sand or
clay, Tvlt' ~Tlimit' m, and length
unload/reload and varYlng pile section: sand or
clay, Tult' ~Tlimit' m, length, diameter, and
AE

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.

If the user wishes to calculate the unload/reload pile

head stiffness where free-field stra ins, 'Y eff' from a
SHAKE analysis may control, the user is queried for these
values for each pile segment and immediately below the
pile tip. Accordingly, the pile head stiffness, k r'
will remain constant until a change in pressure leveY/at
the point, ~PL, causes point or side soil-pile inter-
action strains, 'Y, to exceed 'Yeff values. Not all such
values will be exceeded at the same time. See the
program listing below.

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 in. = 2.54 ern

1 ft. = 0.305 rn

1 kip = 4.45 kN

1 kip/in = 0.175 MN/rn

1 Ib/in 2 = 6.90 kN/rn 2

1 Ib/ft 2 = 0.0479 kN/rn 2

1 kip/ft 2 = 47.9 kN/rn 2

1 ton/ft 2 = 95.8 kN/rn 2

1 ton/ft 3 = 314 kN/rn 3

1 Ib-in = 1.13 x 10- 4 kN-rn

1 kip-in = 1.13 x 10- 1 kN-rn

1 Ib-in 2 = 2.87 x 10- 6 kN-rn 2

136
 Drilled Shafts: Effects of Construction on Performance
and Design Criteria

by Michael W. O'NeilP and Khaled M. Hassan 2

ABSTRACT

The capacity and load-movement performance of drilled shafts is critically

dependent upon construction details. Current design methods for drilled shafts do not
normally take explicit account of these details, which include production of borehole
roughness, geomaterial smear, depressurizing of geomaterials during drilling,
repressurizing of geomaterials by fluid concrete placement, residual drilling fluid and
similar factors. A conservative approach to design is therefore pursued. However,
most of these effects can be quantified, at least approximately, which suggests that on
well-engineered projects with close coordination between design and construction
personnel, the anticipation of construction effects, along with appropriate geomateria]
characterization and field testing programs, will allow the use of less conservative
design parameters, which can lead to improved economy and increased use of drilled
shafts. One vehicle for unifying design and construction practice could be the "decision
support system," thoroughly developed software that provides expert guidance on
construction practices that can be commonly accessed by both engineer and constructor.

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.

1 Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-4791.

2 Research Associate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-4791.

137 M. W. O'Neill, K. M. Hassan

 Initial geomaterial stress states and properties, borehole roughness generated by
the drilling process, geomaterial (soil and rock) degradation at the borehole-shaft
interface during drilling, length of time the borehole remains open prior to concreting,
residual effects of slurries, borehole wall stresses produced by concrete placement and
other construction-related details can have major effects on drilled shaft performance.
If these effects are considered, optimum designs, resulting in lower costs, can ensue.
This paper reviews analysis and design methods for drilled shafts, limited to
compressive axial load design, and comments upon the ways in which the performance
of drilled shafts can be influenced by geomaterial and construction details. The reader
is encouraged to compare the perspectives in this paper with those of Baker (1994),
which reviews the present state of practice as revealed through a detailed questionnaire
to which a large number of practitioners responded.

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

Fig. 1. Schematic of a Typical Drilled Shaft

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

Load Transfer in Cohesive Soil and Soft Rock

Side Resistance. Although the development of side shearing resistance in

drilled shafts is an effective stress phenomenon, in transportation engineering practice
such resistance is often related to some measure of the undrained shear strength of the
soil or rock because either the effective stress changes produced by the construction
process and loading are considered too complex to model or because tests needed to
evaluate the appropriate parameters are considered too expensive.

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.

Ordinarily, Su is evaluated as one-half of the compression strength of nominally

undisturbed samples obtained by either UU triaxial or unconfined compression tests on
NX-sized, or larger, cores (for rock) or on 50 - 75-mm-diameter extruded tube samples
(for cohesive soil), and that definition is adopted here. Therefore, a, as used here,
applies strictly only to Su determined in that manner. The CIUC triaxial test is more
appropriate for expressing Su; however, this type of soil strength test is uncommon in
US transportation practice. Use of direct correlations in cohesive soil with strength
measurements made by in situ tools such as the quasi-static cone penetrometer,
pressuremeter and dilatometer, while potentially more appropriate than those from
laboratory compression tests, is not common in US transportation engineering practice.
In many localities, the paucity of use of in situ methods is dictated by the presence of
intennittent rock, cemented soils, cobbles, boulders and other impediments.

Figure 2 shows typical mean correlations between a and Su for cohesive

geomaterials ranging from soft clay to soft rock, all of which were determined from
full-scale field loading test programs. The a relation is extended into the range of
harder rock in Fig. 3. A separate investigation by Meigh and Wolski (1979) in Europe
revealed trends in a factors similar to those of Horvath (1978) in Fig. 3. Rosenberg
and Journeaux (1976) report a values that are slightly smaller than those suggested by
Horvath (1978), based on investigation of a limited data base of drilled shafts that
were load tested in soft to hard rock. In some of the tests from which the relations in
Fig. 2 were derived, accurate measurements were made of both side and base
resistance, while in others the side resistance was estimated by calculating the base
resistance and subtracting it from the side resistance or by inferring the side resistance
from the shape of the load-movement relation. For clay soils, there is general
agreement between the relations of KlIlhawy and Jackson (19H9), Kulhawy and Phoon
(1993) and Hassan and O'Neill (1993). For clays with Su > 1 bar, Hassan and O'Neill
suggest somewhat higher values of a than the other two methods. This effect is
partially due to the use of different data bases by the two research groups but also to a
difference in the way in which a is applied in design. Kulhawy and his colleagues
add the weight of the drilled shaft as a load in compression, while Hassan and O'Neill
do not, and, for Su :5 4 bars, Hassan and O'Neill, based on the recommendations of
Reese and O'Neill (1988), assume that no load transfer has occurred in the top 1.5 m
and the bottom one shaft diameter of the soil profile, as suggested in
measurements by O'Neill and Reese (1970). Identical interpretation and application
methods would result in closer agreement between the two methods. For clays with Su
:5 1 bar, Hassan and O'Neill restrict a to 0.55, while the other two correlations permit
higher a values, based on test results in soft to stiff clays.

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

- - - Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993 (Rock)

. _. - Williams el al., 1980
Hassan and O'Neill, 1993 } Clay. Shales
• Turner et aI., 1993 Mldweslern
Hassan and O'Neill, 1993 USA
o Parsons BrlnckerhoH·Hirota, 1991
(saprolite)
(G·grooved; N·not grooved;
M·mean su; U·upper bound Su)
c Goeke and Huslad, 1979
1.6
\ 0 N (M)
1.4 \
\
1.2 G (M)O\.

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

0.3 .,.. Typical Error Band

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Su (bars)

Fig. 3. a vs. Su in Soft to Hard Massive Rock

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).

It may be possible to explain much of the variation in a by addressing the

effects of borehole roughness, both artificial and natural, and soft rock degradation
(smear) due to drilling. Most of the data for the correlation of Williams et al. are for
Melbourne Mudstone, in which small, triangular asperities are produced naturally at the
borehole wall during excavation and in which there appears normally to be relatively
little drilling degradation.

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:

a = 1.6 (RF)0.45 . (5)

For the test of Turner et al. a, according to Eq. 5, becomes 0.67. If RF is

assumed to be 0.01 in the smooth shaft of Turner et aI., a becomes 0.20, less than
one-third of the value for the extremely rough (grooved) shaft.

A simple numerical model can be used to investigate the interface smear

phenomenon in clay shales, as illustrated in Fig. 4 (after Hassan, 1994). The
roughness pattern is a simple sine function typically observed in clay shales drilled with

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

35 !:. Rougn socket

• ·bo·, Smooth socket
40
... e.... Rough smeered sockel
Concrete (large esperitles)

Modelled Probable S9" rgsk Sm"r Zoo,

Field Condition qu =2.4 MPe qu =0.20 q (rock)
EmeS8 =550 MPa Emus =0]5 Emus (rock),
~='I'=O ~rc=30· .
152 mm 51 5305mm ~ = \11 =a
" = 1.25 bars
a s a 525.4mm
as t 515mm

Fig. 4. Sinusoidal Roughness Patterns Fig. 5. Effects of Sinusoidal Roughness

(Hassan, 1994) and Smear on Load-Settlement
Behavior of Drilled Shaft Socket
in Soft Rock
(Hassan, 1994)

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.

It would be valuable to designers if the degree of smear, or borehole face shear

strength reduction due to rock disturbance produced by drilling, could be quantified by
some simple test, such as a field plug test, described later, or simple index tests.
Carbonate and moisture content may be index properties that can be correlated to
smearing potential in argillaceous soft rock, but little information exists regarding the
effect of these two variables. Hassan (1994) reports moisture contents in the range of
15 per cent and carbonate contents of about 1 per cent for the Eagle Ford Clay Shale,
and Horvath and Chae (1989) report moisture contents of about 5 per cent and
carbonate contents of about 13 per cent in Queenston Shale. Similar a factors at Su of 1
MPa were suggested by both Horvath and Kenney (1979) and O'Neill and Hassan
(1993) in both formations, so that the ranges in the carbonate and moisture content
required to affect significantly the interface smear are likely larger than those indicated
above. Studies by Walsh (1993) provide some insight into the borehole smear effect at
larger carbonate contents. He investigated the ratio of remolded to peak undrained
shear strength in direct shear in natural SC and CL soils with greatly varying carbonate
contents and found strength ratios of 0.9 for carbonate contents in the range of 5 - 10
per cent, decreasing to 0.5 for carbonate contents in the range of 35 - 40 per cent,
which would suggest smaller a factors in boreholes of comparable roughness in
argillaceous geomaterials with high carbonate content. The presence of free water
during drilling would undoubtedly reduce both of these factors. Further research on
smear susceptibility and natural roughness prediction is obviously warranted. It
appears prudent at present, therefore, in any argillaceous soft rocks that are inclined to
smear when drilled, either to design shafts as jf they were essentially smooth-faced
(e.g., Hassan and O'Neill, 1993) or to provide for carefully cleaned shear rings
(grooves) artificially, which should result conservatively in the relations for a of
Williams et al. or Kulhawy and Phoon in Fig. 2 or ofEq. 5.

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,

a = [~] 0.5 , (7)

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.

Table 1. Definition of Borehole Roughness (After Kodikara et aI., 1992)

Parameter Range of Values for Sockets in Melbourne Mudstone

Smooth Medium Rough

i m (0) 10 - 12 12 - 17 17 - 30

isd (0) 2-4 4-6 6-8

h m (rnm) 1-4 4 - 20 20 - 80

!!sd 0.35
hm

D (rnm) 500 - 2000

qu (bars) 5 - 100

(su = 2.5 - 50 bars)

E mass (MPa) 50 - 3000

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'

in which L c = length of rock cored, tseams = thickness of seams (soft or missing

geomaterial), tintact rock = thickness of the sections of intact rock contained in the core,

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

Fig. 6. Effect of Roughness on a in Melbourne Mudstone (Kodikara et aI., 1992)

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)

- ..- Possible Design Relation

0.1

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

Fig. 7. Potential Effect of Soil Seams on a in 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.

Summarizing, f max is clearly not a simple function of Su or quo A more

complete conceptual relation for f max , modified after Crapps (1986), might be

f max (nominal) = an E lCs1 lC s2 lCs3 SU, (10)

in which an = a for shafts constructed following good practice but characterized as

"smooth," for example, according to the definition of Kodikara et al. (1992), Table 1.
An appropriate lower bound relation from Fig. 6 could also be used for clays and soft
rock. E, which might be estimated from Fig. 7, is :s; 1. lCs1 is a roughness factor that
must be estimated from experience with the effects of drilling with panicular tools on
natural roughness in a given geologic fonnation. Ratios of a values for various
roughness conditions from Fig. 6 might be used to evaluate lC s 1 for natural drilling
conditions. an lCs1 can be set equal to 1.6 (RF)0.45 :s; 1 when shafts are artificially
roughened. lCs2 is a smear factor, or more generally a borehole wall degradation factor,
which is not fully defined. lCs2 might vary from lC s1 -I or less if the thickness of smear
or degraded geomaterial at the borehole interface is greater than about one-half of the
asperity height to 1 if the borehole wall is free of smear or degraded material. lC s3 is a
drilling fluid construction factor, which might be in the order of 0.9 with well-managed
slurry construction, as discussed in the section on effects of drilling fluids. Other
factors, such as concrete fluid pressure factors and lateral swell potential factors could
also be envisioned, as well as a means of determining an from effective stress
parameters. While Eq. 10 is not now practical to apply in a strict numerical sense,
since considerable further research is necessary to quantify precisely all of the

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.

Table 2. Values for Factor Ns (after Williams et aI., 1980)

Penetration of Shaft into Rock

Base Diameter

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.

Crapps (1986) suggested that in karst terrane (potentially cavity-containing hard

to soft limestone) a modified design value of unit base resistance, qbr, be taken as

(13)

where, for example, qb (authors' suggestion) might be taken to be 5 Su in such rock.

Kbl is a base cleanliness factor, ranging from 0 to 1 (probably never less than the ratio
of the cross-sectional area of the tremie or dropchute used to place concrete to the area
of the shaft base); Kb2 is a rock cavity factor, ranging from 0 to 1 (if coring below the
base does not reveal cavities within two base diameters of the base, Kb2 = 1); Kb3 is a
site variability factor, the effect of which the authors prefer to place in the resistance
factor or factor of safety; and Kb4 reflects disturbance effects at the shaft base due to
construction, which may be minor when applied to bearing capacity when the shaft is
constructed rapidly and cleaned properly. Crapps recommends the construction of test
shafts on a site-specific basis, with loading to failure, if possible, to help assess the
various parameters.

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.

When sedimentary rocks are horizontally or nearly horizontally stratified, the

bearing capacity of drilled shafts can also be estimated by the procedure described in the
Canadian Foundation Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1985), based on
recommendations for shallow foundations as extended to deep foundations by Ladanyi
and Roy (1971):
150
 (14)

in which

K - 3[ 3 + X/D ] (15)
sp - 10 (l + 300 '6/X)O.5

and ill = 1 + 0.4 LD ~ 3.4, (16)

where X = vertical spacing of discontinuities within the rock,

'6 = thickness of discontinuities,
D = shaft diameter, and
L =penetration of shaft into rock.

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.

Carter and Kulhawy (1988) provide an excellent coverage of methods for

calculating qb for drilled shafts on jointed rock with joints having orientations other
than horizontal.

Construction effects on base resistance include stress relief and repressurization

of the geomaterial at the base due to concreting, which may be reflected in Eq. 11 as a
time-of-construction (swelling and recompression) effect more than a true scale effect,
and base cleanliness. Experience indicates that the latter effect is of minor importance
when net unit base pressures are below about 50 bars as long as the base is carefully
cleaned by machine, leaving no more than about one-half of the base covered with
debris of height of 15 mm or less prior to concreting.

Load Transfer in Granular Soils

Side Resistance. The development of side load transfer in compression

loading in granular soils can be assumed to be a simple friction process. Stas and
Kulhawy (1984) suggest that

(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

f max = A Ko(z) cr'yZ , (18)

in which A is a constant of proportionality. In more familiar terms,

f max = J3 cr'yZ (19)

in which J3 varies with K o . Values for J3 can be examined in several ways. A

synthetic, and for most sites, conservative, profile of K o can be computed
hypothetically assuming the following conditions:

• Fine silty sand that is initially normally consolidated;

• (\) = 30°;
• Total unit weight of soil = 19.6 kN/m 3 ;
• Sand becomes slightly preconsolidated by drawing phreatic surface down to a
depth of 15.25 m, with full capillary head developing to the soil surface;
then, the phreatic surface is returned to the soil surface. This
assumption allows for the computation of overconsolidation ratio (OCR)
as a function of depth.
• The Ko profile is computed from the method of Mayne and Kulhawy (1982),
in which, for simple loading/unloading

Ko = (1 - sin (\) OCRsin <1>. (20)

If :0 is assumed to be 1 (about which more will be said in the section on "Effects of

Concrete Placement") and B =(\), then the hypothetical relation for J3 shown on Fig.8
ensues. This relation will change with the actual distribution of K o and could further

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

Fig. 8. ~ vs. Depth

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.

An improved method of enveloping the test data ("improved lower bound

design relation") is also suggested in Fig. 8. This relation is appropriate for N ~ 15,
which is the relevant range for all of the tests except the three tests indicated above.
Based on the limited evidence provided here, a lower limiting value for ~ could be
taken in sands to be ~ ~ nominal when N < 15, where

~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

~nominal (gravelly sands, gravel or cobbles) = 2.0 - 0.15 [z (m)] 0.75 ,

1.8 ~ ~ ~ 0.25. (22)

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

crp ' = 0.2 N60 Pa (23)

where Pa = 1 atmosphere (e. g., 101.3 kPa if cr'p is in kPa).

The overconsolidation ratio at depth z, OCR, is then given by

OCR = crp' / cr'yZ . (24)

The effective angle of internal friction of the granular material, <1>, can be
estimated from
(25)

The authors suggest that a limiting value of N60 = 100 be used.

The shaft-geomaterial interface can be considered rough but nondilatant unless

heavy mudcake buildup has been allowed during drilling. If concrete is placed soon
after excavation, so that the in situ ground stresses can be assumed to be maintained (i.
e., ~o = 1), the maximum unit side resistance at depth z, f max , is given by
f max = Ko tan <I> cr'yZ (26)

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."

The above equations can be combined to define ~.

~ = (l - sin <1» [ 0.2 N60 ] sin <I> tan 8, (28)

(J'vz (bars)

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

Fig. 9. Histogram of CalculatedlMeasured Fig. 10. Schematic of Load Transfer

Values of ~ with Calculations Made from Model (after Coyle and Reese. 1966)
Depth Dependent and N Correlated Methods

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.

Base Resistance. Base resistance in granular soils is likely to be as variable

as side resistance. Several simple methods for making mean estimates (as opposed to
lower limit envelopes) are reviewed here. Kulhawy et al. (1983) describe a completely
rational method for computing the unit base capacity of drilled shafts in granular soils
under drained loading if both the effective angle of internal friction <1> and the rigidity
index of the soil surrounding the base of the shaft, Jr. are known. For dense sands,
the authors suggest using Eq. 25 or similar methods to assess <1> if only SPT data are
available and Eq. 29, given by Kulhawy et al. (1983), to estimate Jr.

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).

The net ultimate base resistance % is then given by

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)

N*g N*9 Ir N*9

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

qb (kPa) = 60 N (B/O.3m) ~ 4.5 MPa. (31)

Gwizdala (1984), as quoted by Burch et al. (1988), suggests the following

correlations with N:

qb (kPa) = 150 N ~ 7.5 MPa (gravels), (32)

= 119 N ~ 5.8 MPa (coarse and medium sand), and (33)

= 85 N ~ 4.3 MPa (fine and silty sand). (34)

Data provided in Matsui (1993), based on the definition of failure as the

resistance corresponding to a movement of 10 per cent of the shaft diameter, indicate
that in diluvial sands and gravels of the Osaka area

qb (kPa) = 80 N (B/O.3 m), where N is approximately 30 (sands), and (35)

qb (kPa) = 160 N (B/O.3 m), where N is approximately 30 (gravels). (36)

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

% (kPa) = 64 - 150 N (B/O.3 m) for N = 25 - 44. (37)

Vrymoed's data for OAO-m-diameter shafts in non-submerged sand suggest that

a limiting value for qb is about 3.0 MPa, for N values as high as 70. This may reflect
the effects of difficulty in cleaning the base or of the development of arching in the
concrete column of small-diameter shafts, but it appears that the limiting value for qb
should be reduced for shafts with diameters below about 0.61 m.

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

where Su is the operational undrained shearing strength of the granular geomaterial

beneath the base. qb is given by

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).

Similar comments concerning the effect of construction on base resistance can

be made for granular soils as for cohesive soils and rock. Particular attention must be
paid to controlling sedimentation within and sloughing of boreholes and to cleaning the
base of loose debris during construction under drilling fluids.

In summary it is suggested that, unless the effects of construction are

quantified, appropriately conservative design procedures, such as the ~ method
suggested by Eq. 21 and Fig. 8, with the modifications for gravels and sands with
significant gravel content in Eq. 22, should be employed for computing fmax . Although
this method is completely empirical and intellectually unsatisfying, further
sophistication will require explicit consideration of initial stress conditions and strength
properties in the soil (which are now possible approximately using the correlation
procedure of Mayne and Harris or by directly measuring Ko), modifications of the
stress and density in the soil produced by construction effects (discussed further in this
paper), penneability of the soil to concrete mortar (i. e., distinguishing between clean
gravels, clean sands and silty or clayey sands), interface roughness and interface
degradation due to residual slurry (also discussed further) in the design equation. When
excellent site characterization is available, it appears reasonable to employ Eq. 30 for
computation of base resistance, but judgment must be applied in selecting factors based
on the user's perception of the changes in soil properties that will occur due to
construction. Otherwise, Eq. 31 can be used conservatively for both sands and gravels
to compute ultimate base resistance, corresponding to a movement of 5 per cent of the
base diameter. For economy of design, however, both the method for computing unit
side resistance and unit base resistance should continue to be correlated with local site
and construction conditions, which suggests that the performance of full-scale loading
tests remains an essential part of the design process for the foreseeable future.

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

Sides. Normalized f-w relations deduced from loading tests on full-scale,

instrumented shafts in granular soils by Reese and O'Neill (1988) are shown in Fig.
13. The bands of data are not as narrow as for clays, indicating the relative difficulty in
computing load-settlement behavior in granular soils. Two trends can be observed: (a)
trend for deflection-softening (dense to very dense or cemented) soils and(b) trend for
deflection-hardening (loose to medium dense) soils. Figure 13 can be used readily to
develop f-w relations for load-settlement simulation when values of f max at appropriate
elevations are computed by a suitable procedure, for example, the ~ method described
herein (Eqs. 19 and 21 for sands).

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

0,0 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0,0 0'------~--------3--10

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 o,a 1,0 1,2 1,4 '.6 l,a 2,0

'~ (%)
; ('!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

,j 0,6 - - Range of Results

!i Reese and O'Neill (1988): ••••••. Trend Line
Range 01 Results for
': I
0.2' Deflection.Hardening Response

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):

Eo = 16.9 NO.9 MPa, where N is in Blows / 0.3 m. (40)

An equivalent elastic solution is applied to the computation of settlement, w, for a shaft

of diameter D and for a given base bearing pressure, q, by using Eq. 41, which
assumes a Poisson's ratio of the sand of 0.25 and an embedment factor, for relative
depth of the base of at least 6D, of 0.65.

w (base) = 0.481.~ (41 )

in which

Eb = KN [ , 0:: 056] [(a 'yO + 0.22q)O.5 PaO. 5] (42)

a yo' Pa'
1.0 .----=---.....------,--------,

0.1

KN OCR> 2.5
is near top
bound a
0.01

0.001 '---- ~ --'- ---J

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

w
o
Fig. 15. KN vs. Normalized Base Displacement (Ghionna et al., 1994)

In Eq. 42 Eb is nonlinearly dependent on the magnitude of q, which leads to nonlinear

q-w relations, KN is a settlement-dependent value determined from Fig. 15, a'yO is the
ambient venical effective stress at the elevation of the base of the shaft and Pa is a
reference stress of 100 kPa. OCR has some effect on KN for; ~ 0.005, as indicated

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.

Potential f-w behavior in rock is illustrated in Fig. 16. If the rock-concrete

interface is clean, so that the cement paste bonds to the rock, the roughness pattern is
regular and the asperities are rigid, an f-w relation such as OABC can ensure. The
initial slope of the f-w relation defined in that figure is that of a short rigid pile section
with LID = 2 bonded to an elastic rock mass (Randolph and Wroth, 1978) with an
effective Young's modulus of E mass . Failure of the adhesive bond and simultaneous
shearing of asperities along an element of shaft (slip, Point A) results in a sharp
reduction of shearing resistance to the value that would occur for a non-cohesive, but
frictional and dilatant interface. The post-slip relation shown, determined using a
general method described by Carter and Kulhawy (1988) for a rigid shaft-only section,
assumes that <l> (interface friction angle) = 30°, 'V (angle of dilation of interface) = 5°,
Poisson's ratio (rock) = 0.3 and a rigid concrete shaft. Rigidity, however, only
applies to each short element used in the load transfer analysis, and with the Winkler
assumption, shaft flexibility can be included in discrete increments by linking short
rigid segments together with compression devices (springs). A reasonable estimate of
the peak value of f is c, the cohesion of the rock, which can conservatively be estimated
by the method of McVay et aI. (1992) (letting c = f max , Eq. 6) or by conducting a series
of consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests or direct shear tests on the rock to
determine the cohesion intercept.

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.

Fig. 16. Potential f-w Relations for 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

which, with only minor approximation, can be written as

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)

q = N s E mass [~ - pp] . (47)

The process is repeated for other points on the q-w curve.

4

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.

Long-Term Settlement. Drilled shafts in rock are often considered to be

free of long-tenn settlement for design purposes. Horvath and Chae (1989), however,
have shown through model testing of drilled shafts in natural Queenston Shale that side
shear, and possibly base resistance, creep occurs under sustained loading. If
nonnalized settlement SN is defined by

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

~SN = cnrp 10glO [tp(days)] + cnrs 10glO [t (days) - tp(days)]. (49)

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

ICc ~ "{'soil (1 - sin <1» OCR sin ct> (50)

Yconcrete

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

Fig. 18. Fluid Concrete Pressures in Simulated l.07-m-Diameter Borehole

(Bernal and Reese, 1983)

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.

Free-fall placement of concrete is expected to increase the lateral pressures

between the concrete and the sides of the borehole, as such placement increases the
effective fluidity of the concrete. The authors know of no data presenting lateral
pressure measurements as a function only of free fall distance, but experimental studies
have been conducted to confmn that free-falling of cohesive drilled shaft concrete does
not impair its structural integrity, up to a free fall distance of 18 m (Baker, 1994; Kiefer
and Baker, 1994; O'Neill, 1991). Large free-fall distances therefore appear to be a
desirable practice in the development of high resistances.

EFFECT OF DRILLING FLUIDS

Drilling fluids are often used in place of casing to maintain hole stability during
drilling. Two types of fluids are in general use: Mineral slurry and polymer slurry.
Mineral slurries mixed with either bentonite or attapulgite form mudcakes on the face of
the borehole as the slurry infiltrates a penneable fonnation (sands, silts, fractured
cohesive geomaterial), provided the hydraulic head in the slurry is maintained at a
higher level than the piezometric head in the formation. The mudcake in turn acts as a
membrane that allows the excess fluid pressure in the slurry column to be transmitted as

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

concrete paste. In order to achieve Q. ~ 0.67 in a slurry shaft (a common, conservative

<I>

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.

Table 4. Mean Values offmax for Various Slurries,

O'c
Exposure Time Before Casting = 30 Min. (Majano et aI, 1994)
f
Slurry Type max (avg) = tan 0
O'c

Bentonite 0.50

Attapu1gite 0.54

Dry Vinyl Polymer 0.65

PHPA Polymer 0.62

Jacked Casing 1.05

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.

A recent field investigation by Caltrans (Price, 1994) appears to confirm the

load transfer characteristics of shafts excavated and concreted under PHPA and solid
vinyl polymer slurries. The test site consisted of layers of loose to compact clayey silt
with sand and gravel layers. SPT N ranged from 7 to 29 B/O.3 m. All test shafts were
0.61 m in nominal diameter and were cast 011 false bottoms to destroy base resistance.
All shafts were loaded to failure. Comparative results for compression tests on four
shafts constructed with polymer slurry and one reference shaft constructed with plain
water are given in Table 5, along with the properties of the slurry at the base of the

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.

Table 5. Results of Loading Tests on Full-Sized Shafts Constructed with

Polymer Drilling Slurry (after Price, 1994)

Shaft Length Drilling Fluid Marsh Specific Sand ~ (avg)

(m) Funnel Gravity Content
(sec/0.94 1) (%)
10.1 Solid Vinyl 70 1.01 1.2
9.8 Solid Vinyl 48 1.01 1.1
10.4 PHPA 29 1.01 0.5 1.0
9.0 PHPA 34 1.01 < 0.1 1.4
10.2 Water Only 1.09 1O± 1.6

~ (avg) computed from Reese and O'Neill (1988): 0.92

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.

Polymer slurries, as well as lightweight mineral slurries, do not always serve

the purpose of maintaining hole stability in the field. Berkovitz (1994) reports a trial
.shaft installation with polymer slurry at a dosage comparable to that used in the above
tests in which partial hole collapse occurred in a sandy gravel soil despite careful
control of the slurry head by the contractor. While polymer slurries are attractive in
terms of economics, environmental impact and minimizing dispersion of clay-based
soils and rocks, granular soils exhibiting high groundwater pressures and near zero
cohesion may either require a weighted bentonite slurry or the use of casing to advance
the borehole.

The development of base resistance in drilled shafts constructed with drilling

slurries can be problematical if: (1) the base is not fully cleaned following drilling and
(2) the suspended solids are not in stable sllspension and settle after deanout has been
completed. With strict adherence to proper drilling techniques and slurry specifications
(e. g., Reese and O'Neill, 1988), values of base resistance should not be impacted
negatively.

A number of reports of poor performance of drilled shafts constructed under

drilling slurry can be found in the literature, including the effects of excessive exposure
time. For example, a field investigation of the effects of intentionally poorly managed

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

30 rr .... Mudcake BuildUP

~
-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)

Table 6. Comparative Properties of Bentonitic Slurry at Time of Concreting for Tests

Represented in Fig. 21. (After Majano, 1992)

Propeny Shaft A Shaft B

(Intentional Mudcake Buildup) (No Intentional Mudcake
Buildup)

Marsh Funnel 155 40

Viscosity
(sec I 0.94 1)

Yield Point 29.6 9.6

(kPa)

Sand Content (%) 23 2

Exposure time (hr) 72 2

(no agitation or overreaming)

Cake thickness (mm) 10 <1

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.

Holden (1984) reports on mudcake thicknesses that have been measured to be

as great as 97 nun along drilled shafts due to poor construction controls. He also
indicates that mudcake and softer gel on the surface of mudcake in bentonite shafts are
not completely displaced by fluid concrete, but the residual mudcake is compressed by
the pressure from the fluid concrete. In the Melbourne Mudstone, which generally
drills with asperity heights of 5 - 10 nun, compressed cake thicknesses of less than 2
nun are reported to be sufficient for adequate development of load transfer. Based on
his research, Holden (1984) produced a well-known specification to assure good
performance in the completed drilled shaft when excavation proceeds under bentonitic
slurry.

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.

Stocker (1983) reports on a different scheme for post-grouting, in which valved

grout tubes, placed inside the drilled shaft but outside the reinforcing cage before

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.

For both of the grouting methods described above, considerable expertise is

required of the contractor, and considerable cost is involved. Another, less expensive,
method for producing the same effect is the use of expansive cement in the concrete
mix. Hassan et a1. (1993) report on the use of expansive cement concrete in drilled
shafts in a clay-shale formation, in which a 30 per cent increase in f max was realized
long-term in comparison with a shaft constructed with nonnal portland cement
concrete. A difficulty noted with the expansive concrete was that the concrete assumes
a set rapidly when handled at high ambient temperature (> 30° C), which produces low
initial fluid concrete pressures in the borehole that must be overcome during expansion
of the concrete. On-site mixing of the expansive agents and rapid deposition must be
carried out by the contractor to make the use of expansive concrete effective, especially
at high ambient temperatures.

AXIAL GROUP ACTION IN DRILLED SHAFTS

While a considerable body of information exists concerning the group behavior

of driven piles, continuous-flight-auger piles and expanded base piles (e. g., Van Tmpe,
1991), the authors are not aware of a large body of information on axial group action
specific to drilled shafts, which may depend on construction details. However,
Meyerhof (1976), based on model studies and limited field testing evidence, suggests
that the capacity of groups of drilled shafts installed at 2 - 4 D on-center spacings in
uniform granular soils is approximately two-thirds of the sum of the capacities of the
individual shafts in the group acting as isolated shafts because of overlapping stress
fields in the uncompacted soil beneath the shaft bases and corresponding reduction in
unit side resistance. A similar reduction is suggested for groups of drilled shafts in
uniform clay if the group cap is not in contact with the ground. If the cap contacts the
ground, the conventional method of computing the lesser of the sum of the capacities of
the individual piles in the group acting as isolated shafts and the capacity of an
equivalent pier circumscribing the group is recommended. Where a soft layer underlies
the base of a drilled shaft group, punching failure can control the capacity and should
be checked (Meyerhof, 1976). Punching can be a more significant problem with
groups than with single shafts because of the larger zone of stress field influence.

For perfonning simple estimates of the settlement of groups of piles, Poulos

(1994) suggests that the group be considered as an equivalent cylindrical pier with a
diameter De that possesses the same lateral perimeter area plus base bearing area as the
perimeter and base area surrounding the real group. Poulos computed the elastic group
settlement from the boundary element method for such a pier, and the results are shown
in Fig. 22, in which E ee = area-weighted Young's modulus of the pile (or shaft)
material and the soil material within the block circumscribing the group, which is not an
important variable for drilled shafts with aspect ratios of less than 30 not bearing on
rock. It is suggested that the average small-strain Young's modulus of soils between
the shafts in the group be used for estimating E ee (e. g., E s = 1500 Su for clays and
16.9 NO.9 MPa, where N is in B/0.3 m, for sands). Results are most accurate for
shafts spaced at about 3 D on centers.

Judgment must be exercised in selecting E s and Eb (Fig. 22) for making

"elastic" settlement estimates at "working" load. For driven piles the writer suggests
E s = Eb = (500 ± 3(0) Su in clays and E s = (2.5 ± 0.5) N in MPa in sands, with Eb = 3

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:

P nom =0.85 f c A c + f y As . (55)

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.

An approach for structural design considering combined axial and lateral

loading is given by Reese and O'Neill (1988).

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.

AIDED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PARTNERING

The preceding sections of this paper provide examples by which construction

effects can be quantified, within limits. Present practice does not generally consider
these effects during the design phase, opting instead for (usually) conservative designs.
However, if the engineer/owner and contractor work in close coordination throughout
the project, for example, through "pannering," negative construction effects can often
be eliminated, or at least circumvented, which should lead to improved economy and
reliability of drilled shaft foundations. Effective pannering in this sense requires expen
knowledge, on both sides, of the concerns of the other side.

The choice of optimum construction procedures that will result in cost-effective

foundations is subjective and depends upon site conditions, availability of appropriate
drilling and casing equipment, slurry processing equipment, grouting equipment, local
regulations, scheduling, cost management by the contractor and experience of both the
engineer and the contractor. Current good practice in drilled shaft constrUction is
outlined by Greer and Gardner (1986), Reese and O'Neill (1988) and Baker (1989),
among others, and these references can be used as common ground for the
development of mutual understanding between experienced engineers and contractors.

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.

A prototype decision support system for drilled shaft construction ("DS"2")

(Fisher et al., 1995; and Demir et al., 1994) is summarized schematically in Fig. 23. It
consists of five connected modules that provide advice on (1) type of construction
method to be used, (2) specific details

INPUT OUTPUT

Geologic and STEP 1 Type of

Site Conditions Construction
DSI\2·GEO Method

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

Fig. 23. Diagram of DS"2 Construction Decision Support System

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

Partners, Schmertmann &Crapps, Inc., 4509 NW 23rd Ave,

Suite 19, Gainesville, FL
Schmertmann

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.

2. Type, Size and Loading of Driven Piles

In the 1950's the FOOT began the use of prestressed concrete
for both bridge foundation piles and support beams. Since then
the Florida DOT has used prestressed concrete (PSC) piles almost
exclusively for the driven pile foundations of all their bridges.
This has resulted from their combination of economy,
driveability, resistance to corrosion in high water table and
saltwater environments, and their generally excellent
performance. The size of pi 1es used, and the des i gn loads
permitted thereon, has steadily increased over the years. Table
1 shows this trend. In the 1960's and 1970's the typical FOOT
PSC pile had a side dimension of 18" and a design load of about
45 tons. In the 1990's these have become 24" and 150 tons. This
trend appears to have resulted from a combination of economics,
the availability of larger hammers, better static and dynamic
methods for predicating capacity, and the more extensive use of
pile testing using new technology.
The reader may find it interesting to compare some old and
replacement or widening of FOOT bridges, at nearly the same
location, with respect to their design pile types and loadings.
Table 2 compares 7 projects with which we are famil iar. They
further illustrate the aforementioned trends to PSC and larger
piles and greater loads on a given pile.
We see the increase in the average pile size continuing, but
at a reduced rate. Fiber reinforced concrete shows promise in
providi ng concrete with higher tens il e strength whi ch appears
attractive for piles. Very high strength concrete mixes are
presently being perfected which will resist higher driving
Schmertmann

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.

The reasons for using drilled shafts vs. piles vary

considerably, but usually involve major projects with large
loads. However, they have recently been used to restore capacity
of bridge pile foundations reduced by scour and on small bridge
projects where suitable. They have also been used on projects
su itab1e for pil e foundat ions except for adjacent structures
founded on loose upper sands sensitive to pile driving
vibrations.
The FOOT first used drilled shafts in 1978 to support many
of the major bridges in the Florida Keys Bridge Repl acement
Project. Shafts proved much more efficient than driven piles
because of their much higher friction capacity in Florida
limestone or limerock (soft limestone) vs. displacement piles
because they did not destroy the natural structure of these
materials. They also support the main piers for the replacement
Skyway Bridge (1-275 across Tampa Bay) and the replacement Acosta
Bridge River Crossing (SR 13 across the St. Johns River in
downtown Jacksonville) primarily because of their higher moment
resistance from wind loading and ship impact and their ability to
be founded below the potential scour zone. The FOOT used shafts
vs. piles for the 1-595 viaduct near the Ft. Lauderdale airport
because their installation was less likely to damage the
extensive and sensitive utilities in the area. Sometimes they
are simply more economical -- it often costs less to support one
large load on a shaft vs. spreading it among many piles.
Contractors and engineers are gaining more experience with
drilled shafts in Florida. For these and other reasons shafts
have become progress i vely more popul ar for support of bridge
foundations.
The private sector has also increased its use of drilled
shafts, despite occasional serious installation problems.
Drilled shafts have been commonly used throughout Florida for the
support of power transmission towers, usually one shaft per tower
leg, since the 1960's. Many major, other than FOOT, structures
have been put on drilled shafts in Florida -- particularly for
1arger structures in the Mi ami, Tampa and Jacksonvi 11 e areas.
Augercast piles, which one can think of as a form of drilled
shaft, are commonly used by the private sector in Florida. They
have had a similar history to PSC piles in that sizes and
Schmertma.nn

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.

6. Soil Exploration and Capacity Prediction Methods

Driven Piles: During the past 40 years the standard
penetration test (SPT) wast and has remained the most widely used
soil exploration method and basis for determining the penetration
depth and capacity of driven piles for the FDOT t and also for
Florida in general. To about 1970 it was used exclusivelYt and
capacity predictions were based on the empirical correlations
available at the time -- particularly in Terzaghi and Peck
(1948). This situation gradually changed after Schmertmann
(1967) wrote FDOT Research Bulletin 121 in which he described in
detail an empirical method for using SPT data to calculate
displacement pile capacities t but based on the methods developed
in The Netherlands for data from the static cone penetration test
(CPT). The FDOT now mandates using the Bulletin 121 method with
later modifications (FDOT t 1991) with SPT data.
While SPT data and methods still dominate t use of the CPT
has gradually increased since about 1980. This increase was
based generally on worldwide developments with the CPT t but
specifically based on the extensive CPT research done at the
University of Florida under the senior writer's direction t partly
sponsored by the FDOT. The UF CPT research began in 1965 -- it
takes time to modify practice! It is now fairly common in some
of the FDOT Districts to have CPT sounding profiles along with
the SPT boring logs in the bid documents for a project.
Initially these data all came from the mechanical CPT t but more
recently electrical CPT data have dominated. The FDOT uses a
method of pile capacity analysis from CPT data that results from
the UF doctoral research performed by Nottingham (1975)t as also
summari zed in Nott i ngham and Schmertmann (1975) and in
Schmertmann (1975).
One reason the SPT dominates t and the reason it will
probably continue to dominate the soil exploration methods for
deep foundation design in Florida t is that the CPT often does not
have the depth (thrust) capability to penetrate the analysis-
reqUired 4 pile diameters below the bearing layer of current,
high capacitYt piles. In contrast t engineers can rely upon the
SPT equipment to penetrate because of the coring backup.
Schmertmann

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.

Drilled Shafts: Despite many attempts, for example see

Kulhawy (1991) and Townsend et. Al. (1994), to correlate drilled
shaft capacity with the results of insitu and laboratory tests,
to date we bel i eve these have had 1imi ted success. Thi sis
because of the scatter in the corre1at i on data and the great
variety in the methods for and care used in the construction of
shafts. All this uncertainty suggests the need for testing. The
situation will no doubt improve somewhat with time, but we
believe that major projects will always require calibration by
full scale testing as described in Section 7.

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).

In response to the need for safe and economi ca1 test i ng

capacity in excess of 1000 tons, two other methods have evolved
in addition to the aforementioned a-cell method, namely the
STATNAMIC and the 1arge drop hammer POA. See, for exampl e,
Horvath (1993) and Goble (1993). The POA is an impact-dynamic
method while the STATNAMIC method uses a slow-burning explosive
and an inertial mass reaction to give a combination static and
dynamic method. To August 1993, to the writers' knowledge, these
methods have tested shafts to a maximum equivalent load of less
than 2000 tons. However, STATNAMIC tests to about 3,400 tons (30
MN) have recently been specified on a FOOT Project. The reader
may also like to review ASCE (1993) for additional references on
all the aforementioned methods. Maximum load capacity should
continue to increase for all methods.
We expect that as these alternate testing methods become
more widely available they will, because of their economics and
capacity, also become more widely used, and on full scale
production shafts. By the year 2004 conventional, static
reaction, top-loading tests on drilled shafts, and perhaps on
high capacity piles, will probably become the exception. The
economy and availability of these tests should also permit some
very innovative approaches and designs. For example, on the
recent Los Angeles Coliseum renovation and earthquake retrofit,
Law/Crandal, Inc., the designers of supplementary 4.5 ft
diameter, 1000 ton design load drilled shafts, decided it was
more economical to install an a-cell and test every shaft and
accept a reduced minimum factor of safety (1.36) vs. constructing
the shafts to a higher safety factor of 2.0 and testing only a
few or a st i 11 higher safety factor without test i ng. The
resulting shorter shafts had the important effect of greatly
reducing drilling times. The prestressing effects of the testing
itself also greatly increased the mobilized end bearing at the
design deflections. We believe such innovative uses will
increase as the profession, including the contractors, become
familiar with the new testing methods.
Many drilled shafts, especially in Florida, are constructed
using slurry methods. The difficult-to-do inspection of such
shafts poses a problem for engineers. The unseen slurry can cake
around the sides and dramatically reduce side shear capacity.
Unseen sediment can accumul ate on the bottom to reduce end
bearing capacity. Some engineers will not allow any end bearing,
and others allow no side friction. Put them together and they
would allow nothing! In a direct attack on this inspection
Schmertmann

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.

8. Other Trends That Will Influence Deep Foundation Practice

8.1 Utilizing setup (or freeze) in design: Foundation
engineers have widely recognized that the capacity of driven
displacement piles (and possibly drilled shafts) often increases
with time after driving, sometimes for long periods of time.
This occurs in both sands and clays and is particularly true for
side friction (Schmertmann, 1991). Part of the increase in clays
no doubt results from the dissipation of pore pressures generated
during the driving. This does not explain the effect in sands,
where any pore pressures dissipate very rapidly. As Schmertmann
(1991) documented, there also appears to be a pervasive aging
improvement effect that relates to soil structure changes rather
than to pore pressure dissipation. It seems not at all unusual
for piles to have 50% to 100% more capacity at the time of
loading vs. their capacity at the end of driving. There appears
to us to be an important trend towards making practical and
economic use of such setup behavior if and when it occurs.
The advent of dynamic testing, with the result that many
more piles are now tested in a rational manner for their capacity
than ever before, has also made it possible, via "setchecks" and
"redrives", to quantify setup behavior in the field. A setcheck
is typically done on a PDA- instrumented pile from 15 minutes to
72 hours after the previous end of driving. For payment purposes
a setcheck is typically considered part of the initial driving.
A redrive takes place 72 or more hours after original driving,
and is a separate contract item to compensate the contractor for
Schmertmann

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.

8.2 Scour considerations: Many FDOT bridges involve spans

over moving water. Several recent and well publ icized deep
foundation failures by water scour have focused new attention on
this aspect of foundation design. Combined with this awareness,
geotechnical and hydraulic engineers also now have a new
awareness of the depth that scour can occur -- both general scour
in an area and local scour in the immediate vicinity of a
foundat ion. We are di scoveri ng that the extent of scour is
greater, sometimes much greater, than previously estimated. Some
of the latest designs show potential scour to such great depths
that the loss of side shear support in the scour zone, plus the
loss of effective stress below the scour zone, controls the
design and determines the required depth of penetration. We
expect this trend to continue in the next 10 years as the
profession learns more about the importance of scour.

8.3 Ship impact: liOn the morning of May 9, 1980, the

freighter Summit Venture (608 feet long) hit the Sunshine Skyway
Bridge spanning Tampa Bay and ripped out 1,260 feet of roadway
(bridge)." (Mair, 1982). The collapse of the main span of the
old southbound bridge during a local thunderstorm resulted in the
loss of 35 lives. This catastrophe once again dramatized the
importance of ship impact on the safety of bridges. Although in
Schmertma.nn

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.

8.4 Contractor and litigation claims: Unfortunately, the

increasing litigiousness of our society has also spilled over
into the practice of deep foundation engineering. The FOOT has
experienced an ever increasing number of claims and has made
serious efforts to try to reduce such claims. Engineers
sometimes suspect that contractors bid low, perhaps too low, to
get the job and then expect to make their profit via claims for
extra work, which lead to litigation if unresolved. We get
really suspicious when the low bid contractor comes to the
preconstruction meetings with their lawyer(s)!
We see trends that may both increase and decrease the claim
problem. The trend towards rushing jobs to completion, or
"fasttracking" often leads to incomplete design, plans or
specifications, or even to errors therein, all of which surface
during construction and can lead to claims. To counter the trend
some organizations, such as the FDOT, are experimenting with
"partnering" and other organizations are bypassing the problem by
signing design-build contracts. We think that owners will
gradually realize that their best defense against claims is
careful design, good specifications and a well constructed
contract. We expect that more time and attention will be devoted
to these matters in the design-contract process. This, together
with what we see as a trend toward more design-construct
contracts, shoul d result ina decrease in 1it i gat i on on deep
foundations matters 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 ,

prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Dec., 195 pp.

Engineering News Record, (1993), "Load Cell Measures 6000 Tons
Under Shaft", Vol. 23, No. 19, May 10, p. 24.
Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT, 1973), Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 455,
Piling, pp. 339-366.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT, 1991), "STATIC PILE
BEARING ANALYSIS PROGRAM - SPT91, USER'S MANUAL, Version 1.0,
prepared by Michael Barththolomew, Joseph Caliendo, Peter Lai &
Ken Graham, Structures Design Office, Nov.
Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT, 1992), "Structures
Design Guidelines", Sequence Number 0160, Topic Number 625-020-
105-h, Nov. 2.
Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT, 1994), Personal
Communication; phone survey of FDOT Geotechnical Engineers.
Florida State Road Department (FSRD, 1966), Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 455,
Pil ing, pp. 332-354,

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

PSC 1975 1994

Pile Design Design
Size Loads Loads
(; nch) (tons) (tons)
12 20 not used
14 24 not used
18 45 100
20 50 120
24 60 150
30 70 200

Note: A survey of FDOT practice over 1964-1966, done in

conjunction with Schmertmann (1967), showed PSC piles from 14
inches to 24 inches were loaded approximately the same as listed
above for 1975.

Table 3 - COMPARISON OF HAMMER TYPE BY YEAR

Year Air/Steam Diesel Hydraulic

% % %

1965 25 75 0
1975 50 50 0
1994 49 49 2

Schmertmann
206
 TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF PILING UNDER OLD & REPLACEMENT FOOT BRIDGES

Old Bridge Replacement Bridge

Project Piles Piles

Year Year
Completed Type Size Design Completed Type Size Design
Load Load
( in) (t) ( in) (t)

Apalachicola 1935 Timber 25-32 3 1988 PSC 30 125

River & Bay 24 125
18 40-60

N Choctawhatchee 1937' Timber 253 1988 1 PSC 30 200

o Bay 1955' Stee1_H 4 14BP73 35 24 125
.....
1975' PSC 4 18 45
~---~---

2 96-144
Vilano 1946' Precast 18 30 1995 PSC 24
SR AlA Cone. 35

Port Orange 1949' Precast 18 30 3 1987' PSC 18 75-135

SR AlA Cone.
Sunshine 1954 Steel-H 14BP73 1987 PSC 24 225
Skyway 1971 PSC 20 60 20 ISO

New Smyrna 1965 1 PSC 24 55 1987 1 PSC 24 80

SR AlA Steel-H 14BP73 65 18 75-100
--

Buckman 1969 PSC 30 90 1997 2 PSC 30 200-205

1-295 24 133
Cfl
o
, Date of Plans
~
CD 2 Estimated Completion
t-; 3 Estimated Load
c+
i3 l, Repair Piles
III
::s
::s
 Table 4 - SUMMARY OF FDOT HAMMER REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Energy Minimum Ram Weight

FOOT PSC E PSC Wr Wp
spec Size Size
(in) (kip-ft) (in) (kips) (kips)
(1966) 12 7.2 no requirements
24 24.0

(1973) 12 7.2 12 3.0 to 20

12 7.2 12 6.0 20 to 40
30 32.0 30 10.0 to 20
30 32.0 30 20.0 20 to 40
All W;4 >40.0

(1992) All f(loading) All f(type & size)

Based on Wave Equation Studies

Note: Wr = weight of ram

Wp
= weight of pile

Schmertmann

208
 CURRENT PRACTICE ISSUES FOR
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND DOTs

by Lawrence H. Roth'

INTRODUCTION

CURRENT PRACTICE ISSUES

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.

I Senior Vice President, CH2M HILL, Inc., Oakland, CA.

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.

SURVEY OF PRACTICE ISSUES

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:

• Quality issues including Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) procedures for

selecting AJEs, Total Quality Management (TQM), and ISO 9000.
• Use of QBS by AJEs when selecting lower-tier subconsultants for work on DOT
projects.
• Improved understanding of loss prevention and risk management (LPIRM) issues
in the construction industry.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
• Dispute Review Boards (DRBs).
• Partnering.

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.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRACTICE 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.

IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF LPIRM ISSUES·

For AlEs and their clients, there are three strategies to deal with risk:

• Transfer the risk to another party (this may include insurance)

• Share the risk
• Retain the 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.

QBS is essentially a three-step process:

• 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:

• The process fosters broad-based competition. Many AlEs are reluctant to

compete on the basis of price proposals because of the added costs and risks
involved.

• 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 can produce significant long-tenn economies to the client. Typically,

engineering design represents less than one percent of the total life cycle costs.
Small improvements made possible by mutual scope development can save 10 to
100 times the added design costs.

• 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.

QBS CASE HISTORY

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).

• The AlE selection process in Maryland delayed start of construction by an average

of 9 months compared to Florida because of the time required to prepared detailed
work scopes to serve as the basis for the competitive bids (31 months versus 22
months).

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).

GAINING ENDORSEMENT FOR QBS

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.

SURVEY RESULTS: QBS

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.

DO DOTs' REQUIRE USE OF QBS TO SELECT LOWER TIER

SUBCONSULTANTS?

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.

DO DOTs ENCOURAGE USE OF QBS TO SELECT

LOWER-TIER SUBCONSULTANTS?

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

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

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.

Survey Results: 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.

HAS THE DOT IMPLEMENTED 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.

DOES THE DOT REQUIRE OR ENCOURAGE ITS

CONSULTANTS TO PRACTICE TQM?

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

HAS YOUR FIRM BENEFITTED FROM

IMPLEMENTING TQM?

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.

Survey Results: ISO 9000

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.

• ADR emphasizes fairness and reasonableness by using non-adversarial dispute

resolution techniques. The process fosters businesslike solutions built on trying to
preserve relationships rather than on polarizing or aggravating them.

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.

SURVEY RESULTS: ADR

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.

In total, 11 consulting engineers (9 percent of those responding) reported disputes with

DOTs, ten of which were settled by negotiations prior to or during conventional litigation.
Only one consulting engineer respondent reported that a dispute with a DOT had been
adjudicated using ADR.

DOES THE DOT USE ADR?

o Consulting Engineers
IlIlIDOTs

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

DISPUTE REVIEW BOARDS

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.

COMPOSITION OF THE DRB

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.

BENEFITS OF THE DRB

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.

SURVEY RESULTS: DRB

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.

DOES THE DOT USE DRBs?

100 o Consulting Engineers

- IIDOTs
OIl 80
...."CI=
=
Q
Q, 60
~
~
I:z::
.... 40
.
=
~
~

'"'
~
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:

• The organizational structure within which the partners will work.

• The project goals that the parties hold in common.
• A strategy for meeting those goals.
• The measures of the team's success in meeting those goals.
• The methods for ongoing communication and problem resolution.

229
DEVELOPING THE PARTNERING STRUCTURE

Successful partnering relationships are dependent on an understanding of the process,

commitment to the partnership, a defined structure in which to make the process work, and
perseverance (ACEC & AlA, 1993). All of the individuals involved in the project must
understand partnering and be involved in the process of defining the goals and methods of
attaining them for the project. If a partnering process is begun between the owner and the
NE and its lower-tier subconsultants, the partnership should be expanded to include the
construction contractor when the construction phase begins. It is important that the NE and
the lower-tier subconsultants remain a part of the partnership throughout construction. In this
way, if disputes arise which involve their work, they are still fully vested in the success of the
project.

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.

Partnering requires collective development of goals and measures of success in a series of

working sessions. These working sessions occur throughout the life of the project, involve
key project participants, and are frequently facilitated by an outside consultant. These
working sessions provide a primary team building environment, educate the participants
about the partnering process, and address the relevant issues.

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).

POTENTIAL PITFALLS IN PARTNERING

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.

SURVEY RESULTS: PARTNERING

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.

DOES THE DOT PARTNER WITH CONSULTANTS?

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

"'C . - - - .... - LIII- DOTs ...... . - - - .. - - -

=
0
c. 60
<:Il

-=
Q,l
~

Q,l
40
~

~
""
Q,l

20
- - - - - - - • - - - - •• - - - - - • - - - • "1'--"""""'-

0
Yes No Not Sure

FIGURE 12

DOES THE DOT INCLUDE SUBCONSULTANTS WHEN

PARTNERING ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS?

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.

ASFElProfessional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (1993). Newslog. Silver Spring,

Maryland. Volume 23, Number 3, September-October.

ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (1988). Alternative

Dispute Resolutionfor the Construction Industry. Silver Spring, Maryland.

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.

Pollock, Ellen 1. (1993). Mediation Firms Alter the Legal Landscape.

The Wall Street Journal, New York. March 22.

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.

Weston, D. C. (1992). An Analysis of Project Perfonnance for Partnering Projects in the

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. The University of Texas at Austin. Reproduced by National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia.

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

This paper summarizes current practice of constructing deep foundations in Taiwan,

Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, covering a total land areas of about 1
million square kilometers. With a population of more than 100 millions, this region has
in the past two decades become the most rapidly developing region in the world.
Accompanying the remarkable economic growth, numerous prestigious buildings were
constructed and many large scale infrastructures were completed. Many of these
major projects, which rank among the world records, involved significant piling works.

.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.

Types of Deep Foundations Commonly Used

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.

In Malaysia, prestressed cylindrical concrete piles dominate the scene because of

their cost advantages. The common sizes are 300mm to 600mm. Steel pipe piles and
H-piles are seldom used because of the relatively high cost of steel. Prestressed spun
hoJIow concrete piles of 350mm diameter are also popular. The Penang Bridge,
connecting Penang Island with the mainland of Peninsular Malaysia, is supported on
500mm and 1,000mm diameter spun piles with depths of embedment up to 60m
(Chin, 1986). The Bridge, opened to traffic in 1985, is one of the world's longest
bridges. The total length of the linkage is 13.5 km of which 8.4 km is over a water
channel. The main span of the bridge is a cable-stayed concrete girder bridge.

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 (Bored Piles)

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.

In Taiwan, modem tall buildings in cities are almost exclusively supported on

bored piles which are mostly bored by using the reverse circulation method, followed
by the auger-and-bucket method in popularity. It is very common that a building
column is supported by one large diameter bored pile instead of a group of smaller
piles. The diameter of this type of pile can be as large as 2.4m (for China Trust
Financial Building). Piles with diameters in the range between 1.6 m and 2.0 mare
most frequently used. In order to gain more bearing from underlying gravels and

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.

The use of hydraulic oscillators to drive full-length temporary casings for

installing bored piles is getting popular. For constructing the pier foundations of Bee
Tan Bridge, 2m diameter casings were driven 9 to 24m through the Chingmei Gravels,
in which boulders as large as 800mm in diameter are present, and penetrated into the
bedrock by 6 to 14m (Wang, 1992). For the Widening of Chungshan Freeway Project
and the Second Freeway Project, hydraulic oscillators and rotators are being
extensively used and the maximum casing length of 70m is probably a record in
Taiwan. The use of full-length casings is found necessary for maintaining the stability
of the bores where soft/loose deposits extend to a great thickness and/or gravels are
present. Test results indicate that even in residual soils the use of casings is cost
effective because of the much greater shaft frictions of piles obtained in comparison
with those installed by using the reverse circulation method.

In Hong Kong, bored piles commonly range from 1m to 2.5m in diameter,

although in special circumstances piles up to 3.2 meter in diameter have been
constructed. For' the construction of Western Harbor Crossing ,; Sai Ying Pun
Interchange, 2.5m diameter bored piles were sunk to a depth of 80m, which is the
record depth in Hong Kong. The method of excavation depends on the ground
conditions and availability of plant. Typically, a pile will be excavated through soil
under water using a grab with temporary steel casing to support the open bore.
Obstructions such as boulders are penetrated either by heavy chisel or by using a
reverse circulation drill. The temporary steel casings are installed and removed either
by vibrator or oscillator. An alternative to the temporary casing is to excavate the pile
under bentonite if the ground is sufficiently competent.

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).

Bored piles compete closely with prestressed concrete piles in Singapore. A

total of 2,599 piles, up to 1.6m in diameter, were installed in 10 months in one of the
largest commercial development projects, Suntec City Project (Chan and Lee, 1990).
The site conditions were not favorable for any type of foundation. It is a reclaimed
land with very soft marine clay varying considerably in thickness. The piles are
embedded in the underlying Old Alluvium and the depth of piling varies from 19m to
61.9m below ground surface.

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.

Test results are judged on a pass-or-no-pass basis. Extrapolation of results for

the ultimate capacity is seldom performed as the piling contract has been let, the tests
are performed by the awarded piling contractor and the only thing he is interested is to
confirm the adequacy of the design load.

Extrapolation of test results for estimating the ultimate capacities of piles is

usually done by using the Davisson's (Davisson, 1972), Van Der Veen's (Van Der
Veen, 1953), Mazurkiewicz's (Mazurkiewicz, 1972), Butler and Hoy's (Butler and Hoy,
1977), Fuller & Hoy's (Fuller and Hoy, 1970), and Chin's methods (Chin, 1970).
While the Chin's method appear to be the most popular in Malaysia, Davisson's method
appears to be most widely used elsewhere. Basically, all these methods are more
appropriate for friction piles than end-bearing piles. Therefore, the degree of success
really depend on the sharing of loads between shaft: friction and end bearing which
sometimes totally out of phase. If end bearing comes into play only at the last stage
when the full shaft: friction has nearly mobilized, there is no possibility for any of these
method to work.

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 pile-driving-analyzer (PDA), in lieu of static loading tests, is not

popular in this region yet although the use is increasing. Dynamic testing has been
conducted on several large scale piling works. For example, tests were carried out on
80 bored piles in the Suntec City Project using a hammer weighing 250 kN.

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 Taiwan, design of pile foundation follows "Foundation Design Code" which is

based on Building Regulations issued by the Ministry of Interior. There are no
national standards nor code of practice specifically on piling works. Government
agencies responsible for major public works have their own design manuals and
standard technical specifications.

In Thailand, design and production of precast piles are governed by "Thai

Industrial Standards". However, no standards are available for the design and
production of bored piles. Only in Bangkok, allowable settlements of test piles and
factor of safety are mentioned in Regulations on Construction.

In Malaysia, a national standard exists but practice is largely based on British

Code of Practice (BS8004: Foundations). Construction works are regulated by the
Engineers Act, Uniform Building Bye-Laws, Factories and Machinery Act and the
Environmental Act. There are no specific laws for foundations. Singapore has its
own code, CP4, which is under revision and the new version is expected to be issued
by the end of 1995.

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

Environmental concerns have become a major issue in piling practice in this

region. Considering the noise and vibration caused by pile driving, the use of driven
piles is discouraged, or even prohibited, in cities. Another problem associated with
diesel hammers is the air pollution. Currently, where the use of driven piles is not
banned, the use of hydraulic hammers is being promoted.

The major environmental problem of bored pile construction is the disposal of

slurry. Almost all governments in this region have laws and regulations on the control
of disposal of waste slurry. But the enforcement of these regulations varies
significantly from place to place. Construction safety is another concern. Recently,
the Hong Kong Government has started discouraging the use of hand dug caissons on
the grounds of health and safety to workers. This could in the future lead to a ban on
this type of construction except in special circumstances where there are no practical
alternatives.

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 design of foundations for supporting structures, the effects of several natural

hazards have to be considered in addition to the normal loading conditions. In Taiwan,
effects of seismic activities and typhoons have to be incorporated in the design. In
Hong Kong, for most of structures only wind loads (typhoons) have to be considered.
245
Moh
However, for road bridges seismic effects have to be incorporated in the designs. The
other three countries, i.e. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are fortunately free from
these problems.

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.

Negative skin friction is a common problem in Hong Kong. A large amount of

the colony's usable area is reclaimed and much of the reclamation has been carried out
by placement of fill directly on top of soft marine or alluvial soils. It is nonnal for
negative skin friction to be considered as an imposed load. For highway projects, it is
not uncommon to design deep foundations for a combination of dead load, live load
and negative skin fiiction, which is obviously conservative. The problem is sometimes
dealt with by coating the piles using asphalt.

Negative friction is seldom a problem in Malaysia. Where this is encountered the

design method is based on the total stress approach described in the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual.

In Singapore, negative skin friction is a common problem in foundation involving

deep layer of soft clay. A common practice is to limit the long-term working load to a
value equal to the soil resistance of the pile below the neutral point divided by a safety
factor, less the negative skin friction above the neutral point. The safety factors
nonnally vary from 1.2 to 1.5.

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

Plain Pile NF Pile

Fig. 1 Soil Profile and Axial Loads in Piles

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

Fig. 2 Load-Settlement Curves

Group Effects

Group effects of piles are incorporated in designs mainly in a traditional way of

considering block failure. A recent study carried out for the Taichung Steam Power
Plant indicates that the problem may be more complicated than it appears to be (Duann,
et aI, 1994). There are three tall chimneys of 250m in height supported on closed-
ended steel pipe piles of 800mm in diameter. Preliminary loading tests were performed
on 6 piles, 2 for each chimney. For simplicity, only details for Chimney No. 3 are
presented herein.

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

Fig.3 Foundation System of Chimney No.3, Taichung Power Plant

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

Fig. 4 Results of Preliminary Pile Loading Tests, Taichung Power Plant

It is a general practice to install piles at spacings equal to at least 2.5 times of

pile diameter, therefore, bearing capacity is unlikely to become a problem. However,
the shifting from shaft friction to end bearing would cause much greater settlements

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

Fig. 5 Results of Long-term Monitoring during Construction,

Taichung Power Plant

Pressure grouting technique has been used extensively in Bangkok. A summary

is available in Wachiraprakampong (1993) in which the test results of 14 grouted piles
are compared with the results of 34 ungrouted piles. For piles with their toes

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

Fig.6 Test Results at Site 1, TRTS Nankang Depot

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:

-.!L = f(~) (1)

qrnax omax
where 0max is the displacement at which the soil resistance reaches its ultimate value of
qrnax.

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

Fig. 7 Test Results at Site 2, TRTS Nankang Depot

Once the backbone is established, either by loading tests or by empirical

fonnulations, the corresponding curves for unloading and reloading can be constructed
by shifting the origin to a new position corresponding to the position before the load
reversal, as illustrated in Fig. 9, for unloading and reloading, respectively. In other
words, there is a nonlinear mapping the function from the q-o system to q'-o' system
as follows:

252 Moh
 q

max
(q+)
max Compression
Test
-----l-- ----.....:::,f---------- 0
(q-) Tension
max
A Test

(0 -) ( 0+)
max max

Fig. 8 Typical Backbone Curve

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

Fig. 9 Typical Mutant Curves

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.

Axial Load in 1v1N

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0

4
S .- 6
Silty ...!::
.....
0..
Sand v 8
Q
10
11.8 m
m 12

Sandstone 14
15.1 III

~=1 m 16

18

Fig. 10 Ground Conditions and Axial Loads in Test Pile TP3,

TRTS Nankang Depot

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

Fig. 11 The t-z Curves for TP3

Appiled Load, MN

o 5 10 15 20
o
E 20
E
40
~
;3 60
E
Q)

=:Q) 80
en 100

120

Fig. 12 The Load-Settlement Curves at Pile Top

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:

a. The use of non-friction piles effectively reduces negative skin friction as

revealed in a full scale test.

b. Considerable amount of loads can be transferred to the toes as a result of group

effects.

c. Base grouting is effective In reducing the settlements of short piles, but IS

ineffective for long piles.

d. The performance of piles in unloading and reloading can be evaluated by using

the concept of mutant curves described herein.

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 (1990), A Magnificent Commercial Building under

Construction on the Prime Commercial Site in Wanchai, Mar/Apr, pp 9-10 (in Chinese)

Construction & Contract News (1991), Central Plaza: Sounds and Looks Simple, but
Wasn't, Sept/Oct, pp 26-31 (in both Chinese and English)

Davisson, H. T. (1972), High Capacity Piles, Pree. Lecture Series, Innovations In

Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section, 52 pp

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

Japanese Association of Construction (1988), Recommendations for Design of

Building Foundations, Japanese Association of Construction, Tokyo

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

Lee, S.L. (1994), Personal Communication

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

Mazurkiewicz, B.K. (1972), Test Loading of Piles According to Polish Regulations,

Royal Swedish Acad. of Engrg., Sciences Comm. on Pile Research, Report No. 35,
Stockholm, 20pp

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

Ramaswamy, S.D. (1979), Some Aspects of Practice and Problems of Foundations in

Singapore, Proc., 6th Asian Regional Conf. on Slv1FE, Singapore, vI, pp 191-204

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

Todo, T, Hwang, R. and Hulme, T (1992), Settlement of Underpinned Structures in

Singapore, Int. Geotechnical Conf., New Technology for Foundation Engineering and
Construction, October 1-3, Hanoi, Vietnam

Van Der Veen, e. (1953), The Bearing Capacity of A Pile, Proc. 3rd ICSIv1FE, Zurich,
v2, pp 84-90

Wachiraprakarnpong A. (1993), Performance of Grouted and Non-grouted Bored

Piles in Bangkok Subsoils, MS Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand, April

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

OF CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER PILING

W.G.K.Fleming

The use of continuous flight auger piling has existed

for many years, its origins being in the United States. It
was not however until the early 1980's that the popularity
of the system began to increase as a result of the
development of equipment and techniques which allowed
concrete to be injected to form the pile rather than
sand-cement grouts. This development in turn led to a
wider acceptance of the system and plant manufacturers
subsequently began to improve machinery.
In the early stages of such work the power of machines
was low with some units having available torques of only
about 1 ton. metre. The gradual development of plant has
now led to machines commonly having torque ratings of 8 to
10 ton. metres while some of the larger equipment has
torque capacities of the order of 15 to 20 ton. metres.
The method in general has been successful in Western
Europe and its share of the bored or replacement pile
market is now of the order of 50%.

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). .

It is also the case that in several countries some major

clients, such as highway authorities, have been reluctant
to permit the use of this type of pile. The reasons for
this are not very clear but there has been a certain
resistance to any bored pile where one can not look down

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.

2) Shaft friction in sand can be less than might be

expected. This appears to result from a mis-match
between digging and transportation rates in soils which
are medium dense to loose in the natural state. In
general, where unit shaft friction has been calculated
on the basis of the conventional formula f =
K .po.tanS where K is the lateral earth pre§~ure
c8efricient, PO i§ the effective vertical earth
pressure and tan 6 is the coefficient of friction on
the pile wall, it is found that if S is taken as equal
to the angle of internal friction in a sand (¢), the
value of K may be as low as 0.3 to 0.5. This compares
with a K svalue for conventional bored piles commonly
of about S O.7. This feature is inconsistent in the
sense that when machines with higher power have been
used and construction carried out as rapidly as
possible, the results appear to become similar to those
for other bored piles.

3) In stiff clays the results appear to be marginally

better than those for conventional bored piles and this
is probably due to the speed with which continuous
flight auger piles are constructed, allowing less time
for deterioration of the pile/soil interface due to
stress relief.

Explanation of Cemset Parameters in examples following

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

The following two examples indicate the results of

analysis of continuous flight auger performance in
predominantly sandy conditions where no special controls
have been imposed on digging rates:

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.

The K value is approximately 0.3, and this is

postulatetl to be as a result of ground loosening.

Displacement [mm] LOAD DISPLACEMENT DIAGRAM

(/)
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)

14.7 - 17.0m stiff laminated sandy silty clay

17.0 - 19.5m stiff sandy silty clay and cobbles

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.

Displacement [mm) LOAD DISPLACEMENT DIAGRAM

o
2

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

It would appear from the low values of K that the

feature of behaviour that is most at risk forscontinuous
flight augered piles in sandy soils is the shaft friction.
A corollary of this is that care needs to be exercised
when constructing piles adjacent to properties which are
supported by conventional footings on sand. End bearing is
on the whole good and experience indicates that there is
sUbstantially less base disturbance, as evidenced by the
stiffnesses, than is frequently found with other types of
bored pile. This of course depends on the technique used
in the early stages of the concreting process. other
published cases indicate similar trends in sandy soils as
described in refs. 1 and 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

400mm diam. pile

212.57

177 .1'
Auger revolutions
v. depth (m) from
1'\ 11 computer record
Fig.3

35. '3

o. 00 .'7-----:~-~---:~--:-:--_:_:_-....L...-- ...........- .........- - - ' - - . . . J

0.0 2.0 '.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 1'.0 15.0 18.0 20.0
DEPTH I II 1

P~ESSU~E
PRESSURE YS DEPTH DIAGRAM
1 00 ,-_.---_.---_..---_....--_-.--_....--_,-_-,--_--.-_...,

400rnm diam. pile

Pressure record
0.00
(bars) v. depth
(m)
Fig.4

-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

Volume I m"3 J ACCUMULATIVE CONCRETE vs DEPTH DIAGRAM

5 00 r---~-~-~--,--~-----.--.------r---.--______,

-.50

4 00

3.50 400mm diam. pile

300
Cumulative
2 50 concrete delivery
2.00
v. depth (m)
I. 50
Fig.6
1.00

a 50

O. 00 l - _ - ' - - _ - ' - _ - ' - _ - - - - ' - _ - - - - ' - _ - - - '_ _...="---'-_-'-_....J

0.0 2.0 4 a 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
DEPTH I • I

A Model for continuous Flight Boring

To understand the action of augers better it is
desirable to construct a model, albeit simple, of the
process. The most pertinent condition to study is that of
a cohesionless soil because it is in this condition that
the most significant risks lie.
It should first be pointed out that the auger performs
two functions in that it cuts or digs the soil and also
transports it to the ground surface. These functions may
not always be exactly compatible, depending on the soil
and the auger design and use.
In order to analyse the situation it is necessary at
this stage to regard the soil on the auger flights as a
continuous ribbon, but it should be recognised that this
is not strictly true because of turbulence within the
rising soil mass.

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

The concrete supply pressure is usually measured at the

top of the auger stem. If it is measured elsewhere lower
down on the supply side then there will be an offset to
the pressure delivery record. The pressure available at
the delivery point at the auger tip needs to have the
pressure due to the head of concrete within the auger stem
added so long as the measured pressure is above minus one
atmosphere. Clearly over most of the length of a pile one
would expect to see positive pressures at the auger head,
but as the auger tip approaches the ground and, if at that
stage it is loaded with sand, then there usually comes a
point where, though the auger may still be embedded by
several metres, the concrete escapes to the ground
surface. At this point pressure measurement becomes
meaningless and only concrete flow is then relevant. The
concrete usually escapes to the ground surface by a
mechanism similar to hydro fracture and it normally passes
up the underside of the flights to flow from the top of
the bore.
The best practice to follow in concreting continuous
Fleming
270
flight augered piles would appear to be to rotate the
auger in the initial stages of concrete pumping in order
to carry concrete up onto the auger and thereafter to
cease rotation for the remainder of the extraction or to
permit rotation throughout the lifting process only at the
lowest available speed.
Construction in Clay Soils
In clay soils most of the problems familiar in sands do
not normally exist, provided the clays are stiff and self
stable, but some other issues are important, particularly
in regard to soft clays and clayey silts.

In most systems, as stated above, the concrete pressure

is monitored at the auger head in the supply line. When
the pressure is zero at this position, then normally the
pressure at the delivery point corresponds to the length
of the auger, less a little allowance for friction. This
pressure alone (minus one atmosphere if pumping is ceased)
may be more than sufficient to cause borehole expansion in
soft clay. Thus, for example, if the clay surrounding 2 the
auger base has an undrained shear strength of 30 kN/m , a
pressure of about 200 kN/m 2 would be necessary to expand
the borehole. If the auger stern is say 25m long, the
available pressure at ~he auger tip may be of the order of
600 - 100 = 500 kN/m. Therefore, since the available
pressure is more than twice that necessary to cause
expansion, the auger might be parked and continuous
pumping would be possible without apparent resistance even
if there is no easy path for the concrete to escape to
ground level. Extracted piles constructed through soft
clays where concrete has been over supplied confirm that
the pile sections can be significantly oversized. This may
not be of great consequence in most cases, although it may
cause ground heave, but where negative friction or
downdrag is expected it could lead to increased effective
pile loads.

On the other hand in stiff clays, and if the auger is

fully loaded or blocked with clay so that escape of
concrete to the ground surface is prevented, then the
available pressures from the supply pump may be
insufficient to expand the bore and it may not be possible
to achieve any over-supply target which has been set.
Prolonged periods of high pressure in the supply line may
lead to blockage of the supply if there is any small
leakage at joints in the pipe work. In circumstances where
over-supply cannot be achieved it is best to monitor
events and simply accept that any pre-set target for
delivery cannot be met.

271 Fleming
CONCLUSIONS

The examination of the process of forming continuous

flight auger piles above indicates that the risks attached
to the construction process in sandy soils are two-fold.
Firstly over digging and the loosening of soil is liable
to lead to ground subsidence, if not controlled, and it
may affect neighbouring properties which are not well
founded. Secondly, the disturbance effects on the ground
at the pile wall lead to reduced shaft friction by
comparison with the methods used in the formation of other
types of bored pile. To minimise these risks requires
understanding and the application of technical skills.

The mathematical model suggested is simplified and

approximate because no reliable method has yet been found
to take account of the turbulence of the material on the
auger flights. However it is illustrative of the reasons
for observed behaviour and leads to an enhanced
understanding of the process and its attendant risks.

The monitoring of continuous flight auger pile

construction by electronic instrumentation is essential in
order to ensure high quality construction. Improvement and
better control of the process will come from automation in
the foreseeable future and should reduce to a negligible
level the incidence of occasional problems from the
above identified sources which occur with this type of
pile.
References

1. Van Weele,A.F. (1988) "cast-in-situ piles: Installation

Methods, Soil Disturbance and Resulting Pile
Behaviour", Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger
Piles, A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam / Brookfield.

2. Thorburn,S., Greenwood,D.A. and Fleming,W.G.K. (1993)

"The Response of Sands to the Construction of
Continuous Flight Auger Piles", Deep Foundations
on Bored and Auger Piles, A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam
/Brookfield.

3. Fleming, W.G.K. (1992) A New Method for Single Pile

Settlement Prediction and Analysis, Geotechnique 42
No 3.

4. England,M. and Fleming, W.G.K. (July,1994) Review of

Foundation Testing Methods and Procedures,
Geotechnical Engineering, Inst. Civ.Engrs., London.

5. Terzaghi,K. (1944) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley,

New York.

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

with reference to Figure Al the auger stem and its

direction of rotation are shown(l) with the edge of the
flight running against the effective soil wall (2). The
soil element is acted upon by a radial force (3) at the
auger periphery which at its lower limit is assumed equal
to the active earth force from the soil outside the auger
(ie. the force necessary to keep the hole wall in
equilibrium) . There is a horizontal shear force (4)
between the soil element and the bore wall and a vertical
shear force (5) at the same position caused by the soil
rising in the hole. Both of these forces depend on the
radial force (3). The resultant of the vertical and
horizontal interface forces is represented (6).

Physical Considerations

Soil rise in the borehole in relation to any penetration

of the auger, depends on two considerations - the bulking
or dilation of the excavated soil and the displacement
volume of the auger itself. Thus the .rise can be
represented for unit length auger penetration as:

273 Fleming
 a = {( "f - "fa) I "fa) + {x / (1 - x ) (1 )

5011 outside bore wall

= ¢'

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

The peripheral horizontal length travelled by a point on

the edge of the auger for unit length of auger penetration
is:
b = n.D.S

However, because the soil is rising on the auger, the

soil element under consideration would be moving in a
counter rotational direction if the auger was stationary.
It therefore does not travel the distance b as shown
above, but instead travels horizontally by

b' = n.D. (S - alP) (2)

The angle of drag friction must align itself with and

oppose the vectorial resultant motion, hence the angle of
its action to the horizontal is:
-1
8 = tan alb' (3)

Equation (1) implies that there is a limit to the

penetration rate, beyond which to screw the auger into the
ground would mobilise forces analogous to 'bearing
capacity' and extremely high torques would be required
exceeding those available from conventional machines.

Equation (2) implies that the forces acting on the

chosen soil element depend on auger diameter, penetration
turns per unit length and on the pitch of the auger

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 . . . . . .

Shaft Diam .3 .4 .5 .6 .75 .9 Fig.A2

Figure A2 shows typical lateral pressures in relation to

depth for various shaft sizes in a sand with an angle of
friction of 35 degrees. It will be noted that for a small
diameter shaft the pressures rapidly approach a near
constant value with depth and the stability of the shaft
wall is easier to maintain than in the case of a larger
shaft. So also the lateral force acting to drive soil up
the auger is diminished as the shaft size is reduced.
Figure A3 shows the the effect of change of the angle of
friction of the soil mass outside the auger on the lateral
pressure as depth increases for a 500mm pile shaft. Again
it may be noted that loose sands with an angle of friction
of say 30 degrees give rise to larger lateral forces than

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 . _ ' ' .

20 ................,'. . .. . . . . . , . .... I. ' .

................. ' - .. 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.

It may be noted that the values illustrated for

lateral pressure in boreholes in Figs. 6 and 7 are
confirmed in practice by the use of about 1 metre of
differential pressure head in pile bores where
construction is carried out using bentonite suspension.

Forces on a Soil Element

Consider the force acting at the bore wall on the

element of soil filling one turn of the auger between the
soil on the flight and the soil outside as indicated in
Fig. Al.
T = rr.D.p.K tan ¢a
S H
acting at the angle a

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.

The weight of soil on one turn of flight is

2
W = n.D .P. Y • (I-X)
a
Consider the forces now acting up and down the surface
of the auger flight. The effective forces relating to soil
weight have to be considered at their centroid on the
flight where the slope angle is now corrected from 0/ to ~'
by purely geometrical considerations taking into account
the diameter of the auger stem D
s.
Down plane forces:
Due to self weight W.sin 0/'

Due to normal force caused by T S .

.. Ts . sin (0/' + a) • tan Oa
Due to friction on auger surface
.. w. cos 'V' . tan Oa
Thus the total force acting down the plane of the auger is

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 )

There may be some small force acting also on the

underside of the flight depending on whether the soil is
packed into it tightly, but this is likely to be small.

If the ratio Q /Q is termed the Flighting Force Ratio

(F ) , then one woald 1 expect the auger to transport soil so
R as this ratio exceeded one and the magnitude of the
long
ratio (or excess force) would represent the potential to
do work in transporting soil. The relation of Flighting
Ratio to Depth is shown for a specific case is shown in
Figure A4.

An auger turning with no peripheral friction would not

transport soil and would therefore be very inefficient. An
auger in a soil with a very high angle of friction would
have little lateral pressure available from the soil and
would be an ineffective transporter. However an auger in a
loose sand has a relatively high lateral soil pressure
exerted and will be efficient. Therefore, if its
penetration rate is not fast enough to keep it fully
loaded from the digging action at the base, it will load
by inward failure of the bore wall and consequently cause

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

After presenting the general contents of 'Eurocode 7-

Part l' and of the code I Fascicule 62-Ti tre V I of the
French Highway Administration, the design combinations of
actions (or loads), both at the ultimate and at the
serviceability limit states, are given. The main features
of deep foundations are highlighted. Eurocode 7-1 gives
general principles and general recommendations for
designing piles in compression, in tension and loaded
transversely. Fascicule 62-V gives precise equations or
formulae for designing deep foundations of civil
eng ineer ing structures from the results of in situ tests
(pressuremeter tests, PMT, and cone penetration tests,
CPT) .
1 Introduction

I Eurocode 7-Part I' on General Rules for

Geotechnical Design (ENV 1997-1, 1993) and the code for
the design of foundations of the French Highway
Administration 'Fascicule 62-Titre VI (MELT, 1993) were
both approved in 1993, . at the European level and French
level, respectively.

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.

EUROCODE 7-1 was adopted, in May 1993, by the 12

countries of the European Union (EC), plus 5 countries of

IDirector, CERMES (ENPCjLCPC), La Courtine, 93167

Noisy-le-Grand Cedex, France

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 ().

FASCICULE 62-V ('Regles Techniques de conception et de

Calcul des Fondations des Ouvrages de Genie Civil ' -
Technical Rules for the Design of Foundations of Civil
Engineering structures) was adopted by the French
government in March 1993 (Decree no. 93-446 of the
Ministere de 1 'Economie et des Finances, 23 March 1993).
It is now fully applicable to the foundations of all
public works of civil engineering type; it is not
applicable to public buildings, which have to use the same
codes as private works (called 'DTU' Documents
Techniques Unifies) . For deep foundations, the
corresponding DTU is, at present, being modified in order
to incorporate the design rules of FASCICULE 62-V.

EUROCODE 7-1 only gives the general principles and

general recommendations for designing piles in
compression, in tension and loaded transversely (ultimate
load resistances and displacements) .

The most interesting features of FASCICULE 62-V are :

1) precise equations or formulae· for calculating
bearing resistances and displacements of foundations, and
2) the use of in situ tests (Menard pressuremeter
tests, PMT, and cone penetration tests, CPT) for measuring
the properties of the ground. .
It deals with all the usual foundation problems
onshore, such as foundations of bridges, reta ining
structures, etc. that is to say foundations sUbj ected to
axial loads, transverse loads, moments, negative skin
friction and lateral thrusts due to soil movement.
After a brief presentation of the general contents of
the two codes and the design combinations of actions (or
loads) at ultimate (ULS) and serviceability (SLS) limit
states I the main features of the two codes relevant to
deep foundations are highlighted.

280
2 General contents
EUROCODES

The whole system of structural EUROCODES comprises 9

standards :
Eurocode 1 Basis of design and actions on structures
Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete
structures
Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures
Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures
Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design
Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Eurocode 9 Design of aluminium structures
Each Eurocode is generally subdivided into several parts.

As for EUROCODE 7 on Geotechnical Design, Part 1 gives

the General Rules for Geotechnical Design. other parts
will follow, such as Part 2 on Geotechnical Design
assisted by Laboratory Testing and Part 3 on Geotechnical
Design assisted by Field Testing.

The members of the Project Team PT1 of CENjTC250jSC7

responsible for drafting EUROCODE 7-1 were Krebs Ovesen
(Convener), Orr (Secretary), Baguelin, Heijnen, Maranha
das Neves, Simpson and Smoltczyk.

The list of contents of EUROCODE 7-1 is the following:

1. General
2. Basis of geotechnical design
3. Geotechnical data
4. Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5. Fill, dewatering, ground improvement
6. Spread foundations
7. Pile foundations
8. Retaining structures
9. Embankments and slopes

Seven annexes give sample methods for some different

design problems.

The presentation which follows is mainly devoted to

the actions and combination of actions from· EUROCODE 1-1
(ENV 1991-1, 1993) and chapters 2 and 7 of EUROCODE 7-1.

FASCICULE 62-V

FASCICULE 62 -V replaces a document of recommendations

published in 1972, and called 'FOND 72'. It includes the
results of nearly 20 years of research carried out,
mainly, by the LPCs (Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees,
French Highway Administration Laboratories) This research

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.

The original references of this research work are far

too numerous to be listed. Most of the material has been
published in the Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des
Ponts et Chaussees, in the collection of Rapports de
Recherche LPC, in proceedings of ISSMFE International
Conferences, or in Speciality Conferences on foundations.

The members of the drafting panel of FASCICULE 62-V

were Legrand (chairman), Millan (Reporter), Renault
(Secretary), Amar, Baguelin, Blondeau, Bustamante, Cassan,
Chaillot, Combarieu, Corte, Frank, Gonin, Gouvenot, Haiun,
Hurtado, Isnard, Jalil, Schmitt and Thonier.
The document comprises three parts: the Text itself,
with comments j Annexes to the Text, also with comments,
and Annexes to the Comments.

The Text is divided into three parts :

Part A : COMMON FEATURES with
- principles and definitions j - soil data - material
data ; - situations, actions and combinations
Part B : SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS with
models of behaviour design requirements
- construction requirements
Part C : DEEP FOUNDATIONS with
behaviour models in the absence of soil movements
behaviour models in the presence of soil movements
- design requirements j- construction requirements

There are 10 Annexes. Annexes B are relevant to

shallow foundations and Annexes Care relevant to deep
foundations :
A. Simplified rules
B1. Bearing capacity with PMT
B2. Bearing capacity with CPT
C1. Use of results of pile load test
C2. Bearing capacity - general
C3. Bearing capacity with PMT
C4. Bearing capacity with CPT
C5. p-y curves from PMT
C6. Micropiles
C7. Semi-deep foundations

Annexes to the Comments concern :

soil classification, definitions of different types of
deep foundations and notations j - 'equivalent I (adjudged)

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.

3 Actions and combinations of actions

In both the EUROCODES and FASCICULE 62-V, the following
representative values of actions are taken into account
when designing geotechnical structures in persistent,
transient and accidental situations (seismic design will
not be considered hereafter)

Characteristic values
G' permanent actions
QI dominant (or basic) variable action
A accidental action

Representative values of other variable actions (~/sl)

\1/OiQi combination value of variable action Qi
\j/liQi frequent value of variable action Qi
\1/2 i Q i
quasi-permanent value of variable action Qi

FASCICULE 62-V being specific to foundation design

(deep and shallow foundations exclusively), considers
explicitly the following actions (of permanent type)
Gw static water pressures
Gsn negative friction
Gsp lateral soil thrusts
Fw hydrodynamic actions

The design value Fd of an action F (G, Q, WQ or A) is

obtained by multiplying F by the partial action (or load)
factor YF

( 1)

In principle, YF > 1 or YF 1 for favourable

permanent loads, sometimes YF < 1.

The design loads on the foundations are obtained by

forming various combinations of actions. One or several of
the following combinations must be considered, according
to the nature of the problem (written in a symbolic

283
manner, the summation signs "+" and "L" mean that the
effects are combined)

Ultimate Limit states (ULS)

The fundamental combinations, for persistent and

transient situations, are :

YQ1Q1 + LyQplJ 0 i Qi (2)

i>l

EUROCODE 7-1

The partial factors for actions YGj and YQi of EUROCODE

7-1 are given in the left hand side of Table 1 (together
with material (resistance) factors for some ground
properties in the right hand side).

Table 1. EUROCODE 7-1 : Partial factors-ultimate limit

states in persistent and transient situations.

ACTIONS GROUND PROPERTIES

Permanent Variable
CASE
Unfa- Favou- Unfa- tan<\> c' Cu quI)
vou- rable vou-
rable rable

A (1.00) (0.95) (1.50) (1. 1) (1. 3) (1. 2) (1. 2)

B (1.35) (1.00) (1.50) (1. 0) (1. 0) (1. 0) (1. 0)

C (1.00) (1.00) (1.30) (1.25) (1. 6) (1. 4) (1. 4)

1) Compressive strength of soil or rock

This table is the application of a table relevant to

building structures given in EUROCODE 1-1. In EUROCODE 7-1,
it is assumed that it is valid for both buildings and
civil engineering structures.

All three cases, A, Band C, must be checked. Case A,

in EUROCODE 7, is relevant only to buoyancy problems. In
principle, Case B ensures the strength of the structure is
suff icient (I how thick? I) and Case C the strength of the
soil is sufficient ('how large?'). In fact, from a purely

284
I geotechnical' point of view, Case C is not always the
more critical of the two cases, Band C.

It should be noted, furthermore, that a model

uncertainty factor on actions Ysd has been introduced in
EUROCODE 7-1 (application rule of § 2.4.2 -11) for the
structural design of footings, piles, retaining walls,
etc. This factor, for which no numerical value is
suggested, is aimed at enabling the link between the
EUROCODE proposals and existing (national) practices or
codes. The original idea was that it would be useful
mainly in Case C, the so-called 'geotechnical engineering
case'. The first examples of geotechnical structures
designed with EUROCODE 7-1 show that it might also be
needed for Case B (the so-ca lled 'structural engineering
easel) .

FASCICULE 62-V

In FASCICULE 62-V, Equation (2) takes the following

form (G max = unfavourable i Gmin = favourable)

1.125 {1.2 Gmax + 0.9 Gmin + YGWGW + [YsnGsn]l + YspG sp +

YFwFw + YF1Q1 Q1 + L1.15~/OiQi} (3)
i>l

If the calculation model is linear, the coefficient

1.125 (which is a model factor) can be incorporated into
the other terms of the combination. This leads to :

1.35 Gmax + Gmin

+ 1.125 (YGwGw+ [YsnGsn] I+YspGsp+YFwFw)
+ YQ1Q1 + L 1. 3 0 \110 i Qi (4)
i>l

The value of coefficient YGw is (for buoyancy

problems, for instance)
- 1.00 when the water pressure has a favourable effect,
- 1.05 when the water pressure has an unfavourable effect.

1 Negative friction is not cumulated with short duration

variable axial loads in all combinations only the larger
design load of the two (Fnd and FQd) is added to the
permanent and quasi-permanent axial loads FGd when
deriving the total design axial load

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.

Similarly, YFw is 0.90 or 1.20.

The value of coefficient YQ1 is

- 1.50 in the general case;
- 1.35 for well known service loads or loads having a
particular character.

It can be seen that the factors on actions of FASCICULE

62-V are of Case B type, in the sense of EUROCODES (see
Table 1), with YG = 1.35 for unfavourable permanent actions
Gmax (other than soil and water actions); YG = 1.00 for
favourable Gmin' and YQ1 = 1.50 in the general case.
Factors on ground properties are of Case C type, i . e.
larger than 1.0.

FASCICULE 62-V has introduced the following special

combination of actions in case an overall stability limit
state must be checked :

1.125{1.05G max + 0.95G min + Gw + YF1Q1 Q1 + Ll.15\I/OiQi} (5)

i>l

This combination is the one proposed by I Recommendations

CLOUTERRE' (1991) and resembles more Case C of Eurocode 1.

For both EUROCODE 7 and FASCICULE 62-V, the accidental

combinations are :

+ Ad + \1 / 11 Q1 + l: \1 / 2 i Qi ( 6)
i>l

All factors on actions are equal to one. That means that

the permanent actions and the accidental action are taken
into account with their characteristic (or nominal)
values, and the variable actions Qi with their frequent or
quasi-permanent values.

Note that FASCICULE 62-V develops l:Gj under the form

LG'J = Gmax + Gmin + Gw + [GsnJ + Gsp + Fw (7 )

j~l

286
Serviceability Limit States (SLS)

For checking the serviceability limit states

requirements, both EUROCODE 1-1 and FASCICULE 62-V propose
the following combinations of actions (with the use of
Equation (7) for FASCICULE 62-V).

Characteristic (rare) combinations

(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

Here also, all factors on actions are equal to one.

Permanent actions are taken into account with their
characteristic values, and variable actions Qi with their
character istic, combination, frequent or quasi -permanent
values.

4 Deep foundation design

4.1 General

EUROCODE 7-1 suggests four different methods for

verifying geotechnical design (they can be used in
combination)
- use of calculations ;
- adoption of prescriptive measures ;
- experimental models and load tests ;
- an observational method.

Chapter 7 on "Pile foundations" is mainly relevant to

calculations and load tests. This is also the case of
FASCICULE 62-V.

Structural design

EUROCODE 7-1 states that checking there is no

structural failure of the piles in compression, tension,
bending, buckling or shear must be carried out in
accordance with the Eurocodes on materials. Note that

287
buckling may need to be checked only for piles in soils of
undrained shear strength C u < 15 kPa.

FASCICULE 62-V also refers to the relevant French

material standards (BAEL, limit state standard for
reinforced concrete BPEL limit state standard for
prestressed concrete; metallic construction standard).
Some specific rules or adaptations for foundation
materials are given in FASCICULE 62-V.

In the following only problems linked with failure in

the ground and with prediction of displacements will be
tackled.

According to EUROCODE 7-1, the following limit states

must be considered for piles :
- ultimate limit states of overall failure i
- ultimate limit states of bearing capacity i
- ultimate limit states caused to the supported structure
by displacement of the pile foundation i
- serviceability limit states caused to the supported
structure by displacement of the pile foundation.

Note that, generally speaking, when a characteristic

value is required but is not available (in the
probabilistic sense), it can be replaced by a nominal
value or by direct assessment.

The approach of FASCICULE 62-V for the two first limit

states is very similar.

The calculation principles of both codes for

determining displacements under axial or transverse
loadings are very similar, but FASCICULE 62-V does not refer
to precise limiting values, which are linked to the
supported structure, as does EUROCODE 7-1.

According to FASCICULE 62 -V, serv iceabi 1 i ty 1 imi t

states with regard to the ground are checked through
criteria on the axial loads, similar to the case of
ultimate limit states (bearing capacity criterion). It
then uses the creep load instead of the ultimate bear ing
resistance.

4.2 Ultimate limit states of overall failure

Partial factors for actions and ground properties of

EUROCODE 7-1 are given in Table 1 and the principles are
described in Chapter 9 on I1Embankments and Slopes l1 •

FASCICULE 62-V uses the specific load combination of

Equation (5), together with a partial factor equal to 1.2
on tan¢ and 1.5 on c' or cu.

288
4.3 Axial bearing capacity (ultimate)

For all ULS combinations the following inequality

must be verified (for compression or tension loads):

Fd(ULS) < Rd (11)

where Fd(ULS) is the ULS axial design load (obtained from

application of Equations 2 and 6) Rd is the ULS axial
design bearing resistance.

In both codes, the bearing capacity of a group of

piles must be examined by the two traditional approaches :
by summing the individual bearing resistances and by
considering a global block failure. When summing the
individual resistances, no precise eff iciency coeff icient
is suggested by EUROCODE 7-1. FASCICULE 62-V refers to the
Converse Labarre formula or to other currently accepted,
but crude, estimates.

The design bearing resistance Rd is obtained by means

of the characteristic values of base resistance Rbk and
shaft resistance Rsk or, sometimes, directly from the
characteristic total ultimate resistance Rk of the pile

Rd = Rbk/Yb + Rsk/Ys (12)

or Rd Rk/Yt (13)

where Yb, Ys and Yt are the relevant material factors of

safety.

Rbk and Rsk are derived from

(14)

Rsk = ~ qsikAsi (15)

i

where Ab is the area of the base, As i the shaft area in

layer i, qbk the character ist ic unit base res istance and
qsik the characteristic unit shaft resistance.

In the case of tension piles, Rbk = 0 and Rk = Rsk.

For both codes, design must be based either on the

results of static load tests, or on calculation methods
whose validity has been checked against (or which have
been established with the help of) the results of static
load tests. For EUROCODE 7-1, the results of dynamic load

289
tests can be used when their validity has been established
by static load tests lIin comparable situations ll •

General specifications and conditions for carrying

out static pile load tests are given. EUROCODE 7-1 suggests
that the recommended procedure of ISSMFE (1985) be used.
FASCICULE 62-V refers to the well established French
practice, described in the standard of AFNOR (1991).
French practice is based on the maintained load procedure,
and is consistent with ISSMFE (1985). Both codes point out
the need to reach or to be able to draw conclusions on the
ultimate failure load.
4.3.1 Bearing resistance from pile load tests

When deriving characteristic values of bearing

resistance Rk from the ones measured during pile load
tests Rm, a variability coefficient ~ is introduced in
both codes, depending on the number of tests :

(16)

The values of ~ proposed by EUROCODE 7-1 are given in Table

2. They are the same for piles in tension and piles in
compression. The minimum load obtained from the
application of both conditions a) and b) is to be used.

Table 2. EUROCODE 7-1 Factors ~ to derive Rk

Number of load tests 1 2 > 2

a) Factor ~ on mean Rem (1. 5) (1.35) (1. 3)

b) Factor ~ on lowest Rem (1. 5) (1.25) (1. 1)

In the case of FASCICULE 62-V, both for compression and

tension :
- if only one single pile load test is performed
~ = 1.2 ;
- if several load tests are performed
Rk = Rmin (Rmin/Rmax)~' (17)
where Rmin and Rmax are the minimum and maximum measured
values and ~I is given by Table 3.

The same coefficients are used with the measured

creep load Rem' when deriving the characteristic creep

290
load Rck for serviceability limit state design according
to FASCICULE 62-V (see below).

Table 3. FASCICULE 62-V Values of factor ~I.

Number of load tests 2 3 4 5

~' 0.55 0.20 0.07 0.00

4.3.2 Piles in compression

EUROCODE 7-1

For ULS load combinations, the values of Yb, Ys and Yt

are given in Table 4. These factors are understood to
apply only to fundamental combinations justified by Case C
of Table 1, because for Case B and for accidental
combinations all partial factors for ground properties are
taken, by principle, equal to (1.0) by EUROCODE 7-1.

Table 4 : EUROCODE 7-1 : Values of partial material factors

Yb' Ys and Yt for ULS fundamental combinations
Component factors Yb Ys Yt

Driven piles (1. 3) (1. 3) (1. 3)

Bored piles (1. 6) (1. 3) (1. 5)

CFA (Continuous (1.45) (1. 3) (1. 4)

flight auger) pile

EUROCODE 7-1 gives the general principles for

determining Rbk and Rsk of Equation (12). They can be
estimated from pile load test results, or from calculation
rules, using field or laboratory ground test results.

When pile load tests have been performed with no

distinction being made between base and shaft resistances,
Equation (13) may be used.

The calculation rules must have been established from

correlations between the results of ground tests and the
results of static pile load tests. They must be such that
(ave = 'on average')

(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

In FASCICULE 62-V, the same value of material factors

are used for the base resistance and for the shaft
resistance. This value is :
Yb = Ys = Yt = 1.4
for the ULS fundamental combinations;
Yb = Ys = Yt = 1.2
for the ULS accidental combinations.

FASCICULE 62-V gives the rules for determining the

ultimate bearing resistance Rk of isolated piles from the
results of Menard (standard) pressuremeter tests (PMT) and
from the results of cone penetration tests (CPT). Note
that design rules specific to open-ended driven steel
piles, H piles and sheet piles are proposed.

PMT method

The PMT method is the one originally proposed by

Menard in the 1960's. The base bearing factors and the
unit shaft friction values have been readjusted following
numerous full scale static load tests on instrumented
piles performed by the LPCs (Bustamante and Gianeselli,
1981) .

The base resistance is obtained from the simple

relation

(19)

where Ple* is the PMT equivalent (adjudged) net 'limit'

pressure, Pi-Po, at the base of the foundation; and k is
the base bearing capacity factor (a function of the ~ype
of soil and the type of pile), and is given by Table 5
(NO = non displacement pile; 0 = displacement pile) .

The unit shaft friction, qsk, is determined using one

of the curves of Figure 1, together with Table 6 which
indicates that shaft friction depends not only on Pi, the
type of soil and the type of pile, but also on the
construction conditions of the pile.

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

Fig. 1. FASCICULE 62-V Unit shaft friction curves qs

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)

(1) trimmed and grooved at the end of drilling

(2) for long piles (longer than 30 m)
(3) dry excavation, no rotation of casing
(4) in chalk, qs can be very low for some types of piles ; a specific
study is needed
(5) without permanent casing (rough pile walls)
(6) low rate injection and repeated grouting at selected depths
(7) (6) plus preliminary treatment of fissured or fractured masses
and filling of cavities.
CPT method

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)

where qce is the CPT equivalent (adjudged) cone resistance

at the base of the foundation ; k c is the base bearing
capacity factor, which is a function of the type of soil
and the type of pi le, and is given by Table 5 (ND = non
displacement pile ; D = displacement pile).

The unit shaft friction, qsk' is determined from the

cone resistance, qc' using :

qsk = minimum value of {qc/~ ; qsmax} (21 )

where ~ and qsmax, given in Table 7, depend on the type of

soil and the type of pile.

Comparison between EUROCODE 7-1 and FASCICULE 62-V

As EUROCODE 7-1 does not give precise rules for

determining base and shaft resistances from ground test
results, the only possible comparison of overall safety is
in the case when static pile load tests are performed.

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)

where F is the axial load on the pile (from characteristic

and representative values of actions), YF the mean load
factor, and FS the product of the partial factors YF, Yt
and ~ (similar to a 'global' factor of safety).

In the case of fundamental combinations, with

dominant unfavourable permanent loads (YF = YGmax) , the
following values of FS are obtained
EUROCODE 7-1,Case B: FS 1. 35x 1.0 x 1.5 = 2.0
Case C: FS 1.0 x 1.4 x 1.5 2.1
FASCICULE 62-V FS = 1.35 x 1.4 x 1.2 2.3

For accidental combinations (all YF = 1)

EUROCODE 7 -1 FS = 1.0 xl. 0 xl. 5 = 1.5

295
FASCICULE 62-V: FS = 1. 0 x: 1. 2 x: 1. 2 = 1. 44

It can be seen that, in this simple case which allows

a straightforward comparison, the overall safety of the
two codes is compatible.

Table .7. FASCICULE 62-V Unit shaft friction from CPT

CLAY & SILT SAND & CHALK

Type of GRAVEL
pile
A B C A B C A B
( 1)
Drilled f3 - - 75 - - 200 200 200 125 80
qsmax: 15 40 80 40 80 - - 120 40 120
(kPa)
(2 ) (2 )
Drilled f3 - 100 100 - 100 250 250 300 125 100
removed qsmax: 15 40 60 40 80 - 40 120 40 80
casing
(kPa)

steel f3 - 120 150 300 300 300

driven qsmax: 15 40 80 - - 120 (3)
closed-
(kPa)
ended

Driven f3 - 75 - 150 150 150

concrete qsmax: 15 80 80 - - 120 (3 )
(kPa)
(1) trimmed and grooved at the end of drilling
(2)dry excavation, no rotation of casing
(3) in chalk, qs can be very low for some types of piles
a specific study is needed.

4.3.3 Piles in tension

EUROCODE 7-1

For all ULS load combinations, Ys = (1.6) and thus:

Rd = Rs k/(1.6) (23)

EUROCODE 7-1 suggests that, in the case of piles in

tension, the load tests should be carried out until
failure.

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.

The 'block' calculation for a group of piles in

tension must take into account the weight of the block,
the shear resistance at the boundary of the block and the
water pressures at the top and the base of the block.

FASCICULE 62-V

For piles in tension the resistance factors are

Ys = 1. 4
for the ULS fundamental combinations;
Ys = 1.3 (normal size piles) or 1.2 (micropiles)
for the ULS accidental combinations.

For piles in tension, FASCICULE 62-V advocates the use

of the same values of shaft friction qsk as for piles in
compression (Figure 1 and Table 6 for PMT and Table 7 for
CPT) .

4.4 The creep load and SLS (FASCICULE 62-V)

It is common practice in France, since the 1960's, to

use the creep load Rc to characterise the axial behaviour
of piles. ISSMFE (1985) defines the creep load as "a
critical experimental load beyond which the rate of
settlement under constant load takes place with a notably
increased increment". It is easily determined by graphic
construction from the result of a static pile load test
performed using the maintained load procedure (AFNOR,
1991) .

For FASCICULE 62 -V, Rck is defined, in principle, from

the ultimate base resistance Rbk and ultimate shaft
friction Rsk obtained from the PMT or CPT rules described
earlier, in the following manner
ND piles·:
in compression Rck 0.5 Rbk + 0.7 Rsk (24)
in tension Rck = 0.7 Rsk (25)
D piles :
in compression Rck = 0.7 Rbk + 0.7 Rsk = (26)
in tension Rck 0.7 Rsk (27)
Serviceability limit states are verified by checking
that
Fd(SLS)< Rck/Yc (28)

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

For piles in compression, EUROCODE 7-1 requires to

estimate settlements and differential settlements both for
SLS and ULS and to compare them with limiting values.

For SLS, all values of material (resistance) partial

factors are equal to unity, according to EUROCODE 7-1. Thus
characteristic values (or direct assessment) of load-
settlement parameters are to be used, together with the
three SLS combinations (8), (9) and (10). For ULS, the
same material factors as for ultimate bearing resistance
should be applied.

In tension, EUROCODE 7-1 requires estimates under SLS

only, suggesting, furthermore, that checking the ULS
bearing capacity is usually sufficient for preventing
SLS ...

Limiting values for movements are suggested by

EUROCODE 7-1 for normal routine structures:
relative rotation 1/500 for SLS
: 1/150 for ULS
total settlement : 50 mm
differential settlement between columns : 20 mm
The assessment of allowable settlements of structures is
an important issue for contemporary civil engineering and
many studies on the subject are available. A recent state-
of-the-art report on settlements of buildings and bridges
is given by Frank (1991).

FASCICULE 62-V gives the means for determining the

load-displacement curve of a single pile under axial
loading, based on the concept of t-z curves (curves
linking the mobilised shaft friction at a given level with
the corresponding axial displacement). It suggests, in
case a settlement estimate must be made, that the t-z
curves and q-zb curve (base pressure - base displacement
curve) proposed by Frank and Zhao (1982) be used, as shown

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)

Fig. 2. FASCICULE 62-V : PMT t-z curves and q-zb curve

This method is expected to yield satisfactory results

for maximum loads of 0.7 Rck, i. e. maximum loads for SLS
quasi-permanent combinations. For larger loads, rate
effects must be taken into account.

4.6 Transversely loaded piles

According to EUROCODE 7-1 the rules for transversely

loaded piles must, in general, follow those of axially
loaded piles. A few rules specific to transverse loadings
are given. It is suggested that ultimate transverse load
resistance calculations should consider bending failure of
the pile and failure and displacement in the soil. It can
be estimated from pile head displacement tests or from
ground test results and pile strength parameters (using
the theory of beams and sUbgrade reaction modulus) .

FASCICULE 62-V gives detailed instructions for

determining the load-displacement behaviour of piles
loaded transversely. It is based on the use of non-linear

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.

Group effects are taken into account if the centre-

to-centre distance between the pi les is sma ller than 3
times the maximum size of the pile section. Reduction
coefficients for the p-y curves are also given by FASCICULE
62-V to take into account the proximity of the ground
surface or of a nearby slope.

4.7 Soil movements downdrag and lateral thrusts

Both EUROCODE 7-1 and FASCICULE 62-V stress the
importance of taking into account actions produced by soil
movements, i. e. downdrag (negative friction) and
transverse loading (latera I thrusts). Heave is also
mentioned by EUROCODE 7-1.

As a general principle, EUROCODE 7-1 states that upper

values of resistance and stiffness of the ground should be
used. Indeed, with the current calculation procedures,
these values are on the 'safe' side. EUROCODE 7-1 mentions
two possible approaches ei ther an estimate of the load
transmitted to the pile is made and is considered as an
action, or the soil movement itself is considered as the
action and a specific soil-structure interaction analysis
is carried out (of the t-z or p-y type, such as the ones
mentioned above).

FASCICULE 62-V treats downdrag in the former manner and

lateral thrusts in the latter manner.

The proposition of FASCICULE 62 -v , for downdrag,

follows the original work of Combarieu (1974). The method
allows the determination of the maximum long term negative
friction load, taking into account the hanging effect
around the pile (which reduces the effective vertical
stress cr l V )' as well as the existence of a neutral point
(at which friction becomes positive). Precise rules for
the assessment of downdrag on pile groups are also given.

300
The method uses, in particular, the well known KtanO
parameter, such that

fIn = KtanO.cr 1 v (35)

where f' n is the unit negative friction. The values of

Ktano, obtained from full scale observations, are given in
Table 8. The way the downdrag load is treated in the
combinations of actions, is indicated in above Equations
( 3) , (4) and (6) to (10).

Table 8. FASCICULE 62-V : Ktano values for negative friction

assessment.

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

In FASCICULE 62 -V, the des ign of pi les subj ected . to

lateral soil thrusts, at the crest or at the toe of
embankments on soft soi ls, for instance, is based on the
1 free I soil displacement concept. It is assumed that the
reaction curve links the transverse reaction pressure p to
the 'relative' displacement l1y = y - g/ where y is the
equilibrium soil-pile transverse displacement sought, and
g is the free transverse soil displacement (or
displacement in absence of the pile).

FASCICULE 62-V suggests a method for predicting g(z) in

the case of an embankment on a soft soil. It is a function
of depth z, of the slope of the embankment, of the
strength of the underlying soft soil and of the position
of the pile.

Some modifications to the p-l1y curves, described

above, are introduced. In particular, the maximum
transverse reaction pressure on the pile section is taken
equal to Pl, the PMT limit pressure. In the combinations
of actions, Equations (3) / (4) and (6) to (10), the action
Gsp is the displacement g (z), i . e. factors ysP apply to
g(z) in the p-l1y analysis.

301
5. Conclusions

It is obvious that EUROCODE 7-1 and FASCICULE 62-V have

each their own place.

EUROCODE 7-1 gives the general lines along which

foundations (or other geotechnical structures) must be
designed.

FASCICULE 62-V contains a complete set of rules,

providing the foundation engineer with all the means of
designing foundations, taking into account the results of
recent research. The French code is almost exclusively
based on in-situ testing results, mainly on PMT results.
The advantage of the Menard pressuremeter test is that it
can be performed, onshore, in all types of soils i it
measures not only a failure parameter for bearing capacity
design, but also a deformation parameter for assessment of
axial or transverse displacements.

When precise comparisons are possible the two codes

appear to be very consistent.

Nevertheless, some differences should be noted. The

main one is the way of treating serviceability limit
states. EUROCODE 7-1 relies on settlement estimates, whereas
the French code introduces requirements on creep load,
easily determined from bearing capacity approaches.

It is the opinion of the author that the promulgation

of EUROCODE 7-1 and FASCICULE 62-V is a major step forward in
foundation engineering.

The EUROCODES are a powerful and worthwhile tool

helping engineers of different countries and different
specialisations to speak the same language.

Limit state design is a sound and fruitful method. It

gives foundation engineers more precise appreciation of
what their foundations are really expected to carry. This
was not always the case in current approaches ... It helps
them think about the various factors of safety they are
using in their calculations. Neither EUROCODE 7-1 nor
FASCICULE 62-V is a set of rigid rules which inhibits the
art of the engineer.

"In geotechnical engineering knowledge of the ground

conditions depends on the extent and quality of the
geotechnical investigations. Such knowledge and the
control of workmanship are more significant to fUlfilling
the fundamental requirements than is precision in the
calculations models and partial factors".
EUROCODE 7 -1, 2. 4 . 1, ( 1), AR.

302
Appendix. References

AFNOR (1991) . "Essa i statique de pieu isole sous

compression axiale (Static load test on a single pile
under axial compression)." Norme Franqaise NF P94-150,
AFNOR, Paris, 24 pages (in French).
Bustamante, Mo", and Gianeselli, L. (1981). "Prevision de
la capaci te portante des pieux isoles sous charge
verticale. Regles pressiometriques et penetrometriques
(Prediction of the bearing capacity of single piles under
vertical load. Pressuremeter and penetrometer rules)."
Bull. Liaison Labo. Po et Ch. No.113, May-June, Ref. 2536,
83-108 (in French).
Combar ieu, o. (1974) . "Effet d I accrochage et methode
d'evaluation du frottement negatif (Hanging effect and
prediction method of negative friction)." Bull. Liaison
Labo. P. et Ch. No.71, May-June, Ref. 1459, 93-107 (in
French) .
CLOUTERRE (1991) 0 Recommendations Clouterre 1991. Soil
Nailing Recommendations - 1991 For Designing, calculating,
Constructing and Inspecting Earth Support Systems Using
Soil Nailing. English Translation, July 1993, Presses de
l'ENPC & u.s. Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-026,
301 pages.

ENV 1991-1 (1993). "Basis of design and actions on

structures." European Standard, October 1993, English
Version, CEN, Brussels, 76 pages.

ENV 1997-1 (1993) "Geotechnical design -

0 General rules".
6th Version, October 1993, CEN/TC 250/SC7, doc. nr. N 94,
Brussels, 111 pages and Agreed Changes, February 1994,
CEN/TC 250/SC7, doc. nr. N 107, Brussels, 8 pages.

FRANK, R. (1991). "Quelques developpements recents sur le

comportement des fondations superficielles." state of the
art report, Session 3, Proc. lOth European Conf. Soil
Mechs & Fdn Engng, Florence, 26-30 May, vol. 3, pp. 1003-
1030 (in French i English version: "Some recent
developments on the behaviour of shallow foundations" to
be published in vol. 4).

Frank, R., and Zhao, S.R. (1982). "Estimation par les

parametres pressiometriques de l' enfoncement sous charge
axiale de pieux fores dans des sols fins (Assessment of
the settlement under axial load of bored piles in fine-
grained soils by means of pressuremeter parameters)."
Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch. No.119, May-June, Ref. 2712,
17-24 (in French).
303
ISSMFE Subcommittee on Field and Laboratory Testing (1985)
"Axial pile loading test Part 1 static loading. II
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 8, NO.2, June,
79-90.

MELT-Ministere de l' Equipement, du logement et des

transports (1993). Regles Techniques de conception et de
Calcul des Fondations des Ouvrages de Genie civil
(Technical Rules for the Design of Foundations of civil
Engineering Structures). Cahier des clauses techniques
generales applicables aux marches pUblics de travaux,
FASCICULE N°62 -Titre V, Textes Officiels N° 93-3 T.O.,
182 pages (in French).

304
 CURRENT U.S. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES FOR DRILLED PIERS

BY

CLYDE N. BAKER, JR.

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.

SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE SUMMARY

1) In your deep foundation practices, what percent of projects involved

drilled piers (also known as drilled shafts, caissons, bored piles, etc.) as
compared to driven piles. Average 57%; Range 2-100%.

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.

2) Under drilled piers, what percent are constructed by:

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%

b) Casing method (casing is used to seal off water-bearing layer to permit

construction to be completed in the dry). What percent of casing jobs
involve:
1) Leaving casing in pennanently?
Average 10.3%; Range 0-100%

2) Using permanent corrugated liner inside temporary casing, which is

pulled?
Average equals 3.2%; Range 0-80%
3) Pulling casing after or as concrete is placed?
Average 60.9%; Range 10-100%

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.

3) What restrictions are placed on pulling casing regarding concrete levels

inside casing vs. water level outside casing?

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.

What minimum slump is required?

Average equals 5.7 inches (145 mm); Range equals 2 - 8 inches (51-203
mm).

What maximum aggregate size is permitted?

Average equals 1.1 inch (27.9 mm); Range equals 0.5 to 3 inches (12.7-
76.2mm).
307
 What special quality control procedures are required, if any?
Occasional NOT (surface reflection, cross hole sonic, gamma-gamma log),
monitor concrete levels and concrete volumes, follow drilled shaft
inspectors guide, be careful with use of superplastisizer, monitor slump
loss, and slow casing extraction required. The most often mentioned
requirement was full time inspection by experienced inspector.

Commentary:

Restrictions placed on pulling casing are particularly important since improper

pulling of casing is the major cause of defects in drilled shafts as indicated by
another section of this survey (Question 9 response).

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.

4. Slurry displacement method:

a) What percentage of jobs use traditional bentonite slurry?
Average 26.4%; Range 0 -100%

b) What percentage use polymers?

Average equals 24.1%; Range 0 -100%

Does the percentage use of polymers appear to be increasing?

80% said yes.

c) What percent use attapulgite or other special materials?

Average equals 6.2%; Range 0 -100%

c) What special quality control procedures are required or do you think

should be required?
Most often mentioned requirements were to check pH, viscosity, density
and sand content of slurry and to check concrete slump.

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.

a) In your experience who performs the design of drilled piers?

Does the geotechnical engineer normally develop the soil
parameters with the structural engineer doing the actual design?
Approximately 80% said yes.

b) Does the geotechnical engineer sometimes do the whole design?

Approximately 37% indicated yes.

How often are the specifications prepared by the structural engineer (or
architect)?
Average equals 49.6%; Range equals 0 -100%

How often are the specifications prepared by the structural engineer or

architect with help from the geotechnical engineer?

Average 41.8%; Range 0 -100%

How often are the specifications prepared by the geotechnical engineer

with review by the structural engineer and architect?
Average 31.9%; Range 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?

The responses were wide and varied indicating the regional

differences in the nature of the materials described and in the local
practice as indicated in the following summary;

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.

7) In performing or requiring drilled pier inspection procedures, do you use

or recommend using the ADSC/DFI Drilled Shaft Inspectors Manual?

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

- I~ I I I I sees 1-14.) I I - 14 0 sss

--
~ I I I -1801 sces

j Lj'.UNO£R-R.. . . r- 2' UNDER - RUIA

~
CAl
......
.....
.
:J:

...
D.
SSSS 1-21.8
C
- 2~ j 2~ -22 915SSS •

2" - J" or LOOSE

- JO , SOFT BOnDy
ISCCll-27.~ - 30
-27.61 sces I SAND "'GRAVEL

R[ACTIOH REACTlllH '-- son Bono...

SHAn SHAFT
- )~ I 1ES1
lEST REACllON
SttAfl
SttAfl SHAfl
- 40 I S = SISTERBAR WITH VIBRATING WIRE SlRAlN GAGE
C • CARLSON GAGE NOlE: All OEPTHS ARE BELOW I IfI,-O,)m
E • EXT£NSOLl[TER TOP Of [XISTING CRADE

Figure 16. Layout of test shafts at Cupertino sile.

(Reference 3)
 6 7 8 9 10 11
• J

- 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

Figure 17. Layout of test shans at San Jose site.

(Reference 3)
 T[)(AS A&.H UNlvr:RSITv. RlveRSIOr. CAMPUS
GENERAL NOTES
CLAY I;ITr: / D"T ~1'Tr: SA""" 'Slf( / Vr::T !l:1'r: CONCRETE
(Hili <"l "S
·6
IS
t7
"S
10
"' ..
"S 's
IZ
"I
IJ ..
,S "S
I~
L C[JoF1I!{UIV{ u~r.NGrn r'c-?1." "".
I '\t.", It 1'[00011tD 10 I ( 17t .. 10 Z]C"
]
.. , ~-a:I'C:.1
",,11....,.. [O"ltU .&(iGID[(j,AI[ lin- 1:Jo-

~~~~-
- 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

" l( (Il(""" 1 [ " alP{ $r"AC(J .'" L5i"'"

,......
J n. lUI SH~rr I"". R(AC'ION

"
_,.~Il -9.2"
-,. I/[CK'"G 7D~ Mr. t -. 9 -10.4,.,
-11,..

SlJ"1 111111»1 JIICl~l(JN IZI I0Il[. t -~~ ~

.~ IrlL ,"~.'"l1AL '11[. AJl(A

V"~"·· ·': .~. .~

w
..... -"
AI , -16.9 ~
-".o~
'"[MIt DUret
-1~.7
w f:'4.6 "

~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

Figure 74. construction plan.

(Reference 3)
 Over 90% of respondents indicated yes.

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.

8) Is NDT ever required as part of the project quality control?

Respondents were split with slightly more than half indicating they
had never used NDT on any of their projects.

For those responding yes, NDT was typically required on major

projects involving high capacity individual elements and use of the
slurry displacement method of concrete placement.

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.

9) Have you ever had a construction problem on a drilled pier resulting in a

defect that affected the design and required remediation?

Approximately 75% of the respondents indicated they had such a defect on

typically 1% or less of their projects. Approximately 15% indicated they
had never had such a defect. Approximately 10% indicted defects on 2-5%
of projects with 2 indicating defects more than 5% of projects.

Cause of defects were as follows:

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.

Whether a defect is sufficient to require remediation or a design change, is not

always (or even often) rationally determined. Some designers insist that no
defect can be tolerated because it is not in conformance with the design and
specifications. However, the low allowable stress levels normally permitted in
drilled shaft design already includes recognition of the likelihood or pOSSibility
of there being some slight undetected defects in the shaft (as a result of working
below ground in the blind). In reality, drilled shafts subjected primarily to axial
compressive load, can often withstand significant cross sectional defects
without becoming critical structurally since compression load failure most often
occurs in the soil (in friction and end bearing) rather than in the structural
element. This fact was confirmed in the load testing program reported in the
FHWA research project on drilled shafts wherein none of the drilled shaft
elements initially failed structurally even though they contained major defects;
rather, initial failure was always in the soil. It was also determined that the
static compression load capacity could be determined by one of several types of
dynamic load tests with sufficient reliability to be a useful tool in rating a shaft's
capacity where the shaft contained a defect.

The FHWA report includes a decision tree indicating how nondestructive

testing and dynamic load testing could be utilized on a project wherein certain
shafts were suspect because of possible construction defects. The decision tree
is shown as Figure I, Reference 3.

10 Are any restrictions used on the free-fall placement of concrete in dry

holes?
More than 90% mentioned some restrictions. Most common
restriction was that concrete had to be directed so as to not hit the
sides of the shaft or rebar.

The second most common restriction was a free-fall height limit of 5

feet.

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

D.C.: QUALJTY CONT'FlOl

N.D.T.: NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST

DYNAA4IC LOAD TEST. RATE

, AND SUPPLEMENT
IF NECESSARY

+ t
I CORE EVALUATION
SAYS OK SO ACCEPT
I CORE EVALUATION SAYS
NO GOOD
SO OR

rREJECT AND REPLACE

OR REPAIR
I DYNAMIC LOAD TEST.
RATE AND SUPPlEMENT

,
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

Figure 1. Decision tree.

(Reference 3)

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.

1. Does concrete segregate or lose strength as a result of extended free

fall through air? And does slump, aggregate size, height of drop, or
addition of superplastisizer clearly influence the results?

2. Does significant segregation and loss of strength occur if the concrete

hits the rebar cage during free fall placement? And does slump,
maximum aggregate size, height of drop, or addition of
superplastisizer Significantly influence the results?

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?

4. Does vibration of a well designed concrete mix affect the concrete

strength and integrity?

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)

PAOJECTJCl.l£Nf OA,.".' KBI 7/19/93

RESEARCH ON FREE FALL c~c<!O.' TAlC 7/19/93
CONCRETI: ...... 0 •• 0 . ' eNB
TEST CAISSONS
STS Conlulllnil Lid. (As Built)
~"I"9E."'9''''''''' 27618
(Reference 5)

320
fall, when working with well designed, workable, commercially available
concrete mixes.

11) On what percentage of your projects is the following geotechnical

information available for drilled pier design:
a) Split-barrel blow count and visual soil classification. 98%
b) Unconfined compressive strength. 62%
c) Water content and density. 84%
d) Cone data. 11%
e) Pressuremeter data. 8.5%
d) Grain size analysis. 62%
e) Liquid and Plastic limit data. 62%

12) What percent of your drilled pier projects involve;

a) Design for end bearing only
1) straight shaft 47.5%
2) belled shaft 20.9%
b) Friction only 24.2%
c) Friction and end bearing 71 %

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:

On questions 12 and 13 the percentages don't necessarily add up to 100 because

of the way different respondents interpreted the multi-part question.

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:

There has obviously been very little instrumentation of production shafts to

determine long term load transfer characteristics. This makes it difficult to
assess whether our design procedures involving side friction are conservative
or unconservative on the long-term. Based on comparison with static load tests
that do not reach failure, current design procedures recommended in the
FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual are reportedly conservative. Drumright and
Baker (1994) report on five different instrumented production shafts
representing five different soil and rock profiles which appeared to indicate that
load shedding after the initial 2 to 3 year construction period is relatively minor.
However, more instrumentation of production shafts for long term monitoring
is recorrunended.

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

1) A.C.1. Standard Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers 336.1 -

89

2) Drilled Shaft Inspector's Manual prepared by the Joint Caisson - Drilled

Shaft Committee of the Deep Foundations Institute and the A.D.S.C.: The
International Association of Foundation Drilling, 1989

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

7) Reese, LC. and O'Neill, M.W. "Drilled Shafts" : Construction Procedures

and Design Methods" Publication No. F.H.W.A. Hl-88-042, 1988

8) Osterberg, J. "The Osterberg Cell Technology for Load Testing Drilled

Shafts and Driven Piles", Publication #FHWA-SA-94-Q35

CNB:BHO:map

323